Skip to main content

Full text of "DEFENSE INDUSTRY VOL 3 NO1"

See other formats 


Volume 3 No. T 



January 1967 



IN THIS ISSUE 




'TANT SECRETARY OF 
USE-PUBLIC AFFAIRS 



Systems and Project PK1MI3 ............ I 

Coalnu'tor'H Weighted Average Shan- Concept ............................ f ( 

Management Information System* The, Ufublood of Mmmjr<mi(!iit ......... 11 

II. S. Air Kom- Ky H tem Program Directors aiul/or Project Ofllccrs ......... 17 

IniliiHtria] HccnritylB it NccHsnry? .................................... 32 

Air Force Partiviimtion in the Dovploiimi-nt of RAIMfi .................... 3-1 



DKPAKTMKNTS 
About Pi^uik 1 



Calunditr 
R and Syiu 
tlui Spt-alttu-H UoHtrum 
Prot'uroiiH^nt 



10 

21 
2.1 



RloRiTY MANAGEMENT EFFORTS 

TO IMPROVE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 



Hoc article, "PlniHiliur-ProRraiimitnH^Judgetlug Systems and Project PKIMK" 

f? on page 1. 




As I prepare to leave the Department of Defense, ! waul in take 
this opportunity to express my appreciation to all tho members nf 

industry -both management and labor who have supported (ho 

Dvfniiw hul-HNtri/ JtiiUrUn. 

In the fii'Ht issuo (if the 1'it.llr.khi, whieh appeared two years aj>;o 
this month, I stated that tho publication was aimed at serving your 
noods and that wo would look to you to help us n'uido its future 
course. Your response has indned been tfraMl'yinK witli tho result 
Unit our industry readership has expanded from 1,100 at the out- 
sot to over it, 000 copies with this issue. 

I hope, that in tho years ahead your aivoplunro and support of tho 
HitUf'Un will continue, and that throufvh this parlnership Iho value 
of tho publication to tho defense industry will lit* steadily nnhaiieod. 



Navy League To Sponsor Briefings and 
Exposition at Annual Meeting Feb. 840 



"Oroans TlnliiniUid" in tlio thomo of tho 'IOh'7 Soa-Air-Spuro 
sition and BriofuiKs, uponsorod by tho Navy Umjvno of tbo Unitod 
Statos, and tho District of Columbia Council's lOlb Animal 
Soapowor Symposium to 1m h(dd wmr.umwHy at tho Shoi-aton I 'ark 
liotol, Wa-shiiui'ton, D.C., Vob. K 40. 

Industry and Covonmumt will oxhibit tint prosonl and rnlurn in 
tho tochnicul rosoardi and dovolopmont Hold rolatod to tho Navy/ 
Marino Corps mission in soa, air and HIW<U Ujmnwonlal ivos of lint 
Naval Material Command will jyivo prosontations rolloi-.tinn' Ilio 
Navy's latost thinking. 

Industrial firms participating in tho oxposition bavo Hchodnlod 'II', 
technical brieftn^H to ho proHoutod in tlio Exhibit Hall livo tiling 
each morning and throo times oaiih aftornoon. Thoro will bo no 
registration foo for military and Cnvornnwnt porsonnol attorulinj'.' 
the indiiHtry briofniKH. AtUnidoos at tho morninjr briolinp;:i will In* 
ffuests at a oomplomontary hmohooa to bo hold each day. SlmlUc 
Inmos will operate daily between the Ponlajton, Main Navy Itnild- 
n\K niKl tho Sheraton Park Hotel. Ken- additional information 



concerning tho industry technical bri(!linj?;s contact: (Commander 
Ilolmprimrd, Oflico of tho (Jhiaf of Information. Dopurtniont. of tho 
Navy, Washington, ]).(/., (Area Code 202) OXford n H7IU. 

For rcKiHtration information contact: District of Columbia Coun- 
cil, IfiaO K St. NW, WoahinffUm, D.C, 20000, (Area Code 201!) 
200-7020. 




liy Mm Dcparln 
of Dt'Tdimt) 

lion. Uobi'rl H. McNamuru 

Sci'i'i'liiry of I 

Hun, Oyriifi U. Vaiico 

Deputy Hi-ri'^lnry <tt' I 
Him. Arthur Sylvcslcr 

AftHlHlmil Hfi'i-ohify of I 
(I'uhllr AffiilrH) 

Col. Jiii-1 H. HIi'iihoiiH, IIHA 
Dirrclnr for Cmuiminily li< 

Cnl. lldwiii C. Cilmini, 1FHA 

I.idmr ( 



I'Mitor., ...... UMr. M. W. Hnulfm' 

AHHIH-, Keillor .......... Minn (!vcltiii 

AHHOC. Mdltor,. .......... Mr. Hick I, 

Kdlloriitl AnH)ntnnt 

Ntii'innii M. Worm, JO 

Tlit! lit-/- hulnntrii I 
in imhlitilu'il iniiiithly liy uu< 1) 
& I.idmr Diviiilon, l 
Coniminiity Ki'Iailuiui, 
AnnlnUint, Mi'iT^tary ol' nnlVimi 
lir All'uirn). Him uf fiiiMlfi for 11 
Uiin jiutilicuilnn vvnn ii|)|)riivi<u 
Dinrlur nf l.ln- Huri'ini nf Ilir : 

Ttu 1 ]Hii')K>im uf Ilir //((// 
In IHTVM an a inrani! nf rointmil 
lii'lu'i'i-ii Mm l)i'|Mivtini'iil, of 1 
I [Ml] i) nni! [| ; i itulluii'i'/i'il it 
anil ili'fi<iii;t- cinitnicLnr;! timl 

IllllllMI'UH illllTI-ll^l. It will IK 1 

u jritidi- lu induMlry coni-fnii] 
Hut |mlirii>!i. )iniKrani!i unil |i 
unit will iii'i'lc In (itlnililiitc Mini 
mi'ialii'l'ii of Ihc (K'Ti'iiiii 1 !hiltl;i|,t 



in iinlvini-; Mil' 
in fiilhtlitiK 

non. 

Mali-t'lid In Mm llu!I,-<n> 
li'i'li'il In [iii|i|ily |n>rtJncnl iiiii'l 
lulu nf hiti'iv'ii to Ihi 1 liutiincj 
tniinity. MiiKK<''itioiin from 1) 
n'lircH'-iititllvi'H frit 1 tupii'H In 

I'lTlt ill flll.lM'1' iK'lllt 1 !! lllldtlllt 

In tin' Uiinincint it 



Tho llullfllin i (Hutriliuti'd 
chai'K'* i*arh rnnii(,h tti n^iri'Wl 
nf liKltiiiti'y unit to aKi'iirlt'H of 
imi'tnH'iit nf llMfcnuf, Army, Nf 
Air Kiit-tv. Hi-iiut l HtM for ni|(it'H 

It!' IllhllfJiNCll (o HIM HUKillt'JIH J4 
Um. OAS!)(PA), H'mNl 



'pliMii.', oxfnrtl 
nf tint iiit 
fjvcly witliiml 
, MmUon (>( the 




PPBK stands for Planning-Pro- 
graTnminfV-UudgotiiiK- Systems. These 
words have no pervaded (Jovermmmt 
in the last year thut tlj letters usi-d 
by themselves have come l;o suggest 
u magical panacea for all managn- 
ment ill.s. This is unfortunate. When 
'* 11 basically good idea | H translated into 
it "lm///." word, it often siill'ers from 
distortion and misinterpretation. Tf it 
fails to solve all problems or live up 
to its inflated hilling, it i.s abruptly 
discarded. Usually a critic is readily 
available to pnmmmn! Um epitaph--'l 
told you it wouldn't work in the, first 
placn. 

Tin- purpose of thlK article is to 
plnno 1'1'HS In perspective hy briefly 
describing it H historical antecedents iii 
POO; outlining the process aw it was 
^ implemented and refined from l!)(il 
to liKifi; and, most importantly, de- 
scribing tilt! changes which are 'being 
made In it in DOT) under the collec- 
tive name of Project PHI MM. 



C ,, , , , 

O Control by Legislature. Tho framurs 
b t of the ComitiU'Unn were aware that 
ll1 " Hritlnl' iament in HiHH had 

liiitoric right of the 
to ruin mies in time of peace 
ding l.o,$,iin own good pleasure. 
Motivated by the conviction that the 
American executive should lm similarly 
deprived of the power to raise and 
the mile power to regulate Hoots and 
armies, the founding fathers expressly 
provided in Article 1, Section H of 
the Constitution that Congress shall 
have the power to "provide for the 
common defense," "raise and support 
armies," "provide and maintain a 
navy," and to make all laws 
to execute these powers. 

Thin "control by legislature" over 
a single War Department Heoim;d ap- 
propriate for thn small permanent 
military establishment contemplated 
in 17H7. But by 179H the incursions 
of the barbary pirates had forced 
Congress to consider the construction 
of a fleet and thn managerial difflenl- 
ttos connected with this enterprise 1ml 
in part to thn establishment in 1798 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



hy 

l.Cdr. Htevea La/.nrus, USN 

of tlni Deiiartinent of the Navy, 

Throughout tin; l!)th ceatury Con- 
ffi'fiHH continued to assort its ])rimiicy 
in military affairs through its control 
of the purse. The President had no 
statutory authority to act on hudgot- 
ary matters and, although the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury received depart- 
ment estimates, he was required to 
transmit them to Con^re.ss without 
revision, 

Tho century, however, had al.so Keen 
a tremendous national expansion, und 
with tl! acquisition of territory, the 
increase in population, and the growth 
of industry had come a linger and in- 
creasingly more complex military es- 
tablishment. 

". . . Predecessors of the so-called 
technical and staff services of the 
Army hecame (irmly established as 
statutory institutions in their own 
ritfht and created major problems of 
coordination and command within the 
War Department itself. A similar 
trend toward a prolifioration of spe- 
cialties 'ml itself in the Navy, 




LCdr. Steven I.H'/aniH, SC, USN, IH 
Special AHttiKlnnt to the Afuttalnnl 
Kecrulnry of Dofcnac (Comiitrollor). 
Urn nnvnl duties have Includod tours 
in USS Dccnlur DD836 and an Itudffct 
and Control Officer on the stuff of the 
Commander, Cruiser-Destroyer Force. 
U. S. Atlantic Klcet. He wan graduated 
from Dartmouth College in 1952 and 
from the Harvard University Graduate 
School of Uusiness Administration in 
1905 where he was selected as n Halter 
Scholar. 



culminating in 1842 with the estab- 
lishment of the "Hureaus which crcmtod 
the same kind of problems within that 
Department. . . ." l 

This organizational form accommo- 
dated neatly to the legislative tend- 
ency to control by means of hundreds 
of discrete and separate appropria- 
tions. As recipients of spodfic appro- 
priations, thn heads of special activi- 
ties achieved an almost autonomous 
status. The content of such appropri- 
ations was frequently established 
through a process of personal nego- 
tiation between the chief of a human 
and influential memliCM's of the Con- 
gressional committees handling the 
appropriations. 

Strengthening the Executive. It WUH 
tht! .failure of those organ fgatinnnl 
structures and management practice 
during wartime that prompted re- 
form. This managerial difficulties en- 
countered during the Spanish Ameri- 
can War led to Secretary of War 
Root's recommendations of 1903 
which, among other things, resulted 
in tiie creation of the Olllc of tin- 
Army Chief of Staff. The vast in- 
crease in oxpenditurm during World 
War T made it evident that hudgetnry 
reforms wore necessary ami Congress 
responded by enacting thti Iludgot and 
Accounting Act of 1021 which concen- 
trated thn responsibility for prepara- 
tion and transmittal of the cxeeutivo 
budget in the hands of the President. 
By strengthening the executive, tho 
legislative branch was inevitably ac- 
quiescing to thn curtailment of HH 
own power. 

Throughout the li)20's and 1980'H 
tho movement toward a unified de- 
fense establishment grow stronger 
and, as Charles Hitch comments, thn 
experience of World War II finally 
overcame the last opposition. It wan 
also plain that Congress could no 
longer oxercisn effective stewardship 
over the defense establishmont by par- 
celing out hundreds of discrete ap- 
propriations anil hy couiiHoling inde- 
pendently with dozens of snparato 

'Hitch, Charles, "//. Rowan Oailhcr 
Lc.cLurea in fiyntemn Sciences," Hf(iS t 



military officials. Massive, world-wide, 
total war demanded integrated and 
coordinated planning, finding and 
execution, 

Although it was a major step in tin; 
right direction, the National Security 
Act of 1947 proved not quite equal to 
these tasks and was, therefore, 
strengthened and amended in 1949. 
Title IV was added to the Act creat- 
ing the Office of the Assistant Secre- 
tary of Defense (Comptroller) and 
providing for uniform budget and fis- 
cal procedures throughout the Depart 
ment. The position of Comptroller 
was held by W. H. McNeil for 10 
years (1949-1959), a record for lon- 
gevity at such a level. McNeil's skill 
and energy, coupled with his tenure, 
enabled him to build selectively upon 
the recommendations of the first and 
second Hoover Commissions to lay the 
foundation for modern financial man- 
agement in DOD. 

The Process from 1%I to 1(165. 

Relating Coats to Missions. McNeil 
accomplished much to bring order out 
of chaos in the DOD management 
control process, and the reorganiza- 
tions of 1953 and 1958 further 
strengthened the position of the Sec- 
retary of Defense. The problem, how- 
ever, was already moving beyond the 
new systems and structure. The De- 
fense budget was gradually rising to- 
ward its current level, new weapon 
systems were becoming unimaginably 
expensive, and the quest for a ra- 
tional method of making choices and 
balancing forces was becoming im- 
perative. 

Congress chafed at its inability to 
know what it was paying for. Ohio 
Congressman Clarence Brown, com- 
menting on the 1952 Appropriation 
Bill, said, "... I spoaV as one of 
those who is not at all certain just 
what this Bill provides or what all 
the items in it mean. . . ." a By 1959, 
Congressman George Mahon, then 
Chairman of the House Defense 
Appropriations Subcommitton, was 
stressing the importance of looking at 
the Defense program and budget in 
terms of major military missions, and 
asking the Secretary of Defense "for 
more useful information and for a 
practical means of relating costs to 
missions, , . ." 

Congress was not alone in recog- 
nizing these needs. Arthur Smithies, 

Wolodeioj, Edward A,, "The Uncom- 
mon Defense and Congrats" 1848-loas, 



a noted economist, said in 1957, ". . . 
Neither the Congress, nor the Presi- 
dent, nor I suspect the Secretary of 
Defense and the Service secretaries 
have the information needed to relate 
the financial figures in the budget to 
any meaningful concept of military 
effectiveness. , , ," 3 

In presenting the Army budget in 
1900, General Maxwell Taylor (In- 
scribed a mission-oriented budget in 
terms of six programs, and suggested 
horizontal cross-Service review. Per 
haps the most articulate observer was 
Charles Hitch, Chief Economist of the 
Rand Corporation, who crystallized 
the problem in a book entitled, "The 
Economics of Defense in the Nuclear 
Age." 

Hitch examined the method of bud- 
get formulation, known as the "budget 
ceiling" approach, which entailed a 
process of squeezing Service budget 
requests to make their total fit within 
an initial overall limitation estab- 
lished by the Bureau of the Ihidget 
acting for the President. Ho found 
that "its consequences were precisely 
what could have been predicted: 

"1. Bach service tmided to exercise 
its own priorities: 

"a. Favoring its own uniiuio mis- 
sions to the detriment of joint mis- 
sions; 

"b. Striving to lay the ground work 
for an increased share of the budget 
in future! years by I'.oncmitratiiitf on 
alluring new weapon systems; and 

"c. Protecting the over-all HIM of 
its own forces even at the cost of 



"AMVA'.ms 1 



, Ant/. ISM. 



readiness. . . . 

"2. Because attention was foriiKd 
on only the next fiscal year, the sorv 
ices had every incentive to propo.n 
large numbers of 'now starts,' the ful 
cost dimensions of which would mil; 
become apparent in subset [eun 
years, . . . 

"It. Almost complete separation ln< 
twoon hiultfotiiiK 1 ami military plan 
muff. 

"a. Those critically important fum; 
tions were porTormi'd liy two dill'eren 
tfroupN of people. . . , 

"b. Budget control wns oxerrinn 
by the Kecrotary of Defence, bill, plan 
ning remained eHsontially in Urn HITV 
ices. . . . 

"c, Whereas the phmniiifv hnri/.oi 
extended four or morn years into l.ln 
future, the luidgot wan projected mil; 
ono year abend. . . . 

"d. I'tnnniiiK wan done in (crmi 
of ... outputs; ImdffCtinjv ... it 
terms of inputs!. , , , 

"o. Hudgetinfv. however crtnli-ly 
faced up to Mitral realities; the plan 
niiiff was fiscally unreal Istie, am 
therefore of little help lo Uie dccinion 
maker. . . . 

"f. Military ro(|iiiremont!i lendcf 
to lio Htatod in aluioluto ti'Mtin, wllhnul 
reference to thoir coot.'!." 4 

4 f fitch, (.'Ini.rlcn ./,, "/VriWiiH Hfttkint) 
fur /><!//.')<'," lin-kt'lcii: mini, /i/i. if/,., 
Sfi, /''or fitrt lift' fUitritittiinn nf lli'i\( 
mine -jittintii, ni-c Itnuiil /Viii'iV/,- (i-di* 
lor), "I'ri>!irnm 
Atialynin mid 

mtnit," (IninhridiiH; Hn)'t<nr<l 
/'IVHII, HUM, )>i>, til Illi. 



FIVE YEAR DEFENSE PROGRAM^ 



New 

I. Strategic Forcon 
II. General FiirpoHC FOI-CCH 



III. Specialized Activities 

(Include* MAP) 

IV. Airlift am! Scnltfl 

V. Guard and Koaervc Forces 
VI. Kescarcli and Development 

VII, IjOtfislJCH 

VIII, Personnel Support 
IX. Administration 



Old 
Strategic OltoiiHlvc I 

ContliioiUiil Air & MltmUu 
Defi'iiHe Forces 

Gonei-al I'urjioHe Forccw 



Alrllfl/Kenlift Forces 
Reserve ami (tiuml Forci'M 

General .Support 

Hellred Pay 

Military Aanifitniu'c 
ni^^fl 81 " 1 " 011 f chnn K 8 ' HCC D01) 1'iibllcnllon, "A Primer on Project 
Pit ME," Nov. 1006, pp. 34-35, available from the Office of A(,. SccreUry 
of Defense (Comptroller), Room 3IJ857, The PcnluRon, Washin B ton I) (' 



Figure 1, 



January 1967 



Now Guidance. In liMU, President 
Kennedy abandoned the budget-ceiling 
approach us fat' as Defense wan con- 
cerned. Ho gave liiii now Mecrotary of 
Defense, Kohert McNamara, two gen- 
iiral instructions: 

Develop the military force Ktruc- 
turn necessary to support our foreign 
policy without regard to arbitrary 
budget ceilings. 

a Procure and operate (his force at 
the lowest possible cost. 

Charles Hitch became McNamarn's 
Assistant Korretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) ami dearly stated what 
watt required to translate l.lii.s guid- 
linn 1 into action: 

"We need an economically realistic 
I'u l,u re program so that long-load deci- 
sions on program components will 
have a reasonable chance of turning 
out to lie right. To develop such a 
program, il; is essential lhal. the deci- 
sion makers have before them the 
total cost implication.-) of alternatives 
- -not only total in the iien.se of cut- 
ting across appropriation categories, 
but ahio in the :temie of being pro- 
jected forward over a live-year pe- 
riod," n 

Hitch, aided by some able systems 
designers, developed such a median- 
ism- the Five-Year Defense Program 

in the phenomenal lime of tihimt six 
mnnfhs. He also eslahlished l\vo new 
organisational elements a program- 
ming division to anperintend the Kive- 
Year Defense Program, and a systems 
analysis division to conduct analytic 
comparisons of alternative inpuhi to 
that program, 

1*P11H. Tim mechuniMni was a three- 



phase opei-iition : plamiiiiR--pi'OKTam- 
infi;. The (irst phase 
ff and requirements determina- 
tiim--wiin to bo a year-round 
operation initiated by the Joint Stra- 
tegic Objectives Plan proposed by the 
Joint ChiefH oi' .Staff, It was to' con- 
nist of military economic .studies 
which would compare atternutive 
methodH of accomplishing national -se- 
curity objectives to determine the one 
that contrilmtos the most for a tfiven 
font or achieves a j-'iven objective for 
the leant cost. Today these are com- 
monly called (lost-efVeetivenoMs studies 
or .systems analyses, 

The neconil phase -the program- 
miiiK system.- -inteKnite<l combinations 
of men, equipment and in.stallation.s 
into program elements whose elTec- 
tiveness could he nH^asured n.s a whole 
and related to national security objec- 
tives Tlie H-fiH bomber force with all 
its resources wan one such elemmit. 
The elenuMits were aKKre^ated into 
the major missions of the Defense 
Department. Kadi atftfregation had a 
common set of purposes and could, for 
decision maltiiiK, he treated as a 
whole, In liHifi, then? were nine such 
ajtfVi'eatioiiH or programs (I ( 'it;ure 1). 

A mechanism whidi allowi^il fin- 
con linuoiiH U])dat(! and change was 
jirovided, and dala were projected for 
eijcht years in the case of military 
force!!, and for five yearii in all other 
ca.'fi'H. This immense amount of data 
under continuoiii! change reijuired 
compuli'vi'/atioii in order to remain 
manajvenble. The availability of mod- 
ern data prnceiiHinjv equipment made 
feanihle what olherwiiif! would have 
hc'en an impo.sHihle task, 

The budget proeeHH was not HUH- 



I'KOOKAM STKUCTIIRi; 



ir Gonoral IMirposfi l-'orcos 



MANAGKMKNT SYSTEM 



Cniisor Doslroyi.T l ; o rc.es 



23401 (MX Destroyers 
1 __ 



Chid of Naviil Operations 

t 

Coiimiandur-ln-Chiof, Atlantic Heel 

$ 

Cruslor Destroyer Force, Atlantic Fleet 



Individual 
Destroyer 



JU 
Figure 2. 



ceptablo to rapid alteration and, 
therefore, remained structured in 
terms of object classes, va.st acc.iimu- 
hitions of inputs such as military per 
sonnol, prociiremcnt, etc. It was nec- 
essary to translate tin- projTiim into 
1 mil get terms by means of a "torque 
conversion" or matrix whidi broke 
the program into various appropria- 
tions categories. The accountinp; sys- 
tems of DOD were also aliened with 
the budget structure, and thus prog- 
ress reporting related to the program 
had to he accomplished by means of 
special studies and separate; reports. 
The programming system had filled a 
vital planning need but, as yet, was 
unable to serve the needs of field 
managers, 

.In 1!)(ir>, Kohert N. Anthony boiiiune 
Assistant Secretary of Defence 
(Comptroller). It was to he Anthony's 
task to build upon the foundation of 
the programming system and create 
within DOD a management control 
ny.st.om which would serve the needs 
of nmnngev.s at all levels from the 
Congressman to the corporal. 

Project PHIMIO, 

ProgroHH AgaiiiHt Plan. In 1055, the 
second Hoover Commission on Organi- 
zation of tlie Executive Hrandi of the 
(lOVernment made a series of recom- 
mendations for changeH in accounting 
and budgeting procedures. Among 
these were suggestions that operating 
budgets he cost based and that flov- 
ornment accounting lie kept on the 
accrual basis to show currently, com- 
pletely and clearly all resources and 
liabilities, and the costs of operntiomi. 
These particular recommendations 
were adopted and enacted in l!H>(i an 
Public LawRflU. 

As late an IIK15, Charles Hitch had 
reflected that ". . . Ideally, I up- 
poso, the program should he eontod in 
terms oJ! accrued expenditure, whidi 
in closnHt to the concept of rcsourcoa 
conHUined. However, the accounting 
difllcultieH appeared HO overwhelming 
that we did not attempt that ap- 
proach. . . ." n 

Finally, President Johnson attired 
tlmt the pace of the Joint Financial 
Management Improvement Program 
be accelerated, and in a Hpedal memo- 
randum nuked each agency to ". . . HOG 
that the Agency'n managers tire given 
tlie basic tooln they need responsi- 
bility centered cost-baaed operating 
budgets nnd financial roportH. . . ." 

6 ffitc!i, op, cit. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



Operating Costs. Anthony began by 
defining the problem in order to re- 
duce it to manageable proportions. He 
identified two essential different types 
of cost investment costs and operat- 
ing costs used in DOD management. 
Investment costs related to items such 
as ships, planes and facilities which 
maintained their identity during their 
cycle of use and were financed by 
means of "continuing" appropriations. 
These were planned for and managed 
on an individual item basis. They 
were treated consistently in both pro- 
grams and budget and, thus, no sig- 
nificant changes were contemplated in 
their case, 

.Full attention was then focused on 
operating costs the costs of the la 
bor, materials and services required 
to operate the Defense establishments. 

The first goal was to achieve a cor- 
respondence in terms of operating 
costs among program, budget, ac- 
counting system, and reporting sys- 
tem. Such consistency would eliminate 
the necessity for the unrewarding 
process of "torque conversion," would 
lay the groundwork for budget sub- 
mission to Congress in mission- 
oriented terms, and would create 
within the accounting system the ca- 
pability for progress reporting back 
against the program. 

In order to do this, a single entity 
would have to serve as the basic unit, 
or building block, of both program 
and management system. This was 
achieved by revising the content of 
the Five Year Defense Program and 
defining program elements very care- 
fully. The revised program structure 
is shown in Figure 1. The synchroni- 
zation is demonstrated in Figure 2. 

The second goal was to charge an 
organization with 100 percent of the 
measurable expenses that it incurred, 
and to account thereafter in terms of 
expenses. Such an accounting would 
yield hard, actual and total cost data 
to the planners working on revisions 
to the program and, simultaneously, 
would display to the manager the full 
cost of his activity. It would, addi- 
tionally, show the Congressman what 
his operating appropriations were 
buying. Finally, it would give mana- 
gers throughout DOD the ability to 
determine the real costs of specific 
missions, to measure actual perfor- 
mance against planned performance, 
and to relate resources consumed to 
work done. 

While rough approximations of 



these relationships could have been 
made in the past using statistical pro- 
rations and special studies, what was 
now proposed was to derive them rou- 
tinely and accurately by means of a 
disciplined debit and credit accounting 
system. 

Basically, four steps were necessary 
to accomplish this goal: 
o Revise the accounts structure, 
e Charge military personnel costs 
to organization units. 

Purify the appropriation defini- 
tions so as to include only items of an 
expense nature in the operating ap- 
propriation. 

Extend the use of working capi- 
tal mechanism to encompass alt items 
of an expense nature. 

The Four Changes. A uniform ac- 
count structure has been developed 
and will provide a common basis for 
the Military Departments and De- 
fense Agencies to report expenses. It 
is only a skeleton and each DOD com- 
ponent has developed, or is develop- 



ing, amplifying systems to meet its 
own management needs. The basic! ac- 
counting structure ties directly 3uu:k 
to the Five Year Defense Program as 
shown in Figure 3. 

Functional categories will strrvu UN; 
purposes of functional mamifi'isrn n*l 
aggregate to program element. Ex- 
pense elements will repluce object 
classes as the basic module in the 
accounting system. There will also In- 
subsidiary cost systems svush as om> 
for wholesale supply depots which will 
subdivide functional categories inlet 
subfunctional breakdowns. Riu-h 
breakdowns will supplement, Imt not 
replace, accounting by expense ol<!- 
ment. 

Military personnel costs will bn 
charged to tho using activity by 
means of a standard cost. Thin -will 
havo the effect of costing at fclm usnv 
level the largest single category of 
operating resources not now HO 
charged. It is hoped that DOD will bo 

(Continued on 1'nyc .'!.!) 



Program 37H Logistics 



i i i i 



7 1 Supply 



7 11 General Support 



FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES** 

Mission Operations 

Supply Operations 

Maintenance of Moterid 

Property Dtsposcil 

Medical Operations 

Overseas Dependent Education 

Pcrsonnol Support 

Base Services 

Operation of Utilities 

Maintenance of Real Pr<>|ii!rty 

Minor Construction 

Oilier Engineering Support 

Administration 



7 11 01 02 X* Inventory Control 
Points 



Functional Category 













Expens 


e Elem 


Subsidiary Cost 



System 



ELEMENTS OF EXPENSE** 

Military Personnel 

Military Trainees 

Military Unassirjnecl 

Civilian Personnel 

Travel of Personnel 

Transportation of Tilings 

Utilities and Rents 

Communications 

Purchased EqulpnicntMafntutianef! 

Printing and Reproduction 

Other Purchased Services 

Aircraft POL 

Ship POL 

Other Supplies 

Equipment 

Other Expense 

Service Credits 



^ponent identified --. Ami y, Navy, Air Force, etc. 



Figure 3. 



January 1967 




Robert 1). Lyons 



A novel procurement management 
concept known as tin; Contractor's 
Weighted Average Shim- (CWAS) IH 
incorporated in Defense Procurement 
Circular No, fi(), dated Dec. HO, il'HKJ. 
This concept seeks to foster and rely 
upon the use of high-risk contracts to 
V motivate prudent management deci- 
sions in the inciirreiico of costs, H is 
si management teclmi<|uo which en- 
ables the Government to identify and 
distinguish between high-risk and 
low-risk procurement environments hy 
contractor!)' pmlH centers in a logical 
way, thus allowing a more discreet 
application of scarce resources. Tint 
underlying philosophy, objectives, me- 
chanics and mime of the benefits an- 
ticipated for hoth Government and 
industry will he discussed in thin ar- 
ticle. 

' DOI) lias made remarkable progress 

in the pant live yc-ar:i in creating a 
new procurement environment within 
the defense industry complex. During 
this period the hunlen of risk ban 
heen substantially sliil'ling from Urn 
Government to defense contractors 
Hi rough refinement in procurement 
technique;! and the utilization of more 
linn Hxed-prico and incentive con- 
tracts, resulting in a dramatic reduc- 
tion in the use of eosL-plus-n-fixed-roe 
(CPKI' 1 ) conlractn from IKJ.fl percent 
of our procurement dollars In KY 
I !)(!,! to !.!) pnirent in FY !!)(i(t. 

f During the era of high OI'I'T con- 

tracting, many administrative, cotil: 
and audit conlrols wove, impo-sod on 
iiiduntry iiince thin form of contract- 
ing did not provide sufliciont motiva- 
tion for prudent cost management on 
the part of nmtrartoru, An DOD 
moved further and further into the 
now procurement environment, how- 
ever, it became inerea.'iingly apparent 
to many managers Unit our adminis- 
trative practices were not attuned to 
the now nituation, Thus, while encour- 
aging contractor*! on the one hand to 

PT agree, tit higher-rink contracts, wo, on 
the. other hand, continued to do husi- 
ne.sH in much tho same old way. Now 
that there is an im-rame in the use. of 
higher-risk contracts, it in eonmdered 
feasible, and duHirablo to measure the. 



cost risk motivations imposed on in- 
dividual contractors as evidenced by 
the mix of contracts heing performed 
in a profit center and, whenever prac- 
tical, to eliminate administrative con- 
trols and reasonableness overhead au- 
dits on those contractors who attain 
a verifiable "weighted average sham" 
of risk which meets a prescribed 
threshold. Thin concept is based on 
the premise that good management by 
hiduntry properly motivated to cost 
consciousness can accomplish much 
more effective control of costs than 
can detailed review, control and over- 
head audit hy Government personnel. 
Wo believe that we can rely with con- 
fidence on the decisions of manage- 
ment in those profit centers which 
meet our prescribed "high-risk" 
standards, 

The objectives of CWAS, as set 
forth in Defense Procurement Circu- 
lar No. RO, are: 

To furnish a measure of an indi- 
vidual contractor's risk motivation, as 




Kobcr!. I). Lyons in Director for Pro- 
curement MntittKcincnt in lite Ofllee of 
the Assistant Hecrctnry of Defense 
(IiiHtatlatioas & LoKislios). Prior to 
uHHiiming thin position in 1902, he 
Nerved IIH AHHJHliuit Director for Pro- 
curement and Production with the Air 
Force LotfiHticn Command. Mr. Kyons 
is n graduate of Harvard University 
inul holds a Masters Degree in Busi- 
ness Administration. 



provided by types of contracts, to con- 
duct his business prudently and with 
maximum economy.. 

To offer additional inducement to 
a contractor to accept higher ri.sk type 
contracts. 

To minimize the extent of Gov- 
ernment control, including controls 
exercised through IX)]) prime con- 
tracts and subcontracts thereunder, 
thereby reducing Government costs. 

To provide a simple, uniform pro- 
cedure for determining a con tractor's 
assumption of cost risk that pan lie 
applied equitably to all defense, con- 
tractors who desire to participate hy 
voluntarily .submitting pertinent data. 

To provide a means for directing 
audit and other DOD nuinagtHiinnt ef- 
forts to those' areas whore they are 
most needed because of a greater de- 
gree of Government risk. 

To provide a basis for determin- 
ing that indirect costs, incurred dur- 
ing the applicable period by a con- 
tractor whose CWAS rating is above 
a pro-determined threshold, arc; rea- 
sonable and, therefore, reimbursable 
if otherwise allowable and allocable. 

The CWAS concept consists of two 
basic elements: 

The computation of a CWAS rat- 
ing, i.e., the contractor's average 
share in cost risk. Karh contractor 
will have his own OVVAS rating 'for 
each profit center, and those with 
more than one profit center will alno 
compute a corporate CWAS rating. 

The establishment of a threshold 
which will delineate the procurement 
environment and allow more discrimi- 
nation in tlti! use of DOD and contrac- 
tor resources. The established thresh- 
old will apply to till qualifying con- 
tractors. 

Defense procurement regulations 
contain many references equating con- 
tractor responsibility and costs of per- 
formance to types of contract**. A con- 
tractor having all his husinoim with 
the Government on a CPPP basis is 
essentially different, in tornis of moti- 
vation for cost control, from one hav- 
ing only competitive fixed-price busi 
ness. Based on this premise, the 
technique for structuring CWAS is 
relatively simple, namely, measure 
the contractor's risk by applying 
simple weights to the typo of. 
contracts being pm'formod in oach 
profit ccmtor and the corporation as a 
whole. Thus w<; assign a nova percent 
weight to the GPPF contracts at ono 
nnd oC the spectrum and .1,00 piu'cont 
to compntitivo. flxcd-pricR contracts 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



and commercial business at the other 
end, and weight those by costs in- 
curred, (Cost of .sales may be substi- 
tuted when appropriate.) Other types 
of contracts are scaled in between. 
Reasonable men could argue for slight 
variations but, in our judgment, the 
factors assigned to types of contracts 
are appropriate. 
Application of CWAS. 

The CWAS technique will be avail- 
able to all contractors on a voluntary 
basis. 

A contractor or subcontractor, de- 
siring to participate, may do so by 
determining his own CWAS rating 
and submitting data for verification. 
The Armed Services Procurement 
Regulation (ASPR) provides for vali- 
dation of a CWAS rating by the De- 
fense Contract Audit Agency, or an 
independent public accountant, and 
approval by the administrative con- 
tracting officer. 

CWAS may be withdrawn pursuant 
to a finding of fraud, misrepresenta- 
tion, or other abuse on the approval 
by the head of the procuring activity, 
and it may be denied under any cir- 
cumstances l>y a decision at the Secre- 
tarial level. 

Each Defense Contract Administra- 
tion Services Region (DCASR) will 
maintain a register of CWAS ratings 
in its area and a master register will 
be maintained in Washington. 

Procedure for Determining CWAS. 

CWAS will lie determined by the 
following method : 

* Determine the total dollar costs 
incurred for commercial work and for 
the various Government specific types 



Type of Contract 



Percentage 
Factor 



Letter Contracts, Time and 
Material, Labor Hour, 
Cost Only, CPFF Zero 

Cost Sharing Share Line 

Cost Plus Incentive Fee 16 

Fixed Price Redetermi- 

nable (Retroactive) 60 

Fixed Price Incentive 

(Successive Target) 56 

Fixed Price Incentive Per 

(Firm Target) Formula* 

Fixed Price Redetermi- 
nable (Prospective) 80 

Fixed Price with Escala- 
tion Non-competitive-... 80 

Firm Fixed Price 
Non-competitive 80 

Fixed Price with Escala- 
tion Competitive 100 

Firm Fixed Price 
Competitive 100 

Commercial 100 

*Varies depending on ceiling and 
share line. A typical fixed-price incen- 
tive contract with a 118 percent ceil- 
ing and a 30 percent share would bear 
a factor of 65 percent. 

CWAS Computation. 

A simplified example of a CWAS 
computation is shown in Figure 1. 

Based on this procedure, at some 
point on the spectrum from zero to 
100, we can draw a line and be satis- 
fied that we have identified and sepa- 
rated one meaningful procurement 
environment from the other. This lino 
is referred to as the "threshold" and 
it is this threshold which will enable 
us to better utilize our management 



resources in the future to relate the 
degree of control with the need to 
control. When the threshold was de- 
veloped, it was considered that n 
sound threshold would require the fol- 
lowing characteristics: 

It would be low enough to have 
a significant impact in reduction of 
Government workload. 

It would be high enough to assure 
that contractor motivation could rea- 
sonably be relied upon. 

As a result of a comprehomMvo 
study of 568 separate profit eentw'H 
with approximately $20 billion in 
Government contracts) (nidudmtf Nn- 
tional Aeronautics and Space Admin- 
istration, Atomic Energy Commission, 
etc.) and other rationale, an initial 
threshold of 65, with a discretion 
band (CWAS subject to Government, 
approval) in the range (if 50 to (M, 
has been adopted. The OWA.S thres- 
hold may bo viewed graphically mi 
shown in Figure 2. 

A contractor having a 60 percent 
CWAS rating can bn said to have mm 
of his own overhead dollars involved 
with each Government overhead dollar 
expended. This rationale can be rolled 
upon to stimulate prudent contractor 
management of overhead expendi- 
tures. At (16 percent, a contractor HUH 
two dollars at issue for every Govern- 
ment dollar, in which crimi thorn in a 
strong presumption of prudent man- 
agement influence. Thus the election 
of the 05 percent CWAS thruHlioW 
was purposely directed toward inf. 
tinting tho CWAS projrrnm on a con- 
servative basis, A large percentage nf 
smaller ami intermediate companion 
can bo expected to qualify initially. 



ended. 

Multiply these costs incurred by 
the approved percentage factor for 
the respective contract types. This 
becomes the contractor's "dollar cost 


Type of Contract 
Time and Material 


Prior Year's 
Costs Incurred 

$ 50,000 


Percentage 
Factor 




Contractor's 
Dollar Kink 

$ 


risk." 


Cost Plus Fixed Fee 


200,000 





o 


us Contractor dol- 


Cost Plus Incentive Fee 


300,000 


15 


45,000 


ipective types 


Fixed Price 








'ilt by 


Incentive (118 










percent Ceiling, 30 








ercent Share) 


200,000 


(15 


130,000 


'ixed Price, 








., -. ~ .. Jiu iuutl , e . 
Approved Percentage Factors 


Commercial 


100,000 
150,000 


100 
100 


100,000 
150,000 


The percentage factors to be used 




$1,000,000 






$425,000 


in determining the contractor's dollar 


$425,000 + |1,000,000 = 


42,5 CWAS rating 






cost risk by type of contract are as 










follows ; ' ' 


~ 

T^J_ . 





' " 



January 1967 



while a smaller percentage of the 
large profit centers may qualify. The 
threshold, of course, can be adjusted 
with experience. 

It should be emphasized that CWAS 
is based on risk as expressed by the 
preferred types of contracts author- 
ized by ASPR. CWAS also recognizes 
the force of price competition by as- 
signing a 100 percent factor to fixed- 
price competitive contracts as against 
an 80 percent factor for fixed-price 
non-competitive negotiated contracts. 
Further, before CWAS becomes op- 
erable, 35 points or more of the over- 
all rating must be derived from com- 
petitive firm fixed-price contracts and 
commercial sales. 

"We believe that the moat beneficial 
results of CWAS will derive initially 
in providing a basis for determining 
the reasonableness of certain indirect 
costs. These are, for the most part, 
those for which we have previously 
set limitations because of our preoc- 
cupation with the CPFP environment. 
However, it will he useful for other 
items, the reasonableness of which are 
difficult to judge as, for example, sal- 
aries and fringe benefits. It should be 
dearly understood that CWAS applies 
only to indirect costs and audits will 
atill be performed, when appropriate, 
to assure that costs have, in fact, been 
properly incurred and are lodged in 
the proper accounts and are allocable. 
In short, CWAS is a test of reason- 
ableness for certain specified indirect 
costs. It should result in eliminating 
uncertainties and inequities, and per- 
mit a more consistent and uniform 
approach in the future to the treat- 
ment of certain portions of overhead. 

It should also be emphasized that 
CWAS is applied to a profit center as 
a whole, not to individual contracts 
within a profit center. This is essen- 
tial since the indirect expenses of a 
profit center are allocated to all work 
in the profit center and can only be 



controlled effectively by an overall 
control. Indirect expenses generally 
are not controllable on a contract-by- 
contract basis. CWAS is either appli- 
cable to all contracts or none in a 
given profit center. CWAS in this re- 
spect can be described as a workload 
management technique; it should per- 
mit us to redirect our efforts toward 
those contractors engaged primarily 
in low-risk contracts. 

A now ASPR paragraph 15-201.3 
(b) provides direction for the appli- 
cation of CWAS as a test of reason- 
ableness of certain indirect contract 
costs. The applicability of CWAS to 
selected costs is provided in changes 
to paragraph 15-205. Those cost prin- 
ciples, which are designated "defer," 
are currently under consideration for 
revision by the ASPR Committee, The 
application or non-application of 
CWAS to such costs will be provided 
subsequently when these revisions are 
approved for printing. Pending such 
determination, CWAS shall not be 
used as the sole test of reasonableness 
in connection with such deferred costs. 
In the event the reasonableness of a 
CWAS-dcsignated cost is prodeter- 
minded by advance agreement, such 
agreement will govern allowability for 
the remainder of the term of the 
agreement. 

This concept will also he applied to 
relaxation of certain administrative 
controls hut this will represent a long- 
term effort. There are proposals pres- 
ently before the ASPR Committee to 
make CWAS applicable to indirect 
overtime, review of contractors' pro- 
curement systems, and consent to sub- 
contracting. WG have concluded, how- 
over, after lengthy study and some 
selected tests on "disengagement" con- 
ducted by the Air Force, that the 
problem of over-control and, hence, 
indiscreet use of Government person- 
nel and money is sourced principally 
in administrative documents other 



65 
50 



CWAS Applicable 
Discretion Band 

CWAS Not Applicable 



Figure 2. 



than the ASPR. We think CWAS can 
be of assistance particularly in those 
areas where controls or marginally 
effective Government reviews are 
typically applied across the board 
without adjustment to give recogni- 
tion to the contractor's business en- 
vironment. Without something like 
CWAS, we really don't have any prac- 
tical way to direct the efforts of our 
own professionals to the Government's 
best advantage, nor do we have a 
means of insuring consistent treat- 
ment as between different contractors. 
Accordingly, under the aegis of a 
revised DOD Directive 5126.34, dated 
July 27, I960, we are planning to ini 
tiate a Contract Administration Re- 
view Program in calendar year 1967 
to encompass both the National Plant 
Cognisance plants and the DCASR's. 
The Military Departments and the 
Defense Supply Agency are now coor- 
dinating proposals for this effort and 
a DOD program manual has neon pre- 
pared for internal and uniform guid- 
ance for these professional review 
teams. 

The manual incorporates the CWAS 
concept, but the application has boon 
somewhat modified. We intend to 
differentiate between high-risk, inter- 
mediate and low-risk procurement en- 
vironments. This is roadily determin- 
uble in a National Plant and can be 
accomplished on a sampling basis in 
the DCASR's. We will use this con- 
cept to query why various controls, 
reviews and procedures have been es- 
tablished for differing procurement 
situations. If a review team finds, for 
example, that controls designed for a 
low-risk procurement situation are 
also being applied to high-risk con- 
tractors, it will make strong recom- 
mendations for disengagement and 
better utilization of our resources, 
Hence CWAS, in this context, pro- 
vides us with a very useful device for 
the first time in determining why we 
should or should not be doing certain 
things in our field administration. We 
look for evolutionary improvement in 
this important management area. 

We are confident that industry will 
cooperate in the CWAS program and 
that DOD personnel will continue to 
identify other procurement and con- 
tract administration areas that may 
be candidates for this concept. CWAS 
should eventually be iiseful as a 
guideline in other DOD functional en- 
deavors as it is better understood for 
it is a work management technique 
inherently related to risk. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 




by 

Stewart Collins 

Directorate for Audit Systems 

Office of Asst. SeiM'otary of Defense (Comptroller) 



In ;i briefing given to key officials 
of the Office of the Secretary of De- 
fense on Nov. 2, 1966, representatives 
of the General Accounting Office 
(GAO) encouraged the Defense De- 
partment to take leadership in a pro- 
gram for improving and formalizing 
contractor estimating systems, GAO's 
interest in contractor estimating sys- 
tems arose from a survey of the De- 
fense Contract Audit Agency which 
has responsibility, under the Armed 
Services Procurement Regulation, to 
establish and manage a program to 
review contractor estimating systems. 
The tabulation in the chart below, 



taken from one of several charts ex- 
hibited during the briefing, typifies 
the conditions found by the GAO in 
its survey regarding estimating sys- 
tems, Some contractors had fairly well 
developed systems, while others had 
little or no written guidance or meth- 
ods for estimating 1 . 

The GAO position was that any 
contractor should, as a matter of 
sound business practice, have a good 
estimating system. In essence, GAO 
officials stated that estimating systems 
would help the contractor manage the 
preparation of his proposals, and that 
DOD should place more emphasis on 



determining how well tho contractor la 
doing' this rather than reviewing the 
contractor's proposals in morn detail 
than would otherwise be nturtiWHary. 

Some of tho points made duriiitf' tlm 
briefing were: 

o Because of tho financial .italte in- 
dustry has in tho outcome of HH con- 
tracts, top management, as well an 
tho stockholder^ should linvn a vital 
interest in n well developed oatinisilJiiR 
system for preparation of price pro- 
posals. 

e Whore the osLimatinj? procoHH in 
poorly design (i (I or described, l>Mi Iho 
contractor and DOI) should lict ron- 
corned about what (vovormt the quiilily 
of tho cost and priding ilnta f'mind hi 
tho proposals. 

* Proper management nliould pro- 
vide that all important procedure*! jind 
methods be reduced to writing and 
periodically tested to assure. roinpH- 
anee and effect ivonoHH, and tlial mini- 
agemont polieie.1 are lii-hifr carried out 
at all levels (if the organi'/atfon. 
Although interpretative inn! mi~ 



ANALYSIS OF CONTRACTORS' WRITTEN ESTIMATING SYSTEMS 



1 Company has policy statement. 
Pinpoints responsibility for: 

Origination of estimates. 

Review of estimates. 

Approval of estimates. 
Provides for coordination and 

communication of informa- 
tion between departments. 
Contains guidance for estimat- 
ing cost and pricing data. 



Requires management approval 
for significant deviations. 



Contractor A 
Yea 

Yea 
Yes 
Yes 
Yea 



Describes the step-by-step prepara- 
tion of the proposal, identifies which 
internal organization is responsible 
for performing each step, discloses tho 
source of the data, and shows the 
various review and approval points. 
The steps, of which there are 147, in- 
clude guidance for the following: 

Preparation of bill of material. 

Segregating of make-and-buy 

items. 

Obtaining and reviewing quota- 

tions. 

Prices for common hardware 

Establishment of labor operations. 

Establishment of labor standards. 

Basis for determining labor ad- 

justment factors. 
Development of overhead and 
rates. 

No 



Contractor II 

Yes 

Very generalized 
Very ft-enoraliy.od 
Very generalized 
Yen 



Little guidance, <-,g., 
tho solo guidance for 
estimated of mate- 
rial IH to ufHi firm 
price quotations "mi 
appropriate." 



YOH 



No 



January 19A7 



ministrative problems under Public 
,t Law 87-653 will probably continue 
for some time in the future, a well de- 
veloped estimating system should re- 
duce these problems. For example, 
estimating; systems can increase the 
level of acceptance of proposals and 
help the contractor determine when, 
under his record-keeping system, he 
can assume full responsibility for the 
currency of his cost and pricing data. 
Well developed estimating sys- 
tems would help the contractor arrive 
at the lowest possible price he can 
quote in a competitive situation. In 
view of the DOD trend toward obtain- 
ing more competition, this would en- 
hance the contractor's ability to ob- 
tain work under competitive condi- 
tions. 

With respect to review and nego- 
tiation of prices, the lack of accept- 
able estimating: systems can result in 
numerous unnecessary questions by 
the auditor, technical personnel and 
negotiators, the resolution of which 
both frustrates and lengthens the re- 
view and negotiation process. Accept- 
able estimating systems would tend to 
reduce these questions and the amount 
and length of audit. This shortening 
of the procurement process would, in 
turn, help to minimize the need for 
updating of proposals. 

The contractor's estimating proc- 
esses need not be explained on each 
and every proposal. Instead, compre- 
hensive reviews of estimating systems, 
which arc fully integrated with re- 



views of individual proposals, would 
be a more practical way of reviewing 
the contractor's estimating process. 

The resultant improvement in 
data in pricing proposals could help 
to reduce the number and depth of 
post-award audits by both DOD and 
GAO. 

It was emphasized that an improved 
estimating system should not be con- 
sidered as a substitute for a proper 
audit or for compliance with the re- 
quirements of Public Law 87-653. 

Formal estimating systems, it was 
pointed out, would not, as some con- 
tractors have contended, reduce flexi- 
bility or the exercise of judgment in 
submitting proposals to the Govern- 
ment. On the contrary, the estimating 
system could be flexible enough to fit 
the type of procurement and actually 
give management a better basis upon 
which to make judgments. Further, it 
was noted that no one uniform method 
of estimating was contemplated and 
that each contractor could have com- 
plete freedom to develop his estimat- 
ing- system in such a manner as to 
meet certain minimum standards of 
acceptability, taking into considera- 
tion such things as the nature and size 
of his business, type of organization, 
and method of record keeping. 

GAO recognized that improved esti - 
mating systems would not solve all 
procurement and audit problems, but 
they would make life a little easier 
for everyone concerned. 



Organizational Changes Effected in OASD (I&L) 



Changes in the organizational struc- 
ture of the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense (Installations 
and Logistics) OASD(I&L) became 
effective Dec. 19, coinciding with the 
departure of Robert C. Moot, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Log- 
istics Services). Mr. Moot has been 
appointed Deputy Assistant Adminis- 
trator of the Small Business Admin- 
istration. 

The transportation and warehous- 
ing, telecommunications, cost reduc- 
tion, and food service areas of OASD 
(I&L), which were under the direction 
of Mr. Moot, will be assigned to 
Deputy Assistant Secretary Paul H. 
Riley, Mr. Riley will also assume re- 
sponsibility for technical data and 
standardization and will continue to 
be responsible for supply management 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



activities. 

Deputy Assistant Secretary Glenn 
V. Gibson will assume responsibility 
for contract support services, former- 
ly under Mr. Moot, as well as direc- 
tion of all administrative activities 
for the Assistant Secretary. Mr. 
Gibson will continue to be responsible 
for international programs functions. 

Major General A. T. Stanwix-Hay, 
who has served as the Special Assist- 
ant Secretary, has been designated a 
Deputy Assistant Secretary with re- 
sponsibility for the functions of the 
weapons analysis and readiness com- 
ponent of OASD(IL), previously 
under the supervision of Mr. Riley. 

Eckarcl Bennewitz, former Director 
of Weapons Analysis and Readiness, 
has been assigned as the Special As- 
sistant to the Assistant Secretary. 



PROJECT HINDSIGHT 
AN INTERIM REPORT 

The first interim report on the find- 
ings of Project Hindsight, a two-and- 
one-half-year study of the utilization 
of results from research in science and 
technology, has been issued by the Di- 
rector of Defense Research and Engi- 
neering. 

Authorized contractors may obtain 
the Project Hindsight interim report 
(Order No. AD 642-400) without 
charge from the Defense Documenta- 
tion Center, Cameron Station, Alex- 
andria, Va, 22314. It can also be pur- 
chased from the Clearinghouse for 
Federal Scientific and Technical In- 
formation, Department of Commerce, 
Springfield, Va., $1 per copy. 

Project Hindsight, as the name im- 
plies, is a retrospective study of recent 
scientific and technological advances 
which have been used by DOD in 
weapon system developments. The 
study is directed toward gaining a 
more objective understanding of DOD 
utilization of science and technology. 
Specifically, it is intended to determine 
procedures through which productivity 
of DOD's research and exploratory 
development programs may be im- 
proved. 

Data for the Project Hindsight in- 
terim report was complied by teams 
of in-house scientists and engineers 
working with defense contractors who 
volunteered their assistance. Available 
detailed information supports the fol- 
lowing general conclusions; 

Successful engineering design of 
advanced weapon systems primarily 
consists of skillfully selecting and in- 
tegrating many elements from diverse 
technologies so as to produce the high 
performance demanded. 

At least in the systems studied, 
the contribution from post-1945 re- 
search efforts in science and technol- 
ogy were greatest when those efforts 
were oriented toward defense needs. 

t Production of scientific and tech- 
nical Information utilized in weapon 
systems has been substantially more 
efficient when research efforts were 
funded and managed by DOD or de- 
fense contractors for DOD purposes, 
than when funded and managed by the 
non-defense sector of Government or 
industry without specific concern for 
defense needs, 

For the systems studied, approxi- 
mately two-thirds of the Innovations 
essential to the successful develop- 
ment of those systems were available 
at the time engineering design was 
initiated. 

The DOD investment in science 
and technology has had a demonstra- 
bly large payoff in terms of the resul- 
tant weapon system cost effectiveness. 



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

The President has announced the 
resignation of Arthur Sylvester, Ami. 
Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), 
to be effective Feb. 3. In making the 
announcement, the President stilted 
that he intended to nominate Phil (i. 
Colliding, now Dey, Asst. Secretary of 
Defense (Public Affairs), HH Mr. Syl- 
vester's successor, 

Gordon H. Tyler, who IIAH haon serv- 
ing as AHut. Dir. of Procurement 
(Policy Review) of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
lias been selected for tlie position of 
Executive Secretary of the Defense 
Industry Advisory Council. 

Maj. Gen Autrcy J. Maromi, USA, 

has been designated Den. Ansl. Secre- 
tary of Defense (Reserve Affairs), Of- 
fice of Aflat. Secretary of DnfoiiH 
(Manpower). 

Col. Richard M. Scott, USAF, hns 
been assigned as the Principal Military 
Asst, to the Asst, Rtscrfitnry (if DH- 
fenae (Atomic Energy). 

Col. James S. DoiitfhiH, USA. IIIIH 
hns been assigned to the lltmlncitH & 
Labor Div., Directorate for Cnnumin- 
ity Relations, Office of Asst, Hccitstnry 
of Defense (Public Affairs). 




William A. Ynnmi lum I'' 1 ' 111 
Chii.f of Urn Kin- 1 rind MiirnM-.-ni.i: 
Div., of tli Army Mnbility l'!i|iii|'i;''- 
Conimnnd'H KiurliK--'' !';'> 'vl.,V- I .-- 
vdopment I^ilx.rator!^', l'"rl IMv.-li. 
Vn, 

W Curl IT Hull I"" 1 ll|lf '" I 11 '"' 11 " 1 ' 1 ' 1 

10 ll'lB JKM.IHi'11 f (!|li " f ' Kl ' !ll<l 'I;'' ,'" 

Dovdoinnmil Pn'i'i'n' ..... "' " |1K 'V 
Armv MnMllly l':|uip>m-ul * ..h.nniml. 
rr K^u-iuvli * n,'Y.-l,.|.i.'.ii 
. Hi-lvulv. \a. 

. Aiwl. )n'i n-rmi ..... I 
(! ,,mnmiHlnft.lH'll.M. Anny Kli-.-li-m- 
Proving (rrmind, Furl llii'i.'InirM, An.". 
Cnl. Chi'HtiT A. Hull Jr.. Ita-. l.t-.-im- 
Die., Army Mlci-lnmir I'M-vI 



The following 1 asHi^mnonU hnvn 
been made by the OofciiBo Supply 
Agency: 

Col. Cloyd L. Ahney, USAF, lllr., 
Procurement & Production, Ilisfi'mw 
Industrial Supply Center, Plilludclphlu, 
Pa,; Col. JiuncH 11. Knot, USAF, Oil'., 
Commodity Procurement & Prmhic- 
tion, Defense Fuel Supply <, 'enter, 
Alexandria, Va.; Cnl. I'Yancin P. Fit*/,- 
gerald, USAF, Dir., Prociiroiwint & 
Production, Dcftmso fiowmil Supply 
Center, Richmond, Va.j Col. Kcnncfli 
A. Young, USAF, Dip., Technical Op- 
erations, Defense CoiiMtructiiin Supply 
Center, Columbus, Ohio; Col, Robert 
H. Lmld, USAF, Comimmdor, Dufoiwfl 
Depot, Gffdcn, Utah, 

Col. Fred Cnplo Jr., USAF, linn 
boon named Chief, Material Maniitfct- 
mont Div., and Col. John W, KoliorlH, 
USAF, hns boon named Chlof, Air- 
borne Systems Div., of the DcCoimti 
Communications Agency Planning 
Group. 



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 
11U '"-'- Tr., hft 



MH M. Koolti'ii, 

Col. Clliil'h'H S. .liililimm Jr., Inn l-t-.-rt 
liplM.ildi'd ClilH', Krvl.-w X' A nuh .!'. 
Div., Phiiiii & Pruiiniiii' 1 lh "' ( l"' 1 ''. 
Onii-i' of LlH' Clili-f <f U'-"''i".li A P" 
llt'tll.. Di'puilnifnt "f !tn i AntiV, 



Tlic futlmvini; ln 
kt\v putilii willi (In- 



liani Minlun, lirp. t'lti"' "I 
OjicraUniui, mill Cnl, R -I. Ili 
Dir, uf ( NiiiiniiiiiiriiliiMi;; Kni-r 



ihil.ii'!! mi !MP, r."iniii!iu.!.-t, 

Antiy Wril|iini!i I'Miiininntl, H'"'^ 



"\Vtl> 



Col, Paul It. Sht'lDHil will 
Don. Div. KtiKiiifi'i, l.nv.r 
nhmippi Viillcy Hiv,, AIHIV f 
Miiffiiii'i't'n, iiiul .Si'cirtiH'.v, Mj 
Hivi'i 1 ('iniindiwltiii, with lii-itil 
at Vic 

Tlic 

IHHUI iniulc hy Hits Anny ,Mtr=-j!.- (*t-nf 
inand, Hrdnloiu 1 Ai^'inil, lluntnil!i\ 
Alii.: 

Col. Jnlni T. O'Krt-fi'. lijw. Hl Af>5( 
ant to tin? C(iinnimn|!nH I;-IH-I! cf M * 
Amiy Minnih' C..nmi;uif|; Cul, Jtnnt 
N. Lothroi), 1'mj.Tt Mmm^,-?, HW 
Wi'iipon HyHlcni; 1,1. (!. |-:*| Kuittl. 
Pnijcrt MiniHKi'i', iVi'^hii.M Mmni^ 
HyHtom; I,t, ('id. Arthur .. I miKr 
Jr.. Projdct ManiiKcr, hVij/rnibl Ilwih^ 
tic MlHHllo HyuU'in; niM M, r,|, HllHrrl 

W. I'llWl'll, IH'VV |||-||1|1V !M ){ tM' 

t-rifi'dl. Um! (-..mUt 
tcrlfitR f, IlwltHrs |ii r 

of Hit! Anny Mlimilr r^ 

cui-oinitnt A l'nnlurtli)ii 

vlcn Col. KiiKi'tu- J. MHH 



DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV 

Thi' fnllnwinir ii-r.iKlDiii'iit'i |i| 
i'i-ii nimli- nl "i 11 '' -' Wivni Nlitiiya 



dipt. H. W. MI'h.- Jr., 1'jHiln, f, 
llii-i-r; Caul. c;. It, .Iniif't. 1'luuii. 
lliri'i 1 ; C)i|il. .'. A. 'i'"l. ' 'i-u-.l i u.-i; 



DEPARTMENT OF THE 
AIR FORCE 

t'til. Wiild i H, i iilinfri in !,,o t.s 

IlilfiK'il I'll "f UK' Tlt:ili II! 1* 

JMI.III MI. .'<liH f : f'.il. M.ivi.t V Mill 
Tut .liitii-pti I, t mu|il.L-|t *..*<- It 

,. .I;;,!-', I .', I'. 1- t-'\ ' 1' il I IM.illJ' 

HIC. ;:ju< i- :;\ ;\--n-.~ Pi 1 . 1 . A h I'M 



C<i1 \ (in -i 'I li Ilittl-i, n **- Is 

r'tii-f, ltt>!'5 !*- - '-ii-j' !'i'. , A-=t I -I 

1 )i( ,'i'!li,-'J *'.|t t ,ti 111..! I'-.l,''^ ' 'Oil 

\Viii- M IVM..I-"., ,U II. nM- 

I'll] Vl-rili'tt li I Mf !!''! I -v: 1 r , } t 
if'"'! n-- 1, 5^ AM* 1-"- ? ,'1l( 

riiiin.tiM.', I'M"'! 1 1- ' '-'' if "t 1 ^'%tl f 'i 



TRATCOM 
Will Movt* to Arixorut 



by 
lUdm. T. J. Rudden, USN 



No longer does a top manager have 
to make decisions based on intuition 
or ancient history. Now a wealth of 
projection techniques and automated 
data processing systems bring real 
time information to his finger tips. 
He can now be the leader of his or- 
ganization and make decisions based 
on timely, accurate and reliable infor- 
mation. The purpose of this article is 
to show how the Headquarters, Naval 
Material Command (NAVMAT) uti- 
lizes management information systems 
to manage its business. 

The business of the Naval Material 
Command (NMC) is to provide mate- 
rial support (ships, weapons, aircraft, 
etc.) to the operating forces of the 
Navy and the Marine Corps. These 
forces comprise the world's largest 
and most powerful Navy with about 
1,000,000 sailors and marines, more 
than 900 ships of all types with no 
two precisely identical, and about 
8,400 aircraft of 235 different types. 
Our missions require a highly mobile, 
world-wide, changing mix of weapons 
and equipment which can be tailored 
to meet any situation such as existed 
at Lebanon, the Cuban Crisis, and now 
in Vietnam with a long-range flow of 
material support 7,000 miles across 
the Pacific. 

Some of our weapon systems, such 
as a ship, have a long life and high 
investment. Some carriers on the Viet- 
nam station are now in their third 
war and older than most of their 
crew. These long-life systems must 
keep up with advances in technology 
to be responsive to new and changing 
requirements. A major fleet unit like 
a carrier has in it more material, 
more different kinds of things from 
more different places than any land 
vehicle, any aircraft, any rocket, any 
guided or ballistic missile, any arti- 
ficial satellite, any space vehicle, or 
any other vehicle made by man. As 
just one example, the attack car- 
rier U.S.S. Forrcstal is about five city 
blocks long. It has more than four 
acres of deck. It is abo\it as high, 
from keel to the top of a mast, as a 
25-story building. It displaces about 
78,000 tons fully loaded. It took 62,- 
500 tons of steel, 200,000 rivets and 
2,400 miles of welding. Yet, it is a 



high-yield investment in national se- 
curity. It is highly mobile, an "instant 
air base" almost anywhere we need 
one with a speed in excess of 30 
knots. It can launch 32 planes in four 
minutes with no question of national 
sovereignty or land base rights. 

Navy material requirements are 
unique. We must operate not only on 
and under the sea but also over the 
beach and in related land operations, 
and also in air and space. 

Our business of support to the op- 
erating forces is big business. NMC 
spends between $10 and $11 billion 
per year which is about $20,000 
every minute, around the clock, 
around the calendar. This is about 
two-thirds of the total Navy budget 
and about 12 percent of the total Fed- 
eral budget. Out of every $100 paid 
in Federal taxes, $12 goes to NMC, 
The supply inventory for our forces 
is over $9 billion, while the inventory 
of real estate (four and one-half mil- 
lion acres) and property and facilities 
is about $33.6 billion. 

The management information en- 
vironment includes the Navy's setting 




RAdm. Thomas J. Rudden Jr., USN, 
is Deputy Chief of Naval Material 
(Programs and Financial Manage- 
ment). He has served with the Naval 
Material Command since 1964, first as 
Deputy Commander, Antisubmarine 
Warfare Systems Project. Later he 
was given responsibility for develop- 
ing the organizational structure and 
concepts of operations of the Naval 
Ordnance Systems Command. He is n 
graduate of the U. S. Naval Academy, 
class of 1939. 



in the framework of the Federal Gov- 
ernment and the information require- 
ments of the President, Bureau of 
the Budget, Defense Department, Sec- 
retary of the Navy and Executive. 
Assistants, and other executive de- 
partments and agencies whose work 
affects the Navy including the Con- 
gress and the General Accounting 
Office. In addition state and local gov- 
ernments, trust territories and foreign 
countries have information require- 
ments which must be met. A multitude 
of laws and regulations also generate 
information requirements, Manage- 
ment information systems must pro- 
vide for these requirements. 

The Management Organization and 
Philosophy. 

The Chief of Naval Mal<M'Uil 
(CNM) commands and manager fiix 
systems commands (Ships, Air, Sup- 
ply, Facilities and Engineering, Onl- 
nance, and Electronics) and managoi'n 
of twelve projects, such as the Anti- 
submarine Warfare Systems ProjoH; 
and the Fleet Ballistic Missile System 
Project (Polaris and Poseiden) to 
mention two well known projects, Fur- 
ther, in this complex there are about 
560 field activities (laboratories, nhip- 
yards, depots, etc.) and about 370,000 
military and civilian personnel in 
the headquarters and in the field. 

The systems commands have tln> 
technical and engineering expertim 1 
of the Navy, They provide tin- 
technical support to projects in- 
cluding some they have ostablinhed 
which are of lesser scope than the C!NM 
projects. A problem in this connection 
is to preserve these technical resoim^u 
and not disperse them among project 
managers. It is necessary to strike 
the best balance between the ucicdn 
of the project and the capabititie.i of 
the commands. 

In a very real sense, NMC can he 
equated to a corporate complex. Tlin 
six systems commands are the tech- 
nical managers for the work for wliidJi 
they are responsible, Viewed in thin 
manner, the CNM and his staff (NAV 
MAT) act as corporate hoatlquarterH 
and, as such, manages the mamiffOi'H, 
NAVMAT is a management and con- 
trol organization. In this role it tlen 
together the systems commands by : 

Allocating resources to them-- 
resources management of manpower, 
real property, weapons, services, mil- 
terials, supplies and funds. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



11 



A ifiiiir ti);it planning and pro- 
comprehcn- 



. . 

* S-tnujs: KU;I!:I and objectives for 
:,'Mr a;' a ivln.lf. 

.i't.ui'hi'di/ing ;ind testing the 
.,!' 'ju;i< y of ii]i])a.ift?nir'iit systems. 

.V-Hti'inir tlm rout rat ting and 
[.;-, ^ ijr-'ni'-nt iiulidr-s ar developed 
,-iTL'i ;|jpl!>.i anvj.,s the board. 

Ifi-tirint.! 1 that dm>lopment pro- 

.t'jsi!, r n:>'''i our iiH'd.e. 

Striking the best balance between 
".}",-' )!>'!; <>f sy.s terns commands and 



ter incentives, and that it shifts risks 
from the Navy to the contractor, as 
it should do. 

NMC Management Information Sys- 
tems. 



logistical programs 



In ,unnn:iry, the CN.M controls the 
';.:i!::tL-:<-ni.-m operations which govern 
t'r." t.vhnioaf functions. Ho does this, 
!> i'.!t-,-iJ!y, by policy enunciation and 
"Nfru-c.--m.--nt, KS fa billing defined ccn- 
f-r-* <.f authority and responsibility, 
thrush planning, and by acquiring 
s.-'>-"i information for decisions. 

T XAVMAT headquarters man- 
r.t,'.-nifiit structure is lean with a staff 
<>f .l.v^ deputy chiefs (Planning and 
rinanrial Management, Procurement, 
I^u-Ionmont, Logistic Support, and 
" ni * Organization). The 
functions of planning, 
iff, directing, controlling and 
ing are carried out in detail 
t-y th<^ fi VP deputies. Their titles are 
'^[iarmtory of their functions. They 

!fn rat V n ,* hc CNM '"Basement 

t>iinV,,-ophy that the role of the top 

'""uto create an environment 
all subordinate levels of 

can work moat effectively 
"to leave lower-level matters at 
<.'**-i -level management. This "hands- 

Lilir/V'Tu'! 1 ' )MIos Phy is also 

1 ' .1 to the administration of manv 

'"mrac t.s with industry. V 



Everything that a manager docs 
ultimately comes down to decision 
making, and the science of manage- 
ment is the art of organizing facts 
for the decision -making- process. 

In the management business facts 
are like ammunition to the infantry 
and like gasoline to the aviator. With- 
out facts operation is not possible and 
the organization and the assimilation 
of facts is the area where the good 
manager exercises his greatest ar- 
tistry. 

The major leap forward in man- 
agement technology has been in the 
business of assembly and retrieval 
of facts. The old-time managers used 
to keep everything in their heads, but 
no more. The complexities of manag- 
ing NMC requires formally organized 
management information systems 
both automated and manual, which are 
geared to providing managers at nil 
levels: 

Information that will help thorn 
assure that resources are obtained and 
used effectively and efficiently in the 
accomplishment of their objectives 

Data to support program pro- 
posals and requests for funds 

A means of assuring that stat- 
utes, agreements with Congressional 
committees, and other require^ nfc 
originating outside the BOD re.at ,g 
to resources are complied with 



e Information that in iionwfuii'y 1 
formulate objectives and plnnn, moni- 
tor their execution, and isolul.' pi- |,. 
1cm areas with a factual \n\n\u f,,,, 
corrective action. The (aw of (In- (. x . 
ception applies Intro, namely, roncm. 
trato on thosn arniM and facdl.4 \vliid] 
are above or bolow planned perform. 
ance. 

NMC now han 200 aulomalrd data 
processing ninnaRemi'iil. in formal Inn 
syHtcma with 2,BOO rcporhi and 
larger number of manual iiyiilrirm t\l 
headquarters to diinblo it:i inainiKiu'.'i 
at all levels to carry out. (In-ir r-'iijMin- 
sibiHtioK. Data pi-ont.'wtinir IUIM been 
contralixcd at the lirMidijiiarliM-ji li'vH 
in the NMC Support Activity. Tin-ill 

are 300 iicnjile in iho Data I'ro f^r... r 

Group and 1!) coinpiilcrii. An < 
of a managnniont infoj-inatlun 
handled by thin group in ih,< M<:ON 
(Military Conntrudtion) Kyn|i'in of |.] ]( . 
Naval Facilitin.s Kim-iiin'rln,.' (:,. 
round. This Hy.stein collccl.'i rcui| ;1 for 
new construction, rcllni'lji work in 

plfico, reflects ral nniporly lm lory, 

and provides input into Uu'. Inhrriitcd 



Development of formal dutn nyn^im 
hns buon a lnw anil (tvohKiomn-y |inii'. 
OSH within thn Hyutrnia <?i>initiaiMlii nnd 
Project inanafforofllciuH. Initially in nm i- 
al .systems, Bupportnd by Inrfrn'rlci-lnil 
orgnnixation^ lualiitiifn.'d tlm niMl^itd 
flnanclul rn,r,| t , n,ml,,,d tn ,, t . 
orate our varioun ocjrnnl/utlonu. H y .,- 
toras wore dollop,,,! in mi| , |lnr , , lf 
flpjiciflc AuHitimm and op,ra,l ,,i Jipl , 

, 0l V^ mi ""W' nu 'l-''''"tr.,. 



no., 



notj (io fte 



.... must know, and w e 
^'_'ow in detaa am , , n we 



ha r J ^ n ^^ f free 

t t ] t at ' mU a , tes * 
inat U Provides for het- 

12 




January 1967 



(1 the oarly use of computers reduced the 
clerical task anil provide! more i n f or . 
mat.on faster. Tin, management proc- 
ess, lH.WOV.M-, required the redaction 

of voluminous reports to meaningful 
summaries for uso i n the dncislon- 
making process. Again, this was p nr . 
formed by manual clerical effort 

Within the last livo years the intro- 
; h "* I( ' of more rnflll(M , , ommit(M . 
Hardware and software has brought 
about data system development pro- 
<!* "in entire -span of management 
"'Ports in support of a ,mrUci,Ir 
function. I,, Hmil(! cases integrated 
<Iata systems have been developed 
producing management reports for 
several functional areas and utili/i,,,, 
"igle point of entry (automatic feed- 
ImHO of data from functional areas 
to <-ontrali'/od information proeossing 
Speeilic oxaTnples am the- Industrial 
Naval Air Kl.al.ion at Manila and 
the Itoston Naval Shipyard (develop- 
ing Management Information System 
for Shipyards). The complexity of 
now weapon systems has generated 
the need for tremendous improvements 
In system techniques and ability to 
"'andlc the increasing volume of asso- 
ciated data and management informa- 
tion. 

The Department of the Navy's plun 
for introduction of automatic data 
processing equipment, us outlined ini- 
tially in H10C3NAV Ii.Htriuiti.ni P10- 
1fl2.7 of Ajirll IB, ijjfio, ,, Il(1 ll(lft|] 
Nmoly followed in tho mochani/ation 
"I data NyntoiH within thn NIVTO 
Htiiirnfl (-nwMKiB) of this plan nill,l 
for 

9 Tho evaluation of our initial 
autonmtto data pronoHHiiifl; n(|uipm 0n t 
iiiHtallafcionn; nxtnnion of early rjf. 
[inrinn,;,. developed to all levels f a '<- 
tivitieH. 

* An awiinimiHH of the full potential 
"f automatic data procoHHing. 

* A Hhift of application emphasis 
t<> the areas of planning proKram- 
mhiK, HdiedulinK, nte., in addition to 
tlui (loinmoii u(! Htomniinp from re- 
duction of clerical nffortfi. 

* A Hhift in emphasis to more con- 
tntlly developed programs in the de- 
"iffn of moi-e optimum maiuiffomnnt 
information syntom H utili/.iiiK oporn- 
titins research techniques 

* A maturity of hardware (third 
ffoneration computers with improved 
input-output capabilities). 

* Thn development of an overall 
Navy plan to Urinj? about the eom- 

c transition of all resource* to a 



full complement of information sys- 
tems and hardware-. 

Because of complexities in data 
ml m onnat.on systems ( i cs l gl] Jiml 
LHe |,,ffh COHt8 invo | vw|( th(J NMC 

not uchievoil all objective, of Sta ff e 
fi (JOMB). However, P ro R ,,,e fn 
systems dosi,, aml lmr(lwju , c ^ 

a I, / ml r tca that co ">Plote 

ach. vomo.it of Stase B objeotivL is 
feasible. 



.1 lie requirements brought about bv 
niph-xities of modern weapon sys- 
tems have fi-enerated the aood for u 
KTeater decision response capability at 
each management level, The ouputs of 
nuliVKlual information sy H tnis dnvcl- 
f>l>ed by eompmients of the NMC nerve 
intennediati> decision levels and ciil- 
minato in nianaKement-by-exception 
''(""tin ( .- con.lucted through a com- 
plex of management cenl: ( >rH. The 
CNM j-oviWH the (-ffnctivonnHs of tbe 



Manaffonumt Information Center 
(MIC) through information provided 
manually by the complex of miters 
mippm-thitf end]! niajor maaafrement 
level. Similarly, the commands anil 
project manaffors nwittw tlm eft'ec- 
tivmioHM of thir programs in man- 
iilfonndit information cenU^r.s and, in 
addition, screen written reports, corre- 
spondence and other information 
Mows, 

The Management Information Center. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



Tho information system currently 
.supporting the ONM is determined by 
requirements generated for the weekly 
meetings in the GNM MIC. These 
niecttings are chaired by the CNM and 
attended by the senior representatives 
of the first oi-holon line components 
of NMC. The Special Assistant to 
tho .Secretary of the Navy and/or a 
representative of the Office of 
Management Information are also 
in attendance. Tho format of these 
meetings cycles a status report from 
wieh of the major first echelon line 
components each month. In addition, 
the Management Information Divi- 
sion provides a series of koy indica- 
tors on the overall status of the NMC 
to alert the CNM to possible danger 
HiRiiH. The information base that sup- 
ports the center is built on existing 
information sources of the project 
managers and commands. Some of 
this information comes from mechan- 
ised systems but tho majority is tho 
result of manual efforts. 
The MIC itself has a capability for 



vicwgraph and slide projection, Iflmm 

movies, conventional or closed circuit 
TV reception, conventional charts dis- 
played on sliding panels or in perma- 
nent position and u ] arff c magnetic 
map for world-wide location of NMC 
interests. The slide capability provides 
for random access of fifiO displays. 
Figure 1 shows the NMC MIC. 

At the MIC the goal is "instant" 
management information. No matter 
what questions arise, or what infor- 
mation is needed, there is usually 
enough expertise and enough experi- 
ence on hand to answer questions or 
pi-ovide information on the spot. Them 
is no delay in the decision-making 
process while research is done, facts 
and figures chocked, etc. Thorn is an 
instant exchange of management ideas 
and instant consideration of multi- 
ples and complex interfaces among 
and between the headquarters of the 
NMC, systems commanders and proj- 
ect managers involving overlaps, non- 
'""taels, conflicting requirements or 
imoritios, etc. Instant; management 
l<:iHion making is based on sound 
m formation and good communication 
with all pertinent factors considered 
There are no study groups, lengthy 
exchange of memoranda or buck-pass- 
ing. There is no procrastination. 
Everyone knows exactly who is in 
marge, who bus principal action, col- 
lateral actions, whoa, where, why, 
how, etc. People in specialised amis 
get exposed to the "big picture" and 
how they fit in at these meetings. If 
our now A~7A aircraft requires ao mo - 
thmg special in the way of facilities 
construction or equipment, the respon- 
sible people know about it immedi- 
ately. There are no "surprises," and 
there is better integration and bettor 
coordination. Tho CNM management 
problem is a totally interrelated and 
interdependent end product, namely, 
the material support of the operating 
foi'ces. 

Specific guidance has been provided 
to those who present management re- 
ports to the CNM in NAVMAT Noticn 
50fiO of April I, lOflfl as follows: 

Management reports made to tho 
CNM should address any activity, 
event, or condition which has the po- 
tential or has already increased total 
program cost, delayed operational 
availability, delayed significant mile- 
stones, or degraded performance. 

Clearly defined plans, schedules 
and objectives should be the basis for 
portraying progress, for evaluation 



of accomplishment, and for uncover- 
ing current or potential problems. 

In portraying 1 information, the 
principle! of management by exception 
should be followed. UmiecoHiiiiry de- 
tail (clutter) should be avoided by the 
use of summary information when- 
ever it accurately reflects the iletJiiled 
facts. 

Where comprehensive coverage i 
being offered or required, selected 
visual aids should provide a means of 
addressing each of the bash: manage- 
ment variables, i.e., performance, cost 
and schedule, 

Originals or reproductions of 
graphic aids of .subordinate manage- 
ment information renter or focal 
points are encouraged for use in Hie 
CNM MTC to the maximum extent. 

Kach systems eoininaader, deputy 
chief of naval material and project 
manager should eontimie lo strive for 
consistency in information presented 
and uniformity of methods and lech" 
niquen of presentation*!. 

Basic to the whole concept of per- 
formanco prosimtation and appraisal 
during management reports is I In; 
continuing comparison of actual per- 
formance with the relevant plan, 
schedule, or objective. 

Many of the reports made in the 
NMC MIC art! repented in the .Secre- 
tary of the Navy's MIC ami the Chiof 
of Naval Operations MIC. Tim deci- 
sion as to which reports tiliouhl 1m 
presented are made during Mm 
Wednesday meeting of the CNM MIC. 

The CNM has an established ;ichr'd- 
ule of management information meet- 
ings, lie has a daily stall 1 meeting 
except Wednesday, with hid deputy 
chiefs who report briefly on major 
problems and siKiiiflcmit upnnnfiiK 
actloiiR. Guidance in K iven by the 
CNM with particular emphasis on 
actions expected that day. Mi K r j. 
day, the CNM holds H meeting with 
the System Commanders Policy Conn- 
oil, a separate meeting with Mm 
Project Managers Policy Council and 
usually with the .Secretary nf Ui<. 
Navy. In addition, he meets frw|umly 
with the Deputy Chief of Naval 
Operations for Logistics when they 
iron out problems between tho umir 
and producer sides of the 
house. 



Niivy'n 



Frequent meetings with industry 
round out the maimgemont infoi-inn- 
tion available to the CNM, Th part- 
newhlp with industry is indispoiwiblo 
to accomplishing the NMC minsion of 



material nu\>\nn i- " i 

Mnnttgi'iiicnt Inforiiinlioii S.vnlriiin 
Plans 

We i-mmiil "land ullll i "ii" H'' 1 ' 1 
,if mmmgeini'iit iiifiinnnlinii, \Vi-nni.1 
coiiUnue tn pn-!in llit> ntntf uf Hi.' ;n( 
in maiiii|'.vnn'iil inftinnaitnii r-y .1- "> 1; 
)icii'ncc:i. An In 



I lie I\lllllH|',i'H"'"l Infnnnitliiiii lM\i i"M 

of NAVMAT fur lliix pun'"- 1 ' ; lltf ' 

devi'lopiiif,' nn Advanrrd Mini:U!(-n-ti1 

Infnriiialion Syiih'in, M">t nminip- 

men) dala iiynli-iiii: w-nil,- ni Un- ];i ,. ; , ( 

Illinlwai'e iilnri' h-v<-l. I-'rw. if :tnv, ,,..,,,,, 

fi ..... linn HlWlhvly a' tin- \--\'-\ "f 
.'ilratepjr iiiaiiunritn'iil il.'i-hiini inn! 
injv. Wi' aiv liyliif: ID l>ui!t -.\ l.'f 
level niiiiinjji'iiii'iit in I'm unit inn i , .!- n> 
Among ilii tci'liniitui- 1 will I"'- ^:in:ii!.t 
tin] i of nlliTiiiiiU'r 1 ', niii.ii'tltiv !i*ui 
dei-tnidii lonlr. If wr in-- -.nn . ,-fui, -.'. 
can foreciiiil mir pinlilrni'i \V. * .-,n 
nee tin-in nuiiini; ln-IWr tli'-v in.- ")> 

|l>p (if 11:1, l'.l!::iillly \V.' 'rt|.Hl!i( '''(I! Uii:; 

mi "Marly Wfu'tiini 1 . ''ni'f ' ';*)n^i* > 
Avojiliun't'" Sy.'ili'in. 

Tiled' i;i ii !.|'i'j(lt' tn'.'.i f.. -.!i|.}> >i! 
(lie CNM itll'l III;. tlrjUltii' i V,i!h ;l!, 
Advaili'i'd Miinni^'iiii'iil lof'*! titssf "in 
Synli'in. Thin nf-d wit'= Mi|i(t..] i. .| !, 



* it 



iiiK and iliriTiinj... 

lt i.|,MUM ,,. lt 

NM(- iiyfitt'imt, 

It Will, HlfH-fn 
''"'"'"'Ill'd Wllh !l ' 

Infnnimilon |ir<>ilurt' 
K'W liy (he <(H'ni 





under I'niili'iirl f<n ||n> t'NV> 

Irat'lor'ii limliticn I'.'iiriin).'. 

pl'DVeini'iit wii'i iLi-crii'iiuy iHiit j'.-i it.;.., .?,,,-,. 

and lilsifi'it Illi'i.,- pi Jnri|iti-t. iih'l v, :!},- !.-..;,,! 



llienl ; ,, isj ,.. ,. 

* The iiViilnn iim:>t |it-.t ".^i-^; i. M, ,- ; . , i 

to the niTimtpll'-lHiii'oi ><( th" >i>>.:> .;>,-. ;>!..;, i 

of Ihi' CNM. , ,.'. 

* II. liilliil Id- piiimnih v^-fi'Uis-iij! Hii-:. 
i |i 

.JMif III!' I'N'M Ul1 tlto ^.Uii.it (i.-..^! o.- 



V A 



UM. CNM MIR 




The publications listed below may 
be obtained at the following ad- 
dresses: 

Government Printing Office 
Publications 

U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, B.C. 20402 

Research Reports 

Authorized DOD contractors and 
grantees may obtain these docu- 
ments without charge from: 

Defense Documentation Center 
Cameron Station 
Alexandria, Va. 22314 

Others may purchase these docu- 
ments at the price indicated from: 

Clearinghouse for Federal and 

Scientific Information 
Department of Commerce 
Springfield. Va. 22161 



Government Printing Office 
Publications 

MILSTRIP, MILitary STandard Re- 
quisitioning and Issue Procedures, 
Change 13, Aug. 1, 1966. Contains 
changes to MILSTRIP. 1966, 172 p. 
Catalog No. D 7.6/4:M 59/ch.l3. $1.25. 

UDT&E, Research, Development, 
Testing, and Evaluation at the U.S. 
Naval Oceanographic Office, 1960-li)66. 
Covers the objective of the major proj- 
ects within the program, some of the 
achievements obtained since 19G9, the 
program's current status, and future 
plans. Technical detail has, for the 
most part, been avoided in the inter- 
est of providing material which would 
be of interest to the general reader 
as well as to the professional ocean- 
ographer. Catalog No. D203.2:R31 600. 

Technology in Education. Contains 
testimony presented to the Subcom- 
mittee on Economic Progress of the 
Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Con- 
gress, regarding ways in which our 
industrial know-how is being adapted 
to the requirements of education. 273 
p. Catalog No. Y 4. EC 7:Ed 8. 65$!. 

Research Reports 

Research on Exhaust Gas Effects on 
Heat Exchangers, United Aircraft, 
for the Air Force, July 1966, 144 p. 
Order No. AD-637 952. $4. 

Determination of Parts per Billion 
Iron in Hydrocarbon Jet Fuels. Mon- 
santo Research Corp., Dayton, Ohio, 
for the Air Force, April 1966, 21 p. 
Order No. AD-G36 604. $1. 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



Physical and Chemical Properties of 
JP-4 Jet Fuel for 1965. University of 
Dayton Research Institute, for the Air 
Force, Sept. 1966, 114 p. Order No. 
AD-640 937. $4. 

Iffnition and Combustion of Solid 
Propellents. University of Utah, for 
the Air Force, Sept. 1906, 94 p. Order 
No. AD-637 496. $3. 

Compilation of Abstracts, 2nd 
AFOSR Combined Contractors Meet- 
ing on Combustion Dynamics Re- 
search. United Aircraft, Sunnyvale, 
Calif., and the Stanford Research In- 
stitute, for the Air Force, Oct. 1966, 
82 p. Order No. AD-G40 468. $3. 

Investigation of the Autoxidation of 
Petroleum Fuels. Aberdeen Proving 
Grounds, Md., June 1966, 26 p. Order 
No. AD-641 270. $2. 

Thermal Stability of Hydrocarbon 
Fuels. Phillips Petroleum Co., Bart- 
lesville, Okla., for the Air Force, Sept, 
1966, 270 p. Order No. AD-641 419. $6. 

Physiological Methods in Astronau- 
tics. Translated from Russian by the 
Foreign Technology Div., Wright- 
Patterson AFB. Ohio, Aug. 1966, 303 
p. Order No. AD-641 113. $7. 

Aerospace Engineering 1966: The 
Proceedings of a Conference Held at 
the University of Maryland, March 15, 
1966. Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, 
University of Maryland, for the Air 
Force, Sept. 1966, 160 p. Order No. 
AD-641 434. $5. 

Storage Stability of Civil Defense 
Shelter Rations. University of Georgia, 
for the Army, Oct. 1966, 77 p. Order 
No. AD-640 823. $3. 

Static ami Dynamic Properties of 
Fire-Resistant Wooden Structural Ele- 
ments. Naval Civil Engineering Lab- 
oratory, Port Hueneme, Calif., Oct. 
1966, 70 p. Order No. AD-641 168. $3. 

Crcosoted Woot! in a Marine Envir- 
onment A Summary Report. Naval 
Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port 
Hueneme, Calif., Sept. 1966, 33 p. 
Order No. AD-639 922. $2. 

High Lift Surface Design Proce- 
dures Experimental Verification, Vol. 

I, Summary and Evaluation. Northrop 
Corp., Norair Div., Hawthorne, Calif., 
for the Navy. May 1966, 76 p. Order 
No. AD-639 255. $3, Same title, Vol. 

II, Theoretical Design & Analysis. 126 
p. Order No. AD-639 289. $4. Same 
title, Vol. Ill, Wind Tunnel Tests. 194 
p. Order No, AD-639 191. $7. 

An Experimental Parameter Study 
of the Fluid Force and Moment Re- 
sponse of Two Typical Ship Roll Sta- 
bilization Tanks. Southwest Research 
Institute, San Antonio, Tex., for the 
Navy, 60 p. Order No. AD-634 730. $3. 

Rectilinear Fluid Flow Generator of 
Oscillating Tync. Rensselaer Poly- 
technic Institute, Troy, N.Y., for the 



Navy, Aug. 1966, 21 p. Order No. AD-. 
637 552. $1. 

Collection and Analysis of Seismic 
Wave Propagation Data. University of 
Michigan, for the Advanced Research 
Projects Agency, Washington, D. 0. 
Aug. 1966, 103 p. Order No. AD-CMO 
212. $4. 

Fictitious Data Generator for An- 
alytical Acrotriangulation. Raytheon 
Co., for the Army. Oct. 1966,' 83 n. 
Order No. AD-640 799. $3, 

Protective Coatings for Magnesium. 
Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Whitr 
Oak, Md., Sept. 1966, 43 p. Order N<, 
AD-641 177. $2. 

A Study of Electrotleposition o f 
Organic Coatings for Possible Military 
Usage. Aberdeen Proving Ground, M<L, 
Oct. 1966, 26 p. Order No. AD-641 914. 
$2. 

Effect of Photodegradation of At- 
tenuated Total Reflectance Spectra of 
Organic Coatings. Naval Civil Enffl- 
neoring Laboratory, Port Hucncmi!, 
Calif., Oct. 1966, 32 p. Order No. AD. 
640 733. $2. 

Inorganic Coatings for Spring Ap- 
plications. Springfield Armory, MUHH., 
Oct. 1906, 53 p. Order No. AD-MI) 
322. $3. 

Testing of Chemical Films for 
Establishment of Revised Qualified 
Products List Under Specification 
MIL-C-5541A. Naval Air Engineering 
Center, Philadelphia, Pa., June 10(fli, 
19 p. Order No. AD-637 GOG. $1. 

Reactivation of Chromnted Conver- 
sion Coatings for Maximum Paint Ad- 
hesion. Naval Air Engineering Gen tor, 
Philadelphia, Pa., Sept. 1960, 10 p. 
Order No. AD-640 901. $1. 

Determination of Pnrta per Billion 
Iron in Hydrocarbon Jet Fuels. Mon- 
santo Research Corp., Dayton, Ohio, 
for the Air Force, April I960. 21 p. 
Order No. AD-636 604. $1. 

Physical and Chemical Proportion of 
JP-4 Jet Fuel for 1965. University of 
Dayton Research Institute, Dayton, 
Ohio, for the Air Force, Sept, 190(1, 
114 p. Order No. AD-640 937, $4, 

Ignition and Combustion of Solid 
Propellants. University of Utah, for 
the Air Force, Sept. 1966, 94 p. Or- 
der No. AD-637 496. $3. 

Compilation of Abstracts, 2nd AF- 
OSR Combined Contractors Meeting 
on Combustion Dynamics Research. 
United Aircraft Corp., Sunnyvale, 
Calif., and Stanford Research IiiBfcl- 
tute, for the Air Force, Aug. 1000, 
82 p. Order No. AD-640 468. $3. 

Investigation of the Autoxidation of 
Petroleum Fuels. Aberdeen Proving 
Ground, Md., June 1966, 26 p. Order 
No. AD-641 270. $2. 

Thermal Stability of Hydrocarbon 
Fuels. Phillips Petroleum Co., Bai-tloa- 
ville, Okla., for the Air Force, Sept. 



106(5, 270 p. Order No. AD-641 419. 
56. 

A Unified Approach to Energetics 
Research. Vol. I. Tyco Laboratories, 
Walthnm, Mass., for the Air Force, 
Sept. 190(5, 386 p. Order No. AD-638 
362. 57. Volume II (same title). 305 p. 
Order No. AD-B38 363. 7. 

Study of Surface Properties of 
Atomicafly-Clean Metals and Semi- 
conductors. Brown University, for tho 
Army, Oct. 1966, 58 p. Order No. AD- 
fiS9 345. $3. 

Evaporated and Rccrysiallized CdS 
Layers, University of Delaware, for 
the Navy, Sept. ISHifi, G3 p. Order No. 
AD-637 725. $3. 

Hot Electron Emitter. Hewlett- 
Packard Co., Palo Alto, Calif., for the 
Air Force, July 1966, 99 p. Order No. 
AD-639 568. $3. 

Investigation of Solid State Devices 
and Materials. Northeastern Univer- 
sity, for the Air Force, July 1966, 34 
p. Order No. AD-635 287. ?2. 

Transistor Quality Statistics in a 
Pulsed loni/iiiR Radiation Environ- 
ment. Hughes Aircraft Co., Fullerton, 
Calif., for the Navy, Sept. 19G6, 84 p. 
Order No. AD-638 862. $3. 

The Relations Between Electrical 
N oise and Dislocations in Silicon. 
Carnegie Institute of Technology, for 
the Navy, July 1966, 46 p. Order No. 
AD-636 520. $2. 

Damping Capacity of Materials, Vol. 
I. Battelle Memorial Institute, Colum- 
bus, Ohio, for the Army, Oct. 1966, 
391 p. Order No. AD-640 465. $7. Vol. 
II (same title). 394 p. Order No. AD- 
640 689. 7. 

Crack Initiation in Fatigue of 
Metals. University of Texas, for the 



The Adsorption of Carbon Dioxide 
on Carbon Solids. Part I Graphite 
and Diamond at D C. Naval Research 
Laboratory, July 1966, 18 p. Order No. 
AD-G39 659. $1. 

High Temperature Gas Refractom- 
eter. Block Engineering-, Inc., Cam- 
bridge, Mass., for the Air Force, July 
19(56, 36 p. Order No. AD-637 235. $2. 

Proceedings of the Fourth Sympo- 
sium on Remote Sensing of Environ- 
ment. University of Michigan, for the 
Navy and Air Force, June 1966, 908 p. 
Order No. AD-638 919. $8.75. 

Proceedings of the 19th Annual 
Symposium on Frequency Control. 

Army Electronics Command, Fort 
Monmouth, N.J., 1965, 681 p. Order 
No. AD-471 229. $9.80. 

Research on Thermionic Electron 
Emitting Systems. Varian Associates, 
Palo Alto, Calif., for the Navy, 1966, 
100 p. Order No. AD-640 184. $4. 

Research for Development of Epi- 
taxial Techniques for use in Fabrica- 
tion of Silicon Carbide Devices. 
Motorola, Inc., Phoenix, Ariz., for the 
Air Force, May 1966, 65 p. Order No. 
AD-635 136. $6. 

An Experimental Evaluation of a 
Driver Simulator for Safety Training. 
George Washington University, for 
the Army, June 1966, 36 p. Order No. 
AD-636 166, $2. 

Research on Exhaust Gas Effects on 
Heat Exchangers. United Aircraft 
Corp., for the Air Force, July 1966, 
144 p. Order No. AD-637 952. $4. 



Reorganization 
Effected at APGC 

The Air Proving Ground Gen lor 
(APGC), Egliii AFT?, Flu., has 
shuffled its organizational structure 
to enable the center to imoro nfTtictivr- 
ly and efficiently accomplish its un- 
signed mission. 

lAIl APGC tost inamitfomcMit activi- 
ties have been connoti dated umlm- Hit- 
Deputy for Test, Col. R. I,. Blm-hly. 
The Deputy for Test hu.s hutm form- 
ally termed the Dnuty for Tent Op- 
erations. 

In addition, tho for mm- Deputy fur 
Effectiveness Tost orgjim/.nttnji' him 
become the Air Force Weupoiw I'lf- 
fectiveness Test (APWET) Director- 
ate assigned to this Deputy for Trul 
Operations. 

The APWET Directorate, hnmlr-il 
by Col. R. R. Moulton, conduct* pre- 
dictive analysis, duKigiiH tunls, pro- 
vides technical suptirviHion of u-jil 
conduct, annlyzcH tha roHulUuit drill* 
and reports on AFWKT protfinumi. 
The physical testa urn cuvnVil out ami 
supported by othor Deputy for 'IVst 
Operations directorate- th lOlnctnin- 
ics Test, MunitloiiH Tost, Aircnil'l und 
Missile Test, and the Tnt .O|)nrl!onn 
Directorates. 

APGC is respoiiHtlik; for Air Korro 
weapons efToctivenoHH tiuitmg, nli-c- 
tronic warfare tenting iirm-mmlonr 
munitions testing, and vortieid nrohit 
oportitions. 



. 

Vanadium Alloy Studies. ITT Re- 
search Institute, Chicago, 111., for the 
a /&/ u e 1966 ' 35 P- Orde >' No. AD- 

O(J4 Oii (, IjiD, 

Computer Routines to Read Natural 
lext with Complex Formats. Rand 
Corp Santa Monica, Calif., for the 



Studies in Speech Analysis and Syn- 
te' 8 ' J^SJ*, / Michigan, for the 



On-Line Interactive Displays in An- 
Plication to Linguistic Analysis and 
information Processing and Retrieval. 
Systems Development Corp., Santa 
Monica, Calif., for the Advanced Re- 
search Projects Agency, Sept. 1966, 
22 p. Order No. AD-640 647. $1. 

m e ( CUr o y J n the Computer Environ- 
ment. System Development Corp., 
Santa Monica, Calif., for the Air 



The effect of Context on Recall and 
Recognition of Long Verbal Series. Air 
Force .Systems Command, Dec fcion 
Sciences Laboratory, J une 1966, 22 p 
Order No. AD-640 801. $1. P 

? in . Visui I Displays: 



Management Information Syttoms 

(Continued from Page 14) 

mation contained in each of these re- 
flect three or more basic levels of 
summarization: total program status 
at the highest summary level; status 
of each major program at the highest 
summary level; status of each major 
supporting task at the highest sum- 
mary level; etc., to the lowest com- 
mon denominator of the work break- 
down of the program which tho 
management system provides. 

The Management Information Sys- 
tems Plan is the framework for di- 
recting and coordinating the informa- 
tion systems development program. It 
will also be the five-year systems im- 
provement plan for NMC. Systems 
improvements by components of the 
NMC will be coordinated by the Man- 
agement Information Division to en- 
sure consolidation of an integrated 
data base to support the overall 
objective and the information and re- 
porting requirements of the CNM. The 
1967 Management Information Sys- 
tems Plan (FY 1968) will be the sec- 



ond cycle of planning and Hinting in- 
formation requirements. ThH Hliilud 
requirements become* the foundation 
mid authority for automotive ilutu 
processing equipment, projrrnm clum^o 
proposals, nnd funds in tho hiuhrnl Ln 
implement new systems. 

The Management Information Divi- 
sion, through use of tha annual Man- 
agement Information HyntoinH Plan 
and an improved invnntory of tlatu 
systems, subsystems, and aydtnmB com- 
ponents, will guide tho evolution of 
new systems within tho conijponontH 
of NMC in order to provide for Iho 
most optimum balance balwomi infor- 
mation to support ouch inniin^omonL 
level and costs associated with mich 
systems. 

Tho full benefits of tho NMC r- 
organissation of May 1, I960, havo not 
yet been realized nor havo all tho 
basic management phlloaophloa boon 
fulfilled. However, the goals nnd con- 
cepts have been formed and steady 
progress has been made. The ncuda of 
our operating forces shall bo motJ 



January 1967 




Addresses for officers listed below are: 

ASD: Aeronautical Systems Division 
Air Force Systems Command 
Wright- Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433 
Phone: (613) 263-7111 

BSD: Ballistic Systems Division 

Air Force Systems Command 
Norton AFB, Calif. 92409 
Phone: (714) 382-4207 

ESD: Electronic Systems Division 
Air Force Systems Command 
L. G. Hanscom Field, Mass. 01731 
Phone: (617) 274-6100 



BSD; 



129A 



140A 



226A 



311A 



S1SA 



SWA 



S19A 



Space Systems Division 
Air Force System Command 
Air Force Unit Post Office 
Los Angeles, Calif. 90045 
Phone: 643 plus extension 



Program No. 
and Title 



System Program Director 
and/or Project Officer 



AERONAUTICAL PROGRAMS 

FB-lll Maj. Gen. J. L. Zoeckler 

ASD 
Ext. 53268 

AGM-69A Col. Joseph Green 

(SRAM) ASD 

Ext, 55811 

AIM 7 D, E Mr. M. B. Rutstein 

(Sparrow) ASD 

Ext. 56281 

AGM-12C Lt. Col. William Monday 

(Bullpup B) ASD 

Ext. 62116 

AGM-45A Lt. Col. William Monday 

(Shrike) ASD 

Ext. 52115 

AGM-62A Lt. Col. William Monday 

(Walleye) ASD 

Ext. 62116 

AGM-68A Lt. Col. Ward E. Protsman 

(Maverick) ASD 

Ext. 54568 



Program No. 
and Title 

321A A.GM-12B 

(Bullpup A) 

324A/B F/RF-HIA 

(TFX) 

324K F-111K 



326 A/ F-4C 

327 A KF-4C 



3 37 A A-7 



400H/K HC-130H/ 

C-130IC 



4 10 A C-6A 



420A/B F-5A/B 



448Q TJH-1F (AF) 



463L Materials 
Handling 

470L C-141 



482A HH-53B 



486B CH-SC/HH-SE 



System Program Director 
and/or Project Officer 

Lt. Col. William Monday 
ASD 

Ext. 52115 

Maj. Gen. J. L. Zoeckler 

ASD 

Ext. 63268 

Maj. Gen. J. L. Zoecltler 

ASD 

Ext. 5326S 

Col. Charles CLemence 

ASD 

Ext. G4G57 

Col. J. D. Hails 

ASD 

Ext. G7809 

Mr. Kay Carlson 

ASD 

Ext. 64010 

Col. G. M. Townseml 

ASD 

Ext. 64801 

Col. Mark Treat 

ASD 

Ext. G335G 

(Vacant) 

ASD 

Ext. 65323 

Col. D. W. Ewing 

ASD 

Ext. 62793 

Col. D. W. E\vmg 

ASD 

Ext. 62793 

Lt. Col. F. L. Kosher 

ASD 

Ext. 62793 

Lt. Col. F. L. Mosher 

ASD 

Ext. 58480 



Defense Industry Bulletin 





Program No. System Program Director 


Program No. System Program 




and Title and/or Project Officer 


and Title and/or Project 




BALLISTIC PROGRAMS 484L 


Soft Talk Col. It, L. Bell 






ESD 


133A/R Minuteman Brig. Gen. A. W. Cruikshank 


Ext. 78-640 




BSD 






Ext, 6014 484N 


Pacific Area Col. G. B. Hilton 






Communications ESD 


G'2 1 A 


ABRES Brig. Gen. Kenneth W. Shultz 


System Ext. 78-680 




BSD 






Ext. 7068 48GL 


Mediterranean Col. G. B, Hilton 






Communication E SD 






System Ext. 78-080 




ELECTRONIC PROGRAMS 487L 


Survivable Low Col. J. T. Tyler 


407L 


Tactical Air Col. Spencer Hunn 
Control System ESD 


Frequency Com- ESD 
munications Ext. 78-783/4/5 




Ext. 75-4954 489L 


Northern Area Col. G. B. Hilton 


416M 


BUIC Col. F. L. Ayres 


Communications ESD 




ESD 


Ext, 78-080 




' x ' 490L 


DCS Automatic Col. G. U. Hilton 


418L 


Ryukyu Air Col. F. L. Ayres 


Switch Voice ESD 




Defense System ESD 


Ext. 78-080 




Ext. 4101 






491L 


AUTOSEVOCOM Col. R. L. Roll 


433L 


Weather Obs & Lt. Col. Robert L. Houghton 


ESD 




Forecast ESD 


Ext. 78-640 




Ext. 78-640 




436L 


North Atlantic Lt. Col. Joe Maher 492L 


US STRICOM Col. D. W. Howry 




Comm System ESD 


Command & KSD 




78-680 


Control System Ext. fi!J37 


439L 


Sea Coastal Col. G. B. Hilton 493L 


Secure Voice Col. R. L. Bell 




Cable System ESD 


SW Network ESD 




(Seedtree) Ext. 78-680 


Ext. 78-640 


440L 


Scatter OTH Col. Herbert Dotson A n A j 
Radar ESD 


ERGS Col. J. T. Tyler 




Ext. 2817 


ESD 






Ext. 78-783 


441A 


AN/FPS 95 Col. Herbert Dotson 






Radar ESD 4Q CL 


USAF G/A Col. R. U Boll 




Ext. 2817 


Program ESD 


468L 


European WB Col. G. B. Hilton 


Ext. 78-040 




Transmission ESD 4931, 
Media Improve- Ext. 78-680 


Space Track Col, Tom 0, Wour 

171 C1T1 




inent Program 


ESD 






Ext. 2078 


473L 


HQ USAF Col. R. L. Edge 






Command and ESD 


FRELOC- Mr. George MouHon 




Control System Ext. 5364 


FASTRACE ESD 


474L 


BMEWS Col. Tom 0. Wear 


Ext, 78-670 




ESD 497L 


Col. R. L. Bell 




Ext. 2678 


ESD 


474N 


SLBM Col. Tom 0. Wear 


Ext. 78-640 




ESD 






Ext. 2678 4 " L 


AI1 *S Col. L. G. Blais 


481A 


Airborne Data Lt. Col. Barker 
Automation ESD 


ASD 
Ext. 64804 




Ext. 85-4727 




482L 


Emergency Col. Spencer Hunn 
Mission Support ESD 1l(l vr 
MITRE " 


RECONNAISSANCE PROGRAMS 

RC-13GA Maj. Luther Jonoa 




Ext. 4954/4966 


ASD 



18 



119P 



428A 



466L 



G23A 



G24A 



1G1A 



102A 



107C 



110A 



1S1C 



201W 



202A 



208A 



221A 



Program No. 
and Title 

RC-135C 



TIPI 



ELCO 



System Program Director 
and/or Project Officer 

Lt. Col. Clyde Bensey 

ASD 

Ext. 63053 

Col. R. R. Frederick 

ASD 

Ext. 55116 

Col. H. P. Dotson, Jr. 

ESD 

Ext. 2817 



SPACE PROGRAMS 



Largo Solid Pro- 
pellent Motors 

Titan III 
Space Booster 



Col. Norman Kcefer 

SSD 

Ext. 31106 

Col. W. R. Talinferro 
SSD 

Ext. 30734 



OTHER PROGRAMS 



B~52 



B-68 



Titan II 



XB-70 



AGM-28/ 
TERCOM 



F-106 MOD 
10001 (MA-I 
AWCIS Solid 
State Computer) 

ASG-18/ 
AIM-47A 



AIM 4B, C, D 
(Falcon) 



AIM 9B, D 
(Sidewinder) 



303G F-104G (MAP) 



3 06 A F-105D/P 



Lt. Col. E. W. Geniesse 
ASD 

Ext. 55654 

Lt. Col. E. W. Geniesse 

ASD 

Ext. 55664 

Col. Quentin J. Goss 

BSD 

Ext. G804 

Mr. John P. McCollom 

ASD 

Ext. 52230 

Maj. W. S. Paul 

ASD 

Ext. BS604 

Mr. Dale Little 
ASD 

Ext. 54247 

Col. B. N. Bellis 

ASD 
Ext. 54784 

Mr. E. C. Rado 

ASD 

Ext. 53800 

Mr. M. B. Rutstein 

ASD 

Ext. 54556 

Maj. D. S. Kromer 

ASD 

Ext. 52326 

Lt. Col. F. L. Cunha 

ASD 

Ext. 55237 



332A 



334A 



420L 



424L 



430A 



478A 



479A 



G29A 



632A 



653A 



680A 



Program No. 
and Title 

AGM-76A 



YF-12 



T-38 



T-37B/C 



429L BQM-34A 



Interim TIPI 



VTOL Utll Trans 
(XC-142) 

Nike-Zeus 
Target 



628A Agena D 



Standard Atlas 



631B Gemini (GLV) 



MOL 



X-15 



START 



683A Vela Satellite 



SR71 



Scout 



System Program Direi 
and/or Project Offici 

Col. B. N. Bellis 

ASD 

Ext. 54734 

Col. B. N. Bellis 

ASD 

Ext. 64734 

Col. Mark Treat 

ASD 

Ext. 53356 

Lt. Danny R. Preble 
ASD 

Ext. 65068 

Mr. Ray Dearbaugh 

ASD 

Ext. 34800 

Maj. J. W. St. John 

ASD 

Ext. 53324 

Lt. Col. William Can- 
ASD 

Ext. 53641 

Col. J. A. Urban 
BSD 

Ext. 4029 

Lt. Col. Cecil E. Riddle 

SSD 

Ext. G43-2228 

Col. Leo W. Sullivan 

SSD 

Ext. 643-1032 

Col. Robert R. Hull 

SSD 

Ext. G43-03G6 

Col. William Brady 

SSD 

Ext. G43-0900 

Mr. Robert Clodfelter 

ASD 

Ext. 53805 

Col. Curtis L. Scoville 

SSD 

Ext. 32822 

Col. S. H. Sherrill 

SSD 

Ext. 643-3184 

Col. B, N. Bellis 
ASD 

Ext. 54734 

Lt Col. Joe D. Johnston 

SSD 

Ext. 643-0024 



tfl 

z 
o 



2 < 

u > 






a; 
O 



O 



I 
u 

m 

X 

t- 

u. 
O 

LLI 

U 




f^PiiffpI 



20 



Januory 



S M T W T F S 



Zfl 30 31 2fi ?7 9H 




SPEAKERS CALENDAR 






DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Lt. Gen. William P. Cassidy, Chief 
of Engineers, at Annual Meeting of 
Philadelphia Post, Society of Ameri- 
mn Military Engineers, Philadelphia, 
PH., Jan. 25. 



iR. Gen. Harry G. Woodbury, Dep. 
\Jn: r Civil Works, Office of the Chief 
M Engineers, at Nebraska Watershed 
Workshop, University of Nebraska, 
Lincoln, Neb., Jan. 25. 
^ Gen. Harold K. Johnson, Chief of 
r^J' * University of Arkansas 
liLHG Commissioning Exercise, Fay- 
ittevillt;. Ark., Jan. 29. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

Cnpt. L. II. Mclson, Asst. Chief for 
Research, Office of Naval Research, 
it Naval Academy Assn. Meeting. 
few York, N.Y., Feb. 21. 

Aclm. David L. McDonald, Chief of 
*Jval Operations, at Naval Academy 



Assn. Meeting, New York, N.Y., 
March 17. 



DEPARTMENT OF THE 
AIR FORCE 

Brig. Gen. J. S. Bleymaicr, Com- 
mander, Air Force Western Test 
Range, at University of Southern Cali- 
fornia, Los Angeles, Calif., Jan. 27; at 
R. M. Greene & Associates, Los 
Angeles, Calif., Feb. 5; at American 
Society for Quality Control Meeting, 
Vandenberg AFB, Calif., April 27, 

Gen. J. P. McConnell, Chief of Staff, 
at 2fith Anniversary of Griffiss AFB, 
N.Y., Feb. 1; at Air Force Ball, Now 
York, N.Y., Feb. 21; at Air Force 
Assn. Meeting, San Francisco, Calif., 
March 15-17; at 25th Anniversary of 
Tinker AFB, Okla., April 28. 

Brig. Gen. P. R. Stoncy, Vice Com- 
mander, Air Force Communications 
Service, at Armed Forces Communi- 
cations and Electronic Assn. Meeting, 



Feb. 3; at Collins Radio Technical 
Assn. Meeting, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 
April 11; at Armed Forces Communi- 
cations and Electronic Assn. Meeting, 
Maxwell AFB, Ala., April 18. 

Hon. Harold Brown, Secretary oi 
the Air Force, at Air Force Ball, New 
York, NY., Feb. 21; Air Force 
Assn. Meeting 1 , San Francisco, Calif., 
March 15-17. 

Lt. Gen. R. L. Bohannon, Surgeon 
General of the Air Force, at Air Force 
Ball, New York, N.Y., Feb. 21, 

Maj. Gen. R, W. Manas, Judge Advo- 
cate General, at Student Bar Assn. 
Meeting, St. Louis, Mo., Feb. 23. 

Gen. B. K. Holloway, Vice Chief oi 
Staff, at Society of USAF Flight Sur- 
geons Meeting, Washington, D.C., 
April 13. 

Lt. Gen. T. P. Gcrrtty, Dep. Chief of 

Staff, Systems & Logistics, at Na- 
tional Society of American Value 
Engineers Meeting, Chicago, 111., April 
25. 



Contracts Awarded by Air Force 
for VTOL Flight Control System 



The Air Force has awarded con- 
I'acta totaling more than $6 million to 
forth American Aviation, Inc., Los 
Angeles, Calif., and Lqckheod-Gcorgia 
Jo., Marietta, Ga., as part of an over- 
11 vortical takeoff and landing 
VTOL) integrated flight control pro- 
rmn designed to advance technology 
i Air Force VTOL aircraft develop- 
icnt, 

The contracts were awarded by the 
uir Force Flight Dynamics Labora- 
ny, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, a 
nit of the Air Force Systems Com- 
mnd's Research and Technology 
Kvislon. 

North American Aviation was 
warded $5,671,000 in a contract call- 
\K for the development and demon- 
nation of a VTOL integrated flight 
system. Work covered in the contract, 
to be performed over a 39-month 
period, includes advanced development 
of a total integrated flight control 
technology, including equipment, and 
the conducting of flight tests necessary 
to verify the technology, 

A letter contract for $975,000 was 
awarded to Lockheed-Georgia for 
modifications of the XV-4A "Hum- 
Defense Industry Bulletin 



mingbii-d" VTOL aircraft to a new 
type system with direct lift and di- 
verted thrust jet engines. The aircraft 
will he redesignated the XV-4B. 

Work oh the XV-4 modification 
project is scheduled to begin immedi- 
ately with the first flight of the air- 
craft set for late 1967. After a five- 
month test program by Lockheed and 
acceptance by the Air Force, the air- 
craft will be delivered to North Amer- 
ican for employment in an intensive 
research and development program to 
develop and demonstrate handling 
qualities and control design criteria 
for VTOL aircraft. 

The VTOL flight control program, 
including extensive simulation and 

flight tests by the Flight Dynamics 
Laboratory, is a link in the research 
and development program aimed to- 
ward eventual deployment of VTOL 
and V/STOL (Vertical and Short 
Takeoff and Landing) aircraft. 

The program is under the direction 
of the Flight Dynamics Laboratory's 
V/TOL Technology Division, and is 
headed by Richard E, ColelouRh, Dep- 
uty for Development and Integration. 



Air Force Increases 
Reserve AME Units 

The Continental Air Command 
(GAG) has announced an increase of 
Air Force Reserve Aeromedical Evac- 
uation (AME) units from 11 to 24 
effective Jan. 1, 1967. 

The increase is part of a major re- 
organisation of the Air Force Reserve 
AMR structure which involves the ac- 
tivation of 16 flights and the inactiva- 
tion of three groups and two squad- 
rons; nine other existing units will 
be reorganized. All 24 AME units will 
be assigned to Air Force Reserve 
Military Airlift Groups, and most will 
be collocated with their parent group. 

Reorganization will provide the 
Military Airlift Command (MAG) 
with an expanded capability to per- 
form its world-wide acromedical evac- 
uation of the ill and wounded through 
selective callup of trained Air Force 
Reserve AME units. 

In peacetime, Air Force Reserve 
AME units will train on regular MAC 
routes. The forthcoming increase in 
Air Force Reserve AME locations will 
expand CAC's capability to provide the 
Reserve portion of the total MAC re- 
quirement in the event of a pro- 
longed national emergency. 



21 



W f 

SSS 



SJ^^! 

iss; 



a. 
u 





x 



$3 



-(V 

5 B 



J"! t- 






O 





o 

UJ 

X 



<s 

U ti 

J 



CO 
IDi 



8 H 



S, 



K S 
2 [ 






? 

II 



* i 





I 



ass 



January 1967 



Q 
Z 



S 

o 

u 



of 



O u 

- j 



< 
o 

a: 
O 



of 

UJ 

H 
DC: 

D 

O 

Q 

u 

X 



i|| , 

_ 33ll 

83u" 
-ti : 

93 3 



i i 



P ;j 

s S' 



i 

" ^ 

j K 

ft-, i 
ill 

Si i 

iM 
i 5 



i I 



I i 1 



433 Ss-i nOrl Si--: 5,, !i 

3 ^ H a|So -gtUaSsgss a 

i K " " t. 9 3 





i i 



3 . 




M 

P 
'K 



J l 



i M sj si 



i! 

C a ? 






lid 



11 

il 



i M 



3 S 



a I 



* 1 s 11* I 83!= S. e e 3, 



23 



Address by Maj. Gen. Walter E. 
Lotz Jr., Chief of Communications- 
Electronics, Office of the Chief of 
Staff, U. S. Army, to the Washington 
Chapter, Armed forces Communica- 
tions and Electronics Assn., Washing- 
ton, D.C., Dec. 1, i960. 




Mnj. Gen. Walter E. Lotz Jr., USA 

COMMUNICATIONS IN A 

COUNTERINSURGENCY 

ENVIRONMENT 

I have been on tho job here for 00 
clays and I can state that the Array's 
communications-electronics challenge 
and potential from a soldier's, engi- 
neer's, scientist's, or industrialist's 
viewpoint have never been greater, 

The tremendous awareness and 
interest of the role and significance 
of communications-electronics on the 
part of tho Chief of Staff and the 
Secretary of tho Army, and their per- 
sonal support, make it eminently clear 
that I have a real job ahead of me to 
live up to their demands and expecta- 
tions, In this regard, both the Army 
and myself will need your continuing 
help and support. 

It is inevitable that people return- 
ing from Vietnam appear to be pre- 
occupied with, if not just plain in- 
sistent on, talking about the situation 
there and how it affected their jobs. 



Brace yourselves because I am no ex- 
ception. I will describe the communi- 
cations situation in Vietnam both 
from the context of the unique charac- 
teristics of operations and communica- 
tions, and from what we might do to 
better prepare for counterinsurgency 
in other underdeveloped countries. 

It is painful to admit, but let us 
face it, too often our communications 
concepts, doctrine, and even systems, 
have a way of reflecting the situation 
which occurred in tho last previous 
major conflict or war. When you 
couple this normal bias with the long 
lead-time for development of require- 
ments, the conduct of research and de- 
velopment, and the acquisition and 
installation of communications-elec- 
tronics hardware in the field, it is ap- 
parent why we have so much "un- 
doing" to go through as well as 
"doing." 

Some of our most cherished ideas 
and concepts of communications- 
electronics were jolted in Vietnam. 

Ono of these was our well estab- 
lished concept of differentiating be- 
tween strategic and tactical communi- 
cations; another was the viewpoint 
that each of our Military Services had 
to own or have organic to their com- 
mand the communications which 
served their command and control, 
operational, and supporting activities. 
Finally, the view that the military 
communicator would fulfill only the 
military needs, and somebody else 
would look after the communications 
needs of the civilian government, com- 
mercial and industrial organizations, 
the population, and tho press was de- 
stroyed. I might add here, as a side- 
light, that experience in South Amer- 
ica jibes with these lessons learned in 
Vietnam. 

War in Vietnam is being fought, as 
most counterinsurgency actions are 
today, in a truly underdeveloped 
country. From the communicators' 
viewpoint, there are no developed 
telecommunications or telephone sys- 
tems of the type to which we are 
accustomed serving governmental and 
commercial needs. Little use is made 
of cable and wire, outside of the popu- 



lated and protected areas, because 
wire lines and cables can be and 
have been cut by the guerrilla 
forces. In the war in Europe, and 
even in Korea, our military forces 
were able to reconstruct and utilize 
buried cables along with other rem- 
nants of the communications infra- 
structure. This is not possible in 
Vietnam. In Vietnam, the U. S. mili- 
tary has had to build a main-line tele- 
phone and telegraph trunking system 
with local distribution, virtually from 
scratch. 

In the conventional concept of mili- 
tary communications, we visualize a 
front of operations with communica- 
tion circuits radiating from headquar- 
ters, bases and depots in secure rear 
areas to combat units on the front 
lines. 

In this concept, headquarters dis- 
place to maintain control of the com- 
bat elements as the tide of war prog- 
resses. In ground combat operations 
in the Republic of Vietnam there is 
no classical front or rear, nor any 
totally secure area. Combat is con- 
ducted from time to time in all parts 
of the country. There are no sanctu- 
aries free from the activities of the 
Viet Cong and no communication in- 
stallation is free from the threat of 
attack. Nor in this war do we sec the 
displacement of major headquarters. 
Large headquarters, airfields, supply 
depots and base camps of major units 
remain in fixed localities. Thus the 
long-haul communications system link- 
ing the major terminal points is geo- 
graphically fixed; it remains static 
and need not have the capability of 
moving 1 periodically. From time to 
time, brigades, battalions and smaller 
units move out from their base camps 
to conduct search-and-destroy mis- 
sions. To accommodate this, the fixed 
communications system is extended by 
mobile tactical equipment, which pro- 
vide what are called "tactical taila," 
connecting the combat units to the 
fixed communication system. 

The fixed long-haul communications 
network in Southeast Asia including 
Thailand, designated the Integrated 
Wideband Communications System 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



25 



(1WCS), is a distinct departure from 
conventional communications systems. 
I,ft us examine why. 

First, while the U. S, ground com- 
bat troop complement in Vietnam cor- 
ro>pomts generally to a field army, 
thin army is dispersed over a territory 
70CI miles long and varying in width 
from 40 to 100 miles, Conventional 
military planning provides a field 
army communications system that 
covers an area about 200 by 180 miles, 
Second, in conventional military 
planning, we visualize a strategic com- 
munications system which extends our 
world-wide communications into com- 
bat theaters as far forward as the 
headquarters of field armies. In Viet- 
nam, the HVCS, which is integrated 
with the world-wide system, extends 
to divisions, brigades and even smaller 
units. Therefore, it is both strategic 
and tactical. The significance of this 
point is more than just conceptual. 
Our strategic communications equip- 
ments are engineered to fixed plant 
commercial standards, while our tac- 
tical systems have been designed 
around engineering: parameters which 
most convenient for employing 
mobile equipments providing 



are 
highly 

relatively few circuits per path. 
_ In the conventional system we can 
interface the strategic and tactical 
systems at a single entry point at the 
headquarters of a fle]d amv md 
he-fore, tolerate the introduction of 
"to. face ecnnpmentso that the stra - 



In addition, the government of 
South Vietnam mimt look luridly In 
the U. S, forces for dnlinilrd cirruil !i 
for air traffic control, public iciiVly, 
radio broadcast.! ri)V. niilmmf mieni 
tions and many similar ai'livihVs mid 
for comnion-UKfM 1 , Itnig-lincM IcN-plnnir 
service. You can KCC, Ilicn, thai 
TWOS is a eomliinaUmi uf n nn'M 
command control ny;;li'iii mul u 
AT&T loiig-linr.s nynlcrii for Sun! 
Vietnam, In vw\v of (hi:t, I am ;;<ir 
that you can iniaj|irir> the wide vjinH 
of terminal equipim-iil'i wlifcli nn 
intercoimectnd hy thin uy.'di'in. 

This miHliiry-(>ntfil>linl'd, !>. lim-; 
system in significant in <ifcn nnd i; 
still growing. Tim hndthnnc, m- prJ 
inary trunking linlc.4, lutn.llr n-t many 
as 240 voice chaniwlH. Thr | u (,,] , 
ber of terminaMo-tei-mitnil ciivui|.; in 

the IWCS will rvpiilmilly rx,- | / ti Of). 

The estnWtolimmil of mieh a ;; ,v,i|n lh 
requires moro Umn eMnineorfn,.; , 
curement and liml-nJIiil.fdr,. Ahmml nil 
the circuit pnthn li-nvi-nii" IMIMIMV 
controlled lorritmy. |(,.l liy , lUt , it , IM(| 
interconnect points lonntnl mil>i!t|.> 1( f 
secure base- area,. , m mt flrnl I,,. m - ni . 



<-. 



i,, 



' ....... 




Hi,,-,,,, 



, (i . 

l 



attack anil wlmln^. Thl. | l( i,i 
dictated thathf ff l,. C a, m( . lty(ln ( ,. f( ,. 
tor nystoWB mnnt | w lll(l . 
eqnipmant in the ,> lt ,Ubone 
As a confioquonco, w ln m . (|ll irlrlv 
"d with great ..(Tort and ,> J( , . 
Pt mto oing a hfchly ,;!!;,. 

of trommttor flmi rn , 
that 



:it " " f 



Hi, 



, , 



,=T, -;;:, 

.'.'..r *'"' 



ll(l "ininHim- 

or wsourcoH of H|(|||,| (l|)|(m ,^ 
mamtonmicn pomnuiH. 

cost IR neroMuni-ir ;y lb , 

n \vii nri* in 



, 

1 ' 

' "' 



i ; Ml ' ilifv 

' "; r T l 

Will hi 



'""' 



iSpiil 

V-H^tC^lni QJ COU]*^P "FiTl* J-l 

y 1*G ClGllInvo/l -f 






Primary, poinlto- S U1 ' Cca ' Wo 
^system meeting ?"',??" 



except 

ai- 
. 

Furthermore, the 



against 



exist in 

i 

involvi 



dDj.^i *' l "HILHllnJ "Ilillt*)* tfrlt'iit'iiiit.ii.f . 

titntoa and tlm fi'. mini-iii. tir itunititu'cl 

ocial unroot and iitmi.. HJ *" 1 "" 1 '' Vi.'imnit uml tl || H . r ,, 

in t>i.. ._ . IIHIH Ciuinli'J.tj ., i.t >. 



. 
' 



" 



hy 



'MH-|| 

J - s, Agencv fnv T ( ""**' ""S^ffGmonts i '"** ' 1 *'"" niitl MI 

.,, i/eveiopnient. and th Q ?r n" nam ( ' Ul 'nig thp IOK^ , ' "' "' (! t-- at (hn 

fnfprrnation Agency !* ;. S< *"*. It exits i! n l Ii)fi " ' If 
rth " v, i' 1 y seen tine* trt/intv . I!1 othoi* ^^11^1,,? 

, YiVA^v^k^.^. . ft WJUtlv m^rl _ i -'Hi* v.UU II I rlfiu I 

J J *QTU"nQ "Pm * j. "^^njfj U.J1([ COUlfl Tin 4.1 """tJ K'H jii 

Ira w governmeTl" -tt^^ ' 8 f ^^""Hy 1 !^""^ Tl 

The 11GS< 



(| . 
lull- 



Ui.t murt l 



both simple and portable, using- en- 
tirely voice operation. 

In counterinsurgency operations, 
;his village anil hamlet radio network 
nay or may not he the responsibility 
>f military forces. 

Some of you may be familiar with 
;hc networks in Vietnam. If S o, you 
mow that our U. S. Agency for 
nterimtional Development, and not 
he Defense Department, provides this 
ystom. You may also know that this 
.etwork is neither operated nor main- 
ained by the Armed Forces. 
_ Here is an area where the poten- 
ial of our great American electronic 
achnology has not yet been brought 
> bear fully on the problem. More 
fTective and more adequate radio sets 
in he designed and produced in largo 
Liuntities to assist in the underde- 
Jloped countries. I throw this prob- 
m to you as a specific challenge. 
Next, insurgency thrives best within 
ie rural localities where the citizen 
out of contact with his government, 
i fact, in Vietnam until recent 
iars the average rice farmer and 
iherman were not too keenly aware 
, or interested in, the central gov- 
nment. Newspapers, motion pictures 
id radio broadcasts wore not n sig- 
flcant part of their lives. They were 
Tiost out of touch with the govern- 
int. We, in fully developed dome- 
stic nations, know well that the ro- 
onsivoness of the government to the 
nds of the populace depends upon 
:fve participation in the govern- 
nt'B processes. This requires mass 
nmunications media from the gov- 
iment to the people. In Vietnam 
lio broadcasting, newspapers, leaf- 
is and other media have been de- 
oped and are being used ; however, 
a year a new medium was intro- 
:od with initial results that exceed 
expectations, 

"ho Defense Department, the State 
aai-tmont, the Agency for Interna- 
ml Development, and the U. S. In- 
matlon Agency, in a joint effort, 
iated television broadcasting in the 
a. immediately surrounding Saigon 
Feb. 7, 1966. Initially, the broad- 
; originated from U. S. Navy Con- 
tatlon aircraft equipped to trans- 

on two channels simultaneously 
n program material prepared in 
ance on video tape and 16mm 
(scope films. Standard American 
mercial receivers were procured 
distributed. Since then the system 
been improved. About six weeks 



ago, on Oct. 25, a permanently in- 
stalled high-power television facility 
commenced operation in the Saigon 
area. In addition, eight mobile trailer- 
mounted vehicles for the U. S. Armed 
Forces will be in operation to cover 
areas in the southern delta, northward 
along the coast, and in the central 
highlands. The U. S. Government will 
assist the government of Vietnam in 
building three additional stations to 
be located at Can Tho, Qui Nhon, and 
Da Nang or Hue. 

The fundamental aim of this U. S.- 
assisted program is to "reach the 
Vietnamese people." Programs to 
bring the isolated people into the gov- 
ernmental family are of no use unless 
the program in understood. Without a 
means of quickly communicating with 
the multiplicity of hamlets und vil- 
lages that exist, the government must 
either resort to roving teams of in- 
structors or abandon the areas to the 
control of others. 

The introduction of television into 
Vietnam was a bold step. Lessons 
learned there will bo most valuable in 
approaching this again in other parts 
of the world. 

First, what are some of the ad- 
vantages of this step; secondly, what 
arts the payoffs; and, last, what are 
.some of the typical problems faced 
when introducing the latest form of 
mass audio-visual communications into 
underdeveloped areas? 

The Vietnamese are people with a 
high sense of tradition and a diverse 
culture which employs the dramatic 
arts extensively. TV as a vehicle to 
provide classical Vietnamese plays, 
dramas and operas in their native 
language was a natural. The problem 
of illiteracy was overcome in that the 
people did not need to read to under- 
stand the message being- put across. 
Tho times for television broadcasting 
were selected so that the working peo- 
ple would bo reached in their homos 
during the early evening hours. Pro- 
gram material included news, educa- 
tional programs and entertainment. 

The introduction of TV was some- 
thing that the entire Vietnamese 
family could enjoy. Their social struc- 
ture, which, of course, is Oriental in 
nature, depends upon the close ties of 
the family and its maintenance of cul- 
ture, pride and desire for freedom. 
TV can capitalize on these basic levels, 
motivations and social orders. 

It can be tentatively concluded that 
TV may be introduced in an underde- 



anse Industry Bulletin 



veloped country with a high ex- 
pectancy of success. Its value as a 
means of educating, informing and 
entertaining the people in remote 
areas can only be limited by your 
imagination. It could be a powerful 
tool for stabilising governments dur- 
ing periods of social readjustment. 

Such an experiment in Vietnam 
was not without problems. It is here 
that the greatest challenge to Ameri- 
can ingenuity and industry is pre- 
sented. 

The standard commercial receivers 
are too complex for an uneducated 
individual in rural locations to op- 
erate, much less repair or maintain. 
The associated problem of antennas 
in fringe areas, the delicate tuning of 
channels, adjustment of the picture 
tube, fragility, and English -language 
markings all added difficulties at the 
outset. I am sure that there are solu- 
tions to all these problems. I visualize 
that a need exists for a mass-produced 
set, marked with the indigenous lan- 
guage of the people for whom it is 
intended, with simplified channel tun- 
ing, rugpdized, designed for battery 
or multiple frequency and voltage 
operation, anil provided with more 
powerful audio amplifiers (say 2E 
watt) to accommodate outside speak- 
ers for community viewing, Another 
problem exists in the area of training 
indigenous technicians, engineering 
and studio personnel. The lack of a 
broad technological base in many 
countries inhibits the training of per- 
sonnel to the U. S. standards of tech- 
nical proficiency, 

WP. have already witnessed the 
dramatic introduction of this medium 
of mass communication into Vietnam, 
We recognize its potential as an aid 
in countering communist-inspired In- 
surgency operations a capability to 
quickly and expertly apply production 
and technical Itnow-how in serving tho 
needs of other countries, 

Hero is a new dimension of commu- 
nications-electronics to help win the 
wars of insurgency and, more im- 
portant, to help sustain peaceful 
social, political and economic develop- 
ment, 

The lessons we are learning in 
Vietnam are significant in planning 
our future course in communkations- 
electronics. 

We have learned that our conven- 
tional concepts of military communi- 
cations systems must be extensively 
altered in wars of counter insurgency. 



Hrwvcr. the great American know- 
ri'V.v in <'k'< i tronics equipment .md mass 
fin'ihinimi h;is responded magnifi- 
r.-ntly t'> the Miviromncnt in South- 
><;\-.t APKI. V.'r- must now capitalize on 
ihh tn i iji' i ii<l<>iis American resource in 
firinjriiig poace to the world and main- 
taining it. 

This jri iin opportunity and a chal- 
!<TiK'' \vJucli all of us welcome I am 



Ailttrfw by RAdm, J. D. Arnold, 
l. r S\\ f>ri>. Chief of Naval Material 
(Lorn'itic Siii/port) at Ninth Annual 
X<iiy-in<lu.-itry Conference on Mate- 
rial He liability, Washington, D.C., 

OC.L !>>;, isdfi. 




HAdm. J. D. Arnold, USN 

Systems Effectiveness 
and Combat Readiness 



If our fighting fleet is to have the 
stamina which marks the champion, 
considerations of logistics support 
and human factors engineering must 
be far more closely combined with 
engineering considerations than has 
usually been the case in the past. 

One of Mahan's axioms is that 
effectiveness in battle depends in largo 
part on proper logistics support. 
Every sailor knows instinctively that 
you can fight only as long as tho 
essential material is on hand. "Essen- 
tial material" means mainly "Bullets, 
Beans, and Black Oil." It also means 
"gear that works," 

Before the war I served as senior 
flight test pilot in Hawaii. One old 
chief petty officer who worked with 
me said something I will always re- 
member. He pretty well combined 
Mahan's thought with the basic con- 
cepts of systems effectiveness. He 
was talking about the R-1820 engine, 
which was one of the moat powerful 
aircraft engines the Navy had in 
those days. "I like those engines" 
he said. "They don't break, and when 
they do they are easy to fix." 

I'm afraid that if the Chief wore 
still with us he would have a few 
other things to say. When I left tho 
Pacific Fleet in September, I carried 
away the conviction that too many of 
our basic tools of sea power do broak, 
and break too often, and when they 
break they arc too hard to fix In 
today's language they lack reliability ar ' 
and maintainability. 

Let's deal in specifics; survival 
radios, for example. 

Th ese are the miniature radios 
Pilots use to call for help i,, survival 
situates. They are the most i.n- 



Tim Navy JIUH !ip OI] 



Improving the effectiveness of war- 
faro systems is probably the most 

srs .- rr=isri5 r 5 

the last hope of a man who may die 
orj* captured if his radio doesn't 

I happ ened to be inspecting the 
section at North Island when 



ness o 

the fleet today. So individuals in 
industry and the Navy are a 
basically working toward the same 
goal: a more effective fleet 

After a continued attack over the 
t several years, the efforts of s 
terns effectiveness engineers 
the country are , cumulatively, 

n^ the evels of systems 
fleet require* 



w 

a shipment of these little radios 
nved. Because I know that there 
*""* - too many 



worthwhile 






copter sonars. 
operating 1 anU 

for moro than a tlcnulr. You 
think that liy now wn would hji ve 
waterproof, fl<!xihl rnblr for lower- 
ing the .sonar from the- hchVnptrr jm,, 
the water. Woll, tht* raliln i'ji Il( i \ili](i_ 
Nanio a radio or an nvionirji |uii:]{. 
age, and I'll tin mn n nyutt>n\ that 
doesn't pc'H'orm IJH it should. 

Small nyfitiMiui im'ii't tin* only 
troublesome OMOH. 1 HIH ulmul t nt\m\\ 
a Tew airnlanos, hut I wnnl, f[ \<> |, c 
undorntooil that I urn not critic 
the airphun! nmmifarturiT, or at 
not him alone. Our pirnliliniiii, gen- 
erally, arn in tint black hojicn which 
rid(> in.sidi! tint airplani'ii. Tin- MH^IIUM 
in the airphmr.s, Lin; nn'i'luuiN-nl ninl 
hydraulic HystnniH, the- pljuuvi (linn- 
solves am Hiipni'l) pr-rNhichi of Uii> 
American ahvrafl. Imhiulry. n'n (| lo 
gadgets liiHfd( rudaru and oiln>r I-|I T - 
tvonic Hynt<miH that CHINU* (he ironliln, 
Most of you Itimw that tin* K I!A 
early wurninjf nhvnifi, (hi- A li ut- 
tack plain- ami t)n> KA fif! ,-rcun. 
naissanco aircraft luul NOVITI- )'i-linhIIN 
ty prohlcnm when thny Unit en 
Hervico. Thn mcai] Hum ]u>l,vv(>(-n 
ure of thoir primury jM-n-un-n, 
link.s, (!(>iiipiit((t'.N anil ruiliirii 
niHUHin-ci] En inimilnn. Them' pi 
wm-0 bought l.y tho Navy (u 1.,. 
fineHt and most advamccd niarlifm 
their lyp H in (,(- W0 rhl. An, I 

pact of Llii' 1ii,,.-. ' 
nay Mint HiHr pi-r- 
11 'Iciit; hiLH hnprttvH 
Lcr ttuni H W ii!* only 
montliK ajfo. AfhT dTff ninju)- 

. Ann , - - '" ">" A Ct ami 

1,400 minor OIKKI, with nil HIM) ili,,< 
chniiffBH imply about rmdlKurutton 
control and HpiiroH mippin-i, || tl > (Irt'l 

they fh-Ht rocoivcHl th plan'r...'"^."' "in 
general, poi-Joj-manco Iti N.,rv|r t . ,, x . 

-i niCU, Nllptil'IOV WOflpdllM. 

Butonch of Ihown plan..,,. ,;, 
other Oral line ah-craft (h,a, 
Jhmk of, ndiinvnH thc , ne . ( ,, 
formance^at tho pri,-,. o f an 

At on 
Ron tract ^miii.i imu u . nj 



Wflh 



full- I 



but only 
I'm ff lnil to 
rormancn ( U 



ft 



, Vl , 

, H 
. 

v, 

' 



The real point is that overall ef- 
-' fectivenoss of these planes was de- 
graded and their battle readiness re- 
duced because a disciplined approach 
to systems effectiveness was not ap- 
plied to them early enough or strongly 
enough, 

I do not want to seem excessively 
critical, and it is true that the Navy- 
industry team generally produces 
quality systems. But most of these 
systems perform well only because 
the most limited resource the Navy 
has, sailor-hours, or more precisely, 
perhaps, maintenance talent and time, 
are lavished upon them. 

A number of life cycle cost studies 
recently showed that maintenance and 
operational costs throughout the life 
of a typical system ran from six 
to 70 times the original cost of 
the item. Two-thirds of the mainte- 
nance costs were for technical talent 
brainpower. Maintainability and re- 
pairability are certainly areas of sys- 
tems effectiveness which must be 
brought under control promptly. 

As an example of what I'm driving 
at, two A-4's that we know about 
were lost because of faulty design for 
maintainability. In each case, a main- 
tenance man had dropped a nut into 
the fuel cell. Why? 

Installation of a fuel pump on 
an A-4C requires removal of the 
engine a 16-manhour job. It then 
takes two men four hours to remove 
the fuel pump. The last nut is re- 
moved by use of a special tool and 
by feel. 

In spite of warnings following loss 
of the first aircraft, a -second was 
lost a month later for the same 
reason. Those of us who are con- 
corned about maintenance wish some 
maintenance engineer had looked at 
tins installation early in the game. 
The A.-4 is an execeptionally well de- 
signed and reliable machine, but a 
revised installation method or a screen 
ovor the fuel pump inlet might have 
saved two at least two A-4's. 



I wish maintenance didn't require 
so many special tools. A mechanic on 
n carrier is always working in close 
quarters, aircraft are packed tightly 
together, lighting is barely adequate, 
and the special equipment is usually 
at the other end of the hangar bay. 
Pressure to get the planes back into 
the air is always present. As a result, 
a certain number of nuts are going 
to be dropped. But no more, I hope, 
into fuel pumps. 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



All of us here today are managers 
of one sort or another, and it is the 
business of managers to deal with ex- 
ceptional situations, to be concerned 
with problems, to correct difficulties 
and to set things right. If we did not 
believe that there is much to be set 
right, we wouldn't be here. And we 
might as well recognize, collectively, 
that it is upon this group, and very 
few others like it, that the ultimate 
responsibility rests for delivering- to 
the operating forces of the Navy and 
the Marine Corps the effective sys- 
tems they need. There is challenge 
a plenty for all who manage technical 
warfare systems. 

One of the principal mechanisms 
which binds managers together in the 
business of creating weapon systems 
is the contract. Well-engineered sys- 
tems (those which don't break and 
are easy to fix when they do) result, 
in part, from a firm meeting of the 
minds between the 'Navy and industry, 
between buyer and seller. 

A contract is a legally enforceable 
agreement, and it is a good bit more. 
Members of the Navy-industry team 
have varying points of viewcomple- 
mentary and interdependent points of 
view, differing but not necessarily 
conflicting perspectiveson the real 
meaning of a contract. 

Considering a contract not only as 
an agreement, but also as a vehicle 
for increasing say, systems effective- 
ness, let us examine three separate 
points of view: those of the project 
engineer, the contracting officer, and 
the businessman. 

A good many of the project engi- 
neers I have known tend to think of 
a development or production contract 
as an administrative tool ; a tool 
which helps get done what they want 
done. The basic concern of the en- 
gineer focuses on the technical excel- 
lence of the end product. To him 
costs and enforceable agreements are 
important, but I think that primarily 
most project engineers regard a con- 
tract as one more milestone on the 
long road linking concept formulation 
with successful deployment, at sea, of 
the final product. 

I won't try to describe the view- 
point of the "typical businessman," 
if there is such a soul, except to say 
that I have heard many successful 
bidders talk of their contracts as be- 
ing filled simultaneously with promise 
and with peril, with certainty and 



with risk, and with obligation as well 
as opportunity. 

The contracting officers take still 
a different perspective. Some, the 
minority, feel tliat contracting is 
simply a straightforward legal func- 
tion, ^ completely separate from the 
technical characteristics of the items 
contracted for. This type of contract- 
ing officer says, "Write down your 
technical requirements, forward them 
with a procurement request, and I will 
prepare a legal contract." To him 
systems effectiveness is a legal result 
of including standard military specifi- 
cations in the contract. 

A more imaginative officer would 
talk a broader view. He might say to 
the project engineer, "I'll tell you how 
to get more bang for your buck, more 
rubble for your ruble. "We will work 
together during the development 
period. We'll work up a first-rate ad- 
vance procurement plan. I'll show you 
how you can design 'procurability' in- 
to your system." 

This fellow recognized the value of 
planning, during the development 
process, for eventual procurement. He 
will probably attempt to plan well 
enough so the item can be procured 
through a fixed-priced contract. He 
may work out a multi-year buy, or 
some other type of imaginative ap- 
proach. 

t Still a third contracting officer 
might take an even wider perspective 
on fiia ability to influence the ef- 
fectiveness of the system to be con- 
tracted for. "Write your specifications 
in such a way that we cnn offer in- 
centives: payment for better perform- 
ance, higher reliability, superior main- 
tainability," he will urge. 

This individual is really talking 
about Incentive contracting which has 
only begun to be exploited as a 
mechanism for rewarding businessmen 
who produce systems of superior 
effectiveness. 

More and more in the near-term 
future, the most astute contracting 
officers will lean toward incentive con- 
tracting where this form of contract 
makes sense. But they can do this 
only as readily as the engineers help 
them design and pin down, with audit 
accuracy, the value to the Government 
of increased systems effectiveness. 

I positively foresee that the con- 
tracting pendulum will swing toward 
more incentive contracts during the 
next few years. To an increasing de- 



29 



<:r> - in tli>> futinv, ini'f-ntivp contracts 

u'iii r'-uard or j)<;jialize these who 

'iiM or don't huild effect iv<; systems. 

Tt,<-iv i,-: no question in my mind 

tfi/it th>' main improvements in ef- 

f'vmvn* 1 ?! in (lie near-term future 

v/ilJ rf-ult fnmi increased emphasis 

(i! itH.~ntivi> contracting. Every sign 

]> lint.-; that way. 

In the last four years, cost-plus- 
iru'.-ntiv<:-fef.' (CPIF) contracts, as a 
penvr-ntai-e of DOD contract dollars, 
hiivt- doubled. This year about one 
procuri'mc-nt <lo!lar in twelve will 
-.'hang,' hands under a CPIF contract. 
During the same period of time, the 
value of fixed-price-incentive (FPI) 
contracts has increased by one-third. 
Thte year, one DOD purchase dollar 
in MX will he awarded on a PPI 
Contract. 

At this moment almost ?800 million 
is being offered in incentives for su- 
pr-rior contractor performance in the 
nhiphuilding program. Some 46 ships 
art? involved. One of the principal in- 
c<-ntiv,- features is that standardiza- 
tion of equipment within the ships 
pumps, valves, motors and the like 
i-S for the first time, a goal to be 
nought by the contractor and rewarded 
by the Government. This can be done 
krau.-'f! a number of skilled people for 
tho Naval Ship Systems Command 
proved positively that the Government 
would receive more than ?800 million 
worth of value if the pumps and 
valves were similar, not different. 

Multiple incentives in contracting 
are relatively new, hut will become 
more and more common during the 
next few year,. Incentives for cost, 
schedule and performance improve- 
ments are likely to be offered when- 
ever the Government can measure 
^ L?^! nflble y. the worth 



trade-offs between the various ele- 
ments of life cycle costs, and 
to fundamental questions of cost 
effectiveness. 

This area is full of pitfalls. What 
is the true value of standardization, 
improved safety levels, improved crew 
member efficiency? How do you 
handle change orders without jeopar- 
dizing; the contractor's opportunity 
for reward? 



How much value do you jilnec o 
meeting; major milratoni'H, nrnl ho- 
much on mucthiK' flu- final Hi']jvr 
schedule? All thoKo and nmny ollio 
questions havo to IK- immvitrtul, HQ 
only by tlus military siiU- of Uiu (vim 
but also by industry. 

Certainly inc(!iitiv<! coiitrnrt.;*, nm 
especially multiple iiin>ntivn con 
tracts, will Uav an 
on systems) ofi 



of the improvement, 



hard C on f 
hard one 



% qUeSti ns ' ""> a 
answer (at least with 

l! ^ U ' u 
should the 



. _.fAr ittrttaA i i " ^~* fc% * i *"<niL;c 

lor increased systems effectiveness 



Examinati 



Defense Department Cited for 
Support of Sheltered Workshops 



_ The Defense Department has been 
cited by Harold Russell, Chairman of 
the President's Committee on Employ- 
ment of the Handicapped, for its 
support and cooperation in encourag- 
ing defense business participation in 
the sheltered workshops program. 

The commendation was presented 
,T Asslatant Secretary of Defense 
(Installations and Logistics) Paul R 
Jgnatiua during ceremonies at the 
Pentagon on Dec. 20. 

i n $,?P' B pr ? ram to help workshops 
includes a directory listing the pro- 
ductive capabilities of over 200 work 
shops i which has been distributed to 
nit S? procu *' eme t officers through- 
out the country. Secretary Ignatius 



has Htntod that priwurrrmml oJMrliili 
m tho Military Dopm-lini'Mln ami ihi< 
Defense Supply Afrrm-y slimilil run- 
sidor mcludinfr \vorliulmpn im hliMfiV 
lists for ifamiH Duty t < t in iinx 
addition, a ln/]nt, cari'vinjr 
ondoriwmmit of tlin workshop ]m>Ki-ani 
and muioimiiii prlmu riinlnii-torn in 



compete for HiilitiniitriH-lM" i>i nl fnrfi.'il 
to every prime contract nwnnlctl Ijy 
tho Defonso Dnpurlmcul. 

Also, wovlcHhop ilinvtm-ii un- tnv>. 
vide(l BcliocluloH of locally ,,,i,ni: ( niv ( l 
JJOD jn-ocuj-ninnnt clliiiru fiu iFiitl Ihi-y 
cnn attontl thoo hold in Uiclr v|- 
emity. 







Projeet PRIME 

(Continued from Paffe 4) 

permitted to employ a single appro- 
priation for each DOD component for 
all operating costs combining the ex- 
isting appropriations for military per- 
sonnel and operations and mainte- 
nance. Such an amalgamation would 
greatly facilitate the budgeting and 
accounting for operating costs. But 
even if two separate appropriations 
are maintained, DOD will still com- 
bine them for internal purposes and 
convert for external reporting pur- 
poses at the headquarters level. The 
Navy is already receiving reports 
which reflect full costs including costs 
3f military personnel of all units of 
both the Atlantic and Pacific Fleets. 
The third change is the purification 
sf appropriations so that all expense 
.terns are associated with the operati- 
ng appropriations and none with the 
procurement or construction appro- 
bation. Primarily, this involves 
ihifting many items of spare parts 
md similar consumables from con- 
inning appropriations to operations, 
t also involves moving a few capital 
toms from operations appropriations 
D continuing appropriations. Once this 
3 fully accomplished, all expenses, 
ml only expenses, will be included 
:i the operating appropriation. DOD 
natniction 7040.6, "Definition of Ex- 
onses and Investment Costs," dated 
opt, 1, 1966, carefully spells out the 
i-iteria governing this purification, 
'he care with which the instruction 
-as developed is demonstrated by the 
ict that it consumed five months of 
:oady effort, went through 13 sepa- 
ito revisions, and was analyzed in 
tree separate DOD-wide reviews. 
The final action necessary to 
ihieve the goal of charging 100 per- 
>nt of measurable expenses to oper- 
ing activities is the extension of 
orking capital to cover all items in 
o operating appropriation. Such an 
tension allows the association of 
sts with the using activity at time 
use. Under the former system, pur 
ases were often made and the ap- 
opriation charged by a central or- 
.nization long before and far from 
e time and place of use. Centrally 
ocurod fuel or aviation spare parts 
e examples of this. Such material 
is them furnished "free" to the ulti- 
ite user. Since these expenses were 
t charged to him, the user had lit- 
motivation to give them the land 
management attention he gave to 

ffense Industry Bulletin 



items which actually cost him money. 
Working capital solves this problem 
by permitting costs to be held in sus- 
pense from the time of purchase until 
the time of issue for consumption. At 
the time of issue for consumption, 
they are charged to the user. 

Working capital is not a new con- 
cept. Many supply items are cur- 
rently held in stock funds, and many 
services in industrial funds. Stock 
funds will be extended to include all 
consumable material, at both whole- 
sale and retail levels, and industrial 
funds will be expanded to include 
those wholesale service activities not 
now under them. Finally, working 
capital accounts within the operating 
appropriation will be established for 
local services, such as maintenance 
and the motor pool. The realities of a 
combat environment will he recog- 
nized by charging for operating re- 
sources at the time of movement to 
the theater. 

Effect on the Budget. The budget 
process will change radically as a con- 
sequence of Project PRIME. The FY 
19C8 budget will be converted to ex- 
pense terms prior to July 1, 1967, 
when the new system becomes effec- 
tive. FY 19G9 will see a full-scale 
combined program/budget submission 
and review in expense terms by pro- 
gram elements and organisation units 
within DOD, Congress, of course, will 
retain the option of receiving it on 
this basis. 

Outlook for the Future. Project 
PRIME moans that the manager's 
flexibility in deciding on what re- 
sources to use should be increased. He 
should bo encouraged to think about, 
for example, the best balance between 
military personnel, civilian personnel 
and contract personnel, or the opti- 
mum degree of mechanization, in a 
wide variety of situations. With the 
financial segregations that now exist, 
managers have little incentive for in- 
vestigating such alternatives. 

It means also that there should be 
a tendency on the part of top man- 
agement to move in the direction of 
control of aggregates and away from 
control by bits and pieces. It would 
be expected that, as time goes on, 
there will be less emphasis on indi- 
vidual items of expense less detailed 
control of manpower and less detailed 
consumption rules for example and 
more emphasis on expenses as a 
whole. 

Finally, the system should motivate 
managers to be more concerned about 



the efficient use of resources. Of 
course, efficiency is only one criterion 
for judging a manager, and attention 
to efficiency must never be permitted 
to overshadow the criterion of effec- 
tiveness, whicb means getting the job 
done, and done well. But managers 
do need to know how efficiently their 
subordinates are performing their as- 
signed missions, and the new system 
will help them learn this. Moreover, 
as performance measurement criteria 
change to incorporate this additional 
information, the motivation will he 
increased for managers to be con- 
cerned with the wise use of resources, 
thereby reducing the need for exhor- 
tation, inspection, specified con- 
straints, and other devices that are 
now used as a substitute for a built-in 
motivation. 

Conclusion. 

When Project PRIME "goes live" on 
July 1, 1967, it will not function as a 
perfect and complete invention. The 
system faces many modifications and 
probably years of refinement. While 
the first programming system directly 
affected a few hundred people work- 
ing in the Pentagon, Project PRIME 
will affect thousands throughout the 
entire Defense establishment. The ex- 
tent of the job to be done in education 
alone is staggering. 

Nevertheless, Project PRIME will 
achieve one fundamental goal of 
PPBS. It takes off from a meaningful 
structure for planning and makes pos- 
sible realistic appraisal of the degree 
to which the performance lias fulfilled 
the plan. 

The environment never stands still 
and the Defense management control 
process in the United States is con- 
stantly seeking to overtake a con- 
tinually changing problem. Project 
PRIME may represent a large enough 
step to overcome this situation for a 
white and, thus, gain some time for 
beleaguered Defense managers. It will, 
at least, restore to the legislature visi- 
bility with respect to Defense matters 
that some believe has been seriously 
eroded over ISO years, and will mate- 
rially assist In the proper discharge 
of its constitutional responsibilities, 

PPBS is no panacea. It is a good 
idea, a part of an evolutionary stream 
of ideas. It requires refinement and 
Innovation if it is to remain useful in 
coping with a dynamic environment 
moving at an accelerating pace. 



31 




by 
Cant. Frank Larson, USN 



Occasionally we hear the complaint 
that security controls create bottle- 
necks for industry, however, more and 
more businessmen today arc recogniz- 
ing that security procedures within 
their operation are as much a part of 
their businesses as budgeting, plan- 
ning, production, or auditing. 

Why are industrial security controls 
necessary? For this simple reason: to 
deter espionage against industrial ca- 
pacity of the United States. In analyz- 
ing the espionage threat there is often 
a tendency to go to extremes. There 
are those who would magnify all as- 
pects of the threat and so become 
prophets of gloom. Others would dis- 
count the capabilities of hostile espio- 
nage and magnify their internal 
difficulties. However, it is always more 
dangerous to underrate than to over- 
rate an enemy. For instance, U.S. ex- 
perts predicted in 1946 that the Soviet 
Union would not have an atomic bomb 
before 1960. The world was shocked 
when the Russians exploded their first 
bomb in 1949, eleven years in advance 
of the predicted date. Our scientists 
made this estimate, based on the lead 
time needed to develop a workable de- 
vice for this nation. This 11-year pole 
vault in technology can be attributed 
an part to the Communist's success in 
espionage successful in that they 
were able to steal vital elements of in- 
formation that reduced the lead time 
they needed to develop this bomb and 
at the same time avoid the errors and 
trials that we encountered before 
success was achieved. We need only 
look at today's newspapers to recojr- 
mze that the hostile threat of espit 
nage directed toward the United 
States appears to have increased 
rather than diminished. We must be 
prepared to meet this hostile threat. 



indicating the degree of importance to 
our national defense, is applied to the 
idea. The next step is to research and 
develop the idea, i.e., take it from the 
idea stage and place it into a tangible 
form such as a drawing, specification, 
or proposal. Industry most frequently 
is designated as the research and de- 
velopment agency. From this stage the 
project goes into testing of a proto- 
type or model. Testing is done either 
by industry or by the Government. In 
any event, through these three stages 
of what we call lead time, industry is 
entrusted with vital defense informa- 
tion. 

The next stage is production. In the 
production stage, protection of infor- 
mation by industry must be afforded 
and must extend in many instances 
through the stage of delivering the 
product into the ultimate possessor's 
hands. When the product is in tho 
hands of tho Government, we feel that 
the secret has been kept. However, in- 
dustry is still afforded access to tho 
information by virtuo of continued 
production of the system, or tho 
necessity to maintain or perhaps 
modify it. The period from the concep- 
tion of an idea to the ronlmition of 
the end product in the possession of 



uf " / ! early understand the 
Relationship of industrial security to 
the process of manufacture of defense 
products, it is necessary to break down 
the process of production. First there 
a the idea. This is the beginning of 
ead time. Lead time is defined Us the 

fame span beginning W hen any defense 
pioject, program, or system originates 
an idea .in the mind of someone either 
"iL rJ ntlle ,^--mentan e d 



tho Government may IK; wooilcH, moiifhn 
and even yours. Tlu'oii^hnul tins 
period of lead time, niiiny people In 
industry, as well UN in (Jovurmiiont, 
will be afl'ordtid IU;COHH Lo tlio damni- 
fied information involved. 

Tho will ohjoctivo of tin* iiidmilnnl 

security program i.s to maintain th<> 
security of daHHilioi) hi formal inn 
throng-bout its lift!, from ibi birth ux 
an idea until such timo an Mir proper 
author! tint! in Oovornnii'Mt doturi)imn 
that it can be dodaHwifiod. 

How <Jo wo achiovo thin tdijcolivo? 
One mrthod illicit 1m {Mm|)oralimi, 
which implies tho dunl effort of IndUH- 
try anil (lovornnuinl. If industry duos 
its part mid finvrrnniont oan'N'ti nut 
its obligations throtiKhmit, tin- poritnl 
of production, .security onii bti iniijti- 
tained. 

The Pofonno IrMliiMtrinl HticurUy 
Program in tho ({ovoriinicnt.'fi (crli- 
niquo for protecting clnnMilli'd ilcrciiMr 
information ontniHtod to ilcfi'iimi nui- 
tractors. Tho toHinimio in not frlh fin- 
industry in tho "Induittruil Hocin-iLy 
Manual for Saforvimrdhi};' Climiiilln] 
Inforniatinn" (AttucihtiuMil hi IH> 
Form 441)- 'I'll' 1 manual ifi t!io Imok if 
rulos for rjirryini 1 ; out, it micciflc Hcrin 1 - 
ity agrooniiMit tiiKiiml by tin- <!nvorn- 
mont and tho dofonm* I'mitriH-tor, Tin. 
retiuinmiontH of tUo inanual HIT holli 
realistic mid practical hiivlnjr ovolvH 
from many yoarn of f'X|)orioiin> in 
countorinf.;: oHpiimnj^* activity. 




or 



Once the idea iMee med' b 
to our defense that its Comoro 
rmse would affect adversely 0^" 
taon.1 defense interest, a classification 



na , -.., USN, is the 
* ^ 0fRcc of Jndustrlal Se- 
cunty, Defense Contract Admlnistra- 
Uon Services, Defense Supply Agency. 

Chief of the Field Management Divi- 
In this position he had rcsponsi- 
"^"nagement of tho mlll- 
in 



country. 



across the 



32 



Whilo it nu'fvht appoav Uini itoniHIy 
rnquirnmontH havo boon oxniindi'd in 
tho latoHt edition of tbo nianuril, (In 
principlon <if tho original dofunx^i 
havo not chnngod, Hponidcit ax lo loch 
niquosi havo boon not I'orlh mid WIM 
plos of forinH and oilier Kiiiilunn 
havo boon published to m ini>it; Oio mil- 
tractor in cluing a bottur j<ili in nafo- 
ffuarding vital information calruHlcil 
to him. 

A Himplo formula, which <>\plaiiiH 
how tho program workn, in thitt: 
a clearance" phm "nood-tn-kninv" 
pqiuiln iu!<!(!HJt." In cOVct thin roMnulii 
indicittoH that boforn an iudividuni to 
authorized lu-ccfiii to (;IanHiflod tlofViiw 
information, ho mut huv tui npprri- 
prmto comi>any and povftomiul wwiirity 
clearnnco equal to, or hlffhor thuii. tint 
degrcfl of clarification of tlio liifornin. 
tion to which lie require wwnn Jlciico 
we come to tlio second pnrfc of Uio for- 
mula which In equally Important: ft 
need-to-know tho inforinnUon in ordin- 
to oceompliBh an ofHdnl ohjwtlvo. One 
without thn othor of UIOKK two olfl- 
monte indicntoH that tho powm Is 
unautliorixGcI. If unauthorised he? cun- 
not legally ho afTordod ncroHH to clns- 
fllficcl clofcnHR information. 

Wo feel that our efforts in WPn . 
ment arc only partially nuccesHful if 



we merely set forth requirements. The 
J: major portion of the mission must be 
accomplished by industry industry 
must implement the program in indus- 
try. We assist, advise and monitor tho 
individual contractor to insure that 
the program ho lias in effect meets the 
requirements of his security agree- 
ment with the Government. 

Within the Industrial Security 
Manual are set forth all tho specifics 
that are needed in order to maintain a 
successful program within ;i contrac- 
tor's facility. It takes an organ i/ation 
in order to set forth the requirements, 
render advice and assistance, and then 
monitor those requirements as indus- 
try implements them. This organisa- 
tion is the Office of liuluHtrlal Security 
under the Deputy for Contract Ad- 
ministration Services of the Defense 
Supply Agency (DMA) at Cameron 
Station, Alexandria, Va. 

There are three divisions in thin 
office: 

_ The Programs and Systems Divi- 
sion establishes policy and procedure 
the Industrial Security Regulation, 
which controls the Government's re- 
quirements; tho Industrial Security 
Mtinual, which establishes industry re- 
quirements; tho Cryptographic Sup- 
plement to that manual for these con- 
tractors who will require access (.<> 
cryptographic information; tlie Indus- 
trial Security Operating Manual for 
Government field personnel; and other 
publications, such as industrial secur- 
ity letters to contractors and indus- 
trial security bulletins to Government 
agencies. 

Tho Field Management Division 
maintains operational control over the 
Offices of Industrial Security in the II 
Defense Contract Administration 
Services Regions to assuro a uniform 
application of tho program nationwide. 

Tho Internntionnl Programs Divi- 
sion is a now clement within the 
Industrial Security Program. Its es- 
tablishment wna necessitated by tho 
Initiation of sales of U.S. defense 
hardware to allied nations. When clas- 
sified information becomes involved in 
doing business with foreign contrac- 
tors, tho International Programs Divi- 
sion nets OB a catalyst between tho 
United States and foreign govern- 
ments and their contractors. In addi- 
tion, when foreign governments or 
contractors desire to place foreign 
classified jobs in U.S. industry, it is 
tho mission of the International Pro- 
grams Division to assure that their 
classified information is protected. 

In addition to tho contra! Office of 
Industrial Security nt DSA headquar- 
ters and tho 11 regional offices 
across the nation, a central Defense 
industrial Security Clearance Office 
(DISCO) was established to process 
security clearances of industrial em- 



ployees. DISCO was established in 
Columbus, Ohio, in March 1965, It was 
the result of a consolidation of Army 
Navy and Air Force industrial security 
offices. It is to this office that contrac- 
tors, once they have a facility security 
clearance, direct their requests for em- 
ployee clearance's. Files of all contrac- 
tor employees' clearances totaling over 
a million and a half, which the De- 
fense Department has issued to date 
are maintained in this office. Tho files' 
also contain a central record of all 
cleared U.S. defense contractors. 
totalling nearly 15,000 facilities. 

Each Defense Contract Administra- 
tion Services Region has an Office of 
Industrial Security which functions as 
tho cognizant .security office for all 
defense contractors in its geographical 
area. It is from thin office that clear- 
ances of facilities are issued and it is 
here that contractors' programs for 
this protection of classified defense 
information are monitored. 

It might nppuar that the mmsion of 
tho Office of Industrial Security is well 
under control; that there arc no 
further requirements. But improve- 
ments are coming. 

Compute, for example, constitute 
a TICW technology in tho processing of 
classified defense information and rec- 
ord keeping. Contractors and the Gov- 
ernment; are developing new standards 
for insuring security of the informa- 
tion processed by those machines. We 
are attempting to speed up our clear- 
ance actionn for company employees 
as well (in for new facilities. 

We arc constantly striving to im- 
prove the quality of our security hi- 
HpcetioiiH. An industrial security rep- 
resentative in tho field docs a disserv- 
ice to industry when he does not point 
out whore it is deficient. We are 
satisfied that industry will do an ade- 
quate job if it knows what to do, in 
givtm advice as to how to accomplish 
it, and Is periodically monitored to 
assure that the application of proce- 
dures is current. This confidence to 
date has not been misplaced. 



Much progress 1ms boon made in the 
approximately two years that consoli- 
dated industrial security has been in 
operation. Industry is implementing 
the program. In fact, the majority of 
all cleared defense contractors main- 
tain nt least an adequate industrial 
security program today. In instances 
whore deficiencies exist, contractors 
Imvcs taken the most expeditious ac- 
tion to correct thorn, thereby improv- 
ing their programs, 

Tho Government security team is 
exerting the maximum effort to pro- 
vent hostile espionage. Success of the 
program depends on Industry's efforts 
to carry it out. 



Contractors Cited 
for Zero Defects 

The highest honor in the Zero De- 
tects Program an Air Force prime 
contractor can receive has been ac- 
corded to eight defense firms in recog- 
nition of outstanding records in the 
neld of industrial zero defects durintr 
tho past 18 months. 

Presented for the first time, the Air 
I'orco Craftsmanship Awards went to 
throe divisions of the Radio Corpora- 
tion of America the Astro-Electron- 
ics Div., Princeton, N.J.; Communica- 

Mis.sile & Surface Radar Div., Moores- 

tovvn, N,J. 

Other contractors who received 
awards are tho General Electric Co.. 
PUght Propulsion Div., West Lynn 
Mass.; General Electric Co., Evcndale 
facility, Cincinnati, Ohio; Lockheed 
Missile & Space Co., Sunnyvale, Calif.; 
Aerojet Goneral Corp.. Sacramento, 
^alil.; and Douglas Aircraft Co., Mis- 
Div., ~" 



To win the Craftsmanship Award 
each firm showed performance records 
lor at least 18 mouths clearly reflect- 
ing achievements against pro-set 
goals. Contract administration person- 
nel with cither the Air Force Systems 
Command's Air Force Contract Man- 
agement Div., Los Angeles, Calif., or 
the Defense Contract Administration 
Services validated the performance 
data and determined the adequacy and 
realism of tho goals. 

A select number of employees from 
tho eight firms are being given 
Craftsmanship Award pins and their 
names are inscribed on an accompany- 
ing scroll. In addition, Zero Defects 
banners go with the award and are 
lining formally presented to the em- 
ployees as a group. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



Army Pilot 
Training Increased 

The U.S. Army is planning to tem- 
porarily increase its monthly training 
quota of pilots from 410 to 010 and 
Pinna to expand existing facilities to 
handle the increased training load. 

All primary helicopter training is 
now conducted at Fort Woltors. fex., 

which will be expanded to handle ad- 
ditional trainees. 

To provide additional training facil- 
t S> Panned close-out of Hunter 
AFB, Ga., will be extended beyond 
next July and will be used in conjunc- 
tion with the Army's nearby post at 
Fort Stewart, Ga. 

Advanced /light training and transi- 
tion training are now carried out at 
the Army Aviation Center, Fort 
Wicker, Ala. Various tests and devel- 
opment activities are also performed 
there. 

33 



During the last few years we have 
witnessed an increase in activity in 
DOD directed toward improving man- 
agement in the weapons acquisition 
process. Some of this activity has re- 
sulted in the issuance of DOD direc- 
tives and manuals to which the Serv- 
ices and industry have heen required 
to respond. The most notable of these 
have been: DOD/NASA PERT Cost 
Guide; DOD Directive 7041.1, "Cost 
and Economic Information System 
(CETS);" and DOD Directive 3200.9, 
"Contract Definition." 

More recently, the Defense com- 
munity has been exposed to some new 
nomenclature in the form of Resource 
Management Systems, Assets Man- 
agement Systems, Selected Acquisi- 
tions Information and Management 
System (SAIMS), Cost Information 
Reports (CIR), Contract Funds Status 
Report (CFSR), and a Performance 
Measurement System. 

Simultaneously, the Air Force has 
also been engaged in an extensive 
effort to improve its overall manage- 
ment capability in this area. Manuals 
on configuration management and 
management of contractor data and 
reports are products of this general 
effort. 

Still another project being under- 
taken by the Air Force Systems Com- 
mand (AFSC) has been directed 
toward improving the command's 
capability to develop credible cost 
estimates and strengthening the com- 
mand's program cost control capa- 
bility. Some of the results of this 
effort have been the AFSC Cost Infor- 
mation System (CIS) and Cost Ac- 
complishment System. 

This apparent proliferation of man- 
agement systems, with their attendant 
reporting requirements, is undoubtedly 
the most talked about and least under- 
stood effort currently under way in 
DOD. The purpose of this article is to 
place these various efforts in proper 
context and to describe the Air Force 
approach for an improved financial 
management system which satisfies 
the DOD concepts and objectives. 

The DOD Framework, 

During the past several months, the 
Assistant Secretary of Defehge 
(Comptroller) has made several public 
pronouncements concerning Resource 
Management Systems. He has defined 
Resource Management Systems as "all 




by 

U. Col. liana If. DrienHimok, USAF 
Asst. to Dci>. for System Maimg('in<'iil 
Office of Asst. Secretary of the Air Force (Financial 



the systems that aid DOD manage- 
ment in their task of assuring that 
resources are obtained and used both 
effectively and efficiently in the ac- 
complishment of DOD objectives." 
The systems which are included within 
this definition are: 

Programming and BudRetiiij? SVH- 
tcm concerned with the process of 
planning for resources to meet stated 
objectives and justifying these nneAti 
to Congress. 

Operating Management System- 

directed toward the management oT 
resources applied directly to and in 
support of the operating commands 
in DOD. 

o Inventory Management 8yHte.ni 

concerned with the process of plan- 
ning and control of the myriad of 
items which flow through DOD'n gi- 
gantic supply systems. 

Acquisitions Information and 
Management System concerned with 
the management of weapon and sup- 
port systems acquisition process. 

The last two system arena Inven- 
tory Management System and Acqul- 



Hition.s MiniafveiiH'Ml. .Syiilem rirc coin 
hinod under tin; hriutiniv nf AiiiiiUi 
Management. Thm in frrnplnVtilly (ire 
.sented in Fifi'im! 1. 

The first tlirno nroiiw an- pvhimrilj 
cnncmied with DOD in-liomio nun mo- 
ment funotioim; however, lh fmii'lli 
'"on ....... AwjiiLsititniH Informal icui mid 

Management Kyntcin ...... ciMjiiln-ii Hn;;r 

involvement with inthintry. A murn 
complete discuwuon i>T thin ami in (he 
wal objective of thin article. 

Selected ArqiiiHltloiiH Infoi ntullim nml 
Management .Syntem (SAIMS). 

Tinder the hemlinjv nf 
Information ami MimMj-'fi , 

there oxinl; nevonil HiihnyMl^mit, cneli of 
which r<H|uii'(!H Hoinc inU'rchanjrc he- 
twttnn DO]) nni | jn.liuilry. Tin-re 
nro haJiirally two utcjrrlt>it nf mifi- 



with "deletion" nrciuijiltlnnii anil om> 
directed at "other" acijuiniU.niii, [']. 
firm cntttffory luut li<>e,i nnni( ( j Melrrletl 
A(!(]uitiitionH rnfwi'iiuiMon mid Ainu- 
t SyHtnin (MAIMS), KAIMH I, 
mi th(i ttynlmn corner ..... I 



RESOURCE MAHA6EMENT SYSTEMS 



ASSETS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 



PROGRAMMING 

& 
BUDGETING 



OPERATIONS 

MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEM 



INVENTORY 

MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEM 



ACQUISITION 
INFORMATION 

AND 

MANAGEMENT 
SYSTEM 




January 1967 



the management of the acquisition of 
r selected capital assets. This is the 
process of acquiring: weapon and sup- 
port systems of the quality and 
configuration needed by DOD, on 
schedule and at lowest cost. The re- 
lationship of the components of 
SAIMS within the overall Resource 
Management Systems effort is illus- 
trated hy the diagram shown in Fig- 
ure 2. 

The SAIMS concept can be consid- 
ered as a reorientation and consolida- 
tion within a single DOD framework 
of several components that have been 
undergoing development for some 
time. Referring to Figure 2: 

Items two, three and four, prior 
to reorientation, were the basic parts 
of the DOD Cost and Economic Infor- 
mation System (CEIS). 

Hems three and four were in- 
cluded as basic components of the 
AFSC Cost Information System 
(CIS). CIS, initially outlined in AFSC 
Letter 173-2, Oct. 1, 1965, was essen- 
tially an integration of several con- 
tractor cost reports (similar to the 
CIR and CFSR then under develop- 
ment) and four in-house reports The 
approved DOD reports for CIR and 
CFSR have now replaced their AFSC 
counterparts in the CIS, as planned, 
thus insuring that no overlapping or 
duplicate reporting requirements exist. 

Items five and six are treated in 
the current draft specification on 
Schedule and Cost Planning and Con- 
trol, originated by the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (OSD), and em- 



body the same concepts contained in 
a similar specification currently in use 
by the Aii' Force. 

Economic Information System (EIS). 

The Economic Information System 
reports arc concerned with plant-wide 
information as well as program- 
oriented information. EIS is designed 
to collect the data necessary for 
analysis of the economic impact of de- 
fense spending by geographical area 
and industry. It requires reporting on 
many programs and includes data on 
commercial as well as Government 
sales. 

Contract Funds Status Report (CFSR). 

The Contract Funds Status Report 
was developed to provide information 
about contract funding -requirements 
by fiscal year for specific programs to 
assist the program director in: 

B Updating and forecasting con- 
tract fund requirements. 

Planning and decision making on 
changes in fund requirements. 

Developing fund requirements 
and budget estimates in support of ap- 
proved programs. 

Where specifically designated in 
contracts, this report will supersede 
use of the familiar DD Form 1097 and 
other similar funds status reports. 

Cost Information Reports (CIR). 

The Cost Information Reports have 

been approved by the Bureau of the 



RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 



ASSETS MANAGEA1ENT SYSTEMS 



PROGRAMMING 


OPERATIONS 


INVENTORY 


ACQUISITION 
INFORMATION 


& 


MANAGEMENT 


MANAGEMENT 


AND 


BUDGETING 


SYSTEM 


SYSTEM 


MANAGEMENT 








SYSTEM 



SAIMS 





OTHER 
CAPITAL 
ACQUISmONSj 


ECONOMIC 
INFORMATION 
SYSTEM 2 


COST 
INFORMATION 
REPORTS 3 


CONTRACT 
FUNDS STATUS 
REPORT 4 


PERFORMANCE MEASURE/ 


COST 


SCHEDULE 


TEI 





Budget. There has been a general 
orientation effort explaining CIR to 
industry sponsored by the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller). Since DOD documents 
on CIR are now available, it will not 
be discussed in any detail in this 
article. However, n order to clarify 
how CIR fits into the overall SAIMS 
effort, some general comments are re- 
quired concerning what CIR is, and is 
not. 

^ CIR was developed primarily to pro- 
vide information on actual costs, in- 
curred as well as estimated costs, to 
complete programs throughout the 
acquisition cycle of a program in a 
consistent manner. The data will be 
used in support of cost estimating, 
programming, budgeting and, where 
applicable, procurement activities. Ad- 
ditionally, this same information wilt 
be used as input to a data bank for use 
in developing- cost estimating relation- 
ships and cost estimates for future 
programs. The mechanism for con- 
trolling the use of CIR reports is the 
CIR Data Plan, indicating the items 
to be covered by the report and the 
level of detail. A CIR Data Plan must 
be submitted for each weapon/support 
.system where CIR is to be imple- 
mented. The plan must be reviewed 
and approved by the OSD CIR Data 
Plan Review Committee prior to im- 
plementation. 

It should be understood, however, 
that CIR and the requirements for 
CIR Data Plan approval wil 1 ' 
way be construed to prescribe 



Figure 2. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



iletail, but does spell out criteria, gen- 
rral characteristics and desired report- 
in jj requirements. Where effective 
management control systems are in 
uso by contractors, there is no intent 
to change thorn. Rather the approach 
is to interlock the Government report- 
ing requirements directly with con- 
tractors' internal systems. 

Having discussed how the various 
systems and components fit into the 
overall Resource Management Systems 
framework, the next area that re- 
quires some explanation is the current 
Air Force efforts to respond to the 
overall DOD framework and, more 
specifically, the DOD SAIMS develop- 
ment program. 

The Air Force Approach to an 
Integrated System. 

In the past, Government manage- 
ment systems have frequently ad- 
dressed only fragments of the total 
management information problem. 
Typically, too little thought has been 
given to the relationship of the sub- 
systems or components to overall 
information requirements. This kind 
of approach has often resulted in over- 
lapping 01- duplicate requirements, 
omissions, confusion and, in the end, 
ineffective systems. 

While we are still addressing the 
overall information problem by its 
components, we are now doing so with 
the total system design well in mind. 
Additionally, we are providing the 
flexibility to add the other related 
components as they are developed, 

The Air Force has recognized that 
what is really new in the design of 
management systems within DOD is 
uniformity of approach to provide the 
information needed without a dispro- 
portionate diversion of resources by 
the Services and industry. While all 
areas of reporting are continually 
being review*, particular emphasis 
ha* been placed in the area of 

Umwl nia " affement ^formation. 
Under the guidance and direction pro- 
Mded by the Assistant Secretary of 
the Air Force (Financial Manage 
men , the Air Force has been wo? 1- 

1 Jr lopaflnancial management 
"joimation reporting structure which 

k n if afl ^ .'T' nee " * " nt 
kinds of financial data, yet minimizes 
the volume and variety of 
by relatl^ them to 



36 



addition, the financial data is directly 
related to schedule and technical per- 
formance information. 

Since the focal point for systems 
management is the System Program 
Office (SPO) , and since the Air Force 
point of contact with industry is also 
the SPO, the logical place to integrate 
any management system requirejnents 
into a meaningful product is at the 
SPO level. The approach being taken 
provides the overall framework within 
which the SPO can more effectively 
exercise its business management re- 
sponsibilities and can also be more 
responsive to higher echelon require- 
ments. There are three key areas 
which tie this approach together into 
a single meaningful system: 

An integrated financial manage- 
ment reporting system which provides 
useable summary data for all echelonn 
of the Air Force. 

A specification for program plan- 
ning and control which outlines the 
criteria that an acceptable system 
must meet. 

An integrated work breakdown 
structure which requires both Ail- 
Force and industry participation in 
order to identify all elements with 
which the contract is concerned. 



Structure. 

Them aro currently nine major pro- 
grams in the DOD program budKfit 
structure. 1'Iach of the jM'ognmis is 
separated into elements and for (uioh 
of the program elements the cn.sl nite- 
gorios of rtisearc!) ami doveliipnwnt 
investment, and operating co'itu m-n 
considered. However, in SAIMS 
we are concerned primarily with Uin 
research and development uml invcnt- 
meat costs of the major program (>l<- 
ments. To illustrate the foivjjoiiift; 
Program IV, Airlift, contiumi, IIH Q 
program element, the (T-ftA. Tln' IH a 
major support system \vli it'll in n 3 
selected ac!<]iil.4ition and IUKI l^mi 
designated for nmnaj.vemenl, (iinphimlH, 
The prinmry maiutKOincaL doni- 
ment within DOD for <;onitmniinilJnjr 
what the currently approved [iliiii IH 
for any #iven proj-'ram element, in (hi? 
Five Year Defense Program (KYDP). 
Thn Services are re^iiirrd (o document 
their requirnmenU in mijiport of (hn 
Five Year Program and any HHUIK.IH 
that may hn made to it. Thin in nor- 
mally accomplished by Hut SPO tniinff 
inputs from all con trim torn and (fov- . 
crnnifliit ngoiK-fRH concerned with (tin 
program. Th1 information h< roniioli- 
dated, analy^od and HiihinlUed Hiiiuifrh 
channelH to OS1) us a I'rnffrinn 



FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REPORTING STRUCTURE 



" ........ IIIIIUIIIIMIII, 

FINANCIAL I f v ,. 
PLAN 5 YEAR 



PLAN 

nciiiiiiiiii,,iiMiiiiiii,iiiiiiii 



CONTRACT FUNDS 
STATUS REPORT 



CONTRACT 
COST DATA 
SUMMARY 




Figur 



January 1967 



ItR(|H(!Kt (TOR). If the change in ap- 
proved, thi! Five Yi-ar Program is 
amended anil funds are madi- avail- 
ble, or deleted, l.o cover t,h<> revised 
program. 

Cimtract l''iiinlH SlahiH Kciiurt (CFSU). 

Tn the Air Koivr, thn reporting 
documi'iil.H suhmiUi'd by industry to 
the HI'O, outlining conlract funds re- 
<]iiircmiuit!i, have been tin- !)I) Komi 
|0!)7, . (loiiti'iii'lor I'mancial K<>i|uire- 
nie.abi 1-jHl.inmti' (CKUI'!), and local 
foi-iiiii. Tin; (Hllcr (if A;i,'il;i|ant. Secri--- 
lary of Di'lViiHc (<!umpt roller) in rur- 
nmtly developing a ( lout racl. Finnic 
KliduK Report (<!KSIt) fur Ihi'.; pur- 
(HIM. Thin ivpoit, whi'ii n-(|iic;;(ci| |,y 
Urn Hl'O, will replace tin- IH) |<'orni 
1097 and all :mnila r fund.'i i;latu!i rc 
porbi in current u:it>. 

Tint (M-'MJt I:; designed tn provide 
Hindu informalion by (hint I yi-ar. Thid 
ri'piu't cnahli'H (hi- Air I'lircr | |, ro , 
vide OSI) U'ifb a num. di'lailnl 
atialyitin of total fuml iTi|uin-in t -iihi 
atld idcaUllrs Ifn- bji;;in mi U'hii'h )hr 
Klv Vein- Pron'ram rnliniali-ii wen- 
made, i.ti., whrlhi'r fiilur.' 
nicnUt arc on run 
idcatilli'd, or incrcly 

llnwt'Vrr, Ihi' projcfl lull nl' fund re- 
(]iiin'ini'nt!i for fuhn'c ycam tncaan 
very littln nnl.. !1; i it can !>< .'.upimi ir ( | 
hy actual nutl. ..xpi-rli'iin- and mxrir 
nicmtiiri' of |)i'i-fiM-iiianc.. iiKiiinnt lh.- 
i ri'(|iiin'jiii'iH)i In did.', The re 
ulrui-tiiiv iilinwitiK lliiii Kind 
of a ntlulioiuihip In -iliovvn in Klj-im- II. 

'I'lll! ('uiltl'IK'L (!ii!t 



..Hff,, c ,| t ( , 
total .-ontract 



COHt data for 
broken out b 



. cos 

primarily ,| n fl lffllod to co]kct 
,. t data r,,r a.m]y a i 8 in BUp . 

bud^t i. rani(!H |; R aiul PGR , S 

' "''ma cost data aro i nput to a cost 
<ltii bank for developing cost oti- 
matln K "'iHtionshipa an.i OH t oati- 
'H IW futui-f! B 



m. and nii K i,,o, which constitute 
idctint puii ( ,r Uio costs of a 
'"I'll nylcm, furtlK-r barkup h rc- 
].', Uitmn 



may l,n 

lii 1m Hubmittiid alontf with 
Hut Conlpai't Cont Duta Summary. 

In tbojic canes wbcro Ui HyHtm is 
''n^'i'injr pi'odurtion, a Tro^i'dHH Cuvvn 
Itcpurl. may abio lm i*i|unHted for tho 
si'lcclcd IiI-vahH- items cited above. 
'I'lH'Hi- i-rjiorlM, wliidi provide a dif. 
fi-rcnl, ivrunpinir of tin; wwl data, crvn 
n mhlilioini] hiLfltup informiitioti in 
]i|mrt nf I'CIIt's, budget rc(|iiirc- 
iii'MilH, future i-HtlmnlcH, ek. Cost data 
frum lli.>;ii> rcjiortH ttlmi provide input 
lo tin- ila!.a Irnnkfi. 

'I'll' 1 vi'iioi-fs ilrm-rilii-il in the forn- 
KU|IIK pi'itvliN- banically the H umn in- 
l'"i-inalioii mont inujor nuitradtors 
liavi- pivviimnly HuhinitU'd to tho Air 
Foivc as a rciiuin'moat of Urn Con- 
li'tii'ltn 1 Ctiiit Study, 

ThuiiH rcportmlo not fiatisfy the pro- 
Ki'iim director's innnaKMnKnk infovtmi- 
lion n'i|iiirf'mi'iit:i, howtivor. 

A MaimKi'iiionl: Summary l{(!port nt 
tumw lypu in m[iiii-(!(l on H monthly 
liatihi l.o prdvlilf! mi uHNiwmnnnl of tho 



FIHAHCIAl HAHAGEHEHT REPORIIHG SIRUCTURE 



1J IUWIS I riHAl DOLIARS 
MAIIIS HK'llHT I DtF/NOTDLF 



PtHFOHMANCl 



SIIMMflHV 



I..--M *.*,* \ , , .,, ,, t ,,_ 



CONlftACr 
COS! DATA 

suwmny 







COS! 



SCIKOIfU 



fUNCTIONAL 
COS I HOUR 




COST 

JfJIOHMAIION 

JIEPORF 



Figure -I. 



contractor's performance to date 
against contract requirements. It 
should answer tho questions: What is 
the value of work accomplished to 
'late? This report should be derived 
from the contractor's internal plan- 
ning and control system. It should 
contain traceable information from 
the contract line items through the 
contractor's internal control systems 
and be capable of flagging potential 
problems in sufficient time to permit 
corrective action. This same report 
will also assist in tho analysis of fund 
requirements. 

The Management Summary Report 
should bn Mupported by narrative prob- 
lem analysis and/or variance analysis 
reports designed to provide an aasess- 
mtjnt of actual and potential problem 
iireas (whether they be co.st, tichedule, 
or technical) which impact on contract 
performance. 

The reporting structure, shown in 
Figure 4, has been developed hi such 
a way that the reports are interre- 
lated, serve tho SPO'u financial man- 
agement reporting requiromonts, pro- 
vide the information required for 
higher level budgeting, prnffriunmlnK 
and PCU procedures, and satisfy the 
RAIMK objective. Particularly impor- 
tant ij{ the fact that alt of tho reports 
are derived from tho same ImnU: con- 
tractor data. However, Cor tho re- 
ported information to have real value, 
the data must not only bo derived di- 
rectly from the contractor's systems, 
it numt also represent the way the 
work is actually accomplished and the 
cowls are actually accumulated. 

Criteria for Evaluating a Contractor's 
System A Specification 

In pant years a number of tech- 
niques have been developed within 
DOD specifically designed to provide 
some measure of contractor perform- 
ance, particularly in the area of costs 
and schedule. 

While the basic concepts and objec- 
tives of moat of the techniques de- 
veloped were very similar, they 
usually resulted in additional reports 
being levied on tho contractor. 

Those techniques, like PERT COST, 
were often indiscriminately imple- 
mented sometimes on top of perfectly 
valid existing contractor systems and 
the end result was a redundant report- 
ing; system developed solely to satisfy 
the specific technique. 



Industry Bulletin 



37 



evolve as configuration elements 
(CE's) are identified. Eventually, all 
the CE's and deliverable end items 
must be contained somewhere in the 
WBS. This evolutionary phenomenon 
is shown in Figure 7. 

A WBS, at the summary level, ap- 
plied at the beginning of the program 
life cycle will serve as a common 
thread throughout the life of the pro- 
gram. Initially, it serves as a basis 
for the preparation of Requests for 
Proposal, specification tree, con- 
tractor responses, and contract line 
items. It becomes the basis for con- 
figuration management, end item iden- 



tification, CIR data plans and program 
documentation. AH the program 
evolves, it becomes the basis for iden- 
tifying consistent reporting categories 
and for tracking actual performance 
against the plan. 

For a WBS to be responsive to all 
of the reporting requirements for a 
given program, the designated report- 
ing structure must be developed in 
such a way that H can accommodate 
the way the Air Force contracts for 
and manages the program. This can be 
accomplished whore contract line items 
are structured in such a way that they 
represent natural aggregations of <te- 



EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT OF THE WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE 



[CONCEPTUAL 



SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM 



SYSTEM TSYSfEM 




Figure 7. 



, 

DELIVERABLE END ITEMS - III VALUE HEMS - MAJOR SUBCONTRACTORS 
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT ENO HEMS 



CONTRACTORS' INTERNAL 

PLANNING AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 

(BASED ON WAY WORK ACTUALLY PERFORMED) 



CO 


ST COLLECTION CENTERS 


AIRCRAFT BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE 


NAUTICAL 
VEHICLE 

mi 


TRAINING 

m 


ADVANCE 
BUY 

Xtt 


AGE 

m 


SYSTEMS SYSTEMS DATA 
TEST ;NGINEERINC 
ROT6E RDTSE 

XM m mi 


SITE 

W6 




















WEAPON 
SYSTEM 

I 




i 


30 


flNTEGRATlW 
& 10 

LASSEMBLY_J 


JPHOPULSION 
1 20 


OTHER 



1 










; 






NSTMLED 
EQUIP 
301 

\ 


3 


KNG 
0? 

N 


IACE 

[3M 

\ 


1 

3 


ATA 
B7 

S 


AERO 
VEH 
101 


TUNG 
102 


AGE! 
[UMJ 


DATA ENGINE TUNG JAOE DAW 
10? 201 202 ZM 207 










L 







Figure 8, 



tfeme Industry Bulletin 



liverable contract end items. These arc 
the same end items for which perform- 
ance specifications are written and 
against which schedules arc developed 
and costs are monitored. 

AFSC is currently preparing a 
manual standardising 1 the preparation 
of work statements which requires 
just such a correlation. Contract defi- 
nition procedures also support this 
kind of an approach. Moreover, sev- 
eral Air Force projects are already 
following this approach so that the 
feasibility has been demonstrated. 

Much of the confusion surrounding 
the development of WHS's IK caused 
by rigid application of "total system" 
structures for each contract in a pro- 
gram. This is not the way wo man tig* 
our business, however. An example of 
the current CIR WBS for aircraft Js 
as follows: 

Total Aircraft System: 

Air Vehicle 
Air frame 

Propulsion 

Engine 

Navigation-Electronic System 
Aerospace Ground Equipment 
Training- 
Data 

Etc. 

In actual cnsos, tho Air Forces con- 
tracts with a prime contractor to build 
the air vehicle. Historically, contracts 
are written separately for propulsion. 
Normally, wo also contract woparntcly 
for many electronics .subsystems (nav- 
igation, communications, flm control, 
reconnaissance, etc.) and each of thorn 
separate contracts include appropriate 
aerospace ground equipment, training 
and data requirements. H should 1m 
quite obvious tlmt the CIR WBS, de- 
veloped to satisfy total system coat 
analysis purposes, must he modified 
somewhat if it la to bo rcsponnlvo to 
the SPO's total responsibility in man- 
aging tho program. This can bo effec- 
tively (lotio, however, by n I 0ff lcnl 
arrangement of the total program 
structure and some uniformity in iden- 
tifying contract line items of the many 
contracts. 

A simple coding; arrangement pro- 
vides a way of summarising totnl pro- 
gram costs, broken out by selected 
categories. Schedule and technical in- 
formation can be related in the same 
way. 

Figure 8 represents an aircraft 



For various reasons reports gener- 
ally wen. 1 not tied into the contractor's 
actual operating systems. Conse- 
quently, the reports, generated solely 
to satisfy Government reporting re- 
quirements, did not really reflect the 
tnie status of the program being re- 
ported on. 

We have now come to realize that 
any valid measurement of contractor 
performance must derive directly from 
the contractor's internal planning and 
control system. Further, where valid 
planning and control systems exist, we 
should use them and not try to im- 
pose another system OH top of them. 
The evolution of this approach is 
shown in Figure 5. 

The Air Force approach to a solu- 
tion of this problem is to stop impos- 
ing rigid techniques and, instead, to 
outline the basic criteria which a con- 
tractor's internal planning and control 
system must meet to satisfy our re- 
quirements. These criteria, which are 
based on the way a well managed con- 
tractor conducts his business, are em- 
bodied in a specification. The major 
point here is that the contractor is 
being given the basic criteria that his 
internal system must meet, and not 
the mechanical detail of an externally 
designed and rigidly imposed system. 
Since many management functions 
must be served by information derived 
from a contractor's management con- 
trol system, and a contractor's flexi- 
bility in deciding how most effectively 
to manage his activities is to be pre- 
served, a specification approach is 
considered essential. In general, the 
specification requires that the contrac- 
tor operate one integrated planning 
and control system to support both his 
internal management of the program 
and for reporting cost and schedule 
information to the Government. This 
information can then be progressively 
summarized for higher levels of man- 
agement, A joint evaluation team as- 
sures the mutual understanding and 
acceptance of the system in meeting 
the needs of both contractor and Air 
Force management. 

We think that this is a practical 
approach and, as a matter of fact, 
have several major contractors cur- 
rently operating under this concept, 

Integrated Work Breakdown Structure 
(WBS). 

A planning and control system meet- 
ing the Air Force specification will be 
based on an integrated work break- 



38 



down structure (WBS) which pro- 
vides the framework within which the 
work required to accomplish contract 
objectives is identified and scheduled, 
and within which the cost of this work 
is planned and controlled. 

As shown on Figure 6, the upper 
levels of the WBS are provided by the 
Air Force and constitute the structure 
for summary reporting of cost, sched- 
ule and related technical information 
to the Government. Further expansion 
of the WES below the specified re- 
porting level is the responsibility of 
the contractor. A general guideline to 
follow here is that the WBS must re- 
flect the way in which the work is 
accomplished. 

The lower levels of the WBS will 
vary from project to project depend- 
ing on the contractor's organization, 
design complexity, technical risk, con- 
figuration management aspects, repro- 
curement requirements, etc. 



The Office of the Director of De- 
fense Research and Engineering; 
(DDR&E) is currently engaged in a 
project to develop uniform work 
breakdown structures, at the summary 
level. By limiting 1 the selection of uni- 
form elements of the WBS to the up- 
per levels (the top three-) and specify- 
ing guidelines for extension below HUB 
point, uniform summary structure 
essential for management rojiorthitf 
and decision milking are provided. 
At the same time flexibility of UK; 
content of tho lower levels, required 
to accommodate varying contractor 
operations, is preserved. 

One point not clearly understood by 
many is that the complete WHS doeu 
not automatically emerge at the begin- 
ning of the program. Its development 
evolves through the definition phiiKr, 
or its equivalent, and normally !H not 
totally defined until well into the de- 
velopment phase. WHS elements will 



OOD/NASA PERT COST 
GUIDE 



PERT COST 
IMPLEMENTATION 



RECOMMENDED 
APPROACH 




WORK 

BREAKDOWN 

STflllCTLIRE 



PACKAGES 
13 MONTHS 
1100,0001 




Figure 5. 



INTEGRATED WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE 



CONTRACTOR - 



CONTRACT TASKS- 



CONTRACT END ITEMS, 

SYSTEMS. 

MAJOR SUB-CO'NTft 

HI -VALUE 




OUTLINE CRITERIA 
HIE CONTRACTOR'S INKHNAL 
SYSTEM MUSI MEE1 TO 
COVT fttquiREMENES 



Figure 6. 



January 1967 



(CK's) are identified. Kventually, nil oVnraeiital inn. AH (lie p,.,,,, 

the ('K':i iirnl deliveral>lc end ileins evolves, it, becomes the ba.si:; fur j 

muni. In' ' l" I somewhere in (he 1 ifyiii); compiler]!, report inf.; eal,iv< 

WHS. Tliiii evolutionary phe ncnmi and fur Iracluiifv acl.ual 

A WHS, at Ilie [luminary level, up. ],', WHS to be rcmmimivo (,, 



* : : ' 
""<> . 

''>V'<i-. I M 

uii ' 

"' 



, 

.:.,!,,, 



n v i>i >, in i in- tminiiim ,v u-vei, uji I 1 (ll a VV no IO lie VC!i|)()]|iilVl' (i II l ' IN en r 

ilic.l al Ihe bee.inniniv of the pn.r.nmi of (he report iniv requirement f, ir '' ni '""al standiirdiy 1 ;!!. . ^i '"'''I' 111 '""!? 

H 1 i I I I " . . T k **'"l-ilrll( k ll1 l *ltHfc11liJJ 

iln cycle will iiiTvr as a cor u K iven pnir.nun, tin- th'sifvnated n.p,,,.( Worlt l.'iten, ( , nts ,. . ' (l " n 

hreatl Ilinilll'll'iUt the life of Hie urn in,,- iih-nrhir.. i.ui>:< 1 .,..!.,' , . " J 11 "!, jtneli , .". wllu '' 1 Vetmini-t 



lluvad llininrh.mt Ihe life of the pro j,, K nlrurluiv inust le" .leveion'ed'"^ Jll!it ' mit ' l] '' onrt'eVr WnK ' h n ' t!llir( ' !i 

r.ri". lnililly. il MTV,, a, a ),.<! such a way that il, can acnnn modale - liliutl '"'<"'<'.ln, ," K ^'"'^"-t - H.-ll- 

fur I lie preparalion of U-',|iiesls for Ihe wy the Air h'on onlracta fur 

rrnpnsijil, iipeciticalimi tree, coti and nmniLueii (he pnumiin. 'I'l,;., ,,.,,, , 

. ' l <ni lie 

tractor response^ ami cotil rm-L Htie nccoinplinlted \vhcreeontract, line ilem-i 

items. II heromeii Ihe luiiiin fnr con are jit ructurrd in such a way | hat. t hev 

" li"ii maiiar,ciin-iil, end item i<len- rr-prem-tit nalural airnrei-'al ioiei ,,r ,\ ' 

* ' * > * * ' U t ( I f ' r. 



l' ni. -m,,,: . ..... lrt ""'" 

Air !-,; ' 1 ' M '"-"<>-, - 



EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT OF THE WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE 



CONCH'MIAI 


IIIIINMIDN 


AOjtllSmuN 


Ill'lHAlKINAI 


n 


IA 

L-pJ 


in 


1C 


II 


n, 


lifil) / I'KOt)/ IfiC 




iiv.i roiih 1n>'j M'iine. 

AHKl 



Fl);tiri' 'I. 



AIRCRAFT BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE 



If '.I 

Hilftl 



V-\f / ", 



l!IMVfWAHH, t.'.i| |t|V, - Ml VAilW \UV.t Wll'-' 

\\\\ 

Si 1 IWIfiM 

IttHM!) iW WAY Wiat. A!;i|'M.I 




Dofonio fnduatry BulloHn 



XXS 



,y W1 . ; 

?" - ....... ' f 

rnr irruri in 




r.,,,!,. HN ...... , 




' \ 

K 1'"'M tutlll '., 

"'"'"'I rr ', 

wiy ,i ul ' r am - n i... Hri.. 

'-' <''1 



! ' many 
pro- 



'""l ..... r 
wny. 



" 

in UK, Hlum , 

m , ,, 




M Of SI ,111111,11111) ,111(1 

ihiriiit' I lie monlli nf Dri- 



DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY 

,' Ni'iitiuii' (Jiirmcnl l!n., Muslim, Mmm. 81 . 

IHH.MHt, HV.tlllll im'll'n Wi.nl Klirl>lir<llll 

iivi'iv.inlN. Drfi'nui' l'i'i'miiin.>l Huiiuurl 

C.'iilvr. I'Uilml.'lpliln, !. 

Ami'Hi'iin Tcnl lit Cnnviui, Inc., l.nfullHI.' 

T.'iiu. S'.!.lilUI,;!L'<l. 11,11(111 Innti. ((''iii'l'iil inn'' 

!""' li'iiht. hi'fi'iiiii' lYi'iiuiiiii'l .'iiiiiLiiiri 

li-nli-r, I'hlh ..... luliln, I'n. 

f.Vnlrt C.irii., (iiii-lmml.il.., 1'n, S'.l.ilV-l.ltVi) 

:!7.li;i',! minimi vHili'l.i cn-ivnn'ii'ii lu'lmi'in 

Iti'lViini' IVitinim.'l !iii|i|iiirl Cmlrr, I'lilh,. 

.irl|.liln, I'll, 

('illumine Mlthi, (liihimlinn, IJn. SI OIK! -IY'1 
I ."'!"- ..... ' <"l. V'i'i "f iiim-m,.|ulU,' li!n,..-l' 

fLi'ivenJnir. IWi'iuio IVi-mmiicI Sni ..... rl 

<!r ....... '. n,ll,..| 1 .|, 1 |,m. ]', " 

I. Till- l)|.frllfl,. l'|,,'l .'Ilimih- Ci'iilrr. Al.-Mlll- 

ilrln. Vn,, lut-i nwm-dnl Mi,- fi.llmvlmt nut- 

li'm'tii for .II 1 1 J r i tn.-l: 

Htnmlnnl <)|| di. .if Ci.Hf., Mm, I'Yiim'hini 
t';iHf, S:!].',!',!li.:';!u. I'lH.lif.l.imii HI,],, 
Ihiinlili' Oil K Itrlliih.ii <'.. H..iiFil[i 
Trx. S'.M, '.Illi, 'HID. ',!;tll.lill|ijnni (nib 
'' K|nrt. tin-,. Nt-w Vt.rls Cllv N Y 



... .. 

M.lill 1)11 nirit,, New Ynih Cliv, NY 

$M.i;i;;:,;iiw, if,i.:iv;:.nKii m,!.. 

Union (III ('.., nf Ciillf,. I,,,., AiiirHt-ii 

( ullf. JlUWd.llHY, 117, Mil. (Hill 11 a In 

i oiilliinnlnl (III Co., Itmil ..... i. Tux <n 

MIY.Ii'H, 1ll.!i|ir,.i|im mil", 

Hlurlnlr IMinltiK C,.., N.-w V.u-j, CHv 

N.V, SH.ltiin.VllK. )M. linn, IIIKI ^uln 

Aliirrlrnii OH (',... (!|i|,., lltl ,. ]||, $n.;!H|.tMH 

i<ii,iir>ii,iioi) Kiiln. 

C'linnlnl Hlnlfn I'Mroi'tinnlcnl Co 

II..M-II.MI, Trv. JH,(H,!,.f,Vf,, VIl.HMI.VIlFt. 
Antiliniil (I!) K |[,.fl,,|, t ,, {., ,\).li,m1 
I v. (V,VU,:!Mi. HIMiM.liilii Hi n> ' 

(.ItlfN Hurvlro Oil I'..., N.-w Y m )( City 
NY |V.I,H|.14, H().:!',!|.,(Uii| ,(!,,, 
I lillll|in I'rh.ilciuii CM , Hn i 1 tli v lllt 
J k " .'.P'"'!"' 11 "'- M.:i::f,,mn. !. 
l.ulf 1)11 I t,r|i. ( N,,w Yi.rh lUlv. N Y 
84.Nf.JiiU, 4 l .MIiiti l iiii!i i, lt | n 
HlinmriK-h Oil A (INK Curp., Anuullln 
I."., 3:i,(ili:i.)il,.|, <iri,lliill,iiiii> iniln 
Amt-rli-nn IVtrnllnn (', ( Vrnitii. |l n llno 
l-'i, SM.'Hit.HVt,, nil. I ..... . ...... , r ,,|, 

NnnililB Krilnlntt (',,, Tul?,,,, nhln f;i . 

.HM,:uii, aii.MKUNMi on),, 

AllnnHr Kli'Mlr i| (.. [,, Amti-lri Ci.Hr 

""""- l|tHr 



niiln lUAiiliii C,i.. !,,,, An H H.-i, 

.V.'ll.f.iMI, ;'f,J ..... jinil , m |.| 

f lUfliittf| r , Ht.iini,,!). '|V, a- . 

t. .;(!,( ..... .mm IM ,| n 

JM 11 , 11 . 1 ! 1 ,^ 1 * 11 "" ''" Nl ' lv v "^ ( 'l*v, H.Y. 
jy.4iKi.fiw>. '.w.Him, ..... t ,.! < 

'" " ' '' 



Kliu-I-'Tfi* (III ('.. I,,n 
i, Cullf, C.),|flIl.tHt(l. ','() (mil 111)11 

ttrllnni-lfB, H>.I>I|..I> 'iv* I 1 ' . 
iK,4Hii,inm utl | r , ' 

riMH.rr illl A ItnAnln* ('.,. WlltnliiHlnn. 

'." If, II.HHIl 4011. |H,ltriit.(lll(l ,,,,1,, 
I"! 1 / 11 , ^l| ( fllnln IX. I,,. Ai'ni.'lrrt. 
ll(, i .nca.tum. ifi.finiMiM wnli. 



, 
Oil ((,,. K,.,v v,, r v 



in 



['"iitrm-L iiifnrfiiiaii.il in 

MM' fiiiitivviitir Hi'iiui'tici': 

( onnmiiy Value MiUcritti or 

work hi lit- IVrfMi'ini'.l I,i-nti(ii 

'f Work IVrfiiriwrl. 

'"K Aifoncy. 



nrn,, Hhm-l'W nil (:.. i ..... 
Am.H.vL, d.llf. si.iWi.lUKi, io,imi M n,i, 

lic D.'fi'iiii,. (ii.iicni] Ktipi.tv (Viih.i- HI..I, 

;'r vn " ..... ; ! ........ < H'V r.-ii..* ' w : 

1 PI- .nniiliiivK niM ....... .M.ilmic,!: 

nnlt-r lt K d'., l.iimh.T ...... N( ,. 

' ' 5I * 



;i^7,4K^!;^ A '''- 

i miilMiTiiiii i, K r:,i., Crnwii'v i ii si 
'.!.:tY1i, fLHr^.tMH) Imwi. ' S '" 

Vrilli-y MrlulliM'Klnil 1'nin'HHliin (!.. K ...... v 

"""]. $I.;UIH.U4Y, Atn.nlml i,,,,Ki,,.Hliiin 
"w' 1 '" 1 ' I'-ri'iii..- lin.rn.l Hiniply (Viiu-r. 
lU.'liinonil. Vn. 



i".,., ,m. . . .. 

.;,-,' ;; lll(l , i"'"'"''' ( inulor iniiKilin,.; ;!!,. 

. /..iiiii r,iii.,, ); , nr.iiKiin,,,,, n,,-!..: ..iMia.nni. 

l ." (1 'V' 11 '', ...... f n-jl.li.i.1 rurlii. Itrf ........ F M( ,] 

.. iiu. v ( .|i ,., Ali'xiiKilrlH, Vn. 

M'Vl'i'nn," 11 "" '"'''"vlll.'. t(y. 8a.lllH.Nif. 
l-I.HIl,.ll(Mt iriillnnii ,,l m ,, t( ,|. KI,.,,,!!,!,. ml< | 

.'"p;' 11 "''""""""' ...... ni.u.. fln'hi .nl-r.."",' 

Ni.'l ., 111,1. |y I niii-r, Alc\iunHii. Vn. 
1 ir h,.fi-ii. !( . IVnif.mifl H,,|i|M.r1 IVnd-i-. 
riilliii|i'l|.||ln, |'n,, | mn iiwiinli-il lln' fdllnw- 
llH. i-MiMiiifl'. f.ir li'iiplrnl n.mhllt tinolil t 

llnln Hlnn. ( (.,. llrlc-nnip, Mil. S'l.fUfl.mH]. 

:UV.(t;;il luilrn. 

)(nn<|.il|ili Alfji, I'"., lliuiilnli.il, Mnnii, S!l,. 

HUH. I III I. IIJKMHIII | t |ilr<(. 

Intrriiiitliiiini Hlinn Co., Hi. I,inil,i, Mo 
' ( 



. . . 

Httfclv l-'lml Mlinc Cn., Nimlivill,'. Tniti. 

S'.l.llill.r.Vl. lir.i.Wiil imli'ti. 

MrHriP Hlnip Inr,. MnniH Cillniil. N.(! 

*l/.!i!!..tMf'.. tiK,l(H4 inilni, 
Tli.. lifffiinr l-'iii>l Humilv (Wlt-f. Mfsrin- 
lll ' 1 . >.. I ..... iiwiir-lnl Itir fc.ll.nvlnit ...... . 

li'iiM'i fni' Mti-'iiHin' rnnl illi'SM-l fiii'l: 

I'lllcn IVrvIrp (Ml ('., N,. W Vurk (Iflv 

N,Y. :!,Hiv.;!:ii, nnii.iiiin iii, m >lii ..f mm- 

nil", f'mnluii. Tvin> I. 

Kltirlnlr KpHiilim Co., Ni'w Yurk (!lly 

N.V. (l.sin.liwt. :!Vl(,(lim linrrclii nf Kiiim. 

llni-, I niiiliiit. Tyiii' I. 

ll* Oil ft Ciiriitii-iil Curii., I'crtli Atnlwiy. 

N..I. C.MVfi.illiii. f.nil.lllill hiirr.'li. .if dlM,' 

fu.-l, (irnil,. Ill' 1 1, 

\Vnlrn Mf B . Cn,. |l ( , -,!, Mn-m, 81.H.|fl.7:!(l. 
4fi, nun nini'i. wiml Mnt>nnllin' uvi'i-i'imld. 

','/';","!' J.' 1 ' 1 ''"" ..... ' !1 ..... Wfl "''"l''i p . I'lilln- 
<li'h'liln, Pn. 

Cruiro Mfu. IVi,, Ci-iilrr. Alii, (il,4ni,Hil4. 
MM4 nini'n r.nitr.l nvt.ni twill rullii'initii. 

V'. '.",'"' I' 1 '" 11 ""!''' Htmi'iiH Ci'iilcr. I'lilln- 
'li'll-liln. 1'n. 

llnnhfltti Mfir. l'.. Hnnhiim. 'IVx. $I,'.i7fi.fHln. 
:inii.iiint .'.it tun ii..).||n wlinl-ri'iliitiint i-imiii. 
n.'frii"i. IVrFHutdcl !!iii.]uii'L (','iitn-, 1'hlln- 
iirlliltln, I'n, 

Cnjifiirnlii I'nrldiift C<ir|l,. Hnn Knmrlm'n, 
Culif. JUVIIt.nHl!, .(BSUtnn fiwn <>t rrunm 
Mivtr i-nrn. hcfi'iiNtt I'i't/iiiiiiii'! .Siniiiiirt 
(Vturr, rhllnilHiihtu. I'n. 
I(l'hi.( Wynn 'nii-rtirlxM. Knnxvllli', Term. 
Sl.HM!i.v;i:i. :>HB.!tfitt riil"it iui>]ii>, wind- 
rr(^idfi( IHI-II'H foiitn. D.'fi'iim! Pcrmuini'l 
HiiMM'i't ('.'iili-r, I'hllmlclj'lilii. l'it. 
Mnallnr, tiir.. t'incmiiiltiiT, Mlrli. (a.flKO.148. 
fl.KHl HiTtl.tn trnmrn fur mnlritriiMii-p Irnt'i. 
tli-f..|ii( ( - I'.-fiii.nn.'l Kuiiiinrl (^MHT, riilfii- 
ilrl|i)lln. I'd. 

Hkrrn MnBlnncrlntr C(i.. Hfrrni Mndrc, 
I'wHf, JI.'JHII.Hfir,. ifi.ono nitnliitt vehlrlo 
rdnvfiiMi'.i lichui'lH, Dcfi'nnr I'crmmncl 
Nui.ix.rl (Viit-r. I'liHnili'h'hla, I'n, 
Tr^nl(ln Tnxlllc KnvlnrarlttR & Mfg. Co., 
rn'iitfin. H.J. t3.ri4n.7nn. ail.DHT mrn'n 
wi-t wralhcr imrkiot. Doffnne T' 
irl (Vnter, I'hllnilplnliln. I'n. 



- Htrnmhcrft-CnrlHim Cortt.. Anlmra-i; Oliln 

W.M.OOO 1R.OOO ^ni/ll K o,,cn,l pi,r,, 

nVi M 'i ! )l ; f ' !tlH ' ! I'oi-HimiH-l Su|i]ii-L Contiiv, 
I'liiliHiulpliin, 1'n. 

'!??'! '''" Nlll<lnH - Hn.oklyn. N.Y. $1,. 101, HO 
H.IHW iiniii H wiml jnilmrdfiii! ovon'inilii witli 
rrnK.vonlil^ HIIW l),.f,.n H( , Puntniniol HIID- 
iitrl, Urnlm-, I'tiiluddiililn, Pn. 
Urlln I'ttroluinn Co., New Oi'lyruni T.ri 
.r,a H1.2. 4.Kafi.4R Bn lJ,, 11H oVluHrl^t! n 
jjjlH. OufoiitH. li'iiul Bm>,ily Cniitur, Ak>xnn- 

'^-' - ClUrnl ''''' 1 "' U -'- ^.SBO- 



, . 

Valley Mrliilliimlrnl I'rnrCBHluir Co., Kiiiie-c, 
(.imiu ?,ani.27. 4jna,700 i>inn,il of mnir- 
ininliini Tii'w.lc]-. l) ( .f,-iiHo Cicnrnl Sii]t|ily 
tlt'iilt-i-, IMiilimiinil, Vu. 

<mi ''^^V"". 1 "' 11 " 1111 '^ 111 "' Cmi - 91,117,- 
l>8. .WO,Kfifl ImUluii ,,f iipn|Nxy|.honii 3iy.lv.v- 

,,,,'.- , l) ;' r , <1 " 11 " I'l-'i-Boinu-l HiiiMioct Con- 
ti-r, l'liilndi'l|ililri. 1'n. 

iii',1?, H ^ rvl<>l! '"' (; "-' N(!W VoH( City. N.V. 
*B.(!14, 11. 2l 1 o 1 (lflO | (n ll>m of Jl'--4 jUi 
ruol Dufdiiiu. liuiil HuiMily Center, Alox- 
ninli'iii, Vn, 
Hinrlnir lli'fliilnff Cu.. New Yin-1* t!](.v, N.Y 

" 



,.. 

nil?. Dofeii 
aiiili'lti, Vn. 



Hui.|n.i-L (Junior, Alox- 



,,, 
I ,IIH ,,r , i',,,i j, tt fhlL .|, \ i 

M"f l n H !lV, t) l ! f ( '' ! l()tl . A lox ni id r In, Vn. 



i 



, ,. - -- .- 

I-nol || mid unnolhii. In IPO (Ju- 

to vru-liiiiH InntfillntltHin in Arlwmii, 
I'lilironija, Nt'viuln. Onwun mill \VanhliiK- 
t<m. l)i'fnii ( . iMiol Htimily Center, Aloxiin- 

Itulibor l-'nltrlrntorn, (irnnlnvllle, W. Vn. 
Sa.-MH.HHd. JHia.ilflO nninimiitli! miiLtr, ..... ( -ti. 
I't'i ..... 'L' I'i'i'HiKdifl Kiinintrt Ccnlor. I'lillu- 
ili'lpliln, 1'n, 

lljllii Mfit. Co., Coimiiffii, Tenn, $l,(IHH,4IKi. 
fl,n(M) ifiii lltu'i-it. T)i.fi>niU! Periiininvl Hun- 
imrt renlcr, I'lilliuli'h.liln, I'n. 
I'linioiT Unjr (In,, Kiiiiiiiiii (!tly, Mn. aa.(t7i.. 
1)11(1. HI,I)OI1.(I(I(1 iHilyiiroiiylvno nniullinKH. 
I t-fiintH! (imir<nil Hin.pl.v (Jcntor, UlchntHinl, 
Vn, 

ChnHo Itiitf Co., Nxv- York (!H,y, N.Y. Sl.- 
i!H(1 lltlll. R 0011,1101) iK.lvun.iiliyleno imiiitlmifH. 
1 vft'iiHi' (n'linnil Hinnily (it-Titri 1 , HkJiiiiom!, 
Vn. 

Stniilfor (^liemknt <;o. f New Ym-k Clly, N,Y 
S1.1HII.I17I). l!K7,fi01 xnlliiiiH .if nlrcrnfL tur- 
diio .'iiHliit' liilirlenllnit nil. ItofmnitR I-'ucl 
SiiPlily (li'iHi'i-. Alpxnndrln, Vn. 
Hoynl l.tilirlrnntH Co., Hniioviir, N,J. Jl.- 
IIDDIIIIO ;!H7,fi()l Knllonn of nlrcrnfl tiirhino 
rimliM' lulirlcftlliiit (ill. DeffriNc Kuol Huimlv 
lii'titi'r. Alcxniidrin, Vn. 
f)lln Mlnvnlor Co,, Iflrvoliunl, Oliln. $1.072,- 
.U7. illll irniiiiHiie-iwwenid fork Hfi 
I cfennt. (Smicnil Sii]i|ily Climlcr. 
Vn. 



ARMY 



1 fi!' y M;,'!" m(lH t'nt-iictl(ni Co., OklnlimiiJi 
tUiy, Okln. (a.HiiS.GlS. Worlc (in the Koy- 
hlimo ProJiirt (in tlie Arknnniiii Illvor. 
iMiKlnwir Illsil., '1'nlHii, Ohln, 
Km nli ford Amount. PliElnilnlphtn, ]'., IIIIH 
nwrirdrd tlin fnllmvlni: conLniclfl for inetnl 
1 xir tii fur 20mm rmidilKoti: 

(inllon Amen, Cnlliin. Ohio. $I,H01,(1(10 ; 

I>rcmfl I'roilitcU (Jorp., aiili-nipi. III. 

Sa,-Ill,-I7ri; Nnwnl, rnc., Wnllluim, Mnna. 

Ilr<1<lllcllt - Bl 8 



" 'i! M !!l sr . f'fl"Hlniet!on Co,, I. 



. ,, . , 

Cnllf. Sl.BGfl^OO. Uiinslruclton ot ft SM-baif 
Army Kiitinitnl nt I-'ort Irwln, Unrfllow, 
(>n\it, KiiKlncer Dial., Lou Aiiffdeo, Onllf. 



Defonso Industry Bulletin 



Kollnmn Infliruinonl Cor|i., , 

N.Y. t2.14a.OUO. DoiiHtcr nititcinbllca nnil 
nintnl imrtH for 7fi nnd ICfinun nlicllu. 
IlrldKttimrt, Conn. I'roeurcment Dclnch- 
mom. New Yiirk Oily, N.Y. 
(,'cnernl Time Corp., LnSnlle. III. J8,000,7GO. 
l-UKta for lOBmm yrojeclllos. LfiSnllo. 
I-rnnkfonl Araonnl, Pliflndoljililn, Pn. 



41 



Eureka Williams Co., Bloomington. 111. $1,- 
96-1.539, Metal parts for mechanical time 
fuzes. HloominKton. Ammunition Procure- 
ment & Supply Agency, Joliel, III. 

Lilcs Construction Co., Montgomery, Aln. 
33,248,299. Rehabilitation of barracks and 
facilities at Fort Polk, Ln. Engineer Dial,, 
Fort Worth, Tex. 

5 Federal Laboratories, Snltabure, Pn. 31,- 
453.332. Hand Krenndeg. Salisbury. Edge* 
wooiil Arsenal, Md. 

General Time Corp., LnSnlle, 111. 1,242.331, 
2. 75-inch rocket fuzea. LaSfllle. Ammuni- 
tion Procurement & Supply Anency, Joliet, 

Harvey Aluminum, Torrance, Calif. $4,- 
524,240. 20mm cartridge components. 
Torrance. Frankford Arsenal. Philadelphia, 
Pn. 

Mohawk Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio. $2,465,- 
671. I iieumatlc tires for I'/j-ton, fi-ton 
and 12-ton vehicles. Akron. Army Tank 
Automotive Center, Warren. Mich. 

Mansfield Tire & Rubber Co., Mansfield, 
Ohio, 31,417,758. Pnuematic tires for l"/- 
ton, 5-ton and 12-ton vehiclea. Mansfield. 
Army Tank Automotive Center, Warren, 
Mich. 

fi SoLile Construction Co., Pcnsacoln, Pin. $1,. 
865,093. Work on the Cross Florida Oar^e 
Canal Project. Eureka, Fin. Engineer 
T>ist,. Jacksonville, Fla. 

~i'* a i r ^< AIum , inum , Sales, Torrance, Calif. 
83.171,439. Classified items. Milan, Tenn. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply AECII- 
ey, Joliet, III. 

Belt Aerospace Corp., Fort Worth Tex 
32,417.184. Door assemblies for UH-I air- 
craft, fort Worth. Army Aviation Ma- 
teriel Command. St. Louis, Mo. 
8 Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio. 
Shoe assemblies for armored 



. 

Ml r A" lllty , tnlclis - Highland Pnrk, 
Mich. General Purpose Vehicle Project 
Manager, Warren, Mich. 

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Akron Ohio 
blW- "v 000 -"" ^P-lty "ollat 
I <.& ^ flas , e ? bli <"> tor petrole ,m. 
Pm?!nl , n arkl A ? h ' A* Mobility 



& RuIlb K Co.. Akron. Ohio. 
hoe assemb es for tank rornv 



W ' ynallcs ' Chest 






waukee Wh. uJbS^ i" 1 " 1 ""' 
mand, St. Louis, Mo y E(|ui me t Com- 

vt n,aa.. 

. uri&n fc a " 
Command, Rock lalnnd Jl my 



General Motors, Detroit, Midi. |l,fi27,-17fl. 
Diesel t'lijtinuii, six cylinder, V-lyii, l!lll- 
horseimww, for Urn IVi-mmm 1 ! (iarricr 
Tank Recovery Vehicle nnil Ilnwk I.imili-r. 
Detroit. Army Tank AiiluiniiUvt 1 (Vnliir, 
Warren, Mich. 

H General Motorw, D^tn.it, Midi. $',!, 0-1 fi, 1)0-1, 
Work on PhnHi; III Development of (In- 
U,S,-F.H,(1. Main Hntltcp Tank I'roj.'.-t, 
Warren, Midi, Army Tnnk Aiidiinoliv. 1 
Center, Warren, Mich. 

--Pcnland Pnncr Convcrtlntt Cnrji., Ilnnowr. 
Pa, $2,040,001). Flln-r i.iiimipiiKhin ron- 
talnei'ii for KlCinim piludln. Ilniiitvi'i-. Am- 
munition Procurement A .Supply Awi'in'V, 
Joliet, III. 

United Ammunition Conlnincr, hu 1 ., 1'liiln- 
delphia, Pa. $l,()77,Kr>(). Fih.'i' iimininiKliHi 
container., for Ifirunin nlii'lK I'lillnilflpliln. 
Ammunidon Pi-ocuri'iinMil. & Hiniiilv AHI>II- 
f.y, Joliet, III. 

Pace Curp., Momiihlii, Tcnn. $1,75(1,7!^. 
Flares. C!nmiliM|, Ark. AniiiiiinKlun I'm- 
ciircmenl & Supply AiKsiu-y, JnliH. Ml. 
AVCO Corn., Klchmoinl, Ind, S1,III'.!.'.!HI1. 
Fu/us for a.7fi-liili riit;kt'iii. IM.'liiiiniid. 
Ammunition PrncurciTiiinl & Hii|ipl,v Atft'ti- 
cy, Joliet, III. 
Canadian Cinnmpri'liil Corp., Ollawn. tliui- 

adn, $2,llllll,f>3n. Utilily lioll.>op(<>i' ,'IIK! 

I.oiiitmnill, Qiii-liiifi. Army Avliilliui MIII>- 
ricl (Command, Hi. r,oulii, Mo, 
Moloroln, Inc., Cliinum, I||, S;!,.[(ir,,|ll)(i. 
Metal imrlH f.n> arllllrry atiiiuimll (mi nln-lln. 
1'illt <!rovi! VilliiKi.', Ill, Ainiiiuiiillou 1'np- 
ciiromont & Supply AKoni'y, ,l.i|li>|, Ml, 
Raymond Kniriiu'eriiiii I.iiliiiral.irlvji, Mid- 

MIddloton. Harry Dianioiui Laiiiinil.n'y! 
wnnhinj[luii, !!.(!, 

15 Nnrrls IndiiHlrkn, Vi-rnipn, (Inllf, 3-1,111111, , 
113, MiiUil cnnhiU'ivi fur mill.' iiyiitcpim 
Hnickton, M.iiin. niid Vi-rmin. f^nllf, Ain- 

muiiition Pr<inirt.rn(!til & Hupply AH y, 

Joliel, 111, 

(W7,1]|>!l. Mttil faiilHli.i'ii fp,r nilln- nyn\ ,,.,','pl" 
Orliiiido. Ainmiinlllon l'r.n'iir.'iin<nl & 
hupiily AKonity, Jnl|.>(., 111. 

""'"'" llnlMm.irr. Mil, 



"' 1 ' ( 'HV. N.Y. 






Hinn.ly ' 



i ji fi - mmiiiinn I 

.i* UI ! I>ly Ammoy. Jollol, III 



?Gr' H nn(i N 1 ' llm ' !llcr ll801 l"on H tIH~i 

Co., New 1B _^Xi iW,; ,,f rmy 



. 

'" " 7 " 



; 



JO 




Cninuliiin ('inuiii'r.'lnl C.IMI,. niiin,, i' 
.uln. ?l.lMJ,iiii'i .\minm, M.,,. V , ','" 
Mnnlrml. I'nmnh.. !', n ,,l (, r ,|' A " ' 
l'lilhul,.||,hta. I'M. ' A)1 M 

I'uhirilil t'Jfi'l P tiiltrn Cm H . I ,,,, r l , 

in,,. NY s,.,,,.,,/, :!.,:, 1 'r;;;:,,..:.s 
l 



W Anirllriiu M-UB A Itfiil'li ( 




Nnlliinnl l'nl"M t-:icilrlc. H|..i>t,dii|.|,,ii III 

?'<.n;!,r,in,. n ..... i, ..., ......... . ..... i :. 

Ml,-,, IU..,.mhMl ..... Am ....... tit.,, .,' , ' 

ini-nl A !iii|i|i|x' Aircni-v. .1.,||,.! ||| 

'., Vil,, I'n 3l,Vi|:i ; 'ii \\, 
x .- ' 



,.. ^.M 

Ai.liMnuil.' Klmt'iKli' I'..,. W.,,,1, i.,,,,,, i,, 
*IJiiiU.!iV. Ii.'i. ...... I ...... .,( flll . ' ; 

1'AIIX r.iMlr.n.-m N..HI, l.nl,,., AnlvK \" 
' ...... '"' ' 1 -.mn.J. I-' MMmnmihlVj 

l'nr ( iillllil1llH> tlllxiln I JMllllrrlq. \V,,,,til,!,, 

'" "' <-- i .''f.'". *" ..... v, i,,,,. r : 

-- 



Hun.l I Mi,n.....H,< 
Ariii,, ,\i,,, v (..,] 

MniHiii-iilti. N..I. 
I'lly .if .ltiiU-,.iit 



i 

KiiKl.i.-.T lll'.i , .lm'l,.M,mtll<-, f'ln, 
Mlltp llr,i,lf,, r .| A r,,. Mln.,,1. d,,. ,,,. 
JJfl. \Vnik .. H,,- ,|, | V) i'i- fit. 11 I),.,,,, ft 
- ' 



." ", ,.pi) ..). 

M . r'i", 1 "" 1 ' !ir '"' f "" 1 AMIIV Avlnil.,i| 
Mim-rli-1 I ..iiiiiuut<l, !i( l.iiuia Mi> 



tijmrt' 111111=1 fn, ;-.. ..... ifu, t, n . Miinli,,),,!! 

(h-l..-rl I';.; !... V,.,l,.t l','..|r..| Mnni-.i.-!-; 
Wiu-r ..... Mli-l t , 

mi'r'ViT V"^' A " I ""V FI "' Ii"'.. '|MT 
II, N.1, ( ,n fil M,i M,-,,,! ,,,, ,.> 

li.M f,,r ni 1 1ll.- iv it ..... .mini,,.!, client Mill 

ln*'IIM-Mlrtll |l,-! n ,-)||,,,, ( |, M,, H Vnit. I'th', 



Hrmr B 

i^' 111 , 
i"i i 

nni'M 



. 

' , 1 ' " ..... lo """iMlra (,' ).M M.-fV 

""'"Mllll ..... , A..*!,,-!,,, I',,-,, '",,. 

liwlirii..!.!. N..w V,.,l I'ltv. K v 

.'i,. T ' l '"'""' ie - I >"!!. T,-v li.iHii/.'Mn, 
"-rml.ll,, f.. r lllo vwi-M.. I..,,,,!,, tinr. 

l I.I. h'V AllUI)lllUH>.h J't.-.-IIM-IMfHl A 

J!iijp|"lv Airni.'v, ,l,.||^i, ui, 

'/HiV''! 1 -!"'^"" 1 ', 11 ."' '-'"'M^l"*. T.... ll.fifin.. 
i 11 "- I. 1 ..... -o-nl-ltri, f,-r |) ln VA'i.lli l,..ml. 
.i."^'"^' Atin.!....!!)..,, rnvMirrtiPiil & 
'ini'i'ly Aitt'ii.-v. J (1 ||,i, 111, 

i TO l ' 1 l ll ' llll ' ( "- N^'w It'-I.H!,. M.V, II.. 

I,,;?.' 1 ';. H " *".'"""i'r a {, Hi,. vr,"tk 

iihtii A .i"" 1 ', 1 "' J'* 1 A'''"t"l ...... l'n..-iiri.. 

I'"" 1 * ' ...... Iv AH.-.H. j t ,M,,[, in, 

iVv^'MV'^^^M'? "' Awl. Hnnl^n 
<-HV. N.Y 3l,ifl]f,,lltll |.' n |,r)r n ili,n (pf 

;;: /';;",'', lii 'r, h '-'^"AI ...U" ,,r 
A'iiM^ 



z 

l -, m 



l -, m . 

wri i HIH ViM? 1 "" 1 '. 1 '' "- 1 """. wwh. 

I iV. ' ? M - 1fl ! 1 .'n-llflr.1 n,,u vchlrlM, 

"' '"' A M |.,,,,llv. r,lrr. 






Jttfttmru 10A7 



2.1 General MntorN, Iiidinnnnollti, Ind. $4,200,- 
GHO. Trrinmniiiiiloit nH:iemlille!i. IinliunapullH, 
Army Tank Automotive Hunter, Warnm, 
Midi. 

--(Jcneral MntiifH, Detroit, Mich, Jill, 040,050. 
Metal imilst for Hllimm projectile)!. Kt. 
Limit), Ammunil.lon Procurement & Supply 
Aitenr.y, Jollel, III, 

--It, C. Can Co. Ilimilwodd, Mo, $l.;iO!),4r>H. 
torimm miimiinitii)ii ronliilneni. ilir/.c] wood. 
Ammunition Procurement Hi Humily AKCII- 
c.y, .Idli.it. III. 

.(icncrul Molorii, Detroit, Mle.h. 81,0^5,101). 
Dli-iii'l enirjncii for irifmim howllv.eni 
Detroit. Army Tnnk Automotive Center^ 
Wiirren, Mich. 

Altwa-Dmvney Count rurl Ion Co., Mlhvnu- 
lu-c, Win. Sfi.rt'.rSi.ailfi. Work mi a vehicle 
mwemldy huildinir. lit Kennedy Kpnce Center, 
Merretl. Inland, Fin, Canaveral I'lmtlucer 
Dinl.. Merrill Inlniid. Kin. 
I.evlnnon Hteel Cn., I'lllnlmrith, pa. $;i,HOI),- 
Olifi. Mi'lnl parhi for lorirnm iirojec.lileii. 
H n, vii. Pit. Ammunition Procurement & 
Mii|i|ily Ajfoney, Juliet, 111. 

Si 7 Odoni Coniilriirtlon Co,, Nmthvllle, Tcnn. 
S'.l.tlHI.HIH, Work on Kentucky Hiitliwny 
Nu. IT, at. Hie Can- l-'orli Uenervulr Pro|ec,t. 
llii/.urli, Ky. Kniilncer Dint., Louliwlllrj 
Ky, 

Ciilt'ii Inc., Ilnrlford, Conn. SO,tl()H,75ll. 
XMIMK1 mill MIO rlfleii (n.nilmm), Hart- 
ford. Armv Weaponn Ciunmand, Itock 
Inland, III. 

Cermna Alrcrnft Co.. Wli-lilln, Kim. SH.ir.il,- 
8W1. Honilin wllli dliipcniicrn and imlpplnit 
and iiloraite ciuiliilm-ni, Wlcliltn. Ammuni- 
tion Proeurcmeni & Mupply Anenry, Jollel, 

Tiiflintrnl OiiernlloiiH, Inc., HurlliiKlon 
Muiiit. $:i,;i01.40U. l.um mini monthii of 
lU'ienlillc and l>>cliulenl etrorl. in nii]>port. of 
ill mlii'it, minlynlii and evnllmllonii for Hie 
Cornlml Develonmi'iil Command, For! llel- 
volr, Vn. Frill llelvolr, Nnrlliwcul. Pnicure- 
Tiienl. AKcncy, tlakland, Calif. 

HH Arvln Indiinlrlen, ('olumluin, Ind. Sl,(H;i,7HI. 
Itndlo iieln. Coliinibiin. Army I'ilrrl ninlcii 
Coiiiiiiniiil, Philudcl|ilila, I'n. 

Conllnental Molorw, Muuknf.on.Mldi. S1,- 
Illli.lliiV, Mulll-fiiel cmdneii for fi-ton trucku. 
Mnnkemm, Pro.li^cl Muniurer, (joiio-iil I'nr- 
pine Vehlclcii, Wnrren, Mich. 

(IcHNitn Alrcrnft Cn.. Wichita. Knn. $|.',!0i! ( . 
701. llomli illiipciiin-ni mid contalnerii for 

dliipeiui(<r i>i|iilpi it, Wlchllu, Proi'nremenl 

Delachmenl, Clilrnico. Ml. 

ItetnliiKliin Arinii ('o., IlrlilHciun't, Conn, 

$40,;!iHl.'.!(IH, Mliicellmicnini nmall arum am- 
tiuinllioii. liidcpi>iideiice. Mo. Ammunltlnn 
Prin'iiremiml A Mnpply Agency, ,|olli>l, III. 

I)ny A /.Imtncrninn, Inc., Plillndelphla, Pn. 
$4,1141/10'.!. Mlui'elliini'omi iimmnnltldn cnm- 
iidiii'iiln. 'I'l'sitrkntin. Ti-x. AniTitunltlfni 
Proeurcmeni, A Mnpply Aitcncy, .Iidlel, 111. 

> Thlnltol Cliemlrnl Corii., Hrliitol, Pn. S',11!,- 
UHlpHOH, AiiiiemldlnK. IniuHiitr run I unrliinn 
of iinliKuicc Itemii. Mnnilmll, Tex. Animnnl- 
tliin Prornrenienl. tti Hnnply AKt'niry, .lollct, 

Hnrvey Aliimlnimt Hiilt-n, Torntnoe, Cnllf. 

$11.147,400. I.njulliiit, iiMiiemlilliiK and jinck- 
Imr of mlnct-lhincdiiii medium cnlllirr iun- 
miinlllon mid conuionentii. Milan, Tcnii. 
Ammunition Prot'iireni<<nt & Hupply 
.Toilet, 111. 



20'-- 



Feiloi'iil Cnrlrldjffi Corp.. Mhuu'itiiollM. 
Minn. (V.ttO'J,411, I'niiliiiill.in of 7,02mni 
null iimmiinUInn mill for tnn'i'titlnri arid 
niiihitornuicc itcllvlllcii. MlnncnnollH. Am- 
in mi It Inn I'ninuvmcnl & Hnpiily Awcticy, 
Jnltcl. HI, 

Airport MncMnlnjr Corn., Mnrlln, 'JViin. 
$l,H03.7itO. Motril parlii fr lUtl-lm-li rm-lt- 
O!H. Ilnlciii (Illy, Ti-nri. AmmunUlixi 1'rn- 
iinromont & Hinnily Aiiuncy, Juliet, III, 
Amoricnn Mtg. (,'o. of Tex., Vwt Worl.1i, 
'IVx. $1,072,0(10. Omniiimcma tor a,70-ln^li 
rockidH, Kurt Wnrlli. AniiniinlUnii Vn^ 
cnrtimcnl A Huinily Aitcncy, JoHel, III. 
I'olnn Inilimtrlaii, Hiinllniildii, W. Vn. !!,- 
2!lli.(lfla. IVrlHcojti'fl. ihmtlrtitlon. Krnnkfnnl 
Arnonul, I'lilliulnl|ililn, 1'n. 

Honeywell, Inc., Hnpkltui, Minn. |H.2fl[i.2R2, 
Fneeii. Now IlrltrlKon, Minn. AmnuintLton 
rraimramciiL & Hiuipty AK<ini-y, Jotlct, III. 
IIMC Imtiisirinln, Inc., Ooodycnr, Aria. 
1 1, 03 R, 0(10, Hinnko RronndoM. Oooilyonr. 
Kilgowofdl At-iionnl, Md. 
Tcxnii Inittrument, Inc., Dnllnn, Tox, $7,. 
000.000. CliiNHlflcd electronic equipment. 
Dnllnn, Army Klcclronlun Commnnu, Fort 
Monmoulli, N,J, 

Anllumy Co., Btrciitor, III. 14,000,931. IfiO 
illoHvl OUR I no driven, fork lift trudin. 
Strontcr. Army Mnliillty MimliimcnL Com- 
munil, St. LotiiH, Mo. 



OIInmlltDii Wntcli Co., Lancnator, Pn, $G,- 
l(m,443. lUrimm oiirtrldKu fuzua. Lancnnler, 
I'l-nnkftiril Aiwmnl, I'hilaiU'lphia, Pa. 

Mnrlin Mnrlfittn, Orlando, Fin, $5,130,1)01). 
Coiilliiinitloii <if imlnnl.nu] unninoorlnK HUD- 
jiurt for ttie I'crnhiiiB wuiiimn tiysteni. Or- 
lundo. Army MlnHilu Coininiind, llei! H (.om! 
AriHiiiul, HuntHvillu, Alii. 

Unythrim Cn., Norwonil, Mann, SU I 1J22 1 00(), 
40H tidijiiliiiiii! iilitniil tionvwtoi-rt with ropuii- 
jinrlti mid 4DU tijli-iihiino lilitmil cniivertui'B, 
Iciiii chnnniH mid wltli a difforcnl cnlilfl fis- 
Hi'inldy, mid willi i-dnciirrutit roimir purls 
mill nni-lllin-y ilornii. North DlKlitmi, Mnim. 
Army Klccli-orilim C.immiuid, l l hllniU>l|>hla. 
I 'a, 

- Pncluird Hell KlootronlrH f!orp., Nowbiirv 
I'ark, Cullf. Sl.nfill.omi. 472 triuiHiiorulor tra't 
ntii. Ni.'wlniry Turk. Kinilhwcot Pnipiiiv- 
mnl, Aitciuiy, I'ntmdi'iin, Calif. 

Falrrhlld Hlllrr Corp., Iluminitown, Md. 
S,t,41.i,H;t(l, 'rniniimiiiHlonii for H-aa lidi. 
ci>]ilcni. Ilum-nildwii. Army Avlallon Ma- 
li'rlid (.onimmid, Kt. I,iiln, Mo. 

-LTV Klrrtrn HyHtvnm, flrcunvlllt!, K.C. $1,- 
fi!)7,HW. 1)t!V(!]iipini'iit, prolnlyidiiK anil 
nmnnfmiUirliiK f mndilliration ldt fur an 
Avhinli-ii llHrolU Prujc.i't fur II-l, (1 and H 
(Ixcd-wltiK iilrrrafl. (iri>i>nvlll<>. Army Avi- 
ulldii MaU'i-li-l Ciimmuml, HI. I,OII!H, Mo. 
Iliilli'd Aircraft, t'rotl & Wliltncy I>lv., 
I'.nnl. llnrlford, (limn. SH.On-l, 0(111, Kuttlni' 
Ki'iicrnl.mi for (ill- fi-IA nlrrrafl, Kant, Ilnrt- 
fni'd. Army Avlallon Miilnrii'l Oommiiml, 
SI, I,DII|M, Mo. 

Hulled Alrrrnft. Hlltorjiliy DIv., Rlrnlfnrd, 
(limn. SI, 1117,01111. (ill 5.1A trmiHiiilHHlon 
iiiiHrinlilii'ii mid tmilii rotor inicmblltiii. Klrat- 
furil. Army Avialiim Miilcrli-l C!ommiiml, 
HI, liiuiln, Mo. 

Unllod Alrcrufl, Hnmlltoii Hlnndanl IMv., 
Wliidmir l.o.dui, Ci.iin. Sl.fi-IH.aHH. Pm- 
IH-Ucni fur (IV I MnliawU ulrcraft, SI!, 155!!,. 
fi'Att. ()V 1 in-dpi>lli>r i-onlrolii. Wlndmir 
l.i'idm, Army Avlal.lon Mnlcrli>l Cdininand, 
SI. Iiimiii, Mo. 

Niillimal d'yuHuni Co., Buffalo, N.Y. S10,- 
K<l4,lltMI. U.'iicMviiHim of fm>ll!H<>ti for uro- 
ilnrtlim of orilmnn-c lli'inii at Mm Kntumn 
Army Ammunlllim Plmit. PartuniH, Kan. 
AmmimlllnTi Pnicun>in(!i)l & Hitpiily 
Airt'iii-y, Ji.lli'l, III, 

- Ilnlfiva Wiilcli Cn.. Jiickiidii Tlididitu, N.Y. 
Sl.lllO.rilHI. ]-',\ wn {, t\w Hlmm nidrlar. 
ilncktiim Hckhln. Ammnuil.lon I'nifliirc- 
iili'iil ,1 Hii|.|ily Altcncy, Jolli'l, III. 

-Htpwnr I -Warner (Virii., (llili-iinn, III. 

Sl.ll'.SK.lir.B. Mini- tu'M-a. (IhlniKO. Aminii- 
nlllun Proi'iiri'incnt ft Supply Ajti'iii'y, 
,ioll,-(, 111, 
1'ariiuT'n ('lit'iiilrnl ANHnclntoii, Inc., Tytu-r, 

'I 1 , 3I..|OK,7H1. tlunpiirt itt-rvici-H for DIP 

maim fact urc of <<xplimlvi'ii. ('hallammua, 
'I'l'iin. Ammunlllim 1'roi'iircmcnt & Hnnply 
Ancm-y. Jollcl, 111. 

(icnrrnl Motnrn, I)i>lroll, Mich. $1,870,001). 
Id'ni'l ivnUnti of mipimrl nlllltli'ii at. the 
Army Ammimltlmi Phinl, Hi, I.nnln, Mo, 
Anitminilloii Prdciircmciil. & Hnpnly 
AHCI.CV, ,h,l|cl, 111. 

Hrrrnlt-H, Inc., Wllmtimton, Del, $.|,r>:t7.70ft. 
MlncclliincoiiM iirimcllnntu anil cxploidvcH, 
mitl fur opiinillim mid malntcniini'i! acllvl- 
tli'ii nt ihi! Army Ammunition Plant. Itad- 
fdnl, Vn. AmmunlUnn Procnrcm trill & .Sup- 
ply AHt'rii'.v. Jolk'l. Ill, 

Clmintirrlntn Corp., Hi^rnnKm, 1'n. $f5,OHO,- 
flflH. nrnnin proji'ct llcii. Army Ammiinitlnn 
Plant, Hcranldii. l'n, Aminunl|.loii Proniro- 
mt'iit ft Hnpnly Aitcncy, .lollct, 111. 

Allnritle Itcoenrrh ('orp., Aloxiindrln, Va. 
Jl,0:i4,;iH(). Mt'lnl i-nrtn for mlno canlHtoni. 
Aloxaiulrlu, Ammunition T'rociivnmenl & 
Mnpply Am'iiry, Jotlcl, 111. 

Dnniivmi ConHlniction ('o,, Hi, I'ntil, Minn. 

S7.1HH.IHr,. Mclttl imrtn for IRfinim jtrojc- 
tlli'it. 81. Paul. Amnninlllnn I'roriinimcnl 
A Hnpplv AKi'm-y, .Toilet, III. 
(iBiiirnl Motorx, Ddtnill, Mtnh. (Q,r,27,0n2. 
-1,400 four-dour, nlx-piiHHoiiKM', commcrctril 
Hcilnnn. WilinlnKtnn, Ui'l. Army Tank Auto- 
mollvir Cniittr, Wnrrcn, Mich. 
(Jcnrrnl Motors, Dclrull, Mich. tl,B30,720 
1,088 commercial Htntlnn wnitnttH. DcLroll. 
Army Tank Automotive Center, Wnrrcn, 
Mich. 



NAVY 

1 Vncnllno C()mnny of Am or I en, Old Buy- 
brook, Conn. * 1,0011,!! -10. Work on prc- 
prodiicllnn, production nnd eiiKlnccrlnn 
tertlliiK for qmillty control of flonobiioyn not! 
imdorwntcr Huunil fliRnnls. Houth HHstol, 
Mninc. Nnvnl Air Syatemu Command, 



12- 



-Lockheed Aircraft Corn., Hnrbnnk, Cnlif. 
Sl.ORi.TiOO. Modi fixation of government 
uwnud SI'-SJH aircraft. Ilurbimk. Navitl 
Air SyHlemii Coniiniind. 

-Western Electric, New York City, N.V, 
St, 000,000. MR 1 Mod O wonpoiiH direction 
ei[iii]tmeiit. llurlltiKton, N.C. Navnl Ord- 
nniici; HyHleiiiH Command, 

-SliaRlt Corp.. Hedro Woolley, Wa.ih. Sl,- 
Uni.lillO. Wiacht'H to be owed aboard fnut 
combul Hiippnrt HhijM, PiiRet Sound Nnvnl 
Klilpynrd, Dre.niL-i'ton, WrtHli, 

-(larrclt Corp., AlKcNenrcli Dlv., Phoenix, 
A )!/. Sll,i;2n,;!2il. T7G-C-10/12 cmdnoii for 
OV-lOA ulrcrnfl. Phoenix. Nnval Air 
KyHleniH Command, 

-Lockheed Alrcmft Corp., Itnrbnnk, Calif. 
$7,;iHO,00. Limtc Iciidtlme ultort and mate- 
rimH to Hiip]irl I'T 07 prociiroiiiont of I 1 - 
Hit nirtii'itft. Ilurbnnk. Nnvnl Air HyiitemEi 
Cnmmnnd. 

--Merando, Inc., WiiHliliiKlun, D.O. $1,R18,- 
1100. ConiilructUin of n ntnllon liofipitnl nnil 
dontal e.linlc at the Nnval Air Training 
Center, Palnxent Illver, Md. Chesnuunhc 
1)1 v., Nnval FiiclHtlou Knulneorlnjr Com- 
miind, 

-WeHlprn Rlpctrie. Now York Clt.y, N.Y. 
?l,01il ( H03. Sonar ecuilpmont for Hiili- 
mnrinen. llnrlliiitlon, N.C. Navnl Shin 
H.VHleni.s (!nniiiiinid. 

-North American Avlntirm, Cfiliimlnni, Olilo, 
1,700,000. Condor mlmdlcH. Coliiinhiia. 
Nnval Air KyHte.niH Command. 

-United Alrcrnft, Kant Ilitvtford, Conn. ?!,- 
:i5l!,000. JOO-P-t! onuiniHi for alrcrnft. Knnt 
Hartford. Nnval Air Synluniii Ccimmand. 

-United Alrrrnft, Kant Hartford, Cnnn, $1,- 
li;i5,Hir, Model ,T7f)-P-i;iH eiiKlneH for ilm 
Air Force. Knot Hiulfuril, Navnl Air Hy- 
ICIHH ('ommand, 

.lolniH HopklrtH [InlvcrRJty, Applied Pliyslrn 
l-nhoralory, Silver Spring, Md. $1,040,000, 
Work on ilie Itumblelice pnij^ct. Bllve'r 
Hprlnjt. Naval Ordnanco Hyitlumii Com- 
mand. 

tieneral DynamlcM, Pomona, Calif. $3,420,- 
01)0, Cnldaiu'i}, control and ordnanco nee- 
(lonii for Type I iitnndui-d tnliiHllesi. Pomona. 
Nnvnl Ordnance* SytiUmiti Coinmnnd, 

-Mnnnnntn Ucnenrfli Corp., HI. I,ouln, Mo. 
SI!, 000,1101), lUwiurh on hluli ii(!i'formanc 

ilpoilile malerililn. HI. I.dltlH. OflU'R of 

Naval liciiearcli, WniihliiKloii, !),(', 

Niitlonal Co., Melroiie, Mnnn. $7,Rr>7,!127. 
llndlii IniitHniltlcrii for nhorn cnmtnunlcei- 
tlomi. Mfdrone, Navy PnrclmiiliiK Olllr.u, 
Wu.ihinnl.iii, 1),C. 

AAI Corp., HnHlmor*. Md. SH.OOl.iUl. 
Miiinlle InindllnK nyHte.rivi to tie IIHIM) nlniard 
fiuit eomlinl nuppnrl tihlnii. Oocltcyiivllli*, 
Md. PiiKiit Hound Nnvnl Hhlnyurd, Ilmmor- 
ton, Wnnh. 

-llnolnff Co., Henllle, Wnnh. $1,120,000. H-i- 
ni'ui'i'li on lhi> ntrciiii rurrniilcm rcniiUhm of 
liiiih nlrennlli inolnlii. Heatllo. Oftlco f 
Naval Itciiearcli, Wanhiimlon, D.C. 
llewletl-I'acldird Co., Itoeliville. Md. $1,- 
(i'M.Hilll, OiicllloiicoiiPH. Colorndo K]i)'lmtii, 
Cido. Nnval Hliin HynU.'inii Ciminiund. 
Hnldis In -Llinn- Hamilton Corp., Phlln- 
delidtln, Pn. S1.1!'(i7,HOO,' Hlili* propolleni. 
Phllndelphla. Naval Htilp Hyntc.niH Com- 
nmtid. 
United Alrcrnft, Norxvalk, Conn. J2,0rt7,- 

me.nt for fiuhrnnrinen. Norwnlk. Navl 
Khlp Kytitomn Com m nnd. 

-United Alrcrnft, Want Ilnrtford, Conn. $t,- 
7riH,HO!!. Overlnuil omilimiont for J-7H nlr- 
crnft onitlnon. JOriHt Ilnrlfonl. Navy Avia- 
tion Hnpnly Olllco, IMilladolphla, Pn. 

-WcnlhiKlioiiKc Mlcctrlc, PlttHlmrKh, Pn. $!,- 
1211,000. Nnvy nucleiir-]tro]inlnlon coinpoii- 
enlH./ Pllliiliurnh. Nnvnl Hhl|i SyHleniB 
Com m mid. 

-Northrop Corp., Ncwlmry Park, Cnllf. $1,- 
ODfi.mfi, MlJM-nOA norial tiu-Kotn. Now- 
bnry Park. Nnvnl Air aytitwnH Rommnnd. 

-Hermllo Powder Co., flaiiitim, Cnllf. $!>,- 
005.044. Aircraft pantduito (InroH. Snugiift. 
Navy Shlpri PnrlH Control Conldr, Me- 
chnnlc.Hlnirit, Pn, 

-Mnrtln-Mnrli;Iln Corp., IlnHlmoro, Mil. 
(1,2215,404, Synloms onnlm.'erliipf nnd nvl- 
onlcn (tcnlffn for nn ncc.cloriUed P-2 ak-crnft 
proRrnm. llnltlmoro. Nnvy Air Develop- 
ment Center, JolniHvllle, Pn, 

-HnnclUne Corn., Little Neck, N.Y. $2,37*,- 
7fi7, Air droppnWo acouatle dovlccii. Ltltlo 
Nock, Nnvy Air Dvc!opmont Center, 
Jolmsvlllo, Pn. 

-8orry RninI Corp., CireiiL Heck, N.Y. 
?2,aOO,GH4. KiiKlncerlnit effort to perform 
n development proitrnm on Ilio Terrier 
rntlnr net, nnd nnclllnry eaiilpmonl, Orcnt 
Neck. Nnvnl Ordnnnco SystoniB Commnnd, 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



43 

M 



AVCO Corp., Stratford, Conn. $1,307,513. 
Spare parts for A4E aircraft. Stratford. 
Navy Aviation Sin, ply Office. Philadelphia, 
Pn. 

13 United Aircraft, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft 
Div., Enst Hartford, Conn. 522,40-1.965. 
J52-P-8A engines. Enst Hartford. Naval 
Air Systems Command. 

Curtis-Wright Corp., Wood-Hi dgc, N.J. $8,- 
18<I,GI)1. Spare parts for aircraft engines. 
Wood-Ridge. Navy Aviation Supply Office, 
Philadelphia, Pn. 

M Willamette Iron & Steel Co., Portland, 
Ore. 32,431,000. Overhaul of the oiler USS 
Cacajion (AQ-52). Portland, Industrial 
Manager, 13th Naval Dist. 
Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., 
Newport News, Vn. $1,000,000. Overhaul 
nnd refueling of the ballistic missile sub- 
marine USS Lafayette (SSBN-GIG). New- 
port News. Naval Ship Systems Command. 
Aerojet General Corp., Sacramento, Calif. 
52,908,456. Manufacture of Sparrow mis- 
siles. Sacramento. Nnval Ordnance Sta- 
tions, Indian Hend, Md. 
General Dynamics, Pomona, Calif. $1,414,- 
ROu. Study program on an antisubmarine 
warfare ship integrated combat system. 
Pomona. Naval Ship Systems Command. 
IB Blass Antenna Electronics Corp., Lonir 
Island City, N.Y. $1,060,000. Work on 
phased array radar aboard naval shlpH. 
Long Island City. Naval Ship Systenm 
Command, 

General Dynamics, Pomona, Calif. $3,fiOO,- 
000. Research nnd development on the 
Standard Arm Missile, Pomonn. Naval 
Air Systems Command. 

Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., 
Uethpase, L.I., N.'Y. 55,207,000. TC-40 
aircraft. Bethpnsc. Naval Air Systems 
Command. 

Hughes Tool Co., Culver City, Calif. SV 
734,863. 20mm gun pods, Culver City. 
Navnl Ail- Systems Command, 
General Electric, Schencctady, N.Y. ?!,- 
123,000. Refurbishment of nuclear propul- 
sion components. Schenectady, N.Y. Nnval 
Ship Systems Command. 
J.A. Jones Construction Co., Memphis! 
Tenn 53,820.000. Construction nf an en- 
listed mens barracks at the Naval Air 
btation, Memphis, Tenn. Southeast Div., 
Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 
16 Boeing Co., Morton, Pa, S7,GSO,000. CH- 
46U helicopters. Morton. Naval Air Sys- 
tems Command. 

Bromfleld Corp United Shipbuilding Div., 

fcnst Boston, Mass. $l,fiOO,SM. Topside 



2,1 



11! 



University of Alatilin, Cnlleire, Alanka. SL- 
210,000, Sorvincsi in onnm-i'limi wild Itir 
operation of tlio Ariilii 1 llcncarch liiiliurn- 
tory. College. Oillc<> of Nnval K<vii>nn'li, 

Tracor, Inc., Aimtin, Tex. Sli,V:i:!.7'.!.|. 'IVHi- 
nicnl aorvicoH nnd riiiriiici'rinir hMiiliiliirii'i 1 
for OKI Sonar Syittciuii i'roji-cl Ollli'i- nf tin- 
Nnval .Ship Sy^li'inn ('(inunniiil. WaidiliiK- 
lon, D.C. Nitvnl Hliip Hynli'iiin (liniiiniiini, 
Sea Land Servirv.i, Iilr., l';li/nb''lh. N,,l. 
S7.fiOO.000, Wrifkly irontniiu'i- i-nntu pifrvicr- 
from tin! wi'jii coiiHt (o lbi> I'liltljipinr 
Islands cointiicriiiliur April 1, I!)(i7. Mllilnry 
Sen Tninnpiirliitidii Hi'rvlt'i 1 . 
Williams & IliirrnivH, HHmonl. Cnltf. Sl,- 
iri2,000, Ci>iu<(rii<-tiini (if nil oMhv hnlhlliijr 
al. (lie Navii! Hlution, 'ri-i'iiiiuri< Iriliinil, .'!nri 
Ki-nnciHi'd, Calif. Wi-sili-i-n Hlv.. Navnl r'n- 
riiilicn Ktiitlni'criiiir (''Hiiiiiiinil, 
--Ilniveniily of California, llrrMi-V, dnllf, 
S1,KIK,(H)(I. AildillKiinl r.vir/ii,-li cm ll p|.. 

Oillc-e of" Navnl Ki-nciin-li, 
7--McD(innp|| Aircraft, HI. I In. Mn. jjl.llfiii.- 

001). Winit i lion iiiiMi'inhlli'i. for 

alrcrafl. SI, I, unlit. Navy AvIiiMmi Hi 

Ollhv, I'htlnil.'lplija, I'D. 
- WiinllillHl(iM Aliiniltuini C!., Itiilli 'i> 

$;<,I17II,OK1. AM;! jinll.'M uml mill :\< 

blfi'.s for Hie KAT iiriijirnin, l-inti'd 

Ala. Navnl Air i'lnitltn'i'i'liiK C.'iiloc, 1 

di'lphia, Pn. 
--TRW, Inc., Iti<floiu|(i ll<.|i,-h, (liillf. si 

Ml). Kyiilimi niiulvHlii nf llit< AMW nyn 

proitrain. Iti'dnnild Ht'iich. 
--United Alrrraft, Hlrnlfiinl, Cinin, 

000. Ili'licr.iil.'i'ii. Hlnitfiinl. Nnvnl 

Syitloinn (lomiinuiil, 
-Franklin IiiNtlluli>, I'liilnili'lpbla. I'u, S(i .. 

,'tOO.Oim. AddHlonal mirairli, shi.lv Mml'ln- 

Arlinitimi, Vn. ()llln> of Nnvnl Hi^nin-h!'' 

-Trradwell Ciiri)., New Yorlt Cll.v, N V 

Sa.OHO.mid. tlsyitiTi (irnt-rnldni. Nrw V)irtt 

Uly. Nnval fillip Hyuh-liiii (tn.niiiiind, 

-TpxnH liiMtriimMilN, Itiillaii, 'IVx. SI.VlV.HIil, 

.11 riiK- Kiininiicr mill cimln.) uci-Mntm, anil 

{tola of wliutit nnd linn. Dnllnn, Ntivnl Air 



|.'| n . Ji,fl!!.4itn 



AIR FORCE 



Air 



1 .1,, '' EnH t Boston. Supervisor of Shln- 
juildlngs, 1st Naval Dist. 

'loa'tJ ' A ( n onatl 'j t . ctioT1 ' of ""xl4st Patrol an , 

., CambridRe, Mass. $2,000.000. Tae- 
enBineeriiiB support for the Polaris 



-Marlln Marietta, Orlnni 
At'nt r.A-l nihiull,. !,! [i(| 

Navy AvIiiHim Supply (l!llVrVS'hlli!Kl,'lii; 

"BiR? rr r R M ml l ' wv '\ " |1| " ( " 1 - '''""" >4 M R >- 

wln'ir imiVllh !!,'(' 'f'!,''' Slirir!'"'"!' M""' 

llrintol. Naval Air Hyuti-mii I'limmnmi 

Jif/'mi!! 1 ''y"'""'''". I'liinniin. Calif, SI . 

mljMJU, IrMMJllf Hll(] I'llI'l'hulM if tl i 



' W " rl ' H 



Ciirrrll Cnrn T.,r, ...... ,., Cnllf, j.j .,., .... 

PMHlllHI.ill ,>f ,',!..,. ,,, ,, '/ -I". 

r.-rf1 I.,,, An,:,.!,., il! t |,|, ;'.'.. 
Miili'ii.-l Ar.-n. lAI'l.Ci 'I'll.),..,. Al.'n In , ' 
'"I'''' ...... i Alnn.ft. S,,,,v I- r If ^ "' 

"!iv,-nin. I-:,!,,!..,.,-. int ..... MI ..";. v "- 

"' ...... " <n ;1 |,m. Mu ,,yvnU. ;i ' .' ^i'' 1 "" 

nu ( ARu:). i.,,, A,,,...,;.,, V- tr " J ..... '"" 

'' 1 ''^'^ 



. 

Ci'llrrill Mnlurn, lll.lin ........ ||., | hl | j,, .,,,, 

ll'M, Mmliii.-Mllitn f,f I'nnu.liii,, i;'|; '.I,',; 

' 



t|r ar | i:i,-,trh. I',,, 



9 Rndiation, Inc., Melbotirno, Fla 

- 



En8t 



delphia, pi 



Con " 



craft. Woocl. * 
Offlw. Philarteln ? 

SSS IS 
in CH-4G and 
vy Avmtion 



on P- 



NT 

*$ii 

., " B " >'- 

AvlMan Supply 






..... -no. 



hi.- 



MrC|Hli,p, 



i f.r I' 
ni., Al, 
AMI . r 



, . 

, ji.'J' ..... 'l'"" M "' "' 
'""" l 



'iM, N |(, J;'II. 
'"' rn.ll.. ,HrV, t , , 
'" Wnrni-r tti.h. 



MARINE CORPS 



^ 
,*,,, AMI. 



m .. 

Air Syatems Command ' SBl Nftvnl 



p^-a^Vov.a.i. 

IftchinonlB and Vli, ,,, 1. llil '"' wfl 'li l- 
nunriora. M "p/ne '" ftlini8nl11 - Il(1 ""' 



if. U R 



OOPIM. 



. 

, Mnrln" 



-I.nrkliccil MiimlloH & Hpnco (; Hutiiiyvulo 
Unhf. sa.lHHI.Ufttt. I'ro.lnrll.m nf A m 

Jllll.l'l! VCjlllllc!!. .SlIllllVVIlll' Himi'l' Mvi.l ,.,,,L, 

IMv,, (AKH(l), Lou AIIITI..II. Cnlir. 
-l)<mjr.l(in AJrcrnft, Kuntu Mimltin, Otillf. $2,- 

Kunln Mimli-ii. M|niirc Hyuli'mii I)iv"' 
(AKSC). I.HH AIIK..IWI, (;- lv " 



Hfili.iail. Hciii'iiri'l. .mil (li'voloiiinunt 'nfM'.i 
imniuimi.(l iiiun-,. i,. ( .|,,i,i1njty urnitrnm 
AWUPIII. Mi.ru:,. Hyiilotiipi Dlv., (AKHCl I ...i 
Atifti'li'ii, Cnllf. " 



n i- - "<M< 

n.-m'li, (lullf SH.Kfirutll). H l:l i ( , lm .], rm.l .1,- 
vHniim.'iil. t>[ mi immiimii'il nimn> l.Tl.iml- 
n.cy I'niKHim, Itcjlnn,!,, It,,,,,.!,. sn,,,:,- Syii- 
i.Tim IHv., (AKSC). !,n,i Aiiin-lt-H. IJnlif 

'"' ".Mm? A ' riTn 1 rl ""' l-'iiHcrhin. (lulir. fiH,. 
..00 ,1 Mill. >,>v.'l,,| ,.,.( mxl prmlmiUmi of 
'"M'l <;nnlr.,l (>i...riil|<iim (!,. !,.,' f,, r (I,,. 
l/f, hyiilifm, iMillvrhm. F.Wlrnnl,- Mv- 
MluHi * A|l ' l| >. I- li. Hun. ...... u FIH.I. 

111 *Mm"Yi7 rl ?.'" /^'r"" Wnn.MU.liw. N,J. 
SUM.1,-14/. I'niiliii'llon nf nh.imm unif ,.yl!n- 
.W iiim.<Mihli.Ni fnr It .infill nlivnifl ...lulu-M. 

K-'/ftu^'v...^^;: .Hi M ..... '"" 

m!',!"' r ,'!' M" 1 ", 1 " 11 ' fMiiiiiimimiiti, iini. $n,.tNir.- 

III1I. 1 n.ili.rllni, nf T (ill liirlin|'n<|< .'t.rln.-u 
iiil rHiUn nmlnnn.i.l. iT.ilinimiinllM. A,T, - 



a/'^n 1 ,!'"';"'','" 1 ' f'"" |ljl M "" ( "- <!'H'. ?7.- 
(.(.Min. I'm, biHI,,,, ,,f f ul .l Illnll ,-, 

MINI r.H- I.' .(! iilivrnn. Kl Mnulo. ( K ,l,. , 
AIi-^Mnh-rM An-.., (AFI.C). Mill Al'l" 

Hyjrntilii lOl^rhh- I'l-inlnrlK, M<mnliili. Vli-w 
C..Hr Sl!.l,llll,(im.. i;,-nl, tP nn,i nf ,!,,,, H^ 
iiilliiiyiilr-iini ..in! ininllllriillon Mr, f,, r ,j| . 
MlMill.-.nnn pnlimll,., M,,,uiliiliivlfw ..nil 
^'V! J?! ll ' k , Mn ""- "i'lH"!!'' My..!..!,... |>| v 
(AI-M1), Nnrlnii Al-'ll. Hiillf. 

Sn^'r 1 ! 1 ! li '!; ll ", ( '"" Itlplninhnni. 'IVx. J|i., 
Ml n-M. l-nnln.'llnM nml |i m t,,||,u| tlll ,, f 
ilKli-friNiiK.ih.v p.liurlc Hhlfliit 

''"' 1 '''" " 1 ' 1 ""''" 



vliJ'li 1 , 1 .!! 11 < 1 i lllll l r " I V : " rtl ;' t! i'iw'ii, N..r. ?n.- 

M:t,(H)l!. I'r.i.hu.M.iii nf nlrlinrn.' Illirht iv. 
''ii'iln,, hii.lniMii.i.1,1. <!,,M W ..|]. A.-VniiNii- 

'''- (Al " !ini ' w --'" ; -"'- 



. , ( 

i.ttliii'llnrt .f i 



nil. I'M. *M(in.n. 

,- ..... , I'lllulmnd. 
" 



v,i.-iim ) v ,, (ArM(l 
jyi-liili|.l'r;||,.|-,M,|, AK1I, Hill... IAI '"' 1 ' 

' u'"!.!? 1 1 hln ' l l l ' l > ' < 1 ! T ," 1 "''"- l '"f. SI.IMO.OIHI, 

Ovorliniil niHl inntlll1nill.in ..f .1 'IV ulivr.if 
'iiKliii-.i, Oniiirl... l))!,li'n Air Mm..rl..| 
Arm, lAI'-Ml). Mill Ai-'ll. Hn.li, 

KHX 1 "/ 1 ,""",'!" 1 "," ','"" ( J r " r ...... M"n- 81.- 

HH.I.HM, l'r.iitii,iHr,ti nf .-nnuMmrnli. f, lr 

tinivy iiln-rHn r..rriiliiii I.ITHM. (Jri.ri.m 
AiT.mi.imml Mynt,.|,,H ll|v.. (Al'MI! 
Wrlidit.l'i ..... ninn AI-'II, Ohio. > 
fym-rnl I'rrrliiliiti, Wi.ynn. N.J. *l,im:i.n:!fr. 
VV.irk nil nlr llltvlinillni. <'*jiil]'MH'!it nOnlxil 
' ..... Iviiiiri' iilrnti-Kli- mrcrwrn. WIIVIH-. 
w' 1 ,".".'", 1 . 1 "" 1 Vi"m.i IHv.. (AI.'M 11 
WrlKlll.l'nMfi't ..... Al'll. Oliln. '" ll ". 

'nlrrlilhl rnmrrit ^ hixlnmi*>iit (rorti., 
Hy "..in. N.Y. l!l.|!r,.aiH). lVM.lm.ilnn ,,f ,,': 
( '"ft I iinii'rmi. HyoniiH, Arntnttiitlnil Hvn- 
I^MIv., (AI-WI). Wrl B h|.|',.,.rVnii AFII. 

*'lU' f lmm Ulr m m \' VvlMl11 ."' Annlw-Itii, Cnllf. 
Jl.l/fUUMI. Wdi-lt .>ti )>.ii|iir nydL-iiiM n-lnti-.I 
I't iiilvniu-.-il nirnl<-Kl(! nlrcnift. ArmhHm. 
Am-otiiuitti'l Mynt..|iin IMv., lAFHC) 
WrlKlii-I'nilitrrtun AKlt, Ohio. 
"flnwwpll. Int.. Mm,klitH. Minn. II.4BO.. 
I (I. 1'r.iilm-ttini nf liniil mini- fn/;c... H.rn. 
1(111(1. A.'t-.iiiiiiilli'nl Hyntciitn IMv.. lAKHd). 
WrlKlil-I'nii.THnn AFIt, 01.1... """' 

iifl lilarlrlr, Ullcn, N.V, W.non.ftoo. 
I rniliu'llitn nf rni]i|.niii.|.|ii tw nfrlmrno clw- 
Iriiiili- (lynifiH,,. Ktli-n. Acn.iHiiitd'nl Hvit- 
'AKHOt, WrlHlH.l'*ll-min AFII. 



.. A lnll 1 11 ' Ti'lHfl, Ohln. (1,- 
iAM (Ivi'Mm.il nml roi.iijr nf nli-to- 
Kn.iiHil m unllttii. TnlHit. Oklnhointi Mlty Air 
Mnt.-HH Arcn. (AI-'U!). Tinker AFII. llkli. 
ii fl iii A'""'"" Aviminn. Annhelm. (iiiHf. 
* ,imi,fi^r. Ovt-rlmiil nil'l n-imtr nf nlMn- 
Kintiml mlflN UCT. AnntiHrn, Oklnlmmn (!(ly 
Air MiU,.rl.-l Arp (AKIXI), Tinker AK, 



, Vn. 



of 



I 11 ,""", 1 ? ll(t miH(trn, (tntnimvlllt!. Vn. 

A r MnUTk'l Arcn, (AFUI), Hill A!-'H. 



"Jlcndlx florp., Ann Arlmr, Mich. $3.000,1100 

nii'a ilm!"!,^ 1 , ""A"" u " 1( ' p K m 'P-J' coniniH- 
"ii.iu.niiui Hyutuin. Ann Avbor. Klcntronifi 



nrn. . . 

Sl.HlH,.)nr.. Pi-oitmihim ..f vnilm- !!i[iil], m(m t 
Ii"'n ^ ' I1( - lp ''- ''"'" AKn. Wnrnvr 
Al''l!"'(: A Mutliri " 1 An ' a - fAKUl). ll|,|n n 

f/w'Vh 1 ' ''' 0< ' l !' l( '' Wwit Lynn, Mm.ii. (IS,. 
i.' 1 ,' ' r '! l ' ll< ' li "i' f T-fiH i,Kh l( .H f(.r 
liclli-Didtft-H. VVful I.yun. AftfiiiiiitiUfluI Hyii- 
li-rim Dlv., (AKKC), Wrlirht-I'nHurwiii AKlt, 
Oliln. 

M.I.T.. (!nmljrlilir<! MIUIH. S2,'180,(IKfi. Himii' 
rt'm-ni'vh In i.iU'MiK' niiiitn>ii (l.-Lln. C, ml - 
lin.lif,.. Air Fnm. Om,-,. of HHnnt.llln It,- 
iH'invli, WiitililMKlnti !),(! 

'ni?i r i? r 'li (: r l>.. Vim Niiyn, (!nHr. ?],- 
fil)0.mi. SnjH-fpHinti' mn.M (lllitl.t (,,;,(. ,.. 
itnitn. Viiti Nnyn. Hyiiioinn l'inKln<><>rinjr 

I'AVW^ w";"!'',' 1 ',, & '''""'"'"1'Hf.V Dlv., 
fAl-M,), Wrlrlil-I'iiUi'i-Him AI-'II, Ohio. 

llii 1 ?.;^" 11 ;? V ' h " ll( - Ci'-.-uvlll... Tex. Sr..- 
I..HIKm, Itr.i.-i.rcli u.,,1 (Irvd.ipm.'Ml. f.>r 
"; iHlln.ll.it. of (M;i;i]t Hlrrmf). ,;,.,.. 
yill... Acriu ..... dun] MyiMoiiui 1)I V ,. (AKHC) 
Wrli;lH.|'i.ll..i.miH AFH, Ohln. '' 

7 ?".',!? A nl ,! H ." 'I'"""" """vcr, Colo. $1,. 
H Ml !. Mnilllh-Hllon Kil:, fnr Nnvv in 1 
Air ].i,,v<. A 1 ni.,.1,.,. nln-rnfl. l)..| W i-r. 



'.'nVniV 81 "".'." 1 "?' W '""" ll '"l "i"". (lHf. SH,- 
...W.ttlK. I'rmhii-tJim nf i'l..,-lr.iril ...... nlr- 

|u;;iil f;;r K -in m,,| r 4K ,,l m , in . W ,1- 

A. . li-. , x'M',', l ","'" (: "- v Ah ' MiiDTlnl 
Ji '.i (AI ,l (;| ' ll " li< " 1 Al1 '". "hlii. 
1,1 C "J i ,m',l!!'n rl11 , Illfll '"" ( '. ('Illinium, 

M ,'i, s 'T'""";, "i";! 1 " 11 "" " r "'" "..r.-nn, 

MHiiln liifnrnnil!, lt i Cr>nli>r f.u- KV 111(17 

. iinniiiiii. Kyjij..!!.,. i.:,, ([ i, ..... e[nK (!nn ; 

w , A l< "' lllllll "lfV Iv.. (AKMC 

WrlHlil.l'nUt.nn.n Al.'ll, Ohl.i. "' lnl ''- 

Itni'liiK (In., Wlclillii, Knn. Sl.filil ,|117 II- 
r.:! lUiihllllv iiniti.ii'iiliill.n. ami llliilil nmirul 
"7, 1 ..... ' ''vnli.nll.m, Wl.-hll,.. ()] ( |nli<imn 
A HI A , l ) ' ld | llrll< "'''' ! Ar "" lAFI.H). Tliikt-r 

rrifrj''.' 1 . 1 ., tt s?*i, , ( '" ni - K"i-"<"WH, M.!. 

S1,(IH,.M!). M..l!lli-rttlmi .,f C i:!;i nhrnin 
MiiKr-nilmvii. Wni-iir-i- Itolilin. All' Muh-rM 
Arm. lAM.t:), KnUfrni Al-'H, (jn. 

f,',!7,"" l ",, Alr , l ' r " fl r "- WM.Hn, Kan. S-J.mill,- 
MHO I'r.iil.inl,,,, ,f u .1 nirvmn. ,.,, 

I'lirlii, i.nifi|im'i. itnMinii <'<|iil|. m ..|.l niul r,.. 
iili'.l tlittn. Wli-liltii, A..rniniiil|ml Hviih-nui 
U'., (AKHC). \V|.| K l.i.I',,M,-rn,.,i ' AFIt, 
III. In. 

'I.m'tdiriMt Alroriifl, Jnniulm, N.Y, SMUl! - 
i ; .4. IniiiMTtl ..... .ml n>|iiili' ...... . llllu . y nf 

k', V ',', '?'"'' ' -'"'""Ifi. Miii'i'iiini.iilii Air 
Mi.l,.|.|,.l An-n. (AFI.Cl, M.-CMInn AFIl. 

Mr.ni.iiir.il Cnrii., Vim Nnyn. Cjillf. j;i . 
Mill.Oim. Amilvlli'iil i.t.il rxiit'i'Iriuiiiliil iini. 
jiniiti In iirnvl.1i' ..... l.n.ilntTV il|>|'H('ulil.' In 

iv|i,-ninnl.. UAM.IKT .>ii|il ...... . Vim Niiy 

jlviih-nipi Kimln..fi- licnnii. K.^imn-li tiu.l 

' ''''''V',' l? 5 ^, ( , lv - 'AI'W!). Wrli,hi,l'im.'r- 
"I'll Al'll, Oliln, 

liitrrrtnllnnnl Ti>lp|ilnittt A TptcKfnnli Corn.. 
1'nmniii.i. N..1. Stl.HfiO II7II. t<riuhir(Ii)n nf 
ilitFi'iin.' jiinrj.il m>nirtlv ciiiiimiiiiti'iillmiii 
H|i.l|.i|i,...l I'dnm,!,,,. |.;| fll ., ,.),.,, Hrittl , ni|| 
IHv,, (Al'HC), L, C. Iliuitt.'..)!! FJcl.l, Mmiii. 

Jlf.*''" ll , 1 M (' <'"" Monrnvln. Onllf. U.nttl.. 

IIOII, I'rmliinlni, ,,f htult iilildi,),. nlivrn/l 
rjiiiirnipi. Mi.i.rnvtii. Ai>nmuiitfi<n1 [lyl.-nin 
v., (Al'HC). WrlKl.l-I'nitomon AFIl, 
Ohi.i, 



Red Ball Express 
Completes Firsfr Year 

p Tli "Red Ball Mxpriiss," a Hpoclnl 
Air_ jt'orcii airlifl of priority comhut 
voliiclii nml nircrnfl |.arU to SoutlitiiiHt 
AHIU, hiiN carri.nl almost MOO tons 
of vital rurtfo to niilitiiry units in 
VHitnam .since it.4 lirnt nij?ht 
. 'I'ln! initial Kwl Hall (light took o/T 
fi'inn Lravis AV'H, Oalif., for .Silicon 
on Her. 8, |j)<}5. It currlwl only five 
ii "" ' 



,, , 

lM, n\ n \\K with itn n>K"Iar loud. 
Dun UK L]u> year a ono-day nu-ord WIIH 
rcai'liinl wliiMi 571 pirn's, woij|liinr u 
total .if lOfi I.OIIH, lift '1'ravin. 

Named Cor a surface supply Mm, 
HVHl^m which umtd tnuiltH to haul i'oo.l, 
<'<liiipinci]t and ammunition to thn 
li'onl, lint's of I'Uiropi- iluriaj;- WorlcJ 
Wnr II, today's Military Airlift 
Umimaml (MAC) opomtioii hauln 
jnlv prinnty part;) to Intnp combat vc- 



In UK HfHt year MA(! n,p,,rt H it H 
Ivnd Hall KxprusH Ini.-i carried an avcr- 
aiV of nion- than 2fi tons per day to 
Southeast A.sia. Tin- ovnrall totul of 
i , ; {(i.i (ons wa.s movc.l in (Jim mi.smons. 
I li" Hiol Hall iiiivrafl, ronHLiUitwl 
iijwiut. liv<> |TC((iit of th<> total MAC 
iiirhlt to Southeast Asia duriiiiv thin 
period. 



AVCOM Assumes 
Test Activities 

Support reiipoiiMihilitieH for the 
Army Aviation Tent Activity (ATA) 
lit KdwardH A KM, Calif., have Iteen 
reasiiifvned from the Army Tent Eval- 
uation Coimnitnd to the Army Avin- 
1.1'Hi Cnnnnand (AVCOM), St. I.miin. 
Mn. 

_ In addition, AVCOM has heen aw- 
HiKntid respoiiiiihilities Tor tlin Army 
element of the Lri-tmrvliT V/KTOT, 
team at Kdwanhi wliich is imw en- 
KfiKi'd in letitiiifv the r.infV-Temro- 
Voufvlit XC 14 U nu'Ko aircraft, 

ATA originally WIIH nHtnhlmhed in 
lillill , KiiliHwiiiontly it WIIH aiuiiK-ned to 
tlm lent and Kvaluation (limimnnd, 
Alierdeen, Md., with the I'corjiani'/a- 
tion of Army leehnical He.rvires 
the early 



in 



DEFENSE PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS 
TO SMALL BUSINESS 

AmmmlH hi ThniiHundH 

July-Ocl. IfllHi July-Get, liir.5 



from All F 
from Small 



Percent .Small 



Kirms 



]y.r> 



20.fi 



OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 203O1 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 



Air Force Flight Control Research 
May Extend Aircraft Life Span 

The U. S. Air Force has contracted for a six million dollar 
research program to develop an automatic flight control system that 
could double the useful lifetime of both present and future large, 
flexible aircraft such as the B-52, XB-70 and C-5A. 

Called LAMS (Load Alleviation and Mode Stabilization), the pro- 
gram is beingconducted by The Boeing Co.'s Wichita Kan. division 

AFR OM r -1 I 1 ?^ ?P* mics Laboratory, Wright-Patterson 
A* B, Ohio, a unit of the Air Force Systems Command's Research 

Robert P. " ' 



COI ! tro1 , System being soufi ' ht - already proved feasible 

d^IT^ if 1 ' f "'^ dampen stSral 
and reduce or alleviate stresses from wind ensk inrl 
maneuvering loads which cause metal fatigue in aircraft 
The program's goal is to extend aircraft life bv 70 to 100 n P it 

19$. 



Army-Air Force Study 
Combat Hazard 

Project WTCST (WoaporiM MX 
haust Study), a joint Army am 
Air Force projoct, IN IH^IH'HJV (i 
prevent a potential in-ohlcic 
which could afluct liolicoptm 
crews in com bat ovoi- Viotiuim, 
CrcwK evaluating: tho AniiyVi 
newer, more hoavily nrmorl heli- 
copters, havo c:<miplaiiH'(f nf 
nausea and dmimiHH nftor iiilijil- 
inj? thick coacontratioiiH uf gun- 
powder and miHHilo jiropollant 
fumes croated during firinpr !<( 
The Air Forco llocknt I'rupul- 
aion Laboratory a I; I'Mwanlji 
AFB, Calif., has ixmmod willi 
the Army Acromoclical R(\M<!ai'c!i 
Unit at Fort Ruckor, Ala,, lo 
examine the oxluuint A*IIH<H pru- 
duced by various typo.s of nuini- 
tions and to detormino Ihoir 
exact chemical compOHi'tion and 
decree of toxicity. 

Utilizing the sumo (Kniipmoni 
and techniques used to ovahiatr- 
rocket fuels, Project WJ'JST ^n^i- 
neers are conducting tostw wiim 
both gunpowder and misHilo pro- 
pellants are burned undor lalw>- 
ratory conditions. Tests will also 
be conducted under Held condl- 



f . 

.eoprwni sensOT does not 

loading applied the ri^KnS?-? l ^S of motion " 
^ boo ^henose^i^T 1 ^^ to the computers. 
et the aircraft, e B ~ 52 me asures wind gusts 

on the test aircraft i s valued at $2,500,000. 



tions. 

lest data gathered bv Hn> 
Rocket Propulsion Labomtm-VY 
are relayed to the Aw my At -f 
niechcal Research Unff ^ 
other information from in~! 




Approach t<> the FY 1%K~72 Program niul FY 1%7-GK IhidKotR, 
Ccncnil PurpoHCS I-'orct-H. \n\KV, 1 4 Airlift and Si-alifl KOITI-H, im^ 2(i 
Developmunt, pugi! 29 B Othor Major I'rojiraniH, IMIK lii) 



niict 



Financial tables relating to the Defense Department budj>;ol; for 
FY 1968, prepared by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of De- 
fense (Comptroller), are published in this issue on pases 41 to fil. 

The tables cover the following: areas: 

1. Budget Summary. 

2. Summary of the FY 1967 Supplemental. 

3. Financial Summary. 

4. Direct Budget Plan [Total Obligatipnal Authority O'OA)], 
New Oblig-ational Authority and Expenditures, FY IWifi- 68, 

5. Direct Budget Plan (TOA), New Obligationnl Authority and 
Expenditures, FY 1966-68, by Functional Title and Service,' 

6. Estimated Obligations and Amounts Available for OblijvHliion, 
General Fund Appropriations, FY 1906-1968. 

7. Estimated Expenditures and Amounts Available for Kxiit'ndi- 
ture, FY 1966-1968. 

8. Order of Magnitude Data on Comparative New Obliiraliomil 
Authority by Functional Title, FY 1954-1968. 

9. Order of Magnitude Data on Comparative lOxiwiuIiturcH liv 
Functional Title, FY 1954-1968. 

10. Financial Summary of FY 1967 Budget, Appropriations 
Enacted and Supplemental Proposed, 

11. Net additions to the FY 1967 Procurement Proi-ram for 
Southeast Asia. 

12. Major Procurement Item Quantities, FY 1967 and 196B Pro- 




Ity tint 



Hun. Itnlirrl ,H. MrNnmiiru 

Nm-olary of 
linn. Cyritu H. \'itnn 

Urpiily Hm'Hiiry of l>r!Ymi 
linn. I'hil C, Cmildin,- 

AHNlMdint Hi-fi-fliiry nf Di-fniM 

(I'uhlir Airlr,i) 

<;!. Jorl M. Hn-plH'iin, (IHA 

IHrrrlnr fur ( 'mminiil,v 

t'ol. Kdnln (', (.'Union, USA 
riih-f, Hie, in,-, M ,t 



13. Military and Civilian Personnel, Yearend Numbor. 



.l.Cdr. I-; W. ^^ l I^<,r l UlH^ 
AHK.M-. l|||r .......... Mi <Vrll| a i'oll.,1, 

1 ' 1 "" 1 ; M'-. t'K Uhilcc 

AnHlnlan( 

Nnriunu R Wiirrii, JO), UHN 



DOD Procurement Conferences Set 

Invitll * Ioil f <' 



Tint /Wnii> hntiitttru 

ill iml) ifilif. liinntltly l,y idr nww 

A, I.nhnr Hiviiiiim, Dlnrturatit for 
Uimnuiilty Hi'liitiiiiiii. OKlni of (hi, 



Mr Airnii'ii). !li! nf fnmlii f,,,. ,.( 
Iliiii iMililit'itlluii wini fi|i|ii'ttvfil tiy lim 
niriTlnr of Din llliivim nf Mm Hiiilmtl. 

Hi"' iiurjhxiK ,f |||,. 

to iU'l'Vt' iin ji iin-iili:i nf < 
linLwi'i'ii ih.. l).-|mrliin-ii(, nf |ii>ri>niifl 
Mini il-i mithini.'.cit uj^riiriiij! 
mnl 



and Requests foi A IUUUSHI .^pwovm in\ . - 

have repreaentativeVninflnHn f J- U1) , primc wmtnictora will 
P es ^tative s available to discuss subcontract opportunity. 

Schedule, location and contacts are as follows- 
April 7, New Orleans, La. 
Contact; Kenneth A. Languth 

7n U R M ? Re ^ai'ch Institute 

708 Maritime Building 

New Orleans, La. 70130 
April 20-21, Orlando, Fla. 
Contact: Don Rathel 

April 27, Indianapolis, Ind. 

Contact: Crawford Parker 

E x J!i? v Vic S President 



in ^ 





jiMli.'i,.,! nr.iHriunfi JUH| ]ro|n-| !1 , 
will tJi-.-lt tn Mlrimldh. tlmiurfil. by 
liuliiNlry 



t.f 



., 

l/i 
inuiiiiy. 



i'My 
lint i-riniln^ii^iiiH of thn 

In thn Hulktin in - 






ii ft.1- 
1 ' (mlu " 



from 



H ' flWtt 
H< 



wllhottt 
^iitHllvci. 
nf tint ]) 

V " ml 

HllOUld 

Irfitar 

. BKHI8. 

int " K(ln ' W*lilHKn, n.O. 
, tfllf.pli,, , (203) OX?nnl R.270II. 



Indianapolis, Ind. 46204 



(.Kflilor'ti Note; Thin issue of tin; 
Defeiwe IndiiHlry Unllelin in debated 
alumni entirely lit Secretary of De- 
fense. Robert S. McNamarti't) alatement 
an Jan. 23, H)H7, before a joint reu- 
nion of lite Senate Armed Services 
Committee anil the tit-naif Subcom- 
mittee nn Department of Defense 
Appropriations tin I fir />'}' liifitl~72 
Defense Proftraw ami the, ISfiS Defense 



While space limitations permit only 
an abbreviated treatment, of the state- 
ment, an attempt has been made to 
excerpt those portions which are. of 
special interest, to defense iinlnsti'if. 
1/ninf/ lite method established in pre- 
vious years, pantfirapli markings have 
been deleted from the original text 
for the sake of clarity. 

The, statement of the Secretary nf 
Defense on the /'T /llt',7 Supplemental 
for Southeast Asia will be carried in 
next month's issue of the Bulletin.;! 

Last year when I appeared he Corn 
thin Committee in support of thn FY 
1007-71 program and thn l''Y 1007 
Budget I said: 

"With regard t.o the prepara- 
tion of the FY 11107-71 program 
and the FY 1000 .Supplemental 
and the FY 1007 Budget, we have 
had to make a somewhat arbi- 
trary nHHUtnption regarding thn 
duration of the conflict in South- 
east Asia. Sincro we have no way 
of knowing how long it will ac- 
tually last, or how it will evolve, 
wo have budgeted for combat op- 
erations through tho end of ,Tuno 
1907, Thin moans that if it later 
appears that thn conflict will con- 
tinue beyond that date, or if it 
xhould expand beyond the level 
awmmed in our present pinna, wo 
will com back to thn Congress 
r with nn additional FY 1007 
request." 

Throughout thn spring ond summer 
of last year in my appearances before 
various ConffroHslonal Committees, I 



roit(>nit(iil thn fact that thn FY JOG7 
BudKut wan Iwsod on thn arbitrary 
iiHHumption Unit thn conrtiist would nnd 
by Juim IOC?, and that additional 
fumlH would be ntquirt'd if tho ron- 
Ilidt contimuid. , . . 

What wn worn trying to do wan to 
avoid tin; ov(!rfundiiiR- which oocurnid 
duriiiK th Korean War when thn l)e- 
fixmo Department requeued far movo 
funds than were actually needed. l''or 
example, the Defense Deiiartincint re- 
queHted a total of about $]<M billion 
for the three Rncal yonrs 105.1 -fill; 
thn CniiHTe.ifi appropriated a total of 
$lfi(! billlum; the amount actually ex- 
pended was .$102 billion; and thn un- 
exiinnded balances I-OHO from $10.7 
hillion at the nnd of FY li)50 to $02 
billion by the end of FY 10fi8. It took 
about live yenr.s to work tins unex- 
pended balance down to about ijWH 
billion; and we were able to nupport 
a Defence program of about $fiO bil- 
lion a year during FY :U)(t2-(M with 
about ?;i() billion of unexpended 1ml- 



Although we ntill Iiave no way of 
knowing when the conflict will end, 




Secretary of Defense 
Itohcrt S. McNanmra 



it is jinrffictly clear that we mu.st take 
whatever measures are imce.'wary to 
ensure our ability to .support our 
foiveH in the ovmit the conflict doew 
continue l)eyond June ,'), HHi7. In- 
deed, when it Iwcame npjiarmit lust 
summer that this was likely to be 
the ea.sn, wn continued tlm buildup of 
our military personnel .sLreiiH'Ui be- 
yond the level anticipated in the FY 
I!)(I7 Budget and took action to ensure 
that deliveries of lonf? lead time items 
would continue beyond June HO, Ii)fi7, 
without interruption. The Congress 
was informed of tluise actions through 
the veprogrannning [jrocesfi and re- 
lated heariiiKH. 

Hut, while it was clnar tsven hint 
summer that additional funds would 
he required for FY 1007 if the con- 
lllc.t in Southeast Ama wero to con- 
tinue, the timing and the amount of 
the additional request posed a prob- 
lem. With regard to timing, we hud 
essentially two alternatives: request 
an amendment to the FY 11)07 liudget 
in tho .summer of !%(!, while it was 
still before the Congress; or wait un- 
til early the following year and re- 
quest a Supplemental appropriation. 
Kadi of these alternatives had certain 
advantages and disadvantages. . . . 

The major disadvantage of waiting 
for a Supplemental has boon tho nend 
to reprogram, on a rather large scale, 
available FY 10(17 fuiidn to mecit our 
mo.st urgent longer lead time procure- 
ment requirements, pending the avail- 
ability of the additional fundH. We 
reeognixn that this extensive repro- 
gramming ban placed an extra burden 
not only on the Defense Department 
but on thn Armed Services Committees 
and tho Defense Approprlalionn Sub- 
committees as well. Some of theno 
reprogramming actions required tho 
prior approval of this and other In- 
terested Commitwis; all of them have 
been reported to the Committees con- 
cerned. However, in order to facilitate 
your consideration of the FY 1907 
Supplemental request wo have pro- 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



;i rrcajiituhtion nf all of the 

j-pi-'Uri'iin-'rit program adjust- 

;nTf^:inf,' that fiscal year, which 



N 1 -..'., v.ilh a year and a half of 
: .' it f\j-!'j'ii-iny in Southeast Asia 
':.! i! a-, ] f."]jVvc that we have a 
: h l"'t!'-r uinli-nilaniiirig of our fu- 
,r< rv-i'iirt'iiif-nt.'!. In October 1965, 
-,''-. !';.- r'Y l l Ji\7 Hudget was heing 
, - l"|"-it, '.v<- vv.-iv in the midst of an 
j.-li-i',.- 1-uiMup in South Vietnam; 
-.;- th'-ri that \vp moved over 
,<>"> in-'ii 10,001) miles in less than 
" 'i:iy-. The fuhirr- was impossible 
j'n.hM with accuracy. In contrast, 
o, f,|... r lOfii], at the time of the 
I'.'.r.jiion of the FY 1908 program, 
,i!-l 1' ok nhf-ad to the time when 
" f-nv.i in Southoast Asia could be 
" Ml tolr-vM off 

!"' f.v can m\v project our re- 
!V!>i->nts for th<> nmflict in South- 
'.. A-ia with far jrroat.-r confidence 
n ''i.-t y.'ar. \vi: have changed our 
' ^i'l-rorteh in preparing the FY 
~ .Siipplr-iiH-rital as well as the FY 
* ^uiig.-t. Sufficient funds are be- 
r-(fi]h^tf- t l in iioth the FY 1907 
Ml'-iti'-rital and the FY 1908 Bud- 
t" pr..tn-t the production load 
''i iiH furnhat essential items un- 
> l!"'9 funds w.uld become avail- 
Thus if it later appears 
ndii't will continue bevond 






" 



or,l w additional 
for deHv, ry after D 

,, and k,,p the production lines 
;v,tho ut interruption. 

tlie caw of tactical aircraft 

' lv " a ro(lucUo11 Iead 



of the Southeast Asia conflict, or un- 
foreseen emergencies elsewhere in the 
world, the FY 19G7 Supplemental and 
FY 1908 Budget should be sufficient 
to cover our requirements until FY 
1909 funds become available, even if 
the conflict continues beyond June 30, 
1968, 

Because of the large demands of 
the Southeast Asia conflict, I have 
deleted from both the FY 1907 Sup- 
plemental and the FY 1968 Budget, 
procurement funds which are required 
simply for the replacement of items 
already in the inventory with later 
models, except for tactical aircraft 
and helicopters and where the newer 
item is being procured to replace con- 
sumption. This type of marginal 
modernization can be safely deferred 
to a later time. 

With regard to military construc- 
tion, we have included funds in the 
FY 19C8 Budget for military family 
housing and other categories of "non- 
combat" facilities, e.g., replacement of 
old barracks, BOQ's, maintenance 
shops, administration and school 
buildings, etc. We deferred these types 
of construction programs in FY 1966 
and 1967 in order to reduce our de- 
mand on an economy already laboring 
under inflationary pressures. Now 
that these pressures appear to be 
subsiding, we should be prepared to 
assume the orderly modernization and 
expansion of our physical plant, which 
represents an investment, in terms of 
acquis!tion cost, of well over $36 bn _ 
lion. The rate at which we do so will 
(spend upon economic developments 
'luring the next 12 to 18 months. In 
S"'' ,T e ?W ** Please the 



requests of tho Servicuu am) Dffrmc 

Ag-ciicioH by a 1 unit $^'l.;t billion, xvliilt 

at the sjimo limn j>rmvi<liiiK fur fill 

essential military refill ri'iruiiitn. W* 

am requesting Cor l'y I1KS7 a lulsi] o[ 

72.8 billion in nnw ohliRjUiunn] ;iu- 

thority, of whidi .flli.tt trillion i;i in (fin 

special SuppUminntal for SmiOn-nut 

Asia. For FY lEIfiK \v<t urt* n'ijiir:;tlnK 

a total of $7fi.8 billion in new <i!)1l K ii- 

tional an thority. Kxjic>Militinv>{ JMV 

now ((Htimatod at; $tf7.EJK hiNdm fur 

FY 1007 (.flO.Hri billion ulmw tln nrJff- 

iiml budfixit tiHtimiiln) aml$7:i.l l.ill[. i;i 

for FY 19(58. 



Impact of the Defense Pro 
gram on the Balance 
of Payments 



During tht! pa.st y-iir 
that tho United Rlat.-M him h.^n Vnnk- 
ing in its oflortH to <>liinliml<! tlu- Inm- 
blosorm- dnnelt In it.t Intoriint i<mnl 
balancos of payments \vmi imv>i|ril. 
Ry 1905, the overall "Hiiuhfily" .Ir-fVil 
was -slightly nvor $].!) billion, ili.wn 
mibstiintially from lltn $:i.K lilllimi 
lovel of tho pr<;vimiN year, nti.l .- 
were hoping for a rurtlit-r mipnnv. 
ment in 1900. Howow-r, w nnv .-x- 
poet that whim final ,[utu an- nvnilul.J.v 
for that year, tlmy will idiuw Unit .MI 
a liquidity ImHin tlin <lrflri1 ivjrf 
roughly tho HUMIO an tlm yi-ar iwf int i. 
: chief factoi-H in thin (Irvfldimu-al 
fi some dotnrforntinn on Hi,. ir m l<- 
accounts .stemming r r ,,, M || H , ,,,,,,(,, 
domofltic economic nxpniittfui) .lurjii^ 
the period ami M K h,H- D..f,.,i (l o ,*. 
pemhtui-os abroad. 



, . " JIIOL. j tsieas 
balance of the FY 1966 military con- 
struction program (about $666 mil- n T" ltllow ' for '"""-V y.w th.. 
lion), nnt f). Q r, , j. J I1Jl DoiiavtiYintif r Tir , 



and then move forward 



, i 

Dopnrtmont of nofoiwo IUIH luron 



""Pact of it, 



" 



on tlm TT.H | H ,| 



and 



nmi 



period 



C0mbnfc 

H t [ t tMlt \. 

^ , 

PY liw " 



to reduce 
and the 



turns in face of substantial increases 
in foreign prices and wages and in 
tliu pay oC U.S. Defense Department 
personnel. For example, in Kuropo the 
cost of living went up about :IO ]u>r- 
cont und wage rates ro.se morn than 
DO percent. However, during PY 1HOO 
the requirements of the Southeast 
Asia conflict, together with a modest 
though, hopefully, temporary decline 
in military sales receipts, combined 
to raise tin; net adver.se balance to 
$2.1 hillion. 

The major factor underlying thin 
rise, of course, has boon the war in 
Vietnam. Military expenditures 
abroad are clo.sely related to the si/e 
of our deployments overseas. Helwcen 
.Time li)()li and June 190<i, the total 
number of U.S. military personnel in 
South Vietnam roue from 5!), !)()(! to 
2(17,500, an increase of 207,000. In 
addition, it wan necessary to under- 
take very large construction and logis- 
ticH efforts in support of operations In 
Southeast Asia, hoth of which added 
to the payments deficit. Them! addi- 
tional foreign exchange costs wore not 
unexpected (once the dimensions of 
our commitment there became appar- 
ent), and I reported (.<> you a year 
ago that the conflict might raise such 
costsi several hundred million dollars 
above pre-buildup levels; indeed, we 
now entinmle that there were approx- 
imately $500 million of jau-h additional 
expenditures in FY I1MHI. 

Wo recognized thin threat to our 
balance of payment from the begin- 
ning and we have lalcen extraordinary 
measures to minimi/e its impact. 
Nevertheless, we miint ex[)ect that 
the higher Southeast Asia deploy- 



ments planned over the next year and 
a half will inevitably cause our over- 
seas spending to rise still higher in 
the months ahead. Indeed, it now ap- 
pears that Vietnam-related foreign 
exchange costs in PY 1907 will run 
over $1 hillion higher than the pre- 
buildup year of FY 1065. 

In previous years I have described 
in Honiti detail the Defense! Depart- 
ment's actions to limit the balance! of 
payments effects of our overseas pro- 
grams, including: 

The prom [it withdrawal of U.S. 
forces from overseas areas whenever 
changes in circumstances, our own 
capabilities, or tho.se of our allies per- 
mit such action, 

A continuing review of the re- 
quirement for and the efncient utilisa- 
tion of overseas installations with a 
view to eliminating or consolidating 
these facilities in order to reduce their 
costs to a minimum. 

a Acceptance of up to 50 percent 
cost penalties (in some cases more) 
in order to favor procurement of U.S.- 
produeed goods and .services over 
tho.se of foreign countries. Through 
FY I90IJ, nearly $300 million of such 
procurement was diverted to U. S. 
sources. 

The virtual cessation of new olT- 
Hhnrn procurement for the Military 
Assistance Program. In PY 1900, ex- 
penditures for such procurement wore 
lens than a third the FY liW.'t level. 

Kfl'orl.s to encouraKe Defense De- 
partment personnel to reduce their 
overseas spending and, conversely, to 
hicreitHe their personal savings. 

Sharp curbs on the H!KO of U.S. 







($ 


Billions 


Plscnl Years) 


tiXPENDITimiOH 


1901 


1902 


1003 


li)04 


1905 


190(1 


U.S. Voreen and their .Sup- 














port (Kxcl Incr in KKA 














Kxp over FY 01) 
Military Assistance 


$2.5 


.2 


$2.4 
.3 


.2 


$2.3 
.2 


$2.4 
.2 


Other (AI'XJ, etc.) 


"L. 


.3 


.3 


.1 


.1 


.1 


Total 


$11.1 


$3.0 


$3.0 


$2.8 


$2.0 


$2.0 


UKCKfPTS 


> 


- .9 


- 1.4 


- 1.2 


1.3 


- 1.2 


NI.'!T ADVKKSK 














BALANCE (I'lxcl 














Incr In SKA Kxn 














over PY 01) 


$2.8 


$2.1 


$1.0 


$l.fi 


$1.2 


$1 4 


Increase in SliJA Exp 














over PY (11) 


~ 


. 


.1 


.1 


.2 


.7 


NET ADVRKSK 














HALANCK 


$2.8 


$2.1 


$1.7 


$1.7 


$1.4 


$2.1 



Fig lire 1 



headquarters staffs abroad and on the 
number of foreign national employees. 
With the escalation of the conflict 
in Southeast Asia, a number of spe- 
cial measures have been added. For 
example, in the area of personal 
spending, disbursement procedures 
wen; modified to make it easier for a 
serviceman to leave bis pay "on the 
books" or increase tin; size of the 
allotment -sent home. A most promis- 
ing step was the enactment by the 
Congress last August of the Uniform 
Service Savings Deposit Program 
which authori'/.e.H interest rates of up 
to 10 percent to encourage savings by 
servicemen overseas. We have initi- 
ated a vigorous educational program 
to complement this new savings op- 
portunity and the results to date have 
been most encouraging. Total deposits 
under this legislation in tho first three 
months (September-November 1000) 
totaled $211.4 million. 

In the construction area, special 
procedures have been put into effect 
to minimi/e the balance of payments 
costs of our large building program 
in .Southeast Asia, again with grati- 
fying results to date. For example, 
during PY 190(5, only about one-firth 
of the $H72 million paid our principal 
contractor in Vietnam entered the 
balance of payments. The rest in effect 
was "returned" to tho United Stnte.s 
to buy American goods and Hervicesi, 
including transportation on U.S. (lag 
vessels. Most important, thin was ac- 
complished without impeding in any 
way the progress of the construction 
work itself. 

With respect to military receipts, 
the decrease in PY I'lOO can be traced 
almost entirely to the phasing of ac- 
tual receipts from the Federal "He- 
publir of Germany, with whom we 
have had an agreement to offset U.S. 
military expenditures in that coun- 
try. The basic agreement called for 
the Germans to make payments in PY 
1000-07 of $1,350 million for pur- 
chases of U.S. military goods and 
services required to meet their de- 
fense needs. 

With regard to our military Hulcn 
program, I have the impression that 
our policies and objectives in this area 
are not very well understood, either 
at home or overseas, For example, 
allegations have been made: 

That we ar forcing unwanted 
arms on countries. 

That we are selling: arms to coun- 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



si-h h:v no legitimate use for from an average annual level of $2 These standards ro fully ronsli 

hi \vhiVh c.mlil better use their billion-plus during the 1950's to about tent with the spirit of thr provisio 

r.vMiiivo;! to improve the lot $1.5 billion. Since FY 1961, this added to the Poroiprn AtimH(iin<i> A( 

,, ,,,.-,,,!,-. downward trend has continued with last year, which caDw for Urn Halo 

... ... , n- erant aid declining- both absolutely program to 1><! adinmiuUiritd En wucl 

( ,_ im i=,'rtmin;tfpv Sf> HID- B"i>- ""- > ' " 



hat !.v indiscriminately selling *it , aitl declininfir . ... 

, and relatively. Whereas in FY 1961. a way an to 

the arms race "" ii inm-** ,,..... , ,, 

there wore two dollars of grant aid arms control und diHarnmninnt 



:irii! umit-rinifiinif the jioaee, 

That in t.^nui rases our military 

,'.! (-Jfurta iiro thwarting the ob- 

j.'' i iiv(^ i>f r<iir own economic aid pro- 



arms races, ., 

\w. rutl 

mate that thm counlrmn of tin- nun 
communiHt world will have: h'K'lfnmtf 
for mili.Htantial .union nti 



for every dollar of military sales to incuts and 
foreign recipients, by FY li)CO the Ovnr the noxl live 
ratio had been reversed. Moreover, I 
think it is important to note that, in 

fii!i! - l{ - terms of total value, U.S. military 

That our military sales efforts exports in the ten-year period, FY O f M(nv military 

r, motivate-,! primarily by balance 1962-71, are not expected to be moaa- paat oxpi'rioneo, w.i JHie-vn tlial ,,,;> 

urably hig-her than in the decade, FY 
1962-61; the big change will bo in the 
shift in the way these exports 
are financed from grant aid in the 
1950's to military sales in the 19-fiO's. 
.With this shift in emphasis from 
grant aid to sales, it was decided to 

Ui'-r.'fY'iv, to review briefly the back- organize the latter on a more formal 
gr.nmd ami origin of the present for- hasis within the Department of De- 
cign military sales program. fense, indeed, to make it a separate 

It has Iwen widely recognized in our l )r S ram - The principal objective of tl -, llK , a 

<---untry, at least since the Korean f his forei er" military sales program , mr t, ( ] in n.-iVrim- ])(.n,u'(rui>iil will 
JVar that the collective defense of the *r r ' ^^ thc Bftn continue to tal<n nvnry nppc.rhmit v |i, 
Free World mjuircd armed allies, and that of the p"t aid program, i.e., promote roojK.ml.ivr InirlMIr'. 'jir 
? ,im f Hvhat more belatedly, that the to Pjmote ^ the defensive strength of ranffommitH-.inclu.llnK nx.fimil'lv,. tv- 
internal .security of most countries r alll a .^ consistent with H0 arch and dowlop.nont ,/mirl,, un.l 
r.- M irw some armed forces. Circum- Derail foreign policy objectives. to emi ,i millM) th(1 | lll|lllPttint ,,, l4li 
Manr,, of history, in particular the Encompas.ad within this objective bution which th" , ' n , 1, mm 

LTt'Jit V wail-nnfl.l ^nr,^ : !_.. are SfiVfiral HtlP^l'fin nvi-lr., . "im.H *,Hl, MHH..ii (MI),|[NLllt iJUl 



"f ijiiymr-nts r.oiisi(ierations, abetted 
1-y 111*' d*:-#irp for profits on the part 
''f U.S. manufacturers. 

A!! rf thf.-ifi allefj'itions are false 
and an' l/;i.-.;d on a misunderstanding 
'r !:irk of knowledge of the facts in- 
><-'hi'.i. I Relieve it would be useful, 



of tlies(> i-criuircmimtH <'nn 

(!iTtM;tivnly mitt hy punilwHcn friun us, 
Ilowiivnr, our ability tti n-nliv,.' Ihis 
potnntia! will dopnnd (in mill? ninjoi 1 
condition; wo muni foriviiii'o tnu- al- 
lies that the U.K. mililury m\]\w JPIM. 
grain in not a tin-out l.o lluHr tnn(| 
raii^'o nutiontil Intcrc'slH. And, UK I 
mentioned previously, \vm iim.-ii Inj 
willing, n a nation, in innki- mitfliiry 
trade n "two way" ntn-i-L l-'or mir 



iy weakened economic condition are Bever al specific goals: 
of most countries following World * To further the practice of co- 
ttar II, force,! on the United States operative logistics and stamlardiza- 



makn in Jurthoriiifv llii' ol>J<'c-tlvi-n of 
lloctivd dfjfrmtw. 

TurnJiiff npfuln to our Ifil.i>ntnttiiuil 



th* rol of major armament supplier tion with our allies by inteirratinir JlU ' n1 '^ n '<f im *=o our lnl.i-rnntt.uil 

to the Free World. Accordingly, dur- our supply ayat ems to the maximum ^^ JM ' Hltlm1 ' f()r Ul " ""'' <"" 

jnt,' the decade of the 1950's, the exte nt feasible and by hehmitr tn .. . ' ,'' l H l" ! ln fe any mlur- 

t'n.t^i States had to meet the legiti- "mit proliferation of different rln n ..V,." 1 th " 11<it; " tlv< '''^ l"lnm on (ho 

mate armament needs of its friends of equipment. military" account nuiHt iTitL mi tin f. 

primarily through a large grant aid To reduce the cosh M i, n n J 51 "?! 1 " In Hlll " n 1 * tlc I t* tH ' 'l ll ^''" "i 

program Indeed, of the ?22 billion of allies and ouise ve s of eaSn , Ur '"^ Prn(! " Wl1 JUltl (l(UlIl ' nbl<! limi " 1 '"^ 

U.S military sports during the collective fo "es ta 'avof S' ff W to how ''> "f w ,-m. or h,m|,| 

1950-s. $17 billion were financed by sary and costly dupuS d T^" XIIM I t fr m thl " Wmr '- In ^"'"-- 

Congr^nal appropriations. ment program" an v r '?" flhould 1>n Ellll<! ltl "'!' '^ 

By the ,atter p a , t O f the decade, ~ P^lrL ^ ^ ^T V'^i ^ ^ f ^'^ 

however, many of these countries had duction ru "s. P "PPort nfltnbliflhmont in tl> |HXH-I'HH 

beconw prosperous again, enablimr To offset ft t i M .f ,- ,, rolocntln ff fl ' 01 Krnm-n, nlt!iou K h 

' ( " ""- g ,favn^! ',, a L'!f t . partlaII > r ' th thfil ' ^11 bo Homo Initial " - 



" to produce more of their own ^favorable payments in^n, , , 7" r , ' n """ : uuum "K 

" or huy them abroad. At deployments aSd Z? t TJ P ^1* rnlo U n il ^''- '" "' 
'me, this rising affluence al- collective defense lerG9t f - a - Bast ' W(1 wi " r '^nLlm.Inu 



lowed several of these 
build their monetary 



to 



,!! li ,T; e L b ! sic stan "* re eatab- 



lished to 



the 



of our 



as our Vietnam ilonloymnnlH 
largo. 

Ijet in 



We will 
our country to 
aid th 



its own forces, 
any 



i Cimmilttftc, 

... ,. , ~ JUl ' 1' rnoci- uj nit id it 
with the important imtionnl B^-urlly 
objectivo wo arc chavff(Ml witli up. 
eompHshing, WQ remain k^nnly 
of the burden that our 



programs placo on tho nniton'H Inter- '* 



thin 



burden aa light as poaaiblo.' 

February 1967 




In this section of my statement I 
will dicuss tho throe major prog-nuns 
which, together, constitute tho foun- 
dation of our general nuclear forces, 
and civil defense. Because of their 
close inter-relationship and, indeed, 
their interaction, it in essential tlmt 
all three of those programs ho con- 
sidered within u single analytical 
framework. 

* The General Nuclear War 
Problem 

During tho past HOVOHI! years, in 
my annual appearances before thin 
committee, I have attempted to ex- 
plore with you some of tho moro 
fundamentiil characteristics of tho 
general nucleur war problem and the 
kinds of strategic- forces which it in- 
volves. I noted that our general nu- 
clear war forces should have two basic 
capabilities: 

I To deter deliherato nuelour at- 

tack upon tho United States nnd its 
allies hy maljitaining, continuously, 
ft highly reliable ahility to Inflict an 
unacceptable degree of damage upon 
any single aggressor, or combination 
of aggressors, at any time during tho 
COUI-HO of a strategic nuclear ex- 
change, oven after absorbing a sur- 
prise first strike. 

Tn the event such a war neverthe- 
less occurred, to limit damage to our 
population and industrial capacity, 

The first capability wo call "As- 
sured Destruction" and the second 
"Damage Limitation." The strategic 

offensive forces the ICDM's, Lhe 

submarine-launched ballistic missiles 
(SLUM's), and the manned bombers 
which we usually associate with tho 
first capability, can also contribute to 
tho second. Thoy can do no by attack- 
ing enemy delivery vehicles on their 
basos or launch sitos, provided they 
can reach those vehicles beforo thny 
nro launched at our cities. Conversely, 
tho strategic defensive forces- 
manned interceptors, anti-bomhor sur- 
r fncc-to-air missiles, anti-ballistic mis- 
silo (AHM) which we usually asso- 
ciate, with tho second capability can 
also contribute to tho first. They can 
do so by successfully Intercepting and 
destroying tho enemy's offensive 



weapons before they reuch our stra- 
tegic offensive forces on their bases 
and launch sites. 

As long as deterrence of a delib- 
erate Soviet (or Red Chinese) nuclear 
attack upon the United States or its 
allies is the overriding objective of 
our strategic forces, tho capability for 
Assured Destruction must receive tho 
first call on all of our resources and 
must be provided regardless of the 
costs and the difficulties involved. 
Damage Limiting programs, no mat- 
ter how much we spend on them, can 
never substitute for an Assured De- 
struction capability in the deterrent 
role. It is our ability to destroy an 
attacker as a viable 20th Century 
nation tlmt provides the deterrent, not 
our ability to partially limit damage 
to ourselves. 

What kind and amount of destruc- 
tion we would have to be able to in- 
dict on an attacker to provide this 
deterrent cannot lie answered pre- 
cisely, However, it seems reasonable 
to assume that in the case of the So- 
viet Union, the destruction of, say, 
one-fifth to one-fourth of its popula- 
tion and one-half to two-thirds of its 
industrial capacity would mean its 
elimination as a major power for 
many years. Such a level of destruc- 
tion would certainly represent intol- 
erable punishment to any industrial- 
iwd nation and, thus, should serve as 
an effective deterrent to the deliberate 
initiation of a nuclear attack on the 
United States or its allies. 

Assured Destruction with regard to 
Red China presents a somewhat dif- 
ferent problem. China is far from bo- 
ing an industrialized nation. However, 
what industry it has is heavily con- 
centrated in a comparatively few 
cities. We estimate, for example, that 
a relatively small number of war- 
heads detonated over 50 Chinese ur- 
ban centers would destroy half of the 
urban population (more than 50 mil- 
lion people) and moro than one-half 
of tho industrial capacity, Moreover, 
auch an attack would also destroy 
most of tho key governmental; techni- 
cal and managerial personnel and a 
largo proportion of tho skilled work- 
ers, Sinco Rod China's capacity to 
attack tho United States with nuclear 



weapons will bo very limited, even 
during the 1970'a, the ability of even 
a very small portion of our strategic 
offensive forces to inflict such heavy 
damage upon them should serve as an 
effective deterrent to tho deliberate 
initiation of such an attack on their 
part. 

Once sufilcient forces have been 
procured to give us high confidence, 
of achieving our Assured Destruction 
objective, we can then consider the 
kinds and amounts of forces which 
might bo added to reduce damage to 
our population and industry in the 
event deterrence fails. Hut hero we 
must note another important point, 
namely, the possible interaction of 
our strategic forces programs with 
thoso of the Soviet Union. If tho gen- 
oral nuclear war policy of tho Soviet 
Union also has as its objective tho 
deterrence of a U, S. first strike 
(which 1 believe to he the case), then 
we must assume that any attempt on 
our part to reduce damage to our- 
selves (to what they would estimate 
we might consider an "acceptable 
level") would put pressure on them to 
strive for an olTHotting improvement 
in their deterrent forces. Conversely, 
an increase in their Damage Limiting 
capability would require us to imiko 
greater investments in Assured De- 
struction, which, as I will describe 
later, is precisely what we now pro- 
pose to do. 

It is this interaction between our 
strategic forces programs and those 
of the Soviet Union which leads UH to 
bolieve tlmt there is a mutuality of 
interests in limiting the deployment 
of anti-ballistic missile defense nys- 
terns. If our assumption that the So- 
viets are also striving to achieve an 
Assured Destruction capability is cor- 
rect, and I am convinced that it is, 
then in all probability all we would 
accomplish by deploying ATJM sys- 
tems against one another would lie to 
increase greatly our respective do- 
fenso expenditures, without any gain 
in real security for either aide. It 
was for this reason that President 
Johnson decided to initiate negotia- 
tions with tho Soviet Union, designed, 
through formal or informal agree- 
ment, to limit tho deployment of ABM 
systems, while including at the same 
time about $1175 million in his FY 1068 
Budget to provide for such actions 
e.g., protection of our offensive weapon 
systems us may bo required if these 
discussions prove unsuccessful. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



>?ti<;n, it might be use- 
.- ar:othr-r fundamental 

that the concept of 
u';i.;n implies a "sec- 
nliiity, i.f\, a strategic 
i jHi' 1 and sufficient 
i''-trv.y the attacker. 
I 1 -! IV .-.i ruction is also 
i'.v. they must always 
3k offf-nsiivi! forces in 

a-; a potential first 
ju = t as \vo view their 
i'it; for a second strike 



U.S. vs Soviet 

Intercontinental Strategic 

Nuclear Forces 

Oct. 1, 1966 
U.S." USSU 



ICBM'fl" 934 

SLBM's (U.E. 

Launchers)' 612 

Total Intercontinental 

Ballistic Missiles d 1,446 
Intercontinental 

Bombers e 680 



The Size and Character of 
the Threat 

lr. !!<{<>! t-'i as-'f-s. 1 ! the capabilities 
>-f fur jf-'-t-f-ral nucloar war forces 
-'-"r the ;; f >.\t tft-vcral years, we must 
tu'', K;K> account the size and char- 
JI-.-VT f the stratfpir forces which the 
f'V.H't Union and Red China are 
li.v'ly to h;wo during the same period. 
At:ain, !,'t me caution that, while we 
",T,O rorifonable high confidence in 
our o?.tirr,:,t,?3 f ()r tfo c ] ose .i n p er i 0( | f 

t' ! .i for tlit? early part of 
<watk> are .subject to much 
ur.rcrt.nnly. As I pointed out in past 
aw-tarancps tefon? ibis Committee, 
''iJ-fi hn^-r rang.? projections are, at 
'*'>'.. 'ir.ly in forme J estimates, par- 
ticularly since they deal in many 
M""i wuh a period beyond the pro- 
fuction nnj deployment lead times 
<.. to' waiwri systems involved. 

Jhf - So * ie < Strategic Offensive- 
Defensive Forces. 

Two significant changes have oc- 
curr]_ during th, last year in our 
Projections of Sovfot strategic forces. 
I**' first is a faster-than-expected 
nit* of construction of hard ICBM 

rtl!'^ r '*T' f ' 3 moro P s 'tive evi- 
. r^t! ^ of a deployment of an anti- 
fraliihiic missile defense system 
n.nd Moscow. (Both of these d ve 

nnmnnl .. *!! ,, 'vui. UV*CJ- 

fall considerably short of 



340 
130 

470 

166 

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. 
As of now, we have more than three 
times the number of intercontinental 
ballistic missiles (i.e., ICBM's, and 
SLBM's) the Soviets have. Even by 
the early 1970's, we still expect to 
have a significant lead over the Soviet 
Union in terms of numbers and a 
very substantial superiority in terms 
of overall combat effectiveness. In 
this connection, we should bear in 
mind that it is not the number of mis- 
siles which is important, but rather 
the character of the payloads they 
carry; the missile is simply the deliv- 
ery vehicle. Our superiority in inter- 
continental bombers, both in numbers 
and combat effectiveness, is even 
greater and is expected to remain so 
for as far ahead as we can see. There 
is still no evidence that the Soviets 
intend to deploy a new heavy bomber 
in the late 1980'a. 

Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense. Wo 
have been aware for many years that 
the Soviets have been working on an 
anti-ballistic missile defense system 
just as we have been. After a series 
of abortive starts, it now appears 
that the Soviets are deploying SUc h a 
system (using the "GALOSH" mis- 
sile, publicly displayed i n 19 64) 
around Moscow. They are also deploy- 
ing another type O f defensive system 
elsewhere in the Soviet Union, butS 
weight of the evidence at this time 
tnat this system is not in 
primarily f or anti-ballistic 



- 

threat, against which we 
* Iw fl hedging f or several e 



of ft. Soviet c 

J Orally in line .vith those T 
*"*-uwd here last 



ud - 



missile defense. However, knowing 
what we do about past Soviot predi- 
lections for defense HysteniH/ we imiat, 
for the time being, plan our forces on 
the assumption that they will hnvD 
deployed some sort of an AltM Jtyti- 
tem around their major oition by tlm 
early 1970's. Whether imuto up of 
GALOSH only, or a comliinnUmi nf 
GALOSH and other typos of iniHsiloii, 
a full scale deployment would (Nist 
the Soviet Union at Icust $UO to Siifi 
billion. 

The Red Chinese Nuclear Tlirttal. 

Thero has been no battle 
in our estimates of the Heel 
nuclear threat. Thoir firing of u nu- 
clear armed missile over n 
of a few hundred mi lew lnnt 
falls within the limits of Hint ntl- 
mate. . , . 

With regard to nn ICHM, w )., 
lieve that thn Hod Chfmwa miclivur 
weapons and ballistic miHwilti <lm r i'tujt- 
meat programs arc boiiiK purmicrl 
with high priority. On thn Imulji of 
recent ovidmicn, H n])pnnr posufhlc 
that they inny conduct cither a iqiari* 
or a loner-ranffo hulliHtic minnlh* 
launching before thn <>iul of Uir.V. 
However, ifc appears unllkoly that th 
Chinese could deploy a NijrnlflcnnL 
number of operational ICBMSt before 
the mid-1070'fl, or that thown KJUM'n 
would hnvo groat reliability, iipi-cil tt { 
response, or oubBtanHn! prnterllnji 
against attack. 

Red China also hnn aomci bonilnvra 

which could carry nuclnnr w.-uj, 

but most of them hnvo nn ojinratEiuitil 
radius of only a few hundred initt'M 
It is highly unlikely, on the. l^nl, ,,f 
cost alone, that they woultt undca-tuk.- 
the development, production mid dp- 
Ployment of a now, l onff rn ,, KO 
bomber forco. If they C!WHO to do If0( 
it would take them a dociulo or mom 
before they could deploy it, Accont- 
mgly, we have no reason on this 
accourit to change our eatimnto Unit ft 
significant Red Chinese miclonr Ihwat 
to the continental United Stnlcn will 
not develop before tho mJ(M070*H 









ar* 1 



.. aoyw meroonUnontaJ^j ? ur Mrutegio Air Cant' 

tS MM - iS'ss ;:;LS~. 









Capabilities of the Proposed 
Forces for Assured Destruction 

The most demanding test of our 
Assured Destruction capability is the 
ability of our strategic offensive 
forces to survive a well coordinated 
surprise Soviet first strike directed 
against them. Because no one can 
know how a general nuclear war be- 
tween the United States and the So- 
viet Union might occur, prudence 
dictates that we design our own stra- 
tegic forces on the basis of a greater 
threat than we actually expect. 

Capability Against the Expected 
Threat. 

Even if the Soviets in the 1972 
period were to assign their entire 
available missile force to attacks on 
our strategic forces (reserving only 
refire missile and bomber-delivered 
weapons for urban targets), more 
than one-half of the total forces pro- 
grammed last year for 1972 would 
still survive and remain effective. 

Considering the overall size and 
character of that force, it is clear 
that our strategic missiles alone could 
destroy the Soviet Union as a viable 
20th Century society, even after ab- 
sorbing a well coordinated, surprise 
first attack. Indeed, the detonation of 
even one-fifth of the total surviving 
weapons over Soviet cities would kill 
about 30 percent of the total popula- 
tion (73 million people) and destroy 
about one-half of the industrial capa- 
city. By doubling the number of war- 
heads delivered, Soviet fatalities and 
industrial capacity destroyed would 
be increased by considerably less than 
one-third. Beyond this point further 
increments of warheads delivered 
would not appreciably change the re- 
sult, because we would have to bring 
smaller and smaller cities under at- 
tack, each requiring one delivered 
warhead. 

Although it is not at all certain 
that they will do so, we must, as I 
noted earlier, base our force planning 
on the assumption that the Soviets 
will deploy a reasonably effective 
ABM defense around their principal 
cities; and we must be prepared to 
overwhelm it. 

We have been hedging against this 
possibility for some time, and last 
year we toolc a number of actions of 
which the following are the most im- 
portant: 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



Accelerated development of the 
Poseidon missile. 

Approved production and deploy- 
ment of Minuteman III. 

a Developed penetration aids for 
Minuteman. 

Now, in the PY 1968 program we 
propose to take a number of addi- 
tional actions to enhance the future 
capabilities of our Assured Destruc- 
tion forces, of which the following are 
the more important: 

Produce and deploy the Poseidon 
missile. 

Produce and deploy improved 
missile penetration aids. 

Increase the proportion of Min- 
utcman III in the planned force and 
provide it with an improved third 
stage. 

Initiate the development of new 
reentry vehicles, specifically designed 
for use against targets heavily de- 
fended with ABM's. 

I will discuss each of these actions 
in greater detail later in connection 
with our other proposals for the stra- 
tegic forces. But for now, let me point 
out that the net effect of these actions 
would be to increase greatly the over- 
all effectiveness of our Assured De- 
struction force against the Soviet 
Union by mid-1972. Even if the Mos- 
cow-type ABM defense were deployed 
at other cities as well, the proposed 
U.S. missile force alone could inflict 
about 3G percent (86 million) fatali- 
ties on the Soviet Union in 1972 
after absorbing a surprise attack. 

As I noted earlier, a relatively 
small number of warheads detonated 
over fifty cities would destroy half 
of Red China's urban population and 
more than one-half of her industry, 

Thus the strategic missile forces 
proposed for the FY 1968-72 period 
would, by themselves, give us an As- 
sured Destruction capability against 
both the Soviet Union and Red China, 
simultaneously. 

Capability Against "Higlier-Tlmn- 
Expccted Threats." 

As I indicated last year, our As- 
sured Destruction capability is of 
such crucial importance to our secur- 
ity that wo must be prepared to cope 
with Soviet strategic threats which 
are greater than those projected- in 
the latest intelligence estimates. 

The most severe threat we must 
consider in planning our Assured De- 
struction forces is an extensive, effec- 
tive Soviet ABM deployment com- 



bined with a deployment of a 
substantial ICBM force with a hard- 
target kill capability. Such a Soviet 
offensive force might pose a threat 
to our Minuteman missiles. An exten- 
sive, effective Soviet ABM system 
might then be able to intercept and 
destroy a significant portion of our 
residual missile warhead a, including 
those carried by submarine-launched 
missiles. (The Soviet offensive and 
defensive threats assumed horc are 
both substantially higher than ex- 
pected.) 

To hedge against the possibility of 
such a threat to our land-based mis- 
sile forces, we have authorized the de- 
velopment and production of the 
Poseidon. Should still additional of- 
fensive power be required, and such a 
requirement is not now clear, we are 
considering the development and de- 
ployment of a new Advanced ICBM, 
designed to reduce vulnerability to 
such a Soviet threat. The deployment 
of the Nike-X as a defense for our 
Minuteman force would offer a par- 
tial substitute for tile possible further 
expansion of our offensive forces, 

But again I want to emphasize that 
wo don't know whether the Soviet 
Union will develop and deploy the 
kind of forces assumed hero. Even 
against this highor-than- expected 
throat, and even without n Nili-X 
defense of Minuteman, our proposed 
strategic missile and bomber forces 
could still inflict dO percent or morn 
fatalities on the Soviet population 
throughout the time period involved. 

More extreme throats tiro highly 
unlikely. In any event, the changes 
we are now proposing in our strate- 
gic offensive forces would make it 
dangerous and expensive for the So- 
viet Union to movo in tho direction 
of more extreme threats to our As- 
sured Destruction capability. If wo 
assume, as I believe we should, that 
the Soviets would want to reduce tho 
vulnerability of their own offensive 
forces against the possibility of a 
first strike by our very accurate 
forces in the FY 1072-78 period, they 
must further disperse and harden 
their strategic missiles, which is cx~ 
nctly what they appear to be doing 
now. To do so is expensive and for 
the same budget outlay results in re- 
duced missile paylonds. Not to do so 
would leave the Soviet force highly 
vulnerable. Thus wo can, in planning 
our forces, foreclose any seemingly 
"easy" and "cheap" paths to their 



*;;. ,.:):' lit of a statisfaetory As- 
i :--: [i-. ; !ructi'>n capability and a 
i!:'.f,-.":"ry I'^iiisagt 1 Limiting capu- 

>; . at \!'.<- .-litiu- lini'?. 

\\'-. --,! c.j'jr-'?, cannot preclude the 
ill?.;. u::i'. th? .Soviet Union may 

r, ,,->- it- .-.tr.-it.-pir forces budget at 
; ,- ti,-i;i' in thi 1 future. That is why 
> I'.r- n.j-.v uiiiJcrtaking a very com- 
..Kr>'h" .-tudy nf a new strategic 
:--;;.' y,-.'.t'm. And that is why we 
- r.i.t jir-duiiini? the possible future 
r. -;rj' n iii'!i of iiev; Poseidon subma- 
- * r tho d'"-fH}?>> of our presently 
,''-.;,. -i Mir.ut'-man silos with Nike- 

V/fii!-' 1 l-diiiv* we should place 
r -lv.-.- in a iH!.-itioii to move for- 
f'l r>rornj'i!y on all of those options 
ht>'-r that should become necessary, 

!<'<] not rommit ourselves to them 



Capabilities of the Proposed 
Forces for Damage Limitation 

TV- principal issue in this area of 
th -Str;it<'gic Forces Program con- 
o-rn.-i the .if.ployment of an ABM de- 
fwvM* Kjvtrn, i.e., Nike-X. There are 
thit;- ^(jtuewJmt overlapping but dis- 
tuift major nurposes for which we 
nii^hi want to deploy such a system at 
this time: 

To protect our cities (and their 
Wuhtinn and industry) against a 
Souvt missile attack. 

^ To protect our cities against a 
&<! Cliinew missile attack in the 
tnid-lIhO's. 

To hf-lp protect our land-based 
.nratPBic offensive forces (i.e., Min- 
tt-iiiaii) against a Soviet missile at- 
rark. 

After -studying the subject exhaus- 
, nn(! aft(;r hearing the views 
of ur princij,al military and civilian 
ativisoM, we concluded that we should 
not initiate an ABM deployment at 

wiVT *% an> ' f these Ilur P ses - 
weholieve that: 

' The Soviet Union would be 
f'>r ( | to react to n U.S. ABM de- 
Ploymmt by increasing its offensive 
nucl,ar fo e 8t j,, further ^ M 

-ult -hat the risk of a Soviet nJ 
^far attack on the United States 
W not be further decreased ; and 



such an attack can be prevented if it 
is understood by the Soviets that we 
possess strategic nuclear forces so 
powerful as to be capable of absorb- 
ing a Soviet first strike and surviving 
with sufficient strength to impose 
unacceptable damage on them. We 
have such power today. We must 
maintain it in the future, adjusting 
our forces to offset actual or potential 
changes in theirs. 

There is nothing we have seen in 
either our own or the Soviet Union's 
technology which would lead us to 
believe we cannot do this. From the 
beginning of the Nike-Zeus project 
in 1955 through the end of this cur- 
rent fiscal year, we will have invested 
a total of about $4 billion on ballistic 
missile defense research including 
Nike-Zeus, Nike-X and Project De- 
fender. And, during the last five or 
six years, we have spent about $1.2 
billion on the development of penetra- 
tion aids to help ensure that our mis- 
siles could penetrate the enemy's de- 
fenses. As a result of these efforts, 
we have the technology already in 
hand to counter any offensive or de- 
fensive force changes the Soviet 
Union might'undertake in the forsee- 
able future. 

We believe the Soviet Union has es- 
sentially the same -requirement for a 
deterrent or Assured Destruction 
force as the United States. Therefore, 
deployment by the United States of 
an ABM defense which would degrade 
the destruction capability of the So- 
viet's offensive force to an unaccept- 
able level would lead to expansion of 
that force. This would leave us no 
better off than we were before. 

With respect to protection of tho 
United States against a possible Red 
Chinese nuclear attack, the lead time 
required for China to develop a sig- 
If cant I?BH force is great er than 
that required for deployment of our 
defense-therefore the Chinese throat 
m itself would not dictate the produc- 
^^ABM sy stem at this time. 

"on of our land-based ^traSc 
offensive forces against the k tad I of 

ta^*-fc attaci: 
e able 1 



Assured Destruction, tho third major 
purpose for which wo mny wiml to 
deploy an ABM dnfcmso (i.e., the; pro- 
tection of Minuteman). Now, 7 woutii 
like to discuss the other two 



Deployment of Nilcc-X for Ocfenw f 
Our Cities AgnhiHl a Siiviel Atfjick, 

What is involved here IK an analy- 
sis of tho contribution tlm Nik<< -X 
system might make to Uio lU'friuw of 
our cities under two aji.sunijitLoiiti: 

That tho SoviotH do not iraH tit 
such a deployment. 

That tins Soviets do rent; I In i\\\ 
attempt to prenorvo thdr "Amunvil 
Destruction" capability. 

As you know, tin- major oh-merit^ 
of tlio Nikn-X HVKtoin are bflii^ de- 
veloped in mich a wuy an to |)cnnU a 
variety of deployments; Iwn lmv<* 
been selected for tlm purpmu'H of thin 
analysis. Tho first, which I will i-itll 
"Posture A," rep rose; ntM a li^ht If. S. 
defense affniiiflt a Soviet nubile at- 
tack on our citie.H. H COMMHU of un 
area defense of the entire cmiUm-ninl 
United States, providing rrilundmiL 
(overlapping) tiovovnK" of kny tnrcct 
areas; and, in nddtUnn, a rchitivrly , 
low-don.sity Sprint doroiiMo of n IIUIH- ' 
bor of the lurgost cltlow tit pim-lifc 
some ]>rotectlon affniimt tlmtio \vur- 
honds which jrot through llm nn-n 
defenao. Thn mtcoiul duploynn'iit, 
which I call "Posturo II," in n hriivif-r 
doronsn agiiinHt a Soviet iiliiii'h. With 
tho (mint! nrnn eovenuvo, it provJdi'H n 
hifflior-doiiHlty Sprint diifanm* fn- 
twice the nuinbor of citiew. 

Shown on the Flfrurn I am tlio pom- 
ponontH and the contH (which, if pn-.t 
experience JH any ff uldc, may 1m ninli<r. 
stated by fiO to 100 pniwnt for llio 
ayfitomfl as a whole)" of Ponlure A [uhl - 

PosUH'O B. *a 

"Even before tlio syalnma bt'eamr 
oparafumal, preaaHrcH would mnnnt 
for tlunr expansion at n tnat nf utiH 
additional biUiom. Thr. UHHratrrtctt 
or relatively unprotected, arena n/ th* 
United Statea would claim (hat flu-ir 
} j x rf? Wcr < ! beinff diverted, [n ;nv- 
tect New York and Wanking'tun \vltflf. 
"ley were left naked. And 
"""'''' ' 'U that mt-. 



or 



threat (the, 



a mttfh 



; , *? * nme 

be applied to our 



attack. Wo 






of 



' f] . 
deployed with the 

too Uni tof 



expenditure on tho order 
bilhon over a 10-yew 



February 



The Multi-function Array Radar 
(MAR) is a very powerful phased- 
array radar which can perform all the 
defense functions involved in engag- 
ing a large, sophisticated attack: cen- 
tral control and battle management, 
long-range search, acquisition of the 
target, discrimination of warheads 
from decoys or "spoofing" devices, 
precision tracking of the target, and 
control of the defense interceptor mis- 
siles. 

The TACMAR Radar is a scaled 
down, slightly less complex and less 
powerful version of the MAR, which 
can perform all the basic defense func- 
tions in a smaller, less sophisticated 
attack. 

The Perimeter Acquisition Radar 
(PAR) is a phased-array radar re- 
quired for the very long-range search 
and acquisition functions involved in 
area defense. To achieve the full 
potential of the extended range Spar- 
tan, the target must be picked up at 
much greater distances in order to 
compute its trajectory before the 
Spartan is fired. 

The Missile Site Radar (MSR) is a 
much smaller, phased-array radar 
needed to control the Sprint and Spar- 
tan interceptor missiles during an en- 
gagement. It can also perform the 
functions of the TACMAR but on a 
considerably reduced scale. Actually, a 
number of different sizes are being 
studied. This "modular" approach will 
permit us to tailor the capacity of the 
radar to the particular needs of each 
defended area. 



The Spartan is a three-stage missile 
with a nuclear warhead capable of in- 
tercepting incoming objects at rela- 
tively long range above the atmos- 
phere. 

The Sprint is a shorter range, high- 
acceleration interceptor missile de- 
signed to make intercepts at lower 
altitudes. 

The technical principles involved in 
the radars are now fairly well estab- 
lished. One research and development 
MAR-type has been constructed at the 
White Sands Missile Range. A con- 
tract has been let for the power 
plant of a second MAR-type radar, 
which is to be constructed on Kwaja- 
lein Atoll. The Missile Site Radar is 
well along- in development and the 
construction of one of these radars 
on Kwajalein Atoll has also begun. 

Testing of the Sprint missile was 
started at White Sands in November 
1965 and the tempo of testing will 
steadily " increase during the current 
year. The Spartan is still on the draw- 
ing boards. It represents a very sub- 
stantial redesign of the original Zeus 
and we. will not know until it is flight 
tested how well it will perform. 

Facilities for testing both the Sprint 
and the Spartan will bo constructed 
on Kwajalein Atoll. These, together 
with the TACMAR and MSR and 
the proprnms for the computers, will 
give us all of the major elements of 
the Nike-X system which are essential 
to test its overall performance against 
reentry vehicles fired from Vandcn- 
berg AFB, Calif. (We feel we know 
enough aboiit the PAR technology to 





POSTURE A 


POSTURE B 




Invest. Coat 


Invest. Cost 


Radars 


($ Billion) 


($ Billion) 


MAR 






TACMAR 






PAR 






MSR 






Invest. Cost 
Missiles 


$ 6.5 


$12.6 


Spartan 






Sprint 






Invest. Cost 


$ 2.4 


$ 4.8 


DOD Invest. Cost 
AEG Invest, Cost 


$ 8.9 

1.0 


$17.4 
2.0 


Total Invest. Cost 
(excluding R&D) 


$ 9.9 


$19.4 


Annual Operating Cost 


$ 0.38 


$ 0.72 


No. of Cities w/Term. Def: 


X 


2X 



Figure 1 



be able to use the mechanically steered 
radars already on Kwajalein as simu- 
lators.) The system will be tested in 
stages, starting with the MSR and 
Sprint, then the Spartan missile and 
the TACMAR radar. A large number 
of test shots will be launched from 
the west coast af the United States 
to Kwajalein to test the system thor- 
oughly as a whole. The most impor- 
tant objective of this effort is to de- 
termine proper system integration and 
computer programming, since the in- 
dividual components of the system will 
have already been tested. 

But even after this elaborate test 
program is completed, some technical 
uncertainties will still remain unre- 
solved; this is to be expected in a 
system designed for such a highly 
complex mission. Moreover, we have 
learned from bitter experience that 
even when the development problems 
have been solved, a system can run 
into trouble in production or when it 
is put into operation. All too often the 
development prototype cannot be pro- 
duced in quantity without extensive 
re-engineering. Production delays are 
encountered and costs begin, to spiral. 
Sometimes these problems are not dis- 
covered until the new system actually 
enters the inventory and 1ms to 
function in an operational environ- 
ment. . . . 

In this connection, it is worth not- 
ing that had wo produced and de- 
ployed the Nike-Zeus system proposed 
by the Army in 1959 at an estimated 
cost of $13 to $14 billion, most of it 
would have hud to be torn out and 
replaced, almost before it became op- 
erational, by the new missilua and 
radars of the Nike-X system. My the 
same token, other technological de- 
velopments in offensive forces over 
the next seven years may make 
obsolete or drastically degrade the 
Nike-X system as presently en- 
visioned. We can predict with cer- 
tainty that there will be substantial 
additional costs for updating any sys- 
tem we might consider installing- at 
this time ag-ainsfc the Soviet missile 
threat. 

The deployment of a Nikc-X system 
would also require some improvement 
in our defense against manned 
bomber attack in order to preclude 
the Soviets from undercutting the 
Nike-X defense; and we would want 
to expand and accelerate the fallout 
shelter program. The investment cost 
(including research and development) 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



. r' ;'" ;V-;r,fT i-= estimated at nbout 

*[ ' -..! i?:M Mtlio-i sitd would provide 

f r . -li-.tll f,, r ,Y of F-lll or F-12 

,; >ti''t ;:!-- and airborne wam- 

v :,-] r,,;;tn-.l aircraft (AWACS). 

I,- ^j,.i':,;-i i";iSif' ! Jt shelter program 

. ,: i v-.'-t a?/ 'Lit 3>i)Ci million more 

;;>,", u\{- is';.' M..' ,iiv now producing. 

V. 1 .' .. ;i!<i a!-') ne:il --'Jriif of our anti- 

-iihritfin-' Carfare (ASW) forces for 

[> .it-.-iiii-t Sf.-.ict ini^ik' .submarines, 

! :t ' ar.- :i--.? \vt elt'itr whether these 

ASV,' f,.n -. '.v-Mjlfi actually have to be 

ir,;r<',L-.--( v-n-r '.he currently planned 

: v< :-. In any cvont, tho "cuiTent" 

s ;:!j-;i%-s uf th! 1 investmc'.Lt cost of 

tl<>< t.>t;i] Iiair.iiffe Limiting package 

".iiM amount to at least $12,2 bit- 

li.'r; f-.r I'V.-tun:: A and at least $21,7 

l'ii:i -r, f.;r F"'.iture fi. 

Tc tpst th'> contribution that each 
=.-f the.it: N'ik'?-X deployments might 
rrjiko to uur IX'iruage Limiting objec- 
ii-.o,-:, \ve have projected both the U.S. 
ami Sr-.vict strati-'gic nuclear forces 
ta^siirnitig no ivaction by the Soviets 
t<> th'f r.S. AUM deployment) to the 
time v.-ht-n Pomire It, the header de- 
faw, could be fully in place. 

Tiv fiitalities which these Soviet 
f-:Ti',\* could inflict upon the United 
.Si.it.-.-; (with and without a U.S. ABM 
<!i-fen,-v) and the fatalities which the 
'.'. K. forces could inflict on the Soviet 
I'nion ('with n Soviet ABM defense) 
aiv .%v,vn in the Figure 2. 

Tho firrit rase, ".Soviets Strike First, 
I'. S. Retaliates," is the threat against 
v.-nK-b our strategic forces must be 
(!(>< igned. The second case, "U.S. 
Strike First, Soviets Retaliate," is 
th-' case that would determine the size 
anil character of the Soviet reaction to 
changes m our strategic forces, if 
they wish, as they clearly do, to main- 
tain an Assured Destruction capa- 
bility against us. 

These calculations indicate that 
without N'ike-X and the other Damage 
I-imilinK programs discussed earlier 
t.i. fatalities from a Soviet first 
Rtnkc could total about 120 million- 
" after absorbing that attack, we 



Billion fatalities. Assuming 
" do not "act to our deploy- 
" ABM defense against 
!S a "lost unrealistic 
'. Posture A might 



an 
ture B to about 30 million, 

Although the fatality estimate, 
r both tbe Soviet Union 



(he United States reflect some varia- 
tions in the performance of their re- 
spective ABM systems, they are still 
based on the assumption that these 
systems will work at relatively high 
levels of effectiveness. If these ABM 
systems tlo not perform as well as our 
technical people postulate, fatalities 
on both sides could be considerably 
higher than shown in Figure 2, 
or the costs would be considerably 
higher if major improvements or ad- 
ditions had to be made in the systems 
to bring them up to tlie postulated 
level of performance. 

If the Soviets are determined to 
maintain an Assured Destruction 
capability against us and they believe 
that our deployment of an ABM de- 
fense would reduce our fatalities in 
the "U.S. Strikes First, Soviets Re- 
taliate" case to the levels shown in 
Figure 2, they would have no alter- 
native but to increase the second 
strike damage potential of their offen- 
sive forces. They could do so. in 
several different ways. Shown in the 
table below are the relative costs to 
the Soviet Union of responding to a 
U.S. ABM deployment in one of these 
possible ways: 



Level of U.S. 

Fatalities Which 

Soviets Believe 

Will Provide 

Deterrence 11 

(Millions) 

40 



Cost to the Soviets 
of Offsetting 
U.S. Cost to 
Deploy an ABM 

$1 Soviet cost to 
$4 U.S. cost 

$1 Soviet cost to 
2 U.S. cost 

$1 Soviet cost to 
$1 U,S, cost 

U. S. fatalities if United States 
fc first and Soviets retaliate 



60. 
90. 



If the Soviets chose to respond hi 
that way to our ARM deployment, 
the results would be as shown hi Fig- 
ure 8, 

In short, the Sovinta have it within 
their technical ami economic capacity 
to offset any furthor Damage Uiiiit- 
ing measures we mijrlit iindcrlAfcc, 
provided they arcs determined to 
maintain their deterrent aKiiinnt iia. 
It is the virtual certainly Unit the 
Soviets will act to mtimUlri lliolr 
deterrent which cants suck fjrtivci 
doubts on the advisability of our 
deploying tlic Niku-X syHlcni Cor Hie 
protection of our cilie.s nKiiinwt Hie 
kind of heavy, HopIiUtlcnlwl mfwiilc 
attack they could launch hi (he 1070'*. 
In all probability, nil we would nc- 
compliHh would be to incrciiHi- Rrcutly 
both their defense expenditures mul 
ours without any gain in rcnl wcurltjr 
to either aide. 

Defense Against tho Hod CliliiFNp 
Nuclear Threat. 

With regard to the Hcd Cliinose 
nuclear threat, an austere AHM de- 
fense might off or u hitfh dtw (if 
protection to the nation nKtihiNL a 
missile attack, at leant through tlio ' 
1970'a. The total investment coat of 
uch n program might amount to $;i.fi 
billion, including Uio cst of tho 
nnchmr warheads. 

Tho effectiveness of this dcsploymont 
in reducing U. S. fntnlllloH from n 
Kcd Chinese attack in the li)70'u Is 
shown in tho table bolow: 

Chinese Strike Kim I 
(Operational Inventory) 

U.S. Fatalities X MisHilcH 3X 
(in millions) 

Without ADM 5 10 

With ABM 0-|- l 



U.S. Programs 

Approved 

Posture A 

Posture B 

'Fatality figures s 

they do not include 



No. Strate9ic xcan9 " m 

NO SOVIET REACTION TO U.S. ABM DEPLOYMENT) 

S PIrst ' tLS ' Stl ' ikcH Plrt. 

Soviets UctnMnlc' 
gtpat _ 

? 120 + 100 70 

f 120+ 30 70 

12t> " f " 20 70 

n2S7f fc ^ lcntl i s from blast * 
sultm ff from flro atoaTna, disease, and 



ion of everyday life. 

irfl in flli'r. i_1_l i , 

ssysss to sraa11 

-SiK'^S^^S-^'>e s b 

' i- 

Figure 2 



th 



Februory T967 



This austere defense could probably 
preclude damage in the 1970's almost 
entirely. As the Chinese force grows 
to the level it might achieve by 1980- 
85, additions and improvements might 
be required, but relatively modest 
additional outlays could probably limit 
the Chinese damage potential to low 
levels well beyond 1986, 

It is not clear that we need an ABM 
defense against China. In any event, 
the lead time for deployment of a 
significant Chinese offensive force is 
longer than that required for U.S. 
ABM deployment; therefore, the de- 
cision for the latter need not be made 
now. 

In the light of the foregoing anal- 
ysis, we propose: 

To pursue with uncliminished 
vigor the development, test and 
evaluation of the Nike-X system (for 
which purpose a total of about $440 
million has been included in the PY 
1968 Budget), but to take no action 
now to deploy the system, 

To initiate negotiations with the 
Soviet Union designed, through for- 
mal or informal agreement, to limit 
the deployment of ABM systems. 

To reconsider the deployment de- 
cision in the event those discussions 
prove unsuccessful; aproxhnately $37B 
million has been included in the FY 
1968 Budget to provide for such 
actions as may be required at that 
time, e.g., the production of Nike-X 
for the defense of our offensive 
weapon systems. 

I would now like to turn to our spe- 
cific proposals for the Strategic 
Forces in the FY 1968-72 period. 

Strategic Offensive Forces 

The force structure proposed for 
the FY 1968-72 period is shown in 
the classified table furnished to the 
Committee. 



Missile Forces, 

Last year I told this Committee 
that: 

"The U.S. response to a Soviet 
deployment of an ABM defense 
would be the incorporation of 
appropriate penetration aids in 
our strategic missiles. Against 
area defense interceptors, pene- 
tration aids can be provided for 
U.S. missiles (so that an Assured 
Destruction capability is main- 
tained) at a cost to us of less 
than 10 percent of the cost of an 
ABM defense to the Soviets. The 
lead time for the Soviets to mount 
an ABM defense is greater than 
the time for us to produce and 
deploy penetration aids, provided 
we take timely action to develop 
them and can move forward 
promptly to produce them, and 
this we are doing. The decision 
actually to deploy new penetra- 
tion aids can be made later this 
year. If the Soviets did attempt 
a large ABM defense we would 
still be able to produce and 
install the necessary penetration 
aids before the Soviets could 
achieve an extensive deployment. 
". . . against a combined Soviet 
expanded strategic missile/ABM 
threat, the most efficient alterna- 
tive available to us would be to 
develop Poseidon (with the new 
penetration aids) and retrofit it 
into Polaris boats. To hedge 
against the possibility of such a 
threat, we now propose to accel- 
erate the development of the 
Poseidon missile (which was 
initiated last year). The timing of 
a decision to produce and deploy 
the missile would depend upon 
how this threat actually evolved." 

This is essentially the program we 

now propose to pursue. 



Number of Fatalities in an All-Out Strategic Exchange (in millions) 
(ASSUMES SOVIET REACTION TO U.S. ABM DEPLOYMENT) 



Soviets Strike First, 

U.S. Retaliates 

U.S. Programs U.S. Fat. Sov. Fat. 
Approved 120 120+ 

(no response) 

Posture A 120 120+ 

PoBture B 120 120+ 



U.S. Strikes First, 

Soviets Retaliate 

U.S. Fat. Sov. Fat. 

100 70 



90 
90 



70 
70 



Figure 3 



Minuteman. Last year we had 
planned a Minuteman force which 
would ultimately have consisted of a 
mix of 1,000 Minuteman IPs and 
Minuteman Ill's, with all the Minute- 
man Ps phased out. Now, in order to 
increase the capability of this force 
against a possible strong Soviet ABM 
defense, we propose to increase the 
proportion of Minuteman Ill's in the 
force and equip them with a new im- 
proved third stage which will increase 
the payload of each missile. This in- 
creased payload will enable the 
Minuteman III to carry more penetra- 
tion aids to counter an ABM defense. 
The total cost of this program is esti- 
mated at $400 million, but it will cost 
the Soviet Union many times more in 
ABM defenses if they try to offset it. 

We also propose to step up the 
schedule for re-equipping the Minute- 
man IPs with an improved reentry 
vehicle and to procure penetration 
aid packages for all Minuteman II and 
Til missiles. Engineering development 
was started on these penetration aid 
packages last year. The total cost of 
this program is estimated at $31R 
million, of which $100 million was 
provided through FY 1967, $125 mil- 
lion is required in FY 1968, and an- 
other $90 million in subsequent years. 

Eventually, it will probably be- 
come necessary to replace the earliest 
Minuteman II missiles because of 
their age. At that time we could odd 
more Minutoman Ill's if that should 
appear desirable. Meanwhile, I ba- 
lieve we should initiate the develop- 
ment of a new improved reentry 
vehicle for the Minuteman III, and 
funds for this purpose have been in- 
cluded in the budget request. 

Polaris-Poseidon. By the end of the 
current fiscal year, 30 of the planned 
41-ship Polaris force will have be- 
come operational. The last two Polaris 
submarines will be deployed by 
September 1967, , , , 

I also believe it would be prudent at 
this time to commit the Poseidon mis- 
sile to production and deployment. , . . 
In order to hold a minimum the num- 
ber of submarines which would have 
to be withdrawn from the operational 
fleet, we propose to spread the 
Poseidon retrofit program over a 
period of years on a schedule tied to 
the regular overhaul cycle, 

, . . The total incremental coat of 
developing Poseidon, and producing: 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



11 



and deploying the proposed force In 

estimated at $3.8 billion. A total of 
about $900 million in included in the 
FY 1868 Budget for Poseidon. (Tim 
decision to deploy Poseidon will pro- 
duce an offsetting Having of about 
$200 million in the Polaris program,) 
Funds have also been included In 
the budget for the development of cer- 
tain desired improvements for HID 
Polaris missile. 

Titan II. Tim Titan II force, con- 
sisting of 54 missiles deployed in hard 
silos, presently makes a unique con- 
tribution to our strategic oll'i'imive 
capabilities, . , , However, with the. 
deployment of Minuteman III and, 
latei-, of the Poseidon, this capability 
of the Titan II will no longer lie 
unique. The Minuteman HI from the, 
continental United States and Hie 
Poseidon from forward undersea Iwii- 
tions will be able to reach all the Im- 
portant targets in the Hoviet Union, 

. . . Accordingly, we now propom- 
to end procurement of new Titan 
boosters for testing and operational 
reliability demonstration with (he KV 
1060 buy, and, instead, nun hnmnVni 
already in the Inventory for them* 
purposes in the future. Willi almul 
six follow-on tests per year, tin- fm-ce 
of M TITAN missiles Iminchen, 
can he maintained for a number i.f 
yours. 

New Strategic MlftHllc 
Although we believe the 
missile programs now proposed will 
bfi adequate to meet the threat, oven 
if the Soviet Union were to carry mil 
H full scale deployment of an A MM 
system and d ( . V elop more Directive 
ICBM'H, we are malting a very com- 
prehensive study of a new long-range- 
missile nystem, To shorten the Ira.l 
time on nny option selected us a mm 1 1 
of this study, we have IncUidoil fundu 
In the I-T 1008 Dudget for contract 
definition should mich a d-clslon be- 
come warranted. 

Strategic Bomber Poteen. 



will be phased out as 



Since the now FB-lU'a with tb 
SHAM air-to-surface mlsalla will IM 



entering the bomber force during I-'V 
l.i)(i!) 71 anil tin- H MC/H'ii i-rin ! 
nun'ntained in u unit able n|ieniliniinl 
condition well into the HlVd'n, itn-iv 
iii no pressing need to decide "ii ltn< 
|)l'0tlll<:tioii and deployment of ;i in'w 
bomber in Hie I'V IIH1H Ilinle,. t, 
('learly, the flnit order nf Uh.iin^i! in 
the ntralenic olVennive I'nn-e:; pr.ini'ani 
at thin time In Urn provinjim of 
penetration niiln and other improve 
nientii for our presently plnnm-il 
strategic mk'iile t'.tnv, ami (b* jno 
iliicliim and lieplnymenl nf the tn-\v 
1'oseidon. . , , Nevei'llielej.^, \M> jilnii 
to continue worl; nn (In- i-nclii.-, 

utinlien, for which u total nf ;!i; mil 
lion i.H prof'ninuni'd fur I-'V Ulii.'i, 

I.a;il. year I .-.ni.l [)utt we phmur'.i 
to keep the Ilnuiid Mnj; iiiir.^it.-L m Ui<' 
opi'i'iiliumil inventory llir..ti f ;b I-'V 
l!)70, |ihiitiiiiK Hieir iMimb.-r <l..v.n m 
filep with (he jilmtie nut nf |h>- II ,V.:i ' 
1' it. We now prnpo.-ii' to ]ilin-ii> mil |!u' 
nlder Hnillul ling "A" | ( y ,, tu j |,'y jii,;;] 

n'lniiilnir uiily Ih, "It" ' mM >. , , , ' ,,.,!,",'',!] 'Tl!!'"' ^\ 

The SHAM prnfinim U iin,-biui, : ,',| j',,.,1 v ,.. a 
O"'" that which I JIIVM-IM..,! |,,, ; t ' ' ( 

year. While we Mill ,lo u,.| ,,| l(lt , A " > " U ''"""'' '"' 1 h ''^" ! 

( My H1MM .m lit.- II w; us,, v... '"" <l ""'" ! ' ll '" i '' v '' [i "'"""' 

ill 1 ' 1 nuiUiinin}; the i|v,'l,i[.nn'iil .>!'' (li- ^ in 1 " lt '' > v " l > "^ .">K-nii:it.t; 
ni'fciciary avlnnii'ii In |i, T i n it . ;( |.-|t i( '." ''" "'""' I ' i! *' 1 "'i'-"' 



:\nil ih.- n-Hi.ustiUK HUH; 




itupt-HV.'.i Aiiii in AIM r; 

Uul mi. I inf.-K-.lti-. .-;!, -.--, u 11hl i 
UH fllY.'iu., Aii-Jt-.it..- Wm 



Stratoglc Dofonsivo Forcoi 

lrnt<'Klc d.-f.-nnive f.nvri n,,, 
f (l ,' tin, l-'V limn VI! ju<Hm! 
m the 



Ill 



.f lit 



Hit I' 



l' dm Con.niitt,.,.. The CU-II fltt|< " " 
Proitn.ni f,,r KY j{in)i j rt "'"' r ; l( "'K 



f,,r.' 
AVV 



III 



t>( 
Ar:S 



"howii 

Hurvelllanco, \VarnlnK mu! C 

TliH |>n>Krati)H H)IMWII un.h-r Hil, 
(1 "'K urc, with twn exn-pH,,,,,, tt M - 
'">>" OH limn* I im-m-nled ( Hht y ,.., r 
Aflllvntlnn ,,f ]m!( ; m , 4(M , n( | 
ti-8 will H lip Ko.n.whal from tl, 



Tim 
*'V-r, 



S, \V 



in ArmlnK ..,, tho 
of Uio proRi-ftm. Tim iiHtty will 
up by Urn U-m,,orry ( 
on of two of thn rtUlC ]| 
and la O f Urn mnmml 



(hrr^ 



[,, 



f')K 



1967 



avionics, We hope that by the end of 
this year sufficient data will be avail- 
able to demonstrate the feasibility of 
the AWACS. Only then will we he in 
a position to make a decision on the 
interceptor force. Accordingly, we 
propose to continue development work 
on both the F-12 and the F-lll types 
of interceptors and on the fire control 
and missile systems, and $20 million 
is included in the FY 1968 Budget 
for this purpose, Although no addi- 
tional funds are requested for work 
on the AWACS airframe, another 
$10 million is included in the FY 
1968 Budget to continue work on 
overland radar technology, 

Surfacc-to-Air Missiles 

The Nike Hercules and Hawk mis- 
sile forces are the same as planned a 
year ago except that we now intend 
to replace eventually some of the 
present Hawk missiles with the new 
Improved Hawk which is now in 
development. 

In addition to the Improved Hawk, 
which is designed primarily for the 
field forces, we also have in advanced 
development a new surface-to-air mis- 
sile called the SAM-D. While this 
system is also primarily oriented 
toward air defense of the field forces, 
it also has a potential application for 
continental air defense. This effort, 
thus far, has hecn directed mainly to 
development of the required com- 
ponents or "building blocks" and a 
deployment decision at this time 
would he premature. Additional funds 
have been included in the FY 1968 
Budget to continue development. 

Ballistic Missile Warning. 

The numbers of Ballistic Missile 
Early Warning Systems (BMEWS) 
and Ovor-the-Horizon ( OTH) radar 
sites are the same as shown last 
year. . , . 

We are also continuing work on 
"back scatter" Over-the-Horizon 
radars. . . . 

An interim capability to detect sea 
launched ballistic missiles (SLBM's) 
is being phased in during FY 1968. 
The SLBM detection system will in- 
clude modified SAGE and SPACE- 
TKACK radars. 



Anti-Satellite Defense. 

As described in previous years, we 
have a capability to intercept and 
destroy hostile satellites within 
certain ranges. This capability will 
be maintained through FY 1968. 

Civil Defense 

The Civil Defense program pro- 
posed for FY 1968 is essentially the 
same in content and objectives as 
that approved for the current year. 

The funds requested would carry 



forward the Civil Defense program 
at about the same level as the cur- 
rent fiscal year. A financial summary 
of the program, estimated to cost 
$111 million in FY 1968, appears in 
Figure 4. 

Financial Summary 

The Strategic Forces programs I 
have outlined will require Total Ob- 
ligational Authority of $8.1 billion in 
FY 1968. A comparison with prior 
years is shown below: 



FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF CIVIL DEFENSE 

(TOA*, in $ Millions) 
(Fiscal Years) 



Shelter Survey 
Shelter Improvement 
Shelter Development 

Marking & Stocking 
Shelter Use 
Warning 

Command, Control & 
Communications 

Emergency Operations 

Support 

Financial Assistance 
Information Activities 
Management 
Research Development 
Training & Education 

TOTALS** 



Identified 
Marked 
Stocked 



1962 

68.4 

.3 
90.3 



1963 
9.3 

1.4 

32.7 



6.8 4.1 
22.9" 3.1 



16.8 

18.9 

3.9 

12.4 

19.0 

2.6 



10.1 
27.5 

3.4 
13.6 
11.0 

9.2 



252.3 125.4 



1964 

7.1 

1.7 
24.2 



6.5 

6.7 
23.7 

2.0 

13.9 

10.0 

12.9 

110.C 



1905 
10.6 
1.4 
3.6 
2.3 
4.5 
2.7 



1066 

17.7 

.5' 

5.1 

1.1 

2.7 

.6 



8.4 11.6 



6.0 
25.6 

1.4 

14.3 

10.0 

10.7 

101.5 



6.6 
23.9 

1.7 
12.0 
10.0 
11.6 



1967 

18.4 

5.0 

1.5 
2,3 

.8 

3.9 

6,5 
27.0 

2.3 
12.6 
10.0 
11.7 



1968 

18.0 

3.7' 

4.8 

3.8 

.9 



9.7 
30.0 

2.5 
13.2 
10.0 
11.6 



105,1 102.1 111.0 



SHELTER SPACES" 
(Millions, Cumulative) 

103.7 121.4 135.6 

42.8 63.8 7G.9 

9.7 23.8 33.8 



152.1 
85.3 

41.3 



162.0 170.0 

97.0 112.0 
49,0 56.0 



" Includes $2,3 million carryover from OCDM for construction of a Re- 
gional Center; $13.4 million returned to Treasury not used by GSA in 
Federal building construction. 

b Includes Packaged Ventilation Kits. 

Includes Architect and Engineer advisory services on design techniques. 

11 Shelter spaces resulting from the currently approved program; FY 63-66 
are actual, FY 67-68 are estimated. 

Only public shelters having 50 or more space are eligible for marking 
and stocking, 
Total Obligational Authority. 

**Totals may not add due to rounding. 



Figure 4 





1962 


1963 


1964 


1965 


1966 


1967 


1968 




Act. 


Act. 


Act. 


Act. 


Act. 


Eat. 


Prop. 


Strategic Forces 


11.2 


10.6 


9.8 


7.1 


6.8 


7.1 


8.1 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



13 



Tlu> On.rral Purpose Forces in- 
cluilo most of the Army's combat and 
i:umb:U support units, virtually all 
Nitvy units (except for the Polaris 
forces), all Marine Corps units, and 
tlu? tactical units of the Air Force. 
Tlu-jifi nrt? UK: forcns upon which we 
rely for all military actions short of 
tfenoral nuclear war, i.e., limited war 
ami countei'in.surgency operations. 

Requirements for General 
Purpose Forces 

Over the last few years I have pre- 
sented to the Committee in consider- 
able detail our analysis of the 
limited war problem and our require- 
ments for General Purpose Forces. 
I have pointed out that our strategic 
nudear capability is designed to deter 
attack at hut one end of the spectrum 
of aggression and that we must, 
therefore, have other forms of mili- 
tary power, both to deter lesser 
aggressions and to defeat .them if 
deterrence fails. We need these other 
forms of military power, not so much 
for the defense of our own territory 
as for the support of our commit- 
ments to other nations under the 
.various collective defense arrange- 
ments we have entered into since the 
end of World War II. These include 
the Rio Pact in the Western Hemi- 
sphere, NATO in Europe, SEATO 
and ANZUS in the Far East, and 
the bilateral mutual defense agree- 
ments with Korea, Japan, the Re- 
public of China and the Philippines. 
All of these mutual defense treaty 
commitments, involving a total of 
some 40-odd sovereign nations, stem 
from the great policy decision, made 
at the end of the Second World War, 
to base our security on the collective 
defense of the Free World. . , . 

In fact even without these treaty 
obligations, I suspect that our coun- 
try's action would not have differed 
significantly in the more than two 
decades which have elapsed since the 
end of World War II. ... We must 
remember that we twice came to the 
assistance of our friends in Western 
Europe without any prior treaty 
commitments; we did so because we 
deemed it vita! to our own security. 
We came to the assistance of South 



14 



Korea and we are now assisting 
South Vietnamfor the same reason. 
So it is not the treaties themselves 
that cause our greater involvement 
in the affairs of the rest of the world, 
but rather what we deem to be our 
own vital national security interests 
over the longer run. . . . 

While the distinction, between Gen- 
eral Nuclear War Forces and Limited 
War Forces is somewhat arbitrary 
in that all of our forces would be 
employed in a general war, and cer- 
tain elements of our strategic forces 
in a limited war (e.g., the B-52's 
against the Viet Cong forces in 
Vietnam), it is primarily the limited 
war mission which shapes the size 
and character of the General Purpose 
Forces. Because we cannot predict in 
detail the actual contingencies we 
may have to face, we must build 
into our forces a capability to deal 
with a very wide range of situations. 
This accounts for the great diversi- 
fication in the kinds of units, capa- 
bilities, weapons, equipment, supplies 
and training which must be provided 
and seriously complicates the task 
of determining specific requirements. 
Nevertheless, our continuing study 
of these requirements has reaffirmed 
my conclusion that the General Pur- 
pose Forces which I presented here a 
year ago are about the right order 
of magnitude. This conclusion takes 
into account the contributions to 
collective defense which our allies 
can be expected to make, as well as 
our own going capability to concen- 
trate our military power rapidly in a 
distant threatened area. . . . 

Although our General Purpose 
Forces are primarily designed for 
non-nuclear warfare, we do not pre- 
clude the use of nuclear weapons 
oven in limited wars. However, as I 
have pointed out in previous years, 
the employment of such weapons in 
a limited war would not necessarily 
be to our advantage in every case, 
and it would present some extremely 
difficult and complex problems. . . . 

A careful review of our General 
Purpose Force requirements, includ- 
ing the temporary augmentations for 
Southeast Asia, indicates a need in 
FY 1968 for a total land force of 
about 31 Mi division force equivalents. 
By "division force" I mean the divi- 



sion itself, plus all of its supporting 
forces, . . . The Army will have W% 
active division equivalents; and the 
Marine Corps, four. . , . 

With regard to tactical airpowcr 
wo now have a total of about 4,800 
fighter, attack and reconnaissance 
aircraft which constitute the unit 
equipment of the combat squadrons 
of both the active and reserve forces 
of the Air Force, Navy and Marine 
Corps. . . . 

The non-aviation naval forces me 
more difficult to summarize in thin 
manner and I will discuss them in 
detail later in the context with the 
Navy General Purpose Forces, 

As I have pointed out on mmicrmus 
occasions in the past, it is not enough 
that our forces be of the right sine 
and composition; they must also bvt 
provided with the weapons, equip- 
ment, ammunition and supplies 
needed to sustain thorn in combat. 
And, since most combat operation*! 
will usually involve all the ServicoH, 
the logistics, objectives, which pre- 
scribe in broad terms the equipping 
and stockage standards to he fol- 
lowed, must be aa uniform as possllih* 
throughout the Department. These 
objectives, together with the forces 
to be supported and our contingency 
deployment plans, determine the con- 
tent (and costs) of the annual pro- 
curement programs. 

Of course, the specific procurement 
programs to achieve these logistic 
objectives must realistically tola; 
account of the state of the production 
base, especially for ammunition, The 
purpose of our war reserve Inven- 
tories is to provide our forces with 
sufficient supplies to conduct HUH- 
tained combat until production cun 
be raised sufficiently to offset comlml 
consumption. In peacetime, therefore, 
when production rates arc tailored 
to low levels of consumption mid 
attrition, it is important to have 
large stocks on hand, equal or nearly 
equal to the calculated war reserve 
objectives. However, once our forces 
have been committed to combat and 
production has been built up to ofFnet 
current consumption, as is now the 
case in the current conflict, it is not 
necessary (indeed, it would he im- 
prudent) to rebuild those stocks to 
their pro-combat inventory levels 
before the conflict ends. It is not 
necessary because our present ex- 
panded production base will bo ablo 
to provide for all expected Southeast 
Asia consumption as well as any 

February 1967 



other contingency or contingencies 
which might arise. It would be im- 
prudent because we know from 
experience that when the conflict 
ends, we either would have to shut 
down the lines abruptly, with all of 
the resultant adverse consequences 
for our economy, or we would have 
to acquire unwanted surpluses, 

Accordingly, we have planned our 
FY 1967-68 procurement program in 
such a way that if the war should 
Gtid suddenly, we can taper off pro- 
duction gradually, using the excess 
production capacity to rebuild our 
inventories to the desired pre-combat 
levels, At the present production 
rates, this could be achieved very 
quickly. For items which are not 
currently in expanded production for 
Southeast: Asian operations, or for 
new items just entering the inven- 
tory, we will, of course, continue to 
procure toward our logistics objec- 
tives with the goal of achieving them, 
wherever feasible and desirable, with 
tho FY 19G8 buy. 

Capabilities of the 
Programmed Forces 

As I noted earlier, our General 
Purpose Forces requirements are 
derived from analyses of contingen- 
cies, including the support of our 
allies around the world. Accordingly, 
our General Purpose Forces capabili- 
ties must be assessed in conjunction 
with the capabilities of these allied 
forcds, Although wo have consider- 
able knowledge of the force plans of 
our allies, we cannot be sure how they 
will change with the passage of: 
time. This creates some uncertainty 
about the specific requirements for 
U.S. forces in the more distant years 
of the five-year programming period, 
for which we must make allowances 
in our force planning. . . . 

Army General Purpose 
Forces 

Tho Department of Defense for 
many years, and under several 
Administrations, has been striving 
to make the "One Army" concept a 
reality as well as a slogan. You may 
recall that when I appeared before 
the Congressional Committee in 
May 1961 in support of President 
Kennedy's recommendations on the 
realignment of the Army reserve 
components, I noted that "they must 



be so organized, trained, and equipped 
as to permit their rapid integration 
into the active Army." Since that 
time we have not only been working 
on the question of how the reserve 
components should be organized but 
also on how the reserve and active 
Army structures could best be 
meshed together. This latter question 
requires not only a comprehensive 
analysis of the total Army force 
requirement but also a very careful 
and detailed analysis of which ele- 
ments of the total structure should 
bo provided in the active forces and 
which in the reserve forces. 

Fundamental to this type of analy- 
sis is the concept of a "division 
force," Although the combat division 
has long been the most widely used 
standard for measuring the strength 
of the land forces, it accounts for 
only about one-third of the combat 
and support units required to sustain 
the division in combat over an ex- 
tended period of time. ... A "ready" 
division without "ready" support ele- 
ments would be incapable of combat. 
The division force concept ensures 
that our planning explicitly recog- 
nises this relationship (indeed, inter- 
dependence) between the division and 
its major support elements, since it 
requires us to identify these elements 
in detail. 

As a first approach to the problem, 
we have grouped all of the organised 
(TO&E) units of the division force 
into thrqe categories: 

o The division itself. 

The initial support increment 
(TSI), i.e., the non-divisional combat 
ami combat support units which are 
required to support the division in 
the initial combat phase. 

The sustaining support incre- 
ment (SSI), i.e., the additional non- 
divisional units including the combat, 
combat support, and service support 
needed by the division for sustained 
combat operations beyond the initial 
phase, 

By structuring the division force 
in this way, we can .see more clearly 
the relationship of the divisions them- 
selves to tho other Army units shown 
on the classified table provided to the 
Committee. . . . 

In addition, the division force con- 
cept helps us to: 

Relate standards of unit readi- 
ness, manning levels, etc., directly to 
the time phased unit deployment 
schedules, which underlie our con- 
tingency planning. 



Detennine more precisely which 
units must be provided in the active 
forces and which could be provided in 
the reserve components. 

Tailor forces for particular mis- 
sions, operational environments, and 
tempos of activity. 

Understand better the relation- 
ship between support functions (sup- 
ply, maintenance, transportation, etc.) 
and combat functions (maneuver and 
fire power), thereby enabling us 
to achieve a better allocation of 
resources among them. 

* Calculate more precisely the per- 
sonnel and materiel requirements of 
each unit. 

While the concept still needs con- 
siderable development before all of 
the foregoing advantages can be fully 
realized, it has already proved of 
significant value in our force plan- 
ning. . . . 

Army Force Structure. 

The integrated active-reserve Army 
force structure proposed for the FY 
1968-72 period is grouped under 
three main headings division and 
brigade forces, major supporting 
forces, and combat and support 
battalions. 

Division and Brigade Forces. Be- 
cause of the temporary Vietnam 
augmentations to the active Army, 
the force structure we are proposing 
at the end of FY 1968 is the equiva- 
lent of 27 Va division forces in the 
active and reserve structure combined 
(18% active and nine reserve com- 
ponents), . . . 

You may recall that funds were 
included in the FY 1967 Budget to 
initiate procurement of long-lead- 
time items for the conversion of a 
second division to the airmobile con- 
figuration, if experience proved this 
desirable. The existing airmobile 
division, the 1st Cavalry, proved its 
worth in Vietnam and I have, there- 
fore, tentatively approved the con- 
version of an airborne division to an 
airmobile configuration. The actual 
timing of this action is subject to 
the preparation of a detailed conver- 
sion plan by the Army and the JCS, 
but for planning purposes we have 
scheduled it for early FY 1969. . . . 

Major Supporting Forces, This 
grouping covers the major supporting 
forces, most of which represent the 
initial or sustaining support for the 
division and brigade forces. In FY 
1969 (when an airborne division is 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



15 



converted to airmobile), the Army 
will keep ii portion of the airborne 
assets to form a now permanent air- 
borne brigade, thereby establishing 
the brigade total at seven. . . . 

Combat and Support Battalions. 

. . . We now propose to make a .small 
increase in the number of maneuver 
battalions. , . . 

With respect to artillery battalions, 
the demands of the conflict in South- 
east Asia together with our continu- 
ing study of the peacetime force 
requirements have caused us to make 
a number of changes in the structure. 
First, we now plan to increase the 
number of artillery battalions in the 
active forces. Second, our experience 
in Vietnam has shown that the mix 
of separate artillery battalions could 
contain more heavy 8" howitzers and 
175mm gun battalions. Accordingly, 
a significant portion of the increase 
in artillery battalions will be of these 
types. 

The number of engineer combat 
battalions in the active forces has 
been temporarily increased in order 
to meet Southeast Asia needs. . . . 

The buildup of aviation units in 
the Army will continue through FY 
1968. . . . 

... We now plan to initiate in FY 
1968 a new development program de- 
signed to ensure that the Nike-Hercules 
can continue to operate effectively in 
the 1970's. This new program, together 
with the Hawk Improvement Pro- 
gram, will provide a hedge against 
possible slippage in the development 
of the SAM-D which is tentatively 
planned as a replacement for both 
Hercules and Hawk. 

Last year we had tentatively 
planned to start procurement of the 
Improved Hawk in FY 1968. 
However, the project has encountered 
some development problems and the 
program has slipped. Meanwhile, we 
will go ahead with production prep- 
arations, using the funds provided in 
FY 1967 and those requested in FY 
1968 for production engineering and 
production prototype missiles, 

Three types of operational gun/ 
Chaparral battalions are being 
formed; a fully self-propelled bat- 
talion for the armored and mechan- 
ized divisions; a modified self-pro- 
pelled version (including one towed 
gun battery which can be airlifted) 
for the infantry division; and an all- 



16 



towed version for the airmobile and 
airborne divisions. . . . 

Army Procurement. 

The revised FY 1967 Army pro- 
curement program now totals $5,863 
million, of which $2,130 million is 
included in the Supplemental. The 
1968 program totals $5,881 million. . . . 

. . , The FY 1967 program now totals 
$1,202 million for 2,097 aircraft, of 
which $533 million is included in the, 
Supplemental request. The FY 19(38 
program includes $769 million for 
1,479 aircraft. The aircraft to be pro- 
cured include the UH-1B/D (Iro- 
quois) tactical utility transport heli- 
copter, the AH~ 1G (Cobra) armed 
helicopter, the CH-47 (Chinook) 
transport helicopter, the OH-6A ob- 
servation helicopter, the CH-54A 
heavy lift helicopter, the U-21A ad- 
ministrative support aircraft, the 0V- 
1C (Mohawk) fixed-wing observation 
aircraft, as well as a large number of 
training helicopters. 

Funds are also requested for the 
procurement of long-lead-time com- 
ponents for the AH-56A Ad- 
vanced Aerial Fire Support System 
(AAFSS) to permit early initiation 
of production, when development 
warrants such a decision, 

Army missile procurement (includ- 
ing spares) will total $561 million in 
FY 1967 and $769 million in FY 
1968. The FY 19G8 program provides 
for ground support equipment for the 
Quick Reaction Alert Pershing bat- 
talions deployed in Europe; Lance 
missiles and related ground support 
equipment; initial procurement of the 
TOW missile system; a largo quan- 
tity of Shillelagh missiles; Redeye 
and Chaparral air defense missiles; 
and ground support and training 
equipment for the Hawk missile sys- 
tem. 

The revised FY 1967 program for 
weapons and combat vehicles totals 



$1589 million ($83 million in the Sup- 
plemental request), and $654 million 
is included in the FY 1968 Budget 
request. These funds will provide for 
completion of the planned procure- 
ment of the M-199 (IIS-820) 20mm 
gun; substantial quantities of the 
20mm Vulcan air defense gun ami 
the fi.fifinim rifle; and additional 
81mm mortars and self-propelled 
155mm howitzers. The funds re- 
quested will also provide for procure- 
ment of the M-1578 light recovery 
vehicle, tin; General Sheridan armored! 
reconnaissance and airborne assault 
vehicle, the MH8 armored personnel 
carrier, thn 81mm and 107mm self- 
propelled mortars, the M-577 com- 
mand post carrier and the M--548 
cargo carrior. We have also included 
funds for M-fiO'w wit!) the :l05mm 
gun, M-fiO'a with the Sbilblaffh/ 
152mm gun, the armored vehicle 
bridge, and the combat engineer 
vehicle, all of which use the M-GO 
chassis, 

... In FY 1968, advance production 
engineering for the Main Battle Tank 
will requirn $11 million. Additional 
funds will be required for the U.S. 
share of thn development costs. 

The revised FY 1967 program for 
trucks and other non-eoinhal vohMea 
total $(Utf million <$lfi4 in tho 
Supplemental request). For FY IflfiB, 
$4Hfl million in requested for a vnrioty 
of these vehicles. Included in tlm FY 
1968 program are Vi-ton, IVt-ton 
(M715), IH'u-ton and 5-ton Iruckn of 
till typos. . . . 

For co7ii muni cations and electronics 
proiiuremont, the revised FY 1 007 
program provides $617 million ($303 
million in the Supplemental request) 
and the FY 1908 request totals $fiGO 
million. 

For ammunition the Army's revitratl 
FY 1967 program includes $1,JMU 
million ($584 million in the Supple- 
mental request). For FY 19fi8, $2,224 




U. S. Army UH-1G 



U. 8. Army Lance Missile 

February 1967 



million is requested. Ammunition 
procurement will continue to increase 
in FY liHW in order to moot the 
projected needs of Southeast Asia. 
A mong the miijor items art; : small 
arms ammunition (fi.fifinim, 7. (>2mm, 
and HO caliber); '10mm ammunition; 
81 nun, IdCmim, lOUnini, :l.fi2mm, 
IBfmnn, und 4.2 inch cartridges; nnd 
2.7fi inch rockets. 

The revised FY !!M!7 program 
for other support equipment (road 
graders, tractors, etc.) totals fjifiUH 
million ($2*17 million in the Supple- 
mental request) utid if'l.'i? million is 
requested for FY 1SK1K. Tint revised 
FY lil()7 program for production 
bami support, totals $272 million, 
(If 220 million in tho Supplemental 
request) nnd ijiStH millioa in requested 
for FY UMiH. 

Navy General Purpose Forces 

Tint Navy (Jcnerul Purpose Forces 
proposed for Urn FY liMW 72 period 
urn jiliown nn the classified tahlo 
provided to th(t Committee. Kxcept 
for tlit! Vietnamese-related forces, the 
major changes from UK; program 
planned lant year concern the anti- 
submarine warfare forces, tho guided 
missile shipn, tint nmphlliious ships 
and tho minesweepers. Thorn in, 
however, ono (ti'iierul problem in thiH 
until which deiierven special tnentlini, 
and llint in the doloronn wtate of the 
American iihipbuildintv indiiMtry. 

It han lii'citme increiuiinKly nppar- 
ent in recent yearn that our nhiji- 
huildliiK inthnitry, hoth public and 
private, lui.'i fallen Tar behind itn 
c'tmipetitoi'ii in other comitrioji. Not 
only dotiH it coat twice iui much to 
build a tihip In Unit country, it ahio 
tul>n twice an lontf. . . . 

ThiH in a utartlinK development in 
view of tint fact Unit the United 
H talon IM tint mo.st liiffhly indutitvial- 




i/,od nation in tho world. Tt is oven 
more startliiijf when wo realixo that 
the modernization of tho Europeiin 
aad Japanese yards has been achieved 
by applying-, on :i ma.ssivo .scale, U.S. 
automobile and aircraft manufactur- 
ing tudinology to tihipbuilding. . . , 

Unroi'tunately, public diKcu.sHion of 
tins shiphuildiiiK in'blom in this 
country luui h(t<Mi focused on what is 
actually the minor part its relation- 
ship to tho Merchant Marine problem. 
I can well understand why tho 
American V\HJ* Line operators should 
wish to sever the pi-emmi intorlork- 
inK relationship between the Mer- 
chant Marine and tint shipbuilding 
industry; they could buy whips 
abroad at half the prico and (vet 
(lolivery in iibnut half the time. But 
while thin divorce niiH'ht HO!VO the 
]irobl(tm of the Merchant Marine, it 
would not .solve the pvobhtm of the 
Defense nepartment. The U.S. Mer- 
chant Marino provides only it few 
hundred million dollars of work per 
year to the shipbuilding imlu.stry ; 
Navy work amounts to between $2 
and $2.5 billion a your, Thus tho 
Itefeii.se Department, nwl tlm tnx- 
liayor, bus a stake in tho American 
.shipbuilding iadnntry which KOHH far 
beyond the immediate problems con- 
cerning the Merchant Marine. 

Obviously, the more fundamental 
solution is to revitalize tin; American 
shipbuilding industry. Although we 
may never he able to overcome com- 
pletely the wiitfn rate differential, 
there is no reason why tint American 
shipbuilding industry should not he, 
in a technological sen.se, an good as 
the best liny other country hun to 
oll'or. We have tho technology and 
the nmnufacturhig "know how," 
what we need to do is to find some 
way in which they can be applied to 
the American shipbuilding industry 
and siome way to finance tho rola- 




U. S. Army OV-1 Mohawk 



USS Enterprise CVA (N) 05 



tively large investments that would 
be required. 

With regard to Navy work, th<> 
Defense Department has already em- 
burked on such a program. Wherever 
feasible, we are grouping our annual 
shipbuilding program into multi-year 
procurement. . , . 

Of perhaps greater significance 
over the longer run is the new 
procurement package approach, of 
which the Fust Deployment Logistics 
(FDL) ship is an outstanding exam- 
ple. Under this approach, tho ship- 
builder is asked to bid on the entire 
package design, development and 
I'oastriiction of a relatively large 
number of ships to he delivered over 
a period of yearn, much like UK; 
package approach to aircraft pro- 
curement. Several new programH of 
this type are contemplated, and I will 
discuss these in context with our 
proposals for the Navy General 
Purpose Forces in the FY liWH-72 
period, 

Attack Carrier Forces. 

Last year, I described to the Com- 
mittee a new plan under which we 
would maintain nn active fleet of .If) 
attiick curriers and 12 air wing 
equivalents, instead of the l!{ carriers 
and 111 air wings we were planning 
on In-fore. We made this change 
because of new force structure prom- 
iiutu to provide significantly more 
usable com but power than tlm one 
previously planned and at no in- 
crease! in cost. However, u force of 
IT) carriers and 12 air wing equiva- 
lents would require some change in 
tho present modi! of operation. Car- 
riers would normally deploy in peace- 
time with less than the maximum 
complement of aircraft and additional 
aircraft would be down to the car- 
riers when und as needed. la elTect, 
we would he treating the attack cur- 
rim- as a forward floating nir bust, 
deploying the nircraft as tho situa- 
tion requires, much as wo do in the 
present carrier operations oil" Viet- 
nam. It is this kind of operational 
flexibility Unit enables thn attack 
curriiH'H to make a unique contribu- 
tion to our overall tactical air cajm- 
bilitios. 

Although tho adjustment of thn air 
wings to tho new force structure in 
scheduled to begin In FY 1068 and 
bo completed by FY 1071, tho total 
number of combat aircraft assigned 
to the attack cnvrittr force will re- 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



main virtually unchanged. You may 
recall that two years ago, in a deci- 
sion unrelated to the number of 
carrier wing.s, we decided to increase 
the number of light attack aircraft 
per squadron, and the number of light 
attack Kfjiiadrons per Forrestal-class 
carrier. In terms of aircraft assigned, 
these increases, together with the 
replacement of Essex-class carriers 
with the much larger ForrestaPs and 
Enterprise's will just about offset the 
reduction to 12 equivalent air wings. 
In other words, each equivalent air 
wing will have about 25 percent more 
aircraft than the present average air 
wing. 

Ships, The attack carrier force at 
the end of the currant fiscal year 
will consist of one nuclear-powered 
carrier, the Enterprise, and seven 
Forrestal-, two Midway- and five 
Essex-class. In FY I960, the last of 
the conventionally powered attack 
carriers now under construction, the 
John F. Kennedy, will join the Fleet, 
followed in FY 1972 by the second of 
the nuclear-powered carriers, 

As I stated last year, if we are to 
retain a force of 15 carriers, two 
more will have to he provided. One is 
scheduled for FY 1969 and one in a 
later year ; both will he nuclear 
powered. Fifty million dollars is 
included in the FY 1968 Budget for 
long lead time components for the 
FY 1909 carrier. When these ships 
are delivered to the Fleet, the remain- 
ing Essex-class carriers will be 
retired from the CVA force, which 
would then consist of four nuclear 
powered, eight Forrestal- and three 
Midway-class carriers, for a total of 
15. 

Carrier Aircraft. No major change 
is contemplated in the composition of 
the aircraft complement of the attack 
carrier forces from that projected 
a year ago. The decline in the num- 
ber of fighter aircraft after FY 1967 
reflects two factors the previously 
mentioned reduction from 15 to 12 
air wing equivalents beginning in FY 
1968 and the substitution of the more 
capable F-111B for other fighter air- 
craft on a less than one for one 
basis. . , , 

In contrast to the fighters, the 
number of attack aircraft will have 
increased substantially by the time 
the transition to the 12 equivalent 
air wings is complete. At that point, 



the attack aircraft force will consist 
of A-G's and the new A-7's. . . . 

Inasmuch as the A-3 heavy air- 
craft are no longer required for the. 
strategic mission, they are now being; 
used as tankers to extend the range 
of "shorter-legged" Navy aircraft. . . . 

No significant changes have been 
made in the combat readiness train- 
ing aircraft forces. 

ASW and Destroyer Forces. 

Three years ago, in recognition of 
the unsatisfactory state of our knowl- 
edge in antisubmarine warfare, I 
requested the Navy to undertake 
systematic, long-term studies of all of 
the related aspects of the problem. 
From these studies has come a much 
better understanding of both the 
character and extent of the threat 
and the capabilities of the forces 
required to cope with it. As a result, 
it now appears that some additional 
changes should be made in our ASW 
program. These involve the size of 
our ASW carrier forces, and the 
substitution of land-based patrol air- 
craft for the seaplanes. , . . 

ASW Carriers. We now have 
eight Essex-class ASW carriers,, one 
of which, the Intrepid, is temporarily 
operating as an attack carrier in 
support of Southeast Asia operations. 
Our studies show that compared with 
other ASW forces, the CVS ASW 
Group is a high-cost system in rela- 
tion to its effectiveness; the annual 
operation cost of a CVS is about $92 
million, including about $17.5 million 
for the aircraft complement. 

As the newer ASW systems tho 
SSN's, the DE's, the P-3 patrol air- 
craft, etc, join the Fleet in increas- 
ing numbers, the relative value of the 
ASW carriers will continue to de- 
cline. Accordingly, we now propose 
to reduce the force somewhat when 
the conflict in Vietnam ends. 



The older SH-34 helicopters on 
CVS'a have already been replaced by 
the new SH-S, and the CVA'a are 
now also being provided some of those 
helicopters. 

The older S-2's will have been 
completely replaced by the newer 
S-2E's by the end of FY lt)07. While 
full scale development and procm-e- 
ment of a replacement aircraft should 
not be undertaken until the role of 
the CVS in the overall ASW effort 
of the 1970'n has been clarified mid 
until the need for a more sophisti- 
cated capability has liccn clearly 
demonstrated, we have included funds 
for contract definition of a new uir- 
craft (VSX) should further study 
warrant our going ahead wilh this 
program, 

In addition to its ASW aircraft, 
each CVS is authorised n few A-4'a 
in order to provide a limitoU inter- 
cept and air defense capability, 
Finally we will continue to maintain 
eight squadrons of carrier-lmsed 
ASW search aircraft and four squad- 
rons of ASW helicopters in tlw 
Naval Reserve forces for thu four 
CVS'K we plan to retuin In the 
Reserve fleet. 

Attac-k Submarine Forces, Hy (he 
end of the current fiscal yi-nr the 
submarine force, excluding Pulnrfa, 
will number 105 KUlmiartm-.s, ri2 of 
which will l)o nuclear powered. We 
have continued to encounter diffi- 
culty in gnttiiig tho S.SN program 
on schedule, principally heciutw] of 
the Submarine Safety Program anil 
a shortnge of skilled workem. A.H a 
result we will have a few less 
HSN'H in the force at end FY .1067 
than planned last year but wn hopo 
to make up most of thto shortfall 
next year. In the meantime, we pro- 
pose to offset this Rlip;pa#G by (May- 
ing tho phnnoout of an equivalent 




U.S. Navy F-111B 



U. S, Navy A-G 



February 1967 



number of conventionally powered 
submarines. 

As I pointed out last year, a force of 
about 64 "first class" SSN's would 
be needed. , , , Five SSN's were pro- 
vided by the Congress in FY 1967, 
leaving a total of six SSN's still to 
be funded. We now propose to start 
three more SSN's in FY 1968 and 
three in FY 1969. This program will 
give xis a total of 64 first class ISSN's, 
plus four other SSN's which could 
bo used together with the conven- 
tionally powered submarines for 
other ASW missions. If our continuing 
study of the ASW problem should in- 
dicate that additional SSN's are re- 
quired, we can add to this program 
next year. 

Originally, we had intended to 
modernize 12 conventionally powered 
submarines (Korean War vintage or 
later), including provision of im- 
proved sonar. Last year, when it 
became apparent that these sonars 
were not going to be available in 
time, we decided to go ahead with the 
modernization of the first five sub- 
marines without the sonar improve- 
ments. It now appears that the new 
sonar components will still not be 
available for installation in the 
remaining seven submarines in FY 
1968, Moreover, other modernization 
costs have risen to the point where 
we now believe that it is no longer 
practical to proceed with the pro- 
gram. Accordingly, the plan to 
modernize these seven submarines in 
FY 1908 has been dropped. 

In the Submarine Direct Support 
category, we propose a phased re- 
placement program for our present 
submarine rescue ships (ASR's). . . . 
Therefore we tentatively propose to 




Artist's Concept of U. S. Navy A-7A 



construct five new ASR's over the 
next few years, These new ASR's 
will have catamaran (i.e., twin) hulls 
and provide much greater deck 
space, including a helicopter plat- 
form, and better sea-keeping qualities 
than the present ships.. They will be 
capable of operating two rescue sub- 
mersibles and supporting divers at 
great depths for prolonged periods. 
We are requesting- $17.7 million for 
the ASR in FY 1968. 

In addition to the 10 ASR's, which 
we plan to maintain throughout the 
period, the Submarine Direct Support 
force includes six submarine tenders 
(AS) and nine auxiliary submarines 
(AGSS). Two new submarine tenders 
are tentatively scheduled to be con- 
structed in future years. 

ASW Escorts, The requirement for 
ASW escorts can be met by several 
different types of ships most of 
which are also capable of performing 
other missions such as patrol, fire 
support and anti-air-warfare. In 
planning for our future ASW escort 
forces, all ships with an ASW capa- 
bility are taken into account. How- 
ever, only the destroyer types with- 
out a SAM capability are included 
under the ASW category; the SAM 
ships will be discussed later. . . . 

Two years ago we proposed a 
phased replacement program for tho 
destroyer escort force. In accord with 
that plan, $29S million has been 
included in the FY 1968 request for 
10 more of these ships. . . . 

With respect to the years beyond 
FY 1968, it now appears that sub- 
stantial construction and operating 
economies could be achieved with a 
newly designed ship (tentatively 
designated the DX) employing the 
"total package" procurement concept 
and a large multi-year buy. It may 
also be possible to use the same 
approach and the same or a similar 
design for a new class of guided 
missile ships (tentatively designated 
the DXG). Accordingly, we propose 
to initiate a new program which 
would provide for: 

Standardized design and serial 
production of a sizable quantity of 
identical ships in order to minimize 
total procurement cost, 

Incentive to the contractor to 
design a highly automated ship re- 
quiring minimum manning in order 
to reduce operating costs. 



Standardization in order to re- 
duce logistic support costs. 

e Possible standardisation/integra- 
tion of the DX and DXG in order to 
m axim iae f urther advantages of 
standardisation and serial construc- 
tion (e.g., both ships might have the 
same hull and differ only in their 
weapon systems, or perhaps their 
hulls could have common bow and 
stern sections with separate mid-sec- 
tions for each type). 

Possible use of modular design 
concepts so that major components 
(e.g., specific weapon systems) could 
be installed and removed en bloc, 
facilitating both repair and future 
modernization. 

We have included $30 million in 
the FY 1.968 Budget to initiate con- 
cept formulation and contract defini- 
tion of the DX/DXG. At the conclu- 
sion of the contract definition phase 
the entire program will be reevalu- 
ated in the light of the detailed 
designs and cost estimates which 
result. 

We are also continuing to im- 
prove the SQS-23 sonars on most of 
the earlier DE's and on a large num- 
ber of DD's, guided missile destroyers 
(DDG's), and cruisers (CG/CGN's). 
. . . About $18 million was pro- 
grammed for this purpose in FY 
1966, about $11 million in FY 19G7, 
and we are requesting another $24 
million in FY 1968. 

As I described a year ago, we are 
taking steps to improve the ASW 
capabilities of 13 remaining D-931 
class destroyers, all of which are less 
than twelve years old. "We are provid- 
ing them with ASROC, improved 
communications, a new variable 
depth sonar (YDS), improved EGM 
capabilities, the improvement to the 
SQS-23 sonar, a modern ASW com- 
bat information center, etc. at a cost 
of about $14 million each. Since the 
VDS equipment will not be available 
this year, the ships are being rewired 
now to accept it later when it does 
become available, With these improve- 
ments, the 13 remaining DD's should 
offer comparable, and in some ways 
even better, ASW performance than 
the new DE's we are building. 

Originally, having funded one in 
FY 1964, we planned on five of these 
DD-931 conversions in FY 1966 and 
five this year, with the last three 
scheduled for FY 1968. However, 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



19 



because of equipment procurement 
problems, we have rescheduled the 
program. Wo have one in conversion 
now and plan to start three conver- 
sions this year, seven more in FY 
IMS, and the last three in FY 1969. 

Patrol Aircraft. While we still 
plan to maintain a total of 30 squad- 
rons of ASW patrol aircraft, we now 
propose to phase out the three 
remaining squadrons of seaplanes 
(SP-f>) and retain, instead, three 
squadrons of SP-2 land-based patrol 
aircraft. One squadron will be con- 
verted this year and the other two 
in FY 11)68. This change will permit 
us to decommission the three remain- 
ing seaplane support ships (AV's) 
and thereby save 17 million per year 
in operating and indirect costs, with 
no reduction in our overall ASW or 
surveillance capability. Except for 
these three squadrons, all the SP-2's 
will be phased out of the active ASW 
patrol forces over the next few years 
and replaced with 27 squadrons of 
the new P-3's. (Ten squadrons of 
SP~2's will be retained in the Navy 
Reserve.) 

Beginning in FY 1968, all new 
P-3's will be procured with the 
A-NEW avionics system and when 
the force buildup is completed 
we will have nine squadrons so 
equipped. . . . 

Multi-Purpose SAM Ships. The 

multi-purpose surface-to-air missile 
(SAM) ships provide an important 
part of the Fleet's anti-air warfare 
(AAW) capability. As I described 
last year, our current program ob- 
jective for the SAM force is 79 
ships. ... By the end of FY 1967 
the SAM ship force will consist of 
70 ships, three of them nuclear pow- 
ered. 

Last year Congress added funds to 
our original budget request for con- 
struction of a nuclear-powered frig- 
ate. As you know, we did not recom- 
mend the inclusion of such a ship in 
our FY 1967 program. However, we 
have decided to proceed with con- 
struction this year, . . . 

I am also again recommending the 
construction of two guided-missile 
destroyers (DDG's).. .. 

The new DDG's and DLGN would 
have significantly improved AAW 
and ASW capabilities compared with 
present SAM ships, particularly in 

20 



a hostile UCM environment. . . . Tftey 
will employ the new Standard 
missile and be equipped with the 
latest ASW equipment, the Navy 
Tactical Data System, and the im- 
proved SQS-26 sonar. Provisions 
would, of course, be made to incorpor- 
ate new systems and technologies as 
they become available, and space will 
be provided for this. Some $1G7 
million is requested for the two 
DDG's in FY 1968. 

In addition, we are continuing the 
SAM Improvement Program, under 
which the Standard missile is now 
being procured to replace both Tartar 
and Terrier. . . . 

Last year I mentioned that we were 
studying the feasibility of providing 
a "close-in" or "point" air defense 
capability for other types of combat 
ships, We now propose to procure and 
install a basic Point Defense Surface 
Missile System (PDSMS) on ships 
which are not likely to encounter the 
more sophisticated forms of air 
attack and which do not generally 
operate in the company of regular 
SAM ships e.g., amphibious assault 
ships and destroyer types operating 
independently near hostile land areas. 
This system makes use of existing 
hardware (e.g., Sparrow III missiles) 
and can be installed on existing gun 
:nount foundations, . . , 

About $14 million has been included 
in the FY 1968 Budget for the first 
procurement. 

Other Combatant Ships. 

At end FY 1967, there will be 23 
ships in the Small Patrol category. 
These ships are used for coastal sur- 
veillance and patrol boats (PTF's) 
costing $17 million have been added 
to the FY 1967 program. 

The primary mission of fire sup- 
port ships, also included in this cate- 
gory, is to provide a heavy concen- 
tration of ship-to-shore fire during 
amphibious assaults. , . . the. Navy 
is presently studying the feasibility of 
a new type of landing force support 
ship which would combine the firo 
support capabilities of the cruiser's 
heavy guns and the rocket ship's 
saturation fire, 

Amphibious Assault Ships. 

Last Year I informed the Com- 
mittee that while our objectives of 
achieving a modernized (20-knot) am- 
phibious lift for one and a half Ma- 



rine -uxpetutionary I'-orces (.MHJ^', or 
division/ wing 1 teams) and sufficient 
older ships to provide a slower lift for 
another half of a ME'F remained the 
same, further study of the composi- 
tion of the force had convinced us 
that some modification of the future 
construction program was desirable. 
I also noted that the Navy wn in- 
vestigating the possibility of design- 
ing a multi-purpose ship which could 
combine the features of several dif- 
ferent types of amphibious ships and 
that one of the reasons wo had re- 
scheduled the program wus to pro- 
vide time to develop a desie'n for thin 
new ship. . . . 

. . . Unfortunately, experience has 
shown that our currant LPD's are too 
small to he truly effective UK a multi- 
purpose amphibious ship in the as- 
sault role and they cannot by them- 
selves serve as a replacement for a 
variety of specialized ships. For tilts 
purpose we need a bigger assault 
ship capable of landing, cither by air 
or by sea, n much larger ami more 
balanced land force than is now pos- 
sible with any existing amphibious 
vessel, and this was the typo of shin 
I mentioned last year. 

Our further study of this proMom 
indicates that the development of 
such a ship is not only feunSblo but 
highly desirable. On the basis of tho 
Navy's preliminary design work, this 
amphibious assault ship, now cUwiff- 
nated the LHA, would bo quite large 
(about 40,000 tons, compared with 
less than 18,000 tons for the LPD) 
and would have both a boat well and 
a helicopter deck, , , . 

In view of these advantages, we 
now propose to substitute LHA's for 
a variety of specialized amphibious 
ships which we had previously pro- 
grammed. The first of these IJIA'a 
has been included in the FY 1068 
program. As in the case of the C-CA 
and tho Fast Deployment Logistics 
ships, we plan to use the two-stop 
contract definition, total package pro- 
curement technique for the LHA's, 
and $18 million is included in tho FY 
1968 Budget for contract definition, 
in. addition to funds for the construc- 
tion of the first ship. 

,0ne of the goals we hope to achieve 
in this program is a considerable- re- 
duction in operating costs. To this 
end the competing contractors will bo 
encouraged to design this ship so that 

February 1967 



it can be operated by significantly 
fewer personnel than previous ships 
of this size. . . . 

Mine Counter measure Force. 

At the end of this fiscal year we 
will havo a mine countermeasure 
forces of 88 ships, composed of 64 
ocean minesweepers (MSO's), 18 
coastal minesweepers (MSC's), three 
mine countermeasures support ships 
(MCS's) , and three other support 
.ships. 

In order to modernize this force 
and improve its mine countermeas- 
uro capabilities, we propose to un- 
dertake a major rehabilitation pro- 
g-rain for all the existing MSO's. . . . 
We propose to start the rehabilitation 
of nine MSO's in FY 1968, for which 
we arc requesting $83 million. 

Two years ago, we started a con- 
struction program for new MSO's. 
Four MSOa were funded in FY 1966, 
five more in FY 1967, and we are 
requesting $61 million in PY 1968 
for the last seven. . . . 

Last year we initiated a program 
to provide some of the Marine Corps 
assault helicopters (CH-53's) with a 
secondary mine-sweeping capabil- 
ity. . . . Modification of some of these 
helicopters to accept the sweep equip- 
ment was begun last year, and we 
plan to start more in FY 1968. This 
program will give our assault forces 
a significantly augmented minesweep- 



ing capability against less sophisti- 
cated mines at a total coats of only 
about $12 million. 

Logistical, Operational Support, and 
Direct Support Ships. 

... In order to take advantage of 
modern re-supply methods and to 
complement the higher speeds of our 
latest ships, we have planned a long 
range construction program to rebuild 
the underway replenishment fleet. 
The FY 1968 program includes two 
AE's (ammunition ships) and one 
AOE (fast combat support ship) at 
an estimated cost of $137 million. 

Marine Corps Forces. 

The major Marine Corps ground 
and air units shown on the classified 
table provided to the Committee are 
essentially the same as those we pro- 
jected last year. The temporary units 
added to support the Southeast Asia 
deployments include a fourth active 
division with its associated nine in- 
fantry, one tank, one amphibian 
tractor, and the equivalent of five 
artillery battalions, four Hawk air 
defense' batteries, and two light ob- 
servation and two medium transport 
helicopter squadrons. The permanent 
force remains at four divisions/air- 
craft wings (3 active and one re- 
serve). 

The Marine Corps fighter forces 
will be maintained at about the cur- 
rent level. . . . 




Replenishment at Sea 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



The Tactical Air Control (TAG) 
force, which is used' to locate enemy 
targets and then direct the attack 
aircraft to them, is programmed to 
remain at the present level. . . . 

In the transport helicopter cate- 
gory, we now plan to maintain the 
currently augmented active force 
level through FY 1969, while simul- 
taneously building our Reserve struc- 
ture. When the Vietnam conflict ends 
the Marine Corps transport heli- 
copter force will return to the 
planned permanent level. . . . 

In the light helicopter and obser- 
vation category the total number of 
aircraft will be increased significantly 
in FY 1968 through the temporary 
retention of 0-1's and UH-l's pre- 
viously scheduled to phase out after 
the new OV-10's are delivered. 

Last year we undertook a major 
program to increase the fixed-wing 
combat readiness training capabilities 
of the Marine Corps. This program 
will be continued. We also undertook 
at that time, on a temporary basis, 
a program of combat readiness train- 
ing for Marine Corps helicopter 
pilots. . . . We now plan to make 
the combat crew readiness training 
program permanent and to expand 
the force level. Later, as the OV-10 
enters the operating force, we plan 
to add some of these aircraft to the 
combat readiness training force. 

The numbers of tanker /transport 
aircraft and of support aircraft are 
essentially unchanged from those 
presented last year. 

Navy and Marine Corps Reserve 
Forces. 

The Navy will continue to main- 
tain a total of about 50 ships in the 
Naval Reserve. ... As more modern 
ships become available from the 
active forces, older ships will be 
phased out. 

The Navy also maintains a large 
number of ships in the Reserve (or 
"mothball") Fleet, in either Cate- 
gory B (BRAVO) or Category C 
(CHARLIE) according to their phys- 
ical condition and readiness status. 

As I noted last year, because of 
their relatively poor physical condi- 
tion many of the CHARLIE ships 
would be usable only after extensive 
overhaul and modernization. Accord- 
ingly the Navy is continuously sur- 
veying these ships in order to iden- 
tify those which have no further 
value. These ships are then scrapped 



21 



or ntlu'nviiif" disposed of. As a result, 
thi' yha of tho IJeserve Fleet has 
hf-t'n proyivHsively reduced. 

Tin; N;iv;il and Marine Corps Re- 
;;i-rv<> air units are programmed for 
.'ibmit 7-JO aircraft at tile end of this 
fiscal year, and this number will be 
imTfa^ed over the next few years. . . . 

\avy-Marinc Corps Aircraft 
Procurement. 

The Xiivy and Marine Corps air- 
oraft procurement program is shown 
on the classified table provided to 
tht.- Committee. In order to meet the 
nxiuiremcnts of the Southeast Asia 
conflict and continue the planned 
modernization of the force, we pro- 
po.-t? f> increase the FY 1967 pro- 
gram from the original 620 aircraft 
to 1,047, and to buy another 680 air- 
craft in FY 1908 instead of the 604 
planned a year ago. . . . 

With regard to the modernization 
'>( the attack carrier fighter forces, 
w<? -still plan to initiate F-111B pro- 
curement in FY 1968. . . 

To provide for combat attrition be- 
yond FY 1967 and complete the 
equipping of the Marine Corps 
nghter squadrons, we have increased 
the FY 1967-68 F-4 procurement 
programs substantially over the 
number previously planned. This will 
permit the replacement of the last 
Marine Corps F-8 squadron in FY 



changes has delayed the award of the 
contract and has caused us to reduce 
the FY 1967 quantity. Additional 
OV-10's will be procured in FY 1968. 
For the ASW mission, another in- 
crement of the P-3's with A-NEW 
will be procured in FY 1968. 

To provide for the higher tempo 
of operations and future combat at- 
trition in Vietnam, we are increas- 
ing our procurement of helicopters 
in FY 1967, and buying more in FY 
1968. 

In the Fleet Tactical and Mission 
Support category, we have added 
some C-130 radio relay aircraft to 
the FY 1967 program and canceled 
the previously planned C-2A procure- 
ment. . . . 

The increase in planned pilot pro- 
duction from 2,200 to 2,525 per year 
will require the procurement of addi- 
tional training aircraft. . . . 

Accordingly, we have canceled the 
previously planned procurement of 72 
T-28C's in FY 1966 ami fi8 in FY 

1967, and instead we now propose 
to procure 36 T-2B's and 94 TA-4's 
ia FY 1967, and 90 T-37B's in FY 

1968. We have also included in the 
FY 1967 program 9 TC-4Cs (a ver- 
sion of the Grumman Gulfstream) 

navigator bombadier training. 



for 



Since we plan to retain a number 
of * -8 aircraft in both the active 
fleet (for the Essex-class CVA's) 
and the reserve forces for some time 
beyond FY 1968, we have decided to 



. 

This will reduce the requirement for 
A-6A's now being used for this pur- 
pose. 

For helicopter training we will be 
able to utilize UH-lB'a as they are 
released by new OV-10'a phasing into 

the force, thus permitting the can- 
cellation of the 20 TH-1E planned 



..,, ,, L liavK ueciuea to , " ""^ ^ J.J.1-J..U; planned 

rework a substantial number of the for P l ' oclll ' e ent in FY 1967 fn ad 

latest models, providing them with tiltl0n ' we P lan to buy 40 new in- 

now wings and other life-extension ;J*ted light turbine helicopters 

inodificat oris Tl, n ,. . . . (LTH' S \ ; i?v ,,/, , *"-"PWIB 



-son 

modifications. The program was ini- 
tiated last spring, using about $17 

h ", T Yli f ^iTO million 
is included an the revised FY 1967 

Budget; another $70 million is re 
quested for FY 1968. 

Dla'nM* ***** teg Fy we w 
Plan to increase substantially the FY 

iJb7-68 procurement program en- 

a rr aso ' We h - e > 

and A-6A' S to the FY 1967 



n TV ^ vT, "cucupiers 

(LTH's) m FY 1968 to provide the 
mcieased trammg capacity mentioned 

Other Navy Procurement. 

In order to build toward our loir. 
istics^obectives and to p rov id e 

consumption in 
we are 



500-lb. bomb. Other important itrins 
in the FY 1968 program ;iro tint 2.76- 
inch rockets, the fi-inch Xuni rockets, 
the 260-lb. bomb, Walleye TV- 
guided glide bombs and air-lo-surfaco 
anti-radiation missile.s. 

For the surface-to-air irrisniln hips 
which provide; tho J^luut's nir dcferiwe, 
the Navy will prcxmrn only tho miw 
Standard missile b^rinmnj? in FV 
1968, although (leliverms of Trrricr 
and Tartar miKsilut) will continue for 
some timo. We arc i-eqnHtliiR ,?Cif 
million in FY 1HOK for both tint rni'- 
dium range anil Lh<> n> 
Standard rnisiiiloH, 

. . . Fumla for tho protMimnoiiL of 
the final quantity of Talow iniHnih'a 
. - are included in tho FY 1U41H 
Budget. 

With respect to air-to-nir inis.sjlc^ 
wo am buying both th Ki<l!win<|rr 
and the Sparrow IH in I-'Y JOfW. . 
We also propDHi' to initiate pilot lin^ 
production of tho I'hwnlx mtnn\lv in 
FY 10fi8. 

Tn the ASW v.ntc.Rnry, wtt v ] nn to 
continue the procur<>ni(tiit (' A.SIUKI 
and SUBKOC in FY (0(J8. . . 

Last year I informal tho <lmmFt- 
tee that thn DASH ASW droni! ln-K- 
coptor was oncountoriiiff lii^lior-tltan- 
expcctotl peacetime attrition mid 
lower-tlnin-ex-i)(!('tcd pnrfin-iiianci!, fuul 
that we would roviow tlu> oittini pen- 
gram. AH a result of thw i-(!vinv h \\v 
have now decidnd to riidncn (In- 
planned deployment of thin HyitUun by 
about ono-third. . . . Tliifi 
in deployment will permit 
iion of tho previously plnninid FY 
19R7 procurement. 

Improved ASW torpnclo H cnnliiiuo 
to be a major prorcquisilo to a nun-.' 
effectiva ASW force, and thin cate- 
gory of weapons linn conllnuofl to 
receive our close attention, ... In iui 
attempt to expand the piwiuctfon 



""iwjjn;ii U yCiir Hf^fi \Ua 1* "?-< ody inilnnn n 'Cix/ 1 -tr. 

$ and A-6A's to the FY 19fi7 $^ million is inrbiflp^i { *i r, 

S: a T t A ; 6 , A ' S to thc FY ^ -"rta, ^^XVmLnr 

i nci nn . program for FY r dnanee, anH aiv.,,^'*' ' 

iyt>7-RR 10 ahn,.i. ii_ x ' "' Ammunition ,! 



had Planne(l 



M - 

Marmc Corps in FY 1M7 . 

the need f certain design 



for 
Large quantities of 



purpose. 



22 




U. S. Marino Corps CH-ffSA 

Februnru lox-r 



base for the MK-46 and obtain the 
cost benefits of competitive procure- 
ment, we have opened a second pro- 
duction source. Although we have 
achieved the cost benefits (the tor- 
pedoes bought in FY 1966, for ex- 
ample, cost $124.3 million compared 
with the budget estimate of $179 mil- 
lion), it now seems clear that we will 
not achieve the production levels in 
FY 1967 originally expected. Accord- 
ingly, the FY 1968 procurement is ad- 
justed to take tliis slippage into 
account. 

Funds are also included in the FY 
19fi8 Budget for the AN/SSQ-41 
(Julie, Jezebel), an improved sono- 
buoy capable of employment in either 
an active (Julie) or passive (Jezebel) 
mode. . . . 

Finally, a total of about $125 mil- 
lion is included in the FY 19G8 
Budget for 8-inch, G-inch and 5-inch 
naval gun ammunition to meet the 
consumption requirements of South- 
east Asia and continue the buildup of 
our stocks. 

Marine Corps Procurement. 

The PY 1967 Marine Corps pro- 
curement now totals $541 million, of 
which $263 million is included in the 
FY 1967 Supplemental. For PY 1968, 
a total of $715 million is requested. 
Included in the FY 1967 total is 
$231 million for munitions and ord- 
nance ($114 million in the Supple- 
mental); $463 million is included for 
this purpose in FY 1968. 

The FY 1!)07 Supplemental pro- 
vides about $70 million for the pro- 
curement of support vehicles such as 
M,-, %-, 2%-, and 5-ton trucks, and 
$39 million more is included for sup- 
port vehicles in FY 1968. For 
tracked vehicles, ,$4 million is in- 
cluded in the FY 1967 Supplemental 
and $5 million in the FY 1968 
Budget. 



In the communications and elec- 
tronics category, which includes such 
major items as radars and the 
Marine Corps Tactical Data System 
(MTDS), we have increased our FY 
1967 procurement to $107 million, $20 
million of which is included in the 
Supplemental request. Another $145 
million is included for communica- 
tions and electronic equipment in FY 
19G8. 

Air Force General Purpose 
Forces 

The Air Force General Purpose 
Forces shown on the classified table 
provided to the Committee are es- 
sentially the same as those presentee] 
a year ago, with the exception of 
certain changes related to our opera- 
tion in Vietnam. 

Fighter and Attack, 

Our long range force objective in 
this category is the same as last 
year, namely, 24 wings of F-4's, I?-, 
Ill's and A-7's. In the near term, 
however, we now propose to make 
several changes in the force struc- 
ture and procurement programs. For 
the most part, these adjustments arc 
related to operations in Southeast 
Asia, in particular, the changes in 
our budget planning assumptions and 
the variations from the projected 
combat attrition rates reflected in 
our force planning last year. And, 
in a few cases, the proposed changes 
are the result of adjustments in pro- 
duction schedules. 

The 13-57's that we are using in 
South Vietnam will decline in number 
through FY 1968, after which they 
are scheduled to phase out of active 
sei'vicc completely. 

With respect to the F-100's, we 
had originally planned to phase down 
the active force to fewer aircraft by 
end FY 19G7. However, attrition has 
been lower than forecast and we will 




U. S. Air Force P-4C 
Defense Industry Bulletin 



U. S. Air Force RF-101 



have more squadrons in the force at 
end FY 1967 than we had previously 
planned. . . . 

Last year we had planned to hold 
a large number of F-102's in the 
force through FY 1!K57 and then 
phase down considerably in FY 19C8. 
However, in order to free F-4's for 
deployment to Vietnam, F-102's sched- 
uled to pliaso out of the continental 
air defense forces were transferred 
to the tactical forces in FY 196fi. 

Last year we had planned to re- 
tain the two I' 1 - 104 squadrons 
through FY Ij)fi7. However, we now 
plan to have only one .squadron at 
end FY .19-67 ami phase this .squadron 
out by the end of FY 1908. 

The number of: F-lOfi's in tho active 
force is projected to decline, and 
ultimately these aircraft will bo 
phased into the Air National Guard. 

The F-4's are experiencing some- 
what lower attrition than forecast 
last January and this will help the 
force to build up faster than 
planned. . . . 

The F-lll activation schedule is 
the same as planned last year, except, 
for a small slippage in a few of the? 
later squadrons, 

Last year, in order to help divers- 
ify tho Air Forco tactical fightm- 
force, WG proposed tho procurement 
of the A-7, a relatively infijcpnnsive 
subsonic aircraft with good range, 
largo ordnance-carrying capability, 
long loiter time, and ffotxl close 
ground support features. Our original 
deployment schedule called for acti- 
vation of the flrwt squadron in FY 
1968 with morn to lit; introduced later. 
However, this schedule was predicated 
on an early decision to proceed with 
the deployment of an afterburner 
for the Air Force A-7. . . . 

Two considerations caused us drat 
to delay and then change thin deci- 
sion, First, it appeared desirable, if 
possible, to find a new engine pro- 
duction source rather than add to 
the already crowded schedule of one 
of our principal , engine manufac- 
turers. Second, if a different, more 
powerful engine could he used, tho 
load-carrying capacity of the A-7 
would not have to be penalised by 
several hundred pounds of dead 
weight which the afterburner would 
involve. Such an engine, the Ilolls 
Royce'a "Spoy," proved to he obtain- 
able from Allison, who will produce 
it in the United States under license 



23 



from the British firm. The net result 

of this decision will be a more capa- 
ble aircraft but a delayed delivery 
schedule for the first aircraft. How- 
ever, a new, faster production sched- 
ule will still permit the achievement 
of the projected force by the origi- 
nally planned date. 

Tactical Reconnaissance. 

The present long range objective 
for the tactical reconnaissance force 
remains the same as a year ago. 

Because of anticipated Southeast 
Asia attrition and higher training re- 
quirements, the RF-101 force had 
been expected to decline by the end 
of the current year and then level 
ofT. In order to maintain that level, 
we will have to modify additional 
F-101's to the RF-101 configuration. 
With respect to the RF-4's, the 
force will he built up to its full 
planned strength, although projected 
attrition in Southeast Asia will cause 
a slight delay in the scheduled build- 
up. 

Ultimately, we will probably want 
to introduce a more advanced capa- 
bility into the tactical reconnaissance 
force. To this end we initiated in FY 
1966 a development project which 
would provide a reconnaissance ver- 
sion of the P-lll. This development 
provides for the necessary equipment 
to be installed in the attack version of 
the F-lll w ith minimum modification 
to the aircraft. Through FY 1967, 
$25 million has been devoted to this 
effort and $2 million more is included 
m the FY 1968 requested. An addi- 
tional substantial sum is included in 
our request for the initial procure- 
ment. 



some modification of the engines and 
provision of new ECM gear. A sub- 
stantial sum is requested in the FY 
1967 Supplemental for these modi- 
fications. Later, as advanced elec- 
tronic equipment becomes available 
(e.g., from the Navy EA-GB pro- 
gram), it may be retrofitted into 
these aircraft. 

Special Air Warfare Forces. 

Since its creation in 1962, the 
Special Air Warfare (SAW) forces 
have grown both in size and in the 
range of missions performed. . 

In order to meet the requirement 
of the Vietnam conflict, we have in- 
creased the size of the SAW force. 
This increase includes additional 
0-2's, AC-47's, C-123's, C-47's, and 
A-37's, partially offset by the reduc- 
tion of A-l's, 



w wan 



mination of the size and 

of the TAGS force, a imittor wo HOI 

have under study. 

Combat Readiness TrainUi*?- 

As described a year &&<+ 

to increase the size of tJics 

flying training base very Hi'K 11 i f " ( ' arit| 3 

over what it has been in r^*<' nt yctu ' ti 

Predicated on the assumption Uml 

the Southeast Asia conflict would t"" 1 

by 30 June 1967, this cxp- w '"", wa * 

to have been substantially "d'^vrcl 

by the end of FY 1968. !>ft>\Vt ll(>w ' 

ever, under our roviHO*! Imtlffnt 

planning assumption, com 1*1 *" * ""' r>f 

the buildup of the training l )liao tn 

terms of aircraft would H<> < I fla 

until the following' yeai 1 . , 



Tactical Electronic Warfare Support. 
With the increasing importance of 
electronic warfare, underscored by 
our experience in Southeast Asia, we 
have decided to establish a separate 
Tactical Electronic Warfare Support 
(TEWS) force in the Air Force 
General Purpose Forces. This force 
will be composed of EB-66's con- 
verted from the RB/EB-6G aircraft 
previously shown in the reconnais- 
sance category, and EC-47's (for- 
merly RC-47's). 

In order to provide sufficient air- 
craft for training, maintenance and 
advanced attrition, we plan to con- 
vert the RB-66's now in the force 
and WB-GG's now in storage to the 
EB-66 configuration; this will involve 



Other Aircraft. 

The Tactical Air Control System 
(TAGS) provides the command and 
control capability for the tactical air 
commander in field operations. Cur- 
rently, the Air Force is using modi- 
fied 0-1 aircraft transferred from the 
Army for the Airborne Forward 
Air Controller (AFAC) mission in 
Southeast Asia. Last year, we had 
planned to convert this force com- 
pletely to OV-10's by the end of FY 
1968. However, during the past year 
the requirement for AFAC aircraft 
has virtually doubled and, as a re- 
sult, the authorized TAGS force has 
been increased. In addition, the 0V- 
10 program has slipped and we do 
not now expect deliveries of that air- 
craft to the Air Force to be made 
as fast as originally planned. In 
order to build up the force as soon 
as possible, we have already taken 
action to procure an off-the-shelf Ces- 
sna aircraft designated the 0-2. 
With respect to the longer term, 'it 
is too early to make a final deter- 



Tactical Missiles. 

As I indicated last ynav, *.h(! - 
maining Mace B missiles (OIMI H<|Uiul- 
ron) deployed in Germany will bo 
phased out as Pershinjr iiik** over 
the quick reaction alert" (Q.K.A ) roll-. 
The remaining Maco II l & Hti|*loye<l 
in Okinawa, however, ai'o t**n tuiively 
scheduled to remain in tlio ni-tlvi! 
force through the program j*jriwJ. 

Air National Guard. 

A number of changes Imv** linttn 
made in the planned equipiiprit of Air 
National Guard squadrons, ituml; <if 
them related to changes in thr* ntiv 
structure. The Guard wl 1 1 i-lni 
more F-84's and F-8fi's IOIM^-C in 
order to offset delays in thn tvxii infer 
of F-100'a and F-106's frcnn Urn 
active forces. The Gutivd will luivn 
547 tactical fighters at end JW 1007 
and this number is scheduled to Inn- 
rease modestly in future yoar. 

Aircraft Procurement. 

The Air Force will procuro n 
total of 732 tactical, air control, n.n! 
reconnaissance aircraft for tlio l"!rm- 
eral Purpose Forces in FY 1<>G7 at n 
total cost of $1,847 million. <<>r t hl 




U. S. Air Force F-105 



U. S. Air Force C-123IJ 



Februory 



total, 102 aircraft costing $457 mil- 
lion are in the PY 1967 Supplemental 
request.) For FY 1968, 874 aircraft 
costing $2,076 million are requested 
for these forces. Both the FY 1967 
and FY 1968 programs provide for 
combat attrition through the normal 
production lead time. Accordingly, if 
the Vietnam conflict should end be- 
fore that date, both the active and 
reserve Air Force structures would 
be modernized faster than now proj- 
ected. 

Last year, we had scheduled pro- 
curement of a sizeable number of F-4 
aircraft for PY 19G7 and a final 
procurement in PY 1968. We now 
propose to increase the PY 1967 pro- 
gram and buy an even larger 
quantity in FY 1968. 

With respect to the F-111A, we 
now plan to buy somewhat fewer 
aircraft in FY 1968 than wo planned 
last year so as to be able to in- 
clude certain improvements, which 
are now being made, in more of the 
aircraft. The aircraft deleted from 
the FY 1968 program will be added 
to the end of the line. . . . 

The Air Force's A-7 program has, 
as I indicated earlier, slipped sub- 
stantially from that projected a year 
ago. ... The PY 1966 buy has been 
deleted and the FY 1967 buy re- 
duced. For FY 1968 we plan to buy 
a large number of A-7's, and addi- 
tional offsetting 1 upward adjustments 
in procurement in subsequent years 
should permit us to achieve the 
planned force level by the originally 
scheduled date. . . . 

Last year we had tentatively- 
scheduled procurement of 167 0V- 
10's for the TAGS force. However, 
tho TAGS requirement has grown 
sharply during the past year, lead- 
ing to the decision to buy the O-2 
and this, coupled with a delay in 
projected OV-10 deliveries and an in- 
crease in the cost of that aircraft, 
has caused us to revise our planned 
procurement program. Although we 
still plan to pin-chase 157 OV-10's 
for the TAGS mission, the PY 1967 
buy has been reduced and the dif- 
ference added to the PY 1968 pro- 
gram. Further procurement of the 



OV-10 for the Air Force will depend 
upon a future decision to use it to 
help modernize the Special Air War- 
fare Forces. 

As previously mentioned, action 
has already been initiated to procure 
176 0-2A aircraft in FY 1967 for 
the TAGS force and SAW force's 
program to provide for combat at- 
trition replacement. . . . 

More A-37 aircraft have been 
added to the FY 1967 program and 
still more will be procured in PY 
1968. We also plan to buy more F- 
E's, principally to help modernize the 
Vietnamese Air Force. 

Finally, to offset projected attrition 
of reconnaissance aircraft in South- 
east Asia, the FY 1968 quantity of 
RF-4 aircraft has been increased 
and more will be procured later for 
advance peacetime attrition. And, as 
previously mentioned, to maintain 
the desired level of RF-101 squad- 
rons, we will convert a number of 
F-101's to the reconnaissance config- 
uration in PY 1968. 

Other Air Force Procurement. 

The Air Force's aircraft non- 
nuclear ordnance program for FY 

1967 totals $1,739 million, of which 
$438 million is included in the Sup- 
plemental request. The proposed FY 

1968 program totals $1,629 mil- 
lion. . . . 

"Iron bombs," which are being con- 
sumed at high rates in Southeast 
Asia, will continue to dominate the 
FY 1967-68 procurement programs. 
For these two years, $1,400 million 
will be spent on these bombs, includ- 
ing 250-lb., 500-lb., 750-lb., and 2000- 
Ib. bombs; $31 million is for napalm 
bombs and $463 million is for 2.75- 
ineh rockets and 20mm ammunition. 
For certain special purpose ordnance, 
$888 million is requested. 

Also included in the Air Force's 
FY 1967-68 program is $241 million 
for TV-guided Walleye's, anti-radia- 
tion missiles, and Sparrow air-to-air 
missiles. 

Theater Air Base Vulnerability. 

The theater air base vulnerability 
program is designed to minimise the 



damage an enemy could do to our 
overseas airfields, and the aircraft on 
them, in a non-nuclear attack. . . . 

This year's request for $26 million 
will provide various vulnerability re- 
ductions measures (shelters, paving 
for dispersal sites, POL facility 
hardening, etc.) at a number of 
European and Pacific bases. The total 
program presently envisioned would 
ultimately provide shelter for a sig- 
nificant number of aircraft and other 
high-value aviation equipment, togeth- 
er with the full range of other 
vulnerability menKuros at a total 
cost of about $.178 million. I urge the 
Congress to provide the $26 million 
included in our FY 1!>68 request so 
that we may get started promptly on 
this critical program. 

Tactical Exercises 

Under normal peacetime conditions, 
large scale strategic mobility and 
tactical exorcises contribute to the 
maintenance of high combat readi- 
ness, provide highly visible demon- 
strations of our capabilities, help test 
new operational concepts and weapon 
systems, and permit U.S. and allied 
forces to perfect coordination proce- 
dures which they would have to use 
in wartime. However, with the expan- 
sion of combat operations in South- 
east Ama during tho past 18 months, 
the importance of simulating such 
operations has dropped sharply and 
in FY 1908, only about $9 million 
was used for the larjrer exercises 
"directed" or "coordinated" by the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff. Therefore, on 
tho assumption that tho Vietnam con- 
flict will continue tlmmgli FY l!)Gf), 
we have budgotett only $27 million 
for this purpose, far below tho $100 
million plus level of pre-Vietnam 
years. 

Financial Summary 

The General Purpose Forces Pro- 
gram outlined above will require total 
obligational authority of $3M billion 
in FY 1968. 

A comparison with prior years is 
shown below: 



($ Billions, Fiscal Year) 


1962 


1963 


1964 


Ifl65 


I960 


1967 


1968 


Act. 


Act. 


Act, 


Act, 


Act, 


Est, 


Prop. 


Total Obligational Authority 18.0 


17.9 


18.0 


19.1 


29. 5 


34.8 


34.1 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



25 




Included in this program are the 
Military Airlift Command trans- 
ports, the Air Force's troop carrier 
aircraft assigned to the Tactical 
Air Command and the Unified Com- 
mands, the transport and troop 
carrier aircraft in the Air Force's 
reserve components, and the troop 
ships, cargo ships, tankers and "for- 
ward mobile depot" ships operated by 
the Military Sea Transportation 
Service. 

Although not specifically included 
in the Airlift/Sealift Program, those 
elements of other major programs 
whose missions and capabilities are 
closely related to the general require- 
ment for lift have also been con- 
sidered in determining what forces 
should be provided here. These other 
elements include such specialized 
transportation forces as the carrier- 
on-boarcl delivery aircraft of the 
Navy and the cargo aircraft of the 
Marine Corps. 

Within the context of this specific 
program, the lift mission consists of 
two main tasks: the strategic require- 
ment for transport supp ort o f 
military operations in overseas areas 
and the tactical requirement for 
Intra-theater and assault airlift. The 
strategic task can be further divided 
into the requirement for the initial 
rapid military reponse to distant 
crises and the longer term require- 
ment for continuing support and 
re-supply of overseas military opera- 
tions. This distinction is very 
important because it helps determine 
what kind of equipment is needed, 
when it must be available, how it 
should be organized and deployed, and 
who should control it. As you know, 
during the past several years, our 
principal concern in the airlift/sea- 
lift area has been to build up a 
quick-reaction capability adequate to 
meet our global security commit- 
ments. More recently, our experience 
m supporting a major military 
deployment in Southeast Asia has 
-focused our attention on the problems 
of providing lift support over the 
longer term, and especially under 
conditions when it is not feasible to 
requisition commercial shipping. 



Strategic Movement 



All of our studies show that the 
length and cost of a war, as well as 
the size of the force ultimately re- 
quired to terminate it favorably, are 
importantly influenced by how fast 
we can bring the full weight of our 
military power to bear on the situa- 
tion. 

In previous posture statements I 
have discussed at some length the 
range of strategies available to us 
for meeting the requirement for such 
prompt and effective response to 
distant military contingencies. Basic- 
ally, these choices range from reliance 
on large ready forces deployed over- 
seas in advance of need, to reliance 
on a central reserve of men and 
equipment in the United States to be 
deployed by airlift and sealift as re- 
quired. A strategy which combines 
features of both these extremes might 
provide for propositioning equipment 
and supplies overseas, either on land 
or aboard ship, with the men to be air- 
lifted in as needed. Although each of 
these approaches has its own advan- 
tages and disadvantages with respect 
to operational flexibility, foreign 
exchange costs, total .manpower and 
equipment requirements, etc., the 
strategy of a mobile central reserve 
supported by an adequate lift 
capability and balanced preposition- 
ing has long been accepted as the 
preferred alternative for meeting the 
rapid response objective. 

During the past several years, the 
Defense Department has been em- 
barked on a major effort to achieve 
the rapid deployment capability 
needed to support such a strategy. 
. . , Now, we are buying a new trans- 
port, the C-5A, which will enable us 
to make another major improvement, 
both qualitative and quantitative, in 
our strategic airlift capacity. Thus, 
when our presently planned six 
squadrons of C-5A's are all in the 
force in PY 1972, our airlift 
capacity will be more than ten times 
what it was in FY 1961. 

Over the years, forward preposi- 
tioning of military materiel, especial- 
ly heavy and bulky equipment, has 
grown in importance, partly because 
of the great increase in our ability to 



airlift forces and partly because of 
the emergence of new prepositioning B 
concepts and equipment. The most 
important of these concepts has been 
the "forward floating depot (PFD)" 
in which balanced stocks of equip- 
ment and supplies are maintained on 
ships stationed overseas within a few 
days steaming distance of potential 
trouble spots, and thus very quickly 
available to "marry up" with air- 
lifted forces from the central reserve, 
As a first generation "floating depot" 
system we planned to use old Victory- 
class ships, specially modified for this 
purpose. Three of these ships were 
actually deployed in FY 1963 and we jj 
had planned to add more this year. 
However, the requirements of the 
conflict in Southeast Asia have now 
caused us to defer this deployment 
for the time being. 

Our future plans call for this first 
generation system to be replaced by a 
new class of ships, the FDL's, which 
are being specifically designed to sup- 
port a rapid deployment strategy. 
Unlike the relatively slow (16 knots) 
and small payload (2,265 short tons) 
Victory ships, the PDL's will bo fast, 
large payload (8-10,000 short tons) if 
ships capable of rapidly delivering 
cargo either over-the-beach, using cm- 
barked lighters and helicopters, or at 
established ports. Because of these 
improvements, the FDL's will provide 
a wider range of operational flexi- 
bility than the Victory's. While we 
would probably always want to have 
some of them fully loaded and de- 
ployed forward, some of them could 
also be held partially loaded with 
ammunition and supplies but in a 
ready status in either U.S. or over- 
seas ports where vehicles, helicopters, 
etc., tailored to the mission, could be 3 
placed on board quickly as the situa- 
tion requires. This mode of operation, 
which is feasible only because of the 
speed and efficiency of the PDL's, ' 
woukl allow us to meet the desired 
rapid deployment schedules without 
immobilizing indefinitely large 
amounts of high cost equipment, 
some of which also requires substan- 
tial continuing maintenance. In either 
mode of operation, however, the 
FDL's would have to be committed to 
the rapid deployment mission at all 
times and would not be available for '***' 
regular point-to-point service. Thus, 
while they will make an enormous 
contribution to our rapid deployment 
capability and will also be highly 



February 1967 



efficient carriers for resupply after 
the initial deployment phase, these 
FDL's in themselves do not provide 
the answer to the overall sealift 
problem, 

Indeed, all of our study and 
experience shows that the require- 
ment for sealift continues to grow 
after the initial buildup phase, as 
more forces arc deployed and stocks 
of consumables have to be replaced. 
To meet this larger and longer term 
need, we must rely in largo part on 
merchant shipping. Based on the 
transportation requirements implicit 
in our contingency planning for a 
number of the most likely limited war 
situations, it appears that the equiv- 
alent of up to 4GO general cargo ships 
(averaging l&.OOO MT capacity, 15 
knot speed) might be needed in a 
future emergency, over and above 
those available in our own Airlift/ 
Sealift Forces. Simply in terms of 
size, the U.S. Flag Merchant Fleet 
(active and reserve) is adequate for 
such contingencies now, and should 
continue to be so in the future. The 
real problem, underscored by our 
recent experience in supporting our 
Southeast Asia deployments, concerns 
the availability of these U.S. Flag 
merchant ships to the Defense De- 
partment on a timely basis. 

For the past year and a half, we 
have been engaged in a massive sea- 
lift of men and supplies to Vietnam. 
In the first quarter of FY 1967, the 
Military Sea Transportation Service 
(MSTS) exceeded its FY 1965 
average quarterly shipping rate by 
1GB percent. However, only about a 
third of the increase was obtained 
from the U.S. liner fleet (both sub- 
sidized and unsubsidized). These, of 
course, were the ship operators who 
had been given preference in carry- 
ing peacetime Defense cargoes, who 
up until recently (when MSTS 
introduced competitive bidding) had 
collectively negotiated freight rates 
with MSTS, and on whom Defense 
had traditionally counted for the 
"hard core" of its sealift augmenta- 
tion in wartime. But, when the heavy 
demands for sealift to Southeast 
Asia began to develop, most of the 
liner operators chose to continue to 
ply their normal commercial trade 
routes, and in the July- September 
1966 period only eight percent of the 
subsidized fleet and something: less 
than 10 percent of the non-subsidized 
liner fleet were under charter to 



MSTS. This choice was understand- 
able under the circumstances. In a 
total war, neither the Government 
nor the shipline operators would have 
any choice, the ships would be 
requisitioned. But in a limited war, 
such as Vietnam, the issue is not as 
clear; the shipline operators, under- 
standably, don't want to lose their 
place on the world trade routes and 
the Government doesn't want to be 
forced to requisition the ships it 
needs. 

^ Fortunately, in the present situa- 
tion, we have been able to obtain the 
needed sealift without recourse to 
requisitioning, principally through 
the use of the unsubsidized tramp 
fleet and through reactivations from 
the reserve fleet (NDRF). Almost 
two-thirds of the increase in Defense 
soalift capacity achieved since the 
start of the Vietnam buildup has 
come from these sources. , . . 

While these resources have suc- 
cessfully met the needs of the present 
emergency, they may not all be 
available in another emergency a 
decade hence. By 197G, most of the 
ships in the' NDRF will he 30-35 
years old and will require larger 
expenditures for conversion to assure 
satisfactory reliability. Moreover, the 
unmibsidized tramp/irregular fleet 
will probably have disappeared be- 
cause its aging: World War II vessels 
cannot he replaced at an economical 
price. As a result, the Defense De- 
partment may in another emergency 
be far more dependent on the sub- 
sidized berth line operators than it 
is today. 

The greater requirement for berth 
line ships is disturbing not only be- 
cause of the problem of responsive- 
ness but also because of the coat 
implications involved. We know from 
past experience (and we cannot real- 
istically expect it to be otherwise) 
that, unless the operators are assured 
a good profit (at prices established 
in a tight market), their ships will 
not be forthcoming voluntarily in an 
emergency. This makes the subsidised 
liner fleet a very costly form of sea- 
lift for the Defense Department to 
hire, just when it needs it most. 

Furthermore, U.S. Flag ships are 
twice as expensive to operate, even 
in normal times, as most foreign flag 
ships. And, as I mentioned earlier, 
ship construction in U.S. yards costs 
about twice as much as that abroad, 
To offset these cost differentials, the 



U.S. Merchant Marine is subsidizes 
by the taxpayer, directly and indi- 
rectly, to the tune of nearly three 
quarters of a billion dollars a year 
on the premise that this shipping IF 
required for potential national se- 
curity needs. Yet, despite this large 
annual subsidy, virtually all our sea- 
lift needs since World War II have 
been met without requisitioning mer- 
chant ships. Moreover, it seems clear 
that the most likely requirements for 
sealift augmentation in the future will 
be associated with limited war situa- 
tions like Vietnam, in which recourse 
to requisitioning will be as undesir- 
able as it seems today. 

In summary, from the viewpoint of 
the Defense Department, there is a 
firm requirement for reliable, respon- 
sive sealift augmentation for a wide 
range of limited war situations, a re- 
quirement which the present sub- 
sidized. U.S. liner (lent, for various 
reasons, has not met. Various solu- 
tions have been suggested, ranging 
from a major increase in the sub- 
sidized U.S. Flag merchant fleet to 
a full scale program of reserve fleet 
modernization. I do not propose to 
offer a solution at this time; other 
agencies of the Government are also 
involved. I believe a way can be 
found to revitalise both the American 
shipbuilding industry and the U.S. 
Merchant Marine and make them 
both more truly competitive in the 
world markets and I believe that 
these objectives, along with our mili- 
tary requirements, can be met at 
costs lower than those our nation is 
incurring today. 

Airlift 

The airlift forces currently planned 
through FY 1972 are shown on the 
classified table provided to the Com- 
mittee. In the active forces, the C-5A 
deployment schedule is the same as 
that envisioned a year ago with the 
first two squadrons scheduled to be- 
come operational in FY 1970. The 
first operational aircraft were in- 
cluded in the current year's procure- 
ment program and $423 million is 
included in the FY 1968 request for 
the next increment. The total G-5A 
program cost (including research 
and development and facilities con- 
struction) is estimated at $3.4 bil- 
lion. . . , 

Last year we had tentatively 
scheduled the phase-out of the G-183 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



fleet from the active forces in FY 
1971. However, in order to maintain 
the squadron integrity of the Military 
Airlift Command's force structure, 
we now plan to phase out the last 
two aqua (Irons of C-133's as the last 
two C-5A squadrons become opera- 
tional. 

We also plan to retain one addi- 
tional C-124 squadron (16 UE air- 
craft), previously scheduled to be 
phased out this year, through FY 
1968. . . . 

The C-141 force will reach its 
planned strength of 14 squadrons in 
FY 1968 and is scheduled to hold at 
that level throughout the program 
period. 

Before the end of FY 1967, we 
plan to reorganize the existing C-130 
fleet within a force structure of 28 
squadrons rather than the 31 pre- 
viously planned. . . . 

As a result of an Army-Air Force 
agreement in April 1966, which re- 
delineated certain air support mission 
responsibilities within the combat 
theater, the Army's CV-2 Caribou 
transports (redesignated the C-7A) 
have now been transferred to Air 
Force operation and are, therefore, 
accounted for in this program for the 
first time. 

No major changes are contemplated 
in the airlift force structure of the 
reserve components from that pro- 
posed a year ago. In FY 1968, we 
proposed to continue one C-121 
squadron and one more C-97 squad- 
ron than planned last year. . . . 
Eventually, the reserve airlift force 
will consist entirely of C-130's. Dur- 
ing PY 1968, we propose to continue 
the 100 percent manning for the 11 
Air Force Reserve C-124 squadrons, 
which was inaugurated as a readi- 
ness measure in the summer of 1966, 

Sectlift 

As discussed earlier in this section, 
we propose to build a fleet of Fast 
Deployment Logistic (FDL) ships. 
The Congress approved funds ($67.6 
million) for two of these ships in FY 



1966, including $10 million in the FY 
1966 Supplemental for the initiation 
of contract definition. As I explained 
a year ago, actual contracts for these 
first two ships are being deferred in 
order to permit their inclusion in the 
"total package" contract We now 
plan to award the multi-year contract 
late this fiscal year. Funds for five 
FDL's are included in the FY 1968 
request. . . . 

The FDL's we now propose will be 
considerably larger, faster and more 
efficient ships than those we origi- 
nally envisioned. Two years ago, the 
preliminary FDL concept called for 
a vessel capable of carrying about 
5,600 tons of division equipment and 
supplies; the ships we are now con- 
sidering will be able to carry perhaps 
twice that tonnage and at an esti- 
mated increase in the cost per ship 
of less than 10 percent. 

As I noted earlier in the discussion 
of the shipbuilding problem, the FDL 
program represents the first applica- 
tion of the concept formulation and 
contract definition process and the 
"total package" approach to ship pro- 
curement. The first phase of this 
approach, "concept formulation," was 
completed in July 1966 when three 
contractors were awarded definition 
contracts. During the first phase of 
contract definition, the competing con- 
tractors prepared their initial pro- 
posals around Army and Navy per- 
formance requirements and standards 
instead of detailed ship specifications. 
Thus, for the first time, the talents 
of private industry are being brought 
to hear on the initial design of the 
ship. During the second phase of the 
definition process, which has just bean 
completed, the three competing con- 
tractors prepared detailed proposals 
for their design and a comprehensive 
program plan for their production. 
As part of these detailed proposals, 
each of the contractors has developed 
plans for a new shipyard or modern- 
ization of an existing one, Any one 
of these, in terms of efficiency, would 
be far superior to the existing U.S. 
yards and in terms of design and 



layout would he equal to the beat of 
the foreign yards. 

We are now in the last stage of 
the definition process, i.e., bid evalua- 
tion and source selection. , . . 

The three Victory-class cargo ships 
which had been used as forward 
mobile depots since FY 1963 hnvo 
been temporarily converted to point- 
to-point service in support nf our 
current effort in Southeast Asia. Out" 
plans now call for retaining those 
ships in this role through the end of 
FY 1908. Subsequently, with the end 
of the Vietnam conflict, wo would ex- 
pect to return them to thoir forward 
mobile depot role and add morn ships 
for this mission. The Victory ship 
fleet would be retained until u suf- 
ficient number of the more elllcu'nt 
FDL's became available in FY 1972. 

During FY 1906, MSTS operated 
in the nucleus fleet an additional gen- 
eral purpose cargo ship to help meet 
the increased requirement. 1 ! of our 
Southeast Asia operation. Tenta- 
tively, we now plan on retaining' this 
ship through FY J.968, after which 
tho active general purpose cargo fleet 
is scheduled to decline. Another minor 
change in last year's planned deploy- 
ments resulted from the fact that one 
roll-on/roll-off ship which hud boon 
expected to enter service in May or 
June li)(i(i 1ms been delayed. 

With respect to special purpose 
cargo ships, the temporary Vietnam 
augmentations which I described a 
your ago have now been extended 
through FY l!)<iK. In addition, MSTS 
will operate 13 more LST's in FY 
1967 than envisioned last year mid 14 
more through FY 1968. After FY 
19G8, the special purpose cargo fleet Is 
tentatively scheduled to return to the 
pro-Vietnam level. . . . 

Financial Summary 

The Airlift and Senlift Forcna I 
outlined will require Total Ohlign- i 
tional Authority of $1.0 Milton , In 
FY 19G8. A comparison with prior 
years is shown below: 





1962 1963 

T * i /MI- *. , Actual Actual 
lotal Obligational Authority 11 11 


($ Billions, Fiscal Years) 
1964 1965 1966 
Actual Actual Actual 
1.2 1,4 1.7 


1967 10B8 
Est. Proposed 
1.6 1.0 


x 




28 






February 1967 




Included in this major program are 
all the research and development ef- 
forts not directly identified with weap- 
ons or weapon systems approved for 
deployment. We have made a special 
effort again this year not only to cull 
out marginal projects in the research 
and development program, but also to 
defer to future years all projects 
whose postponement would not have a 
serious adverse effect on our future 
military capabilities. But even while 
wfi have eliminated, reduced and de- 
ferred projects in some areas of this 
program, we have had to add, in- 
crease and accelerate projects in other 
areas, to meet new needs growing out 
of the conflict in Southeast Asia and 
the military situation generally. 

Last year I described Project PRO- 
VOST (Priority Research and De- 
velopment Objectives for Vietnam 
Operations Support) which we had 
established to ensure that the re- 
search and development program re- 
lated to limited war situations, 
which had been accelerated in prior 
years, would be wholly responsive 
to the more specific requirements 
of our forces in Southeast Asia. As a 
result of PROVOST, projects totaling 
about $370 million were identified as 
having significant potential for Viet- 
nam operations and were singled out 
for priority funding in FY 1966. Dur- 
ing 1 the past year, the test of combat 
in Vietnam has revealed a number of 
areas where still more effort appears 
warranted. These newly identified re- 
quirements have been an important 
Influence in the formulation of our 
FY 1968 request. However, most of 
this work should be started promptly, 
and thus also concerns the current 
year's research and development pro- 
gram. While a portion of it has been 
financed by reprogramming or use of 
emergency funds, we have had to 
request an additional $135 million for 
research, development, test and evalu- 
ation (RDT&E) in the FY 1907 Sup- 
plemental. 

Broadly speaking, the projects 
funded in the Supplemental can lie 
grouped into three main categories. 
The first is concerned with improving 
the ability of our forces to fight at 
night. The second is concerned with 
reducing our aircraft losses. The third 
is concerned with the development of 



improved counterin filtration systems. 
As described later, the proposed FY 
1968 program provides for additional 
effort in all of these areas. . , . 

Before T turn to the specifics of the 
FY 1968 Research and Development 
program, there are two general areas 
which might usefully be discussed as 
entities rather than in terms of the 
separate projects which they com- 
prise. These are nuclear testing and 
test detection, and space development 
projects. 



Nuclear Testing and Test 
Detection 

As you know, the Defense Depart- 
ment, in cooperation with the Atomic 
Energy Commission (AEC), is main- 
taining four specific safeguards with 
relation to the Test Ban Treaty. For 
the Defense Department's portion of 
this program, we have budgeted a total 
of $255 million for FY 1968, compared 
with $224 million in FY 1967 and 
about $238 million in FY 1966, as 
shown on the classified table provided 
to the Committee. 

In support of the first safeguard 
the underground test program we 
have included $49 million in the FY 
1968 Budget, compared with the $33 
million provided in the FY 1967 pro- 
gram. . . . 

In support of the second safeguard 
maintenance of modern nuclear labora- 
tory facilities and programs in theo- 
retical and exploratory nuclear tech- 
nology our FY 1968 Budget includes 
$63 million as compared with the $53 
million in FY 1967. . < . 

The FY 1968 Budget includes about 
$27 million in support of the third 
safeguard the maintenance of a 
standby atmospheric test capability 
about the same as PY 1967. . . , 

In support of the fourth safeguard 
the monitoring of Sino-Soviet nu- 
clear activities we have included a 
total of $116 million in the FY 1968 
Budget, compared with $111 million 
in FY 1967. We conduct two principal 
programs to support this safeguard 
the Advanced Research Project 
Agency's VELA program and the 
Atomic Energy Detection System 
(AEDS). 



. . . The FY 1968 Budget includes $50 
million for VELA activities. . . . 

The present Atomic Energy Detec- 
tion System (AEDS), designed to de- 
tect and identify nuclear detonations, 
now represents a facilities investment 
of about $85 million. . . . 

About $68 million was provided in 
the FY 1964-67 budgets for this effort 
and $16 million is included in the FY 
1968 request. An additional $46 million 
will be needed in PY 1968 for the 
EDT&E and operating costs of the 
system. 

Space Development Projects 

While the various elements of the 
Defense Department's space effort are 
spread, on a functional basis, through- 
out the program and budget struc- 
tures, I believe this effort can be more 
meaningfully discussed as a separate 
entity. 

The Defense Department's program 
is, of course, wholly integrated into 
the larger National Space Program, 
expenditures for which now total over 
$7 billion a year. The Defense portion 
is designed to maximize the utilisation 
of space technologies and environ- 
ments for defense purposes, e.g., to 
apply space technologies and capabili- 
ties to our strategic and tactical 
weapon systems to increase their effec- 
tiveness, to exploit the new potentials 
in information systems made possible 
by satellite -based communications and 
sensors, and to explore the usefulness 
of manned space systems for defense 
purposes. . . . 

In total, about $1,998 million of our 
FY 1968 Budget request is for the 
space prog-ram, $328 million more than 
in FY 1967. 

Spacecraft Mission Projects. 

By far the largest project in this 
category is the Manned Orbiting 
Laboratory (MOL), for which we are 
requesting $431 million in FY 1968. . . . 

A total of $83 million is requested 
in FY 1968 to continue work on De- 
fense Satellite Communications pro- 
grams and to procure, operate and 
maintain satellite communications 
equipment. . . . 

Of the $83 million requested for 
Satellite Communications programs in 
FY 1968, about $17 million is for the 
development, procurement and opera- 
tion of Army ground terminals; $13 
million is for Navy shipboard ter- 
minals; and $49 million is for A"-' 
Force space subsystems, airborne tor- 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



29 



nmial:- 1 , launch vehicles, and the costs 
<>f iir.M'urim,' and hiunching new satel- 
lite, (11 addition, 3 million is for the 
Di'fcnsf* Communications Agency for 
overall sj-Ktenis engineering and man- 
aftt'mi'iit direction. 

I have already discussed the 
next itr-rn, "Nuclear Tost Detection 
(VKF.A)," in connection with the Test 
Han Treaty safeguards. The FY 1968 
nml^ot includes about $8 million for 

W> are requesting 18 million for 
the Navy's satellite navigational sys- 
t.--m 

R^onrch and development funding 
for tlie anti-satellite system program 
lias hoe-n completed. The funds re- 
quested for FY 1968 will provide for 
the normal operating costs of the sys- 
tem. 

The funds requested for space 
"Gendcay" will support programs by 
each of the Services as well as the 
Department of Defense's participation 
in the National Geodetic Satellite 
Program 



for the sensors) and other navigation 
components, which will then be flight 
tested. 

The "Large Solid Propellant Motor" 
project was undertaken to create the 
technology base required for the de- 
velopment of missile or launch vehicle 
engines up to 156 inches in diameter. 
Funds already provided will be suf- 
ficient to complete the remaining' tasks, 
i.e., demonstrations of a low cost noz- 
zle, an advanced thrust vector control 
system, and a self-eject launch con- 
cept. 

The next item, "Advanced Liquid 
Rocket Technology" comprises three 
projects: advanced storable liquid 
rocket technology; high performance, 
cryogenic liquid rocket technology; 
and maneuverable space rocket tech- 
nology. , . . 



tions of the costs of a witlo range of 

space-related activities. . . , 

Research 



Vehicle, Engine and Component 
Developments. 

The Titan III family of space 
boosters has begun to enter the op- 
erational inventory. The first Titan 
"IB (Agena configuration) was 
launched last July and production is 
now proceeding. The Tital me has 
bwn in the flight test phase since 
Jne 1965 and is being used to launch 

Si i ? , n? efenM Co ""ication a 
Satellite, VELA, Tactical Communica- 
tions Satellite, and multiple engineer- 
ing payloads. 

The funds requested for "Agena D 
mil continue work being initiated this 
year to increase the capability of the 

im A f "? D for the ^ier 
satellite payloads now projected. 

The funds requested for "SnacV 

craft Technology and Advanced Re . 

entry Tests (START)'" will complete 

the present phase of this program.!? 

ine funds requested for "Advanced 

Space Guidance" will support an n 

omg program of sMdies, expe 

and equipment Development in 

areas as long-term accuracy and 

Ability of inertia, guidance c 

nente. horizon sensors and star and 

andmark trackers, and on-board 

ernnnation of astronomical data 

autonomous navigation. The FY 19 fiR 

program includes procurement of an 

mertial reference unit (which will 

SerVe M " hrtnmwntaHan standard 

30 



Other Defense Activities Supporting 
the Space Program. 

The Ground Support category shown 
on the classified table supplied the 
Committee is that portion of tho costs 
of the missile range, test instrumen- 
tation, and satellite detection and 
tracking systems which is charged to 
space activities. The largest item in 
this category is the $132 million for 
the Eastern Test Range. 

... The FY 1968 request includes 
834 million for support of SPACE- 
TRACK and $5 million more for 
bPASUR, for a total of $39 million. 
( Ine $57 million requested for the 
Satellite Control Facility" is for op- 
eration, maintenance and modification 
of the military space vehicle support 
network which provides satellite track- 
ing, command and data handling, as 
required by the major Defense space 
programs. ... 

The last two categories on the table 
Supporting Research and 



,, fi'^J. u, UUI1HL1- 

the overhead of the military space 
Program and consi st of prorated por! 



Last year I discussed in 
detail tho problems involved in 
nixing and managing 1 a Hescarch pro 
gram consisting- of morally thousand* 
of individual tasks and projoclii, inns! 
of which require* relatively wrnilll 
amounts of money for thoir mijiporl. 
I pointed out that bnt-auHR of tho liir^c 
number and rolattvoly smnll dnlliu 1 
value of thosn projiicta, wts lirui lo 
manage the program from my ofllcn 
on^a 'level of ffort" basin, with (In- 
objfictive of advancing our IcriowlmlKo 
in a balanced imunutr acromi th en- 
tire spectrum of 8cinnn and trdi- 
nology pertinent to tlui Doff'tinn cIT.ul. 
To facilitatn the mnnaR-dituint of Iho 
program ami to mmiro Mutt U in 
always responsive- to dmiWH in our 
fields of intoroHt, I noted Umt wn lnul 
organized tho overall offort prJiimrlly 
in terms of dtacfpHncR, i.n., iiiiiLcrtiild, 
gfineral i)hysics, chemintry, ncoaiiOK- 
raphy, etc., and that thn efTort in rurli 
discipline was allocatnd itmnnir tln> 
components of the Dnimrtmimt on (1m 
basis of thoir jtriniary fl<.h| H r,f 
interest and compntoncy. . . . 

Shown on Figuro 1 in tlin HOHRHIT]! 
program proposed for li'Y .1!J(!H, (-oin- 
pared with prior yearn. You will notf 
that thoro is a Hharj) i-oducitioii in HIM 
amount of funds allociitod to MutnrhilH 
Roseareh and to a lessor rxtrnt for 
In-Houso laboratory Indonnndnnt Up. 
search. In both CIWOB, ilu- .miountH of 
unobligated and uncxpoiuK'd tmuh 
exceed tho levels dictatod by p.-u.loat 
managomoiii. Accordingly, thn nmnunC 
of new funds requested for FY j^fiR 
lias been reduced below the ncLual 
program levels which will !, nbmit 
the same as in FY 1967. 





Manned Orbiting Laboratory 



U.S. Air Force Titan IIIC 



February 1967 



Included in the FY 1968 request for 
research is $27 million for the Defense 
Department's share of the national 
program for developing "New Centers 
of Excellence in Science and Tech- 
nology". This program, previously 
referred to as the "University Pro- 
gram" and now called THEMIS, is in 
addition to our regular contract/grant 
arrangements with institutions of 
higher learning and is not a substitute 
for them. Rather, the new program is 
designed to create, eventually, about 
100 new departmental centers of 
superior scientific and engineering 
competence at universities which are, 
at present, poorly supported. Pat- 
terned after the Joint Services Elec- 
tronics Program, from which signifi- 
cant technical advances like the laser 
evolved, this new effort holds great 
promise of yielding a similar "pay- 
off" in the future. 



We have initiated Project THEMIS 
this year at a level of .$18 million, and 
have supplied interested colleges and 
universities with detailed information 
on our requirements. . . . Additional 
centers will be started in FY 1968. 

Exploratory Development 

Exploratory development is directed 
toward the expansion of technological 
knowledge and its exploitation in the 
form of materials, components and 
devices which it is hoped will have 
some useful application to new mili- 
tary weapons and equipment. Hero 
the emphasis is on invention and on 
exploring the feasibility of various 
approaches to the solution of .specific 
problems, up to the point of demon- 
strating feasibility with a "bread 
board" device and even, in some cases, 
prototype components and subsystems. 



SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM 

Fiscal Years 


(TOA, $ 


Millions)* 












1962 1963 1964 


1965 


1966 


1967 


1968 


Engineering Sciences 












Electronics 


26 


27 


28 


28 


27 


Materials 


34 


44 


45 


47 


33 


Mechanics 


25 


26 


29 


29 


28 


Energy Conversion 


12 


14 


14 


16 


14 


Sub-Total 


97 


111 


116 


119 


102 


Physical Sciences 












General Physics 


28 


30 


33 


30 


30 


Nuclear Physics 


IB 


17 


1G 


16 


13 


Chemistry 


10 


11 


11 


11 


11 


Mathematical Sciences 


33 


3B 


37 


38 


37 


Sub-Total 


86 


93 


96 


95 


91 


Environmental Sciences 












Terrestrial 


6 


6 


7 


G 


6 


Atmospheric 


19 


20 


19 


21 


22 


Astronomy-Astrophysics 


8 


9 


10 


10 


9 


Oceanography 


18 


19 


19 


20 


22 


Sub-Total 


61 


54 


55 


67 


B9 


Biological & Medical Sciences 


34 


33 


33 


34 


32 


Behavioral & Social Sciences 


9 


10 


12 


13 


12 


Nuclear Weapons Effects Research 


36 


38 


39 


41 


43 


In-House Independent Lab. Res. 


36 


39 


SB 


36 


34 


University Program (THEMIS) 








18 


27 


Other Support 




8 


7 


7 


8 


Total Research 


339 351 346 


383 391 


416 


409 


* Amounts will not necessarily add to 


totals due to rounding, 



Figure 1. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



Along with research, exploratory de- 
velopment forms the technological pool 
from which future equipment will be 
designed. 

The more than 800 individual ex- 
ploratory development projects repre- 
sent about 15 percent of the cost of 
the entire RDT&E prog-ram, with the 
average project requiring ahout $1.3 
million annually. About 40 percent of 
exploratory development work is con- 
ducted by our "In-house" laboratories, 
50 percent is contracted to industry, 
mid the remaining 10 percent is per- 
formed by educational and non-profit 
institutions. A recent study of the 
origin of weapon system performance 
improvements has shown that almost 
all have resulted from Defense sup- 
ported technological advances and very 
little from other sources. 

As shown on the classified table; pro- 
vided to the Committee, wo are re- 
questing' a total of $988 million for 
exploratory development in FY 1968, 
$Gf> million less than the revised esti- 
mates for FY 1967. 

Army. 

For the Army's exploratory de- 
velopment program, fpfilfi million is ro- 
qucKted for FY 1908, somewhat leas 
than the level planned for FY 10(17. 

In the areas of electronics and 
communications,, the development ef- 
fort includes: small rugged Held 
operated digital data processing 
equipment; communications equipment 
having increased traffic handling and 
improved anti- jamming capabilities; 
devices for rapid, positive and auto- 
matic recognition and identification 
among 1 friendly surface units and be- 
tween them and their supporting air 
units; new sensors for airborne and 
ground surveillance and target acqui- 
sition of enemy units on the battle- 
field; communication sets and variable 
time fuzes; night vision devices ; 
improved solid state, thermionic and 
frequency control components common 
to a variety of equipments; etc. 
Efforts in the ordnance category in- 
clude work on weapon systems for 
Army helicopters, the improvement of 
missile components, and development 
of conventional ammunition, weapons 
and explosives. 

In the materials category, the- Army 
is concerned with the development of 
new metals, ceramics, plastics and 
composite materials which cnn im- 
prove its firepower, mobility, armor 
and communications, with particular 



31 



IXf-f.' Vote??. , . . SAM-D is now in 
contract definition phase which will 
In; cf))ji|ili;tp(I this spring. We will then 
have to dceMf whether to proceed <li- 
ivc'My with development of an into- 
Ki';it''<i .^y.-tf-rn suitable for direct 
npc-rjitinnal (iojiloymont, to limit de- 
velopment to a prototype system for 
fallibility dtmonsti-atioii, or to return 
in cotKvjit formulation. The second 
option wc.uM provide additional time 
tn incorporate still more advanced 
technology arid lead to demonstration 
t<-?tH. Thi- first option would lead to 
full ?pmce tests. The funds requested 
will support any option. The major 
rcniaininK task is to integrate into a 
working model a number of compo- 
nents, the feasibility of which has 
already been verified on an individual 
basis. The SAM-D program is closely 
related to the Navy's Advanced Sur- 
facc-to-Air Missile .System Program 
and the development of the respective 
subsystems and components is being 
fully coordinated by the two Services. 
The ?fi million of "DOD Satellite 
Communication, Ground" covers the 
Army's portion of the Defense Satel- 
lite Communications programs, which 
were discussed earlier. 
H The $20 million requested for 
"Nike-X Advanced Developments" 
will finance development of those ad- 
vanced components whose lead times 
would not permit their incorporation 
m an early deployment of the system 
This work fills the gap between the 
engineering development effort and 
the development of completely new 
hardware for possible use later. 

The $5 million requested for "Anti- 
tank Weapons" will provide for the 
evaluation of new anti-tank missile 
concepts. Present efforts arc directed 
towawl identifying those system 

characteristics which together seem to 
offer the best chance of achieving an 
effective low cost anti-tank weapon. 
The funds requested for the "Lieht- 

we,ght Howitzer- W ili support the de- 
velopment of a 155mm self-propelled 
^apon. Development of the system is 
tame coordmated within NATO, with 
U* Umted States, France, Ger'njy 
and _ Canada all participating in de . 
"Sning the ammunition. 

"Limited War Uboratoiy/'lop 
fl million is requested in FY 
968 ls the Anny's quick reaction 
^arch and development facility for 
countermsurgency operations. . . . 



The "Therapeutic Developments" 
program was initiated in calendar 
year 19fi5 in response to the drug-- 
resistant falciparum malaria which 
was causing such a serious problem 
for our forces in Southeast Asia. The 
$11 million requested will continue the 
development and testing of new anti- 
malarial drugs. . . . 

The next item, $12 million for 
"Power System Converters," consists 
of four major categories of projects 
directed toward the development of 
engines, transmissions, final drives, 
and related coinponents for combat 
and tactical vehicles. These categories 
are: power conversion for track and 
wheel vehicles; multi-fuel, variable 
compression engines; spark ignition 
engines; and rotary combined cycle 
power systems. 

The funding requested for "Night 
Vision" reflects the increasing im- 
portance of night operations in mod- 
ern warfare. Among the many types 
of equipment now under development 
are starlight scopes, small portable 
radars and special gog-gles. 

The last item on the Army's list, 
"Airborne Surveillance and Target 
Acquisition," is also in large part con- 
cerned with the problems of night 
operations. One of the major efforts in 
this program is aimed at providing a 
better night reconnaissance capability. 



Navy. 

The first item on the Navy's list, 
"V/STOL Development," represents 
the Navy's current participation in 
the tri-Service V/STOL program pre- 
viously described. 

The next item, "Airborne Electronic 
Warfare Equipment," for which funds 
are requested, i s a multi-project 
effort aimed at developing active (jam- 
ming) and passive (signal intercep- 




tion) electronic warfare equipment i 
quired by the Navy, 

The "Advanced Surfaco-to-Air Mi 
sile System (ASMS)" is tho now nut 
mated integrated air defense HVKL 
being developed as a jiossiljlfi ropltir 
mcnt for the Torrier-Turtar-'l'iih 
(3-T) systems. ... AH inontioiidit pre- 
viously, we are seeking in this d<wHo| 
inent to maximize! thn us of the U-eJ 
nology, component;; and Nulwy.4l.vi> 
developed for tho Army's HAM-1) K yi 
tern. As a result, tho ASMS pro],' nil 
must lag behind tho HAM-1) duvrloj 
ment by about one year. With (h 
completion of SAM-U contrm-l dt-Ihii 
Won in this fiscal year, wci will In- iilil 
to decide which elements should h 
used on both HyHtnniw. Thin will ultciv 
us to initiate ASMS contriicl di-fniiLioi 
by lato FY 19fi8. 

The funds rcqucHtad for tlm "Ad- 
vanced Point Dnfmimt Sui-fnct! Minnilt 
System (Advanced P1XSMS)" pronnur 
will support the dnvnlnpmont o(' 11 re- 
placemont for thn lln.sic Point M.-fi'iiM' 
System (modified Sparrow III) now 
being deployed. . . . Thin dcvHuimu-nt 
is being closely coordinultMl wJLh thn 
Army's Advanced Forward Arii Air 
Defense System (APAADK) pru 
to maximize tho common nun nf 
nology and comptmnnt.1. 'J'h twuli n-- 
questod will supporl; conli-iHrt dclhit- 
tion of tho Advanced PDSMS iu ]-'Y 
1068, 



The funds requested for "Advncc4l 
ARM Technoloffy" will Hiipporl ]m*~ 
liminary dovclopniont wurk on ad- 
vanced anti-radiation minnilofi. 

The funds requnntnri for Lho 'T.unil- 
ing Force Support W<mpon (I.KSW)" 
will comploto foaHihillty tustln^ of tbf 
Army Lanco missile adapted to n MINI- 
borne role for support of mnpliiliiniiM 
assault opcrationa. , , . 

Tho "Augmented Thrust 1'ropul- 
won" program, for which fundu nro 




Starlight acone developed for 
night viewing. 



February 1967 



requested in FY 1968, seeks to ad- 
vance propulsion technologies for both 
strategic and tactical missiles in order 
to increase payload and/or range. 

Grouped under "Astronautics" are 
several Navy programs, which I de- 
scribed earlier, relating to satellite 
communications and the potential use 
of navigation satellites by the tactical 
forces. We are requesting a total of 
$6 million for these programs in FY 
1968. 

The next group of items under Navy 
advanced developments are con- 
cerned with antisubmarine warfare 
(ASW) and the deep submergence 
program. The PY 1968 Budget in- 
cludes a total of $356 million for ASW 
RDT&E, $126 million in advanced 
developments. 

The first item, "Advanced Undersea 
Surveillance", includes three ASW 
surveillance projects. 

The next two items involve the 
development of new sonars. The first, 
the "Advanced Submarine Sonar" 
program, consists of three efforts: a 
new submarine sonar, investigations 
in submarine acoustic communications, 
and the testing of a sonar for deep- 
diving auxiliary submarines. The 
"Advanced Surface Sonar" program 
provides for the development of a pas- 
sive/active sonar to detect, localize, 
classify and track submarines (PAD 
LOG). . . . 

The next item, $42 million for the 
"Deep Submergence Program", is one 
of the more important efforts in terms 
of its potential impact on future Navy 
programs. This program consists of 
threo separate but closely interrelated 
projects.; the Deep Submergence Sys- 
tem Project (DSSP), Deep Research 
Vehicles (DRV), and Deep Ocean 
Technology (DOT) 

No further funding is requested for 
the "Combined Gas Turbine Propul- 



sion" program, pending further study 
of the results achieved to date. 

The "Active PLANAR Array Sonar" 
is concerned with the development of 
an experimental integrated ship sonar 
system. . , . 

The "ASW/Ship Integrated Com- 
bat System" consists of two efforts: 
ASW Command and Control, and 

ASW Integrated Combat System 
(ICS). . . . 

The next item, $13 million for "Re- 
actor Propulsion Plants," will consist 
of three concurrent efforts in FY 
1968: the development of a "natural 
circulation" power plant, a small com- 
batant ship reactor, and a more pow- 
erful reactor for use in aircraft car- 
riers. . . . 

The "Advanced Surface Craft" con- 
sists of advanced development projects 
for three different types of surface 
ships, for which a total of $1.0 million 
is requested in FY 1968. The first 
effort, "Surface Effect Craft" (e.g., 
air cushion vehicles and captured air 
bubble ships), is to acquire the tech- 
nology and design capability needed 
to build large high-speed "surface 
effects" ships. ... In the second effort, 
"Hydrofoil Craft", we have built a 
110-ton, 45-knot patrol craft (PCH) 
and have a 300-ton, DO-knot hydrofoil 
auxiliary ship (AGEH) over 90 per- 
cent complete. . . . The third effort, 
"Landing Craft", is concerned with 
the development and test of high speed 
amphibious and assault landing craft 
concepts. . , , 

Air Force, 

The first five items on the Air Force 
list of advanced developments are all 
part of the V/STOL technology pro- 
gram which was discussed earlier. 

Last year, we programmed $3 mil- 
lion for PY 1967 to support prelim- 
inary work on a new "V/STOL 
Assault Transport." We have recon- 




Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle 



Navy Patrol Air Cushion Vehicle 



sidered the requirement for this type 
of aircraft and decided that it is pre- 
mature to settle now on a specific 
design. Therefore, the project has 
been renamed "Light Inter- theater 
Transport" and will be concerned with 
the development of a new aircraft to 
replace eventually the CV-2 (Cari- 
bou) and similar small transports. 
The $2 million requested in FY 1968 
will be used for preliminary study of 
possible designs including V/STOL 
aircraft. 

The FY 1967 funds for "V/STOL 
Aircraft Technology" will, as previ- 
ously described, support contract 
definition of a new V/STOL fighter 
aircraft, a project jointly financed 
witli the Federal Republic of Germany. 

No further funding- is required for 
the next item, "Lightweight Turbo- 
jet," which was principally concerned 
with demonstrating light turbine en- 
gines for V/STOL aircraft. 

The $3 million requested for "Trl- 
Sorvicc V/STOL" development will 
continue operational testing of the 
XC-142A aircraft, as I noted earlier. 

The next item, $20 million for 
"V/STOL Engine Development," will 
provide for the continued work on two 
engines, a direct-lift engine and a 
lift/cruise engine or for forward pro- 
pulsion. . . . 

The next two items, "Ovcrlaml 
Radar" and "AWACS," were men- 
tioned previously in connection with 
their potential application to future 
continental defense against liomber 
attack. . . . The funds requested for 
the "Overland Radnr" program in FY 
1968 will support continued flight test- 
ing of radar techniques for detecting 
and tracking airborne targets over 
land in the presence of severe ground 
clutter and provide for development 
of components for still more advanced 
radars for future generation air early 
warning systems. No additional fund- 
ing is requested for AWACS in FY 
1968 inasmuch as the radar evaluation 
is not yet far enough along to warrant 
going forward With contract defini- 
tion during FY 1968. However, funds 
will be available to support continued 
concept formulation of the "AWACS" 
system and contract definition if prog- 
ress on the program indicates this an 
the logical next step. 

The next item, "Advanced Avionics," 
is concerned with improving the night 
and bad weather attack capabilities 
of tactical aircraft. Work will be con- 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



35 



ctf'd on visual sensors, weapons de- 
livery subsystems, navigation equip- 
ment (doppler, inertia], loran), and an 
integrated nidome- radar for rccon- 
n;ii-.-;uice fighters. . . . 

Tin; funds requested for "Penetra- 
tion Aids for Tactical Fighters" will 
support continued work on devices and 
tt-chnnnies for existing tactical air- 
craft to tMiable them to operate suc- 
nwfully in hostile radar-con trolled 
Kim and surface- to-air missile environ- 
ments. . . . 

The funds requested for "Tactical 
Air-to- Ground Missile (Maverick)" 
would support contract definition and 
initiation of engineering development 
in FV 10fi8 of a new TV-guided air- 
to-surface missile. 

For "Conventional Weapons" de- 
velopment, 5 million is requested in 
FV 1968. These funds will finance a 
number of projects designed to dem- 
onstrate the technical feasibility of 
advanced conventional munitions and 
air delivery systems, various carriage 
and release mechanisms, fuzing tech- 
nology, etc. 

The S8 million requested for "Flight 
Vehicle Subsystems" in FY 1968 will 
support advanced development effort 
in t\vo areas vital to future aircraft 
design. The first project consists of 
collecting and analyzing air turbulence 
data with the objective of improving 
the design of aircraft structures and 
control equipment. The second project 
is concerned with demonstrating the 
ability of current flight control tech- 
nology to reduce the effects of wind 
gusts, aircraft maneuvers, etc., par- 
ticularly in low-level flight, in order 
to increase structural life and crew 
efficiency. 

The $8 million for "Advanced ASM 
Technology" will support a program 
designed to provide a technical foun- 
dation for new and improved tactical 
air-to-surface missile guidance sys- 
tems. The largest single project in- 
volves a new approach to the all- 
weather guidance problem. 

The ?3 million requested for the 
"X-15 Research Aircraft" program 
will complete in FY 1968 all of the 
Defense Department sponsored experi- 
ments now planned. Subsequently, 
NASA will assume full responsibility 
for funding the X-15 test program. 

The next item, "AMSA" will re- 
quire ?26 million in FY 1968 (The 
J11.8 million added by the Congress 
for FY 1967 will be applied to the 



FY 1968 program). In FY 1968, we 
plan to carry on development of an 
engine that could be used in this and 
other advanced aircraft. Additional 
funds will be required for system 
integration of the avionics and to 
allow the airframe contractors to 
accommodate their designs to the en- 
gine development. 

The 8 million requested for "Ad- 
vanced Filaments and Composites" 
will support further work in develop- 
ing new high strength, lightweight 
materials for use in aerospace struc- 
tural and propulsion systems, . . . 

The next item, "Advanced ICBM 
Technology," has now been reoriented 
from a "general" technology effort to 
the specific support of projects most 
likely to aid in the selection of sub- 
systems for the possible new ICBM 
discussed earlier. 

No additional funding in FY 1968 
is requested for the next item, "Stel- 
lar Inertial Guidance." The PACE II, 
a highly precise inertial navigator de- 
veloped with prior year funds, is now 
in its evaluation phase which is ex- 
pected to extend into FY 1968. After 
review of these test results, future 
follow-on efforts will be determined. 

A number of the other Air Force 
advanced development items are space 
projects which I discussed earlier. 

Engineering Development 

This category includes those projects 
being engineered for Service use, but 
which have not yet been approved for 
production and deployment. 
Army. 

A total of $422 million has been 
included in the FY 1968 Budget to 
continue development of the Nike-X 
on a high priority basis, as discussed 
in Strategic Forces section of this 
statement. 

One of the Army's major research 
and development program objectives 
is to have a number of ground force 
weapon systems in various stages of 
development at all times. The next 
item, "Firepower Other Than Mis- 
siles," for which $49 million is re- 
quested, constitutes the bulk of the 
Army's effort in this area and is di- 
vided into three main categories: "In- 
dividual and Supporting Weapons;" 
'Field Artillery Weapons, Munitions 
and Equipment;" and "Nuclear Muni- 
tions." 

The largest project in the first cate- 



gory is the Medium Anti-tank Weapc 
(MAAW), a shoulder-fired 14.5-1 
missile (28 Ibs. including taunchci 
with a shaped charge warhead. . . 
Other projects in the Individual an 
Supporting Weapons category indue 
a series of new ordnance 
devices which are being ei 
response to Southeast Asia rcquiri 
mcnts and a new Vehicle Rapid Fii 
Weapon System, to replace tho Cal. B 
machine gun and tho interim HS-82 
20mm cannon. 

Tho "Field Artillery Weapons, Mv 
nitions, and Equipment" categor 
encompasses tho development o 
sophisticated conventional mu n ition 
and the resolution of anmiunitio 
problems associated with Southcan 
Asia. 

Tho "Nuclear Munitions" cutcR-or; 
covers the development of Army sup 
plied components for nuclear projec 
tiles and atomic demolition rmmitiom 
Present efforts are being dircietcul to 
ward an advanced firing device fo: 
demolition munitionH, and fuxe.i ant 
cases for an improved 155nun artlUorj 
round. 

The "Aircraft Suppressive Pin 
Support System" project, for whirl 
$14 million is requested in "PY If) 08 
is concerned with the dovolopmonl 
and adaptation of weapon nul>Hyntomf 
for Army aircraft. . . . 

"Other Airmobility Project*!," feu 
which $6 million is requested, include 
work on aircraft engines, liftlitweffihl 
aircraft armor and aerial delivery 
equipment. 

Tho next item, $9 million for "Sur- 
face Mobility," comprises three ef- 
forts: "Wheeled Vehicles," "Tracked 
Special Vehicles" and "Marine Crnft." 
The major project in the flrat cute- 
gory will he the initiation of (mfrfnenv- 
ing development for the now lU-lon 
XM-706 truck as an ultimate replace- 
ment for the current M-37 truck in 
rear areas. The major project in tho 
second category will be a now armored 
reconnaissance vehicle capable of op- 
erations in adverse terrain and the 
"Mechanized Infantry Combat Ve- 
hicle-70," a replacement for the cur- 
rent personnel carrier. The third 
category includes work on shallow 
draft boats, a beach discharge lighter, 
etc, 

The $14 million for "Combat Sur- 
veillance and Target Acquisition" pro- 
vides for a number of projects. Tho 
largest is the TACFIRE system in 



February 1967 



which automatic data processing and 
display techniques will be used to 
improve the accuracy, response time 
and overall effectiveness of field ar- 
tillery firepower. Contract definition 
will begin this year, with initiation 
of engineering development scheduled 
to take place next fall. Other projects 
include: improved sensors for the de- 
tection and location of enemy person- 
nelj vehicles and weapons on the 
battlefield; airborne sensors for visual 
target location ; a forward-looking 
infrared set for helicopters; image 
interpretation and photo processing 
equipment, etc. 

The $21 million for "Communica- 
tions and Electronics" provides for a 
broad based program to improve the 
Army's communication, avionics and 
electronic warfare equipment. . . . 

Navy. 

The first item on the Navy's list 
of engineering developments is the 
"Medium Range Air-to-Surface Mis- 
sile (Condor)", . . . 

The funds requested for the "Ad- 
vanced Sparrow" will substantially 
complete this development. 

The next item, "Three-T Systems 
Improvements," consists of the en- 
gineering work necessary to support 
the updating of the three T missiles 
(Tartar, Terrier, Talos) through the 
development of replacement compo- 
nents designed to increase the per- 
formance of these systems. The $7 
million requested for FY 1968 will 
support development of improved 
components for the Talos system's 
radar. 

The $8 million requested for "Un- 
guided/Con volitional Air Launched 
Weapons" will support engineering 
development of a number of munitions 
projects: Snakeye II, a second gen- 
eration retarded bomb ; Fireye, an 
improved fire bomb using new napalm 
mixes and improved igniters; a hyper- 
velocity tactical aerial rocket ; an 
improved 20mm general purpose pro- 
jectile, etc. 

The next item for which we aro re- 
questing funds in FY 1968, "Multi- 
Mission Tactical Fighter (VFAX)," 
is for concept formulation of an ad- 
vanced fighter aircraft. . . . Since both 
the Navy and the Air Force may re- 
quire such a fighter, we are examining 
the feasibility of a joint development 
program. Both Services would use a 
power plant employing the lift/cruise 
engine technology. 



The next five items on the list are 
all related to undersea warfare 
(USW), and total $76 million for FY 
1968. 

The largest single dollar item in 
FY 1968 will be the "ASW Aircraft 
Development (VSX)". ... The fund- 
ing level proposed will support 
continued concept formulation and de- 
velopment of long lead time compo- 
nents of this system in FY 1908. 

The next item, the "MK-48 Tor- 
pedo," is designed for use by both sub- 
marines and surface ships. . . . The 
MK-48 is already under contract, 

The funds requested for the "Direc- 
tional Jezebel" will complete tho 
development funding of a sonobuoy 
capable of providing the bearing of a 
target directly to ASW aircraft. 

The "Other Undersea Warfare 
Projects" for which $19 million is re- 
quested, include, for example, a ship- 
board periscope detection radar, the 
development of antenna systems inte- 
grated into the submarine's super- 
structure, etc. 

The "Carrier Based Airborne Tac- 
tical Control System (CBATCS)" is 
designed to provide a major per- 
formance improvement over the pres- 
ent system now carried by the 
E~2A. . . . 

The $1 4 million requested for 
"Marine Corps Developments", will 
support a number of projects on elec- 
tronic systems, weapons and vehicles 
for the Marine Corps. Included in this 
program are the Marine Corps' por- 
tion of joint-service research projects 
such as the medium and heavy assault 
anti-tank weapons (MAAW and 
TOW), which were mentioned earlier 
in connection with the Army's re- 
search and development program. An- 
other project is the development of a 
new landing force assault amphibian 
vehicle, with equally good heavy surf 
capabilities but better land per- 
formance than present vehicles. In the 
area of electronics, the overall objec- 
tive is more reliable and lighter-weight 
equipment, e.g., a new lightwelg-ht 
battlefield mortar locator being de- 
veloped jointly with the Army. Other 
projects include an automated system 
for integrating air support activities 
into the Marine Corps' tactical data 
system; improved nuclear, biological 
and chemical hazard detection equip- 
ment; and a semi-automatic electronic 
switching facility for use by tactical 
units in Southeast Asia-type environ- 



ments all of which are being de- 
veloped jointly with one or more other 
Services. 

Air Force. 

Many of the Air Force's engineer- 
ing developments have already been 
discussed in connection with other 
programs. 

The XB-70 test program has been 
continued following the accident last 
Juno, using the one remaining air- 
craft. . . . We believe that all of the 
truly important objectives of this test 
program can ho accomplished with 
presently available funds and no 
further financing is requested for FY 
1068. 

Development funding for the next 
item, the "J-58 Engine," was com- 
pleted in the FY 1907 Budget. 

The $20 million shown for the next 
item, "Interceptor/Fire Control Sys- 
tem/Missile," will support redesign 
and engineering work on tho AWG-9 
Fire Control System and the AIM-47 
Folding Fin Missile, provide funds for 
the reconfiguration of the YF-12 test 
aircraft for use as a test hod for these 
systems, and continue studies on the 
possible nse of tho P-lll or F-12 
airfranics as a basis for the next gen- 
eration of interceptor aircraft. (The 
fire control system nnd missile system 
work would be applicable to either.) 

The next item, "F-4 Improvements," 
reflects the cost of developing the 
internal 20mm nose gun for the F-4E. 
This gun is currently undergoing test- 
ing and no additional funds aro re- 
quested for FY 1908. 

The $33 million requested for 
"MARK II Avionics" will substan- 
tially complete tho funding of this 
follow-on to the F-lllA's current avi- 
onics suit. ... A modified version of 
the MARK II will be incorporated in 
the FB-111. 

The funds requested for the "Ad- 
vanced Tactical Fighter (PX)," will 
support continued concept formulation 
studies on a new air superiority air- 
craft for possible introduction into 
the force in the mid-1970's. . . . 

We are. requesting funds for "Ad- 
vanced Ballistic Missile Reentry Sys- 
tems," which comprises a wide variety 
of efforts to provide new reentry ve- 
hicle technology for our strategic 
missiles and to improve our defense 
penetration techniques. 

The $8 million requested for "Nike 
Targets" will provide launch site sup- 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



37 



p-irt at Vnmlpnberff AFB for ABM 
t;irgi-t.; launched into the Kwajalein 
:in .% mill for outrun Air Force niodi- 
fmiti-'jn ilf;\vlo|mic-rit work on the tar- 

Th" funds roquestcd for the next 
ivtr, "Advanced ICRM," would, as 
n-.'Titirmt'ii in the discussion of our 
.Stnit'.-'i-'ic Forces, permit initiation of 
iT.fitnict ik-finition for a new strategic 
infill! ?y.st in FY 1968, if that 
[.'ivtvoij to lie desirable. . . . 

Tlhi funds requested for the "Ad- 
vor.-' 1 Wc-nthcr Aerial Delivery Sys- 
tem" will further develop components 
t{f':-ipnfi(i to give airlift aircraft the 
capability to navigate to, and air drop 
pwumf-1 anil materiel at, specific 
locations in had weather or at night 
without pxternal ground based as- 

Thfl rr-maining engineering develop- 
ment iU'ms on the Air Force list have 
all lir-en discussed in connection with 
the Department's space-related proj- 
ect?. 

Management and Support 

Army. 

The FY 1968 Budget includes $90 
million for the support of the White 
Sands Missile Range. Tost programs 
are conducted at this range for all the 
Services and NASA. Among the spe- 
cific projects are the Air Force's Ad- 
vanced Ballistic Reentry System 
(ABRES), the Navy's new Anti- 
Radiation Missile (based on the 
Standard SAM Missile), the Army's 
Lance, as well as NASA's Aerohee 
project. A major effort at this facility 
is the range instrumentation program, 
now in its third year, which will re- 
fine the data collected on the range, 
improve the data reduction capa- 



bility, and augment the range commu- 
nication system. 

We are also requesting 44 million 
for the Kwajalein Test Site, operated 
by the Army. . . . 

The $229 million requested for Gen- 
eral Support covers the costs of all 
Army research and development in- 
stallations and activities other than 
White Sands and Kwajalein. . . . 

Xavy. 

The Pacific Missile Range, for which 
$68 million is requested in FY 1968, 
is responsible for range scheduling-, 
communications, weather and meteoro- 
logical services, and data reduction in 
support of assigned missile and space 
launch operations in the Pacific. . . . 

The Atlantic Undersea Test Evalua- 
tion Center (AUTEC), located in a 
deep-sea canyon off the Bahamas, will 
consist of three separate test ranges 
for weapons, sonars and acoustic sys- 
tems. The weapons range became 
operational October 1966; the acoustic 
and sonar ranges are scheduled for 
completion during FY 1967 and FY 
1970 respectively. For AUTEC, $18 
million is requested in FY 1968. 

General Support for other Navy 
research and development laboratories 
and test facilities not chargeable to 
specific programs will require $310 
million in FY 1968. 

Air Force. 

For the Eastern Test Range, $219 
million is requested in FY 1968, 
approximately $13 million less than 
for the current fiscal year. , . . Future 
test activities will involve greater 
accuracies, larger payloads, and more 
complex reentry vehicles as well as 
more sophisticated missions. To meet 
these more demanding requirements, 
the funds included in the FY 1968 
request will provide a capability for 
collecting improved trajectory evalua- 



tion data on new frequencies, Tho 
program will also provide for the op- 
eration of eight specially instrumented 
C-135 aircraft to support the activi- 
ties associated with the Apollo pro- 
grams. 

About $89 million is requested for 
FY 1968 to support tho Air Force 
Western Test Range which consists 
of a complex of range-instrumentation 
networks supporting Air Force, Niwy 
and NASA launches from Vnnden- 
berg- AFH, Point Arguello and Point 
MugfU, The program also provides for 
the operation of five Apollo .support 
ships. 

General Support, including "T>o- 
velopment Support," will require $fi57 
million in FY 1968. This item carries 
the major support of tho Air Force 
Systems Command and its nation-wido 
complex of research, development nnd 
test installations, tho construction of 
additional research and development 
facilities, and other support pro pr ram Ft. 
It includes about $85 million for tho 
cost of services provided under eon- 
tract by organizations such AB RAND, 
Aerospace Corporation, and tho Lin- 
coln Laboratory. 

Emergency Fund 

For tho Department o Dofrinm 
Emergency Fund, wo are recninatJng 
the appropriation of $125 million uml 
transfer authority of $150 million, the 
same as the amounts provided for 
FY 1967. 

Financial Summary 

Tho Research and Davclopnwii t 
Program, including tho develop men 1, 
of systems approved for deployment, 
will require about $8.0 billion in New J 
Obligational Authority for FY 1008, 
A comparison with prior yoara Js 
shown below: 



R&D except systems approved 
for deployment 

R&D systems approved for de- 
ployment 

Total R&D 

Less: Support from other ap- 
propriations 

Total RDT&E (TOA) 

1,688: Financing Adjustment 

lotalRDT&E (NOA) 



1962 
Act. 
4.4 

2.6 

6.9 
-.6 

6.3 

-.9 

6.4 



1963 
Act. 
5.2 

2.5 

7,7 
-.6 

7.1 
-.1 
7.0 



(Billions of Dollars) 
1964 1965 1966 

Act. Act. Act. 

6.1 



5.4 
2.8 

7.7 
-.6 

7,1 
-i 

7.0 



1.9 

7.0 
-.6 

6.5 
6.5 



5.S 
2.2 

7.5 
-.6 

6.9 
-.2 
6.7 



1967 


1968 


Est. 


Proposed 


6.4 


5.8 


2.3 


2.4 


7.7 


8.2 


-.5 


-.7 


7.2 


7.5 





_g 


7.2 

'" i 


Y.3 

1 1 



February 1967 




In last year's reorganization of the 
Five-Year Defense Program structure, 
we established four new major pro- 
grama which, for purposes of this 
presentation, have been grouped to- 
gether in this section, 

Specialized Activities 

Specialized Activities comprise those 
elements of the Defense Program 
which are directly related to the mis- 
sions of the combat forces in the 
Strategic, General Purpose and Air- 
Hft/Sealift Forces Programs, but 
which for purposes of management 
are more logically handled within the 
context of homogeneous functional 
groupings of similar or complemen- 
tary activities. 

National Military Command System. 

The National Military Command 
System (NMCS) is the primary sub- 
system of the World-wide Military 
Command and Control System. , . . 

The NMCS comprises the National 
Military Command Center (NMCC) 
at the Pentagon, the Alternate Na- 
tional Military Command Center 
(ANMCC), the National Emergency 
Command Post Afloat (NECPA), the 
National Emergency Airborne Com- 
mand Post (NEACP), and the vari- 
ous communications networks linking 
these command facilities, the unified 
and specified commands and Service 
headquarters. 

As part of our continuing effort to 
improve the NMCS, we have ex- 
panded the automatic data processing 
capability at the NMCC to handle 
the increased workload related to 
Southeast Asia operations and to pro- 
vide support for the newly created 
Strategic Mobility staff in the Office 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The FY 
1968 Budget request provides funds 
for the further improvement of the 
data processing system, the informa- 
tion displays, and the related facilities 
and equipment. . . . 

Communications. 

The communications category in- 
cludes both the Defense Communica- 
tions System (DCS) and certain non- 
DOS communications operated by the 
Military departments, . . . 

Other Specialized Activities. 

The Specialized Activities pro- 
gram also includes the overseas ad- 
ministration and grant aid portions 
of the Military Assistance Program, 
and such other mission-related activi- 
ties as weather service, oceanography, 
aerospace rescue and recovery, etc. 



Because the Military Assistance Pro- 
gram is not included in the legisla- 
tion being considered at this time, only 
the last category of activities will be 
discussed here. 

Weather Service. The Air Force 
and Naval Weather Services collect, 
analyze, predict and disseminate, glo- 
bally, meteorological and geophysical 
information for the support of mili- 
tary operations, NASA's space pro- 
gram (including manned space vehicle 
reentries and recoveries), research 
and development missile test firing's, 
and they conduct hurricane and 
typhoon tracking and forecasting, and 
collect nuclear debris air samples for 
the AEC in connection with the test 
ban treaty safeguards, . . . 

Oceanography. This categoiy com- 
prises the activities of the Navy's 
Oceanographic Office, Defense support, 
of the National Oceanographic Data 
Center and their related research air- 
craft and survey ships. . . . During- the 
coining fiscal year, the Navy will sig- 
nificantly expand its oceanographic 
effort. For example, in the "broad 
ocean survey" program the range of 
data collected will he greatly in- 
creased. 

At the end of FY 1966, nine ocean- 
ographic research and survey ships 
(three manned by Navy crews and six 
operated by MSTS) and two environ- 
mental production research airci-aft 
were employed in the program. Seven 
of these are converted World War II 
ships but the other two are new ocean- 
ographic survey ships (AGS's) which 
entered the force during- FY 196G. In 
FY 1967 two more new ships ocean- 
ographic research vessels (AGOR's) 
will be commissioned, increasing: the 
force to 11 ships and making: possible 
an expansion of the program. The 
AGS funded in FY 1967 should enter 
service in FY 1969. No new ships are 
being requested in FY 1968 for this 
"operational" progi'am, although two 
oceanographic research ships are in- 
cluded in the budget for the Research 
and Development program with which 
this survey effort is closely integrated. 

Air Rescue and Recovery. The air 
rescue and recovery program com- 
prises the Air Force Aerospace Rescue 
and Recovery Service (ARRS), cer T 
tain specialized forces of the Navy, 
and certain assigned forces of the 
Army and Marine Corps. . . . 

... To provide increased air crew 
recovery capability in Southeast Asia, 
additional ARRS helicopters will be 
procured in FY 1967 and FY 1968. 



Traffic Control, Approach and 
Landing System. The Traffic Control, 
Approach and Landing System (TRA- 
C'ALS) element encompasses those 
"common system" air traffic control 
facilities not provided by the Federal 
Aviation Agency. . . . 

There are two prominent current 
programs. The first, the AIMS Pro- 
gram, is concerned with the addition 
of the Air Traffic Control Radar Bea- 
con System, which provides positive 
identification and location of aircraft 
to all air traffic control radar facili- 
ties. The second is concerned with the 
replacement of current VHF and 
UHF air-ground-air communications 
systems in order to meet the more 
stringent requirement of 60 kilocycle 
spacing between channels in accord- 
ance with our agreements with other 
members of the International Civil 
Aviation Organization. 

Nuclear Weapons Operations. This 
element covers the activities of the 
Defense Atomic Support Agoncy 
(DASA) which provides specialized 
staff assistance to the Secretary of 
Defense and the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff; operational, logistical and train- 
ing- support for the Military Services; 
liaison with the Atomic Energy Com- 
mission on weapons development and 
the planning and conduct of weapons 
effects tests; and management for thn 
national atomic weapons stockpile. 
The nuclear weapons effects tests, 
themselves, as well as nuclear weap- 
ons research, are included in the Re- 
search and Development program and 
were discussed earlier. DASA's con- 
struction program for FY 1968 in- 
cludes further shoreline protection 
work at Johnston Island. 

Logistic Support 

Logistic support comprises a wide 
variety of activities which cannot be 
readily allocated to other major pro- 
grams or program elements. Included 
under this heading are the costs of 
moving passengers and carriers, the 
Military Sea Transportation Service, 
the Military Airlift Command and 
contract airlift; purchasing;, storing 
and inspecting materiel; those parts 
of the industrial preparedness pro- 
gram (e.g., the provision of new in- 
dustrial facilities and the maintenance 
of reserve facilities and equipment) 
not identified with elements of other 
major programs; and the major over- 
haul and rebuild activities for items 
which are returned to a common stock 
and cannot, therefore, be related di- 
rectly to specific military forces or 
weapon systems. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



39 



Personnel Support 

Thfi Personnel Support Program 
comprises the training, medical and 
other activities associated with per- 
rfirinol, except for thoso portions of 
such activities which are integral ele- 
ments of another program. . . . 

Training. 

Tho Defense Department's training 
establishment constitutes a vast and 
varied system, including at least 83 
major military installations, designed 
to meet not only peacetime needs for 
militarily trained manpower, but also 
to provide the potential for rapidly 
expanding this force in periods of 
mobilization. Our total capital invest- 
ment in these facilities exceeds $4.8 
billion and annual operating costs run 
over $1.5 billion. On the average, 
nearly one-fifth of the active force is 
assigned to these centers at all times, 
either as part of the permanent train- 
ing staff or as trainees. The rising 
cost of training in the FY 1966-68 
period directly reflects the rapid 
buildup in the size of the military 
establishment. 

Recruit Training. Recruit training 
(i.e., "basic" or "boot camp" train- 
ing) is given every new enlisted serv- 
iceman to facilitate the transition 
from civilian life, to inculcate neces- 
sary standards of conduct and disci- 
pline, to provide initial weapons 
training, to ensure adequate physical 
conditioning and to foster motivation 
and Service esprit. In total, recruit 
training loads are expected to decline 
slightly in FY 1968, following the 
rapid rise in FY 1966-67. We now 
estimate that about 920,000 men will 
enter basic training next year com- 
pared to about 995,000 now estimated 
for FY 1967. . . . 

The FY 1908 request includes funds 
for two major expansions of basic 
training facilities. Tho Air Force 
Plans to add 5,400 additional barracks 
spaces at its Lackland Military Train- 
ing Center in Texas and about $17 
million will be needed for this nur- 
pose in FY 1968. Construction of a 
third Navy Recruit Training Center 

Tvn - S f , the former Orl ando 
A*B m Florida (which was previ- 
ously transferred to the Navy for use 
as a training devices center in 1964) 
was initially funded in the FY 1967 
Budget and $21 million more is re- 
quested in FY 1968. 

Technical Training. The Military 
Services tram enlisted personnel for 

40 



about 1,600 separately identifiable oc- 
cupational specialties. . . . 

Professional Training. Professional 
training encompasses primarily post- 
graduate level education in military 
and civilian schools, including medi- 
cal training. 

Among the military schools are the 
several Service command and staff 
colleges, the Service war colleges and 
the joint Service colleges. Each year, 
over 4,000 students, including foreign 
military officers and U, S, Government 
civilians, are educated at these insti- 
tutions. . . . 

Flight Training. Flight training ia 
the most expensive type of instruction 
given by the Defense Department, in 
large part because of the very heavy 
investments required in trainer air- 
craft and facilities. Three factors 
have now combined to compound our 
flight training problem; the large 
numbers of World War II-trained pil- 
ots who are now coming to the close 
of their flying careers; the rotation 
requirements of the Vietnam conflict; 
and the rapidly increasing size of the 
Army's aviation program, To meet 
these increased pilot requirements, 
the FY 1968 Budget includes funds to 
increase the number of pilots being 
trained by the Services to an annual 
rate of approximately 13,500. Actual 
pilot production will not reach the 
higher authorized levels in FY 1968, 
however, since it takes up to 18 
months to train a pilot. , . . 

In the Air Force, the planned an- 
nual output of pilots has heen in- 
creased to 3,492 compared with 2,966 
in FY 1967 (including jet pilots 
trained for the Military Assistance 
Program). To help handle this in- 
creased training load, a ninth under- 
graduate pilot training operation will 
bo opened at Randolph AFB, 

The new planned Navy annual pilot 
production rate is about 2,625 pilots 
(including 100 for the Military As- 
sistance Program and U. S. Coast 
Guard), compared with about 2,200 
previously in FY 1967. Of the 2,426 
earmarked for the Navy and Marine 
Corps, about 946 will be trained for 
jet aircraft, 830 for propeller aircraft 
and 650 for helicopters. 

The Army's planned pilot produc- 
tion has been increased to 7,500 pilots 
per year (including 180 for the Mili- 
tary Assistance Program), compared 

w:h about 3,700 in the original FY 
1967 Budget. About 90 percent of the 
new Army pilots will be trained for 
helicopters, up from about 60 percent 
FY 1966. The Army will oornmTs- 



sion about 75 percent of its new pilot 
as warrant officers since their posl 
tions do not involve command n;npon 
sibilities. To help hand In the large 
training loads in FY 19G8, Hunte 
AFB in Georgia (which wu-s Hchcd 
uled to close in July 1907) hna beei 
assigned to the Army and the jircKon 
flight training program at Fort Wol 
tors will be expanded, 

To support the larger flight train 
ing programs, the revised FY 100' 
Budget and PY 1968 Hmljrrt re 
quests provide 682 trnimr aircrnf 
for tlie Army, 2G9 for the Navy, ant 
4C8 for the Air Force. 

Service Academies. AH you fcnow 
wo have been incrnsing tint lovnl t>J 
enrollment at tho Military Acnilcin) 
over the past few yonra townnl i\t\ 
ultimate goal of over 4,000, In P\ 
1908, enrollment will a vertigo aboul 
3,300 cadets. To help nccomniodnt* 
the larger student body, tho FY 1&08 
Budget includes funds for a now OS- 
classroom academic building nt West 
Point and for personnel facilition and 
utilities. 

Enrollment at tho Naval .Acudomy 
(currently tho lar^oHt of tint tliroo 
Service academies) in FY 1BOH will 
remain constant at about 4,100, Con- 
struction funds, totaling $U million, 
arc requested for tho inoderiii/.ution 
of an academic building at AimufioU*, 
and for additional pornoimnl facilities, 
Tho Air Force Academy, wli Ich 
has also beon gradually Imildinfr u|t 
tho size of its student body to nn ulti- 
mate level of 4,000, will reach a totnl 
of 3,100 cadets in FY 1008. In luMJ- 
tlon, a Cadet Pilot Indoctrination Pro- 
gram, designed to cncouragi* nil 
physically qualified cudolH to connUlcr 
flight training upon jrmduiilion, will 
bo instituted. . . . About $n million is 
included in tho FY 1008 Huclwt for 
construction of medical, training- ami 
other facilities at the Air Forco Aewl- 
emy in PY 1968. 

Medical Services. 

Medical Services include those costs 
for medical and dental services not 
directly associated with military units 
in our other major programs, the 
costs of medical care for military de- 
pendents at non-military facilities, 
the costs of providing- veterinary Hflrv- 
ices, and the cost of operating- various 
health service activities such EIA the 
Armed Forces Institute of Path- 
ology. . . . 

The FY 1968 construction program 
for medical facilities totals $101 mil- ' 
lionthe largest over. It includes 27 
new hospitals or additions to existing 
hospitals, together with a largo num- 
ber of other medical facilities, 
******* 



February 1967 



Department of Defense 
BUDGET SUMMARY 

(Millions of Dollars) 



TV 1SC7 



FY 19G6 



Basic 



Supple- 
men tnls 



Total 



FY 1DG8 



Total Obligation Authority: 

Military Personnel 

Operation & Maintenance 

Subtotal Operating 

Procurement 

Research, Devel., Test & Eval. ~ 

Military Construction 

Family Housing 

Civil Defense 

Special Foreign Currency Prog. 

Total Military Functions 

Military Assistance 



17,047 

15,378 

32,426 

22,595 

6,946 

2,545 

682 

105 



18,731 

16,712 

34,443 

18,080 

7,042 

533 

519 

102 

7 



1,704 

3,562 

6,206 

G.30G 

13& 

624 

11 



20,485 

19,274 

3D.709 

24,386 

7,177 

1,158 

530 

102 

7 



22,025 

19,154 

41,179 

24,013 

7,523 

2,144 

823 

111 

10 



65,299 

1,163 



60,727 
888 



12,342 



73.06& 

888 



75,808 
G21 



Total TOA 

Less financing adjustments 

Plus NOA for Revolving Funds 

New Obligation Authority 

Expenditures 



66,462 
-2,929 



61,614 
-1,676 



12,342 
63C 



73,950 
~l,67fi 

585 



76,429 

-1,400 

241 



63,533 



50,939 



12,877 



72,81'C 



75,270 



55,377 



58,300 



9,650 



67,950 



73,100 



QASDf Comptroller) Jnnunry 24, 1007 



TABLE 2 



Department of Defense 
SUMMARY OF THE FY 1967 SUPPLEMENTALS 



(MIllloiiB of 



Southeast Asia 

Military Personnel 

Operations and Maintenance 

Subtotal Operating 

Procurement : 

Ammunition 677 

Aircraft : 

Combat attrition 1,525 

Training and other 439 

Spares 996 

Other aircraft equipment 775 

Total Aircraft 3,715 

Vehicles 506 

Electronics and communications 581 

All other procurement 840 

Total change in procurement program 6,317 

Financing adjustments 11 

NOA for Procurement 

Research and development for limited war 

Construction for Southeast Asia 

Increase in Stock Funds 

Subtotal SEA 

Other 

Pay increase already voted, military 340 

civilian 179 

Medicare and Homeowners Assistance, already voted 82 

Subtotal amounts already voted 

Total New Obligational Authority requested 



1,364 
3,311 

4,675 



0,806 
If) 5 
624 
536 

12,276 



001 

12,877 



OASD<Comptrollor) Jnnun.ry 24, 1807 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



41 



TABLE 3 



Department of Defense 

FINANCIAL SUMMARY 

(Billions of Dollars) 















1D07 






1602 1062 
19GI Orig- Final 
inal 


1 903 


1004 


1QGB 


10G6 


Enncted 
or SEA Total 
nuth." Suppl. 


IQflS 




11.2 


10.5 


9.3 


7.1 


6.8 


6.7 .4 7.1 


8 1 




18.0 


17.9 


18.0 


19.1 


29.5 


26,8 7.6 84.3 


34 4 




3.0 


3.7 


3.9 


4.2 


4.7 


4.7 .2 4.9 


5 3 


Airlift and Sealift Forces 


1.1 


1.1 


1.2 


1.4 


1.7 


11 .4 15 


I (1 




1.8 


1.7 


1.9 


2.0 


23 


24 2 2 fi 




Research and Development 


4.4 


5.2 


5.4 


5.1 


5.3 


53 1 54 






3.8 


3.7 


3.8 


4.0 


6 3 








4.8 


6.0 


6 8 


5 7 


72 








1 2 


1 3 


1 3 


1 K 








Military Assistance Program 


1.8 


1.6 


1.2 


1 3 


1 2 






















Gross Total Oblig. Authority 


61.1 


51.7 


61 5 


51 4 


fifi fi 






Less Unfunded Retirement Pay 


.5 


-.3 


Q 


-.2 


.1 


-.2 .1 -.8 


-.2 


Net Total Oblig. Authority 


46,1 44 9 EO 6 


61 3 












Working Capital 


.424 














Other Financing Adjustments 


-2.6 -1.0 .8 


2 




H 














~ 










New Obligational Authority 


43.1 43.7 49 4 


HI 




























Total Expenditures 


44 7 44 7 48 9 














Expenditures as % of GNP 












G8.9 9.1 68. 


73.1 














8.0 


9,0 


TOA by Department and Agency 
Army 
















Civil Defense 








12.7 


19.1 


18.5 5.1 23,6 


24,7 


Navy _ 










.1 


.1 .1 


.1 


Air Force 




15.1 


14.9 


15.3 


20.0 


18.6 3.5 22.0 


22.4 


Defense Agencies 




21.0 


20.6 


20.1 


24.3 


22.6 3.0 2G.G 


26.0 


Defense Family Housing 11 






.1 


.1 


1.3 


1.4 .1 1.6 


2.0 


Military Assistance Program 








.7 


.7 


.6 ___ .f> 


.8 








.2 


1,8 


1.2 


.9 ___ .9 


.0 


Gross Total Oblig. Authority 
Memo: Increase in pay included above: 
Military 


61.1 


61.7 


51.5 


51.4 


*66.6 


62.4 11.8 74.2 


7G.6 


Civilian _ 





.1 


1.1 


1.6 


2.4 


3.4 ___ HA 


3.fl 


Increased Payments to Retired 
"~~~innel 




.2 


.3 


.6 


;7 


1.0 ___ 1.0 


1.1 






.2 


.4 


, .6 


.8 


1.0 _ 1.0 


1.2 


- 


t l 
46.1 47.3 47.8 


.5 
48.9 


1.8 
G6.1 


2.8 
59.6 


4.0 
66.6 


6.4 ___ 6.4 
71.4 __ 71.4 


C.O 
74 J 



P - L - 



ted to the 



January 24, 1967 



February 1967 





























t? 


























TT 


d 






u 

a 


CT^ o o 

O r " 1 "H 
Ol CTl O 


CO t- 
01 T-l 

00 (-. 


01 Q (M 0) l.~ 

M 05 O O 00 CO 
CO (O Ol (O IO rH O3 



O 

O3 00 


o 
o 


Ol 01 t- IM O 
I- Ol I:- CO O 


B o 


o 
o 


0) L- 
^1 (D 
O Ol 


R 

a 






t" 


oo" oi 

i 


rH O) 

(M TH 


r-l 1- rH 
*]' Ol 


of 


CO 


Ol Ol Ol 


?o w 
M" 

L- 


03" 


JH TH 
t-i _ 

1? 


P 

D 

fe 




(0 






















o C' 


M 




4 


1 - 

a 


10 ira o 
to co o 
M; oi oo 


O O 
O O 
0^ W 


O IO O O O t.- Ol tD 
O (J5 1 - 0) rH 

co_ M; i - <o 10 i- 


O 
IO O 
Ol O 


o 

IO 

en 


00 00 -rf 
O 1- O) 


(f i- 

- 01 
-i 


O 
-0 
31 O 


o 

IO 


Q 3 
vT; h o 




S 


f" 


rH 


o K: 


oo" oo" to' .H" 


CO * 


i.-" 


H (O Ol" -df 




- 


t/J rt o 




P< 


u 






tD 


TO 


01 


H Ol 




.. 


to 


tj ^>* 


irT 




M 






















O 


H 






a 


1- IO r- 

o 10 ai 


CO 

IO T-l 

i- i.~ 


O3 Ol Ol -v|i 1- CD r-l 

ID 03 10 co -]' (/) oo 

T 03 Ol 03 to rM 


O) CO 

o to 

*!' Ol 


r: 


Ol to TH IO to 
O3 Ol CO CO 00 


0) W 
O (D 


l- 




I 






1" 


tf t~r 


(D '|i 

v-l -J 


O3 T- 




10" 


if (O~ O O3 


"H" ^ 


10" 




J 


3 










IO 


IO 


H 


H 01 




IO 


IO 




1 


Q 

Z 

in 


o 


it 




IO O O 
IO IO Ol 

O Ol O 

01 oi 
1-1 


ID -.-I' 
01 IO 
O r-l 

oi oi 

Ol .H 

i H 


Ol 1- O3 CO >! r- (D T-I 
1 r-l 1- IM r-l r- v-1 MI 
r-l^ Ol^ Ol ^( (fj T-I (^j 

iH of 1 -" Ol" 

rh oi 


w to 

I- 01 

to 10 


o 

L- 


O3 if T-H I"- T- 

<N CO Ol <D rH 

03" .-~ *)? n-" 

Ol Ol Ol 


tf to 
L- 01 
ID IO 
-f 


o 

I- 

10" 


a 

jf 

;; 1 


a. 


11 


















a 




U 


n 


ft 
Q 


r] 
-/I 


s 


'D ID -"I' 
03 00 .-! 
<O Oi (X"; 


10 -J' 

(.? l- 
-i; o; 


m to r-t i- w ,- [-, , 

00 (XI O> T-I O OT 
) ^ (X.) r- O IO r- IO 


>(' 01 

03 CJQ 

O 1 - 


<D 
C 


ai 01 co 01 TH 

00 O to I- O 
Ol^ 1 - Ol Ol rH 


if Ol 
W 00 


T-1 

00 


1, 

"o S 

S I 


Z 


'1 1 

1 


t" 


1.-" T-i' 


O Ol 
Ol TH 


Ol" of I- r-! 1 
CO Ol 


t% 


1 -* 


of d' tp co" 
Ol Ol Ol 


Ol" 


M" 


lit " 




,o 






















t} 




V," 


O 






















i * 


*> 

j 


o 



1 


ui 

0' 


ira co o 

IO r-l O 

to no to_ 

*!' .H" 


co 01 

1 - CO 
CO 

1 - id' 
rt t-1 


Ol CO tD (O to 1- 
IH i-l '!' 10 tD O 
' ^ O 1 - IO (O r-l 

e-f o to" of 

03 Ol 


CO 

T-< 01 

10 

M" r-r 


^3 
IO 

X) 


01 to 10 o r- 

Ol 00 IO 1 - O 
\P -f <O L- r-l 


03 
rH 01 
10 O 


CO 

n 


1 i 


1- 

rH r 


Ol 03 
H Ol 


01 r-l 

(O 


03 

to 


D 
























'j in 


* 8 <jj 




111 

Oi 


ira a o 

IO 10 Ol 

o r en o 


IO |i 
Ol IO 

O r-l 


Ol CO 03 .) CO r-l tD 
- c- Cl 4 01 r-l rH 

T-l O IO .H ) rH 


00 TH 

01 

CO ID 


Oi 


CO O i~! t- r- 
TH Ol 00 tO tH 
O> (O Ol I- T-I 


00 T- 

01 

JO to 


Ol 
Ol 


\h 

.0 


i 


i i 3 


d 


E 


o of 


<M O> 
IM .H 

M 1 


T- *!' 1 - O1 ' 

M ( Ol ' 


o" 


S 


O3 H" lo" x|*' 
(M Ol Ol 


o" 


o" 


1 S 


: 


W "=- *" P 


t-< 


















1 




a J 




* fc *** H 


I"" 1 






















T ! 




^ i s 


18 


* 


*O 10 t|i 

1 OT (X1 K 


O -f 
CO ! 

" ''I 


O> (O 1- 50 O Ol 1- | 
O CO I- IO O3 O i 
~, W r-l r-f IO rl 


Ol (X) 
M 
to to 


o 


O IO CO O> Ol 
Ol <U O 1- O 
O) CO 00 00 T-I 


Jl CO 
CD 00 


(O 
IO 




s 










O Ol 


Jl H r 1 *' r-T ' 
















^ 




c 59 I- 


'if 


fc; 


*"' (M r-i 


fM i 


.- 


;'- 


Ol TH ij CO 
01 01 Ol 


O5 


05 


11 ra fj 
o-l; 


























" C 


,?[ 


Z 


I 

S 


fci 


Ol CO Ol 

*> (/> ifj 

-r ,..; 

r-l 


- TO 

O CO 
-" 10 
l-l r-l 


D IO (D IO 01 10 ( i 
Ol Ol if tj (/.) O 
P IO O IO tD T- 1 

o" of tc> oi ! 

Ol ' ( 


O) M 

Ti (O 

o' t-I 


O) 

to 

tD 


CO Ol O3 O IO 
-f ID O) O) O 
1O_ -"^ IO IO r-l 

00 aT C'3* 03' 
rH T-I Ol 


Ol CO 

f) (D 


Ol 

to 

to" 
to 


^ 

i ^ 1 .? .? r 


si 
^ 

yl 

1 


<j 
























S ^ i-j I-IO 


% 


O 
























s M <A '; 
K : 


IS 


b 




1 1 






1 














R .' 


HI 






1 






1 














&/ ( 


S 






1 1 




















-U f 


o 






1 




















!i ^ 8 8 ,fj j 


g. 


(X 




1 
























to 




1 

) 




















'i! ? las 1 


1 

TH 


(!) 




1 




















] 8^ 


V* 


Q 




1 




















B, 


H 


01 




1 
1 

K ' 




















j 

^ 


.. 


in 
























& f t 

tl B 


H 


V 




'> 1 








m 


G 1 








i 


" 1 -M ' 


13 


s 




8 1 








in 


G 












6 


2 




'A 1 




H W 


*n 


t) 








. 


* lS ^H M Si r 
r"^ W *M H7 




Q 




'S5 ' 




p 'O 


. 


*, 








, 




. 

s 






S 




c; G>9 


^H 


K 








M 


a > tn|*j ? 

H ' (M PI UJ 1 


8 


f 
3 

i 

H 




Fimciiojial ch 

Military Personnel 
Active Forces 
Reserve Forces 
Retired Pay 


d S 

p s * tj 
^ ? g 1 

S ' w H R | 
a C * -n IS 

a & tff 5 - 

g | u> p ^ 
"Si h 1 -s *, & -a 

^ p 9 i 1 K s ' 

i g SE f !*"? N" 

l|-g(S&"(S'3-g r 

P} w a a ' " 4 t 
Si v f ; c rs v 
sf 5 vl *3 R C o> t 

. Kffl^d.Sfi.iJ 

o (CwEfcuww 


loiai Jiiiitary Functions 
Military Assistance 


r 1 " 

<y 

w 
pi 

o 

e 

F! 

S. 

3 

i 


Department o 

Department of tiie Army 
Department of the Naw 


Department of the Air Force _ 
Defense Agencies/OSD 
Civil Defense 


ioreu Jiiuiary functions 
Military Assistance 


a 

R 

o 
XI 
o 

1 

i 


* FY 1968 inclcdes amoacts proposed 

MDiiaiy pe-sosnei 5 
Operation & Mainlensnee 

s 

NOTE: FY 1957 KOA incudes amon 


increase; $71,000,000 for Medi 



Defence Industry Bulletin 



43 







1. 1 


I I pi 


o 

CM 

O_ 


S-l i l I H iH t- 
M 1 1 1 TH CO 

1 ij 


*f O H i- 
rH rH 


co 


eo TH CM 

CM rH 


CM to 
to CM 


tO CO rH 
-31 CM rH 
CM CO rH 


co 


oo cv] co oo 
i-eoeo t- 
oo f M en 


io "" 

Ci> O 




V 




i i CM" 


CM* 


eo" ' 












** 


rji *) 


*P d t 




1 


>-S= 


' 'Eo 


rH 
C0_ 


m i i i TH in m 

t- 1 1 1 CO 
L- i ' 


in t- CM if 

Oi O H rH 
H i-l 


^ 


CO rH CO 

5j< H iH 
CM 


co en 
o 

IO 


cn o CM 

co o 

in rH 


00 


rH In t- CO 
00 TH O L- 
OT 1 iH O_ 


r-t o 

- =. 




< 


j 


i i TH" 


rH* 


C-l ' ' ' 












CO 


^ 


^ <a 




C; 


i_~ 


*? 




1 i r 


1 1 1 




CM 1 


CM 1 


rH 


CM 


c-i 1 1- eft 


>3 L' 




C 
fj 


2 J 


I ! 


CO 


T? II III 
lH II III 


1 III 
1 III 


1 


CM 


(M 


1 rH 
1 


co 

rH 


OO 1 O 1 

rH 1 iH C* 


n | 




f 


[/ 




























i CTi 
US 


CM CT- 
O) IT 

in t 


in i i TH to o 

T? 1 I CO 

eo i i 


t- CO L- CO M 1 

CO O iH CM 
rH H 


CO rH 
ff rH 
CM 


iH ^f 
O CM 

in 


^ CM m 

CM 00 
tO rH 


IO 
O) 

to 


IO CM 1 (.- 
CT) CO II 
tO iH 1 CO 


rH ^ 






h - 


1 1 r-T 




CM" ' ' 








co" 


03* ' CO" 


:" 5 






, 3T 


?K 


L- ' 


to w oo i co co H 

CM CO tO 1 C-l CM iH 


CM t- o o en 
TH in * Oi co 


t- CO 
OCM 


o co in 

lH rH IH 


CO 
CO 


rH 

co 


rH Tf -rf tH 

coeo * en 


- 

R 




' 


S 


EO TH 


us 1 if 


in o_ co i t^ 03 us 
r-T in'iH" ! I-H" 


t-_ TH t> CO O 

of TH" 


CO CM 


eo* 


to 


CM 

in* 


n-f 

1(3 t ,|, 


fr n 




1 








rH ' 










(M 


CM OI 


M Jj 




* 


in 


(o in 
CM in 
m M 


lH O 
CO Cl 
CO L 


H in tf i co -H in 

r- CO 00 f to to Tf 


CO O iH CM CO 

CO tO iH tO iH 

t-_ TH t- co en 


00 CO 

oo 

CO CM 


oo co co 

tO TH TH 


to 

CM 


co 


CO O 1 CO 

o vr i to 
co_in i C- 


^ c! 
n .. 




J 


" 


in" 


in" in 


TH" in'rH* ! TH" 


eft 






CO* 




* 


di" 1 ( TI* 


x l" 












rH ' 












CM 


CM ' M 


-\ ep 







'--^ 


O CO 


CO if 


en co in i o Ti" co 


* P O 1 


1 


CO 


co to 


to 


CM 


CM 1 1 C-l 


n o* 




t 


r" !i Q 




TH Cl 


o o i to co 


CO 1 rH 1 


1 


C-l i 


co o> 




CM 


M ' 1 


o g 




\ 


'S 5 


13 


in in 


iH CO 1 * 


CO 1 1 






rH 1 


rH 


CM 




T OJ 


trt 


j 


w 






rH H 


rH 










eo* 


eo ' ' o; 


M t- 


Ul 


E 




OS L- 


in en 


^ CO 00 1 to t- ID 


in c- in m in * H 


OI OV t- 


(O 


CO 


co 01 lira 


H " 


D 


S 


>! 


M CO 
Si 1-1 


t- i 


CO rH Tj< 1 W CO 'W 


lH_ rH CO t- O__ CO C-l 


eo L- .H 

O3_ L~ 


p 


OJ 
iq 


o> co i in 
ira^oi i ic 


o 


I 




** ^ 


T 


in" m 


o" in .H" j r-" 


en 


rH 




<n 




c>;* 


^ * ' rv 


D i 


O 








""" 








(M 


of ' c-i 


1 1 


Z 






t- rr 


TH TH 


CM o en to in TH o o 


iH CM O IO tO 00 O t- CM 


O TH IO 


to 


O 


,, en n 




Ul 

a. 





" 


ID in 


CM 

IO r- 


CM tO Tf Tf t- to CO 

i- in to eft co in t- 


t- eft oo oo 


H en co M o 

CM rH rH iH 


^ in 


IO 

to 


51 


n 10 c. 

to 19 i- 


J & 


X 


F- 




m 


in'ir; 


O CM r-T r-T 


oo" 






rH* 




rH* 


rH f rH* 


D n 


Ul 


5> 






^ 






CM 


CM CM 


l 


Z 


1 


s1 


CM i-l 

IH in 


8 

co_o 


* * co o in in t- 


co o> in m 

CO 00 CO rH 
L- tH CO I- 


rH CO IO 
CM iH 


o co 

rH Cft 

iH 


oo 01 10 
o t> 
cn CM 


in 
co 
CM 


IO 

to 

05 


in co i- o> 
to e-j i- o 

M_ I.J- L- 


(^ 


< .0 


^ 




in" 


in" m 


O CO" CM" rH 


co" 






rH 




r-T 


r-f ' C 


> ^ R 
























C-1 


01 CM 


i i3 


|| 


g 


,.il 

fcsf 

M 


tH C-l 


CO O 
CO 01 

eo t- 


O CO rH "tf CO D- OJ 

O in CM us ^ 
,-_ t- eo -H 


CM i CM in 

CM ' 


i co o i 

1 1 tH 1 

1 1 1 
1 1 1 


o o 
* -* 1 

rH 
1 




rH 


1 

eo* ' 


117 1 t- (M 
m 1 I- CM 

to i t- 

CO* ' Oj" 


1 s a 
H . >| 


H 4 


Q 


t-g 

& 


in in 


2| 


OOl-W^-t-rH 

en CM TJI co in * i- 


* coeftTHCMe-icoooL-- 

CM rH CM "^1 CO rH 


<N OO 
00 IO rH 
IO to 


S J 

to 


(M 1 
O 


C-l to 'tO 

to i- i co 

*, O) I'; 


1 1 f 


3 ? 






*?* 


W ij" 


CO CO lH rH" 


00* 






rH 




of 




r jo J 


s? ^"* 






















rH ' 


-1 ' T- 


i ^ t 


J < 1 

ai 2 ~ 


| 


| 


CM ' 
L- TJ- 

oo <c 

L~ 


CO'L-" 


7- o en in to o co 
in to to CM eo io co 
co t- c- -*> co in m 
m CM" 


H 10 tO<O 
CO tO iH O 
CO rH iH t- 

in" 


H rH * Cft O) 
H CO O t- 
rH CO 


H CM t- 
l- 0) H 

10 in 

rH 


Cft 1 
O 1 

to 


oo 

o* 


3 O) O O 

n co 

3* ' 
1 CM 


- i f & 

3. 6 ft 


ii 1 ?! 


i 
o 


Ell 


co o ! 

Si CO 

co to ' 
to" 


fc K 

IO Tl 


in CM o 01 in t- o 
i o to o eft TH co 
o CM_IO in o to co 

n n CM" 


CO tH Tjl CM-' 
tO tO rH CM r 
CO tH ft L- 

in 


$ tH tO L- CO 

H eft o i- 
n eo 


eo o oo 
c co 

r-T 


oo i 

co 


O 1 

1 
f 


O CM H OI 

] rxi in co 
1 c-i co cr 

r ' e- 


-3 t 
On * 

"13 frl 

'S 


S ID .2 

a S 


j 


cdi 


01 in 

CM T< 

t- 


* H 

t- to 

t- 0_ 


in eo to CM <n 03 t> 

co eo to in o to 

co^ m t- co ^t> 

i 


o i <d< i 
co i i 

CM" ' ' 


1 1 to 

i i co i 
i i i 
iii i 


O CO 

co 

CM 


oo i 
co i 

CM 


1 ' 

L 


1 01 

eo i H ^ 
CD t m\f 
L i o tc 


M 1 

t! 1 
j? "1 

. l! i 


S ^ w 

Z en 

__ r-l 


& 

a 


El 


O) tH 

q- CM 

rH in 

in* 


O CO 

tb ~' 
in" in" 


CO 1> t}l TH rH t- O 
tO 00 tO N T* O P 

^ CM co ^* o in in 


eft to o o>c 

tH, iH l-l tO 


4 O to L- 

CM c-i 


co to 

CM to 

in o 


to i 

<0 1 
O 1 


o 

i 


i ' tr, 

CO to |C-l 

tg ISii 


u 

S S 


*^ i< 


















TH* tH* 


TH" ! 




> TH* ! I 1 -* 


o .S 


< 






o 


















H| ' i~l 




Ztj 
W 


f 


| 


in in S3 
csoi 9, 


O rH 
CM OT 
CM iH 


iH CO TJH CO CO 3- (O 

en CM"TH" to'in"^" 


3 to rH * "" 


H O> rH CO CM CM 
H" 


eo t- t- 
o-i o co 

1(3 rH 
t-" CM* 


T* 03 TH <D 

* CM rH rH 
TH 00 rH 

CM 


01 


OI C! T-l O 

t O T t^ I - 

t^ w n 

> r-i IO 


i 1 

** 


0. 

In 


^ 
o 


i"lP 
(s* 


rt CO ^ 
WO)* 

t- TH 

rH 


in Tf 


> o 01 IH t- >H e-i < 
m en -* CM CM o ^ 
- '^.'i.o^io in^in CM 
o w CM* m* IH" CM" 


S d T *"" 

M tO rH $ t 


i in w o! 

1 CO "5 t 

) CM co o 


CO 


t- rH to 

t- 05 tM 
"~i 'T. 


00 M t~ 
10 CO 
r-j^in rH 


oo 

00 


tj O (t 
(2 "^ 


"3 n 


o 
o 


1 


s|| 


S co 


o to 


rH 

> OI CM tO t- CO CO 

CO O tO -sjl O S 


CM ^ N 

to i to m 


TO ! J^ 




IO xf 


tH 




i '^ L"* 


ii ii o 


ca 


| 


2 Is 


rH 


TH-W- 


in_TH in ^ to 
eo M" 


<0 | 


! m 

1 


eo (M 

rH to 


CM rH 

to 




i C^3 L"^ 
l IO 00 


I' 1 


Ul 

tt 


& 

Q 


Kl 


CM CO g" 
IO 00 "i 


i- co 

M> t- 
^^ 

t- m" 


> t- o to m CM eo CM 

C-l t- * i-l I- to 

o o co -^ o TJ< F- 

CM" iH in rH rH 


1 

^* o 10 o> i> 
in <o CM_ eft c 


1 
co eo a 


1 


to o> to 

^ rH CO 
Cft I0_ 


IO M in 

^ oo o 
10 to IH 


co 
to 


I fi 

1 rH 

g> i co 

I! !R3 


ill 






r-t r-l l I 


rH 


M tH rH r- 






to" &f 


CM" 


rH 


(f f ] c-f 


. t & 






1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , , 








1 CO 


P M 






I'll 1 1 
III 1 1 1 III 


i 
i 


! ' ! ' 


M B 5 






"" i ! ! ! ! i! I i 


\ 
i 


*i II 
Ti iii 


1 fi ff: 






!i . ' IP! 




III 


X * 






i i i i i ft iii 


_? 


ft III 


& B J4 






~ I i : i : i i '. ! iii 

* ! ! ! ! ! w 1 sill 


o* 
W 


ft 1 r- ' ' 


^f 






a I ' O is l 1 

J II * >rH O'l 




^y I & M -a 


CJ S n 


. 


B 
1 


iii s ! I 121 S i i i 

El C ^ ' CJ <M 3 1 1 1 


rl 


^ (El I- 

3 i ^'43 H ^ -B' 


** n 




| g 


l ta i i S'sg 1 


>) 


S i o* n b/i'S 


SlSi 




"^ 

1 
t,| 


1 c ! i M - 1 ,p w ! 

1 -i'l i S|JS S 
i!i 21.. 1! llSf H IL 


M 2 (= ! ^ ^'>^ 

" 4^ S ' K . g'R fi 
tti2"2 '-Qi Pheo OS**^ 
3e3SS "'w ^3 -r-ib 


P a K - 

"o H ! 

i B i 






Jj [? ft) fL| S 


*"*ll r^ to V *- n typu 
' "*-* ^ 7i a .f~rn\\'f-i 


.t 


v t>> K S '" oj Id "i o t/i h 3 


a e - = 


in 




l t<u^ T) r a c !Hs s s *ll^ rf^&Swl 


sj 


|| Jgfc 1 'I " 


' M 


H -i*!S 


a |g 

V w 


J 


fH 




t* H tj ^PfHOtUlir- *..,IJfl3tj. ^Y Si tj rf fli t! 

n,L,m" o4j-Si_i*H"-'W r T':4r?fH 4J * 03 S y * tr 
r 4J w 1*3 r_Lfttrt3WWQjy c TiCJ o } -M " 'r 1 

.- tJ S t) ^ 2 "a 3 -^ " '? 2 "5 > r H [3 H w 1 


"EJ 


Op ^ o w , ; o t>Q **-! 6 L* n ^* -i- 1 T3 

^ fl (H S ** w r.i *-* *^ tj ffl tj *fl ^ ^J S 


IP 

M) 
Frl H 




S o^fri u^ <jg <r 


W OO 


J J " rt rt y ^ R 


s fc, 


11 




K^w 


i? !? 



February 1967 





l, 


CO <N T 


H <S> O 


(M (M 


q CNJ c 


1 CO *3* ^fi 


LO CO 


ef 1 


t to o 


iH O 


i -i 






-5 c 




IIP 


O> CO tO CO O 
CM rH iH CO 


t- r 
rH 


H 


C- CO OO "d L~ DC 

iH rH tH 


CO rH 
rH 


CO t- Ol ^< tH xh 
i-H rH rH rH 


CO rH 
rH 


CO 
rH 


s 1 




t 
































1 | 




|S|| 


CD CO rH CO Ol 
IO CO (M t- CO 
rH tO -^ IO 


IO r 
CO 


H 
H 


'2 O) 00 -*i O CM 
J CO 00 0) (M rH 
00 M <N CO 


Tl< O 
IO rH 
""J, 


^ O O> <N 
tO rH L- CO 


rH ID 

L- 


tD 
CM rH 


to 

CO 

ira 


j-> Q 

1 o 




|3i* 




if 






co" 

rH 




s "' 


, 


IN 
iH 


c-f t>] ira" -cf 

rH 


C 1 
r 


f 




1 




































9 6 

a g 


Z 


l 


tf Cft CO O 
O rH O iH O) 
O L~- O IO 


10 in 
(M en 

W CO 


O rH IO 00 ># O 
W O H 00 CT> CO 


t- CO 
CM CO 


O -; 
tO v 


h (O O 

1 rH DO 


i-H DO C 
tO rH 
IO rH 


V| rH tO 
tfi <>~*f 

C-l IO 




GO 


3 | 


C 


g?i 


H" co" co" co" 

<M rH CM 


co 




t- IO CO IO CO 
tO M W <N 


cn 


00 IN CM IN 


O 
CO 


o" 

CO 


Jj 


< 


































'R 'K 


O 


































Cj g 


2a 


































9 S 


O 


































1 1 


O 


Q) B 
































O +1 


O 

U, co 




t- 00 CO T- 
rH CO "* r 


f O 

H CO 
H r-l 

" 


O CO 
CO O 
CM O) 


CD o co d ira 01 

CO -^f O 00 <H -^ 


rH CO 
OO TJi 


<-f -# ID rH 

M ira o> tj< 

tO rH O) CO 


(M CO T 
CO (M * 

rH rH 


( 1 L- tO 

J* CO IO 

L ira 


tj" 


1 ^ 


tu S 

_| rH 


ri ^ 


co" 10 t- 
M 01 C- 


- T 
J 






o 

00 




i-T 00 QO G "d*" 
00 (M CM CO 


rH 
Ol 


o-i of i-^ o" 
a* EM CM co 


O 


M" 


" 

CTJ 


f "S 


BO <p 


































B H 


3* JS 


































y *r\ 

R C 


-J o> 


































8 


^1 


i 
































r 

w o 


ill 


,s ^ 


iH L- 

CO r-> rH 




oo to 
o 
to" 


IO O> -^f t> t 
IO CO 00 KM t- 

10 co 10 in 

CO CO rH rT 


t- O 

6M rH 

IO 

to" 


I- <O tD O 

CO * L O 

ira 01 ID o 

<o" co" I-H" rn" 


;- 


o o 

O rH 

to" 


O 

r-l 

LO 


P 1 ^ 
tl 


D -g ^ 


R 
































P. 


3, 


































<1) >, 




































S * 


^ M O 


































o *Si 




































K M 


Q O- M 



































f; M 


IZ ' (^ 

5 ^ 


^n'S 
5i-f4 Q 


<M eo IO O t- 

Ol OO IO t.- O 


O CO 
rH C-l 

o o 


CO 00 (M CO IO rH 
CO CO CO tO CO O 
IO tO CD (M 00 rH 


en oo 

tJ> CM 
-*1* L- 


t- Ol O L- 'f rH O 
C-l CO CO if CO r-l T 
(N^ IO rH CO 1 - rH 


1 CO (O 

I 1 CO CO 
*t tf * 


CM 

to 


B E 
3 


tn 


!fl_fir3 


t- CO C-l CO 




M r- 


t 


co" of c 


qi CO 


rH" 


C-l" CO" r- 


' n~ 


fi" 




- 


V 


3 


Z |Z 


if 3 


rH rH CN 






CO 




tO C-l CN Ol 


t- 


L~ CM 01 <M 




L- 






^ Tl 


O g 


3 
































"8 i 


C 41 


































** f. 


5 s 






























S -H 


O c5 




1 










1 
1 


















1 $ 


Z!j 
CO 














1 


















(J 


O 




1 










j 


















^ 8 


Q 














1 




















S 




1 










1 

1 
















i 




irf 














1 
















j 


n 


^C 














1 


















H rH 


g 




1 










1 id 

+J -to 




ti I 















a M 

fl 1 

u Ig 








1 










4? 'I 
* M 

'. fcl 




M *** 

W -+-1 

^ S 












* 
3 


1 " 

nf ^ 




I 


Fiscal Year 1966- 

Departeent of the Army 
Department of the Navy 
Department of the Air Force 
Defense Asrencies/OSD 


Civil Defense _ 


t 
i! 

I 

f 

r- 

t 


Military Assistance 


Total Mil. Functions & Mil 

Fiscal Year 1967 

Department of the Armv 
Department of the Navy 
Department of the Air Force 
Defense Ageneies/OSD 
Civil Defense 


Total Military Functions _. 
Military Assistance 

Total Mil Functions & Mil. 

Fiscal Year 1988. 

Department of the Army 
Department of the Navy _ . 
Department of the Air Force _ 


.ueiense -Agencies/ UQ.U _ 
Civil Defense , 


Total Milltarv Functions _ 


Military Assistance 


Total Mil. Functions & MiL 


Notes: (1) The total available for cHig: 
appropriations. 
(2) In addition to oolig&ns, t 



(O 

ffl 

tH 

O -u" 



Dofanse Industry Bulletin 



45 



TABLE 7 Department of Defense 

ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES AND AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR EXPENDITURES 

Fiscal Years 1966-1968 

(Millions of Dollars) 



Item 


New 
obliga- 
tional 
authority 


Total 
available 
for 
expendi- 
ture 


Expendi- 
tures 


Unexpended 
balance 
curried 
foi-wiml 


Unexpended 
1m 1m ico 
ns % at 
avutlnlila 


Fiscal Year 1966 Actual 


17,492 


23,781 
34,128 
32,419 

5,134 
211 


14,832 
16,026 
20,131 
3,335 
86 


8,941 
18,074 
12,31fi 
1,700 

119 


37,6 
52.0 
37.9 
34.2 
50.8 




18,486 




22,655 




_ .- _ 3,770 




_ - 107 






62,510 


96,673 

2,799 


54,409 
968 


41,21!) 
1,831 


<t;i.o 
flfi.d 




1,023 






63,533 


98,472 

32,037 
38,884 
36,571 
5,532 
220 


56,377 

21,108 
18,978 
22,694 
4,174 
97 


48,041 

10,930 
19,907 
1:1,977 

1,31)8 
123 


4H.7 

.M.I 
til.l 

:m.a 

24.5 
Ii5.1) 


Fiscal Years 19G7 Estimated 


22,989 


Department of the Navv _ _ 


20,709 


Department of the Air Force _ .. 


24,263 


Defense Agencies/OSD 


3,972 


Civil Defense 


101 


Total Military Functions 




72,034 


113,244 
2,613 


G6.950 
1,000 


40,294 
1,0 1H 


40.H 
01.7 


Military Assistance 


782 


Total Mil. Functions & Mil. Assist. 




72,816 


115,856 

84,568 
41,047 
38,862 
6,225 

42 


07,950 

23,372 
20,429 
24,077 

40 


47,906 

11,186 
20,618 
14,785 

2 


4U 

US 
60.2 

38.0 

4.7 


Fiscal Year 1968 Estimated 
Department of the Army 


23 629 


Department of the Navy 


21 134 


Department of the Air Force 


24 801 


Defense Agencies/OSD 




Civil Defense _ 




Proposed legislation 








Total Military Functions 


74 ("7 A 


2^209 


72,300 


48,068 


63.7 


Military Assistance __ 








Total Mil. Functions & Mil. Assist. 


75 270 


123,176 


73,100 


50,076 


40.0 







(2) In addition U, ,p*dl ta . the mexpm ^ balan ce .arried forwm,, wa 9 ,-^cod in F Y 1000 by ?G 4 m im.n of balance,, w | tM W . 



OASD (Comptroller) 
January 24, 1007 



46 



February 1967 



1OOO 


in n* 


Ol rH rH "tf O Cl CO1O 


t- CO CO-sf rH 5O rH 




vf 


*dt (O 


o 


O^ -ef TH t i-H 


^ to 




o 


*-* Ir- 


g 1010O1 


CM ire 


t-" CM rH 01 co o to ire 


TH t- 


Ol rH rH rH -eti 




t- 




C-Ol 


t- 


Ol CO Ol SO rH 


t-Ol 




t- 


M to 


S 0010 


OrH 


rH C-L-CC-* CO COO 


Ol O 


rHCO rH CM 








toira 




to 1-^00^ OO^rH 






CM 


p i-^ 2? 


>H Ol CM 


01 Ol 


rH CO CM rH IK rH CM 


W L- 


CM 




^ 




rj* 


iO*" 


CO" r-T "rf "^ 


^(T 




ire" 


"o r o 


rt 


CM rH 


^t 1 


CM 






t- 


t- 


t- 


CM (MCM 


t- 




L 


3 N ^T 


,, wua-tf 


^ 


Ol O5 t- L Ol T]< C- CO 




t- CO rH L- 10 




^ 




^01 


eo 


Ol Ol CO (M rH 


xfOl 




o 


3 P CM 


COCOrH 


COL 


O OlCOinOl in rHrH 


OO CC 


Ol rH O (TO 




c^ 




COCO 




CO O to t- O 


COCO 




rH 


ph 9 r 


S tOClCQ 


*d" CM 


t~ IO rH L- *)* rH * ^ 


CO r- 


CD IO rH 1(3 




c 






CO 


Ol D- Ol O^J rH 


O L* 




CO 


'r r^ !j 


LH t- rH 


OO 


CM O1CM rH in rHO] 


CM t- 


rH 




o 




of 


EM" 


CM O ^ CO 


Ol 




of 


S M 


rH 


CM rH 


CO 


CM 










t- 


t~ 


CM<MCM 


L- 




c- 


1 SI 


10 1000O 
10 rHO 


COOl 

tr-co 


Ol >* Ol Ol IO CM O CO 

rH 10 * 01 co m -v to 


rH M 1 O tOO 5 




o 

rH 


OCO 


co 


CM U5 IO O C- 
Ol CO IO L- O 


CO 
rH CM 




co 
co 


^ *r] 


H COCQtD 


OCO 


TJI cotoin-^ CM CM in 


O t- 


1O tO rH 




ir 




IOO_ 




rf ^t 1 to L"" TH 


in^o 




LO 


o C3 


K, ^ ,_| 


L-10 


(M OlrH rH -^ rHrH 


O tC 


CM 




O 


" 


Of rH" 


CO 


t-^Oo"CM~CO" 


C-frH 




co" 


Ifl 


f"H *~* 


rHrH 


CO 


01 






<D 


to 


to 


rH rHO; 


(O 




CO 


J 


Jg OlrHO 
S Ol IO O) 


OlCO 


Ol Ol IO in rH H Ol O] 
10 to rH O i-H CO CO t- 


to CO O^ rH IO 

o: co -# co o 




fx OT 
in oi 


COO 


CO 


CO VO OJ (M IO 
O ^ rH. CT1 c^ 


CO O 

toco 




co 
ov 


nJ 

* 


H tp^t-CO_ 


ooto_ 




co -^ 


OtO rH 




ir 


rH 


CO rH 


^f 


O CO Ol T-H rH 


CO rH 




*=f 


^ 


tw CM rH 


rji of 


t- 1 lo"CM"rH" rH 1-7 


CO" to"rH 




oT 


at rT 


e_T 


of ^oj^co" 


oTt-T 




o" 


C 


fo r- 1 


rHrH 


Ol 


rH 






^f 




-^ 


IO 


rHrHrH 


^ 




IO 


1 


^ COCOCO 
g t~001 


OO 


01 O(D 00 CO COOl 
O Tft-CD CM 1OCO 


10 tC Ol <* CM 

'S* CO -* ^ rH i 




" M 


(MO 
010 


CM 
CM 


CO Ol tOrH Ol 
rH Ol f IO rH 


Ol 

CM O 




CM 
OJ 


5 

1 


S 01_ L- 01 


C "i, t "l 


O^ tO^tOO_ C3 CO^CO 


co^ cr 


^Ol tO rH 




c- 









IO CO T}< Ol_rH 


Ol_O 




Ol 




H CM" H" 


-rf'rH 


10^ iri"co"of of rn" 


10 (C 


' 




c 




O^r-T 


cT 


of W c* o-f 


0) rH 




o* 


,5 


h H 


rHrH 


CM 


H 






IO 


Tf 


10 


rHrHrH 


"* 




ire 


7 


M HM(D 


Ol<0 


IO Ol Ol Ol 'IJ Ol ^O Ol 


t- iy 


>* o to s 




*tf 


O 


^JHIO 


Ol 


rH tO Ol C-l CO 


ff 10 




CT1 


t 


g CO L- (M 


0101 


CM co to co 5 in t- T)< 


to o- 


OOICM - 




o 


rH 


01 IN 


rH 


CO 00 L- L- 01 


0101 




rH 


i 


2 -^too 


rH ^ 


to CO 01 01 01 rHL- 


to o- 


C-UO rH 




o 




t~ CO 




tO O] rH IO rH 


\^- CO 




rH_ 


& 


tH rH H 


COrH 


*rt IOCO (M rH rH 


tO tC 


rH 




G 




aTr-T 


,_f 


IH'IO'O'CM 


Ol i-H 




rH 


M o, 


h H 


rHrH 


<N 


rH 






ir 






IO 


rH rH Ol 


^ 




IO 


& 






























^ o 






























a 


S 10 COO 


COOl 


L tD O t- " O IO t- 


to o CM tr- ? 




^ 


OO 


tOL- 


CO 


rH L CO CO t 


(O t- 




CO 


S 


a *d COCM 


Olin 


IO xf CO tD - CO L- Ol 


f c 


t- 10 S 




<y 


CO 


^c t- 


CM 


^ IO rH L^ IO 


T^ L' 




CM 




H IO tDOl 


O^l-^ 


CO SO Ol Ol CO CO CO 


t- XI 


Ol Ol 




o 




ra 10^ 




i- L^ IO_ r-H_ Ol 


00_IO 




^J. 


Ba 


X 3 

fit ' ' 


rHrH 


01 


ID to 
rH, 




06' 


%* 


of 


rHrHrH^ 


i- TH" 




Ol 


"E -" 



























5 S 


S 10 oo 


tji CM 


to oo co to " Tt< 10 in 


tD COrH O 




to to 


n "^ 


to 


*f rH TH C-.] 


rH ire 




eo 




m OltoO! 


"d* O 


^ O t- <# CO COCM 


rH C.- 


to co 




oc 


to 


OlOO 


o 


rH CO OO O^ 


Ol CO 




o 


3 s 




rHl- 


CO O1O Ol O OJTf 


^ C 


,*-?, 




tc 


CO 


co^i^- 


rH 


O^Tt^CO^O^ 


CO_t-^ 




tH_ 


C] g 


IH O 


CMO 


O.1 -i* Ol OJ rH 


rH C 


'rH 




r _ 


' 


i-Tr-r 


co" 


O) OJ I rH 


r-Ti-T 




OT 


3 "cJ 


ft, rH 


rHrH 


CM 


rH 






rJ 1 




f 


-t 


rH rH 


tf 




^ 


1 5 


o L- -# IO 


tO l- 


CO CTlOOi CQ O)O1 


rH O -^ O 




CO O 


CO rH 


IO 


Ol O tO CO 


00 r-( 




en 


r. ,g 


55 CO L rH 


OlrH 


TJ 01 CO -tf - L- O 


O O 


to d3 




in 


CO 


OlCO 


Ol 


CO L- Ol C- 


c-i 03 




LO 


a ^ 


3 tDtDL- 


OCO 


CO Ol O rH I- rH L- 




^M 




o 


^p 


to co 


IO 


tO Ol *tf* rH 


tO 05 




CT5 


B 


bn O~ 


CMO 


(N IO Ol rH i~t 


ri If 


"rH" 




1- 




OrH 


T-i 


Ol i-Tdf TH 


O TH 




I-H" 


G t*> 


i, rH 


rHrH 


CM 


rH 






"d 




^f 


Tf 


rH r-l 


rf 




^l 1 


I - 






























* a 


S O) Tf O 


coir- 


O I- (0 CO Q in 01 rH 


tf t- 


IO I 




CO IO 


COIQ 


CO 


rH O COIO 


ES' 




M 


jd .& ^ 


J2 O ^r ^J* 




OO tOtO-d'- -^ COO 


I- 


CO IO 




o 


CO 


tDrH 


CO 


00 CM rH IO 


*OrH 




CO 


p U M 


rl C-^tO tO 


01 rH 


rH rH CS Ol in OS L 








L-- 


in 


rHIO 


eo_ 


CO CO L O>J_ 


rH_IO 




to 


s ; -| 


|H O 


HO 


Ol tOCO rH 


Tf cr 


'rH 




r- 




rH~T-r 


fM 


of rH OOrH 


rH rH 




of 




fc ^ 


rHrH 


01 


rH 






"* 




^ 


^ 


rH rH 






^ 


u .9 -g 


co CO t- L- 


Ol rH 


CO IOOCO-; O OTtO 


CO If 


to o 




L- 


o 


L-O 


L- 


rH to Ol L- 


S20 




1. 


.E a 


J2 010 to 




Ol ^i* Ol Ol ^ Ol ^J 1 CO 


00 1! 


CO CO 




CO 


CT 


^P TJ* 


CO 


O3 O CO t- 


"^r ^3* 




CO 


r* S rt 


rl CO CD 10 


in 01 


L O O L IO IO 


OJ f 






cr 


in 


t-^CO_ 


O 


L~ ire L- t- 


I-^CO 




o 


2 'p o 


k, O" 


rHO 


rH IOCM rH 


o" o 


'of 




t- 




IDrH" 


co" 


1-" O t- 


JS-- 1 




co" 




rt 


rHrH 


CM 


rH 






CO 


CO 


CO 


rH rH 


CO 




CO 


a a ! 


1 3lo 


01-* 
COCO 
10 L> 


co 01 10 in o c- CTJ ci 

L IO CO CO -3 -tf tO M 1 
(M 10 rH CO CM ** in 


rf in ire 10 

CT) CO rH Ir- 

Ol rH_CT^ 




0] 

ff 


CC 


IOCO 

lOrH 
OJ^O^ 


01 
CM 


01 1.- tO 

L- (M O> tO 
(OJ^ 1O^*O 


10 CO 
ItS r-f 

<n. 




s 


J 2 ; 


M o" 


rH O) 


rH (OCM rH 


rH O 


rH 




to 




tcTflvf 


oo" 


L-To L~ 


COOl 




co~ 


S 5 


fo rH 


r-l 


Ol 


rH 






CO 


CO 


CO 


rH rH 


CO 




CO 


tt I 

s S 'S .' a 


S to 0110 

K Ol rHOl 


MtO 


Ol CO ^ *$ O IO IO M 1 
O (M O t~ - O rHrH 


in co 01 

CTJ CM rH 




L- 

co ^n 


COrH 


CO 

o 


Hi CO L- t- 
10 "tf rH tO 


CO TH 




CO 

o 


g g E ff 3, 




io t- 




L- K 


O 




CT 


L- 


iH_O_ 


CM 


CO^tO^iO^tD 


rH O 




c "i- 


B ^ i ji 


, gio^ 


HOQ 
rH 


0' to" ri 
Ol 


<y> rHCM 




S? 


CO 


tf 
CO 


rH 


$^ 




CO 


HJ a t- a a 

^ w p ^ ^ 

c y <j ^ 


I" OOlxJi 


CM 


CO M-tf OC t- t-O 
rH CMCOIO-3 CM O1<O 


O COCM O> 
01 O CO rH 




E- 


COO 


rH 

01 


iji rH 1- tO 


\f T# 

coo 




H 
O) 


flail 


2 toos-^ 1 


7. i 


L Ol^Ol rH n IO CO CM 


-3< t- 


f, *~i 




tt 




L~^O^ 


**v 


[.--^C 1 ! rH^tD 


L-^CM 




Ol 


a 2 ___ '3 


H o" 


rTcO 


of -df rH 


t-" r- 


rH 




C 




O rH 


rH 


t-- O Ol 


OrH 




TH" 


P ^ rt w 


fi ^ 


H 


rH 








Cr- 




CO 


CO 


rH rH 


w 




CO 


a TS ja M g 


3 toiot- 


COO1 


O rHOlO>3 O IQIO 


oo in co i o 




O 


O<N 


CO 


1- Ol rH rH 


OM 




CO 


S 


S tOrHCO 


to to 


CO *3< to in O) O> CO 


co tc 


O 1 O 




Ol 




G^l -Ol 


CO 


1 rH r-H-O> 


Ol O} 




CO 


>. y rl L* 4-f 


rl CM^COCO 


O3-* 


Tp^ o^in u- ch co co 


in, r- 


CO l rH 




IT 




LOrH 


L^" 


|^ to ^ l>* 


IO rH 




t-* 


H u , f3 


W rH 


T-ToT 


r-T 10" CM" 


o o 






c 


' 


^<pj 


L-" 


ofO) rH 


SJ" 




t~ 


"- 15 U Lq rf (j p; 


& *"~^ 


rH 


CM 


rH 


( 




CO 


CO 


CO 


rH rH 


CO 




CO 


1 ** 2 ^ * i ^ 


1 
1 


1 1 
1 1 


1 








,1? 




1 
i 1 


1 
1 




1 


8 3 S | ^ g 


>a rt bo i "~i *rt 

O C C | -j -H j_j 

< S tR ijfl -S ,, "5 
Hi, 4.5 -y j h^, m o +i sj 

ll S 1 ft i^l-^ls g-e 

^t Q <1) ^ -ET* IpO^jH S j 4^ C> -S- C 

lilPlsifillliJK 

3<r] pspn [!* P <] )i| OT EH O W O H f 
S O FH M 


i H, ,-; 
* 1 |j 

tJ G ' 
1 C gj PI 5 

fl P & rJ 
K |-( W piir; 

'-g 5 j fc 
EM p r St 

i.l*.& -a a .3 

c r? w 53 B ^ 
o P* ta JH _ ra 

r3 o SI o g . r-. 

&^felll 

StHOW 1 pj 


Avail. _ 
Transfers from prior year 
balances 


Total Military Functions- 
New Obligational Authori 
Military Assistance 
Total Military Functions < 
& Military Assistance - 


Department or Agency 
Department of the Army 
Department of the Navy 
Department of the Air Force 
Defense Ageneies/QSD 
Civil Defense 
Total Military Functions 
Military Assistance 


and Military Assistance - 


NOTE: Amounts include estimated c 
4 AnKrant Included In entry for "Ordn 
i> Excludes authority In Stock Fnsds 
in the Budget Document presenta 
FY 196S includes amounts proposer 
Military Peisonnd S 
Operation & Maintenance 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



47 





S cooc 

g OHr 


:> COt- 
H (M r 

1 COC 


-O COCOIOO Tf OsO 
H^ 1 Oi-lt-lO O IOC- 
3CO OO51OCO CM Hr 


)CM OOWO Cft t> 
J CO OOCOO CO 
H tO CM tOlOH CO 


OC 
OC 
CO OC 


I 


) CM Cft t-CMC 
t-<N t-oOC 
CO ^f O CM r- 


3 O 

; O 
CO 


c 


* ^^-t*~ t*J 




>H CO" C- 


i HO 


lO CftCMrH IO Hfi 1 


1 H t-H 


of 


c^ 




CM 


C" 


5 1 SrH T 




[* a 


a js 




C-l 


t- 


tr- 


(MNCM 


t- 


t 


: g A 


















a 








c tome 
S tococ 
3 -*o>c< 


> OC 
OC 

w 


5O OOOIO in O>t 

' o HOiinto co wo: 

) W OCft-^CM Ol Ht 


IO O OO t- CM tO 

eo 00t~0> H 
cf t~ to in t- 


oc 

IOC 
CftC 

to"r- 


C 

If 




CO CO -*^ ^f t- 
O t-Cft t-CT 
rH Cft in H 


O 

in 

Cft 


c 
u 
a 
t- 


s a^ fa ' 
b 


o 

IN T- 


CO Co'rH'rH Co" Hr- 


co ton 


t- 




to 




fc< 






H 


to 


tc 


CMrHCM 


to 





* "^3 




S otoo 

rH "f^"" 


coc 

lOr- 

t- 1- 


co in en Oi CM t^- coc^ 

tO COtOI>-O O) COt- 
_^ tOO-^CSI tO CftC" 


Cft Cft ^ t- tO H 

co in co Tf co co 

CO CMCOeO CM 


OJCC 

otc 

-* O- 


t- 
t- 

C"* 


CM tOrHlOtC 
CO IM CO COOC 


Cft 

ot 


L- 
L- 


- COr-B 




"* 2 *~ 


' tO~M 


' rH tOGJri rH r- 


" -tf" eo"r-T 




ir 


-=fto"o"co" 


^f 


C' 
ll 


' 










H 


IO 


IT 


rHrHCM 


IO 


If 






i |g3 


HO- 
t-^t 

t-c- 


O O<OCOtO CO t>lf 
CM OCfjrHCO t- O>N 
H CMOt-CM O COtO 


eft to t-cnco i H 
eo COOHOI M< 

CO CM_C2tD t- 


COOS 
L-CM 
rHC\ 


H 

c 


oo> tomco 

OO)H tOCT) 
tO CON CO 


coo- 
t-o 

H Csl 


r- 
C 
*; 




ut 


fa H 


M 1 (N 

H r- 


t~ IO CM rH i-T 
CM 


H" to"rH 


to"r- 


t- 


rH CO CO CM 


tOH 


t- 




t 










Tf 


^ 


rHrHH 




fl 




-j 


S CO_tOCv 


OCV 
HC 


N int-t-- eft toot 

""I - lf ?. c i |r ^ w, 6 


H HtOO tr- CM 
IO CMCM COO in 
Ci^ C^O^IO H tj( 


010 
OK 


if. 

ex 


m CM o t-o 

oio inio H 


oin 

>Q 


If 

S 




Z 


& H 


HH 


tO tO CO C^l H H 

CM 


IO t- rH 
H 


5 1 " 1 


H 
IO 


i-HrHCM 


CftrH 


If 


1 


O 
u 


co CO O i-C 

COOirH 
S CO WO 


Ot^ 

o_oc 


** Cft C- CM ? IO t- H 
t- OrHCM- to CM Cft 

co os oo in to -tfcc 


CO L ^ CM O O 
tO_ W rH y CM *# 


CMH 
1OCM 
CM l> 


CO 
t- 

Ch 


CftlOCMIOCO 


CMH 

in CM 

CMt- 


CO 
O 




Z 


^ H 


H 


^n to CO CN H H 


tO tO rH ri 
H 


00 rH 


O) 


rH # O rH 


COH 


o 


p 


:D 










^H 


M 1 


rHrHCM 






g 


u. 

CO 


2 io_ooo 


COOi 


:D O CM! tO 3 t- O) t- 

N O *& O - CO COO 


N O) t O Cft 
CO rH ^ 1 OJ Cft 
10 COCO 


100 
HO 
COCO 


in 
o 
(M 


t-OOCOO 

(M to -^f en eft 


mo 

rHCft 

m co 


IO 

c 


a 




H H 


HrH 


-*" to"eo'rH" rH H" 


jJ 


o"rH" 


CO 


rHCOOH 


eon 


a 




V) 
UM 










jl 


^ 


rHrHCM 






jf 




i 


o H CO CO 
n IO ^ CO 
p-i tOtOt- 

o" 

4 *""* 


10 H 
00 rH 


O COCMrH^ IO CM tD 

to co ch oo to o t- 


10 HIO # 1 O 
O) CO O 1 O 
O_ rHtO | CO 
CO tpH | . 


r-ffi 


to 
t- 

to 


o-* moo* 

COHCOCft 
rHCM t-O 


>cr 
r-l r 


to 
tr- 
ee 


s 

3 


(N O 
HrH 


M *"* 




O'N'OTH' 


COH 


z 










n 


^p 


rHH H 




*W 


t 1 ! 


bH 

HI ft 

ffi ^ ^ 

g Lu t 


3 O^-* 
5 CftlOO) 

H O" 


COCO 

row 

H O 


H oj t~ *^ c co co m 

tO t- CM ^J 1 -^ ^ o> IO 
H to CO rH T 


^ O <O M <^ r 
CO rH OJ rH 


in cn 

HO 
CM3 


CM 

CO 


CM CM IO lO # 

COtOOH 


in Cft 

HO 

ri to 


CM 
C0_ 


S 

a 
H 


*8 lit ^ i 


* H 






CO ^J* rH 1 
rH 


H H 


CM 


Cft H Cft H 


rH i-l 
















' 


^ 


rHrH 




^. 


J3 


P > 01 *O ; 

2 32 s 
g Isjp 


J rT" 


HCO 
Ot- 
MCO 

H"O 

HrH 


33 Ot-tH~ Cft OO 
t- CO CO Ch O) CM CO 
rH L- CO * CO t- L~ 
M t-CO'rH 


Cft tDCO 1* oi I 
O tD Tf t-~ 
*, CO^Cft^ ^ 

H ' 


COO 
1"* 
J.CO 

HCM" 


CO 
19 

co" 


Jgococo* 

-t-^C^Cft 


coo 

CMX 

CM^M 

I-HC^ 


to 

IO 
CO* 


4 J> 
I* 












^ 


Tt< 


rHrH 




' I, 


K -3 


S, o >5 " 


1 ^ O to 


HtO 


7-1 co Tj- in " 10 co co 

CftCOOS to tON 
^ t- Tjt rH CO D l- 


CO rrfl CO 1 * .Vi i 
CO 01O U 
O IO t- (^ 


>00 


CO 

m 


H| COt- Cft* 
grHCOtO 


ot~ 

^00 


>0 


| fl 


0) (J 1=1 > 


o 


HOJ 


H CO (>f iH 




1 rH 


! 


oT"?.^*^ 


O^i- 






o "-' & 


H 


H 


M 


H ' 


1 C*l 


H 


(O 00 


Ji CX 


H 


o Q 


Z * 












-* 


HrH 


CO 




i ^ 


O S 

r- 


T^ *$ H 

co in 10 


Jl t- 
=>CO 

^Tjl 


ji ^in^t 1 ^ i> oeo 
to oo co to t-t- 


S ^ % \ 


CM 

in 


CO 

CO 


?2t-rHIOH 
gCfttOrH 


tO CM 
-OKI 


CO 


t*> '! 

-O JJ 


< S* 

i- & 


S 


n"oT 

H 


= OO"H" 


., CO 
-0 CMH 


'CM 


o" 


-co^co^to 


3o"(N 


o" 


J ^ 














"* 


HrH 


-o 


rji 


S S t S 


Q (D 

1-1 in 
o 


IO Cft L- C 

to co c- c 


M O 

oo 


M iraio co " o o oo 
o coom*- ^ too 


- rHCft * ^tc, 


rH 


CO 


"^OtO* 


NrH 


CO 


I 1 1 




tO M 1 "tf 1 1 


1** ( 


Jl 00 O CO CM to tO 


J S S CO 00 


>rH 


o 


-__ TP in os 


31H 


O 


p R ** 


Q tn 





H CO~ C 


1 L* H H 


*> "T^k to 


.. 


n 


"-t- 1- 10 


~~^ 


't 




D h 


H t 


H i 


-H 


H 


CM 


CO 
CO 


00 Cft to" 
rH 


0(T4 


OC 

CO 


-g .si 


z s 

ft: a 
O - 


to co TJI * 


OH - 
3CO C 
tfCft C 


!f ^1*^^^ TH H^JI 

o oo^i 1 ^ eft ^*m' 


Hi"3 * rHtO 
J tO iH *^J 
10 CM^t^ 3 


CM 
Cft 


CO 
CM 
CO 


n CM IO ** # 

gcooo) 


-HCvl 

OCft 


CO 

(M 


n S " 

3 S "3 

I fl 




2" r 


H L-" C 


ft" co" H" c 




i *, 




(VJ * * 


n (M 


cc 




3: h 


H r 


H r 


H M ; 


_, ^^ 


CM 


t> 

CO 


w CfttO L 
rH C 


g 


t-" 

CO 


1 ^ 1 


u. " 

031 


COCO to Ci 

to eft oo ^ 


?<N U 

'to c 


; ot-io^ ij OH 


- t-3 CO Cft 10 


Cft 


in 


S o to T}I co ( 


o o> 


IO 


^ fi p 
s Ii 


-H 


CT^CM CO ei 


3H 


O^M 1 CJ} co t- IO I 


i 23 S 1 M "* 


(M 


m 


5JCft tOtO C 


MCM 




ffl s 


U 


S ; 


HO)" C 
H 


|T oa co" H u 


o CM"H" 


'co" 


co" 


^rJm"** c 


o to 
3 OT " 


CO 


a ! ^ H B 


Q 












f 


** 


"3 tS P < vS 


ft! 
















3 . "1 H 


O 


Functional classification 
Military Personnel 
Active Forces 
Eeserve Forces 
Retired Pay 
Total 
Operation and Maintenance 


i ' ! 

1 ' 

IS 1 -g -a . 

n i^'a H l> nt " 

J 1 'f!l rH O C u 

! 1 rM a H- 3 i S R Cu ; 
i | <3 M CH 4^ hi *U r 

^ llf-gH &|g fc 1 Ij 

laaStTfrtrtfi i ~ H Hw o " PH.; 


Military Assistance _ 


& Military Assistance __ 


Ltepartment or Agency 
Department of the Army _ 
Department of the Navy 
Department of the Air Force __ 
Defense Agencies/OSD 
Civil Defense 

Total MfKfaw !?,,,>,. ' 


Military Assistance 


& Military Assistance 


* Less than 3.5 million. 
Amount included in entry for "Ordnanw 
*> FY 19SS indnd aiaoBaia proposed for 
Militar? Personnel S23 1 
Orws-ttiMj 4 M*int*BnM 37 S 



tf 



February I9fi7 



TABLE 10 



Department of Defense 
FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF FY 1967 BUDGET 

Appropriations Enacted and Supplemental^ Proposed 
(Thousands of Dollars) 





Appropria- 
tion B 
enacted 


Transfers 

and 
adjiiat- 
menta 


Military "Medicare" 
and nnd 
civilian "Horneown-ora 
pay Assistance" 
Supple- Supple- 
mental men till 


S.B.A. 
Supple- 
mental 


Total 


Milita 1 )*)/ Personnel 
Military Personnel, Army 


6,164,400 


4,164 


78 500 






Military Personnel, Navy 


3,652,100 


4,164 


77,700 


220 800 


3 946 436 


Military Personnel, M.C. __ 


1,183,200 




24 300 


58 400 


1 265 900 


Military Personnel, A.F. 


5,015,800 




106 300 


403 700 


5 526 800 


Reserve Personnel, Army 


. _ 288,211 




6,200 


14 900 


309 311 


Reserve Personnel, Navy 


. _ 112,600 




800 




113 400 


Reserve Personnel, M.C. 


36,000 




800 




37,300 


Reserve Personnel, A.F. 


69,700 




1,100 




70,800 


Nat'l Guard Personnel, Army _ _ . 


346,633 




8,520 


15 280 


370 333 


Nat'l Guard Personnel, A.F. 


82,000 




1,910 


290 


84 200 


Retired Pay, Defense _ 


. _. 1,780,000 




34,000 




1,814,000 














TOTAL Military Personnel _ . 


18,731,044 




340,130 


1 363 870 


20 435,044 


Operation and Maintenance 
Oper, & Maint., Army 


6,122,427 


33,005 


64 000 29 000 


1 968 000 


7 216 432 


Oper. & Maint., Navy 


3,980,300 


24 806 








Oper. & Maint., M.C. 


326,600 


48 


2,300 


96 700 


424 652 


Oper. & Maint., A.F. 


. _ 4,943,100 


1,823 


49,000 17,000 


528,000 


5,635,277 


Oper. & Maint., Def. Ages. 


806,500 


2,517 


20,300 


85 800 


916 117 


O&M, Army Nat'l Guard 


231,000 








231,000 


O&M, Air Nat'l Guard 


253,300 




1,400 




254,700 


Nat'l Bd for Prom. R.P..A _ 


494 








494 


Claims, Defense 


25,000 






9,000 


34,000 


Contingencies, Defense 


15,000 








16,000 


Ct of Mil Appeals, Defense _ 


600 








600 














TOTAL Oper. & Maint. _ 


15,703,321 


8,844 


179 000 71 000 


3 311 500 


19 273 666 


Procurement 
Proc. of Equip. & Msls, Army 


3,483,300 






2,130,000 


5,613 300 


Proe. of A/C & Msls, Navy 


1,789,900 


-58,000 




1,752,000 


3,483,900 


Shipbldg. & Conv., Navy _ 


1,7BG,700 








1,756,700 


Other Procurement, Navy 


1,968,300 






287,000 


2,255,300 


Procurement, M.C. 


262,900 






253,000 


615 900 


A/C Proc., Air Force _ 


4,017,300 


4,000 




1 303 000 


6 316 300 


Missile Proc., Air Force 


1,189,500 






45,000 


1,234,500 


Other Proc., Air Force 


2,122,600 






536,000 


2 668 600 


Proc., Defense Agencies 


51,300 








61,300 














TOTAL Procurement 


16,641,800 


-62,000 




6,306,000 


22,885,800 


Res,, Dov,, Test, & Eval 
RDT&E, Army __ 


1,528,700 


27,998 




40,000 


1,696 698 


RDT&E, Navy .. 


1,768,600 


116,436 




40 000 


1 914 036 


RDT&E, Air Force 


3,112,600 


23,161 




33,000 


3 168 7B1 


RDT&E, Defense Agencies _ _ 


469,059 


1,781 




22,000 


482 840 


Emergency Fund, Defense 


125,000 


-106,805 






18,195 














TOTAL RDT&E _ _ _ 


6,983,959 


61,661 




135 000 


7 180 520 


Militwy Construction 

Military Constr., Army _, 


114,014 






288,500 


402,514 


Military Constr., Navy _ _ _ 


126,918 






140,000 


266 918 


Military Constr., A.F. _ _ _, 


205,495 






196,000 


401 495 


Military Constr., Def, Ages. _ 


7,547 


440 






7,986 


Military Constr., Army Res. _ 












Military Constr., Naval Res. 


5,400 








5,400 


Military Constr., A.F. Res. .,_ . 


3,600 








3 600 


Military Constr., Army N.G. 












Military Constr., Air N.G. _ 


9,400 








<) 400 


Loran Stations, Defense _ . 
























TOTAL Military Constr. 


472,374 


440 




624,500 


1,097,314 



(Contimted on yxige 60) 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



49 



TABLE 10- Continued 



Department of Defense 
FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF FY 1967 BUDGET 

Appropriations Enacted and Supplemental Proposed 
(Thousands of Dollars) 





Appropria- 
tions 
enacted 


Transfers 
and 
adjust- 
ments 


Military 
nnd 
civilian 
pay 
Supple- 
mental 


"Medicares" 
ami 
" Homeowners 
Assistance" 
Supple- 
mental 


S.E.A. 
Supple- 
mental 


Total 


Family Housing 


507,196 










507,190 
11,000 

06,099 
35,000 








11,000 




Civil Defense 


66,100 
35,000 


-1 






Research, Shelter Survey & 
































101,100 
7,348 


-1 








101,090 
7,348 

351,000 
77,000 
107,000 










Revolving Funds 








351,000 
77,000 
107,000 


Navy Stock Fund 




















TOTAL Revolving Funds 


















535,000 

5,458,180 
8,548,900 
3,044,990 
223,800 


686,000 

22,988,6-10 
20,709,280 
24,2(13,423 

3,971,681 
101,099 


MILITARY FUNCTIONS TOTALS 


17,279,079 
16,959,018 
21,024,395 
3,784,560 
101,100 


65,167 
28,418 
17,328 
-102,069 
-1 


157,220 
147,900 
159,710 
64,300 


29,000 
25,000 
17,000 
11,000 










TOTAL Military Functions 








59,148,142 

792,000 
59,940,142 


8,842 
-10,425 
-1,583 


619,130 


82,000 


12,275,870 


72,033,984 
781,675 

72.815.B59 


Military Assistance 


TOTAL NOA DOD 


619,130 


82,000 


12,275,870 


Total Expenditures DOD 


68,300,000 




605,000 


61,000 


9,084,000 


67,950,000 



OASD (Comptroller) 
January 24, 1907 



TABLE 11 



Department of Defense 

NET ADDITIONS TO THE FY 1967 
PROCUREMENT PROGRAM FOR SOUTHEAST ASIA 

(Millions of Dollars) 





Army 


Nnvy 
nnd 
Marina 
Corps 


Air 

Forao 


Total 


Ammunition 




89 

1,073 
135 
314 
329 


279 

488 
46 
533 
257 


(177 

1.B2G 1 
439 ; 
DOG 
75D : 


Aircraft 
Combat Attrition 




Training and Other _ 




Spares _ 




Other A/C Equipment 




Total Aircraft 




Vehicles __ 


590 


1,851 
167 
102 
131 


1,274 
51 

141 
110 


3,7 1C 
BOO ', 
581 } 
*840 


Electronics and Communications 


288 


Other 






607 


Financing Adjustments 


2,130 


2,840 
-48 


1,865 
+29 


*6,317 ; 


FY 1967 Supplemental (NOA) 





~ . . 

ivGuCtS $B million reduction In T*i-n.im.-.n.m T\ 

in 


2,130 


2,292 


1,884 


6,308 


Ptt>trram> OASD (Comptroller) 
January 24, 1007 

Fehrimrv 1 067 



TABLE 12 



Department of Defense 

MAJOR PROCUREMENT ITEM QUANTITIES 
FY 1967 and 1968 Programs 



PY 1967 program 




Enncted 
inn da 


Supple- 
mental 


Totn] 


PY ifloa 

program 


Aircraft 
Army 




890 

487 
207 

863 

721 


2,097 

1,047 
1,028 

2,766 
2,006 


1,479 
680 
1,260 

1,588 
1,821 


Navy & Marine Corps 




Air Force _ 




Total All Services 

Helicopters 




Other aircraft 




Total All Services 




3 188 


1,584 


4,772 

34,715 
8,164 
4,777 


3,409 

26,237 
12,815 
6,273 


Missiles 
Army __ 




Navy & Marine Corps 


G 172 


1,992 


Air Force 


4,777 


1 otal Missiles 
Ships Navy 
New construction 


45,664 
67 


1,992 


47,650 

57 
8 


44,825 

34 
21 


Conversions _ 


8 




Total Ships _ _ 
Tracked combat vehicles 
Army _ 


66 


1,392 

7 


66 

5,829 

161 


66 

4,797 


Marine Corps 


144 


Total tracked combat vehicles 


4 581 


1,399 


5,980 


4,797 







OASD (Comptroller) 
January 24, 19G7 



TABLE 13 



Department of Defense 

MILITARY AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL 

Yearend Number 





PY 1065 
actual 


FY 10GO 
nctunl 


FY LOST 
etilitnnto 


PY lOfiS 
CBlltimta 


Military Personnel 
Army 
Officers 


mf541 


117,206 
1,079,525 

2,316 


142,837 
1,308,453 
2,910 


164,900 
1,362,004 
3,090 


Enlisted _ _ _ 


854 765 


Military Academy cadets 


2,017 


Total Army _ 


968 313 


1,199,046 

79,467 
660,130 
4,331 
561 


1,454,200 

88,773 
6186,208 
4,243 

80 


1,620,000 

85,014 
673,031 

4,243 


Navy 
Officers ._ 


77 72fl 


Enlisted 


688 363 


Naval Academy midshipmen 




Aviation cadets _ _ _ 








Marine Corps 
Officers 


671,009 


744,469 

20,485 
240,909 
293 


753,394 

24,193 
265,831 

GOO 


762,288 

26,211 
269,316 
387 


Enlisted' ~ _ 


mGSR 










Air Force 
Officers _ 


__ 190,187 
131 141 


261,687 

130,285 
752,913 
3,162 


280,024 

135,986 
759,260 

3,364 


294,914 

137,828 
746,697 

3.575 


Enlisted - _ - - _ 


689 BSfi 


Air Force Academy cadets _ _ _ _ 


2,907 


Total Air Force 


823,633 


886,360 


898,600 


887,100 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



(Continued Page SS) 



51 



TABLE 13 (Continued) 



Department of Defense 
MILITARY AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL 

Yearend Number 



FY 1905 
actual 


PY 1006 
net n ill 


FY 1GG7 
estimate 


FY 1D6B 
estimate 



Department of Defense Total 
Officers 

" 



2,305,331 

9,103 
__________ 1,072 

Total Defense _____________________________________ 2,663,142 



Academy cadets and midshipmen 
Aviation cadets 



Civilian Personnel 



Army 

Navy 

Air Force 

Defense Agencies/OSD 

Total Defense 



332,876 

333,271 

291,496 

42,278 

999,920 



347,432 

2,733,477 

9,799 

844 

3,091,552 



371,121 

356,744 
306,911 

68,923 

1,103,690 



886,789 

2,988,832 

10,517 

fl80 

3,880,818 



42G.1G4 

898,008 

319,462 

72,361 

1,216,695 



402,953 

3,050,043 

10,914 

SB7 

3,404, ;I02 



431,474 

410,787 

U2fi,79G 

72,057 

1,240,114 



OASD (Comptroller) 
January 24, 19G7 



Contract Funds Status Report Approved by 
Bureau of the Budget 



During December 1966 the Bureau 
of the Budget (BOB) approved the 
quarterly contractor reporting re- 
quirements described by DOD Instruc- 
tion 7800.7, "Contract Funds Status 
Report" (CFSR). BOB's approval fol- 
lowed extensive coordination between 
industry representatives and Defense 
officials. 

DOD and industry have a mutual 
interest in information about funding. 
The DOD manager must assure the 
adequacy of the funds for varied De- 
fense t programs and at the same time 
exercise administrative fund controls 
on appropriations required by public 
law. Industry, on the other hand, is 
vitally concerned about receiving 
timely payments in appropriate 
amounts. Funds reporting has evolved 
from the need to satisfy both needs. 

The first effort for uniform appli- 
cation throughout DOD in this area 
occurred in 1969 with the development 
of the Financial Management Report, 
DD 1097. This report was designed to 
be used essentially to assess potential 
expenditure levels. As expenditure re- 
straints eased, it was adapted to an- 
swer funding status questions. This 
report proved to be inadequate from 
both industry and DOD points of view. 
To overcome its deficiencies, individual 
report versions were designed by the 
Military Departments to provide their 
representatives with better informa- 
tion. These reports were limited to a 
small number of contractors and, thus, 
did not require BOB approval. 

To curb the tendency toward pro- 
hferahon of data gathering efforts on 
this subject, DOD in 1964 undertook 



52 



to install a single uniform approach 
for DOD-wide use. The resulting Con- 
tract Funds Status Report was devel- 
oped through continuous consultation 
with industry. These consultations 
started in 1964 as a part of the Cost 
and Economic Information System 
(CEIS). During March 1966, indus- 
try, through the Council of Defense 
Space and Industry Associations 
(CODSIA), was provided a draft ver- 
sion of the CFSR reporting instruc- 
tion. CODSIA comments and recom- 
mendations were received in May 
1966, and a series of joint DOD-indus- 
try meetings was held in late sum- 
mer to discuss the CODSIA recom- 
mendations. Many changes were made 
to the original proposal as a result of 
industry comments. CFSR has bene- 
fited from this exposure. It can become 
a useful, workable document that will 
serve the needs of both D,OD and in- 
dustry. 

Ig_ fining BOB approval, the 
CFSR joins the Cost Information Re- 
ports (CIR) and the Economic Infor- 
mation System (EIS) as visible parts 
of the Selected Acquisitions Informa- 
tion and Management Systems (SAI- 

The CFSE is designed to supply the 
funding data that, with other perform- 
ance measurement inputs, will provide 
information about Defense contracts 
to DOD managers for: 

Updating and forecasting contract 
lund requirements. 

Planning and decision making on 
tunding changes in contracts. 

Developing fund requirements and 



budget estimates in support of ap- 
proved programs. 

The contractor compares current 
funding with estimated fund requlro- 
mcnts and describes the relative firm- 
ness of requirements on which inti- 
mates are based. Reasons for changes 
in quantitative fund requirements are 
also to bo submitted. 

In view of the lead time required 
to adjust approved lovolH of fiunling 
when changes in estimated fuiul re- 
quirements are involved, reporting nc- 
curate information us early us possi- 
ble is a matter of pronounced impor- 
tance to the contracting parti (J)OIt 
and industry) who must use the infor- i 
mation. J 

The CFSR will be implemented on 
all new contracts, which require funds 
status reporting, to replace rouort* 
such as the DD 1097, DD 1097 Addon- 
dura NAVWEPS 7810/4, and the Con- 
tractor Financial Requirement!! Kstf- 
mato (CFRE). If suitable arrange- 
ments to incorporate this reporting re- 
quirement can bo made, the cumin I 
use of the aforementioned reports will 
he discontinued in existing contracts. 
The instructions (DOD Instruction 
7800,7) include descriptions of data 
items which are the contractor's, re- 
quired input to tlie CFSR. 

Questions concerning the implcincn- * 
tation of CFSR should be referred to 
the Directorate for Assets Manage- 
ment Systems, Office of the Aasiatant 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), 
Room SB 8(57, The Pentagon, Wash- 
ington, D.C., 20301, Telephone (202) 
OXford 7-7566. 

February 7967 




Contracts of $1,000,000 and over 
aivnrdcil durinp; the month of January 
1967: 



DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY 

3 JjffHtcr D, Lnwiion & Co., LOUR Bench, 
Calif. ?l,ll>3,3fiO. SS.OOI) onm-fi of ration 
Biiiuilomunt Hinirlrlun prmkii.. Defense I'cr- 
tn>iiiH'] .Support Ueutur, Plillnduliihiii, I'll. 

Vnii llrnilo Milling Co., Clinton, MJIHH, 
Sl,144,mi7. SS.OfiO CHB.L-H of ration u]i]ilc- 
nmnt HimelrLwi imnltH. Jlefeiwo Pcrwituiel 
Kiipnorl Cnnler, Philadelphia, Pn. 
Hw'liclli; l.nlHirntorifH, LUIIK Heiicli, Cnlif. 
Sl,1(),ll>3. lili 1,32ft ImtlleH of Utlrncyllno 
liyilroiililorlih.'. Defi'iim; Purmmncl Support 
Outer, Philiitk'lphfri, 1'a, 

I.nndlit ClothcN, Vlnelaml, N..T. $1,041,- 
7-17, 4!i,;i7(> niun'n pnlyeiilor and wind I'onlH, 
DiiFi'iimt Toriiiinnel Support (.Junior, Philu- 
iloliihla, P, 

- -JoHciili H. Cnlicn & HnnN, Phtla<loli>lila, Pn, 
$l,aim,ilfi(i. Stt.liOO mim'n iiolyeitter rind wool 
cemtw, Oefiumii! Pei-mmm'] Hupiiorl Center, 
PI>Elatlt'l]ihlii, Pa. 

Irwln nlllln h Dtvlalnn of IIiii'liiHtlon Inilun- 
U'[(-H, New York City, N.Y. $1,027,742. 
nai.flOO white notion lied nliiHitH. Diifeiitio 
Pi-i'mmncl Support (Junior, Plilluilolphlri, 

I'll: 

Kiulirotl JoIiiiHon Corn., Knilluott, N.Y. 
?].0n7.t)!i2, 100,000 imlni of iiliuui. ])ofomi 
PiM-Himnt'l Buiiporl Otinter, Plillattolpliia, 
Pit. 

Pioneer Una: Co., North Kaminn City, Mo. 

Sl.afifi.rilXI. fi.000,0011 uiuidtmicn. Dcfcnuu 
CrcncM'nl Humily Center, Htclimnml, Va. 
--C<niitlnenln1 Wire Corp., Yin-It. l'n, $l.liH3.- 
(110. flliH.r.OO feet of li!].l>imrd iHiIilo, DC- 
ffiiiH Imhiiitrinl Supply Center, Phllailel- 
I ill In, Pa. 

(llconllo Co., PiiBHnlo, N.J. $1,030,77(1. 
Biri.aW) foot .if iililiilinaril cnbhs. Dc-fenm; 
IiHlinilrlnl Hunnly Cfliitor, rhllnilclplHn, Tu. 
1 -Tli Defense l*crHiiniit!l Kiipnnrl Center, 
I'lilludelDliiii, I'n., lutit nwiu-di-d lln; rollow- 
niB 4!iml.viv(it for notion ilitck ninth ! 

II, . (Joltoii & Cn., Now York City, N.Y. 

81,7!)iUHJ7. B,ar,(),<IOO miunrc ynrih. 

Arncrlcnn FiiilHhliiK Co., Momiihh, Toiin. 

8l,G2U,aOB. 2.01M.S10 iinunre ynntn. 

f.'rnnltovlllo Co., New Yurk (illy, N.Y. 

Sa.flHO.KHl. a.aOB.ifiBl miunro yai'dn. 

I'litnnm MI11, Now York (Illy, N.Y. 6,- 

Oafi.fmi, (t.-ilifl.OOO ninmrc ynriln. 

Hn (tiller ToxtllcH, Inc., Now York filly, 

N.Y. J1.2SM1H. 1,77-1.00(1 uotiiiro yrdn. 

Hem Knno I'roducln, Inc., Ilrooklyn, N.Y. 

51,041,01)0. 100.000 folilliiK (iiinvaii C(B. 

Dt'fdiiHu (SoiiofRl Sii]>i>ly Contor, Hlelimoiul, 

Vii. 

15-A. M. I'HUfl IIOHlcry Co.. Phllndelpliln, Pn. 
?l,17!),ni)fl. MliUaO imli'H of mnn'ii cotton 
nnd nylon nooltH. Dofonno I'crnonncl Snji- 
inirt Conlcr, I'liilnttolpliln, I'a. 

- -Hnclimim Hfjr. Co., Hcndinit, Pa, $l,il3B,. 

2-10. 403,000 liclmoL liner liiHtitntliifr capn. 
DofoiiiKi Pei-Bwniiel Suiiporl Center, Phila- 
uI]>litn, Pn. 

--Chcrutilno I'ctll & Co., Atlantic Cily. N.J. 
$l,7^2,2fiO, 7B.OOO men's nolyt-Hlcr nncl wool 
tfi>Icnl coatrt. Dcfonsa Peraonncl auimoi't 
ConLt-r, Flillndclphln, Pn. 

- -Burl I nsr inn ImliiHtrfen, Pnclfio Mlllfl Dlv.. 

Now York Olty, N.Y. $3,4H,000. 1,000,000 
lincnr yda ot wool Hcrgc cloth. DeteiiHO 
Peraomuil Suiniort Center, Plillntlel|ihia, 
Pa, 



CONTRACT LEGEND 

Contract information is listed in 
the iollowinff sequencyj Date 
Company Value Material or 
Work to be Performed' Location 
Work Performed Contracting 
Agency. 



Pembroke, Inc., KRK Harbor City, N.J. 
SMiri.700. 110,000 mcn'H wool Kdbiii'illno 
ovorcoiiln. DefuiiHe Personnel Supiiui't LJi'ii- 
Ler, I'hlliulcliihld, Pa. 

-Foster Co., PhilRileliiliin, l*n, S2,fir>2,(ilO. 
04,500 incn'H wool KalinriliiH) ovcrnonlo, De- 
foiiHO I'oi-Honnel SuDjiort Center, I'liHadut- 
pliiu, Pn, 

Nonttine Itnincont Cn., Now York (JIt.y, 
N.Y. S4,a2T,000. ICO.OOB inon'n wool Knl.ar- 
rllin> (ivifrconls, DofciiHo I'oriioiinol Hupiiorl 
(JcnttTj Phtlnclclphia, Pn. 

PrcHlex, Inc., Now Ynrk Olty, N.Y. .?!,- 
190.G32, a,m f O0 lincnr yd. of ]i(i]y C Hler 
and cotton fnlirir. DofotiHe IN-rKonnul HIITI- 
ijorl t'cnlcr, Plilliidol|i!ilit, Pa. 
DccrliiR Milllkcn, Inc., Now Yorlc City, 
N.Y. ?3,7fi2,'M(). l.OSa.BOn linear ydh. of 
wiiol Kiibnrdiiit! i;lt)tliH. Di-funm! Piirsiiniii>] 
SiippiH-l CJenlitr, Pliiliulelnhlu, Pa. 
""lliirllnftton IniliiHtrlcN, Inc.. Nuw Yorli City, 
N.Y. $1 ,()(!, ttafi. l,or.:i,000 linoar ydn. ot 
potion twill clolli. Dcfensu Pi-rnonnel H]i- 
linrl Center, PliilnrUilphin, Pn. 
.1. P. fHevcnH & Co., Nw York City, N.Y. 
S<l,i;i8,(l<ll. -i,ROO,()0 1 incur yds. of cotton 
twill cloth, nofanue puraininel Humioi't 
Conlur, IMiiladolpbla, Pn. 

C. M. London (lo., Now Yiirh City, N.Y. 
Sl.SlB.lOO. 2,000.000 unimre yelH. of tdtton 
twill cliith, Dofi'ime I'erinnniel Stinjimi 
Center, Ptillnil(>lphla, Pn. 

rimthnm Mfir. Co.. Ktkln. N.C. $a.20!t,:iHH. 
4ai!,77fi wool liliinhelti. DcfciiHQ Puriiunnu] 
Sinijicirl ConU-r, Pliiliulnliihln. Pa. 

HiirUitgtnn liuJuHlrks, Clovolnnil WntenH 

Dlv., Clnvelnrnl, Tcnn., S3,fiG7,fl!lO. 1100,000 
wool hlnrikelfl. DofeiiHc Ptsrtwinnul Huuporl 
Ccnlor, Plilliwloliiliin, I*. 

Horn Knnc I'roiIm-lFf, Itmoklyn, N.Y. Sl,- 
041,01)0. 100,01)0 fulftiiift cnimifl r.nta. !).- 
tanun (JenertJ Snmtly Gcnloi 1 , Jticliniiinil, 
Va. 

II Unllcd Alrnnft, Ilnrlford, Cnnn. $1,fi71,- 
448. Aircrnft bcnrlnK". Hnrtforil. j)o- 
fi'niio InrliiHtri -.1 Supply Cenlor, J'hllfiilol- 
lihln, Pa, 

10 -If.H. ltnbl>cr, Providence, HJ, ?8,707,7()(l 
7,000 fuel ilnitnii (GOO-Kiillon). DefeiiHi! 
Cenenil Kii|i|ily Uontor, Kiclimonil, Va. 
DnvlN HjiorlHwcnr Co., I.awroiiM, Mri.'ui, 
Sa,aO!l,HOO. fifi.DOO mcn'H wool iidbnnliiie 
ovori-cmtii. ll^fetiBe Puninniicl Suiiport 
Center, I'hiltiilolphtn, Pn. 

(iontry Clollilnff Co., Philnilcliililn, Pn. $2,- 
220,500. 50,000 IIIOII'H wrail iniunnilnc over- 
wnitH. Defciind Pi'i'Honnel Support Ci>nli>r, 
I'liJIaileliihla, PJI, 

11 Dow Clicmfru] Co., Mtdlnnil, Mlcli, S.1.G4S,- 
00ft. ('licnilculn. DofonBc (icineral Hupply 
(ientor, liErlnncuid, Va. 

H. Wciuel Tent &. thick Co., St. I.oulH, Mo, 
2,700.745. 11, BOO miiuM-iifecd Bi)crnl inir- 
lioiic lonl*. nefeinic Poriionnel Hin.porl 
Center. Pliiladtljililn, Pn. 

10 J. !>. Hlevcna & Co., New York Cily, N.Y. 
$l,oT.7,01D. 1101,000 yiH f wlnd-i-cHtslnnl 
cotton oxford cloth. Dcfenno PorHonnnl 
Support Oimtcr, Plillndclliln, Pn. 
Mncfllioro Clnsslcit, Inc., Now York Oily, 
N.Y. $2,0215,000. 700,000 mcii'ii winfl-rcHln- 
Innt oolUni poiilln conta. Defcnae Poraon- 
nel flii|t]>rt Ccnlcc, Phitnileliihln, Pn. 
--Honhnm Mfjr. Co., ttonhnm, Tex. fl.fiUO.- 
800. 400,000 mon'B wiiul-realslant cotlini 
]iO]>lln conts. Defomia Poraonncl Sp]iort 
(lonlcr, Pliilndolplilfl, Pn, 

17 Addtaon Shoo Corp,, Wynne, Aril. Jl.aaa,- 
374. 120,000 unira of snfcty li'ncliou trend 
annex. Defense Pei-aonnc] Support Center, 
Plilladcliililn, Pn. 

18 Mnrnllion Oil Co., Now York City, N.Y. 
$3,040,20!). G2ft,000 bin-rein of itrade 1IF-1 
diosel otl. Defcnnfi Fuel Supjily Center, 
AlexaiHlrin, Vn. 

Hnywnrd Schuster Woollen Mllla, KJIHI 
DoiiKlna, Mann. $1,342,000. 107,020 woolen 
blnnkola. Defense Personnel Support Cen- 
ler, Phlliulelpliin, Pn. 

A. C. Dowoy Co., Knftoltl, N.II. (l.lOO.COIi. 
187.7GO woolen blnnkets. DcfcuBo Person- 
nel Support Center, rijtlndelplila, Fn, 
10 Conslnl Slnlcfl Pctr^clicmlcnl Co., Hounlon, 
Tex. ?1,G!M,BGO. 14.700,000 Kiillona of JP- 
4 Jet fuel. Defense Fuel Supply Center, 
Alexnndrln, V. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



Atlantic KlcJinp]cl Co., IMiihulcliihiii, Pn. 

S1,4G7,)K)I). 12,fi()(t,00() nulluriH of JP-4 jet 
fu], Dtifouxe l-'ucl SJumtly (JoiLtet-, Alex- 
nrnli'in, Vii. 

Illuoticll, Inc., Oi-foiiHburfi, N.(J, 51,002, 7GO. 
500, (1(10 moii'd (-iiltihii Icliukl troiiHi'i-ii. I>o- 
fi-iiHi! IVrsnniiel Supiiort Cond't'. PhtljuJol- 
nhiii, 1'n. 

1 J. I*. HlevciiH, Inc., Niw York City, N.Y. 
Sl,;iOO,IIIH>. (inO.ODO ynnlii of wixil anil luily- 
i-rtlur (tldlli. neffinHi! PurHennii;] Hu]ilnirt 
Uifiitur, Philu(k>l|ihln, Pa, 

>- -IrvlnR Air (!liiitc (In., Loxinjclmi, Ky. $1,- 
r>!!l,<!H'l. li.H'llt Hinnll-Histii Kiitiin-nL puriioim 
li'iilH. DolY-iinc' Poi-Hdiiiii?! Hninmrt Contur, 
Plillail^liiliJn, ]>n. 

M. Hlimnc Mfff. Cit., ClIii'lHoiL, MILMH. ?!,- 
.1Nl,,'ir>(), ri.OOO m^tHnm-niv.!! iienerjil iiiininiii: 
tfiilH. I)!fon(i PcnwuMnel Hiniiiorl Cunlui-, 
I'lil Ituli-lpliin. Pn. 

-.1. P. HtitvciiA & Co., Nt-w Y4irli City, N.Y. 
Sl.lU.rilfj, (1 111,000 Lincnr y<ln. i>f cloth. I)c- 
frnni- l'i!rHiuirii:l Hii]tport (JciiU'f, Pbilmtcl- 
liliin, Pn, 

Nnnlox-ltlvlora Cnrp,, How Yurh llfly, N.Y, 
Sa.-ir.l.)iHI). r>.00(l.(ll)l) imlrn f in*n l n rullmi 
silnii-lH. Ucft'iiHt! Poiwinni'l Hiiiiiiort Cunlc'f. 
Phllnilclpliln. E>. 

--Van 1) rode MilHnu Cn,, Clinli.n, MIIHM. J2,- 
212,710. IH.UHll ILHI>H (if rjitloti tm]>|)li>muiit 
Hdinlrlcji ininUH, Dcfeimi' l'i'i'ininnl Suti- 
inirl C'lintiJi, Pliiliicli^lpbliL, Pit, 
-hauler 1>, I,nwHn & Co., I.OUK Itencli, 
Cnllf. S2.afil.HKII. (i7,(ta() eni.cu of rullon 
Hiilitilomt-nt mindrlcH pnckii. Dcfonnc Por- 
Hurinol Si(|fH't (!i(iiU>r, IMillndcliihln, Pn. 
Hun Oil Co,, Phihufcliitiin, Pn, $H.041,a(Hl. 
]K,!IO(I.()(1(I Kiilluim (if JP-4 j(-t fuel. DcfciiHC! 
Futi] Hinml.v (Jwnlcfi 1 . Alcxcuiilrtu, Vn. 

Hnmlilc 01] A ISiillutnK Co.. Itimsiton, Tex. 
Sl.liHT.IGO. Ifl.HOn.lHKI Kiillcimt i.f JP-4 jot 
fiu'l. l!)i>fnHii Knirl Hupiily Ouiitor. Al(?s- 
11 mlriii, Vn. 

CniiHtnl HlntPH Polrnrlnimlrnl <;o., !tnnlori, 
'IVs. $1 ..HS.rilifi. la.rtdd.OCHJ Kiillmm of JP-J 
fiiml. Dofonno Fuel Kiipi'ly Cciitnr, Alcxnn- 
drlri, Vn. 

Ilt'MB Oil tti Clionilnil 1,'orii., Perth Amlmy, 
N.J. Sl.!)2ll,(10ll. la.ftllfl.inm KaMoiiH of Jl'-l 
ji't fuol. Di'fi'MHi- l''ul H*l|'plV (Jeiili)!', 
Ali'xiiinli'lri, Vn. 

'>" Clicmlcnl Co.. Mhlliinil, Mich. Sl.HI'f,- 
nafi. IVO.OOd KuMmiH, (if t!Ni<]iiii>nlH. Dufoniii) 
ftenernt Hupnly Center, Itluhimmd, Vri. 
-A nil Ht rn (i I'ruiliirlH Co.. lIiirit.inKtiin, W. 
Vu. SLfiHIMIItri. H.I1IHI flolil rniiKC Iniriim- 
iinllfl, -l.aftll llelit 1-nnKo cuhlticdi and MIM- 
cEtilod ]Nirn jiru'tn. DifftMiHo (Jonernl Hnjiply 
Ct'litcr, Rii'lilinjinl, Va. 



DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS 

AGENCY 

(t-'Hywlem HelciicoH Cnrji., l-'nllij (IhiLroli, Vii. 
SU.OOO^OO. Cunt I n until in of tniKlncnrliiff 
fttsrvkien In fnit'l'iJi'l t the DefoiiKo Cinn- 
iiiunlcntlonH Anoncy'H UHlcllitr liinnnninl- 
ctiltiiiiH pruject In t)Y 1UQ7. 

ARMY 

3 WcHtcrn Uleclrlc, New Ynrk UHy, N.Y. 
p.UOO.OOO. KY HlftT Nik Uorculca nnil 
itnju-ovcd Nlko Ilerculcn onu3neiir!iiK iiorv- 
Iccs, BnrliiiKton, N.O.; Syniciinc, N.Y.j niul 
3nn tn Monicti, Cnllf. Army Mlmiilo <!o- 
mnniil, Jluntnvlllt!, Aln. 

<--IlAlllcrnrtr, CliicnKu, 111. ?1,H83,OHO. En- 
Ktncci'lnK ilcvcloiuncnl norvtcc teal mixlolB 
of H eonnlei'inonuut-o act. Ohicdno. Army 
Electronics Cmnn-Hind, Fort Monnioittli, N.J. 

-Hofittlo HUveilorn Co., Eii-altlo, Wntth. 512 a - 
Jt07,832. Sltfvecl4irIi>H Hoi-vlci'H and r&lnlcrl 
tcrmtnnt norvteea nl llio Nnvy Suiiiily I)o- 
]it, Seattle, Wnah., for Ilia nerlwl of Feb. 
1, 1007 tlmniBh Jn. 81. 1000. Wcntern 
Area, Mllllnry Trnlllc MnniiKemenl niul 
Terminal Soi-vlne, Oah]ni3, CJnllf. 
4- -Plnscck Aircrnfl Corp,, Mnyllcltl. Pn. *!,- 
2f)2,ll)l. Gnule (lanctnbllctt. MnyflcM, Army 
Etoc Ironic a Commnnd, Phllndelpliln, 1'n. 



53 




'n Inc.. Hartford, Cunn. 81.681,159. 
Mifi.'XMlCEl rille marine assemblies. 
ll"rtf..ni; Army Weapons Command, Rock 




"Oklahoma Project. \VnBoner Covinly, 
Okla. KnKlnwr Dist Tulsa ,0 kla 

i Hnutr Urcdginff (-.. New York Lily, W.i. 
S" Ttifi ''-17 OredKim,' work on the Hamp- 
l."n Ko.ids. Vn., Channel Deepening I roj- 
cct. Kiifiincer Dist, Norfolk, Vn. 

i Kcovill Mfg. Co., Wotcrbiiry. Conn. 81,- 

350 000. Crennde fuzes. Water hury. Am- 
munition Procurement & Supply Agency, 

I- -wVvmouti. Construction Co., Memphis, 
Tenn J2.-IS7.SOn. Work on the Mississippi 
River nnd Tributaries Flood Control He- 
vf-tmfiits Project. St. Francisville, La. 
KnKini.'r Dist, New Orleans, Ln. 
..-Defense Mclal Products, Sylacniiftn. Ala. 
J* 642.S23. Metal parts for IBBmm pro- 
jcr tiles. SylacniiKn. Ammunition Procure- 
ment & Sutiply Aftency, Joliet. 111. 

!- -Emerson Elerlric Co.. St. Louis, Mo. 57,- 
711 ''!5. Armament subsystems (Aftl-^nl 
for Cohni helicopters. St, Louis. Army 
Weapons Commiiml. Rock Island, 111. 
--Bell Helicopter Co., Fort Worth, Tex. Sl,- 
350000, UH-1E helicopters for the Navy. 
Hurst, Tex. Army Aviation Materiel Cum- 
mnnd. St. Louis, Mo. 

-Global Associates, Oakland, Calif. $<i,OG9,- 
037 Aircraft maintenance nnd operations. 
Kwnjalein Test Site. Marshall Islands. 
Heil-itone Arsenal, Huntsville, Ala. 

Aero Service Corp., Philadelphia, PH. $,- 
143,6110. Acrinl mapping work, Philadel- 
phia. Army Map Service, Washington, 
D.C. 

i Norris Industries, Vernon, Calif. $1,470,- 
1112. Training projectiles. Vernon. Am- 
munition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Joliet, 111. 

J. A. Jones Construction Co., Nashville, 
Tenn. S21,BM,500. Rehabilitation and re- 
activation of two production lines with sup- 
porting facilities at (he Holston Army 
Ammunition Plant, KinRHport, Tenn. En- 
gineer Dist., Mobile, Ala. 

Raytheon Co., Lexington, Mass. 84,013,020. 
Retrofit kits for the Hawk missile system. 
Andover, Moss. Army Missile Command, 
Himtsville, Ala. 

--Mason & Hanger, Siins Mason & Go,, Lex- 
ington, Ky. 51,136,618, Loading, assom- 
blinit and packing of ammunition. Burling- 
ton. Iowa. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency. Joliet, 111. 

Northrop Corp., Anaheim, Calif. $2,270,- 
148. Facilities to produce ordnance pro- 
jectiles. Anaheim. Picatinny Arsenal, 
Dover, N.J. 

McCarthy Bros. Construction Co., Ladue, 
Mo. S3.R7ii,324. Work on the St. Louis 
Flood Protection Project. St. Louis. En- 
gineer Dist, St Louis, Mo. 

Knram Construction Co., El Paso, Tex. 
$3.132,273. Construction of 30 ono-story 
enlisted men's barracks; three mess halls; 
three headquarters nnd classroom buildings; 
and nil supporting utilities. Fort Bliss, 
Tex. Engineer Dist, Albuquerque, N.M. 

A. G. Schoonmakcr Co., Sniisalito, Calif. 
S2.537.10l. Construction of a land based 
power plant on Kwajalein Atoll. Engi- 
neer Dist, Honolulu, Hawaii. 

iOeneral Tire & Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio. 
51.651,636. Pneumatic tires for use on 
various trucks, trailers and semi-trailers. 
Waco. Tex. Army Tank Automotive Com- 
mand, Warren, Mich. 

R. G. LeTournenu, Inc., Longview, Tex. 
83,164,800. Metal parts for 7BO-lb bomba. 
Longview. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Fontaine Truck Equipment Co., Birming- 
ham, Ala. 52,532,948. 25-ton scmi-trailera. 
Haleysville, Ala. Army Tank Automotive 
Command, Warren, Mich. 

Amron Corp., Wnukesha, Wia. $1,300,000 
Brass cups for 20mm M103 cartridge cases. 
Waukeaha. Frankfort! Arsenal, Philadel- 
phia. Pa. 

Kellett Aircraft Corp., Willow Grove, Pa 
$1.000,000. Field photographic laboratories 
and components. Willow Grove. Army 
Electronics Command, Philadelphia, Pa 



* 



AVCO Corp., Stratford, Conn. 51,404,000. 
T53-L-1C engines for the OV-I helicopter 
(Mohawk) Stratford. Army Aviation Ma- 
teriel Command, St. Louis, Mo. 
iS-Hesse-Kastern Division of Norris Indua- 
Iries, Everett, Mass. S2,277,OHu. tiunim 
rocket ]Bunch-B. Brockton, Mass Am- 
munition Procurement & Supply Agency, 

G\bb Mfg. & Researcli Corp., Janesvillc, 
Wis Sl,!aS,3E. FIIKO adapters for use on 
81mm mortar cartridges. Janesville. Am- 
munition Procurement & Supply Agency, 

Eureka Williams Co., Bloominptton, Til. ?!,- 

450 240 Hand grenade fuv.e assemblies. 

nioomington. Ammunition Procurement & 

Supply Agency, Jollet, 111. . 
Tnllcy Industries, Mesa, Ariz, $3,810,607. 

Hand grenades. Mesa. Edgowood Arsenal, 

Robert E McKce General Contractors, Inc., 
Santa I'e, N.M. S3,G12,Gfi5. Work on the 
Albuquerque Diversion Channel Project. 
Albuquerque, N.M. Engineer Dist, Albu- 
querque, N.M. . 
Ill Thurmont Construction Co., Ihurmont, Md. 
gl S37 48D Construction at Fort Delrick, 
Md. Engineer Dist., Baltimore, Mil. 

Philco-Ford Corp., Newport Beach, Calif. 
51,377.805. 40mm grenade launchers. Now- 
port Ileach. Army Weapons Command, 
Rock Island, III. 

20 Spurry Rand Corp,, New York City, N.Y. 
S17,84li,DM. Ordnance ilemH. Shrcvoport, 
La. Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, III. 

Remington Arms Co., Bridgeport, Conn. 
S2,4H4,GGO. Miscellaneous small arms am- 
munition. Independence, Mo. Ammunition 
Procurement & Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Mason & Hnngcr, Silas Mason & Co.. Lex- 
ington,' Ky. 821.807,370. Classified items. 
Burlington, Iowa. Ammunition Procure- 
ment & Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

U.S. Rubber Co., New York Olty, N.Y. S12,- 
556,139, Ordnance items and additional re- 
activation funds and O&MA activities. 
Joliet. 111. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Joliet, III, 

Raytheon Co., Bristol, Tenn. $l,ilSG.02fi. 
Metal fuze parts for 750-lb bombs. Ilrialcil. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, III. 

MEVA Corp., Cocoa, Fla. $1,223,798. 
Power system supervisory controls, tele- 
metry and capacitor iimtallallon for Inline)) 
complex 30. Merrill Island, Fla. Knfflnoer 
Dial., Men-lit Island, Fin. 

General Motors, Indianapolis, Ind. $7,473,- 
GOO, T63-A-BA engines anil data for LOII 
aircraft Indianapolis. Army Aviation 
Materiel Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

General Electric, Burlington, MaaH. J2,- 
500,200. M-86 machine! guns and inspec- 
tion and lest equipment. Springfield, Mnstt. 
Army Weapons Command, Rock Island, 111. 
23 Day & Zimmerman, Philadelphia, Pa. $7,- 
013,452. Loading, assembling and pacldnK 
at medium caliber ammunition nnd miscel- 
laneous components. Philadelphia. Am- 
munition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Joliet. 111. 

Hercules Engines, Canton, Ohio. $4,521,- 
000. Multi-fuel engine nsscinbliea for Ore- 
Ion trucks. Canton. Army Tank Automo- 
tive Command, Warren, Mich. 

Stolte, Inc., Oakland, Calif. $2,012,048. 
Construction of two ISO-mini, nvo-slory 
bachelor officers quarters nt Camp Kim and 
Machinato Service Area, Okinawa. Engi- 
neer Dist, Okinawa. 

Snnte Fo Engineers and Stolte, Inc., nnd 
DBA S&S Constructions, Lancaster, Calif. 
$17,217,217. Conslruction or Space Launch 
Complex No. 6 nl Vandenberg APB, Calif. 
Engineer Dist, LOB AnseleH, Calif. 

Olin Matlitcson Chemical Corp., Now 
Haven. Conn. $1,106,000. 20mm cartridges. 
Vv, ! 110 ' " ld< Frankford Arsenal, Phila- 
delphia, Pa. 

25 Lakeside Bridge nnd Steel Co;, Milwaukee, 
Wis. 51,127,247. Work on the 0nrk Lock 
and Dam, Arkansas Itlver, Project. Oznrk, 
Ark. Engineer Dint, Little Rock, Ark, 
RCA, Camden, N.J, $7,410,082. Radio sets. 

m , V u, Ar n iy Electronics Command, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

'J" t J" ont 'n c ntnl Mfg. Co., Garland, Tex. 
4*21,100. Metal parts for Nike-Hercules 
rockel molore. Garland. Army Missile 
Command, Huntsville, Ala. 



26 



27 Chrysler Motors, Detroit, Mich, 31,014,523- 
One-ton cargo trucks nnd amlnilance*- 
Wnrrcm, Mich. Army Tank Automotive 
Command. Warroti. Mich. 

Sperr;' Rnml Corp.. St. Pniil, Minn, $.- 
1)00,000, ClnsiHinQiI oleetronlcH equipment- 
St. F'aiil. Army UlcctronlcH ConimnrLd. 
Fort Monrnonth, N.J. 

A. 0. Smith Corp., Ohicaso, 111. $7,100,7*9.. 
Mclal parts for ilcinolltion bombs, Wnco, 
Tex. Ammunition ProBurcincnl & Supi'ly 
AKt'iicy, Joliet. III- 

American Machine S: Foundry Co., SlrtioK- 
lyn. N.Y. S3.23:{,272. Metal pnrta fa* 
ik-molltion bomba. Garden Oily, N.Y, Am- 
munition Procuroiiicnl & Supply Atfcuc/h 
Joliet III. 

,10 Hercules, Inc., Wilmington,. Dol, 57,fr3,; 
114. firain propullmil and opernUijim nnA 
mnlntennnco activities. Liiwrericc. Kan, 
Ammunition I'l-HCiircmorit & Supjfly 
Anoncy, Jollol. 111- 

Ihiglies Aircrnft, Knllertoii, Cjillf, $.I,HS.* 

ibc! Air Defense l>'U'o nislrlljiilltin Ky*irni. 
Fullerton. Army Missile Cumin mid, Hurila- 
ville, Ala, 

--General Motors, Dt;Lroit r Mich. 92, KM 6*. 
Trucks. Detroit Army Tank Aiilmnut Ivc 
("iinnmand, Warren, Mich. 

Intcrnatlonnl Hurvestcr Co., Clilrngu. Ill, 
$2,0,23, Ifin. HUHCS. Ijima, tlhlo. Army Tank 
Automotive Conimiind, Wiirwn, Mli-li. 

Olin Malhicson Clicmlrnl CTorn., Knat Al- 
ton, III. S4,fi40,5r 1 (). aOmni cnvlrldKo L-r<>- 
pollant Kant Alton. Kninltfonl Ampnnlj 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

DeMnnro Construction Cnrn., Njihn, Oki- 
nawa. Sl,fl02,lHFi. (JoiiHti'iiPtiou <if vnrlr>u 
buildings and thuli 1 exUn'inr utilUlfii At 
Miinhiiiiilo Service Area. Oliiiuuva. llnifl- 
neur Dist, Oklmiwu.. 

;il IIcrciikH, Inc.. Wilmington, !>(!, Si,COtl.- 
[).[[). Miscellninjouii iiriipellnnhi niul i-s|it(i- 
nivL'H and DpeniliiniH find. rtiiifnU'imrLi-* 
aclivltloH. Ilndford, Vn. AniiiiLiiillluii SVo- 
ciiremcnt & Supply Agency, Jullcl, III. 

National (Jypaiim Co., llulTnl.i, N.Y. |S P - 
RH0.7H4. OlaflBilled IteniH nnd <i.i'rnlE<jr.i 



nnd iniiintcnniicc^ 
Ammunition Prc 
ARoncy, .Iiiliol. 111. 
Harvey Aluminum 
Onlif. $1,0.10,404. 



3'nmirtH, Knn- 
& Ku|i|i!f 



Halc, Inc., Torrmirif. 
ClntHiillc.) itenm nr.A 

opcrationti and ninlnlunnnce iicllvltli 1 ;", Mi- 
lan, Tonn. Ainmutiltiori I'nii'iiiTiui'iH A 
Hupiily Anitniiy, Jlli!t, III. 

Tlttnhol Chemical Corp., Iti'lst.il, I'll. J!J2.- 
710,n2r>. Loading. riHmiinlilinit und imchli-ir 
of nilHuollancous illuiniciatiiu; prufculllc ". 
and oporntions and niaintoiiniiri- urtlvllln. 
Marnhall, Tox. Aminiinllhiu l'i>ii'iiircinrr.1 
& Supply Aitency, Joliol, 111. 

Ollu MathlcHon Clivmlcnl (,'or[i., V.n*\ Al- 
ton, III. SM!)7,(MK, AcllvJilUin nt rurfcct 
])]'o|H'IImit fiuilliLicH and oin'nitlonii nn 1 
maintenance nctlvltEnti, Hfirnliiiii. Win, Ar:> 
munition Procurement & HiiMily AHviuf, 
Joliet, III. 

^~011n Mnthiesmi Clicmlntl ('<>rp>, V.nil Al- 
ton, III. $1,1)07,0114. 7.l)aiiiin cnriTiilm-i. 
KiiHt Alton. I''nmUford Arm-mil, I'hllnil^f- 
phiik, I'a. 

Olin MatliicHon (^lirmlcHl ('orn., Kniit Al- 
ton, III. $1,028,1)^7. G.r.Omm ctvi-klilpt*. 
KiiHl Alton, Fninkfnril Amend], l'lillnrfi'3- ' 
pliia. [ 

OHn MatliicHon Clicmlcnl Corp., Knnt Al- 
ton, 111, $'l,203,IJflC. 7-il2mm cnrtrlilHr*. 
East Alton, l^rniikfiii'd Arse-nil], 3'lillfiiU!- 
pliia. 

OHn MalhloHon, New Ilnvcn, Oonn. 
810,204. 7.02mm cnrlriilROfl. Now 
l'"ranl(fm'd Arsenal, I'hilfidclpliln. 1'ji, 

Federal Cartridffo Corp,, Aiuikii, Minn. 
i)4(i,G70. G.GOmm curlrlilffea. Aimku. J'rsnk- 
ford ArsGtial, riiilmltilpiilii, TH. 

KcmlnRloii Arms Co., ISi'lilffcimrl, C<TIP. 
$2,R02,B14. S.GGmm carlrldirra. IlrWscpf.!l. 
Frankford Arsciml. Plilljiilclphln, Vn. 

Remington Arma Co., BrlrlKcporl, C.:T-H. 
$4,037, nSO. 1.02mm and 7.C2iiim cnrlrlfe*-.-. 
Hrldnoiiort. Fraishford Araoanl, ]*hibfl*L- 
phia, Pa. 

Amron Corn,, Waukoolm, Win, $],4tl.OC4. 
20mm projectiles. WmikeHlin, 
Arsenal, Pnilnclclpliia, fn, 

Chryalcr Corp., Ccnlcrllno, 

70S. EiiKlnQorlnjr uervlccH In ntuuwnt t( 
MOOA1B2. MOOAl, M48A8 nnel JH9AH f.^- 
bat tanks. Center-line. Army Tnnk Auto- 
molivo Center, Wurrcn, Mich. 

International Harvester Co., OhlcnKO, 111- 
$1.308,307. Tractor truclu). Fort Wnyrnf. 
Ind. Army Tnnk Automotive Center. War- 
ren, Mieh. 

JolmHon Corp., Hellovuo, Ohio. J3.141.3!*, 
Glmals trailers for B'/S-ton M3fi9 vehlclw, 



(!,- 



February 1W7 



Hollevue, Army 'rani; Aiitomolivit Center 
Wnrreii. Midi. 

' liOiiilrnifl, tin-,, l)e.iilim, Tex. SUlHil.firifl. 
Six-tun Heiiil-trailern, llniilv, Tex. Army 
Tmili Aiilumotiv(> Center, Wnrrrn. Midi. 
-KCA, Cnmden, N.,1. S:i,(1liH,li:!l1. Itmllo m>tn 

(Hill ndltll 1(111 III | eellll It-Ill reipliri-llienlPI. 

Cniiiden. Army Mlectnmlrit Coimimiid, 
I'liilndelphln, I 'a. 

.(iViii'riil l>yiiiiiiilcn, Itdi-henler, N.Y. St,(ill7,- 
OHH. Undid tietii nml t'umimm'nlu. ll.ii'lientei-. 
Army Mlerlrimlen Commnml, I'lilliidcliiliin, 
]'a, 

Itiiiiuiulrli Ciirp.. MiiHur drove, Vn. $1,- 
KlV.ilHl, lloinl.'i. Hindu- (iruve. Udjrewood 
Aniennl, Mil. 

Mini' Hnfrly AnpHam-r Co., I'lltiilmrtth, I'a. 
Sli.llfi.l.liim. I'l^ld |ir<ilecl Ivc m/mkti. |>;,i- 
ulinul, U.I, I'iilwwuoil Ann-mil, Md. 
AVCO Corp., Htrnlford, Conn, i-M^IKVU.'l, 
TiirMne riov./len nml jrcar \\<>\ imtn'mliHi'ii for 
T-r.:i 1 urMni' 1-iiKliicn. Slrnlfciril. Army 
Avin!.li>ji Mnleriel Cdiiiiiminl, SI. I.ouln, Md, 
HiiHlieii '1'inil Co., Culver (lily, Cnlif, $-),- 
Vr.d.'IOI). Uj-ln oli!iei>vnllon helleuptern and 

relnled "I inl Imilii. (Iiik-i't- City. Army 

Avlnlldii Materiel Commund, .SI. I, unlit, Mii. 



NAVY 

:i Sylviiiiln Kin-trie I'rodiicln, M ..... ilnln View, 

Calif, $;!,I)(III,(>(IIJ, MJredlui, llmler jull>- 
....... I. Mdimtiilii Vli-w, Niivnl Jlhii.. Syn- 

lemii Cummnnd, 
Dymm .t Cn., I ..... nut-din, l-'ln. ?l.a!t;!,|i(K), 

Cuniilnii'lion of mi nin-nifl rewnrli llnnirer 
nl III'' IV ..... u-nlii, [-'In., Niii'iil Air Slnliuii 

Huiilli.'n-il Illv., Nnvnl I'm-IIIHi'ii I'lnKlneer- 
init Commund, 

Htirvi-y Aliuiiliuiin, Tori'mii'e. Cull P. 31,- 
7',>II,!IU7, MKM MOD (I. Hlli ..... i.rujcetlleri. 

Torrnnce, Nnvy Mhlpn I'nrin Conlrol Cim- 
li'r, Mei'linrili-iilim-f?, I'n, 
Clinm-v .1 inn CH Cu,, Itlcluu-iliiiiti, Tes, SI,. 
IM.IKHI. IliiiiKli-iu-lii.ii df nil mill-unit. nlr- 
..... II'H dormlliii-y nl, llni-ldidnle A !>']!, I.n. 

(Jiilf Miv., Nn vii I Knelll I |e:i Kuidi ..... Him 

[''ijiiinniul, 

I l-'r ..... tmin Alrrnifl Kiurlnm-lntr Corn., 
lli'tli|Mi,i-, N.Y, ?!! MHI.IIIHI. A-HA iiln-rnfl. 
Hellnnme. Nnvnl Ah- Hynlenm Cuminmid. 
I .TV Ai>rii|inrii Cnrii., Dnllnn. Tex. S:MI.- 
nmi.llM. A-7U ulnrrnn, Mnllnu. Nnvnl Air 

[iVIlll'lllrl ( 'llltllllllllll. 

UnHi'il Alrt-riifl, Hlnilfurd, (tmiti. SI. -Kill, - 
(Hill l,i. nit ]I>ILI| Iliur itll'nrl nml iiinli'rliilii 
In mi|i|.r1 i.ri.^un-ii ..... t df IJM-ltK hcli- 

n>|iti-rti !} iho Air l-'i.rri-. filrulfunl, 

Nnvnl Air ityntcmn Ciniiiniiiiil. 

MrOot ..... II CM., HI. I ..... In. Mn. SI.'M.fllM,- 

f.:i:i. l-'-IM iiliri-nft. fin- lln> Air l-'oin-. HI. 
1 ..... 1' 1 - Nnvnl Air !ivl.'inn C ....... mini. 

llncliiK I'll,, MiiHnii, I'n, Sl,;;Vil,i)llll, CII- 

Illl) li<'lli-i)|ih>i'ii, Nnvnl Air Kyiilcnm Cum- 

innnil, 

l.i>i<liliri-<l Alri'rnrt, Hiii'linnli. (Inlif. si:-.. 

r,!li.lllill. hinuf li-iul linn- I'll'dil nml iiiiilri'lnln 

In mi|.|idH l''Y ||t(i? lininil'.'t.Hnl nf I'-.'lll 

iilrcntfl. Iliu-luiiik. Nnvnl Air Mynlt-mn 

('nmiiiiiiiil, 

!'. H. Mlrnl, I'ilhilninili, I'n. Sl.IlHU.H 



. 

inn'l, I'n, Nnvnl All- Hynli'iiiii ( diiiinniid. 
I't'li'riiim llnlhlcrH, Htnriii'iin liny, Win. Sfi.- 
H'.M,[!(H|. Ciiiinti'iii'iliin uf tlin-c cdiinlnl 
inliii-iiwi'i'iiiTH. Htni-Ki'dii Hny. Nnvnl tlhiii 
HvtUi-mti (!<iimiiiinil. 
Mht-t-iv AITO, Inc., l-'nrinlriKdnli', N.Y. 

si.'.iitii.im;!. I,A\V. :M/A imi'ii-ii mi^ih- 

liium'hiTn. l-'ni-mlnitdnlc. Nnvy I'un-hdii- 
IIIK OIIU-.-. WnHliliiiili'ii, )>.<!. 
Itnlikld IniliiNtrlm, Cni-ri'lKoii, Ti-x, $11,- 
lit". 111'/. Mnrk IB H'lnnl linn lined with MK 
HI! linml.!i, (Inrriillti.ri, 'I'l-x, nml Hhi-cvi']inrl, 
l,n, Niivy Klilini I'III-IK (luiitrnl ('onlcr, 
Mci'lintiEi'iiluirjf, I'll. 

-UnlU-il AliTnifl, Wlmlntip I,ni-lin, Cdiin, 
8l.-ifill,(l(m, I 1 r<i|ii'll<-t 1 nyli>mii inti-d mi I 1 - 
!IU n In- rii Cl. Wlndtidi- l.nckn. NBV.V Aviu- 
lldi. Mnnily OJIlfi-, I'lillndnltthlii, I'n. 
I.tiiku Mi'lnl PrniliidK, Inc., Wrntclioili'i-, 
I'n. !a,l{l4.llfI4. Mnrlc M Inirnli llnti ariufni- 
lill.'.i mini nn ar.ll-lli MK HI IxiiiiliH. Wctil- 
clii-iilci'. Niivy Hill]"* I'ni'tii (.'imtnil CPTI|.T, 
Mi-iilinniriilini'B. ]*n. 

Wen Illinium no l-IIwdrlr, llnltlturn-u, Mil. $!,- 
Hlfl.lMW, AN/Al'CJ 101) rmldi- tnf Ilio Air 
MUTf. HitlUmui'o. Nnvnl Air Hyt?mn Com- 
iniuiil. 

Teleili-no HyBteiiiH, Hiiwllnirm>, Cnllf. JK,- 
OIIOjKIII. Hc'If.ermlnliK'il iiiivludlicm nytitomH. 
lltiwllmrnn, Nnvnl Air HyloniH ('(nniiiiiTnl. 
TInltMl Alrrrnft, Hlrnlfunl, Cmin. $-l,(tri,- 
(il)O. Mil an hi'HeoiilWH. ItrldKoimrt, (!imn. 
Nnvnl Air HyslcniH Commnni], 



-Iliiclntt Co., Mm-ldn, I'n. $ll),fi(i7.fl!)(i (HI-. 
^(iA mid 1 111-1 (i A li(>llo]ih!rH. Morion. 
Nnvnl Air .Syiilciun Cninintnid, 
Hnndi-rii AnHDi'lnti-H, Nmiluui, N.ll. S',i,7iH) - 
(i'lfi, Dciiijcn, fahricnlhm nml lent H ( e.lnuni- 
llt'd <>l(>i-troni<'ii I'liuii.nu'iil. Nmiliini. Niwnl 
Milji Sypili'in:! Ciiimiinnd. 
Criiniiiiini Air.-riift Hiifrliipcriutt Corp., 
Hi'tlil.nj:.', L.I.. N.Y, SHMHHMWO. Ui'ni'nr.-li 
nml di>vi!ld|inii'iil. wnrlt DII MAfill niri'rnft. 
[li'tli|ni)[i'. Nnvnl Air .SyiHi>mn Coininnml, 
-NnHn'mn Oiirrutlitfr Co., lifiltiiiion. Mi!. 
M,47V,!t!t:!. Oii.l.nn,, NtKVi'ddi'hitt tici-vii-i'H 
nml li-i'inlnnl wiirfliniinlmf diicrnllnnii. 
Nnvnl O|.t-rnlinj( MUM,.. Nurfolli, Nnvnl 
KniU'ly Ciftitcr, Ndi-fnlk, Vn. 
SiM-ri-y (iyi-iwi-iii( Cn,, (in-nl. Nr-ck, N.Y. 
Sl.TVII.yil), Iti-iuiir imrln fur iinvl|:ntidiinl 

''l''l I ""I'd im IV.IHI-III niibniurliicti. 

lii'i'nl Ni-i'k. Nnvy Hlilpti 1'nrtn Cdiilrul 
(.('iili'r, McfliiinicHhiinr, I'n. 
Tmlil SliiiiynrilH, Kan 1'i'drn, Ciilif. $1 filW - 
7:'IH, 'I'niKiiilf dvi'i'liinil (if llu> tilh'i* IIHH 
I'LAT'I'I-; (A() IM). Kim ]',,,],-. N, IV]I | 
tSlilp Hyiili'iiisi ('umiiimnl. 



II'H Alveriifl, l>'iill.'rion, Cnlif. $l,(l;H>,- 

V(ll). D.vilun. ili'velo|uiieiil, mui lent, of nine 

lieiieoii video pron- 'n, unil amioi-inted 

I'linlpmeiil fur Hie Nnvnt TtirUiiii] Dnta 
Hyiiliiin, l-'mlertun. Nnvnl Ship ,Sy:il(imii 
Ciiminniid. 

'1'oild Nliliu-nnU. Sentlle, Waim. SI,r>ll',!,liOH. 
Iti-Kiilm- ovei'linnl of tile InndiiiK iihip. dock 
Uli.'i Wlirlnlone iLHI) -.171, Hentlle. Super- 
vittiir of Slilpl.ulldiiiK, litlh Naval Dhit., 
Mentlle. Wlmll, 

Mil* Him Kli'i-lruiilrH Cin-p,, Mm (in. SK- 

;!li:>,],'M. D.'lonntlon iiriincrn for llve-lni'li 
projectiles. Miiroii. Navy Hlil].!i 1'artn 
lloutrul Cunler. Merlimili-idnirn, I'n. 
Coliiiiilniii Mllpar & MfR. Cn., Colinnlinn, 
Olild. s:i,N,i:i,;|l)(I, ]!,], ||,,n. Culimiln,:!. 
Nnvy Khippi I'nrln Cunt rut Cenler, Meehmi- 
li'nlinri;, 1'n. 

11 d'elU'ral MnlotH, liidinnn)idl|pi, lull. SI, 'Mil, - 
7111). l)evelo|iinen( mnl lenllmt of n j;nn 
liirl.hie enjihie for VH{X) AHW iiiiimlonn, 
liiillnini|iolh, Nnvnl Air Syntennt Com- 
inn ml, 
ItTV Ai-nui|iiii'i' Ciirp., Dnlliipi. Tex. R'l - 

IHIII, mill, Lon^ lend II eltuM tu mi|.|iort 

I-'V MtliH unii'iiremi'Til of mnterinlpi to e\- 
leiid nervli-e life of !' HA/ll/C nlrcrnft. 
Ilnlliin. Nnvnl Air Myulenin Cuimnmid. 

(truer ul Mlvrlrlr. Wivil I.ynn. Md 81,- 

r.lill.Hllll. Di-velupiiienl mnl lenl.lnit uf n jdi" 

lurhi mine for VX(X) AMW mlnidun-t. 

Wivil I, you. Nnvnl Air Kyud-iini Cumninnd. 
Me!)niiTii-ll Cu., ,'il. L.nilii. Mo. Sf.H,(llll),lH)li. 
l'| IK mui UF -1C alrerafl fur [lie Air 
l-'in-i-f, ,'it. l.oiiin. Navnl Air Kyiilernii 
CoMiinmnl. 

Hi TI(W In.-,, lied lo lleni'li, Cnlif. Sli!,(tr.-l,- 

1IH7. r.-i'fori iee df nynlein nnrilynlii mid 

pimlrieerhii! liiliin'iiliivy experlim-ntnliiMi fur 
nntl-inilinini'iiie \vavfnre tiynlcinn. Iti-domlo 

llem-li. Nnvnl Urilnnni-e Svntemti C niniid. 

UCA, Ilnrri^iun. N..I. SH.dllt.ilVri, l-Ilei-lruii 
tillien for pililiihunril iinrfiii'i'-Heiiri'li riidar 
nynli'iiipi. llnvrliinn. Nnvy Klt'i-tronlen Sun- 
lily (Hllre, Cretil l.iihcd, 111. 
(ii'iiernl liiiitriinu'iit Corp., Chli-upee, Maim. 
SI.JIN.|.7tMI. Ilinnli fn/i':i, Clili'upe.'. Navy 
Hliiliti I'ardt ('outrol (lenter, Mt'itlninli'it- 
hiiuE, I'n. 

l.miNilniviip HIi-cl & Iron Cn., Morion, I'n. 
SI.'IIM.'lIil). J'rdji'cUleii fur llvi'-lin-li fi-l 
rnlllier itmin. Murloii. Nnvy Hlilpit I'artn 
Cunlrul Ceiiler, Met'limiii-nliiirK, 1'n. 
WrNtlnttliniiNn Klrrlrlc, lltiltltiiiirc, Md. ?!,- 
:MU.-17I1. Itatlm- t'uiii|idin<nlpi. Hnlliinure. 
Nnvnl Air Syiileiiiii ('iiimiiaiid. 
Mrlimr, Inf., l-'nllii Cliiirch, Vn. gl.lOli.ttlld. 
SiihiiyiileiiiM fur alrlionie rndnr InnniiiK ami 
wnnilnit iielii, l-'nlln Chiireli. Navnl Air 
Sydleiint Cuiimniml. 

(Jnndvi-nr AfrnnniicB Corp., Akron, Olilu. 
?4.r,()(i.(niO, HIIUKOC mliwllcn nml ro.lntud 
I'liiiipmeni. Akron. Nnvnl Oi'diinnn' Syn- 



11! Wt'HlliiKlinilMo rCkrlrlc, WnnhliiKloii, !).(!. 
Sl,H''t,li:iH. I'lilnrin Innni-hur e.iiiii|imenL 
Huniiyvnli-, Calif. Hiwclnl I'riiji-rL Olllci-. 

' lIiiKlicn Alrcrnfl, Fullorlon. Cnllf. $1,.1I)H,- 
r>:iU. Htil]i;i (-(iiiiniaiid nml ninlrul hyHlein 
eipilinnidit for ihi! Nnvnl Tni'tienl Dntn 
Hyiilem. Fullerlon, Nnvnl Hhlp HyiUcmit 
Cdiiiniiuid. 

- "MtiK'tnvov (In., l-'url Wnym>. Iml. $1,00(1,- 
000. Ili'vcloinnoiit of nn nlr droiipiililc AH\V 
MiiniiMiwy nvHk'in, I'oi't Wnyn. Nnvnl Air 
Syntc-niii Cdininniid, 

l.rnr Klcfilcr, Inc., (irmul Hit|ildH, Mich. 
!<l,ri(ll),{)00. Ovoi'liiuil, mndillciitlon nml 
wiirrntilco tit AN/AJH-^A KyroHfioneJi lined 
on vnrloUH nttnclt inn) IlKhter alrcrnfl. 
(Irnnit Kniiida, Mich, nml Ixm 



Cnlif. Navy AvInUrm Himiily Olllce. Phllfi- 
dclphla, I l n. 

-I''MC (,'urii., Kan Jime, Calif. 51,081,403. 
ni'.'Hfin mid cdiivm'nioii r nn csiiRrlniontfil 
Inmiinu nrafl, Knn JHMI'. Nnvnl Slop SyH- 
li'inn C<iminnint. 

llnrvi-ll-ICiliriiro Corp., ToiiiK!, 'tVnti. ifl,- 
!IUI).7HK. MKKfi. MOD S innr)n mnrkurH 
iitii'd in aiill'iiohniiirini 1 wni-fnrt?, '['(innc. 
Nnval Klii|Mi I'nrlii (Junlrul (Icntcr, Mu- 
i-linnii'iibui'l;, I'n. 

I-'MC Cnrii.. MlnmmiH.lirt, Minn, Bi.itSI.Sir). 
Major i-oiii|)iii'iil!i uf lh B"/li'l ntivul Kim 
nioiint. Miiun.'iiiioliii, Nnvnl Octlnnin'^ SL- 
linn, Liniiiivllli', Ky. 

WrHlrrn Ulcrti-lr. Now York Oily, N.Y. 
S!l,!ir,:t,()(ll). O<'(-amj;riniliic' nwanili. Whlp- 
l.mi.v, N.J., Niivy I'nrcliiiJiinjt Olllisi;. Wiinh- 
Ini'lun. !).(!. 

Unitt-il llnnllinililiTH, Inc., fUillinijhuin, 
WiiHli. I?1,(I7I),(HKI. ]';||.]il llfi-fdol. tiydrii- 
tfraphii! iiiirvcy IniinrlM-ti. IltilliiiplinMi, 
Nnval Klil|i Hyult-itm Conirnnml. 
AVCO Ciirp., Hlrn1fi.nl. (Idnn. Sl,7;t7,(Hll. 
Coiiiitnnl niiiu'd ilrivi-M for Navy nlrn-nft., 
Klnilf.n-d. Nnvnl Air Kynlimm Cnmiiiniiil, 
A in IT I cii n Mfir. CD. of 'IVx., [< v nrt. Wurt.li, 
Tex. .;ii.7,'l'.!,H(in. MK V.f<, MOD () pi-iijiicllli-n 
nurd In nmiimiilUoii fur fi"/!)H nnval KIIUPI, 
l''in-l Worlli. Nnvy Klitpii I'ai'lsi Control 
Ci-nli'i 1 , Mi'i'liniili-iilnirii, I'n. 
l,niiHiliiwni' Klci'l A Inin Co., Mni-lou, I'n. 
S:U:ll,ri!lli. MK W, MOD |>roji><-lll<-H im.id 
in miiiiiiinltion fur fi"/!!H nnvnl itlmii. Mur- 
loii. Nnvy Hlilpn I'nrhi Oonlt-ul C*>nl<!i-, 
Mi'i-liiiiili'iilinrtf, I'n. 

1. ill-It ht'i-il Aln-rafl (lor p., Mnrii>llii, (in. 
S;t,:!riH ( n(ii). I'l'diiri-siilvi' ufn-rnfl rcxvurli on 
C l.'KI nin-nift. Miirii'llii. Nnvnl Air Hyn- 

ll'llltl ('llllllllllDll, 

Snnili'i-H AmuicinlPM. Nnnliun. N.II, Sll),- 
(i:(H,ni(t. Cln-^lllcil clci'lriinli- ivinipmctit. 
N'udinn. Nnval Air Ky!ili<niii Command, 
Wi-MllmrliniiHO Mh'clrlc <'in-|t., WiiHlilindun, 
D.C. Sr.1,7(l1.H:t;i. llcv.-lni.nii'nt (if liiiinHii>r 
nml limiiMliii; (>inil|iiiH'iil fur lln^ I'unolilon 
mlniilli'. Kuiiiiyvtili', CnliT, Kiiut'ial l'riijtn:l!i 
nilli-,'. 
Spi-i-i-y Itmiit Corp., Hyiiatii-1. N.Y. S1.H2I1,- 

0(H), Ti-i'luiicnl i liilnni'*' In mi|i|ic)rt, <if 

ill.- ovi'rlinnl of llii' iHivlirnlidii Hiiliiwd'Tiin 
nln.nrd four I'ulnrln iinliinnrlm'ii. Ncwpurt 
Ni'U-ii. Vn. ; I'orlHiinnilli. N.ll.: mid Oliinrh-n- 
lun, H.C. Nnvnl .Shin Kynli'rnii (iomininiil, 
Conlrol Hd In Corp., Mlnm-npidlM, Minn. 
Slt.itiiM.dllll. Cuiitrul Dntn (Him ComjuHfr 
Syiili'iit fur Hie Fleet Niiini'i-ii-nl Wt'iillior 
l-'ncllilV, Munli-ri'y, Calif. Anlcn Ilillii, 
Minn. Nnvnl 1'imtjti'niliiiili' Hclniol, Monto- 
n-y, Cnlif. 
Hpi'rry Itmiil Corp,, lli-hih.l, 'IVnn. $11,41)5.- 

1MV. I'lnitliici'i'iiiit m-rviiTii in iali'd wilh 

I ! (It'piiun nml lent I'Viilnnlloii I'lrurL fur 
itiililnni-i- nml i-oulrol ni-i-l limn of llti- Mliriku 
VV.'nponii Hyiilciii. llrlntil. Nnv.V I'lllvlldii- 
liilt Ollli'i-. l,o<> Ani!<>li>ii, <'nlif, 
-Icri'il IndiiHli-li'pi, ItlrMiimrliiiin. Mlrh. SB,- 
ll'll.H'.M. Three ilei-k eilm- clevaluvii nnoil 
In move aim-lift nlionnl Hie nln-rufl rnrHi'i 1 
HHH Midwny (CVA -1 1 >, Itirmlnitlinm. 
Naval Minnily Ccn!i<r, OiLklmid, Cnllf, 
l.oi-Mii-cil MliivllcH & Hjiiu 1 !' Co., Sminyvnli', 
Cntir, ?;l.7liri,^IH, l'u!iei!un rnii-nr<-li ntiil 
itevelo]iinen1 fneilitlei!. Hdiinyvii]! 1 . S) Hit: In] 
1'ro.kt-tn (Itlli-e. 

HnniliTH AitPiiii-lnU'H, Ninihun, N.If. S^.'fliil,- 
r.71!. CliuiHilled (niiiiiiuc device, Nriiilmii. 
Nnvnl Traliilntr Devit-e (Center, Oi-ljnul<i, 
Mn. 

Nnrrlx liiilimtrlpH, l.uii Amteleii, (inllf, gl,- 
(IH:i,45!l. Ciirlrl.lKi} rinniii fur UK nml r><l- 
enlllicr iinijerllleji. Vei'iinn, (Julif. Nnvy 
Kliip!i I'arlii Cunlriil (lenti-r, Mi'^hniiii'iiliiii'it, 
I'n. 

.CollliiK Kmllo Co., Cciliu- Umiiiln, town. $,1,- 
(IHH.IHI'/. Kadlo ni'tn, ui'i'nmtiry Itltii nnil n>- 
pnir ))iirln fur Nnvy nliii* nnil ntitii-o eiilali- 
llnliiiK'iilii. Cedar Itnpidii, Nfivat .Hlitp 
Hyiitcnm (!uiiiinmid. 

HundiTH AHKdrlllU'H, Niuilnia, H.1I. $1,. 
lOn.KRI). CIpiHillll.id olL'titroiiie ('i|iil]iinoiit. 
Nniilinn, Nnvnl Air .Synlcum Cninmaml. 
I/I'V ICIpclroNyHtoiHH, (irirunvllle, ft-x, ?!,- 
<)!l<l,7^:i. De.'iiKii. iiiMtnllnlliin mnl li'iit-iiut til 
l.wo olwlnmd' nyHlPinn, ii!iniit'lnli;il (!i|idi)- 
ment, nnpplleii mid Mervic't'H, leirlinli-iil ilncii- 
mi'iilntiiiii and ri>]iuT-lii. llretnitrlon, Wanli, 
anil (irranvillo. Nnvnl Hhl|i Hynlwmi Cum- 
mnml. 

Tln-rm-AIr Mfff. Co., York, I'n. $1,002, MO. 
Air nuidi tlnnoi-K nrul I'oluLoil duln. York. 
Nnvnl Ship Syitti'iim (lommaml. 
-Unllnl Alrcrnft, MniiL Harlforil, (.lorin. S-Ifl,- 
flar.,200. TKI10 -l'-;t oiiKinai fur Hio Air 
Fui-co. Knul Hnrlfonl. Nnvnl Als- .H 
Ciimmniul. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



55 



..-Sperry Rniid Corp., Syosaet, N.Y. Slfi,- 
'i H 000 1'hn^c II development of Inertial 
riu v'iKftt ion sill-systems for the Poseidon 
l.rut-rnm for Fleet Ballistic Missile Sub- 
mnrint-.i. Syuasct. Naval Shi]) Systems 
Pom mil lid. 

I.nnko Melnl froducta, Wcatche.tter, Pa. 
S"' ) ]BOJ(i, LAV-IOA InuncherB for the 
'/u'ni rocket. Wostchester. Navy Ships 
I'aris Control Center, MechanicsbvirB. Pa. 
-f'nllinii Hndin Co.. Ccrfnr Haimls, Iowa. SI,- 
:t;lLI,fl77. Components of nirbnrne radio 
cnmmunirnliciii cniii|imcnt. Cedar Rapids. 
Navy Avintion Supply Oflice. Philadelphia, 
1'n. 

'I', -Alsco. Inc.. St. Louis, Mo. 84,091,839. 
lioekct launohera. St. Louis. Naval Air 
Systems Commnml. 

---Olis Elevator Co., StHmford, Conn. 52,- 
000,000. Production of unit trainer devices 
for the Sheridnn Weapon System. Stum- 
ford. Naval Training Device Center, Or- 
Inmlo. Fla. 

K, -Belock Instrument Corn., College Point, 
N.Y. S2.153.810. Gyros for gun platform 
stabilization. College Point. Naval Ord- 
nance Systems Command. 

27 Lockheed Aircraft, Marietta, On. 57,600,- 
000. EC-130 aircraft. Marietta. Naval 
Air Systems Command. 

Martin Marietta, Washinprton, D.C. S2,- 
100,000. Classified work on Navy nircraft. 
Middle River, Md. Navnl Air Systems 
Command. 

Manpower, Inc., Milwaukee, Wis. $1,967,- 
42G. Mess attendants and for food hand- 
linn services at the Navnl Training Center, 
Great Lakes. III. Naval Training Center, 
Great Lakes, III. 

Rrumman Airrra/t Engineering; Corn., 
Bethimne. N.Y, S1.005.7SE. Airframe 
spare prirts for A-6A aircraft. Bethpago. 
Naval Aviation Supply Office, Philadelphia, 
Pa. 

10 -Sanders Associates, Inc.. Nashua, N.H. $1.- 
^GG,fift3. Electronic eciulpment. Nashua. 
Naval Air Systems Commsad. 
Martin-Marietta, Orlando, Fin. S34.G20,- 
170. Walleye guided weapons. Orlando. 
Naval Air Systems Command. 
Sperry Rand Corp., Great Neck, N.Y. S3,- 
000,000. Additional prototype models of the 
Phase II integrated light attack avionics 
system. Great Neck. Naval Air Systems 
Command. 

.1 North American Aviation, Inc., Anaheim 
Calif. Jl,063.7eo. Design and fabrication 
of one development model of a digital disk 
file memory bank for computing equipment. 
Anaheim, Naval Ship Systems Comimmd. 
Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Sunnyvale 
Calif. Sl.4S-i.6eO. Polaris missile modifi- 
cation kits. Sunnyvale. Special Projects 
Ollice. 

Raytheon Co., Lexington, Mass. S1,B05,027. 
Additional service model dual radar sets. 
North Dluhton, Mass. Naval Ordnance 
byntems Command. 

Aluminum Company of America, Pitts- 
liurch. Pa. 82,63B,9. Aluminum extru- 
sions used to manufacture AM2 airfield 
landing mats. Lafayette, Ind. Naval Air 
_ Engineering Center, Philadelphia, Pn. 
K-ii W T<: , i al Co " M'd'and, Mich. 34,- 
b,Ka, Aluminum extrusions used to 
manufacture AM2 airfield landing mats. 
Madison, III, Naval Air Engincerinc Cr>n 
tcr, Philadelphia, Pa. 

"J, A t V"fQ n / 1 1 !"? !num Co-. Baltimore, Md. 
B9. Fabrieatlon of AM2 aluminum 
andmg mats and pallet assemblies 



si 



i'ViS"", "?" Torrance, Calif. 
ini" "."" AM2 ,, n lu'ninum airfield land- 
^B mats and pallet ns Hem blies. Torrance 
?M'pi tr Bn8lne - in C,ter. Philadei: 



MARINE CORPS 

ll ' l ^. St. Paul. Minn. 

r' '- I K 

Headquarters, Marine Corps. 

AIR FORCE 




$1,536,145, Production of spare ports for 
the Minuteman missile. Anaheim. Ogden 
Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), Hill AFB, 
Utah. 

Hoeing Co., Wichita, Kan, 53,004,380. 
Modification of B-G2 aircraft, Wichita. 
Oklahoma City Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), 
Tinker AFB, Okla. 

Tliompson-Ramo-Wooldridge, Inc., Kedondo 
Bench, Calif. 31,235,393. Production of 
airborne tactical reconnaissance equipment. 
Hedonilo Beach. Aeronautical Systems 
Div., (AFSC), Wriftht-Pattei-Bon AFB, 
Ohio. 

5 Hughes Aircraft, Culver City, Calif, ?!,- 
875,632. Checkout and testing of the 
Minuteman guidance system. Culver City. 
San Antonio Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), 
Kelly AFU, Tex. 

Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Sunnyvale, 
Calif. $3,000,000. Engineering services in 
snpjiort of the Agena space vehicle pro- 
gram. Sunnyvale. Space Systems Div., 
IAFSC), Los Angeles, Calif. 

fi System Development Corp., Santa Monica, 
Calif. 812,670,000. Updating of computers 
and preparation of system training pro- 
Brams, Santa Monica. Sacramento Air 
Materiel Area, (AFLC), McCIetlan AFB, 
Calif. 

Boeins Co.. Wichita, Kan. 51,343,008. Field 
modification services for B-G2 aircraft. 
Darksdale AFB, La. and Castle AFB, Calif. 
Oklnhoma City Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), 
Tinker AFH, Okla. 

General Motors. Allison Div., Indianapolis, 
Ind. 513,600,000. Development and pro- 
duction nf a new tui-bofan engine for 
the Air Force A07D subsonic attack air- 
craft. Indianapolis. Aeronautical Sys- 
tems Div., (AFSC) Wright-Patterson AFB, 
Ohio. 

8 Sperry Rand Corp., Phoenix, Aviv,. 31,- 
fi74, 840. Aircraft gyroscope compass sys- 
tems. Phoenix. Aeronautical Systems Div., 
(AFSC), Wrlght-Pnttei'son AFB, Ohio. 
Lear Siegler, Inc., Grand liaplds, Mich. 
51,133,130. Production of aircraft bomli- 
ing computers. Grand Rapids. Aeronauti- 
cal Systems Div., (AFSC), Wright- Patter- 
son AFB, Ohio. 

10 General Dynamics, Fort Worth, TGX. $1,- 
677,066. Engineering support services for 
B-GS aircraft. Fort Worth. San Antonio Air 
Materiel Area, (AFLC), Kelly AFH, Tex. 
AVCO Corp.. Richmond, Ind. $2,600,000. 
Production of bomb fuzes and related 
equipment. Richmond. Aeronautical Sys- 

* e i?n ~ DI 7" < AFSC >. Wi-teht-Pntterson 
AFI), Ohio. 

Cessna Aircraft, Wichita, Kan. $1,040,000. 
Production of T-37 aircraft and related 
equipment. Wichita. Aeronautical Systems 
Div., (AFSC), Wright-Patterson AFB, 
Ohio. 

Aluminum Company of America, Cleve- 
land, Ohio, $3,143,500. Installation of ma- 
chine tools and production equipment 
/I/!, \,r Aeronautical Systems Div., 
(AFSC), Wriglit-PntterBon AFB, Ohio 

7nn"n " C . or l'" , Fol 't Worth, Tex. $2,- 
100,000. Repair and maintenance of F-4C 
aircraft, George AFU, Calif, Oklahoma 

AT A Materid Aroa " (AFLC), Tinker 
At' ij, OKin, 

:rnft Co.. Snntn Monica, Calif, 
Launch support services nt 
r\ - -Ai'Hj (jjilif, Sjificc Systems 

Div., (AFSC), Los Angeles, Calif. 
-Aerojet-General Corp., Sacramento CnHf 
82,203,000. Research, development, and 
production of Stage III Minuteman missile 



J,r Aeronautical Systems 
Ohio j Wr 'Bht-Patterson APB, 

11 Hughes Aircraft, Culver City, Calif U 
488.778. Modification of air defense- Jiar 
s /! 8to ma ; , L , 03 , An seles. Warner Robins 
Air Materiel Area, (APLC), Robins Am 

LiB. 

~E n ney ^ ell ( Inc - Hopkins, Minn. $4,814,- 
800 Production of bomba and fatad 
equipment Hopktn 9 ._ Aeronautical Systems 
JJiv., (AFSC), Wright-Patteraon AFB), 
Ohio. " 

""JflSVJ? E i ect J OI1 '. cs Co rP- Macon, Oa. |8.. 
467 685 Prodtictfon of bomb fuze compo- 

ntM - er MntcHd Arca 



-North American Aviation. Anaheim, Calif. 



~mnSnn* w C , 0rp " V u an Nuy8 ' Galif - L- 
600,000. Work on a hypersonic Itamjet en- 
gine program. Van Niiys. Systems Engi- 
neering Group, Research & Technology 



12- 



10- 



56 



Div., (AFSC), Wright-Pattern on. AFIJ. 
Ohio. 

Hushes Aircraft, El SeKimdo, Calif. J9.-I 
000,000. Research anil development of an' 
experimental communion if mis Hnlallitc. EL 
Seeundo. Space Systerna Div., (AFSCK 
Los AiiKoles, Calif. 

Collins Kadlo Co., Cedar Htiplds, Iowa. 
.$1,007,720. Production of commiinfcnHoni 
equipment for F-lll aircraft, CC^&T 
Rapids. Aeronautical Systems Div.. 
(AFSC), Wrifihl-Pattorsoti AFB, Ohio. 

Acrodex, Inc., Miami. Fla. ?l h n80.S01. 
Overhaul of J-G7 aircraft otiffhica. Miami 
San Antonio Ah- Materiel Arm (A.FLC1, 
Kelly AFH, Tex, 

TRW Inc., Redomlo Beach, Cnllf. $2,5*0-,.. 
000. Feasibility studies at ponr trot ion 
aids. Hcdoiulo Boach. ItnlliMfc Systems 
Div., (AFSC), Norton AFH, Calif. 

lit Goodyear Aerospace Corp., r.HcfificM 
Park, Ariz. $l 1 Ofi 1 <ll<K Production of 
components for radar mtipplrw Hysli'mi. 
Litch field Park. Acminmitlcnl HynLcmt 
Div., (AFSC), Wrifdit-Pnttorntm Atn, 
Ohio, 

General Electric, Went I.ynn, Mnai, J1,. 
2il7,100. Proihietion of ,T-8fi nlrrrnft <!> 
dines. West Lynn. Aoremniitli-al fiy1cfni 
Div., (AFSC). WritthL-PnUorHim A FIX 
Ohio. 

Lockheed MlHHiles & Space Co., Kuni^vnl*. 
Calif. S2,S82.afi3. Launch Krrvirr.i nt 
Vnncienlini-K AFB, Calif, Sininyvulo. HI nice 
Systems Div., (AFSC). LM Aniwl, Onllf- 

Snorry Hand Corp.. (Ji-tnt Ne<ik, N,Y. SI.- 
000,000. Modification of liumh nnvUntlr.i 
fiyfltenis on H-liH aircraft, ffrwil NffV. 
Warner HobltiR Air MnturleJ Arcn. (AL'I.C'i, 
Robins AFH. Ou. 

-Lndinh Co., Cutlnhy. Wis. 31.onn.ont), At- 

quisltion and inslallaHon at ninohlno too!* 

at Air Force Plant Nunilwr SB. A^ninniiU. 

eal Syatems Div., (AFSC), Wrlisht-Pntt^r- 

non AFB, Ohio. 
I.B.M.. OWOBO, N.Y. Sl.fiOO.fHK). Prin'I'Jf- 

tlon of datn processliiR ciinlpmriit, Owci-o. 

Aei-onautlcn] Systems Div., (AI-'SCJ, 

Wriglit-Pnttei-Kon AFH, Ohio. i 

-Taylor Forge & Pipe War Em, OhlciiH", HI. 

$3,988,518. AcmiiHlllon nnd iiinlallnlh.[, t! 

inachino tooln and production <viiili>mrn.( 

to iiupport Air Force pi-ournniii. Cliicajfo. 

Aeronautical .SysloiiiH Plv., (Al'HC), 

Wrlght-Pattcnmn AFH, Ohio. 

General nicctrlc, West I.ynn, MUHFI, J* f . 

1500,000, 10(17 comptuicnL improve men I M- 

ttlneerinp; iirogram for J~Sfi nKliu'!i, Vftt: 

Lynn. Aernnnuticti] flvstoniH Div.. fAl-'KC), 

Wi-I|tlit-Patlei-son AFH, Olilo. 
10 Condec Corn., Slntfoi'd, Cnnn, SIU,SI13 h aoV 

Production of fuel sorviaiiiK lank tnn-V*. 

Stamford. Warner UnbliiH Air MnU-d^ 

Aroa, (AFLC), Itobinn AI'Tl, On. 
National Lend Co., Toledo, Oliin. (S,4 a fl.- 

000. Production of homh comnnncndi. TD- 

ledo. Aerimaiitlcal Syntcinn Div., (AFSCh, 

Wi-iBht-PntlovBon AFll. Ohio. 
Sylviinln Rlcetrlc I'ratluctn, Nrcilhum 
HciRltta, Mass, $3,150,000. Knicl^^orlnv 
support relative to llio urniincl elcclrc.TiSif 
synlcm of the Mlmitomnn inlfliillo 
Needhnrn HclRlilH. Ballltitln 

(AFSC), Norton AFB, Cnllf. 
Hiittlies Aircraft, Culver Olty, Caltf, II.- 
O'lO.HRn. Spare comnonentn and spuni pnrU 
for F-lOfi aircraft ail 1 wcniinnn conlrn--! 
syBtoms. Culver City. Warner tlolilnn Air 
Mntoi'le] Area, (AFLC), Rohitia Al ? tt, f!i. 
North American Aviation, Annlictin, Cnllf. 
S1,I570,000. Production of nlrboruo nnvt- 
Rational enulpment. Annhcltn. Acronnutt- 
cal Systems Div., (AFSC), Wrlhl-Pftitej- 
BOH AFB, Ohio. 

International Telephone & TdeRrniili Coip., 
Nutley, N.J. $1,004,000. Productli.n ol 
nnvisntlonal eriuipmcrit for G-l-tl nn.<J 
HC-130 ali-craft, Nutley. Aoronmitlcil 
Systeme Div,,' (AFSO), Wrinht-PnttoMon 
AFB, Ohio. 

-Tnllcy Indimtrles, Mean, Ariz, 81,825.310. 
Production of aircraft cnKino alnrlcr cm- 
trldRes. Mean. Aeronautic til Systems n\r.. 
(AFSC), Wrlglit-Patteraon AFIt, Oliln, 

Texna InstrumontH, Dnllna, Tex, $1,169.- i 
802. Production of Infrared iktectlnjr 
equipment for F-4 aircraft, Dnllns, Acro- 
nantlonl Systems Div.. (AFSC). Wrlwhl- 
Pntterson AFB, Ohio. 

United Aircraft, Sunnyvnlc, Cnlif. JB.- 
864,OBO, Design, development, fnbrienlton. 
delivery and flight teating of IntRO a?s* 
mentod solid propellent motora. 3unnyvn!(. 



17 



18 



. 
D(v., ' 



20 



February 1967 



f 18 



Simru SysloniH Dlv. f {AFSO), LOH AnBcIea, 
Calif. 

Tcxnit InHtruincnta, Dnllmi, Tex. $1,571,- 
020. Production tit mmro nurta tat- tho 
milar HyBlem on I IF- 40 nircrnft. Dnllna. 
Warner ItoliitiH Ah- Materiel Area, 
(AFIXJ), UnhiiiH AFH h fin, 

Houirlnfi Aircraft, Snnl.ii Monlcii, Calif. $2,- 
liH7,H(!l, Cimvornlori of Thor jiiiHullpd tn 
ntitixlard Int inch HIHIPI- lioofiti'i'H. SanUi 
Monicn. Himcit SyHtimm D!v., (AFSC), LOB 
Armclc-H, Cnllf. 

(icncral Rlcctric, ArluuimiH ('ity, ICnn. $1,- 
422,fi<lfl. Ovorlwul and moillflciiUon of J- 
H5 crmliKM mill compommtH. ArknniinB City. 
Ofcliilmmii filty Air Malorid Aron. 
(AFLC), TJnkoi- AFII, Oldn. 

CcHHiin Aircraft, "Wichita, Knn. $H,aOil,- 
000. I'l-ofliircmciit tit A-I17H nlrcrnfl, npnro 
pm'thi, iMrtviHtmce Kniniul iniiilimuinl imd 
ilntii. WIcliltn. AoiNHimitlaiil Hj>iitmn Dlv., 
fAFHC), Wi'lKM-PnUist-mm AFH, Ohio, 

AVCO Cum.. WilmimUon, MIIHH. $1,024,- 
711. ])eniiTiii <ic!vdii|jH!nt, fnbrlnnUon, tent 
nnil cviilimllcm of MlmilnniHii MnrU 11A 
re-onlry voliklcii, WllmiinUoti. HiilllnUa 
Hyiitmiui lUv., (AFB(I). Norton AFII, Onllf. 
-I'liilro-Ford Corn., Pnlo Alto, Cnllf, $2,- 
r.Oll.OOO. Wm-li DTI n Hatdlito control jiet- 
WDi'h. I'nlo Alto. Alt' Komi Hiitelllte (Jon- 
irol Fanlllly, (AFHO), I,on Aii|{elen, Onllf. 
-HIM t'orii., OWCKO, N.Y. 1,000,0(10. Alr- 
frnfl nvldiikii iiynlninti. OWOKO. Aunmnu- 
llotil Syntcnni Div., (AKS(J), WriBht-Pntter- 
Him AFII, Ohio. 

Otln Mntlilewnn Cliomlrnl Corii,, Enitt Al- 
1.m. 111. $],:tfl,(I80. (!arlri(lK<i ty|m cnKtiie 
Hln rlci'it fur nhwnft Miirlon III. Arm- 
iiaiitii'iil Hyntc-riiH Dlv,, (AFSC), WrlftM- 
VnllcrHim AFH. Ohtn. 

-l.iiflchccil Aircraft Corn., Uurlmiik, Guilt. 
Sl.-IHII.llHH, Nori-rciMirrhiK iniiiiiloiianci' nu- 
tivlllea ill Afi- Force Plant No. 14. Hur- 
liiLtik. AcrnniiiilltuLl Syiiltunn Div., (AFSO), 
WrlKlil-Piitloi'mm AFlt, Ohio. 
Ko]lnnian ItiHtrumonl tlorp., Klmhiirut, 
N.V, ?2,Ha,aHO. PriHlunllon of nlHinotcrn 
for Nuvy mill Air l-'oroi! iitrcraft. Klin- 
liunil. Aoninniillcnl Hyntomii J)Iv., (AKHO), 
Wi'lulil-PiiHoi-iion AFil, Ohio. 
-LTV Hlci'tronyfitcmji, Inc., CJrenivillo, Tex. 
?a,(100,00(l. I'roiliictlim of nlrluinm oin- 
iiiiitnl nnil noiitrol nynl(!inn. (ircoiivlllc, 
AiTonuul U-at SyiiUiinn Div., (AFSO) , 
WrlBht-I'nllornnn AFII. Ohio. 

(iRiieinl Mulorfl, IniUntiniiiillii, Iml. JI,ll(ir>,- 
000. rniduiiltun of T-fiO (iiiKiiien and ra- 
laloil (lain. Iiullnmiiioltu. Ain'onaulL-nl 
Hyitlcmn Dlv,, (AFH(J), WrtKlil-Pntli-ntDn 
A!''H, Ohlrt. 

-CJcnornl Klnclrlc, Wotil Lynn, Mann, 54,- 
OfiO.oni). (timipiiiii'tit Innirovumoiil iiroKniinii 
fur (ho F 1'--BH ruid T-(H hisllooittisr I>HK|IUM. 
Went I.ynn. Anniiiiintlcint KynLoiiiii IHv.. 
(AI-'HIJ), WrlKlil-l'iiU^nion AFII, Ohio. 
I.TV Aerojtiinci! Corn., Dnltiin, Tux. 31,- 
(1flJi//67. \Vurh on tlin XC-142 Irl-norvlco 
tniiiniMirt. Unllnti. AmnuHonl HyiiU-tnii 
Dlv,, (AKHO), WrlKht-l>llornon AFII Ohio. 
Northroii C!or|t., ITnwlliornc, Calif, $|j,- 
rn.tm. Prudiicllou of f J'--3H iilroraft iinil 
rclHtml L'diilntilciH, ISuwllinrne. Anronaii- 
tlcml HyiKcmii IMv., (AFHC), WrlKht-Pal- 
tc.'1'Him AFII, Ohio. 

(.'i-ncrnl Motors,, Imllnimimllii, lint. $l.7R,. 

74H. Ilcvclnimicnt of mi advanced wnn tur- 

liiuc KOn^riiloi'. IndlniHinnlln, 

ayHtcnin Dlv., (AFH(3), 

AFH, Ohio. 

-Lock lined Aircrnfl, Ilurlmnk, Calif, $7,- 

8(10,000. Mocltncdtlnn of (!-IHl aii'Crnft. 

Iliirluink, ,Sficr/uiit?ii(o Air Mntorlcl Area. 

IAFI.U), MnClMlRH APH, Oidlf. 

-United Tochnolojry Oonl&r, Buniiyviilc, 

Oalif. $2,(n7,(HO. Procuromnnt of TITAN 

II! Maiuieil Orhlllntr J-iiliomlory (MOL) 

LOIIK lend linrdwnt'G tor Holiit rocltut molorH. 

Sunnyvale. Spiico HyHtoniH Dlv., (AFHO), 

Ltm AnKi'Icd, (Jnllf. 
-AVCO Corp,, WllmliiKlon, MHBO, ?3,COO,- 

000. Work on n ro-civlry vohlclo in'ogrnni. 

WllmhiKton, Unlliflticii SyuLointi Dlv., 

fAFSC), Norton AFH, CnlK. 
-Textron, Inc., Grim to PUSH, Ore. $2,87B,- 

017. WeiijioiiB ejector racks for F-JC nir- 

crnfl. Warner Itoblnn Air Mntorlcl Arcn, 

(AKLO), Rollins AFH, On. 
-Knninn Aircraft Corp,, llloomflold, Conn. 

t2,(HO.OG7. I'rodHollon of 1111-13 helicopter 

cnmnunon ta, I! loomllcl d. Wnr nor 

Air Mnlerlol Aron, (APLC), Itobina 

Gn. 



Air Force Buys 
Forward Controller Aircraft 



Tin; U.S. Air Force has pu 
176 Cessna "Super Skymnster" Model 
.'137 aircraft to be used primarily in 
forward air controller (FAG), Unison 
and observation functions and a few 
to be modified for use in psychological 
warfare, 

Tho Aeronautical Systems Div., Air 
Form Systems Comiimnd, award nd a 
$4.5 million lottor contract to Cfisana 
Aircraft Co., Wichita, Kan., Dec. 29 as 
part of an estimated $11.7 million 
definitive contract for the aircraft. 

First production aircraft will be 
available to bntfin aircrew training in 
the apriiifv of 19(17. The first squadron 
will be oporatioiml in mid-1907. 

Tho new plane, designated this O-2, 
will be a one-for-ono rcplncemont of 
the 0-1 Cessiiit "Bird DOR" in the 
Airborne Forward Air Controller mis- 
sion. 

The O--2 is a liifi'h-winp;, all metal 
aircraft with retractable tricycles Innd- 
iiiK ear. Two engine, reliability and 
caHo in handling nndnr varied power 
conditions aro gained tln'ouffli its 
unique center lino mounted, opposed 
twin engines, onn forward and ne 
aft of the cabin between tho twin tall 
booms. The, 0-2 has dual, Hide-by-side 
pilot controls plus provisions for 
carry ing 1 up to four passengers or 
equivalent carp;o in thrs cabin. Its low 
coat mul minimum maintenance nneds 
suit remote site operation. 



Air Force Tests 
New Gyroscope 

Tho U.K. Air Force in ton ting a new 
electrostatic g-yroscopn (KSG) part 
of a highly accurate inertial naviga- 
tion system which operates without 
wheels, axlew, or contacting sur fanes 
by UHiiij? electrically char^od plates 
to HiiHpcMid a rotating hollow Hphore. 

Honeywell, Inc., has been contracted 
by the Air Force Avionics Laboratory, 
Wrlffht-Pattorflon AFB, Ohio, to de- 
velop the concept. Tho ERG is hoing 
flight tefitcd tiH a part of a. Htabilinecl 
platform with associated electronics on 
a C-124 aircraft. 

Air Force technicians expect a hij?h 
degree of reliability from the 10SG 
and predict a capability of operating 
over extensive environment ranges.. In 
addition, it can be used in either a 
gimbnllcd or strap-down .system. Be- 
cause of these characteristics, the ESG 
is particularly adaptable to satellites 
and space vehicles, as well ns aircraft. 

Project engineer Captain Eugene J. 
DeNezza explains that the ESG has 
unusual accuracy because the rotating 
beryllium sphere "floats" in an evac- 
uated area surrounded by charged 
electrodes. This kind of suspension 
eliminates friction, the main source of 
drift or inaccuracy in conventional 
gyroscopes, 



Industrial Security Award 
Winners Announced by 
Defense Supply Agency 

Winners of the annual James S. 
Cogswell awards for superior per- 
formance in carrying out industrial 
security obligations relating' to classi- 
fied defense contracts have been an- 
nounced by Vice Admiral Joseph M. 
Lyle, USN, Director of the Defonse 
Hupply Agency. 

Two typos of awards were made: 
plaques for outstanding 1 performance 
ami eortificatoN for tjxccllonee. Wight 
plaques and eight certificates were 
awarded Cor four categories of cle- 
fftiiHn contractors, classified according 
to the size of thoir industrial opera- 
tions. 

Plaques went to Grumman Aircraft 
I'lngineering Corp., BethpnR'e, N.Y.; 
Lockheed-Georgia Co., Marietta Ga.; 
THW Systems, Hodondo Beach, 
Calif.; Conductron Corp., Ann Arbor, 
Mich.; Denver Research Institute, 
lIiiLvet'.sity of Denver, Denver, Colo; 
Radiation, !nc,, Palm Hay, l-'la.; Auto- 
neLii's Div., North American Aviation, 
hit 1 ., Dayton, Ohio; anil Hinyth Re- 
Kuarch Associates, Han Diego, Calif, 

Gertifieatiis of excellence were pre- 
sented to (Jeneral Motors Defeiifiis Ke- 
searcli Laboratory, Golotu, Calif. ; 
Franklin Inatituto, Pbiladelphiji, Pa.; 
LEhraHcope Grou]) oC (Jenefal Preci- 
sion, Inc., Glerululo, Calif, j Southern 
Hell Telephone and Telegraph Co., 
Atlanta, Gu,; Wasattih Division of 
Tluokol Chemical Oorp., Drigliam 
City, Utah; TUW, Inc., Cleveland, 
Ohio; "Bliley Kleetrie Co., Erie, Pa., 
and Systems Dtivnlopinent Corp., 
Dayton, Ohio. 

Some lfi.000 industrial firmn having 
DOI) security clearances to perform 
on classified contracts were considered 
for tho awards, 

Factors in selecting the winners 
included: degree of security conscious- 
ness, security education and motiva- 
tion programs, regular inspections by 
contractor!* of security practices 
within tho orpani'/.ation, security re- 
view procedures in company publica- 
tions and adaptation of new security 
methods in such areas as reproduction 
and transmission of documents, con- 
trol of movement of employees and 
visitors within plants. 

The award is named in honor of 
Colonel J nines S, Cogswell, USAP, 
(Hot.), fli-wL chief of u centniliml 
ofllce of industrial security estab- 
lished under the Deputy Director for 
Contract Administration Services of 
the Defense Supply Agency in Jan- 
uary 1965. 



OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 203O1 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 



Defense Contract Administration Services 
Completes First Year of Full Operation 

The first year of full operation of Defense Supply Agency's De- 
fense Contract Administration Services (DCAS) saw an increase of 
54 percent of prime contracts handled by the new organization. 
This workload was accomplished with an increase of less than 19 
percent in personnel. Payments to contractors jumped from 90,000 
paid invoices a month to more than 160,000 a month during the 
year. 

Eleven regions across the country, beginning with Philadelphia 
as a pilot test region, were established on a time-phased basis In 



the end of 1965. 



by 



The establishment entailed consolidating 20,000 military and 
civilian employees, who previously performed field contracts admin- 
istration under separate systems of the Army, Navy, Air Force and 
the Defense Supply Agency. About the same number of personnel 
are performing contract administration in the Military Depart- 
ments. 

DCAS provides contract management services in or near con- 
tractors plants to the Military Departments and NASA to assure 
delivery of quality products to depots or battlefields on a timely 
basis. These include pre-award surveys of potential contractors 
to determine their capability to perform, quality assurance engi- 
neering assistance, surveillance of production progress, transporta- 
tion, packaging management and prompt payments of invoices. 

Payment of contractors was one of the major problems when 
' e S t0 k T the inv f e l from the M ^ual services. Con- 
fm vS V 7- ent - Vas made d , urin * 1966 so *at the time cycle 
fot payment of invoices was reduced from an average of 18 days 

despite an 81 



Before the organization of DCAS, 444 offices of 

SB* E'e ofctl^ f >*"? 

procedures Now H!^' &1 p f atmg under unifot P^s and 

S f li N , defense contractors can took to a single orffaniza- 

X^i^Tb^D^ ^ mi ? ht ^Tn a contract 
was awaXWlip y A^ S i ea:ardl ?. s of whether the contract 

Suwly 



Deferred Construction 
Projects Released 

Secretary of Defense Rob 
S. McNamnra has rescinded 
1965 order deferring the awji 
of contracts for more than ii 
military construction projcc 
including 1 8,2(50 family IIOUHJ 
units, totaling 1 $5(54 million. 

The projects, located at 285 ! 
stnllutiona in 42 states, the D 
trict of Columbia and Ifi H|| 
outside the United States, we 
authorized in FY 1900 and pi 
viOim years. 

In announcing the dofonrn 
on Dec. 21, 1905, Secretary M 
Namara -stated that these pn 
ecta, while considered neccssn 
and desirable, could ho tcm]i 
rnrily deferred without inipnl 
ing military operations or cfFc 
tlvoneaa. 

The go-ahead signal on 1 
contracts was given to bend 
morale in the Armed Forces nr 
to satisfy valid construction mi 
housing requirements. 

Prior to the rescinding onle 
a limited amount of the $020 ml 
lion of deferred projects were n 
leased aa a result of deployinei 
changes or other compellin 
reasons which increased tlici 
urgency, These projects whic 
were released between Dcccn 
ber 1965 and January 196 
amounted to $33.8 million. 

Some projects, amounting t 
abount $23 million, have bee 
dropped completely since the <k 
ferment action. 



Volume 3, No. 3 



March 1967 




ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
DEFENSEfUBBC AFFAIRS 



IN THIS ISSUE 

Fiscal Year 1967 Supplemental for Southeast Awia - 1 

Desert Bonaimi 9 

Project ARISTOTLE 22 

Management Systems Control - 2fi 

U.S.-U.K. Logistics Cooperation 28 

DNL/DLP A Focal Point for Laboratory Management 30 

DEPARTMENTS 

About People 13 

From the Speakers Nostrum 14 

Speakers Calendar - 20 

Calendar of Events - - 21 

Bibliography - 24 

Meetings and Symposia 33 

Procurement - 34 




A U.S. Marine private, armed with an M-14 rifle ami 3.5-ineli rocket launcher, 
wndcs through a flooded 1 rice field during search and destroy operations south 
of Da Nang, Vietnam. 
(See statement on Fiscal Year 1967 Supplemental for Southeast Asia on pug<s I.) 



Phil G. Goulding Sworn 
Assistant Secretary of 




Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNumara adininislt'i-.s f lie oath 
of office to the new Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public 
Affairs, Phil G. Goulding', duriiiff ceremonies at the Pentagon 
Feb. 28. Mr. Goulding has been serving as Deputy Assistant Sec- 
retary of Defense for Public Affairs for nearly two yearn. He WJJH 
a member of the Washington bureau of (he Cleveland I'lttin 
Dealer before entering Government service. 



Study Group Formed To Examine Future 
Construction of Navy Escort Ships 



The Navy has begun a study of ship dositfn and 
to determine the optimum characteristics of the escort ships it will 
need in the 1970's and the means of producing thorn. At this point 
the ships are not yet in the design state but are known JIM the 'I)X 
and DXG from the designations presently used for llio duHlroyor, 
destroyer escort and frigate types. 

A study group formed within the Office of th ChtoC of Naval 
Operations will examine missions and roles for tho ships and will 
make specific recommendations concerning the capabilities which 
should be built into the new vessels and th<; mimbur that should 
be built. Special emphasis will be placed on answering thono prob- 
lems before contract definition, Subject to the results of thaso 
studies, it is expected that private industry will ho invited to mako 
proposals for detailed design and construction of the ships. 

The study will seek also to establish common standards amoMjv 
these ships in order to realize economies in production and to 
realize the benefits of modular construction in series production--- 
bin ding similar components in series rather than on an intermit- 
tent, variable design basis. 

i?Xffl Ad ? pi 1 - T h< ?!? R< Weschlei '> USN, has boon aligned to 

Operations as the DX/DXG Program 

a ^termination is made to enter a com- 
hae for tho WX/DXO, a (dassifKHl 

in WashinRton ' D ' c " ** in th(! 





liy the Dcimrtiuritt 
of DctaiiHQ 
linn. Itoborl S, McNitmuriL 

Hticralury of Iti-fcn^c 
lion. CyniH U. Vance 

Deputy Kocnilnry of Dcfi-nnr 
Uuii. 1'liil <i. (Joiildhitf 

AwHiHl-iint Sucre; tnry nf I Mm IP 
(l'ul)lit' A(Vuirn) 

Col. Joi'l H. StuiiltciiH, USA 

Director for Cminmiuity ]ti'hi(loii-+ 
Col. I'Mwin C. Ciltson, UHA 

Chid', IttiHiin'HH & Lultor DhlsEnn 



r IX Mr. 1C. \V. Ilrmlford. USN 

AHNOO. KclHor MIHH Cccllhi I'ollnk 

As.sm 1 . KdHnr Mr. Kick I,n Hiiro 

Kditoritil AmtiHlant 

Normnii M. Wiirrn, JO I, USM 



Tin; /Jit/Vmur Iwlmth'u 
is published monthly by tlm Hiiriin'Vi 
& Lalmr IHvinion, Din'dnnili? fnr 
( lommuriil.y KdnlioiiH, Olllcxi nf tin* 
Aji!ii!!l:inl, Snci'i'lary of Di'lYnM 1 (l'iil> 
lit 1 All'airn). Hue of Hindu for iriulirifj 
l.lii:: publication waif approves !>> tl.n 
Din'd.or of till! llill'i'iiu of tin: llinl>-;'-1. 

'I'llC |)lll'|IOJil! of lll(! llultfliil H 

lo jfcrvii ii.'i n inritiin of coinnujnii-ntE'^t 
hi'lAVfi'ii (.In; Di'pai'l mini I. of Dcfi'ur.* 
(IK)])) and il,!i aiil,]i(H'i/.cil !ii;i-]ir[ci 
inid dcl'i'iun' nmlnicloni IIIK! nlhi-r 
hii!iiiii':i;i ititiil'cfitii. II; will ccvvo .1=1 
a f.iiidi' Lo iiiiliuitry cnncM'iiirin: i^ffi- 
rial pnlii-ic.'i, |iro|vi'!ini!! ami )ir<tf< <!*, 
and will !!ci'l( l.o nUnnilatn llnmj;)ii I./ 
iiH'inlirrji of Ihc (liiri'iiiio-lndii^trj' t- M ! 5 
in liolviiiK ihc iirolili'Mi!! Unit, limy nri^ 
in 1'ninil in)-; Uic ns|iih'i!nii'iil!i ( $\\* 
1)01). 

Malcrial in Uw Hitllt'thi \>i J-- 
Ifi'h'il t.o [iii]i|ily porLiiu 
data of tiit.crr/il; lo lln> 
iminily. Snwfi'jitlnmi from i 
ri'iin-in-nliiUvc, 1 ! foi' (.opioi t(i \t> ro 1 ..-- 
cri'd in I'ut.iM'o in!iii(^-i n3nniM l- f^r- 
warded to till! JliiMihOXii A l.nl-rr 
I'ivi.'iioiu 

Tim Ilitllfltin In tllHtrllinlcil \vilh::il 
diarnii each month tci rciirt'iii iil(iti\' s 
of indujitry and to afrtrndofi nf (Tin I 1 - 
IiiirLnutni (if DofmiHK, Army, NiwynM 
Air l-'ot'i-d. Hi>i|URHlM for I'djiif. 1 ! ftri-'v^jJ 
In- addi'i-Miii-il to llin Hunirit'fH A l=n^'r 
mi, OAHDU'A), Komn 2KSI3, 
IVntaK'ni, WtiHhlitftUMi, M\ 
tcli'phoni!, (202) OXfortirt-2TC'>. 
tcnln of Uio intij<ii'/,i[n* us ay N 

fruoly without n> 
n, Moitlion of the 



{.Editor's note; The following is the 
statement of Secretary of Defense 
Robert S. McNamara before a joint 
session of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee and the Senate Subcom- 
mittee on Department of Defense Ap- 
propriations on the FY 19G7 Supple- 
mental for Southeast Asia on Jan, 23, 
1967, Space limitations do not permit 
carrying the entire statement. We 
have, however, attempted to excerpt 
those portions which arc of special 
interest to industry.'} 

Last year when I appeared before 
this Committee in support of the FY 
19C7-71 program and the FY 1967 
Budget I said: 

"With regard to the prepara- 
tion of the FY 1967-71 program 
and the FY 1906 Supplemental 
and the FY 1967 Budget, we have 
had to make a somewhat arbi- 
trary assumption regarding the 
duration of the conflict in South- 
east Asia. Since we have no way 
of knowing how long it will ac- 
tually last, or how it will evolve, 
we have budgeted for combat op- 
erations through the end of June 
1967. This means that if it ap- 
pears that the conflict will con- 
tinue beyond that date, or if it 
should expand beyond the level 
assumed in our present plans, we 
will come back to the Congress 
with an additional FY 1967 re- 
quest." 

Throughout the spring and summer 
of last year in my appearances before 
the various Congressional Committees, 
t reiterated the fact that the FY 1967 
Budget was based on the arbitrary 
assumption that the conflict would 
end by June 1967, and that additional 
funds would be required if the con- 
flict continued. I also repeatedly 
stated, both before the Congressional 
Committees and in public statements, 
that defense spending would rise 
above the Budget level if we had to 
take actions to provide for the con- 
tinuation of the conflict beyond June 
30, 1967. ... 

Inasmuch as I will soon appear 
before this Committee again in sup- 
port of the FY 1968-72 Program and 
, the FY 1968 Budget, I would like to 
I confine my statement at this time to 
the military situation in Southeast 
' Asia and the additional financial re- 
quirements for the balance of the 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



current fiscal year arising: from that 
conflict. 

Policy Objectives and Military 
Tasks in Vietnam. 

In formulating; our military objec- 
tives and operational plans for Viet- 
nam, we must take into account the 
unique character of that conflict. 
Since what wo are facing: is a sys- 
tematic campaign of terror and sub- 
version, supported and directed from 
without, there arc no established Hues 
across which armies face armies, with 
each side having well defined con- 
tiguous areas under its control. In- 
stead, the territory and people in 
South Vietnam arc controlled in vary- 
ing degrees by the government aiuJ 
by the Viet Cong'. a Some areas are 
firmly under the control of the gov- 
ernment, some under the control of 
the Viet Cong-, and still other areas 
are controlled by neither side. This 
reqniroK that our military efforts in 
South Vietnam consist of widely dis- 
persed military operations directed at 
the scattered and changing: areas of 
Viet Cong- control. 

Our overal 1 polic y obj ecti vo in 
South Vietnam is a stable! and inde- 
pendent government free of external 
control and externally inspired and 
supported violence. Our immediate ob- 
jective is to influence the North Viet- 
namese to move the conflict from the 
battlefield to the conference table, or 
to compel them Lo desist in their ag- 
gression. The basic tasks which How 
from these objectives arc: 

To support the re-establishment 
of the authority of the government of 
South Vietnam over its territory. 

To interdict the flow of men and 
supplies from North Vietnam to South 
Vietnam. 

To exert pressure on the govern- 
ment of North Vietnam to cease its 
direction and support of the insurrec- 
tion in South Vietnam. 

Last year, I outlined for you the 
concept of military operations which 
had been developed to carry out these 
tasks. The ground forces, United 
States, Korean, Australian, New Zea- 
land, together with the South Viet- 
namese, were to conduct four major 

Throuffhout this statement the term 
"Viet Cong" will be used to refer to 
the forces of the National Liberation 
Front and of North Vietnam, 



types of operations in South Vietnam 
which broadly overlapped with one 
another : 

* "Search and destroy" operations, 
designed to destroy Viet Cong forces 
atul their base areas (supplies, com- 
munications and installations). These 
operations wore not intended to seize 
and hold territory permanently. 

"Clear and secure" operations to 
eliminate, permanently, residual Viet 
Cong forces from specified limited 
areas. These operations were designed 
to hold territory and were to he un- 
dertaken only when it was considered 
possible to conduct, on JL continuing 
basis, the full t'itngo of pacification 
measures required to secure the- area. 

o "Reserve reaction" operations, do- 
signed to relieve provincial capitals 
and district towns under Viet Conff 
attack and to reinforce friendly forces 
when needed. 

Defense of government ("enters, 
including the protection of provincial 
capitals, district towns, key #ovrn- 
montal facilities and installations. 

The ground combat units of the reg- 
ular South Vietnamese forces, to- 
gether with U. S. and other Free 
World forces, (i.e., Korean and Aus- 
tralian/New Xeiilnnd) wore in con- 
centrate on the first type o.f operation. 
The South Vietnamese fort'm, with 
some assistance- from U. H. and other 
Free World forces, particularly in 
areas contiguous to their own bawcs, 
were to assume primary responsibility 
for the second type of opi'i-aliims, The 
third type wan to he primarily tin; 
responsibility of the Hmith Vietnami-so 
forces with swell help as might; lie 
required from U. S. and other 1'Ycn 
World forces. The fourth type wan to 
1m essentially the responsibility of the 
South Vietnamese! forces, , . , 

U.S. Forces in Southeast. Asia, 

At thn close of IflOfi, wo had a 
total of about SRS.OOO mn in South 
Vietnam, 35,000 in Thailand and 
36,000 Navy forces aboard ship off the 
const of Vietnam. The number in 
South Vietnam will continue to in- 
crease din-ing the next year and a 
half, athough nt si very much slower 
rate than during the preceding- year 
and a ball'. Rfclng inflation within 
the Vietnamese economy accompanied 
the U.S. buildup, and piaster ex- 
penditure limitations as well as mili- 
tary requirements had to be consid- 
ered when establishing- those force 
levels. However, our deployment plans 
beyond December 19G7 are still tenta- 



1 



live; the number actually deployed 
will depend on how the situation 
evolves over the next 12 months. In 
this connection, it should be noted that 
we will have five Army and two 
Marine Corps division forces in our 
active central reserve, plus nine in 
the inactive reserve during this 
period; and additional aircraft squad- 
rons could also be deployed, if needed. 
Most of these maneuver battalions 
in South Vietnam are infantry, air- 
mobile, or airborne; the terrain there 
does not lend itself to the extensive 
employment of mechanized and ar- 
mored units. The distinction among 
the infantry, airmobile and airborne 
battalions is more in form than in 
substance; all three are used in about 
the same way. Although the nine bat- 
talions of the 1st Cavalry Division 
(Airmobile) have their own heli- 
copters, the infantry and airborne, as 
well as the Marine Corps battalions, 
are provided helicopter support as 
required. Indeed our land forces were 
supported by about 2,000 Army and 
Marine Corps helicopters at the end 
of 196G, and this number will be in- 
creased very substantially over the 
next 12 months. (The Army and 
Marine Corps units will also be sup- 
ported by several hundred observation 
and utility fixed-wing aircraft.) 

The extensive employment of heli- 
copters, both for lift and for the sup- 
pression of ground fire in the landing 
zones, is one of the unique aspects 
of our combat operations in South 
Vietnam. It has provided our ground 
forces with an extraordinary degree 
of mobility and a very effective source 
of firepower during the critical land- 
ing phase. Helicopter losses of 340 in 
1966 actually ran considerably below 
the number projected a year ago. 
However, we are providing for sub- 
stantially higher losses in the FY 1967 
Supplemental and the FY 1968 
Budget because of the much larger 
number of helicopters expected to be 
in operation during the period. 

Another unique aspect of our 
ground effort in Vietnam, particularly 
m view of the absence of an estab- 
lished "front," is the extensive use of 
artillery. We already have a large 
number of artillery battalions in 
South Vietnam and this number will 
grow substantially within the next 12 
months. The 106mm howitzer has 
proved to be particularly useful in 
Vietnam since it can be lifted by 
helicopter and can, in many cases, be 
used to support patrols on the ground 



Together with the largo number of 
mortars provided our forces in South 
Vietnam, the extensive use of artil- 
lery gives them a highly efficient 
form of close support which has been 
a decisive factor in many of the bat- 
tles fought during the last 12 
months. . . . 

U.S. and other Free World forces 
in South Vietnam during the Sep- 
tember-November 19GG period con- 
sumed, on the average, about one 
million artillery rounds and about 0.7 
million mortar rounds per month, We 
have provided in our FY Ii)(i7 Supple- 
mental and the regular FY 10fi8 
Budget for considerably higher con- 
sumption rates and the peak monthly 
production rates will be still higher. 
After we have rebuilt our inven- 
tories, tho production rates will bo re- 
duced to the projected consumption 
levels and held at those levels for as 
long as may be necessary. Indeed, 
if the consumption rates should ex- 
ceed the planned levels, production 
can be continued at the higher rates. 
Conversely, if consumption should fall 
short of our projections, production 
plans will be adjusted accordingly. 

With regard to small anus ammuni- 
tion, the Free World forces in Viet- 
nam during the September-November 
1966 period consumed, on the average, 
about 100 million rounds per month. 
We have provided in our Budget for 
much higher consumption and pro- 
duction rates. 

To provide close air support for 
the ground forces in South Vietnam, 
interdict the Viet Cong's linen of 
communication from North Vietnam 
and attack targets in North Vietnam, 
we have now deployed a total of 
about 1,000 fighter and attack air- 
craft to Southeast Asia, including 
those on carriers off the coast of 
Vietnam. This force will be main- 
tained at essentially tho same level. 
t Fighter and attack aircraft losses' 
m calendar year 1966 ran slightly 
below those projected a year ago, 
about 600 compared with 524 esti- 
mated. We have provided in the FY 
1967 Supplemental and the FY 1908 
Budget for losses through the entire 
production lead time, December 1969. 
Air ordnance consumption by these 
forces, including tho B-52, the U.S 
Army and Marine Corps helicopters 
and the South Vietnam Air Forco, 

SS ^ ed b Ut 56 ' 000 tons December 
1966. The production program re- 
flected m the FY 1967 Supplemental 
and the FY 1968 Budget will pro- 



vide for a rate of eoii.sumption tilnn:>t 
equal to the total air ordnance vmi- 
Kimied by U.H. forces in the ]ie ;i |; yi-nr 
of Wort<l Win' It in Kunijii-, and ;\,]- 
most .four times tin; eonsimipliori ht 
Om peak of the Korean War, As 
loiitf us combat openitiom; mutinm'. 
production rates will lit! liiilonxl 1<> 
actual auitunnption. Following; (->r~ 
initiation of hostilities, jinxlm'timi will 
continue until inventories art; hnill (n 
levels minimi for a "cold-line" pr-n- 
dilution bane. Air ordnance MO^M 
"in4heater" arc equivalent In nlum! 
three and a half mouths of ruN:minj' 
Lion at current mien. 

Tho U.S. Navy SoulliciiHt Anla ""ir 
shore" llnnt will In- miiiiitium'd m 
about tht! current level, i.e., inxm' !"O 
tthipn. In addition to ilio flKhd'r rnxl 
attack aircraft opcrritinj;- iV'-m (I,. 
three attack ttarrierH winch :u.' in 
combat ut any one tiim>, thin it., f 

al.40 provides aHSault tdlijUl fill' Kill 

phihioUH operation;!, nuEnr pid,, ! 
destroyers and minesweeper.-! fur (In- 
CouHtiil Patrol, seuhiH'iie h" |.i- il 
facilities, and lire mipporL f<.r iln- 
land Ciim-H. During tin- Initl half <-r 
lOfifl ahout ;{(),()()() roiniil per month 
of naval j;un ammunition (rxelmltn;; 
'10mm) were expended. We lmv<- |>n> 
vided in our budget for ti lilKh'-r 
consumption rate. 

Tn addition to the radar |tiel<i'l. <V- 
stroyers and minesweepeni, Lint Ci>;i r 
al Patrol iilmi includes 2<l Oomil Gunl 
bouts and M Nwif't lnmUt riiKiiw <l In 
what wii call "Market Time" ( i|h-ur 
tioiiH, TlKSHii o|)nraLi<iH liavn I" .-n 
quitfl efl'ectivi* and wo lii'lli'Vr lint 
voi-y few Hiipplloit nni rent'hiiur (In- 
Viot Conff forwiH by on. We d U- 
Hovo, hownvor, that a mihMlimllM 
incroaHt! in the rlvisr einttrnl fn'.-,- u 
rnquirod. Wo now have JUl) \vnr.r 
jot boatn nnd a number of ituptmtt 
HhlpH aHHifjnod to thi froi-l, ami ilij. 
forco will Ijn Hiitmtantiiilly [HDV:IM.I 
over tho next aisvoral monllm. , . , 

To holp movo the vttHlly inmsiM.i 
cargo to South Vlnlnum, we liuv.- 
activated about ifil nbijiH frnni Hi.- 
National Dofnnao UnmM-vo n*<-l 
through Dticembor Iflflfl, ntiil tlii< ^ 
scheduled for activation in llif? iin.i.t^ 
of January would mnko a lotiil uf 
161 uctlviitod ainco Junn itll, Il),\ 
Together with 11 Govoi-ninenl-nwMnl 
ships already in opornllon, Ihlw will 
mako a total of 172 
owned morohant Hhlpn 
Along with tho ships fuvniahiMl by lh< 
privately-ownod fleot, our inilfliuy 
sealift operatioiiB will cuiiounL i 



March 1967 



about 25 million measurement tons 
per year, about 14 million tons to 
Southeast Asia and the Western 
Pacific and about 11 million tons to 
all other areas. 

MSTS troop transports will con- 
tinue to be used for the movement of 
troop units to and from Vietnam but 
individual replacement personnel will 
move by air. The Military Airlift 
Command (including commercial aug- 
mentation) is now Hying about 25,000 
short tons of cargo and 35,000 pas- 
sengers into Southeast Asia per 
month. In addition, the Air Force is 
operating- a substantial tactical air- 
lift force in Southeast Asia and the 
Western Pacific, a total of 23 squad- 
rons and 368 aircraft 



Additional U.S. Force Augmentations. 

To support the larger deployments 
and higher activity rates in Southeast 
Asia and to provide a more adequate 
training and rotation base for the 
longer pull, we have had to increase 
certain force levels above those re- 
flected in the original FY 1 967 
Budget. A total of 220,500 military 
personnel have been added to the 
Army's FY 19G7 end strength, 2,440 
to the Marine Corps, 25,520 to the 
Navy, and 45,240 to tho Air Force 
Shown on Table 1 (Supplemental 
tables begin on page 5 ) is a recapitu- 
latioii of the military and civilian per- 

v n t;f I"*" 18 M 1)rovid(;d i the 
I' Y 1987 Budget and, as estimated 
in the revised FY :l%7 Budget 
together with the net increase re- 
quested in the FY 1967 Supplemental. 
Yon will notice wo entered the fiscal 
year with about 104,000 more mili- 
tary personnel than we had originally 
planned; and wo expect to end the 
year with about 294,000 more. I n 
terms of man-years (i.e., average 
strength), we expect to have a total 
of about 236,000 more than provided 
for m the original FY 1967 Budget- 
the funds for these additional per- 
sonnel are included in the Supple- 
mental. . . . 

Additional FY 1967 Financial 
Requirements, 

Table 2 provides a summary of the 
additional funds required by the De- 
fense Department for the balance of 
FY 19G7. The first column, NOA 
Enacted," totaling $59,940 million, 
reflects tho amounts enacted by the 
Congress thus far this fiscal year 
The second column, "Transfers ^ and 
Adjustments," summarizes a large 
number of mostly small offsetting 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



transactions among' the various ap- 
propriation accounts. . . . 

The third column, "Military and 
Civilian Pay Supplemental," total in* 
about $619 million, shows the amounts 
required to defray the pay incroa.se, 
voted by the Congress last year The 
fourth column, "Medicare and Home- 
owners Assistance Supplemental," 
totaling ?82 million, includes two 
items: $71 million to help finance the 
cost of the Military Medical Benefits 
Amendments Act of 1966 and $11 mil- 
lion to initiate the Homeowners As- 
sistance Program which was author- 
ised by the Demonstration Cities and 
Metropolitan Development Act of 
1966. . . , 

The fifth column, "SEA Suppln- 
entel," totaling $12,276 million, in- 
cludes tho additional amounts required 
tor the support of our military effort 
m Southeast Asia during the balance 
of FY 1067. This i 8 tho Supple- 
mental now before tho Committee. ' 
Including all the Supplemental s and 
adjustments, total NOA for FY 19fi? 
will amount to about $72,816 milt/on 
compared with $59,940 million origin- 
ally enacted an increase of $12 875 
million. 

As shown at the bottom of Table 
2, expenditures in 2TY 19G7 are now 
estimated at $67,950 million, com- 
pared with $58,800 million estimated 
in the original FY 1907 Budget, an 
mcroa.se of $9,050 million. . . , 
Procurement. 

Included in the Southeast Asia 
^Supplemental is a total of $6 HOC 
million for procurement. In discussing 
the content of this procurement pro- 
gram, I .shall refer to the not change 
between the original program as set 
forth in the FY 1967 Budget ami 
the current program, rather than to 
the details as set in the Supplemental 
itsoli. This approach will give you a 
clearer picture of the revised pro- 
gram. ^ The reason is that during- tho 
year, it has been necessary to finance 
procurement of certain urgently 
needed Southeast Asia items by trans- 
ferring funds originally programmed 
for other purposes. Certain procure- 
ment items in the Supplemental bill 
reflect the restoration of these trans- 
ferred funds. The total revisions to 
the procurement program are there- 
fore tho net effect of both repro- 
grammings and the Supplemental. The 
separate amounts for each of these 
is shown in the detailed tables I shall 
refer to shortly. Table 3 gives a sum- 
mary of the net change in the major 



procurement categories. You will 
notice the two major categories are 
ammunition and aircraft, accounting 
between them for about $4.4 billion 
of the total incroa.se in procurement. 



Ammunition. 

For ammunition, we are requesting 
a net addition of $677 million, of 
which GO percent is for ground muni- 
tions and the rest is for air muni- 
tions. This Supplemental amount will 
bring the total for ammunition in 

f/L I t0 ahout M ' G billion ' ;ibo t 
fcbOO million more than FY 1966. 

In the air munitions category, two 
ol the principal items being increased 
are 500-lb. bombs and 760-lb. bombs, 
both of which are carried by the 
R-B2's. We have also included funds 
lor additional air-to-surface aiiti- 
radintion missiles. Peak production is 
scheduled to be reached by April 
Depending- upon actual consumption 
trends, we now plan to ttipor of]' pro- 
duction later this year. However, we 
lave included about $110 million in 
tho Supplemental for advance pro- 
curement of long lead time air muni- 
tions components in order to retain a 
capability to increase production to 
within 10 percent of the April peak' 
m a period of four to six months, if 
"ceded. And, wo have production 
capacity in pl aco for even high rates. 
With regard to ground munitions 
peak production for the 40 major 
items, accounting for about 85 per- 
cent of tho tonnage used in Vietnam, 
will be reached by October of this 
year. We also have the capability, 
with a decision lead time of about 
six months, to raise the production 
base for ground munitions by an ad- 
ditional 30 percent, if that should 
over become desirable. Production is 
now Increasing rapidly, and by July 
of this year should be close to 
planned peak rates. 

The largest single item of ground 
ammunition added to the FY 1967 
program is $260 million for 105mm 
artillery ammunition of all typos. As 
I indicated earlier, tins weapon is 
vised very extensively throughout 
Vietnam for a great variety of pur- 
poses. Other major items are the 
5.66mm cartridge, 60mm mortar 
rounds and IE 5mm projectiles, 

For ship gun ammunition, a not 
amount of about $73 million has boon 
added to the original FY 19G7 pro- 
gram, offset by decreases in other 
types of ship-launched munitions, As 
I noted earlier, our Fleet off the 



co;i?t of Vifitmun is expending about 
:;r.,lifHi i-oun<ls JHT month of naval gun 
ammunition (cxdmliiuj '1(1111111). This 
niiiriimi'tN'ii imifit mw lie replaced. 

Aircraft. 

Of the 33,715 million added to the 
I-'Y li'67 program for aircraft, about 
?t,52fi million is for the re])hicoment 
of future combat losses. Included for 
tin' Xavy uiiil the Marinr Corps are 
F-I'a, A-l'.s A-GA's and UH-lE's, 
a total of -llil aircraft For the Air 
Force (including the South Viet- 
namese Atr Force) we have added 
F-l's, F-5's and A-37's, 11 total of 
17, r > aircraft. The a])pavfiiit imbalance 
between the Navy and the Air Force 
add-ons -simply reflects the fact that 
a large numher of aircraft were pro- 
vided for the Air Force in the FY 
liJi'jfi program. Furthermore, an- 
other large (juantity of tactical fighter 
and attack aircraft are provided for 
tho Air Force hi the FY 1968 pro- 
grain. For the Army, the major ad- 
dition for attrition consists of UH-l's. 
We have also added large numbers 
of aircraft for training, for example, 
r>S2 helicopters for the Army and 174 
fixed-wing aircraft for the Air Force. 
With regard to the Navy and Marine 
Corps, we have rearranged the 
trainer aircraft program by adding 
fid TA-4F'a, 3fi T-2B's, and 9 TC- 
-IC's, and deleting 58 T-28's and 20 
TH-lE's. 

A sizable number of AH-lG's 
farmed UH-l's) were added for the 
equipping of new Army aviation 
units; and an additional quantity of 
AH-1G was substituted for an equal 
number of UH-l's included in the 
original program. Other additions to 
the procurement program stem from 
force changes related to Southeast 
Asia needs. For example, in order to 
augment the Tactical Air Control 
Forces and the Special Air Warfare 
Forces, 17G 0-2A' H are being added 
to the Air Force's FY 1967 procure- 
ment program. In total, s-ome $440 
million has been added to the FY 
1M7 Budget for these purposes. 

In .summary, the net increase for 
the Army is 93B aircraft, the Navy 
nnd Marine Corps 427, and the Air 
l-orce 425 for a total of 1,788. 

Almost $1 billion has been added 
to the FY 1967 Budget for additional 
aircraft spares. The original FY 1967 
program provides for spares consump- 
tion only through June 1967; we are 
now requesting funds to finance the 
lull production lead time, which in 



many cases extends through December 
1968. Other aircraft equipment, both 
ground and airborne, accounts for 
about $755 million of the increase in 
the FY 1967 Budget. 

The net increase of ,$1,927 million 
for vehicles, electronics and communi- 
cations and other equipment is to 
provide both for the replacement of 
equipment to be attrited in Southeast 
Asia in the future and for the 
equipping of new units. 

Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation (RDTE>. 

The additional amounts required 
for RDT&E arc shown on Table 
2. While support of limited war re- 
quirements has for years been an 
essential part of our research and 
development program, in order to en- 
sure that the research and develop- 
ment program would be fully respon- 
sive to the needs of the forces in 
Southeast Asia, Project PROVOST 
(Priority Research and Development 
Objectives for Vietnam Operations) 
was established in late 19G5. PRO- 
VOST is designed to identify those 
programs or projects which have 
significant potential for near term 
application to the Vietnam conflict so 
that they may be accorded the neces- 
sary priority. By their very nature, 
these requirements cannot be fore- 
seen and to the extent that additional 
funds are needed, they must be ob- 
tained by reprogramming, by use of 
emergency funds, or by new appro- 
priations. . . . 

During FY 1967, we have con- 
tinued, wherever possible, to repro- 
gram or draw on the Emergency 
Fund. However, almost all of tho 
FY 1967 Emergency Funds have now 
been used and there remain a number 
of urgent projects for which there is 
no foreseeable source of financing 
other than new appropriations. Ac- 
cordingly, we have included $135 mil- 
lion in the FY 1967 Supplemental 
for this purpose. Broadly speaking, 
the additional projects to be financed 
in FY 1967 fall into three categories. 
Efforts in the first category are con- 
cerned with improving the ability of 
our forces to fight at night, efforts in 
the second category, with reducing 
aircraft combat losses, and efforts in 
the third category, with the develop- 
ment of counter-infiltration systems 
and weapons. 

Military Construction. 

The FY 1967 Supplemental in- 
cludes $625 million for Military Con- 



struction; $398 million for projcc 

in South Vietnam, .$109 million i 

Thailand, $32 million in other Pdf 

areas, $75 million in tho Unite 

States and $10 million for phumhti 

Of the $398 million for South Vie 

nam, $126 million is required t 

cover cost overruns on previously ii] 

proved projects originally estimate 

to cost $868 million. Since $77 millin 

from the DOD FY 1060 miliinr 

construction contingency fund lias n 

ready been applied to these projrrl: 

the total cost overrun would bn $Uf) 

million, or 2H porctmt of tho ori^insi 

estimate. Another' $88 million IK f 

personnel facilities, $49 million fn 

airfields, $29 million for utilities, ? 

million for harbor dredging, $10 mil 

lion for facilities related l< tin- n 

location of U.S. personnel from tfni 

gon and $81 million for JL liii-jf 

number of other oporatioiml, HUJJJI!; 

and support facilities. 

The $109 million requited f 
Thailand includes $10 million for ci>!i 
overruns on previously appnivi-i 
projects (i.e., five pin-cent of th 
original estimate), $.10 million fin 
port facilities, fpl{) million for roml 
from the Port of Sattnhip lo varioii: 
military installations in Thailand, $11 
million for utilities, $7 million fi 
personnel facilities and Jpfiil mi Him 
for other operations, supply am 
support facilities. 

The $32 million requester! for otlu-i 
Pacific areas includes $5.4 million I'm 
ship repair facilities, $i) million foi 
airfield facilities (ineludiiitf a run I 
overrun of $3 million for previously 
approved projects in Taiwan)- '! 
million for POL storag-u, $g.H million 
:Eor hospital improvement*! (primarily 
air conditioning in Japan) nml ?Ki 
million for maintenance;, coinmn men- 
tions utilities and other nu|)|mrl 
facilities. 

The $75 million requested for proj- 
ects in the United Stilton includcH fffil 
million for training faeilitioH (Nnvy 
aviation, Ai-my and Marine lu-lic-ojiN'r 
training, and Seabcse training), Jjfi 
million for Military Airlift Commimil 
facilities, $7.3 million for 
facilities (primarily Marine 
and the balance for a largo mimlwr f 
relatively small facility improvement* 
throughout the country, . . , 

Additional Authorizations. 

The additional amounts 
to be authorized for aircraft, 
naval vessels, tracked combat vcliiclos 
and RDT&E are shown in Table* 4, 
5 and 6. 



March 1967 



Recapitulation of 



Table 1 

and Civilian Personnel Strength 



Active Duty 
Military Personnel 

Army 

Navy 

Marine Corps 

Air For co 

Total 

Direct Hire 
Civilian Personnel 

Army 

Navy (including 
USMC) 

Air Force 

Defense Agencies 

Total 







Table 2 

Financial Summary of FY 1967 
"eluding the Proposed Supplement" " f 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 



Asia 



MILITARY PERSONNEL 
K nry E ol ' ao nnel, Army 
Military Personnel. Navy 
Mi itary Pemmnel, M.C. 
Military Personnel, A.F 
Reserve Personnel, Army 
Reserve Personnel, Navy 
Reserve Personnel, M.C. 
Reserve Personnel, A.F 

K imr< ! E"wl, Army 
Nal'l Guard Personnel, A.F. 
Retired Pay, Defense 

TOTAL Military Personnel 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE 
Oper. & Maint., Army 
Oper. & Maint., Navy 
Oper. & Maint., M.C. 
Oper. & Maint., A.F. 
Oper. & Maint., De:f. Ages. 




NOA 
J'Jnacteil 

fl) 

(J,1G4,400 

3,652,100 

1,183,200 

6,016,800 

288,211 

112,600 

36,500 

60,700 

346,633 

82,000 

1,780,000 

18,731,044 



"Medicare" 

nn el 

"Homeinvnei'N 

AssiHtnuce" 

jjiil'pIeinoiUnl 

(4) 



4,104 
-4,104 



78,500 

77,700 

24,300 

106,300 

6,200 

800 

800 

1,100 

8,520 

1,910 

34,000 

340,130 



650,500 
220,800 


6,897,564 
3,946,436 


68,400 
403,700 


1,265,900 
5,525,800 


14,900 


309,311 





113,400 


~__ 


37,300 


15,280 


70,800 
370,333 


290 


, 84,200 


-- 


1,814,000 



1,368,870 20,435,044 



^ Nnt> ar 
Nat'I Bd I for Prom. R.P., Army 
Claims, Defense 



. 
of Mil Appeals, Defenso 

TOTAL Opor. & Maint. 

PROCUREMENT 
Proc. of Equip. & Msls, Army 
Proc of A/C & Msls, Navy 
s npbldff. & Conv., Navy Y 
Jtlior Procurement, Navy 



'efense Industry Bulletin 



5,122,427 
3,980,300 
325,600 
4,943,100 
806,600 
231,000 


33,005 
-24,800 

-48 
-1,823 
2,517 


64,000 

42,000 
2,300 
49,000 
20,300 


29,000 
25,000 

17,000 


1,968,000 
624,000 
96,700 
528,000 
86,800 


7,216,d32 
4,646,494 

424,552 
5,535,277 
915,117 


263,300 




1,400 








231,000 


494 












254,700 


25,000 










_ 


494 


15,000 










9,000 


34,000 


600 












15,000 


K I7AO Ofn 












600 



3,483,300 
1,789,900 
1,756,700 
1,968,300 



8,844 179,000 

-68,000 



71,000 3,311,500 19,373,666 



287,000 ,; 80 

Continued on page 18 



Financial Summary of FY 1967 Budget 
Including the Proposed Supplemental for Southeast Asia 



(In Thousands of Dollars) 



Procurement, M.C. 
A./C Proc., Air Force 
Missile Proc., Air Force 
Other Proc., Air Force 
I'voc., Defense Agencies 

TOTAL Procurement 

RES,, DEV., TEST, & EVAL, 
UDT&E, Army 
RDT&E, Navy 
UDT&E, Air Force 
HDT&E, Defense Agencies 
Emergency Fund, Defense 

TOTAL RDT&E 



MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Military Constr., Army 
Military Constr, 
Military Constr. 
Military Constr. 
Military Constr. 
Military Constr, 
Military Constr. 
Military Constr, 



, Navy 
.A.F. 
Def . Ages, 
Army Res. 
Naval Res, 
A.F. Res. 
Army N,G. 

Military Constr., Air N.G. 
Loran Stations, Defense 

TOTAL Military Constr. 



FAMILY HOUSING 
Family Housing, Defense 
Homeowners Assistance, Defense 

CIVIL DEFENSE 

O&M, Civil Defense 

Resch., Shltr. Surv. & Mark., C.D. 

Constr. of Facilities, C.D. 

TOTAL Civil Defense 

SPECIAL FOREIGN 
CURRENCY PROGRAM 

REVOLVING FUNDS 

Army Stock Fund 
Navy Stock Fund 
Defense Stock Fund 

TOTAL Revolving Funds 

DEPARTMENT OF 

TOTALS 
of the Army 
"* *'" ' Navy 

Air Force 



-y Functions 

DOD 

DITURES DOD 



NOA 

Enacted 

(I) 


anil 
Adjustmen 

(2) 


262,900 
4,017,300 
1,189,500 
2,122,600 
61,300 


-4,000 


16,641,800 


-62,000 


1,528,700 
1,758,600 
3,112,600 
459,059 
125,000 


27,998 
115,436 
23,151 
1,781 
-106,805 


6,983,959 


61,561 



114,014 

126,918 

205,495 

7,547 

5,400 

3,600 

9,400 
472,374 

507,196 



66,100 

35,000 

101,100 
7,348 



17,279,079 

16,969,018 

21,024,395 

3,784,660 

101,100 

69,148,142 

792,000 

59,940,142 

58,300,000 



Military 

nnd 
Trnnafers Civilian 

Pny 
ui> pic in cut 

(3) 



"Medicare" 

nnil 
"Homeowners 

Assistance" 
Supplemental 



440 



440 



66,167 

28,418 
17,328 

-102,069 

]_ 

8,842 

-10,426 

-1,683 



157,220 

147,900 

159,710 

54,300 

519,130 



519,130 

505,000 



40,000 
40,000 
33,000 
22,000 

135,000 



288,600 
140,000 
19(5,000 



Tnlnl 
NOA 



8.13. A. 
SuiMilomonlnl 

(6) 

253,000 

1,303,000 

45,000 

536,000 



6,306,000 22,8H5,K<)0 



filfi,0<IO 

o.nifi.aoo 

l,2tt4,fi(IO 



l,i).i4,o:irt 

4Bl!!B.|0 



2(10,018 
401,4% 



624,600 1,007,814 



11,000 





BOV.llM 
11,000 







flfl,GO 







loi.oiio 


~ 





7.II4R 


__ 


351,000 
77,000 

107,000 


3BJ,Onf) 





636,000 


KWM 


29,000 

26,000 
17,000 
11,000 

82,000 


6,458,180 
3,548,900 
3,044,990 
223,800 

12,275,870 


2o)70!a3fl 
24,20 .1,423 

I 'l0l[o99 
72,033,081 


__ 





781, 676 * 


82,000 


12,276,870 


72,816,659 


61,000 


9,084,000 


G7,60,000 






March 1967 



Table 3 



Net Additions to the FY 1967 Procurement Program for 

(8 millions) 



Southeast Asia 



Ammunition 
Aircraft 

Combat Attrition 

Training and Other 

Spares 

Other A/C Equipment 

Total Aircraft 
Vehicles 

Electronics mid Communications 

Other 

Net Change in Prog-ram (TOA) 
Financing Adjustments 
FY 1967 Supplemental (NOA) 



* Reflects $8 million reduction in 
Note: Detail may not add to 



Army 
309 


Navy mid 

Marine Corps 


Air 
Force 

279 


Total 
~677~ 


89 


14 


1073 


438 


1525 


258 


135 


46 


439 


149 


314 


533 


996 


169 


329 


257 


765 


590 


"l85T 


IsrT 


3715 


288 


167 


51 


606 


326 


102 


141 


669 


G19 
2130 


131 

2340 


110 
1855 


852* 
6317* 





-48 


+29 


11* 


2130 


2292 


1884 




fifldft 



Table 4 



Aircraft 
Army 

Navy and Marine Corps 
Air Force 

Missiles 
Army 
jNnvy 

Marino Corps 
Air Force 

Naval Vessels 
Navy 

Tracked Combat Vehicles 
Army 

Marine Corps 
Totals 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



05 I thousands) 



1,901,800 

359,200 
3,700 

10,437,600 



Authorized 

FY IffGT 


Appropriated 
FY 1BG7 


Supplemental 
(NOA) 






FY 1907 


612,400 
1,484,200 
4,041,800 


612,400 

1,422,200 

4,017,300 


533,100 
1,703,300 
1,303,000 


610,000 
367,700 
17,700 
1,189,500 


510,000 
367,700 
17,700 
1,189,500 


6,100 

48,700 
2,100 
45,000 



1,766,700 

359,200 

3,700 

10,256,400 



62,200 
4,200 



3,707,700 



Table 5 

Source of Funds for Aircraft, Missiles, Ships and Tracked Combat 
Vehicles FY 1967 Supplemental Procurement Program 

($ In thousands) 





Total 
FY 1967 
Program 


Funding Available 
for FinnncliiK 
Program in Part 


NOA Requested 
for 
Authorization 


Aircraft 








I'rocurenK-nt of Equipment and Missiles, Army 


1,202,100 


669,000 


533,100 


Procurement of Aircraft and Missiles, Navy 








(ami Marine Corps) 


3,462,800 


1,769,600 


1,703,800 


Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 
Sul)- Total Aircraft 


5,686,400 


4,382,400 


1,303,000 


10,360,300 


6,810,900 


3,639,400 


Mi.-* UPS 








Procurement of Equipment and Missiles, Army 


560,500 


554,400 


0,100 


Procurement of Aircraft and Missiles, Navy 


323,300 


274,600 


48,700 


Procurement, Marine Corps 


31,100 


29,000 


2,100 


Missile Procurement, Air Force 
Sub- Total Missiles 


1,284,600 


1,239,600 


45,000 


2,199,400 


2,097,500 


101,900 


Naval Vessels 








Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 


2,041,000 


2,041,000 





Tracked Comliat Vehicles 








Procurement of Equipment and Missiles, Army 
Procurement, Marine Corps 


508,900 
18,400 


446,700 
14,200 


(12,200 
4,200 


Sub-Total Tracked Combat Vehicles 
GRAND TOTAL 


527,300 


460,900 


60,400 


15,118,000 


11,410,300 


3,707,700 




Table 6 






Amounts Requested for RDT&E Authorization 
Supplemental Request 


in FY 1967 




($ 


In thousands) 






A pv d Appropriated 
TJ POT 1 A "D OTT i~\n*TTTr *-* riiao* l?Y i or? 


Supplement rU 
(NOA) 
PY 1007 


Army 

Navy (including the Marine Corps) 
Air Force 
Defense Agencies 
Emergency Fund 

Total 
I 


$1,639,600 $ 
1,801,100 
3,118,600 
459,059 
126,000 


1,528,700 
1,768,600 
3,112,600 
459,059 

125,000 


$ 40,000 
40,000 
33,000 
22,000 



17,043,269 $ 


6,983,959 


$135,000 


March 1967 



by 

Col. I. R. Pcrkiii 



Bonanza is a word calculated to stir 
the imagination. Coined in early gold 
rush days to connote unusually rich 
ore strikes, it is now a colloquialism 
for any source of wealth or high 
profit. In this sense, the Defense De- 
partment enjoys a real bonanza in the 
Military Aircraft Storage and Dis- 
position Center (MASDC). 

Situated in the heart of the copper 
mining region of the Southwest, 
where, symbolically enough, many an 
actual bonanza was struck, this air- 
power arsenal is daily yielding a rich 
harvest of aircraft and parts. Cur- 
rently, over 4,000 used aircraft are 
stored in its vast, sprawling, desert 
warehouse a 3,000-acre warehouse 
without a rooflocated near Tucson, 
Ariz. Originally conceived in 1946 us 
a minimum-cost outdoor storage depot 
for surplus World War II bombers 
and lighters, it has since grown in 
size and scope and developed mifnoient 
commonality of functions to warrant 
merging of similar Navy and Army 
operations. 

To achieve such consolidation, DOD 
m 1964 elected to close Litchficld 
Naval Air Station, performing lil, 
Navy work near Phoenix, Aria., and 
to centralize activities at ono place 
This action, initially scheduled for 
completion by July 1967, is proceeding 
ahead of schedule. As a consequence 
and with the recent addition of Army 
workloads, DOD now centrally man- 
ages the storage, distribution and 
reclamation of all its excess military 
aircraft at Davis-Monthan AFB, Aria. 
The Department of the Air Force 
w designated single manager; the Ait- 
Force Logistics Command (AFLC) is 
charged as executive agent; and 
actual operations are carried out by 
MASDC, a field agency of AFLC. 

A unique, onc-of-its-kind organiza- 
tion, MASDC's mission might best be 
described as "aeronautical geriatrics" 
the care and maintenance of elderly 
aircraft. These .oldsters have fre- 
quently demonstrated a healthy emer- 
gency capability to either return to 
active service or contribute "bits and 
Pieces" or parts to keep other air- 
craft flying. MASDC's real payoff to 
UUU heg m Its expertise in handUnjr 
the over 61 different types, models 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



and scries of those stored, aging 
veterans. 

An expertise which, considering the 
value of hardware! and aircraft i-c- 
turnod to the active inventory from 
desert storage in th<> pa.st five years, 
contributed to un Improsaivn .savings' 
of $42 for every operational dollar 
spent. In terms of airpowm* support, 
the value of the center and its know- 
how 1S almost beyond nioa.suro. Time 
and n ff ain, in Korea, in Vietnam in 
massive foreign ttid programs, it has 
Paul off by providing a prlcnlt-Ks re- 
sorva to meet unforeseen needs. 

"How do yon equato rtvc-to-soven- 
ypar load times," askrd a Pontag,,n 
visitor, "with this on-tlic-shclf H l ( ,ck- 
pilc?" 

The visitor, an Army man, was 
seeking aircraft to mcnt ui W ;nt, high- 
Pfiority raquii-ninonta a practice 
which in becoming increasingly com- 
mon with tho U.S. Army Aviation 
Materiel Command (USAAVCOM) 
Located in St. Louis and commanded 
l>y Brigadier Gonornl H. F. Hchittx 
this agency, a fold activity of the 
Army Materiel Gommand, in'i| !0 focal 



point for administration of tlin A rmy'n 
reclamation and disposal program. 

^It specifically looks to MASDC for 
aircraft operations involving: 

Uecoiving, promising and main- 
tenance in fitoi'iigo. 

Removal from Htoraj>-<> ;in ( | j>n;pn- 
ratlon for shipment or flyaway. 

Removal of parts or components 
for hivnntnry mpliMiLshmcmi (nvlnnm- 
tion) and disposition (nalc or 

of residue). 

Sinco the start of Army 
in August I'Kifi, ii eon.sidmilili! milli- 
ner of Army airmift fnuiHtly heli- 
copters) have Iwm proe-msl-d by 
MASDC. Significantly, of the approxi- 
mately milliim-dolbu' yield nisuHin,'; 
from tin; first Army rerhnnaiiori pro' 
Rnim (U R-iU's), almost Imlf ,,f (lu> 
muleriul i-ccovuml went to meet Air 
lAireo and Navy invenl.iry rc<|tiiiv- 
ni on Is. 

The Anny also iLc<nim>d -10 ,-dnred 
Navy niu] Air l-Wn- iiirnlaiiOH | jy 
transfer all were prepared for "ilv- 
away" by MASDC personnel. 

While pro.sent Anny MuppurL h 
snmll and constitutes les.s (.hun four 
imi-ccnt of MAHDC'H own-all workload, 
Hit! steadily inm-aning aelivi- invoii- 
of Army aim-afl. IMV^H,-,^ u 
iivy fiitHi-i. impacl on i[<>Ki.r( 




City Air Materiel AroaH 
and Dr. f Fli ffht Facilities, B,, H ' 
Africa and Middle East. He is a era ^ ' 
ato of the U. S. Military AcidraS i 1 
received a Master of 



Of tlii! d.OOD ahvruft in 
'an! today, almost itno | 1(1 | OI1J , , ,,, 
Navy ami Marine. Tin- Naval Air 
SyHteni Commnnd hint ovi-i-all pnj- 
fft'iim jurfnilitaion over them-. Adminis- 
tration IH lUTimipUHhiMl through llii- 
Naval Air Ky H i.n Conunniitl Itninv 
snntntivf!. Pm-ifii! (NAVAIKSYSCOAI- 
RKr Iflcntwi i,, Han |)i ( , f , (J ftlll , 
l liy Knir Admiral T, A. Holm* 
Additionally, n,,. Navy i, m l n . 
l"ni H Klnlil Son-in- oniw n( Davi;,- 
Montluni AI'Ml, 

Trm^ition of Lh worldnad f n , 1Tl 
UtohflcM Park IH virtually ,,, ni> |i, t v 
and Navy support MOW 
.some 20 ommi of MAKDcru 

niHy, tho mmw-r ], ff(1III , 
ly wd! hut for our Inimi- 
cal area liwlvin ff pr.i^rvatmu (rrb- 
nl. tacwl ivfLl. 4, V( ,,,. Nl ,a wnlm . 
am Halt mv cornwion, thn Navy ban 
HiHlorntttiulnbly, d^vfllonpd ,lillVr,,a 
proanrvatlon melhoii| inH from tin- 
Air Forct*. 

Rlneo 1>OD c.,n so || t iatin f 
luln a charge to tnndardi,, 

! rncUTO 'to'w. and Hlnoo 
state of the art of r 



nrhiinlosy is anything but firm, a 
ti..hi t".t W;IH ilccictod upon, Complete 
nn'.K.nititf ha* l"K *' [n ll( - Rn rule . (1 
out fur long-time .storage .is impracti- 
cal, i-xjiiiih-ivf and inefficient -it traps 
muiritiirt! v;it!iin the airframc which, 
in turn, induces corrosion. 

To (lotc-i'mine optimum techniques, 
Operation Cabbage Patch, a controlled 
environmental testing program, was 
[>e-uri in October 1965. Controlled by a 
joint Air Force-Navy team of quali- 
fiocl engineers, a number of repre- 
sentative aircraft are now undergoing 
extensive (Insert storage testing. Data 
derived to date promise equitable 
resolution of the standardization pro- 
gram within the next two years. 

To facilitate overall management 
ami smooth the flow of paperwork 
and reimbursable accounting, AFLC 
di>i>emls upon formal Intel-service Sup- 
port Agreements. Negotiated and up- 
dated annually, these .spell out the 
details governing MASDC's relation- 
ships with the Services. These rela- 
tionships can become quite complex, 
witness one aircraft transfer situation 
involving a foreign government, 
several private contractors (U.S. and 
foreign), and elements of the U.S. 
Navy, the U.S. Air Force, the State 
Department and the Federal Aviation 
Agency. Unless clear-cut understand- 
ings prevail, awkward and needless 
confusion can upset months of hard 
diplomatic labor. Conversely, foreign 
sales and grant aid programs that are 
well managed and smoothly executed 
can go a long way toward establish- 
ing and maintaining international 
good will. 

As a result of our foreign aid/sales 
policies, U.S.-built aircraft are now 
flying in many distant skies. In the 
past five years, hundreds of MASDC- 
stored T-28's, C-47's, C-45's, C-119's, 
C-46's, C-54's, HU-16's, T-33's, 
F-84's and F-86's have gone to such 
countries as Argentina, Belgium, 
Bolivia, Cameroun, Chili, Columbia, 
Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Guate- 
mala, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Kenya, 
Nepal, Peru, Somali, Spain and Viet- 
nam. Generally, the aircraft were 
flown to their destinations after 
complete revitalization overhaul, re- 
pair and/or modification and are 
today in daily use throughout the 
globe. Some, despite their age, have 
appreciated considerably in value and 
are worth more on the open market 
than was paid for them by the re- 
cipient country. 

In addition to foreign aid programs, 



10 



the past five years have seen almost 
400 aircraft donated for memorials 
or transferred to other Government 
agencies such as National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration (NASA), 
the Atomic Energy Commission, De- 
partment of Agriculture, U.S. Public 
Health Service, U.S. Forest Service, 
U.S. Coast Guard and the Bureau of 
Fisheries and Wildlife. The aero- 
nautical engineering departments of 
many schools and universities are also 
benefiting from classroom and labora- 
tory use of aircraft and engines 
obtained as excess from the desert 
bonanza. 

Since flyable aircraft in good struc- 
tural shape best meet operational re- 
quirements, MASDC's preservation 
efforts are chiefly directed toward 
maintaining its inventory "healthy." 
Some 66 percent of the current crop 
can be considered in this category. 
Of the remainder, 25 percent are in 
various stages of dismantlement, and 
10 percent are shells or hulks, 
stripped of all useable parts with little 
chance of being made flyable again. 

The benign desert environment with 
its low moisture and low acidic soil 
content has proven ideal for storage, 
It has eased MASDC's load in the 
discharge of geriatric functions. In 
many respects, climatic conditions arc 
not unlike those of Cyrcnaica in 



Africa, where the B-24 "Lady Ro 
Good" was found. This World Wnr TI 
bomber, abandoned by its crow after 
a forced landing in 1943, was dis- 
covered and found to be in a remark- 
able state of preservation after Ifi 
years of exposure to tlin elements 
radios worked, servo motors ami 
hydraulic pumps readily opera toil, 
and trapped fuel and oil proved safe* 
for use. Exhaustive laboratory InstH 
by Wright-Patterson AFB personnel 
of selected components removed from 
this aircraft have verified the rn- 
markable preservative powers of Uio 
desert. 

The uses to which hardware stored 
in MASDC's arid sanctuary can 1m 
put are many and varied. Let's look 
at a few examples of what inijrht be 
termed "terminal weapon syntein 
management." 

An ingenious official of the Agency 
for International Development lurtieil 
to MASDC for help some time njjo 
when the Indian government ran into 
difficulties while constructing the 
Rojasthan Canal. Two- wheel curl* 
that would not sink into Kami anil 
could be towed by camels worn needed. 
Using excess wide-tretul nirphine 
tires, wheels and axles furnished Ivy 
MASDC, a thousand simple yet eft'uo 
tive "sandbug-gics" were con.Hlr\u:ti!il 
which assisted materially in N 




March 1967 



up excavation for this vital Indian 
lifeline. 

A classic example of American 
ingenuity to support NASA's space 
effort can also be traced to MASDC's 
resources. Severe shipment problems 
had been encountered with missiles 
built and assembled in West Coast 
plants but destined for Cape Canav- 
eral shots. Overland shipment was 
impossible because of rail and high- 
way space and clearance limitations; 
water shipment was too costly, dam- 
aging and time consuming. Turning- 
to MASDC's excess C-97 Strato- 
cruisers as foundations, an enter- 
prising group of engineers were able 
to construct the mammoth and almost 
unbelievable "Pregnant Guppy" and, 
subsequently, the even more unbe- 
lievable "Super Guppy." As a conse- 
quence, complete, assembled We.st 
Coast missiles are housed in those 
enormous airframes and flown to des- 
tination, intact and with minimum 
time loss, to meet NASA's demanding 
time schedules. 

Additional MASDC support to 
NASA's space effort has come in the 
form of excess C-54's and C-121's for 
satellite ground -station calibration 
and downrang-e instrumentation chock- 
ing. And, to a degree, NASA's re- 
search effort is helped by excess KC- 
97 carcasses, utilized in a special 



project simulating an orbiting space 
station. 

The list goes on and on Clfi's 
and C-47's to the Department of 
Agriculture for development of tech- 
niques leading to control of the screw 
worm fly; a C-47 to the City of Now 
Orleans for its highly successful 
mosquito control program; low-time 
J-57 engines from stored B-fi2's to 
replace high-time engines; venerable 
C-47's from desert storage to modi- 
fication canters for installation of 
7.fi2 minigruns and subsequent assign- 
ment to Southeast Asia in ],y ground 
support roles; 20mm gu ns excess to 
stored Strutojets; 25 J-7H niifflnett to 
support F-Sfi's of an Air Force Mili- 
tary Assistance Program; C-54 air- 
frames for experimentation in thf de- 
velopment and verification of valuable 
nondestructive testing techniques 
the vintaged veterans keep yielding re- 
turns limited only by imagination and 
knowledge of resources. 

How can eligible parties participate 
in this bonanza? 

Figure 1 portrays thn management 
control channels for access to MAKDC 
resources. Inquiries concerning sale 
of surplus aircraft and components 
should ho directed to: 

Chief, Defense Surplus Hales Office 
Defense Logistics Services Center 
P.O. Hox IfiOSG 
Tucson, Ariz, 8D708 



The Defense Surplus Sales 
a field activity of the Defense Logis- 
tics Services Center, conducts .sales of 
all Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine 
Corps, Defense Supply Agency and 
U.S. Coast Guard aircraft on a na- 
tional basis. 

Questions concern injv diinaUonr!, 
transfers, etc., of aircraft or com- 
ponents may bo dim: tod to: 
Commander 

Military Aim-sift .Storage and Dis- 
position Center 

Davis-Monthan AFIJ, Ari/. Hfi707 
Inquiries are welcomed, particularly 
if thoy involvn govnrnnicnUl ulilixa- 
tion of parts, ec]iii]nnent r or aircraft 
which normally woultl have no rurther 
application other tluui np 
disposition to the highest 

In summary, MAKDC is truly a na- 
tional resource in terms of 'Hi.ured, 
on-the-shelf airernft, in l:ermn of parbi 
support for supply rrtiilimiHiitiumt and 
in terms of in.suramif! agnijiHt unfore- 
seen i-uqiiii-cinnntH. MA.SDC'it nl>j<<ct,tv<i 
is to nmximmi the return U tliu De- 
fense Department on iMn $M.|> bil- 
lion desert inventory. A UHIH! inven- 
tory, true, y(i t one thai; still retuins 
a Bti-oiiflr nieaHure of vitiility an 
auxiliary, secondary, n(.Eiiid-by' nil-- 
power. 





, 


^, 






DEPARTMENT 
OF 
DEFENSE 








USAF 
SIHQIE 
MANAGER 




US NAVY 










US ARMY 




NAVAL AIR 
SYSTEMS 
COMMAND 


ISSA > 


A F I C 

EXECUTIVE 
DIRECTOR 


ISSA MATERIEL 
COMMAND 












NAVAL Alft SYSTEMS 
COMMAND REP. 
PACIFIC-SAN DIEGO 


USA AVIATION 

MATERIEL 
COMMAND 

sr, LOUIS 




1 

..- 




1 




MASC 
SINGLE 

OPERATING 


C 


' _ 




AGENCY 


1 _. 


' ~~ . 



Oriential Characters Now 

Speedly Reproduced with 

New Photo Composing Unit 

The u.H. Army IIIIM mircliiiKiMl lu-u 
unmuo ideow-raphic itnotofiomiiciinriK 
machines which will multn it p<,t f sil,l,., 
lor thn Hrst tlino, to prepare coiiv fen- 
printiiiK MI thn inlrinLlc- cliiirnVteti-n 

this JupamwH!, CliliKmn and Kon-an 



The macliincn will ho Hud In the 
production of offset minting ]>lnLos for 
Uio hiBh-miniul roii-f,,,! und slKml-.f..! 

presses used by the Army. 
Thf. nmchinoH, which nperatn H linl- 
' hnvii keyboard 



hv u .i- uHi't 

y Ht-rilcniff UnyH rorroHpondiiifr Iti Lh(. 
VIIHOUS ti-okH of u churaeUi?, 

JI 10 * kf!ys K""" 1 '"^ n i-ndf. tliat is 
used to search the memory ,lruin < f 
II o mnchino. The mniry |ru , , Ih "n 
jluincta Lho illumination of | ! ( 
^iUJhic clmrnctor niulrix <HmliU Inlr 
fho iKirticuur i ( loo K mnh tin t ,' 
been 3<i lecto(] on tlio fenylionru. 

Tho character i, H dinplay(nl on a 
venflcation k noHcopo and. Tt vo r no 



Fig. 1 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



photoruphl. 



11 



AFSC Announces 
Organization Changes 

The Air Force Systems Command 
AFSC has made several organization- 
al changes to increase efficiency in 
staff structure and meet the require- 
ments of the evolving- systems and 
technological changes of the Air 
Force. 

The changes, all of which became 
effective Feb. 1, 1967, include the 
creation of a new Deputy Chief of 
Staff (DCS) for Operations, Briga- 
dier General F. M. Rogers was named 
as acting DCS for Operations, He will 
be responsible for all resources 
planning including- facilities, man- 
power and organization necessary to 
insure the continued capability of the 
command to accomplish its mission. 
IhiH includes monitoring the test and 
evaluation of operations of the com- 
mand. 

Another staff change is the reas- 
signment of the functions and respon- 
sibilities of the Office of the Deputy 
Commander for Space to other appro- 
priate staff agencies. For example, 
those functions formerly carried on 
by _the Deputy Commander for Space 
which pertain to the development of 
space systems have been transferred 
to the DCS for Systems. 

In other changes, the DCS for 
Foreign Technology has been redesis- 
nated DCS for Intelligence; DCS/ 
Plans was redesignated DCS/Devol- 
opment Plans; and the office of the 
Headquarters Commandant was estab- 
lished as a special staff office. DCS/ 
Intelligence will continue to serve as 
the _ focal point for monitoring the 
foreign technology program. Also, the 
General Accounting Office Activities 
function was assigned to the DCS/ 
.Procurement and Production, 



Bids Invited on 
New Weather Computers 

Ten computer manufacturers have 
been invited by the Air Force Systems 
Command's Electronic Systems Divi- 
sion (ESD) to submit proposals for 
replacement of electronic data proc- 
essing equipment at Offutt AFB, Neb., 
to be used in the automatic processing 
of weather information, 
The replacement equipment, accord- 
ing to Col. Sylvester P. Steffes, head 
of the EDP Equipment Office of ESD 
will be used by the Air Weather Serv- 
ice of the Military Airlift Command. 
_ Equipment will consist of four 
interconnected computer systems and 
will replace two IBM 7094-1 com- 
puters, two IBM 1401 computers, and 
one International Telephone & Tele- 
graph Company computer commonly 
referred to as ADX 7300. 
_ The four systems must be- installed 
in a time-phased schedule calling for 
the first to be operational in January 
1888, the second in April 1968, the 
third in July 1968, and the last one 
in August 1968. 

Vendors will be asked to demon- 
strate equipment and software pro- 
posed for the system. During the live 
test demonstration, vendors will be 
required to compile and execute FOR- 
1IIAN programs. In addition, they 
will be required to demonstrate their 
ability to run present operational pro- 
grams on the proposed equipment 
through the use of emulation, simula- 
tion, or translation techniques. 

Invited to submit proposals for the 
project were: Control Data Corp.; 
Electronics Associates; General Elec- 
tric; General Precision,' I.B.M.; Na- 
tional Cash Register Co.; Philco; 

Iv-S&iJ^I?. 41 ^ Data Systems; and 
UNIVAC Division of the Sperry 
Rand Corp. ' * 



New Antenna Concept Tested by AFCRL 



A novel new antenna, that may well 
become the prototype of a new class 
of antennas, is now under construc- 
tion by the Air Force Cambridge Re- 
search Laboratories, Bedford, Mass. 

The antenna covers some 90 acres 
and consists of an array of 130 di- 
poles set roughly in a circle measur- 
ing 2,040 feet in diameter. The an- 
tenna is being built at Sudbury, 
Mass,, and will be ready for tests in 
the spring of 1967. 

Performance of the antenna will be 
distinguished by its high angular 
resolution. Resolution is expected to 
be four times that of the Rayleigh 
criteria, which says that for an an- 
tenna with a given aperture and op- 
erating frequency, targets must have 
a certain separation before they are 
resolved. This high resolution, in 



turn, carries with it the implication 
of greatly enhanced target discrimi- 
nation capability, a major Air Force 
operational goal. 

_ The antenna operates somewhat 
like an interferometer. Phase and 
amplitude of a signal reaching pairs 
of dipoles are compared, and these, 
in turn, are correlated with the phase 
and amplitude of signals reaching 
other dipole pairs. 

After performance of the antenna 
has been evaluated, it will be turned 
over to the Space Physics Laboratory 
as_a permanent radio astronomy fa- 
cility. Its relatively low frequency of 
about 6.5 MHz, where radio observa- 
tions with high resolution telescopes 
have not been possible in the past, 
will give radio astronomers a unique 
research tool. 



Re-Entry Communications 
Blackouts Studied 

The Air Force is conducting i 

series of six experiments to stud) 
space re-entry communication "black 
out by measuring the plasma noise- 
similar to the hissing sound of t 
radio turned between stations whicl 
can interrupt radio communications 
with an object re-entering the earth'; 
atmosphere. 

To study noise caused by plasma, 
which is formed by the breaking uji 
of molecules from intense heat gen- 
erated by friction with the atmos- 
phere, a 60-pound experiment package 
will be boosted to an altitude of 200 
miles by a four-stage Trallblaaer 
rocket. 

The package will then turn and be 
blasted back toward the earth. When 
the payload passes the altitude! where 
noise begins (about 300,000 feet) it 
will be traveling some 12,000 miles 
an hour. 

Instruments inside the nose cone 
will sample noise at the front, center 
and back sections, Telementry will be 
recorded making recovery of the nose 
cone unnecessary. 

The six experiments are being 
launched for the Air Force by the 
National Aeronautics and Spaco Ad- 
ministration from Wallops Island, 
Va., and will be concerned with tech- 
niques of achieving continuous com- 
munication during re-entry. 

The Ohio State University Re- 
search Foundation has been awarded 
a $80,000 contract by the Air Force 
Avionics Laboratory for the experi- 
ments. The Avionics Laboratory is 
part of the Research and Technology 
Division of the Air Force Systems 
Command. 



Prototype of Deep 

Ocean Rescue Craft 

Due in June 1968 

The first operational prototype of 
the Navy's new Deep Submergence 
Rescue Vehicle (DSRV) is schedules) 
to be delivered in June 1968. The new 
vessel will provide the Navy with on- 
the-scene submarine rescue capability 
anywhere in the world within 24 
hours. 

The DSRV is 49 feet long and is 
designed to rescue 24 crewmembers at 
a time from a distressed submarine, 
It will be capable of performing res- 
cue missions at depths of up to 3,500 
feet, 

The spheres, each seven and a half 
feet in diameter, are connected skle- 
by-side. The middle sphere has a bot- 
tom opening that leads down to the 
distressed submarine. Openings are 
also on each side allowing access to 
the other two spheres. 
_ Rescued crewmen are placed in 
either the right or left sphere and the 
center one. The third sphere is used 
for controls and houses pilot, co-pilot 
and medical corpsman. 



March 1967 



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Dr. Peter A. Franlten was appointed 
ep Dir., Advanced Research Proj- 
ects Agency, Jan. 30. 

Charles A. Fowler has been named 
JJep. llir,, Defense Research and En- 
gineering- for Tactical Warfare Pro- 
grams . 

TK?^ G f n ' Willi *' R. Kraft Jr., 

UbA, has been designated Dir., West- 
ern Hemisphere Region, Office of the 
Asst Secretary of Defense (Interna- 
tional Security Affairs). 

New assignments at the Defense 
Oomnumications Agency include Col. 
John P. Walsh, USAF, Chief, Re- 
search and Development Dv., and 
CoL Clinton A. Parrish Jr., USAF 
Project Manager, AUTODIN Project.' 
Col. Chclsie R. Fincher, USAF has 
been assigned as Dep. Commander, 
bubs,stcnce Regional Headquarters 

Snpport 



?r 




New assignments in the Air Force 
bystems Command are: Mai. Gen 
Charles H. Terhune, Jr., Vice Com 



Ma 

of ^ 



A Systems Div.; 

m, Al Kent ' De P- Chief 
Development Plans) 



, 

Col. William L. Phillips, USAF, has 
been assigned as Dir., Commodity 



Capt. Edward C.'oidficld Jr., USN 

Has been reassigned as Dep Com' 
jnander .Defense Industrial Supply 
Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Maj ; Gen. John Norton haw been 
named to relieve Brig. Gen. Howard 
H. Schiltz as Commanding General, 
U.S. Army Aviation Materiel Com- 
rnmul, St. Louis, Mo. 

.ri,,? 1 ** C M M - Hudson has assumed 
duties t as Dep. for Research and En- 
gineering and Chief Scientist at the 

T i i r my Wea l lons Command, Hock 
la land, 111. 

BriR. Gen. Edwin I. Donloy has as- 
sumed command of the Army Mo- 
bility Equipment Command, St. Louis 
Mo., relieving lirig. Gen. Thomas iV 
Eaimpson, who has retired. 

Norman L. Comua has been named 
Jpep. Dir, Ground Support Equipment 
Laboratory, U.S. Army Missile Com- 
mand, Redstone Arsenal, Ala. 

Col. John P. Polk is the new deputy 
to the Commanding General, U.S. 
Army lest and Evaluation Command 
Abordeon Proving Ground, Mel. 

Lt. Col. .Donald H. Stecnburn is the 

I^f TT|' Chaparral Management 
^JJIlce, U.S. Army Missile Command, 
itodstono Arsenal, Ala, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 



C 
* 



RAdm. Robert R. Wooding has re- 
eved Capt. George E. Fischer as 
ommandcr, Southwest Div., Naval 
swjihtioa Engineering Command, 
't. Fischer has resumed duties as 
i* Commander of the division. 
RAdm. Harry C. Mason has been 
signed as Vice Commander. Naval 
ectromes Systems Command, from 
as Dep. Commander for Re- 
am! Development, Naval Ships 
" Command. 



Industry Bulletin 



nAiwV,V, BMccee 

RAdm. W. F. Petrovlc as Dep. Com- 
mander for Shipyard Management, 
and as Program Director for Ship- 
yard Modernization, Naval Ship Sys- 
tems Command, in April. 

.Capt Floyd AV. Gooch Jr., Plan- 
xr' 18 ' , Q$ cer at Portsmouth, N.H 
Naval Shipyard will assume command 
Airif PhlladoI PMa Naval Yard in 

Capt. Manuel <fa C. Vincent has ro- 

n e j e n ailt - D ' , K " Ela ' as Command- 
ing Officer and Dir. of the David 

laylor Model Basin, Washington, D.C. 
Capt. Sidney Sherwin Jr. has as- 
sumed command of the Pearl Harbor 
Naval Shipyard, relieving RAdm. E. 
Alvey Wright, who has retired. Capt. 
Sherwaii will head the shipyard until 
a ling officer is ordered to relieve him. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE 
AIR FORCE 

Gen. John P. McCmmell has heen 
reappointed as Chief of Staff, U. S. 
Air i ore e, for a second two-year 
tour. 

, Gen John D. Rymi has been aa- 
signed na Commander in Chief, Paci- 
fic An- Force, relieving Gen. Hunter 
Harris, who has retired. 

U. Gen. Joseph J. Nazzaro suc- 
ceeds Gen. Ryan, as Gommander-in- 
Unot, strategic Air Command, with 
concurrent promotion to the grade of 
general. 

Lt. Gen. Keith K. Compton will 
move from the position of Air Force 
Cop. Chief of Staff (Plans and Op- 
erations) to fill the post of Vice Com- 
mondor-in- Chief, Strategic Air Com- 
niand, formerly held by Gen. Nazzaro. 
U. Gen. Glen W. Martin has been 
assigned as Dop. Chief of Staff (Plans 
and Operations), Hq., USAF. 

Mtij. Gen. James T. Stewart has 
been assigned as Dir. of Space in 
the Office of Dcp. Chief of Staff (Re- 
search and Development), Hq,, USAF. 

Maj. Gen. Harold E. Humfeld has 
been named as Dir. of Maintenance 
infifineci-ing in the Office of the Dep. 
c >cf of Staff (Systems and Logis- 
tics), Hq., USAF. 

Maj. Gen. Theodore H. Milton has 
been nominated for promotion to lieu- 
tenant general and assignment as In- 
spector General of the Air Force. 

Brig. Gen, Russell A. Berg has been 
transferred from duty as Dep. Dir. 
Manned Orbiting Laboratory Pro- 
gram, to duty as Dir., Office of Space 
Systems, Office of the Secretary of 
the Air Force. 



Tr v fl - r 

Ji., Asst. Dep. Chief of Staff (Sys- 
tems) Hq AFSC; Brig. Gen. Felix M 
Rogers, Asst. Dep. Chief of Staff 
(Development Plans) Hq., AFSC 
' " E ' Hicks Cinef '- 



cal' 
cai 



A ' , -m- 

Armament Development 






Systems Div 
Assignments in the Office of the 

th< l Air Ir t ' co '"*: Col! 
, Asst Dep. Dir., Plans 

f n? ^'f Cy i 9 ffl ? e f Sp ^ e Systems; 
Col. A frecl J. Lynn, Dep. Chief, ' 

Co ran 11 r iV ^ P ffl ?1 f 
J-oi. carl. G. Schneider, 

F^ ASSt ' 1 S ^ retil ^ of e Air orce 
(I'mancial Management); Col. Byron 
V Pepitone, Executive to the Dop" 

f the Air 



Assignments at 



y 



Chief of Stair 



-r 

nH ir 1 '. Chiof Communications 
and Electronics Div., Directorate of 
Aerospace Programs, Dep. Chief of 
btafl (Programa .and Hcsourccs); 
Co Joo M. Whitefield, Asst. for 
Policy, Dep. Chief of Staff (Sys- 
tems and Logistics); and Col. Edward 
K Bycrs Chief, Nuclear Power Div., 
Directorate of Science and 
Ofiy Dep Chief of Staff, ( 
and Development). 



Navy Gets New 
Shark Repellent Device 

The Navy has developed a new 

type o.[ shark repellent device which 
Jiafl successfully passed a series of 
tests demonstrating that ifc is effec- 
tive against various types of sharks. 
1 lie now survival gear is a five-foot 
long- plastic bag which screens u man 



-i.i. 

mii ?., m tho vicill *ty. The bag is 
filled with water and supported by 
inflatable cuffs or rings attached to 
the top of the bag. The man, sup- 
ported by his life aclcet, rtoats 'inside 
the bag. This method prevents blood 
from wounds or other human evi- 
dence from being sensed by man- 
eating sharks. * 

Black in color with orange cuffs, 
the device can be made of commer- 
cially availabe strong, lightweight, 
mildew- and decay-proof plastic ma- 
terials. 



13 




from address by Hon. 
Robert H. Charles, Aftnt. Secretary of 
the Air Force (Installations & Logis- 
tics), to the Washington Chapter of 
(he American Ordnance Assn., Wask- 
infltun, D.C., Fcb 15, 1967. 




Hon. Robert H. Charles 



The Problem of 
Long Lead Time 

********** 

Since moat of you are related in 
one way or another to this country's 
industrial effort, I would now like 
to discuss one of our industrial 
troubles with you, namely, long hard- 
ware lead times. 

There is nothing good, to us, about 
long lead times. On the contrary, 
there are at least three extraordinar- 
ily onerous results; 

National defense, particularly 
when a war is being fought, involves 
rapidly and almost constantly shift- 
ing requirements. After all, we don't 
do the enemy's planning for him. So 
if it takes a long time to get a 
needed product, our response to 
changed requirements becomes almost 
glacial in its speed, unless we over- 
buy m the first place to meet all 
possible contingencies. This would be 
unfair to the taxpayer, 

Having ordered a long lead time 
"ten, supj )0se the requirement changes 
the volume is reduced after it is 
80 percent complete. We then have 



the agonizing choice of terminating 
something at 80 percent of its com- 
pleted cost and receiving nothing-, or 
completing the purchase of a sub- 
stantially unneeded item. We usually 
end up doing the latter because it 
may then be worth 30 percent of its 
original cost, and the added cost of 
completion is then only 20 percent. 

This result is perhaps least 
understood and most insidious. We 
become locked into a given design 
over a longer period, thereby inhibit- 
ing the incremental incorporation of 
major improvements, but even more 
important, of wholly new systems. 
This results in systems which are at 
all times less up-to-date and effective 
than they should be. It also creates 
a psychological barrier to force 
modernization. If, being required by 
long lead times to buy fewer systems 
but in larger quantities of each, we 
find ourselves with a very large in- 
ventory of an 85 percent effective 
weapon, there is some resistance to 
phasing down all those assets, which 
cost so much in effort, money and 
time, in order to acquire a 95 percent 
effective weapon. 

In short, long lead times limit our 
response to changing world conditions 
and to the rapidly shifting require- 
ments of defense, increase the possi- 
bility of accumulating unneeded or 
obsolescent inventories, and inhibit 
modernization. So I ask the question; 
Why should any customer, particu- 
larly a customer who is responsible 
for the national defense, be thus 
burdened? And if you don't think 
that this load is a full-feathered 
albatross, just ponder the problem 
when the lead time for a fighter in- 
creases some 35 percent, as it has 
over what was already too long a 
lead time, i.e., almost a year and a 
half. This means that in order to be 
sure to have it if we need it, we 
must commit ourselves, almost two 
years before its delivery, to an item 
which changed conditions may render 
ess effective than, we desire even 
before we get it. And this for an 
item already in production. 

Let me put it in a nutshell: Indus- 
trial technology and capacity are part 



of the load time problem; and it'a 
time; we did something morn about H. 
Here are two specific KUR'Kosliotis: 
o In searching for nmv mul im- 
proved technology and mumiritcturmfr 
methods, added emphasis should lir? 
placed on increasing' the speed of Urn 
manufacturing process as wall IIH im- 
proving the quality of tho pnxhmt 
and reducing its cost. Imlu.sti'y should 
do more of this on its own. Tim Air 
Force will, of course, continue l<> 
sponsor research in technical ai'fiiH, 
particularly whore its only applica- 
tion appears to be military. But run- 
indeed is tho now military mmiuf ma- 
turing technique or material wliii'li 
does not ultimately find UN way mlo 
commercial use. Wo need morn nnw 
private initiatives in this area, 

' Industry should put mon; (if KM 
own money into new and improve I 
tools of production, thereby iin*iwmin|< 
overall capacity. I can umtorstiind 
a reluctance, without nxwiiiiHrful 
incentives, to make substantial capi- 
tal investments in spednl pui-posit 
equipment, or in equipment for 
temporary or one-shot procumm-nl 
including wartime SIII-R-O rmiuii'r- 
monts. But I cannot undoi-Ktmid UI(H 
reluctance if tho requirement app<>nrn 
to have reasonable stability in n nmi- 
wui-timo environment, pitrtlculiirly 
whore the new manufacturing equip- 
ment can do n bettor job fusler mid 
at lower cost. Tho airline do not 
provide machinery and equipment to 
the manufacturers of comirHH-dal air- 
craft. Why should the Air Forei! do 
so on military programs ImvJriff 
reasonable stability? An imporlnnl 
feature of the total packajr.o pvuexm-- 
ment concept, under which tho C-fi 
is being built, specified that thn manu- 
facturer would furnish all aildUIoiml 
facilities for that progi-mn, and 
Lockheed and General Electric niv 
doing ^ so. I should add that, as far 
as aircraft are concornml, what 
shortages and increased lend times do 
exist are more the result of commor- 
cial work than of military. For tta 
first time in history, in 1007, more 
Pounds of aircraft will be delivered 
to commercial users than to the mili- 
tary. Deliveries of new commorcinl 



March 1967 



aircraft are scheduled to spurt from 
* 221 in 19C6 to 436 in 19G7, and 
increase of almost 100 percent. 

What I am saying is that industry 
should finance the machinery, equip- 
ment and other capital assets not only 
for its civilian business, but also for 
its medium to long-range military 
business. 

As indicated earlier, I have made 
this pitch before. The reaction is 
reported to be that industry was 
badly burned by investments during 
the Korean conflict and now wants a 
better assurance of use before in- 
| vesting capital in long lead time 
equipment. That reaction, in my view, 
misses the mark. I am not talking 
about temporary or one-shot require- 
ments, such as wartime surges. I am 
talking about medium to long-range 
military requirements, and only those, 
of such items as the C-5, thc'p-lll, 
the A-7, etc. And speaking of the 
C-6, T noted with interest, and do 
not question its accuracy, an indus- 
try study which indicated that if a 
200,000-ton, closed-die forging' press 
were available today, on 200 C-5'a 
almost $70 million could be saved in 
manufacturing costs, and an addi- 
tional $80 million in operating costs 
due to reduced weight. The total is 
substantially more than the estimated 
cost of the press. Tf this is so on this 
one program, think how much moro 
would be saved in the next 10 years 
on all programs, including such com- 
mercial projects as the 747 and the 
supersonic transport. In view of 
industry's sharing 100 percent in cost 
reductions on commercial aircraft, 
and a sizeable amount on military 
programs for example, on thn C-fi 
the all-frame contractor's share is BO 
percent below target and 30 percent 
above I ask again why industry does 
not think it would be in its own best 
interest to build and operate such 
equipment, 

I am not suggesting that any com- 
pany, even if it had the resources, 
should do such a thing by itself] 
After all, no company knows in 
advance that it is going to win a 
major program, and the time to 
design, build and shako down such 
facilities is much longer than the 
Period from airplane development go- 
ahead to cutting of production hard- 
ware. What is known, however, is 
that some company will win each 
Program and that it, and the nation, 



De fense Industry Bulletin 



will bene-fit from the existence of a 
facility that can save $98 million on 
one program. Let mo suggest, there- 
fore, that industry consider a con- 
sortium to finance, and perhaps 
operate those facilities that arc too 
expensive for one company prudently 
to undertake. This would not bo new. 
For example, many years ago when 
the industry was much smaller and 
even relatively low speed wind tunuols 
were in this category, a consortium 
was formed to build the tunnel at 
Pasadena. 

The next question, of course, is that 
if the nation will benefit from such 
facilities, why shouldn't the Govern- 
ment put up the money. The answer 
is so deeply ingrained in our system 
that I am surprised it is asked. With- 
out debating its merits vis-a-vis cap- 
italism, let me read to you the first 
definition of ".socialism" in Webster's 
Unabridged; "A ... social organi- 
zation based on ... governmental 
ownership ... of the essential moan.s 
tor the production and distribution 
of goods." We should all keep this 
definition in mind. I recognize, of 
course, that words liko "socialism" 
"capitalism," and "free enterprise" 
nro what might be called "color 
words." There arc few polar choice* 
jn tins ambiguous world. Nevortho- 
oss, th evo are meaningful distinctions 
between them; and industry ,id the 
nation should not expnct to continues 
to reap the benefits of capitalism and 
free enterprise without shouldering 
its burdens. We can't have it both 
ways. 

And if you think this is an i<llo 
warning, listen to what John Kenneth 
Uulbratth said recently: 

"The line that now divides 
public from no-called private 
organization in military nrocurc- 
nicnt ... is so indistinct an to 
bo nearly imperceptible. . . . the 
mature corporntion will eventu- 
ally become a pnrt of the larger 
administrative complex with the 
state. In time, the line between 
the two will disappear. Men will 
look back in amusement at the 
pretense that once caused people 
to refer to General Electric . . . 
or DuPont as 'private' business." 
Now, listen to the conclusion; 

" - . and if the mature cor- 
Deration is recognized to be a 
part of the state or some 
penumbra of the stale, it cannot 
plead its inherently private char- 



acter . . . aa cover for the pursuit 
of goals of primary inter- 
cat . . ." 

As with nil syllogisms and I do 
not use the term in derogation Mr. 
Galbrmth J H conclusion is right only if 
his major premise is right; namely, 
that mature corporations, particularly 
in defense hutu'imss, arc becoming part 
of the state. That p minimi in-ecl not hi; 
right. But it will be if doOnmi 
industry doos not become morn re- 
Kourcoful in rnstoi-injr its "inherently 
private character." I r ptit. We 
can't have it both ways. 



Exctuyt from addnma hy ("upt. It. 
J. Schneider, URN, Aunt. Cimmmwlur 
for Rcaeitrch ami Tvchnolof/y, Nnwd 
Air Syrtlcmtt Commnnd, at Ainmtd 
Mvctinff of the. American Iwtl.itul.fi <>/ 
Aerininuti&t and Aatronauticn, 
Mass., Nov. 20, 18SG, 




. U. J. Hcliiiuldur, UNN 



Forecast of the 
Navy Aerospace Posture 

********** 

The Attach Currier. 



- . Tho tactical inissionH of tin- 
carrier have ovolvod and chumrpil 
throughout tho years and it HO.MHH 
woll^foumlod to Htntn that thn attack 
earner W( IUI() will roiimillj th() ba( , k _ 

Iwmo of Navy tactical .strilu- capa- 
bility in the forwKioubln fuUiw. On 
tho national scalo, tho attack currier 
capability is, and appears to bo for 
tho future Ollfi J! tlm major building 
blocks of tho U.S. HocuriLy p OH turo 

io. m '"ni fc W ? !Ll ' n flyHt<!mt! of tho 
1970 s will probably look much nimilnr- 
to those in and ontorlniy tho Ffcot 
today. Limited conflict, an well n ' B 
police action," in areas remote from 



the U.S. geographic base, remain as 
probabilities so that emphasis on rela- 
tively conventional weaponry develop- 
ments is not going- to diminish. How- 
ever, the Navy must also give 
continuous attention to the possibilities 
of major nonnuclear and nuclear 
war. Attack carrier air wings must 
be capable of carrying out across-the- 
board strikes against land and sea 
targets. They must be capable of 
conducting missions in anti-air, close- 
air support, reconnaissance, mining 
and antisubmarine warfare. The 
ability to conduct these missions 
under all-weather conditions is im- 
proving: rapidly. We must go further 
and essentially turn "night into day" 
so far as the total effectiveness of our 
capability is measured. 

Fighter and Attack Aircraft. 

What are a few of tbe salient 
trends and requirements indicated for 
attack and fighter-attack aircraft and 
their primary weapons? 

The ultimate in aeronuatical per- 
formance has certainly not been 
attained; speed, range, altitude, 
maneuverability, acceleration, etc., 
can all be improved. In aircraft 
weapon systems, however, high per- 
formance is only part of total system 
effectiveness and versatility. Cost 
effectiveness is not just a comp- 
troller's tool. Reliability and its close 
relative maintainability are highly 
important components of availability 
Maximum performance, if not avail- 
ably is no performance at all. 

In both fighter and attack aircraft 
an important objective should be im- 
proved target identification, target 
acquisition, and accurate weapon 
delivery, on the first pass. Having to 
stay around for second and third 
passes throws away a warrior's best 
defense, su rpri se, no matter how 
high his basic aircraft performance 
may bej 

Low-level penetration into highly 
defended hostile areas markedly im- 
proves survivability and we want 
foolproof, fail-proof terrain-avoidance 
and terrain-following systems. 

Fully effective, multi-mission air- 
craft are being widely studied. To 
attain multi-mode capabilities with- 
out compromise to any one mission is 
a technological challenge in almost 
every aeronautical and avionic spe- 
cialty. We should be able to get 
there in the mid- or late 1970's. 



Advances in automation, pilot's 
display and information transfer, 
man-to-machine and machine-to-man, 
permit smaller crews, I don't have 
time to debate pro's and con's of 
single- versus dual-place aircraft 
specifically, but man is a very expen- 
sive commodity to carry, in weight, 
vulnerability, training and mainte- 
nance costs. Each combat warrior 
reflects big multipliers back into 
every aspect of defense management 
and financing. 

Anti-Air Warfare. 

Anti-air defense of a naval task 
force postulates coordinated actions of 
fighter aircraft and surface-to-air 
missiles for a "defense-in-depth." 

Trends in fighter aircraft develop- 
ment will continue along lines of 
increased speed, range and endurance. 
Some versions of the F-4 series air- 
craft will still be In the Navy inven- 
tory. These will carry the up-to-date 
versions of Sidewinder and Sparrow 
missiles. The F-U1B development 
offers increased interception range, 
time on station, and the longer range 
Phoenix missile capability. Its fire 
control system provides for multiple 
target attack, 

This airplane and its missile sys- 
tem still must complete various evalu- 
ation phases prior to production deci- 
sions. 



It would seem clear that the ad- 
vantages of a variable-sweep, "swing- 
wing" principle, increased air-to-air 
missile range, and multiple-target 
track while scan fire control system 
have been feasibility verified and that 
next generation developments will go 
forward from these "bench marks." 
Again I would emphasize avionic tech- 
nology improvement by size and 
weight reduction and reliability and 
versatility increase as holding the key 
to improved single or multiple mission 
effect! vity. 

The future trends for naval sur- 
face-to-air missiles must include 
coping with faster, smaller, harder 
targets. We must increase effective- 
ness against very low altitude targets, 
in any weather, day or night, and in 
a full electronic countermeasure en- 
vironment. We should be able to 
destroy stand-off weapons as well as 
their mother aircraft. Point defense 
systems of small enough size and 
weight for installation in our lesser 
shins n-i-fi IIP-,- feasible. . . . 



Air-to -Surf ace. 

Our attention is strongly directed 
to highly accurate missiles for point 
targets. Our ultimate objectives in- 
clude all-weather, day and night 
guidance, warhead mechanization 
properly balanced to the target 
hardness, and appropriate stand-off 
range for various missions, Present 
state of the art is well typified in the 
Walleye and Condor developments, 

In ARM (anti-radiation missiles) , 
future descendants of the Shrike 
family will move towards higher 
velocity and better guidance features. 
The ^ strike aircraft going against a 
hostile defensive guided missile com- 
plex is essentially engaged in a 
rather personalized duel. Winning the 
draw and having one lesser time to 
target are the keys to success ami 
survival. When we succeed in gaining 
relative immunity from the hostile 
missile defenses, we decrease tlio 
requirements for stand-off range, re- 
open the medium altitudes for use, 
and reduce the danger from defen- 
sive small arms fire. 

Rapid strides are being made in all 
the bit-and-piece technologies: radai 1 
and infra-red, low-light level TV, 
microwave radiometry, miniaturized 
inertial schemes, explosives, warhead 
kill mechanization, fuzing and pilot 
diplays. ... 

Unguided weapons will not become 
obsolete and here is a fertile field for i 
improvements; bombs, bomblet-clus- 
tcrs, hypervelocity rockets and other '> 
weapons of these types have a special 
place in an armament inventory be- 
cause of their low price, simplicity, 
ruggedness in storage, and high coat 
and system effectiveness for many 
applications. 

Ship-to -Ship /Surf ace. 

A few words should bo given to 
ship armament, specifically referring 
to the field once dominated by the 
main battery guns. 

There is some development in small 
bombardment rockets and several - 
light-weight gun systems. We think 
there is a place for a longer range 
ship-launched missile system and arc 
presently studying possible adapta- ! 
tion of the Army's Lance missile ' 
program. 

Advanced Early Warning. 

Carrier based early warning anil 
long-range surveillance against both 
air and surface targets will continue 
as an important requirement. Some- 



March 1967 



thing like the E2A aircraft will be 
needed in our inventory. Improve- 
ments in detection range, clutter 
reduction and data management are 
most significant to this mission. 
Fighter direction of long-range inter- 
ceptors has been incorporated in this 
mission for some time and experience 
has suggested secondary control of 
long-range strike missions as a corol- 
lary usage. 

-Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) 

Antisubmarine warfare remains 
lugh in Navy priority. But without 
.some revolutionary breakthroughs in 
physical science wo must continue the 
slow struggle towards increased effi- 
ciency of known effects. Sophisticated 
signal processing to extract every 
luossible bit of information from each 
sensor and efficient data processing to 
correlate each little hit of knowledge 
is our chore. Integration of the total 
avionics package and microminiaturi- 
sation of components is our only 
I> resent hope to survive the deluge of 
electronic hardware this stubbornly 
i-esistive warfare area requires. Tt 
must bo reliable equipment or ' the 
whole effort is wasted. 

Replacement for the aging S-2 
<lnBign is required during the 1970's 
and wn aro planning for it in tin. VSX 
concept. This aircraft must embody 
tliose trends I have just mentioned 
nn<l in reduced size follow on in the 
A. NEW pattern of tho present P-3 
.airplane. The many operating func- 
tions will be centralized into an inte- 
BTi-ated display system under com- 
puter support for management of thn 
almost infinite detail. But the opera- 
tor will bo aided rather than replaced 
t>y the computer. Critical problems of 
tletnction, classification and localiza- 
tion are expected to be solved more 
nuickly. Better integration of the 
various systems is expected to in- 
crease prohability and accuracy of 
solution. Aircraft performance will 
fcto increased, permitting search of 
Hfroator area further out from the 
CVS force and with less transit time. 
The samo trends observed in tho 
Isced-wing airplane will occur in 
,-otEiry-wing aircraft. Performance 
,vill he increased in tho vehicle to 
icliieve higher speed and greater 
in durance with a heavier payload. 
mproved systems integration with 
omputer-aidcd control and display 
vi 11 be the rule. The ability to store 
ata, compare, retrieve and compute 
fill enhance effectiveness in this 



multisensor environment. Sophisti- 
cated signal processing will be more 
extensive for sonar acquisition and 
target location. Improved versions of 
the SH-3 helicopter series will be 
with us during most of the 1970's 
with a replacement up for study and 
development possibly late in the 
period. 

Land-based ASW airplanes of the 
1-3 series are with us throughout the 
Period. Tho ANEW concept, pioneered 
m the land-based P-3, will be im- 
proved and extended to all ASW air- 
craft. Largely because of weight and 
space considerations, newer develop- 
ment will most likely bo proved out 
ftvst m the larger ASW airplane. 
More automation of functions with 
automatic alerting devices for the 
operators can be forecast. Air frame 
and engine improvements will in- 
crease range and endurance capabili- 
ties. A follow-on airplane (VPX) w m 
he studied for the next generation, 
ierhaps some remarkable discovery 
or invention will make undersea 
surveillance as efficient as our pres- 
ent capabilities for keeping trade of 
objects in orbit. 



Oceanography. 

Closely related to ASW is the ocean 
environment. Navy interest in total 
oceanography, or "inner space" is 
quite natural. We are intensifying our 
efforts in all aspects of oceanography. 
Efforts have been under way for 
several years to predict oceanographic 
conditions analogous to the way sur- 
face weather is forecast Progress 
has been made and tho results im- 
prove ASW operations. Many similar- 
ities exist between this inner space 
and the higher levels of aerospace, at 
least as to problem areas. Much of 
tho technology which has been de- 
veloped for human survival in sub- 
marines and underwater exploration 
is immediately applicable to space- 
craft life support systems and vice 
versa. 

The vast distances and areas one 
must cover to collect data and un- 
vavel many mysteries of ocean- 
ography suggest adding- aircraft plat- 
forms to the small fleet of surface 
and deep submergence research 
vessels now employed. Some special- 
ized instrumentation possibilities are 
being investigated and others can be 
expected to exploit the high data- 
gathering potential of an airborne 
survey. 



efense Industry Bulletin 



Conclusion. 

_ I have necessarily omitted more 
items than I have mentioned, but 
there is no particular significance to 
the omissions except lack of time 
Vertical take-off, zero length deck- 
launch, engine and propulsion inno- 
vations, communication, navigation, 
satellite and other space applications, 
the list goes on almost without end. 
These are all important. 

Recapitulating some of the more 
challenging technological aspects for 
the future: 

AerodynamicsIn pretty good 
shape overall, though there is a good 
bit of work to do in the hypersonic 
-speed ranges. Stability and control 
at those high velocities and also in 
the zero and very low speed range 
need some more development. 

Propulsion Almost unlimited pos- 
sibilities for the future. Every 
advance in thmst-to-weight ratio 
extends our design capabilities. 

Materials and Structures Despite 
excellent progress, the demands of 
new requirements are almost unsal- 
able. Temperature, weight, strength 
ftnd stiffness, and fatigue capabilities 
arbitrarily limit almost every design. 
Each improvement whets tho appetite 
for more. 

Avionics We want and have to 
have ultra-complex electronics to meet 
and improve on almost every military 
requirement. Yet as technology per- 
mits smaller equipment to meet the 
need, tho greater grows the demand 
to build in still more capability, and 
for versatility wo want it all in every 
airplane or missile. Weight and size 
are shrinking at a very satisfactory 
rate. Now it is time to really get 
after absolute reliability, We have to 
get this complex equipment up to the 
reliability of the main wing structure 
before it is truly satisfactory. 

GeneralThe explosive growth of 

new technology has in itself become 
a problem. Each successful experi- 
ment points the way to new effort and 
at the same time raises the question 
of whether or not to exploit it in 
military hardware. We must stay 
alert and balanced with the best pos- 
sible judgment, between trying; to 
capitalize too soon on some new 
knowledge versus staying at the 
research level so long, looking for the 
last bit of proof, that a technological 
lead passes to the enemy. 



17 



DEPARTMENT OF THE 




March 1967 






February 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



S M T W T F S 
. ^ ... ^ 

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 
12 13 14 15 16 17 13 
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 
26 27 n 29 30 31 



S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 

1 1 2 3 4.5 G 

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 

3 10 II 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 IB 19 20 
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31 

30 



SPEAKERS CALENDAR 



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Mr. Edward T. Jones, Staff Dir., 
Contractor Performance Evaluation, 
Office of Asst. Secretary of Defense 
(Installations & Logistics), at the Na- 
tional Contract Management Assn. 
-Meeting, Mountain View, Calif,, April 

Mr. Henry A. Wallace, Los Angeles 
Regional Manager, Defense Contract 
Audit Agency, at the National Con- 
tract Management Assn. Meeting, 
Los Angeles, Calif., April 15; at the 
Federal Bar Assn. Meeting, Santa 
Monica, Calif., April 18. 

Lt. Gen. H. C. Donnelly, USAF, 

Dn-., Defense Atomic Support Agency, 
at Western States Civilian-Military 
Traffic Safety Conference, Albuquer- 
que, N.M., April 18; at Kiwanis Club, 
Albuquerque, N.M., April 19. 

Maj. Gen. J. B. Bestic, USAF, Dep. 
Dir. for National Military Command 
System Technical Support, Defense 
Communications Agency, at Institute 
of Electrical and Electronics Engi- 
neers Meeting, Jackson, Miss., April 

I 0, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Lt. Gen Ben Harrell, Commanding 
General, U. S. Army Combat Devel- 
opments Command, at Assn. of U S 
Army Meeting St. Louis, Mo., March 
21; at Assn of US. Army Meeting, 
Worcester, Mass March 29; at Mo- 
bility Forum, Allison Division of Gen- 
eral Motors, Indianapolis, Ind., April 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

Adm. David L. McDonald, Chief of 
Naval Operations, at Army War Col- 
lege, Carlisle, Pa, April 24. 

HAdm. Phillip Beshany, Dir., Sub- 
marine Warfare, Office of " ' 



Brig. Gen. P. R. Stoncy, Vice Com- 
mander, Air Force Communications 
Service, at Collins Radio Technologi- 
cal Assn. Meeting, Cedar Rapids, 
Iowa, April 11; at Armed Forces 
Communications and Electronics Assn. 
Meeting, Maxwell AFB, Ala., April 

Lt. Gen. T. P. Gcrrity, Dep. Chief 
of Staff (Systems & Logistics), at 
American Ordnance Assn. Mooting, 
Washington, D.C., April 12; at Na- 
tional Society of American Value En- 
gineers Meeting, Chicago, 111., April 
24; at American Ordnance Assn. 
Meeting, Washington, D.C., May 11; 
at Inter-Agency Data Exchange, 
Houston, Tex., May 17. 

Maj. Gen. J. W. O'Neill, Com- 
mander, Electronic Systems Division, 
Air Force Systems Command, at 



Joint Computor Confevcmrw, Atlunlir 
City, N.J., April 19. 

Hon. 1{. II. Charley AHt. Sumslnry 
of the Air li'orcc! {Inslallatmiw and 
LoffislicH), iit Nntioniil OonLnirl MUD- 
aX!mnt AHHII. Mooting HiilLimmv, 
Md., April 27; at National Contrm-L 
Maiuwuimmt AHHII. MwslinL% (Jnpi' 
Keniicdy, Flu., May 2. 

ling. Gen. J. K. Hk-yiiiau-r, Cmii- 
nmnclor, Air Forco W<iti'ii Trul 
'ts, at Anuirii'iin Socii-ty for 



AF Missile Center 
Gets Three-Axis 
Flight Simulator 

The state of the art in inortinl 
guidance testing has taken a HJaublo 
step forward at the Air Force. Missile 
Development Center (AFBIDC). Hoi- 

Innmn AFB N M wi'Mi tl i i i 

of a three-axis flight simulator. 
1 he ( simulator will bn used by the 

* I j nel , tial Q u i dnnco 

tost complete 
at a known controlled 



tho 



APMnr n thG ^cretQ floor in tl.o 
AI'MDC Gyroscope Test Branch area 
the new facility consists princtoallv nf 
four major mibassemblies tho (SJc! 
eimbaled simulator, the hvclramMr 
Jive unit, the electronic 



DEPARTMENT OF THE 
AIR FORCE 



Angular motion of aircraft fliVM- 
i 1S cntl ' ol lo'l 



Lt. Gen. Sam Maddux Jr On 
20 






y, 
AFU, Calif., April 27. 

Maj. Gen. {J. T. (iuuld .Jr., Dir.. 
Command, Control and Cnmimnifni- 
lions, Oflifc of th Dop, <',}^f iif HlnlV 
(Pro/rnmiH and Hosoin-cim), Jfii., IKK. 
Air L'orco, at DOD Ooinjmlor limUluU-, 
Washington, D.C., May 1. 



Air Force Awards 

Six Contracts For 

V/STOL Transport Design 



Six .study finntriuiU lotn 
M82,l)()() for (InHl^n nf a vorUnil 
takooH' and landfill? (V/.STOT,) 
Iran Kport airmifl; hnvo |)i>ctii 
'r n A( / rill il'lal HyHti'ina 
ol. tlm Air Foi- n HyHt^imi (.' 

Oontrartoi'H will rnnann-li 
imalyssn vanoiiH V/STO1, ny 
nivoHtiKutd diirnnmt pn.pnlniun 
and proparn tlin lx>Ht aircraft 
lor oiuili propulsion nyHt<-ni, 
call lor iiroparation of a 



hurl 



ami 
| ....... , 

unit.,, 



oi 
for ouch aim-aft cnnORuraLmn. 

SJ"^ ?' 1 ? f thn V/HTOI, Iran,.. 
ports will bis from four l:n tiinn loriw. 

Information acquiral unHtH 1 On- 
study coijtractH may ho utwd hy (hr 
AoronauUcal SyHtmiiH Division for 
uuurfi dovnlopmont of V/STOI, nlr- 

V, 1 1 1 1 1, 



.n . conli-actH, whirl. 

S 1 ". 1Jn(!( n 1 'W 1000. will ilovHup 
information on a V/ST()I.-iypn HirliL 

Wllich can 
or (unnrgcncy 



' 

'"rfln'lH, and from 
forward aroa niton. 

- work wo "t 1 
n oit na"tc nfviHion of 
Corp., Lockhcod-GcorRin Co.. 

orto1 Kivilr, of 
Alrernft Uivl- 



March 



I-G: Fourth Space Congress, 
Beach, Fla. 

6 : New York Academy of Sci- 
Mnencan Institute of Aeronan- 
nd Astronautics International 
f a * of Subsonic Aeronautics, 

- "' "( -IN 1 1 

7: Ocean from Space Sympo- 
Houston, Tex. 

'-7: American Institute of 
ects Meeting, Milwaukee, Wla. 
7: Institute of Management 
es Meeting, Boston, Mass. 
4: American Chemical Society 
is* Miami Reach, Pla. 
-12: American Society of Me- 
U Engineers Meeting, Detroit, 

>~12: Institute of Bnviron- 
Scieuccs Meeting, Washing- 

LSI 

-13 : Aerospace Medical Assn. 
%, Washington, D.C. 
-19: American Institute of 
utica and Astronautics Ther- 
ics Specialist Conference, 
leans, La. 

20: Joint Computer Confer- 
Llantic City, NJ. 

American Society for Qual- 
trol Meeting, Chicago, III. 
American Society for Train- 

Dcvclopincnt Meeting, Bos- 

JValional Security Industrial 
leventh Innerspaco Confer- 
ishiugton, D.C. 

Electronic Components Con 
Washington, D.C. 



M G 7- 7: A ' 1 Helicopter Society 
Meeting, Washington, D.C. 

A? J" 12 U Electrochemical Society 
Sleeting, Dallas, Tex. 

May 8-10: Fludics Symposium, Lafay- 
ette, Ind. 

May S-12: American Society of Civil 
Engineers Meeting, Seattle, Wash. 

May 8-13: Mechanical Contractors 
?*" f America Meeting, Kansas 
Lity, Mo. 

M S? I-'' A ' ne !' i . can Ordnance Assn. 
Meeting, Washington, D.C. 

May 11: National Defense Transporta- 
tion Assn. Meeting, Fort Eustls, Va. 



May 15-18: Society of Plastic Engi- 
neers Meeting, Detroit, Mich, 

May 16-18: 1967 National Telemetering 
Conference, San Francisco, Calif. 

May 20: Armed Forces Day. 

May 22-25: American Institute of 
Aeronautics am! Astronautics Ad- 
vanced Marine Vehicles Meeting, 
Norfolk, Va. 

May 23-25: Armed Forces Communica- 
tions-Electronics Assn. Meeting, 
Washington, D.C. 

May 31-June 2: American Society for 
Quality Control Annual Convention, 
Chicago, 111. 



Navy Shipbuilding Program 
for Fiscal Year 1967 Announced 



*vy Establishes 
ategic Warfare 
Office 

y of the Navy Paul H. 

announced the contraliza- 
.1 Navy strategic warfare 
within the Office of the 
Java! Operations, 
he Office, of Director for 

Offensive and Defensive 
JP-97), the new office will 
Erull guidance and coordi- 
plaiming, development and 
e Navy's growing strategic 

niral George H. Miller has 
latod director of the office. 
port to the Vice Chief of 
srations. Admiral Miller 
ervmg as Director of the 
jc Objectives Group and 
of the Strategic Systems 
mp m the Office of the 
aval Operations. 

idustry Bulletin 



i ., has announced its 

ship-building program for FY 1967 
allocating construction primarily to 
private shipyards. The nine naval 
shipyards are heavily committed, par- 
icularly in the repair and conversion 
of. complex combatant ships. However, 
the San Francisco Bay Naval Shin- 
yard will construct one decontamina- 
tion biii^e (YFN) and one nuclear- 
powered attack submarine; (SSfN)) 
and the Portsmouth, N.H., Naval 
hliipyard will build 7ie decontamiiift- 
tion barge. 

_ Construction of the following ships 
in the FY 1067 Shipbuilding Pro- 
gram will be undertaken in private 
yards following competitive bidding 
(D-ks and LST'a already assigned us 
noted) ; 

1 nuclear-powered attack aircraft 
carrier (CVA(N)) 

- 5 ^eloai'-powored attack subma- 
rines (SS(N)) 

. - 1 ""clear-powered guided missile 
frigate (DLG(N)) 

1 dock landing ship (LSD) 

11 tank landing ships (LST) {Na- 
tional Steel & Shipbuilding Corp., San 
Diego, Calif.) 

10 escort ships (DE) (Avondalc 
Shipyards, Westwego, La.) 

6 oeoan inincsswfiepers (MSO) 

2 ammunition ships (AE) 

1 combat store ship (APS) 

2 replenishment fleet oilers (AOIi) 

1 submarine rescue vessel (ASR) 

2 salvage tugs (ATS) 

/ A : Lrt2 l < ; cano 8 :i ' a I )Jlic I'esoarch ship 
(AGOR) 

2 surveying; ships, medium (AGS) 
_ .ill miscellaneous landing and serv- 
ice craft 

. The nuclear-powered attack carrier 
in tlie program will be an improved 
version of the USS Enterprise (CVA 



(N)-66) and the most modern war- 
ship in the world. She will be pow- 
ered with the new two-reactor plant 
that has been under development 
by the Atomic Energy Commission. 
I tic new carrier will have an 
overall length of 1,092 feet, u water- 
line beam of 184 feet, and a full-load 
displacement of about 1)1,800 tons. 
ine ship's mission will lie to support 
and operate aircraft to engage in sus- 
tained operations in support of other 

lOl'CfiS. 

. The nuclear-powered attack subma- 
rines in the program are the same 
clans as those included in the FY 19G6 
Shipbuilding Program. These subma- 
rines are designed for maximum ef- 
tcctiyoness against all types of ships 
particular enemy submarines. They 
will have a high submerged speed and 
loiig-rnnge sonar detection equipment. 
Iney will be equipped with antisub- 
marine warfare weapons such as anti- 
submarine rockets (SUBROC). They 

oS J ln , vc a " Y era " Ie "th of about 
rfut) leot, a maximum beam of 32 feet, 

? n d *> ^ll-load displacement of about 
a,Gfiu tons. 

The guided missile frigate will bo 
equipped with Tartar missile capa- 
bility which will enable the ship to 
operate offensively, independently, or 
with strike, antisubmarine, or ' am- 
phibious forces against submarine 
air and surface throats. The ship will 
Do 6% feet long, have a maximum 
beam of 60 feet, and a full-load dis- 
placement of 10,100 tons. 

The 313 miscellaneous landing and 
service craft In the program include 
barges, lighters, and various landing 
crait oi all sizes whose combined 
functions consist of landing person- 
net, vehicles and equipment from 
ship to shore. 



Ity 

En#eiu> T. I'Yrraro 
I>e.p. Under .Secretary of the Air h'orce (Manpower) 



11)1 



Headers of the, Jtcfonm Imliialri/ have volunteered Ilieir sen-Jo-; in 

IJulletin during the last year are study (he polentiat apjilienl imm m' new 

aware of Iho increased interest of Iho Iraininj'; leehrmloiiy In Do!) rdnnilinn 

Dofonso Department in applying new and training; pronnmiri. 
education and training; tcchnoloj-vieii Lo 

UK education and trairmur pnijynun. Wllllt '" 1'i'oji'd AlMSTOTI.i;? 
In the, April issue of the Iliilii'lhi, tin- AKISTOTI I- 1 i- -m 'HM,: mini 

AsslHtniit -Secretary of Defen,e. (Man- ll( , ninym f()1 , ,',,; ,' ,', ...;,., ,,', u .^\ 

power) annonnced the M,,Rin -in,, ,,, ,.. ,,, , [,,,,. 

System, lor 1 <lucat,on and Trainin,v H y tl , t , imini . ^proach ( ic. ..'h.rMi'.m 

Conference hold in June IIKKi for the Jlll( | | ni | n jn r 

omor^inj-: educational technolony in- apiiriac' 

dustry. Over 500 representalivr, of ,, r , ',, (V|llm , v 

mtliwtry attended the conference and ,,.,,;, ,,, ,,,. .,',., 

many who dHl not are familiar will, ( in . ( ., c philo.opher. 

I M f\ ni*i-wiiwii? i*t f ,-, . .-. r J 1% ! i ... ( ' 



thrt ])ro<!oodiiiM'H of thin endeavor to 

do.'icrihe the nmn'nitmle and ncope of , \ r "* lv \ ^^' l>(} '^^ "M "'"'"'P' 

DOT) trulniiiff pro, v rani a.i well mi " |' nivil1 " II ]l(nll ' lulv '" "'"'" '>:- 

limn \- t\\\\ >n'i/*iMf u ', us*. i ,. HUM iMUllllf I'O][H)HI iHrftl f" >n MJn! r \ 

I'L'HLL UUL JH HU H.y II I (!U, l i, r -in** ii 

Following tho' conference, ! ||,e J'!" 1 "^' llf '''''"lH"liiii"nl-. > 
July Iflsuo, Itoy Davenport, M,,.,, '"'v-'ninient hulniilry ednc tl | 
Dnimty An H Istant .Secretary of De- Iml|lily " ml ( ' llllll ' il " 11 '' I" ''"' 
f.'iusf, Tor Manpower, l'lannin K and " Im " of ""' llilv 111M| " m '' i '- 1 " 
UttWMu-di, liiKhli'Khted (.he liey diftnuh ll " 11 " 11 '" '''''"'"H..n ..n,) i 
siotiH of the conference and n^'ain 
ompha.si/.dd 1)0|)' H MTOIIK Intnilloiitt to 
purmio this proc;rani, 

Finally, in an nrUclo published in 
thi! Ocloher inmie, I d<wrll>il the Ail- 
in thin 



\}\. 



(hi 



NSIA ban invf 

liiK liij;e|her crt-ntivn nmi iti)it}:iii;ttn' 

peopll' wllo IlllV)' Vtillliilfi-ln) [i t .,|i|i|' 

varioiin prolih'Hi inv/ri mid \\-,^l, 

Hi'fen:,.., mi WF-II JIM |n I),,. ( i|fl 

That arliclo monlionod'a ''f.illdw-iu," l ' ; ' !unili "" Iff I'^l'-n.l m:.-!^ 

'-- wilh whom (lit-y :n WMtlilin- 



i'iiiK planned by the National Secur. 
ity IndiiHtrial Association (NSIA) 
which co-itponmired (ho June eon- 
fin-oiHio with tho De.foimo Deparlnienl. 
Tim follow..up i.'i known an Pro|rcl 
AH18TOTLK (Annual Hiivlcw of In- '''''"'atimi 
formatlim and Hyinponiiini on the 
Tochnolony of TrainiiiK ami l.earninr 

and KduoaHon). I have heen a,n,| K i 

I'OD o.xecutivo agdney reiiponslljilil v 
for Project AUI.STOTU'!, 

Tim NSIA TralnhiK Advfmiry (!i. m - 
mitlno, ho.adod by Marvin Kahn, Vic,- 
ProBldont, Aircraft Armaments, Inr 
has taken tho initiative, to or^ini^e 
cmitivn InduHtHnllHlH, educator and 
uitomtod pnriinH in tlio .lir.ietlon of 
Project ABTRTOTI-R/ Over 201) rmh 

Of UlfiHO 



Mtivi-ral pidnt't alnnil AIMM'I'M-i'l. 
'Hl. n|ti<rlllr CMIOI, it-lit. Kii",l, i! (;, 
rliinir projerl. m.ul.- ii|i ,,r v.tluiihu 

IV..1H ItMIVrl'tilit.: lt |n 

ji'mfJMii;,, .'|i-,'.,i|il, it' 
mill ('iriiuiiiii-M>nt(ti>ii : ')iuu 
w.-ll a., |, i|IK tl , nn l ,,.\.^ii l }:, 

' I ' llin| . 'llllioilfth Ittlll |, m |< Ml.- ihilj ; i 
live, olhei' I'Vili'iitl HKI*IU-|--' ; . f,m-|t (n 
lh)1 () 'tl'' ..... ' Ktllt.-nll.iM. will IT u,n{.. 

(UK fliHii'ly will) th<> |; ( ML H 



*NSIA contact for tultlHinml in/or- llu " ll ' nl1 ^ 
matum on Project AR1STOTF,K fa> wl1 " 1<< " ll|i 

Robert Wttlnk, Executive .Vccrcinrj/' ' ' 

Vrraw 1 ^ Advisory Committee, Na 
twnal Security Industrial 



Tlio overall 



D- C. 80008, Telephone: (ios\ 

SlflliJ/J l ' 




HTOTUJ In Unit it will U, t,.(,H,*if 








(,.- 



..|'!i 



'|H. 




t (l, r 



and 



in 



mo-n?'<( Will! 

*'-|ii{-tl(:'" will 

I!' T C, AlMiMh 
- h<.;t!thi', tlt 

March 1967 



Industrial interest in each of these 
areas appears to be so great that 
NSIA thought it advisable to have 
three individual groups. The problems 
in these areas are interrelated. 

The problem with the use of exist- 
ing media, such as educational tele- 
vision, closed-circuit television and 
films, is not that they aren't tech- 
nically feasible but, rather, that they 
have generally been used ineffectively. 
The Killian Report on the use of tele- 
vision supports this contention. The 
question is really concerned with 
quality control over operation and 
curriculum development. 

The "new developments" group is 
confronted with another question: 
Where can we find "laboratory-type" 
training operations which enhance ex- 
perimentation on the effectiveness of 
new technology, such as computer- 
assisted instruction ? 

There is also the question of meas- 
urements. Industry, it may be pre- 
sumed, is producing a new technology 
on the assumption that, iC it is more 
efficient than existing techniques, the 
market will be created. Yet the mar- 
ket to which it is selling is too often 
ot geared towards efficiency because 
the criteria for measuring output 
(i.e., how well the learner learns) do 
not exist in many cases. Without these 
criteria the present method of deci- 
sion making, based often on costs of 
inputs (teachers, teaching machines, 
etc.) without regard to effectiveness, 
will foreclose feasible alternatives 
which utilize advanced and costly 
technology. Education is not an 
"Industry" based on quality control 
criteria in which the managers con- 
sider "rejects" as costs of operations. 



Systems Analysis and Instructional 
Systems. 

The task groups studying "systems 
analysis" and "courses, skills, and 
asks" are related but are directed at 
hfferent problems. Systems analysis 
s a management technique for pre- 
enting alternatives to decision 
nakers in all facets of education and 
raining including directly related 
upport activities such as research 
nd development. It has to be sepa- 
atecl from the "instructional systems 
pproach" which is a methodology 
Dncerned with the tasks and skill re- 
uiroments related to a particular 
jurse or cluster of courses. Both need 
i be thoroughly defined, and areas 
here each may be used effectively 
ust be determined, 

Tfense Industry Bulletin 



Education Research. 

Education research is a topic in 
which Government agencies, especially 
the Office of Education (OE), are 
interested. Recently, the OE authority 
was changed by legislation so that 
industry could perform research 
within its $100-million-a-ye;ir research 
program. Tho problem today in edu- 
cation research appears to he mom 
the question of quality rather than 
quantity. In 1963 there wire about 
1,500 "hard core" researchers who 
contributed to the solution of rduca- 
tion problems. In I960, this nmnlior 
jumped to 6,000. However, like the 
growth of "scientists" ami "engineers" 
in the defense research and develop- 
ment buildup during the UlfiO's, the 
increase in dollars through the legisla- 
tion, the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, enticed many \QKK 
qualified individuals into the' area. 
Along-side the problem of qualified 
researchers is the problem of qualified 
project managers over research under- 
taking's. Those individuals luive not 
been -spawned by universities IK-CUUHH 
of the previous USD by sponsoring 
Federal agencies of tlm grant rather 
than the contract system. There is 
also tho problem of peer accoplnnco of 
the manager among his fellow re- 
searchers, Since tho management 
capability appears to ] m strongest in 
industry, as industry im-re-aHf-H Its 
share as a per Connor, v/e will have to 
find some equitable way of insuring 
disclosure of privately financed and 
Federal research results which could 
lead to thn improvement of educa- 
tion and training: programs, Proce- 
dures to Insure quality research ap- 
pear to be as Important an the ques- 
tion of qualified performers. 



ducors and the consumerH of indus- 
try's services and new technologies. 
Therefore, there is a need for direct 
communication between (iovernrmmt 
agencies at nil levels and industry. 
Second, institutional mechanisms must 
lie developed to create atmospheric 
conducive to "field testing" and evalu- 
ation of now technologies and the eon- 
current development of pm'formance- 
Iwsed standards which will encourage 
further innovation. Third, Fclm-iil 
agencies and/or local .school syslnnu! 
must develop methods to a.ssurc that 
industry's capabilities im; used effec- 
tively, Fourth, thero is tlm question 
of cost-sharing arrangements linlwnun 
the sponsoring agencies and the per- 
formers for educational "hardware" 
and "software." Thin question err- 
tninly raises the thorny issue of pat- 
ents and 



National Ht'iiefits., 



Government/Industry Interface. 

The group of individuals studying 
the "Government/industry interface" 
problem in education is confronted 
with a multiplicity of problems and 
is faced with the necessity of estab- 
lishing priorities. The emerging edu- 
cation industry appears to bo follow- 
ing- a pattern similar to that evolution 
of the defense Industry in the late 
1940's and early 1950's. Education re- 
search efforts are being discussed; the 
contract system and its management 
technique are beginning to be used 
by several Federal agencies. 

Four areas which need to b e studied 
certainly deserve priority attention. 
First, Federal dollars for education 
affect the decisions of both the pro- 



In this article an attempt has 
made to point out Hie 
problems which will be studied. 
ARISTOTLE will not be playing an 
"ostrich frame!" K vnn though repre- 
sentation might appear to \w top 
heavy with "defense" meml.miliii), 
either from DOI) or defense industry, 
the orientation will b<> more gonera!, 
Tim dnfmiHfl-ortontnd \ttm\ will mi-n-ly 
provide the foundation from which we 
can fvene-niliKe tho feasibility of iijiply- 
iiitf many of tliu tcichnkiunw and ( >i- 
licirlniK.'on of tlu; DOD.iridUHlry piii'l- 
nership to our national education and 
training problems. 

AH tlw DnfniiHO Department, in KM 
own training and wluuition jn-oKninut, 
continues and exprnids itfi \\mi of new 
technologies, the oirec-Uviminw f ouv 
fighting forces will 1m Improved. Al 
tlio same Umo "guided" H |iln-oir 
through Project AUISTOTI.K will 
licmoflt tho nation an a whole. 



Navy Oceanographer 
Relocates 

Tho OcqanoKi-aphor of tho Navy, 
Hear Admiral (). D. Waters J,-., (m , 
his stan hnvfi rolooatod from Sull- 
land, Md, to Alexandria, Va 

.,, () ?/;;. ANA , V . NOTICE 6430 of J mu 
Ifi' l! K'7 a(lviH( ' s thnt.. oflTuctivo lA.b 
10, 1D07, corroHpom imco to the 
Ocoanoffmphcr of the Nw v will n 
addressed as follows; ' I0 

of ihn Navy 
5 



Alexandria, 



St. 

22JU4 




The publications listed below 
may be obtained at the following 
addresses: 

Defense Procurement Circulars: 

Distribution is made automati- 
cally to subscribers of the Armed 
Services Procurement Regulation 
by the Government Printing Office. 

Government Printing Office Publi- 
cations; 

U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 20402 

Research Reports 

Authorized DOD contractors and 
grantees may obtain these docu- 
ments without charge from: 

Defense Documentation Center 

Cameron Station 

Alexandria, Va. 22314 

Others may purchase these doc- 
uments at the price indicated from: 

Clearinghouse for Federal and 
Scientific Information 

Department of Commerce 

Springfield, Va. 22151 



DEFENSE PROCUREMENT 
CIRCULARS 

Defense Procurement Circular No. 

55'-?^ 3 ?' 1966 ' (1) Contractor 

Weighted Average Share in Cost 
Risk ("CWAS"). (2) Insurance- 
Liability to Third Persons. (3) Con- 
tractors' Estimating Systems. (4) Ex- 
ceptions to Screening of Contractor 
termination Inventory. (5) Fee Pol- 
icy for Contracts with Nonprofit Or- 



. 

Defense Procurement Circular No. 
51, Feb 3, 1967. (1) Realistic Con- 
tract Delivery Schedules. (2) Small 
Sf me f S v, S Cmwerns- (3) Shipments 
from the United states for Overseas 
Delivery. (4) Status Report on De- 
iense Procurement Circulars. 



GOVERNMENT PRINTING 
OFFICE PUBLICATIONS 

,S Id p, F r - A " ditin e Automatic 
V Pr eMing Systems. Provides 
the Air Force auditor with general 
information relative to automate 
data processing systems and fur- 
nishes guidelines for surveying 

^ 



is arranged to nermit 
its use as a textbook for self teS E 
and/or classroom courses. 1966 1QQ 

24 



p. il. Catalog No. D 301.8/6:Au 8/966. 
$1. 

Glossary of Oceanographic Terms, 
1966. Provides definitions of technical 
terms used in oceanography and al- 
lied marine sciences. The terms are 
arranged alphabetically and followed 
immediately by definition or a refer- 
ence to the preferred synonym. 1966. 
204 p. il. Catalog No. D 203.22/3:35. 
$2.25. 

Government Use of Satellite Com- 
munications. Hearings before a Sub- 
committee of the House Committee 
on Government Operations on satel- 
lite communications from the stand- 
point of Government operational pro- 
grams and procurement of services 
from carrier sources. 1966. 850 p. il. 
Catalog No. Y 4.G74/7:C 73/5. ,$2.25. 
Dictionary of U.S. Military Terms 
for Joint Usage. Prepared under the 
direction of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
in coordination with the military serv- 
ices for planning and operational us- 
age. Terms and definitions which have 
been approved for the NATO and 
SEATO glossaries are incorporated in 
this edition with those which have 
U.S. joint service approval. 1966. 204 
p. Catalog No. D 5.12:1/6. $1.25. 

Military Standardization Handbook, 
OJJice Copying Processes and Equip- 
ment. Provides fundamental guide- 
lines for military users of office copy- 
ing machines with information on 
each of the well known processes and 
on most of the copying machines now 
available. Intended as a guide to aid 
users m determining- the copying 
S!^^ 1 " bejt. satisfy their 



RESEARCH REPORTS 

Light Duty, Expandable Land An- 
chor. Naval Civil Engineering Lab- 

?S?7d Po n rt , H - Calif, Oct. 
1966, 59 p. Order No. AD-640 232. $3 

Evaluation of Thin-Film Resistors 

Sfh, Cr T s ^ Vers - ,^ aval Avi s Fa- 
cility, Indianapo s, Ind., Oct. lOflR 
106 p. Order No. AD-640 933 $3 ' 



tronic Parts and MntcrialH. 
Corp., Federal Systems Div., Of...,.,,. 
N.Y., for the Army, Oct. 1000, T,\ \ 
Order No. AD-641 678. $tt. 

Failure McchaninniB in KcHJHtoi> 
ITT Research Institute, Chiuajfo, 111, 
for the Air Force, Oct. 11)00, 11)0 11 
Order No. AD-G41 8fiH, $9. 

Radiation Effects on (MuiKiHUiic! 
Microelcctric Circuita. HutflusH Air 
craft Co., Fullorton, Cnlif., Tor Ou 
Army, Nov. 196(1, 00 p. Ordur NCI 
AD-042 801. $3. 

Capacitor ClmmctcrmticH of Ann 
disced Thin-Film Hafnium. Arm\ 
Electronics Command, Fort MUM- 
mouth, N.J., Sept. 10(10, ttfl p. Order 
No. AD-G41 388. $3. 

Reliability Screening IMnt* Infra- 
red Radiation. Sylvnnin Hlcuti'Ii: I'm- 
ducts, Inc., Woburn, MIIH.S., for tin- 
Air Force, Oct. 1900, 132 p. Order 
No. AD-642112. $8. 

Ultra Wideband Digital IMny Mm-, 
Rome Air Development Cuiitar, Cfiif- 
fiHS AFH, N.Y., Sept. 1WIO. 7U 11. 
Order No. AD-(M1 H70. $3. 

Theory and Denial Dntii for Uni- 
formly DiflHipntivc, Doubly Trrntl- 
nated Bandpass and LIMVIWHH Kilter*. 
Lincoln Laboratory, M.I.T., for lint 
Air Force, Feb. 1000, 10J> p. OnU-f 
No. AD-042 747. $3. 

Magnetic PropcrlieH of Thin Filmn 
of NicUol-Iron-MolylKk'iilinn. Nnval 
Owlnnnco Laboratory, Wliik- Oak, 

04l'W l $!i. ' ' ' >H '*' nkU< N ' A]1 

Atmoaphcric Humidity AtFiiH 
Northern Hemisphere. Air Fon-i 1 
Cambridge Hosoai-ch IjUioralory, ](i-d- 
ford, Mass., Aug. 100(3, Ifil p. QnJcr 
No, AD-042 429. $8. 

Proceedings of the 1!)GG Army Cnn- 
ioronco on Tropicn] MolcornNiHy. 
Army Eloctronicfi Comnmnil. l-'ort 
Monmouth, N.J., Oct. 1000, .104 11. 
Order No. AD-04S 071. JS. 

A Study of Hadar MctooroloRical 
Hndinp Related to Hiular Wciillior 






and Air Traffic Control. 
National Aviation FuclllllcH 
Centor Atlantic City, N.J., Oct. 10(1(1, 
to p. Order No. AD-043 2B8. f H. 

Evnhiation 4 of the Use f AtmH- 
Phcrlc Electricity RecordinKB In FOR 
JoMcastinef. Naval RoRcorch I.abom- 
tory, Washington, D.C., Oct. 1000. 22 ti 
P. Order No. AD-04S , ( IG3. $!i. 

Water Vapor Observntloim at Low, 
C| /'^U 11 ?' 1 LaUtmlca During 
and19fl ' Nuval RBcm-ch Lnb- 



'" 

p. Order No. AD-Odl G77. $3. 



March 1967 



Telemetry Tape Combiner System. 

^ Sicbak Associates, Nutley, N.J. for 
the Air Force, June I960. 207 p. Order 
No. AD-G40 447. $3. 

Low Frequency Top-Loaded Anten- 
nas. Navy Electronics Laboratory, San 
Diego, Calif., 65 p. Order No. AD-640 
490. $3, 

The Multiplate Antenna. Air Force 
Cambridge Research Laboratories, L. 
G. Hanscom Field, Mass., Nov. 1966 
62 p. Order No. AD-G42 430. $3. ' 

Two-Way Antenna Pattern Simula- 
tion by Analog and Analytical Meth- 
ods. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Cor- 
ona, Calif., Oct. 1906, 38 p. Order No 
AD-642 614. $3. 

| A Proposed Universal Mounting for 
the Receiver Transmitter, Radio RT- 
( VAPX-72. Naval Research Labor- 
atory, Washington, D.C. Nov. 1966 
Order No. AD-C42 064. $3. 

A Flush-Mounted Composite Ra- 
dome Antenna System. Harry Dia- 
mond Laboratory, Washing-ton, DC 
Nov. 19G6, 31 p. Order No. AD-641 

012. $3. 

Implementation of Poynting Vector 
Measurements. University of Pennsyl- 
vania, for the Navy, Nov. 1966. 63 p 
Order No. AD-G40 990. $3. 

Wide Range VHP Preselector. Army 
Electronics Command, Fort Mon- 
mouth, N.J., 38 p. Order No. AD-640 

Study of Adaptive Antenna Tech- 
niques for Millimeter Wave Applica- 
tions. Advanced Technology Corp. 
limonium, Md., for the Air Force 
Nov. I960, 142 p. Order No. AD-' 
641 710. $3. 

Transducer and Interphone System 
lor Operation in High-Ambient Noise. 

CBS Laboratories, for the Army, Nov. 
1966, 125 p. Order No. AD-642 419. $3. 
An Indirectly Heated Gas-Turbine 
Cycle for Minimizing Siiliidntion Cor- 
rosion. Navy Marine Engineering- Lab, 
Annapolis, Md., Oct. 1966, 30 p. Order 
No. AD-641 015. $3. 

Effect of Polymer Coiling on Drag 
"eduction. Research Div., Western Co 

? ^T^Y'/ 1 ' 6 ' 1 1966 ' 117 P- Order 
No. AD-642 441. $3. 

Applications and Optimizations of 
Structural Composites for Aircraft 
Wings. General Electric Space Sci- 

^^ r , tory - * the Air Force, 
No. AD-G42 



Tidy, A Computer Code for Renum- 
bering and Editing Fortran Source 

m n B / a TS Ali ;^ orce Sy&tems Com- 
mand, 101 p. Order No. AD-642 099. 

iflO. 

Intel-program Communications. Pro- 
gram String Structures, and Buffer 
iles. Rome Air Development Center, 

n n , ffis lr AF A N ' Y > Oct - WB, 27 p 
Order No. AD-G40 798. $3. 

Transient Radiation Vulnerability of 
Monolithic Binary Circuits. Rome Air 

Development Center, Grifflss, AFB, 



p ' Ort]er 



AD-640 



r, Carbon on amon 

Crystals. Case Institute of Tech- 
nology Cleveland, Ohio, for the 



Social Sciences Information Systems 
Workshop Proceedings. Proceedings of 
a three-day workshop sponsored by 
American University and the Systems 
Development Corp., for the Army 
May, 1966. Order No. AD-G43 990. $3! 

Imitation, Modeling and Cross-Cul- 
tural Training. Aerospace Medical Re- 
s . e h Laboratories, Wright- Patterson 

A B ,i hl0 ' July 106fl . 40 P- Order No. 
AD-642 427. $3. 

Computer Assisted Instruction; A 
Selected Bibliography and KWIC In- 
dex. Naval Weapons Laboratory, Dahl- 



High-Modulus Glasses Based on Ce- 





n'n V~'\;"* ,"^ "vy, Nov. 196G, 
p. Order No. AD-642 259. $3. 

i\n Exploratory Study of the Feasi 
r * XT" and Ceri U"ic Pressure 
T.,,,r iJ r , V2, vnl Applications. David 
Nnv ^ dc L Basi "' Waahinffton, D.C 
87M3 96G ' 86 P< Order N - AD - 641 

. I'-'tlocts of High Uniaxial Com- 
picRsive : Stress on Glass. University of 
Vermont, for the Navy, 19 p Order 

No. AD-G40 847. $3. P Uei 

On the Fracture Energy of Glass 
Un.vers.ty of Vermont, f o? the Nay?; 
17 p. Order No. AD-G40 848. $3. 

The Effect of High Pressure on 
1.0.,: Crys taxation, Densiflcation and 
the Crystah/ation Anomaly. Harvard 
Umyersity, for the Nnvy, Nov. IMfi, 
54 p. Order No. AD-641 324. $3. 

Glass. Foreign Technology Div 
Wng-ht-Patterson AFB, Ohio, Doc! 
1006, 4 p. Order No. AD-643 787. $3. 

Bibliography of Schlicht Functions. 

Mav Sr So IVC1 ' B A ty ' for the Nav y. 
l v t" y j; y()() ' 1GO I>- Order No. AD-64R 



Psychological Studies of Advanced 
Naval Air Training: Evaluation of 
Operational Flight Trainers. Psycho- 
logical Corp., New York, for the 



Bibliofiraphy on Statistical Robust- 

" Kclaed T llics - Univer- 
*or DOD and 



Behavior and Maximum Strength of 
metal Columns. University of Michi- 
gan, for the Navy, May Iflflfl, G8 i>. 
Order No. AD-634 495. $. 

The Synthesis of Special Fluorlne- 
^ontammg Monomers. University of 
Colorado, for the Army, Jan. 19Gfi ( 117 
p. Order No. AD-flSO 217. $3. 

Standardization Program on Shelf 
Affing of Natural and Synthetic Rub- 
her Materials. Naval Applied Science 
Laboratory, Brooklyn, N.Y., Sept. 
19f)5, 15 p. Order No. AD-470 542. $3. 

Thermal Conductivity of Soft Viil- 
canized Natural Kubber: Selected 
Jr"!"*! 8 ' ,Army Nnticlt Laboratoriea, 
Natick, Mnss., June IflfiG. 34 p. Order 
No. AD-Q43 32(5. $3. 

Summary Enuinocrinff Iteport for 
Uevelopiiieiit of Gallium ArHcnidc- 
Pliosiihido Graded Band-Gap Base 
Iransistor Structures. Texas Instru- 
ments, Dallas, Tex., Cor the Navy 

fill M 005 ' 8? P ' Or{Ioi ' No ' AD -'lfi7 

Annealing of Gamma-Hay Induced 
IJcfocts m IJi-Dopcd Germanium. 
Harry Diamond Laboratories, Wash- 
po3 ^' D ' G " 1G 1J - Ordcr No - AD-637 

OJJ.. tpil. 



Measurement of Cavity Shapes 
Above Ventilated Hydrofoils. Hydro- 
nautics, Inc., for the Navy, 44 p 
f Urder No. AD-640 187. $3. 

An Engineering and Economic Eval- 
uation of Floating Fender Concepts. 
bcionce Engineering Associates, for 



liecent Trends in Multivariatc Pre- 
diction Theory. Army Mathematic Ec- 

S?r ro A' 1 ',' Mftdta n- Wis., Jan. 
-1966, 58 p. Order No. AD-630 766. $3. 

An Extended Table of Zeros of 
Cross Products of Bessol Functions. 
Aerospace Research Laboratories, 
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, Peb 
1966, 135 p, Order No. AD-637 474. $3] 

A New Initial Value Method for 
Internal Intensities in Radiative 
Iransfor. Rand Corp., for the Air 



,-, A .Cryoffonlc Magnet System for 
Huasi-Contiuuous Operation. McGill 
University, Montreal, Canada, for the 

41 V 010 $8* ' n P ' rdor No ' AD - 

Imnrovcmcnt of Low Temperature 
Environmental Testing Criteria and 
Procedures (Part I). Frankford Aa- 
senal. Philadelphia, Pa., Dec. 19G6, 32 
p. Order No. AD-642 572. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



Information Processing Potentials 
m Largc-Scale Operations. Systems 
Development Corp., for the Air Force 



w-r ? nc ?l }t i?. n Qf Nucleate Hoillng 
With Liquid Nitrogen. M.I.T., for the 
Air Force. Order No. AD-G34 256. $3. 

A Standardized Method for Making 
Neutron Pluencc Measurements bv 
Jission Praffment Tracks in Plastics. 
Naval Radiological Defense Labora- 
tory, San Francisco, Calif., for DASA 

640 $3 ' 32 P 



25 



Col. Albert W. HiieshiiiK, USAF 



These last few months have wit- 
nessed the merging of what initially 
were two independent efforts curried 
on by Government and industry, each 
with a common objective: to cope 
with the increasing proliferation of 
divergent, and frequently incompat- 
ible, management systems used for 
planning, controlling, monitoring ami 
auditing management activities, 

The deep concern of industry wan 
explicitly outlined in the findings of 
a year-long study conducted by a Sys- 
tems Management Analysis Group 
(SMAG) of the Aerospace Industries 
Association, which was submitted to 
DOD's top management on May :I2, 
3966. The primary theme of the 
SMAG report was, "We (industry) 
find that the greatly increasing num- 
ber of management systems of all 
lands emanating from different func- 
tional arms of DOD and the Serv- 
ices, in a variety of forms, from a 
variety of sources and in a variety 
r time phasing, often coming in 
through different doors of industry, 
have an interrelationship with 'a 
cumulative effect which is adverse to 
the mutual objectives of Coverament 
and Industry." 

Other key points highlighted in the 
report were: the problem of conflicts 
between management systems; the 
need for mating appropriate systems 
with the nature of the acquisition- 
tue need to tailor the degree of man 
agement to tho complexity of the 
program involved; and the need for 

caieful examination of each new man- 
agement system hefore its adoption 
o assure lts consistency with other 
syems, to assure its consistency 
with the overall body of DOD 
and to assuiv* that the new 
I'thwhilo when 
tho exijen.se i 
its application. 






anil support systems, and limy have 
also designed a \vide variety of 
management sy:i[erna for denliiijv willi 
these major iin|ii(,'<i(i<mt;. Kuril man 
ager has .separately wn-slled wild tin- 
problem of deviling a ;;y:ilem fur 
describing plans, for measuring arid 
controlling progress ajiairi.sl || m;i ,- 
plans, and for nTm-dinjv i-\|ieneiuv 
so thai, the estimalinn 1 anil iiiaiiaj;.' 
meat job could be dune ln<l|<>r | be 
next time. The minll bits IH-CN n 
proliferation of jiy.'ilema, repurlii anil 
acronym:)." 

One of the prime n-iis.iii'i fur I hi-, 
proliferation was an orunnh'.almniil 
fad, ol' life in 1)01), |.;,, r |, fn m -ii..i.nl 
oflice and each Mililnry Mt'iuiHiiiriil 
has well defined dlilii's and n^pun:.! 
hilities |,o fulfill mi niillinrd in vari-ni!, 
statute;), i'eniilati,ni,'i and dirrriivi'ii, 
Naturally, all are d.rpiy runn.ra.-.t 
with seeing to it that the;;.. r,.np, tn :i| 
I'ilities and dullej, JUT ftilllll,-,! HH 
(ifllciently and effectively nit pn^-iM... 
l (1 r<nn our point, of view a.>i hixjijiyrru, 
we would not have il Imy l( |h,. r Wliy ' 
This concern by (he fnm-iimn'il 
"Hlces and the Nervlren f,, r n, ( , 
projHsr discharge of Hidr t,.,..!,,,,..,! 




26 



l>flHRll)lo for IhiiiSi ' Il( ' W|IM ri " 

SssS l sJ35 



,. (1( , (imi , t 

'rHil.,,, ; ,,,,,,,1,,-r of n.|H,rt.., and i,,f ()1 
inatnm f.,v;,lrm;i. 





1 '"'"H'.n..,! (tin ....... ,,f (I,,, ,,,, 

l '' 1|l; ""'" ""' "'I'' ."V.t.-.M, |in.|ir,. n ,|| ()n 
V.'"-' Mil ..i'Kiilii,inli.Hllll f'drl rif (if,. , 

|IM "- ' :i '"l'lv I.HI, 11,,,-e Wll!l n,, 

''"'nil r,...n|lii!i(||ifr n-:.|ioH!illi||ily for 




|1 '"':" ..... 'ii .'Jynt.-!!!!!. imd, j, ..... .! 

H'| I'sii'imtl t,, id,, noli. '|'he part 
whirl, j !: ,,( jmillruhu- niHiiillmnc,. (,> 
un f'> .'i,T(l..ii \*| ( U.-iiiMMrtlhllKI,..,: 

"A. Hithjn-t In tttt< illriM-tlmi, nti- 
llu.iil>, ami cimlnil t.f llu. ,N IT iv. 
I'H.V ul lli.fril'.i-, Ari'iljilitnl NVriV- 
(i->- ,.[ |lrf,. Mm . (CtiiuiXnillfi') fttiK 
"'" ""I'l'ii-.tldllty It. pi. nhte for 
Hu> if.^lcfi (( i 

rrMintu-*- luiiliiiiteiiu-lit 

llifniiHliMiii (I,, lifimilmi-nl uf Ue. 

ffll'ir. 

"II. 'Nil-, M-niMillHitillily in|Hll'l'M 
Illill I In* ,\i.iHliill( NrCiTim-y of 



"I. Mitliiittlii nri over* lew of nil 
-htMirct* riHtniiKi'iiti'iU NJH- 
Ifiiw Mi'U^Kj'. hu-liiilhiK nn liivrii- 
l"r> of til! lHnillrtint 1)01) rv 
niturrt- iiiHnrtttfmt'ni nyMiPiuit, ttutl 
rn filhcrlit IIHP ur unilcr 

IIM'lll. 



|mftl filHiiiltrtint rhflnKPN In rc- 
imiitiKeiiU'iit Hytt-mH or 
new .vit-mH, 
"3. tiniurr rumititlltlltly nnd 

mnu- 



"4. Provide polity KiiMnnte fur 
rtcrlM(lr f and K^nernl 
KrnrritinK r(fuurc man- 



March 1967 



"5. Insure standardization of 
data elements and data codes. 

"6. Under certain circum- 
stances, as described below, de- 
velop new systems or improve- 
ments in existing; systems." 

The criteria to be used in evalu- 
ating 1 systems for management of 
capital acquisitions will: 

"A. Pocus on the item (or com- 
ponent thereof) being acquired, its 
quality, its time schedule mid its 
cost in terms of both plans and 
actuals. 

"IS. Include special information 
subsystems applicable to acquisi- 
tion of selected major capital 
items. 

"C. Be standardized and con- 
trolled, to the extent practicable, 
so as to minimize the data gather- 
ing and reporting workload im- 
posed on contractors and in-house 
activities. 

"D. He structured so as to mini- 
mize changes required to account- 
ing systems used by contractors." 
Tho directive, then, has provided 
tlie clear-cut definition of responsi- 
bility required to remedy the organi- 
zational condition that was a prime 
contributor to tho management sys- 
tems prohlein as it exists today. 

Tt was only natural that a problem 
of this magnitude, recognized by both 
DOD and industry, was deserving of 
serious and coordinated attention by 
all those concerned. Indeed the 
wheels of cooperative effort wore set 
in motion when Deputy Secretary of 
Defense Cyrus Vance in mid-1966 
welcomed industry's offer to assist 
tho DOD in resolving this significant 
and serious problem and, as he sub- 
sequently wrote in the October issue 
of Armed Forces Management, to 
look ". . . for ways to gain greater 
uniformity of acquisitions of major 
weapon systems. Our objective here 
is to simplify and obtain the minimum 
necessary information required to do 
our job properly." 

Because the issues involved per- 
tained to a broad segment of Ameri- 
can industrial activity, the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administra- 
tion (NASA) and the Council of De- 
fense and Space Industry Associa- 
tions (CODSIA) were invited to 
participate with DOD in the develop- 
ment of a course of action to deal 
with the problem. 

At a meeting between DOD, NASA 
and CODSIA representatives Oct. 4, 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



1966, in the office of Assistant Secre- 
tary of Defense Anthony, agreement 
between all parties was quickly 
readied and preliminary steps were 
taken to formalize the task as a com- 
bined DOD-NASA-CODSIA effort. 
This is a progress report highlighting 
the results of that initial meeting and 
outlining the plans and objectives for 
moving ahead. 

There was ready agreement among 
the participants with regard to the 
work to be done. The combined effort 
of the group would be directed toward 
achieving balance, compatibility, sim- 
plicity, and an adequate measure of 
uniformity among the multitude of 
management systems and subsystems 
already in existence and under devel- 
opment. Put another way, the objec- 
tive would be to eliminate redun- 
dancies and duplication and insure 
compatibility between existing and 
proposed management systems. 

The conduct of this effort will be 
governed by a few basic precepts; 

Impose no detailed systems on 
contractors. Rather, DOD will deter- 
mine the general criteria which an 
acceptable system must satisfy; any 
system which will satisfy these cri- 
teria can be used to generate the 
required information. 

Regulate data demands on con- 
tractors. Tho intent, pure and simple, 
is to reduce markedly the volume, 
variety and number of management- 
type reports. 

Make maximum use of effective 
contractor management systems, but 
insure that data are credible and 
timely. 

Recognize that data requirements 
differ at various management levels. 
In particular, limit the flow of data 
up through the organizational hier- 
archy to that needed for the carrying 
out of top management responsibili- 
ties, 

Minimize mandatory features of 
information systems, leaving room 
for and encouraging; effective innova- 
tion and progress. 

Recognize the paramount inter- 
ests of the first-line manager, i.e., the 
project manager, 

Insure that the application and 
implementation of management sys- 
tems are carried out in accordance 
with prescribed policies. 

Working with these guidelines and 
objectives in mind, representatives 
of DOD, NASA and CODSIA are 
well on the way toward developing 



a recommended course of action. As 
of this time a number of preliminary 
steps have been completed. 

Each participating group DOD, 
NASA (NASA has elected to parti- 
cipate as official observer) and 
GODSIA has developed and received 
approval of a charter outlining the 
purpose, function, responsibilities and 
method of operation. Each of these 
charters is compatible with its respec- 
tive organization's rules and regula- 
tions, i.e., by-laws of CODSIA and 
DOD directives. Together, the three 
participating- organizations compose 
the DOD-Tndustry Advisory Com- 
mittee for Management Systems Con- 
trol which has teen officially ap- 
proved. 

In anticipation of the first meeting 
of the joint committee, DOD, NASA 
and CODSIA representatives had 
developed a proposed plan or approach 
for the conduct of the effort including 
a schedule and list of expected end 
products. This plan was reviewed by 
the full committee on Dec. 21, 19G6, 
in Washington, D.C. 

AK a result of that initial joint 
meeting, the plan that wns agreed 
upon can be summarized as follows. 
First, the entire effort divides into 
throe distinct phases: 

Phase I covers the initial plan- 
ning and ends with the approval of 
tho plan. This approval was received 
Jan. 13, 1967. 

Phase IT involves the need-use 
analysis of selected management sys- 
tems, the development of general 
principles of procedure, and the prep- 
aration of DOD directives for formal- 
izing the procedures. 

* Phase III will be tho actual 
implementation by DOD of the 
principles ami procedures developed 
in Phase II. 

These three phases are expected to 
require less than two years to com- 
plete, with the first two phases 
targeted for completion in one year. 

A partial list of the expected end 
products of the effort of the com- 
mittee includes: 

Management Objectives A state- 
ment outlining the purposes to be 
served in the development and use of 
management systems in the acquisi- 
tion process, i.e., the basic responsi- 
bilities of the Government manager 
and the way the management system 
aids in the fulfillment of those respon- 
sibilities. 



{Continued on page 33) 



27 



by 

Michael (}. MacdomiM 

Acting Dir., U.K. NegotialioiiH/WeiijioM.s 1'laiiiiiiij; 

Office of Asst. Secrelai-y of Defense (Inlmuitioiial 

.Security AITiiinO 



In order to help meet its planned 
investment and consumption goals a.s 
well as to erase its balauce-of-pay- 
ments 'deficit, the Labour Government 
of the United Kingdom (U.K.) in its 
1966 Defence Review sot a goal of 
bringing down British defense ex- 
penditures to a level of six percent 
of the Gross National Product, or 
about $5.6 billion in 1904 pi-icon by 
1969-1970. This goal meant that the 
British government had to find W ays 
to reduce defense expenditures by 
about $1.1 billion, or Hi percent of the 
level of expenditures planned by the 
previous government. To help achieve 
this end, the British government 
closely examined a number of major 
on-going weapons projects and iden- 
tified three aircraft development pro- 
grams for which cancellation and re- 
placement by aircraft procurement 
programs promised a budgetary Hav- 
ing of about $1.5 billion. 

The government's decision to can- 
cel the TSRr-2, P-UM and HS-CH, 
programs and to procure substantial 
quantities of C-iao, P-4 and I-M 1 1 
aircraft from the United States mark* 
the real beginning of major logistic 
cooperation between the United 
States and the United Kingdom. 

i he two aircraft arrangements- . 
formally called Cooperative Logistics 
Arrangements-covering the sale of 
over fiO C-1SO Hercules transpor 
ovcr 200 F-4 Phantoms for the Cl' 
An Force and the Hoyal Navy, and 50 
1-111 aircraft, committed the United 
Kingdom to foreign exchange exp j, 
tares in the United State, of about ** 

A significant aspect of the coopera- 
te log,stics arrangements negot al d 
*tween tho .United States and" Jr 
the w,lling nf! . ss |iy thR 

Stat e to accept that a portion of the 
cost of the purchase by the United 
Kingdom ^should be returned to 

8fm ^'^ 8Uch ""- 



Cooperative cn-produrlion. 

Whatever the pacf iriilar mean:; or 
mix of means lielectcd, the .'lisrnlial 
point is that Uic;u> an'iMi;;>>Miriil>, 
underscore, in a partiYulnr way, II,.' 
"two-way Mtreet" of ;;Hling n m l (my 
ing which the U..S, mililary .i,,),.,, , in , 
gram is increasinjily lTJriniiif; to 
assume, 

1K)1) is carrying out Us \vlllfiu>.m-.vi 
to cooperate with llu- Ihiil.'.l Kiiif.dnin 
to help niiiiinnV,!? (he lnn-ij;ii i'\cln,n)'.'- 
impact of the nircrafl prm-iuviuriil 
through cooperah've n>-p,'.M|in'li<m mi<l 
compi!titive pniciiccmciii. 

Conperalive <'o-|irodiu'lioii. 

Arrangement:! have lii'i-,, nimi.- with 
H.H. prinu! (-(tiitracliirti ui,,|c,' \vhicli 
U.K. aeroH|ia<-e flriutt can hid IW com 
poiiunta ivfjuiivfl for th.< pnulnri ,,. 
"' tin. United Sl.nle..| ,.f d,,. i l ,.,. | ,n 
mmghl, by the llrlUah. Tl,,. Hrllluli 
content in tliene aiivrnfl, of ,.iiiir;i|., 
"ignillcanLly reduceji I),,, fon-j,;,, ,, x ' 
diange coiil of the aircnifl. 

Tlll! i>n|'rtnn' nf (Mi, ,.|nn.-i,l cm, 

!" !U ' (< " n ' (1 " 1 " "nvnl :,ht| tl a ,,r 

UinU-IJIO llerrul.M, th,. K -| I'|, m , 

"'"I I'- HI roop.'rnllve pniiliirllnn ,,,. 
Kranm. In the nim . ,,f ,|,,, ( - ,., (| . n 

Kniin, lti-i(j,ili avinnir, in an , , 

f "Lout $ino,(l(m per niivrnft nn.t 
tl"ir IlrltiMh I'oiiii.nt ,,r a),,,,,, 1? [ (!lif i,, (l 
l"i- fuselage paii.'ls am | 1 . | ,,| n)lt ,. 1J wi || 
' fnmi llritinli llrrnn. Tl.i, .., 

Toratolal program r,m| (' a ,| 

ltl!lliu ". "early ?i!| millinii, i.r hi 




JlVr |iciv,.|it nt l| 1( . | 
' ll<1( " 1;i " ) - '" "' ..... ' W> million, will'l,,! 
llnH '' 1 ' '"'""'" H v.a, hnpc.l. i,,iii (l ||v 
tll!l1 )"''ti"'-. "ii.-HH, ..... ,' u,,. ,,,' 



y,.y m-hedule, and ,..,. 

'Ly of uirra ft limn Hi, F 4 ,, 

"'^''""Hy, H H! Ilritinl ....... ., ,.; 

'HH than for Uu- [.' 4. 

from u,,. ii,,,,,, is i iniltl . s , ( ,, 



28 



Navy, ftnt , K4M (fm . 
yil An- !,', ni nli^,ruU ttI1 , 
in the United Stat,,, ; ,, 
n WM million for avi.nic 

t rr"! Wl " '"' I ' 

T 10 "" -"" 
t that tho aircraft ,,, ,,[ 



Mti.v ...... ,;,. p r , lt i nrl j u|) 




Cumin-lithe I'KMiiri'iiii-iil, 

\" liin-i mil,. ......... r ii,,. ,,[ tl{ 

''' "I Mli,,,f( tll ,(. Uritii.h, MII(I 
1 "" fl -""" 11 '" r.-Ui.'ll ..ill MM-I M .|,T| 
ll'l'l:, ..f .(,-rp.H:... *-i|iit|MMi*M( litlil Mlp 
f' 11 '" 1 '"'.(..IllUvly ..MMJ,,,,!,!,. (-,, 
" I'. MU,.-,,.,. nn,| (,. invlh. l.j.lfi f nui , 
HIM.'. 1.., <,ih-h f ,,.|,.,.|..,| Ii,.,,;, 



1111 




"'"'. HrltJMK iniio v.iM I,,, al.l.- (., 
">nijn.|,. ...jintlly wiUi |?.M, (iniin for 

till*:... il.'ino ,.r|.-.-|,. t | ,,|,,,.,, |!,,1|;,|| |,j,h 
Will f H - ,.i.,,tll;l|.-.| Uilllulli IIMji..:!!,): 

liny iHHViviiiIiil ui;,!. r (I,.. n,, y AJII.T 
"'"" Ai-I MI Ut>' Holt t.ulim.v ,.f [my. 



ui.'Jtif. :i frmn (lit- I'nil.'i) 

lllld.T Oil' 1' 111 Mlt'.vl ,,!,. 




y i.)iiim f.u- 
f.r $v.:i;, 



March 1967 



Rolls Royce Spey engines ior tne 
'for $100 million. 
Subcontracts in the amount of 
million and miscellaneous pur- 
ses amounting to $10 million, 
i its search for items that would 
t U.S. requirements and also fit 
L British production availability, 
D has reviewed more than 200 items 
.cd by the British. Most of these 
s have not been accepted because 
h do not meet our specifications. 
ajor item still under review is the 
ish HS-125 aircraft a competitor 
11 a possible USAF mission sup- 
requirement. Many other possi- 
items are in various stages of 
i deration. 

is important to keep in mind 
the F-lll offset arrangement 
dates three basic conditions: 
The items procured must fully 
fy DOD requirements for per- 
auce, quality and delivery. 
They must not cost DOD any 
than comparable items from 
sources, 

fUl exceptions from the Buy 
L-ican and balance-of-payments 
ictions are made by the Secretary 
efense on a "case-by-case" basis. 
us, although no "across-the- 
1" exception is intended, every 
; to afford British firms an oppor- 
y to compete on an equal footing 
U.S. firms is made. Naturally, 
are difficulties in trying- to in- 
that British firms enjoy as equal 
ipctitivo situation with our firms 
ssiblc. Among the practical dif- 
GS confronting the British firms, 
sample, is the time factor in- 
.1 in the transmission of bid 
ges and bids between the United 
3 and England, particularly for 
Red bids, 

; afore-mentioned programs in- 
ig a British buy oC U.S. military 
iient offer advantages to both 
mited States and Britain, For 
nited States, the sale of major 
of military equipment helps not 
our own balance-of-payments 
:m, but contributes toward the 
mcnt of other important policy 
ivcs such as to increase fitand- 
tion and commonality of free 
military systems and equip- 
and to provide friendly foreign 
s with an opportunity to acquire 
at possible weaponry at an oco- 
price. For the British, the ad- 
re is essentially economic in that 
3R-2 program alone would have 

se Industry Bulletin 



cost more than 2 billion or nearly the 
cost of the total three aircraft pro- 
grams. From the military viewpoint, 
the cooperative logistics arrangements 
have permitted the British to retain, 
within their limit of a two-billion 
pound defence budget projected for 
1970, many of their world-wide de- 
fense commitments. But the greatest 
long-run benefit to the United King- 
dom probably will .stem from the new 
climate of logistics cooperation which 
permits British industry an oppor- 
tunity to compete effectively with our 
industry for selected defense contracts 
and to establish reputations for qual- 
ity and performance. 



Army Evaluates New 
High Speed Teleprinters 

Two new types of teleprinters 
which can produce messages received 
over radio or wire circuits at speeds 
up to 2,400 words a minute, 24 times 
faster than equipment now used, are 
being: evaluated by the Army Elec- 
tronics Command. Fort Monmouth, 
N.J. 

The machines were developed under 
separate contracts by the National 
Cash Register Co. of Dayton, Ohio, 
and the Radio Corporation of: Amer- 
ica, Princeton, N.J. 

The NCR version employs a ther- 
mal process while the RCA printer 
operates by a pressure method. 

The thermal or heat printer, hav- 
ing no moving- parts except those- 
which adjust the paper, can bo dial 
set for speeds of GOO, 1,200, or 2,400 
words a minute. At the highest of the 
settings, the printer produces three 
80-character lines a second one char- 
actor at a time. By adding multiple 
electronic circuits, it can operate at 
32,000 words a minute by printing all 
80 characters in a lino simultaneously 
for use with high-speed computer sys- 
tems. 

During the thermal process, a heat 
sensitive master paper is held against 
the stationary print heads. The sensi- 
tized image on the master paper is 
transferred to plain paper to produce 
the original text. Six or more high- 
quality copies can be made. 

The pressure-type printer, which 
also employs a non-impact technique, 
forms characters through the use of 
seven horizontal printing bars and a 
small rolling pin. 

When the rolling: phi passes under 
the bars, they apply pressure against 
carbon paper which impresses the 
characters on standard papor. The 
machine prints GOO to 1,200 words a 
minute and produces six copies simul- 
taneously. 



USAF Scientists Develop 

New/ High Temperature 

Ceramic Coating 

A now ceramic material promising 
excellent thermal protection for the 
outer surfaces of aircraft and space 
vehicles has been developed by scien- 
tists at the Air Force Materials Lab- 
oratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 
Project engineers at the- laboratory, 
a part of the Air Force Systems Com- 
mand's Research and Technology Divi- 
sion, describe the white, translucent 
material called "Zircolite" as tlin host 
ceramic of its type ever developed for 
high temperature applications. 

The polycrystalline, refractory xir- 
conium oxide ceramic withstands 4,501) 
degrees Fahrenhmt and has been 
tested continuously for 200 hours at 
4,000 degrees Fahrenheit in th<> lab- 
oratory without mea.Huriible detononi- 
tion or atmoKphorie erosion. No other 
refractory oxide remains a.s stable and 
unreaotivo under such severe tli(!rmiil 
conditions. 

Kii'colitcs also has very high density, 
strength and corrosion resistance 
eharactmnstu'H that could make it use- 
ful to the Air Force ;IH a coating for 
nose nones, rocket iiozzlos and other 
high tcnipoi-Jitn ro surfaces on mi.sKileti 
and spacecraft. 

The new ceramic LH made from u 
fine-particle, high -purity ximmkim 
oxide powder, pressed at room temper- 
ature, than fired for short periods Jit 
2,(iOO degyues KalmuihtMl: in a tube l'in-- 
nace h living an oxidizing atmosphere. 
The ultra-high purity of Urn finishi-d 
material gives it supe-Hm' translucent 
nronurtic-s. Ground to one-eighth inch 
or less, it is ghiKs-MU und transmits 
enough light to make legible printed 
material placet! beneath it. Thin prop- 
erty gives it a potential application in 
high temperature doments for nlactrta 
lamps. Tt could also \w used for infra- 
red and other electromagnetic radia- 
tion windows. 

A unique metlmd of chemically de- 
composing mrtal-in-ganic compounds of 
xirconium produces tho powder base 
for Zh'colHe. The reaction nmirs in u 
complex glass decomposition dhamlinr 
de-signod for the pronoun by scientists. 
They also synthesized, for the fh'Ht 
time, transition ami rare-earth metal 
compounds used to make the now 
coramic!. 



USAF Sole Manager 
of Liquid Propelletnts 

The U.S. Air Force, has been desig- 
nated sole manager of liquid propnl- 
lants for both the Air Force and tho 
National Aeronautics and Space Ad- 
ministration. 

Besponsibility for the management 
of the $76 million annual space fuel 
operation lias been assigned to Air 
Force Logistics Commands' San An- 
tonio Air Materiel Area. (SAAMA) 
Kelly AFB, Tex, 



29 



The Secretary of Defense has of ton 
stated as a matter of policy the, need 
for competent and creative in-house 
technical laboratories within the De- 
feiiso Department. Among tho evident 
reasons underlying: this need am: 

The maintenance of a national 
competence during peacetime, as well 
as during periods of conflict, in UIOHO 
areas of technology peculiar to tht! 
needs of national defense. 

The necessity for maintaining a 
continuity of effort directed toward 
the conception and evolution of ad- 
vanced weapon systems, 

The Navy laboratories represent 
the primary technical strength of Lin- 
Navy and must play an ever inroiiH- 
ing role in the assessment of threatu 
and in the development of systems lo 
meet them. In addition, the Navy re- 
quires a competent in-house capa- 
bility which can monitor and assess 
the accomplishments of contractors, 
and a fast reaction capability to nolvo 
critical, immediate problems of the 
operating forces. 

As a consequence of recognition of 
the requirement for a focus of special 
management attention for the total 
Navy Research Development, Tont 
.and Evaluation (RDT&K) Held com- 
plex the Office of Navy Laboratories 
(DNL) W as created at the Depart- 
mental level with Dr. Gerald W 
Johnson as director. DNI, functions 
as one oi the principal advisors to tho 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Re- 
search and Development) coequal 
with the Deputy Chief of Naval OIL 
erations (Development), the Marino 
Corps Deputy Chief of Staff (Ito- 
search & Development), tho Chief of 
Naval Development, and tho Chief 
of Naval Research. 
Tho official charter of the Director 

wiJn'T, L S ratorioB 'harw* him, 
within the Navy-wide RDT&I3 field 
complex, with responsibility for- 

' C te ? 1 of t^ in-houw explora- 
tory development technical 



Uw in-hmijic lulmralury 
independent I'cst'iirt'li ([''"iindnliniml 
ReHoarrli) and Independent Nsjilrn-n 
tory Development, (KII/IKD) pm 
grains and t'ontnillfii)'; tin' upplimlimi 
of profi'ninnnod fund;i. 

Controlling the iiinim}*<>mi>nl utid 
.support program ami l)n< itpplli'ittioii 
of proKi'iiinniod fund.'t. 

.1'Intablifihirii!' Ilic Niivy lilt'l'ttr; 
Military (iontdi'iictiiiii pnif.nun. 

I'ttterniiniiij!' Um di, p il I'lhiilinn ,.f 
civilian pi'i'ininncl. 

Advlnini-,' (Jin Anltilnnt S.nvliiry 
of the Navy (Konntivh uml D.-vi-luji 
nuint) in (.he lidcuMuii nf lu-y pcniun. 

ctiiif;' nrul cooi'df nnt hi);' IHJIK 
innhifv "f UDTitl-; nvi.ni [,.. 
.'Ulinj; 1 lalionil'iry rcijiili 
menlii and pollcicii. 

n^ary of |h ( > Navy f U.^.-uivli m ,.l 
Dovelopinenl,) on lalmrnt'M'y |inllry 
inattortt. 

Ad.injj an Oliairiiiiin of i)n- Ail 
viwory (inmp hi (lie AimliihiMi Mruv 
[ry of [I,,. Nnvy (H^nuvli lll|( | 
HovolopnienL) mi labunilury iiiii|("n< 

In addition, Iho ONI, n'hi HM Hi, 

- . O f - - 



.TM r imm -.,|,,, r 
..,,. |.-|-*|.; I1.-M m-ilviti,,' 
will,!,, n lt . N.iv,,| fthu., 



oi . 

''' '"''' w.irltnifr fur CNM. Tl,,i Dtp 

; lf]l1 '" i;l !l "''"'-'' In Ihn Mull' ,,f 
""1'Mly rh(..f ,.(' 

,. ,, 




funds. 

-'^SysSffsrss: 
-"arzs~.^-. 

30 







it,., 
M f 

(' NHVH! Op m( , 
iU.d (Ih. ('MM.IilUlldui.t nf III,. 

Mi.H.u. c m ,, tt ,,f t | IM , l 
,, v iiiiiini|ini,,.|it 



Mi 



h, i, t ||i|iorl of 



''" iltili-, iitiiiiy ,f Hi.- m-llnit'i tulit',1 
Ilio UNI. IMWM hod uifouti..!, ,li- 
t.'d tu lit,, it, |t Mil . tl | )ir j ( .,, u ,| l(ll)l 
lH-t-ri jiltirtt.l un.lxf |J, t1 ,H|. |() .t r*tni- I 



HIM Nuviil 



li^, t , Uli'J'AK (IH.I 

lmv Ui^n t.t.iM-^.i IHVWIKO ..f tlu>Ir 
v-.h..!,..-..! in ni.w W.-IIII..H 

lfvlnjiinMit mid in tin* mip. 

Uf Wp-ii|H,ii py h tj.| llM Hh-cHlly 

HUmtwl wilhirt Un< (Iw-t. The nyr- 
<f Ihxw wynii-iiirt Ix 



N't'* Hint I 
Knvy 

nit tin-ii 



v ,.r i\w 

'. Ti ftil- 

ili-H mid 

viitu* in tin* 



not only } th# prmlurfn if w 



March 1967 



and technology but they must also be 
thoroughly alert to the present and 
future operational requirements of 
the fleet. The laboratories' job is to 
provide the most effective weaponry 
that men can operate in all the con- 
fusion and uncertainties that charac- 
terize the combat environment. To 
satisfy this requirement, it is manda- 
tory that the laboratories also under- 
stand, draw on, and stimulate the 
basic technical strength of the nation 
wherever it may exist. Further, the 
laboratories must understand the 
operational problems of the fleet as it 
is affected by the capabilities and 
limitations of its men and its orga- 
nization, 

The present Navy RDT&E field 
activity complex has evolved over the 
past 60 years as the needs for 
increased capability in now technology 
and sciences have become evident. At 
the present time, this family has 
grown to include over 40 separate 
activities. These activities are under 
-the command of various organiza- 
tional entities within the Navy, i.e., 
Naval Material Command, Office of 
Naval Research, Bureau of Medicine 
and Surgery and the Bureau of Naval 
Personnel. Until the establishment of 
the office of the Director of Navy 
Laboratories, the individual offices 
and bureaus, as well as their RDT&E 
field activities, were in direct com- 
petition for the essentials to maintain 
tho overall RDT&E capabilities within 
their jurisdiction. The most important 
of these essentials were, and still are, 
manpower, facilities and program 
support. The operating climate within 
the RDT&E community is now even 
inoro acute than in the past due to 
the over increasing requirement for re- 
search investigation and now weapon 
development, basically within a rela- 
tively fixed resource capability. Under 
such constraints, a focal point for 
i-osourcea decision making is essential 
to afford an optimum utilization of the 
fixed resources in mooting the needs 
of the ultimate consumer, 

In this context, the DNL and his 
staff provide such a focal point 
for a critical analysis of RDT&E re- 
sources distribution measured against 
Wavy needs. The DNL will be able to 
ussess total Navy needs for man- 
power, facilities and program support 
in consonance with the missions of 
tKe RDT&E field activities. Within 
the Naval Material Command, acting 
jri tho capacity of Director of Labora- 



tory Programs, Dr. Johnson will be 

responsible for the management of 
the laboratories commanded by the 
Chief of Naval Material. In addition, 
he will coordinate the total research 
resources requirements for the Naval 
Material Command RDT&E field ac- 
tivities complex in the execution of the 
approved Navy RDT&E conducted 
within the complex. These coordinated 
requirements will provide the base of 
the Naval Material Command submit- 
tal to higher authority. This submit- 
tal, along with the similar research 
resource requirements developed by 
the Chief of Naval Research, the 
Chief of Bureau of Medicine and 
Surgery and the Chief of the Bureau 
of Naval Personnel, will provide the 
total research resource requirements 
of the Navy for total Navy-wide 
coordination and decision at the DNL 
level. 

In the few months that tho DNL 
has been in operation, a consolidated 
Navy input for RDT&E facility re- 
quirements has been developed for 
submittnl through proper channels to 
the Military Construction Review 
Board (MCRB). These requirements 
are being consolidated with the Navy 
non-RDT&E facility requirements as 
a total Navy requirement for facility 
acquisition. The DNL will provide a 
single voice, strongly supported by 
the Assistant Secretary of the Navy 
(Research and Development), for 
further support of the research com- 
plex facility requirements as they 
move forward through tho Director of 
Defense Research and Engineering 
and other reviewing elements within 
the DOD and above. 

In the area of Navy personnel coil- 
ings for the RDT&E fiold activity 
complex, the problem of providing a 
single voice at the DNL level for total 
Navy requirements needs much de- 
tailed planning and interface resolu- 
tion between tho many organizational 
elements involved. The many respon- 
sibilities for budget planning and jus- 
tification cannot be redirected in a 
short time scale, since any disruption 
in these planning processes would 
create a chaotic condition within the 
RDT&E community. As the DNL con- 
cept becomes more thoroughly under- 
stood within the organization of the 
Navy, the interfaces will be resolved 
and the research community and tho 
DNL staff will develop in stature to 
provide a coordinated input for Dr. 
Johnson, In the interim, the first steps 



peferise Industry Bulletin 



in tho ultimate process are being 
taken by means of DLP coordination 
of personnel ceiling and high grade 
job positions within the Naval Mate- 
rial Command field RDT&E complex. 
The reorganizations within the Navy, 
which involved the entire Naval Mate- 
rial Support Establishment (now 
Naval Material Command), the O (Tic o 
of Industrial Relations (now Office of 
Civilian Manpower Management), and 
the establishment of the position of 
Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy 
(Manpower), have created many new 
interface areas which must be resolved 
as former functions and responsibili- 
ties are now found in new offices. As 
in all reorganizations, a great many 
growing pains ensue as the new opera- 
tional concepts begin to take hold. The 
DNL responsibilities for civilian per- 
sonnel distribution become a part of 
this concept and will be developed to 
maturity, and in balance with the 
other elements involved. 

The DNL, in order to increase the 
effectiveness of laboratory participa- 
tion in planning of programs for the 
future, has formed a number of inter- 
laboratory working groups, each 
chaired by a member from one of 
the laboratories. These groups arc 
directed to specific warfare areas of 
immediate concern and arc- intended to 
bo standing groups separately funded 
to carry out their assigned function. 
Each group in its area of concern 
will have access to all necessary intel- 
ligence, mid will work cooperatively 
with appropriate operational and 
analysis groups within the fleet and at 
headquarters. The broad charter of 
each group will permit them to 
critically assess existing warfare sys- 
tems, equipment and techniques in 
their respective areas of interest; to 
relate tho existing capabilities to 
those of potential enemies; to suggest 
improvement in present systems or 
new systems; and to define appro- 
priate supporting research and devel- 
opment, The results of these efforts 
are directed toward providing ration- 
ale and direction for laboratory pro- 
grams. 

In conclusion, a gross simplification 
of the mission of the DNL can be 
stated as follows: "To insure the 
optimum development and utilization 
of the Navy's RDT&E resources in 
support of the approved programs." 
Tins simple statement has the deepest 
of implications in the execution of 



31 



tlifi iollownitf goals ol. UK! uiNii tunc- 
tio n : 

A thorough knowledge of th<! 
existing field llDTi&.K complex and its 
capabilities, 

A comprohoiiHivi' plan for the 
Navy UDTAK field complex of the 
future (10-20 years) bawd on lone;- 
ranH'fi planning documents ami esti- 
mates of toelnmlutfical reiinirements. 

A. proKi'OK.sivnly phased program 
for lh(! orderly transition. 

The DNT, mid his sup port inn 1 slul)' 
are talung positive action to achieve 
them! ji'oatH within a reasonable time 
frame, and are on listing the best avail- 
able talent williin the Nnvy to I'onnu- 
late the proj'ram plans which point to 
the future Navy research resource re. 
fniiroimsnln, Upon the rcali'/.atimi of 
thnso objectives and their periodic 
updating-, a realistic implementation 
plan can hi; developed for the orderly 
transition, conditioned by the internal, 
external, political, (economic and other 
controlling factor. 1 !, which alway;i ini- 
on the plnii!! nf (iovenniiont 



Navy Scientists 

Discover Sea Desert 

Off Catalina 

A desert, under the sen bus been IT- 
porUid by Dr. K".|',<'n<' C. Ur'mid uf 
the. II,S, Navy KliTt routes Liilmni' 
lory (NKI.) after two dives in the 
.San 1'edm Iliuiin near (!alalina In- 
land, Calif., in Decpstar, deep div- 
iiilV research vehicle, 

The desert, was discovered Dec, '1, 
MMli, when Dr. LaKond, head uf 
Nl'jl/s Marine Knvinmmcnt Division, 
nail Dulc (loi>il, Instrumenfiitiiin MM, 
Kinc.i'i', went, |.o n depth of Il.dtin IVet 
in the tllive-man craft. I'lliil of (he 
mtft was Hob Hradley, nil employee 
of the, We.!itiiiKho\i!m Corp,, des imeni 
of tins rraft. 

Usually livitii). stars or sable llsh 
are seen on the bottom but, the basin 
imni was cfini|)letely devoid of life at- 
''"diiiK lii Dr. LaKoml. '['lie only or- 
KiiniKms iii-nn in the desert were dead 
"ijind and flat llsh. 

Dr. UiKdinl said the basin bottom 

was eovori'd with a carpet, of ornithic 

imiterial about a centimeter tinVlt. 

hero wen; no worm holes or ovi- 

il''nce of any life. 

Water Hiimphifi lid{r>n duriiiK the 
exploration of (he Imsin indlcati- 
tliere is ample oxyKmi to support ma- 
rine, Ufa. Kui-ilier analyses of \valer 
HainplfH will be made t,o determine 
phoKphale, nitrate and tiiliciilo prinh 
e.rtH(s, 

IjffftjiKtHi' thonnijthly travffi-scd Um 
basin three times, Seven hours were 
undm-watei- during thn niitmion. 



Clearinghouse Adopts 

New Document Sales 

System 

A now sinrje pricc/coupim .'lyiilcm 
for the side ul' 1 l.li. (ioverunn'itl 
spmniored resenrcli ;nnl di'vetopnn'iit 
reports lilts been iidup|i<d by lln< 1 'e 
piirlment of ('ummerre CleiiriiieJuniM' 
fur I'Vdend Scicnl ilic and 'IVrltnii nl 
Inl'onnnlion. 

Till 1 diicumenl rinipuii i; t a lalntl.'il 
in) 1 , card with a face v/iliie ul' the pin 
ch an LUC, price nf a < 'leiu i nc, bum. . > 
dui'llinenl, Tile cmipmi ,'ierve-i t\;, llu- 
method ill' payment , order I mm ami 
sbippinv, label. Cull|iun:: fin )m|n<r 
co|dc:i i if doriinii'iil:! sell at S,'i t-to'li 
or n liuolv uf ID I'uiipuiiN I'ur ^0. I'MII 
{Kill,'! fur lllid'ollrlie Ciijlir;. wilt In- :.u]il 
ill I miiks; of [ill cuiipiui:' fur S'i;!.iill, 
Tin 1 ciiuponii weiil un <iab< I 1 '-'!'. 1ft. 

I'lllieiency in unlerini-. iiml pi'tirt-:; . 

ill) 1 ; I'l'.'lllllllll'' I' I'll) 1 1 I lie |ir\V .'.y.'ilflll 

have made || |iu.i:.ible In irdlliv ill.' 

price uf diicumi'litn. Tin \v |ni.r 

applies lu previously iuiiiuiiin'r<i n-, 
Well a:> new d<ii'lllit>'iii :i. 

The new ( !leiii'ine,liui|:,e (U'ieiiii 1 . 
p'ljicy is a clianj'.i' li'utn a i<liditi|; 
price iicjilr ba.':cd mi iinruni-ul ,i,<.- 
lu a siiii'je p)-ii'i< lor dni'ilincnl', ;"Kl, 
Tin- new duriimrut pi ire I'ur n |>tipn 
rujiy ibanl ropy I j:t :-.:',. M i.-ruli. lu- 
rupirs lire priced at li;i rr)il % ' fur rarli 
dueinnelil, 

Cel'hiill I'epurl;!, :.llc|| H>i tbu .e 

available (ruin the ^iipr'Hnl.'iidrnt -( 
lluclimeill:;, lire priced n,t iiidividlinlh' 

anmn | by )!, rieiMinj'.buii ,,. 

rnlber (ban nl^ Ibe H,-\V ,ini:b< ID ic. , 
Tile .'iini'.le jti'ici- dm-'. ii"f nhjijv h, 
multiple enpy UH|I-IM nf a <>\n\;]>- ii..ru 
meill. l.lllulllliuii'i <,n >|inii)|ilv jittf 
l'hll:;e:i uf a !-illj:l'' (ilir ;n'e liVailiil'l" 
nil lei|1|eflt. 



Now Electronic Control 

Center To Be Installed 

on Kwajaloln Atoll 

_An electronic ennti'ul rcnti-r llml 
will | be Ibe ba.'ijj. f.n- a new iiiiM- 
iiii:i;.ilf radar pru|-riiin hn^ II.-.-H ( -,.i,i 
(ilr-lcil and will In- nbipprd i,, i !,, 
Kwajab-in Atull f t ,r in .I|II||III|MH MI, 
Km Nainiii' hilatiil. 

Tlti! ri|iilfiiiM'iil. iii jiiirt ul' I'r.ilt-j-i 
AI.IAIU, n l.iiiij; KiniKr Tia.Ui.j- 
""d Inslrn ...... ilaiinn Uarlm piuj*nu.. 



- 
I'ntjffta Ai-.ency (Alil'Al, 

'v .f u cMmpiilcr c,,,M. 



mimi'iivitr unit ititmlt'ir tin* ltin.fn.,1 
d ameler imhir anleiitia und 1-. di , 
1'lay Inicliini- inr>iuimli..n Mirlt r, 
ranne, altitude, lipecd iiu.i lr|.Tl..rv 
"I ttii'(;i'l;t. 

Sylviuiia Kleclrie Sy^em-i | )t ,|,. 
VTlmmiir Iht. Al.TAMl rti.lar >,v f ,*Mii 
under I'.intrael I,, (In- U.S. Armv Mi 
iff t'umimmd, Ui-ilninni' An;.-!,!,'!, Al, 
I He Mi.'tmle Coimmtnd inanaK"' > llm 



Security Briefings a 
Must for Paris Air Show 

('imlim-l.,! , wli,, ;,.,. jib, ;,,. , 
MJiHii-M.ali- in Hie ( l':m, Air S|,, 1W 

ul ibi- pi dV I:. lull > i.|" ji,u ;,|- |-;ui||.| i j 

mid i.,.(i:;i ni^iii.- Iniiii .imj :;,. ( 'nriiy 




Inspection System's 
Handbook Available 



in- I l|<li'i|.:<- I I. juu hn.-ll! tlilri |il|t| 



i new Iiiiii,||,.i,vt 1 , Itllr.l "Kvnl 



.' ; '- i( '-'" I II -'1 I," hi JH "\ ii 



! tir i '. islil.tt i.ii, M! i .,|i! i iirltii -,' 




h -- v, i!)> Mihl ,u v .'.'p.-rtli.'iillini 

Mil, I !,v,'<.;;.\, -I,,..,,,.. HMI, ;; y; .tri t i 

livijilii I'nii-Sil '!." 

't'b.- l-.n.M. t i". nnv, |,,ii H: ,|i-:irll> 
M!"-'f ltii..i[j-l,,ni! i;. ,-,.( MNii-iil mill in 




Army Forma 

Agency To Direct 

Computer Processing 




, 
Til" lli",Y ;);; n> y. n'stltr)) H(' I'i'l' .I'll' 



i.t i'li-jnitti..- .ij" -..-Sf, t. 
li.li .lit . f> if,i Hi." > I' 



. .. 

Ml n'.nhrt lie lu'i el I.. iv. (I'm 1 ..' II, 



llm 
fur Altl'A, an awncy nf Uti' 



I ' "'. A i IMV I'n'ii :^i|n'.ii t t Sii 

ltd 1 ! b-.i, .(' i-U:'iii)'! tt>> Mn- I 



, 

u^.ij.'l J.y lie- JIM i ; i : ( (j,|i..i t CHIIV 

IHJUl'l Jlli'l Mtlii-J 1 HK"') iC ', vJIH |t (.>r 
lllin.' niuJMi iM.i'< f") !*( U!|!r.';i!j'MI 
"f (oil. . iniit. | ^v^. MI-:. - f il'hi h MV.-I 
(til ul-jei-tHi ,, itlti) it "..itfij |.si..iili"t 
fur thi- ili'vi-IojiDd ni t ,f |i,'i\ I- i ;"nii'-l 



Meirch 1967 




EETINGS AND SYMPOSIA 



APRIL 



Srii'iilifu- iiiul Toclminil Symposium 
ii tut ('mi I nicl.or.'i (Jmiittiuliiijr Service, 
April ! U, Oli'vi'lund, Ohio. Sponsors' 
II, S, Nnvy, Nnt.mnal Kwm-iLy Indus- 
trial A sim. unit tin- City nf Cleveland. 
Conlnct: Mr. I'uu) A. Ni'wman, Nil- 
timml Si'ciiril.v Industrial AKMM., I)t>pt 
N,. Suilr KOO, KKKI |!i(,|, SL. N W 
lon, D.C. UlMWIi. (Area Code' 



1 Mynipotunm, April fi--(! 
at AiU'iiMluim Colh-Ko, Rock Is- 
lunii, III, Spoii!i(ir!i; Army Kosiwnrli 
<lfilri>, iMirlmm, N.C.; Army Weapons 
CiMiuniiiKt, Itock Inland, III,; unit Au- 
ruiilnnii <'i-llcj'.v, liork Isliuul, 111. 

CuriJVn'lH-r on ['<>ly im>r Slriicluro 
and McM'luniiciil i'riiperlu's, April 1!) 
:!!, nl, thr I!,S. Army Nnlic-k I.aliora- 
hirii 1 :;, Niilii'ti. MHHII. S|inn!i(ii'M: Army 
Niilirlt Lnlim'iil.oni'U, Chid 1 of Nnviil 
K<vu'im-li, Ah 1 Kim-i 1 Mnl.t>nln I,n- 
linnilnry, Nul inn ul Ai-romuitirn und 
S|iurc Admini:il 1'utinii, and lln> Na- 
linnul Anidcmy of Scii'iirOM. Contact'. 
MnU'iiim <'. Ih'ury, ArUnjv AitMin-intc 
llii't'i'lnr, I'&OM Div,, Army Natick 
l.alinrnlui iivi, Ntillrk, Muss. Ol7(iO, 
(Ami Cmli- HIV) Wi!l 11)0(1, KxL. 'litlt 
<ir (Ml!. 

A mi unl I'l'i'inn'iicy ( 'nn (nil Hympn- 
iilntM, April ',!'t Jtit, at, the SliollmriHi 
Iliitrl, Athuiiir City, N.,l. .Sponsor: 
U.S. A rniy I'llcd-ronicji (litmtnitiul. 
Cnnljii-l: M. !'. 'rimm (AMHKI, 
KI..MH), Kli'rl,rtinir (!<>ni])oiHiiit 'Li\~ 
If.H. Army Klt'clronicM 
, l' l n I, MiinnKint.li, N.,1, 
(Ami Codn I'.DI) fillfi UHliO or 



I'hyi'ii-n uf SuiHM'i'imditHiiiK I 
Syiiiimt.lmii, April :1K '.!!). nL tin; Unl- 
vr'i'j'ily n f Vii'j'initi, ClmrloUcsvilli 1 , 
VH. Sjiunnnr; < Hllri' of Ntivnl He- 
.'ii'iurli. ("iMiliii't: Mr. Ujiticnm S, DOH- 
vt'r, rliMlinntii, ( li'Knid/.in)' 1 ( loinniittiin, 
IVpni'liiU'iit t.f J'hynii'.'t, Unlvnniily )f 
VJnrlitiu. CliuHutli'nvlUn, Vn. 22001, 
(Aivii <'IK|I- Vli:i) 'Mt't HHHj, Kxt. ,'tlHS. 

Ann mil Symposium in Applied 
MtithcuiEit ir;i "( 'niifi'rciHM 1 on TrnnM- 
jmrt J'hi'iiry." ilnlcn undcli^rminod, 
Nrw YniK, N.V. Cn !i|imi!ini'!i; U. H. 
Army Kctit'iuvli (Illln', Durliam, N.C!., 
mid Air l-Vuvi' (nic of Mi'hmtifk Il- 
tH-mrh. C(iut!ii'l:i: Dr. Krancis (i. 
IhVMMt'l, Mntln-hiiiticn Div., Army Ktt- 
jicmvh (iJllfi'Jiurlium, Hox <IM, Duke 
Stiitlim, Hurhnm. N.C. '.1770(1, (Aroji 
I'dilc HUi) iJKi: aUHfi. cxU Till; nr Maj. 
Jfiliii JMIIMH Jr., (SltMA), Air Forte 
Ofllry (if Hrlcntillc HrHcnrch, MOO 
Wltemi ttlvil., ArlhiKlon Va. aUHOO, 
tAivH rinlr ali) OXford 'I T2l. 

MAY 

Arniunl NatidiiHl Collniiuium on In- 
fornmlltin Kelrlcvn). May J*-4, ut the 

Dofonso Industry Bulletin 



Hotel Adclnhia, Philadelphia, P a 

A? f nn t: p STI 1 N / 1 F roject D ^tor 

A 2100, Prankford Arsenal, Philadel- 

teoo^T^ 1 Cod ^ 816 > 

Sixth Unrc Earth Conference, May 
Mi, Gatlmburff, Tenn. Co-sponsors: 
Air Force Office of Scientific Research 
and Oalc Ridge National Laboratory 

9^! t A ct! A . Dr - Antho y J- Matuszko 
CSHC) Air Force Office of Scientific 
Research, 1400 Wilson Blvd., Arling- 
ton, Va. 2220!), (Area Code 202) OX- 
[ord 4-B337. Program details contact: 
l : r. W. C. Kochler, Solid State Div., 
Oak KidKo National Laboratory P 
Hox X, Oalc Ridge, Tenn. 37831. 

Conference on Expandable and 
Modular Structures for Aerospace 
Applications, May 15-17, at the Ca- 
rillon Hotel, Miami Beach, Fla. Spon- 
sors Air. Force Aero Propulsion 
Laboratory, Space General Corp. and 
OCA Viron Div. Contact: Fred W. 
I'Virbcs (APFT), Air Force Aero Pro- 
pulsion Laboratory, Wright- Pattern- 
won AFH, Ohio 45433, (Area Code 
filJl) 253-7111, Ext. 52771. 

InlcraRcncy Data Exchange Pro- 
gram (IDEP) Annual Conference, 
May 10-18, Clear Lake, Tex. Sponsor: 
Policy Hoard, IDEP. Contact: Army 
Ropi'Gsontativc, Policy Board, IDEP, 
Systems Research & Development 



Branch, S&TI Division, Army Re- 
search Office, Office of Chief of Re- 
search & Development, Washington, 
D.C. 20310, (Area Code 202) OXford 
4-3513. 



JUNE 

Twelfth Science Seminar, June 7- 
14, at the Western Skies Motor Hotel, 
Albuquerque, N.M. Sponsor: Ail- 
Force Office of Scientific Research. 
Contact: David L. Arm, Director, 
AFOSR Science Seminar, 1400 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209, (Area 
Code 202) 694-4875. 

Conference on High Energy Ther- 
apy Dosimetry, June 15-17, in New 
York, N.Y. Sponsor: Office of Naval 
Research. Contact: Eunice Thomas 
Miner, Executive Director, The New 
York Academy of Sciences, 2 East 
63rd St., New York, N.Y. 10021. 

Fundamental Physics of the ME- 
netosiihere, date undetermined, at 

Boston, Mass. Co-sponsors: Air Force 
Cambridge Research Laboratories and 
Boston College. Contact: Dr. J. F. 
McClay (CRFG), Ah- Force Cam- 
bridge Research Laboratories, L. G. 
Hanscom Field, Mass. 01731, (Area 
Code G17) 274-6100, Ext. 3218. 



Mciiitigomont System Controls 

(('mi tinned from page 27) 

9 Development Control Directive 

A documcmt which will prescribe 
formal procedures and approval chan- 
nels for the development of new or 
nwinions to existing management 
HyHlnnia. This will not restrict the 
devnlopmcmt of those systems bene- 
ficial to the Government but will pro- 
vidn for an orderly development of 
now or revised systems to insure 
their need, compatibility and non- 
duplication with existing systems. 

Application Control DirectiveA 
document which will prescribe formal 
procedures for the application of 
management systems on contracts. 
The purpose of this document will be 
to insure that the management sys- 
tems selected are the appropriate 
ones given the nature of the acquisi- 
tion, and that the purpose and intent 
of the system is carried through in 
the implementation stage. 

Authorized System List A list 
of approved management systems for 



use in the acquisition process. This 
will be developed from an inventory 
of existing management systems pre- 
pared by the Management Systems 
Control Directorate in the Office 
of Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller). 

Glossary A dictionary of com- 
mon terms used in management 
systems by Government and industry. 

Supporting these end products is a 
detailed network identifying some 80 
separate tasks that must be com- 
pleted before these end products are 
achieved. These tasks will be staffed 
by people from each of the three 
participating groups and will require 
the better part of a full year's effort 
for completion. As of this writing, the 
first four task groups have already 
begun to work on their assigned 
tasks. 

It is our intention to provide 
further progress reports on the con- 
duct of this effort to encourage the 
support and suggestions of all inter- 
ested parties. 

33 




DEFENSE PROCUREMENT 



Contracts of $1,000,000 and over 
awarded during the month of Feb- 
ruary 1967: 

DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY 

1 The Defense Personnel Support Center, 
Philadelphia, Pa., has awarded the fol- 
lowing contracts for men's wind-resistant 
cotton poplin trousers: 
Sidran Suortswear, Dallas, Tex, SS.SSSI,- 
GOO. 70(1.000 pairs. 

J. M. Wood Mfg. Co., Waco, Tex. 51,- 
632,000. -lOO.QOO pairs. 
Apparel Corp. of America, Knossville, 
Tenn. 51,631,600. 4-IO.OOO pairs. 
Glenn Mfu, Co., Amory, Miss. S!,570.- 
500. 450,1100 pairs. 

Covington Industries, Opp, Ala. Sl.0-17,- 
000. 300,000 pairs. 

A. M. Ellis Hosiery Co., Philadelphia, 
Pa. 81,182,191, 1,451.320 pmrs of men's 
cotton, wool nnd nylon socks. Defense 
Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia, 
Pn. 

2 California Steel & Tube, Loa Anceles 
Calif. 52.773,950, 97,500 steel hunk beds. 
Defense General Supply Center, Richmond, 
Va. 

U- s - nedding Co., St. Paul, Minn. 32,396- 
095. {16.500 steel bunk beds. Defense Gen- 
eral Supply Center, Richmond, Vn. 
Koehring Co., Milwaukee, Wis. $1,286,300 
30 crawler-mounted shovel cranes of % 
cubic yard capacity. Defense Construction 
Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio. 
3 J. P. Stevens & Co., New York, N.Y. 
i *u '17' B37 ' 000 WH'ds "f wool tropical 
cloth. Defense Personnel Support Center 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

"P,"? 1 ,'?^'^" '^"atr'M. New York, N.Y. 
SI .5". 150. 485,000 yards of wool serge 

PK-I ^ ? 6 na Pel ' sonllel Support Center, 
Philadelphia. Pa. ' 

"e- Co., Seln-iH, Aln. 82,475,885. 



n, n ; " fl - n - 5,fl85. 

Ij064.fi 10 pairs of men's cotton trousers. 

Defense Personnel Support Center, Phil- 
adelphia, Pa. 

"M'S!?"?*^ L ?, b " nt[ "-'. New York, N.Y. 
W,b*i,76B, Various quantities of nrirmi- 
flulne and chloroquhw. Defense Porwm- 
m.-l Support Center. Philadelphia, Pa 

-Knapp Monarch Co., St. Louis M %1 
MU16. 73,000 Insulated foTc^tainci 
Defense General Supply Center. RichnS 

"dria ^T Fud S W y Ccnter - Alexnn- 

' the fo " owing C(in - 



Chase Bag Co., New York City, N.Y. 
31,420,762. G. 128,000 osnaburg and 700,- 
000 burlap bags. 

Augusta Bag & Rurlap Co., Augustn, 

Gn. 51,408,100. 4,200,000 osnabnrj,' bnita. 

7DoiiBlaa Chemical Co., New York, N.Y. 

$1,162,720. 41,600 drums of frerric chlo- 

ride, Defense General Supply Center, 

Richmond. Va. 

8 The Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alexan- 
dria, Va., has awarded the following con- 
tracts for 116/145 aviation gas: 
Mobil Oil Corp., New York, N.Y. 10,- 
833,461. 60,180,000 Billions. 
Humble Oil & Refining Co., Houston, 
Tex. 310,076,067. 60,737,600 gallons. 
Phillips Petroleum Co., Bnrtlesville, 
Ohla. S9,718,K03. 64,415,000 ftalloiiB. 
Cities Service Oil Co., New York, N.Y. 
SM,206,!20. 58,800,000 fjallons. 
Atlantic Richfield Co., Los Angeles, 
Calif, 87,717,063. 46,200,000 gallonn. 
Tidewater Oil Co., NEW York, N.Y. 
$3.843,804. 26,000,000 gallons, 
Sinclair Refining Co., New York, N.Y, 
53,627,540. 26,650,000 gallons, 
American Oil Co., Chicago, 111. 82,832,- 
644. 10.011,000 gallons. 
Continental Oil Co., Houston, Tex, Sl,- 
DOa.670. 12,681,900 gallons. 
Texas Cily Refining Co., Texas City, 
Tex. 81,270,500. 8,400,000 gallons. 
Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp.. Amnrillo. 
ifl T^-,? 1 ' 08 , 9 ' 5 ' 10 ' 7 . 80 .000 gallons. 
10 Delta Pelroleum Co., New Orleans. La. 
54 560,313. 1UQ7.820 gallons of lubricating 
oil. Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alexan- 
dria, Va. 

13 Burlington Industries, New York N V 
$4.133,160. 5,400,000 linear yards of wind 
resistant cotton combed cloth. Defense 
Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia, 

14 Plan! Industries, Inc., p] n nt Cltv Pin 
81.108,487. 54,288 caW of '" ln ed insla { 

?W S,% Pl'?S ^"""nel Snppo 
Oenter, Philadelphia, P a . 

Koehring Co., Milwaukee, WIs. $1,300,720. 
32 crawler-mounted crane shovels. Defense 
Construction Supply Center, Cok.mCs! 






Cl> ^ tl 
men's 



Okls. $1.611.345. IS 130GOO cations'' ''^ at ~ Gc "*''al Cable Corp., N ew y .. k NY 

to n *"Tix St Si e fi S n > l - t ,? Ch ,T, IcaI C " H ' ous - Djffi^indl.f.lS ?*$ of , telephone cable: 

iuii, lex. 5i,5MO,2aO, 14,700,000 (tallons j i L, {auustnal Supply Center Plill 

Sinclair Refining Co., New York Nv noelphla, Pa. ^nucr, i nu- 

$1,147, 1 11, lOTTlOno' irnlimi ' "Glonbcrry Mfg, Inn nfttr, m 




_ 
CONTRACT LEGEND 

SL nt f a n fc i! ? forniflt ion is listed in 
tne following sequence; Date 

Company-Value-Material or 
Work to be Performed-Location 
Work Performed Contracting 
Agency. 6 



E , 

SSI'S Sl ""''. New York 

KS M IK^ 

Center, Phlladelnhla, Pa Jo 



27 



28 



Standard Oil Co. of Calif., Sun Francisco, 
Calif. 82,535,054. 700,000 Bnllonu tif 1:0111- 
bat, Typo If, automotive Bamilino, mill 
1B,2K2,000 unlloiiB of crude DP- A Artlli> 
die.sel fuel, Defense Fuel Supply Ci-nd-i 1 , 

ftcnernl Pirc E xtln KU lulicr Corp., Nurli- 
brook, III. $2,4110,003. 1CG,200 flt-o L-X- 
tlnKiiishery. DefenHO Coniitruclion Huiiiily 
Center, Columbus, Ohio. 
Land-O-LalfCH Cream erics, Miniioiiiin-ll!), 
Minn. 51,105,757. S.fiBO.-lOO nounds of IHIII- 
fat dry milk. Defonae PorHonnol iii]i|>iir( 
Center, Philadelphin, Pn. 

^Crowley IndiiHlrlal llnfr Co., Crmvloy, Iiii. 
S3,G87,7G(J. 16,000,000 osniihiii-B Hjuidl.ajfn, 
DofciiHe General Supply Cotilisr, Hiclinionil, 
Va. 



ARMY 



Ford Mntoi-H, Hlclilamt Piu-k, Midi. ?!.- 
151, BIG. i/j-ton trucks, incliidiiu; uiiifini 1 
inHtallntiiin, Hiprhlnnd I'nrU, Getiurnl 1'ui-- 
poao Vehicle Project Manajiur, Wiirnui, 
Mich. 

-Motorola, Inc., Scottsiiuli;, Arl. S 1 ,511(1, - 
000. Improved alrbonn! radar Burvell]mn'i< 
wets. Scottwdiilu. Army ElcctronicsH Coin- 
niand, ForL Motimuuth, N.J. 
Superior Scaffold Co., Tornmce, (Julif, 
51,700, 400. Stool wiitor tank mii'lini'l 
towei'H. Torriincc. Army Mobility Kciiii|i- 
mont Command, St. IjOiiiti, Mo. 
Interim tioiml Tclo|ihnc & Tclcfrraiili 
Corp., KiiHlon, Pa. S2,000,000. IinnKo In- 
tenBiner nsHcmbUcs in coniufc.tlon witli On 1 
NiuhL Vision projtrnm. Itcmnoko, Va. 
Army Elcclronlca Commnnd, Ftirt Mon- 
monlh, N.J. 

Lockheed Aircraft, Sunnyvale, Calif. ?!,- 
665,105. ISinitpinoiit ami ncrvlcH In cnri- 
nectlon with underg round miclcnr ti':Ulntr 
at the Nevada Tout Site. Sunnyvale, C4ilir,, 
Seattle, Wnsli., and Ni'vndn Tiwt Silt'. 
DeferiHe Atomic Support Atroncy, WiiHliiiui- 
ton, B.C. 

Stevens Mfg. Co., KbciiBlnu-K, Pn. I, !)'.!,- 
004. T'/^-IOM rofrlsonilor vuna. EboiiiiUnm, 
Army Tank Automotive Ginitcr, Wnrron, 
Mlnb. 

LTV AcrdHpnrc Corp., Wiirivn Mlh. ?!,- 
200,000. Production cimhimonl in iiin>piii'l 
itl tlio I,aiu:o Mlimllu Pi-ownim. Sti'i-linn 
Townwliip, Macomb Roiinty, Mich. Army 
Tank Automotive Ccnlor, Wurren, Mli-h. 
Inlci'iiatloniil Hnrveutci- (!., Melrniu' 
I'avk, 111. SI, 224, 820. Tractors. Olilriwii, 
III. Army Mobility Command, St. J.otilit, 
Mo. 

Honeywell, Inc., Hoitklnii, Minn. SB.Iifil!,- 
500. Bom)) metnl ]iartn iiHaembly. Now 
DriBhton, Minn. Aminunition Proenri-- 
mont & Supply Affi-ncy, Joliet, III. 
Martin K Eby Construction Co., WiHilla, 
Kan. $14,712,800. Rehabilitation, c ( invoi-- 
alon and coimtruotion of fncllitlui nl 
Kansas Anny Ammunition Plant, Pni'Hiiint, 
J, c?' knRlncei- DiHt., Knnana City, Knn, 
H; n S *^ Bullb01 ' Co - MiHhnwnltn, Ind. SI,- 
402,500. Collnjislblo nylon fabric wnlt-p 
tanks. MInlm\viihii. Army Mobility Ctim- 
mand, St. Loula, Mo, 

Bernard MdVIonamy Contrnctor, Inc., 8l. 

Louis, Mo. $1,452,800. Channel cxcaviillon 

work nt the Kaaknaldn Iliver, 111., NiivlKii- 

?1 f^^S ? v "avlllo, III, Rniflmwr 

ist., St. Louis, Mo. 



l . 

. Tiilio forffings for ITiimm 
BUM. IJoLlilehem. W.ilcrvliet Arnmul, 
Waloi-vhot, N.Y. 

o H? Tlrc & Bibber Co., Akron, 

J1.D88.6BO. Dun and truck U 
Oonter. 



Ford Motors, Deiirborn, Mich. 



foi* G-t^m 

rn. Gencml PuVpoao VeWutwt w 
ITCH, Mich. 



nn , 
collanaous 



( ..- 

Arm , y Bloctronlca Com- 

ia, Pii. 

' Conn ' M.'*<.BOO 

tl1Pbino bl ( '. "I'' 
oBomblles, nncl m | B . 
parta for T_6B on gin M 

March 1967 



for TJH_1 helicopters. Stratford. Army 
Aviation Materiel Command, St. Louis, 
Mo. 

8 U.S. Itiihber Co., Detroit. Mich. S2.6S2,- 
900. Tires for trucks nnd trailers. De- 
troit nnd LOH Angeles, Calif. Army Tank 
Automotive Command, Wiu-rcn. Midi. 

HaiulU Corp., South Bend, Intl. 31, .107,- 
(106. None and main binding gem's for 
OV~1 aircraft. South !!end. Army Avid- 
linn Materiel Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

Dlrilyle Co. of America, Kukomo, Intl. 
51,027,728. Fin blades for 2, 75-inch 
rockets. Kokomo. Picatinny Arsenal, 
Dover, N.J. 

Mil nc Li; Steelworks, Muncio, Ind. S4,IJl2,- 
10!i. No-/s-,lc nnd An imsemblieH for 2,7fi- 
iticli rockeU. Muneie. Pieatlnny Arsenal, 
Duvci', N.J. 

Constnl Construction Co., Houston, Tex. 
S8,7f>O.B82. Work on the Sablne-Noclics 
Waterway, Texas, Project. Port Arthur, 
Tex, Engineer Dial., Galvoston, Tex. 

10- -SI iin ford Research Institute, Mnnlo Park, 
Calif. $2;iG3,!)6fi. Establishment of a h>a<l 
laboratory (research and development). 
Ofllcc of Civil Defense, Washington, 1).C. 

Am rim Corp., Wfiiihoslm, Win. $D, 1 J14,104. 
20mm brnmi cartridge- cnmm. WuuUcaba. 
I''rnnkfonl Arsenal, Philadelphia, Pa. 

--PnellU Car & Foundry (Jo., Koiiton, 
Vfmh. ?B. 1,71,240. Hi-ton <:nrno nirrk-rH. 
Hen Ion, Army Tank Automotive Com- 
mand. Warren, Mieli, 

13-- -Kcillmnan Instrument Com., Klmlinrst, 
N..Y. S2,3il7,400. Motnl i>artn for 4.2-lnoh 
ciirLrltlKua. Mel rose Park, III. Army Pro- 
curunient Detachment, New York, N.Y. 

---FlhidihaiiKh Products, Inc., Itcd Lion, Pa. 
$2,610,010. Metal imrlii for IfiSmm pro- 
jco.LlEon. Hod Lion. AminiinlHoii Procure- 
ment & Supply Agone.y, Joliut, III. 

- --Alnvii Downey ('(instruction Co., Mll- 
ivmikoo, Win. $3,422.410. AUoraUoim to 
Inuncli complexes 2fiC nnd 2fiD at Cape 
Kennedy, Fla. Cnnavornl 10nginei!r Dint,, 
Moi-ritt lidand, Fin. 

U&t & Clark CoiiHtnictlon Co., Ovorlmid 
I'lirk. Kan. $0.005,162. Work on the 
(inSfstco Ham, N.M., Project, KiiRlneer 
Dint., Albumn.-1'u.iio, N.M. 

H llfllHltm Defense Corporation of Knstinnn 
Kodntt, KingHporl, Tenn. $7,D!l!l,'tfil 1 Min- 
eellnncoim exploHlvcn nnd oiieriitlonul mill 
maintenance activities, Kinittiport. Ammu- 
nition Prociiretnoni & Kupply Agency, 
Juliet, 111. 

IE II. J, HlRh CiniHlruciloti Co., Orlando, 
Kin. ?2,itl)0,7liO. Comitrucllon of Phao III 
ndiUUtm to tho Ilwidmmrlcni ll 
Kennedy Hpneu (Junior, Merrill 
Mil. Canaveral Kntflncier Hist., 
liilinul, Fla. 

..... Hulled Aircraft, Kant llnrtford, 
$2,60,l)n(). Jl-TI) HPHCQ IMA-JA 
enKltio nnHomblloH UHi-tl on Cll-.rni Flylnjt 
Grniio liolicopLorH. Kintl Hartford. Army 
Aviation Miitoriol Command, HI. Loulii, Mo. 

-Tlicrmo Klnit Corp., MiimwipolUi, Minn. 

$l,10B,2ii:i. Trailer inwuiLotl air rundilton- 
cr, MlnnonpollH. Army Mobility Ktniiu- 
niotil ('ommaiid, Bt. Loulii, Mo. 
10lInlou Carbiclo Corp,, Ni.'W York, N.Y. 
Sl,ZtH.8t)d. UA HOl/PUO dry Imtlcrlcs for 
AM-13f)1/l'HC-2l) radio frequency nmpli- 
nu, $a,18,501. II A 2711/1! dry balU-rlOH 
foi- AN/PHC 8.0 nnd 10 radios. CbarloLle, 
N.C. Army ElcctronlcH Comnuuid, Phll- 
ndclpliln, Pft. 

Strvcl, Inc., Fruoport, III. $l,17a,02B. 
BA-270/U dry bntlerlon for AN/PIIC- 
R,9 inn! 10 rudloH. Freoport. Army ISlt-e- 
tronicH Comimitul, Philadelphia, Pn. 
'Chntnlivrlaln Corp., Hcninlon, Pit. $3,007,- 
300, Meliil puvtfi for IGGmm project!! en. 
Scmnloii. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Aftency, Jollct, III. 

Olhi MntliioHOH Chcintcul Corp., Now 
York N.Y. $2,150,200. Mlscellnncoim pro- 
pellnnt chantofl nnd operations and multi- 
ten nnno ncltvlttcji. Ohiirloslown, Ind. Am- 
munillon Procurement & Supply Aucney, 
Jolict, III. 

--ficnornl Molors, Detroit. Mich, $0,l4,in!i. 
Tick-up IrncUH. Dultimore, Md. ; Fromnnl, 
Ccillf. nnd St. Luuln, Mo. Army Tanlt 
Atitumotivc Commnnd. Wurron, Mlcli. 

General Electric. IlurlinKton, Vt. $1.475,- 
000. 20mm uutomntic gmts. HiirllnKton. 
Army Weiipoim Commnnd, Rock Inland, 111. 

Toblor & OHvor Construction nnd Pnul N. 
Sinltlor, Curuoil Clly, Ncv, $1.345,000. 
CoiiHlructlon of nn iiinmunlllon mnln- 
lonnnco facility at Sierra Army Depot, 
Horlong. Calif. Eniiliieoi 1 Dint,, Sncrii- 
muiito, Calif, 



lslim<l, 
Morrilt 



Conn. 
Ini-biito 



LT 



Hell & Howcll Co., Chicago, 111. 51,280,- 
a7G. Moinl pnrts for Hlmin illuminntine 
sliell time fii7.es, ChicKO. Procurement 
Detachment, Chicago, 111. 

20 -Ciillins Ilnilio Co., Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 
52,102,752. Radio sets with ancillary items. 
Cedm- Rapids. Army Electronics Command, 
Port Monmoutli, N.J, 

Mason & Hanger, Silns Hnson Cn., New 
York, N.Y. S2, 158,370. LondinB, assembl- 
intr and puckin^ of medium caliber 
ammunition. BurlitiBton, Iowa. Ammuni- 
tion Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Juliet, 111. 

IS. I. DiiPont de Ncmoiira & Co., Wilm- 
ington, Del. $1,919,700. Demolition chin-Res. 
Martinaburg, W. Vn, Ammunition Pro- 
curement & Supply Aftoncj', .Icdiet, 111. 

f<nimman Aircraft Engineering Corp., 

rii!thpii B e, N.Y. S2,8fi5,000. Modern iant ion 
of OV-111 aircraft. Hcllmjige. Army Avin- 
Won Materiel Command, St. IjOuis, Mo. 

2;)- --Day & /.Immerniftim, Inc., Philiulelphin, 
Pn. $2,GC4,{)G3. Loading, aHaeinblirig and 
packing of miflcellancous items of medium 
caliber amimuiition. TcxnrkniiH, Tex. Am- 
munition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Jolitif,, III. 

--Hell Helicopter Co., Fort Worth, Tex. $1,- 
573,200. Gonr box iisBembliea for UH-1 
hclicoplcnj. $13,023,700. UH-t hellwi]>tcv 
IransniisHion imsemhliea. Fort Worth. 
Ai-my Aviation Mnterlel Command, Si. 
Ijonln, Mo. 

24 Contincnlnl Molors, MuHkeBon, Mich. $1,- 
O.I7,7riO. Englncfl for five-ton trucks. 
Miiiflii'Bon. Army Tank Automotive Center, 
Warren, Mich. 

TRW, Inc., Rcdondo Boneli, Calif. $6,000,- 
000. Classified electronic emu'pmunl. He- 
dondo llonob. Army Electwinica Command, 
Fort Monmouth, N.J. 

-Honeywell, Inc., Hopkins. Minn, 84,ai2,- 
000. Grennde fuaos. New Brighton, Minn, 
nnd Kt. Linils Park, Minn. Ammunition 
Procurement & Supply Apcncy, JolU'l, 111. 

27- -AVCO Corp., Slrntford, Cunn. S(i,H8G,fi02, 
Product Hiiiiport and nrnduct improvement 
Boi'vicest for T-B3 engines during Calcndnr 
Your 1907. Htrntford. Army Aviation Ma- 
l.oriel Command, Bt. I^iuis, Mo. 

- (iriimiiuin Aircraft Corp., Dolhpagc, N.Y. 
$1,000,000. Services and supplies to fnbri- 
cnlo avlonli! retrofit lilta for OV-1A hcli- 
i:o|tlors (Mohawlt). HethniiRO. Army Avia- 
tion Materiel Commnnd, St. Louis, Mo. 

2H ACF Industries, Cnrt-or Ctirbnretor Div., 
SI. Louis, Mo. $1,887,019. Mettil imrts for 
BI.tr-H/H bombs. St. I^rtiis. Ammunition 
Procurement & Supply AKOimy, Jolict, III. 

- Scovlil Mfg. Co., Walerhiiry, Conn. 51,- 
ar.fi,K17. Metal parts for UI.U--3/H bombs. 
Watorbury. Ammunition ProcuromenL & 
Sujiply Agency, Joilet, III. 

- Marllii-Marictln, Orlando, Fin. $4,100,900. 
Motal parta for XM2K1 criniHtorii. Orlando. 
Ammunition Procuromonl & Supply 
Agency, JoHel, III. 

Honeywell, Inc., Hopkins, Minn. ?3,{H8,- 
5118. Three llnesi of automated assembly 
machines for production of MS19K1 multl 
iiso fu/.cfl. St. Louis Piirlt, Minn. Ammuni- 
tion Procurement & Supply Agency, Joliel, 
III. 

- - -Harvey Aluminum Snlcs, Inc., Torrnnce, 

Calif. SH.GOa.-lGl. IxiiuliiiK, assembllnK nnd 

packing cliiBsiflcd ititms of Eimmunition. 

Milan, Tenn. Amimuiition Procurement & 

Supply Apioncy, Joliet, III. 
--U.S. Itubber Co., Now York, N.Y. 50,- 

402, (IR2. Maniifnclui'O of exploalvcs nnd 

loading, assenibllim niu3 imcklnu; ai'til- 

lury amimmlliiin nnd related componenlH. 

JoHot, 111. Ammunition Procurement & 

Supply Agency, Joliet, III. 
--HutcHvlllo Mfff. Co., Jlatcnvlllo, Ark. 51, - 

H8G.873. Motal parts for IILU--3/K bombs. 

llateavllte. Ammunition Procurement & 

Supply Agency, Jolict, III. 

- -llaylhcon Co., Di-lHtol. Tenn. $1,176,68'!. 

M005 fuzes for the 750-11). bomb. HrlHtol. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Jnllel, III. 

General Molors, Indinniiinolln, Ind. $1,- 
G07.780. TX-100-1 trruiHtnliisloiiH for Mill! 
personnel carriers. $1,387, 24"l. HcbuildiiiR 
and relmnttiiiB CDSfiO trnnmiBsIon assem- 
blies for tnnk dicscl enulnes. $1,330.690. 
Ucbuildlng and rctroflttiiiR CD850 trnns- 
mlHHJon nBRombliea for tank clioto! engines. 
Indiananolis. Army Tank Automotive Com- 
mand, Warren, Mich, 

Johnson Corp., Dollovuo, Ohio. $1,G2G,0(H. 
M11QA1, ^i-lon chaaalB and M101A1, ! X ( - 
lon cargo tvailers. Bollevuo. Army Tank 
Automotive Commnnd, Wnrren, Mich. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



--General Molore, Detroit, Mich. 81,496, 973. 
Various trucks. Detroit. Army Tank Auto- 
motive Commnnd, Warren, Mich. 

Qnifleld Industries, Cm-rollton, Tex. SI,- 
239,001). '/i! -ton utility trucks. Can-ollton. 
Army Tank Automotive Command, Wiir- 
ren. Mich. 

--Ford Motors, Dearborn. Mich. $2.865.553. 
Tractor trucks. Louisville, Ky. S2. 271,712. 
Various tnnk trucks, liirminiiham, Ala. 
Army Tank Automotive Command, War- 
ren, Mich. 

Ford Motors, Dearborn, Mich. 83,248.399. 
Various trucks. Claycumo, Mo. and Mah- 
wah, N.J. Anny Mobility Command, St. 
Louis, Mo, 

FMC Corp., San Jose, Calif. $3,91,380, 
M113A1 armored peraonnel cnrriers and 
M548 cnrgo carriers, South Charleston, 
W. Vn. Army Mobility Command, St. 
Louin, Mo, 

-Pinko-Ford, Newport, Beach, Calif. 61,- 
446,723. Classilled quantity of ShiLLclturh 
missiles and guidance nnd control compo- 
nents. Lnwndale, Calif. Army Missile Com- 
mand, Hii"tsvillo. Ala. 

Raytheon Co,, Lexington, Maaa. ?1,204,160 
Mnintonnnce and modiiication of spucial 
tooliiiE and test equipment to support the 
Hawk missile system. Andover, MR.IH. 
Army Missile Command, Huntaville, Ala. 

Electronics Assistance Corp., Red Bunk, 
N.J. $4,'I82.073. General purpose radio re- 
ceivers. Red Hank. Army Electronics Com- 
mand, Philadelphia, Pa. 

--Phllco Corp., Philadelphia, Pn. 35,000,000. 
Classified electronic equipment. Philadel- 
phia. Army Electronics Command, Fort 
Monmonth, N.J. 

University of Illinois, Urbana. 111. SI. 200,- 
000. Twelve months investigative work to 
continue n program of experimental and 
theoretical research in pure and applied 
science in the broad spectrum of modern 
electronics sciences. Urbana. Ai-my Elec- 
tronics Command, Fort Monmouth, N.J. 

AVCO Corp., Stratford, Conn. 51,284,267. 
T-B3 turbine engine housing assemblies, for 
lJH-1 helicopters. Stratford. Army Avia- 
tion Materiel Command, St. Louis, Mo. 
Cm mm Jin Aircraft. Engineering Corp., 
BothpnRC, N.Y. $1,300,000. Modernization 
of OV-1C Mohawk helicopters. Stuart 
Martin County, Fla. Army Aviation Ma- 
teriel Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

Martln-Mnrictta, Orlando, Fla., 82,287,754. 
Meliri imrts for XM2 canisters. Orlando. 
Procurement Detachment, Chicago, III. 

Lane Construction Corp., Merlden, Conn. 
$1,371.750. Work in tho Ulanchard Dam 
and Reservoir Project. Hlnnchard, Pa. En- 
gineer Dlat., Baltimore, Md. 

Acrimcn. Inc., Torrnnce, Cntlf. Sl.0711,260. 
Motal paria for XM3 mine dispensers. 
Torranue, Calif, anil Middletown. Ohio. 
Southwest Procurement Agency, Pasadena, 
Calif. 

TRW Systems, Itedomlo Bench, Calif. $1,- 
1GG.402. Classified work. Redondo Beach, 
Calif, and Wichita. Kan. Army Security 
Agency, Arlington, Va. 

NAVY 

1 Royal Industries, Alhnmbru, Calif. 51,100,- 
3GO. fiOO-eallon external fuel tanks, Allirim- 
bra. Nnval Air Systems Command. 
-Johns Hopkins University, Silver Spring, 
Md. $'1,870,360. Continued research & de- 
velopment on guided missiles, satellites 
nnd ordnance systems. ScagRsville, Md. 
Naval Ordnance Systems Command. 

2 General Precision, ItlnRhjimpton, N.Y. 51,- 
500,000. DCSIRII, fabricate nnd test nn 
F--1D weapons system trainer set. HinK- 
hninpton. Naval Training Device Center, 
Orlando, Fla. 

--North Americnn Aviation, Columbus, Ohio. 
314,816^00. Installment funding for the 
Condor missile. Columbus. Navnl Air Sys- 
tems Commnnd. 

General Electric, Schenectady, N.Y. $10.- 
4i|0,OQQ. Design and furnishing of Navy 
nudenr propulsion components for one nu- 
clear powered frigate (DLGN). Schenec- 
taily. Nnvnl Ship Systems Command. 

S Todd Shipyards, Seattle, Wash. J1,GG7,330. 
Activation work on the minesweeper USS 
Vhji1an.ce (MSF-3S4). Seattle. Supei-visor 
of Shtnlntihling, 13lh Naval Dist., Seattle, 
Wash. 

General Precision, Inc., Glendalo. Calif. 
$1,012,237. Attack directors MK 76. Glsn- 
dale. Nnval Ordnance Systems Command, 
latxjj (|ulpmcnb for the Falcon air-to-air 
missile. Tucson, Aria. Aeronautical Sys- 

35 



General Dynamics Corp., Sim Dics-'O, Calif. 
Sl.PU.UT- Components for the AN/ASH - 
1:! lionib dii-fccilon system for IIA-5C air- 
craft. San Diego. Nnvy Aviation Supply 
Ofi'ici. 1 , Philadelphia, I'n. 

fl- -lliilnnila. Inr., Scottsdalc, Ariz. Sl.nfis.OOD, 
(iiiidiiiiiic and contitt] croupa for Siiie- 
\viuder guided missile'.). Scottsdido. Naval 
Air Systems Command. 

Central Klectric, Si'heneclady, NY. S3,- 
051,130. DC-JIKII and furnish nuclear piu- 
inil-.ion comiinnenls. Sclif.-ncetndy, Naval 
Ship Systems Command. 

" (icneral .Motors, Indianapolis. Ind. 2,1-11,- 
S'n'. Span.- pariji for T-SGA16 t-n^ines used 
in KC--130 nil-craft. Indmimpolis. Nnvy 
Aviation Supply Office, Philadelphia, Pa. 

-M. gleinhall Co., New York, N.Y. SI.- 
l'l,193. Parachute pucks and lanyard 
asftmblit-H used with the MK 56 under- 
water mine. Itoxhoro, N.C. Naval Ord- 
rt<nit:i; Station, LdiiisvilJe. Ky. 

United Dual builders, Bellinuham, Wnsh. 
?12,825.pr)0. Supplies and services for the 
pi-mine lion of MK -10 torpedoes. North 
Hopkins. Naval Ordnance Systems Com- 
ma Tid. 

- -1 nitcd Hoaibiiililcrs, Hellinshsim. Wash. 
?1,2 ( J7,OS2. Construction of 51 twenty-six- 
foot personnel boats. Hellincham. Naval 
Ship Sy.it ems Command. 
Texas Instrument, Inc., Dallas, Tex. 31,- 
211,5(13. Strviec-s ami material to accom- 
plish work connected with exploratory 
effort on the advanced nnli-radiiition mis- 
sile guidance system program. Dallas. 
Nnvy Purchasing Office, LOH Armeies, 
Calif. 

1'i-Sperry Hand Corp., Syo=set, N.Y, 32,087,- 
00(1. Technical services pel-formed in over- 
haul of submarines. Kyos-et Naval Ship 
Systems Command. 

--North American Aviation, McGreKor, To\ 
82.520000. Rocket motors for Sparrow 
and Shrike missiles. McGregor. Naval Air 
.Systems Command. 

Sanders Associates, Nashua. N.H.. 82,185.- 
672 Continued development of a drop- 
pahle anti-submarino warfare aono-buoy 
system. Nashua. Naval Air Systems Com- 
mand. 

13 United Aircraft, Eirst Hartford. Conn 
S7fi.201.fi09. TF-30P-3 and TF-30-IM2 
engines. S3.500.000. Phase II development 
of the TF-30.-P-12 cn K ine. East Hartford. 
Naval Air Systems Command. 
15-Rnylheon Co.. Bedford, .Mass. 51.610,000 
Installment funding for ]un B lead time 
elfoit and material for research and de- 
velopment on AIM-7F Sparrow guided 
missile rochet mutora. Bedford. Naval Air 
nystems Cummand. 

16 Triumph Industries, Houston, To* SI llfi - 
332. Construction of twenly-eisiit 33-foot 
liersonnel boats. Houalon. Nnval Ship Sys- 
tems Command. 

" nB Crr L. L ' l M'" 1 C * rpi| If|Jisto1 - Term. S2.50H,- 
UMJ. .Shrike missiles. Bristol. Naval Air 
nyotcma Command. 

Sl.OW.OOO Control' s'ystem "moilernhatioii 

r , w 1 rier IK 76 ' ra( " ls 3 nnd E - 
iircat Neck. Navnl Ordnance Systems 

a ''~finn"iiH' r 2 f !: Stl ' atf(l > 1 'l. Conn. 82,100,- 
<ttrl,tf, i M holl , c Pte^for the Air Force. 

m w i" aval A "' S ^ tems Commnnd. 
""""'. Washington. D.C. $1,062,987. Siaulo 

nr M L ' m I S qul "! tl( J n r - WashlnRlon. 
D.C. Nnvy Purchaslnj? OtTlco. WashiiiEton 
D.C. iiuibiuii, 

-FMC Corp., Sun JOKC, Calif $1,213,0-13 
for't e" ' m0del Of " cleanil| K machine 

S2.216.046. Launchers for use with'zuni 
rockets New Castle. Navy Ship' Part, 

-Fl h P nter ' M^n'Mbuiw. Pa. 
"rii ft ""Crftff, Culver City, Cnlif si 
JDH.aoO. Two missile control oneratoi- 
trainera for data and support of F-ll] 
Trainb 'D"'""' InKlewo '^ CuHf. Naval 
2 '"",'oo Cl< Modi^'"- raftl ""'''^"^Calii. $8%49,. 
-f'Viinit va ,. "' Systems Command. 

^"hCe N Y rC S U E 7' n rl11 ' Cor "- 

I'Luiiniht., iv.i. i,Sb!t.471. Necessary doc. 

S ntemft S ll P " Urt " propMBl f r tho 

- (lould Ndlional Batlcries. Inc Ri T> n ,,i 

Minn, 89.8flO.048. SubmnHne battery eli 
monu and cells. Kankakec, 111 Nnval 
Ship Systems Command. 

36 



23 General Dynamics, Pomona, Cnlif. $3,000,- 
000. Standard Missile, Type I, guidance 
control and ordnance sections. Pomona. 
Naval Ordnance Systems Command. 

FMC Corp., San Jose, Calif. SI, 625,000. 
Engineer! UK services in support, of landing 
vehicle tracked personnel craft, San JIIHC. 
Navn! Ship Systems Command. 

-Avondale Shipyards, Inc., Wcstwcgo, La. 

83,254,000. Activation and modification of 
the USS Elk River (LSMR-S01). Ncw 
Orleans, La. Supervisor of Shipbuilding, 
8th Naval Dist, New Orleans, La. 
--Brewer Drydock, Inc., Stilton Inland, N.V. 
S1.3C3.000. Regular overhaul of the USS 
Mamma (AE-9). Staten Island. Super- 
visor of Shipbuilding, 1st Naval Dist., 
Boston, Mass, 

2<t General Dynamics, Pomona, Cnlif., $ir>,- 
000,000. Standard Ann missile, Pomona. 
Naval Air Systems Command. 

Martin-Marietta, Middle River, Md., $1,- 
354,317. Clnsaified equipment. Middle River, 
Naval Air Systems Command. 

27 Genera! Electric, Washington, D,C. $2,- 
230,806. Polaris MK 2 guidance systems. 
Pittaficld, Muss. Special Projects Ofline. 

General Electric, Schciiectndy, N.Y. $G,- 
408,000. Design and furnishing of Nnvy 
nuclear propulsion components. Schcnce- 
tady. Nnviil Shin Systems Command. 

Sanders Associates, Nashua, N.II. SI, 8(10,- 
000. Continued basic engineering and (io- 
velopment of an air droppahlc ASW 
soaobuoy system. Nashua, Naval Air SyH- 
tems Command, 

Bcndix Corn., North Hollywood, Calif. $1.- 
940,fi2R. Sonar sets. North Hollywood, 
Naval Air Systems Command. 

28 Hughes Aircraft, Culver City, Calif. $7,. 
000,000. Installment funding for Phoenix 
missile systems. Culver City. Naval Air 
Systems Command. 

Home Ilros., Newport News, Va. Sl.fiDd,- 
OCO. Rpgular overhaul of the auxiliary 
oiler USS Marias (AO-G7). Newport 
News. Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Fifth 
Naval Disfc., Norfolk, Va. 

Buck Kreihs Co., New Orleans, I,n. ,?2,C73 - 

u?' A , c r , t J, vl ^ U(ln r tlle InndinB firafl repair 
ship USS Satyr (AHL-23). New Orleans. 
Supcrvisoi- of Shiplniilding, Kighth Naval 
Dist., Ncw Orleans, La. 

Avomlalc Shipyards, Avondale, Lo. $3 - 
289,543. Activation of the landing craft 
repair ship USS Sphinx (AHL-24). 

a M ^"^7 is v; of ShtpbulldliiB. 
Naval Dist, New Orleans, La. 



MARINE CORPS 

G Raytheon Corp., Andovcr, MUSH. S1.2HH OOii 




AIR FORCE 

011 ^ C , OIP " Cllfil ''tleNv!Ho, Va. 



P^"n' S -Pno". Pft. SG,r,00,000. 

Production and installation of an nir 

, Cn8 p.S? 1 ' nIll f an ' 1 eo ' m icnlion H ys" 
tern. Paoll nn i an ove r He]Lli sttCt jg,* 

tromcs Systems Div., (AFSC) L r 
Hanscom Field, Mass. ' G ' 

Goodyear Aerospace Corn,. Aki-nn ni.i,, 
S UJ8.260. Production o 'nir cni Ko h n ' 
JIM palleta. Akron. Warner EB A 
Mntenel Area, (AFLC), Hobins API), G" 
Raj Iheon Co., Waltham, MIWB. $3,130010 
Ho,lincation of the bomb-navigational' sysl 
R " " 1 * Walthnm. Warner 



d C J r E" Gl ' C!lt Neck - L 

Modiflcntlon of the 

l system on B-fi8 n 



I. NY 

bomb 
" 



. , ,, , ,.-). Robins AFB. Q B . ' 

nwi i?" d i Ai r cnirt ' M "i'iettft, On. S4 000 - 



electric syateniH. Utica. Aoronautiwil Sya 
terns Div., (AFSC), Wrifflit-1'ntlPi-ao] 
AFH. Ohio. 

3 Hiifflicu Aircrnf(, Culver City, Calif. ?rt,- f^ 
225,04G. Prcluclion of HIHU-C comitiipn.ln 
mid related cqiiiiimont for Fulnon n!r-lo-nir f 
missilca. Culver City. OKdfiii Aii- MnU'rlcl 3 
Area, (AFLG), Hill AFH, Uiah. 

IJcndix Corp., Toterboro, N.J. ?',!! <1 ft. G 11 0. f 
Prodiifition of [liRlit hinti-unic-nts) f, n - (; MI ] 
aircraft. Teterboro. Aeniniintlonl Synt^nin j 
Div., (AFSC), WriBlit-I'iiUermiii AFH, 
Ohio. 

Honeywell, Inc., Hopkins, Minn. ?l,Tr,l,- 
000. Minn fn/cM and rclnt<'d <muh)MH'iil . 
Hopklim. Aoronimtlcnl Syiitumn Div., I A l 1 '- 
SC) Wrliilil-Pnltcrmm AFli, Ohiii. 

--WcHtinitEioiiMu Klectric, nullliriim-, Mil. - 
$1,000,000. 1'nxliintion . ( f nirbornit rmnnui- 
niculioim cn,uiiimonl, Hiiltiinun-, KIcrlrinilL-E 
Sysliiina Uiv., (AFMC), \,. (!. HHIIILL-.IIII 
Field, MIIHH. 

8~-Uiiitcd Alri-rafl, Knut Hnrtf.nvl, <\>im. 
$2,3315,840. 1'rodiieUcm nf H]iiifi> nni-|,'i fan 
J-57 aircraft i>nj.:iin^. ]!n H t lUirt N>1 il, Hnn 
Antonio Air MuLoriol AI-CJI, (AF1.C1I , ; 

Mnrlin-Mnrietdi, Baltimore, Mil, Sl.ilU'l.r.nrt. f^ 
linfiincorliiB (if mm-inlejri-al Dtnii'hti^'M fur T"^ 
hyiuu-Hoiiic vuhUilwi, Middlu lilv.M-, Mil. My*- 
toinn Kruiiiiuurinir (li-iiuii, llcin-nivli A 
Technology Div., (A FK C), Wrlnht- 
1'iitlcraoii AKH, Ohio, 

Ottcnernl Mlcclrk, Wiiiit l.yun, Miiiin, S;! f - 
805,000. T-K8 nlnsrnfl cnnriucn. W.^, l-ynu. 
Acron untie nl KynUiriiN Div., (A KMT), 
Wrijflil-l'iilU'fHiin AFH, Obli,, 
U (icncrnl ftlu((irn, Mllwiiuki'i*. Wld. Sl.l-1'i.- 
000. I'lu<!tiim of nlrbi.i-iK! iiiiviitiiU'.n 
Uli]mie-iil. Milwiiultwi. Acroiinullrul Hyn 
tciriH Div., (AFHC), WrlKlH-l'iit I rr.i.-n 
AFH, Olilo. 

(iciwrnl Klectric, Clnciimill, Oriln. ^il.drni.. 

000. J-70 iilroi-iifl uhKliKt t-t)iii|inni.ii| 
impniveniL-nt pniifnim. Cindrimili. Ai-n-- 
ntiuticnl Hyult-niH Div., (AFKC3), WrinM- 
Pnttei-Hoti AFH, Olilo. 

Ifi- (Jcnci-nl Klectric, Wcfil, l.ynil. MIIMIL, ?!.- 
i);i7,H(!l. I'n.duc.tlnn of |nir.- ri)iii|H)iH<;il 
for J-85 iilrcrnfl. onitliu-H, Wil. )<>'iin. , .-i, 
OUInhomn City Air Mntci-iol Ari-n, (AF- LkSI 
T.C), Tinhcr AFli, Okln. ^ 

--While niiitom, HiiriiHtlliilil, Ohio. SU^li.- 

O00._ Production i.f L 'leclrlc:iil in-niTiil 

S]>riii(!fk'kl. Kni'.ratiKfiilo Air Mnh.-rii'l Aivn. 
(AFI.C), Mc.Glolltni AFH, Cnllf. 
Ifl-'MuHlmnn Knilult Co,, Hmilii'siUfi', N.Y. tl ( - 
085,01)0. Pnulu.-tlon of pliol^UTi'iiplilr |.r,ir- 
maJnfr <ui!]nni!iit ami mmiv imi in. 
Ilochtwlor. A annum tii: n I Hyti!i Ilk., 
(AFSG). WriirhU'ntUfi-Mdii AKII, (Jhln. 
--Lctir Hlcirlcr, Inc., (inmil lt.n,ililn. Mlrli, 
81,540,1)76. PnidutiUon of ill|;Iil. innU'uint<iil-i 

for lighter nhrrufl. (Jniml Itniiidn, A 

tmuliniil SyHlcniH Div., (AFHC), 
I'attfi-m.n AFH, Ohio. 
Sclienuil Itiibhor Co., Hitltlmoi-i!, Mil. 
3fiO.-il)7. ProilueUdu of Uresi fm- KI 
ulrcrufl, Unltimorc. Ojrdun All- Mm 
AI-CII, (AFI.O), Hill AFH, IHtili. 
17 -Iloncyivctl, Inc., Ho|ikinH, Minn. ?!!. 

000. Production uf lum) mlni<ii lunl 
oinlcd equipment. ^HiiiiUlnit. Ai<nniin 

AFI1, O1ili>. 
Gonenil Aincrirnn TniriHiiorlnliiiii C 

Niles, III. $4,200,000. I'ivnlit<iHuri of I 
comiiotienlH. Nllew. Aeronnuti.-iil Mv,, 
Ohio (AI '' SO) ' WriBlil-7'iil.torHini 

20 Mitre Cory., Hertford, MIIHH. ja, 
liCHenivli und develop men I for HVIL! 
BineeriiiB nnd teelmlcm] illtvetimiii 

1, i l , , c <nmaiiil anil uiiutro] , 
liodford. I'JIeuironlcH Hy(cmH 
(ALSO) L. G. HmiHcom FU-lil, Minin.' 

Honeywell, Inc., Hopkliui, Minn. S1.VMI.I101> 
i induction of fuxcfi for minon mid tvlnh- 
enlpmnt. HopklHH. Acr.maiitioii] HynU-nr 
Ohio (AFSO)> Wpldht-I'nUei- AKH 

~~S'i C o!(j nL e i ff ' cr ' 1 ' np " c 'i''itl Hinililii, MirJn 
*i,dii.U51. Production of nircnift lionililin 



Al-'ll. 



. 
Div.. 



(.eneral Electric, Utica, 
( >n of 



B nnn a ire , ni ^' Clllvo '- Olt y. tJnlif. 
,000. Production of componcntu and 



March 1967 



tniui I'lv.. (AK'lt:). Wilithl l'(ith-n,,.ii 

AI-'K. <>lili.. 

l.mlilii'i'il Ain-Mill. llmlmnl., d.lif. iM.uli).- 

H:'(>, MmlWnill I' I' KM i.li.'iM'i ](, . 

Imi.li, .'iiii'iitiii'-nl.i All- Mu(.-il..| AI.-II 
<AI''I.<!>, MH'Mhi. ,-M'll, t'nlir. 
;M Nnrll. Aiiii'hlrini Atliillnii, A nulii-im. I'lillC, 
^;l,lir.UHiil, 1'iiiihii'll.iii nl ili-|">l imiliifi- 
n,iin-<- i-.tiilimn-m In iiu|>|iii Mi. Mln. in- 
inn 1 1 lili'i'ill'- in ni; i inn, A null. I in. Hull! ! |, 

[ivnli-tii'L Mli-., (AK:ii:i, M..,n,ii A I'M 
1'tillf. 
;;/ AiU'll' 1 .! Trrliiiiilntrt. h.i-.. I'ulu All... I'nlll, 

si, iv;: 1 . ii(ii', rr<.iiiii-iiim i.r aM i,^,,, 

r.|ltl)>IIK'lll. 1'lllu All... Wl.lll,-! K.,).),, : All 

Mnti-it'-l Ai.-u, < Al'l.ri, !(,,),!, i, AKH, (in. 



Contract Definition 
Reports Available 

Twn repni'la ili-alinj 1 . witli Uu' eon 
I t'lii'l ileHiiMinit ju iirrn.'i, nl' jM'iit'i'nl in 
| crest hi ill I | n- r.M in.-; eniun-rlnl \vil h 

III is pi I Sltit' id' lii'V'-lnpiiii-ril . I )' Ulllj.ir 

I )l H i systems mill nt |iiirl ii'ul;ii in 

leriVil In tlin;i- r.",|iiin:,i|i].< I'M]' run 
Intel ili'lillil inil nl' r.prcilit 1 ili-vi-liipmrill 
project !, tin' iiim availal>!i\ 

"A Itepnr I. mi t 'mil met I tr | in it inn" 

Wllf! prrpare.1 Inl' I 111- I Ul|rit n|' ( h,- 
llherlol 1 nl' I 'i-l'-li;!!- K<"r;nrli anil Kh 

uineeriiie, {HIM Mtit K i i-y PI-HI, Miir 

wii'li. I a vini'Mmi ami I V 

'I'llf l.r'C ..... I l.-pnl I. "( 'In ,,- I '(ilhtliM 

nil imi in * '"nl i ncl I 'I'linil Idii," \\-n-. 
invpaii'ii l.y Hi.- MlTliK r.,||,, 

"A lirpnrl I'll r.,||li;ii'| I J.'lMlil H'li" 
rmil niii'i ili- nr.'iiniii' ami ind-i |n i-(;i 
liilli:< ft' pri I iiiriil Jim t imr- "I |Hl|> 

liiri-ciivt. ;i:!nu.;i, lypi. al .i.'iu it !< 
iiiul liinini; nl I'ha'.r . A, II, uml ( ' ,>\ 
nmlrai't ili-linit inn. anil riili.;*! at. -',\'., 
:Hlrll Ills (In- |iri'i-'qil(;>il.';. f.i i-|l/:illf<'l 
il)|; ili'Vi-l>')iiin-iit, iiiliiitii- "I iliilii uml 
li'i'linlral I I'iiitjshfiinn. 

''I ']ir;.' I ',i||a|...| III inn in I ',ili|i;,.'l 
iMlllitiiili." MITII1-: Tn-lnU.'lil l';i|..-i 

.MT1 1 in (i-;::n rii i;v mxi. .ir. t iii ; -r-. 

lln- jj.'.ui"! Ihsit itisiv in i- in lli.' >,<)) 
illii'l iif llmf |'Ui t "i .-..Hi i ( n I li.linl 

til Ml I 111! ill I'. \\ hirh I i|, ( ;,,>. . mini-Ill 

anil (hi ..itilcail ili-|'iiu!i"ii r-.nl v.irli.i'ii 

ill'l- illl<*lll|.-|l 1" . 1.C..-U I'llDjtJiMl jld- 
WJHl 1','U'll HftttT. 'J'hl- ). -Jl.il I l|.-!|| ;i 

\vitti i|ii.--li,.n- n)' <,', Isnl ..... Mldil.-.. 
pr.i|h'i- i:iiilt.nr.- IM CMHii.i.-f"!!,, u'luii 

III-' r.-rll'; .i| I'!-., i- C'>l|-|f>'ll ii(M| i. ^l.llll'l 

!', unit It'll', ^.'iii.jfi'..- ,-t.nJia.I .l.rini 
linn inl'iit'iinti jtui 1-,, ll ,it= n .-.in:t'.-.ii:: 
i'i'i'lalu iiilintni'ili ulivr juui jinn .-.Iiii,-i| 
iii'viuic.-in.'iil . J'oj II.-IJMDJ: In ji-<,ujt' 
thdt r.Mlti'iii-l ili'linlUMji , ,.iiha> !'M= iU'" 
mli'i|iui|i-!y pniitril v,iMcnt ii-..|iai.ft/ 
ilil! 1 lln' inntnt.-naii>''! ..1" !l|." MlUv .'.UK 
|n'HHv< oivi ..... mt HI iiH- H>!i'i( .liniiir 
ii r.'iiiiju I ili-tinitf ..... fl'.H, 

"A Iliilii I i.n I 'oiiliiii t ItrHiilHi.li" 

i:i avatlal.lt- l.. ii-rio ..l" ML- l(,-] t .|.:r 
I'm lliK.-nluli'.ii I'.-ul.-i' ;.| ('nin.-i.'n 

Shitii.li, Ati^jiu.hJ!!. VM. ;M:iM, ini.|.-r 

llMli'l' ,\'li|,il''J AH 'Ml! -MH ll, . HI! 

IMS |iiii.-lia .*! t.y HH u . (ht-nnrli !'n- 



itt 



'"lli-rliiui. In lli' mi.'iiiif, >.itH'M> (") 
ll hlimihl IT a.l.ii. !;i ,,l fl , ((,.- MITIIK 

^trji., Au.nUim Ilr, V. Wnkw.. IM. 
Hx yftH, H,.,tr.,r.1. MjiBjt., iiv:ttt, 



New Amphibious Vehicle 
Under Development 



i- 



' 1 '! 11 ' 1 !-: S ;,,. A ' 1 ' n V, 1 l| ' !ltltl " All1l "tvc Irncltcil v.'liii'lc cxn-pt 
'MK'i- (A1A(,), Win-mi, Midi., In ninvi-iilioiml Inicltf! il 

' 



lltal insleail of 

n pilot nmdeh: <>f an chains on eaeii side 

'xpermienlid IJIariiie Cnrp :i Alar);inal hicyrlc chain:; and 17 widc-i ra'iV,' l'nw 
H'rnmt Vclin-le (M1V) hi'injv devel- pri-Miiiiro l.'rni-tirc'ii are striiiif hi- 
npn.l lo o|ientte in the swamps and Iween Hie chains. The chains are 
''"'/ue .i ' ^"UllK 1 "- 1 *!. Asia. driven !>y hvo larj-e sprnekets located 

(Mlicially d.'NMvnale.l |.|ie XMYHll nn each ;;i,|o al I lie rront, Twn silill- 
(.nrrt) arrier (snl'l lire Iraclted). the lar npnirld-t!; al, the rear are adjust,. 
nne ami nne hall ton vehicle is sprcili- al>le In e.xerl, letKdnn nn Hie ehain. 
eally de,'Lij;ned lnnperat<i in areas coin- - 

pri.-.ed ninslly of \vjiii-r and nilld, 

ATA(' was j-,ive|i I he juli nl' de\ r i'l 

opini', Hie vehicle tlinnif.li an a)-,i 

nii-nl, lielwei-n the Marine Cnrpn and 
thi^Army Maleriel Command, 

'!'" !i|"'r,l up (lir program, ATAC 
Inoli nn Hie job of hllildill]', Hie ;;e\'en 
|dl"' Tiindels in its slin|,s it), (lie 
M.-lrn,l Arsenal, At the samn time 
]v t |ili-},|'i I'm- i|itolalinns wrre senl nut 
In indiiMry Tor an advaneed prndtic 

limi erntiurri'illt; ilni | |i )n i|,. t | | in i,|,|,.. 

I inn mill rail. 

'tile MTV, \vilh II e,l'n;;;i \\-ei)',ll| of 

M.J'iiH pniindu, wilt earry ii.llllll pounds 
nl enj-|;o nr a fully equipped Marine 
M|iiad of hi, and is nperaled hy a ( W o 
man n-i>w, 

In appearance j| lo..Ks | j|d> | 



arrani'.einenl where Hie rolline, of 
wheels moves Hie vehicle. 

The IlKlil.-wclftlil. nlumintini con- 
sl rnc I inn in comhinal inn with Hie 
lerra lii-es will irnvide tin' MTV \villi 
e\ci'||en|, aniphi iloiiii capahilities, Tin 1 
nir pressure of I he (ires will he 
iippt'oximiilelv Ihrei' pounds a si|Uaiv 
inch, The wiieels jiropi-t Hie vehicle 
al ahoul se\-en nules an hour over 
inland u'alers. 'I'np land speeil is 
ahoul III. miles an lunir. 

Tin- vehicle will In- conlrolled Hie 
same us any I racked vehicli- \\'ilh 
I n rnillfv ai'li ii 'vci I hy I he slowdown nr 
aluppirifv of nne side while the wheels 
on Hie nllii't' side are accelerated. 



DSA Support To Encompass 
19 Weapon Systems 

'I'll" lii-ii-MM- Supply Aj-.i-ni-y The M >n]ir> ,.l this lype nl' :;ilp|inrt 

I I I. 1 - A | v.riipon [.yi.lmi:. j.upjiorl pi'n |,y MSA iii l elh'i'leil in llli' J'iu-1 I hal 

t: lam v. ill pinvKlf i.lipply it-'iiiii I'm 1 I lie iq-.i-nry proviilivi :ionie 'I'U.lllll) 

Uir A i niy'.i _ ,'>lieu,|an t:inl, uml |ln< ilr- mi i ..I' |'lir- jipprosiiiiiilrly l;!(),li()l) 

'Vat;,':, >i 'I",;. (Teciirr, 't'liilar inn! ih-nifi ;;uppnrlinj- ihr 1'olari'i nyMn-m. 

'''''I" 1 '' mi , ilr ;,hip-,. In-]' in ni it)'. 1 in l-'or I lie IV aynli'inii already ' lii-inn' 

llai.'h, Thl.: v. JU lumr, I'SA'ji Mlp [.llpp.M'1,',1 hy /ISA. Ihi' a('.i''iiey in 

!>.Hl ..I MilHiiiy Si-ivtrc v\ra| ..... -,y.. inaiiit aininn' a nil-rent stock iivnllnhll 



11 |] i ' '" ^ '"I'll "I 111, inv.tlvini; al'nnl ily nl' !lii percent ni' I he I-HI,(IHH ili-iniJ 

i;..,l)Mi^ n.-ni'.. inViilvcil, Ahnlll hiill' of llii'M' tleinn .nre 

'''"\ ' "'I'" "l ';ll|,|.nll nl Sriviri- i.| |||e flr-i'l rmiji- lypr- ].|nek.-.| l.y I III- 

v,rap,.n '.VMl.-ia- it, |,;,;;irnlly cnnlln.'il Hel'i'tDii' I'llecl rnnirii Supply Ceiiler n|. 

in Mi.- -upjiiuni- nl' main). -nan, -e '.tip Maytnn, Mhi,,, ;, tielil nclivily 11!' HMA, 

I'.nl il.-.n .^uhii-h ar.- ..I' the cni,ni,i-r -j 1 ),,. | ( -niainin|-. iteiiin are ;iciit lereil In- 

l.il I -.pi-, Da-v ( ,iv n.iii.iii.-i.-rl In !> Iwei-n llie vnrinils ntln-f MSA ei'iilei'.'i 

Hi. "Inl., ami pi' VI--." HI' ill,. ;,ysl ..... :i. lln'NUi;liiiHl Ih.- I'nitnl Stadvi, 
i! "pp" -"! I" inaj.M- a^Ttuhlie:;, nmi. Willi (In- tw ..... -w aihlit inn;i, USA 

I'.ni.-Ml : . .-ml it.'Mi;t amt inaj.u' eijliip will Mlpply almlll Ji.tMIU ileins of (lie 

)n. 'tit whirl, .-niitinth- |.. lit- Mip|'M<'il Shi-riiliin I'iinK ami i:!,(Hl(! of (he '|Vr- 

ihn-.-ily i-y lit-- ;:-i vt.'fi;, rice, Tai'lar and Tahri niisdih' >ihip;<. 



DEFENSE PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS 
TO SMALL BUSINESS 



. Ifliili July-Kir. HliiS 



Mii-itl fri'in All l''ii 
)H-nl f)'"in Sniull 
Hniiill llii>ini')i'i 



t' !i (-tiVKHNMCM" 



OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20301 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 




Project Themis 

A PROGRAM TO STRENGTHEN THE 
NATION'S ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS 

Thornis, a new university-based research program designed to 
.-trt-ntfthen the scientific and engineering capabilities of selected 
academic institutions throughout the United States, and to enable 
a Iar#flr number to carry out high quality research on problems 
relating to the national security, has been initiated by DOD. 

Tho Secretary of Defense, in announcing the program, stated 
that, the project is being conducted to establish new academic 
fimttM-s of excellence in research areas important to DOD's long 
i-jingii scientific and technological goals. 

Brochures have been sent to more than 400 universities describ- 
ing the aims of the program and requesting the schools to submit 
[jropnsed programs. Up to SO new departmental centers will be 
initiated this year with additional programs to be established in 
following years. 

It is expected that development of additional university graduate 
research in specific areas relating to defense will contribute to long- 
range U.S. security both by the production of advanced research 
results: and by the research training made possible by a broader 
base or university centers. 

Ninety problems needing research in eight specific areas in 

science and ^technology have been identified in which the develop- 

ment of additional university graduate research at the doctoral 

eve! could contribute to the national defense. These areas cover 

the f h>,ical, engineering, environmental and medical sciences 

fi m' TniT^t '* atte ' lfa r ; "election, surveillance ~l 
om * f : Gim F and powei " intonation processing 

* brochM ; e * b *ta by 

Pentagon, Washin, o 20301. * & Ensinee S. The 



Space Forecasting 
Working Group 

Established 

A working group on space j 
forecasting, consisting of scien- 
tists working in seven distinct 
areas of environmental research, 
has been established at the Air 
Force Cambridge Re so arch 
Laboratories (AFCRL), I,. 0. 
Hanscom Field, Mass. The group 
will provide in-depth, technical 
competence in 'developing- and 
standardizing techniques for 
forecasting changes in the aero- 
space environment. It will op- 
erate under the chairmanship of 
Major Ronald A. Bena, Chief of 
the AFCRL Space Forcca-sting 
Branch. 

The seven areas of rcscmrJi j 
under the purview of the work- ; 
ing group are: high altitude; 
density, ionospheric conditions,,! 
energetic particles, georrmgna- ' 
tism, solar radio activity, solar : 
optical activity, and solar x-i'ay 
events. 

AFCRL's space forecasting ' 
program was established in 
January 1964 to uncover clues 
that would affect Air Force I 
operations, particularly those : 
changes that might degrade the ! 
performance of surveillance and 
reconnaissance equipments,; 
Space forecasting data are . 
quired by a host of sensors 
ground-based sensors, sensor 
carrying satellites, instrumented 
high altitude aircraft, hig-h alii-, 
tude balloons, and optical 
radio telescopes. 




IN THIS ISSUE 

Development of Procurement Policy 

Configuration Management in the Navy 

"Share in Freedom" Bond Program Recommended to 
American Industry _ ___ 

Contract Administration Problems 

Research in the Air Force 

U.S.-Canndian Logistics Cooperation 

Oceanography in the Navy Today and Tomorrow 

DEPARTMENTS 

Bibl iogmphy 

Meetings and Symposia 

Speakers Calendar _ 

From the Speakers Rostrum 

Calendar of Events _ 

About People _ 

Defense Procurement 



1 

4 

8 
13 
17 
33 

35 



15 

21 
24 
25 
32 
39 
42 



"Share in Freedom" 
;s 




"Freedom must be at all times defended, because it is nt all thucn benlcff* 
Not all of us are called to flffht on the battlefield. . . , Buying SnvlitffH Bom 
regularly, is aa important to this nation in the long reach of history us a line 
anything we can do. 

"We can do no less than those who light and die for our freedoms " 
President Lyndon B. Johnson. ' ' ' 

Seo article, '"Share in Freedom' Bond Program Recommended to Amoric 
Industry," beginning on page 8. 



Armed Force Day To Be 
Observed on May 20, 1967 

Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara 
Salutes Members of the Military Services 

On this Armed Forces Day, it is fitting 1 that we honor the mem- 
bers of our Military Services whose actions throughout the world 
arc worthy of our nation's noblest traditions. 

We recognize that our heritage of freedom, with its accent on 
(he dignity of the individual, is our most valued possession and 
that it must be constantly defended. Nowhere is this recognized 
more devotedly than in our Armed Forces. 

In Vietnam, and wherever our forces are deployed, more than 
three million men and women in uniform sustain and defend this 
legacy against those who would destroy it. They know that free- 
dom cannot be secure in America when it is threatened elsewhere 
in the world. They realize that our commitments in Vietnam, and 
to our allies elsewhere, must be upheld. 

I urge all citizens to rededicate themselves to the ideals of 
service to country and devotion to duty exemplified by these 
courageous men and women and by their families. 





American Helicopter Society's 

Annual Forum To Feature 
Operations/ Management Symposium 

The American Helicopter Society will sponsor an Operations/ 
Management Symposium as part of its Annual National Forum to 
be held at the Sheraton-Park Hotel, Washington, D.C., May 10-12 
The symposium will be held in the afternoon on May 11, starting 
immediately after the membership luncheon. 

The purpose of the symposium will be to pinpoint problems and 
provide open discussion to develop a closer working relationship 
between industry and DOD personnel concerned with operations/ 
management techniques in the helicopter/VTOL field. Major Gen- 
eral Harry WO. Kinnard, USA, Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff 
tor J orce Development, Department of the Army, will be the sym- 
posium chairman Edward W. Goshorn, Boeing Vertol Division, 
will be assistant chairman. 



,A S ? en to a11 who have an interest in the subject 

aiea Attendees wil also be welcome at a variety of other events 

ill fl, I Um T Cludmg i he Techn *<al Trade Exhibit where several 
helicopters and many other products will be displayed. 

An addition to this year's forum proceedings will be the premiere 
showing; of the society's first motion picture, "Vertability" whose 

f ^Tf P nds - t0 ^ he th , eme of the *i Pi-eparS of S s 
film was begun in December, when industry was asked to con 

ons, and 




Published by the Department 

of Defense 
Hon. Robert S. McNnmara 

Secretary of Dcfcnno 

Hon. Cyrus R. Vance 

Deputy Secretary of Ocfeiimi 

Hon. Phil G. Colliding 

Assistant Secretary of DefoiiHo 

(Public Affairs) 
Col. Joel B. Stephens, USA 

Director for Community ItclntioiiH 
Col. Edwin C. Gibson, USA 

Chief, Business & Labor Division 



Editor LCdr. E. W. Bradford, USN 

Assoc. Editor Miss Cecilia Pollok 

Assoc. Editor Mr. Rick La Fnlco 

Editorial Assistant 

Norman E. Worm, JO1, USN 



The Defense Inchistmf liultcMn 
is published monthly by the BumnoHfl 
& Labor Division, Dircctorntn for 
Community Relations, Offico of tho 
Assistant Secretary of Dofonso (Pub- 
lic Affairs), Use of funds for m-hititift 
this publication was approved by tlm 
Director of the Bureau of the JlurtKut. 

The purpose of the liullotin ifi 
to servo as a moans of eommumivitioiL 
between the Department of I)f.c;nno 
(DOD) and its authorized a^ondcM 
and defense contractors and othnr 
business interests. It will sorvo me 
a guide to industry concenmipr "ID- 
cial policies, programs and projcrtH, 
and will seek to stimulate thought hy 
members of the defense-industry toum 
in solving the problems that may arlw 
m fulfilling the requirements of tho 

Material in the Bulletin In no,- 
lected to supply pei-tinent unclnHnlflnd 
data of interest to the business com- 
munity. Suggestions from ImhiHlry 
representatives for topics to 1>n cov- 
ered in future issues should ho for- 
warded to the Business & Lubor 
Division, 

The Bulletin is distributed without 
charge each month to representatives 
of industry and to agencies of the Dr- 
partment of Defense, Army, Navy nnd 
Air Force, Requests for copies should 
be addressed to the Business & Lalwr 
Division, OASD(PA), Room 2E818, 
OMM J*^ ". , Washington, D.C. 
20301, telephone, (202) OXford 5-2709* 

Contents of the magazine may ho 
reprinted freely without requesting 
permission. Mention of tho sourco will 
be appreciated, 




Lt. Col. Jacob B. Pompan, USAF 



In the past few years the Armed 
Services Procurement Regulation 
(ASPR) has become an impressive 
document both in size and structure. 
As a direct result of Secretary 
of Defense McNamara's directive 
to eliminate the publication of 
implementing- procurement regula- 
tions by each of the separate Serv- 
ices, the ASPR has become the sole 
source of major policy guidance for 
procurement within the entire Defense 
Department. Absorbing and stand- 
ardizing much of what had previously 
been in the departmental regulations 
of the Military Services caused a na- 
tural expansion in the size of the 
ASPR, and has resulted in a much 
broader application of that regula- 
tion throughout industry as well as 
within the Services, 

In addition to this expansion of the 
ASPR, the very character of the 
ASPR has been altered, Prior to this 
intensive effort to standardize pro- 
curement regulations, the ASPR had 
been primarily a document of major 
policy, as distinguished from one of 
procedures. Detailed procurement 
procedures were covered in the vari- 
ous procurement regulations of the 
Army, Navy and the Air Force. How- 
ever, in the process of eliminating 
policy implementation from these 
Service regulations, it became appar- 
ent that policy and procedure were 
so closely intertwined that to stand- 
ardize one while neglecting the other 
would, in many cases, result in no im- 
provement, and could easily increase 
tho danger of confusion. Today, there- 
fore, the ASPR covers not only the 
policies but also many of the proce- 
dures to which all of the Services 
must adhere, 

While th.is drastic change in sine 
and character of the ASPR has its 
roots in sound procurement manage- 
ment, it has not been accomplished 
without difficulties. For instance, the 
size of the regulation alone makes its 
mastery as an operational tool an 
awesome task. In addition, the fine 
balance which is required between 
precise wording and an easy work- 
ability of the regulation is extremely 



difficult to achieve. But perhaps the 
single, most critical problem lies in 
the area of communication. While 
DOD undertook the development of a 
single procurement regulation in 
order to establish a standard through- 
out DOD in the policy area, and the 
largest part of that task has been ac- 
complished, what remains is the not 
insignificant task of communicating to 
the operating level of both industry 
and Government the substance of the 
regulation in a totally understandable 
and usable form. 

Although this communication prob- 
lem is common to all large organiza- 
tions, it could be particularly serious 
in DOD. The vast scope of defense 
contracting activities and the num- 
ber of contract actions, as well as the 
broad jurisdictional coverage of the 
ASPR, all combine to create a poten- 
tially serious problem. However, this 
is an area that has not been neglected 
by DOD. A primary goal of the pro- 
curement policy organizations within 
DOD is to insure that the operating 
level within each of the separate 
Services and the Defense Supply 
Agency has a common understanding 




Lt. Col. Jacob B. Pompan, USAF, 
is a student at the Air War College, 
Maxwell AFB, Ala. Before entering 
AWC he was assigned in the Direc- 
torate of Procurement Policy in 
Headquarters, USAF, and was the 
Air Force policy member of the 
Armed Services Procurement Regula- 
tion Committee. Upon completion of 
the course at AWC in June, Col. 
Pompan is scheduled to be assigned to 
the Defense Contract Administration 
Services, Defense Supply Agency. 



Defense Industry Bulletin U & aUPT ' ui ' I)ocs - 



of the policies approved by the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) 
and that they implement them in a 
manner consistent with approved 
DOD-wide standards. 

The purpose of this article is to 
shed some light on how these pro- 
curement policies are developed and 
how the task of communication is 
being approached. 

The Armed Services Procurement 
Regulation Committee. 

The major portion of the ASPR is 
initially developed in depth and finally 
approved for publication by the ASPR 
Committee. This OSD committee is 
under the supervision of the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Procurement, in the Office of the As- 
sistant Secretary of Defense (Instal- 
lations and Logistics). It is made up 
of two representatives from each of 
the three Military Departments, two 
from the Defense Supply Agency 
(DSA), and a chairman and executive 
secretary from OSD. One member 
from each of the departments acts as 
a policy member, while the other par- 
ticipates as a legal member. 

The committee meets at least two 
full days each week throughout the 
year. Proposed changes or additions 
to the ASPR are listed as cases on a 
formal agenda. Cases are generally 
initiated and forwarded to the com- 
mittee for consideration by any of the 
members. However, other Govern- 
ment activities or, as a matter of 
fact, any source that has an interest 
in the material covered by the ASPR 
can forward proposals to the com- 
mittee. The agenda items are re- 
viewed in committee to insure that 
the purpose of each proposal is 
clearly understood and that the pro- 
posal has sufficient merit to warrant 
further study. 

Tlie ASPR Committee operates 
through a subcommittee system. 
When a proposal initially appears too 
complex for an immediate decision 
but seems worthy of additional study, 
it is sent to an ASPR subcommittee. 
This subcommittee is composed of 
representatives from each department 
and is generally chaired by the Serv- 
ice with the predominant interest in 
the particular issue. The subcommit- 
tee reviews all facets of the proposal 
and either recommends rejection or 
submits detailed coverage to the com- 
mittee. Upon return of the subcom- 
mittee report to the ASPR Commit- 
tee, each member is given the 
opportunity to review the proposal 



1 



viations from ASPR, and it is the 
c responsibility of contracting of- 

ficers to request such deviations 
Vhenevcr they are required in the 
best interest of the Government. 
l*\jr the purpose of this paragraph, 
a deviation shall be considered to 
be any of the following: 

"(i) when a contract clause is set 
forth in ASPR for use verbatim, 
use of a contract clause covering 
the same subject matter which 
varies from the ASPR coverage, 
or use of a collateral provision 
which modifies either the clause 
or its prescribed application con- 
stitutes a deviation; however, in 
the case of a purchase or con- 
tract of an offshore contracting 
activity with a foreign contractor 
made outside the United States, 
its possessions, or Puerto Rico, 
such contract clauses may (sub- 
ject to the direction of authority 
above the level of the contract- 
ing officer) be modified if no 
change in intent, principle, or 
substance is made (offshore con- 
tracting activities shall keep the 
cognizant unified Commander ad- 
vised of significant deviations 
effected under this subparagraph 

<0>; 

**<ii) when a contract clause is set 
forth in ASPR but not for use 
verbatim, use of a contract clause 
covering the same subject matter 
which is inconsistent with the 
intent, principle and substance of 
the ASPR clause or related cov- 
erage of the subject matter; 
"Ciii) omission of any mandatory 
contract clause constitutes a de- 
viation; 

**Civ) when a Standard, DD, or 
other form is prescribed by 
.ASPR or a Department of Dc- 
f onsc Directive, use of any other 
form for the same purpose con- 
stitutes a deviation; 
**Cv) alteration of a Standard, DD, 
or other form (other than De- 
partmental forms), except as 
authorized by ASPR or a Depart- 
ment of Defense Directive con- 
stitutes a deviation; 
**Cvi) when limitations arc imposed 
in ASPR or a Department of De- 
fense Directive upon the use of 
a contract clause, form, proce- 
dure, typo of contract, or any 
other procurement action, includ- 
ing but not limited to the mak- 
ing or amendment of a contract, 

'efense Industry Bulletin 



or actions taken in connection 
with the solicitation of bids or 
proposals, award, administration 
or settlement of contracts, the 
imposition of lesser or greater 
limitation constitutes a devia- 
tion,- or 

"(vii) when a policy, procedure, 
method, or practice of conducting 
procurement actions of any kind 
at any stage of the procurement 
process is covered by ASPR, nny 
policy, procedure, method, or 
practice which is inconsistent 
with that set forth constitutes 
a deviation, 

"1-10D.2 Deviations Affecting One 
Contract or Transaction. Deviations 
from this regulation or a Depart- 
ment of Defense Directive which 
affect only one contract or pro- 
curement may be made or author- 
ized in accordance with Depart- 
mental procedures provided (i) 
special circumstances justify a 
dcviaton and (ii) written notice 
of such deviation is furnished to 
the Assistant Secretary of De- 
fense (Installations and Logis- 
tics); and in the case of the De- 
partment of the Army, to the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army 
(Installations and Logistics), 
Attention: ASPR Policy Mem- 
bers; the Department of the 
Navy, the Chief of Naval Mate- 
rial, Attention; Code MAT 21C; 
Department of the Air Force, 
Director of Procurement Manage- 
ment, DCS/S&L, Attention 
AFSPM-AS; and the Defense 
Supply Agency, Executive Direc- 
tor, Procurement and Production, 
Attention: DSAH-PM. Such 
written notices shall be given in 
advance of the effective date of 
such deviations unless exigency 
of the situation requires imme- 
diate action. 

"1-109.3 Deviations Affectiiiff 
More Than One Contract or Con- 
tractor. Except as authorized in 
1-109.2, deviations from this Reg- 
ulation or a Department of De- 
fense Directive will not be effected 
unless approved in advance by the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Installations and Logistics) ; 
provided, however, that unani- 
mous approval by the members 
of the ASPR Committee will con- 
stitute approval of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense (Installa- 
tions and Logistics) of all mat- 



ters except those involving ma- 
jor policy. Written requests for 
such approval will be submitted to 
the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Installations and Logistics) 
through the ASPR Committee as 
far in advance as exigencies of the 
situation will permit, or alterna- 
tively, nt the option of the Mate- 
riel Secretary concerned, through 
use of the Materiel Secretaries' 
Weekly Conference." 

OSD and the Communications Loop. 

The ASPR Committee is now proc- 
essing over 300 cases a year. Recently 
it underwent a soul searching exercise 
initiated by the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Procurement 
to analyze the operation and search 
for changes which might improve this 
workload of complex cases. Some 
changes were made, but they were 
more form than substanceand I 
think properly so. Tho subjects 
covered by the ASPR Committee are 
becoming more and more complicated 
by the very nature of the state of the 
art in procurement concepts. If the 
ASPR is to reflect accurately these 
changing: concepts, it seems only rea- 
sonable that it will become a more 
complex document. In recognition of 
this, the departmental representatives 
attempt to establish the foundation 
for effective communication through 
the early coordination of the proposed 
changes with their Hold organizations. 
Building- on that foundation re- 
quires a knowledge not only of the 
regulations, but the concepts behind 
them, This article will mention two 
activities within DOD where resources 
are being applied to establish a com- 
plete understanding' of the procure- 
ment regulations and so build on that 
foundation. 

Training. The management of 
procurement training by the Services 
is now centralized within the OSD un- 
der the Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Procurement. One of the 
functions of that office is to establish 
the curriculum and the standards for 
procurement training throughout 
DOD. In addition, that office monitors 
the courses to insure that the precise 
policies being taught reflect the spirit 
and intent of DOD. It is interesting- to 
note that industry representatives 
participate with DOD in determining 
the procurement training curriculum. 

(Continued on Page 10) 



The Navy has traditionally sup- 
ported the concept in material acquisi- 
tion that both the Naval user and the 
prime contractor are product co-man- 
agers. Configuration management, in 
the product management sense, has 
always been employed in the design- 
engmeei-ingr-production activities of 
the engineer and the production man- 

^S\ I " teractions <* coordinated 
With fleet and shore readiness require- 
ments for material maintenance man- 
agement, and program and inventory 
control support for supply manage- 




Capt. William Scith, USN 



Although configuration manage- 
ment has been practiced in varying 
degrees within the Navy, the need 
f configuration management as a 
total discipline in the Navy is rec- 
ognized and has been emphasized in 
the nndmgs and recommendations of 

I y J 08iBtlc Su PP Q1 't Task 
e. The "Plan for Configuration 
*l outlined specific program 
requirements for configuration man- 
agement. 

From this objective, there evolved 
a basic plan for the Navy's Config- 
uration Management Program as 
Promulgated in Naval Material Com- 
mand Instruction 5000.6. This pl an 
is to i 

Implement DOD policies and 
principles for configuration manage- 
ment. ,,, the Department *& 



to achieve the objectives of configura- 
tion management. These objectives 
have been variously stated by others 
but, for a fuller understanding of the 
Navy's plan, it is well to present 
them here. The objectives of config- 
uration management in the Depart- 
ment of the Navy are to: 

Assist management in achieving 
required item performance, opera 
lonal efficiency, logistics support and 
readiness by providing the 

control and status accounting' 
_ Allow the maximum degree of de- 
sign and development latitude, yet in- 



and depth of C0 ntrol 
y for production and logistics 

Attain maximum effi c i ency in the 

a 



Improve configuration manage- 
ment throughout the concept fo" mu . 
labon, contract definition and ac^ul 
of new Naval warfle 



Attain the optimum degree of 
-" h ' m configuration manage' 

- -' P^etlures, data, forms 
and reports at all interfaces. 

Accomplish configuration identifi- 
cation, control and status accounting 



Establish controls of alterations 
and changes at all echelons and all 
Phases of applicable functions. 

' Develop and i mp i Gmen1 - fc 

for effective total configuration man" 
agement to provide complete n^i. 
Wte and up-to-date ^ration 
status accounting data m " 

^Determine and maintain current 
eonflgnration for new construct^ 
and nservica Naval warfare systems 
Improve the coordination and 
processing of configuration changes 
"eluding waivers, deviations and 
*""" change, between the 




' 

, n updating spare 
wpp parts toward achieving 
ta program and inventory ' 

an , tidpated 

plan, th 



ith, USN, is Dir 






through maximum utilisation of fc, 
meal data and information ocndi 
m other management areas an d 
Provide a sound technical bnse f 
management decisions. 

There is also a need for tlio p ; 
tionmg of configuration manngi' 
in the Navy with other iwmagorHE' 
improvement advances both j n t> 
Navy and DOD. A presentation / 
this positioning was made at the If. 

Society for Quallty^onteol/N^ 
1J&6. It was announced then that ft* 
Navy was preparing a manual f 
configuration management to ]mv & 
visibility for this positioning and b 
describe the interrelationships. 

The Navy's Configuration 
ment Manual will prescribe! 
ment procedures and impli 
principles to be followed in oircctur 
within the Department of tlio N'nvj | 
established policies for wnflgurat*' 
management of Navy mntcrlnl Hem- 
-It will reflect all current policy j--. 
suances from higher authority affect- 
nrm _ area of operation tln-miebonl 
uvu. I'urther it will reflect Navy 
Policy issuances still in effect nnJ 
support those on-going Navy pro- 
grams which are to be continued ad 
intensified. 

A draft manual is essentially com- 
pleted for coordination purposes wth- 
m the Navy and recommendations 
leading toward a final document. Itlr 
anticipated that the final review will * 
be accomplished in early 1967. 

The format of the Navy's config- 
uration management manual is as fol- 
lows: 

Glossary of terms. 
Table of Contents. 

I. Introduction. 

II. Policy, Relationships and Re- 
sponsibilities. 

III. General Information and Life 
Cycle Coverage. 

IV. Configuration Identification. 

V. Configuration Control. 

VI. Configuration Status Account- ^ 
mg. :*= 

VII. Audits. 

VIII. Contract Provisions, 

The first three sections provide an 
introduction to and background for 



April 1967 




T-1 

0) 

K 



configuration management in the 
Navy; policy, relationships with 
other programs, and the designation 
of management responsibilities to tho 
Headquarters, Naval Material Com- 
mand, the Designated Project Man- 
agers, the Systems Commands (Air, 
Electronics, Ordnance, Ships, Facili- 
ties, and Supply), and the Navy oper- 
ating forces. 

Information on the basic plan for 
Navy configuration management is 
presented as dependent upon other 
functional management areas. The 
concept of base line management is 
reinforced in the manual through life 
cycle interface networks. The need 
for flexibility in base lino manage- 
ment is recognized for adaptation to 
a particular project, to product man- 
agement, and to the method of acqui- 
sition of Naval material items and 
their stage of life. 

An abbreviated presentation of the 
activity of configuration management 
and its influence on other .functional 
areas is made in tho Navy Configura- 
tion Management Life Cycle Inter- 
face Network, Figure 1. The network 
also traces the various base linos as 
arranged in an orderly pattern in ac- 
cordance with their phase relation- 
ship. Base lino management in 
achieved by developing the functional 
characteristics and technical dnncrii>. 
toons of a Navy material item at 
designated points in its |if p eV o!c 
through the use of uniform docunfon-' 
tation engineering control, Tho em- 
Payment of the base line technique 
ensures _ an orderly transition from 
next 1 - laJ h C0mmitmont l )oi t to the 

_ Til ft ''L'-'t'i 1 J] fi ))1*0(**- 

ess, ine base lines serve 
' reference points and 



r ilu . f s P ec ''fications, engineering 
drawings, associated lists, a] , JS 
echmca and management 7ata T 

t^*^.**"'**"*^ 

w ^l ". ** -hen join* 



cation of the t n A 



terfaces from incopliun in Hi. 1 
search phase (n nnitiinmtinn in 
operational {m;i>) plm:;e. The 
work also introduces the foldr 
bane line;! and tlit-ir |ihaM> n-lnti.in 
ship.s: 

Operational r<><|mirmi<nf h:r < 
lino. 

Ku national ( 
line, 

Allocated (fmirtimi.'i 

Product lin.sc line. 

OpuniUoiial !:ti|i|nn 

(he nniniia 

plllCl'l 

of conlljiiinilion mnnntr -nt 

other functioniil nmnnn 
Tho technii'al data and 
rc(|Liireil for run. 
nient iniiMt I'diuilihii, 
mum )Hi;iN)|f e.slcnl, an 
non-redundant iinrllcni n 
ti'i^hnical dalu rci 
for to the lirfniitt 

Ulint l!)(i(i, "Nv,\ 

') Tho itlijn'livr nf MOD h. in- 
MUln! moHt rnmcimirally 11,,. un.uinum 
uinmuit of data need. 
support military i<y,,l<. M , !t , tll( ,|, 
!" 1(I ""I'vlci'ji will 1m ;,, ,.(,.,1 , 1V 



(u 




Other Navy Pro,?raiiiH. 

' J 'l'" opi>nilin,v 



Navy , manual ar, to |,, 

""' : "f '" 
in 



April J967 



i-i.--- rfare System Engineering 
*i-linti . D 

" A process of forming 
com plete functional system 
functionally related 
segments that have 
electrical, mechanical, 
' or otner engineer- 
betwoen them for the 
-r- warfai 'c system. The man- 
Vules for the initial prepara- 
l *. C0nti nued maintenance of 
U identifica tion: for exam- 
contro1 drawings, coor- 
s, and master conflg- 
co e control of engineer- 

,. * fJi fim) changes affecting system 
. iituico of inter-system inter- 
j tvncl tlie establishment of cor- 
Ma-ta elements for configura- 
^tus accounting records, 
^ v to Configuration 
*ment Manual 
l^oviow of the procedural sec- 
the manual follows: 

IV, Configuration Identiflca- 
the manual presents con- 
i ma nagement exercised 
*" l i the utilization of progres- 
iiore detailed identification in 
Ji'ivi of base line technical dc- 
"oi is. For every item, there shall 
:<> 11 figuration identification that, 
start of development, will 
y the required functional and 
n-l chcaractcristics and, after 
\V, cl escribe those characteris- 
H ixchioved. Tho initial techni- 
K<;i*fpUons are the base lines of 
it.-fi.tion management. The base 
me! all approved changes there- 
aii item's current configuration 
leittlcm. 

identification base lines arc 
, the functional base line 
1 1 tt p roduct base line. Other 
mtl base lines are termed 
oxvxvl requirements, allocated 
oiifOt and operational support, 
:?li the latter may include prod- 
ii'ovement* 

a continuing basis, the com- 
pliyslcal and functional char- 
Jet** 'as amended to reflect m- 
elianges/alterations/improve- 
(f;lie .operational support base 
vll'l be established through the 
ti* (use) pliase of the item. 
l>i*paration of configuration 
jtttion, i.e., the technical de- 
,,-j.gi, will be consistent with the 
/ Production / operational 
of the involved Navy ma- 
* and the descriptions will 
following criteria; 

Naval warfare systems 



and major projects, complete techni- 
cal descriptions will be prepared for 
each of the appropriate base lines 
outlined in Figure 1 and to the base 
line technical description require- 
ments. 

e For Naval warfare systems and 
major projects now in engineering 
and operational systems development, 
the technical descriptions will be pre- 
pared to the functional base line. 
The functional (characteristics) base 
line normally results from the con- 
cept formulation phase and gen- 
erally will require complete follow-on 
technical descriptions similar to those 
for a new system/project. 

For Naval warfare systems and 
major projects now in production, the 
product base line will be the first 
base line to be established. The tech- 
nical descriptions for the product 
base line will include those appro- 
priate general, detail, performance, 
or design specifications, engineering 
drawings, data lists, test procedures 
and other data that define the phys- 
ical and functional characteristics of 
the item at the beginning of produc- 
tion, together with all approved 
changes since production initiation. 
Such technical descriptions may not 
be the complete descriptions as called 
for under new or partial develop- 
ment, but must bo adequate to pro- 
vide a basis for configuration audit 
and configuration status accounting. 
6 For Naval warfare systems and 
major projects in operational use and 
out of production, only the operational 
support base line will be established 
at this point of the life cycle. The 
technical descriptions for the opera- 
tional support base line will depend 
on the existence or necessary recon- 
struction of technical data to provide 
the identification 

Section V, Configuration Control, 
requires that configuration control 
shall be exercised at all echelons of 
command in the Navy. The configura- 
tion of items will be managed by 
controlling changes to the current 
configuration identification that de- 
scribes the functional and physical 
characteristics of the items. All af- 
fected activities will participate in 
consideration of both proposed base 
lines and of all proposed changes 
from those base lines throughout the 
life cycle of the item. 

All new Navy change control pro- 
grams will be implemented to ensure 
control over configuration identifica- 
tion and to maintain configuration 
status accounting in accordance with 



the policies, procedures and imple- 
menting principles of the manual. 
Existing change control procedures 
will be reviewed and revised as nec- 
essary to ensure compliance with the 
manual. 

Section VI, Configuration Status 
Accounting, requires that reporting 
and recording for configuration man- 
agement include delineation of the 
mandatory base line, status of pro- 
posed changes to the base lino, effec- 
tivity and status of implementation 
of approved changes, and delineation 
of the item's current configuration 
identification. Data records will be 
maintained in a manner ensur- 
ing the continued visibility needed to 
manage the configuration effectively. 
Records shall be automated only when 
the volume of data- recorded or the in- 
formation retrieval response time re- 
quired for configuration accounting 
makes automation economically feasi- 
ble and desirable. Data record com- 
plexity will be consistent with config- 
uration identification and may be es- 
tablished to varying formats as re- 
quired by the functional or project 
manager, provided that the follow- 
ing objectives are fulfilled: 

Standard data elements are used 
for attainment of an optimum degree 
of uniformity in status accounting 
procedures, datn, forms and reports 
at all interfaces with industry, and 
between internal organizational seg- 
ments of the Naval systems com- 
mands, Chief of Naval Material des- 
ignated project managers, and Navy 
offices. 

The configuration status account- 
ing program, as established, is con- 
sistent with the intended needs, cost 
and complexity of tho applicable 
hardware. 

The configuration status account- 
ing records will provide the necessary 
information within an allotted time 
frame to the appropriate manager or 
engineer to permit effective engineer- 
ing, logistic support and management 
decisions. 

Section VII, Configuration Au- 
dits, requires that appropriate levels 
of command shall ensure by audit 
that the functional and physical char- 
acteristics achieved in an item match 
those specified in tho item's config- 
uration identification. First Unit 
Audits, Technical and Operation 
Evaluations, Board of Inspection and 
Survey Trails, and Production Dem- 
onstration and Acceptance are typ- 
ical audits. Due to the wide variety 
(Continued on Page 12) 



Industry Bulletin 



Have you taken a long, hard look at 
Payroll Savings in your organization 
hitr-ly? 

TlnTo i.s no hotter time than now, 
for tho Treasury's Savings Bonds 
Program has a now look. 

President Lyndon B. Johnson 
launched the 1967 "Share in Freedom" 
Horn! Campaign with the announce- 
ment of a companion Savings Note, 
popularly called a "Freedom Share." 
The President's announcement was 
made on a nationwide, closed-circuit 
telecast from Washington to meetings 
of some 10,000 Savings Bonds volun- 
teers in 32 cities. The meetings were 
held to announce plans for this year's 
intensive sales campaign in April and 
May. 

Freedom Shares, which will go on 
the market on May 1, will be sold only 
in combination with sales of Series E 
Savings Bonds, through regular Pay- 
roll Savings and Bond-a-Month Plans. 





The new security earns 4.74 percent 
interest when held to maturity four 
and one-half years. It must be held 
for one year before it can be cashed. 

Series E Bonds continue to earn 
4.15 percent interest when held to 
maturity seven years. 

Freedom Shares will be sold in 
four denominations-^, $50, $76 and 
100 with purchase prices of $20 26 
40.50, $60.75 and $81, respectively. 
There will be an annual limitation on 
holdings of $1,350 face value, and 

f ay !S "**' deducti < are limited 
S n !?' 26 J er weekly pay period> 
?40.60 per biweekly pay period, or $81 
per monthly pay period. 

With an investment of $39 for the 
srnal to* Bond/Share combination a 
purchaser can get back $BO-half in 
four a nd one -half years , the ^ 
naif in seven years. The combined 

h! to *" securities ' if each 

heM to ful maturity, is 4.39 percent. 
In introducing the Freedom Share 



a temporary addition to the Sav- 
ings Bonds "line" President John- 
son said; 

"Freedom must be at all times de- 
fended, because it is at all times be- 
sieged. Not all of us are called to 
fight on the battlefield. Many of us 
must quietly and firmly do what we 
can and all that we must here at 
home. Buying Savings Bonds, regu- 
larly, is as important to this nation 
in the long reach of history as al- 
most anything we can do. 

"We can do no less than those who 
fight and die for our freedoms. Last 
year, American servicemen bought 
almost $350 million worth of Savings 
Bonds close to $90 million in the 
last quarter alone. Battle honors 
come hard in Vietnam, because the 
price of honor is often the price of 
life. Yet in jungle and hamlet-on 
shipboard and airfield there is one 
trophy that every American unit 
prizes. It is not the enemy's nag. It 
is the Minute Man Flag that symbol- 
izes 90 percent or better participa- 
tion in the Payroll Savings Plan. 

"Throughout Vietnam, there are 
scorea of units who fly those flags 



lh:it 
anli of 



(In- 
" 

l hit' 
w.Ol 



for till our countrymoji to m-<\ I Jmva 

seoqi them in VioLnain. Tfiry nn- ilrr- 

lamtioiiH of our fai(,h, and Llicy i3r- 

clarc that we an; still tli 

tho pent saw with "I'lir 

freedom in their KOU!H and 

of Itiiowlodj-fd of their <>y<w.' 
Tho Pr(!nid(Mit'n jMirHoiia 

in tho Bond Program in 

doncfid by tho payroll (uiv 
ticipation rate of Whitn I 
ployons loo iiorcont. 

Tho Savings lidndu I'l- 
top-lcvol sufiport in linth (iovt-rnn 
and indiiHtry. PofitmiLHtor Cciu 
Lawi-onco F. O'Jti-ion in clialrtimn 
tho Jntordepiirtniimtal Havi'ni^: Uuinl 
Cominittco. Jlunid J. Hnuffhiim. Tn-fil- 
dent of Lockhwid Ah-urnfl Curp,. fn 
chairman of tho 10(17 JiulimLriul I'tiy- 
roll Snvlngw CominlUnn. J-aln.r, hh>. 
gives tho program HlroiiR harking. 
Georffo Moany, I'roitidont of thi- AKL./ 
CIO, is spnarhoadinif lahor'n |uu-llcl- 
pation. 

Industry's goal in Lhin yi^ar'n cnni- 
paiffii is 2,500,000 "Payroll PtUrMrt" 
who will join tho Payroll KuvluKri 
Plan or inmmso tlinh- curwnl nfh.t- 
mont for Saving's Boiula. 



->f 



JOIN THE 
STAR-SPANOUD 
FREEDOM PLAN 




Lyndon B. Johnson announces 



Freedom Sharca. 



April 1967 



The campaign brochure of the U.S. 
Industrial Payroll Savings Committee 
BC stresses "opportunity," pointing out 
that: 

"The Payroll Savings Plan for U.S. 
Savings Bonds offers your employees 
a way to build personal security in one 
of the world's safest investments. But 
more than that, it offers you and 
your employees a way 

to help MAINTAIN the strength 
of the dollar 

to EXPRESS patriotism in an 
effective way 

to BACK our free enterprise 
system." 

Heads of companies, both large and 
S small, which have successful Payroll 
Savings Plans, find these to be the 
chief advantages: 

Systematic Savings. The Payroll 
Savings Plan is an effective way for 
employees to save for the future 
easy, systematic thrift through which 
savings build automatically into sub- 
stantial reserves. These reserves will 
guarantee families more security and 
can be a foundation for personal 
financial planning. 

Patriotism. Employees reaffirm 
their faith in our country when they 
huy bonds. They become shareholders 
in America's future. 

Tax Advantages. Interest earned 
on Savings Bonds and Freedom 



Shares is exempt from state and lo- 
cal income taxes. Payment of Fed- 
eral income tax on E Bond and Free- 
dom Share interest may be deferred 
until redemption. The result is in- 
creased effective return on the in- 
vestment, 

Economy and Safety, There is no 
charge for buying or redeeming U. S. 
Savings Bonds and Freedom Shares. 
They are registered in the owner's 
name and are replaceable at no 
charge if they are lost, stolen, or 
destroyed. They may be issued in the 
owner's name, or with a co-owner, or 
with the name of a beneficiary. 

* Ready Cash. Employees can meet 
short-term financial needs without 
withdrawing at a disadvantageous 
time from long-range commitments. 
Although the new Freedom Shares 
must be held a full year, E Bonds 
may be redeemed at any time after 
two months from the date of issue. 
Savings Bonds are not affected by 
fluctuations of the market. 

Business leaders find company 
benefits too; 

Team Spirit. A company-wide 
Savings Bonds campaign builds team 
spirit a valuable asset to any com- 
pany. There is no better way to make 
an employee genuinely feel a part of 
the team than working directly with 
him toward a better, more stable fu- 




Sccretary of the Treasury Henry H. Fowler congratulates Daniel J. 
Haughton (left), President, Lockheed Aircraft Corp., on appointment as 
Chairman, 1967 Industrial Payroll Savings Committee. Looking on is the 
outgoing chairman, Lynn Townsend (center), Chairman of the Board, Chrysler 
Corp. 



ture for him, his company and his 
country. 

Employee M&rale. Employees 
with financial stability tend to be 
better workers. More free of financial 
problems than those who don't save, 
payroll savers can concentrate on 
their jobs. 

Debt Management. Savings Bonds 
are a key element in sound manage- 
ment of a public debt. Over $50 bil- 
lion 23 percent of the publicly held 
portion of the debt arc in Scries E 
and H Savings Bonds. 

A Bulwark for Free Enterprise. 
The Savings Bonds Program, built 
around industry support of the Pay- 
roll Savings Plan, works for a strong, 
stable dollar the foundation of the 
American free cnterprsie system and 
of the strength of our nation. 

Campaign Chairman Haughton be- 
lieves that success in Payroll Savings 
starts with top management support. 
In his words, "There are several steps 
to running a successful campaign, but 
there is one overriding thing it must 
have all the way to be a success, and 
that is the personal, enthusiastic sup- 
port of the top management in the 
company. If it docs, it will filter down 
through the entire organization, and 
can't miss." 

1966 
Honof Roll 

Defense Contractors 
U.S. Savings Bonds Program 

(Percentage of Employee 
Participation) 

Lockheed Aircraft Corp. 99% 

Radio -Corp. of America 96 

Konnecott Copper Corp. 94 

Ling-Temco-V ought, Inc. 90 

Republic Steel Corp. 88 

United Aircraft Corp. 88 

ARO, Inc. 83 

Marquardt Corp. 82.5 

Gulf Oil Corp, 82 
American Machine & Foundry 

Co. 82 

Martin- Marietta Corp. 82 

Aerojet-General Corp, 80 

Northrop Corp. 79 

Chrysler Corp. 78 

Boeing Co. 78 

McDonnell Aircraft Corp. 78 
International Telephone & 

Telegraph Corp. 78 
North American Aviation, Inc. 77 

Texas Instruments, Inc. 75 

Aerospace Corp. 75 

Ryan Aeronautical Co. 72 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



Republic Aviation Corp. 70 

Blaw-Knox Co. 69 

General Motors Corp. 69 

General Electric Co. 68.9 

Raytheon Corp. 68 

Kelsey-Hayes Co. C7 

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. 65 

"Western Electric Co., Inc. 65 

General Dynamics Corp. 63 

Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc. G3 



E I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. 62,9 

Thiokol Chemical Corp. 62 

Remington Arms Co., Inc. 62 

Whirlpool Corp. 62 

Aluminum Co. of America 62 
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 61 

United States Steel Corp. 50 

Beech Aircraft Corp. t>8 

Bondix Corp. 58 

TRW, Inc. 55 



THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

WASHINGTON 

April 3, 19C7 

Dear Defense Contractor: 

The Treasury Department will, within a few weeks, launch the most 
vigorous Savings Bonds Campaign since the end of World War II. 

The importance of the Savings Bonds Program has been underscored many 
times in the past by President Johnson. Just recently he announced a new 
Treasury Security, popularly known as the Freedom Share, which will earn 
4.74 percent interest when held to maturity of four and one-half years. 
This new Freedom Share will be available only in combination with the 
Series E Bond. 

I am aware of the outstanding efforts on the part of defense contractors 
in promoting employee participation in the Payroll Savings Plan. Many con- 
tractors have achieved 50 to 75 percent or more employee participation in 
this most successful thrift plan. 

Increased Savings Bonds sales at this time will help greatly to strengthen 
our national economy and to support our fighting men in Vietnam. I am 
proud that many of our military units in Vietnam are flying the Minute 
Man Flag denoting 90 percent participation. 

Your cooperation is needed to make the Freedom Share Campaign a 
success. Please give serious consideration to conducting a personal canvaa 
of all your employees. 

The Savings Bonds Division of the Treasury Department has available 
free promotional materials and will assist you in planning and conducting a 
campaign among your employees. 

Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Robert S. McNamara 




THE 

PAYROLL SAVING 
PLAN 



Development of Procurement Policy 

(Continued from Page 3) 

o Procurement Management Survey. 

Along with the training function, 
OSD has developed a DOD procure- 
ment management survey system. 
While these procurement surveys are 
managed and conducted by the sepa- 
rate Services, the overall policy con- 
trol for the system rests in OSD. In 
this manner the standards of review 
are established for all the Services ut 
a single point, The survey teams in- 
clude skilled technicians who know the 
DOD policies in each area and can 
recognize when they arc being mis- 
interpreted. Among other things^ 
these teams evaluate how effectively 
the procurement organ! xati on s are im- 
plementing the regulations and 
policies which were established for 
compliance throughout DOD. Thoy 
look for the causes and the cures if 
there are deviations from the stand- 
ards. Further, once their findings 
have been furnished to the procure- 
ment staffs in Washing-ton, the 
"policy loop" has been closed. 

Procurement policy making at its 
best is a difficult task, It is beset by 
problems of vast distances, a wide 
range of participants, and a generous 
share of dissenters. Thero is clear 
recognition today that the ASPR is 
only the first part of the policy- 
making loop. If it is to continue to 
be a meaningful and successful docu- 
ment, there must be a continuous and 
intelligent application of resources to 
insure that the words and spirit arc 
understood by industry UH well a 
Government, and that deviations from 
the standards are isola ted and 
analyzed. 

Today, with increasing; emphasis on 
closing every part of this loop, I 
think that there is ample reason for 
optimism. 



Naval Terms 
DicHonary Available 

The second edition of "Naval Terms 
Dictionary" has been published by tlio 
U.S. Naval Institute, Annapolis, Md. 

The new revised edition has boon 
greatly expanded to include hundreds 
of new terms covering many branches 
of modern naval endeavor. 

The _ 377-page dictionary is broken 
down into four sections: terms, air- 
craft designations, enlisted ratings 
and ship designations. 

The dictionary can be purchased for 
$5.50 from the U.S. Naval Institute, 
Annapolis, Md, 21402, 



April 1967 




[The following is the statement of 
Secretary of Defense Robert S. 
McNamara before the Select Commit- 
tee on Small nnslness of the V.S. 
Senate made on March 14, 7567.] 

When I appeared before this Com- 
mittee on April 25, 1961, I stated: 
"Based upon my former associa- 
tion with a very large company, 
I am well aware of the advan- 
tages which a competent small 
business can offer its customers. 
A good, small firm can provide 
flexible and responsive engineer- 
ing, low administrative costs, 
and first-rate products." 
This is still my opinion and the 
record of the Defense Department in 
increased awards to small flrma both 
at prime and subcontract level reflects 
that we have done something about 
it. As a result the. small business com- 
munity has received a substantial in- 
crease in the percentage of prime con- 
tract awards as compared to the total 
value of all prime contracts. This 
is shown in the following table: 



Prime Contract Awards 
to Small Business 



Year 

1961 
1962 

1963 
1964 
1965 
1966 



Percentage 
16.3 

18.2 
16.5 
18.0 
20.3 
21.8 



Small business firms have also re- 
ceived an increase in the percentage 
of subcontract awards as compared 
to the total value of subcontracts 
awarded by our primes. This is shown 
in the following table : 



Subcontracts Awnrclcd 
to Small Business 



Year 

1961 
1962 
1963 
1964 
1965 
1966 



Percentage 
37.2 
38.0 
38.0 
39.1 
41.5 
41.9 




Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara with (left to right) Senator 
Joseph R. Montoya (D,, N.M.), Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Pro- 
curement, and Senator George A. Smathers (D.. Fla.), Chairman, Senate 
Select Committee on Small Business, following his appearance before the 
Committee, March 14, 1967. 



I would like to make a few brief 
observations concerning the Govern- 
ment's overall objective in sponsoring 
a small business program. It is my 
view that the objective of the Federal 
Government through all of its Ex- 
ecutive Agencies should be to en- 
courage the initiation of new enter- 
prises and follow policies that faster 
growth during the early critical years 
in the life of the business. Each 
business should know that it can take 
this risk without the fear of being 
"squeezed out'* by giants of industry, 
and that our Government will provide 
reasonable safeguards to protect it 
from unfair competition. Obviously, 
this is not the job of any one agency, 
but that of many agencies. In the De- 
fense Department we contribute in 
several ways. 

We set aside contracts for ex- 
clusive competition among small busi- 
ness concerns. 

We maintain a staff throughout 
the country whose efforts are devoted 
to assisting, counseling and, on occa- 
sion, "standing up for" small business 
firms. 

We "do our best to see that small 
firms get a fair proportion of defense 
work. 

Whether we always make a useful 
contribution by the mere award of a 
contract is obviously open to question. 
As you know, not all contracts are 
profitable. Hence an over-zealous pro- 
gram of seeking out contracts to be 
awarded to small business concerns 
involves the risk of doing more harm 
than good in selected instances. We 
believe in providing opportunities 
not subsidies. We have a strong con- 
viction that in working toward better 
defense programs, we should deal 
only with responsible prospective con- 
tractors whether they be large or 
small, Contract awards to concerns of 
marginal capabilities can lead only to 
delays or failures to obtain delivery 
of needed items and to higher ulti- 
mate costs to the Government. Impor- 
tantly, the Armed Services Procure- 
ment Regulation requires an affirma- 
tive determination that the prospec- 
tive contractor is responsible before 
any contract award may be made; 
there must be a positive judgment 
that he will perform the contract on 
schedule in accordance with its 
terms. This excludes the company 
whose qualifications are substandard 
as to production capacity, financial 
capability, or past performance. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



11 



I am sure that there is, in general, 
little disagreement over the impor- 
tance of adhering to this principle. 
tona.ll Business Administration and 
Defense Department representatives 
follow it m actual practice. I am glad 
to report that we have a very fine 
relationship in this regard. 

I should like to make one additional 
observation. Any society which limits 
the opportunities for economic activity 
by the individual will be losing a good 
deal of ability and talent. It is im- 
portant in a free enterprise economy 
that the centers of initiative be in- 
creased and the supply of enterprises 
ensured. We all are familiar with 
cases where small firms with new and 
imaginative ideas have come up with 
products which made our big systems 
work. The fact that individual citizens 
nave the opportunity to put their 
ingenuity to work benefits us all. 



Configuration Management In the Nnvy 

(Continued from Page 7) 
of Navy material items and the di- 
versity of their mode of entry into 
the defense inventory, the depth ami 
timing of these audits will vary. Au- 
dit requirements will vary depending 
on the item's work breakdown struc- 
ture level and the specific base line 
in the life cyclo at which the audit 
is accomplished. 

The three generic types of defense 
material that will predicate a specific 
pattern for configuration audit are- 

Items developed at Government 
expense m meeting military require- 
ments or items developed under Gov- 
ernment specification. 
_ Items carried through engineer- 
ing development at private expense- 
under private specification. 

Commercial items, including 
those- developed completely at private 
expense, 

The majority of audits scheduled 
prwr to hardware availability will be 
accomplished at the particular point 
m the item's life cycle identified as its 
functiona^ base line (see Figure 1). 
The technical description at this base 
line is the definitive initial statement 
of the functional characteristics of 
the applicable item, 

fnS* h f r( ! ware and its achieved 
tunctional characteristics will be au- 
dited against the technical descrip- 
tion, which records the needed phys- 
ical and functional characteristics. It 
is recognized, however, .that a total 
weapon system, and its system Se g- 



ments, are frequently too complex to 
permit auditing as a whole all of 
their physical and functional charac- 
teristics. Accordingly, these may 
be audited by conducting individual 
audits of the lower breakdown struc- 
ture elements. In such cases, physical 
inspections and functional tests of 
the lower level elements will be sup- 
plemented by necessary higher level 
technical reviews and demonstrations 
such as system operability tests, 
technical approval demonstrations, or 
performance checkouts. 

Section VIII, Contract Provisions, 
requires that appropriate provisions 
for configuration management shall 
be included in all contracts or in- 
house equivalents for the develop- 
ment, production, modification and 
maintenance of Navy material items. 
In these provisions, consistency of 
configuration management objectives 
and procurement practices must be 
maintained in accordance with the 
manual. 

Configuration management, as a 
concept and a discipline, will be ap- 
plied in accordance with the provi- 
sions of the manual to all relevant 
Navy material items or configuration 
elements being newly procured for 
use by DOD, through either a con- 
tract or an internal agreement with 
in-house capability. It will also be ap- 
plied to those Naval warfare systems 
already in the Navy operational sup- 
port inventory, on which case-by-case 
decisions shall bo made, based on the 
availability of resources and the 
proven need for configuration man- 
agement improvement. In any case 
its application will be carefully tail- 
ored to be consistent with the quan- 
tity, size, stage of life cycle, nature, 
and complexity of the item involved. 

Film on USAF Contractor 
Performance Available 

Contractor Experience 

mit-rt 1/?,-- t_i_ i ^ 

black and 



Disposition of Program 
Material Explained 

Contractors frequently seek clarifi- 
cation concerning the application of 
Paragraph 6k, Industrial Rppuri'tv 
Manual for Safeguarding Classified 
Information (ISM) (Attachment to 
441), m connection with 
of classified material r<j- 

- contract, program, or nro- 
posal'.- L 

wW e n Tf " on - often raise( l *s nt 

what point m time do the provisions 
oi paragraph 6k apply to the class) 
fied material related to a user 
of e not y 1)rogl ? lm - Another is whether 

nf d fL SSifit l ( J Program documents 
of a program that is still in progress, 
lie provisions of param-awli 5k 
would apply when the contractor's 
participation in the particulai rn'o' 
giam is ended, either through his nr 
tion or that of the user agency con- 
cerned. In such case, it is up to the 
uoui u^oncy. wJiicli fumi^lniH f im 

traS C l!Sf te r al ' * P>vide the con- 

S3 1 ?n oV*- 1 '^Position instructions 
and to advise the cognizant security 

fc K &*! % Sto 



t cona 

the contractor must either destroy the 
material or obtain retention auThor- 

In the case of superseded classified 
i 3 P^'taining to an activet/o- 
, the contractor is required tn 

* 116 foll r in * : deffiSraS 

graph 19 Accordance with para- 
retain it' K T est au iority to 

Sh 61 iqivr C01 ' (la] l ce ^P 1 
t-uipn M, ihM or return the 

rial when requested by the 
agency concerned. Where the 

S 



e 

/ Pdcd edition of 
document, such as bv n 



AVCOM To Hold 
Briefings for Industry 

More than 700 



white 






ti, n 






r u 

Government are 
f01 ' the cond 

Maeriel 



if * <e- 

in the film was mplemented 



Chase 



by 



requests for the film 



Pentagon, Washington, D.C 20301 



of 



The entire session this vear will 
Confidential The 



Plantations on 



April 




pj.uii;ipn:a tu 



by 
James A. Walsh 



A few generations ago when life 
seemed simpler, the word "problem" 
was suggestive of mathematical pro- 
cedures subject to objectively precise 
solution. Before the "new math," 
folks considered that two plus two 
equalled four and that this was pretty 
much the way things should be. One 
could expect that by the use of time- 
tested formulae, one could have 
answers nicely packaged with no loose 
ends or complications. 

Nowadays, we tend to be more com- 
plex in our mental processes, living as 
we do in an era dominated by the 
teachings of Freud, Jung, Adler, their 
disciples and doctrinal descendants. 
In our epoch, many people seek guid- 
ance from their analysts more fre- 
quently than from their ministers, 
priests, or rabbis, and we tend to view 
everything from the subjective aspect 
so that the word is considered more 
as Webster now defines it: "a source 
of perplexity or vexation." 

The manner by which contracts, 
born as normal children of a meeting 
of the minds of industry and Govern- 
ment, quickly grow into monsters 
is, as Anna's King of Siam would 
say, a puzzlement. The dockets of 
the various Federal contract adjust- 
ment boards and courts bear strong 
support to the suspicion that there 
are almost as many administra- 
tive problems, Government vis-a-vis 
industry, as there are contracts. Al- 
though not every Government con- 
tract is a step on the high-road to 
litigation, the percentage of those 
which do go to dispute is alarming. 
Yet, it is not too extravagant an 
oversimplification to say that the 
Administration Contracting Officer 
(AGO) has only two problems onee 
the instrument is executed. He wishes 
to obtain the product called for and 
to receive it on time. Oddly enough, 
the supplier has but two problems : to 
make the item in accordance with 
drawing and specification require- 
ments, and to get the Government to 
accept (and consequently pay for) it. 
Very optimistically, it. might be said 
that if we can solve these, we have 
removed the most prolific source of 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



ulcers in Government-industry rela- 
tions. It would be nice if it wore pos- 
sible to make such an excision, using 
only the scalpel of common sense. 

Those masters of political wisdom 
whom we call our founding fathers 
had a clarity of vision given to few 
to aid them in drafting- the instru- 
ments declaring- our freedoms and 
preserving them in our Constitution. 
In following their guidance with re- 
spect to military matters, we have 
avoided domination by military castes 
and by munitions-making cartels. In 
all of our conflicts, American industry 
has enabled our Armed Forces to meet 
the challenges of supply and logistics; 
not always with outstanding case or 
facility since the periodic necessity of 
changing; to a posture of defense from 
one of peace is necessarily more dif- 
ficult to a democratic nation to which 
large standing armies and private 
"merchants of death" are abhorrent. 
It is also repugnant to our demo- 




James A. "Walsh is Asst Chief 
Counsel for Procurement Law at tho 

Jk S ' ^ r V iy T r Motions Command, 
Dover, N. J. He has had 20 years of 
trovernment service in previous as- 
signments as Procurement Chief, Con- 
tractmg Officer, and Counsel with the 
Picatinny Arsenal, He holds A.D. and 
^L.B. degrees from Fordham Univer- 
sity. He was admitted to the New 



profits to be made from defense supply 
-so that profits for most types of non- 
tracts are limited by .statute and regu- 
lation. By the same token, it is wry 
much consistent with American ideas 
of free enterprise to permit fair 
profits in return for performance. 
While defense contrttctu.ru nonerally 
arc moved with niotivoH of patriotism 
since, in many eases, profits in private 
business can I>G much K-reater, they 
must necessarily ho intimated in 
monetary rewards if they wish to mir- 
vivc. It can bn fairly stated, then, thut 
tlic defense contractor and tlu: CJov- 
ormnent meet at arm's loriRth hut in 
an atmoKphGra of good will in ap- 
proaching: contract execution. 

Tho first .stop is the Gnvcvnininnt'H. 
Tho Procurement Contracting O/Hoor 
(PGO) must make known to prospec- 
tive bidders, by clear and unequivocal 
drawings and specifications, what he 
wishes to buy and to stain wlien and 
where he desires that it bo dnlivorod. 
Simple 1 ? It would seem BO. Koch of 
tho bidders, onn of whom will become 
the contractor, must ntu<ly the draw- 
ing carefully, decide how to mnke the 
item, make up and price his hill of 
material, lino up his mibcoiilraetorH, 
add, his labor and other coato, over- 
heads and, moat important, profit. If 
ho is the lowest responsible bidder, ho 
receives the award. Nothing to ilu but 
perform and collect; tho 

Unfortunately, it is most 
ing how many pitfalls lie in the path 
of tho contracting officer and the pros- 
pective contractor in tjikiiiR- the fow 
fltopa we so blithely described an wim- 
ple. In far too mnny iitfltanccji the 
documents have barely arrived at tho 
desk of the AGO whan thorn nro nl- 




The publications listed below 
may be obtained at the following 
addresses; 

DOD Directives and Instructions: 
Publication Distribution Branch 
Office of the 
Secretary of Defense 
Room 3B 200, The Pentagon 
Washington, D.C. 20301 

Government Printing Office Publi- 
cations : 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 

Research Reports: 
Authorized DOD contractors 

and grantees may obtain these 
documents without charge from: 

Defense Documentation Center 

Cameron Station 

Alexandria, Va. 22314 

Others may purchase these docu- 
ments at the price indicated from: 

Clearinghouse for Federal and 
Scientific Information 

Department of Commerce 

Springfield, Va. 22151 



DOD DIRECTIVES 
AND INSTRUCTIONS 

DOD Instruction 4145.21, "Quan- 
tity-Distance Standards for Liquid 
Proiiellants," Jan. 27, 1967. Estab- 
lishes DOD standards for the han- 
dling and storage of liquid propellanta 
including quantity limitations and 
distance standards, storage compati- 
bility groupings, and explosive equiv- 
alencies for liquid pi'opellant mixtures. 

DOD Directive 4630.5, "Compatibil- 
ity and Commonality of Equipment 
tor Tactical Command and Control, 
and Communications," Jan. 28, 1967. 
Establishes DOD policy and proce- 
dures to ensure that tactical command 
and control, and communications 
equipments possess that compatibility 
and commonality essential for joint 
military operations. 

DOD Directive 5200.12, "Security 
Measures, Approval and Sponsorship 
tor facientific and Technical Meetings 
Involving Disclosure of Classified 
Information," March 7, 1967. Estab- 
lishes DOD policy for approving or 
sponsoring scientific and technical 
meetings wherein the disclosure of 
classified defense information is in- 
volved; provides guidance to DOD 
activities in determining whether to 
approve, sponsor, or co-sponsor such 
proposed meetings; and establishes 
security measures for the conduct of 
and attendance of such meetings. 
Meetings wherein disclosure of clas- 
sified information is involved, covered 
by this directive, are conferences, 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



seminars, symposia, exhibits, scien- 
tific and technical conventions and 
gatherings conducted by DOD com- 
ponents, or by associations, societies, 
institutions, groups, defense contrac- 
tors and other non-defense activities. 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING 
OFFICE PUBLICATIONS 

U. S. Wall Map -1905 Revised Edi- 
tion. This edition is printed on two 
sheets each measuring 41 by 51 inches 
at the scale of 1:2,500,000 (1 inch 
equals about 40 miles). Catalog No. I 
68.11 :Un 3/2/96B/sh.l,2. $3. 

Industrial Plant Equipment Hand- 
book. Contains standards describing 
industrial plant equipment managed 
and controlled by DOD property rec- 
ords. FSC 4410, 4420, Industrial Boil- 
ers, Heat Exchangers and Steam 
Condensers. I960. 74 p. Catalog No. 
D7.G/7:4215.25. 60*. PSC 0110, Elec- 
trical Control Equipment, 1DGG, iJS p. 
Catalog No. D7.G/7:4216,2(i. 86*. FSC 
4110, 4120, Refrigeration nnd Air 
Conditioning Equipment. 1DG6. 88 p. 
Catalog No. D7.6/7:4215.27. 00*. 

Commercial Warehouse Service 
Plan for Department of Defense 
^^ lcics ' prov idcs means wlmreby 
DOD storage may be increased by 
using commercial warehouse facilities 
through service contracts with public 



U.S. Army Installations and Major 
Activities in the Continental United 
Mates. Includes listing of class juris- 
diction, Army area and post office ad- 
dress for each installation or activity. 
' S. P< Gatal No. D 101.22:210- 

&. Ajlf. 

Marine Corps Reserve, a History, 
inis Golden Anniversary edition 
covers 60 colorful and crucial years 
from the inception of the Marino 
Corps Reserve in 1018 to lOflO. lOOfl. 



Guide for the Preparation of Pro- 
posed Technical Approaches. (PTA) 
Provides guidelines for the prepara- 
tion of PTA documents mid fln 
explanation of the need for the infor- 
mation required therein. A checklist 
is found at the end of each section 
which emphasizes the major points 
which should be covered in the cor- 
responding PTA section. I960. 63 n. 
Catalog No. D 201.0/12 :T 22/2. 

Nondestructive Testing Series, 
Radiography. Contains chapters on 
the principles and fundamentals of 
ladiosraphy, rodiographic equipment, 
film radiography, other radiographic 
techniques, radioisotope or gamma 



radiog-rapby, specifications and stand- 
ards, safety and rndiogrunhic inter- 
pretation, 190(5. 202 p. Catalog No. 
D 7.0/2:55. $1.25. 

Decisions of the Comptroller ("Jcn- 
ernl of the United StntcH, Volume <14. 
Contains decisions of the Comptroller 
General of the United States, July 1, 
I ( JG4 to June 30, 19fi(J. 1900. 101H p. 
Catalog: No. GA 1,5:44. Cloth, $S.7fi. 

Distribution Problems Affecting 
Small ItiisiacHH* IlanriiiRs bcCoru the 
Subcommittee on Antitrust mid 
Monopoly of the Somite Committee 
oa tho Judiciary. Concerns tho na- 
ture of the restrain Is on the fran- 
chises which manufacturers fuol are 
necessary and the effect of these re- 
straints on competition. Jfldfl. '108 p. 
Catalog No. Y 4.J 80/2 :Sm 1/pta. 
lfl.2B. 

Selling to A EC. Contains Infor- 
mation on the procurcmtiiit program 
and orfi-aimation, pure 1ms ing olViciiH, 
products purclmfiod, and private in- 
dustrml participation of Uie Atomic 
Energy Commission, Inchiduo <M rec- 
tory of nil A EC nflkon; principal con- 
tractor* with mini en of contacts; a 
table which lists uluttimH oC producta 
purchased; and n brief daHrl]ition of 
each Field OflWn area of rctmnnHl- 
bility. Ruv. 1000. H7 p. CJutalog No, 
Y :),At 7:2 So4/2/9flfl. 200. 

Department of DcfciiRe Anniiul lle- 
port for FiHcal Yonv MUM. A]no con- 
tains reports of tho Si'ix!tnrlou of th 
Army, Navy, nnd Air Force for fcho 
Bumo period. 1000. -1 112 p. il. CnUiloj? 
No. D I.lj9fi4. $l.fiO. 

Guide to Conlrnclor Pcrformnnco 
livuluntinn (I)cvol]iinciit &. Produc- 
tion). IniiludcH ntlmhiiHtrntivu proi'o- 
duros ft'overninfi' the proimnitlon. 
HTOcoasing nnd UHR of Contractor Por- 
foi-manco Evaluation Hepoi'ta. lno, 
74 p. Catalog No. D 7.0/4:0 70/2. 
130 f 1 , 

Industrial IMunt Ii!qutpiiien( IFniifU 

books. Contnhis afcnndnwla iloHcrlbiiiK 
industrial plant uqulpmont that i 
nmnatfod and controlled bv nO]) 
Property Ilccorda: FSC 54SO, 'Sloruire 
Tanks, 10BO. 108 p. Calnloff No I 
7.0/7:4216.28. OB# PSC aoto. 0710 
6720 G730, 67-10, liV80, Photoconyi 
and PhotORranhlc T'lquipnienl, l)no. 
o ' D 7.6/ 



and 



InalriuncntH. lOWL 7H 

' PJ.fl/vidaifiiao. mw. 

, MatcrmlH FcoderH. 100(1. 1-1 



' . 

'I 61 ?' 5 lfl0 ' Plllp 

S , , 

No. D 7.0/74215.. 



Handbook of Supersonic Aerody- 
namics, Vol. !>, Section 13 nnd ft 
Viscosity and Heat Transfer Kf" 



Presents information on boundary- 

' eitS ' so , lutio " s to the flit 
-layer equations 



Not" 18 



Order 



ia, Pa, 



on 



""symmetric bodies 
boundary-layer transition, effect of 
roughness on the fiat plate turbulent 

1966 sf^ ^ ^ at tra " sfc " 
,,', dd P- Catalog- No. D ?ifi 7- 

1488/v.C/sec 13,14. 2.75 

RESEARCH REPORTS 

Process Fluid Lubrication Research. 

Mechanic Technology, Inc., Latham 



m )icati n of Electron Mag- 
Resonance in 



530 $3 ' ' o - AD-643 

Production Engineering Measure for 

Nov 9 66j H p, order No 

Q-LIJ* iu, 



Method of Obtaining Lubricant for 

t w 1 - ?? r i S '. Forei * n Technology 
-Uiv., Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio K 
P. Order No. AD-C25 160. ?8. ' 

Ball Motion in Angular Contact 
Bearmgs M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass 
for the Air PO.-CC, Oct. 1966, 16 p" 
Order No, AD-643 262. $3 P> 

rh ^ dl m ?* r . f Study of the Wear 
Characteristics of Dry Film Tiihr 
cants. Rock Island Awenal, Aug. 106 8 " 
IB P. Order No. AD-638 800. fe. ' 

Pariurc Control 
- SKF Industries, 



_n r. L e n ll C nc C of Lubri- 

cants on High Speed Rolling-Contact 
P .? r ! ormanco ' Battelle MeS 

' Ohio - 



Programming Techniques for the 

formSf tlC A Monitorfn * of H "i P- 
formance Aerospace Medical Research 
JjboratortBs. Wright-Patteraor APR 

66 '' 



The DOD Defense Communications 
Agency (DCA) has opened a single 
consolidated Defense Commercial 
tommumcations Office (DECCO-Pa 
cific) in downtown Honolulu, Hawaii, 
to effect centralized procurement of 
longlmes leased communications serv- 
nawaii. The establishment of 
the DECCO-Pacific Office in Hono- 
lulu _ placed its functions in close 
proximity to the Hawaiian Telephone 
Co. ^and other commercial common 
carriers in Hawaii. Previously these 
functions had been handled through 
a number of military installations in 
-Hawaii, 

The expansion of voice and record 
communications automatic switching 
capability in Hawaii developed a 
DOD requirement for a centralized 
leasing activity similar to the De- 



Longlines Leasing In Hawaii 
Centralized in Honolulu 



of Thp' t SSI n o EIc | ;tro11 Microscopy 
ot Ihin Glass Samp es. Harvard Uni 
versity, for the Navy, Dec ISflfl ?B 
P. Order No. AD-64S 220? $3. M| 28 
Odor Coding for Malfunction DC- 

fo - Z T 1 ? ia * noa j- p l"'eo Corp., 
lo .the Air Force, Dec. 19C6, 58 p 
Order No. AD-643 239. $3. J 



. 

Noise Localization After Unilateral 
Attenuation. Amy Human Enginee?- 
r B L ? b ^tor,es f Aberdeen 

6 ' 18 



' - 
is responsible for leasing and 

fund management for all long-haul 
DOD and Federal Aviation Agency 
commercial communications within 



T f* ni <l uc ^r Cluster 



1966 77'n n, ^* 11 *" April 

??; Ph S der No - A D-63B 901. S3. 
Lighting Small-Shelter Interiors 
Criteria and an Example. Army Hu^ 
man Engineering LaboWtorfe^? 
decn Proving Ground, Md,, Aue 1986 
94 p. Order No. AD-643 128. $1 ' 
A n"al Army Human Pac- 
Pment Con- 
Center, Fort 

i 



* -uv-i luueii u ^ 

--.,.,. Laboratories, uontair 
-Jiv, Natick, Mass, July i 966 50 T, 
Order No. AD-637 113. $3 P ' 

-Evaluation of Environmental Pro- 
A; ! P A /? or <*ed to System Stocks of 
Anti-i-riction Bearings. Naval Air 
Engineering Center, AeronautSl Ma- 



States, 

DECCO-Pacific responsibilities and 
objectives may be summarized in the 
following three tasks: 

To carry out the longlines leas- 
ing responsibilities assigned to DCA 
by the Secretary of Defense. 

To insure a uniform response to 
UOA instructions for contracting, en- 
gineering and financial management 
oi the switched networks. 

obtain all possible economic 
advantages under current and future 
bulk rate tariffs through centralized 
management and ordering procedures. 
Since the DECCO-Pacific Office 

tan/wl l n ^. _p 11 ,1 *.ivr^ 

ned last fall, the Automatic Digi- 
Network (AUTODIN) Switch a t 
Wahmwa, Hawaii, became opera- 
on April 3. Another automatic 
i, the Automatic Voice Network 



(AUTOVON) Switch, is expected to 
be installed in late 19(58. 

The leasing tasks associated with 
the switched networks and other pri- 
vate line services are typical of the 
activities of DECCO-Pacific. In real- 
ity they encompass procurement ac- 
tions formerly accomplished by the 
individual Military Services i n 
Hawaii. By March 1967, DECCO- 
Pacific had assumed responsibility for 
over 800 Communications Service 
Authorizations (CSA's) with an an- 
nual dollar expenditure of over S2 
million. 

_ Monthly bills submitted by the cnr- 

/ ml noncariliR1 ' s are mailed to 
DECCO at Scott AFB and matched 
against the financial records in the 
computer data base. If a matched con- 
dition is readied, a computer-gener- 
ated voucher is used to document 
payment to the respective carriers, 
Unmatched conditions attributed to 
U-h-CCO-Pacific computer inputs have 
been averaging less than one-half of 

wn P !!!!f t , eac i, moilth for the 80() 

,. , m , aCClU . acy Q ^^ 



to process and pay for 
leased services in Hawaii within 72 

The objectives of DECCO-Pacific 
are gradually becoming a fact. Trans- 
ier of leasing actions, formerly han- 
dled by the three Military Services, 
is being accomplished as fast as the 
details are worked out. New service 
easing is being accomplished in a 
timely manner to meet the service 
date requirements of the validating 
offices. The next step is to apply bulk 
Piicmg wherever possible and reduce 
the overall on-island communications 
cost to the Government, 



u.. lt i feLiv( itUU 

by one officer and four civil- 
ian* The chief of this field activity 
is Captain Eugene Morris, USAP. 

April 1967 



by 
Brig. Gen. Ernest A. Pinson, USAF 



Research and development is one of 
the mightiest forces for progress 
within the American economy and a 
vital force for national defense and 
national survival. For a nation so 
deeply committed to the machine, the 
magnitude of America's effort in tech- 
nology is not surprising. 

Unfortunately, however, a substan- 
tial number of Americans forget the 
great amount of basic research that 
has made possible the current tech- 
nological explosion. Many people do 
not fully realize that this explosion 
has carried us to the frontier of 
human knowledge that every tech- 
nological advance faces us with un- 
knowns that must be solved before 
we can proceed further. The solutions 
to these unknowns can only be dis- 
covered by creative scientists through 
fundamental research into the nature 
of the world we live in and how 
things function. 

Scientists, engineers and managers 
know that the Air Force's capability 
to accomplish its mission is vitally 
affected by technological progress. 
This is true today and will be even 
more so in the future. 

Since technological progress la de- 
pendent upon new scientific knowl- 
edge, it is mandatory that the Air 
Force be involved in a vigorous and 
dynamic research program that is 
relevant to both current and future 
needs. 

To name a few, these needs Include 
airborne, real time display techniques 
for night reconnaissance and attack; 
high temperature superconductors ; 
lightweight, strong filaments; laser 
and superconductor applications; con- 
trolled nuclear fusion ; higher energy, 
non-nuclear explosives; vortex flow 
applications; and lightweight, com- 
pact supersonic compressors. 

Another very important require- 
ment for the Air Force was brought 
on by the tremendous advances made 
and being made in computer process- 
ing- technologies. We need comparable 
advances in operations analysis a 
more powerful body of science for 
real time decision making in com- 
mand and control must be developed. 

Seeking this new scientific knowl- 
edge is the mission of the Office of 
Aerospace Research (OAR), the re- 
search agency of the Air Force, lo- 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



cated in Arlington, Va. To accomplish 
this mission, OAR scientists are now 
working in important scientific disci- 
plines that did not exist a quarter 
of a century ago. They are asking 
questions that could not have been 
asked then. In many instances the 
vocabulary in which to ask them did 
not even exist. 

As the prime research agency of 
the Air Force, OAR is a separate 
operating agency. We report directly 
to Air Force headquarters. We are 
on the same level of command as the 
combat commands, and the Logistics 
and Systems Commands. I mention 
this only to emphasize the importance 
the Air Force places on research. 

We are, however, a small organiza- 
tion with only 1,937 assigned person- 
nel, two-thirds of which arc civilians. 

To accomplish our research objec- 
tives we have three in-house labora- 
tories, plus the Air Force Office of 
Scientific Research and the Office of 
Research Analyses, 

In addition, we have a European 
Office in Brussels, a Latin American 
Office in Rio de Janeiro, and field 
detachments at Patrick AFB and 
Vandenberg AFB, and in Los Angeles. 




Brig. Gen. Ernest A. Pinson, 
USAF, is Commander, Office of Aero- 
space Research, Arlington, Va, Prior 
to assuming command of OAR, in 
February 1965, he served as Dcp. 
Commander and before that as Vice 
Commander, Air Force Cambridge 
Laboratories, Mass. He holds an A.B. 
degree from Depauw University, a 
Ph.D. in Medical Physiology from the 
University of Rochester, and a Ph.D. 
in Physics from the University of 
California. Gen. Pinson was nomi- 
nated for promotion to major general 
on March 7, 



Our largest laboratory the Air 
Force Cambridge Research Labora- 
tories (AFCRL), Bedford, Mass. is 
the focal point for research in the 
environmental sciences and provides 
a major in-house facility for research 
in the physical and engineering- sci- 
ences relating; to geophysics. They 
also 'do exploratory development work 
in geophysics which means simply 
that they carry their research into 
the development stage In these areas. 

Because of their unique facilities, 
scientists at AFCIIL conduct sizeable 
programs for the Air Force Systems. 
Command, National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration, the DOD Ad- 
vanced Research Projects Agency, 
and the Defense Atomic Support 
Agency. 

The Aerospace Research Labora- 
tories (ARL), at Wright-Patterson 
AFB, Ohio, conduct in-house- research 
programs in the physical and engi- 
neering sciences, ARL also plays a 
significant role in the professional 
development of Air Force officers 
through its interface with the Air 
Force Institute of Technology (AF- 
IT) , The facilities of the laboratories 
are made available for graduate 
students at A FIT working toward 
advanced degrees. In addition, sci- 
entists at ARL touch at APIT, 

Featuring research in chemistry, 
mathematics and aerospace mechanics, 
The Frank J. Seilor Research Lab- 
oratory at the Air Force Academy is 
unique in that it allows instructors 
and cadets at the academy to work 
on research projects while extending 
the scientific education of the cadets. 
This provides a research environment 
that will influence talented cadets to 
follow a research and development 
career in the Air Force. 

The Air Force Offlco of Scientific 
Research, co-located with OAR head- 
quarters, in Arlington, Vu., ia the 
broadest in research scope of any 
OAR activity. Through its grants and 
contracts program, this office covers 
every element of scientific research. 
Its contracts with the scientific com- 
munity, primarily through educational 
institutions and with individual sci- 
entists, cover most of the free worhl, 

The Oflfice of Research Analyses, 
Holloman. AFB., N. M., is responsible 
for systems, technical and mission 
analysis. This office conducts systems 
analysis to determine tho technical 
validity, operational feasibility and 
cost effectiveness of proposed future 
aerospace weapon system concepts. It 



17 



also conducts applications studies for 
some of our research. 

The European Oflice of OAR is the 
on-the-spot broker for research in 
Europe, Africa and the Near East. 
Its customers are OAR, the Systems 
Command and DOD. It has no budget 
of its own. The money it spends for 
research comes from 17 different 
organizations in the United States, 
The Latin American Office performs 
a similar function in South America. 
A very important activity of OAR, 
the Aerospace Research Support Pro- 
gram, is frequently the gateway to 
space for DOD scientists and eng-i- 
neers. This DOD program is managed 
by OAR and designed to provide the 
Army, Navy, or Air Force experi- 
menter with the necessary hardware 
to get his experiment into the space 
environment. This includes the use of 
rocket boosters and satellites pur- 
chased with OAR funds. We confine 
this program to support of research 
and exploratory development in space 
as compared to advanced and engi- 
neering development programs. 

To accomplish our research we have 
a five-year plan, reviewed and revised 
annually. It is a requirement plan 
that includes projections of resources 
such as facilities, manpower and funds 
necessary to adequately support our 
research. It is prepared to correspond 
to the time period related to the DOD 
Force and Financial Plan. 

In addition to the five-year plan, we 
publish annually our research objec- 
tives. Authorized contractors and 
grantees can obtain this document 
from the Defense Documentation 
Center, Cameron Station, Alexandria, 
Va. 22314. The Clearinghouse for 
Federal and Scientific Information. 
Department of Commerce, Springfield, 
Va. 22161, also has the document for 



sale at $3 per copy for those indi- 
viduals not eligible to receive material 
through the Defense Documentation 
Center. 

Theoretically, we should conduct 
Air Force research across the whole 
spectrum of the sources of human 
knowledge. Practically, we must limit 
ourselves to the areas where we can 
most logically expect to find answers 
of value to the Air Force. 

We call this relevant research. 
This includes research for new fund- 
amental knowledge in the physical, 
environmental, engineering and life 
sciences. 

I would like to emphasize that in- 
dividual research contracts and grants 
are generally small, compared to the 
large sums expended on exploratory 
and applied research and development. 
We seek to buy brain power to sup- 
plement our in-house capability. 

Contractors do not need large fa- 
cilities to compete for this type of 
work. Proposals of Air Force interest 
are selected on the basis of originality 
and the caliber of the principal re- 
search investigator. 

Research projects supported by 
OAR open vast areas of investigation 
and are repeated reminders that, 
while basic research can be pro- 
grammed by management, discoveries 
and significant breakthroughs can- 
not. 

Continually, however, we see Air 
Force research yielding; rich returns 
along lines of Air Force interest. 

OAR scientists conducted the ini- 
tial studies and established the tech- 
nical feasibility leading to the design 
and construction of the Over-the- 
Horizon Detection System. 

Our scientists also performed the 
initial research nnd later supported 
the basic work which provided the 




AEROSPAC 
LABOR; 


RESEARCH 
TORIES 
mm AFB 



foundation for the phased array and 
frequency scanning antenna systems 
which have proved of great signifi- 
cance to the military for future bal- 
listic missile defense and for com- 
munications satellites. 

We are doing considerable research 
on clear air turbulence. We are study- 
ing lasers, and microwave radio- 
meters as possible warning devices. 
This is especially important in the 
age of supersonic aircraft. 
_ Research has confirmed the feasi- 
bility of supersonic combustion at 
both relatively low as well as hiyh 
supersonic Mach numbers. The way is 
now open for future development of a 
ramjet capable of a wide range of 
speeds up to and including orbital 
velocity. 

Research in energy conversion in- 
volving fluid dynamic processes lias 
led to new concepts for the separa- 
tion of solid and liquid particles from 
gases. Such a device is now possible 
for use as a dust separator for the in- 
takes of jet engines powering aircraft 
and helicopters, and wilt gvroatly in- 
crease the efficiency and operational 
capabilities of those vehicles in dusty 
areas. This separation process may 
be useful in designing nuclear power 
sources. 

Rapid identification of disease-pro- 
ducing bacteria is now possible by use 
of an OAR contractor-'dtivfilopod gas 
chromatographic technique. Bacteria! 
metabolic products provide the infor- 
mation source for the chromatoffram 
tracing. Tin's tracing produced by 
each strain of bacteria differs signifi- 
cantly; thus we now have a "finger- 
printing" technique for disensh germs. 
Such a device will pi-ova especially 
useful in hospital diagnosis, nir and 
water pollution studies, anarch for 
life on other planets, and In biological 
warfare detection. 

OAR scientists, having- already 
found a practical method for dispersal 
of cold fog, are now working on a 
method for warm air fog dispersal 
which would be of special benefit to 
the Air Force in tropical areas such 
as Southeast Asia. 

The discovery of the flrafc chemical 
laser came as the result of an OAR 
university grant. Aside from its 
obvious research value, a chemical 
laser, unencumbered by ponderous 
banks of condensers and heavy elec- 
trical generating systems, has enor- 
mous potential in space communica- 
tions, and for satellite detection and 
(Continued on Page $4) 



April 1967 




by 

Earl Nichols 



At a time when the strongest em- 
phasis is being place on the country's 
need to use civilians for tasks which 
will free military personnel for more 
urgent duties, the Navy's experience 
with the "civilianizing" of Navy 
shore messes is receiving studied 
attention. 

The work in the messes of some 37 
Naval activities is now being 1 per- 
formed by civilian personnel or under 
contract. This involves the replace- 
ment of about 2,500 military person- 
nel with civilians. An additional 18 
facilities are being surveyed and are 
expected to be contracted for within 
the next 12 months, which would re- 
place about BOO more military per- 
sonnel. These changes are being car- 
ried out under the Contract Messman 
Program. 

The Contract Messman Program, al- 
though it was developed by the Navy 
several years before DOD initiated 
its civilian substitution policy, had 
the same basic goal to better utilize 
military personnel by replacing mili- 
tary with civilians in certain jobs. 
Under the program, contracts arc 
made with private service companies 
to supply civilian personnel to per- 
form mess functions at Naval instal- 
lations ashore which are usually as- 
signed to unrated military trainees. 
These functions were initially limited 
to scullery work, keeping floors and 
tables clean and polished, sanitary 
care of halls and bathrooms, garbage 
removal and receiving; deck work. The 
program has since been expanded to 
include some food handling jobs. 

The Navy Subsistence Office, which 
administers the program under the 
direction of the Navy Supply Systems 
Command, acknowledges that the pro- 
gram has been beset with problems, 
some of which continue to plague its 
administration. An installation's per- 
sonnel must be fed and fed on time, 
and any disturbance in the perform- 
ance of a contract affects that basic 
service and becomes a serious morale 
problem. 

The Navy Subsistence Office notes 
that the program possesses the at- 
tributes of the fabled little girl who 
when good "was very very good and 



when she was bad she was horrid." 
Despite the problems, the program 
works and is being- expanded. The 
need that existed to release military 
personnel for other duties is even 
more urgent today than when the 
program was begun. 

The Contract Messman Program 
originated from a memorandum 
which the Assistant Secretary of the 
Navy (Personnel and Reserve Forces) 
addressed to the Chief of Naval Per- 
sonnel in August 1900 requesting- a 
survey into the possibility of better 
utilizing Navy manpower by con- 
tracting with civilian firms to supply 
messmon for Naval activities ashore. 
A feasibility study was made and 
the program determined to be pos- 
sible. In early 1962, pilot programs 
were begun at Naval Air Station, 
Quonset Point, R.I., and Naval Sta- 
tions, Newport, R.L, and Washing- 
ton, D.C. 

Over a two-and-a-half-year period, 
the pilot programs proved successful 
operations. This does not mean that 
all went smoothly. On the contrary, 
several problem areas became ap- 
parent early in the program. Inept 




Enrl Nichols is n staff writer with 
the Publications & Technical Infor- 
mation Div. of the Naval Supply 
Systems Command. The Navy Sub- 
sistence Office, which administers the 
Navy food service program, is an 
activity of the Naval Supply Systems 
Command. Mr. Nichols holds a B.A. 
degree from Queens College, New- 
York, N. y. 



contractors, weak contract specifica- 
tions, and a few instances of poor 
rapport between contractors and 
Navy management personnel en- 
livened the test period. Despite these 
and other difficulties encountered, 
the program was evidently workable. 

In late 1964, in response to the 
support given the program by the 
Chief of Naval Personnel, Vice Ad- 
miral B. J. Scmmes, DOD approved 
it on the basis of the savings inherent 
in the program. The Bureau of Sup- 
plies and Accounts was authorized 
to direct its implementation. By Jan. 
B, 19GB, 23 activities had contracted 
for mess non-food handling services 
to be performed by civilians. 

The Navy Subsistence Office antici- 
pated a two-a nd-a-li alf ~y ear peri otl 
during: which problems might be 
evaluated and brought under better 
control. However, the program was 
barely under way when it received 
impetus from two directions, In Oc- 
tober 19GR, DOD announced its civili- 
an substitution policy. At the same 
time, demands for trained military 
personnel were immensely sharpened 
by roqu i rements in S outheast Asia . 
Naval facilities, particularly tho 
large Naval Training Centers and 
tho Naval Construction Battalion 
centers, were under great pressures 
to provide trained personnel as quick- 
ly as possible. Gcniimands could no 
longer afford to uso !)0 days of a 
trainee's time m mess duties when 
there was such urgent need to train 
him into a rating and have him fill 
a billet immediately. Accordingly, a 
number of facilities aoug'ht the use 
of civilians in their messes and sev- 
eral began using them in food han- 
dling jobs, Thus the program was 
suddenly expanded in terms of num- 
bers and with respect to tho skills 
required for somo jobs. 

The scope of the contract messman 
program was further broadened 
when a Navy board on the retention 
of personnel, headed by Rear Admiral 
John Alf o re!, recommended in 1965 
that the Navy "expand the contract 
messman program to include nil shore 
activities" in the continental United 
States. 

This brings into consideration one 
of the limitations on the program 
installation size. The program had 
been found workable in larger 
messes. However, about half of tho 
Navy shore messes are not of a size 
which would justify contracting for 
20 or more civilians, the minimum 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



T9 



number for which a contract can be 
satisfactorily negotiated, 

Another limitation on the program 
is ^ the need to maintain Navy com- 
rnissarymen (cooks) in shore installa- 
tions. To replace these Navy enlisted 
men with civilians would eliminate 
many shore billets and force com- 
missarymen to spend their entire 
Navy careers aboard ship. This 
would be contrary to established per- 
sonnel retention policy to rotate per- 
sonnel between ship and shore as- 
signments and would affect the 
morale of Navy commissarymen. Ci- 
vilian employees are utilized in some 
installations for counter service, 
salad preparation, and in other food 
service capacities, but not as cooks. 
The effectiveness with which a con- 
tract is fulfilled by a contractor is 
influenced by diverse factors, includ- 
ing- area unemployment rates and the 
attitudes of contractors. 

Experience has shown that the un- 
employment rate in the area where a 
contract is let generally affects the 
quality of performance by the con- 
tractor. Where the unemployment 
rate is low, contractors arc forced 
to draw on less skilled and loss re- 
liable persons, and personnel prob- 
lems occur more frequently. Person- 
no! problems diminish greatly when 
the area concerned has a high unem- 
ployment rate. 

One^of the obstacles to successful 
operation of a messman contract is 
a lack of understanding on the part 
of contractors as to the standards 
which the Navy maintains, and ex- 
pects to be maintained, in its facili- 
ties. Firms bidding on the contracts 
are generally oriented to providing 
a janitorial-type service, rather than 
to food service, and there is some- 
times a lack of proper supervision 
of the nature needed. Both contrac- 
tors and employees often have to go 
through a period of re-education, 
and this can be a time of considerable 
strain during which personnel prob- 
lems are not uncommon. Personnel 
problems have included excessive 
absenteeism, production slowdowns, 
walkouts and sitdown strikes. It must 
be admitted that military personnel 
have sometimes failed to use the best 
management techniques in coping 
with civilian employee problems, 
often due to a lack of experience in 
dealing with civilian help. 

In mid-1966 two adjustments were 
made in the contracts' which have 
raised the quality of performance: 



Contractors are now required to 
pay employees on the basis of an 
area wage survey conducted by the 
Department of Labor. This curbs 
the tendency of marginal contrac- 
tors to draw on the lowest sector of 
the labor community and generally 
raises the quality of employees pro- 
vided to Naval facilities. 

The utilization of women has 
definitely raised the level of work 
performance and decreased the se- 
verity of personnel problems. Women 
were not used under the early mess- 
man contracts because Naval activi- 
ties were reluctant to introduce 
women into stations with an all- 
male population and some were not 
equipped with facilities to accommo- 
date women. However, in April I960 
a contract was negotiated for the 
Naval Air Station at Mirimar, Calif., 
which included a dispensation to uti- 
lize women and recommended this he 
done. The results were so successful 
that contracts let in July 196G omit 
any reference to the employment of 
women. The Navy Subsistence Office 
encourages the hiring of females by 
contractors and strongly urges all 
activities to provide facilities for 
their employment. 

That is the program to date, the 
problems attendant upon it, and the 
major improvements which have in- 
creased its effectiveness. What does 
the future hold for the prog-ram? 
What other avenues can be explored 
to upgrade work performance and to 
"de-bug" it in problem areas? 

The Navy Subsistence Office is 
compiling data on problem areas 
which consistently appear. Some diffi- 
culties can be reduced by purifying 
and updating contract specifications 
and by seeking out ways of raising 
the quality, standards and perform- 
ance of Navy mess civilian em- 
ployees. 

The Navy is continuing its ef- 
forts to interest food service firms in 
participating in the program. In the 
past, established food service contrac- 
tors have generally avoided bidding 
for messman contracts. One reason 
they were reluctant to bid is that con- 
tracting, in conformance with the 
Armed Services Procurement Regula- 
tion, is on an annual basis. Reliable 
food service firms cannot build effec- 
tive service in a year's time. With no 
assurance that they would receive 
subsequent contracts, they simply 
avoided bidding. The Navy Subsis- 



20 



tence Office has now been given au- 
thority to permit one-year contracts 
with extension options. Also, food 
service firms are geared to handling 
an entire food package purchase of 
the food, its preparation, and food 
service. There have been indications 
that such companies might be inter- 
ested in messman contracts if these 
were offered on a complete package 
basis. The next 18 months should see 
the^ expansion of the program to its 
limits under existing policy. It ia 
possible that, as the program grows 
and assumes permanent status, some 
food service firms will decide to 
participate, 

9 Consideration is being given to 
providing training for the civilian 
employees to help orient them toward 
Navy practices and standards. Under 
such an arrangement, the contractor 
would have to assume responsibility 
for paying the employee while being 
trained. 

The Navy has under considera- 
tion providing the physical examina- 
tion which each employee must have 
before working in a Naval facility, 
From the Navy point of view, this 
would be preferable to accepting a 
physician's report from the employee. 

An alternative to contracting out 
the messman service would be the use 
of Civil Service personnel. While this 
is a direction which may be further 
explored, the cost is believed to be 
prohibitive. 

Despite the problems which have 
challenged the program from its in- 
ception, the results have shown that 
the program works. Out of some BO 
contracts negotiated to date, only 
two had to be canceled because of 
defaults in performance. The Navnl 
Air Station, Miramar, Calif., has ef- 
ficiently incorporated its civilian con- 
tract workers into an operation which 
won for the station the coveted Ney 
Award for excellence in food service 
in 1966. 

Captain E. A, Hamblen, Command- 
ing Officer of the Navy Subsistence 
Office, believes that the program is 
achieving its goals. "Certainly it has 
helped release Navy personnel to 
posts where they can be more ef- 
fectively used," he said. "Both in 
terms of manpower utilization and on 
the basis of fiscal savings, the con- 
tract messman program is doing the ^ 
job for which it was intended. Our 
major aim now is to upgrade its ef- 
fectiveness at the same time that we 
increase its scope." 

April 1967 




EETINGS AND SYMPOSIA 



Annual National Colloquium on In- 
formation Retrieval, May 3-4, at the 
Hotel Adelphia, Philadelphia, Pa. 
Contact: STINPO Project Director, 
A 2100, Frankford Arsenal, Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 19137 (Area Code 215) JE 
5-2900, Ext. 3219. 

Sixth Rare Earth Conference, May 
3-5, at Gatlinburg, Tonn. Co-sponsors: 
Air Force Office of Scientific Research 
and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 
Contact: Dr. Anthony J. Matuszko 
(SRC), Air Force Office of Scientific 
Research, 1400 Wilson Blvd., Arling- 
ton, Va. 22209, (Area Code 202) 
OXford 4-5337. Program contact: 
Dr. W. C. Koehler, Solid State 
Div., Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 
P.O. Box X, Oak Ridge, Tenn. 37831. 

14th Annual Institute on Govern- 
ment Contracts, May 4-5, at Wash- 
ington, D,C. Co-sponsors : George 
Washington University and the Fed- 
eral Bar Association, Contact: 14th 
Annual Institute on Government Con- 
tracts, Federal Bar Assn., 1816 H St., 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. 

International Conference on tho 
Mechanics of Composite Materials, 
May 8-10, at the Marriott Inn Motor 
Hotel, Philadelphia, Pa. Sponsor: 
Office of Naval Research. Contact: 
Ted Ryan, Space Sciences Laboratory, 
Conference Coordinator, (Area Code 
215) 969-2954; or J. M. Crowley, Of- 
fice of Naval Research, Code 439, Main 
Navy Building, Washington, D.C. 
20360, (Area Cods 202) OXford 
6-2283. 

Electron, Ion and Electromagnetic 
Beam Symposium, May 9-11, at the 
University of California, Berkeley, 
Calif. Co-Sponsors: Office of Naval 
Research and the University of Cali- 
fornia. Contact: Lt. Ronald Troutman, 
Office of Naval Research, Code 427, 
Room 4102, Main Navy Building 
Washington, D.C. 20360, (Area Code 
202) OXford 6-2289 or 6-4301. 

Photo-Optical Systems Evaluation 
Seminar, May 11-12, at Sheraton 
Hotel, Rochester, N.Y. Co-sponsors: 
Society of Photo-Optical Instrumen- 
tation Engineers and the Air Force 
Systems Command. Contact: John F, 
Carson, Chairman, SPIB Seminar 
Program Committee, 65 Plymouth 
Ave. S., Rochester, N.Y. 14608. 

Conference on Expandable and 
Modular Structures for Aerospace 
Applications, May 1B-17, at the 
Carillon Hotel, Miami Beach, Fla. 
Sponsors: Air Force Aero Propulsion 
Laboratory, Space General Corp. and 
GCA Viron Div. Contact: Fred W. 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



Forbes (APFT), Air Force Aero 
Propulsion Laboratory, Wright-Pat- 
terson AFB, Ohio 45433, (Area Code 
513) 253-7111, Ext. 52771. 

21st Annual Power Sources Con- 
ference, May 16-18, at the Shelburne 
Hotel, Atlantic City, N. J. Sponsor : 
Army Electronics Command, Fort 
Monmouth, N.J. Contact: Herbert W. 
Schwartz , Conference Coordinator, 
Power Sources Div., Electronic Com- 
ponents Lab., Army Electronics Com- 
mand, Fort Monmouth, N.J. 07703, 
(Area Code 201) 1535-2349. 

Interagency Data Exchange Pro- 
gram (IDEP) Annual Conference, 
May 16-18, at Clear Lake, Tex. Spon- 
sor: Policy Board, IDEP. Contact: 
Army Representative, Policy Board, 
IDEP, Systems Research & Develop- 
ment Branch, S&TI Div., Army Re- 
search Office, Office of Chief of Re- 
search & Development, Washington, 
D.C. 20310, (Area Code 202) OXford 
4-3513. 

Third System Performance- Effec- 
tiveness Conference, May 17-18, at 
State Department Auditorium, Wash- 
ington, D.C. Sponsor: Nnval Material 
Command. Contact: Mr. G. W. Neu- 
mann, Executive Secretary, SPE 
Steering Committee, Navnl Ship Sys- 
tems Command, Code 03511, Washing- 
ton, D.C. 20360, (Area Code 202) 
OXford 6-3097. 

Man, Materials and Nondestructive 
Testing Symposium, May 21-20, at 
Sheraton Mount Royal Hotel, Mon- 
treal, Quebec, Canada, Co-sponsors: 
Office of Naval Research and British- 
Canadian-U.S. Tripartite Technical 
Group. Contact: Mr, V. G. Behal, 
Dominion Foundries and Steel, Ltd., 
P.O. Box 460, Hamilton, Ontario, 
Canada; or Mr. J. M. Crowley, Office- 
of Naval Research, Code- 439, Main 
Navy Building, Washington, D.C. 
20360, (Area Code 202) OXford 
G-2283. 

Corrosion of Military and Aero- 
space Equipment Symposium, May 
23-2B, at Denver, Colo, Sponsor: Air 
Force Materials Laboratory, Wright- 
Patterson AFB, Ohio. Contact: Fred 
H. Meyer Jr., Applications Div,, Sys- 
tems Support Branch, Air Force Ma- 
terials Laboratory, Wright-Patterson 
AFB, Ohio 46433. 



JUNE 

Conference on High Energy Ther- 
apy Dosimetry, June 16-17, at New 
York, N.Y. Sponsor: Office of Naval 



Research. Contact: Eunice Thomas 
Miner, Executive Director, New York 
Academy of Sciences, 2 E. 63rd St., 
New York, N.Y. 10021, 

Computerized Imaging Techniques 
Seminar, June 26-27, at the Marriott 
Twin Bridges Motor Hotel, Washing- 
ton, D.C. Sponsor: Air Force Office of 
Aerospace Research. Contact; Jerome 
I. Mantcll, Chairman, 18100 Frederick 
Pike, Gaithcrsburgr, Md. 207GO, (Area 
Code 301) 921-7896. 

Field Emission Symposium, Juno 
26-30, at Georgetown Universitv, 
Washington, D.C. Sponsors: Ofnce~of 
Naval Research, Georgetown Univer- 
sity and the National Bureau of 
Standards. Contact: Lt. Ronald Trout- 
man, Office of Naval Research, Code 
427, Room 4102, Main Navy Building, 
Washington, D,C. 203GO, (Area Code 
202) OXford G-2208 or 6-4301. 

Fundamental Physics of the Mng- 
notosnliero, June (dates undeter- 
mined), at Boston, Mass. Co-sponsors: 
Air Force Cambridge Research Lab- 
oratories and Boston College. Con- 
tact: J. F. McCIay, Air Force 
Cambridge Research Laboratories, L. 
G, Hanscom Field, Bedford, Mass. 
01731, (Area Code 017) CR-4-G100, 
Ext. 3218. 



JULY 

1967 Annual Conference on Nu- 
clear and Space Radiation Effect, July 
10-14, at Ohio State University, Co- 
lumbus, Ohio. Sponsors: Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 
NASA Office of Advanced Research 
and Technology, Office of Nnval Re- 
search, Air Force Office of Scientific 
Research and the Department of tho 
Army. Contact: Mr. E. E. Conrad, 
Harry Diamond Laboratories, Wash- 
ington, B.C., 20438, (Area Code 202) 
OXford 6-0126. 

1067 Summer Seminar on Mathe- 
matics of the Decision Sciences, at 
Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif., 
July 10-Aug. 11, Sponsors : Air Force 
Office of Scientific Research, Atomic 
Energy Commission, Army Research 
Office, Small Business Administration, 
National Bureau of Standards, Office 
of Naval Research, National Insti- 
tutes of Health and the National 
Science Foundation. Contact: Maj, 
John Jones Jr., (SRMA), Air Force 
Office of Scientific Research, 1400 Wil- 
son Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209, (Area 
Code 202) OXford 4-6261. 



21 



HO., AIR FORCE 

Andrews A 

Washingforj 

i 

Phone: 981 ? 



[If I 
i;rf M 



ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 
C L,I. P. RAS 



DCS/ 
fiioAsna'JAimcs ( MEDICISE 

HU GES D. S. HEMER 
ASSIST*.'.! JMSS2 

COL K. K, EfflKLAS 



1)1 MaO RATE OF 
BIOA5IF,mAUTIC5 
COL R. E. ROBASDS 
B JSISD 



DIRECTORATE OF 
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 
COL B. E. FU1IERTY 



DIRECTORATE OF 
SUPPORT SERVICES 
COL J. J. DYKSTRA 



DCS/COMPTROLLER 
HAJ GEN K. E. CARTER 

X53J6 
ASSISTA-ST 
COL 1. S, BINEDICT 



DIRECTORATE OF 
ACCOIKTIXG ( FINANCE 

COL li, C. Q'llARA 
SCW ,2228 



DIRECTORATE OF 

COST ANALYSIS 

COL .1. B. IIHSDMSI 



IllRECTOKATE OF 
COL C. D. MALDECKCR 



DIBECTORATE Of 
HA.fAGEJin.'iT A.WYSI5 
. 'IK. . C. PRITOIARD 
SCCS (Actn) , 



COL C, It, WIINIIHIIN-JMII 

K.I 340 
ASSISTANT 
COL A. U. STOI.L 

SCF x-IJJJ 



5?CIAL PROJECTS 
OFF1U! 

u COL .1. A, nei'in: 

SCFO XJ9H 



iBECTOitATt; or FOREICN 

TEOI.TOLOCY PliOlTRA.^ 

COL IV. C, VI1IMAC 

SCFP W OS 



HIRIiAT CVAMJATIOS 
CO], A, (!. HHTOIINS 
CfT XS301 




niRKCTOBATE flF 

PHOHUI.TIOM 
fOL H. J. DIBIIEII 



DIltRCTORAli; OF 
I'ROCUJII-MIiNT 

cm. ii. M. FI.CTCIULII 

P X46 



1'IA'lflNG Al.TtVllli 
GrJ! mi. 11 MM 

Mlt. II. A. Ml If) 



l*i:si CYW.r Mill., 

rAi:ii,HY [inici 
MH. .1. a, ASI.I.II, in 
sn.-t. ('.iiiiuiii 



April 1967 



Force Base 

Dr 
* V" i 



js extension 



IDER 
iiRClUSOf 



STAFF 
"-. AM EN 



DEPUTY COMMANDER FQRBLOBAl. RAItiF 

LT GE.1 I,. ]. DAVIS 
SCGR XZ6B4 



STAPF JUDGE 


ADVOCATE 


Btllfi CE\ A. 


W. TOI.EM 


S.CJ 


X2S63 



OFFICE UP 

MANPOWER S ORGANIZATION 
r CO!. 1, J. KEEPER 
SCO XJ211 



CHAPLAIN 


EOI. J. 


r 1 . FIM.LOWS 


sex 


KOI4I 



I STAPF METEOROLOGIST 

| COL A. H, HULL i 

I SCW X2S9J 



DCS/MATERIEL 
COL J. W. (iAFF, JR. (Act);) 

XJJM 
ABSISTA.1T 
COL P. II, KP.NSEV (AclRl 



SOI 



mo; 



EMiCTRffiJICS 

I.T col. o. r.. COP. 

SU-tE X3JSI 



DCS /0?f, HAT IOWS 
BRIR fil-N r. H. KOGEBS (Actfl 



DIRECTORATE OP 

TEST CCMTIIKS 

EOI. I., A, GDIiY 

SCNS X5201 



DCS/PERSffi/KEL 
L'dL .!. H, IHIIBOM 



ASSISTANT 
COL R. ii. OREtl 



SliHJOJl OFFICER 



111 niiCTDIlATI; 01' 
CIVILIAN PEIISONN'HL 

MR. r. K, KIMI; 

SCI'C Xlil.ll 



D1RUCTOKATE OF 
Pl;llSOSNI!L PnOG ( JiEUC 

HOI. , .1. MASTERS 
SCI'I' XJ15 



ASSISTANT FOR 

RI'SI-RVJ! AFFAIRS 

COI. R. .1, Kr.TTEHI.W 



DIRECTORATE OP 
PERSO.TOC L SERVICES 
I.T COL D. D. flRlfiHT 



IICS/SVSTE'K 

MAJ I5E1 J. J. COIIV, JR. 
ASSISTANT 3(3116 

niiiii m: w. R. HILDHH;!!, JR 

S32CU 
COL S. II. .VICHOLS 3I210B 



ASSISTANT FOR 
SYSTEMS HANACtMtNT 

roi. if. ii. i HIATUS 



ASSISTANT FOB 

SUHVIVAIIILIPY 

COI. H, [>. Li'OOIl 

SCS-T X24J1 



DlHIitTOIIATU (J)' 

AERONAUTICAL SYSTE'IS 

COL (!. A. KtRSCII 

SCSA X5 i 



DIRIiCTOnATi; OF 
BALLISTIC MISSILES 
EOL P. S, POUTER, JR. 



DIKECTORATE OF 
ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS 
COL I*. .1, FREUSD 
ICSE I4JIS 



DIRECTORATE OP 
MIWITIDMS ( EQL1?HEHT 

COL F, E, HU.1Dr.LI. 
CSH K66* 



DIB/RHCOSNAISSANCF. 
5URV6 1 HANOi/EK 
COL A. Ji, SM1TII, JR. 
C3R 



[(1HECTORATE OF 
SPACU SYSTEMS 
COL J, D. LOWE 
CSS XZI 



DIRECTORATE OF 
ADVANCED SYSTEMS 
COL S. I*. BREWER 



DCS/SCIILNCI; r, JL 

MB. 1. 11. MIIL'IA 
SCT 


K5214 
X5416 



February 1967 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



SMTWTFS SMTWTFS SMTWTFS 



.! .1 J 7 
II % I", II g 



J J 8 ii 8 g ,} 

i! io 3 3 2 J 25 * " g 



?, 



1 2 3 

8 9 10 

22 23 24 
29 30 



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Hon. Paul H. Ignatius, Asst. Secre- 
tary of Defense (Installations & 
Logistics), at the 25th Anniversary 
Meeting of the National AeroSpace 
Services Assn., International Inn, 
Washington, D. C., May 2. 

Mr. Henry A. Wallace, Los Angeles 
Regional Manager, Defense Contract 
Audit Agency, at the Aerospace and 
Electronics Committee of the Los 
Angeles Chapter of Certified Public 
Accountants Meeting, Los Angeles, 
Calif., May 25. 

Lt. Gen. H. C. Donnelly, USAF, 
Dir., Defense Atomic Support Agency, 
at Memorial Day Services, Santa Fe 
National Cemetery, Santa Fe, N.M., 
May 30. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Alfred B. Fitt, General Counsel, at 
Veterans Memorial Building Awards 
Presentation, Detroit, Mich., April 26. 

Brig. Gen. Harry G, Woodbiiry Jr., 
Director of Civil Works, Office of 
Chief of Engineers, at American 
Power Conference Marketing 1 Semi- 
nar, Chicago, 111., April 26. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

RAdm. Henry L. Miller, Chief of 
Information, at Navy League Conven- 
tion, Jacksonville, Fla,, May 1-5. 

Hon. Paul H. Nitzc, Secretary of the 
Navy, at Jr, Chamber of Commerce 
Armed Forces Day Luncheon. Los 
Angeles, Calif., May 16. 

Adra. Alfred G. Ward, U, S. Repre- 
sentative to NATO, at Alined Forces 
Week Celebration^ Detroit, Mich., May 
_j. Commissioning Ceremony of 



DEPARTMENT OF THE 
AIR FORCE 

Hon. Norman S. Paul, Under Secre- 
tary of the Air Force, at Aviation 
Hall of Fame, New York, N.Y., May 7 

Lt. Gen. H. T. Whelcas, Asst. Vice 
Chief of Staff, at Aviation Hall of 
Fame, New York, N.Y., May 7. 

Lt. Gen. T. P. Gerrity, Den. Chief 
ol fatntr (Systems & Logistics), at 
American Ordnance Assn., Washing- 
ton, D.C., May 11; at Inter-Agency 
Data Exchange, Houston, Tex., May 

brig. Gen. Guy H. Goddaid, Dep. 
IJir. for Construction, Office of Dir 
Civil Engineering, at Armed Forties 
IJay Luncheon, Akron, Ohio, May 15 
. G ' B. K. Holloway, Vice Chief of 
fataft, at Hennesay Trophy Awards, 



Chicago, 111., May 21; at Comestock 
Club, Sacramento, Calif., May 22; at 
American Fighter Aces Assn., Colo- 
rado Springs, Colo., Juno 24. 

Gen. K. 11. liobson, Commander, Air 
1'orce Logistics Command, at National 
Security Industrial A.s.sn., Dayton 
Ohio, May 'frl. 

Hon. llobert IT. Charles, Asst. Sec- 
i-utnry of the Air Force (Installations 
& Logistics), at Forging Indus- ri 
trios Assn. Mooting, White Sulphur 
Springs, W. Va., May 2C,. 

Maj. Gen. R. I'. Klocko, Comman- 
der, Air Force Communications Serv- 
' ce ' ' lli Al ' tm ' ( ' Forces Communications 
& Electronics Assn. Meeting-. Wash- 
ington, D.C., June 5-7. 

Brig. Gen. E. A. I'inson, Comman- 
der, Office of Aerospace: Research, at 
American Society of Photogrammetry, 
Washington, D.C., June 2(i. 



Navy Offers Direct Commission To 
Obtain Needed Civil Engineers 



* 
., May 27, 

RAdm. P. A, Beshany, Dir., Sub- 
marine Wai-fare, at Kiwanis Interna- 
tional Club, Columbus, Ga,, May 16. 

i HA Tl 1 S t i anic ? ' Abbot - Comman- 
der, U.S. Naval Support Force, Ant- 
arctica, at Armed Forces Day 
Celebration, Mobile, Ala., May 18, 

VAdm Alexander Keyword, Chief 
of Naval An; Training, at Armed 
Forces Council, Kansas City. Mo., 
May 20. ' 

> ep. Dir., 
b Armed 
e, Kan., 

Dir,, Po- 
Dffice of 

; Rotary 
6. 



The Navy has established a Direct 
Procurement Program to recruit ex- 
perienced civil engineers for direct 
appointment as Navy Civil Engineer 
Corps (CEC) officers for active duty 
m lieutenant and lieutenant com- 
mander grades. 

Officers procured under this pro- 
gram will attend a nine-week orien- 
tation course at Newport, R. L, and 
an eight-week course at the Civil 
Engineer Corps Officers School Port 
Hueneme, Calif. They will serve two 
years on active duty and agree to re- 
main Naval reservists for an addi- 
tional four years. 

To become a reserve lieutenant, an 
applicant must have a baccalaureate 
degree m engineering or architecture, 
live years of acceptable experience, 
and be at least 26 years old. Lieu- 
tenant commanders must be 38 years 
old, OP under, and will need the same 
educational background plus 12 years 
of experience. Graduate degrees in 
engineering normally count as a year 
or experience, 

CEC officers, as members of the 



Naval Facilities Engineering Com- 
mand (NAVFAC), build and main- 
tain the Navy's vast, world-wide 
shore establishment. They also com- 
mand Soabce Battalions and Seabes 
1 cams. 

Today, 1? Seahee Battalions are on 

active duty, eight of thorn deployed 
m South Vietnam where they support 
Navy activities and Marino Coma anil 



action missions, eight of them In 
houtn Vietnam and throe in Thailand. 
Today in Vietnam, NAVFAC 
designated the DOD construction 
agent m Southeast Asiamanages 

5^U dn ' cts ' undci ' thc leadership of C] 
ULG officers, thc operation of the 
largest construction job in world 
history. 

.The year 1907 marks thc 26th an- 
niversary of the Scabocs, the 100th 
anniversary of the Navy Civil Engi- 
neer Corps, and the 125th anniversary 
ot the Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command (formerly the Bureau of 
Yards and " ' ' 





April 1967 




Excerpt from address by Maj. Gen. 
William J, Van Ryzin, USMC, Asst. 
Chief of Staff, G-4, Uq., U. S. Marine 
Corps, at Navy League Biennial 
Symposium/ Exhibition, Washington 
D, C., Feb. W, 1967. 




Maj. Gen. W. J. Van Ryzin, USMC 

Marine Corps Logistics 
in Vietnam and Tomorrow 



** 



*** 



Many of our logistic problems in 
Vietnam arc related directly to the 
distance which supplies must bo 
shipped to get to the user and the 
difficulties in handling: and moving 
cargo once it is in the objective area, 
Wo have learned to live with a long 
pipeline it has been 210 days from 
requisition to delivery for many items 
but we are working hard to shorten 
it. The monsoon winds and rains have 
not only curtailed unloading opera- 
tions at times but have dissolved 
roads, washed out bridges, flooded 
staging areas and generally hampered 
movement. The monsoons also play 
havoc with items that are marked or 
packaged poorly. 

Much of the credit for improve- 
ments which we have made in this 
area goes to our Navy teammates in 
the Mobile Construction Battalions 
nnd at the Naval Support Activity, 
DaNang-. . , . 

But there are still tasks to be done 
and industry can help! Industry can 
give us better cargo handling equip- 
ment and rapid unloading systems 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



for ships. The methods we are using 
today are not much advanced over 
those we used in World War II. We 
need better shipping containers and 
we need better packaging-. The con- 
tainers we want should reduce break- 
age and pilferage yet facilitate easy 
movement by helicopter, vehicle, or 
landing craft. Consider this prob- 
lem, if you will, as it relates to the 
multiple handling- involved in an 
item which must go by ship from the 
West Coast to DaNang, by airlift to 
Hue-Phu Bai, by truck to Dong-Ha, 
and by helicopter to an outpost for 
use on patrol in a monsoon rain! 

The Marine Corps, like the other 
Services, is looking for a good soil 
stabilizer. We need a substance that 
will work as a soil stabilizer and dust 
pallative under all weather condi- 
tions and on all types of soil with a 
minimum of site preparation. It must 
be economical and simple to employ. 
The materials we now have are mod- 
erately effective in sand but don't 
help us very much with mud. There 
are many applications for such a soil 
stabilizer but the one that concerns 
us most is providing a good surface 
for helicopter landing zones. The dust 
and debris problem was difficult in 
"Operation Hastings" but it is espe- 
cially nettelsome at Chu Lai where 
we installed an expeditionary airfield 
with aluminum matting. The matting- 
has performed far in excess of what 
was demanded of it but the soil be- 
neath the matting; has degenerated. 
Much of the surface has had to be 
lifted and relaid on stabilized soil. 
Dust and mud arc among- our worst 
enemies. 

The single item that brings me the 
greatest amount of "fan mail" today 
is rainwear. Our troops have had 
ample opportunity to test their rain 
gear during the monsoons and they 
aren't very enthusiastic about their 
present ponchos. The ponchos protect 
the upper torso adequately hut not 
the lower body. There is nothing they 
like about the poncho. What is needed 
is a piece of tropical rainwear that 
is light and durable but which gives 
good coverage against the chilling- 
monsoon rain while permitting the 
body to "breathe." We've tried every 



known commercial product but so far 
haven't found the item we consider 
acceptable. 

The weather and climate of Viet- 
nam is as hard on equipment as it is 
on men. Constant exposure to heat, 
humidity, and an especially fine type 
of abrasive sand found in Vietnam 
have combined with the constant op- 
eration of equipment to raise wear- 
out rates well beyond the expected 
level. Relentless pursuit of the enemy, 
firing at extreme ranges and maxi- 
mum charges, and communicating 
with units widely separated has 
placed added stress and strain on both 
weapons and communications equip- 
ment. Replacement of many items has 
had to be accomplished much sooner 
than was anticipated and item main- 
tenance is required more often than 
was expected. Industry's role here is 
to help us develop more rug-god and 
reliable equipment that will withstand 
these adverse conditions. 

I recognize that the military con- 
stantly demands higher performance 
from industry and we still have to 
achieve a meeting of the minds on 
maintenance requirements. The Ma- 
rine Corps is working on this prob- 
lem and already lias launched pro- 
gram "Trump" Total Revision and 
Updating of Maintenance Procedures. 
Our comnranicators are still calling- 
for bettor radios, hotter batteries, a 
better tactical switchboard, and 
greater reliability in their equipment 
across the board. We're still trying to 
beat tho weight nnd performance 
problems in manpack and miniature 
radios. We have progressed now to 
the point where, in our latest equip- 
ments, the battery is of equal or 
greater weight than tho electronic 
portions of the system. If you want 
to help us in communications, givo 
us a long-range, reliable manpack 
communications system, give us a 
miniature, short-range, two-way radio 
for our rifleman, and give us a light- 
weight, long endurance battery to 
power our radios. We also need a 
lightweight switchboard that is auto- 
matic or semi-automntie and will 
successfully endure the primitive con- 
ditions of the field environment in- 
cluding a, monsoon rain, , , . 



25 



We also need an effective and re- 
liable device that will detect mines 
ami booby traps. These two types of 
device.-; are amounting for more Ma- 
rine casualties in Vietnam today than 
all other casualty-producing agents 
combined. We have metallic detecting 
equipment but many of the mines 
and booby traps contain no metal. 

What can we develop to help us 
detect booby traps in Viet Cong vil- 
lages, caves and tunnels? As we open 
up more roads, railroads, villages, 
canals and rivers, the problem of 
mine and booby trap detection will 
become more and more of a concern 
to us. 

Night vision is another area where 
we need imaginative help from in- 
dustry. Lieutenant General Krulalt, 
Commander of our Fleet Marine 
Force in the Pacific, said, "Give me 
a set of contact lenses that I can 
issue to every Marine so he can see 
in the dark as if it were daylight and 
we'll get this war over in a hurry." 
We're ready to accept something less 
than General Krulak's request but, 
whatever it is, it must be an improve- 
ment over the presently available 
equipment that is either too bulky or 
is tethered to a heavy power source. 

. . . Industry made extraordinary 
efforts to get seismic intrusion 
devices and the moving target indi- 
cator to our forces in the field. 
The real meaning of their efforts is 
beat stated by the failure of the Viet 
Cong to make a single successful in- 
cursion against the airfields at Da 
Nang and Chu Lai since they were 
installed. 

Our operations in Vietnam have 
shown us that we need a good vehicle 
for use in marginal terrain. The vehi- 
cle we would like must be capable of 
operating over rice fields, dikes, mud, 
swamps and all varieties of terrain 
and, if at all possible, it should have 
the same degree of reliability that we 
get now from a two-and-a-half-ton 
truck on a good road. The vehicle 
that answers this need also may sat- 
isfy some of our requirements for 
ship-to-shore movement, In this con- 
nection, and looking not at Vietnam 
hut at our pure amphibious require- 
ments, the Marine Corps also needs 
industry's assistance to help us de- 
velop a high-speed amphibious sup- 
port vehicle to move supplies and 
equipment from the dispersed ships 
of an amphibious task force to 
logistic support areas and using 
units ashore. The Landing Force De- 
velopment Center at Quantico, Va., 



has been testing vehicles using the 
hydrofoil, planing hull, and hydrokeol 
or air cushion principles, but so far 
we've not been able to get a vehicle 
that has an acceptable high speed 
capability over both water and land. 



Address by Maj Gen, Glenn A. 
Kent, USAF, Asst. for Concept 
Formulation, Office of Dcp. Chief of 
Staff (Research & Development), 
Hq., U. S. Air Force; and Dep. Chief 
of Stuff, Plans, Hq., Air Force Sys- 
tems Command, at Annual Meeting 
of the American Institute of Aero- 
nautics & Astronautics, Boston, 
Mass., Nov. 29, 1966. 




Brig. Gen. Glenn A. Kent, USAF 

Technological Challenge 

of the 1970's in the 

Aerospace Field 

Today, I would like to dwell on 
"how" we go about generating and 
producing the improved weapon sys- 
tems that will enhance our opera- 
tional capabilities in the 1970'a. It 
is extremely important that we re- 
peatedly and continuously appraise 
the organizational patterns and pro- 
cedures which we use to deal with the 
challenges- ahead. It is incumbent 
upon all of us from Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (OSD) clown- 
to constantly evaluate and re-evaluate 
not only the major decisions as to 
which systems are to be developed 
and procured, but also to evaluate 
the processes by which the decisions 
are made, Within the Services, the 
research and development communi- 
ties must structure their administra- 



tion, their thinking 1 and their philoso- 
phy in such a way that no system 
concept of merit flounders for want 
of a road map through what appears 
to be an endless masse of bureaucracy. 

During the past few years both 
the philosophy and methods of alloca- 
tion of DOD resources huvo under- 
gone significant changes, The decision 
makers who control the release of 
dollars for now systems and pro- 
grams have evolved now procedures 
and new standards by which their de- 
terminations arc made. This, of 
course, is not news to any of you. 

In the early years of tho new 
regime many of the military failed to 
comprehend tho .siiynificiume of the 
changes and rebelled at the centrali- 
zation of authority which, alim^ with 
an increased efficieiK'y, tho dianjfos 
brought about. There is no doubt that 
fighting the problem, consciously or 
subconsciously, diverted a j-Teat deal 
of effort that should have RIHIR into 
more constructive ehiumoUi. 

There are now fairly well described 
procedures that will be with us for 
the indefinite future whether we* ap- 
prove or disapprove. Tim Air Force 
(I can really only speak Cor the Air 
Force) is, for tlm most part, con- 
vinced of tho oft'ectiveneBa of thoKO- 
procedures. Certainly all are totally 
aware of their inevitability. 

In response to the clianA'iin? environ-; 
ment, the Air Force is nu]L#iiing 
its planning procesH. It IB our ntm,: 
once this realignment is implemented 
throughout all echelons of the Air 
Force research and development com- 
munity, that there will be n much 
sharper focus on the basi philosophy 
of our research and development pUn- 
ning and on our procedures for 
marrying technology to operational* 
problems to beget new and useful 
weapon systems on a timely 1mm 

In the past, much of thn pUinnmjr 
activity centered around the word 
"requirements." This word took on 
many meanings, A requirement some- 
times expressed a deficiency or iifirolj 
sometimes it described a nropoaul for 
new systems or equipment, nnnwly, , 
a Specific Operational Itequircmnnt ' 
(SOR), Frequently these SOIl's at-! 
tempted to specify and those from : 
higher headquarters oven to direct: 
in minute detail the technical solution 
for the deficiency. 

It is now generally accepted that 
directing the solution in tho early 
stages is not appropriate action for 
either higher headquarters or the op- 
erational commands, It loads to all 



April 1967 



the dangers inherent in the prejudg- 
K ment of solutions. Through a process 
of evolution, the "proposal" is re- 
placing the "requirement" as the 
focus of our planning activities. It 
may appear that we are only creat- 
ing a semantic disturbance, but we 
feel strongly that much of the hazi- 
ness that enshrouded previous con- 
siderations will be dispelled by terms 
that identify more explicity the par- 
ticular planning- activity in which we 
are engaged. 

It is the responsibility of Ail- 
Force Systems Command (AFSG), 
with general guidance from Head- 
quarters, USAP, and the operational 
commands, to formulate and to con- 
ceive proposals for weapon systems 
to alleviate operational deficiencies 
and improve our capabilities. It is the 
planners' job to amalgamate the sys- 
tem concept from a multitude of in- 
puts. Now everyone has his own gra- 
phic portrayal of this so-called "plan- 
ning process." My favorite pic- 
torial representation involves a giant 
witch's cauldron into which arc 
dumped indeterminate quantities of 
the "political" by a politician with a 
bowler hat; the "threat" by a sinis- 
ter looking character with cloak and 
dagger; the "technology" by a man 
in a white smock; and the "needs" 
by an officer resplendent in crash 
helmet ^ancl flying suit. In controlled 
quantities each provides his own par- 
ticular input to the cauldron. Also by 
the cauldron is a planner with a 
hugh paddle agitating the brew, 
which is labeled "Studies and Analy- 
ses." Out of all this, the ingredients 
and the stirring, congeal golden nug- 
gets called "System Concepts." The 
system concepts form the basis for 
proposals for new systems for the 
operational inventory and these, of 
course, are what we are after, 
Enough of my mirage of the world 
of planning. 

Next, I would like to expound on 
a matter that centers on the word 
"plan". Many people state we would 
do much better if we just had a 
plan. My reply is that we do have 
one, It is called the Five Year De- 
fense Program (FYDP) (formerly 
the Five Year Force Structure and 
Financial Program). The disbelievers 
invariably will scoff that the FYDP 
does not tell what the Air Force is 
to do even in the five years which it 
covers. Much less for the years suc- 
ceeding) It cannot be regarded as a 
plan certainly not a good one, 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



But I contend that the FYDP is a 
plan jn the classical sense of the 
word. It tells, among other things, 
how those in charge of research and 
development are to allocate their re- 
sources to do battle in the techno- 
logical race. The resources arc man- 
power and dollars. Then there is the 
charge that the program is not a 
"long-range plan." It extends only 
for the next five years. True, it is 
very explicit in describing- what re- 
sources are available to the Air Force 
for research and development for 
those five years. This, in turn, affects 
the posture of the Air Force for the 
next 20 years. So it is a long-- 
range plan in terms of its tasting 
impact. The next rejoinder that it is 
not a good plan is a different sub- 
ject. 

If it is not, perhaps, a good plan, 
we arrive at my central theme; we 
are one step closer to the central 
issue. If you don't like it, change it. 
That is what planners are for, and 
changes are made by proposals to 
those that have the authority to make 
changes. 

Then the heart of the matter is 
how to go about getting proposals ap- 
proved. To repeat, changes in tho 
plan cnn be accomplished only by 
initiating proposals and by obtaining 
OSD approval of them. I know of no 
other way. 

Now the question is: By what 
process do we generate proposals 
that will change the plan? Wo think 
of this as a process having- four 
separate categories of activities.. The 
word "categories" to delineate devel- 
opment planning activities should not 
be confused with the six categories 
of Defense Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) , that 
is, research, exploratory development, 
advanced development, etc. The cate- 
gories for planning activities are 
these. 

Category A Proposals for sys- 
tems for the operational inventory, 
This activity involves a concept for- 
mulation package (CFP) to attain 
approval for contract definition. 

Category B -Proposals for ad- 
vanced development programs. 

Category C Mission analyses. 

Category D Technology applica- 
tion studies. 

I will describe each of these in 

turn. 

Category A activities set up a 
stream of milestones having- to do 
with developing and acquiring equip- 



ment for the operational forces. The 
last of these milestones is; "There ia 
now an operational capability." The 
CFP is the moans by which we hope 
to influence the high-level decision 
makers to grant approval for new 
starters, that is, to change the pro- 
gram. The primary objective is to 
convince the particular authority who 
controls resources ' that the system, 
equipment, or facility described in tho 
proposal is the best means of alleviat- 
ing an identified deficiency and that 
the increased capability afforded by 
this system is such that resources 
should bo expended toward develop- 
ment. The CFP must contain tho 
following essential elements: 

* A description of the proposed 
system or facility. 

Its costs and schedules. 

The rationale as to why a par- 
ticular design was selected and why 
it offers enough utility (increased op- 
erational capability) to justify that 
money should bo reserved for devel- 
opment. This final argument also 
must include reasons for initiating 
development "now," generally the 
next fiscal year, 

As stated earlier, concept formula- 
tion begins with the recognition of 
an operational deficiency-. This de- 
ficiency may be expressed by an op- 
erational commander in a statement 
of a Required Operational Capability 
(ROC) , as defined in Air Force Regu- 
lation 57-1, or orally, or by letter 
from a key person in USAF or OSD. 
The HOC need not bo anything more, 
elaborate than a statement by a key 
operational commander that, for ex- 
ample, our capability for night attack 
is quite deficient. In fact, a statement 
like this from a four-star general, 
with appropriate embellishments, is 
truly a HOC as distinct from a 
pebble. 

Generally, the first step in prepar- 
ing a CFP is to conduct Preliminary 
Design Studies. These further con- 
figure the system concept and de- 
scribe that which ia technically feasi- 
ble. The Requests for Proposal 
should specify desired porformnnao 
parameters, but never specify the 
design. Generally, the design will be 
baaed on technologies we have rea- 
sonable confidence in achieving. Fur- 
ther, the associated costs and sched- 
ules will be shown in considerable 
detail. 

The Preliminary Design Studies 
that lead to a description of tho sys- 
tem are generally contracted out to 



27 



industry. The assessment of the 
utility of the proposals and the 
preparation of the overall CFP is an 
jn^l,-. Job, that is, the assessment of 
utility must be done by the Air 
Force. The selection of which particu- 
lar design, among many, will be 
proposed is the responsibility of 
Headquarters, USAF, the operational 
command, AFSC and, finally, even 
bigh'T levels of authority. 

The rationale in the CFP must 
provide the basis for the Chief of 
Staff and the Secretary of the Air 
Force, or someone on their staffs, to 
persuade the Secretary of Defense, 
or someone on his staff, to approve 
the system and reserve money. The 
rationale should always be based on 
objective analysis. This does not mean 
that the planner cannot be a per- 
suasive advocate. On the contrary, 
objective analysis is an integral part 
of advocacy. Being a seller and being 
honest are not exclusive options. 
Furthermore, persuasive advocacy 
must adhere to a policy of open dis- 
closure in which all the evidence per- 
taining to the case is presented. 

Based on the information contained 
in a CFP, money may be reserved in 
the budget for a new system or sub- 
system, but this does not necessarily 
constitute final program approval and 
release. Final program approval is 
obtained upon approval of the Pre- 
liminary Technical Development Plan 
(PTDP). The latter is a product of 
AFSC headquarters and AFSC di- 
visions with inputs from the opera- 
tional commands and industry. Final 
approval of the PTDP obtains release 
of the funds for engineering develop- 
ment, the first phase of which is 
normally contract definition, So Cate- 
gory A has to do with items for the 
operational forces. 

The second category of the plan- 
ning process Category B has to do 
with proposals for advanced develop- 
ment programs. Advanced develop- 
ment programs are designed to dem- 
onstrate technical feasibility and to 
establish the confidence level in an 
experimental system or equipment 
which eventually may be incorporated 
into some system for the operational 
inventory. Such a proposal should 
contain: 

Description of the proposed dem- 
onstration and technical approach, 

Costa and schedules. 

tionale which includes the po- 

oayoff If the equipment works; 

IB particular technical ap- 

as selected; and why it 



should be done now and not at some 
later date. 

(You will note the proposal for ad- 
vanced developments bears a strong 
resemblance to proposals for Cate- 
gory A systems operational sys- 
tems.) Advanced development pro- 
grams end when they succeeed! This 
is sometimes lost sight of and people 
are loathe to stop their program 
when their success rate is high. But 
exploitation of the technology is 
taken care of by Category A typo 
activities. 

The third category Category C 
has to do with mission analyses. Here 
we examine in depth some particular 
operational mission or function such 
as night attack, or strategic recon- 
naissance, or surveillance. The objec- 
tive is to identify new promising sys- 
tem concepts or equipment that will 
improve our operational capability in 
the mission area being studied. Mis- 
sion analyses provide one of the 
forcing functions for directives to 
initiate a Category A activity de- 
velop a proposal for an operational 
system or a Category B activity 
develop a proposal for an advanced 
development program or for both, 
concurrently. They may also provide 
a focus for new technology efforts 
(exploratory developments) . Mission 
analyses can be conducted by person- 
nel from Headquarters, USAF, the 
operational command, Headquarters, 
AFSC, an AFSC division, or a task 
force composed of representatives of 
any or all of them, including person- 
nel from industry. The responsibility 
for initiating and organizing task 
force efforts rests with Headquarters, 
USAF, or with Headquarters, AFSC. 

Category D activities are called 
technology application studies. In 
such studies, a specific technological 
advancement, such as the laser, is 
examined to determine possible useful 
applications to various operational 
missions or functions. In Category C 
one knew the problem and was 
looking for a solution. In this cate- 
gory, Category D, one has the 
solution and is looking for the prob- 
lem. Technology application studies 
also provide a basis for directives to 
initiate a Category A activity or a 
Category B activity, or both, In ad- 
dition, Category D studies may pro- 
vide a basis for re-orienting existing 
major programs. Primarily, this ac- 
tivity is conducted by AFSC divi- 
sions, centers, laboratories, or task 
forces, 



In both Category C and D activi- 
ties, technical personnel are heavily 
involved. They bring to these groups 
an understanding of what is possible, 
The planner marries them to opera- 
tional people who have nn under- 
standing of what is useful. Tho off- 
spring is, hopefully, now Hystcm 
concepts. Thus Category C and D ac- 
tivities provide forcing' functions for 
the generation of now proposals; Cate- 
gory B activities provide the tech- 
nical base for Category A activities. 
Category A activities provide the 
basis for getting things into the op- 
erational inventory ami, after nil, 
this is the final payoff. 

The key question in each njitoffoi-y 
is: "What end result is nxiiectod of 
this activity?" If tho denied result 
is to provide a basis for decision to 
proceed with contract definition and 
subsequent full-scale development and 
deployment, a CFP must be drafted 
and assembled. If demonstration of 
feasibility is the problem, the project 
is an advanced development and tho 
demonstration must be described. 
From a mission analysis or tech- 
nology application study we i!X|iect 
to identify new system cnnwpU Hint 
are worthy candidates :for a CIuluROvy 
A activity generating a firm prrtpuiwl 
for an operational system. 

A now project must bo conatniclod 
with one oyo always upon ttifi b- 
jcctivo of its incorporation in thn 
PYDP, The decision maker, who 
gives the go-ahead on new wLarUM'H 
and controls the allocation of fft- 
sourcos, is at a high level in thn DOT.) 
hierarchy. All planning mitlvilleH 
should ho geared to convince, him 
that he should first roRorvn rosouiccH 
(and eventually roloaao thiwn re- 
sources) to accomplish tho program 
that is proposed. The only red ogni 7,11- 
ble measure of success for the plan- 
ner is tho approval of a "nnw 
starter," one that will providn ef- 
fective equipment to the operational 
forces on a timely basis. 

Obviously there arc other wnyn to 
view the planning procicsH. But thu 
adoption of a common terminology 
which avoids imprecise, and ambigu- 
ous terms is essential. Asking, "Whnl 
is expected?" and then carefully Idon- 
tifying the effort as being in one 
of the four categories will leave no 
doubt as to what is intended, AB a 1 
much-needed management tool, wo 
do exactly this by always asking 
"What Category?" "What do you 
expect?" 



April 1967 



But to remind you, our greatest 
f challenge is to harness the technology 
we already have or which is in the 
offing. There are many opportuni- 
ties for improvements improvements 
with large systems or with small 
subsystems. To recite a few; 

We would like to have the capa- 
bility of preventing enemy re-entry 
vehicles with nuclear warheads from 
impacting on the United States. 

We would like to be able, in 
turn, to have high assurance of pene- 
trating enemy defenses with our re- 
entry vehicles and aircraft. 

We need the capability to detect 
enemy personnel, tracks and equip- 
ment wherever they might be even 
when hidden beneath jungle canopies 
or in caves. 

We would like the best fighter 
in the world for air-to-air ground 

missions, to improve the circular er- 
ror probability (CEP) of the weapons 
delivered and be able to deliver these 
weapons in darkness or adverse 
weather. 

We would like the ability to pre- 
vent ambush by having the capa- 
bility of detecting the presence of 
other humans that might be nearby. 

We would like to know the 
whereabouts of all friendly and ene- 
iny forces on a continuing basis, and 
in real time, and the capability to 
distinguish accurately between them 
and to communicate quickly and with- 
out error to the friendly ones. 

We would like to reduce the vul- 
nerability of aircraft (and missiles) 
prior to launch from attack by enemy 
forces. 

We would like to be able to stop 
the movement of enemy troops and 
supplies while at the same time have 
our own lines of communications 
secure. 

In short, we would like to be able 
to search out and destroy the enemy 
irt all circumstances and environ- 
ments without undue loss to our 
forces. The appetite of the military 
is insatiable. We are really never 
satisfied with the state of the art 
nor should we bo. We have a uni- 
versal requirement for systems that 
cost nothing-, are completely reliable, 
liave infinite range and speed, are 
invisible, have a zero CEP, and can 
be operated efficiently by Air Force 
personnel. 

The enumeration of ROC's, as I 
just done, is without meaning 
ox impact unless we find out what 
technology can provide and generate 
system concepts, and obtain ap- 



proval and funding. The Air Force 
can operate only that which OSD 
funds and the engineers build. The 
challenge is to be absolutely sure 
that we develop and procure the best 
systems that technology can provide 
at that time. By exploiting- technology 
you do not use it up. It is like knowl- 
edge. The more you exercise it the 
more you have. It is a self-feeding 
process. One forcing- function for bet- 
ter technology tomorrow is to put to 
use the technology we have today. 
This requires a thorough mixture of 
many ingredients in the witch's caul- 
dron that beget proposals that change 
the plan that begets systems that im- 
prove our posture. This is a stern 
challenge but the rewards are large. 



Address by Capt. Joseph L. How- 
ard, SC, USN, (RAdm. selectee) 
Dcp. Chief of Naval Material (Pro- 
curement), at the 10th Annual Sea- 
power Symposium, Navy League of 
the United States, Washington, D. C,, 
Feb. 3-10, 1967. 




Capt. J. L. Howard, SC, USN 

Current Points 

of Emphasis in 

Navy Contracting 



* * 



The Navy today is depending more 
and more on industry for an ever- 
widening- range of its needs, for the 
development of new ideas, for the 
production of its weapons and equip- 
ment, and for services in support of 
existing weapon systems. 

Therefore, the contract itself, as a 
working document, is becoming more 
important than ever before. Indeed, 
it is becoming one of the Navy's 
prime instruments of administration, 
in research, development and produc- 
tion programs. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



Because of this, we are giving our 
contracts more attention than ever 
before. 

We recognize the importance of 
making awards smartly and properly 
in the first place. But we also realize 
that the contract instrument must 
establish a working relationship that 
remains sound throughout the life of 
the contract. 

^In serving these purposes, we are 
giving special emphasis to certain 
points in our contracting- programs. 
It is important that we all have a 
good understanding of the implica- 
tions of the contractual instrument, 
and what it involves in terms of com- 
mitments by both parties. 
_ It is in this light that I would 
like to touch on some points of cur- 
rent Navy emphasis in contracting. 
Risk. First, on the question of risk. 
It is general Defense Department 
policy, in contracting, to shift risks 
more and more to the individual con- 
tractors, and then reward them ac- 
cordingly for successful accomplish- 
ment of all contract commitments. 

The financial risk for the contrac- 
tor, of course, is what normally 
comes to mind when we think of risk, 
However, of major importance to 
the Navy is the technical risk in- 
volved in achieving the quality, per- 
formance and reliability standards 
called for in the contract, 

We in the Navy are now looking 
for better balance between financial 
and technical risks in our contracts 
today, We will be making more astute 
assessments of such risks in the 
future. 

We do not want our contractors to 
shave on performance in order to 
save on dollars. This means that po- 
tential contractors themselves must 
make more astute and competent as- 
sessments of all risks. 

When a company contemplates go- 
ing into a Navy contract, it should 
look carefully at the technical risks, 
and then price out the situation ac- 
cordingly. Naturally, we want the 
best possible prices, ami this is 
why we encourage competition. But 
whether competitive or not, the tech- 
nical risks involved are going to come 
in for more harsh scrutiny than ever 
before. 

When you look over our programs, 
ask yourself whether the Navy's re- 
quirement calls for a scientific break- 
through, or a technological quantum 
jump, or some revolutionary produc- 



29 



lion technique, or some wholly new 
approach to test and evaluation. 

On our side of the table, we are 
going to sharpen our own awareness 
of the technical risks involved, and 
this will have a hearing on source 
selection, and the selection of con- 
tract type. 

This brings me to my next point. 

Responsibility Determinations. We 
are placing heavier emphasis on 
proper determination of company 
responsibility. 

Again, as in risk, when we think 
of responsibility determinations, cer- 
tain standard, routine ideas come to 
mind. When we say we will not deal 
with marginal suppliers, the standard 
thought is that we are talking about 
neighborhood bicycle shops or shoe- 
string ventures. 

Actually, the question of responsi- 
bility can be raised in connection 
with some of the giants of industry, 
some of the best known companies in 
the country. 

The Armed Services Procurement 
Reg-illation requires that the con- 
tracting officer make a positive and 
affirmative determination that a com- 
pany is responsible before an award 
can be made. 

In addition to financial resources, 
the contracting officer must consider 
the company's current plant load, its 
ability to take on more work, and its 
past record of performance and in- 
tegrity on other Government con- 
tracts. 

Also, we must consider the com- 
pany's organization, experience, op- 
erational controls, and technical skills 
to do an effective job in a complex 
weapon system program. 

In this connection, we are giving 
hard looks at company manage- 
ment, laboratory resources, engineer- 
ing staff, production and test facili- 
ties, and whether it has voids and 
gaps in certain disciplines that are 
essential to the program under 
consideration. 

We will be using the Contractor 
Performance Evaluation reports more 
fully now, since this program is 
constantly developing more and bet- 
ter information for us, 

There is one further policy point 
that is pertinent here. The burden 
of proof for establishing the respon- 
sibility of a prospective contractor 
lies ultimately with the prospective 
contractor himself, not the contract- 
ing officer, 

If a contracting officer is convinced 



that a particular company does not 
have the organization, the staff, or 
the know-how to meet complex com- 
mitments under contract, and if the 
company disagrees, it is up to the 
company to show that it has the 
necessary capabilities or can obtain 
them readily. 

Contract Type Selection, A third 
area of emphasis in our contracting 
programs is in the selection of the 
proper type of contract for the situ- 
ation involved. 

We have been shifting rapidly in 
the last two or three years from 
cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract- 
ing, and we now believe that 10 per- 
cent of our procurement dollars in 
CPFP contracts is about right. 

We are now reviewing our experi- 
ence under various types of con- 
tracts. We are taking a critical look 
at progress under these contracts and 
evaluating the results to date. 

We are trying to determine the re- 
lationship of contract type to the 
quality of contractor performance. 

We believe, for example, that some 
of our cost-type contracts might bet- 
ter have been fixed-price type. On the 
other hand, we have some fixed-price 
types that might better have been of 
the cost-type. 

We will not be making any dra- 
matic changes, either in policy or ap- 
proach, as a result of these reviews, 
But we do regard the type of con- 
tract a matter to be determined fin- 
ally during negotiations. 

Those of you who have done busi- 
ness with the Navy in the past know 
that normally we have an idea of 
the type of contract wo think is ap- 
propriate. The Request for Quota- 
tions will often state what kind of 
contract we expect to end up with. 
However, this is not firm. We recog- 
nize that information may come up 
during negotiations to indicate that 
a different type of contract is best 
suited to the procurement at hand. 
. In short, we are going to be more 
discriminating in our choice of con- 
tract type in the future, and we con- 
sider it a matter for negotiation. 

Developer/First Producer. Another 
area in which we are giving emphasis 
in the Navy is in the develop er/flrst 
producer policy, 

The Armed Services Procurement 
Regulation allows us to direct the 
first production of a product to the 
original developer. We in the Navy 
are pushing this approach, 

We are convinced that competition 



is the spark of progress in ouv coun- 
try, and we hold to this policy above 
all others. 

However, we also recognize that til 
some of our major programs, we can 
do ourselves a disservice if wo go 
into competition prematurely. 

Some of our problems of the pnst 
have come from the fact that we 
have tried to get competition by tlio 
use of data packages which reflected 
only a developmental effort. We have? 
found that without on-going produc- 
tion experience, a data package sim- 
ply may not be an adequate basis for 
competitive production contracts 

This is not always triui, of course. 
But it is true often enough lo nmko 
it necessary for us to look very 
closely at each situation HIM! decide 
when is the appropriate timo to get 
competition into the picture on a new 
system. 

If we can get competition lit HH 
early design stage, finn. On the other 
hand, if a system is designed and 
developed by a single company, 
chances arc that company will also 
get the first production contract un- 
der current Navy policy. 

We believe that our emphasta on 
the devolopor/flrst-proclucei 1 policy 
will result in our getting- more rait- 
istic data packages, packages that 
give us EI sounder basis for com- 
petition for second and on-going pro- 
duction programs. 

Quality Control. Another area wo 
are stressing ia quality control. Tlito 
relates to the selection of contractors! 
in the first place, and it IB a mutter 
for closer scrutiny during the admin- 
istration of our contracts. 

Hero is an area whore industry can 
make perhaps the greatest ponntbla 
contribution. 

Wo arc not talking 1 hero about 
quality in the sense of gold plating:, 
using platinum whore tin will do. We 
are talking about the thousands of 
simple, routine tasks that go into 
putting a complex weapon system to- 
gether, and making sure it works. 

In the final analysis, quality work 
comes from within the individual 
man, the individual engineer, techni- 
cian and workman on the bench. It 
comes from a man's prldn Jn what he 
is doing, his attention to the details 
of his Job, his inner desire to turn 
out a piece of work that ia flawless, 

We have had too many eases of 
aborted teats, and aborted opera- 
tional runs, where the system failed 
simply because someone didn't tighten 



April 1967 



a screw properly, or a circuit weld 
was poorly done, or a plate was put 
?. in backwards, or left out entirely. 

Quality control is one of our most 
critical concerns these days. We are 
going to examine a company's past 
performance in this area more closely 
before we make a final award in the 
future. And, after awards are made, 
we are going to be hammering hard 
on the maintenance of a strong, thor- 
ough company quality conti-ol system. 
Design Simplification. Another area 
that is receiving increasing attention 
is in the simplification of equipment 
designs. 

It is bad enough when a piece of 
equipment breaks down for poor 
quality work. But when this happens 
and then the equipment is too com- 
plicated to fix on the spot, this is 
wholly unacceptable. 

A lot of good has been done along 
these lines in the past couple of 
years, but there is yet much to be 
done. 

In the Navy we are putting more 
stress on the use of incentives in our 
contracts to encourage design sim- 
plification without degrading product 
performance and quality. We are try- 
ing to develop ways to say, in effect, 
the simpler your design for main- 
tainability and parts support pur- 
poses, the more profit you will make. 
These elements are not easy to 
quantify, we realize. But we have 
been working closely with industry 
through various joint efforts, con- 
ferences, working committees and 
task groups, and I mention it here 
to reaffirm the emphasis we are plac- 
ing on this subject. 

Standardization. Standardization is 
another area in which we are plac- 
ing heavy stress, particularly in our 
shipbuilding programs. 

The range and variety of equip- 
ments, components and parts we use 
in the Navy have become a matter of 
real concern in terms of material 
management, maintenance and sup- 
port. Not only is it a matter of eco- 
nomic concern, but also it is of oper- 
ational significance. 

We are, therefore, structuring our 
contracts these days with incentives 
to those companies who are able to 
offer us equipments for which we 
already have parts in stock. 

We are, of course, balancing this 
against the need for continuing tech- 
nological progress. We certainly do 
not want to standardize on things 
that are obsolescent when something 
better is available. But where de- 
Defense Industry Bulletin 



signs, configurations and perform- 
ance are not subject to quantum- 
jump improvements, we are looking 
for greater standardization, both for 
economic and operational reasons. 

Life Cycle Costing. Another point 
of emphasis in Navy procurement 
prog-rams is in the area of life cycle 
costing. 

Without dwelling on details here, 
this is a technique by which we quan- 
tify certain elements of the cost of 
ownership of a piece of equipment. 
Rather than make an award solely on 
the basis of initial cost to us, we are 
developing factors by which we can 
evaluate the cost of owning the item 
throughout its life cycle, 

For example, we have developed 
some dollar value factors to measure 
mean time between failure, to meas- 
ure the cost of spare parts support 
throughout the life of certain equip- 
ments, to measure the cost of operat- 
ing the equipment, fuel costs, fox- 
ex ample. 

We have used this technique in 
buying diesel engines, batteries, elec- 
tronic resistors, generators and sim- 
ilar items. 

We expect to apply these tech- 
niques during the coming year to 
sonar equipment, gyro indicator sys- 
tems for aircraft, air coolers, elec- 
tronic test equipments and others. 

There are two points of significance 
to be emphasised here. 

First, wo have started on relatively 
simple items in order to establish a 
sound conceptual base for this tech- 
nique. We are now moving progres- 
sively into more complex items, 

Second, although it appears that 
these factors are applied only to rela- 
tively minor component Items, as dis- 
tinguished from the big complex 
weapon systems, we are, in fact, ap- 
plying these techniques in the assess- 
ment of awards on some of the big 
systems as well. 

In the PDL total package pro- 
gram, for example, life cycle cost 
factors in connection with shipboard 
equipments and components are be- 
ing applied as part of the evaluation 
process. 

Here again, we solicit industry sug- 
gestions and ideas on what elements 
of life costs we should consider, and 
how these can be quantified for eval- 
uation purposes. 

These are three other aspects of 

our procurement programs that the 

Navy is stressing, and I would like 

to touch on these only briefly. 

Advance procurement planning ia 



becoming a way of life for us now. 
We are injecting procurement and 
logistics considerations into the earli- 
est possible planning and program 
decision processes. 

Administrative procurement lead- 
time is another matter that is receiv- 
ing concentrated attention in the 
Navy today. We believe that advance 
procurement planning- will help in 
this regard, but we are also taking 
actions to sharply reduce the time it 
takes to make a contract, once the 
program is funded and approved. 

Personnel training is the third area 
to be mentioned only briefly. We rec- 
ognise that there are some gaps be- 
tween our policy pronouncements and 
what comes out in actual practice 
across the negotiating table. 

We will bo concentrating this year on 
more astute application of weighted 
guidelines, more discriminative use 
of the incentive provisions, more care 
in dealing with the question of data 
rights. 

Generally, we look to 19C7 as a 
year for consolidating many gains 
made over the past four years in 
new, sophisticated procurement tech- 
niques. 

We believe wo have the tools in 
procurement now that can help us 
make better contracts than ever be- 
fore. Our job this year will be to re- 
fine our skill in using these tools. 

We want our contracts to be good 
ones. Wo believe that a good con- 
tract is one that satisfies both par- 
ties. It gives the buyer exactly what 
he asked for, when ho wanted it, at 
a price he considered reasonable, and 
was willing and able to pay. 

At the same time, a good contract 
should give the seHoi- the satisfac- 
tion of producing something useful, 
with the requisite quality, for a rea- 
sonable profit, plus the creation of 
a satisfied, steady customer. 

The ultimate object, of course, is to 
keep the Navy strong-, trim and com- 
bat-ready, to insure that the United 
States remains a powerful force for 
freedom throughout the world. 

The industry-Navy team makes a 
monumental contribution to the 
achievement of that object. The bind- 
ing clement for that winning team is 
the contract. For this reason both the 
Navy and industry must continue to 
work hard to make our contracts 
good, sound, working documents that 
assure the delivery of superior 
weapon systems, on time, and at 
prices the national economy can 
afford to pay. 



31 



Calendar 



Events 



May 2-3: National Security Industrial 
Assn. Seventh Innerspace Confer- 
ence, Washington, D.C. 

May 3-5.: Electronic Components Con- 
ference, Washington, D.C. 

May 7-12 : Electrochemical Society 
Meeting, Dallas, Tex. 

May 7-12: American Society of Civil 
Engineers Meeting, Seattle, Wash. 

May 8-10: Fludics Symposium, Lafay- 
ette, Ind. 

May 8-13: Mechanical Contractors 
Assn. of America Meeting, Kansas 
City, Mo. 

May 10-12: American Helicopter So- 
ciety Meeting, Washington, D.C. 

May 11: American Ordnance Assn. 
Meeting, Washington, D.C. 

May 11: National Defense Transpor- 
tation Assn. Meeting, Fort Eustis, 
Va. 

May 15-18: Society of Plastic Engi- 
neers Meeting, Detroit, Mich. 

May 16-18; National Telemetering 
Conference, San Francisco, Calif. 

May 20: Armed Forces Day. 

May 22-25: American Insitutc of 
Aeronautics and Astronautics Ad- 
vanced Marine Vehicles Meeting, 
Norfolk, Va. 

May 26-28 1 Empire State Labor 
Management Exhibition, Roosevelt 
Raceway, Long Island, N.Y. 

June 6-8: Armed Forces Communica- 
tions-Electronics Assn. Meeting, 
Washington, D.C. 

June 8-11: American Battleship Assn. 
Forth Annual Reunion, Las Vegas, 
Ncv. 

June 11-15: American Nuclear Soci- 
ety Meeting, San Diego, Calif. 

June 12-14 : American Institute of 
Aeronautics and Astronautics Com- 
mercial Aircraft Design and Opera- 
tion Meeting, Los Angeles, Calif, 

June 19-21: Heat Transfer and Fluid 
Mechanics Institute, La Jolla, Calif. 

June 20-23: Data Processing Manage- 
ment Assn. Meeting, Boston, Mass. 

June 20-26: Society of Nuclear Medi- 
cine Meeting, Seattle, Wash. 

June 25-30 : American Society for 
Testing Materials Meeting, Boston, 
Mass, 

June 28-30: Joint Automatic Control 
Conference, Philadelphia, Pa. 



[Editor's note: Below is a table of military prime contract awards for the 
first eight months of FY 1967. The contract information in the summary is 
broken down by major commodities for the current fiscal year and includes, 
for comparative purposes, corresponding information for the same period in 
the last fiscal near. 

These summaries have heretofore not been released in this form. In the future 
DOD plans to periodically release similar procurement summaries and then will 
be published in the Defense Industry Bulletin when available.'} 



(Amounts in Millions) 



Aircraft 

Missile and Space Systems 

Ships 

Tank-Automotive 

Weapons 

Ammunition 

Electronics and Communications 
Equipment 

Other Hard Goods 
Hard Goods (Sub-Total) 

Subsistence 

Textiles and Clothing 
Fuels and Lubricants 
Soft Goods (Sub-Total) 

Construction 

Services 

All Actions under $10,000 each 
Total ' 



July 1966 
Feb. 1967 

$6,530 

2,916 
1,622 

681 

325 
1,868 




July 1965 
Feb. 1966 

$4,377 

8,026 
706 
817 
219 

1,460 

1,905 

1,184 

13,693 



2,611 

612 
2,644 
2,661 

$25,874 




Net 
Change 

$2,1G3 

-109 
910 

-136 
106 
403 

318 

397 

4,053 

66 
2B1 

207 

524 

- 57 
764 

3CC 

$ 5,640 



1 Excludes work done outside United States and also excludes civil func- 
tions (rivers and harbors work) of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Procurement during February, 1957, totalled $3.2 billion compared 
to $2,4 billion for February 1966. Large individual contracts placed 
during the month of February 1967 include; Avondale Shipyards of 
Louisiana, $109 million for destroyer escorts; National Steel and Ship- 
building of California, $161 million for landing ship tanks (LST's) ; Philco 
Corp. of California, $59 million for Shillelagh missiles; A R 0, 
Inc., of Tennessee, $103 million for maintenance and operation of the 
Arnold Engineering Development Center; and General Dynamics of 
Texas, $195 million for aircraft. 



April 1967 




Lansing R. Felker 

Office of International Logistics Negotiations 
Office of Asst. Secretary of Defense (ISA) 



Historically, the United States and 
Canada have enjoyed a gratifying and 
remarkable degree of cooperation in 
defense logistics a cooperation both 
pervasive and varied. For example, 
the United States provides engines 
and other equipments equivalent to 40 
percent of the value of the Canadian 
CV-7A Buffalo aircraft, The XM-571 
tracked vehicle, which is a joint U.S.- 
Canadian development, incorporates a 
U.S. engine, transmission and other 
components. Canada provides subcon- 
tractor assistance to U.S. firms for the 
C-5A transport aircraft and the F-lll 
tactical fighter. 

U.S. manufacturers have licensed 
Canadian companies to produce U.S. 
equipment. Canada produced 240 
CF-104's for its own use and 140 
F~104's for a joint U.S./Canada Mili- 
tary Assistance Program, under li- 
cense from Lockheed, Canada pro- 
duced the Mark 44 torpedo under a 
General Electric license and is cur- 
rently starting a $200 million CF-E 
program of production in Canada, 
under license from Northrop, a 
program which will involve a U.S. 
input of more than SO percent 
on a program basis. Canada has 
also been a good customer of the 
United States in terms of direct pur- 
chases. These have included the 
M-109 156mm self-propelled howitzer, 
GHSS-2 ASW helicopters (assembled 
in Canada), about 1,200 M-118 ar- 
mored personnel carriers and 24 C- 
130 transport aircraft. In addition, 
many U.S. companies have subsidi- 
aries in Canada. Examples are Can- 
aclair, owned by General Dynamics; 
United Aircraft of Canada, Ltd., 
which handles all of United Aircraft's 
piston engine work world-wide; RCA 
which accomplishes plasma physics 
for DOD and NASA; and Litton 
(Canada), Ltd., which provides Iner- 
tia! platforms for U.S. aircraft guid- 
ance systems. 

This unique defense logistics coop- 
eration between Canada and the 
United States Is currently formalized 
in the Production Sharing Agreement. 
This most recent formalization of the 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



continuing relationship, founded in 
World War II and first expressed in 
the Hyde Park Agreement of April 
1941, is based on the recognition of: 

The naturally close economic re- 
lationship between the two countries. 

The mutual interests in North 
American continental defense. 

The complementary relationships 
of the two defense industries. 

The necessity for some planning 
so that this relationship realizes 
maximum benefits for both countries. 

The goal of this cooperation is to 
gain maximum advantage from both 
defense industries by overcoming, 
through management, the natural in- 
equalities between the United States 
and Canada resulting from disparity 
in size of the two defense industries 
and the two defense establishments. 
This has been accomplished through: 

Coordination of U.S. and Cana- 
dian military requirements and pro- 
duction. 

Removal of obstacles to reciprocal 
procurement and flow of defense goods 
between the two countries. 

Developing channels for the regu- 
lar exchange of defense planning and 
technical information between the 
United States and Canada. 

This cooperation had its first major 
implementation during' the total de- 
fense mobilization of World War II 
when production planning: first be- 
came necessary. Then, in February 
1952 as the result of the demands 
of the Korean War, an agreement was 
entered into between the Can adian 
Department of Defence Production 
and the U.S. Military Departments 
authorizing the Military Departments 
to place contracts with Canadian firms 
through the Canadian Commercial 
Corporation (a Canadian government 
agency), and prescribing provisions 
relating to foreign exchange, inspec- 
tion, profit limitation, surcharges, ad- 
ministrative costs, use of Government- 
owned tooling and facilities, reciprocal 
audit arrangements, and other admin- 
istrative matters. 

In Canada, the Department of De- 
fence Production was established in 



1951 to centralize the procurement of 
goods and services on behalf of the 
Canadian defense forces and, as an 
adjunct to this principal role, to help 
restore and maintain an effective de- 
fense industrial base. By selective pro- 
curement policies, Canadian firms di- 
rectly involved in the manufacture of 
defense equipment and the aircraft 
industry, in particular, were raised 
to a viable level. Capability was de- 
veloped for production of selected air- 
craft, aircraft engines, a number of 
radars, sonar and sonobuoy equip- 
ments and many types of communica- 
tion equipment, and orders for these 
items were obtained from the U.S. 
Military Departments. In short, while 
Canada continued to look to the United 
States for a substantial part of its 
military requirements, it had during 
the period from 1051-58 organized its 
defense industry so as to be capable, 
on a selective basis, of meeting- U.S. 
requirements and competing- with 
U.S. and other defense markets. 

It is clear that not only the concept 
of production sharing-, but also the 
necessary industrial base and a com- 
plex of working arrangements and 
procedures had been established before 
1958 for the purpose of promoting 
cross-border military procurement. In 
1958 the Canadian government had 
a new interest in stepping up produc- 
tion sharing to levels comparable with 
those attained previously during' 
World War II and the Korean hostili- 
ties. This interest resulted from the 
decision of the Canadian government 
in September 1958 to curtail the CF- 
106 supersonic interceptor aircraft 
program and to introduce the U.S.- 
designed and produced Eomarc missile 
and SAGE control equipment into the 
Canadian air defense system. 

In view of its limited financial re- 
sources and the complex technology of 
advanced weapon systems, Canada did 
not have the capability and could no 
longer afford the costs and risks in- 
herent in independently undertaking 
other development and production pro- 
grams of such magnitude. Instead, 
Canada decided to rely on the use of 
U.S.-developed major weapon systems. 
At the same time, both the United 
States and Canada recognized that the 
decisions required of the Canadians 
were economically and politically im- 
practicable unless reasonable oppor- 
tunity was provided Canadian defense 
industry to participate in the produc- 
tion of components and equipment re- 
quired not only for the then newly 



33 



integrated air defense weapon systems 
but also for other weapon systems de- 
veloped in the United States for the 
common defense. 

Based on the logic of the 1958 
agreement, the Production Sharing 
Agreement has developed into a 
smooth working machinery of cross- 
border procurement which has aver- 
aged over $150 million per year each 
way during the period 1959 through 
1066. The United States has placed 
the majority of its business in Canada 
directly through prime contracts, both 
government- to -government and gov- 
ernment-to-imhistry, although sub- 
contracting from U.S. industry to 
Canadian industry has tended to in- 
crease steadily. On the other hand 
Canada has placed the great majority 
of its orders in the United States 
through subcontracts on the industry- 
to-industry level. This high Canadian 
subcontract level results partly from 
the Canadian interest in keeping in- 
dustrial management talent and from 
the number of Canadian purchases 
that are channeled through Canadian 
subsidiaries of U.S. firms. 

Through 1966 the procedures of the 
Production Sharing Agreement have 
been aimed primarily at providing 
Canadian manufacturers with com- 
petitive access to the U.S. defense 
market, so that Canada could balance 
its defense expenditures in the United 
States. Canada has successfully main- 
tained selective competitiveness in cer- 
tain areas of defense production, 
while giving- up its capability entirely 
in others. To date Canada has 
achieved this goal to the extent that 
the cumulative cross-border defense 
balance between the two countries 
since 1959 is about $200 million in 
Canada's favor, i.e., the United States 
has spent almost $200 million more in 
Canada than Canada has in the 
United States. This fact is not sur- 



prising in view of the disparity in the 
U.S. and Canadian defense markets 
($50 billion-plus U.S. defense budget 
compared to a Canadian defense 
budget of less than $2 billion), the 
relatively greater integration of the 
Canadian government/industry ma- 
chinery (The Canadian Department of 
Defence Production and the Depart- 
ment of Industry are headed by the 
same Minister), and the strong em- 
phasis placed on the program by the 
Canadian government. Joint research 
and development programs are also 
important to the success of the pro- 
gram and a number of such programs 
are in being. The Canadian govern- 
ment also funds, on its own, research 
and development programs with the 
end objective of meeting U.S. military 
requirements of the future. 

The Production Sharing Agreement 
has successfully introduced Canadian 
manufacturers to the U.S. _ defense 
market and the machinery of that 
agreement is being constantly ad- 
justed so that a relative balance of 
cross-border procurement will be 
achieved at the highest practicable 
economic level. Current discussions 
are producing a greater access by U.S. 
manufacturers to the Canadian mar- 
ket and projections of cross-border 
spending show an estimated increase 
in annual spending of 50-75 percent 
over past averages. Future spending 
by Canada in the United States should 
include equipment for the Canadian 
Mobile Force, especially transport air- 
craft, helicopters and ground vehicles. 
In short, the Production Sharing 
Agreement between the United States 
and Canada has proved the work- 
ability of close cooperation between 
defense establishments and defense in- 
dustries, even between countries of 
large disparity in population size, 
where there is a commonality of pur- 
pose in mutual defense. 



DEFENSE PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS 
TO SMALL BUSINESS 

(Amounts in Thousands) 

July 1966 July 1965 

Jan. 1967 Jan. 1966 

Procurement from All Firms $22,338,108 $17,746,810 

Procurement from Small Business Firms, 4,679,409 8,750,409 

Percent Small Business 20,6 21.1 



Research in the Air Foreo 

(Continued from Page IS) 
ranging. These are just a few across- 
the-board examples. Space does not 
permit me to elaborate further. 

A question often asked is, "How 
is fundamental research managed in 
a military command?" It's a good 
question the answer is really simple, 

First, we stress quality research, 
not quantity research. Our guiding 
policy is what we do, wo do well. To 
obtain this quality research we apply 
five management concepts. They are: 

Centralized command at OAR 
headquarters. 

Centralized planning and defini- 
tion of research objectives with in- 
puts from the field elements. 

Creative environment for our re- 
searchers. 

Stabilized support for scientific 
investigations. 

Decentralized program manage- 
ment. 

As the commander of OAR, I am 
responsible for exercising executive 
line management over all elements 
and I am, of course, responsible for 
the effectiveness of research and for 
the use of the resources of the com- 
mand. 

At OAR headquarters we do tlic 
long-range planning, try to protect 
the field elements from the multitude 
of requirements which are so often 
handed down to lower echelons these 
days, and we make an honest effort 
to provide the tools OAR scientists 
need to do the job. 

OAR field commanders are expected 
to devise and operate their own tech- 
nical programs. It is their responsi- 
bility to provide an environment in 
which quality research can flourish 
and allow scientists freedom to con- 
duct research without unnecessary 
hampering. 

I believe that in OAR we have 
achieved an unusual balance between 
central policy control and decentral- 
ized program management. We are 
very proud of this research manage- 
ment policy which we believe is unique 
in a military organization and has 
resulted in many outstanding ac- 
complishments. 

Basic research provides new sci- 
entific knowledge on which applied 
researchers draw to give society a 
rich rate of interest. No investment 
has ever paid off so well as the in- 
vestment in basic research. 

We welcome research proposals 
from any competent source. 



April 1967 




by 
RAdm. John K. Leydon, USN 



The oceanographic program of the 
Office of Naval Research (ONE) has 
traditonally been the main source of 
support for oceanography and related 
technology in the academic and insti- 
tutional community. This ONR role 
essentially grew from the Navy's 
close working relationship developed 
with the major oceanographic insti- 
tutions in World War II. In the 
decade immediately after the war, in 
particular, the Navy was essentially 
the sole Federal support for these 
oceanographic institutions. Even 
though other agencies, such as the 
National Science Foundation (NSP), 
have since undertaken to support 
work in the leading institutions and 
universities, the Navy still remains 
the backbone supporter. 

With the strong scientific capa- 
bility in oceanography being concen- 
trated at institutions and universities, 
the ONR contract research program 
has been developed to allow utiliza- 
tion of this competence within the 
Navy. ONR has developed a strong: 
external research program and the 
commands of the Chief of Naval Ma- 
terial have undertaken to develop an 
in-house laboratory capability to meet 
individual Navy laboratory needs. 

In assuming this role for the ex- 
ternal research program of the Navy, 
the ONR oceanography program has 
had a tremendous impact on the na- 
tional oceanographic effort, particu- 
larly in the past decade. The upsurge 
in oceanography in the United States 
began in the late 1060's. One contrib- 
uting factor in this upsurge was the 
U.S. participation in the International 
Geophysical Year (1957-58) of which 
the oceanographic program was a 
significant part. This program marks 
the awakening of interest in ocean- 
ography; however, subsequent actions 
have had a greater impact. 

Within the Navy, ONR initiated the 
first long-range planning document 
for oceanography, known as TENOC, 
which was endorsed by the Chief 
of Naval Operations on Jan. 1, 1969. 
As a result, it became Navy policy 
to promote and support oceanography 
more vigorously. Almost concurrently 
with the internal TENOC document, 
the National Academy of Sciences' 
Committee on Oceanography pub- 
lished its far-reaching report, "Ocean- 
ography 1960 to 1970," in February 
1969. This committee was organized at 
the instigation of the Chief of Naval 
Research. The Navy, in implement- 
ing TENOC, was also fulfilling 
most of the recommendations of 
the National Academy of Sciences' 
Committee on Oceanography. With 
Dr. James Wakelin, the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy for Research 
and Development, serving as Chair- 
Defense Industry Bulletin 



man of the Interagency Committee 
on Oceanography, the Navy assumed 
the Federal leadership in the result- 
ing period of national expansion in 
oceanography, 

Within the Navy and the national 
program, ONR assumed major Fed- 
eral responsibility for developing the 
academic and institutional capability 
in oceanography. Research programs 
by new groups were initiated, grad- 
uate student training was encouraged 
to meet critical manpower shortages, 
new facilities were provided, and new 
avenues for research and methods of 
n^n i were encouii aged. Specifically, 
ONR has been largely responsible for 
the establishment of the ocean- 
ographic programs at John Hopkins 
University, Texas AM University, 
Oregon State University and Massa- 
chusetts Institute of Technology, as 
well as for the expanded efforts at 
the University of Rhode Island and 
the University of Miami. 

In addition to establishing new 
programs, ONR also assisted appreci- 
ably in building up the capabilities of 
the Scripps Institution of Oceanog-- 
raphy, Woods' Hole Oceanographic 
Institution, Lamont Geological Ob- 
servatory, New York University and 
the University of Washington. 




RAdm. John K. Leydon, USN, is 
Chief of Naval Research, Department 
of the Navy. Some of his prior assign- 
ments have been Den. Chief of Naval 
Material (Management & Organiza- 
tion; DC p. Comptroller, Navy Depart- 
ment; and Commander, Naval Air 
Turbine Test Station, Trenton, N. J. 
Adm. Leydon is a graduate of U, S. 
Naval Academy, and holds a degree 
of Master of Science in Aeronautical 
Engineering from the California 
Institute of Technology. 



Besides providing the financial 

support for research and essential 
operating- costs, ONR has enhanced 
these laboratories by providing some 
nine ships through new construction 
or conversion. At present, a fleet of 
some 28 ships, operated by private 
laboratories and jointly funded by 
Federal agencies, receives nearly 50 
percent of its support from ONR, the 
largest portion of which comes from 
the Ocean Science and Technology 
Group of ONR. Many specialized 
facilities such as deep sea research 
vehicles, four-engined research air- 
craft, telemetering buoys and station- 
ary towers also have been developed 
by or made available to these re- 
search groups through ONR. Even 
though the original TENOC and all 
subsequent revisions have called for 
the construction of facilities at the 
private institutions, the program in 
general has been unable to meet this 
commitment over the years. However, 
buildings have been constructed at 
Johns Hopkins University's Chesa- 
peake Bay Institute and Columbia 
University's Lamont Geological Ob- 
servatory with ensured support from 
ONR; other limited funding has been 
provided for pier facilities at both 
Scripps and Woods Hole Ocean- 
ographic Institutions. 

While the ONR program has been 
mostly oriented towards the develop- 
ment of U.S. groups, its contributions 
to the field of oceanography hnve not 
been limited to domestic programs 
and capabilities. In a science which 
promotes a great deal of cooperation 
among- nations, ONR has played a 
significant role in developing interna- 
tional programs and groups with the 
belief that their improvement will 
contribute knowledge of the oceans 
of value to the Navy. For example, 
the highly productive geophysics 
group under the direction of the late 
Dr. Hill in the United Kingdom re- 
ceived its impetus and sole support 
during 1 its developing years from this 
program. In addition, lesser developed 
nations, in Latin America particu- 
larly, have received support. Most of 
the latter has been through coopera- 
tive programs with the U.S. groups 
sponsored by the ONR program and 
through international programs such 
as the IGY (International Geophy- 
sical Year), ICITA (International Co- 
operative Investigations of the Trop- 
ical Atlantic) and IIOE (Interna- 
tional Indian Ocean Expedition). 

The most readily identifiable ac- 
comphahments of the program are 
tangible items such as facilities, ships 
and manpower as this has been a 
period marked with program growth. 
However, the program has been 
equally, if not more, important in 
advancement of the science of ocean- 
ography. In the last decade, the field 
has progressed from one largely de- 
scriptive in nature (asking what) to 
one of carefully designed experiments 
and expeditions to study specific phe- 
nomena (asking why). In addition, 
the program has had many accomp- 
lishments of significant and immedi- 
ate value to the Navy and has pro- 



35 



vidcd a wealth of scientific and op- 
i-nitioiuilly important information to 
thu operating environment of the 
Navy. 

Some of the more readily identifi- 
able contributions to the Navy from 
this program include tiie fundamental 
ocean wave research effort from 
which has been developed the Navy 
Oceanographic Office ship routing and 
wave forecasting programs. The most 
complete library of bio-acoustic 
sources in the United States has been 
compiled as a part of the long-term 
support of a program to identify and 
catalog such background in the ocean. 
This library has been the source of 
valuable information to the operating 
forces. The present deep research 
vehicle program in the Navy received 
its initial start in this country 
through the ONR program, ONR per- 
sonnel participated in the work of the 
bathyscaph Trieste off Italy in 1957 
snd later brought it to the United 
States and developed interest for its 
use in this country for research. This 
was the only deep rescue vehicle 
available for the Thresher search, in 
which most of the participants were 
laboratories sponsored by the ONR 
contract research program. The meth- 
ods used by these groups in the search 
were direct applications of equipment 
developed under the research pro- 
gram and represented the forefront 
of the state of the art at that time. 
Most of the geophysical methods be- 
ing employed in the present extensive 
Navy Oceanographic Office Marine 
Geophysical Surveys (JIGS) program 
were also either developed or im- 
proved under the ONR-sponsored 
oceanography program. 

These are a few of the direct bene- 
fits of the program to the Navy. Other 
scientific results are presently but a 
step from Naval applications and 
will require further pursuit or trans- 
lation to specific Navy needs, Among 
such efforts is the long-range buoy 
development. The Coast Guard is al- 
ready adapting the ONR-sponsored 
Lonvair buoy system as a replacement 
lor light ships and Navy buoy pro- 
grams likewise will benefit from this 
systematic development program 

The new study of oceanic dynamics, 
ranging from descriptive studies of 
current systems to the development of 

Oceanic ""rtions, 
contribute to the 

tal forecasting e f- 

efforta are only in 



content of the ocean- 
u --~n also has undergone 
emphasis over the 



he n , n n 

the oceans that broad-scope pro- 

fdorV nc ? U . r . aged to obtain an 
adequate description from which 
meaningful questions could be asked 

de J S f Phenomena dSjeloJel 
t for an oceanography effort 
""PewiU continue to provide 
meet 16 abou the 



and marine geophysics have been em- 
phasized as being of most immediate 
interest to a wide variety of Naval 
applications. The marine geophysics 
area, in particular, has received in- 
creased emphasis because of its grow- 
ing importance to undersea warfare. 
New programs were initiated at the 
Graduate Center of the Southwest 
and the University of Hawaii, and the 
effort of the Lamont Geological Ob- 
servatory has undergone considerable 
expansion. More recently greater em- 
phasis has been placed on air-sea in- 
teraction in response to a recognized 
need for increased effort in this area 
as noted by both the Academy of Sci- 
ences and the Interagency Committee 
on Oceanography (ICO). Among tho 
areas receiving less relative emphasis 
in the physical oceanography program 
have been biological oceanography and 
geochemistry. 

Large coordinated programs also 
have been commenced. The Convair 
buoy project and other associated pro- 
grams, such as that for sensor pack- 
age development at Bissett-Eerman 
and mooring line studies at General 
Motors, are examples of such pro- 
grams. The developing oceanic dynam- 
ics program is another example, but 
involving more directly scientific 
groups. It is anticipated that tho 
trend towards such coordinated prob- 
lem-oriented projects will increase. 

In order to keep a dynamic pro- 
gram, new projects are started each 
year and others phased out. The num- 
ber of new starts varies annually de- 
pending on available funds, long-term 
commitments, and rate of project 
turnover. New starts have amounted 
i j , P erceilt P e *' year. These have 
included new contracts and the addi- 
tion of new tasks to existing con- 



The increased efforts by most of the 
other i Federal agencies, because of 
their in-house nature, have not signifi- 
cantly affected either the scientific 

X, MQW P ^2? ps su PP r >d by ONR. 
Ihe NSP, with a somewhat compara- 
ble role for supporting oceanography. 
has provided facilities and supporting- 
11 * an '" 



orng- 

/* an . '"Basing rate and, as 
noted before, is being looked to for 
broad institutional support. Rather 



v - pro f am has p v 

many facilities not available to the 
ONR program. Much oceanographic 
research ]s exceedingly expensive 
1 " W1 W yP 



ppor S c 

smered. Therefore, selected, iointlv 
supported efforts of considerable ^ 
search value to the Navy and the na 
tion can be obtained which, because 
of their cost, might not have been 






5|^SSS W |SS 

Services Administration (ESS A) has 



a limited in-house research effort 
which, in some cases, is cooperating 
with several on-going ONE oceanog- 
raphy programs, the most noticeable 
of which is the Gulf Stream investi- 
gation. Because ESSA has been as- 
signed responsibility for tsunami 
(tidal wave) warning, the previously 
supported ONIi work at the Uni- 
versity of Hawaii has been taken over 
by that agency through mutual agree- 
ment. 

Oceanography, using the very broad 
definition accepted by the Panel of 
the President's Science Advisory Com- 
mittee, is as stated in its report, 
a field of activity in which it must 
be expected that the Navy, more tlmn 
any other agency of tho United 
States, will continue to bo active. 

Engineering to do new typon of 
jobs, or to do old types better, will 
continue to demand a htnivy effort. 
In partnership with industry, the 
Navy is advancing the field rapidly as 
is tho petroleum industry. Kach lias 
its own peculiar problems which de- 
mand solution, hut benefits from in- 
terchange of technological advances. 
Navy's effort will porlorce grow rap- 
idly and provide much fC the techno- 
logical base for tho rent of Ihu com- 
munity with marine interests, 

In exploratory development, or ap- 
plied research, the task ia to explore 
in depth the possibility of gaining 
military advantage from n new devel- 
opment in science, or of nijiidly clos- 
ing scientific gaps that hnvo lod to 
recognized problems. This part of the 
Navy's oceanographic program must 
bo greatly strengthened find confined 
more closely to its goals. Hceiuifso BO 
much of the basic science wna in a 
very rudimentary state, thoro tins 
boon a tendency for diversion of 
effort into fundamental roHcnrch unit 
a blurring of goals. This Hlionld now 
be sorted out so that a stronger pro- 
gram m both basic and applied re- 
search can emerge, 

The basic research mission IB ao do- 
nned that working towards tho Bolit- 
won of recognized and defined 
problems must not be tho motive. The 
effectiveness of this effort must never 
be judged on the basis of how it per- 
forms the task of tho applied re- 
search community, i.e., how it de- 
livers quick solutions to today's 
problems. Nevertheless, any mlsHlon- 
pnentcd agency must use judgment 
m supporting basic research in thoso 
nelds that have tho potential of un- 
covering new knowledge that will give 
an advantage in fulfilling tho mission, 
in the broadest sense thia eommcmla 
basic research in ocean science to the 
Navy. The Navy of the futuro will 
be shaped by the developing nndor- 
scancimg of the environment In which 
it operates just as today's Navy Ima 
been shaped by basic ocennogrnphic 
knowledge not available a few ycnra 
or a few decades ago. It is critical 
development that occnn 
rapidly 



h 1 r 1 esll ! ts f baaic research , 
th .Nv uicldy *!5 f 16 P**He venJm,! 
the Navy can, and does, benefit from ; 



April 1967 



research sponsored by other agencies. 
This is particularly true with research 
sponsored by the National Science 
r Foundation, where the motivation is 
purely that of doing good science. 
Dependence upon research support 
from such other sources could, how- 
ever, be dangerous. The Navy must 
continue to plan a dominant role in 
the support of basic ocean science in 
order that major parts of the na- 
tional effort go into those phases of 
the science which are judged to have 
the greatest potential for Naval ap- 
plication, and no broad area is 
neglected because of changing fads in 
the research community. 

Within the broad-fronted scientific 
program, emphasis will change from 
year to year as our realization of 
potential applicability grows. In the 
immediate future stress will be placed 
on the following areas: 

Oceanic Dynamics Theoretical 
and observational studies of all scales 
and modes within tho ocean. A care- 
fully developed plan for this program 
has been developed by Woods Hole. 

Air-Sea Interaction All aspects 
of the exchange of energy and mate- 
rial between ocean and , atmosphere, 
including the resulting modification 
of conditions within each fluid. 
Scripps have evolved a plan for study- 
ing this problem on a large scale in 
the north Pacific. 

Chemistry of the Ocean Organic 
and inorganic reactions as they take 
place in the ocean and their influence 
upon the environment. 

Benthlc Boundary Layer Studies 
of the conditions near the interface 
between ocean and underlying bottom 
both in tho water and sediments. 

Crustat and Subcrustal Struc- 
turesStudies of the make-up of the 
solid earth beneath the sea as in- 
ferred from all available geophysical 
observations. 

Bottom Layer Studies Studies 
having to do with the nature of tho 
surflcial sediments which make up 
the outer layer of the sub-ocean 
crust, 

t Biological Concentrations Espe- 
cially the factors that lend to concen- 
trations which influence the medium 
for acoustic transmission. 

Research provides the base on 
which Navy missions of tho future 
can be conducted. By stating hypothe- 
sized missions of the future, applied 
research can bo structured to a great 
extent, The technological gaps can be 
ascertained. Within the limits of judi- 
cious planning and funding, some or- 
der of semblenco can be made out of 
the process of supporting certain pro- 
posals and rejecting or ro-directing 
others. The hypothesized missions 
used for structuring tho Deep Sea Re- 
search Program in ocean technology 
arc; 

Occupation for the purpose of ex- 
ploitation of critical ocean floor sites 
on the continental shelf off the United 
States; sea mounts located near the 
United States; continental slopes off 
the United States; and the foregoing, 
but located elsewhere in the world, 
Capability is to include the use of 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



both dry submersibles with and with- 
out exterior manipulators and am- 
bient pressure (equalized) fixed or 
mobile SEALAB habitats. 

* Salvage, recovery mid oceano- 
graphic rescue operations in ocean 
waters to "20,000 feet. 

* Installation and control and op- 
eration of weapon systems on the floor 
in continental shelf areas contiguous 
to the United States and extending- 
depth wise as a function of time to 
the abysmal plain talcing into special 
consideration sea mounts and ridges, 
such systems to be both manned and 
unmanned locally. 

Installation and operation and 
surveillance systems both on the ocean 
floor and at mid-depth taking advan- 
tage of the ocean floor topology and 
sound propagation channels, such sys- 
tems to be both manned and un- 
manned locally. 

o Provision of the necessary un- 
dersea technical support or technol- 
ogy to enable the national expansion 
and exploitation of the offshore re- 
sources by industry in conjunction 
with other Government agencies, such 
technology to include, but not be lim- 
ited to, life support, vehicles, tools 
and communications. 

It would be foolish to suggest that 
the Navy's basic research program 
could be strong in all phases of ocean 
science and technology, especially in 
the face of the rapid expansion of the 
field. Cautious reduction of support 
is and continue to be justified in areas 
where agencies with different mis- 
sions show evidence of giving ade- 
quate support, or in areas where 
it is suspected that the chances 
of Naval application are remote. 
For example, the study of com- 
mercial fishes can well be left to 
the Bureau of Commerical Fisheries, 
although their distribution and abun- 
dance, as well as the distributed effort 
to catch them, is of military signifi- 
cance. The study of tsunamis, once 
sponsored entirely by ONR, has been 
entrusted to the Coast and Geodetic 
Survey as, under an assigned respon- 
sibility, the competence in that 
agency grew to accept it. In the study 
of coastal processes Navy's support 
has grown less rapidly because of an 
excellent program in the Army Corps 
of Engineers. Emphasis has been on 
coordinating these so that jointly the 
complementary studies serve the 
clear needs of both agencies. 

Departure from the traditional 
methods in program management are 
being planned. For example, while 
major support for an effort may g-o to 
a single institution, provision for plan- 
ning input and research participation 
by competent investigators from a 
number of institutions will be speci- 
fied. Related parts of tho program, 
vested in different groups, will be re- 
viewed in context, and subjected to 
integrated funding and forward plan- 
ning. It will probably be necessary to 
provide for parallel technological de- 
velopment for the instrumentation 
needed, The competence of American 
industry should be brought to bear 
upon this task. 



DOD Value Engineering 
Conference Set for Fall 

"The Role of Value Engineering 
in Support of Management Objec- 
tives," is the theme of a Defense 
Department in-house engineering con- 
ference to be held in the Washington, 
D.C., area Sept 12-14, 19G7. 

The Department of the Army will 
host the three-day conference. Rep- 
resentatives of the Army, Navy, Air 
Force, Marine Corps, and Defense 
Supply Agency will participate. 

^Purpose of the conference is to 
stimulate interest and increased ef- 
fort to improve value engineering 
support of management objectives in 
the development, acquisition and sup- 
port of defense systems, equipment 
and facilities. 

Conference papers are being solic- 
ited on the following subjects: 

Practical methods for integrating 
value engineering into the life-cycle 
management of DOD systems, equip- 
ment, facilities, material and pro- 
cedures in: program /project man- 
agement, logistic support manage- 
ment, procurement management, and 
contract administration. 

Economic and functional gains 
achieved through injection of value 
engineering in program /project, logis- 
tic support, and procurement man- 
agement, and contract administration. 

What is needed to provide a con- 
tinuing current measure of the effec- 
tiveness, of value engineering in the. 
Defense Department. 

The September meeting will mark 
the second DOD in-house conference 
on values engineering. The first was 
held in 1964. 



Director of Laboratories 
Post Created by AFSC 

A new agency, the Director of 
Laboratories (DOL), has been estab- 
lished within Headquarters, Air 
Force Systems Command (APSC) . 
The Commander, APSC Research and 
Technology Division (RTD). Boiling 
AFB, Washington, D. C., has as- 
sumed the position of Director of 
Laboratories as an added responsi- 
bility. 

The DOL and his staff, located at 
Andrews APB, Md,, will provide pol- 
icy and technical direction to all 
phases of the programs and activi- 
ties of tho eight AFSC laboratories 
and monitor their operations to en- 
sure a capability to respond promptly 
to the changing needs of the Air 
Force. These functions were previ- 
^Jfe, Prided by KTD and the 
AFSC Deputy Chief of Staff for 
Science and Technology. 

With the establishment of a direc- 
tor of laboratories at the AFSC staff 
level. Air Force technological needs 
can bo more readily identified and in- 
tegrated into the overall planning, 
programming, and resources alloca- 
tion of its laboratories, 

37 




I Editor* s note: The following is a 
statement issued by President Lyndon 
R. Johnson on the 1967 Youth Oppor- 
tunity Campaign.} 

Woven into the national fabric are 
threads that weaken itthat make it 
sometimes ravel or tear. One of these 
threads is unemployment, particularly 
among youth. 

Hundreds of thousands of young- 
people walk the city streets and rural 
roads in search of meaningful em- 
ployment. Hundreds of thousands 
more work part-time at tasks that 
bring them neither monetary nor 
emotional satisfaction. 

In the last two years, we have been 
reaching 1 out to help them with 
special summer employment pro- 
grams. In 1965, the first Youth Op- 
portunity Campaign created a million 
extra jobs for young men and women' 
between the ages of 16 and 21. 

We bettered that effort in 1986, 
when America's response to the need 
for "Summer Jobs for Youth" pro- 
duced more than a million new op- 
portunities. 

Now, in June 1967, two million 
youngsters will join the job market 
who wil! have no help unless it is 
ours. Many of them could be on their 
way to becoming- tomorrow's re- 
placements for the loft-behind Amer- 
icans of today unless a continued 
effort is made by private industry, 
by American labor, and by local, 



state and Federal governments to 
prevent that from happening., 

To help these youngsters help them- 
selves I am asking the Vice Presi- 
dent, as Chairman of the new Presi- 
dent's Council on Youth Opportunity, 
to appoint task forces of responsible 
leaders in SO major cities of our 
nation, who will give their time and 
efforts to finding/ summer jobs and 
opportunities for those young people 
who most need help. 

Theirs will be a great task, but 
they cannot do it alone. They must 
have the support and cooperation of 
all our people. I am asking for that 
cooperation now* 

The Private Employer's Role. 

The private employer supplied the 
great majority of the more than one 
million extra opportunities last year. 
Again liia help is most essential of all. 

Thousands of smaller businesses and 
offices throughout the land, who have 
already demonstrated a willingness to 
help in this endeavor, can do so again. 

Governors and Mayors, labor 
unions, trade associations, civic and 
fraternal groups, churches and col- 
leges have already demonstrated that 
they can find extra places for our 
young citizens. They can do so again. 

It is important that we begin im- 
mediately. 

Many employers will hire extra help 
directly this summer. Others will hire 
young persons through their local 



state employment service offices. In 
either case, 1 ask that word of what 
they have done, including the name 
of the trainee, be forwarded by mail 
to: 

The Vice President ^ 

of the United States 

Youth Opportunity 
Campaign Unit 

Washington, D.C. 20500 

It will be appropriately acknowl- 
edged. 

All boys and girls 16 through 21, 
who want to work this summer and 
who do not have assured jobs, should 
immediately contact the nearest State 
Employment Service office. If this Is 
difficult, write to the Department ol 
Labor, Youth Opportunity Campaign 
Unit, Washington, D.C. 20210. 
The Federal Government's Role. 5 

I am again directing the Gover- 
nment departments and agencies to 
lead this campaign. They should mako 
every effort to find meaningful work 
or training opportunities this summer 
for young men and women. 

These opportunities will be given 
so far as is practicable to those boys : 
and girls, aged 16 to 21, who need 
them most because of their economic 
or educational disadvantages. 

The young men and women, who 
want a chance to work and who are 
denied that chance, cost this country * 
more than it can afford. 

All America can help them help . 
themselves. We do it for the sake of 
the American to come. : 



April 1967 



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Joseph J. Liebling has been selected 
for the post of Dir., Security Policy, 
Office of Asst. Secretary of Defense 
(Administration). He replaces Walter 
T. Skallerup who has returned to pri- 
vate law practice, 

Robert W. Taylor has been ap- 
pointed Dir. of Information Process- 
ing Techniques of the Advanced 
Research Projects Agency (ARPA). 
He succeeds Dr. Ivan Sutherland who 
left ARPA to join the faculty at 
Harvard University. 

RAdm. Roy G. Anderson, USN, has 
been designated as Senior Navy 
Member, Military Studies and Liai- 
son Div., Weapons Systems Evalua- 
tion Group, Office of Dir., Defense Re- 
search and Engineering. 

Col. Fred L. Kennels Jr., USAP, has 
been assigned as Dir. of Contract 
Administration Services. Office of 
Asst. Secretary of Defense (Installa- 
tions & Logistics). 

Lt. Col. Travis M. Gafford, USA, 
has been assigned to the Business and 
Labor Div., Office of Asst. Secretary 
of Defense (Public Affairs). 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Col. Thomas W. Davis III, Project 
Manager for Combat Vehicles at 
Army Weapons Command, Rock Is- 
land, 111., has retired from the Army. 
The following new assignments 
have been made at Army Weapons 
Command, Rock Island, 111.: Lowell 
B. McCIain, Commodity Manager for 
the Commando V100 Armored Car: 
Frank X. Connolly, Commodity Man- 
ager for Automatic Data Systems 
within the Army in the Field (ADS 
AF); and George Bui-dick, Commod- 
ity Manager of the M102 Howitzer 
System. 

Col. Stantoii W. Josephson has 
been appointed as Dir., Materiel 
Testing Activities, Development and 
Proof Services, Aberdeen Proving 
Ground, Md. 

Col. Franklin B. Moon will become 
District Engineer for the Army Corps 
of Engineers at Galveston, Tex, this 
summer, succeeding Col. John E, 
Unverferth, who is retiring. 

Col. John C. Raaen Jr. succeeds 
Col. Charles D. Y. Ostrom Jr. in the 
three-hat position of Commander. 
Army Ballistic Research Laboratories, 
the Human Engineering Laboratories, 
and the Chemical and Coating Labor- 
atory, at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, 
Md. ' 

Col. John G, Rcdmoii has been 
named Project Manager for the Hawk 
Missile System at the Army Missile 
Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala, 

Col. Albert M. Stcinkrausa, Dir, of 
Procurement and Production, Army 
Aviation Materiel Command, St. 
Louis, Mo., since 1964, has retired 
from military service. 

Lt. Col. Robert A. Filby has as- 
sumed duty as Chief, Flying Crane 
Project Manager Office, Army Avia- 
tion Materiel Command, St. Louis, 
Mo. ' 




Lt. Col. William C. McHugh has 
been reassigned as Chief, Future Mis- 
sile Systems Div., Army Missile Com- 
mand, Redstone Arsenal, Ala. 

Lt. Col. John E. Wagner 1ms as- 
sumed duties ns Commanding Officer. 
Army Cold Regions Research and 
Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, 
N.H., succeeding- Col. Dlmitri A. Kel- 
logg. 



DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

The following- flag officer assign- 
ments have been made: 

VAdm. John S. McCain Jr., (se- 
lected for promotion to the grade of 
admiral) Commander in Chief, U.S. 
Naval Forces, Europe; VAdm. Law- 
son P. Ramage, Commander, Military 
Sea Transportation Service, Washing- 
ton, D.C.; VAdm. Waldomnr P. A. 
Wendt, Dep. Chief of Naval Opera- 
tions (Plans & Policy); RAdm. Hor- 
ace V. Bird, Commander, Mine Forces, 
Pacific; RAdm. Constantino A. Kara- 
beris, Commander, Fleet Air, San 
Diego, Calif.; RAdm. Stephen Slier- 
wood, Commanding- Officer, Naval 
Supply Depot, San Diego, Calit; 
RAdm. Harry N. Wallin, Commander, 
(Continued on Page 40) 



m OASD (Public Affairs) 



Two veteran journalists, Daniel Z. 
Henkin and Richard FryklmuL have 
been appointed as deputies to the As- 
sistant Secretary of Defense (Public 
Affairs) Phil G. Colliding, 

In announcing the appointments. 
becretary of Defense Robert S. McNa- 
mara stated, "Working with Assistant 
becretary Phil G. Goulding, Deputy 
Assistant Secretaries Dan Henkin and 
Dick Frykluml will be key members 
of a team with unparalleled military 
news experience n total of more than 
46 years in covering- national de- 
fense. 

Mr, Henkin has been serving as Di- 
rector of Operations, Office of Assist- 
ant Secretary of Defense (Public 
Affairs) , since October, 19fifi. A vet- 
eran military affairs reporter and for- 
mer editor of the Journal of the 
Armed Forces, Mr. Honkin, 43, is a 



native of Washington, D.C., and a 
graduate of the University of Cali- 
fornia. KG served during- world War 
II as a Coast Guard combat corre- 
spondent. 

Born in Denver, Colo., Mr. Fryk- 
lundj 45, is a graduate of the Uni- 
versity of Minnesota, and served in 
Europe during World War II as an 
Air Force night flffhter radar ob- 
server. Prior to his appointment as 
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Mr, 
Fryklund served as military writer 
for the Washington Evening Star, 
from which he lias taken an indefinite 
leave of absence. He was European 
correspondent for the Star from 19156 
to 1958, and has been the Star's mili- 
tary writer covering the Pentagon 
since 1S59. In that period he has made 
five reporting trips to South Vietnam 
and the Far East. 




cctniy of 



(Public Affairs) Phil G, Gouldinir in a 
' Hcnkin <^t> "nd fichl rd 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



39 



Aboul People 

(Continued from Page 39) 

Naval Facilities Engineering Com- 
mand, Atlantic Division, Norfolk, Va., 
R\dm. William F. Petrovic, Com- 
mnnder, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, 
Bremerton, Wash; and RAdm. Ed- 
ward A. Ruckner, Dep. Chief of Naval 
Operations (Development). 

The following captain assignments 
have beun made; 

Cant. Edwin E. McMorries, Dir. of 
Procurement, Office of Asst. Secretary 
of the Navy (Installations & Logis- 
tics); Capt. Thomas J. Christman, 
Commanding Officer, Naval Ammuni- 
tion Depot, Crane, Ind.; Capt. Clyde 
E. Fulton, Commanding Officer, Naval 
Supply Depot, Median icsbiirg, Pa.; 
Capt. Grady H. Lowe, Commander, 
Naval Ordnance Test Station, China 
Lake, Calif., relieving Capt. John I. 
Hardy, who is retiring; Capt. William 
M. Nicholson, Dir., Deep Submerg- 
ence Systems Project Office, Chevy 
Chase, Md.; and Capt. Thomas B. 
Owen (rear admiral selectee) to suc- 
ceed HAdm. John K. Leydon as Chief 
of Naval Research on June 30, 1967; 
and Capt. Perry M. Boo the, Dep. 
Commander, Naval Facilities Engi- 
neering Command, Southwest Div., 
San Deigo, Calif. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE 
AIR FORCE 

The President has nominated to the 
Senate the following named officers 
for appointment to the temporary 
general officer grades indicated: 

To Major General. 

Brig, Gen. Charles H. Roadman, 
Commander, Aerospace Medicine Div., 
AFSC; Brig. Gen. Paul T. Cooper, 
Commander, Space Systems Div., 
AFSC; Brig. Gen. Joseph S. Bley- 
maicr, Commander, Air Force West- 
ern Test Range, AFSC; Brig. Gen. 
Robert H. McCutchcon, Dir. of Pro- 
curement & Production, AFLC; Brig. 
Gen, Ernest A. Pinson, Commander, 
Office of Aerospace Research; Brig, 
Gen. Albert W. Schinz, Commander, 
Air Force Tactical Air Warfare Cen- 
ter; Brig. Gen. Richard D, Reinbold, 
Dep. Dm of Plans, Office of Dep. Chief 
?,?J? ff (Plans & Operations), Hq. 
USAF; Brig. Gen. William C. Gar- 
land, Dep. Dir. of Information, Office 
of _ the Secretary of the Air Force; 
Brig. Gen, Guy H. Goddard, Dep. Dir. 
for Construction, Office of Dep. Chief 
ITQVP < Pr E i 'ams & Resources), Hq. 

U > A r i 

To Brigadier General. 

Col. David V. Miller, Vice Com- 
mander Space Systems Div., AFSC- 
Col. Allison C. Brooks, Commander, 
Aerospace Rescue & Recovery Serv- 
ice, MAC; Col. Raymond A. Gilbert, 
Vice Commander, Research & Tech- 
nology Div., AFSC; Col. Robert J. 

nffl r> f S n " P^rement Policy, 
Office of Dep Chief of Staff (Systems 
& Log.3t.cs), Hq. USAF; Col Guy M. 
Townaend, Systems Promm Dir' C- 

?.i Sy Q t< T 1s Pr ? ram Office, Aeronau- 
tical Systems Div, AFSC; Col. Rob- 
crt A, Berman, Dep. Dir Mnini-o 
nance Engineering; AFLCf Cot 

40 



Albert R. Shiely Jr., Vice Commander, 
Electronic Systems Div., AFSC; Col. 
McLean W. Elliott, Dep. for Range 
Operations, Air Force Eastern Test 
Range, AFSC. 

Maj. Gen. James T. Stewart has 
been reassigned as Vice Dir., Manned 
Orbiting Laboratory (MOL). Brig. 
Gen. Walter B. Hedrick Jr., replaces 
Gen. Stewart, as Dir. of Space in the 
Office of the Dep. Chief of Staff (Re- 
search and Development), Hq., USAP. 
Brig. Gen. Joseph S, Bleymaicr, has 
been named Dep. Dir., MOL, with ad- 
ditional duty as Dep. Commander, 
Space Systems Div. (AFSC), for 
MOL. 

Walter Sexauer has replaced 
Joseph J. Liebling as Asst. for Secur- 
ity and Trade Affairs, Office of Dep. 
Chief of Staff, (Systems Logistics) 
and Office of the Dep. Chief of Staff, 
(Research & Development) Hq., 
USAF. 

New assignments in the Air Force 
Systems Command are: Maj. Gen. 
Vincent G. Huston, Dep. Chief of 
Staff (Operations), Hq., AFSC; Maj. 
Gen. David M. Jones, Commander, Air 
Force Eastern Test Range, Patrick 
AFB, Fla.j Col. Harwell L. Boyd Jr., 
Dep. System Program Dir., 416/418, 
Electronics Systems Div.; Col. John 
P. dowry, Chief, SACCS Projects 
Office, Electronics Systems Div.; Col. 
James R. Finton, Dir., Engineering 
Standards and Technical Information, 
Systems Engineering Group; Col. 
Paul Baker Jr., Chief, Systems Engi- 
neering Div., MOL Program, Hq., 
AFSC; Col. John C. Beals, Dir., Civil 
Engineering, Arnold Engineering De- 
velopment Center, Tenn.; Col. Win- 
ston H. Clisham, Dep. for Civil Engi- 
neering, Aeronautical Systems Div,; 
Col. Roy R. Croy Jr., Asst. Dir,, Test, 
Arnold Engineering Development 
Center, Tenn.; Col. Joseph E. Duval, 
Chief, Engineering and Evaluation 
Div. ( Armament Development Labor- 
atory (RTD), Eglin AFB, Fla.; Col. 
Charles E. Jerman, Dep. for Civil En- 
gineering, Air Force Flight Test 
Center, Edwards AFB, Calif.; Col. 
JJavid R. Jones, Dir., Air Force Weap- 
ons Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, N.M.; 
Col. Donald J. Keeffe, Chief, Pro- 
curement Div., Ballistic Systems Div.: 
Col. Harrison E. Kec Jr., Chief, Com- 
mand and Surveillance Div., Research 
and Technology Div.; Col. Ralph W. 
Kiser, Chief, Communications, Elec- 
tronics Systems Div., Hq, AFSC; Col. 
Si?*!^ 1 Newbern, Dir., Range 
Safety Div., Air Force Eastern Test 
Range Patrick AFB, Fla.; Col. Vic- 
tor C. Wegenhoft, Chief, Plans Div., 

"Irt ne Div " Patrick AFB 
Fla., Col. Walter Schlie, Dir., Recon- 
naissance Survivability and Electronic 
Warfare, Hq., AFSC; Col. Warren T. 
Wnitnure, Dir., AFWET Div., Air 
Proving Ground Center. Elgin AFB, 
Fla.; Col. William C. Marett, Dir. of 
Bioastroiwiitirs. Hq.. AFSC; Lt. Col. 
John I. Whrteside, Dir. of Informa- 
tion, Aeronautical Svstems Div 

J '? ne A ' Kuh '"nii, has been 
named Chief F-1Q2/106 System Sun- 
port Manager Div., Directorate of 
Maintenance Management, San An- 



tonio Air Materiel Area, Kelly AFB, 
Fla. 

Col. Henry G. Hamby Jr., has as- 
sumed duties as Dep, Commander, 
Mobile Air Materiel Area, Brooklcy 
AFB, Ala. He relieved Col. John 
McCorltle who has retired. 

Col, John J. Bennett has been as- 
signed as Executive to the Dep. Under 
Secretary of the Air Force (Man- 
power) . 

Col. William H, Lake, has been as- 
signed as Secretary, Scientific Advis- 
ory Board, Hq., USAF. 



President Johnson Sets 

National Transportation 

Day 

President Lyndon B, Johnson, in 
response to a joint resolution of tlio 
U. S. Congress, has designated Fri- 
day, May 19, 1907, as National De- 
fense Transportation Day, and the 
week beginning* May 14, 1907, as Nn- 
tional Transportation We ok. 

In his proclamation the- President 
urges all American citixens to partici- 
pate with the transportation industry, 
the Armed Services and other Govern- 
ment agencies in tlio observance of 
these occasions through appropriate 
ceremonies. The observance of Na- 
tional Defense Transportation Day 
and National Transportation Week 
will give the citi/ena of each com- 
munity the opportunity to recogniza 
and appreciate fully the vital rolo 
our great and modern transportation. 
system plays in their lives and In 
the defense of the nation. 



Local and Short Haul 
Carriers Forum Set 

The Defense Department and Gen- 
era! Services Administration will par- 
ticipate in a special forum on (( IIo\v 
To Do Business With The U. S. Gov- 
ernment," for companies exhibiting at 
the Local and Short Haul Camera 
1967 National Trucking Exposition to 
be held at the Edj>;cwutor ttcnch* 
Hotel, Chicago, 111., May lfi-17, 1G7. 
The forum is scheduled for Tuesday, 1 
May 10, at 10:30 a.m. 

Presentations will he made by each 
agency to bo followed! by a question* 
and answer session during which ex- 
hibitor representatives may inquire 
into the various aspects of doing 
business with the Government. The 
speakers at the forum will bo George 
H. Wilson, Small Business Advisor,' 
U. S. Army Tank-Automotive Center, 
Warren, Michigan; and Joel L. Lack- 
ness, Regional Director of Bxisinesa 
Affairs, General Services Administra- 
tion Region Five, Chicago, 111. 

There will be no charge for attend- 
ance at the forum, For additional In-" 
iormation contact: Local and Short' 
Carriers National Conference^ 
P St. NW, Washington, D, G. 



April 1967; 




[Editor's Note: The following article, 
which contains information of interest 
to industry, is reprinted from the 
Headquarters Naval Material Com- 
mand Procurement Newsletter,] 

The wording of the Changes clause 
in Government contracts, and the re- 
quirement in Armed Services Pro- 
curement Regulation (ASPR) 16- 
816.1 for the use of Change Order 
Form DD 1319, would lead one to be- 
lieve that a formal, written change 
order must be issued by the contract- 
ing officer to entitle the contractor to 
an equitable adjustment under the 
Changes clause. However, that is not 
the case; the contracting officer and 
other personnel may, in informal 
communications or by their course of 
conduct, generate price increases and 
time extensions without intending- to 
or even being aware that they are 
doing so. 

The Changes clause expressly pro- 
vides for equitable adjustments only 
where the changes are made "by 
written order" of the contracting offi- 
cer (or his authorized representa- 
tive). But the courts and appeals 
boards hold that a "constructive" 
change order results, the same as if 
the contracting officer had issued a 
written order on the prescribed DD 
Form, when the contractor is re- 
quired by the words or conduct of 
authorized Government representa- 
tives to perform different or addi- 
tional work under the contract. 
Words effecting the change may bo 
written or oral; and directive words, 
such as "order," "direct," or "re- 
quire," need not be used if the con- 
tractor's work ia, in fact, changed. 
A change may result from a failure 
to act as well as from a positive 
course of conduct. But a "construc- 
tive" change does not occur unless 
the contracting officer, or his autho- 
rized representative, has authority to 
take the action that generates the 
increased costs or time required for 
performance. 

Examples of circumstances under 
which constructive change orders 

may arise are ; 

When an inspector or contract- 
ing officer unjustifiably rejects work, 
thereby requiring the contractor to 
perform rework or additional work 
not required by the contract. 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



* Where inspectors or other au- 
thorized personnel require excessive 
tests or a higher standard of per- 
formance than called for by the 
specification, 

Where the contractor's costs are 
increased by a change in the time, 
place, or manner of inspection, or in 
quality control requirements. 

Where the contract does not 
specify how the work is to be done 
and the Government's representative 
insists that it be clone in a certain 
way, although the work could be per- 
formed satisfactorily by a less expen- 
sive method. 

* Where the contractor incurs ad- 
ditional costs because he is forced by 
action of the cognizant Government 
official to alter the sequence in which 
the work is performed, 

_ Where, based on a misinterpreta- 
tion of the contract, the contracting 
officer directs performance not legally 
required by the contract. 

Where the contractor is entitled 
to a time extension because of an ex- 
cusable delay, and the contracting 
officer acts in such a way as to re- 
quire the contractor to adhere to the 
original contract performance sched- 
ule^ despite notice of the contractor's 
claim to an extension of time. This 
is called "acceleration" of perform- 
ance. It may also occur where the 
contracting officer recognizes an ex- 
cusable delay, but for a shorter peri- 
od than is justified, so that the time 



extension granted is insufficient and 

the contractor is forced to speed up 
the work. 

Similarly, where the Govern- 
ment's specifications contain inconsis- 
tencies or other errors, the correction 
of which is, in fact, required for per- 
formance of the contract work con- 
templated by the parties. In such a 
case the contractor has been entitled 
to an equitable adjustment under the 
Changes clause to compensate him for 
extra work caused by the defects In 
the specifications, even though the 
increase in cost was not caused by 
an express change order. 

The proper method of effecting re- 
quired changes is by written change 
orders which are expressly provided 
for in the contract and under which; 
both parties arc aware of their rights' 
and obligations in regard to the 
change. Constructive changes should 
be avoided; they often impose im- 
proper demands on the contractor, 
increase unnecessarily the Govern- 
ment's financial obligations, and re- 
sult in unintended time extensions. 
They can more readily be avoided 
if personnel administering contracts 
have an understanding of what con- 
duct might be considered to consti- 
tute constructive changes. Frequently, 
such changes are duo to the contract 
administrator's lack of understanding 
of the Government's contractual 
rights. The advice of Counsel is es- 
pecially desirable in those cases, and 
will be helpful generally in situations 
where constructive change orders may 
arise. 



Navy Establishes Buying Command 
in Oakland, Calif. 



An Area Buying Command has 
been established at the Naval Supply 
Center Oakland, Calif,, to exercise 
technical direction, on a trial basis, 
?v or ,S?, ld ^Purchasing- offices within 
the 12th Naval District (Northern 
California and Nevada). 

The Navy Field Purchase System, 
which includes the purchase elements 
of more than 200 naval activities 
worM-wlde, has been centrally man- 
aged from Headquarters, Naval Sup- 
ply bystems Command, in Washing- 
ton, D.C., in the past, However, 
Supply Systems Command is now 
considering: the feasability of trans- 
ferring- a number of functions to 
locations closer to field purchasing 
activities and their customers. 

The Area Buying Command (ABC) 
was established at Oakland as a test 
of the concept of partial decentraliza- 
tion. A major aim is to determine how 



well ABC can effect the economies of 
consolidated buying by standardizing 
procedures and eliminating duplica- 
tions of purchases. 

Rear Admiral Edward F, Motzffor. 
Commanding: Officer, Oakland Navaf 
Supply Center, ia ABC's commander. 
Vice commander is Commander Davis 
L. Webb who directs Oakland Naval 
Sup S ly m. Gent er's Purchase Depart- 
ment The ABC office is in Building 

O J. L ii , 

ABC's first major operational task 
win DO to conduct an inventory of 
area purchase requirements anil re- 
sources. Prom the results of this in- 
ventory, the first to be undertaken by 
the Navy, ABC will construct a pur- 
chase management master plan for 
the 12th Naval District to match 
area purchase resources with require- 
ments. M 



41 




DEFENSE PROCUREMENT 



Contracts of $1,000,000 and over 
awarded during the month of March 
1967: 

DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY 

1 Genco, Inc., Florence, Ala. $2,034,807. 
?7&,1GI) paira of men's light-weight win- 
ter drawers, DefeiiBo Personnel Support 
Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 

The Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alex- 
andria, Vs., has issued the following con- 
racts for 116/1-15 aviation gnsoline: 
CHiea Service Oil Co., New York, N.V, 
$3,122.045. 19,Saa,000 gallons.. 
Phillips Petroleum Co., Bai-tlesvlJle, 
Ok IB. $1,939,140. 11,340,000 gallons, 
Mobil Oil Corp., New York, N.Y. 51.- 
Tae,923. 11,760,000 gallons. 
Shell Oil Co., New York, N.Y. $1,400,- 
230. 8,400,000 gallons. 

S Fruchaul Corp., Fullerton, Cnlff. 5,339,- 
4G2. 12,426 reusable metal shipping boxes. 
Defense General Supply Center, Rich- 
mond, Va.. 

Fab-Welfl Corp., Simpson, Pa. $2,913,897. 
8,284 reuBcable metal shipping boxes. De- 
fense General Supply Center, Richmond, 
Va, 

7 Saladn Foods, Inc., Woburn, Mass. $1.- 
142,261. 1,171,512 Dounds of blnck tea in 
Individual bags. Defeaso Personnel Sup- 
port Center. Philadelphia, Pn. 
Lester D. Lawaon & Co., Long Beach, 
Calif. 84,816,099. 148,740 cases of ration 
supplement sundries pack. Defense Per- 
sonnel Support Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 
8 Texac* Co., Inc., New York, N.Y, $1.- 
860,800. 1,200.009 barrels of No. fl fuel 
oil. Defence Fuel Supply Center, Alex- 
andria, Vn. 

Standard Oil Company of California, San 
Francisco, Calif, 81,638,108. 030, 000 bar- 
rels of No. 6 fuel oil. Defense Fuel Sup- 
ply Center, Alexandria, Va. 
9 International Harvester Co., Molroae 
Park, 111. 51,204.982, BO lull-tracked die- 
eel engine-driven tractors with concurrent 
spare parts. Melrose Pnrk. Defense Con- 
struction Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio. 
10 General Fire Extinguisher Corp., Nort-h- 
brook. 111 $1,032,323. 71,000 fire extin- 
guishers. Do.'cnao Construction Supply 
Center, Alexandria, Va. 
The Defense Fuel Supply Center. Alex- 
andria, Va., has nwimlod the following 
contracts for diesel and fuel oil: 

Mobil Oil Corp., New York, N.Y. $2.- 
787,419 103,260 barrels diesel fuel. 
1,241,400 barrels #6 fuel oil. 
Gulf Oil Corp., Houston. Tex. $1,688.. 
787. 12,000 gallons gasoline, 77,000 bar- 
rolB diesel fuel, 168,700 barrels #B fuel 
oil. 

Humhle Oil & Rellnhiff Co., Houston,, 
Tex. $1,09,, 681. 25.760 barrels diesel 
fuel. 411.300 barrels #6 fuel oil. 
Metropolitan Petroleum Co., Now York. 
N.Y. $1,978,300. 626,000 barrels #0 fuel 
oil. 

laDow Chemicil Co., Midland, Mich, ?2.- 
214,009, Chemicals. Defense General 
, . uri> . ! , y C B "ter. Richmond, Vn. 
l4 8P|K MlllB ' Illc -. Greenville, R.I, 88.- 
360,000. 20,000,009 polypropylene sand- 
boBa, Defense General Supply Center, 
Richmond, Va. 

15 Royal Lubricants Co., Hanover, N.J. 82.- 
015, 88S, EBS.aOB gallons of aircraft tur- 
bine engine lubrlcntins oil. Defense Fuel 
.. Supply Center, Alexandria, Vn. 
16 The Defense Personnel Support Center, 



CONTRACT LEGEND 

Contract information ia listed in 
the following: sequence: Date- 
Company Value Material or 
Work to be Performed Location 
Work Performed Contracting 
Agency. 



Philadelphia, Pa., has awarded the fol- 
lowing contracts for tropical combat 
boots : 

Safely First Shoe Co., Nashville, Term. 

54,763,346. 44d,S42 pairs. 

Endicott Johnson Cory., Endicott, N.Y. 

13,130,460. 283,704 pairs. 

W1Ico Research Industries, Wiiynea- 

villc, N.C. $1,715,613. 160,638 pairs. 
17 Morris Bros. Inc., New York, N.Y. ?2,- 
797, 8G8. 1,600,000 cotton hod sheets. De- 
fense Personnel Support Center, Phila- 
delphia, Pa. 

21 American Oil & Supply Co., Newark, 
N.J. $2,676,534. 666,300 gallons of air- 
craft turbine engine lubricating oil. De- 
fense Fuel Supply Center, Alexandria, 
Vn. 

27 California Steel & Tube, Los Angeles, 
Calif, 51,203,150, 37,600 bunk beds. De- 
fense General Supply Center, Richmond, 
Va. 

Dixie Bedding Co., Miami, Fla. $3,981,- 
73S. ISH.OQO bunk beds. Defense General 
Supply Center, Richmond, Va. 
28 Wytliu Tool & Machine, Inc., Brooklyn, 
N.Y. $1,266.978'. 321,816 adjustable tele- 
scopic tent poles- Defense Personnel Sup- 
port Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 
United Aircraft, East Hartford, Conn. 
$1,608,742. 2,021 eels of bearings and 
13,870 individual bearings. Defense In- 
dustrial Supply Center. Philadelphia, Pa. 
20 LaCrosse Garment Mfg. Co., 'LnCrosae, 
Wis. $2,014,901, 850,000 tent shelter 
halvcB. Defense Personnel Support Cen- 
ter, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Dow Chemical Co., Midland, Mich. $2,- 
074,000. 300,000 gallons of a chemical. 
Defense General Supply Center, Rich- 
mond, Va, 



ARMY 

1 G.G. Greene Enterprises, Warren, Pn. 
51,032,807. 6.56mm 10-roiiml clipa and 
magazine Alters. Warren, Prankford Ar- 
senal, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Bocinsr Co., Morton, Pa. $7,400,000, CH- 
47 A helicopter configuration 1A and III 
product improvement program, Morton. 
Army Aviation Materiel Command, St. 
Louis, Mo. 

Zenith Radio Corp., Chicago, 111. $1,012,- 
700. SM42B fuzes for the 2.76-lnch rocket. 
Chlcaeo. Harry Diamond Tjtib oratories, 
Washington, D.O. 

Atlantic Research Cor[),, Alexandria, Va. 
$3,000,000. XM2SB2 mines. East Hanover, 
Mass. Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, III, 

Viz MfB. Co., Philadelphia, Pa. $1,616,- 
608. AN/AMT-4D and AN/AMT-12 ra- 
diosonde sets, Philadelphia. Army Elec- 
tronics Command, Philadelphia, Pa. 
2 Stevens Mfg. Co., Ebenshurg, Pa. $1,287,- 
127. TU-ton semi-trallora. Ebanaburg. 
Army Tank Automotive Command, War- 
ren, Mich, 

Johnson Corp., Cellevue, Ohio, $1,029,701, 
8%-ton trailers. Bellevue. Army Tank 
Automotive Command, Warren, Mich. 

H. 0. Boehnte, Inc.. Westbury, N.Y. $2,- 
188.581, Teletypewriter seta and related 
equipment. Weatbury. Army Eleetronies 
Command, Philadelphia, Pa. 

ITT Gilflllnn, Inc., Loa Angeles. Cnllf, 
?2,a82.EOO. Omni-dlrectlonal mortar lo- 
cating rndar Bystems. Los Angeles. Army 
Electronics Command, Port Monmouth, 
N.J. 

Allla Chalmers Mfir. Co., York, Pa. S4,- 
748,300. Work on the Webbers Fall Lock 
and Dam, Oklahoma Project. Gore, Okla, 
and York, Pa. Engineer Dist., Tulsa, 
Okla, 

8 General Steel Tank Co., Reldavillo, N.C. 
$2,616,838. 60,000 gallon capacity fuel 
system supply points. ReldBvllle. Army 
Mobility Enuipmont Command, St, Louis, 
Mo, 

KDI Corp., Cincinnati, Ohio. $1,810,220. 
Metnl parts for 2.76-lnch rocket fuzes. 
Cincinnati. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Jollet, 111. 

Institute for Defense Analyses, Arlington, 
Va. $3.013,689, An 8-month extension for 



additional research and development for 
the Weapons System Evaluation Group of 
the Joint Chief of Staff. $4,000,000, An 
8-month extennion for additional research, 
in technical fields for DDR&E and ARPA, 
Arlington. Defense Supply Service, "Wash- 
ington, B.C. 

G Chrysler Motors, Detroit, Mich. $1,034,677 
and 53,428,772. Trucks, Warren, Mich, 
Army Tank Automotive Command, War- 
ren, Mich. 

Atlas Corp., and H. C. Smith Construc- 
tion Co., Oakland, Cnllf. 81,362,378. 31 
months of additional logistics support nt 
Kawajaleln Teat Silo. Nike-X Project 
Office, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsvillc, Ala, 
7 National Presto Industries, Ban Clnire, 
Wis, $3,966,802. Metal ports for ft-inch 
M106 projectiles, and for lifting plugs. 
Eau Claire. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Allia Chalmers Mfg. Co., York, Pa. $L,. 
616,033. Work on the Do Gray Darn and 
Reservoir, Arkansas Project. West Allla, 
WIs, and Arkadelphia, Ark. Engine*! 
Dist., Vicksburg, Miss. 

United Aircraft, Stratford, Conn. 1,260,- 
000. Component armor kits for CH-SIA 
helicopters (Flying 1 Crane), Stratford. 
Army Aviation Materiel Command, St. 
Louis, Mo. 

Vnro, Inc., Garland, Tex. $1.667,475. 
Classified electronic equipment. Garlatul. 
Army Electronics Command, Foi-L Mon- 
mouth, N.J. 

Mernndo, Inc., Washington, D.C. 33,29V 
394. Construction of two 8-atoi'y wings us 
additions to the Sheridan Building at the 
Soldi ov'a Homo, Washington, D.C. Engi- 
neer Dist., Baltimore, Md, 
8 Philco-Pord Corn., Newport Beach, Calif. 
$4,550,200. Continuation of research find 
development on tho Chaparral air defense 
missile system. Anaheim, Calif. Army 
Missile Command, Redstone Arsentil, 
Himtsville, Ala, 

Webber Constructors, Miami, Fla. 1,888,- 
400. Work on the Four River Hasina, 
Florida Project, Marlon County, Fin. 
Engineer Dist., Jacksonville, Fla, 
fl University of Wisconsin, Madinoa, WIs. 
$1,800,000, Continuation of operation of 
tho Mathematics Research Center. Madi- 
son. Army Research Office -Durham, Dur- 
ham, N,C. 

FMC Corp., South Charleston, W, Vn. 
$1,099,300. Road wheels for M113 vehi- 
cles, Loa Angeles, Cnllf. Army Tank 
Automotive Command, Warren, Mich. 

Hughes Tool Co., Culver City, Calif. 
$1,043,941. XM27E1 aircraft armamont 
Biib-Bystemn for OH-OA helicopters. Cul- 
ver City. Army Weapons Command, Rock 
Island, 111. 

10 The Army Electronics Command, Tort 
Mo n mouth, N.J,, lias awarded the follow- 
ing contract;; for contract definition on 
the Tactical Firo Direction Systems \ 
I.B.M. Corp., Gaitliersburg, Md. Jl.- 
005,069; Litton Systems, Inc., Vnn 
Nuys, Calif. $1,410,874, Burroughs 
Corp., Paoll, Pa, $1.210,841. 

Morrison Kn uds en Co., Pcrln! Corp., 
Brown & Root, Inc., McLnughHn, Inc. 
and F & S Con tr net Ins Co., ScnUle, 
Wash. $82,910,474. Work on tho UVt>t 
Dam, Kootcnel River Project. Llbby. 
Mont, Engineer Dist,, Seattle, Wash. 

Federal Cartridge Corp., Minneapolis, 
Minn. $20,087,002. Ordnance components 
nnd Operations and Maintenance Activi- 
ties, New Brighton, Minn. Ammunition 
Procurement & Supply Agency, Jo) led 

A.' O. Smith Corp., Chicago, 111. $4,006,- 
61G. Metal parts for M117A1 7GO-iwuiwl 
bombs. Waco, Tex, Ammunition Procure- 
ment & Supply Agency, Jo) let. III. 

Lockheed Aircraft, Plainfield, N.J. SI,- 
225,446, Range-only radar systems for 
the XM168 Weapons System. Plnlnflold. 
Prankford Arsenal, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Chrysler Motors, Detroit, Mich, $1,168.- 
813. Various telephone utility malnteimnca 
trucks. Warren, Mich,, Cardlngton, Ohio 
and Durant, Okln. Army Tank Automo- 
tive Command, Wnmm, Mich. 

Raytheon Mfg. Co., Lexington, Mnsa. 



42 



April 1967 



$3,000,000. Continued work on the im- 
proved Hawk. Bedford, Mass, Army Mis- 
aile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Hunta- 
V vilte, Ala. 

13 J H W, Inc., Dover, Del. 51,304,170. Con- 
strue lion of an Intercepting a ewer from 
Nalia City to the Machinate Service Areii, 
Okinawa. Engineer Diet., Okinawa. 

Hercules, Inc., Wilmington, Del. $8,876,- 
532. Manufacturing miscellaneous propel- 
iants ; loading, assembling and packing 
rocket motors ; and operations and main- 
tenance activities. Radford, VH. Ammu- 
nition Procurement & Supply Agency 
Joliet, 111, 

Gencrnl Electric, Kansas City, Mo. $1 . 
267,008. A generator for the Stockton Res- 
ervoir, Missouri Project. Sclienectady, 
N.Y. and Stockton, Mo. Engineer Dist., 
Kansas City, Mo. 

Elmer J. Frcctliy Co., El Cerrito, Calif 
$1,634,001. Work on the Walnut Creek 
Channel. California Project. Walnut 
Creek, Calif. Engineer Dlat., Sacramento, 
Calif. 

Western Electric, New York, N.Y. $100 - 
000,000. Continuing Nilte-X research ami 
development. Burlington, N.C., Orlando 
Fla., Waylnnd, Mass., St. Paul, Minn.. 
Syracuse, N.Y., Santa Monica, Calif.. 
and Whinptiny, N.J. Nike-X Project Of- 
fice, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Ala. 

1.4 EUrn Corp., Toledo, Ohio. 31,867,739. 
Batteries for 2Mi and 5-ton trucks. Oak- 
land, Calif. East Point, Gn., Redding, 
Pa., and Oklahoma City, Okla. Army 
Tank Automotive Center, Warren, Mich, 
White Motors, Lnnaing. Midi, 310,433 - 
000. 2%-ton trucks. Lansing. Project 
Manager, General Purpose Vuliieloa 
Michigan Army Plant, Warren, Mich. 
Gencrnl Motors, Cleveland, Ohio. $4,000- 
000. Body and band assembly for 81mm 
projectiles. Cleveland. Ammunition Pro- 
curement & Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Wcatingliouao Air Brake Co., Peorla, 111 
$2,733,132. Earth moving scrapers. Toc- 
coa, Gn. Army Mobility Equipment Com- 
mand, St. Louis, Mo. 

~!S?!A A ,Ircrnft Co.. Wichita, Knn. ?3,- 
3E3,GOO. bomba, including shipping and 
storage containers. Wichita. Ammunition 
procurement & Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

1 &V i 9 on ?i trtIc . tlon ., Co ' > Pnll'morc, Md, 

$2,207,005. Construction of a three-story 
building for a major ntr command head- 



""^"' , Inc . 1 ' Wilmington, Del. $0,3S<1,- 
60G. 2.7G-lnch rocket components. Law- 
rence, Knn. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency. Joliet, 111. 

Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., 
Bethpnge. N.Y. 12,014,900. Modification 
Lfcit* M S? a t wk . aircraft. Bothpago. Army 
Aviation Materiel Command, St. Louis, 
Mo. ' 

""^"nnT""^ Motopl MuBkogon, Mich. $2,- 
2B0 ,000. Power pnekngeti for M4SA4 
tanks, Muakoffon. Army Tank Automo- 
tive Command, Warren, Midi. 
BrS 1 ?^ 1 J 10 .* 01 "!' Indlnnapoliu, hid. S3,- 
606,400. T-68-A-6A aircraft engines for 
LOH nlrcraft, Indianapolis. Army Avfa- 

c A,1 M f tor ' Command. St. Louis, Mo. 

6 Alrtronlcs International Corn., Fort Lau- 
derdalo, Fin. $1.880.777. Component parts 
flr cunn01 awombly for tho MOO 





^ li ',?- pouI1 i I "rUMso clips. 
. Frankford Araoiml, Phllndol- 
pnla. Pa. 

-American Air Filter Co., St. Louifl, Mo. 
1,170,780. Engineering development of 
p,i^ eBai 'i ri r (1 P ,OD system, St. Louis. 
BdKewood Araonnl, Md. 

Boll Helicopter Co., Hurst. Tex, $2,000,- 



,, - 

* >wltcoptorii (Cobrn). Hurst. 

Loua Mo Materiel Command, St, 

20 International Harvester Co., Molroao 
* ', 606 ' 107 -^ IcaoI - cn elne driven 
l C j> lon K' I"- Army Mobility 
ent Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

11 * 8 ^ 1 ^';"! Muskflson, Hloh. M,- 
M M \ lltl - fu( 'l , ""Sines for B-ton 

t r M "hBon. Army Tank Automo. 

live Command, Warron, Mich. 

ftd^ fi ( Jeei) 1 Cor , n " Toledo. Ohio. fU.640,- 

n( B h n ,T on & 1 VM wlth . Government fur- 
milliU01 olea, South Bend, 

Gcnornl 



t Ari ?i" Co " B rf$MPort. Conn. 
Loading, aaaembllng and pack- 
of mfoceHaneous small arms ommu- 



nitjon and components, and for operation 
nn<l maintenance activities. Independence 
Mo. Ammunition Procurement & Simply 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

~fi*5?*1?U To 2?.*.? u P p!v Co " Denvw. Colo. 
&[,217,C67. Sin blades for 2.76-inch rochet 
motors. Deliver. Picatinny Arsenal, Do- 
ver, N.J. 

Dirilyte Company of America, Kokomo, 
Ind. $1,027,500. Pin blades far 2.76-Inch 
rocket motors, Kokomo. Picntinny Arse- 
nal, Dover, N.J. 

21 ~S!! jba Mfe ' & Research Corp.. JancsvHle 
Wis. f 1.102,80-0, MeUl parts. for r octet 
luaes. Janesville. Ammunition Proeure- 
mc ,? fc ^ ,, Supi ;, ly A Bency, Joliet, 111. 
SlS 1 ^ IIo y cl l Co " Chicago, 111. S2,126,- 
9fiO. Grenado fuzea. Chicago. Ammunition 
Procurement & Supply Agency, Jollct. 

~!>"!i nn L ""<*' Co " Chicago, 111. 
, 852,400. School busefi of various nn B - 



w vehicl0 . 

r (1- W % n ?' In f ; Bpftngfiold, Ohio and 
Lima, Ohio. Army Tank Automotive 
Command, Warren, Mich, 

1 3^9,807,600. OH- 

helicopters and related! 



2 ~SJ! lljsl Mfff - & Research Corn., Januaville, 
Witt, 51,129.656. Fuze ndaptcra for Blmm 
mortar cnrti'ldt'os. Jnncaville, Win., and 
Chlcayo, HI. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

~S ) n a n vey ^ Comi>l " eaaor Ca " Kont > Ohio. 52,- 
7(JB,609. Itotiiry dioscl engine compressors. 
Kent. Army Mobility Equipment Com- 
mand, St. Loula, Mo. 

""lorn] Ejcctric, Burlington. Vt. S3, 407,- 
HIM. 20mm automatic euns, with sun 
pods. Burlington. Army Weapons Com- 
mnnd, Hocfe Island, 111. 

TEMCO, Inc., Nnalwlllo. Tonn. $2,620,- 
!1SQ._ Metal parts for lOEinm Illuminating 
projectiles. NauJivtlle. Ammunition Pro- 
curement &. Supply Acancy, Joliet, 111. 

M5!i ll n IllIl tt* r . 1 V' Inc " Vornon, Calif. 
p,2QO,Od2. Metal parts for mine ennlB- 
tera. Brockton, MOBS, nnd Voi-non. Am- 
? u , l i n . . n Pll c remont & Supply Agency, 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



j -i 

23 Intcrnfltionnl Hnrvcstor Co., Holroaa 
Park, ill. 11,862,180. Diesel enalne driven 
ti-nctora. Chicagu, III, Army Mobility 
Equipment Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

24 Boiiliiniy Co., Clint-lotto, N.C. ?1, 164,343, 
MouiiU for 100mm ridea. Chiirlotto. Wn- 
tcrvliot Arsenal, N.Y. 

"jf 1 , 11 ^ 1 , 110 Kin ?, Cor P'- Minncapolla, Minn. 
1,081, S90, Irailer-mountcd jvirconditlon- 
ors, Mlnneaiiolls. Army Mobility Equip- 
ment Command, St. Loitia, Mo. 

Pacific Ventures, Inc., Sonttle, Wash. 
1,100,000. Construction of a warehouse 
at ; Elmcndorf AFB. Alaska. Enelnecr 
Dint., Anclioi-neo, Alaska. 

pel* Helicopter Co., Port Worth, Tex. 
1,900,000, Work on ti composilo nircrnlt 
liiWi'nin. Fort Worth, Army Aviation 
Mntevlol Laboratories, Fort EuatlB, Va. 

~i c <,nn c ^ C ?, 1 r ifo , rnia Co " Durbank, Calif. 
$1,000,000, Work on n composite aircraft 
program. Bui-bank. Army Avintlon Mn- 
torlcl Lnhoratoi-Cea, Fort Eustla, Va. 
27 Amci-Jcan Mnehino Se Poinulry Co., Brook- 
iS'n*?- Y> , * 2 '382.67d. Metal parts for 
7Bp-lh bombs. Garden City. N.Y. Ammu- 
J 11 t ,ft lloouromrait & Supply Agency, 

Morrlson-Kniiclflcn Co., Now York, NY 
*l,4B,upO. Rehnbllitatlon and conBtructlon 
of iDadiner. fiaaembllnE- and imckins fa- 
cflltiea at tho lown Ai-rny Ammunition 
plant, Biirlineton, Iowa. Engineer Dial., 
umnna, Nob. 

28 ~Pi ( "' lncntnl Motors. Muskcsron, Mich, !3,- 
660,000. Unit excUneo of a minimum 
quantity of now or remnnufacturcd 0-470 
piKTiiies. Mohlle, Ala. Army Avintlon Ma- 
teriel Command, St. Louis, Mo. 
Western Electric, Now York, N.Y. S3 - 
200,000. FY 1007 Nlko Hereulos and Im- 
proved NlKo PIoi-culcB -englncoranK aorvlcea. 
Burling ton, N,C. ; Santa Monica, Calif., 
And Syracuse, N.Y. Army Mlsutle Com- 
mand. RetlBtoijp Araonal, Huntavillo, Aln. 

"~?o a2I> b ^' n B1 ",H fB ' Gori) " Waterloo, Iowa. 
S2,380,01Q. 100mm projeotllea. Waterloo. 
Procurement Detachment, Clilcnso, III. 

~r son , Co " Ponancoln, Pla. $1,803,126. 
Altcratlona nnd all- conditioning of 41 
separate onc-atory fi-amo airmen dorml- 
JS r / 8 !' ? y J cifl ] 3 AFB - F l- Omce of tho 
Oliiuf of Engineera, WnalilnBton, D.O. 
? JYSK., ComiJJWBir Co.. Kant, Olilo. $2,- 
244.023. Self contained Hhop seta for 
mnlntennncfi of constriictfon and automo- 
tivo type equipment. Kent. Army Mobility 
Equipment Command, St. Louis, Mo. 



Air Brake Co., Peorin, 111. 

$2,068,364, Road graders. Indianapolis, 
hid. Army Mobility Equipment Command, 
St. Louis, Mo. 

Studcbakec Corp., Minneapolis, Minn. 
?J, 268,832. Geitet-Eitor sets, Minneiipoliu, 
Mum,. Army Mobility Equipment Com- 
mand, St. Louie, Mo. 

Allis-Chnhners Mfg. Co., Milwaukee, Wia. 
$10,811,626. Loaders. Deerfleld, 111. Army 
Mobility Equipment Command, St. Louis, 
Mo. 

Koolirine Co., Now ton, lovru.. 52,C60,3dD, 
DUcJiing machinea. Newton. Army Mo- 
bility Equipment Command, St. Louis. 
Mo. 

Cnlcrpillnr Tractor Co., Pcoria, III. 57,- 
0-11,917. Tractor B. Peorin. Ai-my Mobility 
Jiquipment Uomninnd, Si. Louis, Mo. 

tMC Corp., South Oiiai-lGston, W. Va. 
2.,210,ldO. Differeiittnl tissemblica lor 
M113 vehicles. Sun Joae, Calif. Army 
-Litiik Automotive Command, VVarrc-n. 
Mich. 

~?ft n S^' MotorB - Cleveland, Ohio. SO,- 
600,000. Establishment of facilitica to 
produce metal purta for 81mm shells. 
Cleveland. Ammunition Procurement & 



Agency, Joliet, 111. 

r S, Q 1' P " SLratfoi-d, Conn, $1,540,770. 
1-B6-L-7C. uit-cuifb onslneo for CH--I7 
Chincok aircnifl. Stratford. Army Avia- 
tion Materiel Command, St. Louis, Mo, 
nVJ? 1 T? cn , C " Lexineton, Mass, 1,701,- 



T , , , 

Panel motor Lest, sets for th 
rnleBllo system. Lexineton, Mnsa., and 

ESn in i X'T/ Ca y f - Army M1 ^' 1 " 
LommaiHl, Itcdatone Araatmi, Huntsville, 



, , ,.. 

M- Automntlo Untn 1'roc- 

eaalns Syatem dealins with software for 
the teventh Army. Germany. Engineer 
fllC Dovel i' m o"6 I*l, Fort Hel- 



~~*^ nS? nB n Ilctlon . Co " Tu B n. Aria. 
5!,liJC,000. Construction of two three- 
atory, 200-man ilormltorieii nt DitvJs- 
Montbon AFB, Ariz.; and one three- 
API?' A 2 ? ' 1 ^ 11 , dormitory R t Williama 
Calif". EtiBlnoer Diat., Los Aneoles, 

30 McKciialo ConatrucHon Co., Saci Antonio. 
Tox. $1,000,126. Work on Uio San An- 
tonio tiluviiiLQl ImiH-overnont, Tcxua Pi-oj- 
cet, Enaliiopr Diet.. Fort Worth, Tex. 
~M,*, ?.' J( , Ilu ^ ll8 , Co " Lil Ctinndn, Cullf. ?!.- 
0^1,688. Work an the IJlunclnml Canyon 
nnd Channel nnd Dobi-iu IJaain, Bluo Cum 
Canyon Project. Tujimea, Giilif. Etmlneor 
t.j Los Angeles, Calif. 



^ C nfirt" Mc ] C -.',""f 1 ^ 1 , C(ir11 -, Snyro ' pn - ?>.- 
a^.OOO. lilcttfical equipment Bhcltora. 

iiyro. Army KlocU-onica Comnmnd. I'lill- 
tlclyhlH, PH. 



L 8 



Calif. 
cns<!H, Vcr- 



D A Co *' Wnrron, Mich, 51,894,, 

ri Ar 'Vl' C(1 * Wnn-oii, Mich, Army 
Mich Automotivo CJommiind, Warren, 

~flM n n*V o[o , ta - IndtnnapoJlB, Ind. ?!,- 
077,002. Steorlnar itenv nsHcmblics nnd two 
lota of apare Wivls for XM7SB n 



1 
olilcio-a. Cleveland, Ohio. 

Aucomolivc 



81 Clirrilo? Corn., Huntavillo, Ala. ?1,2SB.- 
420, InetullaUon kits nnd slickers lav 
flold communications. HunUivllle. Army 
UeatroiilcB Command, Philadelphia, Pa, 
si i o??~r rd a. Gorpi ' Newport Bench, Cnllf. 
31,035,170. T&t equipment for the Olinp- 
ni-rul Msa e Syatem, Annlielm, Cnllf, 
Array MlasSlo Cortimnnd, Ilcdatone Arao- 
nal, HYmtaville, Aln. 

Litton Syatems, Inc.j Vtin Nuya Cnlif 
1,242,702. Conduct of an cxpor li'nont to 
collect data, on high speed ntrctnft 
nemnBt Army ground weniione, Fot-t Ord, 

ment, Onkland, Oalif. 

9nJ lor 4 ll - r , Elcctl ' lc ' BurJinston, Vt, SM27.- 
10B. 7.02mm nii-craft machlno guna with 
nnolllary Bqiilpmont nnd repair pnrta to 
?N,^2 - A ' Pot ; c .? ant3 Army giina. Bur- 
miston. Army Wenpona Command, Hed- 
sfcone Arsenal, Huntaville, Ala. 
-1? M f** ,9 or ''" Trlmos, Pa, 52,703,- 
5-10. 00-cycle dtescl onslne driven ge nova- 
tor Beta. TrlmoB. Army Mobility Enulp- 
ment Commnnd, St. Louia, Mo, "'i"'!' 

*i U !rcn B Ti?i> ^5 r ' no Corp., Waukcsnn, III. 
1, 456,428, Outbojird motora for nBsnult 
boats nnd rafts, Wnukeffnn. Army Mo- 
"~imnii(I, St. Louia, *- 
Co., Stnton 



43 



N.Y. $1,275,883. Construction of ammu- 
nition maintenance facilities at Letter- 
fcenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, Pa. 
Engineer Dint., Baltimore, Md, 

Packard Bell Electronics Corp,, Newbury 
Park. Calif. 3,267,301. A Rpecial elec- 
tronic teat set used for air fields and air- 
craft carrier decks. Newbury Park. South- 
west Procurement Detachment, Pasadena. 
Calif. 

S. 3. Mullen, Inc., Seattle, Wash, 53,- 
949,631. Work on the Little Goose Lock 
and Dnm c-n Snake River, Waghinirton 
Project. Whitman County Waah. Engi- 
neer Diet., Waltn Walla, Wash. 

Kaytheon Co., Lexington, Mass. $1,73-1,- 
936. Magnatron tubes for Nike Hercules 
missile?. Walthnm, Mass. Army Missile 
Command, Redstone Araenal, Huntsville, 
Ala. 

Amron Corp., Waukealia, Wis. 81,680,573. 
Metal parts for bornblets. Waukeslia. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Jollet, II]. 

Eureka Williams Co., Bloomington, III. 
S2.5Q2.817. Dumb fuzes. Bloomington. 
Amimintion Procurement & Suni>lv 
Agency. Joliet, 111. 

~ Wi !!&' sl)n Mfs ' Co " For t Calhoun, Neb. 
$1,229,440, 60mm fin assemblies. Fort 
Calhoui. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Asency, Joliet, III. 

~ I A^ ney vS' e11 ' ruc -' Ho Pkin3. Minn. S1.G7I.- 
4SO. PUZM. $1,520,G94. Metal parts for 
bombleta. New Brighton, Minn. Ammuni- 
tion Procurement & Supply Agency, Jo- 
liet, III. 

Chamberlain Corp.. Waterloo, Iowa. 32,- 
S1Z.U22. High explosive warheads for 2.75- 
inch rockets Waterloo. Ammunition 
Procurement & Supply Agency, Joliet, III, 

"ojston Defense Corp., KlnRsport, Tenn, 
31,672,544. Miscellaneous propcllants and 
explosives. KinBsport. Ammunition Pro- 
curement & Supply Agency, Joliet, III. 

Mason & Hanger, Silas Mason Co., New 
York, N.}, $5,468,674, Loading, anam- 
blme and packing- of explosives and for 
operations and maintennnce activities nt 
the Army Ammunition Plant, Burlington, 
Iowa. Ammunition Procurement & Simply 
Agency, Joliet. III. * 

"S^S^ 1 "^,' 1111 !" Snles ' Torrancc, Calif. 
$4.852.422. Classified ammunition nnd for 
operations nnd maintenance activities at 
the Army Ammunition Plant, Milim , 
ienn. Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Jollet, III. 

~?rn y tw CO , n I"" Brlato1 ' Tcnn. ,18a.4SO. 
750-lb. bomb components, Bristol. Ammu- 
JolEet jft l ' ciucment & Supply A K ency. 

Internal Ion nl Harvester Co., M-lrose 
KiJF Sl.llfl.6^. DiesoJ engine driven 
tractors. Chicago. 111. Army Mobility 
Equipment Command, St, Louis, Mo. 
on"/ n n -f ',' ^exinijfon, Masa. $l.fi38,- 
200. Bomb fnzes. Bristol. Tenn. Ai-my 
Procurement Detachment. Chicago, 111 

Johnson Corp,, Bellcvuc, Ohio. Sfi, 205,448. 
VS-ton chasafa. Dellcvue. Army Tank Au- 
tomotive Command. Wwnn. Mich 
9V SS M tor3 ' ,'pol'a, Ind. ?2.- 
232237. 12.mor.th component Improve- 
ment projrrani i for T-B3-A-GA turbo shaft 

so? "T B q* 9F~ 8A , h6llco " t ^. w-m" 
rv*ff T ^3~A-SA englnea for LOH Atr- 
Uini' J ndl * na 51l. Army Aviation Ma- 
teriel Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

~~?1 FlUfl io C ^T C V / ort Worth, Tex. 
AM fiSfi M . Dr \ almft "n>Wl. S3,- 
ruthTrilv. nltl ^ HMwnblto. 52.300,988. 
Cylinder fiBsembHes. Pf-rt Worth Armv 
Aviation Materiel Command. St Loul 

"s^R^ii^" 1 ,, Wil >*w. .Look, Conn. 
H'I nVr 19 , 1 Propeller nsuornb es for U-1A 
and OV-1 aircraft. Windsor Lock Army 
Aviation Materiel Command, St SI 

AVCO Corp., Stratford, Conn. n.88B,8. 
Bxhniut diffuses for T-53 engines S ra 

St Loul'Mo MatC1 ' iel Com . 

Maaa. $1,000,- 
mi - 



,. 

~~Md mC r? r> < Inc " H V ntin Bto. Ind. $6,406,- 
TT4, Receivers and transmissions for veh - 

A? l! Sf 1 T nl ? >lIl S Bots - HuntlnRton, 
Army Electronics Commnnu, Philadelphia; 

"SflJTiB 1 " SF" tBC fr ^dlanapolls, Ind. ||,_ 
460,191 Tianafee asaembies and trans- 
mbBfon for 165mm guna, e | B ht'ln c h 
and recovery vehlclea ! ?1.2lT 
J rfln . Bmt ^ J ?," ^ Personnel, cargo. 
Hawk miasile currier fl . Indlnnapolla 



Army TanJt Automotive Center, St, Louis, 

Mo. 

NAVY 

1 University of Washington. Applied Phys- 
ics Laboratory, Seattle, Wash, 52,769,000. 
Research and development In the field of 
underwater ordnance. Seattle. Naval Ord- 
nnnco Syatema Command, 

Hnzeltlne Corp,, Little Neck, N.Y. 31,- 
212,713. Acoustic detection transmitting 
seta. Little Neck, Naval Air Systems 
Command. 

Raytheon Co., Sudbury. Mass. 31.000,000. 
Alteration kits for Polaris guidance elee- 
tromc nascmbliea. Sudbury. Special Proj- 
ects Oftlco, 

2 Genera] Dynamics, Pomona, Calif. $3,- 

874,000. Materials and nssembllea for 
the Standard Arm missile. Pomona. Na- 
val Air Systems Command. 

United Doatbnlldera, Bellinsham, Wash. 
52,526,262. Personnel landing craft vehi- 
cles. Gellingham. Naval Ship Systems 
Command. 

Cameron Iron Works, Houston, Tex. ?!,- 
M7B.620. Inert parts for the MK12 MOD 
1 lerrier missile booster. Houaton. Navnl 
Ordnance Systems Command. 

3 McDonnell Aircraft, St. Louis, Mo. 36,- 

000,000. T-4J aircraft, St. Louis. Naval 
Air Systems Command. 

6 United Aircraft, Strntford, Conn. 31,677,- 
300. Research and development connected 
with n miiifl counter measures configura- 
tion of the CH-53A helicopter. Stratford. 
Naval Air Systems Command. 

Beccli Aircraft, Wichita, Kan. $1,280,863. 
Aer3nl targpts. Wichita, Naval Air Sys- 
tems Command, 

Marbtctlc Marine Corp., Marinctte, WIs. 
82,322,120. Mechnnizetl landing craft. 
Mnrinette. Na-.al Ship Syatema Command. 

Vitro Corp. of America, Silver Spring, 
Mil. 59,304,200. Engineering and support- 
ing aervioas end facilities for Terrier, 
Tartar and Talos weapons Bystema. Sil- 
ver Sprinfr. Naval Ordnance Systems 
Command. 

7 Aldimr. Inc., Falls Church, Va. $2,865,- 
OU. Airborne* radar homing and warning 
seta. Palls Church. Naval Air Systems 
Command. 

Kaiser Aerospace & Electronics Corp., 
Palo Alto, Calif. S1,M7,000. Spare ports 
to support the AN/AVA-1 dntn dlaplny 
system installed in A/0A nircraft. Palo 
Alto, Nnvy Aviation Supply Office, Phila- 
delphia, Pa. 

American Electric, Inc., La Mirnda, Calif. 
51.515,064. 300-gallon external auxiliary 
fuel tanka. La Mirada. Naval Air Sys- 
tems Cornmnnd. 

Sperry Rnnd Corp,, Great Neck, N.Y. 
52,900.000. Increased limitation of au- 
thorization for Terrier MK 70 Mods 3 
nnd 5 fire control system modernization. 
Great Neck. Navnl Ordnance Systems 
Command, 

8 TM Sh.lpyo.rd, San Pedro, Calif. $1,600,- 
000, Regular overhaul of the landing ship, 
dock, USS Alamo (LSD-33). San Pedro. 
Supervisor of Shipbuilding. Twelfth Na- 
val Dial., San Francisco, Calif. 

RnythDon Co., Sudbury, Maas. $1,221.000. 
Polar-la MK-2 guidance electronic^ asaem- 
blleB, Waltham, Mass. Special Projects 
Office. 

United Aircraft, Norwalk, Conn. $9,OQfl.- 
a ' i "^S ail ' ct ' ;lf t. Norwalk. Aviation 
Supply Office, Philadelphia, Pa. 

M* Rosenblatt & Son, Inc., New York, 
W.Y. l,pjP,0. Englaeerlng nnd design 
services to modernize DLG-0 guided mis- 
Bile frigates. IT. S, Naval Shipyard, Phil- 
ncleJpnia, Pa. 

~~? n c n ndl C , orp ". Mishawakfl, Ind. $2,EOO,- 
000. Engineering program on the Tales 
IM-8 aeries missile. Miahawaka. Naval 
Utdnnncd Systcnia Command. 



niv lB ' own - 

.6. AIN/ARC-fil radio sets used 

tor ecneral communications purposes on 
airplanes, ships nnd vehicles. Cedar Ra- 
Plds. Aviation Supply Office, Philadelphia, 

0-Aerojet-Generftl Corp., aacrnmento, 
Calif. ?1,130,720. Polaris A-8 propellant 
S - cramento - 



44 



-- Electric, Plttsflcld, Mass. ?2,097,- 
5Ti i, osei , (lor L euldance equipment. Pltts- 
fleld. Special Projects Office, 

359,600. Research and development 'work 
pertalnlna ; to nuclear propuTfllon. Sche- 
nectady, Naval Ship Systems Command. 



14 



1G 



17 



20 



21 



22 



Newport Newa Shipbuilding & Dry D oc k 
Co., Newport Ntws, Va. $1,287,513. Nu- 
clear reactor compartment components. 
Newport News. Naval Ship Syatema Com- 
mand. 

~f^ Bn ? vox Co " Fort Wnync, Ind. S3.800 - 
000. Increased limitations of authorial. 
tion for haaiQ engineering and develop- 
ment of an air droppable eonobiioy 
syBtern. Port Wayne. Naval Air Systems 
Command. 

Dethlcheii. Steel Corp., Hoboken H I 
%\ m \>m- Overhaul oV the aSnltl 
ship USS Mauna Loa (AE-8). Hoboten. 
Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Third Wsval 
Dist. 

United Aircraft, Stratford, Conn. SB - 
927,117. HH-3P helicopters for tho 
Coast Guard. Stratford, Naval Air Sys- 
tems Command. 

Kcltec Industries, Inc., Alexandria, Vn 
$1,640,298. Radar almnlators and ea- 
Bineerine; services nnd tcclmlcnl training 
on the odulpment. Alexandria. Naval Ship 
hystoiiifl Commnnd. 

Knytlieon Co., LoxinRton, Mnsa, 81,000,- 
000. Long lend itcrna for Sparrow III 
enlded missiles. Lowell, Maas, Naval Air 
Systems Command. 

Tlilokol Chemical Corn., Donvlllc, N.J. 
SG.'lfiO.lGS. Hciukl propollant rocket en- 
Kinea. Rocknwny, N.Y, Navnl Air Sys- 
tems Commnnd. 

General Dynamics, Groton, Conn, 85,- 
000,000. Long load time components for 
n nucloai'-poworcd submarine. Groton. 
Navnl Ship Syatema Command!. 

Tnbet Mfff. Co., Norfolk, Va, 51.310,031. 
Radin roceivcr switchlmnrda, Norfolk. Na- 
val Electronic Supply Office, Groat Lukes, 

Gallon Aineo, Inc., Gallon, Ohio, St.SU,- 
747. 20mm projectiles. Gallon, Navy 
Ships Parts Control Center, Mechanics- 
burpf, Pa. 

Jordon Co., Suiaun City, Calif. $2,173.00(1. 
ImprovomentH at Drv Docli No. 1, U.S. 
Naval Shipyard, Vallojo, Calif. Western 
Div., Nnvnl Pacilltlos Engineering Ccm- 
mnnd, Sun Bruno, Calif. 
Grumman Aircraft Enprlneorinfc Corp., 
Hethpnite, N.Y. $8,200.000, Honnnvcli and 
development work on the EA-CB n'rcrafl. 
IJothpaKe. Navnl Air Systpms C-mmnnd. 
Mnrinette Marine Cor|i., Marlnotto, Win, 
$7.2fiB,'JIJO, M Inndinp; craft (mechanized). 
Mnrinctto. Naval Ship Svntoms Cninmnml. 
Stanford Univcrslly, Palo Alto. Cnl'f. 
34,800,000. Research work. Palo Alto, 0(- 
flco n( Naval Research . 
Atlas-Bradford Co., Houston, Tx. ?5,- 
GfiC,4ilB. Murk 45 projccHlcH. Houaton, 
Nnvy Ships Parts Control Center, Me. 
cnnntcsbui'p . Pa. 

Oeorgo Washington University, Wnnh- 
nftton, D.C. $l,flS2.000. Research nn 
logistics planning. Wnahlngton, D,C. Of- 
nco of Nnvnl Roscnrch. 
Wlllifunette Iron & Steel Co., Portlnm!, 
Ore, $1,298,205. Modification of the USNfl 
General H, H. Arnold (T-ARM-9), Pntl- 
land. Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Eljtlilh 
Naval Dlst., New Orleans, La. 
Lear Slcfflcr, Grand Rapids, MEch. 33,- 
067,571. Loft bomb computer systems, 
Grand Raplda. Nnval Air Systema Com- 
mand. 

Norton Mfg. Co., MuskcKon H-c^lita, 
Mich. $1,187,080. Numerically contrnllefl 
prppollor profilino: mnchlnp to rnnohlno 
ship propellers. MuaVeKon HeiRhtn. Hnvy 
PurchaainK Office, Wnnhington, D.Ct 
Vnro, Inc., Garland, Tex. ?2,B]2.01S. 
Gnid"d missile launchers. Garland, Nnvnl 
Air Systems Command. 
Martin Marietta, Middle River, Md. Jt,- 
,Vi031- Classified work on Navy aircraft. 
Middle River. Nnvnl Air Systems, Corn- 
mnnd, 

Spcrry Rnnd Corp., Bristol, Tenn. (2,- 
044,460, Special tooling and apecla! teal 
equipment for the Shrike missile. Brlalol. 
Isaval Air Systems Command. 
*f n if rnl Elcctric > Utica, N.Y. $2,aOO,OOJ. 
Airborne data processlne systems, Utlca. 
Naval Air Syatema Commnnd. 

~"2S rB ABSoei ntes, Inc., Na&hun, N.II. 
56,272,681. Electronic eciuipment. Nasliua. 
Naval Air Systema Command. 

Johns Hopkins University, Applied Phy&- 1 
on 8 . ^ bo ^ afory ' SIlvcr SpriiE, Md. $23,- 
^04,000. Increase In the current research 
and development on Bumblebee lor tho 
, y ' A i r ^ orce ' nncl NASA. Silver 
Spring. Naval Ordnance Systema Com- 
mand, 

~^ lera p cl sln, Riverdnle, Md, ?2,0,. 
BOO. Production of n prototype S2E 
weapon system trainer with related BOCY- 

April 1967 



23 



24 



29 



ai 



Icea and materials. -Hivcrdale. Naval 
Training Device Center, Orlando, Fla. 
B-E-C-K Rnber Inc., Seattle, Wash. $1.. 
067,700. Construction of an Arctic Re- 
search Laboratory. Barrow, Alaska. 
Northwest Div., Naval Facilities Engi- 
neering Command, Seattle, Wash. 
Brezina Construction Co., Pomona, Calif. 
51,343,000. Construction of barracks, 
waves' barracks and commissioned offi- 
cers mess (closed) at the Naval Station, 
Long Beach. Calif. Southwest Div., Naval 
Facilities Engineering Command. San 
Diego, Cullf. 

American Construction Co., Washington 
D.C. $1,424,000. Addition to Air Force 
Systems Command Headquarters, Building 
1535, Andrews AFB, Md, Chesapeake 
Div., Naval Facilities Engineering Com- 
mand, Washington, D.C. 
-LTV, Inc., Warren, Mich. ?G, 300,637, 
Design, evaluation and demonstration at 
sea of an engineering model of the Lance 
landing force support, weapon. Warren. 
Navy Purchasing Office, Los Angeles 
Calif. 

Sealed Service, Inc., Elizabeth, N.J. $70,- 
000,000. Contninershii) service from West 
Coast ports to Vietnam. Military Sea 
Transportation Service. 

30 Jlemiblic Electronics Industries Corn., 
Huntinelon, N.Y. $3,034,825. Hailio navi- 
gational seta for aircraft. HunUngton, 
Navy Aviation Supply Office, Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 

Whiting-Tumor Contracting Co., Mem- 
phis, Tcnn. $1,608,000. Construction of nn 
avionics training building at the Naval 
Air Station, Memphis, Tenn. Southeast 
Div., Naval Facilities Engineering Com- 
mand, Charleston, S.C. 

General Dynamics, Pomona, Calif. $120,- 
651,101. Production of the Standard mis- 
sile. Pomona. Naval Ordnance Systems 
Command. 

Teletype Corp., Skoklo, 111. ?4,G42,44C. 
Various types of communication seta, 
Skokie. Navy Purchasing Oilico, Wash- 
ington, D.C. 

Pnsco Steel Corn., Pomona, Calif. 83,- 
881,808. Pontoon assemblies, Columbus, 
Ga. and Pomona. Navy Purchasing Of- 
fice, Los Angeles, Calif. 
Intercontinental Mfg. Co., Garland, Tex. 
50,120,000 GOO-lb. bomb bodies. Garland. 
Navy Ships Parts Control Center, Mo- 
ehanl.JBuui'g, Pa. 

Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry dock- 
ing Co., Newport News, Va. $40,000,000. 
Advances planning scheduling, engineer- 
ing and design work, material procure- 
ment and profabrleation for preparation 
for construction of nuclear-powered at- 
tack aircraft carrier CVA(N) QB. New- 
port News. Naval Ship Systems Com- 
mand. 

~niiy i .i A K5 rlc n nn Av !tio". Anaheim, 
Calif. 31,610,000. Modification of ships 
Incrtial navigation system equipment on 
tlie nuclear powered submarine USS La- 
fnyotto (SSBN-610). Anaheim. Naval 
Ship Systems Command, 



MARINE CORPS 

9 Gpodycnr Tiro & Rubber Co., Akron, 
?ft h & '?J 787 ' 8 M- Manufacture of G8 
flO.QOO-ealion capacity, tactical airfield 
fuel dispensing (tyatema. Akron. Head- 
nuartors, Marino Corps. 
oo c o ner ?, 1 Motors ' Hudson, Ohio. $2,307,- 
228, Scoop-typo loaders and associated 
equipment, Cleveland, Ohio. Headduar- 
, JSTA, M " rillQ Corps. 

, C , or ";' Sftn J 80 ' Cnllf. $2.GOO,000. 
K^W 4 !? 1 ., * LVTH-6 vehicles to 
the LVTH-0A1 configuration, San Jose, 
iiemicmartors, Marino Corps. 

AIR FORCE 

1 General Electric, Cincinnati, Ohio. $40,- 
822,78-1. Production of J 70-10 aircraft 
engines, Evendnle, Ohio, Acronnutclal 
Systems Div., (AFSC), Wright-Patterson 
AFB, Ohio, 

2 General Electric, Cincinnati, Ohio. $44,- 
849,854. Production of J-70-18 and J-7G-17 
aircraft engines. Evondnle, Ohio. Aero- 
nautical Systems Div., (AFSC), Wrighb- 
Pntterson AFB. Ohio. 

aCessna Aircraft, Wichita, Kan, J2,700, 
264. Production of spare parts for light 
observation aircraft. Wichita. San An- 
tonio Air Materiel Area, (AFLO), Kelly 
AFB, Tex, 



General Motors, Milwaukee, Wts. (1,488,- 
829. Overhaul and modification of mis- 
silo gyroscopes. Milwaukee. Oklahoma 
9'ty Air Materiel Area< ( AFLC)> Tinker 
AFB, Okla. 

Honeywell, Inc., Hopkins. Minn. 88,400,- 
000. Production of bomb fuzes and related 
equipment. Hopkinw. Aeronautical Syn- 
tcms Div., (APSC), Wright-Patterson 
AFB, Ohio. 

Beiidix Corp., Baltimore, Mel, 1,109,076. 
Production of airborne communications 
equipment. Baltimore. Warner-Robin a 
A^T, JJatoriel Area, (AFLC), Robins 
Al' U, Ga. 

TRW, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio. 51,327,679. 
DeHiKiiinK, rubricating and testing a pro- 
totype mil tl tube boiler and condenser 
ays tern. Cleveland. Systems Engineering 
Group, Research mid Technology Div., 
(AFSC), WrlKht-PattofBon AKD, Ohio. 
fl F- Goodrich Co., Akron, Ohio. SI,- 
862,691. c-130 and C-I33 aircraft tires. 



.. 

General Tire & Rubber Co., Akron, 
Ohio, $1,251, 4SG. C-130 and C-133 air- 
craft tires. Akron. Oeden Air Materiel 
n ^''? a ,' (AFLO. Hill AFB, Utah. 

7 Hallicraftcrs Co., Chicago, 111. 51,210,- 
200. Airborne electronic eoun tea-measure 
systems. Chicago. Aeronautical Systems 
D v., (APSC), WrlBht-PattcrBon API), 
Ohio. 

Boeinff Co., Seattle, Wash. 82,000,000. 
Assembly, installation imd checkout of 
Minuteman missiles for the Graml Forks, 
N.D., AI-B complo-x. Ballistic Systems 
Div., (AFSC), Norton AFB, Calif. 

8 Hughes Aircraft, Culver City, Calif. 
$1,325,200. Production of test equipment 
for the Falcon air-to-nir misaUe. Culver 
City, Aeronautical Systems Div., (APSC), 
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

Northrop Corp., Hawthorne, Calif, 51,- 
670,029. Production of spare parts and 
ground equipment for l-'-5 aircraft, 
Hawthorne. Aeronautical Systems Div., 
(AFSC), Wricht-Paltoraon AFD, Ohio. 

Plillco Corn., Palo Alto, Calif. $7,621,000. 
Work on a comnnmicatioua satellite pro- 
cram for the United Kingdom. Pnlo Alto. 
Space Systemo Div.. (APSC), Los 
Angeles, Calif. 

Motorola, Scottsdnlc, Ariz. 81,060,000. 
Bomb fuzes. Scottsdrilo. Aeronaiitioal Sys- 
t. ^ I ? l . v " (AFSC), Wright- Patterson 
AFD, Ohio. 

Ucndlx Corp., Baltimore, Md. $1,891,- 
000, Modification and Improvement of the 
AN/FPS-8G (ipace track radar. Townon, 
Md., and Efjlin AFB, Fin. Home Air De- 
velopment Center, Grlffles AFB, N.Y. 

AVCO Corp., New York, N.Y. JIG, 083,- 
000, DeaiKn, development, test nnd pro- 
duction of penetration aids. Stratford, 
Conn, and Wilmington, MHHB. BalliHtlc 
Systems Div., (AFSC), Norton AFB, 
Cnlif * 

Honeywell, Inc., Hopkins, Minn. 2,005,- 
tiOO. Production equipment for aircraft 
ordnance. St. Louis Park, Minn. Aero- 
nautical Systpms Div., (AFSC), Wi-lBht- 
Pattcrnon AFI1, Ohio. 

10 General Dynamics, Snn Diego, Calif. 
52,11)0,000. 28 Ailaa mlaslleB to bo used 
In a rc-ontry vehicle (lovolopmont pro- 
^US.^ 811 " DI BO. BalliatlcB Syatems Div., 

t (,APSC), Norton AFB, Cnllf. 

13 General Electric, Plilladolplila, Pa, $1,- 
JJOO.OOO. Re-entry vehicle flight testing. 
Philadelphia. Bnlllatica Systems Div., 
(APSC), Norton AFB, Calif. 

Douglas Aircraft, Long Beach, Calif. 
$3, an, 904. Production of nil-craft ord- 
nance ejoctoi- i-acks, Torrancc, Calif. 
Warner Roblna Air Materiel Area, 
(AFLO), Robins AFB, Gn. 

14 Honeywell, Inc., Hopkins, Minn, $0,047- 
GOO. Production of land mines and as- 
sociated equipment, Hopkins. Aeronautical 
SyBtcma Div., (AFSC), Wright- Patters on 

Goodycnr Aerospace Corp., Akron, Ohio. 

3-1,488,000. Air cargo handling pallets. 
Akron, Warner Robins Air Materiel Area, 
(AFLO), Robins AFB, da, 

Hoeing Co., Seattle, Wnsh. $1,147,000. 
Production of missllea nnd rolate<l equip- 
ment for tho sixth Minutemnn wine. 
Seattle. Ballldtics Systems. Div., (AFSC), 
Norton AFB, Calif, 

15 L. T. Industries, Inc., Dallas, Tex, ?4,- 
647,003, Production of aircraft bomblot 
dispensers. Gnrland, Tex. Aeronautical 
Systems Div,, (AFSC), Wright -Putter son 
AFB, Ohio, 

General Electric, Philadelphia, Pa. ?!,- 
800,000. Work oi\ the Mark-12 re-entry 



vehicle program. Philadelphia. Ballistics 
Systems Div., (AFSC), Norton AFB, 
Calif, 

General Motors, Indianapolis, Ind. $3,- 
424,000. Production of T-5G turboprop 
engines and related equipment. Indian- 
apolis. Aeronautical Systems Div., 
(AFSC), Wrisht- Patter son AFB, Ohio. 
10 Went worth Institute, Boston, Mass. Jl,- 
088, DSD. Research in rocket payload in- 
strumentation. Boston. Electronics Sys- 
tems Div., (AFSC), L. G. Hanscom Field, 
Mass. 

17 General Motors, Milwaukee, Wis. $9,657.- 
300. Work on the inertial guidance sys- 
tem for the Titan IIIi Bpace booster. Mil- 
waukee, Space Systems Div., (AFSC), 
LOB Angeles, Calif. 

20 General Electric, Cincinnati, Ohio, $1,- 
500,000. Development work on a Vertical/ 
Short Take-ofE (V/STOL) aircraft pro- 
gram, Evendale, Ohio. Aeronautical Sys- 
"^5 J? iv " .(AFSC), Wright -Patterson 
AFB, Ohio. * 

21 Lockheed Aircraft, Mfirietta, Ga. $38,- 
9G7,fiOO. Production of C-130 aircraft. 
Marietta, Aeronautical Systems Div., 
(AFSC), Wt'lght-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

Marlin-nlariotta, Denver, Colo. $22,884,- 
610. Work on tho Titan III space booster. 
Denver. Space Systems Div,, (AFSC) , 
Loa Angeles, Calif 

General Dynamics, San Diego, Calif. 
$1,500,000. Woi-k on Atlas/Agcna space 
boosters, San Diego. Space Systems Div., 
(AFSC), Los Anncles, Caiif. 
23 General Electric, West Lynn, Mass. S2,- 
687,380. Production of spare parts for 
J-8C pnginoa. West Lynn. Oklahoma Cily 
Ah; Materiel Area, (AFLC), Tinker AFB, 
Okla. 

Boeing Co., Wichita, Kan. 3,108,380. 
Modification kits for electronic equipment 
on B-52 aircraft. Wichita. Oklahoma City 
Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), Tinker AFB, 

I.H.M., Gaithersbuvg, Md. 52,000,000. 
Engineering research and development on 
Improved computer programming tech- 
niques. Omaha, Neb. Rome Air Develop- 
ment Center, (AFSC), Grifllss AFB, N.Y. 
McDonnell Co., St. Louis, Mo. 51,682,000. 
Production of modiflcntion kits, spare 
parts and related data for F-4 aircraft. 
Robertson. M) Ogden Air Materiel Area, 
(AFLC), Hill AFD, Utah. 

27 PlillcD-Forcl Corp., Philadelphia, Pa. 82,- 
000, 1GO, Production of components for 
the Sidewinder air-to-air mifisile. Phila- 
delphia. Wm-ner Robins Air MntcHol 
Aren, (AFLC). Rnhlns AFB, Ga. 

28 Genernl Electric, Went Lynn, Mass, -$3,- 
0'10,867. Development work on TfiH-14 
heticoptoi- engines. West Lynn. Aero- 
nautics! Syslemn Div., (AFSC , Wriclit- 
Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

80 North Electric Co., Gallon, Ohio, $1,600,- 
000. Prototype telephone control office. 
Gallon. Electronics Syntoms Div., (AFSC), 
L. G. Hanscom Field, Mass. 

81 Whittnkcr Corp., Cbntsworth, Calif. $2,- 
400,000. Procurement of electronic cmilp- 
ment, Chatsworth. Aeronautical Systr-ms 
D v, , (AFSC) , Wright-Patterson AFB, 
Ohio, 



Army To Phase Out 
Chickasaw, Shawnee 

A plan for phasing out all of the 
Army's CH-21 Shawnee and all but 
two of its UH-1D Chickasaw heli- 
copters by May 1968 has been ap- 
proved by Army Chief of Staff. 

The planned phase out results from 
the helicopters having passed their 
normal life expectancy. They no 
longer meet operational requirments 
and are costly to repair and operate. 

There are 143 Chickasaws in inven- 
tory, All of these are assigned to the 
continental United States, The two 
remaining after the planned phase- 
out will continue to support Nike-X 
tests on Kwajalein Atoll. 

More than half the 146 Shawnees 
in inventory are assigned to major 
commands, 



OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 2O301 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 



First Switching Center 
Outside Mainland United States Accepted 

The first Defense Communications System Automatic Electronic 
Switching Center (AESC) outside mainland United States, located 
at Wahaiwa, Hawaii, was formally accepted by the Navy for the 
Defense Communications Agency on April 3, 

The Hawaii center is part of the Automatic Digital Network 
(AIJTODIN) planned as a world-wide network to accept, relay and 
deliver data, teletypewriter and computer communications between 
various types and combinations of . transmitting and receiving 
equipment. The AUTODIN system supports DOD communications 
needs in the areas of supply, inventory control, personnel, finance, 
budget, operations, intelligence and medical. 

Eight other AUTODIN switches will be installed in the Pacific 
area and three centers are planned for Europe. 

Operated by the Navy, the Hawaii center is a part of the con- 
tinental United States AUTODIN system which now has eight 
C A e rs ,i ? ated at McCle "an AFB and Norton APB, Calif.; Tinker 
AFB Okla.; Gentile AFS, Ohio; Andrews AFB, Md.; Hancock 

f TtrSfSS 8 ?' N ', Y 'J Alban ^' Ga -: and Ft - Detrick, Md. 

AUJ.UU1N is a high speed, computer controlled, common user, 
secure data system. It is comprised of the AESC and a variety of 
subscriber terminals to meet specific requirements of perforated 
tape, machine cards and magnetic tape. 

The two types of switching services provided at the AESC's are 
message switching (MSU) and circuit switching (CSU). The MSU 
processes traffic using a store and forward feature. It is used to 
accommodate high traffic volume and to expedite the flow offish 
traffic vouine and to expedite the flow of high precedence 

s 

capacity toUoduce 



^ 

America as manufacturer of major ^uipment The Phiko &i-n 

Pi 



. 



Navy Labs Merge To 
Form Ship R&D Center 

The Navy Marino Kugiiiner- 
ing Laboratory, Annapolis, Md., 
and the David Taylor Model 
Basin, Cardorock, Md., have 
been consolidated to form the 
Naval Ship Research and Dovcl- 
opmcnt Center. Tlic consolida- 
tion bccamo effective Mardi 81, 
1967. 

Merging- of the two activities 
will provide the Navy a Min- 
gle research and development 
center with the capabilities niul 
expertise to work on ship Hlnii:- 
tural and propulsion concepts on 
a total .ship basis. 

The eommnndiiift 1 ofllcor urul 
director of the center in Capiain 
Manuel da Costa Vincent, IISIV'. 
who will operate from tlui wnicr 
headquarters ut CarderocU, Mtl. 
The Annapolis Division will Itc 
headed by Commander ,T. I). 
Evans, USN, as oOlccr-iit> 
charge. 

Dr. Alan Powell is the Uidi- 
nical director of the new center. 
He will be assisted by tho fol- 
lowing associate technical direc- 
tors: Mr. H. V. Nutt, Marino 
Engineering Laboratory; Dr. 
William Cummins, Hydromc- : 
chanics Laboratory; Commander 
Thomas Lechnor, USN, Aerody- 
namics Laboratory; Dr. Willinm 
Murray, Structural Mechanics 
Laboratory; Mr. Gene Glcissnor, 
Applied Mathematics Labora- 
tory' and Mr. Westley Curtis 
(Acting), Acoustics and Vibrn- 
tions Laboratory. 




Features 



The Light Observation Helicopter Avionics Package 
Viewed as a Total Package Procurement 
Harry J. Rockafeller and John P. Duffy 1 Published by the 

Cooperative Logistics in Italy Department of 

Peter E. Feig'l 4 ^^ 

Know This Man? 6 

Worid-wide U. S. Aircraft Inventory FY 1966-1967 __ 7 Hon Robwt s ,, 

Report On Status of Funds Secretary of Defense 

Sheldon W. Taylor 21 

Hon. Cyrus It, Vance 

Deputy Secretary of Defense 
Departments 

, rt Hon. Phil G. Colliding 

From the Speakers Rostrum 12 

Assistant Secretary of JJetcmc 

Calendar of Events 17 (Public Affairs) 

Meetings and Symposia 18 

. , i , _ Col. Joel B. Stephens, USA 

About People 19 

Director for Community Relation 

Bibliography 32 

On/ 

Defense Procurement 33 Col. Edwin C. Gibson, USA 

Chief, Business & Labor Division 



The Defense Industry Bulletin 
is published monthly by the Business 
& Labor Division, Directorate for 
Community Relations, Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Pub- 
lic Affairs). Use of funds for printing 
this publication was approved by the 
Director of the Bureau of the Budget. 

The purpose of the Bulletin is 
to serve as a means of communication 
between the Department of Defense 
(DOD) and its authorized agencies 
antl defense contractors and other 
business interests. It will serve as 
a guide to industry concerning offi- 
cial policies, programs and projects, 
and will seek to stimulate thought by 
members of the defense-industry team 
in solving the problems that may arise 
m fulfilling the requirements of the 



Material in the Bulletin is se- 
lected to supply pertinent unclassified 
data of interest to the business com- 
munity. Suggestions from industry 
representatives for topics to be cov- 
ered in future issues should be for- 
warded to the Business & Labor 
Division. 

The Bulletin is distributed without 
charge each month to representatives 
of industry and to agencies of the De- 
partment of Defense, Army, Navy and 
Air Force. Requests for copies should 
be addressed to the Business & Labor 
Division, OASD(PA), Room 2E813, 
The Pentagon, Washington, D.C, 
20301, telephone, (202) OXford 5-2709. 

Contents of the magazine may bo 
reprinted freely without requesting 
permission. Mention of the source will 
be appreciated. 



LCdr. E. W. Bradford, USN 
Editor 

Miss Cecilia Polloh 
Associate Editor 

Mr. Kick La Falce 
Associate Editor 

Mr. John E. Fagnn 
Art Director 

Norman E. Worra, JO1, USN 
Editorial Assistant 



Harry J. Rockafeller 
John P. Duffy 



The Total Package Procurement 
Concept (TPPC), an innovation in 
DOD procurement policy, was widely 
publicized when it was applied to the 
Air Foi-ce C-5A program. In approxi- 
mately the .same time frame, the U.S. 
Army Electronics Command (ECOM) 
was procuring the Light Observation 
Helicopter Avionics Package (LO- 
HAP) using basically the same pro- 
curement technique. This article will 
examine the LOITAP purchase in 
terms of TPPC. 

TPPC contemplates the procure- 
ment o.f an item or system in a com- 
petitive environment under a contract 
that provides the maximum definable 
amount of development, production 
and support. A shortened version of 
TPPC could be "contracting for as 
much as can be defined and competi- 
tively priced," 

Prior to the total package approach, 
defense procurement had generally 
been accomplished by fragmentation 
of development and acquisition. This 
fragmentation consisted of successive 
contracts for development, initial pro- 
duction, follow-on production, and 
support. Fragmented procurement 
was usually characterized by inade- 
quate competition for the initial and 
some of the follow-on production ef- 
fort. The exigencies of the situation 
often led to placement of the initial 
and follow-on production with the de- 
veloper. In many instances the devel- 
oper sought to "buy in" on the devel- 
opment and "get well" on the 
subsequent production. The developer, 
seeking- to enter the program, tended 
to underestimate costs and optimize 
technical achievement. This faulty 
projection of costs and technical 
achievement often had an adverse 



effect on Government funding and 
planning for equipment availability 
to the field. 

The fragmented process has been 
described as "ic.eberj?" procurement. In 
Imying this iceberg, the Government 
could see the small portion of the ice- 
berg that was visible above the water. 
This portion was the development 
contract with its projection of tech- 
nical achievement and costs. The bal- 
ance of the iceberg-, which included 
the long range cost and technical im- 
plications of production and support, 
was not visible. Tn such situations the 
Government was locked into a long 
range program with limited overall 
visibility. 

This kind of situation formed the 
background for development of TPPC 
ideally, the development and acqui- 



sition of an item or system under a 
contract that provides firm commit- 
ments for cost, delivery and perform- 
ance, including 1 the period of opera- 
tional use. Such a contract would 
provide the proper inducements to a 
subcontractor to design and develop 
economical equipment that would fit 
the intended need. It would also pro- 
vide the Government with greater 
visibility over an entire prog-rani and, 
by centralizing responsibility, would 
reduce Government-contractor inter- 
face. 

Under this concept the Government, 
competes and awards a contract pro- 
viding for as much of the develop- 
ment, production and support as can 
be defined. In recognition of the ex- 
tended period to which a contractor 
is committed to EI firm price, provi- 




U.S. Army OH-6A light observation helicopter. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 




Harry J. Rockafeller is Asst, Chief, 
Contract Operations, Procurement and 
Production Directorate, Army Elec- 
tronics Command, Fort Monmouth, 
N.J. He has been with Electronics 
Command since 1952. He is a gradu- 
ate of Rutgers University and is Vice 
President of the Port Monmouth 
Chapter, Army Aviation Association 
of America. 



sions are made for cost escalation. 
Total system responsibility is placed 
on the prime contractor, thus acting 
to reduce Government-contractor in- 
terface and emphasize prime contrac- 
tor responsibility. Change-inhibiting 
clauses are used to combat the cost 
and schedule impact of excessive en- 
gineering changes and, finally, the 
quantity purchased represents the 
best estimate of total defense needs 
for that item. Obviously, the extent 
to which the contract quantities reflect 
total requirements bears directly on 
the successful application of the con- 



Hecretarial authority to negotiate, 
direction was given to change the de- 
velopment procurement to develop- 
ment/production. This Secretarial 
direction cited the principal reason 
as being the desire to obtain competi- 
tion for the first production quantity. 
It also recommended the use of a 
fixed-price or fixed-price incentive fee 
contract and provision for incre- 
mental funding. 

An interesting feature of the direc- 
tion was the mandate that the award 
be made on the basis of the "best 
overall" proposal and not on price 
alone. This reflected the combination 
of development and production. Nor- 
mally, production contracts were 
awarded on price, and development 
contracts on technical excellence. This 
dictate to award to the best overall 
proposal produced an amalgam of the 
criteria for the award of the two pre- 
viously separatee! features, develop- 
ment and production. 

The LOHAP procurement was 
practically concurrent with the C-5A 
and, during the LOHAP processing, 
there was little mention of total pack- 
age procurement per se, In retrospect, 
it appears that the incorporation of 
certain additional TPPC features in 
LOHAP, such as the escalation pro- 
visions and the change-inhibiting 1 
clauses, could have been considered. 

By contracting simultaneously for 
development and production, the Gov- 
ernment was able to obtain the price 
and other advantages offered by com- 
petitive total package procurement. In 
addition, maintenance considerations 
were incorporated in the development 
phase so the contractor was forced to 
design with maintenance as well as 
producibitity in mind, 




John P. Duffy is Technical Manager 
for the Light Observation Helicopter 
Avionics Package (LOIIAI*) at the 
Army Electronics Command, Fort 
Monmouth, N.J. Mr, Duffy hns been 
with the Electronics Command since 
1958. He is a graduate of Villnnovfl 
University and is a member of the 
Army Aviation Association of 
America. 



After extensive evaluations and IIORO- 
tiations with all six offerers, (i con- 
tract was awarded to Sylvnnia Elcc- 
tronic Systems, Division of Sylvnnui 
Electric Products, Inc., Buffalo, N.Y, 

Award to Sylvania in the tin'jjct 
amount of $16,100,000 wius himwl on 
its submission of the best oven-all pro- 
posal, combining the highent dci^rdc. of 
technical merit and the lowcnt prii'r. 
During 1 the negotiation phuso the in- 
tense competition for this award was 
evidenced by largo scale price revi- 
sions. 

Subsequent to award, the procure- 
ment was reviewed by the 



activity his production program- 
... and engineering effort to: 

Establish required automatic as- 
bly facilities. 

Develop new manufacturing 

lods and processes. 

Establish requirements and eon- 
i for use of similar components 
assemblies in design and produc- 

Establish production fabrication 
gn specifications for use by the 

c icssign and production engineering 

Activity. 

e Schedule facilities for a smooth 
transition of actions. 

Provide for early introduction of 
l *i anufacturing personnel into the 
e ciuipment-build activity. 

This early scheduling of the pro- 
Production activities provides the con- 
t-i-actor with many additional tech- 
nical problems to overcome early in 
"tile program. However, it tends to 
focus the contractor's sights and at- 
tentions on the ultimate goals of the 
I>rogram, the production of a quality, 
Producible product rather than the 
development of handcrafted non-re- 
producible equipment. 

The contractor is required to em- 
ploy sound basic engineering practices 
4ii* ci to maximize basic design creativ- 
ity and initiative to effect a produci- 
l>lo and cost effective design to meet 
the customer's requirement in a speci- 
fied time period. The sound engineer- 
ing and design creativity demonstra- 
tocl in the LOHAP program are 
depicted in Figures 1 and 2 below. 



Figure 1 shows a typical digital 
divide by N circuit used in the radio 
transceivers. Shown above the printed 
circuit (p.c.) card is a specially de- 
signed divide by 10 integrated circuit 
which will functionally replace the en- 
circled area shown on the p.c. board. 
This change is expected to reduce 
production costs on the order of 
$1,000,000, reduce the overall produc- 
tion complexity of the equipment de- 
sign, and improve the inherent design 
reliability and maintainability of the 
equipment. 

o Figure 2 shows the audio ampli- 
fier card used in the three radio trans- 
ceivers. The contractor selected this 
design approach initially after exam- 
ining the trade-ofl's in the use of 
thick film circuit technology and re- 
jected thick film circuitry as a result 
of higher costs. His continued exami- 
nation of this area developed that the 
thick film approach now offers a com- 
petitive coat advantage for use not 
only in this audio amplifier, but also 
in the second I. F. amplifier card. It 
is anticipated that the introduction 
of these changes will improve the in- 
herent equipment reliability and main- 
tainability, and reduce the weight of 
the equipment. 

The contractor obtains the addi- 
tional benefit of leverage in this type 
procurement in dealing with his sub- 
contractors and component suppliers. 
This becomes an invaluable asset for 
him in achieving the rigid state-of- 
the-art design requirements imposed 
on the program. Achievement of those 
requirements is invariably dependent 



on the rapid transition of prototype 
devices to reliable production forms, 
or the special tailoring of devices for 
use in the system or particular equip- 
ment. As an example, the contractor 
has a requirement to procure about 
15,000 high power UHF transistors 
for use in the AN/ARC-116 trans- 
ceiver production equipment. This re- 
spectable order for such a device has 
generated substantial vendor interest. 
In addition it has focused the com- 
ponent technology activities, within 
Government and industry, on the 
rapid introduction of a device which 
will replace the present transistor, 
and will substantially reduce the re- 
quired number of power transistors 
for this equipment. 

The contract is now 14 months 
old and the contractor is nearing the 
end of the development phase. Several 
discussions on the total package as- 
pects have been held with Walter 
Serniuk, the Sylvania project man- 
ager for LOHAP. He commented that 
the total package forces the contrac- 
tor to look at the total job from the 
outset, and it encourages creativity to 
simplify design and achieve econ- 
omies. He believes that it encourages 
better planning by the contractor for 
long term application of his facilities 
and resources. 

Long range evaluation of TPPC 
and its LOHAP application are re- 
quired to produce meaningful deter- 
minations. However, even at this 
early stage, the LOHAP procurement 
is considered additional proof that 
(Continued nn jxit/c 20) 





'."WM n'<i WW^^ 

': ' ''.' m, ' "' ' ','.' ' * '' '}> ' . ! 



Figure 1 
Digital Divide by N P. C. Card 



Figure 2 
Audio A in pi iii or P. C. Curd 



Industry Bulletin 



I he term "cooperative logistics" is 
a broad, all-encompassing: term 
which, among others, includes 
supply support, procurement assist- 
ance, maintenance support, storage, 
contract administration, training, and 
joint' research, development and pro- 
duction programs, 

The supply support aspect of coop- 
erative logistics is a key clement in 
the Defense Department's Foreign 
Military Sales Program. It is norm- 
ally embodied in a govern men t-to-gov- 
ernment arrangement executed at the 



was the procurement of additional or 
attrition end items for those already 
in the inventory. Finally, satisfied 
with the quality and performance of 
U.S. military equipment, Italy began 
to look to the United States to meet 
its present requirements either 
through purchase of U.S. equipment, 
adapting U.S. equipment to its own 
special needs, or coprodudng the 
equipment under license from the 
U.S. manufacturer. Among the weap- 
on systems and major end items 
covered under cooperative logistics or 



less concurrent basis, The f 

this was accomplished in^ 
time, is a tribute to the com' t ; 
operation between Hie U,S I 
inn project managers and tl 
and Italian firms involved in ii 
ect. 

The M-UH coprodiMtJoj 
was based on nti "umbrella", 



Specified wlmt was to 
aged and outlined the 
o.f th(> parties to thcs 

Establish.! i 




Peter E. Feigl 



Defense Minister or Military Depart- 
ment level. Under sucEi an arrange- 
ment, the foreign government "in- 
vests" and, in return, participates in 
one or several of the logistic systems 
of the U.S. Military Departments. 
The U.S. Military Department, hav- 
ing a given weapon system in its in- 
ventory, is responsible for furnishing 
to the foreign purchaser of the same 
system the necessary follow-on lo- 
gistic support which will assure sat- 
isfactory operational maintenance 
support, standardization and utiliza- 
tion of the weapon system. 

Previous issues of the Defense In- 
dustry Bulletin have carried articles, 
which illustrated the diverse aspects 
of cooperative logistics between the 
United States and Germany, the 
United Kingdom and Canada ("U.S.- 
German Cooperation Includes Field of 
Logistics," December 196G; "U.S.-U.K. 
Logistics Cooperation," March 1967; 
and "U.S.-Canadian Logistics Cooper- 
ation," April 1967.) 

In the case of Italy, as with other 
countries, the concept of cooperative 
logistics was an outgrowth of the 
Military Assistance Program (MAP) 
of the 1960' B . As MAP was phased 
out, the need for follow-on .spares and 
for maintenance of the equipment 
furnished to Italy under that program 
was met first through random sales 
against requisitions. This random an- 
proach next led to a more systematic 
provisioning and stocking of spare 
Parts, the cooperative logistics or sup- 
ply support arrangement. 
The next logical evolutionary step 



support arrangements in Italy are: 
the M-113 armored personnel carrier; 
M-55, M-107 and M-109 self-pro- 
pelled artillery; the M-60AJ tank; 
the F-104G tactical .strike and F- 
104S all-weather interceptor aircraft; 
the S-2A aircraft; and Nike and 
Hawk ground-to-air missile systems). 
Cooperative logistics in the fullest 
sense was achieved with tho more re- 
cent Italian decision to coprodiuu; 
M-60A1 tanks, M-ll.'i armored per- 
sonnel carriers, and F-KMH aircraft 
in Italy. Thus the Italian capacity to 
coproduce M-113's (ovor 2,000 to 
date), which are fully interchantfoablo 
with tho U.S.-produced version, pro- 
vides the United States and its NATO 
allies with an alternate supply source 
in Europe. 

A detailed examination of the Ital- 
ian M-113 coproduction program will 
illustrate tho value of this and simi- 
lar programs to the participating gov- 
ernments. 

The first fully assembled volitate 
was delivered by Italian industry to 
the Italian Army in less than u year. 
This feat was remarkable despite tho 
fact that the vehicle was comptetoly 
assembled from U.S. -manufactured 
parts and components. Among the 
many complex operations which pro- 
ceded the first assembly were license 
negotiations between manufacturers, 
procurement actions, dissemination 
and translation of technical data, tool- 
ing- up and plant layout, training of 
technicians and workers, and estab- 
lishment of the assembly line all of 
which had to bo done on a more or 



of 
iminicatioiiH 

Provi<lc>d te^nl |>roMioaf;i 
prtetary rights, patents and r^ 
(in this iiiKtanei! those of tb 
Food and Clwmical Machincrj-fc 

l''ixfi<l Llii! piimnwlorsofi!.! 
grain with iimpiwt ( third to/: 

Placed rcsti'idjoiisoritliew 
(lifMtmimitioii of technical dati, 

li'ixed nwpoiiHilii lilies font 
of the imimirnctuml item far 
control of olmiifffis ami inodife- 
tlum onmn-injv Hlniitliwlizatifii 
component inlfii-clwiHioaliilily). 

Oullini'd otlmr important ii>. 
muih as HtirvkuH In lie Riidtrdtii 
U.S. Military IVpnrtmont tea 
(in this intitiinco I he Departed 
the Army), and tins method of:;: 
bursiiini^il Tor ftuch .services, 

This bawic aKi''*<;mn]il mailer 
the dovnlopmont of iniplfcii 
(industty-to-hidiiiltfi 



A (junlilicKl rraiitent stall ff- 
oxportK, raportinR to IhatJAjr) 
mmuiffnr, WUH oslablishd iiilu!; 1 
site; to Holvo (Iny-to-cln;' ta'- 
pi'oblnins IIH they arose, 
slowdownn in proclucUcm 
lute minimum. The 
such a staff was of 
fit to thn Italian 
Mnlaru of Ln Spozia (Hie P" 3 
tractor) and FIAT of Turin. . 

It was found that, s\m fe-i 
production program involved $, 
imbui'Hemcnt for all U.S, sr"; 
ronderud cither by U.S. Gov8# 
personnel or by the U.S, Htf*. 



: 0n e iderable amount of direct contact 
^Extl to be maintained .between the de- 
:a sion-ma!dng bodies on both sides. 
Adequate provisions also had to be 
at the onset to insure standard- 
Nation of components, emergency sup- 
'ly sources, and responsibility for the 
^rformance of the end item. Failure 
^ Uo so could have caused serious 
*ffieulties due to the difference in 
*\S. and Italian law. 

finally, by the establishment of 
^equate systems for the preparation 
channeling- of reports, the admin- 
of the M-118 coproduction 
was greatly enhancnd. 
J^V similar arrangement has been 
'tahllahod for the M-60A1 tank co- 
t'otUiction program. The Italian ca- 
ilxUity to coprodnec: M-COA1 tanks 
>viously will include a spare parts 
as well. This program has 
initiated only recently with an 
run for 200 units to be eopro- 
in Italy. These will supplement 
M-60A1 tanks which wore pur- 
snd earlier by Italy from the 
States, 

F-104S aircraft coproductlnn 
will rmnilre considorahla co- 
oi'tive logistics in its initial stages. 
itli a $400 million program involv- 



'O 




K. Pci/fl is Dcp. for Maiinge- 
tit in the Olfice of the Dep. Asst. 
rotary of Defense, International 
urity Affairs (International Log'a- 
i Negotiations). He serves as a 
il>er of the Military Exports Sub- 
iinittee of the Defense Industry 
,'Jsory Council, Before entering 
service in 1964, Mr. 
ivas Director of International 
for Kaman Aircraft Corp. 



ing 165 aircraft, it can be anticipated 
that Italian industry will eventually 
manufacture most of its spares under 
license. Under this project the Italian 
prime contractor, FIAT Aviation, will 
spend some $26 million with U.S. 
manufacturers (primarily Lockheed 
and General Electric) for joint re- 
search, development and test work 
which will ensure that Italian indus- 
try shares in the technological spin- 
off to be executed from such work. 
Other Italian coproduction pro- 
grams now ponding- or under con- 
sideration cover the M-109 self- 
propelled howitzer, Naval Tactical 
Data Systems (NTDS) units, and 
SH-KI-I and CH-47 helicopters. 
_ It can he readily seen that coopera- 
tive logistics contribute to the lon- 
gevity of original equipment while, at 
the same time, fostering standardiza- 
tion of equipment and providing alter- 
nate .sources of supply, both of which 
are essential for any military alliance. 
Additionally, it can become 1x71 import- 
ant element in promoting the concept 
of a defense common market. When- 
ever the work and cost of research 
ami development, testing-, tooling U p 
and production can be shared on a 
free competitive basis, the result will 
be a stronger alliance by providing 
the participants with the beat weapon 
system at tin- lowest cost to the tax- 
payer. Finally, during the last four 
or five yours, cooperative logistics has 
helped offset about half of U.S. tie- 
f onso expenditures incurred through 
tho deployment of U.S. forces in 
NATO countries. In Italy, coproduc- 
tion programs, both on a govRi-mnent- 
to-govfirnmont and imlustry-to-inchis- 
try basis, are much in favor and likely 
to gain in importance. These pro- 
grams and the concept of cooperative 
logistics havo further strengthened 
the ties between the U.S. and Italian 
Armed Forces and between the in- 
dustries of both countries. 

In conclusion cooperative logistics 
is beneficial to the participants by 
fostering: 

Standardization of military equip- 
ment essential for joint military op- 
erations. 

Joint acceptance of strategic and 
tacticnl concepts and military doctrine 
baaed on the usn of common military 
equipment and munitions. 

Creation of ground, air and naval 
environments compatible with U.S.- 
operated equipment. 

Creation of complementary forces 
from diverse nations. 



Establishment of alternate supply 
sources, 

Promotion of the defense common 
market concept. 

Providing; industry with the tech- 
nology it needs to remain competitive 
in the armaments field as well as the 
civil sector of the economy. 



Industrial Security 

Management Course 

Sessions Scheduled 

The Defense Department has sched- 
uled a scries of 10 sessions of tho In- 
dustrial Security Management Course 
during; ^ FY 1968. Purpose of the 
course is to achieve a common level 
of understanding, interpretation and 
application of DO1) regulations and 
directives. 

^ The course is open to security offi- 
cials of industry who are responsible 
for the safeguarding of classified in- 
formation i n the custody of con- 
tractors participating in the DOD In- 
dustrial Security Program. A secu- 
rity clearance of Confidential or 
higher is required for all onrolleos. 
Company Confidential is acceptable. 

Industrial and research orgunmi- 
tioiiH inlerestcMl in sending representa- 
tives to the coin-so should inform their 
cognizant security office and submit 
the names, addresses, levels of secu- 
rity clearances, and preferred date of 
attendance. 

Reservations will bo made on a 
"first come, first served" basis. Those 
for whom reservations are made in 
advance will receive invitations from 
the Commandant, U.S. Army Intelli- 
gence School, about a month prior to 
the starting date of the session they 
have selected to attend, 

DOD offers this instruction without 
charge. However, industrial organiza- 
tions must boar the cost of transpor- 
tation of representatives to and from 
tho city whore the course is held and 
their maintenance while attending the 
course. 

Following arc the locations and 
dates of the sessions: 

Port Holabird, Md : July 24-28, 
1967; Aug. 21-26, 1967; Dec, 11-15, 
1967; Ja,,. 8-12, 1968; March 18-22, 
10*68; April 8-12, 1968. 

Boston, Mass.: Sept. 25-29, 1967, 

Chicago, 111.: Oct. 2-6, 1967. 

Denver, Colo.: May 6-10, 1968. 

Los Angelas, Calif.: May 13-17, 
WG8, 



Industry Bulletin 




The plioto-fenl-un- and call f w 
tioiijil photns tjiTnifrj^ ]( l ' 
wh(>lniinjv n-HjioiiHt-. Who,, 




you don't. But it's a fair 
[ iat employees of the Martin- 
J arietta Corporation of Orlando, 
H.,.lo. for this man-a member of 
our Arm P( l Forces in Vietnam-is a 
*lse reative of someone on the Mar- 
tui-Manetta team. 

> highlighting the , )ersoil a! inter- 
fat CI "P Io yw share in each other's 
i. roth,, and husbands servi g 
" Vietimm-and their mutual deshf 



if it would make a good feature stray 
tor the company publication 

The story ran and, as a follow-un, 
a request for information on anv 
other sons in service was issued. Tho 
idea was to do a feature on a 
of employee's sons. 



H witni ri-priHlun-d in (|l ,^ 
and moiinlftl on Jaw pin-it.'^ nii 
proKrain u'li.-i liuinchnl, 

Now \nwiHrn nrc iliHphiynl thro.; 1 
out llu! Orlimiln iitunt, n m | ^ 
H|ii!cl(l(!ii]|y i)ln<T(l in Ilin workdi^ 

till! ((tllJlloyiH' Will).'!.- ivlrttlvp I, ft' 

tunid. '" 

Ui<> Xn-fi hcfcctflquji. 
a pniKrnm tins l Wll ; 
cllVct (linrc i[. wiis 'H-ijiiniilnl by )[,! 
tin Rlaric-Uu in July \W.>, Ui,.^ 
IHw^sr Hi'rii'H htiH friv.<n auw mcaifr 
to an o|<i roiiivpt, " 

^ AliiniHl every iirca ttf (.lie MI^ 
tioii'H lm(f(! (Ic-l'diMn jiliml luiflflne 
ployci! with on,- ur IMOIV rtimninsr" 
'<'"- 'I'ln' proniliitMil. iliHjilay of i 
HOII'H lihnLuKi-npli, itln>wfiiK Mm i 
iinlfiinn- -many in cnmlniL ilrw^ 
Imd un ItiHpii-fn^ rllVcl. 

"I liad un i ( ti.,i you ImH o SHIP 
Viistnuni," in a nininintil Iwinl nun 
tiimm in tin- plant. And wilh ihecc! 
nii'tit roini'M a ivmwil 



and wujmim for all tmmi in wni 
I" thin plant ,,f !j ( ,||) ( , 

it Uillut almu fl 
ciuiH It. 



up with an unusual 

'T flte 'f Zoro Defec( * 

r prov)de P^sonal motivation the 



companietl by a short 

the 



DEFECTS." 
The "Know this man"' 




" an d 

C " 
n f 



ir responsibility. 



n tf ----* JIlllllY fjii-i-- 

man?" posters nearby to rfr 



May 19 



_ The Defense Department has com- 
piled what is believed to be the most 
c inprehensive figures on the U.S. 
ide aircraft inventory ever 
to the public. 

The inventory summarizes all gains 
reductions, both actual and pro- 
jected, for PY 1966-1967. It includes 
p Navy, Air Force and Marine 
aircraft, fixed wing and heli- 
c a liter, in active, reserve and inactive 



Reflected in the inventory are actual 
losses in Southeast Asia 
July 1, 1965, to Feb. 28, 1967, 
projected losses in Southeast Asia 
T the period March 1, 1967, to June 
#O, 1967. For all aircraft other than 
tliose involved in Southeast Asia, tho 
tables reflect actual gains and reduc- 
tions from July 1, iflfifi, to Jan. 31, 
iOG7, and projected figures for tho 
Jjoriod Feb. 1, 1967, to June HO, 1967. 
Aircraft listed in the "New Produc- 
tion" column of tho tables reflect all 
new aircraft production, including a 
small number of research, dcvolop- 
inont, teat and evaluation aircraft. 



Older aircraft, which are no longer 
considered part of the combat force 
but are still in the active inventory, 
are not listed in their original cate- 
gories but are carried in "Other 
Fixed Wing" or "Trainers" column. 

The tables also reflect aircraft con- 
versions. For example, F-101's con- 
verted to the RF-KU (reconnais- 
sance) configurations are reflected as 
conversion reductions from tho "Tac- 
tical Fighter and Attack" category 
and as conversion gains in the "Re- 
connaissance" category. 

The "Other" column under both 
gains and reductions includes all 
transfers to or from the Military As- 
sistance Program (MAP) and be- 
tween Services. This category also in- 
cludes gains from reclamation or 
salvage and reductions due to retire- 
ments. 

Tho current inventory differs from 
previous tables on aircraft losses and 
deliveries as follows: 

All aircraft in tho U.S. inventory, 
including aircraft in storage*, are ear- 
Table 1 



ried in the current figures, account- 
ing for Home 33,000 to 35,000 aircraft. 

* In addition to combat and opera- 
tional losses due to all causes, the 
tables show reductions due to retire- 
ments, conversions, and those aircraft 
lost to one Service when they have 
been transferred to another Service. 
Also included are aircraft transferred 
from the U.S. inventory to the MAP 
program. 

* The deliveries listed in the past 
included only now production, conver- 
sions and aircraft reworked after re- 
moval from storage. Present gain fig- 
ures indicate new production and 
conversions, transfers into a Service 
inventory from the MAP program 
and aircraft transferred from one 
Service to another thus noted as 
"gained" by the receiving Service. The 
new tables, however, do not count as 
"gains" aircraft reworked after re- 
moval from storage. (Such aircraft 
are already in the inventory totals.) 

More of the FY 1968 figures are 
"actual" and fewer arc "projected." 



Department of Defense Aircraft Inventory 



June ,'10 1905 



Category 



Active Reserve 
Forces Forces n 



Inactive " Total 



Ttictical Fighter 










and Attack 


4,758 


900 


60S 


6,261 


Interceptor Fighter 


1,246 


408 


8 


1,662 


It e connaissance 


554 


190 


148 


892 


Heavy/Medium 










Bomber 


1,107 





622 


1,729 


Ti-ansports 


3,010 


1,033 


223 


4,266 


Tz-ainers 


4,748 


232 


1,100 


6,080 


Other Fixed Wing 


4,753 


91.6 


602 


6,271 


Total Fixed Wing 
Helicopters 


20,176 
5,380 


3,679 
433 


3,306 

410 


27,161 
6,223 



June 30 1007 


Active 
Forces 


Reserve 

Forces n 


Inactive " 


Total 


5,205 


85 G 


183 


6,244 


1,008 


407 


76 


1,491 


769 


223 


132 


1,124 


747 


._ 


898 


1,645 


2,606 


953 


282 


3,841 


4,936 


218 


1,088 


6,242 


4,720 


761 


480 


5,961 


19,901 

8,174 


3,418 
572 


3,139 
597 


26,548 
9,343 



OF DEFENSE 25,556 4,112 3,716 33,384 28,165 



3,990 3,736 35,891 



i, Air Force and Army National Guard, and operating air- 



4 Includes aU aircraft in the Air Force and .,,., ,.. 
Gi*ift only in the Navy and Marino Corps Reserves, 
1 Includes reserve stocks, aircraft on bailment and loan, and aircraft awaiting disposition. 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



Table 2 

Aircraft Inventory Gains and Losses 
FY 1966-1967 



GAINS 
Production, Conversion 
Transfers 


REDUCTIONS 
Losses, Retirements, Conversions, 

Transfers 


Category 


Inven- 
tory 
June 30 


Southeast 
Asia 


Non-Southeast 
Asia 


Total 


Inven- 




1965 


New 
Pro- 
duc- 
tion 

s 


Con- Other Total 
ver- 
sions 

h 1 


tile 

j 


Op- 
era- 
tion- 

al 

k 


Opera- Con- 

tional ver- 
Los- sions 
ses 

h h 


i 




1967 


Tactical Fighter 
























& Attack 


6,261 


1,464 


97 110 


1,671 


746 


184 


374 


114 


"270 


1,688 


6,244 


Interceptor Ftr 


1,662 








7 


2 


53 


1 


" 108 


171 


1,491 








Recce 


892 


288 


109 13 


410 


79 


11 


52 





36 


178 


1,124 


Heavy-Medium 
























Bomber 


1,729 












7 


2 


75 


84 


1 (Ml 


Transport 


4,266 


282 


2 151 


435 


31 


22 


58 


112 


C fi37 


860 


3,841 


Trainers 


6,080 


611 


163 


774 






176 


80 


11 356 


612 


f 249 


Other Fixed 






















1 


Wing 


6,271 


375 


261 377 


1,013 


132 


93 


156 


160 


782 


1,323 


fi 9R1 


Total Fixed 
























Wing- 


27,161 


3,020 


469 814 


4,303 


995 


312 


876 


4G9 


2,2(54 


4,916 


26,548 


Helicopters 


6,223 


4,393 


3 64 


4,460 


363 


333 


280 


3 


361 


1,340 


9,343 


TOTAL 


33,384 


7,413 


472 878 


8,763 


1,358 


645 


1,156 


472 


' 2,025 


6,256 


35,891 


























1 Consists of 126 ret 
























ferretl between Ser 


vices- and 




Bl'S to qchnnlc 








ng 44 A 


.-1 s am 


.1 2,3 A-4's 


,j 66 A-l 


's trans- 



77 F-89's; 24 F-89'a transferred to other Services and 8 F-89's transferred to 

2-s, Sf ST A d7cWiMtf 

& s.) transferred from Ai-mv to Air Force; and * f--F~'" t---r_ " 5' ^ ^ ^ H ami ' t'-J-rfU s, irfd O~^A s tuv 






involv e ,l. 



. aircraft, wllol , app,ic a b,o. 

between aircraft categories as a result of the modification of the aircraft 



, n lost tiuo to hosti la "Ction. 

due to flying and ground accidents. 

Transfers to other services, MAP, and reductions due to reclamation, retirements, and other non-operational ca- 

May 1967 



8 



Aircraft Inventory Gains and Losses 



GAINS 
Production, Conversion, 
Transfers 


Losses, 


REDUCTIONS 
Retirements, Conversions, 
Transfers 


Inventory 
Category June 30 
1965 


New 




Other 




Southeast Asia 
Losses Non-Southeast Asia 


Total 


Inven- 
tory 






Pro- 
duc- 
tion 
11 


sions 

b 






Hos- 
tile 

d 


Opera- 
tional 

c 


Opera- 
tional 
Losses 




Con- 
ver- 
sions 

b 


Other 
f 




June 30 

19GG 


Tactical Fighter 


























& Attaclc 
Interceptor Ftr 


6,261 
1,662 


522 


49 


78 


649 


302 


84 


185 


42 


242 


855 


6,055 


Recce 
Heavy/Medium 


892 


155 


39 


7 


201 


30 


~~5 


25 


1 


80 
19 


112 
79 


1,560 
1,014 


Bomber 


1,729 
























Transports 
Trainers 
Other Fixed Wing 


4,266 
6,080 
6,271 


143 

247 
153 


1 

140 


"G 

25 

185 


150 
272 
478 


~14 
~54 


"16 

"41 


3 
27 
83 
77 


1 
65 

36 
84 


36 
286 
196 
351 


40 
407 
315 
607 


1,689 
4,009 
6,037 
6,142 


Total Fixed Wing 
Helicopters 

TOTAL 


27,161 
6,223 

38,884 


1,220 
1,857 

3,077 


cc to 

CO tO 

to coo 


301 
19 
320 


1,750 
1,879 
3,629 


404 
152 
556 


145 
133 
278 


427 
119 
546 


229 

3 

gOO 


1,210 
174 
1,384 


2,415 
681 


26,490 
7,521 
34,017 





"Includes del Ivor lea of IIDT&K aircraft, whore an 

Cimverslon tfiiinH and cimverHloti IOHHUU between aircraft cateitoi'iea IIH n reinll nf Dm m>tjn>. n itnn n e n i r, , , , 
* SSrknown ^'heHovSM," , an ' 1 * nl h ' Om mslnmilt 'n ^ fialvage. m<,.l,ncation of the aircraft involved. 

' Tmnsfoin lo other awviuo,. MAI', and mlt.cllmm duo lo r^lnmation. roltremonU. and other non-onorntimml caueca. 



Table 4 

Aircraft Inventory Gains and Losses 
FY 1967 



GAINS 
Production, Conversion, 
Transfers 


Losses, 


REDUCTIONS 
Retirements, Conversions, 
Transfers 


Inventory 
Category June 30 
1966 


New 
Pro- 
duc- 
tion 

n 


Conver- 
sions 

b 


Other 

c 


Total - 


Southeast 
Asia 


Non-Southeast Asia 


Total 


Inven- 
tory 
June 30 

1967 


Hos- 
tile 

a 


Opera- 
tional 




Opera- 
tional 




Con- 
ver- 
sions 

b 


Other 
i 




Tactical Fighter 


























& Attack 
Interceptor Ftr 
Recce 
Heavy/Medium 


6,055 
1,560 
1,014 


942 
133 


48 
"70 


32 
~~G 


1,022 
209 


444 
3 
49 


100 
2 
6 


189 
26 

27 


72 


28 
28 

17 


833 
69 
99 


6,244 
1,491 
1,124 


Bomber 
Transports 
Trainers 
Other Fixed Wing 


1,689 
4,009 
6,037 
6,142 


139 
364 
222 


~~1 

121 


145 
138 
192 


285 
602 
535 


___ 

~78 


"ij 

~52 


4 
31 
93 
79 


1 
47 
44 
76 


39 
351 

160 
481 


44 
453 
297 
716 


1,645 
3,841 
6,242 
5,961 


lotal i'lxecl Wing 
Helicopters 
TOTAL 


26,496 

7,521 
84,017 


1,800 
2,636 
4,330 


240 

240 


613 
45 
558 


2,563 
2,681 
5,134 


591 

211 
802 


167 
200 
367 


449 
161 

610 


240 

240 


1,054 
187 
1,241 


2,601 
759 
3,260 


26,548 
9,343 
35,891 





"> Corlvi.'!^! <lollvc . rles "'V 1 loitsca ""'I I'cliremenU of KDTAE aircruft, where applicable. 

oTrnnHfn"rJ: nH ,. n " MT ' vol ' ll i 1 o ", I|)HI!CH I'etwcen aircraft ciitesories us a result of the modification of the aircraft involved 

,i A {,,.,. ?i i Ulci ; services, MAP, and Biiinn from recta motion or salvage. 

".. lnl i "wn or believed to Ituve been lost duo to hostile action. 



f Tnin r nff " ll( raun( aeecnlB. 

inaieis to other Hci'vicctt, MAP, and rcducliona duo to reolnnmlion, retircmonla, nnd other nun-opcniUonnl causes. 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



THE WHITE HOUSE 

WASHINGTON 

February 11, 1967 

This memorandum from Secretary McNamara tells how American 
industry is conserving Defense resources. I believe yo,u will find it 
worth your time to read it. 

Secretary McNamara states that 75 contractors reported cost 
reductions of $1.8 billion in two years on their Defense sales. This is a 
most gratifying- response to my request that our Nation's Defense 
community help us reduce costs. 




Three years ago, you asked major 
defense contractors to step up their 
efforts to reduce costs under defense 
contracts, At the same time, you 
asked me to take their cost reduction 
efforts into account when making 
future source selections and in deter- 
mining profit and fee rates on non- 
competitive negotiated contracts. 

A recently completed analysis of 
progress under the Defense Contrac- 
tor Cost Reduction Program shows 

thnh ini-liiotvir lion i.nn,, ,!,] ,.; 



the first year of formalized reporting-, 
totaled $811. Savings in FY I960 to- 
taled $99fi million. 

Benefits to Defense. 

These savings benefit the Defense 
Department by: 

Reducing payments to contractors 
under cost-reimbursement contracts. 

Enabling the Defense Depart- 
ment to share in savings under con- 
tracts with incentive-type arrange- 



of the TA-4E aircraft. The canopy 
was reengincored to reduce its thick- 
ness, eliminate an unnecessary elec- 
tric heating clement, and reduce the 
number or scams over the pilot's head 
from two to one. 

Technical Data. WcHtcrn Electric 
Co,, Inc., recently reported the follow- 
ing savings: 

The preparation of composite 
parts' lists to utilize repetitive infor- 
mation formerly shown on seimrnte 



packing savings of $1,019,600 for the 
six-month period ending June 30, 
1966. 

Modification of packaging speci- 
fications to allow use of material al- 
ready on hand to pack M26 hand 
grenades and reuse of packing mate- 
rial in which MI557 ammunition fuxos 
were received, instead of procuring 
additional material to meet the prior 
specifications, saved $676,024. 

* Use of wood skids in lieu of pal- 
lets for 105mm cartridges saved 
$262,400. 

Technical Manuals Gyrodync Com- 
pany of America, Inc., reported a va- 
riety of actions which saved $81,200 
in technical manual costs in FY 196fi. 

Elimination of unnecessary sym- 
bols on wiring diagrams saved $2,0(>{i. 

Preparation of final copy directly 
from handwritten work eliminated a 
typed rough draft and saved $6,898. 

Combination of throe publications 
into one saved $1,004. 

Automatic Data Processing. North- 
rop Corporation reduced costs $350,- 
408 by applying electronic data proc- 
essing techniques to its purchase 
order, procurement management infor- 
mation, and materiel industrial and 
standards systems, Improved utiliza- 
tion of data processing reports permit- 
ted the corporation to reduce man- 
power I'equirements in one of its 
groups by more than 8f> percent 
saving an additonal $.117,540. 

Administration. The McDonnell Cor- 
poration saved $941,120 by n recent 
company-wide campaign against un- 
necessary paperwork. The drive elimi- 
nated 408 automated reports, over 
1,200 report copies, 76 manual re- 
ports and 199 forms. In addition, 2!17 
forms were standardized. Fifty-four 
tons of paper were disposed of by file 
cleaning alone. 

Industry Response. 

Today, defense industry is consci- 
entiously participating in the Defense 
Contractor Cost Reduction Program. 
Most contractors consider it impera- 
tive to have a cost reduction program 
to remain competitive and realize fair 
profits. Many had programs long be- 
fore the Defense Department program 
was started, but all seem to have 
intensified their efforts during the last 
three years. 

Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Is 
the largest defense contractor. Lock- 
heed's Annual Report to Stock- 



holders dated March 4, 1966, discussed 
its costs reduction program: 

"All nine operating companies sur- 
passed their goals in cost reduction. 
After realizing total savings of $117 
million in 1964 in the first year of the 
intensified industry campaign spon- 
sored by President Johnson and De- 
fense Secretary McNamara, we knew 
that the enthusiasm of the initial 
push would be hard to sustain. Yet we 
bettered our 1964 performance with 
corporate-wide savings of $132 mil- 
lion, enabling us to strengthen our 
competitive position, pass along sub- 
stantial savings to the U.S. Govern- 
ment and improve our profits. These 
savings come from a variety of tech- 
niquesprocess innovations, automa- 
tion, computer aids, Zero Defects, 
value engineering, and more efficient 
work procedures." 

Cost reduction techniques are being 
applied by companies to their civilian 
as well as their military work. A Wall 
Street Journal survey reported that 
these techniques are also being used 
by many firms not directly connected 
with the defense program. The Vice 
President for Purchasing of one of 
the major airlines (not a participant 
in the program) recently wrote us: 

"Because of the widespread impact 
of your program, we are finding 
broader acceptance for our own cost 
reduction efforts. Other corporate 
purchasing departments, I am sure, 
arc finding similar benefits from your 
program. The American consumer and 
taxpayer cannot help but benefit from 
this organized effort to reduce costs.' 1 

The Defense Contractor Cost Re- 
duction Program has had the uncom- 
promising support of the top execu- 
tives in industry and the Defense De- 
partment. I am confident it will con- 
tinue to receive such support. 

Alphabetical Listing of Parent Com- 
panies Participating in Defense Con- 
tractor Cost Reduction Program 

A AT Corp. 

Aerojet General Corp. 

American Air Filter Co., Inc. 

ARO, Inc. 

Atlantic Research Corp. 

AVCO Corp. 

Beech Aircraft Corp. 

Bell Aerospace Corp. 

The Bendix Corp. 

The Boeing Co, 

Burroughs Corp. 

Collins Radio Co. 



Communications Systems, Inc. 

Computing and Software, Inc. 

Control Data Corp. 

Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, Inc 

Curtiss-Wright Corp. 

Day and Zimmermann, Inc. 

Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc. 

Dynalectron Corp. 

Electronic Communications, Inc. 

Electro-Optical Systems, Inc. 

FMC Corp. 

The Garrett Corp. 

General Dynamics Corp. 

General Electric Co. 

General Motors Corp. 

General Precision, Inc. 

Goodyear Aerospace Corp. 

Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp 

Gyrodyno Co. of America, Inc. 

Hayes International Corp. 

Hercules, Inc. 

Honeywell, Inc. 

HRB-Singer, Inc. 

Hughes Aircraft Co. 

Hycon Mfg. Co. 

IBM Corp. 

International Harvester Co. 

ITT Corp. 

Interstate Electronics Corp. 
Johns Hopkins University 

Kaiser Jeep Corp. 

Kaman Aircraft Corp. 

Keltec Industries, Inc. 

Lear Siegler, Inc. 

LTV, Inc. 

Litton Systems, Inc. 

Lockheed Aircraft Corp. 

Loral Corp. 

Marquardt Corp, 

Martin-Marietta Corp. 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

McDonnell Corp. 

Melpar, Inc. 

The MITRE Corp. 

Newport News Shipbuilding and 

Dry Dock Co. 

North American Aviation, Inc. 
Northrop Corp. 

Olin Matbicson Chemical Corp. 
Page Aircraft Maintenance, Inc. 
Pan American World Airways, Inc. 
Philco-Ford Corp. 
Radiation, Inc. 
Radio Corp. of America 
Raytheon Co. 
Remington Arms Co., Inc. 
Sperry Rand Corp. 
Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. 
Thiokol Chemical Corp. 
TRW, Inc. 

United Aircraft Corp. 
Vitro Corp. of America 
Western Electric Co,, Inc. 
Westinghouse Electric Corp. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



11 



Address by Hon. Robert N, An- 
thony, Asst. Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller), to American Ordnance 
Assn. t Washington, D. ., March 16, 
1967. 




Hon. Robert N. Anthony 



Not many people like paperwork 
or at least not many people will admit 
they hke it. Since I am going to talk 
about so .ne of our efforts to reduce 
the amount of paper that flows be- 
tween contractors and the Defense De- 
partment, my remarks should theo- 
retically be popular. 

But as is the case with many 
broad propositions-it i s a f act that 
although most everyone favors reduc- 
tion of paperwork in general, there is 
a great difference of opinion as to 
exactly what should be done as a 

practical matter 

First, let me say that we do rec- 
ognize that there is a problem-a ser- 
ious problem. Over the years, each 
manager of a major weapon system 
project has tended to develop his own 
system for collecting data on plans 
measuring; and reporting progress 
against those plans, and recording ac- 
tual experience. The result was pro- 
liferation-of systems, of reports and 
of acronyms. Fertile imaginations and 



active ingenuity accomplished tasks 
which were worth doing and they got 
results. This proliferation is not good, 
and we know it is not good. 

But having said this, I want also 
to point out that there is another 
side of the coin. Defense managers 
do need information. It is their re- 
sponsibility to see to it that the best 
possible weapon systems get devel- 
oped, that these systems be produced 
on time, and that the Government 
pays only a reasonable price for them. 
So we do need systems, and they must 
be carefully worked out systems, that 
will show the Government manager 
what is going on, where the trouble 
spots are, antl do this accurately and 
promptly. 

Managers in DOD the Secretary 
of Defense, his principal assistants, 
the senior officials of the Military De- 



largo programs. These efforts we call 
SAIMS-the Selected Acquisitions I 
formation and Management System 
SAIMS development has alreaT *' 
suited in the elimination of new re 
quirements for the Defense Contrac 
tors Planning Reports (DCPR) the 
report of Costs Incurred on Contract 

(DD Form H77), the Financial Man- 
agement Report (DD Form 1097), and 
several other special forms peculiar 
to individual Services. 

The development of SAIMS is tak- 
ing place in three principal areas. The 
first, to provide an economic informa- 
tion system, is desired to meet the 
requirement for information about the 
activities of the work force of our 
major contractors which enables us 
to assess tho impact of the Five Year 
Defense Program on industries and 
geographical areas. Some economic 



The Paperwork Problem 



partments and the Defense Agencies, 
the system managers-must repre- 
sent the public interest. DOD man- 
agement cannot duck its responsibility 
to guard national security and pro- 
vide prudent stewardship of public 
resources, and we must provide tho 
means. 

_ In recent years, DOD has empha- 
sized competitive procurement and in- 
centive contracting, rather than solo 
source and cost plus fixed fee 
(CPFF). These changes have been 
tremendously helpful, but they do not, 
of course, automatically insure that 
quality, delivery time and costs are 
what they should be. We must con- 
tinue to receive information that gives 
us the necessary visibility on these 
important questions. 

We, therefore, will always need re- 
ports from contractors. But we believe 
that substantial improvements can be 
made in the nature of these reports, 
and this is the program on which we 
are now working. 

At present we are concentrating on 



impact data have been collected in the 
past using the DCPR and a variety of 
other reports. The uniform, stream- 
lined approach was begun in Decem- 
ber 106G, and the current sample in- 
cludes 422 plants. The data provide 
the basis for more responsive, more 
accurate answers to questions which 
reflect the concern of all branches of 
this Government for knowledge of the 
impact of the dollars which are spent 
in the national defense. 

The second area deals with the 
problems of making: cost estimates. 
Particularly where new systems are 
concerned, we have been handicapped 
by the lack of comparable cost datft 
on previous programs for use as a 
basis of estimating the cost of the new 
program. We need such estimates in 
order to make rational choices among 
competing development alternatives, 
to estimate our funds requirements, 
and to use as a cross check against 
contractor estimates in the negotia- 
tion process. 

We have developed a new system 
for collecting the data needed for such 



May 1967 



It is called the Cost In- 

Report (CIR). CIR pro- 

*>iforin means of collecting 

costs for contracts which 

of major weapon system 

Cost analysis organizations 

** the Military Departments 

t'ocess, store and use CIR 

data which are stored in 

^tu bank. 

to. are not collected until 
tit-oval of the Office c;f Sec- 
t>efense is granted. Instead 
ting system managers to 
V-lintever information they 
liow require that all pro- 
CIR data be reviewed and 
by the Office of the Secre- 
GdTeiiflc. To date, 24 of the 
plans have been reviewed, 
'o expected durinjy 19G7. 
were approved in a 
oa*m 11 for aircraft sys- 
five for missiles, One pro- 
wiifi turned down because 
considered to be a reason- 
t, and seven are "in 



of the CIR system was ap- 

tlie Bureau of the Budget 

G.G. At present, its coverage 

to aircraft, missile and 

iins. Our pinna envision an 

in tho near future to ships, 

acLronic systems and ar- 

cles. 

rl part of the SAIMS effort 
wltli tho in. format! on thai; 
Ijy project managers and 
ovals of DOT) management, 
y can monitor the contrae- 
rmaneo, Any auch system 
three aspects of pnrform- 
ity, schedule and cost. A 
ity of systems iind reports 
ii'poso has been developed 
iixi-H by various agencies in 

clc on this problem is radi- 
;jit from that used hitherto. 
prescribing a set of reports 
JTor filling thorn out, and 
\\Lt the contractor set up a 
t will produce the figures 
,& entered on those reports, 
ir*g" the opposite approach; 
itr reporting requirements 
contractor's own system, 
& making him operate a 
t to satisfy our require- 
i approach recognizes that 
thing as tho 'one best 
although two contrac- 
different internal con- 



trol systems, they may he equally 
good. If a system provides the infor- 
mation that a contractor needs to 
manage his own operations, it should 
also he able to provide the informa- 
tion needed by DOD managers. 

Thus, rather than specifying the 
system, we shall specify the criteria 
which a contractor's system must 
satisfy, and stand ready to accept 
any system that meets these criteria. 

The essence of the criteria is that 
the contractor should be able to iden- 
tify, plan and authorize work and the 
estimated cost of this work; and 
measure actual costs incurred, the 
costs which should have been incurred, 
and the output of work accomplished. 
He could then evaluate performance 
against plan to assure that the plans 
are being followed or that deviations 
quickly come to light. The criteria call 
for the identification of the specific 
tasks required to accomplish the con- 
tract and the designation of responsi- 
ble people who must exercise control. 
There must be planning of the re- 
sources which will be used, explicit 
scheduling of tho work required, ac- 
counting for costs incurred, and ex- 
planations of the variance from plan. 

Note the difference between specify- 
ing 1 criteria and specifying a system. 
We will no longer say to a contractor: 
"You must use PERT." Instead, we 
will say, "You must have a .system 
that meets certain criteria. Various 
versions of PERT moot these criteria. 
If you want to use PERT, or some 
part of PERT, fine. If you prefer 
some other system, that is all right 
with us, just so long as it meets the 
criteria that any good system should 
meet." 

The data requirements of tho Gov- 
ernment will bo met from the samo 
pool of data which serves contractor 
management. Normally, our require- 
ments will be for summary informa- 
tion from the contractor's own re- 
ports, since tho detailed information 
will be available in tho contractor's 
internal system if circumstances 
should require it. We must, of course, 
assure that the data will be available 
when needed and that the data we 
are provided are valid, timely and 
useful. 

The development of this part of 
SAIMS has been under way for some 
time, with the active participation 
of Government (including National 
Aeronautics and Space Administra- 



tion, Federal Aviation Agency and 

the Atomic Energy Commission) and 
industry (through the Council of De- 
fense and Space Industry Associa- 
tions). This summer we plan to issue 
implementing- instructions for instal- 
ling planning and control system re- 
quirements in large Government con- 
tracts. These instructions will contain: 

* Criteria for tho contractor's man- 
agement control system. 

Procedures and standards for 
evaluating- the contractor's proposed 
system during source selection. 

A list of maximum data require- 
ments from which tho Military De- 
partments will select items they 
choose to require from contractors. 

Procedures to be followed in test- 
ing the operational performance of 
the contractor's system. 

We have been encouraged by the 
progress made so far. To some we 
may seem slow but, as I said at the 
beginning, efforts of this kind are not 
easily accomplished. Tho criteria must 
be written in such a way that they 
do not unduly restrict contractors on 
tho one hand, nor permit sloppy sys- 
tems to slip through on the other. 
Every phrase has to be argued about 
by all the parties concerned. But the 
end is in sight, and the final product 
will, I think, be something that indus- 
try will like much better than what 
wo have now. 



Addretut by Gen. Howelt M. Estea 
Jr., USAF, Commander, Military Air- 
lift Command, at the National Sym- 
posium on Better Management Infor- 
mation and Reporting, National 
Archives and Records Service, Wash- 
ington, D.C., Nov. 1, 1966, 

Management Information 
Management 

It has been said that often a good 
question is more important than a 
good answer. 

The best answer in the world too 
often does not relate directly to the 
question that should have been asked. 
But the right question forces and 
focuses attention squarely where it be- 
longs. This concept goes back at least 
as far as Socrates, whose teaching 
consisted of asking the right questions 
in a logical sequence. Today, the basis 



Bulletin 



13 



of all problem solving is the matter 
of identifying the problem. 

One pointed question that has come 
down through the centuries is from 
the poet Juvenal. "Who," he asked, "is 
going to guard the guards them- 
selves?" 

My primary question today is in a 
similar vein, namely: "Who is going 
to manage management information?" 
I think this is a good question; in 
fact, one of the vital questions of our 
time. Our hosts of the National 
Archives and Records Service, in the 
very act of convening this sympo- 
sium, would seem to be asking pre- 
cisely that sort of question. I am 
pleased and honored that they have 
asked me to be a part of this distin- 
guished assemblage. 

To assure you that I am necessarily 
sensitive to the problems of manage- 
ment in general, and particularly to 
those of management information, let 
me briefly state the three guises in 
which I appear before you. These are: 
a military commander, a Government 
manager, and a man with a business 
to run. 

First, you see the commander of the 
Military Airlift Command (MAC), a 
major command of the U.S. Air Force. 
Our principal mission is to provide 
strategic, combat and specialized air- 
lift services for all DOD elements and 
some other agencies of the Federal 
Government up to and including the 
President. Our command MAC is 
also responsible for such other mis- 
sions as Aerospace Rescue and Re- 
covery; Air Weather; Aerospace 
Audio-Visual services, including com- 
bat photo document, aerial photo 
mapping, geodesy and gravimetry; 
and Aeromedical Evacuation, both 
inter-theater and domestic. These 
services are also performed for other 
agencies besides the Air Force. 

Secondly, MAC is the operating 
agency through which the Secretary 
of the Air Force discharges his re- 
sponsibility as DOD Single Manager 
for Airlift Services. As Executive 
Director of that agency, I am, there- 
fore, a Government manager, in a 
somewhat broader context than the 
usual military commander. 

Thirdly, what we call "common user 
airlift" is financed under an Air 
Force Industrial Fund. Thus a portion 
of ray fiscal responsibility is more 
commercially oriented than is the case 
with most military commanders. 



This is why I say that I have a 
business to run. 

The responsibilities outlined in that 
little thumbnail sketch help me to re- 
main a very industrious student of 
management and management infor- 
mation. 

In addition, the aeronautical arts 
and sciences are currently being rev- 
olutionized, and so we have on the 
horizon a genuine revolution in air- 
lift. The foundation of this revolution 
is grounded upon such aircraft as 
today's jet cargo C-141 Starlifter, 
and tomorrow's giant C~6. 

The true thrust of the revolution, 
however, will be found in wholly new 
concepts and methods of operating, 
and in completely new and radical 
ways of exploiting the great produc- 
tivity, flexibility and responsiveness 
of these new aircraft. That revolution 
is never going to take place without 
a wholly new approach to manage- 
ment to the information that each 
level of management is going to re- 
quire. 




Gen. Howcll M. Bates, Jr., USAP 



These two airplane types, by coin- 
cidence, also illustrate the dominant 
problem of this symposium. 

The C-141 has a maximum struc- 
tural payload capacity of 35 tons. 
Keep that figure 35 tonsin mind 
for a moment, 

Next we come to the C-5; five con- 
tractors competed for the development 
and production contract three for the 
airframe and two for the engine. In 
reply to the Air Force Request for 
Proposal (RFP), the five competitors 
sent in an aggregate of 240,000 pages 
not counting any copies. Since 30 



copies of each proposal were required, 
the total weight of the paper sub- 
mitted was 35 tons the maximum 
payload of today's C-141. 

It took more than 400 Air Force 
experts five months to read and eval- 
uate that mass of data. This, to me, 
hardly represents any tremendous 
progress in the management of man- 
agement information. 

One reason is that we didn't know 
exactly what question to ask so wo 
asked far too many in our RFP. 
After that exercise, we asked our- 
selves some very pertinent questions. 

Were we not, for example, asking 
for too much detail on matters which 
should properly be the concern of the 
contractors? Why did we noed 7 r ()DO 
pages of cost data when this was a 
price competition and the contract 
was fixed-pricc-incentive? And wore 
we not asking for too much detailed 
design, rather than simply specifying 
performance requirements and lotting 
the winning competitor achieve thorn 
in his own way. 

True, these questions were asked 
after the 35-ton fact. But they wore 
asked and they arc good questions, 
which should help us to manage man- 
agement information a lot hnttar next 
time we go out with an RFP. 

I think wo also have to acknowl- 
edge that all questions about mmi- 
agement information are somewhat 
after the fact. We are alromly woll 
into the age of information systems, 
quasi-systems, pseudo-systems, unre- 
lated masses of computer hardware, 
and far too many types and cJnssca 
of software. But our management of 
information has by no means im- 
proved to the same extent that the 
systems have multiplied. 

If we seem to be drowning- in a 
flood of information, our main hope 
may be illustrated by the story of the 
layman who witnessed the dedication 
of the 200-inch telescope at Mount 
Palomar in 1948. He sidled up to the 
Chief Astronomer and said: 

"Modern astronomy sure makes 
man seem insignificant, doesn't it?" 

"Yes," the scientist replied, "but 
don't you see man is the astron- 
omer." 

Similarly, if we are drowning in 
information, it is a flood of our own 
making and, therefore, our own crea- 
ture to control, manage and use for 
our own purposes. The word "pur- 
poses" hints at one solution for con- 



May 1967 



trol goal orientation and I will 
address the significance' of goals to 
management information a little later. 

First, I would like to outline what 
I see as some of the basic problems; 
then, after a few words on goals, I 
will suggest what I feel is the frame- 
work for at least one approach to the 
answer. 

The first problem, rather than being 
peculiar to management alone, is uni- 
versal the very fact of the informa- 
tion explosion. In science alone, the 
growth of knowledge has been astro- 
nomical. DaVinci could say, in the 
16th century, that he was familiar 
with the entire body of scientific lit- 
erature existing at that time. Even 
as late as the 19th century, Gauss 
had a full grasp of every branch of 
mathematics. 

Today no scientist and this in- 
cludes 90 percent of all the scientists 
who ever lived can hope to keep 
abreast of even a small percentage of 
the work published in his own sub- 
sub-branch of his particular discipline. 

In fact, it has been estimated that 
it is cheaper to re-do a technical 
project if the cost is less than 
? 100, 000 than to go through the 
process of trying to learn if someone 
has already solved the problem. Thus 
the question boils down not so much 
to one of too much information but 
of too much information that is too 
difficult or expensive to find. 

The second problem arises from the 
rapid growth and the increasing com- 
plexity of the areas which have to be 
managed. The order of magnitude of 
effort I mentioned in managing the 
revolution in airlift is only a single 
example. Everyone in commerce, in- 
dustry, engineering, science, the pro- 
fessions and Government feels the 
force with which the growth curves 
are pulling apart. The things we have 
to manage are growing geometrically, 
while our knowledge of how to man- 
age seems to increase only arith- 
metically at best. Thus there is more 
to manage, and more information to 
manage it with, but "more plus 
more" seems to add up to less in the 
way of control. 

Third, there is the constantly in- 
creasing speed with which decisions 
must be made. Instant communica- 
tions over more and more channels, 
the speed of travel and distribution 
and the rapidity with which informa- 
tion is generated, all allow less and 



less time for reflection and delibera- 
tion. A transatlantic cable contains 
75,000 tons of copper wire, while 
Telstar handles more channels of com- 
munication more effectively with Icsa 
than a ton of materials. But there 
has been no matching order of im- 
provement in man's ability to absorb 
all these additional inputs and come 
up with an instant output a decision. 

Fourth, the common information 
needs of managers have not really 
been clearly identified. There has boon 
more emphasis on bow information 
should be presented than on what in- 
formation is required to beg-in with. 
This, too, is related to the question of 
goals which, as they set the limits of 
a playing field, can also delimit and 
contain the profusion of information, 
and determine what is "out of 
bounds." 

Fifth, there is a great iieod for a 
vertical information structure with a 
common data base. Decision in RSKRII- 
tially the apex of a pyramid built on 
a broad substructure of alerting:, ex- 
ploring and analyzing-. Each level of 
the structure must have access to a 
common base of information u data 
bank, if you will. To whate,vei' xtcmt 
a general purpose digital computer 
can quickly and accurately mechiumu 
a great portion of the fundumontul 



tion. I" tin; Kiimo way, llic. fir-nt com- 
put*>rH went mum HH Castor calculating 
niEirhiiu.'s in- mon 1 copious filing nyn~ 
toins. And HO today, 20 year;; Jiflm- 
KN1 A(J, w<i an>, in I'llVcL, umnj-' third- 
Kcmm-ulimi Cdinputoi'H for hookUonpini? 
and Illiiitf. 

Tin* cHfunu'o of the Hixl.h problem 

LH thin: W<i nn> doiii^- willmul olw- 
troni<! brains what Mitt iu'un>|)hysiti- 
tsi and psyi-h oli )]! sts 1*-11 uu wit elo 
our human brains - ul,i1i7,iti|V 
thcMii nt. :i nnuill pc-ninni-un") 1 "f Umir 
actual mjmdly. We look tit machine 
that can curry out I'lUilatilicjilly rapid 
ariltmicrUnil arid lo^im! oprniHoiLi! 
mid fjiil In i^'o an injvi'iiiDiin tnul thai- 
can HIM! nuifit he umifully inlrjvniUcd 
into fLill"!i|H'rl.niMi niiuuiKH'iHi'nl, in- 

I'orniJllinii H.VHlein. 

Dr. Ahiin I'lnthnveit, Ansinliuii Si-c- 
rttliiry of Pi'lVum- (,Syntem 
has naid lliiu: 

". . . Tht' iiynlcMi(i unal>'nin 
licaru tin ciimMiliiil ivlulioniilnp to mm- 
i'M nt ulL . . Thin iiluiiildii'1. be 
MMhiK 1 ! ln'cmme I. he really diOlnill 
important, purl. of doiii)? n jfund 
in not lln- cuinpuliit inn ; it in 
iniv and dfliniiij. 1 ; tin- lu'obli-m, 
tif,',' Ilie nhjci'livi-H, iimH itt'lcr- 
\vlvirli aiiMiinitionx nii^hl to hi 1 



the information explosion 



processes, to that extent will tho itinn- 
ager be able to make t)ottnr and mores 
timely decisions, 

But if the computer has in a snnfu; 
solved some portion of this fifth prob- 
lem or any of the others it has also 
spawned a sixth and perhaps most 
critical problem. 

An old Danish proverb sayw that 
prediction is difficult, particularly 
when it pertains to the future. Thus, 
when tho primitive ENIAG computer 
was built in 1946, the fact that tho 
thing worked seemed to be a sufTicitint 
end unto itself. The mathematicians 
and engineers at once saw a means of 
solving what had onco been impossibly 
long equations. But how many saw 
that ENTAG really was the rudi- 
mentary beginning of a potential 
revolution in the information sciences? 

The first automobiles were called 
"horseless carriages" and that is 
precisely what they looked like, (In- 
signed for tradition rather than fune- 



1m \VMM H 

rally In nytili'in,-i anidynin, I vvuiild 
tliinh IJr. I'liillmvc-ii'M nl.tit^in^nt bi-iirn 
with equal validity npuii (lie ('tiUiv 
prohlnm of iniiniiKenii'hl in formal ion 
.syiitiMim, WlmL In 1 WMJI iKldi'i'jminK )iiii'- 
y WHU tln< neccmiily fur 



In nty wu <>|iitii(iti, wm\n wliicli artt 
not in noitm wiiy nii'iuiunibli' tii'u not 
l.ruc RinLlH, jiincc llii'i'i' lit no wiiy for 
us In know whrllu'r \\-i- Imvit itrlually 
nllitiiM-d Ibi'tn or nut, or lio\v fur 
nhort \vn nrny huvt 1 fulli'ii, <ii' liow LCI 
eliiHi 1 tin- iip bt'Uvi'uMi what \vi' inrunt 
to uchiitvi 1 itnil wlmt wn ilid uccoin- 



l''t>r u Hinul' 1 tiiiiilnn'y, wr 
think of Hc-i'voini'i'luiuJmtin- 
for which itiiui Hi-tH a jf'>"-l and which 
thi'ji tend In I'e'Kulult' thi'inHclv^ti In 
achli'vhitf and holding tlttit %M\\ with 
a fair amount of wlabilHy. 't'uko, fov 
oxiunjkl.', H fuming IhunnoMlnL and AH 
nircrufl aulupilot. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



15 



fa >.hr or>> c:i-f, iii.'in sots the (hcr- 
!:'->!, i: i.>r :i dir^iiY,! (.'uijiprnturc and 
-ifl.-r shat Jii= Jir-i'.i?..' should remain 
v.itiilfi t-jJcraMi-- limits of that tern- 
jvrjiUiiv. hi thr- Intf/T case, the hu- 
mn j.itot ft.vls a desired .sot of direc- 
!;V.-,c into tlit' rtutoiiintic pilot, and the 
autoj.ilut wilJ ihi'ii maintain the air- 
craft s.-iiisfiu't.irily close to those 



Ho'-vt-vt-r, with thfl thermostat, you 
J-n'i .--ay to thi- gadget on the wall, 
'T! like to remain vrarm and eom- 
H.-r!:ilk', & take care of it." What 
jv--i da is set tho pointer to a specific 
'iegrrt; of temperature. 

Hy tho same token, you don't tell 
in* autopilot that you'd like to get 
lOlilwauluc in the least time at a 
=aie altitude. Instead you sot the dials 
for a specific compass heading, alti- 
tuJe am ! attitude, and the machine 
will fcep you a few degrees to either 
>i'le of these ligyres until either the 
Wros have Drifted too much or you 
"ank m a liew set of numerical in- 
structjons. 

In either case, the goals must be 
=>pwifled m definite quantitative tems 

n rv owayforthcniecha "'^ 

to know what you desire from it. The 
* ame IS true of organizational g oa ] s . 
Rut theie is one fundamental dif- 
nr.co. When the house g ets warmer 
oWer than the elected t.mpera- 
^ l ; controt mechanism opens or 
<*** the circuit that turns the fur- 
off or on. When the au 
m { tflat external forces are 
r th air craft off the ^^ 

h ' Jt tatea servomotors to move 
con r f and comct . 

ndnc >- "an, having once set the 
editions, is out of the l mn 
e have 



usually expressed in goals has little 
significance. So wo might say that 
goals express purpose in terms of 
what or how much we expect to 
achieve in a given period of time. 

Expressing goals quantitatively pro- 
vides a language for relating actual 
results to these projected goals. So 
we need information for at the very 
minimumthese three purposes: set- 
ting goals, scheduling events to 
achieve these goals, and measuring 
results against the goals. Then, if 
there is any divergence between 
achievements and goals, the managm- 
needs further information to detor- 
mine the reasons. He can then take 
corrective action, either to improve 
performance or, if necessary, to recant 
Jiis goals in a more' realistic mold. 

Thus an organization is designed 
for a specific purpose or set of pur- 
poses, and managed in such a way 
as to achieve those purposes. To know 
what the purposes are, to know 
whether they are attainable, to or- 
ganize for their attainment, to know 
whether they remain valid in the 
dynamism of changing situations, to 
know whether they are }*- mK 
acheyed, and above all to know wh ; 
why not, for these management 
objectives we must have information. 
Most of all, however, we need very 
"Ration on how much > 
kind of information our par- 
ticular pm-poses really demand. 
All of this means to mo that wo 



Classically, the functions of m-in 
agement encompass planning, orffan . 

..directing, coordinating^nd to - 
won ng A case can be made for tho 

S=3S=5 



of 



necessity. 



Any typo of . a ,. 

look ahoiwl to control j 
Consequently, it IK ess put 
ning- to idtiJttffy tlin in for 
will be roquiri'd fen- ronfn 
Thf! information itself, 
is to bo manaj|<'d f mm 
plamirul, clirorli'tJ und cwii 
Planning, in ( his CEIH 
identifying 1 tln> hi forum tic 
meats of each i-chrdin of mj 

responditiK t-n thrw! mvfte. 

tiie ]ift(!ossary ro.sojircfi, niii 
and ilovc'lujimcnl of 
ixjtmmt in formal ion sysEcn 
In tliu jirun of ili reeling 

1 is 't(l JHtt il|<> ,sy.s(o?n 

This moans as-si^mm^!! of in: 
rospoiiHibiliiii'M nt nil I< : \-C-]F 
the utmost impfti'liiiK-c, UK* tl 
of atiitud(?n aninnjf lap 
tin-on K'h wlnVFi it ciui #1 
rate picture of whitt in 

In conli-ol, fhmlly, I fit- pi 
jeetivo is a wy.sLrm fur incasu 

formation syHtcm Uwlf. Fn 
point, a with any i-imlm] DH< 
there IB a Cnrdhack pnlli rig 

In a- typical i-orporoli 1 orxnn 
Hie data tniHi? (iorvliitf tluM'jytiix 
mtc body temlH Um irtcn lo I 
partnKmtiilii'.eid, I'.'in'Jt fuii^liflnji 

iiger, in (illV-cl., ilrriu-H fiun h 

parochial hminl of inf4nujiit!< 
: thiMi fui-Lhnr fllUu'Kj faohiU-* RI 

mpulntoH thn tlata 

it to the corponito 

guise of useful inf< 

Thus wo can viHualfxi? tJit- c<\r\ 

runctioiial nmnatforH, 
him, in nffcct, in a dill 

What wo nocd, linwnvrr, is a 
common data base for ilic 
porato body. Knch of tli 
managers draws, as j-.HjuimT, 

this hank. Naturally, oncli wilt 

form certain oporatlonn en (In? 

I'nfoi-o passing it up. lloro it is a 

to think of a little 

which goes: 
Data -|~ Analysis 

Information -/- Judgment 
sion 

The flrat equation innans trial 
functional manager annlyaoa |>rti 
of tho common data base in the fi, 
of his own department** functit 
knowledge and goala. Hut he has I 



Mety 



got to be aware of the relationship 
of his information to that of all the 
other functional managers and of its 
impact upon corporate goals. 

This awareness this substitution 
of a corporate overview for a paro- 
chial purview is the province of the 
management information manager. It 
is one of bis functions to see that 
manager A, B, C, D and E, etc., all 
draw from the common data base, He, 
then, monitors all upward reporting to 
assure that the data which has been 
analyzed into information is related 
in a common language and with a 
common purpose to all other infor- 
mation from the other functional man- 
agers. 

A hypothetical example will show 
the system in action. We will con- 
centrate on managers A, D and E 
who are responsible for, respectively, 
Personnel Procurement and Training, 
Procurement, and Research and De- 
velopment. 

This organization, let us say, is 
procuring a major new weapon sys- 
tem. Manager D, in charge of pro- 
curement, reports that this process 
is on schedule, and he anticipates no 
major problems. Manager A, who has 
to procure and train the people to 
operate and maintain tho system, is 
likewise on target and sees no trouble 
nhcatl. 

Manager E, the research and de- 
velopment man, is developing a train- 
ing device which A will have to use 
to train his people in the system D 
is procuring. Manager E reports that 
his entire program is going well. 

And it is from his point .rf view. 
The training device is far behind 
schedule, but it only represents, say, 
.1 percent of Manager E's total pro- 
gram. So, not relating this small pro- 
portion of deviation to the profound 
impact it will have on the scheduled 
operation of the entire weapon sys- 
tem, he does not report trouble. He 
does not see the trouble, 

The information manager, however, 
in monitoring the entire program and 
tying all tho information together, 
would have seen the warning signs 
long enough in advance to forestall n. 
major problem. One of the most useful 
devices at his command in this area 
is "logic diagramming," of which tho 
well-known PERT network is one ex- 
ample. 

In my own headquarters, the Di- 
rector of Management Analysis func- 



tions as the management information 

manager. The Management Analysis 
staff also has these responsibilities: 
It is a servant to the rest of the staff 
and to the commander; it acts as an 
educator in management techniques; 
it is a helper and consultant in anal-- 
yses conducted within other staff agen- 
cies; and it is, above all, a catalyst 
for speeding up the continual process 
of analytical improvement. 

These functions and duties arc, of 
course, delegated. The responsibility 
itself cannot be delegated; in the last 
analysis, the burden resides with the 
top manager. In my own case, I am 
taking every means I can conceive of 
to do two basic things: to promote 
the growth of genuine analytical ca- 
pability at all levels of management 
through the command and to achieve 
a fundamental, command-wide under- 
standing of the tremendous necessity 
for that kind of capability. 

This is easily said, but by no means 
automatically done. Like aeronautics 
and airlift themselves, management 
is undergoing a revolution, which is 
being vastly accelerated by electron- 
ics. And every revolution has to over- 
come a tremendous amount of inertia 
before it becomes self -sustaining-. 

Max Planck, who himself helped to 
revolutionize physics, put it this way; 
"A new truth does not triumph by 
convincing: its opponents and making 
them see the light, but rather because 
its opponents eventually die, and a 
new generation grows up that is fa- 
miliar with it." 

So there is no doubt groat hope in 
the new generation of management 
that is growing up with electronic 
computers. But we cannot wait for 
them to take over, or we will have 
long since drowned in tho flood of 
information. I would like to conclude, 
then, by recalling what Norbert 
Wiener said when someone asserted 
that man could always pull the plug 
on the machine before the machine 
could control man, 

With a machine doing millions and 
billions of calculations a second, Dr. 
Wiener replied, the man will have 
been overwhelmed and bypassed long 
before he can over know it is time to 
cut off the power, 

Information, including management 
information, is growing by the micro- 
second and even the nanosecond. We 
cannot turn off the flow. We had, 
therefore, better learn to control it 
and we are already running late. 



Juno 11-15; American. Nuclear So- 
ciety Meeting, San Diego, Calif. 

June 12-14 ; American Institute of 
Aeronautics and Astronautics Com- 
merical Aircraft Design and Oper- 
ation Meeting, Loa Angeles, Calif. 

June 14-16: 16th Annual Federal Gov- 
ernment Accountants Assn. Sympo- 
sium and Exposition, Sheraton Park 
Hotel, Washington, D.C. 

June 19-21: Heat Transfer and Fluid 
Mechanics Institute, La Jolla, Calif. 

June 20-23: Data Processing Manage- 
ment Assn. Meeting, Boston, Mass. 

June 20-26: Society of Nuclear Medi- 
cine Meeting, Seattle, Wash. 

June 25-30 : American Society for 
Testing Materials Meeting, Boston, 
Mass. 

June 28-30: Joint Automatic Control 
Conference, Philadelphia, Pa, 

July 5-8; National Society of Profes- 
sional Engineers Meeting, Hartford, 
Conn. 

July 16-29: Engineer Seminar, Port 
IJelvoir, Va. 

July 16-29: Nuclear Science Seminar, 
Oak Riage, Tenn. 

July 17-19: Reliability and Maintain- 
ability Conference, Cocoa Reach, 
Fla. 

July 17-21: American Institute of 
Aeronautics and Astronautics Pro- 
pulsion Joint Specialist Conference, 
Washington, D.C. 

July 19-21 : National Classification 
Management Society Annual Semi- 
nar, Washington, D.C. 

July 23-Aug. 4 : Mobility Seminar, 
Detroit, Mich. 

July 27-30: Jnycee International Air 
Show, Gen. Mitchell Field, Mil- 
waukee, \Vis, 

Aug. 6-9: American Society of Me- 
chanical Engineers Heat Transfer 
Conference, Seattle, Wash. 

Aug. 13-17: Energy Conversion Engi- 
neering Conference, Miami Bench, 
Pla. 

Aug. 14-16: American Institute of 
Aeronautics and Astronautics Guid- 
ance Control and Flight Dynamics 
Conference, Huntsville, Ala, 

Aug. 28-30: Spacecraft Issues for 
Missions of the 70's Meeting, 
Olympic Hotel, Seattle, Wash. 

Aug. 29-31: Assn. for Computing Ma- 
chinery Meeting, Washington, D.C. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



17 




MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA 



JUNE 

Conjugate Point Symposium, June 
13-16, at Boulder, Colo. Sponsor: Ail- 
Force Cambridge Research Laborator- 
ies. Contact: K. J. Chernosky, 
(CRFG), Air Force Cambridge Re- 
search Laboratories, L. G. Hanscom 
Field, Mass. 01730, (Area Code 617) 
274-6100, Ext. 3713. 

Conference on High Energy 
Therapy Dosimetry, June 15-17, at 
New York, N.Y. Sponsor: Office of 
Naval Research. Contact: Eunice 
Thomas Miner, Executive Director, 
New York Academy of Sciences, 2 E. 
63rd St., New York, N.Y. 10021. 

Fundamental Physics of the Mag- 
netosphere, June 19-28, at Boston, 
Mass. Co-sponsors: Air Force Cam- 
bridge Research Laboratories and 
Boston College. Contact: Dr J F 
McClay. (CRFG), Air Force Cam- 
bridge Research Laboratories, L. G 
Hanscom Field, Mass. 01731, (Area 
Code 617), 274-6100, Ext. 3214, 

Value Engineering Symposium, 
June 20, at the Boettcher Auditorium, 
University of Denver, Denver, Colo 
Co-sponsors: Defense Contract Ad- 
ministration Services Office, Denver; 
and the Defense Contract Services 
Region, St. Louis. Contact; Maj H J 
Bukowski, DCASO Denver, 3800 York 



JULY 

1967 Annual Conference on Nuclear 
and Space Radiation Effect, July 10- 
14, at Ohio State University, Colum- 
bus, Ohio. Sponsors: Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 
NASA Office of Advanced Research 
and Technology, Office of Naval Re- 
search and the Department of the 
Army. Contact: Mr, E. E, Conrad, 
Harry Diamond Laboratories, Wash- 
ington, D.C, 20438, (Area Code 202) 
OXford 6-9126. 



1, Ext. 207. 

Computerized Imaging Techniques 
Seimnar June 26-27, at the Marriott 
Twm Bridges Motor Hotel, Washing- 
ton, D.C. Sponsor: Air Force Office of 
Aerospace Research. Contact: Jerome 
J. Mantel 1, Chairman, 18100 Frederick 
Pike, Gaithersburg, Md. 20760, (Area 
Code 301) 921-7896. 



2(Mn . 

Wt * Ge "**town University, 
Washington, D.C. Sponsors: Office of 
Naval Research, Georgetown Univer- 
s'ty and the National Bureau f 
Standards. Contact: Lt. Ronald Trout- 

? 27 \ ^n NaVal Resea >' ch ' ^de 
427 Room 4102, Main Navy Building, 
Washmgton, D.C. 20360, (Area Code 
202) OXford 6-2298 or 6-4301 



18 



1967 Summer Seminar on Mathe- 
matics of the Decision Sciences at 

Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif., 
July 10-Aug, 11. Sponsors: Air Force 
Office of Scientific Research, Atomic 
Energy Commission, Army Research 
Office, Small Business Administration, 
National Bureau of Standards, Office 
of Naval Research, National Insti- 
tutes of Health and the National 
Science Foundation. Contact: Maj 
John Jones Jr., (SRMA), Air Force 
Office of Scientific Research, 1400 Wil- 
son Blvd. Arlington, Va. 22209 
(Area Code 202) OXford 4-5261. ' 
Second International Symposium on 
Nucleonics in Aerospace, July 1244, 
at the Sheraton Columbus Hotel, Co- 
lumbus, Ohio. Sponsors: Air Force 
Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright- 
Patterson AFB, Ohio; Atomic Energy 
Commission, and the Instrument So- 
ciety of America. Contact: Dr. Paul 
Pohshuk, Air Force Flight Dynamics 
Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB 
Ohio 46483, ' 

Seminar on Stratosphere and Meso- 
sphere, July 24-Aug. 4, at Stanstead, 
Quebec, Canada. Co-sponsors; Air 
J'orce Cambridge Research Labora- 
tory and McGill University. Con- 
tact: H. S. Muench, (CRHB), Air 
Force Cambridge Research Labora- 
tories, L. G. Hanscom Field, Mass 
01730, (Area Code 617) 274-6100, Ext! 

Earth's Particles and Fields Sympo- 
sium, July 31- Aug. 11, at Fl 4mg, 
Germany. Sponsor: Air Force Cam- 
bridge Research Laboratories, Defense 
Atomic Support Agency, Office- of 



Naval Research and NATO. Contact: 
L. Katz, (CRFC), Air Force Cam- 
bridge Research Laboratories, L, (;. 
Hanscom Field, Mass. 01730. (Arcn 
Code G17) 274-G100, Ext. 3177. 

AUGUST 

12th Annual Technical Symposium, 
Aug. 7-11, at tho International Hotel, 
Los Angeles, Calif. Co-sponHorn; Air 
Force Systems Command nml tlio Of- 
fice of Aerospace Research. Contact: 
Dr. John II, Atkinson, Technical Pro- 
gram, S.P.I.E, Symposium, P.O. Hox 
288, Redondo Bench, Calif. 00277. 

SEPTEMBER 

International Symposium on Infor- 
mation Theory, Sept. 11-15, nt AtlioriH, 
Greece, Co-sponsors: Air Forco Ofilco 

of Scientific Research and the 
Institute of Electrical and Kletronic8 
Engineers. Contact: Lt, Col. ]*, It, 
Agins, (SRMA), Air Foreo Offlir nf 
Scientific Research, 1400 Wilson IUvil. r 
Arlington, Va. 22209, (Area Code 
202) OXford 4-R261. 

International Symposium on Ma- 
terialsKey to Effective UKO of tin- 
Sea, Sept. 12-14, at tho Statlcr-HIHon 
Hotel, New York, N.Y. Co-flponsorw: 
Naval Applied Science laboratory and 
the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, 
N.Y. Contact: D. H. Kallas, AdfjociaU) 
Technical Director, Naval Appltad 
Science Laboratory, Flushing and 
Washing-ton Avenuos, Brooklyn, N.Y. 
11251. 

Fourth International Conference on 
Atmospheric and Space Elect rielty, 
Sept. 29-Oct. 6, at Lucerne, Switzer- 
land, Sponsors: Air Force Cambridge 
Research Laboratories, Army, Navy, 
National Science Foundation ami Na- 
tional Aeronautics and Space Admin- 
istration. Contact: M. B. Gilbert, * 
(CRTE), Air Force Cambridge Re- 
search Laboratories, L. G. Hanscom 
Field, Mass, 01731, (Area Code 017) 
274-6100, Ext. 8638. 



May 1967 



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Maj. Gen. Earl C. Heduluiid, USAF, 

(nominated for promotion to the rank 
of lieutenant general) has been desig- 
nated by the Secretary of Defense to 
be Dir. of the Defense Supply Agency 
(DSA) effective July 1, 1967. He will 
succeed Vice Adm. Joseph M. Lyle, 
USN, who is retiring. Gen. Hedlund 
has been Dep. Dir. of DSA since Aug. 
1964. The new DSA Dep. Dir. has not 
yet been named. 

Brig. Gen. David I. Licbmnn, 

USAF, Military Assistant to Asst. 
Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) 
has been ordered to duty as Dep. Dir. 
for Plans, J-3, U.S. European Com- 
mand. 

Dr. Gardiner L. Tucker, Dir. of Re- 
search, Internationa! Business Ma- 
chines Corp., has been selected to 
become the Dep. Dir. of Defense Re- 
search and Engineering 1 (Electronics 
and Information Systems) effective 
July 1. He succeeds Thomas F. Rogers 
who has been appointed Dir., Office of 
Urban Technology, Department of 
Housing- and Urban Development. 

Mr. Thomas J. O'Brien has been 
designated as Dep. Dir. for Telecom- 
munications Policy, Office of the Asst. 
Secretary of Defense (Installations 
and Logistics). 

Cnpt. E. C. Oldfleld, USN, has been 
named Dep. Commander, Defense In- 
dustrial Supply Center, Philadelphia, 

Pa. 

Col. Harley L. Grimm, USAF, has 
been assigned aa Chief, AUTOVON 
Project Management Office, Defense 
Communications Agency. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE 
ARMY 

Lt. Gen. J. H. Polk has been named 
Commander-in-Chicf, U. S. Army, 
Europe, effective June 1, in the grade 
of general, replacing Gen. Andrew P. 
O'Meara, who will retire. 

Dr. William L, Evcritt, Dean of 
Engineering at the University of 
Illinois, has been appointed as a mem- 
ber of the Advisory Group at U.S. 
Army Weapons Command, Rock 
Island, 111. 

The following assignments have 
been announced by the Office of the 
Chief of Army Engineers: Brig, Gen. 
Harry G, Woodbury Jr., Dir. of Civil 
Works; Briff. Gen. Charles C. Noble, 
Dep. Dir. of Civil Works; Col. Kobert 
L. Bangert, District Engineer, Port- 




land, Ore.; Col. Walter C. Gelini, Dis- 
trict Engineer, Rock Island, 111.; Col, 
Richard E. McDonnell, District En- 
gineer, Seattle, Wash.; Col. Robert E. 
Snetzer, District Engineer, Mobile, 
Ala.; Col. James T. White Jr., District 
Engineer, Detroit, Mich.; Lt. Col. 
Wayne S. Nichols, District Engineer, 
Pittsburgh, Pa. 

Lt. Col. John W. Elliott has re- 
lieved Col. Karl II. Zornig us Com- 
manding Officer of the Army Aviation 
Test Activity, Edwards AFB, Calif. 
Col. Zornig was transferred to the 
Army Materiel Command in Washing- 
ton, D.C. 



DEPARTMENT OF 
NAVY 



THE 



KAdm. John I'. Sager has been 
named the Vice Commmuler, Naval 
Air Systems Command. He previously 
served as Asst. Commander for Ma- 
terial Acquisition of the Air Systems 
Command. 

KAdm. Roy S. Benson has relieved 
UAdm. Means Johnston Jr. as Com- 
mandant of the First Naval District 
headquartered at Boston, Mass. 

KAdm. Alexander S. Goodfellow Jr. 
has been reassigned as Dop. Chief of 
Naval Material (Development). 

UAdm. Thomas J. "VVallcer III has 
been assigned as Dep. Commander for 
Plans and Programs and Comptroller, 
Naval Air Systems Command, 

KAdm. Marshall E. Dornin has 
been named Commandant of the 
Eleventh Naval District headquar- 
tered at San Diego, Calif, 

HAdm. Emmctt P. Bonner has been 
assigned as Commander, Mines, At- 
lantic Fleet. 

The following captain assignments 
have been announced by the Chief of 
Naval Personnel: 

Capt. Edward G. Underbill, Com- 
manding Officer, North Eastern Div., 
Naval Facilities Engineering- Com- 
mand; Capt. Karl S. Vanmeter, Naval 
Air Systems Command Representa- 
tive, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio; 
Capt. Kenan C. Childers Jr., Asst. 
Commander for Material Acquisition, 



Naval Ah- Systems Command; Cant. 
Perry M. Boothc, Dep. Commander, 
South Western Div., Naval Facilities 
Engineering Command; Capt. Robert 
J. Ney, Dep. Commander, Navy Mis- 
sile Center, Point Mugn, Calif. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE 
AIR FORCE 

Maj. Gen. Charles H. Terhune Jr. 

has been designated Vice Commander, 
Air Force Systems Command. He re- 
places Lt. Gen. Waymond A. Davis 
who retired on April 30. 

Brig. Gen. Jack Bollerud has been 
assigned as Dep. Chief of Staff (Bio- 
astronautics and Medicine) at Air 
Force Systems Command headquar- 
ters. 

Brig. Gen. Joseph N. Donovan has 
been assigned as Commander, Tacti- 
cal Airlift Center, Pope AFB, N.C. 

Brig. Gen. Clifford J. Kronauer Jr., 
lias been appointed Commander, Air 
Force Western Test Range, Vanden- 
berg- AFB, Calif. 

Mr. Robert E. Johnson has been 
designated Dep. for Programs Anal- 
ysis in the Office of the Dep. 
Under Secretary of the Air Force 
(Manpower). 

Col. Rupert P. Collins is the new 
Dep. Commander, Military Aircraft 
Storage and Disposal Center, Davis- 
Monthan AFB, Arix. 

Col. Howard H. Wittrock has been 
reassigned as Dir., (Plans and Re- 
quirements), National Range Div., Air 
Force Systems Command. 



Systems Engineering Group 
Reassigned within AFSC 

The Air Force Systems Command 
reassigned the Systems Engineer- 
ing Group (SEG), located at Wright- 
Patterson AFB, Ohio, from the Re- 
search and Technology Division 
(RTD) to the Aeronautical Systems 
Division (ASD) effective April 23. No 
change in location is involved. 

Mission responsibility of ASD and 
SEG will not change, since the pri- 
mary mission of SEG has been, and 
is, to provide engineering: and techni- 
cal support to ASD. This internal re- 
alignment, therefore, brings the orga- 
nizational structure more in line with 
the operational functions of the two 
organisations. 

SEG will continue to be commanded 
by Brigadier General Gustav E. Lund- 
quist. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



19 



LOU Avionics Package 

(Continued from page 3) 

TPPC is feasible and that the concept 
should be applied to appropriate item 
and .system procurements, Several 
benefits 1 from TPPC are already ap- 
parent in LOHAP. These include: 

Development and acquisition of 
the item in an intensely competitive 
environment that produced price as 
well as technical advantages. In addi- 
tion to competing reliability, quality, 
maintainability, etc., a dramatic re- 
duction in size and weight is antici- 
pated. In this latter area alone, the 
contractor is confident of bettering 
the target weight of 48 pounds. Com- 
pared to about 105 pounds for the 
current avionics complement that 
LOHAP replaces, this is a technical 
achievement of considerable magni- 
tude. This reduction, with its con- 
comitant decrease in size, will, in 
turn, have a most beneficial impact 
on cockpit instrumentation, cost per 
flight hour, increased operating range, 
etc, 

Increased emphasis on design dis- 
cipline and configuration management 
to preclude the dissipation of other 
benefits by excessive engineering 
changes. 

Careful, continuing evaluation by 
the contractor to select the most effi- 
cient means of obtaining supplies ant! 
services. 

Maximum motivation to the con- 
tractor to design for the economical 
production of equipment that will fill 
the intended need. 

From the standpoint of lessons 
learned, it also is apparent that 
greater definition of the logistics and 
support effort would have enhanced 
the total package application to 
LOHAP. These lessons are now being 
applied to two current ECOM pro- 
curements for an airborne radio set, 
AN/ARC-98, and a tactical fire 
direction system, TACFIRE. These 
procurements reflect the LOHAP ex- 
perience plus the escalation and 
change-inhibiting features of the C~ 
5A procurement. 

As previously noted, extended study 
of TPPC applications will be required 
to establish the efficacy of the concept. 
.F.pr this purpose, the Department of 
the Army has directed periodic review 
and report on the LOHAP and AN/ 
ARC-98 procurements. 

20 



The Army is evaluating a new series 
of amphibious lighters designated 
LARC V, LARC XV and LARC LX 
which will be capable of loading or 
discharging vessels lying offshore, re- 
ceiving or delivering cargo at shipside, 
and transporting cargo over the beach 
to or from inland supply areas. 

LARC LX, reputedly the largest 
amphibian of its type in the world, 
is constructed of welded steel and 
powered by four diesel engines. The 
huge lighter accommodates a crew of 
four. Designed to handle a 60-ton 
payload, it can transport approxi- 
mately 100 tons in an emergency, 

With a IB-ton payload aboard, the 
LARC XV, constructed of welded 
aluminum and powered by two diesel 
engines, can travel 25 miles an hour 
on a smooth hard surface. The four- 
wheel, all-wheel drive vehicle makes 
about 10 miles an hour in the water 
with the same load. 

Evaluation of the new amphibious 
lighters is being performed at Fort 
Story, Va,, under an accelerated test 
program established by the U.S. Army 
Test and Evaluation Command, Aber- 
deen Proving Ground, Md. 



The Air Force has been authorized 

to proceed with construction of 841 
family housing units at seven U.S. 
bases. Funds released for this purpose 
total $14,233,453. 

The 841 units are part of a total 
of 8,250 family housing units author- 
ised in the Military Construction Act 
for FY 1966. Awarding of contracts 
was temporarily deferred in December 
1965. 

Major Air Force coiiimaTulfi in- 
volved in the construction began ad- 
vertising for bids following receipt of 
authority March 7. 



Construction will bo 
the following Air Force 

Cannon AFB, N.M 

Eglin AFB, Fla. 

Ent AFB, Colo 

Keesler AFB, Miss. ___ 

Longlcy AFB, Va. _ _ 

Nellis AFB, Nev 

Scott AFB, 111 



performed Jit 
installations: 
lliO units 
-. SOD units 
- -10 units 
_ -100 units 
_ 100 units 
1 unit 
_ 150 mills 




assembly 



t, Equipment Test Activity examine 

the LARC LX, the world's largest amphibious vehicle. 

May 1967 




Sheldon W. Taylor 

Dir. for Financial Analysis and Control 
Office, Asst. Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) 



Appearing in the Defense Industry 
Bulletin for the first time is a reprint 
(beginning on page 22) of the Report 
on Status of Funds by Functional 
Title published by the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller). This report shows the 
monthly progress in obligation of 
DOD programs and in resultant ex- 
penditures. The report covors all mili- 
tary function programs, as well as the 
Military Assistance Program for 
which DOD is executive agent. 

The report is presented basically in 
two sections the first section deals 
with expenditures (payments) and un- 
paid obligations (requiring future 
payment), and the second section with 
obligational availability, obligations 
incurred, and unobligated balances, 
Each section includes DOD- wide sum- 
maries for both military functions 
and a breakout for each of the Mili- 
tary Departments, the Offlce of the 
Secretary of Defense/Defense Agen- 
cies, and the Offlce of Civil Defense. 
The source data for the report 
originate in the Military Depart- 
ments, the Defense Agencies, and the 
above-mentioned offices. However, the 
data maintained by these components 
are not uniform or comparable in 
every respect. It was this lack of com- 
parability which prompted initiation 
of the Status of Funds Report shortly 
after creation of the Defense Depart- 
ment. Officials of DOD had need 
of comparable figures in order to be 



able to make meaningful comparisons 
and to obtain DOD-wide summaries 
of expenditure and obligation data. 
The Status of Funds Report was 
created to meet this need. Since that 
time the accounting structures of the 
various DOD components have become 
more uniform, and it is only in a few 
areas that the components are re- 
quired to convert data to the specified 
uniform classification. 

It should be noted that in the sec- 
tion covering- obligation transactions, 
amounts are inclusive of reimburse- 
able work performed by the respective 
DOD components for each other and 
for non-DOD agencies. To the extent 
that the reimbur suable orders origi- 
nate in DOD, an unavoidable dupli- 
cation occurs in the amounts of 
obllgational availability and in the 
obligations incurred. An examination 
is now under way to determine the 
feasibility of also converting: these 
obligation figures to a not basis. 

While initially intended to be used 
primarily for inlra-govermnental pur- 
poses, the report has been distributed 
upon request to defense contractors, 
banks, other businesses, and private 
economic forecasters on an over 
widening basis. Contractors are par- 
ticularly interested in the data on 
obligational availability and obliga- 
tions incurred, since these give a good 
indication of recent and anticipated 
contract award activity. Economists, 
interested in the impact of defense 



purchases on the economy, examine 
both obligation and expenditure data 
since the timing of contractor acqui- 
sition of additional labor and material 
resources typically falls somewhere 
between the signing of a contract and 
the incurrence of expenditures by the 
Government. 

_ Requests for this sort of informa- 
tion have increased to the point that 
it is difficult to handle queries on an 
individual basis. In addition, the eco- 
nomic impact of increased defense 
spending incident to the Vietnam con- 
flict has further heightened interest. 
The combination of these factors have 
resulted in a decision to further in- 
crease distribution of the report by 
incorporating it periodically in the 
Defcme Industry Bulletin. 

The current issue presents data for 
the first and second quarters of FY 
1067. Future issues of the Bulletin 
\vill present data for subsequent 
quarters of the fiscal year at quar- 
terly intervals. 

All questions concerning the Report 
on Status of Funds by Functional 
Title should be directed to: 

Directorate for Financial 

Analysis and Control 
Office of Assistant Secretary of 

Defense (Comptroller) 
Room 3C 839 
The Pentagon 
Washington, D.C. 20301 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



21 



00 CO COO 
COM CO 
OrH 



OH- CM 

coe-jD 
cfco'co 

CO 10 



CO .H 10 L~ L- (O (0 



CO M t- rH rH CO tO CO 



o co co *tf r-t in co co 

IO O_CO M 1 H^OTIO CO 
COHrH ' 



OCTiTHCOOiret-eO'N 
rHrHClCOCNCOC-lOrH 
COCNOOiHOOL-THL-O 



(M W rH rH of (N tD T) L- 
(MCOL-OOCftCOCOt- 



t-CCOOCOCMW^COCO 
OOt-T-HTflGlt-tDlOCO 



cDco<jjC)OcociOio-it< 



01 N t- 
t-H** 



CO 



CM CO t- 00 

CM (O t- O 
t-CMOO <M 





o. 



fieri 



o 
o 



TT & 



D 

(1) 



02 






D .c 

u e-< 



Ow w t-i v 
tft 

'r*^ u iT" .S * 



LU 



"3 
>\ c 



* 

<D 

Q 



c 

0) 
| 

k 

D 
Q. 
0) 
Q 



Q.U3 
4JO) 

w-- 



t~ CO Ol O rH t- t- CO 



O C-IOCOCOt-COrHL-- 

rH (O in n< CO rH CO rH 00 

i-^ oo oj to in in t- IN 

00 CO" H" 



O) * t- t- to IO iM CO 
L- L- (M 5D 00 L- TJI 1(3 

in o oo IN co ci co o 



M CO 1O N ^ O !N T-J 
<D (N rH CO H r-( 



CO rt 1 



t-co"o"o' 

L- 
O 



IO O) t- O) <C O CO CO 
(31IM Ci O) (C t- 00 (31 



T-I IO IM t- 00 O CO CO 



OCOCOiHCOtOOtM 
IO lO iH IO iH rH CO (M 



01 CO 1>OOOOO rHtDO* 
CO (DrHlOINOOOOCDCD 




m to c> o o in Tf to 
mtooiootMoicoco 

'^lOlO_OOlt3cOL-_m 
O 00 "* Oft* rH ^l> 
COt-rH COOlO'Jf 
tDHr-( (M rH 



2SJE; THcx '' & ''eoV 
jHuaiM T-KO 

COrHrH (NrH 



O) (N O) CO *tf rH 'S 1 CO 
L-O<MrH<NCOlOCOC 
HC-lrH 



^ rH O> Oi CO IO O <* C- 
L- O M CO Oi (M O> IO 
O> O t-^M tO O L-rH 



COCOO1O1OCT>COCT)CO 



Ol d Ol O W CO CO CO C 



to t- rH O1 00 CD to CO"*!' 



2 21 S 2? t-Too"'* TH"TO 
M^ en oirt to co coo 

iH rHH 



iH rH IQin M 1 rH CO CO *d' 

OOtNOrHOTtOt-T 





SI r* ^ 'S of o io"co"cc 

tOt-rHOOfMMCOCOL- 




S K 



i!ll" 
^111 

^ o m m C 
^<IPHiD 
a 

i 



tOOlOi 

mo to 
ocoin 



coireco 

t- t- * 

OOCM 



oooc- 1 i 



CO O CO 



<M CO rH "d< 



t- t- I C 

OOCOrH 



COCOrH | I 
CO MOO L 



^ 

coo?co 

Cl -^ 



THr-l I 



000 CO 
C0^< 



Ot-t- ] 
0(M(M 
ICO 



"* 



ing- 



e 
i 



a 

d 



ili 

i'^Q | > 
F^GoM 



to 
oo 

^ 



? 



l~ 

tc 

00 



00 00 

oo 



j; 

o 

3 
t? 



L- 

^ 



^ 

K 

-I 
^ 



^ 



P 
O 



<! 



E 



8 
^1 

n * 

S^ 

^ 

n o 



Am 



o .. 
^W 

*OH 

J5b 



O 



May 1967 



D 
* 


en 


OS CO rH 

CT ^ & 


in 


^ M 01 co cr> coooo 

rH MCOOOt- OS CO IO 
"ST, 00^ t^ CM n 04 CJ rH CO 


CM 

rH 

t- 


OCMCOCTsO COTH eo 

[gMtOCOM rfCO 10 


00 
CM 


CM rH 
t- 


t- 

<M 


*- 

n 
t 


weo 

<1 

aj 


CM" L-" co" 

CO 00 00 

in 


co" 
o 


to CM co -tf of 00" L-" to" 

r-j^ rH TH in * to CD tD 
rH r-T co" ' 


o" 
in 

W 

co" 


oo" t-T co in <N" m" o>" oo" 

*TO>OOrHCO OCO t> 
rH 10, r-f CM CM 


of 

crs 


C-f t-^ 

CO T* 
CO rH 


TH 

co" 
in 
t- 


C 


n 
















oi" 


H 

P 

^ 


|| 


CM CO 


00 

in 


(M CO C in t- "*OOrH 
r^ SU?S ^g?g 


CO 
CD 
CM 


OJ 10 t T-H CM 00 O M 
oo CM CO ^r CM CO rH co 
moicotr-o tfco co 


0= 
(M 


in c- 

OS t- 


1 




3-s 


O "* 
CM rH 
OS TH 


CO 


rH t-t-cgT-j cotot- 
00 COCOCOCM COCOCO 
CO rHin'*'* t-CDM 
rH CO" 1 


in 
us 
m 
co" 


O C-f TH" O OS C-" rH iX" 
CMoiCOCMCO OSCO -5JI 
rH -^ rH TH ,-, 


CO 
rH 

OS 


co" o 

TH * 

in 


co" 

CO 




















oT 




gg 


rH rH rH 


r- 


as cocot-in ^fi^fcs 


Q 












5? 


00 t- C- 


u- 


tO COCOCOM 1 (MCOCO 

to cot-oco co-^co 


cc 


WlOt-OO O50O Jr- 
"*CMrHO>t- COM in 
COOJCOrHL-- CJO i-H 


L- 


CM t- 
rH D- 


CM 
(M 




S& 


XJ* CO W 
-y rH CO 
O CO 1 


t- 

e> 


co -sjT us CM" t- in" CM" t- 
O> cocMoom coincn 

rH, -rf rH t- rH (M CV 


1C 

c 


in t-T rH CM [ O) CO r-T CM 
i> if> Tfi rH L- rH rt< iv 
CO TH T-- 


CO 


rH CC 
tO CD 
(M CO 


00 

to" 

CO 




O 


CO 





CO 


Cv 




CO 


tH W 
| 


"1 




















os 




n" 


eo co co 
co os u; 


CO 

oc 


OS CO^rHrH Ot-CO 

in_ o o> rH co in o o: 


cc 


tO CTJ C-I tO t- (M Cs 
OS 00 L- to rH 10 ** O 
00_OOlOtOCO rH-^ OS 


in 

CM 


CO O 

(M Ol 

OS TH 


CO 

ira 






CM CO CT 

rH Tf to 

=0 T 


o; 
in 


<3* rHrHO 1 ^! 1 Ir-COC: 
rH OSCMiMCO CM-^fCM 
M* rH 


CO 
CD 
CO 


CO rH CM iH CO 00 L~ Ol" 
r-i rH CO rH rH iH 
1 


CO 


t- i-T 

CO 00 
iH 


i 




















T-H 




II 


o to os 

O *tf CO 
OJ K rH i-; 


in 

00 

r-; 


US t-OSOCO ^OJXH 
^ rHCMtOO lOt--^H 

t~ in o in^ tfs co n in 10 


00 

o> 

O) 


in^rHCOt USOl t- 
O ^r CO ^J" Oi "^ CO to 
mcocvioot~ to^t co 


to 


CO CO 

in os 


tr- 

TH 


* 


f-\ r ~ l 


CM CO r-i 


OC 


3 oo o oo TJI oo" CM" J.-^ 

O t- CO tH CO to <* 1 
in rH 


CO 
CO 


TH 01 o TH to **" in ir- 

rH in rH CM 


t-" 

CM 
rH 


CO iH 
rH 


oT 

CM 


u 


















TH" 


J! 1 


,-*, CT5 


rH (M rH 
OS CO CO 
CO CO >* 


OS 


iH CM CM CD ^J* CO O to 
O t-t-CD 1 ^ OC-ltO 
CDOS_inO eOrHIO 


CfS 
CO 

J, 


t- 00 ^J< SO ^K rHO O> 

ot-sjiinto co^ m 

l> ^ OS ^ CO O CO to 


O 
rH 


t- OS 

TH CO 

co_ in 


Oi 
CO 


t*. 1 




S T 


T"H 

rH 
CD 


in rH 


o 


CO CO CO rH CM t- 00 CO 
H to rH H T 


co" 

CM 


to o 

CO OS 


rH 
CO 


* 1 














rH 


1 


CO 

rH 


4. PH 

C 

<u 



o 

G.CO 


O OS CfS 

^ co oo 


O 
CM 

"t. 


CM in rH in t- r-H t- i* 
O t-t-OSCO ^fOOCXl 
CM L-rHCOOS COtOrH 


DO 
CM 


CMtO^ClrH OrH OO 
OSCOOt-rH O1-* t- 

o o> in ic o to co ^f 


00 

in 


t- CO 
00 CD 
^ t- 


3 


te 

t 


tor- 


CO tH CTJ 

to in co 


U? 

in 


CO if CO" Ol" to" 01 OO" IQ" 
CO CO rH CM (M CO * 


co" 

CO 
CO 


co g os i-f CM rn" -^" oo" 

rH rH ^ rH CM CO 


H" 
in 


e> t-" 

TH 


O 

















rH 


1 


t- 


o. 
















1 


r-T 


at 




















O 


si 


se t" *-* 

CD CM rH 
O^ CO CO 


CM 

rH 


t- rH in o> L co in c- 

^P CM CO ^Jl CO Ol CM (O 
t^ O tO_ rH CO CO C-l, rH 


o 
en 

CO 


** O CO L -cjl rHO <* 

co (M co oo in in to o> 
L- K oo t- o> os t- eo oj_ 


00 
CD 


CO l> 
CM 


IS 






CO CD CO 
** 1 


co 

rH 

in 


O O in rH CO" O> r-T oo" 
31 t- rH rH Ol -^ CO 
M 1 rH 


CM" 

CO 


co oo in c-i 05 to o to 


r-i 


t-" oo" 

CO 


CO 

TH" 




jjco 


CO OS O) 

rH xf CM 


to 
o> 


in t- M CM CO O to rH 
rH t- 00 rH US IO 00 ^Jl 


r-t 
O 
00 


co co L n co us to to 

O (M CM t- CM to O OO 

^ t- in to co rH in o 


iM 


t- in 

CO, CD 


CO 
OS 




8s 


CO O O) 

oo to t- 


CO 

% 


Ol" CO" xf tH" rH W -^jT of 
O CO rH rH L- (MO 


CM" 

Ol 


o>t--!t!CMo ^in" co 

(N rH rH CO 


3 


CM" in 

CO 


o~ 

CO 
















H 




TH_ 










W 






i 














H 






e 












1 


O 
' 






a 


-S 


& 








1 


.8 




1 


1 


1 


1 








JH 


rtJ ^9 





"~ 






JK 








fc 


o ,2 ns 2 


1 




l "S 





E" k. 










R ,y fl g Q 


W 

d 


f~{ K! bo 


-rH 


y 


& M 






ry Personnel 
ctive forces 
eserve forces 
ndistributed 


& 



1 

EH 


Id if 'i. ^ S 


Total Procurer 


** 2 

S u -3 p, S 

*S us w '43 n a '3 P S* "P 

fi| || J ||| ^||| 


^ S 

i w 

OJ "T3 

o p! 
K 

4J" 
r-. W 

ri ^ 

^EH 

H 


y Construction 
ing and Managem 


TOTAI^-DEPA 
OF THE ARM 






JS <! P3P 




gS-^^tnO MOP 




3n3Jij3ji|-$o o P 




3 i* 








A 

i 




|g 




s s 




4$ O 
r > 

"-< m 












O CH 




K 









Defense Industry Bulletin 



23 





g w ^ 


in o eo t 1 - oo rH d to in in 


H cocn<ooioio moo c 


t- 


t- t 


t^ 




; S -^ to 00 


O CD Ol Ol O C> CO m CM Ol 


t- COCOOOtOCMM 1 O]<D C 


u to 


I 


- !<. 




: "3 . cs us 


o Tf rH^i'-'a'to rHino 


O3 rHlOOOOCOin OtO C 


"I "^ 




3 01 




3 " ffi OJ CO 

- Ji 9 rt ' 


C rH CJL-CQOTKS O 00 eM 
01 CM CD <O Ol rH CJ *tf I- CM 


to" t- -sJH rH CM of O CO t- i 
** rH'd'cnrHOrH tOCO 


f(>f 
CO 


o" i 

ID Id- 


s" e? 






cooi o^TH ^ int- 


rH rH rH CO CM rH 


t-L 


IC 


i TJI 


_ 


* i 


TH* ffi co" TH" 


of 


rH 




Ol 


2 

f. 


5 










J 


\ 


: *j u _ M 


t- o coiftrHinco t-t~ 


rH OO^tOCIO rH^ 


D 


rH IT 


r>l 




i 3 "~> a co 


co to cococ--3<oi com 

rH O COOmT^CM CMCO 


G mOl<Dt-O>U3 vHO> 
t- TfOCOOOt-rH IOm 


to 


C*-* **" 

tr- " 




f- 


3 '-f- -" -H" o" 


of o" oo" o" L-" to" co* of to" 


o" i> of oT 10" -^ t- i-T oo 


xf 


C"3 t. 


* ' 




** Vi T 01 


eo CO rH to eo rH rH CO CM 


Cl CO I'-* ^ rH O Cft tO OO 


rH 


Ol r~ 


,^. 




r; S " 


H Ol_ 00 in CO rf 1O L- 


O rH rH Ol <N 


O 


03 tC 


(A 






rH of Of rH 


CO 


r-T 




(^1 


















g T? 

sin r- in ce 


CO rH t-intOH'J 1 COOin 
iH CJ COCOCOrHO rHinO 
31 Ol int-OTOCO rHt-O 


co cococorHioira cxiira oa 

H L in *^ t> CO CO ^S?, c 


O 

t 


OO t^ 

cr> o 


IO 




. to" us co" 
Si; g t- 


in tf 113" in co" TH" t-" <#" co" M" 

CO CO t-CM-V rH COM'CM 
*r W CMCMtO Tf iHN 


co" r-T en in" CM" cxT ira t~ oT - 

tH rHOCOHtDOO CQtJ" 
* rH rH CO H 


t-" 
O 
CT1 


to" ; 
c-l ol 

to <-- 


03* 







CM OI rH 


CO 






Cft 




to o t- 

ug co m o 

O 1 " ^; V - h 


O (0 tO Ql IT *O t- COrHO 
M OltOOlOL- int~O 
W_ Ol_ O_ rH^ OO i-H eo CO to O 


L* CM CO U5 to CO t- CO CO -^ 
OJ OOt-IOtO-^fCO OtD CO 
00 rHrHCOWlOL- OCA n 


m 
o 

CO 


O ) 

*}< r- 

oq o. 


f J 

o 




*- 1 01 O rH 
rH 


TT rH to " *f o" CO" in" H" 

HCO irsinin 01 co-^f 

T "* CM TH r-l 


f^ US' LO rH Ol" tf of C^" CO CM 
> TH to CN H rH 


2 


OO C-3 
CO IO 


C) 




.,. rH CO in 

XH *~ Cl lH C 1 ^ 


31 rH OOCOOJCOrH COOOC- 
3 l> rH O_ L-^ CO rH IO M 1 CO 


;TJ CO-^OrHtOCO rHCM OO 
S ^SSlft 01 ^ 1 W Ifi 


CO 

o 

in 


t- 1- 

L~^ OO 


l- 




to iH 


^-o Sj^m (S RiS^ 1 


OCOinrHCOrH ^"CO CN 


T-f 








CO 


^ Ol 


g rH tH (O CM rH 


rH 


IO '3' 


rH 





00 t- CO 












a 

Bl 

T3 


to Ol CM CO 
v CO t- rH 
O ~' W" iH tjT 


* 2 r S v *^ ^ CM 


vi COt-CMinrHCM COM CO 

1 O)t-vHinmoo o>co t>1 


rH 
CO 


Ol Ol 
CM H 
00 4,- 


IO 
'I* 


c 

4i 


3"" 


^IW oSS S coc3^ 
^ CO fN tj ^ rt , 


rHCMlS^WrH W S ^ 


t-T 
CO 


t-" 

00 y 


S 


p. 






* 1 


rH 






w 












H 




01 <O C3 t 


^ 












w tO 00 OJ to 1 


"*" l>* T I^ Ss i5 \ ^ ^ ^ ^ 


rt - .. 










a CQ o t 


\] rt-, 2] J^ S* ^ ;*5 ^ 0> ^ 1 


Srt iS 


[O 


^ci* o 


'"j 1 * 


















f /} r~* 1 O TH CO i 


i co *o o T^ rt-T rtT *rT , r K 




to 


C^ CO 


w 




1 5 "^ ' 

1 ^J 1 ^ 


i u5 Sx?i^i GJ^DO t 
3<CO (MS W WCOHC 


s s a s w a si =- s TO " 


s" 


CO <0 

O CO 
rH 


s 




t- in o 5 


*1 CO *-J ^J er*, , A 












lite H oi co < 

* SS in *?" t^ 1 e> 


3 S 5SS3SK t- o> 01 t 

j m SfS^"2 Cftnco ^ 
r S- - - w - "^ co co co T- 
J in rn co L- eo r,i M 10 i/ 


Kortco 6 ^ ^ "* 
t . n o ^ o ^ 3; 


>3 


SID 
O 

ira 10 


S 




? *"* ' ? 


JCO OCOCM in SiiS 1 "^ 

"in oitH w * o 




r-T 




o* 






^ 




o 


CO IO 


3 




m co o K 


t- toooin^m ^., 












co in co r- 


H St~b-rHO t* W W If 


C^ !"-[ (^l ^-^ ' 










<g Sw'S ^ 




t^CftCftC?^ ^^ " 


to 


ID C-l 

eo l- 


w 




?s -- | 


N S^ * '* ^ | 




cn 
o" 

CO 


L- 

10 <> 
CD 1.- 


o 










VH 


rH i 


rH 






10 




$ 








1 4 


a 




flj 








i 




1 


^ 


1 


1 


K 




1 c. 


Hi S TI '3 -*j 


,, s 


l> 


p 


W 




PH 


U "CM F 


W - M 


S H 


r*H 


i" 




tary Personnel 
Active forces 
Reserve forces 
Undistributed 

Total Military 


1 lilh I 

C3 fl '2 ^ *O S 5 

a g fc ai w y -g 


S c? bo 

1 111 I 

IJJ J IjlllJ 


TotalResearch, D 
Test, & Evaluatio 


Construction 

t and Management 


TOTAI^- DEPART: 
OF THE NAX*Y 




II 


||^ WH W0& 


ll^^S^So^cljg" 1 ^ 




II 










(S 




J3 t> 

*3 flj 


1 



May 1967 





to 


















a 


g 


CO CO C 


cc 


* O ^ US CM -rH 












i 


''" 


* 10 IT 
iH CM Ci" 


(M 
C- 


O) t- rH O) CO ^ S 
K iH in -^ OJ L- Ol t- 


T 

tc 


tH CO O] LO <> eo & 
iH Oi ff L O O -q 



00 


00 ev 


5 CO 





IT 


to" n" 


l> 


vw <-^T ftT i^T -tr " 






CO 


O3 ^ 






bi 

is 


4> 




cc 
c-1 


o S?c^ ^ gfo 1 rt 

CM, Ol Ol 00 rf TH 

tH TlT ? 


if: 

0] 

tc 


(M Ol Ol Ol t> L--" !/ 

CM CM Ol t- to CO 


co" 

00^ 


S " 

CO 


co" 

O 

CO 


c 














tH 




TH 

rH 


'S 
c 

K 
P 


^s 


CO IO 
Ol CO 

t~ M 1 


rH 

to 

C< 
O 


^tj CM in o 10 10 

tH CO Ol to IO CM 
CO rH^ 00_ O_ O t- 


t- 

T-( 

o: 


** co t- 01 in M 

CO CO rH CM rH US 
CO CO O Ol CM t- 


o 

CO 


H .tfi 
CO 00 
Oj t 


O) 
00 




^s 


TH 


* 
rH 


lp C*l IO Ol CfS CO 

o in co co TH ifs 

CO IO_ Ol C^ US tH 


01 

tr- 


iH C-- tO CM T-T "^H 
CO OO 00 to CM CO 
TH <M CO 15 CM 


co" 

<M 




O 










CO rH 


to' 




TH" 




in 




II 


C- \J( o 
^ T-H CC 
CO 00 CO 

oo us" 


TH 

CO 


g ^ib ng 

^1 Ol CO M 1 O CO t> 

Cf\ t~~ *4? ~T ^*>T JT " 


CO 

eo 


t?SSSg SI 

CM CO CO >* 00 tH t- 


TH 

"* 

CO 


s 


o 

CO 




Q 


(M t- 

to 


O 
t- K 


Ei !x S rrf Ol CO rH 
CO IO O "^ O O 
CO rH CO CO Ol (M 


co" 

H 

us 


co oT 01 co" cT o" 10* 

L- t- 10 CO in CO 


CM" 

CO 


co" oo" 

rH 00 


co" 

CO 




OM 


IM 


(M 


01 CM" 


co" 


*~* 


to 


CM 7 


to_ 
















tH 




o" 




















TH 




J to 


00 CO Ol 
CO US OO 
CO Ol ^ 

to 01 01 


L- 

O 

CO 

K^ 


00 C~ rH t~ ^Jl TH Ol 
O CM tO -* rH Ol in 

oo^ in 01^ o TH co t 


01 
CM K 


CO C3 H rH CM i-H o 

TH ua o to in TH oo 

01 CO T-I CO CO 


CO 
rH 
O) 


N CO 
rH IO 


o 
t- 

Ol 






in rH 


^ 
^ 


J^j O t~ O rH i-H to 


00 

in 


co in to" c-T en I-H" m" 

H CO 00 rH CM CM C-I 


-#" 
<M 


-* in 


oo" 

CM 
















CO 




00 

TH 


V 
U 


^eo 

cn 


CO Ol CO 

L- eo o 

*# rH CM^ 


Ol 

o 


Ol t- t- t- (M Ol H 
S 3 3 2 m o co 

t- CM rH O) Tjl t- CO 


its 

TH 


m co oo 10 ^ eo t- 

Ol Ol tO Ol rH OO OO 

co in in CT> 10 10 rj* 


CO 
to 


CO CO 
CS] {j 


O 


o 


TH 


CO 


CO 


to in TH co oi oi f\i 

CO CO TH to CO H 
^l 1 Ol rH 


L-" 

to 


rH Ol CO i-H Tfl Ol *tl 
rH IO C~ *tfl OJ iH TH 


10" 

rf 


co" to" 

IO 


TH 

of 

CD 


u 














CM 




to 




















H" 


& 




















< 1 

fll .t! 


jj tD 

u to 

O W CTj 


Ol Ol OO 
t- rH CO 


o 

CO 

i 


CO CO l> TH O t- O 


to 
* 


in 10 to ** co t- to 

<D O O CO CO tO N 
-# rH tO t- Ol CM 


00 
00 
rH 


CO TH 

H; C~ 
*o. rt\ 


O 


13 

c 1 

4- g 

a 


T-H 


01 in 1 

CO rH 


CO" 
IO 

y 


y 01 


t-" 

eo 


O- T-H T) 1 CM (M O in 
T-H to 00 t- CM (N 


C- 

01 


MJ Ui 

H" co" 
t- 


CO 

oo" 

<M 


* M 


















TH 


H 




















C 

O 


li 


00 rH CM 
rH O -^ 

CO Ol CM 


rH 

to 

T, 

in 


w w to t~ t- oj 10 

tO CO rH M< O O <* 
O 1O_ CO 00^ US 00 -^1 
US O) O O O t- 1 L~r 

co o CM m co 01 

IO -* TH 


CO 

c- 

U3 
CO 

to 


co to ^i co co m o 

OO CM Ol tfl Ol ^f IO 
01, CO OJ_ rH r-^ Ol CM 
O (M rH CO * U3 to" 
t-H tD Ol Ol CO C-l rH 


T 
CO 

o 


M CO 

eo" CM" 


CO 
t- 



rH" 

eo 


t 














CO 




Ol 
iH 























a 




















0) 


n 


in "tfi co 

"# rH ID 
i ^ 

in co 


CM 

rH 
CO 


iH in CO CO CO CM! tO 
O rH IO rH IM IO t- 
in_ rH rH 00 L 1 - ^ IO 


CO 

oq^ 


CM O US M IO i-l 00 

^T OO CM O> rH ^K TH 


CO 

to 

rH 


CO rH 

(^i t- 

*p oo 


IO 

iH 

rH 




<!TH 




O^ 

to 
** 


OO Ol OO 00 OO t~" r)T 
L- CO Ol CO CO 
CO CO J 


IM 
lOi 


-sf" CO L- in" CO" O Ol" 
rH IfS tD 00 CM IM rH 


t- 


t-^ of 

rH (M 


of 




















co^ 

rH 






*f co its 

Ol 00 tp 

c>l l~-_ 1 


Ol 

rH 
O 


o o o oj eo -tji co 

L" 1 rH O CO to ^i 1 Ol 
CO O TH {M *}< IO t- 


TH_ 


tO IM Ol O Ol CO <* 
(M tO CO IO rH t>- Oi 
O CO rH Ol -00 Ol IM 


CD 

in 


co m 

Ol 00 
C*J CM 


CM 
O 

to 




>^2 


^ o 

tH CM 


in" 


to to" in" -^" . tjT TJ." TH 

Ol Ol CO 1O CO TH 

CO IO iH 


CO 
CO 


M O" O" to" C(5 CM CM. 
T-I US IO t- iH Ol 


IH" 

CO 


CD Tji 
T-H CD 


CO 

TH" 










w 






I 












I 

o 


1 

1 




* 


QJ 

| 


-s 


CH 








ft 


s s 


1 


-M Ed 


! j 


^ 


HO 












s 


H M 


"5 


s 














K 


nJ 




c 














d> 






a 


<C m 






ilitary Personnel 

Active forces 
Reserve forces 

Undistributed 


la 

o 
EH 


M *" H ^ UL 
OJ d) fl> t> P 

y Ti H 

.9 ia a'S s 

i2 ^ '3 3 ^ 
^ ^ & 3 K 

01 W O "g 

5} o 


Total Frocur 


H-T M 

S *" o 
5i <u 53 
0o 3 M 


Total Researt 
Test, & Eval 


itary Construction 
solving and Manage: 


TOTAIr DEP. 
OF THE All 


1 




S 




o (6 




S 




'w~i a) 
p4 





'fense Industry Bulletin 



25 



g 


to 

to 
en 


t- C-l OS tl* rH C-l 

in co x 1 en r-i to 


01 

en 


>-i **r w 

oo m TH 


CO 
CO 


00 


c- 1 

Tf 


t- 


co in otooco en co 

into COOOCOCO OV rH 
rH to in CO (M O 00 


2 


T^ ^h 00 tO 
tO CM tD LQ 
CO rH t- 


CO 

t- 

D- 


1 


1 


s 


co" to" IH r IH 

TH "? 
rH 


en" 


co" ci to 

CO TH rH 


in" 


00* 

CO 


00 


00 


TH" to" oo" to" co" r-T TH" 
co co in CM to t- *# 

CM rH CM H rH 


C-l 

in 

o. 


CN Os in" t- 

CO CO O 
rH to CO 


cc 

{ 


"cJ 
w 


_ 


5* 


















rH* 




CN 


fi 


S 
O 


Q 
























o 

'1 


13 
























n 


t-0 


'rt 

c, 
c 


1 3 


c-i o 10 co en 

in T? en co ^?* 

O TH t ^ tO 


CO 
CO 
00 


in in to 
o CM to 

00 O CM 


1 1 


CM 
C- 
rH 


CO 


t- 

L- 


CM CO CTS CO CM C"" "*^ CO 
tr-CM C-lrHt-tO t-Oi 

in TJI en rH co H TH 


CO 

in 


M; t- in co 

co c- o * 
o en to TH 


tc 


o 




i 


00" to" rH CO" to" 

O CO 
iH 


to" 


TH" * o* 

O CM CO 
in rH 




L-" 
iH 
CO 


t-" 
t- 


C- 


<# en" t-" tf oo" TH" oo 

tO CO tO rH -^ CO CO 
CO CO rH CM rH rH 


en 

CO 

TH" 


co" IH" co" co 

in in -cf 

TH rH 


tt 

ex 


13 

-rH 

cj 




























to 




























flJCl 




|s 


to in CM en CTJ c- 
co co en o m tt 


CM 

c- 


CO to OS 
00 L- O 

in * to 


>; 


CM 
IK 


Cft H 

to | 
in 


co 
to 
in 


in rf] CTl TJI CO t- OS -CO 
00 rH O to rH 00 to 
,_( rH to O rH t- in 


CM 

to 


t- <M rH 
OS to in rH 
*"! W IN 


CO 

ira 

L 


4J 




e u 


en en TH TJ* c-i 

t- T? rH 


a 


Tt 1 " t- in" 
3" t- 


tc 


C-l 


CO 


co" 


a* in r-T co" eft c-i" t- 

55 CTj rH CO (M rH 


en" 

CO 


rH CO 


i^ 


O Q! 
TH E7 




a* 


CO T? 




CM CM 


CM 


r- 






rH 


rH 


r 









(30 










CM" 














^1^ 




























S 


O 


























jS'H 


C 


J to 


o o IH co co en 
co o c-i in Tf o 


C-' 


TH * O 
O CO CO 


I IN 

O 


O 

to 


t- 1 

rH 


L- 

rH 


in t- in i>- M< in en TH 

(O rH C! CO O L- CO 


CO 


T(( en L- co 

(M O O CO 


CO 

CO 


'^ 




^ * 


L-_ CO CO C?) t> in 


1C 


L- 


iH 


eft 


CO, 


CO 


o ^ co **v o ^ co 


T] 1 


L- in I-H 


tc 


to p, 


**rtt 


C r-> 


tj" in" in" ' 


to" 


tO rH CO 


to 


CO 


TH" 


r-T 


L- CO" H L- CO" -ef 


o 


in" 1 


CM 


.S S 


QJ 




m L- 




CO CO 


t> 


CO 


iH 


H 


rH CO 


m 


1 


to 


*u " 


Q 




IH 








CO 














g 11 


*O 


























S.E 

o 






L- tO CO to tO 00 


TP 


to TH L- 


1 CM 


M 


t- 1 


t~ 


I oo * 01 co co in in 


in 


I in O rH 


t^ 




^^ 


J (C 


CO O5 O * (o CN 




W CO CO 




to 


rH 


TH 


CM t- CM "* to CO vH 


to 


CO O L 


{O 


._ n 


U. 


m 


O rH CM T^ C-I TP 


cc 




CT) 


C- 






5O CM CO to rH (M -tji 


in 


CO ^ to^ 


OO 


jj n 




f-t '~ l 


CO CM rH 


(N 


Cft iH O 


co" 


L-" 


t-" 


L-" 


o" <M~ TH" TH" co* in" 




<* co" TH" 


to" 


J^.c 


^ 




T^ L 4 




T^ in 


in 


t- 






CO H H 


CO 


1 


r-_. 


2 W 


<D 




H 








co 


U) 












S c 


o> S 














C 
<1) 




u 








CJ 

.fl 1 ^ 


^ ^ 

0) ^ 


1$ 


co t- co m to in 

IH O TJI iH C-l W 

00 tO rH in -^ iH 


CO 


O CO CO 
00 ** (M 
rH, t Tf 


1 CO 
CO 
O 


r- 

o 


** ^ 


rH 
CO 
rH 


E t- W CO CO tO rH tn 

O o in c- TH co L- oo 

M)-* TH rHtOtHt- -^fin 


CO 
M 


CO Tjl -d( CM 
L- CO tO 10 


OO 

ira 


S& 

0'" 


_..l c 


O S 


to" o" rH 


CM 


co" en 


CO 


to* 


to" 


to" 


<fl u,f o in" L- -ef in 




rH CQ~ 


tn" 


M O 


*" D. 




T^ to 

rH 




CO M 1 


in 


in 

CO 







W CM iH 


CO 




to 


tl-rj 


X 














^ 




I/) 








a rf 


W 














u 




^ 








O PH 


(1) 
.- 


D.(> 


TP TH O> to Cft Tp 

co en cf> co co rH 
rH en to c*4 


JO 
O 


O "* iH 
C0_ tO TH 


1 

CO 


(M 

CO 

m 


U. to H 

og ' 


n 

CO 

to 


C" 5S OintOrH ^fOO 

; p L-tococo o-^ 
U L-^ o os co co to 


to 
o 

CO 


1 TH en co 

L rH tD 

o, to in 


rH 


y^K 


it 
o 


ta- 


in rH TH rH 

^ f> 

TH 


co" 


in CM" eft" 

CO -5)* 


03 


ra" 
n 

CO 


u 


o 

rH 


; g) co IH" en" IH" 


L- 


in" in" 




3 


M 














14! 




< 








rt* 1 " 1 


.si 














TH* 












3 Sj 


"0 

c 


^? 


tO to to CM Cft 00 
Tf in (M H O O 
Cft 00 CO tO rH CM 


in 
in 

CM_ 


rt 1 rH iH 
CO TH CO 
CO to TH 


1 to 

rH 


o 


rH 


TH 

IH 


1 99 C-l O L rH O to 

S TH in co L- in CM 
~_ O K c-j^ in L- K co, oj, 


(5 

S 


1 o m IM 
in o co 

rH TP C*l 


to 




li 


0) 


<- 


CO to" TH* 
iH 




in TH co 


rH 


to 
to 


co" 


00* 


t; in TH co" oo" -iji 

CM CO 


co" 
n 


CO 


T-T 

o 


Stf 

J _* 


0) 


























Uj 1 ^ 


c 


h 


to in i c-i to Tti 

CM CO O 1- O 

t^, en^ in Tf TH 


to 


oo in t- 

CO CO N 


r-t 

rH 


in 

00 

co. 


t- 
CM 
00 


M 

00, 


1 g to | to L- 

Jtj CR co in ira co 

"* !. (M i-H O 


n 


1 eo o oo 

rH Ol ID 
en rH rH 


io 


3 

ia 


CD 

O 


IS 


o* IH" rn" 1 


IH" 


os* co* o 

CM, Tj< 

a 


H* 
IH 


a 
Si 


<*" 


Tf 


en * _ 


1 


** ^ 1 

CO 1 


to 


' O 

^'5 

S rf 






I 




2 

J 

Jj 








H 










" ( 

* h 

4-> g 






i, 








H 




a 










SflJ 
R 






u w 
13 _0 




> 


tfl 


D 




-t 


S 






Fl 


* a 










3 


| 


n 


W 
fj 


9 


O 

43 






x 


J.s 






ll 

r4 C 




3 


S 


^ 




ft 


1 






H 


> tfi 






S -5 


i 


1 


S 


Zi 


4> 


H 

'-i. 


S 'S p 


B 




/J 


3^ 






Military Personnel 
Retired Pay 
Operation and Maintenan 
Procurement 
Ordnance, vehicles, ar 
Electronics and comr 
Other procurement 
Undistributed 


Total Frocurem* 


Jieseareh, Development, T< 
Military sciences 
Military Construction 
Family Housing 


Currency Program 
Revolving and Managemc 


W 
w 
<5 

! 

H 
P 


Civil Defense 
Revolving and Managemen 


TOTAL OFFICE OF CF 


1 Ils| 

ll Jill 

48 fi -3 Ji ^ o HO 
a cy o 
a & M 

H Oli 


Total Procurem e: 


Eesearcn, Development, 
Test, and Evaluation 
Military Construction 
Revolving Fund 
Undistributed 


TOTAL MILITARY ASS 


~ w c 

3rt^ 

i m 

o 



May 1967 





T3 to 














aj to 
4S OJ O^ 
a*> rH 

.~ = r-" 


t- O t- 
L- CO CO 
(N Cft CO 


c 


CM Cht-CJiCOt~OrHrH 
CO COOilOUSrHCftTHCV 


^ COCOT^CTlOOrH-y O) t 


en 


CM US Tf 

CM co cn 


00 


T- 


t- 


CO 
CO 






co" CM" cn 
10 cn cn 
in -^f co 


c 


co oo'^co'cfco'oo'i 

to OOa)rHCOCn-*CMCO 


S Jjf M ^ ^ ^ " *" "^ ' " 


CO 


Of Co" L-" 
CJ) CO CO 


co_ 


co 
o 


a 
cn 
c\ 


co" 

CO 




J5 


c~ 


K 


L- tO rH" TJT CO rH H" ' 


~ T ". J rH 


IT- 


en^-qi 




^J 


^ 


CQ_, 




JU Q 








1- 


*" 


rH 




w 




co" 




















^ 




* 






to 


























Sen 


CO -tf CO 


in 


c 




















~Zf 


rH IO rH 
00^ CO CO 


CO 
O) 


2 CDt-COCOt-OOtN 

- THenoiooitor-f 


O [^ !> tO ^P CO CD t~- in 

n oi oo t^ tr~ en us cn M 1 


tf 
o 

CO 


CO to CD 


1 


in 
t- 


o 

o 


in 

CD 






g^J 


00 <* C 
CO Tf 
CO" 


CO 

t- 

a 


,o ci co" co in" to in rf 

-Jj CO-^COrHOOO 
*_. t-^ CO O^ CM IO^ t^ CO 

3 -*" T-H" CM" 


t-" lo" r-T CO" t^" CO" to" of 
S> ^ g "^ rH t- CO t- rH 


w" 

rH 
CO 
Tf" 


co co in 

t- CM 




I 


o 
^ 




in 
**. 

CD 






















w 




CO 








CD rH in 
rH CM m 


CO 

en 


gJ o^^^cntoot- 


.g got-om-^tocn [ | 


to 


t- rH Cn 


1 


c- 


a 


o 






^cfi 


l i 


rji 


- UScOrHTjlincOTH 


^ CO Cn CO rH CM C*l C*J M* 


t- 

^ 


t- rH O 




^3 




CD 






Qr-< 


L- in in 
in in in 


L- 

to 


CO CMrHOt~(Mt-Ol 
IO rH-tf-rJiiMrHCOtO 


^ G> L" L^" O "^t* CO rH O 


co" 


oft-"co" 




IT 

o; 


r- 


in" 








M* r- 


CD 


"J t- rH (M in rH TH 


JZj id ^^^ 


CM 


rH tj< rH 




us 


X 


CO 








T-T 


r- 


*~~i 




in 


TH 




a 




O) 






















in 




in" 






to 


L- CO CO 


CM 






















Is 


CM L- CO 

W K CO ^i 

CM" co" a 

en in ^p 


W 

a 


7* * Ol (M rH CO CO 00 1 

io_ to_ in -^ co <M in oo 

S *gp3 f-ofwco" CO" 
CO CO L- L- CO L- Cft rH C 


O L- ^ t- CO CO CO [> t- 
-i US^ CM^ CO^ rH CO <N_ CO O 

3 co o eh cn oo co ^'CD' 


03 

o 
o" 


^ co o 
co cn CM 

IH fcOtO_ 

CM" TH" co" 


1 


CD 
ft 


o: 
to" 


CM 
M 








M rH 
TH 


^ 


> tD TH CO rH 
rH 


n rH 


n 


*M ^fl rH 
rH 




X 


TH 


b 






















us 




in" 




iligatiom 


it 


TJ 1 L- 10 

en -*i< cv 

CM" o" t-" 

cn to -* 


CO 

CC 

o 
o 


in CM in co cs o rH o 1 c 

CO <O rH CO O to N IO 

rH in ^ CM rH CT> Cn CD * 
tO in rH CD ^ ^J* CO CO r 


5 C> to CO (M t- L- IO | CO 
CMCOCMCOL-CftSS 


o 

O) 

co" 


CM to en 

*tf to W 

en oo in 


1 


IO 
(M 
CM 


o 
ri 


fV 

TH 
CO 


? O CD in" rH CO" CO" TH" O" 


M 1 * 00 




en 


us 


^1 


0) 


, 




*f r- 


L- 


in L- rH rH in rH C 


M YH 


H 


rH ^ 




n 


M* 


o 


u 


O 




TH" 


T- 


rH 




CO 


"* 




CO 




"V 


. _ C 




















us" 




in 


Ps w fl> 


























krt ""Q ^fr* 


























/*:<!> 

tn Q* $ ,% 

c r- n 

2 u I M. 
j o H o 




M co 

Q.CO 


co co en 
O CM O) 
rH rH TH 


rH 

C>T 


co cnenrHCDcooio i_ * 
co cftt-oajcncfto" t 


? to^ocMcoexiTHoco |co 


CM 
CM 

of 
us 


to t- cn 

CO I- CM 

>-ii> ro 

D Tj( 


1 


ffl 

o" 
in 


-5,324 


n 
us 

CO 

in 


-# IO IO 

o m ^f 

^ T-1 


E 


o cn to"o"co"cQi>*di' 

M ^lOCOt-COtOCO i 
"^ CD,TH CO ( 


co" in of co" CM i> KJ ^T 
o TH in 


m *. 






TH 


T-1 


iH rH r 




TH" 






to" 




to" 


j? >" c 


























5 " *> 
3 S I 

A S *t 

tr *3 a 




bj)to 


CO CM CO 
O> rH TH 
O O CO 


g 


00 CDCOfMCMCDlOtOrHC 
g CMCMCOCMCD^iCO | C 


~ tDCftt-COOiOHCO | 


CM 
75 

JO 


US t- CM 

co co -a 1 

CO^rH CO^ 


1 


CO 
H 

D 
JO 


CO 

in 

CM 

M 


eo" 
eft 

00 


rf" in" co 

CO CO <$ 
t# n rH 


CM 

en 
to 


co" o oo"co co" M 1 " co" of i 
cvi tooo^ omtD o 
cn cn TH CM to TH c 


s 01 io oo t- c$ w co" of 

S, rH CO H rH 


" ^ a. 






TH 


r-i 


rH Q 










CD" 




to" 


Q 






























t*to 

"TJ CO 
"sin 


S co oo 
ES t- co 
- lf i L T. 


co 
co_ 


X) co^\]a>cocot-<x> c 


j CMCOL-tOofMrHCO 


S 

b 


cn M c- 

CO to CM 
rH^^ CD 


1 


to 



O 


CO 

co^ 








K T H rH 
rH 


erf 


Ji "* r)T CO to" in" CO 1 CO" L 
> <O CO H C 


r CD cn TH" co" cvf co" in" t-" 
i co if in Tf co rn co in 

^ rH CM 


o" 

CO 

to 


CM" t-" us" 

rH 




D 


D 


TH 
00 










rH 


rH r 










n" 




n" 




<V C 


























IO <* O 
S rH O 
CO 0, 


cn 

O 

cn 


Ol CnoOOtDC-lOCv'rHC' 

IH in IH w L-- H in to ** ci 

CO^ 'O^CnCOTHTHtOCMCM C 


5 lOCOIOtDOtOrHCO IOCO 
3 00 CO CO d t CO N in TH CO 


M 

O 
CO 


US O O CO 

toco us >* 
co IH in co 


to 

CO 

cn 


a_ 


3 




J5 3 


L~ L-" o" 
O CO CO 

CM, cn L- 


I 


co cn of L-? TtT L-" of CM" us" i 
> oo oo in CD in cn t~ cn c< 

!>, IO tr- rH m xjf CO O CO r 


j co r)<'i>o'oo'co"to"co" oo us 

S CO rH N CM L 0-1 L- Ol iH L~ 

CM^-rji^-'dicO'^caco H 


D 


to"cn"rH"t 
COM ^ 

r- C- iH 




^ 


t 


'a 




^ O 


rH 


co" 


^ rH CM lo" tD"rH"cM" ' C 
rH H (y 


= THTHCM-TH 


of 


w" 




jf 




a 










Am 


d 


3 


















1 


aj '-0 


*M 

UJ 








i 




H 








n 

H 


^ ri 4. 


13 4J 

-P 01 
tv ra r* 


3 fj 






3 
j 




H 
^ 








0) 




r> g 








. 




r~J 








AH 


'j ,JJ J) S ' 


D f m 


'43 






H 




j 










3 '^8 


H u ^ 


_- ri 






t*l 




] 








"^ 




P 3 2 


3 _2 


t 


H 


-1 




^0 






!itary Personnel 
Active forces 
Reserve forces 

Retired pay 


3 


3 1I^S ^ 

5 1! 3 SB -si 

"., ^5-8 if 3 

li'iitjiiir 


Cj w S -P 2 -rt 
dJ OJ ^ d S C 

[llpllllllfl 


-r>" 
^ W 
rt 0) 

H 


Ltary Construction 
ilily Housing 
il Defense 
er Special Foreigl 
iirrency Program 


1 
J 

J 

XI 
3 

w 


03 
J 

3 

Q 

a 
tn 

i 


TOTAL DEP 
OF DEFEN, 
















.3 B C? . 


* ri 




3 








^ 




ocS 


1 

1 




d w.c? 

Sr^OC 


3 t_> 
) 









Defense Industry Bulletin 



27 



E 
< 



E 

o 
a 
<u 
o 



t; tD 








^ ^ ^ 


in 01 


t- # O CO CO Ol O rH C 


o 


w^' 


CO Cl 

:o co 


[- O CO US to t- OJ 10 ' 


a 1 
co_ 


^ H r" 


T-I" e-f 


*? Ol CO IO tD CO CO^t 




^ ^ 


Cl *? 


n L- in o co o rH co 


rH 


SK y 


Cl_ C-3 


C 'V ^ M 1 <O CO rH -tf CO 


CO 




C-l 


co" of of 


^J* 


6 Q 





















S 


CO 01 


o o co <o co co co in 


to 




f i 


rH in 


t- t~ CO rH Ol Ol O t- 






. 


CO t- 


o t- in t- m o L- co 


'S 1 




%?. 


m* co" 


O CO Tl-rHrHt- OO 


to" 




c 


Cl C 


CO CO CO O rH rH tOTt* 






a 


OJ C-t 


in C- rJ 1 rH Ol rH rH Ol 


m * 




u c 


CO 


CO CO rH 


M 






-H tO 


t- O tOCOOJt- <O Ol t- 








Cl t' 


to to Ol CO ^t 1 "^ ^Ji to 


CO 




:/ ^ 


w, *" 


CO CO L- CO t- Ol rH rH 


Zjj 




Q " 


CO O 


o" o to t- M- 10" I-H" o" 


in" 






m co 


ci m 01 rH 01 01 co 01 


CO 








m tO rH CO 


to 




S 

|2 


in o 

CO C 


in Ci in ci or in to in t> 
co L- TJ< to t- in O) to 
co ^r OQ 01 ci to co-rji 


1 






in"a 


03 -rf rjl in Cl [> cT of 
ifl tO rH 03 CO rH tf CO 


*~~* I 
CO 






m 


1Q in rH OJ 




U 










( 




















f 

& 




ta 

" 


co o 

01 
L- tO 


?1 to to *}H Gl CO OtH 

w oo oit-t~ff in en 
co T? i.- in o to ci 


(O 






co" of 

O fO 


? 5 s ^f '"f "^ o" <* 

^ CO t^ rH ^ L- Ol ^ 


S 


O 






tO Tf (M 


* 




is 


Ol (0 


t- 






CO" 


i-H rH 

*~i '" 

o" M 1 " 

CO CO 


Ji (O Oineooi rHto 

Ol OlrHOO Olt- 


01 

w" 


* w in" to" t-" co" co" t-T 

5 i-H CONt-Cl (NCO 

n t- ^ 






00 rH (. 








II 


CO CO_ T 


H S 5^^ is 


n 






fi* of ii 

^ in c 
in i 


g | ^-^S 








Cl O C 


1 tO * Cl 0] O Q Ol 1 






M ^i j 


rH in ( 




o 




% 2- 1 


rn ro : 


CO O S CO 5 tn i^\ 


CO 




i 


O (O* t 


*T A** ,?- " * ^b i. 


1 






V Cl v 


<> T rv? S Jvi ^ 


2 








to 4 ~ 


3 


SJ C 








1 


CO i? t- 

O -!f 


gj COCitOt- COtOOl 


to 


pS *- rt 
r, tc 


t-_ to c? 

en IA rv- 


rH ScOCO ^S5S 


to 
l> 


*-- 


CO CO c- 


rH CO t- CO" o" Cl" m" t-" 




^ g 


01 (O Ol 

to <o 


>" co" ^ 


I 






K 






"Q 


S 









_o 






O 


cd 






w 


o 






h 


w '9 






& 


a> QJ _ g 

a Sis 


" 

S 


ib'tary Personnel 


Active forces 
Reserve forces 

Total Military 


d ^3 ra c 
d 01 "ti 

jS 3g 8| 

3 ^^l^s 

^5 ^q .S 1 C 

a i?& - Ss 

T3 t g " 

i|s^iS'-f 

rtSfi^rMgrt^hw 

li-KiH 1 ?^-! 
gHs^s ssjS 


^ ' 

& 
Pi 

1 
-2 5 

fc5 ^ 


1 S 




n.g 

0^ 


c 
" 

a 
tt 



CM rH CO CO CO 
O * t- CO rH 
I> l> t- m to CO 

m" o" co" of o" 

CO CO O i-H O 

rH W rH 



co t> -^ to o 

rH in t- CO 

rH Tj* 1-1 



Ol 00 
^f M 
Ol 



co to 

O)" L-" 

Ol 10 



<D 
OJ 
00 



Cl 
0-1 

O) 
O) 



o_ 
of 

S 



CO ID -^ O CO 

IH in co -^ in 
in o TC IH t- 



in cs 01 o] co 

co co co 01 to 

to oi_ m t~ o^ 

in in" to" i-T rf 

rH 10 rH 



t 



O1C1 

|g 



CO 

ra 
L- 



L- 
CO 

to 
o" 

OO 

CO 



00 

co 

co oo 

id' J cxT 



L 1 

rH 



28 




May 1967 







T3 to 






















D tfi 


rjl ,..i 


in 


oo in I-- (Ti ro to 
















4-p* 7 


in t- 

oj^ o: 


(S 


00 OrHOltOt- OJ^tD 


in 

tl 


CMinoJt-ooo ooo u: 

rH CQ CO If5 t- L CM''* CO 


OJ 
CO 


i- 


t- 
in 






|l] 


co in 

CO t- 

i 


o> 
if 

c- 


O rH O (f r-T t- o" TH" CO 
in rHCOCMrHtO inCMOJ 
CO ^COrH rH int-tb 

CM CM rf rH" T 


CO 

t- 

K 


LO o co~ in o" 01 co" in~ ** 

rH CM 5M C-J CM r- 


1 

OS 
rH 


m 


to 

rH 
CO 
CO 

in" 






















rH 






(O 






















-J< 






















w - 


CO OJ 
CO ; 
5 OJ 


t- 
co 

IT 


to ocMcomco cot- 

in COrHOOtO OJtO 


t- 

5 


o> 10 to c co ^f o m 

CO 00 CO CM OJ (O OS CO 


g 


CO 
ir. 


OJ 
CO 
t> 






3 tl 


OJ t- 

in 
<M" 


to 
to 


oj iraoco'^'oo t-^t" 
t- ^ < CO Oi CO CM 
tD_ r-H^ rH O ^ iH CO 
CM rH r-T 


oc 

C1 


CO -tf Oj" Oj" L- CO O T-T 
Ol OJ C- t> OJ *f CM. 
^T rH rH 


CM 

rH 


o" 

CO 
rH 


CO 
OJ 



















rH 




Oj" 






II 


in c- 
t- ifi 
oo"c 


c 

o; 
W 


rH rHCOCMCMOl rHOI 
in COrHt-COcO COO 

l ^ ^l ^ ^i w ooo 
(N in os o M co -^ to" 

CO IO rH Tjl CM in 1O 
CO rH CM rH 


652,022 


IO CM CO rH in *tf COLO 1 
U> -Bfl CO TH CO OO rHLfS 
O to "'d* | CM CO 00 OJ 

CM t- O> ^ CO" ^T Co" 
IM rH CM CM rH 


CO 

in 

o" 

CM 
rH 


o 

CO 


in 

OJ 
CO 

co" 






















T-T 






li 


CM m 
co tc 


CO 
O 

in 


CO t-rHCOCMTH CMC- 
t- CM CM "^ iH rH CO C- 


t- 
o 

**?. 


CO t- iH r-l CO CM rHCM I 
to 10 to CO 00 CM rHO 
CO iH! rH rH 00 in C- tO 


O 

o 


t- 

s 


in 
to 








CO OJ 
0-1 


<x 


oT CO" L- t-" 1 CM L-" o" 
rH O CM L O rH Tjl 
in O3 rH 


c- 
in 


O OO CO CO OJ N to 
rH CO rH N CM 


o" 

rH 


co" 


o>" 

00 

to 




^ 


















rH 




1 


II 


o o 

CO 00 

* o 


o 

rH 

in 


t- "* L 00 rH ^fi in 00 
00 00 CM t0 CM rH CM rH 
OJ iHlOinCOrH OCO 


CO 

in 


CJ p CO ?! rH CM OJ rH 
O C- O OJ [> OJ COO 


SI 

l-^. 


CO 

rH 
CO 


in 

to 


X 


3 
o 




(N rH 
CO rH 


CO 


o to" cT CM" oo co" CM" 

W CM rH rH 


co" 

rH 

to 


CM" o to" CM oo" rj< to" **" 

H TH rH rH iH CM 
rH 


to" 

O 
CM 


in 


H n 


1) 




Cuto 

11 CTJ 


tfl tO 

in to 

t- t- 


o 

CM 


to ^t-iocoo ooa 

TH COOJrHOJ"* OJIM 
^ CM t- 1 OJ rH rH 


OJ 


CM Q rH -rjl CM O OOJ 1 
o in "tf in CM o ** CM 

M 1 t- CM CJ CJ rH OJO 


CO 

CM 


CO 
CO 


CO 

in 








(M 


OJ 
CO 


O) to t- O -^H" CO" in 
in O CM to O rH rH 
CO CO rH 


CM 
CO 

in 


o co m ** CM T-y co <o 

CO CM CM in 1C rH CM 


oo" 

CM 




O^ 

CO 

to 


3 
















CO 




to 
TH" 


iiciii 




41 


to co 

OJ O 


in 
o 

OJ 


OJ inrHCMrHCO rHCOl 
L- -*tOtO-SiC- tOCO 

in L TH co co t- ^rio 


c- 
co 


oj o in co *)' CQ t- co 1 
to 03 co in TJI t- coin 

(M CO <M CO CJ CO in O 


to 


CM 
O 

to 


CM 


3 






t- us 


CM 


in in in oo o o 1 in 

t- CM 'y "* CO rH rH 

in H CM " H 


to" 
c- 
m 


I- rH t- O O> O O 

CO to CO H CM 


06" 

rH 


s" 


co" 
CM 
w 
TH" 


Lt 






















s 




P OJ 


in CM 
o" i>" 

CO rH 


CO 
L-" 


in CO ^ *^ CO tD rH CO f 
OO Tf O OJ to ^i" OJ ^H 
00 K rH CM 0\ OJ CO, IO^ OJ^ 

o co co" oi" co" in 


OJ 
rH 

CM" 


CO OJ in CO O US CM CO | 
C^ l>_ Ir-^ CO C'l t- IO t- 

to CM" co" CM if M oT 


IO 
CO 


CO 

c- 

** 
co" 


CO 
CO 

to. 










^ 


CO CO 


CO 


rH O CO 


L 


CO 


CO 






















H" 




& 

3 

c 


s 

o 

fe 

O hn 


CM 
O) (M 

in co^ 

en i - r* 


CM 
TH 

en 


oj ojinoooc-i -^OJCM 
g; o-ycoojto c-irHto 

00^ tO^O^tOt-rH rJHL~OJ 


CM 
CM 


OJ xfl CO CO O OJ COCO 1O 


t^ 


OJ 

o 


t- 

Ol 
CM 




1 

JH 


tH.Ef 

5 


'-*-' Ui 

L- * 
CO rH 


IQ 
7-1 
O 


Oj to rH t- in so" oo 1 in" co" 
CM in CM in H to oo ^ oj 
o ininrH to tooto 


L-" 
1O 


tfioco-^foct'co Tji to -rfT 

<M t~ OJ CM t- OQ rH tO C*| 


10" 


IS 


i* 

-^ 
to 




^*i 


O 


^f 


in 


m" co" in r-? TH" 1 


H" 
H 




s 


t" 


H 
in 










t 1 
Q) 


1 






1 














9 


E 










E 










o 


? 




IS 


f 1 




s 










HI 


at 4) 9 


H 




t> (3 




S 








itary Personnel 
Active forces 
Reserve forces 


Total Military P 


gg<),^c/JEHO HOP 


Total Procuremen 


H ti lu 
rt -j^ PJ 

jj > CJ Ed 

TH W STI 3 

n w d> zj 4^ *3 

rt. fl -H *M O d) 4^ *._ 

cTfl.2 u? ajas-^ft^ 

% 3 > ET .&' S -P 
"u "43 m is i, o> g p M< p 

fe 1 h. jj 3 ?i'a&A3'c 

p ,3 & g rt R^ 1 "!^;^ 


Total Research, De- 
Test, & Evaluatio 


ary Construction 


TOTAL DEPABT: 

OF THE NAVY 








g 




1) o 




w j 




r-l 














O'PH 




M 




1 





ifense Industry Bulletin 



29 




May 







a jg 






























a"" ST-H 
c* ** 


t- tM en o to o 
GO -y co co ** t~ 

to co m o o o 


in 
oc 


to in 

CO O5 

H H 


IM 
CO 


CT> in oo 

-* CO t 

cn T)* co 


L- 
C- 

c- 


q 


1 o cr> in TH ^ o cn 
in 38 M w ^ u 


to 


* iH CO 
(N CM Tj< 


tr~ 
c- 








l"3 J 


en" o" CM ^ co ot 

cn TH H *sf 

CO -* 


o 
t- 


"*" CO" 

O H 


| 


in co t- 

rH to 


i 


L- 

co 


m" o" r- 

CO rH 


cn 

esi 

T-* 


en oo, co 
TO" to" 

CO | 


00 

CT 


4 






























C 






2 Q 












iN 












O 

73 






to 






























Sto 

T 1 


co to cn in o 

CO tji CO CO O_ 

cT H N" o" 
oo cn IN 


if; 
t- 

CS 


H 
L-" 
t- 


00 
N 
H 

" 


Tj" (O- 1 

o cn 

in to 

w" in" 

to 


t- 
co 


to 
in 
cs: 


<NtO OJNOCO MM' 

"fen Ht-iMco Hen 
1 co_ eo_ M (N, in t- r- 


CM 

in 

C-l 
(M 


^ CO 1 
C-] H to 

Q> en, co, 

H TH 


o 


r-t 

3 
o 

d 






U ^ 


CO 5jt 




H 


H 




s 




w * H in THCV 


in 

iH 




T-" 









p 
























ri 





































,tlO 

Is 


in <* in oo H i 
in co t- to H 

O CO (M to 00 

m" o-T 


10 

L- 


CO | | 
CO 
IN, 
C-" 


CO 
CO 
N, 


CO TH | 


1O 




en 

o 


1 in eg -* 10 to in -* 

CO CO CO t- -* (O CO 
W, rH^ in H, CO 00 iM 


to 

CO 
CO 


O t- (T) 
O) CO 


CO 
N 


Ui 

.s 

'<u 








in c- 






C^l 


j ^u 


*" 


FT 


Ci CO t-CO rfcc 


C^l 


1 H" 


IN 


XI 








H 










cy 




H CO 


to 




CO 
































O) 






























s 


0) 
u 




























S 

ri 


C 




Jl 


co *# m to to 1 
co w m in co 

*^ CM in CO rH_ 


IC, 


H 1 | 
CO 
t- 


H 
CO 


O CO 1 

TH cn 


cn 
d: 


O 


1 O to rH (M t- O (M 
t- t- CO 00 O 00 C- 


t- 


H (M | 


H 


o 


0) 
Q 






00 O CO 
sf CO 
rH 


-* 




H" 


t 


tc 

T 

CO 


cc 

H 


CO -^ (NO ^ O) 

7 f i rt " 


T 


00 

f 


rH 




** 




























I 


O 


a 


























+3 


D 

I'- 




tp 

1 


os 


in (o H co c-i 1 

C-l L -41 O 

CM^ CO_ CO O^, 

t " H" tf 

"* 00 


to 
in" 


co" 

CM 


(N 

en 

oo" 
N 


o to i 


X 
X 


cn 

<M 

in 
oo" 


1 o -cf 01 01 co to m 
cn co M 1 o c- x* ^j< 
M in in H cn i> co_ 
in oo Hto" 


in 
to 

(M 

00 


co oo cn 
TH" 


D 

in 


w 

M. 


ll 


O 




H 










CO 


0) 

tn 




C^l 




TJ 1 


^ 


u 


















c 


O 








^ 


U1 





















U 








3 


(D 




s-2 


en o t- N o | 
cn o tn -* IN 


en 

H 

"i 


| | 
CO, 


o 
n 


S fc i 

T> t- 


T- 


*f* 

O 00 


tjoiin cocnmin COCT> 

Oi-JiH CMOt-r-i inH 


1 


1 CO 


(M 
CO 


1 


4- 






gS8 




CO 

CO 


CO 
CO 


TH rH 





oo" 


,J2 ^ Hco"cn" "^^f 

tn ^ i i I I 


o 


TH ( 


f" 


D 


ma _ 


















^ 


U) 


1 








O 


















HHt 

U 


< 








IM 


o 






*^ rH 


CO (D CO CO CO 1 
rH O) (N CO tr- 

to cn^ | H co 


00 
CO 

in 


CO | | 


CO 

~t 


(N t- 1 

cn co 

<N rH 


2 


^1 


^* ] in to -to H to t- co 

O" (N -OOiHCON C-CO 
H TH H 00 CO 00 rH 


>3 


CO -"J 1 O 
H CO CO 
1 CO -^ 


>3 


2 


O 






CO "*tf* t*- 

TH* 




(N 

CO 


rt 


5? 


cT 

TH 
CO 


Ml" 

0) 
u 


| CO -TH ^ T.H 


M 

H 


i 


O 
CM 


a 


.si 


















o 










u 


"u 

c 




HjS 


S "* g2g2 ' 

l> l> <N CO 


o 

in 
to 


CO ' ' 


CTJ 
XJ 


n -rf 


00 

o 


t- 

CM 


1 iH o co co in co m 

O <D-CO M^ O CO W 

eo co * * i H t- 


to 
to 

00 


1 00 CO 
CO O 

TH ID 


b 


J 
3 


cn 






O rH 

TH* 00 




00 


CO" 


M= 


n 


10" 


tlO CO CO CO OJ 00 t^ 
O TH CO 


o 


rH in 




rH 


5 


H 




























4 


(D 




























" 


C 
O 


4 

R 






i O 

*-G 


o oo oo in to o 
OH d cn to L 

O 00 ^}" 00 O O 


cn 


to cn 

C-l H 


cn 
n 


CO 00 

n co M* 

^rH CO 


00 

Tf 

to 


O 
IO 

in 


CS? CO CO t* H t** CM CO 

| cn to t- TH in IT- eo 


00 

to 

H 


CO f- 


b 

00 


3 


o 

o 


(t 
t- 

< 


3 
o 


O TH CO to Co" CO 
CO O iH to 

T-T 


cn 


H CO" 
00 H 

in 


71 

n 


sg 


!0 

rH 
*#" 


TH 


CO C-J CM tC CO IN Cg 

cn -^ IM 10 T-N 


in 
to 

H 


m H 

CO | 


e^ 1 

-ejn 


1 






























H 














:[ 




? 












H 








a 

o 






1 




D 




1 






J 


3 








1 






2 




fl 




tg 








3 








_0 






V 




3 










^ 


3- 








sis 


1 




01 


v a 

QO 




1 




8 1 1 


3 


4->" 

a 
<u 


-H 
/I 

/I 


3 








Military Personnel 
Retired Pay 
Operation and Maintenai 
Procurement 
Ordnance, vehicles i 
related equipment 
Electronics and com 
Other procurement 
Undistributed 


Total Procureir 


Kesearch, Development, 1 
and Evaluation 
Military sciences 
Emergency Fund 
Undistributed 


Total Research 
Test, & Evalus 


Military Construction 
Family Housing- 
Other Special Foreign 
Currency Program 


H 

3 

I 

H 

D 

H 


o 
Q 

o 


W ra 

" 4J 

* -I -a 6 

is Il 3 i 

g ~ " u o 

t>^ B ! &-S "3 "f* ! 

&1 1^^ ^"^ 


Total Procurem 


Research, Development, T 
and Evaluation 
Military Construction 
Undistributed 


KJ 

HI 

H 
P 


: 
i? 
3 
5 
3 
5 

H 

H 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



31 




DEFENSE PROCUREMENT 
CIRCULARS 



Distribution is made automati- 
cally by the U.S. Government 
rrmtmff Office to subscribers of 
the Armed Services Procurement 
Regulation. 



Defense Procurement Circular No. 
~>2. March 24, 1967. (1) Military 
Standard Transportation and Move- 
ment Procedures. (2) Material In- 
spection and Receiving Report Clause. 
(3) DD ASPH Form 731 Master 
Contract for Repair and Alterations 
of V^els. (,i) Equal Employment 
Opportunity. (5) Standardized Con- 
tract Administration Services for the 
Military Departments. (6a) Price Ad- 
justments in Contracts for Fluid 
Milk, (Gb) "Fluid Milk" Clause. (7) 
Contract Work Hours Standards Act 

(8) Mandatory Use Date for App I 
and new DD Forms 250 and 250c 

(9) Automatic Data Processing 
Equipment. 



RESEARCH REPORTS 

contractors 



in ll0ri ? ed DOD 
an tcrantees may 

documents without ch 



from 



Defense Documentation Center 
Cameron Station 
Alexandria, Va. 22314 

iniiti.. -V .i 3 ^ Py rc a se these docu- 
icnts at the price indicated from: 

Clearinghouse for Federal nr,,i 
RciimUR if t-ut-ijii anu 

buentinc Information 

Department of Commerce 

Spnnsfield, Va. 22151 



i ' 

Jose, Calif., f or the Navy 

m p - 



Ambient Noise Levels in Selected 
Shallow Water off Miami, Fla. De- 
fense Research Lab., University of 
Texas, Austin, Tex., for the Navy, 
Dec. 1966, 17 p. Order No. AD-64fi 
229, 3. 

Surface Evaluation and Definition 
(Suede) Program. Electro-Optical 
Systems, Inc., Pasadena, Calif., for 
the Navy, Dec. 1966, 11.1 p. Order 
No. AD-646 828. $3. 

Handbook of Selected Pacific Is- 
lands. Pacific Missile Range, Point 
Mugu, Calif., Dec. 1959, 209 p. Order 
No. AD-646 916. $3. 

Windows for External or Internal 
Hydrostatic Pressure Vessels, Part 
I Conical Acrylic Windows Under 
Short-Term Pressures Application. 
Naval Civil Engineering Lab., Port 
Hueneme, Calif., Jan. 1967, 104 p. 
Order No. AD-646 882. $3. 

Preliminary Test on a Shallow Un- 
remforced Concrete Shell. Naval Civil 
Engineering Lab., Port Hueneme, 
Calif., Jan. 1967, 77 p. Order No. 
AD-646 860. $3. 

Monitoring and Control of Sea 
Water Composition. Aero jet- General 
Corp., Azusa, Calif., for the Navy 
Feb. 1967, 94 p. Order No. AD-C47 
129. $3. 

Sea Water Environment for the 

EL Ocean Pressure Laboratory 

Phase I, Standardization O f Seawatcr. 

Navy Marine Engineering Lab. An- 



D-644 147. 
Metal Corrosion i 



Order 



No. AD-647 276. $3. 

A, L m v V F Ught LeVGl Ph otoffrai,hy. 
Aimy Engineer Geodesy, Intelligence 
and Mapping Research and Develop- 
ment Agencyi por( . Brf 

1966, E3 p. Order No. AD-642 167 $3 
Electrostatic Imaging. Xerox Corp ' 
Rochester, N.Y., for the Office of 
Naval Research, Dec. 1966, 65 p 
Order No. AD-646 037. $3 

Test and Evaluation of Electronic 
Image Generation and Projection De- 
vices Vol. Ill-Evaluation of Projec- 
tor, Screens. Systems R esejlrch Lab 

Dayton, Ohio, for the Air p orcej Dec 

1 fm fiO . f\ i f LJ *'*~t 



-045 481 |. 



of 

.ion Metal Therm ophoto'tropTc 
Sterns. Nuclear Research Asso ' ci ! 



ates, Long Island City, N.Y., fr tl 
Navy, Auff. 11)00, 37 p. Order N' 
AD-G45 539. $3. 

Development of a Varimuile Stm 
Point Marldng IiiHtrumcnt. HIIUKI-|I , 
Lomb, Inc., RoehoHtcr, N.Y., for th 
Army, Aiiff. 10fi, HO p. (}nfi>r Ni 
AD-84S 722. $9. 

fixperimciital Study of iho t)<-nn 
gration <f GBHDM ami Sili<ln. Ihiivvr 
sity of Louvfiin, .for the Air I'W.- 
Oct. 1000, 4H p. Orclur N. Al> C|; 
480. $8. 

New Flare KorniiilHtioiiM for HiiJ 
Altitude Applicnlion. FltinnM Ifc- 
search Labfi, Uovisr, N.,)., fur tin- 
Army, Oct. lOfiti, 24 ji. OrcJci- N' ( . 
AD-641 DB7. $;j. 

Development of Miniahirc Smiikc 
Signal Pacltago for Itidiminii i, 
Survival Kits. Follmiui K.'M-iuvh 
Labs, Dover, N.J., for ihu Army, 
Oct. 1900, 40 p. Order No, AD (III 
SOB. $8, 

Storage Stability of I'yrotri'hnlr 
Com position H Continuing Vinyl Alco- 
hol Acetate Kenin. Piciitinny Arnrtml, 
Dover, N.J., Nov. ll)fl, ;io p. ()],>, 
No. AD-041 89,'i $.'J. 

Final Report on tliu KtTwtit <if n 
Jet Fuel Anli-IciiiR Addiltvit <m l-'nH 
Tank LiniiiRa. Nnvul ItoHtiinvh l.nli., 
WashinR-ton, I).C V Oct. LSKilt, IK |.. 
Order No. AIMM4 |i. $;{. 

Thcrmodynamic nnd ( Vnn im.'ti | jnn 
Data for CoiiHtanl-Voliimo OmiliUH- 
tion of Stoicliiomolric Mlxtiircw of 
Hydrosoii-OxyBon Diluted with Ilr- 
lium or Hyrtroff<!ii. Unlvoiwity vi 
loronto, for the Air Force, Nov. J-Mi-l. 
103 p. Order No. AD-dBR 7^7. ?H. 

Subroutines for 1HM SyHtem/SfW 
to Jacilitalc Visunl DiHplny mid Man- 
Machine Kolalionflliliw. Naviil Wcaji- 
ona Lab., Dahlffrcn, Va., Au ff . HUM, 
^0 p. Order No. AD-0-10 H9fi. $H. 
Materials Study for VlHiiul Tra. 
formation Devices. Moloculon It- 
search Corp., Cambridge, Mass., f,u- 
the Air Force, July 1900, 70 p. ()nit-r 
No. AD-G40 361. $3. 

Exploratory ExpcrimenUil Ktilk- 
Comparing Online and Offline l>rn- 
Brammir Performance, Syatems De- 
velopment Corp., Santa Monica, Cnlif., 
for the Air Force, Dec. lOflfl. 30 j.. 
Order No. AD-64B 438. $3. 



May 1967 




DEFENSE PROCUREMENT 



tracts of $1,000,000 and over 
.rded during the month of April 

DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY 

Gulf Oil Corp., Houston, Tex. $1,601,766. 
Fuel oil and gasoline products to bo de- 
livered to various installations on the east 
:oaat. Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alex- 
imlria, Vit, 

Ineernol] Products, Bom-Warner Corn., 
"hlcnun, 1]|. 2,067, (.74. 811,980 a tool hel- 
110(3. Defense Personnel Support Center, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

General Aniline and Film Corp., New 
fork, N.Y. 1,807,380. 85,804 various ahcA 
inckngea of rtidiogrnphic film, Defense 
."ei-Bonne] Support Center. 
I. P. Stevens & Co., Now York, N.Y. $1,- 
1-11,517. 1,1158,260 linear yards of cotlon 
s]oth, Dcfonite Personnel Support Center, 
'nilfulelphtn, Pa. 

il-tt-S M/sr. Co., Flora, Miss. 51.600,378. 25 
onstructiou tractors and 2E scrapers. Dc- 
unae Cnnstruclion Supply Center, Colum- 
nis, Oil I ft. 

lu nibk Oil & llcfininff Co., Houston, Tex. 
3,742,200. 900,000 barrels of Arctic diescl 
uel oil. Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alox- 
ndt-En, Vis. 

tleccl Textile Corp., New York, N.Y. S8,- 
70,318. 20,346,000 square yards of cotton 
ntccii elo-th, Defense Personnel Support 
:<m(.cr. Philadelphia, Pa. 
. P. Stevens & Co., New York, N.Y. $3.- 
5U,520. 8,000,000 square yards of cotton 
Bteen cloth. Defense Personnel Support 
enter, Philadelphia, Pa. 
lelin-.Icffcrson Co., New York, N.Y. 2,- 
32.3-1B. 4,188,822 yards of fireproof 
otton oxford cloth. DofeiiBO Personnel 
upport Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 
rostcx, Inc., New York, N.Y. SG,07<f,2fi7. 
M7G.500 yurda of fireproof cotton oxford 
ptli. Defense Personnel Support Center, 
hilnclelphfii, P. 

rcnton Textile Engineering & Mfg. Co., 
roiittiii. N.J. 51,030,300. 167,7-iO men's wet 
oatlicr imrkaH. Defense Personnel Support 
outer, Philadelphia, Pa. 
enernl Cable Corp., New York, N.Y. $1.- 
18,842. 23,800 reels of telephone cable. De- 
msR ImluBtrfnl Supply Center, Pliiladel- 
hln, Pa,. 

.W& n Hl iS ll 'V bIlI ,, Co '' PWIndolplila, P. 

1,838.270 Fuel oil & inifloline. Defenne 
.id Supply Center, Alexandria, Va. 
nun* Industries, Selma, Aln. $1.230,380. 
IG,8<iO men a cotton anil nylon raincoats. 

i ,'V 8C Personnel Support Center, Phlla- 
Mjilifa, Pa. 

5?^^" G'-ccnovillo. Tenn., $1,781,586. 
711, COT cnscs on Indivldunl combat mould. 
cfcnse Personnel Support Center, Phlla- 
slphifi, Pa, 

en ton Textile Engineering & Mfg, Co., 
:onton, N.J. 81,080,140. 504,880 water- 
oof clothing bags. Defense Personnel 
ipport Center, Philadelphia, Pa 
rentes. Inc., New York. N.Y. ?M02,730 
1,000 yarda of cotton ami nylon duck 
,, ', V e / en8R Personnel Support Center, 
illndelnliisi, Pa. 

iser Steel Corp., Oakland, Calif. $7,OGB,- 
0. 3(5,150 bundles of steel landing mats. 
jfenHe CoruUructlon Supply Center, Co- 
mbns, Ohio. 

C.A., HfirriHon, N.J. $1,302,600. Electron 
inRRiittlnK tubes, Han-toon. Defense Elcc- 
anic Supply Center, Dayton, Ohio. 
iW Pine Poods, San Francisco, Calif. 31.- 
7,110. 2,183,712 Ibs. of roasted srouml 



25 



27 



CONTRACT LEGEND 
ntract information is listed in 
3 following- sequence; Date 
nip any Value Material or 
ork to be Performed Loca- 
n of "Work Performed Con- 
icting Agency. 



Phif*! Ptf* 118 ?. PerBOtmel Support Center, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

"flJJ*? 1 ? 111 C S- Monroe, N.C. $1,537.340. 
ii ' I" 1 ' 118 ot men 3 wet weather over- 
nwi P? f t'. lsc Personnel Support Center, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

-American Air Filter Co., St. Louis Mo 
1,620,630. 9G3 portable electric flood light 
sets. Defense General Supply Center, Rich- 
mond, Va. 

28 Wilson Mfff. Co., Wilson, N.C. S3, 475,504. 
17,Ul)4 medium Rencral purpose tciita with 
covers. Defonse Perflonnel Support Center, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

~M^s?n Cn iJi&i Awi i! nif C " No , rfolk . VR - *2.- 
2d4 B50, 0,610 medium general purpose tents 

with covers. Defense Personnel Support 
Center, Philadelphia. Pn. 

ARMY 

3 Computer Sciences Corp., Silver Km-iiin- 
Md 1 02B.82B. FornH,l n ticn of a n A 
matic Datn ProcesaiiiB progrnm, ineluclinp; 
formal training. Silver Spring. Army Elec- 
tromca Command, Port Monmouth, N.J. 
,, J " Mnson Co '. Hoston, Mnas. 31,253.622 
I'lizca for 00mm ammunition. Hyde Park 
Mass. Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Juliet. 111. 

li Dynamics Corp, of America, Bridgeport 
Conn. SI, 232,578. Rcnalr pnrte for GO-cycle 
Konerator sots. Hri(! K epc.rt. Army Mobility 
Munmicnt Cominami, St. Louis, Mo 

Bell Aerospace Corp., Fort Worth Tex 
12.248,666. AH-1G hellcoptma fo, ".mHllca- 
tion tcslniB. Fort Worth. Avmy Aviation 
Materiel Command, St. Louis, Mo 
fi Ultra Corp., Toledo, Oliio. 51,013,723. Gen- 
crntors for M-ton, %-ton and 2V- ton 
lr-uehn, Ray City, Mich. Army Tnnk Auto- 
motive Command, Wnrrcn, Mich. 

Gencrnl Motors, Detroit, Mich. S1,OW.027. 
ncnerntors for M-ton, %-ton and 2 '/-ton 
IruoltB. Andci-Hon, Ind. Army Tanfc Auto- 
motive Command, Wnrrcn.' Mich. 

Sornsln Conntructlon Co., Fargo N D SI - 
000,402. Work on the museatina ' Island 
Lcvco District and Mnscntine-Louisd Coun- 
ty Drainage District #13 project. Muacn- 
tno, Iowa, EnKlneer Dlfit., Hock Islam], 

Knficr-Klcf, Inc., ami llcclc Constructors, 
Seattle, Wash. 51,2(19,287. Maintenance of 
run ways ami taxiwnys at Sliemya AFB, 
Alaska. EiiBlneer Diat., Anchorage, Alaska. 

It. (.. l.oTournctui, Inc., Lnngview, TQX 
S3.7G1.820. Metal parts for 7BO-lb. bombs 
LonRvlow. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Awcncy, Joliet, III. 

7 Oknw Industries, Toi-rance, Calif. $1.228,- 
38fi. Kclnfofceil plnatk contnlncrs for stof- 
aKp and transport of caulpincnt io the 
field. Calexlco, Calif. Army Aviation Ma- 
teriel Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

Bell Acroapacc Corp,, Fort "Worth, Tex. S3,. 
017.172. UH-1 helicopter main blade assem- 
blies. $1.388.787. Rotary wlnK Wades. S3,- 
037,730. Main rotor hubs. $8,276,020. Rotary 
wins blndcH. Fort Worth. Army Aviation 
Materiel Command, St. Louis. Mo. 

Ilnylheon Co,. Lexington, Mass. 33,503,322. 
Initial production rim of self propelled 
Hawk missile system ground support equip- 
ment. Andover, Mans, and Bristol, Tenn. 
Army Missile Command, Andover, Mass. 

J. W. Bntesnn, Inc., Dallas, Tex. $H,OGO,450. 
Construction of seven enlisted men's bar- 
racks complexes nt Fort Gordon, Ga, lEhKl- 
neer Dlst,, Savannah, Gn. 

KuRonc Luhr A Co., Columbia, III. 53,223,- 
870. Work on the Arkniisna Kiver and Trib- 
utaries, Arkansas nntl Oklahoma Project. 
Inola, Okla. Engineer Dist., Tulsn, Ohla, 

Pcnkcr Construction Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, 
$4,614,213. Work on the Snylorvllle Dam 
and Reservoir, Des Monies River, Iowa 
Project. Polk City, Iowa, Engineer Diat., 
Hock Island, III. 

Wctmorc & Pnrmnn, Inc., Jnckson, Miss, 
$2,053,027. Construction work on the 
Waterways Experiment Station, VicksLurp, 
Miss., Project. Ennlneer Digt., Vichaburs, 
Miss. 

Peter Klewlt Sons' Co., Vmicouvcr, Wasli. 
$4,371,620, Work on the Lower Monumental 
Lock & Dam, Washington Project. Sargent, 
Wash. Engineer Dist., Seattle, Wash. 



International Harvester Co., Chicago, ' 
33,658.273. Trucks. Fort Wayne. Ind., S 
Lenndro, Calif., and Wcwtbridge, N 
Army Tank Automotive Command, Warn 
Mich. 

10 Cadillac Goge Co., Wnrren, Mich. $l,4fi 
000, Armored cars. Warren. Army Tn 
Automotive Commnnd, Warren, Mich. 

Raytheon Co., Lexington. Ma&a. 32,915.71 
Selected items of sround support ctiii: 
meat and field maintenance ccuipment i 
the Hnwk missile system. Andover. Ma 
and Waltham, Mnas. Army Missile Co: 
mand, Andover, Mnas. 

Levinson Steel Co., Pittsburgh, Pis. 52,41 
000. Plant reactivation for the product! 
of metal parts for 106mm shells. Piti 
burgh. Ammunition Procurement & Sum 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

11 Leece Neville Co., Cleveland, Ohio. $1,101 
315. Starters for 2,6- and 5-ton triiel 
Cleveland. Army Tank Automotive Co 
mand. Warren, Mich. 

Eltra Corp., Toledo, Ohio. 31,099,11 
Starters for 2",- and 6-ton trucks. Bi 
City, Mich. Army Ttink Automotive Cot 
mand, Warren, Mich. 

General Motors, Detroit, Mich. $l,270,fi3 
Slarfers for 2"/>- nntl G-ton trucks. Ancle 
son, Ind. Army Tank Automotive Cot 
mand, Warren, Mich. 



u c0a ' - 

rn. !jj,^3S,120. Loading, assembling ai 

packing miscellaneous fuzes., boosters, m 
mera and detonator.s. Texnrknnn, 'Tex. AT 
munition Procui-ement & Supply Asenc 
Joliet, III, 

Atlas Chemical Industries, Wilmingto 
Del. Sl,0<il,S4G. TNT and operations ai 
inaLntenaaeo activities. Chnttanoogn. Ten 
Ammunition Procurement & Simp 
Agency, Joliet, III, 

Fnrell Construction Co., Memphis, Ten 
$1,618,360. Work on Hie Cordell Hull Loc 
and Dam Project, Carthage, Tenn. Ens 
neer Dist., Nashville, Tenn. 

M. M. Sundt, Tucson. Aria. 31,094,000. Coi 
etruction of n base communEcntions bnili 
ing; a basic flight training fnciHty; n KCI 
era! purpose shop tmil a vehicle refuel! n 
sliop at Williams APB Ariz. Engine 
Dist, Los Angeles, Calif. 

12 Union Carbide Corn., New York, N Y S3 
982,123 and S3.710.472. Dry butter tc 
Charlotte, N.C. Army Electronic Con 
mand, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Burgess Battery Co., Frceport, 111. $1.56fi 
2-18 and $1.172,928.. Dry batteries. Frei 
port. Army Electronics Comnmnd, Phili 
delphia. Pn. 

"~5 r o n 1 flcr>P Co " Wauauu. wiB. 51 
^1)1,872. Dry batteries. Wnuanu. Army El 01 
Ironies Command, Philadelphia. Pn. 

~~S' K C ft S t 00 , 1 , Co " Culvop Git "- C[lltf - S2 
UBB.J60. Helicopter nrmament SHbayatcmi 
Onlver City. Army Weapons Conjmnni 
Kedstone Arsenal, Iluntaville, Ala. 

""JoV^S" 1 ., 8 **? 1 Co " pi "sbur B h, Pn. glO 
425 ,075. Metal parts for 105mm projectile: 
titlshurRh. Ammunitton Procurement , 
Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Chamberlain Corp., Waterloo, lown. S2 
470,387. 156mm smoke projectiles. Scrar 
ton, Pn. Ammunition Procurement & Snr 
ply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

International Harvester Corp., Mclros 
Park III S2.030.000. Scoop type loader! 
Llberlyville, 111, Army Mobility Equir 
rnent Command, St. Louis, Mo. 
WoHthiKlioiiac Air Brake Co., Peoria. II 
$1,104,020. Motorized i-oad graders. IntHnn 
npolia, lad. Army Mobility Enuipmen 
Commnnd, St. Louis, Mo, 

King Construction Co. Texarknna, To* 
?1,76B,B70, Work on the DeQiicen Dinmon 
Reservoir, Arkansas Project. DcQueer 
Ark. Engineer Dint., Tulsa, Okla. 
U.S. Steel Corp., Baltimore, Md. $1,062, 
996. IB armor plnte line items to be \ise 
for ammunition testing. Munhnll, Pe 
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Mit. 
Standard Drcdgine Corp., New OrleanE 
La. 51,310,132. Work on the Mlsfiissipii 
Oliver and Tributaries Flood Control-Chun 
nel Improvement Project. Work will b 
done on the rench from Loasdhatchia t 
Memphis. Tenn., and at Island 63 nea 



13 



ise Industry Bulletin 



31 



Clnrksville, Miss. Enuinecr Dist., Memphis, 
Tcnn. 

Foster Construction Co., EalLoa, Canal 
Xone. $1,140,000. Construction i:f nn air 
freight terminal, chnpel annex, air pns- 
Hentfer terminal, recreation Rym, and NCO 
Open Mess altcratinns at Howard AFB, 
Canal Zone. Engineer Dist., Jncksonvillc, 
Fla. 

K 11 I Corp., Cincinnati, Ohio. 32,077,351. 
Metal parts for 2.75-ineh rocket fuzes. 
Cincinnati. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Itaylhcon Co., Lexington, Mass. 86,109,1-18. 
Advanced production engineering for the 
improved Hawk missile system. Andover, 
Mass. Army Missile Command, Andover, 
Muss. 

Itaytheon Co., Lexington, Mass. 51,807,675, 
Improved Hawk factory testing cquipnient 
and Banginu. Andover, Mass, Army Missile 
Command, Andover, Mass. 

14 Kennedy Van Saun Corp., Danville, Pa, 
SI. 151,900. Metal parts for PP-T105mm 
projectiles. Danville. Ammunition Pro- 
curement & Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

American Machine 04 Foundry Co., Brook- 
lyn, N.Y. 59.120,211. Metal parts for 750- 
Ib. bombs. Garden City, N.Y. Ammunition 
Procurement & Supply Agency, Joliet, 111, 

L. T. Industries, Garland, Tex. S2,40G,967. 
Assemblies for the 760-lb. bomb. Garland. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Jnliet. III. 

R. G. LeTourncau, Lonjjview, Tex. 82,303,- 
B1C. Fin assemblies for the 750-lb. bomb. 
Lorieview. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

U.S. Rubber Co., New York, N.Y. 314,834,- 
417. LoiifiinB. assembling and packing am- 
munition components; manufacturing ex- 
plosives; and Operations & Maintenance 
Activities. Joliet, III. Ammunition Pro- 
curement & Supply Agency, Joliet, III. 

Thlokol Chemical Corp., Bristol, Pa. S12,- 
210,753. Loading, assembling and packing 
miscellaneous shells; loading rocket mo- 
tprs; and Operations and Maintenance Ac- 
tivities. Marshall, Tex. Ammunition Pro- 
curement & Supply Agency, Joltet, 111. 

Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., East 
Alton. III. 32,001,508. Grcnaile fuzes. New 
Brighton, Minn. Ammunition Procurement 
& Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Honeywell, Inc., Hopkins, Minn, S4.E19.- 
893. Grenade fuzes. New Brighton, Minn. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet. 111. 

Lear Sieglcr, Inc., Anaheim, Calif. 32,227,- 
784. Artillery ammunition boosters. Ana- 
heim. Procurement Detachment, New York, 

Emco Porcelain Enamel Co,, Port Cheater, 
N.Y. 52,020,000. Ammunition boxes. Port 
Chester. Frankforii Arsennl, Philadelphia, 
Pa. 

V&N Construction Co., Lubboch, Tex. 31,- 
247, 500. Construction of a hospital bar- 
racks complex nt Fort Hood, Tex. Eniclneer 
Dist., Fort Worth, Tex. 

Loadcraft, Inc., Denton, Tex. $1,083,147, 
Semi-trailer wreckers. Augusta, Knn. Army 
lank Automotive Command, Warren, Mich, 

Howen-McLaughlin, Inc., York, Pn. $1G - 
772847. Retrofit of M48A3 and M48A4 

anks. York, Army Weapons Command, 
Rock Island, 111, 

17 Chancy & James Construction Co., Rich- 
""I*" 1 ' Tox - 32,148,000. Construction of a 
l,00p-mnn, three storied dormitory nt Sheti- 
pard AFU, Tex. Engineer Diat,. Albu- 
querque, N.M. 

18 John Wood Co., St. Paul, Minn. S2.049.082. 
tin assemblies for 750-lb. bombs. St. Paul. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
JoHct, III. 

~*A jT'w '! " C t' D WI"I. Tenn. 
S^.QSS,^ Work on the East Atchafalava 
Levee Project. Near Pierre Pass, La. Engi- 
neer Dist., New Orleans, La. 

McGinnes Bros., Houston, Tex. 51,066,106. 
Work on the Texas City, Tex., Hurricane 
Protection Project. Engineer Diet,, Gal- 
vesUm. Tex. 

~nn* , E ' eVfllor Co., Brooklyn, N.Y, $1,704,- 
i , ^mi-trailer vans to house teletype 
relay facili ties .Brooklyn. Army Electronics 
Command, Philadelphia, Pa. 

""Urn 1 ? *$!*' i Co " PrimoB ' Pfl - 51,520,031, 
400-cycle diesel generators and spare parta, 

w?Ti E " Bi " ccr Kesearch Laboratory, 
I'ort Uelvolr, Va. 

C S* C n r , p " WIch 'ta, Knn. $7,- 
^ A u llily Bi r crnft >4 related 



34 



c, Tex. $1,- 
Work on n classified project. 



Greenville. Army Security Agency, Arling- 
ton, Va. 

Westinghuuse Air Brake Co., Pcorln, III. 
83,088,5G7. 210 dicsel road graders. PcoHa. 
Army Mobility Equipment Command, St. 
Louis, Mo. 

General Motors, Indianapolis, Ind. $2,650,- 
900. Breech mechaniBm assemblies for 
162mm gun/launchers (MSI). Indianapolis, 
Wntervliot Arsenal, N.Y. 
R.C.A., Camdcn, N.J. Sl.000,000, Classified 
electronic equipment. Cnmdcn. Army Elec- 
tronics Command, Fort Monmouth, N.J. 
Phllco Ford Corn., Newport Bench, Calif, 
S1,4U1,20S. Various Quantities of Shillelagh 
spare parts. Newport Bench. Northwest 
Procurement Agency, Oakland, Calif. 
Boyd & Cofortli, Chnrlotte, N.C,, 51,209,- 
074. Construction of post engineer facili- 
ties. Fort Bragg, N,C. Engineer Dial., Sa- 
vannah, On. 

D. R. Allen & Sona, Faycttevillo, N,C. $1,- 
178,92fi. Construction of four ndminifltrn- 
tion and storage buildings, one equipment 
shop) and one electronic maintenance shop 
at Fort Bragg, N.C. Engineer Diat,, Sa- 
vannah, (!n. 

20 Thompson Construction Co., Albany, N.Y. 
51,637,379, Construction of an industrial 
liquid waste treatment plant at Watervllet 
Arsennl, N.Y. Engineer Dial., New York, 
N.Y. 

General Dynamics, Rochester, N.Y. $l!i,- 
300,000. Itcconfigurallon of various digital 
subscriber terminal telephone ayatem 
equipment (AUTODIN Program). IlocheH- 
ter, Army Electronics Command, Fort 
Momnouth, N.J. 

21 Vlnncll Corp., Alliambra, Calif. $3,009,553. 
Instnllation and operation of nn equipment 
reconditioning facility in South .Vietnam. 
Army Mobility Equipment Command, St. 
Louis, Mo, 

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., New 
York, N,Y. $1,242,342. Work on the Little 
Neck Buy Project. Little Neck Buy, N.Y. 
Engineer Dist., New York, N.Y. 
Baltimore Contractors, Inc., Baltimore, Md. 
57,000,000. Construction of H medical bio- 
logical research laboratory building at 
Fort Deterick, Md. Engineer Dial., Haiti- 
more, Md. 

Stewart Warner Corp., Lebanon, Ind. $2,- 
HB7.5BO. Metnl parts for 60mm project lieu. 
Lebanon. Ammunition Procurement & Sup- 
lily Agency, Joliet, 111. 

24 Albion Malleable Co.. Albion, Mich. $2,- 
989,800. Projectile body and band assem- 
blies for Slmm explosives. Albion. Ammu- 
nition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Joliet, 111. 

General Dynamics, Rochester, N.Y. $3,- 
570,852. Itadio seta. Rochester. Army Elec- 
tronics Command, Philadelphia, Pa. 
Caterpillar Tractor Co., Peoria, 111. $4,OIi3,- 
050. Tractors. Peoria, Army Mobility 
Equipment Command, St. Louis, Mo. 
Martin Zachry Conslructora, Honolulu, 
Hawaii. 310,800,015. Construction of n 
multi-functional array radnr building nt 
Kwajalcln Atoll. Engineer Dial., Hono- 
lulu. Hawaii. 

HC Menomlneo, Engineering Corp., Menomince, 
Mich. $1.666,391). Bridge components, Meno- 
mlnee, Army Mobility Equipment Com- 
mand, St. Louts, Mo. 

liulova Watch Co., Providence, R.I., 52,- 
806,210. Head assemblies for M525 fuzes. 
Providence. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Joliet, III. 
FMC Corp., San Jose, Calif. $3,G47.802. 
M113A1 armored personnel carriers. South 
Charleston, W. Va. Army Tank Automo- 
tive Command, Warren, Mich. 
2C Ilynn Contracting Co., Evansville, Ind, $1,- 
401,606. Construction of flood protection 
components. Sturgia, Ky. Engineer Dlst., 
Louisville, Ky. 

Phllco-Ford Corp., Newport Beach, Calif. 
8,671,460. Repair procedures, test equip- 
ment and establishment and operation of a 
repair facility for the Shillelagh missile at 
the Army Depot, Anntaton, Ala. Army 
Missile Command, Redstone Arsennl, 
Himtsville, Ala, 

Hughes Aircraft, Culver City. Cnllf. SI, 
740,000, Thermal night sights plus the engi- 
neering procurement data package for the 
TOW missile. Culver City. Research and 
Development Laboratories, Fort Belvoir 
Vn. 

WhUtcnheirE Engineering & Construction 
Co,, Louisville, Ky. $11,416,111. Construc- 
,?,". ot troo ' > l lolll| in and supporting fa- 
cilities at Fort Knox, Ky. Engineer Dist., 
Louisville, Ky. 

General Motora, Indlnnnpolis, Ind. $4,872,- 
479. Sheridan tank transmissions. Indian- 



apolis. Army Tank Automotive Co mm and, 
Warren. Mich. 

Poloron Products, Now Ilocliellc, N.Y. SI.- 
E33.129. Fin assemblies for the 750-lb. bomb. 
Scrftiiton, Pa. Ammunition Procurement ft 
Supply Agency, .Toilet, III, 
-Mnitnovox Co., Fort Wayne, I ml. 56,150,- 
G71. Hnflio wets. Fort Wayne. Army 1'Act- 
tronicH Command, Philndelphiii, Pn. 
27 Northro]) Corp., Nnwbury Park, CiOif, 82,- 
3154,400. Tai'Bet Riiidcd mfaiiilcs, Neivbury 
Park. Army Missile Command, Heditone 
Arsennl, Iltintsvillo, Ala. 
II. Halvoriton, Inc., Spoknno, Wnsli. g],- 
009,852. Construction oC n almtipltiK **nter 
ami 31 lioiiKes with curbs, driven, ivnlks, 
and pnrkinpr nrenii, and for replncinu writer 
and gas lines. Fort Peck Burn, Mcmlnnn, 
Engineer Dint., Omaha, Nob. 
R, (J. LcTuuriiciiu, Inc., Lnnirviow, Tex, 
$11,710,51!!. Metal pnrJH for 7fi(l-l5i. (iambs. 
Longviow. Ammunition PfocurcineiiL it 
Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 
Pace Corp.. Memphis, Tenn, Sl.H-in.rifiO. 
lllumJiiiitlnt? uiKiials for groiiinl <i|iorntlon9. 
MomphtH, Ammunition I't'iiciiromciit tc 
Supply Agency, Juliet, 111. 

2S Peter KIcwit Son Co., Seattle WHHH. Jl,. 
133,022. Construction of n imiltl-puniDiic, 
multi-story relnfm-eed concrete Htructura 
at p fln City, Alnnkn. I'ln^iiiem- Dial,, Ari- 
cliDi'iiKG, Alaska. 

Eureka Williams Co., H loom Inn ton, III. $1,- 
451,203. Mutal partw for Ixirtili Cum 
IllootnltiHtmi. Procurement DctiiHirntn!, 
Chicago, 111, 

Co! Una llndio Co., Hlehardfxm, 'Pax, S4.Qia.. 
101. AN/TUC-IHU radio tcrjiiinnl apis. 
liliihardson. ProciiromenL DeUiclmiunt, 
Chiciiffo, 111. 

.Inline lie Service, Inir., New UrlenriH, Lit. 
gl,423,!)(i4. Lease of n plpellnit tlrccfce nml 
nttondant plant for chniini!) iiniirovcrnent 
nnd nmlntfiiiunuL' dredglnjc uliniK the 
MlHHiHi)ipi Illver from (Jolnmbim, Ky. lit 
VickHburj?, MiHH. Knglneer Hint.. MeiniiliU, 
Term. 

United Aircraft, Windsor Loului, Ounn., 81.- 
712,15'Ifi. Propellui- nyHlomii for OV--1 (Mo- 
litnvkj helicDjiterH. Wlndmir Ltiekx, Army 
Aviation Materiel Command, St. Louis, Mi>, 
ncccli Alrcrnft, Wichita. Kmi. ?6,onO,flftO. 
U-21A utility nil-craft, Wlcliltn. Army 
Avintion Mnlerlel Coin inn ml, Hi. IxinM, 
Mo. 

DynamlcH Corp, of Amcrlcn, Uj-Idueiifirt, 
Conn. Sl.m.Oim. (ienernloi- HO|H. \Mi\xe- 
tmrt. Army Mobility Kfiulpnmtit Ciinitnniii], 
St. LoufH, Mo. 

lown Mfu, Co.. (leilrir HnTfldn, d.wn, 81.- 
020.711. CriiHhiiiK Find scriidiiiiiK jilnnla, 
Cciltir Hfnilds. Aj-niy Mobility Kimisnncnt 
Command, HI. LIHIJH, Mo. 
Xcllcr Corp., DellaiHie. Ohio. J3.K02.7J3. 
Metnl iiartR for 20-mm projcetlliin. Dull finer. 
Frankford Arnennl, Phlhideliililri. Pn. 
Harvey Aluminum Co., 'IVirnuice. Cnllf. 
81,1)75,000. Metal pm-tn for 2()ium pro/w- 
i-tles. 'rorrnnci'. l-'rnnkford Ai-Hcnal, Phlfn. 
ilelphin, I'a. 

Wnflhinirton ThiiviTlly, HI. I,nulit, Mo, SI.. 
000,000. Ituiii'iircli In mncniimjiliilnr cinti. 
uulcr HyaleniH. SL. I.ouh. Dufi>nne Sinijily 
Service, WimhlnKlon, I). C. 
Radiilnb, Wc-iUlniry, N.Y. $r.,:{IO,nnu. Tcr- 
mlnnl telephones. WeHlbury. Ai-niy K!- 
ti-onicn Command, Philadelphia, ln. 
H.C.A., (Jatmlen, N.J. !4, 0(14, 7-1 fi. Knillu scln 
and recetvei-H. Cnmden. Army lilcclronfcs 
Commanil, Phllnitulpliia, Pa. 
AVCO Corp., ainciiinati, Oltln. $l,73H.i>lC. 
Antonnau. Clncliinali. Army Ulcctronles 
Command, Phlladul]ihln, Pa. 
Collins Rndlo Co,. Dallas, Tt-x. 5a,4UB,l!JO, 
A hish freiMiency oominunli'uLhm tiytAem 
conHlHtlruc of fiii- HV rndli. Htiitimis nnil 
Bjiaro .PIU-IH. DiilliiH, Army Ulcclnink* 
Command, Philndolpliln, Pn, 
SMC Corn., Duerfluld, 111. 82.355.012, Tele- 
typewriter Helw. neurOeld. Army Elec- 
tronics Command, Philadelphia, Pii. 
Raytheon Co., Norwood, MIIPH. $4,4flZJ3B. 
(-.ode moilulntion ccniipmont. NorLli 
on, MnsB Army KleclronlCH Cti 
Philadelphia, Pn. 

Fontaine Truck Equipment Co., - 

liam, Ala, $8,826,507. 26-lon Heini-lrnllcrn, 
Halcyvlllo, Ala. Army Tank Aiilonmtlvc 
Command, Warren, Mich. 
Hupp Corp., Canton, Ohio. $2.fi85,116. S',i- 
ton truck cntiinc ftHsemblleB. C nn Ion. Army 
lank Automotive Commnnd, Warren. 
Mich. 

ConUnentnl Motors, MuskeKon, MIcli. (T,- 

i ii >211 V. M ' ltl " ntl M(i tnill( ondlnc nBacrn- 
biles. MuHkeson. Army Tnuk AiilnmoHvc 
Command, Wnrron, Mich. 
General Motors, Indlnnnpolin, Inil, $l h 86fc- 



May 1967 



128, Transmissions for the 175mm nelf 
propelled gun, the eight-inch howitzer, ami 
the nnnoreil recovery vehicle. Indianapolis. 
Army Tank Automotive Command, War- 
ren, Mich. 

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio. 
31,S6(l,fJHH. MiunU'inmce mid support serv- 
ices, and movement of Government equip- 
ment nncl property from Lorclstown, Pa 
to the Am munition Plant, Kavenna, Ohio 
A ni mu n i I i on Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, III. 

U.S. Rubber Co., New York, N.Y, $20,403.- 
397. Explnsivea. ordnance components nncl 
Operations and MIL in ten a nee Activities 
nt the Ammunition Plant, Joliet. Ammu- 
nition Procurement & Supply Aticnuy. Jo- 

llL'1, III. 

Hercules, Inc., Wilmington. Del. 1,371 434 
Manufacture of miscellaneous prupellrmt.s 
and explosives jinil Operations am! Mainte- 
nance Activities at the Ammunition Plant 
Hartford, Vn. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Jnliet, III, 

General Motors, Detroit, Mich, S 4,7 Oil, 21.0 
Hmly nn.l liaml assemblies for Slmm pro- 
jectiles. Warren Mich. Ammunition Pro- 
ciii-omenl & Supply Aftency, Joliet. 111. 

~Ki,, lr n P, C ,r il " N.'<lham Heights, MUSH, 
81.011,569. I- in assemblies for Hlmni mor- 
tars. Neodlmm HeightM, Ammunition Pro- 
curement & Supply Agency, Jolicl, III. 

KaytJieon Co., Lc; KiiiKlon, Mans, Sl.SlliH.UOO 
MoUl parts for 750-lh. boml) fiiKON. liriw- 
tol, Tcnn. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Jolicl, 111. 

~l i , e mr fl !rl. nst , t ; L1 " lcl ' t Cor "- Chicomw, Mans, 
SI,9lf),4D2 Metnl parla for 750-11). bomb 
fwzes. UiicotM-e. Ammunition Procure- 
ment & Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

,?'" , Cor11 - Waterloo, Town. S4.- 
0. Metal pacts for I7!imm projectiles 
cniioii Pn. Amiminition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Jnllet, 111 
Honeywell, Inc.. IlopkinH, Minn. 82,031,12(1. 
TEO-lb. bimil) iit.Hc fusses. Twin Cities Army 
Ammunition Plniil, New HHghton, Minn. 
AiKniumlioii Procurement & Supply Agon- 

Amron. Corp., Wnu!icnha, Wia. $1, GUI!, 02 2 
40mm cnrtriilge euses. Wiuihcahn. Ammu- 
nition Procurement & Supply Agency. 

JOlltil, IIJ. 

~~n I !, l n I ?n?' trlM| Lm AiiKflloH, Calif, $7,- 
JoO ,11(10. lOBmm -cartridge canes. Riverbank, 



NAVY 

3~Hnytlieon Co., Lexington, Mas. S 18,0(50,- 
|10. bimrrow HI guided mlmllea and re- 
Intocl c<iuipment. Lowell, Mass. Naval Air 
byatemti Command. 

~~?r l ?'nnft 0|l M,?" w ?' J L awl)luiy |1 '"' lt ' C(ilif - **- 
361,000 MQM-74A target drones. New- 

bnry Pork Naviil Air SynlemH Command. 
lln<a Products Corn.. Gulvci- City, Calif 
*l.3<l2,iM. mall-wax] line printer,, for 
chili compiilor ayHtuniH. Culver City. Naval 
Ship SyHicms Ctmvmniul, 

sr! l nV, Ht T 1 J '' llic " , V(UI NllyH - Ulllif - 
St.lCOO.000 Atr oporntlon central*, Hutu. 
jnlnr niixl nciHim) kita and roiwir imrtn 
for UHC with (ho Marine Corps Tactical 
IJtitn System. Van Nuyn. Naval Ship Sys- 
tems Commii-.cl. * 



cmn Command. 



Air 



,A t " . cnn. .,- 

(01. MisBile Biiiclniice and cimtrol sei:Honn. 
Bad wing nnd fln ne( H for Shrike mlimllon. 
Wstol. Naval Air SyalcmB Commnnd. 
nJo "^"struction Co., I, n Mesa, Calif. $1,- 
Sn t i C^S" 1 "" 11011 !" 1 t bBrrackB at tho 
^ n t i^ llL! " S o bl ,VJ uvi i 10 Wnrfaro School in 
l" n in?, lcei> 'T, C(ll , l ' Southwest Div., Naval 
Cnllf " B IC ' " B Cllm n>nTiil, San 

K A nlT cr J can Avi t !o . Annhelm. Cullf. 
BOO. Components for Shlpn Inci-Hnl 

" ^ BlomB - , Anaheim. Nnvn 
nifl Gommnnil. 



SinnnM, 

SI,]10,n20 Mark VII arratlnR onfflnoH, 
with repnir itnrls, for use on nircrnft cnr- 

vSn't W' , Nllvni E "Kinecrln B Center, 
I J JiII(jot]]hia, Pa. 

, ~JJ? ] , GllZEl Conntructlon Co., Port Anttclcs 
S a " h - ?';K? 3 - 9"-t"tfon of torSo 
nt the Navnl Torpedo Station, Koy- 
Ijart, Wnsh, Northwest DI V ., Nnvill Fa, 
c Mi Lies EnKincorlnjc Command, Scuttle, 
Wnsli , 

Jordan Co., Suisun City, Calif. S2.708.000. 
Construction of recruit bun-neks at the 
Nnvnl li-ntnlne Center. Snn DieRo, Clif. 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



Southwest Div., Naval Facilities 

H^fi"^ FT' 11111 ' Sim DIew fif 
B 



. 



"'N^ Rochellc. N.Y. M .- 
llomb fias for GOO-IL boniba 

| r ?- ^T SMlltl Pn ^ Oo'H,i 
Meclmmcsburg, Pn 



np 

( '~n)!n Bt n rn Elc ? tric - New York. N.Y. 82,400 - 
000. Huacarch and <levelo,iment on i.asZ'e 

N(- llB N, l :sr^'% a ' Mraf v wins on -^S 

~n; ij ti A L'' S >' slcmH Command. 

867 HM Jn,^- Slratfo '''l. Conn. S 3,821.- 
Strntf ,,7 M hc l V to f '"' the Air Force. 
NIVI Air 01 " 8 Command. 
ham, Wash. 



8H77K7?n ' nnam, as. 

.i,77H 720. 80 river jiatro bonts DclliiiL- 
ham. Naval Shi,, Systems Command *" 
" " CrCB C n.-, Ohl For. Pa. 



1 
UHUI. t,,i,lM!l,81G. 1'actica eni: hicurinir 

aerviccB on the Polaris mi H ait" " em 
faiinnyvnlc. Siwclnl Projects Olllcc. 

~mf %7 AA lr l c , > BIn B l 'nmilim, N.Y. ?i,. 
!'IHU77. ASA-S2 automatic! (li K m contr, 1 
syntemH and relate.l ^ui.unent "fo- tho A r 
Ior,e. Johnson City. N.Y. Nnvnl Air By 
HleniH Command, 

~U "n Acroapnca Corp., Akron, Ohio. 

SS^ 

~~nm 1 rl r'1 M ." rl ? Uft - ""Itimore. Md. 81,500,- 
M I,, n w" le< r rk ,"" Nav ^ Blwruft. II, . 
10 .1. ' N A V " ! A" 1 Sytcms Command. 

7 R n i n Vlr n n ' Ca " , Ulllv . w Cit ^' Calif. 
S27)l!.100. Dosinn n,l fabrlcntlon of a 
mulli-funclion radar nntcnnn and related 
srvipi-s and e(1 ui]nncnl. Culver City, Navnl 
Air aynt mH Command. 

~nrH? rr ? !"1 Cor "" a y"Mt. N.Y, SI, OH,- 
.. ,'.. '""f "'jviKation .subsystem con- 
iniiiei Is for nuclear-powered fleet ballistic 

SVK I 1 , 11 " 11 " 1 '' 11 ?' Syl. Naval Ship 
nyHtema Comnmnd. ' 

"~^',H; .'!r lnl , l , B ',' * Asaocintes, Norfolk, Vn. 
,.!!,) .|gn. Rehabilitation of bnrracW ai 

flk" V, rJi th ?. Nn tr. nl Mv StntJ<) . Np- 

II "i At ' anUc Di v., Naval FncIHUai 

11 i- -t,, 1 , 00 ,' ." K Command, Norfolk. Vii, 

11 I-.1.M(, Lnrp., LUB AriRulM. Calif. S l,278.- 

8(1B. Mark 19, MOD 1, plnntic weather 

HlnolilH for H-lnch, 50-caliber twin gun 



l- 
I'JcclroninRnctic Tcclmolony Corn., Col- 
nr. Pn. ?l,fl.720. Tranflistorl.ed ' c eotr on 

(:"mmn7l. n|1 ' "' Shl " SyB " 8 




000,000. yi,l< airborne communications BVK- 
leiim nncl related omilpment for inntnllation 
n O--130 aircraft. Ulclmnlson. Nnval Air 
Systems Command. 

, ; ,n! ler , nl Dynamics. Pomona, Cnlif. 82,324,- 
400. Increase the limitation of (uitluirlan- 
UOH for material and assemblies for tho 
Standard ARM missile. Poinomi, Naval Air 
Systems Command. 

Whiltnkcr Corp., Denver, Colo. $1,600.000. 
Production of MK 4C batteries. Denver. 
Navnl Ordnance Systems Command. 
Ynnliioy Electric Co., New York, N.Y. SI - 
4)4.540. MK 53 bn I lories. Denver, Colo, 
Navnl Ordnance Systems Command. 
North American Aviation, McHi-egor. Tex 
$1,144,0.10. MK 89 roekot motors ami re- 
lated equipment. McGregor. Navnl Air Sys- 
tems Command. 

Jordan Co., Suisnn Cily, Cnlif, $1,618.000. 
(,onnlniclion of barracks at the Navnl Air 
.Station, North Inland, Snn Diego, Cnlif. 
Southwest Dlv.. Naval Facilities Engineer- 
ing Command, San Diego, Calif. 
13 Sncrry Knnd Corp., Great Neck, N.Y. $2,- 
000,000. Production of MK GG nignnl datn 
converters for the Talus missile. Great 
Neck. Naval Ordnance Systems Command. 
Hubbard Construction Co., Orlando, Pla 
$1,200,800. Installation of utilities ami 
for a drill field at the Navnl Training 
Center, Orlando, Flu. Southeast Div.. 
Nnval Facilities Engineering Commnncl, 
Charleston, S.C. 
Jefferson Construction Co., Cambridge, 



Mass fc2.103.000, Construction of a bache- 
lor officer 3 quarters at the Naval Stntiim. 
Newport, R.I. Northeast Div.. Nova] Fa- 
cilities Enjjineerinj,' Commarnl. Huston, 
Mass. 



i . 

]!1Klllfle( ' electronics 



, N.J. 



"ou.vuu. ^jiib amen electronics efiuiprncnt 
Nutley. Navnl Ship Systems Command. 
byEvnnia Electric Products, Wnlthnm 
Mass. $1,925,000. Airborne receiver trans- 
mitter radio sets and related equipment. 
\\nlthnm. Nnval Air Systems Command. 
M t,arrett Corp., Los Angeles, Cnlif. $1.015.- 
4U4. Compressor power units and related 
equipment. Torrnnce, Calif. Naval Air Sys- 
tems Command. 

~Mi r *n r P Cor|J " Newbury Park, Calif. 82,- 
ii94,700. Two anti-subniiu-ine classification 
analysis centers. Navnl Air Development 
Center, Johnjiville, Pn. 

"S'l /!;!^ Jft du ? tril 3 s ' * M3 Angeles, Calif. 
SI5.0G(i,OI)(l, SOO-lb. MK 82 bo m b bodies. 
Vcrnon, Calif. Navy Ships Parts Control 
Center, Mcclmnieabure, Pn 
IT Austin-Wright Construction Co., Okla- 
homa City, Okla. S2,<JGB,000. Rehabilitation 
of barracks at the Marine Corps Air Sin- 
lion, Cherry Point, N.O. Atlantic Div.. 
Naval I- aj-ilitics Engineering Command, 
Norfolk, Vn. 

~!/..?' LuHnt 'di Construction Co.. Vista. 
Cnl.f. SUIT.), 500. Construction of n bat- 
talion vehicle mnintennncc shop, adminis- 
tration building, supply operations build- 
ing, battalinn recreation building and n 
regimen tnl ailministrntion building at 
Camp PencllGtnn. Cnlif. Southwest Div., 
Navnl facilities Engineering Command, 
San Diego, Calif. 

~~',. H - LuHftr ni Construction Co.. Vista, 
LalLf. 81,274,000. Construction of n base 
Meadqunrtei-H tlivision nren at Camp Pen- 
lilelon, Calif. Southwest Div., Nnvnl Fa- 
cilities Engineering Command, San Die-go, 

McDonnell Co., St. Louis, Mo. $1,200,203 
Work on F-4 aircraft. St. Louis. Nnval 
Air Systems Command. 

IK Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., 
elhpagc, N.Y- S30.000.000. A-GA aircraft. 
Hetlipnjte. Nnval Air Systems Commanil. 
Norllirop Corn., Newbury Park, Calif, S2 - 
100,000. Design, development, fabrication, 
ICHting and furnishin H of nn overall mobile 
ant l-subina ritie warfare target system. 
Newbury Park. Naval Ordnance Systems 
Command. 

American Mfe. Co of Tex., Vori Worth 
lex. S1.5GD.812. Projectiles for 5-ineii 54- 
(nl. (runs. Fort Worth. Nnvy Shins Parts 
Control Center. Mcchanlcsburg, Pa 
1!) Todd Shipyarila. New Orleans, La. S2.0T2 - 
000. Repair of hull, machinery, electrical 
'!'!,. miscellntnious ilnmanc to drydock 
AHJM-2. Now Orleans, Supervisor of Ship- 
building, Eighth Naval Dist., New Orleans, 
La, 

Wells Industries, North Hollywood, Cnlif. 
1,276,5HO. Ci'ouml support enuipnient for 
starting jet onnlne aircraft. North Holly- 
wood. Naval Air Systems Comnuitid. 
20 BocijiB Co., Morton, Pn, $10,241,103. CH- 
4GD helicopters. Morton. Nnval Air Systems 
Command, 

Johns Hopkins University, Applied Phy H icH 
Laboratory, Silver Spring, Md. $2,642,000. 
Research anil development en the Humble- 
tee iirojcct. Silver Spring. Nnval Ordnance 
Systems Commnntl. 

Curtlss Wriglit Corp., Wood-Rldee, N J 
$ 1,700.931). Compressor blndes for J-6B en- 
gines. Woocl-ltldge. Navy Aviation Supply 
Ofllctj, Philnilcliihla, Pa. 

Grctna Machine & Iron Works, Harvey. La 
SI,20S,000. Five fuel oil barges. Harvey. 
Nnval Ship Systems Command. 
21 Bcndix Corp., Baltimore, Md. 0,183,201. 
Airborne rnilio receiver transmitter sets 
anil related ec|Lii]iment. rtnltimore, Nnvnl 
Air Systems Command. 

Honeywell, Int., Hopkins, Minn. 2,000,700. 
Fabrication of comiioiienta for th* Rockeye 
II weapon system. Hopkins. Nnvy Purchns- 
ing Otllce, Loa Angeles, Calif. 
24 Clcvite Corp., Cleveland, Ohio. 2,500,000. 
llosonrch aacl development of a new tr- 
pedo test vehicle, Cleveland. Nnval Ord- 
nance Systems Command. 
Douglas Aircraft Co., Long Beach, Cnlif. 
$20,028,000. Additional funding for A4P 
aircraft. Lonfi- Bench. Nnval Air Systems 
Command, 

If. K. Beebo. Inc., Utlca, N.Y. 1,236,620. 
Conversion of nn electronic research la- 
boratory at nrilllss APB, N.Y. Eastern 
Dlv,, Nnvnl Facilities EnsincerinR Com- 
mnnd. New York, N.Y. 
25 Genernl Dynamics, Qtiincy, Mass. ?23,848,- 



35 



000. Construction o f n ,| ck landing ship. 
Quinry. Nnvnl Shin Systems Commnnrf. 

Steel Cot Corp., Birmingham. Ala. $1,574,- 
804. Mark 9 ammunition pallets. BirmiiiK- 
hnrn. Navy Shi]>3 Pnrls Control Center, 
Medmnicshurn. Pn. 

United Aircraft, Enst Hartford. Conn. S2,- 
781,912. Simre parts for fishier aircraft 
cnwiiiPH. Fast Hartford. Navy Aviation 
Supply Office. Philadelphia. Pa. 

Maison Klectronka Corp., Macon. Gn. SI,- 
203,304. fi-inch. E4-ro). jirojectile fuzes. 
Macon. Navy Ships Parts Control Center, 
Mechanicsliurg, Pn, 

Western Klectric, New York. N.Y. SIO.IIB,- 
000. OceanoRranhic research. Overseas. 
Navy Puri'liasinc Office, Washington, D.C. 

Ameriran Machine & Foundry Co., York, 
PH. S10.8S7.000. Mark 82, MOD 1, 600-lb. 
bomb bodies. York. Navy Ships Parts Con- 
trol Center, Mechanicsbure, Pa, 

-fiensral Dynamics, Pamona, Calif. 52,830,- 
001). Manufacture, assemble and check out 
Kuiilance nnd control components for im- 
proved Tartar nnd HT-3A Terrier missiles 
nnd related equipment. Pomona, Navnl 
Ordnance Sy.-items Command. 

Paul J. Vagnoni. North Hills. Pa. 81,300,- 
010. Construction of enlisted men's bnr- 
rarks at the Naval Station, Philadelphia, 
Pa. East Central Div., Naval Facilities En- 
Kineerinft Command, Philadelphia, Pa. 

D. Geyer Construction, Monterey, Calif. 
31,621,000. Construction of additional aca- 
demic facilities aL the Naval Post Graduate 
School, Monterey, Calif. Western Div., 
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 
San Bruno, Cnlif. 

26 Stromberj; Carlson, San DICRO, Calif. $!,- 
fi'.C.SOO. Airborne tactical data display sys- 
tems for ASW aircraft. San Diem Nnval 
Air Systems Command. 

.Sanders Associates. Nashua, N.H. $3,000,- 
000. Basic engineei-inn and development of 
an air drorpnble ASW sonobuoy system. 
Nashua. Nnval Air Systems Command. 

Sperry Rand Corp., Syosaet, N.Y, S3,38B,- 
000. Intertial navigation subsystem com- 
ponents. Syosset. Naval Ship Systems Com- 
mand. 

Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Sunnyvale 
Calif. ?BO,838,76G. Polaris A-3 missiles. 
fcunnyvale. Special Projects Office. 
27 Wcslinghouae Electric, Baltimore, Mel, Sl,- 
200,000. Airborne radar seta. Baltimore. 
Naval Air Systems Command. 
i , * A , irrnfi - Eflst Hartford, Conn. SI.. 
149.163. Incremental funding for J60-P-G 
engines. East Hartford. Naval Air Systems 
Command. 

~J, ft ck ~ Md Aircra f' Burbank, Calif. 56,684,- 
J49. Extension of lone lead time effort to 
support FY 1967 procurement of P3B air- 
j}'^? val Air Systems Command. 
sh 'D>' ailds ' Snn Pedro. Calif. 51,039,- 
Regular overhaul of the oiler USS 

., (AM4 ^; San Pedro ' Supervisor 
building. Eleventh Navnl Dint,. San 
"lego, Calif. 

American Mfg, Co. of Tex., Fort Worth 
TmS21.868.B80. Mark 82 bodies for 600- fc 
bombs. Fort Worth. Navy Shirs Parts Co n : 
nD ~ 01 Center, Meehanicslmrjt, Pa 

WRwS A !W' IlOS A 8ele 3 , Calif. SL- 
318,398. Fueling-at-sen probes and re- 

Command 03 B ' N * VBl Shf " Syatema 

~~m,,M Mhwm Construction Co., Newton 
Highlands. Mass. ?1,094,000. Construction 

Hn T 3 h T a " , at th . e Nflval Submarine 
"use, New London, Conn. Eastern Div., 

NeYork. N Y 3 EnftlllecrinB Command! 

AIR FORCE 

3 ~Sl^ b /;f.?" C r? rl ! Dn , Co , tp 'J Rochester, N.Y. 
1 4 't Ga v Ce "fnl telephone office equip- 
rncnt. Rochester. Oklahoma City Air Ma- 
1 , (AF , L 9 1 ' Tin!!er AFB, Okln 
A'-' In * uattlei >' Harrington. II. 
( A '5 Crnft c ? mera systems. Bar- 



?' Satl 



. 



of 



ficatlnn kita for radar bombing aystcms. 
Garden City. Sacramento Air Matevlel 
Area, (AFLC), McClellan AFB. Calif. 
Curtiss-Wrlght Corp., Wood-Ridge, NJ. 
81,000,013, Kngineerlnir services to support 
R-3350, R-1820 nnd R-1300 reciprocating 
aircraft engines. Wood-Ridge. San Antonio 
Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), Kelly AFB, 
Tex. 

General Dynamics/Convalr, San Diego, 
Calif. 32,800,000. Procurement of Atlas/ 
Agena space boostera. San DieKo. Space 
Systems Div., fAFSC), Loa Angeles, Calif. 

Magnovox Co., Fort Wayne, Ind. $1,072,392. 
Production of airborne communications 
equipment. Fort Wayne. Warner-Robins 
Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), Robins APR, 
Ga. 

7 General Electric, West Lynn, MIIBB. $3,850,- 
171. Production of J~8G engines. West 
Lynn. Aeronautical Systems Div., (APSC), 
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, 
11 Douglas Aircraft, Santn Monica, Calif. $1,- 
992,418. Production of components for the 
Genie air-to-air missile. Santa Monica. 
Ogden Air Materiel Area, (AFLC). Hill 
AFQ, Utah. 

Lockheed Aircraft, Jamaica, N.Y. $4,200,- 
000. Inspection and repair aa necessary on 
C-121 aircraft. Jamaica. Sacramento Air 
Materiel Area, (AFLC) McClellan AFH, 
Calif. 

American Electric, La Mirada, Cnlif. $1,- 
367,681. Production of external fuel tanks 
for F-1QI aircraft. La Mirnda. Sncramonto 
Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), McClellan 
AFB, Calif. 

-Thiokol Chemicnl Corp., Briglmm City, 
Utah. $1,601,000. Work on a post hooiit 
rocket propulsion system. Brlglmm City. 
Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards 
AFB. Calif. 

12 Fairchlld Hiller Corp., Farmingdalo, N.Y. 
SI, 522, 120. Production of components for 
the emergency flight control ayatem of F- 
105 aircraft. Farminfidale. Sncramenlo All- 
Materiel Area, (AFLC), McClollnti AFB. 
Calif. 

Magnavox Co., Fort Wayne, Ind. $1,250,000. 
Production of airborne communication!! 
equipment. Fort Wayne. Aeronautical Sys- 
tems Div., (AFSC), Wright-Patterson AFB, 
Ohio. 

Emerson. Electric, St, Louis, Mo. $1,350,000. 
Production of a ground test syHtem for the 
testing of aircraft avionics systems. St 



. 

14 A VCO -Everett Research Laboratory, Ever- 
ett, Mass. $1.760,000. Work on the radiation 
research program. Everett. Balletic Sys- 
tems Div.. (AFSC), Norton AFB, Cnlif. 
B. F. Goodrich Co., Akron, Ohio. $3,670,806. 
Production of F-4 aircraft tires. Akron. 
Ogden Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), IIIU 
AFB, Utah. 

17~North American Aviation, Los Angeles, 
Calif $3,147,858, Pylon aaaambllm foi- F- 
10U aircraft. Los Angeles. Sacramento Air 
Ma eriel Area, {AFLC), McClellnn AFU, 

^Rliti 

Olln Mnthleson Chemicnl Corp., Enet Al- 
ton. 111. Sl,2,000. Engine stnvtor r- 
tridgeB for B-67 aircraft. Marion, 111. 

9l,. en T, Ai r Materl l Area, (AFLC), Hill 
At' JJ, ulnn. 

18 i l Sn I S !ec f ric / t We8t !*". Mass. $1,- 
A 6 ^ 00 -, Prod tion of J-S5 ensinca fop 
A-37 aircraft. West Lynn. 




Wright-Patterson AFB, 



Koehler & Sons, Htitboro, P n . SI 602 000 
Non-explosive components for mVmitiona 

WFSCl- w3 Wf! cal Syatom DTv ; 
' 'eht-Patteraon 



on AFB, Ohio. 



e , 



explosive components for 'munitions .' Ster- 



ling. Aeronautical SyoteinB Div,, (AFSC 
WH K ht- Patterson AFIt, OIilo. 
Honeywell, Inc., Htjpkiim, Minn. Sl.SSfijK 
Non-exrilo.ilvu com) union t a for mnnilir>r 
Now IlriKhtim, Minn. Aercinnulfanl Sy 
tomnDiv., (AFSC), Wrinlit-Pnltermm AFI 
Ohio. 

10 United Technology Center. Sunny-vi 1 
Cnlif. SMli>,000. LOUR luntl hnTslwnrc t'. 
solid rocket motoi'H for Tltnn III. Sumi: 
vnlfi. Simne Sytitcni'i I>iv., (AFHC), It 
AtiBelcH, Calif. 

20 ttynn Aeronautical Co., Sun Ofcifn, Calil 
$1,400,000. Till-not dmiica nnd reln^- 
equipment. Sun DieB. Aoronnulical Sys 
terns Div.. (AFSC). Wr!)U-PnlttT,-:: 
AFB, Ohio. 

21 Fnlrchlld Killer Corn., Furnijntcilnle, N.V 
$1,860,000. Engineer soi-vtccH iinrf innlcriilH 
related to iimtnllntlmi of n f\\nhl ron1r--l 
Hyntem In F-104 D/!<* HrrJrn nirtref',. 
Fnrmingdnle. SniM'iiniontfj Air MnEcrfcl 
Area, (AFLO), MoGlellnn AFH. <!n!Jf. 
THW. Inc., Ileiloiulo Itench. Cnlif, 32,011.- 
000. UcHunrch anil ili>vi>l'ii|niionl fur ](,ri 
lend time iloma for tho Vlil.A Htik'INtc |T-:- 
Brnin launch vehicle, Ilcdoriild Ik-Jirh, Kii-t 
SyateniH Div., (AFSC), Lou AliKcJiM. Calif 
AVCO Corp.. StratfiH-cl, Conn. ?l,SCl,Cv) 
Work on the Murk 11A rc-nntry vrhlt^ 
Stratford. UnlllHtlp Ryiitenui Dlv., (AKSCi, 
Norton AFH. Calif. 

North American Avtntlon, Annhdin, 1'nlif 
$3.056,000. Mriintnniicc, i-oiifili-, dvcrhi..' 
nnd miHlillciiliiiii nf Mtiiiitcnuiri mjj.hn 
and control HyHteiun. Anulmlm. Hn]||<!i; 
Sya(em Div., (AFSC), Norlon AH!. Calif 
24 L. T. IndiiHlricH, IlnllnH, T*, $1,303,751. 
Production of ntrornft liomli-lcl dlajxTucn. 
finrliind, Tex. Aoriiiimitirnl Kyntchii [Hv, 
(AFKO), WrlKlU-l'iHUn-don Al-'lt, Ohio. 
LLIITS Construction Co,, Purhlu. (V|i 
$ 1 ,1-111.078. CoiiHtriKition of Mli.nt.'rnin 
train inn fncilitii-a. MiiuiL AI-'K, N.l>. n*;) 
Wiirrcn AFH, Vfyu, (J()i-| 1H nf Ktifiliicvi 
HnlllMtlc MiHHllu Criniitrntilioii Oilier, Hr-r- 
ton AFH. Cnlif. 

COMCOK. Inc.. Annlicifrn, Cnlif. 1,lf ft.OiO. 
I'roriircment i)f tin IntiJKrnt.uil rnni)mt<r 
flytilum. Annhi.-im. Synlnrnin I'liiHlnccrlr.i 
(;roii]>, Wriirht-Pnttoi-Hon AFH, Ohio, , 
25 General Klectric, Clnciitimtl. Oliin. JB.4H. : 
400. PnxlucLlon of J-711 1 fj ami J-7S-11 
aircraft cnifinen. KvtiiiiJnlc, OliEo. Arrc- ! 
nniillcal SyatoinH Div., (AFSC), Wrist/- i 
I'nltersini AFH. Ohio, 

2(1 WeNtinirlioiiiic MloctrJc, Hnttlmiirc, Mil, tl.- i 
.100,000. KnBini'LTitiK iiorvio-H uriil |iro,luf- j 
tlon of ulisclfonin i!ouiil(irnii.'iiiirc iii'.tJj--- i 
ment, HiillinmrL 1 , Ai'rotiaiiHenl Syuttrj 
Div., (AFSC). WrlKhl-1'nUcM-nmi AKD. ! 
Ohio. || 

HntcHVillc Mfg. Co., Cnimlnii, Ark, J7.Z2-),-! 
150. 1'roduction of (JIitni'iiiiiTH for ImniljNlf, ? 
Cnmdon. Acnuiniillcnl SysUfiim 1)1*., | 
(AFHC), Wrlitht-l'atU'rm.ii Al-'lt, ll!di>. i 
Lockheed MlwHilo & Hiincc Co,. Kimiiym'i 
Cnlif. Jl.oril.noO. ARHIH Iniinch nervk.i if 
tho EnBtcrn Tout Kaiino. Ononn llcndi, Hi. 
bunco SytiieitiH Div., (AKBC), I.i.a Av 
Kolo H , (Jalif. 

Itndlntton, Inc., Molljoume, I-'lji, 3^,1110, ttJ. 
Production (if (troiitnl Eitnllun tplcnictiji 
etiuiinnent. Mdljimmn. S]ntcc HytilrnH IIJi 1 
(AFSC), Lou .AtiBclcn, Calif. 

Sl.aiiO.fiOO. PrdchicUoii nf nircrnft nrn-V 
InK bnrrlorH. Houtli I'tirtlcinfl. tinn Anturi; 
Air Materiel Area, (AFI.C), Kelly AID, 
Tox. 
27 North Amcrlcnn Avlntlon, Onnojtn T*TV, 

tho Atlns booHlur enKliio HyiitemH, <!(inii8 
Park. Simee Syslemn Div.. CAI'HC), I,M 
Anttelos, CiiHf. 

na nx IItlr<Iwnrc Corn., Indurttry, Oftllf. II,- 
221.2G3. Production of bnnili cDinpancnl). 
/IrVon 1 ?' ,. AcronnuUcnl Hyntemn m?.. 
nu *' WrI "l--Pnltei'Him AFH. Ohfo, 
28 Philco-Ford Corii,, Pnln Alto, Cnlif, i),-j 
S'lO.OOO. Work on n nntolllto ci>n(ral r.r!-| 
V?V-,r!n," Alto. Hpaeo SvntMiw HIT, | 
(AFSC), Loa Angeles, Cnlff. j 

~J* hI1 AS; 1 '' ( ^' 1 Corn I'"'" Alto, Cnlif. tl,- 
n,^'"' Dca| Kn, ilovelopmont, fnbr lent EOT, 
inght tent nnd datn iinnlyHla of r-cn<rf 
menfliircment vehiclca. Newport IteJMk 
Cnlif. Bnlliatlc Syatoma Div., (AFSC1 
Norton AFH, Cnlif. ' 

~J?(irtln-Mnriettn, Denver, Colo, 
Work on the Titan HIM BJWICO 
Denver. Snitce SyfitoniB Div., (AFSC). la 
Angeles, Cnlif. 

Internntlonnl Telephone & Tolc graph. Nut 
ley, N.J, $2,660,208. Airborne LOHAK 
nnvlgntional acts nntl i-elnled cnulimwnt 
r ,?l Aeronnutlcnl SyBlcmH BEv, (AFSCl 
Wright-Pnttorson AFB, OIilo. 



May 



A new policy for better administra- 
tion of Government-owned machinery, 
industrial buildings and basic mate- 
rials for producing- defense products 
has been initiated by the Defense 
Contract Administration Services 
(DCAS) of the Defense Supply 
Agency, 

Major General John A. Goshorn, 
USA, Deputy Director for Contract 
Administration Services, who has the 
operational responsibility for admin- 
istration of industrial property, has 
directed that a large percentage of 
his natton-wide work force of 2 S 2,000 
employees apply specialized technical 
talents to administering Government- 
owned industrial property in con- 
tractors' plants. 

Previously, approximately 300 prop- 
erty administration specialists in the 
11 DCAS regions in the United 
States have carried the entire burden 
of overseeing: the hundreds of mil- 
lions of dollars worth of Government 
property in plants. The new policy 
leaves the basic responsibility with 
these specialists but assigns, in ad- 
dition, responsibilities to various 
other contract administration special- 
ists who are nt or near contractors' 
plants to watch over specialized as- 
pects of property administration. 

The new emphasis on property ad- 
ministration is in line with a directive 
from President Johnson to heads of 
Government departments and agen- 
cies for "improvement in property 
inatmfi-ement by contractors." DCAS 
personnel do not directly manage 
Government property in plants; 
father, tliey represent the Govern- 
ment in plants to assure that con- 
tractors comply with standard pro- 
visions of the Armed Services 
Procurement Regulation and their 
awn contractual agreements relating 
to Government property. Quality as- 
surance representatives, industrial 
specialists, transportation officers and 
specialists will continue to have over- 
ill responsibility. 

Following 1 are some of the princi- 
ml characteristics of property admin- 
stration with indications of the 
liialified specialist to be assigned: 
Maintenance. A direct relationship 
between product quality and 



the care of the equipment or tooling 
used to produce the item. For this 
reason, DCAS quality assurance rep- 
resentatives will monitor the con- 
tractors' maintenance of Government- 
owned plant equipment, special test 
equipment and special tooling-. Main- 
tenance of Government-owned real 
estate or structures will be surveyed 
by DCAS industrial specialists. 

Utilization. Government property 
provided to contractors may be used 
only for purposes authorized and must 
be returned when that use is no 
longer justified. Because of the re- 
lationship of the use of industrial 
plant equipment to the contractors 
overall production capacity or need, 
industrial specialists will be respon- 
sible now for surveying contractors' 
utilization controls over that kind of 
property. 

Excess Declarations. In the eco- 
nomic ^utilization of Government 
property the true condition of items 
must be described to the contractors 
and military installations who are po- 
tential users; otherwise, unnecessary 
and costly shipments of unusable ma- 
terial or equipment may result. Since 
the condition of property is ordinarily 
based upon a final inspection, verifi- 
cation of contractors' descriptions has 
been assigned to quality assurance 
representatives. 

Shipment. There are many reports 
and methods for adjusting- overages, 
shortages, or damages that are found 



to exist upon receipt of shipments of 
Government property. Since these 
matters relate to packaging, preserva- 
tion and transportation regulations, 
the responsibilities are being defined 
and assigned respectively to quality 
assurance representatives and trans- 
portation agents. 

Coordination. In order that there 
will be no wasted or duplicative effort, 
more effective use will be made of 
existing documentation of Government 
industrial property. Examples are in 
the use of quality assurance repre- 
sentatives' controls over property re- 
turned to a contractor for analysis 
in connection with a material de- 
ficiency complaint. Also, when special- 
ized safety engineers in the course 
of their plant safety surveys detect 
potential hazards that could jeopard- 
ize property, their recommendations 
will be made available to property 
administrators. Likewise, when quality 
assurance surveys encounter exces- 
sive rejects or undue waste in produc- 
tion or fabrication, quality assurance 
representatives will provide appropri- 
ate comments to property administra- 
tors. 

These management i mprovemen ts 
will soon be formalized and published 
as changes in applicable DCAS oper- 
ating manuals. However, many of 
them are now in operation with en- 
couraging results. The whole system 
wilt be in operation before the end of 
1967. 



DEFENSE PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS 
TO SMALL BUSINESS 

(Amounts in Thousands) 

July 66-Feb. 67 July 65-Feb. 66 

Procurement from All Firms $25,461,246 $20,042,934 

Procurement from Small Business Firms-- 5,112,317 4,275,718 

Percent Small Business 20.1 21.3 



OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 2O30I 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 



United States, Australia, Canada To Develop 
Tactical Communications System 

The United States will participate in a major cooperative program 
with Australia and Canada to develop a comprehensive tactical 
communications system common to the field armies of the three 
countries. 

The system, known as the Mallard Project, will employ all modes 
of message and data transmission, ranging from simple written 
me sages and voice-radio links to automatically switched digit 
systems and, possibly, communications satellites. 

Brigadier General Paul A. Feyereisen, USA, has been designated 

TT ma " agel ' f r the Mallard Pra i ect - Lieutemmt 
L. G. Moore and Lieutenant Colonel D. C Coughtrv Mv e 



. 

nng Agency, will be located at Fort Monmouth 



the proper combinations of ubsysten to rl T*" & ' With 
communications ranging froTfrl ;/?,' com l )rehe ve 
major echelon headquarter tn^!. %Mmg units thro S h 
tegic systems. >nler-operat,on with world-wide stra- 



concepts of mob 



New Navy R&D 

Facility Features 

Huge Spin Chamber 

The Government's larRv.st .sj>in 
chamber has been put into npyrrt- 
tion by the Naval Air KnjvmL'cr- 
ing Center, Philadoli>hia, I'n., M 
part of its Aeronautical Ursine 
Laboratory's Containmont Hvil- 
nation Facility (AttLOUF). 
Goal of the facility will 1* 
to provide lightweight contnin- 
ment/control devices that will 
prevent fragments of failed tnr- 
bomachines from iiijiirtn;, per- 
sonnel and minimize aircrnfi 
damage. 

A feature of the AULOKF h! 
the capability to photoKi'aj>fi (Iw 
interactions of frasfmonts micl 
the containment of dcrjectioii de- 
vices. Action is recoixlecl by t\ 
high speed continuous framing 
camera that can be positioned 
at either one of four photo- 
graphic observation ports to-' 
cated around the chamber. 

The AELCEF is equipped with 
airpowered drive turbino.H that 
can rotate a variety of frag- 
ment generators over a wiifcj 
range. A 1,000-pound work piece; 
can be rotated at 25,000 rpm and; 
an eight-pound piece can bo spun! 
to a maximum of 150,000 rpm. | 

* U. S. GOVERNMENT POINTING OFFICE .. IflflT 3 



JUNE/JULY 1967 




Features 
Military Economic Impact Today 

Major General Allen T. Stanwix-Hay, USA 1 

The Armed Forces Grocery Bill 

Lieutenant Colonel Richard M. Hosier, USAF 4 

The Challenge of Army Requirements to Aerospace 
Technology in the 1970's 

Brigadier General John R. Guthrie, USA 7 

Status of Funds Report 22 

Departments 

From the Speakers Rostrum 12 

About People 17 

Meetings and Symposia 20 

Defense Procurement _ Q 





NOTICE 

The cover date for this issue of the Defense Industry Bulletin has 
been a tared June/July so that hereafter it can correspond with the 
month in wh.ch the Bulletin is received by subscribers. There will be 
no 'nterrupfion in continuity of publication; the next issue will be 
denhHed as the August issue and should be in your hands early 



Th ki- P e f enae Industry Bulletin 
w published monthly by tflo Business 
& Labor Division, Directorate for 
Community Relations, Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Pub- 

tL Sir ' J 188 /funds for PrfW 
this publication was approved bv the 

Director of the Bureau of the Budget 

036 f i he *vto*t* i* 
^ eans . of communication 

**' 1 . 1 of Defen 
* authorized aeencies 

Defense contractors and other 
business interests. It will serve S 



the BvM*ttn is se- 
f . Pertinent unclassified 

Zllhf ^ terest ^ the Business com- 
munity. Suggestions from industry 
representatives for topics to be cov- 
ered m future issues should be for- 

the BU8ineSS & Labor 



i is , d ^tributed without 
each month to representatives 







Published by the 

Department of 

Defense 

Hon. Robert S. McNaiunra 
Secretary of Defense 

Hon. CyriiH II. Vance 
Deputy Secretary of Defense 

Hon. Phil G, Goulding 

Assistant Secretary of Defence 
(Public Affairs) 

Col. Joel IJ. Stephens, USA 
Director for Community 



Col. .1. S. Dou K Inn, USA 
Chief, Business & Labor 



LCdr. E. W. Bradford, USN 
Editor 

Mrs. Cecilia Pollok McCormick 
Associate Editor 

Mr. Ulck La Falco 
Associate Editor 

Mr. John E, Fngan 
Art Director 

Norman E. Worm, JO1, USN 
Editorial Assistant 



Major General Allen T. Stanwix-Hay, USA 



[Editor's Note: Major General Stanwix-Hay, Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Defense (Materiel), is "Mr. Intensive Management" within the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations mid Logistics). His organization 
directs a production, consumption, and inventory control and reporting system 
. that has increased management visibility on the actual and forecast availability 
of a controlled list of air and ground munitions, aircraft, missiles, and other 
major items from the lowest Service user unit in Southeast Asia to the desk of 
the Secretary of Defense. The objective is to provide a viable production base 
nncl logistic system responsive to the changing needs of field commanders but, 
at the same time, to prevent the creation of large surpluses of excess materiel 
similar to those existing after World War II and Korea. In this article he offers 
his thoughts on some of the comparative policies, practices and responsibilities 
between industry and DOD in this highly complex area of materiel manage- 
ment.] 




'AVING read many articles in 
the Bulletin by members of 
the Services on such subjects 
as guns, ships, planes and butter, I 
feel that these subjects have been ade- 
quately covered and I will not discuss 
them. Rather, I shall discuss the im- 
pact in selected fields of these guns, 
planes, ships, and butter on the Amer- 
ican economy from a DOD viewpoint. 
What about competition? Paul Hoff- 
man once pictured American business- 
men as tossing from side to side and 
haunted by nightmares of competition. 
While I appreciate Mr. Hoffman's 
views, from my experiences I think 
the typical businessman has long ago 
decided that competition is an evil to 
be got rid of as thoroughly as pos- 
sible. Piorpont Morgan said, 

"By instinct, if not by reason, 
most businessmen hate competi- 
tion. A man's competitor is the 
fellow who holds down his prices, 
cuts away his profits, tries to 
seize his markets, threatens him 
with bankruptcy, and Jeopardizes 
the future of his family." 
In DOD we attempt to maintain 
our effort in competitive procurement 
to a high degree, Defense contracting 
officers are allowed sole source pro- 
curement only when necessary, and 
utilisation of negotiation only when 
necessary. Generally speaking, the 
policy is still toward competitive pro- 



curement. Tn a time like this we do 
guard against breaks in production 
more assiduously than under a full 
peacetime environment. If I seem to 
bo weasel-wording those statements, 
please recognize that I am doing just 
that. In our attempts to hold to com- 
petitive policies, WR are being realistic 
in our knowledge that intensive man- 
agement demands no break in going 
production quantities. 

In recent years investment in new 
capital facilities has increased and, 
along with the base for more indus- 
trial construction and equipment, 
prices, wages and order backlogs in 
this field have been mounting. There 
have been efforts in Government de- 
signed to retard expenditures for new 
and improved production facilities. 
More recently there has been another 
change and a return to the Govern- 
ment's tax incentive for capital ex- 
pansion. I know that a number of 
economists applauded those beginning 
actions against capital improvement 
as timely anti-inflationary moves. 

I can't very well disagree with them 
as economists. However, having re- 
sponsibilities in the field of production 
and thinking in terms of plant obso- 
lescence and high-cost managerial fa- 
cilities, I believe that no company, no 
industry, and no nation can afford to 
fall behind in this highly competitive, 
technological race that is being run 



throughout the world today. When I 
think of this, I think of our shipyards. 
When comparing our shipbuilding 
methods with Sweden and Japan to- 
day, I become ill at ease. To my way 
of thinking, the increased expansion 
and modernization o production ca- 
pacity, winch automatically occurs in 
free market economy in times of ris- 
ing demand and increasing prices and 
profits, is one of the most effective 
business weapons we have. 

Since 194G, one of our major na- 
tional objectives has been to achieve 
maximum employment with price sta- 
bility. We have pursued in our na- 
tional policies a stimulation of de- 
mand, an increase in productive 
capacity, and these have contributed 
to the labor force usage factors that 
now exist. 

Today we must confront the prob- 
lem of reconciling maximum employ- 
ment with price stability. Economic 
theorists face these as never having 
been done in recent history. Yet if we 
cannot solve this, we must either ac- 
cept mounting costs as the price of 
high employment or resign ourselves 
to a reservoir of idle manpower as the 
cost of price stability. If our system 
of a people's economy is valid, and if 
our political courage is sound, wo 
should solve this by and in the market 
place with government backing, 

I am told that the readers of this 
magazine pride themselves on being a 
group of hard businessmen! And I 
think that's good, for then we can lay 
our points on the table in a hard busi- 
ness way. 

Three Questions. 

This section I'm going to title 
"What Would You Have Me To Do 
Department." In it I'm going to ask 
three questions without discussion, 
and without answering the questions. 
The sole purpose of this section will 
be to ask you to think. 

Question One: An item made by spe- 
cialist producers generally in or on 



Defense Industry Bulletin U S. SUfi. OF noes. 



the fringes of a scarce industry is 
offered for bit! to 48 producers and 
among them are 12 mobilization pro- 
ducers. In answer to this proposal six 
replies are received, none of which is 
from planned producers. Then, four 
additional foreign proposals are re- 
ceived, all technically better than any 
received before, and all four at con- 
siderably lower prices than any of 
the domestic offers. As a taxpayer, 
what would you have me do? 

Question Two: From a Qualified 
Bidders List of 24 in number on a 
procurement for a considerable quan- 
tity of a fairly scarce item, only one 
producer is said to be capable of fully 
answering the specification, and that 
erne is a foreign supplier, You are 
nsked to approve a sole source buy 
from that one foreign producer, What 
would you have me do? 

Question Three: In my talks with 
businessmen around the country, I 
continually hear it said that "Defense 
is another customer, and a hard one 
with which to do business." Would you 
have me otherwise? After all, it's 
your money I'm spending. 

One of many points in this business 
that intrigues me is the charge to get 
the best that can be obtained for the 
lowest cost. This is a good, sound 
business axiom. Many American in- 
dustries have taken American dollars 
and made connections, opened fac- 
tories, obtained import licenses, etc., 
with out-of -America producers in all 
countries of the world. The savings 
from outside connections are not 
necessarily passed on to DOD al- 
though it is said American industry 
becomes "competitive" by these for- 
eign connections. 

Since it is profitable for Industry to 
buy and import for sale to DOD, since 
it is profitable for industry to enjoy 
the reduced labor costs of lower eco- 
nomic countries, since admittedly DOD 
is one of many customers, why should 
DOD not buy in quantity direct from 
the same foreign producers as indus- 
try? Why should DOD not expand its 
production base in the same manner 
as industry has? 

One of the aspects of capital invest- 
ment during a time of large DOD ex- 
penditures is who should finance the 
expenditure, industry or Government? 
I would hope that the increase to over- 
all capacity would come from industry. 
Hare indeed is the military manufac- 
turing technique or material which 



does not ultimately find its way to 
commercial use. I can understand in- 
dustry's reluctance, without meaning- 
ful incentives, to make substantial 
capital investments in special purpose 
equipment or in temporary, one-shot 
wartime surge requirements. But as 
the Assistant Secretary of the Air 
Force Robert H. Charles so aptly 
states: 

"I cannot understand the reluc- 
tance of industry, if the require- 
ment appears to have reasonable 
stability in a non-wartime envi- 
ronment, particularly where the 
new equipment can do a better 
job faster and at lower cost. The 
airlines do not provide machinery 
and equipment to the manufac- 
turers of commercial aircraft. 
Was there more certainty to the 
747 than to the C-5 at the begin- 
ning of those programs?" 
Mr, Charles continues to point out 
that, because of this reasoning, the 
C-5 competition specified, for the first 
time on a major program, that tho 
winners would furnish all additional 
equipment, Lockheed and General 
Electric are so doing. 

The U.S. Government is becoming- a 
great owner of tools and manufactur- 




Maj. Gen. Allen T. Stamvix-Hay, USA, 
is Deputy Assistant Secretary of De- 
fense (Materiel) in the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense (In- 
stallations & Logistics). Before this 
appointment he was Special Assistant 
to the Assistant Secretary with re- 
sponsibilities for coordination of all 
Southeast Asia logistic support mat- 
ters. He also served as Test Director 
for "Project 60" which led to the 
establishment of the Defense Contract 
Administration Services Regions in 
the continental United States. 



ing equipment. The con-net balance of 
how much and what is too much KOV- 
ernmont ownership of prodmilivo ca- 
pacity is u very delicate question. TIio 
views of John Kenneth flnlbi'iiitli are 
very pertinent to this subject, Mr. 
Galbraith says: 

"The line that, now ilivklcH pub- 
lic from so-calli'd private orgniii- 
xation in military procurement \n 
.so indistinct, an to lie noarly Im- 
perceptible. The mature cm-porn- 
tion will eventually bui-onii* a purl 
of (lie larger udminiHtmlirc rum- 
ple* with (he Htiitc. In limit, (lip 
line botM'een the two will ilinn|). 
pcnr." 

I do not like tho prospect;. 

Mobilization and Demobilization 

One of the most interest in)-' mid 
imaginative innovation.'! in I he present 
management of UK- Defense iVpint- 
inent i.s a firm bi-liof in inlemio man- 
a^enxmt. Intense inaaaKonienl IK u 
way of life that nays mil- nation ran 
ad'ord any necessity for ilisf'enm'; tFuit 
till thiiift-s neco.ssai-y for defence will 
be provided; that the military nii- 
manilei-.s' stated mium-mcnls! \viil he 
furnished; and, finally, thut niim- 
aji-ement by competent iicrnoiift will ho 
applied so an to provide the rajiiljv. 
ment at lowest ovorall <-osl. endinjr ii|i 
without an overhear-in^ !nir|>Hui, 

It HO happens thai; T fully 
to the belief in intense 
both a.s a military man mid tut u civil- 
ian. To 1m lioniiHt, lot's frankly itlaLi' 
that many do not fully juibtKirlbd to 
the belief. 

One mitfhf; ask what thm him ID (to 
with mobiii nation and du 
and I would answer, "Kve 

Under a progrnm of intiMiw mini- 
agomont ono nlmuld know curtain 
facts. Ono should kow jirwJuctinn w- 
quiremontft, cnpahUity and artimlulca* 
Ono must know, ottimata, or nnaunw 
consumption. Ono must know inwn- 
toi-jf and location ttf inventory. One 
must know irnmportntwn. These m 
basicB, nnd all otlioi- thoiiflhtH tlml 
come to mind such n cost, HlorK, 
condition, etc., arc either all it iiavt 
of a basic or fringe bonoAt to thy 
basic. 

Under intense maimpomont, lliu 
manager must lie able to know whnii 
too much is coming from production 
and bo willing to order a curlaMnunl. 
Convorsoly, tho manager must bo able 



Juno/July 1967 



to know when the input from produc- 
tion is too little, and must be both 
able and willing to order a timely in- 
crease to production. 

The foregoing i not fancy; it's 
management. It's the way any profit- 
able business is run, and I believe 
defense is business. In establishing the 
production base for certain items, one 
designs, engineers, calculates, esti- 
matescall it what you will the re- 
quirement, the consumption, the de- 
sired inventory, transit time. Then one 
builds the adequate base to produce. 
From such a base one moves up or 
down as the requirement varies in in- 
crements of change. Perhaps industry 
docs not like the ups and downs of 
intense management, but doesn't it 
operate that way? Doesn't industry 
lay off when demand is low, hire back 
in full production? Why is it wrong 
for DOD to do so? 

I HAVE chosen to write of intense 
management in this section on 
mobilization and demobilization be- 
cause these areas have been the stop- 
children of planners, "Mobilization" 
for a time was simply to turn on all 
production and flood equipment h all 
directions. For a period of time some 
agencies of the DOD refused to be- 
lifivo in mobilization planning because 
of the nuclear concept of war, Now it 
seems prudent to plan for mobilization 
under varying conditions mobiliza- 
tion with imagination, if you will. But 
as. in intensified management for mo- 
bilization, cannot we plan for demo- 
bilization as well? 

Consider a theorist's view for a 
moment. Under intensive management 
[Hiring conflict, when production, con- 
sumption, planned inventories are held 
in balance, isn't it fully possible to 
plan for production manipulations 
when peace comes again? One knows, 
for example, the peacetime reserve de- 
sired. Therefore, at the end of conflict 
(end of major consumption) one al- 
lows production to flow through the 
proper leadtime, then one reduces pro- 
duction to meet peacetime require- 
ment. It is a planned demobilization, 
not a sharp cut-off of production ! 
Theoretical? No more so than a Gen- 
eral Motors model changeover each 
fear. Yes, it takes skill, imagination 
ind the ability to enforce decisions, 
aut those are the characteristics for 
.vhich men ai'e paid as managers. 



Civilian and Defense Economics 

My inclination has been not to men- 
tion the conflicts of a full civilian 
economy and a partial defense econ- 
omy going side by side. Everyone with 
whom I have sought refuge in prepar- 
ing this article, however, has cau- 
tionod mo that this, as well as 
intensive management, would demand 
recognition. 

It would be foolhardy to state that 
conflicts do not arise as these two 
behemoths of economics charge down 
the same road, involving the same in- 
dustries and affecting the same people. 
The obvious conflicts arise in extended 
leadtimes for production, greater de- 
mand than capacity for machine tools, 
extrusions, forgings, and work forces. 
With defense priority systems in ef- 
fect, the defense slow-up is minimized, 
but certainly pressures are placed on 
the civilian economy in these areas. 

The small business man, particu- 
larly the small, non-defense manufac- 
turer, feels more keenly the press and 
priority of defense business. Hardly 
a day passes that I am not asked by a 
small producer to rule on the justifi- 
cation of a priority for a needed item, 
a needed forging, a needed tool, cast- 
ing, machine, etc. These requests come 
from the smallest businesses, from 
fishing supplies producers to home 
builders, air-conditioning parts pro- 
ducers and installers. Unfortunately, 
there is little that I can do to aid the 
applicant through the Defense De- 
partment, except refer him to the De- 
partment of Commerce. 

Because of the fundamental laws of 
supply and demand, the cost of labor 
tends to increase, U.S. industry in 
1967 shall probably feel the pressure 
of organized strikes by labor. Most of 
the larger union contracts in mass 
industries have been or will be up for 
review, as are the basic industry con- 
tracts in metals and chemicals. The 
operating ratios of industry have been 
high, and labor generally bargains 
hardest in times of plenty. I do not 
expect this year to be an exception. 

The rights of labor at the bargain- 
ing table have long been recognized in 
our country as one of our cherished 
privileges. Our Government will go 
through great difficulties to assure 
that the rights to unfettered bargain- 
ing by labor and management are 
maintained, It is only with real and 
sincere reluctance that our Govern- 



ment will enter into negotiations. 
Federal mediators will go to great 
lengths to keep the parties in negotia- 
tions within local surroundings. 
Should the need be great and progress 
little, the mediator with great patience 
might suggest a change of location for 
mediation and, as a last resort, may 
have to recommend to the Justice De- 
partment that legal injunction ap- 
pears to be the sole hope of getting 
the parties back to work. There have 
been few applications of legal injunc- 
tion but, when necessary for the best 
interests of the Government and the 
people, it has been invoked. 

It is not always the big name indus- 
try that causes the most serious prob- 
lem in defense production. A small 
producer of a unique chemical, a 
wholly owned process, or a particular 
skill can cause more concern than a 
large producer of competitively pro- 
duced products. In this day of space- 
age production, high reliability parts, 
critical temperature applications, 
chemicals, bearings, it is usually the 
highly skilled, small producer who 
gains the top spot attention in my of- 
fice. 

Balance of Payments 

Now what about our balance of pay- 
ments? Actually, we did pretty well 
last year. Treasury Secretary Fowler 
reported that the payments gap deep- 
ened in the final quarter but, thanks 
to an earlier inflow of outside capital, 
the deficit was held to a very marginal 
increase over 1965. 

Considering the problems created by 
Vietnam, this has to be judged as a 
respectable showing. The total was 
roughly half the deficit in 1963 and 
1964. The direct foreign exchange 
costs of Vietnam increased last year 
by roughly two-thirds of a billion dol- 
lars. The tight money situation at 
home saved matters from being much 
worse; high interest rates attracted 
enough foreign capital to offset the 
war's effect and this, combined with a 
lowered level of American investment 
and lending abroad, kept the payments 
gap within manageable bounds. 

Shortage of Skilled Labor 

Let me touch for a moment on 
scarce trades in industry today. To 
put it bluntly, it seems that trades re- 
quiring hard physical labor, long pe- 
riods of apprenticeship, and some nat- 
ural skills are more suspect for labor 
(Continued on page 10) 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



$1.75 Billion in FY 1966 




Lieutenant Colonel Richard M. Hosier, USAF 



The responsibility for subsistence 
procurement for the Armed Forces is 
assigned to the Defense Supply 
Agency's Defense Personnel Support 
Center (DPSC) in Philadelphia, Pa. 
DPSC is the national inventory point 
for procurement, storage and issue, 
at the wholesale level, of practically 
all subsistence for the Military Serv- 
ices. 

The total DPSC business volume 
distributed throughout the U. S. food 
industry exceeded 1.76 billion in FY 
1966. Purchases by DPSC's Subsist- 
ence Regional Headquarters amounted 
to $1.22 billion. Military installations 
obligated 142 million in the form of 
delivery orders against indefinite de- 
livery type contracts consummated by 
DPSC for commodities such as milk, 
milk products and bakery products. 
Delivery orders against brand name 
contracts amounted to $456 million. 

As one might suspect from exam- 
ination of his own household grocery 
bills, beef is the biggest dollar item 
In DPSC's grocery basket. About $227 
million was spent in FY 1966 for 
carcass and fabricated beef; $36 mil- 
lion for bacon; $38 million for ham; 
26 million for chicken; $31 million 
for coffee just to provide some in- 
sight into individual item purchase 
volume. Perishable commodities repre- 
sent about 53 percent of dollar ex- 
penditures with the balance for non- 
perishables, such as sugar, flour, and 
other canned and dehydrated items. 
In total, over four billion pounds of 
subsistence were purchased with the 
$1.22 billion. 

While the headquarters of DPSC is 
located in Philadelphia, the actual pur- 
chasing of subsistence is accomplished 
by nine DPSC Subsistence Regional 
Headquarters (SRH) located in prin- 
cipal cities throughout the United 
States. A tenth SRH, located at Co- 
lumbus, S.C., was closed on April 30, 



and the SRH in Fort Worth, Tex., 
is scheduled to be closed in July 1967. 

Addresses of the nine SRH's are: 

Chicago Subsistence Regional 

Headquarters 
536 S. Clark St. 
Chicago, 111. 60605 

Fort Worth Subsistence Regional 

Headquarters 
Felix at Hemphill St. 
Fort Worth, Tex, 76115 
(Scheduled to be closed in July 1967.) 

Kansas City Subsistence Regional 

Headquarters 
623 Hardesty Ave. 
Kansas City, Mo. 64124 

Los Angeles Subsistence Regional 

Headquarters 
929 S. Broadway 
Los Angeles, Calif. 90015 



New Orleans Subsistences Kegiomil 

Plead quarters 
4400 Duuphino St. 
New Orleans, La. 70140 

New York Subsistence Regional 

Headquarters 
Third Ave. and 20th St. 
Brooklyn, N. Y. 11232 

Oakland Subsistence! Kcgioiml 

Headquarters 
2156 Webster St. 
Alameda, Calif. 94505 

Richmond Subsistence Itag-ionnl 

Headquarters 

c/o Defense General Supply Onlcr 
Richmond, Vn. 28219 

Seattle Subsistence Regional 

Headquarters 
Pier 01 
Seattle, Wash. 08110 




June/July 1967 



The regional headquarters are as- 
sisted by additional field supply and 
purchasing- offices that are strategi- 
cally located in areas of production 
and need. DPSC headquarters in 
Philadelphia performs no subsistence 
contracting, per se t except for indef- 
inite delivery type contracts for 
brand name items sold in commis- 
saries. In such cases, delivery orders 
against tbesc contracts are placed by 
continental United States commis- 
saries directly to the company in- 
volved. Overseas commissary require- 
ments from DPSC brand name 
contracts are submitted directly to the 
assigned servicing port SEH which, in 
turn, places a delivery order to the 
supplier-contractor, Arrangements are 
made by the servicing; SRH to ship 
the required items to the customer 
commissary. 

While DPSC, through its SRH's, is 
a decentralized operation organization- 
wise, subsistence procurement proce- 
dure embraces centralization of pur- 
chasing for all items to the maximum 
extent possible in order to realize the 
economies derived from carlot pur- 
chases and shipments. This is accom- 
plished by assignment of commodities 
to control SRH's. Procurement of all 
subsistence is by specification, and 
purchases are made on a fully com- 
petitive basis from qualified industrial 
sources throughout the United States. 



In the area of non-perishables, for 
example, all roasted and ground coffee 
is purchased by the SRH New York, 
canned meats and shortening hy SRH 
Chicago, canned fruits by SRH Oak- 
land, and canned salmon by SRH 
Seattle. Each depot-stocked, non-per- 
ishable item is assigned to one of the 
SRH's for purchasing, once a funded 
procurement directive or requisition 
is generated. Each non-perishable con- 
trol SRH is responsible for its own 
solicitation and contract administra- 
tion, based on standardized policies 
and procedures issued by DPSC head- 
quarters in Philadelphia. Procurement 
cycle and timing for non-perishables 
is based on several variable factors 
common to each particular item and 
seasonal considerations. If the item is 
available at fairly stable prices 
throughout the year, it may be pur- 
chased on a monthly or quarterly 
basis. Such seasonally packed items as 
canned fruits and vegetables, on the 
other hand, are most frequently pur- 
chased on an annual basis. In any 
event, both procurement cycle and 
timing of actual purchases are under 
the close control of DPSC headquar- 
ters, and the SRH's react according to 
its direction. 

Perishables, fresh and frozen, are 
handled somewhat differently from 
non-perishables. Such commodities 
must normally be purchased ns close 



DEFENSE PERSONNEL SUPPORT CENTER 
SUBSISTENCE REGIONAL BOUNDARIES & FIELD ACTIVITIES 




LEGEND) 

# HQ, DPSC 

HO, DPSC REGIONS 
A SUPPLY OFFICE 

PURCHASING OFFICE 

* SEASONAL PURCHASING OFFICE 



I* April 1967 



as possible to consumption date be- 
cause of their perishability, which 
makes them subject to varying rates 
of deterioration and wide price fluctu- 
ations in the market place; the latter 
is due to very sensitive supply and de- 
mand factors that are always at work 
in the food business. 

Purchasing of perishables is a fast- 
moving, fascinating operation and 
vai-ies somewhat with each group of 
commodities. All are purchased under 
the widest possible competition but 
items, such as fruits and vegetables 
will he sight-selected by DPSC buyers 
in the field or local market, while 
other items, like meat and cheese, are 
procured by nation-wide competitive 
bidding. Offers against most perish- 
able solicitations are seldom provided 
more than an hour or so before clos- 
ing and, within a period of several 
hours after closing, the offerer expects 
to know if he won an award. This is 
the nonnal commercial practice for 
dealings in most perishables on which 
the prices arc quite volatile on the 
open market, and this follows the 
original concept for coordination of 
mass buying of subsistence as estab- 
lished at the inception of centralized 
food buying at the former U.S. Army 
Quartermaster Market Center in 1941. 

Continental U.S. military installa- 
tions submit requisitions for perish- 
able commodities to the SRH's in 
whose geographical area they are lo- 
cated. Overseas commands requisition 
to the port SRH's that are assigned 
the servicing- of their demands. Each 
SRH consolidates all requirements 
into the maximum of carlots and then 
transmits these requirements, except 
for fresh fruits and vegetables, to the 
control SRH that is responsible for 
national carlot solicitation. The con- 
trol SRH solicits on a national vendors 
mailing list. Offers against solicita- 
tions are given by vendors to the 
SRH in whose area they are located. 
Closing time is simultaneous through- 
out the nation. The low offers re- 
ceived by each SRH are teletyped to 
the control SRH, where the low offerer 
In the nation is determined. Within 
an hour or two, the SRH from whom 
the lowest offer was received is ad- 
vised to make award anil that SRH 
administers the contract to comple- 
tion. 

SRH Chicago is the control region 
for the most carlot perishables. Ex- 
ceptions are; shrimp SRH New Or- 
lean; eastern oysters SRH Rich- 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



mom!; Athmtic varieties nf fish -SRH 
NVw York; Pacific varieties of fish, 
including oysters SRH Seattle. Be- 
cmisf> of the restricted geographic 
areas of availability for seafoods, the 
control SHH generally receives offers 
to its solicitations directly from all 
vendors. 

The procedure varies somewhat for 
fresh fruits and vegetables. There is 
no control SRH for procurement of 
these extremely perishable commodi- 
ties because the geographical availa- 
bility varies for each item throughout 
the year. DPSC's purchasing agents 
must go where the crops are at the 
moment. The consolidated carlot requi- 
sitions for fruits and vegetables are, 
therefore, referred by the requiring 
SRH directly to the SRH in the ap- 
propriate growing area for accom- 
plishment of purchase and timely de- 
livery. A guide to growing area 
availability is provided by DPSC on 
a monthly basis to all SRH's for use 
in referral of requisitions. Weekly 
supplemental market information is 
also provided when appropriate. Less- 
than-carlot quantities are bought from 
the local wholesale fruit and vegetable 
market on a competitive basis and by 
sight selection. Both field and local 
market (street) buyers are qualified 
contracting officers' representatives, 
being assigned as such on orders. 

Only minimum operating levels are 
maintained by SRH's for frozen and 
some fairly stable refrigerated items 
to assure responsive supply. Other 
items, such as chilled meats, fruits 
and vegetables, must be promptly pur- 
chased for shipment. Items that can- 
not be carlotted, as described pre- 
viously, are purchased by each SRH 
on a wide competitive basis against 
their own approved vendors' mailing 
lists. Any SRH encountering difficulty 
in procurement of less-than-carlot 
items may call on DPSG headquarters 
in Philadelphia or any other SRH for 
assistance. If an item is available 
anywhere in the nation, DPSC can 
find it and buy it. 

Several methods of procurement are 
utilized in DPSC's subsistence pur- 
chasing program. Most contracts are 
firm-fixed price and negotiated under 
the provisions of the Armed Services 
Procurement Regulations (ASPR) 
that permit DPSC's informal competi- 
tive Notice of Intent to Purchase 
(NIP) as well as field and street 
buying to be used for subsistence. 
The NIP procedure provides wide 



competitive procurement, yet permits 
a degree of flexibility that is deemed 
necessary for the volatile and fluctu- 
ating food market. This procedure 
permits negotiation with all offerers 
at any time prior to award. 

The ASPR and the Public Law, as 
announced by the Congress, require 
that formal advertising be used when- 
over such method is feasible and 
practicable under existing conditions 
and circumstances. Formal advertising' 
is competitive bidding, tho same as 
obtained under DPSC's NIP proce- 
dure, except that bids aro .scaled and 
must be in writing; bids must comply 
in all material respects with the In- 
vitations for Bid; and there is a 
formal and public bid opening to as- 
certain and establish the successful 
bidder. Due to daily fluctuations in 
price and availability of most perish- 
able commodities, formal advertising 
is neither feasible nor practicable. 
However, formal advertising has been 
used extensively for non-food items, 
such as ration assembly contracts for 
the assembly and packaging of opera- 
tional rations. It is also utilized for 
certain non-perishable food items 
where it is feasible and practicable. 

The NIP procedure has many ad- 
vantages. It may be used on a one- 
time basis for a definite quantity, or 
as a basic NIP without specific quan- 
tities but covering an extended period 
of time, usually three months. As 
firm requirements arise, solicitations 
are made against the basic NIP by 
use of an addendum which is specific 
regarding quantities, closing dates, 
delivery schedules and other appropri- 
ate information. This procedure sub- 
stantially reduces the amount of 
paperwork in DPSC's frequent pur- 
chases since purchases of perishable 
commodities are made virtually every 
working day of the year. 



About the Author- 

U. Col, Richard M. Hosier, USAF, is 
the Chief of the Subsistence Division, 
Directorate of Procurement and Pro- 
duction, of the Defense Personnel 
Support Center, Philadelphia, Pa. His 
previous assignments include Com- 
mander, Subsistence Regional Head- 
quarters at Kansas City, Mo.; services 
with the U.S. Air Force Inspector 
General's Office in the procurement 
and production inspection activities* 
and extensive procurement experience 
with the Air Force. 



In field buying: of fruits and vcgeta 
bios, the carlot or trucklot require 
meats to be purchased art; tlEssc-nil 
nated to tho trade, Tho export ficfa 
buyer makes the visual comparison ol 
offers and bent-value seUuiiun oJ 
these very sensitive pnrishahlo Hem! 
in the fields or shed.H of wmloi'H who 
oiler products. All fun-Is of Hi IK huy- 
inf? operation must movo txpdit.Irmsty 
in order to minimize (junlily nulurlinii 
from purcha.se to consumption. The* 
purchased pnxhict in .shipped In DPKC 
supply points for breakout and issue 
to r<!(]iii.sitiom>rs, or im entire, ship- 
ment may ho Knt direct to hir^o 
military installation. 

The Hti'fint buying of le.su limn c-nr- 
lots of fruits and votfutnlilrvi. on the 
local market mo.st frequently involves 
utilization of ti blanket jmrolinse 
agreement (BPA), whinh ann)Hn(a to 
an agreement with each contractor to 
.supply specified items on call ami Ifm 
contractors must njji'ce thnt lli price 
he charges will ho no liiR-her Hum the 
price ho clmrfr.fi s his most, favored 
customer. Several coninunieti fn pju-Jn 
market are on BPA'a and rompelitlon 
must he obtained for oaeh call that 
is made liy the export Ktree-t Imytr* 
who is assigned to malco bin vlmial 
selection from tho local rmirknl, Under 
this procedure contractors hill DP80 
weekly, Mint-monthly, or monthly, 
similar to a charge account. 

DPSC wtiH created and is being 
maintained to provide a s\n^\n niffft- 
imation within tho Doforoin eiilnhlteh- 
mont whore military coiimimorn tnn 
loolc for supplier and JmhiHlry can 
look for sales. Active pnillctpnllon 
by the food Industry IB regularly 
solicited nml ntao IH no deterrent, as 
evidenced by the $QR8 million awarded 
to mnnll business during FY IflGG- 
The organization IB flexible nml pre- 
pared to adapt to changes in demand 
placed upon it by Its customers, A 
good example is tho introduction of 
a sizable list of tho rnthcr nophlatl- 
eatad frcezc-dehydratc-d foodo such aa 
shrimp, cottago chcoao, chickon nml 
beefsteaks. Production tcstlnff of tr- 
radiated bacon for possible Inter pro- 
curement baa boon completed, nml a 
production teat of irradiated potatoes 
is In process. As demands of the Mili- 
tary Services for products from these 
new processes evolve, DPSC's repre- 
sentatives will be working- with Indus- 
try in the development of a wide pro- 
curemont base, 



June/July 1967 



Brigadier General John R. Gufhrie, USA 



ECENTLY the Army reviewed 
its requirements for the 
1970's in the aerospace tech- 
nological area. In reviewing the 
future Army research and develop- 
ment requirements, the first thing 
which conies forcibly to the fore is 
anti-ballistic missile technology as 
exemplified by the Nike program. 
Nike X is the Army's most expensive 
single research, development, teat 
and evaluation (RDT&E) program. 
Of the $1.5 billion in this year's 
RDT&E budget, approximately 30 
percent is going to Nike X. 

This extremely complex program 
can probably bo said to have started 
in 1957, At that time the require- 
ments laid on the research program 
were relatively uncomplicated. They 
wore to compote against an attack of 
relatively few missiles with unso- 
phisticated decoys and penetration 
aids. This was the original Nike 
Zeus system, a system with its basic 
radars and one type of missile 
capable of handling only a few tar- 
gets at a time. Today, the threat may 
consist, literally, of a cloud of war- 
heads and decoys. As a result, the 
program was reoriented in IOCS to 
the present Nike X concept. 

The major parts of the new Nike 
X system are a multi-function array 
radar called the MAR; a missile site 
laclar the MSR; a third newly 
established radar with a longer wave 
length for handling long distance 
targets the peripheral acquisition ra- 
dar (PAIl) ; an Improved Zeus missile 
for long-range intercepts; the Sprint 
missile for short-range intercepts ; 
and very high-speed digital multi- 
processor computers. 

The major radar in the system is 
the MAR, of which the one at the 
White Sands Missile Range is our 
test-bed model. The MAR is designed 
to perform the function of four con- 
ventional radars by target detection 



and identification, target discrimina- 
tion and sorting, target tracking, and 
interceptor missile tracking and guid- 
ance. Since it is a phased array radar 
and uses electronic beam steering, it 
can perform all of these functions 
nearly simultaneously. The outgoing 
signals leave via the smaller face, with 
the return signal received through ele- 
ments in the larger face. Another of 
its major assets is the ability to 
harden the site, i.e., protect it from 
all but a direct hit by burying most 
of the components, including data 
processors, deep underground. We cur- 
rently foresee the MAR to- be about 
as high or as deep as a 10-story 
building. 

The Nike X system will employ two 
solid propellant nuclear warhead 
missiles the long-range Spartan and 
the short-range, very high accelera- 
tion Sprint. The Spartan is an im- 
proved edition of the earlier Zeus 
which has already proven itself capa- 
ble of intercepting both ICBM target 
vehicles and satellites. While the 
Spartan is designed for long-range, 
high-altitude and high-kill radius 
intercepts, the Sprint is a relatively 
short-range missile. The unique char- 
acteristic of this bullet is its ac- 
celeration it can climb upward a 
mile in the time of two heart beats. 
The Spartan would destroy or dam- 
age nearly everything in a cloud, 
while the Sprint would be fast enough 
to allow us to take advantage of 
atmospheric filtering as a discriminat- 
ing agent and of previous action by 
the Spartan. 

The Sprint is popped from its 
underground silo by a gas generator, 
and the first stage ignites once it 
clears the ground. It is then guided 
via thrust vector control from the 
second the booster ignites. Once clear 
of its silo a thrust vector control 
system causes the missile to pitch 
over on an on-trajectory attitude. 



The status of the Nike X system 
is as follows: The MAR has been 
undergoing operational tests at White 
Sands for over two years; construc- 
tion of the second MAR, which will 
approach a tactical configuration, is 
under way at the Kwajalein test site; 
the improved Spartan has .a year of 
development behind it; and flight 
tests of Sprint are under way at 
White Sands. The cell eject system, 
the thrust vector control system, and 
the design and structure of the mis- 
sile have proven to be what are re- 
quired. 

Before leaving Nike X, one other 
aspect should be mentioned. As part 
of the project, proposals were re- 
quired treating various defense options 
for its deployment. Last year, at the 
direction of the Secretary of Defense, 
an integrated deployment plan was 
prepared based on various levels of 
defense ranging from light attack to 
massive attack, as well as what levels 
of attack might reasonably be ex- 
pected over an intervening period of 
years and what Nike X requirements 
would be necessary to counter such 
attacks. We refer to this as the 
"building block" concept a feature 
of the Nike X system. The decision 
as to how much to deploy and when 
has not yet been made by the Secre- 
tary of Defense; however, the Ai'my 
is continuing Nike X development 
and is ready to implement any de- 
cision. 

This basically is the entire Nike 2C 
picture. It illustrates the require- 
ments for advanced, highly reliable 
engineering which this sophisticated, 
highly complex weapon system will 
place on American industry during 
the next decade. These requirements 
include not only those for such 
initial deployments as may be di- 
rected, but also to stay ahead of a 
dynamic threat, constantly striving 
for means to penetrate Nike X's pro- 
tective shield. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



Surface-to-Air Missile Development 

Another system for the 1970's, for 
which the Army has high hopes, is one 
we call S A M-D surface-to- air-mis- 
sile development- SAM-D is a possible 
replacement for hoth Hawk and Her- 
cules, and is a successor to two earlier 
study effortsthe Field Army Ballis- 
tic Missile Defense System (FAB- 
MDS) and Army Air Defense System 
1970's (AADS-70). 

SAM-D will be oriented principally 
to the defense of the Army forces in 
the field against aircraft and short- 
range tactical ballistic missiles, and 
would complement low altitude for- 
ward area air defense weapons, such 
as the Redeye, a man-portable, 
bazooka-type missile. The system will 
be designed primarily to meet the high 
performance, air-supported threat, but 
it will also have a capability against 
short range ballistic missiles. 

The Army's estimate of how this 
system will be configured is as fol- 
lows: It will have several tracked 
vehicles, each mounting either phased 
array radars with high performance 
computers or quick-reacting, super- 
sonic missiles. Not surprisingly, the 
characteristics the Navy seeks are 
similar to those desired by the Army. 
An initial evaluation of the require- 
ments of the two systems showed that 
a common system would not satisfy 
both Services since there are differ- 
ences in the environment in which 
each would operate, as well as dif- 
ferences in operational concepts, How- 
ever, the Army and the Navy will 
make a maximum effort to develop 
common components, as well as to ex- 
change appropriate development data. 

The present Nike Hercules air de- 
fense system is a semi-fixed one, 
capable of engaging one target at a 
time. Hawk, though we are upgrading 
hoth its mobility and target-handling 
capability, is able to engage only two 
targets simultaneously. With SAM-D 
we will have a highly mobile system 
of greatly increased target-handling 
capability, flexibility and less opera- 
tional cost. As presently conceived, 
SAM-D would be the principal tacti- 
cal air defense weapon for the 1970's. 
Its development and production will 
present real challenges, not only to 
research and development scientists 
and engineers, but also to production 
experts. It, too, like any major weap- 
on system development, will cost 



8 



money, probably several billion dollars 
if deployment hoth in the United 
States and with the Army in the field 
is directed. 

The Helicopter ond Air Mobility 

An area more directly related in the 
Army's present research and develop- 
ment program is the development of 
future Army aircraft and associated 
equipments. 

The advance of the helicopter, both 
technologically and operationally, to 
meet the challenge of our present 
commitment in Southeast Asia is now 
a well established fact. It goes with- 
out saying that the helicopter and 
Army air mobility have really come of 
age in the past decade with Vietnam 
as the proving ground. 

As a history major, I am one of 
those who believe that military opera- 
tions, both strategic and tactical, have 
been guided by certain fundamental 
principles. All the great captains from 
the days of Alexander and Hannibal 
have been guided by them. Mao Tse 
Tung and General Giap may wrap 
them in communist batter, but the 
Viet Cong, too, are guided by them. 
The successes which they have 
achieved are largely attributable to 
their able application of those prin- 
ciples which favor guerrilla opera- 
tions surprise, economy of force, 
rapid maneuver to mass overwhelming 
force against the selected objective. 



With his knowledge of the country- 
side, his ability to melt into the back- 
ground, his ability to interdict normal 
ground lines of communication by 
mines and ambush, in the past the 
guerrilla was fought essentially by 
an overwhelming preponderance of 
force until the advent of the heli- 
copter. As is well known, tho Japa- 
nese and Germans had to commit up 
to 10 times the force to keep their 
lines of communication open in China 
and Russia during- World War TT. 

With the helicopter's ability lu de- 
liver fresh forces quickJy and mass 
them rapidly, the countGr-g-uerrilln 
forces have been able to exploit the 
guerrilla's preferred principles of 
war against him, particularly tho.so 
of mass and maneuver. 

In a way, those two principles cnn 
be related to the physical sciences In 
a rather elementary sense by the use 
of Newton's Second Law. The force 
brought to boar in combat can IHJ 
equated to tho mass times the ac- 
celeration or momentum of the troops 
committed. This may be a riuH- 
mcntary analogy; however, it serves 
to emphasize the importance of 
in military operations, The 
of Napoleon's campaign wfta h Igli- 
lighted with two key tactien: the 
massing of his forces ami the 
rapidity of his movements, tho speed 
of which Jomini more than once com- 
pared to lightning; and which led tho 



NIKE 
COMPONENTS 




MSR 



June/ July 1967 



French soldiers to remark in 1805, 
"The Emperor has invented a new 
method of waging war; he makes use 
of our legs instead of our bayonets." 

Today the U.S. Army is crossing 
the threshold of a new era, an era 
of fire and maneuver in which we 
are capitalizing on what technology 
can contribute in moving our soldiers 
and firepower rapidly through the air 
to close with and destroy the enemy. 

In this century, we have seen ma- 
jor progress in all areas of techno- 
logical advancement and, in the 
interest of the national defense and 
the security of the free world, the 
military is pacing itself with this 
technology. In the area of firepower 
the U.S. Army has made dramatic 
progress since the days of the pack 
howitzer. Artillery lias always ac- 
companied the infantry, but it was 
n cumbersome process to mount, dis- 
mount and reassemble the ever- 
needed fire support for the horse 
cavalry. 

Today in Vietnam, artillery is 
moving in n far more efficient man- 
ner. By means of the helicopter, 
lightweight 106mm howitzers move 
to the scene of battle at speeds sur- 
passing that of bombers in World 
War I. Being an artilleryman myself, 
I can fully appreciate the efficiency 
of moving tubes in this fashion over 
jungles, mountains, and rivers, unim- 



peded by terrain in providing timely, 
accurate, sustained fire support for 
the ever-moving infantry. 

We look to industry to help us 
achieve still greater mobility in the 
next decade. This will not, however, 
be merely by providing more and 
faster wings. It must also come from 
improved aerial means to survey 
position and target areas accurately; 
to provide current, accurate, ballistic, 
meteorological data over wide areas; 
and an ability to acquire, identify, 
locate and mark targets quickly and 
accurately, rain or shine, day and 
night. 

Though primarily designed for 
security and escort of troop-carrying 
helicopters, the armed helicopter has 
come a long way towards proving the 
value of aerial artillery and enhanc- 
ing the attractiveness of such a con- 
cept. When it was initially deter- 
mined that an armed helicopter was a 
necessity, the Army began to impro- 
vise and adapt ground weapons to 
the helicopter by means of extra 
booms, braces and struts. The stand- 
ard M-GO, 7.62mm, light machine gun 
of the infantry found its place in 
the doors and on the sides on Army 
helicopters. The relatively new and 
highly effective infantry 40mm gre- 
nade was brought into use by the 
installation of a grenade launcher 
turret on the chin of the UH-1B 



EVOLUTION OF TACTICAL MANEUVER SPEED 




1900 



1940 1950 
YEARS 



1980 1990 



Iroquois. For greater punch, the 
familiar 2.75 inch folding fin aerial 
rocket and 20mm autom atic guns 
were adapted to hard points on the 
now bristling sides of the UH-1B. 
The XM-21 system, comprised of 
7.62mm machine guns and a rocket 
pod, was provided to give the heli- 
copter a real "one-two" punch. 

These weapon systems offer us a 
much needed, direct fire support 
capability that forces the enemy to 
keep his head down for those critical 
moments between the time the Air 
Force tactical aircraft finish their 
bombing and strafing runs, and the 
time when the troop ships touch down 
in the landing zone. Time and experi- 
ence, as expected, showed that de- 
ficiencies accompanied the transfor- 
mation of a utility helicopter into an 
armed escort vehicle. The result was 
a degradation in both weapons and 
helicopter performance. With weap- 
ons installed, the speed of the 
UH-1E dropped below the cruise 
speed of the troop ship it was escort- 
ing. 

As an interim solution to this prob- 
lem, the Army is moving to a more 
extensively modified UH-1, the AH- 
1G, popularly called the Cobra. This 
interim armed helicopter will offer 
numerous improvements over its 
predecessor and will bridge the gap 
between the cobbled-up armed heli- 
copters of the 1960's and the fire sup- 
port systems of the 1970's. 

The next decade will find the Ad- 
vanced Aerial Fire Support System 
(AAFSS) performing the escort 
and direct fire support mission with 
a design that capitalizes on advanced 
helicopter technology and represents 
the latest in the state of the art. Now 
in engineering development, the 
AAFSS, or AH-56A as it has been 
designated, is a two-place compound 
helicopter, featuring a rigid rotor, 
stub wings, and a tail-mounted pusher 
propeller for auxiliary thrust. It will 
cruise at speeds in excess of 200 
knots and offer the stability and con- 
trol essential for an aerial weapons 
platform, 

In this regard, the AAFSS will 
carry a wide array of weapons, to 
include various calibers of machine 
guns, rockets, a grenade launcher, 
the TOW anti-tank missile, plus an 
integrated target acquisition and fire 
direction system using the Integrated 
Helicopter Avionics System (IHAS), 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



The armor protection for the crew 
and vital components of the aircraft 
will represent a major advance in 
passive defense hardware. The de- 
velopment contract with Lockheed- 
California Co. provides for design, 
fabrication, flight test and delivery 
of 10 of these systems to the Army 
before 1970. 

Although fire support is an essen- 
tial ingredient in combat, the battle 
is never won until the infantry is on 
the objective. At the turn of the 
century, our Army moved its men 
about the battlefield on foot and on 
horseback. In September 1914, Gen- 
eral Joffre enlisted the taxicahs of 
Paris to rush two regiments of rein- 
forcements to the front during the 
battle of the Morne. This action rep- 
resented the first movement of troops 
to a battlefield by motor transport. 
Three years later when the U.S. 
expenclitionary forces moved to the 
front, long columns of truck convoys 
were a common sight. 

From these primitive beginnings, 
we have vaulted in half a century to 
the point where today in Vietnam 
waves of UH-1D, utility tactical 
transports, take off in the early hours 
hound for an objective miles from 
base camp. Enroute, the door gunners 
keep a keen eye out for hostile 
forces and return fire as necessary. 
Shortly before the "slick ships" 
carrying the assault troops arrive in 
the landing zone, their armed escorts 
place discrete suppressive fires on 
known or suspected Viet Cong posi- 
tions using the weapons described 
earlier. As the gun ships pull up and 
shift their fire, the slick ships touch 
down and deliver the troops into the 
heat of battle, fresh and well pre- 
pared to do combat. As the high 
ground is secured and communications 
are established, the CH-47 Chinooks 
arrive with follow-up troops and the 
heavier equipment. Thirty minutes 
before, these troops were receiving 
their final briefings and attack 
orders, 30 or 40 miles away through 
jungles or mountains that would 
have required days to traverse. 

Our experience has clearly demon- 
strated the necessity for our trans- 
ports, as well as our fire support 
ships, to be able to land and take off 
from otherwise inaccessible terrain. 
For example, in Operation Masher/ 
White Wing against the Viet Cong, 
the 1st Cavalry Division completely 
surprised the enemy by seizing the 



high ground and attacking down hill. 
Quite a change from Grant's famous 
assault up Missionary Ridge. 

Air Mobility of the Future 

This is air mobility today. But what 
of tomorrow? Can this be improved 
upon? The answer is most certainly 
yes. 

When compared to the aerial ve- 
hicles of tomorrow, today's helicopters 
can be considered, relatively speak- 
ing, as sophisticated as the taxicab 
army of 1914. Mobility has affected 
the tactics of the 20th century pro- 
foundly, and will most certainly con- 
tinue to do so, In 1900, movement of 
men and material was limited to the 
speed of the man and the horse. In 
World War I, this speed began to 
give way to the truck's. World War 
II brought with it the mechanization 
of the artillery and the real fire- 
power, mobility and shock action of 
the tank. Then came the mechaniza- 
tion of the infantry. Korea saw the 
helicopter as a fledgling that could 
survive in the heat of battle. 

Over these years, the speed of 
maneuver has constantly increased 
with a pace matching that of science 
and technology. Within the next 
decade, it may not increase as ex- 
ponentially but the slope will cer- 
tainly be positive. 

What is to take the place of today's 
UH-l's and CH-47's? Our thoughts 
in this regard revolve about what 
technology holds for improved ver- 
tical rising machines. Army aircraft 
of tomorrow, such as the new Utility 
Tactical Transport (UTT) System or 
Light Tactical Transport (LTT) Sys- 
tem, must be selected through a care- 
ful iteration process whereby the 
doubts as to reliability, complexity 
and relative survivability have been 
minimized, if not eliminated alto- 
gether. 

In order not to leave any stone 
unturned, we must attempt to breach 
the gap between the narrow bands 
of V/STOL and pure helicopters. It 
has long been recognized that the 
helicopter with its relatively low-disc 
loading is the most efficient hovering 
machine, while the simple fixed-wing 
has the most efficient lift-producing 
system for cruising flight. 

For this reason, the Army com- 
posite research aircraft program is 
investigating how to marry the best 
of each in a single aircraft. To ac- 




Brlg. Gen. John R. Giithric, USA, 
is Director of Developments in the 
Office of the Chief of Research and 
Development, Department of the 
Army. From July 1965 to MnrcU lOGfi 
he was assigned to the Requirements 
and Development Division, J-I5 Di- 
rectorate, in the organization of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff. He is n grad- 
uate of the National War College 
and holds a Hnchelor of Arts degree 
from Princeton University. 



complish this, rotor drag 1 must lm re- 
duced by unloading; or altering the 
mode of operation of the lifting rotors 
so that their drapr is minimized. In 
the cruise configuration, lift IH trans- 
ferred to conventional, winsliko lift- 
ing surfaces and tho rotor in stopped, 
stowed, or tilted. Tho application of 
such concepts should provide; Eiircraft 
of significantly jrrontor productivity, 
increased range, reduced lotfialicfi re- 
quirements find lower noise lovnls. 

The Army composite aircraft pro- 
gram is being accomplished hi three 
steps: the preliminary dcmgn atmly 
phase completed in Juno 1906, nn 
intermediate component and model 
fabrication and test effort in 1067, 
and culminating with the fabrication 
and test of full-scale research nJr- 
craft. 

A design competition in November 
1965 resulted in contract awnrds to 
Bell Helicopter, Hughes Tool, nml 
Lockheed- California, for the study and 
formulation of a follow-on program 
including the design, fabricatioiij In- 
strumentation and test of & com- 
posite aircraft. 

The Lockheed version utilizes a 
stopped and folded main rotor, nacelle- 
mounted propellers and engine, and ft 
conventional anti-torque tail rotor, 



June/July 1967 



aft I Tl 



tllllt 



rotof~~~j ^"UiSG mode, the 60-foot main 
* stopped, folded and trailed 
horizontal position. 

proposal is essentially a 
airplane having a tilting 
l " mounted on each wing tip. 
lies hot-cycle rotor wing 
dual purpose lifting device 
really a. hot-cycle rigid rotor 
unusually large hub. It 
liovi'i- a t:i P"P owei ' etl rotor for the 

.. I.." 1Y1 tle and is stopped to become 
...... ^ tl pect ratio fixed wing for the 

.'^ 1 ' rio de. The basic propulsion sys- 
hojet gas generator in 
lil 1 * ~' ion vfitti diverter valves 
wnion direct the exhaust gas either 
noxzles on the rotor or the 



purpose of configuration 
nncl future flight tests, these 
arc to accommodate a 3,000- 
!><mnU nayload with disc loadings of 
M pounds per square foot or less, 
liovov out of ground effect at 6,000 
f<'ul/Or> degrees, and cruise at speeds 
teuton 300 and 400 knots. 

Studios by the three competing 
conlrnetoi-s were submitted in June 
HHKJ cincl subjected to detailed review 
mid o.iitilysis which resulted in con- 
trnfit ctwtii'ds to Lockheed and Bell to 
pumvio tlic stopped/stowed rotor and 
till J > i-o ji /rotor, respectively, through 
lln> Hoeoncl phase. A decision on the 
concoct which will proceed to the de- 
Lull doFjig-n, fabrication and flight test 
(if full-Hcale aircraft could be made 
liitor tHis year with first flight as 
t'lU'ly FJ 197O. The composite research 
ulnim-ft lias high potential for major 
udvuticonneiit in rotary wing tech- 
nology JTor application to future mili- 
tin-y txii'ci-aft. 

I'Vom -this effort we expect to learn 
wlioro we should go design-wise to 
provide the UTT's, the LTT's and the 
liotivy lift helicopters which will re- 
plnco our current UH-1 Iroquois, 
f!H-4 ( 7 Chinook, and CH-64 families 
t-lie next decade. 

you consider that there are 
ovor 1,OOO helicopters in Vietnam to- 
day, tHo importance and magnitude of 
tlm rosetxrch, development, test, evalu- 
ation and production programs to re- 
place tHern is apparent. It is hardly 



livo tHey must truly represent major 
lulvi'iTioos in performance, reliability, 
nmlnt&i"* 113 ^ 1 ^ 1 and what mi ^ h t be 
cullcc 1 , tactical productivity. 

In tHo heavy lift area the 1960's 
flaw tto^ Introduction of the CH-64 



Flying Crane into the Army inven- 
tory was delayed for some time as 
people debated the requirement for 
heavy lift. Now, the CH-54, with its 
10-ton lift capacity, has proven its 
versatility in the heat of combat. It 
has recovered downed aircraft valued 
in the millions of dollars. It has 
served to move heavy artillery and 
oversize loads otherwise unmanage- 
able with medium and utility trans- 
port helicopters. Although not the 
optimum desired by the Army, the 
CH-54 has served to validate the re- 
quirement and point the way to even 
greater recognition of the unplumbed 
potential of the helicopter. 

As troop mobility increases, the re- 
quirement to move their heavier 
equipment becomes even more pro- 
nounced. Helicopter payloads in the 
18- to 20-ton range will soon not only 
be desired, but essential. This capa- 
bility must be achieved without any 
loss of the flexibility and agility of 
today's machines. 

Tomorrow's aircraft will be sub- 
jected to far more vigorous usage 
than those of today; therefore, our 
requirements will become more de- 
manding. Maintainability and relia- 
bility standards are increasing to the 
point where we will expect the heli- 
copter to be as dependable and easy 
to maintain as the jeep. Where air- 
craft availability today is 50-80 per- 
cent, tomorrow availability should go 
to 90 percent. With the introduction 
of advanced state-of-the-art engines, 
horsepower-to- weight ratios should in- 
crease with an associated decrease in 
specific fuel consumption. 

Dynamic components and other 
time-change items must have extended 
life, and adverse environmental con- 
ditions, such as dust, heat and 
humidity, should not hamper per- 
formance or longevity. Above all, the 
vehicles must be capable of living in 
the field with the troops they support, 
Sophisticated maintenance will be the 
exception rather than the rule. 

These requirements may seem opti- 
mistic, but the rigid specifications for 
the light observation helicopter re- 
quired an unprecedented maintenance- 
to-flight-hour ratio of less than one 
and it was achieved. We must seek 
comparable standards for our other 
systems, Items on today's wish list 
will be tomorrow's project data cards 
and 1970's contracts. Industry and 
the Army must strive together to 
make them a reality. 



I hope that these paragraphs will 
provide an insight not only into our 
past and present, but primarily our 
aspirations for the future. The Army 
was better trained and prepared tac- 
tically, organizationally, doctrinally, 
and equipment-wise for the war it is 
fighting in Southeast Asia than ever 
before in our history. With your help 
we intend to bo even better prepared 
for whatever we may face in the 
next decade, However, in case any- 
one is perplexed as to why we 
haven't moved quicker or done some 
of these things earlier, this thought 
bears consideration. If the earth's 
history could be compressed into a 
single year of 12 calendar months, 
the first eight months would be com- 
pletely without life ; the next two 
would see only the most primitive 
creatures. Mammals wouldn't appear 
until the second week in December 
and homosapiens until 11:45 p.m. on 
Dec, 31. The entire period of man's 
written history would occupy the 
final 60 seconds before midnight. 

So, as we approach midnight and 
prepare to move forward into the 
1970's, we should be thankful that 
we are here to step over this 
threshold. The pi-ospectH are even 
more challenging: today than ever be- 
fore, and our generations are serv- 
ing as catalysts for the future. 



AF Awards 

Study Contracts for 

A-X Aircraft 

The Air Force has awarded four- 
month study contracts to four air- 
craft companies for preliminary de- 
sign and other studies of the A-X 
specialized close air support aircraft, 

Contracts were awarded to General 
Dynamics, Oonvair Division, San 
Diego, Calif. ; Grumman Aircraft, 
Long Island, N.Y.; Northrop Air- 
craft, Hawthorne, Calif.; and McDon- 
nell Aircraft, St. Louis, Mo, They 
were awarded by Air Force Systems 
Command's Aeronautical Systems Di- 
vision, Wright- Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

The study contracts are part of 
the concept formulation phase of air- 
craft development. Military need, 
concept of operation, feasibility, cost 
and best characteristics of a new 
aircraft are defined and analyzed 
under the contracts. 



Qfar** Industry Bulletin 



11 




FROM THE SPEAKERS ROSTRUM 



Address by Hon. John S. Foster 
Jr., liir. of Defense llcgcurclt and 
fciiftiHfi-riny, tit flic Animal Meeting 
<)/" the Aviution Space Writers ASK., 
A'is Veifng, .\'ci;, Mitif IS, 1967. 




Hon. John S. Foster, Jr. 



I turn now to my major purpose 
today: to explore a few areas of de- 
fense research and development which 
show the relationships between our 
work and yours. 

I suppose it is now regarded as a 
transparently obvious axiom in any 
national policy discussion that na- 
tional security understood deeply 
is a subtle balance of military, politi- 
cal, economic and technical factors. 
I he significance of research and de- 
velopment in the strength and security 
of notions is unmistakably great. Fur- 
ther, the pace of modern technology 
both ours and that of others-will con- 
tinue increasingly to complicate all 
considerations of U.S. national secu- 
rity strategy. 

In assessing the broadest implica- 
tions of new technology and advanced 
weapon systems, there is, as I see it 
a coincidence of our viewpoints. We 
m the Defense Department are as 
committed as you are to contributing 
to an accurate public discussion of the 
choices in national security. Surely 
there was no question in the 1950's 



about the vital service to the country 
when journalists, scholars and govern- 
mental spokesmen explored some- 
times heatedly the impact of the 
intercontinental ballistic missile on 
the choice of strategic courses open to 
the United States and the Soviet Un- 
ion, Surely there is no question today, 
for example, about the value of an in- 
formed, broadly based public analysis 
of anti-ballistic missile systems or of 
the spread of nuclear weapons. 

National security 

demands continuing 

debate. 

The vital importance of national 
security demands that our country 
have continuing, intense debate on the 
critical issues. This is, in fact, an 
international imperative as well. As 
you realize, the recent U.S. efforts to 
extend discussions of missile defense 
with the Soviet Union are based upon 
the premise that greater international 
understanding of these issues is neces- 
sary in the path of peace. 

But again, make no mistake about 
the nature of these issues. They in- 
volve technical as well as political and 
economic elements. Too often, the 
technical facts, and particularly the 
range of uncertainties, are not treated 
adequately in publications. I suggest 
this inadequacy is not primarily the 
result of excessive secrecy but rather 
of our mutual failure to complete the 
discussion. All of us must contribute 
more here. 

Let me turn now to our continuing, 
most critical area: research and de- 
velopment in our strategic systems. 
The overriding operational objective 
ot our strategic programs is the de- 
terrence of nuclear war. Mutual de- 
terrence is, in fact, the only meaning- 
ful way a nuclear war can be "won" 
by both sides. Deterrence rests on the 
capabihty for assured destruction of 
the enemy's military, industrial and 
civilian base. A deterrent capability 



is characterized by throe essential 
factors: assured survivabilily, pene- 
tration and control. 

Our strategic offensive forceH must 
be able to survive a su rpri.su ntlack 
and still be capable of inflicting unac- 
ceptable damage. This assured nur- 
vivability is achieved, in part, by ii 
mixture of HysteniH itiul tuchniqurs, 
land-based bombers, land-bascMj mis- 
siles and sen-based missiles, 

Surviving would not lie .sufficient Jf, 
after arriving 1 at targets, tmr vvuipnnA 
were rondorod impotent by dnfVuuivc 
systems in the terminal area. Tlioy 
must be ablo to "penetrate" the do- 
fense, to strike the tin-get. FciiMtni- 
tion is achieved in essentially two 
ways: by brute form, through tlin 
use of overwhelming minibiii-H to ex- 
haust the dofonsuf and by dorTpLiiui, 
such as through the u.se of (tocoyfl. 

Finally, our strategic systems must 
be flexible and remain under our re- 
liable, positive control. We cannot 
risk a response triggered by nacEiUint 
or false alarm* 

Our record in achieving mi ndwjuata 
deterrent has boon imprcHum!, fn 
quantity and quality, Our uln'ltty to 
deliver an overwhelming retaliatory 
strike, even after absorbing H mtrprfcn 
attack intended to pin-illy mir 
strength, is unquestionably convincing, 

Now, you arc saying to yourmslvoH, 
we have heard all this before. Hut let 
us pause here a moment. I 1m vo em- 
phasized tho word "assurance" in re- 
viewing our strategic objectives- 
assured destruction of nny nttnckor, 
assured survivability, naaurocl pone- 
tration, assuror! command nnd control. 
This is a crucial concept. It in cnidnl 
that we devote tho highest priority to 
our thinking about assurances! -nnd 
we do. It is crucial that wo assign nil 
necessary resources and great talent 
to maintaining- and upgrading these 
assured capabilities and wo do. And 
it is crucial to our national security 
that the press not take this concept 
lightly.. ^ 

We know it is essential to explain 
clearly and openly to any potential 
enemy the nature of our capability. 
The whole point of "assurance" ia that 



June/July T967 



everyone must appreciate the cer- 
tainty and capability of our response 
to any major attack. Nevertheless, 
occasionally, there is fin oversimplified 
"scare story" claiming that our deter- 
rent force is in some way grossly 
inadequate. Such stories cannot be 
supported either technologically or 
operationally. Such stories introduce 
unwarranted uncertainty, here and 
abroad. Such stories undermine the 
credibility of our deterrent, because 
such stories cannot be supported, they 
arc, a great disservice to the country. 

We go to groat lengths to state the 
general facts about our assured 
strength. Yet some information must 
vomain classified. Often this is a diffi- 
cult line to draw the line between 
what should be said to maintain 
credible, assurance, and what should 
bo left unsaid to ensure security; the 
lino between what skeptical Ameri- 
cans want and need to know in an 
open society, and what a potential 
enemy wants to know to design effec- 
tive eountermeasures, Ten* example, 
nothing i gained by disclosing design 
details of our penetration aids. Dis- 
closing such data would not support 
our national purposes. Tt would only 
assist any potential enemies. 

I want to clarify an important 
aspect of our thinking about assur- 
ance. The concept of assurance wpans 
a complex interaction of the. offense 
uml defense. How does one know, for 
oxnmple, that an offensive capability 
IH "assured" unless one has great con- 
fidence in his underHtanding of ad- 
vanced defenses? This is precisely the 
thrust of our analysis. We develop 
tlin technology for the most advanced 
miiisile defense, and then we design 
our offensive missile systems to ptmo- 
trnte that defense. Wo develop the 
moat advanced air defense technology, 
and then we design our aircraft sys- 
tems; to penetrate that defense, In 
general, wo have boon one to two 
technological generations ahead of 
any potential enemy in these advanced 
designs. So we have great confidence 
that our offensive forces are "as- 
sured." From this experience we have 
found that the offense has dominated 
the defense, and we expect this trend 
to continue in the foreseeable future. 

Now I want to discuss a difficult 
point, raised semi-annually in discus- 
sions of our strategic capability: the 
so-called "technological plateau." I 
occasionally hear the argument that 



we have reached, or have somehow 
accidentally been trapped in, or have 
decided to remain on, a "technological 



plateau." The allegation usually 3s 
either tlmt we are not really pushing 
important new developments, or that 
we are not concerned about possible 
developments of potential enemies. I 
can say categorically that this argu- 
ment is not valid in terms of any cri- 
terion I think is important. But I 
must say, before going further, that 
if you feel a key criterion has escaped 
our notice, please bring- it to my at- 
tention. To set the record straight, 
let's look at this from several points 
of view. 

First, let me give you examples 
refuting the funding fallacy often 
implied. In FY 19G8, wo are continu- 
ing our ballistic missile defense de- 
velopment efforts at the high levels of 
recent years. We are requesting $44.0 
million for research and development 
work on the Nike-X system. And 
there is another related program in 
the Advanced Research Projects 
Agency, Project Defender, for which 
we have requested another $119 mil- 
lion. Our capabilities in this area have 
changed dramatically in the last 10 
years. How can we be stagnating 
technologically in ballistic missile de- 
fense while we devote more than a 
half-billion dollars to it in one year? 

Also in FY 1908, we are requesting 
about $350 million for programs on 
our Mimi toman forces and about $433 
million for the Polaris/Poseidon de- 
velopments. These funds support some 
of the efforts necessary to demon- 
strate that we know how to penetrate 
any enemy's missile defenses. 

Overall, lot mo remind you, DOD 
expenditures for research and develop- 
ment have increased almost 300 per- 
cent during the last decade. The re- 
search and development budget re- 
quested for FY 1968 IB $8.1 billion. It 
contains requests for over 1,500 proj- 
ects. The real argument here, I sus- 
pect, is not about the total. Most 
people seem to agree we're spending 
the right amount. The real arguments 



arc about specific items, each of which 
always always has its advocates. 
So the problem is to achieve some bal- 
ance, some sorting out of priorities 
and prospects. This requires judg- 
ment, and I would be the last to claim 
we have attained perfect balance. I 
think we do have about the right total. 

So much for the charge that we are 
not really investing the required 
money. But how about the argument 
that we are not aggressively pursuing 1 
the frontier fields of defense tech- 
nology? I don't think this is true. 
Here, too, are the difficult questions 
of balance. 

For example, how does one know 
whether $1.4 billion this year for the 
DOD research and technology base is 
adequate? And how does one know 
whether we have the right balance 
between this base and our develop- 
ment projects which are funded at 
about $4.8 billion? Actually, these 
totals and ratios are merely the sum 
of thousands of numbers, each ex- 
amined and set on its own merits. 
I know of no clearly needed improve- 
ment mid no clear technological oppor- 
tunity that do not receive adequate 
support. Probably more important we 
are not content with our past and cur- 
rent success. We continue to press 
the state of the art in every technical 
area in which there is a solid case for 
providing required improvements in 
our forces. 

Thus I am puazled by the occasional 
essay on defense research and develop- 
ment which simply ignores the enor- 
mous effort we continue to devote to 
advanced technology. Perhaps It is 
understandable that some pockets of 
misunderstanding will exist because, 
as I've said, wo have been compress- 
ing great clusters of advanced work 
into a single year's effort. This situa- 
tion is somewhat analagous to that as- 
sessed by Tom Lehrer, the mathema- 
tician turned singer/satirist, when he 
cracked, "I arn sobered occasionally 
to recall that when Mozart waa my 
ago, he'd been dead 10 years!" I, too, 
am sobered to read the altogether 
plausible prediction that half of what 
a competent engineer will need to 
know 10 years from now is not avail- 
able to him today! 

One final aspect of tliis alleged tech- 
nological plateau: the argument that 
we are in some way losing our stra- 
tegic superiority. 

For many years, the Soviet Union 
apparently has been following our 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



Ir-ad in r-vH-y important strategic sys- 
tem technical development: the inter- 
continental liomber, the solid-fiieied 
mis*] k-, the Polaris-type .submarine, 
tiift liimlfiinl and dispersed silo, and 
many other advance's. This is still the 
case. We arc following their activities 
with great cave. Wo see no evidence 
that our planned strategic capabilities 
will !>o endangered by recent Soviet 
technological actions. 

Our missile force represents a fully 
operational, reliable, survivable and, 
again, assured deterrent. Our missiles 
are more accurate. We have developed 
a family of penetration aids. The 
changes that we have made in our 
missile forces Minuteman II, and 
soon the addition of Minuteman III 
and Poseidon are much more than 
minor modifications and name changes. 
These new capabilities provide major 
increases in effectiveness. Our bombers 
are capable of low-altitude penetra- 
tion over a target area. We will soon 
have a bomber with enhanced area 
penetration capability, equipped with 
stand-off missiles so that it can also 
avoid terminal defenses. 

I am often asked how long we are 
going to keep one of these strategic 
systems. The answer is simple: as 
long as it can provide assu'red de- 
struction. 

In advanced technology, \ve have 
developed the capability, if required, 
to move rapidly into operational de- 
velopment and deployment of several 
new systems, such as an Advanced 
Manned Strategic Aircraft (AMSA) 
and an Advanced 1CBM. These new 
concepts are waiting in the wings, 
not because we have avoided or failed 
to invest in the advanced technology 
necessary for strategic advantage. It 
it because, at the moment, immediate 
deployment is not yet clearly in the 
overall national interest, 

Strangely enough, we sometimes 
get credit for a breakthrough we 
haven't made or get blamed that, if 
we haven't made it, the Soviets have, 
A number of recent articles "dis- 
covered" X-rays as a kill mechanism 
at high altitude. Depending upon the 
point of view of the author, either the 
United States has made this break- 
through, or the United States is be- 
hind in countering some Soviet threat 
based upon this X-ray threat. Neither 
the "pat on the back" or the "jab in 
the ribs" stories are true. One could 
read about these X-ray effects several 



14 



years ago in unclassified official hand- 
books on nuclear weapons effects. 
Anyone working with nuclear weap- 
ons exploding- above the atmosphere 
must either exploit, or protect against, 
such effects. We have had, and con- 
tinue to pursue, major research and 
development programs designed to 
minimize the susceptibility of our 
systems to such kill mechanisms and, 
at the same time, to maximize their 
effectiveness in developing ballistic 
missile defense. The details must re- 
main classified. An isolated speech or 
a paragraph in congressional testi- 
mony does not make this "new." I 
admit it can be "news," albeit news 
with an available background of fact. 

Let me try to summarize my views 
on the matter of technological 
plateau. We know that research and 
development is "worth it" in hard 
economic terms as well as in stra- 
tegic terms, and in fulfilling normal 
military functions as well as in cre- 
ating entirely new capabilities. 

There is no stagnation in defense 
research and development. There is 
no technological plateau now. Nor do 
I think there will be one created, 
either accidentally or by design. You 
can help us by resisting any tempta- 
tions to re-enforce the myth of a 
technological plateau. There are 
times when my job and yours may 
lead to conflict. But a controversy 
about a technological plateau is 
simply a false conflict based upon 
misinterpretation, 

Vietnam conflict 
calls for quick- 
reaction projects. 

We have looked briefly at research 
and development related to strategic 
systems, and a few problems in pub- 
lic discussion of these systems. Let's 
look now at a rather different topic: 
the role of research and development 
to support the conflict in Vietnam, 
The most important single focus in 
defense research and development to- 
day is on meeting, wherever possible, 
the research and development needs 
revealed by that conflict. 

Each spring, as you know, we have 
opportunities to appear before the 
Congress to present and explain our 
budget request. Congressmen, like re- 



porters, have a way of asking; direct, 
penetrating, and important questions. 
One of the most striking questions 
this year was : Why do wo nhaw 
roughly the same research nml devel- 
opment budget request in FY 19 68 for 
the manned orbital laboratory ant! 
for our total research and develop- 
ment effort for Southeast Asia? An 
attempt to answer this single ques- 
tion may be helpful to you. 

There are some simple answers 
First, we cannot project our Houlli- 
east Asia, research and devolojimont 
requirements very far in tulviuicti 
because so many of them art! quick- 
reaction projects. In this fiscal yoai 1 , 
for example, wo initially limited 
about $400 million. Subsequently, tlw 
Services reprograminod jilimwl $100 
million more, and received approxi- 
mately $200 million more from nmir- 
gency and supplemental funding. 
Thus the budget was increased from 
$400 to almost $700 million during 
an 18-month period in which urgent 
research and development needsi de- 
veloped. The same c volution may 
occur during FY 19'fiS. 

Second, some of our roaejurcli fur 
limited warfare simply isn't (-Nucn- i 
sive. For example, the resenrdi uutl 
development required to (!ov<*lo)) n 
new jungle boot, specialty tailored (o 
the hot, moist climate- of Vtalnmii, 
cost less than half a million doltuiu 
The country has npent many times 
that much for Urn astronauta' illfjlit 
gear, Both the soldier nnd the mitni- 
naut have to be properly <H|ui]t}!tul 
for their jobs. Wo need thorn hotli, 
and the dollars fall where they immt. 
Third, general purpose forces Imv 
been under development for hun- 
dreds of years, while the first rtntro- 
naut flew four yours ago. Honco J 
much of our current tactical wurfiire 
research and development is devoted 
to achieving relatively small Improve- 
ments to existing hardware. Two ynat'H 
of combat have demonstrated Ire- 
yond question that our troops wore 
well trained and excellently cf|uip|i<!<| 
from the outset. 

These are a few of tlm simple 
reasons why we are not able to upend 
more. But there aro other, more fun- 
damental reasons. 

General Maxwell Taylor has char- 
acterized the Vietnam conflict as a 
limited war with limited objectives, 
limited resources and, hopefully, 
limited risks. I would like to add one 
more restraint; limited applicable 

June/July 1967 



technology. If there is one indisput- 
t able feature of the Vietnam war, it 
is that a "technology fix" alone will 
not solve our problems. The hard- 
core problems are essentially political, 
social and economic. The solutions to 
those problems will not be found in 
the products of research and develop- 
ment. Nor will it help to invoke any 
mythology about the potential of re- 
search and development. 

I must add, of course, that there 
arc some key problems in Vietnam 
which research and development 
should he able to solve. If solutions 
can be found to these problems, not 
only might the war be shortened hut 
our capability to deter other such 
limited wars would he greatly 
strengthened. 

At this point I would like to re- 
mind you of a somewhat under-publi- 
cized aspect of the war. General West- 
moreland has been extremely eager 
to innovate, to press the concept of 
"combat research and development." 
To assist this process, I assigned two 
distinguished defense scientists to 
net as personal advisors to Admiral 
Sharp and General Westmoreland. 
Dr. William McMillan is in Saigon, 
and Dr. Thomas Cheatham is in 
Hawaii at the headquarters of the 
Commander in Chief, Pacific. To pro- 
vide coordination of all our Vietnam- 
related research and development, I 
also established a now office within 
my staff, the Deputy Director for 
Southeast Asia Matters, and ap- 
pointed Mr. Leonard Sullivan to this 
job* The splendid and critical contri- 
butions of these three men are a 
reflection of the entire research and 
development community's involve- 
ment. 

We have had many research and 
development successes in Vietnam. 
But I think I should give you, in the 
interest of candor, a sampling of the 
resenrch and development problems 
emerging from Vietnam which we 
still don't know how to solve. 

We arc still looking, for exam- 
ple, for a satisfactory way to find 
tunnels. If we could reliably locate 
tunnels, wo would be well on our 
way to cracking the Viet Cong's prin- 
cipal resource for command, logistic 
8U Pply> and escape. 

* * As another illustration, many of 
our casualties arc caused by primi- 
tive mines and booby traps. These 
are often made from our own dud 
munitions, sometimes even from our 



cast-off ammunition boxes. We would 
like a device capable of sensing explo- 
sives and/or metal wires and frag- 
ments about 100 yards away that 
one man can carry along with other 
combat gear. This same device might 
be useful in warning of impending 
ambushes another serious and deadly 
problem. 

The Viet Cong are masters at the 
art of infiltration not just across 
the borders into South Vietnam, but 
into our military bases, local out- 
posts and villages where they prac- 
tice the diverse techniques of ter- 
rorism. To meet this threat, we need 
much better ways to differentiate 
friend from foe. And we must find 
reliable "burglar alarm" systems to 
warn of approaching or passing 
danger. Like the other needs I have 
mentioned, the successful develop- 
ment of simple "border security" sys- 
tems and "people-detection" devices 
will have spin-off benefits far beyond 
the scope of the present war. 

We have not yet solved these prob- 
lems. Do they sound impossible? How 
does it sound when I ask you to dig 
a little trench on the moon? Do you 
think these problems are not being 
solved because of a lack of money? 
I don't think that's the reason. I 
think it is because we don't know 
how to spend more money sensibly. 
This is a tough answer to give a 
Congressman and a reporter. But it's 
true. 

These problems are perhaps best 
attacked hy interdisciplinary teams 
of physical and social scientists. Any 
turning point in Vietnam will depend 
upon careful discrimination, analysis 
and, then, change in the social and 
physical environment. Obviously, we 
need to employ all of our skills to 
get to the point where, instead of 
counting killed Viet Cong, we will 
be counting live, independent, self- 
governing citizens. 

As pointed out in my congressional 
statement, we in research and devel- 
opment must heed Santayana's warn- 
ing that those who don't understand 
history are condemned to repeat it. 
We are trying to learn the lessons 
applicable to research and develop- 
ment activity. It would be irrespon- 
sible not learn these lessons. You 
can help us here by reaching for the 
careful and complete story, dis- 
tinguishing between the various kinds 
of research and development prob- 
lems. 



in- 



em. 



n 



Let me turn now to two examples 
of areas in which we clearly need 
growth over the long-term future. I 
will sketch our thinking about goals 
for what is called "man-in-the- 
system," and for our research and 
technology base. 

A key problem now recognized more 
clearly as a major direction for 
future research and development is 
really a cluster of problems pertain- 
ing to people. The Defense Depart- 
ment is many people; pilots, infantry- 
men, intelligence officers, commanders, 
raw trainees, computer operators, re- 
search and development professionals, 
managers, and on and on. And all 
of these people participate in "the 
system," But too often our systems 
do not really fit the man. 

We are beginning to expand efforts 
in education and training; in human 
factors engineering; in manpower 
analyses for all equipment in ad- 
vanced research and development; in 
improved equipment for the individual 
soldier's vision, fire-power, protec- 
tion and mobility; and an improved 
understanding of the environmental 
conditions affecting man/machine 
performance, At some point in the 
future, as this work succeeds, we will 
have developed really matched capa- 
bilities for men, equipment and the 
operational environment. 

In each of these areas so easily 
listed, so difficult to assess ade- 
quately there are millions of people 
and man-hours and dollars at stake. 
These are, in many ways, the most 
important potential payoff fields of 
the future. Though our data base is 
limited, our theory limited, I believe 
the possible improvements are enor- 
mous. 

The second area of significance for 
one to two decades from now is Proj- 
ect Themis. As you may know, Proj- 
ect Themis is our new university 
research program. It is designed to 
create using the President's phrase 
new academic departmental "cen- 
ters of excellence." Our goal is to 
stimulate the development of new uni- 
versity groups, active in defense- 
relevant basic research, in geo- 
graphic areas and institutions which 
have not previously received substan- 
tial DOD support. 

I regard this program funded at 
about $20 million this year and, Con- 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



IS 



^rv?r, \villin, c-xjiC'Ctcd to expand by 
almost "ri.i pc-i-cont iifixt yearas an 
pxcjtim; initiative. In a s^nne, it is 
an t\|i:'fiitu'nt and w<> are delighted 
with tiki rvni.'tion so far, 

\V<? jvcoivHJ nearly fiOO preliminary 
pi'ojii^aU from almost 200 univcrsi- 
tif? f r>'.iui'Vtii!g almost -100 million. 
Not*- that the proposal rocjiicijts 
iimoumoii to almost 20 times more 
mniK-y than \ve havt; available! On 
b:ikin<:>'>, thn proposals were of high 
technical quality. By mid-June, we 
will havt? f-valuated the detailed pro- 
jtoial.i. Wo then will begin awarding 
contract; for about 50 centers, fund- 
ing (>aeh at roughly 6:200,000 per year, 
with advance funding to permit 
schools to make commitments for 
thive jvars. Our present plan is to 
add about ;"0 new centers each year 
for the- j:>;t three years. \Ve will 
Ix-gin another round of solicitations 
latc-r this year. 

Ba.wd on payoffs from the last 20 
j-r-ars of university research, I am 
convinced that Project Themis can be 
successful, and that it merits more 
attention by yon and your colleagues. 
For this new program is precisely 
the kind to ensure against any pos- 
sible technological plateau. Make no 
mistake we do not believe that $200 
thousand per year can create an in- 
stitutional center of excellence, But 
\ve do know from experience that 
consistent support of able leaders of 
doctoral-level research can create de- 
partmental excellence, and that this, 
in turn, can catalyze the growth of 
an institution. We have no intention 
of reducing our support of existing 
academic centers of excellence. What 
we are doing in Themis is broaden- 
ing anil defining our research and 
technology base to support our future 
national security. 



sc/osure of 



. b , ! Hunt LU louch 

again on issues central to the role of 
the press in defense research and de- 
velopment. I have already mentioned 
some, but would like to return to the 
tougher ones. 

I quoted Secretary McNamara'a 
statement on freedom of information 
carter . I wholeheartedly S upp 0rt 
this pledge for maximum disclosure 

16 



of unclassified information: to in- 
form the American public, to main- 
tain a clarifying public debate on 
major issues, to reach the rest of the 
world, and to remove any doubts in 
the eyes of our adversaries about our 
strength and our desire for peace 
with freedom. 

Questions arise, obviously, about 
the possible release of classified in- 
formation, and about the classification 
criteria. It seems to me that a com- 
plicating factor is not anyone's 
failure to appreciate the need for 
security precautions, It is, in part, 
the challenge of prying open any kind 
of secrecy. I believe that all the facts 
necessary for an informed public dis- 
cussion are available on an unclassi- 
fied basis. The problem, I suppose, as 
James Reston put it recently, is that 
it is easier to get "a breathless pres- 
entation of the news, featuring the 
flaming lead and the big headline" if 
you can tag the news as a "secret." 
Some people say there is overclas- 
sification. They arc right. But be 
careful, Some of this is caused by a 
conservatism based upon the need to 
make difficult judgments on national 
security policy under conditions of 
uncertainty. Our job is to ensure that 
the necessary secrecy is maintained. 
Your job is to educate the public on 
national security without compromis- 
ing our security. 

I believe that you can and usually 
do get adequate information. Discre- 
tion need not displace truth. And we 
are, as a nation, indebted to those 
reporters and columnists who under- 
stand these issues and act in the pub- 
lic interest. 

There is another, perhaps tougher 
problem in reporting research and 
development news. Obvious but often 
underrated, it is simply the technical 
complexity and uncertainty surround- 
ing most research and development 
work, 

Frequently one is asked by re- 
porters to give estimates on the per- 
formance, costs, schedules of research 
and development projects. If one 
hesitates or begs off completely, 
there 1S irritation or criticism about 
excessive secrecy. In my experience, 
the difficulty is that there simply isn't 
a good estimate available. Sometimes 
a complete answer requires a sophisti- 
cated set of caveats. However, every- 
body wants a number which magically 
resolves their n,^,, ... / 



their story. To confess, T do, too, But 
at times there just isn't n simple 
answer. 

I have touched on limited areas of 
defense research and development: a 
few of our objectives, somo Icwsoim 
learned, and common prohlnnis, I \\nva 
tried also to dual Kquarnly with soiws 
issues which I thought won; sensitive 
and significant 1'i'oni your poi'Kinvti'vo. 
I approached this oct- union wild 
groat care, somo nnxinty, and a good 
deal of ignorance! about your prefer- 
ences and perceptions. 1 hopn very 
much that we can maintain 11 Hj'iNbi- 
otic ratlin r than a hostile; oi 1 wary re- 
lationship. W<! lmv n <!<>l)<><?liv re- 
sponsibility to amilysw Ktuno dillindt 
public issues, to serve tlio public 
interest, find to roport a rcsjiuiiHibie 
analysis with intc^'nty, Tim slsikrs 
are vory high national .smirk;-. 



"wives their arguments or sells 



Military Economic fmpcict 

(Con United frntn-pn^c. ;!) 
shortage. Examples of tlicso HkUls tiro: 
tool and die makora; tminliini.HtR; 
metal workers; forgo worknnt, ex- 
truders, pressman; foundry mini; jivos- 
thetics; hook binders ; ciiKravorsj nnil 
watchmakers. 

Whether this shortage of .skilled l;i- 
bor has to do with liifrhor whiculton of 
our young people;, tho Inelc of inloirsL 
by young people in an apprentk'o pro- 
fession, I do not know nor do thn Job 
specialists to whom T have Bpitlum, lint 
that acute vacancies havo OKinlccl in 
these trades for aomn tinui, and me 
worsening-, is not denied. And wlml Is 
true is that tho young- people do not 
fill these vacancicB. Doesn't industry 
have a stake in this? 

I think one reacts to economic con- 
flicts by counter moves within staled 
policy. One holds to competition where 
possible but assures contiminuti pro- 
duction. One holds production to effec- 
tive levels by use o:f inventory, but as- 
sures an inventory for contingency 
plans, One consumes what ia neces- 
sary, but gauges consumption to objec- 
tives. Ono uses industrial priorities 
where necessary but attempts to ab- 
sorb only that part of production nec- 
essary. I can only say to you that it Is 
a fascinating- business and, as n Iraal- 
ness, it has its effects on people. If wo 
can keep our mind on doing the best 
we can for the greatest number of pco- 
pie, wo can sleep at night, 
What is industry's answer? 



June/July 1967 




DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Lt. Gen. Lelghton I. Davis, USAF, 
will become Commandant, Industrial 
College of the Aimed Forces, Wash- 
ington, D.C., on July 1. He is now 
serving as Commander, National 
Range Div., Air Force Systems Com- 
maiid. 

Maj. (fen. Emmett M. Tally Jr., 
USAF, lias been assigned as Com- 
mander of. the Defense Industrial Sup- 
ply Center, Philadelphia, Pa., effective 
in August. He will succeed Brig. Gen. 
John I). Hines, USA, who has been 
assigned ns Commander, Defense Gen- 
eral Supply Center, Richmond, Va., 
effective Sept. 1 relieving Maj. Gen. 
Hay J. Laiix, USA, who will retire 
Aiitf. 31. 

Col. James T. Johnson, USAF, has 
been named Dep. Dir., Materiel & 
Services, Defense Communications 
Agency Planning Group. 

Col. McLean W. Elliott, USAF, has 
been assigned as Asst. Dir. for Ranges 
nnd Space Ground Support, Office of 
the Dir., Defense Research and Engi- 
neering. 

Col. Robert J. Meyer, USAF, has 
been named Dir,, Aircraft and Mis- 
siles, Office of Asst. Secretary of De- 
fense (Installations and Logistics). 

Col, John G. Whcelock III, USA, 
has been designated Dir., European 
lloftion, Office of Asst, Secretary of 
Defense (International Security Af- 
fairs). 

Capt. Iloss A, Porter, (SC), USN, 
has been named Commander of the 
Defense Logistics Service Center, Bat- 
tle Creek, Mich. 

Cant. Theodore H, Purvis, Jr., (SC), 
USN, has been assigned as Dep. Com- 
mander, Defense Electronics Supply 
Center, Dayton, Ohio. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Mnj. Gen. Harry W, O. Kinnurd has 

been named Commanding General, 
Army Combat Development Com- 
mand. Prior to the assignment, Gen. 
Kinnard served as Dep, Asat. Chief of 
Staff for Force Development, U, S. 
Army. 

Maj, Gen, Frank J. Sackton, Secre- 
tary, General Staff, Army Chief of 



Staff Office, has been nominated for 
appointment to lieutenant general and 
assignment as Army Comptroller. 

Col. James P. Luckey, Dep. Com- 
mander, Rock Island Arsenal, has 
been reassigned to the Army Armor 
Center, Port Knox, Ky. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

Acini. Thomas IT. Moorer has been 
nominated for appointment as Chief of 
Naval Operations. He will succeed 
Adm. David L. MacDonald who is re- 
tiring. Vice Adm. Ephrnim P. Holmes 
has been appointed to succeed Adm. 
Moorer as Commander in Chief, At- 
lantic and U. S. Atlantic Fleet, and 
Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic. 
VAdm. I. J. Gnlantin, Chief of Na- 
val Material, has been promoted to 
the rank of admiral in accordance 
with Senate confirmation designating 
the position of Chief of Naval Mate- 
rial us a Navy admiral position. 

Richard A. Beaumont, Dep. Under 
Secretary of the Navy for Manpower, 
has resigned from full time duties but 
will remain with the Navy for an 
interim period on a part-time basis 
until his successor is named. 

KAdm. John M. Alford has been as- 
signed as Dep. Commander and Chief 
of Staff, Military Sea Transportation 
Service, 

RAdm. William S. Guest, has as- 
sumed command as Chief of Naval 
Air Reserve Training with additional 
duty as Commandant, Ninth Naval 
District, Great Lakes, 111. 

RAdm. David C. Richardson, has 
been designated as Asat. Chief of Na- 
val Operations (Air). 

Dr. W. Dcming Lewis, President of 
Lehigh University, has been named 
Chairman, Naval Research Advisory 
Committee, replacing retiring chair- 
man Garrison Norton, 

Capt, James C. Mathcson has re- 
lieved Capt. Thomas B. Owen as Dir. 
of the Naval Research Laboratory, 
Washington, B.C. Capt. Owen has 
been named the new Chief of Naval 
Research. 

The following- captain assignments 
have been announced by the Bureau 
of Personnel: 



Capt. Eugene F. Anderson Jr., 
(SC), Commanding Officer, Naval 
Supply Depot, Philadelphia, Pa.; Capt. 
Stuart M. Ball, (SC), Commanding 
Officer, Naval Supply Depot, Seattle, 
Wash.; Capt. William J. Francy, 
(CEC), Commanding Officer, Naval 
Public Works Center, Great Lakes, 
111.; Capt. James W. Montgomery, 
Commanding Officer, Naval Develop- 
ment and Training Center, San Diego, 
Calif.; Capt. Julian E. Rawls, Dep, 
Commander, Navy Weapons Labora- 
tory, Dahlgren, Va,; and Capt. Colin 
J. Ricketts, Commanding Officer, Na- 
val Missile Center, Point Mugu, Calif. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE 
AIR FORCE 

Gen. Kenneth B. Hobson, Com- 
mander, Air Force Logistics Com- 
mand, will retire from the Air Force 
Aug. 1. 

Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Gerrity has 
been nominated for promotion to gen- 
eral and reassignment as Commander, 
Air Force Logistics Command. Maj. 
Gen. Robert G. Ruegg has been nomi- 
nated for promotion to lieutenant 
general and assignment as Dep. Chief 
of Staff, (Systems and Logistics), 
Air Force Headquartei-a, relieving 
Gen. Gerrity. 

Lt. Gen. Jack G. Merrell, Air Force 
Comptroller, has moved to Germany 
to succeed Gen, Agan as Vice Com- 
mander-in-Chief, U.S. Air Forces in 
Europe. Lt. Gen. Theodore R. Milton, 
will replace Gen. Merrell as Air Force 
Comptroller. 

Relieving Gen* Milton as Inspector 
General of the Air Force will be Lt, 
Gen. Joseph H. Moore, who moves to 
the Pentagon from duty as Vice Com- 
mander-in-Chief, Pacific Air Forces. 
Lt. Gen. James V. Edmundsou will 
succeed Gen. Moore. 

Maj, Gen. Jack J. Cation has been 
named for promotion to lieutenant 
general and assigned to relieve Lt. 
Gen. Robert J. Friedman as Dep. Chief 
of Staff, (Programs and Resources), 
Air Force Headquarters. Gen. Fried- 
man will assume duties as Chief of 
Staff, U.S. Forces Korea and Chief of 
Staff, UN Command, Korea. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



17 



DEFENS 

CAME BON IT, 

OMOI 




HI 


(IIS 


JRG 
t IJW 
K: 71! 

JW 


MI IN si CIPOI omiii 

KiniM, IN All IWI 
HIIFIIOM ltJ-Jlf4 ARItcWI Wl 
rWUWHKB, MFHuHNjriSIKB. lliH ml 


II 
J1 

4II 


oniitii Dirot iB*cr 

'SCI. MLIIDIiNIA ( 

IIUNICM. wm AniAcoM: m 

CtWWANMS. 
C*nROB[BICMKT[R. m. U( Hl . 











W [ I HI Ci- i :i .' 1 ' , Tl i I .' I 

ruiMniiiv <nii\: = .i T..- ; 
ii' iM (..ii.i;.i...i inii it 



June/July 1967 



AGENCY 



it EXANDRIA, VA. 32314 

rj XTEN5ION (AREA CODE 502) 







BE FIJI Y FJIRinOIFOR 




















1 




01 rill Y DIMl'IOP. 1WIOEN JDILtAGOSIIOliM USA MI14 6WVI 
ASSTDFrnliniBiflOP. I'HLLIAUHSiUiP 11)10 ST/VI 




1 




CIW1HT RIVIIlY 








OFFICE OF F.UMCE'.'.FM COITROl 




BAH) M 

















1 


1 






IXICIITIVE 1)1 li< fW 
COMPACT "FJMINISFBATirn 


ElKUTIVE CIRirtQR 




[licuiivccitinos 

rBOtUCTICfl 


liiruilVE rjiRinns. 01 KOBIRI jv tuiuc!. IISM wtin Mini 


I1TCUTIVI PIPfOOR. 1AFFI ftSf AUtQROUCH. U!FI IFJit! UJSI 




iXtUTIVEDIPinOB JOH^S CRCUFE IDlft liJl 




EliruTIVE DIFiriB MAJFII1LIF f. Til SON USAf IMH HISJ 




txE(UtlVEIICE*. CDS JOHN CBIMEflt. USN IOW !M' 


IClMMfl EJIUIMriN Ifflrtllll'.M JUMING IIS* IBMI !- 


PIANOS rainis fivi'ion. nirpoi'iviwiNc sww 63)" 






A^I ion iran RIMINI sv CEDPIK CTIKTDH IBIJI OKA 


SrFC'SAFlTf IFllCli! OFNS Dl VISID1. 




INCUS1RIH hESUJIKISS '.lOIILIMlim FUMIliC BIVISION 
















IP. AW STBIFFIt I'.C Ml eiVISlfJ 1 !. TIHOM1PI BCUniS , . S!UI Mill 
S1SI1MS SUlfOBT CIVI1 ION COl IIICMWIVOBTHII.G, USA SC] WHI 










1 


1 




1 


OIHFF DF FlAlliANOWNAF.fKVM 


ornci w it<ciisTRiii UCURIT* 




AD^INI^TflATlVlOFIICI 








miEf Di>&rBT i fdnRiH i&Jli Wl 










Dininvi tiEfiic con muse we. uui. . , win HSII 

[(HHiiPUCIHlNHWIiUINAIIIU. 1MOTJK III WIMMIJUl Mill W>-l 


I'UfViRA.MS t IHUSIS CIVnitKI. CUC'.IAS JO'BRItN. S C f,'M 
FIFinVMI (HVISIHN fH WHMMIH f WABSIIWl. 11SM !A 1 SilW 






ILII*Oe PIJIiEl! Will WSO 









ICE 


IHI( 





DEIENSEIOGISFICS 
IfBVIHS (.(NTH 

BAIUECBElxJEOEHALFfNItH 
lAtntCREfK, MICH 4*lt 
TiKfHCHI' W!'6iH ARCAriM: lib 

CMVJVIHR, COL [HANK WfifEB. USM tat, 




A M rsr;r' ( ;TER 


01 


IFIIFtlOM OlinBOIMi ABIArODF: W 
fCVAMANPEP. fO. WIILIAMCAUIE, USAF BIT1 


3 


w 



DK1NSI CONIfilCt *DMINISI!'I 


OmiXVICiS BiCIWS(DC*SSl> 




[IfASHAllAMI 
1101 (Uril nuiVI HE 11IUTA CA WTO 

miriinir fti inn ABuroci: wi 

OlMdnR (14 (OBIH P hWBAV IB UW Ill 


BCAiP CUViUND 
I1H(*SI S11IIISI, CUVtIAhP. 01110 41114 
KIIFINM Ul'lliH AB[*COM lit 
DIKCIOfl. f NORMAN HIWNIS. U'A 110 


BCASB IOS ANCIliS 
HOW S 1 CliNICA BlVD 
UK ANGE IE i CALIF WHS 
llltrilDNI Ml 'hi. [COM' 111 

msirto. {icciNnB(ii"C. usi . . . . ono 


DCsJfi (AtlBinCisro 

5tS*',HCOl"BiMO. euBlhC'MI. TILIF '*]0 
lilEPIIOM: WCMO A![*CO 411 
DIRECTOR. 

caBiYmYCWNFMnm. u(*r wi 


Df(n easnw 

W6 MIKWIiB STBill FHISTDN, MASt CIJIO 

inrrnmi. i(u ARIA^M; tit 

DIBFI10U, Tfl IPAHU A 60MBI. UM * 


EWfi MUM 
!MSDUIII[BVV<r. MHAS, Tim IliOl 
[fl(P MWIt PM^DI ABU COD! Ill 

DlfifnOH. 

rrr WAiriH c Nomnn, USN en-mi 


IHSRNdVreRK 
jrOBBOADHIV.HnVOES.NV ICOli 

HUrnwn; tjf-in MA mi: i\i 
cmaa>. 

BBIGCFNCl*BiN(ilVClAPiADRE, JREI'A., . ! 


nr'ian. Kxu! 

IHUMWIhSICNAVfNUE. ^1 L-OUIS HO S101 
IHCHfNI Wl-Ilt *Hri COK J14 

CIRItKUi. rAPHlYMONimuiLIVAN. US1, . .HO] 


rriAB'niCACO 

nilABI llirfBNHIOH*! AIBPOPI 
COBfntMIV. fHlfACn 111 UK6 

[d(rn. (M'W)i Anr*roM ; 11; 
niwnnB, ra intn r GISBCNS, uw nui 


DrilB CilBOl! 

IWf CBANDftKti, FJiTROII. MICHIGAN Wll 
II1EPIHM' W)H10 AlllAfOPI. 1H 

(ismtm. r*rinTrwnvoN. n f " i 


nr*fn FHILAHIFHI* 

rOWf HH PtlllAHlFMIA. TA W10I 

iiiimow: nl -w, ASIAIW ?is 

DISIfTdB. [CK-imCjrOINSCW. II 111A . . , . !tld 





Defense Industry Bulletin 




MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA 



JULY 

19fi7 Annual Conferaice on Nuclear 
and Space Radiation Effects, July 10 
M, at Ohio State University, Coluni- 
tnis, Ohio. Sponsors: Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 
NASA Office of Advanced Research 
nnd Technology, Office of Naval Re- 
search, Air Force Office of Scientific 
Research and the Department of the 
Army. Contact: Mr. E. E. Conrad, 
Harry Diamond Laboratories, Wash- 
ington, D.C., 20438, phone (202) OX- 
ford 0-9126. 

1967 Summer Seminar on Mathe- 
matics of the Decision Sciences, at 
Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif., 
July 10-Aug. 11. Sponsors: Air Force 
Office of Scientific Research, Atomic 
Energy Commission, Army Research 
Office, Small Business Administration, 
National Bureau of Standards, Office 
of Naval Research, National Insti- 
tutes of Health and the National Sci- 
ence Foundation. Contact: Maj. John 
Jones Jr., (SRMA), Air Force Office 
of Scientific Research, 1400 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209, phono 
(202) OXford 4-5261. 

Symposium on Electromagnetic 
Compatibility (EMC), July 18-20, at 
Shoreham Hotel, Washington, D. C. 
Sponsor: Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Fol- 
low-on DOD Electromagnetic Com- 
patibility Conference, July 20, at 
Shoreham Hotel with classified 'ses- 
sion, July 21, at Department of In- 
terior Auditorium, Washington, D.C. 
Sponsors: Military Services and DOD 
Electromagnetic Compatibility Anal- 

jS.Jr enter ' Arma P li8 - Md. Contacts: 
IEEE Symposium: James S. Hill, 6706 
Deland Drive, Springfield, Va. 22150 
Phone (703) 345-8900; DOD-EMC 
Conference: Lt. Col. Curtis B. Good- 
win, USAF, Chief, Plans and Pro- 
grams Directorate, ECAC, North 
bevem, Annapolis, Md. 21402, phone 
(301) 268-7711, Ext. 8814. 

Seminar on Stratosphere and Meso- 
sphere, July 24-Aug. 4., at Stansstead, 
Quebec, Canada. Co-sponsors: Air 
Force Cambridge Research Labora- 
tories and HeOlll University. Contact: 
H. S. Muench, (CRHB), Air Force 



Cambridge Research Laboratories, L. 

G. Hanscom Field, Mass. 01730, phone 

(617) 274-6100, Ext. 2541. 

Earth's Particles and Fields Sym- 
posium, July 31-Aug. 11, at Freising, 
Germany. Sponsors: Air Force Cam- 
bridge Research Laboratories, Depart- 
ment of the Army, Office of Naval Re- 
search, Atomic Support Agency, and 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 
Contact : L, Katz, (CRFC) , Ail- 
Force Cambridge Research Labora- 
tories, L. G. Hanscom Field, Mass. 
01730, phone (617) 274-6100, Ext. 
3177. 

SEPTEMBER 

Second Symposium on Automatic 
Control in Space, Sept, 4-8, at Vienna, 
Austria. Sponsor: International Fed- 
eration of Automatic Control. Con- 
tact: J. A. Aseltine, TRW Systems, 
Space Park Drive, Houston, Tex. 
77058. 

International Symposium on Infor- 
mation Theory, Sept. 11-15, at Athens, 
Greece. Sponsors: Air Force Office of 
Scientific Research, Information The- 
ory Group of the Institute of Electri- 
cal and Electronics Engineers and the 
Intei-national Radio Scientific Union 
Contact: Lt. Col. B. R. Agins, 
(SRMA), Air Force Office of Scientific 
Research, 1400 Wilson Blvd., Arling- 
ton, Va., 22209, Phone (202) OXford 
4-5261. 

International Symposium on Mate- 
rials-Key to Effective Use of the 
Sea, Sept. 12-14, at the Statler-Hilton 
Hotel, New York, N.Y. Co-sponsors: 
Naval Applied Science Laboratory and 
the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, 
N.Y Contact: D. H. Kallas, Associate 
Technical Director, Naval Applied Sci- 
ence Laboratory, Flushing and Wash- 
"-* Avenues, Brooklyn, N.Y. 



at Dayton, Ohio. Sponsor: Air Foreo 

Materials Laboratory, Wright-Patter- 
son AFB, Ohio 45433. 

Joint Power Generation Conference, 
Sept 24-28, at the Statler-Hilton Ho- 
tel, Detroit, Mich. Co-sponsors: Insti- 
tute of Electrical and Eloelronlcs 
Engineers and the American Society 
of Mechanical Engineers. Contact: 
Carl Shabtach, General Electric Co, r 
Schenectady, N.Y. 

Fourth International Conference on 
Atmospheric and Space Electricity. 
Sept. 29-Oct. 6, at Lucerne, Switzer- 
land, Sponsors: Air Force CnmbrldRO 
Research Laboratories, Army, Nnvy, 
National Science Foundation and Na- 
tional Aeronautics and Space Admin- 
istration. Contact: M. 33. Gilbert, 
(CRTE), Air Force Cam bridge Ko- 
search Laboratories, L, G. linn scorn 
Field, Mass. 01731, phono (017) 274- 
6100, Ext. 3638. 

OCTOBER 



Advanced Composite Structures 
Symp OS1 u m , Sept. 19-21, at Hilton 
Hotel, Denver, Colo. Sponsor: Air 
Force Materials Laboratory. Contact: 
Mr. Tomashot, (MAC), Air Force Ma- 
y ' Wri ht "Pt 

phon6 (513) 



Eighth Symposium on Physics and 
Nondestructive Testing Sept. 19-21, 



Twenty-second annual Trnnnportn- 
tion and Logistics Forum, Oct. 8-fl, nt 
the Biltmore Hotel, Los Angeles, Cnllf, 
Sponsor: National Defense Transpor- 
tation Association. Contact: Los Rich- 
ards, 3416 S. La Cicnega Blvd., Loa 
Angeles, Calif. 9001C. 

Conference on Reinforced Molnl 
Matrix Composites, Oct. 10-12, nt 
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Go- 
Sponsora: Air Force Materials Lab- 
oratory and the University of Dayton. 
Eleventh Annual Organic Chemistry 
Conference, Oct. 12-13, at Natick, 
Moss. Sponsors; National Academy of 
Science-National Research Council, 
Advisory Board on Military Personnel 
Supplies, and Organic Chemistry Lab- 
oratory, Pioneering Research Div,, 
Army Natlck Laboratories. Contact: 
Dr. L. Long Jr., Head, Organic Chem- 
istry Lab., (PRO), Army Nntick Lab- 
oratories, Natick, Mass. 017GO, phono 
(617) 658-1000, Ext. 414. 

Conference on the Exploding Wiro 
Phenomenon, Oct. 18-20, at Boston, 
Mass. Sponsor: Air Force Cambridge 
Research Laboratories. Contact! W. G. 
Chace, (CRFA), Air Force Cambridge 
Research Laboratories, L, G, Hanscom 
Field, Mass. 01780, phone (617) 274- 
6100, Ext. 4926. 



June/July 1967 



The Directorate for Classification 
Management, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense (Administra- 
tion), has noted that the cost of 
procurement increases materially and 
unnecessarily, when material or hard- 
ware of an unclassified, off-the-shelf 
variety is procured as a classified 
item. 

A particular item of off-the-shelf 
unclassified hardware may be an es- 
sential part of a classified system or 
equipment. Tubes ami crystals which 
control frequencies are notable ex- 
amples. In other cases, off-the-shelf 
unclassified material, when associated 
with a particular organization or ac- 
tivity, may reveal a research or 
development interest which itself is 
classified. In such cases, it is not the 
bare hardware or material itself 
which reveals classified information; 
rather, it is the association between 
the unclassified hardware or material 
and the classified system or effort 
that leads to the disclosure of classi- 
fied information. Accordingly, the 
fact of the association requires clas- 
sification. 

The following suggestions arc of- 
fered to contractors in connection 
with their procurement of off-the- 
shelf items of hardware of material, 
particularly in subcontracting or 
straight purchase situations: 

* Concentrate on identifying the 
classified information which the cus- 
tomer wants to protect. Do not as- 
sume that hardware or material must 



be classified just because it will be- 
come or is a part of a properly classi- 
fied end item. Determine what, if 
any, sensitive information can be ob- 
tained from the hardware or mate- 
rial alone, 

Distinguish between classified in- 
formation which necessarily is con- 
tained in the procurement paperwork 
and the hardware or material which, 
by itself, may not reveal any classi- 
fied information. 

Avoid all unnecessary mention of 
the association, whenever the associa- 
tion of an item of hardware or mate- 
rial with other material constitutes 
an item of information which requires 
classification. Often a particular item 
of hardware or material can be pro- 
cured without any hint as to its in- 
tended use. 

Do not use classified information 
unless its use is necessary for .under- 
standing. Strictly limit the number 
of classified documents as well as the 
amount of classified information con- 
tained in such documents. Do not put 
classified information into a contract 
or purchase order unless it cannot be 
avoided. Instead, put it in a classi- 
fied appendix or some other form so 
that the receiving party also can 
limit the availability. 

Do not give all personnel work- 
ing on a project all of the classified 
information involved in the project. 
Provide each party only what is 
needed to get the job clone. 



New Requirements for Classified Storage 
To Become Effective in March 1968 



New requirements for defense con- 
tractors in the storage of classified 
material are slated to go into effect 
on March 1, 1968. After that date 
cognizant security offices of Defense 
Contract Administration Services of 
the Defense Supply Agency will be 
unable to certify the safeguarding 
ability of any defense contractor un- 
less the new requirements have been 
met by the company, 

The changes provide for more 
stringent measures in, protecting Top 
Secret and Secret material as specified 
in paragraph 14a of the March 1, 
1965, edition of the Industrial Security 
Manual. There are no substantial 
changes for Confidential material. 



The principal change concerns the 
methods for storing Top Secret and 
Secret material. After March 1, 1968, 
all Top Secret material must be stored 
either in containers listed in the Fed- 
eral Supply Schedule or in Class A 
vaults. In addition, supplemental con- 
trols, such as guards or alarm sys- 
tems, will be required during non- 
worldng hours for protection of top 
secret material. Secret material may 
be stored in either a Federal Supply 
Schedule container or in a Class B 
vault without supplemental controls, 
Secret material may be stored in 
other than Federal Supply Schedule 
containers provided supplemental con- 
trols are used. 



Navy Begins Test 
of Computing System 

The U.S. Navy has initiated its 
first full-scale test of a large remote 
computing time-sharing effort at 
the Naval Ordnance Test Station 
(NOTS), China Lake, Calif., utiliz- 
ing the UNIVAC 1108-11 System. 
This large-scale information process- 
ing system, primarily installed to 
support the varied and complex re- 
search and development work at 
NOTS, is also used to provide pri- 
mary computational support to an 
experiment, linking the KADLAB 
(Radiological Defense Laboratory, 
San Francisco, Calif.) to the NOTS 
installation on a customer-user basis. 

Communications circuits between 
the two laboratories, located 425 
miles apart, will bo activated to pro- 
vide millisecond response between the 
central computer installation at 
NOTS and the scientists in San 
Francisco. It is anticipated that by 
September 1967 both the batch 
processing and simultaneous conver- 
sational type capability will be fully 
operational. 

The current goal of the Naval Ma- 
terial Command is to achieve, during 
the 1970-71 time frame, considerable 
additional capacity through the estab- 
lishment of similar remote comput- 
ing/time-sharing centers within per- 
tinent geographical . areas of the com- 
mand. 



Spacetrack Unit 
To Move Next Year 

The 73rd Aerospace Surveillance 
Wing, which operates Air Defense 
Command's world-wide spacetrack 
system, will move its headquarters 
from Ent AFB, Colo., to Tyndall 
AFD, Fla., in July 1968. 

Relocation of the 73rd wilt permit 
utilization of vacated facilities at 
Tyndall and improve control of the 
prime operational squadron located 
in Florida. 

The 73rd, which was upgraded 
from squadron to wing level in 
January, is concerned primarily with 
satellite detection and tracking. It is 
directly responsible for the operation 
of all Air Force spacetrack system 
sensors. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



21 




DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Military Functions and 

Military Assistance Program 
Quarterly Report 

Prepared by: 

Directorate for Financial Analysis and Control 

Office of the Assistant Secretory of Defense (Comptroller) 

Room 3C 839, The Pentagon Phone: (202) OXford 7-2332 



NOTE: All expenditure amounts 
are on a net Treasury basis 
(gross payments less reimburse- 
ment collections), whereas obli- 
gations and unpaid obligations 
arc oil a gross basis (inclusive 
of reimbursable activity per- 
formed by components of DOT) 
for each other). Therefore, un- 
paid obligations :LH of thn end of 
the reporting 1 mouth cannot bo 
computed from other figures in 
this report. 



Third Quarter, Fiscal Year 1967 

(Amounts in Thousands) 

Department of Defense 



Expenditures 



Unpaid Obligation*) 





Jan. 
1967 


Feb. 
19G7 


March 
1967 


Cum. thru 
March 31, 
1967 


At Slart 
of Year 


AH of 
Marcli 31, 

I0fi7 


Military Personnel: 
Active forces 




1,391,586 
58,389 
157,060 
58,454 


1,502,472 
70,914 
167,943 
9 922 


12,414,430 
650,704 
1,350,529 
14,432 


581) , 000 
150,707 

8 , 052 


1,035,700 

132,005 

8,333 
-14, -132 


Reserve forces 




Retired pay... . 




Undistributed 


28,473 


Operation and Maintenance 
Procurement: 


- 1,584,749 


1,555,566 


1,741 ,251 
1,774,500 


14,430 .OOf) 
13,025,038 


754 , 4fil) 

3,022,037 


1,1111,1102 
3,4K2,G50 



Aircraft. 
Missiles 



Trucked combat vehicles... 

Ordnance, vehicles, and related equipment.. 

Ktt'i: ironies and communications 

Other procurement 

redistributed __ 

Total Procurement. 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation: 

Military sciences 

Aircraft _ " 

Missiles 

Astronautics " 

Ships 

Ordnance, vehicles, and related equ'ipmenT 
Other equipment 

ProRram-wide management and support" "" 
Undistributed 

.TotalHeaearch. Development, 
Military Construction. 
Family Housing. 
Civil Defense 

^^^^^'^^"^^ 
sment Funds ' _ 

ry Functions. 

Military Assistance. 



792,680 
155,944 

94,505 

29,053 
350,280 

88,517 
114,590 

54,673 

1,680,246 

- i 

78,203 
92,724 
159,965 
12,579 
27,824 
28,958 
60,069 
39,145 
17,848 
517,314 
111,665 
44,810 
7,345 

283,603 

5,911,525 



715,380 
155,583 
109,251 
21,250 
356,185 
100,775 
110,842 
-78,102 
1,491,159 

74,242 
60,357 

201,031 
59,906 
19,940 
28,119 
52,970 
33,756 

-23,434 

506,886 
136,598 
48,008 
8,022 

99,335^ 
5,509,061 



885,043 
145,054 
116,648 

23,791 
425,487 
124,103 
132,507 

50,006 

1,902,704 

92,579 

121,378 
246,808 
123,196 
26,799 
34,818 
00,364 
32,053 
L 17,889 
_720,7Q8 
138,393 
61,195 
10,748 

271,806 



6,200,808 
1,412,403 

909,340 

157,142 
2,049,150 

897,188 
1,009,753 

314,438 
13,730,224 

749,435 
813,612 
1,738,227 
708,657 
237,348 
256,900 
474,734 
327,018 
107,238 
5,413,170 
1,259,712 
419,622 
74,684 



7,508,008 
2,083,027 
2,807,571 
4.49,010 
0,110,210 
1,855,134 
1,582,700 
-337,031 



7,H88,G30 
l,8flO,4, r 7 
IJ, 170, 185 

fifiH.aos 

0,530/290 
1,721,710 



22,118,704 22,7711,1187 



801,487 

539,278 
1,007,218 

599 , 540 
204,702 
237,072 
480,104 
154,050 

-145,833 



042,235 

l,4lfi,247 

400,875 

101, MS 

255,714 

487, 108 

135,500 

-251,103 



4,058,380 4,143,782 



1,300,722 
130,200 

77,877 



s tts^r flected in se " ^' 



1,059,684 058,208 

60.012.729 32,130,313 

510,238 1,810,101 

50,522,907 33.946.474 



1,08U P 7M 

103,220 
82,530 

308,70-1 
32,144,643 
2,207,078 
34,1 3fi 1,022 



June/July 1967 



Department of the Navy 



Expenditures 


Unpaid Obligations 




Jan, 
1967 


Feb. 
1967 


March 
1967 


Cum. thru 
March 31, 
1967 


At Start 
of Year 


Aaof 
March 31, 
1967 


Military Personnel; 
Active forces _ 


429,294 

9,977 
-4,265 


415,563 
10,902 
-7,394 


444,793 
13,898 
18,235 


3,696,029 
110,427 
9,960 


141,289 
20,898 


292,808 
19,615 
-9,960 




Undistributed 






435,006 


419,071 


476,926 


3,816,416 


102,187 


302,463 






438,905 

222,198 
20,602 

94,505 
4,350 
78,442 
31,948 

43,027 
2,319 


406,650 

186,076 
22,202 
109,251 
-704 
57,614 
28,342 
45,573 
-21,238 


468,549 

259,543 
49,379 
116,648 
1,350 
99,272 
49,052 
33.5S7 
14,253 


3,738,395 

1,943,354 
318,038 
969,340 
6,013 
652,632 
293,455 
366,546 
17,429 


1,230,060 

2,818,833 

560,035 
2,867,571 
16,445 
1,418,223 
589,237 
726,357 


1,075,064 

2,684,009 
454,334 
3,179,185 
23,604 
1,505,237 
622,316 
803,622 
-17,424 


Procurement: 
Aircraft. 








Ordnance, vehicles, and related equipment 










498,000 


427,115 


623,084 


4,566,807 


8,996,701 


9,154,885 




Research, Development, Test, nncl Evaluation: 


10,892 
21,995 
46,529 
1,010 
27,824 
9,871 
5,760 
12,54.6 
601 


12,824 
17,850 
47,803 
1,320 
19,940 
7,980 
0,212 
6,737 
-1,678 


13,666 
31,604 
85,008 
1,605 
26,709 
19,018 
9,714 
2,423 
-3,351 


148,660 
180,702 
515,283 
16,836 
237,348 
122,104 
58,918 
71,141 
-230 


137,459 
159,020 
249,864 
15,876 
204,792 
97,150 
61,511 
88,594 


116,350 
131,046 
387,292 
10,822 
191,608 
100,893 
65,819 
77,795 
230 










Ordnance, vehicles, and related equipment 








Total Research, Development, Test, & EvaL 


137,548 


118,988 


186,447 


1,350,823 


1,014,260 


1,082,655 




52,134 
40,464 


55,640 
91,997 


63,030 
87,909 


697,202 
91,663 


323,771 
617,445 


-30,145 
480,437 






TOTAL-DEPARTMENT OP THE NAVY. 


1,602,146 


1,519,461 


1,890,644 


14,201,305 


12,344,431 


12,005,361 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



23 



Department of the Army 



Expenditures 


Unpaid Oblifjn lions 




Jan, 
1967 


Feb. 
1967 


March 
1967 


Cum. thru 
March 31, 
1967 


At Start 
of Year 


As of 
March 31, 
1967 


Military Personnel: 
Active forces 


564,516 

30,583 
33,526 


540,736 
30,681 
61,959 


610,021 
46,060 
-8,642 


4,760,254 
429,395 
3,372 


320,524 
11 4, 4M 


-H.W2 


Reserve forces 


Undistributed 




Total Military Personnel 


628,625 


642,376 


647,439 


5,193,021 


434,958 


r,s.i,Hr.s 




Operation and Maintenance. 


506,200 

73,613 
33,930 
24,697 
221,276 
28,890 
48,498 
47,959 


555,142 

70,946 
35,379 
21,954 
239,381 
40,378 
46,067 
-54,251 


660,134 

97,704 
-21,043 
22,441 
264,861 
44,154 
63,066 
36,134 


4,975,145 

677 , 151 
173,999 
151,129 

1,482,863 
299,246 
400,065 
297,222 


881,122 

1,137,053 
537,097 
432,505 
3,421,137 
738,404 
066,038 
-337,031 


4ft ( 221! 
;$ ()!J^[ h 1X1 

Wff.WU 


Procurement: 
Aircraft .. 


Missiles 


Tracked combat vehicles 


Ordnance, vehicles, and related equipment 
Electronics and communications 


Other procurement.. 


Undistributed... 




Total Procurement 


478,864 


399,853 


497,320 


3,481,677 


6,595,203 


,.I. 2 I7 




Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation: 
Military sciences-. 


11,562 
11,653 
54,741 
1,479 

19,087 
24,020 
5,617 
4,142 


12,720 
7,642 
67,616 
1,282 
20,139 
21,680 
9,470 
-18,368 


15,151 

15,237 
80,952* 
1,882 
15,800 
27,159 
5,469 
-11,278 


114,775 
91,757 
544,926 
16,833 
134,796 
186,128 
62,484 
106,653 


120,589 
92,920 
461,337 
20,741 
139,922 
197,438 
31,310 
-145,833 


137,1117 

l l -,X7rt 
Ifil.H^t 


Aircraft 


Missiles 


Astronautics. 


Ordnance, vehicles, nnd related equipment 
Other equipment. _._ 


Program-wide management and support 


Undistributed 




Total-Research, Development, Test, & Eval. 


132,302 


122,181 


150,372 


1,258,352 


918,429 


015, KM | 


Military Construction... _ 


24,273 

57,650 

~" M 


38,151 
-10,219 

i n n^- 


36,517 
48,116 


225,053 
-191,130 


618,995 
40,077 


-70,322 


Revolving and Management Funds 


" " - - - . 
~" - 



TOTAL-DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. 1,887,914 1,747,483 2,039,898 



14,942,117 9,388,844 0,27fl,BHfl 



June/July 1967 



Department of the Air Force 



Expenditures 


Unpaid Obligations 




Jan. 
1967 


Feb. 
1967 


March 
1967 


Cum. thru 
March 31, 
1967 


At Start 
of Year 


As of 
March 31, 
1967 


Military Personnel: 
Active forces 


44.6,555 
16,306 
-788 


435,287 
7,806 
1,889 


447,658 
10,956 
329 


3,958,147 
110,882 
1,100 


127,796 
21,465 


246,253 
18,855 

-1,100 


Reserve forces 


Undistributed 




Total Military Personnel 


462,073 


444,982 


458,043 


4,070,129 


149,261 


264,008 




Operation and Maintenance. _ 


494,748 

490,869 
101,322 
50,306 
25,830 
19,481 
4,482 


524,281 
458,358 

as, 002 

59,103 
31,082 
16,746 
-2,579 


564,121 

527,796 
116,718 
61,263 
29,954 
43,381 
-358 


4,210,579 

3,640,303 
920,366 
512,129 
296,513 
282,910 
-231 


805,314 

3,552,182 
985,895 
1,269,060 
519,055 
153,725 


1,070,266 

4,111,424 
942,881 
1,939,648 
527,084 
154,918 
211 


Procurement: 
Aircraft _ 


Missiles. __ 








Undistributed _. _ _ 






698,290 


601,311 


778,755 


5,651,990 


6,479,917 


7,670,166 




Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation; 


13,851 
59,076 
58,695 
9,460 
30,299 
20,982 
13,205 


11,876 
34,865 
85,012 
67,304 
25,078 
17,549 
-3,388 


14,846 
74,477 
80,848 
119,809 
23,491 
24,761 
-3,280 


113,781 
541,093 
678,018 
674,988 
229,688 
103,393 
815 


131,634 
287,333 

386,017 
562,929 
221,215 
34,752 


131,119 
425,131 
473,671 
437,178 
229,694 
25,113 
-815 
















Total Research, Devolopmont, Test, & EvaL 


205,567 


228,806 


334,972 


2,431,776 


1,623,880 


1,721,089 




34,516 

74,279 


4:1,136 

-1,093 


36,973 

18,498 


326,290 
2,382 


442,931 
686 


399,593 
-6,873 






TOTAL-DEPARTMENT OP THE AIR 
FORCE 


1,969,472 


1,898,613 


2,192,263 


16,699,152 


9,501,989 


11,124,250 





Defense Industry Bulletin 



35 



Defense Agencies/Office of the Secretary of Defense 



Expenditures 


1 : nim id Oblltfnlloi 




Jan. 
1967 


Feb. 
1967 


March 
1967 


Cum. thru 
March 31, 
1967 


At Start 
of Yenr 


AH i 
Mnrc} 

1'JC 


Military Personnel: 


156,090 
84,895 

256 
1,849 
2,984 
-87 


157,060 
69,493 

87 
373 
2,456 
-34 


157,043 
01,697 

01 
043 
2,533 

-23 


1,350,529 
095,520 

1,520 
7,974 
20,232 
18 


8,01)2 

ion, HO 

1,790 
8,4HK 
30, (MO 


[ 




Procurement: 
Ordnance, vehicles, and related equipment 










5,002 


2,881 


3,545 


20,750 


4G h KH:J 


< 




Research, Development, Teat, and Evaluation: 


41,898 
741 
44,810 

97,933 


36,822 
1,671 
48,008 

-92,850 


48,016 
1,273 
51,195 

118,026 


372,210 
11,151 

419,022 

369,500 


flOl.HOfi 
24,02ft 
130,200 


1! 
11 












TOTAL DEFENSE AGENCIES/OSD 


431,370 


223,084 


472,695 


3,248,301 


817,172 


fl 






Office of 


Civil Defense 


Civil Defense 


7,345 


8,022 


10,748 


74,084 
-1 


77,877 




Revolving and Management Funds., . 




TOTAL-OFFICE OF CIVIL DEFENSE.., 


7,345 


8,022 


10,748 


74,683 


77,877 






Military 


Assistance 










Military Personnel 


2 
21,259 

8,480 
1,593 
1,641 
5,904 
4,653 
2,221 


33,371 

10,893 
5,934 

280 
10,643 
1,633 
7,936 


242 
9,936 

12,466 
2,355 
9,620 
10,338 
4,993 
6,294 


240 

200,754 

126,048 
21,480 
14,004 
66,002 
34,068 
33,019 


72 
304,623 

330,420 

07,018 
114,172 
248,807 
181,174 
138,103 


3 
3 

1 
3 
1 
1 


Operation and Maintenance... . 


Procurement; 
Aircraft 


Missiles 


Ships 


Ordnance, vehicles, and related equipment 
Electronics and communications 


Other procurement., . 




Total Procurement 


24,489 


37,320 


45,057 


296,128 


1,089,753 


I.O 




Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation... 
Military Construction... 


15 

4,995 
-7,737 
7,658 

. - 

50,683 

'" !,._ 


4,416 
7,859 
-13,002 

69,966 

- 


63 
13,378 

4,970 
10,192 

83,836 

i 


175 
36,051 
6,343 
-30,362 


3,084 
151,077 
158,005 
48,148 


1 



Revolving Fund.. 


Undistributed... 


TOTAL-MILITARY ASSISTANCE 


510,238 


"1,810,101 


2,2 


" . 






commencing with K1 
the unpaid obligiUiw 



June/July; 



Third Quarter, Fiscal Year 1967 

(Amounts in Thousands) 

Department off Defense 





Available 


Obligations 


Unobligated 
Balance 
March 31, 
1967 


for 
Obligation 


Jan. 
1967 


Feb. 
1967 


March 
1967 


Cum. thru 
March 31, 
1967 


Military Personnel 


10,207,056 
937,814 
1,780,000 


1,472,919 
59,235 
156,343 


1,464,391 
04,103 
156,981 


1,485,343 
72,107 
157,244 


13,071,471 
040,359 
1,350,881 


3,135,584 
297,455 
429,119 










18,924,870 


1,688,497 


1,085,536 


1,714,694 


15,062,712 


3,862,158 






18,157,178 

11,022,681 
2,530,877 
5,170,980 
525,573 
0,434,461 
2,053,708 
2,344,007 
-653,695 


1,800,923 

711,836 
108,212 
177,992 
27,239 
391,972 
128,147 
132,809 


1,540,484 

025,767 
226,220 
55,256 
33,011 
274,540 
94,060 
142,209 


1,792,865 

028,954 
140,466 
06,177 
28,713 
415,775 
134,499 
179,542 


15,294,709 

7,005,747 
1,383,871 
1,362,404 
304,543 
3,589,262 
852,386 
1,258,681 


2,862,469 

4,616,934 
1,147,006 
3,808,522 
221 , 030 
2,845,199 
1,201,382 
1,085,926 
-653,690 


Procurement; 




Ships 
















30,020,258 


1,738,206 


1,451,004 


1,924,126 


15,756,951 


14,272,307 




Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation; 


1,223,887 
1,488,877 
2,509,272 
1,420,489 
300,220 
420.79S 
872,061 
712,379 
5,853 
45,297 


102,954 
55,059 
153,089 
72,251 
26,137 
13,219 
52,728 
48,046 


56,012 
95,063 
131,162 
50,092 
15,319 
26,664 
37,881 
39,715 


89,022 
105,352 

284,173 
121,464 
20,640 
19,347 
43,864 
38,356 


715,979 
931,351 
2,110,792 
703,548 
240,027 
297,797 
511,452 
445,567 


507,908 
557 , 526 
398,480 
062,041 
150,193 
123 , 001 
360 , 009 
260,812 
5,853 
45,297 










Ordnance, vehicles, and related equipment 










Total Research, Development, Test, & Eval. 


9,095,130 


524,079 


457,915 


722,215 


6,010,513 


3,078,016 




2,708,501 
729,131 
141,650 
7,348 


179,088 
46,931 

6,097 


88,401 
42,583 

10,446 


142,120 

42,774 
10,210 


1,146,952 

397,984 
81,609 


1,621,549 
331 , 146 
59 , 941 
7,348 












79,852,965 


5,990,422 


5,276,428 


0,349,006 


53,757,431 


26,095,536 






742,886 


05,740 


174,243 


6,178 


558,151 


184,716 




TOTAL DEPAIITMKNT OF DEFENSE 


80,595,832 


6,066,162 


5,450,671 


0,354,183 


54,315,581 


26,280,250 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



27 



Department of the Army 





Available 
for 
Obligation 


Obligations 


Unoblteals 
Balance 
March 31 
19G7 


Jan. 
1967 


Feb. 
1967 


March 
1967 


Cum. thru 
March SI, 
1967 


Military Personnel 


. 6,286,664 


587,217 
37,524 


600,320 
41 , 939 


580,019 
47,340 


5,003,474 
420,555 


1,223,1 
210,0 




636,644 






Total Military Personnel 


. 6,923,308 


624,741 


642,259 


027,960 


5,484,030 


1,430,2 






Operation and Maintenance 


. 6,296,514 


686,161 

37,169 
17,394 
25,669 
154,883 
37,044 
59,864 


554,109 

40,456 
65,265 

32,244 
187,452 
20,003 
58,648 


802,589 

81,785 
20,725 
22,035 
196,035 
40,401 
97,201 


5,781,629 

043,983 
211,100 
201,371 
1,655,398 
258,151 
450,588 


614, a 

378,7' 
232 ,0; 

212,2: 

340,4! 
402,01 
407,3; 
181,1' 


Procurement: 
Aircraft 


1,022,726 


Missiles 


443 134 


Tracked combat vehicles 


503,583 
2,004,883 
660,239 
863,902 
181,149 


Ordnance, vehicles and related equipment 


Electronics nnd communications 


Other procurement 


Undistributed 




TotalProcurement... 


6,679,616 

| ii 

221,322 
140,267 
774,745 
21,678 
233,991 
377,062 
97,688 

9,918 

" 

1,876,671 

. 

1,327,998 

n-_ 

23,104,108 

,,- 


331,913 

' I" MI.. 

14,560 
2,674 
23,464 
436 
5,260 
21,649 
6,921 

- 

74,960 

' 

84,787 

_ 

1,802,562 

~" Mil 


404,070 

8,668 
7,975 
14,046 
1,684 
20,441 
17,745 
6,605 



77,166 

-~ ' 

34,704 

'" ! Ill 

1,712,307 

n 


464,181 


3, 516,600 


3,103,0! 


~~~ 

Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation: 
Military sciences- 


11,845 
19,070 
136,035 
220 
0,311 
25,343 
4,705 


148,815 
80,842 
048,029 
9,288 
171,930 
194,111 
76,878 


72, 
G3,4! 
120,71 
12,81 
02, OJ 
182 ,01 
21,81 
0,01 

641,77 


Aircraft 


Missiles 


Astronautics,,. 


Ordnance, vehicles and related equipment 
Other equipment. 


Program-wide management and support 


Undistributed 



Total-Research, Development, Test, & EvaL 
~ . _ 
Military Construction 


203,644 


1,334,899 


47,790 


568,077 


71)0,02 


" ' 
TOTAL-DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. 

' " " 
28 


2,146,070 


10,685,226 


0,418,88 


June/July 196: 



Department of the Navy 





Available 


Obligations 


Unobligated 
Balance 
March 31, 
1967 


for 
Obligation 


Jnn. 
1967 


Feb. 
1967 


March 
1967 


Cum. thru 
March 31, 
1967 


Military Personnel: 


4,870,592 
149,320 


433,410 
11,070 


412,823 
11,690 


435,982 
12,219 


3,874,853 

108,928 


1,001,739 
40,392 


Reserve forces 






5,025,912 


444,480 


424,513 


448,201 


3,983,781 


1,042,131 






5,312,710 

3,604,594 
526,764 
5,170,986 
21,990 
1,085,720 
691,299 
1,043,050 
-810,852 


465,857 

214,938 
38,928 
177,992 
1,669 
115,924 
33,818 
58,482 


420,555 

286,064 
19,653 
55,256 
768 
05,537 
27,315 
00,103 


384,677 

191,590 
26,896 
90,177 
0,678 
39,015 
33,599 
46,924 


3,950,650 

1,837,896 
225,005 
1,362,464 
13,172 
749,162 
232,662 
490,184 


1,302,000 

1,826,698 
301 , 159 
3,808,522 
8,818 
930,504 
458,637 
553,472 
-810,853 


Procurement: 




















11,994,163 


641,752 


544,694 


440,880 


4,911,143 


7,083,017 




Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation: 


210,460 
445,288 
709,006 
25,367 
390,220 
186,807 
117,288 
353,243 
4,524 


10,632 
20,014 
35,652 

555 
26,137 
7,969 
16,314 
21,936 


10,773 
21,507 
78,173 
269 
15,319 
0,223 
3,824 
16,129 


19,101 
10,770 
63,614 
1,603 
20,640 
13,036 
5,665 
13,860 


139,396 
153,744 
657,300 
11,700 
240,027 
125,861 
06,705 
173,287 


71,004 
291,544 
111,760 
13,661 
150,193 
60,946 
50,583 
179,950 
4,524 










Ordnances, vehicles and related equipment 








Total Research, Development, Teat, & Evnl. 


2,502,263 


139,799 


152,217 


154,295 


1,568,020 


934,237 




755,409 


41,926 


30,385 


38,486 


291,755 


463,654 




TOTAL DEPARTMENT OP THE NAVY- 


25,590,457 


1,733,812 


1,572,366 


1,466,538 


14,705,355 


10,885,102 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



29 



Department of the Air Force 





Available 
for 
Obligation 




Obligations 




Unobligated 
DnlnncG 
March 31, 
19G7 


Jan, 
1967 


Feb. March 
1967 1967 


Cum. thru 
March 31, 
1967 


Military Personnel: 


5,0-13,800 
151,850 


452,292 
10,641 


451,248 408,742 
10,534 12,548 


4, 133, 144 
110,870 


010, WO 
10,03* 








5,195,650 


462,933 


461,782 481,290 


4,244,020 


Gfil.OSO 






5,645,478 

6,935,361 
1,560,979 

1,740,495 
684,568 
370,957 
-32,307 


564,848 

459,739 
111,890 

121,081 
56,719 
12,276 


494,456 520,237 

299,247 855,679 
141,302 80,84fi 

-8,630 179,874 
46,333 59,224 
20,705 32,571 


4,824,170 

4 , 523 , 808 
947 , 100 

1,182,717 
350 , 408 
284,103 


H21.3QS 

a, 411, 403 
013,813 

057,778 
328,110 
Nil, 854 

-32,307 


Procurement: 
Aircraft 


Missiles 


Ships 




Electronics nnd communications 


Other Procurement 


Undistributed 




Total Procurement 


11,260,053 


761,704 


498,957 1,014,093 


7,294,312 


3,005,7-11. 




Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation: 
Military sciences 


208,637 
903,322 
965,461 
1,379,444 
377,711 
261,448 
30,855 

' 

4,126,875 
665,660 


25,094 
31,771 
94,673 
71,261 
14,765 
19,189 

256,654 

I 

52,274 


12,885 16,370 
65,581 09,500 
38,944 84,524 
54,139 119,032 
16,312 12,850 
16,981 10,785 


132,580 
090,705 
806,403 
742,654 
250,630 
190,402 


75,0157 
812,057 
lffl),00a 

oaa.s&u 

127,075 
05,040 
30,8(16; 


Aircraft 


Missiles . 


Astronautics 


Other equipment 


Program-wide management and support 


Undistributed 


Total Research, Development, Test, & Eval. 

, 

Military Construction 


204,846 322,070 


2,818,400 


1,308,475 


23,149 66,002 


283,610 


382,130 




TOTAL-DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR 
FORCE.... 


26,893,706 

* -^-^_ .~_ 


2,098,413 

^ ^__^^. 


1,683,190 2,393,290 

~"~ 


19,484,416 


7,429,200 


" ~ . 



30 



June/July 1967. 



Defense Agencies/Office of the Secretary of Defense 





Available 
for 
Obligation 


Obligations 


Unobligated 
Balance 

March 31, 
1907 


Jan. 
1967 


Feb. 
1967 


March 
19G7 


Cum. thru 
March 31, 
19G7 


Military Personnel: 
Refircd Pay 


1,780,000 
902,470 

3,357 
17,602 
00,092 
8,315 


156,343 
00,057 

84 
566 
2,187 


156,981 
71,304 

181 

409 
2,753 


157,244 
85,363 

851 

1 ,275 
2,840 


1,350,881 
738,260 

1,985 
5,115 
27,800 


429,119 
104,216 

1,372 
12,647 
38,286 

8,315 


Operation and Maintenance 


Procurement: 
Ordnance, vehicles and related equipment .. 


Electronics and communications 


Other procurement _ 


Undistributed 




Total Procurement . 


95, 426 


2,837 


3,343 


4,972 


34 , 900 


60,520 




He-search, Development, Test, and Evaluation: 
Military sciences 


583,408 

5,853 


52,608 


23,086 


41,706 


295,188 


288,290 
5,853 


Emergency Fund. , 


Undistributed 




Total Research, Development, Test, & Evnl. 


589,321 


52,608 


23,680 


41,700 


295,188 


294,133 


Military Construction 


10,443 
729,131 
7,348 


102 
40,931 


102 
42,583 


838 
42,774 


3,600 
397,984 


15,838 
331 , 140 

7,348 


Family Housing 


Other Special Foreign Currency Program 




TOTAL DEFENSE AGENCIES/OSD 


1,123,145 


348,037 


298,121 


332,800 


2,820,825 


1,302,320 


Office of 


Civil Defense 


Civil Defense 


14 1 , 550 


0,697 


10,446 


10,210 


81,609 


59,941 






Military 


Assistance 










Military Personnel _. 


335 
355,100 

89,376 
1,902 
48,000 
124,007 
0,410 
28,847 


37,348 

16,321 
-1,050 
-054 
-7,13d 
-21,083 
19,007 


88 
12,098 

30 , 037 
844= 
21,251 
72,662 
11,313 
-0,210 


259 
5,926 

1,633 
-3GO 
-579 
24 

3,458 
-6,526 


335 

213,768 

89,210 
1,706 
35,238 
123,985 
6,400 
27,459 


141,398 

105 

190 
12,771 
22 
10 
1,388 


Operation and Maintenance ., 


Procurement: 






Ordnance, vehicles and related equipment 








208,549 


4,405 


120,791 


-2,451 


283,997 


14,552 




-Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, , 


-950 
89,847 

-81 


-2 

28,024 
-4,935 


29,002 
3,202 


-395 

1,501 
339 


-1,321 
01,400 
-29 


371 
28,447 
-52 






TOTAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE 


742,806 


65,740 


174,243 


6,178 


658,151 


184,710 





NOTE: Commencing with reports in FY 1967, reservations under limitation .002 of the Military Assistance Program are being 
treated as obligations. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



31 




DEFENSE PROCUREMENT 



Contracts of $1,000,000 ami over 
awarded during the month of May 1967. 

DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY 

L Bllib Mfg. Co., Macon, Ga. $1,117,200. 
366,000 linear yards a! herring bone twill 
cloth. Defense Personnel Support Center, 
Philiulolpliiti, Pn. 

3 Star Kial Food, Terminal Island, Calif. 
1,2-12,773. 2,697,733 pounds of canned 
tuna. Defense Personnel Support, Center, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

B The Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alexan- 
dria, Va., has awarded the following con- 
tracts for JP-6 jet fuel: 
Humble Oil & Refining Co., Houston. Tex. 
57,3-11,600. 77,260,000 gallons. 
Mobil Oil Coru.,NcwYork,N.Y. 86,335,928, 
53, 605, -200 trillions. 

Sun Oil Co., Philadelphia, Pu, 56,009,715. 
47,880,000 gn lions, 

Gulf Oil Corp., Now York, N.Y. 54,002,800. 
42,000,0(10 gallons. 

Hesa Oil & Clicmicnl Corp., Perth Amboy, 
N.J, 3.069,978. 30,000,00*1 gallons. 
Union Oil Co. of Cnlil., Los Angeles, Calif. 
3.131,189. 17,388,000 gallons. 
EdBination Oil Refineries, Long lien eh, 
Calif. Jl, 167,600. 11,500,000 gallons. 
DouBlna Oil Co. of Calif., Loa Angeles, 
Calii. 51.318,900. 11,000,000 gallons, 
12 American Tent & Can vim, Inc., LaFollette, 
Term, S4.200.000. G.OOO lame general put-- 
pose tents. Defense Personnel Support Cen- 
ter, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Camel Mfg. Co., KnoxvllLc, Tcnn. 53,467,- 
034. 4,854 large general purpose tents. 
Defense Personnel Support Center, Phila- 
delphia, Pa. 

16 Valley Metallurgical Processing Co., Esaex, 
Conn. Sl.417.SOr>. 1,874,500 Ibs. of atom- 
ized magnesium powder, Defense General 
Supply Center. ItLchmond, Va. 
En at man Kodak Co., Rochester, N.Y. Sl,- 
043,756. 20.3GO rolls of aerial pliotopraphic 
film, Defense General Supply Center, 
Riclimonclj Vn. 

~J. P. Stevens & Co., New York, N.Y. $fl,- 
428,090. 3,300,000 yards of polyester fiber 
and wool tropical cloth. Defense Person- 
nel Support Center. Philadelphia, Pn. 
Burlington Imfns trios, New York, N.Y. 
82.490,154. 1,193,000 yards of polyester 
flhei 1 and wool tropical cloth. Defense Per- 
sonnel Support Center, Philadelphia, PH. 
163. I. Handling Systems, Enston, Pn. $1,- 
663. 207. Mechanized material handling 
system to be Installed at the Defense Cou- 
nt ruction Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio. 
which is the contracting nKency. 
18 Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio, 
53,328,788. 495 runway surfacing mem- 
brane sets and TOO taxi-way surfacing mem- 
brane seta. Defense Construction Supply 
Agency, Columbus, Ohio. 

-B. G. Colton & Co., New York, N.Y. 82,- 
051,242. 1,459,241 linear yards of cotton 
duck cloth. Defense Personnel Support 
Center. PhJlndolplila, Pa. 

19 American Oil Co., Chicago, III, 2,112,809. 
Various rjuantitlcs of petroleum products. 
Defense Fuel Supply Center. Alexandria, 
Va. 

Mobil Oil Corp., New York, N.Y. 82,030,- 
123, Various quantities of petroleum prod- 
ucts, Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alexan- 
dria, Vn. 

J. P. Stevcna & Co., Now York, N.Y, S3.- 
E8M34. 4,981,608 linear yards of cotton 
and rayon cloth. Defensa Personnel Sun- 
port Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 
Gencsco, Inc., Florence, Aln, 51,612,781, 
600,000 men's light-weight winter under- 
shirts, Defense Personnel Support Center, 
Philadelphia, Pn. 

Bates Fabrics, New York, N.Y. 81,678,694. 
1,078,000 yards of cotton and nylon oxford 



CONTRACT LEGEND 

Contract information is listed In the follow- 
ing sequence: Date. Company Value 
Material or Work to be performed Loca- 
tion Work Performed Contracting Agency. 



cloth. Defense Personnel Support Center, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

Sucrry Hand Corn., Gainesville, Fla. SI,. 
33S,4SO. Electron tubes. Defense Elec- 
ti'otiica Supply Center, Dayton. Ohio. 
Robert DcMay Co., Hnmlet, N.C. Si, 197,- 
217, -16,101) water sterilizing bugs- Defense 
Construction Supply Center, Columbus, 
Oln'o. 

22- Cavalier Stiff Co., Lumberton, N.C. 31,- 
S<iR,280. 9, -124,000 polypropylene sand bugs. 
Defense General Supply Center, Richmond, 
Vn. 

23 LaCrosso Garment Mfg. Co., LaCrosse, 
Wis. 81,008,362. G7.1GO arctic sleeping 
bugs. Defense Personnel Support Center, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

25 The Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alexan- 
dria, Vn., has awarded the following con- 
tracts for petroleum products; 
Atlanlic Richfield Co., Los Angeles, Calif. 
35,846,000. 2,400,000 barrels of Navy 
Spot in I. 

Cities Service Oil Co,, New York, N.Y. 
SS, 634, 480. 1,200,000 barrels of Type I 
Comhat Gnsoline. 

Marathon Oil Co., New York, N.Y. 53,- 
10B.700. 780,000 barrels of Grade DF-1 
Diesel. 

Texaco, Inc., New York, N.Y. 82,863,760, 
750,000 barrels of Diesel Marine. 
Hess Oil & Chemical Corp., Perth Amboy, 
N.J. 52,302,266. 302,000 ban-els of Com- 
bat Type I Gasoliae. 

Continental Oil Cn., Houston, Tex. $2,- 
160,540. 540,000 barrels of Diesel Marine. 
Atlantic Richfield Co., Los Angelea, Calif. 
1,79Q,000. 400,000 barrels of Diesel Ma- 
rine. 

Golden Eagle Refining Co., Los Angeles. 
Calif, 51,434,600. 550,000 barrels of Navy 
Special. 

Continental Oil Co., Houston, Tex. SI,- 
240,aiO. 310,000 barrels of Diesel Marino. 
Standard Oil Co. of Calif., San Francisco, 
Calif. $1.182,000. 600,000 barrels of Num- 
ber Six Fuel Oil. 

J. P. Steven* & Co.. New York, N.Y. ?5,- 
784,389. 5,720,000 yards of cotton and 
polyester poplin cloth. Defense Personnel 
Support Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 
Erwin Mills, New York, N.Y. $2,485,178. 
2,451,376 yards of wind resistant sateen 
cotton cloth. Defense Personnel Support 
Center, Philadelphia, Pa, 

20 The following contracts have been awarded 
by the Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alex- 
andria. Va., for JP-4 jet fuel; 
Humble Oil & Refining Co., Houston, Tex. 

524,021.318. 240,384,000 gallons. 

Mobil Oil Corp., New York, N.Y. $21,071,- 

070. 200,171,000 gallons, 

Mobil Oil Corp., Houston, Tex. $2,119,000. 

20,000.000 gallons. 

Standard Oil Co. of Calif., San Francisco, 

Calif. $18,465,478. 175,309,000 gallons. 

Continental Oil Co., Houston, Tex. $11,- 

760,880. 118,902,800 gallons. 

Tcxnco, Inc., New York, N.Y. $10,888.600. 

106,000,000 gallons. 

Union Oil Co. of Cnlif., Los Angeles, Calif. 

$9,503,739. 88,090,200 gallons. 

Sinclair Helming Co,, New York, N.Y. 

$8,757,404. 85,320,000 gallons. 

Gulf Oil Corp., New York, N.Y. 8,874,- 

800. 84,000,000 gallons. 

American Oil Co., Chicago, III. J7,oeo,81C. 

82,43E,000 gallons, 

Ashland Oil & Refining Co., Ashland, Ky. 

$7,308,808, 70,600,000 gallons. 

Coastal States Petrochemical Co., Houston, 

Tex. ?G,80G.a03, 03,260,000 gallons. 

Golden Enslo Kenning Co., Los Angeles, 

Calif. $6,423,040. 46,200,000 gallons, 

Cities Service Oil Co., New York, N.Y. 

$4,800,876. 47,764,000 gallons. 

Atlantic Richfield Co., Los Angeles, Calif. 

$4,5DB.OOO. 42,000,000 gallons. 

Atlantic Richfield Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 

$4,410.000, 40,000,000 gallons. 

Adobes Refininjr Co., Midland, Tex. 84,- 

330,348. 40.000,000 gallons. 

Bell Oil & Gas Co., Bartlesville, Okla. $4,- 

281,456. 46,000,000 .gallons. 

Okmulffec Refining Co., Dallas, Tex. $4,- 

146,840. 42,900,000 gallons. 



Phillips Petroleum Co., Bartlesvllle, Olth 

54,085,154. 39,080,000 gallons. 

Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp., Acnarlllo, Tex 
$-1,055,100. 38,000,000 gallons. 

Sun Oil Co., Philadelphia, Pn. S3,fll8,SI3g 

37,800,000 Billions. 

Howcll Refining Co., San Antonio, Tex 

53,973,676. 36,750,000 gallons. 

Delta Refilling Co., Memphis, Tcnii, S3 - 

817,093. 35,860,000 gallons. 

American Petroflna Co. of Tex.. Jlalliu 

Tex. $3,763,970. 41,000,000 trillions. 

Fort Worth Refining Co., Houston, Tex 

33,707,280. 36,000,000 gallons. 

Tidewater Oil Co., New York, N.Y. 33 - 

440,418. 30,913,000 gallons. 

Good Hope KcfincricH, Houston, Tux. .83- 

321,000. 32,000,000 gallons. ' 

Hess Oil & Chemical Corp., Forth Aintwy 

N.J. 3,049,500. 30,000,000 gallons. 

Douglas Oil Co. of Calif., Los AiiKelc* 

Calif. $2,430,800. 21,000,000 gallons. 

MacMillan Ring-Free Oil Co,, Los Am'fli-i 

Calif. 52,208,000. 20,000,000 RiilbiiH, 

Sioux Oil Co., Newcastle, Wyo, 52,170,- 

122. 18,000,000 gallons. 

Tonkawa Refining Co., Arnett, Ok In. 82.- 

038,410. 20,000,000 gallons. 

Sum-ay DX Oil Co., Tulsa, Oliln. 51,1)57,- 

2,12. 20,917,fiOO gallons. 

Tcsoro Petroleum Corp., San Antonio, 'iY*. 

$1,919,000. 17,000,000 gallons. 

Triangle Refineries, Houston, Tex. 31,- 

886,072. 16,780,000 gallons, 

Fletcher Oil & Refining Co., WIlmlriKtoit. 

Calif. $1,625,400. 1-1,000,000 tinllonH, 

Marathon OH Co., New York, N.Y, 31- 

60fi,57G. IC.,960,000 gallons. 

Sequoia Refining Corp., Corpna C-lirltill. 

Tex. 81,408,796. 15,600,000 gallons, 

Northwestern Refining Co., St. Paul Piirh, 

Minn. $1,473,000. 14,000,000 gnlloriii, 

Kcrr-Mcflcc Corp., Oklahoma City, Okla. 

$1,420,470. 15,120,000 gallons. 

Crystal Plash Petroleum Corp., 

oils, Ind. $1,209,000. 11,400,000 Knl 

Hercules Oil Co. of San Diego, J^onit ]ti-nrli, 

Calif. 1,237, 7fiO. 10,000,000 Kiiltoim. 

Champlln Petroleum Co., Foi-L Wcivtli, fv\, 

1,168,800. 12,000,000 Billions. 

Hunt Oil Co., Dallas, Tex. $1,103, &00, 

IS.GOO.OOO Billions. 

Derby Kenning Co., Wichita, Kim. $l,Qli.- 

938. 12,000,000 gallona. 
20 Alpha Industries, Knoxvlllo, Tenti. Jl,- 

380,724. 19G.670 men's Held conln wltli 

hoods. Defense Personnel Support Oiintir, 

Philadelphia, Pn. 
Allen Overall Co., Monroe, N.C. $L,2IW.- 

705. 200,000 men's field coats with hiwih. 

Defense Pcrsonnol Support Ccnlor, I'hMn- 

dolphin. Pa. 
Orthopedic Equipment Co., Bourbon, Inil. 

3,050,572. 235,458 straight clmlr-a. Ih 1 - 

fenso General Supply Center, Kiulinmml, 

Vn, 
31 Bancroft Industries, Cabot, Arlt. 4l,0lu.- 

660. 1,170,116 field capg. Defense P<H-TT 

nel Support Center, Philadelpliiii, Pn, 

ARMY 

1 Ward LaFrniicc Corp., Elmlm HolRliH, 
N.Y. $1,822,190. 65 flre-flBlitlnR (ntcks. 
Etmira Heights, Mobility Equipment 0m- 
maud, St. Louis, Mo. 

Norfolk Dredging: Co., Norfolk, Va, St.- 
180,818. Dredging work in Norfolk jfnr- 
bor. Engineer Dist., Norfolk, Vn. 

Doeliiff Co., Morton, Pa. 8,500,000. Prc. 
production planning, procurement nail |mJ' 
duction of long lend time materials mid 
items for CH-47B helicopters for- Km 
United Kingdom. Morton. Aviation JtEft' 
terlol Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

AVCO Corp., Stratford, Conn. 82.707,313. 
CH-47 helicopter engines for the United 
Kingdom. Stratford, Aviation Materiel 
Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

Kniser-Jccp Corp., Toledo, Ohio. 31.3B&,- 
141. 2^-ton trucks with government fyr- 
nished engines. South I3end, Ind, (iencrnl 
Purpose Vehiclea Project MnnaRor, War- 
ren, Mich. 

T. D. O'Connor & Co., Cnmbrldge, Musi. 
$1,144,100. Modification of existfuB fatll- 
itles and now construction to loud, naaem- 



June/July 1967 



j^j.? 1 find pack ammunition at the Hinghiim 
*Wal Depot Annex, Cohasaet, MRBS. En- 
-Ci ? er Diat " Waltham, Mass. 

- Works Constructors, Fnrrnineton, 
SI, 386,000. Work on the Four River 

Project, Tampa, Fla. Engineer Dist., 
onville, Fin. 
^T*"np Corp., Canton, Ohio. $3,261.152. 
NT ^? ancl 20 -' l orBei)owt.'r engines. Cnnton. 
AT ilitv Er llpmont Command, St. Louis, 

-fi," 

Cr W " & Root . Houston, Tex. $1,017,000. 
vJJV 1 at V Llct ion of tactical stage field and 
ti7 feline areas for expanded aviation 
T^/V^ing facilities at Fort Wolters, Tex. 

-Ii Bri " ecr D ' Bt " Fort Wor th, Tex. 
j*^*- rfccr-Grcen {j o-j Aurora, m, 51,0(16,494. 

UiVf ll1 nB ' lnalt nilslnu plants. Aurora. Mo- 
-Isf "y Equipment Command, St. Louis, Mo. 
,-5* "topes, Inc., Westwood, N.J. SI, 047, 105. 
jr'* 1 *Miniiation of classified research. Dn- 
Or "e Atomic Support Agency, Washing- 
D.C. 
lincntal Motors, Muskcgon, Mich, $2,- 

I*** 1 689. Three and six horsepower gaso- 
iHo engines. Milwaukee, WIs. Mobility 

*-"-' lent Command, St, Louis, Mo. 

't Itailio Corp., Boonton, N.J. 1,- 
. Radio test sets. Uoonton. Elec- 
i"o*iics Command, Philadelphia, Pa. 
i l " llcllllllf Cor])., Detroit, Mlcl). $12,622,- 
ll>. 12-ton semi-trailers. Detroit. Tank 
Automotive Command, Warren, Mich. 

L, Jnmca & Co., Huston, Ln. $1,187,- 
'. Work on tho Alchafaluya llasin Proj- 
St. Martin and Mury Pariahes, La. 
rlncor Dlst., New Orleans, Ln. 
T MathicBon Chemical Corp,, East Al- 
. III. $2,271,963. Ball powder, propel- 
;, chemicals and operations and main- 
-^nce itctlvitiea. Bnraboo, WIs. Ammu- 
nition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
'I let, 111. 

Mnthicaon Chemical Corp., New York, 
. $18,278,450. Propellunt charges and 
loading used for various rounds of 
nrniTiunltion. Chiirlcslown, Ind. Ammu- 
nition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Joliet, III. 

Hoimcywell, Inc., Ilopklna, Minn. $1,726,- 
J8O. Mctnl pnrta for 40mm projectile 
ia l:aoa ' New Brighton, Minn. Ammunition 
1 i*ocuremont & Supply Agency, Jollet, 111. 
Ollii Mnthlcson Chemical Corp., New 
"-ven, Conn. $8,405,132. Ammunition 
coniponcnta. New Haven. Ammunition 
Pfoeurement & Supply Agency, Jolict, III. 
OliT Mnthlcson Chemical Corp,, Enat Al- 
tort. III. $2,135,000. Ammunition corn- 
portents. East Alton. Ammunition Pro- 
ctn-oment & Supply Agency, Jollet, III. 
Remington Arms Co., Bridgeport, Conn. 
$2 , *J 08,900. Ammunition components. 
Bi-il|<c|iort. Ammunition Procurement & 
Siii>:ply Agency, Joliet, III. 
Pottlbonc-Mullikon Corp., BctheBda, Md. 
S-l, 1-18,000. Fork lift trucks, Chicago, 111. 
Mol*llity Enulpmont Command, St. Louis, 
Mo. 

Knclnlnb, WeBtbury, N.Y. $G, 310,600. Tor- 
tnlntil telephones. WeBthui'y. Electronics 
Command, Phlladelpliia, Pa. 
C. J-I. I-cnvell, El PaKO, Tex. $14,067,1)98. 
Construction of u navigation lock, con- 
crete dnm with gated apillway, nnd an- 
[tui'-tonant work nt tho Jonesvlllo Lock and 
Dnm, Ounchitn-Blaelt River Nftvigatlon 
Project, Arkansas and Louisiana. Engi- 
ncov Dlat., Vickaburg, Miss. 
A.lHc*l-Wchb, Day St. Louis, Miss. $1,435,- 
30 O. Modification to existing Launch Corn- 
Die >c 17 for tho NASA Kennedy Space 
CJentcr. Cnpo Kennedy, Fla, Engineer 
Diet., Merdtt Island, Fla. 
l>. "VV. L. Genernl Contractors, Lancaater, 
3dttf. $1,108,04(1. Construction of n tnu- 
Icnl ctiuipmont shop facility] community 
.enter facility; and petroleum, oil and 
'ufarlcant (POL) facilities at Fort Irwin, 
3n.llf. Engineer Dist,, Lou Angeles, Calif. 
Wisconsin Motor Corp., Milwaukee, Win. 
;3,OO2i806. Military standard cnglncH. 

* '"ce. Mobility Equipment Command, 

a, Mo, 
., Washington, D.C. $1,140,018. 

. of pilot equipment for tho national 

Vutomatlc Data Processing Program for 
- Materiel Command's loglHtlcH man- 
Electronics Command, Fort 
i, N.J. 

& Hunger, Silas Mason & Co., Lox- 
_ i, Ky, $1,383,858. 760-lb. bombs nnd 
operation nnd maintenance activities. 
;1 Island, Nob. Ammunition Procurc- 
& Supply Agency, Joliet, III. 

Corp., Wilmington, Del. $24,- 
Produetion of miscellaneous pro- 
and explosives. Rndford, Vn. 



Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, III. 

U.S. Steel, PitisbiirBh, Pa. $6,308,100. 
Metal parts for 8-inch howitzer projectiles. 
1,900.000. Reactivation, repair and relo- 
cation of government equipment. Berwick, 
Pa. Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Jolict, 111. 

Kentucky Mfg. Co., Louisville, Ky. 2,- 
490,715. 12-ton serni-tniller vnns. Louis- 
ville. Tank Automotive- Command, War- 
ren, Mich. 

Taubmnn Co., Oak Park, Mich. $1,149, 2<S5. 
Erecting a prefabricated. Government 
furnished metnl building at Joliot Amiy 
Ammunition Plant, 111. Engineer Dist., 
Chicago, 111. 

Slntc-Hall, Portland, Ore. $5,702,765. 
Work on the Libny Dam Project, Libl>y, 
Mont, Engineer Dlat., Seattle, Wnsli. 
Anthony Co., Strcator, III. 32,18-1,000. 80 
rough terrain, fork lift trucks. Stroator. 
Mobility Efinipment Command, St. Louis, 
Mo. 

Chrysler Corp., Detroit, Mich. $3,823,260. 
140 rough terrain, fork lift tmcks. Wjir- 
reri, Mich. Mobility Enuinincnt Command, 
St. Louis, Mo. 

Nnrnir KnelneeriiiB Corp., Waahington, 
D.C, $3,134,100. Construction of n four- 
story, enlisted men's barraekfl building nnd 
construction of an addition to an existing 
mess hall at Fort Myer, V. Engineer 
Dist., Norfolk, Va. 

9 CliambcrlAin Mfff. Corp., Waterloo, Iowa, 
5-1,172,270. Metnl nnrts for 105mm smoke: 
projectiles. Waterloo. Ammunition Pro- 
curement & Supply Agency, Jolict, III. 
Biltmoro Construction Co., Cleni-watcr, 
Flo. $3,22G,02G. Construction of n two- 
story headquartera command buildlnK fit 
MncDill AFD, Pla. Englneor Dist., Jack- 
sonville, Fla. 

Troup Bros., Coral Gables, Fin. $1,316,- 
972. Construolion of a eannl for the Cen- 
tral and Southern Florida Flood Control 
Project. New River Junction, Fla. Engi- 
neer Dist., Jacksonville, Fla. 
Sylvauia Electric Product a, Neoilham 
Holuhts, Masa. $1,500,000. Classified 
equipment. Muncy, Pa. Electronics Com- 
mand. Fort Monmoutli, N.J. 
U.M.C. Iniluatrfes, Phoenix, Ariz. $1,728.- 
000. Loading ancl assemblinpr 81mm illumi- 
nating projectiles. Goodyear, Ariz. Am- 
munition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Jolict, III. 

Bowcn-McLnughlEn-York, Inc., York, Pn. 
$4,fi03,G9fi. ITIimm KUIIB, 8-lnch liowltzora, 
and light armored recovery vcliiclea, Ball', 
Pa, Tank Automotive) Command, Warron, 
Mich, 

Frnnchl CoiiBtructioit Co., Newton, Mnsa. 
$G,8B7 h OOO. Construction of troop housing 
and supporting facililios at Fort Dovcns, 
Mass. New England Englneei- Division, 
Waltham. Mass. 

10 IntereontincntHl Mfe. Co., Gnrland, Tex. 
$3,027,070. Caso and adapter Nike Her- 
cules motors. Garland. Army Missile Com- 
mand, Huntaville, Ala, 

A. D. Rno Co,, Loulavillc, Ky, $1,0-17,731. 
Construction of an engine- maintenance 
training buildlne. Fort Knox, Ky. Engi- 
noor Dlst., Louisville, Ky. 

Scovlllc MfR. Co,, Wnterbury, Conn. $1,- 
507,000. Gronado fuacs. Wnterbury, Am- 
munition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Jolict, III. 

Knytlicon Co., Bristol, Tenn. $1,322,191). 
Borah fuzes. Bristol. Ammunition Pro- 
curement & Supply Agency, Jollet, 111. 
Philco-Poril Corp., Newport Bench, CallE, 
$1,JOO,757. dOmrn ffi'cnaclc launchei-B and 
Ki'cnado launohci' barrels. Anaheim, Calif. 
Southwest Procurement Agency, Pasa- 
dena, Calif. 

11 Chrysler Corn., Detroit, Mich. $1,092,000. 
Production nnd inspection engineering 
services for the MOO Al nnd A1E1 tank 
fire control system, Detroit. Frnnkfoi'd 
Arsenal, Philadelphia, Pti, 
Western Electric, Wliippany, N.J. $1,086,- 
860, Research nnd development effort on 
tho Nfke-X missile system, Whlppany, 
Nlke-X Project Offlc&, Huntaville, Ala. 
Olin Mnthlcson Chemical Corp., Enat Al- 
ton. 111. $1,012,423. Loading nnd nuHem- 
blinK of 81mm illuminntlnfr projectiles, 
Marion, 111. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Jotiot, III. 
Riddle Quarries, Inc.* Stilina., Kan. $1,- 
778,000. Work on tlio Perry Reservoir 
Project, Perry, Knn. Engineer Dist,, 
Kansas City, Kan. 

R, A. Wnttson Co., North Hollywood, 
Calif. $1,601,000, Work on tho San Ga- 
briel River Channel Project, Between Long 



Beach nnd Seal Beach, Calif. Engineer 
Dist., Loa Anaelea, Calif. 

12 General Motors, Detroit, Mich. $6.000,000. 
Metal parts for 105mm HE projectiles. St. 
Louis, Mo. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply ARency, Joliet, III. 
Harvey Aluminum Sales, Inc., Tori-ance, 
Calif. 39,528,562. Classified work. Milan, 
Perm, Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, III. 

Haytheoii Co., Lexington, Mass. $4,436,- 
fi39_. Ground support equipment and field 
maintenance equipment for the Hawk mls- 
sjle system. \Vi\lthnm, Mass. Army Mls- 
Hile Command, A a dove r, MnB3. 
MncGi-ceor Trinnglc Co., Boise, Idaho. $3,- 
dlfi.201. Work oa tho Lower Monumental 
Lock nnd Dam Project. Snake River, 
Wash. Engineer Dlst., Seattle, Wash. 
General Ma tors, Indianapolis, Ind. 53,345,- 
090. M-113 transmissions, Indianapolis. 
Tnnlt Automotive Command, Warren, 
Mich. 

Construction, Ltd., Bordcutown, N.J. g2,- 
715,500. BulIcHng mndification work at 
Ahofdeen Proving Ground, Md. Engineer 
nist., Baltimore, Md, 

Emeraor Electric Co., St. Louia, Mo. S3,- 
GIS.OOO. Helicopter nrmnment an bay stems. 
St. Loiiia. Army Weapons Command, 
Rook Isltmd, 111. 

Carter Carburetor, St. Loviis, Mo, $1,828,- 
930. Metal parts. St. Louis. Ammunition 
Procurement & Supply Agency. Joliet, III. 
Scovlllc Mfg. Co., Watorhury, Conn. $1.- 
828,272. Metal parts. Waterbuvy. Am- 
miinltioii Pi-ocuremeiit & Supply Agency, 
Jolict, 111. 

Non-la Industries, Ix>s Angeles, Calif. $1,- 
321,82-1. lG2mm projectiles. Los Angeles. 
Southwest Procurement Agency, Pnsn- 
denn, Calif. 

LTV Aeroaprico Corp., Wnrren, Mich. 52,- 
069,000. Research and development on the 
extended mnRc Lnnce missile system. 
Wnrren. Army Mlasile Command, Hunta- 
ville, Aln. 

Honeywell, Inc., Tftmpn, Pla. 52,237,930. 
Microwave relay comimiiilcationa syHtem 
components. Tampn. Electronics Com- 
mand, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Peter Kclsn Construction Co., Forest Hllla, 
N.Y. 53,044,500. Construction and con- 
version of cxistinR pymnnslum nt West 
Point. Enultiecr Dlat., Now York, N.Y. 
IB Kirst Construction Co., Altadena, Calif. 
?B,31 1,004. Work on the San Gabriel River 
CliEinncl-Whftticr Narrows Dnm Project. 
Downey, Pico, Rivera nnd Snnte Fe, Cnllf. 
EnRincGv Dlat., Los Angeloa, Calif. 
Lear Slcg-lcr, Inc., Anaheim. Calif. $2,- 
500,000. Classified electronic CQiilpment. 
Annhcltn. Electronics Command, Fort 
Monmoutli, N.J. 

TRMCO, Inc., Nnshvllle, Tenn. $2,074,- 
500. MetRl iint'ts for 100mm projectiles. 
Nnahvlllo. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Asoncy, Jollet. 111. 
Atlas Chemical ImliiHtrlcs, Wilmington, 
Del. $4,173,076. TNT. ChattanooKfl, 
lenn. Ammunition Procurement & Sup- 
ply AffQTicy, JolEet, III. 

Pacinc Cnr & Foundry Co., Renton, Wash. 
$1,500,000. Overhaul of M107 vehicles nnd 
conversion of MHO vehicles to M107 eon- 
iiffiiratlon. Tlenton. Northwest Procure- 
ment Aproncy, Oakland, Cnlif. 
A. T. Cii'nvellc Goncrnl Contractor, Indl- 
nnapolia, Ind. 81,381,280. Work on tho 
MiBaioliiewii Reservoir Project. Porn, Ind. 
Enptmcer Dtst., LouisvUlo, Ky. 
10 Hnimol PiicljJS Consd'uction Co,, Greely, 
Colo, 37,112,000. Construction of n multi- 
atocy cadet <innrtor3 buJldins at the All- 
Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colo, 
Engineer Dlst,, Omohn, Neb. 
Caterpillar Tractor Co,, East Peorln, 111, 
51,028,^00. 23 dicsel-cnsine tractors, East 
Peorla. Mobility Equipment Commnnd, St. 
Louis, Mo. 

17 CoTiHollilntcd Diesel Electric Co., Old 
Greenwich, Conn. $1, 261,100. 10-ton trac- 
tor trucks. Scotia, N.V, Tank Automotive 
Command, Warren, Mich, 
Fnl) ri en tors, Inc., Salern f Ore. $1, 660,170. 
1,38(5 floodlight seta. Snlem. Mobility 
Equipment Commandf St. Louis, Mo. 
Union Cnrliide Corp., New Yorlc, N,Y. $1,- 
492,60-1. Dry batteries. Greenville and 
Charlotte, N.C. Electronics Command, 
Philadelphia, Pa, 

CutIer-IInmmc.lv Inc., Deer Park, N.Y. 
32,977,770, Rndar acts, battery chnrgcrs 
nnd teat fncllity kits toi- the llitht weSRht 
miniaturized combat surveillance radar 
got. Deer Park. Electronic Command. 
Philadelphia, Pn. 
Holl-Sieffcn Construction Co., Adlon, Mo. 



Industry Bulletin 



33 



Sl.3l2.iyii. Const ruction of two buildings 
for iilrmeii dormitories. Scott AFB, 111. 
Kn^intL'i- Disii.. Clm-;w>, III. 

Hnrberi Con si ruction Coni., Birminnlinm, 
Alii. S'J.ii'Ji.fioT. Work on Lock ami Dam 
NIL Lh mi lilt Ai-kiiniis Kivcr. Nc;ir Inoln. 
Okhi. KiiLfintt-r Dist., TtilBii, Okhi. 
18- K. I. IJiiiniul DC Nemours & Co., \\ilmmn- 
ton, I M. $3,lo:.0fj(i. Duaimi nil dtvi;l<>[>- 
iiion t i>f 11 n iimmunition futility lit Par- 
sons, Kan. Aniniumtidn P roc in tint-lit & 
Kui>|ily Atftncy. Joljtt, til. 

- -Uayllicon Co., Li-xmgton, Muss.. SI. 723,- 
(.i-i-l. Rtpaiv parts for I lawk missiles. 
AniloVL-i 1 , Mass. Aviation Miiti-i-iel Com- 
mand, St. Loui.i, Mo. 

General Precision, Wnyno, N.J. $1,651,- 
12">. [If-sik'n ami development of a nroto- 
typii liquid i>ru [it'll ant rocket motor _ with 
direction central for 105mm howitzer. 
Wnyiif. Piciitinny Arsenal, Dover, N.J. 

Humes Mfg. Co., Mansfield. Ohio, Sl.OM.- 
117. Uauiline |wni]> asstmblits. Mansfield. 
Mobility Equipment Command, St. Louis, 
Mo. 

Nolan Bros., Inc., Minneapolis, Minn. $5,- 
173,0-10. Work on the Cochitu Dam Proj- 
ect, Saniiovnl County, N,M, Engineer 
Dist., AlhuQuerque, N.M. 

General Dynamics, Rochester, N.Y. $2,- 
3S7.00. 12 radio sets and 270 receiver- 
transmitters. Rochester. Electronics Com- 

_ mand, Philadelphia, Pn. 
]'9 Bell Aeroapnce Corp., Fort Worth, Vex. 
$1,253,322. Work on the armament sub- 
systems on AH-1G helicopters. Fort Worth. 
Aviation Materiel Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

I.U.M., Galhcraburj,'. Md. 55,036,261. Five 
automatic data processinir subsystems. 
Gathershurg. Electronics Command, Fort 
Monmouth, N.J. 

H.C.A., Camden, N.J. $5,000,000. Classi- 
fied electronic equipment. Camden. Elec- 
tronic Command, Fort Monmouth, N.J. 

R.C.A., Camden, N.J. ?2, 265,000. Tactical 
satellite communication ground and air- 
borne terminals. Cnmdun. Electronics 
Command, Fort Monmouth, N.J. 

Eleelro-Opticnl Systems, Pasadena, Cnlif. 
$1, "54.000. Work on a night vision pro- 
Kram. Pasadena. Electronics Command, 
Fort Monmouth. N.J. 

General Dynamics, Rochester, N.Y. $11,- 
3J7.480. Communications equipment. 
Rochester, N.Y, and Orlando, Flu. Elec- 
tronics Command, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Harvey Aluminum, Torrance, Calif. $1,- 
238,733. Metal parts for 40mm projectiles. 
Torrance. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Bulova Watch Co., Providence, R.I. S3,- 
412,866. Fuzes for ammunition. Provi- 
dence, Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Jolict, 111. 

Albion Malleable Iron Co., Albion, Mich, 
$1,246,800. Metal parts for 2.75-inch 
rockets. Albion. Ammunition Procure- 
ment & Supply Agency, Jolict, 111. 

Bucryua Erie Co., Evanaville, Ind, 34,- 
876,349. 12',{.-ton crane shovels. Erie, Pa. 
Mobility Equipment Command, St. Louis, 
Mo. 

Hnrnischfeger Corp., Milwaukee, Wls. $G,- 
787,333. Truck-mounted cranes and shov- 
els. Esc an aba, Mich. Mobility Equipment 
Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

Gregg, Gibson & Gregg Contractors, Lees- 
hurfr, Fla. $5,071,61)2. Work on the Cen- 
tral and Southern Florida Flood Control 
Project. Highlands, Polk nnd Okeechobee 
Counties, Fla. Engineer Dist., Jackson- 
ville, Fin. 

Midvale-Heppenstnll Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 
$3,452.200. Tube forging for 17Gmm guns. 
Philadelphia, Watervliet Arsenal, Wnter- 
vliet, N.Y. 

Raytheon Co., Bedford, Mass. ?2,100,000. 
Initiation of advanced development of the 
SAM-D missile program. Bedford. Army 
MiEalls Command, Huntsville, Ala. 
22 Wells Marine, Inc., El Segundo, Calif. SI,. 
606,803. 20mm projectiles. El Segundo. 
Frankford Arsenal, Philadelphia, Pa. 

LUIon Systems, Van Nuys, Calif. 82,459,- 
176, Data converter coordinated air de- 
fense systems. Van Nuya. Army Missile 
Command, Huntsville, Ala. 

Stokes Construction Co., San Marcos, Tex. 
$2,709.107, Construction of an adminis- 
tration and operations building at Borg- 

$**** APB, Tex. Engineer Dlat., Fort 
Worth, Tex, 

S3 "9^ l !,l r n uctlo , n ' Ltd " Bordontown, N.J. SI,. 
403,000. Construction of two mess hall 

SHXtoik^v.. 8 " 1 1 '' Va> Eneineer 

H, B. Zachry Co., San Antonio, Tex. S3,- 



S31 000. Construction of heliport facilities 
fit Fort Woltiii-s, Tex. Enuinut-'r Hist., I-ort 
Worth, Tes. 

--Slcwnrt Warner Corp., IndiiuiaiJolis, Ind. 
$1 -'74 20U. RcciiH-oeiitintf compressors. 
Indianiipnlis. Mobility EauiiimaiU Com- 
mand. St. Louis, Mo. 

Brunswick Corp., Sutfiu 1 (.rove, Vii. 51 ,- 
898,657. HSmm om'tridire launchers, Marion 
and Kumir Grove, Vii. Edftewood Arsotuil. 
Md. ,. . 

- -Park Construction Co., MintienpoliH, Minn. 
Sl.SSi.ni. Work on the Root River-Hush 
Crt-ck Project. Itushford, Minn. Engineer 
Dist., tit. Paul, Minn. 

--Civil Works Constructors, Farmintfton, 
Mich. S2.2-16.3S5. Work on the Ccmtnil 
;ind Southern Floi'ida Flood Control Proj- 
ect. Okcechobec, Ha. Engineer Dint., 
Jacksonville, Fin, 

--Eitlal International Division of S. W. Fac- 
tory. Inc., Albuquerque, N.M. S2,7i(l,MSl. 
Trailer mounted laundry units. Albuquer- 
que. Mobility Equipment Command, St. 
Louis, Mo. 

Muncie Gear Work, Munele, Ind. 83,329,- 
209. a.Tfl-lnch rocket fin nnd iiOBzlc I\K- 
Eemblies. Mvincie. Picatinny Arscniil, 
Dover, N.J, 

24 American Mfg. Co. of Tex., Fort Worth, 
Tex. SI, '80, 000, Metul parts for 2.75 inch 
rockets. Fort Worth. Ammunition Pro- 
curement &. Supply Agency, Joliet, III. 

Maremont Corp., Snco, Maine. $1,401,747. 
7.62mm machine ims with spare biirrol 
and bi-pod assemblies. Saco. Army Wcnp- 
ons Commnnd, Rock Island, 111. 
25 Honeywell, Inc., Hopkins, Minn. SG,Hr.5,- 
4K4. Fuzes for bombs, Hopklna. Procurt- 
mcnt Detachment, Chicago, 111. 
2G Thiokol Chemical Corp., Bristol, Pa, $6,- 
380,011. Various types and amounts of 
ordnance. Marshall, Tex. Ammunition 
Procurement & Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

U.S. Rubber Co., New York, N.Y. $21,- 
890, R55. Manufacturing explosives and 
loading of ammunition Items, Joliet, III. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

General Time Corp., La Salle, III. $1,027,- 
S93. Fuzes for lOfJmin projectilcB. La 
Saite, Frankford Arsenal, Phlladclphlii, 
Pa. 

Continental Motors, MuskcRon, Mich. 5,- 
607,339. Engine assemblies for the M48 
tank. Muskeffon. Tank Automotive Coin- 
mand, Warren, Mich. 

Continenlal Motors, MuskoRon, Mich. $S,- 
483,358. l 1 ,^, 3 and G horsepower engines. 
Milwaukee, Wis. Mobility Equipment Com- 
mand, St. Louis, Mo. 

Colt's, Inc., Hartford, Conn. $2,043,602. 
M16 rifles. Hartford. Army Weapons Com- 
mand, Rock Island, III. 

Hell Hellcopler Co., Port Worth, Tex. $3,- 
417,054. Rotary wing blades for the UII-1 
helicopter. Fort Worth, Aviation Mate- 
riel Command, St. Louis, Mo, 

Oberg Construction Corp., Northrklge, 
Calif. 84,530,779. Work on the San Joso 
Creek Channel, Near Pomona, Calif. En- 
gineer Diet., Los Anneles, Calif. 

Caterpillar Tractor Co., Poorin, III. $1,- 
208,060. IS heavy tractors. Pooi-ln. Mobil- 
ity Equipment Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

G. W. Galloway Co., Baldwin Park, Calif, 
$1,003,418. Containers for ShillelaRh mis- 
siles. Ontario. Calif. Army Missile Com- 
mand, Huntaville, Ala. 

A. 0. Smith Corp., Chicago, III. $16,221,- 
731. Metal parts for 760-lb. bombs, Wnco, 
Tex. Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Kanarr Corp., Kingston, Pa. $3,262,500, 
40mm grenade launchers. Kingston. Army 
Weapons Command, Rock Island, III. 
29 List & Clark Construction Co., Overland 
Park, Kan. $1,866,790. Work on the Stock- 
ton Reservoir Project. Dale nnd Cedar 
Counties, Mo. Engineer Dist., Kansas City, 
Mo. 

Day & Zimmerman, Philadelphia, Pa. $20,- 
010,130. Miscellaneous components for 
medium caliber ammunition: loading, as- 
sembling and packing of medium caliber 
ammunition! and operating and mainte- 
nance activities at the Long Star Ammu- 
nition Plant, Texarknna, Tex. Ammuni- 
t on Procurement & Supply Agency, Joliet, 

Pntton-Tully Transportation, Memphis, 
?i? n ?; * 1 - a 6.80a. ConBtruction work on 
the Mississippi River and tributaries chan- 
nel improvement project, Near Cnruthovs- 
ville, Mo, Engineer Dlat., Memphis, Tenn. 
o^ 1 ?!" 8 *?, n B ine Co., Columbus. Ind. $3,- 
477,074. Diesel engine assemblies for 10- 



llll-l 



nml 



$1,- 



Citrnmnnil, 
S1.E03.- 



ton trucks. Columbus. Tnnk Automotive 
Commnnd. Warrun, Midi. 

--Hell Helicopter, Fort Worth, TLX. $1,000, 
000, Crush diimngf kits Hir UII-1 liolitop- 
ti-rs. Sl,4'.Ki,firj7. Quill iissmblU;s for TJH-l 
hflicopter.t. Fort Worth. Avintitin Materiel 
Coniniaiul, til. Louis, M<i. 

31 -It. C. A., Cnindmi, N.J. SI,2it.l,CM-l. Poi-luMe 
nian-pacli r.idin nuls. Cainiloti. Klfjclrciilca 
Cnnimanil, I'liiliHU.'liiliiii, I'u, 
--(Jencral Klcctric, Hyracusci, N.Y. S'l.O&T,- 
740. Vcliii'lir-iiiduiitud ratlin 1 sctss. I'itl^k-kl. 
Muss, nnd Syracuse, Eluetronic.s (iDitinimwl, 
Pbilndulphiii, Pa. 

- -Stnuift Klcclric Corp., Toledo, Ohio, ?!, 

21fi,SMG. 70 search lighls. Toledo. Elec- 
tronics Column IH!, Forth M<inrncintli, N.J. 

--VAHO, Inc., Giu-lnnd, Tox. S,000,000. 
ImiiKt' inLL-n.sillei- as^onililii.'H. Ojii'liind, 
Elfjclronics Command, Furl Mnninoiilb, 
N.J, 

..... Sjiei-ry Itand Corp., Plioonis, Aii/ h Sl,- 
011(1 ,!!3'1. Indicators for r*i<1io uuits 
(.omiiHHSL's. Hull Luke City, Ululi 
I'lioenix. Southwest rroor(.-ini!iit llti 
mniit, Pawadoiia, Calif. 

Nnrrls IiuluslricH, Los Atwclcs, Calif. 
987,:i70, 00mm oartrldirt- 1 <iust-K. Vonion, 
Calif. Koiitlnvi.-Ht Pratiuroniunl INi'tii.-cli- 
ment, PiiHiidunti, Ciilif, 

AV(H) Corp., Strut ford, O<mru SI7,01fi.r.Ki. 
Tfi3-L-ia tmtluos for 

Stnilfonl, Aviation M 
Ht. Louis, Mo. 
Collins Itiidlo Co., Addistnn, Tex. 

474. Avionin ItitH for HIM hiilli'iiiiIistB. 
Artdlsou. Aviation Miilerlol Ciiminiiiiil, Hi. 
Louis, Mo. 

- Grumman Aircraft KIIK iiiccrhiR (*nrii.. 
Hutlipimc, N,Y. 3,710,000. NT(nt:-riiiKiitliin 
of OV-1H aii-eraft. 82,2(5^,500. Mnibrii,!^- 
tlon of OV-IC nircruft. Htuiu'l, Flu, AvLn- 
tlon Materiel Conimaiul, Kt. Ixiiild, Mi, 

--Maclt Trucks, Allontowii, Pa. SMIH.HQO. 

Axlo assiiinblioH for 10-ton ti'iiclin. Allen* 

town. Tank Automotive Coininmul, \Vnr- 

rcn, Mich. 
White Motor Corp., ChicnK. III. Sl.an,- 

11G. EtiKlnccrlnK scrvlceH fix HinHiovl of 

MB9 trucks. Chicago. Tiink Aiituniulh-c 

Commruid, Warrnn, Midi. 
General Motors, Detroit. Mjcli. Sl.fllia.fiOW, 

TriickB. lialtimoi'ii, Mil. Tinile Aiitcinioltvc 

Command, Wnrnm, Mich. 

nnwcn-McLnuehlhi-Yoi-k. Inc., Yurli, 1'n, 
$1,721.850. Klovntlng drive luisombllcn nnd 
tnivci'aiiiK drivii assomhlins f.nr M107 nml 
MHO vfihlolna. York. Tank Auttuiuit ivc 
Cnmmiuul, Warren, Mich. 

Stevens Mfff. Co., EbmialmrKi 1'ji. 
140,403. 2'/j-lon, 2-wlictsl li-nlh^r eJi 
EboiiBbunc. Tank Automotive Oomi 
Wnrrttn, Mlfili. 

Eaton, Yalo & Town Mfg. Co., 
N.Y. 3,1130,780. l)!wn-l !iitc 

Ht'O|) loudoi'H, Hatnvla. MolillHy Mi|iU|s- 
nipnt Ccimmmu], HI, Louln, Mn. 

Einci'Hon Electric, Ml. I^niln, Mn. 315-, HIE, - 
500, Armaniont BubHyiitiiiiiH roitibi mit!inh 
machiiiL 1 mm and itnuuidd luiuiclioi- -T^r 
Cobra ho 1 1 cop tor. SI. Louia, Wc.n.|>(iiii 
Command, Itock Island, III, 

--Ford Motors, Doarborn, Midi, S2.aiH.no. 
Tract oi' tninka, Lonisvilli), Ky. Tiink 
Aulomolivo Commnnd, Wni-ron. Mich, 

Chryalcr Motors, Detroit, Ml.:lt. $lt,100.- 
000. ^i-ton trucks. Wnrrcn, Mich, 'I'miV 
Automotive Commnnd, VVut-rcii, Midi. 

Conliiicntal Mo torn, Moljilt;, Alii. Sr.,lJE7,- 
700. EiiRlne assemblies, wlUi tontiiliu ifl, 
for robuiUHtiiC and rofitthur nf ciuntj:iil 
voblcles. Mobile. Tank Automotive dun* 
mand, Warren, Mich. 

Hercules Engine Cor))., Clinton, Ohio. 80.- 
581,018. Engine aiisemblics tor 'J ] ,^U>n nnd 
five-ton trnckfi. Canton. 'Punk AnUuno- 
Uvo Command, Wnvron, Midi, 

Mnaon & HniiRor Sllns Mason (!o,, I^x- 
Ington, Ky. $0,007,330. LoiuUm;, unaejii- 
blinft and packing of 7CO-lb, bomlm. Qrnn^ 
Island, Neb. Ammimlllan Pracurtnit'nt & 
Simply Awoncy, Joliet, III. 

Holsan Defense Corp., KiiiKHiiort, Tonn. 
$5,700.200. Miscellaneous protwllant (iiul 
fxitloflivoB. Klngsport. Arnniiinltlnn I*io- 
curomont & Supply Agency, Joljot, III, 

Cnnsolidntcd Box Co,, Tnmim, Fin. 91,- 
B<H,187, Fiber containora foi 1 EimmiuilLinn. 
Tampa, Ammunition Pracurcinonl & 8ms- 
ply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

General Time Corp., LaSnlle, 111, $4 f fl6|.. 
G24. Time fuxes for 4, 2- Inch marine pro- 
jectlles nnd lOfimm arttllnry Illimiinnlli^ff 
flhella, LnSalle. Ammunition Procedure- 
ment & Supply Agency, Jollot, ILL 

Z D Products, El Segundo, CnllC, J2.BB1,- 
G48. Ordnance components. El SagumJo. 



$1.- 



Htitav!n t 



June/July 1967 



Ammunition Procurement & Sm>i>]y 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Corning Glass Works, Corninfr, N.Y. gl.. 
818, 8S7. Ceramic containers for aircraft 
! tlunit '*J" disiiensinsr systems. Mnrtlns- 
bui'K, W, Vn. Ammunition Procurement 
Bi'iuBeport. Ammunition Procurement and 
Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 
Dynamics Corp. of America, ISriiljrcpoi-t, 
Conn. 82,038,499. 60-cyde tfononitor si-Is 
Bridgeport. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Joliet, 111, 



NAVY 

1 KDI Cori)., Norwood, Ohio, 811,142,262, 
Mark 340 mechanical time fuses, Nor- 
wood. Ships Parts Control Center, 
Mcdianicsburtf, Pa. 

Litton Systems, Woodland Hills, Ciilif. 
57,120,350. Equipment related to inertiiil 
iiHVistitioiml systems and computor sya- 
tcms of aircraft. Wooclliind Hills. Aviation 
Suiinly Office, Philiidolphia. Pa. 
Line-Temco-VouBht, Greenville, Tex. $2,- 
984,212, Services and maturluls for modi- 
flcatlon of ES-121K aircraft. Greenville. 
I Nnval Air By stems Command. 

i All American Engineering Co., Wilming- 
ton, Del. $2,075,784. Arresting near ny B - 
temg. Wilmington. Navnl Air Enuinoennu: 
Center, Plilladolphia, Pa. 
Atlantic Research Corp., Alexandria, Va. 
1,490,100. Rocket motors for the Standard 
missile, Gainesville, Va. Naval Ordnance 
Systems Commnnd. 

Stnnwlek Corn,, Arlington, Vn. ', 117, 424. 
Engineering, studies, planning evaluation 
and related work in connection with over- 
liuul of attack aircraft carrier USS Sara- 
toga (GVA-60). Arlington. Naval Ship- 
yard, Philadelphia, Pa. 

United Telecontrol Electronics, Asbury 
Park, N.J. 1,342,GH2, Airborne radar 
beacon?. Anbury Park. Navnl Air Systems 
Command. 

Lockheed Aircraft, Bui-bank, Cnlif. gl,- 
820,407. Increased funding for modifien- 
tlon of SP-2H aircraft, Bin-bank, Naval 
Air Systems Command. 

United Aircraft, East Hartford, Conn. Sl,- 
015, OHH. Stand assemblies naod to support 
oiiKJnes on F-111A aircraft. East Hart- 
ford. Navy Aviation Supply Ofilce, Phila- 
delphia, Pa. 

2 HufflicB Aircraft, Culver City, Calif. $72,- 
212,800, Airborne missile. 1 control systems 
for Phoenix missiles. Culver City. Naval 
Air Systems Command. 

General Signal Corn., Woodbury, N.Y. $4,- 
062,831, Decoders. Woodbury. Navnl Ship 
Systems Command. 

Mine Safety Annliances Co., Pittsburgh, 
Pa. $2, 210,490. Oxygen-breathing appa- 
ratiia and canisters used by fli-eflg]itini>f 
teams aboard ship. Evans City, Pa. Navy 
Ships Parts Control Center, Moolinnlcs- 
bui'K, Pa. 

Miiffitnvox Co., Fort Wayne, lad. $2,000,- 
000. Continued basin oneinoerlng and de- 
velopment of an air ilroppable ASW sono- 
buoy system. Fort Wayne. Naval Air Sys- 
tems Command. 

LTV, Inc., Dallas, Tex. $1,58H,COO. Ac- 
quisition and Installation of production 
equipment nt Naval Weanons Industrial 
Reserve- Plant, Dallas, Tex. Navnl Air 
Systems Commnnd. 

United Aircraft, Norwalk, Conn, $1,122,- 
B30. Indicators, transmitters, controls, 
and radar sets for A-GA aircraft. Norwnlk. 
Navy Aviation Supply Office, Philadelphia, 
Pn. 

Atlas Fabricators, Long Beach, Calif. $1,- 
070,053. Mark 7G practice bombs, La 
Mli-acla, Calif., and Min-freosboro, Tenn, 
Nnvy Ships Parts Control Center, Median- 
IcHburg, Pa. 

Doiifflns Aircraft, Tulaa, Okla, $1,070,000. 
Modification of three A-3B aircraft. Tulsa. 
Navy Purcliasinir Ofilco, Los Angeles, 
Calif. 

3 Aerojet-General Corp., Ay.usa, Calif, $41,- 
250,508. Production of MK 46 torpedoes, 
Aausa. Nnvnl Ordnance Systems Com- 
mand. 

United Aircraft, East Hartford, Conn. 
S12.433.7G2. J-52-P-SA engines. East Hart- 
ford, Naval Air Systems Command. 
' General Dynamics, Pomona, Calif. $9,- 
560,000, Standard Arm missiles. Pomona. 
Naval Air Systems Command. 
Telcdyne Systems, Hawthorne, Calif, $7,- 
400,860. Self-contained navigation sys- 
tems. Navnl Air Systems Command, 
North American Aviation, Columbus, Ohio. 
?4,840,000. T-2B aircraft and related 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



emiipnient. Columbus. Naval Air Systems 
Commnnd, 

Sperry Gyroscope Co., Great Neck, N.Y. 
S3. 874,586. Fabrication nncl test of proto- 
tyt) models of the Phase II Integralce! 
I.ifrht Attack Avionics System. Great 
Neck. Nnval Air Systems Commnnd, 
~~Ma.\srm Kleclronics, Old Foi-Re, Pn S3 - 
03fi.9eO. Bullnup missiles. Old FoiW- 
Nnvnl Air Systems Commund. 
Knythcan Co., Sndbucly, Mass. 2,100,786. 
Elucti-onie Kiiidance cmiipment and reliitcd 
suiyiiort for tilt? Poseidon wetinon system. 
biKlbury. faneeinl Projects Office. 
<1 ~J; lt 1 t? n Systems, Inc., Woodland Hills, 
(jfim. M,H6G,113, Tncrtial navigation sys- 
tems ami special sunnort equipment. Wood- 
land Kills. Naval Air Systems Command. 
it 1 "'" 1 Alllcl 'i c *i Aviation, Columbus, Ohio. 
S3, 6-1 1.76(1. Ail-borne pod coiintcrniensui-e 
sets. Columbus. Navnl Air Systems Com- 
nin n (I. 

Htc-wnrl 8f Stevenson Services, Houston, 
lex. _ 1,705,300. VnrJable-frctuiency 

ncoualic diesel-guiiei-fitcr sets, coinimnc'iit 
pnrts, nmi ciiKiiieei-lncr set-vices. Houston, 
Nnvnl Shin Systems Commnnd. 
Ciii-tiss-Wilslil Corp., Wood-Rid <?, N.J. 
Pl,li64,023. Product support oiiKincorinK 
services for .I-C5 on nines. Wood-HIdpe. 
Nnval Aii- Systems Conininnd. 
5 Miami Beach, Vnclit Corp., Miami Heach, 
Ha. ^l,2S9,30J. Motor whalebouts. Miami 
Heach. Nnvnl fililp Systoms Commnnd. 
Hni-tmnn-Huyck Systems, Hmitinulon stii- 
tion. N.Y. $1,000,000. Componcnta for 
tho nnviBation system lined in P-.TA iind 
P-3I3 nlrcraft. Hnntinnlun Station. Navy 
Aviiition Simply Olllco, Philaclolpliln, Pa, 
Plulco-Kord Corp,, Pnlo Alto, Cnllf. 51,- 
IHMGT. Mniritciuinco nncl spare jiatls 
shekel's HHcel in sunnoi-t t>( Mobllo (Heli- 
coplgr) Land lap Control Centura. Palo 
Alto. Nnval Supply Center, Oaldand, 
Ciuif. 

8 Security Construction Co., Richmond, Vn. 
81,912,000. Addition to n fuel necessaries 
overhaul bulldim? at Not-folk, Va., Navnl 
Aii- Station. Atlantic Div., Nnval Fncil- 
ItieH EriKinoerliiR Commiuid. Nut-folk, Va. 
G. L. Cory, Sun Dlejro, Cnllf. St, 087,670. 
Construction of an nil-craft maintcniinco 
hatiffct 1 at tho Navnl AuxlHiiry Air Sta- 
tion, Imperial Dcncli, Cnlif. Nnval Facil- 
ities EiiRlnoorlnB Comma ncl, 
Honeywell, Inc., Honklns. Minn. SG2.070,- 
tf!7. Prodinition of MK 4 8 torpedoes. Hop- 
kins, Nnval Orclnn-nco Syatomn Com in and. 
Johns lIopEclnH University, Applied Physics 
Labnjildi-y, SllvlnR SprSiif?, Md. $2,084,000. 
Woi-k on the Taloa weApcm Ryatom, Silver 
Sin-Inn. Na.vnl Ot-ilnnncc Syalems Corn- 
main). 

Pali-child Camera & Instrument Corp,, 
Pni-anniH, N.J, ?l,77B,4flG, Hndar acts. 
B-pai'o pat-ts nnd eiKrlncoi-Jnpt services. 
ParainiiB. Nrwnl ShJ|) Sy atoms Cnmmand. 
Daniel Construction Co. of Virginia, Htcli- 
moiul, Va. S' ,070,000. Construction of an 
air launch mtssilti facility nt the Navnl 
W" cation* Station, Vorktown, Vn, Navnl 
Ff ic II it log JSnptlnoerlni? Commnnd. 
Bni-ry L. Miller KiiBlnccrhiff, irnwthorno, 
Cnllf. $1,401.272. FIIKOS for Wnlloya mls- 
eilea. Hnwtliorne. Navnl Air Systems Com- 
mand. 

10 ^Gcnei-al Precisian, Inc., BinRliamiiton, 
N.Y. $1B, G98,8B7. Seven F-4E weapon sys- 
tem trainlni* sets includlnK support StRrns. 
Pal to Alto, Calif, nnd Blnnliampton. Nnvnl 
TrnlniiiR Devko Center, Orlando, Tin. 
University of Cnlif., Snnta Bai-btu-a, Cnllf. 
?2 a 087,0-80, OccanoernphlQ research. San 
IicRo, Cnlif, OlFico of Nnvnl Reaoiu-ch, 
E. C. Yonns & J. W. Vlchrey, El Cnjon, 
Calif. SI, 020,000, Construction of aircraft 
parking: au-ons at tlic Marine Corps Air 
Station, Santa Ann. Calif. Southwest Div., 
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 
Snn Diego, Calif. 

IBJohn C. GHmlicrp Co., Itockvillo, Md. $3,- 
145,000. Construction of. a central heating 
nmnt at tho Nnval Academy, Annniralla, 
Md. Chosapenfce Div., Nnval Facilities En- 
gineering Command, Washington , D.C. 
Klng-Hnntev, Inc., Greensboro, N,0. $1,- 
296,30-1. Confitrucllon of a combat direc- 
tion annex at the Fleet Artti-Ah- Warfare 
Tnunlns Center, Dnm Neck, Vn. Atlantic 
Div,, Naval Facilities Ensincerlng Com- 
mand, Norfolk, Vn. 

John C. GriinbcrB Co., Itoelcvillo, Md. $1,- 
007,000. Conati'iietion of a nltroBlycorlno 
plant at tlic Nnval Oi-dnunco Station, 
Indinn Head, Md. Chesapeake D3v., Naval 
Fncllltles Engineering Commana, Waah- 
fngton, D.C. 



FMC Corp., Minnc-ario-liH, Minn. $1,110,000. 
Component parts for 5"/54 Murk 42, Mod 
7 sun mounts. Minneapolis, Naval Ord- 
nance Station, Louisville. Ky. 
DillliiBfinm Corn., Honolulu, Hawaii $!,. 
673,000, Construction of eliorcline protec- 
tion of Johnsoa Island, Hawaii, Pacific 
Div., Naval Facilities Enulnoerlnfi Com- 
mand, Pearl Harbor, Hnwnii. 
Granger Associnlcs, Ptilo Alto, Calif. Sl,- 
036, ,149. liivertcil cone, liiy;!] fi-etjuency an- 
toniuic. pule Alto. Navy PvirchuaitiK Of- 
iico, Washiuftton, D.C. 

Ii-vni Pnrn-Snacc Center, Glcnclalc, Calif. 
$1,111,031. Mobile clccti'ic powct* plants 
used to simply power for aircraft in night 
lines, rnm]>3 nnc! in h angers, GlencJnle. 
Navy Purchaaitig OJIicu. Wasliinuton, D.C. 
feylvtitua electronics Systems, Needham 
FTL-iKlits, Muss. 51,931,519. Taotical Eloe- 
tranic countermeaaurea trainer with rc- 
liiLed services and materials. Necclham 
Hi (tlits. Naval Training Duvice Center, 
Orlando, Fla. 

15 Wells Industries, North Hollywood, Cnlif. 
83,433,330. SLnrllns systems for jet en- 
Khie nil-craft. North Hollywooil. Nnvnl Air 
Systems Commaiui. 

United Aircraft, Stratford, Conn. $2,604,- 
400. SI1-3D helicopters. Stnitford, Nnval 
Air iiystums Ooinnmnd. 

U.S. Steel, Pittsburgh, PR. $2,508,170. 
2, r )0-lb, bomb Imdioa. McKcosjwrt, Pn. Nnvy 
Ships Parts Control Center, Mcchatiics- 
burg, Pn. 

Sjicrry I'iccliuoiit Cu., Chnrlottcsville, Va. 
$2,100,000. Fiolc! improvement kits fot- 
radar eciuiimiont abtuird naval surface 
shins. Cluii-lottosville. Navnl Ship Systcrna 
CnniiinuHl, 

Snndcra Associates, Nashua, N,H. 51,600,- 

000. Classified eliictronics cquliimunt. 

Nnsliun. Naval Aii- Systems Commnnd. 

San Dicffo Miulnc C oust ruction Co., Snn 

DICBO, Cnlif. 51,322,680. 1& open lightcrfl. 

San DIOKO. Navnl Ship Systems Commnnd. 

Ifi Uyaon & Co., Foji&Hcol, Pin. $3,403, C01. 

Cojisli'uction of 25ft family houHlnjj nnlta 

nt the Nnvnl Ali- Station, Porisucola, Fin, 

&mit lions t Div,, Navnl Fncllitics Bnt'tnce-r- 

mtt Commnnd, Chnrlcaton, S,C. 

General Precision, Inc., Glenclitle, CnHE. 

$1,211,311. Production of MK -18 torpedo 

fir?, control Byatcma. Olendal*. Nnvnl Ord- 

nnnce Systems Coinninncl. 

Todd Shipyards Corn., Brooklyn, N.Y. ?!,. 
159,600. Overhaul of tho destroyer tender 
USS Gi-nnd Can yon (AI1-38). Brooklyn, 
hiiiiorvisoi' of ShipiiuilcJInff, First Nnval 
Dlst., Roston, Masa. 

17 Foster Construction Co., Anaheim. Cnlif. 
81,228,033. Const ruction of a tentt iiB-ns- 
scjnbl Ins-choc koiit facility for air-launched 
jiiisRilua. Fallhrook, CnHf. Soulhweat Div., 
Nnvnl Facilities EnsinccrliiK Command, 
Hun Dicffo, Calif, 

Hercules, Ire., WilmlnRton, Del. $1,224,- 
000. In conduct solid uroncllant rocketry 
BiinnortiiiK rcscnrch. Cumhorlnnd, Md. 
Navnl Ordnance Systems Commnnd. 
IS Collins Hjultn Co., Cedar Rjiplcls, Iowa. 
?2,COfl,aifi. AlrboriiG UITP radio nets. Cedar 
Kniildji. Naval Air Syntcma Command. 
Canadian Commercial Corp., Ottawa, 
Canada. S3,2flQ,442. Strut! turn I comnoncnta 
for thii attack nircwiffc warrior USS Mid- 
way, Montreal. Canada. Nnvy Supply Cen- 
ter, Oakland, Cnllf. 

ID McDonnell Doiiffloa Co., St. Louis, Mo. 
5287,335,000. F-4B nncl 11F-4C aircraft. St. 
Louts. Nnvnl Air System a Commnnd, 
UlcB Construction. Co., Snti DioKO, Cnllf, 
?1,7]S,-H4. Construction of HOQ wltli mo-as 
facilities nt Cnmp Purutloton, Calif. South- 
west DJv.. Navaf FaallltloB EnginiL'orinK 
Command, Snn D|CKO, Cnllf, 
.lolina Hopkins University, Applied Science 
Laboratory, Silver Sprlns. Md. $1,100,- 
000. Iteaeni-ch work on tlic Tnlos weapon 
syatom. Silver Spring. Nnvnl Ordnance 
Systems Command. 

22 General Dynamics, Pomonn. Calif. S7,- 
080,000, Production of tha Standard mis- 
flilo. Nftval Oivlnttncc Systoma Commnnct. 
Harvey Conatnjcilon Co., MnncSicster, 
N.H. ?1, 28,1, 000. Conatruction of a aovvnKo 
(Eiflpoaal ayatam at tho Portsmouth, N.H., 
NRvnl Shipyard. Nortlionat Div., Nnval 
Facilities En&incQj-ltia Command, Boeton, 

Mfi.HB. 

28- WestlneliouBO Electric Cor,, BaltimoM. 
Md, $27,600000. Airborne rnilnr Beta. 
Baltimore. Nnvnl Air Systems Commnnd, 
General Precision, Glcndal*. Cnllf. $0,5C4,- 
640. Major comiionent for MK 118 tor- 
pedo fire control systems. Glendnle. Naval 
Orclnnnco Syatcma Commnnd, 



35 



SperryRmid Corp., Long Island City. N.Y. 
gl oys H70. Technical services in support 
of Tnrtar, Turner and Tulos missile sys- 
tems. Long Islam! City. Navy Purchasing 
Office-, Los Angles, Cuhf. 
2-t-RCA. Cnmden. N.J. 53,750,000. Radio sets. 
Camdeii. Naval Ship Systems Command. 

Xenilh Radio Corp., Chicago, 111. $1.188,- 
995. Classified radar equipment. Chicago. 
Naval Shin Systems Command 

Electromagnetic Technology Corp., Col- 
mar, Pa, SI. 587, 190. Transistorized elec- 
tronic counters and related data. Colrnar. 
Naval Ship Systems Command. 

-Martin Marietta, Orlando, Fla. 82.000,000. 
Missile launchers for various aircraft. 
Orlando. Navy Aviation Supply Office, 
Philiwielnhia, Pa. 

25LTV Aerospace Corp., Dallas. Tex. $34.- 
290,386. A-7B aircraft. Dallas. Naval Air 
Systems Command. 

Lockheed Aircraft, Marietta, Ga. $8,718.- 
800. EC-130 aircraft. Marietta. Naval Air 
Systems Command. 

Collins Radio Co., Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 
S4.424.212. Airborne communication, navi- 
gation and identification systems nnd com- 
ponents, Cedar Rapids. Naval Air Systems 
Command. 

Bunker-Rama Corp., Canofja Park, Calif. 
$2, 432, 309. Electronic counter-measure 
equipment. Silver Spring, Md, and Canofifl 
Park. Naval Air Systems Command. 

Lockheed Miasilen & Space Co., Sunnyvale, 
Calif. 82,000,000. Modification of Polaris 
missile checkout equipment. 33.317,872. 
Design and development of training equip- 
ment for the Poseidon weapon system. 
Sunnyvale. Special Projects Oflice. 
2G Bermlte Powder Co., Saugus, Calif. 812,- 
862,680. Production of MARK 24 parachute 
flares, Simgua. Nnvy Ships Parts Control 
Center, MechanicsburE. Pa. 

Texas Instruments, Dallas, Tex. S6.1B2,- 
021. Wins aad fin sefs and guidance and 
control sections for Shrike missiles, Dallas. 
Naval Air Systems Command. 

Raytheon Co., Bedford, Maes, $3,000,000. 
Design and development on Sparrow III 
missiles. Bedford. Naval Air Systems Com- 
mand, 

General Instrument Corp., Chlcopec, Mass. 
82,692,242. Fuzes for 250 and 500-lb. 
bombs. Chlcopee. Navy Ships Parts Con- 
trol Center, Meehanicsburff, Pa. 

Spcrry Rand Corp., Bristol, Tenn. S2.B55,- 
621. Wing and fin sets, and guidance and 
control sections for Shrike missiles. Bris- 
tol. Naval Air Systems Command. 

Roman Aircraft, Colorado Springs. Colo. 
SI, SOB, 400. Classified services in connec- 
tion with the- Fleet Ballistic Missile Weapon 
System. Colorado Springs. Special Projects 
Office. 

Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, 
Calif. 1,481,101. Naval operations re- 
search. Menlo Park. Office of Naval Re- 
search. 

Philco-Ford Corp., Palo Alto, Calif. ?!,- 
128,960, Landing control central shelters 
used for control of helicopter t raffle. Oak- 
land, Calif. Naval Supply Center, Oakland. 
Calif. 

29 Mathlasen Tanker Industries, Philadelphia, 
Pa. $92.000,00. Services. Military Sea 
Transportation Service, 

Marine Transport Lines, New York, N.Y. 
$101,000,000. Services, Military Sea Trans- 
portation Service. 

American Mfc Co. of Tex., Fort Worth, 
Tex, $7,330,400. ElRht-tnch projectiles. 
Fort Worth. Navy Ships Parts Control 
Center, Mechnnlcsburg, Pa. 

General Electric, Cincinnati, Ohio. 88,981,- 
348. $a,708.92D. J79-GB-10 engines for F-4J 
aircraft. Cincinnati. Nnvy Aviation Supply 
Office, Philadelphia. Pa. 

Hughes Aircraft, Culver City, Calif. $2,- 
031,000. Phoenix missile system funding. 
Nnval Air Systems Command, 

Norris Industries, Los Anseles, Calif. Jl,- 
986,400. Cartridge cases for eight-inch 
projectiles. Los Angeles. Navy Ships Parts 
Control Center, Mechanlcsburg, Pa, 

I.T.4T., Nutley, N.J. $1,000,000. Airborne 
receiver transmitters. Nutley, Naval Air 
Systems Command. 

31 General Motors, Indianapolis, Ind. (5,821,- 
200. Kits for T6B-A16 engines. Indlanap- 
olis. Aviation Supply Office, Philadelphia, 
ra. 

Whiting-Turner Construction Co,, Mem- 
? h J*A Tenn< fMtf.OOO, Construction of a 
4,000-man building at Memphis Naval Air 
Station. Southeast Dlv., Naval Facilities 
Engineering Command, Charleston, S.O. 

Prank J. Rooney, Inc., Miami, Fla. (1,- 

36 



297,669. Construction of n training build- 
ing at the Naval Training Center, Orliinclri, 
Flu. Southeast Div., Naval Facilities En- 
KinecrinK Command, Charleston, S.C. 

--Teledyne Inc., Berwick. La. $3,242,001). 
Aluminum-constructed fast patrol boats. 
Berwick. Naval Ship Systems Command. 

Suerry Rand Corn., St. Paul, Minn. 51,- 
590,280. Production of ft re control digital 
computers and related equipment for Ttilos 
missiles. St, Paul. Naval Ordnance bys- 
tems Command. 

Western Electric, New York, N.Y. 51.272,- 
000. OcoiinoRi-apiiic research, Whlppimy, 
N.J. Nnvy PurchaainB Oflice. 

AiRcscnrch Mfg. Co., Phoenix, Am.. $1,- 
082,083. Spare parts for T70-G-10/12 en- 
gines for OV-10A iiircraft. Phoenix. Avia- 
tion Supply Office, Philndelphia, Pa, 

Bethlehem Steel Corn., Baltimore, Md, $1,- 
224,000. Regulnr overhaul of the oiler USS 
Chukawnn (AO-100). Baltimore. Super- 
visor of Shipbuilding, Fifth Naval Dial., 
Norfolk. Va. 

MARINE CORPS 

2 PMC Corp., San Jose, Calif. $2,819.r,47, 
Rotidwhecl caps and assemblies for am- 
phibious vehicles. Sna Jose. Headquarters, 
Marine Corps. 

15 Magllno, Inc., Pinconnlng, Mich. 51,248,- 
332. Shelter and handling systems used to 
assemble aircraft ordnance. Pinconning. 
Headquarters, Marine Corps. 

17 G. C. Bcwey Corp., New York, N.Y. $2,- 
700,000. Communications and radar equip- 
ment. New York. Headquarters, Marine 
Corps. 

22 Canadian Commercial Corp., Ottawa, Can- 
ada. $G,62Q,S05. Telesraph-telcphono ter- 
minal sets. Cnmpbellton, New Brunswick. 
Headquarters, Marine Corps, 

AIR FORCE 

2_TRW, Inc., Rendoado Beach, Calif. $1,- 
283,000, Work on space-ground communi- 
cations. Redondo Beach. Space Systems 
Div,, (AFSC), Los Angeles, Calif. 
Avion Electronics, Paramns, N.J. $1,133,- 
609. Production of airborne radar bencons. 
Paramus. Oklahoma City Air Materiel 
Area, (AFLC), Tinker AFB, Okla. 

3 IrvhiR Air Chute Co., Loxinftton, Ky. Jl,- 
442,343. Production of aircraft cargo tie- 
down nets. Lexington. Warner Robins Air 
Materiel Area, (AFLC), Robins AFB, Ga. 
Eastern Rotocrnft Corp., Doylestown, Pa. 
$1,463,004. Production of aircraft cargo 
tie-down nets. Doylestown. Warner Robins 
Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), Robins AFB, 
Ga. 

Honeywell, Inc., Hopkins, Minn. $13,485, 
000. Production of bomb components. Hop- 
kins. Aeronautical Systems Div., (AFSC), 
Wright-Patterson APB, Ohio. 
Collins Rndlo Co., Cedar Rapids, Iowa. $3,- 
365,000. Ultra High Frequency Terminals 
for Tactical Satellite Communications Op- 
erational Feasibility Tost Program, Cedar 
Hopids. Electronic Systems Command 
(AFSC), L. G. Hanscom Field, Mass. 

4 General Electric, Cincinnati, Ohio. $32.- 
111,000. Production of J-70-1G and J-10-17 
aircraft engines. Evendale, Ohio. Aero- 
nautical Systems Dlv., (AFSC), Wright- 
Patterson AFB, Ohio, 

-Bondix Corp., Teterboro, N.J. ?2,782Tfl3. 
Production of electronic data processing 
equipment. Teterboro, Aeronautical Sys- 
tems Dlv., (AFSO), Wright-Patterson 
AFB, Ohio. 

Litton Systems, Inc., Woodland Hills, 
Calif, $4,173,000. Avionics subsystems for 
F-4 aircraft. Woodland Hills. Aeronautical 
Systems Dlv,, (AFSO), Wright-Patterson 
AFB, Ohio. 

5 Hoeing Co., Seattle, Wash. $3,438,701, De- 
sign, development and testing of missile 
trajectory prediction systems and related 
equipment. Seattle. Ballistic Systems Dlv., 
(AFSC), Norton AFB, Calif. 
General Motors, Indianapolis, Ind. $1,200,- 
000, Aircraft engine development. Indi- 
anapolis, Aeronautical Systems Div,, 
(AFSO), Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 
AVCO Corp., Richmond, Ind. $3,000,000. 
Production of fuzes and related equipment 
for aircraft ordnance, Richmond. Aero- 
nautical Systems Dlv,, (AFSO), Wright- 
Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

8 Varo, Inc., Garland, Tex, $3,441,785, Pro- 
duction of aircraft ordnance ejector racks. 
Mexla, Tex, Warner Robins Air Materiel 
Area, (AFLO), Robins AFB, Ga, 



Ark. Jl,- 

Balcavlllo, 
I AFSC), 



?3,GIH,- 

nlvern(l 
Proving 



General American Transportation Corn., 
Niles, III. $1,182,020. Production of bomb 
components, Niles. Ai>r<mmitieal Systems 
Div., (Al-'SC), Wriprht-PnttorBoii AFU, 
Ohio. 

Universal Co mn Ironies Corn., Thoruwiwd, 
N.Y. $1,062,720. Production of communi- 
cations equipment. Tlioi-iiwood. Warner- 
Robins Ah 1 Materiel Arcii, (AFLCJ, Hob ins 
AFB, Gil. 

9 Radiation Inc., Melbourne, Fin. 52,873,- 
240. Conatruollon of it. liii'K. Bunco- 
oriented antenna, MeLhom-iiL 1 . Hiwce Sj&- 
teniB Div,, (AFSC), Lus An^clcs, Cullf. 

10 Adorns Russell Co., Wiillhiun, Mflsa. )!,* 
338,741. Production of iiiilenrm Hyatema for 
n-G2 aircraft, Wottlinm. Oklahoma City 
Air Materiel Area, (Al-'LC), Tin hoi- Al'il, 
Okhi. 

Hnlcsville Mfg. Co., l)jitf.-villfl, 
081,068. Bomb comiinnonlH. 
Aeronautical Systc-niH IMv,, 
Wi'lRlit-PittterKOii APIS, Ohio. 

11 AVCO Corp., Richmond, I ml. Sfi.Of.B.OOO. 
Production of aircraft ordnance ifu/ua, con- 
tainers and related o<nii|im(;nl. Richmond. 
Aeronautical Systems) Div., (AFHC) , 
WrlRlit-Pntteraon AFIt, Ohio. 

Lockheed Missiles & S|incc Co., Sunnyvale, 
Calif. Sfi.BOG.GGO. Launch scr-vlui> fr the 
A|?ena rocket from Auril IflliG to K]Hcnv 
bar 1007. Vanilonbcrpt AFU, Cnllf, Spueis 
Systems Div., (AFKC), L<is Atifrrk'H, Cnllf. 

General ICIcctric, Wont Lyn n, Mans., $!j ,- 
10fi,C30. Production of T-BH miKinna fur 
helicopters, West Lynn. Aomniuitlcnl Sya- 
terns Div., (AFKC). Wrlirlil-I'iiUei-Bon 
AFI), Ohio. 

12 DongliiH Aircraft, Saiiln Mini Leu, finlK. 
$1,800,000. Production of HIHHHJ btuwlnrn. 
Santa Monica. Hpaco SyHliJinu Illv., 
{AFSC), Los Amcnltm, Ciillf, 

17 Bomllx Cnrii., North Hollywood, Cnllf, *!,. 
061,884. Production of atrbnrnc rmtur 
equipment. North Hollywood. Aflrciniiullc.nl 
Systems Div., (AFSO), Wrlirlit-Pnlti;rson 
AFB, Ohio. 

Mnrtln-Marlcttii, Orlnnclo, Flu. 
5GO. Tost mid development of 
tarfrctlmt systems. Orlmirto, Air 
Ground Center, Eglln AFH, Fin, 

18 Lockheed Aircraft, Kumiyvak', Cnllf, SS,- 
000,000. Work on the mitolllte contnil net- 
work. Snunyvalo, Air Forcn Suti'llltn Con- 
trol Facility, IMS Antfoleit, Cnllf. 

Griiiuman Aircraft Enfflnccrliisr Corp., 
Bolhpniio, N.Y, $3,200,000. M<nllft>ntlin to 
S-2D iiircrnft. Hethimjio. Acrcm null en I Sys- 
tems Dlv., (AFSO). WHichl-P-nUci-aon 
AFI1. Ohio. 

AVCO Corn., Cincliiniiti, Ohio, S2,R<M.!M1. 
High frequency rndlo JH>tH- nrni re In 
equipment. Cincinnati, 
ten Dlv., (AFSC), 
AFB, Ohio. 

Cornlnff GlnsH Works, 

4(18,000. Ontlcnl n\uaa. Corniim. ttyulcma 
EiiBlnoorinB Groun, (AFHC), WrltrhU'nt- 
torson AFD. Ohio. 

10 Norlh Amorkan Aviation, Aiinholm, Cnllf, 
$1,000,000. Mnlnlonntme, nmnir, 
and mod I float Ion of Mluuteiimn 
and control ByBloms, Aimhofm. 
Systems Dlv., (AFSC), Norton AFB, CiilU. 

McDonnell DoiifflnH Corn., Hitntn Mntfn, 
Calif. $2,124,484. Launch nuintort actrvlcri 
from April 19Q7 to SentnralMir 10C8 Hi the 
Western Test Range, Vnndonlmi'K Al''tl, 
Cnllf. Spaco Syfltomn DIv., (Al'VSO), Loi 
AnKolcs, Calif. 

Lockheed Aircraft, ItiU'liank, Cnllf. $1,- 
228,270. Modification of F-10-J nSicrnfL 
Pdlmdalo, Calif. Snarnmcnto Alv MntcrleJ 
Aren, (AFLO). McClollnn AF11. Calif. 

Northroi) Corp., ITnwtlmrno, CnliE. ?I,24T,- 
000. Devoloumont work on rockrl RLiUlnneo 
syHtcms. Hawthorne. Syslcmn KiiKluc^rlnB 
Group, Research and TcclinoloRy Dlv.. 
(AFSO), Wrlsht-Pnttoi'Bon AF, Ohio. 

22 Genornl Motors, HudHon, Ohio. JE,flai,Ofl2. 
Production of heavy loniHna oqulnmont 
with ndvei'so terrain <ui nubility. Knellil, 
Ohio. Aci-onautlcal Syatoma DJv., (AI-'SO). 
Wrlght-Pnttoraon AFB, Ohio. 

General Dynninics, Fort Wortli. Tex. (2, 
007,231. Machine tool moderniantlon. Fort 
Worth. Aeronautical Syalcma Dlv., 
(AFSC), Wrlght-PalevBon. AFH, Ohio. 

Genornl Motors, IndlnrutnoHa, Ind. $7,020.- 
000. Production of T-G0 turbo-prop ciiHlnci 
and related equipment. Indlninuiolla. Aero- 
nnutlcal Systems Dlv., (AFSO)> Wright- 
PnUcraon AFB, Ohio, 

Thokol Chemical Corp,, Bristol, P*. II.- 
500,000. Production of Stneo I Mlmilemnn 
motorB. BrlKlmm Oity, Utah. Bnlllello 8y- 
teraa Dlv,, (AFSG), Norton AFD, Calif. 



Acirojimillcii] Nyo- 
Wrlicht-PnttoriMJi 

N,Y. 



J3J 



June/July 1967 



24 



25 



26 



J.B.M., OWCRO, N.Y. $1,332,844. Work on 
the radar system on B-52 aircraft. Oweco 

?Al?,^ a ,,.. Clty Air Materiel Area,' 
(AFLC), Tinker AFB, Okla. 

"T?,, 1 "; 1 ? le(:tric . West Lynn, Mass. S10.- 
Iti, 400. J-85 engines for F-5 aireriift. West 
Lynn. Aeronautical Systems Div., (AFSC) 
Wnght-Pntterson AFU, Ohio. 

Sylvnnin Electronics Products, Inc.. Wil- 
lamsville, N.Y. $1,240,000. Work on n 
tnctlca] communication satellite teat pro- 

r m 'i A py l , lm ? vi! J. c - T1 . Elcct ' 1 nlcB Systems 
]> iv '; (AF&C). L. G, Hunscom Field, Mass 
~Trfi n i? V ori> " Davenport, Iowa. $2,860,- 
7U1, 1 rouiiction of airborne computer com- 
ponents. Denver, Colo, Aeronautical Sys- 
AFB, olo" (AFSC) ' Wrlsht-Pattoraon 

SSet W9 ' 8 ."" **' 12o"nch S y 7iioi 
Div., (AFSC). Los AnKelc'a, Calif. ^ <im8 
-General Electric, West Lynn Mnis S7 
378.000, Production of T^8 iielieopteV en- 

nii 08 ' ^wan^" 1 ^;, Acronautlcnl Systems 
Div., (AFSC), Wright-Patterson AFB, 
Ohio. 

$3,750,000. Production of a scmi-aiitoninUc 
tacticn air control system. Fort Washing- 
ton-Electronic Systems Dlv., (AFSC). L. 
G. Hnnseom Field, Mass. 

-Doufflns Aircraft, Tulsa, Okla. $1,405,050. 
Production of modification kits and insnee- 
w", ". L 61 " 1 ' 1 ' of ?-1li aircraft. Tulsa. 

(AFLC). Robin" 3 AFB" Ga. 1 "*" 101 A '' efl> 

?1, 302,082, Production of com mnn'ieat Ions 
cciuiiimciit. Cednr Rnplds. Oklahoma City 
Air Matei'lol Area, (AFLC), Tinker ~" 



solid 



/APO 
(APSC). 



, Aln. 

rocket 

Dlv., 



n C ? rp - Ho 

00 Production of 

I T Iunts l vl " Ql , Smcc 
. Los AnprelcB, Cnllf. 

~ifi n SS " yllnmica ' San DicKo, Cnllf. $1,- 
601,000, Ilonair and modirtcation of Atlas 
launch vehicles. Sun Dlejro. nalllstlc Sya- 
temsDIv (AFSC). Norton AFB, Calif 

W " t ins - J hnson Co., Palo Alto, Calif. S3 - 
400,000. Production of communications 
equipment. Palo Alto. Aeronaut! en 1 Sys- 

A /5', v " (AFSC) ' W'-'Hlit-Patto.-son 
Al'JJ, Ohio. 

"K 1 ^ 01 ^ Ca , n> :\ HnwJhoPno. Calif. $4,- 
60fl.fl4.i. Production of IOIIR lead time com- 
poiienta for F-G aircraft. Hnwtliorne. Aero- 

'' (AFSC)i WHKbt - 



81 



.. F.lcctrlc, Valley Forjte, Pa. $110 - 
020,000. Experiment integration work OH 
the Manned Orbiting Laboratory. Valley 
Forgo. S])aco Systems Dlv., (AFSC). Los 
AnKoloa, Calif. 

^ D rtll OI1 , Co V |) " Annhctm, Calif. $4,940,. 
fiHB. Production of aircraft i-ockot war- 
nt, /*i?am olm iir Aoronnutlcal Syatoma 
Dv (AFSC), WrlBht-Pntternson AFD, 
Ohio. ' 

"PiSI'Sln 1 p '' cclsl( '"' ningliampton, N.Y, $1,- 
1^7,002. Production of Instrument flijjht 
triilncra, Binglmmpton. Aeronautical Sya- 
te S!2 J?'. v - fAFSC), Wrlght-PattovBon 
AFB. Ohio, 

~II O OB?*?M A 4 r0 ^" ft , e , Co r"'f Akron - Ohl - 
1,002,403. Production of nir transportable 

Photogi-npliic Inborntoi-loa. Akron. Aot-o- 
muitical SyBtoms Div,, (AFSC), Wr! B bt- 
Pnttorson AFD, Ohio. 
., m , r j c ,!!, n n ^"'rlc, Inc., La Mlrndn, Calif. 
?1, 347, 008. Production of external fuel 
tanlta for P-101 aircraft. La Mirada. 
bnornnionto Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), 
MoClellnn AFD, Cnllf. 



Fifth Army 
Headquarters Moved 

Headquarters, Fifth U.S. Army has 
been moved from Chicago, 111., to Fort 
Sheridan, 111. 

The new mailing address is: 
* Commanding: General 
Fifth U.S. Army 

Attn: (appropriate staff office sym- 
bol) 
Fort Sheridan, 111. 60037 



^-Editors Note: Below fc a table of military prime contract awards for the 
first 70 mm tka of FY 1967. The contract information in the summary fa broken 
down by major commodities for the current fiscal gnat- and Includes, for com- 
parative purposes, corresponding information lor the same period in the last 
ttsctil year. 

This fc tee second summary to be published in this form in the Defense In- 
dustry Bulletin, and is one of a series planned to be issued periodically by the 
Defense Department. The fort summary Wfls published in the April 1067 issue 



Aircraft 

Missile and Space Systems 

Ships 

Tank- Automotive 

Weapons 

Ammunition 

Electronics and Communications 

Other Hard Goods 



(Amounts in Millions) 

July 1966 
April 19G7 

$ 7,492 

3,706 
1,865 
883 
387 
2,342 
3,032 
2,019 



Hard Goods (Sub-Total) $21,726 

Subsistence 

Textiles and Clothing 



Fuels and Lubricants 



900 

9G4 
1,022 



Soft Goods (Sub-Total) $ 2,876 

Construction 

Services 

All Actions Under $10,000 Each 



705 
2,827 
3,291 



Total 



$31,424 




/Excludes work done outside the United States and also excludes civil func- 
tions (rivers and harbors work) of the Army Cors of Enie 



Army Corps of Engineers. 
The ^creases are for the most part associated with the current military 



action in Southeast Asia. By far the largest increase ($1.9 billion) 
cratt, largely fighter planes, helicopters and cargo ' ' 

$0.8 billion, mostly for escort ships and landing 
billion, large for air and sea transportation. 



or 



by 



DEFENSE PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS 
TO SMALL BUSINESS 

(Amounts in Thousands) 

March 1967 
July 1966 

Procurement from All Firms $28,156,201 

Procurement from Small Business Firms ___ 6,707,396 
Percent Small Business go 3 



July 1965 
March 196G 

$22,771,684 
4,908,686 
21,5 



OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20301 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 



AFSC Electronics Systems Division Gets 
Key Role in Development of TACSATCOM 

The Air Force Systems Command's Electronic Systems Division 
(BSD), L. G. Hanscom Field, Mass., has been assigned a key role 
in the development of the first tactical satellite communications 
system for the Defense Department. ESD will carry out a feasibility 
test program, the prelude to a production go-ahead, and will 
develop many of the projected system's mobile terminals airborne, 
ground-mobile and shipborne. 

The tests will measure technical performance in situations 
resembling real, operating conditions. This phase of the project 
will use a limited number of mobile terminals or transceivers 
widely dispersed in or near the continental United States, and a 
solar powered payload in outer space. 

Almost all terminals or stations in future tactical systems will 
be mobile, rather than fixed. Each of the Military Services will 
specify its own requirements for the mobile terminals which 
despite different configuration, will have identical capabilities. 

The Navy will have transceivers on board surface vessels, heli- 
copters, fighter aircraft and submarines; the Army will have 
equipment on jeeps, trucks, and combat team backpacks; and the 
An Force will have , ta gear not only on its aircraft but also on 



r ... , - ~"*& tile aiiiuiiym 

l, will be capable of handling a large number of calk 
or messages at one time by providing a single point rlay 
to and from a commander and his tactical units in the n 
completed, the system will be the forerunner of satellite 
cations designed for the use of highly mobile military units 
Lieutenant Colonel Edgar A. Grabhorn, USAF is the' 
program manager for the TACSATCOM system. ' 



Rifle 

Adopted as Standard 
Army Weapon 

The M16A1 rifle (previously 
the XM16E1) has been adopted 
as a standard Army weapon in 
addition to the M-14 rifle now in 
general use. U. S. Array forces in 
Europe will continue to UHG the 
M-14 which fires tho standard 
NATO 7.62mm cartridge. 

The standardization of tho 
M16A1 for general Army HSO 
was made after a two-year 
study in which several Hinull 
arms systems wore evaluated 
and tested. The study concluded 
that, while the heavier M-ld is 
slightly superior to the Ml GAL 
in effects on targets at ranges 
beyond 300 meters, the M1GA1 ; 
is equal or superior at shortoj- 
ranges where targets aro usual- 
ly engaged. 

Designed to fire 6.56mm (.223 
caliber) ammunition, the M10- 
Al weighs only a little over Mix 
pounds. This reduced weight 
will allow reduction of tho in- 
dividual soldier's combat load, 
supply tonnages and, ultimately, 
costs. Procurement schedules 
will take into account the numw 
her of weapons on hand, re- ; 
quirements of othor Services , 
and allies, and the Military Aa- : 
sistance Program. ; 




VOL. 3 NO. 7 



AUGUST 1967 






FEATURES 

Solving Packaging Problems Through Research 
and Development 

Dr. Edward A. Nebesky Published by the 

Dr. Martin S. Peterson 1 Department of 

Naval Ordnance and Industry 4 Defense 

Department of Defense Selected Economic Indicators '21 

Progress in SAIMS Subsystem Development Hon. Robert S. McNmnarn 

Colonel Herbert Waldman, USAF 12 Secretary of Defense 

Report on Paris Air Show 1967 24 

Hon. Paul H. Nit/.c 

DEPARTMENTS Deputy Secretary of Defense 

From the Speakers Rostrum 9 Hon. Phil G. Goulding 

1 j. Assistant Secretary of Defense 

About People (Public Affaire) 

Meetings and Symposia 17 

., .. , OA Col. Joel B. Stephens, USA 

Bibliociraphv "V 

Director for Community Relations 

Defense Procurement 29 

Col, ,T. S. Douglas, USA 
Chief, Business & Labor Division 



The Defense Industry Bulletin 
is published monthly by the Business 
& Labor Division, Directorate for 
Community Relations, Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Pub- 
lic Affairs). Use of funds for printing 
this publication was approved by the 
Director of the Bureau of the Budget, 

The purpose of the Bulletin is 
to serve as a means of communication 
between the Department of Defense 
(DOD) and its authorized agencies 
and defense contractors and other 
business interests. It will serve as 
a guide to industry concerning offi- 
cial policies, programs and projects, 
and will seek to stimulate thought by 
members of the defense-industry team 
in solving the problems that may arise 
m fulfilling the requirements of the 
DOD. 



Material in the Bulletin is se- 
lected to supply pertinent unclassified 
data of interest to the business com- 
munity. Suggestions from industry 
representatives for topics to be cov- 
ered in future issues should be for- 
warded to the Business & Labor 
Division, 

The Bulletin is distributed without 
charge each month to representatives 
of industry and to agencies of the De- 
partment of Defense, Army, Navy and 
Air Force. Requests for copies should 
be addressed to the Business & Labor 
Division, OASD(PA), Boom 2E813, 
The Pentagon, Washington. D,C. 
20301, telephone, (202) OXford 6-2709. 

Contents of the magazine may be 
reprinted freely without requesting 
permission. Mention of the source win 
be appreciated. 



LCdr, E. W. Bradford, USN 
Editor 

Mrs. Cecilia Pollok McCormick 
Associate Editor 

Mr. Rick La Falco 
Associate Editor 

Mr. JohnE. Pagan 
Art Director 

Norman E. Worra, JO1, USN 
Editorial Assistant 



Dr. Edward A. Nebesky 
Dr. Martin S. Peterson 



A short and simple reason why the 
Army is interested in solving packag- 
ing- problems through research and 
development is this: there is no other 
way to do it. A century ago packaging 
supplies for the combat soldier was 
the job of craftsmen, and the require- 
ments were not much more rigorous 
than they were for civilian users. To- 
day, military requirements for pack- 
aging are written in response to a 
revolution in the traditional concept 
of warfare a revolution that has 
enormously increased the mobility of 
the Army, its firepower, and its capa- 
bility for sustaining itself in combat. 

To get down to cases, packages 
must be adapted to rapid, labor- 
mving materials handling media. 
They must protect their contents 
igoinst agents of destruction totally 
.inknown 100 years ago, and they 
lave to fit snugly into sharply defined 
lystcms, e.g., combat feeding systems. 
The tare weight of packages today is 
>f vital concern not one extra ounce 
:an be tolerated. Higher strength of 
:ontainer materials is required with- 
ut any increase in weight. Increased 
itorage life, easier removal of con- 
onts, re-use after the initial use, bet- 
cr patterning of loads, proper safe- 
:uarding of chemical supplies, re- 
uction in cost these and many other 
iroblems can no longer be solved by 
he craftsman. 

Packaging research at the U.S. 
irmy Naticlc Laboratories has set 
orth on a dynamic, imaginative long- 
ange program with an ambitious 
oal complete correlation of packag- 
ig with the military product and 
lilitary supply line operations. In- 
reasingly, it is being recognized that 
lore is no category of military equip- 
lent and supplies which can be held 
ny longer at status quo. Containers 
iust be based on new, or at least 
reatly improved, design and con- 



struction concepts and, equally Im- 
portant, be tailored to the require- 
ments of the product (often a brand 
new product), of the transportation 
media (widely varied as to air, land 
and sea vehieles and cargo sizes and 
shapes), and of the environment 
(sharply different from one zone to 
the next, both in climate and terrain). 
Combat success depends on men, to 
be sure, but also on the efficiency and 




sufficiency of equipment and supplies 
in the "get thai- fusteth with the 
mostest" principle. 

The role of the container in keep- 
ing the supply stream flowing is too 
well recognized to bo described here, 
but what may not be so welt recog- 
nized is the need to lift packaging 
research and development to a level 
compatible with the impressive ad- 
vances made, and being made, in 
materiel. Packaging is a science and, 
as such, is no different or no less im- 
portant than product formulation, 
quality control, or processing: (manu- 
facturing) operations, and science 
must be put into packaging. 

It was with this goal in mind that a 
new look at and a new approach to the 
U.S. Army Natick Laboratories' 



Defense Industry Bulletin U- & U1' 1. of DOCS. 



Packaging- Research Program was re- 
cently token, and a unified network of 
tasks under three coordinated proj- 
ects drawn up. 

Three Avenues to the Goal 

The three avenues to the attain- 
ment of the packaging: research and 
development goal are: 

e Packaging performance evalua- 
tion. 

New packaging 1 engineering- sys- 
tem a, 

Applied container engineering de- 
velopment. 

Under the first, container perform- 
ance data derived during actual mo- 
bility supply operations will be col- 
lected and translated into container 
design and construction criteria. Un- 
der the second approach, the design 
of new packaging engineer ing sys- 
tems, such advanced concepts as a 
universal container system, will be 
studied and implemented. Under the 
third, applications of container engi- 
neering developments to the packag- 
ing of products individually, by cate- 
gory, or in combination, will be. made. 

Since the bare description of these 
three approaches may not suggest 
anything particularly novel in the 
field of container research and devel- 
opment, it will be the next order of 
business to point out what is now in 
each of these pathways to tho goal 
and the pay-off for the Army. 

Packaging Performance 
Evaluation Criteria 

The successive environments to 
which a container is exposed on its 
journey up to the front area range 
from mild to harsh. When loaded 
containers leave the factory shipping 
dock, the first leg of this journey is 



likely to be easy, with no more than 
the usual amount of jolts, vibrations 
ami abrasions sustained in the do- 
mestic transportation of supplies. The 
next leg of the journey, shipment or 
transshipment overseas by plane or 
ship, may be but little more rough. 
When a container reaches its detina- 
tion, say a port in South Vietnam, it 
leaves the world of well equipped 
transport media, smooth supply 
routes, ideal climatic environment, 
and orderly handling, and enters on a 
new phase of its journey, the harsh 
part. 

To evaluate packaging perform- 
ance, the effects of the whole cycle of 
operations from factory to field, and 
in the field, under all types of ad- 
verse climatic and environmental con- 
ditions, must be collected and ana- 
lyzed. This has never been done 
before in a systematic, scientific man- 
ner, Moreover, observations of actual 
packaging performance in the past 
have been visual, supplemented by 
tests after the facts. 

What is needed, and what is already 
well under way, is an objective scien- 
tific system, one based on recording 
devices (placed in selected containers 
of a shipment) that will accurately 
measure the effects of physical and 
other environmental shocks. Once ex- 
perimental data, obtained over a wide 
range of transport media, routes and 
regions, have been collected and ana- 
lyzed, new laboratory test methods 
and techniques will be devised, corre- 
lating environmental effects with pre- 
dictions of container performance, By 
these means, a science-oriented engi- 
neering capability for designing and 
constructing military containers can 
bs achieved. 

The term "science-oriented" ap- 
plied to packaging research may be 
viewed a bit skeptically by the prac- 
tical man, but it is by no means a 
pretentious description. A container 
structure that will stand up can be 
designed by almost anyone, but a con- 
tainer structure that will stand up to 
military supply line punishment is 
something else again, In the first 
place, a container has to be "opti- 
mized," i.e., factors of money, mate- 
rials, structural strength adequate 
(and not super-adequate) for the 
job, and a configuration suited to 
transport, handling, storing, and field 
use must be considered and brought 
to a proper balance. For example, 
take one area of concern, physical 



shock. A variety of physical forces 
impact on a container. What can be 
done to neutralize or at least modify 
those forces? The answer can only be 
found in structural analysis, a com- 
plex and difficult field. In another 
area, materials deterioration, the ap- 
plication of chemistry and microbi- 
ology is required. As to optimal con- 
figurations, the job has to be done by 
the mathematician or topologist. It is 
probable that the computer will have 
to be employed for many perform- 
ance evaluation tasks. 

New Packaging Engineering 
Systems 

The word "systems" is used here in 
a technical rather than a military 
sense. For example, a packaging sys- 
tem for radiated foods is a technical 
system that must fit into a military 
feeding system, Packaging engineer- 
ing systems are not unknown today, 
but with advances in combat develop- 
ment systems we shall need to look 
ahead to a day when it will be pos- 
sible, given the proper scientific and 
technological capability, to design 
and construct not a multiplicity of 
systems but a "universal container 
system" capable of use in any mili- 
tary supply system and fitted well to 
the overall military supply system. 




With the abundance of now pack- 
aging materials available today, with 
the new packaging methods being de- 
vised, with the new concepts of dis- 
tribution, it is essential that the 
fabrication and construction of to- 
morrow's packages and containers be 
designed to incorporate the reliabil- 
ity and necessary protection of prod- 
uct for its intended storage life, 
mission purposes, and combat condi- 
tions. The time to start is now. 

Applied Container Engineering 

Development- 
It is well accepted today that the 
container is as important as its con- 
tents. This statement is especially 
applicable to the complicated task of 
supplying the overseas military con- 
sumer. Unless the package carrins 
the product safely to the user, the 
product might as well never have 
been made. Waste duo to package 
failure is not only a waste of money, 
it is a waste of combat power. More- 
over, since supplying tho modern 
combat soldier calls for specialise! 
containers, such as a containerised 
"B" ration, unitizod on a nicul bunis, 
the business of engineering- a package 
to respond to a specific military situ- 
ation is firmly founded on the axiom 
that a product must not only arrive 




Recording instrument for measuring shipping container performance during 
shipment and transshipment of supplies from point of origin to destination, Tho 
instrument records data on physical shocks sustained in transport media 
and storage. 



August 1967 




A. Nebesky is Acting Di- 
F the General Equipment and 
:K Laboratory at the U.S. 
Jntick (Mass.) Laboratories. 
> assuming this position, he 
ector of the Graduate Pack- 
enter at Rutgers University. 



:ombat area destination but 

T> lie quickly usable, i.e., "open- 

(lititributable" after it gets 



e reasons, tlio task of pack- 
search will bo to analyze all 

situations where packaging 
or and devise packaging ays- 
l methods responsive to mili- 
uiromcnts. Heavy containers 

drummed out of the supply 
Wherever possible, we must 
xiitag-c of modern science and 
y to design and construct 
i grh t containers ; follow 

by close coordination with 

to their construction; and 
stantly aware of their per- 

in the supply lines, under 
:I ate of the first approach, 

performance evaluation. No 
5- engineering system will be 

salt, however, unless it in- 
nnoothly with the .supply 
laich it serves, with tactics, 
overall strategy. In the past, 
ne supplies have been 
bog down an army and 

defeat. Modern packaging 
can eliminate such a catas- 




Dr. Martin S. Peterson is a super- 
visory physical scientist at the U.S. 
Army Natick (Mass.) Laboratories. 
He entered Federal service in 19-17 
and from 1952 to 1960 was editor of 
two professional Journals, Food Re- 
search and Food Technology. 



Integrating the Three Approaches 

Applied container engineering' de- 
velopment, the third approach to the 
goal of a science-oriented packaging 
research program, is by uo means 
isolated from the other two approach- 
es. All three approaches are inter- 
connected and interdependent. 

To illustrate how this works, ideally, 
consider the concept of the universal 
container system. A very consider- 
able body of performance evaluation 
data would be required and analyzed, 
before the criteria for this advanced 
system could be established. The op- 
timal design will have to be deter- 
mined, of course, by model analysis. 
Model analysis will involve: 

Particularising broad intuitive 
assumptions concerning the model 
mathematically, by means of the 
computer. 

Studying each part of the system 
separately. 

* Meshing the whole universal con- 
tainer system into the military sup- 
ply system taken as a whole. 

To restate this concept in more 
concrete terms, a universal container 
system will be one where each types 



of container not only does its job, but 
interacts with other types of contain- 
ers to assist them in doing theirs. 
An example, no doubt farfetched in 
terms of today, would be a collapsible 
barracks, with equipment and sup- 
plies, all in one package. Neverthe- 
less, we should be thinking in terms 
of the amount of work a given con- 
tainer can perform; how it can take 
over, in part, the work of another 
container; and how, by extending this 
principle, we can substantially reduce 
the burden on supply operations. 

Some of the basic principles of a 
universal container system have al- 
ready been vaguely outlined. Exam- 
ples are: containerizing containers; 
standardization of container sizes 
mid configurations; efforts to obtain a 
universal container material; the de- 
velopment of multi-use containers; 
and, thinking: now of military sys- 
tems and how a universal container 
system could mesh in with it, the in- 
creasing- attention being given to the 
effect of one component of a system 
on all other components. Under the 
new packaging engineering systems 
approach, special attention will be 
given to this important modern prin- 
ciple of military supply systems just 
mentioned. 

It need hardly be reiterated that, 
with these challenges ahead, packag- 
ing research must utilize all of the 
tools of modern science, technology, 
and engineering. The U.S. Army 
Natick Laboratories has made a be- 
ginning-. 

The Planning Philosophy of the 
New Long-Range Program 

It should ba evident from the fore- 
going account that the new plan does 
not try to tell the Army what it 
ought to have in the way of contain- 
ers, nor to sell the Army on specific 
containers. The plan does call for an 
investment of scientific, engineering 
and technological effort that will be 
responsive to current and foreseeable 
military needs. The keystone of this 
planning philosophy is constant co- 
ordination of container development 
with military operational planning to 
assure that packaging' research is 
fully abreast of progress in Army 
materiel. One important purpose of 
this article will have been fulfilled if 
we have made it clear how we are 
going to translate philosophy into 
achievement. 



Industry Bulletin 



On May 1, 1966, the Secretary of 
the Navy established the Naval Ord- 
nance Systems Command as part of 
a major reorganization of the Navy. 
Now this stripling has the effrontery 
to celebrate its 125th anniversary! 

Actually, Naval Ordnance has 
undergone a century and a quarter 
of continuous operation: Born as the 
Bureau of Ordnance and Hydrog- 
raphy in 1842, it shortly assumed 
the simpler title of Bureau of Ord- 
nance. After 117 years of inde- 
pendent operation, the Bureau of 
Ordnance merged with the Bureau 
of Aeronautics in 1959 into the Bu- 
reau of Naval Weapons. The merger 
lasted only six and one-half years 
and then once again the Naval Ord- 
nance Systems Command assumed its 
separate identity. 

When we speak of the Naval Ord- 
nance Systems Command, we are 
really referring to a team composed 
of the command itself as well as a 
tremendous segment of American in- 
dustry. One of these segments alone 
could not have been responsible for 
the great progress that has always 
been the hallmark of Naval Ordnance. 

Today the Naval Ordnance Systems 
Command takes special pride in such 
effective weapon systems as the 
Standard Missile, the Torpedo MK 46 
and ASROC. Tomorrow there will 
be equal pride in newer weapon 
systems such as the Advanced Sur- 
face Missile System, the Torpedo MK 
48 and the Extended Range ASROC. 
Industry, which has participated in 
and will continue to participate in so 
much of the effort for research and 
development and for production of 
these systems, must .share this pride 
with the Naval Ordnance Systems 
Command. 

The team relationship of the Naval 
Ordnance Systems Command and 
American industry is not one of mas- 
ter and servant by any stretch of the 
imagination. While it is true that 
the command, as the ordnance-pro- 
curing activity for the Navy, must 
set forth the Navy's requirements, it 
is also true that these requirements 
result from research by both mem- 



bers of the team. The hardware 
utilized by the Fleet was spawned in 
both Naval Ordnance and in private 
industrial laboratories. Even pro- 
duction of a single end item has been 
handled concurrently in a Naval Ord- 
nance factory and in a private in- 
dustrial plant and, in some cases, 
private industry has purchased Naval 
Ordnance factories and has com- 
pleted the production of hardware 
which was in process at the time of 
purchase. 

The Naval Ordnance Systems Com- 
mand is a vast complex consisting of 
the headquarters, located in Wash- 
ington, D.C., and a far-flung field 
organization. Although the Naval Ord- 
nance-industry team works together 
at headquarters and in the field, this 
article will pertain to the activities 
of headquarters where the major pro- 
grams are centered. Industry works 
with Naval Ordnance in the field in 
the same manner as at headquarters, 
so that a description of headquar- 
ters activities applies also to the field. 

Naval Ordnance-Industry 
Relationship 

The focal point of American indus- 
try's relationship with the Naval Ord- 
nance Systems Command is the 
command's Contracts Office. The Di- 
rector for Contracts operates the In- 
dustry Liaison Branch whose effort 
is devoted entirely to furthering the 
Naval Ordnance-industry team con- 
cept. For new industrial firms, for 
older firms which have not worked 
with Naval Ordnance before, and for 
firms that are veterans in working 
with Naval Ordnance, the Industry 
Liaison Branch provides an initial 
point of contact. It directs representa- 
tives of industry to the appropriate 
offices within or outside the Contracts 
Office for discussing the business at 
hand. 

The Armed Services Procurement 
Regulation requires that bidder mail- 
ing lists be maintained "by purchas- 
ing activities to insure access to 
adequate sources of supplies and 
services . , . ." 

The Industry Liaison Branch is 



the focal point for Naval Ordrmnce- 
imlustry review, and it is here tlmt 
the Master Bidders List is main- 
tained. Command purchasing officers 
use this list to solicit proposals, quo- 
tations and bids from contractors 

Companies! make known their de- 
sire to participate in the procurement 
program of the Naval Onlnaticc 
Systems Command by mail or in 
person. In either case, they tire given 
an explanation of the everyday me- 
chanics of tho procurement HyjUeni, 
information on the general Hcnpt! of 
the command's procurement program, 
and the method for applying for in- 
clusion in the Muster Hidden* I, int. 
Each contractor receives application 
forms, an Industry Interest List, ami 
is encouraged to give u full picture 
of his capabilities and facilities. 

The Industry Evaluation Ofllco 
routes each potential con tractor 'ti dp- 
plication to the cognizant tcflmifnl 
and management personnel in thft 
command for evaluation. After re- 
view, the firm receives notification 
of its status and any other informa- 
tion which may be appropriate m 
individual caseH. The firm then 
the types of services or 
for which the command may solicit 
its offers. 

Prospective manufacturers, who 
normally produce supplier ami equip- 
ment not procured by Naval Onlimnca, 
receive information as to which gov- 
ernment activities may be interested 
in their production. 

Two other functions connected 
with Naval Ordnance- industry rela- 
tions are assigned to the Industry 
Evaluation Office, One is the synop- 
sizing of proposed Naval Ordnance 
procurement in the Cowmaroc ftust- 
ness Daily, a moans of notifying 'in- 
dustry for contracting or subcontract- 
ing. Tho other is the servlcu of pro- 
viding copies of solicitation documents, 
upon request, to interested suppliers 
who have not been included in Ihc 
solicitations, but may have learned of 
them through the Commerce littaincmt 
Daily or other soiircea. 



August 1967 



The Contacting Officer 

* Within the Contracts Office, indus- 
try's major contact is with the con- 
tracting officers. A contracting offi- 
cer awards eveiy contract and, in 
each negotiated procurement, he and 
his assisting negotiators work di- 
rectly with the contractor to formu- 
late a contract which will provide the 
Government with the best possible 
contractual arrangement while, at the 
same time, paying the contractor a 
fair price for his services or ma- 
terials. 

The contracting; officer is responsi- 
ble for the negotiation of assigned 
procurements. The negotiation of 
contracts may involve such things 
as: 

Overlapping or concurrent design, 
evaluation and production schedules. 
Because of urgent requirements, it is 
frequently necessary to proceed with 
fabrication and evaluation of 
equipment without benefit of prior 
technical guidelines or concrete cost 
data. Overlapping costs, inherent in 
production of similar equipment 
adaptable to various concepts and 
configurations of installation, will re- 
quire novel negotiating techniques in 
choosing the appropriate contract 
type and negotiating 1 the pricing 
terms with the contractor. 



Large dollar amounts. 

Long periods of time. Design, de- 
velopment, fabrication, test, evalua- 
tion and modification of the equip- 
ment usually cover a period of three 
years or longer, 

Complex equipments. The equip- 
ment may require a series of contracts 
covering various phases of research 
and development from design and 
experimentation through develop- 
ment, service test, prototype and 
production stages. Overlapping- of 
stages and changing- requirements 
during all stages, ns well as close in- 
terrelationships with other ship- 
board, nil-borne, or shore-based sys- 
tems, make negotiation exeeedhie-lv 
difficult 

Concurrent and interrelated con- 
tracts. Several contracts with differ- 
ent contractors are frequently related 
to design, development and fabrica- 
tion of parts or equipment which are 
components of a complete weapon or 
weapon system. Changes in one con- 
tract frequently affect other eon- 
tracts. 

Complex procurements. There are 
procurements for which a reasonably 
accurate price cannot be negotiated 
prior to performance of part of the 
work due to the unknown factors, or 



the lowest fixed price obtainable is 
not satisfactory to the negotiator. 
In such instances the contracting 
officer must decide upon the best 
type of contract for tbe situation. 
The selection of the proper type of 
contract is extremely important to 
prevent the Government from incur- 
ring excessive costs, and to maintain 
an incentive to the contractor to re- 
duce costs. 




Anti-submarine warfare combination ASROC with a torpedo Mark-46 
is launched from the Destroyer USS Norfolk (DL-1). 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



The contracting officer conducts 
pre- negotiation conferences in order 
to avail himself of all points of view 
and information bearing- on the ne- 
gotiation. He may call upon any per- 
sonnel in the command engineering, 
legal, production, or other and on 
cognizant field personnel, such as 
the auditor or inspector, for advice, 
information, or assistance. However, 
the contracting officer, personally, 
must determine the Government's po- 
sition on the negotiation. 

Because of the lack of meaningful 
cost ami price information, the con- 
tracting; officer may explore new ami 
unusual avenues of approach in order 
to arrive at an equitable procure- 
ment. He must compare procurements 
made by other departments and agen- 
cies under the same or similar cir- 
cumstances, making an analysis of 
the contract provisions and the poli- 
cies and procedures behind them, and 
discussing them with top procure- 
ment personnel in the agencies in- 
volved and, in some cases, with the 
contractors. 

The contracting officer conducts 
negotiations required to settle diffi- 
cult problems which arise on exist- 
ing contracts, c,,?., changes in scope 
of work or of the specifications, and 
negotiation of a government claim for 
price reductions and adjustments as 
a result of the failure of equipments 
to comply fully with warranties or 
guarantees. 

Contract modifications changing 
the contractual requirements and ap- 
proval of subcontracts are significant 
responsibilities of the contracting 
officer. It will he necessary, in many 
instances, to negotiate modifications 
for tho procurement of end-item 
hardware which, because of critical 
delivery dates for long-lead-time 
items, is to be produced simultan- 
eously with the design and develop- 
ment of engineering models for the 
same equipments. Numerous subcon- 
tracts are a common thing under this 



and similar contractual documents. It 
is the negotiator's responsibility to 
assure that the contractor has a 
sound niake-or-buy and subcontract- 
ing program, and that subcontracts 
are properly awarded and priced. 

The contracting officer periodically 
visits the command field representa- 
tives and other DOD field representa- 
tives who participate in the admin- 
istration of contracts under his 
cognizance. He reviews with the field 
representatives the procedures used 
in the administration of contracts and 
approval and surveillance of certain 
subcontracts. Information, guidance 
and advice are continually being ex- 
changed by phone. 

The contracting officer in head- 
quarters is the procuring contracting 
officer. The field representative is the 
administrative contracting officer. 
Both contracting officers procuring 
and administrative work as a con- 
tracting officer team. The adminis- 
trative contracting officer assures 
that contract terms established by 
the procurement contracting officer 
are effected, and provides the pro- 
curement contracting officer with de- 
tailed information to be used in ne- 
gotiating both basic contracts and 
contract modifications. 

The Small Business Program 

As a principal procurement ac- 
tivity, the Office of Small Business 
in the Naval Ordnance Systems Com- 
mand aids, assists and counsels small 
business concerns to encourage their 
participation in the procurement of 
supplies and services within their 
capabilities. The small business spe- 
cialist acts as the focal point within 
the command for all inquiries and 
requests for advice from small busi- 
ness firms on procurement matters. 
The Small Business Office also admin- 



ce is pro- 
i areas of 
ibor sur- 
J of their 

a contin- 
sble small 
eration in 
;ment op- 
br place- 
mitted by 
! screened 



thereby, given adequate considera- 
tion to compete for procurement 
opportunities within their perform- 
ance capabilities. Wherever possible, 
the command participates in pro- 
curement conferences or clinics which 
may include seminars, exhibits and 
other efforts designed to acquaint 
businessmen with procedures and re- 
quirements for development of ad- 
ditional sources. Procurement confer- 
ences may include presentations to 
better acquaint industry with the 
technical objectives of the command. 
The complex nature of the naval 
weapons and weapon systems may 
limit the potential of small business 
concerns as prime contractors. Con- 
sequently, many small firms are re- 
ferred to field activities under the 
support of the Naval Ordnance 
Systems Command engaged in re- 
search, development, production and 
procurement of ordnance supplies 
or services. In some instances, the 
potential of a small business concern 
may be better suited as a subcon- 
tractor under the DOD Small Busi- 
ness Subcontracting Program. The 
program, which is mandatory in 
prime contracts exceeding $500,000 
offering substantial subcontracting 
possibilities, is conducted by leading- 
prime contractors to the command. 



The adequacy of the program is 
periodically reviewed to in f? Lire that 
the potentialities of small hu tineas 
concerns as subcontractors are con- 
sidered fairly. 

Numerous representative s of i 11- 
dustry are in daily persona! contact 
with technical personnel of the com- 
mand. These contacts servo imniy 
purposes ranging 1 from the presen- 
tation of new ideas to- solving prob- 
lems in current production. Jn 
connection with now ideas, the com- 
mand welcomes unsolicited proposals 
which it receives and procGHsos in 
accordance with the Armed Services 
Procurement Regulation, 

The Technical ami Systems Kiiffi- 
neering 1 Office is the principal de- 
veloper and advisor for ship weapon 
concept formulation, the onjj-meurmg 
technologic a essential to support 
hardware design, ordnance unfety, 
and ordnance packaging; mid hand- 
ling. Effective design, protection a tul 
operation of weapon systems CUM be 
accomplished only through continu- 
ous, freely given cooperation between 
the Navy and industry, and between 
organizations within industry rind 
within the Navy, Those rcciprocn! 
efforts are promoted, required mill 
utilized in many ways. 




, 
are 



of thc Mark-48 torpedo. Under development now H is 
to combat modern, highspeed submarine* at long range ! 



August 1967 



Liaison with Industrial and 
Technical Associations 

Industrial and technical associations, 
lcl * as the Aerospace Industries 
Association (AIA), the National Se- 
curity Industrial Association (NSIA), 

f A n Amoricfln Ordnance Association 
(JVQA), and many others form a 
sounding board for securing, in ad- 
vance, information concerning the 
needs for, and anticipated effects of 
^Vavy policies, procedures and deci- 
sions. For example, the Naval Ord- 
nnncQ Systems Command maintains 
liaison memberships on most of the 
H'roupa and sections of the AOA, con- 
tributing through preparation of 
technical papers and participation in 
technical meetings. Specifications and 
standards for hardware, such as 
fasteners, as well as engineering prac- 
tices, SU ch as the use of standard 
screw threads, are developed cooper- 
atively with such groups as the AIA, 
National Aerospace Standards Com- 

'/rV^' The UlS ' stflnd aIs Institute 
( LJbASI), Society of Automotive En- 
Kineei-g (SAE), and others. More 
^Pacifications, written by the Govern- 
ment for end-item equipments, are 
bcina- coordinated with industry dur- 
ing the regular coordination cycle to 
develop realistic requirements concur- 
rent with the latest state of the art. 
Thia Navy-industry cooperation has 
improved the overall quality and ac- 
ceptability of our military specifica- 
tions. Information obtained in this 
manner is valued, uaed and appreci- 
ated by the command. 

The command participates actively 
in officially recognized programs for 
the exchange of information. The In- 
to rnerancy Data Exchange Program 
(imSI*), for example, is a free inter- 
ohn.ii go of technical information and 
environmental teat data on parts and 
components used in the design of 
we n-poii systems between 176 mili- 
tary-space contractors and 69 gov- 
ernment agencies to provide economy 
in contract expenditures and relia- 
bility assurance. The objective of 
I1JE3? is to have the data waiting 
for -the engineer rather than to have 
the engineer waiting for the data, 

The Failure Rate Data (FARADA) 
Pros-ram is a Navy, Air Force, Army 
and NASA-sponsored effort to pro- 
vide parts and components failure 
rate and failure mode data to 246 
^ovominent activities and contrac- 
tors designing military and space 



equipment. Within the Navy, this 
effort is administered by the Naval 
Ordnance Systems Command. 



Contract Administration 



_ Value engineering incentive clauses 
m Naval Ordnance Systems Command 
contracts are gaining the interest of 
its contractors. The Armed Service 
Procurement Regulation has estab- 
lished requirements for value engi- 
neering- in contracts which can sig- 
nificantly enhance the contractor's 
profits. Twenty-eight value engineers 
in headquarters and in field organi- 
zations support the contractors in 
considering "overall minimum cost to 
perform the function," which is the 
basis of value engineering applica- 
tion. As the central contact points in 
their respective areas, these engi- 
neers ore able to expedite the evalua- 
tion of value engineering- changes and 
their actual incorporation into wea- 
pon systems. 

To insure that the Naval Ordnance 
Systems Command receives quality 
products in the most economical man- 
ner, particularly where complex wea- 
pon systems are involved, Navy 
Plant Representative Offices (NAV- 
PLANTREPOs) are established 
within the premises of the private 
contractors' plants responsible for the 
manufacture and the delivery of end 
items. 

Within each NAVPLANTREPO is 
an organ i nation with full capability 
in the Defense Contract Administra- 
tion Services (DCAS) areas of en- 
gineering, quality assurance, indus- 
trial facilities, and business admin- 
istration. A team concept is employed 
which is dedicated to assisting the 
contractor in any appropriate way to 
perform fully and adequately all 
facets of the contract. With the ad- 
vent of the DOD single cognizance 
program, NAVPLANTBEPOs have 
been given the full responsibility of 
administering all contracts for the 
Defense Department in the plants in 
which they are located, in reality be- 
coming DOD representatives rather 
than a single Service representative, 
Currently Naval Ordnance Systems 
Command NAVPLANTREPOs are 
established in Azusa, Calif.; Misha- 
waka, Iml.j Pittsflold, Mass.; Pomona, 
Calif.; Sunnyvale, Calif.; and Silver 
Spring, Md, 

Several of the command director- 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



ates (major subdivisions) are 
charged with the development and 
production of hardware in assigned 
areas of material cognizance. 

In the procurement of development 
effort, liaison with elements of in- 
dustry begins with the initiation of 
the associated technical development 
plan. This liaison is on an informal 
basis with technical personnel to ex- 
change information on the feasibil- 
ity of various technical approaches 
and the availability of technology to 
meet the requirements of the pro- 
gram; and with management person- 
nel to encourage and develop interest 
in the program. Technical personnel 
make many contacts with representa- 
tives of industry to determine capa- 
bilities for the work at hand and to 
encourage the interest of those con- 
sidered capable, in order to obtain 
maximum competition. 

In each case where doubt exists as 
to the capability of a prospective 
contractor, Naval Ordnance person- 
nel visit the contractors facility to as- 
certain the availability of those re- 
quirements such as organization, 
experience, stability, etc., which are 
essential to the program. The pur- 
poses of these contacts is to limit the 
competition for this type of procure- 
ment to those elements of industry 
considered fully capable of meeting all 
of the requirements of the program. 
In the procurement of production 
effort, contacts between the acquisi- 
tion directorates and contractors are 
frequent, as both headquarters and 
field personnel provide technical ad- 
ministration of the contracts. 

Very often the development of new 
hardware involves a three-way team, 
Naval Ordnance, a Navy or private 
laboratory, and a manufacturing fa- 
cility. In an occasional case, one 
plant may serve as both laboratory 
and manufacturing; facility. 

Another area in which the com- 
mand and industry work together 
closely is in bidders' conferences. The 
cognizant procurement planning of- 
ficer or the cognizant contracting 
officer in the Contracts Office arranges 
such a conference with the first step 
of a two-step formally advertised pro- 
curement, or in connection with a 
negotiated procurement. At the con- 
ference, the planning or contracting 
officer, assisted by command tech- 
nical personnel, answers questions by 
prospective bidders to enable them to 



submit effective bids, quotations, or 
proposals by learning more spe- 
cifically of the command's require- 
ments. 

The Industrial Readiness Program 

An active industrial readiness 
planning program is necessary to 
insure full wartime benefits from 
industry's vast production potential. 
The ability of industry to respond 
rapidly to increased demands is of 
vital importance to the nation's se- 
curity. Accordingly, the mission of 
the Naval Ordnance Systems Com- 
mand's Industrial Resources Division 
is to assure that adequate industrial 
resources are available to support 
the demands of the Fleet under 
peacetime and combat conditions. 
With this mission the industrial 
mobilization objective is to further 
develop, improve and maintain a 
critically selective, flexible industrial 
capacity responsive to limited and 
general war requirements. 

Responsiveness is contingent upon 
the validity of industrial readiness 
planning- with the contractor, and 
his ability to react to unforeseen 
production demands. This involves: 

Production planning with indus- 
try. 

Maintenance of stand-by facilities 
in ready condition. 

Maintenance of stand-by plant 
equipment. 

Priorities allocations and urgen- 
cies. 

Materials stockpiling. 

Industrial preparedness measures. 
Planning with industry includes 

the development and continuous up- 
dating of a mobilization production 
capacity. Mobilization schedules mesh 
with a manufacturer's peacetime pro- 
duction of both military and essen- 



use agreement from the Naval Ord- 
nance Systems Command, and pro- 
duced 105mm shells in less than two 
months. Without this base, serious 
production problems would have ex- 
isted. 

Since plant equipment is needed to 
support a mobilization capacity, it is 
also necessary to maintain previ- 
ously used, but now idle, govemment- 
owned production equipment to meet 
military demands after M-Day, In 
addition, there are many active gov- 
ernment-owned tools used by indus- 
try for heavy extrusion and press 
forging which can be readily con- 
verted to support wartime needs. 
Using criteria to assure amortiza- 
tion in three and one-half years, a 
continuing replacement and restora- 
tion program is in effect for produc- 
tion equipment. This modernization 
assures immediate cost savings, and 
at the same time increases readiness 
for the Naval Ordnance investment 
of $470 million. 

Priorities and allocations are ad- 
ministered by the Industrial Re- 
sources Division under regulations 
issued by the Business and Defense 
Services Administration (BDSA) of 
the Department of Commerce. There 
are two separate but closely related 
functions: by use of priorities au- 
thority, the Defense Materials Sys- 
tem (DMS) assures that materials, 
components and end items required 
for Fleet support are produced as 
scheduled; and through allocation of 
steel, copper, aluminum and nickel 
alloys, a system of control is in op- 
eration on a stand-by basis to permit 
expansion when an emergency sit- 
uation develops. The Military Ur- 
gency List (MUL) contains relative 
urgency guidance on current pro- 
curement programs to resolve a con- 
flict in demand for industrial re- 
sources among military programs. 

The Office of Emergency Planning 
(OEP) develops projections of stock- 



ensure a state of readiness to meet 
both peacetime and mobilisation 
needs. Industrial preparedness mea- 
sures are initiated to preclude; pro- 
duction bottlenecks. Resource studies, 
mass production techniques, and pilot 
production lines are continuously 
evaluated by Naval Ordnance! (iiiRTi- 
neers to resolve manufacturing prob- 
lems before an emergency situation 
develops. 

The Naval Ordnance mission then 
is to weld these various programs 
into a cohesive package in which 
each serves a dourly defined purpose, 
and in which each has an objective 
consistent with the overall philosophy 
of mobilization and maimgemunt of 
the nation's industrial rcsourcoH in 
the interest of national acclivity. 

Naval Ordnance works with iiulu.s- 
try in countless ways. Beyond doubt 
Naval Ordnance and American in- 
dustry are a going team, each comple- 
menting tho other, and going forward 
to produce better mid bottor Hm'viccH 
and supplies for the Fleet. 



DASA Moves to 
New Headquarters 

Tho Daffiiiso Atomic Support 
Agency (I)ASA) has moved its hnud- 
quartors from the Pentagon to UK- 
Thomas Building, at the cor nor of 
North Court House Road and North 
14th St., Arlington, Va. 

DASA conducts tlm DnfmiHu De- 
partment's micloar weapons prn|>TtunH. 
It is a direct descendant of thi- 'Muu- 
hattan Kngimioring District which 
developed the nation'* fli-Ht atomic 
bomb. 

Tho new DASA address in: nrtpiivt- 
mont of Defonno, DnfoiiHO Atomic', 
Support Agency, Washington, D.C. 
2030C. 




FROM THE SPEAKERS ROSTRUM 



Address by Hon. Paul R. Ignatius, 

Asst, Secretary of Defense (Installa- 
tions & LoffiaticH), at Annual Meet- 
ing of the National Aerospace Serv- 
ices Assn., Washington, D.C.. May 
2, 1907. ' 




Hon. Paul R. Ignatius 

Contracts for 
Technical Services 



I would like to spend a few mo- 
ments discussing a matter of current 
interest to you and to the Defense 
Department, namely, the respective 
roles of contractor and Government 
personnel in accomplishing certain 
needed services. Recently, both your 
association and the Department made 
formal statements to a Senate Com- 
mittee on this subject. My purpose is 
not to examine the pros and cons of 
each item at issue, but rather to 
attempt to put the matter in proper 
perspective. 

Late in 1964, DOD became con- 
cerned with certain contracts for 
technical services in which contrac- 
ts personnel were intermingled 
vith government employees, received 
'heir orders and their work assign- 
nents directly from government su~ 
ervisors, and were selected or dis- 

Jefense Industry Bulletin 



charged at the Government's option. 
The Civil Service Commission and the 
Comptroller General have issued for- 
mal opinions that these working con- 
ditions bring about an employer- 
employee relationship between tho 
Government and the contract employ- 
ees in violation of Civil Service laws 
and regulations, which specify other 
procedures and conditions for Federal 
employment. Secretary McNaniara 
ordered a complete study of these con- 
tractual arrangements. The study 
disclosed so?ne situations which ap- 
peared to involve irregularities dis- 
cussed by the Civil Service Commis- 
sion and the Comptroller General 
opinions, that the work involved could 
be performed at less cost by govern- 
ment employees, and that .some of 
those contract positions should bo 
converted to government employment 
m any event for reasons of military 
readiness. As a result of these fmd- 
mffs, the Military Departments were 
requested to convert about lO.fiOO con- 
tracts positions to government em- 
ployment and about half of those 
positions have, in fnet, been con- 
verted. The remaining contract posi- 
tions are being converted as quickly 
as possible. 



^w * 4f ^0 u 

Needed for Products 



Services 



Some of the companies affected by 
these decisions have offered several 
objections to the actions being taken. 
The validity of the opinions issued by 
the Civil Service Commission and the 
Comptroller General has been chal- 
lenged. Pears are expressed that the 
conversion program really is not lim- 
ited to 10,500 positions and that, in 
fact, tho Government's long standing 
policy of relying on the private enter- 
prise system is being abandoned. 
.Those companies also have questioned 
the basis for our conclusion that cer- 
tain contract positions should he 
converted for reasons of military 
readiness. And, finally, our general 
conclusion that the Government can 
save money by converting these con- 
tracts to government employment has 
been challenged. . . . 



First, it seems hardly necessary I 
emphasize that neither the Defonai 
Department nor the Government as ; 
whole has abandoned the general pol 
icy of obtaining the products am 
services we need from commorcia' 
.sources to the maximum extent con- 
sistent with effective and ellicicnt 
accomplishment of our programs. Foi 
the past l.'i years, that general policy 
has been expressed formally in guide- 
lines issued by the Bureau of the 
Budget at the President's request. The 
most recent statement of the general 
policy is contained in Bureau of tlin 
Budget Circular No. A-7C which was 
issued about a year ago. The Defense 
Department participated in develop- 
ing the circular. Let me give you M *v- 
nral recent examples of our applica- 
tion of the general policy the circular 
establishes ; 

Responsibility for oparatJng the 
ens production plant at Portsmouth 
Naval Shipyard is being transferred 
tram the Navy to a commercial firm, 

Responsibility for assembly of 
motors for the folding-fin aircraft 
rocket is being transferred from the 
Navy to a commercial electronics 
firm. 

Responsibility for production of 
parachute flares is being transferred 
from the Naval Ammunition Depot at 
Crane, Ind., to a commercial firm, 

Responsibility for maintaining 
and operating the administrative tele- 
phone system at McClellan AFB has 
been transferred from the Air Force 
to the telephone company which has 
the common carrier franchise in the 
area. Similar actions have been taken 
at about 70 radar sites throughout 
the country and at Norfolk, Va 
Charleston, S.C.; Pcnsacola, Fla.; and 
several other naval facilities, 

Government operation of the 
motor pool at Brooks AFB has been 



discontinued and the needed services 
ace being provided by a commercial 
firm. 

There seems to be a belief among 
some groups that the Federal Govern- 
ment originally relied primarily upon 
the private enterprise system for all 
its requirements, but that the trend 
in recent years has been to rely more 
on government-owned and operated 
facilities. In fact, of course, the oppo- 
site has been the case. During the first 
hundred years of our nation's exist- 
ence the Federal Government, and 
particularly the Military Depart- 
ments, relied heavily upon govern- 
ment arsenals and other facilities of 
a similar nature. Only in fairly re- 
cent times have we learned to rely 
primarily upon private industry to 
provide the weapons, supplies, equip- 
ment and services we require. Many 
of the government arsenals and sim- 
ilar plants were established in the 
nineteenth century. Under Secretary 
McNamara's administration of the 
Department, there has been an inten- 
sive effort to get rid of installations 
we no longer need. Our list of base 
closures includes 66 industrial plants. 
Here are some examples: 

The Naval Ordnance Plants at 
York, Pa., and Macon, Ga., were sold 
to private companies in 1965. 

Three helium production plants at 
Moffetfc Field, Calif., at Lakehurst, 
N". J., and at Santa Ana, Calif., were 
closed in 1965 because our helium 
requirements could be provided com- 
mercially. 

Also in 1965 we announced clos- 
ure of two ocean terminal facilities at 
Norfolk, Va,, and at New Orleans, 
La., because the tonnage could be 
shipped via commercial facilities. 

The Army arsenal at Watertown, 
Mass., is to be closed next September 
and the arsenal at Springfield, Mass., 
ia scheduled to be closed next March. 
The primary reason for ordering 
closures was that the artillery weap- 
ons, small arms, machine guns and 
mounts made in these plants could 
be provided by commercial sources. 

Similar actions have been taken 
at the Naval Fuel Annex at Richmond, 
Calif., at the Naval Fleet Annex in 
East Boston, Mass., and at the Army's 
St. Louis Ordnance Plant. 

Clearly, it seems to me, the Depart- 
ment has indicated by actions as well 
as words that it fully supports the 
general policy of relying upon pri- 
vate enterprise for its needs. 



Current Conversion 
Program not 



I cannot assure you that conver- 
sions from contract to government 
employment will not be made in se- 
lected instances where the facts indi- 
cate that this is the wisest course of 
action. But I can tell you that our 
current conversion program is not 
expected to be changed. 

Let us examine the current conver- 
sion program in more detail. It is 
limited to those contracts for techni- 
cal personnel in which the Govern- 
ment retains responsibility for 
selection, suspension, assignment of 
work, and evaluation of performance 
of contract employees to such a de- 
gree that an employer-employee rela- 
tionship is established between the 
Government and the employees. When 
these conditions are found to exist, 
they must be corrected by restructur- 
ing the contract (if that can be done 
economically) or by converting the 
positions involved to Federal employ- 
ment. Such contracts have, in fact, 
been restructured in many instances. 

There is one exception to this pol- 
icy which applies to contracts for 
engineering and technical personnel. 
These contracts involve training, in- 
struction and advice in the installa- 
tion, operation and maintenance of 
weapons, equipment and systems used 
by DOD components. We have con- 
cluded that the Defense Department 
should have a direct capability to per- 
form these functions as soon as the 
equipment becomes operational in the 
field or, if that is not feasible, within 
one year after it has become opera- 
tional. 

We have no reason to believe that 
the total number of converted posi- 
tions will exceed the 10,500 in our 
current estimates. It should be clearly 
understood, however, that the General 
Accounting Office, as well as our own 
auditing and management analysis 
staffs, will be conducting cost com- 
parison studies to determine whether 
we are acquiring 1 the services we need 
in the most economical manner. In 
some instances, these studies may 
indicate that services being provided 
by contract should be provided 

-_ , 

. But our 



analyses have indicated that more fre- 
quently the result will be to transfer 
activities now being performed by the 
Government to commercial sources. 
In either event, these decisions will 
not be related to the opinions of the 
Civil Service Commission ami the 
Comptroller General, or to the 
conversion program we have been 
discussing. 



The statements which 
tives of your association have iniulo 
to the Senate Committee on Govern- 
ment Operations indicated fchnt you 
question the legal validity of the re- 
cent opinions by the Civil Service 
Commission and the Comptroller Gen- 
eral. DOD has made no common t on 
the legal issue. One reason for this is 
that wo would bo bound by thn Comp- 
troller General's decision nvon if we 
did not agree with it. In addition, the 
types of contractual nrrnngoniRiits 
which were termed illegal in thiwn 
decisions appear to be iindnsirnlilc! 
also from the standpoint of good 
management. 

The Federal Government and, I hc- 
lieve, most businesses find it neces- 
sary to have salary scales und per- 
sonnel policies, which will aswc that 
employees performing tho same kinds 
of work under similar conditioiiH are 
selected and paid according lo llio 
same- general standnrtlaj and that they 
receive consistent treatment with re- 
spect to retirement, leave, promotion, 
hours of work, overtime, otc. One of 
the primary purposes of tho Fixlaral 
Civil Service system is to aaiuirc that 
tho Federal Government hna HUch n 
personnel system. 

Where contract personnel and gov- 
ernment employees are integrated into 
the same organizations, reporting lo 
the same supervisors, and doliiR the 
same kinds of work, the effect is that 
two personnel systems muat bo. ap- 
plied to the same group of omploynos, 
Employees, who appear to doscrvn tlw 
same kind of treatment from the 
standpoint of the work they are do- 
ing, are treated quite inconsistently. 
In most instances their salaries arc 
not the same. Promotions cannot ha ; 
based on merit except within each of ' 
the two systems being applied, Tho 
Federal employees are bound by the 
Hatch Act and the conflict of interest 
laws, whereas the contract employoefl 
are not. The two classes of employ- 
ees receive different per diem allow- ' 
ances when they travel on ofllcinl 1 
business. In foreign countries, tho ! 



August 1967 



Federal employees must pay Federal 
income taxes, whereas contractors' 
employees are exempted from such 
taxes after they have served in a for- 
eign location for more than 17 
months. Usually there are also differ- 
ences in retirement benefits, insur- 
ance and health protection, allowances 
for annual leave, etc. 

When contract personnel and Fed- 
eral employees are so completely inte- 
grated into a government organiza- 
tion that they cannot be readily 
distinguished with respect to their 
work and supervision, these differ- 
ences in the treatment they receive 
may cause difficulties and unsatisfac- 
tory operating, administrative ami 
morale conditions entirely apart 
from any legal questions which may 
also be involved. In view of these 
problems of administration and man- 
agement, we believe we would not be 
justified in seeking: legislation to set 
aside the legal opinions of the Comp- 
troller General and the Civil Service 
Commission at least not until we 
have done everything possible to solve 
our problems within the ground rules 
provided in these opinions. 



Cosf Comparison 
Analysis 

Now, I believe I should discuss the 
basis for our conclusion that the 
Government can save money by con- 
verting the kinds of contracts we 
have been discussing to Federal em- 
ployment. 

This conclusion was based upon a 
cost comparison analysis completed 
early in 19GG as a part of the study 
initiated by Secretary McNamara 
which I mentioned earlier. The scope 
of this project included not only con- 
tracts for technical services person- 
nel but also covered the entire field 
of base support activities, including 
many of the types performed by mem- 
bers of your association. One of the 
principal conclusions from this study 
was that a substantial variety of the 
base support activities, involving ex- 
penditures of about $430 million per 
year, which were being performed by 
the Government directly, could be 
performed by contractors at less cost 
to the Government. As a result, some 
of these services have been assigned 
to contractors and additional cost 
comparisons are expected to lead to 
reliance upon contractors. 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



These findings pertaining- to base 
support activities were in sharp con- 
trast to those pertaining to contracts 
for technical personnel. The study in- 
dicated that it was costing the Gov- 
ernment about $119 million for 7,069 
contract service personnel, and that 
the work could be performed by the 
Government directly for abcnit $100 
million. 

One of the main reasons for the 
differences in estimated costs was that 
experience in the Army, and in a few 
other agencies, had demonstrated that 
a smaller total staff was needed after 
a mixed organization of contractor 
and government personnel was eon- 
verted to Federal employment. For 
example, the Army had converted 889 
contract positions to government 
employment from 1D62 to 1965 and 
required 600 Federal employees for 
the work an overall reduction of 289 
employees. Similar results have been 
revealed In subsequent studies, such 
as one recently completed by the Gen- 
eral Accounting Office involving the 
conversion of a contract at White 
Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. 
I believe it is significant that the 
study revealed opportunities for 
worthwhile savings by relying upon 
contractors for base support services, 
whereas the same study, conducted 
by the same analysts, indicated that 
savings also could be achieved by con- 
verting certain technical service con- 
tracts to government employment. 
Why the seeming contradiction? 

The answer, I believe, is that there- 
ate fundamental differences between 
these kinds of contracts. Most con- 
tracts for base support services pro- 
vide that the contractor assumes the 
responsibility for managing his staff 
and. equipment with enough efficiency 
to provide the required services and 
make a profit. The Government is re- 
lieved of the responsibility for man- 
aging the operation and may, in some 
instances, also be relieved of certain 
risks and costs, such as equipment 
losses, obsolescence and additional 
capital investments. 

Contracts for technical personnel 
do not enjoy these advantages. The 
contractor furnishes only manpower 
and the Government continues to boar 
the responsibility for managing' the 
operation and the risks and costs of 
obsolescence, equipment losses, etc. 
The Government also bears the addi- 
tional responsibility for administer- 
ing a contract, while the contractor 



has little opportunity or incentive t< 
use his experience and ingenuity tc 
reduce costs and improve efficiency 
I believe there are two lessons to IIP 
learned from this comparison. One is 
that a contract to furnish only a spec- 
ified number of people is not likely 
to be very desirable from the stand- 
point of cost and efficiency. Another 
is that it is in our mutual interest to 
avoid this type of contract and to in- 
clude the features of a typical base 
support service contract whenever 
feasible. 

In summary, I hope I have made 
it clear that: 

o DOD is fully supporting the gov- 
ernment policy to place reliance upon 
private business for commercial and 
industrial products and services. 

The program to convert some 
technical service contracts is a special 
case that is necessary for a number 
of reasons and limited in scope. 

Cost comparisons will continue to 
be made of our industrial and com- 
mercial needs to determine whether 
they can be mot most efficiently by 
government or contractor perform- 
ance. These comparisons will un- 
doubtedly results in .shifts from gov- 
ernment to contract performance, but 
the reverse may also be true in some 
instances. 



Three Navy Labs 

Transferred to Naval 

Air Development Center 

The Naval Air Development Center 
(NADC), Johnsvillc, Pa., assumed 
administrative control over throe ad- 
ditional Navy laboratories on July 1. 
The laboratories affected are: the 
Aeronautical Materials Laboratory, 
the Aeronautical Structures Labora- 
tory, and the Air Crew Equipment 
Laboratory; all were assigned to the 
Naval Air Engineering" Center, Phil- 
adelphia, Pa. 

The transfer of these laboratories 
to NADC is part of an overall Navy 
program of realignment of research, 
development, teat and evaluation 
functions, and will enable the center 
to carry out its assigned mission in 
aerospace systems and aviation 
medicine more effectively. 

The three laboratories will bo re- 
designated as departments under the 
direct administrative and technical 
control of NADC. Their functions 
will not change. 



11 



Colonel Herbert Waldman, USAF 



c .St. 1 ]) torn 1w l%o the staff of 
t?io Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) has been engaged in 
the design and development of im- 
proved information systems for use in 
the management of large weapon/ 
>U|!j)oit systems acquisitions. The Cost 
Information Kqiorts (CIR) subsystem 
was the first to evolve as a direct 
result of these efforts. It was devel- 
oped from the Cost and Economic In- 
formation System (CEIS) which had 
tjft'ii formally conceptualized in July 
IflfM. Other subsystems and techniques 
followed in 19R6, generally serving to 
mark the path of evolutionary de- 
velopment of uniform procedures for 
the collection of information needed 
in DOI) management. As new subsys- 
tems have been initiated they have 
replaced, as planned, procedures de- 
signed in the past which were not 
sufficiently effective to merit their 
continued use. 

This is the nature of a continuing 
ocess in which an information sub- 
system is being developed for use to 
measure the progress of contractors' 
performance. The measurement proc- 
ess is oriented to provide the informa- 
tion which will support the capability 
to predict credible estimates of sys- 
tems cost at completion, an area in 
which there luve been marked defi- 
ciencies in past performance. This con- 
dition has persisted in spite of the fact 
that more attention is being given to 
work definition, and procedures have 
been specifically designed by each 
Project manager to deal with this 
problem. The cm-rent effort to design 
an improved system, to be uniformly 
applied for this purpose, represents 
an evolutionary development of sim- 
ilar procedures generally in use by 
the Army, Navy and Air Force. 

When a uniform system is installed 
hroughou the Defense Department, 
each M.htary Department and De- 
feme Agency will employ the same 
procedures under the Selected A 

12 



quisitions Information and Manage- 
ment System (SAIMS). The close 
relationship of the components of 
SAIMS to techniques and proce- 
dures now being utilized will also be 
of value in making possible a 
smoother transition in use, than 
would be the case if entirely new pro- 
cedural content had been developed. 



ho central feature of SAIMS is 
the approach of using management 
control systems, developed by con- 
tractors, to produce the information 
DOD managers need to evaluate per- 
formance by measuring costs, and 
schedule and technical achievements 
in relation to plan. Such an evalua- 
tion will expose areas requiring- ex- 
plicit management attention. This 
effort, which is independent of Con- 
tractor Performance Evaluation 



(CPE), is concerned with in- quiring 
information to hotter predict esti- 
mates nt completion, on tin; IIIIHJH of 
historical records of progTCHH in per- 
forming 1 the same contract lo which 
those estimates are related. OPlil iff 
concerned with acquiring- information 
to assess the credibility of a i?ontnur- 
tor's estimates (or proposals) on Uic 
basis of his achievement on prior 
contracts. 

In performance measurement, the 
design efforts of the Htiifl 1 in the 
Office of the Secretary of 
which have boon in proee.su 
1866, resulted in the issuance of the 
draft of a requiremonln "pitching'." 
This draft is now bolnj? cimiluM 
within defense- Industry, through (ho 
Council of Defense and Kpnce Indus- 
tries Association, Cor rovimv prior lo 
its adoption for DOD-wItlo IIHO. 

The key feature in the packing in 
the statement of a Hot of <-rilorin 




Augusf 1967 



for determining- the acceptability of 
a contractor's system for controlling 
the accomplishment! of the cost, 
schedule and technical requirements 
of the contract. As described, the 
criteria for Contractors' Cost/Sched- 
ule Control Systems include require- 
ments for the following: 

Definition, description and group- 
ing of all the work to be accomplished 
which is a source of contract cost. 

Assignment and identification of 
responsibility for work which gen- 
erates contract costs. 

Planning and scheduling of work 
to be accomplished and changes made 
in plans and schedules. 

Establishing budgets for all ac- 
tivities which generate contract costs. 

Issuing work and resource author- 
izations and accounting instructions 
to performing- activities, 

"Accounting for coats of resource 
consumption in completed work, 
work-in-process, and for costs 
charged to overhead pools. 

Identifying what costs are planned 
to be, comparing them with actual 
costs, and explaining cost, schedule 
and technical variances including 
variances in forecasts and overhead 
data. 

"Developing forecasts of costs at 
completion and fund requirements. 



Heplanning, as necessary. 

Reporting; management Informa- 
tion to DOD managers from the 
same system that furnishes data 
internally. 



n view of the fact that the con- 
tracts, which will be selected to be 
monitored using' Contractors' Control 
Systems, involve considerable govern- 
ment cost-risk, some expenditure of 
resources to provide effective cost 
schedule control is justified by the 
potential for benefits to be derived 
from their operation. 

To support the process of defining- 
the work to be done in completing- 
defense contracts and monitoring- 
progress in accomplishing- that work, 
the staff of the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense has also been develop- 
ing uniform procedures for configu- 
ration management and work break- 
down structure identification. The 
concept of n single work breakdown 
structure, when embodied in a con- 
tract, makes the flow of integrated 
information for management a prac- 
tical possibility. 

A work breakdown structure is 
the organized array which describes 
the components of a contract. The 
upper levels identify the various 
components or contract line-items to 



WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE 

IN 
THE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK 



/ CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT \ 



PLAN - ORGANIZE DIRECT - COORDINATE - CONTRO: 




oso 

fAICMNT. . 
CONIflOL I MILITARY 
IWT. 
MGMNT. 



1 

CONTRACTOR I 
FURNISHED <* 
BREAKDOWN 




be furnished by the contractor. DOD 
manag-ers provide the contractor with 
information when he begins the work 
which identifies the technical require- 
ments of the components that the 
contractor is to produce. This por- 
tion of the work breakdown struc- 
ture, with which contractors are 
constrained, is then extended based 
on the contractors' engineering 1 in n 
desired way, The result indicates the 
products and organizations which are 
employed by the contractor to sat- 
isfy his contract obligations. 

This approach, using a single work 
breakdown structure and the con- 
tractors' accounting system, can be 
used to satisfy the various data re- 
quirements of SAIMS in meaningful 
fashion. The complete work break- 
down structure indicates the relation- 
ship of the elements in the structure, 
which are specified by the Govern- 
ment, to the elements developed by 
the contractor. It also depicts the 
way in which data arc accumulated 
from a single framework to meet 
various needs for information, includ- 
ing those of the contractor and of 
military managora. Figure 1 indi- 
cates in oversimplified fashion the 
relationship of the parts of a work 
breakdown structure to each other 
and some of the associated require- 
ments for information. The informa- 
tion, which the Government obtains 
from tho con tractors' use of this 
framework, can satisfy Hie require- 
ments for cost data, or for an Identi- 
fication of the hardware components 
that are aggregated to produce tho 
end items called for in the contract. 
Although the aggregations repre- 
sented in configuration or cost data 
arrays may differ, they represent 
data relationships only. They will be 
compatible at the upper levels with 
that single array called the work 
breakdown structure, which describes 
the interrelationship of tho working 
elements of the contractors organiza- 
tion responsible for producing the 
products of the. contract. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



-n the difficult task of identifying- 
"significant" areas of application and 
"reasonable" measures to meet re- 
quirements, a glossary of terms has 
been developed. (The contents of the 
glossary are published at the end 
of this article.) Through its use it 
thus becomes possible to discriminate 
between semantic and substantive 
problems, and to work out necessary 
clarification of the description of 



13 



control system requirements into the 
elements, i.e., criteria or glossary, 
which are most directly associated 
with the source of the problems of 
understanding. Standard terminology, 
used at all levels of implementation, 
will be most helpful in resolving pro- 
cedural questions which will inevi- 
tably arise. 

As we seek to improve the infor- 
mation for management use, we must 
not lose sight of the fact that these 
requirements for improved manage- 
ment control are only a means to 
the desired end the completion of 
DOD's contractual agreements with 
the greatest success and efficiency. 
Management control is only one 
aspect of the overall process we must 
accomplish in achieving that goal. 



Accrual Basis. The method of ac- 
counting whereby resources are 
charged as the cost of a given prod- 
uct (hardwai-e-, test, study, etc.) 
when they are consumed or applied 
to the product without regard to the 
date of payment or the date of ac- 
quisition. 

Budgeted Costa. An estimate of fu- 
ture cost used to plan the use of 
manpower, material and other re- 
sources and provide a control over 
future operations. At any given time, 
the contractor may have authorized 
the consumption of resources above 
or below the Budgeted Costs in order 
to accomplish the required contract 
objectives. Such authorizations, al- 
though not baaed on contractual direc- 
tion, may be referred to as "budgets" 
by the contractor, and in, such in- 
stances must be reconcilable to 
Budgeted Costs. 

Change Control. That element of a 
contractor's internal system whereby 
the impact of Contract Change No- 
tices (CCN) and Supplemental 
Agreements <SA) can be traced, in 
terms of work content, measures of 
output, and resources budgeted, into 
the basic contractual effort, It is 
recognized that, although traceable, 
CCNs and SAs may lose their iden- 
tity once incorporated into the basic 
work effort. 

Contract Target Coat. The sum of all 
deflnitized costs authorized by the 
DOD contracting component. 
Contract Target Cost Equivalent The 
sum of all definitized costs and esti- 



mated costs for authorized work not 
yet definitized. 

Cost Control Account. An identified 
level, within the work breakdown 
structure and organization structure, 
at which costs are collected in order 
to compare planned and actual direct 
labor costs, material costs and other 
costs for management control pur- 
poses. Within the scope of these cri- 
teria, it is also the level at which 
the contractor must be capable of 
comparing the planned costs of work 
accomplished with actual costs for 
purposes of specific variance analysis. 

Cost Incurred. Costs charged to a 
cost control account on an accrual 

basis (see Accrual Basis), 

Direct Costs. Any item of cost (or 
the aggregate thereof) which may be 
identified specifically with any ob- 
jective, such as a product, service, 
program, function, or project; usu- 
ally, but not necessarily, limited to 
items of material and labor. The 
distinction between direct and indi- 
rect costs is often arbitrary, or is 
based upon convenience and cost ac- 
counting simplicity without sacrifice 
of reasonable accuracy in overall 
costs of specific objectives, 

Indirect Costs. An item of cost (or 
the aggregate thereof) which is in- 
curred for joint objectives and, 
therefore, cannot be identified spe- 




Colonel Herbert Waldman, USAP, is 
Director for Assets Management Sys- 
tems in the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). 
He holds a master's degree in busi- 
ness administration from the Univer- 
sity of Michigan as well as a masters 
degree in international affairs from 
George Washington University. 



cifically with a single final objective, 
spect to the end-products, services, 
program, or project. A coat may be 
direct with respect to some specific 
service or function, the total cost of 
which is in itself indirect with re- 
spect to the end-products, scrviccSj 
programs, or projects. An indirect 
cost is usually allocated to the sev- 
eral cost objectives. More commonly 
referred to as overhead costs, burdens 
and/or general and administrative 
costs with the burden being- appor- 
tioned over all products and Hervices 
by an approved technique. 
Objective Indicators. Meaningful, n- 
ditable, discrete events which, by 
their occurrence, clearly signify to 
third parties the start, intermediate 
degree of accomplishment, ami com- 
pletion of a work package. 
Overhead Work. Work that is not 
directly associated with products or 
work packages. Includes work of 
which only a portion is required to 
meet the contract obligations. 
Overhead Units. Units that perform 
overhead work. Includes mnmifnc- 
taring activities which may not incur 
direct material and direct labor costs. 
(See Indirect Costs.) 
Planned Coat. The allocation of total 
contract target cost to specified work 
derived from budgeted costs ami bml- 
get reserves established by the con- 
tractor. When properly integrated 
the planned application of rcnourccs 
to accomplish specified work can 
serve as a meaningful basis for coat 
and schedule performance incujsure- 
ment and control. 

Planned Cost of Work Accomjplfohcd, 
The sum of the Planned Coal of 
completed work plus a ren soun bl o 
allocation of the Planned Cost of 
work-in-process based on enter En nil- 
proved by the contracting DOD com- 
ponent. 

Work Breakdown Structure (WHS). 
A product-oriented family tree di- 
vision of hardware, software, serv- 
ices and other work tasks, which 
organizes, defines and graphically 
displays the product to be produce*!, 
as well as the work to be accom- 
plished in order to achieve the speci- 
fied product. This forms a common, 
manageable framework ng-olnst 
which to schedule, apply resources, 
establish planned costs, and measure 
progress. 

Work-in-process. Work pftckagos 

which have been reported as started 

(Continued on inside back cover) 



August 1967 



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Paul C. Warnlce has been appointed 
Asst. Secretary of Defense (Inter- 
national Security Affairs) succeed- 
ing John T. McNaughton. Mr. 
Warnke was formerly General Coun- 
sel of the Defense Department. 

Dr. Gardiner L. Tucker has been ap- 
pointed Dep. Dir. (Electronics and 
Information Systems) in the Office of 
the Dir., Defense Research and Engi- 
neering". 

Dr. Peter Franken, who has been 
serving as Dep. Dir. of the Advanced 
Research Projects Agency since Jan- 
uary, has been appointed Acting 
Dir. of the agency succeeding Dr. 
Charles M. Herzfeld. 

Ma]. Gen. Hlcliard P. Klocko, 
USAF, has been named Dep. Dir.] 
National Military Command Techni- 
cal Support, Defense Communica- 
tions Agency. 

Maj. Gen. Ethan A. Chapman, 
USA, has taken over the post of 
Chief of Staff at Headquarters, North 
American Air Defense Command, 
Colorado Springs, Colo., succeeding 
Maj. Gen. Mervyn M. Magce, USA, 
who has retired. 



Maj. Gen. Woodrow W. Vaughan, 
USA, has been designated Dep. Dir., 
Defense Supply Agency. 

Brig, Gen. Robert J. Meyer, USAF, 
has been designated Dir., Aircraft 
and Missiles, Office of Dep. Asst 
Secretary of Defense (Materiel), Of- 
fice of Asst. Secretary of Defense 
(Installations and Logistics). 

Trr Br if; Gcn< Robert C - HfchardBon 
III, USAF, Dap. Commander, Field 
Command (Weapons and Training) 
Defense Atomic Support Agency' 
Sandia Base, N.M., retired Aug. 1. 

Don R. Brazier has been desig- 
nated Comptroller of the Defense 
Supply Agency. He succeeds Dr. Wil- 
fred J. Garvin, who has moved to a 
new position with the Small Business 
Administration. 

Col. James T. Herbst, USAF, has 
been appointed Dep. Dir. of Freight 
Traffic, Military Traffic Management 
and Terminal Sendee, Washing-ton, 
D.C, 

Col. James T. Jolmson, USAF, has 
been named Dep. Dir., Materiel & 
Services, Defense Communications 
Agency Planning Group. 



concurrently promoted to four-st 
rank in Pentagon ceremonies June 
Lt. Gen. Harry W. O. Kinnnrd a 
sumerf command of the U. S. Aw 
Combat Developments Command o 
July 1. He succeeds Lt. Gen. Ben Hai 
roll who was reassigned as Con 
mander, Sixth U, S. Army. 

Lt. Gen. James K. Woolnongh ho 
succeeded Gen. Paul L. Freeman a 
Commanding General, U. S. Conti 
ncntal Army Command. 

Maj. Gen. Charles W. Eiflcr ha; 
been appointed Commanding Gen 
era]. Army Missile Command sue 
coedlns Maj. Gen. John G. fflerdt 
Brig. Gen. James P. HolHii ffH wort!! 
has assumed duties aa Dep. Com- 
manding General, Army Test and 
Evaluation Command, Aberdeen 
Proving Ground, Md. He succeeds 
Col. John F. Polk. 




DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Gen. Ralph E. Hninca Jr., was sworn 
m as Army Vice Chief of Staff and 



Paul H. Nitze is the new Deputy 
Secretary of Defense succeeding 
Cyrus H. Vance, who resigned effcc- 
* tive June 30, 1967. Mr. Nitze served 
as Secretary of the Navy from No- 
vember 1963 and prior to that was 
Assistant Secretary of Defense (In- 
ternational Security Affairs). 




Defense Industry Bulletin 



Cyrus R. Vance resigned from the 
position of Deputy Secretary of De- 
fense on June 30, 1967. In six and 
one-half years of service with the 
Defense Department, he was General 
Counsel and then Secretary of the 
Army before he became Deputy Secre- 
tary Defense in January 1964. 



William B, Taylor 1ms been ap- 
pointed Scientific Adviser, Missiles 
and Space Directorate, Offlco of tho 
Chief of Research and Development 
Department of the Army. 

Threo commodity managers hovo 
been appointed by Army Weapons 
Command. They are: Frank X. Con- 
nolly, Automatic Data Systems within 
tha Army in the field; Geor ff e N. 
Burdiek, M102 howitzer system; and 
Lowell B. McClain, Commando V100, 
four-wheel drive, armored ear. 

Col. Robert B. Bennet has been as- 
signed aa Commander, U. S. Army 
Research and Development Group 
(Europe). 

The Army' Missile Command has 
assigned Col. John G. Redmon as 
Project Manager for the Hawk Misaile 

System. 

Col. John B. Stockton is the new 
Dir., Armor Materiel Testing, Army 
Test and Evaluation Command, Aber- 
deen Proving Ground, Md. 

Lt. Col. Eugene W. Dow has suc- 
ceeded Lt. Col. John W, Elliott as 
Commander, Army Aviation Materiel 
Laboratories, Port Eustis, Va. 

Lt. Col. John W. Walker is tho 
new Commander, Rocky Mountain 
Arsenal, Denver, Colo. Ho relieved Lt. 
Col, Martin J. Burke Jr. 



DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

I.t. Gen. Leonard F. Chapman Jr., 

has been appointed to the post of 
Asst. Commandant of the Marine 
Corps. Ho replaces Lt. Gen. Richard 
C. Mangrum, who is retiring from 
the service. 

Other assignments announced by 
the Marine Corps include: Lt. Gen. 
Lewis W. Walt, Dir. of Personnel 
and Dep. Chief of Staff for Manpower; 
MaJ. Gen. Kiehard G. Wecde, Com- 
manding Geiieral, Fleet Marine 
Forctt, Atlantic; Lt, Gen. Henry 
W. Buse Jr., Chief of Staff, Head- 
quarters, Marine Corps, replacing Gen, 
Chapman; and Maj. Gen. Ralph K. 
Rottet, Dep. Chief of Staff (Plans 
and Programs) succeeding Gen. Buse. 
RAdm. Herschel J. Goldberg, (SC), 
Commander, Naval Supply Systems 
Command and Chief of the Navy Sup- 
ply Corps, retired Aug. 1. His succes- 
sor is RAdm. Bernhard H. Bieri Jr. 
(SC). 

Capt. A. H, Clancy Jr., Command- 
ing Officer, Naval Air Engineering 
Center, Philadelphia, Pa., and Capt. 
Paul F. Cosgrove Jr., Commanding 
Officer, Navy Fleet Material Support 
Office, Mechanicsburg, Pa., have been 
selected for promotion to the rank of 
rear admiral. 

Capt. Clyde E. Fulton, (SC), has 
succeeded Capt. Edward K. Scofield, 
(SC), as Commanding Officer, Naval 
Supply Depot, Mechanicsburg, Pa. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE 
AIR FORCE 

Listed for retirement are Lt. Gen. 
Herbert B. Thatcher, Commander, Air 
Defense Command, and Lt. Gen. 
Charles B. Westover, Vice Comman- 
der Air Defense Command. Gen. 
Thatcher will be succeeded by Lt. 
Gen, Arthur C. Agan Jr. The new vice 
commander, replacing Gen. Westover, 
is MaJ. Gen. James C. Jensen. 

Lt. Gen. James W. Wilson has been 
appointed Vice Commander, Military 
Airlift Command, Scott AFB, 111. 

Brig. Gen. William C. Garland has 
relieved MaJ. Gen. E. B. LeBailly as 
Dir. of Information, Office of the Sec- 
retary of the Air Force. Brig. Gen 
James F. Hacklcr Jr., former Asst 
Dep. Chief of Staff, Operations, U.S. 
Air Force, Europe, has been named 
Dep, Dir. of Information. 

Brig. Gen. William B. Martensen 
has been reassigned as Commander, 
Strategic Aerospace Div., Strategic 



Air Command, from duty as Asst. 
Dep. Chief of Staff (Operations), 
SAC Headquarters, Offutt AFB, Neb. 
Brig. Gen. Robert W. Paulson has 
been named Commander, Air Force 
Communications Service, Scott AFB, 
III. 

Assignments at Headquarters, U. S, 
Air Force, include: Maj. Gen. Gerald 
F. Keeling, Asst. Dep. Chief of Staff 
(Systems and Logistics); Maj. Gen. 
George B. Simler, Dir., Operations, 
Office of the Dep. Chief of Staff 
(Plans and Operations); Brig. Gen. 
Sam J. Byerley, Dep. Dir., Opera- 
tions, Office of Dep. Chief of Staff 
(Plans and Operations); Brig. Gen 
Leo A. Kiley, Dir., Science and Tech- 
nology, Office of the Dep. Chief of 
Staff (Research and Development) ; 
Brig. Gen. James 0. Lindberg, Dir., 
Procurement Policy, Office of the Dep. 
Chief of Staff (Systems and Logis- 
tics); and Brig. Gen. Andrew S. Low 
Jr., Asst. for Logistics Planning, Of- 
fice of the Dep. Chief of Staff (Sys- 
tems and Logistics); Col. John L. 
Frisbee, Special Asst. to the Vice 
Chief of Staff. 

Col. Herbert L. Wurth has been as- 
signed Chief, Public Information Div., 
Office of Information, Office of the Sec- 
retary of the Air Force. 

Assignments at Air Force Systems 
Command (AFSC) include: 

Maj. Gen. John L. Zoeclder, F-lll 
Program Dir, for the past four 
years, is reassigned as Dep. Chief of 
Staff (Systems), AFSC Headquar- 
ters; Brig. Gen. Lee V. Gossiclt, now 
serving as Commander, Arnold Engi- 
neering Development Center, Train., 
succeeds Gen. Zoeckler on or about 
Sept. lj Gen. Gossick will be suc- 
ceeded by Brig. Gen. Gustav E. Lund- 
quist, who is now assigned as Dep. 
for Engineering, Aeronautical Sys- 
tems Div. 

Other AFSC assignments are: Maj. 
Gen. John B. Bestic, Commander, 
Electronic Systems Div.; Maj. Gen. 
Harry E. Goldsworthy, Commander 
Aeronautical Systems Div.; Brig. Gen. 
William S. Chairsell, .Dep. Chief of 
Staff (Systems), AFSC Headquar- 
ters; Brig. Gen. Fred J. Higgins, Dep. 
Chief of Staff (Procurement and 
Production), AFSC Headquarters; 
Brig. Gen. Clifford J. Kronauer Jr., 
Commander, Air Force Western Test 
Range; Brig. Gen. David V. Miller, 
Commander, Air Force Special Wea- 
pons Center, Kirtland AFB, N M 
Brig. Gen. Kenneth W. Schultz, Dep 



for Minuteman, Space and Missi] 
Systems Organization. 

The following colonels have bcci 
assigned to indicated APSC posts 
Col. Lionel C. Allard Jr., System Pro 
gram Dir. for 496L/474L, Electron 
ics Systems Div.; Col. George T 
Buck, Commander, Air Force Missili 
Development Center, Holloman AFB 
N.M.; Col. James L. Dick, Dh\ f Ail 
Force Avionics Laboratory,, Itcscarct 
and Technology Div.; Col. Raymond* A, 
Gilbert, Dir., Laboratories, AFSC 
Headquarters; Col. Franklin J. Hick- 
man Sr., Asst. Systems Prog-rain Dir., 
Long" Line Communications, Electron- 
ics Systems Div.; Col. David H. Jones, 
Dir., Air Force Weapons Laboratory, 
Kirtland AFB, N.M.; Col. William 
K. Morton, Vice Commander, Air 
Force Special Weapons Center, Kirt- 
land APB, N.M.; Col. Theodore E< 
Mock, Dir,, (Research and Technol- 
ogy), Dep. for Technology, Space 
Systems Div.; and Col. Fred A. 
Shirley, Systems Program Dir,, KC- 
135 Aircraft, Aeronautical Systems 
Div. 

Assignments at Air Force r,t>f*is- 
tics Command include: MnJ, Gen. 
Fred J. Ascani, Dir. of Operations, 
AFLC Headquarters, Wright-Pa t tar- 
son AFB, Ohio; Brlff. Gen. Arthur 
W, Cruiltshank Jr., Dep. Commander, 
Warner Robins Air Materiel Area, 
Robins AFB, Ga.; Col. Sohvyn J. 
Barefoot, Dir., Procurement iinil Pro- 
duction, Offdcn Air Materiel Area, Hill 
AFB, Utah; and Col. Hnrvcy H. Ut- 
son Jr., Dep, Civil Engineer, APLC 
Headquarters. 



Space and Missile 

Systems Organization 

Formed within AFSC 

Tho Air Force* Systems Command's 
Ballistic Systems Division at Norton 
APB, Calif., and tho Spaco Hyatoms 
Division at Los Angolas AFS, Ctilif., 
were realigned on July 1, 19G7, to 
form a new Space and Missile Sys- 
tems Organization (SAMRO). Tho 
headquarters of the now organiyution 
is at Los Angeles Air Force Station, 
Ait- Force Unit Post Office, Los 
Angeles, Calif. 90045. 

Most of the mission functions re- 
main in their present locations fit 
Norton AFB and Los Ang-elon AFS. 

Major General John W. O'Neill, 
formerly commander of tho AFSC 
Electronic Systems Division, is the 
commander of the new organization 
with duty station at Los Angeles AFS. 



1967 




MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA 



AUGUST 

Electroslag Consumable Electrode 
Remelting Technology Conference, 
Aug. 9-10, at Mellon Institute, Pitts- 
burgh, Pa. Co-Sponsors: Mellon In- 
stitute and the Air Force Materials 
Laboratory, Wrig-ht-Patterson AFB, 
Ohio. Contact; Air Force Materials 
Laboratory, Wrig-ht-Patterson AFB 
Ohio 45433. 

FALL 

1967 Conference on Speech Process- 
ing, dates undetermined, at Boston, 
Mass. Co-sponsors: Institute of Elec- 
trical and Electronics Engineers and 
the Air Force Cambridge Research 
Laboratories. Contact: C. P. Smith, 
(CRBS), Air Force Cambridge Re- 
search Laboratories, L. G. Hanacom 
Field, Mass. 01731, phone (617) 
274-6100, Ext. 3712. 

SEPTEMBER 

Second Symposium on Automatic 
Control in Space, Sept, 4-8, at Vi- 
enna, Austria. Sponsor: International 
Federation of Automatic Control 
Contact: J. A. Asoltim-, TRW Sys- 
tems, Space Park Drive, Houston, Tex 
77058. ' ' 

International Symposium on Infor- 
mation Theory, Sept. 11-15, at Ath- 
ens, Greece. Sponsors: Air Force 
Office of Scientific Research, In forma- 
tion Theory Group of the Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers 
and the Intel-national Radio Scien- 
tific Union. Contact: Lt. Col. B R 
Agins, (SRMA), Air Force Office of 
bcientific Research, 1400 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, Va, 22209, phono 
(202) OXford 4-5261. 

International Symposium on Matc- 
nals-Kcy to Effective Use of the 
Sea, Sept. 12-14, at the Statler Hilton 
Hotel New York, N.Y. Co-sponsors: 
Naval Applied Science Laboratory and 
the Polytechnic Institute of Brook- 
lyn, N.Y, Contact: D. H, Kallas, As- 
sociate Technical Director, Naval Ap- 
plied Science Laboratory, Flushing 
and Washing-tor ' 
N.Y. 11251. 



Advanced Composite Structures 
Symposium, Sept. 39-21, at Hilton 
Hotel, Denver, Colo. Sponsor: Air 
Force Materials Laboratory. Contact: 
Mr Tomashot, (MAC), Air Force 
Materials Laboratory, Wright-Patter- 
son AFB, Ohio 45433, phone (518) 
253-7111, Ext. 5&317. 

Eighth Symposium on Physics and 
Nondestructive Testing, Sept. 19-21 
at Dayton, Ohio. Sponsor: Air Force' 
Materials Laboratory, Wright-Patter- 
son AFB, Ohio 4G433. 

Joint Power Generation Confer- 
ence, Sept. 24-28, at the Statler 
Hilton Hotel, Detroit, Mich. Co- 
sponsors: Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers and the Amer- 
ican Society of Mechanical Engineers 
Contact: Carl Sh attach, General 
Electric Co., Schenectady, N.Y. 

Seventh Annual National Confer- 
ence on Environmental Effects on 

^rlr T' 1 1)r " 1 * i Systems, 
Sept. 25-27, at Nassau Inn, Prince! 
ton, N.J. Contact: Robert A. Realc, 
Prog-ram Vice -Chairman, U.S. Naval 
An- lurbino Teat Station, P.O Box 

w T 6 ' nit Parkwa r Avo., Trenton, 
JN.J. 08G28, phono (flop) 882-1414 
Ext. 224, ' 

Fourth Intel-national Conference 
on AtmosLiheric anil Space Elcctri- 
city, Sept. TKMfct 0, at Lucerne, 
bwitKorland. Sponsors: Air Force 
Cambridge Research Laboratories 
Army, Navy, National Science Foun- 
dation and National Aeronautics and 
kpacc Administration. Contact- M 
B. Gilbert, (CRTE), Ah- Force Cam- 
bridge Research Laboratories, L G 
Hanscom Field, Mnsa. 01731, phone* 
(017) 274-0100, Ext. 3633. 



Wrig-ht-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Co- 
Sponsors; Air Force Materials Labor- 
atory and the University of Dayton. 
Eleventh Annual Organic Chemis- 
try Conference, Oct. 12-13, at Natiek, 
Mass. Sponsors: National Academy of 
Science-National Research Council, 
Advisory Board on Military Personnel 
Supplios, and Organic Chemistry Lab- 
oratory, Pioneering' Research Div., 
Army Natiek Laboratories. Contact: 
Or. L. Long Jr., Head, Organic Chem- 
istry Lab., (PRD), Army Natiek Lab- 
oratories, Natiek, Mass. 017(50, phone 
(G17) G58-1000, Ext. 414. 

Conference on the Exploding Wire 
Phenomenon, Oct. 18-20, at Boston, 
Mass. Sponsor: Air Force Cambridge 
Research Laboratories. Contact; W 
G. Chace, (CRFA), Air Force Cam- 
bridge Research Laboratories, L. G 
Hanscom Field, Mass. Q17BQ, phone 
(617) 274-G100, Ext. 492G. 

Mass Transport iu OxidcH, Oct. 
22-25, at tho National Bureau of 
Standards, Gaitheraburff, Md. Spon- 
sor: Advanced Research Projects 
Agency. Contact: Dr. John H. Wacht- 
man, Inorganic Materials Div 
National Human of Standards, Wash- 
ington, D.C. 20234, phono (301) 021- 



Conference on Un K iii(led Rocket 
Uallistica MeteoroloRy, Oct. 30-Nov 
1, at New Mexico State University,' 
Las Graces, N.M. Sponsor: Army 
Electronics Command. Contact: I!. E. 
Britain, Atmospheric Sciences Offiec 
Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory! 
White Sands, N.M, 88002, phone (HOfi) 
338-1006. 



OCTOBER 



NOVEMBER 



Defense Indusfry Bulletrn 



Twenty-second annual Transporta- 
tion and Logistics Forum, Oct. 3-6 
at the Bilfcmore Hotel, Los Angeles,' 
Calif. Sponsor: National Defense 
Transportation Association. Contact- 
Les Richards, 3416 S. La Cienoga 
Blvd., Los Angclca, Calif. 00010. 

Conference on Reinforced Metal 
Matrix Composites, Oct. 10-12, at 



1907 Conference on Speech Coin- 
miuncfttion and Processing:, Nov 0-8 
at Boston, Mass. Co-sponsors;' Air 
Force Cambridge Research Labora- 
tories and the Institute of Elec- 
trical and Electronics Engineers 
Contact: a P. Smith, (CRBS), Air 
I'orce Cambridge Research Labora- 
tories, L. G, Hanscom Field, Masa. 
01780, phone (017) 274-6100, Ext. 

O f _Lj3 P 



17 




OFFICEOF RESEARCH 

AfJD LABORATORIES 

DR. J. T. THOMAS OX 53596 



COMMANDING GENERAL ~ 

DEPUTY COMMANDING GENERAL 

DEPUTY FOR RESEARCH AND lAtORJUORIB - 

CHIEF OF STAFF 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF- - 

ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY COMMANDING 60 
SECRETARY OF THE GENERAL STAFF 



DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT 
MGR. H. FREE (Acting) 0X74728 



DIRECTOR OF INSTALLATIONS AND SERVICES 
COL. A. J. D.AREZZO OX 41035 



DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT 
AND PRODUCTION 

BGW. J. WOOLWINE 0X70627 



DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 
MR, W. S. CHARIN (Acting) 0X59128 



DIRECTOR OK MAJOR | 
flGJ. . SCHU1MMIKIHN 



DIRECTOR QUALITY ASSIJRWi 
MR. S, J, LOfifltH fAf.tij! OH lifil 




CHAPLAIN 
COL R. W. JUNGFER. JR. 0X73604 



COMBAT SURVEILLANCE OFFICE 
R. F. BRADY (Acting) 0X59123 



TECHNICAL DATA OFFICE 
MR. FENNER M. CRIMES (Acting) OX 72I2Q 



CO. 



U.S. ARMY AVIATION MATERIEL COMMAND 
ST. LOUIS. MO. 63166 



MG JOHN NORTON 



U.S. ARMY RECTRONICS COMMAND 
FORT MONMOUTH, N.J. 07703 

1201) 532 WOO 
MGW. B. LATTA 



U.S. ARMY MISSILE COMMAND 
REDSTONE ARSENAL.ALA. 35809 

(205)877-1100 



MG CHARLES W. EIRER 



MAJOR ill 



U.S. AfiMYTAHK-AUTOA1!)IIVi:CC''.S 
WARREN. MICH, MM 

(3)3)756-1000 ; 

MO WILLIAM W. tAPSll't 




August 1947 



202 



APRIL 1967 



GENERAL F.S. BESSON, JR. OX 59154 

-V -S LTG W - B - Bl) NKER OX 59006 

M1 jT DR. J. T. THOMAS OX 53596 

j 
-..{. VACANT 

.;,- COL. J.B. CLARK OX 59574 

,jlji COL. E. L. SNAPP OX 70615 

i -COL. H. H. BRAUNSTEIN OX 59578 



f 

4 



ARTERS 



INATE COMMANDS 




OPERATIONAL HEAVINESS OFFICE 
COL. D. L. SAl.l.F.C(AcIy) OX 77715 



*f& 

1 


DIRECTOR OF SUPPLY 
BGT. H. SCOTT, JR. 0X505-35 


DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE 
BGJOHNP. TAYLOR 0X50601 


DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION 
COL REUBEN E. WHEELIS OX567S5 


i 
I 


COMPTROLLER AND DIRECTOR 
OF PROGRAMS 

(VACANT) OX 77897 


DIRECTOR OF MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 
AND DATA AUTOMATION 

BGJACKE. BABCOCK 0X56*00 


DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS 
MCJ. M. FINN 0X54500 


> 

> 

D 


INSPECTOR GENERAL 
COL. C. S. FREED OX 72876 


INFORMATION OFFICER 
COL, H. D. KIGHT OX 78091 


JUDGE ADVOCATE GHNE RAL COUNSEL 
ITCJ.E MACKL1N, JR. OX 7-1609 MR . K , M. 3ARNES 0X52081 


^Y OFFICE 

MERLO _ ox/i37oo 


AVIATION OFFICE 
COL, W. B. DYER OX 71234 DR. 


HISTORICAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 
DALEBIRDSELL OX 5W2 COL. S. J. SAWICKI 0X59165 



U. S. ARMY MOBILITY EQUIPMENT COMMAND 
ST. LOLirs, MO. 63120 

(3M) AM 3-1100 
BGE. I. DONLEY 



U.S. ARMY MUNITIONS COMMAND 
DOVER, N, J. 07801 

IZOU 328-4021 
MG FLOYD A. HANSEN 



U. S. ARMY TEST & EVALUATION COMMAND 
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD. 21005 

(301) 278-5201 
MGL. G. CAGWIN 



U. S. ARMV WEAPONS COMMAND 
ROCK ISLAND, ILL, 61202 

0091 79-1-6001 
BGW. J. OURftENOERGER 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



RESEARCH REPORTS 



Authorized DOD contractors and 
grantees may obtain these docu- 
ments without charge from: 

Defense Documentation Center 

Cameron Station 

Alexandria, Va. 22314 

Others may purchase these docu- 
ments at the price indicated from: 

Clearinghouse for Federal and 
Scientific Information 

Department of Commerce 

Springfield, Va. 22151 



A Mixed Programing Formulation 
of a Weapons Allocation Problem. 

Ballistic Research Lab., Aberdeen 
Proving Ground, Md,, Jan. 1967, 11 p. 
Order No. AD-645 813. ?3. 

Hardware Aids for Automata De- 
sign. Rand Corp., Santa Monica, 
Calif., for the Advanced Research 
Projects Aegncy, Dec. 1966, 36 p, 
Order No. AD-646 393. $3. 

Adept a Heuristic Program for 
Proving Theorems of Group Theory. 
M.I.T., for the Department of De- 
fense, Sept. 1966, 181 p. Order No. 
AD-645 660. $3. 

A Study of Shape Recognition 
Using the Medal Axis Transforma- 
tion. Air Force Cambridge Research 
Labs, Bedford, Mass., Nov. 1966, 38 p. 
Order No. AD-646 258. $3. 

Computer Science Research Review. 
Carnegie Institute of Technology, for 
the Advanced Research Projects 
Agency, Jan. 1.967, 73 p. Order No. 
AD-645 294. $3. 

The Development of the SDC Sys- 
tem 360 Time-Sharing System. Sys- 
tem Development Corp., Santa Mon- 
ica, Calif., Dec. 1966, 22 p. Order 
No. AD-645 439. $3. 

Manipulating Dates and Time 
Lapses in a Computerized Records 
System. USAF School of Aerospace 
Medicine, Brooks APB, Tex., Sept. 
1966, 17 p. Order No. AD-641 278. $3. 

A Computer System for Inference 
Execution and Data Retrieval. Rand 
Corp., Santa Monica, Calif., for the 
Air Force, Sept, 1966, 32 p. Order 
No, AD-642 120. $3. 

The Methodology of Control Panel 
Design. Bunker-Hamo Corp., Canoga 

20 



Park, Calif., for the Air Force, Sept, 
1966, 78 p. Order No. AD-646 442. $3. 
The Role of Trial in The Accept- 
ance and Adoption of New Equip- 
ment. Life Sciences, Inc., Fort 
Worth, Tex., for the 'Office of Naval 
Research, Aug. 1966, 69 p. Order No. 
AD-646 360. $3. 

Increasing Team Proficiency 
Through Training. American Insti- 
tutes for Research, Pittsburgh, Pa., 
for the Navy, May 1965, 61 p. Order 
No. AD-471 470. ?3. 

Human Factors Engineering Design 
Standard for Wheeled Vehicles. 
Army Human Engineering Labs, 
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., Sept. 
1966, 187 p. Order No. AD-646 681, 
$3. 

Resonant Beam and Ultrasonic 
Methods for Evaluation of Sintered 
Powder Steel Compacts. Springfield 
Armory, May 1966, 32 p. Order No. 
AD-646 580. $3. 

Deep-Hole Drilling in the Manufac- 
ture of VKF Launchers. Arnold Air 
Force Station, Tenn., Nov. 19GG, 15 p. 
Order No. AD-642 062. $3. 

High Speed Deformation of Selected 
High-Strength Alloys: Effect on Me- 
chanical Properties. Army Materials 
Research Agency, Watertown, Mass., 
Aug. 1966, 20 p. Order No. AD-640 
023. $3. 

Improved Cartridge Design Frank- 
ford Arsenal, Philadelphia, Pa., for 
the Air Force, Oct. 1966, 35 p. Order 
No. AD-645 273 $3. 

Improvement of Forging Produc- 
tion: Generalization of Experience of 
Ural Plants. Translated from Russian 
by Translation Div., Wright-Patterson 
AFB, Ohio, July 1966, 200 p. Order 
No. AD-64E 774. $3. 

An Evaluation of the Spiral Point 
Drill Geometry. Rock Island Arsenal, 
Army Weapons Command, Rock 
Island, 111., Sept. 1966, 34 p. Order 
No. AD-644 303. $3, 

High Energy System (Organic 
Electrolyte). Electric Storage Bat- 
tery Co., Yardley, Pa., for the Army, 
Sept, 1966, 126 p. Order No. AD-639 
709. $3. 

Battery Separator Mechanisms- 
Literature Survey Report. Naval Ord- 
nance Lab., White Oak, Md., Sept, 
1966, 48 p. Order No. AD-642 779, $3. 

FC-2 Liquid Ammonia Reserve Bat- 
tery. Naval Ordnance Lab., Corona, 



Calif., Nov. I960, 61 p. Order No. 
AD-64G 636. $3. 

500 Watt Fuel Cell Powerplant 
United Aircraft Corp., East Hnrtfont, 
Conn., for the Army, Oct. 1060, 74 p. 
Order No. AD-640 700, ,$3, 

Literature Survey on the Snrfnco 
Structures of Refractory Metnla with 
Reference to Thermionic Emission am! 
Energy Converters. NorthcAHtern Uni- 
versity, Boston, Mass,, for tlio Air 
Force, Juno 1966, 48 p. Order No. 
AD-688 954. $3. 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING 
OFFICE PUBLICATIONS 



These publications may bo pur- 
chased at the prices indicated from: 
Superintendent of Documents 
U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 20402 



Electromagnetic Spectrum Utiliza- 
tion The Silent Crisis, A Report on 
Telecommunication Science and the 
Federal Government by the Telecom- 
munication Science Panel of the Com- 
merce Technical Advisory Board. A 
study of trends in the technology 
and use of the electromagnetic spot- 
trum and an examination of vivrtoun 
methods of increasing the telecom- 
munication capabilities of the nation 
through more effective use of tlio 
electromagnetic spectrum. 19GG, 85 p. 
Catalog No. C 1.2:E12. 50(f 

Design Mnnunl Changes. Contains* 
changes to the Design Manuals 
whose criteria consist of direction 
and standards for procedures, 
methods, dimensions, materials, loadx 
and stresses as used in the tloalgii 
of facilities under cognisance of the 
Navy Bureau of Yards and Dock 
(now Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command). These changes, covering 
more than one manual, are combined 
in single publications as listed below: 
NAVDOGKS DM-1, DM-6, DM-36, 
DM-36, July 1966 through June 1000. 
1966. 228 p. Catalog No. D 209.H/ 
2:3,26,28/ch. $1.25 NAVDOOKS DM- 
3, DM-25, DM-26, July 19(56 through 
June 1966, 1966. 240 p. Catalog No. I) 
209.14/2:3,25,26/ch. $1.60 NAV- 
DOCKS DM-50, Change 2, July IflGfi 
through June 1966. 1966. 134 i>. 
Catalog No. D 209.14/2 :BO/ch 2. GOtf. 

August T967 



The table on page 22 shows selected 
financial ami employment data re- 
lated to the impact of DOD programs 
on the economy. The tabular data 
cover seven major subject matter 
areas, beginning- with the first quar- 
ter of calendar year 19GG and con- 
tinuing through the latest month for 
which information is available. Fig- 
ure 1 below covers three areas obli- 
gations, expenditures and contracts 
by quarter year. 

Explanations of the terms used in 
the table follow. 

Military Prime Contract Award. 

A military prime contract award is 
a legally binding instrument executed 
by a Military Departmeiit or Defense 
Agency (DOD component) to obtain 
equipment, supplies, research and de- 
velopment, services, or construction. 
Both new instruments and modifica- 
tions or cancellations of instruments 
are included; however, modifications 
of less than $10,000 each are not 
included. 

The series includes awards made 



by DOD components on behalf of 
other Federal agencies, e.g., National 
Aeronautics and Space Administra- 
tion, and on behalf of foreign govern- 
ments under both military assistance 
grant aid and sales arrangements, 
It also includes orders written by 
DOD components requesting a non- 
dofense Federal agency to furnish 
supplies or services from its stocks, 
c.ff., General Services Admins tration 
stores depots; from in-house manu- 
facturing 1 facilities, e.g., Atomic En- 
ergy Commission; or from contracts 
executed by that Federal agency. 

The series does not include awards 
paid from post exchange or similar 
n on-appropriated funds, nor does it 
include contracts for civil functions, 
such as flood control or river and 
harbors work performed by the Army 
Corps of Engineers. Project orders 
issued to DOD-ownad-and-operated 
establishments, such as shipyards and 
arsenals, are not included, but con- 
tracts executed by such establish- 
ments are. 



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

OBLIGATIONS, EXPENDITURES AND PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS 

(QUARTERLY) 



PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS 




5.0 - 



I Qtr n Qtr TH Qtr 

CY 1966 



E Qtr I Qtr 



Qtr m Qtr 

CY 1967 



is Qlr 



Figure 1, 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



The distribution by broad com- 
modity group includes only contracts 
which are to be performed within 
the United States or its possessions. 
Each commodity group includes not 
only the indicated end item, but also 
associated components and spare 
parts, research and development, nnd 
maintenance or rebuild work. Elec- 
tronics and Communications includes 
only such equipment and supplies as 
are separately procured by DOD com- 
ponents. Electronics procured by an 
aircraft prime contractor is reported 
as Aircraft. Other Hard Goods con- 
tains tank-automotive, transporta- 
tion, production, medical and dental, 
photographic, materials handling, 
and miscellaneous equipment and 
supplies. Soft Goods includes fuels, 
subsistence, textiles ami clothing. All 
Other contains services, e.g., trans- 
portation, and all new contracts or 
purchase orders of less than $10,000 
each. Commodity identification ia not 
available for these small purchases. 

Work done outside the United 
States refers to the location where 
the work will be physically per- 
formed. About 5G to GO percent of 
this work is awarded to U. S. busi- 
ness firms, but a lesser percentage of 
the contract dollars in this category 
directly impacts on the U. S. econ- 
omy, 

Gross Obligations Incurred 

Gross obligations incurred are total 
amounts recorded in official account- 
ing records of the Military Depart- 
ments and Defense Agencies from 
source documents, such as signed con- 
tracts or any instrument which 
legally binds the Government to pay- 
ment of funds. Present coverage ex- 
tends only to general fund accounts; 
obligations incurred in revolving 
funds are excluded. Included, and 
double -counted, are obligations which 
are recorded first when an order is 
placed by one appropriation upon 
another appropriation, nnd second 
when the latter appropriation exe- 
cutes an obligation for material or 
services with a private supplier. This 
duplication averages about eight per- 
cent of gross obligations. 



21 





n 

K 


C C C* CC CO 7-1 Ci O 
T -^ C-I " W to O (5 

o^WrHL-i ;::: r- I-H 


c; co 

rH C-l 
l> C-J 




inoer 
coin-^t 
co^cot- 


CO ( 

en t- 












K- 


CO 




COrH 


in 












C'lCC'ldOCOr-tCL 


in t- -T rH ! 


rH iHCOOj 


CO tO COCO 


t- OCM 


CM 


1? 






e, 


CO C! L- I- OO C; L- C-l T- 


t- CM to o c- 


Cl tO rH If 


CO T-HCOrH 


rH CO 0! 


rH 


L~-l 








rr: CM TCMrHrnir 


(O CM (O CO L 


H_ t-.,^ 1 - 


in Ti^c^eft 


rH_ OJ^CD 


O^ 


CO C- 






"* 




CM" CO"H" 


tO^ T!" CM t- 


rjT CO^rH 


tD rH 


rH 


CO*"i 












CM 


CO 














Kr- 




















<"] C C- CO H t CO <M 1 


O CO 0J 05 Cfl 


rH Tf OCO 


CM cMTf en 


in -r)l CO 


L- CM rHC- 


IO r-l OO 






t-H 


O "'t I- r- L- iH M C-J O 


cn m w -H r- 


(O xfCOC- 


m OC-L 


in CM < 


co en cor- 


CO ;- CO 








rH Cl_t- 00 Cl Cl tO W O 




00 to t C^ 


tO_ OOrH 


CM to i- 




r-J^ C-3 O 








CM" r-i" r- 


Oi o*in"cv 


t- 1 ^M" t- 


vf Qin& 


OO CO O 


10* in" 


tcT (n ' r- 










rH 


rH (M 


CO rH 


1 t 












K- 






































1. 


OCJrHL-OlCO'^'L-tO 


to co co ^r* C 1 


^ rf O 00 


<M tDCO t- 


t> CO ^H 


L 


r-H CO 






^ 


P: co t- in (M tr o-, to o 


L- in owe* 


in T]toocv 


in rHOt- 


en oei 


to 


1^- tC 




^ 





in T- rH <N CO CO rH T? 


co^ rH "T.^ 1 en 


co to L 6 


to m en CN 


tD ^L 








k, 






c*f CO"H" 


to ^w t- 


T^T tQr^r- 


tD i-T 


,_(" 


CO r- 




rt 




tfi- 




CM 


CO 










K ^ 


















f 


O k. 




















t- 

3 ] 


f 


co IH oo m ire in c>: a-, in 

CO (O rH ri O C Cl in t- 

t- ? w M TH in 


C) CM tO rH ^ 

t- rH (M in L- 


rH OKMCTJ 

m en co t 


CO OlrH L 
T)l rHCnOO 
CO CM -SICO 


L- rHtO 

en CM to 
in CM to 


Ir- 

CO 

no 


ooo 










CO" Co'iH 


in Tf CML- 


m COrH 


U3 rH 


rH 


CO T- 




5 (5 




__ 




W 


CO 































M >t 




















~, K 
SI- 
^ 

Of- 


ft C 


J-OOtOt-IT-HtOrr 
t- CO CO CO CM CM rH u: 


in co mooco 
co co encocM 

i-H rH Tl< t-CO 


(O H Tf L-- 

m Tfcoin 

O O rH I/I 


CM c- o in 

CO (OCOr- 


CM CO OI 
CD OCO 


CO 

co 
m 


I.- tD 

IQ T: 




I- 






CO" CO"rH 


to in COL- 


m CO rH r" 


in rH 


rH 


-^r 




1 




60- 




CM 


CO 










w 




















W - 




















1C 




















X ^ 


M 


totocoTfi-iwcoinc' 


^ CM CMtOO 

CM t- ot-cr 


CO Tji CO t- 
O CM t-CN 
<N OrHtO 


CM CO tOCT 
CO OCMO 


Tj< O Cf, 


rH COrH m 
Tf> COU3IO 

r-- ^ 


Oi -cfO 

eii c>3 ; 

IO CO l> 




Bi 
3 




CI rH r- 


en en in c^ 


t- inco't- 


in en TP co 


D CO CM 


1Q IO 


IO CO i- 




s 1 




65- 




H CM 


CO 


rH 








w ^ 




















<! fi 




















c- - 


S 


ClrHt-CltOtOt-Cllf; 
tOCOCOWtOtOOrHC^ 

W"H" rn" (X 


to to <ococo 
co in CM <D in 
m co ^ co TJ 

o esinco* 


t- <M (P rH 

Tf oicoin 

CM L X t T c ; 


en COCM Tf 
L- tocncc 


^f in c 

OO irarH 

IQ" co"cNi 


CO OO EN 

ira en ira 10 


a> <M sx 

00 ^r- 




g 




w- 


rH rH 


rH CM 


n 


rH 


10 -^ 


T^f CO r- 




w e 




















>x 

H B 
b, .. 

S e 


H 


01^ eft TJ> ^ in co c> co en 

W r-t rH iH rH 


jg cn o co L- 


CO L-t)lCJ> 


o tote t- 

CM L-OO-t^ 

in ocoto 


en en ira 
C.1^0 


3 CD ^O rH 
L- TtUO 
W CO 


to ^s> a 

^ O T-^ 




| 




tfi- 


H rt encoco 


CM "w^ 


M" cTcocM" 


r\ 


in" -^1" 


M" COrH 




O S 




















w 5 




















H 


1O 


inoiAmivifi^rt>r^ 
















o .S 
w 
j I" 


M 


rHi-f rt " 


> W (M t- EM 

cn in co i co_ 1 ^ 


O) COCOOO 

CM cMoen 

*H COCMOO 


Ol CftrH t- 

* oomm 
t- totot- 


L- rHL- 

cn coco 


CO tDMCO 
rH CO O IQ 
*"! "* 


rH OT OO 
CM O OO 

n, o^,^ 




jo eo"co"in 








H 


Cfl S3 




W- 




rH rH 


CM 


r-i 


-* 


"* CM rH 




o 




















S 
























to 












TH Oj 'tlJ 
Or? V 

81-T +> 








fq jo g 








w n H Ft 'Ot oo '^3 








8 E S.S <{ fc g a 








is -i '-^rt >1 ' 








t t*i fa "~i "^ >S S ^ t* x_ 

O ,.^* H c rn P3 * ^^ Qi ***i fc 5? 










i 
f 

f 






^ t? ti fcs! .-/ ^ 
^ fe ^ 6 g 


1 

r ' 
a 

-W 



August 1967 



Operations. The Military Person- 
nel appropriation and Operation and 
Maintenance appropriation of the 
Defense Department. 

Procurement. The Procurement ap- 
propriation. 

Other. The Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation appropriation, 
and Military Construction, Family 
Housing, Civil Defense, and Military 
Assistance appropriations. 

Gross Unpaid Obligations Outstand- 
ing. 

Obligations incurred by DOD for 
which it has not yet expended funds. 
Net Expenditures. 

Gross payments less collections by 
the Military Departments and De- 
fense Agencies, including military as- 
sistance. Payments represent checks 
issued. 

DOD Personal Compensation. 

Personal C ompensation represents 
wages and salaries earned by per- 
sonnel employed by DOD. Military 
compensation represents pay and al- 
lowances to active duty personnel; 
reserve pay and retired pay are ex- 
cluded. Civilian compensation repre- 
sents gross pay and includes lump sum 
payments for final annual leave. Both 
figures are inclusive of individual 
contributions to retirement and social 
insurance funds, but are exclusive 
of any employer contributions to 
these funds. 

Outstanding: Payments. 

These are payments to contractors 
by the Military Departments and 
Defense A gencies made hef ore the 
goods or services contracted for are 
completed and delivered. 

Advance Payments. Payments to 
contractors in advance of perform- 
ance of a contract. 

Progress Payments. Payments to 
contractors as work progresses on a 
contract, These payments serve to re- 
imburse the contractor for a major 
poi-tion of the costs incurred to date. 

V-Loans. Loans by commercial 
banka to defense contractors in ad- 
vance of completion of work, in which 
the Government agrees to share any 
losses resulting from default. 
Strength. 

These figures represent the number 
of persons on active duty with DOD 
at the- end of the period. 

Military. Men and women on con- 
tinuous or extended active duty. Ex- 
cludes reserves on temporary active 
duty for reserve training. 

Civilian. Direct hire personnel, 



The Defense Contracts Compliance 
Office, responsible for assuring- equal 
opportunity employment on all de- 
fense contracts as required by Execu- 
tive Order 11246, became a part of 
the Defense Supply Agency's .Defense 
Contract Administration Services 
(DCAS) on July 1, 1967. 

The transfer ties together, for the 
first time, the office responsible for 
elimination of discrimination by de- 
fense contractors and the contracting 
officials responsible for administering 
defense contracts. This direct relation- 
ship will assure increased effective- 
ness of the Defense Contracts Com- 
pliance Program. The Compliance 
Office headquarters has 22 civilian 
employees in Washington, D.C., and 
149 field representatives located in 
cities across the country, 

No change in the size or composi- 
tion of the Compliance Office is anti- 
cipated. The Secretary of Defense 
has directed that the transfer assure 
that the separate identity of the Com- 
pliance Office and its personnel within 
the DCAS organization is retained. 

Beginning in 1962, the three Mili- 
tary Departments and the Defense 
Supply Agency established separate 
contracts compliance offices. These 



were consolidated on July 1, 1966, 
under the Office of the Assistant Sec- 
retary of Defense (Manpower), with 
certain administrative support func- 
tions for the field offices assigned to 
the 11 DCAS regions. 

Subsequent experience, supple- 
mented by a detailed management 
survey, demonstrated that the 171- 
member contracts compliance organi- 
zation, supported by and aligned with 
the DCAS nation-wide program, 
would he more effective and have a 
greater impact on defense contractors. 
Policy direction and guidance of the 
Contracts Compliance Program will be 
retained in the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense (Manpower) to 
assure continued high priority atten- 
tion throughout DOD. 

The Defense Contracts Compliance 
Office headquarters group is located 
in Room 8A 489, Building 8, at Cam- 
eron Station, Duke Street, Alexandria 
Va. Field offices will bo located in 
the DCAS regions head quarto rod at 
the following- cities; Atlanta, Ga,; 
Boston, Mass.; Chicago, 111.; Cleve- 
land, Ohio; Dallas, Tex.; Detroit, 
Mich. ; Los Angeles, Calif. ; New 
York, N.Y.; Philadelphia, Pa.; St. 
Louis, Mo.; and San Francisco, Calif. 



USAF Civil 

Engineering R&D 

Goes to Kirfland AFB 

All Air Force civil engineering re- 
search and development haa been 
centralized at the Air Force Weapons 
Laboratory (AFWL), Kirtltmd AFB, 
N. M. 

As the "lead laboratory" for civil 
engineering, AFWL will conduct or 
manage all exploratory and advanced 
development in this area, and will 
provide technical guidance and direc- 
tion for the entire civil engineering 
program of the Air Force. 

The new role of the laboratory will 
speed up vitally needed civil engineer- 
ing' projects in Southeast Asia and at 
Air Force installations world-wide. 
The laboratory's Civil Engineering 
Branch will carry out the new mis- 
sion. 



Navy Develops New 
Fire-Fighting Foam 

A portable high-expansion, foam- 
generating system, developed by the 
Naval Applied Science Laboratory, 
will soon be delivered to fleet units 
and Navy fire-fighting schools. 

The new foam system was developed 
to combat liquid fuel fires in engine, 
boiler and machinery spaces aboard 
ships. 

High expansion foam, unlike con- 
ventional fire-fighting agents, can fill 
a ship's compartment in a few min- 
utes, flowing over and around obstruc- 
tions and engulfing fires, 

The new agent can be applied from 
outside a compartment through a 
hatch opening, while conventional 
agents must be applied directly on a 
fire. A swivel-mounted door permits 
operators to direct the foam horizon- 
tally or vertically. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



23 



The Paris Air Show, held every 
other year at Le Bom-get Airport, 
Js the outstanding international 
forum for the display of aerospace 
technology. Participation at this 
event is motivated by a variety of 
goals and is in a variety of forma, 
from national pavilions stressing the 
state of various technologies to air- 
craft equipment manufacturers ex- 
pecting to actually take orders for 
equipment; from Military Service acro- 
batic teams displaying their precision 
flying skills to company presentations 
geared to a specific customer audi- 
ence. In short, every sort of exhibib- 
ing group attempts to educate every 
sort of customer audience. Paris 1967 
was no exception to this. 

U. S. participation at Paris 1967 
represents the best planned and coor- 
dinated effort of U. S. Government 
and industry to date. Planning for 
this participation began almost two 
years ago and involved a major effort 
on the part of all agencies involved, 
especially the Department of Com- 
merce. The Department of Commerce 
provided professional talent to or- 
ganize and implement the unified U. S. 
participation. An impressive and 
strategically located U. S. pavilion, 
based on the theme of U. S. aero- 
space technology from Lindbergh's 
time until today, the 40th anniversary 
of Lindbergh's flight, housed dis- 
plays by the Federal Aviation 
Agency, the U. S. Information 
Agency, the Environmental Science 
Services Administration, the Com- 
munications Satellite Corp., the 
Atomic Energy Commission, the Na- 
tional Aeronautics and Space Admin- 
istration, as well as 16 maior aero- 



States received a very good press. 
President de Gaulle, scheduled for 
10 minutes in the U. S. pavilion, 
spent 30 minutes, including- a dis- 
cussion with our astronauts. Meet- 
ings of U. S. and Russian astro- 
nauts were unofficially arranged and 
received wide press coverage. 

The Defense Department static air- 
craft exhibit was certainly our most 
interesting and best balanced show- 
ing at Paris to date. It included: 

Exotic technical developments in 
aerospace like the F-111A variable 
geometry tactical fighter, the XC- 
142 tilt-wing VTOL transport air- 
craft, and the CL-286 rigid-rotor 
helicopter. 

In addition, seven other new air- 
craft, none previously shown at Paris, 
the OV-10A, A-7A, CH-53A, AH- 
1G, TA-4F, RF-4 and the HH-3E. 

Aircraft shown before at Paris 
representing potential to meet other 
nations' defense requirements or cur- 
rently in use or on order by other 
nations, including the OH-6, CH-47, 
OV-1, UH-46, P-3A and C-141. 



Aircraft representing interim- 
tional defense and industrial coopera- 
tion like the UH-1 helicopter produce! 
by Italy and the Federal Republic o 
Germany; the A-7A, planned to in 
corporate the British Rolls Itoyco en 
gine (for the U. S. Air Force A-7D) 
the UH-46 helicopter under produc 
tion in Japan; the I/ 1 -'!, u HITCH tl; 
being' produced approximately fifl -per 
cent each in the United StftUw niu 
the United Kingdom Tor British re 
quirements; and the l''~f>, now ii 
production in Canada and Spain. 

Aircraft indicatives of the ( 
application of defciiHC-duftitt'iu'el 
meat, including the OJI-<i helii-optc 
and its civilian counterpart, 111 
Hug-hen 1)00 executive transport; th 
civilian version of the C'-IHO nn 
C-141, the Lockheed 100 and 2W 
respectively; and this HH-!)K rep-re 
senting- the S-61 family of Sikorsk 
helicopters. 

Aircraft representing* this KIUHU 
of sine and propulsion from the 0-1 -I 
transport to the OIf--(i litfht liirli 
copter; speed from tho MiK'h-S-pln 




August 



F-lll tactical flghter to the STOL 
^^ OV-10 close support attack aircraft; 
and missions from flying- hospitals 
to reconnaissance at more than twice 
the speed of sound. 

The 19 Defense Department air- 
craft, with their related civilian air- 
craft and flying' displays, represented 
a complete picture of U. S. defense 
aviation. As the British press de- 
scribed the U. S. display, "Although 
the Russians have played all the 
aces . . . the United States holds the 
aircraft trump cards." 

The following- is a listing- of the 
aircraft in the DOD display: 

The U.S. Navy UH-4B Sea Knight 
which is the military application of 
the twin-turbine Boeing Vertol 107 
helicopter. The 107 is in use by the 
Royal Canadian Air Force and Army 
for search /rescue and troop trans- 
port; by the Royal Swedish Navy and 
Air Force for minesweeping, anti- 
submarine warfare, and search/res- 
cue missions; and, through a Jap- 
anese licensee, by the Japanese Man- 
time, Ground and Self Defense Forces, 
and commercial operators, 

o The U.S. Army twin-turbine, me- 
3 (Hum cargo helicopter, the CH-47 
Chinook. Made by Boeing-, it is soon 
to be delivered to the United King- 
dom's Royal Air Force. 

Currently in initial production by 
North American Aviation to meet 



U. S. Marine Corps and U. S. Air 
Force requirements, the OV-10 
Bronco, shown at Paris for the first 
time. In its present military version, 
as well as its potential carg-o (or 
large hull) modifications, it should 
be of interest to many nations to 
meet a variety of requirements. The 
OV-10A was specifically designed 
for low-cost, close-in battlefield oper- 
ations. Faster and more tactically 
versatile than helicopters, and slower 
but more maneuverable than jets, it 
utilizes tactics and provides capabili- 
ties not possible with either. STOL 
performance rough field landing- gear, 
low maintenance/support require- 
ments which permit operations from 
austere airfields, outstanding visibil- 
ity, maneuverability over a wide 
speed range, rugged construction, 
complete air-to-nir and air- to-ground 
communications, and flexible ordnance 
provisions make the Bronco effec- 
tive for a variety of missions, in- 
cluding border patrol, helicopter 
escort, forward air control, armed re- 
connaissance, close air support and, 
with its 100-cubfc-foot cargo bay and 
jeep-like operating- characteristics, 
suitable for a variety of utility or 
nation building- roles. 

Produced by the Hughes Tool Co., 
the U. S. Army observation heli- 
copter, the OH-6A Cayiise, shown 
along with its commercial counter- 
part, the Model 500 executive trans- 




port. The turbine -powered Cayuae has 
set 23 official world records for 
speed, distance, climbing and sus- 
tained altitude a feat never before 
attained by any other rotary-winged 
aircraft. The Hughes 500 offers bus- 
inessmen faster point-to-point travel 
than fixed-winged airplanes with its 
ability to cruise for 460 miles at 
160 miles per hour directly from one 
industrial heliport to- another. 

Two Sikorsky helicopters, the 
CH-S3A and HH-SE, displayed at 
Paris for the first time. The U.S. Ma- 
rine Corps CH-63A, with a maximum 
gross weight of 42,000 pounds, cruise 
speed of 172 miles per hour and 
maximum speed of 196 miles, per 
hour, is designed for a variety of 
missions, such as the. transport of 
48 fully equipped troops or 24 litter 
patients plus medical attendants. An- 
other version, the HII-B3B, is now in 
production for the U. S. Air Force. 
The U. S. Air Force HH-3E is a 
version of the Sikorsky S-fil family. 
It is assigned to the world-wide Aero- 
space Rescue and Recovery Service. 
Equipped with long-range fuel tanks 
and air refueling 1 capabilities, the 
HH-3E can be deployed over long 
ranges for the rescue and recovery 
of downed airmen and returning as- 
tronauts.. The HH-SE weighs 22,0f)0 
pounds loaded and cruises at Ifi4 
miles per hour. It has a 748-mile 
range without inflight refueling. Its 
refuel range capabilities were dra- 
matically displayed by the non-stop, 
trans-Atlantic flight staged during 
the show. 

The Lockheed Rigid Rotor Model 
286, shown at Paris for the first time. 
It is an PA A -certificated helicopter 
in direct descent of the XH-B1A 
development, jointly sponsored by 
the U. S. Army and Navy and pro- 
duced primarily to demonstrate the 
advanced state-of-the-art (lying qual- 
ities inherent in this new rotor sys- 
tem. Its flight display included loops 
and rolls. An XH-51A aircraft, modi- 
lied as a compound aircraft (with 
wings and auxiliary propulsion) was 
flown at more than 270 knots in the 
1965 Paris Air Show. The XH-51A 
Model 286 and XH-B1A compound 
helicopters were key stepping atones 
in the development of the Army's 
AH-5GA, Advanced Aerial Fire Sup- 
port System vehicles the first of 
which was formally rolled out early 
in May of this year. This type of rigid 
rotor helicopter represents an 1m- 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



25 



provemcnt in rotary wing technology 
and should have an impact on ^ the 
spectrum of military and civilian 
helicopter roles. 

The F-5 Freedom Fighter, pro- 
duced by Northrop Corp. The air- 
craft is a supersonic tactical fighter 
in service with 10 allied nations- 
Iran, The Republic of Korea, Greece, 
The Republic of the Philippines, The 
Republic of China, Turkey, Norway, 
Thailand, Ethiopia and Morocco 
and will be produced under license 
agreements by Spain and Canada, with 
Canadian-produced CF-Bs going addi- 
tionally to The Netherlands. The air- 
plane is also under evaluation by 
Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, Aus- 
tria and New Zealand for possible 
acquisition. The F-5, like its sister 
aircraft the U. S. Air Force trainer 
T-38, provides high performance in 
a relatively simple, economical, safe, 
and easily maintained design. From 
its inception, the F-5 program was 
envisioned as an international pro- 
gram. Through a combination of ad- 
vanced technology and operational 
simplicity, the F~5 reversed the com- 
plexity trend, while retaining full 
combat effectiveness. 

The U.S. Air Force Military Air- 
lift Command C-141 fanjet flying 
hospital transport aircraft, which is 
performing life-saving missions daily. 
It can transport 80 patients with 
eight attendants. As a cargo carrier, 
it can airlift more than 70,000 
pounds of equipment. It is the first 
jet with straight-in, truckbed level 
loading, enabling it to handle out- 
sized cargo and take full advantage 
of mechanized loading systems. The 
C-141 Starlifter is a step forward 
from the C-130 Hercules propjet 
transport, which is in service with 
the U. S. Air Force, Navy, Marines, 
and Coast Guard, and with 14 other 
nations. A civil version of the Her- 
cules, the Lockheed 100, which will 
transport 60,000 pounds of freight, 
was also on display along with the 
civil version of the C-141, known as 
the Lockheed 200. Several nations 
are considering acquisition of the 
C-141 and the Lockheed 200. 

The U.S. Navy P-3 Orion, built 
by Lockheed. This is the most ad- 
vanced U. S. anti-submarine patrol 
and maritime reconnaissance air- 
craft. Equipped with electronic de- 
tector devices representing the lat- 
est state of the art, the long-range, 
land-based Orion protects the free 



26 



world's sea lanes by operating from 
the U. S. Navy's Atlantic and Pacific 
Fleet outposts around the world. Ori- 
ons are also in service in the Royal 
New Zealand Air Force and will join 
the Royal Australian Air Force early 
in 1968. Other navies are also con- 
sidering the Orion for moderniza- 
tion of their airborne anti-submarine 
warfare and maritime patrol fleets. 
Acquisition and operation of the P-3 
by New Zealand and Australia estab- 
lishes a high degree of international 
cooperation and commonality in anti- 
submarine defense and establishes 
the P-3 as an international subma- 
rine hunter like its predecessor, the 
Lockheed P-2 Neptune, which flies 
in the anti-submarine warfare and 
maritime patrol forces of the United 
States and eight other free world 
nations. 

One of the most dramatic aircraft 
at Paris 1967, the F-lll swing-wing 
tactical fighter, made by General Dy- 
namics Corp. Developed as an Air 
Force/Navy aircraft, it is capable, 
in its various configurations, of per- 
forming tactical fighter, tactical 
reconnaissance, carrier intercept, and 
long-range bombing missions. Its 
flexibility is the result of its radical 
swing-wing design, which provides 
high lift for minimum roll take-offs 
with maximum loads but low drag; 
in the swept configuration for super- 



sonic flight. This design feature 
planned for inclusion in the Iloeinj 
designed supersonic transport, ns w< 
as for the Anglo-French swing-will 
fighter. The F-lll A has been aolccU 
by Australia and the United Kim 
dom for inclusion in their dcfen* 
forces and is currently buinff pn 
cured. 

The Grumman E-2A Hawheye, 
twin- turboprop airborne early wnn 
ing and intercept control aircraft i 
current production. The prhno m! 
sion of the Hnwkcyo is to <lelci 
high Mach number uttacTcinff iiircra 1 
at a point sufficiently distant I 
facilitate destruction before the u 
tacking force can deliver its weapon 
Designed for all-wenthcr operatio) 
from aircraft carriers or whore base 
the E-2A patrols the extremes 1 
defense perimeter. Its high renolutU 
radar can detect attacking aircrn 
miles away, track and cvalualo t) 
attack, store and aasoriible this info: 
mation, and relay it through hi(?l 
speed data links to tactical cunlro 
lora. It can also diroc t the into: 
ception of attacking* aircraft. As 
command and control vohielo, tt 
system performs many functions! uuti 
matically. The E-2A is cattily Idei 
tified by the huge swuear-likn rob 
dome atop its fuselage eontuiniim t] 
long-range radar antenna. 




August 19< 



* The F-4 Phantom, along with the 
Sparrow missile and advanced avion- 
ics, the best tactical fighter flying 
today. The inherent flexibility of the 
Phantom's building-block design has 
made it readily adaptable to the de- 
fense and industrial needs of its 
users. It has been produced with 
eight marks of three different radars, 
seven marks of two different engines, 
five versions (marks) of three differ- 
ent air-to-air missiles, three alterna- 
tive navigation systems, internal or 
external guns and over 20 optional 
equipment items. This build ing-bloc It 
design and equipment flexibility has 
also made possible cooperative pro- 
duction programs for international 
customers. The British content in 
Phantoms for the Royal Air Force 
approaches 60 percent. It includes 
engines from Rolls Royce; aft fuse- 
lage, empennage and engine doors 
from BAG; outer wings from Short 
Brothers; fuel cells from Marston Ex- 
celsior; imv-attach systems from 
Ferranti; titanium blankets from De- 
laney GaJley; ejection seats from 
Martin -Baker; reconnaissance pods 
from EMI and Hawker Siddely; hy- 
draulics from Dunlop, Elector Hy- 
draulics, and Hobson, Ltd.; and 
avionics from Ultra Electronics, Ltd., 
Standard Telephones and Gables, Nor- 
malair, Rotax, Louis Newmark, El- 
liott, Marconi Co., Cossor Electronics, 
Ltd., S. Smith, Sons, Rcdifon, and 



others. Those systems are integrated 
into the F-4Ks and F~4Ms by the 
McDonnell-Douglas Corp. in a good 
example of a smoothly functioning 
international co-production program. 
The most recent mode] of the Phan- 
tom II, the F-4E, includes, in addition 
to the Sparrow and Falcon missiles, 
an internally mounted M-G1 gatling 
gun which fires 20mm shells at the 
rate of 4,000 to 6,000 rounds per min- 
ute. One of the specialised versions of 
the McDonnell F-4, shown at Paris 
for the first time, is the U, S. Air 
Force and Marine Corps RF-4 recon- 
naissance aircraft. This aircraft has 
the latest sensor and photographic 
equipment. It is the most modern 
and complete reconnaissance aircraft 
flying today. It has been evaluated 
for possible use by the Federal He- 
public of Germany, 

The A-7 Corsair II, shown for the 
first time at Paris. This is the Navy 
version of this versatile aircraft, de- 
signed and produced by Ling-Temco- 
Vought. Its similarity in appearance 
to the F-8 Crusader aircraft, flown 
by the U, S. Navy and Marine Corps 
and the French Navy, reflects its de- 
rivation from that design. The Navy 
version, powered by the Pratt and 
Whitney TF30-P6 engine (in the 
10,000-pouml thrust category), is de- 
signed primarily for operation from 
the Navy's aircraft carriers. The U. S. 
Air Force has ordered the A-7D 



^ e 




Defense Industry Bulletin 



version of the same airplane with 
the Allison TP-41 Rolls Royce Spey 
engine. The Spey engine, which de- 
velops approximately 14,000 pounds 
of thrust, adapts the airplane with 
its large load -carry ing- ability and 
inherent long: range to land-base and 
forward-field operations. Among- the 
outstanding- features of the A-7 is 
its long range/load capability and 
its ease of maintenance. Two Navy 
A-7A aircraft were flown non-stop, 
without inflight refueling 1 , from Wash- 
ington, D.C., to Mildenhallj England, 
near London. 

The Grumman OV-1 Mohawk sur- 
veillance system, an Army tactical 
reconnaissance aircraft. Flying in 
friendly skies, its side-looking radar 
(SLAR) provides the interpreter 
seated beside the pilot an image of 
ground targets in unfriendly terri- 
tory about one minute after the pic- 
ture has been taken. This near-in- 
stantaneous battlefield intelligence 
system allows constant following of 
the flow of battle. The SLAR can be. 
used in all weather, day or night f 
without ever exposing the aircraft to 
enemy fire, although the OV-1, with 
its armor and its rugged and reliable 
construction, is clearly designed to be 
in the thick of the battle. For its tac- 
tical role it is also equipped with 
camera and infrared sensing devices. 
The OV-1 can perform over a wide 
speed range (it claims five world 
records for its class one for closed 
circuit speed, two for time to climb, 
one for sustained altitude, and one 
for endurance) and ia capable of 
rough field, forward area operation. 

The XC-U2 tri-Servicc V/STOL 
transport, shown for the first time at 
Paris. Manufactured by Ling-Tomco- 
Vought, it has successfully proven the 
feasibility of the tilt-wing turboprop 
concept for vertical take-off and land- 
ing of cargo-type transport airplanes. 
The tilt-wing concept has the dual 
advantage of carrying heavier loads 
with very short take-off and landing 
distances. The SC-142 ia currently 
undergoing 1 service tests by all three 
U. S. Military Services, The SG-ld2A 
ia designed to carry 32 fully equipped 
combat troops or 8,000 pounds of 
cargo, utilising the vertical take-off 
modes over an operational radius of 
approximately 230 statute miles, By 
using 1 intermediate wing positions for 
short take-off and landing, greater 
loads may be carried for longer dis- 
tances. The rear loading cargo door 



27 



permits full width access to the cargo 
compartment as well us facilitating 
air drops of cargo. The conventional 
cargo type parachute method has 
been demonstrated, as has a new 
technique of the "dump truck" 
wherein the fuselage is trimmed nose 
high and the cargo is permitted to 
free fall from a low altitude at the 
very low flight speed this design 
permits. 

The Bell UH-I Iroquois helicopter, 
a familiar aircraft since it is in use 
in 25 countries in both its military 
variations and the corresponding 
commercial configurations, the Bell 
201 and 203. More than 3,000 of 
these aircraft have been produced in 
the United States, anil the aircraft 
is still in mass production. The UH-1 
is also produced in Italy and the Fed- 
eral Republic of Germany. Aircraft 
from the Italian production line, in 
addition to meeting Italian require- 
ments, have been sold to Sweden, 
Netherlands, Switzerland, Saudi Ara- 
bia, Australia, Spain, Lebanon and 
Turkey. The UH-1 was the first 
turbine-powered helicopter and won 
21 world records in 1964. It still 
possesses 19 of these records 11 for 
speed, three for time to climb, three 
for distance and two for altitude. 

The AH-1G Cobra, developed by 
Bell based on the UH-1 design. It 
has 50 percent commonality. The Cobra 
is the first helicopter designed spe- 
cifically as a helicopter escort and 
fire-suppression helicopter. It was 
shown for the first time at Pans. 
The fuselage of the Cobra is only 
36 inches wide. 

The new Douglas A-4F (single 
place) and TA-4F (two place), the 
latest in the famous Skyhawk series 
of ground-attack aircraft being 
flown by the U. S. Navy and Marine 
Corps. The Skyhawk was specifically 
designed as a rugged, easy to 
maintain light-weight, ground-attack 
bomber. The A^ls, operating from 
carriers, land bases, and short air- 
field tactical system facilities, have 
established an outstanding combat 
record for overall combat perform- 
ance, ability to absorb battle dam- 
age, ease of maintenance and availa- 
bility of up to 90 percent even under 
extreme field conditions. The TA-4F 
is being delivered to the U. S. Navy 
for use as an operational flight 
trainer. 

Unlike Paris 1965, which was dom- 
inated by military aircraft, the 



United States this year also dis- 
played numerous commercial aircraft 
including the prestigious stretched 
DC-8-61, the Lockheed 100 and 200 
cargo aircraft, and the extraordinary 
Mini-Guppy. 

In addition to participation by the 
U. S. Air Force Thunder-birds and 
the U. S. Navy Blue Angels, the De- 
fense Department staged the first 
trans- Atlantic, non-stop flight of two 
HH-3E helicopters to Paris. The 
ocean-hopping Sikorsky HH-3Es, of 
the U. S. Air Force 48th Aerospace 
Rescue and Recovery Squadron, av- 
eraged 131 miles an hour, bucking 
headwinds for much of the flight. 
They were refueled in flight nine 
times by four HC-130P tanker planes. 

Claims for world helicopter speed 
records from New York to London 
and New York to Paris have been 
submitted to the Federation Aero- 
nautique Internationale, the ruling 
body for such records. Speed claimed 
was 30 hours, 46 minutes for the 
New York to Paris hop, and 29 
hours, 13 minutes for the flight from 
New York to London. 

The arrival of the HH-SEa at Le 
Bourget was the highlight of the air 
show's Helicopter Day. Appropri- 
ately, the theme for Paris 1967 was 
"In the Spirit of Lindbergh," in 
honor of Charles A. Lindbergh -who, 
40 years ago, made the first non-stop, 
trans-Atlantic solo flight. 

List of 
Participating Companies 

in 
Paris Air Show 1967 

Aerospace Companies 

Beech Aircraft Co. 
Bell Helicopter Co. 
The Boeing Co. 
The Garrett Corp. 
General Dynamics Corp. 
General Electric Co. 
Litton Industries 
Lockheed Aircraft Corp. 
LTV, Inc. 

McDonnell-Douglas Corp. 
North American Aviation, Inc. 
Northrop Coi'p. 

Pan American World Airways 
Trans World Airlines 
United Aircraft Corp. 
Wyman-Gordon Co. 



Aerospace Subsystem Companies 
(Commercial Area.) 

Abex Corp. 

Aeromai'itimo, Inc. 

Aeroquip Corp. 

Airco Supply Co. 

Allen Aircraft Radio, Inc. 

Ampcx Groat Britain 

Anglo-American Aviation 

Astra Aircraft Corp. 

Atlantic Research Corp. 

B air d- Atomic, Inc. 

Bitd Industries 

Borg'- Warner International 

Hrodsky, Hopf Acllor 

Chicago Aerial Industries 

Conduction Corp. 

T'Jcl Mar Engineering Tjuliortilm'U'H 

Dome & Margolin 

Ka.stem Stainless Steal Corp, 

General Connectors Corp. 

General Precision, Inc. 

Gray Co. 

Hardinan Tool & ]0nin(wrin|.v (!. 

Hazel tino Corp. 

Honeywell, Inc. 

Inflight Motion Pictures 

Laboratory for IllectromcH 

Littrobe Steel Go. 

Lawrence Electronics 

Link Group (General Proeinioi], Inr,) 

Lockheed-California Go. 

Motorola, Inc. 

Northeast AircruJ't Corp. 

RCA Aviation Kquipimmt Dcpt. 

RE A International Corp. 

Ryan Aeronautical Co. 

Schick Products 

.Standard PresHod Stool Co. 

Rtratoflex, Inc. 

United Control Corp. 

Voltron Products 

WestinghouRQ Electric Tntorimlfimhl 

Wyman-Gordon Co. 

Zop Aero 

Aerospace Companion 
(Outside U. S. Pavilion) 

Bendix Corp. 

Cessna Aircraft Co. 

Grumman Aircraft EngincnrhiK Cnr 

Hughes Aircraft Co. 

I KM Corp. 

ITT Corp. 

Kollsman Instrument Corp. 

Martin Co. 

Piper Aircraft Corp. 

Rock well- Standard Corp, 



August 




DEFENSE PROCUREMENT 



Contracts of $1,000,000 and over 
awarded during the month of June 
1967: 

DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY 

1 Pngc Airways, Inc., Rochester, N.Y. 82,- 
015,146. Operation and maintenance activ- 
ities at the Defense Industrial Plant 
Equipment Facility, Atchlson, Kan. De- 
fense Industrial Plant Equipment Center, 
Memphis, Tenn. 

J. P. Stevens & Co., New York, N.Y. 
$1.721,260. 460,000 linear yards of wool 
HGi'Ke cloth. New York. Defense Personnel 
Suiiyiort Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 
2 Marmac Industries, Marysville, MIeh. $1,- 
204,Q7fl. 368,07-1 steel -helmet liners. De- 
fense Personnel Support Center, Phila- 
delphia, Pn, 

fi Shell Oil Co., New York, N.Y. $2, 0-11,697. 
Petroleum products and services. Defense 
Fuel Supply Center, Alexandria, Vn. 
Standfird Oil Co. of Calif., San Francisco, 
Cnlff, 52,200,000. Fuel oil, Eosolino and 
solvents fof inatallations In Alaska. De- 
fense Fuel Supply Centei-. Alexandria, Va. 
International Paper Co., New York, N.Y. 
81,220,1)08. 2,726,230 llberboard boxes. De- 
fense Personnel Support Center, Phila- 
delphia, Pn, 

G Gulf Oil Cori>., Houston, Tex. 33,432,973. 
14,2-14,000 gallons O f f,] C l (] i 8,716,000 
Kallous of gasoline and 4,425,000 (jallons 
of dieflcl. Defense Fuel Supply Center, 
Alexandria., Va. 

American OH Co., Chicago, 111. $1,02(1,384. 
9,8I>8,OQQ srnllona of Rasoline, llfi.OOO f?al- 
lons at fuel oil and 2,000 gallons of dlesol. 
Defense Fu&l Supply Center, Alexandria, 
Vn. 

Atlantic nSchfleld Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 
51,304,474. 7,433,000 Eallons of Knaoline. 
Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alexandria, 
Vn. 

7 Mnntco Mfjf. Co., Manteo, N.C. $1,432,074. 
14,013 tent liners for medium-she Kcneral 
pin-pone tents. Defense Personnel Support 
Center, Philndelphia, Pa. 
Uniliell! Coal Mine, Fairbanks, Alaska. 
SI.42H,000. 272,000 tons of coal. Defence 
Fuel Supply Center, Alexandria, Va. 
B Vitro Minerals Corp., New York, N.Y. ?!,- 
-I12.ROO. 250,000 tons of coal. Defense 
Fuel Supply Center. Alexandria, Va. 
a Roynl Lubricants Co,, Hanover, N.J. $3,- 
200.777. 831,229 mallona of aircraft engine 
hibHcfUJiiK oil. Defenwc Fuel Supply Cen- 
ter, Alexandria, Va. 

Aluminum Co. of America, Pittsburgh, Pn. 
33,800,000. 10,200,000 Ilia, of alnminized 
powder. Defense General Supply Center, 
Richmond, Va. 

12 Dimllnjr BUR Co., Valdosta, Ga. $2,305,900. 
12,000,000 osnaburB sandbaRS. Defense 
General Supply Center. Richmond, Va. 
13 Nowcll Clothing Co,, Vineland, N.J. 51,- 
133,932. Men's wool serge coats. Defense 
Personnel Support Contcr, Philadelphia, 
Pn. 

14 Cnvnlicr Bug Co,, Lumberton, N.O. 88,028,- 
000. lfi.000,000 osnaburg sandbaKfl, De- 
fenaa Gencrnl Supply Center, Richmond, 
Vn. 

Consollbag Co,, Philadelphia, Pa. $1,772,- 
000. 8,800,000 ostmbm'R sandbaRs. Defense 
General Supply Center, Richmond, Va. 
Pioneer Bag Co., North Kansas City. Mo. 
Sl.aOB.GQO. 0,400,000 osnabm-g and/or poly- 
propylene sandbags. Dofcnae General Sup- 
lily Center, Richmond, Va. 



CONTRACT LEGEND 

Contract information is listed in 
the following sequence: Date 
Company Value Material or 
Work to be Performed Location 
of Work Performed (if other than 
company plant) Contracting 
agency. 



10 Davidson & Co., Ltd., Taipei. Taiwan. $3,- 
440,398. 708,690 nylon pneumatic mat- 
tresses. Defense Personnel Support Cen- 
ter, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Mauney Hosiery Mills., Kings Mountain, 
N.C. $1,023,662. 3,339,280 pairs of men's 
black cotton-nylon socks. Defense Person- 
nel Support Centei', Philadelphia, Pn. 
Ellis Hosiery Mills, Hickory, N.C. $1,031,- 
G40. 3,600,000 pairs of men's blnck cotton- 
nylon uncles. Defense Personnel Support 
Center, Philadelphia, Pn. 

Evnn Jones ConI Co., San Francisco, Cnlif. 
$2,704,BOO. 210,000 tons of conl. Defense 
Fuel Supply Center, Alexandria, Vn. 
21 Hunter Outdoor Products, Lone Island 
City, N.Y. $1,108,781. 4.914 command peat 
tents and ,171 tent wall screens:. Defense 
Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia, 
Pn. 

-De Itodsi & Son Co. h Vlnoland, N..J. S2,- 
724,000. 150,000 men's wool serge conts. 
Defense Personnel Support Center, Phila- 
dalphia, Pn. 

Turainl & Co,, Vineland, N.J. 1,452,000. 
75,000 TTien'H wool HCTRG emits. Defense 
Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia, 
Pn. 

Clierribino Petti & Co., Atlantic City, 
N.J. Sl.llO.ROO. 60,000 men's wool SQI-RC 
cunts. Defense Personnel Supiiort Center. 
Philadelphia, Pn, 

22 Vnrlan Associates, Sun Carlos, Calif. $1,- 
,186,2GIJ. Transmitting tubes. Defenac 
151eetrontea Supply Center, Dayton, Oliio. 
23 American Oil Co., Chicago. III. $1,160,373. 
270,000 barrels of dicacl marine fuel oil. 
Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alexandria, 
Vn. 

Aluminum Co. of America, Pittsburgh, Pn. 
?1, 378,872, 4.178,000 H>s, of aluminum 
powder. Defense fienernl Supply Center, 
Itlclinioncl, Va. 

Ilooth Packhiff Co., Modeatn, Cnlif. $1,178,- 
264. ABscmhly of 1,577,417 cases of com- 
Imt mcalH. Defense Pevsonnel SunnovL 
Cnntcr, Phtladol|)hin, Pa. 

Southern Packing- & Stornffo Co, $1,150,- 
BfiB, 1,657,000 cnsea of comlmt meals. De- 
fense Poraonnel Support Center, Pliitn- 
(lelphlti, Pn, 

20 General Electric, OwenHhoro, Ky. S1,OB5,- 
826. Electron tulles. Defense Moclronic 
Supply Center, Bnyton, Ohio. 
Shell Oil Co., New York, N.Y, S3, 124,125. 
Fuel oil nncl Rnsolino. Defcnao Fuel Sup- 
ply Center^ Alosnndi'itt, Vn. 
Armour Oil Co., Snn Diego. Cnlif. $1,370,- 
823. Fuel oil timl sasolinc. Defonsc Fuel 
Supply Center, Alexandria, Vm. 
27 CnvnHer Rag Co., Lumbci'ton, N.C. $4,71B.- 
332, 24,000,000 snndbnps. Defense Gonernl 
Supply Center, Itlchmond, Vn. 
Dowlinn nas Co., Vnldostfl, Oa. $3,702,fin. 
18,000,200 sandhFiffs. Defense OenernI 3up- 
ply Center, Richmond, Va. 
ConsolibnB, Inc., Plilliulelphin, Pn, 52,003,- 
113. 13,200,100 sntidbaRs. Defenses Gencrnl 
Supply Center, Itklimond, Vn. 
Pioneer BOB. Co., North Kansas Oily, Mo, 
$l,971,G7fi. 0,609,800 snntllmRB. Defense 
Gonernl Supply Center, Richmond, Va, 
Deltn Petroleum Co., New Orleans, Ln. 
Sl.^dO^aS. 3,567,280 Bnllons of liibricatiiiB 
oil. Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alex- 
anclHn, Vn. 

28 Bencaco, Inc., Nnahville, Tenn. $1,027,240. 
212,000 jmira of tropical combat boots. De- 
fense Personnel Support Center, Phlln- 
delphin, Pn. 

Enillcott-Jolmaon Corp., Endicott, N.Y. 
$1,403,376. 102,600 pairs, of troplcnl com- 
bat hoots. Defense Personnel Support 
Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Randolph Mfff. Co,, Hnmlolph, Muss. $2,- 
400,430. 250,694 pairs of tropicnl combat 
boots. Defense Personnel Support Centei', 
Philadelphia, Pn, 

Data Shoe Co., Delcnmp, Md. $12,634,754. 
1,184,004 pairs of tropical combat loots. 
Defense Personnel Support Center, Phila- 
delphia, Fa. 

Albert Turner & Co., New York, N.Y. $2,- 
750,400, 120,000 men's polyester wool/ 



tropical cents. Defenne Personnel Support 
Center, Philndelphia, Pn, 

Kobert Hnll Clothes, Brooklyn, N.Y. $1,- 
641,760. 75,000 men's poly cater/ wool trop- 
ical coatK. Defense Personnel Support 
Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Waterbury Button Co., Wftterbury, Conn. 
S1,BG7,009. 20,902,032 Kohl-plntcd insignia 
buttons. Defense Personnel Support Cen- 
ter, Philadelphia, Pa. 

InternntEonfll Harvester Co., Melrose Pnrlt, 
111. 51,630,731. Diesel oneine tractors, 
spare pnrts and service. Defonae Construc- 
tion Supply Center, CohimbuB, Ohio. 
20 Ali>hn Industries, Knoxvillc, Tenn. $1,380,- 
G18. Iflli.BSS men's, nylon nnd cotton 
satocn (Seld eoata with hoodfi. Defense 
Personnel Support Cciitei-, Philn(3etpliin, 
Pa, 

Cleveland Woolens, Cleveland. 'Temn. $1,- 
120,50(1, 300,000 yni-ds of wool cloth, De- 
fense PGfsoiinel Support Genfer, Philn- 
(Jelphia, Pn. 

30 Rndicott-Jnhnson. Kndkott, N.Y. $3,140,- 
J5S. 'IBO.Iiflft pairs of men's oxford dress 
ftlioea. Defense Personnel Support Center, 
Phnsudelpliin. p a . 

Internntionnl Slioc Co., St. Louis. Mo. 52,- 
070,000. 300,000 pnlrs of men's oxford 
dress shoos, Defense Personnel Support 
Center, Philadelphia, Pn. 

Sporhvclt Shoe Co., Nnshun, N.II. $2,047,- 
202. 300,000 imfi-ft of men's oxford tlrcaa 
shoes. Defense Personnel Support Center, 
Philndclphia, Pa. 

ficnesco, Inc., Nashville, Tenn. $1,374, [Wfl. 
20MOO pairs of men's oxford dress ehonn. 
Defense Personnel Support Center. Philn- 
delphia, Pn. 

ARMY 

1 FMC Corn., Snn Jose, Calif. $2,083,710. 
lOGmm projectiles. Simla Clara, Calif. 
Picntinny Araenal, Dover, N.J. 
Lockheed Aircraft, Sunnyvale, Cnlif, ?!,- 
23G.7B1, Kniiiptneiit and servlcca In con- 
nection will) imdcrBronnd testlnR at the 
Novttdre Test Site. Defense Atomic Sup- 
port Aftcnny, Washington. D.C. 
Valley Count ruction C.a., Columbua, Mtas. 
$1,081,172. Construction of nn nmnnml- 
tion fncillty nt Anntalon Army Depot, Aln, 
Enntlncor Dial., Moliilo, Ala. 
Standard Products, CJevolnnd, Ohio, &.- 
238,808, Rubbet' trncli shoe nuacmhlloa for 
MI3 pernonncl cnrrlcrs. Tnnlc Automotive 
Command, Wnrron, Mich. 

AVCO Corp., Stratford. Conn. $4,1)72,800. 
Pfifi-L-11 onnlncB for medium trnnsporl 
helicopters. $4,025,0-00. Special tooling to 
support in-odiietton of TSG-lKll ciiRlnca, 
Aviation Mntcvicl Comnmiid, St. Louis, Mo. 
Southern Airways of Tex,, Kurt Woltcre, 
Tex. 523,041,008, Helicopter pilot training 
and maintenance of aircraft nnd reUted 
eaulpment. Pnrchnalns: and Contracting 
OfHco, Fort Wolters, Tex. 

tmndco. Inc., Los AnKoIon, Calif. $1,208,- 
371. FnrnisliiiiR flntl instnlllnR n floalliiK 
ell termlnnl. Ensinecr Dtat., Snn Frnn- 
cisco, Cnllf. 

2 United Aircraft, East Ilnrtford, Conn. $7,- 
020.000. T7ft-P-l enelnea for OH-64A 
helicopters. Aviation Material Commnnd, 
St. Louis, M"o, 

noclnfi- Co., Morton, Pn. $0,607,000. Blnda 
asncmhlies for CIT-47 haliconlora. AvhiUon 
Materiel Command, St. Louis. Mo, 
Bell Helicopter Co., Port Worth, Tex, 
saa.07rt.fHfi. AH-IG heUeontera. AvIntJon 
Materiel Command, St. Louis, Mo, 
Lockheed Aircraft, Sunnyvale. Cnlif. $l f - 
304 SOU, Eniiipment nncl services In con- 
nection with underground nuclcni 1 tea line 
at tlio Nevada Test Site. Seattle, Wnah., 
Sunnyvale, Cnlif., and tho Nevada Teat 
Site. Defense- Atomic Support Agency. 
Gencrnl Electric, Syracuse, N.Y. $2,636,000. 
Van-mo wnled (Heltn] computer for nao In 
antomatlne data collection nnil dnta re- 
duction in support of war games field ex- 
perimentation. Electronics Command, 
Fort Moitmouth, N.J, 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



!> - Lockheed Aircraft, Sunnyvale, Calif. $1.- 
275, 230. Equipment nnd services in con- 
nection with underground nuclear testing 
nt the Nevada Test Site. Seattle, Wash., 
Sunnyvale, Calif., nnd the Nevntla Test 
Site. Defense Atomic Support Aconcy. 

White Motor Corp., Lansing, Mich. Sfl,- 
844,86!!. 2 It-ton trucks, fieneral Purpose 
Vehicle Project Manner, Warren, Mich. 
6- Sinndnrd Conloincr, Inc., Montclnir, N.J. 
S1.4S4.162. Boxes for Miiinll caliber am- 
munition. Homerville. fla, Frnnkford Ar- 
senal, Philadelphia, Pn. 

Lawless & Alford, Inc., Austin, Tex. S3,- 
242,381). Construction of seven enlisted 
men's barracks complexes nt Fort Hood, 
Tex, Engineer Dist., Fort Worth, Tex. 

Rums, Kirkly &. Williams Construction 
Co., Auburn, Ala. 31.250,383. ConHtruction 
of n flve-story, 120-man BOQ at Fort 
Hucker, Ala. Engineer Dtet., Mobile, Ala. 

Hercules Engines, Canton, Ohio. $1.207,449. 
14 -horsepower gasoline engines. Canton. 
Mobility Command, St. Louis, Mo. 
7 Motor Wheel Corp., Lansine, Mich. 1,057,- 
103. Tires for self-propelled artillery Runs. 
Tnnk Automotive Command, Warren, 
Mich. 

Anderson Construction Co,, Helton, Kan. 
31,495,777. Work on the Pine Creek Dam 
and Reservoir Project. Near Valiant, 
Okla. Engineer Dist., Tulsa, Okla. 

United Ammunition Container, Inc., Phila- 
delphia, Pa. 51,077,250. Fiber containers 
for nniiminition. Atlanta, Tex. Ammuni- 
tion Procurement & Supply Agency, Jollet, 
111. 

RAHR-KIEF, Inc., and B-E-C-K Con- 
structors, Seattle, Wash. 51,243,100. Con- 
struction of a base chapel, NCO open mess, 
weather facility, and extension of existing 
titxiway lighting system at Shemya Air 
Force Station, Alaska; and for construc- 
tion of a heated automotive storage build- 
ing at Adak Air Force Station, Alaska. 
Engineer Dist., Anchorage, Alaska. 

King -Paolo, Inc., Kalispell. Mont. $4,800.- 
2S7. Work on the Libby Dam, Libby, 
Mont. Engineer Dist., Seattle, Wash. 

Chrysler Corp., Center Line, Mich. $4,639,- 
454. Engineering services in Biipport of 
heavy tracked combat vehicles. Tank Auto- 
motive Command, Warren, Mich. 

-Zenith Radio Corp., Chicago, III. $1,253,- 
385. Fuzes for 2. 75-inch rockets. Harry 
Diamond Laboratories, Washington, D.C. 

Mason & Hanger Silas Mason & Co., Lex- 
innton, Ky. 52,788,724. Loading, assem- 
bling and packing of miscellaneous me- 
dium-caliber ammunition and components. 
Burlington, Iowa. Ammunition Procure- 
ment Supply Agency, Joliet, III. 

B Link Belt Speeder Co., Cedar Rapids, Iowa 
$1.478,805. 132 self-powered dicsel ham- 
mers (8,000-lb. capacity) and 14 self- 
powered diesel hammers (18,000-lb. capac- 
ity). Mobility Equipment Command, St. 
Louis, Mo. 

Sargent-Fletcher Co., El Monte, Calif. 
S1.71G.965. Spray tanks. Edsewood Ar- 
senal, Md. 

Eureka Williams Co., Bloomington, 111. 
Sl,Bia,36B, Metal parts for 750-lb. bombs. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Garsite Products, Deer Park, N.V. $1,030,- 
110. Miscellaneous components for bridges. 
Mobility Equipment Command, St. Louis, 
Mo. 

9 Atlns Chemical Industries, Wilmington, 

Del. 36.235.850. TNT. Chattanooga, Tenn. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

General Motors. Indianapolis, Ind. $1,022.- 
180. Transmission assemblies for rebuilt 
M48 and MGO tanks. Indianapolis. Tank 
Automotive Command, Warren, Mich. 

? r - aurld ' lnc " Anchorage, Alaska. $3,- 
616,256. Construction work at Clear Air 
Force Station, Alaska. Engineer Dist.. 
Anchorage, Alaska. 

Infrared Industries, Carpinteria. Calif. $1,- 
629,230. Telescopes for sighting units in 
M102-towed howitzers. Frankford Arsenal, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

""A,*!? 11 "* Research Corp., Alexandria, Va. 
IS.869.000. Mines. West Hanover, Mass. 
Ammunition Procurement & Sironly 
Agency, Joliet, III. 



Muskegon, Mich. 88,. 
i fl74 ' Engine cylinder assemblies for 
w tanks Tank Automotive Command, 
Wnrren, Mich. 

Mason ft Hanger, Silas Mason & Co., Lex- 
ington, Ky. $4,240,398. BOO-lb. bombs. 



Grand Island, Neb. Ammunition Procure- 
ment & Supply Agency, Joliet 111. 

Harvey Aluminum Sales, Torrance, Calif. 
$5 424. 171. Classified ammunition Hems. 
Milan, Tenn. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Joliet lit. 

General Motors, Detroit, Mich. $1,592,557. 
Diesel engines, with containers, for 175mm 
self-propelled guns: eight-inch self-pro- 
pelled howitzers; and recovery vehicles. 
Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Midi. 

Whirlpool Corp., Evansville, Ind. $2,050,- 
G03. 105mm projectiles. Pleatinny Arsenal, 
Dover, N.J. 

Polon Industries, Huntington, W. Vn. $1,- 
072,156. Truck-mounted mine detecting 
sets. Mobility Equipment Command, St. 
Louis, Mo. 

Collins Radio Co., Dallas, Tex. $1,890,7(15. 
Modification kits to expand the capability 
of tactical radio communications sets. 
Electronic Command, Philadelphia, Pa. 

General Electric, Burlington, Vt. S3.7EQ,- 
8!M. Self-propelled, anti-aircraft artillery 
weapons systems, Army Weapons Com- 
mand, Rock Island. III. 

13 System Development Corp., Santa Monica, 
Calif. S2.835.350. Advanced development on 
a prototype data management system. De- 
fense Supply Service, Washington, D,C. 

Theisen Bros., Inc., Osmond, Neb. $1,502,- 
E84. Work on the Local Flood Protection 
Project, Norfolk, Neb. Engineer, Dist., 
Omaha, Neb. 

Thermal Construction Corp., Wood-Ridge, 
N.J. 14,227,000. Construction of 10 bar- 
racks complexes to house 3.2GO enlisted 
men. Port Dix, N.J. Engineer Dist., New 
York, N.Y. 

Algernon Blair, Inc., Montgomery, Aln. 
811,624,000. Construction of 10 barrackw 
complexes. Fort Jackson, S.C. Engineer 
Dist., Savannah, Ga. 

General Electric, Burlington. Vt. $4,727,- 
35S. 7.62mm aircraft machine guns, sup- 
port eauiprnent and spare parts. Army 
Weapons Command, Rock Island, 111. 

14 General Time Corp., La Salle, 111. So,G64,- 
316. Time fuzes for 4.2-inch motars nnil 
105mm illuminating shells. Peru, 111. Am- 
munition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Joliet, 111. 

Sperry Rand Corp., New York, N.Y. S4,- 
678,929. Manufacturing, loading, assem- 
bling and packing of miscellaneous am- 
munition. Shreveport, La. Ammunition 
Procurement & Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Day & Zimmerman, Inc., Philadelphia Pn. 
S3, RGB, 225. Loading, assembling and pack- 
ing of miscellaneous components for me- 
dium caliber ammunition, Texarkann, Tex, 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Klsco Co., St. Louis Mo, $2,010,404. 105mm 
cartridge cases. Ammunition Procurement 
&. Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Chamberlain Mfg. Corp., Waterloo, lown. 
$12,407,100. lOBmni cartridge cases. Bur- 
lington, N.J. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

PMC Corp., Charleston, W. Va., $3,700,000. 
Retrofit and reinspeetlon of armored re- 
covery vehicles (M57B). Tank Automotive 
Command, Warren, Mich. 

Dixie Contractors, Inc., Memphis, Tenn. 
$2,032,334. Work on Lock and Dam No. 17 
of the Arkansas River and Tributaries 
Project. Wagoner County, Okla. Engineer 
Dist., Tulsa, Okla, 

Green Construction Co. and Winston Bros. 
Co., DCS Moines, Iowa. 88,817.030. Work on 
the Beltzvllle Dam and Reservoir Project, 
Lehlghton, Pn. Engineer Dist., Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 

Continental Motors, Muskegon, Mich. $10,- 
313.235. Engine assemblies for S-ton 
trucks. Tank Automotive Command, Wnr- 
ren, Mich. 

Bowcn-McLaiiffhHn-York, York, Pn, $8.- 
221,166. Retrofit of M48A3 tanks. Army 
Weapons Command. Rock Island, 111, 

Kaiser Jeep Corp., Toledo, Ohio. $43,784.- 
664 E-ton trucks. General Purpose Ve- 
hicles Project Manager, Warren, Mich. 

United Aircraft, Stratford, Conn. $8.712,- 
780. Rotary wings and transmission ns- 
semblies for CH-B4A helicopters. Aviation. 
Materiel Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

A, S. Schulmnn Electric Co., Los Angeles 
Calif ?3 106,661. Work on the Lower Mo nl 
Vi m L a i, loc . k nnd dam Project. Near Pauco, 
Wash. Engineer Dist., Seattle, Wash. 



7fl n | in M 1 im 0t0 ' i> t Ml ! llll ? ton ' Micb " V 
"70,275. Military standard engines. Mil- 

waukee, Wis. Mobility Command, St Louis, 



30 



Martin Marietta, Orlando, Fin. $5,818,578, 
Shillelagh mlsBiloB. Orlando. Army IMfsalle 
Command, IIutitHvillo, Ala. 

Uneco, Inc., Bellt-vue, Neb. $1,708,463, De- 
lay plunger, Ml for the M-18A3 faae, 
Ammunition Procurement & Simply 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Southwest Truck Body Co., St. Tjonia, Mo. 
$3,467,800. XM750 semi-trailer, repair 
parts Htorngo vnn fi-lon, 2 wlicol. West 
PlniiiH, Mo. Tank Automotive CoRirannil, 
Warren, Mich. 

Heil. Co., Milwaukee, Win. S1.-16B.222. 
M131ARD KiHni-lrniler, tank, nlrcrnfl fuel 
sei-vicinB. Tank Automotive Command, 
Warren, Mich, 

Canndian Commercial Corp., Ottawa, Can- 
iida. $2,3(l(i,Oi(C. Aircraft otiKlnoa. Loii- 
giieuil, Quebec, Canada. Avintlon Materiel 
Command, St. LmiiH, Mo. 

M. Sloane Mfg. Co., Chelsrn, Mnim, $1.117,- 
200. Cotton uloHiiinB-flwnJ* ime'kH. l*ro- 
mi rumen t Detachment, ChlnaKO, Til, 

Remington Armn Co., Bi-idpoport, Conn, 
$1,803,234. Cartridges, 88. i-at., Hpccliil hull, 
M41. Frankford Arnnnal, Plilliidolphln. Pa 

Ifi Collinw Ilndlo Co., lUclmnlflcin. Tex, $2, MO,- 
000. Modification kiln foi 1 rmlii> liu-mlnn! 
Bota. Prociireniiiiil DolacliinHtii-, Ohlcnjro 
111. 

Firestone Tire & llubber C!o.. Ahrnn, Ohio 
Sl,fifl4,dOO. Triielt unties aHHrmlili^si for MJf 
and MflO tniikii, Nnlilcsvlllc, I nil. 'fanV 
Automotive Command, Wnrnm, Mioh, 

Honeywell, Inc., ITopklnii, Minn. 1,202,, 
080. Bomb dlupamioi-H. New Itrlftliton, Minn 
Ammunition IVnnuromont & Sui'pll 
Agency, Joliot, III. 

Arnold M. Diamond, Inc.. flronl Ni-ctt, N.Y 
$1,081,4(1(1. OonHtruntion of IL ntmlrn! hcnt 
hiir nnd rofriiteraLlon jiliint nt I'^nrt Jnfk 
BOH. B.C.. Knginocr Dint., Rnvnnnnh, fin. 

Valley Crinfltrucllon Co., Cldlinnliuii, Jlfas 
$1,20(1. IRS. ConslnnHldii of nn n<l(lfHnn t< 
nn existing hollar plant, I'onHtfiutllnii ol 
two cnlliilod men'H barrnclin ami <i\\ en 
llHtod mun'a mew nt Port Onnnihdl, Ky 
Enftinoer Hist., Mobile Ala. 

Anlibneh Construction Co.. SI, Pnitl, Minn 
$3,ia4,HriR. Flood iirolectlon worlt on Ihi 
Wlilte Clav Crcelt Project, Alcnfarm, Kftii 
EnRinccr Dint., KniiHiiH City, Kim. 

Hlglilnnd IndiiNlrlcH, Kiuitmx ORy, Mn. S3, 
383,072. Triick-niminliid lUmlcl rHni>oiiBln| 
unltfl. Mobility TOnulpmcnt fJdiiinirinil, SI 
Loulii, Mo. 

10 Dynamics Corp. of Antcrlcn. ttrhlKcprut 
Conn. S1-20S.77B. flO-cyplo pronarntcir flda 
Mobility I'!iiiii]>mt'iil Commnml, St. trfuile 
Mo. 

Chrysler Corn., IHglilnnd Vnrlr, Mich. (S, 
SEl.filfl. Fork lift truiiltti. Wnrrni, Mkli 
Mobility Equipment Commnml, HI. t.onlB 
Mo, 

Antliony Co.. Ht.n-ator. Ill, ?.1,240.R72. Forl 
lift tninltB, Mobility Equlimiont Ccimnmnil 
St. T.oulH, Mo. 

Sperry Hand Corn.. Salt Lnlco Oily, ITtnli 
$1,100,000. FY lOfifi citKlncci'tttR Horvlc-f 
for the Sonrcnnt mlRHilo dynlcm, Arm: 
Mifliillo Command, Iliinlnvlllc, Aln. 

--Lear aicfdcr, Inc., South t'.ntc, Ctollf, *1, 
BR7,0!1H. RhlppinR nnd itloratte <nimlnlnr 
for 20mm cnrtrldgOH. Frnnlifiiril Ariionnl 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

Oonornl Rlcctrlc, nnrllnfttnn. Vt. ga,20l, 
082. $2,037,000. 7.02mm nlrcvnUt maphln 
guns, armament nods and rein toil nriulf 
incnl, Army WcaponH Cnmmniul. RIM' 
Island, 111. 

MacLeod Co., Clnolnniili, Ohio. 8t,t}fi2,fl[il 
Truck-mountcrt wntor dlalrlbulnr tnnki 
Mobility Eqiilnmont Commmul, St. I.ouli 
Mo. 

Glblia Mfff. ft Reaenrch Corp,, Jnnravllii 

Wis. $1,0^7,707. Mctnl partn for 2.715-int 
rocket fuzes. Ammunition Procurement , 
Sii]i])ly Agency, Joliet, 111, 
LTV Aerospace Corp., Warren, MJcli. $11 
073,108. Ground support CQiilitmoul tor tl 
Lnnco mlHHilo oyntom. Army MlHsilo Ona 
mntul, Warren, Mich. 

Senbonrd Construction Co., BruiiHwIrk, 
$1,717,000. Construction of itn nh-llolcl t, 
clllty, POL fnelHticH and n wefnbrlciiti 
Bownite U-cntment plnnt nt Fort Hlcwai 
Ga, Enfirlncor DIat., Snvnnnnlt, Qa. 

20 Boll Acrosnncc Corp,, Fort Wortli T 
$4,000,3GO. UH-1D heliconlerB. Avlfild 
Mnteriol Oommnncl, St. Loula, Mo. 

Genernl Motors, Detroit, Mich. S2,284,7t 
Diesel cnBlnea for M113 vehicles. Tni 
Automotive CommarnI, Wnrren, MJch, i 



August 



General Motors, Cleveland, Ohio, $19,212 - 
7liO. 155mm self -prop el let! howitzers. Army 
WeiiuoiiB Command, Hock Island, 111. 

Henry A. Knott, Inc., Baltimore, Md. S2 - 
200,900. Construction of a one-story labora- 
tory buildhiK and a one-story toxic storage 
bulldiiiff at Edtrewooil Arsenal, Md. Engi- 
neer Dlst., Baltimore, Md. 

Norris Industries, Inc., Everett, Mass. $2,- 
515,238. G6mm rocket launchers (M72) 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Aitency, Joliet, 111. 

21 Forsbcrff & Gregory, Badlands, Calif. 82,- 
149,6.13, Construction of five 3-story bar- 
racks buildings and alterations to the base 
operations maintenance dock and hunger 
facilities at Norton AFH, Ciilif. Engineer 
Dial., Log Angeles, Calif. 

Crate Systems Corp., Lawrence, Mass. $1,- 
3fi-I,406, Shelters for electrical equipment. 
Lawrence. Electronics Command, Phila- 
delphia, Pit. 

Ford Motors, Blrmlnijham, Mich. $7,707,- 
171. '/4-ton utility trucks. Hiffhland Park, 
Mich. General Purpose Vehicle Project 
Mimanei-, Warren, Mien. 

It. C. Cnn Co., Ha/ehvood, Mo. $1,203,200. 
Fiber containers for ammunition. Ammu- 
nition Procurement & Supply Agency. 
Joliel, III. 

CJrcnt Lukes Dredge & Dock Co., Cleveland, 
Ohio, 51,780,110. Work on the Ashtnbulu, 

,9 ', 1T ,!"' boi> Project, Engineer Dint., 
Buffalo, N.Y. 

Strick Coni., Fail-less Hills, Pa. 511,034,- 
148. 12-ton utake semi- trailers. Chicago, 
111. lank Automotive Command, Warren, 
Mich. 

22 Canndinn Commercial Corp., Ottawa, Can- 
ada. 83,150,000. Production of TNT. 
Hclolel, Quebec. Ammunition Procurement 
& Supply Agency, JoHct, 111. 

Pace Corp., Memphis, Tenn. 50,261,603, 
Ground illuminating signals and parachute 
illuminating siBimlH. Ammunition Procure- 
ment & Supply Agency, Joliet, III. 

Hayes International Corp., Birmingham, 
Ala. 51,688.000. Metal parts for 2.75-inch 
i-oeketa. Ammunition Procurement & Sup- 
ply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Bell Helicopter Co., Fort Worth, Tex. 88,- 
941,070. TH-18T helicopter baalc instru- 
ment trainers antl related data. Aviation 
Materiel Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

AVCO Corp., Stratford, Conn. 51,040,300. 
1SG7 production improvement program for 
J-BB > engines, Aviation Miitoriel Command, 
bt. Louis, Mo. 

Servo Corp. of America, Hicknville, N Y 
2,811,703. Hocoiving aetu. Elcctronica 
Command, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Raytheon Co., Burlington, Mass. $1,020,- 
010. Repair part kits for communication 
facilities. Hawthorne, Calif. Electronics 
Command, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Western Electric, New York, N.Y. $4,210,- 
GOO, Overhaul of three Nike Hercules 
systems. Burlington, N.C. Army Missile 
Command, Huntsvllle, Ala. 

J. W. Hnleson Co., Dallas, Tox, $7,840,007. 
Construction of eight clasaroDin buildings 
and support utilities at Fort Gordon, Ga. 
Engineer Diat., Savannah, Ga. 
23 Joseph L. Pohl Contractor, Nevada, Mo. 
81,380.831. Work on the Stockton, Mo,, 
Dnm imcl Reservoir. Engineer Dist., Kan- 
Hfis City, Mo. 

National Presto, Inc., Eau Glaive, Wto. 
$12,360,047. Metal parta for lOGmm projec- 
tiles. Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

National Union Electric, Corp., Bloomlng- 
on, III. $2,008,516. B omb fuzes. Ammuni- 
tion Procurement & Supply Agency, Jollot, 

Northrop Caroline, Inc., Ashcvlllo, N. 

51,302,000. Chemicals, Swnnnanoa, N.O. 

Mgewood Arsenal, Md. 
Lockheed Electronics Co., Plainflold, N.J. 

82,100,000. Radar sola. Metuohcn, N.J. 

Frankford Arsenal, Philadelphia, Pa. 
HCM Corp., Deerilcld, 111. $2,801,268. Tele- 

ijy',? w , 1-i , te f' Hets - Electronic!) Command, 
Philadelphia, Pa, 

IBM Corp., El Paso, Tex. $1,8158,102. Auto- 
mntie data procesaintr equipment. White 
Sands Missile Range, N,M. Electronic!) 
Command, Philadelphia, Pn. 

Kaytheon Co., Norwood, Maaa. $1,681,181. 
Monhone signal equipment. Electronics 
Command, Philadelphia, Pn. 

~ f* IC Corp,, Charleston, W. Va, $12,237,400, 
M113 armored peraonncl carriers, mortar 
cniTJQrs, command post carriers, control 
teat Itoma and repair items. Tank Auto- 
motive Command, Warren, Mich, 



Bell Aerospace Corn., Fort Worth, Tex. 
1,671700. OH-13S helicopter*. Avlntlon 
Materiel Command, St. Lonia, Mo 
Chrysler Corp., Highland Park, Mich. 2,- 
026,174. Cupola modification kits and cu- 
pola adapter vision ring kits. Scraiiton, 
Pa. and Warren, Mich. Army Weapons 
Command, Rock Island, 111. 
iriiBhes Aircraft, Fullerton, Calif, $2,139,- 
!G7. Radio seta, receiver, trans milters and 
spare parts. Southwest Procurement De- 
tachment, Pasadena, Calif. 
Allison Steel Mfg. Co., Phoenix, Aria, S3,- 
270,072. Saddle naHemblies. Mobility Eimin- 
nient Command, St. Louis, Mo. 
Arvol D. Hnya Construction Co., Lubbock, 
'lex $1,615,030. Construction of oit-baae 
facilities for expanded aviation training 
at I' ort Woltcrs, Tex. Engineer Diat., Fort 
Worth, Tex. 

It. A. Ilcintz Construction Co., and Wil- 
lamette Western Corp., Portland, Ore. 8,- 
604,074. Work on the Liliby, Mont., Dnm 
Project. Engineer Dlst., Seattle, Wash. 
WilkeiiHon Mfg. Co., Fort Calhoun, Neb. 
SI, 140,750. Fin assemblies for 60mm pro- 
jectiles. Ammunition Procurement & Sup- 
ply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

12. O&G, Inc., Albuquerque, N.M. $1,500,- 
000. Eqinpmont find services in connection 
with undurirroiind mtclear testing at the 
Nevada Teat Site, Defense Atomic Support 
Agency, WnshinBton, D.C. 
Case-Muster Body, Inc., Hose City, Mich. 
S0,86'l,fl33. Two-wheel water tank trailuiu 
lank Automotive Command, Warren, 
Mich. 

linns Aviation, Inc., 1'iilsii, Okln. $4,032,- 
847 Fixcd-wiiiB, primary and instrument 
traiaintt, and rotary-whig basic instrument 
flight training. Fovt Huckcr, Ala, nnd Fort 
Stewart, Ga. Purchasing & Contracting 
Onice, Fort Hucker, Aln. 

2G Hcrcnlea, Inc.. Wilmington, Del. $10,221.- 
181. Rocket propellent and operation nnd 
maintenance activities, Lawrence, Kan. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Gciiernl Electric, liui'llnston, Vt. 513,039,- 
UQO. XM108 weapons systems. Army Wonp- 
on Command, Hock Island, 111. 
Fnirchild Cnmcra & Instrument Co., Syoa- 
act, N.Y. ?6,OSQ,BOO. M514A1 jirtillei-y 
fws. Harry Diamond Labonitoiiea. Wash- 
InRton, D.C. 

Texas Instrument Co., Dnllna, Tox. $0,100,- 
GOO. MC14A1 jirtlllory fuzes. Hnrry Dia- 
mond La born tor ios. Washington, D.O, 
Hnythcon Co., Bristol, Tenn, 50,100,000. 
MG1JA1 artillery fiiKea. Hurry Diamond 
LnborntorioB, Woshineton, D.C. 
ICiiffellinrd Ilnnovla, Inc., Newark, N.J, 
SI, 782,144. Lamp assemblies for Xcnun 
Bcai-chliBlKa, Electroaiea CommnncI, Fort 
Monmoulh, N.J. 

Honeywell, Inc., Tampn, Fin. $10,000,000, 
Clnssiflecl elcctn'onks equipment, Elcc- 
ttoiiica Coinmaiul, Fort Monnioutli, N.J. 
-General Electric, Red Bank, N.J. 1,074,- 
6G8. Tool and teat eqnipinont nncl nnoillury 
itoni for attitude lieadlns reference sals. 
Wont Lynn, Mags. Electronics Command, 
Iorl Moamoiitli, N.J. 

ttoilgcrs Hydrnullc, Inc., Mlnncnpolis, 
Minn. $1,180,000. Vnrioua hydraulic 
preaaea. Grnnlte Falls, Minn, Mobility 
Equipment Command, St. Louis, Mo. 
Elliott Machine Works, Plioonlx, Ariz. $1,- 
712,810. Trailer-inouatcd lubricating nnd 
servicing units. Gallon, Ohio and Phoenix. 
Mobility Equipment Command, St, Louis, 
Mo. 

Stanford Research Institute, Monlo Park, 
Calif. $1,002,000. Olasslfted work, Army 
Research Ofllco, Durham, N.O. 
Aerojet General, Sacramento, Calif. SI,. 
287,000. XM22E8 Hawk rocket motora. 
Northwest Procurement Agency, Gaklnntl, 
Cnlif. 

Ampcx Corp., Redwood City, Calif, $1,867,- 
430. Eduootlonal TV teclinical terminal 
facilities, pvoerramii and control tests for 
12 US CONARG Training Centers. Pur- 
chasing and Contracting Office, Port Mon- 
roe, Vn. 

27 Siicrry Hand Corp., Phoonix, Aria. $8,088,- 
800. Gyromagnetlc eompnsa sets nnd tm- 
clllary ItemH. Electronics Command,, Fort 
Mon mouth, N.J, 

Voro, Inc., Garland, Tex, $1,48G,107. Night 
vision weapons. Electronics Command, 
Fort Monmouthj N.J. 

M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass. $1,Z7B,000. Bnslo 
applied research work In the Holds of 
Keneral phyaics, plaBma dynamics, com- 
munication sciences nnd engineering. 



Electronics Command, Fort Monmoiith. 
N.J. 

Kaytlwon, Co., Norwood, Mass. $2,5C9,400. 
Multiplexcra <telei)hoi[ oir telegraph ter- 
minals housed in shelters j , North Diffliton, 
Mfias. Electronics Command. Fart Mon- 
niouth, N.J. 

Collins Rartio, Co.. Dallas, Tex. $3,760,000. 
Radio terminal sots antl regular part kits. 
Electronics Commanrl, Philadelphia, Pn. 
General Dynamics, Pomona, Calif. 51,734,- 
064. Eiiffineei-lng acrviccsi for the Retleyc 
nilsaile. Army Missile Command, Hunt&- 
vtllc. Ala. 

Obenr Conatriictfon Co., Northi-idge, Calif. 
S2 r 12d,000. Construction of a steel hnnecr 
with concrete lean-to and a Binnll concrete 
apron ut J3dwart1s AFB, Galif. Engineer 
Dist., Los AnseJos, Calif. 

Kaiser Jcen Corp., Toledo, Ohio, $80,420,- 
2Gfl. 114. tc> n ctireo trucks and ambulances. 
General Purpose Vehicles Project Mnn- 
ascr. Warren, Mich, 

D & A Kfiulpnucnt Co., Pansaeola, Fla. 
1,691,548. C cms t ruction of a two-story 
ofilcu biiildintt, aircraft maintenance fa- 
cilities, a fliinimnble Htornjjo mid paint 
shop, n boiler plant, and supporting iitili- 
ties at Port Huckor. Aln. Engineer Dlst., 
Mobiloj Aln. 

Pcler Klcwit Snns' Co., Vancouver, Wash. 
$1,033,207. Gi-adine work in the Union 
Ilnllrond Company area near Arlington, 
Ore. (part of John Dny I, oak and Unm 
Project). Engineer Dial., Wnlln Wnlla, 
Wash. 

Wcstlnshonso Electric, Waahln^ton, D.C. 
!1,120,19S. Design., fabrication ami tosHiiK 
of 30 KW genocntar sets. Buffalo, N..Y. 
Enelnccr Ruacarch Laboratory, Fort Bal- 
voir, Vn. 

Stewart & Stevenson Services, II out! ton, 
Tex. 51,653,610. -15 KW inultf-pufpono eii- 
crator aet-s. Mobility Equipment Co-mmaud, 
St. Louis, MIL 

Gkhncr Mobile Systems. Inc., Berkley 
SprlnsBj W. Vn. ?l,-19a,948. Airmobile 
trail sportei'B. Aviation Materiel Com man tl, 
St. Louis, Mo. 

2S HeLong Corp.. Now York, N.Y. $3,200,000. 
Work on the Vimjj Ao nud Vunif Tnu pier 
Installations in Vietnam. Mobility Equip- 
ment Command, St. Louis, Mo. 
Glcliner Mobile Systems, Berkley Springs, 
W. Vn. ? 1,4 68,170. Portnble, clcclrio, tool 
outfits. Mobility Equipment Command, St. 
Louis, Mo. 

John R, Hollinsawortli Co., Phoenlxvillc, 
Pa. Sl,l-iS,3J3. 7W KW eenci-ator seta. 
Mobility Equipment Command, St. Laiilu, 
Mo. 

American Pipe & Construction Co.. Mon- 
teroy Park, Calif. 52,200,387. Concrete 
pressure water ntpo with flttlnsa. Oklnnwa. 
fcnBlncer Dint., Okinawa. 

Chamberlain Mfg. Corn., Waterloo, Iowa. 
$1,305,130. Metal parts for the 2.76-inch 
rocket. Ammunition Procurement & Sup- 
ply Agency, .Joliet, III. 

Collins Radio Co., Hlcluu-dnon, Tex. $2,- 
444,730. Radio satH with repair part kits. 
Procurement Dclnchmcnt, Chicago, 111. 
Donnlilson Co,, Minneapolis, Minn, 81,328,- 
B31, Explorntory nnd ndvnimed develop- 
meiit florvlcca to eatnblish modulnrlaed 
collective protection for velilcloa, vana and 
aholtcra. Ed^ewood Arsenji!, M<1. 
Raytheon Co., Lexington, Maes. $7,360,870. 
Initial production run of the self- propelled 
IlBwlt missllo Ri-ounil Biippovt equipment, 
Andoycr, Mass, nnd Bristol, Tenn. Army 
Missile Command, Huntavillc, Ala. 
Raythcoit Co., Lexington, Mnss. $1,044,400, 
Production nsawrnnce angineormg services 
for the Hawk missile ayatem. Andovev, 
MnsB. Army Missile Command, HuntsviSlo, 
Ala. 

Nortliroi] Corp,, Nowbiiry Pnrh, Cnllf. $1,- 
667,400. Target misaile fllglit servkes for 
Project OhnreinB Sparrow. OlarJt Field, 
Philip]) noa. Army Miaalle Command, 
Huntavillc, Aln. 

General Electric, Syracuse, N.Y. ?G,1E8,810. 
Modification klta for high power acquisi- 
tion radar and rotary joints used In con- 
nection with nntl-jammliiEr improvement on 
the Niko-Hercules system. Army Mlaaile 
Command, Huntavllle, Aln. 

""Sff^S 1 Elcctrlc - Springfield, Maia. ?!,- 
flOO.OOO. Production nnd ftirnlahinK of 
7.02mm maclilne guna. Army Wenpons 
Command, Rook Island, 111. 

Global Associates, Oakland, Cnllf. ?3,750,- 
380. LofiiBtlce Bwpport at the Kwajalein 
Teat Site, Mnrehall Islauda. Niko X Project 
Office, Huntaville, Ala, 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



31 



Hughes Tool Co., Culver City, Calif. $13,- 
614312. Model THG5A primary trainer 
helicopters nnd related data. San Diego, 
Calif. Aviation Materiel Command, bt. 

Louis, Ho. , 

Continental Motors, Muskegon, Mien, id,- 
ISG ;M4. Production and ship equipment 
fur'thc LDS series of engines for EVi-ton 
and 6-ton trucks, find M48 and M60 tanks. 
Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Mich. 

Southwest Truck Body Co., St. Louis, Mo. 
31,238,150. M447 semi-trailera nnd M29oAl 
semi-trailer chassis. West Plains, Mo, Tank 
Automotive Command, Warren, Mich. 

Kaiser Jeep Corp., Toledo, Ohio. 53,150,- 
073. Spare parts for trucks. Tank Auto- 
motive Command. Warren, Mich. 

Kalaer Jeep Corp., Toledo, Ohio. $5,754,- 
175. M715 anil M72S l!i-ton vehicles. Gen- 
eral Purpose Vehicles Project Manager, 
Warren, Mich. 

Kaiser Jeep Corp,, Toledo, Ohio. $1,457,- 
486. M60G 14 -ton utility trucks. Tank Auto- 
motive Command, Warren, Mich. 

McCarthy Bros. Construction Co., St. 
Louis, Mo. 51.486,366, Work on the St. 
Louia Flood Protection Project. Engineer 
Dlst., St. Louis, Mo. 

M.M. Sundt, Tuscon, Ariz. 11,387,460. Con- 
struction of a one-story addition for 20 
beds plus alterations to an existing hospital 
at Davis Monthan AFIi, Aria. Engineer 
Dist., Los Angeles, Calif. 

Missouri Research Laba, St. Chatres, Mo. 
81,082,909. Air mobile shelters. Aviation 
Materiel Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

-Photo-Sonica, Inc., Burbank, Calif. $1,- 
443, S30. Versatile tracking mounts with 
binocular scones. White Sands Missile 
Range, N.M. 

Northrop Corp., Anaheim, Calif. $1,142,- 
S01. 106mm projectiles. Picatinny Arsenal, 
Dover, N.J. 

Varian Associates, Beverly, Mass. 1,582,- 
120. Electron tubes for radar sets, Elec- 
tronics Command, Philadelphia, Pa. 

VIZ Mfg. Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 31,868,465. 
Radiosonde sets. Electronics Command, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

Western Electric, New York, N.Y. 52,362,- 
479. Additional Nike X planning effort. 
Burlington, N.C. and Allentown, Pa. Nike 
X Project Otlice, Huntsvillo, Ala. 
2Q Mack Truck, Inc., Allentown, Pa. $1,305,- 
302. Transmission assemblies for 10-ton 
trucks. Hacerstown, Md. Tank Automotive 
Command, Warren, Mich. 

Mack Truck, Inc., Allentown, Pa. $4,884,- 
316. Axle assemblies for 10-ton trucks. 
Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Mich, 

Cummins Engine Co. 53,890,621. Diesel en- 
Kines with accessories for 10-ton trucks. 
Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Mich. 

Consolidated Diesel Electric Co., Old 
Greenwich, Conn. 519,116,838. Ten-ton 
trucks. Old Greenwich, Conn; Scotia, N.Y.J 
Schenectady, N.Y. ; and Toms River, N.J, 
Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Mich. 

Chrysler Motors, Warren, Mich. $3,6EG,078. 
One-ton cargo trucks and one- ton ambu- 
lances. Tank Automotive Command, War- 
ren, Mich. 

White Motors, Lansing, Mich. $1,171,000. 
Production engineering for 2^-ton M44 
and M600 trucks. Tank Automotive Com- 
mand, Warren, Mich. 

Continental Aviation & Engineering Corp., 
Detroit, Mich. $2,339,400. Production engi- 
neering and Inspection engineering for 
2^- and E-ton truck engines. Tank Auto- 
motive Command, Warren, Mich. 

International Harvester Co., Chicago, 111. 
32,313,871. Trucks. Bridgeport, Conn. Tank 
Automotive Command, Warren, Mich. 

Ford Motora, Dearborn, Mich. $1,638,600. 
Production engineering services for H161- 
Al and M7I8 trucks. Tank Automotive 
Command, Warren, Mich. 

Bowen-McLaughlln-York, York, Pa. ?!,- 
260,007. XMS01E3 guided missile loaders 
and transporters. Balr, Pa, Tank Auto- 
motive Command, Warren, Mich. 

Aerojet General, Downey, Calif. 51,648,624. 
Bomb dispensers. Ammunition Procure- 
ment & Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Norria Industries, Los Angeles, Calif. $2,- 
256,230. 106mm cartridge cases. Riverbank, 
Calif. Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Atlantic Research Corp., Alexandria, Va, 
83,740,000. Classified munitions. West 
Hanover, Mass. Ammunition Procurement 
& Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Atlantic Research Corp., Alexandria, Va. 
(8,760,000. Classified munitions. HIngham, 



Maes. Ammunition Procurement & Supply 

-Ge3' Mo'lors, Detroit, Mich. $1,283,000. 
Reactivation, repair, and utilities in sup- 
port of 105mm, Ml projectile metal parts. 
St. Louis, Mo. Ammunition Procurement 
& Supply Agency, Joliet, III. 

-Chamberlain Corp., Waterloo, Iowa. G,- 
703.0BO. Metel parts for 176mm projectiles. 
Scrnnton, Pa. Ammunition Procurement &. 
Supply Agency, Joliet, III. .-- 

-U.S. Rubber Co., New York, N.Y. $2,750,- 
585 Various explosives and reactivation of 
loading, assembling and packing units. 
Joliet, III. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

-Olin Mathicson Chemical Corp., East Alton, 
III $6.651,100. Small arms propcllnnt. 
Bamboo, Wis. Ammunition Procurement 
& Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

-Appalachian Power Co,, New York, N.Y. 
32,900,000. Electrical power at the Army 
Ammunition Plant, Itadford, Va. Ammuni- 
tion Procurement & Supply Agency, Joliet. 

-Raytheon Co., Bedford, Mass. 2,000,000. 
Advanced development of SAM-D. Army 
Missile Command, Huntaville, Ala. 

-Raytheon Co., Lexington, Mass. $3,760,839. 
Installation o modification kits for the 
Hawk missile system. Avmy Missile Com- 
mand, Huntsvilie, Ala. 

-Raytheon Co,, Andover, Mass. $0,947,769. 
Line items of ground support equipment 
and field maintenance equipment for the 
Hawk missile system. Andover, Mass, anil 
Walthtim, Mass. Army Missile Command, 
Huntsvilie, Ala. 

-Hol-Gnr Mfg. Co., Primes, Pa. S1,OG7,3GC. 
1.5KW generator sets. Mobility Equipment 
Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

-Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio. 
31,066,130. Petroleum tanks. Magnolia, 
Ark. Mobility Equipment Command, St. 
Louis, Mo. 

-Uniroyal, Mishawaka, Wis. $1,097,540. 
Petroleum tanks. Warsaw, Ind. Mobility 
Equipment Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

-General Motors, Kokomo, Ind. $1,097,147. 
Radio transmitters and receivers. Elec- 
tronics Command, Philadelphia, Pa. 

-Memcor, Inc., Huntington, Ind. $3,123,108. 
Radio receivers and receiver/ transmitters. 
Electronics Command, Philadelphia, Pa. 

-Mine Safety Appliance Co., Pittsburgh, Pa. 
52,241,700. Field protective masks. Esmond, 
R.I. Edgewood Arsenal, Md. 

-Honeywell, Inc., Tampa, Flo, 1,500,000. 
Classified research and development. Elec- 
tronics Commnnd, Fort Monmouth, N.J. 

-Chicago Aerial Industries, Inc., Barring- 
ton, 111, $2,156,000. Cameras, camera com- 
ponents and equipment, Electronics Com- 
mand, Fort Monmouth, N.J. 

-Caterpillar Tractor Co., Peorla, 111. $2,- 
IBS.BOG. Tractors, Kansas City, Mo, Engi- 
neer Research and Development Labora- 
tories, Fort Belvoir, Va. 

-II. JIalvorson, Inc., Spokane, Wash. $1,- 
339,600. Construction o a Federal Regional 
Center. Bethel], Wash. Engineer Diat., 
Seattle, Wash. 

-Hawthorne Aviation, Fort Kuokcr, Ala. 
$2,176,201. Aircraft maintenance services 
and related test support of the Army 
Aviation Test Board. Aberdeen Proving 
Grounds, Md. 

-Mnremont Corp., Saco, Maine. $2,680,262. 
Barrel asaem bites for 7.fl2mm machine 
guns. Procurement Detachment, New York, 
N.Y. 

-M.M. Sundt Corp., Tuscon, Aria. $1,07M7!>. 
Construction of an Aerobee 860 launch 
facility at White Sands Missile Ranee, 
N.M. Engineer Dist., Albuquerque, N.M. 

-Potashmick Dredging, Inc., Fort Lauder- 
dale, Fla. 52,610,190. Work on the Savan- 
nah, Ga., Harbor Project. Engineer Dist., 
Savannah, Ga. 

-Bermitc Powder Co., Saugua, Calif, $1,- 
914,655. Various fuzes. Harry Diamond 
Laboratory, Washington, D.O. 

-Philco Ford Corp,, Newport Beach, Calif. 
$2 1 568,336. 40mm grenade launchers. Ana- 
heim, Calif. Southwest Procurement 
Agency, Pasadena, Calif, 

-Aerojet General, Aausa, Calif. $1,173,000. 
Design and fabrication of forward looking 
infrared airborne target acquisition and 
fire control system. Frank ford Arsenal. 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

-Great Lakes Dredging & Dock Co,, New 
York, N.Y. $14,280,000, Work on the Provi- 
dence River and Harbor, R.I. New Eng- 
land Div., Corps of Engineers, Waltham, 
Mass. 



Dctlilchcm Steel Corp., Bethlehem, Fn. $1,- 
770,6*9. ForginEs for 176mm guna. Wnter- 
vliet Arsenal, N.Y. 

Thiokol Chemical Corp., Brunswick, Ga, 
$1,002,000. Tear gas. Edgewooil AraanR.1, 

30 ACF Industries, St. Louis, Mo. $1,687,134. 
FUKCS. Olivette, Mo. Ammunition Procure- 
ment & Supply Agency, Joliot, III. 

Aerojet flencrnl, Downey, Calif. $l,831,aOQ. 
Metal parts for S.76-Inch rockets. Ammu- 
nition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Joliet, III. 

Homing ton Arms Co., Hri(lRcport, Conn. 
S22,4f)2,920. Miscellaneous wniall arniu am- 
munition. Independence, Mo. Ammunition 
Procurement ft Supply Alton ey, Jollet, 111. 

Chamberlain Mfg. Co., Waterloo, Town, 32,- 
972,240. Metnl pnrU for IGfinim projectiles. 
Scrnnton, Pa. Ammunition I 1 men re incut 
& Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Chamberlain Mfg. Co,, Scrimlon, l*n, ?!,- 
615.7GG. licimirs in support of tlio IGGmin, 
M107 program; the lliGmm, M121AI pro- 
gram n ml modorniKFition in support of the 
17Gmm, M4S7 program. Ammunition Pro- 
curement & Supply Agency, JoHot, HI, 

E. I. DitPont Norn ours Co., Wilrnlniiloii, 
Del. $2,72C,07G. TNT. Barlimliilc, Win* Am- 
munition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Jollel, 111. 

General Motors, Detroit, Mich. S2,-17G,27S. 
Metnl parts for lOGmm iirojcclllea. -St. 
Lmiis, Mo. Ammunition I'niuiircincut & 
Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

National Pronto Industries, Kriu GJniro, 
Witt. 11,084,085, Metal pnrln Jor lOGmni 
projectiles. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, JolieL, III. 

Ingralmm Co., Uristol, Conn, Jl.HIB.'m. 
Metal pin-In nmiemlily of M12I3A1 bcn>uler&, 
Ammunition Procurement & Hii)>]il> 
Agency, Joliot, 111. 

Zenith Hadlo Corp., Chlcnjr", III. Sl.Cao,- 
200. Metnl parlw for rochet (ii/wi. Ammuni- 
tion Procurement & Supply Afcomjy, Jcillcl, 
111. 

linlovn Watch Co., Jackson HotelUs, W,Y. 
$1, 1152,80']. Motnl pnvtti for fuv.cn and nirn- 
ins meclianinmu for fuzes, Vnltuy Hlcnui, 
N.Y. Ainmitnitioii Procurement, & Hii]i]ily 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Columbus Mil Par Mfg. <J,, Oolumlma, 
Ohio. $2,810,407. Mulnl i>arln for fuwa. 
Woatorvllle, Ohio. Ammunition 1'rin.iiirc- 
ment & Supply Agency, ,T<jUt, ill. 

Tlilokol Chemical Corp,, lirfiitol, PJI. $B,- 
G37.00H, Kockol inotoru anil jnimn.'lliincoiia 
items. Mui'Hhall, Tex. AmntLuilllon l'i'0(;urc- 
nieut ft Supply Aguncy, Juliet, lit. 

HorciilcH, Inc., WilmliiKtun, JJc]. 8B,riria,7l7. 
Vnrioua propollnntu, artillery mid Hulitc-l 
miHBilo itcmu. Itntlford, Vn. Anuimiilllon 
Procurement & Supply Aironey, .Iiillct, 111. 

Spcrry Knnd Corp., New Yiwh, N.Y,, }W,- 
130,030. LftiliiiB, nsiicmlilltiK nnd |>nklnH 
ineilluin caliber nnii Inrgo RiiJIlior nninuini- 
Uon, ahreveport, IM, AinjuuniUun 1'ro- 
curement & Supply Agency, .Tullut, III. 

Olln Mnthicflon Chemical Corn,, Nuw York. 
N.Y. SG,il48,0'10. Loading, nHHoinhUHK ivnJ 
pnclting jnlncolloncouu proptOliiiitii. tJlinrlcs- 
ton, Ind. Ammunitiim Proniirumont & Hun- 
ply Agency, Joliot, 111, 

Sylvanin UlectronlcH ProiluctH, Motintntn 
View, Calif. $1,500,000. Clnmj Iliad clcc. 
tronlCB enuipment. Snntn Uriin, (Jnlll. 
BlootronicH Commnnd, Fort MoninouUi, 
N.J. 

Minnesota Mlnhiff & Mfg. Co., Onninrllli> F 
Calif. $2,1100,000. Gliinuifli:<l tvk-ctruiUcs 
equipment. Electronics Ootninftnil, l-'crt 
Monmouth, N.J. 

Slrombcrg Carlson Corp., Hoc Heat cr, N.Y. 
$8,1GG,781. Fnbrlcnllon of nlno tjuiiliim 
flwitching ccntora to bo iiialollcil lit ult<-s 
In Southeast Aolti. Elcctronicti Cumtnnnd, 
Fort Monmouth, N.J. 

Sperry Knnd Corp., Great Weak, N.Y. SI.- 
007,420. Deaigning ami planiitnK fr fabri- 
cation of an exploratory dnvclo)*rii*nl 
motJel electronic Hcnnning ])oiicsil bourn nil' 
tentm nnd related data Itcmu. Elocti-oulra 
Commnnd, Port Monmoulli, N.J, 

Sperry Rand Corp., Phoenix, Aria, ?l,lflC,- 
900. Automatic (light control ayntomi) ami 
elc&tro-mechanio rotary nctunlora. Klcc- 
ironies Commnnd, Port Monmouth, N.J. : 

Canadian Commercial, Oltnwn, Cniindn, 
$1,4.48,054, Teat fncilltlcB ami itmlnt&unnci* 
support kits for radio BotB. Moiilronlj 
Canada. Electronics Commnnd, Fort Mem- 
month, N.J. 

HUB Singer, Inc., Morreatown, N.J. 
055,880, Rndto eot transmitters^ 



August 1967 



., . , , 

Si' Hill). "(III. Tiaii!<l"'i Inl'lf null. i <u-M, Kl,v 
(r/iiili'Ji Ctimitmml, l-Wr Mdiimoiilh. N,,I, 
Hti-liiiii, tin 1 ., SI im i rm 1 1, I 'nun, Hl/.l'i'li.uiil 

'- 



1. XMI17 

Wwi1MIB ' t <!ra - 

yn.-!.!. Vn. ?B.- 



. Cnlliii" ItmMi. I'u., lYihiv Haul. 1. 1, IMWII. s::. 
IIH!. Hill, IHvi'i-Him llmli'i 'i. 'In ninl mi, in,' 
nmi|ini'llH, I'lln-l rinili"t Cniiiriiiiinl. fnd 
Moimmulli. N..I. 
Mnclili'H l,alini-|il..ilrti, ."itiinifui-il, Ci.iin, 

NKinlll, N..I. 

VAItO, In,-.. (InrliiM.I. T."., 81,ii:i!i..iini, 

X rin ni jii-iirrhlliiltl", Nlf'li >>nl.-'i <' in ml, 

].',u't Miuii.H'iilh. N..I, 

III, [fmi.ii Klfi'lMinlrn l'i.i|i,. I '-I M.nilr, I'.tlir, 

$:i,MlU ( lHNi. AtH'urin' null" iit'H, K|.-i 1 lr,i 

I! i.inn.l. I 1 '..!' M.in th ; tl,,l, 

I'll)!* 1 Ciilniiniiiti n I (mi" l-liiuliiiTiii. I ii<-., 

Wl.iiMmil.'ii. II, l!. :'.', .mm, U'.nL ,, 

i'lmi'illlfil |'i.'k'-l, :!"iilllriir.| A'.ln. I'',1i i- 

(mull-it Cnio'ii'.iiil. l-'in I .Mi>iiini.iiili, M..I. 
Miu'Mi'tl l.iil..nnl.u I'-", M(n to (.n. I, C,, mll 
St.lir.V.iUtil, Mfiiltilint.-r.l AN'TVJiM miiiol- 
lirii|ii*, I'llrrl I ull li'ri Ciiiniiuill.1, I "t I Mull 
mmitli. N..I. 

Cimtliii-iitiil Mnliun. Mu-ilu-r.-ii, Mi.-li, '.};',. 
hlill.il'.'H. Sl'.niH.MM, HM-II.II liinli i-Mi-i". < 
Timli AiilnmtilU't- ('.iinitiiin.l, V.'iui.'ti. Mt.li. 

(Ii-ni-ial Mi.li'in, In.ltiiiini'KU'i, In. I, ?;'.un;, 

WM, MHI" Ivnnnnih >li>nn nit. I nhili-.l [.,11 I:, 
I H'.'li.JilK. 'riiiuipuiin-Hiiii'i (.n l)n> MNIIAI 

r<inil[>' uf \,')il,-! 1 -i 'I'i.T.I, A iKv <', 

niniul, Win i i-ii, Mi-'li 

Slut run Mfif, <'i>,, l'.l"'ir-.|.ntt!. I'PI !,',''.",. 
Vl'.ll, I 1 /, -lint nil mi liuUn.! Titnl. Ant. mi. i 
llvii I'.iiniiuiiiil, Wi.ii'-n. Mlrlt 
.InhllMtill Ci.lli,, M.-lli'i in*, llhi". i!|.l,l('!'. 
Illit, 1 ';,,li>it .-nu: ,ll.-i", lunli Au<>. 

lt!iillv<* ('MI III.. I, U'n.l.'ll, Mji-ll 

Mni'k 'rnit'lin, All.-itd.v.i,, I'u. si.iihii.m-n, 

'llnir.-iKtMWii. Mi1.''l',,nU ,\'.l liv.. l'.>hi 

iniinil, Win K'ti, Ml. li 

Ciililiiii-nlal Mnli.rn. Mint.roin, MJ-'li I?*,!. 

riVH.IIIISt, iU'.ii'll.lli!!, I'lu-InU lnnl< t-iifiiLi ' 

t'niio Mnnl.-t tlinlv. 111.' , tfn:n I'llv. Mh-li. 



- . 

Jivl||p-i, Jiiuilrt I'll, n, I'.tllf. ri.nU.nu -\f 
is.'ini), M..U-I. M.J, 

\Ylih ll'Mi'l ('..ri.,. lA'iiiu.uH.!. Iml lit.'HI.. 
Hit:!. IIIIHHH i>i. iic.' nil-, s t, !i; r . VIM* utti inn 
i-itnf-il.-i i> : i r ml. I it j I'l.-niii.ni Atii-itiit. 
Upiu'i 1 . M,,l. 
Ni!illini|i Citrii.. Aiiiiln-lin, r.ilif, "jl.ir.ti.ii: 1 , 

Dlllill'l IO.-i.-1'Ut.-:. I'!, ,,((..=.>' Al.-p-l.nl 

Di.v.-f, N..I. 

Not i Is hitliintrlrn, V. tiM'H, I'pilK Bl^'til,. 

fi:m. M.'ifd i-ini-1 r.-i- if.,'f.ui) |. l ,.i,.nii-' 

I'l.'mliniv A).iininl, I'."., i 1 , 11. .1: 
Mlltii'ln l.'t-nr Wnitn, Mtiii'-t.'. litd, Sl.lt'l.' 
fU. I'lll tiixl h>-;:'t<- ii^.:iitl.M:i f"i '.',.'< 
tin-! ...... l.rCi, I'j.-nUiiiii jU.-.rmil, ft..vrl', 

N,,l, 

AVI'M t'.ir|i., !lnnif,.i,l, t:,.iin l.;';;!,ti!i L i, 

tl|pi-llrt n'.-i-.. tiit.tl-n t,. t 'If.'l <-|iii|iif f..| 

vin iii..'nif( AviHiii.it Mm.'ii.'i r.tinuroi.i ( 

.'it, U ( ,|B. M,,, 

llrll AprilniiMiB Cm-It,, r m! V.'mlll, 'I'. ^. 

Sil.nmi, ..... I, IlKthti.ii ih ih- ,),'lu.-,,' n , !.,! 
Hi'- i.f UMMI li,-it-',,i.i.i.v AUiiiL.n Mn 
Icrlvl I'lnnmrihil, III \.-^l---, M", 

A \'<;u Cinit.. :i!mtfi.iit. Ci.uti. s ;'.(';*, ..... ', 

I'd fill' If .-fi.!Hrt(n|n /,.) 'I,', 1 , |l,.- III. i 

t!lmrli-:ti.,h, Hi;, Av(tO)..!i ^Jni.il.'l t'.,t.i 
tiiiiinl, ;ii |..,nh. M,,. 

11*11 llrlltiitllrr I'",, l-tl Wi.llJl, 'I'r*. B 1 . 

li.U.HftH. AilftiDinti-nl tit ttst- M.-fh ix'iri-p ..n 

til* 1 HM-I lli-H'-..l.!r-,. At(--.n..tl ,MtiU-lkl 

I'ummniitt. Ml. !,.iuta, M., 

11*11 Acrt.lilKlt-p I 'Hi p., l-'r.tl W"lll>. Tri 

M.itHit.fum, ;;.',' Mlit, H-mr |.t.lr,, ?.- 
UIM tiHirni.trfd, Ati(tt(.'t Mntriirt I'IP.H, 
innriil, si, I..P.IM, M.I, 
IJenerdl Miitiirn, I!|F^]B,|,|. tit. I*. SI.OKfV 

(iflMiln-rfilHf hrfvicr-u. ArHiV 

.iinntiil, i|,,,-, (slBn.t. 111. 



., vi', t-nn 

i l,:ili:i,'.!'.;v. rimi-InK lliiiln>r un,l iin-pi.t-lnjt 
iii.' r.MHi.liillmi iiKnt,,ii.|ilii ninl iiiu'liil iirriui 

;;"' ' ........ Hi-'Hiiu .r <in> (intiu-iitiii num 

^.viimh.ti, Vn, Kntdmvr Uhl.. Ntirft.llt, 

Wllllitiiifi 1'iivlnit Tit., Nui'fiilK, Vn, SI !MlU 
''I". t!li-iirln ( t Ilni1ii>r, mid .-x^avullnii, 
ijmilfi.t; ii.nl i-i.iintviiflli.ii w.it-U for III,' 
N,-w Mi.i-Iu-1 Cn-rtf iiron in lliinii.lon inul 
Ni-ivi...ri N.-wii, Vn, Mimim-cr lM.it.. N..r- 
f.'lli. Vn, 

Knlnvr .Ift-ii (',!,. . Ti.lnl,,, ol,|,,. sr.!..|,|;|,- 
'.''". : l |'.!.';:i:i.'Hli. Mv-.ti,,, D-uHiri, Mouli, 
M.-iul In.l. l,,,m. ln | |' MI ..... , Vi-Klflf I'm- 
ip-p'l MjiiiiiKi-f. Witrit-ii. Mlrli, 
iiHiiriiliil Miiliirii, Minilifttnii, Ml.'li. SI,- 
dtrf.Vtili, 'i-hiH tmi'li I'm; I hi' niini'iiihlli'i!. 
'i'-iifvnl I'm., ....... Vrlilrl.. I'nijHil Munii){.-r, 

Wn, ,,!,, Ml.-ll. 

I'nlr.lilltl rtiiiirrn A IlKilriiinciil t'.t\t., 

SM--.IU-I. N.V, $.!,(> i MINI, null I.IHIII-I' i-mu- 

.-un IM>I| Int .ip.ii., KlrrininU'ii I 'iiiniiinitil, 
rhllii.Ml'lilii. I'u, 

Aiitn Iniliniltli'ii. Itti-., ('nhnnlnhi, 1ml, ?|,- 
lil'.i.l'Hi. hh'TMi.n Hint.-! ..... l,i. Kli-itlriiiilfii 
(',,r. uiiini. I, rlillu.l..||ililn. Pit. 



. , , 

1'IIM l'ni|i,, [inn Miil.'ii, Tnllf. s:i,Vl!l,llHL!. 
r,.miiun-i| il.-vr!.ii ...... n! uf n,, Alll' nyitlcnt. 

''"it M ..... I. '!'."(, I'liutliK-i'l- Kfrinii-i'lt l.ith. 

( .,l.>i|.-t. )-'.PII ll.'K-.ilr, Vu. 



., .., ..-. 

Itlllkn, r.pinl-nl (Ttilnt^c v^hl^-| ^ ^ Hint chs. 
flln fp.r MfiiiAl iMttl.ii, Ms!..ti. lihl.ii !*> 
tri.U nti.l IVitierJIui*. Mu-h,; tl.mla>ltlr, 



, i.,fi( l a | n ,,,1. Ill, 
I'ftll'it \ne., JlnHti.Ml, t'.iim. M 
LltretiBM in nai> iB-chiiiYa! dtHu anil 



I-'MC C..r|i,, .'tun Jim', Iliillf. 9l,5Hll.7'lll. 
Cinj'i-i.it ..f ip|.<ilni'llini fur ill,. MMIIAI. 
MlniiAl, MKK.Al. MlVVAl, XMY'll. anil nil 
V.tli-iiit Alt' H.f.-miM family ( v.'lilrlt-ii. 
N. mime. I ri.ii'ni-.'i.ti.iil Atf.'iii-v. Oakland, 
I'nlif. 

Mime* 1'fi i:ii|jlnrp|'H, liir., mill Sliilti'. Inf., 
DMA H&>\ Ciiiinlnii-lntn, I ,nln-iinf<T, Cullf, 
!!'.', 'J'.iV.niHI. I'lilinl Mlrlli >n nf PI|IIH'I' Inlinrll 

fiii'lHlti-ii I, unit n 111,' iilnllnii, nl Vfillil.'M- 

Ii"u; AMI. I'nllf, Mnnlnnn' Dim., l.ml An- 

.-,!.., Ci.llf. 

I 'nun Aid 111(1 Mnliitrnnnri', I in 1 ., l.awlini. 

'iiiiiiiil.'HUi'ini] uliniifi mill nl run m-<> on 
li -.-'.I iii,i| i i>i HI v \vlni- ulr.-rafL Kiii'l 
Hu.-li.-i-, Aln, nii.l l''.n-l KlciMii-t. (ilt. 1'tir- 
rlniilitlt nml fdiilMirllini llllli'.-, l-'in-l 

IVitrint I.nlti.ritl.nlrn, (in 1 ., HulltilnirK. 1'n. 
Sl.titv.iiiiit. llnml ifii'ii.id.-'i. l'!ili!i.winnl Ar- 

(irmilinl Cminlnii'lltii. CM., I'l-inm-ula, Flu. 

|j|, HI., MV, i' iiinrfl'iii uf 11 mir ;i!nvy 

N, In, I. nl lttnf.iv lotllillm; itii.l n lw,.-<ii,ii'v 
,!( ..'tvi... fnHIIIV Inlilillnii will) tnin,-- 
UI.-H! iii I'l^lin Al li, Hit. Kiiiiliii-.-r IHfit,. 

Manor! I'hcliin Cnnnlnii'llnn Cii., Cn-.-l.'y, 

C..1". DM, V^l, Olil*. Ctilnitnii-lloll nf ID I'll" 
!(;!'! uirii'o li,-uriu'liti i-nlii|>li'M-<i nt l-'m-l 
l:tl.-v. Hun, I-: MM In i -I- 1- Ill'ii,. Knii'uii! dlly, 

lit- Viilin)( litiulnrrrhm t'nr|i., Ilni'llmtion, 
Mm:-!, 81, ih;:, tni'1, Knrttnli f iihlclillnir fur 
iinnd'iii Vnii Me I'i'.iir iii-i'<-lci'hl.ii>i. i'ldiii 1 - 

v. 1, M.l, |':,!i;..sv,,inl AliH'liill. Mil. 

Crinttn Alarnfl, U'i^lilhi. Iv'nii, 81. .|!l!l,7Hri, 

IH'-i't -HM-fn f.-r t iliH'I'i. IT'il'iii'i'iin-llt l)i>- 

In. lii.i.-nl. CfiirniU', III. 

("ii(i|lcrwrUt ,Ht*cl (*,. CliiM'U'i.rl, I'll. Jf.,- 

li n.'.'xn, .Mui.iifn.'liirliih' mul fni'iiliililnn 

.U.ii.|'iHl..nim Ci.iiLK'l- ci.lll.-.l ntci't wins 
fnlu'l.' lr n 1 "' In iinnliu-llim i'f orlli'llllili'il 
miirii'ii* nniitrr-'ni-i fur mm nit itic Min.iln- 
nii'l'l llhrr nnit 'rrilniliirli-ji Klunil Conlr.il 
t'liiittiti'l Iniiii'i'vim-nt |irnii:iil, l-mKlnri'r 
hint,. Mrim'hh. 'IVnii, 
H. H. Mullen, Inc,, niiil llrftvo Cor|i.. JkiiUIo, 
\Voli. 8V.lH4.4ilO, 1'nmilrni'Ui.ii "i iicerfw 
oni) n.ii"ini'-i!t. diHIltli'ii fur tlm Hncl- 
lUliiiin Hum liv<Ifi.|.(irr tmijri'l in Atintkn. 
Knwiiirfr Dial , Aiii'lmrnui'. Alimkii. 
llunhmnn Cnnntrurllun Co., Kt. .Ii>in-|ili, Mn. 
la.'JSSMl'JS. Ci.nnlrnrlluH uf 1'hilno It (if 
n f.nrrulp fti.lllwiiy fur itni (InloKiili Hum 
mul Krat-rvuir, Ohln. Kimlni'pi' Illnl., 'l'i 
Okln, 



N. It. Ilninni (?nlrn<!tor, Inc., Perry, Kftn. 
SajllH.-!;!,'). ]p'lno(] in-ntni'Uon work -SnH.loii 
1. Nnrlh I,nwrt>tiH!, Ivan. Kimiiicoi- Dint., 
Kaiiiiiif) OMy, Mn. 

Mnitnnvux Co., tlrlinnu, III. Sy.,H7 0,15(1 1), MIS 
ilin-ctloH ixiinpuloi- KtitiH. Kriinlifcml Ar- 
Hi'iutl, I'hilaildphtn, Vu, 
(tvmtrnl Time Corn., Kkfiklis, 111. sa,fll0.17H. 
XM71I fun,..,. I'rankfin-d Ai-Hiiiml, I'filla- 
ili'l|ililii, Pn, 

HywlpiiiH novoloiHiicnt Corp.. Sitnlii Monicn, 
(liillf. Sl.aii;t,77. A nyiiU'inii U'liliilnit ]>ro- 
icrani fur !li<> Army Air D^fumu' Mlimllo 
M.'iilitr an<l llii^ Itinll.i Air Di-fniiHc: Con- 
Irol IHK! (liiiirdlnaliiiii HyHlom. Army Mln- 
iillf Command, Ilnnbivlllo, Alii. 
Niirlliroii, Coni., Aniilmlm. Calif. ^2,202,- 
012. Miuvk liinuclnirrt. Army Mltmilo Com- 
miinil t llimliivllli', Alti. 

Wyufi ami Klitprni KnitinncrH, Inc., anil 
Hiirjjt'MH {'iniHtrufltnii Co,, Ki'iiUlt 1 , Wnali, 
i> I ,;Ui(l, I ill , Coinil i'iii'1 Ion tit a iirlmnry 
iiiiwi-r i(i>iu>nill(in ut I'li.ilniiii Al'll, Alnnkii, 
Mniihu'cr Dint., Aiii'rinnixi', Alaiikii. 
J, A, (,'ny, Inc., Diililin, Olild. $l,771l,H(m. 
('(innlriii'l Inn of a ln\li' liibiiralory addition 
nail fur iillm-aliomi \\-ltli a|i|iiir!i'iianL ntlll- 
I It-it nt, Wrljthl.l'ulli.rtiiiii AKH, Ohio. Knitl- 
m-i-i' hlnl,, LfinlHvillr, Ky. 
Drown ft Itnol, Inc., lloiuilon, '1'i-x. ?;i,!l7H,- 
H;l, CnimlriiHIiin of 111*. KnMn l.nhi". .South 
Klinll illM)io:ui) iii-cii Tnr lh<! Haliln-Nnclnm 
Wah-rway. I'urt, Arlhnr, Tux, Kiiicitnw 
Hint,, (!nlvr:iliiii, '\'VK. 

Aiilnmiilir KU-i-IHc Co., Norlli Tmltt!, 111. 
Sl,.i!l-l,7fi(l, I, Inn llrmn nf varimi.i ti'li'iiliom- 
ft-ntrnl iilllni- i-milpiiii-iil. Mli-rlronli; 1'niv- 
IIIIT [iroiiml, l''i)]'l llmiHinni, Arl/,, 
Itini/- AlU'M Ainilit'd Id'Hotirch, Olid-uK", 111. 
SI.7l(l,Ji:;7. (!iiiillniiatl<in of iHmllon lii-lnif 
iit'i'fnniic.1 liy (hi- Comlilui.il Army Itivu-arHi 
Ullli-.'. f-'orl l.t'iivi'iiwnrlli, Kan. Htiiilhwont 
ri'iii-iii'i-iiii-iil. Aircni'.v, I'aiiudi'iia, (inllf. 
Hlinli'luilirr Corii., MlniiouimUii, Minn. $'.!,- 
1MH,!ll!Lt, Viiriottii itcrn-faldr ni'lii, MnifliH'di' 
KrJH'iirt'li anil Dcvi'lupnii'iil. l.alnii'atory, 
r.irL It.'lvulr. Va. 

AlllH Clmlmci'H Mf|t. Co., Milwiiukt-i', Win. 
Sl,(i;!H,l III, Kmiliti! ni'iii'i-atur in-lii anil ovoi'- 
liacli a.'ln, Ilurvoy, 111. Knuliu-i>r Itoin-an-h 
anil llrvcloinni'iil, I.nlioi'aLiii'y, Kurt. Hi-lvolr, 
Vn. 

Kahi-r A lit in I nil in & Cliumli-nl Knlrn, Inc., 
Oiildiilid, Cullf. $'.M,:iV:!,OII<). Mnnilfiu:tlli'.\ of 
alinniiiiim hom-yi'iimh i-nvc nainlwloli-(.y|)i! 
ah'|i|aiic IniidinK mat miili-i'lnl, Rniiliu-ci' 
Wni.irwiiyn MsiK'i'lm.'iii Stullim, Vliilinlmrir, 
Mimt, 

Dnw Chi- in Ic nl Co., MliMnii.l, Mlrli, ?fl.77n,. 
llllll. Maniifiii'lnro nf MX-IK t-^iniileil nlii' 
infiiiiin iilnilinni nmlorlal. Madliiun, III. 
KindiK'.'r Wnli-1'wavn Mxiici-lnu-iiL .Hliillnii, 
VU-luilmi'K, Minn. 

UtTi-nlfH, IIK-,. Wllmliiiiloii. Dl. SttlUMH,- 
'Ifif], Mliiri-lliiiit-uiiii |ii'(i|ii']laiiln. t.nwrrnni, 
Kan. Anuiiiiiiltloii I'l'iirnn-niiiiiL .1 Hnuiily 
AIII-III-V. .liillrt, 111. 

it.C.A., Cnmtlt-ii, N..I. $!Mll)<U)lll> (HiiHiillli-il 
r.<|>airii iiarln. Kli'rtninlt'ii Coinmiiiiil, KorL 
M.inmuiilli, N.J. 

-lli'Wfcdc <'iniHli'in-|ji)ii (' Covhin, t'nllf. 
31, nil. 1117. CDniitriii'll.in of an addltlnn to 
mi <<\iiitlnif lioiiilal al Ktlwiii'iln Al'U, 
Calif, KiiKliii'vr Dltil., [urn AtiKclufi, llnllf. 
Whltfl MulurM, l.iuiitlDK, Mltih. S1H.1MII1.7H7. 
'. l ,",:-liin trin-ltst. (it-ni'l'al I'liriioin- Viflilflivi 
1'i'tijfirl Mnuairiir, Wnri'Dii, Mluli. 
Mnniin A Hniiftcr. Hilun Mimon ('o,, Li-xim;. 

lim. Ivy. $-l,:illll,7<ll. l.nuillnK, a ihlliiK, 

ninl ini.'lilnjt liiiinli:i. and for fitrlllHcti fur 
nmMiifii.'liiiv of cinlH-liH'li, Ml III! iihi-lln. 
(imiul hiliiml, Nt-li. Aninniiillfini I'rnciin-- 
ini'iii (it iSiipiily Ani-nry, .Nilli-l, 111. 
Olln Miillili-Hini Clu-mlciil <!on>., KiKit Al- 
loit, III. iJ'l,r.!K,'ll I. Mliii'iillniiciMin |ii'ii|ii-l' 
Innhi, llai'ali.iu. Win. Animiinll.lou I'ni.Min-- 
nu-iit ^ .Hin-|i[y Af/i!)i''l'. -Inllitt, 111. 
tl.H. Hulilier Co,. New York, N.Y. $.|.HHII,- 
1IH1. l-;x|il(i:ilvcn. Julii-l, III. AltllllllHinl I'l'd- 
nii'i'iiifnl & Kiniply Aiti-nry, .Itilk-l, III. 
Ilitv r /,lmim<rmflini, l\\f, 811,11211,7511. Hlw- 

('l-llulll'UIIII l'>,|ll(inivi' Itrmil. Tl'Mll'ldUNl, 'I'l'X. 

Ainmiinlllmi I'l-win-i-mnnl ft .Sniu'ly 
AKVIICV. Jtilli'l, III. 

HiHitlicni Alrwuytt Co., Alliinlii, (lit, $1,' 
lUa.lifiH, Mi'lnl imrtti fur inrnum MHI7 lU'ii- 
jt-i-Liti-ii. Bylnriumii, Aln. Amniunllion I'm- 
(nrmniiL & 8uii|ily AKHIH-V, Jnlli.-l, 111. 
Chum h I: rln I n Mf. Co., Witloi'lfiu, Imvu. 
$'l,.17(l.'tH4, M<-l(il |nirt:i fur innmm MIII7 
IH'iiJucUk-iH, KiTiiiilon, I'u. AmmiiiilUini 
I'riii'im.-mciit & Hniiply A|{i>iu<y, Julli>l, III. 
I! it veil nit Arscnnl, hu-,. Akrun, Oliiu. fl,- 
-110,1)7-1. (limvoi'Hlnn uf Ullmrn hluli oxtiln- 
nh'o en r I r I (I K I'll to ODnini liliiti oxiilo- 
nlvo iinUUink nu'li'ittKi'H. Knvi'tHHi, (llilo. 



Defonio Industry Bullelln 



33 



Ammunition Procurement & Supply 

Ilcf'cuVes, "liic-'. Wilminut.in, Del. S5,032,- 
;llf> Mt^-elliincous jiropeMtmt*. "<! dcsiKn 
nru! (inoratton of TNT facilities, Itndfoni, 
V.i. Ammunition rrocuruincnt & huppiy 
A Bern- x. Juliet, 111. 

KfrninRlon Arms Co., IlrniBCliort, Conn. 
j 351 748 Miscellaneous small nrms am- 
mmiilkm. Indeiwniience, Mo. Ammiinition 
I'rocurcment & Supply Agency, Johct, 111. 

Thiokol Chemical Corp., Bristol, Pa. 5V 
65'' "G4, Various items of ammunition m- 
i-lurliiift loading, nasemblini; and packing 
i05mm, GOmm, arid J.2-lneh cartridges. 
Mnrshnll. TEK. Ammunition Procurement 
& Supply Ak'cncy, Joliet, III. 

HolMon Defense Corp., KinRsport, lenn. 
3i),12B,(i'j. Productioa of esplosives. Am- 
munition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Joliet. III. 

Sperry Rnnd Corp,, New York, N.Y. $2,- 
421,838. Loading, assembling and packing 
miscellaneous medium calilior items _of 
ammunition, Slircveiiort, Ln. Ammunition 
Procurement & Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Mason & Hanger, Silas Mason Co., New 
York, N.Y. S6.90fi.808. Loading, aasom- 
lilinff and packing miscellaneous artillery 
ammunition and aerial mines, Burlington. 
Iowa. Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Keminglon Arms Co., Bridgeport, Conn. 
SI, 987, 323. Manufacture of miscellaneous 
smnll arms ammunition. Independence, Mo. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Ageacy, Joliet, III. 

Hercules, Inc., Wilmington, Del. S1.47G,- 
0118. Propellants. liadford, Va. Ammuni- 
tion Procurement & Supply Agency, Joliet, 
II). 

Sperry Rand Corp., New York, N.Y. $1.- 
259,018. Load, assemble and pack ammu- 
nition. Shreveport, La. Ammunjtion Pro- 
curement & Supply Agency, Joliet. 111. 

Applied Devices Corp., College Point, N.Y. 
SI. 304,412. Surveying instruments. Mo- 
bility Equipment Command, St. Louis, 
Mo. 

AVCO Corp., Stratford, Conn. S2.084.01S. 
Turbine nozzles for T53 engines. Aviation 
Materiel Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

Uoyertown Auto Bndy Works, Boyertown, 
Pa. 53,318,958. Six-ton semi-trailers, Tank 
Automotive Command, Warren, Mich. 

Hanson Machinery Co., Tiffin, Ohio. $!,- 
336,866. Five-ton cranes. Mobility Equip- 
ment Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

Chrialic Electric Corp., Los Angeles, Calif. 
81,068,454. A transformer to provide 
power for various portable radios while 
in a stationary situation where commercial 
or AC power is available. Electronics 
Command, Fort Monmouth, N.J. 

Philco-Ford Corp., Philadelphia. Pa. S3,- 
000,000, Maintenance and operation serv- 
ices in connection with the Integrated 
Wide Band Communications System in 
Thailand. Electronics Command, Fort Mon- 
mouth, N.J. 

Page Communications Engineers, Wash- 
Inirton. D.C. 33,950,000. Maintenance and 
operation services in connection with the 
Integrated Wide Rand Communications 
Systems in South Vietnam. Electronics 
Command, Fort Monmouth, N.J. 

Rand Corp., Santa Monica, Calif. SI,- 
717,850. A classified study. Defense Supply 
Service, Washington, D.C. 

NAVY 

1 Boeing Co., Morton, Pa. 530,611,040. CH- 
46D helicopters. Naval Air Systems Corn- 
man il. 

Lockheed Aircraft, Burbank, Calif. $10,- 
6G2,G36. SP-2H aircraft. Naval Air Systems 
Command. 

United Aircraft, East Hartford, Conn. $4,- 
000,000. Phase II development of TF-30-P- 
12 ensinea. Naval Air Systems Command. 

Pacific Coast Engineering Co., Alameda, 
Calif. S3.70S.650. Construction of six cargo 
craft. Naval Ship Systems Command. 

Marineltc Marine Corp., Marinette, Wis. 
!3,450,62G. Construction of five harbor tug 
boats. Naval Ship Systems Command. 

Martin Marietta, Baltimore, Md. $1,881,- 
086. Classified work on Navy aircraft. 
Navnl Air Systems Command. 

Electric Storage Battery Co., Philadelphia, 
Pa., 51,341,037. Submarine storage battery 
elements and cells. Naval Ship Systems 
Command. 

Pacific Coast Engineering Co., Alameda, 
Calif. ?1,09Q,000. Construction of an alu- 
minum landing craft, utility (LOU), 
Naval Ship Systems Command. 



34 



2 Lockheed Aircraft, Durbank, Calif. 11,- 
130,5-13. Support of FY 1067 procurement 
of P-3B aircraft. Navnl Air Systems Com- 

CJener'nl Dynamics, Pomona, Calif. 3,600,- 
000. Production of medium range Standard 
missiles. Nnval Ordnance Systems Com- 
mand. 

Mnxson Electronic Con)., Macon, Ga. $1,- 
116,318. Detonating fuses for 8-inch, EG- 
caliber projectiles. Navy Ships Ports Con- 
trol Center, Mochanicsburg, Pa. 

Sanders Associates, Inc., Nashua, N.H. 
81,170,666. Sonobuoys. Naval Air Systems 
Command. 

5 Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., 
Bethpnge, N.Y. 32,700,000. FY GS procure- 
ment of A-6A nil-croft. Navol Air Systems 
Command. 

LTV Aerospace Corp., Dallas, Tex, S2.6BO,- 
000, Production of A-7D aircraft. Naval 
Air Systems Command. 

Corbetta Construction Co., DOS Ploines, 111. 
82,173.000. Construction of staff barracks 
and Wave barracks at the Great Lakes 
Navnl Training Center. Midwest Div., 
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 
Great Lakes, 111. 

Hickok Electrical Instrument Co., Clove- 
land, Ohio. 1,780,816. Oscilloscopes. Naval 
Ship Systems Command. 

John C. Long, Inc., Chicago, 111. 51,702,406. 
Construction of a technical training build- 
ing at the Great Lakes Naval Training 
Center. Midwest Div., Naval Facilities En- 
gineering Command, Groat Lakes, 111. 

Todd Shipyards, San Pedro, Calif. $1,520,- 
000. Regular overhaul of the oiler USS 
Caliente (AO-63), Supervisor of Shipbuild- 
ing, Eleventh Naval Disk, San Diego, 
Calif. 

Honeywell, Inc., Seattle, Wash. 31,300,000. 
Ceramic transducers for the Mark 37 tor- 
pedo improvement plan, Naval Ordnance 
Station, Forest Park, 111. 

Akwa-Downey Construction Co., Mil- 
waukee, Wis. 1,376,000. Construction at 
headquarters and maintenance facilities 
at Camp Pendleton, Calif. Southwest Div., 
Naval Faeilitiea Engineering Command, 
San Dicso, Calif. 

Coneen Construction Corp., El Cajon, Calif. 
51,227,000. Construction of personnel sup- 
port facilities in the Homo Area, Camp 
Pendleton, Calif. Southwest Div., Naval 
Facilities Engineering Command, San 
Dleeo, Calif. 

Home Bros., Inc., Newport News, Va. $1,- 
192,268. Regular overhaul of the transport 
USS Fremont (APA 44). Supervisor of 
Shipbuilding, Fiftli Naval Diet., Norfolk, 
Va. 

6 Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corn., 
Bethpage, N.Y. $10,400,000. Heaeareh all ^ 
development on EA-6B aircraft. Naval Air 
Systems Command. 

Garrelt Corp., Phoenix, Ariz. $1,100,080. 
Air turbine starters and spare components. 
Nnval Air Systems Command. 
7 Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, N.Y. ?G,- 
167,904. Fuaes for ammunition. Navy Shijia 
Part Control Center, Mechanicaburg, Pa. 

Dickman Construction Co., Mountain View, 
Calif. $4,212,000. Construction of 200 
family housing units at the Naval Air 
Station, Moffett Field, Calif. Naval Facili- 
ties Engineering Command. 

Union Carbide, Corp., New York, N.Y. $2,- 
167,878. Components for ammunition for 
three-inch and five-inch guns. Navy Shlna 
Parts Control Center, Mcchnniosburg, Pn. 

Kilgore Corp., Toone, Tenn. $1,107,802. 
Aircraft float lights. Navy Ships Parts 
Control Center, Meehanlcsbiirg, Pa. 

Sperry Hand Corp., Syosset, N. Y. $1,690,- 
000. Electronic teat equipment for uae in 
testing equipment and subsystems of shin 
Inertlal navigation systems. Navnl Ship 
Systems Command. 

Litton Systems, Woodland Hills, Calif. $1,- 
647,900. Spare parts for uso on A-0A air- 
craft, Aviation Supply Ofllce, Philadelphia, 
Pa. 

United Aircraft, $1,436,780, Propeller ays- 
terns for P-3B aircraft. Aviation Supply 
Office, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Alliance Webbing, Inc., New York, N.Y. 
$1,376,848, Tape assemblies used in arrest- 
ing gear aboard aircraft carriers. Central 
Falls, R. I. Naval Air Engineering Center, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

8 Raman Aircraft, Bloomfield, Conn. $2,BOS,- 
200. Additional funding for conversion of 
UH-2A/B helicopters to twin engine eon- 
figuration designated UH-2C. Naval Ah- 
Systems Command. 



R.C.A., Moorcstown, N. J. 3,042,700 
Radar pulse doppler modification Bpnn 
parts. Naval Air Systems Command, 

Sinpicau Corp., Muvion, MHBH. $1,SJ8S,&01 
Expendable batliythorniogm]JiH, recorriori 
and launchers for use in ocotinoRrfiphfi 
survey projects. Nnval Ship Systems Com 
mand. 

Texas Instruments, Dallas, Tex. $l,DT8/>28 
Guidance and control nectiaiiii nnil wlnj 
and II n sots for Shrike miaMilea, Nnval Ail 
SystomH Command. 

WcHtinghiiuso lOlccli'ic, Baltimore, Md. $!, 
000,000. Production of prototype ninilclB ol 
special exorcise Bee lions of MIC 48 lor 
peuocs. Naval Ordnnncc Syslums Cntnmnrid 

Majrnavc-x Corn., Fft Wayne, Imi- Sl.lfiSi 
CS7. Sonobuoya. Naval Air Systems Com 
mand. 

United Aircraft, Iliu'tfnrd, Cinin. $16,782, 
481. JE2-P8A ciunnca, Navnl Air Hyfltcmi 
Command. 

Mngnavox Co., Fort Wayne, I ml, SO.SSE, 
447. Mortification lilts for nfrlwrne- niilni 
seta. Nnval Air SyHlcrns Ginnirmiul, 

Collins Kadlo Co., Htclinrdscm,, Ton. 50,773, 
723. Airborne (wimniunicatimui ayntcnui nm 
related equipment- Nnvnl Air Syrttcin! 
Comma ml. 

Northrop Corp., Nowbury Pork, Calif, $1, 
288,800. MQM-74A tamcL drimoii. Nnvn 
Air SysteniH Gommtind. 

SnmlcrH Associated, Nnnhun, N.II. S 1,318, 
007. Electron In equipment. Naval Ail 
Systems Command. 

Gnrrett Corp., lion AnnIfH r (inllf. $2, 
334,737. ComitrtjBsioii powor unitn am 
rohitcd cnuijiinont. Naval All 1 Hylcnii 
Command. 

DouffliiH Aircraft, r,nn I!<!Jich, fJullf. 81, 
HBO, 158. Hmnb raclin and iiclniiUH 1 lill ot3 
Torraiico, Cnllf. Naval Ah- HyHtcins (linn 
mnml. 

Sylvonin Electric Products, Waltluini, Maas 
$1,640,000. Alrlioi-nc rciC^ivmr-irntiMnUtf;] 
radio noU. Navnl Air SynUmm (Ji mini a ml 

Garrett Corp., Phoenix, ArEi*. SUVC.RIG 
P-3A and P-3U nit'croft. Nnvnl AEr 8ya 
temB Command. 

Carroll Corp., Phoenix, Ariz. $l,OJiO,P.S9 
T76-G10 enijhicH. Naval Air ftyatcini 
Command. 

EDO Corp., GolloRe Point, N.Y. 51,088,2113 
ItelrolH kits fur Imilalliilhm on iimmi 
equipment almarcl iinval uhlpn. NnvnJ Nliil 
SyH terns Command. 

Pioneer Aeroilyiiiiinlc.fi rtyHloms, Mnn 
(iltcnlcr, Conn. Sl.OTB.OOO. I'nnuiHiito ntii 
nontalnoi 1 nHKombHen for MK '?A ivarni'hn^ 
ilnrun. Oolumbln, MiHH. Nnvnl Aniiniinltloi 
Depot, Crane, Tncl. 

M. Bleindial and Co., New York, N.Y, 81, 
081,1)20. Parachuto and corilnlnor flisur-m 
biles for M24 imi*achul<! (Irircn. Uoxlioro 
N.C. Navy Ammunition IH'tnit, ('rriiic, Inj 

ColiimbiiH Mll|inr & MfR. Cfl., OiiliinihiiB 
Ohio. $G,47<i,77<l. l-'ln iifiHCimbllej for fiflO 
Ib. bombn, ColmiibiiB. Nnvy Hlilim ITrt 
Control Genlcr, Metihriniciiljnrit, I'M. 
12 McDonnell Co., St. Louis, Mm, $GO.,OGO,QnO 
FJB aircraft. N<ivl Air HyHlcniH (lorn 
mund. 

Centex ConHli'iicllnn Co., Diillnii, 'IVx, 84, 
027,357. 3DO family liouuiim iiiillii nl til 
Naval Air Station, Corpnn OhrJutl, Te) 
Gulf Div., Navnl Facilities KiiKtncurln: 
Command, Nc\v OrloaiiH, Tin. 

~ Pliilco-Ford Corp., I'alo Alto, tJiilK. 8*, 
Oao.OOO. Marino tactical tlatti Hyatcr 
equtpment, anBOclntud HUIUHU-I Itomii flti 
technical data. Nnvnl Slilii Hyntemn Cuir 
round, 

Itnythcon Co., Sudbury, MUBH. ?a,ailrt,G51 
Alteration Itits for ulilanco iiyiiU-in o1r< 
Ironies aaaemblioa for Polar In nihisllw 
Wattham, Mnsa. Siieclnl Prujncla (Kllc. 

U, S. Steel Corp., IMllHbm-Kli. l'n. ?l,r4B 
402. llomb botllcH for 2CO-lli. liuml) 
McKeesiiovt, Pa. Nnvy SliJiJi! 1'nrln Got 
Irol Center, MechEuiIcaliurK, Pn. 

Arllms D. Uitlc, Inc., CambrWe, Mnn 
31,430,347. Varloiiu technlcnl atudlcH nr 
analyaia for tho Sonar SyutcmB Ofllo 
Naval Ship Syatcmn Commnnd. 

Mngnavox Co., Forl Wayiio, Intl. $l,17S 
100. Defllttn roviow, (lovclupmcnt, fiibrlci 
tion and test of pronroducLIon moilols < 
an electronic couiUoniicuBitrQ nyaler 
Naval Air System Commnnd, 

Otla Elevator Co.. Stamford, Conn. tl.Qll 
532. Annlysior Indlcalom for Bl>l]ilnini 
Installation, oimlneoi'lnj; aorvlcos. opllt 
for repair parts, nml nssoclnlcd lecJinJa 
datn. Naval Ship SyaleinH Conimninl. 
13 Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corj 



Augusf 196 



Bethpage, N.Y. 515,33.1,000. TG-4C nir- 
crnft. Naval Air Systems Command. 

Gcnernl Precision, Inc., Gtendale, Cnlif 
53,500,000. Modification kits for five control 
systems for MK 48 torpedoea. Naval Ord- 
nance Systems Command. 

ITT Gililllan, Inc., Los Angeles, Calif 
1,693,000. Radar sets, transmitters, indi- 
cator units and related accessories. Naval 
Ship Systems Command. 

Houdaille Duvnl Wright Co., Jacksonville. 
Fin S1.073.SOO. Construction of an nir- 
crnft parking apron and tnxiway at the 
Navnl Air Station, Jneksonvillo, Pla. South- 
east Div., Naval Fncilitics Engineering 
Command, Charleston, S C 

14 Telcdync Systems, Hawthorne, Calif. $14 - 
4d4,lB6. Self-contained navigation sys- 
tems. Naval Air Systems Command. 

North American Aviation. $10,921,280 
Conversion of A-GA aircraft to RA-5C 
configuration. Nnvnl Air Systems Com- 
mand. 

~ D Electronics, Westbury, N.Y. $G,92E,- 
000. Versatile avionics shop teat systems 
and support equipment. Naval Air Sys- 
tems Command. 

LinK-Temco-Vouglit, Inc., Greenville Tex 
51.7.17,280. Modillcation of EC-121K afc 
craft. Naval Air Systems Command. 
n' te j! Aircr , afL . Strnlford, Conn. $1,300,- 
' , .. R "olicoptera for the Ail- Force. 
Naval An- Systems Command. 

Sundstrand Corp., Hockford, III. 31,351 180 
Constant speed drive kits for A-7A air- 
craft. Naval Air Systems Command. 
;?!?., 8aocifttea> Nashua, N.H. $1,753,- 
i4. lilcclronic equipment. Naval Air 
fayslems Command. 

Honeywell. Inc., Hopkins, Minn. $2,022,- 
944. iRiiltion nsHcmljlIea for ASHOC 
faaugiis, Calif. Naval Ordnance Systems 
Command. 

Puloron Products, New Roehclle, N.Y. S2 - 
r>flO,605. fionib fin nssemhlies for MK 82 
bombs. Scranton, Pa. Navy Ships Pm-ts 
Umtrol Center, Mechanicsuiirg, Pn. 

Mclnls Enffinecring Corp., Greenoville 
lonn. $1,802 814. iJoml, iin assemblies; 
Navy Ships Parts Control Center, Meoh- 
imicsburg, Pa. 

~} Bt r, 1!uncl Co " Wctit Bcnl! . Win. $1,274,- 
100. Cartridge tanks for storing ammuni- 
tion. Navy Shipfl Parts Control Center, 
Mechlin icsbiirsr. Pa. 

"T 1 " 1 ^* 11 , C 1 '"" Now Y *. N.Y. $1,008,- 
WJ. Repair of Government furnished oxy- 
gen generators and procurement of long 
leail time equipment in connection with 

'*" N " Vil1 SMl ' SyfiLom8 



19- 



Smith & Snpp Construction Co., Orlando, 

I' In, 1,670,4-13. Construction of n 4,000- 
mnn mess hnll nt the Nnvnl TraInin B Cen- 
ter, Orlnntlo, Fla. Southeast Div., Nnvnl 
^nemtlea Engineering Commnnd, Chnles- 
ton, S.C. 

16 ff combers Cnrlaon Corp., San Diego, Cnlif. 
5^,164,800. Airborne tactical dnln display 
syatemu for ASW aircraft. Nnvnl Air Sya- 
tema Command. 

"III"! nn oo CR ' er ' Inc., Grand Kapkls, Mich. 
52,100,236. Loft bomb computer syatcm 
components. Nnvnl Air Systems Commnnd. 

Northeast Construction Co,, Park era burg, 
W. Vn. $1,277,150. Construction of support 
facilities nt the Nnvnl Rndio Station, 
Sugar Grove, W. Va. Chesapeake Div. 
Naval ! acuities Engineering Commnnd, 
Washington, D.C. 

Ie CIU ' Sioglor, Inc., Grand Hapids, Mich. 
56,91)8,200, Airborne attitude heading 
reference systems. Nnvnl Air Systems Com- 
mnnd. 

United Aircraft, East Hartford, Conn. $2,. 
060,181. Spare pnrts for A-7B aircraft. 
Navy Aviation Supply Olllee, Philadelphia, 
Pn. 

~?nV, K ' C , !inv)s ' In . c - Ponsacoln, Fla. $2,OGG,- 
500. Construction of bachelor officers' 
quarters nt tho Nnvnl Air Station, Pensn- 
coln, Fin. Southeast Div.. Naval Fnclllties 
Ji-iiBlneerlng Command, Charleston, S. C. 

AJltanee Webbing, Inc., New York, N.Y. 
$1,376,000. 11-Inch nylon tnpo used in the 
arrcatment of aircraft aboard aircraft enr- 
vicra. Central Falls, R.I. Nnvnl Air Engi- 
neering Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 

n pD J lon Corp " J"ckson, Mich. $1,808,000. 

Bathythermograph transmitter seta. Navnl 

Air Systems Command. 
EPSCO, Inc., Weatwood, Mass, $1,482,022. 

Signal generators and related data used to 

check-out electronics equipment. Navnl 
Systems Commnnd, 



21- 



~JY e n s n t i I \? n llollse Electric. Washington, D.C. 
^1,200,000. Rotors for sot-vice turbine gcn- 
ei-ntor sels aboard submarines. Sunnyvale 
F .' J l)nvnl Sllip Systems Commnnd. 
n^n Aerospace Corp., Dallas, Tex. 517,- 
070,017. Services nnd materlala for im- 
provements to extend service life of F-8D 
ail-craft. Naval Air Systems Command. 

AIBCO, Inc., St. Louis. Mo. 88.431, ISG. 
Kocket launchers. Nnval Air Systems Com- 
mand. 

~";'?! in 5 Hci l' kills University, Silver Spring, 
Md 86,078,006. Research and development 
on the Bumblebee project. Nnval Ordnance 
systems Command, 

20 Westingliouse Electric, Baltimore, M<1. 70 - 
552,520. Airborne i-adnr sets. Nnvnl Air 
Systems Command. 

Grumrnan Aircraft En E incerine Corn., 
licthpage, N.Y. A-CA aircraft. Nnvnl Air 
byatcms Command. 

~? n c l S^ 1 Time Corp " Stnmford, Conn. $8,- 

20,805. IMIKOS for 5-inch projectiles. Peru, 

111. Navy Ships Parts Control Center, 

Media nicsbws, Pn. 
"l!. 1 ;'^ A J, rcraft - Enst Hartford, Conn. S2,- 

471,003. Spare parts for A-7B aircrnft. 

Navy Aviation Supply Ofllce, Philruielphin, 

Pa. 
Melpar, Inc., Falls Church, Vn. 2,202,010. 

Airl)orne_rndnr homJng and warning seta. 

Navnl Air Systems Command. 
~, i !, nin , rl Aircr ". nioomileld, Conn. $1,GOO,- 

000. Main rotor hlndcs fov UH-2A, I), and 

^i.?? 1 . . n f cl ' s - Nnv i' Avintion Supply Office. 

Philadelphia, Pn. 

Snndcrs Associates, Inc., Nashua, N.IT. $1.- 
2GO,000. Continued basic eiiKineering nnd 
development of an air droppnble ASW 
sonobuoy system. Naval Air Systems Com- 
mand. 

Vitro Corp. of America, Silver Spring, M<1. 
51,216,308. Engineering and supporting 
services for Terrier, Tartar and Tales mis- 
siles. Navnl Ordnance Systems Commnnd. 

"il^r"?! 1 ; Inc " North "l' k inB. Minn. 
32a f G55,044. Production of Mark 4C tor- 
tiedoDs. Navnl Ordnance Systema Com- 
mnnd. 

C "** iMS Wriglit Corp,, Wood-RIdgG, N.J. 
Sd.fiSO.JSl. Spnre parts to support several 
typea of aircraft. Navy Aviation Supply 
Onice, Philadelphin, Pn. 

Unlvcranl Aircraft Services, Inc., Jnkstcr, 
Mich. $3,330.200. Terminal and ground sup- 
port services for Quicktrnns air carrier 
operations. Nnvy Pin-chasing Omco, Wash- 
ington, D.C. 

Clicsnpcnlio Instrument Corp., Shadyairtc, 
Md. ,$2,430,02fi, ClaaBiflcc] supplies and 
services for sonar equipment aboard nii- 
clcar powered rtcet ballistic missile Hiib- 
marlnea. Nnvy Ship Systems Command. 
Willamette Iron & Steel Co., Portland., Ore. 
$2,2H2,858. Activation ami overhaul of tho 
fleet minea weepers USS Speed nnil USS 
Dextrous. Supervisor of Shipbuilding, 13th 
Navnl DIst., Seattle, Wash. 
Firestone Tiro & Iliibhor Co., Alcron, Ohio. 
$1,223,460. IB-man llfcbwnts. Magnolia, 
Ark. Navy Ships Pnrta Control Center, 
Mecnaiilcsburg, PH. 

22 United Aircraft, Stratford, Conn. 5,071,- 
200. SH-3D helicopters. Nnval Air Syalema 
Uommand. 

LTV Aerospace Corp., Dallas, Tox. S10,- 
1-13,843. A-7D nlrcraft. Naval Air Systems 
Command. 

PltD Electronics, Westbury, N.Y. $4,740,- 
000. Versatile Avionics Shop Test systems 
and associated cniiipment. Navnl Air Sye- 
Lems Command. 

Gcnernl Electric, Uticn, N.Y. $2,005,047. 
Airborne tlnla processing Bystemn, Nnvnl 
Air Systema Command. 

AVCO Corp., Stratford, Conn. $2,630,400. 
Constnnt speed drives for Nnvy aircraft. 
Nnvnl Air Systems Command. 
Grummnn Aircraft Engineer Corn., Deth- 
pnge, N.Y. $1,935,000. Iletroflt of gov- 
ernment-owned milling nmchlnes. Navnl 
Air Systems Command. 

General Precision, Clifton, N.J. $1,753,504. 
Airborne navigational computer sets, 
Nftval Air Systems Commnnd. 
General Electric, Blnghampton, N.Y. $1,- 
627,681. Automatic flight control ays tome 
and related equipment. Nnvnl Air Systems 
Commnnd. 

Spnrton Corp., Jackson, Mich, $1,404,400. 
Bathythermograph transmitter seta. Nav- 
al Alt Systema Command. 
-McDonnell Douglas Corp., Long Bench, 
Calif. $1,080,297. Ducts find connection 



23- 



nssoml>Iies for A-3 aircrnft. Nnvy Avia- 
tion Supply Office, Philadelphia, Pn. 

-EFMC Corp., Los Angeles, Calif. 1,278,- 
3fiG. Weather shields for &-mch/&4 caliber 
guri_ mounts. Nnval Ordnance Station, 
Louisville, Ky. 

-Raytheon Co., Portsmouth, E.I. $29627- 
OilO. Submai-inc sonnr sets. Naval Ship 
fayatcma Command. 
Akwa Downey Construction Co.. Mtl- 
wanhco, VVia. S5,327,042. Construction of 
recruit bar racks at the Navnl Training 
Center, Orlando, Tin. Southeast Div., 
Wavnl 1- ncilitiea Kneincering Command, 
Charleston, S.C. 

~^P y r^'* dl ? Dnt Co " ch ''Jottcsville, Vn. 
M,iUO,6Jd. Radar equipment for naval 
ships. Nnvnl Ship Systems Command. 
^^"S^ 1 V,J' l " llnics ' San D 'ego, Cnlif. 52,- 
71)0,000. 1 racking radar systems. Naval 
Air Systems Commnnd. 

~ N ^ rtll H? p Cop P" Norwood. Mass. $2,052,- 
5 It. Mnnufactnre and repair of inertlal 
reference intcerating gyroscopes. Special 
Projects Office. 

Martin-Marietta, Orlando, Fin. $1.772,394 
Knilio test Hets, freiiuency comparntora and 
Mmmand ink teat seta. Avintfon Supply 
Oflluo, Pliilnclclphfa, Pn. 

- Jnrbel Co., Ban Antonio, Tex. $l,42fi,EOQ 
Impi-overnontB to runways nnil taxiways at 
the Nnvnl Auxiliary Air Stntion, Beeville, 
fex. Gulf Div., Nnval Pncilitica Engineer- 
inu Command, New Orlcnna, La 

nlPZf?**^ In , c " Bloomfleld, N.J. $1,- 
Uld.UbS. Bull valves used on iiuclenr sub- 
marines. Navnl Supply Center, Oakland, 

~^2 C 2 a 02 n aVi rirC I V t 1 ! lbbci ' ^" Akron ' 0!lio - 

512,202,209. High-unpacity, nniphibioua 

n^rf"* "$' l S' t * I >" 1 - Mnenolln, Ark. ; 
llufriilo N.Y.: Mansfield and Akron, Ohio, 
Marine Lorps., Ilcadqnnrtera. 
25 Internntionnl Hnrveatcr, Ban Diceo, Cnlif. 
S2,070,33^. Auxilint-y power planta for 
Navy helicopters. Nnvnl Air Systema Com- 
mnnd, 

Diibie-Clnrk Co., Toecoa, Gn. $^,315,232. 
Shi|)])iiiB and storage containers fos- Wall- 
cyc missilcH. Nnvnl Air Syatemn Command. 
McDonitclI-nauslna Corp., St. Louis, Mo. 
$2,813,146. Structural fatigue testing of 
Navy nircraft. Navnl Air Systems Com- 
mnnd. 

Grummnn Aircrnft Enslnccrinff Corp., 
ItetlipaBC. N.Y, $14,000,000, Heaoarah and 
devolopment on EACH nircrnft. Nnvnl Air 
ays terns Commnnd. 

Sylvnnin Klcctronics Systems, Nccdhnm 

HciKhts, MnsB. 51,789.923. A Kcscnrch tool 

diffllal compHtor ayatem. Naval Training 

Device Center, Oi-lnndo, Fin. 

General Precision, Blnghampton, N.Y, $2,- 

206,701. K-4D (IR) wcnpon system trnin- 

inB Hct mid support Horns. Palo Alto, Cnlif. 

Navnl 'li-tiinlnir Device Center, Oi'lando, 

I 1 In. 

'~~?, e " cl S 1 RynnmScs, Grotqn, Conn. $2.008,- 



27- 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



Detection transmitting Beta. Naval Air 
Systems Commnnd 

General Electric, Santa Barbara, Calif. 
1,200,000. Research at Fleet Anti-Sub- 
marine Warfare data analyses. Office of 
Nnval Research, Washington, B.C. 

G. L. Cory, Inc., San DIBEO, Calif. S3.971,- 
868. Construction of H technical training 
building nt the Naval Training Center, 
San Diego, Calif. Southwest Div., Nnvnl 
Facilities Engineering Commnnd, San 
Diego, Calif. 

28 Falcon Carriers, Inc., New York, N.Y. nml 
Charles Kara & Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 357,- 
500,000 and 56,000,000 {respectively}. 
Gltnrtcr of five neivly built tankers over n 
five year period beginning Dee. 31, 1DG9. 
Military Sea Trnnaportation Service. 

Hell Aerosystema Co., Buffalo, N.Y, $6.- 
6&8.770. Major equipment for the auto- 
matic carrier landing system. Wheat field, 
N.Y. Navnl ShEp Systems Command. 

Polnrad Electronics Corp., Long Island 
City, N.Y. 31.287,704. Radio frequency 
amplifier equipment and spare parts. Naval 
Ship Systems Command. 

Electronics Communications, Inc., St, 
Petersburg, Fla. 3,261,043. Ooramunicn- 
tiona equipment for the Marine Tactical 
Dntn System nnd in other field applica- 
tions. Navnl Ship Systems Command. 

General Electric, Syracuse, N.Y. S4.84G,- 
065. Mine detect ing/elnfisifylni? sannr 
seta. Naval Ship Systems Command. 

General Electric, Sehenectady, N.Y. $6,- 
047,028. Nuclear propulsion components. 
Naval Air Systems Command. 

Westingliouse Electric, Wn shin Eton, D.C. 
$10,323,201. Production of main assembly 
nnd related equipment for the MK 4G Mod 
1 torpedo. Baltimore, Mil. Navnl Ordnance 
Systems Command. 

ITT Federal Laboratories, Nntley, N.J. 
41,214,985. Electronic counter men sure 
equipment, Naval Air Systems Commnnd. 

Texas Instruments, Inc., Dallas, Tex, 51,- 
049,384. Shrike missile guidance and con- 
trol sections and acts of wines and HUB. 
Naval Air Systems Command. 

E. W. Bliss Co., South Portland, Maine. 
S&, 160,749. M21 arresting genr systems 
and spares used for whore base arresting 
of nircrnft. Naval Air Enginerine Center, 
PhUndelphia, Pn. 

International Builders of Florida, Inc., 
Coral Gables, Fin. 32,089,000, Const ruction 
of two 9QD-ninn L arracks nt the Marine 
Corps Recruit Depot, Parria Island, S.C. 
Southeast Div., Nnvnl Facilities Engineer- 
ing Command, Charleston, S.C, 
20 Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Sunnyvale, 
Calif. ?ia,683,ai9. Tactical field services 
support for the Polaris missile prom-am. 
Special Projects Oillcc. 

M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass. $2,860,000. Addi- 
tional multi-access computer study. Office 
of Naval Research. 

II. W. Sianflold Construction Corp., and 
S, L. Hnelm, Inc., Sail Diego, Calif. $2,- 
889,900. Construction at baiTaeks at the 
Marine Corns Itecruit Depot, San Diego, 
Calif. Southwest Div., Naval Facilities En- 
gineering Command. Srin Diego, Calif. 

Woods Hole Ocennogrnphlc Institution, 
Woods Hole, Mass. 52,470,500. Oeenno- 
graphic studies. Oflice of Naval Research. 

HercnlM, Inc., Wilmington, Del. $1,814,- 
931. Nitrocellulose, n chemical used in 
propollant manufacture. Parlin, N.J. 
Naval Oranance Station, Indian Head, Mi!. 

General Electric, Utica, N.Y. 1,160,000. 
Spare parts for E-2A aircraft radar sets. 
Navy Aviation Supply Office, Philadelphia, 
Pn. 

Tinber-Kief, Inc., nnd B-E-C-K Construc- 
tors, Seattle, Wash, $1,096,000. Additions 
to power Plant #3, Navnl Station, Adak, 
Alaska. Northwest Div.. Naval Facilities 
Engineering Command, Seattle, Waah. 

Astro-Science Corp., South El Monte, Calif. 
31,874,017, Acquisition of wind tunnel 
aerodynamic data on propeller perform- 
ance. Naval Air Systems Command. 

Raytheon Co., Lexington, Mnsa. $4,600,000. 
Sparrow III guided missltea. Lowell, Mass-. 
Nnval Air Syatema Command. 

United Aircraft, East Hartford, Conn. $6,- 
60,000. Continued development of the 
TF-30-P-13 engine. Naval Air Systems 
Command, 

McDonnell Douglas Corp., St, Lou IB, Mo. 
372,574,000. F-4J and F-4E aircraft. Nnval 
Air Syatema Command. 

Alsco, Inc., St. Louis, Mo. $6,780,949, 



36 



Rocket launchers. Nnval Air Systems Com- 
mnnd. 

Masnavos Co,. Fort Wayne, Ind. 51,000,- 
000. Modification kits for airborne radar 
sels, Nnvnl Air Systems Command. 

Yankee Walter Corp., Los Angeles, Calif. 
51,013,207. Aircraft crush fire and rescue 
trucks. Nnvnl Air Syatema Commnnd, 

Maeimvox Co., Fort Wayne, Ind. $1,568,- 
000. Detection transmitting Bets. Navnl 
Air Systems Commnnd. 

ITT Federal Laboratories, San Fernando, 
Calif. 81,739,165. Radio navigation seta 
with ancillary items nnd services. Nnval 
Ship Systems Command. 

H.C.A., Cnmden, N.J. 51,065,000. Radio 
nets, test equipment and associated tech- 
nics! rinta. Nnval Ship Systems Command. 

- Sylvnnia Electronics Systems, Williama- 
villc, N.Y, 52,042,325. Classified communi- 
cations equipment. Naval Ship Systems 
Command. 

Edo Corn., College Point, N.Y, 53,441, 637. 
Long range detection and tracking sonar 
equipment. Navnl Ship Systems Command. 

Loarlcraft, Inc., Dcnton, Tex. S1.C05.72S. 
Air transport able vans with nir condition- 
ers for use in avionics maintenance fa- 
cilities. Bendy, Tex. nnd Day Shore, N.Y. 
Headquarters, Marine Corps, 
30 Central Electric, Syracuse, N.Y. 55,703,- 
532, Advanced developmental sonar seta 
for snbmnrines. Navnl Ship Systems Com- 
mand. 

ITT Gilflllan, Inc., Los Angeles, Calif. 
52,560,300. Modification kits for rndar 
equipment used aboard ships. Naval Ship 
Systems Commnnd. 

R.C.A., Camden, N.J. $2,130,000. Radio 
sets, modules and spnre parts, and data 
itcma. Navnl Ship Systems Command. 

Spcrry Rand Corp., CharlottoHville, Va. $!,- 
648,290. Vehicle gyrocompasses. Naval 
Ship Systems Command. 

Hughes Aircraft. 1,545,388. Modification 
kits for radar equipment. Navnl Ship Sys- 
tems Commnnd. 

ITT Federal Laboratories, Nutley, N.J. $1,- 
120,000. Radio sets, repair parts and sund- 
ry dntn items for Marine Corps use. Nnvnl 
Ship Systems Command. 

FMC Corp., San Jose, Calif. $1,250,000. 
Design, development and construction of 
two assault amphibian recovery vehicles 
nnd convention of one LVTFX13 amphibi- 
an to a prototype assault command vehicle. 
Naval Ship Systems Command. 

Speciality Electronics Development Corp., 
Glendiile, N.Y. $1,016.000. Rnilnr switch- 
board, equipment. Navnl Ship Systems 
Commnnd. 

Teledyne Corp., Berwick. La. 51,101,245. 
Bight 60-foot, twin-screw aluminum patrol 
launches and spnre parts. Naval Ship 
Systems Command. 

LTV Aerospace Corp., Dallas, Tex. $62,- 
628.000. A-7H aircraft. Naval Air Systems 
Command. 

North American Aviation, McGregor, Tex. 
510,500,074. Sparrow and Shrike missile 
rncket motors. Naval Air Systems Com- 
mand. 

-McDonnell-Douglas Corp., St. Louia, Mo, 
53,000,074. Bomb racks and adapter kit 
seta. Torrance, Calif, Naval Air Systems 
Commnnd. 

Sperry Rnnd Corp., St. Paul, Minn. 52,- 
200,000. Avionics computers. Naval Air 
Systems Command. 

-Kamnn Aircraft, Bloomfleld, Conn. $1,407,- 
203. Conversion of TIH-2A/B helicopters 
to a twin engine configuration dcaignated 
UH-2C. Naval Air Systems Command, 

Cessna Aircraft, Wichita, Kan. 51,037,400. 
Ejector pylon assemblies. Naval Air Sys- 
tems Command. 

Symctrlcs Engineering Corp., Satellite 
Beach, Fla. ?2,676,000. Fabricate, install 
and test telemetry nntennn systems, Navy 
Purchasing Office, Los Angelea, Calif. 

Hughes Aircraft, Fullerton, Calif. $2,148,- 
GS2, Design and fabrication of multi-mode 
sonar consoles and passive data memory 
units. Navy Purchasing Office, Loa Angeles, 
Calif. 

Monitor Systems, Inc., Fort Washington, 
Pa. 1,014,916. Telemetry separations and 
display systems for une at the Pacific Mia- 
nile Range, Point Mugu, Calif. Navy Pur- 
chasing Oflice, Los Angeles, Calif. 

FMC Corp., Minneapolis, Minn. 14,773,- 
004. 6-lnch/54 mod fl gun mounts. Naval 
Ordnance Station, Louisville, Ky, 

Admiral Corp., Chicago, 111. $6,647,096. 
AN/ARC-51 radio seta for use on various 



aircraft. Navy Aviation Supply 
Philadelphia, Pa. 



* J 
' 



General Electric, WiishiniUon, UX 1 - ,|i' fei 

(130,000. Design nnd development *'' i M. ^ 
Poseidon fire control and KtipLuivl ''".V-ti 
ment. rittsiield, MtiBB. Siieolnl I'l'-'J"" 1 
Offlce. , h 

American Mfg. Co. of Tex,, Fort ^'VfiVr 
Tex. $2,491,833. Mark 41, G-inrti, til ''"'I .'V, 
projectiles. Navy Ships Paris (Nntlr* 1 ' 
ter, Mechanieshurg. I'n. - rf 

Jolm Hopkins University, Nllvn- ^1" ,(. 
Md. 52,005,000. Talos mlHtdli! i ,':i<-iir''l' n \, 
development. Navnl Onlimuri! Hi" 1 '' 11 
Command. . - , 

Otis Elevator Co., Stmnfonl, ("mm. (!' Jji 
182, lG2mm gun launclier fmlin-i'di, N^ 
Training Device Canter, Oi'liiiiiiii, '' lr ' '. -.,1 

A C Electronics, Golela, Calif. 8 1.'"""' ' \. ',, 
Production of eynchronoim dm-hM t" r . \ 
MK 40 and MK 48 loi-pcdiiuii ILIIH! jm^-1 ^''', 
programs, and related diTlniNlrn. Nf* v p 
Ordnance Systems. Cnmiiiiinil. 

AIR FORCE 

,..,, rt 

1 Dendix Corp., Tetorlioro, N..I. ? l,1"'' 1 ' "' ' 
Aircraft clcctronid emiipmi'iil nn'l ^f. r " 
sjiace ground cqiiiiiiucnl. Acnitntut EL'II! s 1 !-* 1 ' 
tema Div., (AFSC), WHnli1 -1'n"-' ' ' li:1 
AFB. Ohio. 

Carnegie Institute of Tecliiii)li>.[;>'i I'i" ' " ' 
l)urgh, Pa. 51,717,0(10. Hflstriiivh In .-I.'.-""!' 1 
ic information dntn prnci'iiHiittf i-iinll''" L *'! 
Air Force Ofllcc of Hcli>nlllU- It- >''"' 
Washington, D.C. t 

General Electric, W^Ht Lynti, Mi. ' - " 
2R7.920. 1(IG7 component iiinn-jtvrim-iii r ' : '" 
Bineering progrnm for J-Hli i'ni?itr ', ^*"|' 1 ' 1 
nautical Systems* Div., (Al-'MO, Wi^;'- 1 - 
Pateraon AFB, Ohio. 

2 I.B.M., Owego, N.Y, Sl,(i(l-t,IMl). Ili-rnir ft' 1 - 1 
modiflcntion of eomiiononiii of lln< f.-uiiT '"?- 
navlKntion system for H T.;! rid ' ' ** ' 
Warner Robins Air Mnli-i ln| AT -e *< 
(AFLC), Robins AFH, (ia. 

Tridca Electronic, PrtHadonn, t'ulll. -El.l^-." 
930. Electronic inntrumi'iil'i, f)UlnK f "> 
City Air Materiel Area, (AI-TJli, '\a^*t 1V 
AFB, Oltla. '^ 

Olln MatliicNon Chcmicnl (!ni,, Jl^'t A- ' 
ton, 111. $B,24fi,2f50. Aircrnft i>nirlii<- MBP!^ 
cartridges. Marion, 111. Aci'tniniLiI.-dT :*T * 
terns Div., (AFSO), WHulil -fnii-- ,- ' :i 
AFH, Ohio. 

Magnavox Co., Fort Wnyni-, [ml. Bl- ! - j: '.- 
G9C. Production at iilrlmi'im 1-1 mi i.).: i % n . 
tiona etiuipmcnt. Fort Wnynt-, Wf:-'j 
RobhiH Air Materiel Arcu, (Al'"l.m. Ill T:- ( 
AFB, C!a. 

B Maxson Electronics Corp., Mni'mi, tin 31- 
293,534. Bomb fuKo eomponi'iir" h liyLtrL! Ali 
Materiel Area, (AFLO), Mill Al-ll, T?';s 

Martin Marietta, Bnllfmmv, M-l, Si.*iK' 
490. Integration and inHlalliiHi.il .r il. ,. 
ornment fiirniBhed c(|iii|niii'iil I" r.'ji. u ^i 
KC-18E aircraft to UCMitr. tv.nltMii.aii ^ 
Aeronautical SyetemH Hlv.. fAV-.n'/. 
WriKht-PattersoM AFB, OliliK 
B Kdgcrton, Gernicslmuncn anit (Jrlft. le.r . 
Bedford. Mass. sa.-JBIi.BiW. I'ro.lm-ii ^-. ,T 
weather plottinK commiiriirui Imi r. _:,., 
mcnt. Electronic Syalimin IHv,, | .\fc . - * 
L. G. Hanscom Flold, Maim. 
9 Applied Technology, Inc., Hnimwiit^ *'?.'- 
$1,037,500. Production of u\u\r*> i^tia * 
radar equipment for B-62 iiir^rnfl. Woir 
Robins Air Materiel Area, (AI'TCt, M * 
AFU, Ga. 

Oakland Construction Co., NnM. 'I.^Ln * . 
Utah. 51,793,000. Comiinu- 1 1. . n . ,1 
Minu toman eneineerlng l"'"f fn^llis^ 
Hill, AFB, Utah, Army Kimtin-rr. Hm-r^ 
mcnto, Calif, 

18r Ling Tcmco Vouglit AcroHpnr** t'l'ry 1'. 
las, Tex. $1,600,000. Spfico vohli'Tr* & iat 
Systems Div., (AFSG), LOH Aii^rlEa. 4 - e - 

Hnzeltino Corp., Little Neck. N.Y. t*- I' 
888, Intcgrntins the MK XII rv -*-IU*JT \ f 
clo with the ballistic mliuilf*- ni,n:,- 
Aeronautical Syatcins 1)1 v.* I ,\&*-;,, 
Wright-Patterson AFB, Olil'i. 

Bcndlx Corp., Davenport, lnw&* 31. Uf^ ^ 
Production of airborne com in )!<* i-_- -I.. 
ncnts. Denvor, Colo. Aeronaut l*'nl 8j-*-'l 
Div., (AFSC), Wright-Fill tnirnHiM t *l 
Ohio. ' 

General Electric, Glnatnnnll, OJiMv IS 1 ?' 
515, Production of J-79-17 wircrmV 
Klnes, Aeronauticnl SysteinH IHv,, (Afc-i 
Wright-Patterson AFH, Oliin. 
15 United Aircraft, Eraat HnrlfuftH. t'^nn , 
600,000. Work on advanced nlrirraft " %' 
pulslon systems. Aeronautic \ Hjan 



;j. 



Div., (AFSC), Wright-Patterson AFB 
Ohio. 

Kntnan Aircraft, Bloamfleld, Conn. SI - 
710,901. Production of HH-43 helicopters 
nnd related equipment. Bloonifteld. Aero- 
nautical Systems Div., (AFSC), Wrloht- 
Fatteraon AFD, Ohio. 

Radintlon Service Co., Melbourne, Fin, $2 - 
255,000. Support Bervlcca on the ballistic 
missile re-entry data processing system. 
Holloman AFB, N.M. Air Force Missile 
Development Center, Holloman AFB, N.M 

Aircraft ArmamonlB, Cockeyaville, Mel. 82 - 
115,>114. Production of electronic counter- 
measures training equipment. Aernnutical 

$"!? P iv " < AFSC >- Wright-Patterson 
AFB, Olilo. 

Kollaman Instrument Corp., Elmhurat 
N.Y. 51,330,296. Production of computer 
t , ( !?^ il) IVr' sl ? t> , Aeronautical Systems Div., 
(AFSC), Wrinht-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

~ n ne fS' ^ctrlc, Cincinnati, Ohio. $1,600,- 
OUO. Work on advanced aircraft propulsion 
systems. Evan dole, Ohio. Aeronautical 
AFlTohS " (APSG) ' Wright-Patterson 

-Inter'nntional Telephone & Tclo B rapli Corp., 
NutleyN.J $5,6.12,300. Production of air- 
borne LORAN navigational aeta and re- 
lated enufgmont. Aeronnutlcal Systems 
D v, (AFSC) , Wright-Patterson APD, 
Oliio. 

Mnrtln-Mnrtotta, Orlando, Fin. 2,500,000. 
Production of space vehicle guidance ays- 
T^o?. 1 !" 10 ,^ 1 ! 1 ?.- A c''i""iticnl Systems Div., 
(AFSC), Wright-Patterson AFIJ, Ohio. 

-Cessna Aircraft, Wichita, Kan. 81,150,000. 
Production of T-37 trainer aircraft. Wich- 
?, Aeroimuticiil Systems Div., (AFSC), 
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. '' 

r e 2gn 8C i no ! *Xf Inc " Pnl Alto - On"*- 

81,475,230. Production of electronic equip- 

ment ami for F-100 aircraft. Sunnyvale 
?" P , ft , Alt0 ' Cftlif - Warner Robins Air 
Materiel Area, (APLQ), Robins AFB, Ga. 
Continental Electronic Mfg. Co., Dallas 
Tex. 82,000,000. Development on ballistic 

rt?!' 11 ' V/rl e m B ' ^P 1 ! 10 Air Development 
Center, (AFSC), Grlfllss AFlt, N.Y. 

-AVCO Corp., Clncinnnti, Ohio. $2,308,088. 
Defense radar display syatoms. Electronic 
Systems Div., (AFSC), L. G. Hanacom 
I'leld, Ma as. 

-Intern ntlonal Telephone & Telegraph 
Lorn., fort Wayne, Intl. $2,878,000. Pro- 
duction of ii Strategic Air Command opera- 
tional planning; aystem. Electronic Sys- 
tems Div., (AFSO), L. G. Hnnscom VIM, 
Mnas. 

AVCO Corp., New York, N.Y. $1,406,000. 
Design, development and production of a 

penetration aids aystem. Stratford, Conn. 

fS* Tl'K&S 10 ?' Mnsa ' Bnll 'atlc Syatcma 
Div., (AFSO), Norton AFB, Calif. 
-Martin-Marietta, Orlando, Fla. $2,000,000. 
Production of components for Bullpup air- 

to-ground miaal lea. Aeronautical Systems 
Div., (AFSO), WriBht-Patteraon AFD, 
Ohio. ' 

"MB OM E jfcttlo Co., Kansas City, Mo. $2,- 
606,002 Production of VHP communica- 
i'fS^V'D 1 !* Aeronautical Systems Div., 
(AFSC), Wright-Patteraon AFB, Ohio. 
n n ,;P II ?* Id i Inc " Houston, Tex. W.OGfl,- 
871. Production of prefabricated medical 
fncllltlea. V ck a burp, Misa. Warner Robtna 
Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), Robins AFB, 
Gn. 

-Snmiora Associates, Bedford, MHBH, $2,000,- 
000. Production of fuzes for aircraft ord- 
nance. Aernauticul Systems Div., (AFSG). 
Wright-Patterson APB, Ohio. 

~? n r , 00 B & , 1>crkll > 8 ' Detroit, Mioh. *2,GB2,- 
378. Production of nir cargo loading pal- 

e Aw W . ur i 1G , r , Ro ! )Ina Ail ' Materiel Area, 
(AFLC), Robins APB, Ga. 

Dillon Systems, Woodland Hills, Calif. $8,- 
186,840. Production of components for the 
avionics syatem of P-4 aircraft. Aero- 

-' (Apso) - Wrisht - 



~f r$ general, Sacramento, Calif. $B,- 
^00,000. Compononta for the TITAN HIM 
?A C L B , y . 8tcm - Space Systems Div., 
(AFSO), Wright-Patteraon APB, Ohio. 

-general Motora, Indianapolis, Ind. $6,007,- 
881. T-50 engine component improvement 
/A^enl 11 Aeronautical Syatoms Div., 
(AFSO), Wrlght-Pattoraon AFB, Ohio. 

-Aerojet General, AKUSB, Calif. $1,645,000. 
Advanced nerial reconnaissance studies. 
Aeronautical Systems Div., (AFSO), 
Wright-Patteraon APB, Ohio. 

general Precision, BInghampton, N.Y. $1.- 
441,866. Production of instrument flight 



trainers. Aeronautical Systems Div., 
(AFSC), WriBht-Pntteraon APB. Ohio, 
Locklieeil Aircraft, Miwiettn, Ga. 6,008,- 
?,. ' ^'"'Iwetfon of 0-141 engine build-up 
kits - Ohula Viata, Calif. Warner Boblna 
Ah Matei'Eel Aren, (AFLC), Boblna AFB, 

~?T e !f!, e 9- T lchitfl - Kiln - $1,158,590. 
Modification eind mnintenance of B-52 nir- 

* r ft. 9 klnhtlina Citv Air Materiel Aren, 
._ (AFLC), Tinker AFE, Okla. 

h e nni'V n n E L eotr . l<> .F " , San Carlos > Cnlif ' 
52.004, ROD. Production o-f tranportnble radio 

commiinicntion Hystcms-. Oklahoma City 
AFB 'okln rICi ArM| (AFLC >- T 'n^er 
2fi Goodyear Aeroapnce Corp., Litchflcld Park, 
Ariz, 51,600,000. Research on high reaolu- 
,??., l "' Aeronautical Systems Div., 
(AFSC), WriBht-Pattei-aon APB. Ohio. 
I an American World Airways, New York 
N.Y. 36,000,000. Management, operation 
and maintenance services for tlie Eastern 
Jest Ranire, Fla. Air Force Enatern Test 
HnnBe, Pntrick AFB, FU. 

~n n c ,? crRl Electrl c. Philadelphia, Pn. $1,600,- 
000. Reaenrch nnd development on ballistic 
'^"^ ^? hclc3 - Ballistic Systems Div., 
(AFSC), Norton AFB, Calif. 

sw^nn^n'A A old Alr Porcc st ^ io ^- Tenn. 
48,300,000. ManaRcment, operatl-on and 
maintenance aervlcea at Arnold Engineer- 
'"K nnd Dcvelojimcnt Center for FY 19CS. 
Arnold EnRlneerinff & Development Cen- 
ter, Arnold AFS, Tcnn. 

B a 7, lllc r, Mfs ' Co " Untcavillo, Ark. 91,- 
708,741. Production of bomb componenta. 
Aeronautical Systems Div., (AFSC) 
Wrlpht- Patterson AFB, Ohio. 
General Electric, IKirlington, Vt. $1,326,- 
075. Procurement of spare pnrta for nir- 
craft armament. Aeronautical Syatema 
Div., (AFSO), Wrlght-Pnttcrson AFB, 
Ohio. ' 

Mnrtin Marietta, Denver, Colo. $7,SS3,1f22 
Proeiircmcnt of Titan IIIX a-pnco booatera 
and nBBoefatecl equipment. Space Systems 
Div., <AFSC), Loa Angelea, Calif. 
30 Texas Instruments, Dalian, Tex. $8,37&,G12. 
UoslRn. development unit production of a 
tactical Information processing oub-jiyotem. 
Aeronautical Systems Div., (AFSO), 
Wrleht-Pulterson AFB, Ohio. 
""I, 1 ^ 1 Alrcmft ' Culver City, Calif. $8,- 
110,000. Iteacarch work on advanced re- 
connaissance uyst-onia. Aeronautical Sys- 
temB Div., (AFSC), Wrteht-P utter son AFB, 
Ohio. 

Halllornftcrs Co., Chicago, III. $1,500,000. 
I rot! not Ion of componenta for electronic 
counter measure systems. Aoronnuticnl Sya- 
tenis Div., (AFSC), Wright- Pnttomon AFB, 
Ohio. ' 

"lyi 1 ^ ^! ectrlc Co., Kansas City, Mo. 81.- 
400,647. Production of VHF nlrborno radio 
eets. Aeronautical Systems Div,, (AFSd). 
WrlBht-Patterson APB, Ohio. 

~~! J ^!! ecd Alrcrn " Corp., Ontario, Calif. 

$7,000,0*0. FY lOGfi malntennnco services 
n supiiort of the F-104 transition pilot 
tvalniner Dfogram. Lulco AFB, Ariz. Sncrn- 
menio Air Materiel Aren, (AFLC), Mc- 
Clellnn AFB, Cnllf. 



NorEh Electric Co., Gallon, Ohio. $J,&38,- 
09G. Design, rrocUiction nnd testine of tac- 
tical communication systems. Electronic 
Systems Div., (AFSC), L. G. Hnnscom 
Field, Mnss. 

Lockheed Aircraft Service Co., Jnmnica, 
N.Y. $4,883,410. Annual maintenance serv- 
ice for Susciiil Ali'Midslon Airci-iift for FY 
ll>88. Oklahoma City Air Materiel Area, 
(AFLC), Tinker AFB, Okla. 

PWD Corp., Clintonville, Wis, 81,603,228. 
Production of lire fighting trucks. Warner 
Hoblns Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), Robins 

Continental Electronics Mfg, Co., Dallas, 
Tex. SI, 412.614. FY 1068 operation nnd 
maintenance of the Ham nnd Stallion 
Ilnelfir sites. Holloman AFB, N.M. Air 
Force Missile Development Center, Hollo- 
man APB, N.M. 

General Dynnmica, Fort Worth, Tex. $1,- 
a'JO.BSO. Operation ami maintenance at the 
Air Force llailnr Target Scatter Site for 
I'Y ID68. Holloman AFH, N.M. Air Force 
Missille Devcloimient Center, Hnlloman 
AF n, N.M. 



ProgreHB in SAIMS 
(continued from page 14) 

but not yet completed. In order to 
prevent distortions within the con- 
tractor's control system, such "in- 
process" effort must be evaluated on 
a continuing basis through the use 
of objective indicators or reasonable 
nnd consistent estimation techniques, 
fiuch as equivalent unit costing in 
manufacturing' areas. 

Work Packages. A delineation of the 
work required to complete a specific 
job, with objective indicators defin- 
ing; start and completion dates. It 
must have a planned coat which is 
time phased and integrated with 
master and detailed engineering and 
manufacturing schedules, representa- 
tive of the described job, nnd de- 
lineated by cost elements, i.e., labor, 
material, other direct costs. The 
overall responsibility for the actual 
performance of the work content of 
a Work Package, must be limited to a 
single operating level organization. 



DEFENSE PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS 
TO SMALL BUSINESS 



(Amounts in Thousands) 

July 1966- 
Mav 1967 

Procurement from All Firms $34,150,591 

Procurement from Small Business Firms 7 020 260 

Percent Small Business 206 



July 1906- 
May 19G6 

$28,422,838 

6,287,421 

22.1 



OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 2O301 
OFFICIAL BUSINESS 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 



New Naval Communications Command 
Established in Washington, D.C., Area 

A new Naval Communications Command, located in the Wash- 
ington, D.C., area, became operational on July 1, 1967, as a result 
of a major reorganization of the Office of Naval Communications. 

Under the revised organizational structure, Rear Admiral Robert 
H. Weeks, Assistant Chief of Naval Operations (Communications)/ 
Director of Naval Communications, has been assigned additional 
duty as Commander, Naval Communications Command, reporting 
to the Chief of Naval Operations. He has assumed command of all 
shore (field) activities with responsibility for their primary sup- 
port. He is also responsible for providing the Navy-wide communi- 
cations and cryptologic needs of all ships, air and shore activities. 

The new command will be concerned primarily-with day-to-day 
operations of the Navy's world-wide communication and cryptologic 
facilities, permitting greater emphasis, at the Chief of Naval Opera- 
tions level, on policy matters and support of DOD and Joint Chiefs 
of Staff communications programs. At the same time closer integra- 
tion of facilities under field (command) jurisdiction will improve 
communications support for the fleet. 

Tasks and functions to be performed by the command will include 
those previously assigned to the following- separate activities, which 
have been disestablished: the Naval Communications System Head- 
quarters, Bailey's Crossroads, Va.; and the Naval Security Group 
Headquarters and the Naval Radio Frequency Spectrum Activity, 
both at the U.S. Naval Security Station, Washington, B.C. 

The command will also be responsible for the operational support 
of the Defense Communications System, the National Security 
Agency, the Electromagnetic Compatibility and Analysis Center 
and the National Communications System. 

The Office of the Assistant Chief of Naval Operations (Communi- 
cations), located in the Pentagon, wall perform such staff functions 
as validation and approval of requirements, planning, program 
review, evaluation and appraisal. 



Continuous Wave Lasor 

in Operation 
at Redstone Arsenal 

The longest, most powerful 
continuous wave laser in exist 
ence has been put into operation 
by the Research and Develop 
ment Directorate of the U.S 
Army Missile Command at Red 
stone Arsenal, Alabama. 

The nitrog-en-carbon dioxide 
helium laser is 178 feet long am 
generates an output power of 2.1 
kilowatts. With slight modi flea 
tions, however, the laser eoul 
generate an output of 4.5 kilc 
watts. The present system o| 
erates with an efficiency of 10 t 
14 percent. When the modi Hen 
tions are completed, it is es 
pected to operate with nn efli 
ciency of 20-28 percent. 

Scaling laws, various dii 
charge configurations, gas mi; 
tures, optical components an 
spectra of the output radiatio 
and of the discharges are behi 
studied in attempts to dele: 
mine the optimum opcraiin 
characteristics, and to produce 
better understanding: of tl 
mechanisms which make thei 
molecular lasers so efficient. 

This research is being coi 
ducted by the Missile GDI 
mand's Physical Sciences La 
oratory. 



U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1D07 3*0-5 




VOL. 


3 


NO. 


8 


SEPTEMBER 


1967 





" ' -4<* A iW^n*" 1 $ *-F r, 




ARISTOTLE 




IN THIS ISSUE 

FEATURES 

Objectives of Configuration Management 

Lieutenant General William B. Bunker, USA 1 

Status Report: Project ARISTOTLE Published by the 

Eugene T. Ferraro 4 

Department of 
Managing the Naval Material Command 

Vice Admiral Ralph L. Shifley, USN 7 Defense 

Airborne Passive Scanning Infrared Imaging Systems 

C. Donald Garrett 1 n Hon< Robert S. McNamnra 

~~ *** ' 1 _____ ,._ j, \j 

U c . . ,. _ ... Secretary of Defense 

.b.-Austrahan Cooperative Logistics Arrangements 

Leighton A. Cain 15 

Hon. Paul H. Nitze 

Weapon System Readiness Through Logistics Deputy Secretary of 

Colonel James F. Mothersbaugh, USAF (Ret.) 25 

The Need for Professionalism in Resource-Cost Analysis Hon - Pllil G - 

Major General Wendell E, Carter, USAF 32 Assistant Secretary of Defense 

(Public Affairs) 

DEPARTMENTS 

Calendar of Events -, Col> Jocl B - Stephens, USA 

About Peoolp " Director for Community Relations 

P ^ 

Meetings and Symposia 20 Capt . Jolm A . Dttvcnport , USN 

From the Speakers Rostrum 01 Chief, Business & Labor Division 

^^ 

Bibliography 

__ ^j^ 

Defense Procurement _ , 



i a ?MI ? e / e " sfl J*fy*toy Bulletin 
is published I monthly by the Business 
& Labor Division, Directorate for 
Community Relations, Office of the 
Assistant Secretary O f Defense (Pub- 
ic Affairs) Use of funds for printing 

ni^^S ^ ^proved by the 
Director of the Bureau of the Budget. 
The purpose of the Bulletin la 
to serve as a means of communication 
between the Department of Defense 
.?.i } r and lts auth ized agencies 
Si... " S f co " trac ^s and other 
business interests. It will serve as 
a guide to industry concerning offi- 
cial policies, programs and projects, 
and wm B ttfe to stimulate tho y fc g 

members of the defense-industr| team 

n ?Slff B ? e ff roblem ? that m ^ S 
m fulfilling the requirements of the 



Material in the Bulletin is se- 
ected to supply pertinent unclassified 
data of interest to the business com- 
munity. Suggestions from industry 
representatives for topics to be cov- 
ered m future issues should be for- 
Businesa & Labor 



h is distributed without 

charge each month to representatives 
of industry and to agencies of the De- 



e ^' * 

. Requests for copies should 



* i 
freely 



be 
requesting 



LCdr. E. W. Bradford, USN 
Editor 

Mrs. Cecilia Pollok McConuick 

Associate Editor 

Mr. Rick La Palce 
Associate Editor 

Mr. John E. Pagan 
Art Director 

Norman E. Worra, JO1, USN 
Editorial Assistant 



Lieutenant General William B. Bunker, USA 



Our overall objective in the Army 
is to make sure that the combat sol- 
dier has the best possible weapons 
and equipment and that he has it at 
the right place, right now, in the 
needed quantities. Configuration man- 
agement can help the Army achieve 
this objective. 

Early discussion on configuration 
management inspired fears that a 
whole new discipline bringing with 
it a whole new breed of people was 
being created. Nothing could be fur- 
ther from fact. The new emphasis 
on the subject simply reflects an at- 
tempt to restore an ancient principle, 
tailored to a new set of conditions. 




We had it, then lost it. Eli Whit- 
ney introduced configuration man- 
agement at the beginning of the last 
century. His techniques gave the 
North an edge on the South during 
the Civil War that some historians 
credit with ultimate victory, It was 
a new thing then to introduce weap- 
ons with completely interchangeable 
parts. In many areas, it would be a 
new thing today, and it could give us 
a tremendous edge in any new 
combat. 

Back in the days when life and 
weaponry were simpler, the Military 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



Departments had no trouble defin- 
ing the hardware they wanted, and 
producers had no trouble living with 
the simple specifications that estab-, 
lished requirements. In the beginning, 
the producer was often just another 
agency of the requiring Department; 
no contracts were involved, commu- 
nications were uncomplicated, and 
costs were nearly constant, whether 
plant? changed or not. 




In those days, there weren't many 
ways to solve a given problem. There 
were only a few acceptable designs 
for a saddle, or a cannon ball, or a 
musket. It didn't take so many tons 
of paper to .define a piece of hard- 
ware. But things have changed. 

Someone has estimated that the 
documentation for a new aircraft 
weighs more than the aircraft, and 
another statistician has computed the 
number of cars in a freight train 
needed to haul design and production 
data for a new missile system. Obvi- 
ously, nothing that complex can be 
managed unless we can simplify 
the system, 

Configuration management is an 
attempt to simplify the system. It 
seeks to reduce the elements involved 
to their simplest terms, equip each 



problem with a convenient handle, 
and display the whole situation in 
such a fashion that management can 
comprehend it, analyze it, and con- 
trol it. 

Actually, it doesn't do anything Eli 
Whitney didn't do a century and a 
half ago. It defines the product, its 
components, and their interfaces. It 
restricts idle change, and it requires 
precise records of the changes that 
are authorized. But it does it in a 
modern manner. 

Objectives of the Techniques 

The goal, of course, is to solve the 
problems that could be identified. 




The object of each new proj- 
ect must he established early in the 
program. Once established, the objec- 
tives must be freed from vacillation. 

All practical approaches to 
achievement of the established ob- 
jectives must be studied, and the best 
one selected. Once selected^ maximum 
effort must be directed along the 
chosen course. 

Change activity must be re- 
duced to the realistic minimum, and 
the reduced activity must be handled 
expeditiously. 



1 



Maximum uniformity must be 
!"<;, ,1 wlicn- i he Military Depart- 
ment inu-rfacc with industry and 

with KI>'!I othiT. 

Control must lift exercised dur- 
iritf jj]v.ilu<'tK>n to unsure maintenance 
*,vi'Ji uniform npan 1 parts, tools, teat 
. i(iji['?ur'iit ami instructions, and re- 
prod union in ;i competitive market. 

Authority and responsibility for 
C'-mij;sir;Uii?n management of each 
i'.cni ni'jj-t In? aligned to a desig- 
u;i\."i\ individual. 

Fringe Benefits Expected 

With the achievement of these ob- 
jVi.'tiv*';- hraild come a long list of 
fr.nif" l.' i nffit;i. Among them are: 

A-.-un'i] hardware performance 
an-! iinrmjvt'jd logistic support and 
'.VC^JMIIJ rfa<line. a s. 

Knhrmcfd .standardization and 
it'-m-i-ntry control. 

ft liHTPa.-'c-d competitive procure- 

ZIl-JU, 

9 ftt'diK'tirm of requirements for 
technical data of doubtful value. 

9 Increased uniformity of con- 
tract administration. 




* More effectiveness and timeli- 
nes in management decisions at all 



* Intenneshed implementation of 
such other DOD programs as con- 
tract definition, the Resource Manage- 
ment Systems. PERT, value engineer- 
ing, and technical data management 
and .standardization. 

Three Phases of Configuration 
Management 

The .success O f the configuration 
management technique depends on 
the balanced integration of three 



Configuration identification. 

Configuration control. 

Configuration status reporting. 

Configuration identification is the 
documented descriptions of systems 
and equipment. 

In order to serve the combat sol- 
dier, we must get a clear expression 
of his needs. He expresses his needs 
through the Combat Developments 
Command in the form of a Qualita- 
tive Materiel Development Objective 
( QMDO ) or a Qualitative Materiel 
Requirement (QMR). In the Army 
Materiel Command (AMC) we ratify 
these documents and identify the risk 
involved in satisfying the requirement 
and, when the document is approved 
by the Department of the Army, it 
is considered a contract between 
AMC and the user. 







When the user is not quite sure 
what he needs, he states his objective 
in a QMDO and we, together with in- 
dustry's strong right arm, help him 
refine his objective during contract 
definition into a system description, 
i.e., QMR, technical characteristics 
and test and evaluation requirements, 
along with a description of work and 
services for the development. Thus we 
have created a clear identity of the 
equipment the user wants. 

When completed it is duly released 
and recorded in the status recording 
system or data bank. This identity 
is the product of many different 
types of people, all with differing 
and sometimes diverging interests. 
Some of these people, in addition to 
the project engineer, are the stand- 
ards engineer, maintenance engineer 
production engineer, human factors 
engineer, training specialist, support 
equipment specialist, publications 
specialist, and test engineer. 

Each of these people has a part 
to play in fielding a satisfactory and 
complete weapon system. But, alas, 



some of these birds are not of tl 
same feather and don't always tal 
on the same frequency. In fact, the 
don't even speak the same Hatiguagi 
Project managers ami commodit 
managers have done much to brea 
down these walls, and the formal n 
view of Engineering 1 Chanpo Pn 
poaal.s should improvo coiiimunic; 
tions, 

Awarding the Development 
Contract 

Theoretically, thon, \vhon \vc. uwat 
a development contract to imluf 
try, it reflects: not just the spwifi 
functions of the weapon itmslf; i 
should, hopefully, reflect the- wiviroi 1 
mcnt hi which it will opm-nlc, th 
support rcMuiiromentH, its rHntior 
ship to other weapon HyutflmH, train 
ing ImpHcatioiiH, nmintcMiitniw, ptihl: 
cations and operalrility. 

It also has gone through Uio r( 
quirements of concept formulation t 
assure that we have done our home 
work before going to industry. 

Industry now 1m H our work 
ment in terms of porf 




<Sf 



iSJff 



quiremonts. ItH cnKinunr.s, us Ihn; 
progress on their dnsigji work, jiiflvj 
tably come up with propound clian^n 
to improve performnnco, HchtHluln, o 
cost, in response to incentive provi 
sions in our contracts, amoni? otho; 
considerations. 

The porformanco doscri])tiona ii 
many instances do permit, nml ovoi 
encourage, changes fta u rcnnlt o: 
trade-off studies within tho wcnpft o 
the contract. This is dono to \ttirm\ 
the contractor maximum hititmlo 41111 
creativity i n developing- the host biuif 
for a buck. 

The In-Process Review 

However, these proposed clinnffoi 
must be reviewed when they nfTcc 



September 1963 



the performance requirements be- 
cause we have a written contract with 
the user. In-process reviews during 
the development process, with repre- 
sentatives of the various functional 
activities, provide a means of design 
control to assure that we progres- 
sively keep our customer's needs in 
mind and inform him of our 
progress. 




The Configuration Audit Review 

To assure that the weapon, which 
has satisfied our user test require- 
ment, can be built again, we require 
two additional reviews of our draw- 
ings and specifications, one of which 
may be conducted concurrently with 
the prototype systems review. This 
is the configuration audit review. 

The configuration audit review ver- 
ifies that the drawings and descrip- 
tions accurately describe the service 
test models and, when updated, re- 
flect the correction of service test 
defects. This represents the Techni- 
cal Data Package used in the first ar- 
ticle configuration review. This lat- 
ter review is a technical audit to 
verify that the production item con- 
forms to the Technical Data Package 
and will satisfy the user. 

Engineering Change Policy 
Aids Configuration Control 

The introduction of configuration 
management has had a significant 
effect on our attitude concerning en- 
gineering changes. Proposed engi- 
neering changes now receive a great- 
er degree of scrutiny than ever 
before. Technical feasibility alone 
does not constitute the sole justifica- 
tion for the approval and incorpora- 
tion of engineering changes to hard- 
ware or software, 

Proposed changes must survive 
the super-critical probing of the 



change control staff antl project man- 
ager or approving authority to 
achieve acceptance. This analysis con- 
sists of an unrelenting application 
of trade-off considerations that must 
prove the worth of the change. The 
proposed change must be necessary 
to correct design deficiencies to pro- 
vide for approved changes in opera- 
tional characteristics; to effect over- 
all net savings; to relieve production 
stoppages; or otherwise to offer a 
significant net benefit to the Gov- 
ernment. 

Configuration Status Reporting 

Configuration status reporting in- 
volves our engineering records sys- 
tem. This element involves the re- 
cording of the QMR, the Development 
Purchase Description, and the Tech- 
nical Data Package used for quantity 
production and any changes to each, 
including modification work orders 
by serial number, to provide the 
manager with current visibility of 
his program and equipment at all 
times, even in the operational period. 

Industry Help Needed 

AMC has directed that configura- 
tion management be implemented on 
all major projects. Implementing this 
discipline effectively requires close 
industry support on a continuing 
basis. Industrial executives will be 
much concerned with the specific re- 
quirements of configurs""" -"- 



siles have switched from field artil- 
lery to air defense and back again, 
from liquid to solid propellant, and 
from short, to medium, to long range. 
Similar changes have been made in 
ship and land vehicle requirements. 
These have resulted in increased 
costs, stretched-out schedules, and 
even the death of projects. 

We have delivered spares that 
didn't fit, tools that wouldn't work, 
and instructions that didn't match 
the hardware. And there's nothing in 
the new configuration management 
techniques that, by itself, will pre- 
vent it from happening again. If 
we are to be more successful now, 
it will be because of the additional 
discipline, uniformity and systcmiza- 
tion introduced with the now regula- 
tion and the conscientious intelli- 
gence with which it is implemented. 

Configuration management pro- 
vides n tool for correction of many 
of AMC's hardware problems. But 
it's not a fully automatic tool it 
can't be installed, programmed, 
switched on, and left to run itself. 
Like most tools, it will perform well 
only when used with skill, conscience, 
discretion antl energy. 




Defense Industry Bulletin 



Status Report 



Eugene T. Ferraro 



Project ARISTOTLE (Annual Re- 
view of Information and Symposium 
on the Technology of Training and 
Learning and Education) was an- 
nounced in the March 1067 issue of the 
liidlftin. In my capacity as DOD ex- 
ecutive agent for ARISTOTLE, I 
attempted to describe in that article 
the purpose and scope of this joint 
effort among representatives from 
the emerging education technology 
industry, the Defense Department, 
Office of Education, and other inter- 
ested Federal agencies. In response 
to that article and other announce- 
ments, a great number of inquiries 
have been made about the progress 
of ARISTOTLE. In this article I 
would like to highlight some of the 
significant activities, progress and 
expectations of ARISTOTLE. 

The ARISTOTLE Steering Com- 
mittee, chaired by Marvin Kahn, Vice 
President, Aircraft Armaments, Inc., 
is comprised of 10 task groups. The 
task groups and their chairman are 
listed below: 

Project 100,000 

Chairman: Dr. Gilbert E. Teal, 

Duniap & Associates, Inc. 
Media 

Chairman: P. A. Centanni, 

Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. 
Information Storage, Retrieval and 
Dissemination 

Chairman: Dr. Paul Weaver, 
Xerox Corp. 

Educational Research 
Chairman: Dr. James E. Gilbert, 

Northeastern University 
New Developments 
Chairman: Dr. Harvey J. Brudner, 

Westmghouse Learning Corp. 
Systems Approach to Education 
Chairman: Henry Lehmann 
General Electric Co. 



Standards, Measurement and 
Evaluation 

Chairman: Dr. D. W. Meals, 
Raytheon Co. 

Courses, Tasks and Skills 
Chairman: Walter Stellwagen, 

Science Research Associates 

Government-Industry-Education 
Interface 

Chairman: T. W. St. Glair, 
North American Aviation, Inc. 

International Considerations 

Chairman: T. Jack Heckelman, 
Philco Corp. 




The primary function of the Steer- 
ing Committee is to provide policy 
guidance and to coordinate the activ- 
ities among the 10 task groups. At 
the same time they have been main- 
taining contact with relevant gov- 
ernment officials to ensure that the 
problem areas, which ARISTOTLE 
groups are looking into, correspond 
with priority areas of concern to 
Federal agencies, local governments, 
and potential users of innovations in 



The problem and priority arena 
presently being studied will ho topics 
of discussion to be conducted by 11) 
panels, consisting of A IlTSTl >TLK 
members, at a symposium to 1m hM 
on Dec. G and 7 in Washington, ]).('. 
In addition to the panel ninolin^, 
plans arc being made to huvo nun- 
commercial demonstrations (if ud- 
vanccd application of now (Mhinitinii 
technologies at the December wympo- 
shim. 

Media 

The task group studying HUM! hi, 
headed by Mr. Centanni, IIIIH houi re- 
viewing effectiveness studinH of ex- 
isting media which have bonn UKi-rl in 
training and education programs, 
both within and outside thm military. 

The East Coast Group in rv inur- 
ing selected current and past pro- 
grams where now uses of media hnvc 
been made, including: 

Oakland Community Cullc'ifc, 
Bloomfiold Hills, Mich., which in at- 
tempting to automate and Individual- 
ize instruction for its atudtmta. 

The Oak Park and River lli^li 
School Project, Oak Park, 111., which 
is using a random access audio re- 
trieval system. 

The New York City "Shut-In" 
Program utilizing audio- visual^ the 
telephone and educational tolovimim. 

The West Coast Group is Hurvcy- 
ing the usage of media In the Min- 
uteman and Polaris programs, an woll 
as evaluation of existing madia iineil 
at the San Diego, Calif., Naval Train- 
ing Center. 

We are hoping that these Htuillea 
will provide some new insight explain- 
ing perhaps why certain m wl iti 
have been more successful than oth- 
ers for particular types of instruc- 
tion, 



September 1967 



Information, Storage and 
Retrieval 

The overall objective of this task 
group is to survey the state of the 
art in various aspects of informa- 
tion, storage and retrieval (IS&R). 
Fifteen subgroups have finished their 
reviews of storage systems, dissem- 
ination and communications, copy- 
rights, libraries, software and defini- 
tions. Prior to the December sympo- 
sium, the Education Communications 
(EDUCOM) Information Network, 
Education Research Information Cen- 
ters ( ERIC ) , the regional educa- 
tional laboratories, file systems, and 
time-sharing will have been covered. 
These reviews will be published prior 
to the conference in order to facili- 
tate criticism and discussions. This 
group's efforts and its recommenda- 
tions should pay off handsomely in 
assisting an equitable and efficient 
dissemination of research results, 
training material, and other informa- 
tion directly related to the improve- 
ment of education. 

New Developments 

Dr. Brudner and his associates 
have been concerned with identify- 
ing, encouraging and communicating 
"new developments" in equipment, 
processes and approaches in the field 
of educational technology. New devel- 
opments with respect to effective- 
ness, validity and operational prac- 
ticality are being evaluated. The 
group is investigating now teaching 
machines, audio-visual systems, com- 
puter software, related areas of au 
tomated testing procedure, communi 
cation contributions, and compute 
assistance systems. 

Four meetings, attended by an aver 
age of 35 industrial, military, uni 
versity and other representativet 
have been held to discuss new dovel 
opments, and the following futur 
projections appear to have achieved j 
general consensus: 

Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) 

Most systems presently in usi 
are experimental. At present the De 
fense Department is supporting a 
least 10 major projects in the statf 
of development. 

A complete CAI system develop 
ment may take as long as six to eigh 
years to evolve to an operationa 
status, with the average time to de 
velop a full course for a CAI systerr 
taking two years. 



Some of the best software ma- 
terials are being generated by team 
efforts, requiring as long as six 
months before they are well inte- 
grated and productive. A major prob- 
lem here is to find the best organiza- 
tional technique to facilitate effective 
cooperation between hardware, soft- 
ware and curriculum experts. 

System capabilities are now 
limited to about 30 terminals costing 
several thousand dollars each. Sev- 
eral projects, being funded "by 
DOD, indicate that multi-access, on- 
line, time-shared systems will greatly 
expand the potential of CAI. Also, 
important breakthroughs are occur- 
ring 1 in the area of devices for stu- 
dent input, such as the Plasma Tube 
Display Panel developed by the Uni- 
versity of Illinois on the PLATO pro- 
gram. 

Some long-range research is 
now leading to application of artifi- 
cial intelligence techniques in CAI sys- 
tems. In these approaches the com- 
puter would be able to generate 
sentences automatically via syntacti- 
cal and transformational rules and 
language processing capabilities, 

New developments in software 
generation arc cutting the present 
ratio of 126 -man hours effort to gen- 
erate one hour of CAI software. 

Audio-Visual Developments. 

New motion picture film for- 
mats, such as super 8mm, which al- 
low for more efficient use of film 
area and higher sound fidelity, have 



phone wires, will have a significant 
impact on learning. 

Use of satellite systems, plus 
new integrated, wide bandwidth re- 
ceiving antennas, will provide new op- 
portunities in education by several 
orders of magnitude. 

Teaching Machines and Recorders. 

Major trends in the near future in- 
clude: 

Increasing use of magnetic belt, 
compact recording systems in educa- 
tion and training. 

Development of higher quality 
and lower-cost color video recording 
systems. 

Integration of slide projectors 
and magnetic tape audio systems. 

Economical, random-access mag- 
netic recording and playback units. 

New techniques -for computer- 
generated software for teaching ma- 
chine systems, including computer- 
attimatect films. 

O New semi-computerized teach- 
ing machine systems. 

While the discussions of the New 
Developments Task Group have been 
directed largely toward new techno- 
logical developments, it has increas- 
ingly become apparent that manage- 
ment capabilities and procedures 
generally have not been developed 
to use elTectivcly the technology 
which is available. Obsolete or non- 
porformaiico based on procurement 
specifications, fragmentation of (Inci- 
sion making, inadequate project man- 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



iii clear and simple terms, 
hoping that a prescriptive method- 
olujry ("in IK: compiled into a small 
imokiot which will be tho basis for 
the- panel discussion at the sympo- 
sium. At the December symposium 
thive Cast's histories, in which the 
.-ystems approach has been used (in- 
cluding Oakland Community Col- 
lege), will be presented and analyzed 
against the check-list in the booklet 
to encourage constructive criticism, 
and to point out the problems in at- 
tempting- to systematically analyze 
education endeavors. 

Standards and Measurements 

The purpose of this task group's 
effort is to minimize the communica- 
tions gap between industry, DOD and 
the education community regarding 
standards of measuring the effective- 
ness of the new technology. Members 
of this group are now reviewing cer- 
tain procurement specifications to de- 
termine the impact they have on the 
type of media which are allowable. 
Pedagogical measures, such as the 90/ 
'JO criteria (80 percent of the stu- 
dents make 90 percent or above on 
tests) in programmed learning, are 
being studied to determine whether 
such criteria are adequate. 

Courses, Tasks and Skills 

Working closely with other task 
groups this particular task group, 
under Dr. Stelhvagen's leadership, will 
focus its attention largely on how in- 
dustry can assist DOD in Project 
TRANSITION. President Johnson in 
his 1967 Manpower Report to the 
Congress stated: "We must make mil- 
itary service a path to productive 
careers. To help them (Service sep- 
aratees), 1 have asked the Secretary 
of Defense to make available, to the 
maximum extent possible, in-Service 
training and educational opportuni- 
ties which will increase their chances 
for employment in civilian life." 

The Secretary of Defense has es- 
tablished Project TRANSITION to 
carry out the President's desire. The 
target group for the initial phases 
of the project will be those individu- 
als who have from one to six months' 
serv.ce time remaining, and who 
have expressed their intention not to 
reenhst The pro j ect wU1 ascertain 
the kinds of in-Service training this 
group desires and their educational 
<*d s . It will then furnish training 
or educational courses which are 



keyed to favorable employment op- 
portunities. 

Pilot programs have been initiated 
at Fort Knox, Randolph AFB, Treas- 
ure Island, and Camp Lejeune. Indus- 
trial assistance will certainly be help- 
ful in relating the skill requirements 
and job demands which they are plan- 
ning. Moreover, with the existing 
pressures on existing Service facili- 
ties, there would appear to be an 
opportunity to utilize some of the 
new education technology and self- 
instruction principles in off-duty 
hours instructions, as well as to sup- 
plement existing formal and on-the- 
job training now being conducted by 
the military. 

Government- Industry-Education 

Interface 

As industry tries to enter the edu- 
cation market, ideological issues 
raised are second only to parochial 
interests which need to be quelled. 
The fundamental problem appears 
to be whether or not a mechanism 
can be developed which can guide the 
prodigious resources of industry in 
such a way that the public interest 
in education can be best served. 

The first step here is to ensure 
effective communications between the 
supplier and the users. To accomplish 




Dr. Eugene T. Pcrraro has been serv- 
ing as Deputy Under Secretary of the 
Air Force for Manpower since June 6, 
1966. Dr. Ferraro, a native of Patter- 
son, N.J., is a graduate of Rutgers 
University. He received his doctorate 
from the New School for Social Re- 
search, New York, N.Y. From 1953 
to 1966, Dr. Ferraro served with the 
Aerospace Group, General Precision, 
Inc. ' 



this, Mr. St. Glair and hia task grouj 
have prepared a questionnaire to b< 
sent to over GOO companies. The re- 
sults of the questionnaire, to be dis- 
eused at the December symposium, 
should provide among- other tilings: 

An inventory of company inter 
ests which will provide a data bast 
for DOD and other Fedora] oftices, 

An indication of industry re- 
search and development omphaNis ii 
the education area. 

@ An inventory of in-houao train- 
ing and education programs whicli 
industry is now conducting. 

Summary 

Several comments about the gen- 
eral status of ARISTOTLE mid its 
activities are appropriate here. 

First of all, the major objnctivo of 
ARISTOTLE is to improve communi- 
cations among industry, tho Govern- 
ment and tho education community. 
The joint discussions held thus far 
have been very beneficial and we mi- 
ticipate that the December symposium 
will further improve effective com- 
munications. 

Second, although this IH a follow- 
up action to the govornirmnt-H|ion- 
sored June I960 conference, tho in- 
dustry-manned Steering Committee, 
working closely with the staff iwsist- 
unce of the National Industrial Secu- 
rity Association (NSIA), is iuico])linR 
responsibility and leaden-whip, Fed- 
eral officials, including members of 
the Military Services, arc sorvinf? H.H 
subject matter advisors and briefer* 
only upon request of the ttusk froni|i 
chairman. 

Third, most of the on-Koinff activi- 
ties of ARISTOTLE arc focuwwl on 
the December symposium. We ilo, 
however, expect ARTISTOTLE to bo 
a continuing: annual review of activi- 
ties in this new area of amcrging 
education technology. NSIA unftlstol 
us in handling: the administrative 
tasks of the June 1966 conference; 
this year it is also handling tho De- 
cember symposium. 

Lastly, the participation of ARIS- : 
TOTLE is broadly based. More than 
20 percent of its members are non- 
NSIA members ; over five percent 
have university affiliations, and over 
10 percent come from not-for-profit 
organizations. Quito intentionally, 
we have encouraged the brood base 
to get the cross-fertilization that, to' 
(Continued on inside back cover) : 



September 1967 



Vice Admiral Ralph I. Shifley, USN 



.he Naval Material Command 
(NMC) is charged with, effectively, 
efficiently and economically convert- 
ing Navy assets and resources tal- 
(3 ent, time and money into the goods 

and services required by the operat- 
ing forces of the Navy and the Marine 
Corps, In fulfilling their responsibili- 
ties, Navy managers, like their coun- 
terparts of business and industry, 
face one underlying problem : the 
problem of determine; how best to 
employ their resources in the pursuit 
of their goals. 

In NMC three fundamental rules 
govern the Navy's basic approach to 
efficient management of the large- 
scale technical programs which pro- 
P duce the wherewithal of aeapower. 

These rules are; 

The responsibilities of each ele- 
ment of the NMC are clearly defined. 

O "Systems Projects" are em- 
ployed to control and coordinate the 
efforts of the NMC within broad, re- 
lated technical areas. 

9 Project management is cm- 
ployed where the benefits of this in- 
tensive management technique war- 
rant extraordinary management 

measures. 

i The main functional efforts of the 

P NMC are carried out by six operat- 

ing organizationsthe systems com- 
mands. Each systems command has 
one specific, related set of responsi- 
bilities, 

The Naval Air Systems Com- 
mand, for example, is responsible for 
the total Naval air weapon. 

The Naval Ship Systems Com- 
mand builds, overhauls and repairs 
ships and certain of their principal 

: components. 

^ The Naval Electronic Systems 

Command performs material sup- 
port functions for shore electronics, 
and for certain other electronic sys- 
tems. It is the Navy-wide technical 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



authority for electronics standards 
and compatability. 

The titles of the Naval Ord- 
nance, Supply, and Facilities Engi- 
neering Commands suggest the basic 
functions of those organizations. 



A 



review of the duties of the sys- 
tems commands shows that full au- 
thority and responsibility, in speci- 
fied technical areas, are assigned to 
certain systems commanders. This 
has been done very carefully and in 
considerable detail, as a basic man- 
agement concept within NMC. 

The management problem here is 
to carefully identify the interfaces 
between the systems commands. This 
has been done, and the "territory" of 
each systems command is spelled out 




Vice Admiral Ralph L. Shifley, USN, 
became Deputy Chief of Naval Opera- 
tions (Logistics) on Aug. 1, 1967. At 
the time this article was written, he 
was Vice Chief of Naval Material. 
Before his assignment to the Naval 
Material Command in 1963, Admiral 
Shifley served as Commander, Carrier 
Division Seven. He is a 1933 graduate 
of the U. S. Naval Academy. 



in its charter. Sharp interfaces and 
precise definition of responsibility 
have been made matters of record. 

In some cases the exact borderline 
between responsibilities of systems 
commands is difficult to draw in ad- 
vance. In these cases, onn commander 
is given,- in bis charter, controlling; 
authority over a given subject. 

For example, several systems com- 
mands may have responsibility to 
provide equipment for a new ship. 
Someone must make certain that 
every item of equipment is compati- 
ble with every other item. To handle 
this type of problem, the charter of 
the Ship Systems Command assigns 
responsibility for "total system inte- 
gration" to the commander of that 
systems command. Similarly, the Elec- 
tronic Systems Command is respon- 
sible for overa 11 Navy elcc Iron ies 
standards and compatibility. 

This emphasis on precise definition 
of interfaces, on careful and formal 
delineation of responsibilities, on 
elimination of hazy arons, is one of 
the underlying principles of manage- 
ment within NMC. 



A 



second principle is applied when 
the weapons required in certain 
broad fields of warfare must be 
pulled together from throughout 
NMC, and managed as entities. In 
these cases, NMC utilizes the unique 
capabilities of systems project man- 
agers. 

The manager of the Anti-Subma- 
rine Warfare (ASW) Systems Proj- 
ect, for example, crosses the bounda- 
ries of all the systems commands to 
assure unity of material support 
throughout this broad area of war- 
fare. The manager of the ASW Sys- 
tems Project controls the character- 
istics of some 160 major items of 
ASW hardware. 

The Navy has three such systems 
projects: the Surface Missiles Sys- 



terns Project, the Fleet Ballistic Mis- 
siles Systems Project, and the Anti- 
Submarine Warfare Systems Project. 
A systems project manager gives 
overall guidance ami direction in a 
total warfare area. He monitors, 
coordinates and integrates tasks re- 
lated to material items under his 
cognisance, wherever these tasks may 
be performed. 

You have seen that one primary 
management technique used within 
NMC is to precisely define interfaces 
between systems commands and de- 
scribe these boundaries in the char- 
acters of the commands. The second 
basic technique is to establish sys- 
tems project managers whenever a 
great many systems, relating to a 
single broad area of warfare, must 
be managed in a carefully coordi- 
nated fashion. 

The third fundamental manage- 
ment procedure within NMC is to 
utilize project management where 
this special technique is warranted. 



roject management may be called 
for under various combinations of 
situations. For example, project 
management may be appropriate 
where there is a clearly definable job 
to be done, with a beginning and an 
end, -which: 

O Is of urgent military necessity. 
O Has top level interest, 
Is particularly expensive. 
Work efforts involving more than 
$25 million for research and develop- 
ment, or $100 million for production, 
are projected, with very few excep- 
tions. 

Other criteria may include: 
6 Exceptional complexity. 
O Multiple agency or Service in- 
terest. 

9 Advanced technology. 
8 High risk of slippage in sched- 
ule or cost. 

The Polaris project, for example, 
had and still has most of these char- 
acteristics. It was definable, costly, 
complex, urgent and vital. 

When a project is established, a 
project manager, supported by a 
highly qualified staff, is formally 
charged with providing: 

Singleness of purpose. 

Coordination and control of re- 
sources (talent, money and time). 



Machinery for making decisions 
rapidly. 

Appropriate executive author- 
ity for the expeditious achievement 
of his goals. 

The Navy has 12 designated proj- 
ects today at the level of the Chief 
of Naval Material. They are: 

PM1 Fleet Ballistic Missile Sys- 
tems Project. 

PM2 F-lllB/Phoenix Weapon Sys- 
tem Project. 

PM3 Surface Missile Systems 
Project. 

PM4 Anti- Submarine Warfare Sys- 
tems Project. 

PMB Instrumentation Ships Proj- 
ect. 

PMG ACLS Project 

PM7 REWSON Project. 

PM8 Project AIMS. 

PM9 Project OMEGA. 

PM10 Fast Deployment Logistics 
Ship Project. 

PM11 Deep Submergence Systems 
Project. 

PM12 Naval Inshore Warfare 
Project. 

On completion of the specific task 
for which the project is organized, 
the project will be disbanded and its 
resources reassigned to the func- 
tional commands. 



T 

J_he organization of the NMC as 
a whole is shown in Figure 1, 

As you see from the dashed line, 
the project managers and systems 
project managers have authority to 
draw on the resources of all the 
functional commands. 

Within the field activities is a com- 
plex of 29 laboratories which supports 
the systems commands and the proj- 
ect managers. 

These are all commanded by the 
Chief of Naval Material and are avail- 
able to perform work assigned to 
them by a variety of customers. Due 
to their special capabilities, certain 
of these laboratories work almost ex- 
clusively for a single systems com- 
mand. Fifteen of the 29 have Lliis 
characteristic. The others put their ef- 
forts into tasks requested by several 
systems commands, by the other Serv- 
ices, or by the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration, tho Fed- 
eral Aviation Agency, or otlior 
agencies. 

This is an outline of the basic 
principles of management ami a 
thumbnail sketch of the organization 
utilized by the Chief of Naval Mil- 
terial. Under his stewardship, about 
$11 billion dollars are spent each 
year in acquiring material and weap- 
ons, and in providing the material 
support required for the opnrating 
forces in the Navy and Marine Corp. 1 !. 



NAVAL MATERIAL COMMAND 


CNM 
VCNM 






KEAOQUAR1 


ERS 

EillAL 







COMMAN 








1 1 1 1 




SYSTEMS/ AIR SHIP ORDNANCE 
PROJECT SYSTEMS SYSTEMS SYSTEMS 

MANAGERS ~ 


ELECTRONIC SU 
SYSTEMS SYS 


'PLY FAMES 
TEMS ENGINEiRIKt 


1 1 1 1 


1 1 


FIELD ACTIVITIES 







P 



Figure 1, 



8 



September 1967 



Handicapped employees of the Op- 
portunity Workshop of Lexington 
(OWL), Ky., have completed their 
second defense contract making an 
important contribution to the Viet- 
nam effort by supplying 4,084 wood- 
en supports for ammunition stor- 
age containers to the Naval Ord- 
nance Depot, Crane, Ind. 

Nearly all of the more than 450 
physically and mentally handicapped 
trainees at OWL joined forces in 
completing the $26,402 contract, which 
provides the Navy a vital product used 
in shipping ammunition to South- 
east Asia. 

OWL, a non-profit, self-supporting' 
corporation, was founded in 1961 by 
the Junior League of Lexington, and 
provides training for handicapped 
persons from the central Kentucky 
area, many of whom are former 
Veterans Administration hospital pa- 
tients. 



The center provides training in 
woodworking, upholstery, furniture 
refinishing', spray painting, small- 
truck driving, office work, and com- 
petes in the open market for con- 
tracts and jobs it is equipped to 
hiindle. 

For the defense contract, awarded 
by the Defense Construction Supply 
Center, Columbus, Ohio, the OWL 
trainees cut and assembled pallet 
tops, side supports, and side panels 
which arc used to enclose ammu- 
nition. 

Workers at OWL must be voca- 
tionally handicapped, physically or 
mentally. They must be 16 years old 
or older, with a reasonable hope that 
after training they will be capable 
of obtaining regular jobs. 

Ron Hampton, director of the Lex- 
ington workshop, stated during a 
program held at OWL in June, to 
give trainees a better understanding 




of the role they are playing in the 
Vietnam war effort, that the fact the 
contract was awarded to OWL shows 
the country's faith in the handi- 
capped worker. 

OWL was low bidder for the Navy 
contract over companies competing 
from a six-state area. 



DOING THEIR PART IN THE VIETNAM EFFORT Handicapped trainees of 
the Opportunity Workshop in Lexington, Ky,, drill holes prior to the assembly 
of supports for ammunition containers. Looking on are Navy and Marine Corps 
personnel who visited the workshop in June to commend the workers for their 
efforts. 



Industrial College Seminar 
Schedule Announced 

The Industrial College of the 
Armed Forces, Washington, B.C., will 
conduct National Security Seminars 
during the 19G7-19G8 academic year 
in. the following cities: 

Casper, Wyo., Oct. 16-27; Wilming- 
ton, N.C., Nov. 6-17; San Antonio, 
Tex., Jan. 8-19; Lake Charles, La., 
Feb. 6-10; Merced, Calif., March 4~ 
15; Minneapolis, Minn., April 1-12; 
and Gary, Ind., May 13-24. 

The two-week seminars are based 
on the 10-month resident course on 
National Security conducted by the 
Industrial College. Each seminar con- 
sists of 32 lectures supplemented by 
visual aids. Two forums are also in- 
cluded. 

Seminars will be conducted by a 
team of Army, Navy, Air Force and 
Marine Corpa officers from the fac- 
ulty of the Industrial College. 

Administrative support is provided 
by a primary military sponsor, in- 
cluding a seminar administrator, who 
is a senior reserve officer called to 
active duty for 90 days. A civilian 
agency, usually the Chamber of Com- 
merce, serves as co-sponsor, with a 
prominent citizen appointed locally 
as. general chairman, 

Attendance is open to representa- 
tives of industry, labor and the Gov- 
ernment, as well as regular and 
reserve military officers who may re- 
quest orders to attend through regu- 
lar military channels. Civilians can 
obtain information on enrollment pro- 
cedures from the Chamber of Com- 
merce of the city where the seminar 
is to be held. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



OD Instruction 5210.51 




C. Donald Gar reft 



T 

_Lho purpose of DOD Instruction 

r.2l().')l, "Security Classification Con- 
<v-niim? Airborne Passive Scanning 
Infrared Imaging Systems," which 
i-ecame effective on Nov. 1, 1966, is to 
|>rP3<;rifofi the following: 

Uniform standards and criteria 
for classifying information pertain- 
ing to certain airborne passive infra- 
red imaging systems. 

Levels of capability of such 
imaging systems at and below which 
operating data can he disclosed with- 
out jeopardizing national defense. 

General guidance governing the 
issuance of specific classification 
guides for individual imaging sys- 
tems. 

This article will discuss the major 
features of the instruction and ex- 
plain to some degree the philosophy or 
pruicipl involved. To set the stage, 
it will IK; helpful to review some of 
th<^ background events which led to 
its issuance. 

Some six or seven years ago engi- 
m*M and technicians concerned with 
remote sonsing of the environment 
expressed themselves about the lack 
of knowledge and availability of var- 
ious kinds of remote sensors. At that 
time it was felt that these rteficien- 
ci i were traceable, in large measure, 
to the fact that many of these sen- 
son, had been developed by the mili- 
tary and the security classifications, 
which had been applied, made it dif- 
ficult for non-military users to ob- 
tain the equipment or knowledge as 
to what this equipment could do. Con- 
sequently, they set out to see whut 
could be done. 

, } n mi lh e National Academy of 
*Hie.Natfaiwl Research Council 



became concerned officially. The up- 
shot was a contract by the Office of 
Naval Research, jointly financed by 
contributions from the other Serv- 
ices, to the Institute of Science and 
Technology, University of Michigan, 
to conduct a study to determine what 
could or should be done concerning 
the security classifications assigned 
to information relating to various 
remote sensing equipment. 

During the study the Institute con- 
ducted two symposia and a classi- 
fied meeting. There were several in- 




C. Donald Garrett is Deputy Director 
for Classification Management in the 
Directorate for Security Policy, Office 
the Assistant Secretary of De 
fense (Administration). He ha 
served in the Directorate for Security 
Policy since 1958 and previously was 
Executive Secretary O f the 



J, Office of the Secretary O f the 
Army Re holds a bachelors degree 
from Franklin and Marshall CoE 
and an L.L.B. degree from Qeoree 
Washington University. S 



terim reports, notably ono issued ii 
December 1962 titled "Statement a 
Need for Reviewing Security Clnssl 
fications Governing Airborin! Mice 
tromagnetic Sensory DOVICO.H am 
Data." The final report was issue* 
in October 1963. 

Without attempting: to bi-iof all thi 
substance of the Institute rcportfc, ii 
was found that remote Buiainj 
equipment using infrared anil rndar 
and the great bulk of the; iniajjerj 
taken with such equipment, wna dns 
sifted. This made it very difficult t< 
find out just how this eqvupmenl 
could be used and how effective ij 
might be in many non-military activ- 
ities, notably petroleum oxj]oriitujn 
forest fire detection mieJ lighting 
crop disease surveys, voJcanology, 
water pollution, to name just n few 
The report further indicated thai 
overall values to the national econ- 
omy, which would accrue from jrrcat- 
er freedom of use of the c|uipmi>n1 
and imagery, would be Mifriiillcnnt 
Consequently, it was conclmtod by in- 
terested parties outaido DOD thai 
those general values should bo plnccd 
in the balance with the values result/ 
ing to national defense from security 
classifications. The result, so it was 
felt, would be to declassify some ot 
the equipment and the imagery winch 
was then in existence, resulting ' *n 
ultimate net national benefit. 



A, 



.t about this same time, in Maarclj 
1963, Dr, Harold Brown, then ttiq 
Director of Defense Research and 
Engineering, issued a memorandum 
recommending: priority emphasis oi| 
establishing an unclassified joint 3jns(<? 
research program leading- to the del 



September 1967 



velopment of new and existing sen- 
sors for non-military uses. Further, 
Dr. Brown recommended that all sen- 
sor materials, which did not involve 
military or "sensitive type" informa- 
tion, be declassified and released to 
the scientific and technical commu- 
nity. 

In May 1964, Dr. Eugene Fubini, 
then Deputy Director of Defense Re- 
search and Engineering, as a result 
of the Institute study, Dr. Brown's 
memorandum, and a further detailed 
study by a tri-Service group under 
the auspices of the Air Force Cam- 
bridge Research Laboratories, re- 
quested the Deputy Assistant Secre- 
tary of Defense (Security Policy) to 
establish an ad hoc group to con- 
aider the security classification of 
equipment and data mentioned in the 
March 1963 memorandum. Dr. Fu- 
bini also recommended that this 
group or another one prepare a joint 
Service manual covering the security 
classification of research and devel- 
opment work in remote sensing. A 
suggested base for this work was a 
joint policy developed under the aus- 
pices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
titled, "Joint Policy for the Classifi- 
cation of Infrared, Visible and Ul- 
traviolet Equipment, Components, and 
Information," issued in February 
1963. 



I, 



July 1964, the Director for 
Classification Management, in the Of- 
fice of the Deputy Assistant Secretary 
of Defense (Security Policy), request- 
ed the Office of the Director, Defense 
Research and Engineering, the three 
Services and the Defense Intelligence 
Agency to name technical personnel 
to an ad hoc working group. In its 
earliest deliberations, because of the 
pressure resulting from the interests 
of other government agencies and pri- 
vate organizations, the group con- 
centrated on the security classifica- 
tions to be assigned to airborne 
infrared scanning systems and image- 
ry obtained from such systems. 

An analysis of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff policy of February 1963 showed 
that it applied classifications largely 
on the basis of the quality of equip- 
ment performance in comparison 
with other systems. For example, the 
basic standards for classifying at the 
Secret level were that the equipment 
could reveal "an operational capabil- 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



ity of outstanding tactical value," or 
"a capability markedly superior, to 
that of existing Confidential equip- 
ment of the same general type or 
class," or the equipment contained "a 
component part which, because of its 
use in other equipment, is classified 
Secret." 

At first reading- these standards 
sound all right, particularly when the 
technical experts on the ad hoc 
group noted that there had to be a 
finding that unauthorized disclosure 
of the performance capabilities would 
result En serious damage to the inter- 
ests of national defense. But these- 
standards were too inexact by which 
to measure or evaluate the classifi- 
cation which should lie applied to all 
such systems. 

Further, the joint policy provided 
no criteria for downgrading: or de- 
classifying some of the older systems 
which by that time were obsolete by 
the critical information involved in 
military standards. As it was put by 
a member of the ad hoc group ; 
"Everyone was waiting for someone 
else to act." This was the general 
situation facing the ad hoc working 
group when, it began its work. 

In this field of infrared scanners 
it has been said that every piece of 
equipment has a military capability.. 
Therefore, while a particular piece 
of equipment may he obsolete by U.S. 
military standards, it might be use- 
ful to other nations which had not 
clone any research or development of 
such systems. Also, the working group 
noted, if one system were declassi- 
fied and its operating capabilities 
known, then it would be obvious that 
the United States had some equip- 
ment with greater military capabili- 
ties. Not only would it be advisable 
to classify performance capabilities 
at some level, but the highly special- 
ized technology necessary to success- 
ful production of operational equip- 
ment, winch had been developed 
under DOD contracts, had to be con- 
sidered. "Without this knowledge the 
technical experts agreed that there 
was a lead time of two years and 
up from the beginning of a research 
and development effort to the devel- 
opment and debugging of an equip- 
ment of operational quality. 



I 



f one were to stop at this point, 
all these infrared imaging systems 



probably should be classified and the 
imagery, too. This would be an easy 
way out, but it is not nearly good 
enough to meet our military opera- 
tional requirements and the insistent 
requests to make this equipment and 
imagery available for a multitude of 
non-military uses, to say nothing- of 
the necessity for applying established 
classification principles far more pre- 
cisely. 

One of the fundamental principles 
of a sound classification system is 
to identify precisely what infor- 
mation warrants protection , and to 
apply our resources to protecting 
only that kind of information. In ap- 
plying this principle, the technical 
experts, who met during the summer 
and fall of I960, readily agreed on 
the critical elements of infrared im- 
aging systems, namely, the V/H ra- 
tio, spatial and thermal resolution. 

T 

X hose elements will be recognized 
as the critical operating capabilities 
of infrared imaging systems. It is 
easy to see that knowledge of those 
capabilities for any infrared system 
would reduce or eliminate, to some 
extent at least, whatever military ad- 
vantages would accrue to our forces 
in the field by having this equip- 
ment available in a given locality. 
Knowloge of these capabilities would 
enable an enemy to judge what wo 
wore capable of learning of recon- 
naissance flights at night, as woll as 
during the day. So long as our capa- 
bilities are not known, our forces 
have some kind of an advantage that 
is worth protecting. Conn tonne as urea 
have not been mentioned, but it is 
obvious what the enemy might do to 
protect himself if he know we were 
using the equipment, and what kind 
of information the equipment is en- 
able of providing. 

When talking about classifying; in- 
formation pertaining to technical 
equipment, we hear the term "state 
of the art" used frequently as a meas- 
ure or standard for classification. 
There are many levels of state of the 
art. First, there is the open, publicly 
known degree of attainment; next, 
the unknown or classified level of 
achievement in U.S. systems; next, 
our knowledge of foreign achieve- 
ments. Technical intelligence plays a 
large part in determining state of the 



11 



art for classification purposes. It be- 
comes quite involved when we try to 
determine what we know of foreign 
developments, what foreigners know 
of onv developments, and what we 
think foreigners know of what we 
know of their developments, 

For obvious security reasons, this 
article cannot discuss intelligence es- 
timates. Suffice it to say that our ex- 
ports, in taking a look at all that has 
been published concerning infrared 
imaging systems, particularly the 
IRK proceedings on infrared in 1959 
and the 1902 and 1%4 symposia on 
Remote Sensing, came to the conclu- 
sions tiiat: 

6 The whole world knows the 
fundamentals of passive infrared 
scanning imaging systems. 

9 The whole world knows the 
United -States has developed opera- 
tional equipment. 

9 There is a measurable level of 
attainment which can be deduced 
from those two facts. 



T. 



o complicate further the job of 
deciding what should be classified 
about these systems is the often- 
stated fact that all of the significant 
components for one of these systems 
can be purchased on the open mar- 
ket. This meant to our experts that 
any competent group of engineers 
could obtain the necessary parts and, 
in a reasonable time frame, could pro- 
duce an operable piece of equipment. 
The estimates as to how long this 
would take varied from one to three 
years. An independent group of engi- 
neers, in a study prepared by Bat- 
telle Memorial Institute for the Ad- 
vanced Research Projects Agency, 
concluded one to several years de- 
pending on the degree of opera- 
tional excellence desired. 

As a preliminary move, our ex- 
perts decided that the amount of data 
already published indicated that our 
military equipment was capable of 
at least a V/H ratio of .25 radians 
per second, a thermal resolution of 
about a quarter degree Centigrade, 
and a spatial resolution of four mil- 
liradians. They accepted this as a 
reasonable measure of the known 
state of the art, 

As anyone familiar with the work- 
ings of these systems knows, this 



statement of known levels of per- 
formance is not the last consideration. 
There are considerable trade-offs 
possible which may result in great 
increases in one parameter at the ex- 
pense of others. There is a direct 
mathematical relationship between 
these factors. To give effect to this 
trade-off possibility, the experts de- 
vised a formula expressing this 
mathematical relationship. At first it 
did not include the total field of view 
(FOV) but, ultimately, it came out 
as the ratio of the square root of 
the product of the V/H ratio, ex- 
pressed in radians per second, and 
the total FOV in radians over the 
product of thermal resolution (delta 
T) in degrees Centigrade and the 
square of the spatial resolution (al- 
pha) in mil liradians. 



V (V/H) (FOV) 

(AT) (A)* 

To put this formula to practical 
use, the experts entered the data 
which they felt represented the 
known capabilities of our military 
equipment and came out with a fig- 
ure of 4.5 x 10 s , termed the "Order 
of Merit." This to their minds rep- 
resented a precise, usable figure, an 
Order of Merit, by which to measure 
the relative total capabilities of any 
particular system in comparison with 
others. Total inherent capabilities 
above that figure would require clas- 
sification of those capabilities. 

Application of this formula to de- 
termine whether a particular system 
may have operating capabilities re- 
quiring classification requires deter- 
mination of optimum capabilities. 
The V/H ratio is based on feet per 
second per foot. The total field of 
view, the total scan angle, is the dou- 
ble angle from the vertical expressed 
in radians. Delta T is defined as the 
"noise equivalent temperature differ- 
ence" relative to 300 K, and is that 
temperature difference between adja- 
cent objects which produces at the 
output terminals of the electronic 
system an electrical signal of Root 
Mean Square value equal to the RMS 
value of the electrical noise of the 
system. This figure is determined un- 
der laboratory conditions when the 
object radiates as a black body and 
subtends an angle equal to the spa- 
tial resolution (alpha) of the sys- 
tem. Spatial resolution is the fineness 



of target detail which can be dis- 
tinguished in the imagery and is de- 
fined, for the purposes of tho form- 
ula, as the ratio of the smallest 
dimension of the sensitive area of 
the detector and the effective focal 
length of the optical system, ex- 
pressed tn radians (mill i radians in 
the formula). 

Insofar as I know, this is the first 
time an attempt has been, made to 
develop a mathematical measure of 
capabilities as a moans for mulling 
classification determinations. It is, 
however, not the only basis .for deter- 
mining whether a particular piece of 
infrared scanning equipment should 
be classified. It covers only opcrn* 
tional performance capabilities. Also 
to he considered aro other things 
manufacturing technology, unique lo 
these systems and ossentiul to suc- 
cessful production of operating 
equipment; and materials or compo- 
nents representing improvements, 
unique to these systems or to oilier 
infrared equipment, which con trib- 
ute to the military or dofcMisc advan- 
tages to be realized from tlni HJ'H- 
tems. Items of hardware, including 
the complete end items, the system 
package, warrant classification by 
reason of the classified informaliim 
which they reveal or which can be 
obtained from them. 



s, 



)o much for the system.**, the 
hardware. Imagery taken by these 
systems can reveal much to thn ox- 
pert eye not from n photoin tor-lire- 
tor standpoint as to what can be iwiii 
from the imagery, but certain of tho 
critical operating; capabilities which 
can be gleaned from technical aimly- 
sis. Specifically, it is not too difficult 
to determine, with reasonable scien- 
tific accuracy, the thermal anil spa- 
tial resolutions realized in tlic par- 
ticular operation. If those fig-uras uro 
in the classified none, then the im- 
agery would have to be classified, Tho 
main use of tho Order of Merit for- 
mula lies in deciding whether cer- 
tain imagery should be classified. As 
a general rule, if at the time imnB- 
ery is obtained, the total attained 
operating capabilities of the equip- 
ment result in an Order of Merit 
below the figure of 4,6xlO a , tho 
imagery would not have to be classi- 
fied to protect equipment capabilities. 



September 1967 



To sum up, DOl) Instruction 
5210.51 establishes a bench-mark in 
classification guidance. It applies to 
the fullest the basic requirement 
that it is information that is classi- 
fied. Equipment capabilities are in- 
formation. In this instruction for the 
flrst time a mathematical basis is ex- 
pressed to assist in making classifica- 
tion determinations of equipment ca- 
pabilities. Broadly speaking, end 
items on infrared imaging equipment 
arc classified because of the infor- 
mation they contain and reveal. 

Detectors have been developed to 
the point where they are classified 
only if they are unique, and repre- 
sent an advancement which makes 
the equipment more useful militar- 
ily. The kinds of material used have 
been fairly standardized. The atmos- 
pheric windows used, i.e., the 3.5-5 
and the 8-14 micron regions, are no 
longer considered significant, except 
as they might reveal the purpose of 
a particular intelligence or recon- 
naissance mission, so it is generally 
no longer necessary to classify the 
fact that an InSb or a Ge: Hg de- 
tector is used in a particular system. 
The time of clay or night when imag- 
ery is taken is no longer considered 
significant. 

T 

JLo date DOD has not yet declas- 
sified any equipments developed under 
DOD contract or other systems re- 
lated to sucli military systems. Exist- 
ing systems are being evaluated to 
determine whether any can be de- 
classified. 

Because of their overall military 
usefulness, DOD considers all air- 
borne passive scanning infrared im- 
aging systems and related technical 
data to come within the coverage of 
the State Department's International 
Traffic in Arms Regulation (the mu- 
nitions control regulation) and the 
Expert Control laws. DOD recognizes 
the possible values of these systems 
to non-military users and, subject to 
the overall interests of national de- 
fense, has taken the stops mentioned 
to classify more precisely the infor- 
mation pertaining to those systems. 
By and large, we believe we have 
arrived at a sound practical basis 
for classification which ultimately 
will make most imagery and some 
equipment available for non-military 
uses. 



Sept. 3-4: Greater Cleveland Air 
Show, Burke Lakefront Airport, 
Cleveland, Ohio. 

Sept. 4-8: Symposium on Automatic 
Control in Space, Vienna, Austria. 

Sept. 5-9: National Association of 
Photo-Lithographers Meeting, Bos- 
ton, Mass. 

Sept. 11-13: American Institute of 
Aeronautics nnd Astronautics Elec- 
tric Propulsion and Plasma dynam- 
ics Specialist Conference, Antlers 
Plaza Hotel, Colorado Springs, 
Colo. 

Sept, 11-13: Air Force Association 
Annual Fall Meeting, "1967 Aero- 
space Briefings & Display," Sher- 
aton-Park Hotel, Washington, D.C. 

Sept. 12-14: Annual Seminar of the 
American Society for Industrial 
Security, Ambassador Hotel, Los 
Angeles, Calif. 

Sept. 13-14: Institute of Electrical and 
Electronic Engineers Meeting, De- 
troit, Mich. 

Sept. 16-17: Midwestern Aviation and 
Space Exposition, Willow Run Air- 
port, Detroit, Mich. 

Sept. 19: National AeroSpJice Services 
Association Sixth Annual USAP 
Contract Aerospace Service Sym- 
posium, Imperial House North, Day- 
ton, Ohio. 

Sept. 19-20: Army Munitions Com- 
mand/National Security Industrial 
Association Advanced Planning 
Briefings for Industry, Washing- 
ton, D.C. 

Sept. 10-22: Electronic Industries 
Association Configuration Manage- 
ment Workshop, Denver, Colo. 

Sept. 23-27: American Institute of 
Supply Association Meeting, Bos- 
ton, Mass. 

Sept. 25-28: Human Factors Society 
Meeting, Boston, Mnss. 

Sept. 27-28: National Security In- 
clus trial Association Procurement 
Conference, Washington, D.C. 

Sept. 29-Oct. 1: National Institute 
of Government Purchasing Meet- 
ing, Washington, B.C. 

Oct. 1-4: American Public Works As- 
sociation Meeting, Boston, Mass. 

Oct. 1-4: National Defense Trans- 
portation Association Meeting, 
Los Angeles, Calif. 



Oct. 9-10: 15th Joint Engineering 
Management Conference, San 
Francisco, Calif. 

Oct. 9-11: Association of the U.S. 
Army Mooting, Washington, D.C. 

Oct. 9-11 r Defense Supply Associ- 
ation Meeting, Washington, D.C. 

Oct. 9-12: National Business Air- 
craft Association Meeting, Boston, 
Mass. 

Oct. 10-12: Clevelaml-Navy-Nntional 
Security Industrial Association 
Scientific and Procurement Confer- 
ence, Cleveland, Ohio. 

Oct. 11-13: Army Aviation Associa- 
tion of America Meeting, Wash- 
ington, D.C. 

Oct. lfi-17: Society of Photo-Optical 
Instrumentation Engineers Laser 
Range Instrumentation Seminar, 
Hilton Inn, El Paso, Tex. 

Oct. 16-18: Institute of Electrical and 
Electronic Engineers Aerospace 
Systems Technical Convention, 
SUcrnton-Pnrk Hotel, Washington, 
D.C. 

Oct. 16-20: 10th Anglo-American 
Conference, Los Angeles, Calif. 

Oct. 17-19: Lubrication Conference, 
Chicago, III, 

Oct. 18-19: National Security Indus- 
trial Association R&D Symposium, 
Washington, D.C. 

Oct. 23-25: National Electronics Con- 
ference, International Amphithe- 
atre, Cliicago, III. 

Oct. 23-27: American Institute of 
Aeronautics and Astronautics 
Fourth Annual Meeting and Tech- 
nical Display, Anaheim, Claif. 

Oct. 25-27: Electric Council of New 
England Meeting, HOB ton, Mass. 

Oct. 29-Nov. 3: Civil Defense Coun- 
cil Meeting, Miami Reach, Fla. 

Nov. 1-3; National Security Indus- 
trial Association Meeting, Patrick 
AFB, Fin. 

Nov. 1-3: Northeast Electronic Re- 
search and Engineering Meeting, 
Uoston, Mass. 

Nov. 13-15: Conference on Electrical 
Techniques in Medicine and Biol- 
ogy, Uoston, Mass. 

Nov. 14-16: American Society of Tool 
nnd Manufacturing Engineers Re- 
gional Exposition, Sheraton-Bos- 
ton and War Memorial Auditorium, 
Boston, Mass. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



13 



Ifl 

o . 

< g 

y > 

Q J 



U 
S 

O I 
Z 

o 

u 

LU 

J- 
Z 

LU * 



2 ! 

LU a 

O 

LU f; 

w 

Z i 

uu =: 

a i 

Q .5 

S I 

G e 

LU 
UJ 





CO 






co m 


t- 




II 




-! '3 i' -? !T l'* Tt 




'- ;o 




O5CO 


OO 




L- C 

CO CO 




-. ..-'- I ''. " 


"% 


O CO 




oin 


L-~ 




co 1 T-i 




;/;- 


IH 


rH 




rH 


rH 
















SS 


S s 




S3 




,, ._. .- ] " 7) c 


,~ 


tsci 




in <M c 


CO 




IO CO 




^ i-53 ;- r: d '!c *r 


-jj 


C-ll- 




>* oc 






1. O 




a r;_-; ri r. _ ~ TI ?-. 


~. 


& T3 




I t- 


00^ 




ro^co 






'~ / 


CO* 




COrH 


in" 




CO tH 








IH co tH in o 


(o in t- r 


CO IOOO5 


CO 


I 


oo -o< 




*- ?* '^ T i ~ i ' ~ '^ 


* 


01 ?i co co c> 


"rf tO ^ ' 


r co in ^ 


CO Ol 


! 






^ ? : i r- L- : ; : : - i 


L- 


t-i C-l lO r? rH 


rH L 0J d; 


O O3CO L 


Cl r-l 


CTJ 


CO M 




*, * 


co 


^ ^30]^ 


L- M( CM L 


in co TH~ 


in rH 


rH 


co^i-T 










(M 


CO 










*,ST,~.C , 




O I- rjt H tO 


H rHCOCl 


CO tOCOCO 


I- OO 


O 


rH CO 




c: 5 i'- f- 5 r. t- c-i 


> 


(M >! to O 


01 tO rH If; 


CO rH CO i-l 


rH CO O 


CO 


L- L.~ 




" *::: ; i T c j - i 


cs 


C-^C-1 ^OQO^L 

















cf 


CM" co*i-T 


to" Tj^eM't- 


*F 03" t-H 1 


to" t-T 


r-T 


CO^r-T 




"'' 






CM 


CO 










c ri S - 1~ - '? ~ o 





rH M Cl 05 O) 
L- (N TH IH 


H M 1 oa 


fN IN M* 0) 

m o L- L 


m ^co 
in (M to 


L- CM rH C-. 
CO 0> 00 r-t 


IO i 1 DO 




-1 *~^ - |_ 1*- X TT , , . ' . 1 f 


^ 


H ^? C"l I f O 


10 to t c^ 


tO O O rH 


^1 CO rH 


I- O3 r-t 


H CO C-l 




ir M *"* 


OJ 


o o in c- 


t- <* CM t- 


^ o ira co 


CO T 1 


ID ID 


to" co r-T 


^^ 






iH rH 


-H <M 


CO rH 


rH 






jj 


ItiHifj s 


ce 


* CO 00 ^ CM 

com OCMC- 

OJ r-l W OS 01 


in i* coc- 


M CO CO L- 
in rH O I- 

to m ci CM 


to co-* 

to <M L- 


b 
o> 


rH <iC 


a 


V- 


!M 


Ol Co'rH." 


tO rf CM t- 


*" CO" rH rH 


CO r-t 


r-t 


7O"rH 




' 






C-l 


CO 








o 


















O 


* S - S S s S= 'C 





OHM to rH Tf 


H (MlNO) 


CO OJiHl- 


- rH CO 


, 


ooo 





[ ,. ^2 "" ^1 ^ 1 -.-^ ^ '" L 


, 


l *~\ AI S i 


j 01 co y 


^ rHO) CO 


01 (M CO 


io 


tD ID 


w 




* 






^0 CM * CO 


O (M tO 




CO C*') 


-H 


w 


r= 


-0 CO r-l 


n ^gj c ~ 


n CO rH 
CO 


n TH 


iH 


Ca"rH 


1 

O 


















. t 


















w t 


*T C 'Jl- I- 1-1 (C T* 

X a; r. -r l- -.2 o O M 


LI 


cio uicoco 
'o W 01030 


> M" com 


<M L- O 1Q 

CO COCOrH 


1 OCO 
5 O CO 


CO 
) 


{.-< 


i) c 

r T 


" 


.. 


* %! ^ 


j O rH If! 


t> M>O 






JU^ AyJ 


^ 1 


' 


-o 


"0 COrH 


co" inco't-" 




n TH" 


H" 


C-i'rH 


5 








<N 


tt 








w 


^x;i* c-. bcirHc; 


"l 

S3 


Ci Ol (M (O O 
^T 1 1 O l> C 1 ^ 
rH tO l> C^l C^' 


= CM t-o; 


*# L- -rf (M 
1 COCOCl 
C0_ O_(MO 


co co in 
1 ow 


rH CO tH IO 
1 CO CO tO 


01 ^H O 

> CO CrJ 


1- 

fl- 


c* 


O 


O 05 in CN 

H 


H " S "g3 l> " 


n o) -# co" 


. 


n 10" 


-cyj rH 


'1 


















w 


SSI's* Pt^^ 


5 


to to to co 05 
H w 01 co ic 


5 CMtOH 


) CO CM ^ 


1 rH in 


> OOOJ 


0>xf 





c j^- ' " ' E - H: "; 


n 




1 t-L-O 


;_ OJSC i* 


1OO 




C^] 00 


Vl 


W 


1-1 


TH 


rH (XI 




N 


^ 


C0r> 


1 


i S 5 ^ " " ? 3 


I 


'0> oco t- 


US 


<D to t- 
L-COM 1 


ojin 


O (0 rH 


CT> C-5 


1 


W> ^ r-t 


w 

1-t 


|>H ofco'co'' 


COrHtO 


CTCO"CN 


" w 


co^ 


O_rH 


Q 


i3 S '5 '-" w i- o 


















s.s.sss ses^ 


^ 


~l W t- M 


CO CO CO 
OTO^W 


oo in m 


coco 


too-ico 
coo in 


CT> CO 
D OO 












!> 


rH Ci 


5 


S3 




g o 














s w tJ 

^*I w C i ip "* ^ S? 




"S 1 '^1 ^ ^ 1 "8 




K ^ I! w i si'.i i i ^ 




J 1 1 "8 -3 -T Q^ "a io I 1 i-P J2 I 




^rf5cr? ^w^^g O ? S jCS ES, 




,9* ' o cW^jaj.g^^p -w s ^ c^nfl 






B ! 

"P "i 
P.I 


^ ^ s & 


J 

A ^ 



September 1967 




Leighton A. Cain 



Australia, a nation alive to the 
problem of preparedness in South- 
east Asia and the need to provide 
for its defenses, has made arrange- 
ments for the purchase of several 
hundred million dollars of military 
products from the United States. 

Defense Policy. 

Australia's national defense objec- 
tives are broadly : 

@ To provide for the security of 
Australia and its island territories. 

To pursue close friendship and 
cooperation with non-communist 
Asian countries, 

To seek support, particularly of 
Great Britain and the United States, 
in promoting cooperative arrange- 
ments for collective security in the 
Southeast Asia area and for the de- 
Tense and security of Australia. 

9 To counter communist aggres- 
sion in Southeast Asia. 

To support the development of 
the United Nations as an effective in- 
strument of collective security. 

Since World War II, and more par- 
ticularly In recent years, Australia's 
defense has heen characterized by a 
progressive increase in international 
defense responsibilities and commit- 
ments, 

The collective security arrange- 
ments in which Australia partici- 
pates arc SEATO (Southeast Asia 
Treaty Organization), ANZUS (Aus- 
tralia, New Zealand and United 
States), and Commonwealth defense 
arrangements, such as ANZAM 
(Australia, New Zealand and Ma- 
laysia), 

These are a fundamental part of 
current Australian strategic thinking 
and outlook. Much of Australia's de- 
fense effort continues to be directed 
to supporting these alliances in a 
measure commensurate with its na- 
tional interests and resources, while 
at the same time making appropri- 



ate provisions for the immediate de- 
fense of Australia and its territories- 
in the light of assessed threats. 

Defense Program. 

The government has followed a 
policy of progressive development of 
Australia's armed forces and sub- 
stantial additions have been made to 
the defense program in recent years. 
In March 1957, the Australian gov- 
ernment announced a new defense 
program which would place empha- 
sis on "mobility, hitting; power, and 
modern equipment." It included a de- 
cision to make Australian land and 
air weapons compatible with U.S. 
equipment, a marked departure from 
Australia's traditional military con- 
nections with the United Kingdom. 
In November 1959, a further plan was 
announced, the main features of 
which were suspension of compulsory 




Leighton A, Cain is a Staff Assistant 
in the Office of the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense (International 
Logistics Negotiations), Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Inter- 
national Security Affairs). He has 
served in the Defense Department 
since 1940 in key positions as a sup- 
ply specialist. 



military training, coupled with a 35 
percent increase in the strength of 
the regular army; disbandment in 
1963 of the fleet air arm; and reor- 
ganization of army operational units 
on the pattern of the U.S. Army's 
then pentomic division. 

Arrangements were completed in 
June 1961 for the construction of two 
new destroyers in the United States, 
the vessels to be equipped with the 
most modern offensive and defensive 
equipment. Agreement on construc- 
tion of a third destroyer was reached 
in 1963. In the same year Prime Min- 
ister Menzies announced an increase 
of 15 percent in defense expenditures 
over the next five years. In 1964 a 
further large increase in defense 
spending 1 was announced, and Aus- 
tralia contracted to buy 24 F-lll air- 
craft. 

Australia's acceptance of overseas 
obligations since World War II, and 
the deterioration of the situation in 
Southeast Asia during the last few 
years, have provided the incentive for 
improvement of Australia's military 
forces. A program of accelerated im- 
provement was announced in Novem- 
ber 1964. This program included an 
increase in armed forces strength 
from 50,000 in 1964 to 75,000 by the 
end of 1967, through the introduction 
of conscription for overseas service 
for the first time in Australian his- 
tory; and the re-equipping of the 
services. Toward these ends, Austral- 
ia's defense expenditures have in- 
creased from $480 million in 1963 to 
$1,120 million in 1967, an increase of 
134 percent. 

Australia is also a member of the 
European Launcher Development Or- 
ganization (ELDO). The facilities at 
the Woomera Rocket Range, in south 
Australia, and the technical experi- 
ence of its staff are being used in a 
program scheduled to launch a test 
satellite into orbit by 1969. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



15 



Australia recognizes the need for 
cooperation in world affairs as evi- 
denced by its participation in collec- 
tive security arrangements and agree- 
ments, 

U.S.- Australian Cooperative 
Logistics Arrangements. 

A mutual defense agreement be- 
tween the United States and Australia 
was signed Feb. 20, 1951, No grant 
aid, however* was required and all 
assistance made available has been 
financed and paid for by Australia, 
including purchases from the United 
States under its military sales 
program. 

Since 1951 the United States and 
Australia have concluded more than 
a dozen treaty arrangements con- 
cerning such matters as tracking sta- 
tions, communications stations, status 
of forces, naval matters, mutual 
weapons development programs, 
weather stations and security. In ad- 
dition, cooperative logistics arrange- 
ments and credit arrangements have 
been consummated to cover purchase 
of defense articles and defense serv- 
ices from the United States. Security 
procedures for industrial operations 
were also promulgated through an 
exchange of defense letters. 

During the period FY 1962-1967, 
Australia placed military sales or- 
ders, or commitments to buy, with 
the United States amounting to sev- 
eral hundred million dollars. The pro- 
gram is concrete evidence of Aus- 
tralian recognition of the necessity 
for military preparedness and the 
need for closer U.S.-Australian coop- 
eration in Southeast Asia. The bulk 
of these sales are under credit ar- 
rangements with the United States. 

In addition to destroyers and F- 
111 aircraft, major purchases by 
Australia have included S-2E, C- 
130, P-3B and A-4G aircraft, heli- 
copters, armored personnel carriers 
and other weapon systems. 

The current logistic arrangement 
between Australia and the United 
States, agreed upon in February 1&65, 
is designed to cover Australian pur- 
chases of military equipment for 
force improvement, as well as for 
some force maintenance during the 
period FY 1966-1968. 

A cooperative support agreement 
was also consummated in February 
1965. This arrangement permits Aus- 
tralia to obtain logistic materiel and 



services for its armed forces equiva- 
lent in timeliness and effectiveness to 
that provided the U.S. Armed Forces. 
Subsequently, individual arrange- 
ments were made between the U.S. 
and Australian Armed Forces to pro- 
vide such support for specific major 
weapon systems. 

These arrangements include provi- 
sion for credit of up to $450 million 
for defense articles and services to 
he provided through U.S. Govern- 
ment agencies or from private 
sources in the United States. 

A U.S.-Australian defense space 
research facility has been established 
in Australia. This activity will en- 
gage in a variety of research proj- 
ects and the results obtained will be 
available to both countries. It will be 
a joint operation of the Australian 
and the U.S. Defense Departments. 
Australian sub-contractors will share 
in the construction. 

Australia has further contributed 
to space research by becoming an im- 
portant base for six tracking stations 
built for the U.S. National Aeronau- 
tics and Space Administration (NA- 
SA). The six stations are associated 
with earth-orbiting satellites, deep 
space probes, and Project Apollo. 
The costs of building, equipping and 
operating the stations are borne by 
NASA, while the stations are man- 
aged, maintained and operated by the 
Australian Department of Supply. 

Summary. 

The U.S. Foreign Military Sales 
Prograpn for Australia represents a 
manifestation of close U.S.-Austral- 
ian politico-military interests, a re- 
sult of the growing Australian recog- 
nition of the severity of the South- 
east Asia problem, and cooperation 
in the broadest field of international 
finance. 

Large-scale Australian purchases of 
U.S. military equipment offer advan- 
tages to both the United States and 
Australia. For the United States, the 
sale of major items of military equip- 
ment contributes not only toward the 
attainment of important policy ob- 
jectives, such as increased standardi- 
zation and commonality of free world 
military systems and equipment, but 
it also provides a friendly foreign 
nation with an opportunity to acquire 
the best weapons at an economical 



price while, at the same time, help- 
ing to reduce our balance of payments 
deficit. For Australia, it provides the 
best weapons at the lowest cost, 
under favorable financing arrange- 
ments, and with assured continued 
support; it enhances its ability to 
participate in joint operations anil 
actions with U. S. forces with the 
commonality of equipment involved; 
and it opens the door for future 
joint operation and maintenance ac- 
tivities, co-production projects, ami 
U.S. procurements in Australia. 



Navy Lab Tests 
Inflatable Tent 

An inflatable shelter which can be 
used in areas of extreme heat or coM 
is being tested by technicians fit 
the Environmental Teat Laboratory, 
Naval Missile Center, Point Mugii, 
Calif. 

Upon completion of testing ami 
evaluation, the structures will be Rent 
to South Vietnam for use by Fleet 
Marine Forces to house data process- 
ing equipment and personnel. 

During the testing program, the 
structure will be subjected to tempera- 
tures of up to 135 degrees Fahrenheit 
and down to minus 40 degrees Fahren- 
heit in the laboratory's large ditnato 
chamber. 

The structure is 24 feet square and 
10 feet tall. Sections of the super- 
structure are mode of cloth coated 
with polyurethane. When inflated 
they provide a wall nine inches thlcEt. 
Nylon threads between the inner ami 
outer panels of each wall section 
maintain uniform thickness and rigid- 
ity. 

Because the walls are made in sec- 
tions a puncture in one location will 
not cause the entire structure to col- 
lapse. According to the Dewey Corp., 
manufacturer of the structure, as 
many as three-quarters of the wall 
panels can be punctured and the struc- 
ture will retain its shape. 

The universal shelter is being con- 
sidered for such tactical uses as op- 
eration centers, command posts, field 
dental and hospital use, and for other 
general utility applications, 

R. W, Canon is head of the Environ- 
mental Test Laboratory at Point 
Mugu. 



September T967 



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

The following assignments have 
been announced by the Defense Sup- 
ply Agency: Maj. Gen. John Goahorn, 
USA, Dep. Dir., (Contract Adminis- 
tration); RAclm. Ira P. Haddock, 
(SC), USN, Asst. Dir., (Plans, Pro- 
grams and Systems) ; Brig. Gen. John 
A. Brooks III, USAP, Exec. Dir., 
(Technical and Logistics Services); 
Maj Gen. Emmett M. Tally Jr., 
USAP, Commander, Defense Con- 
struction Supply Center, Dayton, 
Ohio; Capt. Grovcr C. Hcffncr, (SC), 
USN, Commander, Defense Industrial 
Supply Center, Philadelphia, Pa., with 
the rank of rear admiral; and Col. 
Robert I. Ciraldo, USA, Inspector 
General. 

HAdm. Elliott Bloxom, USN, has 
been appointed Dep. Commander (Op- 
erations), Military Traffic Manage- 
ment and Terminal Service. 



Capt John A. Davenport, USN, has 
been assigned Chief, Business & Labor 
Div., Office of Asst. Secretary of De- 
fense (Public Affairs). 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Brig. Gen. William A. Becker is the 
new ^ Dep. Dir., (Research and Labor- 
atories), Army Materiel Command. 
Ho relieved Col. Harvey E. Slicppard, 
who served as acting Dep. Dir. from 
October 196G. 

The following assignments have been 
announced by the Army Combat De- 
velopments Command, Port Belvoir, 
Va.: Col. Ernest W. Chapman, Dep. 
Chief of Staff (Development); Col. 
William S. Barrett, Dir. (Plans); 
Col. Charles H. Hazcltino Jr., Dir' 
(Evaluation); Col. Charles T. Ca- 
prino, Comptroller; Col. James T. 
A very Jr., Commanding Officer, In- 
stitute of Special Studies; Col. Nor- 
man Farrell, Commanding Officer, In- 



stitute of Land Combat; Col. Francis 
J. Kelly, Commanding Officer, Combat 
Support Group. 

Col. Thomas W. Mellon is the new 
Dep. Dir, (Development), Office of 
Research and Development, U.S. 
Army Headquarters, Washington, 
D.C. 

U. Col. Joseph J. Rochefort Jr., 

has been assigned as Project Mana- 
ger, Engine Generators, at the U.S. 
Army Mobility Equipment Com- 
mand's Engineer Research and De- 
velopment Laboratories, Fort Belvoir, 
Va. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

VAdm. Bernard A. Cleary has been 

assigned as Dir., Program PL-inning, 
in the Office of the Chief of Naval 
Operations, 

RA<lm. Richard B. Lynch has suc- 
ceeded RArim. William A. Sunderland 
as Commander, Hawaiian Sea Front- 

(Continued on page 30) 




Paul R. Ignatius, who has served as 
Assistant Secretary of Defense (In- 
stallations and Logistics) since 1964, 
has been nominated to be the new 
Secretary of the Navy. He succeeds 
Paul H. Nitzc who was appointed 
Deputy Secretary of Defense. Mr. 
Ignatius has served with the Defense 
Department since 1961 when he be- 
came Assistant Secretary of the Army 
(Installations and Logistics). 

Defense Industry Bulletin 




Admiral Thomas H. Moorer was 
sworn in as'Chief of Naval Operations 
on Aug. 1 relieving retiring Admiral 
David L. McDonald. Prior to the new 
assignment he served as Supreme 
Allied Commander Atlantic under the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 
and as Commander in Chief, U.S. 
(unified) Atlantic Command and the 
U.S. Atlantic Fleet. Admiral Moorer 
is a 1933 graduate of the U.S. Naval 
Academy. 




Thomas D. Morris, nominated to the 
position of Assistant Secretary of De- 
fense (Installations and Logistics) to 
succeed Paul R. Ignatius, returns to 
the post in which he served from Jan. 
1961 to Dec. 1964. Mr Morris has been 
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Man- 
power) since Oct. IflliS. He was a 
member of the New York firm of 
Cresap, McCormick and Pagel prior 
to the Manpower appointment. 



17 



OFFICE OF THE CKIEI 



ASSISTANT CHIEF OF 
INFORMATION FOR POLICY 

COL George R. Creel 74359 2E646 



CHIE 
MG Ktith L. 



DEPUTY 
BG Lloyd 0. 



COL Robert J, 



Office of Chief of Information is located 

in the Pentagon, Washington, D. C. 

Telephone: Area Code 202, OXIord plus number listed. 



POLICY AND PLANS DIVISION 
COLW.H. Applegate 73447 2E637 



POLICY BRANCH 
LTC Harvey M. Ladd 53894 2D636A 

PLANS BRANCH 
COL Everett 0. Post 54462 2D636 

OPERATIONS BRANCH 
LTC Douglas D, Grlnnel 57874 2D640 



PUBLIC INFORMATION DIVISION 
COL William Schabacker 56688 2E641 



NEWS BRANCH 
LTC Edward Comer 72351 2E641 

AUDIOVISUAL BRANCH 
LTC John R. Swoe 53007 20644A 

SPECIAL PROJECTS BRANCH 
LTC Phillip H. Stevens 71747 2E641 



September 1967 



-OfftoRMAriON 
,VarJ 55135 2E636 



INFORMATION 
74482 2E636 



74200 2E636 



ASSISTANT CHIEF OF 
INFORMATION FOR PROGRAMS 

COL John T. English 74269 2E6<36 



I 



LOS ANGELES BRANCH 

COL Jack G. Westbrooke 

6087 Sunset Boulevard 
Hollywood, California 90028 

213 462-7215-7218 
AUTOVON 898-3400 Ext 649 



NEW YORK BRANCH 

COL Alfred J. Mock 

663 Fifth Avenue 

New York, New York 10002 

212-MU8-7572 
AUTOVON 552-3310 



'"I 



COMMUNITY RELATIONS DIVISION 
COL George E, Moranda 75716 2E631 



PROJECTS BRANCH 

LTC John P. Weber 71683 2E631A 

FIELD SUPPORT BRANCH 

LTC Edward M. Bradford 72707 2D630 



COMMAND INFORMATION DIVISION 
COL Charles R. Thomas 53952 2E629 



PLANS BRANCH 
MAJ Walter Shlro 78221 2E629A 

TRAINING MATERIALS BRANCH 
LTC Samuel H. McKenly 53216 2D628 

INFORMATIONAL SERVICES BRANCH 
LTC Salvatore Fede 54635 2D6QQ 



Defense Industry Bulletin 




MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA 



SEPTEMBER 

International Symposium on Infor- 
mation Theory, Sept 11-15, at 
Athons, Greftcc. Sponsors: Air Force 
Office of Scientific Research, Infor- 
mation Theory Group of the Insti- 
tute of Electrical and Electronics En- 
gineers and the International Radio 
Scientific Union. Contact: Lt. Col. 
It. R. Agins, (SRMA), Air Force 
Office of Scientific Research, MOO Wil- 
son Blvd., Arlington, Va., 22209, 
1'hone (202) OXforci 4-5261. 

International Symposium on Ma- 
terialsKey to Effective Use of the 
Sea, Sept. 12-14, at the Statler-Hilton 
Hotel, New York, N.Y. Co-sponsors: 
Naval Applied Science Laboratory 
and the Polytechnic Institute of 
Brooklyn, N.V. Contact: D. H. Kal- 
las, Associate Technical Director, 
Naval Applied Science Laboratory, 
Flushing and Washington Avenues, 
lirooklyn, N.Y. 11251. 

Advanced Composite Structures 
Symposium, Sept. 19-21, at the Hil- 
ton Hotel, Denver, Colo. Sponsor: 
Air Force Materials Laboratory. Con- 
tact: Mr. Tomaahot, (MAC), Air 
Force Materials Laboratory, Wright- 
Patterson AFIt, Ohio 45433, Phone 
(513) 253-7111, Ext. 55317. 

Second International Buoy Tech- 
nology Symposium and Exposition, 
Sept. 18-20, ut the Washington-Hilton 
Hotel, Washington, D.C, Sponsor: Ma- 
rine Technology Society with partici- 
pation by American Meteorological 
Society. Contact: Buoy Committee, 
Marine Technology Society, 1030 Fif- 
teenth St. NW, Washington, D.C. 
20005, phone (202) 296-6773. 

Eighth Symposium on Physics and 
Nondestructive Testing, Sept. 19-21 
at Dayton, Ohio. Sponsor: Air Force 
Materials Laboratory, Wright-Pat- 
terson AFB, Ohio 45433. 

Seventh Annual National Confer- 
ence on Environmental Effects on Air- 



527- 

25-27 at the Nassau Inn, Princeton, 
N J- Contact: Robert A. Reale, Naval 
Air Turbine Test Station, 1440 Par" 



Joint Power Generation 
ence, Sept 24 _ 28) at th 



ton Hotel, Detroit, Mich. Co-spon- 
sors: Institute of Electrical and Elec- 
tronics Engineers and the American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers. 
Contact: Carl Shabtach, General 
Electric Co., Schencctady, N.Y, 12301. 
Fourth International Conference on 
Atmospheric and Space Electricity, 
Sept. 29-Oct. G, at Lucerne, Switz- 
erland. Sponsors: Air Force Cam- 
bridge Research Laboratories, Army, 
Navy, National Sconce Foundation and 
National Aeronautics and Space Ad- 
ministration. Contact: M. B. Gilbert, 
(CRTE), Air Force Cambridge Re- 
search Laboratories, L. G. Hanscom 
Field, Mass. 01731, Phone (617) 274- 
6100, Ext. 3633. 

OCTOBER 

Twenty-second Annual Transporta- 
tion and Logistics Forum, Oct. 3-6, 
at the Biltmore Hotel, Los Angeles, 
Calif. Sponsor: National Defense 
Transportation Association. Contact: 
Les Richards, 3416 S. La Cienega 
Blvd., Los Angeles, Calif. 90016. 

Conference on Reinforced Metal 
Matrix Composites, Oct. 10-12, at 
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Co- 
sponsors: Air Force Materials Lab- 
oratory and the University of Dayton. 

Eleventh Annual Organic Chemis- 
try Conference, Oct. 12-13, at Natick, 
Mass. Sponsors: National Academy 
of Science-National Research Coun- 
cil, Advisory Board on Military 
Personnel Supplies, and Organic 
Chemistry Laboratory, Pioneering 
Research Div., Army Natick Labora- 
tories. Contact: Dr. L. Long Jr., 
Head, Organic Chemistry Lab, 
(FED), Army Natick Laboratories, 
Natick, Mass. 01760, Phone (617) 653- 
1000, Ext, 414. 

Conference on the Exploding Wire 
Phenomenon, Oct. 18-20, at Boston, 
Mass. Sponsor: Air Force Cambridge 
Research Laboratories. Contact- W 
G. Chace, (CRFA), Air Force Cam- 
bridge Research Laboratories, L G 
Hanscorn Field, Mass. 01730, Phone 
(617) 274-6100, Ext. 4926. 

Mass Transport in Oxides Confer- 
ence, Oct. 22-25, at Gaithersburg, 
Md. Sponsor: Advanced Research 



Projects Agency. Contact: Dr. John 
B. Wachtman, Inorganic M.'itoriul.s 
Div., National Kureau of Standards, 
Washington, D.C. 20234, Phono (!MI) 

92.1-2901. 

Conference, on Ungukleil Ilockct 
Ballistics Meteorology, Oct. 30-Nov. 

1, at New Mexico Stnto UmvtH'Hity, 
Las GruccB, N.M. Sponsor: Army 
Electronics Command. ConUict: It. K. 
Britain, Atmospheric Science Of- 
fice, Atmospheric Laboratory, USA- 
ECOM, Whito SnnclH, N.M. 88002, 
Phono (BOB) 8H8~100fl. 

NOVEMBER 

19G7 Conference on Speech Com- 
munication and Processing, Nov. (>-H, 
at Boston, Maim. Co-sponttoi'H: Air 
Force Cambridge Kesrnrch Labora- 
tories and tin) Institute- of KlccLriciil 
and Electronics Enjirinom'-s. Conduit: 
C. P. Smith, (CUBS), Air Koivo 
Cambridge) Research Laboratories, 
L. G. Hanscom Field, MHH. 017SO, 
Phone (G17) 274-6100, ExL 712. 

Applied Superconductivity Confer- 
ence, .Nov (1-8, at Austin, Tnx. .Spon- 
sors: Army Research Ofl1c<!, Univer- 
sity of Texas, NASA, Air Korco 
Office of Scientific Research and the 
Office- of Naval Reuirch. Contmrt: 
W. H. J. Hartwlg, Electronic Materials 
Research Laboratory, UnivurtiHy of 
Texas, Austin, Tex. 78712. 

1967 Conference on Speech Proces- 
sing, Nov. 19-15, ut the Hotel Hom- 
erset f Boston, Mass. Co-8ponKoni: Air 
Force Cambridge Research Lafoom- 
ories and the Institute of Kloclrical 
and Electronics Engineers, Contact: 
Calwdell P. Smith, (CRBS), Air 
Force Cambridge Research Labora- 
tories, L. G. Hanscom Flolil, Mas*. 
01731, Phon G (617) 274-6100, ICxt. 
2712. 

Decomuosition of Organo MclnUic 
Comp. to Refractory Ceramic*, Met- 
als and Metal Alloys, Nov. 28-30, at 
the Sheraton-Dayton Hotel, Dayton, 
Ohio. Sponsor; Air Force Materials 
Laboratory. Contact: Dr. Lynch, 
(MAMC), Ah- Force Materials Lull- 
oratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 
46433, Phone (513) 253-7111, Ext. 
54145. 



September 1967 




FROM THE SPEAKERS ROSTRUM 



Address by Hon Robert H. 
Charles, Asst. Secretary of the 
Air Force (Installations & Login- 
tics), at the Annual Meeting of 
the Forging Industry Association, 
White Sulphur Springs, W. Vet., 
May 2/1, 



Product Lead Time 



As you well know, we have been 
through some trying times together 
in satisfying our production needs 
for Southeast Asia. Despite my long 
background in the aerospace indus- 
try, I for one did not fully appreciate 
the critical! ty of forcings in such a 
situation. 

Early in 1966, we were confronted 
with a logistical paradox. While we 
sought greater program flexibility 
and accelerated production, most of 
our system contractors were quoting 
longer lead time which translated 
into slipped delivery schedules. Our 
analysis of the problem indicated 
that forgings were the pacing items, 
and that their lead times had dou- 
bled, typically, in the previous year. 

To come to grips with this prob- 
lem, a meeting was called in the Pen- 
tagon last October with representa- 
tives of the aerospace and forging 
industries. Your counsel and cooper- 
ation then, and in the months follow- 
ing, have been most gratifying, and 
I thank you therefor. Perhaps the 
most important accomplishment of 
these efforts has been a much clearer 
understanding of each other's prob- 
lems. It has become evident that the 
finger could not be pointed solely at 
the forging industry. There were ac- 
tions that had to be taken by the 
users and the Government as well. 
Some 12 recommendations were listed 
in the final DOD-industry report, and 
we have attempted to follow these up 
on a continuing basis. 

I do not, by any means, want to 
imply that we have the problem 
licked, but progress is being made. 
The most recent reports on forging 



load times, as reflected in surveys by 
the Aerospace Industries Association 
(AIA), indicate a leveling off of the 
rising trend, with improvement in 
many areas. I like to think that our 
joint concern has had a lot to do with 
this improvement. 

My reference to the AIA surveys 
brings mo to a major point I want 
to leave with you today. Lend times 
for various types of aerospace qual- 
ity forgings are shown as ranging 
from 11 tu 1C weeks as of August 
1965, and from 24 to 31 weeks as of 
March 19G7. We are advised tlmt the 
1965 figure may bo depressed because 
of unusual conditions at that time, 
and that the 1967 figure may he high 
due to the boom in aircraft produc- 
tion. The norm is indicated to be 
somewhere- between the two levels. 
If we accept this, it means that we 
should normally expect to wait from 
17 to 24 weeks for a forging. Four 
to live and one-half months! Even 
after receipt, a difficult and time- 
consuming machining job may be re- 
quired to obtain the precision needed 
for the final part. There is some ar- 
gument as to these numbers, but in 
any event I believe that we can do 
better in fact, if we don't do better 
in the future, we may find forgings 
replaced by parts made by other 
processes. Even today, a great deal of 
development effort is being expended 
in this direction. 




Hon. Robert H, Charles 



Earlier this year I publicly dis- 
cussed what I considered to be the ad- 
verse effects of long production lead 
times: they limit our response to 
changing world conditions and to the 
rapidly shifting 1 requirements of de- 
fense, increase the possibility of ac- 
cumulating imnecded or obsolescent 
inventories, and inhibit modernization 
of our forces. This accumulation of 
unnecdcd or obsolescent inventories 
deserves further exposition. 

One of the determinants of force 
structure is the need for an existing 
pool of replacement airplanes of each 
type, so that those lost in combat or 
otherwise can lie replaced at once. 
We must have enough to take care of 
attrition under the most adverse cir- 
cumstances. 

For example, let us assume a situa- 
tion calling, at all times, for a mini- 
mum of 500 airplanes of a particular 
type, excluding the replacement pool. 
Let us also assume that this airplane 
is currently being produced at the 
rate of 1C a month, and that the max- 
imum attrition rate, under the most 
adverse combat scenario, is 2f> a 
month. Thus, the maximum net Loss 
is 10 a month. 

Now, if the production lend time 
from go-ahead to delivery were 20 
months (which ia faster than some 
aircraft today), we must have a re- 
placement pool of 10 airplanes times 
20 months, or 200 airplanes, in order 
to assure ourselves that our combat- 
ready aircraft will never fall below 
500, On the other hand, if the pro- 
duction lead time were 12 months, 
for example, we would need a re- 
placement pool of only 10 airplanes 
times 12 months, or 120. Thus, by 
reducing the lead time from 20 to 12 
months, we could reduce our required 
inventory by 80 airplanes. If wo ap- 
ply this arithmetic to a fighter which 
costs $3 million, we are talking 
about saving $240 million, with no 
degradation of military posture, sim- 
ply by reducing the lead time from 
20 to 12 months. 

You recognize, of course, that the 
assumptions in this example are 
over-simplified; hut I think you can 
see why I consider long production 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



21 



lead times a major problem, even 
without considering their two other 
adverse effects; i.e.., they liTtiit our 
response to changing- conditions and 
requirements, and inhibit force mod- 
ernization. 

Obviously, the forging industry, 
with lead times between four and 
five and one-half months, can make 
only a partial contribution toward a 
lead-time reduction of eight months, 
as assumed in the example. But qual- 
ity forgings, without which none of 
our advanced aircraft would be fly- 
ing today, are of critical importance 
to defense products and, thus, their 
portion of the lead time must be ex- 
amined to see if improvements can 
be made. I think you will agree that 
there are techniques and practices 
currently in use in many forging 
plants (and in other industries, too, 
for that matter) that have not 
changed in the past 20 years. This is 
hardly compatible with the so-called 
"age of automation" in which we are 
now living. A writer in the Harvard 
Business Review recently raised the 
question in even broader terms, and 
indicated that our overall position as 
world leaders in industrial technol- 
ogy is deteriorating. He implies that 
we are doing a mediocre job of cop- 
ing with and taking advantage of 
automation, 

Extensive efforts must be made to 
accelerate our basic manufacturing 
processes and, at the same time, pro- 
vide maximum production flexibility. 
"We should consider changing our 
thinking with respect to material 
control, material handling, and pro- 
duction scheduling to terms which 
reflect a continuous manufacturing 
operation and flow of finished parts 
with built-in flexibility, rather than 
a p roc ess-by-process scheduling of in- 
dividual parts. This is the kind of 
production that our economy calls for 
today. With the high cost of labor, 
equipment and space, the really suc- 
cessful producer will be the one who 
gets the maximum possible output 
and quality from the resources he 
has available. 

Our Harvard expert says that the 
task is to : 

"Make an increasing variety of 
products, on shorter lead times 
with smaller runs, but with 
flawless quality. Improve our 
return on our investment by 
automating and introducing new 



22 



technology in processes and 
materials. . . . Mechanize, but 
keep your schedules flexible . . ." 

He draws a well defined distinction 
between this concept and the old 
term, "mass production," which called 
for large volumes, low cost, and 
barely acceptable quality. The point 
is well taken, I think. We have ar- 
rived at a stage in our industrial de- 
velopment that is not fully recog- 
nized by many production managers. 
Most managers recognize the differ- 
ence between shop and mass produc- 
tion operations, but the more sophis- 
ticated "system that can quickly 
adjust schedules, get new products 
out fast, take advantage of new tech- 
nology, and produce a wider variety 
of products from limited facilities" 
represents a new idea to most of 
these same managers. In the forg- 
ing business, it presents a real chal- 
lenge, but also an opportunity. 



Investment in 
New Process 
Development 
and Facilities 



To accomplish this, substantial in- 
vestments must be made in new proc- 
ess development and in facilities 
which apply advanced production 
techniques. While such advancements 
will certainly benefit defense pro- 
grams, they will also benefit commer- 
cial products and may very well be 
the life blood of the industry in the 
future, Corporate risk investment is, 
therefore, called for. It is easy 
enough to sit back in a seller's mar- 
ket and ignore progress when the 
buyer comes to you; but when the 
economy turns, it is usually the ag- 
gressive operator who survives. 

This leads me to another point that 
I should make. Probably you were 
waiting for it. That is, the question of 
government financing and ownership 
of manufacturing facilities. Prom 
the standpoint of the companies rep- 
resented here, I suppose your posi- 
tion would be divided between the 
"haves" and "have nots." My own 
position, however, unequivocally fa- 
vors private ownership, This is the 



only position that one can tub,, in a 
true free enterprise system anil, in 
spite of some other tomlcucii-H lum- 
pant in our society, 1 for one lirli^-,. 
that this is the overriding ivKnn fr 
the unparalleled succua.s of lli,> LI.S, 
economy, 

But there are a giwil ]imrij j, (iv . 
ernment-owned facilities, indmij,^. 
heavy forging presses; mid fur \\\ f 
benefit of the "have until" n-fmv,! 
to earlier, I feel I should I'ljilmnil,- 
on our policy and on our .'iirtvrH 
situation. 

Our basic policy IK Unit in.iiMr, 
will provide all faeililmit innM t'j 
support defense production J.M. 
grams. Like all polii:irn, lumber. 
provision is made for <>.xct'|>Ciiiii \ n 
this case, for situation.-! insnM^ 
high-risk defense protfriimu im|.r.i.-. 
ticable for industry t:o minimi, mid 
where substantial coat HSU'trw' nui I- 
obtained. When we csmhiirlinl i.n i},.- 
heavy press program in tli.- .MI!;, 
1950s, the only then <!<mnivitli!i> HT,. 
for that equipment wan ilcfrm^ |u t , 
duction; and you will rcrtii'mluT llni 
our defense budget WIIH cnl i<i ,in!i 
$9.8 billion in 1948, and rmmiiK.I .-,( 
$14 billion or below until KI.IVJI, l\< 
fact, annual sales of the iii'ivi|i;i.-.' 
industry to the Government iiv.'niK- -i 
less than $2 billion In the. llm, jnr 
Korea years of 1048-50, im i-i.mjw.l 
to nearly $15 billion in i-uch ,.f i!.,- 
last 10 years, Wo had mil n-n^jiir-.i 
the nature of the cold wur in uf .-; 
responsibilities of world li'iidfuMi* 

Under those circuTmitomvi, it 
would have been moat iinjinnli'iti t-r 
industry to have built thtnu 1 i>u -- 
with its own money; ullliniiKli I'M' 
sight, as is so often thu runt', v.-,. ; i!.i 
have rendered a different vcnlii-i, HEu! 
today, the situation ia iMillri'J> iliffii 
ent. We have for somo linn- i-..>r 
nized the requirements of llu> >-? 
war not just Southcnnt Aniu ftH 
there is a booming commi'ivhil CIMF. 
ket for aircraft. Under llu-tn- t-hn!>- 
stances, I can only any Llml III'- ^ 
plication of our basic policy in R'."-S 
to be extremely firm with ITHJIH-I ii 
new facilities, and wo nri* K\>h\K ! 
seek every possible nicaiiH uf tliw ;t 
ing ourselves of existing fW-il!t!r 
for which government owiu-rfthlji : 
nob required to protect (.Miin-ut a 
emergency requirements. 

I hope this will help to flhifjfy &:*-" 
of the recent reports tliul IMUl l^ 
come up with a new policy rt-KMiilir^ 
the provision of facilities. This \>~A- 



September 



icy is not new, and I believe that out- 
contractors are well aware of this. 
We have, for many years, been work- 
ing to shift the burden for support 
of defense programs to private in- 
dustry. I apologize for using the 
word "burden." It is not a burden; 
it is an opportunity. And I think we 
have made good progress in this 
effort. As an illustration, you might 
be interested in knowing that during 
the Korean buildup in 1951, the Air 
Force expended some $1.2 billion for 
facilities to support its produc- 
tion programs. In FY 1967, with a 
comparable military buildup, our fa- 
cilities costs are about one-tenth of 
that. One reason for this shows up in 
aerospace industry plant expendi- 
tures. In 1949, they were estimated at 
about $50 million, in 1951 about $150 
million. In 1967, the figure is now 
projected at $830 million. I have not 
seen comparable figures for the forg- 
ing industry, but I have no doubt but 
that they would show a similar trend. 
Another indication of our progress 
is in the number of Air Force-owned, 
contractor-operated plants. In 1961, 
wo had 74. Today we have 50, and 
several of these are in the process 
of disposition. 

So, you see our present position on 
this problem is not really new, and 
there is no conceivable way that prof- 
its from commercial production can 
he affected by a radical new facilities 
policy, as one reporter speculated, 
simply because there is no new pol- 
icy. The point I want to get across, 
however, has to do with new empha- 
sis and positive thinking in industry 
that places medium and long-term 
government business on the same 
basis as commercial business as far 
as plant and equipment are con- 
cerned. When Boeing gets an order 
from TWA for airplanes, they do 
not ask TWA for the facilities to do 
the job. Likewise, when a forging 
company gets an order from a com- 
mercial producer, he knows that he 
must come up with the necessary re- 
sources or forfeit the job. Why should 
similar government business be any 
different? 

The Economics 

offhe 
Big Press 



With respect to the proposed 200,- 
000-ton press, as I have said before, 
this is a prime example of an ad- 
vanced national resource which is 
expected to benefit both defense and 
commercial business. It should have 
a long economic life which would 
permit the amortization of its cost 
over a reasonable period of time En 
accordance with normal accounting 
procedures. There appears to be no 
reason why the risk of such an in- 
vestment cannot be spread sufficient- 
ly in time, and among its direct cus- 
tomers if necessary, so that it can be 
provided without direct government 
support. 

Let's take another look at the eco- 
nomics of this press, estimated to 
cost $60 million. I mentioned earlier 
this year an industry study which in- 
dicated that it could have reduced 
the cost of manufacturing 200 C-5s 
by nearly $70 million. Since the forg- 
ings themselves are estimated, with 
the press, to cost about $11 million, 
this represents a six-fold saving on 
each part forged by the big press, 

Recently I noted an article in which 
it was estimated that there might be 
$30 to $40 million worth of business 
available for such a press each year. 
Thus, assuming' the aforementioned 
six-fold saving:, on an animal volume 
of $35 million, this press will saves 
the customer $210 million. Certainly, 
in my opinion, the company or com- 
panies which provide this kind of 



the end of 19G6, their average depreci- 
ated value of facilities was $480 mil- 
lion, or 2,12 times their average net 
worth of $226 million; their commit- 
ments to additional facilities (exclud- 
ing supersonic transports) averaged 
$544 million or 2.4 times their net 
worth; and their present facilities 
plus commitments averaged 4.5 times 
their net worth. Take some elements 
of the aircraft manufacturing busi- 
ness. Boeing's existing depreciated 
facilities, plus commitments, cur- 
rently exceed its net worth, and this 
does not reflect its commitment, esti- 
mated to be at least $500 million, to 
develop the 747. 



Spreading 
the 
Risk 



Rut let's assume that, all factors 
considered, this press is too much for 
one company. I ask again, what's 
wrong with spreading the risk ami 
forming a consortium or joint enter- 
prises for this purpose. In fact, if 
several companies, rather than only 
one, have an interest in it, there is 
the possibility that its utilization may 
be higher. In any case, I do not itgrca 
that competition for the parts pro- 
duced by the press should inhibit 
nmrmmilps from inn-lino* 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



I see in the big press a striking 
parallel. One of the forging compa- 
nies would finance as much as its cor- 
porate judgment dictated and would 
operate the press. The balance would 
be provided by those companies 
which used its products, and each 
would he entitled to a share of the 
time indicated by the funds thus pro- 
vided. I would expect that the profit 
rate to the forging company, on parts 
produced for customers having a fi- 
nancial interest in the press, would 
reflect the degree to which the 
forger had committed his own funds, 
and I would further expect that the 
forger would pay something to those 
companies if the time spent in pro- 
ducing parts for non-members ex- 
ceeded the forging company's pro 
rata investment. 

In brief, the answer is not, as one 
aerospace executive is reported to 
have said, one of government subsi- 
dies. It is finding a way to avoid gov- 
ernment subsidies. Make no mistake. 
I believe in government subsidies as 
much as anyone, where the national 
need is clear and where there is no 
practicable way in which it can be 
accomplished without subsidy. The 
airlines themselves are a case in 
point. So were the heavy presses of 
the early 1950s. I do not get that 
feeling with respect to the big press. 
So I fail to see, if in fact this press 
will do what industry claims it will 
do, why industry does not finance it. 
And I suggest that the discipline in- 
herent in making a profit is a mar- 
velous arbiter. If, bearing in mind 
the priorities of competing demands 
for capital, there is a profit to be 
made in this press, then it will be 
built. If there is not, then it won't 
be, at least not by private industry. 
And if this turns out to be the case, 
I imagine the Government will find 
little profit in it either. 

Features of 

Private 
Ownership 

There is another wonderful fea- 
ture of the private ownership of pro- 
duction equipment: profit can be es- 
tablished on a basis of efficiency, and 
of 'value to the customer, in a free 
market. When the customer owns 



these facilities, profits are "adminis- 
tered," if you will, and they do not 
accurately measure or reward effi- 
ciency. Further, because of the re- 
duced risk, profits are properly lower 
than in industries where the manu- 
facturer provides the facilities. They 
may even be below the point where 
they provide the wherewithal for re- 
search, for competent personnel, for 
all the other things needed for a 
thriving industry. So we have a 
chicken-and-egg problem. Govern- 
ment furnishing of facilities means 
low profits means government fur- 
nishing of facilities means low pro- 
fits, etc. 

Again I suggest that you get out 
of this rut, just as fast as you can. 
We will all be better off. 

Now I recognize that, if only one 
such large press is built, the com- 
pany owning it will have at least a 
semi-monopoly on these types of 
forgings. Its profits, therefore, may 
be subject to some limitation. And 
although I detest monopoly, the prof- 
it in that case should be adequate to 
reflect the considerable risk involved 
and, as indicated, to assure the re- 
sources for research, for competent 
personnel, and for all the other pre- 
requisites of a healthy industry, 

As a parting thought, I would like 
to touch briefly on some statistics 
that may give you a little different 
insight into that old saw about lack 
of stability in defense business. In 
the years 1961 through 1906, annual 
defense sales of the aerospace indus- 
try remained relatively level in a 
range between $14.6 and $16,8 bil- 
lion. In fact, for the 10 years 1958 
through 1967, such sales have never 
been below $13 billion. This talk 
about instability in governmental 
sales is true only in the context of 
sales above this figure, not below. 
During the same period, incidentally, 
non-defense sales increased from 
$3.6 to $5.8 billion. Relating this to 
your own business, in the years 1964, 
1S65 and 1966, the Forging Industry 
Association reports that about 30 
percent of all forging shipments were 
made to aircraft and parts manufac- 
turers. The next largest user of forg- 
ings was the automotive industry at 
about 20 percent. 

Perhaps there is room for some 
change in the average forger's con- 
cept of the importance of defense 
business in his corporate growth 
plan. 



Army Engineers Launch 

Fight Against Solid 

Waste Pollution 

Of Waterways 

The U.S. Army CovpH of Kii,.,. 
has launched a nation-wit^ ] 
to increase protection of mtv- 
channels from impairment, l.y Illicit 
deposit of industrial waU>H runUmiiNK 
solid materials into nuviffulilf W;I|.T- 
ways. 

Engineer Corps field <tt\wvn hnv.- 
been instructed to sook out vlnlulEi'ii-i 
and apply uniform enforcement ;,liin.t- 
ards aimed at: 

Complete elimination, wlii'iv fi-^ 
ihle, of the discharge nf imliii.irhi! 
wastes that reduce th rti| ..... ily <if 
navigation channels. 

Reimbursement to tho (Juvi'i-is- 
ment by violators for drwUrinjc <'"'*-> 
attributable to deposition of m<lui- 
trial wastes. 

Obtaining agrcemnntH wMh hnlm 
tries that will protect navi};nii<in 
rights and provide foe nmi|ii'iinn1iinj; 
the Government for drcd^in^ i" .H 
where illegal discharge cjmimt *~- 
halted immediately. 

The Army's jurisdiction i:> Ninll-n! 
by Federal statutes to llir impair- 
ment of navigational chunm-l ruiuni;, 1 
caused by suspended Hnlidu in i.inlK- 
trial wastes directly diHclmrifil JIL|<> 
navigable waters. Tin; Onrp.'i Im ' r^ 
authority over impiiirnwiil of MIV!I 
channels caused by refuno intilti-r ll'iv,. 
ing from streets antl smvoi'tt mid j:r: : 
ing into navigable waters in u Hij'ii'l 
state. 

Actions within the Corps' jurini!i>-- 
tion will be taken in coopovidldN vsllh 
the Federal Water Pollution C.iMtr.-li 
Administration (FWPCA), Urn j.lM- 
and other agencies having jurindHi'^ 
over water pollution. Cnrpji fii-M of- 
fices will consult with n-KiHiu-tt 
FWPCA representatives u"hi-iv\-r 
dredging to remove c.haniml-rliwgiiig 
wastes has a water pollution imjurt 
The program will include a milter, 
wide survey to identify 
Also, the Corps' Chicago 
a study under way to develop 
niques and criteria for 
the amount of suspended soli i to 
tained in industrial plant wnal* 1 
charges. 



September 196? 



Colonel James F. Mothersbaugh, USAF (Ret) 



The term "logistics" might be com- 
pared to "iceberg" as to implications. 
In both instances there is much 
more in existence than is readily ap- 
parent. What contribution can logis- 
tics make to a weapon system ? When 
must logistics be considered to enjoy 
alleged benefits of weapon system 
readiness? What can be done to im- 
prove logistics? As a matter of fact, 
would you please define logistics? 
These are the move searching type 
questions received by practicing lo- 
gisticians and those who have re- 
treated to the second line, of offense, 
that of teaching or crusading for 
logistics improvements. 

Since World War II great strides 
have been made in technology ad- 
vancement. Breakthroughs in scien- 
tific as well as fabrication processes 
have placed highly sophisticated and 
correspondingly complex weapon sys- 
tems and countermeasuros within the 
state of the ai't, and many within our 
inventory. Unfortunately, manage- 
ment schools of discipline, the meth- 
ods, procedures and techniques nec- 
essary to acquire and logistically 
support these technological achieve- 
ments have not enjoyed the same de- 
gree of progress. It must also be 
acknowledged that logistic support, 
not enjoying the glamour possessed 
by technology, has not received a 
comparable amount of top manage- 
ment attention, at least not with the 
enthusiasm and perfection of tech- 
nology. 

Many significant changes have oc- 
curred in the concept of weapon sys- 
tem acquisition, i.e., the prototype 
test era (fly before you buy), the 
concurrency concept (buy before you 
fly), the four-step life cycle condi- 
tional descision procedure and, more 
recently, the total package procure- 
ment with its attendant Government- 
contractor "disengagement" policy, 
all of which have required significant 
reaction from logistic support func- 
tions in order to fulfill the in-service 
support mission, Many incremental, 



improvised, and sometime frantic 
stop-gap measures have been imple- 
mented by functional logistic support 
agencies to accommodate these radi- 
cal new approaches to acquiring- the 
best performing weapon system, at 
the most economic cost, within the 
time period it could be effective. 

Logistic management personnel 
and top defense planners might well 
be criticized for not having devoted 
move research and development em- 
phasis to the logistic planning and 
support function, to have ensured a 
comparable basis for logistic action 
rather than reaction, to accommo- 
date these new acquisition concepts. 
If improvements in logistical capabil- 
ities are to keep abreast of acquisition 
and operational needs, it becomes 
necessary that top level manage- 
ment planners and decision mnk- 




Colonel James F, Mothers nan gli, 
USAF (Ret.), is serving as a con- 
sultant to the Defense Weapon Sys- 
tems Management Center, Wright- 
Patterson AFB, Ohio. His last two 
assignments prior to retirement from 
the Air Force were Deputy Director 
of Logistics for the 11-70 and B-58 
Programs, ami Chief of the Logistics 
Department at the Defense Weapon 
Systems Management Center, 



era, in other than the logistics field, 
know the functions and elements com- 
prising* logistics, and lend their sup- 
port to the logistic cause during the 
analysis, review and decision-making 
process. This article will attempt to 
identify the functions involved in 
logistics, some of the significant ele- 
ments worthy of intensified manage- 
ment attention within those functions 
and, hopefully, provide an apprecia- 
tion of the need for and the scope o.f 
logistic involveinent early and con- 
tinuously in the weapon system acqui- 
sition process. 



Definitions 



Maybe a good place to start the 
discussion is in regard to some of 
those latent entities that lurk in tho 
filmy shadows of tho all embracing 
term, "logistics." Logistics could ho 
defined as: 

The planning and acquisition 
from initial concent for the serv- 
ices necessary on hardware nml 
software to attain and sustain ti 
specific support requirement m- 
need. 

There are no formal institutions or 
Service schools that graduate a logis- 
tic! an, with n n nH fieri ii on ci-ndnnl 1:1 ] 
entitling M 
f 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



pole in the weapon system tent that 
would dictate the combat readiness 
date of the system, if not its actual 
_. activation date. 

While there may be many defini- 
tions of logistics, program/project 
management logistics is a composite 
of several functional disciplines fa- 
miliar to most everyone associated 
with the Military Services and can 
be identified as: maintenance, supply, 
procurement, transportation, person- 
nel, facilities and their attendant 
reporting- and documentation method- 
ologies. Under these functional disci- 
plines will be further identifications 
of elements and tasks that collective- 
ly fulfill the complete logistic re- 
quirement of an individual weapon 
or support system, e.g., provisioning 
of spare components and repair parts, 
source coding of reparable items and 
levels of repair authorized, common 
item support, technical orders, high- 
value item identification and control, 
ground support equipment, material 
improvements, packing, preservation, 
warehousing, inspection, servicing, 
skill requirements, training devices 
and curriculum, manning quantities, 
etc. 

Within the functions, elements and 
tasks of the total logistic require- 
ment and its progression from con- 
cept formulation to phase-out from 
the inventory, there are actions which 
can proceed in parallel, and those that 
must suffer the dependency of series 
progress subsequent to some particu- 
lar action completion, Something com- 
mon to all of these ultimate actions is 
their need for early planning consid- 
erations, and progressive refinement to 
further define more specifically logis- 
tics requirements as visibility im- 
proves further down the weapon sys- 
tem life cycle. 

Let us review some of the more im- 
portant logistics functions starting 
with the most vital one, maintenance. 
Our review will not be in compari- 
son of cost, importance of precise 
planning and control to assure the 
composite product will make its 
appearance on a predetermined "need 
date," nor the degree of time, effort, 
energy, or brains necessary to attain 
that remarkable achievement. Rather, 
it will be from the point of view that 
maintenance is the fusion point of all 
those endeavors. A deficiency in any 
one of the contributory functions, ele- 
ments, or tasks we will discuss, 



whether within the logistics realm or 
external to that function, will require 
maintenance to brace itself for the 
inevitable bow wave that is headed its 
way. 



Maintenance 



Assume, momentarily, that main- 
tenance is the dependent function 
within logistics, that all other logis- 
tic functions, elements and tasks are 
dressed upon for time-on- target fu- 
sion of their action inputs. Then let 
us delay, temporarily, further discus- 
sion of other logistic items, in order 
to address ourselves to the time se- 
quencing of the weapon system ac- 
quisition cycle that must first con- 
sider this maintenance function. 
Concept formulation is generally the 
earliest planning phase of concern to 
weapon system managers. 

Concept formulation addresses it- 
self to feasibility and cost-effective- 
ness studies of various approaches 
to fulfill a stated military require- 
ment and, possibly, weapon and sub- 
system analysis studies, the ultimate 
objective of which is fundamentally 
two-fold : first, to select the best mix 
of system feasibility approaches in 
or within development capability 
and, secondly, to provide a basis of 
conditional decision to establish a 
program baseline configuration in 
order to proceed into engineering or 
operational system development 
in the contract definition phase. 

The extent of logistical elements 
input appropriate for feasibility con- 
sideration in this early life cycle 
phase is proportional to, and some- 
what dependent upon, the state of the 
art, or the degree of development 
yet required on the basic weapon sys- 
tem. For example, a new cargo 
aircraft would include concept, feasi- 
bility, and specific itemized require- 
ments in considerable detail on most 
logistic functions and elements, be- 
cause previous similar systems could 
provide specification data for re- 
quirements, identification and anal- 
ysis purposes. On the other hand, 
maintenance of a space rendezvous 
station would require extensive de- 
velopment action, spawning a multi- 
tude of logistic problems not previ- 
ously encountered and for which no, 



or possibly only limited, test alrmiln- 
tion experience data was avuihihlo. 
Under the latter condition, the mini- 
mum logistical ingredient csBfiiitJiil 
would be a maintenance concept, 
upon which ultimately could t>u fm ' 
stnicted the other functions and ele- 
ments of logistics requirements. As 
progress continues clown thn lift- r y- 
cle, succeeding actions En Io ff jMir* 
can and must become more upwific 
and detailed. 

The development and prodiiuUwi 
baselines are the flood gal in ttn> 
weapon system life cycle thnt unfold 
a multitude of complex and intrr- 
meshed logistic actions. The illumi- 
nance concept established in tlin von- 
cept formulation phase imi.sl identify 
whether conventional metlimls of 
maintenance will be employed, r if 
development of a new cunnliitity is 
required. Specific requirement 
be stated such as: 

Turn-around time for 
of the weapon system, and/or Un- 
readiness rates expected, Thin foulil 
measure the supportability and inniii- 
tainability characteristics of Uin t-m] 
article, 

Utilization rates proj^rl^l 
could quantify the minimum UHG lev- 
els, with factors to connidiM 1 fur in 
creased utilization which would ulJmv 
tactical flexibility and growth fur 
new targeting and mission 

ments. 

Fall-out rate of the mid 
could be used to measure UK- 
of use on readiness and 
attainment. 

"Manhours per flying or rcnili- 
ness hour" being a mcanuri'ini'iil i>f 
operational costs of maintenance nt 
a specified use or rate level, nt n 
given mean-time-to-repair ( MTTH ) 
and mean- time-between-f ailure (M- 
TBP). 

The foregoing requirements ar llic 
most significant con side ration H for 
total logistic weapon system m^as- 
urement, Some other subordinate fac- 
tors for cost-effectiveness and Inwto- 
off consideration are: 

Maintainability expressed in 
maintenance manhours per flyinjf or 
readiness hour for subsystems nnd 
select components. 

Mean-time-to-repair of tlio Biih- 
systems and select components nnd 
accessibility thereto within tho wrap- 
on system itself. 



amber 1967 



Reliability stipulations ex- 
pressed ni mean-time-between failure 
of the subsystems and their major 
components. J 

Maintenance personnel basic 
knowledge prerequisites prior to spe- 
cialized training. l 

Specialized training 



test equipment, 
s f repair parts f 

XS r t c ;'ir ** * ^lunr^"'- 1 ^ 



quantitatively, in 
For Proposal 



' Klltln 



and 



the more detailed minnr 

upport Plan must be documented' h 
the early part of the weapon 
life cycle. Immediately uno 

award ' t!l e item cominnrlHv 
actions are execute thn "-"""nociity managers 

r^e to theae '^00 n^'-^ S . UPP rt P ' a "- '"' 
nencc ^provisioning actions that 
d cctly result in hardware pj 



fun a t , ners 

such as the maintenance concent 
should have the inputs of the .',' 
Service" maintenance 



purposes. 






analysis and decfaio ma 






-- >"-oi \rn y(-r,_ wi rki rtf.*^-. 

asm 



Supply Function 






-- 



usi , 1K 



;ream 

as 



, -- 

J 0ff , at ,c function 



action is vital n 
ultimate maintenance capabi itv 
Pl>on of tho combat 



event ju.st .toflnod. 
conc.pt formulation 



echelons 



conce , )t 
must be 



wi h 
* h 



A , most effective method 

logistic support to a 

m is by 



t c()!i 
end item must 






ev S or ' f M ; 
levels of stocs projected to 

system reading., w ill 
upon H item/commodity 



on 



or placement 

f ? man 

Wl 

manager offl ce staff 

tature( 

voice, many elements of logistics 
be delegated "out of sight" tv- 







and by wnom. The overall reliabilit-y 
of the weapon system, its sub syst em" 
and components muat then * e B 
dressed to that requirement Main- 
tainability to those reli bTf- 
quirements must conside^ an7 P .~ 
i the- tools, ground 



Initial identification and purchase 
j-eprocurement data i a a wiTtf 
times to reprocure are to ' be 
to a minimum, and 
we to enjoy con%umti< 
Further, advantages of 
contract reprocurement cannot be 

S 01 ^' J ^' * data. 
agencies 



stability. 



sponsible for weapon system and in- 
itial provisioning procurement. Sub- 
sequently, however, re procurement of 
support items are the item/commodity 
managers' responsibility. The time 
period in which they pick up that 
responsibility varies within the De- 
partments. While planning for the i-e- 
procurement activity should lie consid- 
ered early in the weapon system life 
cycle, normally the action does not 
physically take place until well into 
the acquisition phase. Predominantly, 
roprocurement actions are taken sub- 
sequent to testing and after the be- 
ginning of the operational phase. 
Long lead time items are exceptions 
to this policy. Initial test support 
table lists are purified and, hopefully, 
testing progression 1ms begun to 
stabilize configuration and qualify 
subsystems, and components. 



Personnel Considerations 



Another important link in the lo- 
gistic chain is the personnel require- 
ments. From the logistical point of 
view it must include the human, ma- 
chine, environment relationships in 
determining total requirements. All 
too often, the training devices neces- 
sary to prepare the operators and 
maintenance personnel for military 
weapon systems have not been timely, 
have not been configured like the ul- 
timate end item, and have not done 
the job of training those initial crews 
prior to tactical performance. 

With the advent of modern tech- 
nology, weapon systems have become 
highly complex. Determination must 
be marie concerning what basic educa- 
tional qualifications are necessary, 
the skill level requirement to per- 
form various levels of maintenance 
support tasks, the quantities of those 
skills and personnel needed, curricu- 
lum courses to achieve that knowl- 
edge level, and the training devices 
necessary to transfer and demon- 
strate that performance .level knowl- 
edge. The lead times involved in re- 
view and analysis to achieve that 
capability have many dependent var- 
iables fraught with delay hazards. 
Objective milestoning, with unrelent- 
ing management attention for prog- 
ress, is the only method of achieving 
an adequate training posture by the 
weapon system need date, which is 



normally 90 to 120 days prior to tac- 
tical activation date. 



Transportation Facilities 



Transportation and facility re- 
quirements are two functional cate- 
gories of logistic ingredients vital to 
weapon system readiness and opera- 
tional flexibility. Both of these weap- 
on system support prerequisites in- 
volve long lead time budget planning, 
and are dependent upon the mainte- 
nance, supply and operational con- 
cepts. 

These two functions have tradi- 
tionally responded to the need so con- 
sistently that there is a tendency to 
"take for granted" their support, 
without deliberately defining and pro- 
jecting qualitative and quantitative 
requirements in these functional 
areas. Premium transportation to 
and from a central repair site, or 
issue from a central storage site, 
might well be offset cost-wise by the 
reduction of high value compo- 
nents required for a disbursed inven- 
tory, while enjoying an improved 
availability effectiveness as well. 
Correspondingly, mobile support 
teams might satisfy an operational 
deployment mobility requirement, 
while simultaneously fulfilling a fa- 
cility requirement as well. As an ex- 
ample, jet engine test cells were ini- 
tially a semi-permanent facility as 
were aircraft weighing scales. Both 
are now highly portable and mobile. 
Early planning and definition of re- 
quirements will allow these two vital 
functions to act, rather than react to 
a weapon systems need. 



Technical Data 



Throughout the functions, ele- 
ments and tasks involving logistics 
flows the life blood of a sustained 
support capability, technical data. 
This includes technical orders, draw- 
ings, aperture cards, microfilms, relia- 
bility and maintainability factors, de- 
ficiency reporting, and all other data 
required to operate and maintain 
the weapon system and its support 
equipment at a high operational read- 
iness state. Fund estimating tech- 



niques are at best vague, in the rally 
concept formulation feasibility study 
time period for this vital ingredient, 
However, during contract definition, 
qualitative and quantitative require- 
ments can be defined and stated in 
the RPP. The requirements should 
identify specific type and format of 
data desired, as there are excrssivo 
costs involved in certain typos of for- 
mat, even though all are accnptalili* 
under DOD policy guidance, donnul- 
ing on the specific need. 



Contractor Support 



A final function, not to bn forgot- 
ten, is contractor support. Thc> i-nn- 
cept formulation studies should iden- 
tify to what extent contractor Hup- 
port is to be required. AU Militury 
Departments employ .such support li 
at least a limited degree, .Siin<' 
weapon systems elect to uwt it ex- 
tensively, and for an extended \wi-\n\ 
of time down the operational lifr 
cycle until design stability and m 1 - 
ganic capabilities are achieved. Re- 
gardless of the planned UHI>, nurh 
facts are identifiable early iiml 
should materialize as specific roi|uiiv- 
ments upon which costs and work- 
breakout tasks can be associated for 
proposal response. 



Applying the Plan 



The logistic support plan in (in 
tially executed within approxhnnU-ly 
10 to 45 days after contract Hijjua- 
ture. Provisioning actions #l under 
way, and procurement of initial sup- 
port and follow-on reprocurnnirut 
support commitment obligation mv 
formulated. Test support tahlw ait 1 
exercised and progressively r( i flnr>il 
to purify follow-on reprocuri'iin-ul, 
as configuration of the weapon ay*- 
tern stabilizes. Many factors, oiilsuUj 
of the logistic sphere, influence! nt- 
taining and sustaining that fully 
equipped, combat ready weapon jiyr.- 
tem status envisioned by all. 

Let us look at a couple of llm mow -, 
influential factors; first, changes, For- 
mal change control discipline ilcn-s 
not really come to bear until thn pro- 
duction baseline configuration Inw 



Jfl 



September 1967 



been established, and the require- 
ments of ANA Bulletin 445 apply. 
Once this point has been reached in 
the acquisition cycle, logisticians must 
consider and commit their activities 
to each change considering the im- 
pact involved in funds, materiel, 
schedule, and their ability to support 
the influencing requirement generat- 
ing the change. These changes can 
be far-reaching, e.g., the plan for a 
strategic, high-altitude bomber, for 
tactical reasons, being changed to 
a low-level, all-weather strike capa- 
bility; the straight deck aircraft 
carrier, whose capability to support 
combat operations was enhanced by 
addition of the canted deck; the artil- 
lery piece and its awesome capability 
improvement through adaptability to 
the use of atomic munitions. 

In each case cited, the changes had 
something in common. Each was mon- 
umental in its impact on the logistics 
functions of maintenance, supply, 
personnel, transportation, facilities 
and technical data, as well as the ele- 
ments and tasks subordinate to those 
functions. Extensive provisioning re- 
views were necessary. Personnel 
training, skills, numbers of person- 
nel, human factors and training de- 
vices were involved. New tools, test- 
ing, and repair procedures required 
changed original needs, and probably 
rendered most of those original needs 
either obsolete or subject to retrofit 
modifications. It is difficult for one, 
who has an appreciation of the lo- 
gistic tasks involved, to envision how 
timely and adequate support came to 
pass in the actual examples refer- 
enced. This is because logistics is not 
yet a science. 

A second influential factor is ma- 
teriel deficiency reporting which gen- 
erates mservice modification changes. 
It generates data for analysis con- 
sidering systems and components that 
are high maintenance manhour con- 
sumers, and those causing excessive 
weapon system down time, increased 
overhaul requirements with related 
spares consumption, mission aborts, 
etc. This type of a reporting system 
is employed by all of the Military 
Departments. It provides the media 
for improved reliability and overall 
product improvement needed in sup- 
port of weapon systems, by reuse of 
the reliable subsystems and compo- 
nents in future weapon systems, where 
practical, and non-use or redesign of 
the unreliable items. 



Logistics Support 



From a logistic support view, 
herein lies a great potential yet un- 
tapped for improved and more effec- 
tive support, at reduced costs across 
the hoard, in the logistic functions, 
elements and tasks. In-Service engi- 
neers, in coordination with design 
engineers, could, if properly moti- 
vated by upper echelons of manage- 
ment, achieve meaningful weapon 
system support improvements in ini- 
tial design through analysis and appli- 
cation of this available data. Using 
a qualified item has its attendant sav- 
ings in design costs, technical data, 
in-being repair capability, mainte- 
nance learning curve established, 
supply channels stabilized, training 
courses ami personnel skill require- 
ments determined, etc., not to men- 
tion a known proven reliability 
factor. 

Concurrent with this effort is the 
need for in- Service engineering con- 
siderations during design for main- 
tainability requirements concerning 
man-machine relationships, e.g., com- 
posite grouping within a weapon sys- 
tem of munitions, hydraulic, electri- 
cal, pneumatic and other subsystem- 
related components, rather than 
space available placement. This 
would allow full, simultaneous main- 
tenance personnel saturation for turn 
around or re-launch. Also of impor- 
tance is the consideration for natural 
body movements and positions of the 
maintenance technicians during the 
act of accomplishing a maintenance 
task, i.e., standing- on the floor or 
deck rather than on a maintenance 
stand or reaching hack into an inac- 
cessible crevice. Use of stand art 1 
tools rather than special tools is an- 
other important factor in reducing 
the quantity of inventory items re- 
quired. 

Thirdly, all of the Military De- 
partments have a functional method 
of doing logistical business. Deter- 
mination of respective requirements 
of those various logistic functions, 
their time-phasing requirements and 
shifting of charter responsibilities 
during weapon system life cycle pro- 
gression is a highly intricate process. 
Currently, there is no one central 
staff agency within the project/pro- 
gram managers organization, which 



is responsible for correlating this 
massive, complex, costly and vital 
effort into a fused, thne-on-target 
realisation. This void in our man- 
agement scheme to acquire weapon 
systems is directly opposed to the 
concept of management by ex- 
ception, unless of course one wants 
to believe no problem exists in plan- 
ning and acquiring" logistic support 
of our weapon systems and related 
equipment. The diversified functions 
and fragmented organisations, chart- 
ed to exercise control of logistics sup- 
port to program/project manage- 
ment, has many built-in cracks into 
which delegated and redelcgated lo- 
gistic tasks can fall. The pro- 
gram/project management oflice needs 
a staff agency responsibl e to its 
director .for all logistics requirements 
of bis program/project. It would be 
responsible for blending the in-Serv- 
ice/development engineering design 
into the best performance/maintain- 
ability configuration trade-oft", and for 
meshing all the logistic functions, 
elements and tasks into hardware, 
software and services on a pro-deter- 
mined "need date" basis. 

Significant byproduct benefits would 
be accrued by this management ap- 
plication: 

The principle of intensifying 

management where a significant 
monetary and efl'otivcneRS improve- 
ment potential exists for the efl'ort 
and cost outlay to attain that im- 
provement, 

O A centralized control of logis- 
tic rnquirementK anil input to the 
total weapon system, rather than the 
fragmented, tunncliKod achievement 
now being experienced. 

Professionalism would bo re- 
leased, the engineers for doing engi- 
neering and the logistician to apply his 
talents toward needs for which cur- 
rently many design engineering 
hours arc being consumed, trying to 
fulfill what is believed to he valid 
logistic requirements. 

Establish the baseline for initial 
functional inputs of all logistical 
agencies, serve as the cornerstone 
upon which to base the; operational 
planning, and provide continuity sub- 
sequent to transit! oning of the weap- 
on system from program/project to 
functional type management. 

Provide the logisttcmn with the 
stature, prestige and responsibility 
commensurate with his government, 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



29 



military anil commerdal counter- 
part.-, ii I'oMriitloi-Ltion which is long 
p;i.-t ovcnJuc if eo.st, schedule and 
jit.rfurmance aiv to bo the true oh- 
j.Tti'.Y^ in program/project manage- 

Lo^'istics, to bo sure, will for a 
(.'msiiierable time period remain an 
art ruthcr than a science. However, 
further uso of available niiinagement 
[ii'incii/le.s and disciplines could im- 
prove "its effectiveness considerably, 
wlu'ti they are applied against spe- 
cific* such as the monetary, stature 
ami responsibilities referenced previ- 
ously. An all-out research effort is 
iK-f-dcil to identify additional logistic 
ivqui r^mi-nts reducible to factors that 
are computer digestible. Research ef- 
forts in the use of computers to serve 
logistics should be intensified; espe- 
dally in cost estimation and early 
planning and requirements determina- 
tion phase, because it is here the sup- 
port costs might well decide which 
weapon system or which concept of 
support is acceptable within certain 
time anil dollar constraints. 

For years to come, much profes- 
sional guessing will still be involved 
in estimating logistic requirements 
across thf> board. Some of these esti- 
mates will he good and some bad, 
with costs ami schedules probably be- 
ing the most nebulous. Regardless of 
what is done to improve the logistic 
posture, the job will get done in the 
future just as it has in the past, but 
the accomplishment story does not 
stop there. While we like to think we 
live in a mechanical computerized 
age of pushbutton capability, if we 
eliminate the human determination to 
get the jo!) done regardless or in spite 
of conditions our electronic, automatic, 
scientific management bubbles would 
undoubtedly burst. That is not to say 
management planning, control and di- 
rection are not necessary but, hope- 
fully, it is to identify to management 
at all levels that their decisions have 
far-reaching effects on the logistic en- 
velope. They should demand exhaus- 
tive logistic inputs to all plans and 
deliberations, with detailed considera- 
tion of impacts to logistic and com- 
mitments as to acceptability of those 
impacts by a responsible designated 
logistician. If this is not done, the 
logistic requirement you don't foretell 
will surface downstream and cost like 
hell, in dollara, schedule and combat 
readiness of our weapon systems. 



References 



Johnson, Richard Arvid. "The The- 
ory and Management of Systems," 
McGraw-Hill, 1963. 

Conference on Computer Simula- 
tion, University of California, Los 
Angeles. "Symposium on Simulation 
Models," "Methodology and Applica- 
tions to the Behavioral Sciences," 
Southwestern Publishing Co., 1961. 

Ohio State University Defense 
Management Center. "Quantitative 
Models in Cost -Effectiveness Studies 
for Project Managers." 



ABOUT PEOPIE 

(Continued from -page 19) 

ier, Commandant of the Fourteenth 
Naval Dist., and Commander, Pearl 
Harbor Naval Ease. 

RAdm, Eli T. Reich has been as- 
signed as Asst. Dep. Chief of Naval 
Operations (Logistics). 

RAdm. Stephen Sherwood has as- 
sumed command of the Naval Sup- 
ply Center, San Diego, Calif, reliev- 
ing RAdm. Leland P. Kimball. 

Dr. Donald Ross has been appointed 
as Associate Technical Dir. and Head 
of the Acoustics and Vibration Lab- 
oratory, Naval Ship Research and 
Development Center, Washington, D.C. 

Harvey L. Ciipp has been named 
Superintendent of the Aircraft, Weap- 
ons, and Ship Div., Engineering Dep. 
(Ship Installations), Naval Air En- 
gineering Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 

The following captain assignments 
have been announced by the Bureau 
of Personnel: 

Capt. Robert R. Crutchficld, Aast. 
Chief of Naval Personnel (Plans and 
Programs); Capt. Jerome J. Schecla, 
(SC), Commanding Officer, Naval 
Supply Center, Pearl Harbor, Ha- 
waii; Capt. Howard F. Curnm (CEC), 
Commanding Officer, Chesapeake Div., 
Naval Facilities Engineering Com- 
mand, Washington B.C.; Capt. Oscar 
P, Dreyer, Commanding Officer, Mis- 
sile Engineering Station; Port Huen- 
eme, Calif.; Capt. William M. Gus- 
tafson, (CEC), Commanding Officer, 
Gulf Div., Naval Facilities Engineer- 
ing Command, New Orleans, La.; 
Capt. W. A. Hopkins, Commanding 
Officer, Naval Air Engineering Cen- 
ter, Philadelphia, Pa.; Capt. George 

officer, 



Naval Ordnance Missile Test Facil- 
ity, White Sands Missile Range, N.M.; 
Capt. Charles R. Lee, Dir. of Sup- 
ply, Naval Weapons Center, China 
Lake, Calif.; Capt. Roland Ricvc 
(SC), Dep. Commander (Planning & 
Policy), Naval Supply Systems Com- 
mand; and Capt, Edward M. Sand- 
ers, Assfc. Commander (Research and 
Development), Naval Facilities En- 
gineer Command Hen dqu artery, 
Washington, D.C. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE 
AIR FORCE 

Norman S. Paul, Under Kocrdary 
of the Air Force, has announced his 
resignation to become effective Hirpl. 
30, 1907. The President hns nomi- 
nated Townsend lloopes, Prinripid 
Dep. Asst. Secretary of DufciiHfi (In- 
ternational Security Affairs), to be 
Mr. Paul's successor. 

Maj. Gen. Don Couplniul, has licni 
assigned as Assistant to the Cnmp- 
trollor of the Air Force. Britf. (ion. 
George K Brown relieves Gen. Coup- 
land aa Auditor General, in thf! Of- 
fice of the Air Force Comptroller, 

Maj. Gen. Donald W. Grnliaiu, liiu 
been assigned us Dir., Muintonancti 
Engineering, Air Force Logistic 1 * 
Command Homlqimrtei'H, Wright- 
Patterson AFH, Ohio. 

The following assignments linvr 
been made in the Air Forces Kywlrins 
Command : 

Brig. Gen. Harold C. TiMilJiu'r, Drji. 
Chief of Staff, (Comptroller), Hi], 
AFSC, Andrews AFH, Md.; Dr. Alan 
M. Lovelace, Dir., Air Force Matr- 
rials Laboratory, W right- PaUrruon 
AFB, Ohio; Col. Geoffrey Clicmllc, 
Director of Information, Ilq, AFHCj 
Col. M. A. Cristndoro, Dop. for En- 
gineering, Aeronautical 8ynlcmn l)iv. h 
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio; t'ol 
Robert W. DickcrHon, Dei), for Com- 
munications, Electronic Systems Div., 
L. G. Hnnscom Field, MUSH.; Col. 
Robert A. Duffy, Dep. for Ro-Bnky 
Systems, Space and Missile System* 
Organization, Los Anjrolcn, Calif.; 
Col. Roy E. Guy, Dep. Dm, Policy 
and Concepts Planning Ilq, AFSC: 
Col. Robert D. Hiupert, System Pro- 
gram Dir., Advanced Manned Strate- 
gic Aircraft, Aeronautical Syflloiias 
Div.; Col. T. A. Rcdfichl, Track Direc- 
tor, Holloman APR, N.M,; and Col. 
Lee R. Standifcr, Director, Technol- 
ogy and Subsystems, Foreign Tech- 
nology Div., Wright-Patterson AFR 
Ohio. 



September 1967 





RESEARCH REPORTS 



Authorized DOD contractors and 
grantees may obtain these docu- 
ments without charge from: 

Defense Documentation Center 

Cameron Station 

Alexandria, Va. 22314 

Others may purchase these docu- 
ments at the price indicated from: 

Clearinghouse for Federal and 
Scientific Information 

Department of Commerce 

Springfield, Va. 22151 



Micrography of Tubular-Type Bat- 
tery Plates. Naval Research Lab., 
Washington, D.C., Oct. 1966, 29 p. 
Order No. AD-643 760. $3. 

High Rate Batteries. Naval Re- 
search Lab., Washington, D.C., Sept. 
1966, 22 p. Order No. AD-645 942. $3. 
Evaluation of Rechargeable Lith- 
ium-Copper Chloride Organic Electro- 
lyte Battery System. Mallory and Co., 
Burlington, Mass., for the Army, 
Sept. 1966, 80 p. Order No. AD-G43 
378. $3. 

Optimum Electrode Cavities for 
Thermionic Energy Converters. 
Thermo Electron Engineering- Corp., 
Waltham, Mass., for the Air Force, 
Aug. 1966, 89 p. Order No. AD-641 
432, $3. 

Gas Chroma tographic Analysis of 
the Pyrolysis Products of Organic Ma- 
terials, Rock Island Arsenal, Army 
Weapons Command, Rock Island, 111., 
Oct. 1966, 19 p. Order No. AD-644 
C48. $3. 

Notched Properties of High- 
Strength Alloys at Various Load 
Rates and Temperatures. Army Mate- 
rials Research Agency, Watertown, 
Mass., July 1966, 26 p. Order No. 
AD-647 884, $3. 

Preparation of Thin Foils for Elec- 
tron Microscopy by ti Rotating Poly- 
tetrafluoroethylene Holder, Navy Ma- 
rine Engineering Lab., Annapolis, 
Md., Feb. 1967, 17 p. Order No. AD- 
647 133. $3. 

The Present Status of Chemical Re- 
search in Atmosphere Purification and 
Control on Nuclear-powered Subma- 
rines. Naval Research Lab., Washing- 
ton, D.C., Jan. 1967, 60 p. Order No. 
AD-648 505. $3, 



Development of Equipment and 
Techniques for Complex Fatigue 
Loading. Aeroprojects, Inc., West 
Chester, Pa,, for the Army, Dec. 196G, 
76 p. Order No. AD-64G 647. $3. 

Ultrasonic Spectroscopy. Army Ma- 
terials Research Agency, Watertown, 
Mass., Dec. 1966, 19 p. Order No. 
AD-647 918. $3. 

A Report Guide to Ultrasonic Test- 
ing Literature, Vol. III. Army Mate- 
rials Research Agency, Watertown, 
Mass., Dec. 1966, 85 p. Order No. AD- 
648 90B. $3. 

Method 1 for Extension of Dielectric 
Constant and Loss Measurements of 
Liquids to IflOMHz with a Fixed- 
Geometry Sample Holder. Harry Dia- 
mond Laboratories, Washing-ton, D.C., 
for the Army, Nov. 1066, 30 p. Order 
No. AD-646 655. $3. 

Determination of Carbon Black in 
High Gloss Enamels and Lacquers. 
Army Coating & Chemical Lab., 
Aberdeen Proving- Ground, Md., Nov. 
1966, 12 p. Order No. AD-64G 381. 
$3. 

Use of Thin-Layer Chromatography 
(TLC) for Identification of Aircraft 
Engine Oil Components. Naval Re- 
search Lab., Washington, D.C,, Nov. 
1966, 16 p. Order No. AD-G4G 699, $3. 
Manual for the Use of the Uni- 
versal Stage in Optical Crystallog- 
raphy. Naval Propellant Plant, Indian 
Hood, Md., July 1906, 76 p. Order No. 
AD-801 791. $3, 

Measurement of Gas Density by 
Electron Scattering. Arnold Engineer- 
ing Development Center, Arnold Air 
Force Station, Tenn., Feb. 1967, 113 
p. Order No. AD-64G 6DO. $3. 

Progress in Air Cushion Vehicles. 
David Taylor Model Basin, Washing- 
ton, D.C., Oct. 1066, 60 p. Order No. 
AD-646 607. $3. 

Development Design Methods for 
Predicting Hypersonic Aerodynamic 
Control Characteristics. Lockheed- 
California Co., Burbank, Calif., for 
the Air Force, Sept. 1966, '268 p. 
Order No. AD-G44 261. $3. 

Proceedings of Seminar on Theo- 
retical Inviscid Fluid Mechanics. 
Naval rdnance Lab., White Oak, 
Md., Sept 1966, 122 p. Order No. 
AD-6427Y1. $3. 

The Synthesis and Characterization 
of Spiro Polymers, Naval Ordnance 



Lab., White Oak, Md., Sept. 19G6 ; 
35 p. Order No. AD-641 873. $3. 

Dry-Packed Beds for the Removal 
of Strong-Acid Gases from Recycled 
Atmospheres. Naval Research Lab., 
Washington, D.C., Aug. 1966, 13 p. 
Order No. AD-642 274. $3. 

Ferrocene and Ferrocene Deriva- 
tives. Redstone Scientific Information 
Center, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, 
Ala., Sept. 1966, 425 p. Order No. 
AD-645 876. $3. 

Eigtheeiith Materials Review. 
Chemical Research and Development 
Labs., Edge wood Arsenal, Md., Dec. 
1965, 76 p. Order No. AD-474 9fi6. $3. 

DEFENSE PROCUREMENT 
CIRCULARS 



Distribution is made auto- 
matically by the U.S. Govern- 
ment Printing Office to sub- 
scribers of the Armed Service 
Procurement Regulation, 



Defense Procurement Circular No. 
54, June 26, 19G7. (1) Establishment 
of CWAS Coordinating Group. (2) 
Material Inspection and Receiving 
Report Clause. (3) Procurement 
Management Reporting Syatem, Sec- 
tion XXI, Parts 1 and 2. (4) Organi- 
zational Conflicts of Interest. (B) 
Foreign Purchases, Duty and Customs, 
(6) Accident Prevention Clauso 
ASPR 7-602.42(a). (7) Property 
Administration. 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING 
OFFICE PUBLICATIONS 



These publications may be 
purchased at the prices indi- 
cated from: U.S. Government 
Printing Office, Washington, 
D.C. 20402, 



U. S. Government Organization 
Manual, 19G7-1968. Described the cre- 
ation and authority, organization, 
and functions of the agencies in the 
legislative, judicial, and executive 
branches, Catolog No. GS 4,109:967. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



31 



Major General Wendell E. Carter, USAF 



Jljarly in 1961 the Secretary of De- 
fHi*> reconnUed the need to manage 
the vat-t defense effort in terms of 
iniiin program entities, i.e., "output," 
a^omtins each "output" with all of 
the resource "inputs," regardless of 
Congressional appropriations used to 
fund these resources. Such an asso- 
ciation of total resource requirements, 
with a given program under consid- 
eration, permits the performance of 
cost-effectiveness analysis (or cost- 
kmeiit or resource analysis) which, 
in turn, sharpens the judgment of 
and aids the decision maker. These 
considerations, among others, pointed 
to the need of bridging the established 
planning function, performed in 
terms of "output," with the budget 
function performed in terms of "in- 
puts." 

The application of resource analy- 
sis has been broadened to go far be- 
yond the military. The President's 
memorandum to the Cabinet in August 
19G5 and the implementing Bureau 
of the Budget Bulletin 66-3 estab- 
lished, throughout the Executive 
Branch of the Government, a Plan- 
n ing-pro Cramming-budgeting system 
incorporating the most modem man- 
agement techniques now used in Gov- 
ernment and industry. 

The application of resource analy- 
sis is not limited to government de- 
partments. Indeed most large indus- 
trial concerns and the rapidly 
expanding research community have 
applied such techniques for many 
years to choose among risks, effec- 
tiveness and costs. Senator Hugh 
Scott (R,-Pa.) introduced a bill in 
the 89th Congress, and re-introduced 
it in the 90th Congress, proposing 
that the President appoint a national 
commission "to study and recom- 
mend the manner in which modern 
systems analysis and management 



techniques may be utilized to resolve 
national and community problems in 
the non-defense section." 

In most of the extensive discus- 
sions of systems analysis as a tech- 
nique for laying out the facts for the 
decision maker, there has been gen- 
erally an implicit assumption that 
the "cost" side of cost/effectiveness 
analysis is easily produced, and that 
the major problem is measuring ef- 
fectiveness satisfactorily. I agree 
with the latter point, but believe it is 
time to emphasize equally the prob- 
lems of good cost or resource analy- 
sis. Good resource analysis depends 
on three factors: good methods, good 
data and good people. 

With the advent of the computer 
the importance of good methods and 
good data received considerable at- 
tention. To date, however, relatively 
little has been said about increasing 
the quality of the most important of 
the three resources, namely, people. 

This article addresses itself to this 
question of improving the quality 
among these personnel and in the 
profession as a whole. 



I 



t would seem apparent that there 
is a fundamental requirement for 
professionalism in all areas support- 
ing decisions with such significant 
implications as our national security. 
As application of systems analysis 
techniques is extended throughout 
activities of the Federal Government, 
to many state and local governments, 
and to the private sector of the econ- 
omy, it becomes obvious that there 
is an urgent and increasing need for 
professionalism among all who are 
performing cost analysis/cost effec- 
tiveness analysis as elements of sys- 
tems analysis. 



There arc many definitions of pro- 
fessionalism. I will state tho, one thnt 
best expresses the thought I wish to 
leave. By professionalism I mean "n 
calling which requires speciali^d 
knowledge and often long ami inten- 
sive preparation, including instruc- 
tion in skills and methods as well as 
the scientific, historical, or scholarly 
principles underlying such skills and 
methods; commits its members to 
continued study and to a kind of work 
which has for its prime purposo the 
rendering oC a special sen-vice; and 
maintains, by force of orgam/.iUion 
or concerted opinion, high standards 
of achievements and of conduct." 

Specialized Knowledge 

There would probably lie HlO dis- 
pute about the requirement of i\ vory 
high order of specialised IcnmvVdgi- 
to prepare an estimate, of resources 
required to build a Manned Orbiting 
Laboratory, or n supersonic Ivans- 
port in an international competitive 
environment, regardless of wln-ro on 
the government-industry tenm the 
analyst may be sitting 1 . 

That a long and intensive turoni- 
ration is necessary for an iniliviJ- 
ual to qualify to irmkft such on 
evaluation and analysis is not RO im- 
mediately apparent. Yet thosn quali- 
ties are characteristics of effective 
performance in this area. 

Practitioners, who arc acknowl- 
edged as experts by their compatri- 
ots, all assert that good rn&ource/ 
cost analysts are. made no I horn, 
They learn largely by doing. 

Continued Study 

Nothing is more apparent Ihnn tta 
need for continued study Iwcaus* 
we have an exploding requirement 



September 196" 



both qualitative and quantitative, for 
skilled practitioners. 

As to whether these practitioners 
render a special service, I think it 
is clear that, in the defense environ- 
ment alone, the preparation of prop- 
er cost estimates and effective analy- 
sis of cost data, as a part of the total 
analysis, is of definite importance to 
the entire country. This is true If 
we consider that proper choice of 
major weapons, proper choice of con- 
tractors to develop and produce them, 
proper choice of force size and com- 
position of forces, not to mention the 
billions of dollars involved each year, 
are fundamental to the security of 
the country. 

One, then, must note the spreading 
of this analytical technique to all Fed- 
eral governmental activities and to 
many state and local communities, 
and to such major problem areas as 
urbanization, transportation, educa- 
tion, and the Great Society objectives. 
It, then, seems clear that the function 
of providing adequate cost estimates 
and appropriate analysis of such 
data is going- to be of greater and 
greater importance to everyone in 
the United States. 

Standards of Achievement 
and Conduct 

There is a tremendous growth in 
the requirement for skilled re- 
source/cost analysis personnel in 
both the Government and industry. 
In spite of the obvious need for 
standards which identify the skills 
needed by a qualified person, there 
are no such standards within the 
Civil Service, Neither are there spe- 
cial job titles against which individ- 
uals can be recruited, particularly 
those from outside the Government. 

Partly as a result of this, argu- 
ments ensue as to what qualities are 
required in prospective employees and 
what achievements represent those of 
good practitioners, There is no orga- 
nization or concerted opinion to set 
standards of achievement or conduct. 

The application of cost analysis to 
weapon system and force structure 
studies is young. This very youth 
would argue for an organization of 
professionals, with standards for 
acceptance, which would help achieve 
maturity and credence. 

On the basis of foregoing, it would 
appeal- that rules are needed to estab- 



lish who are the real experts in re- 
source/cost analysis. Agreement is 
needed on basic techniques and ap- 
proaches which are acceptable. A 
broad continuing exchange of data 
and information on good techniques 
on a professional basis is necessary. 
In the long-term interest of improv- 
ing the profession, there is a require- 
ment for a method of committing 1 the 
members of the cost analysis com- 
munity to continued study and recog- 
nition of real authority. There is a 
need for an organization to "let in 
the good guys and keep out the bad 
guys" and something equivalent to a 
"white hat" for the good guys to 
maintain by force of organization or 
concerted opinion high standards of 
achievement and conduct* 

T 

_1_ he growth of systems analysis as 
an effective tool in decision making 
may have its Achilles' heel in the 
lack of professionalism among re- 
source/cost analysis practitioners. In 
cost- effectiveness decisions, an in- 
formed knowledge of resources re- 
quired may, in many analyses, be the 
issue on which the decision turns, be 




Major General Wendell E. Carter, 
USAF, is the newly appointed Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Infor- 
mation) in the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). 
At the time this article was written, 
he was Deputy Chief of Staff (Comp- 
troller) of the Air Force Systems 
Command. In his new position, Gen- 
eral Carter is responsible for the 
collection, analysis and reporting of 
resource management information for 
the Secretary of Defense. 



that in Government or industry, in 
national defense or international re- 
lations, or in problems facing the 
Great Society objectives. 

I urge those who are fascinated by 
the techniques of systems analysis to 
take more interest in the validity of 
cost information which feeds analyt- 
ical processes. I urge those who prac- 
tice the art of cost analysis to pro- 
fessionalize this art as fast as 
possible. If this is the wave of the 
future in decision making, it must 
assure that the best ingredients are 
available to contribute to the best 
decisions. 



TACFIRE Definition 
Phase Contracts Awarded 

Three industrial teams have been 
awarded definition phase contracts in 
the Army's Tactical Fire Direction 
System (TACFIEE) program. 

The three teams are headed by Bur- 
roughs Corp., Paoli, Pa.; Litton In- 
dustries, Van Nuys, Calif.; and IBM 
Corp., Gaithersburg, Md. Tho flve- 
moiith study contracts are valued at 
$1 million to $1.6 million each. 

TACFIEE is the Lead system of the 
Army's ovei-all tactical program, to 
exploit the new technologies of data 
processing and subminiature elec- 
tronics. This program, called Auto- 
matic Data Systems within the Field 
(ADSAF), is directed by General 
Roger M. Lilly, Commander of the 
Automatic Data Field Systems Com- 
mand, Fort Belvoir, Va. 

TACFIRE is a digital computer- 
based system which will be designed 
to enhance the supporting fires of the 
field artillery by full or partial auto- 
mation of certain data-handling func- 
tions heretofore processed manually. 
Significantly increased response time 
and accuracy are design require- 
ments. 

TACFIEE is the first of three 
ADSAF systems to be developed, and 
its general purpose hardware will be 
the basis for equipping other tactical 
data systems. 

The Army Electronics Command, 
Fort Monmoutli, N.J., is furnishing 
procurement and technical support to 
the TACFIRE Project Manager. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



33 




DEFENSE PROCUREMENT 



Contracts of 1,000,000 and over 
awarded during the month of July 
1967. 

DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY 

3 The Defense Personnel Support Center, 
Philadelphia. Pa., has awarded the fol- 
lowing contracts for combat boots: 

Endlcott Johnson Corp., Endicott, N.Y. 
S2.032.12G. 268,800 pairs. 
H, II. Urown Shoe Co., Worcester, Mass. 
$2.009,270. 262.732 pairs. 
Addison Shoe Corp., Wynne, Ark. 53,- 
346,498. 450,000 pairs. 
Genesco, Inc., Nashville. Tenn. $1.135,- 
199. 240,000 pairs. 

International Shoe Co., St. Louis, Mo. 
Sl.63fl.000. 200,000 pairs. ,, TT sc 
Sportwelt Shoe Co., Nashua, N.H. ?B,- 
745,853. 800.000 pairs. 

The Defense Personnel Support Center, 
Philadelphia, Pa., has awarded the fol- 
lowing contracts for wind-resistant poplin 
cloth : 

Burlington Industries, Cramerton, N.u. 
$1.893,160. 2,600,000 linear yards. 
Prestei, Inc., New York, N.Y. $1,712,- 
125. 2.226,000 linear yards. 
B. C. Colton & Co., New York, N.Y. 
13,108,000. 4,000,000 linear yarda. 
Hunter Outdoor Products, Lone Island 
City, N.Y. $1,840,448. 253,132 mountain 
Bleeping bags. Defense Personnel Support 
Center, Philadelphia, Pn. 
5 Hyster Co., Portland, Ore. $1,876,392. 189 
fork lift trucks. Defense General Supply 
Center. Richmond, Va. 

Outboard Marine Corp., Waukegan, 111. 
$1,686,376. 1,200 centrifugal pumps. De- 
fense Construction Supply Center, Colum- 
bus, Ohio. 

6 The Defense Personnel Support Center, 
Philadelphia, Pa., has awarded the fol- 
lowing contracts for men's poly ester/ wool 
coats : 

Franklin Clothes, Woodbine, N.J. $2,- 
327,500. 100,000 coats. 
Marde Dale, Inc., Atlantic City, N.J. 
52,261,038. 112,770 coats. 
Merit Clothing Co., Mayiield, Ky. $3,- 
242,200. I30.DOO. 

Albert Turner & Co., New York, N.Y. 
$1,262,800. 65,000 cents. 
West Point Pepperell, Inc., New York, 
N.Y. $1,400.750. 1,300,000 yards of cot- 
ton duck cloth. Defense Personnel Sup- 
port Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 
International Textile Products, LaFolIette, 
Tenn. 51,385,743. 14,612 tent linerfl. De- 
Jense Personnel Support Center, Phila- 
delphia, Pa. 

Valley Metallurgical Processing Co., 
Essex. Conn. $1,346,364. 4,131,000 Iba. 
of aluminum powder. Defense General 
Supply Center, Richmond, Va, 
Aluminum Co. of America, Pittsburgh, Pa, 
$3.272,062. 10,011,400 Ibs. of aluminum 
powder. Defense General Supply Center, 
Richmond, Va. 

12 W & S Garment Mfg. Co., Chicago, 111. 
2.268,625. 861,920 cotton mattress covers. 
Defense Personnel Support Center, Phila- 
delphia, Pa. 

13 J, P. Stevens & Co., New York, N.Y. 
SI, 808,869, 699,000 linear yards of tropical 
wool cloth. Defense Personnel Support 
Center, Philadelphia, Fa. 

11 Camel Mfg. Co., Knoxville, Tenn. $1,- 
258,830. 6,719 kitchen tents. Defense Per- 
sonnel Support Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 



CONTRACT LEGEND 
Contract information is listed in 
the following sequence: Date 
Company Value Material or 
Work to be Performed Location 
Work Performed (If different 
than company location) Con- 
tracting Agency. 



-Mobil Oil Corp., New York, N.Y. Wf' 
000. 200.000 barrels of grade DF- A Arctic 
diesel fuel. Defense Fuel Supply Center, 

24 P Wpp" Product' Corp., Boston, Mass. $1,- 
414 642 Various quantities of petro-chcm"- 
cals. Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alex- 
andria, Va. ,, , ,. , v 
-Burlington Industries. New York N.Y. 
S3 703.500. 967,000 linear yards of wooi 
serge cloth. Defense Personnel Suppoi t 
Center, Philadelphia, Pn. 

26-Fimtone Tire & Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio. 
S3 009,444. 760,251 liners for steel holmctfi. 
Defense Personnel Support Center, Phila- 
delphia, Pa. 

28 S. I. Handling Systems, Inc., Boston, i n. 
S2 410,850. A mechanized materinls han- 
dling Astern for the Defense Depot, Mem- 
phis? Tenn. Defense Construction Supply 
Center. Columbus, Ohio. 
Lane My era Co., Protection, Knn. $1,235,- 
675 163,500 coila of concertina irnroao 
wire. Defense Construction Supply Center, 
Columbus. Ohio. 

ARMY 

3 Federal Cartridge Corp., Minneapolis, 
Minn. $25,763,440. Production of various 
small arms ammunition. New Brighton, 
Minn. Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Harvey Aluminum Sales, Torranoe, Cunt. 
$7,628,915. Loading, assembling and pack- 
ing medium caliber ammunition. Milan, 
Tenn. Ammunition Procurement & Sup- 
ply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Savin Bros., Inc., Bloomfield, Conn. $S,- 
733,162. Construction of Black Rock Dnm 
and appurtenant structures. Near Water- 
town and Thomaston, Conn. Engineer 
Dist., Waltham, Mass. 

Capital Radio Engineering Institute, 
Washington, D.C, 1,600,000. Classified 
services, Electronics Command, Fort 
Monmouth, N.J. 

6 Ryan Aeronautical Co., San DIcBO, Callt. 
$1,185,861. Engineering flight services for 
the MQM-34D target guided missile. Mc- 
Gregor Ranee, N.M.; San Dicgoj Okinawa; 
Taiwan and Panama. Army Mtuailc 
Command, Huntsvllle, Ala. 
7 Gibraltar Mfg. Co., Port Huron, Mich, 
$1,687,816, Sprocket tank drives for M4B 
and M60 tanks. Tank Automotive Com- 
mand, Warren, Mich. 

Rulon Co., Aurora, III, $1,384,075. Plunger 
body assemblies and firing pins nRscmlillcs 
for M48 fuzes. Chicago, 111. Ammunition 
Procurement & Supply Agency, Joliet, III. 
10 -Mansfield Tire & Rubber Co., Mansfield, 
Ohio. 51.072,363, Tires for Vi-ton Iruclia. 
Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Midi. 
11 International Telephone & Telegraph 
Corp., Nutley, N.J. $13,570,368. $1,000,- 
221. Radio sets and tactical antenna 
systems. Clifton, N.J. Electronics Com- 
mand, Philadelphia, Pa. 
H. L, Coble Construction Co., Montgomery, 
' Ala. $4,612,306. Construction of BOO 
family housing units at Fort Denning, Gu. 
Engineer Dist., Savannah, Ga. 
12 Go Corp., Adrian, Mich. $1,077,785. Track 
assemblies for Ml 13 armored personnel 
carriers. Tank Automotive Command, 
Warren, Mich. 

Security Construction Co,, Richmond, Vn, 
$5,248,000. Construction of 840 family 
housing units at Port Meade, Md, Engi- 
neer Dist.. Baltimore, Md, 
13 C. D, Murray Co., Syracuse, N.Y. $1,658,- 
850. Construction work on the Oayuga 
Inlet Local Flood Protection Project, 
Ithaca, N.V. Engineer Djut., Buffalo, N.Y. 
Hansel Phclps Construction Co. nnd Pen- 
ner Construction, Greeley, Colo. $2,040,. 
000. Construction of a dining hall at the 
Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, 
Colo. Engineer Dist., Omaha, Nob, 
McDonnell Co., St. Louis, Mo. $2,600,000. 
Engineering development and teat of an 
anti-personnel companion round for the 
Dragon weapon system. Tituaville, PI a, 
Army Missile Command, Huntovllle, Ala. 



14 Btoiint Bros., Montgomery, Ala. 320,443,- 
000. Work on the Hannibnl Lock and Djim 
Project. Hannibnl, Oliio and New Martins- 
villc, W. Va. Engineer Dist., PUlsburffh, 
Pa. 

C. W. C. Associates, Unlondnlo, N.Y. S3,- 
472,004. Rehabilitation of tho Combat 
Specialities TrainiiiK Personnel Center, 
Fort Dix, N.J. Engineer Dint., Now York, 
N.Y. 

Prcstolito Co., Toledo, Ohio. $1,802,132. 
12-volt storage batteries. Olilnhonia City,, 
OUlft., Vincemieti, Iml., and Gnat Point, Ga, 
Tank Automotive Command, Warren. 
Mich. 

17 Allns Cliomlcal Co., Wilmington, Del. !| r 
084,852. TNT. Chattanooga, Teiiu. Am- 
munition Procurement, & Simply Agency, 
Jolicl, 111. 

Boll Helicopter Co., Port Worth, Tex, 
$31,410,HHO. IIII-l helicopter rntary wliiff 
blades. Aviation Materiel Command, St, 
Louis, Mo. 

18 Klzzaek Urns., anil Juott Consltudlon Co., 
Frankfort, Ky. $l,78!l,06fl. H elocution of 
i.H miloH of Kentucky Highway Number 
70 including tlia coniitruetlon of a 274-foot 
bridge for the (Ireen River Reservoir. 
Near Cmniibelluvillo, Ky. Engineer Dial., 
Louisville, Ky. 

Newport Mown Shiplntlldinff & Dryitoek 
Co., Newport News, Va. $2,084,230- De- 
sign, manufacture and delivery of four 
hydraulic turbines for tho Jo net* Hlutf mid 
Dnm, Ala. Newport News, Vn. nnd Ban- 
ton, Alti. Engineer Dint., Mobile, Ala. 
20 (lOOilycnr Tiro & Rubber Co., Akron, Ohfo. 
$4,101,005. Pneumatic tiros. Ondfldcn, Ala. 
Tank Automotive Conunnnil, Wnrrcn, 
Mich. 

R. E. Dnlloy & Co., Detroit, Midi. (2.- 
648,028. CmiBlruelion of outlet works and 
apliui'lunancen nt Paint Creek Hcuervoir, 
Ohio. Nnitinccr Dint., Hunllneton, W, Va. 
21 It. (. LoTournciiu, Inc., LoiiRvlow, Tra. 
$4,H07,nOO. Met.nl imrlH for 1fiO-\b. bomb*. 
Ammunition I'roourcmonl & Supply 
Ajjoiicy, Jot lot, 111. 

American Machine & Foundry Co,, Brook- 
lyn, N.Y. J4,84(i,08f). Metal jiarta for 760. 
Ib. liotnUH. (inrden Olty, N.Y. Ammunltinn 
Pi-ocuroment & Supply AKCHCV, Jutlot, III, 
Ik'll & IIowoll Co., Olileniw, 111. $1,422,. 
000. 'I'lmo fu/.o moial uarLs for 00mm 
jirojeolllea. Ammunition I'rcmu rment A 
Hunnly ARcncy, Jullot, 111, 
General Molorn, Clovoland, (Ililo. (28,- 
7Hn,157. Armorail rucoiinnlBBRnco/ulrLoriJO 
nHuitult vehicles. Army Weapons CoinnmniJ, 
Huuk Inland, III. 

W*Htern {ioiilriiclliiK Corp., Slonx Citr, 
Iowa. $3,284,4(50. fltnRO II conatrucllion 
of Kiiyufnirci 1 It Luff, Mo., Dam ft Ilcswvolr. 
Bntciiwjor Dist., Knmum City. M. 
United Aircrnft, Hlrntforil, Conn. $,* 
023,844. Dctnchnblo podii for Iho C1I-EU 
Flying Orano. Aviation Materiel Com- 
mnnd, >Bt, I.oulx, Mn. 

E4 Hnjrlios Tool Co., Culver City, Gnlir. |1.- 
708,040. Jtoliiry wing blnttoti /or Hiiht 
obHorvfitlon liullcojiterB. Aviation Mutttld 
Clominiiiul, St. Iioiilo, Mo. 
-Gonornl Construction Co., Portlmul, Ort. 
$1,010,000. Work on the Golumbln nd 
Lower Wlllainatto RIvci'H Project. Engi- 
neer Dint,, I'oi-tlnnd, Ore. 
25~-Hnrwell Construction Co., Ornnge, Va. 
$1,134,2R6. OHiifllriicllon work fln itw 
DtiGkhiinnon I-'tood Protection Prolect, 
Uuokhunnon, W. Vn. Knglucer Dlit., 
PlUslmrnh, Pa. 

L. II. Terry Oomlructlon Co., Laulavllj, 
Ky. $l,fl5C,008. Work on tho BraoInrlUt 
Rcflorvolr Project. Hrookvlllc, Iml. End- 
noer Dint., Louavllla, Ky. 
PKe Alrwnya, ItoohcHlor, N.Y. 
Scrvlcea and mnlorlnld, for A onn 
period, for tho maintenance at mll 
nil-craft mid otipjiorllnR c(|iil|iracnl of the 
Army Aviation Delnchmcnt nt HID Nm) 
Air Stallon, Lakchurat, N.J. Avlalion 
Mnlorlol Command, St. Louis, Mo. 
20 Bulova Wntch Co., Jackaon Hdshls, H.Y, 
*1,8GO,T21. Fiiaoa for 2.76-lnch rk*lJ. 
Ammunition Procuromant & Suppw 
Agency, Jollot, III. 



September 1967 



, 

tnl and 
I roject. 



Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., Cleve- 
land, Ohio. SI, 180,000. Work on the 
Buffalo, N.Y., Harbor Project. Engineer 
Dist., Huff alt., N.Y. 

Frix & Foster Construction Co., Muskocee 
Okla. $1,221,318. Work on the Robert 
S. Kerr Lock & Dam Project. Near Keota, 
Okln. Engineer Dist., Tulsa, Okln. 

Remington Arms Co., Bridgeport, Conn. 
S2,4GS,9GQ. 7.63mm cartridge tracers. SI.- 
019,090. 5.56mm ball cartridges In 10- 
round clips. Frankford Arsenal, Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 

Olln Mathicson Chemical Corp., East 
Alton, III. $2,135,900. 7.62mm cartridge 
tracers. Frankford Arsenal, Philadelphia, 

Olin Mnthicson Chemical Corp., New 
Haven, Conn. S3,40fi,132. 7.G2mm clipped 
cartridges. Frankford Arsenal, Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 

27 Johnson Bros. Hiffhway & Heavy Construc- 
tors and D. H. Itlattncr & Sons, Litch- 
flekl, Minn. 51,034,792, Excavation of 
a cut-off trench at Chatficld Dam and 
Reservoir, near Denver, Colo. Engineer 
Dist., Omaha, Neb. 

Haytlicon Co., Amlover, Mass. 51,220,000. 
Rebuild stabilized magnetron assemblies 
for the Hawk missile system. Army Mis- 
sile Command, Huntsville, Ala. 
28 tiaifleld Industries, Carrollton, Tex. $2,- 
G8 1,280. 165mm cartridges cases. Shrevo- 
port, La. Ammunition Procuement SL 
Sii]i]>ly Agency, Joliet, III. 

Kaiser Jeep Corp., Toledo, Ohio. $23,134,- 
w I i , 1/i ;, t011 . vehicles. General Purpose 
Vehicles Project Manager, Warren, Mich. 
n n e n ncrn , Electric, Syracuse, N.Y. $2,030,- 
000. Hadar seta. Plttsflcld, Mass., and 
fayi-ncuae Electronics Command, Foi-t 
Monmouth, N.J. 

dregg, Gibson & GreeB, Leesburg, Fla. 
Construction work at the Ccn- 
Southcrn Florida Flood Control 
Orlando and Cocoa Beach, Fla. 
KJiiKiiiKcr Dist., Jacksonville, Fla. 

It. It. Dawson Bridge Co., Bloomfield, Ky 
1,240,013. Green River Reservoir Project. 
Campbellsville, Ky. Engineer Diat., Louis- 
vi lie, Ky. 

31 "" e . y ' ve11 ' r "c-. Tnmpn, Fla. $7,045,361. 
Multiplexer components for use in the 
Army Area Microwave Itelay Communica- 
tions System. Electronics Command, Fort 
Monmmith, N.J. 

Frequency Engineering Laboratories, 
I'armingdalfj, N.J. $2,841,900. Compact 
light relay seta for ground troops, Elec- 
tronicH Command. Philadelphia, Pa. 

I'olartt.l Electronics Corp., Long Island 
G ty, N.Y. $1,748.000. Signal generators, 
lilectronlca Command, Philadelphia, Pn. 

Cntorjilller Tractor Co., Poorln, III. ?10,- 
i? , 1 ^ ' 2 le!lcl OI| fi!nc driven tractors. 
Mobility Equipment Command, Warren. 
Mich. 

Machlctt Lnhoratorics, Inc., Stanford 
Conn. SB,07G,477. 35mm imago intensi- 
iler nsaemblies. Electronics Command, 
Fort Monmouth, N.J. 

~~ A nV ;, Sni , ilh Corn " Ohlcngo, III. $0,843,- 
400. Metal parts for 7BO-lh. bombs. Waco, 
Tex. Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Unnson Machinery Co., Tiffin, Ohio. JG,- 
177,911. Five-ton cranes. Mobility Equip- 
ment Commnnd, St, Louis, Mo. 

Machlott Laboratories, Stamford, Conn. 
55,170,000. Miniacopcs for the Night 
Vision Program. Electronics Command, 
I'ort Monmouth, N.J. 

Koeliring Co., Newton, Iowa. $3,073,357. 
Ditching machines. Mobility Equipment 
Command, Warren, Mich. 

Klliott Machine Works, Phoenix, Aria. 
32,123,199. Trailer mounted lubricating 
nnd servicing units. Gallon, Ohio and 
Plioenlx. Mobility Equipment Command, 
Warren, Mich. 

Southwest Truck Body Co., St. Louis, Mo 
52,104,321. Six-ton semi-trailers. West 
Plnina, Mo. Tank Automotive Command, 
Warren, Mich. 

AVCO Corp., Stratford, Conn. $1,823,090. 
First stage nozzles for TG3 turbine en- 
gines. Aviation Materiel Command, St. 
Louia, Mo. 

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio. 
Pneumatic tiros for earth movers, Des 
Moines, Iowa. Tank Automotive Commnnd, 
Wnrren, Mich. 

Craftsman Construction Co., Denver, Colo. 
$1,196,750. Construction of a supply nnd 
procurement training building at Lowry 
APB, Calif. Engineer Dlat., Omaha, Neb. 



NAVY 



3 McDonnell-Douglas Corp., St. Louis, Mo. 
5123,349,800. Conligu ration changes in 
the F-4E aircraft. Nnvai Air Systems 
Command. 

Lockheed Aircraft, Dun-bank, Calif. SG5 - 
027,060. P3D ail-craft. Naval Air Systems 
Command. 

Sanders Associates, Nashua, N,H. $7,fi3D,- 
480. Electronic equipment. Naval Air 
Systems Command. 

~" S ? 3len ' B ' Woodland Hills. Cnlif. 84,- 
A ' Inel ' tlal navigation ss-atems. Naval 
Air Systems Command. 
Q^SH 1 MotorH ' Iiidinnapolis. Ind, $!,- 
4,tf2. Modification of a complete ens 
generator test rijj for theoretical maxi- 
iniitn turbine inlet temperature. Navnl 
Air Systems Command. 

International Harvester Co., Melrose Park. 
111. 1,436,065. Aircraft towing trnctors. 
Wnval Air SyHtems Command. 

Knythcon Co., Lexington, Mass. $1,375.000. 
bpnrrow III guided missiles. Lowell, 
Mass. Nuval Air Systems Command. 

-Sunders Associates, Nashua, N.IL 1.078,- 
C47. Work on a classified electronics pro- 
gram. Naval Air Systems Command. 

Sanders Associates, Nashua, N.H. 51,026,- 
173. Investigation, test nnd evaluation of 
current and future tics true t techniques and 
devices and related problems. Nnval Air 
Systems Command. 

Nntionnl Steel & Shipbuilding Co., San 
Diego, Calif. 24,838,900. One combat 
store Hhip (AFS). Naval Ship Systems 
Command. 

~]' e ] ctly !i C| ,? nc " Bur Hneton, N.J. 511,177,- 
.M. Kncho transceivers, control units, 
reports and data. Naval Ship Systems 
Command. 

r.U.M.. Owcfto. N.Y. 6,033,301. Sonar 
equipment. Naval Ship Systems Com- 
mnnil. 

Straza I ml us tries. El Cnjon, Calif. $1,. 
870,BfiO. Stibmnrine mine detection sonar 
aeta. Naval Ship Systems Command. 

Sparry Pledmonil Co.. Charlottesville, Va 
$1.020,707. Rutlnr sets. Naval Ship Sys- 
tems Command. 

~~Hn llS o IlCS Aircraft - Fullcrton, Calif. $1,- 
209,300. Tteacon video processors, naso- 
eiftted hardware nnd software for use with 
iinval tactical dnla syatcma on Bhins. 
Naval Shi]i Syatenis Command. 

Columbus Milpnr & Mfg. Co., Columbus, 
Ohio. SG.474.7SO. Fin iisacmblie.s for the 
Mark H2, fiOO-lu. bomb. Nnvy Shins Parts 
Control Center, Media nicsfoiiL'n, I'n. 

American Mfg. Co. o-f Tex., Fot't Worth 
Tex ?8 1 884,000. Mark 82, BOO-lh. emiity 
bomb bodies. Nnvy Ships Ports Control 
donler, Mechanicsbitrg, Pa. 

Intercontinental Mfff. Co., Gnrlnnd Tex 
?l,pOU4l Miirlt 82. BOO-lb. empty bomb 
bodies. Navy Ships Parts Control Center, 
Mechanics, l*a. 

-~ -UtirruH Construction Co., Kiiifftiton, N.C. 
1,181,400. Gonslciwtlon of an aircraft 
imrkinit aprun at tlic Murine Corpa Air 
1'acility, Jaoksonvlll!,, :;.C. Atlantic Div 
Nnval Facilities EnsincerliiB Command, 
Norfolk, Vn. 

I>ynolcctron Corp., Washington, D.C. ?!,- 
09S.28B. Data imieeasinjr and related 
work. Point Miifiu, Cnlif. Navy Fur- 
ehnaniK Office, Los Angeles, Calif. 

Unitcc Industries, Tiinonium, Md. ?5,- 
(iQD.OOfi. A mobile electric power plnnt 
for servicing aircraft. Wfishiiiffton, D.C. 
Nnvy PurchaalriK Oftlee, Wnshlnston, D.C. 

ncncllx Corp., Mishnwahn, Ind. 53,173,000. 
Continued mutin earing and clcvclopmcnt 
in the conversion of the Talon Missile 
Telemetry System. Nnvtil Ordnance Sys- 
tems Commnnd. 

E Westinffhouso electric, Baltimore, Md. 
$10,063,678. Airborne radar seta. Naval 
Air Systems Command. 

Collins Iladio Co., Cedar Kapida, Iowa. 
$6,307,186. Airborne communication, navi- 
gation, and identification systems. Nnval 
Air Systems Command. 

Ilendlx Corp., Bnltimaro, Md. '1,500,7S3. 
Airborne radio receiver transmitter seta 
and related equipment. Nnval Air Systems 
Command. 

Wcatlngliouse Electric, Baltimore, Md. 
$2,CG2,50p. Radar sets for F-4D nireraft. 
Nnvnl Air Systems Command. 

Sundstrand Corp., Rockforil, 111. $2,06G,- 
370. Constant speed drlvea anil frequency 
control boxes. Navnl Air Systems Com- 
mnnd. 

Sanders Associates, Inc., Naah.ua, N.H. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



$1,364,000. Classified electronic equipment, 
Navnl Air Systems Command. 
North American Aviation, Los Angeles, 
Cnlif. Sl.126,592. Lease of three multi- 
engine light jet aircraft and supporting; 
material and services, Novsl Air Sys- 
tems Command. 

Lotricom, Inc., San Pedro, Calif. 3,560,- 
023. Computer proKrnmminB for the Fleet 
Computer PmurEiming 1 Center, San Diego, 
Calif. Navy Purchnshie Office, L.OH An- 
Heles, Cnlif. 

Lockheed Electronics Co., WatcbmiK, N.J. 
SI, 050, 000. Design, development and en- 
tf'ncorinB 1 for Hcrvice use, mandatory im- 
provements for Kim fire control system 
Mark R6 and related equipment, Metuchen. 
N.J. Navnl Ordnance Systems Command. 
Lockheed Mlssllen &. Srnco Co., Sunny- 
vale, Cnlif, S3ii.3R9.085. Tactical enRl- 
neerint; services in anpport of the fleet 
liallifitic m'Ksile weapon system. Special 
Projects Offlc. 

Wimhiinrtnn Milltnry Syatcms, Bcthcs<la, 
Md. SJi,[)49,R32. EnclnoerlnB and enipporfc 
services for ileet ballistic misaile weapon 
svfltem trjihifnK installations. Special 
Prnje'els Office. 

Inl^rstnte I=;lec1rnnlca Corp., Annheim, 
Calif, S6.250.000. PhnsH Two development 
of Posoidcm ^C-3) Digitnl Teat Instru- 
mentation Subsystem. Special Projects 
Offlcic. 

6 Collins Kndlo Co., Ccdnr Rfipida, Towa. 
85,971.028. Communication, navigation, 
identification avs terns nnd related equip- 
ment. Navl Air Systems Command. 
LTV Aerospace Corp., Dallas, Tex. $5,- 
0(10,000. Tmnrovement chanKes to extend 
the service life of RF-SA aircraft. Navnl 
Air Systems Commnnd, 

McDrnniell-DoiiBlaH, St. Tjouis, Mo. S!i,- 
3BB,G8fi. Bomb rncks nnd related equip- 
ment. Torrance, Cra!!f. Naval Air Systeme 
Command. 

Rparton Corn.. Jnclrson, Mich. 52,885,873. 
Sonolmoya. Navnl Air Syfitcme Command. 
Rnmlers AB.inclatca, Nashua, N.H. $1,- 
,109.^74, Evaluate, repnir nncl modify elec- 
tronic equipment, Naval Air Systems 
Command. 

Ocnornl Precision, Little Falls, N.J. $1,- 
1(31,750. Airborne navigation flots. Navnl 
Air Systems Command. 

Litton Svstoms, Silver Sprinc, M<5. $1,- 
000,492. Electronic -conntermenaure equlii- 
ment. Collepe Pnrlt, Md, Naval Air Sys- 
tems Cnmmnnc!. 

ficneral DvnamicB, Pomona, Calif. $10,- 
008,000. Pi-oduclion of Type I E ui<lanee 
oontrnl nnd nrdnnnrc sections for the 
Standard Missile. Nnval Ordnance Sys- 
tems Command. 

Goodvcnr Aerospace Corp.. Altron, Ohio. 
S8,9HG,273. Production of Sultroa missiles 
and rclntcfl cdiiipmont. Navnl Ordnance 
Systems Commnnd. 

General Precision, Gtomtale, Calif. $6,- 
000.000. Production of ordnance alteration 
kits for various fire control systems and 
for MK 4K torpedoes, Naval Ordnance 
SyHtems Commnnd. 

Oenernl Precfalon, Glen dale, Cnlif. $2,- 
28^,000. Production of vnrloua (\ro control 
Bystcnm. Nnval Ordnance Systema Com- 
mand. 

Ctovtte Corp., Cleveland, Ohio. SI.1500,000. 
Ttc-iearch and development of the comb 
filler techninues now being developed for 
MIC 48 torpedoes. Navnl Ordnance Systems 
Command. 

Electronics Communications, Snraaota, Fin. 
52,441.723. Hiullo equipment. Naval Ship 
Systema Co-mmand. 

7 Huglica Aircraft, Culver City, Calif. ?1E,- 
000,000. Incremental funding for the 
Phoenix missile system. Naval Air Sys- 
tems Command. 

Lockheed Aircraft, Marietta, Ga. ?G.847,- 
1500. ProRfcssive maintenance on Navy 
aircraft. Navnl Air Syutems Command 1 . 
Ilnyca Internntionul Corp., Dirmin^hnm, 
Alo. 81,308,147. ProBressive. tnnintenanco 
on Nnvy aircraft. Nnva! Air Systems 
Comninnd. 

WcstEngliouse Electric, Daltlmoro, Md. 
$1,&00,000. Incremental reaenrch and de- 
velopment funding for prototype models 
of special exercise aectiona for MK 48 
torpccloea. Naval Ordnance Systems Com- 
mand. 

Genernl Dynamics, Pomonn, Cnlif. $1,- 
000,000, Materinls, labor, services and 
equipment to remove and replace original 
roofing and to Jnatoll automatic roof vente 
on buildings at the Navnl Industrial Re- 



35 



IS 



Materiel Area, (AFLC), Robins AFB, Ga. 
-Pmlco-Ford Corp., Philadelphia. Pa. $1.. 
724,700, Production of communications 
equipment. Oklahoma City Air Materiel 
Area, (AFLC), Tinker AFB, Okla. 
General Motors, Indianapolis, Ind. SI - 
930,423. Production of T-GG engine com- 
ponents. Oklahoma City Air Materiel 
Area, (AFLC), Tinker AFI1, Okla. 
Radiation, Inc., Melbourne, Fla. $3,701,695. 
Testing, engineering and production of 
an airborne/ground data relay system. 
Palm Bay, Fla. Electronic Systems Div., 
(AFSC), L. G. Hanscom Field, Masa. 
IB TRW, Inc., Los Anjroles, Calif. $3,074,500. 
Research, development, fabrication and 
manufacture of launch nncl orbital oqulp- 
niont for the VELA satellite program 
launch vehicle. Space ft Missile Systems 
Orgnniaation. (AFSC), Loa Angeles, Calif. 
? r yl , va " ia Electric Products, Needham 
Heights, Masa. 13,036,984. Support of n. 
ground electronics system. Space & Mis- 
sile Systems Organization, (AFSC), Loa 
Angeles, Cnlif. 

Internationa! Aerospace Services, Charles- 
ton, S.C. Jl, 052,123. Inspection nnd re- 
pair of C-184 aircraft. Warner Robins 
Air Materiel Area, (AFLG), Robins AFIJ, 
Ga. 

20 Honeywell. Inc., Hopkins, Minn. $7,000,- 
000. Production of land mines and aneo- 
ciated equipment. Aeronautical Systems 
Div., ( A FBC ) , Wright-Patterson AFD, 
Ohio. 

Pfrltin Elmer Corp., Norwalk, Conn. $2,- 
000,000. Manufacture of laser reconnais- 
sance sets. Aeronautical Systems Div., 
(AI'SC), WiJprht-Patteraon AFB, Ohio. 
flarrctt Mfg. Ltd., Rexdale, Ontario, Can- 
ada. Jl.208,768. Production of pressure 
temperature testa seta used in support 
of various aircraft. San Antonio Air 
Mnteriel Ar.cn, (AFLC), Kelly AFB, Tex. 

21 Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash. $2,100,048. 
Design, fabrication, aaaembly, checkout 
nncl testing of Minuteman equipment. 
7??f!?n? n( ir Mi ? Bile Systems Organization, 
(AFSC), Loa Angeles, Calif. 

24 HuEheH Aircraft, Los Angelea, Calif. $4,- 

', 4DG v, Manufacture of electronic spare 

parts. El Segimdo, Calif. Warner Robins 

Ah- Materiel Area (AFLC), Robins AFB, 

'J c ^ hecd Atr *rnft, Sunnyvale, Gnllf. 51,- 
G P;00. Work on a satellite control fa- 
cility. Space and Missile Systems Organi- 
sation, (AFSC), Los Angeles, Calif. 
Honeywell, Inc., Hopkins, Minn. $4,370,- 
731. Production equipment for aircraft 
ordnance production. Aeronautical Sys- 
AFB Ohio" (AFSC) ' Wrisht-Patteraon 

$1,187,400. Installation "of modification 
1 1 n i R P", afi . D aircraft. Warner Roblna 
Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), Roblna AFB, 

EG nurronBha Corp., Pnoll, Pa. $1,440,400. 
Back-up Interceptor Control (BUIC) site 
Activation nnd related services. Electronics 
Systems DI V ., (AFSC), L. G. Hanscom 
I'leld, Maag. 

Reneral Dynamics, Fort Worth, Tex. $2,- 
880,000. Manufacture of pylon assemblies 
for P-lll aircraft. Sacramento Air Ma- 
teriel Area, (AFLC), McClellan AFB, 
ualif. 

~~n j n e 1 - l "' r 1 ? r 1 < Elct i trl !Y, Pvendale, Ohio, $4,328,- 

t \ffl m f [ aQilities expansion In aupport 

of J-70 engine production. Aoronalttcal 

AFB em ohi ' WrI K h t-Pnlterson 



25 



1 Corp " 8t ' Loul8 > Mo. 

O,000. Re-entry vehicle feasibility 
(Jlght test program, Space and Missile 
Systems Organization, (AFSO), Loa An- 
geles, Calif, 

BoetaK Co., Seattle, Wash. $6,000,000. 
Installation of antenna systems. Rapid 
City, S.D. Space and Missile Systems Or- 
Knnlzatlon, (AFSC), Los Angeles, Calif. 

7 ~~ r iR r ftr^!Tr Ic A 11 Avlation . Anaheim, Calif. 
51S,6GC,441. Design and development of 
a poat boost control system for the Min- 
uteman miHsile, Space & Missile Systems 
Organization, (AFSO), Los An B eles, Calif. 
Chicago Aerial Industries, Barrlneton 111 
$2,720,020. Production of camera ays- 
tcms and lens cones. Aeronautical Systems 
Div., (AFSC), Wright-Patterson AFB, 
Ohio. ' 

Curt iss- Wright Corp., Wood-Ridge, N.J. 
$1,271,149. Production of aircraft engine 
components. San Antonio Air Materiel 
Area, (AFLO). Kelly AFD, Tex. 

International Telephone & Telegraph Serv- 



ices, Paran.ua, N.J. $1,245,000. Manage- 
ment, maintenance and operation of A[r 
Force Plant 42 in Palmilale, Cnlif. Afr 
I'orce Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB 
Cnlif. 

28 Systems Development Corp., Santa Monica, 
Calif. $14,3S9,2GG. Computer program up- 
dating and preparation of system training 1 
programs, Sacrsmento Air Materiel Area 
{AFLC), McClellan AFD, Calif. 

Electronic Communications, Inc., St 
Peterbure, Fla. Sa,3C3,133. Manufacture 
of electronic ecuiipment for installation 
on EC-135 aircraft. Warner-Robins Air 
Materiel Area, (AFLC). Robins AFB, Ga. 

AVCO Corp., Wilmington, Muss, ?I,698,- 
000. Work on a ballistic re-entry vehicle 
program. Spnce and Missile Systems Or- 
ganization. (AFSC), Loa Anselea, Cnlif. 

Aerodcx, Inc.. Miami, Fin. S1,438,G99. 
Overhaul of R--13CO reciprocating aircraft 
engines. Snn Antonio Air Materiel Aren. 
(AFLC), Kelly AFB, Tex. 

31 Philco-Ford Corp., Pnlo Alto, Calif. $1,- 
500,000. Work on a ground to space 
communications system. Space and Missile 
SydteniH Organization, [AFSC), Los An- 
Bcles, Calif. 

OFF-SHORE PROCUREMENT 

The following contracts were awarded by 
the U.S. Procurement Center, Frankfurt, 
Germany, on June 30: 

Federal Republic of Germany, Bundeaamt 
fuer Wchrtechnlk und DesclmffunR, 
Koblenz, Germany. $8,390,G58. -20mm 
guns nnd accessories. Duaaoldorf, Ger- 
many. 

Federal Republic of Germany, Rundeuamt 
fucr Wclirtcclmik und DcachafEuns, 
Koblena, Germany. $ 1 6,4 53,062 . 20mrn 
ammunition. Dnaaeldorf, Germany. 

Ford-Werkc AG, Koeln, Germany. 51,009,- 
7G4. Vchiclea and eciuipment. Kent, Ohio. 

Jugoexport, Belgrade, Yugoalnvla. $1,- 
GB8, 383. Houaeliold furniture. 



Three Navy Research 
Centers Established 

The U.S. Navy created three new 
research centers July 1 in a move to 
improve application of technology to 
naval warfare problems. 

The new centers, formed from ex- 
isting centers and laboratories in 
California, are: 

9 Naval Command Control Com- 
munications Laboratory Center (NC- 
CCLC), San Diego, created from the 
Navy Electronics Laboratory (less 
its Underseas Technology Director- 
ate) , 

Naval Underseas Warfare Cen- 
ter (NUWC), Pasadena, made up of 
Pasadena Annex of the China Lake 
Naval Ordnance Test Station and 
several of its auxiliary sites, and the 
Underseas Technology Directorate of 
the Navy Electronics Laboratory. 

Naval Weapons Center (NWC), 
China Lake, established from the 
Naval Ordnance Teat Station, China 
Lake, and the Naval Ordnance Labor- 
atory, Corona. The Corona portion is 
called the Naval Weapons Center Co- 
rona Laboratories. 

Commander of the NCCCLC is 
Captain William R. Boehm. The NU- 
WC commander is Captain Grady H. 
Lowe, who is also acting commander 
of the NWC. 



NSIA Symposium 
Looks to the Future 

"National Research and Develop- 
ment for the 1970s" will be the theme 
for the third biennial symposium, 
sponsored by the Research and De- 
velopment Advisory Committee of 
the National Security Industrial As- 
sociation (NSIA). The conference, to 
be held in Washington, B.C., Oct. 
18-19, will feature high-level speakers 
from the research and development 
community of the Government, indus- 
try and the academic world. 

There will be four sessions in the 
two-day meeting covering- the follow- 
ing subjects: 

9 The widening objectives of re- 
search and development in the 1970s, 

& Technology forecasting and re- 
search and development planning. 

Institutions of the future, 

$ Methodology for national re- 
search and development programs. 

The social aspects of the meeting 
will include two luncheons and a ban- 
quet. The evening function will fea- 
ture a prominent speaker. 

For registration and additional in- 
formation, the contact is: 

Paul A. Newman 

National Security Industrial Asso- 
ciation 

1030 15th St., NW 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Phone: (202) 296-2266 



Project ARISTOTIE 

(Continued from page 6) 
so imperative for understanding in 
an undertaking such as this. 

I suspect that few of us expected, 
at the onset, the interest and activity 
which ARISTOTLE would create. 
Moreover, I feel that outside of this 
effort other groups are recognizing 
the impact which DOD training and 
education is having on the economy, 
The entire May issue of Phi Delta 
Kappa was devoted to military edu- 
cation and training. Both industrial- 
ists and educators are requesting 
more and more information about 
the techniques being developed and 
utilized in our program, hoping that 
they might have use for them, The 
Defense Department is cooperating 
more closely than ever before with 
other Federal and local governmental 
agencies on projects such as Project 
TRANSITION. We are hoping that 
ARISTOTLE continues to foster 
these good working relationships. 



OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 203O1 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 



Evaluation of Proposals Completed for 
Navy's Fast Deployment Logistic Ships 

Defense Department and Navy officials have completed evalu- 
ation of design and construction proposals for the Navy's Fast 
Deployment Logistics (FDL) Ships program which were sub- 
mitted by three companies in January 1967. Litton Systems, Inc., 
Culver City, Calif., submitted the best technical proposal, consider- 
ing all relevant factors including- efficiency of ship and life cycle 
cost. Other companies submitting proposals were General Dynamics 
Corp., Quincy, Mass., and Lockheed Shipbuilding and Construction 
Co., Seattle, Wash. 

The Congress disapproved the authorization in this year's 
budget request to move ahead with the program and proceed with 
construction. If on resubmission the program is approved by 
the Congress next year, the Navy would award a contract after 
further negotiation with Litton Systems. The contract would be 
awarded either to Litton Systems or, if negotiations with that 
company were unsatisfactory, to the successful bidder in an open 
competition. The bidding opportunity would be industry-wide and 
would include the three original contractors with the design 
plans to be based on the Litton Systems proposal. 

The selected design contemplates large, fast, non-combatant 

K 4 I l an endurance of vei* 8,000 miles, a displacement of 

about 40 000 tons, and a speed of over 24 knots. Their length (848 

feet) and beam (104 feet) will permit them to transit the Panama 

o,K Vv! ^ able to USe m st f the M'B "Jr 
po to With amphibians and large cargo helicopters, they will be 

able to offload efficiently and rapidly their 10,000 tons of military 
cargo mcludmg wheeled and tracked vehicles, without dependence 
on port or existing handling facilities. uepenaence 

.m DOD f, haS * mplmized its belief that ^ e FD L ships can most 
afficently and economically satisfy the continued requirement 

for rapid 



DESC and AFSC Study 

Standardization of 

Electronic Parts 

The Defense Electronics Sup- 
ply Center (DESC), Djiyloii, 
Ohio, and the Air Force Systems 
Command have developed a joint 
study project that will permit 
DESC engineers to worvo us 
standardization advi-sors during 
the development of. four majnr 
Air Force weapon systoniH. 

The project's objective? m to 
establish a more economical and 
reliable electronic parts inven- 
tory. Primarily, it will curb llio 
proliferation of new itums by 
standardizing parts at tho de- 
velopment: level and WWM! out 
duplicates before they outer the 
supply system. 

DESC engineers will bo en- 
titled to attend Parts Control 
Board meetings involving F--H1 
MARK II and C-6A uh'crnft, 
the SRAM missile and Uio -W7h 
system. Each firm will report on 
items proposed for its roHpoclivc 
assembly. This will enable (ill 
sub-contractors to immediately 
pinpoint areas where standardi- 
zation might be introduced. 

The center engineers will help 
identify common parts and coun- 
sel sub-contractors on format 
and technical problems related 
to the preparation of part speci- 
fications, 

S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE i 10D7 jwoj^j 




VOL. 3 NO. 9 



OCTOBER 1967 




THE PENTAGON 




FEATURES 

Concept Formulation and Contract Definition 

Robert G. Alexander 




The Technological War: Problems and Challenges 

Colonel George T. Buck, USAF 6 

The New Face of Contract Administration 

Captain I. G. Cockroft, USN 10 

The Technical Information Exchange 13 

Project THEMIS 

New Suppliers Sought by Defense Supply Agency 



28 



DEPARTMENTS 

About People 9 

Meetings and Symposia *" 

Calendar of Events 20 

From the Speakers Rostrum 21 

Bibliography *% 

Defense Procurement 88 



Published by the 

Department of 

Defense 

Hon. Robert S. McNiuunra 
Secretary of Defense 

Hon. Paul II. Nit/e 
Deputy Secretary of Dcfcnue 

Hon. Phil G. Gouldlng 

Assistant Secretary of Defense 

(Public Affairs) 

Col. Joel R StcphoitH, USA 
Director for Community ltd n lions 

Cai>t. John A. Davenport, TISN 
Chief, Business & Labor Dtvini<Jti 



The Defense Industry Bulletin 
is published monthly by the Business 
& Labor Division, Directorate for 
Community Relations, Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Pub- 
lic Affairs). Use of funds for printing 
this publication was approved by the 
Director of the Bureau of the Budget. 

The purpose of the Bulletin is 
to serve as a means of communication 
between the Department of Defense 
(DOD) and its authorized agencies 
and defense contractors and other 
business interests. It will serve as 
a guide to industry concerning offi- 
cial policies, programs and projects, 
and will seek to stimulate thought by 
members of the defense-industry team 
in solving the problems that may arise 
in fulfilling the requirements of the 
DOD. 



Material in the Bulletin is se- 
lected to supply pertinent unclassified 
data of interest to the business com- 
munity. Suggestions from industry 
representatives for topics to be cov- 
ered in future issues should be for- 
warded to the Business & Labor 
Division, 

The Bulletin is distributed without 
charge each month to representatives 
of industry and to agencies of the De- 
partment of Defense, Army, Navy and 
Air Force. Requests for copies should 
be addressed to the Business & Labor 
Division, OASD(PA), Room 1E764, 
The Pentagon, "Washington, D.C. 
20801, telephone, (202) OXford 6-2709. 

Contents of the magazine may be 
reprinted freely without requesting 
permission. Mention of the source will 
be appreciated. 



LCdr. E. W. Bradford, USN 
Editor 

Mrs. Cecilia Pollolt McCormlck 
Associate Editor 

Mr. Rick La Fulcc 
Associate Editor 

Mr. John E. Fnffnn 
Art Director 

Norman E. Worra, JO1, USN 
Editorial Assistant 




Robert G. Alexander 



I I Inti in Ihr In., I of 
< mill I'jirl. di'tMiiUun 
<r'li:Niv I). II in 
1 iiMiiillitij; I be run 
] lulling I hi' (iii'iv 
iTi'ini*; ninl n|irra 

I'lllplllt'llt, 

Intjnii In unl || 

'I', II (llVUTiblVI llll' 

( j; L'niil rnrl di'fini 
h"i inrlmii' Ihr I-K- 



itti- I he Iri'hnirtil, 

fury luiM'ji j'ur flu- 
it ll*'Hi in' !\Vnfi*in. 

I'll Ilirillliri: IhlDll' 

r<vl|y Iniil ti, ur 

I 1. I'llllfl wilit Ht'liuil 



His of 
lollon 

-^liitri Ihitl tin- p|f 
' |*1 I'minulltf ii'ii, mi 

hlivnlvt' :i;liHMt, 
iimt hi i'rt',>i''uh : il, 11 

il l)ii!t:f fut' (In- ItfV 



I ilnlly, in* fun' |M*MJJ- 
j-)i* iiifii-ijiil^il* 1 '!, ti 
tit. tlit- Aiiiiy Mute 
t ') t'niniMt, rrMiii|i- 
*in' UnU HIM t'l-tit 
* f 'muiiiMuil, Uu 1 

< "ulllUSIltitl, Hlhl Um 

* Army Miiilf will 



liiH'tt. Tin' nii^Mliin iihjivl.ivi'H niunt 1m 

I'lH'cilU-iilly tlciin-ilici], Lhc 

funiT|il- iinil Ihr liiii'inl.ii- 

' l ..... I. ninl I hi- ih'in ur nyjilcni p(!ii'- 

IWiimiuv iviiiiiri-iiiiMilii iipct'illfMl 1,o 

iiirhtitt- I'l'liiihilil.y ninl nuiitil ulnaliility, 



Mini, tlni ny-iti'in will 
nii'i't. it valid million or luinvnl o]i- 
i*ntt.iniiul iilijcrlivc. 

II Uii'ii imml. In- ili-nniiiiitrulvd that 
tin 1 hivtl li'i'littinil n|i|ii p oiu-li(,'M linvi 1 
hri'ii m'liTtt'cl, lni!*i'il mi n luinuticlric 
uf inc.nihli- alli'i'iiiilivi 1 !!. Vw 

. il' mi nritiiii'iMl riictiiiiuii.'i- 




nnniL vohichi for junj>1(> war- 
m w!(iuin!<l, UK< bunt tuuhnicnl 
uiH niiM'lit IK? a tracked 
a wlwolcMl voliiclc, or n 

cJl'(H-tH nuuihiiH!. In Hclcctinff 
of UH'MC volik-lfiH, itn tiiiilmitrnl 



A third ]-ere(|uiiiitc JH to demon- 
Htrtitii that iirinuiry iiKiiiotM-iiij? 
rallior lliaii oxporiiuoiifal tsffort in ro- 
(iniri'il, iiinL Umt tin- tuchnoloffy 
hciMl(?d is millicinntly in hand. Thin IH 
IL point, of nm.jor inipwrtiincc!. Fund- 
uniiiiitiilly, the cltiKi-ui! of mlvuncumont 
depends on tin; hwiil of uoitndcnct! in 
tlir probalHlity ol' Hiu'i-wiHCul (levolop- 
nicnt whk-li iiiiuit lit; supported by, at 
|t.'til, n lalioi'utory (Umuni-'itrution. 

'llii 1 fourth iiRM'iMjuiHiti; namircs 
tliat a HionniKh tnuUsolT nnuIyHlH IHIH 
ht-on mnd. Tim primary K'('l of tliin 

tuiulyiiiu in to ucnkivo itti nplinnnn 
o|H>i'ntioiiul od'cfitivi!- 
and cont, biiHad on 
ultunintlvwH within thu Hys- 



f miwltm ntut 

llWU' tHM'll tic- 



(J. AU*xnmlor IH (:iiii'f of 1hit 
Supinirt Untnrh in the 
il JUroctornti!. U.K. Army 
MnU-rittl ('tiiniiiiuul, WiiHliiiiKlmi, 1KC. 
lie luiM iK'on in Kvt i nunent Hervico 
HMD and, iH'fort) cominw to AMt! 
in ItHii. lie hold BflHiffii- 
mrnlH hi Hit 1 riwnrelt mill tlcvclop- 
men* Held nt the t),S. Army MoltllUy 
and Hie U.K. Army Kngl- 
Hi'Mfiirch niul Ocvolupnivnt J.ab- 
N, Fort Holvuir, V. 



U'lll. 

A fm'nndili,' i-owt ftfTuctivoiicsfl wunt 
IK- {k'tcrmineil for the jH'OpoHwi item 
in rcliitiini to the cost oft'octivoiiCHH 
of i-onipoUiiK itonm on a I>OJ)-\vido 
banlH. Thin ofi'ort iiiiuly^OH the toUil 
ciifit of (.h Hyatoni, including develop- 
ment, proiliuitioii, and operation and 
maiiiUuunu'ti COH(>H. Ttio item is com- 
pared with ny tems in other Military 
to prtwunb unwarranted 
and "rc-invontion of tbo 
whucl." 

finally, it must ha demonstrated 
Umt coNl and wchcdulc estimates ar<i 
credible and acceptable. Xliase cBti- 
nnit(!H lu-c for the total lifo cycle of 
tlm 



Bulletin 



Although it is a major task to 
demonstrate that these prerequisites 
have been met for a proposed devel- 
opment project, it should bo empha- 
sized that the decision to give con- 
ditional approval for development 
also implies that it will he produced 
and deployed. The Army Materiel 
Command requires that concept 
formulation be completed for all 
projects, with the approval of the con- 
cept formulation package stratified 
at different levels depending 1 on the 
total dollar investment involved. The 
commanders of AMG major subor- 
dinate commands are authorized to 
approve the concept formulation for 
projects with dollar investment below 
50 million. Others are submitted to 
Headquarters, AMC, or to the De- 
partment of the Army. 

Conditional Approval To Proceed 

Let us now examine how the condi- 
tional approval to proceed with de- 
velopment occurs. First, for all major 
projects, a Program Change Request 
(PCR) and an early Technical Devel- 
opment Plan (TDP) are submitted, 
through the Department of the Army, 
to the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense. The project is then intro- 
duced into the Five Year Defense 
Program. An engineering develop- 
ment request follows with an up-to- 
date Technical Development Plan, a 
plan for contract definition, and a 
report on the status of meeting; the 
six prerequisites just discussed. 

With completion of these steps, the 
request to enter contract definition 
is signed by the Secretary of Defense, 
indicating that engineering develop- 
ment is conditionally approved. 

Contract Definition 

Contract definition is the second 
period in the definition planning 
process (Figure 1), but the first step 
in engineering development. It is a 
formal step during which preliminary 
design and engineering are verified or 
accomplished, and firm contract and 
management planning are performed. 
Normally accomplished by two or 
more competing contractors, the pri- 
mary result of contract definition is 
a key decision approval before full- 
scale development can be initiated. 

Full-scale development is devoted 
to the engineering and testing of an 
end item or system actually intended 
for service use, and follows contract 
definition whenever that step is re- 



quired, DOD Directive 3200.9 specifies 
that contract definition will be re- 
quired for those major projects with 
estimated research, development, test 
and evaluation (KDT&E) funding 
above $25 million or a production in- 
vestment of $100 million. DOD or De- 
partment of the Army may designate 
other projects for this detailed 
planning process. 

Contract definition is directed to- 
ward these goals: the ratification of 
approval for full scale development 
and the definition of the development 
contract (Figure 2). It is conducted 
in three phases: 

Phase A. The proposals for the 
conduct of contract definition are 
solicited, received and evaluated, and 
two or more competing contractors 
are selected. 

Phase B. The contract defini- 
tion tasks are accomplished by com- 
peting contractors. 

e Phase C. Contractor proposals 
for full-scale development are evalu- 
ated, the development contractor is 
selected, and the contract is nego- 
tiated. 

These phases will be discussed in 
more detail later. 

Contract definition ends with the 
ratification of the conditional ap- 
proval for development. 



Development and Production 

Terminology of the remaining ac- 
tivities are development and produc- 
tion. These activities are very much 
affected by decisions made during the 
definition planning- process. The con- 
tract negotiated following contract 
definition was traditionally for devel- 
opment only. In some cases within 
DOD, the production decision has 
been made concurrently with the 
ratification of the development deci- 
sion at the end of contract definition. 
In the case of the Air Force C-5A 
troop and carj?o aircraft, the develop- 
ment contract also included initial 
production quantities and logistic sup- 
port of the aircraft. The Army 1ms 
yet to use this "Total Puckatffl Pro- 
curement" on any projects nliovc the 
DOD threshold (RDT&E $2fi million 
or $100 million production invest- 
ment). A qunsi-total-packivge-inwiiiie- 
ment approach has been used on the 
Advanced Aerial Fire Support Sys- 
tem which includes a production 
option. 

Why Concept Formulation and 
Contract Definition? 

Among the results expected from 
concept formulation and contract 
definition arc significant nnvmn& MI 
total operational system coats. The 



THE TWO -STAGE DEFINITION/PUNNING PROCESS 
FOR MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT 




Figure 1. 



October 1967 



substantial cowl, overrun;! that have 
h i H to r i c a 1 1 y p I a jv u oil d v e lo p ~ 
mont projects urn expected to be con- 
trolled in throe ways. Finil, iiavingn 
lire expected by defining more pre- 
cisely what in required. Hy thin \vo 
moan Uiat the (iovernment nnitit pre- 
pare nynteni performance npecifica- 
Uons during concept, formulation, and 
that the contracl.uni typically will 
develop detailed definition uf Imth 
system and milwytiloni performance 
;i|)iM-ificatlon!i during enntrnet dellni- 
tion, 

Second, eontii will In- eontrolled by 
employing fixed-price and fixed .price 
ini'i'iitive eonlniel.n for devcl(i|itiienl.. 
Third, mivingn will accrue by elojier 
attention In life cycle emit consider- 
ations and the tradc-oll'ii between 
development, production, and nininte. 
Illilice mid npeniliim eoiil:i. Iliutori 
cully, little iil.leiiliim \vnn paid during 
development to tbe linpaet of deiilgn 
deciuloiiH DM prudurliiiii and i>perntiii|<; 
co:ilH. Thin inipuet In a major run- 
con I oT contract. dcfUiilion, and nub- 
[it-uiiMal niiviiiKii ni'e e\|ifcted to re- 
milt. 

Next, tiuliiiliintially fewer (titKineer- 
iiiK cluuiKt'!! will rennlt due to better 
ilelhiltion n T nyiileni hurdware and 
Hiipport I lentil mid Ihelr InU'i fiieii, 
Tht'it, ton, fewer pnitfrain redfrei'tiuiiK 



and iianoidlationH uro expected to 
occur, because, the technology ro- 
'l"i'-ed will have been demonstrated 
H IwitiK- in-hand, i.e., not dopoiidcnt 
on Hvluiilillr braniahroiiffliH, and bc- 
cnune better eoiiLrol of developnu-nt 
l'n>ject. ;i will lHHn tho diBturhins 
oil (Tin of roproivramniiiitf on the on- 
tin- DO!) woapoiiH acquimtion proc- 
eii:i. Kinully, I.h,.,',. w ill bi> greater 
Toire iitnicturo cirecLlvnHH through 
einpluiMiii on !iyntetn (tlToutivcnuRft in 
ineetiniv iniHMioii objectivoH, and on 
n.sU'lVcctivem'Mii analywiH of (ronipot- 
iniv ayiiLinnii to aimuni that fundii will 
bn eoininitled where they will make 
the KwaU'iiL couLrilmtion to achiovo- 
ment of tin- overall IK)]) postuvo. 

Phases of Contrtict Definition 

Witli thhi brief overview, le.t'n ex- 
amine the conduct of iMniHGH A, H 
nnil <! of contract definition in more 
delail. 

Phnw A. In I'liatie A, a re.quimt 
for pnipiisal (UI'T) for tho, conduct 
of contract definition on a competitive 
ban!;! in releiiiicil Lo industry l>y the 
(iovei'iiinent. (Ion true lord then mibmit 
two pro|ioiibi wlilcll are a firm flxed- 
lirlce |>ni|)iiHal for contract definition, 
nnil a plunniiiK propmial for on|, r ine- 
erliiK development, plun projoetiond 
for production, operaLion and niainte- 
nance ciuttn of Urn iiynteiu. 




2. 



Following the evaluation of the pro- 
posals, contractors are selected by the 
source selection authority. Usually, 
two or more contractors arc selected 
to compete during the next phase. 
Firm fixed-price contracts for Phase 
H arc then negotiated with each 
selected contractor. 

Phase It. Moving on from the 
point of Phase B contract award, one 
should examine the outputs expected. 
The first output is a complete tech- 
nical, co.it and management proposal 
for development. In some cases, pro- 
posals can also include a portion of 
tho production and logistics support 
procurement. A second output JH tho 
contract definition report which sum- 
mari/.es contractor activities and 
their results. This report supports the 
proposal for full-scale development. 
It can be quite extensive for the 
larger projects. 

Next, lot's examine Home of the 
activities of the contractor under 
Phase II which lead to the two 
major outputs just mentioned. The 
first action in emphasising intra- 
Hystem tnulc-ofi's that will optimize 
operational effectiveness, total life- 
cycle costs, mid project schedules. 
Second, performance specifications 
should lie established which will pei*- 
mlfc design latitude of end itemti of 
the system during development within 
specified reliability and maintain- 
ability, and spell out minimum ac- 
ceptable performance levels to guar- 
antee the desired performance. 

Third, tho technical plan should 
identify risk areas and tho plann for 
overcoming thorn, Also, tho detailed 
work statements for the development 
contract should be submitted in for- 
ma! contract language, fourth, the 
management plan should include pro- 
ject organization, mako-or-lmy policy, 
subcontracting, and project control, as 
well as government- furnished equip- 
ment control methods, Fifth, detailed 
coat estimates should bo based on 
tho work breakdown Btructurc and its 
derivative packages, Finally, the con- 
tractor should structure a fixed-price 
or incentive contract in which incen- 
tives should he established for items 
of high value to the Government, and 
should reflect system efTcctivencHH and 
life-cycle cost considerations. 

Tho foregoing discussion has em- 
plmfuV.cd tho activities of competing 
industrial contractors during Phase 
H, During this period, tho Government 



Dofon&o Industry Bullolln 



provides equal guidance to alt con- 
tractors and continues in-house tasks, 
such as revising 1 and detailing- the 
Technical Development Plan. 

Phase C. Having 1 completed Phase 
Bj we now move to the next phase and 
examine the key steps accomplished 
in Phase C. Proposals are evaluated 
by the Source Selection Evaluation 
Board, within a goal of 18 weeks. Re- 
sults arc evaluated by a high level 
Source Selection Advisory Council, 
and alternatives are submitted to the 
source selection authority for deci- 
sion. 

Technical transfusion may he con- 
ducted to the extent of the Govern- 
ment's riglits-in-data after the source 
selection has been made. Thus far, 
however, few items have been trans- 
fused due to "real life problems" 
which will be discussed later. 

Changes are incorporated in pro- 
posals and the cost of these changes 
are negotiated with the winning con- 
tractor. If approved by the source 
selection authority, the contract for 
full-scale development is negotiated 
and executed, In certain cases, still 
other actions may be directed. These 
could include; select an alternate 
source, i.e., a source other than those 
contractors competing in the Phase B 
activity; defer or abandon the de- 
velopment effort; or perform further 
definition or return to advanced de- 
velopment. 

Actually, no Army program has yet 
followed this formal cycle just des- 
cribed in every respect. This is as it 
should be because of the very nature 
of research and development. The 
cycle must be sufficiently flexible to 
accommodate deviations which are ne- 
cessitated by changes in requirements, 
major breakthroughs in the state of 
the art, and changes in m-gency. 

Many Way* of Doing Business 
with Industry 

There have been numerous ways of 
doing business with industry in the 
development of materiel including the 
use of many different types of con- 
tracts. 

Normal Contract Definition. Normal 
contract definition has been a real 
advance in the integrated planning 
for associated equipment, logistic and 
maintenance support, and personnel 
implications involved in the engineer- 
ing of large systems. The advantages 



Good basis for competitive total 
package procurement, 

Good total price expected to re- 
sult due to competition. 

Comprehensive planning. 

Design data derived during con- 
tract definition by competing contrac- 
tors belongs to the Government. 

Better visibility provided by the 
comprehensive planning. 

Pure performance specifications 
permitting latitude for contractor 
action. 

Total Package Procurement. Total 
package procurement (to include de- 
velopment, production and logistic 
support) combined with contract 
definition offers interesting possibil- 
ities in our continuing effort to get 
the most for the defense dollar. How- 
ever, both contract definition and total 
package procurement have some in- 
herent problems. Lack of enthusiastic 
response from industry was recently 
encountered when bids were requested 
involving both contract definition and 
total package procurement. Contrac- 
tors were reluctant to commit their 
companies' resources for a period of 
five to seven years based on just 
paper studies. 

Although pure performance specifi- , 
cations are emphasized as an output 
of contract definition, in reality con- 
tractors have found that detailed de- 
signs must be completed in order to 
prepare the required production, oper- 
ation and maintenance cost estimates 
with a degree of accuracy sufficient 
to warrant the risk of their stock- 
holders' investments. These detailed 
designs are not readily transfused 
and, consequently, we have not yet 
fully developed technical transfusion. 

Expanded Contract Definition. Ex- 
panded contract definition, to include 
the fabrication and test of two par- 
allel hardware approaches, provides 
some merit in overcoming the objec- 
tions to the usual contract definition 
process. It is anticipated that indus- 
try will be less reluctant to commit 
its resources when it can more nearly 
see what its costs are. Over-concern 
on the part of industry with the risks 
of detailed design on paper only can 
then be somewhat overcome by more 
credible information resulting from 
actual test of hardware. Fabrication 
of prototypes can reduce risks, both 
for industry and the Government, be- 
fore large commitments are made. 



Expanded contract definition, to pro- 
vide for hardware fabrication and 
test, does cost more during develop- 
ment and requires more time. The 
added cost and time should be 
weighed against the benefits that 
competitive hardware development 
would provide, 

Traditional Methods. Previous tradi- 
tional development methods are not 
nearly so attractive as contract defini- 
tion, although they do permit a bet- 
ter opportunity for the small contrac- 
tor with limited system capabilities 
to compete in the development process. 
Principal disadvantages are: total 
package procurement is not always 
feasible; traditional methods lend to 
probable sole source procurement of 
first-year production, thus resulting 
in additional costs to the Government; 
and, finally, the Government accepts 
high cost risks through assuming 
total interface responsibility. Sob 
source should be resorted to only in 
those/ cases where pressing necessity 
requires such drastic and inevitably 
expensive means. 

;0n selected development projects, 
AMC has proposed that the contract 
definition procedure be supplemented 
to add fabrication of prototype hard- 
ware and engineering design teats 
within the contract definition phase- 
to be followed by total package pro- 
curement. This would have the effect 
of extending the competitive period 
of contract definition into the initial 
stages of full-scale development, Ths 
additional development costs this will 
entail may well be justifiable in tlml 
it offers a better chance of assnrinjj! 
wider industry participation, of select 
ing the right approach, the bcsl COR 
tractor, and a more credible cost feu 
successful development. 



Foreign Military Sales 
Pamphlet Available 

A DOD pamphlet titled, "Forelgi 
Military Sales Facts," which liigli 
lights the background of the Milltor 
Export Sales Program as well na d< 
tails of some of the larger sales as 
rangements, is available witluw 
charge. 

Requests for copies should bo at 
dressed to: Office of the AssiatflT 
Secretary of Defense (Intornntioni 
Security Affairs), Attn: ILN, Roai 
4B 662, Washington, D.C. 20801. 



October 19< 



Colonel George T. Buck, USAF 



I 111 1 ! muHllnn 1 iitiirlliiif; Ihinjv almut 
tndiiy'n li'i'lninlnjiy in Hie inerea.'led 
I'hanKi' uf pure. II tl!i:i lu'i-n ciil limited 
lliul, nmi'o limn Ml jieivcnl ol' mir rill' 
rent iirietilllie luiuwleilK' 1 wtiti ni'i|iiirt'il 
in the la.-il '.!0 yeiir.'t. The Air Kiiive 
Mirttiile Development, Center { A I 1 ' 
MDC), at lluttntniin A Kit, N.M,, in 



I lie ;iceiie <if iiunio of the most diverts 
n-iiemrh, (ievelopincnl mill t(it nc- 
tivit.lt'ii of Uit' Air Korni HyitUmiH Onm- 
niiunl (AKKC.). A dyimmit! Uirnovor 
t'T evt'iil.-i in ninliiiujilly lli'iiiK experi- 
enceii ul tliiu jiinitlierii Ninv M(>xk:n 
niililiu-y iiiiitiillutioii. 
'I'liin in lii'sti ilhifitrated liy ve.vid 




tin (n(crnftlloril mile to the arllvllltH of Iho Air Force MiHHilo Dovcl- 
nptmml ('i-ntcr WBM H Knnijt of Kwin iivlftUirn himy tcHlinK l'ic MirnRO III, a 
Krehch-lmlll, SwlNft>ttwnt>il nircrafl. The nirrrnft WAH being mnrrlcd to n U.S.- 
(Uveluped lire rtintrul >tt'm. Tents nt the ri'iitcr were conducted for over two 



' aiitivitioa of a typical day 
at thd i-iMiUsr. Ono Hinjjlo day finds 
iirinnmcint crows rdadyinjj aircraft 
with viu-yinfi: munitions loads. Rc- 
<'(!iitly, thosd could havo boon 750- 
liound bombs bnnff bonath ono of the 
latest vor.HloiiH of tlio Phantom air- 
ernft, tlio P-4I), or 2000 pounders 
i:lh)Khi; to a P-lOfi. Soon, the niinu- 
imtnt crows will lio working- with tho 
F--1 aji'ain, this timo in tests of tho 
Walloyt! missile. Then, tlio F-105 re- 
turns for touts of tho Standard ARM 
missiln. 

On tho mumi day a solid ])ropulHion 
crow at this tost track facility makes 
final chocks on tho. big rocket boostor.M 
to drive the F-1J.1 module down tho 
famoiiH Ilolloimui llli,58B-foot tost 
track. This tost is one of u sol-ion to 
dotormini! thts roliability of the alr- 
ermv oscapo tty.stem for ono of tho 
nation's modern uireraft tho F-lll. 

Smno 50 milos Mouth of Holloman, 
on the firing lino at tho U.S. Army's 
White Sands Missile llimffo (WSMR), 
another Hollomnn crow readies u 
rocket probe for launch, Tho crcwa 
annually launch over 100 rockots of 
many deHijfiis supporting the Air 
Force, Navy, Army and tho National 
AoroimuticH and Space Administra- 
tion (NASA). 

In the not too distant past, one of 
tho most unusual aspects of the con- 
tor's work proceeded on thft flight lino. 
There French and German accents 
'mingled with southwestern drawls as 
an international crew readied tho 
French-built, Swiss-owned Mirage 
III aircraft for flight tests over the 



Defonia Industry Bulletin 



provides eq.ua! guidance to all con- 
tractors and continues in-house tasks, 
such as revising: and detailing the 
Technical Development Plan. 

Phase C. Having completed Phase 
B, we now move to the next phase and 
examine the key steps accomplished 
in Phase G. Proposals are evaluated 
by the Source Selection Evaluation 
Board, within a goal of IS weeks. Re- 
sults are evaluated by a high level 
Source Selection Advisory Council, 
and alternatives are submitted to the 
source selection authority for deci- 
sion. 

Technical transfusion may be con- 
ducted to the extent of the Govern- 
ment's rights-in-data after the source 
selection has been made. Thus far, 
however, few items have been trans- 
fused due to "real life problems" 
which will be discussed later. 

Changes are incorporated in pro- 
posals and the cost of these changes 
are negotiated with the winning con- 
tractor. If approved by the source 
selection authority, the contract for 
full-scale development is negotiated 
and executed. In certain cases, still 
other actions may be directed. These 
could include: select an alternate 
source, i.e., a source other than those 
contractors competing in the Phase B 
activity; defer or abandon the de- 
velopment effort; or perform further 
definition or return to advanced de- 
velopment. 

Actually, no Army program has yet 
followed this formal cycle just des- 
cribed in every respect. This is as it 
should be because of the very nature 
of research and development. The 
cycle must be sufficiently flexible to 
accommodate deviations which are ne- 
cessitated by changes in requirements, 
major breakthroughs in the state of 
the art, and changes in urgency. 

Many Ways of Doing Business 
with Industry 

There have been numerous ways of 
doing business with industry in the 
development of materiel including- the 
use of many different types of con- 
tracts. 

Normal Contract Definition. Normal 
contract definition has been a real 
advance in the integrated planning 
for associated equipment, logistic and 
maintenance support, and personnel 
implications involved in the engineer- 
ing of large systems. The advantages 
are: 



Good basis for competitive total 
package procurement. 

Good total price expected to re- 
sult due to competition. 

Comprehensive planning. 

Design data derived during con- 
tract definition by competing contrac- 
tors belongs to the Government. 

Better visibility provided by the 
comprehensive planning. 

Pure performance specifications 
permitting latitude for contractor 
action. 

Total Package Procurement. Total 
package procurement {to include de- 
velopment, production and logistic 
support) combined with contract 
definition offers interesting possibil- 
ities in our continuing effort to get 
the most for the defense dollar. How- 
ever, both contract definition and total 
package procurement have some in- 
herent problems. Lack of enthusiastic 
response from industry was recently 
encountered when bids were requested 
involving both contract definition and 
total package procurement. Contrac- 
tors were reluctant to commit their 
companies' resources for a period of 
five to seven years based on just 
paper studies. 

Although pure performance specifi- , 
cations are emphasized as an output 
of contract definition, in reality con- 
tractors have found that detailed de- 
signs must be completed in order to 
prepare the required production, oper- 
ation and maintenance cost estimates 
with a degree of accuracy sufficient 
to warrant the risk of their stock- 
holders' investments. These detailed 
designs are not readily transfused 
and, consequently, we have not yet 
fully developed technical transfusion. 

Expanded Contract Definition. Ex- 
panded contract definition, to include 
the fabrication and test of two par- 
allel hardware approaches, provides 
some 'merit in overcoming the objec- 
tions to the usual contract definition 
process. It is anticipated that indus- 
try will be less reluctant to commit 
its resources when it can more nearly 
see what its costs are. .Over-concern 
on the part of industry with the risks 
of detailed design on paper only can 
then be somewhat overcome by more 
credible information resulting from 
actual test of hardware. Fabrication 
of prototypes can reduce risks, both 
for industry and the Government, be- 
fore large commitments are made. 



Expanded contract definition, to pro. 
vide for hardware fabrication and 
test, does cost more during 1 develop- 
ment and requires more time. The 
added cost and time should be 
weighed against tlie benefits that 
competitive hardware development 
would provide. 

Traditional Methods. Previous tradi- 
tional development methods are rot 
nearly so attractive as contract defini- 
tion, although they do permit a bet- 
ter opportunity for the small contrac- 
tor with limited system capabilities 
to compete in the development process, 
Principal disadvantages are: totn! 
package procurement is not always 
feasible; traditional methods loud to 
probable sole source procurement of 
first-year production, thus resulting 
in additional costs to the Government; 
and, finally, the Government accepts 
high cost risks through assuming 
total interface responsibility. Sole 
source should be resorted to only in 
those/ cases where pressing 1 necessity 
requires such drastic and inevitably 
expensive means. 

/On selected development projects 
YMC has proposed that the contract 
definition procedure be supplements 
to add fabrication of prototype hard- 
ware and engineering design teats 
within the contract definition phase- 
to be followed by total package pro 
curement. This would have the cftec 
of extending the competitive periffl 
of contract definition into the initia 
stages of full-scale development, Th 
additional development coats this wil 
entail may well be justifiable in tha 
it offers a better chance of assuriiij 
wider industry participation, of seled 
ing the right approach, the best con 
tractor, and a more credible cost fo 
successful development. 



Foreign Military Sales 
Pamphlet Available 

A DOD pamphlet titled, "Fordg 
Military Sales Facts," which higl 
lights the background of tho Militai 
Export Sales Program as well as d 
tails of some of the larger sales a 
rangements, is available witlio 1 
charge. 

Requests for copies should ba a 
dressed to: Office of the Assista 
Secretary of Defense (Inter-nation 
Security Affairs), Attn: ILN, Hoc 
4B 662, Washington, D.C. 20301. 



October 19i 



of Air Force Missile Development Center 



Colonel George T. Buck, USAF 



I UK inuiilliiK jiliirlihiK Ililnir ulimil HIP arim uf mmie of tho most diverse. 

tuduy'ii h'dmoloiiy i,>i tin- iiii-n-juii-d ivjiraivh, dcvi'lopment and Usut - 

i'hiiuiV' 1 "f I''' 1 ' 1 '. H him bi'i'ii i':iliiiint.('d tivitioji of the Air Force SyNtems (Join- 

thut limn- Ihiin till iii'ivmil if our cur ninrnl (AKSC). A dyniunic turnover 

rent tirli'tiliHc Itniivvlnlfre wtm acquin-d uf evi'iitu in nmlinualty ln'inK oxpori- 

in tin- Imil. '.!U yrjini. Tin- Air Kurci- i-itn-d it | Ihin imuthurii Now Mexico 

Mi:i:iili> ni'veln|iMii'iil, ('eiili'i- (A I' 1 - military installation, 

MUC), at llollnniiui AI-'H, N.M., hi Thin iti licnL illustrated liy 




an iiitcrnfltlo(ml mile to the ncllvHlM of (Itc Air Force MiHHlIo Dcvol- 
('i'ntir WHN ft Krtiup of HH-INH nvhvhirH tnmy tcHlhiK tlio Mirnffo III, a 
French-built, KwlsM-tivvntnt nircrnft. The nircrnft wnw bcfnff married to n U.S.- 
lire rtmlrul Nj'Mtcni. Tv*ln nl tho center were cimduclcd for over Iwo 



th(! iiiiHHi()ii-m:tivitLa C u typical day 
at tho cantor. Onn tiingln day finds 
armament (irowB roudyiiifv aircraft 
with varying nuiniUoiiH loads. Ec- 
cimtly, thHo could liavo boon 750- 
jKHinil l)oml)8 IHIHK l)(>i!ttth ono of tho 
Intent voi'sioiiH of tlus Phantom air- 
craft, tlii! I'MI), or 2000 poundors 
dinging to a If-lOli. Soon, tlic anna- 
miMit crowH will bis working 1 with tho 
F--1 iiKiiin, this time in tests of tlio 
Walleye minHiio. Thon, tho P-lOIi rc- 
luniH Tor touts of the Standard ARM 



On Llio Hiiiiio day u nolid propulnion 
crow ut tho twit track .facility makes 
llnal olioolm on tho, big rocket hooHttsrH 
to drivu tho EVUl module down tho 
faiiHUtfi llolloman !JG,G88-J!oot test 
truck. This tout in one of a Morion to 
determine the reliability of tho air- 
cnnv OKcn|)c, nyHtem for ono of the 
nation'a modern aircraCt tho F-lll. 

Homo 50 milon Houtli of llolloman, 
oil tho (Irin K lino at the U.S. Army's 
White HundH MinHilo llnngo (WSMR), 
another llolloman crow roadioa a 
rockut probo for launch. The crows 
aniHidlly huiuch over 100 rockcta of 
many dosifi'iis mipportinff the Air; 
Force, Navy, Ai-my and the. National 
Aeronautics and Space Administra- 
tion (NASA). 

In tho not too distant pant, ono of 
tho most unusual aspects of tho con- 
tor's work proceeded on tho flight line, 
There French and Gorman accents 
mingled with southwestern drawls as 
an international crew readied tho 
French-built, Swiss-owned Mirage 
III aircraft for flight teats over tho 



Defame Induilry Bulletin 



WSMR. The international crew op- 
erated at Holloman for almost two 
years in a program designed to many 
a weapon system built by Hughes 
Aircraft Co. to the Mirage ITT. Daily 
flight tests and numerous gunnery 
tests, along with many missile firings, 
qualified the Mirage III as a first-line 
aircraft for the Swiss Air Force. It 
is not too unusual to find British ac- 
cents scattered across the base as both 
the Royal Canadian Air Force and 
the Royal Air Force have had proj- 
ects at Hollonian. 

During- the same period, the inter- 
Service aspect of the center's work- 
load was demonstrated at the guid- 
ance test facility when an inertial 
navigator was readied for flight tests 
in a G-130 for the U.3. Navy. The 
tests consisted of three major phases: 
static p re-flight ground testing of the 
systems; aerial tests in a C-130 flying 
laboratory; and operational tests in 
either a F-106 (for fighter naviga- 
tors) or a C-130 (for transport navi- 
gators). This facility is the focal point 
in DOD for test and evaluation of 
aircraft inertial navigation systems. 
The Navy will return this year for 
still other testa of yet another navi- 
gation item. 



4C tests and the base/range complex 
is capable of testing any reconnais- 
sance system in the future. Facilities 
are available for testing any type of 
sensor. To support this type of test- 
ing, the Air Force has installed a 
complex of ground targets, including 
an infra-red mapping range 200 miles 
long extending from El Paso, Tex., 
to Santa Fe, N.M. It is the most com- 
plete aerial reconnaissance range in 
the United States because of avail- 
able airspace, reconnaissance sensor 
targets, and range facilities that in- 
clude accurate range instrumentation, 
telemetry facilities and data reduction. 



IN ANOTHER area the center tests 
and evaluates improvements to the 
drone target. The center is able to 
do this because of its complete data 
reduction and optical instrumentation 
facilities and their physical layout on 
WSMR. 

In conducting these and other tests 
the Air Force uses over 35 percent of 
the total I'ange time scheduled by 



WSMR and schedules nearly half of 
the total tests allocated for the range. 

In support of many other proj- 
ects, the 36,G88-foot test track con- 
ducts over 350 tests a year FY 1967 
established a record with 478 tests. 
This includes testing of escape mecha- 
nisms, guidance systems., structures, 
and the effects of fuze impact, rain 
erosion, and blast and vulnerability. 

Among the most dramatic test cur- 
rently being conducted at the track 
are the rain erosion experiments, Tlain 
erosion tests simulate rains of up to 
12 inches per hour and provide con- 
trolled water droplet size. Rain ero- 
sion tests have been conducted for 
the Sandia Corp., the Army, Navy 
and Great Britain to determine effects 
on radomes and missile nose cones, A 
further series saw blast testing con- 
ducted for the Navy's Polaris missile 
test program. 

Further elongation of the tost track 
is now in the planning stage lo meet 
future needs. This will enable high- 
speed, heavy-load test sleds to obtain 
the speed necessary and also have mif- 



f*\ S THE preceding brief summa- 
tion of one day's activities illustrates 
the variety of mission activity at Hol- 
loman, a further look into its mission 
activities will reflect the dynamic, 
fast-moving- chain of events at the 
center, and their contribution to the 
U.S. military technological superi- 
ority. 

First, there is an extensive program 
in the launching of probes. Sounding 
rockets at Holloman lift atmospheric 
probes and parachute tests. Many of 
these testa are conducted at the 
center because of the extensive in- 
strumentation and excellent payload 
recovery capabilities at the adjacent 
WSMR. 

Also tests arc sponsored by the Air 
Force Logistics Command for the im- 
provement of the Air Defense Com- 
mand's F-106 weapon system. These 
testa require careful control and con- 
current plotting of the flight path of 
an aircraft, a drone target and a 
missile. Again> this is possible at the 
center because of the instrumentation 
facilities of WSMR. 

Holloman was also the scene of RF- 




A giant balloon stands ready to be launched from the Air Force Missile Devel- 
opment Center by a launch crew from Detachment One, Balloon Research and 
Development Test Branch of the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories. 
Numerous balloons are launched each year by the detachment in support of 
many government research programs. A 26-million cubic foot balloon, the 
largest ever launched, was sent aloft from Holloman AFB on July 18, 1966. 



October 1967 



ficient track distance remaining for 
deceleration to insure the safe re- 
covery of the sled load. A state-of-thc 
art advancement within this area 
was achieved in May of this year 
when a slim, aerodynamically shaped 
monorail vehicle established a new 
land speed record for a recoverable 
vehicle. The sled traveled more than 
six times the speed of sound reaching 
a velocity of 6,750 feet per second, or 
4,600 miles per hour, during the 30,- 
000-foot run down the track. 



I N OTHER areas the center sup- 
ports radar terrain avoidance tests to 
collect data on the operation and pre- 
dictability of a system when exposed 
to variations in altitude, terrain and 
antenna incidence angle; turbulence 
studies in a program known as LO- 
LOCAT; the Athena missile firing 
program in support of the advanced 
ballistic missile re-entry systems pro- 
gram; tests on the inertial navigation 
system for the C-fiA; various projects 
supporting the nation's Southeast 



Asia efforts; and component tests of 
an air-to-ground short range attack 
missile (SRAM). SRAM will be 
equipped with a guidance system 
which is expected to help it find Its 
target with deadly accuracy, after 
pre-directcd signals from a master 
navigator in the launch aircraft to 
start it on its way. The center will 
test the missile in its guidance labora- 
tory, on the 35,G88-foot track, in its 
Directorate of Aircraft and Missile 
Test, and at its Radar Target Scatter 
Site which will be discussed later. 

Past support has been given to the 
Surveyor lunar soft-landing vehicle; 
to the Hound Dog missile; and to the 
ejection system for the OV-10A, the 
first hardware resulting from the 
LARA (Light Armed Reconnaissance 
Aircraft) or the FAG (Forward Air 
Control aircraft) concepts which the 
Air Force intends to use primarily 
in the FAG mission role. Other 1 im- 
portant future programs will be the 
testing of five inertial navigation sys- 
tems for the Advanced Manned Stra- 
tegic Aircraft (AMSA) ; the SRAM 





Onc of many nose cones measured at the Air Force Missile Development 
Center's Radar Target Scatter Site is mounted on a styrofoam target support. 
Vehicles up to 55 feet long and as heavy as 6,000 pounds have been measured 
at the site. The scatter site complex is used to measure the static radar cross 
sections of actual or scale models of acrospacecraft such as nose cones, decoys 
and satellites. 



tests mentioned earlier; and tests of 

the Maverick. 

A unique activity at the center is 
the Radar Target Scatter Site. It 
measures the radar reflectivity of 
both full-size and smaller-scale models 
of stationary bodies. .It collects charac- 
teristic radar signatures reflected 
from weapon systems, nose cones, de- 
coys and aerospucecraft. Moreover, 
the center operates an $18 million 
radar complex ami participates in the 
collection of data on. dynamic bodies. 
The data is processed through the 
center's completely equipped compu- 
tation facility. 



La ENDING to the diversification in 
mission activities at ITolloman are the 
mission activities of its many attached 
organizations. These units range in 
size from a two-man Navy liaison of- 
fice to a presently deployed tactical 
flight wing of over 2,000 people. They 
differ in activities from the hard core 
of scientists of the Office of Aerospace 
Research to Army specialists in sup- 
port of range activities. 

First, there are two electro-optical 
surveillance facilities located near 
Cloudci-oft, N.M. One, under develop- 
ment by the APSC Electronic Sys- 
tems Division, integrates into the 
USAF Space Track System under the 
operational control of the Air Defense 
Command. The second, operated by 
the AFSC Avionics Laboratory, de- 
velops equipment for tracking satel- 
lites. 

There is also the Air Force balloon 
research and development test group 
of the Air Force Cambridge Research 
Laboratories, Bedford, Mass. The 
large balloon is an excellent vehicle 
for scientific research in that area of 
the earth's atmosphere between air- 
craft and satellite altitudes. The cen- 
ter's aircraft support this unit by 
monitoring the launch and cross- 
country flight path of the balloon. The 
aircraft also carry a truck and crew 
to recover the instrumentation pack- 
ages. 

Still another prominent unit ia the 
6571st Aeromedical Research Labora- 
tory which trains animals for be- 
havorial research, including the 
evaluation of the effects of various 
environmental conditions on biological 
specimens. This organisation uses both 
the center's test track and environ- 
mental laboratory facilities. The en- 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



vironmental laboratory conducted 
tests, in coordination with NASA and 
the APSC Aerospace Medical Labora- 
tory and its chimpanzees, to deter- 
mine if a pilot of a spacecraft would 
have sufficient time to bring back into 
the craft a fellow astronaut, who had 
torn his suit or broken his face plate 
during a space walk, to close the 
hatch, and to repressurize without a 
fatality. 

The latest unit to join Holtoman is 
the 4758th Defense Systems Evalua- 
tion Squadron of the Air Defense 
Command, whose mission is aimed at 
the degrading of Army ground radar 
systems from the air. Ground radar 
weaknesses are pinpointed and, as a 
result, improvements are made. The 
squadron also flies tow target mis- 
sions for weapons practice and air- 
craft sorties to train radar crews in 
aircraft acquisition and tracking. 



ITH this diversification, AF- 
MDC and Holloman AFB have con- 
tinued to grow together. Its strength 
is visible not only today but also is 
reflected in its future a future which 
will contribute to our technological 
superiority and, in turn, to our mili- 
tary superiority. 

In the future, the WSMR/Hollo- 
man complex, because of its unique 
geographical assets, could become one 
of the major sites for space activity. 
Fifteen miles west of Holloman lie 
the Alkali Flats, a 100 -square-mile 
area, extremely flat, free of vegeta- 
tion where the elevation varies less 
than 25 feet. This area is a potential 
land recovery site for orbital vehicles, 
It can accommodate an aerospace 
launch and recovery facility to test 
potential future space vehicles, de- 
signed for horizontal launch and land- 
ing-, or a booster recovery evaluation 
facility to test scale model prototype 
or recoverable boosters in the Titan 
III and larger classes. 

Presently a 38,00 0-foot landing 
strip is in use in the Alkali Flats. The 
area is large enough to accommodate 
several runways varying in length 
from 40,000 to 00,000 feet. The strip 
and the entire Alkali Flats are capa- 
ble of supporting the weight of a B- 
62 aircraft. 

Whether these ideas become actu- 
alities depend on many factors. 
Among them are technological break- 
throughs, military requirements, eco- 



8 



nomic factors, political factors, and 
international tensions. 

As General McConnell has said, 
". . . military superiority can no 
longer be achieved and maintained 
without overall technological superi- 
ority. As a result, we are engaged in 
a technological war which poses many 
problems as well as challenges. One 
of our most difficult tasks in that war 
is to assess accurately the technologi- 
cal capabilities of our opponents and 
to prevent technological surprise. Nor 
is it enough to try to keep up with 
the rapid progress of our opponents; 
we must retain the initiative and en- 
deavor to stay far ahead of them. 
That is why we must have a vigorous 
research and development program." * 

The variety of mission activities 
supported by both AFMDC and Hollo- 
man's attached units are testimony in 
themselves to our overall contribution 
to the research and development effort 
in maintaining U.S. technological su- 
periority. To this end the personnel 
of Holloman and our total mission 
effect are dedicated. 

1 Speech by General J. P. McConnell, 
Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force, to the 
National Security Industrial Associa- 
tion, Los Angeles, Calif., Jan. 13 
19(16. 




Colonel George T. Buck, USAF, is 
Commander of the Air Force Missile 
Development Center, Holloman AFB, 
N. M. Prior to assuming this com- 
mand, he served as Director of the 
Air Force Flight Dynamics Labora- 
tory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 
He is a graduate of the U.S. Military 
Academy and holds a Master of Sci- 
ence degree in aeronautical engineer- 
ing from the University of Michigan. 



Navy Releases 
Navigation Satellite 
for Commercial Use 

Vice President Hubert Humphrey, 
Chairman of the National Council on 
Marine Resources and Engineering 
Development, has announced Presi- 
dential approval of a recommendation 
to release the Navy Navigation Satel- 
lite System for use by civilian ships, 
and for commercial manufacture of 
the shipboard receivers on mi un- 
classified basis. 

The recommendation was developed 
by the Navy in support of initiatives 
of the Marine Sciences Council to 
strengthen world-wide navigations! 
aids for civilian use. 

For the past year increasing inter- 
est has been shown in the system by 
the industrial oceanographic commu- 
nity, off-shore oil exploration com- 
panies, and other segments of U.S. 
industry interested in the commercial 
application of the system for ships 
requiring accurate investigation. 

The Navy, therefore, will provide 
the National Security Industrial As- 
sociation with the necessary technical 
information and documentation con- 
cerning shipboard equipment, for use 
on an equal basis by any interested 
U.S. party. 

The all-weather satellite navigation 
system, referred to as the Transit 
System, has been in use since 1064 
by the Navy, 

The system consists of three ele- 
ments: four ground tracking stations 
(located in Hawaii, California, Min- 
nesota and Maine), the satellites in 
polar orbits at altitudes of COO nau- 
tical miles, and the user equipment 
consisting of a sophisticated radio 
receiver and an associated computer, 

The system was developed by the 
Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns 
Hopkins University, 



Army Agency 
Renamed 

The Army Corps of E ng 
Geodesy, Intelligence, Mapping, Re- 
search and Development Agency has 
been renamed the U.S. Araiy Kngi- 
neer Topographic Laboratory. 

October 1967 




ABOUT PEOPLE 



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Harry H. Schwartz has been as- 
signed as Dep. Asst, Secretary of De- 
fense (Near East and South Asian 
Affairs), Office of the Asst. Secretary 
of Defense (International Security 
Affairs), 

Brig. Gen. Richard M. Scott, US- 
AF, has been appointed Dep. Asst. 
to the Secretary of Defense (Atomic 
Energy). 

Brig. Gen. Donald II. Cowles, USA, 
has been assigned as Military Asst. 
to the Asst. Secretary of Defense 
(Public Affairs). 

Brig. Gen. W. E. Gcrnert, USAP, 
has been assigned as Dep. Com- 
mander (Weapons and Training) , 
Field Command, Defense Atomic 
Support Ag-cncy, Sandia Base, N.M. 

Col. Willis L. Helmnntoler, USAF, 
has been assigned as Military Asst. 
to Dep. Asst. Secretary of Defense 
(Public Affairs) Daniel Z. Henkin. 

Julian R. Levine, has been ap- 
pointed Special Asst. to the Asst. 
Secretary of Defense (Public Af- 
fairs). 

David C. Stewart has been desig- 
nated Special Asst. to the Asst. Sec- 
retary of Defense (Manpower). 

Col. Peter P. Adams, USAF, has 
been assigned to the Defense Com- 
munications Agency as Chief of the 
Data Processing Division, 

Col. Benjamin C. Marshall, USAF, 
has been appointed Chief, Office of 
Industrial Security, Defense Contract 
Administration Services, Defense 
Supply Agency. 

Col, Merle M. Zeine, USAF, has 
been named Dir. of the Defense De- 
partment's AIMS Systems Program 
Office, at Wright-Patterson AFB, 
Ohio. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Maj. Gen. Frank G. White has as- 
sumed command of the Army Muni- 
tions Command, Dover, N.J., succeed- 
ing Maj. Gen. Floyd A. Hanscn, who 
has retired, Gen. White was promoted 
to two-star rank upon assuming 
command. 

Brig. Gen. James F. Hollingsworth 
is the new Dep. Commanding- Gen- 



eral, Army Test and Evaluation Com- 
mand, Aberdeen Proving: Ground, Md. 

Col. Charles E. Kunkel has been as- 
signed as Project Manager, General 
Purpose Vehicles, Michigan Army 
Missile Plant, Warren, Mich. 

Col. Nelson A. Mahone Jr. has 
been named Project Manager for the 
Cayuse Project, at the Aviation Ma- 
teriel Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

Col. Arthur F. Pottle Jr. has been 
named! Project Manager for the 
Lance Missile at the Army Missile 
Command, Huntsville, Ala. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

Charles P. Bnird has assumed 
duties as Under Secretary of the 
Navy. Mr. Baird, former Asst. Sec- 
retary of the Navy (Financial Man- 
agement), replaces Robert II. B. 
Baldwin, who has resigned from the 
post. 

Randolph S. Driver has been ap- 
pointed Dep. Under Secretary of the 
Navy (Manpower), succeeding 
Richard A. Beaumont. 

RAcIm. Jackson D. Arnold has been 
named Vice Chief of Naval Material. 

RAdm. Francis D. Foley has been 
named Commandant of the Third 
Naval Dist., with headquarters in 
New York, N.Y. 

RAdm. Paul E. Seufer has been 
named Dep. Commander (Planning), 
Naval Facilities Engineering Com- 
mand. 

UAdtn. Nathan Soncnshein, 1ms as- 
sumed duties as Dep. Chief of Naval 
Material (Logistic Support), 

RAdm. Albert H. Clancy Jr. became 
Project Manager for the F-111B/ 
Phoenix Program on Sept. 1G. He suc- 
ceeds RA<1m, William E. Sweeney who 
has retired. 

Capt. Robert E. Adnmson Jr. has 
been, named Dep. Commander for 
Fleet Maintenance and Logistic Sup- 
port at Navy Ship Systems Command 
headquarters, "Washington, D.C. 

Cnpt. Melvin R. Etheridge has been 
named Commanding Officer, Naval 
Weapons Center, China Lake, Calif. 

Capt. Edward D. Franz has suc- 
ceeded Capt. Grover L, Rawlings as 
Commanding Officer, Navy Mainte- 



nance Support Office, Navy Ships 
Parts Control Center, Mechanics burg 1 , 
Pa. 

Capt. Robert I. Marr has been as- 
signed duty as Project Manager, 
Naval Inshore Warfare Project, 
Naval Material Command. 

Capt. Robert H. St. Clair has re- 
ported to Pacific Missile Range, 
Point Mugu, Calif., for duty as Dep. 
Vice Commander. He replaced Capt. 
Thomas L. Andrews who has moved 
to the position of Vice Commander. 

Capt. John D. Working- has relieved 
Cdr. R. M. George as Officer-in- 
Charge, Naval Ship Engineering 
Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Capt. Mark W. Woods has been 
named Vice Commander, Naval Ord- 
nance Systems Command, Washing- 
ton, D.C. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE 
AIR FORCE 

Maj. Gen, Thomas K. McGehee, has 

been ordered to Air Force head- 
quarters for duty as Asst. Dep. Chief 
of Staff (Programs and Resources). 

Maj. Gen. "William W. Veal has 
been named: Commander, Sacramento 
Air Materiel Area, Air Force Logis- 
tics Command, McClellan AFB, Calif. 

The following assignments have 
been made within the Air Force Sys- 
tems Command: 

Col. Sherman P. Cu nuttings, Sys- 
tems Program Dir., Long Lines Com- 
munications, Electronic Systems Div., 
L. G. Hanscom Field, Muss,; Col. 
Dale D. Davis, Dir., Air Force Flight 
Dynamics Laboratory, Wright-Pat- 
terson AFB, Ohio; Col. Robert L. 
Edge, Dir., Space Defense Systems 
Program, Electronic Systems Div., 
L. G. Hanscom Field, Mass.; Col. 
Albert P. Lovelady, System Program 
Dir., Life Support SPO, Aeronautical 
Systems Div., Wright-Patterson APE, 
Ohio; Col. Otis A. Prater, Chief, Sys- 
tems Engineering Div., Special Weap- 
ons Center, Kirtland AFB, N. M,; 
Col. John B. Shipp Jr., Commander 
Air Force Materials Laboratory, 
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio; Col. 
Kenneth L. Skeen, Chief, Munitions 
Test Div.j Air Proving Ground 
Center, Eglin AFB, Fla. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



Captain I. G. Cockroft, USN 



1 ield contract administration in the 
Military Services has undergone 
rather dramatic changes, both in orga- 
nisation and in concept, in the past 
three years. This article discusses 
these changes, their evolution, and the 
need for recognition of the new, cen- 
tralized contract administration orga- 
nization. 

Contract administration, also refer- 
red to as contract administration serv- 
ices, consists of those actions that 
must be taken by the Government, vis- 
a-vis the contractor, from the time the 
contract is awarded until the material 
or services have been delivered and 
accepted, paid for, and the contract 
closed out. The functions range all the 
way from production surveillance, in- 
spection, quality assurance and cost/ 
price analyses on the one hand, to 
allowance of costs, change in order 
pricing, termination settlements, prop- 
erty management and contract close- 
out on the other. Once a contract is 
awarded, the contract administrator 
is the prime link between the eon- 
tractor and the procuring or requir- 
ing activity. 

The breadth of contract administra- 
tion functions, and the time spans in- 
volved, are so considerable as to 
represent a major portion of the pro- 
curement cycle. Furthermore, the 
success of any procurement is often 
directly dependent on how well the 
contract administrator performs his 
job. Hence the importance of effective 
contract administration cannot be 
overemphasized . 

Today's contract administration 
posture within the Defense Depart- 
ment was precipitated by a study, 
called "Project 60," initiated by the 
Secretary of Defense in 1962. Detailed 
analysis of the management of de- 
fense contracts indicated that the 
contract administration functions 



could be performed both more effi- 
ciently and more economically. 

As a result of this study, the DOD 
Contract Administration Services Di- 
rectorate was established under the 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of De- 
fense (Procurement) in the Office of 
the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Installations and Logistics) . In 
carrying out its responsibility for 
overall development and coordination 
of contract administration policy, the 
directorate has concentrated on de- 
veloping a strong plant cognizance 
program, establishing DCAS (Defense 
Contract Administration Services) , 



creating a contract administration 
review capability within the Office of 
the Secretary o-f Defense;, junl ilrtvc-lop- 
ing contract administration covnag* 
in the Armed Services Procurenoenl, 
Regulation (ASPR), These efforts 
are oriented to the total ijcrroniiir.ee 
of contract administration semt*a 
by all DOD activities. 

It is the policy of DIM) that cor,, 
tract administration, in u tfivon con- 
tractor's plant, will bo performed lj 
a single DOD component for til! 1)01) 
contracts. This policy ia ^fleet-oil l>- 
mcans of the plant coftimancft pro 
gram. 




Colonel Gerald Johnson Jr., USA, Director, Defense Contract AilmEnlitntiM 
Service Region, Philadelphia, Pa., and one of his quality assurance rcpwnlir 
tives at the FMC plant in Charleston, W. Va., check the road nrm torque on tfcf 
suspension system of the M113 armored personnel carrier. 



TO 



October 



The plant cognizance concept is 
not new. It actually had its beginning 
in 1938, when the Navy Bureau of 
Aeronautics made an agreement with 
the Army Air Corps to perform in- 
spection at the Hamilton Standard 
plant in Connecticut. Plant cognizance 
at this early stage, however, was not 
so much a program as it was a series 
of individual agreements which pro- 
vided for the work to be done, and 
which were effective only as long as 
desired by the parties to the agree- 
ments. Furthermore, these agreements 
involved only part of the many func- 
tions that are now routinely assigned 
to field contract administrators. 

Over the years, inspection cogni- 
zance was assigned to a single Mili- 
tary Department at a large number of 
contractors' plants. Still, it was not 
uncommon for each of the Depart- 
ments to have field offices in the same 
general area, all doing" business with 
the same contractors. In fact, there 
were numerous examples where more 
than one Department had a field con- 
tract administration office in the same 
plant. 



The plant cognisance program has 
corrected this situation. All field con- 
tract administration functions for any 
defense contract being performed in 
a given plant must be assigned to the 
component having cognizance of that 
plant. Thus, in the field administra- 
tion of contracts, DOD through the 
plant cognizance has materially en- 
hanced the "one face to industry" 
approach. 



I ield contract administration in 
the Defense Department is performed 
by two basic organizational elements: 
Military Department Plant Repre- 
sentative Offices. These offices are 
contract administration representa- 
tives of the Military Departments, as- 
signed to individual contractor plants 
for the purpose of administering con- 
tracts for technical materials. For the 
moat part, the plants assigned to the 
Military Departments are those pro- 
ducing major equipment and weapon 
systems or sub-systems that are of 
critical military importance, highly 
technical, and with limited applica- 
tion. Approximately 60 percent of the 
value of all defense contracts are 




administered by plant representative 
offices. 

DCAS (Defense Contract Admin- 
istration Services). Prior to 1963 each 
Military Department had its own con- 
tract administration organization to 
administer contracts for less com- 
plex, general purpose and subcontrac- 
ted materials which were not assigned 
to a plant representative for adminis- 
tration. These organizations were set 
up on a regional basis, and there was 
a minimum of coordination of in- 
spection or other functions among the 
different Departments. 

It is in the organization for perform- 
ing common contract administration 
services for other than the most com- 
plex weapon systems that major 
changes have been wrought, through 
the establishement of DCAS. 

The DGAS organisation also grew 
out of the Project fiO study. In Octo- 
ber 1963, a pilot test of uniform con- 
tract administration procedures and 
policies was initiated in the Phila- 
delphia area, using the combined re- 
sources of Army, Navy and Ait' Force 
contract administration field offices. 
Consolidation of contract administra- 
tion offices followed rapidly in other 
geographic areas, and was completed 
in December 1965. 

DCAS was organized as a compon- 
ent of the Defense Supply Agency, 
and is headquartered at Cameron 
Station, Alexandria, Va. Eleven re- 
gional offices have been established in 
Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Philadel- 
phia, New York, Detroit, Cleveland, 
St. Louis, Dallas, Los Angeles and 
San Francisco. Each region is sub- 
divided into districts and includes 
plant and/or area offices, as necessary, 
in relation tr 
ance nf "" 



Thomas R. Markey, Chief Inspector of KVS Ammunition Plant, Danville, Pa., 
inspects 60mm mortar shells. As a company inspector his inspection system 
is monitored by a resident Defense Contract Administration Service quality 
assurance representative. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



for about 200,000 prime contracts. 
(An additional 120,000 contracts are 
assigned for partial administration; 
most of these involve only material 
inspection.) Although many of these 
contracts are for general purpose, 
non-technical items, DCAS also ad- 
ministers contracts for complex equip- 
ment and components that require a 
high degree of technical expertise. 

As one might expect, DCAS en- 
countered many problems in assuming 
the DOD contract administration func- 
tion. 

Procedures. First was the fact that 
most of the DCAS personnel were 
familiar only with the contract admin- 
istration procedures of their former 
Service. Each Service's procedures 
differed markedly. In fact, this was 
one of the main reasons for creating 1 
a unified contract administration 
agency. 

Thus ex-Navy inspectors had to be- 
come familiar with the Air Force way 
of doing business, and ex- Army per- 
sonnel had to study Navy methods. Of 
course, the obvious solution was de- 
velopment of uniform contract admin- 
istration procedures, that could be 
applied to all contracts. Such pro- 
cedures were developed and issued in 
the form of DGAS manuals covering 
the various functions of contract ad- 
ministration, such as production and 
quality assurance. Ultimately many 
of these procedures are to be incor- 
porated into the Armed Services Pro- 
curement Regulation. 

Paperwork. The vast amount of 
paperwork that currently flows to and 
from the DCAS offices has presented a 
severe problem, not only to DCAS 
but also to other activities involved in 
the award and administration of con- 
tracts. Improved procedures and elim- 
ination of non-essential reports and 
forms will help. However, the best 
liope of ultimate resolution, or at 
least abatement, of tins problem ap- 
pears to lie in the introduction of 
MILSCAP (Military Standard Con- 
tract Administration Procedures). 

MILSCAP will provide for an auto- 
mated (and uniform) flow of data be- 
tween contract administration offices 
and other interested activities, e.g., 
procuring offices, consignee activities, 
paying offices., and other contract ad- 
ministration offices. Unfortunately, the 
complexity of this program is such 



that MILSCAP will not be fully im- 
plemented for some time. 

Payments. Excessive delay in the 
payment of contractors' invoices was 
an unexpected and particularly vexa- 
tious problem during the early months 
of DCAS operation. However, DCAS 
has now reduced its invoice processing 
time to a nation-wide average of 11 
days. 

A major obstacle to further im- 
provement is the difficulty of obtain- 
ing timely material acceptance docu- 
ments, This particular problem will 
be alleviated by the introduction of 
MILSCAP which will call for rapid 
automated transmission and process- 
ing of acceptance documents when- 
ever possible. Automated reporting of 
material receipt and acceptance, uti- 
lizing the Automatic Digital Network 
(AUTODIN), was instituted on a test 
basis between the Navy Supply Cen- 
ters at Charleston and Oakland and 
the DCAS regional offices, and on 
Sept. 1, 1967, was expanded to all 
Naval activities with AUTODIN 
capabilities. 

PCO/ACO Interface. Perhaps the 
most serious problem, and one that 
was inherent in the creation of a uni- 
fied organisation such as DCAS, was 
the establishment of smooth working 
relationships between the procurement 




Captain I. G. Cockroft, USN, is the 
Quality Assurance Director at the De- 
fense Contract Administration Serv- 
ices Region, San Francisco, Calif. He 
previously served as Director, Con- 
tract Administration Division, under 
the Deputy Chief of Naval Material 
(Procurement and Production), Naval 
Material Command, Washington, D.C. 



contracting officers (PCOs) and tb j 
administrative contracting officers fc 
ACOs. 

Prior to DCAS, PCOs dealt for tb? 
most part with ACOs of their owi 
Service. Thus PCOs and ACOs spole 
the same language. They generally 
understood and appreciated earh 
other's problems and objectives. In- 
formal working relationships ami pro- 
cedures were developed to meet jieiii!- 
iar conditions. Under DCAS, a PCQ 
often dealt with an ACO, who had 
previously worked for one of the 
other Services and who, therefore, 
was perhaps not familiar with fie 
PCOs requirements, problrnis ad ' 
methods of doing business. Hoineliiujj 
this unfamiliarity extended to Iwhni- 
cal matters, when ACOfi were cullc-iion 
to administer contracts for items us 
equipment with which thoy hml us 
previous experience. 

The PCO could exercise direct con- 
trol over his contracts but only nt the 
expense of additional worhloEiil and 
further aggravation of the breach be- 
tween PCO and ACO. 

As DCAS "comes of aj, r e," mote ac- 
ceptance is apparent. Navy PCOs si* 
recognizing the capability llii 1 ) 1 hive 
at their disposal in the DCAS orfi- 
nization and are assigning more an! 
more functions to the ACOs. In sorr.? 
instances, procuring; or rmiuirinK &: 
tivities have finessed the "technid 
inexperience" problem by n^if-niry 
technical specialists to DCAS olT.ai 
for liason pur-poses, and to provh!? 
technical guidance and uHwfataiw \; 
DCAS personnel. 

From a workload ataittltitHiit, w*. 
PCOs can no longer nfl'rml lo retain 
any function that can properly h 
assigned elsewhere, PCOw luuv 11- 
signed to DCAS oflice siurh fimcJiw 
as: 

Pricing of change order* m-xl 
by PCOs. 

Placing orders for anil piicirj 
provisioned parts. 

Adjusting delivery schedules Ibt 
prove unrealistic. 

I he foregoing are but a few of 0* 
many problems that DCAS )ins ffitei 
Most of these problems nix- not si* 
eeptible to quick resolution by DCAS 
alone. They require a concprUxl 
over a long period of time, by ntl 
ties involved in tho 

(Continued on 



12 



Oetob&r IWi 



I he Qualitative Development Re- 
quirements Information (QDRI) Pro- 
gram of the U.S. Army Materiel 
Command (AMC) is an information 
exchange program which enables in- 
dustry and the Army to take advan- 
tage of the Department of the Army 
policy on scientific and technical in- 
formation. It is the Army's policy to 
pursue vigorous, well organized, thor- 
oughly coordinated, comprehensive 
information programs to provide for 
the interchange of technical informa- 
tion between the Department of the 
Army and the scientific and technical 
community to the maximum extent 
permitted by security. 

Army installations create the QDRI 
documents, distribute the documents, 
qualify organizations, issue invitations 
to briefings, perform liaison between 
civilian and Army technical personnel 
and evaluate reports and unsolicited 
proposals. 

QDRI documents, prepared by the 
Army to reveal the Army's research 
and development needs, are released 
to participators registered in the 
QDRI Program to enable these orga- 
nizations to determine if they can 
help the Army fulfill its goals. On oc- 
casion, QDRI information is released 
in forms other than printed docu- 
ments, as in the case of classified 
briefings. 



inanimations which are registered 
in the QDRI Program ("qualified or- 
ganizations") receive QDRIs and are 
also eligible to receive collateral docu- 
ments which offer much valuable 
background data. These supporting 
documents are made available by the 
Defense Documentation Center, Cam- 
eron Station, Alexandria, Va., 22314. 
They enable the qualified organiza- 
tions to create meaningful reports or 
unsolicited research and development 



proposals which are aimed at solving 
stated needs of the Army. While 
QDRIs are not often revised, on rare 
occasions they may be updated to re- 
flect changes of objectives or reflect 
changes in the state of the art. 
QRDIs are assigned cut-off dates 
which are estimated to be far enough 
in the future to allow the recipients 
to evaluate and report on the QDRI, 
and to create an unsolicited proposal 
if they decide to do so. 

Qualified organizations are not re- 
quired to return old documents before 
receiving new ones. They simply de- 
stray old QDRIs in accordance with 
paragraph 14 of the Industrial Secur- 
ity Manual for Safeguarding Classi- 
fied Information. 



4" 




QDRIs arc not to be reproduced or 
disseminated outside of the receiving 
organization without written permis- 
sion of the Development Directorate, 
U.S. Army Materiel Command, AMC 
RD-SSP, Washington, D,C. 20316, or 
the installation which published the 
QDBI. 

Eligibility To Participate in the 
QDRI Program. 

The QDRI Program is open to indi- 
vidual scientists, industrial, educa- 



tional, or non-profit technical orga- 
nizations with adequate research and 
development capabilities as evidenced 
by facilities, personnel and accom- 
plishments, and who can meet Army 
regulatory requirements for integrity 
and reliability. Although it is not gen- 
erally advisable, certain individuals 
and organizations with special abil- 
ities may be qualified for unclassified 
QDRI only. Canadian organizations 
which have been cleared and approved 
by Canadian Department of Defence 
Production may also apply for regis- 
tration in the program. 

Security Requirements. 

Classified QDRIs can only be sup- 
plied to participants in strict accord- 
ance with established facility and in- 
dividual security regulations. Some 
QDRIs are regularly released to 
qualified organizations at classified 
briefings. Therefore, usually only or- 
ganizations which possess, or are able 
to obtain, security clearances arc eli- 
gible to become registered in the 
QDRI Program. 

Determination of Qualifications of 
an Organization. 

AJ1 Army procurement offices, in- 
cluding special detachments which 
perform contract execution only, are 
involved in the QDRI registration 
process in connection with the estab- 
lishment of research, development, 
technology and engineering: (RDTE) 
bidders lists. DOD contracting and 
procurement activities include Defense 
Contract Administration Service (DC- 
AS) districts and regions which are 
capable of informing applicants about 
registration, procedures, and able to 
supply necessary forms and instruc- 
tions. 

The credentials which the applicant 
should supply are area of interest and 
capabilities, scientific and technical 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



13 



personnel, facilities, related contracts, 
related "in-house" research and de- 
velopment effort, financial statement, 
and an executed policy agreement. 

A procurement office will be se- 
lected as the registration office. West 
of the Mississippi Valley, it will Ire 
either the Northwest or Southwest 
Procurement Agency based on geo- 
graphical considerations. East of the 
Rockies it will be a procurement de- 
tachment or a major procurement 
office in one of the Army's commodity 
centers based on a maximum match of 
commodity interests, Selection of the 
primary office of registration may he 
made either by a central Army re- 
ferral office or by the applicant orga- 
nization. A mutually agreeable ar- 
rangement will be made between the 
first Army office contacted and the 
applicant organization. 

Registration offices will place firms 
with RDTE interests on appropriate 
bidders lists, and will insure that 
appropriate registration data is for- 
warded to all Army agencies with in- 
terests matching those of the register- 
ing organisations. QDRI managers in 
the Army's commodity centers and 
laboratories will qualify registered 
organizations according to their as- 
signed missions. Where the selected 
procurement office is in a commodity 
center or commodity-oriented labora- 
tory, the QDRI office in the installa- 
tion will become the primary qualifica- 
tion office. The procurement agencies 
and detachments will also provide 
Army-wide qualification services for 
the organizations registered with 
them. 

The prime qualifying office will be 
able to assist the applicant in select- 
ing other agencies, such as arsenals 
and laboratories in other commodity 
centers, which should receive second- 
ary registrations. The applicant will 
forward appropriate (generally iden- 
tical) registrations, brochures and 
forms to the other agencies. Arsenals, 
laboratories and other RDTE agencies 
will conduct a technical review of each 
applicants qualifications, and will cer- 
tify registration in appropriate scien- 
tific and technical categories. The ap- 
plicant is then completely qualified to 
receive appropriate QRDI. 

Approval or Disapproval of an 

Organization for Participation 

in the QDRI Program. 

Initial approval or disapproval is 
given by the primary qualifying office 



which will hold the original policy 
agreement, a document expressing the 
terms under which the Army will ac- 
cept the registration of civilian orga- 
nizations in the QDRI Program. Con- 
firmatory approval will he provided by 
each QD1U manager who accepts the 
registration data. As stated previ- 
ously, each organisation is still sub- 
ject to approval for receipt of specific, 
especially classified, QRDIs. Evalua- 
tion boards or committees may be em- 
ployed at the installation level. 

Initiation of Participation in QDRI. 

The prospective QRDI applicant 
must look to the major Army com- 
modity centers (listed at the end of 
this article) for initial qualification 
actions. With the exception of the 
previously mentioned procurement 
agencies and detachments, all Army 
procurement districts have been com- 
pletely converted to offices in the De- 
fense Contract Administration Serv- 
ices organization and to procurement 
activities in commodity centers. Proce- 
dures are still being developed for 
DCAS participation in QDRI; how- 
ever, plans are that DCAS will fur- 
nish mainly an information distribu- 
tion center, referral, security 
clearance, and survey service. The 
documents to be prepared by in- 
dustry include brochures containing 



organization credentials, a policy 
agreement, a security agreement, and 
the Research and Development Capa- 
bility Index which defines fields of 
research and development interest lai 
both RDTE bidders lists and ttt 
QDRI Program. 

What is the Research and 
Development Capability Index? 

As part of the qualification pro 
cedure, the prospective qualified or 
gani'/ation completes a Research ar,> 
Development Capability Index an- 
other associated forms. The basic in 
dex requests i n form atiot i about ft 
internal structure of tlie itpplicaa 
organization. The associated fara 
are a listing of most of the sclent ifi 
and technical disciplines {fidili c 
interest). The applicant is oliligaU 
to carefully consider whidi of U 
many fields of interest apply lo h 
organization. There is also nn nrt-.iff 
the applicant to indicsito rnwarch ST 
development categories for each fie 
of interest. These categoric HTC li 
Office of the Secretary of Dcfen 
program categories now used in DC 
program plans: research, cxploiato 
development, advanced (J five] opine: 
engineering development, oporalii-r 
system development, or intim|{S-jT,{ 
and support. 



OUTSIDE ORCAN1XAT1ON 




QUUimHG ORGANIZATIONS 

US ARMY PROCUREMENT 
OFFICE 



urunti n 

HOCIU 

Nil II KM ITIUC1IO 

AH unni iwui 



notion 

UU M tttUGI 1 UPUU1NI 
I, KMUfK I ItOUHUl 



, imni cawiiun 

t, IIUIII TH-MHIU" III tfKHI 

r, niuHcuL iitruun 

s. ratnii un iMHim - 




JUTDItl 

tYaiM sicuint nmi 
irriw i mumraui 

IT UTKMttt 





I "KJiHH: 



tnnr i nuun 

UYIM 



T4 



October 



The Research and Development Ca- 
pability Index will be used in con- 
junction with a new Standard Form 
129 and will be issued as a uniform 
requirement of the Armed Services 
Procurement Regulation. This index 
will be used for both the QDRI Pro- 
gram qualification lists and normal 
procurement-oriented research and de- 
velopment bidders lists. Some Army 
installations have this typo of infor- 
mation semi-automated and others 
have it fully automated for fast and 
accurate production of mailings of 
announcements to appropriate bidders. 
AMC is establishing a uniform au- 
tomation program for the recording 
of QDRI data. This program will in- 
clude the designation of a specific 
AMC installation as the central AMC 
data bank for QDRI. 

Responsibilities of Qualified 
Organizations Receiving QDRI. 

In the interest of national security, 
all organizations participating in the 
QDRI Program have a responsibility 
to report back, within 00 days, to the 
agency which issued the QDRI. This 
report should indicate whether the 
organization can contribute anything 
toward the solution of the QDRI. If 
an organization feels that it can con- 
tribute to the QDRI Program, it 
might develop an unsolicited proposal 
which is submitted to the QDRI man- 
ager at the address indicated on the 
QDRI. 

How and Where To Submit 
Reports on QDRI Evaluations. 

The first report is expected to be a 
letter, within 90 days of the QDRI 
publication, saying "We expect to sub- 
mit an idea or solution." Negative re- 
ports are not required except in the 
case of classified requirements. If the 
idea or solution can bo presented in 
90 days, the letter is of course not 
required. Ideas or solutions may be 
presented at any time before the cut- 
off date on the QDRI to the installa- 
tion originating the QDRI, unless 
other instructions are issued, 

The report may be in any of the 
normal technical -report formats com- 
monly used in industry. In the event 
that the organization has already ex- 
plorcd the subject and possesses a 
report on the subject of the QDRI or 
a closely related subject, this report 
may be submitted in lieu of a newly 
created report. 



If the report is sufficiently compre- 
hensive (or can be modified accord- 
ingly) to be equivalent to an unso- 
licated proposal, the report may ac- 
tually be submitted as an unsolicited 
proposal. AH unsolicited proposals 
should be so labeled. 

The following list contains the 
Army procurement offices and other 



Army RDTE offices which serve as 
the initial contact point for civilian 
organisations wishing to participate 
in the QDRI Program. When visiting 
these oftices, ask to speak to the 
QDRI manager. In any case where a 
QDRI manager does not exist, it is 
appropriate to make contact with the 
Small Business Office. 



U.S. ARMY COMMODITY CENTERS 



Southwest Procurement Agency 
55 S. Grand Ave. 
Pasadena, Calif. 91105 

Northwest Procurement Agency 
1515 Clay St. 
Oakland, Calif. 94604 

U.S. Army Chicago Procurement 

Detachment 
623 S. Wabaah Ave. 
Chicago, 111. G060B 

U.S. Army Cincinnati Procurement 
Detachment 

Federal Office Building 
GBO Main St. 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

U.S. Army New York Procurement 

Detachment 
207 W. 24th St. 
New York, N.Y. 10011 

Headquarters, Army Electronics Com- 
mand 
Fort Monmouth, N.J. 07V03 

Headquarters, Army Missile Command 
Redstone Arsenal, Ala. 35809 

Army Tank-Automotive Command 
Warren, Mich. 48090 

Army Mobility Equipment Command 
St. Louis, Mo. 63166 

Army Engineer R&D Laboratories 
Fort Bolvoir, Va. 22060 



Army Aviation Materiel Command 
St Louis, Mo. 6316G 

Army Aviation Materiel Laboratories 
Fort Eustis, Va, 23604 

Army Munitions Command 
Dover, N.J. 07801 

Edg-ewood Arsenal 
Edgewood Arsenal, Md. 21010 

Fi-ankforcl Arsenal 
Philadelphia, Pa. 19137 

Picatmny Arsenal 
Dover, N.J. 07801 

Army Weapons Command 
Rock Island, 111. 61202 

Rock Island Arsenal 
Rock Island, 111, 61202 

Watervliet Arsenal 
Watervliet, N.Y. 12189 

Army Test and Evaluation Command 
Aberdeen Proving- Ground, Md. 21006 

Army Ballistic Research Laboratories 
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. 21005 

Naticlc Laboratories 
Natick, Mass. 01762 

Army Materials Research Laboratory 
Watertown Arsenal 
Watertown, Mass. 02172 

Harry Diamond Laboratories 
Washington, D.C. 20488 



DEFENSE PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS 
TO SMALL BUSINESS 

(Amounts in Thousands) 



July 1966- 
June 1967 

Procurement from All Firms $40,608,892 

Procurement from Small Business Firms '8,360,726 
Percent Small Business 20,6 



July 1965- 

June 1966 

$34,877,967 

7,611,496 

21.8 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



15 



New Policy Set 

for Announcing 

Defense Documents 

The Technical Abstract Bulletin 
(TAB), issued by the Defense Docu- 
mentation Center (DDC), no longer 
carries duplicate announcements of 
DOD scientific and technical reports 
appearing in U.S. Government Re- 
search and Development Reports 
(USGRDR). 

DOD reports approved for public 
release and sale will now be an- 
nounced only in USGRDR, which is 
available from the Clearinghouse for 
Federal Scientific and Technical Infor- 
mation, U.S. Department of Com- 
merce, Springfield, Va. 22151, on a 
subscription basis. 

DDC will provide its users with a 
copy of each issue of USGRDR and 
its index, "Government-Wide Index to 
Federal Research and Development 
Reports." TAB, which will now con- 
tain only announcements of those 
reports which are classified or con- 
trolled, will be supplied to those orga- 
nizations accredited for classified 
service. 

The change refers only to the an- 
nouncement of reports and not to the 
availability of the reports themselves. 
DDC will continue to supply copies, 
for official purposes, of any DOD- 
sponsored report even though it is an- 
nounced through USGRDR. Non-DOD 
reports listed in USGRDR will he 
available for purchase by DDC users 
directly from the Clearinghouse, 

Both TAB and USGRDR are pub- 
lished twice a month. 



New Army Agency Supports DCS Project 



The U.S. Army has established a 
joint project management agency at 
Fort Monmouth, N.J., to facilitate a. 
more rapid and effective response in 
the expansion and modernization of 
the Defense Communications System 
(DCS). 

The newly created U.S. Army Com- 
munications Systems Agency (TJSA- 
CSA) will be under the command of 
Colonel Blaine O. Vogt, who will 
double as Army Materiel Command 
project manager in coordinating Army 



efforts for the DCS. 

USACSA, a subordinate command 
of the U.S. Army Strategic Communi- 
cations Command, will be rosponsibla 
for the development and acquisition 
of strategic communications systems 
to meet requirements of a global 
network. 

USACSA will be involved in re- 
search, engineering, development,, pro- 
curement, production, distribution, 
installation and logistics of DCS 
projects. 



AOA Chemical 

Biological Nuclear 

Annual Meeting Set 

The annual meeting of the Chem- 
ical, Biological Nuclear Division of 
the American Ordnance Association 
-will be held at Andrews AFB, Wash- 
ington, D. C., Nov. 2-3, 1967. "GBR 
Research and Development Programs 
Needing Industry Support" is the 
theme of the meeting. 

A banquet will be held on the eve- 
ning of Nov. 2 at the Andrews AFB 
Officer's Open Mess. 

For additional information contact: 
Norman I. Shapira, Litton Industries, 
Inc., 1875 Connecticut Ave NW, 
Washington, D. C, 20009, Phone: 
(202) 462-8833. 



To Be Evaluated in Vietnam 





The Air Force will send a squadron 
of A-37 jet aircraft to Vietnam this 
fall for test and evaluation. 

Built by Cessna Aircraft, Wichita, 
Kan., the A-37 is a lightweight, twin- 
engine, subsonic, low-wing ground at- 
tach aircraft designed for close air 
support of ground forces, interdiction, 
and limited warfare. 

The 604th Air Commando Squadron 
will conduct the test and evaluation. 
Accompanying the squadron will ^be 
data collection and test evaluation 



personnel working under the 

of the Tactical Fighter AVcunona C 

ter, Nellia AFB, Nov. 

The team of aimlynts will sa 
information on mnmiinp, supply 
maintenance procedures, fturvhabi 
and operational effectiveness for 
in developing tactical nir COIKJ 
procedures, tactics imd techniques 
the use of the A-37 attack ata 
After the test, tha squadron wi! 
main in the Special Air Wai 
(SAW) force. 



16 



October 




MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA 



OCTOBER 

Second Electron uiddynamic Energy 
Conversion Invitational Conference, 
Oct. 24-26, Wright-Patterson APB, 
Ohio. Co-sponors: Office of Aerospace 
Research Aerospace Research Labo- 
ratories, and European Office of 
Aerospace Research. Contact: Lt. 
Dale Smith, (ARE), Aerospace He- 
search Laboratories, Wright-Patter- 
son AFB, Ohio 45433, Phone (613) 
25E-4309. 

Conference on Unguided Rocket 
Ballistics Meteorology, Oct. 30-Nov. 
1, at New Mexico State University, 
Las Cruces, N.M. Sponsor: U.S. Army 
Electronics Command. Contact: B. E. 
Britain, Atmospheric Sciences Office, 
Atmospheric Laboratory, USA- 
EGOM, White Sands, N.M. 88002, 
Phone (505) 338-1006. 

NOVEMBER 

196Y Conference on Speech Com- 
munication and Processing, Nov. 0-8, 
at Boston, Mass. Co-sponsors: Air 
Force Cambridge Research Labora- 
tories and the Institute of Electrical 
and Electronics Engineers. Contact: 
C, P. Smith, (CRBS), Air Force Cam- 
bridfire Research Laboratories, L. G. 
Hanseom Field, Mass. 01730, Phono 
(G17) 274-6100, Ext. 3712. 

Applied Superconductivity Confer- 
ence, Nov. 6-8, at Austin, Tex. 
Sponsors: Army Research Office, Uni- 
versity of Texas, NASA, Air Force 
Office of Scientific Research and the 
Office of Naval Research. Contact: 
W. H. Hartwig, Electronic Materials 
Research Laboratory, University of 
Texas, Austin, Tex. 78712; or Lt. 
Col. R. B. Kalisch, (SREE), Air 
Force Office of Scientific Research, 
1400 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 
22209, Phone (202) OXford 4-5618. 

Tenth Navy-Industry Conference on 
Systems Effectiveness, No. 8-9, Wash- 
ington, D. C. Sponsor: Naval Air Sys- 
tems Command. Contact: Executive 
Secretary, Naval Air Systems Effec- 
tiveness Advisory Board, Code AIR- 
5205 A, Naval Air Systems Command, 
Washington, D. C, 20360, Phone (202) 
OXford 6-6284, 



Navy Electronics Systems Classified 
Briefing (Secret), Nov. 14-16, U. S. 
Navy Amphibious Base, Coronado, 
Calif. Sponsor: Electronic Industries 
Assn. Contact: Electronic Industries 
Assn., 2001 Eye. St. NW, Washington, 
D. C. 20006, Phone (202) 659-2200. 

Decomposition of Organic Metallic 
Compounds to Refractory Ceramics, 
Metals and Metal Alloys Conference, 
Nov. 28-30, at the Sheraton-Dayton 
Hotel, Dayton, Ohio, Sponsor: Air 
Force Materials Laboratory. Contact: 
Dr. Lynch, (MAMC), Air Force Ma- 
terials Laboratory, Wright- Patterson 
AFB, Ohio 45433, Phone (613) 
253-7111, Ext. 54145. 

Sixteenth Annual Wire and Cable 
Symposium, Nov. 29-Dec. 1, at the 
Shelburne Hotel, Atlantic City, N.J. 
Sponsor: Army Electronics Command. 
Contact: Milton Tenzer, Electronic 
Parts and Materials Div., Electronic 
Component Lab., Army Electronics 



Command, Fort Monmouth, N.J. 
07703, Phone (201) 535-1834. 

DECEMBER 

Theory of Measurement of Atmos- 
pheric Turbulence Conference, Dec. 5- 
7, at Slandia Base, Albuquerque, N.M. 
Co-sponsors: Army Electronics Com- 
mand and Sandia Corp. Contact: 
Marvin Diamond, Atmospheric Sci- 
ences Office, Atmospheric Sciences 
Laboratory, Army Electronics Com- 
mand, White Sands Missile Range, 
N.M. 88002, Phone (606, 338-1006. 

Industry-Defense Meeting, "Indus- 
try Responds to National Emergency," 
Dec. 7, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New 
York, N. Y. Co-sponsors: American 
Ordnance Assn. Eastern and North- 
east Chapters. Contact: John S. Pink, 
American Ordnance Ass., 207 W. 24th 
St., New York, N. Y. 10011, Phone 
(212) OR 7-3030, Ext. 700. 



DOD Procurement Conferences Scheduled 



Three DOD Procurement Confer- 
ences of interest to small business and 
labor surplus areas will be held dur- 
ing the month of October. The Pro- 
curement Conference Program is part 
of DOD's continuing effort to develop 
additional competitive sources, large 
and small, to meet defense require- 
ments. 

The conferences are designed to 
provide: 

* A single location for businessmen 
and potential contractors to become 
acquainted with the Federal procure- 
ment and contract process. 

* Individual discussions with spe- 
cialists on business opportunities in 
the Army, Navy, Air Force and De- 
fense Supply Agency, 

* Counsel on surplus sales and the 
activities of the Defense Contract Ad- 
ministration Service, the Defense 
Document Center, and other DOD or- 
ganizations concerned with prime con- 
tracting and subcontracting. 

Current Invitations For Bid and Re- 
quests for Proposals, including a 
number of "small purchase" ($2,500 



and under) packages, will be avail- 
able from Army, Navy, Air Force and 
Defense Supply Agency counselors at 
the conferences. In addition, a num- 
ber of defense prime contractors, from 
the area contiguous to the conference 
site, will be available to discuss sub- 
contract opportunities. 

The dates and places of the confer- 
ences scheduled in October, including 
the individuals to contact concerning 
tli em, are: 

Oct. 4 San Diego, Calif. 

Contact: 

John E, Harter 

San Diego Chamber of Commerce 

San Diego, Calif. 92101 

Oct. 10 West Texas Area 

Contact: 

S. E. Burnett 

Box 986 

Kermit, Tex. 79746 

Oct. 19 Louisville, Ky. 

Contact: 

James A. Beaaley 

Kentucky Department of Commerce 

Frankfurt, Ky. 40601 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



17 



DEPARTMENT 
OFFICE OF THE CHi|if 



AIDE 
LTR.D. Hanzllk 77391 ZE344 



SPECIAL ASSISTANT PAO CNO 
CAPTR.P. Brett 72280 633 



SPECIAL ASSISTANT DEPUTY CHINFO 
CDRP.K. Trahan 71922 2E346 



ADMINISTRATIVE 

DIVISION 
CDR R.E. Paul 
79883 2E337 



CLEARANCE BRANCH 
CDR R.E. Paul 
79883 2E337 



MEDIA RELATIONS 

DIVISION 

CAPTR.M. Koontz 

74627 2E341 



NEWS BRANCH 

COR J.C. Mackerclier 

75342 2E349 



AUDIO-VISUAL 

LCDRL.D. Hamilton 

70S66 2D348 



WOP IX PRODUCT ION 

LTS.S. Hcwell 

82143 NPC 



NEWS PHOTO BRANCH 

LCDR G. P. Bienstadt 

76752 2D34Q 



Office of the Chief of Information Is located 

In the Pentagon, Washington, D. C. 

Telephone; Area Code 202, OXfordplus number listed. 



CIVIL RELATIONS 

DIVISION 

CAPT J.W. Clinton 

77221 2E335 



EXHIBITS BRANCH 

LCDR P.M. Masse 

83409 Exhibit Center 



ORIENTATION & SHIP 

VISIT BRANCH 

LCDRW.E. Berrie 

77291 2D332 



SPECIAL EVENTS BRANCH 

CDRT.A. Williamson 

57113 2D332 



CHIEF OF Ij! 

RADMH.L Will:i 



DEPUTY CH!EF(F 

CAPT P. 



INTERN 



I 



EDITCiW 

EM 



NAVAlfiJ 
THAINI ? 



LIMS! 

WRS.H 

m. 



October 196T 



F THE NAVY 

sr 

OF INFORMATION 



RMATION 
77391 2E338 



INFORMATION 
76724 2E338 



SPECIAL ASSISTANT PAO SECNAV 
CAPTW. Thompson 77491 4E725 



MARINE LIAISON OFFICE!? 
(Vacant) 



LATIONS 
ON 

Smith 
B29 



ERVICES 

;H 

uccla 
!D328 



WE AND 
IRANCH 
. Kent 
2E329 



BRANCH 
Shirley 
10326 



RANCH 
Martin 
!D328 



INFOBR. 
ja Conn 
S528 



PLANS DIVISION 

CAPTK.W. Moorhead 

77372 2E319 



AVI AT I ON PLANS 

OFFICER 

CDRT. Oxendlno 
77371 2E319 



SHOREACTIVITIES 

LT G.P. Vercessi 

77372 2E323 



PUBLIC INFORMATION 

OFFICER 

MR, Albert Eastman 
77371 2E321 



EDITOR/WRITER 

MRS. Ann Bottom 

77371 2E321 



RESEARCH ANALYST 

MR. BlalneKimball 

77372 2E321 



SPEECH BUREAU 

CAPTG.C. Watkins 

50632 2D327 



SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS 

BRANCH 
COR B.E. Lodge 
7W44 2D327 



PROGRAM PLANNING 

BRANCH 
LTJG J.J. Welsh 
78711 2D327 



PROGRAM SUPPORT 

BRANCH 

MR. David L. Woods 
78711 2D327 



PAO MAN POWER 

MANAGEMENT DIVISION 

CAPT R.S. Jones 

56630 2E325 



HEAD RESERVE BRANCH 

LCDR R,H. Kent 

70952 2E325 



HEAD PUBLIC AFFAIRS 
TRAINING 

ENS Barbara GrEmaldi 
70953 2E325 



HEAD JOURNALIST 

BRANCH 
JOC G.H.Tyler 
50634 2E325 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



Oct. 3-6: National Defense Transpor- 
tation Association-Annual Logistics 
Forum, Biltmore Hotel, Los An- 
geles, Calif. 

Oct. 3-6: National Security Industrial 
Association Meeting, Washington, 
D.C. 

Oct. 4: National AeroSpace Services 
Assn. Sixth Annual USAP Contract 
Aerospace Services Symposium, Im- 
perial House North, Dayton, Ohio. 

Oct. '1-5: American Ordnance As- 
sociation (Value Engineering Div.) 
Meeting, Andrews AFB, Md. 

Oct. 4-5: American Ordnance As- 
sociation Annual Defense Prepared- 
ness Meeting, Jacksonville, Fla. 

Oct. 9-10: Fifteenth Joint Engineer- 
ing Management Conference, San 
Francisco, Calif. 

Oct. 9-11: Association of the U.S. 
Army Annual Meeting, Sheraton- 
Par 1 : Hotel, Washington, D.C. 

Oct. 9-11: Defense Supply Associa- 
tion Annual National Convention, 
Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C. 

Oct. 9-12: National Business Aircraft 
Association Meeting, Sheraton 
Boston and War Memorial Audi- 
torium, Boston, Mass, 

Oct. 10-12: Cleveland-Navy-National 
Security Industrial Association 
Scientific and Procurement Confer- 
ence, Cleveland, Ohio. 

Oct. 11-12. Institute of Navigation 
National Marine Navigation Meet- 
ing, Annapolis, Md. 

Oct. 11-13: Army Aviation Associa- 
tion of America Meeting, Washing- 
ton, D.C. 

)ct. 16-17: Laser Range Instrumenta- 
tion Seminar, Hilton-Inn, El Paso, 
Tex. 

)ct. 16-18: Electronics and Aerospace 
Systems Technical Convention and 
Exposition, Sheraton Park Hotel, 
Washington, D.C. 

)ct. 16-20 : American Society of Civil 

Engineers Meeting, New York, N.Y. 

)ct. 17-19: Lubrication Conference, 

Chicago, 111. 

)ct. 18-19: National Security Indus- 
trial Association Research and 
Development Symposium, Wash- 
ington, D.C. 
)ct. 19-20: National Conference on 

Fluid Power, Chicago, III. 
)ct 23-25: National Electronics Con- 
ference, Chicago, 111. 
>ct. 23-27: American Institute of 
Aeronautics and Astronautics 



Fourth Annual Meeting & Technical 
Display, Anaheim, Calif. 

Oct. 24-26: Electronics Industry As- 
sociation Meeting, Los Angeles, 
Calif. 

Oct. 25-27: Electric Council of New 
England Meeting, Sheraton Hotel, 
Boston, Mass. 

Oct. 26: American Ordnance Associa- 
tion Advanced Planning Briefing 
for Industry, Moline, 111. 

Oct. 29-Nov. 3: U.S. Civil Defense 
Council Meeting, Miami Beach, Fla. 

Nov. 1-3: Northeast Electronic Re- 
search & Engineering Meeting, 
Sheraton Hotel and War Memorial 
Auditorium, Boston, Mass. 

Nov. 1-4 : Industrial Management 
Society Meeting, Chicago, 111. 

Nov. 13-15: Public Relations Society 
of America Twentieth National 
Conference, Bellevue-Stratford Ho- 
tel, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Nov. 13-15: Conference on Electrical 
Techniques in Medicine & Biology, 
Statler Hilton Hotel, Boston, Mass. 

Nov. 14-15 : Technical Information 
Symposium, New York, N.Y. 

Nov. 14-16: American Society of Tool 
and Manufacturing Engineers Re- 
gional Exposition, Sheraton Hotel 
and War Memorial Auditorium, 
Boston, Mass. 

Nov. 14-16: Joint Computer Confer- 
ence, Anaheim, Calif. 

Nov. 15-16: Institute of Navigation 
Symposium on SST Operations, 
Seattle, Wash. 



Nov. 26-Dec. 1: Radiological Society 
of North America, Chicago, III. 

Nov. 28-Dec. 1: Wire and Cable Sym- 
posium, Atlantic City, N.J. 

Dec. 3-9 : Harvard College Advance 
Management Program, Statler-Hil- 
ton Hotel, Boston, Mass. 

Dec. 4-6: AFL-CIO Biennial Conven- 
tions, Americana Hotel, Miami 
Beach, Fla. 

Dec. 4-6: American Institute of Aero- 
nautics and Astronautics Missile 
Systems Meeting, Monterey, Calif. 

Dec. 5-9: American Nuclear Society 
Meeting, Chicago, 111. 

Dec. 6-7: Project Aristotle Confer- 
ence, Washington, D.C. 

Dec. 6-8: National. Association of 
Manufacturers 72nd Congress of 
American Industry, Waldorf-As- 
toria Hotel, New York, N.Y. 

Dec. 7: American Ordnance Assn. 
Area Industry Defense Meeting, 
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, 
N.Y. 

Dec. 7-15: AFL-CIO Biennial Con- 
vention, Americana Hotel, Miami, 
Fla. 

Dec. 14: Wright Memorial Dinner, 
Sheraton-Park Hotel, Washington, 
D.C. 

Dec. 26-31 : American Association for 
Advancement of Science, New York, 
N.Y. 

Dec. 27-29: American Economic As- 
sociation Meeting, Washington, D.C. 

Dec. 27-30: American Statistical As- 
sociation Meeting, Washington, D.C. 



Electronics and Aerospace Systems 
Convention and Exposition Set 



The 1967 Electronics and Aerospace 
Systems Technical Convention and 
Exposition, sponsored by the Aero- 
space and Electronics Systems Group 
of the Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers, will be held at 
the Sheraton Park Hotel, Washing- 
ton, D. C., Oct. 16-18. 

EASTCON '67 will present a varied 
technical program. In addition to 
regular sessions, three panel sessions 
are scheduled on "Command and Con- 
trol," "Use of the Frequency Spec- 
trum," and "All Digital Communica- 
tions by 1980?" 



The EASTCON exposition will fea- 
ture a display of aerospace electronic 
hardware. The exhibits will embrace 
the full spectrum systems, instru- 
ments and components and are de- 
signed for the engineer, scientist and 
executive who represents industry and 
Government. 

For registration and additional in- 
formation the contact is : 

EASTCON '67 ; 

Mr. E. J. Zillian 

Western Electric Co., Inc. 

162G Eye St., NW I 

Washington, D. C. 20006 ; 

Phone: (202) 628-5443 ! 



October 1967 



FROM THE SPEAKERS ROSTRUM 



Address by Hon. Robert A. Frosch, 
Asst, Secretary of the Navy (Re- 
search & Development), to the grad- 
uating class of the Defense Weapon 
Systetns Management Center, Wright- 
Patterson AFB, Ohio, June IS, 1967. 



Adam and Eve 
and Management 



... I have the responsibility, for 
the Secretary of the Navy, of over- 
seeing and generally controlling 1 the 
work of project managers in the 
Navy. In the course of the past year 
I have been briefed by, and conversed 
with, many Navy project managers, 
and have had some opportunity to ob- 
serve project management in the 
other Services. In large measure this 
experience has reinforced my previous 
views, and I would like to take this 
opportunity to tell you something 
about them. 

To begin with, I may say that I 
consider management to be truly the 
oldest profession. I take biblical li- 
cense for this view, believing that the 
first management instructions were 
those given to Adam and Eve con- 
cerning the management and opera- 
tion of the Garden of Eden. The pro- 
totypes administrative rule was "as for 
the Tree of Knowledge of good and 
bad, you must not eat of it." Charac- 
teristically this was not only the first 
instruction, but the first one that was 
violated. I imagine you ore familiar 
with the consequences. 

This was not only the first manage- 
ment instruction, but was a charac- 
teristic instruction ; being phrased in 
the negative with consequences by 
implication. Perhaps the most difficult 
and least understood characteristic of 
the management problem is illus- 
trated by this instruction. It is a char- 
acteristic of management rules and 
organization that far more attention 
is given to negative instructions, pre- 
cepts and rules than to positive in- 
structions on what the manager 
should do. The positive rules tend to 
come out clearly in favor of mother- 
hood, God and country, whereas the 
negative rules are precise and definite. 
Managers are always abjured to be 
communicative, careful, economical, 



courteous, brave, clean and reverent 
on the positive side, whereas on the 
negative side it is generally explained 
to them in terms like "thou shalt not 
make cost-type contracts." This asym- 
metry persists in spite of the fact 
that management (as I conceive it) 
is : the art of arranging relations 
among people so that they are able 
to accomplish something. In spite of 
this basic underlying purpose, which 
is a "do," the asymmetry between gen- 
eral "do's" and specific "don'ts" al- 
ways continues. . . . 

It is reasonable to assume that 
there is some intrinsic difficulty in 
this asymmetry between the positive 
and the negative precept. T think that 
the asymmetry is connected with the 
difference between the past and the 
future, and the very nature of human 
life as an evolution into the future. 
The past is specific and definite, and 
what has happened has happened. The 
future that we arc trying to construct 
is open, has infinite possibilities, and 
there is all sorts of room for. creation 
and construction of now ideas. The 
negative precepts tend to embody ad- 
vice against the mistakes of the past, 
whereas the positive precepts are at- 
tempts to construct the future better. 
As a result the negatives are precise, 
the mistakes of the past being well 
known, while the positives are not 
nearly so precise. 

Neither the accomplishments nor 
the mistakes of the future are fully 
understood or well predicted. Thus, to 
my mind, the negative precepts em- 
body guidance against what are be- 
lieved to be the mistakes of the past, 




Hon. Robert A. Frosch 



while the positive guidance tends to 
be general comments on. what we hope 
will succeed in the future. As a result 
of all this, the great bulk of specific 
management injunctions (which are 
negative) are designed to prevent 
things from happening, whereas the 
generalizations, which are mostly 
positive, are the only things that give 
any guidance for what to do. 

As a conseciuence, management in- 
structions and administrative rules tie 
your hands, and most pi-ojcct man- 
agers seem to live in a perpetual 
struggle against other people's con- 
fining ordinances. 



What is the 

End 
Objective? 



Having defined management as be- 
ing most interested in the positive ar- 
rangements for people, rather than in 
the negative prohibitions, I should 
like to talk to you now about the 
positive things that I think project 
managers should do. These are a re- 
sult of my own observations of them 
as well as my personal experiences 
in being a project manager. I am 
afraid that I do not have a better 
crystal ball than others, so that I, 
too, will give positive generalities, 
but perhaps phrased from a different 
angle than the land generally to be 
found in articles on management, and 
in that sense they may be of some 
assistance to you. . . . 

The manager's main job is the con- 
struction of an end result. The real 
thing that we must try to do is to 
achieve the defined objectives. One 
difficulty that many managers have is 
connected precisely with this ques- 
tion: "What is the end objective?" 
The project manager is usually given 
(in the Navy at least) a Specific Op- 
erational Requirement (SOU) and a 
set of specifications. 

Too many project managers begin 
by believing the S OR and those 
specifications to be the end. objective. 
Unfortunately most of our specific 
operational requirements are not 
written in military terms. While they 
may be the result of a dialogue be- 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



21 



tween military and the technological 
people (or of a trialogue between 
military, operational, technical and 
analytical people), they seldom come 
out written in terms of a military 
situation. They tend rather to express 
someone's ideas of the technical speci- 
fications to produce a device which 
will satisfy the requirements of the 
military situation that people had in 
mind, when they conducted the pre- 
liminary diaiog-ues leading to the op- 
erational requirements, The specifica- 
tions, of course, are merely an initial 
formulation of what should be 
achieved, and what everybody thinks 
could be achieved, during the course 
of the project. 



Face to Face 
Dialogue 



One of the nicest and commonest 
ways for a project manager to get 
into trouble is to believe that the SOR 
and the specifications are holy writ. 
Every Navy SOR has an escape 
clause that says: If you cannot meet 
the requirements of this document 
come back and talk some more. No- 
body ever seems to use it. I urge you : 
at the beginning of your project ini- 
tiate a dialogue with the operational 
people, and with the analytical people, 
so that you can steep yourselves in 
their feeling for the problem and they 
can become fully acquainted with 
your views on how to go about solv- 
ing it. Please do not do this by ini- 
tiating an exchange of letters or 
memoranda. Meet them face to face, 
talk with lots of operational and ana- 
lytical people, have your staff partici- 
pate, try to understand the problem 
from inside the minds of those who 
will have to operate the weapon, Keep 
doing this throughout the life of the 
project. This is time consuming, but 
I assure you it is more important than 
arranging for three-color slides for 
the TDP presentation to the Assistant 
Secretary. I will sense and be de- 
lighted by your intimacy with the 
military objective and how you plan 
to fulfill it. I see three-color slides 
many times during the day. 

Let me put this requirement in the 
form of an aphorism ; 

The objective of the project is 
not the meeting of the specifica- 
tions or the satisfaction of the 



operational requirement, but the 
solution to a military problem. 

This initial statement introduces 
you to two other important points: 
The most important characteristic of 
a project manager is knowledge and 
the only way he can achieve this 
knowledge is by direct contact with 
the people who have it. I do not wish 
to suggest that you should not read 
reports and letters, as well as write 
them, and study the basic subjects in- 
volved in what is being managed. By 
all means you should do so, I am not 
a believer in the fiction that there is a 
thing called management that can be 
operated independent of any knowl- 
edge about that which is being man- 
aged, I believe that is nonsense. A 
good manager may start without 
knowing much about the particular 
subject, but he will, in the course of 
his work, acquire knowledge of that 
which he is managing. Without knowl- 
edge of the subject at hand, he may 
PERT, cost, and milestone his way 
happily along- for years without ever 
getting to the heart of his problem. 

I sometimes worry that the tech- 
nology of management is distracting 
us from the real job at hand. Stick 
with the people. The documents, the 
memoranda, the charts, the computer 
programs do not do anything in your 
project. Only the people actually take 
the actions, make the decisions, and 
cause the program to be a success or 
a failure. The rest of the machinery 
is, at best, some assistance to them 
and to you in doing so. Do not he 
mesmerized by the machinery. 



The Virtue of 
Committee 
Operation 



Because I believe so strongly in the 
importance of the people in project 
management, I find myself believing 
in the use of committees, ad hoc or 
permanent. It is not fashionable to be- 
lieve in committees these days. We 
are continually being told that a camel 
is a horse designed by a committee. I 
should note that for some purposes, 
such as crossing deserts, I prefer the 
camel to the horse, always assuming 
that I cannot have an Israeli tank. 



Please note that I include the indi 
vidual as the unit case of the commit 
tee. By all means assign a job to i 
single individual and call him a com 
mitteo, or to two, or to three, thf 
number always depending on the na 
tu re of the job, and whether the pea 
pie are good committee people or goat 
individuals. 

The virtue of committee operatic* 
is that it brings together people ol 
different disciplines nnd temper time nfci 
to examine a common subject, Sinct 
all of our projects are multi-di&cipli 
nary, there is a good chance that mori 
light may be shed by a group than at 
individual. 

However, remember that the dec! 
sion on the subject of the committee f ( 
deliberations should rightfully beloni 
to you or to some other competent am 
suitable individual. The committee ii 
best used as an advisory body and f 
deliberative body, rather than a deei 
sion-making body. The bod reputatim 
of committees for arriving only n.i 
compromised solutions arises fron 
misuse; the misuse of asking the com 
mittee to decide rather than to dis 
cuss, to devise ideas and., perhaps, tt 
recommend. Tho skillful chairman wil 
find his solution not necessarily h 
what the committee concludes, but ii 
something that emerges in the COUTH 
of deliberations. 

Since you will use committees fe 
advise and help you rather than t< 
make conclusions, you can feel per 
fectly free about having nearly any 
one on the committee mixing til 
contractors, the headquarters staff 
the laboratories and outsiders, ns yoi 
choose. You need not be bound to glv 
them precisely denned instruction 
and rules of conduct. Let them rang 
freely over the material to TIRO, 

There are a number of books to 1] 
written on how to use committees ti 
this way and nearly nothing; sonslbl 
has come to my attention. If you can 1 
figure out what to do, do some experi 
menting- an ad hoc committee can a 
ways be abolished. It may be pamfii 
to do so, but the committee moinber 
will know if they have failed and wi 
probably suggest such a course 
action to you. Most probably they \vi 
be enthusiastic about abolition. 

Let me turn now from commitUw 
to some pitfalls and opportunities thf 
you will face. As I have suggests 
projects run on information, and t> 
kind that arrives typed, mime 
graphed, or printed isn't good enoug 



22 



October 194 



for a good manager. He should be 
tor using that only to tell him what in- 
formation he really needs, and the in- 
formation he really needs he will have 
to get by personal contact. Your most 
important basic information is, of 
course, who knows what about which, 
who you can trust, who will tell you 
without being asked, and who you 
should ask regularly. You can only 
find this out by paying attention to 
the people. 

I do not generally sign things with- 
out reading them, but in a pinch I 
occasionally wish to, and I have a 
fairly good idea whose stuff it is 
3 safe to do this with, and whose I must 
really read in every case, 



The Structure 
in which 



Moves 



You must know that much about 
nearly everyone of importance in your 
project empire. In this regard you 
should realize, and certainly the mili- 
tary officers among you do, the dis- 
tinction between the formal organiza- 
tion and the real organization. The 
formal organization, at any rate in 
the project and technological world, 
even in the Services, exists to define 
responsibilities, authorities, and the 
routes of paper that go with those 
defined authorities and responsibili- 
ties. The structure in which informa- 
tion moves, and in fact actions ai'e 
taken, may be far different. You 
should be consciously aware of this, 
and use the informal and formal or- 
ganization for their proper purposes. 
If you have the leeway, it is wise to 
reorganize your formal organization 
to fit the informal organization that 
develops, but you must be prepared 
to do this more than once at suitable 
intervals, generally following the ro- 
tation or change of a key man. 

As a small digression, let rne 
say that my belief in the existence 
and importance of the informal 
part of the organization is strong 
enough so that I have occasionally 
proposed using it as a basis for what 
I call stochastic reorganization. In this 
scheme one takes an organization that 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



is not working well ami proceeds to 
cut down its size by some arbitrary 
factor that must be chosen by judg- 
ment. Let us assume that the factor is 
one-half. In that case we make an al- 
phabetical list of the people in the or- 
ganization and flip a coin. If it comes 
out "heads" we start with number 
one; if it comes out "tails" with num- 
ber two. What we do next is cross out 
the name of that individual (and this 
is the real key to it) we abolish his 
job. We then tell everybody to go back 
to work, and sometime later, six weeks 
or isix months depending on the organ- 
ization's size ami task, we examine 
what people are actually doing and 
relabel the organization diagram to 
conform. If the organization is still 
unsuccessful, perhaps we try the proc- 
ess again. 

You will note that I have chosen a 
cut in personnel rather than an ex- 
pansion. Most organizations: suffer 
more from having too many people 
than from a shortage of people. I state 
this in spite of what project managers 
invariably tell me. Too much of the. 
manpower is spent on doing formal 
jobs precisely instead of important 
jobs directly. When I see presentation 
charts or reports done in loathsome 
and unreadable detail instead of lu- 
cidly stating the main points, prob- 
lems, and accomplishments, I am 
always reminded of Pooh-Bah's com- 
ment in "The Mikado" to the effect 
that "it was merely corroborative de- 
tail intended to add verisimilitude to 
an otherwise bald and unconvincing 
narrative." Someday I will have a 
sampler in my office that says, "Don't 
brief me, tell me what you know." 

Returning to the formal and infor- 
mal structures ; use the informal 
structure for the real communication 
that it represents, reserving the for- 
mal structure for formal matters that 
put things into the record and deal 
with responsibility and authority. 

At the same time if you are to suc- 
ceed, you must be aware of two kinds 
of structural tendencies in bureaucra- 
cies. Both of these deal with human 
frailties and come about as a kind of 
amplification. 

Amplification up the chain I call 
"management by rumor," and the 
Pentagon is very prone to it, A colt! 
solder joint (or, I presume, a bad 
electron beam weld, these days) is 
discovered in the factory, and by some 
means someone outside the project,. 
but reporting perhaps high up in the 



project chain (or even above the proj- 
ect manager), hears about it. Unless 
reasonable self-restraint is exercised, 
by the time the information gets to 
the project director or to me, or to the 
Director of Defense Research and En- 
gineering, it becomes the kind of re- 
port that says: "Things are falJing 
apart completely in the prototype con- 
struction, and a major management 
review Is required." 



Rumors are useful as sources of in- 
formation, but it pays to track their 
background down carefully before 
starting a complete upheaval in the 
program. I suggest that information 
that comes via the informal organiza- 
tion should be checked via the infor- 
mal organization before action is 
taken through formal channels. After 
being checked, it is frequently useful 
to have it regenerated through the 
formal system, and then replied to 
through the formal system, if indeed 
time permits for the formal stepa. 
You can always document the whole 
thing for the record after you have 
fixed it. 

The other amplification I simply re- 
fer to as amplification downward, and 
it cornea about simply from the nature 
of the authority structure in a bu- 
reaucracy. I find that I must phrase 
my questions most carefully if catas- 
trophe ia not to ensue. The prototype 
case is the admiral who says to his 
chief of staff: "Say, Joe, whatever 
happened to Project X," expecting as 
an answer, "Oh that's going along 
very well, sir." Perhaps the chief of 
staff is not quite sure, and by the time 
the question has been passed down 
through several echelons the admiral 
finds himself listening to a two-hour 
briefing intended to allay his suspi- 
cions (which he never had) that the 
whole thing has fallen apart. A good 
deal of everybody's timo and energy 
is wasted in this exercise. 

There are two morals for the. 
project manager. First: Beware of 



23 



generating this flap yourself; make 
sure a simple question is labelled as 
such. Second: Don't get caught this 
way yourself. Do not be ashamed of 
going back to higher authority to find 
out precisely what he had in mind, 
particularly if the original question 
got filtered through a couple of eche- 
lons on the way. I, for one, wouki 
rather spend the time explaining what 
I actually was thinking about than 
use the time of an entire project to 
generate a briefing that I don't want 
to hear, and then have to hear it. 
When I want a briefing or set of 
facts I try to ask for them explicitly. 
{If you think I'm not explicit enough 
come tell me, or send me a note or 
something.) 

Along this line of comment, I may 
say that you should try to distinguish 
clearly between the information that 
you require in order to run the pro- 
ject properly, and the information that 
you require in order to convince your 
superiors that you are running the 
project properly. The two are not 
necessarily the same, though they 
ought to be, and confusing them may 
lead you to spend more time on the 
latter than you should, while skimping 
OR the former. As a result you sell 
better than you produce, and this is 
as fatal as producing better than you 
sell. Keeping the conscious distinction 
in mind may help. 

These last few comments may be 
summed up under the general advice, 
"don't manage for management's 
sake," ff you can avoid it perhaps 
the regulations will not allow you to. 
Do not introduce management controls 
and information techniques unless you 
want to exercise the controls or use 
the information. You have to be some- 
what foresighted in this. You may 
want information later in the project 
that had to be generated in the begin- 
ning:, but think these sytsems out be- 
fore you apply them. 

Remember, management and infor- 
mation controls help you, but they may 
prevent the people who have to do the 
work from doing it well, imagina- 
tively, or in some cases at all. If 
you introduce these things, and we all 
must, as we need them, frequently, 
make sure that the people who must 
carry them out have plenty of oppor- 
tunity (and know they have plenty of 
opportunity) to express their views 
on how to do them, as well as a chance 
to suggest other ways of accomplish- 
ing the objectives better, and in 

24 



simpler and easier ways. Make sure 
they know there is an informal com- 
munication chain. They may be afraid 
to use the formal one. 

In this regard it is frequently useful 
to know, in an informal way, people 
who are far enough down the chain 
(or outside of it) in useful places that 
you cannot know them at all formally. 
The nature of the informal communi- 
cation chain needs some building some- 
times, although usually it is well ad- 
justed by the nature of people. The 
worst thing that can happen to you 
is for you and your principal assist- 
ants to be outside of the informal 
chain entirely. 

To a large extent the purpose of 
Special Assistants to an Assistant 
Secretary is to constitute a formal 
recognition of the fact that it is dif- 
ficult for the Secretary to have in- 
formal access to the informal chain. 
Consequently he has assistants who, 
in fact, really are part of the informal 
communication system. The aides to 
admirals and secretaries also consti- 
tute an informal communication chan- 
nel which has its uses. You might 
think about purposely, but disci-eetly 
and carefully, constructing similar 
arrangements. 

So far I have been trying to help 
you to get things going and keep them 
going in a good and successful way. 
What about the case where somehow 
01- other you have gotten into trouble? 
Perhaps it is real technological trouble 
that could not be anticipated. Perhaps 
it is a kind of external "act of God" 
trouble in the contract or elsewhere. 
Perhaps it is the result of a slip in 
management. 



Tell the Boss 

When There is a 

Problem 



My ^particular concern at the mo- 
ment is not how you go about fixing 
it, but what you do or don't do about 
letting other people know there is 
trouble coming or that trouble is here. 
Don't be afraid to tell the boss there 
is a problem. Remember, it's his neck, 
too Maybe he can help; certainly, he 
will want to help. At the very least, 
even if it turns out that you made the 
trouble yourself, you will get credit 



for having the sense to know that 3 
are in trouble. 

There is nothing more disturb! 
and annoying 1 to everyone involi 
than for the superior to find out 11 
there is serious trouble long- after 
would have been easy for him to hi 
with instructions, with contacts 01 
he can make, sometimes even \v. 
money, manpower, and outside he 
After all, if you ask him for help a 
he doesn't give it in a useful w 
that makes him a part to the ciin 

Again, as a superior, (Eoii't man a 
for management's sake. I nieaai tl 
now not in terms of introducing u 
necessary techniques, to which [ JJIM 
iously referred, but in terms of bothi 
ing 1 the people who arc working; \rh 
you don't need tcf. You must kru 
who to leave atone, when, anil h< 
long, and when to bother then? agai 
Nothing but knowledge of the peoj 
will tell you this. 

Sometimes the most useful way 
make things happen is not to ta 
action, but to make it very clear th 
the management exists, that it is i 
terested, that it wants infonnatic 
and that it expects something lo 
done. It may not even be ncccssa 
to direct whsxt is to bo clone, but on 
to ask for information on tins stall 
to trigger a good tlcal of exorcise 
the system. Bo careful not to let ll 
lead you into eruptions of anipMc 
tion downwards. 

With regard to these matters of i 
lationship with your superiors, 01 
great defect of the project manag 
ment system is that project manage! 
indeed many of their staff member 
tend to identify after a while wf 
their product. Sometimes they ev< 
identify very 1 closely with mamifa 
turers or laboratories producing t! 
product, when instead they nre au; 
posed to be controlling them. Tiy 
preserve a certain detachment fro 
your job. It is true that you will ha' 
to be the main defender of tlic proje< 
but if you identify only with its &v 
cessful conclusion and end result, y< 
will not be able to carry out one i 
the important functions of tlie pr 
ject manager, i,e r , the ulcntificatii 
of intrinsic failure of either the whc 
project or an approach in it. 

Identifying that all or part of th 
project is on the wrong track ai 
needs to be cancelled, changed mai 
edly, slowed down, reduced in futi 
ing, or increased in funding is i 
most important job for a proji 

October \9( 



manager. If he identifies himself with 
the success of the product only as 
being his success, he cannot possibly 
carry out this job. 

Captain Swede Momson, who was, 
before his retirement, a very sucess- 
ful guider of research in the Office 
of Naval Research, had for a long 
time a sign on the wall of his office 
that said, "The most important thing 
in research is the recognition and 
prompt burial of a dead horse." 

The project manager must realize 
that his success may come from a rec- 
ognition that a horse is dead or dying 
for reasons extrinsic to his own ac- 
tions. Certainly, telling me, as the 
manager of Navy research, develop- 
ment, test and evaluation (RDT&E), 
and of the budget for that RDT&E, 
that something cannot be done, or 
is unwise, or would not fulfill the 
basic objective, is as great a service 
to the Navy and the country as pro- 
ducing an article that is possible. It 
is certainly a greater service than 
struggling on, spending time, energy 
and money trying to produce the im- 
possible or unwise. 

I would like to quote just one 
maxim that I think is most important, 
although it does not quite fit in with 
any of the things I have previously 
said. "Do not assume that the obvious 
has been done, everybody else is as- 
suming that too." 

In closing, let me return to my 
definition of management in terms of 
arranging things so that people can 
work. You should think of yourselves 
as something akin to a symphony 
orchestra conductor, to a ballet master, 
to the director of a stage production. 
You are conductors, leaders, in sev- 
eral senses manipulators of people. 
The management tools that you have 
learned are like the notation of music, 
the characteristics of the instruments, 
and the forms of the dance, or the 
script, or the notation of stage direc- 
tions of a play. The important task 
is arranging things so that the people 
perform together with themselves, and 
with you, to do the job. 

When the weapon is in the Fleet, 
the Army, or the Air Force, no one 
will read the TDP or review the 
PERT charts. They will want to 
know whether it helps in preserving 
the security of the nation. Youi" end 
result is what you and your teams 
have done, not the precise means by 
which you have done it. 



The Office of Civil Defense (OCD), 
Department of the Army, has 
launched a new program designed to 
encourage architects and building 
owners to incorporate potential fall- 
out shelter space in the initial design 
of new buildings. 

Under the program, letters have 
been sent to building owners and 
architects, who are planning new con- 
struction projects, urging inclusion of 
fallout protection in the initial design. 

To facilitate the inclusion of fall- 
out protection in new buildings, OCD 
has developed a coat-reduction shelter- 
design techniques plan, which can be 
applied to structures without mate- 
rially changing the building's appear- 
ance or function. 

Examples of shelter cost-reduction 
design techniques are: reducing win- 
dow areas and raising; sill heights; 
judicious use of retaining; walls and 



planter boxes; grading slope away 
from building; partially depressing 
buildings into the ground; arranging 
building modules to provide a pro- 
tected core; filling hollow walls with 
sand or gravel i t and many others, 

The program will be started in 
Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Massa- 
chusetts, Tennessee, Texas and Wis- 
consin. All schools to be constructed in 
the initial seven states will be in- 
cluded. Only owners of such other 
buildings as those valued at $200,000 
or more, without basements, and 
$100,000, with basements, will be con- 
tacted. 

The OCD has already located shel- 
ter for more than 159 million people 
in existing buildings. By use of mod- 
ern low-cost shelter design techniques, 
it is possible to create additional 
shelter space for millions of others. 



DOD Instructions and Directives 
Now Available Through Subscriptions 



All new and revised DOD directives, 
instructions and changes (except those 
marked "For Official Use Only") are 
now available on a subscription basis. 

For six dollars a year, subscribers 
will automatically receive one copy 
of each new issuance in the subject 
group requested. Subscriptions will be 
for a single major subject group. Ad- 
ditional subject groups will cost six 
dollars each. 

Available; subject groups are: 
1000 Manpower, Personnel and 

Re-serve 

2000 International Programs 
3000 Planning and [Readiness 
4000 Logistics and Resources Man- 
agement 

5000 General Administration 
6000 Health and Medical 
7000 Comp troll er ship 



INDEX Quarterly Listing of DOD 
Unclassified Issuances 
and Subject Index 

Subscription requests should be for- 
warded to Director, Navy Publications 
and Printing Service Office, {Attn: 
Code NPA-1), Building 4, Section D, 
700 Robbins Ave., Philadelphia, Pa. 
19111, accompanied by a certified bank 
check or postal money order payable 
to the Treasurer of the United States. 

The subscription service, pertains 
only to the release of new and revised 
DOD documents. Previously published 
individual DOD directives and instruc- 
tions, listed in the Quarterly List- 
ing of DOD Unclassified Issuances and 
Subject Index, will be available with- 
out charge, one copy per request, 
from the Naval Supply Depot, Code 
300, 5801 Tabor Avc., Philadelphia, 
Pa. 19120. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



25 



t/> 

I- 



Q 
Z 



Ji 

oj 

u 



i- 
z 

UJ 

H* .g 

Ml f 



UJ 

Q 

ui 



Ul - 

!tii 

Q 

si 
s 

UJ 

UJ 
V) 



H 



H 







October 1967 



Thirty Universities To Do Research Projects for DOD 



saw 



1^ ifty research programs have been 
selected by the Defense Department 
to be performed at universities lo- 
cated in 30 states and the District of 
Columbia under Project THEMIS 
during the 1967-1968 academic year. 

Project THEMIS was initiated in 
January 1967 to develop now centers 
of excellence capable of solving; 
future defense problems, and to pro- 
vide wider geographical distribution 
of defense research funds. 

All research programs under Proj- 
ect THEMIS, which has an initial 
funding authorization of about $20 
million, will be unclassified. Funds 
for continuation of Project THEMIS 
support of the 60 pioneer programs 
and for an additional 50 programs 
have been requested by DOD for 
PY 1968. 

Project THEMIS research centers 
and the titles of projects to be per- 
formed are listed below: 

Detection, Surveillance, Navigation 
and Control 

Georgetown University. Laser Tech- 
nology. 

University of Florida. Solid State 
Materials. 

Iowa State University. Auto Naviga- 
tion and Controls. 

University of Kansas. Remote Sens- 
ing Instrumentation. 

University of Minnesota. IR Detector 
and Laser Technology. 

University of New Mexico. Radiation 
Effects on Electronics. 

John Carroll University. Laser and 
Ultrasonic Radiation. 

Ohio University. Low Level Naviga- 
tion. 

Oklahoma State University. Elec- 
tronic Description of Environment. 

Texas A&M University. Optimization 
Research. 

Southern Methodist University. Auto- 
matic Navigation. 

University of Virginia. Learning Con- 
trol Systems. 



Energy and Power 

University of California at San 
Diego, Transport Phenomena in 
Flow Systems. 

University of Delaware. Fluid Me- 
chanics and Heat Transfer. 

Florida State University. Geophysical 
Fluid Dynamics. 

University of Minnesota. Gas Turbine 
Technology. 

University of Missouri. Fluid Trans- 
port Properties, 

University of Tennessee. Dynamic 
Sealing. 

University of Utah. Chemistry of 
Combustion. 

Information Sciences 

Auburn University. Information Proc- 
essing. 

University of Florida. Logistics and 
Information Processing. 

Louisiana State University. Digital 
Automata. 

Dartmouth College. Time Shared 
Computing Systems. 

Case Institute of Technology. Re- 
search on R&D Management. 

University of Houston. Information 
Processing Systems. 

Military Vehicle Technology 

Georgia Institute of Technology. Low 

Speed Aerodynamics. 
Notre Dame University. Deep Sea 

Engineering and Aerodynamics. 
University of Maseachussetts. Deep 

Sea Submersiblas. 
Mississippi State University. Rotor 

and Prop Aerodynamics. 
Rutgers University. Separated Flow. 

Material Sciences 

Georgia Institute of Technology. In- 
terface Phenomena. 

lawa State University, Ceramic Ma- 
terials. 

Stevens Institute. Nonlinear Physics 
of Polymers, Cryogenic Science and 
Engineering. 

North Carolina State University. Ma- 
terials Response Phenomenon. 



Environmental Sciences 

University of Hawaii. Astronomy Re- 
search, 

University of Nevada. Cloud Physics. 

New Mexico Institute of Minerals & 
Technology. Environmental Sci- 
ences. 

SUNY Albany. Modification of En- 
vironment. 

Oregon State University. On Line 
Computer Environmental Research. 

South Dakota School of Mines. Mod- 
ification of Convective Clouds. 

Texas A&M University. Meteorology 
Research. 

Medical Sciences 

Indiana University. Environmental 
Hazards. 

Louisiana State University. Infectious 
Communicable Disease. 

SUNY Buffalo. Environmental Physi- 
ology. 

University of Alaska. Human Ecol- 
ogy. 

Social and Behavioral Sciences 

Arizona State University. Human 
Performance in Isolation. 

Kansas State University. Perform- 
ance in Altered Environments. 

University of Kansas. Social and Be- 
havioral Sciences. 

Texas Christian University. Human 
Pattern Perception. 



Contract Administration 

(Continued from paye 12) 

cycle. Similarly, many of these prob- 
lems did not arise simply because of 
DCAS. The creation of a unified con- 
tract administration organization has 
highlighted problems of long stand- 
ing; problems that could not even be 
clearly identified, much less resolved, 
as. long as contract administration ef- 
forts were fragmented throughout 
DOD. 

The contract administration com- 
ponents are malting real progress to- 
ward the four objectives of Project 
GO: improved management of defense 
contracts, improved responsiveness to 
both buyers and producers, elimina- 
tion of duplicate effort, and reduced 
operating 1 costs. 

Contract administration has indeed 
come into its own. The AGO, whose 
functions include vital advice and 
assistance in the formulation as well 
as in the administration of contracts, 
is as a co-equal member of the pro- 
curement team. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



27 



Item 

Electronic Tube, FSN 
5960-067-9364, Type 
8370 

Electron Tube, Types 
5J26, 5R4WGB, 4J38, 
6116, 817OW, 3B24WB, 
2C46, 8262 and 5948A 

Electron Tube, Klystron, 
Types 2K4B and 2K48 

Electi-on Tube, Magtron, 
Types 2J60 and 2JB1A 

Electron Tubes, Types 
6299, 6Y6GT, 7077, 
7289 and 2K25 

Generator, Handset, Tel- 
ephone, in Accordance 
with Signal Corps Dwg 
189375, Revision A 

Handset, Battery Powered, 
Type H-67A 

Headset, FSN 6905 -548- 
4287 

Loudspeaker, FSN 5966- 
243-0207 

Loudspeaker, Permanent, 
Magnet, Type 1S-216/U, 
Signal Corps Dwg 
SC-D],-98482 

Microphone Cover, CW292U 
in Accord with Signal 
Corps Dwg SC-B- 
84239 

Microphone Element, FSN 
5965-698-0421 

Mike, FSN 5966-698- 
0422 

Potentionmeter Assembly, 
PSN 5905874-1798, 
0-zone Metal Dwg/ 
Spec 220262-2 

Receptacle, Quick Dis- 
connect, FSN 6936-6 
673-8388, Liquidome- 
ter Corp. Part No. 
B-298-5 

Relay Assembly, FSN 
5945-758-0977, Gar- 
rett Part No. 199960-6 

Relay Armature, FSN 
6946-069-6209 

Register, Variable, As- 
sembly, Army Missile 
Cmd Dwg 9053894 

Register, Variable, As- 
sembly, Topp Dwg 
17609 

Register, Variable, As- 
sembly, Western Elec- 
tric Dwg BL47637 

Register, Variable, As- 
sembly, Topp Dwg 
18049 



Specification 



MIL-L-13073 



Item Specification 

Register, Variable, As- 
sembly, Ace P/N 
1G2C-348 * 

Register, Variable, As- 
sembly, Ace P/N 
APO 8C6-1 * 

Register, Variable, As- 
sembly, Lear Siegler 
Dwg 600744-01 * 

Register, Variable, As- 
sembly, Ace P/N 
APO 8C5-1 IAW ITT 
Dwg 1065725 * 

Register, Variable, As- 
sembly, Ace P/N 
APO 5-C313-12 IAW 
GPL Dwg 121-631-003 * 

Register, Variable, As- 
sembly, Ace PN 
X600 IAW Motorola 
Dwg 18-14119A10 * 

Register, Variable, As- 
sembly, Ace P/N 
Ace Set 100K * 

Switch, FSN 5930-749- 
89G4, White Diesel 
Dwg A115-620 per 
LSD-HR-41-63 * 

Transformer, Power, 
FSN 59CO-522-0851, 
GE Catalog No. 
70G458, PIN 70G 468, 
GE Part No. 9T39Y4001 * 



DEFENSE GENERAL SUPPLY CENTER 

W. Reed Randolph 
Small Business &, Labor 

Surplus Specialist 
Defense General Supply Center 
Richmond, Va. 23219 
Phone: (703) 275-3G1V 



Item 

Aircraft Cockpit Light, 

FSG 6220 

Can, Water, FSC 7240 
Chaplin Kit, FSC 9926 

Charcoal, Activated 

Chemicals, Photo FSC 
6750 

Cup, Paper, FSC 7850 



Cylinder, Gas, FSC 8120 
Distress Marker Lights 

Drum, Fabric, 500 Gal- 
lon, FSC 8110 



Specification 

MIL-L-6484B 
MIL-C-13984 

MIL-C-43175, 
MS-16657, and 
MLL-C-43237 

MIL-C-506 



UU-C-814A, UU- 
C-812A, and 
UU-C-815A 
* 

MIL-L-23614A 
MIL-D-23119A 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



29 



Item 

Electric Safety Lant- 
erns 

Flashlight, FSC 6230- 
MX991, MX99S, 
MX212 

Floodlights 



Film, Photo, Aerial, 

B-W, FSC 6750 
Film, Photo, FSC 6760 
Gasoline Lanterns 

Insular Strain PSC 
5970 

Light, Marker, Distress, 
FSC 6230 

Lig-hting Fixtures 

Magnesium Powder, 
FSC 6810 

Opener, Hand, Can, 

FSC 7330 

Paper, Photo, FSC 6760 
Sewing Machine, Indus- 
trial, FSC 3630 

Steel Strapping, FSC 
8185 

Tape, Pressure, Sensi- 
tive, Adhesive, FSG 

8135 

Terminal Boxes 



Specification 
Various Part 
Numbers or 
Equal 



MIL-F-3747A 
MIL-F-17696B 
and 
MIL-F-1712B 



MIL-L-1B94D 



M1L-L-583D and 
MIL-L-23G14A 

W-F-00414B and 
MS19107 

JAN-M382A and 

MI-P-14Q67A 

FF-0-OOG06 

* 

OO-S-25GC 

QQ-S-781E 



Various Draw- 
ings 



DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CENTER 

Sidney Charles 

Small Business & Labor 

Surplus Specialist 

Defense Industrial Supply Center 

700 Bobbins Ave. 

Philadelphia, Pa. 19111 

Phono: (215) 697-2747 



Item 
Block & Tackle, Slings, 

FSC 8940 
Electrical Wire and 

Cable, FSC 6146 
Fibre Hope, Cordage and 

Cotton, Twine, FSC 

4020 

Fittings for Rope, 
Cable and Chain, 
FSC 4030 

Molded Rubber Products, 
FSG B330 



Specification 



DEFENSE PERSONNEL SUPPORT CENTER 

Samuel R. Todd 
Matthew E, Kryston 
Hubert L. Smoczynaki 
James L. Calvert (Subsistence) 
Small Business & Labor 

Surplus Specialists 
Defense Personnel Support Center 
2800 South 20th St. 
Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 
Phone: (216) 271-2628; 271-2688; 

271-2728 or 271-2704 



Clothing & Textile 
Item 
Hoot, Flying, Impact 

Resistant 
Buton, Insignia, 

Metal 
Coat, Fireman's, OG- 

107 
Coveralls, Safety, 

Heat Protective 
Gloves, Protective, 

Fire Fighters 
Gloves, Toxicological, 

Butyl Rubber 
Helmet, Combat, Vehicle 

Crewman's 
Hood, Fireman's As- 

bestos 
Manic, Surgical, Fibrous 

Glass, Disposable 
Mask, Surgical Gauxo 
Mask, Surgical, Non 

Woven, Disposable 
Mattress, Bed, Foam, 

Rubber 
Overshoe, Man's, High 

Black 
Raincoat, Women's, 

Coated Nylon AF 
Shoe, Dross, Women's 
Suitcase, Cotton Duck 

Sweatpants, Silver Groy 
Trousers, Safety, Heat 

Protective, Asbestos 

MU-1A 



Medical** 



Bath, Parafin 

Blade, Laryngoscope, 
Infant, Macintosh 
87mm 

Blade, Laryngoscope, 
Large Adult, Macin- 
tosh, 168mm 

Box, Microscope Slide, 
Plastic, 100 Slido 



Specification 

MIL-11-21408 
MIL-H-S4BL 
MIL-C-407M10 
FAC/NS 084 
MIL-U-271WO 
MIL-G-1222B 
M 1 1 ,-IM HOB!) 
MIIr-H-2fifl80 



DDD-M-J38 

MIL-M-ilfilOR 
MTL-M-J8S61 
MIL-0-8JIO 



MIL-S-217J 1 
US A I' 1 Dwff 
S7iK07B7 
BBIt-S-8fi(IA 



1VD#7, 27 Sop 
00 



# 1,81 Fob 



66 



P/D#1, 21 Fob 
66 

P/D#2 ( 20 Jnn 
66 NNN-B-005 
8B (DSA-DM) 



30 



October 1967 



Item 

Cannula, Uterine, Cor- 
rosion Resistant 
Steel 

Dispenser and Counter, 
Narcotic Capsule 
Tablet 

Impression Material, 
Dental, Hydrocolloid, 
Alginate Type 

Locater, Radiographic, 
Ocular, Foreign Body 



Reamer, Medullany 
Canal, 10mm diameter 

Reamer, Medullany 
Canal, 9mm diameter 

Resin, Acrylic, Den- 
ture Base Repair, 
Pink, 250 gm 

Stapcock, Intravenous 
Therapy, 3 way Plas- 
tic, Disposable 50s 

Suction and Pressure 
Apparatus, Surgical, 
Explosion Proof, 
Single Compressor, 

Mobile 

Tube, Blood Collecting, 
Vacuum, Sterile, with 
Anti-coagulant 50s 



Sii!>si8tence 



Ilacon, Prefried, 22 oz. 
can 

Bread, Canned 

Pish Squares, Dehy- 
drated 

Ham, Slice & Fried, 
5-1/2 02, can 

Ice Cream Mix, Type I, 
Dehydrated 

Juice, Orange, Instant 

Peppers, Green, Dehy- 
drated, 2-1/2 cans 

Pork Steak, 6-1/2 oz. can 

Pork Chops, Dehydrated, 
Raw, 807 & 710 can 

Pork Sausage, Canned, 
Linlca 

Pork Steak, 6-1/2 oz. can 

Soup, Dehydrated 



Specification 

P/D#2, 17 
Apr 64 



P/D#2, 28 

Oct 64 



P/D#6, 25 
Oct 65 

P/D#4, 1 Apr 
66 and GG-L-56A 
29 Oct 60 

P/D#4, 8 Jan 
66 

P/D#4, 8 Jun 
66 



P/D#12, 28 
Fob 67 



P/D#4, 6 Oct 
64 



P/D#11, 20 Jan 
67 



P/D#13, 23 Oct 
65, MIL-T-3G191, 
12 Jan 65 



MIL-B-3G032 
MIL-B-1070D 

MIL-F-43142 
MIL-H-1071 

MIL-I-705 
MIL-J-35049 

MIL-P-35003 

MIL-P-43144 

MIL-P-1KM 

MIL-P-1069 

MIL-S-1049, 

MIL-S-3069, 

MIL-S-36046, 

MIL-S-35061 

and MIL-S-3271 




An engineer of the Air Force Flight Dynamics Labora- 
tory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, demonstrates the lift 
capability of the rectangular para-foil parachute. Tho 
para-foil, equipped with on-board guidance and control 
units, is being tested by the laboratory for accurate 
delivery of cargo. Designed to be guided to a pinpoint 
landing, it can glide nearly three feet horizontally for 
each foot of vertical drop. The steerable parachute will 
deliver 2,000 pounds of cargo dropped from aircraft at 
speeds of 130 knots at altitudes of 15,000 feet, Harley 
Walker is project engineer for laboratory tests of the 
para-foil. 




The X-24A, designed and built by the Martin-Marietta 
Corp., Baltimore, Md., is the Air Force's newest flight 
research vehicle. It will be used in the forthcoming 
Piloted Low-speed Tests (PILOT) Project directed by the 
Air Force Systems Command's Aeronautical Systems 
Division (ASD), Wright- Patterson AFB, Ohio. The pur- 
pose of the project is to develop technology to support 
future requirements for a manned, lifting body reentry 
vehicle capable of returning from space and landing at a 
designated site of the pilot's choice, Douglas E. Riingwall 
is ASD's program manager for the X-24A and tho PILOT 
project. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



31 





RESEARCH REPORTS 



Authorized DOD contractors and 
grantees may obtain these docu- 
ments without charge from: 

Defense Documentation Center 

Cameron Station 

Alexandria, Va, 22314 

Others may purchase these docu- 
ments at the price indicated from: 

Clearinghouse for Federal and 
Scientific Information 

Department of Commerce 

Springfield, Va. 22151 



Stilbene Spectrometer for Neutrons 
and Gammas: Electronics and Related 
Performance. Ballistic Research Lab- 
oratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground, 
Md., for the Defense Atomic Support 
Agency, Sept. 19GG, IflB p. Order No. 
AD-644 448. $8. 

Higher Order Elastic Coefficients 
for Crystals: The Third-Order Elas- 
tic Stiffness. Army Electronics Com- 
mand, Fort Monmouth, N.J, Aug. 
1966, 23 p. Order No. AD-642 844. $3. 

New Concepts in the Physics of 
Solids, a Monograph. Air Force Cam- 
bridge Research Laboratories, L. G. 
Hanscom Field, Mass., Aug. I960, 
94 p. Order No. AD-G46 890. $3. 

Beta Spectra V, Spectra of Individ- 
ual Positron Emitters. Naval Radio- 
logical Defense Laboratory, San 
Francisco, Calif., Nov. 1966, 134 p. 
Order No. AD-646 228. $3. 

A Fortran IV Program to Derive 
the Equations of Motion of Systems, 
Air Force Flight Dynamics Labora- 
tory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, 
Sept, 1966, 130 p. Order No. AD-648 
720. $3. 

Study of Alumina Crystal Struc- 
tures (Automation of the Vernoui! 
Process). University of Michigan, for 
the Air Force, March 1907, 25 p. 
Order No, 649161. ?3. 

Measurement of the Velocity Dis- 
tribution Function of a Gas Using A 
Laser. Stanford University, for the 
Navy, May 1966, 78 p. Order No. AD- 
' 688 795. $3. % 

Some Factors Affecting the Growth 
of Beta Selicon Carbide. Air Force 
Cambridge Research Labor ato lies, 
Bedford, Mass., Sept. 1D66, 23 p, 
Order No. AD-645 <S49. $3. 



Investigation of Two-Carrier Injec- 
tion Electroluminescence. RCA, for 
the Air Force, Dec. 1966, 47 p. Order 
No. AD-647 087. $3. 

Physical Research on Fundamental 
Properties of II-VI Compound Semi- 
conductors. Brown University, for the 
Air Force, Nov. 19G6, 75 p. Order No. 
AD-G49 242. $3. 

Relation of Mechanical Properties 
to the Structure of Ionic Solids, Penn- 
sylvania State University, for the 
Army, Sept. 1966, 41 p. Order No. 
AD-641 911. $3. 

Effects of Radiation on Semicon- 
ductor Materials and Devices. Bell 
Telephone Laboratories, New York, 
N.Y., for the Air Force, Dec. 1906, 
256 p. Order No. AD-650 195 $3. 

Deep-Ocean Biodeterioration of Ma- 
terialsPart IV. One Year at 2,370 
feet. Naval Civil Engineering Labo- 
ratory, Port Hueneme, Calif., May 
1967, 65 p. Order No. AD-651 124. $3. 

Evaluation of Vehicle Corrosion 
Preventives. Rock Island Arsenal, 111., 
Dec. 1965, 37 p. Order No. AD-476 
493. $3. 

Thermopliysical Properties of High 
Temperature Solid Materials. Pur. due 
University, for the Air Force, Oct. 
1966, 35 p. Order No. AD-648 236. $3. 

Mercury Atmosphere and Surface. 
Redstone Scientific Information Cen- 
ter, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, 
Ala., Jan, 1967, 89 p. Order No. AD- 
650 033. $3. 

Summary of AFCRL Kocltct and 
Satellite Experiments (1946-1960). 
Air Force Cambridge Research Labo- 
ratories, Bedford, Mass., Dec. 1966, 
65 p, Order No. AD-649 333. $3. 

Bibliography of Lunar and Plane- 
tary Research 1965. Air Force Cam- 
bridge Research Laboratories, Bed- 
ford, Mass., Jan. 1967, 183 p. Order 
No. AD-648 463. $3. 

Landau Waves. Stanford Univer- 
sity, for the Aerospace Research Lab- 
oratories, Jan, 1967, 168 p. Order No. 
AD-651 461. $3. 

A Generalized Graphic Presentation 
of Magneto-Hydrodynamic Accele- 
rator and Generator Performance 
Characteristics. Arnold Engineering 
Development Center, Arnold AFf J 
Tenn., Oct. 1965, 46 p. Order No, AT 
472 727. $3. 

An Inventory of Geographic Re- 
search of the Humid Tropic Environ- 



ment, Vol. 2 Compendium and Ap- 
pendices. Texas Instruments, Inc., 
Dallas, Tex., for the Army, Dec. 1966, 
600 p. Order No. AD-6GO 261. $8. 

Remote Sensing of Environment. 
University of Michigan, for the Navy, 
April 1967, 28 p. Order No, AD-650 
581. $3. 

Large Aperture Seismic Army 
(LASA), First LASA Systems Eval- 
uation Conference. Advanced Re- 
search Projects Agency, Washington, 
D.C., Fob. 1906, 300 p. Order No. 
AD-648 415. $3. 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING 
OFFICE PUBLICATIONS 



These publications may he pur- 
chased at the prices indicated from; 
Superintendent of Documents* 
U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 20402 



MIL3TRIP, Military Afiaisttinco 
Program Addresses, Supplement No. 
2, Dec. 1, 1966. Contains complete 
listing of addresses used by the Surv- 
iees and Agencies to accomplish ship- 
ments of Foreign Military Sales and 
Grant Aid material. 1966. 331 p. Cata- 
log No. r>7.(5/4:Mr>9/snpp. 2. $1.75, 

CommunicutioiiH.TelccommnincutioiiH 
Engineering Installation Practices. 
Provides instructions for engineering 
and installing Hne-of -sight radio com- 
munications ay stems in accordance 
with the requirements of the Defcnuo 
Communications System and tho 
Army Strategic Communications 
Command, 19G6. 362 p. 11. Catalog No. 
D101.ll/2:105-RO/Chap. 3. $3.75. 

Command and Staff Action. De- 
scribes Marino Corps staff oi'KiwiKa- 
tion, responsibilities of staff officers, 
and tho procedures of staff function- 
ing followed by a presentation of 
principles, procedures, and techniques 
applicable to loading force planning 
during amphibious operations. 10G6. 
712 p. 11. Catalog No. D214.fl/4;3l, 
$3.76. 

DSA Field Establishment Directory, 
Reflects each DSA field activity by 
level designation, mailing addrcaa, 
message address, and telephone num- 
ber. 1967. 45 p. D7.6/7: 5025,2/2. 40<!. 



32 



October 1967 




Contracts of $1,000,000 and over 
awarded during the month of August 
1967: 

DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY 

3 Apunrel Corp. of Americn, Knoxville, 
Tenn. $2,257,100. 461,420 contccl nylon 
twill ponchos. Defense Personnel Support 
Center, Philadelphia, Pfi. 
Owens-Illinois, Inc., Toledo, Ohio. $1,092,- 
33fi. 2,752,830 nuerboard boxes for indi- 
vidual combat mcnla and infliEht food 
packets. Defonne Personnel Support Cen- 
ter, Philndelphin, Pn. 

4 Montgomery Pipe & Tube Co., Minmi, 
Fin. $1,G72,OOB. 1,150 barbed tape dispens- 
ers, 113,044 rolls of concertina burned tnpc, 
11,250 cases of btirbed tape steel and 
carrying cnaea. Defense Construction Sup- 
ply Center, Columbus, Ohio. 
Henry Wciiutartner & Co., New York. 
N.Y. $1,387,828. 14,082,340 Ibs. of corru- 
KfUed, zinc-coated sheet steel. Defense In- 
dustrial Supply Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 
United Fruit & Foot! Corp., Boston, Mass. 
31,064,337. 173,394 Ibs. of dehydrated 
shrimp. Defense Personnel Support Cen- 
ter, Philadelphia, Pa. 

7 Shell Oil Co., New York, N.Y. S3,0r>8,- 
100. 2,700,000 barrels of number aix fuel 
oil. Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alexan- 
dria, Va. 

8 Dale Fnshionn, Inc., Vineland, N.J. $1,- 
BOMQO. 60,000 polyester/wool men's tropi- 
cal coats. Defense Personnel Support Cen- 
ter, Philadelphia, Pa. 

H .1. P. Stevens & Co., New York, N.Y. $4,- 
801,257. 3,000,000 yards of cotton oxford, 
wind-resiHtant cloth. Defense Personnel 
Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 

10 Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alexandria, 
Va., hns awarded the following contracts 
for aviation gasoline: 

Mohil Oil Corp., New York, N.Y. S1E,- 

7H0.257. 00,35fi,000 Kallona of Grade 115/ 

146 and 2,805,100 Rallons of grade 80/ 

87. 

Humble Oil & Ilclininff Co., Houston, 

Tex. $11,681,208. 80,600,000 gallons of 

grade 115/146, 

Cities Service OH Co., New York, N.Y, 

$0,268,704. 42,000,000 Kallons of prade 

11E/14G. 

Phillips Petroleum Co., Bnrttesvillo, 

Okla. $0,214,-i80. 154,1)03,000 of grade HE/ 

145 and 16,000 gallons of grade 100/ 

130. 

TCJCBCO, Inc., New York, N.Y. $7,100,100. 

150,400,000 gallons of grade 116/146. 

Shell Oil Co., New York, N.Y. $4.522,- 

441. 28,840,000 gallons of grade 115/146, 

302,000 gallons of grade 80/87 and 5QO,- 

000 gallons of grade 100/130. 

Amerlcnn Oil Co., Chicago, 111. $1,588,- 

008. 10,818,000 gallons of grade 115/145, 

25,000 gallons of grade 100/130 nnd 

21,000 gallons of grade 80/87. 

Continental Oil Co., Houston, Tex. $1,- 

OGG,333. fl.740,000 gallons of grade 115/ 

145. 

Tidewater Oil Co., New York, N.Y. $1.- 

GH,0B4. 10,fiOO,000 gallons of ffrade 116/ 

145. 

Union Oil Co., Los Angeles, Calif. $2- 

250,640. 12,600,000 gallons of grade 115/ 

14E and 20,000 gallons of grade 80/87. 



CONTRACT LEGEND 

Contract information is listed in 
the following sequence: Date 
Company Value Material or 
Work to be Performed Loca- 
tion of Work Performed ( if 
other than company plant) 
Contracting agency. 



15 United Aircraft, East Hartforil, Conn. $1,- 
G7S.714. 2,819 sets of annular ball bear- 
ings. Defense Industrial Supply Center. 
Philadelphia, Pn. 

Oregon Freeze Dry Foods, Albany, Oro. 
88,107,771. 6,547,002 food packets for long 
range patrols. Defense Personnel Support 
Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 
Freeze Dry Products, Evnnsvil 1-e, Ind. $2,- 
474,146. 2,1&2,3G4 food packets for long 
range patrols. Defense Personnel Support 
Center, Philadelphia, Pn. 
United Fruit and Food Corp., Boston, 
Mass. 81,939,169. 304,010 pounds of fiah 
squares, dehydrated cod or haddock. De- 
fense Personnel Support Center, Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 

Gencrnl Foods, White Plains, N.Y. $1,301,- 
2BB. 23B.120 pounds of fish squares , dehy- 
drated cod or haddock. Defense Pei'sonnel 
Support Center, Philadelphia, Pn. 
18 Riegel Textile Corp., New York, N.Y. 2.- 
758,312. S,B2R,DOO yards of cotton oxford, 
wind-resistant clotSi. Defense Personnel 
Support Center, Philndelphin, Pn. 
The Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alexan- 
dria, Vfi., has awarded the following con- 
tracts for JP-4 jet fuel: 

Standard Oil Co. of Calif., San Fran- 
cisco, Calif. 83,008,205. 32,340,000 gal- 
lons. 

Suntlde Refining Co., Tulaa, Ok1n. $3,- 
40.1,400. 33,600,000 gallons. 
Consinl States Petrochemical Co., Hou- 
aton, Tex. S2,fi06,a04. 23,866,000 gallons, 
Atlantic Rlclifleld Co., Los Angeles, 
Calif. 81,013,040. 8.400,000 gallons. 
21 Bibb Mfg. Co., Mncon, fin. Sl.123.00fl. 242,- 
560 ynrtls of polymide twill, hiffh tem- 
pernture rcaistnnt cloth. Dofenne Personnel 
Support Center, Philndelphia, Pa. 
Kaiser Steel Corp., El Monte, Calif. $27,- 
382,320. 126,000 bundles of steel Inmline 
mats. Defense Construction Supply Cen- 
ter, Columbus, Ohio, 

Pntnnm Mills Corp.. New York, N.Y. 31,- 
002. 740. 721,000 yni-dn of water resistant 
cloth. Defense Personnel Support Center, 
Philndelphin, Pn. 

.1. P. Stevens & Co., New York, N.Y. $1,- 
023,434. 700,000 yards of water resistant 
cloth. Defense Personnel Support Center, 
Philadelphia, Pn. 

Plflstolcl Corp.. HnmlnirK, N.J. $2.797,337. 
53,282 onc-milo reels of telephone) cubic, 
Defense Industrial Supply Center, Phila- 
delphia, Pn. 

26 Ilieeel Textile Corp., New York, N.Y. 
$5,087,47G. 2,080,000 yards of cotton sateen 
cloth (4fi-inch width) and 0,178,030 yards 
of cotton sateen cloth (42-lncb width). De- 
fense Personnel Support Center, Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 

PreBtcx, Inc.. New York, N.Y. $2,087,908. 
2,014,012 vavds of cotton sateen cloth (BH- 
ineh width). 1.028,112 vnrtlfi of cotton sn- 
(een cloth (48-inch width) nnd 00.144 yards 
of cotton nnte<!" cloth (48-Inch width). De- 
fense Personnel Support Center, Philndel- 
phin. Pn. 

.T. P. Stcvona X- Co., New York. N.Y. $1,- 
700.887. 3.675,000 vards of cotton sateen 
r.ioth Mfl-lne:h width). Defense Personnel 
Siinnort Center. Philadelphia, Pa. 
38 Unlroyal. Providence, K.I. $1,464.828. 380 
ponton floats. Defense Construction Sup- 
ply Center, Columbus, Ohio. 
J, P. Stevens & Co., New York, N.Y. $1.- 
702,670. 718,000 linear ynrda of tropical 
wool and polyester cloth. Defense Person- 
nel Support Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 
South Jersey Clothing Co., Mlnotola, N.J. 
$1,464,870. 6H.OOO men's green wool serge 
conta with belts. Defense Personnel Sup- 
port Center, Philndelphia, Pn. 
Apparel Corp., Knoxville, Tenn. $i,42S,- 
600. 232,6-16 men's field conta with hooda. 
Defense Personnel Support Center, Plilla- 
delphln, Pn. 

30 M-R-S Mfg. Co., Flora, Miss $1,921,060. 
Thirty wheeled construction tractors with 
scrapers. Defense Construction Supply 
Center, Columbus, Ohio. 

31 Rlcgel Textile Corp., New York, N.Y. $2,- 
667,280. 2,400,000 linear ynrde of eamou- 
flnge printed cotton poplin cloth. Defense 



Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia. 
Pa. 

-The Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alexand- 
ria, Vft., hns awarded the following con- 
tracts for petroleum products : 

Reflnerin Putin ma S.A., New York, N.Y. 
2,810,000. 1,600,000 gallons of number 
six fuel oil. 

Gulf Oil Co., Houston, Tex. S2.61&,0ftl. 
835,300 gallons of diesel fuel nnd 6G4,- 
700 gallons of number six fuel oil. 
Howard Fuel Corp., Brooklyn, N.Y. $1,- 
866,444, 860,000 Rnllona of number six 
fuel oil find 3,000 gallons of dtesel oil. 
Mobile Oil Corp., New York, N.Y. 51,- 
049,877. 319.000 gallons of number six 
fuel oil, 244,770 enltom of dtescl fuel 
and 80,000 gallons of gasoline. 




DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

1 Cessna Aircraft Co., Wichita, Kan. 32,- 
350,000. SUU-7C/A bomb dispensers. Am- 
munition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Joliet, 111. 

2 Amerlcnn Bosch Arma Corp., Sprineneld, 
Mass. 81,241,421. Fuel moterinc pumps 
for E'/i-ton trucks. Tank Automotive 
Commnnd, Warren, Mich. 

Bell Aerospace Corp., Fort WoTth, Tex. 
$1,633,390. Tn.ll rotor hut nsHemljliea for 
UH-l hel Icoptei'B. Aviation Materiel Com- 
mand, St. Louie, Mo. 

aMnrtin-Mnrlcttn, Orlando, Fla. $6,000.- 
000. Improved Pei'shing ground support 
equipment. Army MIsalle Command, 
Huntsville, Aln. 

Lcnr-Sicfiler, Maple TTelehta, Ohio. $2- 
903,162. MGO, M48 nnd M103 tank icen- 
erator assemblies, Tnnk Automotive Com- 
mand, Wnrren, Mich. 

Polnn Industries, Hiintinston, W. Vn. S2,- 
250 h OOO. Truck mounted mine detectine 
sets. Mobility Equipment Command, St. 
Louis, Mo. 

Hell Acrospnco Corp., Port "Worth, Tex. 
81,000,000. CwiHli damnite repair kits for 
UH-l helicopters. Aviation Materiel Com- 
mand, St. Louis, Mo. 

4 TJ.S. Steel Corp., PlttsbuTSh, Pa. S6.BOS,- 
100. Metnl ports for 8-inch liowltzer pro- 
jectiles. Berwick, Pa. Ammunition Pro- 
curement & Supply Agency, Joliet, 111, 

Continental Motors, Muskegon, Mich. ?3,- 
SBB.GBO. Multi-fuel engines for 2% -ton 
trucks. Tnnk Automotive Gommnnd, Wnr- 
ron, Mich. 

P enncr Construction Cn., Denver, Colo. 
S1.26B.270. Construction of n Taflcral Ee- 
gionnl Canter Complex at Denver. EUB!- 
neer Diat., Omaha, Neb. 

Spencer Construction Co., Carrollton, Tex. 
jl.lfil.BC?. Construction of n flood%vny ex- 
tension on the Trinity Iliver. Fort Worth, 
Tex. Engineer Dist., Fort "Worth, Tex. 

D. E. Goodchiltl. Inc., Circlovllle, Ohio. $1,- 
032,160. Construction of nsphnlt roods and 
a 138-foot brldee in connection with the 
Deer Creek, Ohio, Reservoir Project. Engi- 
neer Dist., Hun.tln.Kton, W. Va. 

U.S. Steel Corp., P IttsTmreli, Pa. $1.000,- 
000. Reactivation, repair nnd relocation 
of Government cflulpment. Berwick, Pn. 
Ammur^ltton Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Jollot, 111. , 

7 Phllco-Ford Corp,, Newport Beach, Calif. 
91,1 8 5,6 47. Signal converter* for the Shll- 
lelagH missile syatem. Lawnclnle, Calif. 
Southwest Procurement Detachment, Pn- 
Bndonn, On HI. 

Striek Corp., Pnlrleaa Hllla, Fa. ?3,074,- 
103. Twelve-tqn seml-traileirs, Chicago, III. 
Tank Automotive Command, Warren, 
MicK 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



33 



---Independent Lock Co., Fitchbura, Mass. 
?2,fi37,7G5. Metal parts for ammunition 
fuzes. Ammunition Procurement & Sup- 
ply Agency, Joliet, III. 

Billon Co., Aurora, ill. J4. 376,058. Metal 
parts for fuzes. Chicago, III. Ammunition 
Procurement &. Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Lear-Slegler, Inc., Anaheim. Calif. $4,861,- 
'il. Metal parts for fuzes. Ammunition 
Procurement & Supply Agency, Joliet, 

FMC Corp., Santa Clara, Calif. $1,875,- 
000. Metal parts for 4.2-inch high explo- 
sive projectiles. Northwest Procurement 
Agency, Oakland, Calif. 
L.S_.I. Service Corp., Oklahoma City, Okla. 
S4.i24,379. Personnel servicca for mainte- 
nance of Army aircraft in Vietnam. Avi- 
ation Material Command, St. Louis, Mo. 
Dyna Electron Corp., Fort Worth, Tex. 
SH, 312, 105. Servicca of contractor person- 
nel for maintenance of Army aircraft in 
Vietnam. Aviation Material Command, St. 
Loins, Mo. 

Chrysler Corp., New Orleans, La. $4,000,- 
000. 17Smm projectiles. St. Louis, Mo 
Ammunihn Procurement & Supply 
Agency. Jolk-t, 111. 

Roniee, Inc., Miami Springs, Fla. $2,648,- 
040. Construction work on ihe Central and 
Southern Florida Flood Control Project. 
Engineer Dist., Jacksonville. Fla. 
Peter Kicwit Sons Co., Seattle. Wash. $3,- 
547,400. Construction of a multi-purpose 
recreation building ; an airmen dormi- 
tory; a warehouse; an automotive shop; 
and modifications to existing airmen dor- 
mitories. Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. 
Engineer Diat., Anchorage, Alaska. 

~f-7 ir e e ? e n , e - T -l re $ Rubber Co " Akron, Ohio. 
S/.H4y,6GD. Track shoe assemblies for M11S 
armored personnel carriers. Noblesville 
Ind. Tank Automotive Command, Warren, 
Mich. 

~ii ^ A J^tl Cons lruction Co., Charlotte, 
N.C 12,000.000. Construction of processing 
facilities at the Army Ammunition Plant, 
Hartford, Va. Engineer Dist., Norfolk, Va 
Chrysler Corp., New Orleans, La. SIG.OOO.- 
UOO. ITGmm projectiles. St. Louis, Mo. 
Ammunition Procurement & Surmtv 
Agency, Joliet, 111. ' ' y 

10 General Motors, Kokomo, Ind. $1,103.715 
Sauad radio sets. Electronics Command 
Philadelphia. Pa. ' 

Chaney & Hope, Inc., Addison, Tex 31 - 
fo 6 'b 00 'i Con ? tT H ction of 'raining range's" 
Port Dlx, N.J. Engineer Dlst., New York] 

~~af floo n i ct ' on , Co " Jnc kson, Miss. S9,- 
n i fi onstr( tlon work on the Melvern 
Dam & Reservoir Project. Melvern Kan 
Engineer Dlst.. Kansas City. Mo 
11 Al Johnson Construction Co., Moss man 
Construction Co. and Peter Klewlt Sons' 
LO.. Minneapolis, Minn. 30,020,671. Con- 
?i5!!_ c n J 70 * .9. tne . Racine Lock and 



. 
A JS,' C " R^dseport, Conn. 

T'i 7 ' 62 , mni anfl 5 - 58mm cart- 
. Independence, Mo. Ammunition 
Proenrement & Supply Agency, Joliet! 



Minne 



Federal Cartridge Corp., 

Sw^'-filW- G - GGmm 

cartridges and for opera ton and main- 
tenance activities at the Twin Cities 
Army Ammunition Plant, New Brighton 






" Delolt - 
Btld llelv 



10 



P, 6 " 6 " 1 Electric, Syracuse, N.Y. SI 904 - 
034 .Improvement kits for th 



. 

Confalner Co., Montelalr, N J 



a, Pa. 



Army Weapons Command, 



t4 



Chamberlain Mfg. Corp., Waterloo, Iowa, 
51,183,250. Metal parts for 4.2-inch illumi- 
nating projectiles. Ammunition Procure- 
ment & Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 
Lake McDonald, Inc., Vidalia, Ga. $2,841,- 
000. Construction of 180 housing units at 
Fort Jackson, S.C. Engineer Dist., Savan- 
nah, Ga. 

14 Martin-Marietta Corp., Orlando, Fla. $2,- 
204,883. Metal parts for aerial mines. Am- 
munition Procuremnt & Supply Agency, 
Joliet, 111. 

Sprague Eleclric Co., North Adams, MBSH. 
51,312,600. Integrated circuits for MG14A1 
hizea. Worcester, Mass. Harry Diamond 
Laboratories, Washington, D.C. 
Wesinghouse Electric, Elk Ridge, Md. 
$1,282,500. Integrated circuits for M614A1 
fuzes. Harry Diamond Laboratories, 
Washington, D.C. 

15 Franchi Construction Co., Newton Mass. 
$6,710,000. Construction of troop housing 
and supporting faoilitjea nt Fort Devene, 
Mass. New England Division, Army Corps 
of Engineers, Waltham, Mass. 
American Dredging Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 
55,388,000. Dredging about 10 miles of 
channel on the Arkansas River. Near Dar- 
danelle, Ark. Engineer Diat,, Little Rock, 
Ark. 

Eureka Williams Co., Bloomington, III. 
S4,044,B44. Metal parts for 750-lb. bomb 
nose fuzes, Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Joliet, III. 
Pace Corp., Memphis, Tenn. $1,9G8,OG2, 
M49AI surface trip flares, Memphis, Tenn.i 
Camden, Ark.; and Russell, Ark. Pica- 
tinny Arsenal. Dover, N.J. 
Continental Motors, Muskegon, Mich. $1,- 
594,908. Multi-fuel engines for five ton 
trucks. Tank Automotive Command, War- 
ren, Mich. 

16 R.C.A., Cnmden, N.J. 56,992,680. Radio 
sets and receiver/transmitters. Electronics 
Command, Philadelphia, Pa. 

~?/ t? Dtl Co " kexinaton, Mnaa. $4,8HO,- 
tiiS. Hawk guidance and control compon- 
ent seta. Andover, Mass. Army Missile 
Command Ui Huntsville, Ala. 

terns of repair parts for the 



m. 
Weapons Command, Rock laland, III. 

~ 



M " , . 

. Metal pnrta asaemliHea for 760- 
m Q n0ae i fui T- Ammunition Proeure- 

ment & Supply Aseney, Joliet, HI. 

IT-Mngnavox Co., Fort Wayne, Ind. $0,300,- 
688. AN/GRC-10G radio sets. Electronics 
Command, Philadelphia, Pa. 
-I.T. & T., Nutley, N.J. $2,421,141. Instal- 
lation, services and materials for inter- 
connection, testinE and alignment of 
Government-owned ET-A Phaae II com- 
munication equipment. West Germany. 
Electronics Command, Fort Monmciuth. 

W.J, 

~ A m<. 0n o n Corp< ' 1 . Waukc8h a. Wia. $1,290.000. 
M103, 20mm brasa cartridge cases. Frank- 
ford Arsenal, Philadelphia. Pa, 
iM-Memcor, Inc., Htmtlngton, Ind. $14.116,- 
>!1 f t M 8ml i ter ^oHlam of the 
fnmily vehicle dl com- 



"' 



' Inc " Lon sviow, Tost. 
pl ! r , ts for MllTAf. 760: 



SKr 



" p " 



, etroit - Mich - K387,- 
mortar projectiles. Warren 



Clraa Mf|r ,- Co " Milwaukee, Wis. 
Scoop loadera. D eer field, II) , 



24 



, Ind. S2,- 28 



Mobility Equipment Command, St. Lcuij, 
Mo. 

Chamberlain Mfg. Corp., Waterloo, lows 
$1,368,200. Metal parts Jor 4.2-lneh l[!u- 
minntme projectiles. Ammunition Procure. 
ment & Supply Agency, Joliet, HI. 

Portable Electric Tools, Inc., Geneva, III 
51,010,015. Fin aaaembllca for Blmm i]- 
himinntine projectiles. Ammunition Pio- 
curcment & Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Chrysler Corp., Ccnterlinc, Mich. !19.. 
152,044. MGOAI tanks, trn[nern, mid MTB3 
combat engineer vehicles with concurrent 
repair jinrtH. Warren, Mich. Tank Au!c~ 
motivc Command, Wnrron, Midi. 

United Afrcrnft, West Pnlm liencii, Hi. 
SJ,760,000'. Dcsinn, fnbricntUm nml teat of 
ni> advanced teclmolojry, 1.600 horaeuower, 
aircraft ens turbine (IcnumBtmtnr cnxlne. 
Aviation Mnterinl Lnhomtorlcs, r'orl Kua[. 
ia, Vn. 

28 Alcnn Aluminum Corp.. !Uveralde> Cnlll. 
fl.JBO.GOO. Ilochot motors for light nnll- 
tnnk weanona. SoutliweHt Prociiroineiit A- 
Kency, Pftsadona, Calif. 

Kaythcon Co., Anilover, Maaa. (1,102^04. 
RofiirblBlimont of Unwk mtouilc |jiuncher, 
Army Mlasile Cummnnd, Hnniavllli-, Ala. 

Anthony Co., Strentor, 111. JB, 577,0^9, 
Kougli terrain fork lift trucks. Army Mo- 
bility Equipment Command, St. Louis, 
Mo. 

33 Tckhcrt & Son, Inc., Sncrnmcrilo, Calif, 
$1,334.401. Work on the Hncrnrimnlo 
Dnnk Flood Protection Project, 
Diat., Sacrnmento, Cnlif. 

Ruythcnn Co., Amlover. Mnsa. , h . 
I 1 If teen lino itema of Kround aii|>port dT|Lilr- 
ment for the Hawk mJRHMe Byslom. Annr 
Misnilo Command, Huiitsvlllu, Ala. 

General Motors, InclinnniiollB. Tnil. |2.- 
823,204. TrniiBiniasioii naBornbliea for M48 
and MOO tanka. Tnnk-Autoniottro Com- 
mnnd, Wnrron, Mlcli. 

Cnteri)ilInr Tractor Co., Poor in, 111. 13.- 
H07,G17. Full-trnckcil tractors. Mobility 
Kqulpment Command, St. I.onifs, Mo, 

Iltiythcnn Co., Andover, MBBS, Sl,2ia,5. 
HcbiiildiitK of tteln of Biiiclnnco nml cun- 
trol components for Hnwk niinsilts ay&toms, 
Army Missile Commnnd, Iluntavillc, Ala. 

Hociiis Co., Morton, Pn. Sl,734,OfiO. Modi- 
flcjilion kltB for OH-47 lieHcoiilcnt. AvI. 
nLion Materiel Commnixi, SI. Lou IB. Mo. 

Raytheon Co., Hcdfortl. MHHH. Sl,a70,3. 
FiialHtics for the maiuifncturo of null-In. 
truaton warning mines.. $8,e4B,057. Clausl- 
ncd amount of antf-intriiMtion vvnrninii 
mines. Qnincy, Maaa, Plcntlnny Arjiona!, 
Dover, N.J. 

Sylvania Electronics Systems, WillinmB- 
vlllo, N.Y. $4,803,508. Clnesincil nninuril of 
antl-lntritHJon warnlni; mines. ItnlTnlo, 
N.Y. Pictinny Ai-Hcnnl, Dover. N.J. 

American Cyafoscoiio Mnkers, IMKjim 
Mnnor, N.Y. $2,141 ,6S2. Tel*acojiM wllh 
mcmnlfl nml spare imi-in. ISronx. N-Y. 
Frnnkfortl Araenal, Plilljuteliihiii, I"n. 

Muck Corp., Alloiitown. 1'n. ;i,74K,&flQ. 
lulovcn lino itoniH for tlio ten-ton Imck. 
Tank Autoinotlvo Comirumd. Wnrrcn, 
Mich. 

25 Spcrry Hand Corn., New York, N.Y. 431,- 
0(18,042. Mu nufnc tin-Inn, nffaQniliUnw, load- 
inB and packing of largo cnlltmr urojEii:- 
tilca. Shreveport, Liv. Ammtmlllon Pro- 
curement & Supply Aitoncy, Jollcl, lit 

General Motora, Detroit, Midi. 
020. Diesel onuincB for M113 
iHTik Automotive Commnml, 
Mich. 

^! rnniOMfl ' B tl & llanA, Inc., Dnylon. 
Oh o. S2,S37,77G. Conatruetlon of nriiilHona 
am altorntions to comjioHito me.Hcal 
CnclHty at WrlRht-Patterson AFU, Ohio. 
En[ncer Dlst., LouiavHlo, Ky. 

Olin Mathioson Chemical Corn.. East 
Alton, III. 24,462.220. Oil and nrtlllery uni- 
mnnjtion propellnnt. Hnrnliuo, WIs. Am- 
munition Procurement & Supply Afrency, 
Joliet, III, 

Atlnn Chemical Indiiatrlea, Wllmlnicton, 
Del. $20,275,800. Mnnufnctnre of TNT. 
OhnttfinooKa. Tenn. Ammunition I'rocur*- 
ment & Supply Agency. Joliet, 111. 

~SS. y *" eon Co " Lexlnaton, Maaa. H.DG8,- 
BOO. Metal pnrt for 7GO-1U. bomb noac 
nizea. Bristol, Tenn. Ammunlton Procure- 
ment & Supply Agency, Jolted, 111. 

Farmers Cfiemlcal Association, Tyncr. 
Tonn. ?2,4I5,18G. Mnnufncture at TNT. 
UhnttnnooBft, Tenn, Arnmuntlon rroaure- 
ment & Supply Agency, Joliet, II L 

c ' bldB Corp., Now York, N.Y. 13,- 

- 8M ff n0 * a8 lhy tatlorlw JtoV 
- radio flotB. Grecnvillo and 
Oharlotts, N.C. 13,104,882. BA-270/U 
batteries for Al5/PRO 8, and l6 



,,- 
voliloles. 
Wnrren, 



October T967 



Beta. Charlotte, N.G. Electronics Com- 
mand, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Serve)]. Inc., Freeporl, Hi. 81,198,500, BA- 
27U/U dry batteries for AN/PRC-8, fl and 
10 radio seta. Electronics Command, Phila- 
delphia, Pa. 

Bucyrus Erie Co., Evansville, Ind. $<!,- 
773,000. Cranes, Eric. Pa. Mobility Equip- 
ment Command, St. LOU!H, Mo. 
Kennedy Van Spun, Danville, Pn. $1,165,- 
650. GOmm projectiles. Ammunition Pro- 
curement ft Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Eric, 
Pa. 51,208.626. Pin assemblies for 81mm 
m<ii' tars. Ammunition Procurement & Sup- 
ply Aftency, Joliet, 111, 

1 Union Carbide Corp., llennltiftton, Vt. 
$1,986,000. MG14 artillery fuae compon- 
ent. Harry Diamond Laboratories, Wash- 
ington, D.C. 

Page Aircraft Maintenance, Inc., Fort 
Rucker, Ala. $17,100,000. Maintenance of 
aircraft for a nine month period. Avi- 
ntion Center, Fort linker, Ala. 

Mnson & Hnnecr, Silas Mason Co., Lexing- 
ton, Ky. $22.2Sii,72i|. Londlnit, asaemhlinR 
and packing ordnance items. Grand Is- 
land, Neb. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply ARency, Joliet, 111. 

Norrffl Industries, Los Angeles, Calif. 
85,604,770. lOBmm cartridge cases. River- 
bank, Calif. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Afiency, Joliet. 111. 

Tomco. Inc., Nashville, Tcnn. $1,411,410. 
Metal part for 106mm projectiles. Ammu- 
nition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Joltet, 111. 

Plymouth Plastics Division of AMETEK, 
Inc., ShehoVKen, Wis. $l,G(i(i,000. Support 
assemblies for fiber ammunition containers. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply A- 
dency, Joliet, III. 

Fusion Rubbcrmali! Corp., Statcsville, N.C. 
$1,R35,044. I'laHtic canisters for tactical 
fighter dispensing munitions program. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply A- 
Bency, Joliet, 111. 

Baldwin Electronics, Little Rock, Ark. $2,- 
074,247. Fime and switch assemblies for 
the tactical fighter d!n]ienHlnK system. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Asency, Joliet, 111. 

Atlantic Research Corp., Went Hanover, 
Mass. 81,137,002, Explosives. Ammunition 
Procurement & Supply ARency, Joliot, 111. 

Bntcsvlllo Mfff. Co., IlnUmville, Ark. $1,- 
278,828. 7(JO-lb. bomb nose fusses. Am- 
munition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Joliot, 111. 

Olln Mnthlcson Chemical Corn., New York, 
N.Y. $3, 502, (14 4. Miscellaneous propel- 
lantB. Ghnrleutown, Ind. Ammunition 
Procurement & Supply Agency, Joliet. 
111. 

Olin MathleHon Chemical Corn,, East Al- 
ton, 111. $8,IMO,4&R. SI mm IHuminatinir 
projee tiles. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Bell & Howcll Co.. Chlcftfto, III. $5.614.- 
506. Metal purls for time fU7.es. Ammuni- 
tion Procurement & Supply Aftency, Joliet, 
III. 

UnldynamicH, Phoenix. Arlss. $3.274,044. 
fllmm HlumlnatinB projectiles. Goodyoar, 
Arlfc. Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet. III. 

Chamberlain Mfff. Corn,, Waterloo, Town. 
$2,017,876. 105mm projectiles. Ammuni- 
tion Procurement & Supply Agency, Jollet, 

Aiiii-on Corp.. Wnultcntm, Win. 53,124,510. 
ClnRslfied components for 165mm nro- 
jectlles. Ammunition Procurement & Sup- 
ply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

AVCO Corp., Richmond. Ind. $2,088,716. 
Classified components for IfiSrnm projec- 
tileo. Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Jolicl, 111. 

General Motors, Indianapolis, Ind. $H,006,- 
3GO. Transmissions for MOO tanks. Tank 
Automotive Command, Wnrrcn, Mich. 

Continental Motors, Muskcgon, Mich. $fi,- 
000,102, Engine aBaomhllea for MOO tanks. 
$1.203,727. Various, line Items for re- 
building fi-ton truck englnps. Tank Auto- 
motive Command, Warren. Mich. 

CliryHlcr Corp., Warren, Mich. 41,110,7GB. 
M001 trucks. Tank Automotive Command, 
Warren, Mich. 

PMC Corp., CharlcBton, W. Vn. $28,188,- 
000. Armored personnel carriers and 
cargo carriers. Tank Automotive Com- 
mand, Warren, Mich. 

TexaH Instrument, Inc., Dalian, Tex. $B6,- 
000,000. Classified electronics equipment. 
Electronics Command, Fort Monmounth, 
N.J. 

ITT Corp., Nutlcy, N.J. $1,388,876. Re- 
pnlr parts for communication systems 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



equipment. Electronics Command. Fort 
Monmouth, N,J. 

Stclma, Inc., Stamford, Conn. S1.110.D84, 
Terminal telephones. Electronics Com- 
mand, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Roberta Corp., AlbiiQvierciiLe, N.M. $1.- 
Ii'lS,428. Construction of n maintenance 
hanger, n pump house with utilities, pave- 
ments and n storage tank at Holloman 
APH, N.M. Engineer Dtst., Albuquerque, 
N.M. 

Norlhron Corp.. Anaheim, Calif. $3,376,- 
540. Hawk launchers. Army Missile 
Command, Huntsville, Ala. 

Raytheon Co., Bedford, Mass. 85,000,000, 
Advance development of SAM-D missiles. 
Army Missile Command, Huntsvlllo, Ala, 




DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

1 Maennvox Co., Fort Wayne, Ind. $1,898,- 
100, A command active aonolmoy system 
for use with the A-NEW system. Naval 
Air Development Center, Johnsville. Pn. 

Honeywell, Inc., St. Petersburg, Pin. $1,- 
SSa.aOS. Repair of Polaris MK 11 Mod 
Ifi Pendulous Iiiteftriiting Oyro Ac-celer- 
ometers. Special Project Office. 
2 Sanders Associates, Nashua, N.H. 51,1)95,- 
000. A passive analyzer nystem for project 
A-NI5W. Nnval Air Development Center, 
Johnsvillc, Pn, 

Brewer Drydock Co., Staten Island, N.Y. 
Sl,-224,000, Activation of the destroyer 
escort USS Booth (DE-170). Supervisor 
of Shipbuilding, Fourth Nnval Dtst, 
Phlhulclphln, Pn. 

Litton Syatems, Woodland Mills, Calif. 
51,150,787. Circuit assemblies, amplifiers * 
and loffic. assemblies) for AOA aircraft 
upecial stumor t equipment. Navy Aviation 
Supply OilJce, Philadelphia, Pn. 
3 (.oiiernl Dynamics, Pomona, Calif, 312,- 
G44,37G. Standard Army missHos. Naval 
Air RyBtcniH Command. 

Vitro Corp. of America, Silver Spi'itiK, 
Mil. $ll,C74,OtG. Fleet Ballintic Missile 
Proitram Weapon System englncorinK. 
Special Projects Office. 

Reed & Mnrtin, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii. 
SU,2C8,20B. Conatruction of 300 Nnvy 
family houslns "nits at Cnmp Catlln, 
Onhn, Hawaii, and 250 Air Force family 
housing units nt Wheeler APR, Hawaii. 
Pnnlfln Div., Naval FflcllHtcs Enelnccrlnir 
Cnmmnncl. Pfliirl Hnrhor. Ilstwaii. 

Grumman Aircraft EnglnccrlnB Corp., 
Bethpiwe, N.Y. 50,500,000. Rcacai-ch and 
development on KA-fill aircraft. Naval 
Air Systems Command. 

4 Northrop Corp., Newhury Park, Calif. $4,- 
000,000. Design, development, fabrication, 
teat rind furnlslihiR of nn overall moblto 
ASW target system. Nnval Ordnance Sys- 
tems Command. 

I/TV Acroapnca Corp., Dallas, Tex. SEj- 
500,000. A-TD nil-craft. Nnvnl Air Sys- 
tema Command. 

Tracer, Inc., Austin, Ten. ?ft,B52,700. 
Technical services and engineering as- 
sistance on submarine aonnr equipment. 
Naval Ship Systema Command. 

(lUlinne Building Co., Providence, R.I. 
$2,283.030. Construction of n technical 
training building at the Officers Candidate 
School, Newport, B.I, Northeaat Div., 
Nftval Facilities EnKinecrinB Command, 
Boston, MASH. 

Allen M. Campbell Co., Tyler, Tex. $1,- 
522,000. Gonatnictlon of an aircraft main- 
tenance hanger at the Marino Corps Air 
Facility, New Illver, N.C. Atlantic Div.. 
Nnval Facilities Engineering Command, 
Norfolk, Va. 

Litton Syatema, Woodland Hills, Calif. 
$1,220,224. Lwrlc curd relay moduleu for 
special support equipment for AOA nir- 
craft. Navy Aviation Supply Offlae, Phll- 
ndelphln, Pn. 

T1edyne Systems Co., Hawthorne, Cnllf, 
$1,000,000. Self contnmcd navigation eya- 
terna. Nnva.1 Air Systema CommnnJ. 
7 North American Aviation, Annhetm, Cnllf. 
$d,30 8,361. Repulv and modlflcntlon of 
Shlpa Inevttal Nivvieation Syatom <SIHS) 



modnlcfl. $3 P 42D,392. Repair and modifica- 
tion of SINS gyroscopes and velocity 
meters. Naviil Shin Systems Command. 
American Mfg. Co. of Tex., Fort Worth, 
Tex. 31,131,000. Acqitlsition and instBlln- 
tian of fucility items and handlinB equip- 
ment. Naval Air Systems Command. 
Monsanto Research Corp., St. Louis. Mo. 
51,000,000. Research on high performance 
composite materials. OfHce o( Naval Re- 
search, Wnshington, D.C. 

8 I'hilco-Ford Corp., Philadeljiliia, Pa. $2,- 
204, 22C. EnBineerinB, furnishing and in- 
stalling microwave systeniB o.t London- 
derry, Ireland; San Francisco, Calif,; and 
Hawaii. Naval Electron i-cs Systems Corn- 
man il. 

United Aircraft, Enst Hartford, Conn, 
1,662,783. Repair parts for J-52P8A en- 
gines luted on A-4F and A-6A aircraft. 
Navy Aviation Supply Office, Philadelphia, 
Pa. 

Curtlss Wright Corp., Wond-RIdge, N.J. 
$1,076,340. Parts to support power plant 
modifications on JQ5 engines used on 
A-4A/B and G aircraft. Nnvy Aviation 
Supply Office, Philadelphia, Pa. 
9 Telcrtync Systems Co., Hawthorne, Calif. 
37,406,350. Self-contained navigation sys- 
tems. Naval Air Systems Command. 
General Dynamics, Pomona, Calif. $1,- 
308.09&. Standard Arm missile checkout 
equipment. 5,003,000. Research and de- 
velopment on the Stondarad Aim missile. 
Nnval Air Systems Command. 
Baeingr Co., Morton, Pa. $3.110,702. CH- 
46 helico|)tor&. Naval Air Systems Com- 
mand. 

Motorola, In-c.. Scottadale, Aria. $2,110,- 
761. Guidance and control groups for 
Sidewinder 1C Kidded missiles. Naval 
Air Systems Command, 

Alaco, Inc., St. Louis, Mo, 51.008,576. 
Rochet launcher components. Nnval Air 
Systems Command, 

Roynl Industries, Santa Ann, Cnlif. ?1,- 
807, 3G1. 600-c;allon, external fuel tanks. 
Alhnitibra, Calif. Naval Air Systems Com- 
mand. 

10 Central Electric, Schcnoctady, N.Y. S23,- 
072,690. Nuclear imijmlaion rcsonrch and 
development. Naval Ship Systems Com- 
mand. 

Lockheed Aircraft, Sunnyvale, Calif. $4,- 
102,000. Repair aad logistic services for 
Polaris missiles. Special Projects Ofilce. 
Snnirfimo Electric Co., Springfield, 111. 
51,429,000. Sonar sets for viae on naval 
flliipa. Nnval Ship Sy stems Command, 
11 Gen EC Industries, Inc., Oxnard, Cnlif. 31,- 
720,086. FncilitEes, materials and services 
required in the preparation of data used 
in the overhaul, alteration and repair of 
ships at Fearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. 
Naval Supply Center, Peart Harbor, 
Hawaii, 

U Hazeltlnc Corp., Little Neck, N,Y. $G,- 
186,980. Airborne interrogator sets and 
related support equipment. Naval Ah- 
Systems Command. 

General Instrument Corp., Chlcopce, Mass. 
SB,&80 h OOO. Snnkcyo M900 bomb fuzes. 
Navy Ships Parts Control Center, Mcchan- 
icsburg. Pa. 

F. D. Rich Co., Stamford, Conn. $3,224,- 
OQO. CoTiatructinn of 200 houslnB units at 
tho Quonact Point, H.T., Navn! Air Sta- 
tion. Northeast Div., Naval Fncilitiee En- 
Blncci'ins Command, Boston, Maas. 
General Dynamics, Pomona, Calif. $1,- 
000,000. FY 1008 installment funding for 
research and development of the Standard 
Missile Type I. Naval Ordnance Systems 
Command. 

16 UodnK Co., Morton, Pa. ?3,flTO,000. CH- 
40 helicopters. Naval Air Systems Com- 
mand. 

Wcstlnffhoase Electric, Baltimore, lid. 
$1,451,688. Development effort related to 
the Fleet Ballistic Missile weapon system. 
Special Project Office. 

16 Cameron Iron Works, Houston, Tex. $1,- 
783,180. Mark 30, Mod 2 rocket motors 
and Mark 2, Mod 1 guttled missile boosters 
for the Terrier rntsslla. Nnval Ordnance 
Station, Indian Head, Md. 
Hnrnlschfeffcr Corp., Milwaukee, Wis. 
$1,000,000. Truck mounted crevnes. Es- 
cannbnj Mich. Ho_trs, Marine Corpa, 
17 Hay Aluminum, Inc., El Campo, Tex, J3,- 
008,061, Aluminum air field pallets and 
mt assemblies for \iae in Inncling- ntrcrnft. 
Nnvfll Air Engineering Center, Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 

18 Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., 
Bothpaeo, N.Y. $2,150,000. Classified work 
on Navy aircraft. Naval Air Systems 
Command. 



35 



21 U.S. Steel Corp., Pittsburgh, Pn. S33,- 
867, BIS. Mark 82 bomb bodies. JicKecs. 
port, Pa. Navy SbSps Parts Control 
Center, Mcchanicsbuu, Pa. 
American Machine & Foundry Co., York, 
Pa. 811,214,000. Mnrk 82 bomb Ladies. 
Navy Ships Purls Control Center, Me- 
chanicsburK, Pa. 

Intercontinental Mfg, Co., Garland, Tex. 
87,392,000. Mark 82 bomb bodies. Navy 
Ships Parts Control Center, Mechanics- 
burg. Pa. 

Allen M. Campbell Co., Tyler, Tex. SG,- 
602,664. Construction of a helicopter 
groan training facility at the Marine 
Corps Air Facility, Jncksonvllle, N.C. 
Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 
Sparton Corp., Jnckson, Mich. $2,932,489. 
Sonobuoys. Naval Air Systems Command. 
22 General Dynamics, Pomona, Calif. $12,- 
715,000. Research and development work 
on the Standard ARM missile. Naval Air 
Systems Command. 

23 United Aircraft, Strntford, Conn, $17,- 
800,000. Production of CH-E3A helicop- 
ters. Navnl Air Systems Command, 
Magnavox Co., Fort Wayne, Ind. $6,349,- 
136. FY 1968 procurement of sonobuoya. 
Naval Air Systems Command. 
Motorola, Chicago, III. $1,680,167. FY 
19G8 procurement of bathythermograph 
transmitter sets, Nnval Air Systems Com- 
mand. 

24 Allen M. Campbell Co., Tyler, Tex. 52,- 
620,000. Construction of a composite med- 
ical facility at the Nnval Air Station, 
Albany, Ga. Naval Fiicllitles Engineering 
Command, 

Willamette Iron & Steel Co., Richmond, 
Calif. SI, 122,252. Dryclockiae and repair 
of the attack cargo ship USS Mcmck 
AKA-37). Supervisor of Shipbuilding, 
Twelfth Naval Dlst., San Francisco, 
Calif. 

26 Garrett Corp., Phoenix, Ariz. $2,700,000. 
Services and materials necessary to per- 
form a product improvement program on 
YT76-6/8 and T76-G-10/12 engines for 
OV-10A aircraft. Navnl Air Systems 
Command. 

28 Spcrry Rand Corp., Syossct, N.Y. $3,350.- 
000. Inertial navigation subsystem com- 
ponents for Fleet Ballistic Missile sub- 
marines. Naval Ship Systems Command. 
United Aircraft, East Hartford, Conn. 
$2,633,147. A-4E nnd A-CA aircraft en- 
Bine modification kits. Aviation Supply 
Office, Philadelphia, Pa. 
Yubn Industries, Benioia, Calif. 52,385,- 
112. Catapult track cover assemblies for 
aircraft carriers. Nnval Supply Center, 
Oakland, Calif. 

Lansdowno Steel & Iron Co., Morton, Pa. 
1,413,871. Mark 62 projectiles. Navy 
Ships Parts Control Center, Mechanics- 
bui'K, Pa. 

29 Grummnn Aircraft Engineering Corp., 
Bethpago, N.Y. $3.000,000. Initial design 
for an improved search Tudor, a new die- 
Hal computer syatern, and B weapons re- 
lease system in the A-6A aircraft. Naval 
Air Systems Command. 

United Aircraft, Enat Hartford. Conn. 
51.613,818. Engine spare parts used to 
support the TFSOPfi enfrine on A-7A air- 
craft. Aviation Supply Office, Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 

30 North American Aviation, Columbus, 
Ohio. SEO.OOO.OOO. FY 1068 incremental 
funding of Phase- II engineering develop- 
ment of Condor missiles. Naval Air Sys- 
tems Command, 

P. D. Rich Co,, Stamford, Conn, $3,379,- 
000. Construction of 212 housing units at 
Naval Air Station, Key West, Fla. South- 
east Div.. Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Charleston, S.G. 
- Westinghouse Electric, Baltimore, Md r $2,- 
011,049. Support items and programs for 
APG-B9/GO/61 radar nets. Naval Air Sys- 
tems Command. 

United Aircraft, Strntford, Conn. $1,- 
200,000. Long lead time effort for HH-BE 
helicopters for the Air Force. Naval Air 
Systems Command, 

31 McDonnell-Douglas Corp., St, Louis, Mo. 
$38,740.678. F-4 aircraft. Naval Air Sys- 
tems Command. 

Goodyear Aerospace Corp,, Akron, Ohio. 
$4,601,260. Production of SUBROC mis- 
siles and related equipment. Naval Ord- 
nance Systems Command. 
Hawaiian Dredging & Construction Co., 
Honolulu, Hawaii. $1, 1 7S4,300. Recon- 
struction of Berth B-S at the Naval Ship- 
yard, Pearl Harbor. Nftval Facilities 
Engineering Command. 



-United Aircraft Corp. $1,707,775. Spare 
parts to support the TF30-P-12 engine for 
F111B aircraft. Naval Supply Systems 
Command. 




DEPARTMENT OF THE 
AIR FORCE 

1 Serv-Air Inc., Enid, Okla. 58,006,287. 
Base support services for FY 19G8 at 
Vance AFB, Okla. San Antonio Air Ma- 
teriel Area, (AFLC), Kelly AFB, Tex. 

Westlnghouse Electric, Baltimore, Md. 
$2,5G7,550. Production of airborne com- 
munications equipment. Electronic Sys- 
tems Dlv., (AFSC), L. G. Hanscom Field, 
Mass. 

liendix Corp., Teterboro, N.J. 53,630,600. 

Modification of airborne computers, 

Wilkes-Biirre, Pa. Oklahoma Clly Air 

Materiel Area, (AFLC), Tinker AFB, 

' Okla. 

3 Northrop Corp., Hawthorne, Calif. $2,- 
715, 100. Manufacture and assembly of 
F-5A and F-BB aircraft and related sup- 
plies, Aeronautical Systems Div,, (AFSC), 
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

Bendlx Corp., Teterboro, N.J. 52,304,398. 
Manufacture of components for airborne 
navigational equipment. Aeronautical 
Systems Div., (AFSC), Wright-Patterson 
AFB, Ohio. 

4 Hughes Aircraft, Culver City, Calif. $6,- 
557,618. Conversion of AIM 4-C aircraft 
missiles to AIM -1-D. Tucson, Arh. 
Warner Robins Air Materiel Area, 
(AFLC), Bobbins AFB, Ga. 

Goodyear Aerospace Corp,, Akron, Ohio. 
35,244,000. Cargo handling pallets. 
Warner Robins Air Materiel Area, 
(AFLC), Robins AFB, Ga. 

Hayes International Corp., Birmingham, 
Ala. S4,637,074, Training sets for the 
Mi nu torn an missile system. Space and 
Missile Systems Organization, (AFSC), 
Los Angeles, Calif. 

Serv-Air, Inc., Enid, Okln. $2,780,698. 
Services In support of the pilot training 
program at Sheppnrct A KB, Tex. San 
Antonio Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), 
Kelly AFB, Tex. 

North American Aviation, Anaheim, Calif. 
$2,200,000. Maintenance, repair, overhaul 
and modification of Mlnutcman guidance 
and control systems. Space and Miss lie 
Systems Organisation, (AFSC), Los 
Angeles, Calif. 

Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, Buffalo, 
N.Y. $M00,000. Development, design, 
and fabrication of a variable stability air- 
craft. Systems Engineering Group, Aero- 
nautical Systems Div., (AFSC), Wright- 
Patterson API), Ohio. 

7Mennasco Mfg. Co., Burbank, Calif. $1,- 
736,586. Manufacture of landing gear 
components for C-130 aircraft, Ogden 
Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), Hill AFB, 
Utah. 

8 Grccnhut Construction Co., Pensacola, 
Fla. 54,840,821. Construction of 300 fam- 
ily housing units at Eglln AFB, Fin. Air 
Proving Ground Center, Eglln AFB, Fla. 

Atlantic Iloacarch Corp., Alexandria, Va. 
53,324,783. Manufacture of meteorological 
rockets and components. Gainesville, Va. 
Osden Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), Hill 
AFB, Utah. 

8 Textron, Inc., Belmont, Calif. $1,440,406. 
Spare parts for airborne electronics equip- 
ment. Aeronautical Systems Div., (AFSC), 
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 
Stelma, Inc., Stamford, Conn. $2,776,003, 
Portable communication components for 
tactical air control systems. Electronic 
Systems Div., (AFSC), L. G, Hanscom 
Field, Mass. 

10 General Electric, Syracuse, N.Y. $1,000,- 
000, Test operations and related tasks in 
support of various Air Force and NASA 
programs. Space and Missile Systems 
Organization, (AFSC), Los Angeles, Calif. 
Martin-Marietta, Denver, Colo. $6,584,000. 
Design, development and fabrication of 
Titan JIIC apace boosters and associated 



aerospace ground equipment. Space a 
Missile Systems Organisation, (AFSC 
Los Angeles, Calif, 

General Electric, Evcndale, Ohio. $2,Bfli 
000. Developmental work on a lift critl 
engine. Aeronautical Systems Di 
(AFSC), Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.. 
11 Ilalph M. Parsons Co., Loa Angeles, Cal 
$1,043,161. Engineering and support BOI 
ices for Miiiuteman site activation a 
alteration activities. Spaca nml Misa 
Systems Organization, (AFSC), I. 
Angeles, Calif. 

Hughes Aircraft, Canoga Park, Cnlff. $ 
450,000. Work on an air/ui-aiind miss 
program. Aeronautical Syntonis DI 
(AFSC), Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohto. 
Applied Technology, Inc., Sunny vn 
Calif. $2,148,340. Production of alrlwr 
electronic, equipment for A-7I1 direct 
for the Navy. Warner Robina Afr M 
teriei Area, (AFLC), Robins AFB. (! 
North American Aviation, Columbus, Ohi 
51,450,000. Work on an nil-/ ground nil 
site program. Aeronautical Systems Di 1 
(AFSC), Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohk 
Stromherg-Carlson Corp., Roc heater, N. 
51,204,758. Procurement of central lei 
phone office equipment. Oklaliunin Ct 
Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), Tinker At' 
Okla. 

Marwals Steel Co., Ilichmniul, Calif, $* 
138,803. Procurement of aircraft rcvt 
ments. 27BOth Air Bane Wing, Wrlgh 
Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

14 Wall Colmonoy Corp., San Antonio, Tc 
52,425,170. Repair of jet engine combu 
lion chambers. San Anlontu Air Muled 
Area. (AFLC), Kelly AFB, Tex. 
Continental Aviation & Enfrinoerins Con 
Detroit, Mich. $1,289,572, Production 
J-09 engines for T-37 iiirernft. Tolcil 
Ohio, Aeronautical Systems Div., (Al-'KC 
WrlKht-Puttersfin AFB, Ohio. 
Ifi Electronic Communications, Inc., E 
Petersburg, Fla. $1,000,32(1. Product l< 
of componentH for airborne electronic sy 
terns. Wai'ner-lloblns Air Mntcrlel Arc 
(AFLC), Robins AFB, Ga. 
International Telephone & Tricar at 
Corp., Nutley, N.J. $1,522,8130. Produ 
tlon of spare parts for aii'borno oleclron 
systems. Warner-Robins All- Mnlcrl 
Area, (AFLC), Robins AF11, Q. 
Collins Radio Co., Dallas, TDK. $],UM,8D 
Manufacture of high frequency Minnie al 
band conaolen. Richardson, Tex. OJ3 
homa City Air Materiel Area, (AFLC 
Tinker AFIi, Okla. 

10 United Aircraft, East Hartfoifil. Con 
2,500,000. Developmental work mi a II 
cruise engine. Aeronautical HyHleiiia IJh 
(AFSC), Wright-Patterson AFH, Ohio. 
The Canadian Commercial Corp. liny bci 
awarded three contract)! uiulcr the U.h 
Defense Production/Development Klin Hi 
Program, Work will he performed uutl 
Bub-contractH as follows: 

United Aircraft of C'nnada, L(c 
Longueill, Quelicc. 51.ilOD.BH. Spa 
parts for R-2000 aircraft engines, St 
Antonio Air Materiel Avon. (AFI.C 
Kelly AFB. Tex. 

United Aircraft of Cnnadn, I^t 
LonKiieill. Quebec. $1,04 0,539, Spa 
parts for R-4360 aivcrnft cnsJnes, BE 
Antonio Air Materiel Ami. (AFI.C 
Kelly AFB, Tex. 

Litton Systems (Canada!), Ltd., llDXital 
Ontario. $1,134,774. Wenpona relcn 
nystem AN/ASQ-01 for F-d nircral 
Aeronautical Systems Dtv., (AT-'S 
Wrlght-Pnttcrson AFB, Ohio. (iNflin 
on Aug. 23), 

17 LTV Elcctrosystems, Inc., Greenville, T* 
$2,343,021. Inspection and repair of C 1 
aircraft. Warner-Robins Air Mntcrl 
Area, (AFLC), Robins APIJ, On, 
Hayes Intcrnntlonal Corp., nirmlnRlim 
Ala. $3,33B,(I38. Innpcctlon and reun 
of C-130 aircraft. Warner-Robins A 
Materiel Area, (AFLC), Robinn AFH., f! 
Fnlrchild-HIllcr Corp., St. AiiRiiatino, l-'l 
$2,204,428. Inspection and repair of 0-1, 
aircraft. St. Petersburg, Fla. Wnnic 
Robins Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), Ilobi 
AFB, Ga. 

LTV Electrosystems, Inc., Greenville, Tc 
51,323,420. Inspection nml repair o( i 
133 aircraft. Warner-Robins Air MR tori 
Area, (AFLC), Robins AFT), Ga. 
IS Western Electric Co., New York, H/ 
$1,004,700. Missile borne gnldonco equlii. 
ment. Burlington, N.C. Space & MlHBle 
Systems Organization, (AFSG), Los 
Angeles, Calif. 

Bcndix Corp., Teterboro, N.J. &UGV78S. 
Repair and modification of airborne fom< 
puter compononta, Wllhes Bnrre, Fa, nnil 



36 



October 1967 



Ti'li-i'limn. Oliliitumm (Illy Air Mnli-rlM 
Ami, (AF1.C). Tinker AE''II, lllilii. 
.Wt'lu'r Airi-rufl ('., llnrlmiilt, lliitlf. $1- 
(];l,7HH. 1'i-inhii'llini uf i'iml| ..... i<ll I it ID 
miullfy Hit 1 I 1 ' lOJi i'i.'\v .':ii'iiin< nyiitfin. 
Hm-rumi'Mlii Air Miilrrli'l Aim, (AKI.l!), 
Mcdlrllim Al'lt, linllf. 

llomllx Ciiru,, 'IVirrliur-!, N,,l. JI.OU.IKW. 
M mi u furl HIT .>f nnvlrui innnl i'<imi>ii(<<]- 
iirdi fur < 1-11 iilivinM. Ai'tininiilli'iil Syti- 
Irirni Hlv., (ARiC), \Vt | K liM 1 iilli'n!im 
A KM, Oliln, 

ll.H'liin ('".. Wli-lillu, linn. @:i,.|m HI,;' 
It 11'.! II. 'M rmnllflrnllnH ,., v |,, r!1 H ur | ltl . 
.lull- Al'll, !:.: Chilli,- AKII. Itnllr,; im, I 
Wcitfnv.-r Aril. MMI.II. (>Mli..mii Cllv Air 
Muli'i-h'l AIVII, lAI-'LC), Ttuli.T AMI 
I Hi In. 

Mniiilcrn Aiiiiiii'lntiTi, Im-,. Nn-ilnm N II 
?;!,;! Ml, r /l'". I'milm-il ...... f nl,lm IMI . , ni | lt ; 

ilin'rllim llnillm: i ijiiliimnil A riminii Hi-ii| 
.'ivnli'iiiii Niv,, ( Al-'.'iC.i, Wiiirhl |'n Ili-nii in 
Al'll, <llili>, 

l.m'tiliri'il MlnnUrn K MimiT CM.. liunuyvtili 1 
Ctillf. Jl.lKl.lim), Mhliili-mim-i- anil m,]i- 
linil li-jtlliu! uf (lir ,\i;KNA ).ii>i;imii 
Cm ni u Cm?, rul if, ;i|itn-r- ..... I Mffiiillt- 

MviiN-inn I ) I-MI nl/ ii I Ion. i ,\l'!ll!| I ( ,u 

A.i.n-l.'M, CMIf, 

Mltiu'iirt \Vi iirt Cm ii,, I'lilciiiin, Ml, <i;| 
;:it(i,.|'.!7, Mi ..... (in-Ill ..... f , ..... JiJii,,,,},, 'f,,',. 

"I' 1 ' ........ ''"I'"' "lllm.-lr.i,. A.-nmmilln.l 

JlViil.-inn Nlv,. t Al .(1C). \VilKl,r.|',,H, ,,!,! 
A I 1 II. limn, 

Nin-111 Aiiirilrnn AilnUuii. AmiliHin Cullf 
SIMMY 1111. U.-y, ....... ,,.,,i, ( ..... I,.,,,!,',,, ,) 

..... ' "'. 'I""'' 1 nllli'il.il.-li), All I'Mivlun 

f. i. .innl Ci'i.liT. 1-4,-Hi, AMI. Mi,, 

Ih-iiilh C.irii,, 'I'.-d-,.) ...... , rj,,l, Ui.ltl.si u;tn 

Miuniftu-nir.- "f m, n, ...... .! f lh| . ' 



dill 

Nnrll, Amrri.'Hii A v lull Tnlnn, Oh In 

J ! !',i"i" l A 1 " 1 """"' 1 "I' 1 " 1 ,".""" ''"V Air MH, 
I'nlrrliU.I Illlli-r i ; ,,n,',, I'm' ml,,,;,!,,!.', "]' y 
S 1 ,!,. 'HI, YMI. Mnimfu, in ,o ,,f f,,,.| m ,;,|lii,. (l ' 
Mini lilln f.,, I- Ins, ulir'ii'ff !!iiH mnrnlii 

i Mrirlln Mnilrlla, | in It Int. .1.-, Mil. SI. lit... 

Ulilnli.in.n I'ltv All Mni.-fl.'l ' ",\ ,",.' 
iAI.'l,r ( , |'li,) l .- l AIM. MlJn 
H Arr.i 1'i.fir,, l.nln- rily, M n 3:1 nj-; f i.('/ 
liiii|i"'Hnn ninl ii'i-iU, of (' r.'i iiti.'nifr 
Writn... l|n|,| \j, >.l,,i,,,),-l Aim! 

l'iirlb..Wrljilil I'nrii,, \v I lililir-- U I 

fl,l.:iljllll, (Ki-ilmlil .,f ,| f,'t iilifl'iln r'l'i' 
tllm-i. .'Inn A m* ni I, , All Mnln l,-l A.,,., 
lAI'-l.l'l, | l( ,nv AMI, T,.*, 
!' Ai-riKlrii, Inc., fi(t,itnl, l-'lii HJ.iiHn.dM, 

Mv.'rlllHll i,f ,1 r.J httctttff r,l|;|| U , |. i ,' 

",''1',"', ..'"". 1 )." 1 " 111 " Alt M<itli<t Aim. 
lAM.n. tU'llv Al II, 'I. . 

M* 1 !**!"' 1 * '''" "'' |lfll| lii' ', Hi i-illiiiin 
l'im-h ,- 1 'fii.i'ltij'' [i",, 1 '.' 1 A"MU. 

n luJk:!W H " tann " " u;:ri - r "" 

AcrnJM (tdiirml C.irii,. llin'iniiin.!.., I'tiHf, 
m,l,.IH I; 1 ; 1 tkrrlinul Iral .,,1.1 m-tvlr,! llfn 
limilvlli'iil i U'tlM "i-uln. )>i niit'|u<ll 

l A l l'n ll ii A( .' Ml "" li " 1 fl->'-'" l tM'!\"'\ i . 'HIM 

Al- II. Utnti. 



n1l-l^tll-llll>1 Ml^llr,,. IHil.ilt, .t.io Cily 

A r Mi.l.ilBl A,,o. (Al I.Ci, Tl.iUr AI-'H. 
UHii 

HoollIB t'n.. Jlcnlllr. \Vli, Sl.n.M.tH,!, 
ri.ititcllnii ,,f Mtiiiifrtiinn toleiiili-o nil.) r- 
Rlt '' 1 //I"* ..... r 'il, Ji|..'.i nt..t Mi!lr !-i VH .. 
;iiin nrun.,l*i|,.i,. lAl-MI'i. I,,, a AnflM. 

I -ft Uf , 

!m,"f,?, 1 ">"'l,.. fi,, Jllrn... Cftltf. (I,, 
1III.IHII. Irrvlr-r. IM ,i|.|,,il ( ll, n l>ll| n . 
lit' Vrlllt'l*. i-r.rnltv BtpUin, Mtt'-f ttfltl 

MM-IM Minrcmit Mrtcniiliinll.'ii. lAl'MCl. 
l.'-i AllKPlrn, I'dllf, 

Hi !!, Inc., I'dBBilciK,, 



l.ll til, li.ll tMlK'tlB B>Blrl,i, ti)"l<-mi 

liroiu.. lAt-Hi^. Arr..tir>iillrftl 
|'nllBfa,,n AMI. 



., >, 

I'nllf, H.dwh.iHif). t',,ti"it*-f I'Ti-nrant.. 
mihK nvrvlr*4 f,. r (He wlr tl^iM Bynt-m. 
Mc*-ln.nl.' H>almn tM*-,. (AKfilH- I., (i, 
HniiBf,.m l-'lBltl. Mfisa, 

Pnltrlill4 llllUr Cntj*., FflmilnyUIn, N.V. 
18.3(1, f!SO MBni.fB^lur^ uf fopl lt>nk 
itHMHft*-HHiiii kiln Jt.r P-10B ntrrfflfl. Huern- 



Kupply A(?i!iii'y (DSA) 

i]UT(!HM(!H III niOKt 

rlc!t of ilH iit'tivilinH IIH loKi.Htic 
f (.lie Military Hrvicc ro- 
ihc hfiKhlfiicil tcntpo of mttivi- 
in Sinitl'HHl Ain duriiiff FV 

Mninin'tiii-iil,, (Im l-'Y UKi? lolul 
lo $(!.;; hilliun, a nulmliiiitiiil 
IVIT tin- $ri.V liillinn of tlic pn- 
yciir mut iimn- Until .Inuhlc tin; 



jinuninL of monoy .spirit two yuars ago. 
In its first full ywir of opcnitions, 
UK? Ddfonso Contract AdniiiHHtrntion 
Horviccs, n major activity of DSA 
providing uiiifitid administration of 
c.oiitnuls for HUjiplic'H and surviwiK to 
th(! niililacy and various I'Ydci'al and 
Htiitti nj,imiH, iiad morn than 270,000 
prim and Ktdiondiiry conlnuits valued 
at $4!) billion assiKiHMl foi' full iulmin- 
istnition, 



Procurement Totals for 
Defense Supply Agency Centers 

KY 1907 I-'Y li)GO 

(MillioiiH of ilolhirn) 



Ci>ii!ilnit!(joii Supply CiMikii' 
l';ii'<'|.nmii'!i Hupply ConU^r 
l-'ui-l Supply CcnliM- 
(lniii'i'al Supply (!i*n(^r 
Intluiitrinl Sujiply Contcr 
I'rriinnui'l Support (IiinUir 



Vice Adm, Lyle 
Now President of NSIA 

Vii-u Admiral .)o:icpli M. hy|,i, UHN 
(IM.). fnnncr Dlnrtor of l\w J))i- 
ffiiiic .Supply AK*'IH'.V, ln'nini(! I'l'd.'ii- 
ilcnl, nf tin- Nalimial .Senility Imliw- 
Irial Aiiiiiii'iiiUnn (NSIA) Hopl. 1!H 
upon Ihi' rclircini'iil nf tlm itimunboitl, 
t'nj.lnin UulM-rL N. M.'I<'arhm<>, UMN 
(IM.). 

Ailiuintl l,,vl<' litiii been tiorvhiK HH 
Vice I're;siileul for OpcratioiiH of 
NSIA siinn- .luly I whe.n lie retired 
frotii the U.S. Nuvy. 

A nulive iif AuRiiiitn, <!u., Admiral 
I.. vie Ki'itituutvil rroiii tin; U.H. Nuval 
Ariiili-iny in Hl.'tli, 

Iti liMll! hi 1 wii.s uppuiiiteil Dignity 
Uirt'ctnr nf (Im newly lab!inheil !)<!- 
feiine Mujply AKCIICJ'. Hr rcinaimxl in 
IlmL pnsiition until lilfl'l wlion lie li- 
I'liini 1 Hit- aK<'*'y'H Dirtlclttr with thrrc- 
Mtnr rank. 



l.i Air Mftttjrlcl Arcn, (AKI.t;), Me. 
mi Al-'ll. ('nltf. 

tl Corp., Wilmington, MUSH, Jll.fiOO,- 
tlmlttn, iti'Vt>lin*'PiU ninl fnbrloutloii, 
*tnl cvnltmtlotl ttt Llio Mliuilcmiiil 
re-entry vtlilcle. Htmcc nm! MimiHe 
(riinlKBtlt,n, (AI-'HO), I.OH 
Anisic*, ('ntl(. 
Mrl)nitiill-llDiiHlnn, Knntii Mimkn, Cullf. 
(8H, 700. (KID. C DA ntromedlcnl uvucuiiLlon 



(J70,;( 
280.7 
l,fi()4.H 
7JI.I.7 
',W)A 

1,119.5 
205.5 



.M2.7 



20.l 



AFMA Re-elects 
Gen, Bunker President 



B, 



Lieutenant tJdneval William 
HunkiM', Deputy (Ioinniiiiidiii(.r 
Army Maturiol Command, has bntm 
elected to a iieciond torni IIH National 
I'rnsidi'iit tind Chairman of the Hoard 
of the Armed Korce.H Manutfement 
As.'iotiiation. 

Monibei'H of tl! Hoard r<i-elo<!t<!(l JIH 
diriMitorn for tho Ii)(i7-(i!) tovm win-o; 
lOilmund D, Dwyor, Ansintant Coni- 
Fudoral Supply Horvii;, 
orviceH AdminiHtration; 
Honorable Holin Horwitx, AHHistunt 
Hiwnitnry of Defense (lAilministra- 
tion); HuwliiiffH fii. Poolo, Ofilre of 
the AsBlHtiint SccreUivy o.f DofeiiHO 
(Comptrolliu*) ; John F. Snyder, Of- 
fice of the Assistant Kdcrotnry oC De- 
fense (Comptroller); and ITiiH'h K. 
AVitt, Hoputy AssiBttint Socriitary of 
tint Air Force, 



(ionf;ral 



IIA 



nlrcrnfl. Aoi'oninitlenl flynlomn niv., 
(AFHO), WrlKht-PuUcrHon API). Ohio. 

OFF-SHORE PROCUREMENT 

1(}-'fllil|)|ilnir & Cnnl Co., Uolk-rtlnm, Tho 
Nctlicrlnndn. $88,100,602 nntl $1.827,102. 
(!onl, Army ProcurcmcnL Uonlor, Frnnk- 
fnrl, (iornmny. 



OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

WASHINGTON. D. C. 203O1 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 




Navy and Commerce Departments 
Agree on Surface-Effect Ship Plan 

The Navy and Department of Commerce have agreed upon a 
master plan for future development of large, fast, surface-effect 
ships. 

The surface-effect principle offers a potential for greatly improv- 
ing the speed and efficiency of military and commercial ships, Such 
vessels utilize a "cushion" or "bubble' of pressurized air to support 
their weight. Exploitation of this basic principle may make possi- 
ble a class of high-speed ships capable of speeds three to five times 
that of the conventional vessels. 

An integral part of determining the feasibility of building and 
operating the large vessels is the design of a small surface-effect 
ship for test purposes. As a preliminary step in this direction, a 
fixed-price contract of $125,000 to Aerojet General Corp., El 
Monte, Calif., has been awarded by the Joint Surface Effect 
Ship Program Office, located at the Naval Research and Develop- 
ment Center, Carderock, Md. 

Similar contracts are also being negotiated with Bell Aerosystems 
Co., Buffalo, N.Y., and General Dynamics, Electric Boat Division, 
Groton, Conn,, for conceptual and parametric design studies for a 
high speed surface-effect ship test craft of less than 100 gross tons. 

The three contractors are to submit their studies within five 
months. If the results are promising, a contract for an experimental 
vessel will probably be awarded. 

The master development plan amplifies a joint agreement signed 
by the two departments in June 1966, establishing a cooperative 
research program to determine the feasibility of building and 
operating large, fast, surface-effect ships weighing 4,000 to 5,000 
tons and capable of speeds of more than 80 knots. 

Objective of the program is to advance the state of technology 
of surface-effect ships to a point where design parameters and 
technological problems can ibe predicted, identified and measured 
with reasonable confidence. The engineering and technical frame- 
work will thus be laid for later and independent development of 
naval and commercial ships. 



Annual Competition for 

Coast Guard Academy 

Appointments Set 

Annual nationwide competi- 
tion for appointment to the U.S. 
Coast Guard Academy will be- 
gin with the Dec. 2, 19fi7, ad- 
ministration of the College En- 
trance Examination Board Tests. | 

Appointment to the academy 
is obtained by competitive ex- 
amination only; there arc no 
congressional appointments or 
state quotas. The four-year cur- 
riculum leads to a Bachelor of ; 
Science degree and commission , 
as ensign in the Coast Guard. 

The examination is open to un- 
married men, military or civil- 
ian, who will have reached their; 
17th but not their 22nd birthday 
on July 1, 1968. Applicants must 
be in good physical condition, 
and be interested in a career as 
an officer in the Coast Guard. 

Requests for information con- 
cerning the examination and the 
requirements should be ad- 
dressed to the Director of Ad- 
missions, U.S. Coast Guard 
Academy, New London, Conn. 
06320. 

All applications should be posW 
marked not later than Dec. 15j 
1967. Arrangements to partici- 
pate in the examination should 
be completed by Oct. 28, 1967* 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PHINTING OFFICE : 10D7 300-971/2 




VOL. 3 NO. 10 



NOVEMBER 1967 




FEATURES 

Managing Defense Transportation Requirements 

Major General John J. Lane, USA -------------------- 1 

MILSCAP-How Will It Affect the Defense Contractor? 

Commander A. G. Cavanaugh, SC, USK ---------------- 9 

The Interagency Data Exchange Program 

George S. Peratino --------------------------------- 11 

ASPR Committee Case Listing --------------------------- 21 

Department of Defense Prime Contract Awards by State 28 




DEPARTMENTS 



Calendar of Events 
Bibliography 



Meetings and Symposia ---------------------------------- 20 

From the Speakers Rostrum ----------------------------- 23 

Defense Procurement ---------------------------------- 33 



Published by the 

Department of 

Defense 

Hon. Robert S. McNnmnra 
Secretary of Dcfcnno 

Hon. Paul H. Nitzc 
Deputy Secretary of Defense 

Hon. Phil G. Colliding 

Assistant Secretary of Defense 

(Public Affaira) 

Col. Joel B. Stephens, USA 
Director for Community delations 

Capt. John A. Davenport, USN 
Chief, Business & Labor IHvtatan 



The Defense Industry Bulletin 
is published monthly by the Business 
& Labor Division, Directorate for 
Community Relations, Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Pub- 
lic Affairs). Use of funds for printing 
this publication was approved by the 
Director of the Bureau of the Budget, 

The purpose of the Bulletin is 
to serve as a means of communication 
between the Department of Defense 
(DOD) and its authorized agencies 
and defense contractors and other 
business interests. It will serve as 
a guide to industry concerning offi- 
cial policies, programs and projects, 
and will seek to stimulate thought by 
members of the defense-industry team 
! n S MW tne problems that may arise 
nnn the rec i uirements of tlie 



Material in the Bulletin is se- 
lected to supply pertinent unclassified 
data of interest to the business com- 
munity. Suggestions from industry 
representatives for topics to be cov- 
ered in future issues should be for- 
warded to the Business & Labor 
Division. 

The Bulletin is distributed without 
charge each month to representatives 
of industry and to agencies of the De- 
partment of Defense, Army, Navy and 
Air Force. Requests for copies should 
be addressed to the Business & Labor 
Division, OASD(PA), Room 1E764, 
The Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 
20301, telephone, (202) OXford 5-2709. 

Contents of the magazine may be 
reprinted freely without requesting 
permission. Mention of the source will 
be appreciated. 



LCdr. E. W. Bradford, IJ 
Editor 

Mrs. Cecilia Pollok McCormlck 
Associate Editor 

Mr. Rick La Fnlcc 
Associate Editor 

Mr. John E. Pagan 
Art Director 

Norman E. Worm, JO1, USN 
Editorial Assistant 



Major General John J. Lane, USA 



hen Mi 1 . McNamara became 
;h Secretary of Defense in 1961, he 
;ook on a job that has often been 
Ascribed as tlie second most difficult 
n the United States second only to 
,hc Presidency itself. 

The problems he faced were for- 
nidablo. To begin with, he assumed 
,be responsibility of managing the 
vorld's largest corporate structure, 
vith an operating budget of $70 bil- 
ion or 10 percent of! the Gross Na- 
;ional Product. DOl)'s equipment, ma- 
xM'iel and real estate holdings were 
intimated to be worth some $160 bil- 
ion and it employed nearly four 
nillion people. 

Perhaps the most complex and 
Challenging problem he faced was 
'matching" the nation's total trans- 
lortation resources both military 
uid commercial to DOD require- 
vientN. Judicious use of these re- 
inurces, espiicially in the United 
States where nearly all military 
novements are generated, is vital to 
;he world- wide mol)ility of the 
\ rmed .Forces. 

One of his basic objectives was 
;o identify those areas of the total 
ogistical operations where good 
iianagement might produce de- 
11 ruble and lasting benefits. This en- 
mmpassed such things as design and 
Un'olopment, acquisition, storage, 
Ustribution, maintonance and, of 
imii'so, transportation. 

All of these factors play an im- 
jwtant part in the establishment 
uid maintenance of an efficient logis- 
tics system, essential to a nation 
;hat traditionally honors its interna- 
;ional commitments. With troops sta- 
ijoncd in 101 countries of the world, 
.ransportation, as a key clement of 
ogistics, assures that the vast DOD 
equircments are met. 



When Secretary McNamara as- 
sumed his post, the DOD transporta- 
tion team consisted of three trans- 
portation single-manager agencies. . 
The Military Sea Transportation Serv- 
ice (MSTS), established in 1949, was 
providing 1 all of the sea transportation 
for the movement of DOD cargo and 
personnel. The Military Airlift Com- 
mand (MAC), formerly the Military 
Air Transport Service, was estab- 
lished in 1956 for the movement of 
cargo and personnel by air between the 
continental United States (CONUS) 
and overseas theaters, and within the 
overseas areas. CONUS traffic man- 
agement for all DOD components was 




Maj. General John J, Lane, USA, is 
the commander of the Military Traffic 
Management and Terminal Service. 
He previously seryed as the com- 
mander of the U.S. Army Transporta- 
tion Center and School, Fort Eustis, 
Vn,; and before that he was assigned 
in the office of the Deputy Chief of 
Staff for Logistics, where lie super- 
vised the activities of the Army Sup- 
ply Management Course and the 
Logistics Management Center at Fort 
Lee, Va. 



performed by the Military Traffic 
Management Agency, established in 
1966. 

In 1061, this agency was renamed 
the Defense Traffic Management Serv- 
ice. The Single Manager Agency for 
Sealift reported to the Secretary of 
the Navy, and the Single Manager 
Agency for Airlift reported to the 
Secretary of the Air Force. The Sin- 
gle Manager Agency for CONUS 
Traffic Management initially reported 
to the Secretary of the Army, but 
was transferred to the Defense Sup- 
ply Agency in 1961. 

The weak link in the transportation 
system was the split operations of the 
common user ocean terminals, and 
the input control of cargo into the 
air and ocean terminals. It was fairly 
obvious tlmt further consolidation of 
transportation services, within the 
United States, was necessary to 
achieve greater efficiency and econ- 
omy. Several inter-Service studies had 
already reflected the need for a single 
agency to properly interface th 
land traffic and the terminal : 



lliillatin 11. <-'. "-'.I 1!" I' Til.' 



and objective of this assignment with 
respect to DOU military traftic, land 
transportation and common-use] 1 
ocean terminals are: 

To eliminate duplication and 
overlapping of effort between and 
among Military Departments, De- 
fense Agencies, and other compon- 
ents of DOD. 

To improve the effectiveness and 
economy of these operations through- 
out the DOD. 

To ensure that the approved 
emergency and wartime requirements 
of the DOD are met." 

The assigned functions consisted 
primarily of those previously as- 
signed to other DOD agencies, al- 
though in some areas the MTMTS 
role 1ms since heen broadened, Top 
priority was necessarily given to in- 




tegrating these functions into an 
effective transportation management 
organization in order to carry out 
its responsibilities, 

During tile first two years a series 
of organizational and realignment 
actions was undertaken, each de- 
signed to permit better management 
and control. These included conver- 
sions of 15 unilateral or bilateral 
military ocean terminal organiza- 
tions into four common-user ter- 
minals, thus achieving a measure of 
efficiency and economy. In addition, 
15 military departmental elements at 
aerial ports of embarkation were 
converted into seven military air co- 
ordinating offices. Five defense traf- 
fic management regional offices were 
eliminated and two MTMTS Area 
Commands were established, By this 
latter action, the processing time 
for export release was reduced from 
six to seven days to 48 hours, thus 
significantly increasing responsive- 
ness to the military users of MTM- 
TS management services. These and 
subsequent realignment actions were 



oriented to the growing require- 
ments of DOD, to a large de- 
gree directed by the Vietnam war. 
The mission of MTMTS is to meet 
the military needs in peace and war, 
with the accent on wartime readi- 
ness and effectiveness. Our job be- 
gins at the time it is decided what 
is to lie moved, where it is to go, 
and when it must arrive at destina- 
tion. The what, where and when arc 
not our decision. The how of move- 
ment and the control necessary to 
assure the when are the responsibil- 
ity of MTMTS. Naturally, this dic- 
tates a good working relationship 
with a great many agencies espec- 
ially with MSTS, MAC and the 
commercial carriers. Of course, there 
are differences of opinion from time 
to time but these are usually re- 
solved on a give-and-take basis. We 
have developed an understanding of 
each others problems, thus strength- 
ening the kinship of purpose be- 
tween us. 

Dual Environment 

Vietnam has been especially chal- 
lenging to DOD logisticians. Never 
before have we had to operate in 
such a unique environment. Our com- 
mitments in Vietnam impose war- 
time requirements on the other end 
of the logistics pipeline, while on 
this end we are required to function 
on a peacetime basis. Operating in 
this dual environment, we at MTMTS 
are obliged to act as a buffer. We 
absorb the shock of the rigid war- 
time requirements, and we translate 
those requirements into requests ac- 
ceptable to the transportation in- 
dustry. Thus, without unduly dis- 
turbing the peacetime pace at home, 
we see to it that men and materiel 
are moved to Vietnam on schedule. 

It was impossible to predict the 
outcome of the task that lay ahead 
once it was decided to deploy large 
combat forces to Vietnam. The prob- 




lem was not limited to merely de- 
ciding the quantity of materiel 
needed. Plow to get it there became 
a prime factor. Distance, geogra- 
phy and escalating demands, nil had 
to he considered. 

A logistics pipeline of this mag- 
nitude, extending- over a distanct; 
of 10,000 miles, involves a host of 
interrelated factors, all of \vhicli 
must be brought into play in thoji 1 
proper time and place. Production, 
transportation and ultimate rocmpt 
on the far shores for onward dis- 
tribution to our combat forces are, 
of necessity, related to one another. 
Obstructions at any point alonpt the 
line can affect the efficiency f the 1 
entire system. 

It is one tiring 1 to move Hii|i|ilu^ 
through a system when ftunlitwH are 




well established. It is quite anolhoi' 
where facilities are virtually non- 
existent. There was in South Viulmun 
only one deep water port HaiKi'n. 
Yet, in the first six months nflm- 
our major deployment biigan, 200,- 
000 troops were moved into tile 
country and supplied with the tbmi- 
aands of items needed for combat 
operations and their health and wel- 
fare, 

Control of available tnm sport u- 
tion in the United States and Um 
flow of transportation to Vietnam 
was paramount. In the early tluy 
of the Vietnam buildup, clolayn in 
port discharges had an adverse im- 
pact on ship turn-around time. Tin; 
inadequate logistics base on the 
other end slowed clown port clear- 
ances considerably. As a result ttliip 
availability was reduced, requiring- 
extraordinary measures to procure 
additional shipping 1 . This critical prob- 
lem was such that at one time 102 
ships were somewhere enroutc from 
the Continental United States, or be- 
ing off-loaded or awaiting discharge in 



November 1967 



Southeast Asia. MTMTS had to ex- 
ercise the necessary control to en- 
sure that priority cargo was moved, 
and the less critical cargo was de- 
layed either at the port or the de- 
pot. 

From leas than 35,000 measure- 
ment tons shipped in January 1965, 
800,000 tons per month are now 
being shipped. From the limited cap- 
ability of one deep water port, seven 
modern poi-t facilities are now in 
operation in South Vietnam, As a 
result, we are now processing more 
than 100,000 items ranging from 
fuel and ammunition to frozen meat 
and vegetables. These statistics re- 
flect the tremendous effort that has 
gone into tho rapid expansion of 
our logistics base, not only over- 




seas but in the United States as well. 
These statistics are also indicative 
of the extent to which MTMTS and 
the transportation industry of the 
United States are involved in sup- 
porting our combat forces. 

MTMTS Responsibilities 

The broad and complex responsi- 
bilities of MTMTS embrace live 
basic functional areas: 

MTMTS provides planning support 
to the- Armed Forces on such matters 
as transportation management, ocean 
terminal operations, transportation en- 
gineering, and other related items. 

Transportation planning is a key 
logistic factor which must be con- 
sidered in all defense planning 
strategy, At MTMTS, we regard 
transportation planning as the es- 
sence of logistics preparedness. 

Our chartered responsibility in 
this important area falls into three 
categories : We develop internal 
transportation plans ; we furnish 
planning support to the Armed 
Forces; and we plan for the utiliza- 



tion of commercial and military 
transportation resources in the 
United States in the event of emer- 
gency. These responsibilities nat- 
urally dictate extensive liaison 
with the Joint Staff, the Military 
Departments, other single-manager 
transportation agencies, and the com- 
mercial transportation industry in the 
United States. 

o MTMTS operates assigned military 
ocean terminals in the United States, 
certain overseas terminal units, and 
the Department of Defense Railway 
Interchange Fleet. 

MTMTS operates IS military 
ocean terminals and outports in the 
United States and nine overseas ter- 
minal units, primarily in support of 
Air Force activities in Europe, North 
Africa and the Near East. MTMTS 
was first tested two and a half 
years ago, when it arranged the 
movement of the First Cavalry Di- 
vision (Airmobile) and the Ninth 
Infantry Division. Advance parties 
were quickly airlifted to Vietnam 
and the main hotly went by sea. The 
First Cavalry moved from ports on 
the East and Gulf coasts and the 
Ninth Infantry from the West Coast. 
Since then the workload through our 
west coast ports has nearly tripled. 

Operation of the Department of 
Defense Railway Interchange Fleet 
involves control and maintenance of 
cars registered for service on the 
nation's rail lines. These cars are 
used to augment commercial capa- 
bility not otherwise available. 

MTMTS controls the procurement 
of commercial transportation services 
and the movement of traffic into air 
and through ocean terminals in the 
United States. 

To perform this important task, 
MTMTS relies heavily on the com- 
mercial transportation industry of 
tho United States. This basic policy 
was established on a goverrrment- 




wide basis 13 years ago and reaf- 
firmed last year. The application of 
this policy is not only in the na- 
tional interest, but supports the spe- 
cific interest and objectives of DOD. 
Reliance on commercial sources for 
transportation services precludes 
MTMTS procurement, operation and 
maintenance of transportation equip- 
ment and facilities at the risk of 
obsolescence. 

During FY 1967, about 20 million 
measurement tons of cargo and a 
quarter million passengers were 
processed through MTMTS ocean 
terminals. At the same time, input 
to the air terminals amounted to 
322,000 short tons of cargo and 
160,000 passengers. 

MTMTS manages the DOD per- 
sonal property, moving and storage 




prosram on a world-wide basis. This 
function involves the movement and 
storage of personal property belonging 
to members of the Armed Forces. 

This program, so important to the 
welfare and morale of the military 
family, is managed through the 
transportation officers at military in- 
stallations who are actually the 
points of contact with Service mem- 
bers. MTMTS, however, provides the 
technical direction and supervision, 
The program, which annually re- 
sults in about a million shipments, 
costs approximately $432 million an- 
nually. To provide more efficient and 
economical service to the Serviceman 
and his family, MTMTS has insti- 
tuted a variety of new programs. 
Chiefly, these are the development 
of management tools to evaluate and 
govern traffic patterns, storage serv- 
ice, transit time, quality of service 
and shipper, and carrier perform- 
ance. MTMTS believes these pro- 
grams will contribute immeasurably 
to enhancing service, saving time, 
and cutting 1 costs. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



MTMTS develops integrated 
transportation data systems, through- 
movement programs, transportation 
engineering studies, and studies per- 
taining to highways for national 
defense. 

Technological advances and ex- 
panding military requirements de- 
mand hold and imaginative new 
programs. The developmental pro- 
grams at MTMTS are tailored to 
improving strategic mobility and 
providing more responsible and eco- 
nomical service to DOD. The appli- 
cation of systems analysis and com- 
puters to transportation problems 
are expected to have far-reaching 
implications. AUTOSTEAD ( Auto- 
mated System for Transportation 
Data), with its varied sub-systems, 
is being designed to eliminate bar- 




riers to progress and responsiveness. 
Transportation engineering studies 
now under way will assure timely 
employment of cargo and personnel 
free from natural and man-made 
restraints. These studies include 
mode limitations, existing and plan- 
ning transportation facilities, traffic 
ilow patterns, documentation, and a 
host of related matters essential to 



along conventional lines except that 
there are two deputy commanders: 
Air Force Brigadier General Thomas 
L. Hayes is Deputy Commander for 
Management and Systems, and Rear 
Admiral Elliott Bloxom is Deputy 
Commander for Operations. 

Operating on the principle of cen- 
tralized control and decentralized 
operations, MTMTS is composed of 
two field commands and a special- 
ized transportation agency: 

o Eastern Area, with headquarters 
in Brooklyn, N.Y., is commanded by 
Brigadier General Arthur Hurow, 

USA. 

o Western Area, with headquarters 
in Oakland, Calif., is commanded by 
Brigadier General John D. Crowley, 
USA. Both have Air Force deputies 
and like MTMTS Headquarters are 
jointly staffed throughout. 

o The Transportation Engineering 
Facility, located at Fort Eustis, Va., 
is directed by Richard K. Hutaon. He 
has an Army deputy. 
(See organizational chart on page 6) 
The line of demarcation separat- 
ing the two field commands rims 
along the Mississippi River. Each 
command is responsible for domestic 
traffic management service within 
its boundaries. However, each has 
additional and sometimes unique re- 
sponsibilities. For example, the East- 
ern Area controls and manages the 
DOD Freight Rail Interchange Fleet 
and has cognizance over all bulk liquid 
traffic both tasks arc national in 
scope. 

The Western Area furnishes ocean 
terminal services at many points 
along the West Coast. During the 
past two years its workload has 
nearly tripled. The Eastern Area is 
responsible for terminal operations 
along the eastern seaboard, the Gulf 
Coast and the Great Lakes, plus nine 
overseas terminal units in Europe, 
North Africa and the Near East. 



Financial Management in MTMTS 

MTMTS has the responsibility for 
stewardship over a large portion of 
the DOD transportation dollars and 
has, as one of its command goals, the 
providing of high quality service 
which meets desirable time criteria 
at the lowest overall cost. In carry- 
ing out its role as a single-manager 
operating agency for military traf- 
fic, land transportation, and com- 
mon-user ocean terminals, MTMTS 
influenced the expenditure of over $2 
billion of DOD transportation funds 
in FY 1967 (Figure 1). 

The $1.1 billion CONUS freight 
costs represent the total government 
bill of lading (GBL) and commer- 
cial bill of lading (CBL) DOD traffic 
moved in the United States in FY 
19G7. 





From a dollar standpoint, pttrnomil 
property is the hu'st single com- 
modity shipped by DOD. Personal 
property included hoiiKohold goods, 
personal effects, unaccompanied bag- 
gage, professional books and equip- 
ment, and house trailers. The $408 
million ngurn covers uecoHSorlfl! 
charges, such as storage, packinp 
and crating, as wall as transportation 
charges. 

The $210 million CONUS passenger 
costs were incurred in the movement 
of DOD personnel by transportation 
requests within the United States, 

The three major areas of fund 
requirements covered in Figure 1 
are budgeted for by tho respective 
Military Services. However, the ex- 
penditure of those monies, and econ- 
omies realized, arc strongly influ- 
enced by the management actions of 
MTMTS in carrying out its assigned 
traffic management functions, The 
remaining item of $200 million, COY- 
ei's operations of the MTMTS ocean 
terminals in CONUS, is funded by the 
Army Industrial Fund (AIF). 



November 1967 



MTMTS operations under the 
AIF continue to expand in support of 
the war in Vietnam. The estimated 
PY 1968 expenses total $262.6 million 
consisting of the following: 

(Millions) 

Contractual Services $336.6 

Cross-Service Agreements 57.4 

Salaries and Wages 53.2 

Materials and Supplies 9.8 

Other Costs 5.6 

Total $262.6 

Contractual sei^ices and cross- 
Service agreements arc primarily 
for cargo handling and related ter- 
minal costs. The cross-Service agree- 
ments are with the Navy to handle 
cargo, for the most part ammunition 
?nd explosives, through Navy termi- 
n;-J facilities. 

The AIF is a revolving fund and 
revenue is generated through charges 
made to ordering agencies (custom- 
ers) which include shipper services, 
tenants, military and commercial 
vessel operators, railroads and 
others. Also, reimhursement is made 



from Army appropriated funds pro- 
vided MTMTS for carrying out its 
traffic management mission. 

The goal in AIF management is to 
operate on a break-even basis so that, 
on the one hand, the corpus of the 
fund will not be depleted while, on 
the other hand, an overcharge will 
not he made against customers, 
these customers being primarily 
other government agencies. The esti- 
mated FY 1968 revenue by mission 
is: 

(Millions) 

Cargo Handling $200.3 

Auxiliary Cargo Services 5.0 

Parking Services 3.7 

Traffic Management 3.7,0 

Services to Commercial Vessels 9.2 
Services to Military Vessels 10,1 

Passenger Processing 2.3 

Support of Tenants G.9 

Defense Rail Interchange Fleet 1.6 
Mortuary Services 1.1 

Military Family Housing ,3 

CONEX Container Repair .2 

Other Products and Services 4.9 

Total $282.0 



498 
PERSONAL 
PROPERTY 
WORLDWIDE 



210 

CONUS 
PASSENGERS 



260 
ARMY 
INDUSTRIAL 
FUND 




$ 1,102 
CONUS FREIGHT 



(in Millions of Dollars) 



Figure 1. 




Pre-determined rates are developed 
covering- the majority oi services 
furnished, such as cost by commodity 
for cargo handling, cost by passen- 
ger for processing;, and space occu- 
pancy charge for tenant agencies. 
Rates for mileage compensation for 
MTMTS-owned railway freight an (3 
tank cars, assigned to the Inter- 
change Fleet, are based on those pub- 
lished by the Interstate Commerce 
Commission in the Mileage TarnT- 
Series 7-Z, ICC H-3. Mortuary serv- 
ices arc performed at the Oakland 
Army Base for returned war dead 
with reimbursement made by the 
Military Service concerned. The cost 
for operating and maintaining 1 mili- 
tary family housing is reimbursed 
from the Army appropriation for 
military family housing based on 
direct costs phis applied overhead. 

Development Programs 

During: the past two years a great 
deal of progress 1ms been made in 
developing; integrated transportation 
information data systems. AUTO- 
STRAD, with its subsystems, -will 
assist the management and acceler- 
ate the movement of the increasing 
volume of DOD cargo and passen- 
gers. The plan provides for six major 
functional systems corresponding; to 
MTMTS functional areas of respon- 
sibility. 

The problem of maintaining status 
of shipments and knowing what is in 
the transportation pipeline has 
plagued the traffic manager for many 
years. Manual tracing methods are 
normaly very slow and unreliable. 
As an initial effort to correct this 
situation, a Shipment Status Sys- 
tem has been designed, called STA- 
TEM. This system will provide the 
traffic manager the status of a given 
shipment, and/or the inventory of a 
specific commodity in the transpor- 
tation pipeline en route from the 
shipper to the overseas port of dis- 
charge. The traffic manager will ime 
a remote; input/output device to 
make inquiries and receive informa- 
tion on shipments of critical items 
currently in the pipeline. Initially, 
this system will include critical items 
en route to Southeast Asia, Subse- 
quently, it will be expanded to in- 
clude critical items in the pipeline 
world- wide. 

One of the critical problems in 
managing the Personal Property 



Defense Industry Bulletin 





OFFICE OF HIGHWAYS 
FOR NATIONAL CFJtNSE 

MR O.K. Chaccy 

RM7!S OXM^! 




















^ 
< 


















^ 

ft^S S G 

Ll 'U c X 

8S0 S-J 8 


































u Sa 
^5 =1 
o^ =g 










^3 
_. 




Offi J | 

O 










it t T: j> 




u_ 

C < 






SlS io 

[_> O 2 




































Ul 

u 


^ ^K 




IgK IS 
_ o a >- x 






< ^i 




C 






I 








>ig Hs 
















2 " @ T 


> 






= 0* ZE 










, u Q 5 h g 






~ <J D: ^ 


LU 






S" 










tfe^ ^^ 






Eg>i g = 


W 












^ 












J 
< 


< 










g =n 










S^ Z S g ct 
u-5c 2 E 


z 


y =S 

u.5 -3 
o ,5 x 











SB ts 

y|l 1 

IL z HI .O 

i^ HE 












UJ 

h- 


ES 










s Si 

o 












z 


O 






















Sa 
























"J n 
S o 






















& 

R 




.: = K a B 

< u ^1 ^ -1 

-9 S 33 it dJ y 

50 I-.H sis 

* s i ii 1 -SB 

u -gi S5i 

t c i 


1 

OFFICE OF 
PROVOST MARSHAL 

COL John J. Flanagan. USA 
RM 701 OX 165 




















Headquarters 

WESTERN AREA. MIMTS 
Oakland Army Base 
Oakland, Calif. 91626 
Telephone; M!H 466-911 
C0^WfJDER 
GEN J.D. Crewley, UW EM 


< J: 






















1 U 


h- U 
























>- > 












u. 












< 
Ij 


< 

t SB 

L--5 ffl " 










tt -1 

Il Is 

set; g 
























SEE "a 










_ 


U) 

a; 
111 


y o s 
StG . 

cs " 3 
Si -I 1 - 










S^ -(S 

3 g dl 
o 




< 

u. 3 "' 
ytag 3 5 






^ ^ 

"ls| ti 


















iil I s 






S g s" e 


















C3 4 






^ is 1 a a < 


3 

O 






z 
E = 

a >S 
K irt Ga 






< 

H S 

Ss 3 




S-o S^ 

D -> 

ri* 






fillib' 

5|.ifc fi 


^ 






I o |x 






a 5t i 










a|- g ^ 


LU 






B 






Si a 

o *fl K -co 

S ^C H- tD **" 










s ^! 




u. is 
b S?S 
_ U| K 8 




5 O w "~ 

i 






-"" ^E 
rf" 




SgS -C-S 
ui < 5 s g* 










to -:, 














135 1 ' s 










H ij= 














I -< " 




















Z 

in m 




>- s 5 i 












































|l|| S 

gas 

K u.' S 
























3 














1 

EXECUTIVE 
ASSISTANT 

MRR.L Guyotte J 
RM 701 OX 4416 























Program lias been a lack of sufficient 
data on household goods movements, 
such as cost and quality of service. 
Prior to the establishment of MT- 
MTS, there was no single cohesive 
system to bring this data together in 
an effective manner to support ap- 
propriate policy development or re- 
vision, The world-wide Household 
Goods Information System for Traf- 
fic Management, which we have 
termed WHIST, is an integrated 
system which is being designed to 
provide timely and complete auto- 
mated data for evaluating the DOD 
Personal Property Traffic Program, 
based upon the three dimensions of 
service, time and cost. At the present 
time eight of the 15 WHIST subsys- 
tems are operational, The WHIST 
subsystems currently operational in- 




elude the automation of Through- 
Government-Bill-of- Lading and Gov- 
Grnment-Container-Method rate data, 
for use by transportation officers at 
military installations, and automated 
data summaries for evaluation of 
carrier performance. WHIST, when 
fully implemented, will provide a 
complete range of detailed and sum- 
mary traffic management informa- 
tion to assure that military person- 
nel receive quality service in a timely 
manner and at reasonable cost to 
DOD, 

Concurrent with the development 
of new systems, we are upgrading 
our computers and peripheral equip- 
ment, When MTMTS was formed, 
we inherited several dissimilar com- 
puter installations at our various 
commands. The lack of compatibility 
of these computers, coupled with an 
increasing data processing workload 
in support of Southeast Asia opera- 
tions, created a severe shortage of 
computer capability. High speed, 
mass storage, third generation com- 
puters were urgently required. Dur- 
ing the latter part of 1966, we 



completed the numerous technical 
and administrative actions required 
to procure new computers. In August 
1967, identical B5500 computers, 
were installed at our Eastern Area 
and Western Area commands. In ad- 
dition to their increased speed and 
processing capability, the B5500& 
will permit standardization of area 
data systems. This will facilitate in- 
terchange of data between the area 
commands and permit reciprocal 
computer support. 

Terminal Modernization 

One responsibility of MTMTS is 
the operation of ocean terminals. 
During the first two and a half years 
of operation, our ocean terminals 
experienced a tremendous increase 
in workload. In FY 1967 almost 21 
million measurement tons moved 
through the CONUS terminals. This 
represents an increase of approxi- 
mately five million tons over the 
amount moved in PY 1966, 

A remarkable side of this workload 
performance is that all this tonnage 
was being moved at a time when 
MTMTS was realigning and consoli- 
dating its terminals. Nevertheless, 
we were able to meet the challenge 
of Vietnam without delays. We now 
load ships for a single port of dis- 
charge in Vietnam, thus increasing 
the turn-around time of much needed 
ships and reducing port congestion 
as well. At the same time we are 
modernizing the Military Ocean Ter- 
minal at Cayenne, N.J., and the Mili- 
tary Ocean Terminal Bay Area at 
Oakland, Calif,, both high on the 
priority list in MTMTS planning for 
the future. 

At Bayonne plans have been devel- 
oped for conversion to autom ated 
controlled and mechanized receiving, 
sorting, distributing and container- 
stuffing facilities, Third generation 
automatic data processing equip- 
ment will be used to direct the sort- 




ing and movement of the cargo. The 
plan also provides for a container 
storage area capable of accommodat- 
ing 2,000 40-foot containers, as welE 
as expanding berth facilities at both 
terminals to efficiently handle roll- 
on/roll-off ships. 

One of our terminal problems is 
the massive administrative workload 
associated with daily inventories and 
the manual development of required 
detail, applying to thousands of ship- 
ments from hundreds of points of 
origin to hundreds of destinations. 

The speed and data-compiling ca- 
pabilities of third generation com- 
puters will provide the means to 
evaluate the time a shipment "sits" 
in a terminal prior to being loaded. 
Operating techniques, releasing and 
booking procedures, and the time 




frames prescribed by various direc- 
tives can be benefically refined as a 
result of a new "Time-in-Terminal" 
report recently developed by MTMTS. 

The report is designed to summar- 
ize all carga lifted from ports of 
embarkation to ports of debarkation 
by priority, percentages of priori- 
ties, commodity, sea express, pri- 
vately owned vehicles, household goods 
and other cargo. The report will 
indicate the time spent in the termi- 
nal and the reason for delay, if 
delayed. 

The report is expected to become 
an invaluable data bank and manage- 
ment tool for all elements connected 
with export movements of cargo. 

Container Services 

The rapidly increasing availability 
and use of container services is the 
single most important development 
in transportation today. We estimate 
that more than 60 percent of all mil- 
itary cargo shipped can be moved in 
containers where such services are 
available. We are now shipping vir- 
tually all car-go in containers, which 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



can be shipped via that method, to 
Alaska, Hawaii, Okinawa and Puerto 
Rico. We are increasing use of con- 
tainer service to Europe and the 
United Kingdom, (now about 40 per- 
cent), the Mediterranean, Japan, the 
Philippines and South Vietnam. We 
also anticipate institution of con- 
tainer service to Korea, Taiwan and 
Thailand as the situation warrants. 
Such services are having an impact 
on the requisition, procurement, sup- 
ply and delivery cycle through re- 
ductions in packaging costs, loss/ 
damage/pilferage, and transit time. 
We are also endeavoring to increase 
the use of container service in the 
movement of material directly from 
supplier to user, in order to gain the 
maximum benefits. 

Projecf TICO 

Project TICO (Through Inter- 
modal Container Operation) was es- 
tablished in MTMTS on March 1 ( 
1967, for the purpose of implement- 
ing command policy for the full 
exploitation of the through-container 
through-government bill of lading 
(TGBL) concept. Progress, while not 
as rapid as we desire, is steady and 
results are being obtained. Traffic 
flow patterns, identifying container- 
izable cargo on second destination 
traffic, have been developed and are 
being furnished on a monthly basis. 
This data is utilized to approach the 
transportation industry for through- 
movement tenders. Currently, 165 
TGBL tenders have been accepted 
and distributed for use. 

It is proposed to capture, in the 
near future, traffic flow patterns on 
first destination traffic, Plans are in 
effect for an education and training 
program to apprise DOD shippers of 
latest developments and accomplish- 
ments on containerization, Further 
gains are expected in the areas of 
funding, additional through-con- 
tainer tenders, reduced and simplified 
documentation, clarity in the areas 
of uniformity, and legislation more 
favorable to intermodal operations, 

Rail Modern izatioti Program 

MTMTS owns a fleet of 5,403 rail 
cars which are in operation on the 
nation's rail lines. Eight hundred and 
ninety-five of these are a specialized 
DP (damage free) type boxcar, ideally 
suited for the movement of ammuni- 
tion and explosives by rail and gener- 
ally not available from the railroads, 



8 



The DP boxcars were acquired by the 
Services during the Korean conflct 
and are over 15 years old. As a re- 
sult, a five-year boxcar moderniza- 
tion program is being undertaken. It 
will embrace the procurement of 
1,000 hy-cube specialized DF boxcars 
in 200-car increments annually be- 
ginning in FY 1969. This program 
will cost $4 million annually through 
the total procurement period; how- 
ever, each car purchased will result 
in a net advantage, or savings, to 
the DOD in excess of $5,000 per year. 

Troop Support 

During the period April 1065 
through August 1967, approximately 
17,000 carloads and MOO truckloads 
were utilized in the movement of 
unit equipment within CONUS in 
connection with the Southeast Asiti 
buildup, at an estimated cost of 
$35.7 million. Due to the occasional 
shortage of rail equipment CONU8- 
wide, a close surveillance program 
was initiated to insure maximum 
utilization of carrier's equipment. 
Transit times and good service routes 
were developed to insure timely ar- 
rivals at outloading ports. As a re- 
sult, delays in transit have been neg- 
ligible. 

Air Export Control 

Recently DOD recognized that cer- 
tain categories of material being air- 
lifted to points outside CONUS worn 
generally suspect for movement by 
air. In this regard DOD directed 
MTMTS, as the airlift clearance au- 
thority, to initiate a stricter "chal- 
lenge for air eligibility" program for 
certain commodity groupings, as well 
as air shipments resulting from sup- 
ply actions taken more than six 
months ago. Even though it is recog- 
nized that the identification of air 
eligibility is a function of the Serv- 
ice, the invalidations required by 
challenge actions from MTMTS has: 

Assured that only material that is 
truly airworthy is in the airlift sys- 
tem, 

Diverted shipments, screened or 
challenged out of the system with 
shipper Service concurrence,' into tho 
sealift system as sea express cargo. 

Cost Avoidance 

During FY 1967, MTMTS experi- 
enced a cost avoidance of approxi- 
mately $25 million attributable to 
negotiation actions conducted with 
the transportation industry. Of this 



amount, approximately $18 million 
wa the direct result of successful 
rate negotiations, conducted on the 
basis of volume movement reports 
received from all shipping sources 
of DOD. Tho balance resulted from 
transit negotiations activities. 

This is a continuing program which 
wo feel holds great promise. 

rt significant aspect of the rob of 
logislks in peace and iti war is 
thi! vital CONUS movement link, 
This is the link which must lie ca- 
pable of initiating the first phase of 
military response to distant crisis, 
and of meeting the longer term re- 
quirements of the inevitable! buildup 
of forces and supplies. This link is 
the .specific; province of MTMTS. 

Quick reaction to DOD's vast re- 
quirements necessitates the mainte- 
nance of a readiness posture xufft- 
ciently flexible to meet all possible 
contingencies. MTMTS must maintain 
a current awareness of personnel and 
equipment configuration of units; it 
must know tho loading rates ami lo- 
cality of unit's; it must know the 
availability of aircraft, rail rarnfp- 
ment and motor vehicles both com- 
mercial and military; it must assess 
the fluidity of air and ocean termi- 
nals; and it must control ami regulate 
the movement of units compatible 
with the availability of ocean ship- 
ping and intercontinental airlift, 
Precise scheduling and, of cour.se, 
detailed and continuous planning IK 
required. 

The key to tho orderly flow of mil- 
itary movements to Southeast Asia, 
we believe, has been the result of our 
control of the initial movements in 
the United Htatos. At the same limn, 
this success is a tribute to luRisUcal 
and transportation munapfoi'H of the 
three Services and the AmctJcan 
industrial base on which we muni de- 
pend. Our reliance on the transpor- 
tation industry has been a vital 
factor in the establishment anil 
maintenance of our defense trans- 
portation systems. This splendid 
DOD/industry effort has prompted 
General Westmoreland to state that, 
"Never before in the history of 
warfare have men created such a 
responsive logistical system. . . . Not 
once have the fighting troops been 
restricted in their operations Against 
the enemy for want of essential sup- 
plies." 

November 1967 



Commander A. G. Cavanaugh, SC, USN 



SVIilitary Standard Contract Ad- 
ministration Procedures (MILSCAP) 
is a DOD data system, designed to 
translate into punched card form the 
essential elements of contract con- 
tent, in order to take advantage 
of rapid communications techniques 
and allow it to be processed me- 
chanically. It will put into the hands 
of DOD contract administrators and 
contracting officers a considerable 
amount of information on contract 
status and contractor performance. 
Industry is beginning to ask "What 
will this mean to mo?" A description 
of the system may provide the an- 
swer to that question. 

The purpose of MILSCAP, devel- 
oped by the Defense Department for 



use by the Military Services, the 
Defense Supply Agency and the De- 
fense Contract Administration Serv- 
ices, is to standardize information 
data in the functional areas of pro- 
curement, contract administration, 
inventory control, storage and finan- 
cial accounting. 

The new system will replace a 
variety of non-standard procedures 
now in use by procurement and con- 
tract administration activities 
throughout DOD. MILSCAP will be 
installed progressively because of 
its impact on existing procedures 
and may require two or throe years 
for complete implementation. 

MILSCAP will be an integral part 
of other DOD standard logistics 



CONTRACT ADIftl 


NI5TRATION DATA FLOW 




^ 






CONSI 


GNEE 
















CONTRACTOR 

1 1 1 1 1 1 


> 


<x 


X 


/ 




PURCHASING OFFICE 


CONTRACT 
ADMINISTRATOR 




> 


s^ 


n r 




/ * 


* 


\ 


* 




MM |=|=H 


n 




INVENTORY 
CONTROL MAV 
POINT SK 

nnnnn F n 


Y REGIONAL 
WCE CENTER 

n n 


\?5y i ?!I! ol !^ A /L 









data systems, such as MILSTBIP 
(Military Standard Requisitioning 
and Issue Procedures), MILSTRAP 
(Military Standard Transaction Re- 
porting and Issue Procedures) , and 
MILSTEP (Military Supply and 
Transportation Evaluation Proce- 
dures). Procedures under MILSCAP 
are authorized by DOD Directive 
4105.fi3 and are described in detail 
in DOD Manual 410B.63-M. 



(PI t the time a contract is exe- 
cuted a set of punched cards, called 
an abstract, will be prepared at the 
purchasing office. Administrative 
data cards will contain the contract 
number, effective date, codes to iden- 
tify the purchasing office, the con- 
tractor, the paying office and the 
administrator, discount terms, author- 
ity delegated to the administrator, 
and other data applicable to the con- 
tract as a whole. Item data cards 
will describe the material or serv- 
ices being procured with a stock 
number, manufacturer's part num- 
ber, a brief description, quantity and 
price. Schedule cards will contain de- 
livery dates and consignee identifica- 
tion. Accounting cards will cite the 
funds to be charged. 

This contract abstract will be im- 
mediately transmitted to the field ad- 
ministrator via the Automatic 
Digital Network ( AUTODIN) , the 
DOD communications network. The 
administrators are the regional of- 
fices of the Defense Contract Ad- 
ministration Services or the plant 
representatives under the opera- 
tional control of the Army, Navy 
and All 1 Force. The data will be re- 
corded in a master contract file at 
the administration offices in some 
type of memory device which will 
be readily accessible for inquiry, 
and will provide management with 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



current information in the form of 
printed reports. 

The system also provides for fol- 
low-on communications between the 
purchasing office and the field ad- 
ministrator, and a means to update 
the contract file. Formats are pre- 
scribed for revising the abstract, 
based on modifications issue:! by the 
contracting officer. Message cards 
will request the administrator to ne- 
gotiate accelerated deliveries, pro- 
vide line item status, and furnish 
supplemental information. 

Plowing in the opposite direction, 
formats are being developed to per- 
mit the administrator to request 
additional information from the con- 
tracting officer, to advise him of a 
potential or actual slippage in de- 
livery dates, and to reply to his re- 
quests for status or accelerated de- 
livery. The system also provides for 
mechanized shipment notices to sup- 
plant the present distribution of the 
contracting officer's copy of the Ma- 
terial Inspection and Receiving Re- 
port (DD Form 250). It allows con- 
signees to report acceptance of mate- 
rial via AUTODIN, and the transmis- 
sion of payment notice cards to the 
cognizant accounting offices in lieu of 
hard copy vouchers. 



_ 'riginally MILSCAP was con- 
ceived as a communications link be- 
tween agencies of the Defense De- 
partment. How then will it affect 
the contractor? The astute contrac- 
tor will recognize that the impact 
may be substantial as the system 
will give to the administrator a 
wealth of contract status informa- 
tion and, thus, contractor perform- 
ance data, the end result being closer 
surveillance of delivery date slip- 
pages, 

The Government enters into an 
agreement with a contractor for the 
delivery of goods by a specific date. 
This date is established to meet a 
specific need and the contract price 
is generally affected by this require- 
ment. The value of the goods the- 
oretically diminishes when delivery 
occurs after the established date, 
therefore a monetary consideration 
should pass to the Government in 
these cases. We can deduce from 
this that the contractor, who enters 
mto a contractual arrangement 
with the knowledge > that he cannot 



comply, has an unfair advantage 
over his competition. His competi- 
tors may have quoted the job on an 
extra effort basis, thereby pricing 
themselves out of consideration. 

The data available from MIL- 
SCAP, therefore, should work to the 
advantage of the scrupulously hon- 
est contractor and against those who 
have a tendency to base their quo- 
tations on minimum effort, regard- 
less of delivery requirements, by 
assuring that the Government is ade- 
quately compensated for delivery de- 
lays which are the fault of the con- 
tractor. 



hat other impact will MILS- 
CAP have on the defense contrac- 
tor? 

The information on past perform- 
ance of contractors will be available 
to contracting officers in the MILS- 
CAP data bank to assist in future 
bid evaluations. 

The "standardization" effect of 
MILSCAP will result in a reduc- 
tion in the number of special re- 
ports required, providing a welcome 
relief to contractors harassed by re- 
quests for reports. 

Faster payment of invoices will 
be possible due to the reporting of 
receipts by AUTODIN instead of 
mail. The benefits of this procedure 



should begin soon because of ex- 
pected early implementation of this 
portion of MILSCAP. 

Contractors may be asked to pro- 
vide certain information to admin- 
istrators in MILSCAP format, e.if, 
shipment notice cards, revised do- 
livery forecasts, etc., to facilitate 
transfer of information to contract- 
ing officers. 

MILSCAP implementation is still 
two or three years away and a good 
deal remains to bo done; during this 
period. Operating procedures must 
bo developed, hardware and person- 
nel assets must be acquired, and a 
pilot test must bo conducted. Still 
it is not too early for the ilofcnsfi 
contractor to bo thinking about 
MILSCAP, for ho must eventually 
come to grips with the possible im- 
pact on this program on his opera- 
tion. 




Commander A. G. Cavanaugh, SC, 
USN, as MILSCAP Coordinator in 
the Office of the Chief of Naval Ma- 
teriel, is responsible for development 
and implementation of the MILS- 
CAP Program. He is a 1950 gradu- 
ate of Rutgers University and was 
commissioned in the Navy Supply 
Corps in November 1951, 



U.S. Army Metrology 

and Calibration Center 

Activated 

The U.S. Army has activated a 
Metrology and Calibration Center nt 
the Army Missile Command, Red- 
stone Arsenal, Huntsvfllo, Ala., con- 
solidating all calibration and metrol- 
ogy functions of the Army. 

Among tile now missions of the, con- 
tor is management of the world-wide 
calibration effort at 13 locations. In 
addition, primary reference calibra- 
tion responsibilities have boon as- 
sumed from Tooolo Army Depot, 
Utah. 

Nucleus of the new facility is the 
former Metrology Center, previously 
a part of the Directorate of Arsenal 
Support Operations. It 1ms been es- 
tablished at tho same level as tho 
command's several major directorates. 
Lieutenant Colonel Peter L. Hume 
will head tho center. 

Newly acquired responsibilities of 
the center Include management, tech- 
nical direction, fundamental metrolo- 
gy, and engineering support for tho 
Army's calibration and metrology 
mission. 

The Alabama center will also bo the 
focal point for inventory control ami 
procurement, In these areas it will 
coordinate with other command direc- 
torates which have the basic mission^ 
for handling these functions. 



November 1967 



George S. Peratino 

Office of Deputy Chief of Staff, Systems & Logistics 
Headquarters, U.S. Air Force 



i 

I he Jnteragency Data Exchange 
Program (IDEP) originated when 
the Army, Navy and Air Force bal- 

* listic missile agencies combined their 
efforts to solve an urgent problem 
that concerned all three Services: 
duplication of testing efforts. Many 
designers, developers and producers 
of military materiel were perform- 
ing nearly identical tests on a par- 
ticular type of component or m a- 
terial. Such duplication had to be 
paid for ultimately by U.S. taxpay- 
ers in higher defense costs. More 
effective component testing and data 
distribution would improve schedul- 
ing of the nation's new missile proj- 
ects. 

Original approval of IDEP was 

obtained in 1959 from the comman- 
ders of the Army and Air Force 
ballistic missile programs and the 
Navy Special Projects Office. 

Today the program has been ap- 
proved at the Assistant Secretary 
level for Research and Development 
in the Army, Navy and Air Force. 
In December 1966, IDEP became an 
interagency program when the As- 
sistant Administrator for Industry 
Affair of the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration (NASA) 
signed the current charter. 

Organization 

IDEP's organization is an out- 
standing example of cooperation 

among the Military Services and 
NASA, who fund the program, and 
the industry participants. The IDEP 
Policy Board consists of one repre- 
sentative from each Service and 
NASA. The board develops and ap- 
proves program policies and man- 
agement procedures for the admin- 
istration of IDEP. Each Service 

* maintains an IDEP office, through 
which program materials and serv- 
ices are provided to all participants. 
Representatives from the IDEP of- 
fices and the Policy Board meet regu- 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



larly to maintain a cooperative ap- 
proach toward all aspects of the 
IDEP operation. 

The Contractors Advisory Board, 
elected from participating industry 
members, provides assititancc and 
guidance to the IDEP ofllccn and 
the Policy Board to reflect the chang- 
ing needs of industry participants. 

How IDEP Functions 

Since IDEP's establishment in 
1969, emphasis has been on the im- 
mediate tranKinittal of current in- 
formation directly to potential UHorn. 
The intent of IDEP is to have tho 
data waiting for the engineer rather 
than to have tho engineer waiting 
for the data. 

Participants in IDEP submit tost re- 
ports and specifications to the IDEP 
offices on electronic, electrical, me- 
chanical und electro-mechanical 
parts and components; materials; 
production processes; pyrotechnic 
test equipment devices; procedures; 
reliability information; and many 
other subjects, 

The IDEP offices provide each par- 
ticipant, free of charge, with a com- 
plete report file on microfilm. Cur- 
rently there are over 20,000 reports on 
more than 30,000 separate items in 
the file, estimated to have cost at least 
$50 million to create. Each month 250- 
300 now reports are added. A simple, 
proven retrieval system makes any of 
this information available to the engi- 
neer within seconds of his request. 

Ease of Data Retrieval 
The IDEP data retrieval system 
is^ designed for rapid, error-free use 
without elaborate equipment. A 
quarterly report listing, arranged by 
a nine-digit, part-identification code, 
refers the engineer directly to the 
part/component group in which lie 
is interested. Once within this group, 
he can further identify each report 
by part description and number, test 
environment, vendor, etc. Or, rather 



than use thin index, he can use 
IDKP'H visual coincidence! report in- 
dexing nyntam f ft act of perforated 
cards indexing ftac ]j report by part 
type and tent environment, to imme- 
diately identify nil reports which 
satisfy these search criteria. 

In either case, the indexing sys- 
tem will refor the engineer to one 
or more microfilm cartridge^. Using 
a microfilm render- printer, ho can 
louato imd scan a report and, if de- 
sired, obtain a full-Kino copy of any 
page i a muttor of seconds. 

Advantages lo Federal 
Government 

Kach report in the IDKP .system 
represents unlimited potential sav- 
injrH in timo, dollars and technical 
ulcills. Where a report in tho file 
indicate that a part natinIleH some 
or all of an engineer's requirements, 
lie ctm reduce or eliniimito what 
would have boon a redundant te.it. 
A recant annual IDKP mirvoy docu- 
mented over $fi million in such suv- 
iiiga. Such HiivingH include only 
planned towts which worn Khortmiod 
or eliminated. 

Advantages to Industry 

An estimated 20-80 percent of n 
design engineer'*) timo in Hpont. in 
data Hcarch, much of it frustrating 
and unsuccGKsrul, Kven if he gets 
the information he needs, chances 
are that it cost him a lot of valuable 
timo away from his work, ID10P pro- 
vides n proven means of reducing 
tho expenditure of timo and money 
by placing, within easy roach of tho 
engineer, the information he needs 
to do his job. It makes available com- 
ponent information generated by other 
engineers working on similar problems 
for other government-funded projects, 
IDEP benefits to the industry par- 
ticipant are: 

Efficient information retrieval. 

* Realistic bid proposals through 
access to current parts information. 



11 



Iie!i;il)lt! parts selection in de- 
rf to avoid possible systems fail- 



Advanced parts information to 
promote improved performance; 
slim-toned delivery schedules. 

Improved test reporting result- 
ing in higher output per test dollar. 

Accelerated parts specification 
writing and test planning expedit- 
ing eventual introduction of stand- 
ardized improved parts. 

Provision of direct intercontrac- 
tor inquiries in urgent cases. 

Suggested alternate vendor 

.sources. 

Source of general advice, con- 
firmation, and general education at 
early program development stages. 

How To Participate 

Eligibility for IDEP participation 

is limited to government agencies 

:md contractors who are users of 

parts and components procured for 

incorporation into the design, de- 

velopment and production of equip- 

ment for weapon systems and 

ground based command and control 

systems, IDEP was established on a 

voluntary basis. A participant must 

submit test reports to the IDEP be- 

fore being eligible to receive the 

tost reports submitted by other par- 

ticipants. Participation in IDEP can- 

not be charged against government 

contracts. The benefits of participa- 

tion far exceed the small invest- 

ment in money, manpower and time 

required to establish and maintain 

an IDEP operation. Additional in- 

formation concerning IDEP can he 

obtained by contacting one of the 

following IDEP offices: 

Air Force IDEP Office 

Space & Missile Systems Organize- 
tion 

Los Angeles Air Force Station 
Air Force Unit Post Office 
Los Angeles, Calif. 90045 
Navy IDEP Office 
Naval Ordnance Laboratory 
Corona, Calif. 91720 




Industrial firms holding Navy contracts with components of the NIIVH! 
Material Command can speed up security clcmranco of nKVfH ilrimi, ad- 
vertisements, and other information propoml for r fi lnns U> thn public liy 
observing a few simple rules. 

First contractors should submit a minimum of five lotfihlu copliw of all 
information _to be released, including photographs, imip.s, charts, ( a (: . Tli. 
multiple copies arc necessary to permit simultaneous roviow by thn vim<m>! 
agencies or branches which may be required to oxumiim tli ma^rlnl. 

Contractors should give the titln mu) rin f .i.; ,,<; ,,r j.i i......-..i 



, , gl r the titlG and 

how, when, and where it is proposed to bo released 

illform ' Lti 



V 



of 



with (h.> 

W n- 

Uvo 



I ' 



"" 



New Army Division Approved 



Secretary O f Defense Robert S 
McNamara has approved a plan to 
add a new division to the Army 
bringing the total number of divl- 



Army-NASA IDEP Office 
Redstone Scientific Information 
Center 

Redstone Arsenal, Ala. 36809 



Formation of the division, desig 
nated the Sixth Infantry, and ne^ 

i tS WiU be ^ in in Janai- 
first brigade of the divi 



G ? rnment - 

, has made available a dy- 
na,n ic data exchange program. It L 
now u p t iusfcry ^ 

m this important program. 



in Sep- 

The FY 19 68 budget now calls f or 
an Army strength of 1,520,000 
t^ops as O f June Sfl| 1968 _ Rev : gcd 

calculations of the manpower, needed 
^ support Southeast Ada deploy- 

S t^. .. cont ^ e the <4i 



!1 ! tnam ' wl " peimit ""bBtan. 
reductions in trained strength 



i-equh-omontH pnivioiwly plniniiHl fur 
the Army. In addition, Homo of i]. 
Army unUormod jobs will bit tunuvt 
over to civilians. 

As a romilt, thn now (UviHiim mill 
the support units will ho frrurd 
without .significant inurnnxcw in 
Army spending. 

The net impact of this nilililimis 
and reductions will ronuli in an 
Army of 1,521,000 mon by thi> nut 
of FY 1968, 

Part of the new division will b 
formed at Fort Campbell, Ky., and 
will use facilities vacated thorn ly 
the remaining brigades of thfl KHsl 
Airborne Division, which will lu; w >m 
to Southeast Asia. One brl ff i u | fl f 
tJie new division will bo activated in 
Hawaii, 



November 




Model tests and computer studies 
at the Naval Ship Research and De- 
velopment Center, Carderock, Md., 
have shown that the resistance of 
military planing boats now in use 
can lie reduced 50 percent by design 
methods developed by the center. 

The marked 'improvement in per- 
formance is achieved by means of a 
planing configuration, called the Dy- 
naplane boat, which lias less than 
one-fourth as much friction produc- 
ing wetted area at high speed as the 
conventional planning boat design 
(Figure 1), 

The forward lifting surface of the 
Dynaplane boat is designed to carry 
90 percent of the total weight, while 
the remaining 10 percent is carried 
by an adjustable planing surface or 
stabilizier in the stem. The main lift- 
ing surface is curved (cambered) 
longitudinally so that it will develop 
the required lift on a small wetted 
area and, therefore, will have the 
least possible drag. 

Shape of the camber is based on 
analytical work carried out by the 
National Aeronautics and Space Ad- 
ministration. This camber line curves 
upward in the foreword part and 




downward in the after area. The de- 
tailed shape of the curve for a par- 
ticular boat depends on the speed and 
weight of the boat, and is configured 
by the designer so that it will de- 
velop the required lift with the least 
possible drag-. The cambered surface 
ends in a stop so that the flow will 
separate from the afterbody of the 
hull. The step is one-eighth of an 
inch deep on the eight-foot model 
which was tested at the center. Ac- 
cordingly, it would be one-half inch 
deep on a 32-foot boat. 

The adjustable stern stabilizer 5s 
connected to a pneumatic piston, lo- 
cated inside the hull in such a way 
that its vertical position can be con- 
trolled by compressed air. At low 
speeds the stabilised- is held in a re- 
tracted position against the hull, 
with its bottom surface parallel to 
the afterbody keel. At high speed, the 
stabilizer is lowered by admitting 
compressed air to the top of the 
cylinder. As the stabilizer moves 
downward, it automatically changes 
from a negative to a positive angle 
of attack. The stabilixer then planes 
on the surface of the water and trim 
angle of the craft can be regulated 



by adjusting the stabilizer's vertical 
position. In other words, when the 
stabilizer is moved away frojn the 
hull, the stern is lifted and tho trim 
angle of the craft is reduced ami, 
when the stabilizer is adjusted to a 
position close to the hull, the stem 
moves closer to the surface and the 
trim angle of the craft is increased. 
Accordingly, in smooth or moder- 
ately rough water the stabilizer can 
be used to trim tlic craft to the angle 
of least drag. Alternatively, in rough 
water the stabilizer can be used to 
trim the craft to the most suitable 
angle for the particular wave condi- 
tion and relative heading-. 

Characteristics of the Dynaplane 
design can be advantageously ap- 
plied to a wide variety of naval craft 
including patrol boats (Figure 2), 
landing craft (Figure 3), personnel 
transports and swamp boats, ns well 
as commercial and pleasure craft. 

The feature of greatly reduced 
drag can he exploited to product! 
either faster boats with no increase 
in power, or boats of equal speed on 
reduced power. Tho latter possibility 
of attaining the same speed as a 
conventional high-speed bout, on only 
half as much horsepower, will result 
in 50 percent savings in both imgine 
cost and fuel rate, with a 100 per- 
cent increase in high-speed range. 




Figure 1. 
Defense Industry Bulletin 



Figure 3. 



Industrial Security Excellence Cited 



N<iv. l.'t l, r i; 1'iililic Kc'liilimiH SoclHy f 
Aini-rini 2i\(\\ National Ci 
Iti'lli'Viir Slralford llod'f, 
[)liia, I'n. 

Nav. 1 I Hi: American Hm-lrty of Tan] 
ami ManufartnrliiK KiiKfuri'ni Id-- 

Hotrl and War Mcaiorlal Ainli- 

tOI'Mllll, Ito.sdin, MllHH. 

Nov. 1 1 Hi: Joint ('mniiiiti'r Confer- 

'iH'i' t Aiiaht'iin, Ciilir. 
Nov. 15 .Hi; hiHllluliMif NaviKiillim NIL 

Mimal Air Mri-Miif'. Ncatth-, Wardi. 
Nov. 2H Mrr. I: Wlr. imd Cn 
i, AManlir City, N.J. 

Harvard Collier Advunrn 
ii'iil. Pni|;ram, Sliith'j-.|(il- 
dni Iloli'l, ItoHton, MIINH. 
Ili'i'. -Mi: Anu'riniti IiiHlitud- of Acm- 
iiaiilii-fnnid ANlroniiiiilrn Miifrdli- H,v<- 
d-niM .Mcc'tiiif?, MinthTcy, Ciillf. 
!>er. '10; Ar'I,-<'!() Ii|i'iinf f ,l Comrn- 
(I'm, Anu'riciinii Ilotrl, Allmitl. I'ln. 

|v f t lit 

AHWH. I.miHiniii MIT||II H , Oltirnx 
t'lnli, l''ort LfNlIc J, McNnlr, WH^I- 
IllKloil, D.C, 

l>t-r. r il; Aiuvrlnui Niirlriii- Hiirli'ly 
''. 07: I'n.J.Tl AHIHTOTI,!'; Co,,. 



Tin' Ijiii'/ winiiiTii of tin- 
.hltiH'ii S. Cu(f!HVrll n\vjitd-i f.i 
nNjicrlnr iir'rfunniitin 1 in rmiyiii}; mi! 
jicciirily ohlif.;nlioii'i in |x>i f"iiniuiv,' 
of I'laimiliril i|i-t\'Tirii> ,-,,!ilini-t'> lum- 

Two |.y|iv;i ..(' HVViii.l'i Will l-r iiiu.lc; 
I>hli|tii'S I'D]' Ulll^tiiliilliif; |M-H'..]'ht-inri--, 
find rt'ilitlrul.vi fur cM-rlli'ii.,-. l-'lf 
d'Cll |)]ai|IK':> 1111,1 ;!;i rritMti'lilfj ill.' 

lit hi 1 iiwanti'd, 

tlut-'diindiiiK l'i l i ft 'i MiiHh 1 ,' I'ld.jK" ^ 
will ,." I'.: 

AiTojH d'rlit'fal Cii(|i,, .'Sit, uniirnt", 
Calif,; Ai'liir Hc-n-tuvli Cnrj'. ,' : :u^ ;( 
Aim, Calif,; lli-M Ai'fin|iMfr t or].,, 

AtTmViilrmn hiv., 'l'l|,-;!HH. All;', 'I he' 

HiM'imr Co., Noutiiit, \v-ih . t ., t iull 

Ai'iuaiuiHi'iil I, a hni n tni >, Inr , l 1 ,,^ 

fill". N.V,; held, Mlflnlltm * .1, 1 >:: 

AiiKi'li'ti, Calif ; i;|<-i liniiii rsuiiuui| 
riilioiiu. In.-,, ;:t ivt.-t^.iuh-, i !u ; 

('ilirrlilhl Cuiurra & ItlnCiununt t HIM, 

Corp,, I'orl Wiiflli. T, -\ , t.rin-Kil 
Mrt'lrir Co,, Ai'i-lhi :i*t|i|if.(t hiv Inv, 

Njmct' Cu,, .'Mtmtyviitr, i'n\\i , I,,n,| Wtr 
T'lMindatiiMi for Mid(tl Mrti-ntfh Jt 

i, Alliiti|iii-i.(,i,i, ,%' *,\ _ |, MV , ^ 
. Mliuii'ii|t,i)|i.. Mim* ; SMI lit 



T. (1 .H- Niillmml AHHH. ,,f Man... 
' .?;:iul <'i,| IKri . NM ,,f A HUT- 

iNiry, Wnldnrf-A..hrht 
l, New Ynrh, N.V. 

1>T. 7 Irt; AKIM!|( Ulomtlnl <n,n-u 
Hi'ti, AituTlfinm IhiU'l. Mlniul. Tin, 
I''C. II: WrlKlU Mt'murlal 



i. f'tr Ail* 

of Nrlcitrt. Mi'i-thiK, New 
Viu-k, N.Y. 

'?< 27- .10: Am.'Hnui StHiMlc.il Awn. 

i, IK', 
'' Armed 

i- Luncheon 
Hub. t''orl r.i'll J. MrNflir, Wii" 



Mlrrd'niilt'ii I'lmliah., Nt.-lt. 
tVMI(l.-n 1 l'n.I 1 t "n, f || l .t [t ., 1 ^ 
fiMilfil (m; 

Allll-rlntll 'IVtf[(liltMf A ' 

I'd,, t,M((h r I.iiM. |ip><S, ,\" t 
N.V.; AtiirrlfHii (VlrjitM'Hr! 
Kcwjili t'..,, ],,,,IH; Mm-r, ;:m. l 
1"', WwyiH., l' (1 ; ,\Vl (i i'i 
ti.'i.l^, IHv,, l^nuiMi... OKI,, 
t'r|i., 'I'MW^M,,, Mil,; th 



hliui. I'M.; ((t-iitTitl I'rfrUttiH, Int. 



Hitrvpy Ahimltiiim 



Jnn. 7Wi Amrrlcnn I'linnlral 
AfwIInK, N.w Orlrnnn, U, 
Jan. 22-24i American hiHilmi,- O f 



14 



Mine Httfrly Appliiftntu (Uj J'HU 
mprjf AH ft lb 
. Div., TmntM,, ri.; Nartti 



York. 



Atnerlcttn 

Won RyuUrinK Div . Tufim, Okfe i 



". ..( u,,i f (,,,,,., 

t MI,,, w.-ii i',,,,..., 



Two Gnnorotort 

Garmcirkd for 

Procunin<nt by Army 





RESEARCH REPORTS 



Authorized DOD contractors 
and grantees may obtain these 
documents without charge from: 

Defense Documentation Center 

Cameron Station 

Alexandria, Va. 22314 

Others may purchase those 
documents at the price indicated 
from ; 

Clearinghouse for Federal and 

Scientific Information 
Department of Commerce 
Springfield, Va. 22151 



A Systems Approach to Computer 
Programs. Electronic Systems Div., 
Air Force Systems Command, Feb. 
1967, 24 p. Order No. AD-650 216. $3, 

Survey of Computer Languages for 
Symbolic and Algebraic Manipula- 
tions. Stanford Research Institute, 
Menlo Park, Calif,, for the Air Force, 
March 1967, 64 p. Order No. AD-649 
401, $3. 

Associative Adjustments to Reduce 
Errors in Document Screening. 
Westat Research, Inc., Bethesda, Md., 
for the Air Force, March 1967, 78 p 
Order No. AD-651 630. $3. 

Magnetic Film Memory Evapora- 
tion System. MIT Lincoln Labora- 
tory, Lexington, Mass., for the Air 
Force, Jan. 1967, 23 p. Order No. AD- 
'G47 209. $3. 

Joss: Console Design. Rand Corp., 
Santa Monica, Calif., for the Air 
Force, Feb. 1967, 124 p. Order No. 
AD-660 034. $3. 

Joss: Disc File System. Rand Corp., 
for the Air Force, Feb. 1967, 41 p. 
Order No. AD-650 128. $3. 

Nondestructive Readout from Thin 
Magnetic Films. Naval Air Develop- 
ment Center, Johnsville, Pa., Jan. 
1967, 45 p. Order No. AD-647 247. $3, 

Introduction to the Theory and Ap- 
plications of the Remapper. Technion- 
Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, 
Israel, for the Air Force, Aug. 1965, 
65 p. Order No. AD-650 718. $3, 

Preliminary User's Guide to Moni- 
tor 1. Mitre Corp., Bedford, Mass., for 
the Air Force, Dec. 1966, 65 p. Order 
No. AD-649 764. $3, 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



Vital Compiler-Compiler System 
Reference Manual. MIT Lincoln Lab- 
oratory, Lexington, Mass,, for the Air 
Force, Feb. 1967, 83 p. Order No. AD- 
649 140. 53. 

Preliminary Development of a Solid 
State Matrix Display. RCA, for the 
Air Force, Jan. 1967, 168 p. Order 
No. AD-649 553. $3. 

Multiprocessor Operating: Systems. 
Naval Research Laboratory, Wash- 
ington, D.C., April 19G7, 33 p. Order 
No. AD-GE51 707. $3. 

Operational Low-Power, Low-To 
High-Preqncncy Digital Circuit Ele- 
ments: Refinements, Characteristics 
and Developments. MIT Lincoln Lab- 
oratory, Lexington, Mass., for the Air 
Force, Jan. 1967, 78 p. Order No. AD- 
GCO 779. $3. 

Project MAC Progress Report III, 
July 1965 to July 196C. MIT, for tho 
Advanced Research Projects Agency, 
I960, 306 p. Order No. AD-G48 34fi' 
$3. 

Design of a Program Linkage ami 
Communication Mechanism for the 
GE G45 Computer System. Air Force 
Systems Command, Jan. 1907, 41 p. 
Order No. AD-G47 2fi8. $3. 

The Structure of a Lisp System 
Using Two-Level Storage. Bolt 
Beranck and Newman, Inc., Cam- 
bridge, Mass., for the Air Force, Nov. 
1906, 26 p. Order No, AD-G47 001. $3. 

An Introduction to TAB40 : A 
Processor for Table-Written Fortran 
IV Programs. Research Analysis 
Corp., Mclcan, Va., for tho Army. 
Nov. 1966, 40 p. Order No. AD-647 
418. $3. 

Design Principles for an On-Lino 
Information Retrieval System. Uni- 
versity of Pennsylvania, for the Air 
Force, Dec. 1966, 136 p. Order No. 
AD-647 196. $3. 

Computer Design for Asynchron- 
ously Reproducible Multiprocessing, 
MIT, for the Navy, Nov. 1966, 254 p. 
Order No. AD-660 407. $3. 

Construction of Vacuum -For mod 
Control and Display Mockup Panels. 
IBM, for the Air Force, Nov. 1966, 
S3 p. Order No. AD-G4S 619, $3, 

Nitrogen- Phosphorus Polymers. Uni- 
versity of Heidelberg:, Germany, for 
the Air Force, Nov. 1966, 42 p. Order 
No. AD-651 762, $3. 

Encapsulation of Electronic Parts 



in Plastics, A Review. Picatinny Ar- 
senal, Dover, N.J., Feb. 1067, C7 p. 
Order No. AD-64E 420. $3. 

Trade Designations of Plastics and 
Related Materials. Picatimiy Arsenal, 
Dover, N.J,, Dec. 1965, IDS p. Order 
No. AD-481 788. $3. 

Studies on the High Temperature 
Oxidation of Molybdenum, Tungsten, 
Niobium, Tantalum, Titanium, and 
Zirconium. "Wcatinghouso Electric 
Corji., Pittsburgh, Pa., for the- Army, 
April 19G7, 69 p. Order No. AD-650 
638. $3, 

Diffusion Bonding of Titanium Al- 
loys. Atomics International, Canoga 
Park, Calif., for tho Army, Sept, 
19G6, 29 p. Order No. AD-G47 849. $3. 

The Plastic Deformation of Mag- 
nesium. University of Michigan, for 
the Army, Feb. 1967, 102 p. Order 
No. AD-660 746. $3. 

Torque Teat for Evaluating the 
Quality of Aluminum Alloy Melts. 
Frankford Arsenal, Philadelphia, Pa., 
Dec. 1966, 40 p. Order No. AD-648 
486. $3. 

Oxidation of Nickel and Nicltel- 
Cobalt Dispersion Strengthened Al- 
loys, Watarvliet Arsenal, N.Y., March 
1966, 37 p. Order No. AD-482 101. $3. 

A Diffusion Bonding Program. 
Honeywell, Inc., for the Air Force, 
April 19G7, 61 p. Order No. AD-051 
645. $8. 

DEFENSE PROCUREMENT 
CIRCULARS 



Distribution of Defense Pro- 
curement Circulars is made 
automatically by the U.S. Gov- 
ernment Printing Office to sub- 
scribers of the Armed Services 
Procurement Regulation (ASPR). 



Defense Procurement Circular No. 

55, Sept. 28, 1967. (1) Contractor 
Submissions of Cost or Pricing Data. 
(2) Addition to ASPR Manual for 
Contract Pricing, (8) Shipment 
from the United States for Overseas 
Delivery. (4) Value Engineering. 
(6) Small Business Size Standards. 
C) ASPE Section XXI, Parts 1 and 
2, (7) Ceiling; for Progress Payments 
on Incentive Contracts. 



15 




DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Appointment of Maj. Gen. William 
H. Prentice, USAR, to a three-year 
term as a member of the Reserve 
Forces Policy Board has been an- 
nounced. 

RAdm. William E. Kimtz, USN, has 
been assigned as Asst. Dep. Dir,, De- 
fense Communications Systems Op- 
erations, Defense Communications 
Agency. He succeeds RAdm. John R. 
Wadleigh, USN. 

Brig. Gen. I. R. Obenchain Jr., USA, 
has been assigned as Asst. Dep. Man- 
ager, National Communications Sys- 
tem, Defense Communications Agency. 

Col. Jean E. Crabtree, USAF, has 
succeeded Capt. E. E. Johnson, USN, 
as Staff Director of Installations and 
Services, Headquarters, Defense Sup- 
ply Agency, 

Col. Hugh B. Mitchell, USAF, has 
relieved Capt. Joseph S. Burkle, USN, 
as Dir., Armed Forces Rndiobiology 
Research Institute, Bethesda. Md. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Brig. Gen. Wendell J. Coats has 
been appointed Dep. Chief of Infor- 
mation, Office of the Chief of Informa- 
tion. He succeeds Brig. Gen. Lloyd B, 
Ramsey who has served as Dep. Chief 
since March 1966. 

Col. Paul R. Cerar has succeeded 
Brig. Gen. William W. Stone Jr., as 
Commander of Edgewood Arsenal, Md. 

Dr. Charles A. Reynolds, professor 
of chemistry at the University of 
Kansas, has been named aa Edgewood 
Arsenal's first Technical Director. 

Col. Edward G. Anderson Jr. has 
assumed duties as Commanding Offi- 
cer, U.S. Army Engineer Topographic 
Laboratories, Fort Belvoir, Va. He 
succeeds Col. H. W. Fish, who has 
retired. 

Col. John R. M. Covert has been 
selected the Project Manager for the 
Army's Redeye guided missile system 
at Redstone Arsenal, Ala. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

RAdm. Ernest W. Dobie Jr., has 
been assigned as Dep. Dir., Anti- 
Submarine Wai-fare Programs, Office 
of the. Chief of Naval Operations. Re- 
Defense Industry Bulletin 



ABOUT PEOPLE 



lieving- A dm. Dobie as Dir., Undersea 
Warfare and Ocean Surveillance Div., 
Office of the Chief of Naval Opera- 
tions, will be Cant. Parker E. Arm- 
strong, who has been selected for 
promotion to the rank of rear admiral. 
RAdm. Allan F. Fleming has been 
named Asst. Dep. Chief of Naval Op- 
erations (Plans and Policy). 

RAdm. Vincent P. DC Poix has 
been named Asst. Dep. Chief of Naval 
Operations (Development). 

RAdm. John W. Dolan Jr., Com- 
mander of Long; Beach Naval Ship- 
yard, Long- Beach, Calif., since Decem- 
ber 1065, has been relieved by Capt. 
C. Monroe Hart. Capt, Hart cornea 
to the new post from duty as Indus- 
trial Control Officer, San Francisco 
Bay Naval Shipyard, Mare Island 
Div. 

Capt Colin J. Ilicltetta has assumed 
command of the Naval Missile Center, 
Point Mug-u, Calif., relieving- Cnpt. 
Carl 0. Holmquiftt 

DEPARTMENT OF THE 
AIR FORCE 

Thomas II. Nielsen has been nomi- 
nated by President Johnson to suc- 
ceed Leonard Marks Jr. as Asst, Sec- 
rotary of the Air Force (Financial 
Management) . 

Maj. Gen, Ernest A. Pinson has 
been selected to servo as Commandant 
of the Air University's Air Force 
Institute of Technology, Wright-Pat- 
terson AFB, Ohio. He takes command 
on Nov. 1. 

Maj. Gen. Lawrence F. Taiiberg 
1ms been named Dir, of Maintena7ica 
Engineering:, Office of the Dep. Chief 
of Staff (Systems and Logistics), at 
USAF headquarters. 

Maj. Gen. John L. McCoy has been 
reassigned as Dir. of Plans and Pro- 
grams, Air Force Logistics Command, 
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

nrig. Gen. Franklin A. Nichols has 
been named Commander, Ground 
Electronics Engineering Installation 
Agency, Air Force Logistics Com- 
mand, Giiffiss AFB, N.Y, 

Brig, Gen. William F. Pitta has 
been ordered to duty afc USAF head- 
quarters to serve as Dep. Dir. of 
Budget, Office of the Comptroller of 
the Air Force. 



Col. Clyde S. Cherry has assumed 
duties as Dir. of Systems Test, Ail- 
Force Flight Test Center, Edwards 
AFB, Calif. 

Col. Martin K. Newland has been 
assigned as Chief of the Minutomnn 
Missile Division, Materiel Manage- 
ment Directorate, at Ofi'den Air Mate- 
riel Area, (AFLC), Hill AFB, Utah. 

Col. Walter K. Rickcrt has become 
Dir. of Nuclear Field Operations, at 
Kirtland AFB, N.M. He relieved Col. 
James T. Corn, who has gone to AFSC 
headquarters to servo as Dap, Dir., 
Test Operations, in th Office of the 
Dep. Chief of Staff (Operations). 

Col. William A. Walker has been 
named Chief, Propulsion Subsystems 
Div,, Dep. for Subsystems and Equip- 
ment Management, Aeronautical Sys- 
tems, Div., (AFSC), Wright-Patterson 
AFB, Ohio. He succeeded Col. Hal W. 
Everett, who hns retired. 



SPCC Given Role 

in Navy's Deep 

Submergence Program 

The Ships Parts Control Center 
(SPCC), Mechonicjiburg, Pa,, will play 
an important role in one of tlu> Navy's 
newest programs tho Dncp Submer- 
gence Systems Program (DSSP) 
which is designed to in cot tho Navy's 
Increasing need for occanogruphlc re- 
search. 

Acting through tho Special Proj- 
ects Office, the Program Branch, 
Weapons Systems Coordination Divi- 
sion, of the center will work with 
DSSP to ensure that equipment in- 
stalled in newly developed oceanogra- 
phy vehicles is backed up by adequate 
spare and repair parts. 

Part of the SPCC mission will he 
to assist DSSP in identifying the 
different kinds of parts required, de- 
ciding how many of each arc needed, 
and compiling information for inclu- 
sion in catalog and allowance lists. 

Preparation of instructions govern- 
ing tho delivery of support items 
and formal izatton of contracts for 
the procurement of spare and repair 
parts and special tools will also be 
SPCC's responsibility. 



\7 



SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO DIRECTOR 
MAJ Donald E. Burggrabe 4D 922 59156 



OFFICE OF 
THE SECR 
Vashingt< 



DIHECI 
MAJ GEN William 



DEPUFYOIR! 
BRIG CF.N James F, 



ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 
COL Mark H. Gllman 4D 922 74259 



2 of Information is located 

s Pentagon, Washington, D. C. 

hone; Area Code 202, Oxford plus number listed. 



LTCM. Dona lilt. 




COMMUNITY RELATIONS DIVISION 



COL Gerald R. Jorgensen 
4 A 120 74003 

DEPUTY CHIEF 

COL David B. O'Hara 
4A 120 75117 



SPECIAL EVENTS BRANCH 

LT COL Gaylord A. Knapp 
4A 120 



ARTS AND MUSEUM BRANCH 

LT COL John B. Devoe 

4A 120 76629 

CIVIL BRANCH 

MAJ David L. Stiles 
4A 120 79079 



SPEAKERS BRANCH 

CAPT Gilbert L. Whiteman 
4A 120 72769 

BANDS BRANCH 

CWO Loy A. Ebersole 
4A 120 52783 



INTERNAL INFORMATION DIVISION 



COL Bishop M. Kllgore 
5C 941 77264 

DEPUTY CHIEF 



COL Leo I. 
5C941 



Beinhorn 
77264 



ASSISTANT FOR POLICY AND 
PROGRAMS 

MR Francis W. Jennings 
5C 941 78275 



MAJ Vincent R. Toed 
5C 941 77773 

AFRTS 

MAJ Jordan E. Rlzer 
5C 941 78569 

INTERNAL MEDIA BRANCH 
MAJ James A'. McDonnell Jr 
5C 941 74100 



COMMAND SERVICES UNIT 
LT COL Thomas E, Bowers 
Boiling AFB D, C, 61137 



'LANS AND P, 

COI. Doi 
5C 1 ) 

DEP 

I.T COL V, 
5C 1 ) 



IT COL I 
5C9I 

SPACE-SUPPOni 
MAJ John 

SPECIAL PR 

MAJ jam 
5C96I 

COWMUKICA1K 
COL 



562-900 



I 






November 1967 



p.C. 20330 



FORMATION 

tnd 4D922 76061 



fNFQRMATION 
Jr. 40922 73329 



VE 



4D 922 55227 



ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 
COL Max B. Boyd 4D 922 54602 







| | 


(AS DIVISION 


PUBLIC INFORMATION DIVISION 


1 '- ' --.- -.-.....-.. 

OFFICE FOR SECURITY REVIEW 


Martin 




COL Herbert L. Wurth 


MR Flint 0. DuPre 


)657 






4C 922 55554 


5C-924 73222 


flEF 






DEPUTY CHIEF 


DEPUTY CHIEF 


P. Dent 






LTCOLMHton K, Kegley 


LT COL Nicholas J. Kasun, Jr. 


J65S 






40 922 73328 


5C 924 795^2 


:es BRANCH 






OPERATIONS BRANCH 




1 Leyscr 






LT COL Harold A. Sussklnd 




?667 






4C 922 55809 










PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT BRANCH 




rtANDS BRANCH 






LT COL CarJ G. Arnold 




molly. Jr. 






40 922 77817 




1664 










5 BRANCH 






MID-WEST OFC OF INFO "^ 


) r Lary 
&71 






COL Ralph R. Springer 








1 219 S, Dearborn 










Chicago, III. 60604 




UDIES GROUP 




, (312)353-5151 








| __ ___ , It _____ ^.-i iijm _ __J 


mo, Jr. 






. 20332 






4167 




1 


LOS ANGELES OFC OF INFO 

/*Al r*r-n*n/* r<-iUn.tlAl.H 





I 

I 
I 

-\ 
I 

i 



6087 Sunset Blvd. 

Hollywood, Calif, 90028 

(213) 688-2579 



' I 



NEW YORK OFC OF INFO 

COL C. B. Whltehead 

633 5th Ave. 

New York, N.Y. 10022 

(212) 753-5609 



J 



Defense Industry Bulletin 




MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA 



NOVEMBER 

1967 Conference on Speech Commu- 
nication and Processing, Nov. 6-8, at 
Boston, Mass. Co-sponsors: Air Force 
Cambridge Research Laboratories and 
the Institute of Electrical and Elec- 
tronics Engineers. Contact: C. P. 
Smith, (CRBS), Air Force Cambridge 
Research Laboratories, L. G. Hanscom 
Field, Mass. 01730, Phone (617) 
274-6100, Ext. 3712. 

Applied Superconductivity Confer- 
ence, Nov. 6-8, at Austin, Tex, Spon- 
sors: Army Research Office, Univer- 
sity of Texas, NASA, Air Force 
Office of Scientific Research and the 
Office of Naval Research. Contact: 
W. H. Hartwlg, Electronic Materials 
Research Laboratory, University of 
Texas, Austin, Tex. 78712; or Lt. Col. 
B. B. Kalisch, (SREE), Air Force Of- 
fice of Scientific Research, 1400 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209, Phone 
(202) OXford 4-5518. 

Tenth Navy-Industry Conference on 
Systems Effectiveness, Nov. 8-9, at 
Washington, B.C. Sponsor: Naval Ail- 
Systems Command. Contact: Execu- 
tive Secretary, Naval Air Systems 
Effectiveness Advisory Board, Code 
AIR-52Q5A, Naval Air Systems Com- 
mand, Washington, D.C. 20360, Phone 
("202) OXfoi-d 6-5284. 

Navy Electronic Systems Classified 
Briefing (Secret), Nov. 14-16, at the 
U.S. Navy Amphibious Base, Coro- 
nado, Calif. Sponsor: Electronic In- 
dustries Assn. Contact; Electronic 
Industries Assn., 2001 Eye St., NW, 
Washington, D.C. 20006, Phone (202) 
659-2200. 

Decomposition of Organo Metallic 
Compounds to Refractory Ceramics 
Metals and Metal Alloys Conference, 

Nov. 28-30, at the Sheraton-Dayton 
Hotel, Dayton, Ohio. Sponsor: Air 



Symposium, Nov. 29-Dec. 1, at the 
Shelburne Hotel, Atlantic City, N.J. 
Sponsor: Army Electronics Command. 
Contact: Milton Tenzer, Electronic 
Parts and Materials Div., Electronic 
Component Lab., Army Electronics 
Command, Fort Monmouth, N,J. 07703, 
Phone (201) 635-1834. 

DECEMBER 

Theory of Measurement of Atmos- 
pheric Turbulence Conference, Dec. 
5-7, at Sandia Base, Albuquerque, 
N.M. Co-sponsors: Array Electronics 
Command and Sandia Corp. Contact: 
Marvin Diamond, Atmospheric Sci- 
ences Office, Atmospheric Sciences 
Laboratory, Army Electronics Com- 
mand, White Sands Missile Range, 
N.M. 88002, Phone (506) 338-1000. 

Industry-Defense Meeting-, "Indus- 
try Responds to National Emergency," 
Dec. 7, at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, 
New York, N.Y. Co-sponsors: Ameri- 
can Ordnance Assn., Eastern and 
Northeast Chapters, Contact: John S. 



Pink, .American Ordmincu A^n., 207 
W. 24th St., Now York, N.Y. H)OU, 
Phono (2.12) OR 7-31WO, Kxt. 700. 

JANUARY 

Seminar on Slrnin <; 'IVcIiniqiu-H, 
Jan. 8-1U, UMJfl, at tho UnivwHity of 
Miami, 1 Coral (iahliw, .Kin. KIKHIHOI-H: 
Mechanical KiiKim^riiiK DopnrLinittti 
of the School of' Hiitfliumriiiu; and Llio 
Division of Contimilntf Kducutton, 
Univonilly of Miami mid tho Moi-idy 
for Kxponnumtiil Htiusn Aimly.iiji. 
Contact: Dinxitor, IWon.'iioniil Kiln- 
cation, DivlHlon of Continuing Kdtini- 
tlon, I'.O. Hox KOOfi, University of 
Miami, Coral (iiihkw, Kin. IlllliM. 

Confcniiict! on MoMiodolojrit's of 
Pattern Kei-otfjiitmn, Jan. iM-a<;, |<)()H H 
at tho University of Ilawnli, Uono- 
lulu, Jluwaii. Sponsor: OlnYu of Amv- 
spaco ttc-Huimih. dmtiirt: MI-H. It. W. 
Swanson, Air Koivo OlnY,. n f Hclwi- 
tific Ke-Hwmik, (SRI), H<)0 Wllmm 
Blvd., Arlington, Va. JJHii(H), 1'liom' 
(202) OX 4-M07. 



Film Available 



"The Smile and tho Sword," the 
ninth in a series of industrial secu- 
rity films, has been distributed to 
U.S. Army Audio-Visual Support 
Centers for redistribution on a loan 
basis. 

The 20-minute, black and white 
film (DODIS-9) is based on J. Edgar 
Hoover's article, "The American Busi- 
nessman Paces the Soviet Spy," which 
appeared in the Harvard Business 
n Mcture portrays a for _ 

ittempts to dupe an 
""sman into an espi- 

10 Smile and the 
submitted to the 
ny Audio-Visual 



Support (toiler, nt any of tlm follow- 



Port Ctoorffn (J. Mitndo, Md. a07nfi 

Prankford Avuonnl, Phihuldlpliin, 
Pa. 101,17 

Sixth Army, I'rowidio of Sun Fran- 
Cisco, Calif. 02129 

Port WadHworth, N.Y. liafiS 

PortMcPhoi-Bon, Atlanta, (!a. ,'ioaao 

Port Sheridan, 111. (iflOUH 

St. Louis Area Kupjiort Ccntor, 12tli 
& Spruco St., St. UuiH, Mo. ai3 

U.S. Army Tank AutomoUvo Com- 
mand, Warren, Mich. -11)090 

Port Sam Houston, Smi Antonio, 
Tex. 78234 

Army Support Detachment, Onk- 
le, Pa. Ifi071 

Port MacArtkur, Cnlif. 90731 



November 1967 



The following is a listing (re- 
vised as of Aug. 29, 19G7) of the 
cases currently under considera- 
tion by the Armed Services Pro- 
curement Regulation (ASPR) Com- 
mittee, of the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Installations and Logistics), 

On items marked by asterisks, 
the text has been omitted to 
shorten the listing. The asterisks 
denote actions taken as shown 
below: 

* Cose closed, no ASPK revi- 
sions resulting, 

** Case closed, approved for 
printing in a subsequent ASPR 
revision, 

*** Case closed, approved for 
printing subject to further govern- 
mcnt coordination. 

The listing includes subjects of 
interest to contractors but ex- 
cludes cases of a minor or editorial 
nature, those considered sensitive, 
and those involving a deviation 
from the regulation which are 
processed hy the ASPR Commit- 
tee. 

The ASPR Committee meets with 
representatives of major industry 
associations periodically to explain 
the purpose and status of each of 
the cases under consideration, and 
to answer questions from industry 
representatives concerning the 
cases. All proposed ASPK changes 
of major policy are forwarded to 
industry associations in draft 
form for the review and com- 
ments of the association member- 
ships. Industry comments are 
evaluated by the Defense Depart- 
ment before a final decision on the 
proposal is made by the ASPR 
Committee. 



Industrial Equipment Modernization 
and Replacement Program. To con- 
sider developing- a contractual require- 
ment for the determination of savings 
resulting from the DOD industrial 
equipment modernization or replace- 
ment prog-rams for inclusion in the 
ASPR Proposed ASPR text and a 
contract clause for use in fixed-price 
contracts to accomplish the foregoing 
liavo been developed and commented 
on by industry. Revised coverage, 
based on review of industry com- 



ments, has been prepared, The ques- 
tion of establishment of a "dollar 
floor" below which the facilities acqui- 
sition clause would not he used is 
still under consideration. 

* DOD Ship Repair Contract Man- 
ual. 

** DOD Policy on Furnishing Com- 
ponents, Subsystems, etc., to Con- 
tractors. 

Rental Charges for Use of Govern- 
ment Property. To consider whether 
the adoption of a policy of charging 
rent for use of government property, 
across the hoard, would be more prac- 
tical and less burdensome in assuring 
against competitive advantages, and 
would result in a decline in the num- 
ber of requests for use of government 
property generally. No definitive ac- 
tion has been talcen on the numerous 
proposed solutions to this matter. The 
problem is still under consideration. 

** Value Engineering Incorpora- 
tion of Defense Procurement Circulars 
No. 11 and No. 19 in the ASPR. 

** Air Force Procurement Circular 
No. 6. 

Industry Cost Sharing. To consider 
revising- the ASPR policy contained 
in 4-208, on industry cost sharing in 
connection with sales to foreign gov- 
ernments, to provide additional policy 
guidance for use in situations when 
the potential domestic and foreign 
commercial sales of the contractor ap- 
pear to be very substantial and pro- 
visions for cost recovery of develop- 
ment expenses by the Government 
may be appropriate. 

* DOD Contract Clause Hook. 

Cost Principle Depreciation. To re- 
view the depreciation guidelines and 
rules, issued by new Revenue Proce- 
dures 65-13, and to prepare appropri- 
ate changes to ASPR 15-205.9 which 
may be necessary as a result of Reve- 
nue Procedures C6-13, issued by the 
Internal Revenue Service, A subcom- 
mittee report, after considering in- 
dustry comments, has been considered 
and returned to the subcommittee for 
further redrafting. A revised subcom- 
mittee report has Tseen received and 
will be considered in the near future, 

** Proposed Addition to ASPR on 
Procurement of Privately Developed 
Items. 

Environmental Pollution Control. To 
consider the development of contrac- 



tual coverage to implement Executive 
Order 11258 with respect to preven- 
tion, control and abatement of water 
pollution by Federal activities, and 
to assure that the standards estab- 
lished for direct Federal operations 
are adhered to by contractors under 
programs financed by the Govern- 
ment. This matter is still under con- 
sideration by the subcommittee in con- 
junction with other (>' (> vermnent 
agencies. 

Patent Costs. To consider the recom- 
mendations of the Defense Industry 
Advisory Council Working- Group that 
ASPR 16-205,26, covering patent 
costs, be clarified in view of the vary- 
ing interpretations of the present cost 
principles. A proposed revision of the 
patent cost principle was forwarded 
to industry for comment of March G, 
1067. Industry comments have been 
received and considered. A revised 
subcommittee report, based upon the 
comments received from industry, has 
been presented. This matter will be 
considered by the ASPR Committee in 
the near future. 

Source Selection Procedures. To con- 
aider the development of coverage for 
inclusion in the ASPR with respect to 
the selection of sources, both in re- 
search and development contracts and 
in production contracts which are not 
awarded on the basis of price com- 
petion. 

Equal Employ mcnt Opportunity. To 
develop implementation of the Depart- 
ment of Labor proposed revised rules 
with respect to the subject matter, 
This matter is currently under con- 
sideration by a special subcommittee. 

Paperwork Burden on Defense 
Contractors. 

Rc-viciv of the Implementation of 
Public Law 87-653. To undertake a 
review of the ASPR- implementation 
of Public Law 87-053 in depth, on 
the basis of the experience thus far 
obtained, to determine the need for 
further guidance or clarification of 
such covrage. This review has been 
divided into five broad areas as fol- 
lows: 

The submission of data. When is 
data submitted? Submission vs, dis- 
closure or availability. Identification 
of data, Contracting: officer (and 
other) documentation. 

Definitions of "current" and 
"complete." Prom the standpoint of 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



21 



reasonableness and practicability. How 
should significance be considered? 

e Examination of Records. Audit 
before negotiation. Audit after con- 
tract award. Audit of subcontractor 
data. 

Subcontract Problems. Subcon- 
tracts under firm fixed-price primes. 
Second and third tier subcontracts. 

Significance. From the standpoint 
of price negotiation vs. application of 
defective pricing clause. Price changes 
after price agreement but before con- 
tract award. 

As a result of the comments pre- 
viously received from industry, the 
committee has completed its efforts in 
revising the clauses implementing 
Public Law 87-653. However, because 
of the foregoing 1 review, publication 
of the clause changes is being with- 
held. The material developed under 
this matter was forwarded to industry 
for comment on June 9. The com- 
ments received are currently under 
consideration. 

Relocation Costs, ASPR 15-205.25. 
To consider revising ASPR 16-206.25, 
covering relocation costs, to specifi- 
cally set forth therein guidance to 
government auditors and contracting 
officials in the treatment to be af- 
forded the cost of maintaining unsold 
homes of contractors' employees, who 
transfer to new locations to work 
under government contracts. Industry 
comments on the proposed clarification 
have been received and are being con- 
sidered. 

Cost Information Reports (CIR). To 
develop appropriate implementation of 
Cost Information Reports, covered in 
DOD Directive 7041.2, entitled "Cost 
Information Reports," and the DOD 
Handbook entitled, "Cost Information 
Reports (CIR) for Aircraft, Missiles 
and Space Systems," for inclusions 
in the ASPR. An initial draft of 
ASPR coverage was considered early 
in July and returned to the subcom- 



tion offices. Consideration of this case 
continues with publication expected 
early in calendar year 1968. 

Handbook for Procurement Quality 
Assurance. To prepare an ASPR sup- 
plement which will provide standard- 
ized procedures, when possible, for 
use of government inspection and 
quality assurance personnel. The case 
has been returned to the subcommit- 
tee for further development. 

Contractor Utilization of Industrial 
Production Equipment To prepare 
procedures which will require an ac- 
tive government program to assure 
that government-furnished industrial 
production equipment in possession of 
contractors is being effectively uti- 
lized. Industry comments on the draft 
of the proposed part arc being evalu- 
ated. 

Production Surveillance and Report- 
ing. To prepare the initial parts of a 
new ASPR section dealing with the 
production function. This effort is con- 
fined to the activities of government 
personnel in determining the status 
of progress on government contracts 
and the reporting 1 of the status, as re- 
quired. A revised suhcommitee report 
is being evaluated. 

Transportation. To develop a new 
ASPR Section XIX, covering transpor- 
tation, by expanding the existing Sec- 
tion I, Part 13, coverage to incorpo- 
rate therein existing service material 
and, thereby, provide comprehensive 
guidance, including necessary contract 
clauses and provisions. Industry com- 
ments have been evaluated and piib- 
lication is expected shortly. 

** Public Law 89-487 Freedom of 
Information. 

** Organizational Conflict of In- 
tcrcat. 

Health and Safety Clauses. To de- 
velop uniform health and safety 
clauses for inclusion in the ASPR, 
with a view to recession of the exist- 
ing departmental safety and accident 



ment of uniform ASPR coverage 
which would permit deletion of exist- 
ing departmental coverage with re- 
spect to procurement of communica- 
tion services from both regulated and 
non-regulated suppliers. Industry com- 
ments have been received, considered, 
and revised coverage developed. The 
coverage will be considered by the 
committee in the near future. 

* Consideration of NASA Instant 
Licensing Procedures. 

Cost-Plus-Award Fee Contracts. To 
determine whether cost-plus-award fee 
contracts, for use in situations re- 
quiring a level of effort (by excluding 
contracts for hardware development), 
should be set forth in the ASPI1 ns jin 
authorized type of contract. This mat- 
ter is still under consideration. 

Advance Understanding of Allow- 
ability, ASPK 15-107. To revise the 
existing ASPR paragraph to explicitly 
provide that such agreements imist ba 
in writing to be binding on the Gov- 
ernment. This subject is still in the 
process of being developed. 

* Minimum Discount Period for Kid 
Evaluation. 

Disposition of Contractor Inventory. 
To develop n new ASPR Section XXIV 
providing procedures for disposal of 
excess government property in pos- 
session of contractors. Industry com- 
ments on the proposed section have 
been evaluated and publication is ex- 
pected shortly. 

Compensation Review. To determine 
what actions on the part of the Gov- 
ernment are necessary to assure that 
compensation paid to contractor em- 
ployees performing on government 
contracts is reasonable. This case is 
presently being considered by 11 CAP 
Subcommittee. 

DOD Policy on "lluying In." To re- 
vise the existing policy statement on 
"buying in," contained in ASPR 1-811, 
to clarify the basic policy statement 
by appropriate cross reference to tlie 




FROM THE SPEAKERS ROSTRUM 



Address by Hon. Thomas E. Morris, 
Asst. Secretary of Defense (Installa- 
tions and Logistics), at the DOD 
Value Engineering In-Houtse Con- 
ference, Washington, D. C., Sept. 12, 
1967. 

Value Engineering 

Can Solve 
Cost Problems 

. , . My fundamental responsibil- 
ity as the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense (Installations and Logis- 
tics) is to sec that our combat forces 
receive the materiel support they 
need. The vital significance of our 
responsibility to provide materiel 
support to our combat forces comes 
into sharper focus when we are com- 
mitted in actual combat, as is the 
case in Vietnam today. Materiel sup- 
port must satisfy certain basic cri- 
teria : 

Materiel must satisfy all aspects 
of military operation requirements. 

Materiel must meet required 
standards of quality and reliability. 

Materiel must be delivered to 
the place of need, at the time of need, 
and in the required quantities. 

The extended period of cold and 
hot war that we have encountered 
since World War II illuminates an- 
other important responsibility that 
we share. This responsibility is to 
provide the materiel support to our 
forces at the lowest possible cost of 
effective ownership, By "lowest cost 
of effective ownership" I don't nec- 
essarily mean lowest initial cost, but 
a lower overall cost of acquiring:, 
operating and supporting weapons 
and equipment over their useful life. 
The President and the Secretary of 
Defense insist that we obtain value 
from our defense budget. The Con- 
gress keeps a close eye on our efforts 
in this regard. And, finally, we owe 
it to the nation and to ourselves as 
taxpayers to get the most out of the 
resources placed under our steward- 
ship. 

Often it is said that cost effective- 
ness is just routine good manage- 



ment. The inference is that if we 
concentrate on meeting- specification 
requirements and delivery schedules, 
optimum costs will automatically re- 
sult. Experience proves that this ra- 
tionalization does not toll the wholes 
story. We must also have an organ- 
ized and disciplined procedure, de- 
signed to assure that we are cost 
effective in meeting performance and 
schedule requirements. Management 
emphasis on achieving valid per- 
formance requirements and meeting 
schedules must continue. We must 
also assure a third area of manage- 
ment emphasis we must assure that 
we have an effective overt effort 
which is designed and implemented 
to assure that performance and 
schedule requirements are met at the 
lowest possible cost for acquisition, 
operation and support. 

The purpose of the Cost Reduc- 
tion Program is to achieve economy 
in managing the expenditure!) and 
resources of the Defense Depart- 
ment. This program establishes cost 
reduction goals, measures perform- 
ance against these goals and, thus, 
provides a broad measure of our cost 
effectiveness. As u motivational pro- 
gram, strongly emphasised by the 
highest levels in DOD, and hy the 
President himself, the Cost Reduc- 
tion Program assures that the eco- 
nomic aspects of our management 
task receive widespread attention. 

The Value Engineer-ing Program 
supplements the Cost Reduction Pro- 




Hon. Thomas E. Morris 



gram. Value engineering provides 
an organized, conscious and formally 
identified effort for managers to use 
on a continuing basis. It is a disci- 
pline particularly suitable for con- 
tinuing use at the operating level. It 
is a value management technique for 
u.se in project offices, buying divi- 
sions, logistic support management 
divisions, and in the .functions that 
contribute to these management ef- 
forts. Value engineering is akin to 
scientific problem-solving techniques 
winch have proven successful hi solv- 
ing military problems and hardware, 
design problems. 

Value engineering or value anal- 
ysis, if you wish has these distinc- 
tive features: 

It doesn't ask a design engineer 
to sacrifice valid performance re- 
quirements, 

It doesn't ask the lojjiHticians to 
sacrifice valid supportability, main- 
tainability, or transportability fea- 
tures 

It maintains or improves, safety, 
quality and reliability requirementn. 

We have seen enough results to 
know that value engineering can suc- 
cessfully solve cost problems. Signifi- 
cant value engineering savings have 
been realized in all phases of our 
projects from beginning to oml 
from ammunition to paperwork, 
from missile and space projects to 
repair procedures on equipment that 
has been in the inventory for 10 or 
more years. 

Here are throe relatively simple 
and handy examples of vnluc engi- 
neering improvements. These exam- 
ples have the added virtue of illus- 
trating that value engineering may 
improve items supplied to our com- 
bat forces in Vietnam as well as 
decreasing their cost, 

A value engineered, design 
change of the motor case of an air- 
craft rocket eliminated three compo- 
nent parts. This value improvement 
also improved by 40 percent the 
reliability of this high usage rate 
rocket, Safety and produeibility char- 
acteristics were improved. This value 
engineering action reduced the unit 
cost of the rocket motor by over 30 
percent, 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



A value engineering project on 
the anti-personnel bomblet developed 
.several design changes that can lie 
made to reduce its cost. These 
changes will not impair the function 
of the item. This crimp hank is now 
being cut from standard steel tubing. 
Before it was a specially formed 
part. This small value engineering 
change alone will save over $1 
million. 

The next example is a value 
engineering action on the universal 
rifle case. Formerly, the universal 
rifle case was a zippered bag used 
to retain a rifle on a service vehicle. 
The value engineering action substi- 
tuted a bracket at a lower cost. The 
action resulted in savings of $551 
thousand as well as provided quicker 
access to the weapon. 

Many value engineering illustra- 
tions could be cited which save 
money, meet operational needs, and 
improve other characteristics such 
as reliability, producibility and 
safety. These successful value engi- 
neering actions are considered by 
many to be just good common sense. 
I agree that they are good common 
sense. We need more of it. Value en- 
gineering is a systematic technique 
to apply common sense to get the 
function satisfied at lower cost and, 
as experience shows, usually it im- 
proves other characteristics also. 

The most significant thing about 
these three examples is that the 
value engineering effort was made. 
Someone actively sought a way to 
satisfy a requirement at a lower 
cost. Having actively sought a way 
to do the job at a lower cost, they 
found it, and also found ways to im- 
prove other aspects of their manage- 
ment task. 

More Effort Needed 
in VECP Activity 

Unfortunately, value engineering 
change proposal (VECP) data indi- 
cates that an effective value engi- 
neering effort is not being made on 
some of our programs. A recent re- 
view of the VECP activity of 34 of 
our largest defense contractors 
shows considerable disparity. Eight 
of the 34 didn't submit a single high 
dollar VEGP (estimated value of 
$50,000 or more before sharing). 
Substantial results, however, were 



produced by several of these con- 
tractors, For example, eight of the 
34 each produced estimated savings 
to DOD of over $1 million from ap- 
proved VECPs. The VECP savings 
to us from each of these eight con- 
tractors ranged from $1 million to 
$5 million. 

Incidentally the contractor that 
produced $5 million in VECP sav- 
ings to DOD, last year had less .sales 
to DOD than 15 or so other contrac- 
tors. The dollar value of his con- 
tracts with the Army, Navy and Air 
Force in FY 1966 was approximately 
one-tenth that of the contractors 
cited earlier, who didn't produce a 
single successful high dollar VECP. 
I don't infer that the larger con- 
tractors are not active in value engi- 
neering. In fact, some of our largest 
contractors are among these eight 
producing VECP savings to DOD of 
over a million dollars. 

The findings of the Logistics Man- 
agement Institute survey, analysis of 
VECP data, and other information 
lead to a conclusion that value engi- 
neering is not being effectively used 
on some programs. Why is this so? 

Probably a number of reasons or 
excuses could be given. Substantial 
evidence indicates that some of our 
principal managers have not in- 
cluded value engineering as an in- 
tegral part of their responsibility. 
Furthermore, the attention given to 
value engineering by principals in 
DOD rubs off on counterparts in in- 
dustry. One of Webster's definitions 
of "principal" is "the person pri- 
marily responsible for an obliga- 
tion." I am using; "principal" to 
describe the program manager, the 
engineer, the project officer, the pro- 
curement officer, the maintenance 
technician, the supply technician, etc. 
those who have a direct contribu- 
ting task in the acquisition and sup- 
port of DOD materiel. 

Some of these principals and their 
counterparts in industry may have 
tended to think of value engineering 
as being solely in the purview of a 
special functionary. This special 
functionary, the Value Engineering 
Office, Value Analysis Office, or 
Value Control Office whatever the 
title may even be considered by 
some to be a meddlesome burden 
whose sole reason for being is to 
satisfy the whims of Washington. 
Fortunately, there is evidence that 
this extreme may be on the wane. 



The greatest progress appears to 
have been made in those programs 
and activities where the principals 
on the DOD side of the house have 
become informed on the DOD Value 
Engineering Program, have visual- 
ised its potential, and have assimi- 
lated value engineering into their 
job responsibilities. 

Wo have noted the initiative taken 
by the Departments of the Army, 
Navy and Air Force, and the Defense 
Supply Agency, at the Washington 
level, to spur the value engineering 
accomplishments in their Depart- 
ments. We have observed that these 
initiatives have achieved noteworthy 
results. But wo have also learned 
that all principals in program offices 
and buying- activities have not re- 
ceived the.se "transmissions" or, if 
received, have not interpreted thorn 
to be of continuing- concern. There 
may have been an inclination on the 
part of some to consider them an 
annual drive that am bo forgotten 
until next year. 

At the more favorable end of the 
spectrum we have learned of a case 
where program office personnel have 
exercised initiative to establish com- 
munication, understanding and a 
healthy rapport within the Depart- 
ment and with contractors, specifi- 
cally on the administration of the 
Value Engineering Program on their 
contracts. We would like to learn of 
more and more examples where our 
managers are including value engi- 
neering as a normal part of their 
management process; that more and 
more productive value engineering 
efforts are being made by the DOD 
component activities and by their 
contractors. 

What is the Job of 
the Value Engineer? 

I have stressed the importance of 
principals becoming personally in- 
volved in the Value Engineering Pro- 
gram. You may be wondering what 
is the job of the value engineer the 
man occupying a value engineering 
position? Several years ago we rec- 
ognized that a small staff should be 
provided to assist our managers in 
initiating and sustaining value engi- 
neering on their programs and 
projects. The Secretary of Defense 
authorized 265 additional manpower 
spaces for this purpose. After this 



November 1967 



augmentation there are still less 
than 500 full-time value engineering 
spaces authorized in all of the Army, 
Navy, Air Force, and the Defense 
Supply Agency. 

Let me emphasize that it is our 
intent that these value engineers be 
used to assist the principals to sus- 
tain a productive value engineering 
effort. They are provided to give the 
managers someone to guide and co- 
ordinate the effort of the principals 
concerned in finding better cost solu- 
tions, and assist them in their effort 
to be more cost effective managers. 
This value engineering capability is 
provided as a catalyst to speed the 
realization of better cost solutions. 
The value engineer is not just a con- 
venient pair of shoulders to accept 
the "cost effective element" of the 
principal's management responsibil- 
ity. If we endorsed a concept of es- 
tablishing the value engineering or- 
ganization to be responsible for the 
value of the job, we would, among 
other disadvantages, divide respon- 
sibility and duplicate manning 
requirements. To expect a value 
engineering organization to relieve 
the manager of his responsibility for 
cost effective management is just not 
logical nor practical. In the past few 
years I have acquired some appi'e- 
eiation for the DOD manpower pic- 
ture. I assure you that we cannot 
afford the luxury of two men to do 
one man's job. . . . 

Most of us recognize that the 
technological competence and wealth 
of resources available to our country 
are unsurpassed in history. An 
awareness of current events also 
fends to an inescapable conclusion 
that our defense programs, non- 
defense programs, programs to im- 
prove the welfare of all our citizens, 
not to mention the plight of millions 
of destitute people throughout the 
world, place huge demands also un- 
surpassed in history on our wealth 
of resources. If we place these facts 
in perspective, as they must be at 
the higher levels of the Government, 
it quickly becomes apparent that we 
must strive to get a dollar's worth 
of value from each dollar expended 
on our defense programs. 

Cost effectiveness, therefore, must 
be an essential element of our DOD 
management objectives. I call your 
attention to the theme of this con- 
ference "How Value Engineering 
Supports Defense Management Ob- 
jectives," Value engineering can be 



an effective tool for us to USG to 
achieve this essential element of our 
management the realization of 
value. The primary motivating force 
capable of producing: the large value 
improvements that we Keek is man- 
agers like yourselves, who are imple- 
menting policy and making the many 
decisions required daily throughout 
this complex Defense Department. 
It seems almost unnecessary to say 
that managers in program offices, 
procurement activities, engineering, 
logistics, and contract administration 
must coordinate with each other, and 
put full weight behind our value pro- 
gram if wo are to capture the large 
potential value engineering savings 
we see. 

I am confident that value engineer- 
ing will not only continue, but will 
become more effective in its support 
of our defense management objec- 
tives. The program, of course, re- 
quires continuing and able attention 
from the highly motivated, compe- 
tent managers that it is our good 
fortune to have on our defense team. 



Address by Lt. Gen. Charles H. 
Tcrkune Jr., USAF, Vice Com-ma-nder, 
Air Force Systems Gommimd, to the 
Seminar for Induutry, Air Force 
Asm. Fall Meeting, Sficraton Park 
Hotel, Washington, D. C. r Sept, 13, 



Management 
Progressiveness 



It used to be said that alt roads 
lead to Home. In the development 
and acquisition business, it is hoped 
that all roads lead eventually to con- 
tracts. We write about 7,000 con- 
tracts a year in the Air Force Sys- 
tems Command (AFSC) , take about 
17,000 funding actions, and engage 
in more than 276,000 contractual ac- 
tions of some description. All of the 
AFSG responsibilities require some 
sort of government-industry part- 
nership, u sually contractual , The 
success of this partnership depends 
in turn on the quality of our man- 
agement. 

Over the years we have talked a 
great deal about the importance of 
being- progressive in our manage- 
ment policies and procedures. This 



requirement has not en-ded, and it 
never will. However, the issue today 
is not how much progress we make, 
but how good that progress is. Like 
our technical options, our manage- 
ment options have multiplied in re- 
cent years. We're surrounded by an 
abundance of management tools and 
techniques, all of which have their 
individual virtues but none of which 
is suited to every situation. 

I don't consider myself a manage- 
ment expert, but after many years 
in the research and development and 
systems acquisition business, I do 
feel I have some management expe- 
rience. Based on that experience, IM 
lilce to have a few choice words with 
you today on the nature and direc- 
tion of our management progres- 
sivencss, 

The first word is change. 

The only thing we can say with 
absolute certainty about manage- 
ment today is that there are going 
to be continuing changes. Some of 
these changes will be functional 
wo learn how to do things better. 
However, many others re-suit simply 
from changing circumstances or 
changes in the environment in which 
we operate. Sometimes the manner 
of doing business changes. We find 
we must accommodate our manage- 
ment to special objectives and con- 
ditions established by higher author- 
ity or demanded by national policy. 
While we've invented or adopted the 
"ideal" management system many 
times, we recognize today that no 
system, no matter how superior, is 
ever supreme or uin'verfmtly appli- 
cable. So in this respect wo expect 
to "stay loose." We're keeping an 
open mind on management just as 
we've keeping an open house on tech- 
nology. 

The second word is selectivity. 

We can't blame a management 
system or fault a management tech- 
nique for failures or deficiencies if 
we use the wrong one or apply it 
badly. We have a crying need today 
to be discriminating, not only in the 
selection of management processes 
but in limiting our choices to only 
what is needed. We can overwhelm 
a system, and ourselves, through ex- 
cessive management or through too 
much management by too many 
people. 

In APSC, our Management Sys- 
tems Control Board has taken action 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



25 



to encourage and support selectivity. 
One purpose of the board is to in- 
sure that no management system is 
ascribed to a new program arbi- 
trarily or without good cause. 

In the past, if a system program 
director wanted to exempt his pro- 
gram from a directed management 
system, he had to request a waiver. 
Under our present approach, the 
system program office has a direct 
hand in the selection of the manage- 
ment techniques, and waivers are 
granted automatically. 

The third word in our current man- 
agement vocabulary is balance. 

In recent years, the Air Force has, 
in effect, co-managed a program with 
the prime contractor. In many cases 
we've tried to do a good deal of 
direct on-the-spot managing. While 
in certain high-risk programs such 
joint management practices may 
persist, there is a growing tendency 
today toward a new influence dis- 
engagement ; disengagement in the 
sense of dropping many contracting 
officer or plant representative ap- 
proval requirements. Air Force item- 
by-item approval of subcontractors 
and preliminary and final design re- 
views are eliminated. We allow the 
contractor the latitude to run his 
own business. We advise him of 
what we need, not how to develop 
and produce it. This is practical, 
however, only when we can describe 
explicitly what the minimum accept- 
able performance of the system will 
be. This requires us to do more thor- 
ough homework ourselves before we 
advertise for a new product or capa- 
bility, and I will touch on the subject 
later. 

I want to be quick to point out 
that disengagement is not divorce or 
separation of the Air Force from 
the contractor without "visiting 
rights," We must maintain a degree 
of visibility into the contractor's 
workto monitor the progress of 
the program, to be on the scene in 
the event changes are required in the 
contract, and to assure that public 
funds are being spent wisely. Our 
goal is a balance between over- 
control and a complete hands-off 
attitude. The visibility we seek is in- 
tended to fall considerably short of 
detailed management, microscopic 
review, or pinpoint control. 

Disengagement is possible and visi- 
bility of this type is feasible when we 



can write contracts that are truly 
definitive, and this is the fourth choice 
word. 

We've rediscovered that when we 
take the time to define and cost out 
our requirements, expressing them 
in terms of performance specifics in 
a definitive contract, we stand to get 
better results than when we plunge 
ahead in a "crash" program framed 
in rather fuzzy requirements. 

In fact, we're mutually better off 
when we can define what we want in 
advance. It may take a little longer 
in the beginning, but generally the 
long-run result is fewer changes, 
more realistic schedules, and lower 
costs over the run of the contract. 

The fifth word for the day is in- 
clusivenesa, best exemplified in the 
total package procurement policy. 

As you know, total package pro- 
curement contracting envisions that 
ail anticipated development, produc- 
tion, and as much of the support for 
a system as it's possible to define be 
procured under one contract. This 
contract contains price and perform- 
ance commitments obtained during 
the contract definition phase of a 
system procurement. 

The C-5A program is something 
of a pioneering effort in the direc- 
tion of total package procurement. 
With the C-BA we had a definite 
contract before a decision had been 
made on the winner of the competi- 
tion. We could take this approach 
because the systems we wanted were 
identifiable in performance specifics. 

Total Package 

Procurement 

Advantages and 

Disadvantages 

Recently, I have read with much 
interest the findings of the Logistics 
Management Institute in Washington 
on total package procurement ad- 
vantages and disadvantages. Based 
on my own experience with this 
method of contracting and the report 
of the Logistics Management Insti- 
tute, I'd like to make a few brief 
observations, 

First, both the Government and 
the contractor benefit from the kind 
of long-run program stability and 
continuity attainable through the to- 



tal package procurement approach. 
This is particularly true with regard 
to planning for funding, personnel, 
facilities and overhead. 

Second, clcfmitized life-cycle con- 
tracting forces the Government and 
industry to thoroughly study and 
define a weapon system or other 
product prior to contract signature. 
It disciplines subsequent government 
and industry actions, encouraging 
each partner to face up to the con- 
tract and live with it. 

Third, the total package pro- 
curement concept discourages 
changes. To date we can count on the 
fingers of one hand the number of 
G-5A engineering changes which 
have increased target costs in the 
two years since contract award. In 
contrast to this extremely small 
number, there have been over ROD 
cost changes in another current ac- 
quisition program, not total package 
procurement, in the same period of 
time. 

Fourth, total package procure- 
ment forces good management plan- 
ning at the outset. There's no room 
for any lack of thoroughness or 
buck-passing, at any level of author- 
ity. A total package procurement 
contract should not he vague or in- 
terpretive. Anyone who changes the 
contract must negotiate the changed 
in a sole source environment. 

Fifth, and I think this is very 
important, total package procure- 
ment doesn't have to bo total. Wo 
haven't really had a total package 
procurement yet, and we may never 
have one, In the C-6, spares and 
operation and maintenance costs are 
handled separately. Still, a major 
part of the hardware procurement 
has been brought under a single 
fixed-price incentive contract. 

It is not yet obvious how exten- 
sively we should use the total pack- 
age principle. But what are some of 
the advantages and disadvantages of 
total package procurement, so far 
as we can determine now? 

Some of the advantages cited by 
the Logistics Management Institute 
survey include cost savings, shorter 
development schedules, better long- 
range planning, . and earlier initial 
operational capability. These advan- 
tages appear real; however, I can't " 
say that the Air Force has enough 
experience to endorse all of those 
findings yet, The Institute estimates 
that savings running to 10 percent 



November 1967 



will accrue to the Government as a 
result of the greater efficiencies in 
the total package procurement proc- 
ess. We would, of course, like very 
much to verify this estimate. 

I would like to mention at this 
point that the total package pro- 
curement philosophy certainly en- 
ables us to compete more favorably 
for national products in our present 
climate of expanding civilian econ- 
omy. Total package procurement 
helps us to minimize the adverse 
effects of gradual price increases and 
longer lead times. 

The disadvantages attributed, to 
total package procurement may, in 
some cases, be considered advantages 
depending on who is doing the talk- 
ing. The report suggests that total 
package procurement may entail 
greater financial risk, lead to preme- 
ture program definition, or cause the 
contractor to incur increased pro- 
posal expenses because of the severe 
competition. Some analysts today 
concede that in the long run certain 
of these total package procurement 
features may prove to ho more posi- 
tive than negative. 

In regard to premature program 
definition, I don't agree that this is 
as serious a problem as it may seem 
on the surface. Admittedly, we must 
always weigh the relative values of 
"freezing" a design early, as op- 
posed to making changes during the 
development or even the production 
phases. Wo must permit, and even 
sponsor, changes that arc worth- 
while and renegotiate portions of the 
contract accordingly. The change 
clause of the contract provides ade- 
quate protection for the Government 
and the contractor. We realize that, 
when we -can spell out systems with 
great precision, we make it easier 
for industry to submit good propos- 
als. However, we must not rule out 
truly desirable changes as opposed 
to those that would bo "nice to 
have," or those inconsequential 
changes which only increase costs 
and extend schedules. 

One solution, I suggest, lies in the 
partial package procurement philos- 
ophy I implied earlier. In those areas 
of fluctuating or uncertain technolo- 
gies, total package procurement may 
be too conclusive an approach to be 
sufficiently responsive. 

But in any new system we must 
draw the line on changes somewhere. 
I suspect that in total package pro- 




Lt. Gen. Charles H. Terhune Jr., 
USAP 

curement we are not locking in a 
system so early that the product will 
bo out-of-date when it's completed. 
We may, instead, achieve a desirable 
goal that of earlier operational 
availability, 

With respect to the contractor pro- 
posal expenses, we are trying 1 to 
assist in reducing the burden on the 
contractor caused by voluminous pro- 
posals and, at the same time, mini- 
mize the time and effort required of 
the Air Force in screening and eval- 
uating these proposals. 

You all have heard of the rela- 
tively voluminous proposals submit- 
ted on the C-5. Following that expe- 
rience we managed to reduce the 
cost data volume by 50 percent for 
the Short Range Attack Missile 
(SRAM) proposals. For the Maver- 
ick prog-ram, the third system to go 
into total package procurement, the 
contractors were asked to limit their 
cost data documents to 26 pages for 
the proposal. 

This was accomplished, although 
I realize the competitors had to gen- 
erate a lot more data to arrive at 
25-page summaries, Now we're hop- 
ing to achieve commensurate reduc- 
tions in the technical data area. In 
fact, the overall reduction of paper 
work is a real objective of our Man- 
agement Systems Control Board. 

Gentlemen, in bringing- you this 
presentation today, I have felt a lit- 
tle like the man trapped in an ele- 
vator between floors of a tall office 
building. The superintendent of the 
building yelled up to him not to 
worry, that help was on the way he- 
cause he had summoned the elevator 



mechanic. Back came the muffled re- 
ply from the elevator shaft, "I am 
the elevator mechanic." 

In serving as the management me- 
chanic at this seminar, I am aware 
that I have said some things which 
are subjects of some emotion be- 
tween the Government and contrac- 
tors, and sometimes even within the 
Government itself. Differences of 
opinion will not go away in an area 
as vital as contracting. However, ad- 
ditional experience in this area will 
tend to clear up many di(Tei p ences. 
The close Air Force-industry re- 
lationship has weathered many 
changes since the days of the Wright 
brothers. I'm sure it will continue 
as a major force in strengthening 
management programs and improv- 
ing management procedures. 

The emphasis on development 
planning also has relevance for in- 
dustry. Just as we recognize the 
value of informing' industry of our 
plans for the future, so might in- 
dustry benefit by doing more and 
better development planning, and by 
including potential sub contractors in 
this "look ahead." 

Good development planning, com- 
bined with enlightened and stream- 
lined management procedures, will 
assure the progressiveness we all 
expect from the time-honored Air 
Force-industry partnership. 



Foam Reduces 
Fire Hazards 

Air Force Systems Command engi- 
neers have adapted a polyurethane 
foam, originally used in racing cars 
to retard fire propagation, for use 
in the fuel tanks of combat aircraft 
in Vietnam to reduce fire and explo- 
sion hazards. 

The foam virtually eliminates the 
risk of explosion in case of a direct 
hit on the tank by machine gun 
tracer bullets or other incendiaries. 
It also suppresses slosh in the tanks 
during flight and prevents tanks 
from spewing and spilling fuel spray 
when ruptured, thus reducing fire 
hazard. 

Polyurethane foam is reticulated 
composed of open cells so that 
fuel will flow freely through it with- 
out being absorbed. The material 
resembles ateel wool but is less dense. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



27 



TABLE 1. NET VALUE OF MILITARY PROCUREMENT ACTIONS 3 



Fiscal Years 1966 and 1967 



(Amounts in Thousands) 



State 




Fiscal 


Year 


CuriTont Quarter 


July 1965-June 1966 


July 1966-June 1967 


April-June 1966 


April-June .19(17 


Amount 


Percent 


Amount 


Percent 


Amount 


Percent 


Amount 


Pnrauit 


TOTAL, U. S." 


?35,713,061 




$41,817,093 




$12,645,511 




$:i;j,067,472 




NOT DISTRIBUTED 


















BY STATE c 


3,999,758 




4,435,430 




1,327,918 




l,;i83,[5!M 




STATE TOTALS" 


31,713,303 


100.0% 


37,381,663 


100.0% 


11,817,593 


100.0% 


.Il,68!i,0a8 


100.0% 


Alabama 


281,549 


0.9 


297,049 


0.8 


96,187 


0.9 


71,781. 


O.fl 


Alaska 


71,666 


0.2 


85,648 


0.2 


22,370 


0.2 


30,504 




Arizona 


248,228 


0.8 


249,559 


0.7 


75,511 


0.7 


63,591 


o!h 


Arkansas 
California 


95,701 
5,813,078 


0.3 
18.3 


127,180 
6,688,851 


0.3 
17.9 


27,662 
1,843,560 


0.2 
16.8 


61,708 
2,049,684 


0.5 
17.5 


Colorado 

Connecticut 
Delaware 
District of Columbia 
Florida 
Georgia 
Hawaii 

T i _ i t _ 


255,893 
2,051,560 
37,445 
328,111 
766,955 
799,362 
64,170 


0.8 
6.5 
0.1 
1.0 
2.4 
2.5 
0.2 


210,409 
1,935,896 
51,672 
357,666 
799,022 
1,148,354 
65,445 


0.6 
5.2 
0.1 
1.0 
2.1 
3.1 
0.2 


98,742 
705,802 
6,153 
52,727 
153,688 
400,478 
23,811 


0.9 

6.2 
0,1 
0.5 
1.4 

8.5 
0.2 


85,114 
432,047 
10,3 00 
73,600 
216,940 
177,848 
24,850' 


0.7 
3.7 
0.1 
0.(J 
1.0 
1.5 
0.2 


Idaho 

Til ' 


20,004 


* 


14,772 


* 


6,729 


0.1 


8,289 




Illnois 
Indiana 
Iowa 
Kansas 
Kentucky 
Louisiana 
Maine 
Maryland 
Massachusetts 
Michigan 
Minnesota 
Mississippi 
Missouri 
Montana 
Nebraska 
Nevada 
New Hampshire 
'New Jersey 
New Mexico 
New York 
North Carolina 
North Dakota 
Ohio 
Oklahoma 
Oregon 
Pennsylvania 
Rhode Island 
South Carolina 
South Dakota 
Tennessee 
Texas 
Utah 
Vermont 
Virginia 
Washington 
West Virginia 
Wisconsin 
Wyoming 


IT* TTnnfimf-oo onn TD 01 


919,779 
1,068,269 
247,619 
312,629 
70,057 
302,906 
51,340 
842,527 
1,336,952 
918,426 
497,994 
162,305 
1,112,666 
13,779 
80,478 
32,028 
109,691 
1,090,122 
86,230 
2,819,163 
449,331 
83,113 
1,688,965 
158,492 
89,983 
1,665,087 
131,722 
176,424 
23,316 
602,168 
2,291,454 
169,681 
81,066 
425,487 
444,368 
149,300 
364,684 
11,112 

" ' i 

t 


2.9 

3.4 
0.8 
1.0 
0.2 
1.0 
0.2 
2.7 
4.2 
2.9 
1.6 
0.5 
3.5 

0.3 
0.1 
0.3 
3.4 
0.3 
8.9 
1.4 
0.3 
6.0 
0.5 
0.3 
6.3 
0.4 
0.6 
0.1 
1.6 
7.2 
0.5 
0.3 
1.3 
1.4 
0.6 

1.1 
* 

' IN 


1,063,776 
898,247 
279,328 
398,899 
124,294 
656,031 
56,558 
869,808 
1,422,272 
1,033,706 
660,584 
114,800 
2,277,616 
78,452 
103,522 
29,315 
162,651 
1,234,768 
80,472 
3,261,750 
447,608 
16,729 
1,602,593 
157,350 
99,319 
1,649,142 
198,030 
180,777 
9,486 
688,225 
3,646,978 
178,860 
100,167 
665,240 
606,114 
140,324 
383,602 
32,868 

i- 


2.8 
2.4 
0.8 
1.1 
0.3 
1.8 
0.2 
2.3 
3.8 
2.8 
1.7 
0.3 
6.1 
0.2 
0.3 
0.1 
0.4 
3.3 
0.2 
8.7 

1.2 

* 

4.3 
0.4 
0.3 
4.4 
0.5 

0.5 

* 

1.4 
9.5 
0.6 
0.3 
1.8 
1.6 
0.4 
1.0 
0.1 


427,797 
391,799 
98,199 
91,735 
23,726 
57,945 
24,520 
283,364 
464,335 
395,362 
164,322 
76,699 
419,092 
2,160 
36,288 
4,602 
48,578 
403,390 
25,104 
1,110,498 
150,244 
19,396 
579,630 
36,248 
29,200 
749,988 
66,656 
70,516 
4,562 
184,523 
771,032 
40,095 
39,568 
170,298 
97,778 
61,623 
181,921 
2,190 

" _ 


3.8 

8.5 
0.9 
0.8 
0.2 
0.5 
0.2 
2.5 
4.1 
8.5 
1.5 
0.7 
3.7 

0.8 

* 

0.4 
3.6 
0.2 
9.8 
1.8 
0.2 
5,1 
0.3 
0.8 
G.6 
0.6 

0.6 

* 

1.6 
6.8 

0.4 
0.3 
1.6 
0.9 
0.6 

1.6 

* 

i i ..^- 


378,630 
340,712 
89,982 
112,416 
48,7% 
01,518 
17,544 
869,052 
445,127 
890,114 
257,240 
81,227 
796,64(i 
8,888 
45,507 
6,842 
54,840 
381,00!) 
25,671 
986,832 
122,188 
6,127 
60,897 
25.71C 
27,927 
620,984 
108,084 
71,045 
2,724 
147,888 
1,253,508 
42,927 
46,226 
218,744 
123,737 
38,701 
138,719 
8,987 


2.0 
0.8 

1.0 

O.'fi 
0.2 

iu 

23 

o! 

o.i 

0,4 

(U 
0.5 
3.8 
0.2 
8.5 
1.0 
0.1 
4.7 
0.2 
0.2 
5.8 

0*8 

1,8 
10,7 

0.4 
0.4 
1.8 
1.1 
0.3 
1.2 
0,1 



*Less than 0.05%. 



November 1967 



Fiscal Year 1967 



(Amounts in Thousands) 



State 


Total 




Army 


Navy 


Air Force 


Defense 
Supply 

Agency 


Amount 


Percent 


TOTAL U. S." 


$41,817,093 




$11,371,380 


$13,093,162 


$11,654,833 


15,697,718 


NOT DISTRIBUTED BY 














STATE c 


4,435,430 




1,153,093 


1,170,481 


1,162,812 


949,044 


STATE TOTALS" 


37,381,663 


100.0% 


10,218,287 


11,922,681 


10,492,021 


4,748,674 


Alabama 

A 1 1 


297,049 


0.8 


136,605 


20,750 


48,820 


90,874 


Alaska 


85,648 


0,2 


36,061 


7,246 


36,262 


0,479 


Arizona 

Arkansas 
California 


249,55!) 
127,180 
6,688,851 


0.7 
0.3 
17.9 


64,286 
27,019 
1,052,327 


43,916 
17,477 
2,341,150 


130,759 
35,373 
2,650,810 


10,598 
47,311 

644,564 


Colorado 
Connecticut 


210,409 
1,935,895 


0.6 
5.2 


37,509 
647,834 


22,662 
1,040,348 


124,208 
279,607 


26,130 
68,106 


Delaware 
District of Columbia 


51,672 
357,666 


0.1 
1.0 


6,477 
110,588 


18,147 
183,617 


6,977 
59,947 


20,071 
3,514 


Florida 


799,022 


2.1 


292,677 


130,813 


297,554 


77,978 


Georgia 


1,148,354 


3.1 


76,567 


49,605 


922,462 


99,820 


Hawaii 

Wi 


65,445 


0.2 


22,904 


19,974 


6,003 


16,564 


aho 


14,772 


* 


374 


746 


2,037 


11,615 


Illinois 

T J * 


1,063,776 


2.8 


532,687 


164,367 


162,470 


214,252 


Indiana 


898,247 


2.4 


442,388 


146,237 


206,648 


102,974 


Iowa 


279,328 


0.8 


121,779 


79,726 


31,561 


46,262 


Kansas 
Kentucky 


398,899 
124,294 


1.1 
0.3 


204,184 
61,041 


11,515 
2,082 


143,221 
7,323 


39,979 
53,848 


Louisiana 
Maine 


656,031 
56,558 


1.8 
0.2 


124,415 
10,973 


317,805 
22,814 


11,267 

6,027 


202,544 
16,744 


Maryland 
Massachusetts 
Michigan 
Minnesota 
Mississippi 


869,808 
1,422,272 
1,033,706 
650,584 
114,800 


2.3 
3.8 

2.8 
1.7 
0.3 


143,674 
366,857 
673,068 
226,042 
15,717 


510,244 
435,291 
89,224 

179,809 
28,744 


154,642 
467,652 

120,280 
179,085 
18,301 


61,348 
152,572 
151,134 
65,648 
62,038 


Missouri 
Montana 
Nebraska 


2,277,616 
78,452 
103,522 


6.1 
0.2 

0.3 


330,101 
8,179 
68,181 


1,732,415 
258 
519 


142,945 
66,154 

14,691 


72,155 
4,861 
30,131 


Nevada 
Now Hampshire 


29,315 
162,551 


0.1 
0.4 


10,202 
3,953 


1,430 
111,298 


16,222 
21,578 


1,401 
25,722 


New Jersey 
Now Mexico 
New York 
North Carolina 
North Dakota 


1,234,768 
80,472 
3,261,750 
447,608 
16,729 


3.3 

0.2 
8.7 

1.2 
* 


353,642 
50,003 
771,645 
177,389 
3,812 


362,196 

3,111 
1,490,878 
63,591 
594 


275,332 
22,164 
637,534 

24,069 
8,737 


253,598 
6,194 
361,693 
182,569 
3,586 


Ohio 
Oklahoma 
Oregon 
Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 


1,602,593 
157,350 
99,319 
1,649,142 
198,030 


4.3 
0.4 
0.3 
4.4 
0.6 


436,462 
32,516 
7,776 
624,787 
23,996 


382,755 
8,300 
24,480 
504,663 
111,175 


658,164 
67,492 

8,037 
256,590 
2,859 


125,212 
49,042 
69,026 
263,112 
60,000 


South Carolina 
South Dakota 


180,777 
9,486 


0.5 

* 


27,036 
2,069 


29,883 
490 


13,946 

4,389 


109,912 

2,538 


Tennessee 
Texas 


538,225 

3,546,978 


1.4 
9.6 


267,102 

1,043,184 


63,794 
603,523 


88,327 
1,464,298 


119,002 
436,973 


Utah 


178,850 


0.5 


31,599 


6,366 


111,415 


29,470 


Vermont 
Virginia 
Washington 
West Virginia 
Wisconsin 


100,157 
665,240 
606,114 
140,324 
383,602 


0.3 
1.8 
1.6 
0.4 
1.0 


82,953 
217,262 
66,913 
93,138 

159,262 


4,135 
343,767 

114,109 
6,703 
88,149 


10,490 
36,484 
363,983 

9,297 
44,240 


2.G70 
68,727 
71,109 
31,186 
91,951 


Wyoming 


32,868 


0.1 


412 





26,488 


5,968 



For Footnotes, see Page 32, 
* Less than 0,05% 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



29 



(Amounts in Thousands) 



Fiscal Years 1964, 1965 and 1966 



State 


Fiscal 


Year 1964 


Fiscal Year 


1965 


Fiscal Year 


1966 


Amount 


Percent 


Amount 


Percent 


Amount 


Percent 


TOTAL, U. S. h 


$27,470,379 




$26,631,132 




$35,713,061 




NOT DISTRIBUTED 














BY STATE < 


3,053,272 




3,363,052 




3,999,768 




STATE TOTALS' 1 


24,417,107 


100.0% 


23,268,080 


100.0% 


31,713,303 


100.0% 


Alabama 
Alaska 
Arizona 
Arkansas 
California 


190,681 
101,646 
173,825 
29,731 
5,100,660 


0.8 
0.4 
0.7 
0.1 
21.0 


166,176 
74,175 
176,857 
39,284 
6,153,639 


0.7 
0.3 
0.8 
0.2 
22.1 


281,649 
71,666 
248,228 
95,701 

5,813,078 


0.9 
0.2 

0,8 
0.3 
18.3 


Colorado 
Connecticut 
Delaware 
District of Columbia 
Flordia 


389,511 
1,126,054 
30,424 

222,947 
782,691 


1.6 
4.6 
0.1 
0,9 
3.2 


249,151 
1,180,111 
38,239 
247,576 
633,332 


1.1 
5.1 
0.2 
1.0 
2.7 


255,893 
2,051,560 
37,445 
328,111 
766,965 


0.8 
6.5 
0.1 
1.0 
2.4 


Georgia 
Hawaii 
Idaho 
Illinois 
Indiana 


520,169 
52,112 

7,804 
429,201 

637,940 


2.1 

0.2 

* 

1.8 
2.2 


662,417 
72,213 
11,724 
421,899 
604,925 


2.8 
0.3 
0.1 
1.8 
2.6 


799,362 
64,170 
20,004 
919,779 
1,068,259 


2.5 
0.2 

2.9 
3.4 


Iowa 
Kansas 

Kentucky 
Louisiana 

Maine 


103,392 
289,046 
40,476 
181,427 
31,631 


0.4 
1.2 
0.2 

0.7 
0.1 


133,951 
229,051 

42,749 
265,834 
68,771 


0.6 
1.0 
0.2 
1.1 
0.3 


247,619 
312,629 
70,067 
302,906 
51,340 


0.8 
1.0 
0.2 
1.0 
0.2 


Maryland 
Massachusetts 
Michigan 
Minnesota 
Mississippi 


647,936 
1,032,062 

591,290 
217,941 

165,911 


2.3 
4.2 
2.4 
0.9 
0.6 


584,333 
1,178,729 
532,897 
259,500 
152,188 


2.6 
5.1 
2.3 
1.1 
0.7 


842,527 
1,335,952 
918,426 
497,994 
162,305 


2,7 
4.2 
2.9 
1.6 
0.6 


Missouri 
Montana 
Nebraska 
Nevada 
New Hampshire 


1,349,071 
16,422 
33,921 
6,361 
64,857 


6.6 
0.1 

0.1 

* 

0.3 


1,060,781 
69,375 
42,708 

19,142 
52,400 


4.6 
0.3 
0.2 
0.1 
0.2 


1,112,665 
13,779 
80,478 
32,028 
109,691 


3.6 
* 

0.3 
0.1 
0,3 


New Jersey 
New Mexico 
New York 
North Carolina 
North Dakota 


917,661 
71,486 
2,496,438 
' 273,516 
192,026 


3.8 

0.8 
10,2 
1.1 
0.8 


820,309 
84,137 
2,229,473 
288,408 
48,997 


3.6 
0.4 
9.6 

1.2 
0.2 


1,090,122 
86,230 
2,819,163 
449,331 
83,113 


3.4 
0.3 
8.9 

o!s 


Ohio 
Oklahoma 
Oregon 
Pennsylvania 
Rhode Island 


1,028,946 
122,489 
29,104 
883,065 

38,173 


4.2 
0.5 
0.1 
3.6 
0.2 


863,113 
119,803 
39,624 
988,811 
86,323 


3.7 
0.6 
0,2 
4.2 
0.4 


1,588,965 
158,492 
89,983 
1,665,087 
131,722 


5.0 
0.5 
0,3 
G.3 
0.4 


South Carolina 
South Dakota 
Tennessee 

Texas 
Utah 


61,621 
23,808 
193,664 
1,294,431 

340,040 


0.2 

0.1 
0.8 
5.3 
1.4 


81,680 
21,062 
197,283 
1,446,769 
191,173 


0.4 

0.1 
0.8 
6.2 
0.8 


176,424 
23,316 
602,168 
2,291,464 
169,681 


0.6 

0.1 
1.6 
7.2 
O.E 


Vermont 
Virginia 

Washington 
West Virginia 
Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

"H* n f\f\rn fil'nci ns\n T> _ nn 


14,012 
690,852 
1,085,696 
87,327 
177,217 
49,408 

. ^ 


0.1 
2.8 
4.5 
0.4 

0.7 
0.2 

"" ...- 


32,202 
469,097 
545,607 
90,312 

203,003 
7,867 

" " ' , _ 


0.1 
2.0 
2.3 
0.4 
0,9 


81,066 
426,487 
444,368 
149,800 
364,684 
11,112 


0.3 
1.3 
1.4 
0.5 
1,1 
* 



* Less than 0.06%. 



November 1967 



Fiscal Years 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967 



(Amount in Thousands) 





Fiscal Year 
1904 
Jul 68-Jun 64 


Fiscal Year 
1966 
Jul fi4-Jun 65 


Fiscal Year 
1966 
Jul 66-Jun 66 


Fiscal Year 
1967 
Jul G6-Jun 67 


TOTAL, U.S. 11 


$709,990 


$847,926 


$878,301 


$819,218 


NOT DISTRIBUTED 










BY STATE 


37,753 


41,020 


43,532 


40,875 


STATE TOTALS" 


672,237 


806,906 


834,769 


778,343 


Alabama 


8,706 


11,958 


16,229 


18,441 


Alaska 


10,699 


39,516 


15,808 


2,818 


Arizona 


4,011 


4,301 


2,816 


2,742 


Arkansas 


54,671 


76,316 


89,427 


81,668 


California 


43,741 


59,239 


57,844 


52,991 


Colorado 


136 


3,702 


922 


1,539 


Connecticut 


4,647 


5,476 


6,197 


7,212 


Delaware 


&.081 


8,539 


8,973 


12,658 


District of Columbia 


2,033 


887 


866 


1,071 


Flordia 


28,290 


27,659 


26,273 


35,334 


Georgia 


2,317 


6,8fi2 


7,346 


9,390 


Hawaii 


1,916 


1,608 


1,439 


244 


Idaho 


1,600 


3,060 


5,822 


19,666 


Illinois 


16,188 


24,194 


22,102 


18,046 


Indiana 


14,970 


22,697 


25,080 


18,052 


Iowa 


16,166 


14,365 


12,160 


14,678 


Kansas 


21,304 


18,248 


12,884 


11, fill 


Kentucky 


28,164 


19,303 


20,219 


21,701 


Louisiana 


33,279 


32,166 


64,921 


40,600 


Maine 


1,879 


2,238 


1,628 


1,065 


Maryland 
Massachusetts 


8,080 
12,390 


21,457 
11,993 


10,212 
6,065 


1,977 

2,703 


Michigan 


4,347 


12,035 


13,027 


10,916 


Minnesota 


2,632 


1,686 


4,128 


3,902 


Mississippi 


13,673 


12,018 


16,594 


18,300 


Missouri 


20,144 


22,766 


29,799 


30,941 


Montana 


83 


1,100 


3,774 


21,840 


Nebraska 


4,658 


8,148 


8,613 


6,112 


Nevada 











17 


New Hampshire 


219 


2,431 


1,693 


107 


New Jersey 


6,784 


6,803 


3,303 


2,163 


New Mexico 


724 


1,117 


3,748 


5,956 


New York 
North Carolina 


12,366 
3,426 


13,536 
3,797 


12,400 
4,004 


8,851 
3,D34 


North Dakota 


603 


1,739 


3,311 


2,151 


Ohio 


25,836 


17,939 


16,884 


12,442 


Oklahoma 


24,699 


13,962 


31,514 


48,773 


Oregon 
Pennsylvania 
Rhode Island 


48,034 
36,678 
3,196 


74,243 
41,620 

4,961 


86,906 
37,776 

4,491 


44,354 
37,760 
674 


South Carolina 


2,761 


3,608 


2,472 


2,671 


South Dakota 


11,319 


10,916 


6,361 


2,249 


Tennessee 


8,946 


14,626 


18,773 


14,039 


Texas 


49,443 


39,420 


32,310 


28,317 


Utah 





41 


666 





Vermont 


64 


33 


58 


90 


Virginia 
Washington 
West Virginia 


3,770 
36,419 
26,678 


9,364 
36,323 

83,687 


6,360 
56,957 
23.182 


8,764 
68,974 
24,039 


Wisconsin 
Wyoming 


3,410 
632 


3,426 
20 


4,094 
290 


5,122 




For Footnotes, see Page 32. 
Defense Industry Bulletin 



DOD Prime Contract Awards by State 



Footnotes 

a See Note on. Coverage below. 

b Includes all contracts awarded 
for work performance in the United 
States, The United States includes 
to 50 states, the District of Colum- 
bia, U.S. possessions, the Canal 
Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico, and other areas subject to the 
complete sovereignty of the United 
States, hut does not include occu- 
pied Japanese islands and trust ter- 
ritories. 

* Includes contracts of less than 
$10,000, all contracts awarded foi 1 
work performance in the Common- 
wealth of Puerto Rico, U.S. posses- 
sions, and other areas subject to the 
complete sovereignty of the United 
States; contracts which are in a classi- 
fied location; and any intragovern- 
mental contracts entered into over- 
seas. 

ll Net value of contracts of $10,000 
or more for work in each state and 
the District of Columbia. 

Civil functions of the Army 
Corps of Engineers for flood control 
and rivers and harbors work. Civil 
functions data are shown separately, 
and are not included in military func- 
tions tabulations. 

Nofes on Coverage 

It is emphasized that data on 
prime contracts by state do not pro- 
vide any direct indication as to the 
state in which the actual production 
work is done. For the majority of 
contracts with manufacturers, the 
data reflect location of the plant 
where the product will be finally 
processed and assembled, If process- 
ing or assembly is to bo performed 
in more than one plant of a prime 
contractor, the location shown is the 
plant where the largest dollar 
amount of work will take place. Con- 
struction contracts are shown for 
the state where the construction is 
to be performed. For purchases from 
wholesale or other distribution firms, 
the location is the address of the 
contractor's place of business. For 
service contracts, the location is gen- 
erally the place where the service 
is performed, but for transportation 
and communications services the 



home office address is frequently 
used. 

More important is the fact that 
the reports refer to prime contracts 
only, and cannot in any way reflect 
the distribution of the very substan- 
tial amount of material and compo- 
nent fabrication and other subcon- 
tract work that may be done outside 
the state, where final assembly or 
delivery takes place. 

The report includes definitive con- 
tracts and funded portions of letter 
contracts and letters of intent, job 
orders, task orders, and purchase or- 
ders on industrial firms; and also 
includes interdepartmental purchases 
made from or through other govern- 
ment agencies, such as those made 
through the General Services Admin- 
istration. The state data include up- 
ward or downward revisions and 
adjustments of $10,000 or more, 
such as cancellations, price changes, 
supplemental agreements, amend- 
ments, etc. 

The estimated amounts of indefi- 
nite delivery, open-end, or call type 
contracts for petroleum are included 
in the report. Except for petroleum 
contracts, the report does not in- 
clude indefinite delivery, open-end, or 
call type contracts as such, but does 
include specific purchase or delivery 
orders of $10,000 or more which are 
placed against these contracts. Also 
excluded from the report are project 
orders, i.e., production orders issued to 
govermncnt-owned-and-operated facil- 
ities, such as Navy shipyards, How- 
ever, the report includes the contracts 
placed with industry by the govern- 
ment-operated facility to complete the 
production order. 



Control of Army 
Missile Plant Transferred 

Control of the Army Missile Plant, 
Warren, Mich,, has been transferred 
from the Army Tank-Automotive 
Command to the Army Missile Com- 
mand, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, 
Ala. 

Effective date for the change was 
Sept. 30; however, all arrangements 
will not be completed until Dec. 1, 



ASPR Case Listings 

(Continued from Page 22) 
(U.S. Supreme Court, April 10, 1967 
and Nager Electric Co. vs. Unit* 
States (Court of Claims, Oct. 1 
1966). 

Training and Educational Costs- 
ASPR 15-20-1.44. To consider whetlu 
changes in the training and educj 
tional requirements of contractors an 
the manner of meeting such changt 
warrants a revision of the preset 
ASPR 1E-204.44 to be in step wit 
present needs. 

G&A Expenses ASPR 15-203(c 
To consider whether ASPR 16-2Q3{c 
should be revised to provide specu 
coverage relating to allowability c 
G&A expenses, and to require that tli 
base used to distribute G&A, whal 
ever it may be, shall include all item 
applicable to the base, subject only t 
adjustments necessary to determin 
the total amount of the base for th 
period covered; and to require tha 
amounts included in the base sha! 
bear their applicable share of G&^ 
wherever they are disapproved unde 
government contracts. 

Pricing of Technical Data. To con 
sicler the development of appropriat 
ASPR coverage with respect to tli 
pricing of technical data, giving con 
sideration to the advisability an' 
feasibility of providing for one o 
more of the following: 

Including technical data price as i 
part of the item to be delivered. 

Requiring- contracts to specif; 
all items of technical data as Hiv 
items along with their prices. 

Requiring contracts to list onl: 
one price for all technical data. 

Requiring contracts to contah 
prices for the major categories o 
technical data, such as technics 
manuals, pro-procurement data, etc. 

Help Wanted Advertising ASP! 
15-205.33. To consider revising tin 
cost principle to define the type of re 
cruiting advertising that is allowable 

Technical Data Warranty. To con 
sider the advisability of incorporating 
in ASPR Section IX, Part 2, a war 
ranty clause for technical data. 

Minimum Wage Increases Undci 
Long-Term Service Contracts. To con 
sider the advisability of an escalatior 
clause for multi-year service contract! 
to provide for contract adjustmen' 
when the minimum wage rate is in 
creased as a result of government ae 
tion. 



32 



November 1967 




Contracts of $1,000,000 and over 
awarded during the month of Septem- 
ber 1967: 



DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY 

1 Syro Steel Co., Girarii, Ohio. 88,041,080. 
36,000 bundles of slccl landing mat sets. 
Defense Construction Supply Center, Co- 
lumbus, Ohio. 

Coastal States Petrochemical Co., Houston, 
Tux. S3.22D.730. 30,450,000 Gallons of JP-4 
jet fuel. Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alex- 
andria, Va. 

MncMillan nine-Free Oil Co., Los Angeles, 
Calif. $1,10G,S80. 800,000 barrels of num- 
ber six fuel oil. Defense Fuel Supply 
Center, Alexandria, Vn. 

5 Pembroke, Inc., EBB Harbor City, N.J. 
1,898,817. 79,615 men's blue serge wool 
overcoats. Defense Personnel Support Cen- 
ter, Philadelphia, Pn. 

California & Hawaiian Sugar Refining Co., 
San Francisco, Calif. $1,005,722. 7,944,000 
Iba. of granulated sugar. Defense Person- 
nel Support Center, Philadelphia, Pn. 

7 It. M. Wihon Co., Centcrville, Tonn. $2,- 
250, BOO. 451,300 nylon twill ponchos. De- 
fense Peru aim al Support Center, Phila- 
delphia, Pa. 

8 I,. H. Lawfion & Co., Long Beach, Calif. 
81,232,523, 57,300 CHSCS of ration supple- 
ment flu n dry packs. Defense Personnel 
Support Center, Philadelphia, Pn. 

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio. 
Sl.60a.07B. 388,300 steel-helmet liners. De- 
fense Personnel Support Center, Philadel- 
phia, Pn. 

II Stone Mfff. Co., Columbia, S.C. 31,005,815. 
3,78B,062 paim of men's cotton drawers. 
Defense Personnel Support Center, Phila- 
delphia, Pa. 

J. 11. Mfff. Co., San Antonio, Tex. $1,548.- 
602. 3,500,038 pairs of men's cotton 
drawers, Defense Personnel Support Cen- 
ter. Philadelphia, Pa. 

B. G. Colton & Co., New York, N.Y. $.V 
fili 1, 662. 2,175,000 yards of wind rcsiatnnt 
cotton oxford cloth for the Army. Defense 
Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia, 
Fn. 

-Pit talon Cllncliflcld Coal Salea Corp., Now 
York, N.Y. $2,730,000. 465,000 net tone of 
bituminous coal. Defense Fuel Supply 
Center, Alexandria. Vn. 
Rubber Fabricators, Grnntsville, W. Vn. 
32,033,703. 288,060 pneumatic mattresses. 
Defense Personnel Support Center, Phila- 
delphia, Pn. 

Montgomery Pipe & Tube Co., Miami, Fin. 
31,00(5,550. 230,000 coila of concertina 
barbed wire. Defense Construction Supply 
Center, Columbus, Ohio. 
Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, N.J. 
$1,110,225. 1,276,602 packages of surgical 
sponges. Defense Personnel Support Cen- 
ter, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Gulf Oil Corp., New York, N.Y. $1,323,000. 
12,000,000 gallons of JP-6 jot fuel. De- 
fense Fuel Supply Center, Alexandria, Va. 
10 Vnllcy Metallurgical Processing Co., Essex, 
Conn. $5,08S,f>88. 6,799,600 Ibs. of mag- 
nesium powilcr. Defense General Supply 
Center, Richmond, Vn. 



14- 



15- 



18- 



CONTRACT LEGEND 

Contract information is listed in 
the following- sequence: Date 
Company , Value - Material or 
"Work to be Performed Location 
of Work Performed (if other than 
company plant) Contracting 
agency. 



20 Perl Pillow Co., Houston, Tox. 53,098,203. 

209,672 mountain sleeping bngB. Defense 

Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia, 

Pa. 
21 J. P. Stevens & Co., New York, N.Y. S2,- 

021,499. 675,000 linear yards of wool sei-tfe 

cloth. Defense Personnel Support Center, 

Philadelphia, Pa. 
22 IJootK Mfg. Co., Ilvnnsville, Ind. 2,523,- 

G7fi. 39,172 Held range, gasoline burner 

units. Defense Genenil Supply Center. 

Richmond, Va. 
2G Sinrnn Sportswear, Dallas, Tex. $1,786.- 

07-1, 173,040 men's coated nylon twill rain- 

coats, Defense Personnel Support Center, 

Philadelphia, Pn. 
M. Wile & Co,, Buffalo, N.Y. 31,277,356. 

1)0,000 men's poly eater/ wool tropical coats. 

Defense Personnel Suport Center, PbtliL- 

dclphia, Pa. 

2fi U.S. Metal Container Co., Miami, Okla. 
SI.IID.CGO. 320,000 five- an lion Bnsoltnc 
dins. Defense General Supply Center, ' 
Richmond, Va. 

Goodsteiii Dros. and Co., New York, N.Y, 
$1,206,717. 40,3-14 men's wool Horse over- 
coats. Defense Personnel Support Center, 
Philadelphia, Pn. 

20 The Defense General Supply Center, Rich- 
mond, Va., hits awarded the following con- 
tracts for polypropylene sandbags : 

Pioneer Bng Co., Kaunas City, Mo. $3,- 

001,600. 16,350.000 snndlmes. 

Beniis Co., Minneapolis, Minn. $1,336,- 

000. 7,000,000 snndbneH. 

Continental Bfiff Co., Crowley, La, $1,- 

33-1,920. fi,350,000 HandliasB. 

Snnrling- Mills, Greenville, H.I. $1,000,- 

000. 10,000,flOO sanclbags. 




DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

1 Hiirnlscllfefjer Corn., Mllwnukce, Win. 1,- 
127,088. Twenty-ton crimes. Eacnnaba, 
Woiili, Mobilily Eqiiii>ment Commaiulj St. 
Lou its, Mo, 

American OptlcnE Co., Keone, N.I I, $3,- 
821,661. XM44E1 periscopes nncl related 
sparu parts. Frankfort! Arsenal, Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 

Gcnernl Dynamics, Pomona, Cnllf. $7,- 
747,710. Long lead time items required In 
the manufacture at Redeye weapons uyB- 
tem liurdwarc for FY 196S. Army Missile 
Command, Iluntsvillc, Ala. 

HufflicB Aircraft, Culver City, Calif. S4,- 
900,000. TOW Industrial engineering uerv- 
icca. Army Missile Comnmntl, Iluntaviile, 
Ala. 

White Motor Corp,, Lansing, Mlah. $1,- 
003,800. Cylinder heads lor Z%-ton truchs, 
Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Mich. 

J. W. Bateaon Co. J10,C33,010. Construc- 
tion of 10 cnltated men's barracks com- 
plexes at Fort Gordon, Go. Engineer Diat., 
Snvannnh, Ga, v 

Shell maker, Inc., San Francisco, Cnllf. 
$1,617,800. Widening of the Reaondo 
Beach, Calif., breakwater and for bench 
protection. Engineer Dist., Los AngeleSj 
Calif. 

Colt's, Inc., Hartford, Conn. 525,871,701. 
M16A1 rifles. Army Weapons Command, 
Rock Island, III. 

6 John Wood Co., St. Paul, Minn. }8,G72,240. 
Fin assemblies for 760-lb. bombs. Ammu- 
nition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Joliet. III. 

L. T. Industries, Inc. s DalUa, Tex. $2,- 
860,650. Fin aaBcmbliea for T50-lb. bombs. 



Onrlandj Tex. Ammunition Procurement 
& Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Poloron Products, New Rocliellc, N.Y. 
2,S7C,000. Fin iisacmblies for 750-lb. 
bombs. Sertinton, Pa. Ammunition Pro- 
curement & Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Snntc Fc Ennlnccrs, Lancaster, Gnlif. 52,- 
8B5.000. Construction ivork on rcmodelinn 
a SAGE building for conversion into nu 
audio-visual facility. Norton AFB, Cnlif. 
EnKinccr DiHt., Los Annelea, Calif, 
C AVCO Corp., Stratford, Conn. ?MS1,000. 
Hlade seta and support nsB-cmblius for T&S 
turbine undines. Avtntion Mntcricl Com- 
mand, St. Louis. Mo, 

Firestone Tire & RulibDr Co-, Akron, Ohio. 
S2, 643,432. Track shoe naseinblicfl for 
M60A1E2 tanlis and M728 combat enjjlneer 
voliiclea. Noblosville. Ind, Tank Automo- 
tive Command, Warren, Mich. 

Chrysler Corp., Centcrlitie, Mich. $11,162,- 
2!ifi. Karl! lift trucks. Warren, Mich. 
Mobility Equipment Command, St, Louis, 
Mo. 

Cndillnc GBBC Co., Warren, Mich. $1,032,- 
000. Light armored cars. Tank Automo- 
tive Command, Warren, Mich. 

Western Electric, Now York, N.Y. $215.- 
270,320. Continued rcscnroh arid develop' 
ment of the Nikc-X missile eyatem. Whip- 
pnny, N.J. ; Burllnston, N.C.: Orlanilo, 
Fla.; Bedford, Mnsa.; St. Pnul, Minn.; 
Syrncuao, N.Y.; iind Santfl Monica, CnJif. 
S13,lG8,6itl. Deployment planning activities 
for the Nike X iniHHilo syalcm, Reiiwood 
City, Cnlif., Uedfonl, MHHS. and Wnylnnd, 
Mass. 53,600,000. Facilities to nupiiort Nlko 
X rc.tejirch and development. Nike X 
Project Office, Redstone Arsenal, Hunts- 
villa, Ala. 

7 -Bell Aerospace Corp., Fort Worth. Tex. 
337,056,217. UH-1TI hcHooptcra. Avintinn 
Materiel Command, St. Louts, Mo. 

Hell Aerospace Corp., Fort Worth, Tex. 
825,170,000, AII-1G hclicoptei'H. Aviation 
Materiel Command, St, Louis, Mo. 

Chflinberlain Mfir. Cnrp., Waterloo, Iowa. 
$<!, 750,200. Metal parts for ITQmm uro- 
jectilea. Scran ton, Pn, Ammunition pro- 
curement A Supply Aeeiicy, Joliet, 111. 

Internntionnl Harvester Co., Molrose Pni'k, 
III. $2,6B3,023. Diesel engine: driven trnc- 



11 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



Atlas Chemical Industries, Valley Forge, 
Po. 81,202,600. Detonators, Reynolds, Pa, 
Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N.J. 

12 Hetlileliem Steel Corp., Bethlehem, Pa. 
$1,651,611. Components for 17Bmm guns. 
Watervliet AraenHt, Watervliet, N.Y. 

Privitt Plastics, Inc., Mineral Wells, Tex. 
51,300,024. Plastic erommels for 156mm 
shells. Ammunition Procurement & Sup- 
ply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

13 Continental Motors, Muskegon, Mich. S5,- 
416,6GB. Five-ton-tmck engines. Tank 
Automotive Command, Warren, Mich. 

Honeywell, Inc., Hopkins, Minn. 52,847,- 
512. Grenade fuzea. New Brighton, Minn. 
and St, Louis Park, Minn. Ammunition 
Procurement & Supply Agency, Joliet, III. 

Lockhced-Reorgia Co., Marietta, Ga. $1,- 
670,207. Gun tubes for lOBmm cannons. 
Chattanooga, Tenn. Watervliet Arsenal. 
Watervliet, N.Y. 

14 Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., Oinnha, Neb. 59,- 
744,99.1. Completion of work on the lock 
at Dardanelle Lock and Dam, Arkansas. 
Engineer Diat., Little Rock, Ark. 

BaldwIn-Lime-HamlUon Corp., Eddystone, 
Pa. _S9.468,GOO. Design, performance model 
testing, manufacture and delivery of hy- 
draulic turbines for The Dalles. Ore., dam 
project. Engineer Dint., Portland, Ore. 

Jarka Corp., Baltimore, Md. 54,461 413 
Mevedoring and related terminal services 

\ Q "I ~ ' 1967 tllr ough Sept. 30, 1869. 
at the Dnndalk Marine Terminal, Balti- 
&?? M Headquarters, Eastern Area, 
Military Truffle Management and Terminal 
Service, Brooklyn, N.Y. 

~*1 fc" 1 n r P " NeVf ^ Beach, Calif. 
34,024,237. Delivery stretch out, incor- 
poration^ of engineering release records, 
and engineering changes pertaining to the 
ChappaiTOl missile system. Army Missile 
Command, Huntsville, Ala 

~NY" M-fl^BK* n nc J n . C C " * ew Vork - 
.i. M,Sl.-i86. Dredginn sections of the 

inland waterway from the Delaware River 
lS,Ta ^"eer Diet.. Phila- 

""wft '^!?!! 11 . Cori i" ChIc "B. I", em.no.. 

TOO. 760-lb. bombs. Waco, Tex. Atnmu- 
Vi !f T ^ roc "nt & Supply Agency. 
joiiet, JH. 

~S.V CU . 1 ??' I i\ e " Wi| mington, Del. 816,943,. 
393. Miscellaneous propeliants and cxplo- 
. R HI, T a - Ammunition Procure- 
ment & Supply Agency, Joliet, III 

C rp " Wfl t<-loo, Iowa. 
m projectiles. Scranton, 

C " rement 



~m*fito Oramln. Rochester, N.Y. ?4,- 

SH ii,-P'i d ! h , Bet ?: ElwtronlcB Com. 
mand, Philadelphia, Pa. 

*~Sl e n nera U Motora ' Cleveland. Ohio. $8,144,- 
120. lS6mm, MlOD howitzers. Army 
Weapons Command, Rock Island, 111 

General Motors Indianapolis, Ind. 






tank 



ssrws 

ford Arsenal, Philadelphia, p n " * 

~ttVKVp l *t n *> ?<**<** Mich. 31,433,73-1. 
ta Tan^A , f r " <% nml Sheridan 
re", Mich Automotlve Command, War- 

IB Amia Construction Co., Oklahoma City, 
Okla $3,627, 20. Work on the Robert S 

5^ L S ii iss i s t ki B .? ni " w ' kln - En - 

-John Wood Co., St. Paul, Minn. $1,237,248. 
wLi "?">>" with crates for the 760-lb 
SncA^'S" P ~-t & Bllpl) l y 

Technical Operations, Inc., Burlington 

E* 8 i V^ 8 ' 00 . ' A ''^tlonal Bcientlflc and 
P" f a # *?'? mbnt Development 
Command, port Belvo r, Va. Northwest 
Procurement Detachment, Oakland Calif; 

C H8 ' V, td " Ho^ulu. Hawaii. 
ration, maintenance and 

Teat SIte TK 



American Cystoscope Makers, Inc., Pelham 

Manor, N.Y r $1,603,750. Perlacopen for 
use on Main Battle Tanks. New York, 
ri kfor .3 Arfle " a1 ' Philadelphia, Pa. 
? ' T J> me Corp " SUmford, Conn. !,. 
335,000. Booster and safety devlcea for 
artillery fuzes. Gadaden, Ala. Aromun!- 
t on Procurement & Supply. Agency, Joliet, 



AVCO Corp., Stratford, Conn. 81,668,101. 
Repair parts, ground support equipment 
and special tools in support of T-55-L-H 
engines for CH-47 Chinook helicopters. 
84,640,938. Conversion kits to modify en- 
gines for CH-47 helicopters. Aviation Ma- 
teriel Command, St. Louis, Mo. 
20 General Electric, Schenectady, N.Y. $1,- 
181,395. Klystroa tubes for high power 
acquisition radar for Nike Hercules. Army 
Miasile Command, Huntsville, Ala. 

It. G. LeTourneau, Inc., Longviow, Tex. 
35,366,150. 760-lb. demolition bombs. Am- 
munition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Joliet, III. 

Knllsman Instrument Corp., Elmhurat, 
N.Y. $1,062,026, Firing devices for anti- 
personnel mines. Bridgeport, Conn. Pica- 
tinny Arsenal, Dover, N.J. 

General Motors, Kokomo, Ind. 52,182,059. 
Radio transmitters and receivers. Elec- 
tronics Command, Philadelphia, Pa. 
21 Standard Container Co., Montclalr, N.J. 
51 ,650,000. Ammunition packing boxes. 
Homerville, Ga. Frankford Arsenal, Phila- 
delphia, Pa. 

Brnda Machine Products, Gtidsdcn, Ala. 
$3,002,040. Booster and safety devices for 
artillery fuzes. Ammunition Procurement 
& Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Chrysler Corp., Conterlinc, Mich. $1,964,- 
OG4. Fork lift trucks. Warren, Mich, Mo- 
bility Equipment Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

Anthony Co., Streator, 111. 51,038,960, 
Fork lift trucks. Mobility Equipment 
Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

22 General Motors, Detroit. Mich. 515,000,000. 
Metal parts for lOBmm high explosive pro- 
jectiles. St. Louis, Mo. Ammunition Pro- 
curement & Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Wcatlierhcad Co., Cleveland, Ohio. $1,104,- 
696. Pressure plates for 4.2-inch cartridge 
asscmlies. Ammunition Procurement 
Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Pcnsacola Construction Co., Kanana City, 
Mo. 51,058,650. Work on the Mississippi 
River and Tributaries-Channel Improve- 
ment Project. Near Greenville, Miss, ttnd 
Lake Village, Ark. Engineer Dial., Vlckit- 
biirg, Miss. 

Massmnn Construction Co. and Al Johnson 
Construction Co., Kansas City, Mo. ?28,- 
G62,fi45, Work on the Kaskaskia River 
Navigation Project. Ellis Grove, 111. En- 
gineer Dlst., St. Louis, Mo. 

Johnson Corp,, Bcllevtie, Ohio. 51,000,754. 
1'Xi-ton cargo trailers. Tank Automotive 
Command, Warren, Mich. 

Hol-Gar Mfg. Co., Primes, Pn. $1,068,760. 
28-volt generator sets. Mobility Eniilp- 
ment Command, St. Louis, Mo. 

Litton Systems, Van NIIJ>B, Calif. 52,549,- 
620. Data Converters, Coordinated Ah- De- 
fense Systems, Van Nuys and Salt Lake 
Oity, Utah. Army Missile Command, 
Huntsville, Ala. 

26 Honeywell, Inc., Tampa, Fla. $5,600,000. 
Classified electronics equipment. Elec- 
tronics Command, Fort Monrnouth, N.J. 

Lilton Systems, Woodland Hills, Calif. Jl,- 
600,000. Airborne navigation systems for 
OV-lD Mohawk helicopters and ancillary 
items. Electronics Command, Fort Mon- 
mouth, N.J. 

RCA, Van Nuys, Calif. $1,000,000. Classi- 
fied electronics equipment. Electronics 
Command, Fort Monmouth, N.J. 

Mason Rust, Pittsburgh, Pn. $7,780,000. 
Reactivation of facilities at Gateway Army 
Ammunition Plant, St. Louis, Mo. Engi- 
neer Dial., Kansas City, Mo. 
26 Ford Motors, Dearborn, Mich. $34,840,926. 
M-ton utility trucks. Highland Park, 
Mich. General Purpose Vehicles Project 
Manager, Warren, Mich. 

Zenith Radio Corp., Chicago, 111. $2,13G,- 
480. Metal parts for 66mm rocket fuzes. 
Ammunition Procurement & Sunnly 
Agency, Joliet, III. 

Stanford Research Institution, Menlo Park, 
Calif. $2,098,784. Antimissile Missile Sys- 
tem study. Nikc-X Project Ofilce, Hod- 
stone Arsenal, Huntuvillo, Ala. 

List & Clark Construction Co,, Overland 
Park, Kan. $1,174,432. Construction of a 
new roadway and bridge at Stockton Res- 
ervoir, Stockton, Mo. Engineer Dlst,, Kan- 
sas City, Mo. 

Lai Service Corp., Mid West City, Okla. 
$3,896,794. Maintenance of Army aircraft. 
Aviation Materiel Command, St. Loula, 
Mo. 



Dynnlectron Corp., Fort Worth, Tex, $2 - 
938,032. Maintenance of Army ntrcrnfl, 
Aviation Materiel Command, St. Louis, Mo 

Boeing Co., Morton, Pn. $1.338,630. Rotary 
heads for CH-47 helicoptera. $1,116 624 
Inspection ami repair of CH-47A aircraft' 
Aviation Materiel Command, St. Loufu, Mo! 
27 National Presto Industries, Erin Clnire' 
Wis. $10,000,000. Metal parts for lOZnin 
projectiles. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Joliet, 111, 

Supreme Products Corp., Chic HBO, III 31 - 
514,100. Mclnl parts for 760-lb. tamli nose 
fiiKca. Ammunition Procure me nt A Sun- 
ply Agency, Joliet, III, 

Avionics, Inc., South Hcnd, Ind, 51 SIB . 
[544. Cable assemblies for 2SO and 600 Ib 
bombs. Ammunition Procurement & Sim- 
ply Agency, Joliet, III. 

Zenith Itndio Corp., Chicago, 111. R] 2SS - 
200. Metal parts for fifimm rocket fuzca. 
Ammunition Procurement & Sirnnly 
Aftency, Joliet, 111. 

Morrison Knudoen Co., South Gnte, Cnltf 
81,176,500. Scaling the tiltc construction 
area nt the Now Melones Dam on the 
SlamslaiiH River in California. Cor of 
Engineers. 

Ilrcainn Construction Co., Rapid City 8 I) 
and Korslioj Construction Co., lllnir'Neb' 
$1,030,006. Construction of n lovee nlonir 
the Missouri Illvor near licHcvuo. Nob 
Lorpa or Enjrineors. 

28 ~ h 5ft b m ' ll 5 * Com.. Wntoi-Ino, I. 
$8.068 800. 2.76-Inch rocket warhcnds. Ani- 
mun Itliin Procurement & Supply Am-nay, 
JoiieL, 1JJ. 

*~? 1 i I S b n n M i 1 , I1 ? r , MrB ' Co " Co^imhiiit, Ohio. 
f, ,'t?, f '? t *l? M J mrU ' or Rlm! " cnrtrlitec 
point (lotonntinji fuaca. Westcrville, Ohio 

is: l sr tel ,ir i ' r<!ineiii & Siiii " iy 

~~n', U " Cy ;V Jil ', ruC " n "I> k ''>H. Minn. Jl.OHD,- 
048. Metal pnrts for JOmm cartrlilffcs. 
New HHghton, Minn. Ammunllluii Vro- 
curcmcnt & Supply Agoncy, Joliot, III 

Supreme Products, Chicago, III. fl.BOfi.OCO. 
Metal parls tor 7GO-11,. bomb noae ft.wa 
Ammunition Procurement A Supnly 
Agency, Joilot, 111. ""MI"* 

Grand MnchinlnK Co., Detroit, Midi. gU- 
014,000. 81mm mortar fin assemblies. Vcro 
Ileach. Fla. Ammunition Prociiremenl & 
Supply Agency, Joilot, 111. 

Page Aircraft Maintenance, Inc., Lnivton 
Okla. 516,700,000. Aircraft mnlnteimnce 
fjn- rotary and fixed wing alrcrnft nl Fnrt 
Uucker, Ala., and Fort Stewart, fin., trvni 
(Jet I, IDG? UiroiiKh June 30, 11)68. 1'nr- 
clmBlnK ami Contracting Office, Fort 
Ruckor, Ala. 

Sylvmiln Electric Prodncls, WElliamftvillo 

N.Y. $2,788,718. Light otaoVvat IOD \ll I? : 
ci'l'lor nvIonlcH imcliairea. Klcctwinfca 
Command, Fort Mwnmoutli, N.J, 

~r'.;, I n;, Ml il' or3 f ( '" Terrytown, N.Y, S2,- 
6J1.079. Dry bnUerlon for night vision alto 
weaponn IjcxIiiKton, N.G. BlMlronrca 
Command, Pliiliulelphipi, pa. 

Hupp Corp., Canton, Ohio. $1,737,701, 2O 
ImrKeiHwoi- Indufltrlnl enslnoH. Moliilitv 
Iwiulimionl Command, St. Loub, Mo. 
20Unlroynl, Inc., New York, N.Y. $7-1,4 5.~ 
010. VnrlouH explosives, 106mm iirftjectllca, 
and mnlnteniiJico and support aci-vlcea. Am- 
munition Procurement & Sunnly Aaency. 
Joliet, 111. 

OHn Mnthleson Chemical Corji., Kant Al- 
ton. III. $07, 1) 40,6 17. MiBcelEnncoun pro- 
pcllant cliai-Kca; bag loadiiiB; ami main. 
tenance and support scrvicca, Cluirlea- 
town, Ind. Ammunition Prociiromenl & 
Supply Asonc-y, Joliet, III. 

Day & Zimmerman, Philadelphia, Pn. J02.- 
370,874, Loiullng, asaembllnff and iincklne 
miscellaneous medium caliber ttema nml 
components. Toxarkann, Tex, Ammitnl- 
t on Procurement & Supply ARoncy. Joliet, 

Kisco Co,, St. Louis, Mo. 510,650,009, 
105mm cartridge casca, Ammunition Pro- 
curement & Supply Agency, Joliol, III. 

Olin Muthlcfion Chemical Corn., Enal Al- 
ton, 111, $0,126,458. Ball powder, nilrlc 
aoirt, and muintcnancc and suiiport aorv- 
ioes. linraboo, Wla. Ammunition Procure- 
ment & Supply Antonoy, Joliet, III. 

Kennedy Van Snun Corp., Danville, Va, 
$4,028,200. Metal parts for lOJimiti pro- 
jcctlles. Ammunition Procurement & Siii*- 
ply Agency, Joliet, 111, 

Canadian Commercial Corp,, Ottawa, Can- 
ada. ?8,174,87G. 105mm cartriileio 



November 1967 



Quebec City, Cnnnclci. Ammunition Pro- 
curement & Supply Agency, Joliel, 111. 
FMC Corn.. New York, N.Y. 82,970,249. 
Production of a classified agent ; and main- 
tenance anil support services. Newport, 
hid. Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliot, III. 

Knvcnna Arsenal, Inc., Akron, Ohio. $2,- 
363,390. Maintenance and support services* 
nt the Ammunition Plant, Ravenna, Ohio. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Jollet, 111. 

Gibb3 Mffir. & Research Corn., Janesvilla, 
Wia. 31,638,000. Metal parts for 2.75-ineh 
rocket fuzes. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 
Stoivnrt-Warncr Corp., Indianapolis, Iiul, 
S1,G18,G17. Metal parts for 750-lb, bomb 
Close fuzes. Ammunition Procurement & 
Supply Aftcncy, Joliet, 111. 
Honeywell. Inc., Hopkins, Minn. $1,66S,- 
678. Metal parts for fuzes for 40mm car- 
tridges. New Urijihton, Minn. Ammuni- 
tion Procurement & Supply Agency, Joliet, 

Medico Industries, Wilkes-Dnrre, Pa, $1,- 
401,000. a.7G-inch rocket witrlieaiis. Am- 
munition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Joliet, III. 

Biichmann Spnrk Wheel Corp., Lone Is- 
land, City, N.Y. 81,21)3,290. Cartridge con- 
tainer extension for the 4.2-inch cartridge, 
Commnck, N.Y. Ammunition Procurement 
& Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 

N null-Hammond, Inc., City of Industry, 
Calif. 81,282,787. Plastic canisters for the 
Tnetical FiRhter Dispensing Munitions 1'ro- 
jfram. Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, III. 

Bulova Watch Co., Jackson Heights, N.Y. 
31,020,000. Metal purls for fuzes for 81mm 
cartridges. Valley Stream, N.Y. Ammuni- 
tion Procurement & Supply Agency, Joliet, 

Western Electric, New York, N.Y. 80,918,- 
OM. PY IOG8 Nike Hercules and Improved 
Nike Hercules engineering services. Burl- 
ington, N.C., Santa Monica, Calif, and 
Syracuse, N.Y, Army Missile Command, 
Huntsville, Aln. 

1'hilco-Ford. Newport Beach, Calif. 84,- 
02-1,297. Incorporation of major improve- 
ments into the Cliapari-el Air Defense 
Guided Missile System. Army Missile 
uommand, Huntsvillc, Ala. 

Martin-Marietta, Orlando, Fin. S3,fiflS,2GS. 
Power Station for the Pel-shine missile 
system. 51,684,686. Installation of motli- 
licAtion kits in support of the Porsliintj 
weapons system. Army Missile Command, 
Hnntsville, Aln. 

Phileo-Fnrd Corp., Newport Hench, Calif. 
51,1500,000. Extenaion of eiiKineerinB serv- 
fces on the Shtllclngh misHile system. Army 
Missile Command, Hiuilavillc, Ala. 

Western Electric, Now York, N.Y. $48,- 
125,000. Additional effort on the Nike-X 
Hcaearch & Development Program, Syra- 
cuse. N.Y.; Whipimny, N.J.; Bedford, 
Mans,; Orlando, Fla, nnd Burlington, N.C. 
NJlte-X Project Office, Redstone Arsenal, 
Hunlsville, Ala. 

~~y^f Snfet y Appliance Co,, Pittsburgh, Pn. 
*,<MM17. Field protective masks. Es- 
mond, It. I. TCdgewood Arsenal, Md. 

linetng Co., Morton, Pn. $0,000,000. CH-47 
Chinook Helicopters, and engineering and 
procurement data. Aviation Materiel Com- 
mand, St. Louis, Mo. 

AVCO Corp., Stratford, Conn. $6,900,976. 
rG3-L-13 engines for UH-I Iroqiiols heli- 
copters. Aviation Materiel Command, St. 
Louis, Mo. 

Raytheon Co., Norwood, Mass. $4,902,000. 
Communications equipment. North Digh- 
loik. Mass. Electronics Command, Phila- 
delphia, Pn. 

General Electric, SpHngDeld, Mass. $4,- 
772,082. Production of the M-73E1 ma- 
cliine gun. Army Weapons Command, 
Rock Islnnd, 111. 

Litton Systems, Van Nuys, Calif. $3,217,- 
000. Scientific and technical effort to sup- 
port the combat development command ex- 
po rim en tat ion during FY 1008. Fort Ord, 
Cnlif, Northwest Procurement Agency, 
Oakland, Cnlif. 

Electro-Optical Systems, Pasadena, Calif. 
51,000,000. Work on the Nlffht Vision Pro- 
gram. Pomona, Cnlif. Elcctronica Com- 
mand, Forth Monmouth, N,J. 

General Motors, Kokomo, Ind, ?1,007,100. 
Endlo transmitters nnd receivers, Elec- 
tronics Command, Philadelphia, Pa. 

>efense Industry Bulletin 



-Lockheed Aircraft, Metuchen, N.J. SljOQE,- 
0-fiS. Work required to prove the perform- 
ance relative to the facility and onaite 
acceptance testing pi'ojji-nm for Stnjse 1 
niitl II of the Integrated Wide Hand Com- 
munication System now being installed in 
Southeast Asia, Procurement Dlv., Fort 
Huaehiica, Ariz. 




DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

1 American Mfg, Co. of Tex., Fort Worth, 
Tex. 519,320,001). fiflO-lb. bomb bodies. 
Navy Slii|)H Parts Control Center, Mechnn- 
icsburfr, Pa. 

United Aircraft, Nwwalk, Conn. $1,E37,- 
797. Spare parts for test acts used to chuck 
AN/APQ88/Q2/1GS/112 MyHlcms on A-CA 
aircraft. Aviation Supply Oillce, Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 

fi Sparry Kaad Corp,, Ilriatol. Tonn. 7,082,- 
<t4d. Wing, fin, ami guidance nnd control 
sections for Shrike missiles. Naval Air 
SynlemH Command. 

Johns Hopkins University, Sliver Spring, 
Md. S3.4S2.G20. Research mid development 
on tile Tales missile, Nwvnl Ordnance 
Systems Command, 

Texas Instruments, Inc., Dallas, Tex. $13,- 
828,120. Wine, Hun, nnd guidance nnd 
control sections for Slirilte missiles. Nnvul 
Air Systems Command. 

Willamette Iron & Steel Co., Portland Ore. 
$1 ,488,686. Regular overhaul of tlie land- 
Ing shin, dock USS Point Dillnnee (.LSD- 
31). Supervisor of Sh [p bull ding, Thirteenth 
Naval Dist., Scuttle, Wash. 

fi Automatic Sprinkler Co., Car roll toil, Tex. 
516,217,160. Fin ntiscmblics far MK 82 
bombs. Navy Sliipa 1'urU Control Center, 
MechaniCBburir, Pn. 

7 Sandcra AssociatrB, Naalmn, N.H. $2,660,- 
437. Continued basic onRincoriny and de- 
velopment of an nli- dronpable ASW sono- 
buuy ayateni. Navnl Air SystcniB Com- 
mand. 

Consolidated Dlca*J Electric C., Old 
Creenwich, Cunn, $a,OG4,2GO. 7f> RJrcrafL 
refueling tank-trucks. Midwest Div., Nnval 
Facilities EnBlnecHng Command, Great 
Lukes, III. 

Dyiioll Eleclronica Corp., PliiinvLow, N.Y, 
32,085,320. Product 1cm of radnt sets for 
the Navy nnd for Australia. Navnl Ord- 
imnco SyetemB Cornmund. 

RCA, Princeton, N.J. $2,000,000. Six 
navigation fiatallitea. Special 



8 Bntli Iron Works Corp., Bath, Maine. $38,- 
451,000. Ilepalr nnd modernisation of alx 
guided inlsHlle frlgalea. Nnvnl Ship Sys- 
tems Com mnt nl. 

Grummnn Aircraft Engineering Corp., 

Bethpaee, N.Y. 310,265,000. Research and 
development on the EA-OB aircraft. Naval 
Air Syslcma Command. 

Spcrry Rand Corp., Long Island City, N.Y. 
$4,200.000. Production of computers to be 
Installed In the subsystem of gunfire con- 
trol Byatems. Naval Ordnance Systems 
Command. 

United Aircraft, Stratford, Conn. $1,000,- 
000. Increase of lonrc tend time effort for 
HH-3E helicopters for the Air Force. Naval 
Air Systems Command, 

11 McDonnell Douglas Co., St. Louie, Mo. 
$41,300,000. Lone lend time effort in sup- 
port of procurement of F-4E and F-4D nir- 
craft Naval Air Systems Command, 

Sparry Rand Corp., Great Neck, N.Y. $1,- 
144,000. Enulncorlng effort to perform a 
research and development program on 
Palos guided missile fire control systems. 
Naval Ordnance Systems Command. 
12 General Precision, Inc., River dale, Md. $5,- 
071,346. Training devices for P-3O pro- 
totype: aircraft. Navpl TraSnlnjr Device 
Center, Orlando, Flu. 



RCA, Princeton, N.J. S4,S28,370. Sis Navy 
navigation stitelEEtes, Special Projects Of- 
fice. 

North American Aviation, Anaheim, Calif. 
52,121,000. Modification, find fabrication of 
ships inertiol navigation system eauijnnent. 
Navnl Ship Sytema Commanil. 
Control Data Corp., Minneapolis, Minn. 
Sl h SOO,000. Inui-cnae in thn cmmcity of the 
basic control data 6400 computer systems, 
nt the Fleet Numerical W*athoi- Facility, 
Monterey, Cnlif. Arden Hillfi. Minn, Naval 
Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif. 
13 Lockheed Aircraft, llurbank, Cnlif. S2B,- 
900,000. CcmfiRn ration chanRe in P-3I1 air- 
craft ami tor aasocinted ciiRineeHng, plan- 
ning and tooliiis. Navnl Air aystema 
Co]i 1111 and. 

United Aircraft, East Mnrtford, Conn. 53,- 
(JStl.aoa. Partial convevHion of n cost plus 
incentive fee letter cent met Jor Plmac II 
ilcvetopment of TF-80-P-12 i:nBinH. Navnl 
Air Syatema Commund. 

Mageinvox Co., Fort Wnyne, Ind. $1,105.- 
8TB. Hauic enBlnccrinic nnd clcvolonmetit 
of an air dranpablG aflnobwoy Hyatcm. Niivnl 
Air Systems Command. 

Locfehced Aircraft, Ihirbnnk, Calif. Sl,- 
000,000. Avionics equipment for P-3B air- 
craft. Naval Air Syato-ms Cumnmnd. 
American M(g. Co. of Tex., Fort Worth, 
Tex. S 10,807, 4 20. 3R cftHbci' projectiles. 
Navy Shins Parts Control Center, Me- 
chanicabiii'B. Pn. 

CiirtiB-Wriuht Corp., Wood-KldRC, N.J. 
$1,024,608. Kits In support of nlrcrnft on- 
Binea. Aviation Supply Omce, Plifladel- 
phia, Pn. 

U Grummnn Aircraft EmgrinccrinE Corp., 
IlethpOKe, N.Y. 54.470,590. A-flA aircraft. 
Naval AJr Systems Command. 
Westinirhoiiao Electric, PittabiirnH, Pn, 
$17,178,800. Deainnine nml furniahinjr 
nuclear propulsion coniiioncntB. Naval 
Ship Syfltoms Command. 

Conca EnfflnocTlns Works, Men dot n ( 111, 
$1^70,000. MIC 77, MOD 2, GOO-lb. bombs. 
Naval Ordnance Systems Command, 
I,. H. I'rlcster & Son, Mcrfillnn. Mlaa. 51.- 
146,0(10. Cnnatritctioii of a BOQ addition 
at the Navn-1 Auxiliary Air Station, Merid- 
ian, Mlsa. Southeast Div., Naval Fni! lit ties 
Engine^ vine Commanil. 

Cnneiillnn Cflinmcrcinl, Ottawn, Cnnadn. 
$2,000,000. Sti'ucturnl components far the 
ntlnek aircraft carrier USS MIDWAY 
(CVA--I1). Montreal, Cannda. Navy Sup- 
ply Con tor, Oakland, Cnlif. 

15_lt. (!. Wclili, Inc., Uiverstde, Cnlif. 

S2 h 870,000. ConaU'uclioii of houBliiR units 

nt the LOIIK Bench, Cnlif., Naval Station, 

Southwest Dlv., Navnl Facilities BaBinccr- 

IHK Command, Bun DleKo, Cnlif. 

1ft Norrls Industries, LOB Ansolea, Ctilif. 2fl,- 

648,622, MK 82 liomS> bodies. Navy Slilpa 

Parts Control Center, Mechanleabui'jr, Pa. 

Grummnn Aircraft Engineering Cori., 

UoOniaHc, N.Y. 820,800,000. AOA aircraft. 

Naval Air SyalcmB Command. 

North American Aviation. Anaheim. Calif. 

$9,aOQ,IK)0. AN/ASIi-12 liomb navigation 

Hyatema (or RA-5C nircrnft. Naval Supply 

Systems Cornmnntl. 

North Amcrkan Avlntion, McGresor, Tox. 
$1,478,600. Inci-onso Itmitntlon of ftutliorl- 
7.aLian for Shrike misailoB. Naval Air Sys- 
tems Coinmaml. 

General Dynamic*, Pomona, Calif, $6,0-10,- 
000. Standard Arm Mlaalle procurement. 
Naval Air Systems Command. 
20 PMC Ci>rp., SBII Joae, Cnlif. $1,410,326. 
Kondwheal aasemtHca nnil rondwlicel caps 
for Landing Vcliielcs. Maflno Corps. 
21 United Aircraft, Enst Hartford, Conn. 
$8&6 1 8ft7,40I. Modiflcntion to nn *xiHlinji 
contract of $336,000,280 lor TPSfl-P-12 and 
TF30-P-3 cnitinea for the Navy and Air 
Force. Naval Air Systems Cornmiind. 
United Aircraft, Stratford, Conn. $2,873,- 
784. S-Gl-It helicopters for tli* Air Force. 
Nnval Air Systems Command. 
General Dynnmfea, San Diego, Cnilf. ?!,- 
aiS.flflO. TcatiiiB and equipping of two 
newly developed jirototyiic ocean diitn 
buoys to bo used for a mnjor new scientific 
program designed to collect oceanoKraiihle 
nnd meteoroloBicai ilntd in the North Pa- 
cific. Ofike of Naval RcBcnrch. 
22 General Electric, Wnehlnelon, D,0. $B,- 
057,081. Support services for Polnria ftre 
control and support equipment. PHtsfleld, 
MnsB. Special Projects Office. 



35 



International Telephone & Telegraph 

Corp., Nutley, N.J. 1,799,879. Omega 
navigation nets, including repair parts, 
training, engineering services ami data 
support. Naval Ship Systems Command. 

Hazeltine Corp., Little Neck, N.Y. 1,462,- 
281. Detection/transmitting sets. Naval 
Air Systems Command. 

LTV Aerospace Corp.. Dallas. Tex. 6,- 
000,000. Increase the limitation of authori- 
zation for long lead time effort for A-7D 
aircraft for the Air Force. Naval Air 
Systems Command. 

25 Defoe Shipbuilding Co., Buy City, Mich. 
$17,818,739. Design nnd construction of 
two medium surveying ships. Naval Ship 
Systems Command, 

Rendix Corp., Mishnwaka, Ind. 315,067,- 
021. FY 1'JGS funding for production of 
guidance, control and airframe units for 
the Talos missile. Naval Ordnnnce Systems 
Command. 

Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Sunny- 
vale, Calif. 57,060,364. Development effort 
related to the Poseidon missile system. 
Special Projects Office. 

General Dynamics, Pomona, Calif. $8,000,- 
000. Increase to the limitation of authori- 
zation for Standard Army missiles. Naval 
Air Systems Command. 

Varo, Inc., Garland, Tex. 52,086,346. 
Guided missile launchers. Naval Air Sys- 
tems Command. 

Hughes Aircraft, Culver City, Calif. $2,- 
000,000. Installment funding for Phoenix 
missile system. Naval Air Systems Com- 
mand. 

Royal Industries, Santa Ana, Calif. 51,- 
610,535. GOO-sallon external auxiliary fuel 
tanks. Naval Air Systems Command. 

International Telephone & Telegraph 
Corp., Fort Wayne, Intl. 51,835,280. MK 
3 MOD electronic assemblies for the 
Shrike missile fuzing system. Naval Air 
Systems Command, 

26 Norris Industries, Los Angeles, Calif. 59,- 
690,392. 250-lb. bomb bodies. Navy Ships 
Parts Control Center , Mechanicaburtr, Pa. 

North American Aviation, Columbus, Ohio. 
$5,390,260. OV-10A aircraft for the Marine 
Corps. Naval Air Systems Command. 

27 U.S. Steel, Pittsburgh, Pa. 3,468,240. 
250-lb. bomb bodies. McKecaport, Pa. 
Navy Ships Parts Control Center, Median - 
icsbure, Pa. 

Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Sunnyvale, 
Calif. 52,300,000. Long lead materials' for 
the Polaris missile system. Special Projects 
Ofllce. 

Akwa-Downey Construction Co., Mil- 
waukee, Wis. SE,269,9G7. Construction of 
bachelor officer's quarters and a mess ad- 
dition at the Naval Training Center, San 
Diego, Calif. Southwest Div., Naval Facili- 
ties Engineering Command, San Diego, 
Calif. 

Westlnghouse Electric, Baltimore, Md. $1,- 
443,700. APD-7 side-looking radar sys- 
tems for installation in RA-6C aircraft. 
Aviation Supply Office, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Bethlehem Steel, Terminal Island, Calif. 
$1,362,850. Regular overhaul of the land- 
ing ship, dock USS Cabildo (LSD-1G). 
Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Eleventh Nav- 
al Dist, Long Beach, Calif. 
23 Poloron Products, New Rochelle, N.Y. 
810,518,874. Conical Cm assemblies for 
500-lb bombs. Scranton, Pa. Naval Ships 
Parts Control Center, Mechanic a burg, Pa. 

Lasko Metal Products, West Chester, Pa 
88,903,195. MK 14 MOD 1 retard fin aa- 
semblies for 260-lb. bombs. Hughestown, 
Pa. Navy Ships Parts Control Center, 
MechanicBburg, Pa. 

Dell Industries, Waycrosa, Ga, $4,864,0311, 
Conical fin assemblies for 500-lb. bombs. 
Navy Ships Parts Control Center, Mechan- 
icsburg, Pa. 

Strnlfrhtline Mfg. Co., Cornwells Heights, 
Pa. $3,454,434. Conical fin assemblies for 




20 



. ,,. onca n assemes or 
MK 81, 260-lb. bombs. Navy Ships Parta 
Control Center, Mechanics burg, Pn. 
Raytheon Co., Bedford, Masa, $2,878,000. 
Research and development of the Sparrow 
AIM-7F guided missile. Naval Air Systems 
Command. 

~W"2? BIeetronlei Co-i Hawthorne, 
Calif. $1,686,087. AN/SRN-12 Omega re- 
ceivers. Naval Electronics Systems Com- 
mand. 



DEPARTMENT OF THE 
AIR FORCE 

lChrom alloy American Corp., New York, 
N.Y. 52,949,142. Repair of J-J57, J-76 and 
TF-33 aircraft engines. West Nyack, N.Y. 
San Antonio Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), 
Kelly AFB, Tex, 

Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash. 364,104.503. 
Modernization of the Minuteman force. 
Knobnoster, Mo. Space and Missile Sys- 
tems Organization (AFSC), Norton AFIi, 
Calif. 

McDonnell-Douglas Corp., Santa Monica, 
Calif. $2,013,188. Design, development, 
fabrication and testing of a Titan IIIC 
payload system. Space and Missile Systems 
Organization, (AFSC), Norton AFU, Calif. 

Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash. $1,027,107. 
Modernization of the Minuteman Force, 
Space and Missile Systems Organization, 
(AFSC), Norton AFB, Calif. 
E Western Electric, New York, N.Y. ?4,845,- 
284, Engineering support of missile guid- 
ance systems. Burlington, N.C. Space and 
Missile Systems Organization, (AFSC), 
Los Angeles, Calif. 

Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash. 2,100,000. 
Engineering services in support of Minute- 
man missile systems. Space and Missile 
Systems Organization, (AFSC), Los 
Angeles, Calif, 

Northrop Corp., Hawthorne, Calif. $19,- 
431,700. T-3S aircraft. Aeronautical Syw- 
leniH Div., (AFSC), Wright-Patterson AFB, 
Ohio. 

Hughes Aircraft, Los Angeles, Calif. $2,- 
000,000. Electronic countermeasure equip- 
ment. Aeronautical Systems Div., (AFSC), 
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

RCA, Morristown, N.J. S2,fJOO,000. FPS/ 
KG radar system. Electronic Systems Div., 
(AFSC), L. G. Hanscom Field, Moss. 
6 North American Aviation, Anaheim, Calif. 
51,420,876. Manufacture of snare parts in 
support of the guidance and control sys- 
tem of Minuteman II missiles. Ogden Air 
Materiel Area, (AFLC), Hill AFH, Utah. 
7 Airescorch Mfg. Co., Phoenix, Aria. $1,- 
244,083. Manufacture of gas turbine com- 
pressors. San Antonio Air Materiel Aren, 
(AFLC), Kelly AFB, Tex. 

a United Aircraft, East Hartford, Conn. $4,- 
720,081. Manufacture and castings and 
foi'ginga to be used to produce- spare parts 
applicable to TF-33 and J-57 engines. San 
Antonio Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), Kelly 
AFB, Tex. 

12 fiary Aircraft Corp., Victoria, Tex. $1,- 
09D.863. Inspection and repair of C-B4 
aircraft. Warner Robins Air Materiel Area, 
{AFLC}, Robins AFB, Ga. 
Sargent Fletcher Co., El Monte, Calif.. $1,- 
424,167. Manufacture of external auxiliary 
tanks and pylons for F-4 aircraft. Oifdcn 
Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), Hill AFB, 
Utah. 

13 Radiation, Inc., Melbourne, Fla. $1,002,- 
818, Modification of radar components. Air 
Force Eastern Test Range, Patrick AFB, 
Fla. 

General Electric, Arkansas City, Kan. $1,- 
862,224. Overhaul and modification of J-85 
engines and components. Oklahoma City 
Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), Tinker AFB. 
Okla. 

General Electric, Philadelphia, Pn. $1,150,- 
000. Production of a re-entry uystem for 
ballistic missiles. Space and Missile Sys- 
tems Organisation, (AFSC), Norton AFB, 
Calif. 

IE TRW, Inc., Iledondo Beach, Calif. $16,463,- 
19li. Development support of the Minute- 
man weapon system for FY 1868. $10,330,- 
03C. Nondcvelopment support of the Min- 
uteman weapon system for PY 1968. 
Norton AFB, Calif. Space and Missile 
Systems Organization, (AFSC), Norton 
AFB, Calif. 



36 



Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Sunnyvale, 
Calif. $l,fifiO,000. Development Improve- 
ments for the Agcnn space vehicle. Sjmctt 
and Missile Systems Organization, 
(AFSC), Norton AFH, Calif. 

Avco Corp., Wilmington, Ma&a. $2, 800,000. 
Design, development, fabrication, testing 
and evaluation of the Minuteman I1A re- 
entry vehicle. Space and Missile Systems 
Organisation. (AFSC), Norton AFU, Cnltf. 
18 Hainan Corp., Hloomfield, Conn. 31,730,199. 
Replacement spare parts for HH13 heli- 
copters. Warner Robins Air Materiel Area, 
(AFLC), Rollins AFH, Ga. 

Aerojet flenertil, Sacramento, Cnljf, $5.,- 
000,000. Manufacture of ftrat and aec-onii 
stage engines for the Titan IH. Space a.nA 
Missile Systems Organ i/.iiUon, (AFSC), 
Los Angeles, Calif, 

AVCO Corp., Wilmington, Mans. gfl.OOO,- 
000. Development and production of mis- 
sile penetration aiiin. Spa.cc and Mis si 3 le 
Systems Organization, (AFSC), Los A n- 
Keles, Calif. 

Racing Co., Seattle, Wash, S5.000.000. In- 
stallation of n UIIF antenna system. Minat 
AFH, N.D. Space anil Mitwllc Systems 
Organixntion, (AFSC), Los Angeles, Cnlif. 

Cessna Aircraft, Wichita, Kan. S-l.fiOH.OOQ. 
Prtidutcion of T-37 aircraft. Acronnutlcnl 
Systems Div., (AFSC), WriRlit-PiUluraon 
AFH, Ohio. 

Control Data Corp., Miniicniialfg, Minn. 
Sl,7fi(),0'l7. Rental of automatic data IJTOC- 
csHinK o(|uiiimont at Patrick AFIi, ]' In- 
Air I'Wro Eastern Test Ilanso, Puti-icti 
AFlf, [Ha. 

Libby Welding Co., KIUIHIIH City, .Mo, $1.- 
-HO.SS-l. Manufacture of ReiioratoL- ficla 
(A/MU2A-GO). Sacriimento Air Materiel 
Aren, (AFLC), McOlellan AFH, Calif. 

United Aircraft, East Hartford, Cimrt. 
$6,000,000. Work on iii-ojiiilHinii Hytitetm 
for high performance strii tonic aii'crnft. 
Aeronautical Systems Uiv., (AFSG), 
Wvight-PatterHon AFH, Ohio. 

ID North American Aviation, Cnnofia Piirk, 
Calif. SI, 000,000. Overhaul of propuluimi 
subsystems. Ncosbo, Mo. Space anil Mian lit: 
Systems Organization, (AFSC), Los An- 
Kek'd, Calif. 

-General Motors, IiidiamipmiH, Ind. gii,Q02,- 
770. Aircraft engine development wnrk. 
Aeronautlcnl Hyuleim Uiv., (AFHC1. 
Wright-Patterson AFH. Oli3o. 

-Mitre Corp., Hedford, MUSH. SIO.flS6.000-. 
Research and development Cur HyHlenin 
englnefii-iiift ami technical direction in the 
field of tuiminiuiil and cinitrol syHUmiH. 
Electronic SyHtems Div., (AFSC!), L. Ci. 
IliiiiHCom Field, Mass. 

20 -Lcnr Hlcglcr, Inc., (irnnd Itmittln, MIcJi. 
S1.77U.-100, Manufacture of nil-home i;om- 
puter comiiononls. Aeronautical Syslinna 
Div., (AFSU), WriBlit-Pntlcr*)ti AI''H. 
Ohio. 

21 Airescarch MfK. Co., Vluicnix, Aria. 31.- 
7GO,243. Ovitrlmul sorvineH for mw Uirhliifl 
ondincs. Qldahomn City Air MnlfHo! Arc-n. 
(AFLC), Tlnlter Al-H, Okln. 
RCA, HurlinKlon, Mass. $2,7()8,U!)C. Devel- 
opment of tin airlmrno (lutn niitninnlinn 
system. Electronics HyHtemn Div., (Al'SO). 
L. (!. Hanticom Field, Mass, 

22 Emerson Electric Co., St. Lou to. Mu. 3^,- 
075,701. Priuluction of iiiitoinnllfl teat 
cciuipment for K-lll aircraft, Han Antniiia 
Ail- Material Area, (AFLU), Kelly AFH. 
Tux. 

AVCO Corp., Wilmington, MIIRH. $1,42^,- 
000. Work on n re-entry vchlclu iirunriin. 
Space nnd Missile Sytilcms OrKiiniKnllun^ 
(AFSC), Norton AFH, Calif. 

an Lockheed Missiles & Space Co,, Sunny- 
vale, Calif. 1,2011,328. Agena launch HErv-. 
ices at Vandenboi-K AFH, Onlif. for period 
Oct. 1, 11)07 through Sept. SO, 1B6H. Simcc 
and Missile Systoma Oi'Knniziition, (AKSO). 
Norton AFH, Calif. 

Lear Siegler, Inc., Oklahoma Cily, Olila. 
$1,200,000. Time compliance technical <ir<Icr 
iipdatinK on C-l-11 nlrci-nft. Fair field. 
Calif. Oklahoma City Air Materiel Aren, 
(AFLC), Tinker AFB, Okln. ^ 

20 Falrchlld IIHlor Corp., Fiirmlnsilale, N.Y. 
$1.320,600, Manufacture of mollification 
kits for F-106 aircraft. Sncramcnto Air 
Materiel Area, (AFLC), McClellaii AFH, 
Citlir. ' 

Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Snnnyvale, 
Cnlif. $1,230,301. Agenn launch aervieoB ni 



November 1967 



the Eastern Test Range, Fla. Space & 
Missile Systems Organization, (AFSC), 
a Norton AFB, Calif. 

27 Cessna Aircraft Co., Wichita, Kan. 6.- 
320,000. Production of additional A-37B 
aircraft, spare parts and aerospace ground 
eriiiipmcnt. Aeronautical Systems Div., 
(APSC), Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 
Lockheed Aircraft, Jamaica, N.Y. $7,904,- 
G2D. Inspection, reimir and maintenance of 
C-121 aircraft. Sacramento Air Materiel 
Area, (AFLC), McClellim AFB, Cnlif. 
Chromalloy Corp., San Antonio, Tex. $1,- 
258,854. Repair of J-G7 and J-7B engine 
compressor blades. San Antonio Air Mate- 
riel Area, (AFLC), Kelly AFB, Tex. 
28 Motorola, Scottsdale, Ariz. SE.BBG.OOO. 
Fuzes and related equipment for aircraft 
ordnance. Aeronautical Systems Dlv,, 
(AFSC), WrlEht-Pattevaan AFB, Ohio. 
Hamilton Standard, Windsor Locks, Conn. 
$3,E2E,000. Development, procurement and 
support of astronaut pressure suit systems 
for the Manned Orliitintr Laboratory Sys- 
tems Program. Manned Orbiting Labora- 
tory Systems Program Office, Loa Angeles, 
Cnlif. 

Lockheed Aircraft, Sunnyvale, Calif. $3,' 
[185,000. Engineering services in support 
of the Agena apace vehicle program. Space 
& Missile Systems Organization, {AFSC), 
Norton AFB, Calif. 

Sylvania Electric Products, Necdham 
Heights, Mass. $1,000,260. Preparation of 
technical publications for the Minuteman 
Ground Electronic System. Space & Missile 
Systems Organization, (AFSC), Norton 
AFB, Calif. 

Full-child Hlller, Farmingdale, N.Y. $1,- 
801,492. Manufacture of fuel system modi- 
fication kits for F-106 aircraft. Sacramento 
Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), Kelly AFB, 
Tex. 

Acme Industries, Jackaon, Mich. $1,010,000. 
Manufacture of MA-3 air conditioners. 
Greenville, Ala. San Antonio Air Materiel 
Area, (AFLC), Kelly AFB, Tex. 
2fl Lockheed Aircraft, Sunnyvale, Cftlif. $1,- 
500,000. Work on a satellite control facility. 
Air Force Satellite Control Facility, Loa 
Angeles, Calif. 

General Electric, Cincinnati, Ohio. $0,000,- 
000. Work on propulsion systems for high 
performance strategic aircraft. Even dale, 
Ohio. Aeronautical Systems Div., (AFSC), 
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 
Hoeing Co., Seattle, Wash. $2,000,000. As- 
sembly, installation and checkout of 
Minuteman missiles. Grand Forks AFIt, 
N.D. Space & Missile Systems Organiza- 
tion, (AFSC), Norton AFB, Calif. 



OFF-SHORE PROCUREMENT 

J2 Cnnndinn Commercial Corp., Ottawa, On- 
tario, Canada. $8,211,960. Metal parts for 
4.2-inch high explosive projectiles. Toronto, 
Cnnada. Army Ammunition Procurement 
& Supply Agency, Juliet, 111. 
United Kingdom Ministry of Defense, 
Somerset, England. $10,788,070. Construc- 
tion of two salvage tuga, Lowestaft, 
England. Naval Ship Systems Command. 



Transit Satellite Information 
To Bo Made Available by NSIA 



DISCO Gets 
New Mailing Address 

The Defense Industrial Security 
Moarance Office (DISCO) is now re- 
eiving mail directly from the U.S. 
*osb Office instead of through the 
)efense Construction Supply Center 
nail facilities. 

Effective immediately, all mail for- 
r arded to DISCO should be addressed: 

Defense Industrial Security 
Clearance Office 

P.O. Box 2499 

Columbus, Ohio 43216 



In accordance with the recently 
announced Presidential approval to 
release the Navy Navigation Satellite 
System (Transit) for commercial use, 
the National Security Industrial Asso- 
ciation (NSIA) has been provided the 
necessary technical information and 
documentation on the system's ship- 
board user equipment. (See item, 
"Navy Releases Navigation Satellite 
for Commercial Use," page 8, Defetise 
Industry Bulletin, October 1967.) 

The documents will be reproduced 
by NSIA and made available, on an 
equal basis, to any U.S. company that 
has an interest beginning on Nov. 30, 
1967. There will be a. charge to cover 
the cost of reproduction and mailing. 
The technical information and docu- 
mentation consists of the following: 

Status of the Navy Navigation 
Satellite System. 

Present State of Navigation Dop- 
pler Measurement from Near Earth 
Satellites. 

Operation and Maintenance of 
Radio Navigation Set SRN-9. 



Program Requirements for Two- 
Minute Integrated Dopplcr Satellite 
Navigation Solution. 

Near Earth Satellite Handbook 
Data. 

Requests for the material should be 
addressed to: National Security In- 
dustrial Association, Department T. 
1030 Fifteenth St. NW, Washington, 
D.C. 20006. 

A symposium, to present pertinent 
data on the respective roles of the 
satellite system, will be held on Nov. 
30 in the Departmental Auditorium, 
Constitution Ave. between 12th and 
14th Sts. NW, Washington, D.C. Rep- 
resentatives of the Office of the Chief 
of Naval Material, the Applied 
Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins 
University (developer of the satellite 
system), and companies presently pro- 
ducing Transit receivers will brief at- 
tendees. 

Registration for the symposium is 
being handled by: John H. Jorgcnson, 
National Security Industrial Associa- 
tion, 1030 15th St. NW, Washington, 
D.C. 20005, Phone: (202) 296-2266. 



Ad Hoc Group on Concept Formulation 
Established 



The Director of Defense Research 
and Engineering has established an 
Ad Hoc Working Group on Concept 
Formulation. Its purpose is to accu- 
mulate facts on specific concept for- 
mulation efforts and to recommend 
guidance for future concept formu- 
lations. There are tentative plans for 
early issuance of interim permissive 
type guidance, based upon the efforts 
of the working group. 

The group will be in the informa- 
tion gathering- and evaluation phase 
until November J.O. Information or 
suggestions from individuals in the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, 
the Military Departments, or indus- 
try regarding specific concept for- 
mulations, problems, or recommended 
guidance will be welcomed. These may 
be provided to any of the members of 
the working- group, who are listed be- 
low: 



James W. Grodsky, Chairman 
Office of Director of Defense 

Research and Engineering 
Room 3D 1028, The Pentagon 
Phone: (202) OXford 5-007G 
Washington, D.C. 20301 
Major George Kourakos 
Office of Chief of Research 

and Development 
Department of the Army 
Room 3C 368, The Pentagon 
Phone: (202) OXford 5-4115 
Washington, D.C. 20310 
Commander E, D. Sullivan 
Naval Material Command 
Room 1*207, Main Navy Building 
Phone: (202) OXford 6-1541 
Washington, D.C. 20360 
Colonel Kenneth It, Chapman 
Headquarters, U.S. Air Force 
Room 5C 1080, The Pentagon 
Phone: (202) OXford B-265G 
Washington, D.C. 20380 



OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 2O3O1 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 



United Kingdom Joins United States, 
Canada, Australia in Project Mallard 

The United Kingdom has joined with the United States, Australia 
and Canada in a project to develop and produce a tactical communi- 
cations system for the field armies of the respective nations and 
their associated navies and air forces. 

The project, known as Mallard, will cost approximately $126 
million for research and development and will require about eight 
years to complete. 

Objective of Project Mallard is to provide secure, fully automatic, 
switched communications in the battlefield area from Army head- 
quarters down to battalion level. The system will provide facilities 
for the transmission and reception of voice, telegraph data and 
facsimile. 

In the initial development phase of Project Mallard, competi- 
tive system design studies will be carried out by the U.S. and 
U.K. electronics industries. Supporting efforts are being conducted 
by U.S., Australian and Canadian industrial concerns. U.K. indus- 
try will undertake a share of this work, phasing out their work in 
with the work being carried out in the other participating 
countries. 

Brigadier General Paul A. Feyereisen, USA, is the U.S. program/ 
project manager for the Mallard Project. Colonel Arthur V, 
Brandle, MBE, of the British Army Staff, Washington, B.C., is 
Project Manager for the United Kingdom. Lieutenant Colonel L, G. 
Moore, QBE, and Lieutenant Colonel D. C. Doughtry, CD, are the 
prograni managers for Australia and Canada, respectively. 

The Mallard system will use the building-block or modular princi- 
ple of equipment construction to ensure flexible inter-operation 
between the field armies of the four countries. 

In April, 1967, the United States, Australia and Canada ratified 
an agreement to proceed with Project Mallard. The United 
Kingdom deferred participation pending decision on the sharing of 
costs and work. Agreement having been reached on these matters, 
the United Kingdom now has become a partner in the project. 



AFLC To Test New 
Contract Logistics 
Support Concept 

The Air Force Logistics Con 
mand (AFLC) will begin 
unique experiment in logistii 
support with the introduction < 
the C-9A aircraft into the A 
Force inventory. 

For the first time, AFLC w: 
apply the concept of "contra' 
support" with McDonnell Dou 
las Corp. providing the logisti< 
normally supplied by AFL 
when an aircraft becomes oper, 
tional. Under this concept, actu 
cost .data will be obtained ft 
contractor-furnished logistics. 

The eight new planes bougl 
"off the shelf" and outfitted esp 
daily for aeromedical evacuatk 
will be operated by the Mil 
tary Airlift Command (MAC) i 
the continental United States, 

All eight aircraft will "be bast 
at Scott AFB, III, where a logi 
tics support center will be estal 
lished by McDonnell Douglas. 1 
this center, spare parts normal 
furnished by AFLC will be pi 1 ' 
vided by the contractor, Dep< 
maintenance will be carried 01 
by the contractor, MAC will pe 
form only routine organization 
servicing and certain "remoi 
and replace" operations. 



rt U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1B61 3QO-9T 




Vol. 3 No. 11 



December 1967 





The Selection of Information Processing Systems . .. , , . 

re L A- c Published by fhe 

To Support Air Force Management 

Major James D. Pewitt, USAF Department of 

Major Richard G. Abbott, USAF Defense 

Captain Alan G. Merten, USAF 1 

, , , _. , , , _ . , Hon. Robert S. McNamnra 

Index of Defense Industry Bulletin, January-December 

__,_ Secretary of Defense 

1967 13 

Navy Makes Combat Art Available to Industry 20 Hon - Paul H - Nitze 

Deputy Secretary of Defense 

Selected Defense Department Economic Indicators 21 

Hon. Phil G. Colliding 

Status of Funds Report, Fourth Quarter FY 1967 24 A Qoi * * a . fnr 

r ^* Assistant Secretary of Defence 

(Public Affairs) 

DEPARTMENTS 

Col. Joel B. Stephens, USA 
From the Speakers Rostrum 8 Dircctor for Community *** 

About People 17 Capt. John A. Davenport, USN 

_ . Chief, Business & habor Division 

Defense Procurement 34 



LCdr. E. W. Bradford, USN 
Editor 

Mrs. Cecilia Polio It McCormick 
Associate Editor 

Mr. Kick La Fnlce 
Associate Editor 

Mr. John E. Fagan 
Art Director 

Norman E. Worra, JO1, USN 
Editorial Assistant 



Major James D. Pewitt, USAF 

Major Richard G. Abbott, USAF 

Captain Alan G. Merten, USAF 



JH continuing problem facing the 
Air Force is the allocution of re- 
sources in the acquisition of support 
systems. The purpose of this article 
is to present the methodology and 
thinking that goes into the selection 
of a typical Air Force resource man- 
agement data processing- system. 

Before addressing the specifics of 
the computer selection process, the 
overall framework within which such 
decisions are made must be consid- 
ered. 

In DOD, each of the Military Serv- 
ices plans its requirements in order 
to meet an objective force for a spec- 
ified future time period. Under the 
direction of the Secretary of Defense, 
these plane for all the Services are 
grouped into major program pack- 
ages, such as Strategic Forces, Gen- 
eral Purpose Forces, or Research and 
Development Program. There arc nine 
such program packages which inte- 
grate requirements for men, equip- 
ment and installations, in order to 
achieve the greatest effectiveness 
consistent with the least utilization of 
resources in accomplishing specified 
national defense objectives. These are 
the basic building; blocks of the plan- 
ning process which we call program- 
ming budgeting. It has been employed 
in the Defense Department since 1961. 
When Robert S. McNamara became 
Secretary of Defense, he asked Dr. 
Charles J. Hitch, then of RAND 
Corp., to assume the position of As- 
sistant Secretary of Defense (Comp- 
troller), in order to implement the 
economics of defense concepts about 
which Dr. Hitch had written exten- 



sively. The principal Hitch contribu- 
tions to DOD were the division of 
planning into reasonably discrete 
program packages, aligned to the 
principal missions or responsibilities 
of the total Defense Department; a 
five-year planning period; and the 
recognition of Intel-changeability of 
forces and, hence, of the alternatives 
or options available to military com- 
manders and resource managers in 
the accomplishment of particular mis- 
sions. Dr, Hitch emphasized analytical 
techniques and the use of coat-benefit 
or coat-effectiveness criteria in com- 
parisons of forces, individual weapon 
systems, or support systems. Thus 
major decisions on the acquisition of 
these systems and forces, as well as 
their deployment, are now based on 
studies designed to optimize mission 
performance and resource consump- 
tion. 

It should be emphasized that when- 
ever possible, program elements are 
measured in physical and financial 
terms. Each element must fit into the 
long-range objective force with re- 
gard to its input and output. This 
procedure forces the evaluation of a 
system based on a cost versus benefit 
analysis, and the selection of the form 
of implementation that is most re- 
sponsive to a cost versus effectiveness 
analysis. Moreover, the concern is 
with the full cost to the Air Force of 
a program's investment and operation 
over the anticipated life of the par- 
ticular system. 

The critical financial decisions of 
each program element are based upon 
the normal costs of development, pro- 



curement and operations. Since there 
are no fixed relationships between 
these cost categories, investment costs 
and the cost of operating the pro- 
posed force or system each year, as 
well as the total life cost, must be 
known before proceeding with pro- 
duction and deployment. Plans are 
projected eight to 17 years, depending 
upon the lead times required for re- 
search, development and procurement. 
However, all other program data, 
physical and financial, are projected 
five years. This is called the Five 
Year Defense Program. 

Requirements of ADP 

This briefly defines the environ- 
ment in which the cost benefit of a 
support system, such as improved 
information processing technology, 
must be evaluated. With an informa- 
tion processing technology that is 
rapidly advancing and continually 
changing, the automatic data proc- 
essing (ADP) structure has been re- 
vised and modified to keep pace. The 
Air Force's original data automation 
energies were fragmented and decen- 
tralized. Major commands and func- 
tional managers developed systems, 
wrote machine programs, and even 
selected computers which were dedi- 
cated to their exclusive use. As the 
complexity of Air Force information 
systems grew, it waa evident that a 
standard approach to the selection 
process was needed. The many differ- 
ent data systems, then in being, were 
developing at different rates; more- 
over, with the advent of the inte- 
grated program -budget approach to 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



U. S. BUll*'! 1 . Of 7 J>OCH. 



planning in DOD, the need for com- 
patible data banks and an integrated 
family of data systems to support 
general management ami top-level 
command decision making became 
paramount. So, paradoxically, the Air 
Force hail to introduce standardiza- 
tion, while experiencing rapidly 
changing data automation technology. 
Without standardization all or most 
of the potential that data systems 
offer would lie lost. 

The Air Force has adopted the con- 
cept of standardization winch im- 
proves the interface or "cross-talks" 
between the different data systems, 
as well as between and within eche- 
lons of command. Data elements and 
data codes, which are basic to every 
data system, are also being standard- 
ised. 

The scope of Air Force data auto- 
mation is as broad as its nature is 
complex. Almost all functional infor- 
mation systems are, or will be, auto- 
mated in the near future. Trying to 
describe the magnitude of the pro- 
gram in simple terms is exceedingly 
difficult. For example, the Air Force 
now has in use approximately 1,000 
computers to serve various manage- 
ment applications. Either this number 
will grow as the management infor- 
mation systems are further denned to 
meet the needs, or a new, more power- 
ful system to satisfy the forecast 
demand must be provided, 

The benefits to la gained from a 
new, more powerful system will be 
realized in the increased efficiency of 
data processing capabilities, and in 
increased responsiveness to the var- 
ious levels of management require- 
ments. The standardization of data 
processing capability will lead to 
savings, not only through the in- 
creased efficiency in providing infor- 
mation, but also in the areas of 
training and personnel assignments 
as well. The concept of modularity 
provides the ability to handle signifi- 
cant expansion of infornintinn proc- 

u iving 

""S- 



soitware specifications determined, 
the most cost-effective vendor pro- 
posal selected, and the optimal utili- 



zation scheme implemented. In effect, 
this is determined in order to make 
the computer more responsive to man- 
agement requirements, rather than 
management responding to computer 
requirements. Concentration in the 
past has been on maximum utilisa- 
tion at the expense of providing 
timely management information; now 
the emphasis must be shifted to the 
needs of the manager. For this rea- 
son, the Air Force has made the gen- 
eral decision to move into such areas 
as real-time management information 
processing, 

There has been little actual Air 
Force experience with many of these 
new computer applications. There- 
fore, an analysis of user requirements 
poses a formidable problem to deter- 
mine, on a cost-effective basis, the use 
of real-time processing, the size of 
the data base, the type of storage, 
and the number of remotes to be pro- 
vided, A cost-effectiveness analysis 
must be applied to each specific ap- 
plication in order to determine the 
actual requirements for this new 
technology in each command manage- 
ment area, and its interrelationship 
with the other command management 
areas. 



This is an overview of the ralior.i: 
employed in the selection of Ai 
Force information processing ^ 
terns. The specific procedures novr i:'. 
lowed have been developed after <!"; 
appointing experiences in procurer 
data processing equipment by &1; 
ing on technical data brochures t' 
contractor promises of ]iorfoiTiJf.:.;i 
To avoid such experience!!, Lho A: 
Force now employes a method of K 
lection which in general; 

Defines for the potential \*r,l'.: 
the Air Force requirements, 

Allows for a period of daiita 
tion of the requirements, 

Demands that the vendors cicrr:-: 
strate, at a pre-dctermincil iljil?, |K=- 
capability to meet Air Force iTquif 
ments. 

Evaluates the per formal iff of I 1 
various responsive 1 , vendom. 

To be able to u<ldr<!HH thn t^jr 
selection process In greater detail, i 
process will bo considered JVum I 1 , 
points of view: the mechanic at 1 
evaluation, and the iiRcoHKiiry mt--r 
to bo used in the evaluation. 

ADP Selection Process 

While operating within the- on^ 

tual framework previously foi^sit.-ri 



I. DERIVE OPERATIONAL USE HOURS CORRESPONDING TO 
24 HR/DAY MANNING. 

<OP. USE HRS/MONTH) = (MANNING HRS/DAY) (DAYS IN 
WORK MONTH) (MANNING FACTOR) 



= (24) (22) 



II. GROWTH EQUATION 



lo 



x = 



X = Number of op line hr/.mon1l 
i Growth ratc/yenr 
N = Number of ycara in propo&d 

system life 
a = Initial op use limit 



Solve for initial op use limit 



a = 



X 



400 



(1 + i) N ~ (1 + .10)" 



250 



the formal procedure for the Air 
Force is defined by regulation. The 
major objectives of the Air Force's 
data processing program are : 

e To increase the effectiveness of 
data processing capabilities and re- 
sponsiveness to management require- 
ments. 

To provide additional standard- 
ization and an integrated data proc- 
essing capability to meet functional 
requirements, and cross-functional, 
general management, or command 
needs. 

To provide for evolutionary ex- 
pansion of data systems and accept- 
ance of new system requirements 
without the necessity of conversion to 
new electronic data processing 
equipment (EDPE) . It should be 
noted that modularity does not pre- 
clude the acquisition of new EDPE 
when a new equipment-software sys- 
tem is more cost effective. 

To provide for the most economi- 
cal and efficient method of satisfying 1 
approved functional management 
data systems requirements. 

This one-step process assists the Air 
Force in selecting the best computer 
equipment in the period of time 
necessary to satisfy the requirements 



placed on the computer system. By 
precisely denning the user require- 
ments and thoroughly evaluating and 
testing the vendor's proposals, the 
Air Force is able to make a selection 
without entering into a time-consum- 
ing, multiple-step selection process. 

In order to implement these con- 
cepts, selection standards must be 
developed for inclusion in a Request 
for Proposal (RFP) . These manda- 
tory program requirements are meas- 
ures which evaluate the performance 
of equipment submitted by vendors 
to accommodate requirements deter- 
mined prior to the cost-benefit study. 

Evaluation of Proposals 

A selection plan, which incorporates 
the necessary evaluation criteria de- 
termined from the requirements study, 
is prepared and approved. Working 
groups, operating independently of 
each other, are established to eval- 
uate each of the major criteria in 
accordance with the selection plan. 
Although the groups function inde- 
pendently, there is a necessary inter- 
locking- of the effects of the criteria, 
For example, what may appear to be 
a systems performance criterion is, 
in fact, also a cost criterion. Tho 



SYSTEMS LIFE - YEARS 



o I 

OPERATIONAL USE HOURS 
500- 

400- 




100- 



Figure 2. 



evaluation focuses on four basic 
criteria ; 

Systems performance, including; a 
live test (benchmark) j to demon- 
strate the capability of the equipment 
and associated software to perform 
representative problems of tho sys- 
tems to be implemented. 

Technical characteristics, e.g., re- 
liability, interchmigeability and ex- 
pansibility. 

Vendor support, such as free tost 
time, quality of documentation, and 

training:. 

Estimated coat to the Ah- Force, 
including maintenance, one-time costs 
to become operational, and direct 
operating costs extended through the 
anticipated life cycle of the syHtern. 

To Insure objectivity, teams of the 
Air Force's moat qualified technical 
experts constitute tho vnrinuH work- 
ing groups which evaluate vcmclom' 
perfornmrii'fiH relative to thrso cri- 
teria. ICxnmploK of their evaluation 
tools lire systems simulation and 
measurement, and live benchmark 
tests, 

One team has us its task the finaty- 
HJH of systems performance. Its 
function is to review anil validate tho 
timings submitted in the vendors' pro- 
posals. In addition, the teiim jtni'f firms 
timing functions na members of the 
Live Test or Benchmark Demonsfcra- 
tion Team. During thin fowl demon- 
stration, tho vendor must run certain 
proKvams which have been provided 
by tho Air Force, and which repre- 
sent specific tafllcH to bo JKH' formed 
by the data sy.ste.tn. 

From a knowledge of the propor- 
tion of the total workload represented 
by each tnslc, tho team can extrapo- 
late to get a measure of totnl work- 
load performance. 

Another independent group is the 
Software Group. Determination is 
made of the responsiveness of vend- 
ors' proposed software to mandatory 
requirements by comparative meas- 
urement of performance through ex- 
tensive analysis and live test. Tho 
next group validates the vendors' 
compliance with mandatory require- 
ments, and evaluates the technical 
char actor iatics of the equipment pro- 
posed. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



A fourth group is the Vendor Sup- 
port Group which validates the pro- 
gram test time, the completeness of 
manuals and documentation, and nec- 
essary maintenance support. The fifth 
and last group is the Cost Group. 
This group reviews the cost proposals 
to insure completeness of the RFP, 
validates the cost compilations sub- 
mitted by the vendors, and develops 
a detailed cost analysis. 

A cost-effectiveness comparison is 
made on the systems which are pro- 
posed by the responsive vendors, Fur- 
ther refinement in the comparison of 
successful vendors can be accom- 
plished by using methods to maxi- 
mize the effectiveness of the proposed 
equipment under the constraints of 
the RFP. This is done since our man- 
agement system requirements are in- 
creasing exponentially, and it is 
imperative that the highest possible 
degree of flexibility and performance 
be maintained. Various techniques 
from the field of operations research 
are useful in determining the flexi- 
bility and capability of these systems. 
Each of these stages in the selection 
process addresses the planning or re- 
quirements part of the programming 
and budgeting cycle mentioned earlier. 

The combined technical findings' of 
the working groups are then present- 
ed to a Source Selection Advisory 
Council, consisting of general officers, 
senior colonels and civilians. The 
council, after weighing the techni- 
cal findings, arrives at a source rec- 
ommendation which must be con- 
curred in by the Chief of Staff before 
being submitted to the final source 
selection authority for approval. The 
review panels are not aware of the 
identification of the specific vendors 
while they are evaluating the bench- 
mark test data or the technical spec- 
ifications of the proposed systems. 

Mandatory Requirements 

In order that the hardware and 
software capabilities meet the major 
requirements of the management in- 
formation systems, the mandatory 
requirements are included in the RFP. 
Examples of these are: 

Necessary software requirements, 

Training of personnel, program- 



mer support and follow-on mainte- 
nance. 

* All system components proposed, 
including expansion requirements, 
must have been formally announced 
for market purposes, and the live 
test demonstration must be per- 
formed successfully, 

An hourly operational use time 
limit, where operational use time is 
defined as the number of hours per 
month that the machine must be in 
operation to accommodate the defined 
workload. This criterion puts an up- 
per bound on the time a vendor's sys- 
tem may take to process the initially 
defined workload in the RFP. 



Hypothetical RFP 

What are the implications inherent 
in imposing a mandatory requirement 
on operational use hours per month? 

Consider a hypothetical RFP. The 
operational use hours criterion would 
be derived from several factors. 
First, the workload growth rate in 
the RFP will be based on a 10 per- 
cent rate that has been derived from 
past experience with batch process- 
ing, and will be used across the board 
for both batch and real-time process- 



ing, It has been determined from 
experience that it takes two shifts- 
16 hours per day to support an op- 
erational use time of 12 hours per 
day. In addition to these two factors, 
it is required that there be no neces- 
sity for systems expansion over the 
estimated five-year life, or conversely, 
that the manning hours remain. under 
24 hours per day throughout the life 
of the system. Within these con- 
straints, it ia possible to derive a 260- 
hotir limit on the operational use timo 
initially required to support the an- 
ticipated workload. (See Figure 1.) 

To illustrate the application of the 
250-hour criterion, two vendors re- 
plied to the hypothetical RFP, Ven- 
dor I exceeded the 250-hour limit, 
while bidding a $86 million system. 
Vendor II, on the other hand, per- 
formed substantially below the 250- 
hour ceiling and bid a $45 million 
system. In order to compare tho 
two vendors cost effectively over the 
five-year system life, ono aspect that 
must be considered is the effect the 
growth rate will have on each ven- 
dor's system. 

Initially, a 10 percent growth rate 
was considered for both batch and 
real-time processing to investigate the 
effects of system's growth, Consider 



SYSTEMS LIFE - YEARS 



600 * 

OPERATIONAL USE HOURS 
500- 




Figure 3. 



December 1967 



j Vendor I (l''iuure li), who nturlsi al 
! . B> !tf)() hour.'!, u poidh'oM fill liniiru nliove 
i tht> litiO -hitu I 1 luuie line. Ity the Hind 
; year, he him limltcn IhnniKh the 'l(if) 
him i' eeiliiij.; implying tlmt (he nyn 
Irm in manned 1M hmint a ihiy mid 
any further ex-pmmion uf worliloml 
iV(|iiir<Mi new equipment, Hy the end 
I)/ Hut nyiitom'ii tiff in thr flflli year. 
it am tie iieen tlnil Vendor I reipiin-n 
IHO limiru per innntli lu pniceii.'i Ihc 
workinml, 11 nmiiniiur fuctor of ;l!l 
him TIL n itny. 

Vendor II, however, Imn hid n ntm.< 
exjiejinivo, lull iiinn> powerful nyiili'in 
which htarl.'i ul, n point, VO hiinrn lie 

) lew Ilic :!Mi hour lmi: line und never 
} dm-il lirenk through the '100 hour cell. 

! illK. In iltldillon, lie In tiblc |o pi'oiV'H, 
(he work loud In 111) penvnt nl' (In 1 
|)hH'i>.'iriiiiK Mine required hy Vendm 
I. Vendor II In -1(1 peiveiil. mm,- (' 
frcllvi- (lltui Vendor I, 

Paramnlrlc Analysis 

Miiee (her.' him Wen lilth- m-inul 

'^P"H << in (he Ail I-'MIV<- will, i ,-iil 

tlttH' nynleinit. u very rniiiii-t Viitlve 
KKiW'lll rule of 10 p.'i.itnl \\,,'i tif 

'Ulllli'il. II ilhnllld I -ulii-r,| Ihnl 

ien| liinc j;'"\vlli rut.' l'< on nirji >,( 
iMireiliifnly itn.l cmi* ern ,UH|. th.-n- 
fnri', ilt'iierveji fnitll.'i' uimlyiiJN. | ) ( e 
uldlily tf eiirh nf Ihe vendnni I,, 

iMi'i'i fuluie re<|ii|ivMienl-i ].). r,l ..u 



Hit) 

AODITIONAI tMIKAHUN ANll 

WUII'MINI AttUlMS 



''"' 'tysitein hy , 

'"I -time nynlemn muni 

piu-aiMelric IM <i,le] { , lm .,| , 

jl>" r.i-mvlh ,,f l,otl, renl-time 

i in * IN Li k i | , |{ y 

";" v I'i'H.i.' Idea ran he 
'' I lie lle\ihilit,y of ,>a<'h 
vendor'u riyjili-ni, 

I'"' 1 ''Mimple, ,,n trial the hi,<- 
Imlutl 111 penvnl K rowlh rate w a! , 
nMimrd for l.atrh jiniivnidiiK, while 
!_ '.Hi p.'ivei.i jfniwlli rate for ,-,.! 

llm " I 'en-linn wan mini (Kin, ire .'!) 

In Iliii, cm..-. Vrndm 1 1,,-eaK,'. tlmni K || 

ii'-iuiiiiii; ei|iiipinni| ari|uimliim at 
Hmt lir.i,.. ||y the >-H,| ,,f (he Hf||, 
y.-iu, iii:i, ojHTutJomil .,. i,,,,,,,,, |() . t , 
iM.Mitli. nilh i,,, rim .|,,i,.,i ;ii,.| limr 
NifmiHiiH huh. j', !,(-,, ivqiiii',.,1 to pnif. 

\ i-tnltu II, linvvi-vt-r. l>i never iii 
lli.iilil,. t:\i-n n\ On- irinriuieil rale of 
Kiwlh r-'i n-jil linn, nvnti-inn, rei|uir- 
Jut; ul Hi- i-n.l ,,f it,., fifth you,- ; f ;i;i 

i-|P."l.>lir.|.lll IK,. I,,,,,,,, ,,,. |1|1)|1 ,| | 

I'"' i! "V V h'l II <<mi n, tw arc, ,ni. 

1(1, li- l.'.jllil.'ii |,y Veu.lor 1, 

'I'" I.-HMII I.. Hi,. ID p-iv-nl Ki'uwlli 
ud-' uj'-i) tu .lf\r]uj,||iK the hypii- 

|i|(.'it in Hi.- |..| :t | ;,y, ; | t . m 'M life IHll',1 



,!L.L Jit^'lilL 1 

4't 



tOTAl SYSlfMS CHS! 



4). The 

'' Ol ' the two systoms, 
which include maintenance up to the 
<iM> operational use hours, wen- $35 
'! ?4li million for Vendor I and II, 
''^IXH'tiwly, Additional costs duo to 
opnratioiis and maintenance above 
(he Ulil) houi-H amount to ${ million 
for Vendor 1, mill $.1 million for Von- 
tl'T^l. Thc-HH coBts for the hypo- 
thetical HywUtm were himed on an 
fiHBiimwl factor of $.1 million per 
mldillonal 100 hours of manninR. Ac- 
<iuimtion of e.iuipment to handle a 
workload over 400 operational urn: 
limmi would require an enUimited 
additional _ $H.fi million. There would 
'' an I'HtimaUid $.B million cont for 
iUHlalhitlon. Therefore, at Urn end of 
the five-year nyntem'n life, we huve 
V'-ndor I with a total nynto,m'n cot 
"f ?-tr.l million, and Vendor II with 
Hlolalrmitof $4li.l million, 

At the end of nynLem'H life the total 
''""I" are ut ei|iial IOV!M under the 
10 percent growth rate, Pre- 
analyniH Hlmwed that Vendor 
M in at leant, 40 percent more offl. 
rient. 

The ;!fil)-|iour limit criterion then 
i" one iiii|inrtaiit meamire whidh n- 
uhli'N the Air Fon'e to ac<|uire cuat- 
ell'eriive iiyiiteniH. However, it ID not 
utdy a meamire of overall fiydtem 
efleclivi'iicsiji, it can alno he used mi 
n input to further analynin. 

Cost Benefit of Satelliting 

(>nn ])oii!<ih|e approach in thin type 
of analyiiiii | to connidor oxtendiiiff 
(he remote ninahility of our oqulp- 
i'i"iit to permit natellitiiiK. Hatellit- 
iiiK rotiKlfilH of placinff a larRn cnn- 
tral ]iniflt!HHliiK unit at a centrally 
I'M'nled Air Force imilntlation, and 
jirocejiniiiK tint workload of varloun 
.'iinaller tii!itllntioun on the, centvnlly 
liH'ated proi'eHHiniv unit through tlin 
HMO of U'lcphone linen and remote 
pi-ripheral equipment. 

tf one haw In naUilllteil on nn- 
iithi-r, the cimt of tlio central pi-oci-B- 
tiliiK unit on Urn nalollited hao IH 
nvofded, hut tliens aro incurred costs 
(if communication linoH hntwoen tlin 
hosL anil wilplllto, and of twoclal 
peripheral equipment required at the 
MiitHUtcd tiiHlallatlon, A cant varan H 
e(fi'cHveiion analyalH (IntfU'inliins tlin 
fetiKiliilily nf niitolHUiifT and nidtt in 
Ihft Belection of the optimal alloca- 
tion of lioHtn anil natollitoH. 



Dfnw Indutlry flulleiln 



In impli'menting the satelliting 
concept, it IN necessary to designate 
thti large centrally located installa- 
tions as hosts, then propose configura- 
tions to place on these hosts, and fin- 
ally .select the satellite banes to be 
supported by each host installation. 
The objective is to satisfy the process- 
ing requirements of each installa- 
tion and to do it at minimum total 
cost. 

The processing requirements of 
each installation can be determined 
from an analysis of the anticipated 
workload data. From the operational 
use hour limit derived in the pre- 
vious analysis, it is possible to de- 
termine the number of day and eve- 
ning hours available per day. The 
workload data provide the number 
of real-time transactions to he proc- 
essed on each installation per day. 
From this, the number of hours of 
real-time processing can be com- 
puted. The workload data also supply 
the necessary information on the re- 
quirements for batch processing, 
both concurrent and nonconcurrent. 
Nonconcurrent processing is that 
which has to be accomplished after 
the real-time period, since the reports 
generated might query the status of 
the data banks used in the real-time 
process. The total processing require- 
ments are then determined from the 
sum of the batch concurrent, batch 



nonconcurrent, and real-time require- 
ments. The number of remotes re- 
quired at each installation can be de- 
termined from the location of 
organizations requiring immediate 
access to the computer, the number of 
real-time transactions, and the re- 
sponse time required on each trans- 
action. 

The evaluation of each of the pos- 
sible alternatives is infeasible in 
large problems because of the num- 
erous combinations of hosts, satel- 
lites and configurations. The deriva- 
tion of an analytic technique to find 
the optimal allocation procedure 
proves to be not only impractical 
but unnecessary. Policy requirements 
designate certain installations as 
hosts and influence the size and capa- 
bility of the configuration for these 
installations. The capability and reli- 
ability of communications equipment 
limit the number of host possibilities 
for each satellite. Nevertheless, it is 
still necessary to select the optimal 
allocation of satellites, constrained by 
the amount of excess computer time 
available at the hosts. Within these 
constraints, the satelliting scheme, 
which corresponds to minimum total 
systems cost, will be selected. Systems 
cost is here denned as the sum of the 
configuration costs plus the total cost 
of satelliting. 




Selecting the Optimal 
Satelliting Scheme 

In order to determines llm cusL cf 
implementing" the concept of wi 
ing, the aiuilyst begins liy 
the set of installations into 
subsets. This division may be 
by policy requirements or by imUir,i! 
constraints, such as tlu- roHnliilily 
of communications equipnmnl. Kach 
subset can then be conmdoivd os a 
separate problem to be Hiihopliintiy!. 

For each subset of nwtallallmi*, 
the analyst will designate (wrLuln in- 
stallations as hosts nntl dfitcnnicif- 
the confif.-urat.ion to be pluml on thf 
hosts. At this point, an analytic ii*ch- 
nique must bo derived whfoli will 
determine th optimum utlnciilfmi i>f 
satellites to hosts for ouch Mihxvl irf 
installations. Any model lrvi'l,pnl 
must provide for coiiati-nints un n-al- 
time, batch nonconcurrcnt, totnE 
processing-, and remotes for ruch 
host. The system ia also nnnlrjiini-il 
hy the fact that each satellite mu*t 
select one and only one lio.nl. Wflliin 
these constraints, the object fa In 
minimize the total cost of HtilHIilhijr. 
The allocation of satellited to Imuis 
that corresponds to minimum eojil limy 
be determined through tlie \itw of l!i.- 
mathematical analytic techn ttnien. l-'nr 



Major James D. Pewitt, USAF, is Spe- 
cm Assent for Economic Analysis 
to the Assistant Secretary of the Air 
force (financial Management). He 

^masters degrees in business ad - 
liihtr.tion and in operations re- 
*rch, and a doctorate in business 
; dm.m.tr.Uo from the Univor s H 
ioufhern California. 




Major Richard G. Abbott, USAF is 
a mathematician assigned to the Air 
Force Data Services Center. He re- 
ceived a bachelors degree in m athe- 
m.ti .from Trinity College in Hart- 

; T" in 1956 ' He also holds a 
Asters degree in mathematics (com 
*r science) from Stanford 




Captain Alan G. Morten, USAF. in i 
mathematician assigned to tlio Ah 
Force Data Services Center. He rt-. 
ceived a bachelors degree In niiilJu!. 
matics from the University nl 
Wisconsin in 1903. He also holdti n 
masters degree in mathematics (com- 
puter science) from Stanford 
versity. 



December 1967 



each subset of installations, the total 
cost of the program is the cost of the 
configurations at the hosts, plus the 
satelliting cost incurred for each 
satellited installation. 

It is obvious that through this 
analysis, the effect of assigning dif- 
ferent configurations to the host 
bases can be determined, in addition 
to evaluating the effect of changing 
the division of satellites and hosts. 
Finally, the initial scheme used to 
subdivide the installations may be 
changed and all of the aforemen- 
tioned parametric tests performed 
again. This type of model may be 
used to test the relative cost effec- 
tiveness of two configurations of the 
same vendor or similar configu- 
rations of different vendors. Para- 
metric studies, which vary the con- 
straints on the processing- equipment 
variables, will determine the effect of 
changes in workload on the total 
system's cost. 

From this type of analysis, the most 
cost-effective satelliting scheme can be 
determined. Since these are utiliza- 
tion costs that must be considered 
in the total analysis, they will be 
used in estimating the total cost of 
the computer equipment to the Air 
Force. 

Cost-Effectiveness Techniques 

The consideration of this type of 
analysis shows a different facet of 
the 250-hour criterion. A firm mea- 
sure of operational use hours is a 
valid criterion, and is extremely use- 
ful as an overall measure of per- 
formance in cost-effectiveness stud- 
ies. As a mandatory requirement, 
this criterion has major analytical 
implications and is critical to the 
one-step selection process. If it were 
ignored, then the relative merits of 
life-cycle costing would be difficult 
to achieve. This is true because of the 
nature of cost-effectiveness analysis. 
These mandatory requirements are 
measures of effectiveness by which 
comparisons may be made, and the 
criteria are then measures of merit 
or benefit. 

In this review of the source selec- 
tion process, consideration has been 
given to just one part of the analyti- 
cal process which is necessary to pro- 
vide useful information to the de- 
cision makers. Another complication, 
which might have been introduced to 



the preceding analysis, would have 
been the consideration of a discount 
rate on a lease versus buy analysis 
as a function of the rate of growth 
of the management system's require- 
ments. The one-step selection process 
makes careful analysis imperative, 
and demands that mandatory re- 
quirements be met in full by the 
vendors. 

This article has centered on the 
cost- effectiveness evaluation per- 
formed in the source selection proc- 
ess. It has also considered satelliting 
as an example of a sub optimization 
technique. When complete, the total 
process, including the results of the 
live test demonstration and the vari- 
ous analyses, is then evaluated and 
submitted to the Source Selection Ad- 
visory Council for recommendation on 
the selection. The council must deter- 
mine if the vendors 1 proposals were 
evaluated in a consistent manner, and 
advise the source selection authority 
as to which proposals are within the 
competitive range. Its recommenda- 
tions are presented, through the re- 
view process, to the source selection 
authority to assist in his decision. 

Reasons for One-Step Selection 

Many questions are raised as a 
result of the rigorous analysis per- 
formed during the one-step evalua- 
tion process. The Air Force estab- 
lished these procedures antl laid down 
those rules because of unfortunate 
experiences, in the past wit' 1 """ 
deemed promises of tech'-' 
formance. The curre- 
curement procedure 
as a result of these t. 
participant is Judged objectively and 
fairly in line with the rules set forth 
well in advance of the deadline for 
submission of proposals. Judging 
from previous electronic data 
processing equipment selection experi- 
ence, a multiple step technical eval- 
uation allowing for extended nego- 
tiation and correction, followed by 
price competition and selection, has 
the character of a paper competition. 
It provides promises of technical ac- 
complishment and performance, 
rather than demonstrable evidence 
that contractual definition of require- 
ments is fully understood and can 
be met. Air Force experience in this 



type of competition has been disap- 
pointing, both in product and serv- 
ice provided, and in ultimate price 
paid. Since the desired implementa- 
tion dates have been determined by 
our commanders' antl managers' 
needs and are part of the overall 
Air Force planning process, any sig- 
nificant delay may degrade the Air 
Force's capability to perform its mis- 
sion. 

For these reasons, the Air Force 
has selected the benchmark approach, 
with the RFP stipulating both manda- 
tory requirements and a definitive 
time limit for meeting these require- 
ments. Under this one-step selection 
process, all vendors have an equal 
chance, as required under the com- 
petitive procurement law. 

Summary 

Certainly, there are lessons which 
could be gleaned from the discussion 
in this article. First, the lowest bid- 
der, in terms of initial procurement 
costs, may not necessarily be the 
winner. However, a competition run 
on the basis of life-cycle costs does 
not depart from the rule that con- 
tracts must be awarded to the low- 
bidder. The initial low price bidder 
is not necessarily the low system 
bidder when costs, other than initial 
acquisition price, are taken into 
account. 

There is obviously a major impact 
on both the engineering- and sales 
practices of the suppliers. Also, 
these coating techniques require data 



most advantageous to the U, S. Gov- 
ernment, price and other factors con- 
sidered. 

One of the many methods of deal- 
ing with this selection process is to 
submit more than one system in re- 
sponse to a given RFP, In fact, a 
vendor could submit a series of hard- 
ware/software combinations, each n 
bit more powerful and expensive than 
the previous to a point where the 
performance is well above require- 
ments. Thus the vendor would have 
so bracketed the combiiiation of tech- 
nical performance and cost as to be 

(Continued on Page 23) 



Defense Industry Bulletin 




FROM THE SPEAKERS ROSTRUM 



Address by Hon. Robert A. Frosch, 
Aast. Secretary of the Navy (Re- 
search & Development) , to the 1S67 
Electronics and Aerospace Systems 
Technical Convention, Washington, 
D.C., Oct. 17,1967. 

F-111B 
Development 

Today I will discuss the technical 
status of the F-111B and in particu- 
lar some aspects of its development 
during the past few years. In order 
to clarify its current status, I will 
begin with an account of Navy air- 
craft test procedures as they relate 
to development philosophy. 

In order to be certain that diffi- 
culties in the development of an air- 
craft are identified for correction as 
soon as is possible in the develop- 
ment cycle and to assess the basic 
aeronautical qualities of the airplane, 
the Navy has its own test pilots fly 
a sequence of tests called Navy Ppe- 
liminary Evaluations (NPE). Five 
such flight series are normally flown. 
These are not, in any sense, accept- 
ance tests, but rather are intended to 
identify problems and potential prob- 
lems very early in development so 
that they may be corrected. The test 
pilots try to find all the problems 
they can, regardless of how minor 
they might be. They comment only 
on the plane actually flown; it is not 
their responsibility to, and they do 
not try to, identify ways of correct- 
ing the problems they find, nor do 
they usually speculate on the pros- 
pects for doing so. 

The test articles, used for accept- 
ance of the aircraft at the end 
of development, are flown in a se- 
quence of trials run by the Navy 
Board of Inspection and Survey 
(BIS). It is only these BIS trials 
that can be described as acceptance 
tests. 

The Navy test pilots, who fly pre- 
liminary evaluations, are an ex- 
tremely competent, professional and 
dedicated group of men. We are 
proud of them and delighted with 
their hard-nosed attitude which, by 
early identification of problems, has 

8 



saved the Navy a tremendous amount 
of trouble. 

The NPE report is intended for 
the test agency, procuring agency, 
and contractor. The professional air- 
plane developers, in each of those 
organizations, recognize the special 
nature of the report for its intended 
use as a management tool to expe- 
dite corrective action, if considered 
necessary by the procuring agencies. 
The procuring agencies are aware 
that the test agency writes the re- 
port, based on the test article at the 
test time, without regard for correc- 
tive action which may already be ap- 
proved, but has not yet resulted in 
hardware changes. It is the respon- 
sibility of the procuring activity and 
the contractor, not the test activity, 
to initiate corrective action or to de- 
ten-nine, as often happens, that none 
is required. The report is not gen- 
erally intended for public or Con- 
gressional use. It is written for pro- 
fessional use without the explanations 
and qualifications, which are under- 
stood by the aeronautical profession- 
als, but should be added if it were 
intended for a wider audience, 

Recently there has been consider- 



able hubbub in the press and ( 
gress over comments extracted f 
a recent F-111B Phase I NPE. ^ 
ious newspapers, in articles 
editorials, have commented on tl 
Phase I NPE results. Remember 1 
a Phase I NPE is purposely pit 
as early in development as the 
plane can be flown, in order to i 
vide for early detection of <ljftj 
ties. 

To convey to you the "flavor" 
such a Phase I NPE report, I W ( 
like to quote from such a report. ' 
following are excerpts from a lisf 
deficiencies characterized as "cor; 
tion mandatory:" 

"Inadequate lateral control efl 
tiveness in configuration Power 
proach (the configuration of 
aircraft during carrier landings) 
normal approach airspeeds. 

"General airframe buffet in c 
figuration Power Approach, 

"Unreliability of aftoi'hur: 
lightoffa with JP-B fuel above 85,1 
feet, 

"Windshield distortion in the 
cinity of the stress strup and the 
sultant restriction to forward fi 
of view. 




P-U1B Aircraft 



L 



December 194 



"The excessive distance between 
the pilot and the control stick. 

"Slow longitudinal trim rate. 

"Inadequate damping of residual 
directional oscillations. 

"Inadequate stall warning in con- 
figuration Power Approach. 

"Nose wheel shimmy. 

"Random engine exit nozzle open- 
ing- and closing when modulating at 
minimum afterburning. 

"Location of the speed brake and 
microphone switches." 

Quoting from the same report, in 
the section relating to prospects of 
meeting contractual guarantees, ", . . 
the following guarantees will prob- 
ably not be met or their attainment 
is questionable: 

"Time to accelerate from maxi- 
mum velocity at military rated thrust 
to 1.2 IMN at 35,000 feet. 

"The specific range at 40,300 feet. 
"Subsonic combat rated thrust 

combat ceiling. 

"Maximum velocity at military 
rated thrust at 35,000 feet. 

"Time to climb to 35,000 feet us- 
ing combat rated thrust." 

These quotes add up to an airplane 
which, unless modified, would give 
pilots at least considerable difficulty 
in carrier landings, if they could be 
made, and an aircraft with some real 
problems in combat flight. The quotes 
I have just cited are not from the 
recent F-111B NPE; they are, in 
fact, from a Phase I NPE of the 
F-4 fighter plane conducted in the 
fall of 1958. There were also a num- 
ber of complimentary remarks about 
the aircraft and its other flight prop- 
erties. After those remarks were 
made, the F-4 proceeded through 
the other phases of development, 
passed its BIS trials, and was intro- 
duced into the Fleet in December 
I960, It has performed well there, 
is recognized as the best fighter 
available in the free world today, and 
the basic design has been applied to 
Air Force variations which are to- 
day being purchased in greater num- 
bers than Navy versions. We, there- 
fore, have a clear example of the 
flavor of a Phase I NPE which, if 
quoted out of context, could indicate 
a bleak future for the F-4. With 
hindsight, it is evident that the F-4 
future was considerably better than 
the quotations above would indicate 
because the NFS comments assisted 
in the achievement of this successful 
weapon system. 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



Relative to the F-111B, the gen- 
eral concept of commonality itself 
was not really a new or foreign 
thought. We have proven in the F-4 
program that Air Force and Navy 
airplanes, with similar mission re- 
quirements, can be successfully used 
by both Services. We have recognized 
within the Navy the desirability of 
commonality and have pursued it In 
such programs as the A-I SUyraidor. 

Commonality 

Not a 
New Concept 

It was produced in attack versions, 
airborne early warning versions, 
electronic warfare versions, and util- 
ity versions. We have demonstrated 
economies in the S-2, C-l and E-l 
airplane families by common engines, 
common subsystems, and nearly com- 
mon airframes for different missions. 
Wo are today pursuing that logical 
course of action utilizing the basic 
A-6A design to create the EA-6A 
and, with further variations, the 
E3A-6B, We are considering a tanker 
variation of the same airplane, called 
the KA-6D. All of these examples 
are given to emphasize that the basic 
concept of airframe, engine and 
avionic commonality, leading to var- 
iations of the same airplane with 
different uses, has long been recog- 
nized and understood within the 
Navy. 

The design of the F-lliB was 
challenging, but the variable sweep 
wing- and afterburning turbo-fan en-- 
gin o made it appear possible to in- 
corporate, in the same design, char- 
acteristics necessary to meet both 
Air Force and Navy requirements. 
This was a somewhat more radical 
approach to commonality than had 
previously been tried, and one which 
put rather more severe problems on 
the shoulders of the initial design 
engineer. The contractor analyzed 
designs for each small element that 
were essentially three designs; one to 
meet only the Navy requirements, 
one to meet only the Air Force re- 
quirements, and the third as the best 
way of satisfying loth requirements* 
Because of the magnitude of the de- 
velopment and the ever present pub- 
licity attendant in this program, the 



contractor designed so as to insure 
that each new feature would indeed 
perform as planned, and that neither 
Service would find its requirements 
neglected. 

Confronted during manufacture of 
the first three aircraft with the ines- 
capable conclusion that the aircraft 
would be heavier than desired, the 
contractor initiated a massive rede- 
sign effort which has been described 
as the Super Weight Improvement 
Program (SWIPJ. This redesign, ef- 
fective at F-111B number four, was 
instituted before the first Navy air- 
craft was delivered. The first three 
aircraft were in fact overweight, 
and much heavier than number four, 
approximately 3,000 pounds heavier. 
It is useful to ask whether the first 
three F-111B aircraft (which were 
known to be unrepresentative at the 
time of- their acceptance) were a 
waste of money. As a matter of fact 
F-lllBs numbers one through three 
are in active use today as avionics 
and Phoenix test beds. All of these 
tests are required and all of the air- 
craft are usefully occupied. Accept- 
ing no F-111B aircraft until the first 
SWIP version was available would 
merely have delayed the avionic and 
Phoenix testing without improving 
the program. The weight of the air- 
craft is of little importance for this 
testing, but other basic properties 
and shapes are important to it. 

The redesign effort produced the 
weight-improved, or so-called SWIP 
airplanes, F-lllBs number four and 
number five. We immediately utilized 
Navy mimber four as the demonstra- 
tion ail-plane to validate, with con- 
tractor pilots, flutter and structural 
qualities of the SWIP design. While 
number four F-111B opened the 
permissible flight envelope, number 
five was prepared for a Phase I NPE 
essentially as if it were a new air- 
craft. Before this NPE there were 
many known F-111B characteristics 
and problems based on the flight 
testing of the pre-SWIP airplanes. 
In spite of the SWIP effort, prior to 
the NPE date, we had determined 
that higher thrust engines and other 
configuration changes would, in all 
probability, be necessary. However, 
the Navy desired a new and inde- 
pendent evaluation of the airplane 
which was much more representative 
of the expected end product of the 
research and development effort. 
The NPE was conducted, as always, 



on the hardware available. Improve- 
ments required and designed for 
later airplanes, but which were not 
yet incorporated in the test aircraft, 
were not considered, 

Examples of deficiencies that were 
found in that F-111B NPE, and 
which were termed "correction man- 
datory," are quoted as follows: 

"Unsatisfactory lateral-direction- 
al handling qualities in the high-lift 
configuration with Adverse Yaw 
Compensation which degrade the 
night shipboard recovery capability, 

"Repeated occurrence of after- 
burner blowout and unsuccessful 
afterburner selection at conditions 
well within the NPE operating en- 
velope, 

^'Inadequate pilot's external field 
of view at the guaranteed minimum 
usable approach speed. 

^'Unacceptable feedback of the 
Stability Augmentation System in 
the primary flight controls. 

9 "Unsatisfactory characteristics 
associated with extended speed brake 
operation. 

"Inadequate taxi turning capabil- 
ity for carrier operations. 

"Low excess thrust for accelera- 
tion from loiter flight conditions with 
maximum afterburner. 

"Unsatisfactory airplane tip-back 
characteristics. 

"Inaccessible location of the Con- 
trol System switch which incorpo- 
rates standby gain provisions, 

"Lack of fire extinguisher in the 
crew module. 

"Susceptibility of the crew module 
escape system to damage by person- 
nel stepping on the wing glove area 
of the module. (The approved walk- 
way areas are not adequately delin- 
eated. Existing 'NO STEP' markings 
are sporadically placed and con- 
fusing,}" 

From the same report the follow- 
ing recommendations and conclusions 
apply: 

"Extensive simulator evaluation 
of the F-111B cockpit with the com- 
plete weapon system's displays and 
pilot's primary flight displays is es- 
sential to determine the suitability 
of the cockpit design concepts. 

"Supplementary solutions to elim- 
inate multiple images in addition to 
increasing windshield incidence should 
be investigated. 

"The windshield 'critical' area' 
should be redefined in accordance 
with carrier visibility requirements 



vice Air Force optical gunsight re- 
quirements." 

If you recall the list of F-4 NPE 
problems I went through earlier, you 
will find some of these familiar. 

Within the same report, as in the 
case of the F-4 report quoted before, 
estimates of the probability of meet- 
ing contractual guarantees indicated 
some would probably not be mot. Be- 
cause of the timeliness and classifi- 
cation involved, I prefer not to 
discuss the exact details. 

The question which immediately 
comes to mind is, "How serious are 
these comments?" Analysis of them 
indicates that they range from easily 
corrected minor problems to limita- 
tions that may persist to some de- 
gree despite our best efforts. 



Wow Much 
Correction 
Is Enough? 



The problems we face in deciding 
exactly how much correction is 
enough are more complex than might 
appear at first look. For example, 
we all agree that the pilot should 
have a good view over the nose of 
the airplane in order to effect a car- 
rier landing. (This has been a per- 
petual problem; some aircraft used 
to approach the carrier almost side- 
ways for this reason. The F-4U, or 
Corsair I, was a classic example of 
this.) In the F-111B we found prob- 
lems with the industry standards in 
defining precisely where the eye of 
the 5 to 96 percentile pilot should be 
in order to insure adequate vision. 
In order to define a satisfactory "fix" 
for this problem, we had to discard 
the industry standard, which was 
misleading, and substitute a more 
stringent one, 

Another example is the standard 
geometric description of the tip-back 
tendency, which relates the airplane 
center of gravity to the deck contact 
point of the main wheels. We find 
that variations in braking ability 
and aircraft inertia characteristics, 
in actual practice, require us to mod- 
ify the simple' geometric definition 
of what is a usable tip-back configu- 
ration. 

Our experience with the F-111B 
is giving us new insights into the 



10 



writing of specifications for aircraft 
It must be remembered that, at best, 
a specification is only a capsule de- 
scription of what we want; some 
numbers extracted from a vast mass 
of qualitative and quantitative desires. 
At this time, wo have the following 
corrections which will be in succeed- 
ing Navy F-lllEs in engineering de- 
sign: 

o An improved engine to provide 
additional thrust throughout the 
flight envelope. This engine is desig- 
nated the TF-30-P-12 and will be 
in F-111B number six and subse- 
quent aircraft. 

A visibility improvement pack- 
age which raises the pilot's sent, 
modifies the windshield ang-le, anil 
increases the flap deflection, all three 
working in concert to improve ovcr- 
the-nose . visibility during landing. 
The flap fixes will be incorporated at 
Navy number six, with the cockpit 
changes introduced at Navy mimlier 
eight and retrofitted to Navy num- 
ber six. 

A redistribution of weight and a 
movement of the landing gear aft 
which will improve the present tip- 
back properties of the aircraft. An 
extended nose will be in all aircraft 
after Navy number six. The landing 
gear modification will bo effective in 
Navy number eight with simple 
retrofit to Navy number six. 

The extended nose, referred to 
above and Introduced to improve 
weight distribution, will be used lo 
house the Phoenix airborne miwsilo 
control system in a more accessible 
location. At the same time the volume, 
previously occupied by the Phoenix 
and other avionics, has become avail- 
able and permitted installation of im 
additional 2,000 pounds of fuel. Thin 
change will be effective in Navy num- 
ber six. The additional fuel provided 
increased loiter time. 

The point most often raised m 
Congress and most media releases is 
whether the aircraft is indeed car- 
rier suitable. Carrier suitability 
* could be defined as the appropriate- 
ness of the vehicle to exist in the 
carrier environment. Obvious qiica- 
tions, such as adequate deck strength, 
have been considered, and there is no 
problem in the supercarriers from 
which we expect to operate the F- 
111B. The elevators in the Forreatnl 
and subsequent carriers are updated 
as all aircraft loads increase, and are 
expected to create no problem at 

December 1967 



fleet introduction with the weights 
anticipated. The updating of eleva- 
tors in these carriers was undertaken 
and is being carried out for reasons 
that are fundamentally independent 
of the F-111B. A program of cata- 
pult improvements in Kitty Hawk 
and subsequent carriers has been 
carried out to improve their capa- 
bility to handle all aircraft at lower 
catapult wind-over-deck. These im- 
proved catapults will constitute the 
majority aboard the intended carriers 
at fleet introduction of the P-111B. 
The capacity of the remaining cata- 
pults, cited in the original F-111B 
specification, will also be adequate to 
handle the aircraft. 

Is F-WB 
Carrier Suitable? 

The previous properties cited have 
been carrier characteristics neces- 
sary to match airplane characteris- 
tics, Directly associated with them 
are the airplane characteristics to 
match the carrier. The variable 
sweep wing has its most obvious ad- 
vantage in landing and takeoff, and 
is an important innovation in the 
F-111B. Because the energy require- 
ments to catapult or arrest are con- 
cerned with kinetic energy in which, 
of course, the veolocity enters as the 
square while the mass enters linearly, 
the low-speed landing and takeoff 
characteristics of the F-111B, due 
to the high lift in the wing-forward 
configuration, more than adequately 
compensate for the increased mass. 
Comparable weight carrier aircraft,' 
such as the RA-5C and A-3B, <3o 
not benefit from this feature and, 
thus, impose higher loads on the car- 
rier when operating at equivalent 
mass to the F-111B. The F-111B is 
expected to land and takeoff at speeds 
about 15 to 20 knots loss than the 
F-4 and RA-5C. 

Curiously, the success of this high- 
lift feature has created a problem. 
The airplane has sufficiently high lift 
and low drag and speed in the land- 
ing configuration that on the glide 
slope the engines have had to run 
very near idle, with the result that 
the response of the aircraft in this 
state is too sluggish. A few minor 
changes appear to be sufficient to 
correct this problem. 

Defense Industry Bulletin 



We are preparing to take F-111B 
number five aboard an aircraft car- 
rier sometime during the spring: of 
19G8. While we are aware of short- 
coming's in that specific aircraft, 
which will be corrected in succeed- 
ing airplanes, we believe it is neces- 
sary to test the F-111B in its 
intended environment as soon as pos- 
sible. There is no substitute for 
appropriate full-scale testing in any 
development program. This testing 
will not commence until laboratory 
structural tests (now scheduled on a 
test article in November) and land- 
based tests, using catapults and ar- 
resting gear installed at Naval Air 
Station, Lahehurst, N.J., and Naval 
Air Test Center, Patuxent River, Md., 
are complete. The latter testing is 
scheduled to start in January 1968. 
Thus we are building up to initial 
carrier trials in our usual straight- 
forward and careful manner. 

About a year later than the initial 
trials with F-111B number five, 
a production-representative aircraft, 
with all the fixes i have previously 
enumerated, will conduct more in- 
volved and complete carrier tests. 

As I discuss the I<'-111B airplane 
today, we are more than two yearn 
away from the I3IS trials which I 
referred to earlier as the true ac- 
ceptance trials. We have many engi- 
neering changes to be incorporated, 
many development steps to be taken, 
and much more quantitative flight 
testing to bo performed to perfect 
the configuration. There will be other 
NPEs embracing a larger flight en- 
velope and more internal components 
of the complete weapon system. Of 
course, the testing to date has estab- 
lished a high probability of accepta- 
bility of the basic aerodynamic 
qualities. After the contractor dem- 
onstrations and NPEa are complete 
as prerequisites to BIS trials, some 
four or five uninstrumented produc- 
tion airplanes will be designated as 
BIS aircraft. They will be tested at 
the NavaL Air Test Center, Patuxent 
River, Md hJ and the Naval Missile 
Center, Point Mugu, Calif. At about 
the time those trials are in progress, 
another set of production-represent- 
ative aircraft will be assigned to the 
Operational Test and Evaluation 
Force (OPTEVFOR). The OPTEV- 
FOE airplanes will be used to develop 
and refine the tactics the Fleet will 
use when operating 1 tho F-111B/ 
Phoenix weapon system. 



At the end of BIS trials, delivery 
to the Fleet will begin with initial 
deliveries to a Replacement Training 
Squadron. From that squadron, in 
due course, will come the trained 
personnel to man the first (teploy- 
able fleet squadron. 

The fleet introduction, described 
above, will take place within the year 
following BIS in the configuration 
established during development, and 
proven acceptable in the BIS trials;. 



Mission 
Capability 



Having discussed the suitability of 
the aircraft and its state of develop- 
ment, I will address its mission capa- 
bility. The Navy mission capability 
for tho F-111B has always centered 
around the long-range missile carry- 
ing and multiple missile firing capa- 
bility of the airplane/missile combi- 
nation. The Navy requirements, as 
they were conveyed in specification 
form to the contractor, detailed five 
design missions. The first of these was 
the fleet air defense mission which 
is still our primary mission. The sec- 
ond of these employed the Phoenix 
in u distant air superiority role, such 
as over a beachhead. The third, 
fourth and fifth missions capitalized 
on the long-range performance of 
the airplane to deliver nuclear and 
conventional bombs. Wo expect tho 
aircraft to be capable of performing 
the licet air defense mission us de- 
fined, and capable of performing 
flight to a distant beachhead area 
where, supported by appropriate 
Marine Tactical Data Systems or Air- 
borne Tactical Data Systems, it will 
provide an effective distant air su- 
periority capability. 

While the remaining mismonn 
which deliver nuclear and conven- 
tional bombs can be performed by 
the F-U1B, they have become less 
important Navy requirements for the 
I'M 111!. 

With regard to the fighter role, we 
must begin by considering what a 
fighter is. This is a current problem. 
The concept varies from Snoopy and 
Red Baron (with white scarf trail- 
ing out behind, ns in the Peanuts 
comic strip) through something in 
order of the YF-12 Mach 3 fighter, 
proposed for continental air defense. 



The tetter "F" in the military air- 
plane designation simply means 
fighter, and we use that designation 
for fighter bombers, some of which 
are intended for traditional dog- 
fights, and some not. 

Limited-range fighters, such as the 
F-5A, and extremely long-range 
fighters, such as the F-111A, have 
considerably different characteristics. 
The P-111B was designed to fill the 
fleet air defense role which is essen- 
tially the fighter interceptor role. In 
such a role, it is supported by sys- 
tems, such as the Airborne Tactical 
Data System (now carried in the 
E-2A), the Naval Tactical Data 
System, and the Marine Tactical 
Data System when near a beachhead. 
Assisted by these tactical data sys- 
tems, it pei-forms more nearly a 
function corresponding to that of the 
fighter interceptor in the Continental 
Air Defense Command, which operate 
under guidance of numerous control 
nets. 

In 1966 the Chief of Naval Opera- 
tions conceived a study of the F-111B 
in its primary fleet air defense role 
as an interceptor. The aerodynamic 
characteristics of the assumed fleet 
F-111B aircraft were purposely 
viewed in a pessimistic manner, com- 
pared with both contractor-supplied 
characteristics and the original spe- 
cifications. The F-lllB/Phoenix was 
compared with the Phoenix system 
carried in subsonic aircraft, with 
other fighters with other missile sys- 
tems now visualized for the appro- 
priate future era, and with varia- 
tions of those other fighters which 
showed promise. The study employed 
the latest in dynamic simulator tech- 
niques, and used a base of knowledge 
about this aircraft and competing 
systems which we have established 
over many years. 

It was the finding of this elaborate 
formal examination of the problem, 
and the judgment of the Naval offi- 
cers who ran it, that the F-111B/ 
Phoenix system, on a deck-space and 
cost-effectiveness basis, was a better 
system for the fleet air defense role 
than any comparable system which 
could be introduced in the same time 
frame, We feel confident that this 
study has indeed shown, as well as 
anything but operating experience 
can, that this airplane, equipped with 
its Phoenix missile system, will pro- 
vide effective fleet air defense, and 
will meet the military requirements 



12 



that led to its development, even if it 
does not meet all of the specifications 
that were the contractor's guaran- 
teed estimates of what the aircraft 
would do. The relative cost-effective 
ness advantage of F-ll IB/Phoenix 
over competing systems is greatest 
for the more serious threats to the 
Fleet. For lesser threats, the re- 
quirement for a complex fleet air 
defense is smaller and the other sys- 
tems become more competitive. How- 
ever, we find it necessary today, as 
in the past, to plan for threats which 
the potential enemy is capable of 
launching, and this must include the 
serious and sophisticated threats. 

We have treated this Chief of 
Naval Operations study to sensitiv- 
ity analyses for possible degrada- 
tions in aircraft performance and 
modifications in cost, When all the 
elements of predicted 10-year oper- 
ating costs, deckspace allocation, and 
effectiveness against threat (includ- 
ing variations up to the highest 
threat that we believe could be 
mounted) are considered, we find 
that it meets our fleet air defense 
requirements better than any com- 
peting system available for study. 

It now appears inappropriate to 
consider the F-111B as competing 
directly with the subsonic A-7 car- 
rying conventional bombs. We are 
examining instead the possible em- 
ployment of the F-111B as a missile 
platform in attacking with air-to- 
surface missiles with large stand-off 
ranges. In this role, its potential as 
a well equipped avionic platform 
with excellent performance, and its 
ability to return and land with un- 
expended expensive missiles provides 
advantages that none of our other 
aircraft can match. We have not yet 




Hon. Robert A. Frosch 



completely defined this new second 
ary role for the aircraft which, h 
any case, would require the airplam 
to use stand-off missiles that havi 
not yet completed development no: 
reached the Fleet. 

In summary, we gave the contrnc 
tor (and he accepted) a very tougl 
requirement to meet, if he was t< 
provide all the performance desire* 
by the Navy and by the Air Force 11 
the designs he initiated. As wo ex. 
amine the situation some years later 
we find that the aircraft will prob- 
ably not meet all of the initial 
specifications, and the contractor will 
have to accept some reaponaihilitj 
for this lack. It is, of course, not 
unusual for a military aircraft thai 
uses advanced state of the art to fail 
to meet some of the specifications. 
The real question is whether it moots 
military needs. We have examined 
whether the F-111B continues to moot 
the original primary military mission 
requirements, and we are convinced 
that, in its primary air defense inter- 
ceptor role, the F-111B, equipped 
with the Phoenix airborne missile 
control system and firing- multiple 
shots of the long-range Phoenix air- 
to-air missile, represents the finest 
fleet air defense system available hi 
the immediate future. 

The F-ll IB is now in the state of 
development where we are satisfied 
that the basic problems have boon 
solved, and that we have identified 
other design problems for which so- 
lutions are in progress. The overall 
success of an airplane is determined 
over the long run by how the system 
meets a solid military requirement, 
We are heartened by the fact thnt 
the Air Force now appears to be 
bringing its version of the F-lll into 
the operational inventory in a highly 
successful manner. 

We base our expectation that tha 
F-111B will be a satisfactory, car- 
rier-suitable aircraft for its mission 
partly on the fact that corrections 
for the deficiencies, discovered in the 
first serious flying of its development, 
have been identified and designed; 
and partly on a historical record thnt 
tells us that mandatory deficiencies, 
frequently of a major kind, are nor- 
mal in development aircraft emerg- 
ing from Phase I NPE. In past 
development these have been cor- 
rected, with the result that we fly 
highly satisfactory aircraft in the 
Fleet. 

December 1967 




Articles and Speeches 
Subject Index 

Title 
AIRCRAFT 

Aircraft Inventory FY 1966-1967, World- 
wide U.S. 

Desert Bonanza (Military Aircraft Stor- 
age and Disposition Center). By Col 
Irving R. Perkins, USAF 



BUDGET 



Defense Budget Highlights (Statement by 
Secretary of Defense on FY 1968-72 
Program and the FY 1967-68 Budgets) 
Airlift and Sealift Forces 



Approach to the FY 1968-72 Program 

and the FY 1967-68 Budgets 
General Purpose Forces 
Other Major Programs 

Research and Development 

Strategic Forces 

Supplemental for Southeast Asia, FY 
1967 

COMMUNICATIONS 

Communications in a Counterinsurgency 

Environment. (Speech) By Maj. Gen. 

Walter E. Lotz Jr., USA 



CONTRACTING 

ASPR Committee Cast Listing 

Contract Administration, The New Face of. 
By Capt. I. G. Cockroft, USN 

Contract Administration Problems. By 
James A, Walsh 

Contract Messman Program Shifts into 
High 'Gear. By Earl Nichols 

Constructive Change Orders 

Current Points of Emphasis in Navy Con- 
tracting. (Speech) Capt. J, L. Howard, 
SC, USN 

MILSCAP: How Will It Affect the Defense' 
Contractor? By Cdr. A. G. Cavanaugh 
USN _J_ 

Naval Ordnance and Industry 

Technical Services, Contracts for. (Speech) 
Hon. Paul R. Ignatius 



Pg. Mo. 

7 May 
9 March 



1 Feb. 

26 Feb. 

1 Feb. 

14 Feb. 

39 Fob. 

29 Fob. 

G Feb. 

1 March 



25 Jan. 

21 Nov. 

10 Oct. 

13 April 

19 April 

41 April 

29 April 



9 Nov. 
4 Aug. 

f> Aug. 



COST REDUCTION 

American Industry Takes Cost Reduction 
Seriously (Secretary of Defense Report 
to the President) 



Title 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

Project ARISTOTLE. By Eugene T. Fer- 



raro 



Status Report; Project ARISTOTLE." By" 
Eugene T. Ferraro 



FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 

Report on Status of Funds (1st and 2nd 

Quarters, FY 1967). By Sheldon W. 

Taylor 

Report on Status of Funds (3rd Quarter) " 

Report on Status of Funds (4th Quarter) 
Selected Defense Department Economic 

Indicators, June 30, 1967 

Selected Defense Department Economic 

Indicators, Aug. 4, 1967 

Selected Defense Department Economic 

Indicators, Aug. 30, 1967 

Selected Defense Department Economic 

Indicators, Sept. 28, 1967 

Selected Defense Department Economic 

Indicators, Oct 26, 1967 



_ 10 May 



LOGISTICS 

Marine Corps Logistics in Vietnam Today 
and Tomorrow. (Speech) By Maj. Gen. 
W. J. Van Ryzin, USMC 

Weapon System Readiness Through Logis- 
tics. By Col. James F. Mothersbauffh. 
USAF (Ret.) 

MANAGEMENT 

Adam and Eve antl Management. (Speech) 
By Hon. Robert A. Froach 

Configuration Management in the Navy, 
By Capt. William Seith, USN 

Configuration Management, Objectives of. 
By Lt. Gen. William B, Bunker, USA 

Contractor's Weighted Average Share Con- 
cept. By Robert D. Lyons 

Management Information Systems j The 
Lifeblood of Management. By KAdm. 
Thomas J. Rudtlen Jr., USN 

Management Information Management. 

( Speech ) By Gen. Howell M. Estes, 
USAF 

Management Progress! veness. (Speech) By 
Lt. Gen. Charles H. Terhune Jr., USAF __ 

Management Systems Control. By Col. 
Albert W. Buesking, USAF 



Pg. 1 

22 Mi 

4 Se 



21 Ma 

22 Jui 

J 

24 Dei 

21 Au : 

14 Sep 

26 Oct 

16 NOT 

21 Dec 



25 Apr 

26 Sepi 

21 Oct. 

4 Apr 
1 Sept 

5 Jan. 

11 Jan. 

13 May 

25 Nov. 

26 Mar< 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



Title 

Managing the Naval Material Command. 

By VAdm. Ralph L. Shifley, USN 

Military Economic Impact Today. By Ma]. 

Gen. Allen T. Stanwix-Hay, USA 



(The) Need for Professionalism in Re- 
source/Cost Analysis. By Maj. Gen. 
Wendell E. Carter, USAF 

(The) Paperwork Problem. (Speech) Hon. 
Robert N. Anthony 

Planning-Programming-Budgeting Systems 
and Project PRIME. By LCdr. Steven 
Lazarus, USN 

Progress in SAIMS Subsystem Develop- 
ment. By Col. Herbert Waldman, USAF _ 

SAIMS, Air Force Participation in the De- 
velopment of. By Lt. Col. Hans H. Dries- 
snack, USAF 

(The) Selection of Information Processing 
Systems to Support Air Force Manage- 
ment. By Maj. James D. Pewitt, USAF, 
Maj. Richard G. Abbott, USAF, and 
Capt. Alan G. Merten, USAF 

Value Engineering Can Solve Cost Prob- 
lems. (Speech) Hon. Thomas E. Morris _ 



Pg. Mo. 

7 Sept. 

1 June/ 
July 

33 Sept. 
12 May 

1 Jan. 

12 Aug. 

34 Jan. 

1 Dec. 

23 Nov. 



MILITARY EXPORTS 

Cooperative Logistics in Italy. By Peter 

E. Feigl 4 May 

Report on Paris Air Show 1067 24 Aug. 

U.S. -Australian Cooperative Logistics Ar- 
rangements. By Leighton A. Cain IB Sept. 

U.S.-Canadian Logistics Cooperation. By 

Lansing R. Felker 33 April 

U.S.-U.K. Logistics Cooperation. By 

Michael G. Macdonald 28 March 



OCEANOGRAPHY 

Oceanography in the Navy Today and 
Tomorrow. By RAdm. John K. Leydon, 
USN 



35 April 



ORGANIZATION 

DNL/DLP A Focal Point for Laboratory 

Management. By D. C. Hughes 30 March 

Naval Ordnance and Industry 4 Aug. 



PACKAGING 

Solving Packaging Problems Through Re- 
search and Development. By Dr. Edward 
A. Nebesky and Dr. Martin S. Peterson _. 



1 Aug. 



PRICING 

GAO Urges Improved Contractor Estimat- 
ing Systems. By Stewart Collins 8 Jan. 



PROCUREMENT 

(The) Armed Forces Grocery Bill. By Lt. 
Col. Richard M. Hosier, USAF 



Contractor's Weighted Average Share Con- 
cept. By Robert D. Lyons 



4 June/ 

July 

5 Jan. 



Title 

GAO Urges Improved Contractor Estimat- 
ing Systems. By Stewart Collins 

(The) Light Observation Helicopter Avi- 
onics Purchase Viewed as a Total Pack- 
age Procurement. By Harry J. Rocka- 
feller and John P. Duffy ^ 

Long Lead Time, The Problem of. (Speech) 
By Hon. Robert H. Charles 

New Suppliers Sought by Defense Supply 
Agency 

Prime Contract Awards by State, FY 1966 
and 1967 

Procurement Policy, Development of. By 
Lt. Col. Jacob B. Pompan, USAF 

Product Lead Time Problems. (Speech) 
Hon. Robert H. Charles 

(The) Selection of Information Processing 
Systems to Support Air Force Manage- 
ment. By Maj. James D. Pewitt, USAF, 
Maj. Richard G. Abbott, USAF, and 
Capt. Alan G. Merten, USAF 



Pg. Mo. 

8 Jan. 

1 May 

1,4 March 

28 Oct. 

28 Nov. 

1 April 

21 Sept, 

1 Dec. 



PROJECT MANAGEMENT 
U.S. Air Force System Program Directors 
and Project Officers (Listing) 17 Jan. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

(The) Challenge of Army Requirements to 
Aerospace Technology in the 1970a. By 
Brig. Gen. John R. Guthrie, USA 



_ 7 June/ 
July 

- I Oct. 
30 March 
8 J>c. 



Concept Formulation and Concept Defini- 
tion. By Robert G. Alexander 

DNL/DLP A Focal Point for Laboratory 
Management. By D. C. Hughes 

F-111B Development. (Speech) By Hon. 
Robert A. Frosch 

National Security Demands Continuing De- 
bate. (Speech) By Hon. John S. Fos- 
ter Jr. 

Navy Aerospace Posture, Forecast of. 
(Speech) By Capt. R. J. Schneider, 
USN - 

Research in the Air Force, By Brig. Gen. 
Ernest A. Pinson, USAF 

Solving Packaging Problems Through Re- 
search and Development. By Dr. Edward 
A. Nebesky and Dr, Martin, S. Peterson 1 Aug. 

(The) Technical Information Exchange 13 Oct. 

Technological Challenge of the 1970s in the 
Aerospace Field. (Speech) Brig. Gen, 
Glenn A. Kent, USAF . 

(The) Technological War: Problems and 
Challenges. By Col, George T. Buck, 
USAF 



. 12 June/ 
July 



15 March 
17 April 



26 April 
G Oct 



SECURITY 

Airborne Passive Scanning Infrared 
Imaging Systems. By C. Donald Gar- 
rett 10 Sept 

Industrial Security Is It Necessary? By 
Capt, Frank Larson, USN 32 Jan. 



December 1967 



Title 



. Mo. 



STATISTICS 

Prime Contract Awards by State, FY 

1966 and 1967 _________________________ 28 Nov. 

SYSTEMS EFFECTIVENESS 

Systems Effectiveness and Combat Readi- 
ness. (Speech) By RAdm J. D. Arnold, 
USN ------------------------------------- 28 Jan, 

TRANSPORTATION 

Managing; Defense Transportation Require- 
ments. By MaJ. Gen. John J. Lane, 

USN ------------------------------------ 1 Nov . 



News Items 
Subject Index 



Code. Page identification: if inside front cover; 
ib inside baclt cover; bk buck cover. 



Title 

AIRCRAFT 
AF Awards Study Contracts for A-X Air- 



craft 



Air Force Awards Six Contracts for V/ 
STOL Transport Design 

Air Foreo Buys New Forward Controller 
Aircraft 

Army To Phase Out Chicktisaw, Shawnee 

C-fi Aii-cruft Dubbed Galaxy 



COMMUNICATIONS 

First Switching: Center Outside Mainland 
U.S. Accepted 

LiOiiglincs Leasing in Hawaii Centralized 
in Honolulu 

Nnvy Releases Navigation Satellite for 
Commercial Use 

New Antenna Concept Tested by AFCRL _._ 

N~ew Naval Communications Command 
Established in Washington, D.C., Area __. 

Re-entry Communications Blackouts 

Studied 

Transit Satellite Information To Be Made 
Available by NSIA 

LJ nitod Kingdom Joins United States, 
Canada, Australia in Project Mallard 

U.S., Australia, Canada To Develop Tac- 
tical Communications System 



CONSTRUCTION 

Deferred Construction Projects Released 

3 CD Urges Fallout Shelter Planning in 

New Buildings 

JSAF To Build 841 Family Housing 

Units 



Mo. 



11 June/ 
July 

20 March 

ib Feb. 
ib April 

8 Aug. 



bk April 

1G April 

8 Oct. 

12 March 

bk Aug. 

12 March 

ib Nov, 

bk Nov. 

bk May 

bk Feb. 

2D Oct. 

20 May 



Title 
FILMS 
Army Security Film Available 

Film on USAF Contractor Performance 
Available 



OCEANOGRAPHY 

Navy Conducts Simulated Deep Ocean 
Dives in Preparation for SEALAB III __ 

Navy Ocean ographer Reio^^s 

Navy Scientists Discover Sea Desert Off 

Gatalina 

ORGANIZATION 

Army Forms Agency To Direct Computer 

Processing 

AI4PA Establishes New Engineering 1 Office- 

AVCOM Assumes Test Activities 

Contracts Compliance Office Transferred 
to DSA 

Director of Laboratories Post Created by 
AFSC 

DSA Support To Encompass 19 Weapon 
Systems 

Longlines Leasing in Hawaii Centralized 
in Honolulu 

Navy Establishes Buying Command in 
Oakland, Calif. 

Navy Establishes Strategic Warfare Of- 
fice 

Navy Labs Merge To Form Ship K&D 
Center 

Navy Oceanographer Relocates 

New Army Agency Supports DCS Proj- 
ects 

New Army Division Approved 

Now Electronic Control Center To Be In- 
stalled on Kwajalein Atoll 

New Naval Communications Command 
Established In Washington, D.C., Area _ 

New Navy K&D Facility Features Huge 
Spin Chamber 

Oklahoma City AMA Gets A-7D Logis- 
tics 

Organizational Changes Effected in OASD 
(I&L) 

Reorganization Effected at APGC 

Space and Missile Systems Organization 
Formed within AFSC 

Space Forecasting Working Group Estab- 
lished 

Spacetrack Unit To Move Next Year 

STHATCOM Headquarters Will Move to 
Arizona 

Systems Engineering Group Reassigned 
within AFSC 

Three Navy Labs Transferred to Naval 
Air Development Center 

Three Navy Research Centers Estab- 
lished 



Pg. Mo. 

20 Nov. 
12 April 



24 Jan. 

23 March 

32 March 



32 March 

40 Jan. 
ib Jan. 

23 Aug. 

37 April 

ib March 

16 April 

41 April 
21 March 

bk April 

23 March 

1C Oct. 

12 Nov. 

32 March 

bk Aug. 

bk May 

40 Jan. 

9 Jan. 

1C Jan. 

16 Aug. 

bk March 

21 June/ 

July 

10 Jan. 
19 May 

11 Aug. 
ib Sept. 



Jefense Industry Bulletin 



Title 



Pg. Mo. 



U. S. Army Metrology and Calibration 
Center Activated 10 Nov. 

USAF Civil Engineering R&D Goes to 
K inland AFB 23 Aug. 

USAF Sole Manager of Liquid Propel- 
lants 29 March 



PROCUREMENT 

APLC To Test New Contract Logistics 
Support Concept bk 

Bids Invited on New Weather Computers __ 12 

Contracts Awarded by Air Force for 
VTOL Flight Control System 21 

DESC and AFSC Study Standardization 
of Electronic Parts 



Nov. 
March 

Jan. 



M16A1 Rifle Adopted as Standard Army 
Rifle 



bk Sept. 



bk 



June/ 
July 



Oklahoma City A MA Gets A-7D Logis- 
tics 40 Jan 

SPCC Given Role in Navy's Deep Sub- 
mergence Program 17 N OV> 

Two Generators Earmarked for Procure- 
ment by Army 14 



PUBLICATIONS 

Clearinghouse Adopts New Document 
Sales System 32 

Contract Definition Reports Available ib 

DOD Instructions and Directives Now 
Available Through Subscriptions 25 

Foreign Military Sales Pamphlet Avail- 



able 



11 



Inspection Systems Handbook Available ___ 32 

Naval Terms Dictionary Available 10 

New Policy Set for Announcing Defense 

Documents o 



Nov. 



March 
March 

Oct. 

Oct. 
March 

April 

Oct. 



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

Ad Hoc Group on Concept Formulation 

Established 



AF Missile Center Gets Three-axis Flight 
Simulator 



AFSC Electronics System Division Gets 
Key Role in Development of TA.CSAT- 

COM 



Air Force Awards Six Contracts for V/ 

STOL Transport Design 

Air Force Flight Control Research May 

Extend Aircraft Life Span 

Air Force Tests New Gyroscope 

Army-Air Force Study Combat Hazard ____ 
Army Evaluates New High Speed Tele- 
printers 

Army Tests New Amphibious Lighters ._~~ 
Continuous Wave Laser in Operation at 
Redstone Arsenal 

Bynaplane Boat Design Less Drae "~ 
More Speed 



, ib Nov. 
20 March 

bk June/ 

July 

20 March 

bk Jan. 
ib Feb. 
bk Jan. 

29 March 

21 May 

bk Aug. 
13 Nov. 



Title 

Foam Reduces Fire Hazards 

Navy Begins Test of Computing System" 

Navy Conducts Simulated Deep Ocean 
Dives in Preparation for SEALAB III _ 
Navy Develops New Fire-Fighting Foam _ 
Navy Gets New Shark Repellent Device 

Navy Lab Tests Inflatable Tent ~ 

New Amphibious Vehicle Under Develop- 
ment 

New Antenna Concept Studied by AFCRL 
New Attack Aircraft To Be Evaluated in' 
Vietnam 

New Navy R&D Facility Features Huge 
Spin Chamber 

Oriental Characters Now Speedily Pro- 
duced with New Photo Composing Unit _ 

Project Hindsight An Interim Report ___ 

Project Themis 30 Universities To Do 
Research Projects for DOD 

Prototype of Deep Ocean Rescue Craft 
Due in Juno 1968 

Re-entry Communications 
Studied 

TACFIRE Definition 
Awarded 

USAF Scientists Develop New High Tem- 
perature Ceramic Coating 



27 Nov. 
21 



23 Aug. 

13 March 

Lfi Sept. 

Ib March 

12 ,V 



Blackouts 



Phase Contracts 



1C Oft, 
lik Ma\- 

11 Mardi 
Ja. 

27 Oct. 

12 MerrTi 

12 March 

33 Sept. 

29 March 



Ap| . ( 



SECURITY 

Disposition of Program Material Ex- 

Plained ---------------------------- ..... 

industrial Security Award Winners An- 

nounced by DSA _____________________________ itl Vft _ 

Industrial Security Excellence Cited __________ H NOV. 

Industrial Security Management Course 

Sessions Scheduled __________________________ jj jf ny 

New Requirements for Classified Storage 

To Become Effective in March 1968 ________ 21 June/ 

Jnlj- 
Over Classification Increases Cost _________ 21 j anf j 

Security Briefings a Must for Paris Air 



Show 



32 March 



SHIPBUILDING 

Evaluation of Proposals Completed for 
Navy's FDL Ships __________________ 

Navy and Commerce Departments Agree 
on Surface-Effect Ship Plan ____________ bk Oct. 

Navy Shipbuilding Program for FY 1907 
Announced ----- 1 -------------- ...... _ 2J 

Prototype of Deep Ocean Rescue Craft 
Due in June 1968 _________________ ..... ] 2 

Study Group Formed To Examine Future 
Construction of Navy Escort Ships _______ if 



bk Sept. 



Maifh 



March 



WATER POLLUTION 
Army Engineers Launch Fight Against 
Water Pollution of Waterways __________ 24 Sept. 



December 




ABOUT PEOPLE 



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

The Advanced Research Projects 
Agency has announced the appoint- 
ment of Dr. Alan S. Tetelman as Dep. 
Dir. of its Materials Sciences Office. 
He succeeds Dr. Alan D. Franklin 
who has returned to the National 
Bureau of Standards. 

Col. Rodger R. Bankson, USA, has 
assumed the post of Dir. for Defense 
Information, Office of the Secretary 
of Defense (Public Affairs). 

Col. Paul P. Dailey USA, has been 
named Dir., Terminals and Installa- 
tions, at Military Traffic Management 
and Terminal Service headquarters, 
Bailey's Crossroads, Va. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Haj. Gen. Robert E, Coffin has suc- 
ceeded Maj. Gen. William C. Gribblc 
as Dep, Chief of Research and De- 
velopment, Headquarters, U.S. Army. 

Brig. Gen. H. G, Davisson, Com- 
mander, White Sands Missile Range, 
N.M., was promoted to the rank of 
major general effective Oct. 2. 

Brig. Gen Roland M. Glcszcr, Dir. 
of Management, Office of the Comp- 
troller of the Army, was promoted 
to the rank of major general Nov. 1. 

The following reassigmnents have 
been made in the Office of the Chief 
of Research and Development: Col, 
Frank A. Bates Jr. succeeds Brig. 
Gen. George Sammet as Executive; 
Coi. Thomas N. Cliavis fills the post 
of Dep. Dir., Missiles and Space, va- 
cated by Col. Bates; and Col. William 
J. Lynch takes over Col. Cliavis' 
former assignment as Asst. Dir., 
Army Research, 

Other changes in the Office of the 
Chief of Research and Development 
include; Col. Earl K. Buchan, Chief, 
Air Mobility Div.; Col. Joe B. Lamp, 
Chief, Combat Materiel Div.; Col. 
George R. O'Neal, Chief, Communica- 
tions-Electronics Div.; and Lt. Col. 
David H. Thomas, Chief, Resources 
and Requirements Div., Nike-X Sys- 
tems Office. 

Col. Clifton O. Duty has been re- 
assigned to the Army Aviation Ma- 
teriel Command, St. Louis, Mo., for 



duty as Dir., Procurement & Produc- 
tion. 

Col Edwin T. O'Donnell has been 
named Commanding Officer, Research 
and Development Center, Army Mo- 
bility Equipment Command, Fort 
Belvoir, Va. 

Col. Morris W. Pettit has been as- 
signed as Project Manager, Nike 
Hercules Missile System, Army Mis- 
sile Command, Huntsville, Ala. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

VAdnt. John J, Hyland, Commander 
of the U.S, Seventh Fleet, has been 
named to the post of Commander in 
Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet. Succeeding 
Adm. Hyland as Seventh Fleet Com- 
mander will be RAdm. William F, 
Briugle, who has been Dep. Chief of 
Staff, (Plans and Operations) under 
the Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific 
Fleet. 

KAdm. Eli T. Reich has been re- 
assigned from duty as Asst Dep. 
Chief of Naval Operations (Logis- 
tics) to the post of Dep. Comptroller 
of the Navy. 

RAdm. Herman J. Trum III has 
relieved UAdin. William E. Ferrnll as 
Commandant, Thirteenth Naval Dis- 
trict, with headquarters in Seattle, 
Wash. 

RAdm, Turner P. Caldwell has 
been assigned duty ns Exec. Dir., 
Anti-Submarine Warfare Programs, 
in the Office of the Chief of Naval 
Operations. 

Cant. Johns H. Belli has become 
Commanding Officer, Navnl Weapons 
Services Office, Naval Air Engineer- 
ing Center, Philadelphia, Pa, 

Cant. Cecil C. Allen, SC, hns been 
assigned as Qfncor-m-Charge, Atlan- 
tic Fleet Polaris Material Office, 
Charleston, S.C. 

Capt. Alvin F, Kmig has assumed 
command of the newly established 
Ground Support Equipment Depai-t- 
ment, Naval Air Engineering Center, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

Capt. Robert L. Wessel will relieve 
Capt. E. B. Jarman as Commanding 
Officer, Corona Laboratories, Naval 
Weapons Center, China Lake, Calif., 
in December. 



DEPARTMENT OF THE 
AIR FORCE 

Maj. Gen. Kenneth E. Plctcher has 
been designated the Surgeon General 
of the Air Force with promotion to 
the rank of lieutenant general. He 
replaces Lt. Gen. Richard L. Bolun- 
non who is retiring effective Dec. I. 

Maj. Gen. Paul T. Cooper has been 
assigned duty as Vice Commander, 
Space & Missile Systems Organiza- 
tion (SAMSO), Air Force Systems 
Command. Gen. Cooper previously 
served as SAMSO Dep. Commander 
for Space. 

Maj. Gen. Robert H. McCutcheon 
has been named to replace retiring 
Maj. Gen. T. Alan Bennett as Com- 
mander, Ogden Air Materiel Area, 
Air Force Logistics Command. 

Brig. Gen. William G. Moore Jr. 
has been assigned duty as Dir,, Op- 
erational Requirements & Develop- 
ment Plans, Office of Dep. Chief of 
Staff {Research and Development). 
Hq., USAP. 

New assignments in the Air Force 
Systems Command include : Col. 
Richard P. GinglamI, Chief, Systems 
Acquisition, Space & Missile Systems 
Organization (SAMSO); Col. William 
J, Henderson, Dir., Vela Nuclear De- 
tection Satellite Program, SAMSO; 
Col. Norman. J. Kcefer, Dir., Agena 
Program Office, SAMSO; Col. Stanley 
M. Lockie, Chief, Research & Tech- 
nology, SAMSO; Col. John A. 
Murphy, Dir., Procurement & Pro- 
duction, Manned Orbiting Laboratory, 
SAMSOj Col. Richard 0. Ransbottom, 
Dir., RC-13G System Program Of- 
fice, Aeronautical Systems Div.; Col. 

F, E. Rundell, Dep. Commander, 
Air Force Armament Laboratory, 
Air Proving Ground Center, Eglin 
AFB, Fla, 

New assignments in the Air Force 
Logistics Command include: Col. E. 
H. Gordon, Chief, F-4 Systems Sup- 
port Management Div., Materiel 
Management Directorate, Ogden Air 
Materiel Area; Col. George M. Luna- 
ford, Chief, Force Structure and War 
Plans Div., AFLC Hq.; Lt. Col. Cecil 

G. Furbish, Director of Information, 
AFLC. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



17 



HEADQUATERS, U 
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, 



SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR 



COMBAT ART 



COL Raymond Henri 



3204 41071 



DjJ 
BGEN Frank E. Gar 



DEPUH 



COL Thomas M. Fid 



MARINE CORPS INFORMATION OFFICE 
LOS ANGELES 

LTCOL David M. Ridderhof 

6087 Sunset Boulevard 

Los Angeles, California 90028 

1213} 688-2520 



ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS 

COL Paul A/1. Morlarty 3204 41071 



PUBLIC AFFAIRS BRANCH 



41492 



41492 



LTCOL Verle E. Ludwlg 3210 

PRESS SECTION 
IstLT Michael G. Pitts 3210 

RADIO-TV SECTION 
MAJ William Boone 3210 41493 

COMMUNITY RELATIONS SECTION 
MAJ Robert G. Preblhalo 3210 41054 

SERVICES BRANCH 
MAJGarethW. Smeltzer 3206 41034 

CORRESPONDENCE OFFICER 
CAPT Ronald L, Smith 3206 41495 

ADMINISTRATIVE QFFIHFR 
IstLT Richards. Sanborn 3206 41495 

BIOGRAPHER 
MRS. Nellie E. Herring 3206 41495 



December T967 



5. MARINE CORPS 
IVISION OF INFORMATION 



JP.E 

ion 3202 42958 



RECTOR 



3202 41071 



SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR 
PLANS AND POLICY 

LTCOL George R. Scharnberg 3204 41495 



MARINE CORPS INFORMATION OFFICE 
NEW YORK 

LTCOL Richard S. Stark 

663 Fifth Avenue 

New York, New York 10022 

(212) PL-57846 



ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR 



SUPPORT ACTIVITIES 



COL Henry Hart 



201B HH 3 42857 



SUPPORT BRANCH 
LTCOL Robert R. Meeker, Jr. 201B HH 3 42857 

SPEECH SECTION 
CAPT James W. Jones 201B HH 3 42857 

AUDIO-VISUAL PRODUCTION BRANCH 
LTCOL Richard L McDaniel HH 23 42355 

AUDIO PRODUCTION SECTION 
IstLT William H. Stuckey 106 HH 4 42354 

VISUAL PRODUCTION SECTION 
MAJ Gregory S. Prlchard HH 23 43723 



Division of Information Is located in the 
Arlington Annex (Columbia Pike and Arlington 
Ridge Road, Virginia), Washington, D. C. 20380. 
Telephone: Area Code 202, OXford plus number listed. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 






I. "Hook Down, Wheels Down" by James Scott. 



2. "Beach Red" by John Groth. 



3. "UDT Men" by Uobert J. Benson. 



4. "Air Defense" by Dwight C. Shepler. 



Navy Makes Combat Art 
Available to Industry 

The U.S. Navy's collection of more than 3,000 original 
paintings, sketches and drawings, created in a wide variety 
of media and techniques, is available for reproduction aw 
calendar sheets, magazine and poster advertisement, 
book jackets, desk mementos, and other advertising uses. 

The combat art collection's historical paintings raiiRc in 
subject area from World War I and II battle scones to 
modern combat illustrations and impressionistic render-In ga 
of industrial and nautical facilities, people and place* 
throughout the world. Some color separations are already 
available. 

The collection is the property of the U.S. Navy and no 
releases from artists or payment of fees for reproduction 
rights are required. To obtain reproductions or further in- 
formation on use of original art, write or call : 

Office of the Chief of Information 

Attention: 01-300 

Department of the Nnvy 

Room 2E 335, The Pentagon 

Washington, D.C. 20350 

Telephone: (202) OXford 7-7221 



December 1967 



ft! 

W 

ft (A 

II 



W 

J 
S W 

n 



* & 
E i 

a o 



o 



o 

p 



M 



1*, 
14 

S 



fc 



a 



rHCOrHOrHOOlOCOCO 
O^O^ -* rH_00 L O N CO 



00 rH rH 
00_0>OO 

rHrH 



CQ(NcOCftCO<NCQI.-C- 

10 



CO rH *)< IO *tf IO O O CO 

cool OrH tomcoo to 

tOLO rH Tf CO CO IN rH IO 



Cft CO t- 1 en tD O CO IO Cft 
COlrt TH rHIMIO TH 



OrH 
MrH 1 



W Cl O OT (M CO 0> 



COCO C-l 
Tj<00 00 
COCO CO 

ofco" 



oo t- ^ 

tOtOCO 

o toco 




^iH eo 

(DOW 

toco t- 



COOOO 
tH ^Ht- 
LO(M W 



ij 1000 



i-t<OCO 

torn in 

L *O xjl 



OrH to 

oTo 



COrHlO 
IO t-CO 

00" 



O CO t 
(O If5 xtl 



OOCOTH 
t- OCM 
O>t-lO 

t-"oo" 



O^ 

to" 

CO 



co-^co 

(TOO 

cool 



CO *0-1 
COL 

CO"TH" 




j 





- 






OtM 



OO 
COO 
<N L- 



-J CO 



OCO 



cocq* 



CO CM 



CO CO 
rH O) 






w 
* 




co to 

OlO 

coco 



(MrH 
COrH 
COCO 



w S 



S 

Gofi 



o 



"*5 r^ 

^ Rl 

H -S 

ft; 



Operations 
Procureme 
Other 



II 

S ^rt 

w .g (i!" 

1 S I|sl|Il 
5||S||^ 

Q^O O<:PM 



t-co 
b-o 

toco 



t-co 

t-0 

coeo 



cow 
CO"H 



(MOO 

in 
COrH 



moo 
coco 

CT0 




!0 



3 oi 



G f*( 

^E? 



ifense Industry Bulletin 



21 



ARISTOTLE 

Symposium in 

Washington Dec. 6-7 

The first ARISTOTLE Symposium, 
sponsored by the National Security 
Industrial Association, will be held on 
Dec. 6-7, 1967, at the Washington 
Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C. 

Project ARISTOTLE (acronym 
for Annual Review and Information 
Symposium on the Technology O f 
Irainmg, Learning and Education) 
was established as a result of a con- 
ference held in June 1966, co-spon- 
sored by the National Security Indus- 
trial Association, the Defense Depart- 
ment, the Labor Department and the 
Office of Education, to provide a 
structure to encourage continuing 
communication and exchange of ac- 
complishments within the govem- 
ment/industry/education communities 




U.S.-Japan Sign 
Agreement for 
Missile Systems 

Japanese and U.S. officials have 
signed agreements in Tokyo for the 
production and procurement of mili- 
tary equipment for Japan's Self- 
Defense Forces. 

The equipment includes three bat- 
talions of Hawk and associated mis- 
siles and supporting equipment to be 
produced in Japan. 

Also included in the agreement is 
the procurement from U.S. sources 
of two battalions of Nike Hercules 
ground support and auxiliary equip- 
ment; production in Japan of Nike 
Hercules missiles; and procurement 
from the United States of another 
battalion of Nike Hercules equip- 
ment to be programmed in the Jap- 
anese FY 1972. 

The Nike and Hawk programs play 
an important role in the Japanese 
Third Defense Buildup Plan cover- 
ing the period Japanese FY 1967- 

U /I, 



Military Oceanography 

Symposium To Be 

Held in Florida 

The Fifth Annual Symposium on 
Military Oceanography, sponsored by 
the Oceanographer of the Navy, 
will be held in Panama City, Fla., May 
1-3, 1968. 

^Purpose of the symposium will be 
to provide an opportunity for scien- 
tists, engineers and military person- 
nel to present papers, exchange 
information, and discuss problems 
concerning military oceanography. 
The sessions will be classified to fa- 
cilitate free and open discussion. 

Call for papers and applications 
for invitations will be issued early 
in January. 

For information concerning the 
symposium contact: 

Oceanographor of the Navy 
732 N. Washington St. 
Alexandria, Va. 22314 



Navy/Marine Corps 
Research and Development Problems 



The symposium will consist of two 
general sessions featuring presenta- 
tions by key officials in education, in- 
dustry and government. The topics 
ol these sessions will be: 

Government, Industry and Edu- 
cation as Working Partners. 

What Education Wants from 
Government and Industry. 

ARISTOTLE is structured into 
ten task groups consisting of volun- 
tary part-time members. Panel ses- 
sions and workshops will present and 
discuss the many findings and devel- 
opments of the task groups' efforts 
during the past year. 

For registration and additional in- 
formation, the contact is: 
P. A. Newman 
National Security Industrial 

Association 
1030 15th St. NW 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
Phone: (202) 296-2266 

22 



The 1967 edition of the publica- 
tion, "Navy/Marine Corps Research 
and Development Problems," is now 
available for distribution, without 
charge, to interested industrial firms 
educational institutions, libraries and 
individual* It contains a compilatjon 

of problems for which the Naval Ma- 
terial Command and the Marine 
^orps are seeking solutiong _ The 

problems described fall into eight 
categories: 

Chemical Sciences. 
Electrical Sciences, 
Electronic sciences. 
Engineering Mechanics. 
Life Sciences, 



Material Sciences. 

Physical Sciences. 

Simulation and Training 
Technology. 

The prime objective of the publi- 
cation is to enlist the assistance, ex- 
perience and ingenuity of industrial 
organizations and educational insti- 
tutions toward obtaining- fresh ap- 
proaches, ideas and techniques. 

Anyone interested in obtaining the 
publication should complete the form 
below, clip and mail to: 

Chief of Naval Material 

Attention: MAT 0541 

Department of the Navy 

Washington, D.C. 20360 



Please send 

opment Problems" to: 

Name 



copies of "Navy/Marine Corps Research and Devel- 




Street or P.O. Box 
City and State 




December 1967 



Army Redesignates 
Chief of C-E 

The Army's Chief of Communica- 
tions-Electronics (CC-E) has been 
re designated the Assistant Chief of 
Staff for Communications-Electron- 
ics (ACSC-E), and will now report 
directly to the Army Chief of Staff. 

With the redesignation, Army com- 
munication functions assume staff 
parity with personnel, operations, in- 
telligence and logistics in the Anny 
staff structure. The CC-E, as head of 
a special staff agency, formerly op- 
crated under the Deputy Chief of 
Staff for Military Operations. 

Major General Walter E. Lotz Jr., 
present CC-E, will be retained as 
ACSC-E. 

The rcelesignation results from an 
Army study which recommended ele- 
vation of the communications staff 
function to a higher level. The change 
is expected to improve the agency's 
capability to coordinate and manage 
the expanding communications func- 
tion within the Army, as well as with 
other agencies and commands. 



Notice 

Transit Symposium 
Delayed 

The Navy Navigation Satellite 
System (Transit) Symposium 
scheduled to be held in Washing- 
ton, D. C., on Nov. 30, announced 
on the inside back cover page of 
the November issue of the Bulletin, 
has been dlayed until early spring 
according to John H. Jorgenson of 
the National Security Industrial 
Association. 

The technical information and 
documoiita-tion on the system's 
shipboard user equipment will be 
available beginning Nov. 30. A 
charg-e, estimated at $30 to $36, 
will be made to cover the cost of 
reproduction and mailing. Sales to 
foreign purchasers aro subject to 
normal munitions control proce- 
dures and export control regula- 
tions, To obtain the material, con- 
tact: 

National Security Industrial 

Association 
Department T 
1030 15th St. NW 
Washington, D. C. 20005 
Phone: <202) 296-2266 




INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM 

(Continued from Page 7) 
truly competitive throughout the 
range of requirements. However, the 
system's requirements are tightly 
drawn and the benchmark test de- 
veloped to measure these require- 
ments. Because of this, the Air Force 
does not speculate with regard to 
potential performance of contrac- 
tractors' systems not submitted in 
accordance with the rules governing 
the RFP. 

The Air Force is continually work- 
ing to improve the selection process. 
As the number of users of ADP 
equipment increases, the need for con- 
tinuing refinement of user require- 
ments becomes essential. In order to 
obtain the best computer systenij the 
Air Force at the present time reflects 
the user requirements in the desirable 
features and the mandatory require- 
ments of the RFP. One possible re- 
finement to the present process would 
be to require that the user estimate 
variable future workloads and the 
probability of each of these work- 
loads. This information could then lye 
submitted to the vendors in the RFP. 
Responses could be designed for each 
workload level and evaluated by the 
expected cost concept. 

The acquisition of management data 
processing systems by the Air Force 
is an integral part of overall DOD 
planning, programming and budget- 
ing. The final objective is a family of 
management information systems, 
each accomplishing a particular mis- 
sion, and each interfaced into a total 
structure to support world-wide Air 
Force management. 



MAIN BATTLE TANK-70 SHOWN The Main Battle Tank-70, the most 
advanced armored vehicle ever developed for the U.S. Army, was unveiled 
during the annual meeting of the Association of the U.S. Army in Washing- 
ton, B.C., in October. The radically new tank was developed jointly by the 
United States and the Federal Republic of Germany. Among the features of 
the MBT-70 are more accurate fire control, more powerful engine and 
improved armor protection. 



NSC Puget Sound 
Established 

The Naval Supply Depot, Seattle, 
Wash,, has been disestablished and 
its functions transferred to the 
newly established Puget Sound Naval 
Supply Center, headquartered in 
Bremerton. 

Captain Stuart M, Ball, SC, former 
Commanding Officer, NSD, Seattle, 
will command the new organization, 
which will consist of three divisions 
located in Seattle, Bremerton and 
Manchester, 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



23 



DHPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Military Fundions and 

Military Assistancn Program 

Quarforly Report 

I'injimod liyi 

Ulrntlortila far lldiindtil Amilyilt inn) (diitnil 



Olflto of lite AnhltHi! S 

HOIIID .1C (i:jv, rim I'o.th 



f Oefcmo (( 



' ' '|"-l'. ! .l'.k ' ,. tl (l| ,;,,, 




Expenditures 

Fourth Quartor, Fiscal Ynor 1967 

(Amminlt lit llMiuiiinili) 



nil 



Military 
Active 







i IIM thru 


. 


April May 
IVfi'i I'lfi; 


Juitr 
I'jr.V 


June in, 
IMf,; 

f ' i ' ',!'. 1 


\l atari J tm( , 3 
"( ff nt I'Hij 



Total Mllftnry Pi-nt ........ 1 

0|H>riiUnii unil 
tH-uivint 
Aircraf 



t.-..f.f,.i Mi'' 1 '):. 



, tuul 
wlil> tiiiiiuiKi-nii'iil iind 



Military C 
I'imtily 



MllitHi-y A twi Nlii net* 

^ nj ( , uwa 




rmimlH I, ( IH, 



Department of the Army 



Expenditures 


Unpaid Obligations 




April 
1967 


May 
1967 


Juno 
1967 


Cum thru 
June 30, 
1967 


At start 
of year 


As of 

June 30, 
1967 


Military Personnel 














Active forces 


583,286 


573,461 


779,371 


6,696,371 


320,624 


392,872 


Reserve forces 


44,377 


55,195 


74,868 


603,835 


114,434 


112,152 


Undistributed 


37,810 


-8,077 


-33,106 





_ 





Total Military Personnel 


666,472 


620,679 


821,134 


7,300,206 


434,958 


506,024 


Operation and Maintenance 


664,477 


724,749 


929,014 


7,293,386 


881,122 


1,252,029 


Procurement 














A ira-af t 


108,089 


76,045 


99,741 


981,570 


1,137,663 


1,303,735 


Missiles 


37,098 


23,903 


-14,373 


220,627 


537,097 


458,264 


Tracked combat vehicles 


31,914 


47,721 


34,062 


284,826 


432,566 


611,133 


Ordnance, vehicles, and related equipment 


210,810 


181,086 


-101,077 


1,780,281 


3,421,137 


3,387,912 


Electronics and communications 


58,200 


41,702 


77,682 


476,830 


738,404 


780,554 


Other procurement 


75,358 


68,381 


103,606 


637,390 


666,038 


817,300 


Undistributed 


-58,114 


-B 5,373 


-135,310 


48,425 


-337,631 


-386,066 


Total Procurement 


469,903 


374,043 


64,332 


4,389,965 


6,595,203 


6,972,842 


Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 














Military sciences 


15,870 


11,216 


23,699 


165,505 


120,589 


133,666 


Aircraft 


10,505 


9,800 


8,274 


120,466 


92,925 


85,463 


Missiles 


61,357 


48,2G6 


97,776 


752,325 


461,337 


436,876 


Astronautics 


2,473 


1,205 


1,437 


22,008 


20,741 


16,069 


Ordnance, vehicles, and related equipment 


19,793 


12,686 


12,459 


179,734 


139,922 


136,432 


Other equipment 


20,316 


25,066 


29,802 


267,311 


197,438 


218,487 


Program-wide management and support 


3,235 


6,231 


7,412 


78,362 


31,310 


39,835 


Undistributed 


-10,443 


14,219 


-62,240 


48,189 


-146,833 


-194,032 


Total Research, Development, Test, & 
Evaluation 


129,171 


127,808 


118,619 


1,633,950 


918,429 


870,746 


Military Construction 


178,599 


20,141 


18,067 


447,860 


518,996 


818,076 


Revolving and Management Funds 


6,629 


-74,091 


204,610 


-66,082 


40,077 


58,732 


TOTAL DEPARTMENT OF THE 
ARMY 


2,113,168 


1,709,229 


2,165,766 


21,010,265 


9,388,844 


10,477,449 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



Department of the Navy 



Expenditures 


Unpaid Obligations 










Cum thru 




As of 




April 


May 


June 


June 30, 


At start 


June 30, 




1967 


1967 


1967 


1967 


of year 


1967 


Military Personnel 














Active forces 


492,376 


382,362 


612,083 


6,082,840 


141,289 


232,405 


Reserve forces 


12,428 


12,562 


14,098 


149,615 


20,898 


19,608 


Undistributed 


-4,573 


-6,980 


1,593 








_ 


Total Military Personnel 


500,231 


387,934 


527,774 


5,232,355 


162,187 


252,103 


Operation and Maintenance 


449,558 


442,066 


428,294 


6,068,303 


1,230,060 


1,107,396 


Procurement 














Aircraft 


209,975 


218,979 


234,270 


2,606,678 


2,818,833 


3,642,971 


Missiles 


22,911 


65,587 


35,166 


481,702 


560,035 


470,557 


Ships 


139,200 


142,697 


147,165 


1,398,402 


2,867,671 


3,049,781 


Tracked combat vehicles 


986 


1,296 


474 


8,768 


16,446 


21,547 


Ordnance, vehicles, and related equipment 


105,432 


117,002 


224,924 


1,099,990 


1,418,223 


1,011,740 


Electronics and communications 


27,824 


41,978 


50,527 


413,784 


589,237 


066,877 


Other procurement 


54,082 


45,523 


59,460 


526,611 


726,357 


921,116 


Undistributed 


-3,609 


-5,252 


-8,668 











Total Procurement 


566,799 


617,809 


743,420 


6,484,835 


8,996,701 


10,274,09C 


Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 














Military sciences 


11,686 


12,600 


11,520 


184,366 


137,469 


127,323 


Aircraft 

Missiles 


14,488 
47,400 


26,705 
91,995 


20,086 
56,222 


242,041 
710,900 


159,020 
249,864 


260,838 
29i),783 


Astronautics 

<J hi Tie 


2,365 


2,111 


1,708 


23,020 


15,876 


12.G77 


onips 
Ordnance, vehicles, and related equipment 


20,796 
13,067 


19,142 
14,131 


18,999 
14,070 


296,286 
163,372 


204,792 
97,150 


2 L2,773 
80,010 


Other equipment 

Program-wide management and support 
Undistributed 




7,753 
3,497 
3,385 


7,089 
4,371 
1,101 


7,168 
11,190 
-4,256 


80,918 
90,199 


61,611 
88,594 


89,328 
97,989 


Total Research, Development, Test, & 
Evaluation 

_ 


-, 

124,336 

* ~ 


" 

179,245 


136,697 


1,791,101 

"~ 


1,014,266 


1,193,721 



Military Construction 

tevolving: and Management Funds 



TOTAI^-DEPARTMENT OF THE 
NAVY 



-227,882 38,736 14,082 622,638 323,771 268,300 

106,396 -20,178 24,384 202,264 617,446 402,848 

1,509,937 1,645,603 1,874,651 19,291,496 12,344,431 13,049,466 



December 1967 



Department of the Air Force 



Expenditures 


Unpaid Obligations 










Cum thru 




As of 




April 


May 


June 


June 30, 


At start 


June 30 




1967 


1967 


1967 


1967 


of year 


1967 


Military Personnel 














Active forces 


444,034 


407,993 


464,799 


6,274,973 


127,796 


224,799 


Reserve forces 


15,749 


8,714 


13,608 


148,953 


21,466 


18,013 


Undistributed 


171 


-1,696 


424 











Total Military Personnel 


459,964 


415,012 


478,831 


5,423,926 


149,261 


242,812 


Operation and Maintenance 


444,653 


501,437 


551,792 


5,714,461 


805,314 


955,856 


Procurement 














Aircraft 


407,732 


471,603 


322,911 


4,842,449 


3,552,182 


4,608,667 


Missiles 


112,618 


102,746 


142,321 


1,278,061 


985,805 


1,000,194 


Ordnance, vehicles & related equipment 


92,447 


186,658 


304,2fi6 


1,095,400 


1,269,000 


1,719,842 


Electronics and communications 


32,645 


25,364 


30,174 


384,696 


519,065 


555,816 


Other procurement 


06,628 


75,068 


41,159 


496,765 


153,725 


164,740 


Undistributed 


10,841 


-5,583 


-5,027 











Total Procurement 


752,910 


855,657 


885,804 


8,096,361 


6,479,017 


7,049,268 


Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 














Military sciences 


13,626 


15,635 


11,269 


164,310 


131,034 


181,610 


Aircraft 


46,806 


42,408 


39,632 


668,938 


287,333 


449,824 


Missiles 


69,313 


88,593 


77,879 


913,803 


380,017 


300,248 


Astronautics 


68,650 


87,046 


104,093 


084,677 


662,929 


022,047 


Other equipment 


23,981 


31,890 


24,224 


309,783 


221,216 


233,992 


Program-wide management and support 


18,793 


17,414 


18,081 


247,681 


34,752 


26,214 


Undistributed 


16,060 


3,226 


-19,091 











TotalResearch, Development, Test, & 
Evaluation 


255,117 


286,210 


266,089 


3,229,192 


1,623,880 


1,828,944 


Military Construction 


145,263 


9,635 


09,096 


560,289 


442,931 


473,200 


Revolving and Management Funds 


-183 


-21,279 


-49,922 


-69,002 


686 


fl,252 


TOTAL DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR 
FORGE 


2,067,714 


2,046,673 


2,141,687 22,946,226 


9,601,989 11,456,328 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



27 



Defense Agencies/Office of the Secretary of Defense 



Expenditures 


Unpaid Obligations 








Cum thru 








April May 


June 


June 30, 


At start 


June 31 




1967 1967 


1967 


1967 


of year 


1&S7 


Military Personnel 












Retired Pay 


159,208 158,957 


161,639 


1,830,233 


8,052 


7,62: 


Operation and Maintenance 


72,760 84,224 


81,609 


934,103 


106,140 


99,90, 


Procurement 












Ordnance, vehicles, and related equipment 
Electronics and communications 
Other procurement 
Undistributed 


18 215 

560 324 
2,918 1,665 
-326 348 


180 
97 
4,997 
-40 


1,939 
8,955 
29,812 


1,796 
8,438 
36,649 


2,231 

5;33I 
44,341 


Total Procurement 


3,169 2,563 


5,234 


40,706 


46,883 


51,90. 


Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 












Military sciences 
Military Construction 
Family Housing 
Other Special Foreign Currency Program 


39,970 51,390 

740 878 
43,605 45,836 

, * 


41,845 
2,023 
49,173 

11 


605,424 
14,802 
558,235 
11 


501,805 
24,025 
130,266 


474,77' 
20,67^ 

114,96' 


Revolving and Management Funds 


105,717 13,671 


-55,044 


433,844 






TOTAL-DEFENSE AGENGIES/OSD 


""" " 

426,159 357,609 

"" "" ' " 


286,389 


4,317,358 


817,172 




772,03: 


Office of Civil Defense 


Revolving and Management Funds 


7,108 6,062 


12,204 

# 


100,058 
-1 


77,877 


91,80* 


TOTAL-OFFICE OF CIVIL DEFENSE 7,108 6,062 

" " ~ ~ ~ . 


M 

12,203 


100,066 






77,877 


91.81VS 


~ _ 


Military Assistance 

- 


i 








Military Personnel 
Operation and Maintenance 
Procurement 


12 86 
38,691 39,858 


101 
52,608 


448 
331,911 


72 
364,523 


526 
289,568 














Missiles 
Ships 
Ordnance, vehicles and related equipment 
Electronics and communications 
Other procurement 


14,952 20,137 
-2,784 3,828 
1,244 906 
623 12,264 
1,789 5,456 
2,724 3,083 


42,121 
7,270 
34,396 
53,107 
19,457 
18,786 


204,158 
29,800 
51,150 
131,896 
60,770 
57,612 


339,429 
67,918 
114,172 
242,867 
181,174 
138,193 


235,101 
23,660 
114,450 
264,633 
132,402 
127,220 


Total Procurement 


18,447 45,673 


176,138 


635,386 


1,089,763 


897,402 


Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 


13,241 


12,256 


25,671 


3,084 


401 


Military Construction 


-14 -6,001 


-11,024 


19,912 


161,977 


171,821 


Revolving Fund 


1,676 -28,830 


-9,562 


-30,373 


158,606 


764,607 


Undistributed 


1,329 28,960 


-10,227 


-10,310 


48,148 


12,030 


TOTAL-MILITARY ASSISTANCE 


60,136 92,983 


209,287 


872,644 a 


71,816,161 


2,112,357 





28 



December 1963 



Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 1967 

(Amounts in Thousands) 

Department of Defense 



Obligations 




















Available 








Cum thru 


Balance 




for 


April 


May 


June 


June 30, 


June 30, 




obligation 


19G7 


1967 


1967 


1967 


1967 


Military Personnel 














Active forces 


17,686,262 


1,607,780 


1,486,697 


1,511,994 


17,677,961 


108,311 


Reserve forces 


952,869 


76,414 


81,752 


121,409 


919,934 


32,035 


Retired pay 


1,839,000 


158,430 


160,226 


161,622 


1,831,169 


7,841 


Total Military Personnel 


20,478,131 


1,742,631 


1,728,677 


1,795,026 


20,329,046 


149,086 


Operation and Maintenance 


21,690,320 


1,921,342 


1,802,385 


2,444,454 


21,462,890 


133,430 


Procurement 














Aircraft 


14,493,060 


669,134 


1,041,298 


2,101,967 


10,808,146 


3,084,923 


Missiles 


2,647,946 


188,217 


174,400 


314,443 


2,060,931 


687,015 


Ships 


5,026,364 


106,440 


66,047 


178,901 


1,714,468 


3,311,906 


Tracked combat vehicles 


625,950 


57,411 


29,724 


131,609 


623,287 


102,663 


Ordnance, vehicles and related equipment 


7,621,325 


425,198 


745,319 


1,148,146 


5,007,924 


1,713,401 


Electronics and communications 


2,445,285 


138,893 


178,802 


404,978 


1,676,069 


870,226 


Other procurement 


2,901,969 


225,564 


248,548 


382,544 


2,115,837 


846,032 


Undistributed 


58,926 











__ 


58,926 


Total Procurement 


36,880,834 


1,800,803 


2,484,744 


4,662,684 


24,705,142 


11,170,092 


Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation 














Military sciences 


1,238,879 


71,464 


78,829 


184,301 


1,050,673 


188,306 


Aircraft 


1,520,109 


60,080 


105,811 


204,732 


1,301,974 


218,225 


Missiles 


2,678,867 


74,953 


92,702 


192,771 


2,471,218 


102,139 


Astronautics 


1,388,992 


97,296 


236,742 


180,611 


1,278,097 


110,896 


Ships 


399,893 


32,099 


15,710 


42,526 


330,362 


09,631 


Ordnance, vehicles, and related equipment 


422,035 


14,986 


14,928 


41,568 


369,263 


52,772 


Other equipment 


940,989 


67,449 


67,501 


127,024 


763,510 


177,473 


Program-wide management and support 


674,691 


39,030 


47,694 


70,067 


602,368 


72,83S 


Emergency Fund 


3 


. 











3 


Undistributed 


11,209 


~- 








_ 


11,209 


TotalResearch, Development, Test, & 


9,170,246 


447,363 


660,009 


1,043,486 


8,167,301 


1,002,884 


Evaluation 














Military Construction 


3,424,799 


199,253 


380,313 


417,209 


2,143,787 


1,281,012 


Family Housing 


729,000 


49,868 


40,601 


61,592 


G50.10G 


178.89G 


Civil Defense 


141,466 


6,770 


9,283 


20,835 


118,497 


22,959 


Other Special Foreign Currency Program 


7,348 


9 





2,105 


2,204 


5,144 


Subtotal Military Functions 


91,428,182 


8,168,089 


7,106,070 


10,447,442 


77,479,032 


13,949,100 


Military Assistance 


741,104 


22,829 


40,200 


107,998 


729,173 


11,931 


TOTAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 


92,169,236 


6,190,919 


7,146,270 


10,555,486 


78,208,205 


13,961,032 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



29 



Department of the Army 



Obligations 




Tnobligatcd 
Balance 
June 30, 
1967 




Available 
for 
obligation 


April 
1967 


May 
1967 


June 
1967 


Cum thru 
June 30, 
1967 


Military Personnel 














Active forces 


7,007,335 


611,038 


628,258 


616,708 


6,919,478 


87,857 


Reserve forces 


646,899 


50,493 


59,818 


90,532 


621,398 


25,501 


Total Military Personnel 


7,654,234 


661,629 


688,077 


707,240 


7,540,876 


113,358 


Operations and Maintenance 


8,405,156 


781,327 


831,350 


979,178 


8,373,484 


31,672 


Procurement 














Aircraft 


1,433,300 


27,920 


100,057 


370,169 


1,142,129 


291,171 


Missiles 


514,488 


17,249 


15,602 


87,205 


331,156 


183,332 


Tracked combat vehicles 


602,260 


57,747 


27,920 


132,379 


509,417 


S2,843 


Ordnance, vehicles and related equipment 


3,871,794 


299,648 


288,389 


790,576 


3,033,911 


837,883 


Electronics and communications 


867,830 


70,523 


99,131 


152,772 


580,577 


287,253 


Other procurement 


1,145,889 


61,230 


123,014 


127,186 


768,018 


377,871 


Undistributed 


26,236 

















Total Procurement 


8,461,796 


534,218 


654,113 


1,660,287 


6,366,208 


2,096,588 


Eesear/ch, Development, Test, & Evaluation 














Military sciences 


231,737 


10,193 


14,020 


31,291 


204,319 


27,418 


Aircraft 


141,206 


4,674 


7,799 


14,395 


113,710 


27,405 


Missiles 


789,374 


14,260 


28,777 


56,074 


747,140 


42,234 


Astronautics 


21,002 


2,558 


3,454 


1,410 


16,710 


4,292 


Ordnance, vehicles and related equipment 


232,009 


6,400 


6,994 


18,700 


204,030 


27,979 


Other equipment 


408,922 


30,049 


32,012 


56,250 


312,422 


96,600 


Program-wide management and support 


102,007 


3,714 


6,467 


7,615 


93,674 


8,333 


Undistributed 


1,074 














1,074 


Total Research, Development, Test, & 
Evaluation 


1,927,330 


71,848 


99,523 


185,785 


1,692,005 


23G.S25 


Military Construction 


1,579,368 


70,031 


175,135 


162,061 


976,294 


604,074 


TOTAL DEPARTMENT OF THE 
ARMY 


28,027,883 


2,118,953 


2,448,198 


3,694,490 


24,946,866 


3,081,017 



30 



December 1967 



Department of the Navy 



Obligations 




Jnoliligated 
Balance 
June 30, 
1967 




Available 
_ for April May 

obligation 1907 1967 


June 
1967 


1 

Cum thru 
June 30, 
19C7 


Military IVnsommsl 










Arl.ivi- furcru 


5,2U2,a 48H.8H4 435,560 


476,8fiO 


5,221,137 


11,259 


Kciii'i'v*! I'mvcu 


1BO.HBS 12,002 12,304 


16,116 


150,010 


842 


Tultil Milltiu-y IVnumrii'l 


m * d.5d. 7,M 


492,967 


5,371,148 


12,100 


O|ii'i'iili(tn mid Mtiiiilt'iuintM- 


!>,8(),Vm. 010,072 414,000 


780,051 


5,756,379 


48,242 


I'l'ni-iirniii'iit 










Aiivntfl. 


i.TOti.aar, ZM.HW s8B ( sa<! 


920,454 


3,388,539 


1,405,386 


Mliuilli'ii 


riiU,UI)l) 4B,5J) -2fi7 


83,478 


354,425 


177,574 


Shiiui 


5 r 02(),:t(i4 10(1,440 06,047 


178,901 


1,714,458 


3,311,906 


Ti'iu'lC'il rninliiil vi'liirli'ii 


2I1,0 -!t;ifi 1,804 


-770 


13,870 


9,820 


Oriliiiuii'i', vi'hlrlni mill I'l'hili'il rqiii|iMHMit. 


1,H(MI,UB H8,34H 224,909 


208,014 


1,325,433 


483,923 


I'llcH.riHiini aticl comiiumlniUmiH 


7Kn,75K 37.B1H 51,032 


108,542 


490,054 


295,104 


Oilier pniriiivmi'itl. 


1.141,671 (10,479 05,102 


181,178 


796,943 


344,628 


(Iniliiillrltnd-il 


^908 








22,392 


TnUil I'nirHI'rmi'iit 


i4,i:in,or><i 2B,aio 748,169 


1,790,794 


8,084,322 


0,050,734 


Ui'm'iiivli, Drvi'lnjHMiMtl, Trul, mill Kvithiiilinu 










Milllury Hrli-nrcn 


aor,Koa 10,170 U.IHO 


26,320 


180,078 


10,784 


Aiivnifl 


444.WM H2,50 01,201 


96,537 


343,990 


100,924 


Mi.^ll.M 


71)0,fi;U 25,293 18,022 


04,936 


701,151 


29,380 


Aiiti'iiiiiiiilli-Ji 


aMH 1,100 1,100 


5,770 


19,746 


'G,E66 


Mhipii 


:{{lt),Kti:! M2,01)0 15,710 


42,520 


330,362 


69,631 


DrdinuMii', vi'tiiHi-H anil n'luti'd ii'tiuipniriil 


1110,02(1 8,5815 7,084 


22,8D3 


166,233 


24,793 


Other i'(|ul|iun'tit 


i:ii,r>H7 io,oin 15,912 


20,910 


113,548 


17,989 


I'i'tittniin wiili 1 iiiiiiiLiH ( ']ii'nt mill )ui|>|ioi'l 


rUB.527 19,540 18,855 


39,845 


251,533 


60,994 


tTililliilriliiili'il 


U 








24 


Tutjil Hi'i.ctii'ch, lli'vi'lHpiiH'iilj 'LVnl, & 
Kviihiiiliitn 


y,!)()l,(ili5 lH9,fl7n 148,5110 


318,709 


2,174,640 


326,985 


MIHUiry (IitnMtnictinn 


OfiW.O-lO Bfi,fi2fl 85,752 


142,035 


675,068 


883,977 


TOTAL DKI'AHTMl'INT OK T1IK 
NAVY 


2H,72,nOO 1,870,730 1,844,310 


3,534,157 


21,800,668 


6,822,039 



Dofonso Industry Bulletin 



31 



Department of the Air Force 



Obligations 



Unobligated 



Available Cum thru Balance 

for April May June June 30, June SO, 

obligation 1967 1967 1967 1967 1967 



Military Personnel 
Active forces 
Keserve forces 



6,446,531 462,867 422,889 418,436 5,437,336 9,195 

155,118 13,259 9,630 14,761 148,526 6,502 



Total Military Personnel 



5,801,649 476,126 432,520 433,197 5,585,863 15,786 



Operation and Maintenance 

Procurement 

Aircraft 

Missiles 

Ships 

Ordnance, vehicles and related equipment 

Electronics and communications 

Other Procurement 

Undistributed 



6,370,888 444,962 474,301 695,949 6,339,382 31,507 

8,265,844 339,351 602,915 811,344 6,277,478 1,988,300 

1,601,459 125,369 159,055 143,760 1,375,350 226,109 

1,936,042 42,025 231,960 80,480 1,540,182 380,860 

780,100 29,244 27,807 84,972 497,981 282,119 

606,426 99,851 56,418 66,416 506,788 99,638 

1,830 _ _ _ Ij830 



Total Procurement 


13,191,701 


635,840 


1,077,656 


1,196,972 


10,203,779 


2,987,922 


Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation 














Military sciences 


196,346 


12,935 


10,561 


20,569 


176,045 


19,701 


Aircraft 


934,080 


22,898 


36,811 


93,800 


844,274 


80,800 


Missiles 


993,452 


35,400 


50,303 


71,761 


962,927 


30.G2C 


Astronautics 


1,341,679 


93,578 


232,179 


173,331 


1,241,642 


100,037 


Other equipment 


400,530 


17,385 


19,667 


49,858 


387,546 


62,984 


Program-wide management and support 


260,157 


15,770 


22,372 


22,607 


267,151 


3,000 


Undistributed 


10,111 








__ 





10,111 


Total Research, Development, Test & 
Evaluation 


4,136,364 


197,963 


371,894 


431,929 


3,820,186 


316,108 


Military Construction 


860,771 


70,234 


115,895 


112,330 


581,974 


278,79? 


TOTAI^-DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR 
FORGE 


30,161,363 


1,826,126 


2,472,265 


2,769,376 


26,631,183 


3,630,180 



32 



December 1967 



Dofonso Agencies /Off ice of the Secretary of Defense 



Obligations 



AvailnM,. 
f wr 






Unobligated 
Cum thru Balance 




101,022 1,831,158 7,841 

8H,fi7G 094,(54B 22,009 





01 



I, mm 

-I.IKM 



7fi 2,308 1,735 

-1.H08 5,847 5,750 

7,74 48,588 24,495 

8,468 

,r81 B1.83H 40,448 



107,Hfi 480,581 124,403 

__ _ _ 

^ r _ b k q 



M.Nitl 40,0(12 107,115 480,531 124,406 




','J>.iii;i :i,.itii 

'ttli. 0(111 'ID.HHH 

Y.IUK 11 



858 11,451 14,103 

01,502 550,105 178,8015 

2,1115 2,204 5,144 

428,584 ;i,021,928 892,005 



Office of Civil Defense 



.SI' 



|(t'V'!^j*KJii'M*, "1 -'a' MHtl 



ill.'IMi (1,770 


U.MHil 


I!0,8il5 


118,407 


22,950 


Military Assistance 










:i!!l. -17 


-7 


14 


325 


, 


:i i -until :!.'.{ 11 


IH.8I17 


4 LlHO 


802,705 


11,931 


W..W:IM .H.:!i.u 


.:i ( 7fi7 


22,070 


90,880 


. 


H/O .ji.yn 


-i.Ofiii 


-5,000 


-14,470 





.M/f.l'.t 8,nt;i 


-82 


13,212 


51,420 


_ 


I Rfiii: i.47'l 


a.iiin 


17,518 


147,003 


__ 


ii.wi:. aim 


.1,11(15 


722 


11,095 


_ 


.pi.Hf.H i.nnti 


Wi'in 


8,5(10 


40,058 





.M.UMI, .ni.fla 


It!, 102 


57,088 


343,105 





1 ,"i!M 




-78 


-1,394 


. 


H1.40W fi.itlH 


o.non 


8,085 


84,408 





-NO 


-:t!ifl 


820 


-36 





74I.HH iia.ait 


10,200 


107,908 


729,173 


11,031 



r liiiiitiUion .1102 uf Ui Military Assistance Program 



tv 




Contracts of $1,000,000 and over 
awarded during the month of October 
1967: 

DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY 

2 Teiaco, Inc.. New York, N.Y, $3,124, 240. 
Fuel oil and gaudlne. Defense Fuel Supply 
Center, Alexandria, Va, 

Metropolitan Petroleum Co., New York, 
N.Y. Jl, 4 82,891, Fuel oil end gasoline. 
Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alexandria, 
Va. 

3 Humble Oil & Remnlnfr Co., Houston, Tex. 
S2 ,421 ,720. 16,800,000 gallons of grade 115/ 
146 aviation gasoline. Defense Fuel Suuiily 
Center, Alexandria., Va. 

Honeywell, Inc., Welleale/ Hills, Maaa. 
81,026,507. Rental renewal of 34 line Items 
of automatic data proteasing equipment 
now Installed at the Defense Construction 
Supply Center, Columbus, Ohi-o, 

4 General Aniline & Film Corp., New York, 
N.Y. $2,470,866. 124,714 pnckng-ea of radio- 
graphic film. Defense Personnel Support 
Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Hoosier Tarpaulin & Canvas Goods Co., 
Indianapolis, Ind. $1,102,40&. 10,98* tent 
sections with covers. Defense Personnel 
Support Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 

ECA, Washington, B.C. $1,297,366. -IE 
Items of electronic data processing equip- 
ment. Defense Electronic Supply Center, 
Day ton h Ohio. 

IBM, Daytoa, Ohio. $1,408,883. 12 Etems 
of electronic data processing equipment. 
Defense Electronic Supply Center, Dayton, 
Ohio. 

E Montgomery Pipe & Tube Co,. Miami, Fla. 
31,408.450. 170,000 colla of concertina 
barbcil wire. Defense Construction Supply 
Center, Columbus, Ohio. 

10 Pettibone-Muliikfn Corp., Washington, 
D,C, JJ, 163,714. 240 dies el fork lift trucks. 
Defense General Supply Center, Richmond, 
Vn. 

Ma* Wnltor Co., Baltimore, Md. 51,094,- 
440, Fuel oil. Defense Fuel Supply Center, 
Alexandria, Va. 

Gulf Oil Corp., Houston, Tes. $3,&05,&fll. 
Fuel oil and gasoline. Defense Fuel Suply 
Center. Alexandria, Va. 

Humble Oil & Refining Co., Houston, Tex. 
$1,427,617. 316 barreEa of combat, Type 
I, gasoline. Defense Fuel Supply Center, 
Alexandria, Va. 

H Otis Elevator Co., Cleveland, Ohio, 
1,416,860. 220 electric fork lift trucks, 
Defense General Supply Center, Richmond, 
Vn. 

18 Kalsw Steel, El Monte, C*llf. $2,S31,2&8. 
2 J 088,0&0 72-inch fence pouts. $1,017,157, 
2,460,960 32-inch fence post a. Defense 
Construction Supply Center, Col unions, 
Ohio. 

Republle 8t1, Chicago, III. $1,914,000. 
200,000 spool* of barbed wire, Defense 
ConaUuctlon Supply Center, Columbua, 
Ohio. 

American Tent Co., Canton, Mteg. $3,579,- 
EJ50. ID.ilS general purpose medium tents 
with covers. Defense Personnel Support 
Center, Philadelphia, Pn. 

Burlinfrton Industrie*, New York, N.Y. 
2,149,184. 1,820,000 linear yards of wind 
realstnnt and water repellent sateen. De- 
fense Personnel Support Center, Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 



CONTRACT LEGEND 

Contract information la listed in 
the following sequence ; Date 
Company Value Material or 
Work to be Performed Location 
of Work Performed (if other than 
company plant) Contracting 
agency. 



DEFENSE PROCUREMENT 



IB 



19 



23 



Rele-el Textile Corp., New York, N.Y. 
Jl.004,322. 776,000 linear yards of wind 
resistant and water rcpellant sateen. De- 
fenae Personnel Support Center, Phila- 
delphia, Pa. 

U.S. Bronze Powders, Inc., Flcmtngton, 
N.J. 81,479,269. 4,700,000 Iba. of atomized 
aluminum powder. Defense General Supply 
Center, Richmond, Va. 

Reynolds Metals Co., Richmond, Va. $2,- 
630,250. 8,350,000 Iba. of atomized alumi- 
num powder. Defense General Supply 
Center, Richmond, Va. 

Aluminum Co. of America, Pittsburgh, Pn. 
818,276,019. 66,276,000 Ibs, of atomized 
aluminum powder. Defense General Supply 
Center, Richmond, Va. 

Masline. Inc., Plnconning, Mich. $B,6fl8,- 
6G7. 24,056 tent frame scat ion a. Defense 
Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia, 
Pa. 

B. G. Colton & Co., New York, N.Y. 
S2.006.250. 1,600,000 linear yards of wind- 
resistant sateen cotton nylon cloth. De- 
fense Personnel Support Center, Phila- 
delphia, Pa, 

Etowah Industries, Etowah, Tenn. $1.036,- 
000. 400,000 men's cotton wind-resistant 
coats. Defense Personnel Support Center, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

Baratow Sportswear, Cartersvillc, (!. 
$1.630.000, 600,000 men's cotton wind- 
resistant coats. Defense Personnel Support 
Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Richard Wynn Enterprises, Knoxville, 
Tenn. 51,370,000. 500,000 men's cotton 
wind-resistant coats, Defense Personnel 
Support Center, Philadelphia, Pa. 

U.S. Metal Container Co., Miami, Okln. 
$1,110,650. 320,000 military gasoline cans. 
Defense General Supply Center, Richmond, 
Va. 

2& prentex, Inc., New York, N.Y. $1,626,060, 
2,000.000 yards of duck, cotton-wnrp and 
rayon nil Ing cloth. Defense Personnel 
Support Center Philadelphia, Pa. 

SadJIer Textiles, Inc., New York, N.Y. 
$1,212,084. 072,000 linear yards of wind- 
resistant, sateen cotton cloth. Defense 
Per&onne-l Support Center, Philadcl]>hia, 
Pn. 

31 The Defense General Supply Center, Rich- 
mond, Va., has awarded the following 
contracts for polypropylene sanil bnga : 
Cavalier BUR Co., Lumberton, N.C. $4,- 
933,813. 24,500,000 sand bags. 
Bemis Co,, Minneapolis, Minn. $1,104,- 
926. 5,500,000 sand bags. 
Continental Bag Co., Crowlcy, La. $1,- 
671,631. 8,100,00 sand bags. 



24 




DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

2 Robert L. Guyler, Lampasaa, Tex. $1,478,- 
16B. Construction work on cxpnnaion of 
B hospital at Fort Gordon, Ga. Engineer 
Dint,, Savannah, Ga, 

James Julian, Inc., Wilmington, Del, 
{1,320,066, Construction work on the 
Aylesworth Creek, Dam and Reservoir 
Project, Laokawanna County, Pa, Engi- 
neer Dial., Baltimore, Md. 

Ford Motors, Dearborn, Mich. $1,250,000. 
Production engineering services for 6-ton 
trucks, Tank Automotive Command, War- 
reti, Mich, 

Flrentc-ne Tire & Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio. 
?1 ,706,626. Track shoes for MBO tanks. 
Nobleaville, Ind. Tank Automotive Com- 
mand, Warren, Mich. 



Eltra Corp., Toledo, Ohio. (1.120 5SJ 
Generators for '/i, % and 2^-ton tiut'ts. 
Tank Automotive Command, War MS 
Mich, 

United Aircraft, Stratford, Conn. J3.7M. 
000. Components and crow armor \Hx tti 
CH-54A helicopters, 51,320,000. ,10 s.ets if 
engine air particle separators for CH-EIA 
helicopters. Aviation Material Comm m<f 
St. Louis, Mo. 

Bell Helicopter Co., Fort Worth. TM. 
1,896,600. UH-1 helicopters, AvIitK-i 
Material Command, St. Louis, Mo 

McDonnell-Douglas Corp.. Tituavllta, KU. 
$5,500,000. Four months of advnnrcd De- 
duction cnnlneering effort anil enKJnperkj 
services with first and second year Draiti 
missile system production to be In f ] u-lifj 
when contract is ilcfinlttanl. St. Lo-;ij 
Mo. and Titusvllle. Army Ml&ll Com- 
mand, Huntaville, Ala. 

3 General Motors, Cleveland, Ohio, t3 r 3i&.. 
000. Continuation of iivoductbii en^EriM?. 
Ing services for M6B1 vehicles, Arr-y 
Weapons Command, Hock Island, 11L 

Joseph L. Pohl Contractors, Noi-ml-i, Mn. 
$1,464,400. Construction wnrk on lh* 
Char! ton Klvor Levees., Near fila'gc.w 
Mo. Engineer Dint., Kansas City. M*. 
4 Martin-Johnson Inc., Poinmcoliv FJa. H- 
$003,247. Construction of a jet engirt 
test cell nt Elitln AMI, Pin, Knairwr 
Dial., Mobile, Ala. 

5 Electro-MechanicB, Inc., Neiv Itrilsin 
Conn. $1,404,880. Cable assemblies for 1 
and 500 Ib. bombs. Ammunition Prur- 
mcnt & Supply Agency, Jollot, Ml, 

Peter Klewit Sons' Co., Mllraonl l't r \ 
Milmont Park, Pa. 81,760.800, llc-r-alr tf 
locks on the St. Lawrence Scavr*?. 
Messena, N.Y. Engineer Diftt. h 3!uffl-.i. 

6 Vitro Corp. of A merle n, ]-'oit ft r j.3ton 
Deach, Fla. $t,ll>G,OH. Dcul K n. devtlc.^ 
mcnt, fabrication, i us tn lint Lou uml tcninji 
of three ftxod and two mobile tctcnr^trr 
acnuisitlou systems for the ay*twn ttst 
facility range at the Army KlKlT^nl-r* 
Proving flround. Procurement Oiv,. Vert 
Iluachuca, Arin, 

Ilniroyal, Inc., Mlshnwahn, Ind. tl,16S,!.^J. 
Fuel tanks for UH-1 helicopters AviiUvn 
Material Command, St. Louis, Mu. 

Ilcchrlhorn Mf(j, Co., DycL'ttluirH,. Tfr.n. 
$1,106,380, Metal parts for hnnil na*;i. 
Ammunition Procurement ft S'j|-f]/ 
Agency, Jollet, III. 

General Electric, HurliiiRtotT, Vl. |]J.- 
270,182. Maintenance spore |.inrU (or 1fi- 
7.02mm aircraft mnchlnc nun anfl r-;-5. 
Army Weapons Command, Rock 1*1 **.-). 
111. 

Lear Slcgler, Inc., Anaheim, Calif. H.- 
500,000. Eke ironic s equipment. KlcclrorJ-.-! 
Command, Fort Monmotith, N.J. 

I'hHco Corp., PhlladelphEn Pa. J 

Secure voice access Bynlem and (mcNtisr? 
items. Electronics Commnnil, Foil Mcn> 
month, N.J. 

Page Communications TfiiKJnreit, Wii-H- 
Ington, D.C, $-1,707, OC3. Mninlenanrc jr.d 
operation services lu conncclfon with 
Integrated Wide Rnrid Cornmiintr*t)ir.i 
Systems In Southeast Asia. Ktwtttn! 
Command, Fort Mon mouth, N,J. 
fl Rulon Co., Chicago, lit. Jl, 150,00ft, MHnl 
parts for fuzes for field rtrlillcry weajoru. 
Ammunition Procur-enionl A S'jp[3r 
Agency, Jollct, 111. 

Hubert Simmons Construction Co., Ijouis- 
ville, Ky. $2,002,678. ConalrueUon t>t tit. 
tank repair shops pud four aulomt'Jvt 
repair shops at Fort Knox, Ky. KisjEcwr 
Dim,, Louisville, Ky. 

11 Wcstinghouse Electric, WnsIiliiKtnn, D.C. 
$1,000,000, Transportable RencraLor Mti. 
HulTnlo, N.Y. Hoflonrch and Cevelor-retal 
Laboratories, Fort liolvolr, Va. 

Flinchbaugh Products, lied I.lcn. Ft, 
$1,000,400. Metal parts for 90mm r<ro- 
jcctllea. Ammunition ProouKmcnt A Si- 
ply Agency, Jollet, 111. 
13 Hercules, Inc. Wilminnton, Del. 
027. Manufacture of miscellaneous 
pellants and operations ftnJ 
activities. Iladford, VB, AramunlUoii Pw- 
curemcnt & Supply Agoncy. JolSet, III 



34 



December 



17 



Hughes Tool Co., Culver City, Calif. 
g 2,! 53, 159. Crew anil component armor 
Tuta for OH-6A helicopters. Aviation 
Matorlal Command, St, Louis, Mo. 
PUlIco Ford Corp., Newnort Hcach, Calif. 
$1,800,000. Chapparral Rulded missile 
components. Annheim, Calif. Army Missile 
Command, Hunlsvllle, Ala. 
Hercules, Inc., Wilmington. Del. SI. 190,- 
8G6. Miscellaneous propellantH and mixed 
Reids. Lawrence, Kan. Ammunition Pro- 
curement & Supply Agency, Joilet, 111. 
Auiilied Devices Corp., College Point, N.Y. 
Sl,379,OtU). Hawk simulator trainers. Army 
MJaailc Command, Huntsvllle, Ala. 

-Honeywell, Inc., Hopkins, Minn. 2,GGG,- 
165, Grenade fuzes. St. Louis Pnrk, Minn. 
Ammunition Proceurment & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Bell Helicopter, Fort Worth, Tex. $2,697,- 
018, Botnry rudder blades for TJH-1 heli- 
copters. Aviation Material Command, St. 
Loiiin, Mo. 

-Cnrcy-Wnterbnry Co. and Nnrfh American 

Dye Corji., Diinbury, Conn. SI. 131, 016. 
Colored smoke dye. Army Arsenal, Edge- 

WCfld, Mil, 

Norrts Industries, Everett, MIIHS. S10,- 
RflO.SGG. GGmm rocket launcherB. I) rock ton, 
MUSH. Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Juliet, III. 

International Harvester Co., ChicnKO, '" 
$1,851,010, Cargo trucks. Kprlnefilod, 111.; 
Minneapolis!, Minn, and Milwaukee, WIs. 
Tank Automotive Command, Warren, 
Mich. 

IS Hulled Aircraft, Stratford, Conn. $6.- 
000 ODD I. onR lead time materials and 
components for CH-GlA helicopters. Avia- 
tion Material Command, St. LOUJB, Mo. 

-IJollliiRflivorth Co., Phoenixvillc, Pa, St.- 

190,325. Three KW 'Renovators !>;} 
SI 7R3,'158. Three KW Rencrator seta (UL). 
Aviation Material Command, St. LoulH, 

Federal Cartridge Corp., Anoka, Minn. 
SD.-nG.Wi. B.BCmm ball cavtriilBCS In 10- 
i-oiiml clfiia. Frankford Arsenal, Phila- 
ilolphla. Pa. 

Cnnndlnn Commercial Corp., Ottawa, 
Onlnrlo, Canada. $2,203,fiOO. Ten-round 
clip* of li.GCmm hall cartridges. Cource- 
Ictte, Quebec, Canada. Frnnkford Arsenal, 

ihia, Pa. 



UI1LH-I HJ| *jmn"- v'i' . li 11 

of nUrocjiifimidlno. NinRra l-alls. ^i""'"; 
Ammunition Procurement & buppiy 
Aucncy, Joliet, III. _ ., 

-..DeMwro Construction Corp., Carwm C ty . 
Ncv $1 (121,288. Construction of 23 miles 
,,( raw water mains, Including necessary 
valves and replacement of pavement. 
Ufii imil Talho, Okinawa. Engineer Ulst., 

-..S ln iicilcI'ter Co., Fort Worth, Tex. 
SI 84B.G01). Hear box assemblies for UU-i 
licHcwtOT. Aviation Material Command, 
Bt. Louis, Ho. ' t< n ur 

-~-A.lt LoslnticH Corp., Pasadena, liftlu. 
$1 230 OG4 "l)2 acts of ans B lt trackway 
*o<l ppl cable parts kits for helicopter 
IniHllTiHs. Mobility Eaulpmenl Command. 

20-ich Ai;c"ft', Wichita, Kan. $1 330,704. 
U-Z1A aircraft and related dftta. Aviation 
crlHl Command, St. LoulB, Mo. 

Moorestown, N.J. $8,098,000. SyBtom 
HUMly to determine unit Identify tho de- 
tnilo.1 syatem and aubsyatom dlsn of the 
Mallard Communleatlon Syatem. blec- 
troTiics Command, Fort Monmoutli, N.J. 
~sVlvnla Electric Product*. Waltham, 
Mnaa. 83,500,000. System study to detci- 
mine nml Identify tho detailed B yatem .and 
Biib-eratam deaign of the Mallard Com- 
munlcHtiona System. EleclronlcB Commaml, 
Fort Monmouth, N.J. 

23-Mason & HnnBcr-Sllas Mnaon Co. .New 
York. N.Y. $20,011.283. Loading, assemb- 
3inir mid packing fti'tlllcry projectlea, 
mines and related comiwnente. Bwr Hnslon, 
"own. $2,702,126. Loading. assembllnK and 
packing large caliber nmmnn tion, m nai 
and bombs. Grand Island, Neb. Ammuni- 
tion Procurement & Supply Ajtoncy, JoHct, 

Hnyea International Corp., BirmlnBham, 
Aln. 82,400,800. Metal parts for 2.76-inch 
rocket warheads. Ammunition Procure- 
ment & Supply Agency, Joliet, ill. 

KDI Corp., Cincinnati. Ohio. 82.330,480. 
MeUl parts for 2.76-inch rocket funes. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Hayes Albion Corp., Albion, Mich. (2,- 
(Ml, 600. Metnl parts for 2.76-tnch rocket 
warheads. Hillsdale and Albion. Mich. 



Defense Industry Bulletin 



Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Afjeacy, Joliet, 111. 

General Time Corp., LaSulle, 111. $2,020,- 
200. Metal parts /or 2.75-mch rockel 
fuzes. Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

Weatherliead Co., Cleveland, Ohio. $1,869- 
562. Metal parts for lOGmm HEAT pro- 
jectiles. Ammunition Procurement & Sup- 
ply Agency, Jcllet, III. , 

Airport Machining Corp.. Martin, Tenn. 
1,420,800. Metal parts for 2.75-inch 
rocket warheads. Union City, Tcnii. 
Ammunition Proiiurcmcnt & Supply 
Aiteacy, Joliet, 111. 

Southwest Truck Doily Co., St. Louis. Mo. 
35,742,514. Seml-ti'niler rnouatcd general 
purpose re-pair shop equipment, West 
Plains, Mo. Mobility Equipment Com- 
mand, St. Louis, Mo. 

Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., Mountain 
View, Calif. 84,172,756. Classified research 
and development. Santa Cruz und Moun- 
tain View, Calif. Research and Develop- 
ment Laboratories. Fort ilclvoir, Va. 

Tcledyne Industries, Garland. Tex. Sl.- 
587,000. Low frequency amplifiers. Re- 
search nnil Development Laboratories, 
Fort Delvolr, Va. 

Motorola, Inc., Scottsilale, Ariz. S1.5S5,372. 
Surveillance sets. Electronics Command, 
Fort Monmouth, N.J. 

24-CrcBt Construction Corp., Norfolk, Va. 
S3 582,654. Construction of an B endemic 
building at the tac Army T^Bt' 
ManaBemcnt Center. Fort Lee, Va, bngi- 

_KT M , D &.l"Bl to BinS a c S Hf .,2522000 
M2A1 ammunition boxes, nurbank, Calif. 
Frankford Anwnal. Phllwle phta. Pa. . 

-BSB, Inc., Raleigh. N,C SlJWWaH. Pri- 
mary wet hatterles for the Nike Hem lea 
misBilo. Elcctronica Command, Phila- 
delphia, Pa. . , . : 

Standard Container Co.. Montclan, W.J. 
$1,806,500, M2A1 ammmtitlon boxea. *lom- 
erville. Ga. Trankford Araennl, Pliiladel- 

fiffi'va P Watch Co.. Jackoon HeJuhtB. N.Y. 
81,609,860. Metal parts for 2.713-inch rocket 
fuzes. Ammunition Procuremcat & Supply 

_& y 'R n nSSt U 'l'aul M E nn. $1.500000. 
ClasBiilcd electronics equipment. Elec- 
tronics Command, Fort Monmputh, N-J. 
26-Gnlion Amco, Inc.. Gallon, Ohio. WjB.j 
200. 20mm cartriilgc fuzes. Frank ford 
Ai'acaal, Philadelphia, PB. ',-,. 

-Snprcme Prcducta, Chlca K o, III. $2.747,900 
20mm cartrldRC fuses. Frnnkford Arsenal. 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

Waltham Precision Instruments, WaHnam, 
Mann. $1,583,818. 20mm cartridge "> 
Frankford Aveenal. PhUadclphin, Pn- 

Zcller Corp., Defiance, Ohio. Sl.Odl.OOO 
20mm carlrldRO taws, Frnnkford Arsenal, 

-5l:lS? 1P ftu2; Elba, Ala. $3,038,6^. 
Seml-trailcrH. Tank Automotive CommatHl. 

Jh.ri U.S' N-w.rk, N.J. 52.7B4.lp. 
M7BO Boml^-ailcra. Tank Automotive 
Command, Warren, Mich. 



AKency, Joliet, 111. ^ , 

Oiin Matlitawm Chemlcol Corp., Bait 
Alton l" $2.107,970. UK 62 auxiliary 
fflC f E 'e B for -^-^V^H^; 
iectllea. Marion and East Alton, 111. Warry 
Diamond Laboratories. Wash n^ton, D.C. 

Peter Kiewll Sons, Ine.. Ml mont Park, 
Pa. 1.658,B71. Culvert cvnck repair of 
lock at MWna, N.Y. Ensineer Dist., 

Pamp,, Tex. |1,251.192. Tub, 
s to the 152mm M81 gun and tlw 
XM182 gun. Klwts Mill, Tx. Army 
Arsenal, Watervllet, N.Y, 
27 American Machine & ****&. Co " , Br 3^; 
Ivn NY. $12,728.624. Metnl parts for 
760-lb. bomha. Ammunition _ Procurement 
& Supply Aeeacy, Joliet, 111. , 

Lovlnson Steel Co., Plttaburgh, Pa. W,- 
G04.EOO. Metal parts for lOSmm projectiles. 
Ammunition Procurement & bupply 
Agency, Joliet, 111. 

-Donovan Conut ruction Co., New .Brighto^ 
Minn. $6,400,000. Metals parts for IBfimm 
projectiles. Ammunition Proauremcnt S 
Supply Agency, Joliet, III. 

-General Motor*, Detroit, Mich $a,28MS8. 
Diesel engines (or armored personnel 
carriers. Tank Automotive Command, 
Warren, Mich. 



31 



Canadian Commercial Corp., Ottawa, 
Ontario, Canada. S2,6&0,000. Tracked ve- 
hicles, Montreal, Quebec Canada. Tjink 
Automotive Command. Wurron, Mich, 
Firestone Tire fi Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio. 
31.712,776. Pneumatic tirea for earth 
movers. Des Mciines, Iowa and IlloominK- 
tan. III. Tank Automotive Cornmanii, 
Warren, Mich. 

Remington Arms Co., Bridgeport , Conn. 
35.122,089. Ten-round clips of G.56mni 
ball cartridges. Frankford Arsenftl, Phila- 
delphia, Pa. 

Philco-Ford Corp., Newport Beach, Calif. 

81, 461.200. Guided missile system test sets. 

Army Missile Command, Himtavllle, Ala. 

RCA, Camden, N.J. 31.826.206. Panoramic 

tel&acopeH for 17Gmm and E-inch howit7era. 

Frankford Arsenal, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Marcmount Corp., Snco, Maine- 81,649.626. 

MQO machine guns, spare barrels and 

bipod assemblies.. Ito-ck Island Arsenal, 

III, 

Western Electric. New York. N.Y. 31,- 
295 .300. Dun] display console kfu for 
modification of the Hike Hercules mtaaile 
syalom. ilurlington, N.C. Army Missile 
Command, Hunlsville, Ala, 
30 Ceasna Aircraft, Wichita, Kan. $6,463,214. 
Bomb dis|ien&erB. Procure-ment Detach- 
meat, Chicago, III. 

General Electric. Burlington, Vt. 2,540,- 
000. 20mm air defense artillery guna. Pro- 
curement Detachment, New York. N.Y. 
Southwest Truck Body Co., St. Louw, 
Mo. SUG82.840. Semi-tnviler mounted shop 
acts. West Plains. Mo. Mobility Equipment 
Command, St. Louis, Mo. 
Bermite Powder Co., Saiiffua, Calif. $1,- 
468,200. Auxiliary detonjiting fuzca lor 
major caliber projectiles. Harry Diamond, 
Labor at or ies, Washington, D.C. 
-Olin Mathieaon Chemical Corp,, New 
Haven, Conn. 518,606,510. Ammunition. 
51,126,510, Amnnition. Frankford Araenal, 
Philadelphia. Pa. t , , 

Olin Mathieson Chemlcnl Corp., East Al- 
ton, 111. S14,816,0&3, Ammunition, $3,- 
080,088. Ammutvltion. Frankford Arsenal, 
Pkiiladelphia, PB. 

Remington Arms, Bridgeport, Conn. Sls,- 
613,260. Ammunition end ammunition car- 
tons. 31,698.628, Ammunition. Frankfoul 
Arsenal, Philadelphia, Pa. 
Canadian Commercial Corp., Ottawa, 
Ontario, Canada. $7,158.800. Ammunition, 
Courcelotte. Quebec, Canada. Frnnkford, 
Arsenal, Philadelphia, Pa. 
Amron Corp., Waukeahn, VVis. 55,976,000. 
Metal part for 20mm projectiles, Trank- 
ford Araennl, Philadelphia, Pa. 
Zeller Corp., Defiance, Ohio. $3,985,030. 
Metal parts for 20rnm projectiles. Frank- 
ford Arsenal, Philadelphia. Pa. 
National Pcato Industries, Eau .ClBlrc, 
Wia $7,000,000. Eltcht-inch projectllea. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joliet, 113. . 

Kennedy Van Soun Corp., Donyllle, Pn. 
$3,007,&20. Metal parta for 4.2-inch pro- 
jectiles. Ammiiaition Procxirement & 
Supply Agency, Joliet, 111. 
Parson Mfff. & Stamping Co,, Cordova. 
Tenn. 52,381,491. 4.2-inch projectile parts. 
Ammunition Procurement & Supply 
Agency, Joilet, III. 

AVCO Corp., Richmond, Ind. $1,487,487. 
Metnl parts for 40mm projectiles. Am- 
munition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Joliet, III. 

Penland Pnper Converting Corp., Hanover 
Pa 51.264,000. 105mm ammunition con- 
tainers. Ammunition Procurement & Sup- 
ply Agency. Jollet, 111. 

M. C. niccMdl Co., Alpha, N J. $1,248.- 
500 Fiber ammunition containers. Am- 
munition Procurement & Supply Agency, 
Joliet, 111. 

Canadian Commercial Corp., Ottawa, On- 
tario, Canada. $8,541,400. Vehicular 
mounted radio relay sets. Electronics Com- 
mand, Fort Monmouth, N.J. 
Intern Eitional Telephone & Tkrraplt Corp., 
Eaaton. Pa. $4,000,000. Assembly of 25mm 
image intenalflera. ItoMK**. Va H- 
Uonica Comma nil. Fort Monmouth, N.J. 
-Vaio, Inc., Garland, Tex W.flQO.MQ. Aa- 
sembty of 26mm imae* tntensiners. Meo- 
tronlcs Command. Fort Monmoiith, .N.J. 
Raython Co., Norwood, Mass, $3,811.160. 
Mnltlplexera. EEectronlca Command, tort 
Monmouth, N.J. 

Sylvanla Electronic Products, Mount Bin 
View, CftlW. $1,C16,000. Research & de- 
v&lopnient for J2 months m the Helfl of 
EleetronicH. Electronics Command, tort 
Monmouth, N.J. 



35 



Consolidntedi Iloi, Inc., 'lVmiji;> Fla, SL>.- 
3 13, 0(1. l-'ihur niii mil nit inn f>iiiaini.'S--= 
Procurement DelncUmont, New Ymrk N Y 

Knntern Tool & Mt gl (.;., H^ii^ill,.., N J 
SU2-U20. Metal ran* f,,r 1<,nm |.r,.- 
jcctilca. PrrjcLitomciit Dt:tacnmtiH, NYv,- 
York, H.Y. 

EUen Urns.. Inc., Hrtbrihoti, N.J. Sl,710.l.v 
Metal unrta for -10 mm ihroje.-tik'.-, 3'n>- 
ciirenient Detiu-hmcnl, New Turk NY 

R. C. Cnn Co., Hazehvuo-t, Mr,. $l,377,'3l)i). 
l-iljcr iiinniiiiiitinji cunlninersi. rnxMiri. 1 - 
niont Detachment. New York, N.Y. 

Klectrn Meelianlenl Corp., Saj-re, i'u. 
Sa.llG.Oii!}. EltictrJL-nl f-.nii|im:-m fch't'lteri'. 
bice Ironies Conimiuicl, I'hiliuJt'Ephin, l', 

LTV Elcclrosjatema. Inc. HimtinRtaii. 
Incl. $1.4H.S10. Hndiu rL-ct'ivors ami initis- 
mittcm. Electronics CornniiitHl, Phila- 
delphia Pa. 

Mack Trucfeji. Allen town, Pn, $i] r f.Clo,r)(X'. 
Ten-ton tractor trucks, 'i'nnk Autmiiotive 
Cimimnnti. VVnrren. Mich. 

Kaiser Jeep Corp., Toledo, Ohio. $1,4M,2]S. 
14 -ton utility trucks. Tunk Automotive 
Conmifliid. Warren. Mich, 

Martin ( Marietta. Orlando, l-'la. $10,351,. 
000. Continued Lncliiatrtal engineering 
services in support of the Pershini,' mis- 
sile system. Army Missile Command, 
Huntsville, Aln. 

Rohm and Haas Co.. Philadelphia. 1'n. $-2 - 
IfiQ.OOO. Frmicllant research itrdKrnm. 
Huntaville, Ala. Army Missile Commiuni, 
Huntsville. Ala. 

Stanford Research Institute, Menlo PaHk 
Cnlif. SI. 941,953. Classified research. Army 
Research Oftke, Durham. N.C. 

Brown Engineering Co., HtmtsvLlIc, Aln. 
SI, 137, 027. An interim data system i>ro- 
grnm. NLke-X Project Office, Arrny Missile 
Command, Huiilsville, A)a. 




DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

2 United Aircraft, Stratford, Conn. 35.300,- 
000. HH-53C helicopters for the Air Force. 
Naval Air Systems Command. 
3 Westing-bouse Electric, Pittsburgh, PR. 
832,04'6,4SS. Dcsidi and furnish nuclear 
propulsion component a. Naval Ship Sys- 
torna Comma nil. 

Lockheed Aircraft, Burbank, Calif. $2 8.- 
230,000, P3C aircraft. Naval Air Systems 
Command. 

Johns Hopkins University, Silver Spring, 
Md. 85,783,000. Research and development 
for the- Tat os missile. Naval Ordnance 
Systems Command. 

General Dynamics, Pomona, Calif. 51,- 
300,000. Airborne nvlonles equipment for 
the Standard Arm Missile. Naval Air Sys- 
tems Command. 

Curtlft Wright Corp., Wood-Riilse. N.J. 
$3,87B,561. Repair parts in. support of 
various aircraft engines. Aviation Supply 
Office, Philadelphia, Pa. 

We at in-house Electric, I! all 1 more, Md. 
$3,000,000. Production of repair parts anil 
support material for technical evaluation 
ot MK 48 torpedoes, MK 4T mobile tarRets 
and associated equipment. Naval Ordnance 
System* Command. 

Texan Instrument^ Dallas, Tex. J1,B20,657. 
Design, development and fnhrieatlon of 
a sonar data acquisition ayatem for sub- 
marines. Navy Purchasing Office, Los 
Anee-ka, Calif. 

Picretti Construction Co., Essex, Conn. 
$1,136,000. Construction of enlisted men's 
barracks At the Naval Submarine [Base, 
New London, Conn. Naval Facilities Engi- 
neering Command. 

AVCO Corp., Richmond, Vs. J2.031.606. 
Design, development, fabrkntion and test 
of arming and fuzing aysiems. Naval 
Ordnance Laboratory, Silver Spring, Md. 
4 International Telephone & Telegraph, 
Paramua, N.J. $2,933,8^8. Programming 
services for th Fleet Computer Program- 
ing Center, Atlantic, tactical ttnta system. 
Virginia Bench, Va, Navy Purchasing 
Office, Washington, D.C. 



-Sperty Jiand, llr.in .Vt-j, N.Y. Sl.iH.'iT 



\-ir. in;.! A-', A ; 



L ).:m-. AwMi.-r. ,-,,.;!_, 1>!:'.,v, 



Mni-iin Klctlrunirn Corn., Mr..',,j). <; r . 



Mri i>l nn.iili.ir-. 



fu.:t.j fur tr.-( -inch ,- c\|, i-r.ij' tile-. Nir. j 




--North American Aviation, I '.I i .i!:iiiL: <. uhiu. 

nitnt -if HA-"*:- \w;i|'.'ii ?>--,!. =ni. Ii':nnl Air 

Systems (.Vni mand. 
Ilenrtii ('orl>., Mi-ili -.v ska. In<!. i 1,3 J"i,'"inii. 

Modifu-atioti of Tj-|.-o II (tn <i '['.. Ill Ti>k>., 

mL-jilti arm ciiiifiKiiraiiun. Navitl Onlnanc-e 

Systems Cuniniar.il. 
-Hpcrry Hand Corp., fireat :\-.-i.. N.Y. 

S3.5S7.313. lrrenit,-!iial funding fur FY 

lUS!* production t.f radar ^ets fi-r Ttrric-r 

t n n n d . 

~-I!n}th*on Co.. l.oxinirton. .Maud. JJ, 57:2,1100. 
De.iifrn, (Irvelftcmc-rit. faliriontiun. iifstrnbly 
rand Urslinj; <if servk'e model dunl rnilnr 
sets. Nnvn! Ordnance Sy^u-nis C'uJiimand. 
1' I,ochh*-d Mlssilea & Space Co,. Sunnyvale, 
Calif. S2G.OOD,000. Production uf I'liafiduii 
(C-3) missiks nnrl related eiiviiprnont. 
Kiiecinl Projects Oftii-'-o-. 

.Metals KngineeririB Corp., (IrtcnviHe, 
Tcnn. S6.717,t'57. Conical fin ns-:t-ml)!k-!i 
u.^cd with the .MK hi. f,uO-lh. t<,mb. Nnvy 
bhi|)!i I'nrts Control Center, Mechanirs- 
liurB, Pa. 

II Cienernl Uynarnits, Pomonn, Calif. $2.- 
1SS.7S-1. Research nnti ileve](j|-ment on the 
Stnndaril Arm Missile. Nnval Air Systems 
Cutnmand. 

Royal Indua-tries, Sanln Ann. Calif. 13,- 
623.S9D. 600-t-alIon extTnnl auxiliary fuel 
tanks. Naval Air Systums Command. 
Collins Radio Co., Cedar Ilajnds. Inwn. 
SH,24g,iy6. Bndio sets. Marine Corps Hearl- 
quarterd. 

13 North American Rockwell Corp., Cnkimbus, 
Ohio. S5.000.0110. OV-10A aircraft. Nnvnl 
Air SyiteriiB Command. 

Bendii Corp., Baltimore, AM. $3,374,785. 
Airborne receiver trnnamStlcr seta and 
equipment. Naval Air Systenin Command. 
Collins Radio Co., Richardson, Tex. !2,- 
924,^959. Airborne comnmnifations stls an<l 
enuiivment. Naval Air Syatema Crimmanti. 

1C LTV Aerospace Corp., Dallas, Tex. $39.- 
567,850. Modification to throe previously 
issued contracts (5.21.2-17.HOO for services 
and materials to extend the service life of 
F-8D and F-fiE aircraft; $2.320.050 for 
long lead lime effort and materials to 
support proposed procurement of improve- 
ment changes to extend the service life 
of RF-SA aircraft, and $4,000.000 to in- 
crease the Ijmttation of authorization for 
long lead time effort for A-7D aircraft 
for the Ar Force.) Naval Air Systems 
Command. 

17Oghkoah Truck Corp., Oshkosh, Wia. (8,- 
066,130. 100 aiB-5 aircraft rescue fire 
fighting trucks. Midwest DIv., Naval 
Facilities Engineering Command. Great 
Lakes. 111. 

Kamar Corp., Colorado Springs, Colo. 
81,006.000, Classified services. Special 
Projects Office. 

18 Home Bros.* Inc., Newport News. Vn. 
41,074,1)80, Heeular overhaul of the attack 
cargo ship USS Yancey (AKA 93). Super- 
visor of Shipbuilding, Fifth Naval Dial., 
Newport Newa. Va. 

19 United Aircraft, Hartford. Conn. $2,454,.- 
178. Spare parts to support TF30-P-B 
engines on A-7B aircraft. Aviation Supply 
Office, Philadelphia., Pn. 
Wtstlnghoujc Electric, Baltimore. Md. 
2,043,711. Support Items for radar sets. 
Naval Air Systems Command. 

20 Treadwell Corp., New York, N.Y. $1.100,- 
200. Repair of Government-furnished oxy- 
gen generators. Bronx, N.Y. Naval Ship 
Systems Command. 

General Electric, Washington, D.C. $1.- 
040,937. Research and development effort 
for Polaris ml sal lea, Plttsfiehi, Hasa. 
Special Projects Office. 

23 American Boich Arm* Corp., Philadelphia, 
Pa. 11,851,010. We a lions control switching 



31 



,y-,tom>i ft.r MK 11! I'U'L- contru! tsystcma 
nii.l r.-iiiK-.l ,..,mi|.n!vin. NiiviJ Ordnance 

V';ckhcfd Misfit* ^ Siiace Cu., Sunny- 
valo. I'nlif. ?ij.UUO.'i'nt. Constriiction of the 

Vcliick'/' Nnvnl -Shiu Sy.iU-ms Command, 
Tnilfd Airrrnfl. S!i .itfoni, t.'onn. S2.n7S.- 
27^. Mniri rutnr lil;i(lc:< for Il-rt4 nircraft, 
Avi.-itii.il Kniijily (.)Hico. Pfiilmk-lphin. Pa. 

-Innmntiotis, Inc., I.cj.inctim. Ohio. 52,252,- 
110. Mii'jiifc sltij'i'inif nnil silorriRe con- 
tuint-rs Nnvnl Air Sy;>te-ni3 CHininiftn-cl. 

-Collins Itndio Co., Cuilar Hupidti, Iowa, 
Sl,Uo7.0!(H. Airliorrn! fjlfuHrfiiiic coniniuni- 
(Mlitnj n;i\ icnlii)ii einiiiiment. Nnvnl Air 

-t'nitcd Airornfl, Kast Hertford, Conn. 
S1.B5D.OOO. S|.an; imrl.s for TF-30-F3. PI2 
unKitiL'.-i. SI, li"). 00(1. Hint re iiarta for TI'30- 
I'l'J cnjiiiit'd. Avintion SuMily OITice, Phlln- 
del|.hin, Pn. 

-Ocean Kief Irk Corn.. Norfolk, Vn. 31,- 
111,000. Instnllfltion i>f an electrical sys- 
tem nt thf Kewt'lls 1'oinC Ar(?n NftVfil 
Hlntitin. Nnrfiilk. Vn. Atlantic Dlv.. Nnvnl 
Facilities KnirincerinK Commaml, Norfolk, 
Vn. 

-Hawaian Dredging & Construction Co.. 
Honolulu, Hawaii. 31.010,000. Dro'lKinfr 
coral and .st'ichjiilitiff it nt Fort Kamchn- 
meha. Nnval Supi'Iy Center, Peerl Harliar, 
Hnwnii. 

-(Jenerol Electric, Washington , D.C. S, r > h - 
700,000. Fire cnntrol syBtems anil Kuidanec 
support cnquijunent for the Poaoidon 
missile. PittaTield, MILHH. Special Projects 
Office. 

-Hughe* Aircraft, Culver City, Cnlif. gft.- 
000,000. Incremental fundiiiK for the 
Phncnix missile system. Naval Air Systems 
Command. 

-Slanwick Corp., Washington, D.C. $2,1-48,- 
G5S. DL'velupment and analysis of rnnnnKe- 
ment information iiroducts in support of 
the Navy Maintenance nnd Matcrinl 
MimnBement System. S1.181.S30. Planning 
evaluations, engineering design antl i-ccani- 
mcndntiona in fiiimiort of overhniil of the 
attack aircrnft carrier USS Franklin D. 
Roosevelt lGVA-12), Nnval Ship Systems 
Command. 

National Steel & Bhlpbulldinff Co., San 
DieKo. Calif. 81,013,616, Topside nltern- 
tfons and repairs, and drydockinft of tltc 
landing ship dock USS Carter Hall (LSIJ- 
3). Supervisor of Shlpbuildlinir, Eleventh 
Naval Dial.. San Diego, Calif. 



DEPARTMENT OF 
AIR FORCE 



THE 



2 Brooks & Perkins, Detroit, Mich. 51,671.. 
644. Manufacture of cargo hnndline cqui]- 
m f"t- Warncr Robins Air Material Aren. 

(AFLCJ, Robins AFB, Ga. 

Goodyear Aeroapaee Corp., Lttclificld Tartt. 

Ariz. $2,5G8,66G. Manufacture of nirborno 
radar components. Aeronautical Syatema 
Dlv., <AFSC>, Wrlght-Pnttei-Bon AFH. 
Ohio. ' 

Halllcraftera, Chka R o, 111, $1,034,350. 
Manufacture of counter-measure equhi. 
ment. Aeronautical Systems Dlv.. <AFSC> 
Wright-Patterson API), Ohio. 

3 Goodyear Aerospace Corp., Ltehfleld Park. 
Ariz. $1,896,450. Development of nn optical 
radar data correlator system. Systems 
Engineer me Group, Aeronautical Sya terns 
Dlv., (AFSC), Wrfght-Pattereon AFB 

' 



Ohio. 



, H ^ r Corp " St A Buatiiic, Vim. 

4. Hnintenance and reconditioning 
?; . C ",", 9 , nircraf t. Warner Habina Air 
Material Area (APLC), Robins AFB, Ga 



Hlll 8j Calif. 

Production of an nvionlca aub- 
ntem for P-4 aircraft. Aeronautical 

APB, &'. ' *' 



36 



December 1 967 



Raytheon Co., Burlington, Mass. $1,800,- 

000. Retrofit of radar systems. Electronic 
Systems Div., (AFSC), L. G. Hunacom 
Field, Mass. 

4 1'exaa Instruments, Dallas, Tex. 31,892,- 

400. Components for an infrared detecting 
set for F-4C aircraft. Aeronautical Sys- 
tems Div., (AFSC), Wrteht-PiUterson 
AFB, Ohio. 

Bendix Corp., Tetei-boro, N.J. $1,180,838. 

Production of flight instruments for F-lll 
aircraft. Aeronautical Systems Div., 
{AFSC), Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

Whiltaker Corp., Clmtsworth, Calif. ?2,- 

400,000. Manufacture of ait-borne elec- 
tronics equipment. Aeronautical Syatcma 
Div., (AFSC), Wright-Patterson AFB, 
Ohio. 

flushes Aircraft, Culver City, Calif. $1,- 

114,083. Supplies and services for repair 
imd mocHfication of components and HH- 
soinblies of an airborne (Ire control sys- 
tem. Los Angelca, Calif. Warner Robins 
Atr Materiel Area, (AFLC), Robins AFB, 
On, 

Philco Ford Corp., Philadelphia, Pa. $3.- 

207,088. Production of electronic com- 
jionents for Sidewinder mlssllea. Warner 
Robing AJr Materiel Arcn, (AFLC), 
Robins AFB, Ga. 

6 Fairchild Cntnera & Instrument Corn., 

ByosBQt, N.Y. 81,198,954. Stabilized cam- 
era mounts. Aeronautical Systems Div., 
<AFSC) , Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

Ha lite rafter 9, Chicago, 111. $1,072,873. 

Electronic tubes. Warner-Robins Air Ma- 
teriel Area, (AFLC), Robins API), Ga, 

1 Rayllieon Co., Waltham, Mass. $3,JS8,50R. 
Hod iftcntion of bomb-navigational systems 
on B-fiS nil-craft. Warner-Robins Air Ma- 
teriel Aren, (AFLC), RoblnH AFB, Ga. 

Sparry Rand Corp., Great Neclc, N.Y. ?2,- 

063,398. Modification of the bomb-naviga- 
tioufi] system on IJ-52 aircraft. Wfirner- 
RobtiiB Air Materiel Area, (AFLC), 
Roblna AFB, Ga. 

General Dynamics, San Dieffd, Calif. ?8,- 

lOa.CTT. Design, manufacture, integration 
nmt munch of space vehicles. Space and 
Missile Systems Organ izatiim, (AFSC), 
Norton AFB, Calif. 

2 Litton Systems, Woodland Hilla, Calif. 

$10,935,840. Production of avionics sub- 
system components for F-4 aircraft, Acro- 
rifmtieal Systems Div., (AFSC), Wright- 
Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

-United Aircraft, Windsor Loclia, Conn. 
81,119,904. Overhaul and modification of 
Hamilton Stnmliml |iro]icller iiKHemlilies. 
Enal Grnnby, Conn. Warner RobitiH Air 
Materiel Area, (AFLC), Robins AFB, Ga. 

P) Lockheed Mladics Si Space Co., Sunny- 
vale. Cnlif. $4,000,000. Agunn launch serv- 
ices at VBiidenberg AFB, Calif., for period 
Oct. 1, 19G7 through Sept. 30, IQfiH. Space 
nnil Missile Systems Orannizatlon, 
<A*'SC), Loa Aneelen, Calif. 

Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash. $4,651,736. 

Cantinuntion of development study and 
testing programs for the Minuteman mis- 
sile system. Space and Missile Systems 
OrKnniention, (AFSC), I<OH Anisoli-a, Calif. 

7 United Aircraft, East Hartford, Conn. 

$1.224,801. Production of spare parts for 
J-T5 aircraft engines, San Antonio Air 
Mnterlel Area, (AFLC), Kelly AF11, Tex. 

Nor Hi American Aviation, Anaheim, Calif. 

SB.-WS.SOO. Guidnnce ami control Hyntema 
for Miniiteman II missile systems. Space 
& Mlasllc Systems Organisation, (AFSC), 
Norton AFB, Calif. 

3 Hoffman Electronics Corp., El Monte, 
CnlW. !'t,(JG3,Q40. Production of air navi- 
gation equipment, Aeronautical Systems 
Div., (AFSC), Wright-Patterson AF1), 
Ohio. 

B Dcudix Corp., North Hollywood, Calif. 
35,187,788. Production of electronic equip- 
ment for 1MB aircraft. Aeronautical 
Systems Div., (AFSC), Wriglit-PaUei-Bon 
AFB, Ohio. 

Cleveland Pneumatic Tool Co., Cleveland, 

Ohio. &1, 160,000. Production of landing 
grenr components for KC-130 aircraft. 
Oedcn Air Material Area, (AFLC), Hill 
AFB, Utah. 

Mnsnnvox Co., Fort Wayne, Ind. $1,836,- 
632, Production of aircraft communications 
equipment, Warner Robins Air Material 
Area, (AFLC), Robna AFB, Ga. 

General Dynamics, Fort Worth, Tex. $1,- 

846.340. Mnchine tool modernization pro- 
priun, Acronnuticiil Systems Div., (AFSC), 
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

Itck Corp., Palo Alto, Calif. $2,578,160. 

Airborne radar equipment. Warner Robins 
Air- Material Area, (AFLC), Robins AFB, 
Ga. 



Tele-Signal Corp., Woodbiiry, N.Y. Sl,151,- 
300. Engineering and installation of Com- 
munication switching centers, Oklahoma 
City Air Material Area, (AFLC), Tinker 
AFB, Okla. 

23 North American Aviation, Annheim, Calif. 
52,718,000. Maintenance, rciinir, overhaul 
and modified tlon of Minuteman guidance 
control systems. Space & Missile Systemn 
Organization, (AFSCJ, Norton AFB, Calif. 

24 Balilwin-Lima-Hamilton Electronics Corp., 
Waltham, Mass. 81,013,492. Production of 
a mobile electronic weighing system. 
Aeronautical Systems Div., (AFSC), 
Wright- Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

20 Fairchild Hiller, Hagerstown, Mel. SM26,- 
77B. Various modifications to C-123 eiir- 
craft, Warner Robins Ah- Material Aren, 
(AFLC). Hohina AFB. Ga, 

27 North American Avfntfon, Canogn Park, 
Calif. 1,650,000, Work on an iidvanced 
maneuvering propulsion ayslem. Air Force 
Flight Teat Center, Eilwnrda AFB, Cnilf. 
Goodyear Tire & Ruliber Co., Akron, Ohio. 
$1,317,906. Maaufacture of whcela and 
brakes for F--1 aircraft. Aeronnuticnl Sys- 
tems Div., (AFSC). Wright- Patterson AFB 
Ohio. 

- Canadian Comaiercial Corn., Ottawa, On- 
tario, Canada. $3,832,6GO. WennonH rc- 
leiiac Hywlem applicable to F-4 Airct-aft. 
Rexdale, Ontario, Cnnaild. ADi-onauticnl 
SysteniH Div, (AFSC), Wrifiht-Piittcrson 
AFB, Ohio. 



30 Lockheed Aircraft, Lake Charles, La. SI,- 
383,333. Inspection and repair of F-lfrl 
aircraft. Ogden Air Mnterial Area, 
(AFLC). Hill AFB. Utah. 

31 Honeywell, Int., Hopkins, Minn. $16,500,- 
000, Manufacture of land mines nnd BB- 
aoealed equipment, Aeronautical Systems 
Div., (AFSC), Wright- Patterson AFB, 
Ohio. 

Lftt*n Syaicms, Woodlnnd Hills, Calif. 
SG, 740,860. Production of avionics sub- 
Hi's tern components for F-4 aircraft. 
Aeronautical Systems Div. h (AFSC), 
Wright- Patterson AFB, Ohio. 
General Electric, West Lynn, Mnna. ?2,- 
DZS.OOG'. Procurement of T-G4 aircraft 
engines. Aeronautical Systems Div., 
(AFSC), Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 



OFF-SHORE PROCUREMENT 

3 Federal Republic of Germany, Buncles&mt 
fuer Wchrtechnik nud BcschaffunK, Kob- 
lena, Germany. 81,741, 191. Spare parts for 
the 20mm gun. $0,621,703. 20mm nutomatio 
E"na. SIC, 431, 946. 20mm ammunition. 
Work on all three contracts will be per- 
formed in Dusaelilorf. Army Procurement 
Center, Frankfurt, Germany. 
Lennhard LcIJcl K. G., Mannheim, Ger- 
many, 81,029,160. Coal. Army Procurement 
Center, Frankfurt, Germany , 



ANNUAL SURVEY 



Necessary 
P -08 Inge 
lie au I red 



DEFENSE INDUSTRY BULLETIN 

Business & Labor Division 
Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Public Affairs) 

Washington, D. C. 20301 



Continue Sending- Q 

Remove Name from List Q 
My Address Is Correct Q 

(Including Zip Code) 
New Subscriber 



Change my Address to: 



Zip Code- 



Annual cimilarization of the mailing list of the Defense Industry Bulletin 
is required by the Joint Congressional Committee on Printing. The above is a 
reproduction of the survey card which has been mailed to all subscribers of the 
Bulletin, Subscribers who do not complete and return the card on or before 
Jan, 1, 1968, will be removed from the mailing list. IE you have not received 
your survey card, or if you are not a regular subscriber to the Bulletin and 
would like to receive the publication, please clip, complete and mail the 
reproduction on this page.