Full text of "DEFENSE INDUSTRY VOL 3 NO1"

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

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

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

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

us Contractor dol-

Cost Plus Incentive Fee

300,000

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

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.

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

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

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-

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

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

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

I
u

u.
O

LLI

f^PiiffpI

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.

W f

SSS

SJ^^!

iss;

a.
u

-(V

5 B

J"! t-

U ti

CO
IDi

8 H

K S
2 [

* i

ass

January 1967

Q
Z

O u

- j

<
o

a:
O

H
DC:

i|| ,

_ 33ll

83u"
-ti :

93 3

i i

P ;j

s S'

" ^

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 .

P
'K

J l

i M sj si

C a ?

lid

i M

3 S

a I

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

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

(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 .

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

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 >.

.
'

'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*

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

, Vl ,

, H
.

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-

<: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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

AND

BUDGETING

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

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

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)

ST COLLECTION CENTERS

AIRCRAFT BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

NAUTICAL
VEHICLE

TRAINING

ADVANCE
BUY

Xtt

AGE

SYSTEMS SYSTEMS DATA
TEST ;NGINEERINC
ROT6E RDTSE

XM m mi

SITE

WEAPON
SYSTEM

flNTEGRATlW
& 10

LASSEMBLY_J

JPHOPULSION
1 20

OTHER

;

NSTMLED
EQUIP
301

KNG
0?

IACE

[3M

ATA
B7

AERO
VEH
101

TUNG
102

AGE!
[UMJ

DATA ENGINE TUNG JAOE DAW
10? 201 202 ZM 207

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-

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

L-pJ

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> '

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

['"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-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.

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 "

;

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

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^

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

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-

*$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.

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.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

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

$2.4
.3

$2.3
.2

$2.4
.2

Other (AI'XJ, etc.)

"L.

Total

$11.1

$3.0

$2.8

$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)

NET ADVRKSK

HALANCK

$2.8

$2.1

$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

,!! 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-.

threat (the,

a mttfh

; , *? * nme

be applied to our

attack. Wo

' 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)

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:

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)

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

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

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

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

3.9

6,5
27.0

2.3
12.6
10.0
11.7

1968

18.0

3.7'

4.8

3.8

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.

Eat.

Prop.

Strategic Forces

11.2

10.6

9.8

7.1

6.8

7.1

8.1

Defense Industry Bulletin

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

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

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-

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

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

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

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.

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

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,

Est,

Prop.

Total Obligational Authority 18.0

17.9

18.0

19.1

29. 5

34.8

34.1

Defense Industry Bulletin

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

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

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

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

Materials

Mechanics

Energy Conversion

Sub-Total

111

116

119

102

Physical Sciences

General Physics

Nuclear Physics

Chemistry

Mathematical Sciences

Sub-Total

Environmental Sciences

Terrestrial

Atmospheric

Astronomy-Astrophysics

Oceanography

Sub-Total

Biological & Medical Sciences

Behavioral & Social Sciences

Nuclear Weapons Effects Research

In-House Independent Lab. Res.

University Program (THEMIS)

Other Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1,704

3,562

6,206

G.30G

13&

624

20,485

19,274

3D.709

24,386

7,177

1,158

530

102

22,025

19,154

41,179

24,013

7,523

2,144

823

111

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

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

1.2

1.4

1.7

11 .4 15

I (1

1.8

1.7

1.9

2.0

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

1 2

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

-.3

-.2

-.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

New Obligational Authority

43.1 43.7 49 4

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

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

1.3

1.4 .1 1.6

2.0

Military Assistance Program

.6 ___ .f>

1,8

1.2

.9 ___ .9

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

1.6

2.4

3.4 ___ HA

3.fl

Increased Payments to Retired
"~~~innel

1.0 ___ 1.0

1.1

, .6

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

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

O3 00

o
o

Ol 01 t- IM O
I- Ol I:- CO O

B o

o
o

0) L-
^1 (D
O Ol

oo" oi

rH O)

(M TH

r-l 1- rH
*]' Ol

Ol Ol Ol

?o w
M"

L-

03"

JH TH
t-i _

o C'

1 -

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

00 00 -rf
O 1- O)

(f i-

- 01
-i

O
-0
31 O

Q 3
vT; h o

o K:

oo" oo" to' .H"

CO *

i.-"

H (O Ol" -df

t/J rt o

H Ol

tj ^>*

irT

1- IO r-

o 10 ai

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

Ol to TH IO to
O3 Ol CO CO 00

0) W
O (D

tf t~r

(D '|i

v-l -J

O3 T-

10"

if (O~ O O3

"H" ^

10"

H 01

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

L-

O3 if T-H I"- T-

<N CO Ol <D rH

03" .-~ *)? n-"

Ol Ol Ol

tf to
L- 01
ID IO
-f

I-

10"

;; 1

ft
Q

r]
-/I

'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

"o S

S I

'1 1

1.-" T-i'

O Ol
Ol TH

Ol" of I- r-! 1
CO Ol

1 -*

of d' tp co"
Ol Ol Ol

Ol"

lit "

V,"

i *

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

T-< 01

M" r-r

^3
IO

01 to 10 o r-

Ol 00 IO 1 - O
\P -f <O L- r-l

03
rH 01
10 O

1 i

rH r

Ol 03
H Ol

01 r-l

'j in

* 8 <jj

111

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

CO ID

CO O i~! t- r-
TH Ol 00 tO tH
O> (O Ol I- T-I

00 T-

JO to

Ol
Ol

i i 3

o of

<M O>
IM .H

M 1

T- *!' 1 - O1 '

M ( Ol '

O3 H" lo" x|*'
(M Ol Ol

1 S

W "=- *" P

t-<

a J

* fc *** H

I"" 1

T !

^ i s

*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 IO CO O> Ol
Ol <U O 1- O
O) CO 00 00 T-I

Jl CO
CD 00

(O
IO

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

11 ra fj
o-l;

" C

,?[

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

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

to"
to

i ^ 1 .? .? r

si
^

S ^ i-j I-IO

s M <A ';
K :

1 1

R .'

&/ (

1 1

-U f

!i ^ 8 8 ,fj j

)

'i! ? las 1

(!)

] 8^

1
1

K '

& f t

tl B

'> 1

G 1

" 1 -M '

8 1

'A 1

H W

* lS ^H M Si r
r"^ W *M H7

'S5 '

p 'O

c; G>9

a > tn|*j ?

H ' (M PI UJ 1

f
3

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 "

w
pi

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

o
XI
o

* FY 1968 inclcdes amoacts proposed

MDiiaiy pe-sosnei 5
Operation & Mainlensnee

NOTE: FY 1957 KOA incudes amon

increase; $71,000,000 for Medi

Defence Industry Bulletin

1. 1

I I pi

S-l i l I H iH t-
M 1 1 1 TH CO

1 ij

*f O H i-
rH rH

eo TH CM

CM rH

CM to
to CM

tO CO rH
-31 CM rH
CM CO rH

oo cv] co oo
i-eoeo t-
oo f M en

io ""

Ci> O

i i CM"

CM*

eo" '

rji *)

*P d t

>-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

cn o CM

co o

in rH

rH In t- CO
00 TH O L-
OT 1 iH O_

r-t o

- =.

i i TH"

rH*

C-l ' ' '

^ <a

i_~

1 i r

1 1 1

CM 1

c-i 1 1- eft

>3 L'

C
fj

2 J

I !

T? II III
lH II III

1 III
1 III

1 rH
1

OO 1 O 1

rH 1 iH C*

n |

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

^ CM m

CM 00
tO rH

IO
O)

IO CM 1 (.-
CT) CO II
tO iH 1 CO

rH ^

h -

1 1 r-T

CM" ' '

co"

03* ' CO"

:" 5

, 3T

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 Tf -rf tH

coeo * en

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*

in*

n-f

1(3 t ,|,

fr n

rH '

CM OI

M Jj

(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

CO CM

oo co co

tO TH TH

CO O 1 CO

o vr i to
co_in i C-

^ c!
n ..

in"

in" in

TH" in'rH* ! TH"

eft

CO*

di" 1 ( TI*

x l"

rH '

CM ' M

-\ ep

'--^

O CO

CO if

en co in i o Ti" co

* P O 1

co to

CM 1 1 C-l

n o*

r" !i Q

TH Cl

o o i to co

CO 1 rH 1

C-l i

co o>

M ' 1

o g

'S 5

in in

iH CO 1 *

CO 1 1

rH 1

T OJ

trt

rH H

eo*

eo ' ' o;

M t-

OS L-

in en

^ CO 00 1 to t- ID

in c- in m in * H

OI OV t-

co 01 lira

H "

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~

OJ
iq

o> co i in
ira^oi i ic

** ^

in" m

o" in .H" j r-"

c>;*

^ * ' rv

D i

"""

of ' c-i

1 1

t- rr

TH TH

CM o en to in TH o o

iH CM O IO tO 00 O t- CM

O TH IO

,, en n

ID in

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

n 10 c.

to 19 i-

J &

F-

in'ir;

O CM r-T r-T

oo"

rH*

rH f rH*

D n

CM CM

CM i-l

IH in

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

oo 01 10
o t>
cn CM

in
co
CM

in co i- o>
to e-j i- o

M_ I.J- L-

< .0

in"

in" m

O CO" CM" rH

co"

r-T

r-f ' C

> ^ R

C-1

01 CM

i i3

,.il

fcsf

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

eo* '

117 1 t- (M
m 1 I- CM

to i t-

CO* ' Oj"

1 s a
H . >|

H 4

t-g

in in

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

(M 1
O

C-l to 'tO

to i- i co

*, O) I';

1 1 f

3 ?

*?*

W ij"

CO CO lH rH"

00*

r jo J

s? ^"*

rH '

-1 ' T-

i ^ t

J < 1

ai 2 ~

CM '
L- TJ-

oo <c

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

Cft 1
O 1

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-

$ tH tO L- CO

H eft o i-
n eo

eo o oo
c co

r-T

oo i

O 1

1
f

O CM H OI

] rxi in co
1 c-i co cr

r ' e-

-3 t
On *

"13 frl

S ID .2

a S

cdi

01 in

CM T<

* H

t- to

t- 0_

in eo to CM <n 03 t>

co eo to in o to

co^ m t- co ^t>

o i <d< i
co i i

CM" ' '

1 1 to

i i co i
i i i
iii i

O CO

oo i
co i

1 '

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

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

i ' tr,

CO to |C-l

tg ISii

S S

*^ i<

TH* tH*

TH" !

> TH* ! I 1 -*

o .S

H| ' i~l

Ztj
W

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

OI C! T-l O

t O T t^ I -

t^ w n

> r-i IO

i 1

^
o

i"lP
(s*

rt CO ^
WO)*

t- TH

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

t- rH to

t- 05 tM
"~i 'T.

00 M t~
10 CO
r-j^in rH

tj O (t
(2 "^

"3 n

o
o

s||

S co

o to

> OI CM tO t- CO CO

CO O tO -sjl O S

CM ^ N

to i to m

TO ! J^

IO xf

i '^ L"*

ii ii o

2 Is

TH-W-

in_TH in ^ to
eo M"

<0 |

! m

eo (M

rH to

CM rH

i C^3 L"^
l IO 00

I' 1

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

^* o 10 o> i>
in <o CM_ eft c

1
co eo a

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

M tH rH r-

to" &f

CM"

(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- ' '

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

^ (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

v t>> K S '" oj Id "i o t/i h 3

a e - =

l t<u^ T) r a c !Hs s s *ll^ rf^&Swl

|| Jgfc 1 'I "

' M

H -i*!S

a |g

V w

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

M)
Frl H

S o^fri u^ <jg <r

W OO

J J " rt rt y ^ R

s fc,

K^w

i? !?

February 1967

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

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

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

ira

j-> Q

1 o

|3i*

co"

s "'

IN
iH

c-f t>] ira" -cf

C 1
r

9 6

a g

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

3 |

g?i

H" co" co" co"

<M rH CM

t- IO CO IO CO
tO M W <N

00 IN CM IN

O
CO

'R 'K

Cj g

9 S

1 1

Q) B

O +1

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

i-T 00 QO G "d*"
00 (M CM CO

rH
Ol

o-i of i-^ o"
a* EM CM co

CTJ

f "S

BO <p

B H

3* JS

y *r\

R C

-J o>

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

to"

I- <O tD O

CO * L O

ira 01 ID o

<o" co" I-H" rn"

o o

O rH

to"

r-l

P 1 ^
tl

D -g ^

<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 *

B E
3

!fl_fir3

t- CO C-l CO

M r-

co" of c

qi CO

rH"

C-l" CO" r-

' n~

fi"

Z |Z

if 3

rH rH CN

tO C-l CN Ol

L~ CM 01 <M

L-

^ Tl

O g

"8 i

C 41

** f.

5 s

S -H

O c5

1
1

1 $

Z!j
CO

^ 8

irf

H rH

1 id

+J -to

ti I

a M

fl 1

u Ig

4? 'I
* M

'. fcl

M ***

W -+-1

^ S

*
3

1 "

nf ^

Fiscal Year 1966-

Departeent of the Army
Department of the Navy
Department of the Air Force
Defense Asrencies/OSD

Civil Defense _

t
i!

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

ffl

O -u"

Dofanse Industry Bulletin

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

07,950

23,372
20,429
24,077

47,906

11,186
20,618
14,785

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

February 1967

1OOO

in n*

Ol rH rH "tf O Cl CO1O

t- CO CO-sf rH 5O rH

*dt (O

O^ -ef TH t i-H

^ to

*-* Ir-

g 1010O1

CM ire

t-" CM rH 01 co o to ire

TH t-

Ol rH rH rH -eti

C-Ol

Ol CO Ol SO rH

t-Ol

M to

S 0010

OrH

rH C-L-CC-* CO COO

Ol O

rHCO rH CM

toira

to 1-^00^ OO^rH

p i-^ 2?

>H Ol CM

01 Ol

rH CO CM rH IK rH CM

W L-

rj*

iO*"

CO" r-T "rf "^

^(T

ire"

"o r o

CM rH

^t 1

CM (MCM

3 N ^T

,, wua-tf

Ol O5 t- L Ol T]< C- CO

t- CO rH L- 10

^01

Ol Ol CO (M rH

xfOl

3 P CM

COCOrH

COL

O OlCOinOl in rHrH

OO CC

Ol rH O (TO

COCO

CO O to t- O

COCO

ph 9 r

S tOClCQ

*d" CM

t~ IO rH L- *)* rH * ^

CO r-

CD IO rH 1(3

Ol D- Ol O^J rH

O L*

'r r^ !j

LH t- rH

CM O1CM rH in rHO]

CM t-

EM"

CM O ^ CO

S M

CM rH

CM<MCM

L-

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

OCO

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

IOO_

rf ^t 1 to L"" TH

in^o

o C3

K, ^ ,_|

L-10

(M OlrH rH -^ rHrH

O tC

Of rH"

t-^Oo"CM~CO"

C-frH

co"

Ifl

f"H *~*

rHrH

rH rHO;

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 VO OJ (M IO
O ^ rH. CT1 c^

CO O

toco

co
ov

H tp^t-CO_

ooto_

co -^

OtO rH

CO rH

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

at rT

e_T

of ^oj^co"

oTt-T

fo r- 1

rHrH

rHrHrH

^ COCOCO
g t~001

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

CM O

CM
OJ

S 01_ L- 01

C "i, t "l

O^ tO^tOO_ C3 CO^CO

co^ cr

^Ol tO rH

IO CO T}< Ol_rH

Ol_O

H CM" H"

-rf'rH

10^ iri"co"of of rn"

10 (C

O^r-T

of W c* o-f

0) rH

h H

rHrH

rHrHrH

ire

M HM(D

Ol<0

IO Ol Ol Ol 'IJ Ol ^O Ol

t- iy

>* o to s

*tf

^JHIO

rH tO Ol C-l CO

ff 10

CT1

g CO L- (M

0101

CM co to co 5 in t- T)<

to o-

OOICM -

01 IN

CO 00 L- L- 01

0101

2 -^too

rH ^

to CO 01 01 01 rHL-

to o-

C-UO rH

t~ CO

tO O] rH IO rH

\^- CO

rH_

tH rH H

COrH

*rt IOCO (M rH rH

tO tC

aTr-T

,_f

IH'IO'O'CM

Ol i-H

M o,

h H

rHrH

rH rH Ol

^ o

S 10 COO

COOl

L tD O t- " O IO t-

to o CM tr- ?

tOL-

rH L CO CO t

(O t-

a *d COCM

Olin

IO xf CO tD - CO L- Ol

f c

t- 10 S

^c t-

^ IO rH L^ IO

T^ L'

H IO tDOl

O^l-^

CO SO Ol Ol CO CO CO

t- XI

Ol Ol

ra 10^

i- L^ IO_ r-H_ Ol

00_IO

^J.

X 3

fit ' '

rHrH

ID to
rH,

06'

rHrHrH^

i- TH"

"E -"

5 S

S 10 oo

tji CM

to oo co to " Tt< 10 in

tD COrH O

to to

n "^

*f rH TH C-.]

rH ire

m OltoO!

"d* O

^ O t- <# CO COCM

rH C.-

to co

OlOO

rH CO OO O^

Ol CO

3 s

rHl-

CO O1O Ol O OJTf

^ C

,*-?,

co^i^-

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

3 "cJ

ft, rH

rHrH

rJ 1

-t

rH rH

1 5

o L- -# IO

tO l-

CO CTlOOi CQ O)O1

rH O -^ O

CO O

CO rH

Ol O tO CO

00 r-(

r. ,g

55 CO L rH

OlrH

TJ 01 CO -tf - L- O

O O

to d3

OlCO

CO L- Ol C-

c-i 03

a ^

3 tDtDL-

OCO

CO Ol O rH I- rH L-

to co

tO Ol *tf* rH

tO 05

CT5

bn O~

CMO

(N IO Ol rH i~t

ri If

"rH"

OrH

T-i

Ol i-Tdf TH

O TH

I-H"

G t*>

i, rH

rHrH

rH r-l

^l 1

I -

* a

S O) Tf O

coir-

O I- (0 CO Q in 01 rH

tf t-

IO I

CO IO

COIQ

rH O COIO

ES'

jd .& ^

J2 O ^r ^J*

OO tOtO-d'- -^ COO

I-

CO IO

tDrH

00 CM rH IO

*OrH

p U M

rl C-^tO tO

01 rH

rH rH CS Ol in OS L

L--

rHIO

eo_

CO CO L O>J_

rH_IO

s ; -|

|H O

Ol tOCO rH

Tf cr

'rH

rH~T-r

of rH OOrH

rH rH

fc ^

rHrH

rH rH

u .9 -g

co CO t- L-

Ol rH

CO IOOCO-; O OTtO

CO If

to o

L-

L-O

L-

rH to Ol L-

S20

.E a

J2 010 to

Ol ^i* Ol Ol ^ Ol ^J 1 CO

00 1!

CO CO

^P TJ*

O3 O CO t-

"^r ^3*

r* S rt

rl CO CD 10

in 01

L O O L IO IO

OJ f

t-^CO_

L~ ire L- t-

I-^CO

2 'p o

k, O"

rHO

rH IOCM rH

o" o

'of

IDrH"

co"

1-" O t-

JS-- 1

co"

rHrH

rH rH

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^

IOCO

lOrH
OJ^O^

01
CM

01 1.- tO

L- (M O> tO
(OJ^ 1O^*O

10 CO
ItS r-f

<n.

J 2 ;

M o"

rH O)

rH (OCM rH

rH O

tcTflvf

oo"

L-To L~

COOl

co~

S 5

fo rH

r-l

rH rH

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

Hi CO L- t-
10 "tf rH tO

CO TH

g g E ff 3,

io t-

L- K

L-

iH_O_

CO^tO^iO^tD

rH O

c "i-

B ^ i ji

, gio^

HOQ
rH

0' to" ri
Ol

<y> rHCM

tf
CO

HJ a t- a a

^ w p ^ ^

c y <j ^

I" OOlxJi

CO M-tf OC t- t-O
rH CMCOIO-3 CM O1<O

O COCM O>
01 O CO rH

E-

COO

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

L~^O^

**v

[.--^C 1 ! rH^tD

L-^CM

a 2 ___ '3

H o"

rTcO

of -df rH

t-" r-

O rH

t-- O Ol

OrH

TH"

P ^ rt w

fi ^

Cr-

rH rH

a TS ja M g

3 toiot-

COO1

O rHOlO>3 O IQIO

oo in co i o

O<N

1- Ol rH rH

S tOrHCO

to to

CO *3< to in O) O> CO

co tc

O 1 O

G^l -Ol

1 rH r-H-O>

Ol O}

>. y rl L* 4-f

rl CM^COCO

O3-*

Tp^ o^in u- ch co co

in, r-

CO l rH

LOrH

L^"

|^ to ^ l>*

IO rH

t-*

H u , f3

W rH

T-ToT

r-T 10" CM"

o o

^<pj

L-"

ofO) rH

SJ"

"- 15 U Lq rf (j p;

& *"~^

(

rH rH

1 ** 2 ^ * i ^

1
1

1 1
1 1

,1?

1
i 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

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

) CM Cft t-CMC
t-<N t-oOC
CO ^f O CM r-

3 O

; O
CO

* ^^-t*~ t*J

>H CO" C-

i HO

lO CftCMrH IO Hfi 1

1 H t-H

5 1 SrH T

[* a

a js

C-l

tr-

(MNCM

: g A

c tome
S tococ
3 -*o>c<

> OC
OC

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-

IOC
CftC

to"r-

CO CO -*^ ^f t-
O t-Cft t-CT
rH Cft in H

Cft

c
u
a
t-

s a^ fa '
b

IN T-

CO Co'rH'rH Co" Hr-

co ton

fc<

CMrHCM

* "^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

L-
L-

- COr-B

"* 2 *~

' tO~M

' rH tOGJri rH r-

" -tf" eo"r-T

-=fto"o"co"

C'
ll

rHrHCM

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\

oo> tomco

OO)H tOCT)
tO CON CO

coo-
t-o

H Csl

r-
C
*;

fa H

M 1 (N

H r-

t~ IO CM rH i-T
CM

H" to"rH

to"r-

rH CO CO CM

tOH

rHrHH

-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.

m CM o t-o

oio inio H

oin

& H

tO tO CO C^l H H

IO t- rH
H

5 1 " 1

H
IO

i-HrHCM

CftrH

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-

CftlOCMIOCO

CMH

in CM

CMt-

CO
O

^ H

^n to CO CN H H

tO tO rH ri
H

00 rH

rH # O rH

COH

M 1

rHrHCM

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

rHCft

m co

H H

HrH

-*" to"eo'rH" rH H"

o"rH"

rHCOOH

eon

V)
UM

rHrHCM

o H CO CO
n IO ^ CO
p-i tOtOt-

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-

o-* moo*

COHCOCft
rHCM t-O

>cr
r-l r

to
tr-
ee

(N O
HrH

M *"*

O'N'OTH'

COH

rHH H

t 1 !

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 CM IO lO #

COtOOH

in Cft

ri to

CM
C0_

a
H

*8 lit ^ i

* H

CO ^J* rH 1
rH

H H

Cft H Cft H

rH i-l

rHrH

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^

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

H| COt- Cft*
grHCOtO

ot~

^00

| fl

0) (J 1=1 >

HOJ

H CO (>f iH

1 rH

oT"?.^*^

O^i-

o "-' &

H '

1 C*l

(O 00

Ji CX

o Q

Z *

HrH

i ^

O S

T^ *$ H

co in 10

Jl t-
=>CO

^Tjl

ji ^in^t 1 ^ i> oeo
to oo co to t-t-

S ^ % \

?2t-rHIOH
gCfttOrH

tO CM
-OKI

t*> '!

-O JJ

< S*

i- &

n"oT

= OO"H"

., CO
-0 CMH

'CM

-co^co^to

3o"(N

J ^

HrH

-o

rji

S S t S

Q (D

1-1 in
o

IO Cft L- C

to co c- c

M O

M iraio co " o o oo
o coom*- ^ too

- rHCft * ^tc,

"^OtO*

NrH

I 1 1

tO M 1 "tf 1 1

1** (

Jl 00 O CO CM to tO

J S S CO 00

>rH

-__ TP in os

31H

p R **

Q tn

H CO~ C

1 L* H H

*> "T^k to

"-t- 1- 10

~~^

D h

H t

H i

-H

CO
CO

00 Cft to"
rH

0(T4

-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

n S "

3 S "3

I fl

2" r

H L-" C

ft" co" H" c

i *,

(VJ * *

n (M

3: h

H r

H M ;

_, ^^

w CfttO L
rH C

t-"

1 ^ 1

u. "

031

COCO to Ci

to eft oo ^

?<N U

'to c

; ot-io^ ij OH

- t-3 CO Cft 10

Cft

S o to T}I co (

o o>

^ fi p
s Ii

-H

CT^CM CO ei

O^M 1 CJ} co t- IO I

i 23 S 1 M "*

5JCft tOtO C

MCM

ffl s

S ;

HO)" C
H

|T oa co" H u

o CM"H"

'co"

co"

^rJm"** c

o to
3 OT "

a ! ^ H B

"3 tS P < vS

ft!

3 . "1 H

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

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

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

O&M, Air Nat'l Guard

253,300

1,400

254,700

Nat'l Bd for Prom. R.P..A _

494

Claims, Defense

25,000

9,000

34,000

Contingencies, Defense

15,000

16,000

Ct of Mil Appeals, Defense _

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

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

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

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\

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 _

Total Ships _ _
Tracked combat vehicles
Army _

1,392

5,829

161

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

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)

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

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.

'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.

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

..-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

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-

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!(.

.
D(v., '

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.

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-

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

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

66,167

28,418
17,328

-102,069

8,842

-10,426

-1,683

157,220

147,900

159,710

54,300

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~

1073

438

1525

258

135

439

149

314

533

996

169

329

257

765

590

"l85T

IsrT

3715

288

167

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

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

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,

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

..-

MASC
SINGLE

OPERATING

' _

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.

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

New assignments in the Air Force
bystems Command are: Mai. Gen
Charles H. Terhune, Jr., Vice Com

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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,.,..!,,,,..,!

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)

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 , ( ,,

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,

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~.^-.

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

h, i, t ||i|iorl of

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

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 ,,.

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

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.

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

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

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-

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.

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

' 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

8
13
17
33

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

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

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

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

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

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

/ 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

requests for the film

Pentagon, Washington, D.C 20301

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,

""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

* -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

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

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

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-

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.

HO., AIR FORCE

Andrews A

Washingforj

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, , , .

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

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-

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.

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

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-

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,

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

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

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

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