Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1976
The Army developed its fiscal year 1976 budget at a time when the lingering effects of the Vietnam War, the telling lessons of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, the heavy weight of inflation, and the disarming influences of peacetime conditions were all being felt. The huge quantities of equipment and supplies that had been transferred to the South Vietnamese upon U.S. withdrawal from Southeast Asia had been amassed to a great extent at the expense of departing American units. Further demands had been levied upon U.S. stocks at home and abroad to help Israel counter a major Arab assault, and the effective performance of Russian weaponry in Arab hands held serious implications for Western nations across the military board. Inflationary pressures of global spread inhibited government operations in every field of activity, and an absence of war offered inviting opportunities to defer to economic pressures by lightening the national security load. But no nation exists in a vacuum, and countering the temptations to relax were the hard realities of global tensions and the widespread Soviet threat, as well as the imperative that no military force can stand still.
In the 1976 fiscal year the Army requested appropriations equal to 6 percent of the Federal budget and 24 percent of the Defense budget to stabilize the Army while shaping it, at least for the near term, into the “16-and-8” division force outlined in Chapter II. Woven into the pattern were continuing actions to increase combat power and readiness within the 785,000 strength set for the ground forces and strong representations for the congressional funding and manning stability that would make it possible to maintain a cohesive force and balance peacetime efficiency with wartime effectiveness.
Keeping the Army housed, fed, supplied, equipped, and maintained is a logistic undertaking of the first magnitude, for the logistic function embraces numerous activities in the fields of management, production, procurement, maintenance, transportation, construction, and facilities. In 1976 the Army had to coordinate the availability of arms with the availability of new combat people, replace materiel lost through diversions to allies, continue to modernize the total force as well as equip three new divisions being organized within overall strength, modernize the ammunition production base, assess and improve the responsiveness to military needs of the nation’s industrial base, modify materiel acquisition procedures, adjust troop stationing assignments to meet housing limitations
and maneuver requirements, and maintain an effective force despite the sweeping adverse effects of inflation. Taking note of “spiralling inflation and constant underfunding,” Secretary of the Army Howard H. Callaway stressed in his 1976 budget presentation to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that “we have not been disbursing plenty, we have been distributing scarcity.” This chapter discusses some of the details of logistic operations through the year.
Logistic Force Structure
Force planning, a continuing activity in the military services, is as important in logistics as it is in operations. The logistic force structure as well as the combat elements must keep abreast of organizational and technological developments, and logistic requirements are constantly measured against the changing Army force level. This year for the first time the U.S. Army Logislatics Evaluation Agency used simulation and gaming methods to analyze the total Army force, deduce the proper quantity and mixture of logistic units, and detect inadequacies in future combat support capability. Deficiencies were identified in the 1978-82 five-year total force analysis and addressed in the 1979-83 review Logistic force structure doctrine was modified to conform to anticipated requirements.
Logistic Planning and Management
Numerous planning and management techniques, procedures, and programs are required to insure that an organization the size of the Army is run efficiently. The plans and programs through which the procedures and techniques are brought into play are comprehensive in Army application and often extend into the joint services realm, for the Army is only one element of the nation’s defense structure.
In September 1975, for example, the Army established a Planning Factors Management Office at Fort Lee, Virginia, to collect data and develop standard resupply planning factors, and in September 1976 the Joint Chiefs of Staff directed that the Army and the other services provide approved logistic factors annually for inclusion in the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan. The senior logisticians of the Army Logistics Policy Council had already met in April 1976 at Fort Lee to be briefed on selected logistic topics and had published classified proceedings in which certain actions were assigned to elements of the departmental staff.
One of the essential elements of the Army’s logistic operations is the Logistics System Master Plan, which provides for central control through a process of management by objectives. This year’s objectives were published in July 1976; those for 1977 will be refined so that they can be integrated into the Department of the Army programing system.
The success of programming and master planning is dependent today to a large degree upon standardization of data elements. The Army uses data elements in such areas as general and financial administration, mobilization and forces, personnel, logistics, medicine, procurement, research and development, intelligence, and security. Within the past eighteen months, some 800 Army data elements and items were standardized. The U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command was designated as executive agent for the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics. A handbook will be issued in early 1977 to implement the standardization program and insure its compatibility with the overall Defense program.
The importance of standardization is evident in the Army’s master data file which contains basic logistic data on nearly one million items of supply. The file must be kept current and be made available to users, who in some cases have automated equipment. Updated information is furnished monthly, with tapes for users with automated equipment and microfiche for the remainder.
Army logistic support extends from internal to interservice and international levels. Internally during the year, the logistic organization of the division was examined in light of logistic support changes at higher levels and of the sixteen-division force objective; the existing division support command was found to be the most effective structure for providing combat service support. Corps support command roundout was also studied against the concept that reserve component logistic units will be used to fill out active Army support commands in an emergency. This examination was continuing as the year closed.
In the area of interservice support, attention centered upon reducing support where the Army is not the principal user. In the Western Pacific, for example, the Army, with only 23 percent of the service population, was providing 93 percent of the logistic and community support. To reduce its support effort, especially in Japan and Okinawa, the Army prepared a plan to transfer twenty-eight functions and 1,200 foreign national indirect hire civilians and 580 military people on Okinawa and Honshu to other services and agencies. The plan was approved by the Department of Defense on 16 August 1976, and most of the function transfers will be completed before June 1977.
At the international level, the Army had, before 1974, provided materiel support to selected allies who were economically unable to establish contingency stockpiles. In December 1974 the Congress prohibited the services from using Defense funds to establish or maintain stockpiles identified for use by allies (Section 514, Foreign Assistance Act). In June 1976, however, the Congress removed this proscription, although with certain limitations: stockpiles in non-North Atlantic
Treaty Organization countries must conform to annual ceilings specified by Congress; new stockpiles must be on U.S. bases or bases used principally by U.S. forces; and annual increases must be reported by the president to the Congress. Within these limitations it became possible once again to develop and maintain contingency stockpiles for use by selected allies in situations favorable to the national interest.
Because of worldwide troop deployment and interservice and international support responsibilities, Army managerial expertise is constantly tested across the full range of logistic operations. In no area is the challenge sharper or more comprehensive than that of ammunition supply. During the year staff and regulatory agency inspectors at Defense and Army levels visited U.S. ammunition facilities around the world to appraise their adequacy and check upon explosives safety, physical security, surveillance, maintenance, demilitarization, equipment, and personnel qualifications. The U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command’s Ammunition Center at Savanna, Illinois, was designated to survey and review ammunition operations on behalf of the Department of the Army in accordance with Army Regulation 700-13 and, as the year closed, was preparing a schedule of visits to various commands starting with Korea in December 1976.
Deciding where Army elements are to be stationed and what facilities they require has not only military but also broad political and economic implications. The Army’s network of installations evolved over the course of the nation’s history and was especially affected by the mobilizations of World Wars I and II. Installation populations expand and contract during emergencies and are influenced by changes in Army strength and organization even in peacetime. The last comprehensive review of Army installations in the United States occurred in 1973. In 1976 the Secretary of Defense directed that a long-range plan be developed to identify bases that the services will need in the United States in the next twenty years, so that they will be protected from commercial encroachment and earmarked for further investment. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics was directed to prepare a summary of events since 1969 in the logistic area, including installation closures and consolidations as well as changes in command structure, that had had a measurable impact upon the support structure.
If any single word characterized developments in the field of logistic systems at the three-quarter point of the twentieth century, that word would be “standardization.” A number of systems with standardization as their aim were in various stages of development during 1976, with progress marked by refinement rather than by the completion of
major phases. This was true of the Standard Army Ammunition System, which continued to provide automated support of theater-level Class V management in both major overseas theaters; of the Standard Army Maintenance System, within which development of the detailed functional system requirement proceeded; and of the Direct Support Unit Standard Supply System, where modifications were in progress to accommodate both divisional and nondivisional direct support supply functions.
The Standard Property Book System, designed to handle many property accountability functions by computer, was refined in 1976 to the extent that all legal requirements for accountability were met. The system passed its system integration test, a verification of correct interaction with other computerized systems.
In the report year the Standard Army Intermediate Level Supply Subsystem, which encompasses all logistic support operations between the wholesale system in the continental United States and the direct support and user levels in the United States and overseas, was extended to Forts Belvoir, Eustis, Lewis, McClellan, Meade, and Riley. It is now operational at twenty-seven of the thirty-six installations scheduled to receive it. As the transition quarter ended, extension of the system to Europe began with the 2d Corps Support Command of VII Corps in Germany. An expanded version of this subsystem was also under development, and the storage operations modules element was installed in the U.S. Army Medical Command, Europe, in May 1976.
Concept development was begun during the fall of 1975 on a Wartime Standard Support System for Foreign Armed Forces. Under this system, the United States would provide materiel support that friendly nations could not produce themselves or acquire through peacetime arrangements with other nations. The requirements would be negotiated between the foreign country and the United States and incorporated in a contingency plan that would become operational upon congressional approval. During the fiscal year, regulations were drafted and staffed within the Army, and coordination was begun with the Joint Chiefs of Staff concerning enabling legislation.
There were several developments during the report period in the U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command’s five-year Automatic Data Processing Program, as well as progress in the commodity command, depot, and international logistic systems. The Commodity Command Standard System was placed in operation at the U.S. Army Electronics Command in November 1975 and at the U.S. Army Armament Command in March 1976. The Department of Defense Maintenance and Cost Accounting System was introduced at a number of Army depots, and the Centralized Integrated System for International
Logistics was placed in operation at the U.S. Army International Logistics Command and at national inventory control points.
The Total Army Equipment Distribution Program (TAEDP) moved forward with the assignment of responsibilities on the Army staff to complete a comprehensive system that will insure effective equipment management, improve unit readiness, and provide a detailed projection of equipment distribution down to the unit level within all Army components. At the close of the reporting period, a study advisory group had been formed to coordinate and monitor the actions that will be taken to complete the program.
Maintenance is just as essential to total force readiness as research, development, training, and procurement. How effective the Army is depends to a great extent upon how well its facilities and equipment are maintained. The starting point for the whole process is funding.
In the 1976 budget presentations to the Congress, the Secretary of the Army spoke of the adverse effects of insufficient funds and inflation upon the operation and maintenance of the Army. Mr. Callaway noted that “1975 funding shortages will cause us to begin fiscal year 1976 at a disadvantage, while inflation will almost certainly strain our capabilities even further.” He pointed to a “huge backlog of equipment to be overhauled” and noted that “the annual shortfall in resources for upkeep and repair of facilities continues to be a source of grave concern.”
The backlog of unfinanced maintenance increased substantially in 1976. The rise was primarily attributable to inadequate funds for repairing real property, although conscious efforts throughout the Army to identify maintenance requirements also contributed to the backlog. Backlog is intensively managed at all levels of command. Facilities engineers regularly inspect their installations to update conditions; the responsible major command and the departmental headquarters then validate the listings by statistical sampling to insure accuracy and uniform application of standards. Thus the management of backlog has progressed from a status of “poor visibility, little reliability” in 1974 to a carefully controlled program of identification and validation. Against this background, the operation and maintenance backlog as of 30 June 1976 was $538 million; by the close of the transition quarter on 30 September 1976, the figure had increased to $1.19 billion.
The Army’s best efforts have gone into improving depot maintenance management. In the report period a system was developed incorporating data for total depot planning, including supply, maintenance, and base operations. Depot profiles were developed to assess capacity utilization in Army vehicle and aeronautical maintenance facilities. Budget docu-
mentation forms were centralized and automated, and depot maintenance master plans were prepared covering a five-year span. Industrial surveys of organic depot maintenance facilities were instituted to improve installation effectiveness, and an interservice support organization was established in the U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command to improve support in this area.
Recent emphasis on construction that would enhance career attractiveness for the soldier—troop housing, medical facilities, community accommodations—has lowered priorities for maintenance facilities. To focus attention upon the need for investment in maintenance facilities, the departmental headquarters canvassed the Army in 1973 for a comprehensive report on maintenance facilities requirements. Replies identified a need for a $933 million expenditure to replace outdated World War II facilities as well as to compensate for outright shortages. The Committee on Appropriations in its report to the 92d Congress confirmed the requirement. Since that time, with shifts in the Army’s stationing installations plan and reorganizations, the worldwide maintenance facilities requirements have been reevaluated. The revised estimate of $1 billion has been included in the 1978-82 Program Objective Memorandum, a submission that includes a Corps of Engineers funding schedule to systematically reduce the shortage.
During the year the Army Logistics Evaluation Agency studied ways to improve mutual maintenance support between the active Army and the reserve components. The study, conducted between January and August 1976, revealed a potential for considerable savings of money and man-hours through increased use of intraservice support agreements.
Along another line, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command developed a logistic support concept for general support maintenance within the corps. It emphasizes combat-oriented support procedures and organizes the maintenance unit around specific items of equipment. For example, all general support maintenance in the corps for armored vehicles would be done by one general support maintenance unit. The concept will be tested during 1977 and 1978.
In 1971 the Army started phased maintenance for each mission/design/series aircraft system based on condition rather than calendar time or flying hours. The project test, titled Inspect, was completed this year, and phased maintenance was begun on the UH-1 and CH-47 helicopters; remaining aircraft were scheduled on a system-by-system basis through 1978. The technique increases aircraft availability and operational readiness and decreases maintenance time and spare parts consumption.
In light of its Vietnam experience, the Army changed aviation maintenance from five to three levels. An integrated direct support capability—Aviation Unit Maintenance—was established at company level to
provide responsive mission support. Direct and general maintenance support levels were consolidated into one intermediate level—Aviation Intermediate Maintenance—to provide support in the division and Army areas. Depot level maintenance remains essentially the same. The concept was instituted in Europe, Korea, Alaska, and Hawaii. Introduction into active Army and reserve component units in the United States will be phased.
At the turn of the 1975 fiscal year, a Hospital Equipment Maintenance System prototype, a semiautomated management information system to support the preventive maintenance program for equipment installed in hospitals, was tested at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Hospital at Fort Gordon, Georgia. The concept of scheduling recurring maintenance was extended to other than hospital equipment, in fact to all facilities engineering equipment maintenance. The system was appropriately renamed Facilities Engineering Equipment Maintenance System.
Supply Management and Depot Operations
Much of the materiel that flows through the Army depot system is financed by the Army Stock Fund, a revolving fund established to finance inventories of supplies and other stores and to provide working capital for industrial-type activities. The fund is replenished through annual appropriations incorporated in the Army’s budget.
Stock fund obligations in the first twelve months of fiscal year 1976 totaled $3.7 billion to support $3.7 billion in net sales. Obligations were $0.1 billion above the previous year, and sales were $0.3 billion higher. Insofar as the transition quarter is concerned, demands and sales estimated at an annual rate were higher than those in 1976, while obligations were lower as a result of review and cancellations of some materiel orders.
Inflation has produced an annual rise in the cost of materiel. In an attempt to stabilize prices, a 15 percent surcharge was added to the standard prices of all categories except subsistence, clothing, medical materiel, and petroleum products. Despite this attempt to correct imbalances, a serious liquidity problem marked stock fund operations during the first eight months of the year. Cash advances against future billings and a campaign to secure payments of accounts receivable led to an improvement in cash flow and cash balance in the last half of the report period.
The Army was authorized to obligate approximately $304 million of the procurement appropriation for secondary items in 1976 as opposed to $277 million obligated in the previous year. Users returned about 20 percent more parts and assemblies in 1976 than in 1975. In the transition quarter $48 million in obligational authority was used and $157 million in materiel was returned.
In December 1975 the Army placed a moratorium on turning in to property disposal officers excess items owned by the Army but managed by the General Services Administration or the Defense Supply Agency. This was done to preclude the loss of materiel that might be needed elsewhere in the Army. Also, procedures were developed for returning excess items to certain Army depots to be redistributed to meet the needs of other Army users.
To improve supply support to U.S. Army, Europe, and Seventh Army and reduce shipping time, the Army in January 1976 asked the Defense Supply Agency to move certain stocks to the New Cumberland Army Depot in Pennsylvania. The agency, in turn, recommended an appropriate stockage range for the small, fast-moving items the Army identifies as important to the readiness of forces in Europe. The stock relocation will be completed by February 1977.
Army transportation uses all types of conveyance (vehicle, rail, ship, plane), carrying all categories of cargo (passengers, equipment, supplies), in all kinds of situations (peacetime, contingency, wartime). Out of the routine that involves all of these elements, a number of activities occurred during the report period that are worthy of mention.
In the area of passenger travel, a ruling by an administrative law judge in October 1975 challenged the legality of Category Y tariffs. These are the special procurement arrangements that allow the Department of Defense to purchase blocks of seats on regularly scheduled commercial flights to move military personnel and their dependents. It is an option that allows Defense-sponsored passengers to receive the same standard airlift service provided to the general public but at the less costly planeload charter rate. Operationally, it offers greater travel flexibility, since the block seating arrangement, in place of the normal planeload charter, increases the number and frequency of flights that Defense-sponsored passengers may use. Continuation of Category Y flights is contingent upon action by the Civil Aeronautics Board. Should that be unfavorable, it is anticipated that the Department of Defense would ask the Chief Executive to intervene.
To improve airlift for military personnel making a permanent change of station, the Army asked Defense to restrict the use of cargo aircraft for scheduled passenger movements. Previously the Military Airlift Command (MAC) had substituted C-141 cargo aircraft, with limited passenger accommodation, for the chartered commercial aircraft normally used on scheduled passenger routes. While this substitution benefited command operations, it eroded the service provided to Army-sponsored passengers. Following the Army request, a policy was established
whereby the Military Airlift Command may substitute cargo aircraft for passenger movement only with advance agreement by the service sponsoring the airlift.
In a review of MAC passenger operations, the Defense Department’s Audit Operations Office expressed the view that substantial savings would be possible if the military services eliminated intermediary passenger reservation service and permitted installations within the United States to deal directly with the MAC Passenger Reservation Center. A six-month test was established for passenger traffic overseas. Fort Hood, Texas, Fort Jackson, South Carolina, Fort Lewis, Washington, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and the U.S. Army Service Center for the Armed Forces in the Pentagon were selected as the Army’s participants. The test was highly successful; the time required to process reservations was markedly reduced and operational flexibility was improved. The Army recommended that the procedure be applied throughout the United States, with the Military Traffic Management Command to continue to perform its traffic management function for outbound Army traffic. The expansion will begin in the coming year.
The Defense Department also directed that the Military Airlift Command test the feasibility of flights between Philadelphia’s commercial airport and air terminals in Spain and Italy. A nine-month test began in February 1975 with MAC planes flying from Philadelphia to the U.S. airbase at Torrejon, Spain, the Naval Air Facility in Naples, Italy, and the Aviano Air Base in northeastern Italy. The test was successful, and permanent military airlift service between Philadelphia and the Mediterranean area was recommended.
Several developments during the report period concerned the movement of personal property of military members and their families. One was an effort to develop a Defense automated personal property system. Another was to amend the joint travel regulations to permit military personnel to move their goods by rented or privately owned vehicles and, as an incentive, share the savings over commercial movement. The Army tested this method, though without the incentive provision, at six installations, for a saving of $145,207 on 498 shipments in an eleven month period. In the four-month period from 1 June to 30 September 1976, with 672 “do-it-yourself’ shipments, the Army saved $190,807 and military members received incentive payments of $115,752. Seventy seven percent of the shipments were made by persons in grade E-4 to E-7; they collected 70 percent of the funds paid as an incentive.
Coupled with these actions in the household goods shipment field, the Military Traffic Management Command, in coordination with the military services, began testing methods for evaluating commercial household goods carriers and directing shipments to those which provided
high-quality service at a reasonable cost. From May 1975 through April 1976, shipping data was collected and evaluated on domestic household goods shipments moving from three selected test installations: Fort Hood, Fort Sill, and Redstone Arsenal. Similar data collection was started in May 1976 for all installations in the United States, and the system holds great promise for improved carrier service.
Shipment of personal vehicles also became a subject for special attention with the start in February 1976 of a Defense import control program. This program, a result of Federal and State environmental requirements, calls for removing catalytic converters from cars before overseas shipment and reinstalling them upon return. The work is performed at personal expenses in service exchange facilities near ocean terminals.
The constant and heavy flow of American military personnel returning to the United States from overseas destinations has created a major inspection requirement which the Department of Defense shares with the U.S. Customs Service (USCS). To meet the requirement, the Customs Service trained military customs advisers during the year, maintained customs advisers in overseas military areas, granted accreditation to military commands, and refined inspection criteria. The Customs Service and the Department of Defense cooperated to keep the military transportation system free of contraband and in compliance with customs regulations. The Department of Agriculture also participated by supplying lists of prohibited food items for meals served on Military Airlift Command and contract flights.
Considerations of size, distance, and geographical distribution in the Army’s overseas deployment suggest the magnitude of the logistic support task and the transportation management problems of movement and terminal operations. Both of these elements are brought together and automated under the Terminal Operations and Movements Management System. Improvements in the Standard Port System—the terminal operations portions of the overall system—were completed, and development was begun on the intransit cargo segment of the Movements Management System. The purpose of the combined program is to keep close track of theater cargo and relieve traffic congestion within theaters. Related to this system in the management field is the Defense Intransit Item Visibility System, which calls for a joint service central data bank. In July 1976 a joint working group began to prepare requirements and specifications for the central data bank.
There was operational as well as management evolution in transportation affairs during the period. In the Atlantic region the Military Traffic Management Command assumed responsibility for water terminals in northern Europe on 1 July 1976 and for the Leghorn, Italy,
terminal on 30 September 1976. Planning continued for an extension of this responsibility to the Pacific region and for a redistribution of watercraft in that area to correspond with organizational changes. Two DeLong pier barges were transferred from Thailand to Korea, and a transfer of two more from the United States to Europe was scheduled for the spring of 1977.
The Army continued to refine containerization procedures, giving special attention to container availability, port capacity, and containerized movements of ammunition by ship and rail and attendant safety problems. Safety was also a central consideration in Operation Rocking Force, a project using CH-47 and C-141 aircraft to move Sprint and Spartan missile warheads from remote launch sites to storage.
Automobile procurement came in for its share of attention when the Army and the Air Force conducted a cost analysis to see whether certain administrative vehicles might be profitably purchased from European manufacturers. Because of the long-range aspects of such an arrangement, the Army had certain reservations about the proposal and recommended that the Department of Defense study it to see if the benefits justified the purchase. Meanwhile, the Army was authorized to buy 315 intermediate (Type II) and nineteen regular (Type III) sedans for use by military police and to support the United Nations Military Armistice Commission and the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission in Korea and certain essential commanders.
In addition to dealing with the operating aspects of logistic transportation, the Army conducted a number of strategic mobility studies to refine requirements, develop alternatives, and identify elements to be incorporated in strategic mobility program objectives. The House Appropriations Committee surveyed Defense strategic lift requirements, reviewing Army programs bearing on the subject. The Army prepared a strategic capability assessment for the Secretary of Defense to use in discussions on U.S. strategic lift and unit closure times with the defense ministers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Movement control requirements and capabilities in U.S. Army, Europe, were also reviewed, and the findings will be used in transportation planning for wartime.
Facilities and Construction
For fiscal year 1976 and the transition quarter the President’s budget included $999 million for military construction, and the Congress appropriated $827 million. The request emphasized facilities that would benefit the soldier and take account of the pressing need for energy conservation, pollution abatement, and nuclear weapons safety. Consideration also had to be given to the continuing requirement for a sixteen-division force.
All of these concerns were carried forward in the preparation of the budget for the coming fiscal year.
Two projects were approved for reprogramming: a $1.385 million project, later increased by $0.139 million, for a TRI-TAC Joint Test Facility at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, and a $7.363 million project for armament development facilities at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. Contingency funds for schools in Germany and a laser test facility in New Mexico were also approved.
The following chart portrays the Army’s military construction projections in the five-year Defense program for the 1978-82 period. Dollars are expressed in millions, represent total obligational authority (TOA), and are related to a fiscal year 1977 base:
aNew TOA approved by Congress.
During the period of this report no changes were announced concerning the status of installations. Several that had been previously scheduled were completed: Fort Hamilton, New York, became a subinstallation of Fort Dix, New Jersey, and Pueblo Army Depot in Colorado and Savanna Army Depot in Illinois were reduced to depot activities. In the National Capital Region the Army announced on 1 April 1976 that it would study the possible closure of Vint Hill Farms Station in Virginia and the relocation of communications and security activities from Arlington Hall Station on the outskirts of Washington, D.C. Also to be studied was the possible relocation of the headquarters of the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command from the Washington area. In this connection, the Army was directed to reduce its population in the National Capital Region by 500 military and 500 civilians by 30 September 1977.
As noted earlier the Secretary of Defense in July 1976 directed that along-range base structure plan be developed to identify essential major installations in the United States twenty years from now and beyond and that a base structure model be prepared to facilitate planning for the development and retention of these bases. Data was collected and force projections developed for the twenty-year period, and evaluations were in progress as the year closed.
To assist in planning, the Army developed a new concept for computerizing mobilization requirements and identifying the cost of expanding installations to capacity to accommodate additional troops. An installation expansion capability guide was drawn up using standard lay-
outs to help match an installation’s facilities and expansion capacity with the actual assignment of troops. The layout areas are designed so that tents or wood or prefabricated housing can be quickly fitted into the existing facilities pattern.
In 1973 a design guide series was established to replace previously issued design standards. Criteria were developed for planning and designing community-type facilities to meet the changing needs of Army recreation and welfare programs. Eight architectural design contracts were awarded, and by the end of 1976 design guides for Army service schools, arts and crafts centers, auto crafts centers, and criminal investigation facilities had been completed. Others for officer and noncommissioned officer clubs, recreation centers, administrative office space, chapels and religious education buildings, and military police facilities were being prepared.
In another design activity, the Army participated in the Federal Design Improvement Program by sending representatives from the twenty-one engineer field offices to the Engineer Design Improvement Conference held in September 1976 to discuss military construction problems.
The Army’s attention to design considerations was matched by its concern for the nation’s cultural environment and commitment to historic preservation. A manual was distributed outlining administrative procedures for a comprehensive preservation program to insure that Army properties possessing historical, architectural, archaeological, and cultural significance are protected. Seven sites were nominated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and five were accepted.
For the first time the Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1976 provided funds directly to District Engineers to be used to assist installations in master planning. The amount of $6.6 million was allocated for this purpose in the report period. The Corps also developed automated data processing objectives, priorities, and milestones to be used at the headquarters and field operating agency levels in common management and reporting systems related to the military construction program.
Modernization is a companion activity to new construction in the Army’s construction program, and important strides were made in 1976 in medical and dental facilities as a result of a modernization drive begun by the Secretary of Defense in 1972. The 760-bed Eisenhower Army Medical Center at Fort Gordon, Georgia, was completed and occupied in April 1976, at a cost of $35.69 million. It is the latest regional medical center and will be used for training as well as specialized medical care. At Fort Eustis, Virginia, additions and alterations to McDonald Army Hospital were completed in January 1976 at a cost of $4.8 million. The new forty-bed Redstone Army Hospital in Alabama,
contracted at $9 million, was about 60 percent complete as the year ended, and a $7.83 million contract to renovate the Noble Army Hospital at Fort McClellan in the same state was awarded in June. A sophisticated and innovative 241-bed medical care facility for Fort Campbell, Kentucky, was in the design stage, and at Nuremburg, Germany, an addition and alteration project for the U.S. Army hospital was under design. Twenty-two Army dental clinics were also being designed or constructed using a modular layout developed at Fort Lewis, Washington, in 1974.
Public Law 90-480 requires that most Federally funded buildings be accessible to the handicapped, and the Army in 1976 published a manual establishing policy, responsibility, and criteria in this regard. Procedures have been established to assure that most new Army facilities that are open to the public and employ the handicapped are designed to comply with the criteria.
The Army is the construction agent for all kinds of specialized facilities used by the military services. One example is a building program to supply simulator facilities for use in place of costly aircraft for flight training. More than forty of these facilities have been programmed for construction through fiscal year 1983.
Construction support is provided not only for the military services but also for other U.S. agencies and foreign governments. During the report period, the Army handled construction projects for the Air Force, the Navy, the Coast Guard, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the U.S. Postal Service, the Energy Research and Development Agency, national cemeteries and foreign governments. Contracts totaled $2.1 billion in the fiscal year, $1.7 of the total devoted to projects for foreign governments. For the U.S. Air Force alone, the Army, through the Corps of Engineers, acquired land and made improvements at eighteen Air Force bases for expanded clear zones. One hundred and thirteen tracts with 1,700 acres of land and improvements were acquired at a cost of about $4.3 million.
Working with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army also developed and administered a community noise survey. Noise annoyance contours are being developed for Army installations, where blasting, helicopters, industrial plants, weapons firing, and vehicle operations contribute to noise pollution.
As with construction, the Army is heavily involved in real property matters. It controls approximately 12,687,386 acres of military land which, with improvements, have an acquisition value of over $13.2 billion. From July 1975 through September 1976, the General Services Administration disposed of 15,165 acres of Army land and improvements in the United States with an acquisition cost of over $74.4 million. An-
other 63,088 acres with an acquisition cost, including improvements, of over $90 million were reported to General Services Administration as excess. At the close of the report period there were 35,367 land use arrangements in force covering 5,988,513 acres for which the Government was receiving annual rent of $11.2 million.
On behalf of the Army, the Corps of Engineers acquired 172,771 acres of land in 5,114 separate tracts at a cost of $94.3 million, primarily for civil works projects. About 11,891 acres of this land were acquired for other agencies at a cost of $13.5 million, notably for the National Park Service for recreation areas. In August 1976 the Army, through the Corps of Engineers, executed an interagency agreement with the Federal Energy Administration to provide real estate services in connection with the strategic petroleum reserve program; to minimize the nation’s vulnerability to interruptions of oil imports, petroleum products will be stored at underground sites. The Corps also continued to provide relocation assistance to citizens displaced by civil works projects.
About $948 million of operation and maintenance funds were used for real property during the year, far exceeding previous levels. Operation of utilities systems was a major factor in the cost because of increasing prices of fuels and energy. The Army’s utilities bill in fiscal year 1976 was close to $300 million and is expected to reach $350 million in 1977. While sufficient funds were available to pay for fixed requirements in 1976—utility bills, salaries, fire prevention, custodial service, refuse collection, pest control—resources for maintenance and repair were extremely limited. The Army maintained a worldwide inventory of real property having a replacement value of over $79 billion, and the major portion of the investment is maintained with operation and maintenance funds, of which $400 million was required in fiscal year 1976. The sum was not adequate to maintain all facilities within established Army standards. As a result, the backlog of maintenance and repair continued to grow, reaching an estimated level of $1.2 billion.
The sheer size of the Army’s real property dominion and the huge cost of operating and maintaining it on behalf of the nation suggests the importance of comprehensive management and central control. One of the primary management tools is the Integrated Facilities System, an automated information and evaluation system that encompasses the lifecycle management of real property resources from conception through design, construction, operation, maintenance, and disposal. By January 1976 the prototype test of the installation management portion of the system had been completed; by the close of the report period this element was in operation at thirteen installations highlighting work management deficiencies. The facility planning and new construction elements will be brought in as system development continues.
Army property management is often complicated by jurisdictional considerations. One problem has been that of Army installations located within a coastal zone. The Coastal Zone Management Act provides for Federal funding for coastal states to develop management and utilization plans for their coastal lands. The act is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce. Under its provisions, Federal agencies, including the Army, are required to cooperate with the coastal states in the administration of the law. Yet several of its provisions proved to be contradictory: on the one hand, there is an “exclusion clause” which Federal agencies have interpreted as relieving them of mandatory compliance, on the other hand, there is a “consistency clause” which requires them to adhere to approved coastal zone management plans as fully as possible. On 10 August 1976 the Attorney General issued a clarifying decision, and the Army now proceeds on the understanding that it has full power to control lands on Army installations located within a coastal zone irrespective of state jurisdictions.
The Corps of Engineers continued to serve as the executive agent for construction of recruiting facilities, exercising its own authority and working through the General Services Administration. The program embraces new construction, relocations, and improvements to existing facilities. As of the close of the report period, there were 5,757 recruiting offices in operations.
One of the difficult problems that face facilities engineers is that of detecting entrapped moisture in roofing and underlying insulation. If this moisture can be detected in time, serious damage can be avoided and repairs made. As wet areas in roofs conduct heat more readily than dry areas, heat transmission can be detected by infrared techniques. Roofs at Army installations are now being surveyed by hand-held infrared cameras and aerial infrared detection methods. Infrared photography is also being used to locate heat loss through building walls and to detect overheating in electrical equipment such as transformers.
Security of Facilities, Equipment, and Munitions
Although security of military installations and materiel has been necessary from time immemorial, the problem has acquired new dimensions in today’s activist society. Demonstrations, hijackings, bombings, arms traffic, and other kinds of terrorist activity have raised the level of the threat to military facilities and required tighter security measures.
Late in calendar year 1976 the Army began to install interior intrusion detection systems in Army storage facilities. Upwards of 2,700 such systems will be operational by the end of fiscal year 1977, and additional systems will be installed in other areas as equipment becomes available.
Tests have confirmed that this equipment is suitable for protection of post exchanges, commissaries, service clubs, and many other facilities. Arms, ammunition, and explosives, which are very vulnerable, were the object of improved protection. Measures taken were upgrading structural standards for new and existing storage facilities, controlling access to such facilities, tightening inventory and accountability controls, installing security equipment, and investigating losses.
On 22 January 1976 the Vice Chief of Staff approved the report of the Physical Security Review Board on Chemical Agents and Munitions Security. The report called for raising chemical security to nuclear security standards by increasing guards, training inventory personnel, and rewarehousing to meet more secure storage requirements. At the same time, Patrol and Explosives Detector Dog Teams were authorized for the Military Police Working Dog Program, and these teams will be assigned to protect Army facilities. New regulations were also issued covering intransit security of arms, ammunition, and explosives on all modes of transportation, and a regulation on physical security of reactor facilities was drafted and distributed for review and comment.
Security of Army aircraft, vehicles, and associated components continued to receive priority during the year. Ignition and door locking devices were installed on Army aircraft, and locking and other security requirements for vehicles were disseminated along with summaries of specific instances of security breaches and recommendations for improving vehicular security. The Army also contracted with a research firm for a study on how to counter terrorism on military installations.
International LogisticsTwo elements make up the Army’s security assistance logistical support: the grant aid Military Assistance Program (MAP) and the purchase-oriented Foreign Military Sales Program (FMSP). They complement each other and have foreign policy as well as Army logistical significance.
During the report period, Army security assistance under these programs reached eighty foreign countries and four international organizations. New orders amounting to $3 billion covered materiel ranging from uniforms to missiles and included technical services, training, and foreign military construction projects. The combined undelivered balance under both programs at the end of the period was $13.5 billion.
A steadily increasing demand over the past several years for American technology, materiel, and services offered under the Army’s Foreign Military Sales Program has benefited national security. In addition to enhancing U.S. rapport with foreign governments, the program has fortified the willingness of friendly nations to support U.S. base and
overflight arrangements, furthered standardization of military equipment among them, and stimulated cooperative logistical agreements between the Army and various foreign governments and international organizations. Foreign sales have also helped to maintain an active production base, and the larger runs made possible by combining American and foreign orders are more economical. The training provided to foreign military personnel also encourages individuals, armies, and governments to support U.S. interests.
At congressional direction the grant aid provided under the Military Assistance Program was gradually reduced during the past year. Between June and September 1976 the number of military assistance advisory groups was cut from forty-four to thirty-four. Legislation restricted new MAP grants to twenty countries in fiscal year 1976 and twelve in 1977; in addition, ceilings were placed on aid to eight nations in both years. Except for congressional authorization for specific countries for specific amounts, the Military Assistance Program is scheduled to be terminated by 30 September 1977, with prior commitments completed by 1980.
Grant material and logistical services provided by the Army were materially reduced from the $800 million level of 1975 to $60 million during the fifteen-month fiscal year. The reduction resulted not only from legislative decisions, but also from the increasing capacity of foreign nations to support themselves. Based upon current commitments, grant aid material and logistical support for the report period went to thirty-one countries. Grant aid was suspended for Turkey in February 1975 and Lebanon in April 1976; aid terminated for Greece at its request in January 1973 was renewed in June 1976. Total grant aid for all countries since the beginning of the program in 1950 and through the end of fiscal year 1976 was about $19 billion in material and services.
In contrast to the relatively small grant aid program, various countries and international organizations placed about $2.9 billion in new orders during the year. The dollar value of new orders for materiel and the logistic services declined from $3.9 billion in 1975. The grand total of the program since its start in 1950 is $21.2 billion. Highlights of the program (new orders) in the current period appear in the following table:
FOREIGN MILITARY SALES
1 July 1975-30 September 1976
(In millions of dollars)
Republic of China
In addition to the grant aid and sales of major end items and services, the Army provided repair parts for major end items and weapons systems of U.S. origin through supply support arrangements. Under these
arrangements the foreign country buys into the Army’s supply system using its supply procedures, systems, and facilities on the basis of contracts. These supply support arrangements are renegotiated annually and were in force with twenty-one countries for over 1,500 separate items at a cost of $336 million.
Nineteen coproduction programs were in force during the period with Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, amounting to about $2.1 billion, of which about $1.2 billion would be returned to the U.S. economy. Included were rifles, tactical radios, trucks and general purpose vehicles, mortars, and missile system items. Among the major programs were Japan’s manufacture of over $8 million of missile system parts and components; the Republic of China’s $50 million worth of ammunition, helicopters, and trucks; and Korea’s $81 million worth of ammunition, missiles, launchers, and repair parts.
Effective with the billing quarter beginning 1 January 1977, the U.S. Air Force, as Department of Defense executive agent, will assume the billing function, cash collection, trust fund accounting, and administrative fee management of the Foreign Military Sales Program. The Army transferred the trust fund cash and program files for Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel on 20 November 1976. The balance of the trust fund cash will be transferred on 31 December 1976 and the balance of the audited files by 20 June 1977.
As a result of statutory changes and revised Defense directives, new pricing guidelines were established this year. Rather than basing pricing essentially on procurement costs at the time of manufacture, the services will use replacement value at the time of sale to replace exhausted stocks. Billings will include add-on charges to insure full recoupment for the use of Defense materiel, facilities, and services. In appropriate cases, reductions are granted when warranted by product demand, useful life, and condition.
Based upon congressional intent and General Accounting Office guidelines, course tuition costs for foreign student training were switched from an incremental method, under which fixed or constant costs were not included, to a pro rata basis which considers all costs, indirect and fixed, and distributes them over specific elements of operation such as population, hours, or course length. This method insures that foreign governments pay a fair share of course costs for their students.
There were a number of reciprocal visits connected with international logistics during the year. Army representatives participated in negotiations in various countries, especially where large purchases of U.S. equipment were involved, and representatives from Ethiopia, Jordan, Kenya, the Netherlands, Peru, and Saudi Arabia visited the United States to discuss their needs and make purchase arrangements.
Return to Table of Contents
Last updated 7 September 2004