Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1980

10.

Logistics

As the Army Chief of Staff noted in his white paper of 25 February 1980, “the sinews of support are a basic ingredient for the U.S. Army’s combat muscle.” That these sinews were not as strong as they should be, the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command (DARCOM) made clear in a statement near the end of the fiscal year. “So serious is the situation,” he warned, “that we are in danger of losing ground rather than holding our own in the materiel support function of force readiness.” While logistical deficiencies stemmed largely from budgeting constraints, the Chief of Staff also pointed out that the Army must demonstrate its ability to use more wisely the funds provided to it. A major theme running through the history of the Army’s logistical efforts in fiscal year 1980 is the attempt to improve resource management in a time of increasing demands on the system.

From 17 to 23 August 1980 TRADOC’s Army Logistics Center conducted a Joint Chiefs of Staff coordinated command post exercise sponsored by the Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics (ODCSLOG), at Fort Pickett, Virginia. Titled LOGEX 80, the exercise involved more than 3,000 active and reserve personnel from the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps. The Army components, which included combat support and combat service support elements of the Army National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve, played the role of an isolated U.S. corps composed of three and one third divisions operating in the Northern Army Group area of Europe. By simulating the functions and interrelationships of combat, combat support, and combat service support forces, LOGEX 80 provided training directly related to war planning and to NATO commitments.

On 4 August 1980 President Carter signed into law the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Mutual Support Act of 1979. Initiated by the Army and sponsored in Congress by the Department of Defense, the act permits the Secretary of Defense to negotiate agreements with the governments of NATO nations and with NATO agencies to buy, sell, loan, and exchange logistic support, supplies, and services. The intent of the act is to enhance allied interoperability

[185]

by overcoming many of the constraints imposed by U.S. laws and regulations that experience proved were too time-consuming or cumbersome, or to which NATO allies objected.

There was continued improvement during the year in the shipment of repair parts via the air line of communication to Army support units in Europe. The system concentrates on repair parts as the commodity that most directly affects equipment readiness, and it relies on airlift as the routine method of transport in replenishing these parts. Order ship time for the air line of communication to Europe averaged 23.5 days in August 1980, an improvement of more than five days over August 1979. The success of the line to Europe since its beginning in 1977 led to the establishment of one to Korea on a test basis in December 1978 and permanently in December 1979. In February 1980 other lines were established for selected support units in Alaska and Hawaii, reflecting the Army’s objective of implementing the system wherever feasible and affordable. Participants in a conference of general officers on doctrine at Fort Lee, Virginia, in June 1980 decided to maximize the use of the air line of communication system in wartime as well as in peacetime—a significant revision of logistics doctrine.

Pursuing its goal of promulgating and implementing standardization agreements concerning logistical doctrine in NATO, the Land Forces Logistics Working Party held its annual meeting from 8 to 12 September 1980 in Brussels. A subordinate activity of the Army Board, Military Agency for Standardization, NATO, the working party discussed proposed agreements on classes of supply and color markings, combat rations, postal organization for NATO forces in wartime, supply transactions among NATO land forces during peace and war, procedures for emergency logistic assistance, establishment of a supply system panel and a logistics systems panel, and provision of support to visiting, neighboring, and commonly located sea, ground, and air forces. Only the last proposal, an attempt by the United States to consolidate three separate agreements, was rejected; all the others were in various stages of staffing or revision at the end of the fiscal year.

In case of war in Europe, NATO forces would depend heavily on equipment stored in Europe for issue to reinforcing units flown from the United States. These stocks of equipment, called POMCUS (prepositioned materiel configured to unit sets), are stored by unit sets rather than by commodity, thus permitting units to obtain their equipment rapidly. During the fiscal year, the Army procured twenty-six large flexible barrier shelters to provide low cost, long term storage of POMCUS stocks. Made of a coated fabric resistant to chemical warfare agents, and supported by an easily erected steel

[186]

frame, each shelter contains 20,000 square feet of humidity-controlled warehouse space. The main problem with POMCUS, however, was quantity rather than storage, and the Army continued efforts to increase POMCUS stocks.

A worse problem involved the quantity and condition of prepositioned war reserve (PPWR) material stocks in Europe. These theater war reserves, stored at U.S. Army depots, are designed to provide immediate logistical support to units under attack and to those within the theater preparing to deploy. In congressional testimony, the Supreme Allied Commander, NATO, described these stocks as “most inadequate” and “in a disastrous state.” During the fiscal year, the Army revised its regulation dealing with reserve stocks to clarify the responsibilities of the various Army staff agencies and major commands. The annual U.S. Army, Europe, War Reserves Conference met in Heidelberg, Germany, in June 1980 to identify and attempt to resolve issues affecting the ability of U.S. Army, Europe, to sustain itself on the battlefield. In a new program, the Army moved approximately $21 million worth of material from lower priority uses in the United States to prepositioned war material reserve stocks in Europe.

To support worldwide Army operational and contingency plans, the Army maintained forty-three operational projects valued at $812 million and consisting of equipment stored in various locations in the United States and around the world. The purpose of the projects is to satisfy requirements above and beyond the materiel authorizations of the units for which they are designated. Since the condition and the amount of equipment in the projects required improvement, the Department of the Army requested all major commands to address the problem in their next budget submissions.

Fielding of M60A3 tanks to United States Army, Europe, begun in fiscal year 1979, continued during fiscal year 1980. However, late delivery of fire control systems from the production contractor caused a suspension from May to August of the upgrading of tank units with the M60A3. Deployment resumed in September.

To help attain the level of logistical support capability that would be required in war, the Army looks to allied nations. In February 1980 the United States presented host nation support requirements to the Federal Republic of Germany, which agreed to meet them. In addition, the Federal Republic proposed that the U.S. contract with the German aircraft industry for maintenance of Army helicopters in both peace and war. The Army concluded that this action would facilitate a quicker expansion of depot maintenance in the theater in the event of war in Europe, and the passage of the NATO Mutual Support Act increased the possibility of an agreement. Through negotiations, the United States sought other types of expanded host

[187]

nation support from Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. While negotiations to obtain lines of communication support agreements with Norway, Denmark, and Italy continued, those with Turkey and Greece remained in suspension for political reasons. General support agreements were signed with Norway and Denmark, and discussions on the subject were begun with Italy.

In the Pacific area, the Army took several steps to remedy logistic deficiencies which exist in all versions of operational plans. These actions included prepositioning requisitions for certain critical items at U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command depots, structuring of ready supply packages in fifteen day increments, and increased prepositioning of war reserve stocks for allied use in the Republic of Korea.

Although President Carter in July 1979 suspended further withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Republic of Korea, withdrawals previously set in motion continued during fiscal year 1980. Through the delivery to the Republic of Korea (ROK) of equipment of withdrawing forces, the U.S. sought to transfer U.S. combat capability to ROK forces. The Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics took steps to ensure that deliveries did not include surplus or reserve equipment. With the exception of two major units, all scheduled U.S. Army equipment transfers were completed in 1980.

The Army continued its role in security assistance programs designed to enable allied and friendly nations to acquire and maintain the means of defending themselves. During the year, the Army participated with other federal agencies in a security assistance policy review begun by the new Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science, and Technology. Army representatives sought funds for a special contingency stockpile of military equipment to meet urgent needs of friendly countries in order to minimize the withdrawal of Army inventories or the diversion of Army production for this purpose. In addition, the Army revised its policies on security assistance transfers and support of tanks and the Nike-Hercules air defense system. The Secretary of the Army advised the Secretary of Defense that for protection of Army readiness, the possibility of meeting security assistance needs by buying back Army tanks previously sold abroad should be explored.

Four programs comprised Army security assistance for the fiscal year. The military assistance program provided defense articles and

[188]

services to Portugal, Spain, the Philippines, and Jordan on a grant basis. Grant aid, which has been declining steadily in recent times, has been at the following levels, in millions of dollars, for the past three fiscal years:

Under the international military education and training program, military and civilian personnel of forty-eight countries received instruction. Investment in this program for fiscal year 1980 was $13.4 million, a substantial decrease from the previous fiscal year’s figure of $23.9 million. Cumulative outstanding foreign military sales of U.S. defense articles, services, and training—by far the largest security assistance program—totaled $40.8 billion at the end of fiscal year 1980, of which $16.4 billion had been delivered by the end of the period. The foreign military sales financing program provided credit and loan repayment guarantees to thirty-one countries in the amount of $1.45 billion, of which $500 million was allocated to Israel.

Interest in security assistance coproduction projects remained high among foreign governments seeking to achieve self-sufficiency, modernize forces, and capitalize on benefits deriving from standardization and interoperability. During the fiscal year, the cumulative value of active, closed, and pending coproduction projects in foreign countries was $5.37 billion, of which $2.49 billion will eventually be returned to the U.S. economy. Besides NATO members, eleven countries participated in the programs.

At the end of the year, security assistance for NATO’s two poorest members, Portugal and Turkey, had not resulted in the significant modernization programs needed, indicating that greater efforts would have to be made to bolster the alliance’s southern flank. It also became evident that dual production arrangements with NATO members would have to be studied in detail because of their possible impact on the U.S. production base. Long production lead times frustrated modernization efforts even when funds became available.

In the Middle East a $1.1 billion foreign military sales program evolved for Egypt during the year, much of it funded by a $2.05 billion multiyear credit which resulted from the Camp David peace    

[189]

accords. Major weapons sold included M60A3 tanks, IHawk surface-to-air missile batteries, and M113 armored personnel carriers. The other signatory of the Camp David accords, Israel, bought Dragon, Chaparral, and TOW missiles, and M60 tanks in a foreign military sales program totaling $82.7 million for the fiscal year. The security assistance program for Saudi Arabia continued to be the Army’s largest, with a value of $1.5 billion for the year. Major Saudi purchases were of ammunition, spare parts, training, armored personnel carriers, and TOW and Dragon night sights. Cancellation of foreign military sales to Iran in November 1979 left approximately $500 million worth of materiel undelivered.

The Ivory Coast and Gabon were new additions to the security assistance programs in Sub-Saharan Africa, bringing the number of participating countries in that area to twenty-one. Morocco and Tunisia accounted for the largest programs in North Africa.

In the Pacific region, the U.S. expedited equipment deliveries to Thailand, which was plagued with border incidents, incursions, and other threats of hostilities from its neighbors. Aid to Korea included an extensive military sales program, technical cooperation in the development of selected defense industries, and training in relation to U.S. equipment transfer to ROK forces. Although Pakistan rejected a new $400 million security assistance package, foreign military sales to that nation continued. After a year’s moratorium on military sales to Taiwan, and the termination of the mutual defense treaty with the island at the end of 1979, sales of selected items were resumed in January 1980.

The United States furnished approximately $2 million in reimbursable supply support to United Nations (UN) peacekeeping forces in Lebanon and in the Golan Heights. Army officials explored with UN headquarters the possibility of speeding UN payment.

Over 7,000 foreign students received military training in the United States and abroad under Army sponsorship. International military education and training grants funded over $9 million worth of this training, while instruction through the foreign military sales program exceeded $33 million in value. In the 1980-81 academic year, fifteen nations participated in the International Fellows Program at the U.S. Army War College. A special facility to provide maintenance training to NATO members for the Nike-Hercules missile system opened at Fort Bliss, Texas, on 29 September 1980. The NATO Nike Training Center operates independently as a NATO maintenence and supply agency under foreign military sales funding.

By the end of the fiscal year, Congress had passed no new authorizing legislation for security assistance. The programs continued into

[190]

fiscal year 1981 on the basis of a continuing resolution terminating on 15 December 1980.

In January 1980, Department of the Army Pamphlet 701-1, Direction for Army Logistics, was published for worldwide distribution. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, with the aid of the major Army commands and the Army staff, devised this list of actions aimed at improving logistic readiness and providing a common direction for the entire Army. To further improve logistics, the Deputy Chief of Staff encouraged each major command to develop its own supporting objectives.

Another project initiated by the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics was an annual Army logistics assessment. The Army staff was in the process of developing the first assessment at the close of the fiscal year. When completed, the assessment will address what would have to be done logistically in the event of war and how shortfalls can be eliminated. To facilitate action on the assessment, its findings will be incorporated in the planning, programming, and budget system.

A key logistical effort in the improvement of Army readiness was the upgrading of the equipment of the 24th Infantry Division, part of the Rapid Deployment Force. The Department of the Army amended its priorities to ensure that the 24th Division received items in short supply; many of these items were withdrawn from other units. The division’s upgrading was completed by October 1980.

On 15 January 1980, the Army implemented a revised Missile Materiel Readiness Reporting System. Eighteen months in development, the new system describes the monthly status of selected missile systems. The comprehensiveness of the new reports permits the elimination of several older reports and saves time for those doing the reporting.

To help achieve maximum effectiveness in operations at the local command level, the Department of Defense maintains the Defense Retail Interservice Support program, which has grown steadily over the past decade. In fiscal year 1980 the Army provided more than $130 million and 1,750 man-years of support to other military services and defense agencies. In separate agreements, the Army received $100 million and 1,300 man-years of support from other services and agencies. A major attempt to enlarge the rate of growth of the program has met thus far with only marginal success, however. The sixty-seven geographic Joint Interservice Resource Study Groups have made generally limited progress, primarily because of manpower shortages within the groups. Full implementation of recommenda-

[191]

tions of an Army Logistics Evaluation Agency study of the program, originally projected for fiscal year 1980, is now expected early in calendar year 1981.

As the Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition, the Secretary of the Army during the year oversaw continued improvements in the management of conventional ammunition. The Office of the Secretary of Defense directed all services to make even greater efforts in the program, in view of a 1979 General Accounting Office report titled “Centralized Ammunition Management—A Goal Not Yet Achieved.” In response, the Secretary of the Army worked with the other services in developing a revised DOD directive on the conduct of the program. Still in the proposal stage at the end of the fiscal year, the directive includes a provision for a program executive director at the Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command. An additional $10 million that Congress appropriated for the single manager program budget will aid in the program’s upgrading.

The Army Troop Support and Aviation Materiel Readiness Command hosted the annual Worldwide Aviation Logistics Conference in St. Louis, Missouri, from 12 to 16 May 1980. Conferees established or reviewed depot maintenance programs and distribution schedules for Army aircraft, avionics, armament subsystems, ground support equipment, and aircraft survivability systems. They also addressed the logistics requirements, problems, and actions of aviation commands and agencies. In July 1980 the conference’s distribution plan was published and released to all major Army commands.

In the field of materiel management and accountability, the Department of the Army Property Accountability Task Force implemented the last two of eighteen recommendations for improvement made by the Army Inspector General in August 1977. When the Task Force’s charter expired at the end of March 1980, its remaining missions, dealing with six Army materiel management regulations, were absorbed by the Supply Policy Division of ODCSLOG.

Purchase of five-ton trucks in numbers inadequate for the Army’s requirements necessitated the preparation by the Tank Automotive Materiel Readiness Command of a plan for the distribution of available five-ton trucks. The study, reflecting recommendations from ODCSLOG, placed top priority on providing supporting transport for newly fielded weapons, communications systems, and other items of modernization. The needs of forward deployed forces would be met, the study indicated, to the extent that vehicles were available.

Every combat service support unit has a number of items of equipment that are essential to the accomplishment of its primary mission.

[192]

To keep closer track of such “pacing” items, the Army directed selected units to prepare special reports on them.

In another equipment monitoring effort, ODCSLOG developed an automated loans report. The aim of the report is better management of the approximately $83 million worth of equipment on temporary loan within the major Army commands.

The effectiveness of equipment depends ultimately on the skills of those using it, a fact that lay behind sustained efforts by ODCSLOG to revitalize the Noncommissioned Officer Logistics Program. This emphasis resulted in the upgrading of logistics NCO positions and an increase in the number of logistics military occupational specialties. A special study of Army aircraft repair and aircraft component repair military occupational specialties, sponsored by the DCSLOG, recommended a number of changes directed at securing, thoroughly training, and retaining high quality personnel. With respect to officer training, ODCSLOG thwarted an attempt at the Command and General Staff College to increase quotas for combat arms officers at the expense of combat service support officers.

Because of the Army’s failure to rapidly return reparable and recoverable items of equipment to users, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has cut back Army funds for reparables management. The Army is therefore developing a computer system—cumbersomely titled the Logistic Intelligence File Retrograde Intransit Visibility System—to follow the movement of reparable items from the field to depots in the United States and develop information to help field commanders manage their own reparables return programs. In September 1980 the DARCOM completed a data base for the new system, paving the way for the creation of reports giving an installation-by-installation breakdown of turn-in and requisitioning rates for critical reparable items.

Also, development has been continuing on the Standard Army Ammunition System, an automated stock accounting and control system for ammunition and small guided missiles and rockets. With the progress made during fiscal year 1980 in design and programming, the Army expects the system to be field tested at the corps level in fiscal year 1982.

Already in use, and approved during the year by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Logistics, and Financial Management) for worldwide extension, is the Standard Army Intermediate Level Supply Subsystem-Expanded. A more comprehensive

[193]

version of the Army’s standard automated supply management system for all supply classes except ammunition, subsistence, and bulk petroleum products, the system encompasses all stock control and related financial management functions between the wholesale and direct support unit levels. In 1980 the system was extended to fifteen sites worldwide; all four Army corps were converted to it. A study of the automation of wartime functional supply requirements, completed during the year, determined that because of its technical design, the system could not accommodate the expanded volume of transactions expected during war. The Army will therefore develop a new wartime system for use at the corps level in a theater of operations.

Increasing logistical requirements stemming from modernization of the Army’s forces, coupled with dwindling personnel resources, make mandatory a continued upgrading of automatic data processing equipment. Obsolete NCR computers used at the first level of supply support are being replaced by new van-mounted Honeywell minicomputers, known as the Decentralized Automatic Service Support System (DAS₃). By the end of the fiscal year, fourteen sets had been delivered, and production approval had been given to the contractor for an additional seventy-one units. The installation of IBM 370 series computers to replace IBM 360 series machines used at the second, or corps, level of supply support was completed. The changeovers at the corps level reduced processing time and significantly improved data processing capabilities.

Also extended during the year was the Direct Support System, the Army’s standard supply distribution system since December 1974. Through the system, supply support activities in the United States and overseas receive direct delivery of materiel from DARCOM depots. In 1980, U.S. Army Reserve support units in fourteen states became users of the Direct Support System.

In an attempt to make greater use of materiel declared excess in U.S. Army, Europe, processing procedures in the Defense European and Pacific Redistribution Agency were revised in July 1980. Now a longer, more detailed search is made for new requisitions for excess items.

Finding that stock levels in installation warehouses were too high, U.S. Army Forces Command suggested that the mandatory level of three years be reduced. A test begun in March 1980 at Fort Riley, Kansas, and Fort Carson, Colorado, confirmed the need for a reduction, and the Department of the Army lowered the level to one year for both authorized stockage list and nonstockage list items (excluding reparables). The new level will be phased in gradually to keep

[194]

the wholesale supply system from being inundated with materiel that might be declared surplus.

A revised Army Regulation 95-33, Army Aircraft Inventory, Status, and Flying Time, was implemented in 1980. The regulation altered aircraft readiness goals and introduced new terminology: aircraft that can perform their primary missions are reported as full mission capable; aircraft that can perform some but not all of their primary missions are reported as partial mission capable; and aircraft that cannot perform any of their primary missions because of maintenance and supply difficulties are reported as not mission capable. This system gives a more accurate description of aircraft readiness and of the areas that require management controls.

Also published and implemented during the year was Department of the Army Pamphlet 710-1, Aviation Intensive Management Item Program. Aviation items that are critical by virtue of overhaul costs or source of supply fall under this program. To facilitate the distribution of these items, all major Army commands negotiate their requirements with commodity managers in a semiannual conference.

After a moratorium of more than two years, caused by budget constraints and a property accountability study, the Army resumed development of the Standard Property Book System. Designed to operate through new automatic data processing equipment at installation, division, corps, and separate brigade levels, the new system is intended to reduce manual effort and improve the accuracy and timeliness of worldwide asset files. It will replace the Division Logistics System property book system currently in use.

During the year, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Logistics, and Financial Management) approved for development two additional logistics systems. The Automated Central Issue Facility System will be aimed at providing total accountability for the temporary loan, receipt, issue, turn-in, inspection, exchange, and stockage of organizational clothing and individual equipment. In support of installation self service supply centers and tables of distribution and allowance maintenance shop supply facilities, the Automated Retail Outlet System will automate routine supply functions and provide data for financial accounting.

Worldwide implementation of the Total Army Equipment Distribution Program neared completion toward the end of the fiscal year. The program provides a phased schedule for the introduction of new equipment into Army units; it projects distribution over a longer period than did the formerly used system and it correlates better the information needed for budget planning and long term planning for the Army’s program objective memorandum.  

[195]

In April 1980 the U.S. Army Logistics Evaluation Agency completed a study of logistics systems management in the Army. The study was the result of a January 1979 manpower survey of ODCSLOG recommending that the DCSLOG establish a single functional manager for retail logistics systems and transfer logistics system operational functions from the Army staff. The study recommended that the DCSLOG create a new field operating agency subordinate to his office to control both functional and technical aspects of the retail logistics standard Army management information system. A majority of the Army staff and major Army commands who were consulted on the proposal disagreed with it. The DCSLOG then changed the recommendation so as to establish, instead the same type of control within TRADOC. After four Army staff agencies disagreed with this alternate proposal, the Deputy Chief of Staff informed the Army Management Director that he saw no acceptable alternative to the present setup. A subsequent internal review of the DCSLOG found that all functions performed by the office’s Logistics Systems Division are appropriate for the Army staff according to the provisions of Army Regulation 18-1, Management Information Systems: Policies, Objectives, Procedures, and Responsibilities. The matter had not been resolved by the end of the fiscal year.

Advances in technology within the past decade, reflected in Army equipment, have seriously challenged the Army maintenance community. During the past three years, various agencies have audited, surveyed, and evaluated Army maintenance management, and all have found a need for improvement. In February 1979, the Army Chief of Staff approved a Maintenance Management Improvement Program developed by the Army staff and major Army commands. The program seeks to focus command attention on maintenance; improve personnel management; strengthen maintenance training; streamline maintenance operations; and improve publications, tools, and repair parts support. For example, service school courses have been modified to make them more relevant to fielded equipment; maintenance publications have been modified, reducing narrative to simplified terms and expanding the use of pictorials and graphics; short “How To” booklets have been published; and articles reinforcing the program have been printed in Army Logistician and Soldiers magazines.

As inflationary trends continued during 1980, the Army pressed its search for ways to economize while still meeting its goals. In 1979 the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics proposed that where feasible,

[196]

the Army procure lower cost unwarrantied equipment; the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition) approved this policy. During 1980, ODCSLOG and DARCOM worked at drafting an Army regulation that will include this policy change, stress more strict compliance by manufacturers with warranties, and consolidate all Army warranty policies.

Changes in the Maintenance Reporting and Management System were developed, field tested, and approved during the year. The major change in the system, which operates in all active Army divisions and many nondivisional maintenance units, is a monthly report to the Materiel Readiness Support Activity providing data on all completed maintenance jobs.

Development of the important Standard Army Maintenance System continued. When completed, this system will be the first Armywide, standardized, automated maintenance management system. Its goals are to enable direct support and general support maintenance activities to operate autonomously, to satisfy the immediate information needs of the maintenance operations manager, and to provide the trend data that are essential throughout the retail and wholesale maintenance levels.

Planning continued for implementation of restructured general support in the corps and communication zone. Approved by the Vice Chief of Staff in May 1979, restructured general support calls for commodity-oriented companies which make up composite battalions. Each commodity company will specialize in support of infantry, wheeled vehicles, combat vehicles, communications and electronics, aviation, or missiles.

To provide on-the-spot assistance and instruction to maintenance personnel in the field, and to furnish commanders with information concerning the overall readiness of their units, the Army conducts the Maintenance Assistance and Instruction Team Program. Decentrally operated, the teams are established at installation, readiness group, or comparable levels in CONUS, and at corps, division, separate brigade, or comparable levels in oversea areas. A revised Army Regulation 750-51 published in May 1980 strengthened the program by mandating corrective action and follow-up procedures within thirty days of team visits. Information derived from the visits, showing trends, common faults, and recurring problems, is disseminated without revealing the identification of units involved.

Using sampling techniques, the Army collects field maintenance and performance data on selected items of equipment for a specified period of time. This Sample Data Collection Program reduces the data recording and collection burden on field units, and makes available a manageable volume of information to the wholesale equip-

[197]

ment developer. In 1980 the number of sample data collection plans increased to seventeen. The program was extended to selected overseas areas, which should enhance the reliability of the data.

At the beginning of the fiscal year, changes in the Army’s test, measurement, and diagnostic equipment support system were instituted in Europe. Levels A and C calibration were merged, calibration and repair functions were combined, and Armywide command and control of test, measurement, and diagnostic equipment support was placed under DARCOM. Plans for implementation of these changes in the Pacific were in the final stages of preparation at the end of the year.

The success of the Army’s three-year-old “War on Battery Waste” program prompted a similar campaign titled “War on Tire Waste.” A detailed study of tire management, with emphasis on the development of cost effective and efficient procedures, was completed in June 1980. Recommendations of the study report in the areas of depot storage levels, proliferation of national stock numbers for tires, and tire retread costs received top priority for implementation.

Study of the equipment recovery and evacuation capabilities of the current Army division continued in 1980. Army doctrine is to maintain and repair equipment in forward areas, returning it quickly to the battlefield. When equipment cannot be returned in operable condition within the time prescribed by the using commander, it must be recovered and evacuated to a rear area for repair. The study is developing recommendations for changes in doctrine to meet future battlefield requirements.

Increased requirements in recent years for equipment transfer to prepositioned stocks brought to light the need to develop equipment serviceability standards. A Department of the Army conference considered this question in October 1978 and directed DARCOM to write a technical manual giving serviceability standards for the transfer of equipment between units. The manual was drafted and reviewed in 1979. Based upon information received from the field, a Department of the Army message was dispatched in November 1979 outlining equipment serviceability standards for transferring items of equipment. That was followed in June 1980 by guidance on tube life serviceability criteria for material selected for POMCUS stocks. Subsequently, a Department of the Army meeting was held which developed policy for maintenance and transfer of equipment which should be published sometime in fiscal year 1981. The Department of the Army Inspector General, Command Logistics Readiness Teams, and Maintenance Assistance and Instruction Teams are monitoring execution of the policy.

When equipment wears out, it is released to property disposal of-

[198]

fices. During the fiscal year, the Army discovered that worn out UH-1 helicopter rotor blades were being processed through the Department of Defense disposal system and offered for sale to the Army and other customers as usable items. The Army therefore ordered the mutilation of all rotor blades earmarked for disposal. However, the Defense Logistics Agency recommended mutilation only for those blades which have exceeded their normal operating life in terms of operating hours, or have been condemned for other reasons. The Army responded that record keeping of blade condition is not sufficient to guarantee that an unsafe blade will not find its way into the market through the property disposal system. As a solution, the Office of the Secretary of Defense agreed to the mutilation of all blades scheduled for disposal until the end of fiscal year 1981, by which time the Army is to substitute for mutilation a system of record keeping and blade marking. Helicopter blades are only one of a number of finite life aviation items; others, such as gears and bearing assemblies, present even more complex and difficult problems of control.

The end of the fiscal year saw the near completion of the Army’s conversion to three level aviation maintenance. Under this concept, the levels are aviation unit maintenance, which replaces organizational maintenance and includes limited direct support maintenance; aviation intermediate maintenance, which includes the remaining direct support maintenance functions and limited general support; and depot maintenance. Though all Army divisions have been completely converted, there still exist some equipment shortages. Nondivisional conversion to three level maintenance was still in progress at the end of the year.

In March 1978, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, in conjunction with the U.S. Army Troop Support and Aviation Materiel Readiness Command (TSARCOM), initiated a Reliability Centered Maintenance Program for aircraft engines and components at Corpus Christi Army Depot. The program was designed to reduce field returns and overhaul of engines, beginning with the T53-L-13B which is used in UH-1 and some AH-1 helicopters. By 1980, unnecessary returns of the T53 engine had been reduced over 16 percent; 647 engine problems had been solved in the field, either by hotline phone at the depot or by visiting depot teams; and more than $12 million had been saved. Under the program, the minimum requirements for time between overhauls was removed, and T53 engines are returned to the depot for maintenance as necessary.

Upon discovery of an aircraft equipment malfunction, the U.S. Army Safety Center or the U.S. Army Troop Support and Aviation Materiel Readiness Command, after coordination with the Aviation

[199]

Logistics Office in ODCSLOG, can issue a message prohibiting takeoff for a specified period during which the malfunction is to be corrected. Major commands receiving such messages are required to retransmit them and confirm retransmission. Message content is standardized, with a numbering sequence for each aircraft by mission, design, and series. This new safety-of-flight message procedure, which assigns clear lines of authority and responsibility, was established in revised Army Regulation 95-18 published on 1 May 1980.

The Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics is the proponent of a study to determine the best method of deploying to Europe and maintaining aviation equipment belonging to units in the United States that would provide early reinforcement in the event of war. Launched in 1980, the study is an attack on the problem of deploying aviation units rapidly to USAREUR, without extensive sealift or airlift. Kaiserslautern and Pirmasens in the Federal Republic of Germany are being evaluated as possible locations for equipment deployment.

In September 1979, four National Guard Transportation Aircraft Repair Shops were converted to Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depots as the result of discussions between the National Guard Bureau and DARCOM. In case of contingency operations or mobilization, the four units and the National Guard Aviation Logistics Office would cooperate with DARCOM in repair diagnosis and classification, and limited depot repair. The units would serve as terminal points for closed loop support. Plans call for establishment of two European sites to receive two of the units in an emergency, with the third unit in reserve and the fourth supplementing DARCOM aviation depot maintenance as needed. Two possible sites were discussed during the year with USAREUR: Coleman Barracks outside of Mannheim, Germany, and Burtonwood Army Depot in England.

Despite efforts at improvement in the maintenance area, the backlog of maintenance and repair continued to be a major problem for the Army. Due to the lack of resources in past fiscal years, the soaring inflation rate, and the rapid deterioration of aging facilities, the backlog has grown, and is expected to continue to grow, at a rapid and increasingly unmanageable rate. The Army’s past difficulties in controlling the backlog has raised questions about the efficiency of management efforts. In 1979 the General Accounting Office completed the first phase of a review of the problem throughout the Department of Defense. The subsequent report offered no firm recommendations for a new approach to the problem. The draft of the second phase report, done in 1980, in general recognizes that a lack of sufficient funds is the prime factor in the backlog’s increase. At the request of the Vice Chief of Staff, Army, the Army Audit

[200]

Agency began, toward the end of the fiscal year, a detailed examination of the Army backlog.

Much of the material 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 for fiscal year 1980 totaled $4.9 billion in support of $4.5 billion in net sales. This performance was still within the acceptable variation from the annual program.

In the procurement appropriation, the Army was authorized to obligate approximately $478 million for secondary items, compared to $315 million obligated in the previous fiscal year. The increase of $163 million is attributable to support of new weapons systems which were fielded as part of the program to modernize the Army.

Of the 1980 operation and maintenance appropriation of $11 billion, some $3.6 billion, or 33 percent, was allocated to central supply and depot maintenance activities. These two areas provide for the receipt, storage, issue, and transportation of supplies and equipment worldwide; the maintenance of an industrial base; and maintenance of supplies and equipment. The year was characterized by dynamic cost increases resulting in a budget supplemental of $67 million and a later amendment of $79 million for central supply and depot maintenance activities. The Army Industrial Fund received $41 million of the supplemental and $29 million of the amendment to prevent an unprogrammed operating loss. Through a reprogramming action, $45.8 million additional was gained to support second destination transportation and ammunition storage. The Army goal of eliminating the maintenance backlog of combat vehicles was achieved during the year.

Working capital for the Army Industrial Fund, acquired initially through congressional appropriation, is sustained on an annual basis by customer reimbursements for goods and services furnished. Typical activities financed under the fund are ordnance plants, depot supply and maintenance activities, and research and development activities. The total obligation authority for the fund in the fiscal year was $2.3 billion. Also, the Office of the Secretary of Defense provided “pass through” funding of $70.25 million to reimburse the fund for inflationary costs not included in the stabilized billing rates. Special emphasis was placed in 1980 on the reduction of overhead costs in fund operations.

[201]

During the year, the Office of the Secretary of Defense administratively divided the Army’s operation and maintenance budget for base operations into two subprograms. The portion under the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics provides the funds and manpower for all base support functions other than purchased utilities, maintenance and repair of real property, minor construction, and other engineer support. These specific accounts are administered by the Office, Chief of Engineers. At $1.6 billion, the DCSLOG’s subprogram represented 14.5 percent of the Army’s operation and maintenance appropriation, and provided support for 324 installations in the United States and overseas. The Office of the Secretary of Defense also established three additional subprograms to reflect the support provided to the Military District of Washington, the U.S. Army Communications Command, and the U.S. Army Intelligence Command.

Development of two supply management improvement programs, begun in previous years, continued in 1980. One, to increase the availability of repair parts, includes such goals as increasing the number of items returned from the field for depot repair, decreasing repair cycle time, simplifying manual procedures, and making better use of automated resources. The other seeks to minimize the costs of retail inventory stockage for direct support and general support units and installations in CONUS, in addition to limiting to one the echelons between the consumer and the wholesale level.

The management of consumable items that are directly related to weapons systems and selected commodity integrated materiel management items are the responsibility of the individual military services. All other consumables are managed by the Defense Logistics Agency. In December 1978, the Defense Logistics Analysis Office proposed that the Defense Logistics Agency take the responsibility for all consumable items. When the military services expressed their opposition to this change, the Office of the Secretary of Defense in April 1979 directed the Defense Audit Service to review the matter. The Audit Service’s report of 29 May 1980 supported the transfer proposal. The Deputy Secretary of Defense, with whom decision on the question lies, requested that the service secretaries comment on his proposed approval of the transfer, and in June 1980 the Army transmitted its views to him. Among the Army’s major concerns was the probable impact of the fragmentation of management responsibilities that would result from the transfer. Weapons system management places strong reliance on the interdependence of supply, maintenance, engineering, product quality assurance, procurement, and production. Clear lines of responsibility link logistics assistance officers in the field to field maintenance technicians and field commanders, and provide responsive support for purposes of troop

[202]

readiness and reaction to crises. The Army believed that the effect of the proposed transfer of management responsibilities on this support would be adverse. In addition, the Army expressed its concern over the unknown capability of the Defense Logistics Agency to furnish materiel to meet mobilization requirements. By the end of the fiscal year, the Deputy Secretary of Defense had not made a decision in the matter.

In the past, United States deployment planning for war focused on reinforcing units in the theater by airlift until the first ships arrived. However, a projected lack of sufficient airlift capability in the early days of a conflict has necessitated changes in Army and Navy plans which assumed that sea deployment would not begin until at least ten days after mobilization. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics therefore made an analysis of the problem, seeking to identify procedures in the movements system that could be streamlined to speed deployment by ship. The study identified a number of corrective actions which were in the process of being carried out at the end of the year.

As a result of a Department of Defense directive, the Joint Chiefs of Staff directed the commanders in chief and the Commander of the Rapid Deployment Task Force to identify specific requirements for an over-the-shore logistics capability, expressed in short tons per day for containerized and break bulk cargo. Based on these requirements, the Army will determine whether the capability to support them exists; if it does not, the Army will identify the necessary equipment and force structure requirements by type, quantity, and cost, and seek appropriate funding for them.

The Army began procurement of the Tactical Marine Terminal—a ship-to-shore petroleum delivery, storage, and dispensing system capable of storing 50,000 barrels of fuel—in 1965 as part of the buildup for Vietnam. By the time it received the terminal, the Army had already constructed permanent port facilities in Vietnam. Except for onshore collapsible tanks sent to the war zone, the terminal went into storage at Sharpe Army Depot in California. In 1977 a study of petroleum logistics at the Quartermaster School, Fort Lee, Virginia, identified a deficiency in Army contingency planning: the Army lacked the ability to distribute bulk petroleum in an undeveloped theater without port facilities, such as Africa, the Middle East, or Southeast Asia. The Tactical Marine Terminal promised to satisfy this need, and, during February and March of 1979, the Army Energy Office shipped it from Sharpe Army Depot to

[203]

Fort Story, Virginia, where it was used in exercises conducted to improve the proficiency of both the pipeline and terminal operating company and the port construction company. The training uncovered many equipment deficiencies and other problems. For example, the new collapsible tanks procured to replace those sent to Vietnam had four-inch outlets while the pipe system was six inch. The Army is correcting these problems and preparing plans to modernize and expand the terminal’s capacity so that it can accommodate the latest supertankers.

In the area of transportation container use, the Army in fiscal year 1980 shipped 67 percent of its general cargo in containers, compared to 63 percent in fiscal year 1979. The number of general cargo containers used increased from 12,000 to 12,800. Similarly, the number of ammunition containers used rose from 1,767 (23,175 short tons) to 1,990 (29,214 short tons). Twenty ship sailings were involved in the shipment of this containerized ammunition to Europe.

To provide logistical and financial information on the movement of Army-sponsored cargo and passengers within the Defense Transportation System network, and to forecast and budget short and long range airlift and sealift requirements, the Army uses the automated Mechanization of Selected Transportation Movements Reports system. Some of the data for fiscal year 1980 developed through the system are as follows: 3,205,000 measurement tons of cargo were transported—2,562,700 from CONUS, 501,600 to CONUS, and 140,700 within and between overseas theaters. Passengers airlifted numbered 418,400 worldwide. The transfer of the system to its present computer facility in 1978 did not include accompanying descriptions and narration for the seventy-five programs that encompass the system, resulting in maintenance difficulties. Therefore the Army is developing a plan to evaluate and redesign the system.

The development of other transportation systems advanced during the year. Work continued on the Department of the Army Standard Port System-Enhanced, and upgrading of the original system to correct hardware obsolescence, operational inefficiency, and the lack of wartime and backup capability. Progress was made in the development of the Department of the Army Movements Management System Cargo Movement Module and Movement Planning Module. The first or intertheater phase of the Cargo Movements Module was implemented in USAREUR during the first quarter of the fiscal year. Development of the Freight Movement Control System also continued. Through the computerization of historical data, rates, routes, and rules, this system is expected to speed rating and routing as well as aid the negotiation of lower transportation charges.

[204]

In accordance with concern expressed by Congress, the Ad Hoc Work Group in the Office of the Secretary of Defense developed a reporting requirement for operational support aircraft (formerly administrative support aircraft). The new reporting procedure is expected to be implemented in the next fiscal year.

Decreased funding allowed the purchase of fewer replacement vehicles for the administrative use vehicle fleet, which is declining in quality as it accumulates mileage. This reduced procurement made it necessary to lease some vehicles to make up for the shortage. The Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, pointing out that the average vehicles retained in the fleet are less fuel efficient and more costly to maintain than the vehicles that would replace them, sought both increased procurement funding and improved fleet management.

The Production Base Support Program provides the construction necessary for the development, maintenance, and retention of an efficient defense industrial base. In 1980, $189 million in projects was placed under contract, and design continued on projects valued at approximately $300 million. At the Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant in Bay St. Louis, the nation’s newest munitions manufacturing facility, the construction contracts for the load, assembly, and packout facilities and the mechanical plant were awarded in May and September 1980, respectively. The $400 million plant will collocate the manufacture of metal parts and the loading, assembling, and packing of 155-mm. improved conventional artillery munitions.

The $727 million Military Construction, Army program for fiscal year 1980 emphasized improved force readiness and included $222 million for operations, training, maintenance, supply, and storage facilities; $10 million for facilities to accommodate force relocations; and approximately $114 million for USAREUR. About 22 percent of the military construction budget was for quality of life projects such as barracks, dining, medical, dental, and community support facilities.

In the Military Construction, Army Reserve, program, construction contracts for twenty-two projects totaling $30 million were awarded and construction was completed on projects costing $38.5 million. This program provides for the design and construction of a variety of facilities in support of the Army Reserve’s training requirements and mobilization mission.

In its role as construction agent for other components of the Department of Defense, the Army, through the Corps of Engineers,

[205]

handled an Air Force program totaling $411 million. Of this amount, $386 million was forecast for award and $213 million actually awarded. While a portion of the shortfall was attributed to criteria changes, redesign, funding delays, and inadequate funding, the major cause was a reprogramming resulting in the deferment of fiscal year 1980 projects worth $145 million. The $145 million was subsequently used to award the fiscal year 1979 Space Transportation System launch complex at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Taking into account the $145 million in deferred projects, total execution for the fiscal year 1980 programs was $358 million, or 93 percent of the forecast and 87 percent of the total program.

The Corps of Engineers became deeply involved with the Air Force in planning for MX missile deployment construction. Corps efforts were directed primarily toward developing an organization to manage the program, selecting architects and engineers, and providing technical support in environmental impact statement preparation, real estate actions, and planning for life support in the construction area.

For the Navy, the Corps of Engineers did construction valued at $4.43 million at sites in Greece, Italy, Egypt, Japan, and the United States. The Corps also awarded six contracts covering $16.79 million in an extensive program for the Department of Defense Dependent Schools. Design and construction work for the Defense Nuclear Agency, the Defense Logistics Agency, the Defense Mapping Agency, and the National Security Agency totaled $27.34 million.

Six foreign governments received support from the Corps during the fiscal year. With Saudi Arabia, construction contracts with a total value of $911.0 million were completed; construction contracts with a total programmed amount of $2.6 billion were awarded; and numerous design contracts and modifications thereto with a value of $16.1 million were awarded. The U.S. Government approved foreign military sales cases totaling $1.7 billion and withdrew cases worth $0.86 billion, for a net increase of $0.9 billion. In addition, the Corps began design of the $65 million U.S. Geological Survey Mission in Saudi Arabia, which is funded by the United States. In Israel, two design and construction contracts and a management support contract were awarded for two air bases in the Negev Desert. At year’s end, construction of the two facilities was approximately 13 percent complete with the United States funding $800 million of the estimated cost of $1.04 billion. The Jordanian Armed Forces in March 1980 awarded a contract for approximately $38 million to construct an armor rebuild factory. For this project the Corps of Engineers is providing construction supervision and inspection services for $2.75 million and is procuring equipment for $9.27 million,

[206]

with delivery to begin in fiscal year 1981. The Corps began work on two programs in Egypt: a development plan for an air base to be located at Ras Banas, and, under an Air Force foreign military sales case, the designs for various facilities to support F-16 aircraft at An Shas Air Force Base. During the year, the Corps was designated the design and construction agent for several sites in Oman to support the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force. The year also saw the completion of two Corps projects for the Federal Republic of Germany: a $100,000 flammable materials storage area at the nation’s cargo facility at Dulles International Airport near Washington, D.C., and a reinforced concrete bridge section which will provide standards for German military applications of bridge destruction.

An increasing Soviet presence, continued political instability, and concern over the protection of Western oil supplies prompted the Army staff to develop plans for the construction of staging and supply storage facilities for possible Army operations in the Persian Gulf region. In conjunction with the joint staff, the Army staff surveyed a number of potential sites for such facilities, designating two as meeting the basic requirements. Construction at either site is dependent upon the successful completion of negotiations with the intended host nations.

In 1968 the General Accounting Office recommended that the Secretary of Defense conduct studies in areas having a large concentration of military installations to determine the feasibility of consolidating real property maintenance activities under a single manager. The initial resulting studies emphasized functional consolidation through the use of interservice support agreements. Since 1973, however, the emphasis has shifted to analyzing the feasibility of total organizational consolidation under the designated lead service in each area. As lead service for the Panama Canal Zone, the Army early in fiscal year 1980 completed a study recommending that real property maintenance activities in the Canal Zone be consolidated under the Army, and that a revolving fund be set up for reimbursement of the Army by the other services.

On a broader scale, the Panama Canal Treaty made necessary the development of a Regional Complex Master Plan to determine the most cost effective U.S. base structure there over the life of the treaty. Work on the plan continued during the year, with its completion due in 1981.

Late in 1978, the Army Chief of Staff requested the Chief of Engineers to develop a plan for the centralizaton of real property maintenance throughout CONUS. A committee convened by the Chief of Engineers subsequently presented a plan to the Vice Chief of Staff in September 1979. Although the Vice Chief of Staff did not ap-

[207]

prove the plan for national implementation, he directed that a test of it be performed in the National Capital Region. As developed jointly by the Chief of Engineers and the Commander of the Military District of Washington, and approved by the Vice Chief of Staff in December 1979, the test plan calls for the formation of a U.S. Army Engineer Activity, Capital Area. The director of this new field operating agency will be responsible for providing all real property maintenance activities for Army installations in the National Capital Region, plus the Defense Mapping Agency’s Hydrographic/Topographic Center. Installations will continue to program and budget for these activities through their major Army commands, but will purchase them through a revolving fund. Representatives of the Corps of Engineers, the Military District of Washington, and the affected installations began planning in January 1980 for implementation of the test setup.

The Army published and distributed a new tri-service technical manual, TM 5-803-7, Airfield and Heliport Planning Criteria. Salient points in the manual include standardization where possible, updating of facilities to accommodate newly acquired aircraft, and the promulgation of Class “A” and Class “B” runways with their attendant criteria, such as new lateral clearances. Army TM 5-803-4, Planning of Army Aviation Facilities, is being revised to reflect the criteria in TM 5-803-7.

To support Army installation master planning and construction programming, the Corps of Engineers distributed $4.28 million in nonreimbursable funds to its Engineer districts. Despite a midyear budgetary reduction, sixty-nine active installations and five reserve installations in the United States, and installations in Europe and Korea, received funds.

As the executive agent for the Department of Defense Recruiting Facilities Program, the Corps of Engineers in 1980 took 2,340 separate actions involving the establishment of new offices and the relocation, expansion, and upgrading of existing ones. As of the end of the fiscal year, there were approximately 7,170 recruiting offices for the four services. In September 1979 the General Services Administration, which had had responsibility for approximately 75 percent of the Recruiting Facilities Program, reclassified recruiting offices from general purpose to special purpose space and delegated five year leasing authority to the Corps of Engineers. This change allowed the Corps to have almost total control of the program for the first time.

At the close of the fiscal year, the Department of the Army controlled approximately 12,128, 917 acres of military land, which with improvements had an acquisition cost of $16.8 billion. During the fiscal year, the General Services Administration disposed of 1,869

[208]

acres of Army land and improvements in the United States having an acquisition cost of $7.7 million. In addition, the Army declared excess and reported to the General Services Administration for disposal 84,909 acres and improvements with an acquisition cost of $192.3 million. At the end of 1980, there were 41,702 outstanding grants covering 7.1 million acres of Army (military and civil) and Air Force lands.

The Corps of Engineers continued land acquisition for the Department of Energy’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve Program, acquiring during the fiscal year sixty-three tracts encompassing 168 acres, at a cost of $1.75 million. Acquisitions for the program from its beginning through fiscal year 1980 now total 1,095 tracts, with 4,792 acres, at a cost of $88.2 million. Total acreage reflects a reinvestment of 490 acres in fiscal year 1980. The Corps also continued to acquire land for the Department of Interior’s Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, adding 215 tracts containing 2,888 acres at a cost of $4.0 million. Total acquisitions for Big Thicket stood at 1,293 tracts with 78,748 acres, valued at $62.44 million at the end of the year. For the Air Force, the Corps acquired 600 acres of land with improvements, at a cost of $3.8 million, to expand clear zones at thirteen Air Force bases.

The General Services Administration in 1980 conducted real property utilization surveys of twenty-seven Army-controlled properties, and recommended that 3,127 acres of land be declared in excess of the Army’s needs. The Army agreed to the disposal of fifty-six acres—thirty-three acres of land and improvements comprising the Mahwah, New Jersey, National Guard Armory, and twenty-three acres of unimproved land at Radford Army Ammunition Plant, Virginia. In addition, the Army agreed to transfer 6,873 acres of Lake Mead Base, Nevada, to the Air Force, and return the remainder of the base, 1,142 acres of public domain lands, to the Department of the Interior.

During the year, the Corps of Engineers expended $3.8 million in relocation assistance payments to 553 applicants displaced by Corps projects.

[209]

Return to Table of Contents

	Return to CMH Online
	Last updated 17 September 2004