Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1981



Readiness remained the key issue for Army logisticians during fiscal year 1981. Could they, inquired Lt. Gen. Richard H. Thompson, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics since August 1981, improve their "readiness to logistically support mobilization and deployment of the Total Army and to sustain it indefinitely in any war it may have to fight"? General Thompson clearly thought that the Army had turned a corner by the end of the fiscal year. It had over the past several years better defined the problem and in the process developed the analytical tools that would permit it to better manage its supplies and equipment in the future. Still, shortages persisted, and the need to integrate a new generation of equipment that was just beginning to reach the troops could only exacerbate the situation. Nowhere were the imponderables and shortages of Army logistics better highlighted than in the support provided the Army's forward deployed forces.

Support of Forward Deployed Forces

Forward deployed forces are those combat units and the ancillary combat support and combat service support (CS-CSS) units stationed outside the continental United States (CONUS) and Hawaii. They include the four divisions, four separate brigades, and two armored cavalry regiments stationed in Europe, the 2d Infantry Division in Korea, the 172d Infantry Brigade in Alaska, and the 193d Infantry Brigade in Panama. Although General Edward C. Meyer redirected the Army's attention toward the possibility of war outside of Europe shortly after becoming Chief of Staff in June 1979, in 1981 the size of U.S. forces stationed on the continent and the accelerating Soviet buildup dictated that the Army expend the bulk of its logistic effort on preparing for combat in this theater. The effort consisted of operational projects, the pre-positioning of war reserve materiel stocks, pre-positioned materiel configured to unit sets (POMCUS), and the negotiation of agreements with the host countries to provide some degree of assistance through either cash outlays or supplies to U.S. forces stationed within their borders. The principles guiding these labors in Europe received an authori-


tative statement in the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Pamphlet 525-12, "Logistics Operations in the Communications Zone" (COMMZ), 30 June 1981.

In May 1978 the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General Walter T. Kerwin, approved twenty-one operational concepts designed to overcome gaps in logistics policy, doctrine, and planning. The U.S. Army Logistics Center (LOGCEN) selected ten of the twenty-one on which there was general agreement throughout the Army and which were not likely to change in the foreseeable future. TRADOC published these ten concepts in the form of Pamphlet 525-12. At the same time LOGCEN obtained comments on the other eleven, which it hoped to have ready for publication during fiscal 1982.

During fiscal year 1981 the Army maintained forty-two operational projects valued at $990 million to support worldwide Army operational and contingency plans. The projects, which included both pre-positioned and non-pre-positioned materiel, are intended to provide initial support to Army units in combat above and beyond current materiel authorizations. While an improved maintenance program permitted upgrading the condition of the supplies on hand, lack of funding prevented increasing the amount of equipment.

Pre-positioned war reserve materiel stocks, in contrast to the supplies in operational projects, are intended to sustain units once they are committed to combat. The Army acquires the reserve materiel in peacetime and stockpiles it overseas to reduce initial wartime transportation requirements and in-transit losses and to ensure that Army forces can fight until resupply arrives from the United States. Stocks pre-positioned in Europe and Korea will provide immediate logistical support to forward deployed units and to reinforcing U.S., NATO, and Korean units in the event of war. Supplies pre-positioned in stateside depots support Army elements of the Rapid Deployment Force. During 1981 inadequate funding allowed only a minimal increase in the size of these stocks, which currently are not enough to sustain the intense activity demanded in modern warfare. In Europe the lack of warehouses made it necessary to store equipment in the open, thereby increasing maintenance costs. To decrease the deterioration of wheeled vehicles in the NATO war reserve stocks and at the same time enhance the readiness of forward deployed units in Europe, USAREUR established a rotation program to exchange low-mileage wheeled vehicles in the war reserves with


high-mileage vehicles in the forward units. During 1981, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics (ODCSLOG) revised the regulation dealing with reserve stocks, AR 11-11, to clarify responsibilities of Army staff agencies and major commands. At the same time the U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command (DARCOM) revised the companion regulation AR 710-1. ODSCLOG scheduled these revisions for publication early in 1982. ODCSLOG also sponsored conferences on war reserves-for Europe in August 1981 and for the Pacific in September 1981. Attended by representatives of the overseas commands, the meetings provided a forum for identifying problems of common concern and initiating actions to correct them.

The Army has had three stockpiles of pre-positioned materiel configured to unit sets (POMCUS) in Europe for over ten years. In an emergency the troops of three divisions would fly to Europe and receive their equipment there. Changes in authorized as well as the severe Armywide equipment shortage has meant that the amount of equipment in the sets has never reached targeted levels. The decision by the Carter administration to fill the sets with equipment withdrawn from units in the United States in addition to the traditional method, purchase, produced a beneficial result in fiscal year 1981. The amount of equipment in place came closer to the goals than ever before. In addition, the repair parts program for POMCUS improved more than in any other year. Unfortunately, this policy reduced the flexibility of Army units in the continental United States, which could only deploy at full strength to Europe. Crises in other parts of the world would result in an expeditionary force either undermanned or under equipped. The policy also slowed training, particularly for the reserve components. Troops had to double-up on equipment, thus lengthening the training time and increasing maintenance expenditures at a time when spare parts were also in short supply. The Reagan administration reversed the policy shortly after taking office, but this still left the problem of filling the POMCUS to authorized supply levels and reequipping the CONUS units. Production lead-time was such that even if the Department of the Army requested the funds for replacing all the withdrawn equipment, valued at $107 million, in the fiscal 1982 budget which it did not-the new equipment would not reach the units until fiscal years 1984 and 1985.

The United States government had agreed to establish a fourth division set (DS) in Europe by the end of December 1980


and two more by the end of 1982 provided that NATO paid all construction costs and that the host nations supplied the sites. The warehouses for DS 4 were 96 percent complete by December 1980, but NATO did not expect the loading ramps and maintenance facilities to be done until December 1981. Substantial quantities of equipment began arriving at the Moenchengladbach site in November 1980 and were stored with little delay, because construction there was on time. Delays in completing the Herongen facilities, however, caused about 8 percent of all DS 4 equipment to be stored outside at the end of December 1980 and 12 percent by 1 April 1981. Completion of DS 5 and DS 6 is not scheduled until 1984, and the Army does not intend to ship equipment to them until all construction is finished. When fully implemented, POMCUS will consist of seven major packages: the six division sets and a package of combat support and combat service support (CS-CSS) units designed to supplement the inadequate number of CS and CSS units available to support the Army divisions and brigades already stationed in Central Europe. Reserve units deploying from CONUS will have to fill this gap and prepare the POMCUS equipment for distribution to the divisions flying in from the United States.

POMCUS makes sense only if the troops can deploy to Europe, receive their equipment, and move to their battle positions before hostilities begin. (The warehouses make tempting targets for a numerically superior Soviet Air Force.) The U.S. Air Force cannot move enough troops to Europe to man the equipment in the existing divisional sets within a "prudent" time following the start of mobilization. The lack of airlift at this time means that, in General Meyer's phrase, Army policy is "out of sync." Fast sealift will provide an interim solution, although once airlift is sufficient, sealift will simply increase the number of reinforcing divisions. During 1981 the Army began preparing for this long-term goal. DCSLOG issued a new authorization document which changed the composition of DS 2 and DS 3, previously designed to support heavy divisions. The Chief of Staff intends to use divisions from the West Coast and the Midwest for POMCUS, thus freeing units on the East and Gulf Coasts for redeployment using fast sealift.

Currently there are no Army aircraft included in POMCUS. In December 1980 General John W. Vessey, the Vice Chief of Staff, Army, approved a plan to test the feasibility of placing selected aircraft in POMCUS in humidity-controlled storage for


a certain period of time. DCSLOG planned to begin the test with fourteen fully modernized AH-1S Cobra TOW helicopters, two platoons with seven aircraft each. DARCOM, working in conjunction with the 21st Support Command, will place the aircraft in storage in January 1982. After six months they will remove one platoon and fly and test-fire the aircraft to establish the impact of storage on the time, man-hours, and resources needed to make them fully operational. DARCOM and the 21st Support Command will then return the aircraft to storage. They will keep the second platoon in storage for one year and then repeat the same procedure to establish the impact of long-term storage. The 21st Support Command will then issue the second platoon to a USAREUR unit. DARCOM will collect data on reliability, availability, and maintainability (RAM) for six months to further evaluate the total effect of this year-long storage. Upon completion of the DARCOM study, the Department of the Army will determine the feasibility of placing aircraft in POMCUS and the number and types that should be so deployed.

Host nation support (FINS), which is discussed in Chapter 3, is one of the means-along with operational projects, pre-positioned war reserve materiel stocks, and POMCUS-by which the Army seeks to achieve the total logistics support capability required by U.S. combat forces in time of war. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) formed an interagency FINS working group in February 1981 under the auspices and general guidance of its own FINS Advisory Group. Composed of representatives of OSD, the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (OJCS), the State Department, the relevant commanders in chief, and the intelligence community, the working group's broad objective was to develop support requirements for the Rapid Deployment Force (RDF) and obtain FINS for RDF contingencies. The first priority was to acquire host nation support for the current RDF; the second priority was to obtain FINS for an expanded RDF. The working group divided into four subgroups which based their activities on group terms of reference and a fifteen-point agenda.

Efforts continued during 1981 to obtain support agreements on lines of communications (LOC) with the nations of the NATO northern and southern regions. The U.S. signed umbrella, general, and technical agreements with Denmark, Norway, and Italy. OSD suspended dialogue with Turkey and Greece for the time being. (LOC agreements fall into four general categories: umbrella, general or general technical, technical or technical an-


nexes, and joint logistic support plans [JLSPs]. The primary difference between them is in degree of specificity, with umbrella agreements consisting of general statements of principle and the others providing progressively more detail. JLSPs are very detailed; they would, for example, provide for the movement of a specific number of short tons of supply from one location to another on a certain day after the commencement of mobilization.)

Korean HNS, which has existed for many years in practice if not in name primarily through agreements between the U.S. services and their counterparts in the Republic of Korea, continued to exemplify allied cooperation during fiscal year 1981,. The formal Combined Defense. Improvement Projects (CDIP) Program, begun at the 12th Security Consultative Meeting in October 1979, contains all elements of support normally included in host nation support.

Japan HNS to U.S. forces there includes participation in the Relocation Construction Program (RCP) and the Facilities Improvement Program (FIP). The RCP allows the Japanese government to relocate U.S. military facilities in order to use the scarce real estate for development. In return the Japanese government constructs new facilities for the displaced service functions. The result is a consolidation of U.S. bases and a reduction in operating costs. The FIP is a cost-sharing arrangement whereby the Japanese government helps offset the cost to the United States of maintaining forces in Japan by funding troop housing and maintenance facilities. The FIP now extends over a three-year budget cycle, an arrangement that facilitates long-range planning.

Aviation contract maintenance in Europe provides a perfect example of the difficulties inherent in international support for the Army logistics system. During the 23d U.S.-German Logistic Staff Talks in November 1979, the Germans proposed the establishment of a helicopter maintenance capability within German industry which could be expanded in wartime. The Germans requested that the Army systematically determine the maintenance requirements of U.S. forces in Europe and develop appropriate procedures that would allow German contractors to participate. The Army concluded that contracting through the Defense Acquisition Regulation (DAR) provided the only available mechanism for placing work with German industries. The U.S. Army Troop Support and Aviation Materiel Readiness Com-


mand (TSARCOM) decided that there was not enough of a workload to establish a capability for major overhaul of aircraft within German industry in competition with in-house maintenance depots in the U.S. It recommended that a contract involving aircraft condition evaluation, flight safety inspections, and installation of modification kits could be structured for international competition. Consequently DARCOM directed TSARCOM to issue such a contract in July or August 1980 to be awarded by December 1980. TSARCOM also offered assistance to German industries that wanted to have their names added to the bidder's list.

As of 30 September 1981 the TSARCOM bidder's list contained about forty names, including six German firms and a few U.S.-based firms with subsidiaries in Germany. As a result of technical and administrative difficulties, issuance of the proposed solicitation slipped from July or August 1980 to March 1981. In the interim TSARCOM restructured the proposal as a basic ordering agreement with an initial workload of 5,000 to 6,000 manhours. TSARCOM issued this request for proposal (RFP) in March .1981 and received solicitations from one U.S., and two German firms in April 1981. The command withdrew the RFP in July because of excessively high bids and a perceived need for further detailed evaluation of USAREUR aviation maintenance requirements. In that same month Joseph P. Cribbins, Special Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, visited Germany to review and establish the scope of aviation maintenance work generated in USAREUR that exceeded its capabilities. USAREUR estimated this total workload at 60,000 to 75,000 man-hours per year exclusive of any significant depot-level work. In August 1981 USAREUR and TSARCOM drafted a new statement of maintenance work needs and began preparing a new RFP, scheduled for issue during fiscal year 1982.

The problems with aviation maintenance or the strains endemic to the host nation relationship pale beside the fact that the five division equivalents which the Army maintains in Europe cannot be sustained in combat without reinforcement from CONUS before the outbreak of war. This situation resulted from an attempt to improve the "teeth-to-tail" ratio, the proportion of combat units to combat support and combat service support units, in Europe dating from the mid-1960s. Some 75 percent of all CS-CSS units are in the reserves, and as General Robert M. Shoemaker, the commander of U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM), testified to the Senate Committee on Armed Ser-


vices in February 1981, their level of readiness was not as high as the Army desired. In a crisis the President would confront a genuine dilemma. If he did not reinforce USAREUR it might be "use (d) up in combat," to borrow the words of its commander, "because its replenishment, its sustained effectiveness, cannot be guaranteed." If the President did reinforce, he risked touching off the very conflict that he hoped to avoid. The example of the catastrophe of 1914 would ensure that considerable political pressure and a respectable intellectual rationale would exist for doing nothing. As early as 1979 the Department of the Army concluded that the reduction of CS-CSS units had gone too far in Europe. Then and in subsequent years the department had programmed additional combat support and combat service support units to replace a percentage of those previously allocated to the reserve components. In each year, 1981 included, the Army did not receive sufficient funds to do so.

While Europe remained the focus of Army planning during the fiscal year, the Middle East received increased attention as a possible theater of operations, as it has every year since 1973. One difficulty of operating in such regions is the lack of potable water. A 250,000-man force, for example, would require approximately five million gallons of water each day. Until recently, the Army had failed to address this problem adequately. It was capable of drilling wells and filtering water, but it lacked the equipment to treat saltwater, brackish water, or water contaminated by chemicals. In September 1980 OSD gave the Army responsibility for developing joint water doctrine and for supplying water to the other services during joint operations. The Department of the Army designated water supply as a combat service support function, with Army staff management responsibility assigned to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics and functional responsibility delegated to the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). TRADOC designated the U.S. Army Logistics Center as its executive agent for water resources and transferred responsibility for water supply combat developments from the Engineer School to the Quartermaster School. The Quartermaster School began to develop long-term, all-environment water support concepts, doctrine, and organizations. At the end of the year there were plans to transfer the responsibility for training development as well as the training itself to the Quartermaster School.

Meanwhile, the Logistics Center addressed the problem of


near-term support in arid environments, trying to determine what changes would help correct the worst deficiencies in existing doctrine, organizations, and equipment as quickly as possible. The results were published as TRADOC Pamphlet 525-11, June 1981.

Logistics Planning and Management

While logistics planning and management did not receive the public attention given the quality and quantity of logistic support to USAREUR, ultimately the former had a tremendous impact upon the latter. In 1981 initiatives in logistics planning and management centered on four areas: review of the entire logistics system; development of better criteria to judge the readiness of units and weapons; planning to ensure adequate supply and maintenance for major items of equipment which the Army intended to field in the future; and changes in the training and career patterns of logistics specialists.

The Army completed "Study of Army Logistics-1981" during the fiscal year, which ended on 30 September 1981. The Brown Board, which completed its work in 1965, had provided the last comprehensive study of the Army logistics system. The Besson Board in 1969 had focused on support for Southeast Asia. Concern over the lack of a recent study came to a head at the 1980 Commanders' Conference. In January 1981 General Meyer directed General John R. Guthrie, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Materiel, Readiness, and Development Command, to prepare "a foxhole-to-factory" study on Army logistics. Completed in August, the study contained some 275 recommendations dealing with all aspects of the logistics system, with special emphasis on the industrial base. General Meyer assigned responsibility for coordinating the assessment of the study to General Thompson, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics (DCSLOG). General Thompson formed a Logistics Study 81 Assessment Team within ODCSLOG to oversee the review by the Army staff and to keep track of the implementation of adopted proposals. The Army put the first approved changes into effect in September.

While the "Study of Army Logistics-1981" sought to define the entire logistical system and improve its functioning by better relating its parts to the whole, the ODCSLOG pursued several limited reforms, the cumulative effect of which was to improve markedly the managerial tools available to direct the logistics


effort. These initiatives involved a revision of DCSLOG Regulation 701-2, "Logistics Plans-Direction for Army Logistics (DIALOG)," a change in the method of making materiel readiness reports to Congress, the automation of Department of the Army records, the approval of temporary loans to active units from war reserves and operational projects, and the expansion of the pacing item reporting system.

DIALOG, an outgrowth of the "Executive Summary of the Army Logistics Master Plan," last published in 1973, is an annual action plan for Army logistics, which sketches significant accomplishments of the preceding year, lists total Army goals, outlines the logistics goals designed to support those of the Army, and enumerates areas of concentration within each logistic objective designed to answer the question: "Where are we going?" It then gives specific actions to implement each of these objectives and the dates by which the Army plans to accomplish them. Largely because of the personal interest of Lt. Gen. Arthur J. Gregg, who was the DCSLOG until his retirement in July 1981, ODCSLOG reviewed the 1980 edition of DIALOG to make the objectives more definite, more measurable, clearer, and more concise. The office published these changes in DCSLOG Regulation 701-2 on 6 October 1980 and in Department of the Army Pamphlet 701-1 in January 1981. ODCSLOG encouraged each major Army command to develop its own supporting objectives to improve logistics further.

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics (DASD MRA&L) made significant changes in the format and content of the Materiel Readiness Report to Congress during fiscal year 1981. The office hoped the changes would give the legislators a better picture of actual conditions within the Department of Defense and the Army. In line with this reform, the Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics (ODCSLOG) attempted to tie equipment readiness to budget appropriations. Although not totally successful, the effort was an improvement over previous attempts, which quickly became apparent when the Reagan administration proposed the fiscal year 1981 supplemental and the fiscal year 1982 amendments to previous budget bills. For the first time the Army tried to define how much additional readiness the increased appropriations would buy.

Throughout the year, various agencies on the Army staff and in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) evaluated several


models under development to relate resources to readiness. The models used one of two basic approaches or some combination of both. The first approach attempted to relate specific system readiness to appropriations. It appeared to have a more direct relationship to the appropriation process within the Department of Defense, the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS), and might have some validity in predicting the readiness of small units when the system involved was in fact their pacing item. The other approach, aimed at major combat units, tried to relate unit readiness to appropriations. At the end of the fiscal year the RAND Corporation was still working on the second approach.

A pacing item is a major weapons system, such as a tank or an aircraft, that is central to an organization's ability to perform its assigned mission. Because these items are critical to the level of readiness expected of a unit, the quantity on hand and their condition are subject to continuous monitoring and management at all levels of command. During fiscal year 1981, ODCSLOG expanded pacing item reporting to include selected combat service support units, thus marking the first time that the Army included logistics units in the pacing item system.

In another equipment-monitoring effort, General Gregg approved the conversion of the manual information system that recorded equipment loans made from the war reserves and operational projects to active units-a set of three-by-five cards maintained in the Directorate of Supply and Maintenance-to a computer system capable of generating semiannual lists of outstanding loans. The new method produced immediate results. ODCSLOG was able to reduce the amount of equipment on loan from $86 million worth in December 1980 to $45 million worth in September 1981. During the same period, the office reduced the total value of overdue loans from $52 million to less than $9 million, an 83-percent improvement.

ODCSLOG served two roles in the Commercial Activities (CA) Program, described in Chapter 9. It is the Army staff proponent for 48 percent of 179 generic functional areas designated as Army CA functions; and it is responsible for two field operating agencies vitally involved in the program-the U.S. Army Troop Support Agency at Fort Lee, Virginia, and the U.S. Army Logistics Evaluation Agency at New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. In 1981 ODCSLOG reviewed approximately forty-five Commercial Activities Proposed Action Summaries (CPAS), which provide the


information needed to assess the feasibility of contract performance.

ODCSLOG, working in conjunction with several other agencies, developed and published the "Useful Life and Residual Value Table" to simplify the computation of general and administration (G&A) expenses, an integral part of a commercial activities cost study. The table is a single reference document that gives all necessary information about the useful life and residual value of all items for which the Army must compute depreciation.

On 1 July 1981 the Army activated the National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, California. It was the first installation considered for contract operation of all base operation functions in which contractors were not performing any duties at the time the contract was awarded. After a review of industry bids and in7house costs, FORSCOM awarded a contract to Boeing Services International on 1 July 1981. FORSCOM calculated that the savings to the government would amount to $6.2 million annually, 19 percent lower than the original estimate. The contractor began full-scale operation on 1 October 1981.

The Defense Retail Interservice Support (DRIS) Program provides commanders with a means of improving retail operations by acquiring support from other military services and defense agencies through interservice agreements. During fiscal year 1981, the Department of Defense DRIS data bank recorded approximately 2,330 agreements in which the Army provided support valued at more than $150 million. Through another 1,120 agreements the Army received support valued at $90 million from other services and agencies. The program has experienced continuous annual growth over the past decade as reflected in the number of agreements and the dollar value of the support provided. ODCSLOG anticipates that the program will continue to grow. In March 1981 the Deputy Secretary of Defense placed additional emphasis on DRIS when he assigned each service an annual savings target of $10 million for fiscal years 1983 through 1987. ODCSLOG apportioned a share of the Army savings target to each major command. The Program Objective Memorandum (POM) for the 1983-1987 period reflected the new figures.

Joint Interservice Resource Study Groups (JIRSG) received continued attention within the DRIS program. In support of DOD's DRIS plan for fiscal years 1979-1983, sixty-seven JIRSGs had been established by 1981 to explore the possibility of in-


creased interservice support where there were geographic concentrations of DOD activities. The study groups determined capabilities and requirements in all 101 DRIS categories of support services. Each group was chaired by a full colonel or his naval or civilian equivalent. Their work was scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1983. Regular process reports to the ASD (MRA&L) and the military services as well as the draft report of a special audit by the Defense Audit Service (DAS) submitted in July 1981 indicated that the JIRSG procedure had failed to produce any significant consolidation of support capabilities. ODCSLOG recommended an alternative approach to the JIRSGs in September 1981, in which OSD would select two geographic areas that showed the greatest potential for base support consolidation. The department and the services would concentrate all efforts on the two geographic areas. The results would allow OSD to calculate more accurately the savings deriving from support consolidation in less promising geographic areas.

In July 1981 ODCSLOG recommended that Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), keep a record of interservice support agreements at the Defense Logistics Services Center, an action that would eliminate the need for the military services to keep such records. DLA agreed. Implementation will begin during fiscal year 1982.

The "Study of Army Logistics-1981," the reforms of the management information system such as the 1981 revision of DIALOG, the Commercial Activities (CA) Program, and the Defense Retail Interservice Support Program all dealt with the entire Army logistics system. At the same time ODCSLOG prepared plans which focused on areas within the total system. For example, before the Army fielded a major item of equipment in 1981, ODCSLOG prepared a detailed plan covering its distribution, supply, and maintenance and the monitoring of these activities. Thus the execution of the objectives of ODCSLOG's five-ton-truck study, discussed in the Department of the Army Historical Summary for Fiscal Year 1980, began in 1981. The U. S. Army Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) carried out the distribution plan included in the staff study. ODCSLOG expected the command to complete deliveries of the trucks purchased with fiscal year 1981 funds by July 1983. At the end of the fiscal year the Department of the Army was reviewing a TACOM plan for procuring 18,000 five-ton trucks in fiscal years 1982 through


1987 with deliveries stretching from, August 1983 through September 1988.

The new five-ton truck presented a fairly simple problem for logistics planners. It was simply an improved version of a standard item of equipment which could be purchased "off the shelf." The organizations and the men necessary to man, maintain, and sustain the trucks already existed, and the amount of retraining required was minimal.

The same could not be said for the division air defense (DIVAD) gun, for which the -Department of the Army pursued an innovative acquisition strategy during 1981. Until recently the standard Army development cycle consisted of three phases. In the concept phase DARCOM would develop a statement of what the Army required. In response, interested manufacturers would prepare engineering drawings and perhaps build a prototype. On the basis of these submissions DARCOM would select the proposal which appeared most feasible and award a contract for full scale engineering development, the second phase of the cycle. The contractor would build three to five prototypes which the Army would review and make recommendations for improvement. Only if satisfied with the results and if the original requirement still existed would the Army award a full-scale production contract, the third phase of the cycle.

The DIVAD gun went through a two-phase development cycle. In the first, the Army prepared a general description of what it wanted and then allowed two contractors complete freedom to design and build prototypes. The only restriction on their independence was that all components had to be "off the shelf" with a history of reliable service. In May 1981 a source selection board chose Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation to act as the production contractor. This selection marked the beginning of phase two, which involved maturation ("debugging" the prototype) and initial production.

In the standard development cycle, the contractor validated logistic planning during phase two, when he built the prototypes. The contractor provided the information needed to determine ammunition, spare parts, tools, maintenance manuals, and the personnel and special training required to field, operate, and repair the weapon. Once the contractor accomplished these preliminaries, the project manager (PM), who had direct access to the commanding general of DARCOM and the Secretary of the Army, initiated planning. Only then could the appropriate Army


commands and agencies begin to accumulate the men, information, and materiel needed when ODCSLOG actually deployed the weapons to the units in the field. To follow the same procedure for the DIVAD gun would have added unnecessarily to the expense. The quite different prototypes would have required radically different logistical support systems, and in the end the Army would use only one. Consequently, the Army expected only minimal logistic support planning and execution until after the selection of the production contractor. Planning which had previously taken two cycles to complete was now compressed into one and presented a unique challenge to logisticians. The project manager began logistics planning in conjunction with Ford Aerospace in May 1981.

The Army had devised the new procurement procedure in response to congressional concern about the length of time required to develop a new weapon. The service intended to use the new procedure selectively in place of the three-phase cycle. DARCOM would chose weapons for accelerated development on a case-by-case basis. The DIVAD gun represented the Army's first experience with the new system; the multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) was the second. Although it progressed more quickly than the DIVAD gun, MLRS was an even greater headache to logistics planners. The system was an "add-on" to the force. It replaced no existing weapons; it was entirely new. All logistics requirements for the MLRS were additions to existing requirements. Moreover, MLRS used a "shoot-and-scoot" operational technique, that is, it moved to a new position after launching a missile salvo. This method of employment required the development of flexible ammunition resupply practices and procedures to ensure that the empty launcher and the rockets arrived at the same place at the same time. The large size of the rockets and the rapid rate of fire of the launcher generated unique ammunition shipment, handling, and storage considerations. The project manager coordinated all logistics planning by the contractor and all the Army agencies involved during 1981. The logistics system would be ready to allow the weapon to be fielded on schedule during fiscal year 1983.

During 1981, the Army had an improved TOW (tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided) antitank missile, designated TOW 2, under development. A test and evaluation committee from DARCOM conducted a physical tear-down and maintenance evaluation (PTME) to determine the adequacy of


repair tools, test equipment, and operator and maintenance skills. The PTME revealed only minor shortcomings. In September 1981 the Department of the Army conducted a general officer in-process review which concluded that the TOW 2 should be classified as a standard item of equipment. This would enable DARCOM to begin work in fiscal year 1982 on parts catalogues and maintenance training manuals and would also allow DARCOM to apply fiscal year 1981 and 1982 appropriations toward modifying the basic TOW launchers to accept the TOW 2. At the end of fiscal year 1981, initiation of these actions awaited the approval of the PTME conclusions by the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition (DCSRDA). He withheld his decision pending completion of a U.S. Army Missile Command (MICOM) study on the best procurement strategy competitive versus sole source. In contrast to MLRS, TOW 2 will present few problems to logistics planners because the existing TOW logistics system will support it with only slight modification.

Army Regulation 750-40, "Missile Materiel Readiness Report," continued to provide an excellent source of management information for use at MICOM, DARCOM, and the Department of the Army during 1981. After almost two years of operation, the report had proven simple to prepare and had gained wide acceptance in the field. Visits by The Inspector General and by Command Logistics Review Teams validated the accuracy of the data generated in the field. In June 1981, ODCSLOG conducted a special in-process review of the regulation and the reporting procedures, which resulted in a recommendation to further simplify preparation in the field. The change promised to increase the usefulness of the report at headquarters by adding existing missile systems not yet covered by the report and new ones as the Army fielded them. At the end of September 1981 ODCSLOG was drafting a revised regulation.

Logistics planning encompassed not only materiel but also people. Efforts by ODCSLOG to improve enlisted and officer professional development continued throughout the fiscal year. The revitalized Noncommissioned Officer Logistics Program (NCOLP) began to produce tangible results. The Resource Management Division in ODCSLOG made some 700 changes in the NCOLP documentation system which, when combined with the concomitant creation of major command and CONUS-installation NCOLP staff monitors, led to a better utilization of soldiers


in the program. Participation by noncommissioned officers increased to 90 percent of authorized levels.

In other personnel actions ODCSLOG provided information and assistance to TRADOC, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER), and the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (ODCSOPS) in four areas: evaluation of primary and basic technical courses to determine the adequacy of training; the Women in the Army Policy Review Group to study the impact of pregnancy and female authorization levels on readiness; the Manning System Task Force evaluation of the new rotation system and regimental affiliation; and a review of specialty designations needed to support the fielding of new systems. ODCSLOG also became the main coordination point for logistic specialties on the Army staff. On 1 October 1980 General Meyer directed that Army schools become the proponents for changes in military occupation specialties (MOSS) falling within their areas of expertise. ODCSLOG sent representatives to the proponency meetings on logistics specialties held at the various logistics schools. ODCSLOG conducted proponent reviews of the Logistic Executive Development Course (LEDC) and the Directorate of Industrial Operations Course (DIOC), which resulted in several improvements in their content. ODCSLOG also sponsored the establishment of additional specialty, training and logistics precommand courses. These latter courses were designed for lieutenant colonels and colonels slated to command support battalions and divisional support commands.

In February 1981 General Vessey, the Vice Chief of Staff, approved the Army Aviation Maintenance Career Management Field 67 Study for implementation by TRADOC. TRADOC will revise the Career Management Field-Military Occupational Specialties (CMF-MOS) structure, the standards of grade authorization (SGA), the grade and skill level authorizations, all aviation maintenance training programs, and the appropriate incentives to recruit, train, and retain qualified soldiers in the aviation maintenance program. The Department of the Army Steering Advisory Group, chaired by the Special Assistant to the DCSLOG, will remain ad hoc during fiscal year 1982 and will monitor the implementation of the study.

Computer Applications

The application of automated data processing systems (ADPS) to logistics provides the possibility of establishing a highly re-


sponsive, decentralized organization. The wide dissemination of detailed information about the amount and condition of equipment and supplies in units and at installations allows higher headquarters to anticipate the needs of lower echelons more rapidly and accurately. Paradoxically, having such information gives higher echelons the illusion that they have a complete picture of field conditions, thus creating the psychological precondition for imposing rigid and over centralized direction. What kind of logistics system would eventually result from these conflicting impulses remained problematic in fiscal year 1981. As in previous years, the Army's goals remained to achieve "state-of-the-art" status in both hardware and software-an exceedingly ambitious goal given the rapid advances in the computer field, the high costs, and the vagaries of the one-year budget cycle. In 1981, work on computer applications extended throughout the logistics hierarchy, from ODCSLOG down to the facilities on the post from which troops drew their equipment and clothing.

The Automation Management Office (AMO) completed and published the ODCSLOG Automation Plan (DAP), which is a four-phase program that will result in an automated information processing system for ODCSLOG. Implementation of the four major recommendations for automation are well under way: (1) reorganization of word processing support (phase I of the automation plan), (2) development of a program to monitor projects, (3) development of a program to track work on PPBS, and (4) establishment of a secure data link between the Logistics Evaluation Agency (LEA) at New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, and ODCSLOG.

The AMO study focused on only one office in the logistics system, albeit a very important one. Work on the Total Army Equipment Distribution Program (TAEDP), in contrast, concerned one element of the entire system. TAEDP is a collection of computer-generated information that projects Class VII (major equipment) end items, such as tanks, artillery, helicopters, and so forth, at the battalion level for the current year, the budget year, and the five years of the Program Objective Memorandum (POM). ODCSLOG and the Depot Systems Command (DES-COM) completed worldwide implementation of TAEDP during November and December 1980. They also added the phased equipment modernization (PEM) module to TAEDP, which permits the accurate tracking of new pieces of equipment as they come into the Army inventory. Under the old system, the Army


changed the TOES of similar units throughout the service on the same day whether or not enough equipment was available to outfit all of them. In fact, it rarely was. TAEDP-PEM permits the Army to switch to a new TOE, battalion by battalion. The information generated by PEM for the current year will guide the distribution of equipment; that for future years will assist logistics planning. For example, PEM will inform the commander of an installation containing one or more tank battalions when M I s will replace M60s. Thus, he will know the dates by which he will have to enlarge the garage doors on post. PEM embodies the Department of the Army Master Priority List (DAMPL), the document which establishes the sequence in which battalions receive new equipment. DAMPL is based on NATO war requirements. ODCSLOG, ODCSOPS, and DARCOM began exploring ways to override the DAMPL to satisfy other needs as well, for example, new equipment for training in CONUS and the Rapid Deployment Force. ODCSLOG and DESCOM also began work on a module that would project the distribution and disposition of displaced systems, such as the M60.

The Logistics Data Network (LOGNET) is being developed to help in crisis situations. Entering a roster of troop units preparing to deploy into the LOGNET data base would trigger a series of automatic computations to indicate Class VII item shortages at unit and force levels, redistribute Class VII assets from designated sources to fill the shortage, and determine the amount of selected Class V (ammunition) and Class IX (repair parts) items available to sustain the force. The system would also determine the requirements for petroleum products in the force list. LOGNET would not be able to report the amount and types of fuel actually on hand within the units. On 7 April 1981, ODCSOPS published the functional description of LOGNET. The agency also signed a memorandum of agreement for development of the LOGNET prototype with the Defense Communications Agency (DCA), the organization responsible for constructing the system. DCA chaired a review of systems requirements held on 21 May, which approved a modified version of the ODCSLOG functional description and published it on 26 June. DCA awarded a design contract to TRW. In August, DCA selected the system hardware in conjunction with ODCSLOG, and the following month the two agencies and the contractor reviewed system specifications.

The Standard Army Ammunition System (SAAS) is a multi-command management information network which interfaces


with the Worldwide Ammunition Reporting System (WARS) and provides integrated reports of Class V (ammunition) stock in the logistics pipeline from the ammunition supply points at field army level through the Theater Army Materiel Management Center (TAMMC). The U.S. Army Logistics Center, operating in conjunction with Computer Systems Command, developed SAAS Level-1 for TAMMC and is working on SAAS-3 for COSCOM and SAAS-4 for the ammunition supply points.

In July 1981 the U.S. Army Audit Agency approved the Automation Economic Analysis (AEA) detailing the cost of development for SAAS-4. This permitted the DCSLOG staff to prepare a system decision paper. (A system decision paper is a formal document which details the status of an automated data system in the development cycle, the cost of continuing development, and the possible alternatives and their costs. It provides the basis for a decision by the Army staff on whether to continue to develop either hardware or software.) During August a representative from ODCSLOG chaired a field validation test for SAAS-1 System Change Package (SCP) 15 at the 200th TAMMC in Zweibruecken, Germany. This change provides an interface with SAAS-3 and allows the compilation of information concerning the amount of ammunition on order, the time it is due in, and the amount of ammunition in stages of transit but not yet delivered.

The losses that the Army faces in combat will require the ability to replace temporarily any damaged equipment undergoing repair. It consequently maintains a pool of spares for such a contingency, called a Combat Operation Readiness Float (CORF). The Concepts Analysis Agency (CAA) developed a CORF simulation model to use with the Wartime Requirements for Ammunition, Materiel, and Personnel (WARRAMP) program. CAA required additional information on battle damage and direct support repair rates before reaching any definite conclusions. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Agency (AMSAA) and DARCOM agreed to work with CAA to get this information. ODCSLOG anticipated completion of a working prototype by 1 January 1982 and of full development by March 1982.

In contrast to LOGNET, SAAS, and the CORF simulation model, which are still in development, the Standard Army Intermediate Level Supply Subsystem (SAILS) has been in place for some years. SAILS is the supply system operating at installation, corps, theater, medical activity, and selected U.S. Army


Reserve (USAR) sites. When first conceived, SAILS was to be part of the Standard Army Logistics System which was never developed. The comprehensive approach adopted at the beginning of the development cycle ensured that SAILS would be compatible with all other automated logistics systems. During 1981 the U.S. Army Logistics Center (LOGCEN) and the U.S. Army Computer Systems Command (USACSC) extended an expanded version of the system, SAILS ABX, to fifty-four locations throughout the world, thereby completing over 70 percent of the entire program.

As noted in last year's report, in 1980 LOGCEN completed a study of automated wartime functional supply requirements, which concluded that SAILS could not accommodate expected wartime volumes of information. As a result of this study the Army initiated the development of a new supply system capable of handling wartime loads. In March 1981 the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics, and Financial Management approved the mission element needs statement (MENS) for the new system, called the Standard Army Retail Supply System (SARSS). ODCSLOG expected approval of a project manager (PM) charter for SARSS early in fiscal year 1982.

For important equipment, such as tanks and helicopters, the Army maintains a property book containing the names of individuals who are personally accountable for each item of equipment. In divisions or separate brigades, the property book is automated and maintained at the materiel management center. During 1981 LOGCEN and the Computer Systems Command worked to replace the current system, the Division Logistics System (DLOGS) Property Book, with the Standard Property Book System (SPBS). SPBS software has had a long period in development. Originally a part of SAILS during that system's early development, SPBS was made a separate subsystem by 1971 because of its increasing complexity. In 1977 Computer Systems Command tested a SPBS prototype at Fort Carson, Colorado, but opposition in ODCSLOG soon brought development to a halt. By fiscal year 1981 ODCSLOG had reversed itself. During the year, LOGCEN and USACSC reprogrammed SPBS to incorporate changes needed as a result of previous prototype testing and new regulatory and system interface requirements. USACSC scheduled divisional field testing for June 1982. When complete, SPBS will not only replace the Division Logistics System (DLOGS) Property Book at divisions and brigades but will


also operate at installations and corps headquarters. SPBS, which will interface with SAILS, SARSS, and the Direct Support Unit Standard Supply System (DS4), will provide an Army-wide data base that will allow an individual item of equipment to be tracked throughout the logistics system.

DS4 is a computer program designed to assist direct support units in distributing supplies. Developed and maintained at a central location, DS4 is operable at multiple field sites on the Decentralized Automated Service Support System (DAS3), a decentralized computer hardware configuration. The DAS3 field systems will consist of automated data processing equipment housed in a mobile van and powered by standard military generators or commercial power. Capable of taking the field and dedicated almost exclusively to logistics operations, DAS3 stands in direct contrast to the philosophy which created the current generation of Army computers; they are immobile and concentrated in centers designed to process all information requests-logistic, administrative, and tactical. As of September 1981 ODCSLOG planned to employ DAS3 at first in nondivisional direct support or general support units (DSU-GSU), where it would replace the aged National Cash Register (NCR) 500. After replacing the NCR 500s, the Army will introduce the DAS3 into nondivisional direct support and general support units not currently automated -and into Army divisions, brigades, and corps support commands (COSCOMs) as replacements for existing International Business Machine (IBM) 360 series computers.

Fielding of production model DAS3s began in December 1980. By 30 September 1981 the U.S. Army Computer Systems Command (USACSC) had distributed fifty-four DAS3s to the major commands. Until Computer Systems Command completes work on DS4 (expected in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1982) the new computers will use Phoenix interim software. Phoenix refers to NCR 500 programs that are machine-translated to run on the DAS3. They take their name from the city in which the work was done.

DS4, SPBS, SARSS, SAILS, SAAS, and LOGNET provide aggregations of data at division and separate brigade levels. A new system, the Automated Retail Outlet System (AUTOROS), is being designed to support installation Self-Service Supply Centers (SSSC), Automated Central Issue Facilities (ACIF), and tables of distribution and allowance (TDA) shop supply. AUTOROS, in addition to automating routine supply functions, will provide


data for financial accounting. On 7 March 1980 the Assistant Secretary of the Army (ASA) for Installations, Logistics, and Financial (IL&FM) authorized the continued development of AUTOROS through prototype evaluation testing. TRADOC completed prototype testing of the SSSC module of AUTOROS in October 1980. ODCSLOG and TRADOC will ask the assistant secretary to approve a limited extension of the module in fiscal year 1982.

The Automated Central Issue Facility System (ACIFS) is designed to automate the Central Issue Facility (CIF) on Army installations. ACIFS provides total accountability for the temporary loan, receipt, issue, turn-in, inspection, exchange, and stocking of organizational clothing and individual equipment. The ASA (IL&FM), on 6 June 1980, authorized the installation of ACIFS at nine U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) sites, each supporting either a division or a higher unit. FORSCOM extended the system to Fort Benning during fiscal year 1981 and planned further extensions in 1982.

Work on Logistics Automated Marking and Reading Symbols (LOGMARS) began in 1976 with OSD as the proponent and with the Army as the executive agent through the DARCOM Packaging, Storage, and Containerization Center. LOGMARS has a bar-code source data acquisition technology similar to that used in supermarkets and department stores. It consists of bar-code labels and the equipment required to produce and read them. A portable wand scanning unit reads the code on a label and passes the information to a small hand-held computer for recording. If needed, an acousticoupler can also relay the information via telephone lines to a host computer at the installation, where the data is reconciled and then printed as part of the installation inventory. The system can inventory more items in an hour than can be done manually in a day. Tests at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, indicated that LOGMARS could cut inventory time by as much as 68 percent. On 29 September the Director for Supply Management Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics, chaired a senior advisory group (SAG) meeting on LOGMARS. It formally adopted symbol display characteristics throughout the Department of Defense, lifted a moratorium on testing by the individual services, and approved the implementation of LOGMARS by the services. SAG established the third quarter of fiscal 1982 as the target date for completion of specifications for the labels as well as in-


structions on how to prepare them. The Army planned to implement LOGMARS during fiscal year 1982 at wholesale, installation, and combat service support levels.

Army logisticians need to know not only the location of particular supplies and equipment but also the location of entire shipments of mixed cargo and the transportation required to move those materials from point to point. The U.S. Army Logistics Center during 1981 continued to develop computer programs and improve existing ones to fill these needs. The Department of the Army Movements Management System (DAMMS) is an automated data processing system designed to assist a theater transportation manager in monitoring the movement of cargo into, within, and out of the theater and to plan for movement of cargo in the theater during wartime. The DAMMS cargo movements module (CMM) provides the monitoring capability. Phase I, which covers the entry of cargo into the theater, was operational during 1981. LOGCEN completed the functional development and design of the DAMMS cargo movements module in March 1981 when the ASA (IL&FM) approved the system change request (SCR) and economic analysis (EA) of Phases II and III, the intratheater and export functions. In the same month LOGCEN completed the functional development and design work which laid out how the various modules and the phases of the entire DAMMS would interact. LOGCEN submitted an analysis of the various hardware changes needed to support DAMMS to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics. These changes included amendments to DAS3 and the Division Level Data Entry Device (DLDED). ODCSLOG decided to fund the changes from the fiscal year 1983 budget. ODCSLOG plans to extend DAMMS to the Eighth Army in Korea and continues to study the problem of communications support requirements for DAMMS in Korea.

The Movement Planning Module (MPM) automates wartime movements in a theater of operations. It derived from a portion of the models in the U.S. Army Worldwide Logistics System (MAWLOGS) that dealt with movements planning. LOGCEN began technical conversion of the selected models in May 1981. The module when complete would permit simulation of various tactical situations, such as the damage or destruction of bridges, pipelines, railroads, or nontactical vehicles, and the identification of the best response to these conditions. At the end of the year


LOGCEN was developing the final functional description and economic analysis for the module.

Mechanization of Selected Transportation Movements (MECHTRAM) is an automated system that provides logistics and financial information on the movement of Army-sponsored cargo and passengers within the Defense Transportation System network. MECHTRAM also has the ability to forecast and budget for, short- and long-range airlift and sealift requirements. The computer facility at the U.S. Army Management Systems Support Agency (USAMSSA) has provided automated data processing support for MECHTRAM since the system's transfer to that agency in 1978. The transfer did not include the descriptions and narration that accompanied the seventy-five programs encompassing the system. As a result the facility has experienced difficulties in maintaining MECHTRAM. To resolve the computer maintenance problems, USAMSSA developed a plan to evaluate and redesign the system. It expected to complete work on the redesign in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1982.

The Department of the Army Standard Port System-Enhanced (DASPS-E) is a collection of interrelated computer programs designed to assist the operations of all major CONUS and overseas ports. During 1981 development work continued without any major setbacks. Technical development began in November 1980 when Alan J. Gibbs, the ASA (IL&FM), granted a waiver to the U.S. Army Computer Systems Command to begin technical design, programming, and testing. Approval of functional development was completed in August 1981 when Joel E. Bonner, Jr., Assistant Secretary Gibbs' successor, approved the final functional description (FD), economic analysis (EA), and detailed requirements document (DRD). Work on hardware requirements for the system also proceeded during fiscal year 1981. In December 1980 Computer Systems Command submitted a requirements operational capability (ROC) document for DASPS-E. It listed the functional requirements that the Decentralized Automated Service Support System needed to process DASPS-E data. These consisted of a series of performance standards for particular items of hardware, such as tape drives capable of reaching a certain speed, printers with a particular capacity, and communication interfaces over certain distances. In September 1981 General Thompson nominated a project manager for DASPS-E, and ODCSLOG prepared the project manager charter for submission to Assistant Secretary Bonner.


More than thirty years ago private industry used computers to reduce the number of people required to do routine administrative tasks. The Department of Defense first applied automated data processing systems to operational tasks and only now is using them in routine administration. The Transportation Operational Personal Property System (TOPS) is one such computer program. It supports routine administrative functions similar in all shipping offices regardless of service. During 1981 the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics directed the Navy to develop and test TOPS and to provide the other services with system specifications which satisfied the functional requirements of their systems. The Navy experienced difficulties which have, in effect, delayed the Army's development and implementation plans. Because TOPS promises to provide substantial manpower and financial economies within four years, the Department of Defense funded it through the Productivity Enhancing Capital Investment program, a procedure established to support programs which promised a quick return on investments.

The Corps of Engineers has taken the lead in developing computer applications for the planning, design, and construction of buildings. Each year the Corps' Military Construction, Army (MCA), program deals with an average of fifty types of facilities in some stage of development. This volume of work, the repetition of these types of facilities year after year, and the pressure to keep costs low while at the same time meeting rising standards of safety, accessibility, and efficiency have encouraged the Corps to explore the possibility of using automated data processing systems. During the 1970s, computer technology evolved rapidly in the area of computer-aided design (CAD). Engineers first used computers to make calculations, then to handle basic data for accounting, specification production, and drafting. By the end of the decade these simple functions were being linked to allow construction of a geometric description of a design. Computer graphics and geometry could do everything that a balsa wood model could do and more, such as allowing an engineer to detect early in his design any interference between the layout of the heating and cooling systems in a building.

The Computer-Aided Engineering and Architectural Design System (CAEADS) is being developed at the Corps' Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL), located in Chain-


paign, Illinois. The purpose of the project is to modify automated data processing systems developed independently over the past few years so that they interface and to develop additional programs when needed in order to provide computer support to engineers throughout the MCA design cycle, from predesign through final design, as shown below.

Design Phase Typical CAEADS Tools User

Project Development Brochure (PDB) Processor
Environmental Technical Information System (ETIS)
Pollution Abatement Management System (PAMS)
Installation Facility Mobilization Planning System
Installation Graphics Analysis System
Computer Evaluation of Utility Plans
Army installations,  engineer districts

Concept Design

Design Information System (DIS)
Computer-aided Facility Layout System (SKETCH)
Systematic Evaluation of Architectural Criteria (SEARCH)
Building Loads Analysis and System Thermodynamics (BLAST)
Automated Budget Estimating System/Computer-Aided Cost Estimating System (ABES/CAGES)
Office of the Chief of Engineers, engineer districts, A/E contractors

Final Design

3-D modeling of architectural, mechanical, and electrical systems CAGES
Computer-Aided Specification Preparation System (EDITSPEC)
Automated Drafting
Engineer district A/E contractors


During 1981 CAEADS began to become available as an integrated system. Eight modules, some of which dated from before the beginning of the CAEADS system, were complete. Seven of the modules pertained to the early stages of design, primarily functional layout and analysis. They were combined and tested at the concept level of the design phase on more than one hundred MCA projects from the fiscal year 1984 budget. CERL called this combined system, only a small portion of the complete CAEADS, Concept CAEADS. Below is a drawing that represents the major integrated subsystems of Concept CAEADS.


Chart, major integrated subsystems of Concept CAEADS

The DD Form 1391 Processor is a CAEADS subsystem developed by CERL that is used in both the predesign and concept design phases of the MCA design cycle. It consists of a data base containing all the information found on DD Form 1391, including the status of the project and any comments from the review levels. In predesign the processor helps the facilities engineer prepare MCA project submittals by producing budget estimates and ensuring that the information submitted is complete and consistent. In the concept design phase it provides raw data for the Design Information System (DIS), a subsystem developed in the Office of the Chief of Engineers (OCE). DIS reviews the MCA project design that the Corps can use without modification or with only a few changes to satisfy the needs of a new project.

SKETCH, a computer-aided facility layout system also developed by CERL, lets the designer lay out and enter two-dimensional graphic building information in CAEADS. He can retrieve standard designs for modification or begin original ones using a graphics terminal. SKETCH is the crux of Concept CAEADS. Building information entered via SKETCH can later be retrieved for design evaluation. By the end of fiscal year 1981 CERL had developed interfaces between SKETCH and the other subsystems of Concept CAEADS. It had also begun work to link SKETCH to a three-dimensional data base that will be used in a final design phase.

The Systematic Evaluation of Architectural Criteria (SEARCH) is yet another subsystem that originated in CERL. It consists of a


collection of evaluation modules which ensure that a facility design is in compliance with criteria in design guides, technical manuals, building codes, and other documents. In its current stage of development SEARCH reviews floor-plan layouts provided by SKETCH for compliance with five sets of criteria: maximum and minimum areas, acoustic separation, walking distances, visual control, and accessibility to the handicapped. CERL was working on nine additional modules when the fiscal year ended: fire safety, equipment inventories, occupant load requirements, noise control, energy conservation, solar feasibility, spatial efficiency, and service subsystem terminal elements. SEARCH gives a designer the ability to check alternatives to the original proposal frequently and easily. He simply modifies the floor plan in SKETCH, then SEARCH automatically compares the new design to the evaluation modules. The designer may repeat this process as many times as necessary to obtain the best design. SEARCH lets the user identify and resolve design conflicts during the critical early stages of the work. Furthermore, it makes consistent evaluation of alternatives possible, greatly increasing the probability that a designer will produce the optimal design.

Building Loads Analysis and System Thermodynamics (BLAST) is a comprehensive set of programs prepared by CERL for predicting energy consumption and energy system performance and cost in new and redesigned buildings. It helps designers perform peak-load calculations, that is, the maximum BTU input required to bring a facility up to the design temperature on the coldest winter day, or the maximum amount of BTUs needed to be removed from the facility to reach the design temperature on the hottest day in summer. Peak-load calculations are needed to design the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and to select the most appropriate equipment for a building. Because BLAST provides estimates of a facility's annual energy performance, a designer can use it to evaluate alternatives. In Concept CAEADS, BLAST automatically selects building information from SKETCH and makes calculations using meteorological data from the building site. The mechanical designer needs only to enter a concept HVAC description at a terminal. The description would include a thermal zone layout, materials to be used in walls, floors, ceilings, and roofs, and fan and plant locations. BLAST provides results in a short time, which means that repeated use is inexpensive. A designer can thus examine alternative designs to ensure that the final design of both the facility and the plant conserves energy.

The Automated Budget Estimating System (ABES), developed by the Middle East Division (Rear), extracts twelve criteria from SKETCH, such as gross floor area, building type, energy supply,


and number of floors, and generates a complete and detailed list of construction tasks and quantities of materials required to price a building. This information is then fed to the Cost Estimating System, also a product of the Middle East Division, which generates a direct cost estimate.

CERL estimated that the test of Concept CAEADS in support of the fiscal year 1984 building program, which was completed in February 1981, saved approximately $3 million, 20 to 25 percent of the total design costs. Budget submission reports from the test included function, energy, and cost analyses of alternative designs for 113 projects. The architectural and engineering firm of Hayes, Seay, Mattern, and Mattern of Roanoke, Virginia, prepared final reports and combined them with scaled drawings. The firm received technical assistance from CERL and from the University of Michigan and used computer terminals in the Engineering Division, Military Programs Directorate (MPE), Office of the Chief of Engineers. MPE reviewed and accepted the reports before giving them to the field offices to guide future design projects.

Work on predesign CAEADS is the least advanced of the three phases of CAEADS. The 1391 Processor is ready and integrated into Concept CAEADS. The Environmental Technical Information System (ETIS), developed by CERL, is available as a stand-alone system but is not yet integrated into predesign CAEADS. ETIS will determine the environmental impacts of new construction and its operation and maintenance. Still to be designed are the Project Development Brochure (PDB) Processor, the Computer Evaluation of Utility Plans (CEUP) System, the Installation Graphics Analysis System, the Pollution Abatement Management System (PAMS), and the Installation Facility Mobilization Planning System.

CERL planned in 1981 to concentrate its efforts over the next few years on the final design cycle of CAEADS. By the end of September 1981 it had developed an interface between SKETCH and a three-dimensional modeling system called ARCH: MODEL, which is still undergoing development. When complete, ARCH: MODEL will provide data structures and data retrieval of geometric and physical properties of the construction materials. A central three-dimensional data base will permit easy retrieval of plans, elevations, details, and sections.

The final design cycle of CAEDS will also include the Computer-Aided Cost Estimating System (CACES)-to permit detailed cost estimates of a project in the advanced stages of design-and EDIT-SPEC. This latter system simplifies preparation of project construction specifications based on Corps of Engineers guidelines. A writer marks a computer-generated list of a project's design conditions.


EDITSPEC automatically pulls all pertinent guidance and places it in the correct location in the project specification. EDITSPEC prints all specifications-formatted, paragraphed, correctly paginated, and ready to go directly into the construction contract. The Office of the Chief of Engineers assigned the Huntsville Division to test, maintain, and operate EDITSPEC. The division started the formal prototype test in May 1980 and completed it in December 1980. During the test, the division made cost comparisons between manual and EDITSPEC specification preparation methods. The test indicated that EDITSPEC would save about 35 percent of the cost of preparing specifications. The Corps anticipated a decision early in the first quarter of fiscal year 1982 on extending EDITSPEC to nineteen Corps of Engineers offices. CERL planned to test the final design in the fall of 1982.

The present system of preparing an installation master plan consists of making a negative engraving of a map and plan data, a process called scribing; leroying, or inking, descriptive data; and reproducing, including screening, the finished product. The inability to update maps and plans easily on a daily basis creates problems with regard to storage, retrieval, and assimilation of pertinent data before it is placed on maps and plans. Installation master plans prepared in this manner exhibit high quality, but the labor effort is so intense that current master plans are seldom available.

During 1981 various Corps offices worked on computer-aided graphics in installation master planning, which have begun to replace the current system. Ultimately CERL will integrate them into CAEADS. The Fort Worth District helped Fort Hood acquire an automated mapping system based on new aerial photogrammetric mapping of the installation, validation of master plan items, including utility systems, and access to a data bank provided by the contractor. The Savannah District completed an implementation study for an interactive graphics and analysis system and terrain analysis system, which is a primer on the subject of automated graphics. The district also contracted for a study to establish graphic standards for automated master planning and prepared a new technical bulletin to standardize master-plan presentation. Huntsville Division contracted to provide automated basic information maps, the new term for master plans, for two DARCOM installations. The Office of the Chief of Engineers funded the preparation of mobilization master plans for two military installations through the division.

The Energy Monitoring and Control System (EMCS) is an installation computer system which controls the operation of building mechanical and electrical systems to conserve the most energy and to reduce operating costs. During fiscal year 1981, OCE published


guide specifications for the four different EMCS sizes. As the state of the art advances-and it is dramatically-the overlap in capacity grows. The Corps prepared the final text of a technical manual on EMCS design, which it planned to publish during fiscal year 1982.

Suppliers and installers of EMCS experienced significant delays during 1981 in putting the new system in place. Problems in computer program development and shortages of electronic components were the most important factors. Experience gained during the year confirmed the wisdom of using a distributed processing configuration for large- and medium-sized systems, that is, to put the large- or medium-sized computer in a central facility and to put a micro- or small- sized computer in each building. The computers could talk back and forth. If a small computer was down, the large computer could operate the climate controls for the building and vice versa. Redundancy increased reliability.

The Chief Counsel's Office of OCE developed and implemented contractual methods to secure optional software licensing agreements to ease maintenance contracting and system expansion acquisitions. Software is a copyrighted product. Vendors who develop software and those who service it have to reach an agreement about royalty payments before a system goes on line. The new agreements promise dramatic savings in time.

The Defense Energy Information System (DEIS) is a computer-based Department of Defense report for compiling all energy consumption statistics. During fiscal year 1981 the DOD Energy Office was coordinating the final stages of a massive revision of DEIS. The Army Energy Office in ODCSLOG handled the Army portion of the revision, which will enable reporting installations to submit pertinent data on consumption, including changes in population, weather conditions, and real estate inventories. The information will allow the Department of Defense to evaluate each installation's energy efficiency for the first time.

The Medical Facilities Design Office (MFDO) of the Corps of Engineers used three automated systems as aids in the management of medical facilities design during fiscal year 1981: the Building Design System and General Design System (BDS-GDS), the Design Office Computer-Format for Review (DOC-FR) System, and the SKETCH and SEARCH subsystems of CAEADS. The Corps installed a DOC-FR interactive computer system in the Medical Facilities Design Office during April 1981. By the end of the fiscal year MFDO was using the system on the U.S. Army Hospital project at Fort Carson, Colorado. The system allows design review comments to be entered, stored, updated, and reported; organizes the comments for use during the review conferences; aids in the review of


the next project submitted; and furnishes reviewers with a system report organized by discipline, with all the previous conference notes and action items added.

BDS-GDS is a large integrated architectural design system which provides automated procedures for pulling together preliminary concept information covering development of alternative schemes for building layout and associated studies and provides design merit analysis dealing with measurements, materials, costs, heating, and lighting. Design development is relatively quick, allowing the designer to address a full range of options of siting, circulation flow, layout, energy efficiency, and cost. In many ways the system overlaps functions performed by Concept CAEADS, but BDS-GDS lacks many of the capabilities of Concept CAEADS. BDS-GDS, for example, cannot aid in the design of nonrectangular structures. It cannot prepare an energy budget for a facility because it cannot project energy use throughout the year. However, the system has the advantage of being available for immediate use. MFDO first used the system on the Troop Medical Clinic project for Camp Casey, Korea. Although work did not begin until February 1981, use of BDS-GDS saved approximately one year of design time. The Corps submitted the concept design through the Secretary of the Army to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installations and Housing.

MFDO used SKETCH and SEARCH to evaluate new medical projects and plans for renovation of existing facilities, for example, the Bremerhaven Hospital project. MFDO selected the final design on the basis of the analysis performed by the two subsystems of CAEADS.

Materiel Maintenance

Repair and modification of equipment are among the most important services provided to tactical units by logisticians. During 1981 the Army prepared to modify the M60A2 tank and pursued various programs to enhance the performance of equipment already in the field. These programs included the Army Oil Analysis Program, a new policy on printed circuit board maintenance, and an assessment of test, measurement, and diagnostic equipment calibration. Aviation maintenance, reflecting the increasing prominence given to Army aviation since 1973, also received much attention. Work continued on conversion to the three-level aviation maintenance concept. Revision of two key Army regulations, scheduled for publication in 1982, promised greater precision in reporting the condition of aviation equipment. Other areas of concentration in-


cluded aviation materiel and aviation depot roundout. Finally, in recognition of the importance of maintenance, the Army planned to initiate an annual competition for a unit maintenance award.

In May 1980 General Vessey, the Vice Chief of Staff, approved a recommendation from ODCSOPS to withdraw M60A2 tanks from the active Army and convert them with an M48A2 turret. ODCSOPS proposed to call the hybrid the M48A7. The M60A2 had been armed with a low-velocity 152-mm. cannon and missile launcher assembly which fired the Shillelagh missile as its primary round and a conventional shell as its alternative. The M48A5 turret mounted a high-velocity 105-mm. gun. By the end of 1981 both CONUS and USAREUR maneuver units had turned in all of their M60A2s-540 vehicles, the entire Army inventory-to the Anniston Army Depot in Alabama for refitting. In May 1981, because increased funds were available to the Army, ODCSOPS reevaluated the decision to convert the M60A2 to the M48A7. Instead, ODCSOPS proposed that the Anniston Depot convert them to an M60A3 model. This proposal proved impractical because the M60A3 production line would not be in operation during 1983 and 1984. At the end of the fiscal .year ODCSOPS was preparing a decision paper for the Vice Chief of Staff which recommended converting the A2s to Armored Vehicle Launched Bridges (AVLBs) and Combat Engineer Vehicles (CEVs). ODCSOPS expected an evaluation of the action by DARCOM by January 1982 and a final decision sometime later.

The Army Oil Analysis Program (AOAP) is a key component of the Army's shift from a philosophy of maintenance on schedule to one of maintenance based on condition: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." AOAP involves the collection of sample crank-case oil from engines and use of a pectrometer to identify trace metals. Concentrations above a certain level indicate the need for specific kinds of maintenance, depending on which metal has reached the critical density. The use of this diagnostic tool promises to reduce maintenance costs while enhancing safety. Originally developed to better service aircraft engines, the program spread to include other Army vehicles and continued to expand during fiscal year 1981.

The anticipated addition of two new laboratories during the first quarter of 1982 would bring the Army-wide total to fifteen. In addition, the Material Readiness Support Activity (MRSA) of DARCOM initiated actions to establish a laboratory at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, and provided on-site assistance to Egypt to determine what was needed to establish an oil analysis laboratory there. The quantity of oil samples analyzed and


the kinds of services provided by the laboratories also increased in 1981.

ODCSLOG, operating in conjunction with ODCSOPS, DARCOM and the Computer Systems Command, continued to work on integrating automatic data processing equipment into the AOAP process. DARCOM proposed the adoption of the Navy stand-alone minicomputer system for the Army's oil analysis requirements. At the end of the year DARCOM was preparing a mission element needs statement for review by the Army staff.

General Meyer assigned to DCSLOG the responsibility for conducting an Army-wide assessment of all test, measurement, and diagnostic equipment (TMDE) functions to find where improvements are needed and to develop plans for corrective action. The DCSLOG established a Department of the Army TMDE Action Team consisting of eight action officers to direct and coordinate the review. The team will begin work early in fiscal year 1982.

The rapid proliferation of solid state circuitry during the 1970s made maintenance policy for support of Printed Circuit Boards (PCB) obsolete. As the Army moved into a comprehensive modernization program, ODCSLOG worked to create a more definitive PCB maintenance policy. The office reviewed existing guidance as well as current and projected requirements and devised a new maintenance policy, which it sent to the field for review and comment. The office also requested that the field submit alternative policies if they appeared better adapted to local needs and conditions.

Much of the innovation in materiel maintenance during 1981 centered on Army aviation. The conversion of all divisional and nondivisional aircraft maintenance to the three-level-maintenance concept-that is, aviation unit maintenance, aviation intermediate maintenance, and depot maintenance-was completed. The new units which resulted still suffered some equipment shortages at the end in the year.

ODCSLOG devoted considerable effort to revising two Army regulations dealing with aviation: AR 95-18, "Aviation Safety of Flight Program," and AR 95-33, "Army Aircraft Inventory, Status, and Flying Time Reporting," both scheduled for completion early in fiscal year 1982. The Aviation Logistics Office in ODCSLOG collected and analyzed data for over one year following the implementation of 1979 in a major revision of the previous edition of AR 95-33. The new update of AR 95-33 will refine the 1979 regulation, place greater emphasis on achieving full mission-capable goals for each aircraft system, and highlight problems which most often prevent units from achieving these goals. (An aircraft is fully mission capable when it can perform all of its primary mission and meets the


equipment requirements for flight under visual meteorological conditions, both day and night, and for flights under instrument meteorological conditions.) The revision of AR 95-18 will add a new category to safety of flight (SOF) messages-those communications which warn or advise about unsafe flight procedures and materiel or maintenance deficiencies. In the 1973 edition of the regulation; these communications consisted of operational, technical, one-time inspection, and advisory messages. The draft revision added to classification maintenance mandatory to the list. It would require repair work and submission of a report when the task was complete but would not ground aircraft or limit their mission-capable status.

The Aviation Intensive Management Items (AIMI) program, established by the U.S. Army Troop Support and Aviation Materiel Readiness Command (TSARCOM) under authority contained in AR 710-1, applies to items in the Aircraft Component Intensive Management System (ACIMS); major aircraft components, such as engines, transmissions, rotors, and airframes; and items in short supply, such as bearings, helicopter skid shoes, and fuel pumps. Special management techniques applied to AIMI items include expedited shipment and return to depot, manual processing of requisitions, redistribution when feasible, and periodic negotiation of supportable levels within the major commands. The last element constitutes the most unique feature of the program. TSARCOM holds AIMI conferences semiannually with representatives of the major commands in attendance. The primary business of the meetings is to negotiate supportable levels with the customer commands and to ensure an equitable distribution of available assets. The conferees review the requirements of the major commands, examine available assets at both the national and user level, look at the quantities of unserviceable items returned by the customer, and establish supply levels.

Work on the problem posed by the disposal of finite-life aviation materiel, highlighted in the 1980 controversy over the mutilation of helicopter rotor blades which had exceeded their normal operating life, continued in fiscal year 1981. TSARCOM requested that DCSLOG assist in obtaining a DOD decision on disposal policy. As a consequence, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Energy, Environment, and Safety) prepared a memorandum that required the Army to develop a system to ensure that any unsafe rotor blade turned over to a property disposal office would not be resold or reissued. At the end of the fiscal year ODCSLOG was developing the necessary safeguards and was continuing to review policy and procedures for disposing of other finite-life aviation items, such as gears and bearing assemblies. TSARCOM continued to mutilate un-


safe finite-life items before sending them to property disposal offices.

In 1976 the Department of the Army initiated an action in conjunction with DARCOM and the National Guard Bureau (NGB) to examine utilization of four of the National Guard's transportation aircraft repair shops (TARS). These shops have highly qualified aircraft maintenance personnel. In September 1979 the Department of the Army converted these shops to Aviation Classification and Repair Activity Depots (AVCRAD). DARCOM became responsible for peacetime training in preparation for mobilization. During mobilization the Army will assign the National Guard's AVCRADs to DARCOM. One AVCRAD will deploy early to Europe using POW CUS equipment. The three remaining AVCRADs will assist deploying FORSCOM units, prepare follow-on aircraft to meet deployment criteria, and supplement the DARCOM depot maintenance workload. The deploying AVCRAD will straddle the aviation logistics pipeline, acting as a terminus for aircraft, engines, and components deploying and returning to CONUS depots and providing back-up support for USAREUR aviation maintenance units. The concept is known as aviation depot roundout.

Responding to a growing need for formal recognition of exceptional maintenance efforts at the organizational level, ODCSLOG developed a unit maintenance award during 1981, which the Army will offer for the first time in 1982. As part of the ongoing Maintenance Improvement Program (MIP), the award will provide an incentive for improving unit readiness. The Philip A. Connelly and National Defense Transportation Association (NDTA) awards served as models.

Supply Management and Depot Operations

The Army Stock Fund is a big revolving credit deposit that ODCSLOG maintains to purchase repair parts, such as ball bearings, nuts, and bolts, that are held at Army depots until they are sold to units in the field. During fiscal year 1981 the Army Stock Fund provided some 255,000 different items for the Army. Obligations to replenish depot stocks during the year amounted to $5.8 billion, while the depots shipped $5.4 billion worth of repair parts to units. The Army Stock Fund will cover fewer items in fiscal year 1982. The Deputy Secretary of Defense, after receiving updated comments from the services, directed on 7 July 1981 that as a test they transfer 200,000 consumable items to the Defense Logistics Agency for management. The Army share is 36,000 items. At the same time he chartered a joint steering committee and a joint implementation


group to develop a plan to carry out this decision. The plan was virtually complete by the end of the fiscal year.

The Procurement Account Secondary Item Program purchases spare components, such as engines, transmissions, and helicopter rotor assemblies. These are "free issued" to the units. Funding levels for the program during fiscal year 1981 amounted to $856.5 million compared with $478.3 million during 1980. The increase of $378.2 million resulted from the need to support new weapons systems that the Army fielded as part of its modernization program, from inflation, and from increases in production lead-times. The fiscal year 1981 supplemental budget made a considerable contribution toward the purchase of spares and spare parts in the Army's war reserves. The budget allocated $34 million to the Army Stock Fund (ASF) War Reserves for use by the Army contingent of the Rapid Deployment Force. The Procurement Appropriation, Army (PAA), line of the Defense budget received an additional $27.7 million, of which $24.7 million went to weapons and combat tracked vehicles and $3 million went to aircraft.

Central supply and depot maintenance activities, funded out of Program 7 of the Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), line of the Department of Defense budget, cost approximately $3.9 billion in fiscal year 1981. These programs provided for the receipt, storage, issue, and transportation of supplies and equipment worldwide; for the maintenance of an industrial, base; and for the performance of necessary maintenance of supplies and equipment held in inventory to ensure their readiness for issue to units when needed. During 1981 rampant cost increases caused budget supplements and amendment's and prevented the program from being executed as planned. The Army's actual obligations for fiscal year 1981 in Program 7 and planned obligations for fiscal years 1982 and 1983, in millions of dollars, are noted below:

   FY 81    FY 82    FY 83
Central Supply (includes BASOPS and RPMA)    2,793.9    3,043.5    3,291.9
Depot Maintenance    1,376.9    1,540.2    1,770.4

The Army Industrial Fund (AIF) is a working capital fund sustained on an annual basis by reimbursements from customer units and organizations for goods and services furnished by arsenals, depots, laboratories, missile facilities, and CONUS port terminals. The port terminals charge their customers for the shipment of major items of equipment to other installations where they receive high-level maintenance, a term that describes major repairs such as rebor-


ing an artillery tube and overhauling major motors and tanks. During fiscal year 1981, the AIF received reimbursements of $2.6 billion. Of this amount DARCOM obtained $2.4 billion, which it used to finance such functions as depot maintenance and supply and research and development. The remaining $0.2 billion went to the Military Traffic Management Command for CONUS ocean terminal services. During fiscal year 1981 the AIF received "pass through" funding in the amount of $77.94 million from OSD. This funding reimbursed the principal of the AIF for inflationary costs not included in the stabilized billing rates and provided an improved cash position for future operations. While the cost of operations for the AIF will rise in 1982, the growth reflects salary increases and other inflationary factors rather than significant program increases. ODCSLOG placed special emphasis during 1981 on reducing overhead costs in AN operations to obtain the lowest possible costs for customers.

Base Operations (-) is that portion of the budget devoted to the unglamorous day-to-day operation of Army installations, such as food service and minor equipment maintenance. The minus in parentheses indicates that it does not include real property maintenance (RPMA), which was formerly a part of the Base. Operations line but is now a responsibility of the Corps of Engineers. Base Operations (-) did not experience any major funding inadequacies in 1981. Congressional support for the fiscal year 1981 program supplemental resulted in additional funds for food service equipment, furnishings for bachelor housing, and civilian personnel. In addition, year-end funds, made available by the Director, Operations and Maintenance, Army (DOMA), allowed funding of all unfinanced requirements in the Base Operations (-) area capable of execution. Compared to other years, actual spending conformed closely to planning. In 1981, direct obligations of Base Operations (-) amounted to $1.9 billion, 14.7 percent of the Operation and Maintenance Appropriation.

In 1978 the General Accounting Office recommended that the Department of Defense either designate or establish a single manager over aeronautical maintenance depots to stop waste. An aeronautical study group, chartered by the joint Logistics Commanders (JLC) to evaluate several management alternatives including a single manager, recommended a JLC action group as the best solution. OSD established a joint Aeronautical Depot Maintenance Action Group to recommend policies and actions necessary for efficient aeronautical depot support to the services. However, in March 1981 Frank C. Carlucci, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, directed the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and


Logistics, Lawrence J. Korb, to reexamine the single-manager issue. Of the several options given to the services by the Assistant Secretary, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the services preferred the status quo; the services would continue to operate their aeronautical maintenance depots and retain the primary role of managing their logistic support functions. In September 1981 Deputy Secretary Carlucci approved this recommendation and established the DOD Aeronautical Depot Maintenance Management Task Force to oversee efforts to improve the capability and efficiency of both organic and contractual depot maintenance for aeronautical systems.

In March 1978 the Readiness Project Office (RPO) published a disposition plan for the M551-the Sheridan light tank. It instructed Army commands to dispose of M551s in place except for the quantity needed for the National Training Center and for U.S. forces remaining in Korea. In January 1981 ODCSLOG directed DARCOM to reevaluate the initial disposition. ODCSLOG proposed several possible alternatives: the potential requirements for active U.S. forces at Fort Benning, Georgia, in the Anti-Armor Missile Division of the Infantry School and at Fort McClellan, Alabama, in the Smoke Generator Company of the Chemical School; Foreign Military Sales of M551s in Korea and CONUS on an "as is, where is" basis; and use of assets stored in USAREUR for hard targets. TRADOC studied the question once more and came to the same conclusion: there were no proposed uses for the vehicle. On 30 April Secretary of Defense Weinberger offered all excess M55 Is in the Army inventory-1,089-to the Republic of Korea for $10,000 each. By the end of the fiscal year, the Korean government had not requested a letter of offer, and it appeared that the government might not desire any of the Sheridans or only a limited quantity:


In the area of transportation two themes dominated during fiscal year 1981. One was a traditional theme found in all military forces: to develop better equipment and to refine doctrine. The second was primarily organizational, although it too had doctrinal implications. The Department of Defense, in particular the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Carlucci, decided that joint commands provided a more effective and economic method of organizing transportation than separate service commands.

On 24 July 1981 the Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed to integrate the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) and the Military Sealift Command (MSC) in order to improve the movement of mil-


itary units and cargo in peacetime and war. The integrated command would report through the JCS to the Secretary of Defense. The JCS formed a special task force made up of representatives from the services to develop an implementation plan. On 10 August 1981 the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics formed an Army task force to develop Army positions. Mr. Carlucci signed a memorandum to the service secretaries and the Joint Chiefs on 16 September 1981 approving the integration of the two commands and establishing 1 October 1982 as the date by which integration should be complete.

On 30 June 1981 Mr. Carlucci directed the Army and Navy to develop a joint plan to transfer sealift cargo along with passenger bookings and related contract administrative functions from the Military Sealift Command (MSC) to the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) by 1 October 1981. Lawrence J. Korb, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics, gave the Army the responsibility to develop the initial draft of the plan. On 1 September 1981 the services forwarded the joint plan to Dr. Korb. The Army recommended the transfer of functions as directed; the Navy recommended holding the transfer of functions in abeyance and forwarding the plan to the JCS special task force for consideration in developing the MSC and MTMC integration plan. The joint plan left several issues unresolved, namely, funding, personnel, and dates by which MTMC and MSC would accomplish specific actions. On 16 September Mr. Carlucci approved the joint plan, and on 25 September Dr. Korb directed the establishment of Military Export Cargo Offering and Booking Offices (MECOBO) worldwide by 31 October. MTMC and MSC personnel would staff the offices under the supervision of MTMC: The Navy would select the MSC personnel. Dr. Korb directed the Army to submit a detailed staffing plan for the functional transfer by 15 October. It was to identify military and civilian personnel requirements by grade and position, the source (MSC or MTMC) of personnel who would actually fill positions in the MECOBOs, and any shortages of personnel.

Mr. Carlucci also directed that the services implement a plan for consolidating personal property shipping offices, first in the continental United States and then overseas. Consolidated Booking Offices (CBO) will provide a central point for booking shipments with the carrier industry on behalf of multiple transportation offices. Local transportation offices will retain the function of dealing directly with service members and their families about to change station. The creation of CBOs will bring greater discipline into the moving industry since each one will


have the power to suspend or disqualify carriers for a wider region.

On 20 February 1979 the Defense Audit Service recommended that the Military Airlift Command (MAC) transfer its Category B (planeload charter) flights, used to carry Army personnel and their families overseas, from military to commercial terminals. Congressional hearings supported the recommendation, and the Air staff reduced MAC's 1981 budget submission to reflect the change. MAC had made limited use of commercial terminals for the Philadelphia-Mediterranean routes since 1975 and the Los Angeles-Philippine routes since October 1979. On 4 January 1981 MAC opened its first inland commercial gateway at St. Louis with routes to Korea and Japan. Mr. Carlucci approved a MAC plan to transfer operations to commercial terminals on 23 March 1981. The plan would close terminal operations at Travis Air Force Base and McGuire Air Force Base and designate them as readiness terminals. In September MAC selected Oakland to replace Travis as a gateway to Japan and Korea, effective 1 January 1982. By the end of the fiscal year MAC had not found a replacement for McGuire. Commercial gateways in peacetime provide cost savings and increased convenience for military passengers, but they also involve certain disadvantages, such as the loss of military billeting, of medical and other support, and of the ability to meet wartime requirements easily.

The Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, as DA executive agent for the military customs inspection program, began a review of the program in November 1979, which it completed and forwarded to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics (Program Management) in March 1981. The review recommended that the Department of Defense continue its program with no changes in the existing procedures for cargo, ships, and aircraft; that ODCSLOG refinements to the preclearance procedures for passengers and their baggage be implemented; and that the existing selective enforcement program be expanded to promote greater efficiency. ODCSLOG also proposed eliminating customs inspections of mail posted from APO or FPO facilities and bound for the customs territory of the United States. The Deputy Assistant Secretary approved the conclusions and recommendations on 5 May 1981, and the U.S. Customs Service concurred on 27 May.

Implementation of refinements to the preclearance parts of


the program began during fiscal year 1981. Prior to August 1978, military customs inspectors (MCI) examined all DOD air passengers and their baggage before their departure. The absence of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) accreditation for this program resulted in additional inspections at the airports of entry into the customs territory of the United States. Beginning in August 1978, military customs inspectors began making inspections approved by both the U.S. Customs Service (USCS) and the USDA at designated overseas bases, thus eliminating the need for a second inspection. The changes in 1981 included a random selection of passenger baggage for thorough examination with the rest receiving only brief inspection and passengers answering a few questions, changes which brought the DOD practices into conformity with those of the USCS and the USDA. By the end of 1981 the Pacific Command had fully implemented the new procedures, and European Command and Southern Command were preparing to do so. In addition the Department of Defense expanded the preclearance program to include military aircraft departing from Rota, Spain, and from Howard Air Force Base, Panama. ODCSLOG anticipates expansion to other sites during fiscal year 1982.

The selective enforcement program came from an effort by the European Command to reduce manpower and other resources used in the military customs inspection program. The European Command established criteria based on risk assessment to determine which personal property shipments should be inspected. Selective enforcement used permanently assigned personnel as military customs inspectors rather than borrowed or temporary duty personnel, thus reducing overall manpower requirements. USCS approved this concept in July 1980 for implementation in the European Command on an interim basis pending assignment of permanent personnel. The Army obtained the permanent spaces required and implemented the program at forty-one USAREUR bases on a permanent basis during fiscal year 1981. The Air Force programmed personnel for fiscal year 1983, and the Navy studied the feasibility of also establishing permanent spaces. Following the adoption of the recommendations in the ODCSLOG report on the military customs program, the Department of Defense expanded the selective enforcement program to include the Philippines and Guam in the Pacific Command. The department plans to expand it to other areas in the Pacific Command and to the Southern Command during fiscal year 1982.


A DOD-sponsored group, chaired by an Army ODCSLOG representative, and an ad hoc committee organized by the joint Logistics Commander Conference (JLCC) studied the feasibility of establishing a single service manager for DOD railroad equipment. The DOD committee was oriented toward transportation management and so approached the single-manager question from a mobility and operational viewpoint with a emphasis on equipment control, centralized funding, and establishment of a rail mobilization base for maximum use of resources in an emergency or in wartime. The JLCC committee recommended that each service retain all management, accountability, and funding responsibilities, with a single service manager's office of thirty people formulating policy and coordinating and assisting the services in rail management. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense will review the recommendations of the committees to determine if a single manager for rail transportation will be cost effective in view of the substantial number of personnel needed to put the concept into effect.

Changes in transportation organization and procedures had one implicit aim: to increase the nation's ability to move troops and civilians more efficiently in both peacetime and war. A number of Army studies focused explicitly on the movement of troops in emergencies. In the past, deployment plans focused on reinforcement by air until the first ships began arriving in the theater of operations. The current shortage of airlift capacity has made Army planners turn to sealift as an alternative. Both Army and Navy plans until fiscal year 1981 assumed sea deployment would begin at M plus 10 or later. To improve this situation, General Gregg (DCSLOG until 31 July 1981) initiated the CONUS Mobility Analysis, a study of the movement of Army units from home base to the port of embarkation. The analysis helped identify areas for improvement in the movement system from the time the units are notified until they arrive at port and board the ships, specified ways to improve the Army's deployment posture, and resulted in the dispatch of appropriate directives to the major commands and a coordination of efforts by various agencies on the Army staff. FORSCOM incorporated many of these actions into Emergency Deployment Readiness Exercises (EDRE)-annual logistics maneuvers in which each Army TOE unit packs up and moves to the point of embarkation with minimal or no advance notice. The Army staff revised the regulatory guides and regulations for movement planning and integrated the changes into operational planning.


ODCSLOG initiated three programs to reduce the time needed to move a selected force from its home base or, in the case of National Guard or Army Reserve units, from mobilization stations to a port of embarkation. The Joint Deployment Agency (IDA) sponsored a fourth program. The first program involved the purchase and storage at deployment stations of blocking, bracing, packing, crating, and tie-down (BBPCT) materiel that local commercial stores would not have available in enough time or quantities to support the mobilization or deployment mission. The home installations would canvass designated sources yearly to make sure that sources and stock levels remained adequate. The second program concerned upgrading the loading and receiving facilities of selected installation sites. It provided funds to upgrade the loading facilities, ramps, hardstands, trackage, bridge plates, and hand tools necessary to load equipment. The third program involved the establishment of pre-positioned permits for the movements of basic load ammunition for the Army component of the Rapid Deployment Force through previously designated surface ports of embarkation. In peacetime the Department of Defense ships all ammunition overseas from four military ammunition ports, two on the West Coast and two on the East Coast. In wartime this system would be too cumbersome. Units would have to deploy carrying their own ammunition. The permits allow them to move through commercial seaports with live ammunition. By the end of the fiscal year, pre-positioned permits were in place for all the major Army combat units of the Rapid Deployment Force. ODCSLOG, working in conjunction with other Army staff agencies, FORSCOM, MTMC, and the Coast Guard, was developing permits for combat support and combat service support units. ODCSLOG anticipated it would complete these permits and have them in place by the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 1982. The program sponsored by the joint Deployment Agency sought to enhance rapid deployment by developing an automated data processing transportation network that would connect the command and control levels of the JCS, the Joint Deployment Agency, and the transportation operating agencies at installations and depots with mobilization and deployment installations. JDA planned to brief the appropriate commands and staffs on the concepts by December 1981.

The high volume of fire on the modern battlefield with the resulting equipment damage and loss poses real problems in providing adequate resupply. One possible solution is to ship ammunition, spare parts, and component parts in containers rather


than as individual items. Such a procedure would shorten the turnaround time by decreasing the time needed to load and unload vessels and would lessen constraints on moving supplies through the theater logistics system. Logisticians liken the process to pouring a substance through a funnel with a wide mouth and a very narrow neck. Every point at which supplies must be handled provides an opportunity for friction and delay, for example, damaged unloading ramps at a depot or major mechanical failure in the trucks of a transportation battalion.

On 10 June 1981 Brig. Gen. Francis J. Toner, the Director of Transportation, Energy, and Troop Support in ODCSLOG, and Maj. Gen. Vincent M. Russo, the Director of Plans, Force Structure, and Systems also in ODCSLOG, cosponsored a general officer review of Army containerization efforts. The participants discussed many important areas of concern including funding, equipment, maintenance, operations, and personnel and drew up a list of questions for further investigation. General Toner directed that various major Army commands and staff agencies provide information or make detailed studies to answer the questions. Their responses arrived in August and September and formed the basis for a comprehensive information paper on the Army containerization program. The paper set forth the goal of the program: to ensure that the Army uses the most efficient and cost-effective container systems available.

During fiscal year 1981 DARCOM shipped an average of 160 containers of ammunition to Europe each month. The Military Sealift Command (MSC) vessel American Ranger transported most of the containers. Sufficient numbers of military standard containers (MILVANs) existed to allow DARCOM to use them exclusively. No commercial containers were required.

The United States Army, Europe (USAREUR), made several proposals to increase the use of the Containerized Ammunition Distribution System (CADS). USAREUR proposed increases of from 160 containers per month to 350 or 400 per month to take advantage of shorter turnaround times, decreased demurrage, and increased throughput to forward areas. Use of containers added to the cost of shipping-about $105 for each short ton. In an effort to figure more accurately the cost and savings associated with CADS, USAREUR proposed and Headquarters, Department of the Army, approved a test scheduled for April 1982 in which the. Military Sealift Command will carry 400 CADS containers to Europe. The test will also determine Europe's abil-


ity to handle this higher volume of containerized ammunition and will establish the level of CADS to be used in the future.

The Strategic Mobility Division of ODCSLOG determined that the Army had only half the capacity it needed to move supplies and equipment onto a beachhead, referred to as logistics-over-the-shore (LOTS), given the various contingency plans for worldwide operations. ODCSLOG programmed additional watercraft to overcome the deficiency for fiscal years 1983 through 1987 in the Program Objective Memorandum. The Army and the Navy agreed to Navy support for Army LOTS operations using the Navy Auxiliary Crane Ship as a temporary container discharge facility (TCDF). ODCSLOG prepared requirements documents for the TCDFs and the new generation of watercraft, the commercial landing craft, the logistic support vessel, and the heavy amphibian. The documents were nearing completion at the end of the fiscal year. During 1981, ODCSLOG also reviewed the USAREUR Marine Reserve Fleet at Hythe, England, for possible redistribution to support Army units in the Rapid Deployment Force. ODCSLOG activated one additional Lighter Amphibious Resupply Cargo detachment. The craft has a sixty-ton cargo capacity. ODCSLOG anticipated activation of two more companies (four detachments).

The Transportation School at Fort Eustis, Virginia, will receive the first two production models of the amphibious lighter air-cushion vehicle (LACY). Designated the LACV-30, the new vehicle moves on a cushion of air. It is 76.7 feet long, 36.9 feet wide, and weighs 115,000 pounds; it uses an average of 260 gallons of fuel per hour and has a maximum over-the-water speed of fifty7seven miles per hour. It can move thirty-ton cargoes from ships to shore or even further inland if port facilities are unavailable. During fiscal year 1981 the Transportation School trained the first class of twenty-five soldiers to operate, navigate, and maintain the lighters in a fifteen-week course.

The Logistics Evaluation Agency (LEA) completed a study of the use of the floating army maintenance facility (FAMF), a concept used in Vietnam, to support the Rapid Deployment Force (RDF). The Military Sealift Command (MSC) developed the idea of using a barge as a tender. At the end of the fiscal year the Marine Corps was examining the MSC concept, called Bartender, to support Marine Corps aviation equipment. An Army representative at LEA was analyzing it for use in support of the Rapid Deployment Force as the year closed. The Office of Aviation Logistics in ODCSLOG will analyze and evaluate both studies


and send them to DARCOM and FORSCOM for comment. On the basis of this information the office will prepare a recommendation for the DCSLOG on the future use of floating maintenance facilities by the Army.

After a briefing to the Army Staff Council on 8 October 1980, the Army began funding a program to modernize the nontactical vehicle-formerly the utility vehicle-fleet, which had required too many replacements caused by a lack of procurement funds during recent years. Approval of an amended fiscal year 1982 budget request and a functional program deployment increment package for the fiscal year 1983-1987 Program Objective Memorandum should eliminate replacement requirements thereafter. Congress did not support a fiscal year 1981 supplemental request which would have accelerated nontactical vehicle modernization.

ODCSLOG initiated a proposal to delegate leasing authority to DARCOM so that all inventory activities would be located at the same headquarters. The office hoped to begin implementation during the first quarter of the new fiscal year. It also reviewed all management functions as they related to nontactical vehicles. The study concluded that while the current structure was adequate, ODCSLOG should incorporate all nontactical vehicle requirements in the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System. The office increased its participation in developing the Army Materiel Plan and specification reviews to ensure that user needs were met. ODCSLOG asked the major commands to consider adopting the TRADOC-FORSCOM Automated Vehicle Management Information System in order to facilitate the collection of data about nontactical vehicles. ODCSLOG increased its overall liaison effort with the General Services Administration (GSA), which helped convince GSA to relocate its vehicles so that the Army might avoid the cost of some commercial leases.

Several Army installations, including Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, lost rail service because branch lines serving the installations were abandoned. Fort Campbell leased, with an option to buy, the eighteen-mile branch line which serves it. Rock Island Arsenal decided to acquire a small section of track to connect it with the Burlington Northern Railroad and replace its dependence on the bankrupt Rock Island Railroad, which discontinued service. Camp Edwards, Massachusetts, Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, and Fort Dix, New Jersey, were on branch lines being considered for abandonment by the serving carriers. These installations faced a possible permanent loss of service because the present and foreseeable vol-


ume of rail shipments was too low to justify either the lease or acquisition of the line or a subsidy for the carrier. ODCSLOG planned to fill peacetime and mobilization requirements by using trucks.

Facilities, Construction, and Real Property

The Military Construction, Army (MCA), line of the Department of Defense budget provides funds for the construction of facilities. Major categories include operation and training; maintenance and production; research, supply, and administration; hospital and other medical construction; troop housing and community support; utilities, land improvements, and pollution abatement; planning and design, minor construction, and access roads; and NATO. Major projects during fiscal year 1981 included an addition to Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii, and renovation of the existing structure and the construction of a multiple-story permanent hospital at Fort Carson, Colorado.

The history of the FORSCOM portion of the MCA program for fiscal year 1981 illustrates the vicissitudes that go into arriving at the final military construction figure. FORSCOM submitted its part of the fiscal year 1981 MCA program to the Department of the Army in February 1978. It consisted of sixty-six command sponsored projects costing some $215 million and represented those tasks considered most pressing by both FORSCOM headquarters and the installation commanders. In June 1978 FORSCOM revised the list to forty-one projects with an estimated cost of $262 million, and a second time in March 1979 to sixty-three projects costing some $205 million. However, insertions of previously deferred projects and changing priorities continued, as in past years, to pare down the recommended list. After intensive review by agencies in Washington, only three of the original projects remained as the program went forward to Congress. Congress began hearings on the total 1981 program in April 1980 and completed passage of both the authorization and appropriation bills by 1 October 1980: President Carter signed both bills into law later that month. This legislation gave U.S. Army Forces Command $272 million in authorizations-not including minor construction-and $184 million in appropriations to fund forty-six projects, including minor construction. Thirty-two of these projects, which were estimated to cost $12 million, were supported by the command.

The fiscal year 1981 and 1982 programs suffered from nu-


merous deferrals made in the fiscal year 1979 and 1980 programs. Administration budget cuts and overall lower funding guidance by the Department of the Army led to even more deferrals; as in previous years, the initial thrust for development of the fiscal year 1982 program was in the reprogramming of previously deferred projects. In April 1981, the Reagan administration submitted a budget amendment which reduced the fiscal year 1982 program to $256 million. It based the reduction on an anticipated lower rate of inflation and on savings from changes in the administration of the Davis-Bacon Act. The FORSCOM portion of this program contained some forty-one command-sponsored projects for a total cost of $153 million.

Although the deficiencies that resulted from underfunding military construction in the continental United States were serious, the situation was not yet critical. In Europe, however, the situation was more acute. General Frederick J. Kroesen, the Commander in Chief of USAREUR, complained:

The inadequacies of troop housing, the shortage of family housing, the makeshift, unsatisfactory, unhealthy working conditions for large segments of the command, the exorbitant backlog of maintenance of repair projects all contribute to a cancerous drain on the morale and commitment of the force as a whole.

USAREUR was short some 15,000 barracks spaces in 1981. The deficiency was made up by putting six men in four-man rooms and five men in three-man rooms. The facilities were all quite old with two exceptions, the Berlin brigade post and the new brigade post at Osterholz-Scharmbeck in the north-both built and maintained by the German government. All the others belonged to the pre-World War II German Army. The oldest, a kaserne (small post area), dated from the fourteenth century. Most, however, were built during the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871) and after, through the 1930s. The working conditions in the maintenance shops and supply rooms at these installations suffered from inadequate heating, lighting, and plumbing. The Army had tolerated expedients in the past simply because it regarded duty in Germany as temporary.

The situation was most appalling in the area of family housing. The command was short some 8,000 housing units for families authorized to come to Europe. The dependents had to either remain in the United States or live on the local economy. In addition some 23,000 young soldiers who were not authorized to bring their families at government expense brought them anyway. They lived off-post in substandard "ghetto" housing. On-


post housing was poorly designed and cheaply constructed. It dated from the 1950s when the Army still contemplated a short stay in Europe. Maintenance and operations budgets were underfunded. In 1981 a $500-million maintenance backlog existed. In practical terms this meant families were living in houses where inadequate heating-systems had not been replaced, doors and windows leaked, and plumbing systems could not support the automatic dishwashers that the Army installed. General Kroesen first became familiar with the problem when he was made commanding general of VII Corps in July 1975. After a tour of the corps area he observed that "if someone told me we were going to suffer a Warsaw Pact attack on Christmas Day, I would still say family housing is our No. 1 problem." His estimate of the seriousness of the situation had not changed in the intervening period, but he was more optimistic that a solution would be found in the future. In 1981 the problem attracted media attention and a number of congressmen expressed concern.

Deterring a conventional attack by Warsaw Pact forces or Soviet adventurism in other parts of the world depends not only upon the strength of forward deployed forces in Europe and Korea or the Rapid Deployment Force, but also on the ability of the United States to mobilize a technically sophisticated mass army in time of crisis. During 1981 that capability weakened as the position of certain basic industries in the United States saddled with obsolescent plants and equipment, such as steel and automobiles, continued to decline in the face of foreign competition. General David C. Jones, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified in January 1981 before the Senate Committee on Armed Services that

the more we look at mobilization, the more we are appalled at the lack of industrial preparedness in the country and the procurement problems that result. Because of low procurement rates, not only do we have to spend more than we should, but if we tried to crank up this country in a hurry and turn out things, we would find we are limited in many, many areas.

This problem, discussed at greater length in Chapter 3, is broad based, encompassing all of society, and is clearly beyond the ability of even all four military services working together to correct, let alone one. Yet the Army does what it can. The Production Base Support portion of the Army's military construction program provides the necessary construction for the development, maintenance, and retention of an efficient industrial base. Although five procurement programs provide funds for the construction of industrial facilities, current work is largely devoted


to the ammunition and tank programs. During fiscal year 1981; the Corps of Engineers placed $82 million under contract in projects. The ammunition program received $70 million, the tank program $12 million. Approximately $50 million of the ammunition program awards went to the cargo metal-parts facility, the administration building, and support facilities at the new Army ammunition plant in Mississippi. Design continued on projects valued at about $275 million.

Congress appropriated a total of $10.17 million for construction of research, development, testing, and evaluation facilities in fiscal year 1981. This figure included funds for the following Army projects:

Laser Test Facility, Camp A. P. Hill, Virginia     $ 930,000
Multiple-Use Instrument Sites, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico    1,000,000
Research Animal Holding Facility, Fort Detrick, Maryland    1,350,000
Animal Housing Facility, Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Colorado    790,000
Frost Effects Research Facility, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, New Hampshire   $6,100,000

The Military Construction, Army Reserve (MCAR), program provides for the design and construction of facilities for the Army Reserve's training needs and mobilization mission. Typical facilities include Army Reserve training centers (ARTCS), organizational maintenance shops (OMSs), equipment concentration sites (ECSs), weekend training areas (WETAs), and annual training facilities (ATFs). During fiscal year 1981, the Corps of Engineers awarded construction contracts on projects valued at $42.2 million. At the same time contractors completed work on projects costing $27.2 million.

The Corps' portion of the fiscal year 1981 Air Force Military Construction Execution Program totaled $548.1 million. The Corps anticipated an award of $502.7 million, but only received $358.2 million. Criteria changes, redesigns, funding delays, and inadequate funding account for only a portion of the difference. The major cause was a reprogramming action that resulted in the deferment of fiscal year 1981 projects valued at $102.9 million. The Corps subsequently used the majority of these funds to implement fiscal year 1979 and 1980 projects previously deferred to allow the start of construction during 1980 of the space transportation system (STS) launch complex at Vandenberg Air


Force Base, California. Adding the $120.9 million in deferred projects, total execution for the fiscal year 1981 program amounted to $479.2 million, or 95 percent of the forecast and 87 percent of the total program, falling just short of the goal established by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Design continued on an Air Force program that involved outlays of $1.26 billion for fiscal year 1982 and $3.9 billion for 1983.

In June the Corps halted design on MX projects totaling $365 million in fiscal year 1982 and $1.7 billion in 1983 pending President Reagan's decision on the basing mode. Organizational efforts in support of the MX weapon system continued with the development of the Corps of Engineers MX Program Agency (CEMXPA). Located with the Air Force program manager at Norton Air Force Base in California, CEMXPA is the outgrowth of the South Pacific Division's (SPD) role as the Army office with primary responsibility for the MX. It will eventually become a separate field operating agency. In the late spring CEMXPA began taking direct operational control of the program to include the $75 million MX test facilities under construction at Vandenberg Air Force Base, as well as design of the fiscal year 1982 and 1983 deployment facilities, totaling approximately $2 billion. CEMXPA worked through ten existing Corps divisions, districts, and laboratories to manage this sizable workload. In June the effort came to a halt pending President Reagan's decision on basing. At the close of the fiscal year the President had not yet announced his preference, but CEMXPA anticipated a substantial reduction of the program.

The Corps of Engineers also did work for various Department of Defense agencies. The total amount of construction awards for each agency in fiscal year 1981 was as follows:

Defense Logistics Agency    $ 4,349,000
Defense Mapping Agency    1,500,000
Defense Dependents School System    45,806,000
National Security Agency    5,067,000
Defense Communications Agency    16,500,000
Other DOD agencies    $35,249,000

The Corps of Engineers has had almost total control of the Department of Defense Recruiting Facilities Program since fiscal year 1980, when the General Services Administration (GSA) reclassified recruiting offices from general-purpose to special-purpose spaces and delegated five-year firm-term. leasing authority


to the Corps. During .fiscal year 1981, the Corps completed 1,853 actions related to the program. They included the establishment of new offices and the relocation, expansion, and upgrading of existing offices. As of 30 September 1981 the four services were operating approximately 7,500 recruiting offices.

In 1979 the U.S. government embarked on a policy of increased military presence in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf to include the construction of facilities in the sultanate of Oman. The Corps of Engineers will construct facilities using U.S. appropriated funds at four locations: Masirah Island, Khasab, Thumrait, and Seeb. As of 30 September 1981 the Corps had awarded three construction contracts, two at Masirah Island at a programmed amount of $82.5 million and one at Khasab programmed for $3 million. The Khasab construction was supplemented by $1.8 million from Foreign Military Construction Sales funds for an extended runway and parking apron at Khasab airfield.

In addition to construction of a Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF) contingency facility in Oman, the Corps of Engineers is the construction agent for an austere staging base at Ras Banas, Egypt. The estimated program value over four fiscal years is $500 million. Under a U.S. Air Force foreign military sales case, the Egyptian Air Force purchased forty F-16 fighter planes from the United States. The Corps of Engineers assisted the Egyptian Air Force and the United States Air Force in the design of facilities at An Shas Air Force Base, Egypt, to support these aircraft. In addition, the Corps provided soil investigation, designed the foundations of microwave towers, and began design of a cargo terminal.

In addition to the other services and DOD agencies, the Corps of Engineers provided support to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, and to the State Department in Moscow, USSR. The Corps continued work on the design of the $65-million U.S. Geological Mission, a project which is funded by the U.S. government. On 4 August 1980 Secretary of the Army Clifford L. Alexander directed the Chief of Engineers to assign four construction engineers to assist the Department of State in building a new U.S. embassy complex in Moscow. All four had reported to duty by May 1981.

At the close of fiscal year 1981 the Department of the Army controlled approximately 11,918,088 acres of land, which had cost $16.8 billion with improvements. During the fiscal year, the General Services Administration disposed of 2,556 acres of Army land and improvements in the United States, which had cost $9.5


million. In addition, the Army declared excess and reported to the General Services Administration for disposal 78,377 acres and improvements which had cost $183.1 million to acquire and build. At the end of the fiscal year there were 42,628 outstanding grants covering 7.2 million acres of Army and Air Force lands. One disposal action was particularly significant because it marked the first time the Army turned a major installation over to a state to encourage the creation of jobs in an area of high unemployment. In July 1981 Paul W. Johnson, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation and Housing, presented a deed for the Michigan Army Missile Plant to the Michigan Job Development Authority. In exchange he accepted, for the Army two buildings at the Detroit Arsenal constructed by the state of Michigan at an estimated cost of $25 million. The Army expected to increase efficiency and save energy by consolidating its activities at the Detroit Arsenal. Michigan sought to boost its economy by using the plant for automobile manufacturing. At the end of the fiscal year the state was negotiating an agreement with Volkswagen of America. Michigan expected to create 5,000 new jobs.

During 1981 the General Services Administration prepared real property surveys on twenty-one Army holdings, including two major properties: Fort McClellan, Alabama, and Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania. In eight of the reports, GSA recommended that the Army declare land surplus. The total came to 2,209.2 acres. The Army agreed to classify 73 acres excess and at the end of the year was still considering whether to add an additional 34.3 acres to this category. The 73 acres involved two properties: 60 acres at Byrd Field, Virginia, a National Guard facility, and 13 acres at Wayland, Massachusetts, an Army Reserve facility and former Nike site.

The Corps of Engineers acquired land for the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Department of Energy during fiscal year 1981. The Corps purchased land and improvements for air installation compatible-use zones (AICUZ) at eleven Air Force bases. Some three hundred acres were involved at a cost of $1.7 million. The Corps continued to buy land for the Department of the Interior's Big Thicket National Preserve in Texas. The Corps' Beaumont Project Office obtained 199 tracts containing 5,134 acres at a cost of $5,952,674. These purchases brought total acquisitions through 30 September 1981 to 1,361 tracts, consisting of 71,833 acres at a cost of $67,676,605. Also in 1981 the Corps acquired 45 tracts encompassing 90 acres at a cost of $34,439 for the Department of Energy's Strategic Petroleum Reserve program. Since the incep-


tion of the program the Corps had purchased 1,140 tracts containing 4,882 acres at a cost of $88.2 million. For all programs the Corps spent $1.7 million during 1981 in relocation assistance payments to 275 applicants displaced by its land acquisition activities.

Physical Security

In June 1981 General Vessey, the Vice Chief of Staff, directed Lt. Gen. Richard G. Trefry, The Inspector General, to assess the Army's capability to counter terrorism. Following an examination of policy, procedures, and organization, General Trefry concluded that the concentration of all matters pertaining to terrorism under the provost marshal led to the widespread belief that antiterrorist activities were a military police responsibility, with the result that commanders and operational staffs were not as involved in this area as they were in other operational issues. The growing evidence of a terrorist threat against U.S. forces, particularly in West Germany, had not led to any increase of physical security at U.S. bases. The only activity in this area, an upgrading of security at nuclear storage sites, was an on-going process unrelated to recent developments. General Trefry recommended that the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans take the lead in crisis management for terrorist actions.

Lt. Gen. Glenn K. Otis, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, saw the issue in broader terms: Could the Army defend itself against all types of criminal acts including conventional crimes against persons and property, demonstrations against the Army, and terrorist acts such as the seizure of hostages and the barricading of terrorists and hostages in an office or building on an Army post or installation? General Otis argued that ODCSOPS should be the agency responsible for identifying all problems and proposing solutions in this area. General Trefry agreed with this analysis, but Lt. Gen. Robert K. Yerks, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, disagreed. Generals Otis and Yerks then met with General Vessey to discuss the study by The Inspector General. General Vessey reaffirmed that the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel was responsible for installation security, while responsibility for overall security of the command rested with the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans. DCSOPS was entrusted with the authority to develop plans to integrate military forces to counter all threats to the security of the command, including terrorism. Based on General Vessey's


decision, General Otis directed ODCSOPS to develop a comprehensive plan to coordinate Army security efforts and keep them priority items on the agenda of all commanders by giving each of the technical channels reporting to them some responsibility for security.

Shortly thereafter, General Meyer, the Chief of Staff, expressed concern over the potential for increased civil violence and disorder and directed the preparation of a Civil Disturbance Action Plan. A study by the Military Support Division of the Operations Readiness Mobilization Directorate in ODCSOPS revealed that both FORSCOM and the Military District of Washington believed that they had enough troops to successfully carry out the civil disturbance mission. Both the National Guard and active forces received training as required. The Army possessed enough equipment for use in civil disturbances in the continental United States both in units and pre-positioned in depots. The equipment was in good condition except that some communication equipment needed to be replaced. By the end of the fiscal year the Army was making the necessary corrections. Finally, the study found that current civil disturbance doctrine was still valid. General Otis recommended and General Meyer agreed that in the future ODCSOPS would consider civil disturbance planning as part of the Security of the Army plan.

A committee of ODCSOPS action officers wrote a draft of Army Regulation 30-20, "Security of the Army." The AR attempted to eliminate the attitude that security is a provost marshal function instead of a command function by requiring that the major commands direct their installations to prepare an operation plan that would meet several minimum conditions. The operation plan would integrate all existing security measures into a single command-directed plan. Each command would periodically review the adequacy of all security plans and procedures, particularly those concerning antiterrorism, civil disturbances, and crime prevention, in the light of possible threats. Concurrently the commands would assess their vulnerability based on a review of physical security surveys, counterintelligence and operational security evaluations, and crime prevention surveys and inspections by their criminal investigation division. Each command would establish a command-wide security awareness and training plan with particular emphasis on combating subversion, terrorist sabotage, and criminal activity. It would also assess annually civil disturbance training, equipment, and overall preparedness and hold semiannual command post exercises designed to train installation staffs to meet crises precipitated by terrorists


and other subversive or criminal elements. The Army staff and the major commands were reviewing the draft of the AR at the end of the fiscal year.

The increase in conventional crime on Army installations during 1981 led the Army to conduct a service-wide crime campaign from 7 to 21 September 1981. Major areas of emphasis in the campaign included the security of barracks, bachelor quarters, and family residences; the Army Operation Identification Program, which entailed recording items of personal property and placing an identifying code on each item; and neighborhood watches, which involved looking out for the safety and security of each individual's property and that of the neighbors. The objectives of the Army Crime Watch Campaign were to increase awareness concerning the nature and volume of burglaries and house breakings; increase active involvement in securing troop billets, senior enlisted and officer bachelor quarters, and family quarters; educate service members and families on practical, cost free security measures that they could take to reduce opportunities for crimes against their living quarters and property; and encourage and assist neighbors to initiate collective measures to watch out for the security of each other's personal property and to report suspicious activities. The Army Operation Identification Program introduced a standard Army-wide, owner-applied numbering system for marking personal property. Service members and their families were to mark their personal property using the social security number of the service member with a "USA" prefix. The prefix would alert any military or civilian law enforcement agency which recovered the property that it belonged to a member of the U.S. Army and that the individual could be located by using the Army World-Wide Locator System.



Go to:

Previous Chapter

Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents

Search CMH Online
Return to CMH Online
Last updated 17 September 2004