-A A +A

REPORT TOGETHER WITH INDIVIDUAL VIEWS [TO ACCOMPANY S. 3000]

Document Type: 
CREST
Collection: 
General CIA Records
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3
Release Decision: 
RIFPUB
Original Classification: 
K
Document Page Count: 
198
Document Creation Date: 
December 19, 2016
Document Release Date: 
November 21, 2005
Sequence Number: 
12
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
May 29, 1974
Content Type: 
REPORT
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3.pdf11.26 MB
Body: 
Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP759K18K4fMQNOQ 93D CONGRESS l 2d Session I M AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1975 FOR MILITARY PROCUREMENT, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND ACTIVE DUTY, SELECTED RE- SERVE AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL STRENGTHS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES REPORT TOGETHER WITH INDIVIDUAL VIEWS [To accompany S. 3000] AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1975 FOR MILITARY PROCUREMENT, RESEARCH AND DEVEL- OPMENT, AND ACTIVE DUTY, SELECTED RESERVE AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL STRENGTHS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES MAY 29, 1974.-Ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 31-683 WASHINGTON : 1974 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700030012-3 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES JOHN C. STENNIS, Missis;ippi, Chairman STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri STROM TIIURMOND, South Carolina. HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington JOHN TOWER, Texas SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina PETER H. DOMINICK, Colorado HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona THOMAS J. McINTYRE, New Hampshire WILL:AM L. SCOTT, 'Virginia HARRY F. BYRD, JR., Virginia ROBERT TAFT, JR,, Ohio HAROLD E. HUGHES, Iowa, SAM NUNN, Georgia T. EDWARD BRASWELL, Jr., Chief Cwnsel and Staff ,0 Erector JouN T. TicER, Chief Clerk Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700030012-3 CONTENTS Page Committee amendments-------------------------------------------- I Purpose of the bill------------------------------------------------- T Percentage reductions---------------------------------------------- g Summary by major weapon category------------------------------- 9 Major changes by Senate committee--------------------------------- 1a Observations relative to bill----------------------------------------- 15 Aspects of bill of special interest: Strategic initiatives-Research and Development------------------ 20a Navy fighter aircraft programs---------------------------------- 24 Air Force close air support aircraft: A-10 and A-7D--------------- 25 F-15---------------------------------------------------------- 266 Airborne Warning And Control System (AWACS) ----------------- 27 Sparrow missile----------------------------------------------- 29) Aircraft simulators/trainers------------------------------------- 29) Army short range air defense missiles----------------------------- 32Z. B-1 aircraft--------------------------------------------------- 33' Trident-- -------------------------------------------- 36= Ballistic missile defense research and development----------------- 391 Cruise missile programs---------------------------------------- 41 Title I-Procurement---------------------------------------------- 44 Army aircraft-------------------------------------------------- 44 Authorization request-------------------------------------- 44 Summary of House action---------------------------------- 44 Committee recommendation for changes---------------------- 44 All-IQ Cobra/TOW --------------------------------------- 44 Aircraft modifications-------------------------------------- 44 Army aircraft recommended for approval------------------------- 4,5 AH-1Q attack helicopter----------------------------------- 45 CII-47C cargo helicopter----------------------------------- 45 UII-1II utility helicopter----------------------------------- 45 Navy and Marine Corps aircraft--------------------------------- 4S Authorization request-------------------------------------- 49 Summary of House action---------------------------------- 49 Committee. recommendation for changes---------------------- 49, A-4M Skyhawk------------------------------------------- 4S 48 ? F -14A Tomcat -------------------------------------------- A-7E Corsair II------------------------------------------- 49+ All-1J-Sea Cu1na --------------------------- --------------- 49 OV-10Night Gunship modification_,_,,____-- 49? Navy and Marine Corps Aircraft recommended for approval-_ 49 A-6E (Intruder) ------------------------------------------ 49, EA-6B (Prowler) ----------------------------- -------- --- 49- A-7E (Corsair II) ---------------------------------------- 49 F-14A (Tomcat)------------------------------------------- 50 UII-1N (Iroquois)----------------------------------------- 50 All-1J (Sea Cobra)---------------------------------------- 50) P-3C (Orion) --------------------------------------------- 50+ S-3A (Viking) -------------------------------------------- 50 E-2C (IIawkeye) ----------------------------------------- 509 C-9B (Skytrain II) ----------------------------------------50 CT-39 (Sabreliner)----------------------------------------- 511 KC-13OR (Hercules) ----------------------------------- -.- 5Y11 (III) Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : YIA-RDP75B0038OR000700030012-3 Title I-Continued Page Air Force aircraft------------------------------------------------ 54 Authorization request ------------------------- .-------------- 54 Summary of House action ------------------------------------- 54 Committee recommendation for changes ----------------------- 54 MASF aircraft---------------------------------------------- 54 F-111------------------------------------------------------ 54 A-10------------------------------------------------------- 55 Electronic countermeasures pods ------------------------------ 55 Civil Reserve Airlift Fleet (CRAY) modification--------------- 55 C-141 stretch modification ------------------------------------ 55 Spares and support ------------------------------------------ 55 Air Force aircraft recommended for approval ----------------------- 56 F/TF-15A (Eagle) ------------------------------------------- 56 A-10------------------------------------------------------- 56 F-111F---------------------------------------------------- 56 E-3A (AWACS)--------------------------------------------- 56 F-5F (International fighter) --------------------------------- 56 Army missiles--------------------------------------------------- 58 Authorization request --------------------------------------- - 58 Summary of House action ----------------------------------- 58 Committee recommendations for change ------------------------ 58 Dragon missile---------------------------------------------- 58 MASF items------------------------------------------------ 58 58 Army missiles recommended for approval -------------------------- 59 Dragon----------------------------------------------------- - 59 TOW------------------------------------------------------ 59 Improved Hawk--------------------------------------------- 59 Lance------------------------------------------------------ - 59 Pershing---------------------------------------------------- 59 Navy missiles-------------------------------------------------- 61 Authorization request----_ ------------------------- -------------- 61 Summary of House action ------------------------------------ 61 Committee recommendation for changes ----------------------- 61 Bulldog---------------------------------------------------- 61 Harpoon---------------------------------------- --------- - 62 Phoenix---------------------------------------------------- 62 Navy missiles :recommended for approval -------------------------- 62 Poseidon--------------------------------------------------- 62 Sparrow---------------------------------------------------- 62 Sidewinder-------------------------------------------------- 62 Phoenix---------------------------------------------------- 62 Shrike ------------------------------------------------------ 62 Condor----------------------------------------------------- 63 Harpoon-------------------------------------------------- 63 Standard -------------------------------------------------- 63 Air Force missiles---------------------------------------------- 65 Authorization request --------------------------------------- - 65 House action----------------------------------------------- 65 Committee recommendation for changes ----------------------- 65 Maverick--------------------------------------------------- 65 Sidewinder modifications ------------------------------------- 65 Air Force missiles recommended for approval--------------------- 66 Minuteman ----------------------------------------------- 66 Shrike-- -------------- Maverick------------------- ---------------------- 66 Sparrow-------"-------------------------------------------- 66 Marine Corps missiles -------------------------------------------- 68 Authorization request ---------------------------------------- 68 House action---------------------------------------------- 68 Committee recommendation for changes ----------------------- 68 Description of Marine Corps missiles recommended for approval----- 68 Dragon --------------------------------- , -------------- 68 Improved Hawk--------------------------------------------- 68 TOW----------------------------------------------------- 68 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700030012-3 V Title I-Continued rase Navy shipbuilding and conversion program_______________________ 72 Authorization request______________________________________ 72 Summary of House action__________________________________ 72 Committee discussion______________________________________ 72 Committee recommendation for changes---------------------- 73 Trident ballistic missile submarine_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 73 Nuclear attack submarine__________________________________ 73 Sea control ship------------------------------------------- 73 Patrol frigate---------------------------------------------- 73 Destroyer tender------------------------------------------ 73 Military assistance service funded items______________________ 74 Outfitting material_________________________________________ 74 Navy shipbuilding and conversion programs recommended for approval--------------------------------------------------- 74 Trident ballistic missile submarine___________________________ 74 as Nuclear attack submarine---------------------------------- 74 Destroyer------------------------------------------------ 74 Nuclear powered guided missile frigate_______________________ 74 Patrol frigate--------------------------------------------- 74 Patrol hydrofoil (missile)____________________________________ 75 Fleet oiler------------------------------------------------ 75 Fleet ocean tug-------------------------------------------- 75 Service, pollution abatement and small craft------------------ 75 Conversion and modernization______________________________ 75 Long leadtime costs________________________________________ 75 Other costs ----------------------------------------------75 Army tracked combat vehicles__________________________________ 77 Authorization request------------------------------------------ 77 Summary of House action______________________________________ 77 Committee recommendation for changes__________________________ 77 Armored reconnaissance scout vehicle____________________________ 77 M60A1 tank turret -------------------------------------- 77 MASF programs---------------------------------------------- 77 Army tracked vehicles recommended for approval----------------- 788 M60A1tank ---------------------------------------------- M578 recovery vehicle------------------------------------- 78 MS8A1 recovery vehicle____________________________________ 78 M60A1 tank trainer_______________________________________ 78 78 Marine Corps tracked vehicles__________________________________ Authorization request____________________ ___ 80 Committee recommendation for change ----------------------- 80 Marine Corps tracked vehicles recommended for approval---------- 80 M60A1 tank------------------------------------- 80 M88A1 recovery vehicle------------------------------------ 80 Navy torpedoes----------------------------------------------- 82 82 Summary of House action__________________________________ 82 Committee recommendation________________________________ Army other weapons_______________________ 84 84 Authorization request______________________________________ 84 Summary of House action__________________________________ 84 Committee recommendation for changes______________________ 84 M60 machine gun----------------------------------------- 84 M202A1 rocket launchers___________________________________ 84 MASF items ---___----_ -- 84 Army other weapons recommended for approval------------------- 84 M85 machinegun------------------------------------------ 86 Navy other weapons------------------------------------------- 86 Authorization request______________________________________ 86 Summary of House action__________________________________ 86 Committee recommendations________________________________ 86 Marine Corps other weapons------------------------------------ 86 Summary of House action---------------------------------- 86 Committee recommendation________________________________ Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : ,PIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 rage Title II-Research and Development-------------------- - 87 Section 201-Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Author- ---------------------- 0/ Authorization requested______________-__-__ - 87 -------------------- Summary of committee recommendations___________.__ 88 ------------ fleneral discussion or committee reductions_________--------------- -88 Major research and development progra~us-________--------------- 95 .Committee action on selected subjects in the research, development, test, and evaluation authorization request----------------------- - 96 Reimbursement from foreign military sales-------------------- 96 Air-to-air dogfight missiles------------------------------------ 97 Army programs------------------------------------------ 99 Heavy lift helicopter-----------___________--------------- -99 Aerial scout--------------------------------------------- 101. Pershing II- -------------------------------------------- -102 SAM-D air defense system_______________--_-_---__---- 102 Navy programs- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10 5 Improved strategic nuclear ballistic missile submarine------ 105 Surface effect ships-------------------------------------- 106 VCX (Carrier on board deliver,, aircraft)-----_____________ 107 Navy reconnaissance------------------------------------- 108 Navy cruise missile defense___--__-________--------------- 109 Project Sanguine------------------ ---------------------- 109 V/STOL programs--------------------------------------- 111 Air Force programs---------------------------------------- 111 Advanced tanker/cargo aircraft__________-_--_____________ 111 Interim multi-mission remotely piloted vehicl.e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ 112 Defense advanced research projects agency--___--_____________ 113 Management systems technology project-----_____________ 113 Federal contract research centers__________--_____________ 11.4 Chemical and biological warfare______---___-_______-_____ 115 Study on use of herbicides in South Vietnam -_ - _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ 117 Independent research and development______-_---_____________ 11.8 It & D program structure----------------------------------- 119 Cooperative research and development with Euro Dean allies _ _ _ _ 120 Summary by budget activity______________________ _ ---- 122 ---------- iMilitary sciences------------------------------------------- 122 Aircraft-and related equipment________________________--__--- 123 Missiles and related equipment______________________________ 124 Military astronautics and related equipment _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 125 Ships, small craft, and related equipment---__________________ 126 Ordnance, combat vehicles, and related equipment _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ 126 ther equipment---- - -------------------- 127 ---------------- Programwide management and support_________________.-_____ 129 Title III-Active duty manpower authorization_______________________ 130 Committee recommendations_________ ------- 130 Discussion------------------------------------------------------ 130 Savings in future years resulting from manpower reductions - _ _ -_ _ _ _ _ 131 Reduction of 20 percent in t rmy noncombat troop strength in Europe------------------------------------------------------ 131 Limitation on th.e number of United Sta-~es tactical nuclear warheads in Europe-------------------------- ---- 131 Requirement to develop standardization plans and present them to NATO----------------- 132 Requirement to achieve any increase .n strategic airlift manning through the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve rather than active duty Air Force________________________________________ 132 Military manpower requirements________________________________ 132 Manpower and force structure---------------------------------- 133 Reducing headquarters and nonessential support___________________ 134 Overseas troop levels-..----------------------------------------- 134 Overseas headquarters__________________ 135 11,000 reduction of overseas headquarters and non-combat units- ___ 136 Korea----------------------------------------- 137 ------ ---------- TO amendments-------------------------------------------- 138 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Title III-Active duty manpower authorization-Continued Page Reduction of training staffs and overhead________________________ 140 Base support,personnel----------------------------------------- 141 Medical support personnel______________________________________ 142 Army general purpose force manpower___________________________ 142 Marine Corps manpower reductions______________________________ 143 Air Force strategic airlift manpower_____________________________ 144 All-Volunteer P'orce____________________________________________ 145 Concern for manpower management_____________________________ 145 Improvements in the annual m.anpowcr requirements report _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 146 Tit1c IV-Reserve Forces------------------------------------------- Summary of request------------------------------------------- 148 148 Sectional analyais______________________________________________ 148 Committecincreasesrequests___________________________________ 148 Personnel turbulencc___________________________________________ 148 Overall committee position_____________________________________ 149 Currentstatc of the Rcservc____________________________________ 149 Yersonnel----------------------------------------------------- 149 Equipment--------------------------------------------------- ..150 Availability of Reserve components______________________________ 150 Transfer of mission5___________________________________________ 151 Future of Guard and Reserve___________________________________ 151 Cost of Reserve componen.ts____________________________________ 151 Committee approved strengths__________________________________ 152 ~Tiile V-Civilian pcrsonncl_________________________________________ 153 Committcerccommendations____________________________________ 153 Reduction of 44,600 in civilian manpower strengths-a 4% reduction----------------------------------------------- 153 Requirement to use the least costly type of manpower _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 153 Other committee amendments_______________________________ 154 Definition of civilian personnel______________________________ 154 No lay>offs needed to accomplish civilian strength reductions _ _ _ _ 154 Reduction of civilians in headquarters________________________ 155 Title VI-&lilitary training student loads__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 157 Committeereeommendations____________________________________ 1.57 Background--------------------------------------------------- 157 Discussion-------------- ------------------------------------- 158 Title VII-Gencralprovisions_______________________________________ 159 Sec. 701-Funding authority for support of South Vietnamese military forces------------------------------------------------------ 159 Committee recommendation________________________________ 159 Background---------------------------------------------- 159 h.xplanation of new provisions_______________________________ 160 Fiscalycar 1975 request____________________________________ 161 Committee action on MASF authorization items _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 162 Explanation of committee reduction in authorized amount of $900 million----------- -------------------------------- 162 Accounting and administration______________________________ 163 See. 702-Requiring statutory* approval of ship transfers _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1.64 Departmental reeommendation______________________________________ 165 Committee action------------------------------------------------- 171 Fiscal data------------------------------------------------------- 172 Relationship of authorization to Department of Defense appropriations _ _ 174 'Changes in existing law____________________________________________ 177 Individual views of- Senator Harold Hughes________________________________________ 181 Senator Thomas J. NlcIntyre___________________________________ 188 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP f ~~I~O U~~?12-3 93n CorraxESS ~ SENATE ~ REPOxT ,?Ld Session No. 93-884 Mas 29, 1974.-Ordered to be printed Mr. STENNIB, from the Committee on Armed~Services, submitted the following REPORT The Committee on .Armed Services, to which was referred the bill (S. 3000) to authorize appropriations during the fiscal year 1975 for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, tracked combat vehicles, forpedoes, and other weapons, and research, development, test, and .evaluation for the Armed Forces, and to prescribe the author- ized personnel strength for each active duty component and of the Selected Reserve of each Reserve component of the Armed Forces, authorization of civilian end strengths for the Department of Defense, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended ~ do pass. COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS (1) On page 2, line 9, strike out "$339,500,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$320,300,000." (2) On page 2, line 10, strike out "$2,960;600,000" and insert in lieu therof "$2,862,700;000". (3) On page 2, line 11, strike out "$3,496,600,000" and insert in lieu thereof the following $3,286,300,000, of which (1) $192,700,000 shall be available only for the procurement of the A-10 or the A-7D aircraft, based on the wlnner of a "fly-off" competition between such aircraft, as determined by the Secretary of Defense and certi- fled to the Congress by the Secretary, such funds to be avail- able within thirty days after certlfication to Congress provided no objectlon Is Interposed by any of the four au- AUTHORIZIN G APPROPRIATIONS'-FOR FISCAL YEAR 1975 FOR MILI- TARY PROCUREMENT, AND RESEARCH ~1ND DEVELOPMENT, AUTHORIZING ACTIVE DUTY, SELECTED RESERVE AND CIVIL- IAN MANPOWER STRENGTIIS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/072 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 thorizin.g or appropriation committees having jurisdiction over such procurement, and (2) $549,800,000 shall be avail- m the recammexxvdation 15Sy tlie~ subcommittee !that the C-4 missile ~be developed as propost,d in order to permit backlit into the Poseidon submarine, bur tli~a;t tfie 'Fiiaent submaruie Initial Ope-rational ~Capabilitp (HOC) be eli~Iayed by ap- proximately two years to 1980. This would have reduceeltlie fiscal year 1974 request by $88.4 million. The committee rejected this recommendation by an 8 to 7 vote; and'. supported the full request for '~1.r27 billion to cor~tiixue with the ac- celerated program as strongly justi-fled ~y the Department of Defense.. Subsequently, the House lLppropriations Committee crxt the s~$marine construction rate and funds to slow the program.:rli~is sva,s sustained'. in the final appropriation action by the ("ongress. The Secretary of Defense has restructured the program., consistentr with the Factions of the 'Congress, but bas ,mone even further: ~Iqe has: adopted the recommendations made by the Research and Development. Subcommittee last year to slow the pace-of ~subm~arinc ~arnstruct2~rr: from three to two per year, anal appras~ed the bacT~_fit of P~xseidon sxxh~ ~n~arines with the ~C-4 missile l~egimlmg in fiscal yc*ar 19713, now~plancl' for 10 submarines. Previously, this was approved o:uly as pan option. fcxr ixritiati~on in'the early 1980s. Use of Funds Recommended for Fiscal Year 297ti The $1.944 billion will provide for the following effort: 1. $633.8 million to continue engineering develapmPnt of tho C--4. missile including the ballistic reentry vehicle sand advanced develop- ment of the Evader Maneuvering Reentry Velxicle (1ViARV). (RDT&E ) 2. $107.2 million for continued development of the lead (prototype) submarine including initiation of Land Based lwaluation Facility certification for the command and control system, system level in- tegration test of command and control. system software, sand both con- tractor and Navy test and evaluation of the integrated radio room full scale prototype. (RDT&E) Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 39 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700g3001?~3 3. $1.192 billion for full funding for the. first two fol ow su - marines initiated in fiscal year 1974, and for procurement of long lead components for the fourth through seventh follow submarines for which ~autharization will be requested in later years. (SCN) 4. $11.0 million to continue initial engineering planning services necessary pi~ior to architectural and engineering design in support of a missile :assembly production plant gat the 'Trident Support Site, and for coaxial cabling for the 'Trident missile test complex. (WPN) Conclusion The committee recognizes the vital importance of the submarine launched ballistic missile system, the most survivable of our Triad of strategic cleterrence. ~Iowever, the committee is concerned at the projected total cost of $13.3 billion. far a fleet of 10, as presently. ap- proved by the Department of Defense. This equates to $1.33 billion each, and, as stated last year, is the most expensive weapon system ever built by the United States. The committee is satisfied with the slower rate of submarine con- struction but has same reservation about the ability to construct even at the reduced rate of two per ,year. The committee has recommended denial of $16.0 million requested to initiate an Improved SSBN, called the SSBN-N, because it is considered as premature. This is explained elsewhere In the report. The committee recognizes the merit of a lotiver cost, smaller submarine than Trident, to provide a hi-low mix with Trident, as the Poseidon force is phased out. .The committee intends to continue to closely follow the. develop- ment and construction of this weapon system to ascertain its progress against planned schedules and to unsure that its casts are consistent with estimates. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ftESEAACH AND DEVELOPMENT Mission Tho mission of ballistic missile defense is one for which the Army has been assigned. primary responsibility within the Department of Defense. The success with which this responsibility has been fulfilled can be traced over the years through the evolutionary development of Safeguard. Committee Recommendation The Army has requested a tota] of $312.2 million to conduct research and development for ballistic missile defense. The details of that amount, compared with fiscal year 1974, and showing committee rec- ommendations for reduction, are as follows [In thousands of dollars] ear Fi c l Fiscal year 1975 --- s a y 1974 Request Reco mmend Change ballistic missile defense: Safeguard______________________________________ 181,820 60,794 60,794 0 Site defense____________________________________ 110,133 160,000 110,000 -50,000 Advanced ballistic missile defense (ABMDA)_______ 61, 830 - 91,410 91, 410 0 - Total________________________________________ --'- 353,783 312,204 262,204 -50,000 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 The committee recommends approval of` the $60.5 million requested. for Safeguard, which will complete the development program, and of tho $91.4 million requested to continue Advanced ]3aliistic 1llissile~ Defense (ABMDA) technology. Ilowever, tlzc cemmii;tee recommends a change in the Site ]Defense program frori a prototype demonstration to an advanced development program and a reducti+~n ~f $50.0 mil- lion from the $16.0.0 million requested. T''ne remaining $110A milliox~ will be adeduat? to continue Sitc Defense as an option to develop and produce if the permanent ABM treaty is abrogated. background The Site Defense system consists primarily of a state-of-the-art phased array radar, a third generation commercial data processor and related software,_and a modified Safeguard Sprint interceptor missile, called Sprint II. The program lzas been limited to a prototype demonstration to pro- vide an option to defend the. Minuteman force against a higher threat than Safeguard can accommodate. Site Defense could not be deployed' under the provisions of the ABM treaty except at the National Com- mand Authority (NCA) site. It. therefore constitutes simply a hedge in the event that the treaty is violated by the Soviets, or if the T7nited States -deems it n~cossary to abrogate the treaty in the interest of its strategic deterrent posture. Last year tho caxnmittee recommended a reduction of $70.0 million from thE~ $170.0 mill ion requested for fiscal year-1974 to slow the pace of development. Congressional actions on f;he authorization anal appro- priation bills added. $1.0.0 million, and $110.0 milliar.~ finally was au- thorized and appropriated. In its report on the fiscal ,year 1974 bill, the committee stated, "It is less important, therefore, to complete the prototype demonstration program by a specific date than it is to proceed at a minimum but constructive dollar level to avoid the expenditure of substantial dol- lar amounts if the decision should be made later to terminate this program." ContrraiLtee ~'oyasade~ratEOnS The committee. reiterates its position o F last year, as noted in the previohs h~iragr5.ph. with one significant modification. ~he Depart- mcnt of Defei7sc 1s elirected to raoricut t-he pro,~-ram from a prototype demonstr~~,tion. ~ti`hich is i~ointed toward a specific. date (February 1975) and would recyuire~ the e.xpendittzre of some $600.0 million more to complete, to a simile advanced development progr;im. The ad:vantane at this at~rproaclz is to beep theoption open by main- taining acontractor team which crnild be expanded to move ont in a:n orderly ;zed accelerated pace, if it became necessary. This will mini- mizo the annual co~~t but continue essential tivork ~on the long 1~~~,ad major subsystems (Sprint II missile anc. radar) as well as the com- puter software and ~~>ystems en;?~inecrin~?. Tlzis rezli i ~sctiori of the pro- mrazl permits a reduction of $50.0 n2illiozz from the fiscal year 1975 a?c: E i .est. T'-ae alternatives would be either to to;?znin:Rte the program which would e~sentia.l]~~ dissolve any capability to deploy a, system capable of defending theMinutema.n force against the threat antzcihated in the Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : C~A-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 1980s, or to support it at the $160.0 million level requested and spend. some $600.0 million over the next .four ,years just to demonstrate a system that could not be deployed. It is estimated to cast mo~?e than $1.8 billion for total development. The committee considers that the expanclcd investxriea~t in the array of other strategic systems to eaihance the survivability of onr deterrent complements a substantial Site Defense technology program which now is estimated to cost, itl addition to $1.8 billion to develop, some $3.2 billion to deploy at just one site. This estimate has increased by one billion dollars over what was estimated last year. Co~aclaesion In summary, as stated in it,s report on-Last ,year's bill, the committee reaffirms its conviction that m:tijor emphasis it1 research and develop- ment for support of the strategic mission should be placed on strategic offensive capability. The committee recommendations for fiscal year 1975 conform to this objective. CRUISE MISSILE PROGRAMS Coraamittee d~ecommendation The committee recommendations, compared with the amounts re- quested for the Air Force Air Launchecl Cruise Missile (ALCM) and the Navy Submarine Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM) are as follows Fiscal year - Fiscal year 1975 -- - - 1974 Request Recommend Change rlr launched cruise missile___________________________ 11,D00 80,000 64 000 -16, 000 Submarine launched cruise missile____________________ .2,590 44,971. 37,971 -7,000 The reductions o~f $16 million and $7 million respectively for the ALCM and SLCM programs represent amalmts determined to be ex- cess to fiscal year 1975requirements because of the anticipated late- Hess of planaled contr~~,ctual actions. Tho i?editctiotis should teat be in- terpreted as a criticism of these proM i O i M i~pepN p~tW~sppM d'Q~ H~ -.N+?~ ACV ~~WM i '-' ~?N-1 ~ iM~~CVM~ co G. i ~.R ~ G a ' w o ~ Na d ' ~. Pa ; x;'~ d aqi ie v m ~ o ~ ~ i c~'io 'C cn `~e'Ov .~~di ~m~~G'~0~0'0 ~ O tiA~cbo A~cba PdCB A~~~~~~A'F-'oo Ao ~.~w,-, p,o dr^ ~ C ~ ~mmcU+~a~iCb"ocUi cUim~MCUi .~n'y'y vm..'.,~ y~?d i~a~m~~q Vi a C kdr. i i N~~?.. i i w,F i iCCw iUVwUo.,'"..~~yo~m ~4 P+0.i mm WW UUFf~FF FWW ~i~"~dC~'OU'~C7 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 NAVY AND MARINE CORPS AIRCRAFT dlilliona Navy request------------- - -- ---------?-------------------- $2,960.6 Senate committee recommended reduction____. ____________._______._ -97. Senate committee recommendation____.,____________.________ 2, 8E2. Z Hcuse authorization-------------------------------------------- 2,964.1 Authorization Reeruest The Navy request for aircraft procurement is for X2,960.6 million. This request includes funds for the procurement of 268 new aircraft of 13 different types, together with their supporting components and spare parts, the cost of modifying and modernizing; aircraft already in inventory, and related items such as aircraft support equipment industrial faclhtles, and training equipment. In addltlon, the bil~ provides for the procurement of long lee~d items required for aircraft that will be included in next year's program. Summary of House Action The House committee added $3.5 million, authorizing a total of $7.0 million to procure 18 new T-34C aircraft, a;nd approved the .remainder of the request. Houso action is shown for information only, since the House bill was not referred in time for committee consideration. Committee Recommendation for C/ianges The committee recommends authorization of $2,862.7 million, a reduction of $97.9 million from the request as follows: A-4M Skyhawk, -- $58.1 million reduc~Eion The request is for $57.3 million to bu;T 24 A-4Ms and $0.8 million for initial spares far those aircraft. The Marines have 24 A-4Ms authorized in the fiscal year 1974 supplemental which will be delivered in calendar 1976, at the same time as the 24 requested in fiscal ,year 1975. Those already approved A-4Ms, plus others for foreign sales, will result in a high production rate in 1976, whic)'i will be followed by a shut-down oi' the line in 1977 under present, Navy planning. "The committee recammends deferral of finding for these 24 A-4Ms to fiscal year 1976, for delivery in calendar 1977. This will have the benefits of keeping the. A-41~7r production line open another year, will .result in a more even and orderly monthly production rate, and will allow finalization of the Marine Corps' future light attack program before the ~.-4M line is closed. The committee emphasizes that it strongly supports this deferred procurement being placed in the fiscal year 1976 budget request. F-14A Tomcat, -$22.0 million reduction The request is for $709.3 million to buy 50 F-14.A fighters for the Navy and Marine Corps. The sale of 30 F-14s to Iran has reduced the cost of the fiscal year 1975 Navy ~~ircraft by 322.0 million, and (48) Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : f:lA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 the budget request was reduced accordingly. The F-I4 program is ds- cussed in more detail in the section of the report "Aspects of the Bill. of Special Interest." A-7E Corsair II, -$7.5 million reduction The request is for 34 aircraft at a cost of X138.2 million. The fiscal year 1974 procurement request was for 42 A-7Es, and contracts for long lead time components for those 42 aircraft already had been entered into when the appropriations committees reduced the 1974 program to 30 aircraft. Rather than stop work on items already started, they were continued as long lead for the fiscal year 1975 program. This allowed a $7.5 million savings towards this current year's request. AH-1J Sea Cobra, -$5.4 million reduction The request is for 20 aircraft and X24.9 million. An improved" .version of the Sea Cobra will be bought with an uprated engine and power transmission. The production schedule of the improved con- figuration has slipped, and 6 of the requested aircraft will not be delivered until calendar 1977. These 6 Sea Cobras do not, require funding until fiscal year 1976, and the committee recommends deferring the 6 aircraft and $5.4 million to next year's request. OV-YO 1Vight Gunship 1Vlodifacati?n, -$4.9 million reduction 'The funds wero requested to start a modification program to add' night vision sensors and uprated engines to Marine Corps OV-10 for- - ward air control airplanes. The total program for 24 airplanes would' cost '~47 million, nearly $2 million apiece, in order to provide ~ti night observation gunship capability. The committee 'believes the Marines should evaluate carefully the possibility of utilizing existing Air Forc? AC-130 night gunships being phased out of their inventory before- going ahead with this program. Description of ATavy and Marine Corps Aircraft Recommended" for Approval A-6E (Intruder) The A-6F. is a subsonic, twin-jet, two-place attack aircraft with night and all-weather, low altitude attack capabilities. The "E" model -has new solid state avionics but otherwise is similar to tho combat-proven A-6A. The request of X129.3 million dollars to procure 12 aircraft continues a modest inventory modernization and provides- - for a minimum production capability. ' EA-6B (Prowler) The EA-6B is a tactical jamming (ECM) variant of the A-6 attack- airplane. It carries a crew of 4, a pilot and 3 equipment operators. An improved configuration with more modern jamming controls will be bought starting with this year's program. The FY 1975 request is~ for 6 aircraft and X122.7 million. A-7E (Corsair II) The A-7E is a single-place subsonic, light attack aircraft capable- . of carrying all types of conventional ordnance while performing close? air support and interdiction missions. The A-7E has proven to be both: Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/O~~CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 reliable, maintainable, and highly survivr~~ble in combat deployments in Southeast Asia. It is essentially a twin to the Air Force A-7D. The request of 34 aircraft and X142.0 million conti-sues the modern- ization of the light attack force by replacing older and less capable A-7A/B's and A-4's. F-14A (Tomcat) The F-14A is a high performance variable sweep wing carrier-based airborne weapon sgrstem capable of performing air-t~o-air combat and air-to-surface attack missions. The F-14 emplol=s any combination of Phoenix, Sparrow a,nd Sidewinder missiles as well as an internal 20rnm carmon. UH IN (Iroquois,) The UH-1N is a twin engine version of the "Huey" helicopter series. The prima~~y missions of this versatile Navy and Marine helicopter are command and control, troop transport, medical evacu- ation and command liaison. The reque.,t of X16.5 million to procure 20 aircraft provides for the continuation of the modernization of the Marine Corps assault helicopter force. AH-IJ (Sea Cobra) The AH-1J is a helicopter gunship utilized by the l~~arine Corps to provide close-in ground fire suppression during aerial and ground escort operations and landing zone prep,~ration. P-3C (Orion) The P-3C is aland-based, long-range, four engine turbo-prop patrol aircraft. Its primary mission is anti-submari~ie warfare with a secondary mission capability of aerial mining, maritime surveillance and coastal shipping destruction. The re~Iuest of X150,0 million dollars to procure 12 aircraft allows the ttivelfth squadron to transition to the P-3 C's. S-3A (Viking) The S-3A is a twin engine, turbofan, carrier-based anti-submarine aircraft capable of carrying conventionstl and nuclear airborne ASAP weapons. It is replacing the S-2 Tracker presently being used aboard. anti-submarine carriers. The request of $485.4 million to procure 45 aircraft will provide assets to transition the seventh through ninth squadrons into the S-3A. E-2C (Hawkeye) 'hhe E-2C is an a11-weather, turbo-pro;, carrier-based radar warning aircraft which provides early warning of approaching enemy units and vectors interceptors into attack positions. ]n addition to this function, the F.-2C also provides strike and traffic control, area radar surveillance, search and rescue assistance and cornmunicat:ions relay. The request for fi aircraft and X107.1 million c.onti.nues t1~e replace- ment program of the aging and obsolescent E-2B aircraft. C-9B (Skytrain IP) The C-9B is an off-the-shelf, twin :Fan-jet commercial passenger aircraft configured to carry either all cargo, all perso-nnel, or a mixture of both. 'These aircraft will be utilized to supplement Military Airlift Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : C]A-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 {Command and commercial resources to meet Navy/Marino airlift requirements. The request for 7 aircraft and $41.6 million continues .modernization of the active transport fleet. CT-39 (Sabreliner) The CT-39 is a small commercial jet transport aircraft capable of transporting eight to ten passengers or a small cargo load. The CT-39 is used for the purpose of providing rapid response airlift for high priority, time critical cargo and. personnel. The request for 6 aircraft anal X10.5 million enables the continuation of an orderly Navy/Marine Corps fleet support modernization program. KC-T30R (Fdercules) The KC-130R is a version of the current production C-130 aircraft modified as an aerial. tanker. These .aircraft provide aerial refueling -for Marine'Corps fighter and attack aircraft during tactical operations and for both Navy and. Marine Corps aircraft transiting the Atlantic and Pacific. The request for X39.1 million provides funding to procure .advanced 'attrition aircraft to maintain force levels until the raid-1980's. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/02 CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 ppi ypppp'~ C.~ p m A ~ U p~ G ~+ W 0 ~y F ~ 4 U N pTpp ~ ~yyd+++ O 4] O N ACA NO ti tl~ N ~ 1 i't' CC oMp O h N ~ ~ G~ M ~ti~ ~~ moo ~meo ?'.n ~~~' Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75BOO38OROOO7OOO3OO12-3 53 y~ i ~M ~ i O~Oyy i O~ uOu--~~ N ~~ ~~ O ~ONt0 O+O ~ i~~+'+N d~00O t~ ~~ i i~[D~NMM~ .ti l~O~~iMMGO CV CQiM GVN~ tiIIIII~ u]`M~~,{SN WOOO L~ ~~N MM~~ MN~+ M W ~'+ tit~~i l~O~ QOM ~H~ ?~ i~~ ~ a ~ .-+ M h eD o~ ~l~ mawe~~pn~ti CV ?ONCwV N py' i~p cD pOO MHO ~?'~00 Md'ONTM OO~M ~ y?+ iN~0i .4'i ~~~ ivOiN 40~~~mc~i .~-iN~ ' ~ppM pp ~u~j 'M iGVM ,ppN ioO0Oti ~ti ~ S i j i i ~ i i ~ ; 'i 1~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ N ~ ~Fi R ~Q'N ~ w ~ N W ' b0 w ~ N ~ ?Y -6 r..~V74yw ! ' ~~Fwao a'P ' ;chi '~ ~~~~~~ti-+ C~~~~,?', s`'','c~a C,r~j Rm h `N'3 J O ~ '~ . C i cc~~ c7. c3 ^? P ~~ oq ? A ~ ~ ti"e+. C.~ q m ~~,o~oq~w_, j'~P~~y 0 .~G, q a' C 1 . ~'m'+'~~"*~'RA~Ce~~~U ~/c`aiao~~~~R~~F [1J W C d ~ ~ 0 A " y .1ryA'y U ~G'., ~','~ i cva~Www~M~ M~ryi~.Il~~ I u7'j E j~ I U~~ I WW WrY O.~7 OO~cd .b~~ wwwwoo~E~FwUP~1UZ6UO~~oo~ Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75BOO38OROOO7OOO3OO12-3 Approved For Release 20.06/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Senate committee recommendation _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3, 28fi. 3 --- House authorization____________________________________________ 3,391.4 Authorization Request The Air Force request for .procurement of aircraft is for ~3,496.fi million. This provides for the procurement of 256 aircraft at a cost of $1,621.6 million, plus $766.4 million for the modification and modernization. of in-service aircraft, X731.5 million for thE~ procure- ment of aircraft spares anal repair parts, common gromid equipment, and overhaul programs, and $327.1 :million for aircraft support equipment and. facilities. Of the 256 aircraft requested, 110 are for the Air Force inventory,. including 72 F--15, 26 A-10, aa~d 12 E-3A (AWACS) combat aircraft. The other 146 aircraftinclude 29 A-37B, 2$ F-5F, 4 C-130, 8 C~-I-47,. and 77 HU-1H in the MASF account t~ repla.ce losses and maintain the capabilities of the Vietnam Air Force (VNAF). Summarh of House Action The House reduced the request for the E-3A .AWACS from 12 aircraft and $549.8 million to 6 aircraft and $292.1 million, deleted $50 million. to begin afuselage-stretch. modification of the C-141,. reduced the request for $132.9 million dcvvn to $25.0 million to modify civilian wide-bodied jets in the CRAF .fleet, .added $205.5 million to procure 12 F-1ll aircraft, and added X104.9 million to procure 24 A-7D aircraft. The net change was a reduction of $:L05.2 million. Committee Recommendation for Changes The committee recommends authorization of $3,286.3 million for procurement of Air Force aircraft. This is a net reduction of X210.3 million to the request, composed of the following changes: MASF Aircraft, --$245.0 million reduction The 146 aircraft and $245.0 million requested for the MASF program. in the Air Force aircraft procurement request were deleted from this. account and considered under Title VII to the bill. F-111, +220.5 million addition Although notrequested in fiscal year 1975, $205.5 .million was added for procurement of 12 F-111F tactical aircraft end $15.0 million was provided for long lead funds specifica113~ for fiscal year 1976 procure- ment of F--111s. The committee strongly urges th~~t the 1?'-111 pro- duction line be kept open until a replacement aircraft enters develop- ment and further recommends modernization of the F-111 inventor~~ with continued. annual- procurement of -this latest version of the aircraft. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 55 A-ZO, +$X8.9 million addition The committee recommends transferring funding for 4 A-10 air- craft from the R.D.T. & E. account to the procurement account, which requires the addition of X618.9 million to fully fund production of these airplanes. The A-10 program is discussed in detail in the section of the report "Aspects of the Bill of Special Interest". Electronic Countermeasures Pods, -$22.6 million reduction The committee recommends a reduction of X22.6 million from the Air Force request for $56.6 million for ECM pods. The $22.6 million is for procurement of the ALCM-119 pod., of which the Air Force already has a large inventory. An improved pod, the AL(~-131 will begin production in fiscal. year 1975 and the committee approved that procurement. Civil Reserve Airlift if'leet (C~f1F) modification, -$155.0 million reduction The committee recommends a reduction of X155.0 million from the request of funds to modify civilian aircraft for cargo capability. The committee is of the opinion that the Air Force or the Defense Depart- ment should study the complete airlift requirement including allied airlift capability and the proposed new tanker-cargo-missile carrier aircraft to ascertain any new airlift requirement as well as the most economical and cost-effective means of meeting any new requirement. In the committee's opinion the Air Force had not satisfactorily re- solved many issues of this civilian aircraft modification program to demonstrate among other things its requirement, feasibility, avail- ability and cost-effectiveness. These issues should be adequately resolved before again presenting this program anticipated to cost over ~ 1 billion. C-141 Stretch ModiRcation, - X19.0 million reduction The committee recommends ?a reduction of $19.0 million from the FY 1975 budget request of X50 million for the C-141 stretch program. The committee sees some merit in this program although it is of the opinion that this modification should move slowly to allow full testing and also to provide time to include this airlift plan in the overall airlift study that the committee believes should be made. Therefore, the committee has provided funding for the engineering development and the modification and test of one prototype. This should not be construed as authorization to proceed with a procure- ment of production tooling or kits or other requirements that would relate to a go ahead on this program beyond the one prototype. The committee wants to look at this program again next year before further authorization is considered. Aircraft Spares and Support Items, -$8.1 million reduction The committee recommends the reduction of this spares funding request, since it is directly related to the request for increased stra- tegic airlift manning. that the committee has recommended reduction from active forces. Since the committee's reduction directs the Secre- tary of Defense to develop a plan within 90 days to increase required airlift manning through reserves and national guard. forces, the com- mittee will also reevaluate the spares requirement for possible repro- Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 ~6 gramming consideration when such p]an is formulated and the implementation schedule is established. Description of Air Force Aircraft R~scommended for Approval F/TF-15A (Eagrle) The. F-15A is an air superiority fighter aircraft characterized by a high thrust-to-weight ratio and low wing loading for maximmn maneu- verability. Ia is designed to be superior to all present and currently .projected Soviet fighter aircraft through the 1980 time period. The Air Force request is for 72 aircraft at a cost of $756.9 milliari. A-ZO The A-10 attack aircraft is a twin jet engine, sin;~le pilot airplane designed for the close air support role. The A-10 pro;;ram is discussed in more detail in the section of the re}port "Aspects of the Bill of Special Interest." F-IIIF The F-111F is a variable sweep wing, twin jet, supersonic tactical aircraft used for long range interdiction, ,,with a night and bad weather attack capability. It is the latest version of the F-111, with an up- rated engine and improved digital fire control system. E-3A (AWACS) 'rhe AWACS is a modified Boeing 707 aircraft equipped with a radar system and communications and command and control equip- ment. The Air Force request is for 12 aircraft plus a3vanced procure- ment at a total cost of $549.8 million. The AWACS is discussed in more detail in the section of the report `Aspects of i;he Bill of Special Interest." F-5F (International Fighter) The F-5F is a two-seat version of the F-5E and. is a twin engine fighter/trainer which retains the essential combat capabilities of the F-5E. The 28 aircraft requested at $85.4 mi]]ion for the VNAF v=ill be used for training and as attrition replacemen>>s for the F-5E. These aircraft are recommended for procurement under Title VII of the bill, the MASF account. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 a L W b9 ~ (~i U Y p~ w C ~ d Y U Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 d2illions Army.request-----------------------------~?---------------------- $459.2 Senate. committee recommended reductioa____.-___________.._________ -22. 7 Senate committee recommendation____..___________.._________ 436. 5 House authorization________________________..___________.._________ 439.4 Authorization Request The FY 1975 request for authorizati~~n of appropriations for the procurement of Arnxy missiles includes the funding f~~r missiles, modi- fications, spare parts and related support equipment. The major items in this request are the TOW., Dragon, Ha benefit n I' 9~.he formal proposal tai the Congress by the Depa~rt- me , i t of Tae fen se fo r th e n ext ph ~ se of tlf e p~ro~g rain. `'Lao ;altornative, i_f thc. fall ~~?0 0 million ~~?as provided in fiscal year 19-~ i. ledge adaptable to the solution of widely varied future requirements. The objective of exploratory development is to apply new kno~~-ledge to the solution of known or anticipated militar~r requirements. The major program under this activity, Defense Research Sciences, provides For basic research in physics, chemistry, ma~hematical sciences, elec- tronics, materials, mechanics, energy conversion, oceanography, ter- restrial and atmospheric sciences, astronomy and astrophysics, biological and medical. sciences, and behavioral and social sciences. This activity supports work conducted in in-house laboratories, as well as in other federal activities, universities, not-for-profit institu- tions, and industr3T, Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CP/~-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 The committee recommends approval. of the full amounts requested, which are essentially the same as provided for fiscal year 1974, and even slightly lower when adjusted to reflect inflation. 2. AIRCRAFT AND RELATED EQUIPMENT ]In thousands of dollars] --------------------- -------------------- ArmY- 269,996 -22,060 247,936 269,496 - Navy(includmgMarineCorps)_ ______________________ 349,322 -15,461 333,861 315,322 Air Force___________________________________________ 1,210,000 -79,800 1,130,200 1,205,000 Total, aircraft and related equipment____________ 1, 829, 318 -117, 321. 1, 711,997 1, 789, 818 1 House action is as reported by the committee and is shown for information only. This activity supports research, development, test, and evaluation related to aircraft weapon systems, subsystems, and components, including exploratory development m a wide variety of supporting technologies. The Army program provides substantially for the development of helicopters and includes continuation of the Utility Tactic?~1 Transport Aircraft System (UTTAS), the Advanced Attack Helm copter, component development and fabrication of the Heavy Lift Helicopter prototype, the Experimental Rotary Wing Research Aircraft anal Tilt Research Aircraft, and the Aerial Scout. The committee recommends a net reduction of $22.1 million, consisting of reductions of $5.4 million for the Aerial Scout and $21.2 million for the HLH. These are partially offset by an increase of $4.5 million for the Cobra-TOW, which merely represents a transfer of research and development work from the Army procurement account to the Army R.D.T.&E. account without change. The reductions in the Aerial Scout and the HLH are explained elsewhere in the report. The major Navy programs include the final stages of development of the F-14, the CII-53E heavy lift helicopter, and V/STOL aircra#.t prototypes including the Thrust Augmented Wing. New programs proposed for initiation include the VCX Carrier on Board Delivery aircraft, the HSX antisubmarine warfare system, and the VFX, a low cost .prototype fighter. The committee recommends a reduction of .$15.5 million, consisting of $5.3 million for the Tactical Air Recon- naissance program, $5.7 million far a classified ~irogram, and $4.5 million for the VCX Carrier on Board Delivery aircraft. All of these reductions are explained elsewhere in this report. The Air Force program provides primarily for continued develop- ment of the B-1 Advanced Strategic Bomber, the final development effort on the F-15 All Weather Air Superiority Fighter, the EF-111A Electronic Warfare Support Aircraft, completion of the F-5E/F Internation?til Fighter, Advanced Medium STOL Transport prototype., and the A-10 Close Air Support Aircraft. Also included is the initiatioi;4 of development of an Advanced Tanker/Cargo Aircraft and engineer- ing development of a new, low cost Air Combat Fighter. The commit- tee recommends a reduction of $79.8 million, comprised of $12.5 million for the A-10 Close Air Support Aircraft, $15.5 million-for the Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/Q7~~ CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Advanced Tanker/Cargo Aircraft, $44.0 million for the B-1 Advanced Strategic Bomber, X64.0 million for the Electronically Agile Radar, X1.0 million :for aircraft equipment development, X1.0 million for F-4 avionics, and $1.8 million for Gas Turbine Technology, which reduces this level of effort program to the same level as fiscal year x974 and allows fora 5 percent cost of living incres~se. All other reductions are explained elsewhere in the report. 3. MISSILES AND RELATED EQUIPMENT [In thousands of dollars] Committee recomendation r House Department Request Change Amount bill Army__________ _____ ___ _______________________ 706,418 -68,500 637,918 618,315 Navy(includingMarineCorps)_______________________ 1,152,575 -29,800 1,122,775 1,081,207 Air Force__________________________________________ 419,000 -26,200 392,80D 395,900 Defense agencies___________________________________ 75,000 -2,30D 72,700 69,000 - ------ Total, missiles and related equipment_________._ 2, 352, 993 -126, 800 2, 226,193 2,164, 422 r House acfion is as reported by the committee and Is shown for information only, This activity provides for contract and. in-house costs of research, development, test and evaluation of ballistic and other missile systems of all types including surface-to=air, air-to-surface, air-to-air, and surface-to-surface. This activity also is a major source of financial support for operation of certain test and evaluation facilities such as the Air Force Western 'l'est Range, the Navy White Sands Missile Rance, the Naval Weapons Center at China Lake, and the research and development programs at the Army':> Redstone .Arsenal and the Kwajalein Missile Range. " The Army program provides for final development costs for the Safeguard Antiballistic Missile System, Site Defense of 1blinuteman, and Antiballistic Missile Technology. In tactical missiles, develop- ment will continue on the reoriented S1~M-D Air _Defense Missile System, Forward Area Air Defense Systems, Stinger M.an ;Portable Anti-Aircraft Missile System, Cannon Lt~unched Guided Projectile, improvements to the Pershing Missile, a.nd the Hellfire Helicopter Borne Air-to-Ground Missile. The committee recommends a re- duction of $68.5 million, consisting of $50 million for Site Defense of Minuteman, $11.2' million for the Pershing II missile, $5.8 million for the Chaparral/Vulcan, and $1.5 million for th~s Stinger Man Portable Antiaircraft Missile System. These reductions are explained elsewhere in the report. The Navy program provides primarily for continued development of the Trident Missile System, as well as a Submarine Launched Strategic Cruise Missile, the Aegis Fleet I-efense Missile, the :Phalanx Close In Weapon System, the Harpoon J~ntiship Missile, the Agile Air-to-Air Missile, arld the late stages of development, of the Condor, Sparrow, ancL Improved Sidewinder Air-to-Air Missiles. The com- mlttee recommends a reduction of $29.8 million, consisting of $15.0 million for the Trident C-4 Missile System, $7.0 million for the Sub- marine Launched Cruise Missile, $4.0 million for Surface Launched Weaponry, $2.0 million-for Advanced Surface Missile Guidance, and $1.8 million for the Sanguine Commllnications System. These reductions are explained elsewhere in the report. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : -RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 The Air Force program includes effort on improved guidance, higher yield and increased number of reentry vehicles for the Minute- man System, Advanced Ballistic Reentry System developments, including improved guidance for the Navy Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile System, and expanded Advanced ICBM Technology Program, which includes new emphasis on mobility concepts. Increased emphasis 1s laced on engineering development of the Air Launched Crmse Missile. The commlttee recommends a net reduction of $26.2 million, consisting of decreases of $16.0 million for the Air Launched Cruise Missile and X3.1 million for Advanced Air-to-Air Weapons Technology. Also included is a reduction of $19.0 million in the Minuteman Program, which is compensated in part by an increase in the Advanced Ballistic Reentry System (ABRES) program of $11.9 million. This provides for a transfer of a classified program from Minuteman to ABRES. The difference of $7.1 million represents the cost of two Minuteman missiles which were determined not to be required. All other reductions are explained elsewhere in the report. The Defense Agencies program supports strategic technology under the cognizance of the Advanced Research Projects Agency. The committee recommends a reduction of $2.3 million, which 1s explained elsewhere in the report. [In thousands of dollars[ Committee recommendation Department Request Change Amount 1 House bill Army -_-- -- ----- --- ---- 15,832 -------------- 15,832 15,.832 716 8 - : Navy (including Marine Carps)________________________ 38,716 , ______________ 38,716 3 2 0 Air Force------------------------------------------- 472,7D0 0 ________,_____ 472,700 462, --- Total, military astronautics and relatedequipment_ 527,248 ______________ 527,248 516,748 ~ House action is as reported by the committee and is shown for information only. This budget activity provides for research, development: test and evaluation of military space systems and equipment including space- borne, ship-based and ground-based equipment. The objective is to improve space technology for military applications and to investigate and dovelop specific military applications of sppace vehicles. The Army program provides for continued development of ground terminals anal subsystems for the Defense Communications Satellite and the NAVSTAR Global Positioning System. The Navy program provides for continued development of Navy capabilities m satellite communications and the NAVSTAR Global Positioning System. The Air Force program includes participation in the NAVSTAR Global Positioning System, development of an Interim Upper Stage for the NASA Space Shuttle, and a variety of programs directed toward the improvement of space technolog0 of the total base support manpower requested. Medical Support Personnel The DoD manpower request included some 129,000 military and civilian personnel for medical support. ~~hese are personnel for "fixed site" .medical facilities such as hospitals and include all the various kinds of people from doctors to admuiistrative clerks who operate these facilities. This category does not include the medical personnel and units that directly support Army and Marine divisions, Navy ships or Air Force direct support clinics and dispensaries. Although the overall number of military personnel has declined and. the Defense Department reported a decrease in medical worklo,~,d (i.e. patients), the DoD request included an overall increase in the number of medical support personnel and in the ratio of medical sup port personnel to military manpower. The committee felt that the number and proportion of medical support personnel in the military services should ~aot be increased. The committee has no intention of decreasing medical care, but there are compelling reasons to hold up increases in. medical support personnel at this time. First, a major study of Health Personnel is underway with partici0a-. tion of Defense, HEW and the Office of Management and Budget. This study, which is to be completed ire late 1974, will examine the requirements for medical personnel and is seeking to find ways of making Defense health care delivery more efficient. 'the reduction would hold medical support at current levels until the study is com- pleted. Second, medical personnel are difficult to recruit and retain in an all-volunteer situation. The reduction would deny increases in medical support until the recruiting situation is clearer acid there is more experience with the medical bonus. Thud, defense medical costs have beE-n increasin?; rapidly. "Fixed site" medical support costs totaled $1.6 Billion in F'i' 1970 compared with $2.8 Billion m FY 1975. These medical costs on a per man basis have risen from $470 per man in FY 1970 to $1280 per man in FY 1975-up 2.7 times. The committee reduction totalling 4000, or about 3?~0 of the requested military and civilian manpower, would hold medical support personnel at current proportions. Army General Purpose Force Manpower The military manpower request for FY 1975 included 450,006 personnel for gener~d purpose forces (or an increase of some 17 000). 'these forces include the Army's combat battalions and other divi- sional units, but also include a good many non-combat support units. A summary of. the manpower for these various units, together with requested. increases and decreases is shown below. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/0714~IA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 ARMY, GENERAL PURPOSE FORCE MANPOWER, FISCAL YEARS [Military manpower in thousands] 1974 1975 budget request manpower manpower Change General purpose forces____________________________________________ 433 450 -F17 Divisions--------------------------?--------?------------------- 195 196 -F1 battalions, etc____________________________ Separate combat brigades 47 56 -F9 , Air defense units ------------------------- - 22 22 -------------- ---------------?- ------ Missile units -------------------------------------------------- 10 9 -1 ---- Engineer units---------------------------------------------------- 22 23 -{-1 Aviation units ------------------------------------------ - 11 11 -------------- -------- - Electronic warfareJcommunication___________________________________ 19 18 -1 Special ammo control ------?---------------------?- - 5 5 --?-------?? ----?----- --- Intelligence support------------------------------------------------------------- 6 -I-B Combat support units-----------------------------------?--------- 8 8 -------------- Field army support------------------------------------------------ 76 78 -I-2' Theatre support-------------------------------------------?---?- 16 16 -~------------ The committee applauds the Army's effort to increase the number of combat battalions by reducing support activities. The Arrny has made some real progress m this regard. As can be seen above, about 10,000 of the increase requested in general purpose force manpotiver is for 13 combat battalions, both within and separate from davlslons. However, the table also shows an increase of some 9000 personnel for various non-combat units. The Committee questions whether all of this latter increase is needed. Reducing support in one accounting category and increasing it in another does not achieve the result of restructuring Army forces to produce more combat power. Maa?ine Corps 161anpomer Reductions In addition to the military manpower reductions in other functional areas, the Committee. noted a requested increase of 14,000, or 20/0, for Marine Corps manpower for land forces above current levels as. shown below Marine Corps Land Force Manpower (military manpower in thousands) (excludir~.g tactical air and support) June 30, 1973------------------------------------------------- 75 Dec. 31, 1973------------------------------------------------- 71 1974 (plan) June 30 ------------------------------ -------- , - ---- June 30,1975 (request)----------------------------------------- 8~ r This increase is explained by .several factors. First, current land force strength is below planned strength: largely because of recruiting shortfalls. Second, the Marines want to increase the manning of some support units within their divisions. Third, the Marines plan to in- crease the strength of each rifle company. The overall effect of these changes would be to bring 1Vlarine land force manning levels up to about 93?0 of their revised plan for a peacetime structure. The committee commends the Marine Corps' usual practice of emphasizing combat power. However, the Marine Corps is about 7000 below their total strength objectives and is expected to fall as much as 12,000 short of their end FY 1974 strength target of 196,000. Just to stay even with their end FY 1974 strength, Marines will have to recruit some 7000 more men in FY 1975 than they recruited in FY 1974. The committee is concerned that by increasing their planned' strength objective for land forces in 1975, the Marines may be driven, Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/0714~IA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 to accepting lower quality personnel with an attendant loss of effec- tiveness and increase in discipline and other personnel problems. The committee strongly believes the Marine Corps should not sacrifice quality for quantity and should concentrate on maintaining their long- standing tradition of a ready, top quality, small, fighting force. The small reduction in Marine Corps requested strength would. still allow the Marine Corps to substantially increase its combat strength above the current actual level, but would .hold down the amount of the increase until it is clear the Marine Corps can iichieve this higher strength level with top quality personnel. .Air Force Strategic Airlift Manpower The committee adopted an amendme-nt proposed. by Senator Nunn to improve the back-up crew strength for emer~enc;Y use of the strate- gic airlift. The amendment requires that such increases be made with .Air National Guaa~d and Air Force Reserve personnel, thus providing for the Guard and Reserve a meaningful role with an important and vital mission. For FY 1975, the Department of Defense requested 8300 active duty personnel and civilians to provide increased strategic airlift capability in the event of an emergency. As there is no peacetime operational requirement for the crews, the Committee considered it logical to utilize the resources of the Air National l~uard .and the Air Force Reserve to fulfill the requirement. Such an action could save as much.as $100 million per year or more in defense expenditures. Specifically, the amendment: (a) Reduces the active Air Force end strength request by 8300 posi- tions, the operational and support positions inclxided fo:r the crew increase. (b) Reduces the civilian end strength of the Air F+'orce by 1800 posi- tions, the number of new civilian slots associated with the increase. (c) Expresses' the sense of Congress that any in.cr~~ase in the ratio of .air crew to aircraft for the Air Force strategic airlift mission above the present ratio of 2.00 active duty crew members and 1.25 Reserve force crew members per aircraft should be achieved. through the com- ponents of the Selected Reserve. (d) Directs the Secretary of Defense to develop ,~ plan for meeting increased manpower requirements for strategic airlift jointly from the ~ .Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard, and to submit the plan to the Congress together with his comments and recommendations within 90 days from enactment. The amendment requires the plan to include: (1) proposals for restructuring Air National Guard :missions and using - existing units in order to avoid loss of present s)::ills; (2) plans for making adequate aircraft available to the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard for this mission whether by transfer, rotation, "hy- bridization", "association" or otherwise; (3) plans for instituting the hybridization program on a test basis at two or rnore Air National Guard facilities. The amendment directs the Secre~~ary of Defense to delay implementation until after this plan has been submitted to Conggrress. "Hybridization" and "association" t~x?e two cancepts o:F assigning reserve component: units to active for~~es for use in strategic airlift using aircraft which remain under control of MAC (Military Airlift Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07145CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Command). This allows reserve crews to train and participate in the world-wide air-lift system. Associate units are colocated vcnth MAC units, training in peacetime with MAC aircraft, and manned to aug- ment MAC upon mobilization. Hybrid units are attached to, but not colocated with, MAC units. As separate reserve units, the hybrid units would operate at their awn bases in peacetime, but with aircraft on loan from MAC on a rotating schedule. Like associate units, on the other hand, they are manned to merge with and augment MAC upon mobilization. ~ Rising costs of military personnel and the constraints of the All Volunteer Army demand that we utilize the lower cost but $igh skill person~.el of the Reserve and National Guard as fully as possible under the Total Force Policy. DOD's request to establish a wartime sur~o -crew capability through increases m the active force flies straight m the face of this policy. This amendment indicates the Committee s interest in bringing the components of the Selected Reserve into the Total Force in a meaningful way. If practical problems exist which. limit these possibilities, the amendment would require that they bo addressed directly. All-Volunteer Force There is neither sufficient experience nor adequate evidence upon which to base final judgments about the success or failure of the volun- teer concept. Overall, testimony by Department of Defense officials is a basis far encouragement. On the other hand, the statistical indica- tors remain mixed-recruiting shortfalls experienced over the past year in, the Army and Marine Corps are of concern to the committee. Serious questions remain as to whether or nat these services can attract sufficient numbers of "quality" recruits in the future. The measures of qu'ahty remain am~biguo~us. The committee has pre- viously .expressed concern over the lack of adequate yardsticks for measuring quality and on several occasions encouraged the Department of Defense to develop better predictors of jab performance. Ta date, thero is little evidence that such yardsticks have been developed. Also of concern to tho committee are the potential implications of the decline that will occur in the source of supply of military valun- ,, tears as a result of declining birth rates. After the male population (ages 17-22) levels off over the next several years, it will start to declino in the early 19'80s, bottoming out in 1987 at about 12 percont below 1974 levels, before turning upward again in fhe 1990s. Although ? future military manpower needs are uncertain, this decrease in the supply of available manpower can be expected to have a significant impact on the magnitude of the recruiting task. Early attention should be directed toward this problem area. The Secretary of Defense is requested Ito pa~ovide a report to tho oosnmi~ttoe ~on oar before. Decem- ber 1, 1974, which provides estimates Hof the need far and availability of volunteers for each Service for the next 10 to 15 years. The report should also estimate the feasibility and highlight the anticipated prabl-ems of continuing the volunteer system through that period. Many questions have been raised over the past year concerning the representativeness of the all-volunteer force. Evidence provided to date-though sketchy=suggests that the volunteer forces are dispro- Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 146 portionately represented geographically, economically, and racially. While the implications of such imbalances remain unclear, it is im- portant that adequate data be collected by the Department of Defense. Accordingly, :the Department ~of Dej'ense is requested to provide to this committee by December 1, 197E for fiscal 1974, and annually thereafter, the distribution of recruits by service, v~hether urban ar rural by state, by racial background, and Eby annual family earnings broken down in appropriate categories. It is recognized that family earning d~aba may not be available na~;v. Sample survey rosults should be used until such data can be collected on a routine basis. Concern for Manpower ManagemE~nt This bill authorizes the total military personnel stren~,~ths for each Service based on the requirements to do the many various jobs within the Defenso Department. It does not specify the individuals who_are assigned to the various fobs. IIow well the jobs get done depends on the quality of the individuals and how well thev are managed. The committee in its review noted two problems in this regard. First, ac- cording to Defense Department and GAO estimates, the authorized strengths for FY 1974 will probably not be achieved in the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. This is the result of recruiting shortfalls in the volunteer environment and, in part, inaccuracies in the personnel accounting system. The overall shortfall is expe~~ted to be 20,000 to 30,000 men (about 1 ?Jo) . This strength shortfall is compounded by malassigximent of person- nel by the personnel assignment system. 'The net :result of 'both prob- lems is that combat units tend to be undermanned, while support units tend to be overmanned. For example, in December 1973, while total military strengths was still about 27,000 above the end FY 74 target, the general purpose farces were undermanned by 30,000 and support was overrnanned'by 57,000 compared to the end FY 74 target strengths. 7 he committee expects the Department of Defense and the Military ,.Services to adopt policies and proced~~ires that will properly account for personnel strengths and assign personnel to the various functions that have been authorized. Priority should be given. to the combat units by tlio assignment procedures. Improvements in the Annual Manpower Requirements Report The statutory manpower requirements report continues to be a key. part of the justification for the Defense request for military anal civilian manpower requirements. Therefore, it is essential that the format and categories used in that report be consistent from year to rear and the definitions of each category be improved. This year's report included some new major categories which added little to the overall prospective and some changes in categories which tended to confuse the presentation. Such non-essential changes simply weaken the overall justification. The unit annex provided with this year's report at committee request was useful m strengthening the report a:nd should be con- tinued in the future. The committee requests that manpower numbers be rounded to the nearest tenths of thousands (eg: 396.4: thousand) in future manpower reports and unit annexes. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 i471A-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 The committee believes a major effort is needed to improve the definition of the various manpower planning categories of the man- power report. This effort should havo the following objectives: 1) to improve tho connection between the planning categories and actual units in the field, 2) to improve the definition of support and identify support units, 3) to develop broad standards that relate the amount of support with the forces support, 4) to make the categories used by -each Servico consistent, 5) to relate locations (eg: overseas troops) to the. various planning categories. However, the committee requests the Defense Department not to make any changes in the manpower report until such proposed changes have been fully revie`ved by the committee staff and the committee has been provided a complete crosswalk from the current categories to the proposed new definitions. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 TITLE IV-RESERVE FORCES ? Summary of request In the Fiscal Year 1975 budget the Department of Defense re- quested authorization for an average :;trength total of 892,066 per- sonnel to make up the seven Selected :EZeserve forces of the Reserve Components. This proposed force structure is 96,293 less than re- quested in FY 1973 when the force ~Nas manned at higher levels. because of draft-induced accessions. The budget request, broken out by Reserve Components, was as follows Army National Guard____________________________________._________-- 37A,848 Army Reserve------------------------------------------------------ 216,84., Naval Reserve-----------------------------------------------------.107,626 Marine Corps Reserve______________________________________________ 36,703 Air National Guard------------------------------------------------- 59,12fi Air Force Reserve-------------------------------------------------- 61,31) Coast Guard Resercve____________________________________.-----____-- 11,700 Sectional analysis Section I~01.-Establishes the annual ~iverage strength at which the Reservo Farces are to be programmed for the fiscal year. Section I~0,2.-Provides for proportionate reduction of any Reserve component by the total authorized stren?~h of units of that component which are on active duty (other than for training) a,t any time during the fiscal year. This proportionate reduction is applicable also to the total number of individual member, not in units, serving an active duty without their consent during the fiscal year. V~Then units and/or individuals are released from ~~~,ctive duty, proportionate increases pare permitted. Committee Increases Requests The committee recommends approval. of the manning levels re- quested in the budget for the Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard Reserve and increases in the other four Reserve Components. The discussion below sets forth the reasons for the higher figures approved by the committee. Personnel Turbulence This year the committee was faced with unusual circumstances im- pacting on Selected Reserve strength levels which hopefully will not recur: The following factors interplayed in the committee's efforts to deter- mine the exact slze of Reserve strengths required for fiscal year 1975. 1. The average strengths requested in the budget were determined in the Fall of 1973 when personnel levels were unstable acid generally declining as a result of expiration of thE; induction authority. Thus, the request was tied to " rccx~tiiti tigability" rather than actual requirements. In Fiscal Yaar 1973 and prior, Reserve strength was at higher levels'because of draft induced enlistments. (148) Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/071~~IA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 2. 'T'estimony ~duriixg committee hearings resulted in requests by the individual Reserve and Guard Chiefs for higher m~ann~ing levels than those in -the budget. These requests ware 'based on favorable results :from. recruitring drives coiidzicted rafter the budgeit figures were fixed. Such additions were in conflict with Defense Department estimates anti: i?equired ~`tippropriabion increases approachin,r '100 million. 3. The Defense Department announced plans to reduce the Army Resex?vc Component force structure ~by 48,000 spaces but could not identify for the committee the types of units to be phased out or the distribution of the cut between the Army Guard and Army Reserve. Overall Committee Position In .general, the committee in certaixicomponents favored higher levels ~thaii those requested in the budget and acted ~ticcordingly. These inare,ases were allowed because the commi~ttce feels the Reserve Com- ponents can recruit to higher levels than those requested in the bbudget ~~,nd there is a justifiable requirement far higher manning levels. The committee took special exception to the Defense Department proposal to ,reduce the personnel of five units of the Air Guard in fiscal ye~au~-1975. ~`hus, the rum?ber of personnel in the 5 A2rGuard units ~to be elimiria~ted was restored. The committee directs :that these trained personnel be utilized in the Air Guard program through the most eco- nomical sand m~aningftil plan possible. Also, the committee will once again ask the Defense Department for a detailed justification and identification of the Army Guard and Army Reserve units to be eliminated as a result of the 48,000 force structure reduction directed by the Secretary of Defense.. This report will be considered during Conference with the House members when the manning levels of the two Houses are resolved for final submission to the Congress. Current ,state of the Reset?ve During hearings on the F~' 1975 requests the committee gave special attention to the current state of the Reserve Components as regards personnel, equipment and readiness. Personnel While the committee tivas encouraged regarding the recent upsurge in manning levels, emphasis was placed on quality of personnel as opposed to numbers. With the increasing sophistication of weapon systems it is felt that _the best quality individual 'available should be aggre.5sively sought by the recruiting offices. All Reserve Chiefs ex- pressed continued concern that over three-fourths of the new acces- sions were still coming from prior service personnel. While these in- dividuals .are already trained and represented cost savings in that regard, t-his particular source of reserve manning will eventually decline as active force Levels stabilize. If the Reserve Components are to be properly manned in the future more new accessions will be neces- sary. The .committee feels special s~tzz:dy should be given to this prob- lem. Shorter enlistments and shorter initial training periods are two ~~,ppro.aches the committee feels have not yet been adequately tested. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/071~IA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 While additional incentives to attract and hold h~ersounel may even- . tually be required, the committee desires that low coat administrative procedures should.'be fully exploited before more expensive approaches are considered. The committee was impressed with s,he results of the Army Guard and Army Reserve recruiting campaigns during Fiscal Year 197-E. Based on these reports the average strength requests of both compo- nents were increased. 'The Air Guard request was increased for reasons already explained.. The Navy Deserve request was also increased, as was the case 1as.t year. The committee continues to expre;~s concern relative to the Naval Reserve strength reductions. These reductions in the past two years. take the Naval Deserve well below requirements and a.re obviously based on budgetary considerations irregardless of mission require- ments. Equipment Despite significant advances in equipping the Deserve Forces the committee feels the Department of Defense is lacking in an aggressi~-e program in this area. The Army Guard Chief testified, " 1:11 of our major organizations are limited by resource constraints to authorized ec uipage levels of 3 on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being complete equipment ~11."Thus, regard- less of the quality of training ar mann:~.ng strengths, necessary readi- ness levels cannot 1>e reached. The Naval Reserve is-still hampered by having to use the, old C-11~ aircraft for transportation. Replacement of these aircraft should be given Highest priority. Another example of constraints on the Naval Deserve is the order to transfer in FY 1975 10,000 personnel f~?om Pay Group A (48 drills) to Pay Group B (24 drills). A similar transfer in FY 19'74 of 2,000 personnel resulted in over 60?fo of the enlisted men withdrawing front the program. The 1\Taval Deserve Chicf testified if >>his order was not withdrawn the program could not meet the manning levels requested in the budget. The committee also took note of the fact that all a.ir elc~.ments of the Reserve Components were severely hampered by the total shutdown of flying during the energy crisis. Reduced levels now in efi?ect limit the ability of these units to attain acceptable readiness levels and also increase the risk of accidents. Actions by the Congress in recent years such as adding aircraft to the budget designated for the Air Guard are steps which the Defense Department should be taking on its own initiative in order that a more efficient equippage will take place. Availability of Reserve Components In the event of a national emergency ~~he President Has the author- ity to call to active duty up i;o 1 million members of the Reserve Components. With the expiration of the induction authority the- Deserve and Guard have now become the first line source of niai~power in the event of any mobilization requirement. International events niay require limited call-ups but commitment to combat of any military person- Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/dA~ CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 nel are subject to the new controls embodied in the War Powers legis- lation enacted by the Congress in 1973. The committee which has promoted fullest possible support for De- serve and Guard forces thus expects these forces to be available for call-up at any time, This availability of Reserve Components greatly strengthens our national defense posture and enables us to provide a reasonably large force at an economical cost. Transfer of Missions The committee also has included language in the bill and in the report relative to utilization of Reserve Component resources in meet- ing the required expansion of the strategic airlift mission. This provision is included in Section 302 of the bill and is explained. fully in Title III of the Report. Future of Guard and Reserve Events in recent years have placed additional responsibilities on Guard and Reserve forces. With rising manpower costs the Guard and'. Reserve offer to the nation an economical way of maintaining necessary levels of preparedness at minimum costs. With these views in mind, the committee awaits the findings of the major study directed last ,year by the present Secretary of Defense and aspecial Air Guard, Air Reserve study directed by this committee. It is recognized that some realignment of all components may be prudent. However, in this context the committee favors utilization of on-board manpower to the fullest extent possible. These trained re- sources should be shifted to any new requirements which may be identi - fied. The Secretary of Defense has indicated this would be his policy and the committee fully supports this position. Cost of Reserve Components Although the provisions of this bill are not concerned directly with cost, the committee believes it desirable to show an overview of the anticipated costs for the Reserve components during fiscal year 1975. These costs, by budget element, representing an increase of $324.1 million over fiscal year 1974, are shown in the following chart FISCAL YEAR 1975 RESERVE COMPONENTS PRESIDENT'S BUDGET ]DOllar amounts in millions] D. & M. Construction Subtotal Procure- Total' ment' Army National Guard________________ $621.7 $608.4 $59.0 $1, 289.1 $361.3 $1,650.4 Army Reserve______________________ 490.6 279.7 43.7 814.0 (~) 814.0 ___________ Naval Reserve 209.7 238.4 20.8 468.9 8.3 477.2 __ _______ _____ Marine Corps Reserve 73.0 11.4 (g) 84.4 43.7 128. 1 __ Air National Guard__________________ 198.6 596.1 30.0 824.7 47.0 871.7 Air Force Reserve___________________ 148.5 278.2 16.0 - 442.7 -- 17.5 - 460.2 - Total________________________ -- 1,742.1 2 --- ,012.2 - 169.5 3, 923.8 477.8 4,401,6? Active personnel support for Reserve components-------------------------- -?----------- ------------- ------------ ---- ----------- --- -----~- -- 517.4 -- Grand total----------------------- - ------------- -- - ------------- ------------ ----------- ------ 4,719.0,. 1 Does not inFlude active personnel support for Reserve components. a Distribution of procured equipment is accomplished by separate schedule and extends aver several years. s Included in Army National Guard procurement. 4lncluded in Naval Reserve construction. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00,380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :l~g~A-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Committee Approved Strengths The average ~itreng-ths as recommended by the Army, Navy, Air force, Department of Transportation and Department of Defense for Fiscal Year 1975 are shown on the chart below. Also shown are .the manning levels approved in Fiscal Years 1973, 1`r74 and those recom- mended by the Senate Committee for 1975. Congress authorized in fiscal year 1973 Congress authorized in fiscal year 1974 Requested in budget, `fiscal year 1975 Senate action Army Guard________________________________ 402,333 379,144 379,848 390,000 Army Reserve______________________________ 261,300 232,591 215,842 220,OD0 Naval Reserve______________________________ 129,000 .119,231 107,526 11.0,000 Marine Reserve______~_____________________ 45,016 39,735 36,703 3.6,703 Air National Guard__________________________ 87,614 92,291 89,1.28 33,412 Air Eorce Reserve___________________________ 51,296 49,773 51,319 51,319 --- Total, DOD___________________________ 976, 559 - 912, 765 880, 366 9ff1, 434 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 TITLE V=CIVILIAN PERSONNEL Background.-Under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 138, the Congress is required for the first time this year to authorize the civilian personnel end fiscal year strength for each of the components of the Defense Depart- nient. The Committee held hearings in open session on March 21, 22, 26; and April 11, 1974 and heard testimony from Defense De- partment manpower experts on the civilian personnel strengths re- quested by the Department of Defense for Fiscal Year 1975. Based on this testimony, the information provided in the annual Manpower Requirements Report for FY 1975 submitted by the Department of Defense and other information provided to the Committee, the staff has conducted a comprehensive review and analysis of civilian personnel requirements. Committee . Recommendations Reduction of 44,600 in civilEan manpower strengths-a 4~Jo re- duction For the reasons discussed below, the committee recommends reduc- tions totaling 44,600, about 4?~0, from the Defense Department request for civilian strength at the end of FY 1975. The Defense Department request included an increase of about 29,000 above the actual on- board strength of 998,000 as of June 30, 1973 and totalled 1,027,300. The Committee recommendations would reduce the requested strength to 982,700 by the end. of FY 1975. The Committee recommendations on the civilian strength for each Defense component is shown below: CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE STRENGTH lEnd fiscal year 1975 strength in thousands Committee DOD request recommended Reduction from request Percent ArmY---------------------------------------------- 358.7 335.4 -23.3 -6 Navy-Marine Corps__________________________________ 323.5 313.2 -10.3 -3 ? Air Force___________________________________________ 269.7 261.3 -8. 4 -4 Defense agencies___________________________________ 75.4 72.8 -2.6 -3 Total________________________________________ 1,027.3 982.7 -44.6 -4 Requirement to use the least costly type of manpower The committee adopted amendatory language proposed by Senator Taft that the Defense Department use. the least costly form of man- power that is consistent ~~=ith military requirements and other needs of the Department. This language requires DoD to consider the ad- vantages of converting jobs performed by military personnel to civilian employees and vice versa. (153) 31-883-74-11 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 154 Other Committee Amendments The committee also recommends two other amendments deleting sections of the bill. that would have had the effect of negating the Congressional strength authorizations for civilian personnel. One section deleted by these amendments tivould allow the Secretary of Defense or the Service Secretaries to increase civilian strengths with- outregard to the numbers of civilian personnel authorized by this title when "direct substitution of civilians for military I~ersonnel (which) will result in economy ti~~ithout adverse effect upon natiomzl defense." The other section that isions MASF authority in prior years allowed the Defense Department to use obligational authority ixx Service line-item accounts from both present and prior year authorizations to fund support to South Vietnam and other free-world forces. MASF was an anxLUal authority and expired at the end of each fiscal year. Since the committee did not include any MASF authority for fiscal year 1975, all unused MASF authority automatically expires at the end of fiscal ,y-ear 1974. Hence the :Defense Department has no authority to use axiy unobligated balances in Service ;'unds for support of South Vietnamese military forces. Indeed, the Defense Department has no authority to obligate any funds for support of South Vietnamese military forces without specific authorization from Congress. The fiscal year 1975 language would authorize fur..ds in support of South Vietnamese military forces which ~~an be appropriated, admin- istered, and accounted for only as a singl=y fund line item. The ration- ale for the merged funding out of reguL~,r service a,apropriations no longer exists. Accounting procedures designed to accommodate supply operations to several allies during heavy combat conditions are now inappropriate. Authorizing a single appropriation for :military support rather than preserving the service-funded approach does not do violence to any prerogatives of the Appropriations Committees. The intent is simply to eliminate the confusion and inaccuracies that have accompanied MASF accounting in previous years. .~ singgle appropriation and account would provide greater visibility to Congress and would be Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : ~~1-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 subject to the ,same auditing and review procedures as any other appropriations account. It would, for example, permit audits by the. General Accounting Office (GAO). In addition, a single appropriation and account would facilitate -the transfer for fiscal year 1976 of military support from the regular military appropriations to the Military Assistance Program. A new procedure for incurring obligations is established in the fiscal year 1975 language whereby funds may be obligated only upon issuance of orders byr the Secretarv of Defense for any military support to South Vietnamese forces. While the issuance of such orders will remain the responsibility of the Secretary of Defense, in practice Chairman Stennis has asked that a "highly competent individual of top reputation" be assigned to take full charge of the South Vietnam military assistance program. This individual should supervise all as- pects of the program. both in the United States and in South Vietnam. All funds authorized for support of South Vietnamese. military forces shall be deemed obligated at the time the Secretary of.Defense issues orders for such support. In addition, no support- of any kind may be made available to South Vietnamese military forces in any manner finless a specific order is issued by the Secretary. This would apply. to rziaking support available through gift, loran, lease or any form of transfer. Under this procedure the treatment of "payback" or the replenishment of U.S. inventories should be separate from the treat- rnent of obligations incurred in support of South Vietnamese military forces. Another new subsection provides that X900 million will be the ceiling limitation for all support to South Vietnamese military forces by this or any other Act. This subsection is merely for emphasis since the Defense Department has no authority to support South Vietnamese military ~ forces other than with .the $900 million authorized by Section 701. Although the Defense Department. has, for example, an estimated X30.4 million. in unused authority for military construction in Southeast Asia, this authority has been available in the past only by annual NIASF authorization and only under past MASF ceilings. Under th.e new single account system any unused construction author- ity applied during fiscal year 1975 for support of South- Vietnamese military .forces. must be tinder the authority of Section 701 and be counted under the ceiling limitation. A further provision sets out restrictions on the valuation of U.S. inventory items obligated for support to South Vietnamese military forces. For regular inventory materials and supplies, the Department of Defense must obligate at replacement cost, that is, the actual cost for acquiring an item of similar condition and model type. Excess materials and supplies must be obligated at actual value. A final provision modifies the reporting requirement for obligations under this section. Unlike past practice, statistical estimates of obliga- tions are not permitted. The Defense Department must report actual obligations in exact amounts and the purposes for which such funds were obligated. h'iscad Yea~? 1975 Request The President's fiscal year 1975 budget requested $1.G billion in obligational authority and included specific budget justification 31-683-74-12 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030012-3 162 for new funds for programs totaling X1.45 billion. Of the $1..45 billion, X287.3 million was for weapon systems and programs requiring authorization. The X287.3 million was spread by accot.nt as-follows: Army missiles--------------------------------------- - $2. 9 ------------- Army tra,c ed combat vehicles---------------- ----- ---_------___ _-- 11. 8 Army other weapons-------------------------------------- ---- 2.7 ----- avy shipbuilding and conversion________________________________-__ 24.9 Navy other weapons-------------------------- ------------------- 0.1 Air Force aircraft-------------------------------------------------- 245.0 ------ Total--------------------------------------- -_ 287.4 Committee Action on IYlASF AuthorizatEion Items The committee recommends approval of X212,300,000 for weapons and other items requiring authorization. Tni`5 is a reduction of X74,978,000. The various programs which are recommendect for re- duction are as follows: T/aousands A-3713 aircraft ----------------------------------------------- --~15, 700 Patrol gunbo:Lts----------------------------------------------- - 15,700 Miscellaneous boats and craft----------------------------------- .9, 200 M-113 armored personnel carrier________________ __________ -9, 400 ----~- M-60 machine gun--------------------------------?----------- - 100 1V1-]25A1 mortar c;tirricr---------------------------,------_----- -800 M-202A1 raclietlaunchur______________________________________ - 100 C-130 cargo aircraft--------------------------------=----------- - 22,000 TOW missile launcher_________________________________________ .2, 000 --- Total authorization items________________________________ -75, 000 Justification for the above items provided to the committee did not substantiate an urgent need for authorization as part of the fiscal year 1975 program. The committee wa: advised by the Defense Department oI' a prob- lem in obh~ating of all c.f the luids ~rorided fc:r Air 1?'vrce aircraft procln?emcnt for F~' 1974, reimbursing the M_!~P account in the amount oi' X69.3 million and, at the. same time, remaining within the overall 11IA~;I' ceilina? of ~1.1~6 billion. As a solution, bhe Del:~artment proposed to defer i'cill fundi~,g of the 71 h-5}u airplane=s authorized in F~ 1974 over to FY 1975. 'l he ccnunitte-~ has adv~: cd the ~ecretar~r to fully f
Agency
About CIA
Organization
Director of the CIA
CIA Museum
News & Stories
Careers
Working at CIA
How We Hire
Student Programs
Browse CIA Jobs
Resources
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI)
The World Factbook
Spy Kids
Connect with CIA
Search CIA.gov Site Policies Privacy No FEAR Act Inspector General USA.gov Site Map