1948, there were 300 qualified applicants for the 60 vacancies at the Submarine School. In 1954, the school quota had increased to 120 for which there were only 209 applicants. Complete figures on applicants for the next class convening at the Submarine School in July of this year will not be available until March 1, the deadline for applications. However, as of today there are 90 applicants for 120 vacancies only 75 percent of the number required. A new level of dangers faces the young man now considering flight and submarine service as we approach 100 percent jet operation and the atomic submarine. As the President stated in his message to the Congress on January 13, 1955, jet flying is ranked by insurance companies as the most hazardous of all occupations, and premium rates are almost prohibitive for the young jet flyer. So long as these services must be staffed by volunteers the incentives offered must be adequate to attract and retain the number required to maintain peak performance capabilities. These first charts have illustrated the extent of the problem of instability and have shown that it is common to all services with respect both to officer and enlisted personnel. Secretary BURGESS. It is a fact that as personnel turnover increases, the cost of training must also increase. This chart gives an idea of the dollar investment we have in personnel. (Chart follows:) THE BASIC TRAINING INVESTMENT IN 100,000 MEN AMOUNTS TO $320,000,000 Nearly 1 million men-one-third of the planned size of the active forces will become eligible for some form of release during the coming year. At the present overall reenlistment rate of about 24 percent it will be necessary to replace about 750,000 of these men during the coming year. It costs approximately $3,200 to give basic training to each replacement, which will mean an outlay of nearly $212 billion. If an additional 10 percent of the million men can be induced to reenlist, an investment of $320 million would be preserved, an amount equivalent to the cost of 985 jet interceptors. Mr. BLANDFORD. May I interrupt at this point, Mr. Chairman. I would like to develop that $3,200 basic cost, or the cost for basic training. We have used it frequently and every time we do we are always questioned on how we arrive at that figure. Secretary BURGESS. I believe we have some data on it here. Mr. BLANDFORD. It is based out on a 6-month average. Secretary BURGESS. The figure of $3,200, which has been used in various statements as representing the cost of training a replacement, enlisted man, was calculated by the Comptroller, Office of the Secretary of Defense, as an average cost figure. It assumes an average overall training period of 6 months comprised of about 4 months basic and 2 months advance training. Travel and leave were included for the trainee and for the trainor, and support personnel. And I might just mention to the counsel of the committee that this figure is different than the one that we are using in the Reserve plan because of the difference in pay. This man gets $78, I believe is the figure, and the man under our Reserve program would be $30. The estimate, I think this is the answer to your question, includes cost factors for a 6-month period, as follows: (1) Pay, allowances, subsistence, clothing, travel, and welfare of the trainee, (2) pay, allowances, subsistence, clothing, travel, and welfare of support and training personnel, assumed at a ratio of 1 person to 2 trainees, and (3) the adjusted maintenance and operations cost are chargeable to both support and training personnel and to trainees. Mr. BLANDFORD. Just adjusted to it? In other words, I want to make that clear, that the camp would stay there, regardless of whether you had anybody there or not. Secretary BURGESS. That is right. Mr. BLANDFORD. But you are using ammunition, heat, food, overhead, that sort of thing. Secretary BURGESS. That is right. Mr. WILSON. This is a very inadequate figure because it doesn't take into consideration at all any technical training. Mr. BLANDFORD. All it does is take into consideration 2 months' additional advance training. Secretary BURGESS. Toward a technical skill. Mr. BLANDFORD. We must go further to see what it costs to train people who really have acquired a skill. This is just to make a man an able-bodied seaman or airman, third class, so that he knows what an airplane looks like. Mr. WILSON. In other words, you figure it take 6 months to replace one body with another body. Mr. BLANDFORD. Basically, it is more than that. Because this $3,200 is only the initial investment in the man. Then any schools beyond that he attends increases the investment. This is a very conservative figure. Mr. WILSON. I should say. Mr. RIVERS. Would you call this an indoctrination period? Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Gavin. Mr. GAVIN. I want to sympathize with my very good friend, the Secretary. He certainly turns in a magnificent performance. In fact, I sat with him all day yesterday on the manpower legislation; we got into this particular angle, and merely for the edification of the committee, this is $320 million for 6 months for approximately $640 million appropriation would have to be set up for a year. Now, what I was discussing with the Secretary yesterday, was that this is merely the initial cost for training, that we don't get the full picture as to the appropriation that would be necessary, because, along with this, you are going to have the armories, and the training facilities, and the planes and the tanks and the jeeps and the guns, and the end items to build up this initial program for manpower. So these figures here indicate exactly what I was trying to get at yesterday, that this is one idea of this just a straight out and out indoctrination and training, and that this program is going to cost a considerable sum of money. I merely bring that point to the attention that this covers merely training and not those incidentals that are so necessary and essential if we want a good Active Reserve, an alert, hard-hitting Reserve group. Secretary BURGESS. I just would like to state, Mr. Chairman, in commenting on Mr. Gavin's comments that this is an active force program as compared to the one yesterday, that we were talking about a Reserve program. Here is where we are trying to keep the man in the active forces so that we can cut down on our training lead, cut down if you please, on our training facilities. So that we get a career-man active force. In our presentation yesterday, of course, we did get into the fact that we need more facilities around the countryside for a better Reserve program. Mr. GAVIN. But we also come back to 100,000, which is the fourth class 100,000 group in the manpower legislation. Secretary BURGESS. He does not enter into these statistics. Mr. GAVIN. This is a good illustration because that is going to come up. Here is the 100,000 group, again. Mr. RIVERS. This group, when you finish with them, they go into the Reserve, they go into the category about which he was speaking. Secretary BURGESS. Yes. Mr. BATES. That 10 percent figure that you have there, do I understand if you increase reenlistments by 10 percent you stated you could save some $320,000,000 a year? Was that your statement? Secretary BURGESS. Yes; it would retain an investment of $320,000,000. Mr. BLANDFORD. It is far in excess of that. Secretary BURGESS. I am sure Mr. BATES. Last year, when we passed the reenlistment bonus, it was estimated if we increased by 5 percent, would save $75 million or break even. Mr. BLANDFORD. Break even. Mr. BATES. That was your break-even point on a 5 percent basis. Now, we have 10 percent, instead of being 150, which would be twice 75, we have 220 and the counsel stated and you agreed it would be considerably in excess of that. Mr. BLANDFORD. Let me explain my statement. I think we have to bear in mind the $3,200 here is just like the initial cost for a layette and diapers for a new baby. The cost really comes afterward when you start training them. But for the first 6 months of this young recruit's experience in any branch of the service, it averages out at $3,200. Now, if you just trained him as an infantryman and said "This is a rifle and here are the squad movements," and dropped it, then your initial investment in that man would remain at approximately $3,200. But thousands, literally hundreds of thousands of these people go after this basic training to a radar school or a motor transportation school or a thousand different types of schools. Then the investment starts to double and triple and quadruple, and eventually we get to jet pilots—or radar and B-47 crews and the figures become fantastic. Mr. BATES. I understand that. But, of course, basic training has nothing whatsoever to do with reenlistment because that is the period of the full cycle. Mr. BLANDFORD. It does. Secretary BURGESS. That reduces our requirements for people to come into the new training cycle. Mr. BATES. I understand that. But Mr. Blandford talked about merely the 4-month period. Mr. BLANDFORD. Six months. Mr. BATES. Whatever it might be. I am talking about the entire reenlistment period and that is what we were talking about a year ago on the reenlistment bonus bill and I presume that is what you are talking about here on your 10 percent; is that right? Secretary BURGESS. Here we are trying to reduce our new intake by about 10 percent. Mr. BATES. I understand. Your 10 percent, that is to increase reenlistment at the end of your 4-year cycle or whatever it might be, that is the entire period. Secretary BURGESS. Yes. Mr. BATES. That is what it was a year ago on the reenlistment bonus, the entire period? Secretary BURGESS. Well Mr. BATES. The only comment I wanted to make was last year the 5 percent was $75 million and now 10 percent is $320 million. Mr. RIVERS. That is a good argument for raising congressional salaries, shows you expenses have gone up. Mr. BATES. It is part of the original point that Mr. Blandford mentioned, every time we have new hearings we pull out a new figure. Secretary BURGESS. That is a conservative figure. Mr. WILSON. If we reduced our number of men in training in camps in each year by 100,000, 100,000 fewer men each year in training, it would reduce our cost some $320 million, is that per year, or is that for the total amount of an enlistment? 55066-55-No. 6-7 Secretary BURGESS. It will protect an investment of $320 million per year. Mr. WILSON. Per year? Secretary BURGESS. Yes. Mr. WILSON. In other words, if we can get enlistments so if we train in the future 100,000 we will save $320 million? Secretary BURGESS. We will protect that investment. Mr. HARDY. Actually it would save us a great deal more than that. Secretary BURGESS. Yes. Mr. HARDY. Because this only takes into account the basic training and these boys, a whole lot of them are going to have to go through this specialized training in order to be able to replace the fellow who went out. Secretary BURGESS. If we can reduce the turnover, it reflects itself into future fewer accidents, less loss of material, cuts down on the movement figure, moving people from station to station to make up replacements. There is no end to the translation of the savings. Mr. HARDY. I am willing not to try to hold you to that increase, since you went up from 75 to 320 Mr. RIVERS. This is a conservative figure and the thing is endless in a conjectural amount. Secretary BURGESS. That is right. Mr. RIVERS. Take a B-47 flyer, it takes over 24 months to train them. Secretary BURGESS. That is right, sir. Mr. RIVERS. If you get him to reenlist you just stop that. Secretary BURGESS. May I just make one comment? I want to point out to Mr. Gavin that the 100,000 on this chart bears no relation to the 100,000 I presented yesterday. These figures are limited to basic training costs only. It costs much more to train a man in typical technical skills, such as electronics, armament, or aircraft maintenance. In addition, a substantial number of experienced training personnel could be returned to operational duties. A reduction of 100,000 trainees would release approximately 30,000 instructors, supervisors, and support personnel in basic training activities alone. Additional instructors could be released from technical schools. It costs $120,000 to train a jet pilot. Secretary BURGESS. During fiscal year 1956 a total of 4,500 pilots will leave the service, representing an investment of $540 million. A 25-percent reduction in this loss of trained officers would preserve $135 million of this investment, the equivalent cost of 415 jet fighters. While the dollar cost is significant, the loss of experience and operational efficiency is of even greater importance. Secretary BURGESS. Records of the Air Force provide convincing evidence that the loss of experienced men from the services is costly in materiel as well as in men. Mr. BLANDFORD. May I interrupt at that point? The only reason I am doing so, Mr. Chairman, is to make sure that we all understand what these training-cost figures are and that we don't get stumbled up on the floor with this thing. Just how do we arrive at this $120,000 cost figure, Mr. Secretary, for training a jet pilot? Secretary BURGESS. I am going to ask Admiral Grenfell to go through these figures. |