Aircraft Survivability Measures (ASM), RAF Upper Heyford, England. 2. APPROVAL: Host Nation concurs with project. 3. PROPOSED SCHEDULE--ESTIMATE DATES: a. This project has not been prefinanced. b. Request for funds will be made six months after Slice approval by the Ingrastructure Committee. c. Estimated project completion date is 18 months after fund authorization. Question. Why aren't the facilities proposed in fiscal year 1983 NATO-eligible? Answer. These facilities are either in excess of NATO criteria such as the aircraft maintenance unit or are projects that are the user nation responsibility such as the dormitory and the addition to the post office. Question. If the U.S. did not provide the EF-111 buildup, what other alternatives are available? Answer. There is no other aircraft with the performance, capability and systems to satisfy the operational requirements. The EF111A has the capability to perform both penetrating and standoff jamming of enemy emitters. RAF Upper Heyford was selected as the bed-down location because of the commonality between the EF111A and the F-111E. VARIOUS LOCATIONS, EUROPE-WAR READINESS MATERIAL STORAGE FACILITIES, $7,700,000 (PART 2, PAGE 902) Question. The construction annex refers to the $7.7 million war readiness material storage project proposed in fiscal year 1983 as "prepositioned procurement facilities." Is this the Air Force's version of the Army's POMCUS program? Answer. Yes. The Air Force program is the result of an OSD POMCUS type initiative that procures equipment for prepositioning in support of early Air Force responders. Question. Why isn't this project a NATO infrastructure program? Explain why the Army's program is eligible but not the Air Force's program. Answer. The Army POMCUS is eligible only under a special category in this five year slice group called Reinforcement Support Category (RSC). The RSC was approved for ground forces prepositioning and for reception facilities for reinforcing forces. The Air Force work does not fit the criteria. Question. Explain what classes of material will be prepositioned. Answer. The program consists of aircraft load, launch and recovery (class VII major end items) plus a small amount of spare parts (class IX) for preservation maintenance. Question. What have you done to coordinate this program with the Army's POMCUS program? Answer. Our program mirrors the Army's with the objective of reducing strategic airlift by prepositioning items which are needed upon the arrival of early responders. Our program also uses similar storage concepts and facilities. There is no redundancy or duplication. Question. Have you requested that NATO criteria be extended for this type of project? Answer. The Air Force is continuously working to expand the infrastructure program to include more of our requirements. This work is included in our efforts. VARIOUS LOCATIONS, EUROPE-HARDENED LOGISTICS FACILITIES, $4,000,000 (PART 2, PAGE 900) Question. Millions of dollars have been spent to procure Harvest Eagle facilities for defense against chemical attack. Why is it necessary to fund permanent hardening? Answer. No funds have been expended for Harvest Eagle for defense against chemical attack. Harvest Eagle is a mobile tent city which has no protection against chemical attack. Question. Why can't this project be funded through the NATO infrastructure program? Answer. Chemical warfare protection is considered by NATO to be each nation's own responsibility. U.S. ARMY EUROPE VARIOUS LOCATIONS, GERMANY-VARIOUS USAREUR FACILITIES, Question. What is the backlog of Army military construction projects in Europe? Answer. The current (end fiscal year 1983) backlog of construction in Europe is $7.2 billion in constant 1983 dollars. Question. What is the multi-year plan to reduce this backlog? Answer. The current 5-year program will reduce this backlog to $5.0 billion (constant 1983 dollars) by the end of 1988. The long range plan is to reduce the backlog to a management level by 2000. Question. Are any of the fiscal year 1983 military construction projects being considered for German host-nation funding? Answer. As directed by the military construction subcommittee of the HAC the projects for the Master Restationing Plan (both fiscal year 1982 and fiscal year 1983) are included in the total requirement presented to the representatives of the German government on 17 March 1982. Question. This morning, we discussed the master_restationing plan for Germany. What projects included for Vilseck, Germany, are part of the master restationing plan and are to be funded unilaterally? Answer. The following projects are part of the Master Restationing Plan at Vilseck. These projects are included in the MRP requirement presented to the German Government representatives on 17 March 1982. It should be noted that these projects together with the MRP projects approved in fiscal year 1982 greatly improve the living and work |