First, four jet engine test cells, deferred on the basis that there is a major discrepancy between Navy and Air Force test cells and equipment. It was the desire of the committee that a study be made of the jet test cells of the Navy and the Air Force with a view toward development of a standard test cell.

The Department of Defense has conducted a study of the jet test cells of the Navy and Air Force and in a letter from the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Properties and Installations) addressed to the Honorable John Taber, House of Representatives, dated May 17, 1954, requested approval of the Navy jet test cells at NAS, Quonset Point, R. I., at the NAS, San Diego, Calif., at the NAS, Alameda, Calif., and at the NAS, Norfolk, Va.

The next deferral was the test and development facilities at the naval air turbine test station, Trenton, N. J., deferred on the basis that a thorough study should be made on the need for these items in view of Air Force facilities at the Arnold Engineering and Development Center.

The Department of Defense made a critical study of the national requirements for large engine test facilities in the light of Air Force facilities at the Arnold Engineering Center and Navy facilities at Trenton, N. J. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Properties and Installations), in a memorandum to the Secretary of the Navy dated April 26, 1954, recommended that the facilities and development at Trenton be continued.

The last deferral which we request you now consider is the aviation facilities for Fallon Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, Nev., deferred on the basis that the Navy should explore the use of existing Air Force facilities in the area. Further consideration should be given to the use of temporary construction at this field especially for personnel facilities.

The Navy representatives who are here this morning, are prepared to justify the need of this field and the desirability of permanent construction.

As I assumed my present duties only yesterday, I request that Captain Lamb of my office present the Navy projects in detail. He will be supported by representatives of the Bureau of Aeronautics. Rear Admiral Perry, Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, is present and will be pleased to answer questions regarding construction details of the projects under consideration.

I thank you for this opportunity to present to your committee these important public-works projects of the Navy.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Admiral Clark, for those explanatory remarks.

NAVAL AUXILIARY LANDING FIELD, FALLON, NEV.

The first of the projects under consideration this morning is the naval auxiliary landing field at Fallon, Nev.

As Admiral Clark mentioned, this has previously been submitted to the committee and we had some questions concerning it and requested the Navy to make further investigation with respect to the questions which were raised.

Is this request we have before us substantially the same one previously considered by the subcommittee?

. Captain LAMB. Yes, sir. We have received authorization in the amount of $5,211,000 for airfield pavements, operation facilities, control-tower, and aircraft-maintenance facilities; that is a hangar, personnel facilities, including barracks for enlisted personnel, subsistence building for enlisted personnel, BOQ and mess facilities for officers, and utilities for the field.

It is a permanent Navy landing field in the State of Nevada. We have a 10,000-foot runway there at the present time. We have modern fuel storage and we have modern ammunition storage.

At your last hearing you inquired if we thoroughly examined Air Force facilities in the vicinity to see if they could make them available for our needs which are purely operational, target practice and bombing practice, for fleet groups sent from the carriers to Fallon for their final training.

We have addressed a letter from the Chief of Naval Operations to the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, requesting information as to whether they could accommodate the Navy requirements at their fields in the Nevada area.

The Chief of the Air Force has replied to the Navy and has stated that it would be impossible to absorb the 125 sorties per aircraft we requested per day in the Air Force fields in that vicinity.

Furthermore, the only airfield is in the vicinity of Reno, it is close to the mountains, and it would be entirely unsatisfactory for the Navy even if there was room for us to move in there.

In Fallon we have excellent targets close to our field. We carry on more and more extensive operations there, and we have every intention of building this up as a permanent naval air facility.

Mr. DAVIS. Is it classified as a permanent installation at the present time?

Captain LAMB. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. Are there any restrictions on full and complete use of this facility in the manner contemplated by the Navy?

Captain LAMB. There are no restrictions whatsoever, sir. We have been very close in cooperating with the county commissioners at Fallon. They are giving us in writing a letter which would restrict encroachment within the vicinity of a mile from the field.

We have had so much difficulty around these cities with jets, and in the future it will be even more difficult, that we have confined the bombing practice to areas where the population is sparse.

There has been no problem of late.

Mr. DAVIS. Do you have similar installations, with similar purposes anywhere along the east coast which would compare to this?

Captain LAMB. Yes. In the Marine Corps in New River we have one. Also in south Texas we have target areas. We have a different problem on the west coast than we do on the east coast.

On the east coast we can conduct some of our bombing practice over the sea.

On the west coast there is a cloud layer at about 25,000 feet off the coast. This cloud layer is there practically daily. The jets are conducting bombing practice from thirty and forty thousand feet and therefore they cannot do much there.

On the west coast there is heavy fishing traffic, mostly fishing vessels. We have examined this project thoroughly, trying to get

target ranges over the sea on the west coast, and it is impossible. We have had to go inland into the desert.

Fallon is one station.

The Mojave Desert is for similar work in the Marine Corps.

Mr. DAVIS. Is there possibility that the Marine Corps might be able to handle this for you at Mojave?

Captain LAMB. No, sir. We have examined that. One airfield can handle so many airplanes. Not only is it governed by the airfield itself but the airspace in the vicinity of the field. We come also into a jam on facilities; there are practically none at Mojave, and airspace in the vicinity of the fields is limited.

Mr. DAVIS. Will the large majority of personnel using this base be of the rotational type?

Captain LAMB. They will be there for approximately 3 weeks to a 1-month period. That is why in our barracks and BOQ facilities we have asked for 100 percent rather than the usual factor of 80 percent and 20 percent.

Mr. DAVIS. What is the situation with respect to your other similar facilities as to permanent versus temporary construction?

Captain LAMB. We have found it is much more economical, sir, in our permanent stations to put in permanent construction which we know will last 25 years.

The reason there is great advantage with permanent construction is because while in the first 5 years there will not be a great deal of maintenance facilities between permanent and temporary, immediately that you get beyond the 5-year period you have terrific maintenance costs in temporary buildings, and maintenance costs on buildings is just throwing money down the drain.

UTILITIES

Mr. DAVIS. Will you give us a statement with respect to this million dollar request for utilities?

Captain LAMB. Those utilities are to construct roads, lay sewerage, lay waterlines, lay electric cable for the following facilities-control tower, the hangar, the barracks, BOQ, and enlisted personnel subsistence building.

Mr. DAVIS. What do you have there in the way of existing construction at Fallon?

Captain LAMB. During World War II we build considerable temporary construction there. At the conclusion of the war this station was inactivated, and it was turned over to the Department of Interior. A great deal of the materials, and even the buildings on the station, were removed. The station was not protected and the Indians just came in there and took everything they wanted.

Now we have a few wooden buildings. We have a wooden hangar, which we are using both as a hangar and barracks building. We have a control tower which has to be abandoned, and consequently the operations stopped, when winds are over 30 knots an hour. We have two wooden warehouses which we have converted into a BOQ, and a subsistence building both for enlisted personnel and the officers. Also we have a small operations building, and we have four sets of very dilapidated quarters on the station.

Mr. DAVIS. What do you propose to do-destroy them if these permanent type facilities are provided?

Captain LAMB. We will demolish them, yes. Maintenance costs are teriffic and there will be no advantage whatsoever retaining them.

BARRACKS AND MESSING FACILITIES

Mr. DAVIS. You have a request for $686,000 for barracks and messing facilities. You are asking for 344 men here?

Captain LAMB. Yes. We propose to construct two permanent 172-man standard barracks, which will give us facilities for 344 men, which will leave us with a deficit of 107.

Mr. DAVIS. The mess hall will be a separate building?

Captain LAMB. Yes, sir. Messing facilities will be attached to the BOQ quarters.

CONTROL TOWER

Mr. DAVIS. As to this control tower request of $179,000, the Navy and Air Force have for all practical purposes the same type of standard control tower, do they?

Captain LAMB. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. The cost appears to be a little higher than that we have been running into in the Air Force requests. What is the explanation of that?

Captain LAMB. I will refer that to Rear Admiral Perry.

Admiral PERRY. We have complete engineering estimates on that. We have the plans and specifications practically complete for this whole job now. That figure is high. Our engineering estimate on that would be $67,000 times a cost factor of 1.3, plus contingencies for errors, that is possible errors in our estimates. Actually therefore the total cost of the job as we estimate it at the present time would be on the order of $90,000 rather than $179,000.

The original request was for $179,000. Our present best estimate, based on plans and specifications for the job, is $90,000.

Mr. DAVIS. Does that include all of the items, such as electronics, collateral equipment, and emergency generators?

Admiral PERRY. No, sir. That is the tower only, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DAVIS. The justifications that we have show the tower at $49,000.

Admiral PERRY. That is right.

Mr. DAVIS. And the rest of this at $130,000. Where does the $90,000 figure you have given me tie in?

Admiral PERRY. One moment, please. Let me get the complete

estimates.

Contractor's estimated-bid price is $67,100 for the tower alone. So the bid price will actually be higher than the equipment which will go in there.

Mr. DAVIS. This $179,000 figure is not a very good one as of now, then; is it?

Admiral PERRY. No, sir. It would be increased by at least the difference between 49 and 67, which is $18,000. $67,000 is a better figure than $49,000, and that is based on a firm engineering estimate. It is based on plans and specifications as presently drawn.

REVISED ESTIMATES

Mr. DAVIS. Have you had any bids on the other items as yet? Admiral PERRY. We have firm engineering estimates on the items, sir. We have no money, so we couldn't take bids on it. However, we do have complete plans and specifications. We have figures based on our best estimates as they stand at the present time.

The total cost of everything at Fallon as presently designed, adding in contingency factors, we presently estimate that at $4,582,000. That is based upon plans as presently drawn.

Mr. DAVIS. That is about 330,000 less than what the justifications show?

Admiral PERRY. That is right, less than the original estimates presented here, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. What would be your best up-to-date revision then of the items which appear on page 3 of the justifications we have before us?

Admiral PERRY. You want this broken down by items, do you not, sir? In other words, all of these figures, I think I should sit here with a pen and figure them out. I have to apply these factors in each of these separate items if you will permit me to, and I will give them to you before we leave here.

Mr. DAVIS. If you will do that just for the record, then. Apparently this figure of $4,912,000 needs to be brought up to date.

Admiral Perry. Yes, sir.

Commander BURKY. That figure of $4,912,000 includes collateral equipment. I would like to ask, sir, if the other estimates include collateral equipment?

Admiral PERRY. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS. We certainly would want all of these figures to be completely comparable before they are put into the record.

Admiral PERRY. Yes, sir.

(The information is as follows:)

NALF, Fallon, Nev., basis of estimate-Based on engineering estimate breakdown-includes all collateral

5. Hangar..

4. Aircraft parking area, 50,000 square yards at $10.50-.

6. Bachelor officers' quarters (100) (without mess) 100 men, $5,575 including collateral

7. Subsistence building (for 100 officers and enlisted men 344)

Total....

AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON

Mr. DAVIS. On page 8 of our justifications there appears an item of $525,000 for aircraft parking apron at $10.50 per square yard. That appears to be considerably higher than other estimates in that general part of the country.