MODIFICATION PROGRAM FOR EC-135 AIRCRAFT

Mr. LIPSCOMB. What is the nature of the modifications you are proposing for the EC-135 aircraft in the amount of $16.4 million?

That

General GERRITY. These are command airborne control airplanes, and I will give you some examples of major modifications. is the airborne launch control capability.

The other thing is to provide secure speech in these command aircraft to permit secure communications between ground and air. This amounts to some $5 million.

Those are the two major items of the $16 million. I could furnish the others for the record, if you wish.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. If you will, please. (The information follows:)

MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED FOR EC-135 AIRCRAFT

ATCRBS (AIMS)-Reporting Beacon that meets U.S. National Standard to permit aircraft to fly in the new Air Traffic Control environment ($200 thousand) Identification, Friend or Foe (AIMS)-Provide a cryptographically secure identification system that will provide positive and rapid recognition of friendly aircraft by friendly ground and surface defense weapon control systems ($100 thousand)

Airborne Launch & Control Center-Provide emergency capability to launch Minuteman missiles no longer under control of their normal ground launch control centers ($8.6 million)

SECURE SPEECH-Provide device to prevent voice interception by the enemy ($5.0 million)

New Communications Equipment-Provide additional capability for the Airborne Command Post ($2.0 million)

Improved Flight Reference System-Modify flight instrument system to modernize, improve operational capability, and increase safety ($500 thousand) Total EC-135-$16.4 million

Mr. LIPSCOMB. How many aircraft do you have that can fulfill the airborne launch control mission?

General CATTON. We are going to

that, Mr. Lipscomb. We have

I believe. I will check now, and we are increasing to next year in this fiscal year, in the 1968 budget. (The information was classified and furnished separately to the committee.)

Mr. LIPSCOMB. What other means do you have for MINUTEMAN launch and command control?

General GERRITY. At the present time, we have launch capability from the launch control centers, which are hardened and buried in the ground, as you know. This gives us redundancy. The missiles can be launched from either one of two launch control centers after getting the signal through proper authority.

MODIFICATION PROGRAM FOR F-101 AIRCRAFT

Mr. SIKES. What is the nature of the modifications in the amount of $21.5 million which are proposed for the F-101 aircraft?

General GERRITY. The major modification is to convert a quantity of these aircraft to an RF configuration to take care of the attrition of RF-101 aircraft. It includes the normal reconnaissance type of equipment that we would have to install.

CLASS IV MODIFICATION PROGRAM

Mr. SIKES. You are requesting $149.3 million for class IV modifications. What is the basis for this increase of approximately 50 percent over the fiscal year 1967 program?

General GERRITY. Actually, the original request we had in the budget for 1967 was $153 million. In December, during our budget discussions with OSD, they cut this down to $100 million.

We considered this much too low, and reclaimed, and subsequently they have increased our fiscal year 1967 amount up to $125 million. We still believe this is a little low because our average in this category since 1959 has been about $162 million per year.

Mr. SIKES. What was it in fiscal year 1967?

General GERRITY. In fiscal 1967, now, it is $125 million. We feel this is a little low and, therefore, we consider $150 million in 1968 to be the minimum.

Mr. SIKES What has brought about this situation?

General GERRITY. It was just an effort on the part of OSD to-
Mr. SIKES. I mean, why is there an increase?

General GERRITY. There is no increase, sir. In our actual experience over the last years since 1959, we have actually expended about $162 million a year. OSD cut us to $100 million last December, and since then it was brought back to $125 million. I think they may have to bring it back higher in order to get us through some of these flight safety MODS that come up from day to day through the year.

PROCUREMENT OF SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS

Mr. SIKES. We will now take up spares and repair parts. Mr. Reporter, insert in the record page 26 of the justifications.

(The page follows:)

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS

[In thousands]

Program requirement, fiscal year 1968-
Program requirement, fiscal year 1967.
Program requirement, fiscal year 1966__

PART I PURPOSE AND SCOPE

$1, 305, 100 1,347, 200 1, 165, 000

This activity provides for the procurement of all spares and repair parts required to support the aircraft being procured, the aircraft in the inventory, the modification and modernization program, and related aircraft support equipment.

PART II JUSTIFICATION OF FUNDS REQUESTED

Provision is made for the procurement of initial spares relating to production aircraft planned for procurement in fiscal year 1968; replenishment spares and repair parts to support Air Force operational and overhaul requirements; modification-modernization spares required for safety-of-flight and major configuration changes, and the spares for common and peculiar aerospace ground equipment (AGE).

Following is a listing of the various spares and repair parts categories which make up the total fiscal year requirements.

Mr. SIKES. Tell us how the current spares and repair parts inventory compares with that of a year ago.

General GERRITY. The spares inventory as compared to a year ago is just about the same. It was about $7 billion of aircraft spares and engine spares as of that time; and as of December 31, 1966, it was almost precisely the same, $7 billion. So, notwithstanding the fact that the value of our end items, aircraft in ventory, has increased, we have kept the spares down.

Mr. SIKES. Do you think this is about the lowest level that is safe? General GERRITY. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have been working to reduce spares through greater accuracy and responsiveness over several years. At the moment, within the ability that we have been able to attain with our computers and improvement in management, I think this is about the minimum. As a matter of fact, I am a little troubled about the amount of money we have for our initial spares in fiscal year 1968.

As I have said to this committee before, we are going to undertake to get the job done within the dollars we have for 1968, but if we made a mistake and cut it too low as our Logistics Command thinks we have, we may have to do some reprograming in that area.

Mr. SIKES. What is the present rate of aircraft out of commission due to lack of parts in South Vietnam compared to that of last year? General GERRITY. It is substantially down, Mr. Chairman. We have an average of slightly over percent for Southeast Asia as of

now.

Mr. SIKES. What was it a year ago?

General GERRITY. A year ago it was on the order of 9 percent. At that time our F-4's were up as high as 14 and 15 percent. Our record as of today is substantially better.

Mr. SIKES. That is quite an improvement. What is the situation other than in South Vietnam?

General GERRITY. On a worldwide basis, it is comparable, roughly comparable. In the ZI it is about 5 percent. It is running about 5 percent or less in Europe.

Mr. SIKES. What was it in Europe a year ago?

General GERRITY. I do not have a specific figure as of a year ago. I can furnish it for the record. It wasn't too bad a year ago, except, again, in the F-4 area. Since that aircraft was being newly introduced into the theater, the experience level was low, and we did not know quite what to accurately provision. Our rates were as high as 15 to 20 percent on that particular model.

Incidentally, we have also improved on our C-141. As of July a year ago it was about 12 percent. It went on up to a peak of 15 percent in August; and as of February of this year that is down to about 5 percent.

(Information requested follows:)

USAFE NORS (AOCP) RATES FOR ALL AIRCRAFT

During the first quarter of CY 1966, the monthly NORS (AOCP) rate for USAFE averaged 5.7 percent.

Mr. SIKES. I am very pleased to hear that.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. What aircraft has the highest rate now? You said the F-4 was your problem a year ago.

General GERRITY. The F-4 was the problem. As of now, our highest rate airplane is the C-130. We have been having some problems with the C-130 with respect to landing gear and some with the engines.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. What is that percentage now?

General GERRITY. It is about 9 percent at the moment. This fluctuates. This is the estimate as of March 20 of this year. I do not see anything that we cannot lick in this problem. It will take us just a little time to get well.

Our target is 5 percent worldwide as an objective. Most of our aircraft fall reasonably close to that objective.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. What is the next one after the C-130?

General GERRITY. After the C-130, it is the B-57 which, as you know, has been going down in quantity, and we have a small number of those left. They are somewhat scattered around the world. That is 6.9 percent.

The next one is the F-4, which averages about 5.9 percent now. That is getting pretty close to a good rate.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. To keep a 5-percent average, you must have some that are doing pretty well percentagewise.

General GERRITY. Yes, sir. For example, the F-102 is 1.2 percent. The F-100 is 3.2 percent. The C-125 is 3.4 percent. I do not have the B-52 figures before me, but they have been running on the order of about 3 percent. The C-135 runs fairly low, 3 percent or under. We do have some that are underneath, and that balances it out.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. That figure for the C-130 is not good.

General GERRITY. I would like to get that one down, and we are working on it.

INVENTORY LEVELS OF WAR RESERVE MOBILIZATION STOCKS

Mr. SIKES. Generally speaking, what are the current levels of war reserve mobilization stocks?

General GERRITY. Overall, they are reasonably good, Mr. Chairman. We have drawn down some of our stocks to initially support Southeast Asia, but our procurement programs have begun deliveries, and we are now catching up.

Mr. SIKES. At the present rate of replacement, when will you be fully caught up to the prescribed levels?

General GERRITY. At the present rates, I would say by the end of fiscal year 1968 we will be in pretty good shape with the exception of a limited quantity of items, such as which we are a little bit

behind on.

Mr. SIKES. I think it would be well for you to show specifically how the level will be improved with the funds requested for fiscal 1968. Break that out in more detail.

General GERRITY. I will do that, sir. (The information follows:)

WAR RESERVE MOBILIZATION STOCKS

The funds requested in the fiscal year 1968 budget estimate will afford limited support for those items applicable to the newer aircraft phasing into the Air Force inventory. A warm production base will be in existence that could be expanded in the event of emergencies. For older aircraft, the Air Force is in a favorable asset position. Specific information as to items and quantities has been deleted due to security classification.

(NOTE: Additional classified information was supplied the committee.)

COORDINATION OF SPARE PARTS PROCUREMENT FOR MULTISERVICE AIRCRAFT

Mr. SIKES. Some of your aircraft are common to the Army and the Navy. In determining Air Force requirements what consideration is given to the status of the other services' inventory of spares and repair parts?

General GERRITY. We have a rather well worked out coordination system on that. In the first place, we go to the Defense Supply Agency center in Michigan, which has a master tape of all of the Federal stock listed items. We determine before we buy anything in a $50,000 or above category total procurement, whether or not the item is being procured by the Army or Navy, whether they have any stock, what their asset position is. We check with them before we buy ourselves. If they are making major procurements of the item, we will use the military interdepartmental procurement request approach to get them to buy the item for us, rather than making two separate buys.

I think this program is working rather well. Of course, under emergency conditions we will oftentimes go direct to expedite an item from the contractor. We have to do that reasonably often as a result of keeping our spares inventory down. We get more expedites in the system and more emergency procurements.

Of course, when we procure on an expedited basis, we do pay some premium for that, but I think overall it is worth it, because as a result of it we are able to keep our stocks lower and we have less obsolescence. Mr. SIKES. I have before me a report to the Committee on Appropriations on the coordination of multiservice aircraft programs. One of the illustrations carried in this report refers to 59 Air Force F-4 airplanes, each reportedly grounded because of the unavailability of a single part. Only 15 different parts were required to return the 59 airplanes to flying status.

It was also disclosed that various quantities of 13 of these 15 parts were available at Navy installations or at Air Force installations other than those where the grounded aircraft were located.