Page images

proposes to enlarge the classroom, storage, and vehicle maintenance spaces to accommodate the present and projected increased load. Marine Corps Reserve Training Center, Galveston, Tex., $313,000

Training center. The next project is for the construction of a Marine Corps Reserve Training Center at Galveston, Tex., at the estimtaed cost of $313,000.

The present training center is used by Army, Navy, and Marine Reserve units. The tracked vehicle maintenance, storage, and water training area, used by the Marine Reserve unit in much of its training operations, is located on the other side of the city, 6 miles distant. The time element and safety factor involved in Marine reservists' crossing the city of Galveston during scheduled drills, is of paramount importance. Continuity of training is disrupted and much time is lost in passing from one training phase to another. The distance between the two facilities creates problems which can only be resolved through the construction of an adjacent facility. The existing center is overtaxed by the occupancy of the units of the three services and will be fully utilized by the other two upon departure of the Marines. Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Training Center, Gary, Ind., $72,000

Vehicle maintenance building. The next project is for an addition to the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Training Center, Gary, Ind., at the estimated cost of $72,000.

Due to reorganization of the Marine Corps Reserve in 1962, this unit was redesignated from a rifle company to two engineer companies in order to form the 4th Marine Division and support units. Since the reorganization, much emphasis has been placed upon the maintenance of recently issued equipment in order to keep the costly tactical vehicles in a combat-ready condition. Such maintenance as can be accomplished is done outdoors. The proposed building is necessary to support maintenance of 19 pieces of equipment such as dump trucks, wheeled cranes, road graders, and tractors. Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Training Center, Mobile, Ala., $54,000

Paraloft building. The next project is for the construction of a paraloft building at the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Training Center, Mobile, Ala., at the estimated cost of $54,000.

Parachute training and operations are a vital part of this unit's peacetime mission. The unit has been operating in space occupied by the 908th Troop Carrier Group, USAF Reserve, located at Bates Field, Mobile, Ala. This facility, however, has been declared excess and the Air Force unit is being moved to Brookley AFB which is unable to accommodate the Marine Reserve unit.

During the months of March through October, the humidity is extremely high in the area. Periodic drying of personnel parachutes is required in the interest of safety and maintenance. This building will serve the purposes of packing, storage, and maintenance of personnel parachutes required in accomplishing the mission of the 3d Force Reconnaissance Company. Marine Corps Reserve Training Center, Richmond, Va., $142,000

Rehabilitation of training center.—The next project is for the rehabilitation of the Marine Corps Reserve Training Center, Richmond, Va., at the estimated cost of $142,000.

This installation consists of six buildings which provide considerably more space than required for training the two units assigned. However, three of these buildings are temporary wood frame structures which are termite infested, and so rotted that they have been condemned. The other buildings are of concrete block construction, in good condition, and can be continued in service by adequate rehabilitation. Rehabilitation will provide for office storage, classrooms, and assembly space presently located in the deteriorated wood frame buildings. Upon completion, the facilities will be adequate and the wood frame structures will be declared excess to Marine Corps Reserve needs. Naval and Marine Corps Reserve training center, Spokane, Wash., $192,000

Training center.—The next project is for the construction of a training center at Spokane, Wash., at the estimated cost of $192,000. Construction is to be concurrent with the Naval Reserve who will be the host service.

The existing facility consists of temporary buildings constructed as an Army hospital in 1942. The deterioration and general unfitness of these buildings was discussed previously under the Navy project.

Naval and Marine Corps Reserve training centers, South Charleston, W. Va.,

Lincoln, Nebr., Abilene, Tew., $119,000 Vehicle maintenance buildings.-The last project in the Marine Corps Reserve ground category is for the construction of a vehicle maintenance building at each of three Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Training Centers, South Charleston, W. Va., Lincoln, Nebr., and Abilene, Tex., at the estimated cost of $119,000.

The reorganization of the Marine Corps Reserve was discussed under the Marine Reserve project at Gary, Ind. The redesignation of these units has imposed a requirement for maintenance buildings which did not previously exist. Adequate space is necessary for the maintenance of 14 costly vehicles at each of these locations. These buildings will be constructed on Governmentowned or leased land presently available. Each will cost approximately $40,000. Continuing authorization, various locations, $673,000

Funding for continuing authorization. The fourth category of Reserve facilities is the the continuing authorization at various locations and provides for certain programwide requirements for which funding approval in the amount of $673,000 is requested. Authorization for these purposes was granted in previous years on a continuing basis.

This request will provide for architectural and engineering costs connected with preliminary engineering and final design of items included in the military construction Naval Reserve program ; for minor construction; and for restoration of damaged facilities under provisions of section 601 of Public Law 85-685.

Senator STENNIS. Is there anything else from the Navy?
Captain CoWART. No, sir.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you, very much. We may send for you now on some of these other items.

If you want to come back, send us word.
Captain Cowart. Thank you, gentlemen, for your consideration.





Senator STENNIS. Gentlemen of the Air Force, if you will come up, we will begin with you this afternoon.

General Curtin, we are glad to have you here. You know the general pattern we are following here. I know you are well prepared. You have a good strong statement here, is that right?

General CURTIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a general statement which I will file, with your permission.' I would also like to make a few comments.

Senator STENNIS. We will be glad to hear you. Your statement will be placed in the record. (The prepared statement of General Curtin follows:) Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we are here to present the Air Force military construction appropriation request for fiscal year 1966.

Secretary Zuckert, General McConnell, and other Air Force witnesses have outlined to you the Air Force accomplishments in the past year and our objectives for the future in support of national policies. The task of providing an Air Force responsive to the broad spectrum of demands that may be placed upon it by nuclear war, conventional war, or guerrilla conflict is manifestly evident in the content of this year's construction program. This program ranges from such extremes as construction in support of exotic space launch booster facilities and over-the-horizon radar systems to the most commonplace but essential facilities such as dormitories and warehouses. There is a direct and solid relationship between each and mission accomplishment, which exists in all cases, but is more evident in some.

The objectives of this year's program are basically two: (1) To provide facilities at our bases necessary to exploit the full operational capabilities of new and continuing weapon systems; and (2) provide some improvements in housing, personnel, and related community facilities for our people.

At this point I will touch on several topics relative to the program as a whole.


For the first time since the fiscal year 1957 program, no appropriations are requested for additional operational strategic, defense, or tactical missile units in the Air Force construction program. Last year's program provided the construction authorization necessary to reach the level of the 1,000 missile MINUTEMAN force. There is a request for a $10 million appropriation for certain modification and improvements to the presently authorized MINUTEMAN and TITAN II facilities.

CONDITION OF FACILITIES The retirement of some of our missiles and aircraft has been previously covered with you. The imminent departure of the first family of missiles and the B-47 from our forces are recent examples. Not so clear cut, so readily identifiable, or well understood are these same forces of obsolescence which work on our base facilities. The need for major modification or outright replacement to meet the newer and more sophisticated weapon system or other demands must be faced squarely.

We have been long concerned about the fact that for the past 15 years our construction programs, although large in dollar value, have been basically oriented to the establishment and support of new and expanding systems and worldwide deployments. Upgrading of existing facilities was extremely limited. We have looked at the condition of our present facilities, and of their capabilities for expansion. We have identified facilities which, with a reasonable expenditure of funds would be suitable for retention, and those which should be replaced at the earliest possible time. Our long-range objective is to evolve a hard core of facilities that are both economical to maintain, and functionally efficient. These facilities must be there to provide an operating base for the Air Force that is responsive to the needs of the current program period and adaptable to the maximum extent to the needs of the future.


The projects in the appropriation request we are presenting to you today have been selected through a review process that includes on-site surveys, design and technical reviews, requirements analysis, full evaluation of existing facilities, and long-range utilization potential. They comprise a reasonable and necessary annual increment of construction which will provide our forces with more effective facility support.

Our objective to provide better facilities has not, in any way, diluted our continuing firm insistence on full and efficient utilization of existing facilities. New construction, or replacement of existing facilities has been requested only when alteraton or adaptation of existing facilities is not considered in the best interest of the Air Force. This policy is reflected by the large number of alteration and addition type projects included in our program.

These have been general aspects of the program. I would now move to some of the details.


Throughout my statement, I will discuss the program in terms of the "total obligational authority,” or total funds anticipated to be available during the fiscal year. This figure includes fund carryovers from prior years.

The following table shows the total obligational authority or program clearance requested for the Air Force in this bill.

Total obligational authority

(millions) Active Forces_

$381.6 Family housing

80.3 Air National Guard..

10.0 Air Force Reserve..



478.9 As separate hearings are scheduled for family housing and the Reserve Forces, I will limit my comments to the Active Forces program which totals $381.6 million.


The Air Force fiscal year 1966 military construction appropriation request for the Active Forces is summarized in the following table :

Summary of Air Force fiscal year 1966 military construction appropriation Inside the United States

$281, 315, 000 Outside the United States..

63, 145, 000 Support activities



381, 560, 000 New construction is requested for the Active Forces at 138 of our major installations worldwide. Of these, 98 are in the United States. The program also provides facilities at a number of other locations and minor sites including those of the A.C. & W. network, communications sites, missile range stations, and smaller sites of classified activities.

Table I, which is attached to this printed statement, summarizes the appropriation requested for the bases assigned to each of the major Air Force commands. In using this table it is pointed out that most of our installations are utilized by more than one command and support more than one weapon system. The total amount requested for a given command includes that for all tenants on bases assigned that command. To better get at figures solely for one command we can examine the appropriations requested in terms of the mission supported or by the program package management techniques now used throughout the Department of Defense. Table II, also attached, summarizes the appropriation request by program package. To provide further detail I will now discuss each package, or mission area.

This “package analysis" will be followed by a brief discussion of this request broken out by construction "category," This latter technique will pull together and summarize for you all the projects of a like type in the program, such as all aircraft shops, all schools, all officers' quarters and so



Construction appropriation requested in support of strategic forces amounts to $36.5 million. We are asking for $10 million for use at existing MINUTEMAN and TITAN II installations. These funds are necessary to make adjustments and modifications to the silos and launch complexes to adapt them for new and improved equipment and techniques of operation. Some $2.2 million is required in support of the B-58 weapon system by stabilizing the shoulders of the runways at Bunker Hill AFB, Ind., and Little Rock AFB, Ark.

Operational facilities for the B-52 and KC-135 forces in their fully dispersed deployment were essentially completed by previous construction appropriations. Under recent base and force consolidations the number of aircraft on certain bases is being increased. At the same time, like models of aircraft are being collocated. This will allow greater efficiency in the stocking of parts and in the utilization of skilled maintenance personnel. Accomplishment of these very desirable goals will require construction of additional blast deflectors and ready crew facilities for the alert aircraft as well as maintenance docks and additional troop housing. Our appropriation request includes $5.2 million for these facilities.

The basic operational facilities to support our newest strategic reconnaissance aircraft, the SR-71, amounting to $8.4 million were previously provided. The home base of the first operational SR-71 aircraft is Beale AFB, Calif. This request contains $1.8 million for personnel support facilities at that installation for the people manning this new system as well as those of other assigned missions.

STRATEGIC SUPPORT Some additional facilities and improvements are necessary to sustain the high level of capabilities and the effectiveness of the currently programed SAC bomber and tanker forces not affected by the previously mentioned consolidation. For these needed improvements, projects amounting to $18.3 million are included. Among the major items are:

(a) Construction of, and improvement to existing dormitories, dining halls, and officers' quarters for SAC personnel, $4.3 million.

(6) Improvement of the community and recreation facilities at our SAC bases by the alteration and construction of additions to existing facilities as well as by new construction at certain locations, $7.6 million.

(c) A project to provide for a significant increase in the water supply to Grand Forks AFB, N. Dak., $2 million.


Hand in hand with the need to maintain and improve our strategic posture is the necessity of keeping our aerospace defense systems at a high degree of effectiveness. This objective is reflected in our construction appropriation request by projects for implementation of new warning and control systems as well as improvements to, and facilities for, our established aerospace defense forces.


« PreviousContinue »