Lapas attēli

b. administrative and logistical support to United States ground forces in Western Europe.

c. command control over assigned forces and other forces as directed by competent authority.


Commander in Chief, USNAVEUR, provides Navy support of Commander in Chief, US European Command and SACEUR. CINCUSNAVEUR is also commander, Eastern Atlantic (COMEASTLANT). The mission of USCOMEASTLANT is to: conduct combat and operational tasks as assigned to assist in gaining and maintaining control in the U.S. Atlantic Command area; provide logistic and administrative support to U.S. Atlantic Fleet (LANTFLT) Forces in the USEASTLANT subarea and the NATO IBERLANT (Iberia/Atlantic) area.

In order to accomplish the above mission, the following tasks have been assigned to USCOMEASTLANT:

1. Exercise operational control of combatant forces as may be assigned.

2. Conduct anti-submarine warfare operations with forces as may be assigned. 3. Exercise operational control of assigned logistic forces and escorts.

4. Provide logistic support, including nuclear weapon logistic support to U.S. LANTFLT forces in the area.

5. Provide administrative support to USLANTFLT forces in the area.

6. Plan for and, when directed, employ forces to close the Baltic exits by mining.

7. Conduct additional offensive mining operations if directed.

8. Be prepared to replenish previously established mine fields.

9. Provide stowage and maintenance of prepositioned mines.

10. Provide protection for underway replenishment group in the area.

11. Conduct NATO meteorological flights.

12. Provide logistic and evacuation support to USCINCEUR, as directed.

13. Maintain custody of U.S. nuclear weapons in the USEASTLANT organization.

14. Control and protect shipping and act as OCA in the USEASTLANT sub


15. Act as CINCLANTFLT's alternate Eastern Atlantic representative for amphibious matters.

16. Provide operational intelligence support to USLANTFLT forces.

17. Coordinate, as required, with LANTFLT commands, CINCUSNAVEUR, and European authorities.

18. Represent CINCLANTFLT in base rights and base construction matters in USEUCOM area.


During the past year HQ USAF, with full participation of the Commander-inChief, United States Air Forces in Europe (CINCUSAFE) and the U.S. Commander-in-Chief, European Command (USCINCEUR), conducted an in depth review encompassed all aspects of the mission responsibilities and functions charged to HQ USAFE, Lindsey Air Station, Germany; HQ Third Air Force at South Ruislip on the outskirts of London, U.K.; HQ 16th Air Force, Torrejon Air Base, Spain: HQ 17th Air Force, Bamstein Air Base, Germany, and those subordinate units providing direct and indirect support, including detachments and operating locations throughout Europe. Primary objectives were to 1) assure that the major command headquarters (HQ USAFE) is composed solely of true headquarters staff functions; 2) streamline the numbered Air Force headquarters to an operational configuration by eliminating or significantly reducing staff management functions (i.e., Personnel, Comptroller, Civil Engineering, etc.), centralizing the latter at major command level where absolutely necessary; 3) realign, consolidate and reduce support functions within subordinate echelons for optimum mission accomplishment and improved management of manpower resources; and 4) sharply reduce aggregate manpower and dollar costs associated with the headquarters management function, and organizationally align those resources to preclude duplicative effort, improve resource management, and assure functional costing and sizing in the future.

The review has been most successful. It resulted in a thorough streamlining of the three numbered air forces and a sharp reduction from an aggregate of

616 to a new total of 166 manpower authorizations. The reorganization reduced the numbered air forces to operational configuration and economically centralized at HQ USAFE the staff management of tactical units throughout the command. The manpower authorizations centralized at HQ USAFE have served to enhance staff capabilities in broad management areas, and to enhance the capability to work directly with tactical wings and squadrons. Major command teams such as Inspector General, Security Performance and Aircraft Maintenance and Munitions were expanded on a centralized basis to perform assistance, standardization and evaluation tasks.

These comprehensive headquarters streamlining actions produced overall savings of 235 manpower spaces, as shown below:

[blocks in formation]

By the summer of 1972, after all reorganization actions have been implemented, the manpower authorizations for the numbered air forces and HQ USAFE proper will represent less than three per cent of the total manpower resources allocated to the United States Air Forces in Europe. In consideration of the enemy threat, the mission, the diversity in weapon systems, the established force levels (In-Theater, Dual Based, Rapid Reactor and follow-on augmentation) and the required command, control and management of tactical units further large headquarters reductions appear unlikely. The review of headquarters functions will continue, however, in the effort to eliminate lower priority requirements, to reorganize and/or consolidate for increased efficiency, and to effect further manpower and dollar reductions wherever possible. By way of example, the planned relocation of Headquarters Third Air Force and several other units in FY 73 from the London area to established USAF bases in Great Britain should produce notable manpower and dollar economies through functional consolidations and reduction of support costs.


USEUCOM (and the U.S. elements of the various SHAPE headquarters), USAREUR, USAFE, and CINCUSNAVEUR are responsible for the management of some 300,000 manpower assets and their costly weapons systems (including nuclear weapons) in the European area. This task requires an experience level which is greater than that required in subordinate commands. Therefore, you will find it normal to have more senior officers in these headquarters because the jobs require the varied experience and expertise that can only be acquired through years of service.


Senator THURMOND. Thank you. I am calling this to your attention because I think it might be worth looking into. I am interested in helping the Defense Department all I can but we continually have these things thrown up to us and I think it is well for us to have an answer to justify the situation if it can be justified. If it cannot, then I am sure you appreciate having it called to your attention for


Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. What reductions in headquarters can you recommend to the committee today and what future reductions do you plan on instituting! I presume that is one you would want to look into.

Mr. KELLEY. Yes, it is; except as I commented on it previously in my statement. We can expand on the subject for the record.

(The information follows:)

I provided your Staff a complete analysis of headquarters manning on 8 February 1972. The analysis showed that we plan an overall reduction of 2,000 spaces in Headquarters in FY 73 over FY 72 (77,300 to 75,300), representing a 2.5% decrease. A discussion of these decreases plus possible future decreases is provided below by Service.


During FY 71, the Army consolidated Fourth U.S. Army with Fifth U.S. Army for a savings of 371 military spaces. The Army currently has three studies underway in an effort to reduce headquarters manning. These are:

(a) Review of the organization and functions of the Army Staff.

(b) TOAMAC—Reorganization of Army Materiel Command to achieve the Optimum Army Materiel Command.

(c) Project Fender-Consolidation of selected subordinate commands and activities of USAREUR.

The results of these studies should reduce the level of headquarters manning.


Fleet headquarters, type command headquarters, and subordinate headquarters have been under review. The review of fleet headquarters was initiated in August 1970 and the review of other headquarters was initiated in September 1970. As a result of the fleet headquarters review organizational improve ments were made, command and control responsiveness was improved and, in addition, staffing reductions of 10% to 15% (FY 71 to FY 73 level) were achieved. These decreases result from the consolidation of Mine Warfare Type Command headquarters (eliminated 82 military spaces); the disestablishment of 22 ship divisions, 4 ship squadrons, and 2 ship flotillas (eliminated 331 military spaces); and the consolidation of functions within retained headquarters.

Navy-wide training functions were realigned at the beginning of FY 72. This resulted in the creation of Chief of Naval Training, the disestablishment of Chief of Naval Air Basic Training and Chief of Naval Air Advanced Training, and the consolidation of Chief of Naval Air Training and Chief of Naval Air Technical Training. The initial savings is 84 military spaces, but potential future significant savings are foreseen.

Currently underway, is a study concerned with headquarters organizations in the Washington area. The objectives of this review is to streamline organizations, eliminate duplication, and accomplish personnel savings.

Further review of fleet headquarters staffs, other headquarters organizations outside of the Washington area, such as the Naval Reserve Training in Omaha, Nebraska, the newly established Naval Training Command in Pensacola, Florida, and the 11 CONUS Naval District Headquarters is planned. The overall naval district organization concept and structure will be reviewed including their staffs. However, any consolidation or elimination of Naval Districts will require amendment to PL 90_110.

AIR FORCE The Air Force is currently completing the broad Air Force initiatives undertaken in late 1970 to streamline their headquarters management structure. This effort entailed fundamental restructuring of each of the principal command and management echelons. It was motivated by :

Concern over headquarters manpower/dollar costs.
Congressional/OSD/USAF desire to reduce/economize.
Apparent duplications in existing management structure.

Existing misalignment of staff versus operating/support functions. The key to the entire effort has been a function-by-function analysis of headquarters activities, to arrive at an accurate identification and accounting of properly constituted headquarters staff functions as opposed to support/operations functions.

Intermediate headquarters are being streamlined to an operational configuration, by either eliminating or significantly reducing staff management functions such as Personnel, Comptroller, Civil Engineering, Material, Administration, Intelligence, Judge Advocate General, Surgeon, History, Inspector General, and Information. (Intermediate headquarters are defined by the Air Force as numbered air forces, air divisions, and similarly constituted organizations between the major air command headquarters and the operational units). In large part, these functions will be accomplished at the major air command level. As a result, and on the basis of thorough function-by-function analysis, some functional centralization at major command level has taken place, with a commensurate increase in manpower resources at major command level devoted to those functions.

Initially 1100 military manpower spaces are being eliminated. Additional savings may accrue as major commands gain additional experience under the new structure.


Senator THURMOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Kelley. I want to commend you for the fine job you are doing over there as Assistant Secretary of Defense.

I have no more questions at this time, Mr. Chairman, unless you are going to General DePuy.

Senator BYRD. If it suits you, Senator Thurmond, Senator Stennis suggested that we adjourn until 2:30 and come back then. Senator THURMOND. Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m., of the same day.)

74-696 O - 72 - pt. 1 - 6

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »