Commercial technical publications Includes AF-wide requirements for procuring commercially prepared technical books, periodicals, and miscellaneous technical literature. Includes legal publications, ground safety publications, and similar items sold by commercial vendors. COST PER PAGE FOR TECHNICAL DATA (PREPARATION COSTS) Preparation costs of technical data for inproduction items (funded in the procurement appropriation) vary from 80 cents per page for simple indexes to as much as $190 per page for technical illustrations pertaining to highperformance weapon systems. Preparation costs for technical data funded in the operation and maintenance appropriation will cover approximately the same price range as those prepared for inproduction items. The major portion of Air Force administrative publications are developed by inservice personnel, with the writing being accomplished by staff personnel at Headquarters, USAF, and several levels of command. The pay of civilian personnel accomplishing the writing of these publications is chargeable to the operation and maintenance appropriation. This effort is performed by many individuals as only one of several duties. The cost of preparation (developing, writing, reviewing, art, etc.) must be estimated, since records of these costs are not maintained. Experience indicates however, that this preparation cost may vary from $2 to as much as $36 per page, exclusive of printing costs. It is estimated that the average Air Force administrative publication can be prepared, up to the printing stage, for $18 to $20 per page. TOTAL AIR FORCE PRINTING COSTS, FISCAL YEAR 1962 $36, 976 In thousands Air Force-wide printing and reproduction under project 434, operation and maintenance appropriation__ Operation of nonindustrially funded Air Force printing plants (O. & M. appropriation) – Contractual preparation and printing of target graphics, geodetic data, navigation and planning charts (O. & M. appropriation). Printing and reproduction procured under the Air National Guard Medical printing (project 474, O. & M. appropriation). Reproducible copy of technical data for inproduction items funded Total_ Mr. LIPSCOMB. Thank you. 4,825 3, 100 22 347 168 1, 246 90,000 136, 684 BOMB ALARM Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Minshall. Mr. MINSHALL. I have some questions that came up last year over the proposed bomb alarm system. At that time they said the cost figure would be approximately $1.8 million, not to exceed a leveling off period, as they called it, of $2 million. Maybe it would be better to withhold my questions about this until Major Ewell's statement? I think he has something in his statement about it. Mr. ANDREWs. Is that on communications? Mr. MINSHALL. Yes, sir, and I understand we will have a statement from the Major. General FRIEDMAN. We could bring it up when we discuss the communications area. LOGAIR CONTRACTORS Mr. MINSHALL. Going back briefly to this LOGAIR, you gave a list of the contractors for LOGAIR. Is that all of the contractors? It does not include any smaller contractors under a miscellaneous item? General FRIEDMAN. No, sir. Mr. MINSHALL. How many were there all together? I was thinking of Mr. Flood with his Beechcraft. General FRIEDMAN. For the past several years there have been four contractors, however, the individual contractors vary by year. Mr. MINSHALL. In other words, you have need for the smaller operators for short haul routes or lighter loads? General FRIEDMAN. No, sir; this is pretty bulky cargo we are talking about here. SUPPLY OPERATIONS AT CHATEAUROUX DEPOT Mr. MINSHALL. General Friedman, in your statement at about pages 14 and 15 you talked about Chateauroux as a supply base in France. I was there several years ago. It is not too far from Paris, as I recall. At that time it was pointed out to us as being one of the key Air Force installations for supplying all the Continent of Europe. Now I see that it has been turned over to NATO. Who is operating that? General FRIEDMAN. We are operating it. Mr. MINSHALL. Could you explain it more for us? General FRIEDMAN. Yes, sir. We have established a central supply point in Europe which provides a service of resupply to the NATO forces and we have a depot maintenance facility there. At one time when we were dependent on oversea supply activities for our own purposes, it was a very essential element in our supply system. However with the advent of airlift capability that can supply much of the material from the Zone of the Interior, we have pulled our supply operations back from overseas. As I indicated, we are closing out our activities in the Pacific, and we have closed out activities in Africa, and Chateauroux is the only one remaining overseas, primarily for the purpose of acting as a NATO supply center. Mr. MINSHALL. Is it still operating at the same level as it was several years ago or have you reduced its operations? General FRIEDMAN. Its operation has been reduced. Mr. MINSHALL. I wondered if you could supply for the record just how much it is being used and very briefly, so we will have something to go on. General FRIEDMAN. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) SUPPLY OPERATIONS AT CHATEAUROUX Several years ago the Air Force instituted the improved logistics program which was designed to reduce the requirement to maintain large quantities of inventories in oversea areas to logistically support the combat forces. This was determined to be feasible and economical by the adoption of the direct supply support of modern weapon systems from resources in continental U.S. depots. The combat units in these oversea areas requisition their requirements on the depots in the United States and the required materiel is shipped by air or surface through the oversea aerial or water ports to the operating base. The employment of the direct supply support concept resulted in the reduction of inventories in oversea areas, reduced the vulnerability of Air Force assets, reduced the costs of operating and maintaining the oversea depots, assured rapid responsive supply to the using units, released personnel for reassignment to other Air Force functions and reduced the overall Air Force manpower requirement. For example in fiscal year 1959, there were 2,347 personnel assigned to the Air Materiel Forces, Europe, and as a result of the phasing down of the logistics mission the curent requirement has been reduced to an average of 820. The current supply operations at Chateauroux are in support of the NATO units, and all grant aid to NATO countries is being channeled through this depot. This is in consonance with the Department of Defense objectives of developing an integrated logistical support system for NATO. The NATO countries including the United States provide the personnel to perform the supply functions such as stock control shipping, receiving, packing, crating, inventory, and procurement. The Air Force at the request of the general manager of the NATO supply and service agency is providing the management services for the NATO supply center. In addition to the supply operations at Chateauroux, maintenance facilities are being utilized by the Air Force and the NATO Supply Center by contractual arrangement with a French/American company. The labor force available to the contractor provides an output of approximately 900,000 direct man-hours of effort. Utilization of the facility by the Air Force is expected to be continued indefinitely. AIR ACADEMY Mr. MINSHALL. I was much interested also in your statement, General, about reducing your cost at the Air Academy. I think the Air Force is to be commended on that, but it is such a substantial reduction I wondered if you would tell us briefly just how you made these marked reductions so quickly. General FRIEDMAN. First of all, when we talk about per cadet cost, you can make a cost reduction simply by increasing the man-years or the number of cadets who are attending the Academy. As we pointed out, at the time when we gave our initial figures, the Academy had just started and had a very small class. Therefore, we were in no position to compete with the other services on a per cadet cost. Since that time we have increased the number of cadets at the Academy from a number of perhaps 200 or 300 to a leveloff on the order of 2,500 cadets. This, of course, is the major reason for the reduction in per cadet cost. On the other hand, however, there were reductions made in the military personnel staff. General Stone has done a wonderful job out there insofar as I am concerned in cutting out everything that just did not have to be there in order to operate properly. I think he deserves a tremendous amount of credit for reducing the per cadet cost. He made extensive reductions in his staff and other operating-type activities, not specifically required to maintain the standards we want to see maintained there. Mr. MINSHALL. Thank you, General. Also, I believe in your statement you gave a brief discussion and some figures on how much reduction you made in your air safety program, the number of accidents. General AGEE. It was in my statement. Mr. FORD. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. MINSHALL. Yes. Mr. FORD. I would like to ask a question following the statement made by General Friedman. We retained in fiscal 1961 a limitation on the O. & M. costs for expenditures that could be made for the Air Force Academy. What was that figure? General FRIEDMAN. $16 million, sir. Mr. FORD. Which was slightly less than what the budget presentation asked for a year ago. What was that figure, $16.8 million? General FRIEDMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. FORD. Have you been able to live within that limitation? What are the facts? General FRIEDMAN. We have not only lived within it, we are slightly under it. Due credit goes to General Stone on this, and I think we had an incentive here. Mr. FORD. What is the estimate for fiscal 1962? General FRIEDMAN. $16,029,000. Mr. FORD. $16,029,000? General FRIEDMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. FORD. It is cutting it pretty thin. General FRIEDMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. FORD. Are you asking for the removal of this limitation? General FRIEDMAN. I am, sir. In this particular instance I am not asking for it on the basis that it represents a severe administrative problem. I think it would be an accolade to General Stone to remove this limitation, and he has given me his personal assurance that if it is removed, he will pursue the economies that he has pursued before, and if he does not need $16,029,000, he will not use the total amount. That has been the case ever since he has been out there. I think this would be a fine gesture on the part of this committee in response to the work he has done out there. Mr. FORD. What did he cut out that permitted him to save $800,000 or more? General FRIEDMAN. The staff principally, would be one of the principal areas of reduction. Mr. FORD. Thank you. Mr. MINSHALL. What would be the other major areas of reduction aside from staff? Of course, that is the basic one. This reduction in no way affects the efficiency or quality of the training? General FRIEDMAN. It has not. He has not done that in any way. As a matter of fact, I would say clear across the board the record out there gets better in terms of the type of boys we are turning out. They are doing a wonderful job in the field of education. The level in competitive tests with the best colleges we have in this country on a personto-person basis and on an average basis is right up on the top in educational standards. I think Colonel Smith would like to speak to this if we have time. ATTRITION RATES AT AIR ACADEMY Mr. MINSHALL. Is not your ratio of voluntary withdrawals on the part of cadets higher at the Air Force than it is at the other two Academies? Colonel SMITH. We found that the ratio is comparable to the other Academies. The first year or two it was slightly higher, but a settlingdown process has occured, and we find now we are at about a comparable level. Mr. MINSHALL. What do you mean by slightly higher at the beginning? Colonel SMITH. Sir, my recollection-and I can correct this-is in the neighborhood of 5 to 7 percent. Mr. MINSHALL. What is it now? Colonel SMITH. Excuse me. I was talking about slightly higher than the other Academies. Are you talking about overall attrition rate? Mr. MINSHALL. Yes; what is your attrition rate? Colonel SMITH. The attrition rates are running approximately 30 percent. I have some details of them. Class of 1959 was 32 percent, class of 1960 was 28 percent. This is overall, sir, from the beginning until the completion of work. Mr. MINSHALL. When does most of this attrition take place? Mr. MINSHALL. How much of the 30 percent is in the first year? Colonel SMITH. I will estimate, sir, that 20 to 22 percent of it occurs within the first year, if I may correct that for the record. Mr. MINSHALL. Will you correct that for the record and give us an accurate figure on that? Colonel SMITH. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) ATTRITION-AIR FORCE ACADEMY A complete record of attrition experienced at the Air Force Academy is presented below. Losses are indicated for each class by year (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior) in which they occurred. Data indicates the number of cadets attrited by class, by year and the percentage such attrition constitutes of total entering class strength. Average attrition experienced during the fourth class year by the classes of 1959 through 1963 inclusive was 18 percent. The class of 1964 is excluded from this computation since it has not completed its fourth class year at this time. Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if at this point we might have in the record the per pupil cost, if that has not been covered, at the Air Force Academy. Mr. ANDREWS. We asked them yesterday to put that information in the record. FLYING SAFETY RATES Mr. MINSHALL. You had some very significant rates in your flying safety figures that you gave on page 24 of your statement. The rates |