This does include the substitute items, of course, sir, the M-1 rifle instead of the M-14 and the other substitutes that are currently available and necessary to meet our authorized requirements.

Mr. ANDREWS. We will get into that later.

Mr. FLOOD. I hope we will.

INCREASED COSTS OF ARMORED DIVISION

Mr. ANDREWS. General, the cost of an armored division increases 9 percent while the cost of an airborne division decreases 3 percent as between 1960 and 1961. What is your explanation of that variation? General DUFF. As far as the cost of the armored division is concerned, sir, I believe that it principally relates both in the increased cost of the major items, the major weapon items in the armored division, the M-60 tank, for example, the M-113 armored personnel carrier and the ammunition, the new ammunition for the tanks that are now available as well as the ammunition for the tanks that will become available. I believe this is the principal reason. In addition there is an aerial surveillance platoon which has been added to the armored division and this contributes to the cost. There are a number of other weapons, sir, such as the tank recovery vehicle, radar sets of all types and radio sets, aircraft, helicopters, as well as the new family of the 7.62 millimeter weapons. These are the principal items.

General GEE. If I may elaborate on that, the airborne division was not reorganized as was the infantry and the armored division, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANDREWS. It looks like every time you reorganize you add to the cost.

General GEE. That is true in this case, but it is not necessarily true. General DUFF. Mr. Chairman, I think it is not solely due to the reorganization that we have had the increased cost. The increased cost would have taken place in a lesser amount, even if the reorganization had not occurred because of the increased cost of the weapons that are being made available to the division, plus the fact that these weapons are somewhat more complex.

Mr. ANDREWs. More electronics.

General DUFF. The repair parts are more expensive than before, so the maintenance of the weapons is more costly.

Mr. ANDREWS. Do you find the cost of weapons is continually increasing?

General DUFF. This has been our experience over a number of years, Mr. Chairman.

HAWK BATTALIONS

Mr. ANDREWS. The cost of a HAWK battalion is shown here at in excess of $1 million. Yet the Marine Corps tabulation shows a cost of only one-half that much.

What about that? Are you familiar with their costs?

General DUFF. I am familiar with the cost as far as the Army HAWK battalion is concerned; wherein the difference lies between this and the Marine battalion I am not sure, but since the basic items of equipment are the same, I am sure it must mean that the organ

ization of the Marine unit is at a lesser density as far as the weapons are concerned than that of the Army unit.

Mr. ANDREWS. I wish you would take a look at that and supply something for the record because if the Marine Corps can operate a HAWK battalion for one-half as much as the Army, the Army ought to learn something from the Marines.

Mr. FLOOD. The reason the chairman is saying that is the Marines buy food for $1.08 and the Army buys it for $1.20. It is the same food.

Mr. ANDREWS. Rations. And the Marine Corps told us they bought the food from the Army and yet they fed a man overseas for $1.12 a day and the Army cost is $1.20 a day.

General DUFF. This is in the "Military personnel, Army," appropriation, sir, and the Army buys the food for all of the services. Mr. ANDREWS. That is right.

General DUFF. I did not realize that there was a difference between the costs and if you wish, sir, I will at this point in the record provide a comparison.

Mr. FLOOD. We have been through that.

Mr. ANDREWS. It is already in the record that the Marine Corps buys most of their food from the Army. They have about the same menu but yet they feed their troops overseas for 8 cents a day less than the Army.

General DUFF. Sir, I cannot explain that.

Mr. ANDREWS. We are going to have a briefing on that. That is quite a difference in cost.

General MOORE. That is being prepared, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FLOOD. That is why the chairman wonders when he sees the Marine HAWK battalion and an Army HAWK battalion, what is this, some more of the same?

General DUFF. I would believe it is not, sir, but we will provide a comparison for the record.

Mr. ANDREWS. I wish you would do that. I wish you would take a look at the cost sheet of the operation of a HAWK battalion by the Marine Corps and have some of your men talk with the Marines and find out where the difference is for the cost, yours being twice as much as that of the Marine Corps.

General DUFF. We will provide this for the record, sir. As you know, these costs as stated represent both initial investment and annual maintenance. In providing it for the record, I would divide it in this way, by initial investment or equipment cost, and by the annual operating costs.

(The information follows:)

Difference in Army and Marine estimated costs for a semimobile HAWK missile battalion

The annual operating costs of a U.S. Army semimobile HAWK missile battalion are estimated to be:

Total.....

Pay and allowances.

Other military personnel costs

Replacement training.

Direct operating costs 2.

Depot maintenance.

Replacement of equipment..

Annual service firing..

[In millions]

Other operation and maintenance costs ..

1 Includes clothing, subsistence, and PCS costs. Includes allocable portions of budget program 2000.

3 Includes supply, medical, and armywide activities. Operation and maintenance of facilities is distributed proportionately among all operation and maintenance activities shown.

From data available to the Department of the Army, the reason the estimated operating costs for Marine HAWK battalions appear to be lower than those for Army battalions is that the Marine estimates include only costs for pay and allowances and depot maintenance both of which are comparable to those shown above for the Army. The Army estimates, as shown above, cover all costs properly chargeable to such battalions (additional classified information has been furnished separately to the committee.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Does the Army furnish the missiles to the Marine Corps?

General Durr. The Army procures all of the HAWK missiles, yes, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. We will adjourn until 2 o'clock, gentlemen.

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. ANDREWS. The committee will come to order.

General, we had just finished discussing the cost of operating a HAWK battalion by the Army as compared to the cost of operation by the Marines.

NATO INFRASTRUCTURE

We note that the Navy justifications refer to support of NATO infrastructure. Is such support also provided by the Army, and to what extent?

General DUFF. Such support is provided to all services, Mr. Chair

man.

Do you refer to the oversea deployment in Europe for the Army? Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

General DUFF. I will provide that information for the record. (The information to be supplied follows:)

NATO INFRASTRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS Infrastructure is a special NATO term referring to military and logistical construction which is approved for joint financing by the NATO nations and built to NATO specifications in accord with NATO approved programs. The

costs of such construction are identified as infrastructure costs. U.S. infrastructure costs are carried in the annual mutual security appropriation and for fiscal year 1962 are shown at page 567 in the fiscal year 1962 President's budget. United States and other forces using NATO infrastructure facilities are liable to the host countries in which these facilities are located for reimbursement of normal operation and maintenance costs associated with their particular usage. These charges have no relation to the NATO infrastructure costs in the annual mutual security appropriation.

Mr. ANDREWS. How is this related to the NATO infrastructure appropriation in the annual mutual security appropriation?

General DUFF. I am not sure I understand the question.

The mutual security program, of course, provides aid, worldwide, to our allies. The infrastructure provisions, in a sense, are a return of benefits we get from countries to which we provide assistance under the mutual assistance program.

Mr. ANDREWS. I was speaking about the construction work that goes on overseas.

General DUFF. An attempt has been made in recent years, to the maximum extent possible, where construction is required for our oversea units in foreign countries where aid is sought for the country in which we may have troops, for the construction to be provided by them.

In some cases, for example field installations for the HAWK battalions going in to support the 7th Army in Europe, and to support all our commitments in Europe, the construction is of a type that normally would not provide a particular residual benefit as far as the country in which it is to be erected is concerned, because there would be such things as hardstands, readyshacks and things of that sort which would be more of a temporary nature.

So in a situation of that sort, this construction would be provided by the Army out of our appropriations. But where it is a permanent installation, the attempt is first made, where an installation of this sort is necessary in the accomplishment of the mission, to have it provided by the country in which the troops would be temporarily resident.

AIR DEFENSE TRAINING AT FORT BLISS

Mr. ANDREWS. In the Air Force operation and maintenance program for 1962, a savings of $4 million is claimed as the result of conversion of ballistic missile training from a contract to an "inhouse" basis. After all the years of experience with the NIKE family of weapons, why is it necessary for the Army to contract for the programing, course content, and instruction at the Air Defense School at Fort Bliss?

General DUFF. The major portion of this instruction is provided as an "inhouse" capability. Are you talking about the NIKE instruction?

Mr. ANDREWS. The whole Air Defense thing.

I have a note that says the contract at Fort Bliss with Philco Corp. provides a minimum of 180 man-years, or a maximum of 260 manyears, at cost of $1.5 million minimum up to $2.2 million maximum. Projected employment for June 30, 1961, is 204 technicians, with fourth-quarter student load of 1,757, or 1 contract technical person for each 812 students.

67438-61-pt. 27

General DUFF. I will secure the information for the record. This is a relatively small portion of the workload at Fort Bliss. I would assume these are technical representatives of the Western Electric Co., or Philco in this particular case.

I will secure this information and provide it for the record. (The information to be supplied follows:)

The number of contractor technicians serving as instructors on AJAX has been reduced as the Army has gained an inhouse capability. Technical instructors are primarily being used in our more recently introduced missile systems, such as NIKE-HERCULES and HAWK, and fire control systems such as missile master/missile monitor and battery integration and radar display equipment. As the Army gains inhouse capability in the above systems, technical instructors will be reduced accordingly. As new weapons systems are introduced into the Army it is necessary to contract initially for preparation of new course content and for instruction by technical instructors who are schooled and trained in the system until an inhouse capability can be obtained by the Army.

Mr. ANDREWS. Here is a list of them showing contract technical instructors. Each one of these is a separate individual on this sheet at the Air Defense School at Fort Bliss, Tex.

Mr. LACROSSE. The Philco people have tried to increase the number of representatives down there but primarily for policymaking functions, which the Army cannot acquiesce to because it would involve a change in doctrine. These technical representatives are primarily the instructors for Army instructors. In other words, the Army instructors are trained and schooled by the Philco people. They have been on this work for a number of years now, and doing an excellent job.

Mr. ANDREWS. How much longer do you plan to have this contract with the Philco Corp.?

General DUFF. I do not have the information here. I will provide it for the record.

(The information to be supplied follows:)

The Army proposes to replace about 25 percent of its technical instructors at Fort Bliss with military and civil service employees during 1962. However, due to the continued introduction of new highly technical weapons systems into the Army there will be a continuing need for a nucleus of contract instructors who are trained and schooled in the particular system.

Mr. ANDREWS. Are you familiar with the Air Force program wherein they claim they save $4 million?

General DUFF. In general, sir, as far as the Army is concerned, most of the instruction and the capability for training has been provided as an inhouse capability. The Army, in fact, has provided this more than the other services, in general. This is a specific contract about which I do not have information.

REPLACEMENT OF NIKE-AJAX WITH NIKE-HERCULES

Mr. MINSHALL. I would like to ask about the replacement of NIKEAJAX with NIKE-HERCULES and how that program progressing?

General DUFF. That program is progressing very well.

Within fiscal year

as far as Active Army units in the United States are concerned, all our NIKE-AJAX units will have been converted to NIKE-HERCULES.