COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS CLARENCE CANNON, Missouri, Chairman GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas ANTONIO M. FERNANDEZ, New Mexico OTTO E. PASSMAN, Louisiana SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois JOHN TABER, New York RICHARD B. WIGGLESWORTH, Massachusetts H. CARL ANDERSEN, Minnesota JOHN PHILLIPS, California ERRETT P. SCRIVNER, Kansas FREDERIC R. COUDERT, JR., New York EARL WILSON, Indiana GLENN R. DAVIS, Wisconsin BENJAMIN F. JAMES, Pennsylvania GERALD R. FORD, JR., Michigan EDWARD T. MILLER, Maryland GEORGE Y. HARVEY, Staff Director QUALITY CONTROL MARK MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1956 FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 1955. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WITNESSES E. B. BAILEY, DEPUTY CHIEF, OVERSEAS BRANCH, CONSTRUCTION DIVISION MAJ. JOHN CAMPBELL, FAMILY HOUSING DIVISION E. J. CLOSE, DEPUTY CHIEF, FAMILY HOUSING DIVISION LT. COL. JAMES L. CROSSEY, DIRECTORATE OF CONSTRUCTION HON. JAMES H. DOUGLAS, UNDER SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE COL. PHILIP HAAS, DIRECTORATE OF REAL PROPERTY LT. COL. DORRIE D. JONES, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, OPERATIONS COL. S. M. LUTZ, DIRECTORATE OF CONSTRUCTION J. W. MCCAULEY, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, OPERATIONS MAJ. GEN. L. B. WASHBOURNE, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF, IN- MAJ. ARTHUR WITTERS, AIR FORCE ACADEMY, LOWRY AIR FORCE BASE, COLO. PROGRAM AND PERFORMANCE STATEMENT Approximately two-thirds of the facilities to be built under this program are operational in type. These include airfield pavements to provide necessary runways and parking apron for operational aircraft, liquid fuel storage, and dispensing facilities, and aircraft maintenance facilities. Included in the grouping of operational facilities are those for the aircraft control and warning system. This program will provide facilities, principally in the United States and Canada, for an additional increment of the air-defense warning network, as well as for the existing permanent and mobile radar sites. The Air Research and Development Command program provides facilities for continued development of aircraft and weapons, for advanced propulsion systems and for improvements at the Air Force Missile Test Center. Other significant areas included in the program are: 1. $76 million for the second increment of the Air Force Academy. 2. $20 million for minor construction projects, which formerly were funded in the "Maintenance and operations" appropriation. 3. $160 million for 11,822 units of family housing, primarily for installations within the continental United States. 4. $77 million for the first increment of a phased program to replace temporary structures erected during the early part of World War II. This increment is concerned exclusively with replacement of troop housing and dining facilities and medical facilities. 5. $32 million to provide necessary construction facilities for the additional B-52 aircraft which will be received as a result of the B-52 acceleration program. Substantially all currently available military construction funds have been apportioned and released to the Air Force construction agents. It is estimated that the carryover of unobligated funds into fiscal year 1956 and fiscal year 1957 will be approximately $658 million and $558 million, respectively. This compares favorably with the carryover into fiscal year 1955 of $1,207 million and into fiscal year 1954 of $1,770 million. The carryover into fiscal year 1957 ($558 million) is required and will be utilized for 2 purposes: 1. Funds are required to cover commitments for costs such as Governmentfurnished equipment, supervision and inspection, and contingencies. The difference between cumulative contract awards and cumulative obligations during fiscal year 1955, representing the value of these commitments, has amounted to approximately $180 million. 2. The balance of the funds are required to provide minimum working capital for continuation of a construction program of this magnitude, after the end of the fiscal year and until new funds become available. Although there will be a relatively small carryover into fiscal year 1956 and fiscal year 1957, as compared with prior years, the status of advance planning of new projects now permits orderly apportionment and contract award immediately upon congressional approval of appropriation requests. This will permit continuation of the momentum of the Air Force construction program, based upon receipt of new funds, rather than upon funds already available. Specific construction projects totaling $1,432 million are presented on the following pages in support of this appropriation request. However, only $1,200 million are requested for financing the program in fiscal year 1956. The difference of $232 million represents unforeseeable delays which inevitably arise in a program of this size, and which may preclude the use of these funds during the budget year. Mr. MAHON. Gentlemen, the committee will come to order. We will proceed with the detailed hearings on the military public works budget for the Air Force for fiscal year 1956. Mr. TURNER. Mr. Mahon, before we get into the details of the book we have three special presentations we should like to give. The first will be by Colonel Jones, on the DEW line. Mr. MAHON. For the record, you mean the distant early warning line? Mr. TURNER. Yes; DEW is short for the distance early warning system. Then Major Paul will make a presentation on SAGE, the short title for semiautomatic ground environment. Next, General Washbourne will present some of the highlights of our fiscal year 1956 construction estimate, prior to going into the details of the request. First is the DEW line. Lieutenant Colonel Jones, from the Directorate of Operations, will make that presentation. Mr. MAHON. You feel that much of this will have to be off the record? Mr. TURNER. Yes, sir. Mr. MAHON. Place anything in the record that may seem appropriate, but give us the full details. Mr. TURNER. We surely will. Mr. SCRIVNER. Off the record. (Discusion off the record.) GENERAL STATEMENT ON DISTANT EARLY WARNING LINE Lieutenant Colonel JONES. I am Lieutenant Colonel Jones, from the Directorate of Operations, Air Force. Mr. Chairman, we propose to present to you a review of the entire distant early warning project and to cover the status of the various activities involved in this project. Actually, you might say we want to give you the answers to those classic questions: Who? What? When? Where? Why? And how much? (Discussion off the record.) (The following statement was submited for the record :) During the summer of 1952 considerable study was underway to determine the requirements for and the means of providing early warning of air attack for the continental United States. Agencies such as the Department of Defense, the National Security Resources Board, the Federal Civil Defense Administration, the Lincoln laboratories, and others were involved in various aspects of the problem. Inevitably two big questions emerged from these studies. Both involved time: "How much time do we need" and "how much time can we get?" There is no single statement of how much time is needed. The warning time required for effective civil defense in one city is different from that required in another. The warning time required by one military force differs from the requirements of another. The time of day, the weather conditions, the seasons of the year, all have a direct bearing on the amount of warning time needed. The answer to the question of "How much time can we get" can be more specific. One group of prominent scientists and technicians serving as the Lincoln summary study group, concluded that it was technically and economically feasible to install a detection system in the Arctic which would provide from 3 to 6 hours warning of air attack. This chart illustrates what that means geographically. Each of these lines depicts a possible route of a 450-knot bomber toward a specific target in the United States. Take this route toward Minneapolis as an example. If we could be satisfied with 1 hour warning of attacks against the Minneapolis area, a detection system placed approximately 450 nautical miles north of the city would suffice. On the other hand, such a system would provide Winnipeg about 20 minutes warning. If we need 3 hours of warning of attacks on Minneapolis, our detection system would have to be about 1,350 miles north. |