A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSEDCONSOLIDATION OF ALL NAVY AND MARINE A6-E

FLEET REPLACEMENT TRAINING SQUADRONS

Kevin Phi I ip Kel ley

c

Monterey, California

ilk aSSq J&4

T ^BBK

A COST -BENEFIT ANALYSIS Of THE PROPOSEDCONSOLIDATION OF ALL NAVY AND MARINE A6-E

FLEET REPLACEMENT TRAINING SQUADRONS

by

Kevin Philip Kelley

December 1973

Thesis Advisors L. ParingerC. Jones

t

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

T186246

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Wh*n Dele Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSBEFORE COMPLETING FORM

REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

4. Tl TS.E (end Subtitle)

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the ProposedConsolidation of All Navy and Marine A6-EFleet Replacement Training Squadrons

S. TYPE OF REPORT a PERIOO COVERED

Master's Thesis:npppmhPT- 1 Q 7 9.

«. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHORr»>

Kevin Philip Kelley

8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERf.J

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO AOORESS

Naval Postgraduate SchoolMonterey, California 9394^3

10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASKAREA a WORK UNIT NUMBERS

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME ANO AOORESS

Naval Postgraduate School^Monterey, California 95940

12. REPORT OATE

December 197 813. NUMBER OF PAGES

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME a ADDRESS^*/ dllterent /ram Controlling Office)

Naval Postgraduate School^Monterey, California 9 394/0"

IS. SECURITY CLASS, (of true .-*>ortj

line lass if ied

ISa, OECLASSIFl CATION/ DOWN GRADINGSCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (at tnle Rupert)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol the ebetrect entered In Block 29, It dtHotent from Report)

18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reweree aide It neceeeery end Identity by block number)

A6-EFleet Replacement Training SquadronNavy and Marine Consolidated Training

20. ABSTRACT (Continue on reveeee aide li neceeeery and Identity by block number)

This thesis contains a Cost-Benefit Analysis conducted todetermine the advisability and the economic feasibility ofconsolidating all Navy and Marine Corps A-6E Fleet ReplacementTraining Squadrons. A detailed examination is made of theprevailing and projected conditions at each of the currenttraining sites. The accumulated data is analyzed regardingits effect on the training environment overall and the

00 FORMI JAN 73 1473 EDITION OF 1 NOV 68 IS OBSOLETE

S/N 0102-014-6601|

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Vhen Dot* Entered)

UNCLASSIFIEDfttu mTv CL AS»iytC*TiQN Q> This »»QKCWN»h n««» loiwj

requirements for aircraft and personnel support under bothpresent circumstances and the proposed conditions of consol-idation. A range of feasible alternatives is then developedand cost estimates are presented for those possibilities.It is shown that consolidation is a realistic option, withcertain logistical constraints, which will produce specificbenefits in the quality of the resultant aircrews and possiblefiscal savings to the Department of the Navy as well. Thefinal recommendation involves adoption of the proposal accord-ing to the guidelines of one of two realistic alternativesdeveloped by the research.

1473DD Form1 Jan 73

S/N 0102-014-6601

UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLAMI'ICATICN 3* TWI$ *ACCr»fc«

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the ProposedConsolidation of All Navy and Marine A6-E

Fleet Replacement Training Squadrons

by

Kevin Philip KelleyCaptain, United States Marine Corps

B.S., Boston College, 1969

Submitted in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree of

RASTER OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT

from the

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

December 1978

ABSTRACT

This thesis contains a Cost-Benefit Analysis conducted

to determine the advisability and the economic feasibility

of consolidating all Navy and Marine Corps A-6E Fleet Replace-

ment Training Squadrons. A detailed examination is made of

the prevailing and projected conditions at each of the current

training sites. The accumulated data is analyzed regarding

its effect on the training environment overall and the re-

quirements for aircraft and personnel support under both

present circumstances and the proposed conditions of consol-

idation. A range of feasible alternatives is then developed

and cost estimates are presented for those possibilities.

It is shown that consolidation is a realistic option, with

certain logistical constraints, which will produce specific

benefits in the quality of the resultant aircrews and possible

fiscal savings to the Department of- the Navy as well. The

final recommendation involves adoption of the proposal accord-

ing to the guidelines of one of two realistic alternatives

developed by the research.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 9

II. EVALUATION OF RELEVANT FACTORS 23

A. TRAINING ENVIRONMENT 23

B. TRAINING REQUIREMENTS 28

C. AIRCRAFT REQUIREMENTS 3 7

D. PERSONNEL SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS 40

III. COST ESTIMATES ASSOCIATED WITH CONSOLIDATION 43

IV. FINDINGS 4 7

V. CONCLUSIONS 5 2

APPENDIX A. FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTSFOR CONSOLIDATION 5 9

APPENDIX B. BOMBARDIER/NAVIGATOR COMMONALITY ANALYSIS--- 75

APPENDIX C. AIRCRAFT REQUIREMENTS 102

APPENDIX D. EVALUATION OF THE 2F114, WEAPONSSYSTEM TRAINER 107

APPEND IX E . MANPOWER IMPACT REPORT 112

APPENDIX F. COST (SAVINGS) 121

BIBLIOGRAPHY 145

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST 146

LIST OF TABLES

A. I. NAS Oceana, Virginia, Facilities Requirementsfor Consolidation of Navy and Marine A-6EFleet Readiness Squadrons 60

A. II. NAS Whidbey Island, Washington, FacilitiesRequirements for Consolidation of Navy andMarine A-6E Fleet Readiness Squadrons 66

A. III. Personnel Allowances and On-Board Strengthof Navy and Marine Fleet Readiness Squadrons 71

A. IV. Personnel Support Requirements to Support A-6EUSMC Training at NAS Oceana 7 2

A. V. Personnel Support Requirements to Support A-6EUSMC Training at NAS Whidbey Island 73

A. VI. Comparison of Present Squadron Allowances PlusVMAT(AW)-202 Billets with Present AllowancesAdjusted for NAVMMACLANT Increments 7 4

C. I. Comparison of Current USMC Pilot Syllabus toUSN Syllabus Modified for USMC 102

C. II. Comparison of Current USMC Bombardier/NavigatorSyllabus to USN Syllabus Modified for USMC 103

C. III. A- 6E Aircraft Required to Support USMCReplacement Pilot and Bombardier/NavigatorTraining to VA-42 or VA-128 --104

C. IV. A-6E and TC4C Aircraft to Support USMCRequirements for Consolidation 104

C. V. Total Aircraft Hours for 100 PercentConsolidation of USN/USMC FRS 105

C. VI. A-6E Aircraft Required for USN/USMCConsolidation at VA-42 or VA-128 106

F. I. Annual Personnel Cost Reduction Based onAllowances, VA-128 and VMAT(AW)-202 131

II. Options A and B Annual Personnel CostReductions Based on Current On-BoardCount, VA-128 and VMAT(AW)-202 132

F. III. Option A Travel Costs 133

F. IV. Option B Travel Costs 135

F. V. Status Quo Travel Costs 136

F. VI. Ordnance Requirements to SupportUSMC under Consolidation 138

F. VII. Ordnance Costs to Support USMC underConsolidation 140

F. VIII. Investment and Annual Direct Cost (Savings) 141

F. IX. Cost Summary, Option A and Option B 142

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author is indebted to Captain Robert Browning, USN

(Ret.) and Mr. Paul Scott of the Training Analysis and

Evaluation Group whose contributions to this thesis were

both significant and greatly appreciated.

I. INTRODUCTION

The research conducted in completion of this thesis was

accomplished in conjunction with a study commissioned by the

Chief of Naval Operations and assigned to the TRAINING ANALYSIS

AND EVALUATION GROUP at the Naval Training Center, Orlando,

Florida.

Both works trace their origins to a similar analysis

completed in 1975 by a study group working under the authority

of the Commander Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet.

At that time, as currently, all Marine Corps A6-E pilot

and bombardier/navigator training was provided by Marine Fixed

Wing All-Weather Attack Squadron - 202 (VMAT (AW) - 202)

within the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing at the Marine Corps Air

Station, Cherry Point, N.C. Two major alternatives to that

arrangement were considered by the original study group.

They were

:

1. Transferring all Marine Corps A6-E training to a

similar Navy squadron (VA-42) at the Naval Air Station,Oceana, Virginia.

2. Transferring all East Coast Marine training require-ments to VA - 42 and all West Coast Marine trainingto VA-128 at the Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island,Washington.

The result of that study was a recommendation that, "Navy

and Marine Corps continue to conduct their own training

programs .

"

During the interim, additional concern with the realiza-

tion of maximum training efficiency combined with changes in

the force composition of both Marine and Navy aviation units

to generate renewed, high level interest in the question of

possible consolidation.

The assignment of a second operational Marine A6-E

squadron to the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing in El Toro, Cali-

fornia presented increased potential for utilization of the

Navy facilities at Whidbey Island. Marine aviation officials

felt that this situation might well impact on the cost/benefit

relationship presented in the original study. Additionally,

the proven analytical talents of the Training Analysis and

Evaluation Group were determined to be more fully attuned to

the completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the problem.

This thesis was generated from personal interest in the

question of A6-E consolidation stimulated by a tour of duty

with VMAT(AW)-20 2 and several opportunities to work, on-site,

with both VA-42 and VA-128. Research was conducted concur-

rently with the TAEG study team and included field trips with

that group to El Toro, Whidbey Island, and Orlando.

The assignment given to TAEG by the Chief of Naval Opera-

tions was to evaluate the possibility of either transferring

60% of the Marine requirement to the Navy training unit at

Oceana, Virginia (VA-42) and 40% to the unit at Whidbey Island,

Washington (VA-128) , or transferring all 100% of the Marine

requirement to one of the two Navy facilities.

10

In accomplishing that task, the TAEG study group concerned

itself with matters pertaining to aircrew training, related

enlisted training, and other peripheral issues associated with

the basic proposal. Included in their work was a considera-

tion of three central issues around which this thesis is

centered. They are:

1. What benefits, if any, would accrue to Navy and MarineA6-E aircrew training by consolidation of trainingfacilities?

2. What, costs or savings would result from such a con-solidation?

3. What specific method of consolidating would maximizeany benefits and/or savings to be realized?

The data base for both the TAEG report and this thesis

was collected jointly by the members of the TAEG study group

and the author. As that data was collected, it became appar-

ent to all parties involved that a sound, comprehensive eval-

uation should not be restricted to just the two possibilities

suggested by the CNO. Consequently, the research for both

works was conducted with the intention of establishing the

most efficient mix of Navy and Marine Corps' A6-E training

assets. That process involved a close examination of the

status quo situation, the CNO generated distributions, and

any other feasible mixes discovered during the course of the

research. Only in this way could all relevant material be

fully and objectively analyzed and an accurate answer be

provided to the basic questions of realistic consolidation

options

.

11

In fact, examination of the collected data revealed that

prevailing logistical limitations restricted the feasible

consolidation at Naval Air Station, Oceana to approximately

25% of the total annual Marine requirement. That would dic-

tate a 75% allocation to the Naval Air Station at Whidbey

Island, Washington. VA-128, at Whidbey, was found to be fully

capable of absorbing up to 100% of the Marines if required.

These facts generated two options, other than maintaining the

status quo, which were then investigated for relative cost

factors. They were:

Option A : VA-128 absorbing 100% of USMC pilot andbombardier/navigator training at NAS, Whidbey Island.

Option B : VA-42 absorbing 25% of USMC pilot and bom-bardier/navigator training and VA-128 absorbing 7 5%.

In examining these options, the TAEG study group made use

of the bombardier/navigator comparability study and the cost

estimates contained in this thesis. The author is indebted

to the TAEG group for much of the facilities and personnel

support data utilized herein.

The cost analysis determined potential annual direct

savings of $1,192,199 for Option A and $4,101,224 for Option

B. These figures were in addition to estimates of $17.5

million in investment savings to be gained from Option A and

$32.5 million from Option B. Investment savings represent a

bound in dollars on the uses foregone in operational squadrons

Each of these figures was computed as an increment of current

expenditures. Their real value is as an indication of a

12

trend toward annual savings to be gained from consolidation,

rather than increased expenditures.

The determination that prevailing and projected conditions

did, in fact, support arguments in favor of consolidation was

based on detailed examination of key elements influencing the

quality and completeness of A-6E aircrew training. Those

elements include the overall environment in ivhich training

is conducted; the stipulated requirements of such training;

the aircraft and personnel support necessary to the conduct

of that training; and the cost/benefit trade-offs that would

emerge from the proposals.

Projected costs (savings), discussed above, are more

fully detailed in Section III and Appendix F. Benefits are

listed in Section IV (Findings) . They include quantifiable

elements, such as reductions in the overall aircraft and

personnel needed to support the total training effort, and

more subjective considerations, such as improved training

facilities and enhanced quality of trained aircrews. This

last element is attributed to numerous factors of attitude

and environment.

Finally, an analysis was conducted to examine the critical

aspects of those factors which most strongly influence the

eventual recommendation for consolidation.

NAVAL AIR STATION, OCEANA

Naval Air Station, Oceana provides services to approxi-

mately 9,000 military personnel that include 23 Regular (and

13

one Reserve) squadrons. The facilities support situation

has not changed significantly from that reported to the Chief

of Naval Operations by the Commander Naval Air Force, U.S.

Atlantic Fleet letter Serial 331D/3456 of 21 August 1975.

Bachelor enlisted quarters (BEQ) , aircraft parking and hangar

space are still critical. Military construction projects

that affect BEW and aircraft parking are listed in i\ppendix

A, Table I. Both the BEW and aircraft parking projects could

impact on the feasibility of consolidating USN/USMC Fleet

Readiness Squadrons.

NAS Oceana, with its associated commands as well as

detachments such as the Naval Aviation Maintenance Training

Detachment (NAMTRADET) , is well equipped to provide services

to the A-6 community. The climatic conditions for the 26-

year period were obtained from the Naval Weather Service and

it was found that NAS Oceana averages Instrument Flight Rule

conditions (less than 1000 feet and 5 miles visibility) 13%

of the time, as compared to 11% for Cherry Point and 8 % for

NAS Whidbey Island. Weather is a significant factor in the

timely completion of the familiarization phase of the A-6

flight syllabus.

The small number of additional sorties generated by an

expansion of A-6 training was determined to provide a negli-

gible impact on air traffic control facilities and Air

Installation Compatibility Use Zones.

14

VA-42

Squadron spaces, while space was limited, were generally

excellent to support training. Of particular note were the

administrative spaces, ready room, squadron operation space

with its briefing facilities, and the Air Intelligence spaces

The squadron has limited classroom space but one of the two

rooms used, the learning center, was well equipped.

The aircraft maintenance spaces, while adequate for

present needs, were reported deficient for the expanded

maintenance load. The maintenance requirements are stated

in Appendix A, Table I. Any significant increase in the

number of aircraft supported was reported to require addi-

tional shop, hangar, and ramp space. Completion of Military

Construction Project P-227 will provide additional aircraft

parking. This will occur independent of consolidation.

TARGET FACILITIES

Target facilities, while heavily utilized, appear to be

excellent except for the lack of a radar bombing site. Bomb-

ing and mining targets are available. Target facilities

should be adequate to support the small number of additional

ordnance requirements generated by consolidation of USN/USMC

training

.

FRAMP TRAINING

Fleet Replacement Aviation Maintenance Personnel training

is presently housed with the squadron's computer system in

15

double-wide trailers which are used for a number of FRAMP

facilities. Extensive FRAMP training is presently being

provided to the Marine A- 6 community. Any significant in-

crease in the number of Marine enlisted personnel trained

would require an increase in FRAMP spaces. Marine instructor

support requirements will be discussed under Personnel Support

Requirements

.

MCAS CHERRY POINT

Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point is included in the

discussion of the training environment not as an alternative

to consolidating (at that sight) but because the station

presently supports VMAT(AW) - 202 . A description of the sup-

port presently available to VMAT(AW)-202 will facilitate

identifying the advantages and disadvantages of consolidation

more readily.

MCAS Cherry Point, while supporting fewer squadrons than

Oceana, provides support to approximately 9,000 military per-

sonnel including deployed squadrons. The 12 squadrons fly a

variety of aircraft that include the Harrier, C-9, A-6, and

others. The station has approximately the same space prob-

lems as the other two sites considered. Bachelor officer

quarters (BQQJ space is limited; 2nd MAW BEQ , with a capacity

of 3494, had an occupancy rate of 9 7.5% at the time of the

study team's visit and represents a long term average. Ramp

space is expected to improve with completion of a project

adjacent to VMAT (AW) - 202 ' s hangar. Public Works indicated

16

that hangar space is at a premium. The present hangar occu-

pied by 202 is adequate for the A-6 but will not accommodate

the TC4C aircraft. Maintenance for the TC4C must be done on

the ramp or in loaned hangar space.

Unlike the Navy training squadrons, 202 furnishes per-

sonnel directly to the Headquarters and Maintenance Squadron

in relatively large numbers. Aviation Intermediate Mainten-

ance Detachment (AIMD) personnel at Oceana and Whidbey are

not included in VA-42 and VA-12S allowances.

VMAT(AW)-202 spaces appear to be somewhat austere and

crowded in the administrative and training areas. The lack

of available space for briefing rooms and operations filing

facilities requires that crews proceed to station operations

to file flight plans. The squadron, as will be discussed

under Personnel, does not have the on-board strength enjoyed

by the Navy squadrons but does have a comparable training

load. It was obvious that the squadron has a strong "can do"

attitude. The descriptions of spaces are only to identify

the pertinent differences in training resources for the

training sites considered. For example, MCAS, Cherry Point

does not have an A-6E Weapons System Trainer nor is there

one scheduled for the station. This obviously deprives 202

of a valuable training resource. The absence of an A-6

NAMTRADET means that all A-6 replacement crews must receive

their training at NAS Oceana.

17

VMAT(AW) - 202 does not have responsibility for training

enlisted replacements as do the Navy training squadrons. The

lack of a NAMTRADET at Cherry Point requires that all enlisted

personnel be trained at Oceana or Whidbey Island. Enlisted

replacements must also proceed to Oceana for formal mainten-

ance training in the FRAMP syllabus.

NAS WHIDBEY ISLAND

Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island provides support service

for approximately 7,000 military personnel including those

deployed. There are 16 Regular and 5 Navy and Marine Reserve

squadrons assigned. The Headquarters of Commander, Medium

Attack Tactical Electronics Warfare Wing, Pacific is also

located aboard. The station is ideally located geographically

for access to training airspace requirements of the A- 6 and

enjoys minimum conflict with non-military aircraft. The

weather conditions as reported by the Naval Weather Service,

for a 26-year period, are Visual Flight Rules (VFR) for a

greater percentage of the year than either Oceana or Cherry

Point.

A- 6E and EA- 6B aircraft are the principal aircraft sup-

ported by NAS Whidbey Island. With its associated auxiliary

field and excellent targets, Whidbey provides a unique envi-

ronment for training and support of A- 6 replacement training.

The small number of additional sorties generated by any con-

solidation is not expected to impact on airspace requirements

18

or the general environment. The adequacy of the various

facilities is discussed further in Appendix A, Table I.

VA-128

Squadron spaces are excellent and with minor exceptions

adequate for consolidation requirements. Training spaces

are also excellent and adequate for any degree of consolida-

tion up to 100% of pilot and bombardier/navigator training.

Ready room, flight planning and mission briefing facilities

are, again, excellent. Weather briefing is available on

closed circuit television and flight plans can be filed from

the ready room. Air Intelligence facilities are located

within squadron spaces and are also excellent. The squadron

facilities and supporting facilities are discussed in greater

detail in Appendix A, Table II.

1 . Environmental Factor Rating

Throughout the study a great deal of information was

collected which was considered significant but difficult to

quantify. Much of this data was comparative in nature and

related to the training environments encountered at each of

the training squadrons. The enclosed matrix provides a sub-

jective evaluation of those factors in an organized format.

The assignment of numerical values is based on the depicted

scale .

The ratings were provided by the members of the TAEG

study team because of their unaffiliated, and therefore more

detached, position as relatively objective evaluators of the

three training organizations.

19

Judgements were based on the expressed requirements

of squadrons and stations where applicable. They are not

intended to reflect in any way on the organizations but to

assist decision makers in their evaluation of consolidation

recommendations in terms of available quality of training.

In the case of NAS Oceana, several of the ratings for factors

would be increased if pending MILCON projects are completed.

It should be noted, however, that in every category, and

without exception, the ratings for NAS Whidbey Island were

equal to or superior to those at either Oceana or Cherry

Point.

20

Each facility, capability or factor concerned with thetraining environment has been rated on those factors thatimpact on consolidation decisions. Inasmuch as MCAS CherryPoint was not considered as a possible consolidation site,only those factors possibly affecting the quality of trainingor the training environment are rated. The scale is as follows

= No facility or capability1 = Insufficient or inadequate for present requirements2 = Meets present requirements, requires expansion to

meet consolidation requirements3 = Meets consolidation requirements4 = Exceeds consolidation requirements/notable/unique.

NAS NAS MCASFACILITY/ CAPABILITY OCEANA WHIDBEY ISLAND CHERRY POINT

Hangar space 2 3 NA

Aircraft Parking 13 3

Maintenance Spaces 2 3 NA

Squadron Operationsfacilities, capabilitiesfor weather briefing, 4 4 1

filing of flight plans,and briefing/debriefing

Air Intelligencefacility and capability 4 3

Ready Room 3 3 NA

Training Classroomsfor (pilots, BNs) 2 3 2

Administration 4 4 NA

Air Traffic Control/Saturation/Environment 3 4 3

Mission Routes 3 4 3

Target Facilities/Capability 3 4 3

Availability to WeaponsTraining Sites (Fallon, 2 3 2

El Centro or Yuma)

Weather Factor(percent IFR) 13 2

A-6E NAMTRADET 5 3

Nuclear Weapons Training _ _n

Availability at FRS "*

21

NAS NAS MCASFACILITY/CAPABILITY OCEANA WHIDBEY ISLAND CHERRY POINT

*A- 6E Weapons SystemTrai ner 3 3

Capability of parentstation to meet support

3 4 3requirements peculiarto A- 6 and its mission

FRAMP 2 2

BOQ 1 3 NA

BEQ 1 3 NA

Messing 3 5 NA

Married Officers Quarters 2 3 NA

Married Enlisted Quarters 1 3 NA

22

II. EVALUATION OF RELEVANT FACTORS

A. TRAINING ENVIRONMENT

The overall environment in which training is conducted

contributes significantly to the eventual quality of the

people trained. In the case of aircrew training, the mission

of the particular aircraft is a critical, but all too often

undervalued consideration. Financial and political factors

are frequently the driving forces behind the geographical

placement of training facilities.

The following paragraphs offer an evaluation of the

logistical situations and environmental characteristics

affecting each of the Navy and Marine A- 6 training sites.

Appendix A, Tables I - VI,provides an in depth analysis of

facilities, training resources, and personnel requirements

in matrix form. In addition, an unweighted environmental

factors rating is provided beginning on page

Prior to consideration of those elements, however, it

would be useful to expand on the importance of mission

orientation in the location and management of a training

facility and to examine the relative strengths and weaknesses

of each of the present organizations in that regard.

To grasp the important differences between one facility

and another, it is first of all necessary to understand the

mission of the aircraft and aircrew involved.

23

The A-6 is a two seat, medium attack, all-weather, jet

aircraft. It carries up to 18,000 pounds of ordnance, has a

relatively long on-station capability, and provides accurate

weapons delivery on targets the crew may never visually

acquire, in all weather conditions.

Its primary mission in the Marine Corps is all weather,

close air support of troops in the field. The Navy concen-

tration is more in the area of low level interdiction and

all weather strikes against built up targets. It is signif-

icant that the two missions overlap to a great extent and

both use the same equipment and similar, if not. identical,

techniques

.

The plane's main assets are its sophisticated electronic

navigation and weapons delivery systems. Because of these,

it can function essentially "blind." That is, it was designed

for maximum efficiency in night or diminished meteorological

conditions

.

Because of the continuing development of anti-aircraft

technologies, planes such as the A-6, which can operate at

extreme low levels and in masked terrain, are increasingly

valuable tactical systems throughout military aviation.

The ideal training environment for a multi-role aircraft

like the A-6 is one which possesses three essential elements:

first, logistical support adequate to a smooth running, con-

tinuous, and flexible training program; second, proximity to

geographical, meteorological, and tactical conditions

24

approximating those in the projected mission environment; and

third, a psychological attitude on the part of the parent and

tenant commands which acknowledges the training environment

to be of primary importance in the development of all future

tactical options.

Any argument for or against consolidation must involve

these three elements and weigh them equally against political

and economic considerations. An examination of these trade-

offs is provided in Section V.

Whidbey Island is essentially an A-6 base (contrasted

with the multi-aircraft concerns at both Oceana and Cherry

Point), and is located adjacent to the Olympic Mountains.

This provides an easily accessible opportunity for low-level,

all-weather, terrain-avoidance navigation in uncluttered

airspace. Cherry Point, in North Carolina, and Oceana, in

Virginia, are both located on the Atlantic Coast about 150

miles apart. The closest available mountains are in the

Appalachian range, about one to two hours flying time dis-

tant. This presents a distinct limitation to the efficient

scheduling of training flights for squadrons at these two

facilities

.

In addition, the more gentle, rolling Appalachians are

barely comparable to the Olympics in terms of diverse navi-

gation challenges. Both east coast bases are further

restricted by relatively heavy commercial and private

25

aviation congestion due to their positions at the southern

end of the northeast corridor.

Overall target availability is another area in which

Whidbey appears to have superior assets. This is due to the

availability of a surveyed Radar Bombing Site in Spokane,

Washington and to VA-128's practice of scheduling dedicated

weapons deployments.

While VA-42, at Oceana, also schedules deployments solely

dedicated to weapons training, there is not a radar bombing

site anywhere on the east coast. This lack of facilities

was considered significant by instructors interviewed at all

three squadrons.

VMAT(AW)-202 suffers from the same lack of a radar bomb-

ing site and is further constrained from dedicated weapons

deployments by personnel shortages and budgetary limitations.

The impact of these restrictions is considered below.

Of similar importance is a particular squadron's ability

to concentrate its efforts on the training function. Re-

stricted by the many logistical and personnel limitations

outlined in the pages that follow, neither 202 nor 42 exper-

iences the same freedom of dedication to training available

to VA-128. There is an unquant if iable , yet nonetheless

apparent, attitude at Whidbey Island that training receives

precedence, and the overall efficiency of their operation

reflects it.

26

The reasons behind this vary and none are necessarily

derogatory to either the service or the command involved.

Oceana is a crowded, multi-mission, multi-aircraft facility.

Many of VA-42's limitations are attributable to that fact.

Cherry Point in many ways typifies the Marine tradition of

functioning at maximum capacity under very austere conditions,

The problem is determining how much maximum is reduced by the

enforced austerity.

Discussions with various Marine aviation officials indi-

cated that the restrictions which apply to 202 are, in their

minds, typical of the austerity which characterizes Marine

training and operations in general. There appeared to be

a genuine sense of pride on the part of many of those inter-

viewed in the squadron's (202' s) ability to produce qualified

aircrews under such restrictive conditions.

The difficulty encountered with this viewpoint is that

if a reasonable way exists to produce aircrews with equal

or greater qualification levels at reduced cost, then what

has been referred to as austerity is, in reality, an over-

expenditure of resources.

As will be demonstrated in some detail in the following

pages, this is exactly the situation in this instance.

However, the issue at this point is not one of criticis-

ing any particular organization. The point is to recognize

and take advantage of an available opportunity to make the

27

best use of the best possible facilities. A great deal of

the information examined in the pages that follow indicates

the site which most closely approximates the "ideal" location

for either Navy or Marine A-6E training is the Naval Air

Station at Whidbey Island.

B. TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

The syllabi for VMAT(AW) -202, VA-42, and VA-128 have

been examined in detail. The assistance of experienced pilot

and bombardier/navigator instructors was used to analyze the

individual flights to determine commonality among them. It

was found that while various training tasks are carried out

under different descriptions and are located at different

points in the syllabi, the pilot syllabus for the Navy and

Marine Corps is at least 80% compatible. The bombardier/

navigator syllabus compatibility is over 90%. An examina-

tion of the respective levels of combat compatibility/

readiness attained in the various training units was con-

ducted in accordance with the assignment of percentage levels

dictated by the Training and Readiness Manual . It was found

that Marines presently achieve about 60 % combat capability

at 202 while both of the Navy squadrons produce a 70-75%

combat readiness. It should be noted that the Navy syllabus

includes training in several areas of readiness not now in-

cluded in the VMAT (AW) - 2 2 syllabi but which are accomplished

28

after arrival at the operational squadrons. These include

such things as nuclear weapons, defensive tactics, and

advanced visual weapons.

The Navy requirement for mining was discussed with

VMAT(AW)-202 and found to be a desirable additional quali-

fication, particularly as there is a precedent for Marine

A-6's conducting mining operations in Hanoi Harbor operations

during the Vietnam War. Conversely, the Marine requirement

for radar beacon bombing was discussed with the Navy squad-

rons. It was the general agreement that this qualification

could be included in their existing syllabi and would be of

value to Navy as well as Marine students.

The need for carrier qualification and the landing

practice which precedes it was determined to be of marginal

value to the Marine Corps and not cost effective to include

in their syllabus. With these two exceptions, the rest of

the Navy syllabus was determined to be satisfactory and even

desirable for Marine aircrews.

Adoption of the Navy syllabus would increase Marine

A6-E first tour syllabus hours from an average of 59.5 to

about 80 and decrease the refresher pilot syllabus from 59.5

to 40.5 hours. The increased advantage of using such facil-

ities as the air intelligence center, radar bombing site,

and weapons system trainer, coupled with nuclear weapons

qualification for increased readiness, would be worth an

29

undetermined amount of additional expenditure to obtain.

The fact that they are available through consolidation at

annual savings makes the proposal even more attractive.

These savings, which are detailed in the Cost section, are

increased further if one considers the elimination of addi-

tional training presently required for students after com-

pletion of 202, which is made possible by adoption of the

proposal

.

1 . Adjunct/Supportive Training

Adjunct or supportive training was also examined.

This includes fire fighting training, aviation physiological

training, deep water environmental training (DWEST) , sur-

vival, evasion, resistance, and escape (SERE) training,

Nuclear Weapons Delivery School, VF-43 Instrument School,

and Naval Aviation Maintenance Training Detachment courses.

First tour A6-E replacement pilots are scheduled to receive

this training in the Navy. An analysis of training require-

ments with VMAT(AW)-2 02 and various Marine personnel know-

ledgeable in Marine requirements at Headquarters, Marine

Corps concurred in the following:

a. Fire Fighting School is not an essential

requirement for Marines as it is shipboard oriented.

b. All SERE training for Marines is conducted at

Cherry Point regardless of aircraft or assignment location.

30

c. Aviation Physiological Training and Deep Water

Environmental Survival Training are obtained in undergraduate

pilot courses and are not essential for Marine A6-E aircrews.

Requalification can be accomplished in the operational com-

mands .

d. Nuclear Weapons Delivery Training is desirable

and could be conducted at Oceana.

e. Naval Aviation Maintenance Training is essential

and is presently being given to all Marine A6-E crews at

Oceana.

f. Instrument refresher training was considered

desirable by both the Navy and Marine Corps. It is not in-

cluded in the VA-42 syllabus. It is included in the VMAT(AW)-

202 syllabus in the A6.. Instrument refresher training for

Navy students is provided by VF-43 at Oceana in aircraft

other than the A-6. It is preferably given prior to start

of the A6 training but is sometimes delayed due to a shortage

of quotas. Because of the requirement for Marines to receive

instrument training as part of their syllabus, certain adjust-

ments would have to be made to the current scheme of training.

Possible solutions to the problem include: (1) omit refresher

instrument training since all recent graduates of undergrad-

uate pilot training possess up-to-date instrument cards, (2)

train all first tour Marines at VF-43, or (3) obtain instru-

ment refresher and currency for the A-6E in the new Weapons

System Trainer (Device 2F114)

.

31

Since the first choice is inconsistent with a compre-

hensive training program, and the second possibility would,

according to VF-43, involve additional and costly support

augmentation, the use of the Weapons System Trainer appears

to be the most cost effective. The acceptance of simulators

as a valid substitute for in-flight instrument training has

been demonstrated by the Navy P-3 community and is an increas

ingly accepted practice in both the Navy and the Air Force.

In this case, it would offer training in an A-6E (simulator)

as opposed to a TA-4, which is used by VF-43.

Adjunct training for VA-128 A-6E students is accom-

plished in a somewhat different manner. Deep water environ-

mental survival training; survival, evasion, resistance and

escape training; and instrument refresher training are all

accomplished in San Diego prior to reporting to VA-128. The

discussion on adjunct training at VA-42 applies with the

exception of instrument refresher training. For Marines

being trained on the West Coast (VA-128) selection from the

following alternatives would apply:

1. Accept the instrument qualification received in under-graduate training. VA-128 has indicated that Marineswould be accepted without refresher training.

2. Provide instrument training at VF-126 which wouldinvolve additional expenditures for aircraft, instruc-tors and maintenance.

3. Provide instrument refresher training in the WeaponsSystem Trainer.

4. Utilize VMAT-102 to provide the training needed.

32

VMAT-102 at MCAS , Yuma has indicated that providing

instrument training for various Marine commands is included

in their mission. The squadron, which operates some TA-4

aircraft, has also indicated a capability in the event that

no alternative was available, but stated that additional

support would be required.

The alternative of providing the instrument training

in the Weapons System Trainer, augmented by a two-day instru-

ment ground school, provided monthly to Whidbey Island by

VF-126 and VA-127, appears to be feasible. This would permit

Marine students to proceed to Whidbey without delaying at

either San Diego or Yuma.

Comparability analysis of the bombardier/navigator train-

ing syllabi at the three squadrons (two Navy and one Marine)

required unique structuring to render meaningful data. This

is attributable to the subjective aspects of the individual

syllabus presentations. Close examination of the academic

and flight programs reveals content to be essentially iden-

tical. Notable exceptions are mining and beacon bombing.

It is the order of content presentation that varies signifi-

cantly, and that variation is usually in direct proportion

to the particular squadron's philosophy of weapons delivery

and system utilization. More often than not, that philosophy

was driven by environmental considerations and asset avail-

ability. For example, the Marine Corps emphasis on close air

support influences a large part of the program at VMAT(AW)-202

33

Similarly, VA-128's access to the Olympic Mountains and the

Spokane Radar Bombing Site permits, and to a large extent

dictates, a program stressing all-weather terrain navigation

and complex bombing. VA-42, on the other hand, is somewhat

restricted regarding search radar terrain clearance work due

to its distance from and space restrictions in the Appalachian

Mountains. VMAT(AW)-202 suffers from similar geographic

limitations

.

As a result of these differences, each squadron has evolved

a training program which attempts to optimize, given the avail-

able assets, while pursuing almost identical objectives. The

degree to which those assets exist and their quality signif-

icantly impacts on the quality of the overall training pro-

gram. In addition to providing a 10 to 15 percent higher

readiness capability per student, the Navy squadrons and

VA-128 in particular appear to have a distinct advantage in

terms of total assets. The possibility that these facts are

related is difficult to ignore.

A flight- by-flight comparison was not feasible due to

variations in syllabi structure and nomenclature. Instead,

an analysis by Phase of Training and Aircraft Utilized pro-

vided a pertinent measure of comparability.

Within the categories, Phase of Training and Aircraft

Utilized, the relevant factors examined concerning bombardier/

navigator syllabi were:

34

1. Number of Flights (sorties)2. Time per Flight3. Students per Flight4. Total Flight Time per Student5. Time on the Equipment (Hands On) per Student6. Instructor Hours7. Instructor Hours per Student

The seven categories were weighted evenly. The analysis

indicates a commonality in excess of 90 percent. The method-

ology and statistical data used in computation of bombardier/

navigator compatibility are contained in Appendix B. It is

structured to permit a close comparison of the two Navy

squadrons (one to the other) as well as the Marine unit in

terms of each of the Navy organizations. Within any given

category, the Navy unit with the highest hour total (or

greatest number of sorties) is assigned a value of 1.0000.

The other Navy unit is then described as a percentage of that

figure. Finally, the Marine Corps squadron is listed, within

the category, as a percentage of the first and then the second

Navy squadron. This facilities an examination of all the

critical relationships and helps verify that even within the

same service (Navy) two squadrons doing exactly the same job

find substantially different ways to accomplish it. An example

has been reproduced and is provided on the following page

as an illustration of these points and as an introduction to

the kind of information contained in Appendix B.

The estimate of 80 percent compatibility between the Navy

and Marine pilot syllabi was developed through discussions

with, and concurred in by, representatives of both VMAT(AW)-20 2

35

<as

1 CVJ

.•—< «tf

3= 1

< <v—

'

>H ""X.

< cxi

J:

oCM

o r-N r- r-.o so so sOo sO sO sO

sO sO

o sO sO o. CM CVJo t"» ». sO sO sO00 r~- i>. sO «5t ^f

OOi CVJ

i—

\

i—

i

3= i

O < <t—i

*—

'

>H H ^s.<< cvj

OS S O> CVJ

CV]

Oeg

> 32<

cvj

O(VI

OSOCL,

w<E-CO

WsOSE-co2

Q2<35<

<E-CO

tu

coE-

at—

i

a,

sO

<(VJ

"3-

I

<>

OO(VI

<>

o O O o o o o r- LO LOo LO o o r*"^/^^ o o o VO !>. r>»o (VI LO LO (VJ (VJ o CO 00 sO ro ro• • • • "5* O • • • • • •

(VJ

LO

(VJ (VJ

E

FOR

VA-

ICS

FOR

2 (VJ 7-^ r-A

LO

•^r (V] Or-4

O

N

PHAS

M

TACT

00 CTl

rHenrH

/ \

(VJ

O

\D rH CTs CTi

o O LO LO O cqr^ E-<

o o o (VJ o ro hOo LO p- r^ o o o o -H r-H

lO r~~. K) tn o > o c"3 o CO CO

ICAT SYS rH rH rH o

tin

rH

LO LO LO Ci. Q LO LO cq LO LO. . . . rH 2 . . CO .

t—

1

r-l rH rH

IDENT

NAV.

A orH

> *3-

(VJ CV)<Oh

CT) > CTl

o O O O o O^ CTl u o O oo o O O E-H J o (VJ CVJ z o o Oo o o o U < ^3- 'H- «tf <: o o or—

1

r—

1

rH rH E-h 3CO

CSS H-t

2QCsS

rH rH r^

< > lO LO OCV] (VI «3-

r—

I

a34-»

OE-hv >

+J

C

-3"

E

(NAV

AND

RAD

(FORMATION,

*t > o

t—

\

o3+-»

»—

'

4->

g

OrH 35

E-h

CO>Hco

CO<Oh

Ol >(V)

/—

\

n34->

e2>—

<

<D

CVJ

7)

CD

</) a,CO< [/] B. CO '-0

1 •H

+-> •H tfl +J •H /) 2 +-» •H •f)

03-C 4-> 3 5-( — X +J5^ ^ *"

4-> 3 uOX) -C cr 3 Oh GO X o* 3 ^ DO J= c- 3 >•H cfl w O H DO cu O Oh •H DO W OrH H i«U 2: rH •H X < rH •H p-]

II

LL, rH CD oi—

i

CL, rH CD cq3=

CL, —

1

CD

4-1Uh r-

•

4->

rH

o M-l

a-, H4_1 o U_|

Hh r-

MrH

o >o H -M E- O rH •H o rH ^H

0) c u < <D H u 35 CUr-H u

u Q O2 O rH C-, p — H o o 3 .

.

cd h-H 0) rH E-H <D H ^Lj,c <D (I) 4-> >

<JO <u o 4-1 £i CD D 4->

3 .§'A

.1 •H<A CO

>H § •1 •i'-0 b

2 E-h H 1—1 2 2 H E-H 11 CO ^ E-h E-H H 2

36

and VA-128. This was deemed appropriate because the skills

required to fly the aircraft are quite similar regardless of

differences in the primary mission of the particular service

branch. The 80 percent estimate is believed to be conserva-

tive.

C. AIRCRAFT REQUIREMENTS

The number of flight hours required to support Marine

Corps pilot and bombardier/navigator training utilizing the

existing Marine syllabus or modified Navy syllabi is compared

in Tables I and II of Appendix C. Overall, there is a 6%

decrease in A6-E flight hours using the modified Navy syllabi

in lieu of the Marine program, and there is no change in TC4C

flight hours. The rationale for using the modified syllabi

was discussed in Section B, Analysis of Training Requirements.

Table III of Appendix C lists the annual A-6E flight hours

required to support the various levels of consolidation sug-

gested by the Chief of Naval Operations, and the number of

aircraft needed to meet those obligations. The case requir-

ing the most aircraft is the 60/40 split which would involve

a total of 12 additional A-6's. Since this does not exceed

the number available from VMAT(AW) - 20 2 , no additional expense

would be incurred in acquisition.

Based on the analysis of training requirements, the total

annual flight hours in the TC4C aircraft for Marine support

is 755. Assuming that VA-42 and VA-128 are provided three

TC4C's with complete A- 6E systems from existing inventory,

there would be no further need for additional TC4C's to

support consolidation.

In addition to this determination of aircraft needs, the

Navy Fleet Replacement Squadrons independently determined

their supplemental aircraft requirements to support the pro-

posals. Table IV of Appendix C presents a comparison of

their findings with the thesis estimates. The additional

planes determined by both methods are identical. This fact

strengthens the argument that consolidation can be accom-

plished with existing aircraft assets.

Table V of Appendix C is a compilation of A-6E and TC4C

flight hours for a 1001 Marine requirement added to that of

either VA-42 or VA-128. The addition of 100% to either

squadron would increase the A-6E aircraft hours by 84% and

the TC4C aircraft hours by 86%. Table VI of Appendix C shows

the actual number of A-6E's needed for the various consolida-

tions based on an average of 35 flight hours per month per

aircraft. While hours increase significantly, the number of

planes needed to accomplish the training remains consistant

with those required by a modified syllabus. The significant

point is, again, that consolidation accomplished under either

of these guidelines can be achieved with already existing

aircraft assets. More important is the fact that a 100%

consolidation requires less total additional aircraft (11 vs.

12) and consequently results in actual savings.

It is realized that there are other considerations used

in establishing aircraft allowances which are beyond the

scope of this study. Consequently, the author would hesitate

to suggest that the total consolidated aircraft allowance

should be based on this approach.

1. Substitution of a Synthetic Trainerfor In-Flight Trainers

A review of several documents, including the 197 5

NAVAIRLANT study, suggested that receipt of the state-of-the-

art simulators expected would permit the substitution of

simulator time for flight time in the order of 12.5% or more.

During the course of research no commitment could be obtained

nor were there any syllabi found that provided for substitu-

tion of simulator time for in-flight training time. Appendix

D contains an analysis of theoretical implementation alterna-

tives which illustrate possible substitution schemes. It is

based on personal experience with the subject flights and

does not constitute a recommendation.

It is reasonable to expect that a certain percentage

of the present A-6E and TC4C syllabus flights can be accom-

plished in the new simulator. The exact amounts will require

assessment after acceptance of the devices. Table VI of

Appendix C, however, shows the effect of various degrees of

simulator substitution on the number of A-6E aircraft required

Reductions in aircraft hours can be translated into reduced

aircraft, reduced personnel support, and facilities support.

39

The possible substitution of trainer time for aircraft time

using the modified Navy syllabi is of importance. Given

that in the foreseeable future no state-of-the-art simulators

are going to be available to the Marine Corps, there is little

possibility that the Marine syllabi could be reduced if Marine

replacement training remains at Cherry Point.

D. PERSONNEL SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS

Determination of the personnel support requirements for

consolidation of Navy and Marine Fleet Readiness Training was

a most difficult undertaking. The Navy A-6E FRS has a squad-

ron allowance and a manning level. Neither include personnel

furnished to the parent station for intermediate level main-

tenance or housekeeping tasks. The Marine Table of Organiza-

tion includes an allowance for personnel to be provided to

the Headquarters and Maintenance Squadron, but personnel must

also be furnished for housekeeping duties from on-board

strength.

Appendix A, Table III presents the squadron allowances

and on-board count for both officer and enlisted of the Navy

and Marine Corps units. It should be noted that there are

considerable differences in the manning levels of the Navy

and Marine squadrons. VMAT(AW)-202 does, however, receive

support from other commands, particularly in the area of

TC4C pilots and some A-6E instructors.

40

This indicates one of two possibilities; either the

Marine squadron is undermanned or the Navy squadrons have

more people than they really need. Since both are accomplish-

ing essentially the same training and are producing very s

similar numbers of crews on an annual basis, it may be argued

that the Marine manning levels are more realistic. The Navy

could respond that the higher readiness levels they achieve

and the fact that they do not require outside help proves

that their figures are more pragmatic. The critical issue

skirts both of these points. It is that consolidation would

permit overall reductions in the total number of support per-

sonnel needed to provide the same quantity of aircrews and

is, therefore, a far more efficient alternative.

Early in the research it became apparent that the Marine

personnel support for consolidation requested by the Navy

squadrons and parent activities exceeded the total on-board

strength of the Marine Replacement Squadron in aviation

maintenance Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) codes. It

was determined that the most appropriate way to determine the

support requirements for various consolidation levels was to

request that the Navy Manpower and Material Analysis Center

conduct a study to determine the implications of consolida-

tion on manpower levels. NAVMACLANT provided the requested

service and the results are contained in Appendix E. A sum-

mation of the data contained therein indicates that consoli-

dation would require an additional 24 officers and

41

approximately 173 extra enlisted personnel regardless of

whether it was done on a 100% or a 60/40 basis.

Tables IV and V of Appendix A list the number of per-

sonnel requested by the stations/squadrons to support the

various proposal levels. NAVMACLANT- furnished data is

provided in a parallel column for comparative purposes. It

should be noted that in some cases the squadrons have requested

fewer officers than determined necessary by the NAVMACLANT

analysis. The reverse is never the case, however.

A member of the TAEG study team visited NAVMACLANT to

discuss the implications of consolidation. It was informally

determined at that time that variations in monthly aircraft

utilization would not significantly impact on the manpower

requirements

.

42

III. COST ESTIMATES ASSOCIATEDWITH CONSOLIDATION

As discussed in the Introduction, cost estimates have

been compiled for those options deemed feasible and real-

istic. They are:

Option A, VA-128 - absorbing 100% of USMC pilot and

bombardier/navigator training at NAS Whidbey Island.

Option B, VA-42 - absorbing 25°s of USMC pilot and

bombardier/navigator training, and VA-128 - absorbing 75%.

A. COST CATEGORIES

Several categories of relevant costs were determined and

data was assembled for each in terms of either their invest-

ment value or the annual direct cost involved. The value of

the information listed in the Investment column requires

further explanation. These figures are presented to indicate

an opportunity value foregone by use of the particular asset

to accomplish training.

In the case of Facilities, the $515,000 savings was

arrived at by multiplying 202 's hangar space by a factor of

value per- square-foot obtained from authorities at Cherry

Point. It does not equal either the original acquisition

cost of the building or the current replacement cost.

The figure is intended to represent a savings which could

be realized by the Marine Corps if consolidation were

43

implemented and 202' s hangar was then utilized for purposes

other than training A-6E aircrews. The assumption made is

that the substitute use would have required additional ex-

penditures had the building not become available due to

consolidation. Consequently, a savings is realized. Were

the building allowed to sit dormant as the result of consol-

idation, then the Investment cost would be zero.

Similarly, Investment savings in A6-E and TC4C aircraft

represents an opportunity foregone to utilize those assets

in operational flying as opposed to training (it having been

indicated that training can be accomplished with fewer planes

through consolidation)

.

The other categories considered are Personnel, Travel,

and Ordnance. Appendix D contains definitions for the various

categories and derivation of costs (savings) for each category

Tables II to IV (Appendix D) contains summary cost data for

all cost categories for Options A and B. The incremental

changes in costs for Options A and B follow. (Note: paren-

theses denote savings.)

OPTION A

Investment Annual Direct Cost

Facilities (515,000) (50,895)Personnel NA (856,871)Travel NA 95,067A-6E Aircraft (14,975,538) 304,000TC4C Aircraft (2,000,000) (1,110,000)Ordnance NA 426,500

TOTAL (1,192,199)

44

OPTION B

Investment Annual Direct Cost

Facilities (515,000) (50,895)Personnel NA (1,781,266)Travel NA 94,437A-6E Aircraft (29,951,076) (1,680,000)TC4C Aircraft (2,000,000) (1,110,000)Ordnance NA 426,500

TOTAL (4,101,224)

The formulas used to determine Annual Direct Costs were

obtained from the current Navy Program Factors Manual , or,

as in the case of Facilities, from the authorities at the

specific base in question. Facilities costs are from the

station comptroller's office, Aircraft costs are from the

manufacturer, and Travel costs are from the particular service

headquarters. The total direct savings indicated refer to

the first year of implementation only and should not be inter-

preted to mean that identical or even similar savings would

be realized every year thereafter. Further analysis of

available data would be required before that conclusion could

be validly drawn.

There are certain restrictions to the viable utilization

of these figures. They were developed in an attempt to deter-

mine cost trends which would eventually emerge from those

levels of consolidation deemed logistically feasible by the

study. The importance of the figures is that they indicate

a trend of reduced expenditures to produce the same number of

crews, and that training would occur in a higher

45

quality environment. The assumption here is that a higher

quality environment will influence a higher quality product.

However, the exact figures are not offered as absolutely

accurate nor are they in any way guaranteed.

They do indicate that the Department of the Navy can

train their required number of A-6E aircrews (both Navy and

Marine) in a consolidated fashion which will probably result

in overall savings through reductions in aircraft, personnel,

and facilities support requirements.

Travel costs and Ordnance costs, on the other hand, would

probably increase. Like the other figures presented in this

summary, these are averages based on the assumptions listed

in Appendix D. It is recognized that in the case of aviation

training, variations from these two averages would be the

norm rather than the exception. However, even a doubling of

the costs in these two categories, which is considered unlikely

to occur, would not eliminate overall savings for either of

the options

.

The key element of the Cost estimates remains a strong-

indication that not only could higher quality A6-E aircrews

be produced by consolidation, but it may well cost less to

obtain them. Clearly, a higher quality, more fully trained

product even at equal cost would be beneficial to the service.

If savings can be realized in the bargain, so much the

stronger becomes the argument in favor of the proposition.

46

IV. FINDINGS

1. Analysis of aircrew syllabi for both the Navy and

Marine Corps indicates comparability in excess of 80 percent

exclusive of FCLP and carrier qualification. Present Marine

replacement training produces pilots and bombardier/navigators

with a combat capability of 60 percent. Completion of Navy

FRS training less FCLP and CQ is expected to produce Marine

graduates with combat capability of approximately 70-75 per-

cent. The additional combat capability is acquired through

qualification in nuclear weapons, defensive tactics and ad-

vanced visual weapons, qualifications normally received by

Marine replacement pilots after assignment to an operational

squadron.

2. Consolidation should result in a reduction of aircraft

requirements by two A-6E and two TC4Cs. [Appendix C]

3. Personnel support could be reduced by 15 officers and

140 enlisted based on present allowances, or increased by one

officer and decreased by 57 enlisted, based on on-board

strength. [Table VI, Appendix A]

4. Training of Marine replacements at either VA-42 or

VA-128 offers benefits to Marine training of:

a. Use of a modern A-6E Weapons System Trainer

b. Training site availability of a NAMTD

c. Nuclear weapons training

47

d. Air Intelligence support

e. Increased readiness

f. Improved training facilities.

5. Provisions could be made to provide an instrument

refresher for Marine replacements now received in type either

through the use of a Navy squadron such as VF-43 or VF-126,

through Marine squadron VMAT-102, or use of the ground training

presently provided at either Oceana or Whidbey in conjunction

with the new A-6E WST

.

6. The facilities at NAS Oceana and VA-42 are presently

inadequate for either 60 percent or 100 percent consolidation.

Completion of pending MCON projects should resolve the exist-

ing BEQ and aircraft parking deficiencies, but not those of

hangar space, maintenance spaces, and training spaces. VA-42

pilot and bombardier/navigator production requirements for

the period FY 80-84 have been reduced by 17 per year. An

equivalent number of Marine replacements could be trained

without addition of training assets or personnel unless the

responsibility of support must be shared.

7. With the exception of FRAMP spaces and a requirement

for additional portable line facilities, the present facilities

of VA-128 are adequate to support a 40 percent to 100 percent

consolidation. Station facilities are adequate to support a

40 percent or 100 percent consolidation of replacement pilot

and bombardier/navigator training. Completion of in-progress

MCON projects will further alleviate crowded aircraft parking

problems

.

48

8. The precedent for the concept of the Navy assuming

responsibility for the training of Marine officers and en-

listed personnel as replacements for operational squadrons

has been established in the EA-6B program and has been demon-

strated to be feasible and appears to be functioning effec-

tively at NAS Whidbey Island.

9. VMAT(AW) - 202 , the present Marine replacement training

squadron, is not responsible for providing aviation mainten-

ance training to Marine enlisted personnel. Decisions con-

cerning consolidation of Marine replacement pilot and

bombardier/navigator training should be made exclusive of

FRAMP training requirements.

10. FRAMP training for Marine personnel is currently

being conducted for a large number of Marine enlisted at both

VA-42 and VA-128. Until the assignment of a Marine squadron

previously stationed in Iwakuni, Japan to the Marine Corps

Air Station at El Toro, California, VA-128 was providing all

requested FRAMP training including NAMTD needed to meet the

El Toro requirements. Marine enlisted from MCAS Cherry Point

are being trained in substantial numbers but in a less formal

program. Not all personnel are receiving the complete program

nor are there sufficient quotas to meet replacement require-

ments available.

11. As stated in Section III, analysis of all relevant

data indicates consolidation could be efficiently implemented

according to one of two options:

49

A. By VA-128 absorbing 100% of the Marine pilot andbombardier/navigator training at NAS Whidbey Island.

B. By VA-128 absorbing 75% (a-1 first tour pilots andB/N's and two transition pilots) and VA-42 absorb-ing 25% (all refresher pilots and B/N's.

Option B is driven by stated physical limitations at

VA-42. VA-128 is capable of handling any requirement up to

100% of the Marine contingent. VA-42, however, is restricted

and option B is therefore based on the expected reduction in

the overall Navy A6-E training load during the period of

fiscal years 1980-1984. This reduction would correspond to

approximately 25% of the Marine Corps' stated needs during

the same period and would permit direct substitution without

foreseeable additional expense to the Department of the Navy.

It is these circumstances which determine the corresponding

75% figure allocated to VA-128 in option B.

12. Another consideration in the process of evaluating

options is the historical frequency of Marine refresher

trainees generating from the Washington, D.C. and Norfolk,

Virginia areas. It is officers completing staff tours in one

of these two locals that generally make up the bulk of the

refresher training load. This factor favors option B with

regard to geographical considerations. Option B also allows

all first tour Marine aircrews to enjoy the stated advantages

of the facilities at VA-128 (which are listed in the Environ-

mental Factor rating of Section I-A) while maintaining

geographical flexibility through the availability of an east

coast training site for special case situations.

50

13. Consolidation of Navy and Marine Corps A6-E training

would be entirely feasible under prevailing conditions. It

would be economically and qualitatively beneficial if accom-

plished according to either option A or B. Finally, it would

be advisable in terms of maximizing the efficient and effective

training of A6-E crewmembers, both Navy and Marine.

51

V. CONCLUSIONS

In the introduction to Section II (Evaluation of Relevant

Factors) , the statement was made that any argument for or

against consolidation must involve the three elements essen-

tial to an ideal training environment, as well as relevant

political and economic considerations. The three essential

elements were listed as:/

1) Logistical support adequate to a smooth running,continuous, and flexible training program./"

2) Proximity to geographical, meteoroligical , andtactical conditions approximating those in theparticular mission environment./

3) A psychological attitude on the part of the parentand tenant commands which acknowledges the trainingenvironment to be of primary importance in thedevelopment of all future tactical options./

The relevant fiscal considerations are summarized in

Section III (Costs) and show a positive annual savings that

can be realized under the recommended conditions of consol-

idation./

The political influences on the situation are varied and

subjective. A brief consideration of them prior to an ana-

lytical examination of the trade-offs should be helpful. To

begin with, there was sufficient high level interest in the

attainment of maximum training efficiency to generate two

separate studies of the A-6 proposal within three years.

That interest is directly attributable to the general economic

52

constraints placed upon the military budget as a whole since

the end of the Vietnam War.

There is another grouping of political considerations.

It involves the natural objections to consolidation which

were encountered and are thought to be inherent in the par-

ticular organizational branches. The Marine Corps objects

to the loss of a squadron of aircraft and the perceived

decrease in tactical options which would result. They are

also concerned with the loss of initial "service identifi-

cation" by first tour aircrews trained in a consolidated

atmosphere and the loss of operational or mission emphasis

due to perceived variances in mission employment.-"

The primary objection from the Navy noted the additional

logistical, personnel, and management burden which they would

assume with the Marine training requirement.^

In fact, this study indicates that the facility most

closely approximating the "ideal" desired is the Naval Air

Station at Whidbey Island. It indicates that a consolidation

in accordance with the guidelines suggested herein should

result in positive annual economic savings to the Department

of the Navy. It also indicates that consolidation can be

achieved in a manner which minimizes support requirements

and in several instances actually reduces them.-'

Within that framework, the recommendation remains sensi-

tive to a number of influences. They include: alterations

in planned squadron output requirements; variations in

55

available aircraft, personnel, and facilities support; and

potential revisions to mission assignments.^

The major trade-off for all of these potential influences

is the stated enhancement of efficient, quality training

which would be realized at apparent savings by consolidation.

The degree to which this concern takes precedence over the

acknowledged objections and possible changes in the prevail-

ing environment is the key to this proposal's ultimate

feasibility.

The Marine Corps' objection to the loss of a squadron

and a command billet is not without some justification. Over

an extended period of time the loss of a squadron v/ill result

in a number of potential commanding officers not receiving

experience from which they and the Marine Corps might benefit.

The Marine Corps will also suffer the loss of a substantial

logistical foundation and the tactical and planning alterna-

tives which it provides.''

When, however, the objection is examined in the light of

current and projected personnel shortages it begins to lose

credibility. The availability of the training squadron at

Cherry Point as a convertible tactical asset is very unlikely

since crisis has historically increased the need for trained

replacement crews and could even require an enlarged training

base. A training squadron cannot simply be redesignated and

sent off to combat whenever events generate the need for

additional assets. It is made up largely of unskilled trainees

54

In 202' s particular case, the on-hand instructor quota has

historically been well below even the manning level required

of a tactical squadron.'

Objections built on the concept of "service identifica-

tion" are more difficult to respond to as their specific

value defies exact quantification. It may be significant,

however, to consider the already mixed and presumably suc-

cessful flight training programs presently functioning within

the Naval Aviation community. Moreover, that particular

concept is realistically associated with operational squadrons

rather than training units.'

It is always possible that major changes could occur in

the basic policies governing A-6 training within the Depart-

ment of the Navy. Such changes and the magnitude of them

would probably influence the findings of this thesis and

should be considered by the decision-making organization.*''

While cost estimates indicate a potential annual savings

to be realized from either of the proposals, these estimates

are clearly tied to all other assumptions. Unforeseen

requirements for additional facilities or personnel could

rapidly eliminate the projected savings. It should be con-

sidered, however, that the kind of circumstances that would

radically affect the proposed structure would in all likeli-

hood have similar adverse effects on the current organization.

Since the proposal has been shown to be inherently more

55

efficient, it is not unreasonable to assume that it would

remain so under conditions affecting the entire present

structure.

What should be examined is the circumstances under which

the current structure would actually prove to be more econ-

omical than the suggested organization. The point at which

that would occur is thought to be an extreme one in which

the facilities at both Whidbey Island and Oceana would no

longer be responsive to expansion and a third training site

became necessary. In all likelihood the circumstances that

would cause such a situation would probably be sufficiently

catastrophic to invalidate most of the economic considera-

tions prevailing in the current military plan of operation.

Both option A and option B are based on estimated output

requirements over the next five year period. Any decrease

in those levels would serve to enhance the argument in favor

of consolidation. But an unforeseen need to rapidly increase

student output could result in the kind of expansion just

described. For example, option B T

s distribution of 25% of

the Marine requirement to NAS, Oceana was based on a planned

decrease in VA-42's forecast delivery rate. Should environ-

mental factors dictate a rapid build-up of either Marine or

Navy crews, Oceana would be restricted for a time by the

numerous structural limitations outlined in Section II. Any

additional needs would, therefore, fall on Whidbey Island

until at least the completion of current MILCON projects

56

planned for Oceana. It becomes obvious that consolidation

does affect the overall flexibility of training response

within the A-6 community. Whether that trade-off is suffi-

cient to outweigh the enumerated benefits of the proposal

is difficult to pinpoint. It is the author's contention

that within the context of five-year planning cycles the

contemporary political and socio-economic environment, and

the circumstances noted, it is not sufficient.

The major trade-offs, then, are these:

1) Efficiency vs. Flexibility

The gains in efficiency are considered substantial. They

include savings in annual direct operating expenses, reduced

personnel and aircraft support requirements, and maximum

utilization of the best training aids and evaluation tech-

niques available. The loss in flexibility is thought to be

minimal. It is also considered critical only in the event

of circumstances that would invalidate the basis for the

study.

2) Quality vs. Service Identification

Because of the more concentrated use of the best available

facilities, the resultant increase in readiness percentages

for Marine aircrews, and the more comprehensive training pro-

gram that would be provided for all users, the proposal appears

to enhance the overall quality of the eventual product regard-

less of service affiliation. Weighted against these benefits

is the loss of initial service identification by first

57

tour trainees. While the value of that loss is difficult to

quantify, it should be remembered that even under the proposal

the crews would be returning to their individual services for

operational flying. Consequently, the development of identi-

fication would really only be delayed, not lost. The hard,

quantifiable benefits listed appear to justify such a delay.

3) Economic Gain vs. Economic Loss/

The proposed system has been shown to provide positive

benefits. The extent to which adjustments in the proposal

or environmental considerations might erode those benefits

is unknown. It is thought by the author to be minimal within

the five-year planning period. The system currently utilized

represents a continuing economic loss in the face of the

proposal's general adaptability .

^

It is the conclusion of this study that analysis of all

relevant, identifiable factors indicates the advisability of

consolidating all Navy and Marine Corps A-6E Fleet Replacement

Training Squadrons .^

58

APPENDIX A

NAS OCEANA

FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSOLIDATION OFNAVY AND MARINE A- 6E FLEET READINESS SQUADRONS

Naval Air Station Oceana supports 23 Regular and 1 Reserve

squadrons with approximately 165 aircraft that includes such

diverse types as the F-14, F-4, F-5, A-6E, TA-4, TC4C, A-4 and

various utility aircraft. An additional squadron (VAQ-33) is

expected to move on board on 5 July 1978 for a period of 30

months while runway work is in progress at NAS Norfolk. The

squadron has 20 aircraft, approximately 60 officers and 550

enlisted personnel. NAS Oceana has a population of 7,852

enlisted, 1154 officers, and 1464 civilians including the per-

sonnel of deployed squadrons. This population is forecast to

increase to 8405 enlisted, 1578 officers, and 1606 civilians

by 1985.

The present facilities available to support Navy A-6E

Fleet Readiness Training and the adequacy of these facilities

to support a 60 percent or 100 percent consolidation of Navy

and Marine replacement training are identified in this

Appendix. Judgements concerning adequacy of present facilities

and adequacy for consolidation requirements were furnished by

the appropriate commands. Military Construction Projects that

could impact on consolidation are also identified.

59

CO

o£52

Q<cyCO

coCO

r—

*

a<UJa!

E-UJUJ_Uu

UJ

I

<

OS<

<ar—

I

JoCOzoCJ

£52

Ouu

CO

UJ£52

ryUJr£

COUJ

<u.

£52

O i

EX, to

to

CO Z cd

H O i—

i

Z i-i oUJ E-2 < r—

1

•

uj a «J T3C5£ I—

I

G 0)t-H -J o 5h

=3 O •H •Hcyco 4-1 3uj 2 <D •H a"£52 O 4-> T3 a)

u 03 T3 5-1

UJ 3 CO

U o\° CT £< o cu O oa. o *d 2 oCO <-* < H u

£52

O i

U. to

to

co 03

z. oUJ i—

I

s E-UJ <122 ah—1 I—

I

3 -JCOuj coQ2 ZOUJ CJCJ

a- oCO vO

UJ-Jca<

<><UJCJ<a*CO

XH

<u-

C0+->

03

3CT<U

-a<

CD

M03

uCO

>.03

CO

>O_C03

a>

03

3cr

•3<

03 -OG CO

O M

"3

03

3CTCO

CO to

4-) CD

£ 'HCO 4->

£ "HOO i—

(

3 -H03 O

03

MGM 5h -h

G -H <4_|

•H 03 CD

G "3 5h

to '4-i 03 C j3

OorH

V)tO

03 CO

—i 03+-> Cu CO

c -> o •

rH .G G CO C

'J

O -H <U

5-t ~CX O CO

U CO 5-1

G CO

r— -C '4-i -3 -H T3

CQ

coHto

cCO

OhXCO

CO

5-i

•H3a*co

£52

*

OHto

03

CUXCO

CO

u•H

CTCO£52

*

u •

O G<4H oHa 4-»

4-> 03

03 <->

3 3CT C-u o*•3 a,nj

4->

x crH CO

CO (O

5-i CO

03 rH

CO

oo

•H Oe -iT3 -H

4h03

Fh

O

o\°o\° o o\° o\° o\° o\°to o o o LO LOto f-H LO to CN CM

X X X X X X-O -C -a -O -O hC

CO 4) CO CO CO CO COto to to to to 4-1 to

03 03 03 03 03 03 03CO CO CO CO CO 3 CO5-. 5h 5h 5h 5h cr uCO a CJ O CJ co CJ

c c c c c -3< 1—

1

o\° o\° o\° e8P o\°lo C3 LO LO LOCM LO CM CM i—

1

X X X X X_a J3 rO -Q -Q

V CO CO CO CO CO CO

to to to to to M 4->

03 03 03 03 03 03 03

co CO CO CO CO 3 35h 5-i 5h 5h 5h cr crCJ CJ u CJ CJ CO co

G C G £ c "3<

3<

a> CO u CO CO CO CJ4-1 +H 4-1 4-> 4-> 4-> 4->

03 03 03 03 CO 03 CO

3 3 3 3 3 3 3cr cr cr cr cr cr crCO co CO CO CO CO co3 •3 3 -3 "3 "3 T3< < < <

<—

\

to

eCO4Jto

Xto

to

G

<

r-H

cO

o•rH

5h

<

to

CJ

•rH

<

c O 4-1 Go Cu CJ oH cO CO H+J to CO —

1

>03 4-> 2 CO 03

5h to c 1—

'

"—

'

1—

'

4-» CO CO CO

to s r-H CU Cu Cu CJH 03 Ch o o O cG 5h 5h j£ x; jC CO

•H 4h <ii co CO CO GS 5h 3 "3•3 •H O cy UJ '—,

5h

< < p < < < O

5h

O4h

3co•j)

3

CO

-Q

XCO

s

-G2

CO

oCO

Cuto

to

•HX4->

<X>

CO

5h

<+-l

O4->

-3CO4->

CJ •

CO GCu OX •HCO 4->

03

£ 5h

CO 4H

4-> to

to •rH

X cto •rH

BCO T3CO 03

<Oh <D

CJ

o ^4-> 03

to COr- 4->

5 G• rH •H4-> 03

O Ec3 5h

'4H O1—

1

GO

t—

«

•HG to

O Gto CO

5h ChCO XCU CO

<+H £o o

o5h 5h

CO

'-4H 5h

to CO

c -Un-

03 CO

U o

60

ou-

co zE-> cz 1—

1

EU Hs <LP Qoi •—

i

i—

i

-JD Oc/^nCJJ zDS ou

EUu o-P

< oa, ow —

(

a!aex.

co- 2:z ow —

1

z —to <pv* a>—

t

i—

t

13 -3COUJ CO^ 2OUJ CJu< o\°

a, oCO O

mj<-Ji—

<

<><

CJ<CPCO

©<P <DO CLO o

X XX Xi

0) 0) d)

P CO co p2 03 aj a>

3 CD CD i—

t

cr u P -HCD a CJ 0)

T3 g C P.

< 1—

1

I—I P

0)

P P03 03

a 33" Co 1-a X.< <

a> <U

P P03 03

3 3cr a*CD CD"3 T3< <

u<:ex.

XI03

<u 4->

o Pc o03 CP

a> e u4-> o og HH [fl Xns -—* a. •H p2 T3 o > 03

CD ,£2 H P+-> 3 co Q o'-P ^ a03 •H P gP P 03 ^ CD

O c CD •H Pp o CO -J v_/

•H CJ

< 1—

'

co

XDCO p03 OCD ^HP -HCJ 03

C Pht +->

PCO

CD CD4-i -a

•r-i

CD 2P03 CD

3 —icrxsco 3

oO -3CMt*"i to"3- v—

'

tp03

PCJ

PP -HG 03

CD

CJ CD

o3 CJ

i-1 3-a o3

03 (3

CD•yi pP 3CD -H—

I

03

H £aj

p o4-> +->

T3CCO _j

CU CD

< tfl

K XEx, en

en PCD cd

CO P3 3o a,

oCJ

a, lag toCO HM <

CD

X

3OX 3CO -H

co -aP CD

3 PCD CO

S 3CD !-»

P "3H CO

3a* <u

CD XP.

T3

CO O OP X P.O to a,P•H (N Jco t oi

c < a•H > <co

p3CD

SpCO

3r->

-a<

cpOCO

P

Q |

CO

33*

CJ CD

3 "3 CJH CD 3P 3

CO CJ T3•H CD U

--t Oaj u-i uCO CD CJ

C3 P 3

CD CO

P PCO O3 PcrCD

03

P3X)

3CD

N

o•H

3 P•H 3

XICD -HCO i—

t

3 OCD CO

P 3

3 P3X CD

XCD X00CO -3

XX3 •

O P•H CC/) -H3 Ocj a.o

p •»

CD CO

a, cj

CJ—i o

X 3 3P = OG CO t-i

3 PO CD COU£ NP -H

4> —IP P -H3 O PC «P 3

CD

MP3

XP

3 PO CD

X•3 UCD

co p3 co

X co

p 53 MCD T3CO 03

CD 3P 3*CU CO

P CO QC3O p 3 CD

"3 'P GCD CD

Pi CD S3 P CD

P 3 P

"3CD

P ^5CD 3CO Jh

p3 PP O

X CD 3* 3 ^ VP "3 CD -H •> 2 PG CO P O CD ^-^ P3 a. —< ^v OO •> OO CO 00 P c*U-33X33OC0

CD -H Cl, CO -H -HCD 3 X = J MiPGS33S3PC03OPO33--H3 =XCO--i_CiP. 2

—

p3CD

6a•p3a* co

UJ CD

Hp Pp •HO ^Ha, •HPh CJ

3 3CO EX.

T3 p3 ^ CD

3 U4 coo co pP CJ 3J w :-

61

•

'

-

-

.

J

>,

<ap If) -

-

3

<u t o ca

c J-i

.

'

.

1—

<

-

.-J -

ZJo-c

.-

.

3

.

-

-

:

,— J

-

.-

<

,•—-

.

-

.•

3 •

C

o

as CD

O G •

u. •pP r—

1

. CNCO 2 00 CO r—

1

03 CNH O 0) C c 2 •P r-

1

2 w c O •p 2 5 Ohuj f> •H 4-> p -3 i > O CD CO2 < -J <P CD a> 2 •p P en o < PUJ Q 03 CD p O CD p o 2 OOS h-i 1—1 CD P E 03 CD i—

(

O T3 G CDHH -J 03 O O P to -m CD CD CD e e •t—»

x o C <L> c 5-. Tj CD CD o P T3 e o o OO"co o P 03 •H l—t r- JZ tp •P CD p p PUJ z •P oj G 03 3 CD H co > P <p <p OhOS o P 3 CD O oo CD P O •P

CJ •P a* P r—

I

2 P CD P 3 co co 2w -o a> c 03 co • 03 O a. 3* CD CD OU o\° T3 a •P 3 P p CN 3 •p CD •P •P u< o 03 03 03 cr a G CN O tp CO P P P -3 .

Cu O c 2 CD CD CD i—

(

g «P CD P P h—t . v

CO i-H r^ t—t •r-l s a. B O CO P O O S 00* «| T3 O CD CN o p P • co CO G

P« i—

i

* P CJ CD 3 O co G -PQg g 3 Ph •H T3 a C O eu p tp cp •P Po 03 O 3 C 03 •P o Gh G O CO

u» as .g 2 3* 03 P 3 CD CNJ -p</i O o O 03 •«3- en S P P CNJ —1

CO Cp u p rf P 2 CN CD CD CD •—*

E- 2 o en J • i

—

\•<3- P P -Q X CO

2 O CD n 00 G r—

1

-3 -—

i

o •P s S p pUJ hH £ u 2 G O LL, CD t—\ X p 3 3 3 03 CS E- o 03 •P -P CN "3 OS 1—1 a CT G C oo Duj < •H Oh <p Pi P C CD 3 CD G SOS Q i—

•

P tn o P 03 CO 03 P P p OS CD CD 03 Ol-H V—

(

03 03 03 "3 CD a, o 03 p oo 00 X fH

X J C CD pi P g G.-P o X cp e CO p 03 03 •PO'O O P •H 03 • o —i •p CD •p pi p P P =P 3UJ CO •H 03 ,0 oots •H P O > 00 X h-

1

o <U CD o cr2 2 P 3 — C 1) p <P co CD CD c o Q > > CD

o •H 3" o 03 G CD 03 G a -Q •rH p Cm 03 03 p Pm u "3 CD o X 00 i—

t

P O G Q • 3 pu 13 -a •r-l Oh o o M-< C •p PU p CO C£ C O CO

< 6v° 03 03 CD "3 CO s P O 03 03 < 03 O O Oh Va- o c „C C CO o •H X a P CD i-H Oh-PCO md LO 1—

H

*H*

03 03 u 03 XI Xp -3

P.

X CD

C-3CD

•3CD

3 PCO -P

CD G Q 00 P ZZ co co r—

I

> 03 E- c CD o 03 03 C -p•P ^* •p a. co X .O •P o •

-H P < c P 03 XCD 03 2 p -3 CD P P p cp o3"3 r-4 03 CD G. O O cp 2

-a "3 3 oo P P 03 03 03 4-4 •p03 CD CD SOT C P CO P Oh Oh P O XCD -3 C g O •p •P CD S CJ 03

P i—

(

•H •P — -3 P i—

(

•3 •P •p P -3 PXI Oh O i—

t

P •p /— -—

•

g P CnJ CO Cp a> •P CD > CD CD 3 P p 03 CD 03

QQ G • 03 P O c G G< in CO H P 2 03 P CD -3 •3 03 03 UJ CD P*-J oo 00 i-H G 03 Gh y C CD o U \D ur Ot—

(

to <u G C •p CO 03 03 co •p P i p<c a> p •p •H U I

** CD X i—

i

co '-P cp < TJ> o 03 2 o 2 o <3" 2 V —i -—

<

a, CO CD •p p p CD

< 03 3 lo lo cj P P CO p CD p p c G • p 03 PiGh cr .c <s- .c <*• e- c CD •P CD c p CD T3 00 oo 03 O P

UJ CO (U P P o >-H rH U CD o -3 •p •P C cp CO 03

u T3 •P C "P C £ Q •P -p CO UJ p 03 CO co 03 CD Oh< CO 03 2 O 2 O i

5= 'J > CD O cp CD 00 PQ, I CC 1 5 03 CD P 1

<p CD o O U C O CD

CO r^ HH LO CO l*0 ' u cp -a a. < O .3 2 2 O •H G Pit

co

GO•PP

co

CD

GOMCD

co

OPPcou

are

yards

of

park

ary

Construction

03

P<P03

PCJ

Pp03

Ui

u--—

CD X 03 13 3 P 3cj p r-4 o cr-p rj

03 CD •p ^H CD •p co i^ 03

Ph o <—t E- 03 r-1 cp •p>< co 03 •p UJ P -3 cp O 2 UJH Q_^ u Q CO P /—

\

03 o vOi—i P CO 03

2C P M P tn cd I

-J 03 u. -H o3 r: H •N <D <h-

1

00 a, H o,u tn coU g e H ^ P = 1—

1

P LO '' ro

< 03 03 co 5 •P o < •pu_ X aS 2 2 < U *—

'

< * *

62

4->

os <u (O £ A 1 | • 3o +-> 00 X! 3 H • Sh H 33 3 CO

u. c «a CD +-> Q X 4H a% CD < CD 4-J CD

cd f-i E 3 H O r~~ CuS 4-> co £CO Z e CD •H O en > • •H •H •HH O <d > 4-> CD s • 00 r- r-H 43 CD s 33 4->

2 M h ca 1—

1

f\ X • PJ r-4 3 lO U •Huj e- •H ca o (U 3 u +J CD H CD 3 •H pH co r-H

s < 3 r* c 4-1 43 X <D • •H —( 3 C Sh X 3 r-H

UJ Q cr ca o 1 +-> 'SI o XI CD 3 (-> 33 i—

i

cr X -H 3OS >-! 0) •H <D "3 4-1 c r-; 3 3 Cu^) Sh 3 r* (D Sh •Hi—i -J Sh 00 4-> 3 —

I

4-1 •H 4-> Cu i—

i

o O 3 5 Sh CD s •M3 o rH •H •3 ~ O 3 c 3 •H *J Cu ~ > 3cyco 33 H "3 • O o O 3 -3 3 Cu L0 co 33 «3"

cu z CD CO -a CO co 3 00 s > *J O 3 H r-H £ co

as O 4-> 3 ca U +J • rj M 3 •H X co CU 3 O 4-1 Sh

cj 3 o <d 3 i

—

i *J •H f-i 3 3 3 Sh 3 O •H 3 CD

cu s X vO o a> (U 10 Jh OJ <D o •H O 3 4-» O CJ

U o\° •H CN •H -3 c •H 3 g 00 O 33 r-

1

M 4-> H 3 X •H< o P $h 4-1 3 B —

1

T3 § 3 3 CD O |~J 4-f oo 4J 3 4ha- o CO o 4h IH +-> o 3 •H n •M o -3 CU 3 C CO C+H

CO r-i UJ 4h O O VI 10 =0 to 4->

3[/) •H X

oCD

Sh Sh

3 •H3 •H

OO 0) •H U2 00 5-i C3 •H co •H o •H H O o

ai cd M Qh P 3 C <D E r—

1

3 4h CO 3 X CNo 4-1 M •H i—

t

•H Cu o 4-> cr Sh 33 CJ 1

uu r^ ca 0) +-> ca •i—

l

Sh o co CD CO 0) o-+-> 4-1 CD •H LO

CD u r-H c 2 3 3 X3 H Sh UJ PJ 4-J X >—

t

en 6 <d X > 33 X co ^H OQ 'J Cu • CO 3E- 2 <L> > c3 d [2 3 1—

I

3 o 3 CO CO s '/) H CD

Z O Sh ca fH i—

t

ca 3 s 4-> _C 4-> H CD M CD

1CD —i ^i 4-J

CU i—

i

•H 03 •H E X 2 3 U CJ C Sh O 3 O 3 •

s: h 3 zz 3 ca — o i—

i

»H CD X-3 CD 3 •H n u^-, 3 CD CD 33 ,—

,

w < rj* ca o > a) ?.o H — •71 fH CD Cu Cu M Cu Z O CO

og a 0) •H ca Cu 33 5 0) 4-> +-> co CO •H C C+H to Sh s 4-J

r-H r—

1

Sh 00 +-> c o 3 1h (-1 3 O r-H o a O = = U3 -J CJ •H 3 +-> 0) r^ r>CD CD in r-H •H >-H 4h 3 o 3CO 33 -H 73 • • •H Sh Ph 3 3 4-> T3 3 3 a o X

UJ CO <D CO •3 CO 0) -3 -3 3 to Sh X O H 3 CD O c CO CJ US z 4-> 3 ca Sh Q '— CD 00 M 3 CD •H o co •H O Sh 4-> 3o ca O O .3 U r- M CJ CJ +-> •H i-H 3 CO H CD 3 CO

uj u E X 3- u -a O •H •H 3 3 CD 3 4-> CD X P3 4-J 4-> O CD

cj H r-H •H -H — - yi Sh ^ CJ Sh •r-t 3 3 •H Sh •\ M H< <*e 4-J $H 4h 3 T 3 +J Sh CJ 01 CD 33 g CN CU33 3 O 4J

a. o CO o 4-i 4-i O CJ <D O 3 3 <D p Cut: O o X 33 3 H CD HCO X UJ

r—

1

enr-H

4h

e<

o

co

5oSh

O

r-

UJto

rH0)

o

"3

•HSh

!h X)

CD

O

Z CO o < CO CN UJ 3 O"

o5

CN

CD4^

33

CD+->

•HCrt

X

4->

33p—H

4-J

<

Sh

CD

^HX3

CDXo4-1

p—

(

HCJ

3C-ui

4hO

rj CO CLY ID 4-> 3 r-H cr C7> • 4-> 4-J oH <d o co Lh 30 CU 1 CD U<S p3 CJ —

1

UJ t-> co 3 c3 C 75 X "3 Sh <D CD CO-j CO •H O 3_ •H • 3 • 3 CJ Cu 3ca 33 3 cr> X o- +^ CD T3 •N rj +J Cu X —4

< O C/5 LO •H •M 3 CD H •H OO u. CJ_j XI o 4h ca 3 O 4-< 3

3^ C3 3^h r- r-H 4-J o 3 3 — 3 tO 3 s H • 3< i—

,

CN ca • a*^ 3 o o CJ • tfl CJ

> ca c -3 -a co CD 3 3"uO • X •H co X<d 4-J o v a> +-> 33 CD (D O 3 Sh 4-» 4->

o • H CO +J 0) s 3 rv 33 ~ CD S^ CD c 3UJ 4-» CO 4-J 3 CO CO 3 • r-H c—

'

CJ gCJ g •H H CN O LO 4-> CN H H s CD

< CO o -a 03 H tn -^ C^ r—

t

O •H —

i

X CO 4u 4JCu UTS -a Sh 3 CN 1 tO 3 O 3 1 g s 4h Sh oco CN1

*?-! ca cd a> r—

,

to CN CO LO 3 to s CD4-J

CO CN

CD

1 CDXX 3 CDto CO —4 CO CO

CO ^H CO —

'

Sh co CD Sh 3 Sh 00CO rH +-> CD O O 3+J cd 5h 4-> •H 4h •H •

u +-> 3 Sh 4-> Sh zcd ^H 3 3 CJ CO 3 o3 ca c 3 CD r- 33 CJc 3C 33

<y ShH 5•H 4-1

s:

M CD 33 a 4-> Cu 3CD 'H 4-> CD 3 <D HU (U V) *-> 4-> 33 CJ

•H o •H CO 3 O X C4h •H r-H >H X 2 <D UJ4-i 4-1 C ^H S g CQO 4-1

oUJ 3

UJou 5

CJ

CD

Sh 3X U Sh CJ O 3E- o "3 O 33 4-» 3 s Ei—

t

r-H 0) —

i

CD <D i

-J 0) •H <D •H 0) CO 33 CN—

i

r* !-. -3 Sh i-H 3 r— LOU t) ^H CJ Sh PL, X 3 3"<c 3 aS 3 3PL, CQ S CQ S *

*

63

00c

COOS

UJvO

I

<

c•Hp03

c03

>03

<PO

3o•HP03

-a

o

Oo

co

Po03

a,s

in

oPh

XP•H2

CO

PuCD

i—

i

OPa.

3o

ouXp03

P •—t P •Hp <P i-H Fh cp CO

03 03 •H O cO eX P 2 Mh O Fh CD

P CJ

P 0) Cu4-»

J3OFh

Fh

00 •H 'J 3 X •H OC 03 cO +-> O CO P•H X cu +-> •H P-o UJ i-H to 3 f-H O •31—

1

vO CD U •H T3 P CD

•H 1 P i-H o CD P3 < 3 cO 0) CO P CD OX s c -Q <+H O CJ CD

P •r-i o CD •rH CuCO O X >H i—

t

cO Cu > X^ cp o +J i-H X Fh UJo p •H •H CD UJ CD

03 • CO Cu"3 2 T3 CO

P O CD Ch"3 •H •

p CO o 03 CO Cu > • X r—>03 31 03 jjjg o cr> P UJX> ^H Qh-3 to cO Fh r^ •H co

in V •H Fh CuCi i-H C303 p TJ A i-H •H ^

a> 00 pj 4-> OO O •Mp xi c 3 PJ +-> ^ 3 Po s •H 4h <4-l H 0) ca

3 CD -4 O •(-> P J3 CD CD

P O P <u tn CJ e "3 £3

P CD 03 x c •H CD (U •fH Cuto a CU o X i—

i

> > •Hc o •'•i (D O o o 3o c 1—

|

p •p Fh z Fh CTCJ -H 03 r3 Uh Cu CuU-

C TJ M O 3o -a o 0) •H en •H O +HP 0) •H 4-> i-H •(-> •rl P Fh

T3 +J O CO c ^c 3 Op c H CD U 0) H CD CO QCJ 3 -3 cu Fh CJ Fh •H CuCD <P -3 X Fh CD 3r-i 03 CD i—t CD • > P coO CD ^4 Cu o •rH CJ

P X i—

i

-a 3 r^- i-H CD T3Oh to c Uu

'—

j

CD •i—

i

CO 03 LD >- 3 O 3

CO P CD Uu Fh OH T3 -3 • X CD • Cu u£ -3 •H P ^H i-H JC a> CJE-i a) > CO oo <u • r-^ CO

P o Ol +-> X o 31 •H CD

u p oa i-H 03 +J M r^ <"*i-H

• a n

,

& •H H •H-1 Cu 2 >N •H -H -3 Fh XCO X CD Fh X i-H CD 0) cw +J H cO o CJ P X) • sX > 3 Fh CO CJ O i-H

uu P CD Fhr* uu CD +-> CO cp

• o 2^ -Q Cu Q CJ Oc cu <a CO Fh >T O >-

• o r-i >> ^l. CD CD i CJL, 3<—\ E O F-i tfl C !h UCf o P r3 0) 03 «H en D •HUJ 2 Ph M +- CO •H X) • <—*

aa •H cO CD Fh g 3w-3 71 r—

1

"3 +-> H x: 5 O cccc H •H O o p •H •H

CO 03 ,X S rj -H • oo •H p ,M

5-i r—

1

o Pu oo c -C CD 3 CNcj c T3 •H ^ r; H 2 C/j •M CNP CD U P O H "3 C/l i-H

p S • 4-> u a Cu C « Co3 o 0) i-H •H 03 — •H (0 Fh

3 -3 co -—

i

CU en Cu -J -J CJ COC CD Ch — CN C_3 •3 H ooP X = CNI -3 Fh z CD > C

-3 co UU o o 1 C CD P ^ 3<U -i-4 CJ a. 3 •H o CD 35P -H "3 O Fh CN r-H coCO C • 0> 4-> Fh Fh CN Cu p•H 0) oo • J U OO CO -H = Cu 3i—( r-

i—

v

o CD ?H CJ CO, o s3 <N •H tfl V i—

»

CD CN a CO c •

uj un _*; T3 p o -3 4-> ^y o =t p F-i X '- r-

•

£ CD "3 Fh 3P. 03 03 UJ Cw 3 00 CJ CI P d, %4

o <u Cu >, •H H CO cp 3 ZS.

-H P ^H C4H 2 > 30) 03 p <D »H o CD co Fh OO FhX -3 4-1 F-i r> +J UJ a r- CJ

/— c'J O 03 03 c*> c r* O oi Fh H03 a p 3 en 2 o i CD —

H

•H J4 zSQ = o 3" i-H •H < P < Fh O

O p t/1 Fh 4-» CO ^ 3 U^~N CJ H Fh 3 03 /—

^

•3 •H , \ CuSOS o < o <u O i-H OS O OS*—

' 03 Q (-1 CJ i-H v—

'

& •3 v—

'

CD Di—

<

t*- to e o CO CM ^3CD OI X XO rH CM ^ -j M o 5 •3 CN •M P

CI <-H CN to o 4-> CO LO CJ C .CN

1 -H 1 LO 0) o CJ 1 o 3 1r; 3

0- 2 Cu v—

'

Q 3 H Cu CO <P Cw o •-i

-3CD—j

CD POO ^H P

o c Cu Op •H S Cu

O O CD• • 3 3 CJ pM CD X)3 P CD CD CO

•H CJ Fh X -H3 CD XH Cu Fh "3 PcO X CD i—t

Fh CD X 3 CP P O -H

P u XCO o 3 CO T3CiC CD tp CD

(X •i—, P CJ

o •> CJ 3UJ u to cu a)o Cu c r-l p

1 +H O CD

< CO 3 P <4H

•H Cu CD

CD X s Pc t-

•1-1 «* • 2Fh CM T3 Z33 • o aS CN o •rH Z

CN p P <-3 ^H CD C£- CO CuO3 Fh i-H ^.

3 to UJX 00 P •H S> 3 y- r—

3 3 CD P i-^

Z — C toOO CI

<P O CD 3 i-O

O P _C •H 1

P P Cur— CO 3 Oo P oo -cH •H rj

P 3 H CD C3 r^ P CJ Z—

aJ* 3 3 U•H OS -3 Cu—

i

r> co l-H CN HCO 3 CM CD

- CJ —

i

CJ -3•H 3 CD

CJ r* p 3 CJ

3 3 3 33 X OO CD CD

O o PJ P PCD 3 3 CD

p 2 X •H <PCJ 3 CD

3 T3 cp S Pn C^ O= 3 3 -h•H 3 O CO

« O p 1

CD f-4 • — -3 2^ 3 P 3 OX a 3 3 0-•rt •H N crco P •H 71 PA P i-H oo o •P P l+H

Ch <u P tpi-H 3 3 CDX UJ P P

P o O 3•H •* _c P -32 —i p •H

3 3 00to P CD cz;

+J 3 a 'P -HCJ M 3 O 3CD CJ ^> 3

'i—

.

3 CD X 3O P P P -H- +J •P CuCu co X i—

1

—

i

•H Oi-H lO S) X P3 r-- 3 3H i r—i P•^ o i—

i

•H OCD r-4 P 3 -HQ 1 CD > PCO OS CO 3 Cu

64

NAS WHIDBEY ISLAND

FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSOLIDATION OFNAVY AND MARINE A-6E FLEET READINESS SQUADRONS

Naval Air Station Whidbey Island supports 16 Regular and

3 Navy and Marine Reserve squadrons with approximately 150

aircraft of such types as the A-6E, EA-6E, P-3, UH-1N and

several utility helicopters and aircraft. The predominant

aircraft are the A- 6E and EA-6S and the entire complex is

uniquely equipped to support the maintenance and training for

these types. The present population supported by NAS Whidbey

Island including deployed squadrons is 856 officers, 6072

enlisted, 1300 civilians and approximately 11,000 active duty

dependents. The military population is projected to increase

to 7167 in 1981 and remain approximately the same in 1982 and

1983.

The present facilities available to support Navy A-6E

Fleet Readiness Training and the adequacy of these facilities

to support 40 percent or 100 percent consolidation of Navy

and Marine replacement training are identified in this Appendix

Judgements concerning adequacy of present facilities and ade-

quacy for consolidation requirements were furnished by the

appropriate commands. Military Construction Projects that

could impact on consolidation are also identified.

65

2OCJ

CO<

co

2

CO2oOS

CfCO

coCOEU

i—

i

Q<CUJas

E-UJwXEX.

EUX>

<UJ

OS<

Q2<>-><

2UJ < Ex.x -3 oQQ CO< hh z5- O

>- —iUJ r-aa <Q Q

Oco2OuaiOEx.

coE-2EX]

s:EUa£1—4

cEUas

coEU

<EX.

ca

CJ 3CO EX. 2 crH O hH o2 2 -oEU E- H-

4

03

S Z <EU EU o; DOS U E- OH Si 03

3 EU co PhC Q. OS t>

EU EX.

OS o 4-1

o EU cEU r-t 2 CD

u HH 71

< OS OS CD

a, o < hCO Ex. s a,

a>p03

a aco z: crE— ex. 1—4 o2 O 2 -aUJ »—

i

03

2 E- 2UJ 2 0)

OS UJ H CJ|-| U 03

LO OS co &.cm os 7)

EU a EX.

Q£ +Jo EU pj

EU -3- 2 <uu >—

i

71

< OS r*/CD

Oh O < El

CO EX. s CL,

EUX<_<><EUCJ<a.co

E-

<EX.

4->

3<u

aa3•r->

T303

X4-1

(U4->

03 71

3 CD

cr o0) 03"3 O.< 7)

M

c0)

o03•t—

>

•3

x4->

+J

03 71

3 Ocr cj

CD 03"3 a< 71

*

EUx>

4-1 M 4-1 +-> 1

0) 0) cd CD < +->

0) 0) 0) CD 4-i

4-1 4-1 '4-1 <x.1-4

03

Ho <u <u 0) aEl E, h El El u03 03 03 03 o •H3 3 3 3 4-1 03

cr cj* 3* 3*/) tn ti 71

4-1

CJ-r

o o o O 03 CJo o o O 3 _.r^ LO rO Ci 3"A * *» •* 0) tn

CM CM o% —

H

•3CM CM < u5

CD

CJ

03

Phs COoo &5h O

^ 71 X5 •/I COH 03 OJ+J i—

I

CU (J

03 U o 03 CD

!-i c gv U•M 2 03 CO 03

tn aa r^ a,•H ^^ O fn COc +-> 4-> 03

•H o c ao Pg i—

i

•H C s-5 •H 03 03 03

< C- S X OS

71

c

u03 CD

^4 r-H

O XIa 03

S XJ CD

IB E( 5+-> o

a-o

"3

03

O T33 '-h

i-l -H+-> 371 XI

03

CD

•h O> '-+H

oh CDa cj

03

o a+-> 7)

-a cd

CD -M^ 03

•H J-J

3 03

cr aCD CD

I

CDa

c

ooJ=71

CD •

I—I 1—

(

X) CD

3 Co ch o+J 7)

03 CD

U UO 3a +->

s cj

CD 3+-> f-l

T—I 71

03

C CD

O —i•H X+-> 03

"303

3<

CD

"O XJCD 03

H 03

3 acr cd

CD 7!

03CD

XI CD

-a-3 -H^ >3 OO h2 a

CD CDi-t cX c3 OO 7)

u+-> CDa

M

CD +->

o o03 Oax;'A 7)

T3<D71

3 T3CX 03 GO

M C•H ^S -Hi—

4

O +J•H 03 Oa x o03 CO X

C+H COCD

+-> C CD

CD X X7> 3CD Ei Oh O Ei

a <+i e-

CD

c

o71

Ei

CD

a

CJ

03XCO

o4->

CD

Ei T334->

o3Ei4->

71

Ei CD

CD XSOEi "3CQ r—

I

-I 3O

< 2

CD

Ei "33 CD4-> Ei

ooaH3H03

E.

Ei CD

O Ca-Ha ei

3 037) 2

03

c •

=0

4-< -H•H C

Ei CD

CD XDOEi "303 —I"H 3

O< 2

T3 03

03 Ei+J

->Ei CD

O Ca-Ha e,

3 03

71 2

CD4-1

03

33-CD3<

-as

CJ

03XCO

CD

CJ

303

33Ei

O

^-1 M03 03

> r-t

03

2 <4-1

O •

03 T3Ei 3

cOCD

CO EiCD

2Oa71

03X00 4-4 o3

C 03 CD

H El Ei

cj 03

H71

•HX

Ei CD HO 71

4-i OX •

00 +-> 01

-as

El03 -Ha as

GO -Hr-4 3 -as

03 -H Ei

CJ ^S 03•71 Ei a.•H 03

a acj4h m CJO O E-

4h"3 E(

3 -3 OCD CD 4-1

71

O 3 X+-» ^HX C

Ei —t OO 4->

•H C "3Ei CD CD •

a 71 71 7)

CD 3 4->

•3 Ei 3cd a en cd+-> -H =CD CD CD

—t O H Ha 03 03 T-i

s a oc 3o 7i s crcj 03 CD

a:r uCD sX 3 oo GO

Ei CM S

—I <U

•H CD

2 Ei

4-1

CD

cj ^03 —ia-H7) 2

4-4 Xo o

•H7) X-3 2Ei

03 4-1

>s4-i03

CM >CM MCM CD» 71

—l CD

X) OS

i -as

< E,

> 03ao4-< X

X)4-1 I

3 <CD

CJ 4->

03 3•O CD

03 §)3X 03

r-H

CD X4-i i—

t

3 X•H -H-3 '71

CD 71

5 °= a

T303 —

i

CD 3H O3 cj

66

2Ot—

i

Hco <E- Q2 HHCU -J2 OCU CO2 2HH O3 UcyCU o\° <u

OS o 4->

o 03

CU fH 3u a*< OS a>

a- o T3CO CU <

CO E-E- <z aLU i—

i

2 -5cu OOS COr1 2=3 OCCJCU CD

as o\° 4->

o cO

cu tt 3u cr< as <u

a. o T3co cu <

CUJsQ<Ji—

i

<>

cucj<CUoo

UCD 1 CDJ=

00V J3 i—

)

CO

CD

C-3 CM •H 3 M Hi—

I

r—

1

2 e o O fH

3 1

—4-i 4-> CO

O < CD rH SX > fn r-t -3 T3CO

-o J3CO

ECCO

"33

CO c +-J IO CJ i—i cO+-» CO H XI en

C 3 CD ft —

i

XCD Q X X >

CD CD CD E S CD E- CD X CO CD4-> 4-> +J CD i—

i

O CD 2 4->

CO rt CO fH < c 4-> 43 CO

3 3 3 H 03 • 3 M-i 3cr cr cr 3 fH TO a C •H O cr0) CD <D cr O H cfl rC CD

-o T5 13 CD ttH o U CD S c -3< < <

4->

_3OS

u(J

CO

00o

rH

CO CO<

o•H•M

<

tw s ft +J 2 cO

CO HH c 4h T3u H J CO 4-J •Ho OS fn u ^Hu, • "3 s O CD o•H Q CD I"—- u 4H • t/1

CO CuCO

•Mco< •H

CO

'+4

CO 4-J OG s 3 -J C CJ•rH •r-) gi i—h X CD •

c — S CO ^H —

;

J-l tao

to »H cd 1g +J CD O c^

4-> C U M-i HC T3 CD •H CO •H j^

CD CD CD CD CD jO tw +J o 3 CD H CD4-> 4-) 4-> e 4-J o •H •H cr i-' CO 4-J

CO CO CO +3 CJ— -3 <4H CD CO 'i-< CO

3 3 3 •yi CD —

i

co—

•r-t M 3 •M 3cr cr cr 3 r—

1

3 4-> 03 c 3" crCD CD CD •r-> '4H o G OO CU CD CO CD

-o "3 T3 -3 CD—

CD 4-1 •H co 3 ci TJ< < < < Sh 10 £ O 'A U < u, <

CD C(_i

QO O •3 •

c c • fH HCO 4-> CO 75 o • <+4 -JOS 'A Vt «+-( X O U c

CO T3 CD r-l Fh 4-J CD 2 •rl

DO CD CD•> O T3 CO • 11 4^ —

1

C -C £ O '-4-4 CD •3 • •—

*

CD cO CU •3•H +-" C 4-> • p CO £ -H i—h > ^C CD

XI 3 3 T3 X ft U CD CJ d- •H l T3s o £ 00 CD CO •H •M CO — rl < 3o w £ a. CO 3 u /) 4-i o - r—

i

03 '/) •H Oh 3* o X o cO ua CJ

en •H 4-> •H X CD U-t •75 4-» rH

C CD 4J 3 4-> • (3 >, oo E- HCO ^H >, O cr —

H

^ OO <u OO CD 4-J C co£ -H CD ft CD CO 00 £ c C '-t •H •H s A•3 £ 43 7J fH cj •H CO •H t^ rH 4-1 •H •

^ "3 i—

«

•H H Ph ^>s J3 CD H •rH CU -JCO O •M CO f—

i

g j5 o £ O CJ CO o CU gJ

O fH ^-cO 2" •3 H 'J ft O X CO 2 1 CO ^

an cm s -G 5 < 'J3 CO -O LU U. 03 < CJ —

i

eao

O i

+J <CU

-3CD "3ft Cft CO

•H3 CUcr^oCD 1

< •

X 00 CD4-> -M ^ 4-i

•H U •H CO—i o c 3H ft •H crCJ ft cO CD

03 3 M 3CU 'fi M <

•HCJ

CO

X CIh

E-KH 4-J

-J CD

t—

(

OOu fH

< CO

LL, E-

+-> CUfH CO

X O CJ4-J ft^H fti—

1

3 4-J

H co cO CD

CO T3 ECi. G ft

3 -HE- O 3co sh crs CJ CU

E-h

cua<asE-

OfH4-J

eoCJ

(+H

cO

fH

fH CJ•H CO

< Ci,

67

zo'—

xCO<

"3CD

3C•HPeoU X

uj

UJ sCQ CO< <H z

E-CO <H aZ HHUJ -Js oUJ CO2 zhH O3 UQ"UJ o\° CD

as o po 03

UJ (-1 3u CT< as CD

a. O TJCO u. <

zo1—

1

CO E-E- <z aUJ i—

i

2 hJuj Oas co»-i z=3 OCUUJ CD

a; =*° Po 03

UJ T 3u cr< OS CD

a. O T3co u. <

UJ-Jca<

UJu<aco

<uu

ao£ •

CD •H P-o -3 o•H 3 03to i—4 a,p o E3 c •HO •H

Pto P c3 O 03H C oCU

,

v ' H4-4

CD to CD CD •HP ao P P £03 £ 03 i

—

< 03 ao3 •H 3 0U 3 •Ha* +j crs cr to

CD to CD <^ CD

T3 •H T3 2£ •3 o< i—

1

< a

X

< z

D 4-i -H SO i P-3 O CD CD

~ -} o•H to 4-> 43 P •H ~

03

to CD 3 03 P c —

i

QP S-l 1—4 £ -3 O •H o e3 3 CD & •H H j 03 c HO +J o X 3 o, f-i •H

U 5-4 O o o 3 P 4-)

to 03 4-1 o s-i 3 co P PJ

3 a i—

4

a, CO o 03

r-^ <u I—

4

a CD O O c; • Oa •3 —

1

1—

1

< 10 +-> 1*——

'

<—» •H• •H 03 CD < a 4-i

CD 10 •3 s £ X "3 UJ CD S CD •HP ao CD o • p CD P <- P fi03 c •M CN •H to P 1) 03 gg 03 003 •H CD 1 P X 4-. •H = 3 a 3 •Hcr +-» CD zy H P O 3 •H 3* a* to

CD t0 o < -3 P 3 P CD so CD

T3 •H X z 3 CD O CD S3 •3 g -3 o< i—

1

UJ > 03 43 LO P S < H < z

X g •

o O Cf£ 1 £ G UJP = 03 ~3 ;a•H o • O, "J

2 o 5-t g 3 to 5-4

o ^^ O O 03 OX RJ CN O o -1 4-i

P >-( o•H ~

+-» ^^^ --= toi—

I

S 03 —

»

» O CD

•H u to o 1—4

o O +J xt H 303 to LO 03 • M 5-

4-1 E CN to 5-i ocn +J CD +-> 4->

£ o CD r^ CD -O r—

5-i ;-! M to CD CD

CD 03 to o to to•3 o T3 3 o o O CD

O ^* o ^H <N CN —

i

5h

s —( a, CN (N

to

CD £,

to 5-4

p to CD

CD fH •MP CD U5h •t-> 03

03 5-. 33 03 O*Of 3

Of 3u CD

CD m MO CD toH CD H4-i •H i—

1

4-1 4-1 £O 4-1

OUJ

5-i 5-4

O •3 Oi—

i

CD i—

1

CD •H CD

-C 5h X.o 5h o03 03 03aa 2 03

CD

-o03^h•H03

>3

to

5-1

<o+J5->

CD 034-> 303 cr3cr oCD CM•3 o< 1—4

to

5-1

CD+->

5h

03

c5

ao 3£ <X>

•H +->

to to

to •HCD ^H2 £

UJ3CD •3+-> CD

to •H•H 5h^ '-H

£ 03

UJ S

£•HcHen

5n

McooiUL,

UJ

I

<osHi-i

CO

-3C-

X>03

3CO

c

o

£O

o03

£^

tfl

oaj

o35-i

*J

to

couX5-i

03

to c•H O-C -H Of- +-> +->

CD -3i—4 •3 £

• a, CD 03

ao s •M£ O CD CD

•H U <a >^ a •H5-i X +J03 • CD 03

a-p 5h4-4 M +->

4-1 03 CD to

O 5-4 CD •HCD •r-> ^^

to S-i o •H-O -H 5-4 c5-4 < a -303 03X CD to

> •H 4-1

CD 5-4 -C OU CD E-03 to 4-1

3 CD CD •

cr os • CD toto 5-4 4- CD

5-4 ^ PCM -H CD • CD 3CM < X to 5-4 PCN u 03 O

•v i—4 to 03 3 3—* 03 •H ao cr* 5-i

>o > ^ G to P03 •)-» 03 CO

-4 Z 4S en03 -3 en ££ 5-4 CD £ vO CD

O O -3 CD * T3H 4-i G -3 o OP 3 O LO O•H X 4-i O 2"3 i-H 2T3 5h CD /—

V

CD

03 03 43 CD 00 P^H P r^ CD

£ 3 O <U i—l

03 O •(-> i—i X O•H o a to

5-4 +-> "3 to *—j 43O Jh CD 43 O

4-1 03 4-> O •

a CD 5-1 sto CD ao 03 cCD -J) a £ ao u•3 = X H £ 4-1

•H CD UJ •U cd

> -« to T* PO -O •H £5h O en X 1) Va 5h <i> CD ga i- CD

X C5 o3 >-—v O0 ^, 5 p5 Or^ s >—

'

5-i CD s=

t^- -H 4-1 PM £ CD

X 5-4 5-4 to H "3U-, oo 03 £ 03 Hv-y a ao O 2 >

£ 5h o• ao 03 •3 ao 5-4

£ £ ZiZ 03 £ aO -H 3 •H5h +-> CD 3" •3 oa to CJ to -—4 p< .H £ •H

X 03 03 3 -3ao CD £ vO CQ CD

£ CD 1 PH 4-1 • 4-» < £ oM, O CO rj UJ O CD

5- r- •H •H P |

03 CD <Ti 03 4-1 4-> Xa s —

*

2 O 03 UJo 5-i

•t-i tO 5h +J 4-1 P4-4 CD 4-1 £ •A •

03 CD 43 03 CD •-4 CD

5-4 > s 5-1 6 PJ CD

O CD CD CD CD •H 03

5h -H 4-^ 5-i > — CL,

•H i-H ^,

•H O •3 S>

< CD CD <: ^ <5-4 co P

00 00 2 r-» 03O —i CD rO O r^ aoO —4 +-> o r—4 o ^1 -H 03 i

•—11 03

a 2 •3 a 03 a 4U

68

z

£

OSoE-<

<zas

i—

i

aOS<

sCQ

U4Zi—

i

as<su-O

oo

a

E-exoa,

o

atuasi—

i

2

<CJOS

uuE—

T3 4-4

0) OF-H

•H o\°

3 oo*o0) r-

(

OSu -

+-> o z4-i 4-i co3 as

3 T3CJ

•h 3

to

<

3UE-«

o sa. Ph

WD S

33

F-. o•H

COO rr

I* -•M C Z4h 4-1 23

003 "3

< -H3 3

•H

"3<

3 VI

U -

4->

Fh CD

o s

a, m3 cO

W 2

i

CD4-J +J

3 coCD OS£

F-l o•H -H3 4->

3* 3CD Nl

OS -Hi-H

-a -h0) +J+-> 3£0+-> uoo o

+->

4-1

CO

F-i

CJ

U

4->

4-i

CO

F-t

ou

CO CO

U

—o

cO :0

u uo o

CO cO

uut—

'

o

3<u

ea>

u•H3a*CD

OS

"3CD

4->

CO

co

00CN-H

I

<>

co

•r-t

4->

•HCO

oCh

z03

m•o

1

<Fh

o4-4

-aoh3oo•H4-1

sccj

4->

4-1

cO

F-l•

CJ -3C-I CD

•H Fh

cO 3oo

PO •H'-4-I

CO 3s O•H CJ

>CO oi— co

r^ CD

o F-l

CO-3CD 4->

to 4-1

CO CO

F-l

CJ

O F-l

Fh HCO CO

CO CN4^

c X2 i—

i

s 3CD Ou•H CD

3 s3* •HCD 4->

J-i

+J4-> c4-4 CD

CO tn

F- CD

CJ $->

Fh a,•HcO CDXU 4->

tu *->

H <

o

c/)

OS

u

-J<o

OSi—t

cr

oo

zoo-<

+->

•H3h

uoo

u

CM

oI

<

CD4->

CO-3a,3

uo

T3 •

CD CT>

—

t

r^-

-3 rHCD

-3 >^O ^<

co cO

3CD 3CJ 3•H ~5>3 -Q

co ao

00

"~ o00 <-t-t

o-I >-.

3 "33 33 CD

P-i

CO -3C3

<

CM

CD

CJ

3O•H4-1

3U3ao

> -HCD (4-4

3 3o

CD CJ

CD4->

3S•HXou

3o4->

3,

4->

CJ

CD

P-XCD

C7>

en

3

CD

>

CD3

"3CD

-3CD

-3CJco

00

04

I

<

—

<

CM

cd r~-

cj en•H i—l

>CD CD

Q 3

CD >-}

cn

CT)

CD

^3f=

CD

CJ

CD

3

CD-3

"3CD

3"3CD

-3CJ

E-

U

oI

<

CN

CD

o

co .

4-> -* m3 tu sOCD CD 1

s 2 <CD

ft *H -3•H CD 4-1

3 CU •HCT 2CD CO

U X-3cO CD

UJ T3 3vO f-t

1 ^n CD

< CJ•> 3

4-J >. OCD rd CJCD -3r—

1

CO

U* fn HU co

"3 p^ 3CD 4->

co 'A

3 u '4-1

J2 3O

O

T3 „3 U3 CD

3 \0 XJ^H pH g•y> 3w 33

CJ3

X co 3CD 3j3 P-l

T3 <4H O•H •H 4-1

s ^r 00r—<i 33 i—t H

3 [i, 33 CN •H

300 CD f-i

CN —4-1

1

°CD

< 3 -3> O H

>4-> D 3Jh ~ fn

o • -h PL|

3, 4->r~\ •33 cjD i—

1

CO CJ 3H Oo jj4-> •H

3lo

4-> M r^-

3 4-1 vOCD Li,

s CD CNCD i-H

^ ja CDH 3 CJ

3 i—

i

•HCT •H >CD 3 CD

M >3a

33 4-1

CD -3 O4-> CD •

3 CD 3 34J CJ O O(O X •H -H

CD CO 4J00 5-4 -HCN "3 CD COf—4 — > 3

1 3 3 3< O Fh

> 2 U 4-1

69

3 71

CD

00OS H Td a> CD g CO

o LU 1—

1

A i—

t

<D 5 fH T3 71

IX. z 0)

713C

4-> ^33 o fH

ofH CD

CD

>C3

•H

CO ^ ca u X CD 71 +J CO Oh uE- < <D XI T3 T3 ^H 71 O s X <z 2 ju c •H CO c fH 2 CD 0,LU u • T3 a> 03 CO i-H o OS -Q u 0,2 LU CJ e o 0) c fH o CD <4H LU T3 z )^LU o z •H o •M o * M CD •H 1—4 ^at: l-H 03 OJ fH i-H CO to <"* s OSHH E- z r» CU"3 <+H CD CD CO *—

'

4-> o s o*3 z HH 3 V) o o r-H T3 c CO —

1

<CLU < -•H •H o • 3 • 4-> > o

LU LU u oS 71 00 — c 03•»

•H -3 cr -3 71 3 Uh 4->

U os OS E— 0> pj o o fH J CD CD u +-> <^ 3z LU fH •-4 o H M CD •H fH ,—

\

-a CO c -C "5r •3^ LU ecu Q •H p3 o M r—< T3 •H 2 cO c CD 4-> 2 Oz u i 3 •H cfl •H CD eo "3 3 O -C 3 o O =lu < O CT

- 3 -3 -a c < cr i-H 4-> 3 -o u gE- a. o « 0) fH (D -3 •H •H CD <D O 3 M 5z CO 1—

1

LU OS 4-J X - 3 7) LO fH UD z 71 DO CJ>—

1

X c • u< •H T3 05

2cry CD

3•H

CD

71 OZ l < *-> CO 3 +J

o <u C 2 3 fH•—

HH TJ 71 — ^ 7) > i-H 3_ r-» +J 3 CD

H CO OS H -) 4-> g <? • g cO 3* tj- CJ

< E-H o U 2 _C c o cx 71 o '-W C CD o X COt—

i

z LU z 1C-! <u o LU +-> o O o -3 -a 1 ^H <n

|> LU LU HH <d 75 o c u H < fH < 4-< 71

< 2 CO o z -h 4> 03 CD ii 7) CD +-> 3 p3m E- r—

1

X • fH c s •/) u •H o 4-> CD 71

E- u z C—

i

< 3 -a CUT3 H CD CO 3 12• UD U '/I Hz < LU z. -• O ~

fH fH r-H l-i ~^ 71 • o O ^CJ

LU _j s LU L-, -3 u a> 03 03 H <J U 3 -C C A CU u 4-J

2 ~u CJ •H t»j S 3 • 3 +J o +J CU C2<

LU m 2 oS a- i—

i

3 03 71 CT l-H T3 p — fH c 3 GOu Q> hH LU1

rt cr •H <L) 'HH CD CO CD CD 3 CD CD o 71 71 £<c m — c CD > •H O fH

r^ fH -3 -O 00 T3 •H H_j LU cry OS o !U <0 O o • —

i

CD CO~ N

a. vO LU o LU H 1—

t

C cN° O0 H 3 -3 O 71 fn 4-1 4-» U •HLU l OS <3- +J U> ^H u O C +J CJ" CD U 3 CD 71 3 r-H

as < CU H <U CO •H 'Tf H H CD •P hU i—

t

> X oo •HLU a, z T3 fH o C -3 U O CU 3 a. r-H r- +J

E-l a ui

1—

1

-3 • i-t —

i

•H CD H 3 n> i-H jjg 4-> 3 3LU- LU < S < 03 ^H '— +-> 03 < CD CU f-H o fH <* i— "~^

LU H CU -y; < f^ •H 0) c3 ?H fH X •H o D aS CD ">^ <+-i

_J CO co ti, 2 r—

I

+J 2 •o "3 4-> to 3 LU 2 1^ Mh LU 71 oo O-* i—

i

-Jco

CD

Ui

CNX

CJ z 0) —

i

o T3 +-) CU 1 4->

z lu F-t £i M r^fH +J < •H

1—

I

03 3 5 o •/I c^ T3 > -^a CD 4J 3 O *J CU — CD >, C • CD •Hi—

i

z c CTT3 —CU CU O '/I CD O Cf if) <4H XI

> 1—

1

CD W o ^? 3 o Qi c LU 3 o Ho ^ 71 to a 5 co u Sh 03 T3 23 71-** < 0) O CO 2S 71 Ph CU CD 71 -*: CO

— 2 U "j '•u •i-

1

uU =0 71 |3 1/1 U U o CD

Cj M o — ~CO U CD 03 o CD "D 'hh

OS o LU -r 03 71 --( ^H o O XI '4h i-H T3o r- J fn 10 CD rj CD '-4- o H CO— aa o •« 4-1 75 7) •—

i

o\° 71 3 CD ccs < <4U (rt Crt fH 3 OS H 3 •> O CD U g •H

co z _J +-> •H <D O U CO D 71 3 i—i +J H fH

E- hH 1—t V C V5 ^H »T— f-H c u JZ —

H

3 3 !D

z z < •M 0) C •H O H •M U <D 3 CD

z LU l-H > 03 — o 03 ^ H 3 fH O T3 M 3o 2 < < 3 u o fn • o • +J CT CD M +-» r* M •Ht— LU OS C3* fH

^—

'

M fn H = •H CD DQ c 2 CD =0CJ cs H w <u •H CO M CD "3 fH • CD a • 2 —z *—

1

u -a 3 M <U 30 03 +J -o "3 O 71 71 CD r- (a1—

1

zz < 3 a* CU "3 cj H 71 < y cO C3 O CD •-H r-»<—

'

32 cry eu ^ <D D H 03 > X fn O CN i-H fH J3 oi o CD

co m CO M fH 4h s X < co CNI cO i-H CN CJ CU 3 —

i

fH

< OS O CD 4->

S -3 C Of—

s

co •H 3 SO •

73 - U4 '4H CU 3 !/)

CD Q M O o 71 •H Ma z ~i 3 3 4-J Cc < r—

4

CD 4-> o CD CO CDH J nJ 4-» 71 ^ > 00 =+J CO HH 71 o LO H r* J3 >-h u •H CJ "1 71 4-1 '-

o < r-H 6» 3 71 •Hu X lu C TD CD (D 3w yj LU CD II 4-» > —

CO 4-> X CU CD

m a > fH 71 3 3 UJ. H fH>—* i—

i

E- o fH S 332 i—

i

^H a •H 3CD 2 -J Q- CD +j 4-J CD • •

_J l-H ^T r*t fH 71 'J UJ

oa co u <J CD CO LU 3 E-*< <C < r* 3 3 OH 2 LU LU DQ C7 * z

70

TABLE III

PERSONNEL ALLOWANCES AND ON- BOARD STRENGTH OF NAVYAND MARINE FLEET READINESS SQUADRONS

BILLETS ALLOWANCE ON- BOARDGROUP IX/MOS 6000 SERIESAllowance On- Board

VA-42 (4/22/78)

Administrative 13 11

Aviator *27 *27

NFO 22 22

Enlisted 412 395 375

VA-128 (6/18/78)

Administrative 15 10

Aviator *28 *29

NFO 20 20

Enlisted 417 380 371

VMAQ(AW)-202 (5/3/78)

Administrative 6 3

Aviator 18 12

NFO 15 8

Enlisted 313 #228 SquadronIMA

21679

354

337

131

79

* Includes TC4C pilots in Navy squadrons.

# Includes personnel furnished for support, e.g., compartment cleaners,etc. and personnel furnished to Intermediate Maintenance Activity(H§MS).

Note: Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance personnel and other stationsupport required in support of Navy FRS are not charged to

squadron allowance as in the case of VMAT(AW)-202 . VMAT(AW)-202does receive some support from other commands in the form ofTC4C pilots and A-6E instructors.

There are differences in intermediate maintenance support in the

Marine Corps from the Navy which results in a significantdifference in the number of personnel furnished to supportone squadron.

71

Co•H+->

rt

T3•H

E- i-H

^ o0)

-J cU o< u§> o\°

> o< oz 1—

1

XXI c

o-o •H0> •Mx: ccto -a•H •rH

g i—l

^ o3 71

u. couo\<»oo

o•Hf-J

03

-a03 •Hc r—

1

03 o0) 71

o r-

o ou

CO< o\°

2 o"v. ocn ^H"3-

< c> o•H

X 4-»

XJ 03

T3-a •HCD i—

(

M oti to

<u rj

3 oa* ua>

oi o\ovO

CM CM ^r CM CN . o rr O "3-

^H i-H CN cn go•H

03

rHi—

i

•K rH71

7)

CD

rH CM

o4->

•H O <3- CDrH <4H 1 -3o < 037) 7) > Me 4-> 00Q (7^ 71

a cu

e03 X

03

o\° CD x: ao U oo H 3 -orH 3_ 71 j~*

r-- t~- "3- rH toi-H Jh

OC+H

4->

MH03

-3-

COCO 00 3"

CD

O

CD

71

+->

•rH

3

T3

03

00C•HM03

rH Xu rH CD •HCJ CO g x-arH SO J2 G•H CD •H CDo3

CD

71

7)

o3 &,4-> a,

—i jr; w 03 <r-< +-»

X T3G

T3 *t 1—

1

t—' -HC cu +J "Z,

03 rHS3

< T3-J O

C o c CJ co rH 03 < -rH

•H —

H

e S 03+-> rH }->

I £03 CD

T3 C a. <•H O 2: cj

^o LO tO tO1—

1

i-H

rH o

coo

dv°OOuo'-H

4->

4-1

03

rH

0000to

sO i—

i

toCM

Oh

rH

o'HH

MHO

u3rHl-J

7)

cH203

CD

OOCO<

O'HH

CD

C<—

o71

Sh

CD

Or

03rH

-a

uirements

based

on

consolidation

are

^r to CN CN

75

1—

t

1—

(

orHHCO

ooLO

x>

Go

T3

I-H

>0)

—3

rH03

^4

a>

rHCD

>1)

CNCN

CD

CD

>

^J-

to371

CD

>•H4-i

03

%4+J71

•Hc•H

+jH3

CD

CJ

C03

-ain

o

M7)

3U

o7)

M7)

•HrH

3-sPO O'-t ofjrH "3O GGh o3

Gh3 o\°

A O-dCD +J

^ c CD g cj a> CJ •H S CJ o3 4-> Ho ti r-4 7) O g j g -j -o o •H 7) Q+J +-) 03 rH 03 03 03 03 03 03 CJ H Gh03 O fn ca 4-> g H g H •M CD —• CmC i-H O >—

'

03 ai T3 <D +J %-l 7) C a. G 3GO •H +J N M CD 4-> 71 o CD H CO UJ 71

CO H a. 03 -Ji a r^ g E g •H f-' -acs; 7) r—

(

g LU r£ •H '<-! •H g ^ 3CU CD o O u 3 03 H 5 03 CD o3 H 3 rH • •

u a —

i

CN •^3- s /V «Tf tO CO oos 4-> s = CO o 7)

H-

1

rO to CJ H 1 1MH u C T3 zz CD

cu X ^H rH E-1 CO X o o -J o —

i

< H +J

u. o XJ z. O

72

E- c3 oH-j 4->

u 03

-a•Hi—

1

o< 71

Q z cZ o< X uJ J2>

oo o\°h-

1

13 o03 o

>- .C t—

1

UJ 7]

CQ •HQ c\—i *H cX 3 o3: tt. H

4->

W en 03

< •M T3Z cd • i-t

Q r^E- o< r* trt

o cCJz 13 u1—

I

03

z 71 o\°t—

1

03 o£

CQ ^r

E->

U2co3UJvO

> 1 TJ C< e oUJ 03 •H-J 9- ^H 4Jgg ~* 71 03

< O 1—

1

T3E- 0- •H

cu X —<~1 0) o00 -Q 71

-a co •H oE-1

s uoo a\°— 00 oZ < oUJ z 1-^

2UJ t^»

ct! COi—

i

CN a3 *—

<

ocy 1 •HUJ < +->

|-V» > 03

-aE- X •H06! -a i—

t

O OCL -a t/5

CU 0) C3 +-> ooo

03u

-J 3 o\°

UJ 3^ oZ <u Tz aso00osUJa.

cm cn

lt, m

(N CM o T o <tCN

co•H4->

CO

T3•H

o71

eoo

o

r—

t

-—I

* r-

1

X03

.0T3•HJ=

oo<z

o4->

03

T303

Uoo

X03

a-

-ae03—

i ai o >0 r» "?t r^. of-* LO * M3 +J 00

u l—H •Ho o •M<P

c03

+J4-1 71 X03 'm -Ofc cu

CJ n ccj

-D LO

tO M

oo

UJUi—

i

_o

uoM03

eoo•Htfl

0)

ax

o o^H CMrO ro

a03

as «* to

-3C03

X o o

fj03 o r^ o-a 'a- to•H CN—

<

OCO

Cou

<*»

o-3-

uo4-i

M4-1

03

t-i <T> oj oO O CNU i-H

•H03

LO >03

—1

0)

c —1 >o ^ -; <3J»

T3 03 0) <u >CL> C o a> J •Ht/1 o c *^ c <J

03 •H 03 s 03 ^3

CQ -M r^ •r-t £H Ph M>—

'

03 a>—

<u P JhN •M o M vi O

a •H c; 3 r— H PaUJ C H ?-* H C Q^E- 03 03 O 03 H 3oo OO s 4-) s — 00i—i fH 2^ -5-3 o —

'

<

oa,a,371

a)

>—

i

M03

-503

71

o-33i—

i

0)

C

o+-»

7)

3

71

71

Q. 03

u

UJ

CO

71

7)

0)

-3•H>o1-1

•poc71

oT3

CO(Ni-H

I

<

oz

03

03 <-3

< -3-J <D

U G

s: 03

> c< oz u

T3<u e71 O03 -H

03

M t-i

u

03 OU O

^ -3O Ca, co

&,3 =\°

71 Oo53 +->

•P f-i

71 QH O,—

•

a,c 3UJ 71

73

COE-Ui_j_j COI-H HOQ 2

ujCN So UJCN OS

1 u/—

\

zs 1—

1

<—* HH z|=<—

i

> uCO g3 sJ >a. <zCOw OSu oZ u_

»-H <> s Qo UJUJ -J -—.

-3 J COoa < 3< —

3

E- 2O 5OSQ CO< UJ3 Uczw <

2:E- Oz -JUJ —

1

CO <UJQg E—a. Z

UJex. COo UJ

OSz o_oCO~

1—

1

—OS —

1

< 2a.Sou

PCDr-H

r^•H00 p

c—0)

V eS pH 75

U3 3= •i—i

-3u <

zCO3 CO<

i—

i

^*

01 §*J >o <E~ z

Pe

u (1)

< <=

2 3«i bl

> a< cz I-H

cu

occd

CN 2-r O

i r^< 1—

1

> <

UzCO3z <D

CO O3 £

asi—

i

2ctS Op ^ho rHe_ <

CNoCN CD

1 u/—\ gE- cfl

^—

•

2E- O< i—

(

s: r-H

> <

CD

'J

cd

CN 2rr o

i--4

<; 1—

1

> <

oLO ti—

t

r^

X XU3 -O

<U CD

CJ a3 3-a T3CD <Das OS

t^»

X LOJO

XCD uo

00•"3-

CNto

CN i—

I

i— <*•

O r-

-3bt

03

O22

CT5 tofO —

,

CN —

I

ctf.

OI

ao

•3P.

ca

CN O<3" 00

I I

< c> O

-3p. CD

CD +JO 75H •H4h r—

1

4h rj

O UJ

o •3 Pc CD c1—1 OS CD

Crt

<D

a,

<to 00 2oo 00

LO CNooi-H

1

>• <

t/1 zbl a,

<3- tO o oCN r-> p

i—i u •

3 • CN5-i p ^rP u i

75 o <C a,>•H Cm

3 '4-(

0, 71 OCT> LO sLO l—

1

<p C P<tf cs O ^H

Lb •H Op a,

•3 as a,c P 3ctf 7) 75

i-H X uO i-i oc 4-(

c Pho 3 03

CN to VI o cCC T fn ^ 03

O <u CJ> CD

{X, 1 CJ

C OQ o2 C COi—i << "3 Z

CD

ur P O4-> 75 PO CD

to O0 Xl 3 75

CN CN 3* PCN CD CD CD

-3 bl -H3 r—

(

i—

l

P -HO O X5c c•H

75 t—t

tn 03

j= -C Cu•M 3

en lO 00 03 OLO i-H c C f-i

rr <u 03 Ofn CD 1

+J O C/) O O-3 co

* CD < LO-3 P Z CN

u CD VI

CD P Ha 75 r-H • •

H H S V4-1 ^H UJ P4-1 C oo UJ * z

74

APPENDIX B

BOMBARDIER/NAVIGATOR COMMONALITY ANALYSIS

Analysis of the various Bombardier/Navigator training

syllabi utilized at the two Navy and one Marine replacement

aircrew training squadrons presented some interesting problems

Initial review made it apparent that a flight -by- flight study

would prove confusing and unproductive due to the subjective

factors involved in the training of a BN as opposed to a pilot

There were several philosophies observable in the content

of the various syllabi. Essentially the same material is

being taught in each squadron. (Notable exceptions are Mining

techniques, being taught by the Navy, and the use of the

RABFAC beacon bombing method, which is heavily emphasized by

the Marine Corps.) However, differences do appear in the

manner in which certain areas are covered. One approach is

to present all of the aspects and ramifications of a partic-

ular subspecialty, say, systems navigation, and gradually

increase the difficulty factors involved. This appears to be

characteristic of the Navy approach (in general). The Marine

unit displays a tendency to cover one or two phases of a given

subject in depth and then move on to the next with scheduled

reviews or reemphasis later in the syllabus. Consequently,

an analysis on the basis of phase rather than flight-by- fl ight

seemed more in order.

75

The results of that approach are contained in the next

several pages. It is structured to permit comparisons between

VA-128 and VA-42, as well as emphasizing VMAT (AW) - 202 ' s rela-

tionship to both the Navy units. Comparability of the flight

training is based on a range of relevant factors. They are:

Number of FlightsTime per FlightStudents per FlightTotal Flight Time per StudentActual Time on the Equipment per StudentInstructor HoursInstructor Hours per Student

The categories are weighted equally, thereby permitting

the user to manipulate the data according to his particular

needs

.

Overall, comparability was found to fall within the follow-

ing ranges for Category I BN ' s

:

VMAT (AW) -202 to 128 VMAT (AW) -2 02 to 4 2

From .917 to 1.222 and From .389 to 1.124

It should be noted that fi\r e categories of training were

excluded. They are: Visual Weapons, Aerial Refueling, TPQ,

FMLP , and Carrier Quals.

Visual weapons flights are flown by both squadrons.

VMAT(AW) - 202, however, flies them with one student and one

instructor while the Navy syllabus, which is lengthier in that

regard, uses two students. The remaining four topics are unique

to one or the other service — (TPQ and Air Refuel to the Marine

Corps, and FMLP and CAR QUALS to the Navy). Their compara-

bility is therefore zero.

76

Regarding the specific subjects covered within each

syllabus section, there is almost total comparability even

though the respective titles, order of presentation, and

instructional technique vary considerably. Notable exceptions

are, again, Mining and RABFAC training. This difference may

be due to logistic factors more than anything else. Based on

the historical precedent of Marine A-6's mining Haiphong

Harbor, the opportunity to expose Marines to that particular

type of attack (which consolidation would present) may be a

minor, but none the less, relevant factor. Likewise, the Navy

interest in RABFAC techniques has been rising steadily over

the last few years and appears to have been held up more by

the lack of availability of actual transponders than by any

disagreement about its validity as an attack mode.

Finally, there are one or two points evidenced by the

study which deserve further, more detailed consideration.

There is more than one example of substantial differences in

the perceived value of specific training methods among the

three squadrons. The respective approaches to the System

Weapons Phase (System Ordnance Phase for 202) illustrates

the point. "VA-128 employs 4 TC4C flights in this section

while 202 uses a total of 6. VA-42, however, incorporates

only 1 TC46 hop in their syllabus for this phase, preferring

to rely on nine (9) A-6 flights. (VA-128 also specifies 9

A-6 hops while 202 has 6.) Assuming that all three squadrons

77

have been producing essentially satisfactory B/N's over the

years, it becomes apparent that no one method is especially

superior to another. This allows for maximum flexibility in

the consideration of consolidated flight training.

78

TC4C FLIGHTS - VA-128

NAVIGATION PHASE:

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - 8

TIME PER FLIGHT - 4 HRS.

STUDENTS PER FLIGHT - 2

TOTAL FLIGHT TIME PER STUDENT - 32

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT PER STUDENT - 16

INSTRUCTOR HOURS - 32

INSTRUCTOR HOURS PER STUDENT - 16

TOTAL AIRCREW HOURS - 64

PLANE CAPTAIN HOURS - 32

SUBJECTS COVERED:

SEARCH RADAR OPERATION

SCOPE INTERPRETATION

COMPUTER STEERING

VISUAL NAVIGATION MODES

SYSTEM NAVIGATION PROCEDURES

RADAR PREDICTIONS

NAVIGATION IN MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN

AMTI

LANDING MODE

NMATSZ/DNMATSZ

LOCK-ON PROCEDURES (FIXED AND MOVING)

FULL COMPUTER STEERING FUNCTIONS

TROUBLESHOOTING MALFUNCTIONS

CHECKRIDE

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES FROM 128 OR 202: NO RABFAC PROCEDURES,

79

TC4C FLIGHTS - VA-42

NAVIGATION PHASE:

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - 9

TIME PER FLIGHT - 3.5 HRS.

STUDENTS PER FLIGHT - 2

TOTAL FLIGHT TIME PER STUDENT - 31.5

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT PER STUDENT - 15.75

INSTRUCTOR HOURS - 31.5

INSTRUCTOR HOURS PER STUDENT - 15.75

TOTAL AIRCREW HOURS - 65

PLANE CAPTAIN HOURS - 31.5

SUBJECTS COVERED:

SEARCH RADAR OPERATION

COMPUTER STEERING

MANUAL VELOCITY CORRECTS

AUTO VELOCITY CORRECTS

AMTI

FULL SYSTEM NAVIGATION

MALFUNCTIONS

SEARCH RADAR TRACKING

LANDING MODE

NAVIGATION PROCEDURES AND SCOPE DISPLAY SELECTION

USE OF RADAR PREDICTIONS

DEVELOPMENT OF FUNDAMENTALS AND SCOPE PROFICIENCY

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES:

NO RABFAC PROCEDURES

THE LAST FLIGHT IN THE PHASE IS REQUIRED TO BE "DEMANDING"

BUT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED AS A CHECKRIDE.

80

TC4C FLIGHTS - VMAT-202

NAVIGATION PHASE:

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - 9

TIME PER FLIGHT - 3.5

STUDENTS PER FLIGHT - 3

TOTAL FLIGHT TIME PER STUDENT - 31.5

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT PER STUDENT - 10.5

INSTRUCTOR HOURS - 31.5

INSTRUCTOR HOURS PER STUDENT - 10.5

TOTAL AIRCREW HOURS - 63

PLANE CAPTAIN HOURS - 31.5

SUBJECTS COVERED:

SEARCH RADAR TUNING .AND OPERATION

INS ALIGNMENT

RADAR MALFUNCTIONS

COMPUTER STEERING IN THE D.R. MODE

COMPUTER READOUTS OF ADC, INS, AND DOPPLER

DEGRADED MODES

NMATSZ/DNMATSZ

ELEVATION LOCKS AND READOUTS

AZ- RANGE LOCKS AND NAV CHECKPOINTS

AMTI

PABFAC BEACON PROCEDURES

CHECKRIDE

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES:

RABFAC INTRO.

TENDENCY TOWARD A MORE SPECIFIED CONTENT.

81

TC4C FLIGHTS - 128

SYSTEM WEAPONS PHASE:

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - 4

TIME PER FLIGHT - Varies (2,3 § 4 hrs.)

STUDENTS PER FLIGHT - 2

TOTAL FLIGHT TIME PER STUDENT - 12

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT PER STUDENT - 6

INSTRUCTOR HOURS - 12

INSTRUCTOR HOURS PER STUDENT - 6

TOTAL AIRCREW HOURS - 24

PLANE CAPTAIN HOURS - 12

SUBJECTS COVERED:

SIMULATED ATTACKS - ALL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY

MINING ATTACKS

COMPLEX ATTACKS

SYSTEM NAVIGATION AND PRACTICE TO AND FROM TARGETS

SIMULATED ATTACKS ON THE SPOKANE RBS

CHECKRIDE INVOLVING DIFFICULT TARGETS, DISTRACTIONS,

MALFUNCTIONS AND SIMULATED EMERGENCIES.

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES:

AVAILABILITY OF SPOKANE RBS

MINING

EMPHASIS ON COMPLEX TARGETS

NOTE : EMPHASIS IS ON EXPOSURE TO THE TOTAL A-6 MISSION. ALL PRIMARY AND

SECONDARY ORDNANCE DELIVERIES ARE COVERED. ACCORDING TO PREVAILING CONDI-

TIONS AND CONSTRAINTS THE TC4C PHASE WILL ALSO INCLUDE AND PRACTICE CREW

COORDINATION, COCKPIT AWARENESS (AIRMANSHIP), TARGETING, WEAPONRY AND

DEGRADED SYSTEMS OPERATION. MINING, MOVING TARGETS, COMPLEX AND TERRAIN

TARGET PROCEDURES ARE ALL COVERED. THIS REQUIRES THE USE OF AIMPOINTS,

CHECKPOINTS AND SYSTEM PROCEDURES.

82

TC4C FLIGHTS - 42

SYSTEM WEAPONS PHASE:

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - 1

TIME PER FLIGHT - 3.5

STUDENTS PER FLIGHT - 3

TOTAL FLIGHT TIME PER STUDENT - 3.5

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT PER STUDENT - 1.17

INSTRUCTOR HOURS - 3.5

INSTRUCTOR HOURS PER STUDENT - 1.17

TOTAL AIRCREW HOURS - 7

PLANE CAPTAIN HOURS - 3.5

SUBJECTS COVERED:

FAMILIARIZATION WITH TARGET PATTERN AND PROCEDURES

DEMONSTRATE ATTACK PROCEDURES AND SYSTEM ATTACK MODES

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES:

RAW TIME FACTOR UNDER THE DIRECT GUIDANCE OF AN INSTRUCTOR B/N

IN THE ATTACK, OR WEAPONS SYSTEM ENVIRONMENT.

83

TC4C FLIGHTS - 202

RADAR TARGET IDENTIFICATION PHASE:

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - 6

TIME PER FLIGHT - 3.5

STUDENTS PER FLIGHT - 3

TOTAL FLIGHT TIME PER STUDENT - 21

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT PER STUDENT - 7

INSTRUCTOR HOURS - 21

INSTRUCTOR HOURS PER STUDENT - 7

TOTAL AIRCREW HOURS - 42

PLANE CAPTAIN HOURS - 21'

SUBJECTS COVERED:

RADAR TARGET IDENTIFICATION

USE OF OFFSET AIMPOINTS (IMPLIED IN 128* s)

TARGET COMPLEX BREAKUP

COMPLEX ATTACKS

SYSTEM MALFUNCTIONS DURING ATTACKS

CHECKRIDE

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES:

NO MINING

NO SPOKANE RBS

EMPHASIS ON OVERALL ATTACK PROCEDURES AS OPPOSED TO

COMPLEX ATTACKS.

NOTE : THE STUDENT IS INTRODUCED TO AND PRACTICES ALL PRIMARY AND

SECONDARY ATTACKS. HE CONTINUES TO GAIN EXPERIENCE IN GENERAL AIRMAN-

SHIP, TARGETING, USE OF THE WEAPONS SYSTEM AND DEGRADED SYSTEMS OPERATION,

HE ENCOUNTERS AMTI , USE OF CHECKPOINTS AND AIMPOINTS. HE DOES NOT COVER

MINING.

84

A6 FLIGHTS - 128

FAM STAGE:

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - 2

TIME PER FLIGHT - 2

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT (TOTAL) - 4

INSTRUCTOR HOURS - 4

SUBJECTS COVERED:

LOCAL AREA CHECKOUT

A6 FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS

AEROBATICS

SINGLE ENGINE PERFORMANCE

TOUCH AND GO PATTERN

INSTRUMENT ROUND ROBIN

TACAN, GCA, FIELD PROCEDURES

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES:

NO NIGHT WORK

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS

85

A6 FLIGHTS - 42

FAM STAGE:

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - 1

TIME PER FLIGHT - 1.5

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT (TOTAL) - 1.5

INSTRUCTOR HOURS - 1.5

SUBJECTS COVERED:

LOCAL AREA FAMILIARIZATION

A6 FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS

FIELD APPROACH PROCEDURES

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES:

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS

NO INSTRUMENT WORK

NO NIGHT WORK

86

A6 FLIGHTS - 202

FAM AND INSTRUMENT STAGE:

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS -. 4

TIME PER FLIGHT - 2.5

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT (TOTAL) - 10

INSTRUCTOR HOURS - 10

SUBJECTS COVERED:

LOCAL AREA FAMILIARIZATION

A6 FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS

AEROBATICS

SINGLE ENGINE PERFORMANCE

STALLS

INSTRUMENT APPROACHES

LANDING PATTERN (TOUCH .AND GO)

NIGHT ORIENTATION

INSTRUMENT FLIGHT PLANNING

DD 175 FILING

EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE TO THE PILOT

NIGHT INSTRUMENT FLYING

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES:

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS

INSTRUMENT FILING AND FLYING (42)

NIGHT WORK

87

A6 FLIGHTS - 128

NAVIGATION PHASE

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS (1 VISUAL-FORM, 3 SYSTEMS) - 4

TIME PER FLIGHT (2.5, 2.5, 2.5, 3) -

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT (TOTAL) - 10.5

INSTRUMENT HOURS - 10.5

SUBJECTS COVERED:

FORMATION FLYING

VISUAL NAVIGATION - LOW LEVEL

HAND AND ARM SIGNALS

SYSTEM TURN POINT PROCEDURES

VOICE COMMUNICATIONS

AMTI

LANDING MODE

LOW LEVEL SYSTEM NAVIGATION

TERRAIN CLEARANCE USING SEARCH RADAR AND SRTC

OVERALL SYSTEM CAPABILITY AT LOW LEVEL

USE OF VTR

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES:

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS

FORMATION FLYING

A6 FLIGHTS - 42

NAVIGATION AND RADAR TARGET IDENTIFICATION PHASE:

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - 10

TIME PER FLIGHT - (1-2.0, 9-2.5)

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT (TOTAL) - 24.5

INSTRUCTOR HOURS - 24.5

SUBJECTS COVERED:

D.R. NAVIGATION

SYSTEM NAVIGATION*

IDENTIFICATION AND BREAKUP OF COMPLEX TARGETS

RANGING FROM EASY TO VERY DIFFICULT

LOW LEVEL/HIGH SPEED SYSTEM AND VISUAL NAVIGATION (COMBINED)

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES:

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS

NO FORMATION (ANYWHERE IN THE SYLLABUS)

* NOTE: THE SYLLABUS IS UNSPECIFIC AS TO CONTENT BUT IT CAN BE

REASONABLY ASSUMED THAT IT PARALLELS 128, AT LEAST

ROUGHLY, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FORMATION FLYING, WHICH

ONE WOULD EXPECT TO FIND SPECIFIED.

89

A6 FLIGHTS - 202

FORMATION, VISUAL NAVIGATION AND SYSTEM TACTICS PHASES:

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - (2 VISUAL, 2 FORMATION, 4 SYSTAC) 8

TIME PER FLIGHT - (2-2.0 and 6-2.5)

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT (TOTAL) - • 19

INSTRUCTOR HOURS - 19

SUBJECTS COVERED:

FORMATION FLYING - DAY AND NIGHT

SECTION TACTICS

SECTION APPROACHES

HAND AND ARM SIGNALS

LOW LEVEL/HIGH SPEED VISUAL NAVIGATION

LOW AND MEDIUM SYSTEM NAVIGATION

ST. PATH ATTACKS

TERRAIN CLEARANCE

GENERAL ATTACKS ON COMPLEX TARGETS

USE OF OAP's

USE OF VTR

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES:

NIGHT FORMATION

CONTINUATION OF ATTACK PROCEDURES

90

A6 FLIGHTS - 128

SYSTEM WEAPONS PHASE:

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - 9

TIME PER FLIGHT - (1 - 2.0, 4 - 2.5, 4 - 3.0)

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT (TOTAL) - 24

INSTRUCTOR HOURS - 24

SUBJECTS COVERED:

ALL SIGNIFICANT TYPES OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY METHODS OF

ORDNANCE DELIVERY

CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT AND EXPOSURE TO HIGH SPEED NAVIGATION,

ALL WEATHER TERRAIN CONTOUR FLYING, CREW COORDINATION,

AIRMANSHIP, SYSTEM EVALUATION, TARGETING, WEAPONRY AND

DEGRADED SYSTEM OPERATION

MINING

AMTI (WITH ORDNANCE)

TERRAIN CLEARANCE AT NIGHT AND IN ALL WEATHER

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES:

AMTI RANGE

SPOKANE RBS

MINING

91

A6 FLIGHTS - 42

SYSTEM WEAPONS PHASE:

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - 9

TIME PER FLIGHT - C6-2.0, 3-2.5)

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT (TOTAL) - 19.5

INSTRUCTOR HOURS - 19.5

SUBJECTS COVERED:

ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS 128 IN BOTH INTENT AND CONTENT.

NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS ARE: NO MENTION OF EITHER MINING OR AMTI,

AND THE INCLUSION OF SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED, PLANNED

CONVENTIONAL AND SPECIAL WEAPONS DELIVERY STRIKES.

THIS SEEMS TO DISPLAY SOME OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCES

IN INSTRUCTIONAL METHODOLOGY MENTIONED IN THE INTRODUCTION.

OVERALL COMPARABILITY STILL HIGH.

92

A6 FLIGHTS - 202

SYSTEM ORDNANCE PHASE:

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - 6

TIME PER FLIGHT - 1.5

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT (TOTAL) - 9

INSTRUCTOR HOURS - 9

SUBJECTS COVERED:

STRAIGHT PATH AND STRAIGHT PATH DIVE ATTACKS

COP CHECKS

STRAIGHT PATH USING RABFAC OR OAP '

s

GENERAL AND ROCKET ATTACKS

NIGHT ATTACKS

AMTI (SIMULATED)

STRAIGHT PATH RABFAC AT NIGHT

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES:

HEAVY EMPHASIS ON THE USE OF THE RABFAC

NO MINING

AMTI

93

OTHER FLIGHTS:

VISUAL WEAPONS - 128 42 202

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - 8 4 2

HOURS PER FLIGHT - NA NA 1.5

TOTAL HOURS - 12 6 3

INSTRUCTOR HOURS NONE NONE 3

SUBJECTS - NA NA 30 DIVE30 RKTS.

AERIAL REFUELING - NO NO SCHED BUT RARELY FLOWN1 FLT - 1 HR

TPQ -

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - NO NO 1

HOURS PER FLIGHT - 1.5

TOTAL HOURS - 1.5

INSTRUCTOR HOURS - 1.5

TACTICS -

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - 5 1 NONE

HOURS PER FLIGHT - NA 1.5 NONE

TOTAL HOURS - 6.5 1.5 NONE

INSTRUCTOR HOURS - NONE NONE NONE

FCLP's -

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - 14 NA NONE

HOURS PER FLIGHT - 1 NA NONE

TOTAL HOURS - 14 5 NONE

INSTRUCTOR HOURS - NONE NONE NONE

CARRIER QUALS -

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - 4 NA NONE

HOURS PER FLIGHT - 2 NA NONE

TOTAL HOURS - 8 S NONE

INSTRUCTOR HOURS - NONE NONE NONE

Note: NA = NOT AVAILABLE

94

TC4C FLIGHTS

NAVIGATION PHASE

128 % 42 % 202 %/128 %/42

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS 8 .888 9 1.000 9 1.125 1.000

TIME PER FLIGHT 4 1.000 3.5 .875 3.5 .875 1.000

STUDENTS PER FLIGHT 2 1.000 2 1.000 3 1.500 1.500

TOTAL FLIGHT TIME PERSTUDENT 32 1.000 31.5 .984 31.5 .984 1.000

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENTPER STUDENT 16 1.000 15.75 .984 10.5 .656 .667

INSTRUCTOR HOURS 32 1.000 31.5 .984 31.5 .984 1.000

INSTRUCTOR HOURS PERSTUDENT 16 1.000 15.75 .984 10.5 .656 .667

TOTAL CREW HOURS 64 1.000 65 .984 65 .984 1.000

PLANE CAPTAIN HOURS 32 1.000 31.5 .984 51.5 .984 1.000

SYSTEM WEAPONS PHASE

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS 4 1.000 1 .250 6 1.500 6.000

TIME PER FLIGHT V 5

,

5 5.5 Varies 1 000

STUDENTS PER FLIGHT 2 667 5 1.000 3 1.500 1 000

TOTAL FLIGHT TIME PERSTUDENT 12 1 000 3. 5 .292 21 1.750 6 000

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENTPER STUDENT 6 1 000 1. 17 .195 7 1.167 5 983

INSTRUCTOR HOURS 12 1 000 3

.

5 .292 21 1.750 6 000

INSTRUCTOR HOURS PERSTUDENT 6 1 000 1 17 .195 7 1.167 5 983

TOTAL CREW HOURS 24 1 000 7 .292 42 1.750 6 000

PLANE CAPTAIN HOURS 12 1 000 3. 5 .292 21 1.750 6. 000

95

A6 FLIGHTS

FAM STAGE (FAM AND INSTRUMENT STAGE FOR 202)

128 0. 42 0,"0 202 %/128 %/42

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS 2 1.000 1 .500 4 2.000 4.000

TIME PER FLIGHT 2 1.000 1.5 .750 2.5 1.250 1.667

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT(TOTAL) 4 1.000 1.5 .375 10 2.500 6.667

INSTRUCTOR HOURS 4 1.000 1.5 .375 10 2.500 6.667

NAVIGATION PHASE (NAV. AND RADAR TGT. IDENTIFICATION PHASE FOR VA-42)(FORMATION, VISUAL NAV. AND SYSTEM TACTICS FOR 202)

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS 4 .400 10 1.000 8 2 000 .800

TIME PER FLIGHT V V Varies

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT(TOTAL) 10.5 .429 24.5 1.000 19 1 800 .776

INSTRUCTOR HOURS 10.5 .429 24.5 1.000 19 1 800 .776

SYSTEM WEAPONS PHASE (SYSTEM ORDNANCE PHASE FOR 202)

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS 9 1.000 9 1.000 6 .667 .667

TIME PER FLIGHT V V 1.5

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT(TOTAL) 24 1.000 19.5 .815 9 .375 .462

INSTRUCTOR HOURS 24 1.000 19.5 .815 9 .575 .462

96

ANALYSIS BY AIRCRAFT - ALL FLIGHTS

TC4C

128 % 42 % 202 %/128 %/42

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS 12 1.000 10 .833 15 1.250 1.500

TIME PER FLIGHT V V 3.5

STUDENTS PER FLIGHT 2 .952 2.1 1.000 3 1.500 1.430

TOTAL FLIGHT TIMEPER STUDENT 44 1.000 35 .795 52.5 1.193 1.500

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENTPER STUDENT 22 1.000 16.92 .769 17.5 .795 1.034

INSTRUCTOR HOURS 44 1.000 35 .795 52.5 1.195 1.500

INSTRUCTOR HOURSPER STUDENT 22 1.000 16.67 .757 17.5 .795 1.049

TOTAL AIRCREW HOURS 88 1.000 70 .795 105 1.193 1.500

PLANE CAPTAIN HOURS 44 1.000 35 .795 52.5 1.193 1.500

A6 (EXCLUDES VIS. WEAPONS, AIR. REFUEL, TPQ, FCLP, CAR. QUALS.

)

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS 15 .750 20 1.000 18 1.200 .900

TIME PER FLIGHT V V V

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT(TOTAL) 38.5 .846 45.5 1.000 38 .987 .835

INSTRUCTOR HOURS 38.5 .846 45.5 1.000 38 .987 .835

97

ANALYSIS BY PHASE - ALL FLIGHTS - TC4C AND A6

FAM STAGE (TAM AND INSTRUMENT STAGE FOR 202)

128 % 42 % 202 %/128 %/42

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS 2 1.000 1 .500 4 2.000 4.000

TIME PER FLIGHT 2 1.000 1.5 .750 2.5 1.250 1.667

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENT(TOTAL) 4 1.000 1.5 .375 10 2.500 6.667

INSTRUCTOR HOURS 4 1.000 1.5 .375 10 2.500 6.667

NAVIGATION PHASE (NAV. .AND RADAR TGT. , IDENTIFICATION PHASE FOR 42)(FORM, VIS. NAV. SYS. TACTICS PHASE FOR 202)

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS 12 .631 19 1.000 17 1.416 .89'

TIME PER FLIGHT

STUDENTS PER FLIGHT

TOTAL FLIGHT TIME PERSTUDENT 42.5 .759 56 1.000 50.5 1.188 .901

12 .631 19 1.000 17

V V V

1/2 1/2 1/3

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENTPER STUDENT 26 5 .658 40 25 1 .000 29 5 1 113 .752

INSTRUCTOR HOURS 42 5 .759 56 1 000 50. 5 1 188 .901

INSTRUCTOR HOURS PERSTUDENT 26 5 . 658 40. 25 1 .000 29 5 1 115 .732

TOTAL AIRCREW HOURS 74 5 .851 87. 5 1 .000 82 1 100 .937

PLANE CAPTAIN HOURS 32 1.000 31. 5 .984 51 5 984 1.000

SYSTEM WEAPONS PHASE (SYSTEM ORDNANCE PHASE FOR 202)

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS 13 1 000 10 .769 12 .923 1 200

TIME PER FLIGHT 2-4 2-3.5 1.5-3 .5

STUDENTS PER FLIGHT 1-2 1-2-3 1-3

TOTAL FLIGHT TIME PERSTUDENT 36 1 000 25 .638 50 .853 1 304

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENTPER STUDENT 30 1 000 20.67 .689 16 . 533 774

INSTRUCTOR HOURS 36 1 000 23 .638 50 .833 1 304

INSTRUCTOR HOURS PERSTUDENT 50 1 000 20.67 .689 16 .533 774

TOTAL AIRCREW HOURS 48 1 000 26.5 .552 51 1 .062 1 924

PLANE CAPTAIN HOURS 12 1 000 3.5 .292 21 1 .750 6 000

98

ANALYSIS OF THE FLIGHT SYLLUBUS - ALL FLIGHTS - ALL AIRCRAFT

128 % 42 % 202 %/128 %/42

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS 27 .900 50 1.000 55 1.222 1.100

TIME PER FLIGHT V V V

STUDENTS PER FLIGHT 1/2 1/3 1/3

TOTAL FLIGHT TIME PERSTUDENT 82.5 1 .000 80.5 .975 90.5 1.096 1.124

TIME ON THE EQUIPMENTPER STUDENT 60.5 .969 62.42 1.000 55.5 .917 .889

INSTRUCTOR HOURS 82.5 1 .000 80.5 .975 90.5 1.096 1.124

INSTRUCTOR HOURS PERSTUDENT 60.5 .969 62.42 1.000 55.5 .917 .889

TOTAL AIRCREW HOURS 88 1 .000 70 .795 105 1.195 1.500

PLANE CAPTAIN HOURS 44 1 .000 35 .795 52.5 1.195 1.500

COMPARABILITY RUNS FROM:

202 to 128 202 to 4;

917 to 1.222 .889 to 1.500

99

CATEGORY II COMPARISONS

SQUADRON SORTIES STUDENT HOURS AIRCRAFT HOURSDAY/NIGHT DAY/NIGHT DAY/NIGHT

NAVIGATION STAGE

128 5/10 11/0 5/6

42'

5/0 14.5/0 7.5/7

SYSTEM PHASE

128 6/1 16/3 17/2

42 6/1 15/2.5 14/3.5

FMLP'S AND CARRIER QUALS ARE OPTIONAL IN 42

FMLP 1/4 1/4 NOT CREDITED

CAR. QUAL. 2/2 4/4 NOT CREDITED

128 INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING:

VISUAL WEAPONS 8/0 12/0 12/0

TACTICS 4/1 5.5/1 6.5/0

FCLP's 4/10 4/10 14/0

CAR. QUALS. 2/2 4/4 8/0

CATEGORY III - SQUADRON SYLLABUS HOURS AIRCRAFT HOURS

128 25 31.2

42 22 27.5

CATEGORY IV -

128 16 20

42 15.25 19

THE MARINE CORPS TRANSITION AND CONVERSION SYLLABI ARE IDENTICAL.

THE REFRESHER SYLLABUS IS AS FOLLOWS:

SORTIES TIME PER FLIGHT TOTAL HOURS

SYSTEM TACTICS - 4

SYSTEM ORDNANCE - 6

AERIAL REFUELING - 1

2.5

1.5

1.5

10

9

1.5

CARRIER QUALS, FMLP's, AND TACTICS ARE INTRODUCED AT A LATER STAGE

OF TRAINING AFTER ASSIGNMENT TO THE TACTICAL SQUADRONS.

100

USING 100 PERCENT AS THE BASE FIGURE, COMPARABILITY OF ALL FACTORS

FELL WITHIN THE FOLLOWING RANGE:

VMAT(AW)-202 COMPARED TO VA-128 :

From a Minimum of 91.7% to a Maximum of 122.2% -

The Mean = 104.96%

The Variance = 1.383864%

The Standard Deviation = 13.1523000%

Average Comparability equalled 95%.

VMAT(AW)-202 COMPARED TO VA-42 :

From a Minimum of 88.9% to a Maximum of 112.4% -

The Mean = 102.52%

The Variance = 1.244376%

The Standard Deviation = 12.471848%

Average Comparability equalled 98%.

101

>>

-J<3

a,

<

aa

UCO=3

OSocu

QUJi—

I

—ao

CO

CQ<-J-J>-co

CO

o

CO=3CQ<-3-J>CO

O-Jl-H

a.

u§co33

cuases33u

zoCOt—

I

OS<a.Sou

CO

ca<

>-co

U

coOS

oX

—<UOS

UJ

I

<

<o

COID55

3-J

CO

u2w3

Hcu<OS

co cja!

CO3

Cu COHI 3Q CQo <

>-co

-x

cooi

CO XCQ r->< CUJ <cJ OS>» CJco as

u <co co3 OS

z coUJ 3OS CQCC <CJ

uu

UJ

I

<

COUJ

CU UJo z

O OS2 H

>->

OSoUJE-<

LOCMen

C7>

LOen

Ti-

en

eno

t-«.

LO

to

CO

to

oCO

LO

tO

enLO

oto

'/I

CU

LO

en

LO

to

CO

oco

LO

to

LO

LO

'7)

cUi

E-

Ui<L>

>

ou

LOo

\C

to

cm

o

LO

LO

o

Oco

LO

to

C7>

LO

CO

uo-C>f)

oJ-l

OS

CO

LOCMLOto O

Pi3

CO -aCO T3l-H 03

u• <

' V CUCM t/> CQr—

1

• 3 <fCM /—

>

-Q Cito I—

4

cd

CM i—

i

u.

1 ^H oCU X C(U

C-H t/S

c-1 0)

O CN H^" •M

u 1 Ui

s < ou >

UJ• • • • Oo a> l

u o <Ut Ut

3 3 uO o 3CO CO O'—/ w ^4-» *J

1

c ca> u 0)

u o cu u. oa> a>

CU cc?

lO LO CJto CM

T3to V5 C3 3 03

r—

1

—Ha, a, 0-

-Jtn VI SUi U CU^ 3o O V)

-C J= •y)

t/1 /) r-H

3 3Q X5 -yj

03 cfl •Hr—

1

—4—

*

^ -y>

>s X 3•y> y) X2

CO

n it i—

1

r-i

[/] '/} X •

U Ui •J\ 'S>

3 3 r*

o O Z O— -^ CO CU33 03

+J M a>CM C(U a 2ct5 03 <L»

Ut U. •H £a O M-i

u Ui •H +J•H •H -3 W3

as 03 O X2 to

Us Zco CO •

Z3 33 aM

* It o•X z

102

—ftca<

uco

OSOft

Qft

ftI—

I

ao

CO

3

>-co

co

oE-

co=)ca<-j>-CO

OSoE—

'

<I—

I

z\aSftt—

I

a2<ca

oCQ

uSco3

LUos

ftOzoco1—4

as<a.2o

COas

oXE-—<asUas

<E-OE-

coID

<-J>CO

*

tnas

co Xaa E-< ftJ <-; as>-< uco as

z <CO3 co

*coas

co Xca h< ft-J <-J as>- Uco as

i—i

u <

uUE-

CJ-rUE-"

coft

ft fto z

>-asoftE-<

CO COX >**

—ftz coft ^os caoS <:=) _rft ft

>*CO

oLO

ocmCT>

CO

CM

LO

CM

CM

CMcm

o<3-

lo

lo

^o

toCN

LOLO

LO

co

toCM

CO

COCM

O

ai

o

LO

CM

CM

to

CT>

^3"

LO

LOto

o en

coLO

CT>O

vO

LO

to

LO i-h

o CM

—

i

ftHHO

ft

coH71

Fh

<U

>Cou

CO

ft:1/1

CO

ft(0

as

u

CO

of-l

3oco

+->

cCO

yf-i

<u

cucy

LO uto

to 375 en C3 LO C3

t—

<

i

ft ft r\,

O ft75 2fH o ft3 zO u 75r— 75

>N CO

75 ft ^H3ft T3 75

a CO •Hi—

i

• iHr-

1

i—

1

75

>^ ft 3•yi ft ft

3 C3

1 75I—

1

t/j 75 Xfn f-l 75

3 3O O zft" ft co

+J Mft ft T3c3 ca CO

fH !h HO o ft'm f-i H•H H -3c3 cfl O

2U2 ZCO CO3 3 CJ

* * o

103

TABLE III

A-6E AIRCRAFT REQUIRED TO SUPPORT USMC REPLACEMENT PILOTAND BOMBARDIER/NAVIGATOR TRAINING TO VA-42 OR VA-128

40% USMCA_ 6E

60% USMCA_ 6E

100% USMCA_ 6E

Aircraft Hours H Aircraft Hours H Aircraft Hours H

1846 2770 4616 11

* Based on 35 flight hours per month for A-6E aircraft

TABLE IV

A-6E AND TC4C AIRCRAFT TO SUPPORT USMCREQUIREMENTS FOR CONSOLIDATION

40%

A-6E TC4C

60%

A-6E TC4C

100%

A-6E TC4C

VA-42 Request

VA-128 Request

TAEG Estimate

NA NA

5 0*

5

7 0*

NA NA

7

11 0*

11 0*

11

rNo additional TC4C's requested based on 3 system aircraft beingassigned regardless of consolidation.

104

TABLE V

TOTAL AIRCRAFT HOURS FOR 100 PERCENTCONSOLIDATION OF USN/USMC FRS

(USMC in Navy Categories)

A-6E Syllabus Hours Plus 25% OH

NAVY

CAT P B/N

I 2975 1000

II 792 209

III 330 114

IV 78 -

USMCB/N

3120 920

405 171

4175 1323 3525 1091

Total Navy: 5498Total USMC: 4616Total A-6E aircraft hours: 10,114Percent increase A- 6E aircraft hours for USMC: 84%

TC4C Flisht Hours and 25% OH-o

I 125 550

II 33 99

III 18 54

IV - -

150* 506

18 81

176 705 168

Total Navy: 879Total USMC: 7 55Total TC4C aircraft hours: 1654Percent increase TC4C aircraft hours for USMC: 86%

*Includes two transition oilots

105

*a-0)

OS

ujsQ

i

<c

5TCM

CMCM

OCM

00 CJCM 2i—

1

wI 3<> o\°O

as o' o r-H

cm"* *

i co-

< co

> OS

H UJ< sO

00

LO

o to _io a>H Ocr> oo

to OCM

oo so

H u< •z.

a CO 00 o COh-1 3 en t^> vO_J rr r-* CMo o\° LO CM COCO oz sO

1—

1

o> U*

UJ u cr—

;

2 <uca co Q£< 3 to LO 00E- Z

CO

aso[X,

aw

ujsO

<

co3

^-t r—1

as d? CO sO <*i—

i

o a> T <3"

ZD "3- TT CO toa* LO rH p-UJ UJOS sO

E-1

<u-

2uasi—

t

<UJso

1

< t/i '/I

SO

sO

o lor-H r^sO oosO LO

t/i '/l

fH Sh

3 3O O"* *"

+-> •Mx: X30 00•H •H^H ^HU. U,

X u> 2aJ co2 n

C eo o•H •H•M +>a O3 3T3 T3

m 0) <D

o as asca

p, U uB 3 3—

i

_o OT^

CMCM M +Jr—

t

X x;Ch 00 00CN •H •H>^ rH HT y- CI-*—<

i—

l

o\° on.

0-, O OCM r—

I

CM

CJ

UHc3

UJsO

(4

o4-1

(3

3

UCD

Ph

'7)

3O

4-»

00H4-t

LOto

co

-aa>

Crt

ctj

03

106

APPENDIX D

The introduction of the 2F114, A6-E, Weapon System Trainer

greatly increases the flexibility of the responsible units to

complete their training in an efficient and effective manner.

It can be incorporated into existing programs in one of three

fundamental ways:

1) AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR SPECIFIED FLIGHTS

2) TO AUGMENT ALREADY EXISTING PROGRAMS, or

3) AS A COMBINATION OF THE FIRST TWO.

That the system, as currently specified, could be used to

substitute for actual flight time is of little doubt. The

extent to which it should be so used is a much more difficult

question and one which deserves a separate, detailed cost/

benefit analysis. The tables which follow are meant only to

indicate those flights which could, feasibly, be substituted

for in the 2F114. It is not a recommendation.

It is recognized that the unique and unpredictable nature

of actual flight can never be totally simulated and that any

squadron would be understandably reluctant to unnecessarily

forfeit real hours. Given that constraint however, it remains

possible to particularize those hops which lend themselves to

simulation more than others. This is done in the following

pages

.

107

At the same time it is recommended that any plan to imple-

ment the 2F114 be based in the methods of flexible budgeting.

Specifically, levels of substitution could be developed on the

basis of projected availability of funds for flight time. For

example, Level One might represent those few flights which

would be substituted for, given a slightly less than optimal

level of funding. Each succeeding level would represent plans

for the next degraded possibility.

There should be obvious reluctance to sacrifice any flights

involving the actual, graded delivery of live or practice ord-

nance. In this same regard, the more difficult areas of system

utilization, such as Search Radar Terrain Clearance, should be

given higher priorities in the actual environment.

The second suggested use for the 2F114 is as an augmenta-

tion device for current syllabi. As such, it would serve a

particularly useful function in areas dedicated to familiar-

ization, emergency procedures, and functioning under stressful

and degraded circumstances. Its usefulness as an augment, and

especially as a substitute in systems navigation and weapons

segments, will be directly related to the quality and relia-

bility of its system, and particularly its radar simulations.

Finally, it is felt that the device will find its maximum

efficient utilization in a program combining those factors

discussed under the first two suggestions.

108

2F114 SUBSTITUTION SUMMARY

VA-128 2F114SYLLABUS FLIGHT AIRCRAFT COMPATABLE REMARKS

NF-1 A6 LOCAL AREA FAMNF-2 A6 XNN-1 TC4C XNN-2 TC4C XNN-3 TC4C XNN-4 TC4C XNN-5 TC4C X ASSUMING AMTI/LMNN-6 TC4C XNN-7 A6 VISUAL NAV.NN-8 A6 X

NN-9 A6 REQUIRES SRTC PRACNN-10 A6 XNN-11 A6 TERRAIN CLEARANCENN-12 TC4C X

NS-1 TC4C XNS-2 A6 ORDNANCE HOPNS-3 A6 MINING/AMTINS-4 A6 AMTI WITH ORD.NS-5 TC4C XNS-6 A6 ORDNANCE HOPNS-7 A6 ORD. HOP W/SRTCNS-8 TC4C XNS-9 A6 ORD. HOP W/TOTNS-10 A6 ALL WX. LOW LEVELNS-11 A6 XNS-12 A6 XNS-13 TC4C CHECK RIDE

VISUAL WEAPONS A6TACTICS A6FCLP A 6

CARRIER QUALS. A 6

109

2F114 SUBSTITUTION SUMMARY

VA-42 2F114SYLLABUS1 FLIGHT AIRCRAFT COMPATABLE REMARKS

NF-1 A6 LOCAL AREA FAMNN-1 A6 XNN-2 TC4C XNN-3 TC4C XNN-4 TC4C XNN-5 TC4C XNN-6 TC4C XNN-7 TC4C XNN-8 A6 XNN-9 A6 XNN-10 A 6 XNN-11 A6 XNR-1 TC4C XNR-2 TC4C XNR-3 A6 XNR-4 A6 XNR-5 TC4C IBN's check on RBNNR-6 A6 XNR-7 A6 • SYS/VISUALNR-8 A6 SYS/VI SUAL/ORDNANCENS-1 TC4C TGT. PROCEDURE FAMNS-2 A6 ORDNANCENS-3 A6 ORDNANCENS-4 A6 ORDNANCENS-5 A6 MININGNS-6 A6 ORDNANCENS-7 A 6 ORDNANCENS-8 A6 ORD/CONVENTIONAL SKNS-9 A6 SRTC LOW LEVELNS - 1 A6 SPECIAL WEAPS. STK.

VISUAL WEAPONS A 6

TACTICS A6FMLP's A6CARRIER QUALS. A6

110

2F114 SUBSTITUTION SUMMARY

VMAT-20 2 2F114SYLLABUS FLIGHT AIRCRAFT COMPATABLE REMARKS

FAM-1 A6 LOCAL ARE.

FAM-2 A6 XINST-1 A6 XINST-

2

A6 XFORM-1 A6 FORMATIONFORM-

2

A6 FORMATIONVISNAV-1 A6 VISUALVISNAV-2 A6 VISUALRNAV-1 TC4C XRNAV-2 TC4C XRNAV-3 TC4C X

SYSNAV-1 TC4C XSYSNAV-2 TC4C XSYSNAV-3 TC4C X

SYSNAV-4 TC4C XSYSNAV-

5

TC4C CHECKRIDESYSNAV-6 TC4C RABFACRTI-1 TC4C XRTI-2 TC4C XRTI-3 TC4C XRTI-4 TC4C XRTI-5 TC4C XRTI-6 TC4C • CHECKRIDESYSTAC-1 A 6 XSYSTAC-2 A6 XSYSTAC-3 A6 SRTCSYSTAC-4 A6 SRTCSYSORD-1 A6 ORDNANCESYSORD-2 A6 ORDNANCESYSORD-3 A6 ORDNANCESYSORD-4 A6 ORDNANCESYSORD-5 A6 X AMTI RNG.

SYSORD-6 A6 ORDNANCEAERIAL REFUEL A6TPQ A6

NOT AVAIL

111

APPENDIX E

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNavy Manpower and Material Analysis Center, Atlantic

Norfolk, Virginia 23511

In Reply Refer To:

7:72:je5310/2Ser 996 /728 JUN 1978

From: Commanding Officer, Navy Manpower and Material AnalysisCenter, Atlantic

To: Director, Training Analysis and Evaluation Group, Orlando,Florida 32813

Subj : Manpower Impact Report ; forwarding of

Ref : (a) Training Analysis and Evaluation Group ltr dtd 30 May 78

End: (1) Manpower Impact Report on Consolidation of USMC Trainingat VA-42

1. As requested by reference (a), manpower analysts atNAVMMACLANT conducted an in-depth study of the manpowerimplications of consolidating USMC pilot and bombardier/navigator training at VA-42. The study focused on manpowerimpacts in organizational and intermediate maintenance, pilotand B/N instruction, FRAMP instruction, and squadron admini-stration.

2. The results of the study have been summarized inenclosure (1)

.

E. F. COXBy direction

Copy to:CNO (OP-124)

112

MANPOWER IMPACT REPORT ON CONSOLIDATION OF USMC TRAINING AT VA-42

1. Off icer Increment

a. Quantity by designator

100% 60% 50%DESIGNATOR Consolidation Consolidation Consolidation

1310 12 7 6

1320 12 7 6

Total 24 14 12

b. Quality by Rank

RANK 100% 6 0% 50%

0-4 2 1 1

0-3 22 13 11

2. Enlisted Increment

a. Organizational L<3vel Maintenance

(1) Quanti ty by Rating

RATING 100% 60% 5 0%

AD 13 8 7

AE 14 8 7

AK 2 1 1

AME 6 4 3

AMH 11 6 6

AMS 18 12 10AO 10 6 5

AQ 14 8 7

AT 13 7 7

AZ 1

PR 2 1 1

APO 9 6 4

AN 27 17 14

Total 140 84 72

Enclosure (1)

113

2

5 5 5

10 6 6

23 13 1130 16 1543 27 2127 17 14

Enlisted Increment (Cont'd)

a. Organizational Level Maintenance (Cont'd)

(2) Quality by Paygrade

PAYGRADE 100% 60% 50%

E-9E-8E-7E-6E-SE-4

Desig StkrE-3 (AN)

b

.

Intermediate Level Maintenance

(1) Quantity by Rating

RATING 100% 60% SO*

ADAEAMHAiMS

AQATPR

Total 14

(2) Quality by Paygrade

2 1 1

2 2 2

1

1 1

2 1 1

5 3 3

1

PAYGRADE 100% 60% 50%

E-6 2 1 1

E-5 6 5 4

E-4 6 2 2

FRAMP Instructors by Rate

RATE 100% 60% 50%

AD1 1

AE1 1 1 1

AME2 1 1

AOl 1

AQ1 1 1 1

AT 2 1

APOl 1 1 1

AP02 2 2 2

Total 9

114

NOTE: All FRAMP instructors have a secondary NEC of 9502

d. Administrative Support

(1) Quantity by Function

FUNCTION 100$ 60% 50%

Clerical 8 5 4

Facilities Maint. 2 1110 6 5

NOTE: "Clerical" includes all administrative functionsnormally handled by YN ' s and PN ' s in a Navy squadron

(2) Quality by Paygrade

3.

PAYGRADE 100% 60% 50%

E-7E-6E-5E-4E-3

1

1

3

5

1

2

4

1

1

4

Billet Increment Summary

60% 50%100% 40%

a. Officers: + 24 + 14 + 12 + 10

b. Enlisted: + 175 + 103 + 88 + 71

115

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYTRAINING ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION GROUP

Orlando, Florida 32813TAEG:PGS30 Mav 1978

From: Director, Training Analysis and Evaluation Group,Orlando, Florida 32813

To: Navy Manpower and Material Analysis Center, Atlantic(Code 72), NAS Norfolk, Virginia 23571

Ref: (a) CNO 061410Z April 78(b) FONECON between Mr. P. G. Scott and LCDR Graff

of 2 2 May 78

Subj : Request for Manpower Impact Report

1. TAEG has been tasked by CNO to study the feasibility ofconsolidating USN/USMC A-6E training.

2. Please provide the manpower impact which would result incase of the following actions:

a. One hundred percent of USMC P/BN training transferredto VA 42 utilizing the existing USN syllabus.

b. Sixty percent of USMC P/BN training transferred toVA42 utilizing the existing USN syllabus.

c. Fifty percent of USMC P/BN training transferred toVA 42 utilizing the existing USN syllabus.

As requested in the referenced telecon, the following datais provided. This data represents 100% of USMCA-6E training.

(1) A- 6 Hours

Cat I

Cat II

Pilots

32 Pilots @ 97.368 Pilots @ 50.34

Yearly Hours

3,115.52402.72

B/N's

Cat I

Cat II

239

§ 40a 19

Total A-6E Hours Yearly -

920171

4,609

Number of A-6E aircraft required based on 55 flight hours permonth = 10.97.

116

Subj : Request for Manpower Impact Report

TAEG:PGS30 May 1978

(2) TC4C Hours Pilots Yearly Hours

Cat I 32 Pilots @ 5 =160Cat II 8 Pilots @ 5 =24

B/N

Cat I 25 @ 22 = 506Cat II 9 @ 9 = _8_1

Total TC4C Hours Annually - 771

Number of TC4C A/C required based on 80 flight hours permonth = .8.

3. The manpower impact data is necessary for the completionof the A-6E consolidation study.

A. F. SMODE

Copy to:CNO OP- 124 (LCDR Huber)

117

MANPOWER IMPACT REPORT ONCONSOLIDATION OF USMC TRAINING AT VA-42

Officer Increment

a. Quantity by designator

100% 60% 50% 40%DESIGNATOR Consolidation Consolidation Consolidation Consolidation

1310 12 7 6 5

1320 12 7 6 5

Total 24 14 12 10

b . Quality by Rank

RANK 100% 60% 5 0% 40%

0-4 2 1 1 1

0-3 22 13 11 9

Enlisted Increment

a. Organizational Level Maintenance

(1) Quantity by Rating

RATING 100% 6 0% 50% 4 0%

AD 15 8 7 6

AE 14 8 7 6

AK 9L 1 1 1

AME 6 4 3 5

AMH 11 6 6 5

AMS 18 12 10 8

AO 10 6 5 4

AQ 14 8 7 6

AT 13 7 7 6

AZ 1

PR 2 1 1 1

APO 9 6 4 4

AN 27 17 14 6

Total - 140 84 72 56

Enclosure (1)

118

2

5 5 5 4

10 6 6 4

23 13 11 9

30 16 15 1243 27 21 1827 17 14 9

Enlisted Increment (Cont'd)

a. Organizational Level Maintenance (Cont'd)

(2) Quality by Paygrade

PAYGRADE 100% 60% 50% 40%

E-9E-8E-7E-6E-5E-4

Desig StkrE-3 (AN)

b

.

Intermediate Level Maintenance

(1) Quantity by Rating

RATING

ADAEAMHAMSAQATPR

Total 14

(2) Quality by Paygrade

100% 60% 50% 40%

2 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

1

1 1

7L 1 1 1

5 3 3 3

1

PAYGRADE 10 0% 60% 5 0% 40%

E-6E-5E-4

7

6

6

1

5

2

1

4

2

1

4

2

119

2. Enlisted Increment (Cont'd)

c . FRAMP Instructors by Rate

NOTE

RATE

AD1AE1AME2A01AQ1AT22APOlAP02

100' 60% 50%

1

1 1 1 1

1 1

1

1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 1

Total

NOTE:

d.

All FRAMP instructors have a secondary NEC of 9502

Administrative Support

(1) Quantity by Function

FUNCTION 100% 60%

Clerical 8

Facilities Maint. 2

50%

4

1

40%

3

1

10

"Clerical" includes all administrative functionsnormally handled by YN ' s and PN ' s in a Navy squadron

(2) Quality by Paygrade

PAYGRADE 10 0% 60% 5 0% 40%

E-7E-6E-5E-4E-5

1

1

3

5

1

2

4

1

1

4

1

1

2

Billet Increment Summary

60% 50%100% 4 0%

a. Officers: + 24 + 14 + 12 + 10

b. Enlisted: + 173 + 103 + 88 + 71

120

APPENDIX F

COST (OR SAVINGS)

Cost estimates have been compiled for those options

deemed feasible within the context of this study. Conse-

quently, no cost figures are provided for VA-42 at Oceana

regarding the absorption of either 100% or 60% of the Marine

training requirement as those possibilities are considered

untenable in light of present and projected conditions

through 1981. The options which have been found to be real-

istic and deserving of further analysis are:

A. VA-128 absorbing 100% of the Marines, or

B. VA-128 absorbing 75% and VA-42 absorbing 25%.

Option B is based on the assumption that VA-42 will

experience a currently projected decrease in the number of

Navy students input to the squadron. That decrease is expected

to amount to a total of 17 Replacement Pilots and Bombardier/

Navigators. That figure corresponds to approximately 25% of

the annual Marine replacement personnel requirement and is

therefore assumed that VA-42 could incorporate that element

into its present program with only minor disturbances.

Relevant costs for this study are considered to be those

increases required or savings permitted by the proposed options

A third possibility is contingent upon the completion of

projected military construction projects pertaining to VA-42

at Oceana by or during 1981. It is:

121

VA-128 absorbing 40% and VA-42 absorbing 60%

Due to the reliance of this option on the stated contin-

gency and the high probability of significant changes in all

or most of the other relevant variables during the interim,

no cost figures will be attempted for that option at this

time.

COST CATEGORIES AND DEFINITIONS

FACILITIES

1. The Total Cost of Facilities - the acquisition andrefurbishing which are necessary for implementation,as well as similar savings realized by the adoptionof the proposal.

2. The Annual Cost of Operation and Maintenance ofFacilities Per Square Foot - includes operation, main-tenance, janitorial service, utilities, etc.

3. Total Square Feet Occupied by the Unit.

4. The Replacement Cost - those facilities which do notinvolve readily estimable operations or maintenancecosts, such as ramp space.

PERSONNEL

1. Instructor Costs

2. Support Personnel Costs

3. Administrative Personnel Costs

All personnel costs will be tabulated on the basis of

billet costs associated with the particular option. Because

billet costs inherently comprise substantially more than just

pay and benefits, care has been taken throughout this section

to avoid double counting.

122

TRAVEL COSTS

1. The costs associated with transporting student pilotsand bombardiers/navigators from their point of initialtraining to the Fleet Replacement Squadron and to theirultimate duty station.

2. The costs associated with completing the Fleet Replace-ment Syllabus, such as per diem cost on Temporary DutyUnder Instruction CTEMDUINS) orders.

3. Permanent change of station (PCS) costs includingfamily travel.

AIRCRAFT COSTS

1. Investment costs for A-6E aircraft and TC4C aircraft.

2. The annual cost of operating the aircraft required tocomplete the stipulated training under the particularproposal being considered.

3. Personnel costs associated with aircraft operations andmaintenance have been extracted from this section toavoid double counting. They are included in the billetcosts under PERSONNEL.

ORDNANCE COSTS. Those increases or decreases in ordnance

costs under the particular proposal are:

1. Ordnance dedicated to pilot training.

2. Ordnance dedicated to B/N training.

3. Cost of ordnance (taken from the 1975 study) plus20 percent increase for inflation.

INCREMENTAL COST. The incremental cost (or savings) realized

from implementation of the option. Incremental costs equal

the change in cost for facilities, personnel, travel, aircraft

and ordnance cost.

FACILITIES COST. All facilities costs are based on those

projected savings or expenses to be realized from incorpora-

tion of the proposed options. They are composed of investment

123

costs (in those instances where additions are assumed neces-

sary) and annual operating and maintenance costs. and M

costs are computed by multiplying the annual cost per square

foot of operating and maintaining the specific facilities

(this information was obtained from the respective authorities

at each location) times the amount of square footage occupied

by the respective units. Additionally, dollar values were

assigned to ramp space on the basis of replacement costs,

and acquisition costs were estimated in accordance with

available expertise. The ramp space released at MCAS Cherry

Point should negate a need for new ramp construction.

With respect to VMAT (AW) - 202 , all costs detailed are

viewed as incremental savings to be realized from consolida-

tion. Elimination of the A-6E training function at Cherry

Point frees associated assets for use as the tenant command

sees fit. No attempt was made to completely evaluate all of

the possible opportunity costs which consolidation would

allow. Instead, a more useful and realistic value is assigned

to those assets in terms of savings chargeable to the training

function.

Regarding Option B, as with all other cost calculations

presented, it is assumed that VA-42 would experience no addi-

tional facilities- related expenses in training 25 percent of

the annual Marine requirement, assuming that the projected

decrease in Navy input occurs.

124

VMAT(AW)-20 2

Cost Per Square Foot of Operating and MaintainingFacilities - $1.43

Total Square Footage Occupied - 36,640

Incremental Savings on Annual Direct FacilitiesCosts - $52,395

Total Ramp Space Occupied - 18,000 Square Yards

Replacement Cost Per Square Yard(from the 1975 study) - $30.00

Investment Savings on Ramp Space - $540,000

An exact valuation of the equipment assigned to VMAT(AW)-202

facilities is not attempted due to time constraints. It should

be noted, however, that this would constitute a further savings.

VA-128

In accordance with the Facilities Requirements for Con-

solidation of Navy and Marine A-6E Fleet Readiness Squadrons,

Table II, VA-128 projects the following resource needs:

Option A or B:

1. An additional temporary or portable line shack structure

2. An enlarged ordnance shack capacity.

Conversations with pertinent sources at NAS Whidbey Island

indicated that acquisition of a Butler Building or a double

wide trailer would serve both needs. Cost of such a structure

is estimated at $25,000. Associated facilities operations

and maintenance costs are based on square footage of 1440 and

the current cost per square foot of operations and mainten-

ance, $1.01.

125

Investment Cost - $25,000

Annual Direct Facilities Cost (1440 x $1.01) - 1,500

VA-4 2

Option B

No additional costs.

PERSONNEL SUPPORT COSTS. Section IV, Personnel Support

Requirements, Table 7, presented the combined USN/USMC Billet

Allowances/Onboard Comparison. The estimated annual personnel

cost reduction based on allowances is shown in Table I and

is approximately 3 million dollars. The estimated annual per-

sonnel cost reduction based on current VA-128 and VMAT(AW)-202

onboard count is shown in Table II and is approximately .85

million dollars.

TRAVEL COSTS. Two sets of travel costs are presented which

could result from consolidation of USMC A-6E, pilot and bom-

bardier/navigator (B/N) training at either NAS Whidbey Island

or NAS Oceana. Option A costs consider all USMC pilots and

B/Ns training at NAS Whidbey Island. Option B costs consider

Category I (First Tour) pilots and B/Ns plus two transition

pilots trained at NAS Whidbey Island and all Category II

(Refresher) pilots and B/Ns training at NAS Oceana. Both

options are based on pilots and bombardier/navigator training

being conducted on Temporary Duty Under Instruction (TEMDUINS)

orders while on Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders.

The following assumptions were made for all costing:

126

1. All Category I pilots and bombardier/navigators areFirst Lieutenants on PCS orders from Corpus Christi,Texas or Pensacola, Florida.

2. Fifty percent of all Category I trainees are married,no children over 2 years of age. Their household goodsweigh 2,500 pounds.

3. Single Category I trainees household goods weigh 1,000pounds

.

4. Two transition pilots and all Category II (Refresher)pilots/BNs are Captains, married with two children.Their household goods weigh 5,000 pounds. All are onPCS orders from Washington, D.C.

5. Sixty percent of all pilots and bombardier/navigatorsare on PCS orders to MCAS Cherry Point; forty percentare on PCS orders to MCAS El Toro.

6. Weapons deployment TAD is included in TEMDUINS per diem.

Option A Travel Costs

All USMC A-6E pilots and bombardier/navigator trainees

are trained at NAS Whidbey Island by VA-128. Category I

pilots and B/Ns plus two transition pilots are in training

for 140 days. Category II pilots and B/Ns are trained by

VA-128 at NAS Whidbey Island; training lasts 112 days.

Option B Travel Costs

Category I pilots and B/Ns plus two transition pilots

are in training for 140 days.

Category II pilots and B/Ns are in training for 112 days.

In addition to the two sets of travel costs which could

result from consolidation - a set of costs which represent

the status quo, i.e., training USMC crews at MCAS Cherry

Point, are included for comparison purposes. The total annual

127

travel costs for Option A are $220,171; Option B $219,541;

and status quo $125,104.

The derivation of costs for Options A and B plus the

Status Quo are contained in Tables III through V.

ORDNANCE COSTS. The cost of additional ordnance required by

the proposals was computed on the basis of published syllabus

levels, data from the 1975 study which was determined to still

be relevant, and information provided by operations personnel

at the training squadrons concerning actual usage levels. It

was determined that inherent variations in the weapons syllabi

(such as the several Navy flights which called for either an

instructor or a replacement B/N in the right seat) combined

with a variety of contributing factors (such as weather, air-

craft availability and target availability) served to vary

considerably the amount of ordnance expended by any one stu-

dent. Consequently, the figures provided are the best avail-

able averages and should be analyzed as such. All ordnance

figures are rounded to the nearest five and dollar amounts

to the nearest $100. No allowance has been made for repeated

flights as the available information was considered too vague

and general to be of productive use. Ordnance requirements

to support USMC under consolidation are shown in Table VI.

Ordnance costs to support USMC under consolidation are shown

in Table VII

.

128

AIRCRAFT DIRECT COSTS. All direct aircraft costs are taken

from the Navy Program Factors Manual OPNAV- 90P- 02A (Revised

31 Aug 77) which was designed for use in the estimating of

dollar and manpower resources required to operate and support

a single ship or aircraft. The factors reflect the Program

Objective Memorandum for FY 79 (POM- 79). Factors are computed

by the Navy Resource Model (NARM) from the data base used in

the Five Year Defense Plan and the Program Objective Memo-

randum.

Direct costs are used in this study as the Marine Corps

indirect costs are not included in the factors manual. All

costs are for a 1-year time period and are in FY 79 dollars.

Modeled direct costs for aircraft are derived by taking basic

factors received from other offices and mathematically

manipulating them to produce broader factors such as air

operations and replenishment spares costs.

The equation for Total Direct Cost is:

G = D + N + M

where

G = Total Direct

D = Direct Operations and Maintenance

N = Annual Replenishment Spares

M = Annual Direct Military Personnel, Navy

Annual Direct Military Personnel costs have been removed

from the equation for use in this study to avoid double counting.

129

All associated personnel costs have been delineated under the

separate Personnel Costs section.

AIRCRAFT INVESTMENT COSTS. A-6E investment costs are based

on the reduced number of aircraft required under consolidation

times the acquisition cost supplied by the NAVPRO Office at

Grumman. TC4C investment costs are based on the reduced

number of aircraft required under consolidation times the

acquisition cost supplied by NAVAIRSYSCOM AIR 4131. Option A

requires two less A-6E aircraft and two less TC4C aircraft.

Option B requires four less A-6E aircraft and two less TC4C

aircraft. Table VIII identifies investment and annual direct

costs (savings) for Options A and B. Table IX summarizes the

investment and annual direct costs (savings) for Options A

and B.

130

TABLE I

ANNUAL PERSONNEL COST REDUCTION BASED ON ALLOWANCESVA-128 AND VMAT(AW)-202

OFFICER DECREASE 15

LT COLMAJCAPTLT

2

8

3

2

@

@

@

@

54,80060,20051,80072,500

109,600481,600155,400145,000

*Officer Personne 1 Total Cos t Reduction - 891,600

ENLISTED DECREASE 149

E-9E-8E-7E-6E-5E-4E-5

1

5

11273570

@

@

@

@

@

@

28,800

25,02519,46815,62013,83912,064

28,800

115,125214,148421,740484,365844,480

* Enlisted Personnel Total Cost Reduction - 2,108,658

Total Officer and Enlisted Billet Cost Reduction - $3,000,258

*Officer Personnel Billet Cost Data provided by B-K Dynamics, Inc.,

2 August 1978, via BUPERS 212.

**Enlisted Personnel Billet Cost Data derived from NPRDC SR78-14July 1978.

131

TABLE II

OPTIONS A AND B ANNUAL PERSONNEL COST REDUCTIONSBASED ON CURRENT ONBOARD COUNT VA-128 AND VMAT (AW) - 2 2

OPTION A

OFFICER INCREASE 1

MAJ 1 @ 60,200 +60,200

Officer Personnel Increase* +60,200

ENLISTED DECREASE 64

E-9 1 @ 28,800 -28,800E-8E-7 2 5 23,025 -46,050E-6 5 @ 19,468 -97,340E-5 12 3 15,620 -187,440E-4 15 @ 13,839 -207,585E-3

;ted Pers<

29

Dnnel Reduct

12,064

ion**

-549,856

Enlis -917,071

Total Officer and Enlisted Billet Cost Reduction - $856,871

OPTION B

OFFICER DECREASE 5

LT COL 2

MAJ 3

@

@

54,8006 0,200

109,600180,600

Officer Personnel Decrease* 290, 200

ENLISTED DECREASE 105

E-9 1

E-8E-7 3

E-6 8

E-5 20E-4 25E-3 48

@ 28,800

§ 23,025@ 19,4689 15,620§ 13,839(3 12,064

luction**

28,800

69,075155,744312,400345,975579,072

Enlisted Personnel Rec 1,491,066

Total Officer and Enlisted Billet Cost Reduction - 1,781,266

*Officer Personnel Billet Cost Data Provided by B-K Dynamics,Inc., 2 August 1978 via BUPERS 212.

**Enlisted Personnel Billet Cost Data derived from NPRDCSR 78-14 July 1978.

132

TABLE III

OPTION A TRAVEL COSTS

Category I Pilots

30 @ 10* mile x 2375 (CC-WI)* 7,125.0018 @ 10* mile x 3016 (WI-CP) 5,428.8012 @ 10* mile x 1237 (WI-ET) 1,484.409 Family @ 7* mile x 1563 (CC-CP) 984.696 Family @ 7* mile x 1461 (CC-ET) 613.62

15 x 241.50 Dislocation Allowance (M) 3,622.5015 x 190.80 Dislocation Allowance (S) 2,862.009 @ 2500# (CC-CP) @ 877.75 7,899.759 <§ 1000# (CC-CP) @ 523.15 4,708.356 @ 2500# (CC-ET) @ 851.50 5,109.006 9 1000# (CC-ET) @ 515.65 3,093.90

30 @ 9.70 Per Diem 140 days 40,740.0015 @ $l/day Separation Allowance x 140 days 2,100. 00

85,772.,01

Category II Pilots and 2 Transition Pilots

10 @ 10* mile x 2765 (DC-WI) 2,765..006 @ 10* mile x 3016 (WI-CP) 1,809. 604 8 10* mile x 1237 (WI-ET) 494. 806 Family @ 14* mile x 340 (DC-CP) 285.,604 Family 9 14* mile x 2654 (DC-ET) 1,486. 24

10 x 271.20 Dislocation Allowance (M) 2,712..006 x 5000# (DC-CP) @ 850.25 5,101. 504 x 5000# (DC-ET) @ 2950.75 11,803. , 008 x $1 x 112 Days 896. 002 x $1 x 140 Days 280. 008 x $9.70 Per Diem x 112 days 8,691..202 x $9.70 Per Diem x 140 days 2,716. 00

39,040.94

Legend

:

M = MarriedS = Single# = pounds

CC = Corpus ChristiCP = Cherry PointDC = Washington, DCET = El ToroPC = Pensacola, FLWI = Whidbey Island

153

TABLE III - OPTION A TRAVEL COSTS (Continued)

Category I Bombardier/Navigator

23 @ 10* mile x 2750 (PC-WI) 6,325.,0014 @ 10* mile x 3016 (WI-CP) 4,222. 409 @ 10* mile x 1237 (WI-ET) 1,113..307 @ 7* mile x 825 (PC-CP*) 404. 255 § 7* mile x 1979 (PC-ET) 692.,65

12 X 241.50 Dislocation Allowance (M) 2,898. 0011 X 190.80 Dislocation Allowance (S) 2,098.,807 @ 2500# (PC-CP) @ 659 4,613. 007 @ 1000# (PC-CP) @ 448.15 3,137,,055 @ 2500# (PC-ET) @ 959 4,795,,004 @ 1000# (PC-ET) @ 547.15 2,188,,60

12 3 $l/day Separation Allowance a : 140 days 1,680,,0023 @ $9.70 Per Diem 140 days 31,234,,00

65,402.05

Category II Bombardier/Navigator

9 @ 10* mile x 2765 (DC-WI)6 @ 10* mile x 3016 (WI-CP)3 @ 10* mile x 1237 (WI-ET)6 Family @ 14* mile x 340 (DC-CP)3 Family @ 14* mile x 2654 (DC-ET)9 x 271.20 Dislocation Allowance (M)

6 x 5000# (DC-CP) @ 850.253 x 5000# (DC-ET) @ 1852.759 x $l/day Separation Allowance x 112 days9 g $9.70 per diem 112 days

Annual Travel Cost Grand Total

2,488.,501,809.,60

371.,10285.,60

1,114.,682,440.,805,101.,505,558.,251,008.,009,777,,60

29,955,,63

$220,170,,63

134

TABLE IV

OPTION B TRAVEL COSTS

Category I Pilots*

Category I B/Ns*

2 Transition Pilots

85,772.01

65,402.05

2 @ 10* mile x 2765 (DC-WI) 553.001 @ 10* mile x 3016 (WI-DP) 301.601 9 10* mile x 1237 (WI-ET) 123.701 Family @ 14* mile x 340 (DC-CP) 47.601 Family @ 14* mile x 2654 (DC-ET) 371.562 x 271.20 dislocation allowance (M) 542.401 x 5000# @ 850.25 (DC-CP) 850.251 x 5000# @ 2950.75 (DC-ET) 2,950.752 x $l/day Separation Allowance x 140 days 280.002 x $9.70 per diem x 140 days 2, 716. 00

Cost for Transition - 8,736.86

Total Cost: Category I P + B/N + 2 Trans. -159,910.92

Category II Pilots and Bombardiers/Navigators

17 @ 10* mile x 206 (DC-OA) 350.2010 @ 10* mile x 193 (OA-CP) 195.007 @ 10* mile x 2670 (OA-ET) 1,869.00

10 Family @ 14* mile x 340 (DC-CP) 476.007 Family @ 14* mile x 2654 (DC-ET) 2,600.92

17 x 271.20 dislocation allowance (M) 4,610.4010 x 5000# @ 850.25 (DC-CP) 8,502.507 x 5000* @ 2950.75 (DC-ET) 20,655.25

17 x 9.70 per diem x 112 days 18,468.8017 x $l/day Separation Allowance x 112 davs 1, 904. 00

59,630.07

Annual Travel Cost Grand Total -$ 219, 540. 99

*See Option A for breakdown of costs.

Legend:DC = Washington, DC

M = married ET = El Toro# = pounds OA = OceanaCP = Cherry Point WI = Whidbey Island

155

TABLE V

STATUS QUO TRAVEL COSTS

Category I Pilots

30 g 10* mile x 1563 (CC-CP) 4,689. 0012 g 10* mile x 2635 (CP-ET) 3,162. 0015 F<imily @ 7* mile x 1563 (CC-CP) 1,641. 156 Family @ 7* mile x 2635 (CP-ET) 1,106. 70

15 X 241.50 Dislocation Allowance (M) 3,622. 5015 X 190.50 Dislocation Allowance (S) 2,857. 506 X 241.50 Dislocation Allowance (CO-ET) (M) 1,449. 006 X 190. 50. Dislocation Allowance 1,143 00

15 g 2500# (CC-CP) g 877.75 13,166. 2515 @ 1000# (CC-CP) 5 523.15 7,847. 256 g 2500# (CP-ET) g 1064 6,384 006 g 1000# (CP-ET) g 585.65 5,513

50,582

90

25

@

Category II Pilots $ 2 Transition P Llots

10 10* mile x 340 (DC-CP) 340. 004 1 10* mile x 2655 (CP-ET) 1,054 00

10 Family @ 14* mile x 540 (DC-CP) 476. 004 Family g 14* mile x 2635 (CP-ET) 1,475. 60

10 X 271.20 Dislocation Allowance 2,712. 0010 X 5000# (DC-CP) g 827.50 8,275. 004 X 5000# (CP-ET) g 1902.75 7,611. 004 X 271.20 Dislocation Allowance 1,084

23,028.

80

40

g

Category I Bombardier/Navigator

1,897.23 10* mile x 825 (PC-CP) 509 @ 10* mile x 2635 (CP-ET) 2,371 50

12 Family @ 7* mile x 825 (PC-CP) 693. 005 Family g 7* mile x 2655 (CP-ET) 922. 25

12 X 241.50 Dislocation Allowance (M) 2,898. 0011 X 190.50 Dislocation Allowance (S) 2,095. 505 X 241.50 Dislocation Allowance (M) 1,207 504 X 190.50 Dislocation Allowance (S) 762. 00

12 g 2500# (PC-CP) 3 659 7,908. 009 @ 1000# (PC-CP) @ 448.15 4,033. 355 g 2500# (CP-ET) g 1064.00 5,320. 004 @ 1000# (CP-ET) g 585.65 2,342. 60

32,451.20

136

TABLE V. STATUS QUO TRAVEL COSTS (Continued)

Category II Bombardier/Navigator

9 @ 10* mile x 340 (DC-CP)3 § 10* mile x 2635 CCP-ET)9 Family @ 14* mile x 340 (DC-CP)3 Family @ 14* mile x 2635 (CP-ET)9 x 5000# (DC-CP) g 827. 503 x 5000# (CP-ET) @ 1902.753 x 271.20 Dislocation Allowance (CP-ET)

19,041.75

Annual Travel Cost Grand Total - $125,103. 60

Legend

306. 00790. 50428. 40

1,106. 707,447. 505,708. 25

813 60

M = marriedS = s ingle# = pounds

CC = Corpus ChristiCP = Cherry PointDC = Washington, DCET = El ToroPC = Pensacola, FL

157

TABLE VI

ORDNANCE REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT USMCUNDER CONSOLIDATION

MK-76NAVY MARINE ADD. ORD. ADD. PILOTS TOTAL

NAVAL AVIATORS

Category I 185 140 45 32* 1,440

Category II 140 80 60 _8 480

TOTALS 325 220 105 40 1,920

NAVAL FLIGHT OFFICERS ADD. B/Ns

Category I 90 70 20 23 460

Category II 75 60 15 9 135

TOTALS 165 130 55 32 595

2,515

2.7 5 ROCKETS NAVY MARINE ADD. ORD. ADD. PILOTS TOTAL

NAVAL AVIATORS

Category I 30 20 10 32* 320

Category II 30 20 10 _8_ 80

TOTALS 60 40 20 40 400

NAVAL FLIGHT OFFICERS ADD. B/Ns

Category I 20 20 25

Category II 20 2_0 _0 __9

TOTALS

400

MK-104 NAVY MARINE ADD. ORD. ADD. PILOTS TOTAL

NAVAL AVIATORS

Category I 1

NAVAL FLIGHT OFFICERS

Category I 1

TOTALS

32*

ADD. B/Ns

23

3_2

II55

Includes 2 transition pilots

158

TABLE VI. ORDNANCE REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT USMCUNDER CONSOLIDATION (Continued)

MK-104 (Continued)

NAVY MARINE ADD. ORD. ADD. PILOTS TOTAL

MK-8 SERIES (INERT)

NAVAL AVIATORS

Category I 15 15 32* 480

Category II 15 _0 11 _8 120

TOTALS 30 30 40 600

NAVAL FLIGHT OFFICERS

NOT APPLICABLE

MK-8 7 WSF

NAVAL AVIATORS

Category I 15

Category II 1_0

TOTALS 2 5

NAVAL FLIGHT OFFICERS

Category I 15

Category II 1_0

TOTALS 2 5

MK-4 5 FLARES

NAVAL AVIATORS

Category I 5

NAVAL FLIGHT OFFICERS

NOT APPLICABLE

15

10

25

15

10

25

32* 480

_8 80

40 560

ADD. B/Ns

23 345

9 90

52 455

995

ADD. PILOTS

32* 160

*Includes 2 transition pilots.

159

TABLE VII

ORDNANCE COSTS TO SUPPORT USMCUNDER CONSOLIDATION

ORDNANCE SUMMARY AMOUNT PER UNIT COST * TOTAL

MK-76 2,515 $ 5.10 $12,800

2.75 ROCKET 400 65.00 26,000

MK-104 55 235.00 12,900

MK-80 (INERT) 600 235.00 141,000

MK-87 WSF 995 235.00 235,800

MK-4 5 FLARES 160 NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE

TOTAL (MINUS FLARES) $ 426,500

Under Option A the entire additional cost of ordnance

would be charged to VA-128. Under Option B the cost would

be split on a 75/25 basis between VA-128 and VA-42.

^Derived from 1975 study with a 20 percent increase forinflation.

140

TABLE VIII

INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL DIRECT COST (SAVINGS)

OPTION A - 100% USMC RP/BN TRAINING AT VA-128OPTION B - 75% USMC RP/BN TRAINING AT VA-128;

25% AT VA-42

ITEM

INVESTMENT COSTSA-6E# TC4C## FACILITY

FACILITIES AIRCRAFT AIRCRAFT OPERATION

OPTION A

VMAT-202

VA-128

NET CHANGE

(540,000) (97,540,997) (2,000,000) (52,595)

25,000 82,365,459 1,500

(515,000) (14,975,558) (2,000,000) (50,895)

OPTION B

VMAT-202

VA-128

VA-42

NET CHANGE

(540,000) (97,540,997) (2,000,000) (52,395)

25,000 67,589,921 1,500

NA NA NA

(515,000) (29,951,076)* (2,000,000) (50,895)

ITEM

ANNUAL DIRECT COSTS

PERSONNEL TRAVELA-6E

AIRCRAFTTC4C

AIRCRAFT ORDNANCE

OPTION A

VMAT-202

VA-128

NET CHANGE

(856,871) (125,104) (10,608,000) (1,110,000)

220,171 10,912,000 426,500

(856,871)* 95,067 504,000 (1,110,000) 426,500

OPTION B

VMAT-202

VA-128

VA-42

(1,781,266)** (125,104) (10,608,000) (1,110,000)

159,911 8,928,000 519,875

NA 59,650 NA 106,625

NET CHANGE (1,781,266)** 94,457 (1,680,000 (1,110,000) 426,500

*Difference cost based on onboard VA-128/VMAT-202 + 100% NAVMMACLANT increment**Difference cost based on onboard VA-128/VMAT-202 + 75% NAVMMACLANT increment

.

#A-6E aircraft @ $7,487,769 NAVPRO Grumman figure FY 79.

##TC4C aircraft @ $1,000,000 NAVAIRSYSCOM AIR 4151 (Last Acquisition).

Dollars in ( ) indicate savings.

141

TABLE IX

COST SUMMARY, OPTION A AND OPTION B

INVESTMENT ANNUALCOST DIRECT COST

OPTION A (17,490,538) (1,192,199)

OPTION B (32,466,076) (4,101,244)

Note: Dollars in ( ) indicate savings

142

DIRECT A-6E COSTS TO SUPPORT USMC UNDER CONSOLIDATION

VMAT(AW)-202

ASSIGNED AIRCRAFT: 13 A-6E

COST (DIRECT) PER AIRCRAFT:TOTAL

USMC TOTAL DIRECT OMN + *APN

816,000 646,000 170,000

TOTAL DIRECT COST 10,608,000 8,398,000 2,210,000

VA-128

REQUIRED ADDITIONAL AIRCRAFT:

OPTION A - 100% 11

OPTION B - 75% 9

COST (DIRECT) PER AIRCRAFT:

CINCPACFLT TOTAL OMN APN

992,000 793,000 199,000

TOTAL COST (11) 10,912,000 8,723,000 2,189,000

TOTAL COST (9) 8,928,000 7,137,000 1,791,000

INCREMENTAL COST (SAVINGS)

OPTION A - 100%

AIRCRAFT: 13 minus 11 = 2 A-6E

DOLLARS: 10,912,000 minus 10,608,000 = 304,000

OPTION B - 75%

AIRCRAFT: 13 minus 9=4 A6E

DOLLARS: 10,608,000 minus 8,928,000 = (1,680,000)

:APN dollars for annual replenishment spares

143

DIRECT TC4C COSTS TO SUPPORT USMC UNDER CONSOLIDATION

VMAT(AW)-2 02

AIRCRAFT ASSIGNED: 2 TC4C

CUbi (D1KEL1J FhK AlKLKAf i :

TOTALUSMC TOTAL DIRECT OMN APN

555,000 555,000

TOTAL COST

ir» too

1,110,000 1,110,000

VA-128

REQUIRED ADDITIONAL AIRCRAFT - TC4C

(Note: VA-128 requires three A-6E configured TC4C'sto conduct training under either OPTION A or OPTION ]

This requirement would entail only the transfer ofVMAT(AW) -20 2's A-6E configured TC4C and would resultin a net reduction of two TC4C's overall.)

INCREMENTAL SAVINGS:

OPTION A or OPTION B

AIRCRAFT: 2 minus = 2 TC4C's

DOLLARS: 1,110,000 minus = (1,110,000)

VA-4 2

Under OPTION B, VA-42 would be required to assumeresponsibility for training 25% of the annual Marinerequirement. Since this corresponds to the currentprojected decrease in their required Navy output,it is assumed that this training could be accomplishedwithout additional expense.

144

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Naval Personnel Research and Development Laboratory WOS 71-4,OFFICER PERSONNEL COSTS , by James N. Clary and John T.

Crea.tu.ro, March 1971.

Training Analysis and Evaluation Group Report No. 16, A TECH-NIQUE FOR CHOOSING COST EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERYSYSTEMS , by Richard Braby; James M. Henry; William F.

Parrish, Jr.; William M. Swope, April 1975.

Training Analysis and Evaluation Group Technical Memorandum76-1, TRAINING RESOURCES CLASSIFICATIONS: DIRECT- INDIRECTAND FIXED- VARIABLE COST CATEGORIES , by William M. -Swopeand Curtis C. Cordell, June 1976.

OPNAV-90P-02, NAVY PROGRAM FACTORS MANUAL, Revision of ; Ser901M/580724, 16 August 1976.

Commander Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet letter7M/099325: Ser 331D/5456 to Chief of Naval Operations(OP-593), Subject: Consolidation of A-6 Training , 21August 1975.

145

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. Copies

1. Defense Documentation Center 2

Cameron StationAlexandria, Virginia 22314

2. Library, Code 0142 2

Naval Postgraduate SchoolMonterey, California 93940

3. Department Chairman, Code 54 1

Administrative Sciences DepartmentNaval Postgraduate SchoolMonterey, California 93940

4. Professor Lynn Paringer 1

4710 - 49th St. N.W.Washington, D.C. 20016

5. Captain Kevin Kelley (student) 2

1688 Beaton StreetVirginia Beach, Virginia 23462

146

179492

A cost-benefit anaiy

sis of the proposed

consolidation of all

Navy and Marine Ab-t

fleet replacement

training squadrons.

nal-

I8DEC79jti NOV bOI8N0V 80

1 AUG 90

5 FEB <H

270285 6 6 2

3 6 6 65

'9^92Kel ley

.A cost-benefit analy-

sis of the proposedconsolidation of all

Navy and Marine A6-Efleet replacementtraining squadrons.

Ml@JB!PX LIBRARY

3 2768 000371926'