oversight

Military Airlift: Savings Achievable by Eliminating Support Operations at Torrejon Air Base, Spain

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-04-21.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                  United States General Accounting Office

GAO               Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee
                  on National Security, Committee on
                  Appropriations, House of
                  Representatives

April 1997
                  MILITARY AIRLIFT
                  Savings Achievable by
                  Eliminating Support
                  Operations at Torrejon
                  Air Base, Spain




GAO/NSIAD-97-96
             United States
GAO          General Accounting Office
             Washington, D.C. 20548

             National Security and
             International Affairs Division

             B-276305

             April 21, 1997

             The Honorable C.W. (Bill) Young
             Chairman, Subcommittee on
               National Security
             Committee on Appropriations
             House of Representatives

             Dear Mr. Chairman:

             The Department of Defense (DOD) increasingly relies on its global network
             of en route bases1 to provide logistical support to military airlift aircraft
             during contingencies. According to Air Mobility Command documents,
             two en route bases in Spain—Torrejon and Zaragoza—supported about
             50 percent of the Air Mobility Command’s airlift missions during
             Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. However, according to
             Spanish government officials, Torrejon Air Base’s proximity to Madrid, the
             capital of Spain, makes its use by the U.S. military highly visible and
             politically sensitive.

             This report addresses (1) the future use of Torrejon Air Base in Spain for
             airlift operations, (2) the cost savings that would be realized if the Air
             Mobility Command’s presence at that base was ended, and (3) alternatives
             the Air Mobility Command is considering to the current use of Torrejon
             Air Base. We conducted this review under our basic legislative
             responsibilities and are addressing the report to you because it addresses
             key issues under your Subcommittee’s jurisdiction.


             Global airlift operations use a network of 13 key en route locations to
Background   support the peacetime flow of U.S.-based strategic airlift aircraft. An
             additional 18 bases provide support through terminal service contract
             operations and Navy-operated terminals. Long-range strategic airlift
             aircraft—such as the C-5, C-141, and C-17—generally land, approximately
             every 3,500 miles, at one of these bases for refueling, maintenance, crew
             changes, and/or cargo handling. These locations also serve as bases from
             which to expand operations rapidly during contingencies and war.

             DOD will spend about $1.9 billion in fiscal year 1997 to operate and
             maintain the network of en route bases used by the Air Mobility

             1
              The en route basing system is a global network of manpower, materiel, and facilities that provides
             command and control, logistics, and aerial port services to air mobility forces performing U.S.
             Transportation Command worldwide missions.



             Page 1                                                            GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
B-276305




Command.2 DOD has also identified about $1 billion in construction
projects and infrastructure upgrades that need to be completed in fiscal
years 1997-2001 to enhance this network of en route bases. (See apps. I
and II, respectively, for more details about the operation and maintenance
costs and the construction and upgrade costs.)

The airlift operations are managed by the Air Mobility Command, a
component of the U.S. Transportation Command, located at Scott Air
Force Base, Illinois. Figure 1 shows the 13 key peacetime en route bases
and highlights 4 other en route bases discussed in this report.




2
 These costs represent the annual operating costs of the bases; the majority of these costs relate to
activities other than airlift operations.



Page 2                                                             GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
                                        B-276305




Figure 1: En Route Bases Used by the Air Mobility Command




            13

                                         1
                                             .                                          9
                                                                                    8
    12
                         11
                                                                               7
                                                                                   .        10
                                                                     6




                                                 2
                                                       14
                                                   3
                                                       4



                                                       15
             13 Key Peacetime Bases                    16
             1 - Lajes, Azores                     17
             2 - Mildenhall, England
                                                        5
             3 - Rhein Main, Germany
             4 - Ramstein, Germany   Note: Bases shown in BOLD
             5 - Rota, Spain         are those addressed in this
             6 - Incirlik, Turkey    report
             7 - Osan, Korea
             8 - Kadena, Okinawa
             9 - Yokota, Japan
                                                      Other Bases Discussed
                                                      14 - Fairford, England
             10- Andersen, Guam
                                                      15 - Zaragoza, Spain
             11- Howard, Panama
                                                      16 - Torrejon, Spain
             12- Hickam, Hawaii
                                                      17 - Moron, Spain
             13- Elmendorf, Alaska




                                        Page 3                                 GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
                   B-276305




                   The Air Mobility Command currently has access to three en route bases in
                   Spain: Rota Naval Air Station, Moron Air Base, and Torrejon Air Base.
                   Since Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the U.S. presence in
                   Spain has decreased significantly. The U.S. Air Force has relinquished use
                   of its designated facilities at Zaragoza Air Base and turned them over to
                   Spanish authorities. At Torrejon Air Base, DOD transferred the
                   headquarters, 16th Air Force, including the 401st Tactical Fighter Wing, to
                   Italy and relocated the remaining personnel to other DOD installations
                   except for a small Air Mobility Command caretaker staff.

                   Torrejon Air Base primarily supports military airlift. During Operations
                   Desert Shield and Desert Storm, it handled about 31 percent of Air
                   Mobility Command’s airlift missions. Rota Naval Air Station serves as the
                   Air Mobility Command’s primary peacetime base in Spain for military
                   airlift aircraft and provides a limited crisis response capability during
                   buildup for a contingency at the other two bases. It also provides refueling
                   and weapons support to the Navy’s Sixth Fleet ships and aircraft. Moron
                   Air Base is the headquarters for the 496th Air Base Squadron; administers
                   the Spain base maintenance contract, which provides civil engineering,
                   supply, and transportation services; and provides support to military airlift
                   for contingencies and deployment exercises.

                   U.S. military activities in Spain are governed by the Agreement on Defense
                   Cooperation between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States, signed
                   on December 1, 1988. The agreement entered into force on May 4, 1989,
                   and is in effect for 8 years. It is extended for 1-year periods unless one of
                   the parties notifies the other in writing of its intent not to extend the
                   agreement.


                   The future use of Torrejon Air Base by the Air Mobility Command is
Results in Brief   questionable. DOD, State Department, and U.S. Embassy officials
                   acknowledge that the government of Spain does not want the Command to
                   use Torrejon Air Base to support future airlift missions. The Spanish
                   government suggested that the Command relocate its personnel stationed
                   at Torrejon Air Base to another base in Spain. Although the Air Mobility
                   Command did not relocate its civilian and military personnel, in July 1996
                   the U.S. Transportation Command terminated a planned fuel system
                   upgrade at the base for which it had already spent $800,000 and
                   reprogrammed the remaining $2.5 million for other needs.




                   Page 4                                           GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
                       B-276305




                       Discontinuing operations at Torrejon Air Base and eliminating both
                       civilian and military positions would result in an annual savings of
                       $515,000. The Air Mobility Command could also save about $200,000
                       annually in operations and maintenance costs by discontinuing its
                       operations at Torrejon Air Base and eliminating its civilian positions.
                       These savings would continue to accrue, at a minimum, until an alternative
                       location is selected to fill the capacity viewed as lost by discontinuing
                       operations at Torrejon Air Base. The Command could save an additional
                       $315,000 in military personnel costs if it eliminated the military positions
                       from the force structure.

                       The Air Mobility Command has short-term alternatives to the use of
                       Torrejon Air Base. These alternatives include relying on the four key
                       European bases—Mildenhall Air Base, England; Moron Air Base, Spain;
                       and Rhein Main and Ramstein Air Bases, Germany—to the maximum
                       extent possible and using other locations, as necessary. Additionally, the
                       Air Mobility Command, in conjunction with officials from the U.S.
                       Transportation Command and U.S. Air Forces, Europe, is considering
                       three long-term alternatives to make the en route system capable of
                       carrying out its peacetime and wartime missions and replace the capability
                       provided by Torrejon Air Base. These alternatives include (1) adding
                       limited capability to Rota Naval Air Station and reopening and enhancing
                       Zaragoza Air Base, Spain; (2) significantly enhancing Rota Naval Air
                       Station, Spain, and adding limited capability to Fairford Air Base, England;
                       and (3) reopening and enhancing Zaragoza Air Base and adding limited
                       capability to Fairford Air Base. However, the Spanish government, which
                       has final approval over all activities at the bases in Spain, delayed the
                       approval of site surveys at Rota Naval Air Station and Zaragoza Air Base
                       because of political issues. As of April 1997, the Air Force had completed
                       the site survey at Rota Naval Air Station but had not completed the survey
                       at Zaragoza Air Base.


                       According to Department of State and U.S. Embassy officials, senior
Air Mobility           Spanish military officials have indicated that political sensitivities will
Command’s              severely complicate U.S. use of Torrejon Air Base during future
Continued Use of       contingencies. On several occasions, the Spanish government has
                       suggested that the Air Mobility Command relocate its military personnel
Torrejon Air Base Is   permanently stationed at the base to Moron Air Base, Rota Naval Air
Questionable           Station, or Zaragoza Air Base. Air Mobility Command officials stated that
                       since Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, Spain has been
                       increasingly sensitive about allowing the U.S. military to use Torrejon Air



                       Page 5                                           GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
                     B-276305




                     Base for contingency operations. The primary reason for this position is
                     that any U.S. military activity at the base is highly visible to the Spanish
                     population because the base is located near the capital city of Madrid.

                     The Spanish government’s sensitivities have led to a general consensus
                     among Department of State, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Transportation
                     Command, and Air Mobility Command officials that the Air Mobility
                     Command should consider alternative bases for peacetime use and
                     contingency operations. As a result, the U.S. Transportation Command
                     ceased its upgrade of the fuel system at Torrejon Air Base, after spending
                     approximately $800,000 of the $3.3 million it had planned to spend on this
                     upgrade. The Command has since reprogrammed the remaining
                     $2.5 million for projects at other DOD installations.


                     Despite the Spanish government’s sensitivities, the Air Mobility Command
Termination of Air   continues to station 14 personnel (9 military and 5 civilian staff) at
Mobility Command     Torrejon Air Base. Our analysis showed that the Air Mobility Command
Operations at        could save about $200,000 annually in operations and maintenance3 costs
                     by simply ceasing operations at Torrejon Air Base and eliminating the
Torrejon Air Base    civilian positions. These savings include $175,000 in civilian personnel
Could Result in      costs and $25,000 in other support costs. The Air Mobility Command could
                     save an additional $315,000 in military personnel costs if it eliminated the
Savings              military positions from the force structure. Discontinuing operations at
                     Torrejon Air Base and eliminating both civilian and military positions
                     would result in an annual savings of $515,000.

                     DOD officials told us they believe the Air Mobility Command should
                     continue to maintain its small presence at Torrejon Air Base. They stated
                     that the $515,000 is a minimal investment to retain possible future access
                     to a large infrastructure that can be expanded rapidly during a
                     contingency. Nevertheless, the Air Mobility Command is evaluating
                     alternatives to maintaining a presence at the base.


                     The Air Mobility Command has both short-term and long-term alternatives
Alternatives to      to the continued use of Torrejon Air Base.
Torrejon Air Base

                     3
                      Operations and maintenance funds are used by the services to carry out day-to-day activities, such as
                     the recruitment and fielding of a trained and ready force, equipment maintenance and repair, child
                     care and family centers, transportation services, civilian personnel management and pay, and
                     maintenance of the infrastructure to support the services.



                     Page 6                                                            GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
                          B-276305




Short-term Alternatives   If Spain does not allow U.S. use of Torrejon Air Base and a contingency
                          occurs, the Air Mobility Command could use other en route bases while it
                          identifies and implements a long-term alternative. In the short term, the
                          Air Mobility Command could use, to the maximum extent possible, four
                          key European bases—Mildenhall Air Base, England; Moron Air Base,
                          Spain; and Rhein Main and Ramstein Air Bases, Germany—plus the limited
                          capability available at Rota Naval Air Station, Spain. In addition, the Air
                          Mobility Command could supplement the key locations by using other air
                          bases, including Lajes, Azores; Incirlik, Turkey; and Fairford, England.


Long-term Alternatives    Air Mobility Command officials believe that the United States continues to
                          need another major en route base in Spain to replace Torrejon Air Base.
                          They cite the following factors as favoring a base in Spain over other
                          European locations: (1) better weather, particularly in winter months;
                          (2) shorter flights from the continental United States, resulting in lower
                          fuel consumption and bigger payloads; and (3) ease in obtaining overflight
                          permission.

                          The European Working Group, established in early 1996, assessed the
                          adequacy of the infrastructure at the en route bases in Europe to support
                          peacetime and contingency operations.4 The Group concluded that the
                          current en route basing infrastructure does not meet the theater
                          commander’s airlift requirements and recommended relying on the four
                          main European air bases we cited previously. The Group further
                          recommended that the United States establish another base, preferably a
                          large base in either Spain or Portugal, to meet requirements. In the past,
                          that base would have been Torrejon Air Base.

                          Based on the European Working Group’s assessment, as of January 1997,
                          the Air Mobility Command, the U.S. Transportation Command, and U.S.
                          Air Forces, Europe, officials developed three alternatives to replace the
                          capacity that would be lost if the Air Mobility Command loses access to
                          Torrejon Air Base. The three alternatives are

                          (1) reopening and enhancing the capacity of Zaragoza Air Base, Spain, and
                          adding limited additional capacity to Rota Naval Air Station, Spain;



                          4
                           The European Working Group was formed to develop long-term strategy options for ensuring
                          adequate en route support in Europe for strategic air mobility operations. The Group includes
                          representatives from the Joint Staff, U.S. Transportation Command, U.S. European Command, U.S.
                          Central Command, air component staffs, service staffs, the Defense Logistics Agency, and the Defense
                          Fuel Supply Center.



                          Page 7                                                          GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
B-276305




(2) significantly enhancing the capacity of Rota Naval Air Station, Spain,
and adding limited additional capacity to Fairford Air Base, England; or

(3) reopening and enhancing the capacity of Zaragoza Air Base and adding
limited capacity to Fairford Air Base.

Under alternative 1, the additional enhancements needed at Zaragoza Air
Base would be, at a minimum, a fuel hydrant system, fuel storage tank,
fuel pipeline improvements, and runway resurfacing. The limited
enhancement of capacity needed at Rota Naval Air Station includes an
ongoing upgrade of Rota Naval Air Station’s fuel system to a five-hydrant
operation and another fuel storage tank.

Under alternative 2, the significant capacity enhancement needed at Rota
Naval Air Station includes the enhancement described in alternative 1 plus
seven additional fuel hydrants, an additional fuel storage tank, a
resurfaced runway, and expanded ramp areas. Fairford Air Base would
require an additional fuel storage tank, upgraded fuel hydrant system,
some runway refurbishment, and ramp improvements. Under alternative 3,
Zaragoza Air Base would be enhanced as described in alternative 1, and
Fairford Air Base would be improved as described in alternative 2.

According to Air Mobility Command officials, alternative 1 takes more
advantage of the factors favoring Spanish bases, but alternatives 2 and 3
reduce the risk of being denied base access during a contingency by
locating only two bases in a single country. Within Spain, there are
trade-offs between Zaragoza Air Base and Rota Naval Air Station. Zaragoza
Air Base has greater capacity and expansion potential, but Rota Naval Air
Station is a seaport with easy access to fuel, and the Navy funds normal
base operating support costs. Air Mobility Command officials believe that
with a significantly increased Air Mobility Command presence at Rota
Naval Air Station, the Navy may not be willing to fund all the base
operating costs. The Air Mobility Command plans to evaluate these three
alternatives and provide detailed cost estimates for the improvements
needed after completing the site surveys.

As of April 1997, the Air Mobility Command was still considering
alternatives for replacing Torrejon Air Base. Air Mobility Command
officials said they had not decided on a long-term alternative, primarily
because the current political climate in Spain has caused the Spanish
government to delay the proposed site surveys at Zaragoza Air Base and
Rota Naval Air Station. The Air Force completed the site survey at Rota



Page 8                                           GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
                     B-276305




                     Naval Air Station in March 1997 but has not completed the site survey at
                     Zaragoza Air Base.


                     Political sensitivities in Spain have made the future use of Torrejon Air
Conclusions and      Base questionable for the support of future contingency operations and
Recommendations      have delayed site surveys at the alternative Spanish bases being
                     considered. Given the political sensitivities and the potential savings if the
                     Air Mobility Command ceases operations at the base, we recommend that
                     the Secretary of Defense direct the Commander of the Air Mobility
                     Command to devise a plan to eliminate in a timely manner its military
                     support operations at Torrejon Air Base. We also recommend that the
                     Secretary of Defense use this plan, if necessary, as part of a strategy in
                     negotiating with Spain on other installations.


                     In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the overall
Agency Comments      thrust of our recommendation to eliminate the military support operations
and Our Evaluation   at Torrejon Air Base in a timely manner and stated that the Air Mobility
                     Command planned to terminate operations at Torrejon Air Base by the end
                     of fiscal year 1997. DOD did not believe that net cost savings would result
                     from eliminating the Air Mobility Command’s presence at Torrejon Air
                     Base because any cost savings realized by eliminating the Air Mobility
                     Command’s presence at Torrejon Air Base would be offset by the
                     investment and manpower required to replace the en route capability lost
                     at the base. We agree that the cost of operations at an alternative base
                     need to be considered but believe that, depending on the alternative
                     selected, DOD could realize some net savings. For example, if the Air
                     Mobility Command chooses Rota Naval Air Station, where it already has a
                     large contingent of personnel, additional operating expense would be
                     minimal. If other alternatives are chosen, the Air Mobility Command could
                     use DOD personnel already stationed at the bases, as it currently does at
                     many bases in the en route system. According to DOD, a realistic estimate
                     of the operations and maintenance costs attributable to en route
                     operations would be very small for bases with other ongoing operations.

                     DOD also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated
                     where appropriate. (DOD’s comments are presented in their entirety in
                     app. III.) The Department of State reviewed a draft of this report and
                     advised us that it had no objection to the findings as they relate to the
                     Department’s operations and had no suggested changes to the language of
                     the report.



                     Page 9                                            GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
              B-276305




              To obtain information on the future use of Torrejon Air Base for airlift
Scope and     operations, we examined the Agreement on Defense Cooperation with
Methodology   Spain and reviewed documents on the Spanish government’s position on
              U.S. bases in Spain and the political climate in Spain. We discussed these
              documents and related issues with officials from the Office of the
              Secretary of Defense, the Department of State, Air Force Headquarters,
              the U.S. Transportation Command, the Air Mobility Command, and the U.S
              Embassy in Spain.

              To identify the potential savings that would be realized by eliminating the
              Air Mobility Command’s operations at Torrejon Air Base, we reviewed
              documents and reports relevant to the costs of supporting the military and
              civilian personnel assigned to the base. We discussed these costs and
              potential savings with Air Mobility Command officials.

              To obtain information on alternatives to the current use of Torrejon Air
              Base, we reviewed the U.S. Air Forces, Europe, and Air Mobility
              Command’s analyses of alternative en route bases and Department of State
              assessments of these alternatives. We also reviewed DOD, U.S.
              Transportation Command, and Air Mobility Command reports and studies
              on current and future airlift requirements and basing capacities. At each of
              these agencies, we interviewed officials concerning the alternative bases,
              basing capacities, and airlift requirements.

              We conducted our review between April 1996 and April 1997 in
              accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.


              We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense and the
              Air Force and other interested congressional committees. Copies will also
              be made available to others upon request.




              Page 10                                         GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
B-276305




Please contact me at (202) 512-3961 if you or your staff have any questions
concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,




Mark E. Gebicke
Director, Military Operations
  and Capabilities Issues




Page 11                                         GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
Contents



Letter                                                                                               1


Appendix I                                                                                          14

Costs to Operate and
Maintain Bases Used
by the En Route
System
Appendix II                                                                                         17

Costs to Improve
Infrastructure at En
Route Bases
Appendix III                                                                                        20

Comments From the
Department of
Defense
Appendix IV                                                                                         21

Major Contributors to
This Report
Tables                  Table I.1: Costs to Operate and Maintain the Bases Used by the              14
                          Air Mobility Command’s En Route System
                        Table II.1: Costs to Improve Infrastructure at En Route Bases               17
                          Used by the Air Mobility Command

Figure                  Figure 1: En Route Bases Used by the Air Mobility Command                    3



                        Abbreviations

                        DBOF-T     Defense Business Operations Fund-Transportation
                        DOD        Department of Defense
                        MILCON     military construction
                        O&M        operations and maintenance


                        Page 12                                        GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
Page 13   GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
Appendix I

Costs to Operate and Maintain Bases Used
by the En Route System

                                           The Department of Defense (DOD) spent about $2 billion in fiscal year 1996
                                           to operate and maintain the network of en route bases used by the Air
                                           Mobility Command. Table I.1 shows the projected costs associated with
                                           operating and maintaining the bases for fiscal year 1997. U.S. operations at
                                           the en route bases are funded from the Air Force’s operations and
                                           maintenance (O&M) account, Air Force and Defense Logistics Agency’s
                                           military construction (MILCON) accounts, host nation support,1 and the
                                           Defense Business Operations Fund for Transportation (DBOF-T).2 Because
                                           these costs include various types of peacetime and wartime missions, we
                                           could not separate the costs of the Air Mobility Command’s airlift
                                           operations from costs for other purposes.3 For example, Misawa Air Base,
                                           Japan, is home to the 35th Fighter Wing (F-16 aircraft). Accordingly, the
                                           vast majority of the $42 million we identified in Air Force O&M costs likely
                                           relates to fighter rather than airlift operations.


Table I.1: Costs to Operate and Maintain the Bases Used by the Air Mobility Command’s En Route System (Projected for
Fiscal Year 1997)
Dollars in millions
                                                          Funding sourcea
                                                                                         Defense
                                                                                        Logistics
En route base                                              O&Mb         MILCON           Agencyc        U.S. total        Host nation Base totald
13 key peacetime bases shown in figure 1
Yokota, Japan                                               $58.8                 0           $0.7            $59.5             $296.1           $355.6
Elmendorf, Alaska                                           264.4           $21.5             20.1            306.1                    0           306.1
Kadena, Japan                                               178.9                 0             0.5           179.4                  1.7           181.1
Hickam, Hawaii                                              164.2                 0             1.1           165.3                    0           165.3
Ramstein, Germany                                           143.0              5.4              0.2           148.6                    0           148.6
Osan, Korea                                                 104.6              9.8              0.4           114.8                21.3            136.1
Incirlik, Turkey                                             83.1              7.2              0.4            90.6                    0            90.6
Mildenhall, England                                          77.0              6.2              0.3            83.5                    0            83.5
Anderson, Guam                                               56.8                 0             2.3            59.1                    0            59.1
                                                                                                                                           (continued)

                                           1
                                            Host nation support includes the host government’s contributions for foreign national direct and
                                           indirect hires, utilities, fuel, ramp rent, and landing fees at various locations. It also includes in-kind
                                           support for war reserve and depot maintenance in Korea.
                                           2
                                            Air Mobility Command customers pay the DBOF-T (now called the Defense Working Capital Fund)
                                           from their appropriated funds for transportation services they receive. DBOF-T funds daily operational
                                           expenses for Air Mobility Command DBOF-T units at the en route bases, aerial port operations,
                                           aircraft maintenance, command post, DBOF-T civilian pay, major repair, and minor construction.
                                           3
                                            During our review, the U.S. Air Force was unable to provide us with costs specifically related to airlift
                                           operations.



                                           Page 14                                                                GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
                                Appendix I
                                Costs to Operate and Maintain Bases Used
                                by the En Route System




Dollars in millions
                                            Funding sourcea
                                                                    Defense
                                                                   Logistics
En route base                               O&Mb       MILCON       Agencyc       U.S. total   Host nation Base totald
Rhein Main, Germany                          $23.0            0              0        $23.0            $8.0         $31.0
Rota, Spain                                      0            0            $1.7         1.7                0           1.7
Howard, Panama                                 0.1            0             1.5         1.6                0           1.6
Lajes, Azores                                  0.2            0             1.1         1.3                0           1.3
Subtotal                                  $1,154.1        $50.1        $30.0       $1,234.2          $327.1      $1,561.3
Other bases shown in figure 1
Moron, Spain                                 $15.9            0        $12.9          $28.8                0        $28.8
Torrejon, Spain                                0.2            0             0.3         0.5                0           0.5
Zaragoza, Spaine
Fairford, Englandf
Subtotal                                     $16.1            0        $13.2          $29.3                0        $29.3
Bases not shown in figure 1
Aviano, Italy                                $81.9        $10.1            $0.2       $92.2                0        $92.2
Eielson, Alaska                               82.0            0             1.9        83.9                0          83.9
Kunsan, Korea                                 65.9            0             0.4        66.3                0          66.3
Misawa, Japan                                 42.5            0             0.5        43.0                0          43.0
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia                            0            0              0            0            $7.0            7.0
Sigonella, Italy                                 0            0             6.5         6.5                0           6.5
Diego Garcia, Indian Ocean                       0            0             3.8         3.8                0           3.8
Bahrain, Bahrain                                 0            0              0            0              3.4           3.4
Guantanamo, Cuba                                 0            0             1.5         1.5                0           1.5
Souda Bay, Crete                                 0            0             0.5         0.5                0           0.5
Subtotal                                    $272.3        $10.1        $15.3        $297.6            $10.4        $308.0
Totalg                                     $1442.5        $60.1        $58.4       $1,561.1          $337.5      $1,898.6

                                                                                                 (Table notes on next page)




                                Page 15                                                  GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
Appendix I
Costs to Operate and Maintain Bases Used
by the En Route System




Note: We did not validate the costs for operating and maintaining the en route bases. The
en route bases are used for various types of missions, and the costs provided by DOD include
those related to airlift and other types of operations. We could not separate the airlift-related
costs.
a
    DBOF-T funding is not included.
b
    The amounts shown are Air Force O&M funding only.
c
    Defense Logistics Agency includes Defense Fuel Supply Center funding.
d
    Does not include costs for medical, housing, and contingencies.
e
    Zaragoza Air Base is not occupied by the United States.
f
Costs were not obtained for Fairford Air Base.
g
    Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: GAO’s analysis of data provided by the U.S. Air Force and Defense Logistics Agency.




Page 16                                                           GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
Appendix II

Costs to Improve Infrastructure at En Route
Bases

                                           The Air Mobility Command has conducted site surveys of bases in Europe
                                           and the Pacific and identified over $1 billion in construction projects and
                                           infrastructure repair upgrades that need to be completed during fiscal
                                           years 1997-2011 to ensure that the Command can carry out its peacetime
                                           and wartime missions. The site surveys identified deficiencies in airfield
                                           runways and ramps, fuel systems, maintenance and aerial port facilities,
                                           and base support facilities such as dormitories and dining halls.

                                           The U.S. Transportation Command and Air Mobility Command are
                                           working with the Joint Staff, the services, the Defense Logistics Agency,
                                           the Defense Fuel Supply Center, and the overseas service commands to
                                           program for immediate funding of those projects that could have a
                                           significant impact on the ability of the U.S. military to carry out its
                                           wartime and peacetime missions. However, the Defense Logistics Agency
                                           has already reported a significant shortfall in funding for these projects
                                           and is seeking additional funding during the next 5 fiscal years. Table II.1
                                           shows the costs to upgrade the network of en route bases.


Table II.1: Costs to Improve Infrastructure at En Route Bases Used by the Air Mobility Command (Projected for Fiscal Years
1997-2011)
Dollars in millions
                                                      Funding sourcea
                                                                 Defense
                                                                Logistics
En route base                             O&Mb       MILCON      Agency        Otherc    U.S. total   Host nation    Base total
13 key peacetime bases shown in
figure 1
Ramstein, Germany                           $7.5        $3.0            0       $16.5        $27.1         $170.6        $197.6
Anderson, Guam                               3.0           0       $143.2          0.3       146.5               0        146.5
Elmendorf, Alaska                            6.3          8.0       122.3          3.8       140.4               0        140.4
Yokota, Japan                               10.3           0         18.8          3.1        32.1            98.0        130.1
Hickam, Hawaii                               7.1        15.0         50.3          2.5        74.8               0           74.8
Osan, Korea                                  3.5           0          8.3          0.5        12.3            48.4           60.8
Kadena, Japan                                4.8           0          3.0        11.0         18.7            25.9           44.6
Lajes, Azores                               12.6           0         23.9          3.6        40.2               0           40.2
Mildenhall, England                          6.9           0          2.8          2.3        12.0               0           12.0
Rhein Main, Germany                          7.0           0          2.2          0.2         9.4               0            9.4
Rota, Spain                                  3.2           0            0           0          3.2               0            3.2
Incirlik, Turkey                             0.3           0          0.8           0          1.1               0            1.1
Howard, Panamad
Subtotal                                   $72.6       $26.0       $375.5       $43.7       $517.8         $342.9        $860.7
                                                                                                                     (continued)


                                           Page 17                                              GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
                                Appendix II
                                Costs to Improve Infrastructure at En Route
                                Bases




Dollars in millions
                                            Funding sourcea
                                                       Defense
                                                      Logistics
En route base                   O&Mb      MILCON       Agency          Otherc       U.S. total   Host nation     Base total
Other bases shown in figure 1
Fairford, England                   0             0            0         $5.0            $5.0           $35.0         $40.0
Iberian Basee                    $4.5             0        $25.0               0         39.5                0          39.5
Moron, Spain                      0.3             0         27.4              0.3        28.0                0          28.0
Zaragoza, Spaind
Subtotal                         $4.8             0        $62.4         $5.3           $72.5           $35.0        $107.5
Bases not shown in figure 1
Misawa, Japan                    $2.8             0        $60.0         $0.2           $63.0            $5.4         $68.4
Eielson, Alaska                   2.6             0         28.0              0.6        31.1                0          31.1
Iwakuni, Japan                    0.3             0         18.0              0.3        18.6              7.5          26.1
Sigonella, Italy                  3.3             0          6.0               0          9.3                0           9.3
Kinsan, Korea                     2.5             0            0               0          2.5              6.3           8.8
Aviano, Italy                     2.6             0          1.9              0.5         5.0              0.3           5.3
Diego Garcia, Indian Ocean          0          $2.0            0               0          2.0                0           2.0
Paya Lebar, Singapore             1.2             0            0              0.3         1.5                0           1.5
Kimhae, Korea                     0.7             0            0              0.8         1.0                0           1.0
Naples, Italy                       0             0            0               0          0.8                0           0.8
U Taphao, Thailand                  0             0          0.7               0          0.7                0           0.7
Suwon, Korea                      0.6             0            0              0.2         0.6                0           0.6
Kwang Ju, Korea                   0.4             0            0               0          0.6                0           0.6
Pohang, Korea                     0.4             0            0               0          0.4                0           0.4
Chong Ju, Korea                   0.4             0            0               0          0.4                0           0.4
Cairo, Egypt                      0.3             0            0               0          0.3                0           0.3
Fukuoka, Japan                    0.3             0            0               0          0.3                0           0.3
Taegu, Korea                      0.1             0            0               0          0.1                0           0.1
Pisa, Italy                       0.1             0            0               0          0.1                0           0.1
Subtotalf                       $18.5          $2.0      $114.6          $3.2         $138.3            $19.5        $157.8
Totalf                          $95.9        $28.0       $552.5         $52.1         $728.5           $397.3      $1,125.9

                                                                                                   (Table notes on next page)




                                Page 18                                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
Appendix II
Costs to Improve Infrastructure at En Route
Bases




Note: We did not validate the estimated costs provided by the Air Mobility Command for
projected infrastructure improvements at the en route bases or the justifications for those
improvements.
a
    The amounts shown are Air Force O&M and DBOF-T funding.
b
    Defense Logistics Agency includes Defense Fuel Supply Center funding.
c
 Includes Air Force Materiel Command and U.S.Transportation Command’s mobility enhancement
funds.
d
    Base not surveyed; no cost estimate available.
e
 Iberian Base (such as Torrejon or Zaragoza Air Base) represents a place holder until an
alternative is identified for Torrejon Air Base.
f
Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: GAO’s analysis of data provided by the Air Mobility Command.




Page 19                                                           GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
Appendix III

Comments From the Department of Defense




               Page 20        GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
Appendix IV

Major Contributors to This Report


                        Sharon A. Cekala
National Security and   Elliott C. Smith
International Affairs   Jane D. Trahan
Division, Washington,   W. Bennett Quade

D.C.
                        Gregory J. Symons
Kansas City Field       William H. Gansler
Office




(703132)                Page 21              GAO/NSIAD-97-96 Military Airlift
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 6015
Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov




PRINTED ON    RECYCLED PAPER
United States                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested