DECL

ASSI

FIED-

PUBL

IC

DISC

LOSU

RE

IMSM

-130-9

6 DE

CLAS

SIFIE

-MIS

E EN

LECT

URE

PUBL

IQUE

üüü COPY NO.

Chip, 137/49"")

9 March 1956

Pages 1 - IQ Inol.

REFORT BY THE STANDING GROUP

to the

MILITARY REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE

on

CRITERIA FOR CONVERSION OF PROGRAMMED NATO AIRFIELDS. CONVERS ION OF NATIONAL AIRFIELDS AND CONSTRUCTION OF M W SQUADRON AIRFIELDS

References: â»

c.

h.

AG 616O AD, 28 Jul 55 M,C, 60, 9 Feb 56 S.G, 137/45 (Final), 26 Aug 55 AG 616I/E-5OO/55 LOG, 22 Oct 55 shapto 1051, 7 Oct 55 STA'ND 1444 SHAPTO 1110 SHAPTO II65

THE PROBLEM

1. To consider Cri teria for Conversion of Programmed NATO

Airfields, Conversion of National Airfields and Construction of New

Squadron Airfields as submitted by SACEUR in reference d, and to submit

recommendations to the Military Representatives Committee and the North

Atlantic Conncil,

BACKGROUND

2. By reference g SACEUR proposed a new policy for the

Improvement of Postur e for his Air Force Units to meet the atomic

threat. Amongst other things this policy called for a greater

dispersion of SACEUR's Air Force Units nnd a consequent provision of

additional airfields and modifications of airfield criteria previously

approved. Subject to minor amendments, this policy was accepted by the

Standing Group as a basis for planning and forwarded to the Military

Representatives Committee for its approval (reference b ) .

3. In order to facilitate the .implementation of SÄCEUR's policy

and to avoid 'considerable loss of time pending the elaboration and

approval of new criteria, the Stnnding„.GcQüP has.rhiy.^refer^nce c.

u>

DECL

ASSI

FIED-

PUBL

IC

DISC

LOSU

RE

IMSM

-130-9

6 DE

CLAS

SIFI

E-M

ISE EN

LECT

URE

PUBL

IQUE

agreed on interim criteria to be used for conversion of programmed

NATO airfields where certain work had previously been suspended, con­

version of national airfields and construction of new squadron

airfields.

4. SACEUR, after discussions with host and user nations,

submitted to the Standing Group, by reference cl, revised nnd detailed

criteria nnd requested early approval. Because of the urgency, both

from the operational viewpoint and from the financial one, that the

construction of NATO airfields should not be further delayed, the

Standing Group approved, by ref erence £, subject to certain changes

and clarifications, SACEUR's proposals. This approval was given on

an interim basis for the period ending 1 June 1956 nnd subject to

final recommendations by the Military Representatives Committee and

decision by the Council.

5. Included in SACEUB's proposals is a recommendation to pro­

vide certain mobile facilities from NATO C ommon Infrastructure funds

nnd in this connection SACEUR requested, by reference e, that

special recommendations should be made to the North Atlantic Conncil»

6. The paragraphs nnd conclusions of reference that

particularly influence the criteria and standards are summarized as

follows :

â* Expnnd the presently programmed NATO airfield complex

through the following measures î

(1) Convert all the presently programmed NATO

redeployment nnd alternate airfields either to NATO

squadron main or squadron redeployment airfields, to be

capable of full operational use either continuously in

peacetime or in nn alert, nnd assign them for primary use

of specifically designated NATO squadrons.

(2) Improve and/or construct stifficient additional

facilities at available nnd suitable national airfields to

DISCUSSION

2

DECL

ASSI

FIED-

PUBL

IC

DISC

LOSU

RE

IMSM

-130-9

6 DE

CLAS

SIFIE

-MIS

E EN

LECT

URE

PUBL

IQUE

■DDRLl ' ■WffiPO

accommodate speci f ically designated NATO squadrons for

joint use with a national air activity.

(3) Improve former airfield sites not now active for

■ NATO squadron main or redeployment airfields.

(4) Develop squadron satellite airfields near present

wing main airfields where possible, for deployment of one

or two of the squadrons based at wing main airfields.

hi Reduce the ground vulnerability of units to atomic

and conventional attack by:

(1) Permanent dispersal of facilities for airfields

except hangars and buildings associated with aircraft

maintenance, to a dispersed site at a distance of at least

seven kilometers; and

(2) Developing the ability to move quickly equipment,

non-flyable aircraft and less essential personnel as far as

possible off the airfield.

c_. The implementation of the measures set out in

paragraphs 7 through 10 of reference b will be governed to a

considerable extent by many considerations, particularly those

which relate to the financial, land procurement and other

limiting national capabilities and resources of the countries

concerned.

7. It is concluded in reference b that the objectives and

measures for the improvement and further development of the posture of

SACEUR's presently forecast air force units outlined in paragraph 6

above form a satisfactory basis for NATO and national actions through

i960 and for as long as they are valid thereafter. In this connection,

planning for airfields required in 1961 would have to be started so

that the requirements could be tabled in the 9th Slice (1958) Infra­

structure Program. Thus, if any revision of the criteria and stnn-

dards is required as the result of technological progress, the

position should be reviewed, particularly in 1957.

S.G. 137/49- 3

DECL

ASSI

FIED-

PUBL

IC

DISC

LOSU

RE

IMSM

-130-9

6 DE

CLAS

SIFIE

-MIS

E EN

LECT

URE

PUBL

IQUE

8 . In the same general sphere as information contained in para-r

graph 6 above, it should be noted that the minimum goal for basic

dispersal deployment is generally a separate airfield for every squad­

ron of more than 18 aircraft and at least an airfield for every two

squadrons of 18 aircraft or less,. This is the minimum goal, the

maximum goal being generally an ’airfield per squadron, regardless of

squadron size, where this is reasonably obtainable.

9. In considering detailed criteria and standards, it- is necessary

to bear in mind SHAPE'S proposals on priorities for construction sub- ,

mitted in reference g, As a basis for planning, the Standing Group

agrees with these proposals and wishes particularly to draw attention

to SACEUR's proposal to implement, as a matter of first priority, the

displacement to ©r duplication at a dispersed site of wing operations

and communications facilities. The Standing Group considers that a

much lower priority should be accorded to the displacement or dupli­

cation of personnel housing administrative and supply facilities. In

this connection, the provision of these facilities at a wing main air­

field should be held in abeyance until such time as the minimum criteria

has been satisfied at its related squadron airfields.

10. By reference e_ SACEUR has requested that special consideration

be given to the question of providing mobile accommodation for certain

operations, communications and workshop facilities out of infrastructure

funds. The Standing Group supports the proposal that such facilities

should be mobile so as to decrease the vulnerability of units and

increase the flexibility of their deployment. For maximum economy and

efficiency, the mobile accommodation for each unit should be designed

to fit the equipment and operating procedures of that unit. Within

currently accepted rules, mobile facilities do not qualify for financing

out of NATO Common Infrastructure funds. The Standing Group recognizes

that the question of how such facilities should be financed is a matter

for Council decision and suggests that the Council examine the matter

in detail.

11. Item 7 of the Criteria and Standards, reference d, tables a

requirement for internal roads. By reference h, SACEUR has

recommended that roads to be provided from infrastructure funds at

j a m ­'s hi. 137/4?

DECL

ASSI

FIED

-PUB

LIC

DISC

LOSU

RE

IMSM

-130-9

6 DE

CLAS

SIFIE-

MISE

EN

LECT

URE

PUBL

IQUE

t̂ïïn nnu -wwo u m i \ m k Q Q m m ,1\M y u ^ y y a ^ p i f a / p

single squadron airfields should be limited in area to 38,000 square

meters. In the exceptional case where a new road to the dispersed site

is required it would not be included in this limiting area. The

Standing Group concurs.

12. SACEUR has proposed that, where status of constructions

permits, flying control facilities at wing main airfields should be

provided in mobile units. Of the 91 presently approved wing main

airfields, 3 3 are less than 7 5 $ complete. No doubt on some of these

3 3 airfields flying control facilities have not yet been completed

and under the present proposal only mobile facilities would be

provided. However, some of these wing main airfields will continue

to be occupied as such for some time and be required to accommodate

two or three squadrons. It is considered that the consequent number

of air movements on such an airfield would require a higher degree of

local flying control than could be provided from mobile units and

therefore fixed type facilities should be provided.

"13. A requirement for a circulating taxi-track has

not been submitted as it is possible to operate a compara-

"tively small number of aircraft from airfields without this

Ïfacility and its deletion from the criteria will effect a

large financial saving. However, there are definite

operational advantages in providing a circulating taxi-

\track. Such advantages include the speeding'up of gr*pur

\ aircraft movements on the ground, the provision of a md\t

of

im

■ k.

.ngs

weagh

V\cl<

possible means for emergency take-offs and landings and

the provision of better road connections between the two

parking aprons. Whereas under normal circumstances the

financial gains outweigh the operational advantages of

providing a circulating taxi-fcrack, there will no doubt

it-i

ixl-

be, in certain circumstances, conditions where these

^ advantages are reversed and in such conditions a circulating^_

Wnwmitaxi-track should be provided. _̂_________________ __________%

as type of unit (for reconnaissance or atomic delivery units the

S.G. 137/49 5 -fäfüiFP1lithiy yimanciwin

DECL

ASSI

FIED-

PUBL

IC

DISC

LOSU

RE

IMSM

-130-9

6 DE

CLAS

SIFIE

-MIS

E EN

LECT

URE

PUBL

IQUE

«alÉËËS5Ü__ fill! n —I

y ata i i w w nN M I U U f w L n ^ O ï i

facility may not be required) and type of armament. In addition, the

design specifications will vary considerably. Because of these

varying conditions, lt is considered that it is more appropriate for

the provision of firing-in butts to be a user nation responsibility.

15. Because of organizational, financial and manpower

difficulties, some nations will not be able to implement in full the

single squadron dispersal policy and.in nny case the implementation

of the policy, even in part, may take some time. Consequently, some

single squadron airfields will not be continually occupied in peace

and it is considered that in such circumstances hangars and crash and

fire station facilities should not be provided.

16. By reference h it has been confirmed that the communications

requirement of a squadron remote receiver had been omitted from

reference d, The Standing Group agrees that this requirement should

be included in the criteria.

1 7. SACEUR has proposed that tent camp facilities for 6OO men

should be provided and financed out of infrastructure funds. It is

considered that such facilities should be provided only where airfields

are not occupied in peace and, as in the case of mobile facilities,

the financial aspects of the proposal would be for North Atlantic

Council consideration and decision.

18 . Included in reference d 18 a requirement for a Plight Line

bunker as a nerve center for aircraft operations, engineering

logistics and communications activities that must be sustained on the

airfield. These activities would be carried out from either end of

the runway and to meet this requirement Alert Platforms with a

maintenance hangar are being provided at each end of the runway.

Ideally, therefore, two flight line bunkers, one at either end of

the runway, should be provided. However, under certain circumstances,

It may be possible to meet the requirement by only one flight line

bunker and therefore this possibility should be covered in the criteria.

Regardless of whether one or two flight line bunkers are provided, their

total area should not exceed 1OO square metres.

HldD.

DECL

ASSI

FIED-

PUBL

IC

DISC

LOSU

RE

IMSM

-130-9

6 DE

CLAS

SIFIE

-MIS

E EN

LECT

URE

PUBL

IQUE

tfiÜRLl— WILLI

Ij « V" V'-'J \ \j Vy 'ai' a va u ii19. On the basis of the discussion set oüt "âbôve,"the following

amendments to SACEUR's proposed Criteria and Standards for NATO

Tactical Airfields, as submitted in reference d., should be made:

a. The first and second sentences of paragraph 6b_ of the

preamble to reference d to read : "b - Whenever possible, the

facilities which are not required on the airfield Itself, as

detailed in the attached table, will be located on a dispersal

area. This area should be sited at such a distance from the

centre of the airfield as to provide a reasonable protection -

approximately seven (7 ) kilometres - and available to road

connections to the airfield."

b. At the end of same paragraph add: "Duplicate housing,

administrative and supply facilities should not be provided at

a dispersal area from wing main airfields until such time as the

minimum criteria has been satisfied at the squadron sized

airfields/'

c_. Item 1 - Runway - Columns (e) and (f) add: "Runway of

less than 2440 metres in length may be permitted as a downward

deviation when made necessary by terrain or to avoid inordinate

cost and when type of aircraft assigned will permit."

d_, Item 7 - Internal Roads - Delete sentences in columns

(e) and (f) and insert following In their place: "Within limit

of 38,000 square metres provide roads on airfield and dispersed

site. This limit does not cover road to dispersed site."

e_. Item 15 a - Flying Control - Column (c) is changed to

read: "Fixed type control tower and duplicate mobile facilities

are required."

f. Item 17, I - Flight line bunkers - Columns (c), (d),

(e) and (f) add: "Either one bunker at each end of the runway

or one single bunker to be provided within the total space

allowed at user nation option."

g. Item 19 - Hangars - Columns (d), (e) and (f) add at

the beginning: "Required only at airfields occupied in peace,"

’S.G. 137/49- 7 -

DECL

ASSI

FIED

-PUB

LIC

DISC

LOSU

RE

IMSM

-130-9

6 DE

CLAS

SIFIE

-MIS

E EN

LECT

URE

PUBL

IQUE

hi Item g4 - Crash and Fire Station - Columns (d), (e)

and (f) add : "Required only at airfields occupied in peace."

_i. Item 21 - Communications Buildings - Add new sub-para.

f_. Squadron remote receiver (see Appendix, Item 27). Columns

c_, d, e_ and f_ add "provide facilities in mobile units",

k. Item 37 - Personnel Housing -

whenever possible."

(3) Delete second and third sentences under columns (c)

through (f) and substitute following under columns (d), (e)

and (f): "When airfield is not to be occupied in peace,

camp structure for tent camp of 6OO men including utilities

will be built. Maintenance and ground party may be housed

in these tent camp facilities. The question of financing to

be subject to North Atlantic Council decision. This does

not apply to Wing Main Airfields."

1. Appendix - Item 3 - Taxi-track - Para. 3(a) add:

"However, wherever possible by modification of existing facilities

at no major cost, provide a circulating taxi-track or two roads

to permit movement of aircraft between the two parking platforms.”

m. Appendix - Item 15 - Flying Control Facilities - Change

to read: "Control towers will be constructed on base in

accordance with E 750 only at airfields designated as Wing Main

Airfields - Duplicate mobile facilities are required. On other

airfields, all facilities required to advise or communicate with

aircraft, except on the ground and on take-off and landing, are

to be placed in mobile units. These units to be located off

base, in disper sal area when it exists, and provided with

emergency standby electric power in accordance with item 9 above."

(1) Column (b) delete: "a - National responsibility' ïï - NATO Infrastructure1'

(2) Columns (c) through (f) first sentence, after

"dispersal area ....." insert "which will be provided

fevö. 137/4? - 8 -

DECL

ASSI

FIED

-PUB

LIC

DISC

LOSU

RE

IMSM

-130-9

6 DE

CLAS

SIFIE

-MIS

E EN

LECT

URE

PUBL

IQUE

CONCLUSIONS

20. The Criteria and Standards as amended in paragraph 19 a

through m should be approved on the basis:

a,. That they are reviewed from time to time and in

particular in 1957 in the light of technological progress and

consequent re-equipment of assigned air units.

hi That the financing from NATO Common Infrastructure

funds of mobile accommodation and tent camp facilities Is a

matter for North Atlantic Council decision.

21. It is recommended that the Military Representative Committee

approve this report and forward it and the message at Enclosure to

the North Atlantic Council.

RECOMMENDATIONS

-3 .XL 137/4 9 - 9

DECL

ASSI

FIED

-PUB

LIC

DISC

LOSU

RE

IMSM

-130-9

6 DE

CLAS

SIFIE

-MIS

E EN

LECT

URE

PUBL

IQUE

FROM: SGN WASH DC

TO: SGLO PARIS FRANCE

INFO: SACEUR PARIS FRANCESACLANT NORFOLK VA CHANCOM LONDON ENGLAND

NATO SECRET MSG STAND ____ _ from SGN PASS TO

SEC GEN reference (a) AG 6l6l/E-500/5S LOG dated 22 Oct 55 (b) SHAPTO

IO51, 7 Oct 55 (c) SHAPTO II65, 6 Mar 56. Subject Criteria for

Conversion of Programmed NATO Airfields, Conversion of National

Airfields and Construction of New Squadron Airfields.

1. The MRC has approved a report on Criteria and Standards

for NATO Tactical Airfields, and Mis submitting it to the

North Atlantic Council for consideration and approval.

2. The MRC particularly wishes to draw the NAC's attention

to the proposals, as submitted in reference (b), concerning the

finnncing of mobile accommodation out of NATO Common Infrastructure

funds. The requirement of mobile accommodation is militarily supported

but the financial aspects of the proposal are for Council consideration

and decision.

3. SACEUR has proposed in reference (a) that tent camp

facilities should be provided and financed out of infrastructure funds.

As in the case of mobile facilities referred to in paragraph 2 above,

the financial aspects of this proposal also are for NAC consideration

and decision.

ENCLOSUREJ As! A O.

Pa Vs

ii a. s,<aj

U a

fl Pifir/P a a f t1

aiPaa'Pij.: u

'Shi. 137/49 - 10 Enclosure

DECL

ASSI

FIED-

PUBL

IC

DISC

LOSU

RE

IMSM

-130-9

6 DE

CLAS

SIFIE

-MIS

E EN

LECT

URE

PUBL

IQUE rm T O o c c n c r

C O P Y N O

29 March 1956

C O R R I G E N D U M

to S.G. 137/49

Holders of S.G, 137/49 (Report by the Standing Group to the

M ilitary Representatives Committee on Criteria for Conversion of

Programmed NATO Airfields, Conversion of National Airfields and

Construction of New Squadron Airfields) are requested to make the

following change.

Amend paragraph 13 of S.a. 137/49 to rèad^aséïôllows:

F O R THE STANDING GROUP:

A . LADANDEColonel) French ArmyDeputy Secretary

DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION MEMO.

S.G. 1 3 7 /4 9 - Corrigendum No. 1

I j J 1 A T O Q C e R E T