I* Y 6) .......
FINAL REPORTof the
AMC COMMITTEE-ARMAMENT
DAPC&Q TECHRNICAL LIBRARY5003. Ei senhower AvenueAlexandria, Virginia 22333EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
VOLUME 1 of 4 VOLUMESDecember 1974
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED
0• o(J,( 0 "50 "5 1 :ztg BEsTAvAILLE, coPY
DISCLAIMER
This report is the product of the Army Materiel Command Com-
mittee-Armament, an ad hoc committee formed by the Commander, US
Army Materiel Command. It responds to a Department of the Army
requirement to study the recommendation of the Army Materiel
Acquisition Review Committee (AMARC) regarding establishment of
an Armament Development Center. It presents alternative concepts,
not detailed plans. It is advisory in nature and reflects
neither official policy nor approved plans of the Department of
the Army. The Secretary of the Army has directed that it be
released to interested Members of Congress for their review and
comment.
-
S
S
Sii
SUYDIRECTOR
CURRENT CONCEPTS ECONOMIC LOGISTICSORGANIZATION TEAM ANALYSIS TEAM
TEAM TEAM
STUDY RESOURCESINTEGRATION TEAM
TEAM
COWMMTTTEE ORGANIZATION AND MEMBERSHIP
CHAIRMAN
BG Bennett L. Lewis
CHAIRMAN'S OFFICE STAFF RESOTTRCES TEAM I/COL Lee T. Doyle, Deputy CAL Harvey L. Arnold, ChiefMr Bryant R. Dunetz, Spec Asst Mr Robert J. FitzCPT Michael L. Simonich Mr Gordon A. SossichMrs Nancy Laverty, Sec'y Mrs Kathrvn A. Carrico, Sec'yMrs Theresa Paddock, Sec'yMrs Fern C. Keebaugh, Admln ECONOMIC ANALYSIS TEAMMrs Chris Smith, Advin COL Vincent J. Klaus, ChiefMrs Diane H. Tylee, Sec'y Mr Charles E. Becker
Mr Blair H. DoddsCURRENT ORGANIZATInN TEAM Mr William M. FerronCAL Charles J. Treat, Chief Mr Alfred J. GordonMr David H. Gilbert Mr Larry A. GuerreroMr Wallace Harris MAJ Thomas W. LottMr Alfred B. Wilkinson Mr William H. PolchowMr Walter H. JewelMr James J. Confides CONCEPTS TEAvMr Thad M. Pilewicz COT. Alan A. Nord, ChiefMr Ronald Seagrave Mr James A. BenderMr Lawrence Libby Mr James ShirataMiss Teresa Miller, Sec'y Mr Nelson R. DentonMiss Chris Deaver, Sec'y COL James E. Wyatt
LTC James F. McCallSTUDY INTEGRATION 2/ LTC Philip A. PryorCOL James P. Duffy Ms Jennifer W. Galleher, Sec'yMrs Dorothy M. Troop, Editor/Admin Ofcr Mrs Elizabeth L. Schneider, Sec'y
*_/ Later combined with Economic Analysis Team.2/ Function later moved to Chairman's Office
SALC
TEAM MEMBERS &MAJOR C(WRIBUTORS
COL C. K. Nichols, ChiefMr C.B. Einstein, Dep ChMr Arthur Nissen, Admin & CoordMr Dominic Delli Santi, Admin & CoordMr John Ackerman, Admin & CoordMrs Harriet Burns, AdminMrs Mary Horkulic, EditorMrs Marian Shack, EditorMr George Perkins, Evaluation CoordMr Harvey Lynn, Ch, Facilities OpMr Roger Logan, Ch, Organization & PersMr Richard Siivens, Organization & PersMr Larry Flynn, Organization & PersMr David Evans, Organization & PersMr Richard Faille, Organization & PersMr Richard Johnson, Ch, Cost & Economic AnalysisMr Robert Maxey, Cost & Economic AnalysisMr Leslie Griffin, Operational InterfacesMr J. Fanck, Dir, Materiel ManagementMr John Allcott, Dep Dir, MaintenanceMr R. Milne, Dir RD&EMr Doug McCune, Dir Mgt InfoMrs Isabelle Hansen, Dir Proc & ProdMr J. Obren, Dir, Quality Assurance
Mr Thomas Davis - Edgewood ArsenalMr Richard Barrett - Rock Island ArsenalMr John Salassa - Frankford ArsenalMr S. Fleischnik - Picatinny ArsenalMr Al Harding - Watervliet Arsenal
0iv
VOLUME 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PACE
INTRODUCTION 1
PART I Findings and Recommended Concept 1
PART II Study Summary 9
Section A Current Armament Community 11
Section B Organization and Operations ofan Armament Development Center 15
Section C Analysis, Evaluation, andComparison of Alternatives 21
0v
viS
The Executive Summary is in two parts; Part I containsthe findings and recommended concept; Part II is a summaryof the study that supports the findings and concept.
INTRODUCTION.
This volume contains a highly summarized version of the concept planand supporting study for establishment of an Armament DevelopmentCenter (ADC). The study has been prepared in response to one of theprincipal AMARC 1/ recoimendations--create a new Armament DevelopmentCenter at a single location, through an evolutionary process, byconsolidating selected RD&E elements of Frankford, Picatinny, RockIsland, Watervliet and Edgewood Arsenals, the RD&E Directorate ofUS ARMCOM and the Ballistics Research Laboratories.
PART I
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED CONCEPT
1. Major Findings: After study of the organization and operation ofthe current armament community, other development organizations, and theAMARC report and after developing, analyzing, and costing numerousalternative concepts with the aid of in-house experts and consultants,. the committee finds:
a. The armament acquisition process is in need of major im-provement and the need is compelling.
b. A consolidation of fragmented activities and reorganizationinto systems laboratories will assist in providing an opportunity forimprovement and a climate for change.
c. Significant economies can be achieved with reorganizationand consolidation.
d. The armament development activities will be in a good pos-ition for the long term if any one of the preferred alternatives isadopted.
e. None of the alternatives is without disadvantages.
1/ AMARC, the Army Materiel. Acquisition Review Committee, was formedat the direction of The Secretary of the Army in December 1973, tostudy the Army's materiel acquisition process. The AMARC report wassubmitted 1 April 1974.
1
f. All alternatives are significantly better than the status
quo.
g. The decision to implement should be made with recognition of:
(1) The risks and costs, as well as the advantages, attendantto the selected alternative.
(2) The need for skillful and flexible implementation to retainthe people--professional, subprofessional, support, and administrativepersonnel--who comprise the expertise in the current community, therebymaintaining continuity in important programs and the capability to pro-duce armaments.
(3) The need at the start for strong support from top levels inDA and DoD, and the Congress, and for their commitment to continuedsupport throughout the transition.
2. Recommended Concept. The recommended concept is to establishan Armament Development Center (ADC) with responsibility for re-search, development, and the transition of newly developed armamentmateriel into quantity production. The ADC will be built upon acore of four laboratories, three systems development laboratories--large caliber weapons, small caliber weapons, i/ and chemical materiel--supported by a fourth laboratory for ballistics research (Figure 1-1)The center will incorporate those on-going activities clearly relevantto the armament acquisition mission now located at Frankford, RockIsland, Picatinny, and Watervliet Arsenals, the Ballistics ResearchLaboratories, and Edgewood Arsenal. The organizational and opera-tional concept follows from the objectives established for the ADC,with emphasis on those related to systems orientation, clear assign-ment of responsibility, intensive management of concepts and projects,close coupling between technology and development, and' a strong bondwith the user.
3. Preferred Alternatives. Eleven alternatives were generated byvarying the population, degree of consolidation, 2/' and location oforganizational elements; these have been analyzed and evaluated withrespect to operational considerations, personnel, costs, andcomunnity impact. The committee weighed the advantages and dis-advantages of each alternative and finds three that stand above the
_I/ Zn the ADC Concept, small caliber includes weapon systems below4 0mm; large caliber, 40mm and above.
2_/ Although AMARC recommended a single-site ADC, two and three-sitealternatives were also studied.
20
V)f
V-)
C-)
>C
LLJ LLJ 0
Lc-L>--c
U-f mJ
o 0o
F., -UJ
cm V) ~ 0~
< Co_j L-4
CCD
L)-u-LQ I-
LLJ J0z
rest; they are shown in order of preference in the table(Figure 1-2). Evaluation of these alternatives is summarized inFigure 1-3. For comparison, the status quo (Alternative I) is alsoshown.
4. Rationale for Order of Preference. Alternative 3,-with its greatlong term benefits was ranked third because of the high degree of die-location of the large caliber ammunition personnel with attendantincreased potential for reduced capability,'especially in support ofproduction; the sharper adverse impact on one community-(Dover, NJ);and the higher initial investment required. The initial investmentof $138 million is not, by itself, considered a major discrininatorsince present value costs are close to those of the first choicealternative. Alternative 5 was preferred to Alternative 3 becauseit avoids the dislocations cited above, yet provides• an excellentopportunity for a partial fresh start. Alternative 5A was preferredto Alternative 5 because the ADC headquarters would be collocatedwith the two principal weapon systems laboratories which constitute70 percent of the ADC population, it enjoys relative ease of imple-mentation, and because top management is located where it can directlyinfluence generation of a fresh start.
5. Impact Upon ARNCOM. A separate substudy examined the impactthat the formation of an ADC would have on the'remainder of 'ARMCOM.An Armament Logistics Command (ALC) complementary to the ADC was ex-plored in concept form. The ALC would be responsible for the materielmanagement functions of supply, maintenance, production, and relatedprocurement activities. The ADC and ALC would each support the other.The substudy determined that a separate Logistics Command is feasible,would not grow in population or budget from the status quo, and variesonly slightly from one ADC alternative to another. Therefore, itshould not influence the choice of an alternative for the ADC.
6. Implementation. Before the ADC assumes responsibility for on-going or new programs, key leaders must be selected and hired; de-tailed transition plans must be prepared; and responsibilities,authority, and resources assigned the implementers. The plan must be-capable of being modified during the execution phase to accommodateto unforeseen events or to those anticipated in all aspects excepttiming. The ADC must be ready to accelerate the rate of implementation;movement will be determined by the availability of personnel and faci-lities and by the need to maintain continuity of programs. For theplanning period it is proposed to establish a provisional headquarters.
a. Provisional Headquarters. The provisional ADC will comprise acommand and management element, a planning staff including experts incivilian personnel, construction, programming, transportation, andoperations at each of the affected facilities, plus an administrative
4
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
RANK ALTERNATIVE SITE(S) HQ LABORATORY AT SITE
First 5A, Two-Site Picatinny HQ Large Caliber SystemsSmall Caliber Systems
Aberdeen Ballistics Research
Chemical SystemsSecond 5, Two-Site Picatinny Large Caliber Systems
Aberdeen HQ Small Caliber SystemsBallistics ResearchChemical Systems
Third 3, One-Site Aberdeen HQ Large Caliber Systems
Small Caliber SystemsBallistics ResearchChemical Systems
Figure 1-2
5
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
RANKING FIRST SECOND THIRD STATUS QUO
ALTERNATIVE SA 5 3 1
LOCATION- APG-PA APG-PA APG RIA-FA-PA-APG-WA
POPULATION 7,817 8,083 6,386!/ 10,542
INTERNAL INTERFACES GOOD + GOOD - EXCELLENT + POOR
WORKFORCE FLEXIBILITY EXCELLENT - GOOD EXCELLENT + POOR
OPERATIONAL EXTERNAL INTERFACES EXCELLENT - GOOD + EXCELLENT + POOR
ONSIDERATIONS"FRESH START" GOOD - -GOO,+ , ',EXCELLENT , POOR
STEADY STATE DATE (FY) 1980 1980 1981 1976
IN PLACE 5,571 (71%) 4,977 (62%) 20383 (37%) 100%TRANSFERS(2 OF ADC)
RELOCATE 1,374 (18%) 2,207 (27%) 3,105 (49%) 0%
PERSONNEL RECRUITMENT REQUIRED 872 (11%) 899 (11%) 898 (14%) 0%
ASPECTS (Z OF ADC) -
SEPARATION (RIF) EXPECTED 1,349 1,259 1,895 0
ONE TIME INVESTMENT (MILLIONS) $ 76 $ 79 $138 $ 0
ANNUAL STEADY STATE (MILLIONS) $287 $298 $281 $347
COSTS
STEADY STATE SAVINGS (MILLIONS) $ 60 $ 49 $ 661/ $ 0
INVESTMENT RECOVERY PERIOD 4.3 4.6 5.0(YEARS)
PRESENT VALUE 15 YEAR $2,501 $2,560 $2,505 $2,769
OPERATIONS (MILLIONS) . ....._...__ .. ... .
CO•£•UNITY ECONOMIC IMPACT MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE NONE
Population of Alternative 3 (6386) would be approximately 7500 if based on the "Consolidated" ADC populationmodel, as are the populations of Alternatives 5A and 5, rather than the "Minimum" model. The difference
(6386 versus 7500) has little economic significance. The two basic single-site population models ("Consolidated"
and "Minimum") were developed by detailed analysis of the manning required to accomplish the ADC mission and
functions. Approximately 7500 personnel were considered adequate with a slight increase in out-of-house devel-opment effort; and approximately 6400 personnel were considered to be the minimum required in-house workforce,with a correspondingly larger increase in out-of-house effort. Two-site ADC configurations of each model requireslightly more personnel (7817 and 8083 for Alternatives 5A and 5, versus 7500). Due to higher personnelturbulence, it is expected that the actual ADC population of a single-site ADC would approach the "Minimum")
model, while multi-site configurations would be closer to the "Consolidated" model.
Savings ($66 million) would be approximately the same for the higher population (7500) model because with theincrease in ADC population less work would be done by contract.
Figure 1-36
element. Priority will be given to keeping informed the employeeswithin the armament community who comprise its expertise, and tosearching for and selecting laboratory directors and other top manage-ment personnel. Provisional status should be guaranteed until allmajor tasks are completed.
b. ADC Activation and Transition. At activation the ADC wouldmanage the armament RD&E program as does a project manager. Untiltransfer, the work would be' accomplished where it is being done now,at the arsenals, at BRL and on contract. As a control measure, atechnical "phase-down" team will be established at each losingactivity to insure continuity of programs and to warn of potentialloss of expertise and capability.
c. Time to "Steady State." It is estimated that four yearswill be required from date of activation of the ADC until all per-sonnel and programs are transferred, new talent recruited, and allessential construction and renovation of facilities completed.
d. Selection of Commander. The commanders selected for the ADCand ALC should be officers who have the full confidence of theirsuperiors in AMC and DA and, therefore, can be delegated the neededauthority to accomplish this large, complex, and important task.
e. Special Authorities. Successful creation of an ADC willrequire waivers to existing regulations and policies. These mustbe granted, for example, to permit the ADC to have its own CivilianPersonnel Office or to have assigned the number and quality ofmilitary officers needed to meet the ADC's new objectives.
f. Milestone Schedule. Figure 1-4 is the milestone scheduleof the ADC covering the period from announcement of the decision toimplement through the transition period.
7
ADC MILESTONE SCHEDULE a/
MILESTONE DATE
D-Day Announce ADC Concept and decision to imple- 1 Jul 1Q75ment.
Establish Provisional ADC Headquarters withtop management and planning staff to in-
clude civilian personnel, movement, techni-cal, and other supporting specialist ad-ministrative elements.
D+l mo Establish task forces to accomplish detail- 1 Aug 1Q75ed planning for activation of ADC andbuilding up its capabilities.
Initiate talent search for key leaders.Plan for new construction and renovation
programs.Establish Civilian Personnel Office and
nucleus of Procurement Office.Continuously coordinate with Logistics
Command.
D+4 mo Submit MCA budget. 1 Nov 1975
D+6 mo Select laboratory directors and start re- 1 Jan 1976cruiting second level management.
Establish teams at losing and gaining sitesto assist in relocation of individuals,programs, and equipment.
A-Day Activate ADC. 1 Apr 1Q76(D+q mo) Assume budget authority and full responsi-
bility for RDE programs.Assume control of development PMs.Start movement of fire control, small arms
ammunition, mechanical time fuzes, shellmetal parts, and supporting technologiesfrom Frankford.
Start movement of relatively new develop-mental programs from Rodman and BenetLaboratories.
A+12 mo Complete movement from Frankford and new 1 Apr 1Q77programs from Benet and Rodman.
A+18 mo Establish Armament Institute. 1 Oct 1977
A+24 mo Complete all systems management movement I Apr 1Q78to ADC.
Start technology program move from Benet.
A+48 mo Consolidate all activities at ADC. I Apr 198nInitial MCA complete.
ADC reaches "steady state" condition.
a/ This schedule is based on Alternatives 5A and 5, modificationwill be necessary if Alternative 3 is selected.
Figure 1-4
8
PART!II - STUDY SUMMARY
The remainder of this volume will be devoted to a summarizedversion of the major steps leading to the findings and organizationalconcept presented in PART I. All steps taken are listed below insequence, but the overall process was iterative.
o The current armament community was analyzed to provide abase line and to identify strengths and weaknesses.
o The objectives or goals of the ADC were established and themission and functions derived.
o An ideal or "reference" organization was developed. Aconcept of operation, initially in outline form, was prepared toassist in this effort; the concept was refined during the iterativeprocess.
o The reference organization was populated and the need forunique facilities established.
"o An ALC substudy was undertaken to complement the ADC effort.
"o Potential sites were visited and studied.
"o Feasible alternatives that considered single and multi-sitedADCs were generated, analyzed and compared.
"o Preferred alternatives were selected and ranked on the basisof personnel, operations, costs, and community economic impact.
o An implementation plan was devised.
0 9
10
SECTION A: Current Armament Community.
1. Armament Community. The current armament community, as definedin this ADC study, comprises the US Army Armament Command (ARMCOM)plus the Ballistic Research Laboratories (BRL). An indicator ofthe number, type, and geographic dispersion of the community's
agencies is shown in Figure 1-5.
2. Mission. ARMCOM is responsible for "integrated commoditymanagement" of armament systems and materiel. ARMCOM's 1520 majoritems now in the Army inventory include: 160 weapons, 890 munitions,and 470 tool and test items. ARMCOM's mission includes research anddevelopment, production base (arsenals and GOCO plants) and logis-tics support (includes supply, maintenance and related procurement).
3. Resources. The community's population totals approximately26,000 civilian and military personnel; an additional 32,000 contractpersonnel operate the GOCO ammunition plants. Its budget totals$2.68 billion. To give perspective to these quantities, the nextlargest AMC Commodity Command, ECOM, has a population of 11,500.ARMCOM's budget is one-fourth of AMC's. Figure'l-6, a tabularsummary of the community's resources, permits a comparison in budgetand population between development and logistics activities.
4. Strengths and Weaknesses. An overall assessment of the currentarmament development community indicates the following:
a. The major weaknesses are: (1) a high degree of operationalcomplexity and rigidity resulting from mission fragmentation and
organizational and geographical separation; (2) a strongsupportive role to logistic activities at too high a cost to newdevelopments; (3) a poor link to both the user and resourceallocator; and (4) potential efficiencies not being realized. Theorganizational fragmentation of development activities is depictedin Figure 1-7.
b. The major strengths lie in the capability of groups ofindividuals who have produced and been responsive to urgent fieldand production requirements in spite of the inhibiting environment.
c. An additional strength has been the management action alreadytaken by AMC and ARMCOM to address recognized problems, e.g., theMUCOM-WECOM merger and additional steps resulting from the TOAMACand CONCISE studies.
wj < 01 -IcU2 cn Cc:(~ - -
<. * 1r << ~ 4U
4r z->-< <2 S2cr .a
C , EE< ZZ< << o
C- m - 1- 0C
In S n< u< r=cC O
z L-cc n (4ui U (n ui 00
D 1 :1< 0 << "-10LCo r
U, CD
da tcc~~- <C0 Oo -
0 CL
2 <- 0a w
Im<a >ý
Lo~ oI 4LAS 0
CO) . *S
10 < c12
P'Y74 ARMAMENT COMMUNITY RESOURCESBASE LINE DATA
TOTAL
ARMAMENTRESOURCE DEVELOPMENT LOGISTICS COMMUNITY
PERSONNEL 11,777 a/ 13,938 b/ 25,715 c/
HQ, ARMOOM (731) (3,260) (3,991)Rock Island Arsenal (838) (2,860). (3,698)Picatinny Arsenal (4,871) (677) (5,548)Watervliet Arsenal (607) (2,147) (2,754)Frankford Arsenal (1,903) (1,726) (3,629)Ballistic Rach Lab (892) (892)Edgevood Arsenal (1,935) (421) (2,356)Pine Bluff Arsenal (1,125) (1,125)Rocky Mt Arsenal (723) (723)Ammo Plants (999) (999)
FUNDS (Millions) $ 347 $2,340 $2,687PEMA (108) (2,022) (2,130)RDTE (210) d/ (210)OMA (29) (196) (225)Other (122) (122)
FACILITIESLand (acres) 300,000Buildings 19,000
Equipment (items) 568,000
a/ Includes 1,235 base operations support personnel not includedin the ADC "status quo" population (10,542) due to theassumption that ADC installations support will be contractural.
b/ Does not include 32,000 contract personnel operating GOCOammunition plants.
c/ Includes 1,197 military personnel.
d/ RDTE funds expended as follows: 65% in-house, 15% other govern-ment agencies, 20% industry.
Figure 1-6
* 13
PC04 ~ dSNo
w tn
H0O
C If
zw
rj~ ~ (J2
~ C Vcr.
o 4'-I
u -
r~ v 0r
tnH
VVHOC
CE-ZCI
z 4f-
43z q r
Ow cc
ý- ;:::I -4 b4
0V 8
14
SECTION B. Organization and Operation of an Armament DevelopmentCenter.
1. ADC Concept. The organizational concept has been designed toimprove the armament acquisition process and to emphasize output.This will be achieved through:
"o Systems orientation
"o Clear assignment of responsibility
o Intensive management of concepts and projects
o Close bond between the technology base and developmentactivities
o Close bond with the user and resource allocator
o Self-assessment and personnel development
2. ADC Mission. The mission identifies the principal areas ofresponsibility of the ADC and is sequenced to emphasize the "output"orientation of the center.
ADC MISSION
For assigned armament systems, components and relatedmateriel:
"o Develop product improvements and new itemsand provide for transition into quantityproduction; make initial procurement.
"o Maintain a strong technology base--ingovernment, industry, and universities--from which to evolve improved items andto prevent technological surprise.
"o Provide technical support to agencies withoperational and logistics responsibilitiesfor fielded items.
* 15
3. ADC Systems and Materiel. Representative systems and materiel
are shown below?
Armament Systems and Materiel
Small Arms New Concept WeaponsMortars Air Dispensed MunitionsRecoilless Rifles Mines, Demolition, GrenadesAutomatic Cannon Flame, Smoke, IncendiaryArtillery, SP and Towed PyrotechnicsCombat Vehicle Primary Missile/Rocket Warhead
and Secondary Armament Sections
Systems and materiel include fire control, fuzes, and con-ventional, nuclear, and chemical ammunition as applicable.
4. Organization. The center is built upon a core of fourlaboratories (Figure 1-1)
Large Caliber Weapon Systems LaboratorySmall Caliber Weapon Systems LaboratoryChemical Systems LaboratoryBallistics Research Laboratory
a. The output of the laboratories' activities in the technologybase (basic and applied research) will be prototypes of conceptualcomponents and subsystems, as well as simulation and modelling.Prototypes that gain DA approval for full-scale development willprogress within a laboratory through the development phase and intoinitial production. The same engineering and management team willbe responsible for a project throughout the cycle.
b. Several new aspects of the ADC concept of operations arethe Armament Concept Office, the Systems Evaluation Office and thePlans Office.
(1) The Armament Concepts Office (ACO), a small staff ofcivilian and military personnel, will collect, develop, evaluate,and exploit ideas and concepts which could provide significantimprovements to existing systems or form the basis for entirelynew systems. A new concept, that is, one to be tested by the userin prototype form to establish its military worth and cost, willbe managed through the Armament Concepts Office by a small team;members will be drawn from the laboratories and will include a"marketer." The team will exercise control of funds and willprovide an important link with both the user and the resourceallocator.
(2) The Systems Evaluation Office, a "Red Team" will include
16
senior civilian and military personnel with combined backgrounds inscience, engineering, tactics and doctrine. They will be supportedby a resident foreign intelligence element and individuals withsystems and cost analysis skills to provide independent assessments.The output of the SEO is the definition of needs and opportunities,independent assessment, and foreign science and technical intelligenceservice to the center. SEO members are not to be advocates or anyparticular hardware project, but are to identify opportunities forevolutionary improvement of fielded systems and, when necessary,the need for entirely new systems.
(3) The Plans Office (PO) will provide staff assistance forADC corporate planning. In conjunction with the major operatingelements, the PO will assist management in developing ADC goalsand objectives and in assessing the effectiveness and efficiencyof the organization, structure, and operations throughout the center.One of the early tasks of the Plans Office will be to determine ameasure of output so that a meaningful return on investment can becalculated.
5. ADC Manning. The population of the ADC was derived as follows:
a. First, personnel in the current organization were matchedwith the missions and functions of the ADC; this established thepopulation of Alternative 1 (Status Quo), a baseline.
b. Second, a "consolidated" population level for a one-siteADC was generated taking advantage of the economies of consolidation,by eliminating redundancies and inefficiencies, and by not buildinginto the ADC those capabilities for which there is a good base inother government activities or in industry.
c. Third, a "minimum" population level was established for aone-site ADC, whereby the ADC would remain a "smart buyer;" at thislevel the maximum amount of work would be placed out-of-house,either with other government agencies or on contract. The "minimum"level was determined in anticipation that the desired goals inrecruitment might not be met. If armament development programsremain at present levels, this minimum population should not bereduced.
d. Finally, both the "consolidated" and "minimum" levels fora one-site ADC were adjusted to meet the slightly increased popu-lation needs of two and three-site ADCs.
e. The difference in personnel strength between the "consoli-dated" and "minimum" population models does not translate intosavings; as the ADC population drops, more work would be done byother government activities or on contract rather than in-house.
* 17
6. Site Consideration. An all-source survey of available realestate and facilities produced a list of 94 candidate locations forthe ADC. Selective criteria and careful screening applied to thesecandidates narrowed the list to those most suitable for a single-siteand those that would best conform to a multi-site ADC. A briefdescription of each final candidate location listed below is shownin Figure 1-8.
Single-Site Multi-Site
Fort Irwin, California Aberdeen, MarylandAberdeen, Maryland Picatinny, New JerseyPicatinny, New Jersey Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Rock Island, Illinois
7. Figure 1-9 shows the alternatives, distribution of laboratories,and population figures used in the analysis, evaluation, andcomparison of alternatives.
18
HH
W) H H-
C.) E-4U z)-(A H rz4 1- *
CY ý 0 p 0 n LH r4 H 1- H H- C.) w
0 E- H . -
C. H rCN.)4E-
..-
H HlE-
H E-41-
C4 :D 44 04
ZO 0 H 0t . z
0 PQ
U3'3k
w E-4
* z 0 0H z z z r
wH H-z. z
> H
* 0 0 00 0 0
+000 C0 0
00 0n 0
C% 0 0- C0
H P4 P4_
19
Ofr 0RrANIZATInNt, SITE, AND P0PPLATIflN 11 ALTERNATIVES
,p NOfwPROVING PICATINNY I R CMWTERVLIET IPATC
BALLISTICS SMALL ARM CANNK) AMIRESEARCH MM!TIONS WEAPMn FIRE G00NIM11ECH.
0~4WCAL PROPELLANTS LARGE CALIBER SMALL AR MU1TARSBAESYSTEM6 E(PLESIVES V.EAPCNS ~IITt M RECOILLESS
olFIJZS SELMLRIRLEs
2,797 4,154 1,383 ~ 1 F"1,625 583 10.5422
4,994 1,39235LARGE CALIBER CHEMICAL
rNSYSTEM SYSTEMFT 1IE41N SMALL CALIBER
BALLISTICSRESEARCH
6,386 6,386LARGE CALIBER
],
SYSTEMBSMALL CALIBER(DOARG SYSTEM
SITE BALLISTICSRESEARCH
CHEMIALSYSTEMB
1,392 41,9941 6,386CHEMICAL LARGE CALIBERSYSTEMB SYSTEM~
PA SMALL CALIB~iI.304SYSTEMA
BALLISTICS
- - ~3,363 5,9118
(-) A6SMALL CALIBER LARGE CALIBERSSTEM ~ SYSTEMA
BALLISTICSRESEAR04
______4,081 4,~002 _____8.083
BALLISTICS LARGE CALIBERRESEARCH SYS1TEMS
CHEMICAL SMALL CALIBERIHC- \Z/ SYTE SYTESITE ____2,402 5,415 7,817
LARGE CALIBER LARGE CALIBERSYSTEM UITO
SMALL CALIBER SlWESYSTEMIsysTEms SMALL CALIBER
BALLISTICS IttlITICAN[1 APG RESEARCH ~ SLIRSYsTess
SYSTEMB
____4,E32 3,364 7,996
BALLISTICS LARGE CALIBER SMALL CALIBERRESEARCH SYSTEMB SYSTEM
06 RIA CEIATHIEE. TSE
SITE______ 2,402 4,002 1,887 ________8,291
\j) ABALLISTICS LARG~E CALIBER 7-NEW FAIRESEARCH, SYSTEME SMALL CALIBER
p:2,4102 41,256 ________ 1,633 8,291
,IG-RsS AT CfW OFLCr-, APE FCIR 4%f4EL EflTommRF500MCCELý Figure 1-9
20
SEMTtON C: Analysis, Evaluation, and Comparison of Alternatives.
Alternatives have been compared and evaluated with respect to per-
sonnel actions, costs, operational considerations, and community
impact. In general, one-site alternatives provide the managementfocus and internal flow of information inherent in collocation, re-
quire investments for new facilities or acceptance of some less de-
sirable although adequate existing facilities, and generate moremovement and recruitment of'personnel than multiple site options.
Two-site options are the middle ground where management focus and
technology coupling among laboratory elements are somewhat lessintense, but where, in general, cost and personnel actions are re-duced. Three-site alternatives require about the same number ofpersonnel movements, but tend to perpetuate many of the conditionswhich produced the current problems at a cost slightly higher thanthe two-site alternatives. Among the alternatives none stood outas clearly the best choice, and none was without its disadvantages;however, the two-site alternatives appear to provide the best balancebetween cost, personnel dislocations and operational effectiveness.
1. Personnel Actions. Establishment of the ADC will have major im-pacts on personnel resulting from geographical moves required toconsolidate, reducing the development population from 10,500 to alevel in the range 6400 to 8200,_ and withdrawing the developmentcommunity from ARMCOM. Figure 1-10 providesa summary of personneldistribution and personnel actions in terms of transfers in place,transfers by relocating, new recruitment, and separations and re-ductions in force. A companion to higher retention rates in most
two and three-site alternatives is inheritance of the existingpopulation and the corresponding loss of flexibility in staffingthe new ADC. Historically, younger employees are forced out inlarge reductions in workforce. This contrasts with the severalAMARC findings that support infusing new blood, new ideas and newattitudes to assist in eliminating the old way of doing business.On the other hand, the effect of lower retention rates is the possi-ble loss of expertise and the difficulty in hiring skilled engineersand scientists in the vacant positions. The Fort Irwin alternativerequires approximately 3300 (51%) new hires. The requirements forrecruitment of new faces for all other one, two and three-site alter-natives range from approximately 165 (3%)to 900 (14%) personnel, theremainder being drawn from the current workforce.
2. Cost Analysis and Benefits.
a. Costs have been analyzed in terms of total investment costs,steady state operating costs, steady state savings, and present valueof 15-year total costs. Figure 1-11 contains the results of theanalysis of all alternatives and presents the investment recoveryperiod.
* 21
ow -
Cc H1 1-1 4 o oat qHN aN H* 0 ýr- %D .11 0' cl C>~ Hn ý n LM
co Nq rOf HO N InC4 co
0 e 0 00 HO P.14 nIN ODe
I - :r ON '?% N4 t- ~ ON m ' Lf) c H
0n H- H0 L q P
z
%n co.-O 00 HM Ný - H t-:r en Hn L n0 4 LA 0 y rl ce r-4 0'~ f Lce -
C1 cnI 04 00 m- N> Ho (7,'CIn H 0 t9 H0L
04 00 -rco cn ,-4NU N- a'0' C IoN C>-T a C14(D 00 C i -Itufl- ITN-4' IT'
to ti'. , co a 0 o -tN I %0
< P H in HrI,-t" -T mC 0 cn 0 t-4%w 0 n ncn cnON It -,tf~~
01 .1 CH HO NCN C4 0
04 Hný 4ý q 40 4- n %
-E-
0 (1) -c(HH H I Hn
E-. 41 tN N.I -H I I:D d 0v o H H
H4 toU-4 -
f4 9w
H 0P4 0 =1 4~ 1~
z 1 .) 44 14 4 H 4 (aC 1 4 J4) 0 Z Hw p HJ4ito 34 CL 0 ~ 0 p04
04 0 U H 04 11O0 oooO4J -1PE- Z E
w k 0- 0) COO Q4.4. 04~
04 0 04C OH4 ~04 U)
22
co 0 0 0t4 C- 44 IliC" 0
I- 4 0: 09t
n ý4 C4 0q in I len * .414 *
0 Z 0 l 0 0% It4
.0 M 0 l 0%
3 % 0 0D 0ý 4- 0 0
-' 4D n 04
E-4 e-'
LM -. 9 -'
1C! co 4 0
01 0n 0 0% 0 0 0
00
02
m 0% 0 ! 90
0 H 0 N4 co04 00 0 0 0
00 0%c r4L
64o
r, I4 I
'S 14
14- CA4
Eg 0
23
b. The assessment and comparison of the relative benefits ofthe various alternatives was one of the most important and diffi-cult aspects of the study. Benefits were identified and evaluatedin several ways. Committee members, field representatives, andoutside consultants all contributed their views. In addition, ananalysis was conducted using the Delphi Technique, in which some 40experts, working individually and anonymously, assigned values tobenefit descriptions for five representative alternatives. The re-sults of these various approaches were consolidated in the committee'sultimate assessment.
c. Major elements contributing to the overall cost and benefit
analysis are discussed elsewhere in this section.
3. Operational Considerations.
a. Internal Interfaces.
(1) The ADC top management should be located with the bulk ofthe systems development activities. The systems approach is basicto organization of the three hardware development laboratories.Most of the required expertise in supporting technologies is pro-vided within each of the three materiel development laboratories,but all will receive ballistics technology from the Ballistic Re-search Laboratory (BRL) and explosives and propellant technologysupport from the Large Caliber Weapon System Laboratory. The alter-natives vary in the degree in which they geographically assist orhinder the coupling of ballistics and explosives with development,but each systems laboratory's elements are collocated in all alter-natives except Alternative 5B.
(2) There should be a constant flow of technical informationbetween the Small Caliber and Large Caliber Weapon Systems Labora-tories in the areas of fire control, fuzes, munitions, and othercomon technologies. Some alternatives facilitate this interchangethrough collocation of laboratories which permits housing comndisciplines together.
(3) Both technological and developmental experimentation willbe more efficient if live firing ranges are readily available. Allalternatives include some collocated firing ranges, but the alter-natives differ markedly in capability of ranges available.
b. Flexibility of the Workforce. If all personnel in the centerworking within a specific technology area, such as fire control orminitions, are at a single location rather than dispersed, there isa greater potential for shifting personnel to meet changes in work-load, revitalizing an ailing activity, or "cross-fertilizing" the
24
laboratories. If these personnel are also located with othersworking in supporting or related disciplines, the flexibility iseven greater.
c. External Interfaces. Work with external organizations (ALC,users, other commodity commands, industry) is made easier and moreefficient with increasing laboratory collocation. The ALC will havea resident contingent with the development laboratories for inte-grated logistic support (ILS) planning and will work closely withthe ADC on configuration control boards, procurement strategy, andengineering support of follow-on production. The user contacts willbe through the combat development element of the TRADOC schools and,to a lesser extent, with the users themselves. The primary ADCcustomers will be AVSCOM and TACOM who will look to the ADC forweapon systems for aerial and surface vehicles. MICOM will contractwith the ADC for rocket and missiles warhead sections. The ADC, inturn, will be contracting for technology and technical assistancefrom the Harry Diamond Laboratory, Night Vision Laboratory, TargetAcquisition and Battlefield Surveillance Laboratory, NICOM RD&ELaboratory, Human Engineering Laboratory, Army Materiel SystemsAnalysis Activity, and the Army Materiels and Mechanics ResearchCenter.
d. Fresh Start. The ADC must be established in both substanceand appearance as more than just a "stirring of the personnel pot"and "rearranging of organizational blocks." Revitalizing the work-force and introducing a new way of doing business will take newleadership; enough new people with fresh attitudes on systems ap-proach and output orientation; and, finally, the nurturing of pridein the new concept. There is no precise number of new people needed:but it is certain some are essential, especially key leaders. Theclimate for a fresh start can be affected by the decision to builda new development activity rather than to add on to an existing de-velopment activity, and also by the nature and quality of the facili-ties provided.
e. An overall evaluation of the four major operational con-siderations applied to each alternative has been summarized forease of comparison in Figure 1-12. Adjectival ratings ranging from"poor" to "excellent" have been used.
4. Community Economic Impact Statements. The economic impact onthe affected communities is contingent upon the number of personnelaffected at each installation and the degree of economic dependenceon the installations by the local communities. Preliminary general-ized economic impact statements on the five areas affected by thevarious alternatives of the study have been prepared by the Officeof Economic Adjustment, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary ofDefense (Installations and Logistics). Brief summaries follow:
* 25
SATISFACTION OF OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS BY ALTERNATIVE
INTER•f•l WORKFORCE EXTERNAL "FRESHINTERFACES FLEXI BI LITY INTERFACES STARTt
FYLLf+ 0 (DPfLPLLRUT 08 0e- 00 (DEXCELLENT
G
"GOOD +
GOOD 0GOOD -G
FAIR + 0DFA IR Q 3_ _ _ _ _
RASE .4 KEY TO ALTERNATIVESA1 0.
02 Fort Irwin
ONE -SITE APG
GA
GAIG (Small Cal Sys, Ballistics) - FA (Large Cal Sys)
r';O APG PA
SITEG APG (BallZ~tics) - PA (Large & Small Cal Sys),
GAPG (Large & Small Cal Sya, Ballistics) - PA (Large & Small Cal Munition Subsys)
® APG (Ballistics) - PA (Large Cal Sys) - RIA (Small Cal Sys)
THREE-
SITE (D3 APG " - PA ' - FA (New)
0 APG - PA - FA (Old)
&/ Chemical Systems Laboratory remains in place at APG (Edgewood).
Figure 1-1226
a. Picatinny Arsenal - The local community at this site iscurrently in an economic slump, precipitated to some degree by pastDoD actions at the arsenal. Unemployment is significantly higherthan the national average. Further reductions would aggravate thissituation: however, the impact could be lessened by phasing downover a period of time, and accelerating retirements of those whoare currently eligible.
b. Frankford Arsenal - The metropolitan Philadelphia area isone of the major industrial centers of the United States. However,its economic activity is shifting away from manufacturing; and thecity has a low median income and relatively high unemployment. Thepotential loss to the community could be moderately significant, de-pending on possible reuse of the site and facilities by privateindustry.
c. Aberdeen Proving Ground - The economic health of the localcommunity is reasonably good; however, the total impact of thisaction should be considered in light of other potential DoD actions.The immediate vicinity is characterized as being overly dependentupon a military-based civilian population which could suffer amoderate disruption. This action could be offset by the expansionof the Baltimore-Washington development corridor.
d. Watervliet Arsenal - The local economy is both highly in-dustrialized and relatively strong, with unemployment somewhat be-low average. The economic base is diverse and, as such, is able toabsorb potential reductions. Hence, the impact of the action onthe total area is not expected to be significant.
e. Rock Island Arsenal - The local economy is currently strong,characterized by low unemployment and continued economic growth.Manufacturing is predominant in the immediate vicinity and couldpartially absorb any reductions. Thus, the total impact is con-sidered to be minimal.
6. Overall Comparison of Alternatives. For the overall comparison,alternatives are grouped in terms of one-site, two-site and three-site, and evaluated to arrive at the selection of preferred alter-natives. A brief explanation of the criteria is also provided.The entire analysis is summarized in Figure 1-i3.
A. Comparison of One-Site Alternatives (2, 3, and 3A).
(1) Although Fort Irwin Alternative 2 would offer the best ofthe "fresh starts, t is not recommended-because of the high in-vestment cost, the very high personnel turbulence, the great riskof loss of armament development capability, the difficulty in
27
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS PERSONNEL ASPECTS COSTS
ALTERNATIVESTEADY ONE TIlE ANNL4 PRESENT VAMLU LI
LOCATION STATE TRANSFRRS REC= ITMENT SEPARATION INVESTMENT STEADY 15 YEAR COMMUNITYLAT TSALI WORK ORtE ETNAI "PRESS DATE 1 OP RDC REqtIR.D (RIF) STATE OPERATIONS ECONOMIC
ODNFIGURATIOM POPUSATION $1 IBTEPACES BLERIRILITY INTERFACES START" JF5j IN PLAC I SELOCATE fT 08 ADD) REXECTED (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) (BILLIONS) IMPACT
GUSE ETA, FA, PA POOR POOR POOR 1002 $347 $2.77
APG. WA
10.542
S1392 1722 3,272 VERYFT IRWIN EXCEL EXCEL EXCEL EXCEL+ 1984 1,858 $287 $272 $2.68
(22%) (27?) (S1) SEVERE6,386
ONE- CD 2383 3105 898
SITE APO EXCEL+ EXCEL+ EXCEL+ EXCEL 1981 1,895 $138 $281 $2.50 SEVERE(37?) (491) (14?)
(LOW POP) 6,386
S3597 1624 165 MODERATELYFA EXCEL EXCEL EXCEL 0OOD 1981 1,620 $ 78 $275 $2.42
(72%) (251) (31) LARGE6,386
S4279 2249 420
SITE APG. PA 000- GOOD GOOD+ GOOD+ 1981 1,505 $ 75 $293 $2.53 MODERATE(62Z) (321) (6?)
(LOW PoP) 6,948 _________
) 4977 2207 899
APF, PA GOOD- GOOD GOOD+ G0OD+ 1980 1,259 $ 79 $298 $2.56 MODERATE(62%) (27%) (112)
8,083
TWO- &5571 1374 872
SITE AP. PA G00D+ EXCEL- EXCEL- GOOD- 1980 1,349 $ 76 $287 $2.50 MODERATE(71!) (181) (11?)
(HIG0 POP) 7,817
A3G1 3A 8AIR+ G EXCEL- GOOD 190 11,191 $ 79 $296 $2.53 MODERATE(64•) (287) (a%)
5375 2378 538API. PA, RIA FAIR FAIR FAIR+ FAIR 1980 1,045 $ 87 $297 $2.56 MODERATE
82 (63?) (291) (6?)
THREE- (D5419 2322 550
SITE APG, PA, NEW FA FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR+ 1980 1,.01 $ 74 $302 $2.58 SLIGHT(RIGi POP) 8,291 (653) (281) (72)
5419 2322 550APIF PA. OLS PA PAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR 1980 1,051 $ 72 $302 $2.58 SLIGHT
I 191 (651) (281) (7?)
A/ Alternatives are defined in figure 11-ik/ Edgewced Arsenal CB activity becomes the Chemical Systems Laboratory and remains in place at API in all alternatives. 5RL wind tunnele and ranges
ar. also left in place.c/ Any altercative could be built on the 6,40D or 7,500 man model; for economic analysis purposes, alternative I through 4 were bult on 6,400 and 5
through 8 on 7,500 models.il nternal interfaces - judges coebined effects of location of AIC HQ and span of control, coupling technology with development, and integrated
yspteme management.ea External interfaces - judges ease with which ADt can interact with ALC, user, AMC users and other Services, AMC RD, prvuate sector, and other ARC
laboratories.LI, Comunity impact summry - qantitatlve reflection of impact on communities is shown on the eext page,
Figure 1-13
28
c.C
r--.r L
I I
0, c::CC) .I CD
-4 1 1
CC
LcoI-'
E I
Ij ++ __
1Lu -- Uzi_ _ __j C CD CD C0
cc CD C_. C
CDD
- Ct C) D C-~Lr _ D C) C
N I I
CDL
C-,:
___ -_ Iirn1 C:)-4 t
C14 r- o DL
maintaining program continuity, and the long delay in initiatingand completing establishment of the ADC.
(2) The Aberdeen Alternative 3 is selected as one of the pre-ferred alternatives. It achieves the highest degree of consolidation,collocates all four laboratories with the needed firing ranges, pro-vides an excellent facility for the long term and could be completedby FY81.
(3) The Picatinny Alternative 3A is not recommended even thoughit consolidates everything except the Chemical Systems Laboratoryand the Aberdeen ranges and wind tunnels. The short term advantageof building on an existing large development base becomes a handi-cap to a fresh start for the long term. The lack of on site, longdistance ranges for both the ballistics and weapon systems labora-tories is also a disadvantage for a long term, single-site ADC.
B. Comparison of Two-Site Alternatives (4 _5, 5A and 5B).
(I) Alternative 4/5_(6400 and 7500 models). (Large CaliberWeapon Systems Laboratory at Picatinny: everything else at Aberdeen.)Alternative 5 is selected as one of the preferred alternatives be-cause it takes advantage of the explosives, munitions, and fuzeskills and the facilities at Picatinny; it provides the small caliberdevelopment activity a fresh start at Aberdeen, the advantage ofcollocation with BRL, and the availability of long distance ranges:it makes use of the best facilities at both Picatinny and BRL; andit can be implemented rapidly.
(2) Alternative 5A. (ADC Headquarters, Large and Small CaliberWeapon Systems Laboratories at Picatinny: Ballistics and ChemicalSystems Laboratories at Aberdeen.) Alternative 5A is selected asa preferred alternative because it collocates top management and thetwo weapon systems laboratories (approximately 70 percent of thepopulation), provides for excellent flexibility of the workforce,facilitates technology interchange between the Large and SmallCaliber Weapon Systems Laboratories and coupling with the explosivestechnology base, is the lowest cost two-site alternative, and can beimplemented rapidly.
(3) Alternative 5B (ADC Headquarters and all laboratory head-quarters at Aberdeen; munitions and fuze portions of Large and SmallCaliber W4eapon Systems Laboratories at Picatinny.) Alternative 5Bis not carried forward for further consideration because it is notbelieved the advantages of collocating all the laboratories" head-quarters with the ADC Headquarters, good workforce flexibility, andclose technology coupling offset the disadvantage of separatingmunitions work from weapons development.
30
C. Comparison of Three-Site Alternatives. These alternatives allplace the Large Caliber Weapon Systems Laboratory at Picatinny andthe Rallintics and Chemical Systems Laboratories at Aberdeen. Theprimary variation in these alternatives is the location of theSmall Caliber Weapon Systems Laboratory at Rock Isrand in Alterna-tive 6, at the site proposed by Philadelphia ("new" Frankford) inAlternative 7, and at "old" F'rankford in Alternative 8. Alterna-tive 6 (Rock Island) is slightly less costly than 7 or 8; The ADCHeadquarters would be closer to the ALC Headquarters, but moredistant from the mass of the ADC activity at Aberdeen and Picatinny.The three-site alternatives do offer slightly higher retention ofcurrent skills, fewer separations, and more diffused economic impacton communities than two-site alternatives; but they combine thedisadvantages of two-site alternatives 5 and 5A without any com-pensating operational benefits or cost advantage. Managementbecomes complicated, the flexibility of the workforce is reduced,and technology interchange is inhibited. Accordingly, the three-site alternatives will not be considered further for recommendationas preferred ADC alternatives.
0
32 5
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSBEFORE COMPLETING FORM
.REPORT NUMBER 2. 3OVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER
4." TITLE (anldSubtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED
Final Report, AMC Committee - ArmamentExecutive Summary - Volume 1 of 4 Volumes Study Report
6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER
"7. AUTHOR(s) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s)
AMC Committee - Armament N/A9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK
Headquarters, US Army Materiel Command AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS
5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333 N/A
11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE
Director of Plans and. Analysis (AMCPA) December 1974Headquarters, US Army Materiel Command 13. NUMBER OF PAGES
5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333 54, incls covers14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(if different from Controlling Office) 1S. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)
UnclassifiedN/A 1Sa. DECLASSI FICATION/DOWNGRADINGSCHEDULE N/A
16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)
Approved for Public Release.Distribution unlimited
17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered in Block 20, if different from Report)
Same
18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
N/A
19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number)
Armament Development CenterArmy Materiel Acquisition Review Committee (AMARC)US Army Armament Command (ARMCOM)
20. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse aide if necessary and Identify by block number)
This four-volume study responds to a DA requirement to study the recommendationof the Army Materiel Acquisition Review Committee (AMARC) regarding establishmentof an Armament Development Center. The study concludes that such an organizationshould be created and proposes several feasible options. These are conceptual innature; they are not detailed plans. Included is a substudy examining in conceptthe impact on the remainder of the Army's armament community.
DD 1 JN73 1473 EDITION OF I NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE N/A
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Date Entered)
