Military Airlift: Savings Achievable by Eliminating Support Operations at
Torrejon Air Base, Spain (Letter Report, 04/21/97, GAO/NSIAD-97-96).

GAO reviewed: (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.

GAO noted that: (1) the future use of Torrejon Air Base by the Air
Mobility Command is questionable; (2) Department of Defense, 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; (3) the Spanish government suggested that the
Command relocate its personnel stationed at Torrejon to another base in
Spain; (4) although the 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; (5) discontinuing operations at Torrejon and eliminating
both civilian and military positions would result in an annual savings
of $515,000; (6) the Air Mobility Command could also save about $200,000
annually in operations and maintenance costs by discontinuing its
operations at Torrejon and eliminating its civilian positions; (7) 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; (8) the Command could save an
additional $315,000 in military personnel costs if it eliminated the
military positions from the force structure; (9) the Command has
short-term alternatives to the use of Torrejon; (10) 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; (11) additionally, the 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; (12) these alternatives include
adding limited capability to Rota Naval Air Station and reopening and
enhancing Zaragoza Air Base, Spain, significantly enhancing Rota Naval
Air Station, Spain, and adding limited capability to Fairford Air Base,
England, and reopening and enhancing Zaragoza and adding limited
capability to Fairford; (13) however, the Spanish government, which has
final approval over all activities at the bases in Spain, delayed the a*

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-97-96
     TITLE:  Military Airlift: Savings Achievable by Eliminating Support 
             Operations at Torrejon Air Base, Spain
      DATE:  04/21/97
   SUBJECT:  Air Force bases
             Military airlift operations
             Foreign governments
             International relations
             Base closures
             Base realignments
             Defense contingency planning
             Military downsizing
             Military cost control
             International agreements
IDENTIFIER:  Madrid (Spain)
             Desert Shield
             Desert Storm
             DOD En Route Basing System
             Spain
             Italy
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


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

Military Airlift

(703132)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

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

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


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 bases\1 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. 


--------------------
\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. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Global airlift operations use a network of 13 key en route locations
to 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
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. 

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

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

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. 


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


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The future use of Torrejon Air Base by the Air Mobility Command is
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. 

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. 


   AIR MOBILITY COMMAND'S
   CONTINUED USE OF TORREJON AIR
   BASE IS QUESTIONABLE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

According to Department of State and U.S.  Embassy officials, senior
Spanish military officials have indicated that political
sensitivities will severely complicate U.S.  use of Torrejon Air Base
during future contingencies.  On several occasions, the Spanish
government has suggested that the Air Mobility Command relocate its
military personnel permanently stationed at the base to Moron Air
Base, Rota Naval Air 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 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. 


   TERMINATION OF AIR MOBILITY
   COMMAND OPERATIONS AT TORREJON
   AIR BASE COULD RESULT IN
   SAVINGS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Despite the Spanish government's sensitivities, the Air Mobility
Command continues to station 14 personnel (9 military and 5 civilian
staff) at Torrejon Air Base.  Our analysis showed that the Air
Mobility Command could save about $200,000 annually in operations and
maintenance\3 costs by simply ceasing operations at Torrejon Air Base
and eliminating the civilian positions.  These savings include
$175,000 in civilian personnel 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 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. 


--------------------
\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. 


   ALTERNATIVES TO TORREJON AIR
   BASE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

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


      SHORT-TERM ALTERNATIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

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
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

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;

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


--------------------
\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. 


   CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Political sensitivities in Spain have made the future use of Torrejon
Air Base questionable for the support of future contingency
operations and 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. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the
overall thrust of our recommendation to eliminate the military
support operations 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. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

To obtain information on the future use of Torrejon Air Base for
airlift operations, we examined the Agreement on Defense Cooperation
with 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. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

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. 

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


COSTS TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN
BASES USED BY THE EN ROUTE SYSTEM
=========================================================== Appendix I

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 source\a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Defens
                                                    e
                                               Logist
                                                  ics                       Base
                                               Agency    U.S.       Host  total\
En route base                   O&M\b  MILCON      \c   total     nation       d
-----------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ---------  ------
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
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   $50.1   $30.0  $1,234     $327.1  $1,561
                                   .1                      .2                 .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, Spain\e
Fairford, England\f
================================================================================
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
================================================================================
Total\g                        $1442.   $60.1   $58.4  $1,561     $337.5  $1,898
                                    5                      .1                 .6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 


--------------------
\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. 


COSTS TO IMPROVE INFRASTRUCTURE AT
EN ROUTE BASES
========================================================== Appendix II

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 source\a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Defens
                                            e
                                       Logist
                                          ics  Other\    U.S.       Host    Base
En route base           O&M\b  MILCON  Agency       c   total     nation   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, Panama\d
================================================================================
Subtotal                $72.6   $26.0  $375.5   $43.7  $517.8     $342.9  $860.7
Other bases shown in
 figure 1
Fairford, England           0       0       0    $5.0    $5.0      $35.0   $40.0
Iberian Base\e           $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, Spain\d
================================================================================
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        0    $2.0       0       0     2.0          0     2.0
 Ocean
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
================================================================================
Subtotal\f              $18.5    $2.0  $114.6    $3.2  $138.3      $19.5  $157.8
================================================================================
Total\f                 $95.9   $28.0  $552.5   $52.1  $728.5     $397.3  $1,125
                                                                              .9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
========================================================== Appendix II


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IV

NATIONAL SECURITY AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Sharon A.  Cekala
Elliott C.  Smith
Jane D.  Trahan
W.  Bennett Quade

KANSAS CITY FIELD OFFICE

Gregory J.  Symons
William H.  Gansler


*** End of document. ***