Defense Infrastructure: Observations on Aviation Training Consolidation
and Expansion Plans (Letter Report, 07/12/1999, GAO/NSIAD-99-143).

This report provides information on the Defense Department's (DOD)
efforts to reduce the infrastructure that supports initial pilot
training. Earlier, GAO briefed congressional staff on its preliminary
observations, which were based on interviews with military officials.
This report summarizes the information GAO obtained on (1) DOD's earlier
efforts to reduce aircraft training infrastructure, (2) the current
plans for expanding pilot training capacity, and (3) the likelihood of
further consolidations.

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

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-99-143
     TITLE:  Defense Infrastructure: Observations on Aviation Training
	     Consolidation and Expansion Plans
      DATE:  07/12/1999
   SUBJECT:  Flight training
	     Aircraft pilots
	     Military aviation
	     Military personnel
	     Military downsizing
	     Interagency relations
	     Military aircraft
	     Helicopter pilot training
	     Base closures
IDENTIFIER:  DOD Base Realignment and Closure Account
	     T-37B Aircraft
	     T-34C Aircraft
	     DOD Joint Primary Aircraft Training System
	     T-6A Aircraft
	     DOD Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training Program
	     T-37 Aircraft
	     T-43A Aircraft

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  This text was extracted from a PDF file.        **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,      **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some   **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into          **
** body text in the adjacent column.  Graphic images have       **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included.       **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been   **
** preserved.                                                   **
**                                                              **
** 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.                         **
******************************************************************

    United States General Accounting Office GAO                 Report
    to Congressional Requesters July 1999           DEFENSE
    INFRASTRUCTURE Observations on Aviation Training Consolidation and
    Expansion Plans GAO/NSIAD-99-143 United States General Accounting
    Office
    National Security and Washington, D.C. 20548
    International Affairs Division B-281048
    Letter July 12, 1999 The Honorable Richard C. Shelby The Honorable
    Jeff Sessions The Honorable Bob Graham The Honorable Connie Mack
    United States Senate The Honorable Terry Everett The Honorable Joe
    Scarborough House of Representatives This report responds to your
    requests concerning Department of Defense (DOD) efforts to reduce
    the infrastructure that supports initial pilot training.  We
    previously briefed your staffs on our preliminary observations,
    which were based on interviews with cognizant DOD and service
    officials.  This report summarizes the information we obtained
    regarding (1) DOD's prior efforts to reduce aircraft training
    infrastructure, (2) some current plans for expanding pilot
    training capacity, and (3) the likelihood of further
    consolidations. Results in Brief                    Little
    consolidation activity followed a 1993 directive by the Secretary
    of Defense that required the services to consolidate initial
    fixed-wing aircraft training and examine the potential for
    consolidating initial helicopter training at Fort Rucker, Alabama.
    Consolidation efforts were limited to phasing in a common primary
    training aircraft, combining follow-on flight training into four
    common tracks, and exchanging instructors and students. No further
    consolidation of fixed-wing undergraduate pilot training or
    rotary-wing undergraduate helicopter pilot training was
    implemented. Currently, the Air Force is expanding its
    capabilities for undergraduate pilot training because it projects
    shortages through at least fiscal year 2007 and, therefore, it has
    increased its estimates of the number of new pilots it must train.
    The Air Force is increasing its training capabilities by
    activating additional squadrons at three of its existing pilot
    training bases and establishing an additional undergraduate pilot
    training squadron at an operational base.  Increased navigator
    requirements have also led the Air Force to expand its
    capabilities to provide navigator training. Letter           Page
    1                                     GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense
    Infrastructure B-281048 Cross-service consolidations, where
    feasible, can reduce excess capacity and increase operating
    efficiencies.  Prior base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds
    have served to reduce the number of bases used to provide aviation
    training; however, efforts to achieve such cross-service
    consolidations as part of the BRAC process have not been
    successful. Further consolidation of aviation training between the
    services may be difficult to accomplish without authority from the
    Congress for additional BRAC round(s).1  Should such authority be
    granted, DOD would likely examine the potential for cross-service
    consolidations in a number of areas, including aviation training,
    as it did in prior BRAC rounds.  Such an examination in the
    aviation training area would need to address a number of barriers
    to consolidation that exist, including (1) the services' differing
    approaches to their training and (2) the interrelationships among
    training approaches, personnel management, and career development
    strategies. Should the Congress authorize additional BRAC rounds
    and should DOD find existing barriers to additional consolidations
    too difficult to overcome, we are making a recommendation to the
    Secretary of Defense for optimizing efficiencies at bases retained
    for aviation training. Background              Military pilots who
    fly either fixed- or rotary-wing aircraft typically receive about
    1 year of undergraduate pilot training.  Air Force, Navy, Marine
    Corps, and Coast Guard helicopter pilots receive initial training
    in a fixed-wing aircraft, but Army helicopter pilots do not.
    After completing their undergraduate pilot training and receiving
    their wings, graduates from all services receive advanced training
    and are then assigned to an operational unit. Since the mid-1960s,
    a number of studies have examined the potential for consolidating
    initial fixed- and rotary-wing pilot training.  Many of the
    studies cited the potential for savings as a product of such
    consolidations. Independently of these studies, the military
    services have gradually reduced the infrastructure for their
    undergraduate aviation training as a result of downsizing and the
    base closure process.  Whereas the services had 19 undergraduate
    training bases in 1970, today there are 10 fixed-wing
    undergraduate pilot training (UPT) bases and 2 undergraduate
    helicopter 1The Secretary of Defense's authority to realign and
    close bases in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 terminated in 1995.
    Currently, it is unclear if and when the Congress might approve
    similar legislation for additional BRAC rounds. Letter    Page 2
    GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense Infrastructure B-281048 pilot training
    (UHPT) bases.  Figure 1 shows the bases that constitute the
    Department's UPT and UHPT infrastructure. Figure 1:  Military
    Services' UPT and UHPT Infrastructure Vance AFB Columbus AFB
    Sheppard AFB                                           NAS
    MeridianFort Rucker NAS Whiting Field Randolph AFB NAS Pensacola
    Laughlin AFB NAS Corpus Christi NAS Kingsville Source:  DOD. As
    shown in figure 1, the Air Force's five undergraduate flying
    training bases are Columbus Air Force Base (AFB), Mississippi;
    Laughlin AFB, Texas; Randolph AFB, Texas; Sheppard AFB, Texas; and
    Vance AFB, Oklahoma.2  The Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast
    Guard collectively have five UPT bases:  Naval Air Station (NAS)
    Corpus Christi, Texas; NAS Kingsville, Texas; NAS Meridian,
    Mississippi; NAS Pensacola, Florida; and NAS Whiting Field,
    Florida.  NAS Whiting Field also serves as the Navy/Marine
    Corps/Coast Guard UHPT training base.  Air Force 2The Air Force
    currently uses two additional facilities for screening new pilot
    candidates:  Hondo Municipal Airport in Hondo, Texas, and the U.S.
    Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Flight screening
    provides the Air Force with a selection process to identify
    students possessing the potential to complete undergraduate pilot
    training. Page 3
    GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense Infrastructure B-281048 undergraduate
    helicopter pilot training is collocated with Army helicopter
    training at Fort Rucker, Alabama. In 1993, the Secretary of
    Defense directed the Air Force and the Navy to consolidate initial
    fixed-wing aircraft training and directed the Army and the Navy to
    examine the potential for consolidating initial helicopter
    training at Fort Rucker, Alabama.  The directive also required the
    services to phase in a common primary training aircraft, combine
    follow-on flight training into four common training pipelines or
    tracks, and exchange instructors and students. During the BRAC
    1993 and BRAC 1995 rounds, the Office of the Secretary of Defense
    also required the services to explore opportunities for cross-
    service use of common support assets in several areas, including
    the area of undergraduate pilot training.  To facilitate this
    process in BRAC 1995, DOD established separate working groups in
    each of the cross-service areas.  The groups proposed alternatives
    for the services to consider.  The cross-service process examined
    an option for housing Army and Navy undergraduate helicopter pilot
    training at Fort Rucker, Alabama, but the option was not adopted
    because it was not considered cost-effective.3  Separately, in the
    fixed-wing training area, one UPT base- Reese AFB, Texas-was
    closed as a result of BRAC 1995 actions.  By 1997, the 64th Flying
    Training Wing at Reese AFB had been inactivated and its assigned
    aircraft redistributed to other Air Force UPT bases or retired.
    DOD Efforts to Reduce  Although the Secretary of Defense directed
    the services to consolidate Undergraduate
    initial fixed-wing aircraft training and examine the potential for
    consolidating initial helicopter training, only limited steps were
    taken.4 Aviation Training                These steps included
    phasing in a common primary training aircraft, Infrastructure Have
    creating four common pipelines or training tracks for follow-on
    training, Been Limited                     and exchanging
    instructor pilots and students.  Consolidation efforts involving
    helicopter training have also been limited and are expected to
    remain so for the foreseeable future. 3The option under
    consideration was best depicted as involving a collocation rather
    than a full consolidation. 4These represented steps that could be
    taken outside of a BRAC process. Page 4
    GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense Infrastructure B-281048 Services Plan to
    Phase in a       The Air Force and the Navy will replace the T-37B
    and T-34C training Common Primary                    aircraft with
    a Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS)5 (see fig. 2).
    Fixed-Wing Training Aircraft JPATS includes a new common training
    aircraft, the T-6A "Texan II" aircraft, which will be phased in
    for all initial fixed-wing training beginning in fiscal year 2001.
    Although the Air Force and the Navy developed a common JPATS
    syllabus, the services plan to implement the training differently.
    For example, Air Force and Navy takeoff and landing procedures and
    aerial maneuver tactics are different. 5JPATS includes the
    training syllabus, computer-management system, training
    simulators, training air- craft, and ground-based training
    equipment. Page 5
    GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense Infrastructure B-281048 Figure 2:  T-6A
    "Texan II" JPATS, Air Force T-37B "Tweet," and Navy T-34C "Turbo-
    Mentor" Training Aircraft (pictured from top to bottom) Source:
    NAS Whiting Field, Florida. Cost savings associated with JPATS are
    expected to result from joint development and production, joint
    procurement, and lower flying hour cost.  Savings from JPATS are
    also expected from reducing the training "footprint" (procurement
    and associated flying hour cost) of the Navy's T-45 advanced
    trainer aircraft, limiting support facility requirements to one
    Page 6                                       GAO/NSIAD-99-143
    Defense Infrastructure B-281048 depot and one source for parts and
    support, and consolidating operations and logistics services
    management responsibilities.  The specific savings associated with
    JPATS have not been quantified. Services Created Four       As
    directed by the Secretary of Defense in 1993, the services created
    four Common Training Tracks      common training tracks in fiscal
    year 1994 for advanced undergraduate for Undergraduate Pilot
    pilot training.  Each track is divided into three building-block
    levels of Training                    training:  primary,
    intermediate, and advanced.  After a screening process to select
    student pilots, a preflight (non-flying) training period, and a
    primary fixed-wing training period, Air Force students are
    assigned to one of four advanced Joint Specialized Undergraduate
    Pilot Training tracks. The four tracks are:  (1) airlift, tanker,
    or bomber; (2) fighter; (3) multi-engine turboprop; and (4)
    helicopter.  Having successfully completed advanced training,
    student pilots receive their wings and are selected for their next
    assignment.  Similarly, after a period of aviation preflight
    indoctrination and primary fixed-wing training, Navy, Marine
    Corps, and Coast Guard students are assigned to one of four
    intermediate UPT tracks:  (1) jet aircraft, (2) carrier prop
    aircraft, (3) helicopter, and (4) maritime/surveillance.  Navy,
    Marine Corps, and Coast Guard students then move into advanced UPT
    training in these same four tracks.  Again, after completing
    advanced undergraduate pilot training, student pilots receive
    their wings and specialized aircraft training in their follow-on
    assignment. Service Exchange of         The Air Force and the Navy
    agreed to exchange instructor pilots beginning Instructor Pilots
    and       in fiscal year 1993 and agreed to exchange up to 200
    students beginning in Students for Fixed-Wing     fiscal year
    1994.  Currently, up to 100 Air Force students are trained by the
    Training                    Navy and up to 100 Navy students are
    trained by the Air Force during the primary flying phase of Joint
    Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training.  Air Force and Navy
    officials said even though joint training (an exchange of
    students) among the services costs somewhat more than the services
    training separately, it provides intangible benefits in terms of
    commonality.6 Air Force and Navy officials said they plan to
    reevaluate whether to expand the number of students trained
    jointly once JPATS has been fielded. 6The limited exchange of Air
    Force and Navy students actually costs DOD an additional $1.3
    million annually, primarily in permanent-change-of-station costs.
    Page 7                                                 GAO/NSIAD-
    99-143 Defense Infrastructure B-281048 Undergraduate Helicopter
    Most helicopter pilot training takes place in the Army and the
    Navy.  DOD Pilot Training Consolidation has had only two
    undergraduate helicopter pilot training sites since the Army
    closed Fort Wolters, Texas, in 1973:  NAS Whiting Field, Florida,
    and Fort Rucker, Alabama.  In fiscal year 1999, the Army plans to
    train 700 active helicopter pilots at Fort Rucker, Alabama, and
    the Navy plans to train 530 active helicopter pilots at Whiting
    Field, Florida.  The Air Force plans to train only 53 active
    helicopter pilots in fiscal year 1999; this training is collocated
    with the Army at Fort Rucker. The services' total rotary-wing
    pilot production dropped considerably (about 50 percent) between
    fiscal years 1991 and 1997, from 2,081 helicopter pilots to 1,046.
    DOD plans a nearly 17-percent increase in helicopter pilot
    production, from 1,318 in fiscal year 1998 to a projected 1,545
    helicopter pilots trained in fiscal year 2000. Navy officials are
    opposed to consolidating helicopter pilot training with the Army
    for a number of reasons.  Chief among these is the importance that
    the Navy places on initial fixed-wing training, flying over water,
    and landing on ships.  The Army does not include fixed-wing
    aircraft training in its helicopter pilot training syllabus, but
    the Navy wants all of its pilots to learn the fundamental rules of
    flight in fixed-wing aircraft before moving on to helicopter
    training in intermediate and advanced undergraduate flight
    training.  This initial fixed-wing training provides general
    aviation orientation and allows Navy trainers to evaluate student
    aptitudes and capabilities for placement into one of four advanced
    undergraduate training tracks. Typically, the Army does not train
    over water; its focus is training over land, where it expects most
    of its pilots will operate once assigned to operational units.  In
    addition, the Army trains its helicopter pilots to fly using night
    vision equipment routinely and to carry out combat operations.
    Navy and Marine Corps helicopter crews operate, however, in a
    maritime environment, and Navy officials believe it is essential
    that its undergraduate pilots train to navigate over water and to
    land on ships. Moreover, the Navy's focus is on training its
    pilots to become uniquely qualified naval officers to assume
    leadership roles. Page 8
    GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense Infrastructure B-281048 Increasing the
    Number  Currently, increasing the number of students to meet pilot
    requirements in of Students to Meet              the Air Force has
    caused that service to expand rather than reduce its own
    capabilities for fixed-wing training.  Likewise, increasing the
    inventory of Fixed-Wing                       navigators is
    causing the Air Force to expand its capabilities for providing
    Undergraduate Pilot              navigator training. and Navigator
    Training Requirements Fixed-Wing Training              Since 1988,
    the Air Force has reduced its UPT infrastructure by three bases
    Expansion                        as a result of past base closure
    actions, but Air Force officials now believe that production rate
    requirements for future pilots will require an expansion of UPT
    capabilities at existing bases.  This development may limit the
    potential for further fixed-wing consolidation. Two key factors
    have contributed to the reported pilot shortfalls.  First, during
    the drawdown in the 1990s, the services reduced their pilot
    accessions.  This action has unintentionally resulted in
    insufficient numbers of pilots to support the current force, and
    it is driving the need to retain more pilots.  Second, pilots are
    unhappy with a number of quality-of-life factors.  For example,
    pilots reported several reasons for wanting to leave the military,
    including (1) frequency and length of deployments, (2) improved
    family life, and (3) better financial opportunities outside of the
    military.  Further, a good job market is making a career within
    private industry more attractive.7 As shown in figure 3, the
    services' fixed-wing pilot production dropped significantly (about
    53 percent) between fiscal years 1991 and 1995, from 2,616 pilots
    to 1,241.  The biggest changes occurred in the Air Force, where
    the fixed-wing pilot production rate dropped sharply in fiscal
    year 1992 and continued to drop through fiscal year 1995.  Since
    BRAC 1995, the Air Force has increased its pilot production rate
    four times.  The Navy also experienced major reductions in fixed-
    wing pilot production between fiscal years 1991 and 1993, but
    similarly reversed the trend.  DOD plans nearly a 50-percent
    increase in pilot production, from 1,458 in fiscal year 1997 to a
    projected 2,180 pilots trained in fiscal year 2000. 7See Military
    Pilots:  Observations on Current Issues (GAO/T-NSIAD-99-102, Mar.
    4, 1999). Page 9
    GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense Infrastructure B-281048 Figure 3:
    Services' Fixed-Wing Pilot Production Rates 3000 2500 2000 Number
    of 1500 pilots trained 1000 500 0 1991     1992     1993     1994
    1995            1996     1997    1998    1999    2000    2001
    Fiscal year Air Force            Navy Note:  Figures for fiscal
    years 1991 to 1998 are actual; figures for fiscal years 1999 to
    2001 are projected.  Air Force totals include active Air Force,
    Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve Component, Air Force-trained
    Navy students, Euro-North Atlantic Treaty Organization Joint Jet
    Pilot Training program participants, and foreign student pilots
    who received their wings.  Navy totals include active Navy, Marine
    Corps, Coast Guard, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Navy-trained Air Force students, and foreign
    student pilots who graduated from fixed-wing training. Source:
    Air Education and Training Command, Randolph AFB, Texas, and Chief
    of Naval Air Training, NAS Corpus Christi, Texas. We recently
    testified that the Air Force projects that its greatest pilot
    shortfall, particularly within its fighter community, will occur
    in fiscal year 2007.8  Navy data show that its greatest pilot
    shortfall was in fiscal year 8Military Pilots (GAO/T-NSIAD-99-102,
    Mar. 4, 1999). Page 10
    GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense Infrastructure B-281048 1998 and was
    primarily among those pilots who fly helicopters, followed by
    those who fly propeller aircraft and jets. According to Air
    Education and Training Command officials, increases since fiscal
    year 1996 in Air Force total production rate requirements for
    fixed-wing pilots have resulted in a capacity shortfall within
    their existing UPT base infrastructure.  The Air Force believes
    that it currently has a pilot production requirement for four new
    UPT squadrons.  In March 1999, it announced that three additional
    T-37 UPT squadrons will be activated in fiscal year 1999 (at
    Columbus AFB, Mississippi; Laughlin AFB, Texas; and at Vance AFB,
    Oklahoma) and that a fourth UPT squadron of 39 T-6A JPATS aircraft
    will be established in fiscal year 2000 (at Moody AFB, Georgia, an
    operational base).  Based on increasing requirements, the Air
    Force, then, is not inclined to further consolidate its UPT
    infrastructure, but rather to increase its UPT training
    capabilities. Joint Undergraduate                 As a result of
    the 1993 Secretary of Defense directive, the Navy and the Air
    Navigator Training Program  Force proposed joint navigator
    training initiatives.  Accordingly, the Air Is Being Modified
    Force and the Navy have conducted joint primary navigator training
    since fiscal year 1995.  However, a recent increase in total Air
    Force navigator-training requirements from 300 navigators in
    fiscal year 1997 to 360 navigators by fiscal year 2001 is causing
    a modification to an undergraduate program for navigator training
    sponsored jointly by the Air Force and the Navy. In fiscal year
    1999, the Navy provided 317 Air Force students with strike/strike-
    fighter/electronic warfare officer navigator training at NAS
    Pensacola, Florida, and the Air Force provided 160 Navy and Marine
    Corps students with airlift/tanker/maritime navigator training at
    Randolph AFB, Texas.  However, in fiscal year 2001, the Air Force
    plans to reduce navigator training conducted by the Navy at NAS
    Pensacola by more than two-thirds, to about 105 students, and to
    train the balance of its navigators at Randolph AFB.  This
    functional alignment is necessary due both to Navy-unique training
    that increases Air Force navigator time-to-train and to potential
    capacity issues.  In addition, the training platform (the T-43A-
    the military version of the Boeing 737) for "heavy" aircraft (such
    as airlift, tankers, and surveillance aircraft) already is located
    at Randolph AFB. Page 11
    GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense Infrastructure B-281048 Outlook for
    Further                Additional consolidations of aviation
    training among the services would Consolidations
    likely entail shifting significant functions from one base to
    another, a step that may be difficult to achieve absent new
    authority from the Congress for additional BRAC actions.  Should
    such authority be granted, which is uncertain, DOD would likely
    want to examine the potential for cross-service consolidations in
    a number of areas, including aviation training, as it did in prior
    BRAC rounds.  Such an examination in the aviation training area
    would need to address a number of barriers to consolidation that
    exist, including (1) the services' approaches to their training
    and (2) the interrelationships among training approaches,
    personnel management, and career development strategies.  Given
    these factors, the services might need to consider other options
    for maximizing operating efficiencies at bases being used for
    aviation training. BRAC Authority Required to  Typically,
    infrastructure reduction savings are the greatest when bases can
    Facilitate Significant             be closed.  Economies also are
    achieved by consolidating functions and Realignments and Closures
    activities on other bases where excess capacity exists and where
    support services and other base operating support costs can be
    shared among a broader universe of personnel.  However, under
    existing legislation (contained in 10 U.S.C. 2687), realignment
    and closure actions are difficult to accomplish.  Under this
    legislation, the closure of any military installation in the
    United States with at least 300 authorized civilian positions or
    the realignment of any installation involving a reduction by more
    than 1,000 civilian employees or by more than 50 percent of the
    installation's authorized civilian workforce cannot take place
    until the Secretary of Defense has evaluated the "fiscal, local
    economic, budgetary, environmental, strategic, and operational
    consequences of such closure or realignment."  Legislation in
    effect through 1995 provided special authorities and processes to
    facilitate base realignments and closures above those thresholds.
    Absent the special BRAC legislation enacted in 1988 and 1990, DOD
    largely has been precluded from significant closures and
    realignments of military bases for many years-the 1990 legislation
    authorized BRAC rounds in 1991, 1993, and 1995, but not
    thereafter.  While DOD subsequently has sought authorization from
    the Congress for additional BRAC rounds, the Congress has thus far
    not supported such legislation because of concerns regarding costs
    and savings from prior BRAC rounds and other concerns about how
    some decisions in the 1995 round were implemented. Page 12
    GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense Infrastructure B-281048 Examining the
    Potential for  Should authority for additional BRAC rounds be
    granted, it is uncertain Further Consolidation of           how
    much they would facilitate additional consolidation of initial
    aviation Current Training Would             training.  According
    to Navy officials, differences regarding the services' Need to
    Address Existing           unique roles, missions, tactics,
    operational requirements, and training philosophies represent
    substantial obstacles to further consolidation of Barriers
    such training.  Air Force officials believe these differences are
    necessary during undergraduate pilot training to meet the needs of
    the customer- their individual operational units. For example,
    while Air Force helicopter training was consolidated in 1970 with
    the Army at Fort Rucker, Alabama, this relationship has been
    modified over the years to better address the different needs of
    the two services' customers.  Today, each service has tailored its
    training syllabus differently. The Air Force's training syllabus
    has been tailored to meet the needs of its customer-the 58th
    Special Operations Wing at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico. Economies are
    still achieved, however, because the Air Force uses Army
    helicopter assets (the Bell UH-1 "Huey") and shares training
    facilities and maintenance contracts. Air Force and Navy officials
    believe that initial fixed-wing training is essential for
    assessing new aviators, including helicopter pilots.  Navy
    officials stated that the primary flight skills that future
    helicopter pilots learn during the first stages of undergraduate
    flight training give them valuable experience, which enables them
    to be more fully integrated into combined fixed- and rotary-wing
    naval operations plus joint operations. However, Navy officials
    stressed that they are training more than just a fixed- or rotary-
    wing pilot-they also are producing an officer for their individual
    service's career paths.  The Navy is, for example, training pilots
    to navigate over water, land on ships, and become naval officers.
    According to Air Force and Navy officials, differences in their
    respective roles and missions translate into the need for
    specialized training that is best incorporated early.  Navy
    officials told us that if more training can be achieved in a
    relatively low-cost training aircraft, then more time and money
    can be saved during later training in more expensive operational
    aircraft.  To ensure that their pilots receive this specialized
    training early on, the Air Force provides students returning to
    the Air Force with several weeks of additional training to
    compensate for the service-specific training they did not receive
    while attending flight training provided by the Navy. While some
    Army aviation officials have expressed the view that economies of
    scale could be achieved through consolidating initial entry Page
    13                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense
    Infrastructure B-281048 rotary-wing training, officials in other
    services have expressed views indicating such a consolidation
    could be difficult.  Some services view consolidation as going
    against their long-standing organizational structure, established
    personnel management systems, unique officer development
    approaches, time-honored training philosophies, and traditional
    practices. The Navy and the Marine Corps strongly believe that
    further consolidation would result in the loss of needed
    orientation to their missions and a failure to establish early
    identification with the Navy way of life.  The Navy believes any
    change from the status quo would adversely affect the Navy's
    ability to achieve helicopter-recruiting levels, result in an
    increased attrition rate in the helicopter-training track, and
    ultimately cause a shortfall in the number of instructor pilots.
    Further, Navy officials contend that consolidation of
    undergraduate helicopter pilot training at just one base could
    jeopardize contingency, mobilization expansion, and future total
    force requirements in time of a national emergency. Other Options
    It is uncertain to what extent further aviation training
    consolidations will be achieved given existing barriers.  However,
    these factors should not preclude a periodic reevaluation of
    consolidation, particularly if additional BRAC rounds are
    authorized.  If further consolidation of aviation training proves
    unlikely, then DOD might consider other options to achieve
    efficiencies at aviation training facilities.  For example, DOD
    could maximize operating efficiencies by collocating similar
    functions and activities at aviation training facilities having
    excess capacity.  At the same time, we recognize that without new
    BRAC authority, options available to DOD to realign other
    functions to these bases are limited, given the personnel
    thresholds contained in 10 U.S.C. 2687. Recommendation
    Should the Congress authorize additional BRAC rounds, current
    barriers to further aviation training consolidation should be
    examined; should they be found too difficult to overcome, we
    recommend that the Secretary of Defense require the services to
    consider other opportunities for optimizing efficiencies at bases
    retained for aviation training. Agency Comments and  We requested
    comments on a draft of this report from the Department of Our
    Evaluation                 Defense.  DOD concurred with the
    report's recommendation without further comment.  DOD's response
    is reprinted in appendix I.  DOD also Page 14
    GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense Infrastructure B-281048 provided
    technical corrections and clarifications, which have been
    incorporated throughout this report, as appropriate. Scope and
    We reviewed past DOD efforts to consolidate undergraduate pilot
    training Methodology    and undergraduate helicopter pilot
    training, and we analyzed opportunities for further consolidation.
    As agreed with the congressional requesters, we did not analyze
    cost and quality-of-training issues further because of the limited
    availability of data. To obtain background information, we
    reviewed prior studies on consolidating undergraduate helicopter
    pilot training and on the need to conduct initial fixed-wing
    training for helicopter pilots.  To determine DOD efforts to
    reduce aircraft training infrastructure and to identify
    impediments to further consolidation, we conducted interviews with
    cognizant DOD and service officials and reviewed relevant
    documents. Information regarding DOD's reported pilot shortage was
    obtained from the Air Education and Training Command, Chief of
    Naval Air Training, and from our other recent work. At DOD, our
    work was conducted at the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
    (Personnel and Readiness), Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of
    Defense (Industrial Affairs and Installations), DOD Inspector
    General, and at the appropriate military training commands.
    Within the Air Force, we conducted review work at the Air
    Education and Training Command and 12th Flying Training Wing at
    Randolph AFB, Texas; the 80th Flying Training Wing at Sheppard
    AFB, Texas; and at the Air Force Specialized Undergraduate Pilot
    TrainingHelicopter 23rd Flying Training Flight at Fort Rucker,
    Alabama.  Within the Navy and the Marine Corps, we conducted
    review work at the Chief of Naval Education and Training and
    Training Wing 6 at NAS Pensacola, Florida; Chief of Naval Air
    Training and Training Wing 4 at NAS Corpus Christi, Texas;
    Training Wing 2 at NAS Kingsville, Texas; and Training Wing 5 at
    NAS Whiting Field, Florida.  We also conducted review work at the
    U.S. Coast Guard Liaison Office at NAS Pensacola, Florida.  Within
    the Army, we conducted review work at the U.S. Army Aviation
    Center at Fort Rucker, Alabama. We conducted our review between
    November 1998 and April 1999 in accordance with generally accepted
    government auditing standards. Page 15
    GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense Infrastructure B-281048 We are sending
    copies of this report to Senator John Warner, Chairman, and
    Senator Carl Levin, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on
    Armed Services, and Representative Floyd Spence, Chairman, and
    Representative Ike Skelton, Ranking Minority Member, House
    Committee on Armed Services.  We are also sending copies of this
    report to:  the Honorable William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense;
    the Honorable Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army; the Honorable
    Richard J. Danzig, Secretary of the Navy; the Honorable F. Whitten
    Peters, Secretary of the Air Force; General James L. Jones,
    Commandant of the Marine Corps; Admiral James M. Loy, Commandant
    of the U.S. Coast Guard; the Honorable Donald Mancuso, Acting DOD
    Inspector General; and the Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director,
    Office of Management and Budget.  Copies will also be made
    available to others upon request. GAO points of contact concerning
    this report and other key contributors are listed in appendix II.
    David R. Warren Director, Defense Management Issues Page 16
    GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense Infrastructure Page 17    GAO/NSIAD-99-
    143 Defense Infrastructure Contents Letter
    1 Appendix I
    20 Comments From the Department of Defense Appendix II
    21 GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements Related GAO Products
    24 Figures                  Figure 1:  Military Services' UPT and
    UHPT Infrastructure                       3 Figure 2:  T-6A "Texan
    II" JPATS, Air Force T-37B "Tweet," and Navy T-34C "Turbo-Mentor"
    Training Aircraft                                   6 Figure 3:
    Services' Fixed-Wing Pilot Production Rates
    10 Abbreviations AFB        Air Force base BRAC       base
    realignment and closure DOD        Department of Defense JPATS
    Joint Primary Aircraft Training System NAS        Naval Air
    Station UHPT       undergraduate helicopter pilot training UPT
    undergraduate pilot training Page 18
    GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense Infrastructure Page 19    GAO/NSIAD-99-
    143 Defense Infrastructure Appendix I Comments From the Department
    of Defense Appendix I Page 20           GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense
    Infrastructure Appendix II GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements
    Appendix II GAO Contacts        David R. Warren (202) 512-8412
    William W. Crocker III (202) 512-4533 Acknowledgements    In
    addition to those named above, Mark A. Pross and David F. Combs
    made key contributions to this report. Page 21
    GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense Infrastructure Page 22    GAO/NSIAD-99-
    143 Defense Infrastructure Page 23    GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense
    Infrastructure Related GAO Products Military Pilots:  Observations
    on Current Issues (GAO/T-NSIAD-99-102, Mar. 4, 1999). Defense
    Acquisition:  Acquisition Plans for Training Aircraft Should Be
    Reevaluated (GAO/NSIAD-97-172, Sept. 18, 1997). Military Bases:
    Lessons Learned From Prior Base Closure Rounds (GAO/NSIAD-97-151,
    July 25, 1997). Military Bases:  Analysis of DOD's 1995 Process
    and Recommendations for Closure and Realignment (GAO/NSIAD-95-133,
    Apr. 14, 1995). Roles and Functions:  Assessment of the Chairman
    of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Report (GAO/NSIAD-93-200, July 15,
    1993). Military Bases:  Analysis of DOD's Recommendations and
    Selection Process for Closures and Realignments (GAO/NSIAD-93-173,
    Apr. 15, 1993). Military Bases:  Varied Processes Used in
    Proposing Base Closures and Realignments (GAO/NSIAD-91-133, Mar.
    1, 1991). Military Bases:  An Analysis of the Commission's
    Realignment and Closure Recommendations (GAO/NSIAD-90-42, Nov. 29,
    1989). Trainer Aircraft:  Plans to Replace the Existing Fleet
    (GAO/NSIAD-89-94, Mar. 20, 1989). Undergraduate Helicopter Pilot
    Training:  Consolidation Could Yield Significant Savings
    (GAO/FPCD-80-37, Jan. 31, 1980). Proposed Consolidation of
    Undergraduate Helicopter Pilot Training at Fort Rucker, Alabama
    (GAO/FPCD-79-94, Sept. 26, 1979). Undergraduate Helicopter Pilot
    Training:  Consolidation Could Yield Significant Savings
    (GAO/FPCD-79-88, Sept. 20, 1979). Undergraduate Helicopter Pilot
    Training (02447, June 7, 1977). Consolidation of Helicopter Pilot
    Training (GAO/FPCD-77-52, May 5, 1977). Need to Assess Potential
    for Consolidating Undergraduate Helicopter Pilot Training (B-
    157905, May 3, 1974). (709370)    Letter    Page 24
    GAO/NSIAD-99-143 Defense Infrastructure Ordering Information The
    first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional
    copies are $2 each.  Orders should be sent to the following
    address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the
    Superintendent of Documents, when necessary, VISA and MasterCard
    credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to
    be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders by
    mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC
    20013 or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts.
    NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also
    be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202)
    512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of
    newly available reports and testimony.  To receive facsimile
    copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please
    call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone.  A recorded menu will
    provide information on how to obtain these lists. For information
    on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send an e-mail
    message with "info" in the body to: [email protected] or visit
    GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at: http://www.gao.gov United
    States                       Bulk Rate General Accounting Office
    Postage & Fees Paid Washington, D.C. 20548-0001            GAO
    Permit No. GI00 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
    Address Correction Requested

*** End of document. ***