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. ***