allocated only 75% of Air Force budget dollars by mission categories, including TACAIR.

The average ratios of cost for the period 1962 to 1969 were determined to be as follows:

Per air wing-.

Per squadron--.

Per aircraft (AAI)–

AF/Navy

1.2

1.5

1.3

An excursion in the analysis was examined to determine the effects of including surface combatants and underway replenishment ships in the Navy TACAIR costs while still not including the costs associated with land-based defenses, surface lift logistics, airlift and SAC tankering in the Air Force TACAIR costs. The resulting average ratio for the period 1962 to 1969 was as follows:

Per aircraft (AAI)--.

AF/Navy .99

In summary, the costs of sea-based and land-based air were concluded to be about equal on the basis of historical cost analysis. When additional mission forces were added to TACAIR primary mission forces to measure alternatives, the above conclusion was sustained.

1. THE RELATIVE COSTS

The relative cost of sea-based/land-based tactical air forces (TACAIR) may be determined from an examination of the budget of previous years. By examining each line item and allocating it to one of the primary mission categories, the historical flow of resources devoted to TACAIR in each service may be isolated. This was recently done for Navy's Total Obligational Autority (TOA) from 1962 to 1969. The Navy TACAIR mission category was defined to include the procurement and operation of all the TACAIR aircraft and the CVAS and a proportionate share of costs for support including training, operating bases, research and development, personnel services, and all other items reasonably attributable to TACAIR. The method of distributing individual cost elements varied with the type of support. Personnel support elements were distributed on the basis of personnel engaged in the primary elements; aircraft support program elements were distributed on either the basis of flying hours or primary element operating costs; command costs were distributed on the basis of the total obligational authority of the primary and support program elements were distributed on either the basis of flying hours or primary element operating costs; command costs were distributed on the basis of the total obligational authority of the primary and support elements, etc. 100% of the budget dollars were allocated by mission category in this manner. The result of this analysis is shown in table 1.1 An analysis of Air Force TOA in comparable detail was not available. However, Air Force analysts provided a breakdown of Air Force dollars which allocated 75% of Air Force annual programs. This was used in this comparison and is shown in table 2.

a. Total allocated costs

The resources allocated to TACAIR taken from the above two sources, expressed in dollars of total obligational authority, are totaled as follows:

1 Not included is Marine TACAIR which for this analysis is considered land-based. It is considerably cheaper on a per unit aircraft basis because it derives its R. & D. from Navy sources and has capitalized on Navy expenditures in some other areas.

b. Cost comparison

(1) Air wing costs: In order to make a meaningful comparison, the above figures should be divided by the number of combat units these TACAIR funds supported. Past Department of Defense analyses have assumed that an Air Force wing is roughly equivalent in numbers of aircraft and in combat effectiveness to a Navy wing. Dividing the above figures by the number of tactical air wings in the Air Force and Navy respectively, the cost per air wing for each service and their ratios of comparison are as follows:

(2) Squadron and aircraft costs: Other measures of relative cost per combat unit may also be obtained by computing the cost per squadron and the cost per TACAIR Authorized Aircraft Inventory (AAI) aircraft. These measures are as follows:

a. The allocations of the Navy dollars to TACAIR did not include a share of the cost of surface combatant ships (escorts) and underway replenishment group (URG) ships. These were not included for the following reasons:

(1) Similar defensive costs are not included with respect to land-based defenses.

(2) Surface combatants (fleet escorts) were not considered mission dedicated. They are needed for independent missions, and, in fact, if the Navy had no CVAS it would need many more surface combatants to compensate for their loss.

(3) Comparable logistic lift costs are apparently not included in the Air Force TACAIR mission category.

b. In order to determine the magnitude of the effect of not including the surface combatants and underway replenishment ships in the analysis, the cost per aircraft (AAI) was recomputed for the Navy TACAIR category to include all of surface combatant major fleet AAW/ASW escorts and 80% of the total service force underway replenishment group (URG) costs. The Air Force costs were left unchanged and still did not include the costs associated with landbased defenses, surface lift logistics, airlift and SAC tankering. The resulting costs per aircraft (AAI) are as follows:

It is seen that the historic costs of sea-based and land-based TACAIR do not differ appreciably when the cost per equivalent combat unit is compared (air wings). The average Air Force to Navy cost per air wing ratio is 1.2 to 1.0. This approximate equality remains even when some major defense and logistic elements are fully allocated to Navy TACAIR without making similar adjustments to the Air Force TACAIR allocations. For this excursion the ratio for Air Force to Navy cost per air wing is .99 to 1.00.

An historic comparison of the costs of land and sea-based TACAIR is significant in only one way; i.e., there have been no significant cost differences. For decision making regarding TACAIR force levels and the best mix of land and sea-based TACAIR, other kinds of costs and considerations are more relevant. The unique capabilities and complementary nature of land and sea-based TACAIR must be considered; it is not enough to say the Air Force and Navy wings are roughly equivalent in numbers and effectiveness. For example, its unique capability for mobility has made sea-based TACAIR the primary weapon system to maintain control of the seas, which is the primary Navy mission. Providing TACAIR support to ground forces is a collateral mission of sea-based TACAIR which complements land-based TACAIR as needed (such as in the Southeast Asian war) and is required to support the establishment of land-based air where adequate prepared bases are not available.

4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of historic land and sea-based TACAIR costs results in the conclusion that these costs are about equal. Any meaningful comparison of land and sea-based TACAIR must take into consideration all the indirect costs associated with the primary TACAIR mission elements. When the indirect costs are allocated to the primary mission categories according to reasonable allocation rules, the above conclusion is invariably obtained. Furthermore, major changes in costing alternative forces by including additional mission forces, such as the Navy's major fleet AAW/ASW escorts, and a significant percentage of the underway replenishment support force does not alter this conclusion.