2
15
24
-
https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/speccoll/files/original/d02a2f1d2e377afc53cceda977db002d.pdf
1f5002f585008762592b365567b3d7cb
PDF Text
Text
°0221
Item ID Number
Author
CorpOratB Author
Headquarters, United States Military Assistance Comma
RODOrt/ArtlOlO TItlfl Typescript: Medical Service, Aerial Dispersal of
Insecticides, 23 March 1970
Journal/Book Title
°00°
Month/Day
Color
Numbor of Images
r
6
Doscrlpton Notes
Monday, January 22, 2001
Page 233 of 341
�'%
*>&
+MACV Dir 40-10
HE1ADQUARTERS
UNITED STATES MILITARY ASSISTANCE COMMAND, VIETNAM
APO San Francisco 96222
DIRECTIVE
NUMBER 40-10
23 March 1970
(MACMD)
MEDICAL SERVICE
AERIAL DISPERSAL OF INSECTICIDES
1. PURPOSE. This directive prescribes policy, procedures, and responsibilities for
aerial dispersal of insecticides from fixed and rotary wing aircraft by the US military
In the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).
2. APPLICABILITY.
Forces.
This directive applies to all Free World Military Assistance
3. GENERAL, Aerial dispersal of insecticides permits rapid coverage of large
areas and the treatment of areas inaccessible to ground operated equipment. This
method of dispersal is effective in the control of arthropod vector of disease. Although it provides advantage over ground treatment, limitations are imposed by:
a.
b.
Availability of aircraft and aircrews.
Co
4.
Meteorological conditions, such as wind, rain, temperature, and visibility.
Attitudes of the local population regarding effects of insecticides on people,
animals, and crops.
POLICY.
"~~ "
a.
•-*.
Aerial dispersal of Insecticides is to be approved only under the following
conditions:
(1)
For the control of mosquitoes and other pests of medical importance
when:
(a) Permanent control measures, such as land drainage and filling,
cannot be accomplished.
(b) There is no access for ground dispersal equipment.
(c) Screening, repellants, space sprays, and residual treatments are
not adequate in controlling vector-borne diseases.
*This directive supersedes MACV Directive 40-10, 25 April 1968.
�MACV Dir 40-10
.
(d) Ground fog, mist, or other insectlcldal mixture• do not control
large population* of disease transmitting Insects.
(e)
Treatment of a major breeding area by aircraft dispersion is
more economical than the use of ground equipment.
. (f) The installation/area commander has trained personnel (medical
and/or engineer) to conduct entomological surveys, to indicate areas
requiring treatment, to schedule proper dates for spraying, and
to determine spray effectiveness.
(2) For pest control when arthropod borne disease outbreaks occur,
requiring rapid coverage of large ground areas.
b.
In view of the significant incidence of malaria In the RVN, the aerial dispersal
of Insecticides from military aircraft to support military operations is authorized.
c.
Only aerial dispersal equipment which has been approved by the Armed Forces
Pest Control Board is to be used to disperse Insecticides from fixed or rotary
wing aircraft.
d.
Malathion (either 57 percent water emulsifiable concentrate or 95 percent
technical B-grade) used at a rate not to exceed 0.5 pounds of the technical
toxicant per acre is the only Insecticide currently approved for aerial dispersal in the RVN. Request* to use other insecticides are to be justified
and forwarded to this headquarters, ATTN: MACMD-PS.
e.
Aerial dispersal equipment which has been used to dispense herbicides is
not to be used to disperse insecticides.
f.
...
The Command Surgeon, MACV, is authorized to communicate directly with
the following units for coordination of aerial insecticide dispersal:
I
(1) US Navy Preventive Medicine Unit, NSA Da Nang - NAVFORV.
(2) 20th Preventive Medicine Unit (SVC) (FLD) - USARV.
(3) 172nd Preventive Medicine Unit (SFC) (FLD) - USARV.
(4) 7th AF Tactical Air Control Center.
(5) Twelfth Special Operations Squadron, 7th AF.
g.
Aerial dissemination of insecticide leaflets and/or aerial loudspeaker broadcast missions are to be scheduled in conjunction with aerial spray missions by
the 7th AF Tactical Air Control Center.
5. RESPONSIBILITIES.
©
�:V Dir 40-10
a.
The Command Surgeon, MACV, la to:
(1)
Exercise joint staff supervision and approval authority for aerial
dispersal of insecticides.
(2)
Coordinate all aerial insecticide dispersal operations.
(3)
"*
Evaluate information relative to the effectiveness of the aerial dispersal
of insecticides.
(4) Furnish 7th AF necessary Information for the preparation of operation
and support plans for the fixed wing aerial delivery of insecticides.
b.
The Commander, 7th AF, is to plan, coordinate, and execute fixed wing
aerial delivery of insecticides on MACV approved areas, and the aerial
dissemination of insecticide leaflets and/or aerial loudspeaker broadcasts
on those targets when required. He is to also coordinate all support
required by C123 aircraft crews at the designated operating locations.
c.
The Commanders, USARV and NAVFORV, are to plan, coordinate, and
execute the rotary wing aircraft delivery of Insecticide on MACV approved
areas and provide necessary life support equipment Including, but not limited
to, flight suits, helmets, and gloves for helicopter,spray crews.
d.
The appropriate corps tactical zone (CTZ) commander is to:
(1) Supply required insecticides and engineer entomology personnel necessary
for the preparation and aircraft loading of spray material, and provide
liaison personnel to the aircraft commander.
(2) Furnish personnel to conduct entomological surveys to delineate breeding areas, establish timing of spray applications, and determine effectiveness of control operations (requests for these individuals should be
directed to the appropriate unit listed In paragraph 4f, above).
(3) Provide helicopter and crew when the requesting unit has no helicopter
capability. The appropriate unit listed in paragraph 4f, above, is to
furnish the aerial spray equipment, operator, and Insecticide.
e.
6.
The Psychological Operations Division, MACV, is to provide aerial loudspeaker broadcast tapes and special Insecticide leaflets for this program.
PROCEDURES.
a.
Requests for aerial dispersal of insecticides are to be forwarded to this
headquarters, ATTN: MACMD-PS, for evaluation and command approval.
Requests are to contain the following Information on each area to be sprayed:
(1) Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid coordinates.
�MACV Dir 40-10
'*
i
'
(2) An overlay depicting the area.
(3)
,.r
.-*•:•:
ii
Designation and location of all battalion-sized units, hamlets, and other
centers of military and/or civilian population in the area.
(4) Malaria experience in the area (total cases of malaria, incidence rate
per 1000 personnel per year, percentage of total cases due to vivax
- malaria, and other information as appropriate).
(5)
Statement concerning availability of helicopter and crew to fly the aerial
•pray mission if the area is less than 20 square kilometers.
(6) Name, rank, unit, location, and telephone number of a contact or
project officer.
(7) Statement indicating desirability of insecticide leaflet missions and
aerial loudspeaker missions prior to and/or after insecticide spray
missions.
(8) Approval of district or province chief of areas surrounding spray target
if civilian areas are included in the target.
b.
Approved requests are to be incorporated in the aerial spray program as
follows:
f
(1)
Areas 20 square kilometers or larger or areas which cannot be feasib!^; |;
V*i^
sprayed with rotary wing aircraft, or ground equipment, are to be
scheduled for aerial spray by C123 aircraft.
(2) Approved requests for aerial spray of areas less than 20 square kilometers are to be forwarded to the appropriate unit listed in paragraph
4f, above, with a recommendation that coordination be effected with the
requesting unit.
c.
Requests are to be approved for a time period determined by MACV based
on medical priorities and aircraft availability.
7.
REPORTS. This directive requires no report.
8.
REFERENCES.
a.
AR 40-574/AFR 91-22/SECNAVINST 6250.5.
b.
TM 5-632/AFM 85-7/NAVDOCKS MO-310.
c.
Joint State/AID/Defense Message OASD/ISA 6249. DTG 130204Z November
1965.
�MACV Dir 40-10
FOR THE COMMANDER:
W. G. DOLVIN
Major General, USA
Chief of Staff
LOUIS J. PROST
Colonel, USA
Adjutant General
DISTRIBUTION:
B
Plus:
200 - MACMD
�C1, MACV Dir 40-10
HEADQUARTERS
UNITED STATES MILITARY ASSISTANCE COMMAND, VIETNAM
APO San Francisco 96222
CHANGE 1
DIRECTIVE
-
12 June 1970
NUMBER 40-10
(MACMD)
MEDICAL SERVICE
»
AERIAL DISPERSAL OF INSECTICIDES
Directive Number 40-10, this headquarters, 23 March 1970, is changed as follows:
1. Page 3. Paragraph 5d is superseded as follows:
d. The appropriate corps area/zone coordinator is to:
2. Page 3. Paragraph 5d(D is superseded as follows:
(1) Coordinate with the local facilities engineer who is to supply required insecticides
and engineer entomology personnel necessary for the preparation and aircraft
loading of spray material, and provide liaison personnel to the aircraft commander.
3. This transmittal sheet is to be filed in front of the publication for reference
purposes.
FOR THE COMMANDER:
W. G. DOLVIN
Major General, USA
Chief of Staff
W. A. RUTLEDGE
Colonel, USA
Adjutant General
DISTRIBUTION:
C
Plus:
200 - MACMD
100 - MACAG-AP
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange
Description
An account of the resource
<p style="margin-top: -1em; line-height: 1.2em;">The Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange comprises 120 linear feet and spans the late 1800s to 2005; however, the bulk of the coverage is from the 1960s to the 1980s and there are many undated items. The collection was donated to Special Collections of the National Agricultural Library in 1985 by Dr. Alvin L. Young (1942- ). Dr. Young developed the collection as he conducted extensive research on the military defoliant Agent Orange. The collection is in good condition and includes letters, memoranda, books, reports, press releases, journal and newspaper clippings, field logs and notebooks, newsletters, maps, booklets and pamphlets, photographs, memorabilia, and audiotapes of an interview with Dr. Young.</p>
<p>For more about this collection, <a href="/exhibits/speccoll/exhibits/show/alvin-l--young-collection-on-a">view the Agent Orange Exhibit.</a></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Box
The box containing the original item.
018
Folder
The folder containing the original item.
0221
Series
The series number of the original item.
Series II
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Description
An account of the resource
<strong>Corporate Author: </strong>Headquarters, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam
Title
A name given to the resource
Typescript: Medical Service, Aerial Dispersal of Insecticides, 23 March 1970
Subject
The topic of the resource
pesticide application
pest control methods
Ranch Hand aircraft
-
https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/speccoll/files/original/5f9ee0dc48e3ce9eaf0b7eb8ac0668d6.pdf
16db34463a85f49de8f4cf645cd61bd5
PDF Text
Text
Item ID Number
00220
Author
Commanding General, United States Army, Vietnam
R8DOPt/ArtlClB TitlO Command Health Report for June 1969 (RCS MED-3
(B-4))
Journal/Book Title
Year
000
°
Month/Day
Color
Number of Images
n
4
Descriptor) Notes
Monday, January 22, 2001
Page 232 of 341
�DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS. UNITED STATES A R M Y VIETNAM
APO SAN FRANCISCO
66375
AVHSU-PM
SUBJECT: Command Health Report for June 1 6 (RCS MED-3 (Rr-4))
99
3 3 F~//.
Commanding General
United States Army Vietnam
APO San Francisco 96375
A. Health of the Command
1. Personal
(a) Physical condition of troops s Most major consolidated and individual Command Health Reports describe the physical condition of ITS Aray personnel
as adequate or satisfactory while a few reports indicate the physical statue
of their personnel as being excellent. The overall health of the command remains at a satisfactory level although there were again increases in total
disease admissions. (See Tab A).
(b) Sanitary discipline: The following selected comments are included
because it is felt that they most accurately describe the level of sanitary
discipline and personal hygiene among US Army personnel.
The 1st Infantry Division reports* "Sanitation standards remain at a high
level throughout most of the Division base camp areas. Some units have
reached, and continue to maintain, superior sanitation standards. These units
are examples of what • good command emphasis can accomplish in improving the
living conditions and morale of the troops. The sanitation of IDP's and fire
support bases continues to present problems. The Division Surgeon plans to
visit these areas as often as air transportation will permit. Any difficulties
of, a medical nature should be brought to his attention so that corrective
action can be initiated at this level.. Sanitation teams should make frequent
Inspections of their unit areas and report the results to the Medical Operations
Officer for his action."
^
The 4th Infantry Division makes this comment on personal hygiene: "With a
few exceptions personal hygiene is adequate. The monsoon season presents
particular difficulty in maintaining clothing resupply. Some units, the
tactical situation permitting, have periodic rotation of troops through fire
�AVHSD-PM
28 July 1969
SUBJECT: Command Health Report for June 1969 (RCS MED-3 (R-4))
bases or trains area for rest, clean-up, drying out and a change of clothes.
The 1 1 Infantry reports such a policy and also supplies a change of clothing
/4
every four days and socks every two days. The 1/35 Infantry reports a similarly successful program which allows also health education, dental check-ups,
and other medical activities."
The status of sanitary discipline within the llth Armored Cavalry Regiment is
described as follows: "Sanitary discipline is generally good but continued
command support is still needed in the field locations. Increased emphasis
on field sanitation teams with a proposed plan to have squadron MSC officers
assume more supervisory control over the teams is hoped to improve sanitation
in the field."
From the 3d Brigade, 82d Airborne Division conies this report: "The sanitary
discipline within the Brigade is good. Because of operational conditions in
some of the areas} i.e., inundated areas, personal hygiene is sometimes less
than desirable but it is good as can be expected under existing conditions.
Adequate shower facilities are available in all permanent installations and
fire bases. There is a fly problem around one of the fire bases (Hardcore,
1/508 Infantry). This is due mainly to the civilian garbage dumps surrounding
the fire base. This will continue to be a problem until the garbage sites
can be destroyed or relocated. Trash and garbage cans are covered within
the fire base itself and field sanitation is excellent. Arrangements are
being made through Brigade Vietnamese Liaison Officer to look into the possibility
of relocating garbage sites away from the fire base. Rodent control seems
adequate. There were only two rat bites on post during this period. There
are adequate rat traps within the Brigade."
Finally the 1st Infantry Brigade, 5th Infantry Division (Mech) reports:
"Rodents have not been a major problem in base camp areas, primarily because
of good area sanitation. Sanitation of bunker areas on camp perimeters has
been of variable quality. Food and refuse in bunker areas will attract rats
which in turn attract snakes, creating a hazard to those on guard duty*.
Pacific Architects and Engineers have assumed the Post Engineer functions of
entomology and rodent control at Red Devil and LZ Sharon. They have set out
rodent anticoagulant bait boxes on these bases and refill them at scheduled
intervals. Steps have been taken to insure better police in perimeter bunkers.
They havealso assumed responsibij^ty^^fjgr^JLBjgJB^M^
"
baseia. General area sanitationfinal water monitoring before consumption and waste disposal are still under the responsibility of each company
through its Field Sanitation Teams."
(c) Bathing facilities, adequacy of clothing and status of training
in personal hygiene and field sanitation: The 1st Infantry Division Surgeon
states: "Some units continue to need work on their shower drainage systems.
Several small marshes, heavily populated with insects, have been found in the
�rnjU-PM
28 July 1969
rBJECT: Command Health Report for June 1969 (RCS MED-3 (R-4))
are again meaningless due to the constant variation of numbers and locations
of collecting stations, and the inability of units to timely process all
collections. Trends are important, and even with the inaccuracies it can
clearly be concluded that mosquito populations are sharply increasing in
locations affected by the monsoon rains. Total numbers identified this
quarter were: 7582 for April, 13,060 for May, and 28,830 for June. Disease
and epidemiological data found elsewhere in this report indicate the continuing rise of known and suspected mosquito-borne diseases in RVN.
6. Medical Zoology Section
(a) Small animal processing: Five hundred and twenty-eight (528)
rodents were processed during the month of June.
(b) Plague analysis: Rodent spleens, flea pools and aerology samples
were forwarded to the Institute of Pasteur at Nha Trang or Saigon for plague
analysis. Serology of a Bandicota indica (a large rat type rodent) from
Long Binh Post was plague positive. No spleens or flea pools were positive
for plague.
(c) The overall average number of fleas per rodent (flea index)
continued to increase as April was 0*59; May was 0.95 and June was 1.2.
Whereas, this overall index may be inaccurate and of questionable value it
is interesting to note that off-post the index was about 3.0 while on-post
it was only O c ?c The only similarily significantly high individual location
index was at Cam Ranh Bay off-post with a 3*07 which though high is down from
the 3c97 of May.
(b) Rodent mites were of significance in the Cu Chi area. A marked
increase in Leptotrombida mites indicates a greater than usual danger of
scrub typhus in that area*
*
7. Aerial Dispersal of Insecticides
(a) Air Force C-123 "Ranch Hand"« Both C-123 aircraft continued in
use.. The target interval varied, but is approaching the desired of 10 days,
The following missions were flown in the month of June. The number accompanying
the area indicates the number of missions if more than one: Phu Cat (3),
Hue/Phu Bai (3), Due My (6), Da Nang (6), Ninh Hoa (3), Phan Rang (3), Chu
Lai U), Men Hoa (2), Ap Nam/Phuoc Tho (3), Tan Son Nhut (2), Long Binh
199th FSBs, Cam Ranh ( ) Dong Ha/Quang Trl ( ) and Pleiku. A total of
2,
3,
15,775 gallons of 95$ malathion was applied to the areas listed in"the 46
missions completed.
;
(b) Helicopter Spraying: Eight Agavenco insecticide sprayers
finally arrived. Four each were assigned to the 20th and 172d Preventive
Medicine Units respectively. The rigs as received were unsuitable for ultra
low volume (ULV, which is 0.5 Ib/acre) application of malathion. Commendable
I
Zl
�AVHSU-PM
28 July 1969
SUBJECTS Command Health Report for June 1969 (RCS MED-3 (R-4))
work has been done by MAJ Waddell, Staff Entomologist, 20th Preventive
Medicine Unit to calibrate the rigs using available nozzles and components.
Due to his success helicopter spray missions should begin sometime in
July.
(c) Unauthorized Aerial Sprayings
(1) Jfelicopter herMcide_8joijyej^_j£QjjyjaiejbQ_j)e used for.._tJie
unauthorized dispersajTof Tnagcticides^incontradiotion to the provisi
"
Directive 4 - 0
01.
"
(2) From 28 February 1968 thru 1 March 1969, USAF, PA&E,
and Preventive Medicine Unit activities utilized or had in stock at the
end of this period about 3960 55-gallon barrels of 57J6 malathion. However,
USA Inventory Control Center, Vietnam figures show that 8686 barrels were
issued during the same period. Approximately 2 0 0 0 gallons of CONCENTRATED
6,0
malathion appears to have been used by unauthorized sources.
(3) Authority and thus responsibility for helicopter application of insecticides has been delegated to the conaanders of the preventive
medicine units and detachments. Such missions must be conducted under the
supervision of a medical entomologist. Such authority has not been granted
to major tactical unit chemical officers or even surgeons.
NOTE: When helicopter application of insecticides are deemed advisable by
the unit surgeon the nearest preventive medicine unit, detachment or section
should be contacted. A list of such preventive medicine units, their addresses, and telephone numbers is contained in Appendix I, Change 1 to USARV
Regulation 4 0 1 .
.-2
8. Pesticides
(a) Safety and Toxicology: As malathion is an insecticide with acute
dermal toxicity of approximately one half that of DDT all supervisors of
personnel handling malathion must adhere to the provisions of USARV Regulation
4-7
04.
(b) Shortages of several items continue to exist. All instances
of insecticide supply problems at any level should be documented and forwarded
direct to. Headquarters, USARV, Office of the Surgeon, ATTNs Entomology
Consultant, APO 96375.
28
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange
Description
An account of the resource
<p style="margin-top: -1em; line-height: 1.2em;">The Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange comprises 120 linear feet and spans the late 1800s to 2005; however, the bulk of the coverage is from the 1960s to the 1980s and there are many undated items. The collection was donated to Special Collections of the National Agricultural Library in 1985 by Dr. Alvin L. Young (1942- ). Dr. Young developed the collection as he conducted extensive research on the military defoliant Agent Orange. The collection is in good condition and includes letters, memoranda, books, reports, press releases, journal and newspaper clippings, field logs and notebooks, newsletters, maps, booklets and pamphlets, photographs, memorabilia, and audiotapes of an interview with Dr. Young.</p>
<p>For more about this collection, <a href="/exhibits/speccoll/exhibits/show/alvin-l--young-collection-on-a">view the Agent Orange Exhibit.</a></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Box
The box containing the original item.
018
Folder
The folder containing the original item.
0220
Series
The series number of the original item.
Series II
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Description
An account of the resource
<strong>Corporate Author: </strong>Commanding General, United States Army, Vietnam
Title
A name given to the resource
Command Health Report for June 1969 (RCS MED-3 (B-4))
Subject
The topic of the resource
Ranch Hand aircraft
pesticide application
pesticide application
-
https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/speccoll/files/original/fdb812cbd07a84da42eb93379b661ed7.pdf
72b624434fbabe9f784e1883036edfff
PDF Text
Text
Item ID Number:
00139
Author
CorpOPatB Author
Department o* the Ar-ny, O".ce of the Ad.utarit Genera
Alexandria, VA
ROpOrt/ArtJClO Title
' atjl°
MACV hxed
'VinS Aircra r t Herbicide Incidents. 15 October 1981
Journal/Book Title
Year
k00^
Month/Day
Color
Number of Images
14
DeSCrlpton NOtOS
Includes two payus of handwritten summary of data
Friday, janufi-y 05. ^001
Page i89 of 19-:
�OF
Office of the Adjutant General
Alexandria,
October 1981
*ACV FIXED WIN T G fl.IRCRPFT HP
g IVCIDRNTS
altitude
Incident Code
>T
"orbs Taoe
Abort List (1972)
A l t i t u d e at tirne
of
J - Jettison of Herbicide
DOT - DUTID on Target
WT - Krone: Target (Herbicide
snrayed-not Jettisoned)
CWL - Crash With Load
30Q - Soill on Ground
At'B - Abort No DUIID
Total of Aircraft
on mission
M
Tntrv is listed
on 197? list
of Aborts
r. Aircraft
ission is
vertifiod as
on Merbs Tane
.":"•..• IT 10 >! A L t'ACTS: In addition to this listing there is evidence of R Aircraft crashes durin<? thn v;ar, but, onlv one can bG docu^onted at this
ti~e. Also there is evidence of 12, not oreviouslv reoorted , aborted missions in 196^ which are nondin.7 validation.
�liERRICIDR
MACV FIXRD Wire
JATK
MISSION NO.
LOCATION
OJi'M)
ALTITUDE
INCIDRNT
CODE
AGENT
GAL.
Wr/ACRFT
HRRPS TAPi?
107?
N'RW in SCO VERY
*F.<;.HKS
AFCRT LIST
1Q6H
I'fiK
U»K
J
L'"K
U^'K
?
V
0
"^
Y=;.S
1966
6s- >">31 ? '-'•737
CROUOOTn
!]"K
J
UMK
1.1 IK
?
vn
'10
Yfi1^1
10^1 jalloTs/Mission
56071?
XSH5H230
L'MK
J
0
UVK
"JO
y [ i ^i
j
?000 3allons/Mission
101-1 Gallons/Mission
Over Water
f>'l1Q13
T?_1Q_iq
JFL
1965
'-^23
•>ni8l2
^-'-<335
J»::<
UMK
J
i:»t
100
^
?
5S')730
u-if
XS235870
U.K
WT
u^
UNK
UNK
vo
YES
^ppi
•>-70f,H
XT-^3?5
UNK
-!
UM"<
UMK
.'4
V:"1
Y^
Ovnr rubber Plantation
.60829
UNK
XS3I«5809-
»»
WT
^
U,K
»"
MO
YKS
i(inO/Gal Ions/Mission
66090?
JNK
WR 170399095325
UMK
WT
UNK
U«K
3
*iO
YES
661001
1-Q?f>9
UMK
U^K
DOT
UN'K
UMK
Jl
NO
YKS
B'^n Gallons/Mission
NO
YRS
?700 Gallons/Mission
YF.S *?
WO
1300 Gallons/Mission
Wrt
YKS
T
•570111
1-2095
UMK
UNK
DOT
0
UMK
3
670 1 1 2
1-730*
II «K
U,K
AND
n
UKK
1
.
�"I&CV FIXED WTN'G AIPCRftFT HK^PICTDR T"IUCENTS
-inf.
K
.-,7,,,.,
1-^,
0?o/2'l-27/*l 1
6-K.a
J
-7013 1
V<
XD320330
Ut.K
^702*9
2-^1-
x'r a ' if > i!'3'-;9001:36.
Li M r <
-'TS.Sir>' NO.
LOCATION
.LTITM.OE
(ijTM }
TMCIDEMT
CODE
UKHR.S TAP"1--"
f
.v>' I;ISCOV»RY
107?
flhOKT LI.ST
PKr'S^KS
GAL.
"r/AC^PT
0
'INK
3
"•'!
Y-S
1°.o" G3llons/'-"is3ion
CVL
0
UNK
3
'•"0
V H1 '-^
.700 qallons/'Sission
wr
T
27no
T
\ (i7 T^
'-TOT " • j i l u f i s / -ii :::>i'jri
flGEHT
I
"
907111:3
0
700
5
"'0
Y-!S
U»X
j
,JT
0
IJVK
'1
•^
YES
Past Enl of Target
2^00 Gallons/mission
Ur:<
UNK
DOT
p
250
3
VO
TRS
1500 Gallons/mission
3 .c ?7 r,
BO")?0-77T1
^0 Feet
DOT
0
(INK
3
\s
YES
?7HO Gallons/Xission
•I-P71*
PTO 370-0 7 7 "
Um
J
UNK
1000
fi
-0
YKS
570 in 6 *4-3<.'i3
U'JK
L'VK
WT
p.
U"K
?
M
0
YES
P-ist End of Target
1500 Gallons/Mission
•.''7'.> 4? 3
!)_-, 1 7 J
YD&024-6426
U.K
J
B
aoo
3
NO
YES
1%!"> Gallons/Mission
'-70S-',
r, _ ;< i| .1
U.K
UN !C
DOT
W
UWK
^
•JO
YES
5510 Gallor.s/Vission
•'705^5
l-K
YT690U40-
UNK
,T
w
aoo
U,K
'"70'- 10
f , _ 1 -r '-; v
UN'K
U^K
WT
0
U"K
3
-7-301
3-r?
XT C 175^65
'JMK
:y.'i^'-
--•r,--
()•:-<
07031°;
,- 3 1 oo
'-.yc;-*^
•'70 '-12
1
YES
VO
YES
O f f End of I'nr^ot
P?50 da lions/Mission
�•-'ACV FIX^D '.JP-rO ATRCHfl.FT M.SR
'-.".Tr!
•-.s-'-ioti ::o.
LOCATION
ALTIT'JDP:
IMCIDRMT
AGENT
GAL.
"p/'C^FT
HV^V-.BY
H«%R-^ T.flP^
ftPQivr LIST
(UTM)
fS7!~)fiOri
,,
,
7CW«,
son
j
W
,on
,.,-<
f": 707 "ft
7-HVi
U'X
Utr<
nor
0
P.O
-.73711
u-:<
BHlt
j
0
R no
i
,,
.
X?oa3 7
•:0
YF,
;-o
YK?
,-,-,
YRS
Ions/fission
21Q'
/* f tor
I'/n-Off
T V/ c
XT9S15
YT0113
"""
6v«, 3
r.70317
7-61 ?7
u«
u».
«i
"
-i j^7 y
1
"0
Y'-'S
Off
i
-
'-»«
1U3/23-3V
C!i5n
UNK
j
R
UWK
«-!»«
= TO 8 80
3^0
J
p
1000
3
vo
'
Y-:S
Y^ '-"I
00 Gallons/Mission
I •
YKS
115 0 flallons/i-'isaion
MO
Ove Sea-3 ^liles
Over
'•las of DsNanst
st,
r
l^ :
:0 Gallons/Mission
17
:':70S.17
U'iK
IJNK
"-««
j
B
200
3
YES
YKS ^i|
MO
itiles Northeast
It
u-Lai
(
Gallons/Mission
1S )
T
Of
r
07.90.
0-13114
iJ^'K
UMK
AND
0
[WK
r,
«719«
9-7-.W
u«
UNK
«T
0
UMK
•J
r-70<!2f,
9-7??2
(,X
,,<
AMD
"
UNK
'
YKS
YFS *«5
MO
NO
YKS
YRS
Y'vS fff>
-0
3r50
3^'^ Gallons/Mission
Off
O f f Knfl of Target
2q f j <*!*Lions/fission
?60
Gallons/mission
�FIX^D WINC- A r R C R f l F T
;A->-
MI? "TOP NO.
LOCATION
(UTM)
"
AGRMT
.LTITUiJS
G.ftL.
Mr/.CRPT
[JG]5^H<^ yflpc;
CO PR
107?
flP'lRT f,T8T
,70927
,.*«,
U-<
U,K
W
0
UMK
,
YF:?!
Y^'.S #S
•TO
-00 ^llona/'1laf
670957
}-7'S5
UHf
.;NK
A-D
w
U'-'K
3
Y»S
r-s ^7
r-)
PHOT '.IallonR/"isf
-S71QP8
;-T=°-
Uv<
UMK
• VD
0
UMK
^
Y^S
Y--S «
i"i
i«sn ^non.s/Mi,,
'- 3?I -
U T
a«
VT
p
™
^
,.->
YR,
O f f r-in'i of . r ar-?et
"•^ o o i n 3 1 1 o *"i s / ^ i sc
«TC«9
5-r? 15
UMK
UNK
AND
R
•J...K
3
Y-S
MO
?DOO Gal Ions/Vis;
' '"<HO
Ij_fl«11
im
UMK
AND
P.
UW
?
YRS
•,-7 -,029
'
'• T "9jO
','--iJT°.
UNK
UNK
DOT
UNK
UMK
3
r;1pn2
10-55*
U-K
i T M IT
Af'D
P
UMK
3
'•n-»
10.-^
UNK
I T\T f
AMD
P
UNK
£ 7 1 00";
10-12S3
UI:K
UNK
AMD
•>
<-,7m6
IP-1^6
UNK
UVK
J
'vi^i
n-1^4
LINK
UKK
• .'V^rt
n-?i7P
•INK
S7inio
n-,-.is
n--:v»?
.' i ' ' 1 ',
Y ^ S HI
?nOT Gallons/Mss
'
vo
YRS
Poundrifis of
Proj. 3-2-1-65
YPS
Y?.S «12
SO
3001 Gallons/Misf
3
Y-vS
Y.S 'M,
MO
?0m Gallons/Miss
UMK
^
IBS
YRS #14
MO
193^ Gallons/Mis."
R
^T
3
vo
YKS
Dunned in RiT MQJ
1700 Gallons/Miss
A-'D
P
iJMK
1
YRS
YFS f11
ro
1fllr> Gallona/Miss
' U^
r,Nn
0
UMK
*
YKS
Y : 'S -*17
r-O
-.000
UNK
urK
a-n
n
.»pr
u
YRS
Y!-'S ff 1 ^
NO
?«no ".aiion^Mi.,,
u««c
IHK
;«n
'••'
I»«K
1
YR,
Y ••<: '( in
M
n
n,Uon,/'-!l«
�TNCID^KTS
y!/V_QV F'lXRD _WI!>'G A I R C R A F T
^•i>:
^TSSTO" NO.
LOCATION
(UTM)
•LTITUns
AORMT
HAL.
Ir/AC^T
pp5p<5 T A P S
1Q7P
^000 Clallons/^ission
PO
3000 Gal lons/^ission
fp^ ft??
-0
?7r?r| Gq lions/fission
Y^-S
Y K S '*23
NO
?Qnn :>.!lons/'(ission
YI-.S
Y^S f p q
MO
?301 •,lr3llons/':ission
MO
YKS
Y^
yp.s *?5
MO
3-^00 -n^l lons/Xission
u
YES
YKS .»2fi
MO
3000 "allons/'-'issioi
H
v,,
Y-.S "27
wo
P^ r >o riallons/V.ission
Y.S
YF;S .''29
MO
3000 0^1 Ions/Mission
Y"S
Y-'S ^0
VO
it^O .^llonn/Misslon
NO
YES
Sprayed Off
Opoosite Luon<y r?oa
3900 Gallons/Mission
YES # 3 1
NO
2150 Gallons/mission
NO
YKS
Very tyear Bien !1oa
(Map)
YKS '/3?
NO
f>00 Gallons/Mission
10-M372
UNK
U»K
AND
V
IU1K
^
Y^S
Y K S "20
571017
10-^538
UNK
•JVK
AND
w
UMK
/a
Y^S
™ *"
571021
1C-5?aq
UNK
UVK
«»D
V
UW
'«
YPS
571026
10-7*57
Ur<
UMK
AND
0
vx*
U
VM'^7
10-7012
"JVK
'JMK
AMD
'• •
UMK
a
'71029
^-575
L'f'K
2500
J
w
1000
UV<
S711P2
11-^
UPK
UMK
AMD
'J
'JMK
6711^1
11-S36
u-::<
UMK
AND
n
UNK
?.71inS
I1-iq^3
u-
| | » | rr
AMD
0
IJK'K
671H7
ll-<^5
UNK
i T^^ y
AMD
571117
11-53?*)
UVK
\ \ V 6T
AND
0
urK
"
7
571 iifl
11-5633
UNK
UK-<
WT
w
UMK
1
£
11-6120
UNK
UNK
AND
o
J
II VK
,W
AND
0
UNK
"
UMK
'
*
UNK
-=71122
11-5973
UNK
'""
•10
571016
.71 120
>'»•••? O T ^ C O V - R Y
A PORT LIST
CODE
ri »T j*
Li iv i\
3
3
YFS
YES
�F I X F D V.'IT-'y a r ? C P a F T ^
IMCIOEMT
PATV
-issioM NO.
LOCATION
-/1 123
11- -693
:iv<
UVK
AND
n
U"K
11
^71130
II-CW
,ir,
r."<
AND
0
U'-'K
^
•5V 11 30
11-9r:70
UKK
U"K
V-T
n
UMK
*Y1^!|
5^8
XS3S5*)?
3T)o
DOT
U^<
IJMK
IJMV
071233
12-2097
M
UMK
AMD
w
UMK
•5
•' 7 1 :? 1 0
RI.-S5S
1-T133591
12-30
J
UMK
Uf-'K
UM'<
•371211
12-2*03
JN'lf
UN'K
AND
0
UNK
3
571P13
12-^196
UliK
U-K
AND
rt
UMK
^
*71 ? ? S
i?-?w
y«K
UV.T
i-'T
0
UMK
UNK
3^00
J
0
—
1-^173
UMK
UN'<
AVD
l-3'4?7
UMK
UNK
''80105
;'}^O1 1 £>
0*0113
ALTITUDK
MBIT
GAL.
Mr/«PR*T
HPBPSTA"
". (17?
f1'1'7'/ | > l^f"OV^' l *Y
yro;
Y- n^
rc
y,.
v ';- q;
T--.vfirf<3
!"•>
j} -^ Ji
2000 Oall3n=/»lr,Rion
ii,-
Y^
vn
Y^
Y'rS "3S
NO
30CP C-?llons/".ission
-o
yrs
Over yjuter
YRS
Y-3S R7
MO
nso Sallona/^isslon
YE5,
Y^.S . 3 R
T!0
2000 Gallons/Mission
3
».n
YS.S
Off ''Ind of Tar~ct
?30 n Gallons/Mission
1000
UMK
HO
T,,
DonT f'ai River
15 TTI East of Siaron
n
UMK
3
YES
YRS -HP
NO
1650 Gallons/Mission
AMD
i
UfTK
YW
YW tin
NO
17m Gallons/mission
^
*
V,,
Snrav Drifts'1
? 0 ?• 0 G a 1 1 on s / '•"• i s ." i c n
^01?3
1-6^12
UN-<
UMK
ftVD
n
UNK
••
YES
YE "3 /"I11
,0
3000 ..lallonS/MiMIon
5502"?
P-2P2
UVK
U\'K
AMD
0
u»»
3
Y-S
YKS MS
NO
1 f 300 Gallons/Mission
-0,02
;>-?•>•-;
UNK
CN.
M>D
-1
UN'K
s
YFS
V« ..<
MO
'JOOO ';.^1 lons/"-!lnsion
�•'ACV F I X 50 WIMP, a i R C R A F T 1'FR g ICTD F
MK
-issioa •:<!.
LOCATION
(UTM)
ALTITUDE
ACRNT
GAL.
"r/.C-FT
HRPRS T,P.
CO DP
107P
, m =,11on=/.-i.,,ton 7
,
MO
„,
So! 11 v/hilo on Ground
•TO
V 17 '3
YK^ fll: 7
'"0
^^0 '.'i :: illO!!lS/ - '^S53iOn
'•0
Y'..--.
?vcr Water
17'!0 r,»nons/^ission
Y^ *U«
vo
?QOO Gallons/'lission
YPS
.?•"):< N'orth of Siaeon
(Cu'on^ C i t v )
YRS *ri1
"0
^000 Gallons/Mission
Y^S »^
MO
5000 Gallons/Mission
?iO
ytvs
Defoliation of Pase
Caro Area
3000 Gallons/mission
YRS
YFS .'/55
NO
4500 Gallons/Mission
YUS
Y K S #5 f t
NO
5000 "allons/'lission
YES S57
h
C
YF070570-
•rriOS
5-33*0
„.,
UK,
SOG
0
™
c;
*nW
UN'K
•JN'K
,000
DOT
W
,nnn
Uf'K
:-/M09
J..3P77
•JNX
•J«K
AND
V
(JMK
^
roan
a.ii}75
UKK
I:KK
J
0
IJMK
?
'.can,
«-5 en?
UN'K
UNK
AND
0
UNK
3
YFS
<:Oi!2S
U-1257?
USK
f!5on
J
0
100^
6
YRS
.0.30
4-14202
UNK
L'^-'K
AMD
W
UNK
6
YES
^' ' j \) 1
5-363
UFK
UNK
AND
R
UNK
6
YKS
SO 50?
5-V5M
'JHK
UVK
WT
W
UNK
,
"Ml 2
5-S033
UNK
UNK
AMD
'•i
UNK
6
305 1 5 5-697'J
UNK
.:MK
AND
W
UNK
6
H n c, i ^ ^ 7?63
I(f
|I"V
\J * "•
AND
rt 1 4 1 /
W
MM IT
1 J 1 *\
c
)
,500
DOT
ST1.I.KS
,,
,
-K*.
•V~'<?0>1
up;-.! HT-'COVKRY
;. ->T^r MST
W
UV'-r
^
-
YRS
V
i000 M.T! Ions/Mission
�MfH:'V
'•:
LOCATION
(UTM)
j AT^CPflF'T H^
ALTITfJDS
,0,»T
dflL.
M
AP") = T LLST
,
5?6
5-11763
*.<
UMK
*MD
W
UM,
527
5-^6
UN'K
5onn
J
W
noo
V30
5-1~7 2 ?
U*K
UNK
W
w
UHK
,
c':n6
S,_i;p(j
U»<
60T)
DOT
MW
UFK
500
£, _ ~ 0 7
Ynnr^n
«soo
,i
rv
IJMIf
7
YRS
y^s
!-T0
'i^OO n3 lions/ '-Ms? ion
y-.s
*'-' South of
Xinn Loc
yv s *5Q
:J '"*
vm"1 "qllors/^issinn
-T
^
y., «q
'•'1
m
1
,', (5 ni
.™,.w
r/«CRFT
CODE
Y ^ =;
^ c c id f?n tfj 1 Ou~nD
,
Y-,
''tf^'S
',' n C* f
-*i ^
XA
r ' i J '•"
1^00 CJallois/yission
nil
<-*&3
L'N-K
UWK
DOT
0
U«1T
P,
616
6-^1?
li'jr
U.K
OOT
w
UMST
619
IE-W
L'-.'K
7500
J
w
U','K
^V-501P
f,SOT
J
«-?•.!*
UKK
UN^
UVK
YS140510
f.p-^
'..-.^.;
n29
w•>«
M "1
YRS
foil Gallons/Mission
^
"0
Y'S
-^ ^llcni./vtMlon
moo
^
ro
YKS
?DOO ;:-allons/Missicn
l!MK
liHK
UMK
«-,
YRS
DOT
n
ON«C
,
10
Y^S
?ot;Q Gallons/Xission
2500
VT
p
'JNK
urx
K-O
YRS
Runir Sqt Zone and
Over Water
JN'K
u?."c
DOT
w
UNK
5
NO
Y^;S
5000 Gallons/mission
UNK
UVK
J
0
mm
1 ^
1
vo
YKS
YFS
»
709
--12
7-7^1
INK
�M
OATK
•1I3SIO!" NO.
LOCATION
(UTM)
ACV FTX3D WING AIRCRAFT MERPICIDR P'CIDF'*TTS
.' LTITUOE
AGR«T
GAL.
Mr/ftCRFT
HI5RRS T.ftPl=:
107P
N'KW DISCOVERY
!---:-i«pscs
ft PORT LISTS
CODE
™
PMUOC ftK Village
f'O
Y-S
Over Mour.tain POH*!
3
MO
YRS
2000 3allons/"!i?slon
UN'K
fi
MO
Y^
57^0 Gill.-.ns/yission
UN'K
UMK
U^K
"0
YFS
,1
UNK
IR'K
UMK
'0
'
YRS
4200
DOT
UN:<
U«K
UK<
VO
Y
YT5177-5453
5^00
J
UNK
UNK
11 WK
MO
YES
6711
UNK
1000
J
p
UMK
?
N'C
YES
T-miediately After Take
Off and then return to
RIEN HO A
2000 Gallons/Mission
631 119
6705
UNK
UNK
DOT
B
UNK
3
MO
YES
2000 Gallons/Mission
5*1121
UN'K
UNK
500
B
UNK
UNK
MO
Y-7S
On Take Off FPOTJ
HI'-JN HO A
5H.1P01
L'V.K
UN'K
1SOO
0
UMK
UMK
ro
5?OB?1
3-1725
BP220920RP220890BP 100 840-
U«K
DOT
R
1000
3
"°
630S26
UNK
BP6359P"
4000
J
UNK
UNK
UNK
6 SO 331
9-2391
UKK
UMK
DOT
B
UNK
-0922
017
.^
UN'K
WK
DOT
n
6*1929
U"K
XS403800
4700
DOT
W929
UN'K
YTH40930
7500
531107
UN'K
YT21538QYTOR0230
5*1107
LTK
fi«1119
•'
J
"
5 Tiiles South West
RTF.M HO A Runway
�:iflt:v VIXFD WIMG AIRCRAFT
>A?rf
XISSJON TO.
LOCATION
(UTM)
ALTITUDE
I"CIDEMT
CODF
AGWT
OAL.
«p/«CRFT
„,
, ,
- ,
S81221
6701
UN-K
UMK
AND
VJ
UNK
1
iv^
UN<
7500
WT
0
-JMK
\ 9 '. ) 1 P o n-v
»"•"'
pono
J
V
n,K
C,K
DOT
i-K
WT
107?
t:*CW DISCOVRHY
PKMftRKS
A n O R T LISTS
*™
,<
,
HPRPS TAPH
••'
•T)
^
.-,
30TO 'j-illons/'-'ission
Y-S «0
•n
n^
^
y^s
Over PIM'j T!'Y
UNK
..MK
\:o
Y-:S
^nir FI-1W MO A
'.'J
UMK
•j
-n
YF ^
1003 CtalloWlwl:*
,T
0
UM,
3
NO
Y C1 ^
'/'roi^-T V^illev
Y-S
1Q6Q
? ••* '1 ? 0 P
6701
:<P306
6 '? OS
983571S Q 2 3 2 "?
UNK
JN-
3^00
J
0
U«K
.IVK
MO
Y^
i 90 It 11
U::K
YC9010
70no
J
UN'K
•IMK
WK
MO
YKS
Over ''ountains
59^1?
6700
uXK
UMK
DOT
0
UNK
s
NO
YES
Hi«rh Winds 3000 (Jal due
to Abort 2nd Pun but
1 Plane DOT
3Q0112
6703
UN'K
IW
DOT
^
UNK
s
r:o
Y^S
j O f) i \?
|
,,
,
U?,'K
2000
DOT
0
I) MIC
UK"?
r*o
YK.
Possibly sane as above
j 0 'T i) 2 2
UN<
HTHS23
^no
•,T
UVK
UNK
UNK
wo
Y-;S
Me?ir TAri KY
r 7
•J»IK
1JMK
DOT
0
IW
3
VO
YKS
300H G-I lions/fission
^O.'12't
' °' t
�'•i'Cv FIXED wj"i AIRCRAFT K^PPTCTDF: TvicijjfZI3.
uppt^cj T A P ^
1Q7?
ePOF'T Ll.Si'S
PJCIDEK1!
CODR
AG^T
OflL.
nir/ACRFT
UN'K
[JOT
UMK
iriK
-
r;O
i-
lion GHllon^LasiO,,
U'JK
L'Mlf
WT
n
UMK
c
^:0
YF,r,
Sprp.ved outside tsr-'et
^000 r.lallons/''!issior
U'JK
u::<
UI--3C
wr
0
UMK
UMV
NO
o
Y n.*
'*j
LONfl PTfHi Villgse
5 7" 7
'.'-
JHK
J
-JVC
u«
Vfl
Y«
iJUTin Valve .activated
70^210
67^1
U">'V
yi:r<
v'T
0
;JN'K
x:
0
Y"S
Soravnl Lite
2200 'Jallonn/Missio.'.
7.10110
ST«
am
J
B
UMK
NO
Y'iS
5700 Gallons/mission
UVK
AMD
p
K'O
1050 Gallons/Mis? ion
OATH;
XI S3 ION NO.
LOCATION
(UTM)
'ju-'VlU
6r*
7, Vl 30 110ZV173131*
<':Q0710
67Tt
^909 —
S91319
1970
701216
6793
F
r** cf oC.c^.j!i Q
Tvi' ^j
ur.'K
ULTIT'JDK
^
^
7
NKW DISOOV^RY
R5MARKS
�O-io
t
O- lo
5
t
U
�CT'
3
p
-f
s
(TJ
UJ
J?
1
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange
Description
An account of the resource
<p style="margin-top: -1em; line-height: 1.2em;">The Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange comprises 120 linear feet and spans the late 1800s to 2005; however, the bulk of the coverage is from the 1960s to the 1980s and there are many undated items. The collection was donated to Special Collections of the National Agricultural Library in 1985 by Dr. Alvin L. Young (1942- ). Dr. Young developed the collection as he conducted extensive research on the military defoliant Agent Orange. The collection is in good condition and includes letters, memoranda, books, reports, press releases, journal and newspaper clippings, field logs and notebooks, newsletters, maps, booklets and pamphlets, photographs, memorabilia, and audiotapes of an interview with Dr. Young.</p>
<p>For more about this collection, <a href="/exhibits/speccoll/exhibits/show/alvin-l--young-collection-on-a">view the Agent Orange Exhibit.</a></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Box
The box containing the original item.
017
Folder
The folder containing the original item.
0189
Series
The series number of the original item.
Series II
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Description
An account of the resource
<strong>Corporate Author: </strong>Department of the Army, Office of the Adjutant General, Alexandria, VA
Title
A name given to the resource
Table: MACV Fixed Wing Aircraft Herbicide Incidents, 15 October 1981
Subject
The topic of the resource
HERBS database
Ranch Hand aircraft
herbicide application
-
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange
Description
An account of the resource
<p style="margin-top: -1em; line-height: 1.2em;">The Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange comprises 120 linear feet and spans the late 1800s to 2005; however, the bulk of the coverage is from the 1960s to the 1980s and there are many undated items. The collection was donated to Special Collections of the National Agricultural Library in 1985 by Dr. Alvin L. Young (1942- ). Dr. Young developed the collection as he conducted extensive research on the military defoliant Agent Orange. The collection is in good condition and includes letters, memoranda, books, reports, press releases, journal and newspaper clippings, field logs and notebooks, newsletters, maps, booklets and pamphlets, photographs, memorabilia, and audiotapes of an interview with Dr. Young.</p>
<p>For more about this collection, <a href="/exhibits/speccoll/exhibits/show/alvin-l--young-collection-on-a">view the Agent Orange Exhibit.</a></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Box
The box containing the original item.
016
Folder
The folder containing the original item.
0166
Series
The series number of the original item.
Series II
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Minarik, Charles E.
R.A. Darrow
Description
An account of the resource
<strong>Corporate Author: </strong>Department of the Army, Plant Sciences Laboratories, Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland
Title
A name given to the resource
Report: Improvised Defoliant Disseminators; attached is cover letter attn: Mr. Johnson from Roebert L. Stearman, 23 April 1970
Subject
The topic of the resource
spray equipment
Ranch Hand aircraft
-
https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/speccoll/files/original/90b72923a486d86fddcbfa9031178e82.pdf
4f245730fb6d4f290356ece15974756c
PDF Text
Text
Item ID Number:
001 eo
Howard, John D.
Corporate Author
RBDBPt/ArtitiB TltlB Herbicides in Support of Counterinsurgency Operations: A Cost-Effectiveness Study
Journal/Book Title
Yaar
i Bui
1972
Month/Day
March
Color
D
132
Introduction and background gives brief overview of Operation Ranch Hand and use
of herbicides in Vietnam.
Friday, January 05, 2001
Page 160 of 194
�Howard, J. D,,
5 ^ 1972
.
Herbicides in support of counterinsurgency
operations: a cost effectivness study
I/UNLIMITED
AD A0745180
Technical
Report
£EJEIOMEDICAL LIBRARY
JAW 10 1980
distributed by
fiQClIMENTS
Defense Technical Information Center
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
Cameron Station*Alexandria, Virginia 22314
UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED
�* - -4
1.0
11.25
�o
00
NAVAL
SCHOOL
Monterey, California
T-H
THESIS
HERBICIDES IK SUPFOl^ OF
COUNTERIKSURGEKCy OPERATIONS:
A COST-EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
John DaXton Howard
Thesis Advisor:
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
James R. Caora
March 1972
ion pubtic. x.e£e&!>e.; datuiittien untuniltd.
K.
\
�Herbicides in Support of Counterinsurgency operations:
A Cost-Effectiveness Study
John DaIton Howard
Major, United States Army
B.S., United States Military Academy, 1964
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for a degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN OPERATIONS RESEARCH
from the
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
March 1972
Author
Approved by:
Thesis Advisor
Chainrari, Department of Operations Research
// and Administrative Sciences
Academic Dean
�UNCLASSIFIED
Cl as<unration
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA - R & D
!.*!• avrrstt rmptttt tt
j*. REPORT SECURITY cn-.iif ic* TIO«
t of title, fcodr ttf *t>*tr*ft
TtN6 A C T I V I T Y
Unclassified
Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California 93940
J*. SltOU*
Herbicides In Support Of Courterinsurgency Operations:
A Cost-Effectiveness Study
of t*«6tt •nd.inC*ir»ire <****»
Master's Ihesisj March 1972
John D. Howard
C NO. O
EPOBT D A T E
130
March 1972
M. C O M T K A C T Oft G R A N T NO.
44
M. OntCIMATOM't HE'QMT MUMICHIH
». fHOJECT NO.
• 6. O T H E R *E»O*T HO(I> (
tft/«
IS. D I J T A i e u T I O M t T A T E M E M T
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
It. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
11. SPONSORtNC UILIT A R T A C T I V I T Y
I). A K S f K A C T
This study develops costs, effectiveness criteria, and
cost-effectiveness ratios for military herbicide systems and three
other alternatives which can perform the missions of foliage removal
and crop destruction in support of counterinsurgency operations.
The results reflect the Vietnam combat environment wheie all systems
were employed at sometime during the period 1965-1971. The systems
considered are aerial delivery of herbicides by UH-1 helicopters
and ue-123 Air Force aircraft, tactical land clearing with crawler
tractors, "slash and burn" clearing with indigenous cutters, and
fireboizbing with CH-47 helicopters. The effectiveness criteria
focus on the ability of these systems to perfona the two missions
and withstand the rigorous constraints of a hypothetical combat
mission. From these criteria, two sets of cost-effectiveness vectors
are obtained to allow a decision maker the opportunity to evaluate
each system and determine a possible force structure to accomplish
the two missions in a Vietnam-type insurgency.
DD/r.,1473
UNCLASSIFIED
S/N 01 Of*«Q7-«S!t
Security Ctatsificitio*
�UNCLASSIFIED
S«eurit¥ Classification
LIM K A
l*N K
•
KKT W0»0»
»OLt
tri>. • c
«« T
Cost-effectiveness
Herbicides
Tactical Land Clearing
Firebombing
"Slash and Burn" Clearing
Counterins urgency
|
1
DD /,T.,!473 «8*«>
^^
UNCLA SSIFI ED
Security CUstiftcttiet
>.]«BI
�ABSTRACT
This study davelops costs, effectiveness criteria, and
cost-effectiveness ratios for military herbicide systems and
three other alternatives which can perform the missions of
foliage removal and crop destruction in support of counterinsurgency operations. The results reflect the Vietnam
combat environment where all systems were employed at
sometime during the period 1965-1971. The systems considered
are aerial delivery of herbicides by UH-1 helicopters and
UC-123 Air Force aircraft, tactical land clearing with
crawler tractors, "slash and burn" clearing with indigenous
cutters, and firebombing with CH-47 helicopters.
The effec-
tiveness criteria focus oh the ability of these systems to
perform the two missions and withstand the rigorous
constraints of a hypothetical coiribat mission. From these
criteria, two sets of cost-effectiveness vectors are
obtained to allow a decision maker the opportunity to evaluate each system and determine a possible force structure to
accomplish the two missions in a Vietnam-type insurgency.
�TABLE OP CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION
A.
II.
PURPOSE
B.
6
•
BACKGROUND
•
•
6
7
THE ALTERNATIVES
14
A.
AERIAL DELIVERY OF HERBICIDES
14
1.
UC-123 —
14
2.
UH-1
•
•
16
•
20
B.
C.
"SLASH AND BURN" CLEARING
28
D.
III.
TACTICAL LAND CLEARING ~
PIREBOMBING
30
METHODOLOGY
33
A.
ASSUMPTIONS
•
33
B.
PARAMETERS
C.
COST ANALYSIS
D.
EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS
•
•
34
•
35
MEASURES
E.
36
PARAMETER SENSITIVITY
—
38
IV.
ANALYSIS OF AERIAL DELIVERY OF HERBICIDES
40
V.
ANALYSIS OF TACTICAL LAND CLEARING
75
VI.
ANALYSIS OP "SLASH AND BURN" CLEARING
92
VII.
ANALYSIS OF FIREBOKBING
100
VIII.
INSIGHTS AND CONCLUSIONS
109
A.
RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS
109
B.
INSIGHTS
C.
CONCLUSIONS
•
•
•
—
112
114
�APPENDIX A:
DETAILED HERBICIDE COSTS
116
APPENDIX B: DETAILED COSTS FOR TACTICAL LAND CLEARING— 118
APPENDIX C:
DETAILED COSTS FOR FIREBQMBING
APPENDIX D: DATA SOURCES
120
—
BIBLIOGRAPHY
— 121
—
124
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST
FORM DD 1473
•
—
128
•
,»—
__
..
�ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study was made possible through the contributions
and assistance of the V. S. Array Engineer Strategic Studies
Group, Washington, D. C., and Major Richard C. Bennett,
senior project director in that office. A special acknowledgement, goes to Mr. J. T. Soules, Vice President of the
International Depar-iaent of the Rome Plow Company, whose
correspondence and interest in the study provided the author
with a wealth of data and many insights into the salient
features of tactical land clearing.
�I.
A.
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to conduct a costeffectiveness evaluation of military herbicide systems in
a counterinsurgency environment. The test case for the
determination of relevant costs will be those dollar costs
incurred during the systems' empJoyment in vegetation
renoval and crop destruction missions .in support of combat
operations in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) during 1965-1971.
Since costs are the values of alternatives foregone, the
study will address three other techniques used for foliage
clearance and crop control in RVN during the same timeframe.
The alternatives to herbicide operations which will
be considered are:
1. Tactical land clearing operations.
2. "Slash and burn" clearing using indigenous
labor forces.
3. Firebomb?ng.
Each method will be discussed in detail in Chapter II.
Specifically excluded from the scope of the study is
consideration of the externalities that night result from
possible damage to the ecological balance of the host
country.
The cost measures will attempt to show the relative
dollar expenditores araong the systems involved. Several
�measures of effectiveness will be used to Judge their output
and ability to accomplish the missions of foliage reioval
and crop des'
=tion under combat conditions. These,
coupled with the cost measures, will yield cost-effectiveness
figures which will be the basis for comparisons, These
comparisons will present the decision maker with sets of
data on the strengths and weaknesses of the individual
alternatives and combinations of the systems.
B.
BACKGROUND
The proper use of cover and concealment has always been
a critical factor ..n planning military operations.
History
is full of examples of armies that effectively used natural
cover and foliage.
Often, judicious use of these elements
made up for other deficiencies in the forces.
The colonial
settlers of early America learned the arts of cover and
concealment from the Indians and later put them to good use
in the War of Independence.
As warfare evolved from the
strjiight-line formations of the 19th century and the
trenches of World War I, it became apparent that strict
adherence to the principles of concealment was not reserved
solely for the guerrilla or irregular soldier.
Hence,
tactics and methods were developed in an attempt to deny
any potential enemy, insurgent or conventionally organized,
the protection and sustenance that might be offered by the
vegetation.
�The term "herbicide" was coined in the 1930's to
enctmpass that family of chemicals which are antiplant
agents.
Some members of this family were found to be
systemic hormones which entered broad-leaf plants touching
off wild growth and eventually killing then. Others were
determined to be dessicants which injured the foliage by
direct chemical action on contact. Throughout World War u,
military research in chemical warfare played an important
role in the development of the potent herbicides now in
world-wide use. Although initial efforts were directed at
the discovery of suitable dessicants (for use as antierop
agents), scientists from the university of Chicago determined that some of these growth regulators might be applied
to grasses and tropical plants. This generated a great deal
of interest in the defoliation or foliage removal properties
of the chemicals since many tons of explosives had been
expended on Pacific islands to deny the Japanese concealment
afforded by the tropical rain forests.
In early 1945,
successful tests were conducted in the Florida Everglades
concerning the possibility of using several inorganic
defoliants in aerosol form, The results from this work
prompted the Army to recommend the use of ammonium thiocynate in the Pacific theater.
This recommendation was not
adopted for fear of the repercussions that might arise from
the agent's association with chemicals of the cyanide
faaily.
The war ended prior to the testing of a more
suitable agent.
8
�In the late forties, the research generated during World
War II was readily employed by civilian industry.
The
previous discovery of the organic chemicals 2,4-D and 2.4,5-T
fostered revolutionary steps in chemical plant control and
stimulated the development of a host of new agents. These
herbicides were more effective, more selective, and less
hazardous than the former compounds.
Chemicals such as
piclorara, bromacil, cacodylic acid, and paraquat were
tailored to perform specific kinds of vegetation control.
Consequently, their use at home and abroad became widespread.
In 1950 the estimated market for herbicide? came
to §1.5 million while by 1965, it had gruwii to over $211
million.
(This was prior to extensive military purchase of
certain agents for use in RVN.) In 1959 alone, American
farmers treated 53 million acres of acres of agricultural
land not to mention the thousands of miles sprayed by local
government agencies and private corporations to control
growth along highways, powerline right-of-ways, fire breaks,
and ditches.
(House and others, 1967.1
>,
J
The Department of Defense (DOD) did not become involved
in herbicide operations until 1958.
The success of British
defoliation operations with helicopters in Malaya prompted
several feasibility studies on acceptable defoliants and
delivery techniques.
In 1961, on request of President Diem
and the government of RVK, a test program was established to
assist in countering that nation's growing Communist-inspired
insurgency.
The Vietnamese army (ARVN) found that the most
�difficult and frustrating task was locating the enemy.
The
dense forests and jungles offered the Viet Cong (VC) excellent concealment which permitted them to cove with relative
impunity to within striking distance of key military installations , lines of communications (LOG), and government
centers. By removing parts of the foliage, the Allied
forces hoped to increase aerial and ground surveillance capabilities and deny the use of certain areas as sanctuaries.
The actual herbicide operations began under the codename
RANCH HAND in January 1962 with three specially configured
U.S. Air Force (U3AF) UC-123B aircraft.
The operations
proceeded for the next two years at a moderate scale but
with increased enemy resistance.
Ground fire became so
intense that in March of 1965 fighter escorts were provided
on a permanent basis.
The demand for defoliation and
controlled crop destruction missions increased as U.S.
participation in the war grev. This resulted in the RANCH
HAND program being expanded in 1966 into a squadron-size
unit, 12th Air Coimr-ando Squadron (later the 12th Special
Operations Squadron), with an equipment level of 18 aircraft
and headquarters at Bien Hoa Air Base.
In the peak years of
defoliation operations (1967-1968), the squadron was
increased to 24 aircraft.
jKcConnell, 1970.1
To supple-
ment the 12th Special Operations Squadron, some U.S. division commanders were given the authority to conduct local
defoliation and crop destruction missions in their area of
operations (AO) with U.S. Army helicopters.
These operations
�were usually complementary to the RANCH HAND sorties and
employed local aviation assets thit were diverted froia other
lift tasks.
From the inception of the test program, great effort was
oade to insure proper targets were picked and spraying of
friendly areas was prevented.
Each mission was approved by
the local Vietnamese province chief, the Military Assistance
Command Vietnam (KACV), and the U.S. Embassy, crop destruction targets were subject to special scrutiny so that the
most harm would be done to the VC and the least to the local
inhabitants. A commission was established to contpensate and
reimburse those people who had suffered financial loss as a
result of herbicides.
Although friendly areas were never
specifically targeted, some spray did occasionally drift
causing damage to rice crops or rubber trees.
U.S. authori-
ties attempted to take prompt action on any claims whenever
this situation occurred.
Iconzales
1968 J
Concurrent with increased herbicide operations in
Vietnam, there was an expanding controversy over the program
in the united States.
Critics asserted that if chemical
herbicides were coroaonly used, it might not be long before
more noxious chemical agents are considered usable.
Others
have claimed that such an indiscriminate weapon results in
as much suffing for the local populace as the VC.
19681
and
fLewallen
|Hersh
1971 J . The scientific community
raised the question of the ecological consequences of
repeated herbicide applications.
11
The American Association
�for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) has been and still is
the center of the controversy. Probably the most vocal and
widely quoted critic within AAAS is Dr. Matthew Meselson, a.
Harvard University biologist.
Or. Meselson chaired the AAAS
Herbicide Assessment Commission and visited Vietnam on a
five-week tour.
In the committee statement to an AAAS
convention, the following assertions were mades
1. fhe Army's crop destruction program was a
failure.
2.
Cae-fifth to one-half of Vietnam's mangrove
forests had been "utterly destroyed."
3.
One-half the trees in the mature hardwood
forests north and west of Saigon were
dead. 1
Several other scientists who had previously visited RVH in
1958-19S9 strongly recommended and lobbied for the cancellation of the herbicide operations until scientists had time
to study the long-term effects of the program,
Pfeiffer
[orians and
1970]
These recommendations coupled with severe criticism from
certain members of Congress and other citizens helped bring
about the suspe: sioa of herbicide operations in the summer
of 1970.
On 7 October 1970, Public Law 91-441 directed the
Secretary of Defense to prepare a study to identify the role
%offey, Phillip M., "Herbicides in Vietnam: AAAS Study
Finds Widespread Devastation," Science, 15 January 1971,
p. 43.
12
�of herbicides in support of combat operations and evaluate
their utility in KVB. It also required him to contract
with the National' Academy of Sciences (HAS) for a comprehensive study to determine the ecological and physiological
effects of the herbicide program in RVN. By 1 March 1972,
the Secretary of Defense was required to transmit the DOD
findings together with the RnS study to the President and
the Congress.
It is against this background of U.S. use of herbicides
and Congressional concern about the role of herbicides that
the examination of the alternatives discussed in the next
section has been undertaken.
13
�II. ALTERHRTIVES
A.
AERIAL DELIVERY OF HERBICIDES
Aerial delivery is the prime method of dissemination of
chemical herbicides for large-scale defoliation or crop
destruction missions. Other methods, such as use of the
three-gallon hand-pucp sprayer, the M-106 riot control
dispenser, and boat-counted spray systems, have beep employed
in Vietnam but will not be considered in the context of this
study. However, all herbicide missions are designed to
accomplish some or all of the following objectives:
1. Deny tlie enemy cover and concealment and
channel his movement.
2. Deny the enemy the capability to forage
off tne land.
3. Deny tae enemy ambush sites adjacent to LOG.
4. Provide improved aerial and electronic
surveillance.
1. Delivery By Fixed Wing Aircraft (UC-123)
The major portion of the U.S. herbicide effort is
carried by a modified version of the Air Force's two-engine
medium cargo carrier, the C-123B "Provider."
Ahe
aircraft
is given a spray capability ("UC" designation) by the
installation of the Hayes AA-45 system which consists of a
1,000 gallon internal tank, an operator console, and three
high pressure spray booms. Since most missions are carried
14
�out at low altitudes and low speeds, the performance of the
aircraft is significantly upgraded by the addition of turbojet engines.
The intensity of enemy ground fire in Vietnam
has forced the Air Force to further protect the UC-123K with
additional armor plating for the crew ami engines.
The
DC-123K's travel in fighter escorted flights ranging anywhere from two to seven aircraft, depending on the target
configuration.
Each aircraft dispenses its 1,000 gallon
load in four minutes at less than 150 niles per hour and 150
feet off the ground.
The Hayes ays ten can be adjusted for
variable dissemination rates; however, these rates are
usually between one and one-half gallons to three gallons
per acre.
[Major Pyatt]
Photo # 1: Pour UC-123 aircraft of the 12th Air Commando
Squadron defoliating a jungle area east of Siigon. June 1968
U.S. Array Photograph
15
�2. Delivery By RotaryWing Aircraft (UH-1)
In certain areas, ground commanders are authorized
to conduct local herbicide operations. When CC-123 aircraft
are not available to do the Job or the target is too small
to merit fixed wing sorties, the UH-1 helicopter (commonly
known as the "Huey") can be equipped with an internal tank
and spray booms. In initial operations in RVU, some U.S*
Army nalts used a field expedient which employed a 55-gallon
drum fitted with rubber hoses and sprayers mounted on the
helicopter skids.
The second generation system used in the
UH-1 is the AGAVENCO sprayer, developed by a Las Vegas firm
for use in agricultural work. This system can be mounted in
the aircraft in less than one-half hour and consists of a
200 gallon tank, pump, and pressurized nozzles.
of the Array (DA) Training Circular (TC) 3-16
[Department
1969 ] . The
UH-1 fitted with the AGAVENCO provides the same dissemination rates as the UC-123 but its capacity is considerably
less. Although the system is designed for a 200 gallon
capacity, the combat requirements of two pilots, two door
gunners, and a system operator cut the UH-l's lii't capability
to such an extent that the tank can only be loaded with 100
gallons.
I^TC Rudrowj
The use of the helicopter in RVN for delivery of
herbicides has been far less standard than the operations of
the 12th Spscial Operations Squadron. Since division
comifcanders were the controlling authorities for these
missions in each AO, the methods used varied considerably
16
�throughout the theater.
Ideally, several "Hueys" should be
employed for efficiency's sake. However, since no helicopters were set aside specifically for herbicide missions,
they were normally diverted on a one-by-one basis from other
conibat sorties. The security escorts, the AH-lG ("Huey
Cobra"), faced the same problem, and while a defoliation
helicopter should be supported by two Cobras, on r«any occasions, none were available.
did not curtail the missions.
However, this lac'k of security
\LTC Rudrow and LTC Saiiches]
Photo # 2: UH-1 helicopter taking-off on a defoliation
mission.
U.S. Army Photograph
17
�3. Chemical Agents
ORANGE, WHITE, and BLUE will Toe the agents considered
in this study.
These chemicals do not constitute the
complete spectrum of herbicides, but they were the most
widely used in support of U.S. combat operations in RVN.
Table II-l: Composition and Use of Selected Agents
AGENT
COMPOSTTTQW
USES
ORANGE
5056 2,4-D(r»-butyl.2-4 dicholoroph*".noxyacetate)
50% 2,4,5--7(n-butyl,2,4,5trichorophenoxyacetate)
WHITE
20% Picloraro (4-araino-3,5,6- General defoliation:
trichloropicoline acid) Slower acting but
80% 2,4-D(trisopropanolamine| more persistent than
General defoliations
wangrove, jungle,
and low-land scrub
trees.
ORANGE
BLUE
3 pounds per gallon of
water of:
65?o cacoclylic acid
35% inert ingredients:
sodium chloride, sodium
sulfate, calcium sulfate
and water.
Crop destruction:
Most effective
against grassy plants,
rice, manioc, corn,
and banana trees,
During defoliation operations in RW, agents ORANGE
and WHITE were used interchangeably.
It was found that these
agents did not permanently destroy all vegetation, although
the mangrove swamps still show heavy effects of the spraying.
Recent pictures taken of heavily defoliated areas show
considerable regrowth of foliage in hardwood forests and
along waterways.
The NAS study will address this question
2
DA TC 3-16, Employment of Riot Coatrol Agents, Flaree,
Smoke, Antiplant Agents, and Personnel Detectors in CounterGuerrilla Operations, p. £0-81, April 1 6 .
39
18
�In detail along with other ecological effects of chemical
herbicir?s.
[Tschirley
1963] and [office of Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense (ODASD) 1971] ..
4. Coverage and Limitations
The present sprayer systems used in both fixed and
rotary wing aircraft allow variable dissemination of lierMcides. 'rhese rates are as follows:
Table I1-2: Herbicide Dissemination Rates
Mission Type
Rate
Defoliation
Crop Destruction
3ftree gallons/acre
One and one-half to three
gallons/acre
[DA TC 3-16 1969]
The use of herbicides in support of conibat operations
is limited in several respects.
The best time to apply them
is during the particular plant's most active growing period.
While spraying during the dry season (which corresponds to
the non-active period of most plants) does produce defoliation, the vegetation dies at a slower rate.
In ac'lition,
the proper atmospheric conditions must exist to insure
maximum coverage of the aerosol, assuming the aircraft is
flying at the proper speed and altitude. An inversion
temperature gradient and a wind of less than eight knots
insure not only proper coverage of the target but also minimize the probability of drift onto friendly areas.
This is
particularly important in an insurgency environment where
unintentional destruction of the indigenous population's
19
�property and crops would be detrimental to the position of
the counterinsurgent forces.
B.
TACTICAL LAND CLEARING
A tactical land clearing operation is designed to support
the ground tactical forces by denying the enemy any use or
benefit that might be gained from heavily vegetated terrain.
Unlike herbicide missions, a well-planned clearing operation
seeks to not only remove foliage but also the source of it
as well.
This produces an advantage above those received by
defoliation since surveillance is improved in the horizontal
dimension as well as the vertical.
This improvement is
realized by:
1. An increased ground-based anti-personnel
radar capability.
2. Increased visual observation.
3. Improved fields of fire.
4. Physical elimination of potential ambush
sites and base areas.
A secondary benefit derived from land clearing is the
possible economic enhancement of the area. Marketable
tiitiber felled during the operation can be extracte'"- for the
local lumbering industry, and if the tactical situation
pernits, there is the potential for conversion of this
unused land for productive agricultural cultivation.
Pamphlet (Pam) 525-6
1970 ] .
20
iDA
�1. Equipment and Organization
Tactical land clearing revolves around the proper
use of a standard crawler tractor equipped with the Rome K/G
blade and kit assembly. This item of equipment, commonly
referred to as the "Rome Plow," was developed by Ernest
Kissner of Lottie, Louisiana for land reclamation of heavily
wooded tracts. The success of the blade prompted Mr. Kissner
to sell the rights to his equipment to the Rome Plow Company
of Cedartown, Georgia.
Since 1957, it has been produced to
fit all standard sizes and makes of tractors
(Caterpillar,
Allis-Chalroers, International Harvester). The tractor and
Rome blade became the method accepted for pilitary land
clearing in 1966 after a test period at Fort Belvoir,
Virginia and Vietnam of practically all known commercial
clearing equipment. [Rome Plow Company, Training Program
November 19711.
The Rome K/G treedozer, unlike the bulldozer blade
which clears by uprooting, works on the shearing principle
in that the total horsepower of the tractor is applied to
the sharp cutting edge extending the length of the blade.
In addition to the cutting edge, a wedge-like projection,
the "stinger," extends forward from the left of the leading
edge of the blade.
This allows larger trees to be split in
one or more passes before they are actually felled by the
cutting edge.
In order to permit faster operation with less
operator fatigue, a flat sole is mounted on the heel of the
blade to float on the surface of the ground and conform to
21
�topographic irregularities. Through the technique of
shearing the vegetation at ground level or below, its disposal by burning or extraction is much faster because it is
soil free. There is less soil disturbance since the tilted
blade cuts the vegetation rather than uprooting it. [DA
Para 525-6 1970] .
'She "Rome Flew" has become the nucleus of the
recently organized Engineer Land Clearing Company whose
primary mission is, "... to destroy or clear extensive der.i,e
vegetation in critical areas for the purpose of denying its
use by the enemy as bases of operation, supply bases, marshalling areas, ambush sites, and cover and concealment."-5
This unit, part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer organization, has thirty medium crawler tractors each equipped with
the Rome kit. It was spawned by the success of the "Rome
Plow" used initially in twos and threes by practically all
engineer elements in RVH. The land clearing role became so
large that in 1969 the Army organized the 62nd Engineer
Battalion to handle the clearing requirements in M_litary
Region III. Usually one of its three plow companies was
placed in support of a divisional clearing mission.
Tha
company was found to be the primary unit for employment
since fragmenting it into smaller elements for prolonged
periods of time resulted in the loss of maintenance posture.
[62nd Engineer Battalion Letter February 1971]
United States Army Combat Developments Command, Table
of Organization and Equipment Number 5-87T - Engineer Land
ClearingConpany, p. 1, 7 February 1969.
22
�Photo #3: Rome K/G blade and protection group on a
Caterpillar D7F tractor.
Rose Plow Company Photograph
23
�2. Clearing Estimates and Limitations
It is virtually impossible to establish exact rates
at which any piece of equipment can clear land.
Such
factors as vegetation type, terrain, climate, enemy situation, and quality of assets available will directly influence this. Accurate estimates require a detailed clearing
reconnaissance to include several "tree counts" for tree
size, diameter of large trees, and secondary growth estimates. The information frcra this reconnaissance can be
placed into one of several forculas developed by the Rose
Plow Company to determine time required per acre cleared.
[Rome Industries Salesgram, 1 September 1971.1
In the event
that'this procedure cannot be followed, the Department of
the Army has established planning estimates for clearing
operations using one land clearing tractor for various types
of cuts:
Table II-3: Land Clearing Estimates
VEGETATION
UNIT
{Equipment-hours/unit)
AREA CLEARING
STRIP CLEARING
LIGHT: Less than
12 inches in diameter Acre
.4
.
6
MEDIUM: 12 to 18
inches in diameter
Acre
.
8
1.3
HEAVY: -Greater than
18 inches in diameter Acre
1.3
2.1
Several factors which constrain tactical clearing
operations are soil trafficability, support requirements.
4
Department of the Army Parphlet 525-6, Land Clearing
Lessons Learned, p. 60, 16 June 1970.
~
24
�and determination of the enemy to resist the land clearing
mission. Since the medium tractor with the Rome kit has a
gross weight of more than 20 tons, the ground must be relatively solid to permit movement.
This would restrict its
use in areas subject to heavy seasonal rainfalls and locations that are inundated on a regular basis, such as
mangrove swamps.
Even if the terrain permits movement of
the tractors, there is always the possibility that it is
interlaced with streams, canals, or steep-sided gullies.
Supporting troops are necessary to install bridging across
these obstacles and assist in tractor recovery operations.
Aviation support is required for proper command and control
of large scale cutting operations, m many cases, the
engineer commander must be airborne to guide the lead
tractors since, in heavy vegetation, the operators' visibility is negligible. Aerial reconnaissance of the cut is
also essential for sound planning and accurate assessment
of the clearing to be accomplished. During RVN clearing
operations, the land clearing companies of the 62d Engineer
Battalion were furnished observation helicopters on the
average of five hours per working day.
|62d Engineer
Battalion Letter, February 1971.J
For immediate protection of the land clearing
company, the desired security force is one armored cavalry
troop or one mechanized infantry company. Foot infantry
would have difficulty in keeping up with the tractors and
would have no protection from falling trees. If the area
25
��Photo # 5: Land clearing with the Rome K/G blade on a D7
Caterpillar tractor.
Rome Plow Cornpany Photograph
27
�C.
"SLASH AND BURN" CLEARING
Indigenous personnel can be hired to assist in many land
clearing operations or to conduct small-scale clearing
efforts on their own ("slash and burn" operations). They
can be eraplo*'ed in clearing vegetation adjacent to lines of
communications (LOG), around support bases, and removing/
burning debris from other operations.
The objectives of
this technique are similar to the tactical land clearing
operations with the additional function of releasing U.S.
troops for more pressing combat roles.
1. Organization
Usually, the personnel for the operations are
recruited and hired by the U.S. force's Civil Affairs staff
working in conjunction with the host country's local and
national labor office. These officials determine the
salaries and working conditions.
They attempt to get job
applicants with previous experience in clearing or lumbering.
The equipiiient, support, and supervision for the
clearers is furnished by the U.S. unit working in the AO.
This system was used by the Army during the Korean
War.
It was designed to help the Republic of Krrea's massive
unemployment problems and assist the allies in accomplishing
tasks requiring unskilled labor.
The Koreans served as
ammunition bearers, porters, kitchen police, and woodcutters.
Its success was such that at the end of the war the Korean
Service Corps (KSC) was formed on a paramilitary basis.
28
�To the present day, the KSC has provided labor augmentation
for the residual United Nations troops that have remained
in Korea.
2. Clearing Estimates and Limitations
Like tactical land clearing, production rates are
dependent upon many variables: morale, health, state of
experience, terrain, crew size, and supervision.
Planners
must also consider the tiice required to transport the
personnel to and froca the clearing sites since security
requirements would eliminate the possibility of remaining
in the area overnight.
The planning rates that have been
established by DA are:
Table I - : Clearing By Hand
I 4
VEGETATION
UNIT
HAN-HOURS PER UNIT
LIGHT: Less than 12
inches in diameter.
Acre
125
MEDIUM: 12 to 18 inches
in diameter.
Acre
350
HEAVY: Greater than 18
inches in diameter.
Acre
600
LIGHT: Same as above but
strip 10 meters wide.*
100 Linear
Meters
25
MEDIUM: Same as above
but strip 10 roaterr. wide.*
100 Linear
Meters
70**
**
*Strip clearing.
**Approxiir.ately 100 man-hours/linear acre and 280 man-hours/
linear acre.
5
Ibid.. p. 55.
29
�The use of "slash and burn" techniques for vegetation
removal is usually limited to secure areas or where major
combat operations are already in progress.
Time serves as
an additional constraint on the method since a great many
cutters are required to clear an area in a short period.
However, it is particularly useful in areas where the soil
trafficability will not support the heavy equipment required
for tactical land clearing.
D.
FIREBOMB1NG
Firebonibing is a method of reducing vegetation by burning
the foliage with incendiary munitions. The primary means to
accomplish this is by dropping drums of thickened fuel
(napalm) from helicopters or fixed wing aircraft.
The
technique is especially applicable to area clearance in locations where there is a definite dry season during the year.
The objectives of firebombing coincide with those of herbicide operations but the results differ in "zhat the trees are
permanently destroyed and not subject to regrowth. The
tactic ./as first used in RVN in 1967 during Operation PINK
ROSE in which Air Force aircraft were employed to drop the
cannisters of napalm on the target areas. Its purpose was
to burn-off enemy infiltration routes in the northern
provinces and base areas in War Zone C and D, all of which
had b^en previously treated with herbicides.
1970 I
30
[McCcnnsll
�1. Organization and Equipment
Authority to burn portions of an AO is usually
delegated to the division commanders. The Array uses the
twin-engine CH-47 helicopter ("Chinook") to conduct firebombing missions. Thickened fuel, consisting of gasoline
Mixed with M-4 fuel thickener, is placed in salvaged 55gallon drums and sling-loaded beneath the CH-47.
Fifteen
to twenty drums are carried in one lift, depending on the
aircraft's fuel load and weather conditions.
When the
aircraft is over the target, the drums are released and fall
in a cluster into the impact area.
The drops are supervised
by a command and control officer in a light observation
helicopter (LOH), and if air assets are available, security
is provided by several helicopter gunships (AH-lG).
JLTC
Rudrow j
2. Coverage and Limitations
Evaluation of the coverage of a firebombing mission
is very difficult since proper burning is subject to many
condition.0. Some of the factors that effect and limit the
coverage are:
(1) Dryness of the vegetation
(2) Wind and temperature
(3) Probability of a drum cluster detonation
upon contact with the ground
(4) Number of drums per lift.
31
�These variables dictate the use of a probabilistic model to
estimate the coverage of any particular firebombing mission.
In addition to the factors mentioned above, firebombing missions are limited by the utilization of the CH-47
in other roles.
The "Chinook" has become the workhorse for
the Army's medium lift tasks. In RVN, it has been extensively used for transportation of artillery pieces and
resupply of forward bases.
Hence, there is a high demand
for the aircraft, and the commander roust decide on which
missions he places the higher priority.
32
�III.
METMDODQGY
The alternatives for this study will be analyzed with
respect to the two primary missions of herbicide operations:
1. Removal of foliage (defoliation) in order to deny
the enemy cover and concealment.
2. Ths destruction of crops in the enemy's territory in
order to curtail his ability to forage off the land. To
accomplish this, costs for each method oust be isolated in
some uniform manner and in units to facilitate a costeffectiveness evaluation for several measures of effectiveness (MOE). The vectors resulting from this evaluation can
then be compared on an intra-systera, inter-system and forcemix basis.
The analysis of the alternatives will take the form of
the major subheadings below. Each of these sections
attempts to amplify the "how and why" of the methodology
used in Chapter IV through VII.
A.
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
Implicit in the assumptions for each alternative is the
adherence to the system descriptions of Chapter II. Several
general assumptions are also applicable.
In order to simplify the o-ialysis and the data collection, all alternatives are assisted to have commenced their
operations at the same point in time.
It is also assured
that all systems are in "steady state" and not subject to
33
�the initial erratic fluctuations in costs that new systems
often demonstrate prior to the occurrence of the "learning
curve" phenomena.
At the end of the systems' life, all are
given a zero residual value.
Finally, no adjustments are made to the costs for
inflation. While inflationary pressures have abated slightly, it is doubtful that the price stability of the early
1960's will return in the near future.
This could introduce
some bias when looking at yearly costs, total system cost
(T3C), and investment replacement of primary mission equipment (PME) over the planning horizon.
[Augusta and Snyder
197 oj
B.
PARAMETERS
The planning horizon for the analyses will be ten years.
Like the explicitly stated parameters for each alternative,
this is a reasonable estimate but in no way reflects any
official policy. The reviewer should be cautioned that the
planning horizon and other inputs are optimistic estimates
and adverse conditions car change thea significantly.
Where
a great deal of uncertainty exists as to the parameter
values, upper (U) and lower (L) cost bounds will be specified for each alternative. Most of these bounds reflect the
judgement of men who were involved with these systems during
counterinsurgency operations in RVN.
34
�C.
COST ANALYSIS
All costs will be determined in reference to one unit
equipment (UE) . A UE could be one specially equipped
aircraft, one crawler tractor with the Rome kit, or a crew
of indigenous cutters for "slash and burn* clearing.
With
this in mind, life cycle costs will be identified through a
generalized input structure.
Since no research and develop
ment (KD) costs are encountered, only the following major
cost categories will be investigated:
Investment Cost ( C
1)
Operating Cost (OC)
Procurement Costs
Maintenance
Stock Costs
Modernization
Replacement of Equipment due to
Attrition or Operational Loss
Initial Travel
Transportation
Replacement
Pay and Allowance
Fuel, oil and lubricants (POL)
Replacement Training
Munitions
Security
Special Control
Fisher 197 l
These inputs are used to obtain a system cost (SC) by
evaluating each cost category with respect to the major
subsystems of each alternative. The basic equation used in
the analysis is:
T LT
SC = a L«
i
j
TT
ICi-t + a L. *—
J
i j
OC<<
J
where a_ is a constant to obtain costs in the desired units
(i.e., $/year, ^/mission, or $/day) and ic*j is the jth
investment cost of the ith subsystem. Generally, costs will
be determined in units associated with basic operating tines.
35
�Ground-based systems will be evaluated in terms of dollars
per day and aviation systems in dollars per mission.
Included in the operating cost input program will be
several opportunity costs. Although they'will never be
reflected in tables of costs held by service comptrollers,
they are very real costs due to the scarcity of personnel
and equipment assets in combat. There is difficulty judging
what cost should be attached to a supervisory or security
force that could be gainfully employed in other combat operations, m order to tackle this problem in the study, the
cost assessed will be that operating cost incurred by the
force over the period that it was used.
D.
EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES
1.
Effectiveness C r i t eria
The measures of effectiveness (MOE) should be
closely related to the mission objectives.
However, it is
very hard to quantify the results of any denial operation
because one soon gets into the realra of trying to determine
"why something did not happen."
These types of objectives
force the writer away from "objective-oriented" MOE's and
toward the "performance-oriented" effectiveness criteria.
Two KOE's will be utilized in order that a balanced
presentation of each alternative may be achieved.
a. MOE * 1 - "Area"
The first MOE will be that of "area treated,
cleared or burned per normal operating period."
36
These
�three terras show the different effects that each alternative
has on the terrain. However, they present an evaluation of
each system's effectiveness and give a specific indication
of their performance capability during a normal operating
period.
b. MOE # 2 - Constrained Cost Minimization
This MOE is designed to determine which alternatives can complete a given mission subject to the exigencies
of combat.
It attempts to take a reasonable mission of
denying the enemy cover and concealment in a given area and
requiring that this be completed prior to certain time
limits and within theater asset constraints.
In program
format:
Minimize the cost of denying cover and concealment in
a 6,000 acre base area
Subject to:
(1) Mission accomplishment in 30 days or less.
(2) Mission asset requirements w4thin the
supply capability of the responsible
commander.
A vegetation removal mission was chosen since
these were the roost common of the herbicide missions in RVN.
The figure of 6,000 acres was designated because thij is
approximately 25 grid squares on a 1:25,000 or 1:50,000
topographical map and could easily be a suspected insurgent
base area. Although this is a large scale mission, it is
not unreasonable since there have been defoliation/clearing
operations in War Zone C and other parts of Military Region
37
�Ill in RVN that encompassed larger areas (during Operation
3W3CTIO8 CITY). The effects of reducing the mission size
are also examined in Chapter VIII, Section B.
Constraint # 2 of the program retires the determination of what will be the "supply capability of the responsible coonander." To resolve this, the author will use his
judgement and past experience in RVN to determine whit are
"reasonable" and "unreasonable" asset requirement*? to
accomplish a particular mission.
2. Cost- E ffectIvenes s Measureg
Using the cost measures of the analysis section and
the effectiveness criteria, cost-effectiveness measures can
be developed for each system in dollars per acre.
These
measures can then be segregated into mission categories for
foliage removal and crop destruction with maximum and oiniraura cost limits. These coupled with the cost minimization
v. ctors will help illuminate the differences in the systems,
their costs, and their effectiveness in support of counterinsurgency operations.
E.
PARAMETER SENSITIVITY
Sensitivity analysis will be used to test the parametric
uncertainties in each system. The testing will examine the
system costs as the parameters vary over a reasonable range
of values. Although the only relevant costs are dollar
costs, the sensitivity tables will show dollars and cents.
Certainly, the calculation of costs to the actual pennies
38
�is not relevant or meant to be a serious cost estimate.
However, this is done since they demonstrate the orders of
magnitude of change over the range of the parameter values.
39
�IV.
A.
ANALYSIS OF AERIAL DELITSRY OF HERBICIDES
ASSUMPTIONS
1.
UC-123
a.
Each aircraft has an ejected life of ten years
after modification for herbicide operations.
b.
hours.
[Major Pyatt]
Each sortie has an expected duration of two
[Major Hidalgo]
c.
Flights over a given target consist of between
two and seven h^xbicide aircraft.
d.
Security for each flight consists of four USAF
A-1E "Skyraider" aircraft.
Control for each flight consists
of one forward air controller (FAC) in a USAF OV-10 "Bronco."
[Downs and Scrivner
e,.
1970J
Each UC-123K has a 90 per cent coverage effi-
ciency for its 1,000 gallon load.
{See sensitivity analy-
sis. Sec. E)
2.
UH-1
a.
A variety of "Hueys" haie been employed in RVN.
For this study, use of the UH-1H is assumed.
b.
Each sortie has a duration of one-half hour.
Rudrew]
c.
A flight over a given target consists of one
helicopter.
d.
The AGAVENCO sprayer wJH be the only helicopter-
raounted system considered.
Although the capacity of the
40
�tank is 200 gallons, weight limitations tinder combat
conditions curtail the load,
will be analyzed.
e.
A 100 gallon per mission load
[t,TC Sanchesj
When available, armed helicopter security
consists of two AH-lG "Cobras."
f.
and [DA -re 3-16 1969 ]
[LTC Rudrow]
the OT-lH has a 90 per cent coverage efficiency
for its 100 gallon load.
It is employed under the same
operational and climatic conditions as the UC-123 missions.
{Also see sensitivity analysts, Sec. E)
B.
PARAMETERS
!
•
Flying Hours
Since the DC-123K has a two-hour mission duration,
25 missions per month per aircraft (or 600 hours per year)
will be the study parameter. Data indicates that the sortie
rate varies considerably over a year's operation and that the
use of 25 sorties per month would not be unreasonable [Major
Hidalgo J . A similar number of flying hours per year for the
UH-lH would dictate a sortie rate of 100 missions per month.
However, this is probably less than the normal rate since
the UH-lH has a prograrsed flying-hour limit of up to 960
houis per year in an active combat environment.
Manual (FM) 101-20
[DA Field
1970J . This implies that the effects
of the sortie generation rate for both aircraft should be
examined in a sensitivity analysis (Section E).
41
�2-
Cost Bounds
Bounds on certain portions of the herbicide costs
are set by the variation in security, control, and transportation costs that can occur in normal operations.
These
parameters set the "optimistic and pessimistic" bounds for
system cost. Since the UC-123 flights range from two to
seven aircraft, the security and control cost (for four
A-lE's and one OV-10) must be pro rated in accordance with
the number of herbicide aircraft per flight to obtain a cost
for one unit equipment (UE). Costing the helicopter system
does not present this problem since the operations are
usually conducted with one UH-1 (assumption c>.
Hence, the
security costs for a UH-1 mission can range from zero to the
cost of using two "Cobras" for one-half hour.
The UH-1 has
an additional bound on the i»..3stment cost formed by the
mode of transporting (surface or air) the AGAVENCO system to
the cornbat theater.
C.
COST ANALYSIS
1.
Is_o la t ion o f Re le vant Cos ts
A detailed breakdown of these costs can be found in
Appendix A.
a. UC-123K
Research and Development; None.
Investment Costs for the aircraft subsystem:
(1) Initial procurement of the aircraft is a
sunk cost since the C-123B's were drawn from air assets that
42
�existed in the Air Force inventory. Hence, it will not be
considered.
(2) Jet engine modification:
C-123B to a turbo-jet model (C-123K)i
Conversion of the
$302,732/aircraft.
[Miss Lucky]
Operating Costs for the aircraft subsystem:
[
(1) Operating and nsainteaance (O&M): $7QO,000/
^
Captain Wallace j
(2) Modernization cost: h two per cent per year
cost is incurred by each aircraft for raodernization expenditures.
.02 x 5870,000/aircraft = $l?,400/aircraft/year.
[captain Wallace]
(3) Security costs:
A-1E is $200/AOur.
The operating cost for one~~
Major Sims
The munition expenditures
for one A-iF; are $1250/raission.
f LTC Cooper]
For a two-
hour mission with four A-lE's, the cost amounts to $6600/
mission.
(4) Control costs:
The operating cost for the
OV-10 is $54/liour and $1000/aircraft for a full load of
munitions.
[liTC Monoham 1 This amounts to a control cost
i
J
of $1108/roission.
(5) Combat attrition rates are negligible since
<Nfc
only two aircraft have been lost to enemy fire since 1962.
j Downs and Scrivner
1970 ]
43
�Investment Cost for the aerosol subsystem;
(1) The dispenser mechanisii consists of the
installation of the Hayes AA-45 system at a cost of $37,254/
aircraft.
[Miss Lucky I
(2) Additional armor plating: $19,354/aircraft.
[Miss Lucky]
Operating Costs for the aerosol subsystem;
( ) Maintenance of the dispenser systcs* training
1
the operators, and stocking spare parts are included in the
cost of operating the aircraft.
( ) Cost of herbicides:
2
The USAF is responsible
for procurement of herbicides for all users. The cost of
the agent includes shipment and storage costs.
[Mr. Carter]
AGENT
COST/GALLON
COST/MISSION
WHITE
$7.78
$7,780
ORANGE
$7.24
$7,240
BLUE
$2.31
$2,310
b.
UH-1H
Research and Development: Hone.
Investment Cost for UH-lH; This is a sunk cost
since the helicopter used for herbicide operations is diverted from Army aviation assets on a "need* basis.
Operating Costfor UH-lH;
( ) O&M costs are rated at 15 per cent of the
1
aircraft procurement cost.
JMr. Donaldson] Since the UH-lH
44
�costs $266,578 [DA FM 101-20 1970J , the O&M cost is
approximately $40,000/year.
(2) Crew salaries are not included in Army O&M
estimates.
Normal conibat crew on a UH-1 is two pilots and
two door gunners.
These yearly opportunity costs amount to:
2 x $14,000/officer/year = $28,000/year
2 x $10,000/enlisted man/year = $2Q,000/year [DA Fact
Sheet
1971j and I Major Howe ]
(3) Security costs range from zero (no security)
to $200/mission for two AH-lG "Cobras." (Appendix A)
Investment Costs forthe aerosol subsystem;
(1) Procurement of AGAVENCO system: $7,850
[MT. Drake|
(2) Transportation cost for the AGAVENCO: $545
by ship and $1,937 by aircraft. (Major Howe 1
(3) The expected life of the UH-1H equipped for
herbicide missions is ten years. [ Mr. Donaldson]
Operating Costfor theaerosol subsystem;
( ) The maintenance cost of the AGAVENCO system
1
is nine per cent of the procurement cost: S707/year. [ Mr.
Drake]
(2) The system requires one operator: $iO,000/
year.
(3) Herbicide costs:
45
�AGENT
COST/GALLON
COST/MISSION
WHITE
$7.78
§778
ORAHGE
$7.24
$724
BLUE
$2.31
$231
IW. CarltonJ
2. Yearly Costs
Using the relevant costs and the herbicide parameter,
a yearly system cost can be developed from the formula:
SC = a L, L, ICjj + b Lf L» OCii
J
i
j
i 1
wr«re
a_ is the reciprocal of the expected life (and equal
to the planning horizon) and b
is a dimensional constant
to obtain costs la dollars per year.
a.
Identification of Costs for UC-123K
Investmant Cost = 1/10 (Engine modification +•
spray system + arnor) = $35,934/year.
Operating Cost = O&M cost + Security cost +
Control cost + Agent cost.
The security and control (S&C) costs for a UE on any
particular mission can be found in the following manner:
Security cost (U):
Security cost ( )
L:
$6600/flight
2 aircraft/flight
S6600/fliaht
7 aircraft/flight
_ $3300/aircraft
=
?943/aircraft
(A similar procedure determines the control cost.) Using
the parameter that a UC-123K flies 25 missions per month,
46
�the yearly mission rate would be 300 missions (msn) per
year. A typical calculation, this one for the upper bound
using Agent WHITE, is as fallows:
Operating Cost = §700,000/yr + §17,400/yr + 300rasn/yrx
§33QO/msn + 300 msn/yr x §554/msn + 300 msn/yr x §778Q/rasn =
§4,207,600/year.
Table IV-1: Yearly Costs for UC-123K
(Costs in Millions of Dollars per Year)
AGENT
LOWER BOUND
UPPER BOUND
WHITE
§3.417
$.4
424
ORANGE
§3.257
§4.081
BLUE
§1.777
§2.603
b.
Identification of Costs for UH-1H
Investment Cost - 1/10 (AGAVEHCO Cost +
Transportation Cost) = $979/year (U) or $840/year ( )
L.
Operating Cost = O&M Cost + Security Cost +
Agent Cost.
The UH-1 will fly 100 missions per month.
(Section B) An
upper bound cost using Agent WHITE: Operating Cost §98,707/yr 4- 1200 msn/yr x $200/msn + 1200 msn/yr x $778/msn
« §l,272,307/year.
Table *V-2: Yearly Costs for UH-1H
(Costs in Millions of Dollars per Year)
AGENT
LOWER BOUND
UPPER BOUND
WHITE
§1.033
§1.273
GRANGE
§ .968
§1.208
BLUE
§ .377
§ .617
47
�Table IV-2: Yearly Costs for UH-1H
(Costs in Millions of Dollars per Year)
AGEKT
LOWER BOUND
WRITE
$1.033
$1.273
ORANGE
$ .968
$1.208
BLUE
$ .377
$ .617
c.
UPPER BOUND
Remarks
At this point a total system cost could be
readily identified. However, like the yearly cost, it is
extremely sensitive to the particular input parameters, The
parameter of "missions per year" accounts for a major
portion of the system cost solely by virtue of its multiplicative role in the cost formula.
The reviewer must
consider this when evaluating the systems with respect to
the outlay of funds on a yearly basis for a UE. More
important than the magnitude of the costs involved is the
relative difference between the two systems.
3. Mission Costs
cost of a herbicide mission gives the reviewer
a better insight into the dollars involved for a UE. This
cost is more suitable to relate to an effectiveness
criterion that is oriented toward perfon=ance.
Mission Investment Costt
Summation of the Investment Costs
(Expected Life)x(Number of Xsn/Year)
48
�Mission Operating Cost:
Summation of O&M Costs/year
Number of Msn/Year
Summation of Security, Control,
^ ^ent costs/Mission
fable IV-3: PC-123K Missioa Costs
(Dollars per Hission)
AGENT
LOWER BOUND
OPPER BOUND
1C
OC
SC
1C
OC
SC
WEITE
$120
$11,272
$11,392
$120 $14,025
$14,145
ORANGE
$120
$10.732
$10,852
.'12®
$13,485
$13,605
BLUE
$120
$ 5,802
$ 5,922
$128
$ 8,555
$ 8,675
The costs are not categorized for the helicopter since the
UE-lP investment cost is negligible.
Tal/le IV-4t UH-lH Miss JOB Costs
(Dollars per Mission)
AGENT
LOWER BOUN*?
PPfgR BOUND
WHITE
$861
$1061
ORANGE
$807
$1007
BLUE
$314
$ 514
It is evident after this analysis that the agent
cost comprises a large portion of the system cost for both
alternatives.
It accounts for approximately 50 per cent of
the UC-123K costs and about 80 of the 0«-1 mission cost.
The extent of this can be examined by locking at the two
systems participating in defoliation operations.
If the
cost of the agent is varied from one dollar to ten dollars
per gallon, the effect on "dollars per mission" can be
49
�better illustrated.
This can also allow the reviewer the
opportunity to examine the cost expectation of a sudden
technicological breakthrough in the chemical industry
causing a decrease in prices or if current trends in upward
prices continue.
Table IV-5s Cost Variation Due to Agent Costs
(Dollars per Mission)
COST OF &GEHT
SYSTEM COST
($/Gal)
TJH-1
(S/Msn) UC-123
Hin
D.
Min
183
283
383
483
583
683
783
883
983
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Max
383
483
583
683
783
883
983
4612
5612
6612
7612
8612
9612
10612
11612
12612
13612
1083
1183
1283
1083
Max
7365
8365
9365
10365
11365
12365
13365
14365
15365
16365
EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES
1.
Effectiveness Criteria
a.
MOE fl - "Area"
This measure of effectiveness, "acres treated
per mission," presents the systems' overall or net effectiveness during a normal operating period.
.
Gallons/Mission
Effectiveness criterion (EC) = e x Gailons/Acre "
where e is the coverage factor.
EC
=
.9
x
For UC-123 operations,
1000 qal/tosn , 30Q
3 gal/acre
50
acres/mission
�EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA (Acres/Mission)
AGENT
LOWSR BOUND
UH-1H
UC-123
UPPERBOUND
UH-1H
UC-123
WHITE
30
300
30
300
ORANGE
30
300
30
300
BLUE
60
600
30
300
b. MOE # 2 - Constrained Cost Minimizatior
This HOE takes the following mathematical
programming formats
Minimize the cost of defoliating 6000 acres
Subject to:
Mission completion 1 30 days
Assets required 1 Command's supply
capability
In addition to the assumptions of this chapter, several more.
are necessary to restrict the analysis.
(1) Flights by UC-123K's will be examined la
relation to a minimum of two and a maximum of seven aircraft
per flight.
( ) Agent ORANGE will be the defoliant.
2
( ) Spraying must be completed within five days.
3
The last restriction is necessary since herbicides require approximately three to four weeks t3 act on
tropical vegetation. For herbicides to be effective, they
must remove a sufficient amount of foliage to deny the
enemy use of the terrain for base areas and daylight
movement and to permit improved aerial observation.
51
The
�requirement is amplified by the following charts
Defoliant
Rate
1 \fk
2 Vk
1 H° 3 fto
ORANGE
3 gal/acre
1/
98
6 Ho
1 Yr
73/32 89/73 79
66
54
(The figure to the left of the slash represents percentage
of leaves desicated; that to the right represents the
percentage of leaves defoliated.
The single figure is
defoliation.)6
Therefore, it is imperative that the a«ent be
applied quickly to insure naximuin defoliation at the end of
30 days.
2. Cost-Sffeetiveness Hea sures
a. HOE tl
Cost-Effectiveness Measure =
Mission Cost
Effectiveness Criterion
Table IV-6A: Aerial Delivery of Herbicides
(Dollars per Acre)
AGENT
LOWER BOUND
UPPER BOUND
UH-lH
UC-123
UH-1H
UC-123
WHITE
§29
$38
$35
§47
ORANGE
$27
$36
§34
$45
BLUL
$ 5
$10
$17
$29
Breaking these costs into the two primary mission
categories (defoliation and crop destruction), isaxirauro and
House, W. B. and others. Assessment of the Ecological
Effects of Extensive or Repeated Use of Herbicides, p. 141,
Midwest Research Institute, 1967.
'
~~~
52
�minimum limits are formed.
The mission categories facilitate
comparison with the other alternatives.
This is readily
done since ORANGE and WHITE are general purpose defoliants
and BI-UE is exclusively used for crop destruction.
In the
next table, the tgaximuin and ^ntiimaa limits on defoliation
missions are formed by using Agent WHITE'S upper bound and
QRASGE's lower bound.
The uaximum and minimum cost vectors
for crop destruction can be taken directly from Table IV-6A.
Table IV-6B:
Cost-Effectiveness Measures for Aerial
Delivery of Herbicides
(Dollars per Acre)
MISSION
UH-1H
UC-123
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
Defoliation
$27
$35
$36
$47
Crop Destruction
$ 5
$17
$10
$29
b. HOE #2
Defoliation of a 6,000 acre area would require
ten flights of two UC-123K's or three flights of seven
IK-123K aircraft (each aircraft covering 300 acres per
mission).
The fiva-day dissemination period could easily
be accomplished even with the smallest flight.
If a
squadron organization existed, the requirement would have
little or no effect.
Upper Bound:
$13,605/aircraft/msn x 2 aircraft x 10 missions =» $272,100.
53
�Lower Bound:
$10,852/aircraft/n»sn x 7 aircraft x 3 nissions - $227,892.
Using the UH-lH's effectiveness criterion of 30
acres per mission, 200 sorties would be required.
This
implies that 100 helicopter flying hours would be needed in
a five-day period. This would be a tremendous drain on the
aviation assets of a division commander and would mean that
he would have to divert five to ten helicopters a day for
the better part of a week to psrlcrs the defoliation task,
Hence, a violation of the second constraint might be
realized.
Table IV-7: Minimum Cost Program For Defoliation
(Costs in Dollars)
SYSTEM
LOWER BOUND
UPPER BOUND
UC-123K
$227,892
$272,100
UH-1B**
$161,400
$201,400
The program constraints make the UH-1 virtually
infeasible for a mission of tteis scale.
E.
PARA1-CETER SENSITIVITY
The sensitivity analysis is presented to determine the
effect of variation of three of the parameterized inputs
for the herbicide alternative. The tests are performed on
the icaximura and minimum limits for the cost-effectiveness
categories in Table IV-6B.
1. Sensitivity of Sortie Generation Rate
a. UC-123 (Table IV-8A & SBj
54
�A sensitivity analysis indicates that this
parameter is not as crucial to the system cost explanation
as one might expect. Examination of the costs indicates
that even at the lower number of sorties per month the
system cost does not experience any appreciable rise. As
flying hours increase past the 600 hour per year mark, the
cost begins to experience an almost linear decrease.
55
�TABLE IV-8A
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - HERBICIDE DELIVERY BY UC-123K
SENSITIVITY OF SORTIE GENERATION RATE ($/ACRE)
DEFOLIATION
0 & M COST
MIN
MAX
SYSTEM COST
M|N
MAX
HOURS
PER YR.
INVESTMENT
COST
15.
360.
0.67
41.09
52.07
41.75
52.73
16.
384.
0.62
40.26
51.23
40.88
51.86
17.
408.
0.59
39.53
50.50
40.11
51.09
18.
432.
0.55
38.87
49.85
39.43
50.41
19.
456.
0.53
38.29
49.27
38,82
49.79
20.
480.
0.50
37.77
48.74
38.27
49.24
21.
504.
0.48
37.29
48.27
37.77
48.74
22.
528.
0.45
36.86
47.84
37.32
48.29
23.
552.
0.43
36.47
47.44
36.90
47.88
24.
576.
0.42
36.11
47.08
36.52
47.50
25.
600.
0.40
35.77
46.75
36.17
47.15
26.
624.
0.38
35.47
46.44
35.85
46.83
SORTIES
PER MO.
�TABLE IV-8A (Continued)
SORTIES
PER MO,
HOURS
PER YR.
INVESTMENT
COST
27.
648.
0.37
35.18
46.16
35.55
46.53
28.
672,
0.36
34.92
45.90
35.28
46.25
29.
696.
0.34
34.67
45.65
35.02
46.00
30.
720.
0.33
34.45
45.42
34.78
4.6
57
31.
744.
0.32
34.23
45.21
34.55
45.53
32.
768.
0.31
34, J3
45.01
14.34
45.32
33.
792.
0.30
33.84
44.82
34.14
45.12
34.
816. '
0.29
33.66
44.64
33.96
44.93
35.
840.
0.29
33.50
44.47
33.78
44.76
36.
864.
0.28
33.34
44.32
33.62
44.59
37.
88d.
0.27
33.19
44.17
33.46
4.4
44
38,
912.
0.26
33.05
44.02
33.31
44.29
39.
936.
0.26
32.91
43.89
33.17
44.15
40.
960.
0.25
32.79
43.76
33.03
44.01
OPERATING COST
MIN
MAX
SYSTEM COST
MIN
MAX
�TABLE IV-8B
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - HERBICIDE DELIVERY BY UC-123K
SENSITIVITY OF SORTIE GENERATION RATE ($/ACRE)
CROP DESTRUCTION
SORTIES
PER MOT
HOURS
PER YR,
INVESTMENT
COST
OPERATING COST
MIN
MAX
SYSTEM; COST
MIN
MAX
15.
360.
0.67
12.66
33.83
12.33
34.50
16.
384.
0.62
12.22
33.00
11.91
33.63
17.
408,
0.59
11.84
32.27
11.55
32.86
18.
432.
0.55
11.50
31.62
11.22
32.17
19.
456.
0.53
11.19
31.03
10.93
31.56
20.
480.
0.50
1.2
09
30.51
1.7
06
31.01
21.
504.
0.48
10.67
30.04
10.43
30.51
22.
528.
0.45
10.44
29.60
10.21
30.06
23.
552.
0.43
10.23
29.21
10.02
29.64
24.
576,
0.42
10,04
28.85
9.84
29.27
25.
600.
0.40
9.87
28.52
9.67
28.92
Ul
oo
�TABLE IV-8B (Continued)
SORTIES
PER KO.
HOURS
PER YR.
INVESTMENT
COST
OPERATING -COST
MIN.
MAX.
SYSTEM COST
MIN.
MAX.
26.
0.38
9.71
28.21
9.52
28.60
27.
648.
0.37
9.56
27.93
9.38
28.30
28.
672.
0.36
9.42
27.66
9.24
28.02
29.
696.
0.34
9.29
27.42
9.12
27.76
30.
in
624.
720.
0.33
9.17
27.19
9.01
27.52
31.
744.
0.32
9.06
26.97
8.90
27.30
32.
768.
0.31
8.95
26.77
8.80
27.09
33.
792.
0.30
88
.6
26.59
8.70
26.89
34.
816.
0.29
8.76
26.41
8.62
26.70
35.
840. '
0.29
8.67
26.24
8.53
26,53
30.
864.
0.28
8.59
26.08
8.45
26.36
37.
888.
0.27
8.51
25.93
8.38
26.20
30.
912.
0.26
84
.4
25.79
8.31
26.05
39.
936.
0.26
8.37
25.66
8.24
25.91
40.
960.
0.25
8.30
25.53
8.18
25.78
�CHART IV-1:
SENSITIVITY OF SORTIE GENE8ATION RATE (UC-123)
(System Cost (SC) in Dollars/Acre)
C
50..
DEFOLIATION
30 „ _
20 . ..
CROP D E S T R U C T I O N
10 . „
4
360
-I
-4
&0
600
4
720
Plying Hours per Year
60
840
{->
960
�b.
UH-1H (Table IV-9A & 9B)
fable 9A and 9B show that the costs per acre
fcr defoliation and crop destruction are virtually insensitive to the sortie generation rate of the aircraft.
"The
cause for this is the dominance of the agent cost.
For a
mission flown with Agent ORANGE (lower bound), the cost less
the defoliant is $83 per mission.
Shis condition persists
throughout this analysis.
2.
Sensitivity of Security and Control Costs
a.
UC-123K (Table IV-10)
In the analysis, S & C costs range from $1100
per mission to approximately $3350 per mission.
The lower
spectrum of the scale shows the costs that might be incurred
in a low-intensity environment that would require little or
no security.
The costs above $4000 per mission indicate the
incremental changes when high-performance aircraft are allocated to security roles in lieu of propeller-driven "Slcyraiders."
b.
UH-1H (Table IV-11A & 11B)
c.
Both sets of tables (10 and 11) show the effect
that security has on determining bounds on cost estimates.
They also point out that the difference in Agent WHITE and
Agent ORANGE for a similar security posture is almost
negligible.
61
�TABLE IV-9A
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - HERBICIDE DELIVERY BY UH-1
SENSITIVITY OF SORTIE GENERATION RATE ($/ACRE)
DEFOLIATION
SORTIES
PER MO.
HOURS
PER YR.
0 & M COST
MAX.
INVESTMENT
COST
MIN V
SYSTEM COST
MAX.
MIN.
GO.
0.05
28.70
37.17
28.74
37.22
64.
384.
0.04
28.42
36.88
28.45
36.93
68.
cr>
to
360.
408.
0.04
28.17
36.63
28.20
36.67
72.
432.
0.04
27.94
36.41
27.97
36.45
76.
456.
0.04
27.74
36.21
27. 77
36.24
80.
480.
0.03
27.56
36.03
27.59
36.06
84.
504.
0.03
27.40
35.86
27.43
35.90
88.
528
0.03
27.25
35.72
27.28
35.75
92.
552.
0.03
27.11
35.58
27.14
35.61
96.
576.
0.03
26.99
35.46
27.01
35.48
100.
600.
0.03
26.88
35.34
26.90
35.37
104.
624.
0.03
26.77
35.24
26.79
35.26
�TABLE IV-9A (Continued)
SORTIES
PER MO.
HOURS
PER YR.
INVESTMENT
COST
O & M COST
MIN.
MAX.
SYSTEM COST
MIN.
MAX.
108.
648.
0.03
26.67
35.14
26.69
35.16
112.
672.
0.02
26.58
35.05
26.60
35.07
116.
696.
0.02
26.50
34.96
26.52
34.99
120.
720.
0.02
25.42
34.88
26.44
34.91
124.
744.
0.02
26.34
34.81
26.36
34.83
128.
768.
0.02
26.28
34.74
26.29
34.76
132.
792.
0.02
26.21
34.G8
26.23
34.70
136.
816.
0.02
26.15
34.62
26.17
34.64
140.
840.
0.02
26.09
34,156
26.11
34.58
144,
864.
0.02
26.04
34. 90
86.03
34.52
140.
883.
0.02
25.99
34.45
26.00
34.47
152.
912.
0.02
25.94
34,40
25.95
34.42
156.
936.
0.02
25.89
34.36
25.91
34.38
160.
960.
0.02
25.85
34.31
25.86
34.33
�TABLE IV-9B
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - HERBICIDE DELIVERY BY UH-1
SENSITIVITY OP SORTIE GENERATION RATE (§/ACRE)
CROP DESTRUCTION
SORTIES
PER MO.
HOURS
PER YR.
INVESTMENT
COST
O & M COST
MIN.
MAX.
SYSTEM COST
MIN.
MAX.
60.
360.
0.05
6.13
18.94
6.15
18.98
64.
384.
0.04
5.99
18.65
6.01
18.69
68.
408.
0.04
5.87
18, 10
5.88
18.44
72.
432.
0.04
5.75
18,17
5.77
18.21
76.
456.
0.04
5.65
17.97
5.67
18.01
80.
480.
0.03
5.5b
3,7.79
5.58
17.83
84.
504.
0.03
5.4Q
17.63
5.50
17.66
88.
528.
0.03
5.41
17.48
5.42
17.51
92.
552.
0.03
5.34
17.35
5.42
17.51
96.
576.
0.03
5.28
17.22
5.29
17.25
600.
0.03
5.22
17.11
5.23
17.14
100.
�TABLE IV-9B (Continuea)
SORTIES
PER MO^
HOURS
PER YR.
INVESTMENT
COST
O & M COST
SYSTEM COST
MIN.
MAX.
MIN.
MAX.
104.
624.
0.03
5.17
17.00
5.18
17.03
108.
648.
0.03
5.12
16.91
5.13
16.93
112.
672.
0.02
5.07
16.81
5.08
16.84
116.
690.
0.02
5.03
16.73
5.04
16.75
120.
720.
0.02
4.99
16.65
5.00
16.67
124.
744.
0.02
4.96
16.58
4.96
16.60
120.
768.
0.02
4.92
16.51
4.93
16.53
132.
792.
0.02
4.89
16.44
4.90
16.46
136.
816.
0.02
4.86
16.30
4.67
16.40
140.
840.
0.02
4.83
16.33
4.84
16.34
144.
864.
0.02
4.80
16.27
4.81
16.29
148.
888.
0.0?
4.78
16.22
4.78
16.24
152.
912.
0.02
1.75
16.17
4.76
16.19
1S6.
936.
0.02
4.73
16.12
16.14
160.
960.
0.02
4.71
16.08
4.74
4.71
Ul
16.10
�CHART? IV-2:
SENSITIVITY OF SORTIE GENERATION RATE (UH-1)
(Systes Cost {SC> in Dollars/Acre)
SC
DEFOLIATION
30,.
25..
CROP
10..
360
480
DESItUCIIOH
600
Flying Hours per Year
�TABLE IV-10
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - HERBICIDE DELIVERY BY UC-123K
SENSITIVITY OF SECURITY & CONTROL COST
($/MSN)
DEFOLIATION
SECURITY + CONTROL = TOTAL S & C COST
SYSTEM COST
($/ACRE)
(S/MSN)
HIS.
0.
600.
1200.
10.
80
2400.
3000.
3600.
4200.
40.
80
50.
40
60.
00
6600.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
0
.
700.
10.
40
2100.
2800.
3500.
40.
20
40.
90
5600.
6300.
70.
00
7700.
MAX.
32.50
34.84
37.17
39.50
41.84
44.17
46.50
48.84
51.17
53.50
55.84
58.17
34.30
36.64
38.97
•'•1.30
43.64
45.97
48.30
50.64
52.97
55.30
57.64
59.97
8.04
9.20
10.37
11.54
12.70
13.87
15.04
16.20
17.37
18.54
19.70
20.87
16.07
18.40
20.74
23.07
25.40
27.74
30.07
32.40
34.74
37.07
39.40
41.74
CROP DESTRUCTION
0.
600.
1200.
1800.
2400.
3000.
3600.
4200.
4800.
5400.
60.
00
6600.
0
100
200
300
400
500
500
700
800
900
1000
1100
0.
700.
1400.
21CO.
2800.
3500.
4200.
4900.
5600.
6300.
70.
00
7700.
67
�TABLE IV-11A
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS... HERBICIDE DELIVERY BY 13H-1
SENSITIVITY OF SECURITY COSTS
DEFOLIATIGS
SECUKI7V COST ($/KSN)
SYSTEM COST ($/ACRS)
Mat.
0.
10.
20.
30.
40.
50.
(0.
70.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
140.
150.
160.
170.
180.
190.
200.
210.
220.
230.
240.
250.
260.
270.
280.
290.
300.
MAX.
26.90
27.24
28.70
29.03
27.57
21. y&
28.24
28.57
28.90
29.24
2S.57
25.90
30.24
30.57
30.90
31.24
31.57
31.90
32.24
32.57
32.90
33.24
33.57
33.90
34.24
34.57
34.90
35.24
35.57
35.90
36.24
36.57
36.90
29.37
2S.70
30.03
30.37
30.70
31.03
31.37
31.70
32.03
32.37
32.70
33.03
33.37
33.70
34.03
34.37
34.70
35.03
35.37
35.70
36.03
36.37
36.70
37.03
37.37
37.70
38.03
38.37
38.70
�TABLE IV-11B
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - HERBICIDE DELIVERY BY UH-1
SENSITIVITY OF SECURITY COSTS
CROP DESTRUCTION
SECURITY COST
SYSTEM COST
(S/ACRE)
(S/KSN)
MIN.
0.
10.
20.
30.
4.
0
50.
6.
0
70.
8.
0
9.
0
100.
110.
120.
130.
140.
150.
160.
170.
180.
190.
200.
210.
220.
230.
240.
250.
260.
270.
280.
290.
3QO.
MAX,
5.23
5.40
5.57
5.73
5.90
6.07
6.23
6.40
6.57
6.73
6.90
7.07
7.23
7.40
7.57
7.73
7.90
80
.7
8.23
8.40
8.57
8.73
8.90
9.07
9.23
9.40
9.57
9.73
9.90
10.07
10.23
10.47
1.0
08
11.13
11.47
11.80
12.13
12.47
12.80
13.13
13.47
13.80
14.13
14.47
1.0
48
15.13
15.47
15.80
16.13
16.47
16.80
17.13
17.47
17.80
18.118.47
18.80
19.13
19.47
1.0
98
20.13
20.46
�3. Sensitivity of Effectiveness Criterion (Table IV-12
and Table IV-13)
These tables demonstrate the effect on system cost
when commanders insist on conducting herbicide operations
when conditions such as temperature, wind, and weather are
less than favorable.
4. Remarks
Prior to completing the analysis, the effect of
variation of the agent cost in terms of dollars per acre c .
?n
be investigated.
(Reference Table IV-5) These show the
dominance of the agent costs.
Cost Variation Due to Agent Costs
(Cost in Dollars per Acre)
COST OF AGENT
§1
UC-123 ($/ACRE)
M1N.
§ 2
$ 3
$4
$ 5
$ 6
$7
$ 8
$9
§10
UH-1 ($/ACRE)
MAX.
MIK.
MAX.
$13
$15
$19
$22
$25
$29
$32
$35
$39
$42
$45
$25
$28
$31
$35
$38
$41
$45
$48
$51
$55
$ 6
$ 9
$16
$19
$23
$26
$29
$33
$36
$39
$43
$13
$16
$19
$23
$26
$29
$33
$36
70
�SABLE IV-12
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - HERBICIBg DELIVERY BY UC-123
SENSITIVITY OP EFFECTIVENESS OF COVERAGE
DEFOLIATION
COVERAGE
(ACRES/MSB)
SYSTEM COST
(I/ACRE)
% EFFECTIVE
KIN.
220.
230.
240.
250.
260.
270.
280.
290.
300.
310.
320.
330.
49.33
47.18
45.22
43.41
41.74
40.19
38.76
37.42
36.17
35.01
33.91
32.89
66.0
69.0
72.0
75.0
78.0
81.0
84.0
87.0
90.0
93.0
96.0
99.0
MAX.
64.30
61.50
58.94
56.58
54.40
52.39
50.52
48.78
47.15
45.63
44.20
42.86
CROP DESTRUCTION
COVERAGE
(ACRES/MSN)
MIN.
220.
230.
240.
250.
260.
270.
280.
290.
300.
310.
320.
330.
SYSTEM COST
($/ACRE)
MIN.
6.
60
6.
90
72.0
75.0
78.0
8.
10
8.
40
8.
70
9.
00
93.0
9.
60
9.
90
71
MAX.
13.46
12.87
12.34
11.84
11.39
10.97
10.58
10.21
9.87
9.55
9.25
8.97
MAX.
40
4.
460.
480.
50.
0.
520.
540.
560.
580.
60
0.
620.
640.
650.
EFFECTIVE
39.43
37.72
36.15
34.70
33.37
32.13
30.98
29.91
28.92
27.98
27.11
26.29
�CHART IV-3: SENSITIVITY OF EPFECTIVE2GSS OF COVERAGE (UC-123)
S60
$50 ' ~
S401--
S 3 0 --
S 20 . .
CROP
DESTRUCTION
S 10 ..
100
Percentage of Effectiveness
72
�TABLE IV-13
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - HERBICIDE DELIVERY BY UH-1
SENSITIVITY OF EFFECTIVENESS OF COVERAGE
DEFOLIATION
COVERAGE
(ACRES/MSN)
SYSTEM COST
($/ACRE)
% EFFECTIVE
MIN.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
36.68
35.09
33.62
32.28
31.04
29.89
28.82
27.83
26.90
26.03
25.22
24.45
66.0
69.0
72.0
75.0
78.0
81.0
84.0
87.0
90.0
93.0
96.0
99.0
MAX.
48.23
46.13
44.21
42.44
40.81
39.30
37.90
36.59
35.37
34.23
33.16
32.15
CROP DESTRUCTION
COVERAGE
(ACRES/MSN)
MIN.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
SYSTEM COST
($/ACRE)
MIN.
66.0
6.
90
72.0
75.0
78.0
81.0
8.
40
87.0
90.0
93.0
96.0
99.0
73
MAX.
7.14
6.83
6.54
6.28
6.04
5.81
5.61
5.41
5.23
5.06
4.91
4.76
MAX.
44.
4.
6
48.
50.
52.
54.
56.
58.
60.
62.
6.
4
66.
EFFECTIVE
23.37
22.35
21.42
20.56
19.77
19.04
18.36
17.73
17.14
16.58
16.06
15.58
�CHART IV-4:
SENSITIVITY OF EFFECTIVENESS OF COVERAGE (UH-1)
(System Cost (SC) in Dollars/Stare)
sc
,k
$50
$40 •
$30--
$20 ,
$10.
CROP
DESTRUCTION
-I
70
80
90
100
percentage of Effectiveness
74
9-
�V.
A.
TACTICAL LAKD CLEARING
ASSUMPTIONS
1. The vehicle examined will be the D7E/D7F medium
crawler tractor (made by the Caterpillar Tractor Company)
equipped with the Rone K/G clearing blade and protection
kit.
2. The expected life of the tractor under combat
conditions is two years.
| Major BennettJ The expected life
of the blade and protection kit is one year.
I 62d Engineer
BattalionJ
3. A land clearing company has 25 of its 30 medium
tractors operational at any one time.
I Planning factor from
DA Pam 526-6 197oJ
4. Security forces consist of one armored cavalry
troop or a comparable-size mechanized infantry unit.
[Major Bennett! The operation is controlled by the
commander who is airborne in a light observation helicopter
(LOH).
5. Crops are considered under the category of light
vegetation.
6. The discount rate is ten per cent.
B.
PARAMETERS
1. Utilization
The operating time for
^ Rome-equipped tractor
will be eight hours per day. .. >rmally, these vehicles work
75
�in tine field for 45 days prior to returning to their base
areas for a 15-day "stand down" and maintenance period.
[&2d Engineer Battalion Letter, February 1971j This implies
a 75 per cent work factor and 270 work days per year.
2.
Cost Bounds
a. Investment Cost
The investment cost for a tractor is bounded by
the consideration of inherited assets.
When the Rome
clearing blade was introduced in RVN, the tractors "in
country" were equipped with bulldozer blades. These blades
were simply converted by unit maintenance personnel. In
other situations, the kits and tractors were sent to RVN to
form land clearing units.
Thus, the upper bound considers
procurement of the initial tractor while the lower bound
considers the initial tractor to be a sunk cost.
b. Operating Cost
The operating costs are bounded by the security,
control, and readiness postures of the clearing unit.
The
desired security for a land clearing company is an armored
cavalry troop while a mechanized infantry company (-} is a
less desired but acceptable replacement. 1 DA Pam 525-6
1970J The security costs will be considered to range from
$130 per day to $80 per day for a UE.
(Appendix B) The
control costs are directly proportional to the use of the
LOU that is attached to the land clearing company during
clearing operations.
The attachment can be from several
76
�hours to all day. f62d Engineer Battalion 11 April
197 1]
The unit readiness rating determines the
equipment and personnel manning levels.
High ratings
dictate the assignment of two operators per tractor. However, during periods of budgetary austerity or when the
manpower pool cannot support this requireoent. this is
lowered to the assignment of one operator per tractor.
FuSACDC TOE 5-58T 1969^j
C.
COST ANALYSIS
1.
Isolation of Relevant Costs (Appendix Bj
a.
Investment Cost
(1) Investment cost for D7 Tractor.
This
investment cost is bounded by the requireraent to procure
the initial tractor.
Additionally, the expected life of
the D7 dictates replacement across the ten year planning
horizon.
Since replacement is necessary, the planner roust
consider the present value cf the dollars spent in order
for an equitable comparison to be made with the other
alternatives.
01
2
The replacement schedule will be:
345
67
8
9 10
The present value coefficients will be:
8
8
PV1 =
- _ = 3.5404 and PV2 =
£o (1 + r) 1
^
for i an even integer and r = .10.
77
--—j = 2.5404
( I f r) 1
I Hiishleif er
1970J
�D7 procurement cost:
$32,916
[DA Supply Bulletin (SB)
700-200 197l]
$ 2,400 [DA DCS, Logistics (LOG)
$35,316 1971]
(Appendix B)
Itotal -
Upper bound on the investment cost:
3.54 x $35,316=$125,019
Lower bound on the investment cost:
2.54 x $35,316=$ 89,703
(2) Investment cost for the Rome K/G blade and
kit.
The blade and kit have an expected life of one year in
cosbat which means purchase from time zero to the end of
year nine.
9
l
Z
4 n
i=0
i » 0,1,2,
_. _ 6.759 where
r = .10 and
(1+r)
,8,9.
Procurement cost:
$ 7,623
Transportation to RVN: $ 900
Total =
$ 8,523
[DA SB 700-200
fpA DCSLOG 197ij
(Appendix B)
Investment cost: 6.759 x $8,523 = $57,607.
(3) Investment cost due to combat attrition.
The Rome-equipped tractors of the 62d Engineer Battalion
(Land Clearing) have experienced a 25 per cent attrition
rate when engaged in tactical clearing.
[Major Bennett]
This would mean the replacement of the tractors and kits on
a yearly basis. The present value "ill be:
9
PV4 = )
r
= 5.759 where
~ (i+r)i
i - 1,2,...,8,9.
r « .10
and
The investment cost for a UE is:
5.759 x .25 x ($35,316 + $8,523) = $63,117.
78
�(4) The total investment a-jrtorized over the
planning horizon is §24,574 per year (U) and 521,043 per
year ( )
L.
b. Operating Cost
(1) Hourly costs. Unless otherwise noted, the
costs listed here come from the caterpillar Performance
Handbook.
Fuel:
(Light Vegetation) 5.5 gal/hr x $.15/gal * $.83/hr
(Medium Vegetation)
7.0 gal/hr x $.15/gal = $1.05Ar
(Heavy Vegetation) 9.0 gal/lir x $.15/gal = $1.35/hr
Lubricants and filters; $.33/hr.
Tractor repairs:
Using the Caterpillar repair factor, th«
repair cost would be $4.60 per hour. However, a review of
the data furnished by Major Bennett indicates that $7.00
per hour is a more realistic figure.
Rome blade and kit repairs:
$1.8Q/hr. 1 Major Bennett)
Total hourly costs:
Heavy vegetation
Medium Vegetation
Light Vegetation
$10.48
$10.18
$9.96
(2) Daily corts.
Operators' salaries:
Security cost:
Control cost:
$55 (U)
$130
$6 (U)
$27 (L)
(U)
$80 (L)
$4 (L)
(Appendix B)
2. Daily Costs
1C = Yearly cost/365 days and OC = 8 hours/day x
Hourly cost + Summation of Daily Costs.
�Tab le V-lj Daily Costs
(Dollars per Day)
VEGETATION
LOWER BOUND
1C
OC
UPPER BQUJJD
SC
1C
OC
SC
Light
$58
$191 $249
$67
$271 $338
Medium
$58
$193
$251
$67
$273
$340
Heavy
$58
$195
$253
$67
$275
$342
3.
Yearly Costs
Investment cost:
Operating coxtt
365 days/year x investment cost/day.
270 days/year* x Operating cost/day.
*
Tractors work 270 days per year (Section B ) .
Table V-2: Yearly Costs
(Dollird per Year)
VEGETATION
LOWER BOUND
UPPER BOUND
1C
OC
SC
1C
OC
SC
Light
21,043
51.570
72.613
24,574
73,170
97.744
Median
21,043
52,110
73,153
24.574
73,710
98,284
Heavy
21.043
52,650
73.693
24,574
74,250
96.824
D.
EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA AND COST-F-FFEfTIV'^SS MEASURES
1.
EffectivenessCriteria
a.
KOE it 1 - "Area"
This HOE considers the system's net effective-
ness during a normal day's operation.
The criteria takes
into consideration the three classifications of vegetation
and the two principal types of cuts.
80
�__, . .
_ .. ,
Hours available
Effectiveness Criterion = •- , •. —•
Clearing rate
Using the clearing rates from Table II-3, the effectiveness
criteria for a UE can be obtained.
Table V-3t Effectiveness Criteria for One Tractor
(Acres per Day)
VEGETATION
AREA CLEARING
STRIP CLEARING
Light
20
13.33
Medium
10
6.15
Heavy
6.15
3,8
b. KOE # 2 - Constrained Cost Minimization
Minimize the cost of clearing 6000 acres
Subject to:
Mission completion £ 30 days
Assets required
£ Ability of commander to supply
In order to examine the performance of the land clearing
operation under constrained cost rsiniraization, several
additional assumptions are necessary:
(1) Vegetation is either categorized as heavy or
medium.
(2) Area clearing is required.
(3) Cost per day is based on 30 tractors in the
unit although only 25 are operational.
( ) Land clearing cornpany has a high readiness
4
rating and security is provided by a cavalry troop (i.e.,
upper bound cost figures for heavy and medium area clearing
will hold). Area clearing rates for a land clearing company
8t
�with 25 of its 30 mediura tractors conducting sustained
operations are:
Heavy vegetation
Medium vegetation
100 acres/day
250 acres/day
j . Para 525-6
p
1970J
2. Cost-Effectiveness Measures
a. KOE #1
Table V-4:
Tactical Land Clearing
ollars per Acre)
VEGETATION
AREA CLEARING
STRIP CLEARING
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Lower
Bcund
Upper
Bound
Light
$12
$17
$19
$25
Medium
$25
$34
$41
$55
Heavy
$41
$56
$66
$90
The raission categories must take into consideration the terrain sensitivity of this alternative. The
Biinisuxn cost for both land clearing and crop destruction
are those costs incurred during light area clearing while
tl»e -axirouro costs for land clearing are those that occur
tiurir.g heavy strip clearing (sasiRuiB costs for crop destruction come during light strip clearing).
82
�Table V-5: Cost-Effectiveness Measures forTactical Land
Clearing
(Dollars per Acre)
MISSION
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
Land Clearing
$12
$90
Crop Destruction*
$12
$25
*fhe Rome-equipped tractor is lieited to areas where crops
grow on trafficable terrain,
This eliminates many paddy-
grown crops from this type mission.
b. MOB # 2
As pointed out previously, a medium land clearing
company can clear 100 acres per day in heavy vegetation and
250 acres per day in medium vegetation.
The time constraint
on a 6,000 acre mission would require two companies working
for 30 days in heavy vegetation and one company working for
24 days in medium vegetation.
The cost per day for a
company are:
Heavy vegetation - $10,260
Medium vegetation - $10,200.
The cost in_ doj-lar^ for this KOS is:
UPPER BOUND:
LOWER BOUND:
E.
$615,600
$244,800
PARAMETER SENSITIVITY
1.
Utilization
(Table V-6 A,B, & C)
The tables show the variability in costs (dollars
per acre) that occur in accordance with the operational
83
�hours per day of each vehicle.
The tables indicate the
importance of a high utilization factor, consistent with the
operators' and support elements' ability to perform the
required daily maintenance on the tractors.
2. Security (Table V-7A, B, & C)
fluctuation in security cost demonstrates the
effect on system cost when the commander varies his security
posture from no protection to that equivalent of a reinforced
armored cavalry troop.
84
�TABLE V-6As
MAX COST - LAND CLEARING
LYSIS - TACTICAL LAND CLEARING
IIPMENT UTILIZATION - STRIP CLEARING
Heavy- Clearing
UTILIZATION
{HOURS/DAY)
R&DCOST
5.0
0.00
28.28
5.5
0.00
6.0
INVESTMENT
COST
C & M COST
SYSTEM COST
102.14
130.42
25.71
94. a 6
120.57
0.00
23.57
88.79
112.35
6.5
0.00
21.75
83.65
105.40
7.0
0,00
20.20
79,35
99.45
7.5
0.00
18.85
75.43
9 4.20
8.0
0.00
17.67
72.09
89.77
8.5
0.00
16.63
69.15
85.78
9.0
0.00
15.71
66.53
82.24
9.5
0.00
14.88
64,18
79.07
10.0
00
.0
14.14
62.08
76.22
10.5
0.00
13.47
60. 17
73.63
11.C
0.00
12.85
58.43
71.29
11.5
0.00
12.30
56.85
69.14
12.0
0.00
11.78
55.40
67 . 18
GO
**
�TABLE V-6BJ
MAX. COST -CROP DESTRUCTION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - TACTICAL LAND CLEARING
SENSITIVITY OF EQUIPMENT UTILIZATION - STRIP CLEARING
Light Clearing
LIZATION
nm
5.0
5 .5
6.0
R ft.»
COST
INVESTMENT
cor.T
9 *•
M COBT,
fYSTEty coa-tf
36.95
0.00
8.08
7.35
8
26 . 7
26 .79
0.00
6.73
25 .06
31.79
6.22
7.
0
0.00
0.00
5 .77
23 .59
22 .33
29.80
28. 10
7.5
0.00
5.39
21 .24
26.63
8.0
0.00
5.05
20 .29
25.34
8.5
0.00
4.75
19 . 4
4
24.20
9.
0
0. 0
0
4.49
18 .70
23.18
9.5
0.00
4.25
18 .03
22.28
10 .0
10 .5
0.00
0. 0
0
4.04
3.85
17 .42
16 . 8
8
21.46
20.73
11 .0
0
0. 0
3.67
16 .38
20.06
11 .5
0.00
3 .51
15 .93
19.44
12 .0
0.00
3 .37
15 ,52
18.88
6.5
0.00
34. 14
�TABLE V-6BJ
MIN. COST - CROP DESTRUCTION AND LAND CLEARING
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - TACTICAL LAND CLEARING
ENSITIVITY OF EQUIPMENT UTILIZATION - AREA CLEARING
Light Clearing
INVESTMENT
COST
O & M COST
SYSTEM COST
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.61
4.19
12.90
12.09
17.51
16.28
3.84
11.41
15.25
6.5
0.00
10. &*
7.0
0.00
3.55
3.29
10.35
14.39
13.64
7.5
0.00
3.07
9.93
13.00
8.0
0.00
2.88
9.55
12.44
8,5
0.00
9.0
0.00
2.71
2.56
9.23
8.94
11.94
11.50
9.5
0.00
8.67
11.10
10.0
0.00
2.43
2.31
8.44
10.75
10.5
0.00
2.20
10.42
11.0
0.00
2.10
8.23
8.03
11.5
0.00
2.01
7.86
9,86
12.0
0.00
1.92
7.70
9.62
UTILIZATION
HOURS/DAY
5.0
5.5
6.0
3
R 6, n COST
10.13
�CHART V-l: SENSITIVITY OF TRACTOR UTILIZATION
(System Cost (SC) in Dollars/Acre)
S120--
S100- -
SCO..
LAND C L E A R I N G
S60 • •
s-io..
S20.
•4CROP
/DEST.
(L)- LC AND
CD
1
5
6
1-
9
8
10
Utilization - (Hours/Bay)
88
11
T2
�TABLE V-7A:
MAX. COST - LAND CLEARING
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - TACTICAL LARD CLEARING
SENSITIVITY OF SECURITY COST
STRIP CLEARING
Heavy Clearing
SECURITY COSTS
(S/DAY)
SYSTEM COST
($/ACRE)
0.
55.64
10.
58.2?
20.
6.9
08
30.
63.52
40
6.4
61
50.
68.77
60.
71.39
70.
74.02
80.
76.64
90.
79.27
100.
81.89
110.
84.52
120.
87.14
130.
8.7
97
140.
92.39
150.
95.02
160.
97.64
170.
100.27
180.
102.89
190.
200.
105.52
108.14
89
�TABLE V-7B:
MAX. COST - CROP DESTRUCTION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - TACTICAL LAND CLEARING
SENSITIVITY OF SECURITY COST
STRIP CLEARING
Light Clearing
SECURITY COSTS
CS/DAY)
SYSTEM COST
($/ACRE)
0.
15.59
10.
16.34
20.
17.89
30.
17.84
40.
18.59
50.
19.34
60.
20.09
70.
20.84
80.
21.59
90.
22.34
100.
23.09
110.
23.84
120.
24.59
130.
25.34
140.
26.09
150.
2.4
68
160.
27.89
170.
28.34
180.
29.09
190.
2.4
98
200.
30.59
90
�TABLE V-7C:
MIN. COST - LANE) CLEARING AMD CROP DESTRUCTION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - TACTICAL LAND CLEARING
SENSITIVITY OP SECURITY COST
AREA CLEARING
Light Clearing
SYSTEM COST
($/ACREj
SECURITY COSTS
($/DAY)
0
.
84
.4
1.
0
89
.4
20.
9.44
30.
9.94
4.
0
10.44
50.
1.4
09
6.
0
11.44
70.
11.94
8.
0
12.44
90.
1.4
29
100.
13.44
110.
13.94
120.
14.44
130.
14.94
140.
15.44
-
150.
15.94
160.
16.44
170.
16.94
180.
17.44
190.
17.94
200.
1.4
84
91
�VI. AHALYSIS OF "SLASH AND BURN" CLEARING
A.
ASSUMPTIONS
1. A crew consists of 45 men with one U.S. enlisted man
as supervisor.
All crew members are considered workerr
since no allowance is made for any internal chain of command
axaong the personnel.
[ Mr. Underwood!
2. Payraant of the indigenous cutters is consistent with
those rates paid in Military Region IV in the fall of 1970.
3. This type of clearing takes place in secure areas or
where security is provided by units already engaged in major
land clearing operations.
4. The U. S. units provide transportation for the
workers to and from the clearing site.
are drawn from current inventories.
Tools for the cutters
[Mr. Underwood I
5. Crops fall into the category of light vegetation.
While the first four statements can be categorized a"
"assumptions," they all have basis in fact.
Mr. Elton
Undersood of the Array's Engineer Strategic Studies Group
verified these on a trip to RVN in May and June of 1971.
The data he returned with contained detailed information on
a U.S.-sponsored operation in An Kuyen Province on the Cau
Mau Peninsula during the period September to December 1970.
However, their inclusion as assumptions is- meant to preclude
their being taken as policy for MACV as a Ahole.
92
�B.
PARAMETERS
1. Tha utilization parameter will be in units of "hours
per day."
For this portion of the study, a utilization
factor of eight hours per day and 270 work days per year
will be used. This corresponds to the utilization rates of
Chapter V. However, both of these inputs ar3 part of the
working conditions that are agreed upon by the U.S. Civil
Affairs office prior to hiring the civilian crews.
2. Ccst Bounds
The bounds on each method of cutting and each type
of vegetation are set by the maintenance and transportation
costs. These costs can range from zero to some preset value.
The cost for maintenance of the workers* tools and equipment
will be set at five collars per crew per day. The transportation cost will be ten dollars per crew per day (based on
the utilisation of two trucks for approximately one hour per
day).
C.
COST ANALYSIS
1. Isolation of Relevant Costs
The only costs incurred by this method of clearing
are operating costs.
The only investment cost would ba the
procurement of tools, but by assumption # 4, these are sunk
costs.
a. Salaries
Each man is paid 200 piasters per day and
furnished one meal at a cost of 37 piasters per day.
�JKr. Underwood! This amounts to approximately $.86 per man
or $38.80 per crew per day based on the 197Q exchange rate
of 275 piasters to one U. S. dollar.
b. Supervision
The opportunity cost for using one U. S. enlisted
man as a supervisor is $10,000 per year or $27 per day.
I Major Howe]
c.
Transportation
In some cases, the crews could walk from their
assembly points to the clearing sites.
If this were not
feasible, two trucks would be needed for approximately an
hour each day to transport the crews. Cost:
(Irt or zero ( )
L.
$10/crew/day
(Section Bj
d. Maintenance
Cost:
$5/crew/day (U) or zero ( )
L.
(Section B)
2. Daily Costs
Daily cost = Crew salaries +• Supervision -f Transportation + Maintenance
Upper Bound: $81 per crew per day
Lower Bound: $66 per crew per day
3. Yearly Costs
Yearly cost = 270 days/year x Cost per day
Upper Bound: $21,870 per year
Lower Bound: $17,820 per year
94
�D.
EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES
1.
Effectiveuess Criteria
a. HOE # 1 - "Area"
This MOE presents the system's net effectiveness
during a normal day's operation.
Since this alternative is
sensitive to the three classifications of vegetation and two
types of clearing (strip and area), six criteria will be
determined.
,
Hours available x Crew size
Effectiveness Criterion (EC, —€iearjLng Rate
The clearing rates are obtained from Table II-4. For light
area clearing:
„,
EC =
8 hr/dav x 45 men
. „„
.,
-£—«
= 2.88 acres/day
125
roan-hours/acre
Table VI-1:
Crew EffectivenessCriteria
(Acres per Day)
VEGETATION
AREA CLEARING
Light
2.68
3.6
Medium
1.0
1.3
.5
.5
Heavy
b.
STRIP CLEARING
MOE # 2 - Constrained Cost Minimization
Minimize the cost of clearing 6,000 acres
Subject to:
Mission completion 1 30 days
Personnel and equipment required 1 Ability
of Local
Area to
Supply
95
�Several assumptions are necessary to complete the examination
of this MQE:
(1) The vegetation is either medium or heavy.
(2) Method of clearing will be "area" type.
2. Cost-Effectiveness Measures
a. MOB f 1
Cost-Effectiveness Measure =
Cos t/crew/day
•-
For area clearing in light vegetation ( )
U:
$81/crev/day
2.88 acres/day = ?28 Per acre'
Similar calculations yield the following tablei
Table VI-2: "Slash and Burn" Clearing
liars per Acre)
AREA CLEARING
STRIP CLEARING
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Lover
Bound
Upper
Bound
Light
$23
$28
$18
$23
Medium
$64
$79
$51
$63
$147
$180
$147
$180
VEGETATION
Heavy
If these costs are to be depicted by mission categories, the
vegetation classifications and the method of clearing must
be encompassed by the maximum and minimum limits. Although
this gives a large interval for the costs to be within, the
review must ren>en±>er that vegetation removal by ground
personnel and equipment is extremely sensitive to the type
of terrain which the work is being conducted in.
96
�Table VT-3: Cost-Effectiveness Measures for "Slashand
Burn" Clearing
(Dollars per Acre)
MISSION
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
Land Clearing
$18
$180
Crop Destruction
$18
$ 28
b. MOE # 2
In order to analyze this program, one nmst first
look at the constraints.
In medium vegetation, a crew of 45
can only clear one acre per day. The size of the operation
dictates that at least 200 acres must be cleared per day in
order to meet the 30 day time constraint. This would mean
200 crews or 9,000 men would have to be hired.
It is
doubtful that the host government could supply or the U. S.
units could secure that many workers. Hence, this method of
clearing is considered infeasible for a large scale land
clearing operation.
E.
PARAMETER SENSITIVITY
Since indigenous cutters are paid by the day, it would
be important to examine the cost fluctuation over a range of
possible utilization factors.
As might be expected by
noting the units of the clearing rr-tes (man-hours per acre),
changing the utilization factor from the established eight
hours p*1'" uay results in a large cost variation.
This shows
the importance of negotiating a work agreement that insures
enough "time on the job."
It also amplifies the costs
97
�incurred if the cutters' pick-up point were far from the
clearing site, causing an excessive amount of transportation time to jecrease the crew utilization, or if the
supervisor were unable to motivate his crew.
TABLE VI-4:
VEGETATION REMOmi>
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS....SLASH AND BUBM CLEARING
SENSITIVITY OF CREW UTILIZATION.. .ARES. BURNING
(Heavy Clearing)
UTILIZATION
(HOURS/DAY)
MAXIMUM SYSTEM COST
i^/^C&E)
5.0
$288.61
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
262.37
240.51
222.01
206.15
192.41
180.38
8.5
9.0
169.77
151.90
10.0
10.5
11.0
144.31
131.43
131.19
SENSITIVITY OP CREW UTILIZATION
STRIP CLEARING
(Light Clearing)
UTILIZATION
MAXIMUM S1STEM COST
29.41
26.74
24.61
22.63
21.01
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
19.61
8.0
18.38
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
17.30
16.34
15.48
14.71
14.01
13.37
98
�TABLE VI-5;
CROP DESTRUCTION
SENSITIVITY AKALYSIS... .SLASH AKD BURN CLEARING
SENSITIVITY OF CREW UTILIZATION.. .AREA CLEARING
(Light Clearing)
UTILIZATION
(HOURS/DAY)
MAXIMUM SYSTEM COST
(S/ACRE)
5.0
5.5
60
.
6.5
4.0
51
41.00
37.58
3.9
46
32.21
30.06
28.18
26.53
25.05
23.73
22.55
21.47
20.50
70
.
7.5
80
.
8.5
90
.
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
SENSITIVITY OP CREW UTILIZATION.. STRIP CLEARING
(Light Clearing)
UTILIZATION
MAXIMUM SYSTEM COST
29.41
26.74
24.51
22.63
21.01
19.61
18.38
17.30
16.34
15.48
14.71
14.01
13.37
5.0
5.5
60
.
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
90
.
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
99
�VII.
ANALYSIS OF FIREBOMBING
v
A.
ASSUMPTIONS
1. Firebombing is conducted with the C-raodel medium
helicopter (CH-47C - "Chinook").
2. Each sortie has an expected d^jration of one-half
hour. I LTC Ruirowj
3. A flight over a given target consists of one CH-47C.
j LTC Rudrow J
4. Salvaged slings and salvaged 55-gallon drums are
used in the drops. M-4 fue:l thickener is mixed with gasoline to form a six per cent solution of thickened fuel.
j DA TC 3-336
1965 j Twenty drums will be carried on one
mission (or more common terminology, one "drop").
[LTC RudrowJ
5. The number of missions over a target area is
dependent on the requirement to have a .90 probability of
success from one or more drops.
6. When available, security forces consist of two AH-1G
arnied helicopters.
However, unlike herbicide missions with
the UH-1, firebombing missions will not be flown unless one
AH-lG is present.
One OH-6A or OH-58A light observation
helicopter will provide the necessary control. [LTC RudrowJ
100
�B.
PARAMETERS
1.
Flying Hours
Initially, the flying hours for the CH-47 that will
be used as basis for the analysis will be the saiae as the
other aerial systems. A mission duration of one-half hour
implies that the helicopter will fly 100 sorties per month
in order to reach the specified 600 flying hours per year.
However, like the UH-1 helicopter, this is below the CH-47's
programmed limit of flying (720 hours per year) in an active
combat environment.
|DA FM 101-20 1970 J The effects of
this difference will be examined in a sensitivity analysis
of the sortie generation rate in Section E.
2. CostBounds
The bounds on the mission costs are obtained by the
variation cf the security and control posture that often
results during normal employment. Control of a drop is
accomplished by a representative of the ground commander in
an LOH. However, if the Chinook pilots are familiar with
the mission and the AO, the presence of the LOH is unnecessary. Under normal operating conditions, security is
provided by two AH-lG helicopters.
The lower cost bound
is reached when only one armed helicopter is used.
The use
of one "Cobra," even under die most austere conditions, is
due to the vulnerability and lack of maneuverability of the
CH-47.
101
�C. COST ANALYSIS
1. Isolation of Relevant Costs
The only costs incurred by this method of vegetation
removal are those that are categorized as operating costs.
The procurement of the CH-47 is treated as a sunk cost since
the helicopter is diverted from normal lift missions to
conduct firebombing operations.
a. 0 & M cost is rated at 15 per cent of the
procurement cost of the helicopter, j Mr. Donaldson! The
w»
*i
procurement cost for the CH-47C is $1,536,424.
700-200 197l]
O & M cost:
b. Crew salaries:
[DA SB
$230,000 per ycir.
Crew consists of two officers
and one enlisted roan. [DA FM 101-20 1970] Total cost:
$38,000 per year.
(Major Howe]
c. Security forces:
$200 per mission (U}-2 AH-lG's.
$100 per mission (L)-1 AH-lG.
(Appendix A)
d. Control:
$ 25 per mission (U)
0
(Appendix C)
e. Thickened fuel:
(L)
$163 per mission. (Appendix C)
2. Mission Cost
SC = (O & M cost + Salaries)
Number of Missions/Year
+ Security cosfc +
Control cost + Agent cost
Cost per Mission
LOWER BOUND
UPPER BOUND
$ 486
$ 611
102
�3. Yearly Costs
The yearly cost is extremely sensitive to the input
parameters.
This, coupled with the fact that the CH-47
would never be solely employed for fireborabing missions,
diminishes its importance.
Cost per Year
I^JWER BOUND
UPPER BOUND
$583,200
D.
$733.200
EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES
1.
Effectiveness Criteria
a. MOE t 1 - "Area"
The effectiveness of any one mission is contingent upon many variables. The condition of the vegetation,
weather, scattering effect of the incendiary fuel, and the
probability of detonation of the drura cluster require that
the evaluation of effectiveness be accomplished with a
probabalistic model. An appropriate model would be a two
or three dimensional fragmenting projectile model.
However,
this would require the determination of a lethality function
and directional variances of the bursting radii of the
cluster just to obtain a conditional single drop probability
of burn (pB). Since this data was not available, a
model was used. The probability statement is:
Prob
Fire burns 50 acres in one
or raore drops (missions)
when n drops are made
103
= Prob(pB,n) = . 0
9.
�This uses the data from assumption # 5 and has the implicit
assumption that 50 acres will be burned per B drops
(missions).
Prob(pB,n) = 1 - (1 - pB)n
where pB
is the probability that 50 acres are burned on
any particular drop.
Inherent in this model are the assumptions that:
(1) pB
is the same for all drops.
(2) There is statistical independence between drops
(or no information is gained from one mission to the other).
An evaluation of n
for Prob(pR,n) £ . 0 yields:
9
PB
n
.2
10
.3
7
.918
.4
5
.922
.5
4
.3
98
.6
3
.936
.7
2
.1
9
.8
2
.6
9
.9
1
.
9
Prob(pB,n)
. fapp)
9
For this portion of the analysis, PQ = .4, which will
necessitate five drops or missions to insure a .9 probability of burning 50 acres on at least one of the five drops.
b. KOE # 2 - Constrained Cost Minimization
Minimiza the cost of burning 6,000 acres
104
�Subject to:
Mission completion £ 30 days
Assets required £ Local command supply capability
Two CH-47 helicopters would be required to fly ten sorties
per day for 30 days in order to be 90 per cent sure that
this method would burn off 6,000 acres. Like aerial delivery of herbicides in the UH-1 constrained cass, this
represents a significant drain on the area's aviation asset*:,
Few commanders could afforci such a program due to the
important role the "Chinook" plays in combat support and
combat service support operations in an insurgency conflict.
For this reason, it is felt that the second constraint is
violated, and thus, the alternative is infeasible. The area
would have to be reduced significantly for firebombing to be
a viable alternative.
2. Cost-Effectiveness Measures
N x Mission Cost
System Cost = ;
where N = the
50 acres/mission
nuraber of missions (drops).
No differentiation is made between crop destruction and
foliage removal for this alternative.
The reviewer should
not overlook the problems encountered in RVK when attempts
tfere made to burn large caches of dry rice.
Therefore, live
rice and other paddy-type crops would be virtually impervious to destruction by firebombing.
105
�Tafcle
tfll-1:
Cost-Sffecti mess Measures for FireboiBbing
(DolJ ;:s per Acre)
MINIMUM
$49
E.
MAXIMUM
$61
PARAMETER SENSITIVITY
1.
Sensitivity ofSortie GenerationRate (Table VII-2J
Table VII-2 indicates that the number of missions
flown per month has relatively little effect on the cost of
burning an acre.
iMs is due to the fact that only $223 per
mission are subject to fluctuations caused by a variable
sortie rate.
(Mission cost vectorj ($611, $456).) The
remainder of the costs are caused by security, control, and
fuel costs and these are based OE a flat rate per sission.
2.
Sensitivity of Probability of Burn on any Single
Drop (pB)
(Table VII-3)
T*»is testing shows the effect of varying the single
drop probability of burn over a reasonable range of values,
In actual operations, pB would law- a tendency to be at the
lower end of this spectrum rather tfian the higher.
3.
Sensitivity of Security
tests
(Table VII-4)
These parameter values raage from zero to the cost
that would be ir-urred if three escort heliccpters accompanied the mission.
106
�TABLE VII-2
SENSITIVITY AKM.YSIS - FIREBOMB ING WITH CH-47
SENSITIVITY OP SORTIE GENERATION R .TE ($/ACRE)
SORTIES
PER MO.
HOURS
PER YEAR
SYSTEM COST
MIN.
SYSTEM COST
MAX.
78.
470.
54.81
67.31
80;
480.
54.22
66.72
82.
490.
53.65
66.15
83.
500.
53.10
65.60
85.
510.
52.57
65.07
87.
520.
52.07
64.57
88.
530.
51.58
64.08
90.
540.
51.11
63.61
92.
550.
50.66
63.16
93.
560.
50.23
62.73
95.
570.
49.81
62.31
97.
580.
49.40
61.90
98.
590.
49.01
61.51
100.
600.
48.63
61.13
102.
610.
48.27
60.77
103.
620.
47.91
60.41
105.
630.
47.57
60.07
107.
640.
47.24
59 74
108.
650.
46.92
59.42
110.
660.
46.60
59.10
112.
670.
46.30
58.80
113.
660.
46.01
58.51
115.
690.
45.72
58.22
117.
700.
45.44
57.94
118.
710.
45.17
57.67
120.
720.
44.91
57.41
107
�TABLE VII-3
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - FIREBOKBING WITH CH-47
SENSITIVITY OF PROBABILITY OP BURN ON ONE DROP
(§/Acre)
# OF DROPS
10.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
4.
3.
3.
' 3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
P.
SYSTEM COST
MIK.
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
97.27
77.81
68.09
58.36
48.63
38.91
38.91
29.18
29.18
29.18
19.45
19.45
19.45
19.45
9.73
SYSTEM COST
KAX.
122.27
97.81
65.59
73.36
61.13
48.91
48.91
36.68
36.68
36.68
24.45
24.45
24.45
24.45
12.23
TABLE VII-4
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - FIREBOMBISG WITH CH-47
SENSITIVITY OF THE SECURITY COSTS
($/Acre)
SECURITY COSTS
($/MSN)
SYSTEM COST
MIK.
SYSTEM COST
KAX.
0.
25.
50.
75.
100.
38.63
41.13
43.63
46.13
48.63
41.13
43.63
46.13
48.63
51.13
125.
51.13
53.63
150.
175.
200.
225.
250.
275.
300.
53.63
56.13
58.63
61.13
63.63
66.13
68.63
56.13
58.63
61.13
63.63
66.13
68.63
71.13
108
�VIII.
INSIGHTS AND CONCLUSICTIS
The need for defoliation and crop destruction is a
direct result of the tropical growth, clinate, and peculiarities of insurgency warfare.
It would be difficult to
imagine the necessity of these measures in a conventional
war in a barren country like the Republic of Korea or in
many areas of Western Europe. Conventional war raises the
additional security problem of antiair protection and the
costs incurred to insure local air superiority.
These and
other problems of the "linear war" have not been considered
here.
Hence, ths conclusions drawn froa this study are
applicable only to those parts of the world affected by
certain climates, vegetation, and the press4-7 needs of
con&ating an eneasy insurgent.
A.
RESULTS OF TEE ANALYSIS
1. MOE # 1
The first measure of effectiveness attempted to
focus on each system's performance capability. A complete
display of the results allows a better comparison of the
alternatives.
Table VIII-1: Cost-Effectiveness Vectors for KOE * 1
(Dollars per Acre)
IGLIAGE REMOVAL
HERBICIDES
UC-123 UH-1H
TACTICAL LAND
CLEARING
"SLASH AKD
BURN"
FIREBOMB ING
MAX.
$47
$35
$90
$180
$61
MIN.
$3S
$27
$12
$ 18
$49
109
�CROP DESTRUCTION
HERBICIDES
UC-123 UH-1H
TACTICAL LAND
CLEARING
"SLASH AND
BURiT,
FIREBOMBING
§29
MIN.
$17
$25*
§28
$61*
$10
$ 5
$12*
$18
$49*
*Not appropriate where rice is the staple of the diet.
Table V-5)
(See
Tactical land clearing and "slash and burn" clearing
show considerable variability in their maximum and minimum
cost limits. This is due to the terrain sensitive nature
of both systems. This, coupled with the different clearing
results (one improves vertical surveillance while the other
improves both vertical and horizontal surveillance), makes
comparison with aerial-supported methods difficult.
If
comparisons are made within aerial categories and within
ground categories for each mission type, dominance can be
used to eliminate some vectors, since the maximum and
minimum limits for these two groups of systems are caused
by the same factors.
FOLIAGE REMOVAL
Aerial Systems
UH-1
Ground Systems
"Rome Plow"
MAX.
$35
$90
MIN.
$27
$12
When tactical land clearing and firebocibing are
eliminated as alternatives for crop destruction, herbicide delivery by UH-1 dominates all other vectors.
110
�2. HOE # 2
This measure of effectiveness attempted to amplify which
system(s) could meet a rigorous set of hypothetical combat
conditions.
The program format was:
Minimize the cost of defoliating/clearing
6.000 acres
Subject to:
(1) Mission accomplishment in 30 days
( ) A reasonable amount of assets to
2
complete the task.
The major additional assumptions stated:
( ) Spraying (using Agent ORANGE) must be
1
accomplished within five days.
( ) The vegetation is either medius or heavy and
2
area clearing is required.
(3) Ground systems are considered to be in a
high state of readiness.
Table VIII-2: Cost Minimization vectors for Foliage Removal
( 0 0 acres) with Tice and Resource Constraints
60
(Costs in Dollars)
Herbicides
UC-123K
Tactical Land Clearing
IU)
$272,100
§615,600
(L)
$227,900
$244,800
**Infeasible alternatives are not shown.
The preceding table shows that only two alternatives
can meet a stringent set of combat conditions.
Ill
�More important than the actual dollar costs is the
relative cost difference between the tvro systems. By
looking at this change in the cost minimization vectors, it
is possible to examine the incremental costs incurred to
vgain another dimension in surveillance capability.
A
defoliation mission usually improves only vertical surveillance.
Although roost of the leaves are off the vegetation,
the trees and undergrowth remain to restrict visual and
electronic surveillance frcru the ground-
a tactical land
clearing operation removes all vegetation and thus produces
a horizontal capability ai well as the vertical.
It can
also be assumed that an area which has been subjected to
land clearing restricts enemy movement and channelizes his
movement far more th?Jt the same defoliated terrain.
B.
INSIGHTS
In order to check the information of Table ¥111-2 is
not biased by the scale of the operation, the mission size
can be restricted.
By reducing the area by 50 per cent,
another set of cost minimization vectors can be obtained.
The assumptions of KOE # 2 are maintained with the exception
of having the UC-123 flights ran^e from two to five aircraft.
Table VIII-3:
Cost Minimization Vectors forVegetation
-.emoval of 3,000 Acres
(Costs in Dollars)
HERBICIDES
UH-1
TACTICAL LAKD
UC-123
CLEARIKG
(U)
?100,700
$136,050
$307,800
(L)
$ 80,700
$112,930
$112,400
112
�(Firebombing would be feasible only if the area were less
than 1,000 acres.)
The relaxation of mission requirements indicates that
the UE-1 defoliation system is minimum cost system and for
this program dominates the other alternatives. However,
the figures do not show the faster mission accomplishment
rate of the UC-123 or the complete clearance capability of
the D7 tractor equipped with the Rome K/G clearing blads.
In order to gain isore insight into the problem of
distinguishing between the systems, a "conanen mission"
vector can be obtained for each alte .'native.
This vector
attempts to show the cost per acre for foliage removal under
conditions that are most likely to occur in a counterinsurgency situation.
It differs from the results of
Table VIII-1, which were oriented toward optimistic and
pessimistic estimates, in that it can be considered to be
the "best estimate."
The conditions making up the "coirjrson
mission" are:
1. Defoliation/foliage
removal operation (far more
cciCTon than crop destruction).
2. The vegetation is classified as medium or heavy
since thicker terrain is more valuable to the enemy for use
as sanctuaries, staging areas, hospitals, and base carcps.
3. Clearing is limited to area type since strip
clearance is restricted to vegetation removal (anti-arabush
measures) along lines of cocnunication.
113
�4. Defoliation systems use Agent ORANGE since it is
faster acting than WHITS but not as persistent.
5. Land clearing units have two operators per tractor
and the optimum security and control available.
Reference:
Table IV-6A, Table V-4, Table VI-2, and
Table VII-1.
Table VIII-4: Common Mission Vectors (Dollars/Acre)
HSRBICIDES
UH-1
UC-123
TACTICAL LAND
CLEARING
"SLASH AKD
BURN"
PIREBOKBING
()
U
$34
$45
$56
$180
$61
()
L
$27
$36
$34
$ 79
$49
Again, herbicide delivery by UH-1 helicopter dominates
"*-il other alternatives.
These results serve to confirm the
findings shown in Tables VIII-1 through VIII-3.
C.
CONCLUSIONS
The cost-effectiveness measures obtained in this study
through the evaluation of the two measures of effectiveness
indicate that a force mix of herbicide aircraft and land
clearing tractors woyldrocs'-likely provide a costeffective solution to the foliage removal/crop destruction
missions faced during counterinsurgency operations in an
RVN-type environment, especially when one takes into
account that horizontal and vertical vision is desirable.
However, this is not meant to exclude the employment of
fireboxr£>ing or "slash and burn" clearing %\?hen the other
systems are not available to do the job.
114
�The ratio of the force-mix must be determined through
further examination of the problem. The decision to use
the UH-1, UC-123, or both as herbicide delivery systems
would depend on the intensity of the conflict, the commitment of U.S. assets, and the desired flexibility of the
over-all force structure. Certainly the helicxpter provides
more flexibility since it can be used for «any other combat
support tasks, fhe UC-123 accomplishes its mission at a
much faster rate but is entirc-ly cojiiBitted to aerbicide
operations since its configuration does not lend itself to
easy modification.
Likewise, the aaount of tractors and
their desired organization (sections, companies, battalions)
would be a function of the increased costs that the decision maker might be willing to accept to gain tJie benefit
of a two dimensional '.surveillance capability.
If the results of this study are to be useful in the
allocation of funds to foliage removal/crop destruction
missions, the decision maker must develop a detailed
situation estimate and employment model. This would include
a threat analysis of enemy forces and capabilities, an estimate of friendly forces and objectives, and a contingency
analysis of possible commitment areas.
If this were
accomplished and if an RVN- type environment were encountered
in the scenario, then the results of this study nay be
applicable in determining a proper mix of systens to effectively accomplish these two combat support missions.
115
�APPENDIX A
DETAILED HERBICIDE COSTS
A.
UC-123K
1. yearly operating cost for a squadron in Pacific Air
Force (PACAF);
[captain Wallace^
Direct element
Modification/spares
Maintenance - Operating
Support Equipment
Personnel
§ .5 million
$1.7 million
$ .1 million
$2.9 million
$5.2 million
Major support commands
Base operating
Depot Maintenance
$ .7 million
$1.2 million
$1.3 million
other
$3.2 million
TOTAL = $8.4 million
This figure is for 12 aircraft.
Thus the operating cost for
one aircraft is $700,000 per year.
2.
Modification costs
a.
[Hiss LuckyJ
Installation of the Hayes AA-45 system.
Total
of 51 aircraft modified.
$1.4 million
$ .3 million
$ .2 million
$1.9 million
b.
Hardware
Installation
Initial Spares
Engine modification.
$36.1
$11,2
$ 8.1
$55.4
million
million
million
million
116
Total of I .3 aircraft.
Hardware
Initial spares
Installation
�c. Armor plating. Total of 31 aircraft.
§400,000
$100,000
$100,000
$600.000
B.
Hardware
Initial spares
Installation
UH-1H
Security costs for UH-1 herbicide missions.
flying hour costs for AH-lG: $64 per hour
1970J or $32 per mission.
Direct
[DA FM 101-20
If approximately $70 were
allowed for munitions and salaries of pilots, the cost of
one AH-lG on a security escort mission would be $100.
117
�APPENDIX B
DETAILED COSTS FOR TACTICAL LAND CLEARING
A.
Cost of lubricants and filters.
The Caterpillar
Performance Handbook (Sec. 21, p. 5) gives a quick estimate
of $.26 per based on oil at $1 per U.S. gallon, grease at
$.20 per pound, EP oil at $1.10 per U.S. gallon, and filters
at U.S. Consumer's List Prices.
Under heavy operating
conditions, these costs increase by 25 per cent.
B.
Typical repair costs over a two-year period for medium
tractor and Rome kit
Number
5
2
1
5.5
18
2.5
1.2
2
C.
in RVN:
Major Bennett]
Eguipr;.3nt
Unit Cost Total Cost
Engir/5
Transmissions
Winch
Cabs
Cutting Blades
Blades
Radiators
Track assembly
$6,129
$4,498
$4,750
$1,600
$ 278
$1,887
$1,200
$1,249
$30,645
$ 8,996
$ 4,750
$ 8,800
$ 5,004
$ 4,718
$ 1,440
$ 2,498
$66,850
Security cdsts are based on the approximate field
strengths of an armored cavalry troop and a aechanized
infantry rifle company ( )
-.
Usually, the trocp will field
approximately 130 to 140roei.while the infantry company
would have between 100 and 120 men. The cavalry troop
would have 20 or more tracked vehicles and tbe infantry
unit would have 10 to 15.
118
�D. Costs for a light observation helicopter are based on
direct flying hour costs of $30 per hour. JDA FM 101-20
1970]
E. Transportation Cost to RVN:
Shipping, Surface
General Cargo ($/Ton)
Line Haul within U.S.
Port Handling, West Coast
Ocean Shipping
" Port Handling, RVN
Other
"
D7 Tractor:
Rome kit and blade:
Equipment weights:
$40
$21
$72
$14
$3
$150 per Ton
jpCSLOG 1971]
16 tons x $150/ton = $2400
6 tons x $150/ton = $ 900
JMr. Soules I.
119
�APPENDIX C
DETAILED COSTS FOR FISIS3MBING
A,
Control costs are based on direct hour flying costs of
the LOH which are $30 per hour.
JJ3A FM 101-20
197o[|
This
coupled with the pilot's salary and Use ground commander's
representative yields a control cost cf $25 per mission.
B.
Thickened Fuel:
Pounds of M4 Thickener Headed for XJmrious Blends of
Thickened Fuel
Gallons of Gasoline
4%
«3&
8%
40
5
?%
10
50
6%
1§
13%
[DA tC 3-366
1965J
Ten pounds of M4 thickener are used with each druo (55
gallon) of gasoline.
M4 thickener costs $1.30 per 20 pound
can.
1971 ] Using a cost of $.15 per gallon
j~DA SB 700-200
of gasoline, a drum of thickened fuel «^osts $8.15.
$8.IS/drum x 20 drums/mission = 5163 per mission
120
�APPENDIX D:
DATA SOURCES
The personnel listed in this appendix contributed in the
assembly of data for the study.
The contributions and the
office/address (as of June 1971) are listed as documentation.
1. Aerial delivery of herbicides.
Mr. Carlton W. Carter: USAF Deputy Chief of Staff (DCS),
Systems and Logistics (S & L), Washington, D. C. Costs of
herbicides to include transportation and storage.
a. UC-123K
(1) Miss Joyce B. Lucky:
USAF ODCS, S & L,
Washington, D. C. UC-123 codification costs for engine
modifications, spray systera, and armor plating.
(2) captain James A. Wallace, USAF:
Office of the
Coiaptroller of the Air Force, Washington, D. C. Procurement
and operating costs for the UC-123K.
(3) Major Robert Pyatt, USAF: ODCS, Plans and
Operations {Special Operations Division), Washington, D. C.
General information about herbicide operations.
(4) Major Peter D. Hidalgo, USA: Office of the
Assistant Chief of Staff for Force Development (OACSFCR),
Washington, D. C. Verification of sortie duration and
sortie generation rates.
(5) LTC Kenneth M. Cooper, USAF: ODCS. S & L,
Washington, D. C. Operating cost for A-1E.
121
�(6)
LTC Arthur L. Monahan, USAF:
Washington. D. C.
(7)
ODCS, S & L,
Munition costs for FAC's.
Major John D. Sins, USAF:
Resources, Washington, D. C.
ODCS, Programs and
Hourly operating costs for
the OV-10 and A-1E.
b. UH-1:
(1) LTC Manuel L. Sanches and LTC Robert G. Rudrow,
USA:
OACSFOR, Washington, D. C. Aerosol system and capa-
city, attrition rates, security configurations, mission
duration, and system coverage.
(2) Mr. F. X. Donaldson:
OACSFOR, Washington, D. C.
Maintenance factors and expected life of UH-1.
( ) Mr. Drake: Operations Manager, Agricultural
3
Aviation Engineering Company, 1333 Patrick Lane, Las Vegas,
Nevada, S9109. AGAVENCO System: Cost, size, maintenance
factor, and capacity.
(4) Major Robert Howe, USA: Engineer Strategic
Studies Group, Washington, D. C. Personnel salaries costs
and transportation costs for the AGAVENCO.
2. Tactical Land Clearing.
a. Major Richard Bennett, USA: Engineer Strategic
Studies Group (ESSG), Washington, D. C. 07 tractor and Rome
kit repair costs and rates.
b.
Mr. Jim Guthrie: Supervisor of Defense services
Section, caterpillar Tractor Company, Peoria, Illinois.
General information about the Caterpillar tractor.
122
�c. Mr. J. T. Soules: Vice President of International
Department, Rome **low Company, Cedartown, Georgia. General
information about the Rome clearing blade and kit.
3. "Slash and burn" Clearing.
Mr. Elton Underwood:
ESSG, Washington. D. C. Payaent
rates for indigenous clearing crews and verification of
clearing rates.__
4. Firebopbing.
LTC Robert G. Rudrow, USA: OACSFOR, Washington, D. C.
Security, control, equipment, and duration of the missions.
123
�BIBLIOGRAPHY
Some sources listed in this bibliography are classified.
However, the information used in this study came from
unclassified sections of these documents.
1. American Ersbassy, Report on theHerbicide Policy Review
(U) , ySOlil'IDttft'PBf, Saigon, August 1968.
2. Augusta, Joseph H, and Snyder, Christopher L., Defense
Planning In A High Inflation Economy, paper presented
at 26th Military operations Research Symposium,
Monterey, California 17-18 Kovember 1970.
3.
Boffey, Philip M., "Herbicides in Vietnam: AAAS Study
Finds Widespread Devastation," Science, v. 171,
p. 43-47, 8 January 1971.
4.
Caterpillar Tractor Coir.pany, Peoria, Illinois, The
Caterpillar Performance Handbook, e«I. I, section 21,
Deceirber 1970.
5.
Cook, Robert E., Haseltine, William, and Galston, A. W.,
"What Have We Done to Vietnam?" The new Republic,
p. 18-21, 10 January 1971.
6.
"Defoliants-A Closed Case?"
15 January 1971.
7.
Department of the Air Force, Air Force Manual 172-3,
USAF Planning Factors (U), iTi'll lliliLll Hi . H Washington,
'i
D. C., 31 March 1971.
8.
Department of the Army, 18th Engineer Brigade, APO San
Francisco 96307, Demonstration and Testing in Vietnam,
July-August 1966.
•
Commonweal,
p. 363-364,
9.
, DA PAH 525-6, Lessons Learned - Land
Clearing, p. 23-79, Washington, D. C,, June 1970.
10.
, DCS Logistics, Transportation Analysis
Division, Budget Cost Factors for Cargo Movements,
p. 1-3, Washington, D. C., 15 July 1971.
124
�11.
, Fact Sheet.- Personnel Investnsant Costs,
Washington, D. C., 12 October 1971.
12.
, FM 101-20, united States Army Aviation
Planning Manual (U), CONFIDENTIAL, p. 1-10, p. 4-2 4-3, Washington, D. C., August 1970.
13.
, SB 700-200, Array Adopced/Other Selected
Items and List ofReportable Items, p. 2-355 - 2-358.
Washington, D. C., December 1970.
14.
, TC 3-16. Employment of Riot Control Agents,
Flame, Smoke, Ahtiplant Agents, and Personnel
De tec tors in Co untergue r r ilia opera t ions, p. 62 - 81,
Washington, D. C., April 1969.
15.
, TC 3-366, Flame FueIs, p. 3 - 5, p. 8 - 13.
Washington, D. C., July 1965.
16. Directorate, Tactical Evaluation, Project CHECO Southeast Asia F°p^rt July 1961 - June 1967 (u),
SECRET, Headquarters pacific Air Force, 11 October
1967.
17. Downs, E. D. and Scrivner, J. H., De fo1iat ion Opera tions
in Southeas t Asia (U), SECRET, Maxwell AFB, Alabama,
1970.
18. Fisher, Gene H., Cost Considerations in Systems Analysis.
p. 63-118, American Elsevier Publishing Co.. 1971.
19. Gonzales, Arturo F., "Defoliation - A Controversial U.S.
Mission in Vietnam," Data, v. 13, p. 12-15, October
1968.
20. Goodell, Hon. Charles E. (New York), U.S., Congress,
Senate, Congressional Record, 91st Cong., 2d sess.,
S-1574-S-1580.
21. Headquarters, 62d Engineer Battalion, APO San Francisco
96491, Letter, Subject: "Ea^ic Land Clearing
Briefing," February 1971.
22.
, Letter, Subject: "Narrative to Accompany
Slide Briefing, 11 April 1971.
23. Headquarters, 169th Engineer Battalion, APO San Francisco,
Letter, Subject; "Land Clearing Test Program
Completed, 16 August 1971.
�24. Hersh, Seymour M. , Chemical and Bio log-teal Warfare America's Hidden Arsenal, p. 144-167, Bobbs -Merrill
Company, 1968.
25. Heyroont, I. and others, A Guide for Reviewers of Studies
Containing Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Research
Analysis Corporation, July 1965.
26. Hirshleifer, J. , Investment, Interest, and Capital, p.
48-49, Prentice-Hall, 1970.
27.
House, W. B. and others. As sesstnen t o f Ecolog ical
Effects of Extensive or Repeated Use of Herbicides,
p. 1-72 and p. 108-150, Midwest Research Institute,
30 November 1967.
28.
Kastenroeier, Hon. Robert W. (Wisconsin)* U.S., Congress,
House, "Ecological Destruction in Vietnam,"
Congressional Record - Extension of Remarks, 92d Cong.,
1st sess., E-22SC - E-2293.
29. Lewallen, John, Ecology of Devastation;
p. 58-94, Penguin Books, 1971.
Indochina,
30. McCarthy, Richa7.-d p. , The ultimate Folly, p. 75-98,
Alfred A. Knopf/ 1971.
31. McConnell, Arthur F. (LTC, USAF) , "Mission: Ranch Hand,"
Air University Review, p. 89-94, v. 21, n. 2, JanuaryFebruary 19^0.
32. Nelson, Hon. Gay lord (Wisconsin), U.S., Congress, Senate,
"Environmental Warfare," congressional Record , 91st
Cong., 2d sess., S-14217-S-14230.
33. Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Systems
Analysis') , Southeast Asia Analysis Report - March/April
1971 (U) , SECRET, p. 35-36 and p. 41-43, Washington,
D. C., 14 May 1971.
34. Orians, Gordon H. and Pfeiffer, E. W. , "Ecological
Effects of the Wai in Vietnam," Science, v. 168,
p. 544-554, 1 May 1970.
35. _
, and _
, "Mission to Vietnam - Part
I," Scientific Research, v. 4, p. 22-30, 9 June 1969.
36. _
, and _
, "Mission to Vietnam - Part
II," Scientific Research, v. 4, p. 26-30, 23 June 1969.
126
�37. Rome plow company, cedartown, Georgia, Land Clearing
Equipment for Vietnam, p. 1-5, 22 April 1966.
38.
, Presentationto U. S. Army - Equipment for
Land Clearing in Vietnam, p. 108, 9 February 1966.
3S.
, Salesgraro; Guide for Estimating Production
with Rome K/G Clearing Blade, 1 September 1971.
40.
, Military Applications of the Rome K/G
Clearing Blade, November 1971.
41. Tschirley, Fred H., "Defoliation in Vietnam," Science,
v. 163, p. 779-786, 21 February 1969.
42. U.S. Anxsy Combat Developments Command (USACDC), Table of
Organization and Equipment 5-87T - Engineer Land
Clearing Company, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 7 February
1969.
43. Westing, Arthur H., "Ecocide in Indochina," Natural
History, v. 80. p. 56-60, March 1971.
44. Young, Hon. Stephen K. (Ohio), U. S., Congress, Senate,
Congressional Record. 91st Cong., 2d sess., S-21486 S-21488.
127
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange
Description
An account of the resource
<p style="margin-top: -1em; line-height: 1.2em;">The Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange comprises 120 linear feet and spans the late 1800s to 2005; however, the bulk of the coverage is from the 1960s to the 1980s and there are many undated items. The collection was donated to Special Collections of the National Agricultural Library in 1985 by Dr. Alvin L. Young (1942- ). Dr. Young developed the collection as he conducted extensive research on the military defoliant Agent Orange. The collection is in good condition and includes letters, memoranda, books, reports, press releases, journal and newspaper clippings, field logs and notebooks, newsletters, maps, booklets and pamphlets, photographs, memorabilia, and audiotapes of an interview with Dr. Young.</p>
<p>For more about this collection, <a href="/exhibits/speccoll/exhibits/show/alvin-l--young-collection-on-a">view the Agent Orange Exhibit.</a></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Box
The box containing the original item.
015
Folder
The folder containing the original item.
0160
Series
The series number of the original item.
Series II
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Howard, John D.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1972-03-01
Title
A name given to the resource
Herbicides in Support of Counterinsurgency Operations: A Cost-Effectiveness Study
Subject
The topic of the resource
Ranch Hand aircraft
herbicide application
military impact
-
https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/speccoll/files/original/42cf7c14e91a84772f29cd3f258ff731.pdf
fd2cf2b6a328349550d5cf305cdc8e80
PDF Text
Text
INFO
PLAIN
McConnell, A.F.
1970
Mission: Ranch Hand
T f N t. T I. *
O
OF An« /;-
U,./
UJ
CM
CM N^ «K
I—
-X
^
•
«
O •£>
•,
CJ
o
o
x
ua
oooooooool
o>»ocxooooooWt
» « * * » * * *
<y
l^J
^fj
^jg gQ
50
tibn11w
f PFY
JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1970
C H A N G ? IN E A R N t D R t l H B M
UOO CFY
REIMS UOQ 1ST
UOO
uno
,«F
V'
�AIR
UNIVERSITY
THE
P R O F E S S I O N A L
review
J O U R N A L
OF
THE
UNITED
S T A T E S
THE AIR STAFF
Gen. John C. Meyer, USAF
AIR FORCE MANAGEMENT
Lt. Gen. Duward L. Crow, USAF
MILITARY PROGRAMMING AND BUDGETING PRACTICES
D. V. Schnurr
•/THE ENVIRONMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS IN THE 1970s
Dal Hitchcock
INFORMATION PROCESSING STANDARDS FOR COMPUTERS
Col. Lucius Theus, USAF
ON THE LEVERAGE OF MULTIPLE-PURPOSE WEAPONS
Richard H. Anderson
Dr. Bruno J. Manz
SOME ASPECTS OF AIR FORCE-UNIVERSITY RELATIONS
Dr. William J. Price
^HE TIME BARRIER: PSYCHOLOGICAL FRONTIER OF STUDENT ACTIVISM
1st Lt. Charles M. Plummer, USAF
Air Force Review
SIDE-FIRING WEAPON SYSTEMS
Lt. Col. Ross E. Hamlin, USAF
MISSION: RANCH HAND
Lt. Col. Arthur F. McConnell, Jr., USAF
In My Opinion
LAUNCH ON WARNING—A COUNTER TO THE ARMS RACE
Robert I. Widder
Books and Ideas
ON HISTORY AND STAFF WORK
Dr. I. B. Holley, Jr.
MILITARY HISTORY AND THE FIRST GREAT AIR WAR
Dr. James J. Hudson
THE CONTRIBUTORS
Address manuscripts to: Editor, Air Univcrtity Review, Aerospace Studies Institute. Maxwell Air Force Buse, Ala. 36112. Printed by
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Subscriptions are sold by Air University
Book Department, Maxwell Air Force Base,
Ala. 36112: yearly $4.50, back issues 75
cents. USAF RECURRING PUBLICATION 50-2.
Vol. XXI No. t
JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1970
AIR
FORCE
2
10
19
. . . .
28
36
46
57
65
76
89
95
101
109
114
the cover
With General John C. Meyer's article, "The
Air Staff," Air University Review enters
a new year and a new decade by beginning a new series of articles about the Air
Staff. In this, the first installment, Comptroller of Air Force activities are the center
of interest. Subsequent issues will focus
on other Air Staff agencies. Review readers will thus be given an up-to-date accounting of some of the important plans
and programs coming from the Air Staff.
�^MISSION: RANCH HAND
LlEUTKNANT COLOVEL AnTHXJK F. McC()NVKLL, Jit.
T
HE nature and environment of the conflict in South Vietnam have required the
U.S. and its allied military forces to revise
many traditional strategic and tactical concepts of operations. Without question one of
the most difficult and frustrating problems
facing these forces is that of actually locating
the enemy. The many densely forested areas
throughout the country afford the enemy excellent concealment, which permits him to
move personnel and supplies rapidly and with
impunity to within striking distance of key
government centers, lines of communication.
Special Forces camps, and other military
installations.
The use of air-delivered chemical defoliants as a tactical weapon to deny the enemy
concealment in forest areas evoked considerable interest in Southeast Asia as early as
1945. British forces operating in Malaya employed this tactic with a fair degree of effectiveness during the late 1940s, with helicopters
applying the defoliant along lines of communication. It was not until 195&-59, however,
that the United States undertook any largescale defoliation tests. As a result of the tests,
several acceptable defoliants and delivery
techniques were selected for further consideration.
In late 1961 a test program in South Vietnam was approved for the United States Air
Force. With the lull concurrence and support
of the government of the Republic of Vietnam
(CVN) and the Vietnamese Air Force, this
project, under the code name RANCH IIAVD,
began trial operations in January 1962 with
three specially equipped UO-123 aircraft based
at Tan Son N'hut Airport. Saigon. The initial
unit designation was "Special Aerial Spray
Flight." Because of the newness and uniqueness of this weapon sv stern, the volunteer
crews assigned to the RANCH IIAVD project designed their own concept of operations and an
entire range of tactics and delivery techniques.
Constantly innovating and modifying, the
crews slowly developed a highly effective
defoliant-delivery operation geared to the
varied tropical vegetation, foliage, and terrain
of Southeast Asia.
By June 1962 the crews of the Special
Aerial Spray Flight were ready to fly tactical
missions, and it was not long before the merits
of the delivery sxstem were proven. A notable
effort occurred in October 1962. when the
crews successfully completed their first largescale defoliation mission on the Can Man
Peninsula in the Mekong River delta. This
project was personally observed and evaluated
by the Chief of the U.S. Army Chemical Corps
as "outstanding."
Even so, defoliation operations in the following months wen- mostly conducted on a
moderate scale. By mid-1964. however, authority had been received to expand project
coverage and to establish limited operations
from Da Nang Air Base. The program \vas
proving its worth, and new target requests
were constantly being received.
As hostile ground fire became more intense;, the mission became extremely hazardous. The heroic efforts of the early spray crews
were not without cost. Since the need to assign
fighter aircraft to escort and support the defoliation project had not yet been recognized,
the spray aircraft were entirely defenseless.
However, despite the considerable number of
problems inherent in their mission, the RANCH
HAND crews delivered increasing amounts of
defoliant on targets from the Demilitarized
Zone (n\fz) to the delta.
Although RANCH HAND aircraft received
heavy automatic-weapons fire from the ground
with increasing regularity, it was not until
January 1965 that approval was granted to
prestrike targets with fighter aircraft and to
provide a fighter escort for the spray aircraft.
From that point forward, close-in fighter support was a vital part of the defoliation pro-
�90
AIR i:\ivF.nsin'
gram and made a significant contribution
toward minimizing the effect of ground fire
against tho defoliation aircraft, although it
could not entirely eliminate losses of aircraft
and crews.
Operations continued to increase during
1965, and tlie Special Aerial Spray Flight successfully completed defoliation of a number
of critical target areas. Particularly noteworthy
was the unit's work in the Rung Sat Special
Zone, a dense mangrove-covered swamp along
the main shipping channels into Saigon. Because of the excellent cover afforded by the
mangrove swamp, hostile forces operated with
near impunity throughout the area and constantly harassed allied shipping into and out
of the capital city. In March 1965 Rung Sat
was placed on the list of critical targets, and
in the following weeks sp. ay crows Hew 42
missions into the area, delivering over 77.000
gallons of defoliant on the target. The results
rank as one of the most successful de-foliation
projects carried out by RANCH HAND crews,
enabling friendly forces to sweep the area and
secure the shipping channels against further
enemy encroachment.
Another \ital target during this period
was War Zone D. In spite of hcav\ hostile
troop concentration within the target area and
almost continuous ground fire, tho spray crews
returned again and again until the project was
successfully completed.
Because of a greatly increased demand
for defoliation throughout South Vietnam, the
United States and South Vietnamese governments directed that the HANOI HAND program
be expanded. On 15 October 1966, the 12th Air
Commando Squadron (HA.NCIJ HAND—VILTVAM)
became an administrative and operational
reality. It was initially equipped with 18
UC-123 spray aircraft, and the crews—all
handpicked volunteers—quickly established an
outstanding reputation for mission accomplishment throughout South Vietnam.
Several important events occurred in the
months following establishment of the 12th
ACS. including approval to assign OIK; aircraft
to Operation Flyswaltor, a program designed
to deliver insecticides over various populated
areas throughout the country, to control ma-
laria mosquitoes and other disease-bearing
insects. Using techniques similar to those
employed in defoliation, the insecticide crews
made an outstanding contribution to the
health and welfare of the people of Vietnam.
I5y late 1966 the 12th ACS had significantly
increased ils defoliation operations and embarked upon another key project: the southern
half of the DM/, was approved for targeting.
Flying o\er flat terrain and visible to the
enemy for many miles throughout the target
run. the HAVCII HAND crews courageously defied groat odds to place their defoliant precisely on the briefed targets. As a result of
these operations, much of the southern portion
of tho DM/, was exposed, and the enemy was
denied ready access to his hitherto secure;
infiltration and supply routes into South Vietnam.
In December 1966, as RANCH HAND crews
continued their country-wide defoliation
schedule, the 12th ACS moved its operational
headquarters to Bien Iloa Air Base, where it
remains today.
During early 1967 the main areas of activity were War Zones C and D. while Da
Nang-based aircraft concentrated on targets
along enemy infiltration routes in South Vietnam. One of the highlights of this period was
Operation Pink Rose, a jungle-burning project
carried out by RANCH HAND crews. They (lew
approximately 225 sorties and delivered over
a quarter-million gallons of herbicide on
selected target areas in War Zones C and D.
successfully completing their part ill tho project in April 1967.
Target areas throughout the country wen;
sprayed during the remainder of 1967, particular emphasis being placed on vital targets
in the IV Corps area. This accounted for
a significant increase in hits received from
ground fire during 1967. since the flat terrain
of the delta region allowed enemy gunners to
see the spray aircraft coming from miles away.
The flexibility of the 12th Air Commando
Squadron \\as severely tested in February
196S. in the throes of the Communist Tet
offensive 1 . The unit was directed to assume an
airlift role under diree;tion of its parent organi/ation. the- 315th Air Commando Wing. The;
�A/rt FORCE REVIEW
RANCH HAND team stripped the aircraft of all
defoliation equipment, including tanks and
spray booms, and reported in. "Ready to go."
in the amazing time of 24 hours. During the
weeks that followed, crews of the 12th flew
2866 productive sorties in the airlift role, with
the same professionalism and /.eal which had
become the RANCH HAND trademark.
After the Tet offensive was blunted, the
UC-]23s were restored to their defoliation
mission. Again in minimum time, maintenance
teams reconfigured the aircraft, and spray operations were quickly resumed.
The remainder of 196S reflected a continning increase in the amounts of herbicides
dispensed and in the testing of new formations
and tactics. So that seasonal weather for spraying priority targets in I Corps might be used
to advantage, a significant increase was made
in the size of the detachment operating from
Da \ang Air Base, and the sortie rate doubled. RANCH HAND crews operating from this
forward base flew highly successful defoliation missions against some of the most heavily
defended areas in South Vietnam, including
the A Shau Valley, Khe Sanh. and as far south
as Pleiku. In defiance of the rugged mountain
terrain and accurate enemy antiaircraft fire,
the defoliation crews frequently went in over
these vital targets in order to open them np
for aerial observation. The results were always
outstanding, as attested to by Army commanders and aerial observers.
On 1 August 1968 all units in Southeast
Asia with an "Air Commando" designation
were renamed "Special Operations," and
RANCH HAND became the 12th Special Operations Squadron.
Between the date of the first RANCH HAND
flight in January 1962 and 1 January 1969,
defoliation crews made more than 19,000 combat sorties, all of which were flown under the
extremely difficult and hazardous circumstances associated with defoliation work. With
rare exceptions, target areas were occupied
and/or utilized by unfriendly forces, consisting primarily of hostile base camps and lines
of communication.
In this hostile low-level environment the
RANCH HANDS received more than 3500 hits
91
from all types of enemy ground fire. Yet, without hesitation, with complete disregard for
personal safety, and in outstanding displays
of courage and determination, combat crews
daily flew their four-minute target runs—the
"run of terror"—arid laid the defoliant with
near-perfect precision.
The enemy has testified to the effectiveness of HA NCI r HAND operations. A Viet Cong
prisoner of war observed that after a base area
had been sprayed the camp would be moved.
Kach man would pick up his hammock and
backpack and walk about three hours to a
new camp site. Another i>ow stated that defoliated areas hampered the vc in moving
and stationing troops. These areas had to be
avoided for nearly a year before they could
be reused.
When it was necessary to cross a defoliated area en route to an objective, the vc
waited for nightfall or crossed singly—either
course of action delaying the movement.
When it was necessary to cross small defoliated areas, they crossed in daylight, provided
the unit could assure itself that no aircraft
were in the vicinity. With regard to the defoliation along GVN lines of communication,
the vc published orders making the removal
of brush and trees along roads and waterways
a punishable offense: they used the cover for
hiding places from which to spring ambushes.
Our defoliation and subsequent removal of
vegetation along such lines were therefore a
prudent exercise.
^—,„.., .......
—•- "*Trp
'Defihite""a3vantages accrued from the de- 4/
foliation program, particularly along the lines
of communication in South Vietnam. In one
instance, no ambushes or hostile incidents
occurred after defoliation. In another, there
were only eleven in a four-month period. In
a third, the number of incidents decreased
from six in four months to four in six months.
During this same period, the amount of traffic
along the roads remained constant or increased. Thus defoliation resulted in a dramatic decrease in the incident rate, and the
potential for ambush was greatly reduced.
Defoliation along one river caused the vc to
evacuate their sheltered positions there. Along
another river, defoliation caused at least three
Continued on page 94
�Defoliation
Operations
The boundaries of a defoliation objective must be
carefully observed, to ensure maximum concentration
of the herbicide on Viet Cong areas. The formation
leader and following aircraft keep lateral distance so
as to cover the proper swath. . . . The Hayes AA-45
internal defoliant system . . . A C-123 modified for
defoliation operations . . . Spray as seen from the tail.
��94
AIR UNIVERSITY
REVIKW
ainbush attempts to fail in a region when;
/ they had regularly succeeded.
There was a vivid improvement in the
ability to find enemy routes of travel, bunkers,
structures, and defenses after the foliage cover
had been removed. Ground commanders reported increased visibility from 40 to 60 percent, while forward air controllers reported
improved aerial visibility from 70 to 90 percent.
~1
War Zones C and D were heavily defoliated. Prior to defoliation, seven brigades wen;
necessary to maintain U.S./GVN presence in
War Zone C; after defoliation, only three were
required. In War Zone D, only one brigade
was necessary after defoliation. In one instance plans called for a 22s-division effort to
be conducted. Defoliation made this operation
unnecessary. These examples emphasized the
value of the defoliation operations and underlined the need for continuation of the program.
IN SUMMARY, the defoliation program did
what it was intended to do. Viet Cong routes of
movement were revealed, and their hiding
places were eliminated. They were forced to
divert resources to noncombatant tasks—moving base camps, waiting for hours of darkness,
etc. The number of our trucks and troops lost
in ambushes decreased because of defoliation
operations.
The unique role played by RANCH HAND
in Southeast Asia bred an esprit de corps
among its members that became respected
throughout the area of operations. Taking
immense pride in their mission, their aircraft,
and their purple scarves, RANCH HAND crews
displayed gallantry and courage of the highest
order. With full knowledge of the importance
of their work, as well as its hazardous nature,
they continued on countless target runs while
receiving intense and accurate hostile ground
fire. They significantly increased the ability of
aerial observers to monitor the movements of
hostile forces and to direct fighter-bomber
strikes against them. More important, they
provided allied ground forces with protection
against sneak attack by depriving enemy
troops of valuable ambush positions, resulting
in many allied lives saved. In totality, they
enhanced the combat effectiveness of allied
air and ground forces fighting in Vietnam.
The obvious corollary to a successful air
mission is a reliable ground operation. The
dedication of the maintenance crews of the
12th Special Operations Squadron in preparing the aircraft for flight, in continually repairing battle-damaged aircraft, and returning
them to operational status in minimum time
is equally responsible for the success enjoyed
by the RANCH HAND mission. The 12th has
written a new page in the history of aerial
warfare.
Ent Air Force Basv, Colorado
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange
Description
An account of the resource
<p style="margin-top: -1em; line-height: 1.2em;">The Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange comprises 120 linear feet and spans the late 1800s to 2005; however, the bulk of the coverage is from the 1960s to the 1980s and there are many undated items. The collection was donated to Special Collections of the National Agricultural Library in 1985 by Dr. Alvin L. Young (1942- ). Dr. Young developed the collection as he conducted extensive research on the military defoliant Agent Orange. The collection is in good condition and includes letters, memoranda, books, reports, press releases, journal and newspaper clippings, field logs and notebooks, newsletters, maps, booklets and pamphlets, photographs, memorabilia, and audiotapes of an interview with Dr. Young.</p>
<p>For more about this collection, <a href="/exhibits/speccoll/exhibits/show/alvin-l--young-collection-on-a">view the Agent Orange Exhibit.</a></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Box
The box containing the original item.
015
Folder
The folder containing the original item.
0159
Series
The series number of the original item.
Series II
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
McConnell, Arthur F., Jr.
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Air University Review
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
January-February 1970
Title
A name given to the resource
Mission: Ranch Hand
Subject
The topic of the resource
Ranch Hand aircraft
military impact
-
https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/speccoll/files/original/1c371b863916809cb625476bd6ed4682.pdf
33ad85cdca7b643ae6a0411c790b26a2
PDF Text
Text
Item ID Number:
oooes
Author
Scheidecker, Robert N.
Corporate Author
u.s. Air Force
RBDOrt/ArtlOlO TltlO
Minij es:
t A/A45Y-1 Internal Defoliant Dispenser System Support Conference, 25 and
26 August 1966
Journal/Book Title
Year
1 66
Month/Day
Au ust
Color
w
Number of Images
45
DeSCPlptOn Notes
Pa9es 32-34 missing
9
a
Friday, December 01, 2000
Page 65 of 91
�, 1966
*
Minutes A/A45y-l internal defoliant dispenser
system: Support Conference
f
/
A/A45Y-1 INTERMAL DEFOLIANT
'25 AND 26 AUGUST 1966
�D E P A R T M E N T OF THP MR F O R C E
HLADOUAR"CRS EARNER ROBINS Aift MATERIEL AREA fAFLO
ROtlINi AIR FORCE BASE, GEORGIA 31093
•••'• iN "'•!" Wii'NQO (Mr.
1? Oct 1966
- .-JK i. I,or, I sties Support Conference, A/Al^Y-l Dispenser, Defoliant, C-123
A L r c r a f t (WHAMA(WRNQO) Ltr, 19 Sep 1966 and WRAMA Msg (U) WRNQ/O Sep 1966)
ro:
TAG (DOFT-S/Maj Marshall)
Langley AFB Va 23365
Request action Item Number 9-66-2 "TCTO for Installation of A/AloY-1
System in UC-123B Aircraft, Class V Mod 1776" be removed from
re-ferenced conference minutes and replaced with attached revised
Item Number 9-66-2 "Installation of A/Aii5Y-l System in C-123B
Aircraft".
FOR THE COMMANDER,,
ROBERT N. SCHEIDECKER
Major, USAF
Chief, Operations Branch
.
Directorate, Materiel Management
1 Atch
Subj Minutes Item Number 9-66-2
�Item Number 9-66-2 - .Installation of A/AJj$Y-3^ System in C-123B Aircraft:
a.
proM.em Presented:
Difficulty was reported by AFATL personnel in obtaining appropriate
documentation from C-123 Aircraft SSM for procurement of data on Eglin AFB
Contract AF 08(635)-l489li dated 20 Oct 1965. Also, problems were reported in
obtaining -1 Flight Manuals and Maintenance Handbooks by Ranch Hand Personnel.
b.
Progress to Date;
1. Since the A/Al^Y-l System was being procured on an R & D
Contract and had not been approved by CSAF/AFLC for installation in the C123
Aircraft, no action could be taken by the SSM to provide for procurement of
TCTO data.
2,, Flight and operational information for those C-123 Aircraft
having A/Al^Y-l System installed is provided in T. 0. 1C-123(B)-1 dated
1$ July 1?65 and 1C-123B(1)-15-1 dated 23 Apr 1966. VRAMA is now conducting a complete review of the -1 Manual and at completion any change needed will
be made. MR 1^78-3 dated 21. Jun 1966 approved procurement of necessary
installation TCTO 1C-123-590, Engineering Data and Handbooks changes for the
approved Class V Mod 1??6. Procurement action is now being negotiated with
F'airchild-Killer for this data. Pending delivery of this data, the schematics
and sketches as shown in the operational manual may be utilized to perform
minimum maintenance.
c. Action to be Taken and Action Agency :
!„ Ranch Hand Personnel take action through appropriate distribution channels to obtain available Dash One Handbook data for A/AliSl-l System
installed in C-123 Aircraft.
i
?„ SSM make follow-up action to assure procurement of additional
required data in a timely manner.
d.
3. SSM expedite - 1 Flight Manual Review.
i
Forecast for Completion;
Target date for delivery of additional data including published
-1 Flight Manual is Feb 196?.
�INDEX
Item Number
Title
Page Number
Summary
1
Section I
Introduction/Ranchijland^Report
2
Section n
A/A45Y-1 System Status
Technical Manual St atu s
3
4
9-66-7
Action Items
Ground Support Equipment
TCTO for Installation of A/A45Y-1 System in
UC-123B"Aircraft, Class V Mod 1776
Retrofit Installation of MARK m Engine
Spares
Retrofit Installation of Optimized (Redesigned^
Wing Boom on UC-123B Aircraft
Maintenance Data and Technical Order
Verification
M aintenance T raining of Ranch Hand Personnel
13
Section IV
General Comments/Observations
14
Section V
A/A45Y-1 Defoliation Conference Attendees
16
Section VI
Distribution
17
Section
A/A45Y-1 Internal DefolIant Dispenser System
System Description
Capabilities and Limitations
Leading Particulars
Tank and Cradle Assembly
18
Section III
9-66-1
9-66-2
9-66-3
9-66-4
9-66-5
9-66-6
Control Console
Dump Valve
Spray Boom
Aircraft Installation
Viet Nam Ranch Hand Operations
Optimized Defoliant Handling System
Portable Defoliant Handling Unit
5
5
7
8
10
11
12
18
18
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
32
37
�Figure Number
Title
Page Number
Illustrations
Figure 1
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 10
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Major Components of Defoliant Dispenser
Control Console
Dump Valve
Tail Spray Boom and Associated Plumbing
Wing Spray Boom
Existing Defoliant Transfer System Tan Son Nhut
Air Base, Viet Nam
Optimized Defoliant Handling System Layout
Defoliant Handling System Components
Tank Trailer Defoliation Liquid Refill
19
22
23
24
25
29
33
34
38
Photographs
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Defoliant Dispenser (right side)
Centrifugal Pump
Installation in C-123 (left side)
Installation in C-123 (right side)
Ranch Hand Work Area
Hour Glass Tank and Pump
Hour Glass Tank and Pump (insulated)
Hour Glass Spider Pump
20
21
26
27
30
30
31
31
�SUMMARY
1. The first Logistics Support Meeting for the A/AkSY-l Defoliant Dispenser
was held at Hayes International Corp, Birmingham, Ala., on 2li and 25 Aug 1966.
2. The purpose of this meeting was to review program status, evaluate
"l-'ajor Problem Areas", and initiate and assign action as required to assure
the timely and successful completion of program requirements for enhancement
of logistic support.
3. Areas within this program requiring action, further refinement and overall close surveillance are documented in section III and IV of these minutes.
h. A follow-up meeting was determined essential in order to review progress
made on action items, reassess support posture, and include representatives
of agencies absent from this meeting.
5. The minutes of this meeting will be used as a basis of agenda for the
next meeting. Each action agency should complete their assigned action
in accordance with the scheduled dates, if possible, and be prepared to
present status of action taken at the next scheduled meeting. Additional
items may be added to the agenda for review and discussion at this time.
However, to assure adequate time for evaluation and staffing, it is
necessary that proposed agenda items be submitted to WRAMA (WRNQO) at least
one week before the scheduled meeting date.
•
6. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled at Hayes International Corp.,
Birmingham, Ala., 11-1.3 Oct 1966. Confirmation of date and location will
be provided by separate correspondence.
7. It is desired to take this opportunity to compliment each representative
for his active participation and support. Especially appreciated are the
efforts of Hayes International in hosting this meeting and the fine
assistance rendered. The productive results obtained and anticipated as
a result of this meeting will be beneficial to all agencies concerned, and
should improve SE.A-s.upport and operational capability.
ROBERT N'. SCHEIDECKEY'"' ""*"
Major, USAF
Chief, Operations 'Branch
Directorate, Materiel Management
�SECTION I
INTRODUCTION/RANCH HAND REPORT
1. Mr. W. B. O'Neal welcomed the conferees and opened the meeting.
Introduction was given by Lt William Crea, Air Force Project Engineer.
Status of the program was reviewed by Mr. Don Smallwood, Hayes Project
Engineer (Reference Section II).
2. Captain Peshkin gave the report from Ranch Hand. They are growing
very rapidly and a considerable number of problems have developed. As
early as January or February, it was realized that additional aircraft
were going to be programmed for SEA. Storage, maintenance, and training requirements were anticipated; however, no staff support was furnished after discussions with operations and maintenance personnel at Tan
Son NHut. Finally, the aircraft began to arrive. Storage problems still
exist as does spare parts support. Flying continues at approximately
25 sorties per aircraft per month. This is the MACV planning figure
for programming chemicals. Ranch Hand would like to be able to operate
from an additional operating location in the II Corps area to increase
sortie effectiveness. There are presently 9 aircraft in the country 3 at Da Nang and 6 at Tan Son NHut. The operation continues successful
because the equipment is basically good and the air frame is the best
available. The defoliant system has the same characteristics, simplicity,
and reliability. The main problems are as indicated below. Ranch Hand
has been fortunate in their maintenance support resulting in almost 100$ aircraft availability. Many of Ranch Hand's problems could be
helped by better staff support.
�SECTION II
A/A45Y-1 SYSTEM STATUS
ITEM
CONTRACT
1. A/A45Y-1
Prototype
08(635)3609
2. A/A45Y-1
Production
08(635)3609
3. Dump Valve
Kit
08(635)4894
4. Wing Boom
Prototype
08(635)5710
5. Wing Boom
Production
08(635)5710
6. Engine Mod
Mark IH
08(635)4894
QUANTITY
DELIVERY
DATE
REMARKS
Sept. 1963
Used in C-130 Test
at Eglin
Systems started at
Hayes
20
Aug. 1964
Six Operational Systems
in Viet Nam. One
destroyed in C-123 crash
in Viet Nam. Seven
delivered to FairchildHiller Corp. for installation in C-123. One
awaiting dump valve and
will be shipped to Fairchild-Hiller. One remaining at Hayes for
Wing Boom Test. One
unassigned. Three
cannibalized for spare
parts by Eglin.
17
Aug. 1965
All operational
A/A45Y-1 systems
equipped with dump
valve.
Sept. 1966
Fabrication complete
by 23 Aug. 1966.
20
March 1967
(Anticipated)
Delivery to be 150 days
after approval of
Prototype.
15
Jan. 1967
(Anticipated)
Twelve to be installed
on new purchase of
twelve A/A45Y-1 by
WRAMA and the remaining three for
spares.
�TECHNICAL MANUAL STATUS
ITEM
STATUS
REMARKS
T. O. 11C15-3-4-2
FIELD, DEPOT OVERHAUL WITH IPB INTERNAL DEFOLIANT
DISPENSER MODEL
A/A45Y-1
Awaiting validation of
System Manual.
In process review performed at
Hayes by WRAMA, 20 and 21
July 1966
T. O. 11C15-3-4-2
FIELD, DEPOT OVERHAUL WITH IPB INTERNAL DEFOLIANT
DISPENSER MODEL
A/A45Y-1
In process.
Manual change to add Mark HI
engine pump controls
T. C. T. O.
(Proposed)
No contractural
requirements. Never
was negotiated as per
supplemental agreement number 2.
Contractor recommends preparation of T. C. T. O. for installation of system in C-123 aircraft
T. O. 11C15-3-4-2
FIELD, DEPOT OVERHAUL WITH IPB INTERNAL DEFOLIANT
DISPENSER MODEL
A/A45Y-1
In process.
Change to cover wing boom
program
T. C. T. O.
In process.
To cover installation of wing boom
A/A45Y-1 on C-123 for aircraft
T. O. 's
To cover installation of Mark HI
engine controls in field to retrofit
existing systems
T. C. T. O.
Awaiting receipt of 118A
and contract coverage
�SECTION III
ACTION ITEMS
Item Number 9-66-1 - Ground Support Equipment;
a.
Problem Presented;
(1) There are four 1,000 gallon Transfer Tanks (Hour Glass) and one
2,^00 gallon Fuel Servicing Unit, Type F-7 currently located at Tan Son NHut
with a 5,000 gallon R-2 Storage Tank in the process of installation. There
are also three 1,000 gallon Transfer Tanks (Hour Glass) located at Da Nang.
The unsystemized arrangement and limited capacity of this equipment does
not give sufficient capability to; (1) Fill aircraft that are located at
Tan Son NHut, (2) Turn-around aircraft as rapidly as necessary, and (3)
Operate with the three different type chemical agents now being used. The
present system is characterized by the following; (a) Insufficient tank
storage capacity, (b) Insufficient transfer capacity which limits turnaround time, (c) Inability to systematically select proper chemical
appropriate to target requirements, (d) Inability to evacuate unused
agent from tanks in aircraft.
(2) The present system is progressively deteriorating due to
use of 1952 vintage Hour Glass transfer equipment. This system cannot
be supported and therefore will be eliminated from inventory at failure
or when sooner replaced. Glaring deficiencies of this system are as noted;
(a) Non-standard system, (b) Limited or no spare parts available, (c)
Fire hose used to connect transfer tanks deteriorates in from h to 10 days,
( d ) Contamination of flow system (mainly due to rubber particles from fire
hose lining plus sand and other foreign particles introduced by siphoning
probes) because of lack of well thought out systems approach, (e) Inadequate
pumping capability (Spider pump used for siphoning agent from 55 gallon drums
is old and weak).
k-
Progress to JDate;
(1) An R-2 Storage Tank (5,000 gallon), salvaged from an R-2
Servicing Unit, is to be ins tolled by Ranch Hand to provide additional
transfer and storage capability and is awaiting plumbing installation by
Base Civil Engineer. (Compatibility of this tank with existing chemical
agents is doubtful).
(2) One F-7 Servicing Unit is now in use with five more on order.
(So far this equipment is functionally satisfactory, but will need teflon
hosing and seals for compatibility with existing agents).
�(3) Use of ARMY" Bladder Tanks for storage is being investigated by
377 Combat Support Group (Base Fuels), Tan Son NHut. (Question of agent
compatibility still remains).
(l») The A/A15Y-1 System has a self-filling capability, but was
found to be too slow and therefore incompatible with quick turn-around
re quirement.
(5) Use of B-l and B-1A Nitric Acid Servicing Units (2,000
gallon capacity) were proposed by Hayes as they were believed to be in
excess storage. Investigation by WRAMA Vehicle Manager revealed these
units to be unsatisfactory for their designed purpose and were dismantled
and removed from inventory.
c. Action to be Taken and Action Agency;
(1) Provide adequate bulk storage and pumping facilities for
three different chemical agents at two, possibly three different bases.
A requirement exists for the simultaneous filling of as many as nine
aircraft at Tan Son NHut and three at Da Nang with a possible total of
five at Da Nang and three at another operating location (does not include
Lucky Tiger). Action agency to be determined.
(2) Provide additional F-7 Servicing Units to Ranch Hand WRAMA (WRNR).
(3) Provide teflon hoses and gaskets for F-7 Servicing Units WRAMA (WRNR).
d
• Forecast for Completion:
(1) Fixed facility - to be determined.
(2) Additional F-7 Servicing Units - accomplished.
(3) Teflon hoses and gaskets - to be determined.
�Item Number 9-66-2 - TCTO for Installation of A/AiuY-1 System in UC-123B
Aircraft, Class V Mod 1776;
a.
Problem Presented;
Eglin AFB Contract AF 08(635)-lj89ij, dated 20 Oct 1965, provided
a line item for data in accordance with DD Form 11423 covering preparation
of TCTO for installation of A/AJj5Y-l System in UC-123B Aircraft (AFPI 71531-(l8). Repeated attempts by Contractor, AFATL, and A/Ah5Y-l IM have
been unsuccessful in obtaining from C-123 SSM appropriate documentation
(AFLC Form 118A) identifying type of TCTO and aircraft handbook revisions
desired. Ranch Hand representatives advised that considerable difficulty
is being experienced by Flight cre*s and Aircraft Maintenance personnel
due to lack of appropriate --1 Flight Manual Supplement and Aircraft
Maintenance Handbook data reflecting this systems installation. This
creates an obvious problem with operation and maintenance as well as a
serious problem with indoctrination of new crews due to high percentage
and frequency of personnel rotation.
k*
Progress to Date;
None
Ct
Action to be Taken and Action Agency;
(1) WRNB initiate documentation for preparation of TCTO
covering installation of basic A/Alj5Y-l system using Hayes tail boom
and de-modification of aircraft (removal of tank and cradle assy) back
to cargo configuration.
(2) WRNB initiate documentation for preparation of TCTO
covering installation of Ranch Hand wing and tail boom and marriage with
basic Hayes A/Alt^Y-l System.
(3) WRNB establish requirement for preparation of Aircraft
Maintenance handbooks concurrent with requirement for respective TCTO's.
WRNB initiate immediate action to provide Ranch Hand with
required supplement to T. 0. 1C-123-1 Flight Manual reflecting Defoliant
Spray configuration.
d.
Forecast for Completion;
Delinquent - In view of non-participation in this meeting by
C-123 SSM personnel, a report of intended action and progress made is
required at next meeting tentatively planned for 11-13 Oct 1966.
�Item Number 9-66-3 - Retrofit Installation of MARK III Engine;
a.
Problem Presented;
AFATL (ATCB) has provided for complete modification kits to
retrofit present operational Ranch Hand Dispensers, utilizing MARK I
and MARK II engines, to latest ARMY standardized MARK III engine
configuration. The A/Aij^Y-l system has not been made full standard
by AFSC; therefore, responsibility rests with AFSC to provide retrofit
kits and required TCTO for Field installation.
b.
Progres s to da te ;
Required number of kits have been placed on Contract AF 08(635) -l489h with Hayes International.
c.
Action to be Taken and Action Agency:
(1) AFATL (ATCB) submit request to WRAMA (WRNSTH) for AFPI 18
covering this modification and appropriate handbook revisions.
(2)
WRNSTR provide AFPI 18 as required.
(3)
Contractual provisions by AFATL for TCTO and handbook
revisions.
d . Forecast for Completion :
(1) 25 Sep 66.
(2) Provide AFPI to AFATL within five days after' receipt.
(3) To be determined - contingent on authority for reprogramming funds within project 2$23> and subsequent initiation of
Purchase Request.
�(2) Reference a ( 2 ) above. WRAMA (WRNQ) will review this problen
with appropriate personnel at WRAMA and Eglin AFB to determine specific cause
and remedial action.
(3) Reference a(3) above. WRAMA (WRNQ) will review end item
spares requirements to determine proper course of action necessary to provide adequate spare assemblies to support Field operations where battle
damage or loss might be incurred requiring complete assembly replacement.
Coordination with the using activity will be required.
d.
Forecast for Completion;
(1) Reference c(l) above.
(a) Revision of AFLC Form 2? - 15 Sep 1966.
(b) Spare parts recomputation - lij Oct 1966.
(c) Release of spare parts orders to contractor/vendors to be determined based on method to be employed.
(2) Reference c(2) above. 15 Sep 1966.
(3) Reference c(3) above.
30 Sep 1966.
�Item Number 9-66-Ii - Spares;
a.
Problem presented:
(1) Requirement for M&O spare parts for support of A/Alj5Y-l
System is expected to reach critical proportions in the very near future
due to, (1) increase in number of spray aircraft, (2) late provisioning
action in relation to first operational units, and (3) system contamination by grit and rubber particles resulting from poor system arrangement
and servicing equipment that is incompatible with presently used chemical
agents. Also, WRAMA has received a flood of requistions for spare parts
exceeding initially provisioned quantities, which did not consider system
contamination problem. Lack of spare parts support is a limiting factor
in Ranch Hand operations.
(2) Spare parts orders are not being received by Hayes from
Eglin AFB, procurement agency (APGC), in a timely manner.
(3) No provisions have been made to procure and stock spare
complete assemblies, such as, Tank and Cradle Assembly, Engine and Pump
Assembly, and Control Console Assembly.
b.
Progress to Date;
(1) Reference a(l) above. A quantity of stop-gap spare parts
were procured by AFATL on Contract AF 08(635)-li89k. However, these have
proven inadequate to sustain desired degree of Ranch Hand operation
pending delivery of spare parts as a result of formal provisioning by
WRAMA. Some support has been furnished by Hayes International through
their engineering representative previously stationed with Ranch Hand.
Further, WRAMA and DCASO at Hayes are working together with the contractor
in an attempt to expedite vendor delivery of specific spare parts.
(2) Reference a ( 2 ) above. A previous review of this problem
with Eglin AFB, procurement activity, was supposed to have alleviated
this condition or at least improved flow of documentation from Eglin
to Hayes. Further investigation is in order.
(3)
c
Reference a(3) above.
No progress to date.
• Action to be Taken and Action Agency;
(1) Reference a(l) above. The programming check list (AFLC
Form 2?) will be revised to reflect increase in number of systems and
bases to be supported, and spare parts requirement will be recomputed
for appropriate procurement action,.
10
�Item Number 9-66-5 - Retrofit Installatiqn of Optimized (Redesigned) Wing
Boom on UC-123B Aircraft:
a.
Problem Presented;
No authorization currently exists for installation of the Optimized
Wing Boom on Ranch Hand and Lucky Tiger Aircraft. The wing boom, now ^employed
by aircraft in SEA, is a non--stajid^r^jJ^gm^as^jMPJlQejvts which are^jipX
"cToTSpatibie"witlT~agenJts now in use, and is not logistically supportable.
_ T __±_
^
ii
.. |nr .._ m-,,i ,-!•-• ,
T\ .immi-"'^-"— "•
J*"i"""'-'*'*r'M'^''"T'"~
"'"
'
" " -—'""-•"•-""••*J**J-V*—•*"'
"
-.1 • *^u^-»Mf»iart-.•^J.<fa. ...-»^*••>*••. — •«
*•
b.
Progress to Date^
The Optimized Wing Boom is presently being developed by AFATL
under Contract AF 08(635)5710 with Hayes International.
c. Action to be Taken;
The using command will establish appropriate requirement for
installation of Optimized iVing Boom.
d.
Forecast for Completion:
23 Sep 1966.
11
�Item Number 9-66-6 - Maintenance Data and TechnicalOrder Verification;
a
*
Problem Presented;
Maintenance data has not been provided field activities due to
delayed verification of technical order. This has created considerable
difficulty regarding system maintenance and identification of spare parts
requirements.
kf
Progress to Date;
Hayes has completed technical order draft in MIL Spec format.
Preliminary review of blue line draft has been accomplished by WRAMA at
Hayes. Equipment is currently available at Hayes and ready for verification.
However, it has a MARK I configured engine installed. The MARK III engine
is still pending delivery from vendor's plant where it is being mated to
the pump. It was agreed that the difference between the MARK I and MARK III
engine was not sufficient to warrant further delay in verification of technical order. WRAMA agrees to accomplish verification on existing equipment
with MARK I engine. Final draft is to reflect the MARK III configuration,
which will be verified against engineering drawings.
c. Action to be Taken arid_Action_Agency;
(1) Hayes will take immediate action to establish a date with
WRAMA (WRNSTR) for verification meeting at Hayes. Time of meeting should
be established to allow a minimum of 15 days for proper notification of
participating activities. Ranch Hand representatives agreed there will be no
requirement for participation by their activity in this verification. In
lieu thereof WRAMA will explore the possibility of obtaining using command
assistance from personnel of SAWC at Eglin AFB, who have a current and
specific knowledge of Ranch Hand operation.
(2) Assistance of the Hayes - DCASO Quality Office will be
required in the performance of this certification and will be primary
point of contact relative to WRAKA/Hayes coordination of proposed date
of certification meeting.
d.
Forecast for Completion;
At the earliest possible date.
12
�Item Number 9-66-7 - Maintenance_Training_of Ranch Hand Personnel
a. Problem Presented:
Newly assigned Ranch Hand Maintenance personnel upon arrival have
little or no knowledge as to maintenance of the A/Ali$Y-l dispenser due to
there having no prior training on this system. The resulting problems are
obvious.
b.
Progress to Date;
None
c. Action to be Taken;
(1) Ranch Hand should establish and submit an official requirement in accordance with AF Regulation 50-9 to Air Training Command citing
type and scope of training required. However, due to extreme urgency of
existing requirement, it was requested by Ranch Hand that a contractor
representative (Hayes) be provided in the interim, pending development of
training capability by ATC. If interim contractor support for indoctrination
of Ranch Hand Maintenance personnel is not provided, some other immediate
means of training must be investigated.
(2) Discussion of contractor support indicated the most feasible
and expeditious approach would be use of an existing Eglin AFB contract.
However, this will require approval and funding by Hq USAF.
d.
Forecast for Completion:
(1) Ranch Hand submit .requirement as soon as possible.
(2) Final action on this requirement is yet to be determined.
13
�SECTION IV
GENERAL COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS
1. Forthcoming flight test of the protype optimized wing boom was
introduced as a discussion item by AFATL representative, Lt. Crea.
Also recognized was the recent diversion of UC-123B aircraft to
Dallas, Texas, pending deployment and voluntary participation and
support of Hayes International for the purpose of spraying insecticide
in encephalitis infected areas. It was noted that this disease is not
restricted to the CONUS as was indicated by an Associated Press report
reflecting loss of 3Qk lives so far this year out of 1616 cases throughout Japan. As a result of the tremendous effectiveness and publicity of
the C-123 spray operation in Dallas, it is envisioned that additional
requirements are forthcoming for use of A/Ali5Y-l equipped aircraft for
insecticide spraying on a world-wide basis, especially in SEA. Lt. Crea
indicated he would communicate with TAG regarding intended use of
insecticides with the defoliant system. If use is contemplated, TAG
will be asked to establish a formal requirement for test of insecticides
concurrent with test of defoliants during flight test of optimized wing
boom at Eglin during September and October 1966.
2. The Ranch Hand mission is not consistent with the mission of the
organization to which they are assigned. This leads to competition for
resources, maintenance, and Staff Support. Proper emphasis or priority
has not been placed on the defoliation mission thereby restricting the
establishment of appropriate facilities for storage and transfer of more
than one type chemical agent at Tan Son NHut and other operating locations.
A definite advantage is envisioned by identification of the defoliation
system as a weapons systems for the delivery and dissemination of chemical
ordnance. Specifically, one advantage of a weapons systems identification
would be to rationalize the storage and loading problem by having the chemicals
handled by personnel who handle other Air Force ordnance. This could possibly
result in taking the aircraft maintenance people out of the ordnance loading
business. This was not introduced as a problem as appropriate agencies were
not in attendance for proper discussion and action assignment. However,
aforementioned weapons systems identification has considerable merit and
should be evaluated by PACAF and Hq USAF to determine specific advantages
to be derived for further discussion during next meeting.
3. A need was expressed by Ranch Hand for a pamphlet depicting defoliation
spraying in SEA covering subjects such as:
a. Chemical type, effect and hazzards.
b.
Type crop and vegatation recognition.
c.
Psyochological effect on populace.
14
�Such a pamphlet would be invaluable for indoctrination of new crews upon
arrival in SEA and would be used to supplement present verbal instructional
methods which are accomplished mostly during normal spray missions. Hayes
International expressed an interest in preparing such a manual as they have
the knowledge and capability. However, discussion was deferred to next
meeting at which time it is hoped that the office of primary responsibility
may be able to offer some constructive advice relative to obtaining this
pamphlet.
15
�SECTION V
A/A45Y-1 DEFOLIATION CONFERENCE ATTENDEES
Maj Robert N. Scheideoker, WRAMA
Capt Richard Peshkin, Ranch Hand
Lt William J. Crea, Jr., ATCB
SMS Charles Lightner, Ranch Hand
Mr. Gene Smith, WRAMA
W.B. O'Neal, Hayes
C.F. Conklin, Hayes
J.L. Harrington, Hayes
John Bonta, Hayes
Don Smallwood, Hayes
J.E. Merk, Hayes
Stan Burkot, Hayes
Ronnie Dear, Hayes
M.J. McMahan, Hayes
16
�SECTION VI
DISTRIBUTION
Activity
Nr of Copies
2
2
MACV
7th AF (DOPE)
(BMP)
Name
J-3 Chemical Branch
Major Haugaton
Lt Col McCellan
(DAFSC/AFSC
Lia O f f )
2
315th ACW (DO)
h
309th ACS (SASF)
377th CSG (DCM)
(D/M)
1
1
3
377th OMS
llith ACW (Coradr)
PACAF (DM) .
(DMM)
1
1
(DMMB)
Hq USAF (AFRDDA)
(AFRDQRA)
(AFSMEAA)
(AFXOP)
(AFSMSDA)
TAG (DOFT-S)
(DOO-S)
(DORQ-FM)
ATC (ATTAT-B)
Dept of Aerospace
Munitions (GS-WC)
AFLC (MCKTA)
(MCMTE)
(MCO)
(MCOQM)
ASD (ASJB)
1
1
1
1
3
3
12
AFSC (SCSMM)
HQ RTD (RTTW)
kkOQth CCTS
SAWC-LC
AFATL (ATCB)
SAAMA (SANM)
(SANNR)
(SAQR)
WRAMA (WRNQO)
Maj Richard Engian
Lt Col Reddrick
Major Kline
Lt Col Ferguson
Major Dresser
Captain Peshkin
S/MSGT C. B. Lightner
Col Harris
Lt Col Carter
Major Sibley
Colonel Bradburn
Colonel Thomas B. Kennedy
Lt Col C. N. Powell
Maj W. A. McKinney
Lt Col Carter
Lt Col May
Mr. Ed Dougherty
Maj Vinson
Maj White
Maj Marshall
Capt Adams
Maj Novikoff
Lt Col Gibson
TSgt Gailes
Mr. Fields
Mr. Whitacre
Mr. Finch
Mr. Clark
Mr. Bro'rfn
Mr. Brothers
Mr. Pfiefer
Mr. Goodwin
Capt John R. Spey
Lt Col Huston
Lt Crea
Mr. Arthur Miller
Mr. Jack Burton
Maj R. N. Scheidecker
17
�SECTION VII
A/A45Y-1 INTERNAL DEFOLIANT DISPENSER SYSTEM
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The A/A45Y-1 Internal Defoliant Dispenser, designed and manufactured
by Hayes International Corporation, Birmingham, Alabama, is a complete
airborne defoliant dispensing system. The dispenser is packaged to permit
rapid installation into, and removal from, C-123 aircraft, with only minor
modifications required to the affected aircraft. (See figures 1 and 2.)
The Internal Defoliant Dispenser, Part No. A/A45Y-1, provides for loading,
transporting and dispensing of 1000 gallons of defoliant chemical, and in case
of an emergency, dumping the full load overboard in less than 45 seconds. The
tank and cradle assembly is mounted on detachable casters which are removed
before anchoring in the aircraft. A control console is electrically connected
into an electrical network which in turn is connected to the aircraft electrical
system, certain controls and indicators in the flight compartment and the electrically operated units within the system. Pressure is applied to defoliant
chemical, by an engine and pump assembly mounted on the same frame with the
tank. The defoliant is transported to a nozzle assembly mounted in the slipstream of the aircraft in such a manner that a strip 250 or 300 feet wide along
the line of flight is effectively covered. The nozzle assembly is designed for
the most effective atomizing of the defoliant and coverage of foliage to be
destroyed. The dispensing operation and, in emergency, the dump valve
operation can be controlled from either the control console near the tank and
cradle assembly or from the pilot's position in the flight compartment.
CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS
The internal defoliant dispenser is capable of containing 1000 gallons of
defoliant which can be completely dumped overboard by remote control or
manually in less than 45 seconds. The pump is capable of maintaining 60 + 5
psi pressure during the normal 3- to 4-minute period of operational spraying.
Refilling the tank assembly is accomplished with power and equipment contained
within the defoliation dispensing system.
18
�A / A 4 5 Y - I I N T E R N A L DEFOLIANT DISPENSER
. T A N K VENT
.MANHOLE COVER
DUMP VALVE
(SEE FIGURE 5)
TANK
LIQUID LEVEL
ENGINE EXHAUST
VIBRATION
ISOLATOR SEGMENT
CENTRIFUGAL PUMP
(SEE FIGURES)
TIE-DOWN
FITTINGS
MAIN SPRAY VALVE
RECIRCULATING
LINE
CONTROL CONSOLE
(SEE FIGURE <)
JACKING LUG
TEMPERATURE
INDICATOR
JET PUMP
REFILL
CRADLE
NOTE:
SEE FIGURE « FOR TAIL
BOOM AND FIGURE 7 FOR
WING BOOM. FIGURES 8
AND 9 SHOW A/A45Y-1
INSTALLED IN C-123 AIRCRAFT.
Figure 1. Major Components of Defoliant Dispenser
19
�Figure 2. Defoliant Dispenser (right side)
LEADING PARTICULARS
Length
Width
Height (without casters)
Weight
Empty
Full
Capacity
Normal operating pressure
Normal dispensing interval
Emergency dump duration
Electrical system
Dump valve operation
Refill time (approx)
Dump valve
Spray valve
Suction valve
16 feet, 4 inches
4 feet, 10 inches
6 feet, 5 inches
1420 pounds
12, 420 pounds
1000 gallons
60 ± 5 psi
3 to 4 minutes
Less than 45 seconds
28 volts dc (supplied by host aircraft)
Electrical or manual
20 minutes
Electrical, 10 inch
Electrical, 3 inch
Manual, 3 inch
20
�TANK AND CRADLE ASSEMBLY
The tank and cradle assembly is the major unit of the entire system, having a
1000-gallon tank with baffles, manhole, tube connections, and stabilizing and tiedown brackets; an engine and pump assembly which consists of a four cylinder,
horizontally opposed air-cooled, engine and pump directly coupled to the engine
I^S^SiSfs^SQ
^^^^iiMK^is^^^i:i^XiJ&^
Figure 3. Centrifugal Pump
crankshaft; and a cradle which carries the tank, the engine and pump assembly, and is
provided with four casters which are readily detachable. A temperature indicator and
a liquid lever gage are installed in the tank. The engine is slightly modified from its
original configuration to achieve adaptability to the requirements of the dispenser
system. The detachable casters are to provide limited mobility and are removed
when the unit is tied down.
The defoliant used in the dispenser is stored in the tank and is fed through a
suction line to the pump. The pump is driven by an air-cooled engine and forces
the defoliant through a discharge line to a spray valve. A recirculation line is
21
�provided so that when the spray valve is closed, the defoliant will recirculate
back through the tank. When the spray valve is open, the defoliant is forced
into the spray boom and atomized by spray nozzles. When the tank is empty,
a float-operated switch, located in the tank, automatically stops the engines.
The centrifugal pump consists essentially of an impeller and a pump body,
and is driven by the engine through a direct drive. The engine drives the pump
and the speed of the engine controls the quantity of defoliant being dispensed.
(See figure 3.)
The recirculation line incorporates a jet-pump (ejector) tank refilling system which utilizes the fluid left in the tank from prior operation to initially
operate the jet pump.
CONTROL CONSOLE
The control console is the nerve center of the defoliation system. All
functions are controlled from this position; all monitoring equipment is located
in this position; and the electrical supply is channeled and protected at this
position. Prefabricated electrical cables tie the control console to all related
FLUID
REFILL
POWER
FLOAT SWITCH
OVERRIDE
FWD UHIT
AFT UNIT
STARTER
AND
SPRAY
CHOKE THROTTLES INDICATORS VALVE
ENGINES
FWD UNIT
OIL PRESSURE
LOW
OPERATE
MAGNETO
AFT UNIT
OIL PRESSURE
LOW O P E R A T E
MAGNETO
INCREASE
ol
p
UNIT
DECREASE
Figure 4, Control Console
22
�tfoliant Handling System Loyovf
�parts of the system, including the controls on the pilot's instrument panel and
the aircraft electrical supply system. Tandem or single installations are
controlled and monitored from the control console without any changes or
alterations being performed. In the event of electrical power failure of the
aircraft electrical system, certain critical functions have an option of
manual operation. (See figure 4.)
DUMP VALVE
The dump valve is a 10 inch gate valve having both electrical or manual
activation. It is designed for horizontal (vertical flow) installation and liquid
flow in only one direction. The bottom of the defoliant tank incorporates a
vortex interrupter and adapter to which the dump valve is secured and is in
perfect alignment with an opening and spring loaded door in the belly of the
aircraft. A high speed motor coupled to an actuator provides 2 second operation of the dump valve in either direction and circuit manipulation to indicate
open condition. (See figure 5.)
Figure 5. Dump Valve
23
�SPRAY BOOM
The prime function of the spray boom is to discharge the defoliant under
pressure at such a location and at such an angle that air flow, in the proximity
of the discharge (spray) nozzle, contributes to the proper density of spray, the
consistency of the defoliant blanket; and the lateral dimension of the effective
strip. Two spray booms are available when the C-123 model aircraft is used
and each boom satisfies a specific set of requirements.
INSTALLATION
STRUTS
TIE-DOWNS
TAIL BOOM
INSTALLATION
STRUTS .
Figure 6. Tail Spray Boom and Associated Plumbing
24
�• LEFT HAND SIDE
OF FUSELAGE
AT THIS POINT
FUSELAGE
CENTER WING
PIPING
EXTERNAL BOOM
:.-—J
O
VJ
CO
O
O
HOZZLE
FAIRING
SPRAY NOZZLES
INBOARD OF
NACELLE
NOZZLES OUTBOARD
OF NACELLE
Cn
�The tail spray boom (figure 6) is mounted outside the aircraft, approximately
midway of the aft cargo loading door. It is designed for simple and fast
installation and removal and £rovides coverage of a 250 foot strip.
The wing spray boom (figure 7) is installed in the inside of the center wing and
externally underneath the outboard wing. As compared to the tail boom, its installation and removal is more complex and is considered a more permanent installation. The wing boom provides coverage of a JOO foot strip and the
effectiveness of the application is more uniform.
Installation and removal of either spray boom does not require special
skills or special tools.
U
^^te^;'fe';'"^
£5S£S^ V&K^--v*
Figure 8. Installation in C-123 (left side)
26
�AIRCRAFT INSTALLATION
The dispenser installation in C-123 aircraft consists of towing the tank and
cradle assembly (unfilled) into the aircraft and securing it to the aircraft floor
utilizing twenty 10,000-pound hook and chain assemblies and the cargo floor
tie-down fittings (figures 8 and 9). All piping, hose assemblies and electrical
cables are installed which tie the A/A45Y-1 dispenser into the aircraft (as
modified) systems, and the control console is secured to the aircraft floor;
thus, making the aircraft-dispenser combination ready for servicing and operation.
if-
SSSSS«ti'i«V.f!.
Fi'gure 9- Installation in C-123 (right side)
27
�VIET NAM RANCH HAND OPERATIONS
A sketch of the ground support equipment used by RANCH HAND to refill
the A/A45Y-1 dispensers with agent is shown in figure 10. The refill system
presented here is the system used at Tan Son Nhut Air Base, Viet Nam. It
utilizes four 1000 gallon HOURGLASS tanks. A similar refill system is
used at Da Nang, but utilizes only three HOURGLASS tanks. These tanks
are the predecessor to the A/A45Y-1 and incorporate a 10-horsepower
engine and pump unit by which the agent is transferred into the aircraft.
The agent is delivered in 55-gallon drums, then pumped from three
drums at a time into the refill tanks. This is the slowest part of the
operation. The procedure for filling tanks is as follows:
a. The number 2 tank is filled from 55-gallon drums.
b. The agent in the number 2 tank is pumped into tank number 3.
c. Agent in tank number 3 is then pumped into tank number 4.
d. Tank number 2 is refilled and the agent pumped into tank number 3.
e. Tank number 2 is again refilled from the drums and pumped into
tank number 1.
.
f. All other tanks now filled, tank number 2 is refilled again.
Upon return from a mission, the aircraft is backed as close as possible
to the refill tanks and the systems are refilled with agent using a
commercial fire hose. After completion of the days work the HOURGLASS tanks are filled and the agent transferred into the aircraft. The
refill tanks are then refilled in preparation for a second mission. Due
to the long time needed to fill from the drums, the RANCH HAND crews
are limited to only one turn around, or a total of two missions.
A big disadvantage of refilling in this manner is the problem of
contamination to the agent. Foreign matter gets into the refill tanks and from
there into aircraft defoliant dispensing system. The rubber inside lining
of fire hoses, presently used, is acted upon by the defoliant and causes large
pieces of rubber to be released into the defoliant stream, thereby reducing the
system effectiveness. See figures 11 thru 14 for potographic on-site refill
operations.
28
�Figure 70. Existing Defoliant Transfer System Tan Son Nhut Air Base, Viet Worn
29
�Jiff,
Figure 11. Ranch Hand Worfc Area
ss^vavirrc .i«w«-i..7iBas.Mj-is-.e!*
2
^^nr.«!!«*'•• iiS*-j^rn'«—.5
\ • •-'. ;-. 'O^^s&s^ ?
^praiw^s^s
lv%3$StiSt3&M&*5Jg*£e>
^.^3^S^-^ •^X^V^.^«*SS*
^ai^k^^sssa^s^^^
Figure J2. Moor Class Tank and Pump
30
�^r^PS
Pump (Insulated)
•,-, i
*•" : •"• '- •Ofc-^a^^^^ .- V—-»*
_,-./^•S^^^^^^f^^^.
s^c
-;%*/---< "^V .
5:5-,.-•• '-' .*
\Jfe*i
Figure ?4,. Hour Class Spider Pump
�SUPPORT FOR FLEXIBLE LIKE
55 GAL DRUM
NOZZLE FOR REFILLING A/A45Y-1
TRUCK FLAT-BED
;re 16. D*fo//oof Handling System Components
�of defoliant under sustained operation. The engine is a government
standard, air-cooled, four cylinder, four stroke cycle, horizontally
opposed model modified for remote control when mated with the control
console. The engine is available in large quantities, economical to operate, proven in performance, and easily maintained due to maximum accessibility. It is designed to operate a minimum of 1500 hours at rated load
and speed between major overhauls. Its extensive use in defoliation
operations tends to standardize maintenance and provide a spare parts
source through controlled cannibalization.
The pump has been modified by the manufacturer so that it attaches
to the engine at the blower section and the drive end of the crankshaft
thus giving the engine and pump a one to one ratio. Shock mounting is
provided to the engine-pump unit.
CONTROL CONSOLE
The control console is located at the end of the storage to permit
visual monitoring of any engine-pump unit on the platform. All transfer
functions are controlled by a single operator at the control console position.
In addition to control functions, there are certain monitoring gages and
instruments installed in the instrument" panel of the control console. The
electrical network is considered semi-permanently installed and so
arranged that simple maintenance is quickly accomplished.
TANK
The tank has a 10, 000-gallon capacity, protected sight gage, manhole, vent,
drain line connection, and facilities for securing to the platform. The sight gage
is a vertically mounted glass tube with connections to tank at each end, protectors
to reduce the probability of breaking, and calibrations to indicate tank contents.
MISCELLANEOUS
Suction Hose. Suction hoses are provided having an inside diameter
which will not be too restrictive to defoliant flow and having a wall structure
to prevent collapse of hose. Hoses which are frequently disconnected have
quick-disconnects to prevent rapid deterioration at connecting points.
Pressure Hoses. Pressure hoses are capable of pressures up to 100 psig
and have adapters in cases where control nozzles are attached. Hose material
is selected to withstand the chemical action of the defoliant.
35
�SYSTEM TIE-IN
The storage tank is located in the approximate center of the platform with
one engine-pump unit on the truck side of the platform and two engine-pump
units on the aircraft side of the platform. The single engine-pump unit has
a 3-inch suction hose connected between the pump and the suction manifold.
The suction manifold has three 1-1/4 inch suction hoses attached which are
suspended from the suction manifold in such a manner as to hang directly
over three 55-gallon drums on the flat bed trailer. A control console is
secured to the platform deck in the proximity of the end of the storage tank
and is electrically connected to the engine-pump unit.
Two engine-pump units and their companion control console are located
on the aircraft side of the platform and are shock mounted to the platform
deck. The suction ports of the two engine-pump units are manifolded so
that a single line attaches to the bottom of the storage tank. The discharge
(pressure) ports of the two engine-pump units are also manifolded and
after the pressure manifold, a single line conveys the defoliant to the aircraft having A/A45Y-1 dispensers to be serviced. Check valves are installed
in pump discharge lines to permit operation of a single engine-pump unit when
demands are less than maximum. At each aircraft position, a smaller
pressure line with a shutoff nozzle is connected into the main line hose.
These two engine-pump units are controlled concurrently from a single
control console.
An electrical network is provided which gives electrical tie-in of all
related electrically functioning units. Cable insulation is chemically unaffected by defoliant in the environs of the defoliant handling system.
CAPABILITIES
Transfer 10, 000 gallons from drums
to storage tank (less truck move time)
Service two A/A45Y-1 dispensers
(in aircraft)
Service four A/A45Y-1 dispensers
(in aircraft)
Remotely controlled functions:
1. Drums to storage tank
.
shutoff valves
2.
Storage tank to aircraft
main lines (2) shutoff
valves
25 minutes
5 minutes
5 minutes
3. Engine throttle
4>
Engine starter
Engine ignition
b
&
36
�PORTABLE DEFOLIANT HANDLING UNIT
The portable defoliant handling unit idea is conceived for military installations
where limited servicing of A/A45Y-1 dispensers might be required. The trailer
is capable of traveling at faster speeds and for greater distances than the A/
A/A45Y-1 dispenser and, being a powered unit, it speeds up the servicing of
the dispensers installed in aircraft. Overall dimensions are kept within limits
which will permit air transportation of loaded units to isolated landing fields or
airstrips.
Technical data and capabilities are contained in figure 17.
37
�-Tr^^z^^^L
96
fcs5>
;T~
CZIiD
Figure 17. Tank Trailer De
�66
SMTWTFS
SMTWTFS
SMTWTFS
JAN
III
MAR
: r
i ^ ~li>
~~i~~i~i'. s i B| 71 8
9 10 11 12JJ3: 14! 15
16" 17: 18 19! 20i 2li 22
23 24 25 26! 27 28[29
1)31.
,
!
1
6 7 8
13 14 15
20 21 22
28
27 i— —)
2
9
16
23
2j 3J 4i 5! BJ 7
1
^8
9' 10 1l! 121 13] 14
5 6 7 8
12 13 14 15
19 20 21 22
26 27 28 29
15 TB 17 18 19 20; 2T
22 23 24 25 26, 27 28
:
•
2
9
16
23
30
3
10
17
24
4
11
18
25
'
;
.
.
3
10
17
24
4
11
18
25
5
12
'19
26
6 7
,3 14
20 21
27 28
1
8
15
22
29
2
9
16
23
30
i ! J ll 2' 3
40! 6 ! 7 8 9 10
11 12! 13! 14! is; 16; 17
18 19: 20, 21; 22| 23 24
25 26! 27: 28; 291 30:
;
2
9
16
23
30
3
10
17
24
31
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
AU6
1 2
Q
^tf_
5 6 7 8
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
» 18 19 «L 21 ^2 23
24 » 26 27 28 29 30
31
©
7
14
21
28
1
8
15
22
29
2
9
16
23
30
NOY
!
r~i ' i i '
4 5
11 12
18 19
25 26
,
0
OCT
SEP
i_
3
10
17
24
31
JUl
JUM
f 1
29© 31
7
14
21
28
6
13
20
27
1 2
8 9
15 16
22 23
29 30
AM
.......
;
MAY
i—
3 4 5
10 11 12
17 18 19
24 25 26
SMTWTFS
6 7
13 14
20 21
27 28
1
8
15
22
29
6 7
13 14
20 21
27 28
1
8
15
22
29
•3
10
17
24
31
4 5 6
11 12 13
18 19 20
25 26 27
DEC
2 3 4 5
9 10 11 12
16 17 18 19
23
® 26
30
4 5 6
11 12 13
18 19 20
27
7
14
21
28
1
8
15
22
29
2
9
16
23
3
10
17
24
30 31
L.J
NOTES
39
�NOTES
�5C»H OM IfHlH FQlMlS HfftlQK.lt
Controlled Access :
Other Dual Thoroughfares
Principal Through Routes
Other Paved Roads
Streets and Connecting Roads
it Mileage Distances between red dots
Iniersiaie
J28 US
@ Stale
j77] Count
X. ii
* If
\
{
I
/
::
\
Lewisourg t.
-^vi/vf
\ A KrK"j^^^'^
^^my^^^F^^4
^-^^^^^£j^^^
iX
-r
"
^&WP^s•/ 1
^'
yjp ^'--''m^rv^ fr/^
^iT *' '^
&«^ ^'
7
3
t
J
!
l
r
^"fe >« ^V. -^t«
Jr"~SsH# »-*^Z ^t? r> ?-#~^
" f-A-^
t?^=-£^m^ui/
if ^^s-Jf^yul/
2 1S
::
!
jyftEi
'»OMnf>''' «. .•«!•«••
i
iX^
tf
(P0p*.»t
W
fc_-
/^frfr^^^^ ^'
""H^S^^^^^-^
W^T/ J "
^
f
**$&
iX*%
c
d
P
* /--•>CtftIVc-' r-;--**MlCahaba
*^* /-"J^^TV;'' r-:" ^Cahaba
«;' '^j^'-Vestavia/.;.. :».".;•: v
» \^iHillsl''i ; •' ):
N
^^S« 1
" ~ A>K
*^5\
BSL
W
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange
Description
An account of the resource
<p style="margin-top: -1em; line-height: 1.2em;">The Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange comprises 120 linear feet and spans the late 1800s to 2005; however, the bulk of the coverage is from the 1960s to the 1980s and there are many undated items. The collection was donated to Special Collections of the National Agricultural Library in 1985 by Dr. Alvin L. Young (1942- ). Dr. Young developed the collection as he conducted extensive research on the military defoliant Agent Orange. The collection is in good condition and includes letters, memoranda, books, reports, press releases, journal and newspaper clippings, field logs and notebooks, newsletters, maps, booklets and pamphlets, photographs, memorabilia, and audiotapes of an interview with Dr. Young.</p>
<p>For more about this collection, <a href="/exhibits/speccoll/exhibits/show/alvin-l--young-collection-on-a">view the Agent Orange Exhibit.</a></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Box
The box containing the original item.
007
Folder
The folder containing the original item.
0065
Series
The series number of the original item.
Series II
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Scheidecker, Robert N.
Description
An account of the resource
<strong>Corporate Author: </strong>U.S. Air Force
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1966-08-01
Title
A name given to the resource
Minutes: A/A45Y-1 Internal Defoliant Dispenser System Support Conference, 25 and 26 August 1966
Subject
The topic of the resource
spray equipment
Ranch Hand aircraft
-
https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/speccoll/files/original/430775cddb875139c1a668b530b471b0.pdf
76714eb4ca6e132a123fda36b73f6942
PDF Text
Text
Item ID Number:
00039
Author
Corporate Author
Hayes International Corporation
RepOrt/ArtlGlB Title A/A45Y-1 Internal Defoliant Dispenser System
Journal/Book Title
Year
000
°
Month/Day
Color
IJ
Number of Images
15
DeSCrlptOU NOtBS
Filed witn
Thursday, November 16, 2000
documents from 1970 in the Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange
Page 39 of 46
�Anoymous
A/A45Y-1 Internal Defoliant Dispenser System
Hayes International Corporation
RNAL DEFOLIANT
DISPENSER SYSTEM
INTERNATIONAL1 CORPORATION
�THE A/A45Y-1 INTERNAL DEFOLIANT DISPENSER
The A/A45Y-1 Internal Defoliant Dispenser, designed and manufactured
by Hayes International Corporation, Birmingham, Alabama, is a complete
airborne defoliant dispensing system. The dispenser is packaged to permit
rapid installation into, and removal from, C-130 and C-123 aircraft, with only
minor modifications required to the affected aircraft. See figures 1 and 2.
The Internal Defoliant Dispenser, Part No. A/A45Y-1, provides for loading,
transporting and dispensing of 1000 gallons of defoliant chemical, and in case
of an emergency, dumping the full load overboard in less than 45 seconds. The
tank and cradle assembly is mounted on detachable casters which are removed
before anchoring in the host aircraft. A control console is electrically connected
into an electrical network which in turn is connected to the aircraft electrical
system, certain controls and indicators in the flight compartment and the electrically operated units within the system. Pressure is applied to defoliant
chemical, by an engine and pump assembly mounted on the same frame with the
tank. The defoliant is transported to a nozzle assembly mounted in the slipstream of the aircraft in such a manner that a strip 250 feet wide along the line
LEADING PARTICULARS
Length (app)
Width (app)
Height (app) (without casters)
Weight
Empty
Full
Capacity
Normal operating pressure
Normal dispensing interval
Emergency dump duration
Electrical system
Dump valve operation
Refill time (app)
Dump valve
Spray valve
Suction valve
16 feet, 4 inches
4 feet, 10 inches
6 feet, 5 inches
1420 Ibs
12,420 Ibs
1000 gallons
60 + 5 psi
3 to 4 minutes
Less than 45 sec.
28 volts dc (supplied by host aircraft)
Electrical or manual
20 minutes
Electrical, 10 inch
Electrical, 3 inch
Manual, 3 inch
�TANK VENT
MANHOLE
COVER
DUMP VALVE
(See figure 4)
TANK
LIQUID LEVEL
TEMPERATURE
INDICATOR
ENGINE
EXHAUST
VIBRATION
ISOLATOR SEGMENT
CENTRIFUGAL PUMP
(See figure 3)
MAIN SPRAY
VALVE
TIE-DOWN
FITTINGS
CONTROL
CONSOLE
(See figure 5)
RECIRCULATING
LINE
JET PUMP
REFILL
CRADLE
NOTE: SEE FIGURE 6 FOR TAIL BOOM
AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.
SEE FIGURES 7 AND 8 FOR
INSTALLATION IN C-123 AIRCRAFT.
Figure 1. Major Components of Defoliant Dispenser
�Figure 2. Defoliant Dispenser (right side)
�of flight is effectively covered. The nozzle assembly is designed for the most
effective atomizing of the defoliant and coverage of foliage to be destroyed. The
dispensing operation and, in emergency, the dump valve operation can be controlled from either the control console near the tank and cradle assembly or
from the pilot's position in the flight compartment.
CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS
The internal defoliant dispenser is capable of containing 1000 gallons of
defoliant which can be completely dumped overboard by remote control or
manually in less than 45 seconds. The pump is capable of maintaining 60 + 5
psi pressure during the normal 4 minute (app) period of operational spraying.
Refilling the tank assembly is accomplished with power and equipment contained
within the defoliation dispensing system.
TANK AND CRADLE ASSEMBLY
The tank and cradle assembly is the major unit of the entire system, having;
a 1000 gallon tank with baffles, manhole, tube connections and stabilizing and
tiedown brackets; an engine and pump assembly which consists of a four cylinder
horizontally opposed engine and pump directly coupled to the engine crankshaft;
and a cradle which carries the tank, and engine and pump assembly and is
provided with four casters which are readily detachable. A temperature gage
and a fluid quantity gage are installed in the tank. The engine is slightly modified
from its original configuration to achieve adaptability to the requirements of the
dispenser system. The detachable casters are to provide limited mobility and
are removed when the unit is tied down.
The defoliant used in the dispenser is stored in the tank and is fed through a
suction line to the pump (two assemblies used on C-130 aircraft). The pump is
driven by an air-cooled engine and forces the defoliant through a discharge line
to a spray valve. A recirculation line is provided so that when the spray valve
is closed, the defoliant will recirculate back through the tank. When the spray
valve is open, the defoliant is forced into the spray boom and atomized by spray
nozzles. When the tank is empty, a float-operated switch, located in the tank,
automatically stops the engines. On C-130 aircraft, when either tank is empty,
the engine of the empty unit will automatically shut down. The spray valve will
not automatically close until the second unit's tank empties and the float switch
is actuated, shutting down its engine.
�The centrifugal pump consists essentially of an impeller and a pump body,
and is driven by the engine through a direct drive. The engine drives the pump
and the speed of the engine controls the quantity of defoliant being dispensed.
See figure 3.
The recirculation line incorporates a jet-pump (ejector) tank refilling system which utilizes the fluid left in the tank from prior operation to initially
operate the jet pump.
TEMPERATURE GAGE
Temperature gage, located on the side of the tank, indicates temperature of
the defoliant in the tank.
LIQUID METER
A liquid meter, located on the side of the tank, indicates the defoliant quantity
in the tank.
DUMP VALVE
The dump valve is a 10 inch gate valve having both electrical or manual
activation. It is designed for horizontal (vertical flow) installation and liquid
flow in only one direction. The bottom of the defoliant tank incorporates a
vortex interupter and adapter to which the dump valve is secured and is in
perfect alignment with an opening and spring loaded door in the belly of the
aircraft. A high speed motor coupled to an actuator provides 2 second operation of the dump valve in either direction and circuit manipulation to indicate
open condition. See figure 4.
CONTROL CONSOLE
The control console is the nerve center of the defoliation system. All
functions are controlled from this position; all monitoring equipment is located
in this position; and the electrical supply is channeled and protected at this
position. Prefabricated electrical cables tie the control console to all related
parts of the system, including the controls on the pilot's instrument panel and
the aircraft electrical supply system. Tandem or single installations are
controlled and monitored from the control console without any changes or
alterations being performed. In the event of electrical power failure of the
aircraft electrical system, certain critical functions have an option of
manual operation. See figure 5.
�Figure 3. Centrifugal Pump
�Figure 4. Dump Valve
�FLUID
POWER
REFILL
FLOAT SWITCH
OVERRIDE
FWD UNIT
AFT UNIT
STARTER
AND
SPRAY
CHOKE THROTTLES INDICATORS VALVE
TANK EMPTY
FWD UNIT
AFT UNIT
ENGINES
FWD UNIT
OIL PRESSURE
LOW
OPERATE
SPRAY VALVE
THROTTLES
OPEN
t
FWD /~\
UNIT \\~J\
^ AFT
\{-J\ UNIT
\
CLOSED
Figure 5. Control Console
AFT UNIT
OIL PRESSURE
LOW
OPERATE
�MAGNETO SWITCH
The MAGNETO switch (AFT UNIT and FWD UNIT) is a single-pole, doublethrow toggle switch used to control the engine magneto. In the down position
the engine magneto is grounded; in the up position the ground is removed from
the magneto, permitting the engine to run (if tank is not empty).
CHOKE SWITCH
The CHOKE switch (AFT UNIT and FWD UNIT) is a spring-loaded pushbutton
switch used to control the solenoid that actuates the engine choke. When pushed
in, the CHOKE switch applies power to the engine choke solenoid.
START SWITCH
The START switch (AFT UNIT and FWD UNIT) is a spring-loaded pushbutton
switch used to control the engine starter. When pushed in, the START switch
applies power to the engine starter. The START switch is guarded to prevent
accidental engagement of the engine starter.
THROTTLE SWITCH
The THROTTLE switch (AFT UNIT and FWD UNIT) is a three-position toggle
switch, spring-loaded to the neutral position. The switch has INCREASE and
DECREASE positions and is used to electrically control the engine throttle through
a geared servo-motor. The engine throttle may be set at any intermediate position between minimum and maximum engine rpm by positioning the switch to
INCREASE or DECREASE and releasing to the neutral position when desired
engine RPM is reached. A governor on the engine regulates maximum engine
RPM.
SPRAY VALVE SWITCH
The SPRAY VALVE switch is a single-pole, double-throw toggle switch used
to electrically open and close the spray valve. In the OPEN position power is
applied to open the spray valve; in the CLOSED position power is applied to close
the spray valve. The SPRAY VALVE switch is guarded in the CLOSED position.
A cockpit SPRAY VALVE switch is provided for control of the spraying
operation by the pilot.
�DUMP VALVE SWITCH
The DUMP VALVE switch, located at the extreme left side of the control
panel (figure 5), provides electrical control for the dump valve. The switch
is provided with a guard which maintains the switch in the CLOSED position.
Placing the switch in the OPEN position actuates the valve motor and opens
the dump valve.
The cockpit DUMP VALVE switch provides positive electrical control for
opening the dump valve by the pilot. Operation is in conjunction with the
console DUMP VALVE switch. Placing either switch in the OPEN position
will actuate the dump valve motor and open the dump valve.
FLOAT SWITCH OVERRIDE
The FLOAT SWITCH OVERRIDE (AFT UNIT and FWD UNIT) is a singlepole, double-throw toggle switch (with a holding coil) used to override the
float switch (in tank) when the float switch has grounded the magneto. The
FLOAT SWITCH OVERRIDE is spring-loaded in the down position and when
placed in the up position, enables the engine to be run when the tank is empty
(in order to fill the tank using the pump). The holding coil holds the FLOAT
SWITCH OVERRIDE in the up position until the float switch is actuated.
ENGINE TACHOMETER
The engine tachometer is dual indicating (two needles) and indicates engine
speed in hundreds of RPM.
FLUID PRESSURE INDICATOR
The FLUID pressure indicator indicates fluid pressure in increments of 4
PSL When properly calibrated this gage can be used as a flow-rate indicator.
CIRCUIT BREAKERS
Four circuit breakers (STARTER AND CHOKE, THROTTLES, INDICATORS,
and SPRAY VALVE) control power to the control panel and provide protection from
electrical overload and short circuits.
10
�SPRAY BOOM
The spray boom (figure 6) is desinged to accommodate 18 spray nozzles and
provide a method for dispensing the defoliant over a wide area. The spray boom
is constructed of 4-1/2 inch diameter steel tubing. The discharge line is off-set
from the centerline of the spray boom to allow the aircraft's ramp to operate
with the dispenser installed. Eighteen spigots are welded to the spray boom to
receive the spray nozzles. C-123 aircraft utilize only 12 of the spray nozzles
and the remaining six spigots are capped. The spray boom is attached to the
fuselage with six struts.
AIRCRAFT INSTALLATION
The dispenser installation in C-123 aircraft consists of towing the tank and
cradle assembly (unfilled) into the aircraft and securing it to the aircraft floor
utilizing twenty 10, 000-pound hook and chain assemblies and the cargo floor
tie-down fittings (figures 7 and 8). All piping and hose assemblies are installed
and the console assembly mounted to the aircraft floor. The spray boom and
connecting struts are attached to outside fittings on the aircraft and the electrical cables are connected. In the case of the C-130 aircraft, two dispensers
are installed in the same manner, and interconnected.
n
�TIE-DOWNS
SPRAY
NOZZLE
TAIL BOOM
INSTALLATION
STRUTS
Figure 6. Spray Boom and Associated Plumbing
12
�r.
Figure 7. Installation in C-123 (left side)
13
�Figure 8. Installation in C-723 (right side)
14
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange
Description
An account of the resource
<p style="margin-top: -1em; line-height: 1.2em;">The Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange comprises 120 linear feet and spans the late 1800s to 2005; however, the bulk of the coverage is from the 1960s to the 1980s and there are many undated items. The collection was donated to Special Collections of the National Agricultural Library in 1985 by Dr. Alvin L. Young (1942- ). Dr. Young developed the collection as he conducted extensive research on the military defoliant Agent Orange. The collection is in good condition and includes letters, memoranda, books, reports, press releases, journal and newspaper clippings, field logs and notebooks, newsletters, maps, booklets and pamphlets, photographs, memorabilia, and audiotapes of an interview with Dr. Young.</p>
<p>For more about this collection, <a href="/exhibits/speccoll/exhibits/show/alvin-l--young-collection-on-a">view the Agent Orange Exhibit.</a></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Box
The box containing the original item.
004
Folder
The folder containing the original item.
0039
Series
The series number of the original item.
Series I
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Description
An account of the resource
<strong>Corporate Author: </strong>Hayes International Corporation
Title
A name given to the resource
A/A45Y-1 Internal Defoliant Dispenser System
Subject
The topic of the resource
spray equipment
Ranch Hand aircraft
-
https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/speccoll/files/original/f6466e4a220a26a2f5aa0f104ad4f369.pdf
ac11cb87888be563c26479549f6a3976
PDF Text
Text
Item ID Number
Author
20
Anonymous
Corporate Author
Report/Article Title Minutes A/A45Y-1 Internal Defoliant Dispenser System Support Conference, 25 and
26 August 1966
Journal/Book Title
Year
™GQ
Month/Day
Color
M
Number of Images
4G
Pages 33, 34, and 38 fold out; includes addendum: memo and replacement page for
Item 9-66-2 of the minutes
Tuesday, November 14, 2000
Page 20 of 25
�Anonymous
1966
Minutes A/A45Y-1 internal defoliant dispenser
system: Support Conference
ES
A/A45Y-1 INTERNAL DEFOLIANT
DISPENSER SYSTEM
SUPPORT CONFERENCE
25 AND 26 AUGUST 1966
.r •^•^••Kjtr.&.x.- *>y:s'vrT«£?3n£*'
''^^^•M^^^-^^^>'?'--'^^
- 'JOftSf-Z':'* - JSW--^ f'.>5^ */S*^":/,' I
£>*r*Sst
.-. ./-TSBS&e'J*sS7-
. -. _ Sel.
'<'*,;'.
J <i'-J^--
�INDEX
Item Number
Title
Page Number
Summary
1
Section I
Introduction/Ranch Hand Report
2
Section n
A/A45Y-1 System Status
Technical Manual Status
3
Section DI
9-66-1
9-66-2
4
9-66-7
Action Items
Ground Support Equipment
TCTQ for Installation of A/A45Y-1 System in
UC-123B Aircraft, Class V Mod 1776
Retrofit Installation of MARK HI Engine
Spares
Retrofit Installation of Optimized (Redesigned)
Wing Boom onUC-123B Aircraft
Maintenance Data and Technical Order
Verification
Maintenance Training of Ranch Hand Personnel
13
Section IV
General Comments/Observations
14
Section V
A/A45Y-1 Defoliation Conference Attendees
16
Section VI
Distribution
17
Section VII
A/A45Y-1 Internal Defoliant Dispenser System
System Description
Capabilities and Limitations
Leading Particulars
Tank and Cradle Assembly
Control Console
Dump Valve
Spray Boom
Aircraft Installation
Viet Nam Ranch Hand Operations
Optimized Defoliant Handling System
Portable Defoliant Handling Unit
18
9-66-3
9-66-4
9-66-5
9-66-6
5
5
7
8
10
11
12
18
18
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
32
37
�Figure Number
Title
Page Number
Illustrations
Figure 1
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 10
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Major Components of Defoliant Dispenser
Control Console
Dump Valve
Tail Spray Boom and Associated Plumbing
Wing Spray Boom
Existing Defoliant Transfer System Tan Son Nhut
Air Base, Viet Nam
Optimized Defoliant Handling System Layout
Defoliant Handling System Components
Tank Trailer Defoliation Liquid Refill
19
22
23
24
25
29
33
34
38
Photographs
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
2
3
8
9
11
12
13
14
Defoliant Dispenser (right side)
Centrifugal Pump
Installation in C-123 (left side)
Installation in C-123 (right side)
Ranch Hand Work Area
Hour Glass Tank and Pump
Hour Glass Tank and Pump (insulated)
Hour Glass Spider Pump
20
21
26
27
30
30
31
31
�SUMMARY
1. The first Logistics Support Meeting for the A/AU5Y-1 Defoliant Dispenser
was held at Hayes International Corp, Birmingham, Ala., on 2li and 25 Aug 1966.
2. The purpose of this meeting was to review program status, evaluate
"Major Problem Areas", and initiate and assign action as required to assure
the timely and successful completion of program requirements for enhancement
of logistic support.
3. Areas within this program requiring action, further refinement and overall close surveillance are documented in section III and IV of these minutes.
Lu A follow-up meeting was determined essential in order to review progress
made on action items, reassess support posture, and include representatives
of agencies absent from this meeting.
5. The minutes of this meeting will be used as a basis of agenda for the
next meeting. Each action agency should complete their assigned action
in accordance with the scheduled dates, if possible, and be prepared to
present status of action taken at the next scheduled meeting. Additional
items may be added to the agenda for review and discussion at this time.
However, to assure adequate time for evaluation and staffing, it is
necessary that proposed agenda items be submitted to WRAMA (WRNQO) at least
one week before the scheduled meeting date.
6. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled at Hayes International Corp.,
Birmingham, Ala., 11-13 Oct 1966. Confirmation of date and location will
be provided by separate correspondence.
7. It is desired to take this opportunity to compliment each representative
for his active participation and support. Especially appreciated are the
efforts of Hayes International in hosting this meeting and the fine
assistance rendered. The productive results obtained and anticipated as
a result of this meeting will be beneficial to all agencies concerned, and
should improve SEJu-support and operational capability.
ROBERT N. SCHEIDECKER
Major, USAF
Chief, Operations Branch
Directorate, Materiel Management
�SECTION I
INTRODUCTION/RANCH HAND REPORT
1. Mr. W. B. O'Neal welcomed the conferees and opened the meeting.
Introduction was given by Lt William Crea, Air Force Project Engineer.
Status of the program was reviewed by Mr. Don Smallwood, Hayes Project
Engineer (Reference Section II).
2. Captain Peshkin gave the report from Ranch Hand. They are growing
very rapidly and a considerable number of problems have developed. As
early as January or February, it was realized that additional aircraft
were going to be programmed for SEA. Storage, maintenance, and training requirements were anticipated; however, no staff support was furnished after discussions with operations and maintenance personnel at Tan
Son NHut. Finally, the aircraft began to arrive. Storage problems still
exist as does spare parts support. Flying continues at approximately
25 sorties per aircraft per month. This is the MACV planning figure
for programming chemicals. Ranch Hand would like to be able to operate
from an additional operating location in the II Corps area to increase
sortie effectiveness. There are presently 9 aircraft in the country 3 at Da Nang and 6 at Tan Son NHut. The operation continues successful
because the equipment is basically good and the air frame is the best
available. The defoliant system has the same characteristics, simplicity,
and reliability. The main problems are as indicated below. Ranch Hand
has been fortunate in their maintenance support resulting in almost 100$ aircraft availability. Many of Ranch Hand's problems could be
helped by better staff support.
�SECTION II
A/A45Y-1 SYSTEM STATUS
ITEM
CONTRACT
1. A/A45Y-1
Prototype
08(635)3609
2. A/A45Y-1
Production
08(635)3609
3. Dump Valve
Kit
08(635)4894
4. Wing Boom
Prototype
08(635)5710
5. Wing Boom
Production
08(635)5710
6. Engine Mod
Mark III
08(635)4894
QUANTITY
DELIVERY
DATE
REMARKS
Sept. 1963
Used in C-130 Test
at Eglin
Systems started at
Hayes
20
Aug. 1964
Six Operational Systems
in Viet Nam. One
destroyed in C-123 crash
in Viet Nam. Seven
delivered to FairchildHiller Corp. for installation in C-123. One
awaiting dump valve and
will be shipped to Fairchild-Hiller. One remaining at Hayes for
Wing Boom Test. One
unassigned. Three
cannibalized for spare
parts by Eglin.
17
Aug. 1965
All operational
A/A45Y-1 systems
equipped with dump
valve.
Sept. 1966
Fabrication complete
by 23 Aug. 1966.
20
March 1967
(Anticipated)
Delivery to be 150 days
after approval of
Prototype.
15
Jan. 1967
(Anticipated)
Twelve to be installed
on new purchase of
twelve A/A45Y-1 by
WRAMA and the remaining three for
spares.
�TECHNICAL MANUAL STATUS
ITEM
STATUS
REMARKS
T. O. 11C15-3-4-2
FIELD, DEPOT OVERHAUL WITH IPB INTERNAL DEFOLIANT
DISPENSER MODEL
A/A45Y-1
Awaiting validation of
System Manual.
In process review performed at
Hayes by WRAMA, 20 and 21
July 1966
T. O. 11C15-3-4-2
FIELD, DEPOT OVERHAUL WITH IPB INTERNAL DEFOLIANT
DISPENSER MODEL
A/A45Y-1
In process.
Manual change to add Mark III
engine pump controls
T. C. T. O.
(Proposed)
No contractural
requirements. Never
was negotiated as per
supplemental agreement number 2.
Contractor recommends preparation of T. C. T. O. for installation of system in C-123 aircraft
T. O. 11C15-3-4-2
FIELD, DEPOT OVERHAUL WITH IPB INTERNAL DEFOLIANT
DISPENSER MODEL
A/A45Y-1
In process.
Change to cover wing boom
program
T. C. T. O.
In process.
To cover installation of wing boom
A/A45Y-1 on C-123 for aircraft
T. O. 's
To cover installation of Mark HI
engine controls in field to retrofit
existing systems
T. C. T. O.
Awaiting receipt of 118A
and contract coverage
�SECTION III
ACTION ITEMS
Item Number 9-66-1 - Ground Support Equipment;
a. Problem Presented;
(1) There are four 1,000 gallon Transfer Tanks (Hour Glass) and one
2,5'00 gallon Fuel Servicing Unit, Type F-7 currently located at Tan Son NHut
with a 5>000 gallon R-2 Storage Tank in the process of installation. There
are also three 1,000 gallon Transfer Tanks (Hour Glass) located at Da Nang.
The unsystemized arrangement and limited capacity of this equipment does
not give sufficient capability to; (1) Fill aircraft that are located at
Tan Son NHut, (2) Turn-around aircraft as rapidly as necessary, and (3)
Operate with the three different type chemical agents now being used. The
present system is characterized by the following; (a) Insufficient tank
storage capacity, (b) Insufficient transfer capacity which limits turnaround time, (c) Inability to systematically select proper chemical
appropriate to target requirements, (d) Inability to evacuate unused
agent from tanks in aircraft.
(2) The present system is progressively deteriorating due to
use of 1952 vintage Hour Glass transfer equipment. This system cannot
be supported and therefore will be eliminated from inventory at failure
or when sooner replaced. Glaring deficiencies of this system are as noted;
(a) Non-standard system, (b) Limited or no spare parts available, (c)
Fire hose used to connect transfer tanks deteriorates in from h to 10 days,
(d) Contamination of flow system (mainly due to rubber particles from fire
hose lining plus sand and other foreign particles introduced by siphoning
probes) because of lack of well thought out systems approach, (e) Inadequate
pumping capability (Spider pump used for siphoning agent from 55 gallon drums
is old and weak).
b. Progress to Date:
(1) An R-2 Storage Tank (5,000 gallon), salvaged from an R-2
Servicing Unit, is to be installed by Ranch Hand to provide additional
transfer and storage capability and is awaiting plumbing installation by
Base Civil Engineer. (Compatibility of this tank with existing chemical
agents is doubtful).
(2) One F-7 Servicing Unit is now in use with five more on order.
(So far this equipment is functionally satisfactory, but will need teflon
hosing and seals for compatibility with existing agents).
�(3) Use of ARMY Bladder Tanks for storage is being investigated by
377 Combat Support Group (Base Fuels), Tan Son NHut. (Question of agent
compatibility still remains) .
(I;) The A/AU5T-1 System has a self -filling capability, but was
found to be too slow and therefore incompatible with quick turn-around
requirement.
Use of B-l and B-1A Nitric Acid Servicing Units (2,000
gallon capacity) were proposed by Hayes as they were believed to be in
excess storage. Investigation by WRAMA Vehicle Manager revealed these
units to be unsatisfactory for their designed purpose and were dismantled
and removed from inventory.
c. Action to be Taken and Action Agency;
(1) Provide adequate bulk storage and pumping facilities for
three different chemical agents at two, possibly three different bases.
A requirement exists for the simultaneous filling of as many as nine
aircraft at Tan Son NHut and three at Da Nang with a possible total of
five at Da Nang and three at another operating location (does not include
Lucky Tiger). Action agency to be determined.
(2) Provide additional F-7 Servicing Units to Ranch Hand WRAMA (WRNR).
(3) Provide teflon hoses and gaskets for F-7 Servicing Units WRAMA (WRNR).
d. Forecast for Completion;
(1) Fixed facility - to be determined.
(2) Additional F-7 Servicing Units - accomplished.
(3) Teflon hoses and gaskets - to be determined.
�Item Number 9-66-2 - TCTO for Installation of A/AlpY-1 System in UC-123B
Aircraft, Class V Mod 1776:
a.
Problem Presented;
Eglin AFB Contract AF 08(635)-l|89lj, dated 20 Oct 1963', provided
a line item for data in accordance with DD Form llj.23 covering preparation
of TCTO for installation of A/Al^Y-l System in UC-123B Aircraft (AFPI 71r
;>'31-(l8). Repeated attempts by Contractor, AFATL, and A/Al^T-1 IM have
been unsuccessful in obtaining from C-123 SSM appropriate documentation
(AFLC Form 118A) identifying type of TCTO and aircraft handbook revisions
desired. Ranch Hand representatives advised that considerable difficulty
is being experienced by Flight crews and Aircraft Maintenance personnel
due to lack of appropriate -1 Flight Manual Supplement and Aircraft
Maintenance Handbook data reflecting this systems installation. This
creates an obvious problem with operation and maintenance as well as a
serious problem with indoctrination of new crews due to high percentage
and frequency of personnel rotation.
k'
Pro gre s s to Da t e:
None
c. Action to be Taken and Action Agency:
(1) WRNB initiate documentation for preparation of TCTO
covering installation of basic A/Al^Y-1 system using Hayes tail boom
and de-modification of aircraft (removal of tank and cradle assy) back
to cargo configuration.
(2) WRNB initiate documentation for preparation of TCTO
covering installation of Ranch Hand wing and tail boom and marriage with
basic Hayes A/Al^Y-l System.
(3) WRNB establish requirement for preparation of Aircraft
Maintenance handbooks concurrent with requirement for respective TCTO's.
(li) "WRNB initiate immediate action to provide Ranch Hand with
required supplement to T. 0. 1C-123-1 Flight Manual reflecting Defoliant
Spray configuration.
d.
Forecast for Completion:
Delinquent - In view of non-participation in this meeting by
C-123 SSM personnel, a report of intended action and progress made is
required at next meeting tentatively planned for 11-13 Oct 1966.
�Item Number 9-66-3 - Retrofit Installation of MARK III Engine:
a. Problem Presented;
AFATL (ATCB) has provided for complete modification kits to
retrofit present operational Ranch Hand Dispensers, utilizing MARK I
and MARK II engines, to latest ARMY standardized MARK III engine
configuration. The A/Al^Y-l system has not been made full standard
by AFSC; therefore, responsibility rests with AFSC to provide retrofit
kits and required TCTO for Field installation.
b.
Progress to date;
Required number of kits have been placed on Contract AF 08(635)-k&9k with Hayes International.
c. Action to be Taken and Action Agency:
(1) AFATL (ATCB) submit request to WRAMA (WRNSTR) for AFPI 18
covering this modification and appropriate handbook revisions.
(2) WRNSTR provide AFPI 18 as required.
(3) Contractual provisions by AFATL for TCTO and handbook
revis ions.
d. Forecast for Completion;
(1) 25 Sep 66.
(2) Provide AFPI to AFATL within five days after receipt.
(3) To be determined - contingent on authority for reprogramming funds within project 2^25 and subsequent initiation of
Purchase Request.
�(2) Reference a(2) above. WRAMA (WRNQ) will review this problem
with appropriate personnel at "WRAMA and Eglin AFB to determine specific cause
and remedial action.
(3) Reference a(3) above. WRAMA (WRNQ) will review end item
spares requirements to determine proper course of action necessary to provide adequate spare assemblies to support Field operations where battle
damage or loss might be incurred requiring complete assembly replacement.
Coordination with the using activity will be required.
d. Forecast for Completion;
(1) Reference c(l) above.
(a) Revision of AFLC Form 2? - 15 Sep 1966.
(b) Spare parts recomputation - lii Oct 1966.
(c) Release of spare parts orders to contractor/vendors to be determined based on method to be employed.
(2) Reference c(2) above. 13' Sep 1966.
(3) Reference c(3) above. 30 Sep 1966.
�Item Number 9-66-14 - Spares;
a. Problem Presented;
(1) Requirement for M&O spare parts for support of A/Ai^I-1
System is expected to reach critical proportions in the very near future
due to, (1) increase in number of spray aircraft, (2) late provisioning
action in relation to first operational units, and (3) system contamination by grit and rubber particles resulting from poor system arrangement
and servicing equipment that is incompatible with presently used chemical
agents. Also, WRAMA has received a flood of requistions for spare parts
exceeding initially provisioned quantities, which did not consider system
contamination problem. Lack of spare parts support is a limiting factor
in Ranch Hand operations.
(2) Spare parts orders are not being received by Hayes from
Eglin AFB, procurement agency (APGC), in a timely manner.
(3) No provisions have been made to procure and stock spare
complete assemblies, such as, Tank and Cradle Assembly, Engine and Pump
Assembly, and Control Console Assembly.
b.
Progress to Date:
(1) Reference a(l) above. A quantity of stop-gap spare parts
were procured by AFATL on Contract AF 08(63£)-U89U. However, these have
proven inadequate to sustain desired degree of Ranch Hand operation
pending delivery of spare parts as a result of formal provisioning by
WRAMA. Some support has been furnished by Hayes International through
their engineering representative previously stationed with Ranch Hand.
Further, WRAMA and DCASO at Hayes are working together with the contractor
in an attempt to expedite vendor delivery of specific spare parts.
(2) Reference a(2) above. A previous review of this problem
with Eglin AFB, procurement activity, was supposed to have alleviated
this condition or at least improved flow of documentation from Eglin
to Hayes. Further investigation is in order.
(3) Reference a(3) above. No progress to date,
c. Action to be Taken and Action Agency;
(1) Reference a(l) above. The programming check list (AFLC
Form 2?) will be revised to reflect increase in number of systems and
bases to be supported, and spare parts requirement will be recomputed
for appropriate procurement action.
10
�Item Number 9-66-5 - Retrofit Installation of Optimized (Redesigned) Wing
Boom on UC-123B Aircraft:
a. Problem Presented;
No authorization currently exists for installation of the Optimized
Wing Boom on Ranch Hand and Lucky Tiger Aircraft. The__wirig..,b,oqra,,npjrf.jgmpl.Qyed
by aircraft in SEA, is a ^wn-sl^dajd^^
"c^mpa"tible™¥itff~agen"t"s""n'o*w'"in use, and is not logisticailV"supportable,.
f-,,.
L™.,
« „„
„,
*
™
.
, v , ( ^ n . . ^ * ^ ' - * f !*.*
?-.*
< w , h ™ « ^ - « ^ * " * " ' -•«!
•.•..^^-*«'^***«f-^^-^''*M'~'*^-mt*l**^™*^-*-»™-'*VKKf~f:<i.-*KX***VJVKVt<*VK*
b. Progress to Date:
The Optimized Wing Boom is presently being developed by AFATL
under Contract AF 08(635)5710 with Hayes International.
c. Action to be Taken;
The using command will establish appropriate requirement for
installation of Optimized Wing Boom.
d. Forecast for Completion:
23 Sep 1966.
11
�Item Number 9-66-6 - Maintenance Data and Technical Order Verification;
a. Problem Presented:
Maintenance data has not been provided field activities due to
delayed verification of technical order. This has created considerable
difficulty regarding system maintenance and identification of spare parts
requirements.
b.
Progress to Date:
Hayes has completed technical order draft in MIL Spec format.
Preliminary review of blue line draft has been accomplished by WRAMA at
Hayes. Equipment is currently available at Hayes and ready for verification.
However, it has a MARK I configured engine installed. The MARK III engine
is still pending delivery from vendor's plant where it is being mated to
the pump. It was agreed that the difference between the MARK I and MARK III
engine was not sufficient to warrant further delay in verification of technical order. WRAMA agrees to accomplish verification on existing equipment
with MARK I engine. Final draft is to reflect the MARK III configuration,
which will be verified against engineering drawings.
c. Action to be Taken and Action Agency;
(1) Hayes will take immediate action to establish a date with
WRAMA (WRNSTR) for verification meeting at Hayes. Time of meeting should
be established to allow a minimum of l£ days for proper notification of
participating activities. Ranch Hand representatives agreed there will be no
requirement for participation by their activity in this verification. In
lieu thereof WRAMA will explore the possibility of obtaining using command
assistance from personnel of SAWC at Eglin AFB, who have a current and
specific knowledge of .Ranch Hand operation.
(2) Assistance of the Hayes - DCASO Quality Office will be
required in the performance of this certification and will be primary
point of contact relative to WRAMA/Hayes coordination of proposed date
of certification meeting.
d.
Forecast for Completion:
At the earliest possible date.
12
�Item Number 9-66-7 - Maintenance Training of Ranch Hand Personnel
a. Problem Presented:
Newly assigned Ranch Hand Maintenance personnel upon arrival have
little or no knowledge as to maintenance of the A/AU5Y-1 dispenser due to
there having no prior training on this system. The resulting problems are
obvious.
b. Progress to Date;
None
c. Action to be Taken;
(1) Ranch Hand should establish and submit an official requirement in accordance with AF Regulation 50-9 to Air Training Command citing
type and scope of training required. However, due to extreme urgency of
existing requirement, it was requested by Ranch Hand that a contractor
representative (Hayes) be provided in the interim, pending development of
training capability by ATC. If interim contractor support for indoctrination
of Ranch Hand Maintenance personnel is not provided, some other immediate
means of training must be investigated.
(2) Discussion of contractor support indicated the most feasible
and expeditious approach would be use of an existing Eglin AFB contract.
However, this will require approval and funding by Hq USAF.
d. Forecast for Completion:
(1) Ranch Hand submit requirement as soon as possible.
(2) Final action on this requirement is yet to be determined.
13
�SECTION IV
GENEIUL COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS
1. Forthcoming flight test of the protype optimized wing boom was
introduced as a discussion item by AFATL representative, Lt. Crea.
Also recognized was the recent diversion of UC-123B aircraft to
Dallas, Texas, pending deployment and voluntary participation and
support of Hayes International for the purpose of spraying insecticide
in encephalitis infected areas. It was noted that this disease is not
restricted to the CONUS as was indicated by an Associated Press report
reflecting loss of 381i lives so far this year out of 1616 cases throughout Japan. As a result of the tremendous effectiveness and publicity of
the C-123 spray operation in Dallas, it is envisioned that additional
requirements are forthcoming for use of A/Alji?Y-l equipped aircraft for
insecticide spraying on a world-wide basis, especially in SEA. Lt. Crea
indicated he would communicate with TAG regarding intended use of
insecticides with the defoliant system. If use is contemplated, TAG
will be asked to establish a formal requirement for test of insecticides
concurrent with test of defoliants during flight test of optimized wing
boom at Eglin during September and October 1966.
2. The Ranch Hand mission is not consistent with the mission of the
organization to which they are assigned. This leads to competition for
resources, maintenance, and Staff Support. Proper emphasis or priority
has not been placed on the defoliation mission thereby restricting the
establishment of appropriate facilities for storage and transfer of more
than one type chemical agent at Tan Son NHut and other operating locations.
A definite advantage is envisioned by identification of the defoliation
system as a weapons systems for the delivery and dissemination of chemical
ordnance. Specifically, one advantage of a weapons systems identification
would be to rationalize the storage and.loading problem by having the chemicals
handled by personnel who handle other Air Force ordnance. This could possibly
result in taking the aircraft maintenance people out of the ordnance loading
business. This was not introduced as a problem as appropriate agencies were
not in attendance for proper discussion and action assignment. However,
aforementioned weapons systems identification has considerable merit and
should be evaluated by PACAF and Hq USAF to determine specific advantages
to be derived for further discussion during next meeting.
3. A need was expressed by Ranch Hand for a pamphlet depicting defoliation
spraying in SEA covering subjects such as:
a. Chemical type, effect and hazzards.
b.
Type crop and vegatation recognition.
c.
Psyochological effect on populace.
�Such a pamphlet would be invaluable for indoctrination of new crews upon
arrival in SEA and would be used to supplement present verbal instructional
methods which are accomplished mostly during normal spray missions. Hayes
International expressed an interest in preparing such a manual as they have
the knowledge and capability. However,, discussion was deferred to next
meeting at which time it is hoped that the office of primary responsibility
may be able to offer some constructive advice relative to obtaining this
pamphlet.
15
�SECTION V
A/A45Y-1 DEFOLIATION CONFERENCE ATTENDEES
Mcij Robert N. Scheidecker, WRAMA
Capt Richard Peshkin, Ranch Hand
Lt William J.Crea, Jr., ATCB
SMS Charles Lightner, Ranch Hand
Mr. Gene Smith, WRAMA
W.B. O'Neal, Hayes
C.F. Conklin, Hayes
J.L. Harrington, Hayes
John Bonta, Hayes
Don Smallwood, Hayes
J.E. Merk, Hayes
Stan Burkot, Hayes
Ronnie Dear, Hayes
M.J. McMahan, Hayes
16
�SECTION VI
DISTRIBUTION
Nr of Copies
2
2
Activity
2
MACV
7th AF (DOPR)
(DMP)
(DAFSC/AFSC
Lia Off)
315th ACW (DO)
h
309th ACS (SASF)
1
1
3
1
1
h
377th CSG (DGM)
(D/fo)
377th QMS
llith ACW (Comdr)
PACAF (DM)
(DM)
(DMMB)
Hq USAF (AFRDDA)
(AFRDQRA)
(AFSMEAA)
(AFXOP)
(AFSMSDA)
TAG (DOFT-S)
(DOO-S)
(DORQ-FM)
ATC (ATTAT-B)
Dept of Aerospace
Munitions (GS-WC)
AFLC (MCMTA)
(MCMTE)
(MCO)
(MCOOM)
ASD (ASJB)
1
1
l
1
3
3
AFSC (SCSMM)
HQ RTD (RTTtf)
UljOSth CCT3
SAWC-LC
AFATL (ATCB)
SAAMA (SANM)
12
(SANNR)
(SAOR)
WRAMA (WRNQO)
Name
J-3 Chemical Branch
Major Haugaton
Lt Col McCellan
Maj Richard Engian
Lt Col Reddrick
Major Kline
Lt Col Ferguson
Major Dresser
Captain Peshkin
S/MSGT C. B. Lightner
Col Harris
Lt Col Carter
Major Sibley
Colonel Bradburn
Colonel Thomas B. Kennedy
Lt Col C. N. Powell
Maj ¥. A. McKinney
Lt Col Carter
Lt Col May
Mr. Ed Dougherty
Maj Vinson
Maj White
Maj Marshall
Capt Adams
Maj Novikoff
Lt Col Gibson
TSgt Gailes
Mr. Fields
Mr. Whitacre
Mr. Finch
Mr. Clark
Mr. Brown
Mr. Brothers
Mr. Pfiefer
Mr. Goodwin
Capt John R. Spey
Lt Col Huston
Lt Crea
Mr. Arthur Miller
Mr. Jack Burton
Maj R. N. Scheidecker
17
�SECTION VII
A/A45Y-1 INTERNAL DEFOLIANT DISPENSER SYSTEM
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The A/A45Y-1 Internal Defoliant Dispenser, designed and manufactured
by Hayes International Corporation, Birmingham, Alabama, is a complete
airborne defoliant dispensing system. The dispenser is packaged to permit
rapid installation into, and removal from, C-123 aircraft, with only minor
modifications required to the affected aircraft. (See figures 1 and 2.)
The Internal Defoliant Dispenser, Part No. A/A45Y-1, provides for loading,
transporting and dispensing of 1000 gallons of defoliant chemical, and in case
of an emergency, dumping the full load overboard in less than 45 seconds. The
tank and cradle assembly is mounted on detachable casters which are removed
before anchoring in the aircraft. A control console is electrically connected
into an electrical network which in turn is connected to the aircraft electrical
system, certain controls and indicators in the flight compartment and the electrically operated units within the system. Pressure is applied to defoliant
chemical, by an engine and pump assembly mounted on the same frame with the
tank. The defoliant is transported to a nozzle assembly mounted in the slipstream of the aircraft in such a manner that a strip 250 or 300 feet wide along
the line of flight is effectively covered. The nozzle assembly is designed for
the most effective atomizing of the defoliant and coverage of foliage to be
destroyed. The dispensing operation and, in emergency, the dump valve
operation can be controlled from either the control console near the tank and
cradle assembly or from the pilot's position in the flight compartment.
CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS
The internal defoliant dispenser is capable of containing 1000 gallons of
defoliant which can be completely dumped overboard by remote control or
manually in less than 45 seconds. The pump is capable of maintaining 60 + 5
psi pressure during the normal 3- to 4-minute period of operational spraying.
Refilling the tank assembly is accomplished with power and equipment contained
within the defoliation dispensing system.
18
�A / A 4 5 Y - 1 INTERNAL DEFOLIANT DISPENSER
.TANK VENT
.MANHOLE COVER
DUMP VALVE
(SEE FIGURE 5)
TANK
LIQUID LEVEL
ENGINE EXHAUST
VIBRATION
ISOLATOR SEGMENT
CENTRIFUGAL PUMP
(SEE FIGURE 3)
TIE-DOWN
FITTINGS
MAIN SPRAY VALVE
RECIRCULATING
LINE
CONTROL CONSOLE
(SEE FIGURE 4)
JACKING LUG
TEMPERATURE
INDICATOR
JET PUMP
REFILL
CRADLE
NOTE:
SEE FIGURE 6 FOR TAIL
BOOM AND FIGURE 7 FOR
WING BOOM. FIGURES 8
AND 9 SHOW A/A45Y-1
INSTALLED IN C-123 AIRCRAFT.
Figure 1. Mo/or Components of Defoliant Dispenser
19
�Figure 2. Defoliant Dispenser (right side)
LEADING PARTICULARS
Length
Width
Height (without casters)
Weight
Empty
Full
Capacity
Normal operating pressure
Normal dispensing interval
Emergency dump duration
Electrical system
Dump valve operation
Refill time (approx)
Dump valve
Spray valve
Suction valve
16 feet, 4 inches
4 feet, 10 inches
6 feet, 5 inches
1420 pounds
12,420 pounds
1000 gallons
60 + 5 psi
3 to 4 minutes
Less than 45 seconds
28 volts dc (supplied by host aircraft)
Electrical or manual
20 minutes
Electrical, 10 inch
Electrical, 3 inch
Manual, 3 inch
20
�TANK AND CRADLE ASSEMBLY
The tank and cradle assembly is the major unit of the entire system, having a
1000-gallon tank with baffles, manhole, tube connections, and stabilizing and tiedown brackets; an engine and pump assembly which consists of a four cylinder,
horizontally opposed air-cooled, engine and pump directly coupled to the engine
,H
Figure 3. Centrifugal Pump
crankshaft; and a cradle which carries the tank, the engine and pump assembly, and is
provided with four casters which are readily detachable. A temperature indicator and
a liquid lever gage are installed in the tank. The engine is slightly modified from its
original configuration to achieve adaptability to the requirements of the dispenser
system. The detachable casters are to provide limited mobility and are removed
when the unit is tied down.
The defoliant used in the dispenser is stored in the tank and is fed through a
suction line to the pump. The pump is driven by an air-cooled engine and forces
the defoliant through a discharge line to a spray valve. A recirculation line is
21
�provided so that when the spray valve is closed, the defoliant will recirculate
back through the tank. When the spray valve is open, the defoliant is forced
into the spray boom and atomized by spray nozzles. When the tank is empty,
a float-operated switch, located in the tank, automatically stops the engines.
The centrifugal pump consists essentially of an impeller and a pump body,
and is driven by the engine through a direct drive. The engine drives the pump
and the speed of the engine controls the quantity of defoliant being dispensed.
(See figure 3.)
The recirculation line incorporates a jet-pump (ejector) tank refilling system which utilizes the fluid left in the tank from prior operation to initially
operate the jet pump.
CONTROL CONSOLE
The control console is the nerve center of the defoliation system. All
functions are controlled from this position; all monitoring equipment is located
in this position; and the electrical supply is channeled and protected at this
position. Prefabricated electrical cables tic the control console to all related
REFILL
FLUID
POWER
FLOAT SWITCH
OVERRIDE
FWD UNIT
AFT UNIT
STARTER
AND
SPRAY
CHOKE THROTTLES INDICATORS V A L V E
TANK EMPTY
FWD UNIT
AFT UNIT
ENGINES
FWD UNIT
OIL PRESSURE
LOW
OPERATE
AFT UNIT
OIL PRESSURE
LOW
OPERATE
MAGNETO
SPRAY VALVE
©
THROTTLES
OPEN
INCREASE
t
PILOT
POSITION
FWD
UNIT
(o)
(o)
AFT
UNIT
DECREASE
Figure 4, Control Console
22
�parts of the system, including the controls on the pilot's instrument panel and
the aircraft electrical supply system. Tandem or single installations arc
controlled and monitored from the control console without any changes or
alterations being performed. In the event of electrical power failure of the
aircraft electrical system, certain critical functions have an option of
manual operation. (See figure 4.)
DUMP VALVE
The dump valve is a 10 inch gate valve having both electrical or manual
activation. It is designed for horizontal (vertical flow) installation and liquid
flow in only one direction. The bottom of the defoliant tank incorporates a
vortex interrupter and adapter to which the dump valve is secured and is in
perfect alignment with an opening and spring loaded door in the belly of the
aircraft. A high speed motor coupled to an actuator provides 2 second operation of the dump valve in either direction and circuit manipulation to indicate
open condition. (See figure 5.)
Figure 5. Dump Valve
23
�SPRAY BOOM
The prime function of the spray boom is to discharge the defoliant under
pressure at such a location and at such an angle that air flow, in the proximity
of the discharge (spray) nozzle, contributes to the proper density of spray, the
consistency of the defoliant blanket; and the lateral dimension of the effective
strip. Two spray booms are available when the C-123 model aircraft is used
and each boom satisfies a specific set of requirements.
TIE-DOWNS
TAIL BOOM
INSTALLATION
STRUTS
Figure 6. Tail Spray Boom and Associated Plumbing
24
�LEFT HAND SIDE
OF FUSELAGE
AT THIS POINT
CENTER WING
PIPING
EXTERNAL BOOM
I
3
>Q
CO
•o
CD
o
o
NOZZLE
FAIRING
SPRAY NOZZLES
INBOARD OF
NACELLE
NOZZLES OUTBOARD
OF NACELLE
<L
FUSELAGE
�The tail spray boom (figure 6) is mounted outside the aircraft, approximately
midway of the aft cargo loading door. It is designed for simple and fast
installation and removal and erovldesjjoyerage of a 250 foot strip.
The wing spray boom (figure 7) is installed in the inside of the center wing and
externally underneath the outboard wing. As compared to the tail boom, its instaltion and removal is more complex and is considered a more permanent installation. The wing boom provides coverage of a 300 foot strip and the
effectiveness of the application is more uniform.
Installation and removal of either spray boom does not require special
skills or special tools.
Figure 8. Installation in C-723 (left side)
�AIRCRAFT INSTALLATION
The dispenser installation in C-123 aircraft consists of towing the tank and
cradle assembly (unfilled) into the aircraft and securing it to the aircraft floor
utilizing twenty 10,000-pound hook and chain assemblies and the cargo floor
tie-down fittings (figures 8 and 9). All piping, hose assemblies and electrical
cables are installed which tie the A/A45Y-1 dispenser into the aircraft (as
modified) systems, and the control console is secured to the aircraft floor;
thus, making the aircraft-dispenser combination ready for servicing and operation.
Figure 9- Installation in C-123 (right side)
27
�VIET NAM RANCH HAND OPERATIONS
A sketch of the ground support equipment used by RANCH HAND to refill
the A/A45Y-1 dispensers with agent is shown in figure 10. The refill system
presented here is the system used at Tan Son Nhut Air Base, Viet Nam. It
utilizes four 1000 gallon HOURGLASS tanks. A similar refill system is
used at Da Nang, but utilizes only three HOURGLASS tanks. These tanks
are the predecessor to the A/A45Y-1 and incorporate a 10-horsepower
engine and pump unit by which the agent is transferred into the aircraft.
The agent is delivered in 55-gallon drums, then pumped from three
drums at a time into the refill tanks. This is the slowest part of the
operation. The procedure for filling tanks is as follows:
a. The number 2 tank is filled from 55-gallon drums.
b. The agent in the number 2 tank is pumped into tank number 3.
c. Agent in tank number 3 is then pumped into tank number 4.
d. Tank number 2 is refilled and the agent pumped into tank number 3.
e. Tank number 2 is again refilled from the drums and pumped into
tank number 1.
f. All other tanks now filled, tank number 2 is refilled again.
Upon return from a mission, the aircraft is backed as close as possible
to the refill tanks and the systems are refilled with agent using a
commercial fire hose. After completion of the days work the HOURGLASS tanks are filled and the agent transferred into the aircraft. The
refill tanks are then refilled in preparation for a second mission. Due
to the long time needed to fill from the drums, the RANCH HAND crews
are limited to only one turn around, or a total of two missions.
A big disadvantage of refilling in this manner is the problem of
contamination to the agent. Foreign matter gets into the refill tanks and from
there into aircraft defoliant dispensing system. The rubber inside lining
of fire hoses, presently used, is acted upon by the defoliant and causes large
pieces of rubber to be released into the defoliant stream, thereby reducing the
system effectiveness. See figures 11 thru 14 for potographic on-site refill
operations.
28
�Figure 70. Existing Defoliant Transfer System Tan Son Nhut Air Base, Viet Nam
29
�Figure 17. Ranch Hand Ytork Areo
Figure 12. Hour Glass Tank and Pump
30
�Figure 13. Hour Glass Tank and Pump (Insulated)
Figure 14. Hour Glass Spider Pump
31
�OPTIMIZED DEFOLIANT HANDLING SYSTEM
GENERAL
A complete optimized defoliant handling system utilizes three engine-pump
combination units to transfer the defoliant from original containers to
A/A45Y-1 units in aircraft readied for an operational defoliation mission. A
storage tank, platform, control consoles, hoses, and nozzles, combined into a
well balanced system, accomplish the entire defoliant handling operation.
Economy of man-hours, reduction of turn-around time and elimination of
wasted defoliant are the prime factors for consideration. (See figures 1 and 2.)
GENERAL LAYOUT DESCRIPTION
A platform, having a height compatible with a flat bed trailer and an area
to accommodate a 10,000 gallon tank and three engine-pump transfer units, is
located in close proximity to truck roadways and aircraft parking ramp. The
platform would have one engine-pump unit on the side adjacent to the truck roadway,
a 10,000 gallon tank in the center and two engine-pump units on the side
nearest the aircraft parking ramp. Hoses, nozzles, and manifolds are used
to tie all major components into a well balanced and efficient system.
SPECIFIC
The actual arrangement of the defoliant handling system is contingent on
the complexion and layout of the particular air base; however, certain
specifics must be met to achieve maximum effectiveness.
PLATFORM
The platform is a locally manufactured structure approximately the same height
as a flat bed trailer and having lateral dimensions as necessary to accommodate the shape and size of the 10, 000-gallon tank plus the related units.
A support for a suction hose and manifold is located on the truck side of
the platform and is designed so that the suction manifold is supported at
approximately the centerline of the flat bed trailer. The platform deck
has 1/4-inch cracks between decking members to dissipate any defoliant
spillage.
ENGINE AND PUMP UNIT
The engine and pump unit is identical to that incorporated in the
A/A45Y-1 dispenser and is specifically engineered for effective transfer
32
�Figure 15.
Loyo«f
�FOi
LIME
LIME
55 GAL
FOR
f If
16. Defoliant
34
�of defoliant under sustained operation. The engine is a government
standard, air-cooled, four cylinder, four stroke cycle, horizontally
opposed model modified for remote control when mated with the control
console. The engine is available in large quantities, economical to operate, proven in performance, and easily maintained due to maximum accessibility. It is designed to operate a minimum of 1500 hours at rated load
and speed between major overhauls. Its extensive use in defoliation
operations tends to standardize maintenance and provide a spare parts
source through controlled cannibalization.
The pump has been modified by the manufacturer so that it attaches
to the engine at the blower section and the drive end of the crankshaft
thus giving the engine and pump a one to one ratio. Shock mounting is
provided to the engine-pump unit.
CONTROL CONSOLE
The control console is located at the end of the storage to permit
visual monitoring of any engine-pump unit on the platform. All transfer
functions are controlled by a single operator at the control console position.
In addition to control functions, there are certain monitoring gages and
instruments installed in the instrument panel of the control console. The
electrical network is considered semi-permanently installed and so
arranged that simple maintenance is quickly accomplished.
TANK
The tank has a 10, 000-gallon capacity, protected sight gage, manhole, vent,
drain line connection, and facilities for securing to the platform. The sight gage
is a vertically mounted glass tube with connections to tank at each end, protectors
to reduce the probability of breaking, and calibrations to indicate tank contents.
MISCELLANEOUS
Suction Hose. Suction hoses are provided having an inside diameter
which will not be too restrictive to defoliant flow and having a wall structure
to prevent collapse of hose. Hoses which are frequently disconnected have
quick-disconnects to prevent rapid deterioration at connecting points.
Pressure Hoses. Pressure hoses are capable of pressures up to 100 psig
and have adapters in cases where control nozzles are attached. Hose material
is selected to withstand the chemical action of the defoliant.
35
�SYSTEM TIE-IN
The storage tank is located in the approximate center of the platform with
one engine-pump unit on the truck side of the platform and two engine-pump
units on the aircraft side of the platform. The single engine-pump unit has
a 3-inch suction hose connected between the pump and the suction manifold.
The suction manifold has three 1-1/4 inch suction hoses attached which are
suspended from the suction manifold in such a manner as to hang directly
over three 55-gallon drums on the flat bed trailer. A control console is
secured to the platform deck in the proximity of the end of the storage tank
and is electrically connected to the engine-pump unit.
Two engine-pump units and their companion control console are located
on the aircraft side of the platform and are shock mounted to the platform
deck. The suction ports of the two engine-pump units are manifolded so
that a single line attaches to the bottom of the storage tank. The discharge
(pressure) ports of the two engine-pump units are also manifolded and
after the pressure manifold, a single line conveys the defoliant to the aircraft having A/A45Y-1 dispensers to be serviced. Check valves are installed
in pump discharge lines to permit operation of a single engine-pump unit when
demands are less than maximum. At each aircraft position, a smaller
pressure line with a shutoff nozzle is connected into the main line hose.
These two engine-pump units are controlled concurrently from a single
control console.
An electrical network is provided which gives electrical tie-in of all
related electrically functioning units. Cable insulation is chemically unaffected by defoliant in the environs of the defoliant handling system.
CAPABILITIES
Transfer 10, 000 gallons from drums
to storage tank (less truck move time)
Service two A/A45Y-1 dispensers
(in aircraft)
Service four A/A45Y-1 dispensers
(in aircraft)
Remotely controlled functions:
1. Drums to storage tank
shutoff valves
2. Storage tank to aircraft
main lines (2) shutoff
valves
25 minutes
5 minutes
5 minutes
3. Engine throttle
^ Engine starter
Engine &
ignition
6
36
�PORTABLE DEFOLIANT HANDLING UNIT
The portable defoliant handling unit idea is conceived for military installations
where limited servicing of A/A45Y-1 dispensers might be required. The trailer
is capable of traveling at faster speeds and for greater distances than the A/
A/A45Y-1 dispenser and, being a powered unit, it speeds up the servicing of
the dispensers installed in aircraft. Overall dimensions are kept within limits
which will permit air transportation of loaded units to isolated landing fields or
airstrips.
Technical data and capabilities are contained in figure 17.
37
�DESCRIPTION
HAOt FtOM- HAYfS /wr<S*«*t tefOLIATIOM
StSfitNSeX.
_ fOR
MlttTHAY UHfgLS j TMfS »gf VSfO. It » 8 to PI.Y FIK1 tttiiS
VtttHT 1,O6O «.»$,
IS,OOO ISS. t,t»6O
Og
vtrtt nspioTt .ceNrtot. sr/ineM POM tHttee WUCMFT
8V OCCSATOS IHStif
ffltCSfifr
n» PltfYtNT
SOftP&lfT.
Ktt*S.Ufl6HTS,fST.
UHftii
tiffin
SPIillM®, ttOSf 3 JW, DIA. X 10 f f LON6
Hosts uirnoutcx coMwecroMS taun£D IN rusrs. fsott svi^fNsioN.
s@i/st,e
VflLVt
xCO</PLM6
LU.H1 TMl f STOP
suirctf
THtOTTiE
Figure 17, Tank Trailer
F l t l f R FOSL
SA4E FUEL
Litjoid Refill
38
�66
IWIEPft/lTIOVXl CORPORATION
SMTWTFS
SMTWTFS
SMTWTFS
SMTWTFS
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
2
9
16
23
30
3
10
17
24
31
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
o
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
8
15
22
29
1
6 7 8
13 14 15
20 21 22
27 28
MAY
1
2
8 9
15 16
22 23
29
e
3
10
17
24
31
4
11
18
25
O
3
10
17
24
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
1
8
15
22
29
JUN
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
SEP
4
6 7
11 12 13 14
18 19 20 21
25 26 27 28
2
9
16
23
1
8
15
22
29
2 3
9 10
16 17
23 24
30 —
2
9
16
23
30
3
10
17
24
31
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
3
10
17
24
31
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
2
9
16
23
30
3
10
17
24
4
11
18
25
O
3
5
11 12
10
17 18 19
24 25 26
31
6
13
20
27
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
1
8
15
22
29
7
14
21
28
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
3
AUG
7
14
21
28
1
8
15
22
29
2
9
16
23
30
7
14
21
28
1
8
15
22
29
NOV
1
8
15
22
29
6
13
20
27
1 .._
2
8
15 16
22 23
29 30
1 2
"~3
10
17
24
JUl
OCT
1
8
15
22
29
2
9
16
23
30
2 3 4
9 10 11
16 17 18
23 ® O
30
2
9
16
23
30
-3
10
17
24
31
DEC
5
12
19
26
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
27 28 29 30 31
©
*
NOTES
39
�NOTES
40
�I
I
I
t
METROPOLITAN
SCALE ONE INCH F.QUftiS APPROXIMATED 2 = MILES
Controlled Access Highways
'fi'.-s-:e c-o ?. ' w-'v =• !--ec-c'ges'
Other Dual Thoroughfares
Principal Through Routes
Other Paved Roads
Streets and Connecting Roads
Mileage Distances between red dots
Highway £gj) ,nterstate
Numbers. \~S
@ U.S
^""^
@State
[77] Counts
I
�MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
AIR LINES
Air France
Alitala Air Lines
BOAC & BOAC Cunard
Delta Air Lines
Eastern Air Lines
Southern Airways
Trans World Air Lines
United Air Lines
Hotels:
Pick-Bankhead 2300 5th Ave. North
Dinkler-Tutwiler 2005 5th Ave. North
Essex House Hotel 605 North 21st
Redmont Hotel 2101 5th Ave. North
Thomas Jefferson Hotel 1631 2nd Ave North
PHONE
251-7076
324-1291
323-7259
592-9601
323-7711
595-3737
WX-9000
592-9611
251-3231
252-8161
322-1771
251-0171
252-7141
(apartments)
(apartments)
Motels and Motor Inns:
Anchor Motel 4121 3rd Ave South
Birmingham Airport Motel Municipal Airport
Downtowner Motor Inn 2224 5th Ave North
Guest House Motor Inn 951 South 18th
Holiday Inn (downtown) 1313 3rd Ave. North
Holiday Inn (Irondale) 7941 Crestwood Blvd.
Parliament House Motor Hotel 420 South 20th
Roebuck Motels 9229 4th Ave. South
Sheraton Motor Inn 2040 Highland Ave. South
Town House Motor Hotel 2008 8th Ave South
595-6157
592-0061
324-0601
324-8653
323-8931
592-0311
323-7211
833-9152
323-4413
251-9235
Physicians And Surgeons Exchange
871-4611
TAXI CABS
Yellow Cab Co.
Two Way Cab Co.
Checker Cab Co.
Stricklin Taxi Cab Co.
252-1131
592-7421
323-7741
841-3239
42
�DEPAR"MEHT OF THE 1 AIR FORCE
HtADQUARTERS V.ARNER ROBINS AiR MATERIAL AREA (AFLC)
ROLJINi AiR FORCE BASti, GEORGIA 31093
A V , N o r ° w i i N Q O (Mr. Ginith/^Olj1?)
T0:
1? Oct 1?66
l,o/U sties Support Conference, A/Ai^Y-l Dispeaser, Defoliant, C-123
A i r c r a f t (WIAMA(WRNQO) Ltr, 19 Sep 1966 and WRAMA Msg (U) WRNQ-3256?,
/O Sop 1966)
r
rAC (DOFT-S/Maj Marshall)
Langley Al^B Va 23365
Request action Item Number 9-66-2 "TCTO for Installation of A/Al6'Y-l
System in UC-123B Aircraft, Class V Mod 1776" be removed from
referenced conference minutes and replaced with attached revised
Item Number 9-66-2 "Installation of A/Ali$Y~l System in C-123B
Aircraft" .
K)H THE COMMANDEJi-y
ROBERT N. SCHEIDECKER
Major, USAP1
Chief, Operations Branch
Directorate, Materiel Management
1 Atch
Subj Minutes Item Number 9-66-2
)DOF1
�Horn Number 9-66-2 - Inatf^Ut^
a . Problem Presented;
Difficulty was reported by AFATL personnel in obtaining appropriate
documentation from C-123 Aircraft SSM for procurement of data on Eglin APB
Contract AF 08(635)-l489ii dated 20 Oct 1965. Also, problems were reported in
obtaining -1 Flight Manuals and Maintenance Handbooks by Ranch Hand Personnel.
b.
Progress to Date:
1. Since the A/Alt5l-l System was being procured on an R & D
Contract and had not been approved by CSAF/AFLC for installation in the C123
Aircraft, no action could be taken by the SSM to provide for procurement of
TCTO data.
2. Flight and operational information for those C-123 Aircraft
having A/Al^Y-l System installed is provided in T. 0. 1C-123(B)-1 dated
15 July 1965 and 1C-123B(1)-15-1 dated 23 Apr 1966. WRAMA is now conducting a complete review of the -1 Manual and at completion any change needed will
be made. MR. ll;78-3 dated 21 Jun 1966 approved procurement of necessary
installation TCTO 1C-123-590, Engineering Data and Handbooks changes for the
approved Class V Mod 1??6. Procurement action is now being negotiated with
Fairchild-Hiller for this data. Pending delivery of this data, the schematics
and sketches as shown in the operational manual may be utilized to perform
minimum maintenance.
c. Action to be Taken an_d Action Agency;
1. Ranch Hand Personnel take action through appropriate distribution channels to obtain available Dash One Handbook data for A/Ali5Y-l System
installed in C-123 Aircraft.
?. SSM make follow-up action to assure procurement of additional
required data in a timely manner.
3.
d.
SSM expedite - 1 Flight Manual Review.
Forecast fo_r_ Completion:
Target date for delivery of additional data including published
-1 Flight Manual is Feb 1967.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange
Description
An account of the resource
<p style="margin-top: -1em; line-height: 1.2em;">The Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange comprises 120 linear feet and spans the late 1800s to 2005; however, the bulk of the coverage is from the 1960s to the 1980s and there are many undated items. The collection was donated to Special Collections of the National Agricultural Library in 1985 by Dr. Alvin L. Young (1942- ). Dr. Young developed the collection as he conducted extensive research on the military defoliant Agent Orange. The collection is in good condition and includes letters, memoranda, books, reports, press releases, journal and newspaper clippings, field logs and notebooks, newsletters, maps, booklets and pamphlets, photographs, memorabilia, and audiotapes of an interview with Dr. Young.</p>
<p>For more about this collection, <a href="/exhibits/speccoll/exhibits/show/alvin-l--young-collection-on-a">view the Agent Orange Exhibit.</a></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Box
The box containing the original item.
002
Folder
The folder containing the original item.
0020
Series
The series number of the original item.
Series I
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1905-05-19
Title
A name given to the resource
Minutes A/A45Y-1 Internal Defoliant Dispenser System Support Conference, 25 and 26 August 1966
Subject
The topic of the resource
spray equipment
Ranch Hand aircraft