2 15 24 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 https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/speccoll/files/original/58a7d9a18a2abe0dd4ae92d2e5b0789b.pdf c843cda6ed20c9de795623c8c12e1d65 PDF Text Text Item ID Number Author Corporate Author Report/Article Title Memorandum: Requirement for Defoliant Agent White, |18 September 1967 Journal/Book Title 0000 Year Month/Day Color n Number of Images Found in a file labeled: "Correspondence Concerning the Use of Defoliants in SEA and the Role of Air Force Personnel, Nov 1962 - Oct 1967"; date stamped 19 Sep1967 Monday, January 22, 2001 Page 252 of 341 �SEP .TCB (Lt Reynard/882-2457) icquireiaont for Defoliant Agent White MMA (SAOQT/Mr. Vanderventer) APGC (PGOW) has stated a need for 1500 gallons of Tordon 101 Wiite). This agent will be used for spray tests with the C-123K lirci'aft. !. Reference Confidential TWX AFRDQ 78693, 13 Jul 67 has authorized .dequate allocation of defoliant for these tests. In view of the trgency of this testing, AFATL requests an expedited shipment of gent White to: Transportation Officer AFB 2823 AFATL (ATCB/Lt Reynard 882-2457) Eglin AFB, Fl 32542 'OR THE COMMANDER 1. COX, Colonel, USAF :hief, Bio-Chemical Division Name, Office^,Symbol of Originator AFATL Form . ^ COORDINATION SHEET 06 Nov 1%6 Date Phone Typist's Initials AFSC - EOL^N^&^T1<A. � 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. 019 Folder The folder containing the original item. 0252 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 Reynard Title A name given to the resource Memorandum: Requirement for Defoliant Agent White, 18 September 1967 Subject The topic of the resource herbicide white Ranch Hand aircraft herbicide testing https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/speccoll/files/original/bbe3dd5ae7a23003154d445c92e1fa7b.pdf 2829adad1af30d0df77eb7a31551d451 PDF Text Text Item ID Number 0031G Author Young, Alvin L. Corporate Author Manuscript: Meeting Notes: Meeting with Dr. Terry Biery and Lt. Col. George Rowcliffe at AF/Pest Control Board Meeting, WRAMC, Washington, D.C., 13 September 1979 Journal/Book Title Year 000 ° Month/Day Color Ll Number of Images 4 Desoripton Notes Monday, January 22, 2001 Page 316 of 341 �13 £c ���- TV L. &jgtfo '. ^r A,<"oa ^i r^€^oUoi^j0etc LA& ^r'csQ*^ V � 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. 020 Folder The folder containing the original item. 0316 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 Young, Alvin L. Title A name given to the resource Manuscript: Meeting Notes: Meeting with Dr. Terry Biery and Lt. Col. George Rowcliffe at AF/Pest Control Board Meeting, WRAMC, Washington, D.C., 13 September 1979 Subject The topic of the resource spray equipment Ranch Hand aircraft https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/speccoll/files/original/293c71af89da87614c118285fe2c4494.pdf 7f7f144e445462eed16aad842ebd06e1 PDF Text Text Item ID Number °0363 Author Smallwood, A. M. Corporate Author Hayes International Corporation RepOrt/ArtlClO Title lnternal Defoliant Dispenser A/A45Y-1 Journal/Book Title 1967 Month/Day Color Octot er > n Number of Images 62 DOSOrlptOH Notes ^lvin L- Youn9 nac) tnis item filecl under the category "Equipment - How Developed, How Used"; contracts AF 08(635)-3609 and AF 08(635-4894 Monday, January 29, 2001 Page 363 of 382 �Smallwood, A.M., 1967 /UNLIMITED Internal Defoliant Dispenser A/A 45Y-1 AD 833 990 Technical Report distributed by Defense Technical Information Center DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Cameron Station • Alexandria, Virginia 22314 ^ERQMEDICAE LIBRAI JAN 10 1980 UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED COCUMENTS �THIS REPORT HAS BEEN DELIMITED AND CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE UNDER DOD DIRECTIVE 5200,20 AND NO RESTRICTIONS ARE IMPOSED UPON ITS USE AND DISCLOSURE, DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED, ��AFATL-TR-67-127 Internal Defoliant Dispenser A/A45Y-1 A. M. Small wood R. I Dear . A. R. O r t H J HAYES INTERNATIONAL CWPORATION T E C H N I C A L R E P O R T A F IT L - T R - 6 7 - I 2 7 OCTOBER 1967 This document is subject to special export controls and each transtnittal to foreign governments or foreign nationals may bo made only with prior approval of the Air Force Armament Laboratory (ATCB), Eglin AFB, Florida 3 AIR FORCE ARMAMENT LABORATORY AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND E G L I N A I R FORCE B A S E . F L O R I D A �INTLKNAL DEl'OLIANT DISPENSER A/AU5Y-1 A. M. Smallwood R. L. Dear A. R. Ortell Tills document is subject to special export controls ami each transmittal to foreign governments or I'ureign nationals may be made only with prior approval of the Air i'orce 'Armament Laboratory (ATCD), Eglin AID, Ilorula �FOREWORD Under Contracts AF 08(G35)-3609 and A F 08(G35)-4804, Hayes International Corporation, Birmingham, Alabama has developed the A A45Y-1 Internal Defoliant Dispenser as a quick in-out system for the C-130 and C-123 aircraft. This report, covering tlie period of October 19G5 thru October 196.7, formally records the engineering data generated under the above contracts including results, conclusions, and recommendations. This report is covered under project number 2525 and task o der number 02 and deals primarily with AF Contract AF 08(635)-<t894. The cognizant USA F'project engineers for this program were Lt Arnold \V. Blomqaist, Lt Jon II. Arvik, Lt W. J. Crea, Jr. and Lt K. A. Reynard of the Air Force Armament Laboratory, RTD, Biological-Chemical Division (ATCB), Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Messrs. A.M. Smallwood (project engineer), R. L. Dear, and A.R. Ortell.wcrc the principal investigators and authors of this report. Mr. J. F. Cundiff provided considerable technical assistance in programming the digital computer for the program and writing the fh'id analysis. Messrs. F. J, Weatherbee, J. D. Stewart, and B. L. Lewis provided considerable technical assistance in the design of the A/A45Y-1 dispenser. Mr. J. L. Harrington, Chief of the Airborne Weapons Group, was responsible for the overall effort. Information in this report is embargoed under the Department of State International Traffic In Arms Regulations. This report may be released to foreign governments by departments or agencies of the U. S. Government subject to approval of the Air Force Armament Laboratory (ATCB) Kglin AFB, Florida 32542, or higher authority within the Department of the Air Force. Private individuals or firms require a Department of State export license. Publication of this report does not constitute Air Force approval of the report's findings or conclusions. It is published only for the exchange and stimulation of ideas. Nicholas H. Cox, Colonel, USAF Chief, Bio-Chemical Division ii �ABSTRACT Hayes International Corporation has developed the internal defoliant dispenser, A/A45Y-1,suitable for quick in-out installation in the C-1^0 and C-123 aircraft. The internal defoliant dispenser provides for loading, transporting, and dispensing of 058 gallons of defoliant chemical, and in case of an emergency, dumping the full load of chemical overboard in leas than one minute. The dispenser was designed to deliver agent at a concentration of three gallons per ncrc over an effective swath width of 120 feet from an altitude of 150 feet in either the C-123 or C-130 aircraft. The results of tests conducted at h'glin Air Force Base, Florida indicated that the optimum parameters for the C-K10 aircraft were an altitude of one hundred feet and a maximum swath of .seventy feet to obtain a concentration of three gallons per acre. The optimum parameters for the C-12;J aircraft were an altitude of 150 feet and a maximum swath of 10 icet for the same concentration. The fuselage-mounted spray boom does not deliver the defoliant agent far enough outboard to be affected by the action of the wingtip vortices. Previous testing with defoliant agent demonstrated that wing mounted booms subject the spray to these vortices and produce wider swath width. It is recommended that an optimized wing boom be developed in order to increase the swath width. This document is subject to special export controls and each transmittal to foreign governments or foreign nationals may be made only with prior approval of the Air Force Armament Laboratory (ATCH), l.'glin A F B , Florida :',2~>1'2. iii (The reverse side of this page is b l a n k . ) �BLANK PAGE �TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I H IE IV V INTRODUCTION DESCRIPTION OF A/A-I5Y-1. INTERNAL DEFOLIANT DISPENSER TANK AND CRADLE ASSEMBLY DUMP VALVE CONTROL CONSOLE MAGNETO SWITCH . CHOKE SWITCH START SWITCH THROTTLE SWITCH SPRAY VALVE SWITCH DUMP VALVE SWITCH FLOAT SWITCH OVERRIDE ENGINE TACHOMETER FLUID PRESSURE INDICATOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS SPRAY BOOM AIRCRAFT INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT TEST OF THE A A-15Y-1 INTERNAL DEFOLIANT DISPENSER SYSTEM PERFORMANCE LIQflD LEVEL GAGE CALIBRATION CONVERSION FACTORS FOR VARIOUS AGENTS REFILL BY MEANS OF THE I N T E R N A L DEFOLIANT DISPENSER JET PUMP EMERGENCY DUMP TEST FLOW HATE TEST USING AN INDUCED PRESSURE . . . . SYSTEM PRESSURE LOSS ANALYSIS DISPENSER PERFORMANCE RANGE SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONSEQUENT RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDICES I SPRAY BOOM DRAG ANALYSIS n AIRCRAFT WEIGHT AND iw\LANCE IH STRESS ANALYSIS (C-123 AIRCRAFT) IV STRESS ANALYSIS (C-130 AIRCRAFT) V MILITARY SPECIFICATION REFERENCES PAGE 1 2 4 G G f, 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 13 17 17 17 IK 24 2-1 2-1 <17 r>:$ .r>r> f»7 05 99 127 Ml �LIST OF ILLUSTHATIONS FIGURE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1-1 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 D d f g II h^ K = = = = = - Major Components of Defoliant Dispenser Defoliant Dispenser (right side) Centrifugal Pump Dump Valve . Control Console Spray Boom and Associated Plumbing Installation in C-123 (left side) Installation in C-123 (right side) Typical Agent Deposition (C-123 Aircraft) Typical Agent Deposition (C-130 Aircraft) . . . .Refill Test Apparatus Refill Rate with Various Agents Using A 10-Foot Length of Refill Hose Refill Rate with Various Agents Using A 20-Foot Length of Refill Hose Refill Rate with Various Agents Using A 30-Foot Length of Refill Hose Refill Rate with Various Agents Using a 50-Foot Length of Refill Hose Emergency Dump Rate lor Various Agents with A/A45Y-1 Dump Valve Flow Rate Test Apparatus System Performance Test Results A/A45Y-1 Fluid Flow Schematic A/A45Y-1 Fuselage-Mounted Spray Boom System Pressure Loss A/A45Y-1 Dispenser Performance Range - Agent: Water. A/A45Y-1 Dispenser Performance Range - Agent: Orange or Purple A/A45Y-1 Dispenser Performance Range - Agent: Blue . A/A45Y-1 Dispenser Performance Range - Agent: White . Speed Penalty Determined From C-123 Speed/Power Data . 20 21 22 23 . . 25 26 27 29 35 4^ 49 . . .. . . 50 51 52 50 ^ LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS internal diameter of pipe, feet internal diameter of pipe, inches friction factor in formula hj j ;i fLv"/D2g acceleration of gravity, 32.2 feet per second per second total head, feet of fluid loss of static pressure head due to fluid flow, feet of fluid resistance coefficient or velocity head loss in the formula, h L = Kv 2 /2g vi PAGE 4 5 7 y 9 10 n ..12 14 15 19 �LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS (Concluded) L L/D P Q q R S = = = = = = length of pipe, feet equivalent length of a resistance to flow, pipe diameters pressure, pounds per square inch gauge rate of flow, gallons per minute rate of flow, cubic feet per second at flowing condition Reynolds number specific gravity of liquids relative to water, both at standard temperature (00°K) v A ft We = = = mean velocity of flow, feet per second differential between two points weight density of fluid, pounds per cubic feet absolute viscosity, pound mass |>cr foot second or poundal seconds |x>r square loot Me = absolute viscosity, slugs per loot second or pound force seconds per square foot vii (The reverse side of this page is blank.) �SECTION I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this technical rc|x>rt is to present engineering dnta generated under Contracts AF »8(G35)-3G09 and AF 08(G35)-4894. These contracts resulted in the development of the internal defoliant dispenser, A/A45V-1, designed to disseminate various chemical agents-utilizing C-123 and C-130 aircraft. The capability for quick installation and removal of the dispensing system with minimum modification to the aircraft was a prime requirement under these contracts. Compliance with this requirement resulted in the use of a fuselagemounted spray boom. Due to the narrow spray swath width generated by the fuselage-mounted boom, an Air Force-developed wing spray boom is used to achieve a wider swath width in current tactical applications. The report contains a description of the dispenser. This is followed by a section on development tests of the internal defoliant dispenser. System performance is then provided encompassing liquid level gage calibration, conversion factors for various agents, refill by jet-pump, emergency dump test, flow rate test using an induced pressure, fluid analysis of system with thirtyfoot fuselage-mounted spray boom and dispenser performance. Within the appendices arc fuselage spray-boom drug analysis, weight and balance analysis for C-123 and C-130 aircraft, stress analysis, and dispenser specifications. 1 (The reverse side of this page is blank.) �SECTION II DESCRIPTION OF A/A45Y-1 INTERNAL DEFOLIANT DISPENSER The A A-15Y-1 Internal Defoliant Dispenser 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. 809 figures 1 and 2. . The Internal .Defoliant Dispenser, Part No. A/A45Y-1, provides for loading, transporting and dispensing of 958 gallons of defoliant chemical, and in case of an emergency, dumping the full load overboard in less than one minute. 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 to the aircraft electrical system, 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 cradle assembly. The defoliant is transported to a 30-foot fuselage-mounted spray boom. The fuselage boom incorporates eighteen (18) whirljet spray nozzles through which the defoliant chemical is discharged into the airstrcam. LEADING PARTICULARS Length (app) Width (app) Height (app) (without casters) Weight Empty Full Capacity Normal operating pressure Normal dispensing interval Emergency dump time Electrical system Dump valve operation Refill time (app) Dump valve Spray valve Suction valve 16 feet, 4 inches 4 feet, 10 inches G feet, 1905 Ibs 12, 055 Ibs with agent having a specific gravity of 1.27 958 gallons 55 +_ 5 psi 3 to 4 minutes Less than 1 minute 28 volts dc (supplied by host aircraft) Electrical or manual 15. 5 minutes with an agent having a specific gravity of 1.27 through a 50-foot length of refill line Electrical, 10-inch diameter Electrical, 3-inch diameter Manual, 3-?nch diameter The dispensing operation and emergency 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. The pump is capable of maintaining 55 \_ 5 psi pressure during the normal 3-1/2 minute (approx) period of operational sprnying. Refilling the lank assembly is accomplished with power and equipment contained within the dispensing system. �,TANK VENT MANHOLE COVER DUMP VALVE TANK ENGINE EXHAUST LIQUID LEVEL VIBRATION ISOLATOR SEGMENT CENTRIFUGAL PUMP MAIN SPRAT VALVE CONTROL CONSOLE TEMPERATURE INDICATOR JET PUMP REFILL CRADLE Figure 1. Major Components of Defoliant Dispenser Tank and Cradle Assembly The tank and cradle assembly is the major unit of the entire system comprising (1) a 058 gallon tank with baffles, manhole, tube connections and stabilizing and ticdown brackets: (2) an engine and pump assembly consisting of a four cylinder horizontally opposed engine and pump directly coupled to the engine crankshaft; and (.'!) a cradle equipped with four detachable casters which carries the tank and engine and pump assembly. A temperature gage and a fluid quantity gage ai-e 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 arc provided for limited mobility and arc removed after the unit has been positioned in the aircraft. �'Figure 2. Defoliant Dispenser (Right Side) �The defoliant in the tank is fed through a suction line to the pump (two assemblies used on C-130 aircraft). The pump driven by an air-cooled engine forces the defoliant through a discharge line to a spray valve. A recirdilation line is provided so that the defoliant will'reeirculate back through the tank when the spray valve is closed. \Vhen the spray valve is open, the defoliant is forced into the spray boom and atomized by spray nozzles. When the lank is empty, a float-pi>erated 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. Tlu centrifugal pump (figure 3) consists essentially of an impeller and pump body and is driven by the engine through a direct drive. The speed of the engine controls the quantity of defoliant being dis|>ensed. The recalculation 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. A temperature gage and liquid-level indicator located on the side of the tank indicate defoliant temperature and quantity respectively in the tank. Dump Valve The dump valve is an electrically or manually operated 10-inch diameter gate valve (figure -1). 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. The dump valve assembly is aligned with an opening in the belly of the aircraft. Tlus ojxming is covered by a spring-loaded door. A high speed motor coupled to an actuator provides 2-second operation of the dump valve in either direction. Valve-open condition is electrically indicated on the control console and on the pilot's instrument panel. Control .Console ft The control console is the nerve center of the defoliant system (figure 5). All functions arc 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 tlie control console without any changes or alterations being performed. In the event of failure of the aircraft electrical system, (certain critical functions have an option of manual operation. Magneto Switch - The MAGNETO switch (AFT UNIT and F\VD UNIT) is a singlcpblci double-throw 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 lank is not empty). �Figure 3. Centrifugal Pump Choke Switch - The CHOKE switch (AFT UNIT and F\VD ITCIT) is a springloaded pushliutton switch used to control the solenoid that actuates the engine choke. When depressed, the CHOKE switch applies power to the engine choke solenoid. Sta_ Switch - The START switch (AFT ITs'IT and FU'I) I^IT) is a spring-loaded pusi iiitton switch used to control the engine starter. When depressed, the START switch applies power to the engine starter. The START switch is guarded to prevent accidental engagement of the engine starter. Throttle SwUch - The THROTTLE snitch (AFT UNIT and FU'I) UNIT) is a threeposition toggle switch spring-loaded to the neutral position. The switch lias 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 vpm 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 m a i n t a i n s engine speed at a given setting. �Figure 4, Dump Valve 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 PILOT position. A cockpit SPRAY VALVE switch is also 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 of 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 electrical control for opening of the dump valve by the pilot. Operation is in conjunction with the console DUMP VALVE switch. Placing either switch in the OPEN position actuates the dump valve motor and opens the dump valve. Float Switch Override - The FLOAT SWITCH OVERRIDE (AFT UNIT and FWD UNIT) is a single-pole double-throw toggle switch (with a holding cc.l) 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 �FLUID REFILL f t O A l SHITCM OvrKKIOt fwD UNtl A F T UH1T STARTIR AND CHOKf T H R O I T L C S IMOICATOR1 IPRA1 VALVf © OICBfAlt © © Figure 5. Control Console placed in the up position, enables the engine io 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 ihc float switch is actuated. Engine Tachometer - The engine tachometer is dual indicating (two needles) and indicates engine speed in hundreds of HPM. Fluid Pressure Indicator - The FLUID pressure indicator indicates fluid pi'ossurc in increments of 2 PSI. 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. Spray Boom The spray boom (figure (>) can accommodate 18 spray nozzles for dispensing the defoliant. The spray boom is constructed of 4-1/2-inch diameter steel tubing. The discharge line is off-set from the ccntcrlinc of the spray boom to allow the aircraft's ramp to operate with the dispenser installed. The spray boom is attached to the fuselage with six struts. �INSTALLATION SlUUTi SPRAT NOZZLI SPRAY BOOM INSTALLATION iTKUTS Figure C. Spray Boom and Associated Plumbing Aircraft Installation Installation of the dispenser 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 S). All piping and hose assemblies, and the dump valve chutes, 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 oJ the C-130 aircraft, two dispensers are installed in the same manner and ; interconnected. . 10 �Figure 7. Installation in 0123 (I,clt Si<!o) 11 �^'4- Figure 8. Installation in C-12.3 (Right Side) 12 �SECTION III DEVELOPMENT ThST OF THE A/A45Y-1 INTERNAL DEFOLIANT DISPENSER Development tests and evaluations of A/A45Y-1, In the C-130 and C-123 aircraft Force Base, Florida,, durlm; the period of for the C-130 and 26 June 1964 to 22 July objectives were to determine: the internal defoliant dispenser, were conducted by APGC, Ef-.lin Air 2 October 1963 to 20 December 1963 1964 for the C-123. The test compatibility of the dispenser with the aircraft capability of instillation servicing (refilling) capability removal'of the dispenser from the particular aircraft in accordance with Hayes* operation and maintenance manuals are.?, coverage capability. It was fouvi'l during these/evaluations that the dispensers were compatible with both aircraft. The aircraft commander reported no unitsu.il effects on the flight characteristics of either aircraft in transporting the loaded dispenser. Dispenser iiv-t .illation and removal tests scheduled for the C-130 aircraft were not accomplished due to desip.n chanr.es that affected the [-.round h a n d l i n g of the dispenser. Three i n s t a l l a t i o n and removal tents wen- conducted durin-.-, the C-123 test program. The three t»-sts (install and remove) required 12, 5, and It manhours, respectively. Thr> refillini-. procedure as recomnendcd by Hayes' operations and maintenance nanuals was satisfactory but somewhat inefficient (40 minutes per dispenser for the C-lJO aircraft). A r;e 1 f - 1 i 11 infeature was incorporated by Hayes prior to the C-123 test, program which reduced the time required to f i l l each tank iron 40 minutes to 20 ninultv; when fillinc, is done from 35-tviilon drum::. The area coverage capability test of the dispenser (s) in the C-130 and C-123 aircraft was conducted to determine ground concentration of defoliant: agent (gallons per acre), swath width (feet.), droplet si/.e (microns), and flow race (gallons per minute). The desired ground concentration of three gallons per acre for a 120-foot swath width was not obtained. Figure-; ') and 10 illustrate typical agent deposition from the tvo aircraft. In both test--;, the desired droplet size of 150 to 30G milrons mass median diameter was obtained. The maximum flow rate obtained during' the C-130 and C-123 tests were 390 and 275 gallons per minute, respectively. 13 �C-123 AIRCRAFT SWATH WIDTH (FEET) Figure 9. Typical Agent Deposition (C-123 Aircraft) �C-130 AIRCRAFT 6 CPA (GAL) 5GPA H o 4 CPA 03 O Q ' , 3GPA I 2 CPA — I GPA 210 180 150 120 90 60 30 30 SWATH WIDTH (FEET) Figure 10. Typical Agent Deposition (C-130 Aircraft) 60 90 �SECTION IV SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Liqiii d -Level Gago Ca lib rat ion Before any system performance tests could be conducted, it was necessary to calibrate the liquid-level gage which is mounted on the siiie of the defoliant dispenser. To calibrate this gage, the dispenser was first weighed in the empty condition and the weight recorded. The t.ank was then filled with water to the 1/4 mark on the gage and weighed. Water was then added until the 1/2 mark on the gage was reached, and the tank again weighed. Filling then continued to the 3/4 mark and the weight: recorded. The dispenser Was then filled to the "Full" level and the weight recorded. At this point, the water was pumped out through the spray valve until it reached the level at which the float switch cuts the system off. The dispenser was then weighed again and the weight recorded. This procedure was repeated twice to obtain an average weight for each level. From these weights, the volume (in gallons) was calculated for each level on the gage, The results were: Gage. Level Volume (Gal) Full 958 3/4 807 1/2 495 1/4 184 Float Switch Cut-Off 54 Conversion Factors for Various All system performance testing was conducted using water as the agent; however, values were also needed for the agents which are used in the system. For this reason, additional small-scale tests were conducted to determine factors whic. could be used to convert the values obtained for water to values for each agent. To determine chc conversion factors applicable to refilling the tank, a small pump rated au 2.3 gallons per minute was used to pump one gallon of water and one gallon of each agent from one container into another through 3/4-inch tubing. The time required to accomplish this for each liquid was recorded. The conversion factors were then calculated by dividing the average values of pur.iping time for each agent by the pumping time for water. 17 �Results wore as follows: Specific Gravity Viscosity (75°F) (Cent is tokos) Conversion Factor Purple 1.27 38.2 1.161 Orange 1.27 38.2 1.161 Blue 1.335 8.8 1.124 White (Tordon 101) 1.15 243.0 1.312 Agent In determining conversion factors applicable to the gravity dump time through the A/A45Y-1 dispenser's emergency dump valve, a Zahn #3 cup was used. Forty-four millilitcrs of each agent and water were allowed to flow through cup and the time recorded for each. Here, again, conversion factors were obtained by dividing the values for each agent by the value for water. Results were as follows: Agont Orange Conversion Factor . 0.90 Purple 0.90 Blue 0.85 White (Tordon 101) 1.45 Refill by Moans of tlio Internal poi'oll.-mt Dispenser Jet Pump The apparatus used in performing this test is illustrated in figure 11. It was set up such that the inlet end of the refill hose was at the same elevation as the jet pitnp so that induced head loss would not be present. Using a ten-foot section of refill hose (MIL-H-8974-32), the time was recorded for filling che dispenser to the 1/4 level on the liquid level gape. The water was then .pumped out until the float switch cut off the system. Time was then recorded for filling the system to the 1/2 level. This procedure was repeated for 3/4 and "Full". Three tests were run at each level in order to obtain an average time. Those tests were repeated using 20, 30, and 50-foot lengths of refill hose. The values of refill time obtained for water were converted to the agent values by the methods discussed in Lho previous section. Refill time as a function of quantity of liquid is presented in figures 12 through 15 for each agent. 18 �JET PUMP 59 GAL DRUM WATER SUPPLY LINE Figure 11. He-fill Test Apparatus �1000 FULL LEVEL (958 GAL) 3 4 LEVEL (807 GAL) 1/2 LEVEL (495 GAL) to o ORANGE OR PURPLE WHITE (TORDON 101) 1/4 LEVEL (1S4 GAL) 100 FLOAT SWITCH CUT-OFF LEVEL (54 GAL) 10 11 12 13 14 15 REFILL TIME (MINUTES) Figure 12. Refill Kate with Various Agents Using A 10-Foot Length of Refill Hose 16 1? 18 �1000 FULL LEVEL (958 GAL) 3 ' 4 LEVEL (807 GAL) 1 2 LEVEL (495 GAL) ORANGE OR PURPLE WHITE (TORDON 101) 1/4 LEVEL (184 GAL) 100 FLOAT SWITCH CUT-OFF LEVEL (54 GAL) 10 11 12 13 14 REFILL TIME (MINUTES) Figure 13. Refill Rate with Various Agents Using A 20-Foot Length of Refill Hose 15 16 17 18 �1000 FLOAT SWITCH CUT-OFF LEVEL (54 GAL) 11 12 13 14 15 Figure M. Kefill Hate with Various Agents Using A 30-Foot Length of Hel'ill Hosts 16 17 18 �1000 FULL LEVEL (958 GAL) 3 4 L E V E L (807 GAL) o 1/2 LEVEL (495 GAL) o ORANGE OR PURPLE 300 ^ WHITE (TORDON 101) 1/4 LEVEL (184 GAL) 200 100 FLOAT SWITCH CUT-OFF LEVEL (54 GAL) 1 2 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 REFILL TIME (MINUTES) Figure 15. He-fill Rate with Various Agents Using a 50-Foot Length of He-fill Hose 16 17 18 �Emergency Dump Test In determining the dump rate through the A/A45Y-1 emergency dump valve, the tank was filled with water three times to each of the liquid levels indicated on the liquid level gage. In each case, the valve was actuated electrically and the flow of water from the tank timed until the water level reached the float switch cut-off point (54 gallons). The values of time were converted for each agent and plotted as a function of gallons of water or agent to be dumped (figure 16). FlowRate Test Using an Induced Pressure The objective in conducting this test was to determine the flow rate of the dispenser for any given pressure or head. The apparatus used in the performance of this test is illustrated in figure 17. A flowmetcr (Scries 5000, Pottermeter) with a three-inch nominal inside diameter was mounted to the downstream side of the spray valve. A three-inch manual gate valve was mounted immediately downstream of the flowmeter. In addition, an indicator (Potter Aeronautical Corporation Model 519) was connected to the flowmetcr to indicate flow rate in gallons per minute. In conducting the test, pressure was induced into the system by manually changing the orifice area of the ga.te valve thus varying the restriction imposed upon the flow of water. At all times the level of the water in the tank was held between the "3/4 level" and "full" to iisure the same positive head of liquid on the suction side of the pump and a constant engine speed ot 3600 RPM was maintained. At each position of the gate valve blade, the spray valve was electrically actuated to the open position. The pressure from the indicator on the console and the flow rate from the flow indicator were recorded. The test was conducted three times, moving the valve blade from "closed" to "full open" in small increments, to insure reliable data. The test results were plotted in terms of induced back pressure versus flow rate. The conversion factors, previously discussed, were applied to the values for water and curves were plotted for the specific agents involved. These test results arc presented in figure 18. System Pressure Loss Analysis The purpose of this analysis is to ?.»«.ilytlcally determine the dispenser pressure loss at various fluid flow rates. In the following section the results of the analysis is combined with the previously mentioned flow rate test to form the dispenser performance range. The majority of the formulae used in this analysis is extracted from Reference 2. Many of the values used are extracted from Reference j{. When a formula or value taken from this paper is used, the page number ofl which it is found is noted on the right hand side of the page. 24 �1000 i i i r^ FULL LEVEL (958 GAL) 7 900 3 4 LEVEL (807 GAL) 800 \WATER BLUE- 7 700 ORANGE OR PURPLE' a. £00 500 1 7 LEVEL (495 GAL) z in O _J O \ WHITE T (TORDON 101) 3 O Ul (O 400 L 7 7 300 '/ 200 1.4 L E V E L (184 GAD- 100 FLOAT SWITCH CUT-OFF LEVEL (54 GAL) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 DUMP TIME (SECONDS) Figure 1C. Emergency Dump Kate for Various Agents with A A'15Y-1 Dump Valve 80 �3 IN. MANUAL GATE VALVE Figure 17. Flow Rate Test Apparatus First of all, the line sizes must be determined. Determination of line size from tank to spray boom: Requirements: 400 p,pm @ 15 ft/sec v = 0.408 Q/d2 d = 0.408 Q/v 400 0 408 15 d = 3.298 inches 26 Page 3-2 �90 -t S 80 ID */> S a. o £ o S 70 60H i o 50 40- 30 20 0 100 200 FLOW RATE - CPM Figure 18. System Performance Test Results 400 �However, the 3-inc'i suction and discharge ports on the Gorwan-Rupp pump necessitated using 3-inch outside diameter (O.D.) tubing with a 0.0d25-inch wall thickness. Thus, a slit-Jit: increase in velocity occurs. The fuselage-mounted spray boom is constructed of 4.5-inch O.D. stainless steel tubing with a wall tliicknoss of 0.237 inches. The increase in line size in the boom was dictated by structural stiffness requirements for Ll.e C-130 aircraft which has a considerably greater speed capability than the. C-123 aircraft. The agent which is pumped through the tubing system shown in figure 19 has a specific gravity of 1.3 and a viscosity equal to 30.0 ccntistokes @ The total head is found in four parts. The first part to be. analyzed is the suction line; i.e., the section of line between the spray tank and the pump. Suction Head: Suction line velocity: Page 3-2 Equation 3-2 .408 .408 v = (2.S75)2 10.74 ft/sec Reynolds number: Page 3-2 Equation 3-3 32.2 /-Co. = JJJc 8.2 x 10-4 (81.2>(0.240)(19.74) (32.2) (8.2 x 10'4) Rc = 1.456 x 104 28 Page 11-5 �359.1 1 A =^ y WHtRL JET SPRAV NOZZLE - NO 3 < Bl?0 5C-ELBO* REDUCER OME INCH TO 3 i 1 IN POPPET V A L V E VEE B*Mt> COUPLING 3 IN DIA FLEX LINE 3 IN. POPPET CHECK VALVE 3 IN. VALVE - WOTOR OPERATED 3 IN VALVE - MANUALLY OPERATED PUMP - MOTOf! DRIVEN SUCTIOMCONE PIUKIO O U T L E T '1 IN LilA LINE TAIL BOOM - 4 1 2IN. 0 0 19. A/A45Y-1 Fluid Flow Schematic �Friction factor: For a 3-inch SolieiUilc-40 pipe at a flow having an RC = 1.456 x 10* the friction factor Is: f = 0.029 Page A-25 = £ - .'°4 = 1.38 C .029 Page A-26 Suction cone: L/D 12 inch radius 90° bend: L/D = 13.6 Page A-27 L/D = 7.5 Page A-27 30 Page A-30 12 inch radius 29° bend: Schedule 40 90° standard elbow: L/D = Exit into pimp: L/D = £ = —L. = f .029 34.43 Summation o£ L/D's: L/D = 1.38 + 13.6 + L/D L 7.5 + *= = 34.48 86.96 = (DHL/0) = L 30.0 + (69)(.4) 8.6 020 20.87 feet Total equivalent length oC pipe: L = 2/12 + L = 0.167 +.1.0 L 12/12 = + 53/12 + 4.417 * 26.,45 feet 30 + 20.87 20.87 �Head loss due to flow through suction cone, tubing, bends, and exit i n t o pinup: hL h, L = hi. = 0.1863 0.1863 = &— Page 3-2 Equation 3-5 d 2.875 19.368 foot of a«;cnt Head loss for 9-incli f l e x i b l e hose (3-inch O.D.): For AGO gpm, the pressure drop is 0.7 p s i / f t 0.7 p s i / f t x 0.75 ft hL = (0.525) (2. 31) hL = = (1.213)(1.3) = Anaconda Catalog G-700, Page D-5 0.525 psi 1.213 feet of water = 1.577 foot of agent Head loss for a 3-inch gate valve: The formula for A l l in inches is: For 400 gpin, /'-.I I hL = (7. 34) (1.3) = = AH = 0.0000:459Q2 7.34 inches O t 7 9 6 Fcot of agcnt Total Suction Head: hL = 14/12 + 19.368 + 1.577 + 0.796 hL = 1.167 + 19.368 + 1.577 + 0.796 hL = 22.908 feet of agent Next the head is found for the discharge l i n e ; i.e., the line between the ^ump and the spray boom.: The line velocity and the friction factor arc the same as for the suction line. i Sharp edged entrance to pump: L/D = £ = f -.* °.5 0.029 = 17.24 Page A-26 �Two (2) Schedule-40 90° standard elbows: L/D 45° - ()3) = 2(0 60.0 Page A-30 12-inch radius: L/D = (40(53 = 1.).3) 7.50 Page A-27 45° Miter bend: L/D 45° = 15.0 Page A-27 9-inch radius through fuselage: L/D = 12.0(.533) = 6.4 Summation of L/D's: L/D = 17.24 + 60.0 + 7.5 4- 15.0 + 6.4 L/D L = L/D(D) - •= 106.14 (106.14)(0*240) = 25.47 feet Total equivalent length of pipe: L = L = 14 18 21.5 . 26.75 . 192 , 46.625 . , , - , - , 12 + 12 + ~TT + ~W~ T T2 + ~12~ + 25 ' 47 1.167 + 1.500 + 1.792 + 2.229 + 16.00 + 3.885 + 25,47 L = 52.043 feet Head loss due to flow oF agent through elbows, bends, tubing, and sharp-edged entrance to pump: hT h. = L hL <= 0.1863 0.1863 ( . 2 ) (52.043)(19.74) 009 2.875 = 38.109 feet of agent Head loss for 3-inch check valve: 32 �Tlio formulae for the pressure drop and lici.nl loss thronj'.li t h i s chock valve are: 1 A P = .-0.005Q + l«l. = 2.0 CAP)(2.3l)(S) For tin- Q of /»00 npm: AP = 0 therefore However, for flow ralos loss than A 00 upm, there w i l l he a p p r e c i a b l e head loss. lleaJ loss Tor 'Uinch v.ate v a l v e : Tliis value is Hie same as for t h e \\mc v a l v e In the sue- 1 ion l i u o . iij = 0.7% feet of ai-.fnt Head loss for C l o x i b l o hose ( J - i n o l i O.D.): Tlu-ro are llireo (3) sod ions of f l e > - i h l e l i n e between the spr.iy valve and the spray boom. I, Pressni-e drop = .: K ». 'yS^JjJvjq 0.7 p s i / f t b (j = !),_ =, 20.80 feet (see l >-iiu-h f l e x hose in sue I ion l i n e ) (0.7 |>si/l'l)(:>O.K'))C>. •}]) (!..:>) = A 3.0 1 J foe( of at-ent T o t a l Dl.sehari',0 Head: -Ih. '- :W.lO l l h. 0.7'K. -I- 0.7'Xi + 4J.'M3 = 8 2 . 7 I A feet: of no'nL - �At this point in the system, the flow of agent leaves the 3-inch lino and enters the spray boom, which is shown in figure 20. The line size for the spray boom has .already been determined as 4.5-inch O.D. stainless steel pipe with a wall thickness of 0.237 inches. The nozzle arrangement is symmetrical about the centerline of the spray boom; however, the entrance to the boom is offset approximately six feet from the centerline. In this analysis, the worst condition, which is the longer section of spray boom. Is analyzed for a flow rate of 200 gpm. There are a total of eighteen nozzles on .the spray boom. Each nozzle dispenses agent at a rate of 400 gpm/18 nozzles or 22.22 gallons per minute. As the flow passes each nozzle, the total flow rate is reduced by this amount. With each chance in flow, the agent velocity, friction factor, and Reynold's number also change. These values must be recalculated at cacli nozzle location in order to find the head loss in the next section of line. In calculating the spray-boom head loss, the first head loss is encountered where the 3-inch O.D. discharge line exits into the 4.5-inch O.D. boom. This is calculated on the basis of a sharp-edged exit. K = L/D L 1.00 = - L/D(D) = L = Page A-26 34.48 (44) (,4) 3.8 020 81275 feet Head loss due to exit from discharge line: h. L h L = 0.1863 ~^d = 0 1863 ( , P29) (3.275) (19.74)2 0• " ' 2.875 hT = 6.059 feet of agent Station 0.0 to Sfation 149.63 /.a r,i 12.47 feet 34 �STA 25138 SI* 233 A3 STA 22163 STA 20ft] STA 19763 STA IBS 43 STA 1736} STA 16163 STA 1496} STA CC 4 SYMETRlCAL EXCEPT AS SHO»N If"fl'"T T 3-E I !—17 3 i- • 7 EQUAL SPACES — - 101 3 4 Figure 20. A, A45Y-1 I^usclagc-Mounted Spray Boom �Velocity: v v .408 Q/d 2 = ,408 = 20 ° (.2) 4062 .0 48 v = 16. 087 / 5.034 f i / s e c Reynolds number: Dv R0 32.2 /rc (81.12)(.3355)(5.034) 32.2 (8.2 x = R0 I0"f) 5190 Friction factor: f = 0.037 Head loss: "L IIT L .1863^ 1863 ( . 0 3 7 ) ( 1 2 . A 7 ) ( 5 . 0 3 4 ) 2 4.026 = ' j^ = = 0.541 foot of agent Station 149.63 to Station 161.63 L Q = = Q = 3G 1.0 feet 200 - 22.22 177.78 B pni �v .408 Q/il 2 = 177.78 v " .408 v = 4.47 1 } f l / s o c (4.02() 2 (8l.l2)(.333--,)(4.475) ( 3 2 . 2 ) ( 8 . 2 x 10*') Re 0.038 hL h, = ll| = ,18ft 3 .J863 =. - .015 s 4.026 fCH't Of flJ'.CMlt S l a t i o i i 161.63 I o S t a t i o n 173.63 L Q = = 177.78 - 1.0 foot 22.22 = 135.56 (4.026) 2 v R0 = = 3.<)H) it /sec _(».!. U) (.33!>5) ( 3 2 . 2 ) (8. 2 x 10-'1) Re = 1030.90 R0 = x 4037 x velocity velocity �f hL = (.040) (1.0).(3.916)3 .1863 . h^ = 0.040 0.028 feel of agent Station 173.63 to Station 185.63 L Q = v 155.56 = .408 Rc « - 1.0 feet 22.22 14 • , (4.026) 2 = = f .- l« T '= = = 3.356 ft/sec 3460 0.0415 (.0415)(1.0)(3.356) 2 1 nir 4.026 -,«<•-. J .1863 = 133.34 ft/sec 1030.90 x 3.356 Re , h = 0.022 feet of aj;cnt Station 185.63 to Station 197.63 L Q = 133.34 = - 38 1.0 feet 22.22 = 111.12 gpm �v v Re = /ft0 .408 = = 1T.I.12 (4.026)2 2.797 ft/sec 1030.90 x 2.797 t = = 2883 0,044 (P044)(1.0)(2.797): * f 4 7 0 2 6 ,0,, .1863 h^ = 0.016 feet of agent Station 197.63 to Station 209.63 L Q v = = 1.0 feet 111.12 - 22.22 88.90 408 " Rc = = 2 238 ft/sec - = 2307 0.047 1863 (•0^7)(1.0)(2.238) : 4.026 - L h, 88.90 gpm (1030.90)(2.238) = f h, = = 0.011 feet of agent 39 �Station 2 ' . 3 to Station 221.63 0)6 L Q - 88.90 = 1.0 Coct - 22.22 = 66.68 66.68 v = .408 R_ = 2 = (1030.<>C) (1.678) = 0 IL = = 1730 0-037 "^ hj 1.678 ft/soc 4,026 0.005 foot of ap.ont Station 221.63 to Station 233.63 L Q = 66.68 v - .408 R0 = = - 1.0 foot 22.22 , , , -.2 v { -t • VJ..O^ = 44.46 >-,pm = 1.119 f t / H o c (1030. «())< 1.110) 1 1 5'. -10 = = 0.055 1154 �hT . .1863 L 4.026 hL = 0.003 ffiet of agent Station 233.63 to Station 251.38 - Q - Rc .0 48 » 1.479 feet 22.22 gpm 22.22 (.2) 4062 = 0>559 Et/scc - (1030.90)(0.559) = h, L 576.27 1863 (0.ni)(l.A70)(0|.559)2 ' 4.020 hL * 0.002 feet of agent Total Spray Room Head Exit from discharge line Station 0.0 to Station 149.63 Station 149.63 to Station 161.63 Station 161.63 to Station 173.63 Station 173.63 to Station 185.63 Station 185.63 to Station 197.63 Station 197.63 to Station 209.63 Station 209.63 to Station 221.63 Station 221.63 to Station 233.63 Station 233.63 to Station 251.38 Total Spray Boom Head 6.059 feet 0.541 0.035 0.028 0.022 0.016 0.011 0.005 0.003 0.002 6.722 foot of agent 41 �An illustration of the plumbing through which the flow of agent travels from the point it leaves the spray boom until it enters the airstream is presented also in figure 20. Since the maximum pressure change between pump and nozzle occurs at the outboard nor.sle (Station 251.38), the head loss is calculated at this station. In leaving the spray boom, the agent flows through a sudden contraction. However, the flow must also make a 30° turn. In order to properly analyze this condition, the L/D ratio is found for a sudden contraction and also a 30° miter bend. Head Loss -_ Spray Boom to Check Valve; Flow; Q = 22.22 gpm Velocity: v= -^TiToi^ v «' 8.239 ft/sec Reynolds number: R e (81.12)(.087)(S.239) (32.2)(8.2 x 10"4) Re = 2203 Friction factor; f = 0.050 30° Miter bend: L/D = 8.0 Sudden contraction: d^ = 1.049 inches; d., * 4.026 inches T • 4.026 rr d 42 Page A-27 �K = 0.43 Page A-26 K 0.43 f " 0.05 L/D 8.6 Summation of L/D's: 3.0 + 8.6 L/D 16.6 L « L/D(D) -f- 5'875 L = L 16.6(.087) + 0.490 = L 1.444 -t- 0.490 = 1.934 feet Head loss: h = L 1863 ( . 5 ) d.934) (8.239)2 000 ' 1.049 hj ** 1.166 feet of agent Check valve head loss: Pressure drop = 1.85 psl @ 22.22 gpra h^ = 5.556 feet of agent Contraction upstream of 3/4 inch street elbow: dj^ = 0.719 inches d2 = li = 0.801 d2. K = O f 12 45 43 0.897 inches James, Pond' & Clark, Inc. Catalog,Pg 6. �22.22 v » 17.537 ft/sec R = (81. 12) ( 0 ) (17. 537) .6 (32. 2) ( . 2 x 10"4) 8 Re = 3233 f - 0.045 , K " I 0.12 0.045 •' = 2 67 6 ' L = L/D(D) = (2.667) .(P-719) L * 0.160 feet hj = .1863 (-045)(0.160)(17.537)2 h^ = 0.573 feet of agent 90° street elbow: L/D = 50 Average internal diameter V = 408 - = 0.88 inches 22.22 (.82 08) v = 11.707 ft/sec R = (81.12)(.073)(11.707) (32.2)(8.2 x 10"4) Rc = 2626 f = 0.0475 44 . �L h 10 = L/D(D) = = L S.O—^ « 3.67 feet 1863 (•M75)(3.67)(11.707)2 ' . 0.88 HL = 5.058 feet of agent Contraction downstream of 3/4-inch street elbow: di = 0.500 Inches dl d£ = 0.941 inches _ 0.500 ~ °5 '3 K = 0.32 v = 0.408 .(2.2!-2..2). (0.50) 2 R = 36.263 ft/sec (81.12)(.042)(36 263) (32.2)(8.2 x I ' ) D4 = e „ 0.042 T/n L/D = — = --—•• 32 = 7 7 f 0.042 L/D(D) = L = 0.317 feet = 1863 ( 0 2 ( . 1 ) 3 . 6 ) .4)037(6232 0.50 hL = 6.523 feet of agent Spray Nozzle: From the data available in the Spray Systems Company Catalog 25, a formula was derived to calculate the pressure required to dispense a known flow of agent. The formula is: 45 �P = 0.069215 f Q per Kozzle 12 I Conversion Factor I The value of the conversion factor can also be extracted from this catalog if the specific gravity of the agent is known. QPN = 22.22 gpm C.F. 0.877 0.069215 P •= 44.431 psi (44.431 lb/in2)(144 in2/ft2) 81.12 lbs/ft3 = 78.872 feet of agent Total head loss downstream of spray boom: Spray boom to check valve: Check valve: Upstream contraction: 90° street elbow: Dowastream contraction: Spray nozzle: 1.166 feet 5.556 0.573 5.058 6.523 78.872 97.748 feet of agent Total pump head for 400 gpm: Suction head: Discharge head; Spray boom head: Head downstream of spray boom: Total Mead ( 0 gpm) 40 22.903 82.714 6.722 97.748 H 210.092 feet of agent This analysis demonstrates the procedure lor determining the total head for a certain agent at a certain flow rate. The head for any flow rate can he calculated in the same manner. Likewise the total head £an be found for any liquid agent hy changing the values for specific gravity, viscosity, and the spray nozzle conversion factor. 46 �This procedure has been programmed for the IBM Model 360-30 computer. The program was exercised for four different agents currently being used in conjunction with the A/A45Y-1 system in addition to water. Flow rates ranging from 1 to 400 gpm were analyzed. The agents and their characteristics are shown in the following cable. Liquid Agent Viscosity (? 80°F (Ccntistokcs) Specific Gravity Water Orange Purple Blue White (Tordon 101) 1.000 1.270 1.270 1.335 1.150 . Spray Nozzle Conversion Factor 1.00 38.2 38.2 8.8 243.0 ' 1.000 0.887 0.887 0.865 0.931 The results of the computer tabulations were plotted for total head (feet) versus flow rate (gpm) and are illustrated in figure 21. Dispenser Performance Range Successful operation of the dispenser depends upon the ability of the crew to recognize the dispenser's capabilities and limitations. The dispenser performance information presented herein is sufficient in scope to permit an estimate of what may be expected of the dispenser under normal conditions. In order to determine the operating range of the dispenser, it was necessary to perform a test to establish the pump performance curve and secondly, to mathematically perform a fluid analysis of the entire dispenser from the tank to the spray nozzles. This test and analysis has bo:;,-! explained in the two previous sections. Figures 22 through 25 combine the aforementioned test and analysis curves to establish the operating range of the dispenser for various chemical agents. The intersection of the two curves represents the maximum flow rate obtainable at 3600 engine KPM. In using these graphs, locate the desired flow rate on the horizontal scale of the appropriate agent graph; move vertically to the point of intersection with the theoretical system loss curve; then move horizontally and read the required pressure from the vertical scale. The speed (rpm) of the engine must be adjusted while spraying, so that che required pressure is indicated on the pressure indicator located on the control console. The cross-hatched area labeled "Operating Range" encompasses all values of back pressures or pressure losses that the system can theoretically pump against as a function of engine speed and flow rate. 47 �UJ UJ u. < UJ £ 200 FLOW RATE - GPM Figure 21. System Pressure Loss 300 400 �9080- 70- UI HI u. 1 a < itto o o_ UJ X 50100 40UJ D. 302010- o- 200 FLOW RATE - GPM Figure 22. A/A45Y-1 Dispenser Performance Range - Agent: Water �300 90- 200 ,-PUMP PERFORMANCE CURVE - 3600 RPM 80- 70- tu ui m en o 60- 1U X i ////, 50- UJ 100 u en a. 40- as m ^h s ^OPERATING; RAKGE ^ 30- 20- 10- 0- 100 200 300 FLOW RATE - GPM Figure 23. A/A45Y-1 Dispenser Performance Range -Agent: Orange or Purple 400 �9080- 7060Q. i 01 o: UJ HI u. 1 o < til X 5040- Of Q. 30 - 20- 10- 0- 100 200 FLOW RATE - GPM Figure 24. A/A45Y-1 Dispenser Performance Range - Agent: Blue 400 �300 90- 200 ^Tmrr-^ 8070to o 60- ui ui X a. V//7WK 50100 UJ ce A M L3 UI tfs ae. • PUMP PERFORMANCE CURVE - 3400 40- X -MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE POINT CL 30- \THEORETICAL SYSTEM LOSS CURVE 100J 100 200 300 FLOW RATE - GPM Figure 25. A/A45Y-1 Dispenser Performance Range - Agent: White 400 � 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. 025 Folder The folder containing the original item. 0363 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 Smallwood, A. M. R. L. Dear A.R. Ortell Description An account of the resource <strong>Corporate Author: </strong>Hayes International Corporation Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1967-10-01 Title A name given to the resource Internal Defoliant Dispenser A/A45Y-1 Subject The topic of the resource spray equipment Ranch Hand aircraft herbicide application 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/4242c11bdf97e51356fa69dce748eb0c.pdf bdd23ee31f1fcb10cb1ed20e7e8c2e9b PDF Text Text Item ID Number 00237 Author Corporate Author Report/Article Title F°rm: Military Insecticides, Use in Vietnam, AOPA/November-December 1983, Document Source: Historical Summary (RCS: MACSJS-01) June 67 Journal/Book Title Year 000 ° Month/Day Color U Number of Images 1 DOSOrlptOU NOteS Summarizes equipment used for dispersal of insecticides in March 1967 Monday, January 22, 2001 Page 249 of 341 �Military Insecticides Use In Vietnam AOPO/ttovember-December 1983 Document Source •.-^\ S I » V x^_ ^ \ ^ ™ —\ ^^^ Date of Document ° ^ Insecticides Mentioned (Type/Quantity/Use) MfcCV I O o C Other Information If Available Method of Application : location of Application Military Unit if Different from Above Names of Personnel Mentioned Significant Event(s) - Spill, Fire, Explosion, Clean-up � 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. 019 Folder The folder containing the original item. 0237 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/. Title A name given to the resource Form: Military Insecticides, Use in Vietnam, AOPA/November-December 1983, Document Source: Historical Summary (RCS: MACSJS-01) June 67 Subject The topic of the resource pesticide application 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 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. 020 Folder The folder containing the original item. 0291 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/. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1966-09-01 Title A name given to the resource Clipping: Spray Planes Shield Crippled Craft From Ground Fire Subject The topic of the resource Ranch Hand aircraft popular press military impact 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