Document Page: First | Prev | Next | All | Image | This Release | Search

    procure~ent of KPM from source to meet the initial need of the
    first~rotation.    Anticipated surface shipping to and from SWA is
 - approxi~ately 45 days.     In country transit and rediatribution of
    the float is unknown at this time.    Time to test and return
    assets to a issueable status is approximately 2e workdays.   Coat
    for repacking of KPM's is $3.25 each.   Surface transportation
    cost is unknown at this time.   The continual return and issue of
    KPM's within the deployed force will place a increased stress on
    the existing logistics chain.

        b.   That a formal Intraservice Support AgrC~er~ent be entered
    into with the U. S. Army.    It is known that the U. S. Army is
    currently establishing some type of depot level KPM testing
    facility in the SWA region.    Cost and turn around time for Marine
    forces in SWA is unknown and since the U. S. Army has not
    preformed testing of fielded KPM it is unsure how much production
    is anticipated or the logistical requirements to support such
    transfer of material between services would occur.

             Cl)  PROS.    This solution would allow the Marine Corps to
    utilize the T&EU in CONUS without restriction.    All assets tested
    by the Army that fail testin~ could automatically be slated for
    rebuilt by the Army and would not be returned to the Marine Corps
    until they are rebuilt and passed testing.

             (2)  CONS.    This solution would require that the Marine
    Corps pay the Army for this services.    The cost for testing is
    unknown at this time.    The cost for the T&EU's to test a FPM is
    less that $4 per mask.    The cost for rebuilding a FPM is
    approximately $1~8 per mask.    The T&EU's are able to rebuild a
    mask for approximately $34 per mask.    Additionally, the work load
    of the Army facility is anticipated to be quite significant with
    over 15e,eee U. S. Army KPM's requiring testing,   in addition
    U. S. Air Force and other allies may increase the demand on the
    U. S. Army facility.

        c.   That the existing T&EU~s be combined and deployed to SWA.
    Currently the T&EU's maintain sufficient personnel, equipment and
    material to support prolonged independent testing operations.
    Each mobile facility can be re-configured to increase hourly
    production by one third and include the capability to remove and
    replace the voicemitter assembly.     Only one of the two fixed
    sites currently servicing the RSA's would require shutdown.     The
    remaining fixed site would continue to operate.

             (1)  PROS.    The solution would allow the Marine Corps to
    possess the in country capability to test all Marine Corps assets
    in a timely and cost effective manner.    The prioritizing of
    assets to be tested would be in the control of the Marine Corps
    Force Commander.     This would allow the fastest response time
    based upon the commanders needs.    This solution would require a
    float allowance of approximately ~see FPM.    This solution would
    provide a totally integrated Marine Corps logistic support
-   concept which would operate under current doctrine and concepts
    of equipment maintenance.     if tasked, the T&EU could support a

Document Page: First | Prev | Next | All | Image | This Release | Search