From: CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil>
Subject: DoD News 01/05/92 
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:43:01 GMT


From CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil>

  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>
  <<>> Assistant Secretary Of Defense                                    <<>>
  <<>>        Public Affairs                    January 1993             <<>>
  <<>>    Pentagon, Washington DC       Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat      <<>>
  <<>>        DSN  225-3886                                  1   2       <<>>
  <<>>       - - - - - - -               3   4   5   6   7   8   9       <<>>
  <<>>  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS      10  11  12  13  14  15  16       <<>>
  <<>>                                  17  18  19  20  21  22  23       <<>>
  <<>>   TUESDAY, JAN. 5, 1992          24  25  26  27  28  29  30       <<>>
  <<>>                                  31                               <<>>
  <<>>               Courtesy of Air Force Reserve                       <<>>
  <<>>                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -                   <<>>
  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>


* MILITARY  STRENGTH  FIGURES  FOR  NOVEMBER  30, 1992
* LIMITED-NOTICE MOBILIZATION EXERCISE 
* BLOOD DEFERRAL LIFTED
* DOD NEWS BRIEFING
* DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTS

========================================================================

                                                  No. 001-93
                                                  (703) 695-0192 (info)
                                                  (703) 697-3189 (copies)
IMMEDIATE  RELEASE         January 4, 1993        (703) 697-5737 (public/indus-
                                                  try)


             MILITARY  STRENGTH  FIGURES  FOR  NOVEMBER  30, 1992

                 SUMMARIZED  BY  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  DEFENSE

     Total numerical strength of the Armed Forces on November 30, 1992, based
on preliminary reports, was 1,789,659.  This was a decrease of 3,752 from
October 31, 1992, and a decrease of 172,010 from the same time in 1991.

     These figures represent full-time military personnel comprising both
regular and reserves on active duty and officers candidates including cadets at
the three military academies.

     Excluded from these figures are approximately 67,850 full-time military
personnel who are paid from other than active duty military personnel appropri-
ations.  This group is funded from appropriations for reserve components and
Corps of Engineer civil functions.  A comparable figures for Fiscal Year 1992
was approximately 70,250.

     November 1992 strength figures for each service with month-ago and
year-ago figures for comparison are:

                            11-30-92         10-31-92         11-31-91
                            (Preliminary)    (Actual)
Total DoD                   1,789,659        1,793,411        1,961,669
Army                           607,628          608,567          703,114
Navy                           533,767          534,062          561,482
Marine Corps                   184,906          184,403          193,624
Air Force                      463,358          466,379          503,449


                                 END


                                                            No. 384-M 

MEMORANDUM FOR CORRESPONDENTS                               Dec. 30, 1992 
LIMITED-NOTICE MOBILIZATION EXERCISE 
     Units of the U. S. Army National Guard and U. S. Army Reserve will undergo
a simulated, limited-notice mobilization exercise during the first three months
of 1993.  

     The exercise, called Optimal Focus 93, will test the Army's ability to
activate Selected Reserve units during an emergency and to identify problems
which could impede rapid mobilization.  Optimal Focus 93 is the fourth in a
series of emergency mobilization preparedness tests.  

     The Selected Reserve consists of National Guard and Army Reserve units and
individuals who can be mobilized by the President's authority to call up no
more than 200,000 Reserve Component personnel for up to 180 days, without
declaration of a national emergency.  

     Approximately 8,000 citizen soldiers from the Army National Guard and Army
Reserve will be ordered to report to their armories and reserve centers as part
of Optimal Focus 93.  There, they will be processed for active duty as if they
were being mobilized.  Units will conduct a property inventory and load their
equipment as if they were actually moving to their mobilization stations.  

     No personnel or units will actually be placed on active duty as a result
of Optimal Focus 93.  Because the Reserve Components today play a greater role
in national defense than ever before, this exercise's training will provide the
Reserve Components and the active Army valuable insights and lessons in
mobilization procedures.  
                                 - END - 


     For more information, contact Maj. Pete Keating, Army 
Public Affairs, (703) 697-7589.  



                                                  No. 549-92
                                                  (703) 695-0192 (info)
                                                  (703) 697-3189 (copies)
IMMEDIATE  RELEASE             December 30, 1992  (703) 697-5737 (public/indus-
                                                  try)

                             BLOOD DEFERRAL LIFTED

     The Department of Defense today announced the lifting of the deferral of
blood donations from military personnel who served in the Persian Gulf area,
with several modifications.  This deferral had been ordered in November l991 to
preclude the risk of transmission of leishmaniasis, a parasitic infection
caused by the bite of a sandfly.  

     Dr. Enrique Mendez, Jr., assistant secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs, has lifted the ban on donations effective January 1, 1993.  The 14
month deferral period has not resulted in scientific evidence that the viscero-
tropic form of leishmaniasis is a serious threat to the blood supply.  During
that period only twenty-eight cases of leishmaniasis were confirmed in members
of the U. S. Armed Forces participating in Operation Desert Shield/Storm:
eleven were found to have the internal or viscerotropic leishmaniasis while the
remaining 17 cases were the cutaneous or skin disorder variety.  No cases of
transmission of leishmaniasis involving blood donations of military personnel
have occurred.  

     The Department of Defense will continue its surveillance efforts for
leishmaniasis   when military personnel donate blood.  Individuals will be
asked if they have been outside the United States in the last three years.  If
the answer is "yes", they will then be asked if they were deployed to the
Persian Gulf in Operations Desert Shield/Storm.  If that is answered posi-
tively, they will also be asked if they have any illness now, are presently
under a doctor's care, or have experienced any of the following symptoms for a
month or more since returning from the Gulf: diarrhea, significant fatigue that
impairs work, night sweats, fever greater than 101F, or sore or aching joints.
Personnel answering "yes" to the symptom question will be indefinitely deferred
for donation and referred for medical examination.  

     As an additional interim DoD policy, all prospective donors will be asked
if they have ever had leishmaniasis.  Diagnosed cases of visceral leishmaniasis
will be permanently deferred from donating blood. 

     This policy will be subsequently reviewed for effectiveness following a
six-month implementation period.  

     This policy is not expected to be affected by the current deployment of
personnel to Somalia in Operation Restore Hope.  Military personnel in Restore
Hope are taking medication to prevent malaria; under existing guidance from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, individuals who have taken malaria
medications are prevented from donating blood for a three year period.

                                     -END-



DoD News Briefing
Tuesday, January 5, 1993 - Noon
Mr. Bob Hall, DASD (Public Affairs)

     Mr. Hall:  Good afternoon.

     General Colin L. Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will
attend a street-naming ceremony in his honor on January 7th.  The ceremony will
take place at 3:30 p.m. on Thursday in Phenix City, Alabama.  The event is
sponsored by the Phenix City-Russell County Chamber of Commerce, Fort Benning,
and area businesses.

     Also on January 7th, General Powell will speak at the Columbus Chamber of
Commerce annual dinner in Columbus, Georgia.  The dinner will take place at
7:00 p.m. at the Columbus Ironworks Convention Center.  Media desiring to cover
the events should contact Major Nino Fabiano at the Chairman's public affairs
office here, at (703) 697-4272; or Ms. Lynn Heard at Phenix Cable, (205)
298-7000; or Ms. Kitt Pound, Columbus Chamber of Commerce, (706) 327-1566.
Obviously, Ms. Heard is for the Phenix City event, and Ms. Pound is for the
Columbus event.

     I understand that the street will be named The General Colin L. Powell
Parkway.  It is currently named Broad Street Extension.  (Laughter)

     For your information, DDI has available copies of a press packet prepared
by the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in anticipation of the signing of
the Multilateral Chemical Weapons Convention in Paris next Wednesday, January
13th.  The U.S. plans to be an original signatory.  We understand more than 130
nations have indicated that they will send representatives to Paris to sign the
Chemical Weapons Convention, including Russia which has pledged, along with the
rest of the countries in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe,
to be an original signatory.

     As you know, the convention was concluded by the Conference on Disarmament
in Geneva on September 3, 1992, and was endorsed by the UN on November 30th.
When in force, the convention will ban the production, acquisition,
stockpiling, transfer, and use of chemical weapons.  It will enter into force
180 days after ratification by the 65th signatory nation, but not earlier than
two years after signature, which means it could enter into force as early as
January 1995.  There's a whole packet of material that's available for you in
DDI.

     Let me go through a few numbers since the last briefing, since it was
quite awhile ago.  In Bosnia, as part of Provide Promise -- since the last
briefing on December 22nd -- we've had 64 flights by U.S. forces into Sarajevo
that carried about 320 tons of supplies.  There have been no incidents.  We
have seven sorties planned for today, carrying foodstuffs.  The airport is
open. 

     The other things we usually talk about, the numbers of people, are about
the same.  We have the hospital in Zagreb that's open.  There are 16 military
personnel assigned to the United Nations Protection Forces Headquarters for
Bosnia, which is in Belgrade.  We have a ten-man cargo handling team in Zagreb.

     Q:  Is the Eisenhower in the Adriatic?
     A:  We have no U.S. ships presently in the Adriatic.  The Eisenhower is
somewhere on the east coast or somewhere.  The Kennedy is in the Mediterranean.

     Q:  Where in the Med?
     A:  It was in Marseilles for a Christmas port call, and it's left.  It's
somewhere in the central Mediterranean, probably.

     Q:  Will it be going to the Adriatic?
     A:  We don't talk about ship movements prior to their taking place, but
it's certainly available in the region if its needed.

     The Halyburton, which is the U.S. ship that's assigned to NATO Standing
Force Mediterranean, is in port in Naples.  There are other NATO ships that are
currently performing that monitoring regime in the straits of Otranto.

     Operation Restore Hope.  As of yesterday afternoon, Eastern time, our last
count we had approximately 20,800 U.S. forces involved in Operation Restore
Hope -- approximately 16,100 operating ashore with about 3,900 afloat.  In
addition, there are approximately 800 personnel supporting Operation Provide
Relief which is the humanitarian flights or airlift of food into Somalia and
northern Kenya to the refugees.  They're operating out of Mombasa.

     I think we announced over the weekend that the figure that we'd given
earlier of approximately 28,000 U.S. forces being involved in the operation has
been revised downward as a result of coalition contributions and deployments.
Accordingly, we think now about 24,000 will probably be in the pipeline to go
at some time.  That may not be the actual number that is on the scene at any
one time, but they'll go and be involved in the operation probably.

     Additionally, we expect by the end of the month to have reversed the flow
slightly, to be bringing back some people.  I wouldn't want to give you an
estimate on the numbers.  At this point we don't really know, and I wouldn't
say that necessarily it's going to be a large number.  We expect to have people
there for some time in the future.  But we'll have started the process,
according to the current plan.

     As far as our people in-country, we've had one case of high fever that is
now being evaluated by our medical personnel for the possibility of malaria.
We have one new snake bite victim who is being treated for the wound.  The
victim of snake bite several weeks ago is back on duty.  Two other people have
been MEDEVAC'd for other injuries, two of our people.  One has gone to Rota,
Spain, for a recurring shoulder injury; and one was sent back to the U.S. for a
heat injury and dehydration.

     Other items of interest.  The Special Marine Air-to-Ground Task Force, the
Special MAGTAF, has been backloaded.  Except for a few vehicles, it's now on
board ships, on board the Tripoli and the accompanying ships.

     Q:  Is it the same other ships that are with the Tripoli -- the Juneau and
...
     A:  Yes, the Juneau and the Rushmore.

     Since the last briefing, we've had 73 flights as part of Provide Relief
into northern Kenya and Somalia.  They've carried 821.69 metric tons of
supplies.  That brings a grand total of 1,644 flights, and 19,433.6 metric tons
that have been flown in as part of Provide Relief.

     Finally, in terms of an update, besides the U.S. personnel on the ground
in Somalia, we have the Italians, the Saudis, forces from Botswana, Canadians,
Belgians, French, Moroccans, and Turkish troops who all have significant
forces, who are actually conducting operations out in the field.  As well, we
have advance teams from Australia, Germany, India, New Zealand, Nigeria,
Sweden, Zimbabwe, Tunisia, and Kuwait.  In addition, of course, there is the
Pakistani force, the peacekeepers who were there before we got there, also on
the ground. 

     That's it, in terms of updates.

     Q:  How is the command and control working on all those?  Do they answer
to General Johnston?
     A:  It's working very well.  You have the usual glitches, we occasionally
hear about stuff.  But by and large it's been a very cooperative operation.  I
haven't heard any significant complaints from either our side or their side.

     Q:  Have any of the additional peacekeeping forces, the 3,500 authorized
by the United Nations, moved in?  And how many?
     A:  I don't have an exact number for the coalition forces that are on the
ground, unless it's in the material I've got here.  But I think it's somewhere
above 8,000, and I'd say about 4,000 of those have been identified as
peacekeepers, meaning the people that will stay behind as part of UNOSOM.  So
about half or a little less than half have already arrived.  As I mentioned,
you have advance teams coming in.  They're there from a number of countries,
indicating the commitment of troops that will be following, who will also be
part of UNOSOM.

     Q:  Iraq.  Would you bring us up to date on the latest incursions into the
no-fly zone, and tell us whether or not any of the radars, targeting radars
have been turned on on those AA missiles?
     A:  Let me rather than get into specifics on exactly where planes have
gone in terms of the no-fly zone, I think it's better to describe it as a
pattern of activity.  It's kind of teasing the line, going across it some days,
some days not going across but flying very close to it, putting themselves at
risk of going across it inadvertently, or deliberately.  That pattern has
continued and is continuing to date.  It started, of course, the day of the
shoot-down.

     Q:  You say there's dozens of these flights, or just a handful every day?
     A:  A handful, I think, would be a better way to put it.

     Q:  You mean both north and south?
     A:  No, we're talking about activity along the 32 degree parallel.

     Q:  What activity are you seeing along the 36 degree parallel?
     A:  Nothing significant.

     Q:  How about the radars on the antiaircraft missiles?  Have any of them
been turned on or locked on to U.S. planes?
     A:  I can't confirm any recent lock-ons.  If you remember back in April, I
think it was, we had the incidents up in the north where we had some painting
or lock-ons or however you want to describe it.

     Q:  To follow up on that, under the rules of engagement, if we do get
lock-on, what happens?
     A:  We don't discuss rules of engagement.  But as a generic point, let me
say that we have made it very clear to the Iraqis that we are determined to
enforce the no-fly zones, we will enforce the no-fly zones, we will do it in
the safest possible way for our pilots, and we will not allow them to be put at
risk.

     Q:  Do you characterize this movement of these antiaircraft batteries as a
serious threat to the aircraft in the region, or how do you see this?  Is this
along the lines of his teasing and otherwise obnoxious activity?
     A:  I'd make a couple of points.  One, he has surface-to-air missiles in
country.  He's always had them.  It's nothing new.  They've been there since
the war.  They have sites all over the country -- not necessarily occupied.
You have sites and you move in missiles and occupy the site, and then maybe a
few days later, a few weeks later, you move them to another site.  That's
fairly common practice.  So they move around quite frequently.  There have
always been SAMs, as far as I know, down below the 32nd parallel.  There have
been SAMs up north.  Is it something we watch, something that we're interested
in?  Yes.

     Q:  But is it a threat to aircraft?  Are these viable, or are they rusted,
are they capable of...
     A:  I'm not sure I can characterize their level of maintenance or
operational capabilities at this point.

     Q:  Would you be watching them if you weren't worried about them?
     A:  We are conducting operations to enforce the two no-fly zones.
Obviously, we're going to keep an eye on this kind of activity.

     Q:  Exactly what sort of activity has been monitored in terms of moving
missiles or concentrating them along the 32nd parallel?
     A:  They have been moving missiles around.  There are missiles now along
the 32nd parallel.

     Q:  Are they concentrated in any particular area or around particular
sites?
     A:  They're along the 32nd parallel:  I think that's the best way to
describe it.  As I say, you have to read intention and I'm not sure I can give
you an answer on that.  There have been SAMs near areas where we've been
flying.

     I think Susanne's question, actually, was a good one.  If you put this
movement into a pattern of behavior, then it becomes an item of particular
interest.  If you've watched the behavior since the end of the war, essentially
of being nonresponsive to UN resolutions, of making efforts to thwart the UN
inspections, the IAEA inspections, of thwarting humanitarian relief supplies,
of attacking your own people down in the south, activity with the Kurds up in
the north.  Then later on -- after Provide Comfort started -- in the last six
months or so, you've had efforts to disrupt relief supplies going into the
Kurds, you've had the bombing of the trucks up north, you have the teasing of
the no-fly zone.  Then if you have moving of SAMs around or military exercises,
which may or may not be militarily significant in themselves, if you put that
all into a pattern of activity, it's something of interest.

     Q:  But this moving missiles around at all, is that a violation of either
the U.S. no-fly zone or any other UN resolution?
     A:  No, moving military units are not covered in the no-fly zone.  The
no-fly zone affects aircraft.

     Q:  Have we noticed any movement of ground forces, significant movement?
     A:  Not particularly, no.

     Q:  So you're describing this as something of interest, not as something
of alarm, not as something of concern, strictly of interest, that's as far as
you go at this point?
     A:  Yes.

     Q:  So it is a tiny ratcheting up, as far as you're concerned.
     A:  If you put it into a pattern of activity, I think in and of itself,
it's not that big a deal.  But you put that into a pattern of activity, it's
something we're going to pay attention to.  We pay attention to where
surface-to-air missiles are at any time, at all times.  But if you put it into
a pattern of activity, it's something we want to take a look at.

     Q:  You won't say what the rules of engagement are, but you made it very
clear to the Iraqis that you're going to police this no-fly zone, and that you
will not allow, to paraphrase, pilots to be put at risk.  If these radars are
turned on, is that putting a pilot at risk, and would you respond?  Not asking
you to say how, but would you respond if a radar is turned on, if a pilot is
considered at risk?
     A:  When we discussed this before, when we had cases of painting up in the
north, we made it very clear that we regarded this as provocative behavior,
something that caused us great concern, and something that where we felt we
were putting our pilots at risk, and that was something we were not going to
tolerate.

     Q:  Can you identify the types of missiles?  Are these current,
state-of-the-art Soviet missiles?  Are they missiles that we contend with
fairly easily?
     A:  I don't know when they bought them, but they're an older variety of
missile, but I really can't give you a description of their operational
capability.  A missile is a missile.

     Q:  In our state-of-the-art defense mechanisms, we can handle some
missiles more easily than others, I'm told.  These are missiles that are...
     A:  I think we have a lot of capability, but I don't want to get into the
particular description.

     Q:  Did these type of missiles, were they involved in any of the
shoot-downs of American planes during the Gulf War?
     A:  I don't know if we have ever come up with a breakdown of what types of
missiles shot down our planes in the war.  I'm not sure we have that
information, frankly.  In fact, I can't even remember whether it was missiles
or antiaircraft fire that we attributed most of the shoot-downs to.  That's
probably in the Conduct of the War Report.  We can go back and look it up, but
I don't have it.

     Q:  Since all this started on December 27th...
     A:  Let me just say, in terms of particular types of missiles, I'm very
confident that we don't have that recorded any place that I can find.

     Q:  Since all this started on December 27th, have there been any instances
in which U.S. aircraft or other coalition aircraft have been painted by any
type of Iraqi missile guidance systems?
     A:  Not that I can confirm, no.

     Q:  Air-to-air or ground-to-air?
     A:  Not that I can confirm, no.

     Q:  Unconfirmed reports?
     A:  If I'm speaking from up here, I have to talk about things I can
confirm.  I just can't.

     Q:  Even though they have not been painted by final-solution, fire-control
radars, has there been any painting by search or acquisition radars,
longer-range, associated with these surface-to-air missiles?
     A:  I don't think the word painting has come into play here.  That's the
best I can do for you.  There are general radar that track what's in the air
and stuff, but that's different than something that's used to acquire a target.
I think we're at a level of specificity that goes beyond my knowledge, but I
haven't seen the word "painting" being used.

     Q:  Has the repositioning or the movement of some of these SA-2's and 3's
and 7's and Roland missiles, are they contiguous all the way along the 32nd
parallel, almost border-to-border, providing overlapping coverage?
     A:  No.

     Q:  Do you have any additional detail on the F-16 engagement with the
MIG-25's?
     A:  No.

     Q:  The units or...  The number of Iraqi training sorties over the last
several days, has that increased or decreased?  And what is our number of
sorties out of land bases in the region and from the carrier Kitty Hawk?
     A:  The planes that flew off the Kitty Hawk are back on board the Kitty
Hawk now.  In terms of sorties, since our last briefing, the 22nd of December,
we have flown 661 sorties, U.S. planes.  The daily totals, I gather, range from
32 to 73.  The grand total of sorties to date since the 4th of January [1992],
8,974 made by U.S. planes.

     In terms of Iraqi activity, I don't have a real good read.  The numbers
I've seen have been estimates that have gone up and down every day.  Sometimes
very few, sometimes quite a few.  It's a very irregular pattern.  In fact it's
not a pattern.

     Q:  How would you characterize their training flights, as far as types of
missions?  Are they dropping live ordnance, are they doing coordinated air
warfare drills?  How would you characterize it?
     A:  Let me check and see what I can get for you on that.  I just don't
have anything.

     Q:  Just for the record, do these recent movements of air defense Iraqi
missiles and so on have any significant impact on our ability to enforce that
no-fly zone or not?
     A:  We are still conducting operations to enforce the no-fly zone.

     Q:  As we were before?
     A:  Yes.

     Q:  So there's no big sweat, basically?
     A:  Well, I'm not sure I follow the argument.  We are conducting
operations.  I'm not saying that we don't change necessarily our operating
patterns depending on events.

     Q:  We're told from sources in Kuwait that Kuwait has agreed to buy five
batteries of Patriot missiles for $790 million, unnamed sources.  Would this be
just a confirmation of the deal that was announced last year?  I think the
United States announced it was going to sell six batteries.  This is nothing
new?
     A:  I'll have to go and check, Charlie.

     Q:  Would you take that question, if the United States has agreed to sell
any additional...
     A:  We'll see if there are any additional ones.

     Q:  Because I don't think the ones we agreed to sell last year have been
sent there.
     A:  I'm not sure of the status.
     Voice:  Its the same package.

     Q:  Also, legislators in Taiwan are saying they're threatening to block
the $6 billion deal to buy 150 F-16's unless there's more technology transfer.
I wonder if you have any comment on that.
     A:  I don't know, unless we have something officially from the government
of Taiwan.  I'm not sure what I would have to say.

     Q:  Has the Defense Department registered opposition to the sale of the
chemical plant to Iran?
     A:  That's basically something that's in the interagency process, which
puts its off limits for me to discuss.  I think the generic statement, we
have...  What we focus on in DoD and our concerns are about whether sales
include the potential for dual-use of technologies and licensing and other
agreements that would prohibit the technology transfer to third countries.  But
in terms of specifically where we are in the interagency process, I'm not
allowed to discuss that.

     Q:  But it is a fact that they've asked for this, and it is in the works.
I mean you're not denying that?
     A:  The things that are in the process basically are off limits for me to
discuss, so I can't confirm or...

     Q:  You can't even confirm that...
     A:  No.  Commerce has the lead on these things, in terms of managing that
process.

     Q:  You have registered some type of input on the issue?
     A:  What I've said is, this is what we would look at in terms of our role
in the process and what our concerns are, what I've stated here.  I'm not
confirming whether a specific deal is being discussed or that kind of thing.

     Q:  The Aspin hearing is Thursday.  Are you going to have a briefing
Thursday here?
     A:  Interesting question.  What time is the hearing?

     Q:  I think it's in the morning, 9:30.  It will probably go all day.
     A:  What do you want?

     Q:  Many of us will be up there.  But we can send somebody over.
     Q:  If it's a day when there are shootdowns and things, I'd hate to not
ask for a briefing.
     A:  We can decide in the morning, if you want.  Why don't you give us some
kind of feel on Wednesday night or Thursday morning about what you want.  We'll
leave it as to be announced Thursday morning.

     Q:  How about next week?
     A:  Regular briefings.  I'll be here Tuesday, and Pete's back on Thursday,
and on the following Tuesday, and then that's it, I think.

     Press:  Thank you.

                                     (END)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTS
(NOT FOR USE BEFORE 5:00 P.M. EST JANUARY 5, 1993)

                                     ARMY

	Boeing Sikorsky Comanche Team (A Joint Venture), Trumbull, Connecticut, is
being awarded a $30,000,000 modification to a cost plus incentive fee with
award fee provisions contract for the RAH-66 Comanche demonstration/validation
prototype phase program.  This effort includes all work, services, supplies,
data, facilities and management for research and development of three prototype
helicopters.  Work will be performed in Trumbull, Connecticut, and is expected
to be completed by September 30, 1997.  Contract funds will not expire at the
end of the current fiscal year.  This is a sole source contract initiated on
February 7, 1992.  The contracting activity is the U.S. Army Aviation and Troop
Command, St. Louis, Missouri (DAAJ09-91-C-A004).

	Light Helicopter Turbine Engine Company, St. Louis, Missouri, is being
awarded a $10,925,000 modification to a cost plus fixed fee contract for T800
engine growth design and air vehicle support effort for the RAH-6 Comanche
helicopter.  Work will be performed in Phoenix, Arizona (50%) and Indianapolis,
Indiana (50%), and is expected to be completed by December 31, 1993.  Contract
funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This is a sole
source contract initiated on August 25, 1991.  The contracting activity is the
U.S. Army Aviation and Troop Command, St. Louis, Missouri (DAAJ09-92-C-0453).

                                     NAVY

	Paramax Corporation, Electronic Systems, St. Paul, Minnesota, is being
awarded an $18,018,416 firm-fixed-price contract modification for 170
AN/USQ-69(V) Data Terminal Sets, 114 AN/USQ-69B(V) Data Terminal Sets and 50
OL-267(V)/UYL Data Terminal Groups plus associated equipment and support.  Work
will be performed in Oldsmar, Florida (84%), and St. Paul, Minnesota (16%), and
is expected to be completed by February 1995.  Contract funds will not expire
at the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract will satisfy the require-
ments of various U.S. Navy programs including AEGIS, NAVMACS, TACINTEL, VLS, CG
SM2, LINK 11 and TOMAHAWK.  This contract was not competitively procured.  The
Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity
(N00024-86-C-5288).

	Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc., Pascagoula, Mississippi, is being awarded a
$15,489,690 cost-plus-award-fee contract modification for Follow Yard Services
for the DDG-51 class AEGIS destroyers.  Work will be performed in Pascagoula,
Mississippi, and is expected to be completed by May 1993.  Contract funds will
not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract was not
competitively procured.  The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C. is the
contracting activity (N00024-88-C-2252).

	Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc., Pascagoula, Mississippi, is being awarded a
$27,911,440 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for Lead Yard Services
for CG-47 class ships.  Work will be performed in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and
is expected to be completed by January 1994.  Contract funds will not expire at
the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract was not competitively
procured.  The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting
activity (N00024-88-C-2111).

	Marco International, Inc., Columbia, Maryland, is being awarded a
$8,126,059 indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity cost-plus-fixed-fee contract
to provide organizational development assistance to division programs or
activities in the areas of organizational change, human resources management,
productivity improvement, employee assistance counseling and quality of work
life.  Work will be performed in Columbia, Maryland, and is expected to be
completed by January 1998.  Contract funds will not expire at end of the
current fiscal year.  This contract was competitively procured with 172 bids
solicited and two bids received.  The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren,
Virginia, is the contracting activity (N60921-93-D-A114).

                                   AIR FORCE

	General Dynamics Corporation, Fort Worth Division, Fort Worth, Texas, is
being awarded a $6,055,337 face value increase to a fixed-price-incentive-firm
contract for the Crash Survivable Flight Data Recorder (CSFDR) work station and
structural analysis update in support of F-16 aircraft for Turkey.  Contract is
expected to be completed October 1997.  Contract funds will not expire at the
end of the current fiscal year.  This contract is in support of Foreign
Military Sales (FMS) to Turkey.  The Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (F33657-82-C-2120,
P01678).
:END


-- 
         
      // \\
    //     \\                    Air Force News Agency 
   |         |               Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, USA
   \\  {*}  //                   bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil  
   \  CMSgt  /      ___________________ /____________________________________
   \  Mike   /   
   \ Bergman /
     \     / 



Newsgroups: sci.military