U.S. METRIC STUDY

INTERIM REPORT

nil.'

NATIONAL BUREAU

OF STANDABD8

LIBBABX

MAY 8 1973

1 11333

QUO*
U.S. METRIC SUBSTUDY REPORTS

The results of substudies of the U.S. Metric Study, while being evaluated

for the preparation of a comprehensive report to the Congress, are being

published in the interim as a series of NBS Special Publications. The titles of the individual reports are listed below.

REPORTS ON SUBSTUDIES

NBS SP345-1: International Standards (issued December 1970, SD

Catalog No. C 1 3. 1 0:345- 1 , Price $ 1 .25)

NBS SP345-2: Federal Government: Civilian Agencies (in press)

NBS SP345-3: Commercial Weights and Measures (in press)

NBS SP345-4: The Manufacturing Industry (in press)

NBS SP345-5: Nonmanufacturing Businesses (in press)

NBS SP345-6: Education (in press)

NBS SP345-7: The Consumer (in press)

NBS SP345-8: International Trade (in press)

NBS SP345-9: Department of Defense (this publication)

NBS SP345-10: A History of the Metric System Controversy in the

United States (in press)

NBS SP345-1 1: Engineering Standards (in press)

NBS SP345-12: Testimony of Nationally Representative Groups (in press)

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE U.S. METRIC STUDY

NBS SP345: To be published in August 1971

Those publications with catalog numbers have already been issued, and

may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Government

Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 for the prices indicated. Add onefourth of the purchase price if the publication ordered is to be sent to a

foreign address. Be sure to include the SD Catalog number with your order.
SEP ? 1971

fic/»o U.S. METRIC STUDY

INTERIM REPORT

^

DEPARTMENT

OF DEFENSE

Ninth in a series of reports prepared

for the Congress

U.S. METRIC STUDY

Daniel V. De Simone, Director

National Bureau of Standards

^Special Publication 345-9

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Maurice H. Stans, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Lewis M. Branscomb, Director

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 345-9, 132 pages (June 1971)

CODEN: XNBSA

Issued June 1971

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

(Order by SD Catalog No. C 13.10:345-9), Price $1.25 Stock Number 0303-0878

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

THE HONORABLE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE

THE HONORABLE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SIRS:

I am presenting to you the ninth in the series of interim reports

concerning various aspects of the U.S. Metric Study. This report

was prepared by the Department of Defense and represents its independent estimate of the economic costs that it would experience

in a coordinated national changeover to the metric system.

This contribution to the U.S. Metric Study, along with all of the

i others that have been received, is being evaluated. All of these

contributions are therefore published without prejudice to my

comprehensive report to you on the entire U.S. Metric Study, which

will be made in August of 1971 and will reflect this evaluation.

Respectfully submitted,

Secretary of Commerce

iii
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

Honorable Maurice H. Stans

Secretary of Commerce

Dear Mr. Secretary:

The attached report outlines the findings of our analysis of the impact

of increased use of the metric system on the Department of Defense. It

is provided in support of the U.S. Metric Study assigned to your Department by the 90th Congress under Public Law 90-472.

The Department of Defense recognizes that any decision to go metric is a National one and we have not taken a position either for or against such

conversion. It is noted, however, that directed conversion would have an impact on budget and operational considerations within the Department of

Defense. This is particularly noteworthy during the current period of

fiscal constraints when the limited funds available must be applied to

the most urgent needs of National security.

We will, of course, cooperate in any recommendation that you may make to

the Congress and in the implementation of any program that may result

from Congressional action.

If conversion is directed, I would like to call attention to the need

for a national schedule for metrication and the establishment of priorities for all phases of conversion to minimize the impact on our defense posture during the transition period. Close coordination between

the Defense Department and the responsible metric conversion agency will

be essential.

I trust that this report will satisfy your needs for an appropriate re- sponse to the Congress. If we can be of further assistance, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Melvin R. Laird

Secretary of Defense

iv
INTRODUCTION

1. Public Law 90-472 , enacted 9 August 1968, authorized the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study to determine the impact of increasing worldwide use of the metric system

on the United States; to determine the desirability and practicability of increasing the use

of metric weights and measures in the United States; to study the feasibility of retaining

and promoting international use of dimensional and other engineering standards based on customary measurement units of the United States; and to estimate costs and benefits of

alternate courses of action which may be feasible for the United States.

2. DEPSECDEF Memo of 27 September 1968 assigned to the Air Force the responsibility

for leading the study within the Department of Defense(DOD)

3. ASST SEC AIR FORCE (INSTALLATIONS & LOGISTICS) MEMO OF 3 January 1969

established a DOD Metric System Study Steering Committee under the chairmanship of the

Air Force, with members from the various components and services of the DOD. The

steering committee developed basic assumptions and guidelines for formulation of DOD

input.

4. ASST SEC AIR FORCE (INSTALLATIONS & LOGISTICS) MEMO OF 16 October 1969

transmitted study guidelines and requested that major components of the DOD analyze their own activities to measure the advantages, disadvantages and impact of increasing worldwide

use of the metric system. * Results were to be reported along with information on the cost

that would be incurred in maintaining constant mission capability under a ten-year cycle of

metrication in the event of a national change to the metric system. The Air Force memo

recognized that no funds could be made available for the study, and therefore, recommended

that a minimal effort be expended consistent with development of a competent position.

5. ASST SEC AIR FORCE (INSTALLATIONS & LOGISTICS) MEMO OF 7 January 1970

further defined the scope of the study.

6. STUDY PARTICIPANTS . Over 125 elements of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army, Navy,

Air Force, Defense Supply Agency, National Security Agency, and other DOD agencies

participated in the DOD study. About fifty representatives of various DOD elements were

organized into nine subcommittees, e.g., Operations, Logistics, Research/Development,

Construction, Personnel and Training, Legal, and Financial. These subcommittees

worked on a full-time basis for several months and prepared the study assumptions and

guidelines. The DOD Steering Committee, with representation from the DOD activities,

monitored the DOD- wide effort and evaluated all inputs to produce this report.

*Systeme International d'Unites (abbreviated "SI") as described by U.S. Department of

Commerce, Bureau of Standards, Handbook 102, issued 10 March 1967. (Superseded by ASTM Standard Metric Practice Guide, available from American Society for Testing

and Materials, 1916 Race St., Philadelphia, Pa. 19103.)

NOTE: The above mentioned Public Law, memos and guidelines appear in Appendix A.

v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Appreciation is expressed to the representatives of each of the

more than 125 Field and Command elements of the Department of

Defense who provided the basic inputs to this study.

Special acknowledgment for their continued assistance and

support is due each of the following members of the Department of

Defense Steering Committee:

Capt. R. F. Dunbar, USN, Office of Joint Chiefs of Staff

Mr. Jack L. Vogt, ArmyMr. Winton E. Allen, Navy

Dr. Joseph L. Krieger, Air Force

Mr. James Brownell, Defense Supply Agency

In addition, the professional assistance of several staff members

deserves special acknowledgment:

Mr. H. J. Dickinson, Navy

Lt Col H. G. Tinsley, Air Force

Mr. A. P. Babbitt, Air Force

Mr. F. L. Ellison, Air Force

Great appreciation is also expressed to the retired former chairman

of the Department of Defense Metric Study, Mr. Vincent S. Roddy, for

his dedicated effort in the early phases of the study.

Leighton Lomas, Chairman

Department of Defense Metric Study

\ii
CONTENTS

PAGE

LETTERS OF TRANSMITTAL iii, iv

INTRODUCTION v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vi

I. Purpose of Study 1

II. Assumptions I

III. Summary 1

IV. Major Findings

A. Added Cost to Maintain Constant Mission Capability 2

B. Operational Considerations 3

C. Practical Difficulties and Suggested Means of Minimizing Them 5

D. Current Usage of Metric System in the DOD 10

E. Ability to Transit to the Use of the Metric System 10

V. Conclusions 10

VI . Rec ommendat i ons 11

APPENDICES

A. Historical Documentation 13

B. Assumptions..... 41

C. Agency Cost Data 4-5

D. Detailed Advantages and Disadvantages 97

E. International Standards and Piece Parts 105

F. Legal Aspects 107

G. Current Usage of Metric System 115

H. Customary Standards That Should be Retained 117

vii

I. PURPOSE OF STUDY

To determine and evaluate the impact on operational capability, advantages and

disadvantages, and costs of adopting the International System of Units (SI) of weights

and measures for use in the Department of Defense (DOD).

II. ASSUMPTIONS

In order to provide a basis from which to evaluate the impact of metrication upon the

DOD it was necessary to establish a set of assumptions relative to the metric system,

conversion period, force structure, and industrial conversion process. The results of

any evaluation of the metrication process are highly sensitive to these assumptions. The

assumptions made for the study are contained in Appendix B. In evaluating the study

findings, the differences between the scenario established by the study assumptions and

the prevailing situation (e.g., reduced budget and force cuts, with accompanying operational

risk) must be considered.

III. SUMMARY

A. If conversion to the metric system is directed, the DOD transition will have a

significant impact on mission capability unless sufficient additional resources are made

available for the total task and a national conversion schedule is adhered to by industry. The

DOD is dependent upon the National Industrial Base, and the rate of conversion within the

DOD will depend largely on how well conversion is carried out by industry. Industry must

take the lead in any such conversion. DOD must not be placed in the lead role and thereby

find itself in the position of forcing the country to convert to metric units by writing

contracts with metric requirements before industry has sufficiently converted. If DOD is placed in the lead role, the cost to DOD and the resultant decrease in Defense capability

will greatly exceed the estimates, dollar and otherwise , contained in this report.

B. Based on the assumptions of the study, the total additional funds for computed costs

that will have to be made available for transit to the use of the metric system are estimated

to be approximately $18 billion, and are such that they cannot be absorbed within the DOD

budget without deterioration of the military posture. Costs not computed in the study will

increase this amount.

C. During the period of transition there will be no major advantages to the DOD and

major disadvantages will occur. This is the period wherein the greatest costs will occur;

psychological resistance to change will be greatest; extensive training and retraining of

personnel must be undertaken; conversions will increase operational hazards; dual

stockage and dual manufacturing capability will be required in certain instances; material

and system acquisition and conversion will create forces with mixed equipment; and

development of metric standards will be necessary.

D. The conversion of the country to the metric system could adversely impact on the

ability of the United States to support its military forces during the proposed transition

period. Without proper planning and adequate funding, the reduced flexibility and

capacity of the support available would impact upon the capability of the Armed Forces to perform their mission, especially if an international crisis should develop at critical

times during this period requiring the employment of major forces in a combat role.

E. The military advantages expected following transition are the day-to-day use of an

inherently simpler system and the compatibility of U. S. and foreign equipment. Although

the use of a simpler system would have no outstanding military advantage, the slight

1
advantage expected would be amplified because of its widespread nature. The compatibility

of U. S. and foreign equipment will enhance combined military operations and simplify

logistics support requirements. The completion of metrication will leave some long-term

disadvantages. These will occur in the logistics area and deal with long-life items which

will remain in inventory well after the programmed metrication cycle has been completed.

When these long-life items are removed from the inventory, the advantage of a single

world-wide standard system of measurement will facilitate combined operations and

logistics support among allied armed forces.

F. Should metrication be directed, a full-time and continuing staff within DOD will be

required to prepare a detailed implementation plan, including contingency plans; and to implement and administer the metric system plan as appropriate.

IV. MAJOR FINDINGS

A. Added Cost to Maintain Constant Mission Capability .

1. The added cost to maintain constant mission capability while converting to the

metric system is estimated to be approximately $18 billion. The major financial impacts

of converting to metric measurements will involve additive costs associated with the areas

of design, development, procurement and support of new systems, publication of technical

data, training of personnel, and storage generated by metrication. Such additive costs were computed or estimated by the major DOD agencies (see Appendix C). Each agency's

estimate was derived independently and is based upon individual interpretations of the

assumptions and guidelines. It must also be emphasized that the estimates were based on many variable factors, some of which are outside the purview of DOD control. The sum

of the agencies' costs provides the best estimate of the total cost to DOD for metrication.

Table 1 summarizes these costs.

TABLE 1 DOD Cost of Metrication

(Millions of Dollars)

Army 4, 353

Navy 7,083

Air Force 6, 354

Defense Supply Agency (DSA) 218

Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)

National Security Agency (NSA)

Defense Atomic Support Agency (DASA)

Defense Communications Agency (DCA)

2. Above costs are conservative, since several cost considerations were specifically

omitted in order to establish a uniform cost base.

a. The assumption was made that components would be available in either system

as required at no cost penalty. This assumption is not entirely realistic because the

availability of metric components early in the changeover and the availability of customary

components later on undoubtedly will be limited. This supply shortage most likely will

dictate a premium price, over and above add on costs associated with normal business

amortization of "metric start-up" costs. However, until a master plan for metrication is adopted, and the interrelationships caused by the implementation of the plan are known, this

factor cannot be evaluated or costed with any degree of accuracy.

* Cost Impact Negligible in Terms of Costs Shown

2
b. The costs were developed as percentages of the FY 70 President's Budget

and thus are in 1970 dollars; no inflation factor is applied.

c. The cost estimates contained herein do not include increased cost of "offthe-shelf" type items/equipments. The guidelines for the DOD Study stated that the

Department of Commerce will project such costs. Those costs could be significant and

represent a general surcharge applied by the manufacturers to their complete lines of

products to retrieve the overhead4ype costs encountered in their engineering departments

and machine shops for changeover to the metric system. Such a surcharge (the extent of which is unknown at this time) would undoubtedly be borne by the DOD and therefore

represents an additive budget requirement.

d. The cost attached to mistakes made by operating personnel due to "metric

mix-ups" was not estimated. For example, a mechanic picks up the wrong type of bolt and

ruins a part in his attempt to force it to fit. It would be less than realistic to presume that

the change to metric parts will not open up a whole new spectrum of such mistakes.

Training and operating commands have recognized this error potential in their assessment

of the metric impact. They must do all that is physically possible to pinpoint and

minimize the chance for such errors but they will never be able to completely eliminate

them.

3. Anticipated changes in force structure will not appreciably reduce the estimated

dollar cost of metrication. The significant identifiable costs of conversion are in the

support areas, namely in physical plant, production, equipments, and tools; modification of

equipment and systems supply support in terms of specifications cr standards, stock

numbers, catalogs, maintenance manuals, maintenance of expanded inventories, and

related identification data. Because these are one time costs, reduction in force units will

have little effect on support and/or conversion of equipment or systems costs unless the

equipment or system is eliminated completely from the Service-wide inventory without

replacement. On the other hand, a reduced force structure, which results in reduced

civilian and military personnel to perform the conversion job, means that the conversion

task would either have to be stretched out or the dollar cost will increase.

B. Operational Considerations .

1. The metrication process will impact upon the operational capability of the

military forces. For example:

a. Computer programs for data systems will have to be revised. Tactical data

systems will require simultaneous conversion of all units operating as an offensive or

defensive entity if they are to retain their usefulness. Present gun and missile fire control

computers are of the analog type, except for some very recent systems, which are digital.

Analog synchro data transmission systems are used with the analog computers. There is no simple and inexpensive method for converting analog fire control systems to SI units.

b. Installed equipments, supporting equipments, and documentation for

operational systems will require appropriate changes or modifications.

c. Communications procedures pertaining to weather, navigation, and takeoff/

landing instructions will have to be revised to accommodate the change.

d. Observations and weather reports will have to be changed to reflect metric measure for ceilings, visibilities, altitudes, and windspeeds.

3
2. Complicated weapons systems involve numerous components which must fit together into a workable system through the systems engineering process. The interfacing

of equipments /components designed in the inch-pound and metric systems will present a challenging task. If the cost and time delays are to be held to a minimum, an effective

decision-making system must be developed to determine the when and how of conversion on each system. Trade-off studies will be required to determine the degree of mix which can

be tolerated in the engineering support and operational areas. Metrication of new equipment

designs can proceed on an orderly basis only if there is a phased national schedule for the

conversion of each major segment of American industry. In order to minimize the impact

of continued use of mixed (inch-pound metric) systems in any area, full cooperation

between the Government and industry in meeting conversion schedules will be vital.

3. Operational capabilities and readiness will be decreased during the transitional

period due to confusion associated with having to operate and maintain systems /equipments

built to either one measurement system or the other or both. This condition will persist

until complete conversion is effected and all customary and mixed systems /equipments are phased out of the inventory.

4. Some manpower engaged in productive occupations will have to be removed from

such occupations and placed in planning and training. Few personnel, even engineers and

scientists who are well versed in metric units, have the intuitive understanding or "feel" for

metric sizes that they have for inch-pound sizes. Lead times for development, design,

procurement, production, installation, and operations will be increased due to the

inefficiency of personnel resulting from their lack of familiarity with the SI system of

measurements. For the same reason, additional time will be required to perform

maintenance which, in turn, will further detract from the operational capability. The cost

of new weapons /equipments development will also be higher due to the fact that industry

will be experiencing the same inefficiency.

5. Depot maintenance operations will require more time during the transition

period. In addition, field maintenance organizations must solve the problem of transporting

the extra equipment and material which the metrication process will impose. The

maintenance section of an armored cavalry squadron, for example, currently has a prescribed load list (PLL) of 466 items. When the squadron goes to the field, the

maintenance section must carry the PLL plus all of its other equipment and tools in organic

transportation. This transport is already overcrowded and the addition of 25-50% more to the PLL due to dual part stockage and dual tool sets will further compound this problem.

6. Metrication will, in the early phases, result in considerable confusion when

attempting to secure quotations for supply, services, and equipment. Additional

management effort will be required specifically for planning and phasing the production

and procurement of metric components. There will be some increase in acquisition and

development time, primarily due to gathering metric information, and preparing drawings

with metric or dual dimensions. Further, there will be a requirement for revised and/or

dual specifications, a need to update technical documentation and an increase in the number

of engineering changes. The procurement of off-the-shelf bits and pieces will pose a special conversion problem. *

See Appendix E
7. Metalworking equipment (machine tools) for the most part has a long life span.

The DOD has 144, 122 machine tools in the DOD Industrial Plant Equipment Center (DIPEC)

inventory which had an original cost of approximately $2. 4 billion. Modification of this

inventory will cost approximately $115 million. *

8. There are customary standards that could and should be retained: those now

having wide international acceptance, and those military standards which are necessary

to support existing equipments.**

9. The transportation of cargo is based on conventional measurements.

Palletization, containerization, and standard loading systems are all interfaced and must

be maintained compatible. Further, the air cargo operation directly interfaces with

surface systems and compatibility must also be maintained.

C. Practical Difficulties and Suggested Means of Minimizing Them. A number of

practical difficulties are expected to arise if conversion to the metric system is directed.

Some are significant because of the cost impact and some because of the psychological

impact. The practical difficulties expected to have the greatest impact along with

suggested means of minimizing them are:

1. At this time it is difficult to judge what cost industry will pass along to DOD as

a system cost due to metrication. However, since each contract is awarded individually,

much of the cost of conversion to produce the new weapon system in metric units will

include industry's cost. This is especially true if the industry involved is primarily or

solely in the defense business, which means that its customer base is very narrow. The

defense contractor has a practical difficulty in attempting to estimate future contract awards

and will be inclined to write off the costs due to metrication as they occur. Contracting

officers awareness of this problem during contract negotiations should minimize the

impact. ***

2. Some delays in the systems development and acquisition process can be

anticipated due to metrication. For the purposes of this study, a straight line 10-year

conversion was assumed. However, the national industrial base will convert in the manner

that is most economical for a particular sector of industry. The larger industries can plan

their conversion on the requirements of their customers and also on the materials

furnished by their suppliers. For example, the auto industry is large enough to effect an orderly conversion. The customer for automobiles and trucks would have minimum effect on how the industry converted as long as costs were held to a minimum and replacement

parts and repair capability were not impaired. Most important, the auto industry buys

such large quantities of materials, it could dictate to the supplier the system of measurements that must be used. Thus, steel would be rolled in millimeters and bar stock

provided in standard SI units along with metric fasteners when the auto industry desired.

Smaller businesses like the fastener industry are not able to plan in isolation from their

customers' needs or suppliers' conversion schedule. The fastener industry cannot

economically produce large quantities of metric fasteners until their customers want them

in metric units. On the other hand, the fastener industry is not a large purchaser of steel

and cannot dictate to the steel industry as to the time when metric bar stock becomes the

normal and inch bar stock the special order. Further, in the fastener industry, machine

* See Appendix C (DSA)

** See Appendix H

*** See Appendix F for Legal Aspects

5
tools cannot be used until obsolete, but must be converted for metric production equipment

when their customers elect to convert and their supplier will furnish the required materials.

This interplay within industry and the dependency of each industry on both customer and

supplier will affect the DOD rate of conversion and cost. Therefore, the development and

procurement function in the DOD must be closely attuned to the industrial conversion so

that unnecessary premature attempts are not made to force production of metric modules.

3. Air traffic control terminology and procedures are areas where international

cooperation and coordinated planning is imperative. Since most airway structures and

flight procedures are based on customary units, a change to the metric system will require

a concerted international effort to effect an orderly, safe conversion. Therefore, if the

decision to convert is made, affected equipment will have to be replaced or modified and all

air traffic controllers and pilots thoroughly schooled in the new system before it is implemented. The fact that air traffic controllers are familiar with metric units is not

suitable evidence of their ability to perform in an emergency situation, nor does this

necessarily reflect an intuitive understanding of metric units. The Federal Aviation

Authority must coordinate all conversions involving changes to air traffic standards,

procedures, and equipment to minimize flying safety hazards.

4. During the 10-year metrication cycle, all manuals, regulations, technical orders,

monitors, readouts, meters, maps, blueprints, plans, plant-in-place records, drawings,

and other publications, specifications, and instruments will have to be inspected and changes

made on an as required basis. Therefore, all publications, specifications, and instruments

will have to be inspected on an individual basis to determine what action will be required to make them compatible with metrication. Revisions, changes, or modifications required

must then be specified and plans made to phase in these requirements. Existing publications

will have to be updated, while new ones will be required to utilize metric standards (perhaps

with optional listing of common standards). It will probably be necessary to utilize maps,

charts, blueprints, etc., which reflect both inch-pound and metric units during the

metrication-transition cycle. Although these will be complicated to use because of decreased

legibility and increased congestion of information, they will be necessary in order to make

the transition.

5. In the conversion of standards, the use of metric units of measurement

introduces no difficulties in itself, since the relationship of the inch to the millimeter is constant. However, the same consistency does not apply to the standards of drawing

practice, design, utility components, etc. There is a wide variation among the practices

of the European metric nations. The U.S. must avoid the situation where drawings are prepared to a variety of domestic industry or national customs and practices. It is essential that the metric standards and practices that the U. S. adopts are accepted on the

widest possible international basis. The Department of Defense Index of Specifications

and Standards lists some 40,000 documents. Some of these documents will be retained in

their present form to support existing systems. Many of the documents will require changes

because of metrication. To effect an orderly conversion, good metric standards must exist as a basis for conversion. Metric standards must be developed that are as good or better

than existing standards if the quality of manufactured items is to equal or exceed the quality

of items manufactured using customary units. * New standards are usually developed in this

country on a voluntary basis. The industrial associations are the biggest supporters of this

voluntary program. To assure that good metric standards are available when needed, a streamlined method of developing metric standards needs to be implemented. In addition,

* See Appendix E

6
all Agencies of the Federal Government, in unison, must fully support the development of

new standards. Steps must be taken to assure that a bottleneck does not develop either in

industry or the Federal Government. The availability of standards, specifications,

material, mensuration and manufacturing equipment in metric terms early in the 1972 to 1977 period will be necessary to meet the 1982 programmed date for mandatory production

in SI units. Careful planning and establishing priorities at the DOD and industry level and

coordination and rapid dissemination of information at all organizational levels will be a must to minimize delays and avoid confusion.

6. Conversion of the aircraft industry is expected to be particularly difficult. Prior

studies indicate the majority of the aircraft and aircraft engines operating around the world

are built with components using the inch-pound system. Furthermore, many aircraft have

a useful life considerably longer than 10 years. Therefore, widely accepted standards such

as the unified screw thread should be retained until a metric standard equally as good or preferably better is developed. If the aircraft industry adopts full metrication, it may be

necessary to stock both metric and inch-pound sizes of many aircraft parts for very long

periods of time unless some of these common items can be continued in production with

the present sizes even though they are identified by two different dimensional units.

7. Overhaul and maintenance time will be increased due to the need to service

dual systems. There will also be an increased need for supervision as well as added

effort to maintain currency in drawings, manuals, and procedures. The principal means of

reducing or preventing an increase in overhaul or maintenance time is adequate implementation of the conversion program. This means that there must be adequate training, ample

use of conversion tables, dual scales where appropriate, timely revision of manuals,

specifications and drawings, and adequate attention by the supervisors to the problems

involved.

8. During transition and for some years beyond the conversion completion date of

1982, the DOD must retain a capability in both inch-pounds and metric. Even though new

developments and acquisitions will be in metric units, existing systems will be used

beyond the conversion period. For example, the weapons stockpiles, nuclear as well as

conventional, may include many items which will be retained longer than the 10-year

transition period. Further, the test ranges and laboratories must retain gauging and test equipment to support inch-pound modules. Technical documentation will continue to be

published in the customary units for existing systems. Some new developments that are to be used with existing equipment will necessarily be designed to interface with the equipment

in the inventory. Standard items such as steel rods and bars, sheet steel, pipe, lumber,

and fasteners (screws, bolts, etc.) will become difficult to obtain in inch-pound units.

Procurement of spare parts for items manufactured to inch-pound standards may be

impractical or expensive. In addition, new specifications and Federal Stock Numbers will

have to be issued for metric parts. Therefore, if metrication is directed, all existing

inventories must be used if possible, since they represent a large investment. Future

procurements of items manufactured to metric standards will replace the older items and

will require Federal Stock Number designations. Requirements for spare parts for older

equipment will have to be evaluated on the basis of necessity and expense. If the item is critical, it may have to be specially made or the equipment may have to be modified to restore operations. Such instances will have to be evaluated on a case -by-case basis to determine the appropriate action required. Coordination with industry and increased

management effort will be required to keep cost and waste to a minimum. Where dual

inventories are required, storage space will have to be provided.

7
9. Additional warehouse space will be required for storage and issue of metric

supplies during the conversion period. To meet this requirement, temporary warehouse

space will have to be provided. This can be accomplished through minor modifications

and alterations of other buildings at each field activity to provide a segregated storage

location for the metric -sized parts and tools.

10. It is expected that some difficulty will be encountered in obtaining equipment to convert lathes, gear shapers and cutting machinery to the metric standard of pitches and

leads. Measuring tools, gauges, taps, drills, reamers, etc., will need to be converted or replaced. This equipment is not currently available in the United States in sufficient

quantities. It therefore will be necessary to stimulate interest in United States industry to develop such equipment. However, even then the government agencies will without doubt

have to compete with industry for it. This situation will necessitate careful planning and

early procurement in order to overcome these difficulties. The practical approach of a gradual changeover to metric tooling introduces its own problem of maintaining both inchpound and metric items during the interval when there is a choice in design and machinery

requirements. Many of the existing inch-pound tools and measuring devices will remain in

the inventory until the inch-pound systems being supported are phased out of the active

inventory.

11. Initially, there will be a large potential for error in converting data. Basic

data conversion can be accomplished in several ways. Automatic data processing data can

be converted by a computer program developed especially for the purpose of converting inchpound units to metric units. Other basic data will necessitate manual conversion and will

require additional personnel who must be closely supervised and their work adequately

checked.

12. The longest life expectancies of existing nonmetric resources are probably

represented by real property facilities. The entire physical plant of buildings, pavements,

and similar structures was constructed from English systems components and is frequently

expected to provide useful service for 50 or more years. Contained equipment (boilers,

power plants, etc.) are a similar (but shorter duration) consideration. The ability to repair

rather than completely replace is an economic necessity. However, the existing investments by manufacturers and property owners probably will be acknowledged by industry.

Building material continuity will likely be provided initially by redesignation to metric sizes

(lumber, pipe, blocks, bricks, steel, etc.) with an actual change to metric standards guided

by the economic parameters of the industry,

13. Until personnel become sufficiently familiar with the metric equipment,

mistakes in identification of tools and piece parts will be made. There will also be errors

in equipment selection and adjustments. This problem will greatly affect the overall

conversion process and must be endured as a natural consequence of conversion. Special

markings on metric tools, bolts, nuts, screws, fasteners, etc., is one example of a way

to minimize identification mistakes. Probably, it will be best to keep equipment originally

made to the inch-pound measurement system unaltered during its useful life and not permit

partial conversion to metric standards. This means that with the exception of attachments

for portable equipment, all fixed machinery and fixed equipment in major systems built to inch-pound measurement should remain unmodified during the life of the system. To

prevent confusion, and in the case of safety equipment, avert disaster, all fittings for

attaching portable equipment on any one system should be changed simultaneously and

mixtures of standards, such as two types of fire hose threads on one ship, must not be

permitted. Each organizational unit should be instructed to review both its working

procedures and its physical equipment and submit plans for altering or replacing equipment,

instruments and tools. Each organizational unit should be required to state its plans for

8
additional checks and inspections for the detection and correction of errors generated in the

changeover process, A high degree of alertness by supervisors and workers will be needed

to minimize this problem.

14. A major difficulty during the transition will be overcoming the inertia in thinking

and performance of the work force without benefit of prior formal training in metric studies or familiarity in use of metric standards. Another serious practical problem is the

psychological difficulty of educating the trained individuals to think and operate in terms of

metric units and yet retain their intuitive judgment which now enables them to mentally

choose the correct wrench size, estimate lengths reasonably well, and to mentally

visualize blueprint dimensions and stock sizes in an expeditious and efficient manner.

Therefore, a formal training program, early in the conversion period, will be required to overcome psychological adjustments caused by "resistance to change" from the familiar

inch-pound measurement system to the SI measurement system. There will be an effective

reduction of manning within DOD agencies due to time required for training in the metric

system. This reduction in effective manning because of the time required for training might

be overcome by on-the-job training, and by adding training in the metric system to the

other training programs. Increased surveillance and tighter management controls at all

levels will be necessary to maintain training standards commensurate with metrication

development. Course length and course content must be regulated as appropriate, and

budgets and manpower authorizations must be adjusted to accommodate these changes.

The immediate teaching of the metric system at all levels of public school beginning with

the metrication cycle will ease the basic problem for the younger generation which will be

entering the work force during and after metric conversion.

15. There is a general category of nuisance difficulties related to the inconveniences

which will be experienced by personnel in the metric system conversion process. Elements

of this category are:

a. Education necessary to become familiar with the SI system.

b. Adjustment to new scales, gauges, measuring terminology, etc., associated

with on-the-job and off-the-job experiences.

c. Adjustment to different size descriptions for consumer products such as

clothing, food packaging, containers, fasteners, etc.

d. Familiarization with standard metric sizes, specifications, and related

descriptions for those who work as machinists, carpenters, plumbers, sheet metal

workers, etc.

e. Confusion of having two separate measuring systems existing at the same

time

.

During the transition period, personnel will not be able to instinctively think in terms of the

SI system of measurement. This ability to think in the metric system will have to be

developed from the start of the program. Converting personnel to thinking and visualizing

in terms of metric units will result in a temporary loss of efficiency. An adequate

training program will have to be established to minimize this loss of efficiency, and

supervisory personnel will have to be encouraged to promote an understanding of the

metric system. Every effort will have to be made to minimize these inconveniences, but no means exist for completely eliminating them. Stated simply, personnel will have to adjust to the metric system, putting aside personal opinions or resistance and living with

the inconvenience, frustration, and difficulty of implementing the metric system.

437-669 O - 71 - 2 9
16. Should an emergency arise during the transition period, any metrication plan

may have to be modified or reevaluated. If the emergency occurred in the early stages

of conversion, a temporary suspension of conversion probably would be necessary.

However, if hostilities should occur after the conversion is well advanced, it probably

would be more efficient to accelerate the conversion process.

17. A most serious problem will be the development of an effective decision-making

system. Decisions on when and how to change over from the inch-pound to the SI system

of measurement can greatly affect the accomplishment and cost of each project. Therefore,

a metrication coordinating office to advise or decide when and how to convert will have to be established.

D. Current Usage of Metric System in the POD. The metric system currently is used

to some extent within the DOD to perform specific functions. However, in terms of the

total DOD mission, it is not used extensively. See Appendix G for areas of current usage.

E. Ability to Transit to the Use of the Metric System.

1. The study indicates that the DOD could transit to the use of the metric system

without a major decrease in mission capability provided sufficient additional resources

are available for the task. However, metrication would be costly and would allow limited

military advantages while imposing numerous disadvantages during the transition period.

Following transition, the military advantages expected are the day-to-day use of an

inherently simpler system and the commitment of the Services to a single system of

weights and measures. Further, should the adoption in the U.S. of the SI system lead to a world-wide standard for weights and measures, the result would be greater compatibility

between U.S. and foreign operations and equipments. The completion of metrication will

leave few long-term disadvantages. These will occur in the maintenance and support of

long-life items which remain in the inventory well after the programmed metrication cycle.

(For a detailed list of advantages and disadvantages, see Appendix D.

)

2. The DOD is dependent upon the National Industrial Base and the rate of conversion

within the DOD will be dependent on how well conversion is carried out by industry. The

interfacing of equipments /components designed in the inch-pound and metric systems will

present a formidable task. The availability of metric components will have to be known

during the design process. Trade-off studies will have to be required to determine the

degree of mix which could be tolerated in the engineering, support, and operational areas. DOD agencies must not be placed in the position of forcing the country to convert to metric

units by requiring Government contracts to be written with metric requirements before

industry has sufficiently converted. If DOD is placed in the position of forcing conversion,

the cost to DOD and/ or the decrease in Defense capability would greatly exceed the

estimates made within this report. However, with proper planning, adequate funding and

special attention to critical areas, it is envisioned that a successful conversion could be

achieved.

V. CONCLUSIONS

A. Metrication within the DOD appears feasible provided sufficient and timely resources

are made available and a national conversion schedule is adhered to by industry and DOD.

It is imperative that close coordination be maintained between DOD and industry. Lack of

such coordination will extend the conversion process and greatly increase the costs of

conversion.

10
Bo The total DOD cost for converting to the metric system while maintaining a constant

mission capability is estimated to be approximately $18 billion with the rate of expenditure

dependent upon the National Metrication Program. These costs are such that in the current

environment, they cannot be absorbed without deterioration of the defense posture.

C. There are no major short-term advantages to the DOD in converting to the metric

system.

D. The major problems in converting to the metric system will occur during the period

of transition. These include psychological resistance to change, extensive training and

retraining of personnel, operational and tactical conversion, logistics, equipment and

system acquisition and conversion, and the development of metric standards.

E. The conversion of the country to the metric system could adversely impact on the

ability of the United States to support its military forces during the proposed transition

period. Without proper planning and adequate funding, the reduced flexibility and

capacity of the support available would impact upon the capability of the Armed Forces to perform their mission, especially if an international crisis should develop at critical times

during this period requiring the employment of major forces in a combat role.

F. The major advantages expected are the day-to-day use of an inherently simpler

system and the compatibility of U. S. and foreign equipment. Although the use of a simpler

system would have no outstanding advantage, the slight advantage expected would be

significant because of its widespread nature. The compatibility of U.S. and foreign

equipment will enhance combined operations and simplify the logistics support requirements.

G. The completion of metrication will leave few long-term disadvantages. Those that

will occur deal with long-life items which will remain in inventory well after the programmed

metrication cycle.

H. Inch-pound standards that have wide international acceptance should be retained

until suitable metric standards are developed and accepted. In addition, the U. S. Government must actively participate with international organizations in the development

of metric standards.

I. The interfacing of equipments /components designed in the inch-pound and metric

systems will be a major task. The availability of metric components will have to be

known during the design process. Trade-off studies will be required to determine the

degree of mix which can be tolerated in the engineering, support, and operational areas. Metrication of new equipment designs can proceed on an orderly basis only if a phased

national schedule for the conversion of major segments of U. S. industry is adopted.

J. A full-time and continuing staff within DOD will be required to prepare a detailed

implementation plan for metrication. This same organization could administer and

implement the metric system plan where appropriate.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

If a national decision is made to adopt the SI system, it is recommended that:

A. Aggressive action be taken to obtain in a timely manner those additional resources,

in dollars and manpower, as are identified by affected DOD agencies.

11
B. A national schedule for metrication be developed before the requirement for

metrication is placed on the U.S. Department of Defense.

C. A concerted effort be made by the Federal Government to foster and preserve the

international use of U.S. customary standards that have wide international acceptance.

D. A staff be established within DOD to monitor and coordinate implementation of the

metric system plan.

12
APPENDIX A

Historical Documentation

13
ASST SEC AIR FORCE (INSTALLATIONS & LOGISTICS) MEMO OF 16 October 1969

5 Attachments

1. Public Law 90-472

2. Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum, September 27, 1968

3. Guidelines

4. Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Memorandum,

January 3, 1969

5. Secretary of the Air Force/Research & Development Memorandum,

August 2, 1968

14
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

WASHINGTON 20330 OCT 1 6 1968

MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING

SUBJECT: Metric System Study Under PL 90-472

On August 9, 1968, the President signed PL 90-472,

a bill authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a

study to determine the advantages, disadvantages and impact

of increased worldwide use of the metric system on the

United States (Atch 1). On September 27, 1968, the Deputy

Secretary of Defense directed DOD participation in the

study, and assigned leadership to the Air Force (Atch 2).

With the cooperation and participation of your

representatives, guidelines for the conduct of this study

have now been developed (Atchs 3 & 4) . These are intended

to provide a consistent basis for the estimation of impact

on each DOD agency.

Within the framework of these guidelines, it is

requested that each addressee analyze its own activities

to measure, in accordance with PL 90-472, the advantages,

disadvantages and impact of increasing worldwide use of

the metric system and to report results to the DOD by

September 1, 1970.

Since additional funds have not been appropriated

for this purpose, your analysis must be carried out within

existing resources. It is recommended, therefore, that a

CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE ATOMIC SUPPORT AGENCY

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

15
minimal effort be expended consistent with the development

of a competent position making use of sampling techniques

wherever possible. Response in strict accordance with

the requirements of the cost format (paragraph 7) and narrative questions (paragraph 9) of the guidelines paper will

not be required. Further, as indicated in paragraph 2c of

that paper, the problem of screw threads, fasteners, and

similar devices should be eliminated from the study. The

following questions should, however, be answered in some

a. With the 10-year cycle of metrication and assumptions

described in the guidelines, what percentage increase in

resources will be necessary to maintain constant mission

capability?

b. What will be the long-term advantages and disadvantages after the 10-year metrication cycle is over?

c. To what extent are you already using the metric

system of weights and measures?

d. What practical difficulties may be expected and

what specific means do you recommend for meeting these?

e. Prepare and report a contingency plan for metrication.

f. Narrative comments by Commanders are invited regarding the effect of metric transition upon command mission

capability.

Based on DOD policy, a position should not be taken

either for or against adoption of the metric system.

Your continued cooperation in this effort is appreciated.

form:

5 Atchs

1. PL 90-472

2. DepSecDef memo, Sep 27, 68

3. Guidelines

4. Asst SecAF memo, Jan 3, 69

5. SAFRD memo, Aug 2, 68

PHILIP N. WHITTAKER

Assistant Sacretary of t'te Air Force

(Installations & Logistics)

16
Public Law 90-472

90th Congress, H. R. 3136

August 9, 1968 ~an act 82 STAT. 693 To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to make a study to determine the advantages and disadvantages of increased use of the metric system in the United

States. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of Metric system.

Commerce is hereby authorized to conduct a program of investigation, Study,

research, and survey to determine the impact of increasing worldwide

use of the metric system on the United States ; to appraise the desir- ability and practicability of increasing the use of metric weights and

measures in the United States; to study the feasibility of retaining

and promoting by international use of dimensional and other engineering standards based on the customary, measurement units of the United States ; and to evaluate the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action which may be feasible for the United States. Sec. 2. In carrying out the program described in the first section of Investigation

this Act, the Secretary, among other things, shall— and appraisal

(1) investigate and appraise the advantages and disadvantages requirements,

to the United States in international trade and commerce, and in military and other areas of international relations, of the increased use of an internationally standardized system of weights and

measures

(2) appraise economic and military advantages and disadvantages of the increased use of the metric system in the United

States or of the increased use of such system in specific fields and

the impact of such increased use upon those affected

(3) conduct extensive comparative studies of the systems of

weights and measures used in educational, engineering, manufacturing, commercial, public, and scientific areas, and the rela- tive advantages and disadvantages, and degree of standardization

of each in its respective field

(4) investigate and appraise the. possible practical difficulties which might T)e encountered in accomplishing the increased use of the metric system of weights and measures generally or in

specific fields or areas in the United States;

(5) permit appropriate participation by representatives of

United States industry, science, engineering, and labor, and their

associations, in the planning and conduct of the program authorized by the first section of this Act, and in the evaluation of the information secured under such program; and

(6) consult and cooperate witli other government agencies,

Federal, State, and local, and, to the extent practicable, with

foreign governments and international organizations. Sec. 3. In conducting the studies and developing the recommenda- Results of tions required in this Act, the Secretary shall give full consideration to ohanges in

the advantages, disadvantages, and problems associated with possible measurement changes in either the system of measurement units or the related di- system « mensional and engineering standards currently used in the United

States, and specifically shall

(1) investigate the extent to which substantial changes in the

size, shape, and design of important industrial products would be

necessary to realize the benefits which might result from general

use of metric units of measurement in the United States;

(2) investigate the extent to which uniform and accepted engineering standards based on the metric system of measurement

units are in use in each of the fields under study and compare the

17
Pub. Law 90-472

82 STAT. 694

- 2 August 9, 1968

Report to Congress.

Fiawis.

Expiration

date.

extent to such use and the utility and degree of sophistication of

such metric standards with those in use in the United States; and

(3) reconunend specific means of meeting the practical diffi- culties and costs in those areas of the economy where any recom- mended change in the system of measurement units and related dimensional and engineering standards would raise significant

practical difficulties or entail significant costs of conversion.

Sec 4. The Secretary shall submit, to the Congress such interim

reports as he deems desirable, and within three years after the date of

the enactment of this Act, a full and complete report of the findings

made under the program authorized by this Act; together with such

recommendations as he considers to be appropriate and in the best interests of the United States. Sec. 5. From funds previously appropriated to the Department of

Commerce, the Secretary is authorized to utilize such appropriated sums as are necessary, but not to exceed $500,000, to carry out the purposes of this Act for the first year of the program.

Sec. 6. This Act shall expire thirty days after the submission of the

final report pursuant to sect ion 3. Approved August 9, 1968.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY t

HOUSE REPORT No. 33 (Comm. on Science 4 Astronautios). SENATE REPORT No. 1442 (Comm. on Commeroe). CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 114 (l968)t June 24: Considered and passed House. July 30> Considered and passed Senate.

QPO 99- 139

18
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Washington, D.C. 20301

MEMORANDUM FOR The Secretaries of the Military Departments

SUBJECT: Public Law 90-472, 90th Congress, August 9, 1968

Reference: Memo for the Deputy Chief of Staff, R&D, USAF, dtd 28 Mar

1968, from DASD (Logistics Mgt. Systems & Programs),

Subject: "Interagency Committee on Standards Policy"

In response to the reference, the Air Force accepted responsibility for

representing the Department of Defense on the Metric Subcommittee of the

Interagency Committee on Standards Policy, Department of Commerce. The

Air Force has made significant and constructive contributions to the

initial work of this Subcommittee.

The subject bill was approved by the President on August 9, 1968, and

authorizes the Department of Commerce to conduct a program of investigation, research, and survey over a three year period to determine the

impact of increasing world-wide use of the metric system on the United

States. The bill clearly contemplates significant participation by the

Department of Defense in identifying and defining the military interests

in the conduct and results of this study. The effect on military operational and logistics support capability will necessarily constitute an

important consideration in the conduct and evaluation of the study.

It is essential, therefore, that an objective, factual appraisal of the

advantages and disadvantages to DoD of the metric system of measurement,

and engineering standards expressed in metric terms, be developed as input for this national survey.

It is requested that the Air Force assume responsibility for leadership

in developing plans for developing the above military input and leading

the participation of the Department of Defense in the study authorized

in the subject bill.

The Departments of the Army and Navy are requested to designate representatives qualified to assist the Air Force in the development of plans

for the Department of Defense participation in this study. Please forward the names of your representatives to the Secretary of the Air Force

within thirty (30) days of this memorandum.

19
The Air Force will, of course, wish to solicit input and participation

from all Department of Defense components as the formulation of the

plan for participation takes shape.

It is requested that a report of the initial formulation of plans for

participation in the study, including resource requirements for supporting

DoD participation, if any, be forwarded to the Assistant Secretary of

Defense (Installations and Logistics) with a copy to the Director of

Defense Research and Engineering, by January 1., 1969.

20
22 Aug 69

METRIC SYSTEM STUDY UNDER PL 90-kj2

Guidelines

1. TASK :

The task is to respond to PL 90-^72. The principal part of

this task is to conduct a program of investigation, research and

survey to determine and report the impact of increased use of metric

weights and measures on the capability of the military departments

and DOD agencies to perform assigned missions during and after

transition to a Metric System. The report will concern itself with

3 major efforts:

a. Appraise the desirability and practicability of increasing

the use of metric weights and measures.

b . Determine the feasibility of retaining and promoting by

international use of dimensional and other engineering standards

based on the customary U.S. units of measurements.

c. Evaluate the costs and benefits of alternative courses of

action which may be feasible.

To determine the impact on individual Military Departments and

DOD agencies, these guidelines contain assumptions to aid the activities

participating in the study by narrowing down the choices open to each

activity so that uniform information will be developed that can readily be collated and incorporated in the National report. All of

the activities must assume hypothetically that all military operational

planning, training, weaponry, materiel, and logistic support will

ultimately be accomplished utilizing only SI units of measure plus

standard parts and materials that are acceptable on a national and

where appropriate on an international basis . Under no circumstances

will it be assumed, when making the study, that any military

department or DOD agency has the authority, or the obligation to

put the plan into effect either now or in the future, but rather that

the study is to furnish information that is required under PL 90-^-72.

The DOD report will be made to the Secretary of Commerce, who will

report to the Congress.

2. ASSUMPTIONS :

In order to provide a firm basis for accurate results from a study of the impact of metrication upon the DOD the following is

assumed:

a. Congress will have acted to adopt the Systeme International

d'Unites (Si) system of weights and measures on 1 July 1972.

21
b. Assumed national metrication schedule

(1) 1 July 1972 - Preparation begins; metric training

begins; specification up-dating in SI units initiated; use of SI

units for new system development projects begins. General use of

SI units optional.

(2) 1 July 19T7 - Conversion begins; metric training

accelerated; conversion of specifications for common items near

completion; system development and design in SI units; metric

procurement increasing; supply of metric items to operational

organizations begins. General use of SI units increasing but not

mandatory.

(3) 1 July 1982 - SI units compulsory; mandatory DOD use

in engineering and procurement of new systems; replacement items still

procurable in inch-pound units ; non-SI items may be used to economic

replacement point; new non-SI items introduced only by exception.

c. Based on an orderly program of metrication, industry will

be capable of supporting DOD requirements in SI or inch-pound

equipment until existing inch/pound equipment has completed its

useful life

d. It is assumed that during conversion the DOD will use the

optimum mix of metric and inch-pound specifications for satisfactory

performance and minimum price on initial buy of a new product. As of

1972 the optimum specifications may be inch-pound; as of 1982 these

must be metric

e. Existing force structure with numbers and types of weapon

systems as of FY 70 Budget, will be assumed constant for the study

with metric weapons systems and equipment replacing inch/pound as these end their useful lives.

3. GUIDANCE :

a. For the study, the "Metric System" is defined as the Systeme

International d'Unites, abbreviated SI, as described by U.S. Department

of Commerce Bureau of Standards Handbook 102, issued March 10, 1967.

NOTE: This Handbook has been superseded by ASTM Standard Metric

Practice Guide (see p. v for availability).

b. The President's Budget for FY 1970 will be used as a standard base for statements of fiscal impact.

c. Metrication will not disturb the normal cycle of retirement

or modification of military system/equipment and related software.

d. The DOD report will be unclassified; but appendices (service/

agency reports) may be classified according to content.

22
e . The reports of the military departments and DOD agencies

will indicate cost and percentage change in mission capability due

to metrication.

f. Conclusions must be supported by figures and documentation.

Statements of long term advantages and disadvantages of metrication

will be included.

g. Severe problem areas will be reported.

h. The Department of Commerce will report industry-wide

increased cost due to metrication. The increased cost of commercially

available off-the-shelf items will be included in the Department of

Commerce report of industry-wide impact . The DOD study will be

limited to the additional metrication costs to DOD over and above

the industry-wide impact. To have a realistic report that DOD can support, the services/agencies must interface with industry, labor,

science, education and other sectors of U.S. economy.

i. Observation of British, Canadian and other metric studies

is encouraged.

j . Reporting agencies should recommend optimum metrication

schedules in the event the assumed schedule is not considered

feasible

k. Reporting agencies should evaluate the costs and benefits

of recommended alternative courses of action which may be feasible

for the United States.

k. COST PRINCIPLES :

a. It is recognized that before cost estimates can be made a

plan for metrication must be developed within the service or DOD

agency to serve as a basis for measuring the metric impact. All

impact cost estimates will be reported in terms of the military

appropriation structure contained in the President's FY TO Budget.

The following major appropriations and funds will be considered:

(1) Operation and Maintenance

(2) Procurement and Production

(3) Research, Development, Test and Evaluation

(k) Military Construction

(5) Working Capital Funds

(6) Other (identify), e. g. Military Personnel, Family

Housing, National Guard, etc.

23
Each service and DOD agency will develop cost estimates for

each of the direct budget programs within the above listed appropriations

and funds applicable to the reporting service or agency. Each service

or DOD agency will use the appropriation/budget program definition

pertinent to its area of operation.

b. Impact cost estimates will be made for each of four

increments. The first and second will be five-year increments

,

1972 to 1977 and 1977 to 1982. The third will be the ten-year

period, 1982 to 1992 ; and the fourth, the remaining years that may

be required subsequent to 1992 to complete the total change to the

SI. Whenever cost estimates can be made on a FY basis these will

be included as such and annotated as costs incurred in a specified FY.

c. All costs will be measured in FY 1970 dollars without an inflation factor. The intent is to represent in the final DOD report

the average fiscal impact over the years in percentages based on Fiscal 1970 as an index of 100.

5. COST CRITERIA:

a. Wherever the changeover to the SI has an impact within the

Department of Defense, the cost of metrication should be estimated

for each period of the transition. Care must be exercised in

arriving at a cost that measures metric impact only.

b. The metrication cost for producing and supporting a future

weapon system in SI units would be the change in cost of the same weapon system produced and supported in customary units. Before the

metric impact on storage requirements can be estimated, it must be

determined which spares and supporting equipment could already have

been available from existing stocks had the new weapon system been

produced conventionally. Only those support items will be considered

which generate a storage requirement solely because of metrication.

Items peculiar to the new SI generate the same storage requirements

as support items of previous non- SI

c. If a publication is prepared solely for the purpose of

educating and training personnel in the SI, the entire cost of the

publication is chargeable. If, however, a technical publication

on a current item of military hardware is written to include both

SI and conventional units, then only the additional cost associated

with metrication is chargeable.

d. Since the report to the Congress will include an estimate

of the fiscal impact of a metric changeover on DOD, it is necessary

that all metrication cost estimates be prepared in a manner which can be summarized into the appropriation structure of the President's

Budget. All costs of metrication must be directly identified with a major budget activity or be described in detail so that such identity

can be established. Additional man-hours and additional facilities

required for metric changeover will be separately identified and

priced in the cost estimates.

24
e. If an estimate of metric impact is made as a percentage of

the total cost of a package of numerous budget sub-items, it will be

necessary to convert the percent distribution of the total to dollars

and assign these dollars to budget categories.

6. EXAMPLE FOR EXPRESSING COST IMPACT :

a. Impact cost estimates of metrication will be identified

for each direct program within military appropriations . In measuring

the impact cost estimates, the President's Budget for FY 1970 will

be used as the base or index. This means that if it is estimated

! that trainer aircraft procurement cost was to increase by 2 million (M)

dollars in one FY ^G, due solely to metrication, the impact of the

cost increase for that year would be expressed as $2M * $55»3M (FY 1970

trainer aircraft procurement) or about 3-6/o. This procedure will

provide a measure for relating metrication cost increases in the

individual appropriation accounts between periods.

b. The percentage impact on a major appropriation is derived by

adding all the metrication costs within the appropriation and dividing

the sum by the amount budgeted for this appropriation in FY 1970.

If the FY 1970 budget shows $^,538«^M for the procurement of aircraft

and a five year period metrication transition cost for this appropriation

is completely accounted for by the $10M for trainers, plus $20M for

airlift aircraft, $80M for combat aircraft and $220M for spares and

support equipment, then the average yearly metrication percentage

impact is 1.% ($66M divided by $4,538 .l+M) for the five year aircraft

procurement appropriation. The impact on the total appropriation for

the transition period is similarly determined.

c. The dollar amounts used for metrication costs in the example

above are purely ficticious and should not be interpreted as representative of what is expected. Metrication cost impact may be

very small. Estimated cost impacts summing to less than .0001 (.01$)

of a budget category may be disregarded.

7- REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

a. Each military department and defense agency will submit a

cost impact report for each of the appropriation classifications

listed in the President's budget. Within each appropriation cost

estimates will be submitted for each of the major direct program

categories constituting the agency appropriation. While these must

be total estimates, it will be acceptable to derive the estimates

by a sampling technique under which each agency will submit a sample

program package that will be used as a basis for determination of a general metrication cost increment. The package must contain weapon

systems, equipment, or other programs that will be truly representative

of planned future defensive or offensive operations, and suitable

for use in projecting metrication estimates for future weapon systems.

It is desired to keep the size of the sample program package within

reasonable limits, while providing an accurate and trustworthy base

for metrication cost estimates

25

437-669 O - 71 - 3
b. Cost data for each of the budget program categories will

consist of all costs that are readily identifiable to each cost

category regardless of how such costs might be financed. In addition

to the total cost reported for each appropriation classification,

the following data generated by metrication will be reported:

(1) Additional man-years and equivalent manpower cost

(2) Additional facilities cost

(3) Additional equipment cost

(k) Total costs

c. Technical data is of specific interest for this study. It

will be included in the total cost estimates and will be identified,

itemized, and costed separately. Impact statements will be required

regarding the capability to prepare, acquire, update, process, use and disseminate technical data required for research, development,

test and evaluation, quality assurance, procurement, production,

reprocurement , maintenance and operation of military equipment/

systems

d. Reports will be prepared in triplicate. Illustrative

formats are attached.

26
METRIC SYSTEM STUDY

r ^ 11ATN COST IMPACT STATEMENT

(ILLUSTRATIVE FORMAT)

APPROPRIATION: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY:

O&M

(DIRECT PROGRAMS)

Estimated Cost Impact

1972 - 1977

Dollars Percent

1977 - 1982

Dollars Percent

1982 - 1992

Dollars Percent

1992 - Dollars Percent

Operating Forces

Training

Supply

Maintenance

Medical Services

Servicewide Support

Reserve Forces

Other Direct Programs

Total O&M Costs

Manyears

Dollars

Fclty & Equip - Dollars

27
METRIC SYSTEM STUDY

(ILLUSTRATIVE FORMAT) COST IMPACT STATEMENT

APPROPRIATION: RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION

DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY:

RDT&E

(DIRECT PROGRAMS)

Military Sciences

Acft & Related Equip

Mil Astro & Related Equip

Ship, Smal I Craft &

Related Equip

Ord, Cmbt Vehs & Related

Equip

Other Equipment

Fclty & Installation Spt

Total RDT&E Costs

Manyears

Dollars

Fclty & Equip - Dollars

1972 - 1977_

Dollars Percent Do I la rs

Estimated Cost Impact

1982 - 1992~ ~J992_

- Dollars

1977 - 1982

Percent Dollc Percent

2 8

Percent
METRIC SYSTEM STUDY

COST IMPACT STATEMENT

(ILLUSTRATIVE FORMAT)

APPROPRIATION: PROCUREMENT OF EQUIPMENT AND MISSILES

DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY:

PEMA

(DIRECT PROGRAMS)

Estimated Cost Impact

1972 - 1977 1977 - 1982 | 1982 - 1992 1992

Dollars Percent Dollars Percent |j Dol lars Percent Dollars Percent

Aircraft

Acft Spares & Repair Parts

Missiles

Msl Repair Parts & Spt Mat

Wpns, Tracked Cmbt Vehs &

Nontracked Cmbt Veh

Tac & Spt Vehs

Comm & Elect Equip

Other Spt Equip

Ammunition

Production Base Support

Total PEM, A Costs

Manyears

Dollars

Fclty & Equip - Dollars

29
METRIC SYSTEM STUDY

COST IMPACT STATEMENT

APPROPRIATION: OTHER

DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY:

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

(DIRECT PROGRAMS)

Estimated Cost Impact

1972 -1977 | 1977 -1982 | 1982 - 1992 | 1992

Dollars Percent Dol iars] Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent

Major Construction

Minor Construction

Planning

Total Mil Const Costs

Manpower-Manyears

Dollars

Fclty & Equip - Dollars

Military Personnel

Total Mil Personnel Costs

Manpower - Manyear

Dollars

Stock Fund

Total Stock Fund Costs

Other Appropriations

Total Costs

Manyear

Dollars

Fclty & Equip - Dollars

30
8. MILESTONES :

The milestone progress chart attached indicated progress

reporting requirements, as follows:

a. Identify an office of primary responsibility.

t>. Establish and submit a metrication plan in accordance with

paragraph ^.a not later than 1 December 19^9 • (1st Progress Report)

c. By 1 January 1970 identify and submit slight impact areas

for elimination from the study.

d. By 1 January 1970 identify and submit areas where

metrication is impractical,

e. By 1 January 1970 identify and submit serious impact areas.

By 1 March 1970 assemble preliminary documentation.

(2nd Progress Report)

g. By 1 June 1970 establish preliminary conclusions. (3rd

Progress Report)

h. By 1 July 1970 assemble final documentation and conclusions.

i. By 1 August 1970 critique at major command levels,

j . By 1 September 1970 report to D0D.

31
CO

0)> < mm o >O on o 1 o

Ok Z

°-

q

O < W >- O «a

>- Zo

jz o

fjy CO Q MJ

=_ Of

OOuLU

C>£-' CO

CO

LU

OfO

Q£o_ W^ s Q K

2;

O <

31 < 3 5

co! < 5

CO -H

m

LU Q_ «ij 4Qo o >- O J— Q o

::: t - tO J- O O —j u_ < ^ Q . LU >-

JZ f» EE z <

lu s~-

— <C LU

g] 0 4 4 o

Q_

— LU

—

QCCO -co

—

LU

Q£Oo

Q_Q

CM oo ^ o 2

r^o TM Q£ O

-if E—

LU < : Q LU

2: ck < -at LU o

ZC o ^ <* LU <

QL

Ou oQ f— < O

si

I—

O

uj os; Q LU — CO m o<Oo

Jailer

Or;

GO

CO

CO< O

Q_

UlJ DCCO

CO

LU

QCOo

Q_Q

Ctco

coO

to

=)oo

>-<

CO

CO

wo

Qu

UJ< o

I—oo< 2 ^ CO

LU

O

=! " £23 0 S O LU

CO cs CO ^ >LaJ <oo

ce: o<

LUOr

QLO <

LUoOO

Q_

LsJ Q£O

C£ LU

<r co > LU O UJ

Li.

O

32
c.. NARRATIVE RESPONSES :

In addition to the cost estimates required "by paragraphs K, 5,

6 and J, additional data are required to amplify and provide further

clarification to assist in the identification of the advantages/

disadvantages of increased use of the SI in the DOD.

The following questions reflect areas of hard core interest

that must be addressed. In some instances there will he RDT&E

questions that apply equally as well to other functional areas such

as production, technical data, etc. It is recognized that additional

questions may arise during the course of the study. These questions

also should be identified and included in the overall analysis/

evaluation

a. General:

(1) What are the military advantages or disadvantages in

adopting an internationally standardized system of weights and

measures?

(2) What will be the long term advantage or disadvantage

of adopting the SI; or of retaining the customary system of units?

(3) To what extent are uniform and accepted engineering

standards, based upon the SI units in use in United States military

activities?

(k) Identify those dimensional and other engineering

standards that should be replaced with international metric standards;

those based on customary measurement units of the United States that

should be retained and proposed for international adoption. Are

there dimensional and other engineering standards that are a problem

separate and apart from the conversion to SI weights and measures?

(5) What affect will metrication have on lead times?

(include RDT&E, Procurement, Production, Planning, Training, etc.)

(6) Are there any military advantages of metrication such

as ease in working with allies that have the same standard system

of weights and measures? Will this affect military capability? How?

b. Operations:

(1) Will metrication affect operational capability and

readiness during periods of hostilities, deployments or other

operational contingencies? If so, what will he the effect?

(2) How will metrication affect maintenance of equipment?

Would this impact on an operational capability?

33
(3) Will the hours required for training reduce the manning

of units and affect operational capability? If so, to what extent?

(k) Will there he any effect on operational capability

due to personnel converting mentally from one system to another

instead of reacting instinctively? If so, what would be the extent?

(5) What factors not covered above should be considered in

assessing the impact of metrication on operational capabilities?

(identify these areas and discuss).

c. Research, Development, Test and Evaluation:

(1) What will be the impact on systems /equipment management

dealing with the weapon performance during the development and

acquisition of equipment produced from SI designs?

(2) What will be the impact of metricating scientific and

technical areas? (i.e., labs, test facilities, etc.)

(3) Will metrication affect the performance of weapon

systems and supporting equipment?

d. Production and Procurement:

(1) Considering that it will be necessary to establish a production capability in both SI and inch/pound systems, how will

this affect total production capability? (include governmentowned, contractor-operated and government -owned, governmentoperated plants).

(2) How will metrication affect industrial readiness

planning during periods of hostilities or other military commitments?

(3) Would priorities be assigned to categories of technical

data for the change to the SI? If so, how?

(k) During the period 1972 through 1977 and 1977 through

1982, what technical data would and would not be converted? State

answer in percent of total.

e. Materiel Support (Supply, Maintenance and Transportation):

(1) How will metrication affect transportation, i.e.,

cargo containers, cube and weight computations, freight classification

instructions, etc.?

(2) What problems will be encountered in maintenance

facilities where equipment and tools will be required to support two

systems, one inch and one SI?

f . Facilities, Installations and Military Construction:

34
(1) What would be the impact on planning and designing new

construction in SI units?

(2) How would metrication affect real estate purchases?

(3) What will be the effect on maintenance of "buildings,

heating, air conditioning, plumbing, etc.?

g . Legal

(1) What legal problems will confront the DOD as a result

of metrication?

(2) What changes will be necessary to existing directives

and regulations including ASPR, technical manuals, etc.?

(3) What savings or exception clauses must be included in

ultimate law for metrication?

(k) What new or modified legislation will be required?

(5) What enforcement provisions will be necessary in

the metrication law?

h. Personnel and training:

(1) Recognizing that different levels of training will be

required due to job classifications, give estimate of amount of

training and how this training would be accomplished, i.e.,

familiarization, OJT, informal, formal, Field Training Detachment,

etc

(2) Identify and list areas where extensive training would

be required due to metrication?

(3) Identify areas where long range benefits would result

from a change to the SI

i. Commanders Estimate:

Considering the answers to all of the above, summarize the impact of

the planned metrication on your ability to carry out your mission.

35
January 3, 1969

MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING

CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE ATOMIC SUPPORT AGENCY

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

SUBJECT: PL 90-472 Metric System Study within Department of Defense

On August 9, 1968, the President signed PL 90-472, an act "to

authorize the Secretary of Commerce to make a study to determine the

advantages and disadvantages of increased use of the metric system in

the United States." (Attachment #1)

On September 27, 1968, the Deputy Secretary of Defense assigned to

the Air Force leadership in the participation of the Department of

Defense in the study authorized by PL 90-472. (Attachment #2) A DOD

steering committee has "been established which is proposing tentative

guidelines for the method and timeframe for conversion. (Attachment #3)

Other Departments of the Government are also participating and will

report to the Commerce Department.

It is desired that each agency addressed participate in the development of final guidelines for uniform conduct of the military

Departments ' participation in the PL 90-472 study. The final guidelines

should be based on a reasonable approach which will produce uniform and

compatible responses from the DOD agencies and at the same time provide

answers to Congressional questions. A May 1, 1969, target date is

established for completion of comment by addressees.

The period from July 1, 1969, to July 1, 1970, would then be used

for the actual survey, determination of impact, and report to this

office. Evaluation and collation of reports, rechecks, and report

through Commerce Department to the Congress would be done before

January 1, 1971.

It is emphasized that the task of the Department of Defense and its

agencies is one of measuring in hard numbers the impact of the proposed

adoption of the metric system; advocacy or opposition to the metric

system is not a part of the task.

36
Recognizing that there will be a continuing need during the study

for establishment of common reporting procedures and definitions, and

for consideration and solution of common agency problems in the measure

ment of metric impact , nine ad hoc advisory committees are being established at the Department of Defense level. (Attachment #4) Questions on definitions and procedure, or of a nature common to several agencies,

will be accepted by this office for referral to the steering committee.

Certain of the addressees will be requested, by separate correspondence

to provide members for the ad hoc committees

Change to metric units will be decided upon by the Congress after

consideration of the Secretary of Commerce report and appropriate

debate

The study is to be accomplished within available resources.

4 Atch (signed)

1. PL 90-472 ROBERT H. CHARLES

2. Sep 27 memo Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

fr Dep SecDef (Installations & Logistics)

3. Tentative Guidelines

4. Ad Hoc Advisory Comm

37
Dear Mr. Director:

Reference is made to your request to the Secretary of Defense for

the views of the Department of Defense with respect to the enrolled en- actment of H. R. 3136, 90th Congress, an Act "To authorize the Secretary

of Commerce to make a study to determine the advantages and disadvantages of increased use of the metric system in the United States." The

Secretary of Defense has delegated to the Department of the Air Force

the responsibility for expressing the views of the Department of

Defense.

The purpose of H. R. 3136 is as stated in the title.

The Department of the Air Force, on behalf of the Department of

Defense, recommends the approval and signature by the President of

H. R. 3136.

Approval of H. R. 3136 will not result in an increase in the

budgetary requirements of the Department of Defense.

This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense

in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

Sincerely,

ALEXANDER H. FLAX

Assistant Secretary

Research and Development

Honorable Charles J. Zwick

Director

Bureau of the Budget

38
ASST SEC AF (INSTALLATIONS & LOGISTICS) Memo of 7 Jan 70

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

WASHINGTON 20330 JAM 7 1970

FFICE OF THE SECRETARY

MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING

CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE ATOMIC SUPPORT AGENCY

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

SUBJECT: Metric System Study Under PL 90-472

By memorandum of October 16, 1969 the addressees

were asked to comply with PL 90-472 by measuring the impact

of metrication within each addressee's own activities.

The fourth paragraph of the October 16, 1969 memorandum excluded the "problem of screw threads, fasteners,

and similar devices" from the D0D metrication study.

The Department of Commerce has taken exception to

this exclusion since their overall report to Congress will

include a consideration of the general problem of standards

and specifications conversion, of which screw threads,

fasteners and similar devices are an important part.

Contributing surveys by industry and other Government agencies

will be based oh the assumption that all standard parts will

be available in SI units during the assumed 10-year metrication period.

Accordingly, addressees are requested to include in the

subject study the impact of conversion of all DOD standards

and specifications for which the addressee's agency has

prime responsibility. It will be assumed that industrial

standards and specifications will be converted by industry

39
at a uniform rate between 1972 and 1982 and that Federal

standards or specifications not under DOD cognizance will

be converted by the responsible agency. Any standards or

specifications used by DOD agencies and not covered by this

memorandum should be reported to the Metric System Study

Office or to this office.

1 Atch

Commerce Dept ltr

Nov 26, 1969

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

Installations & Logistics

40
APPENDIX

Assumptions

41

In order to provide a firm basis for accurate results from a study of the impact of

metrication upon the DOD, the following was assumed:

A. The "metric system" referred to in this report is defined to be the International

System of Units (SI), also known as the Modern Metric System. Units associated with this

system are as follows:

Measurement Unit Symbol

length meter m

mass kilogram kg

time second s

temperature kelvin K

electric current ampere A

luminous intensity candela cd

B. Congress will have acted to adopt the SI system of weights and measures by

July 1972.

C. A national metrication schedule of 10 years. The program of metrication will

effectively be completed at the end of this period.

1. July 1972 - Preparation begins; metric training begins; specification and

standards updating in SI units initiated; use of SI units for new system development projects

begins. General use of SI units optional.

2. July 1977 - Conversion begins; metric training accelerated; conversion of

specifications for common items near completion; system development and design in SI units; metric procurement increasing; supply of metric items to operational organizations

begins. General use of SI units increasing but not mandatory.

3. July 1982 - SI units compulsory; mandatory DOD use in engineering and

procurement of new systems; replacement items still procurable in inch-pound units;

non-SI items may be used to economic replacement point; new non-SI items introduced

only by exception.

D. Based on an orderly program of metrication, industry will be capable of supporting

DOD requirements in SI or inch-pound equipment until existing inch-pound equipment has

completed its useful life.

E. Unless there are distinct advantages in changing, metrication will not disturb the

normal cycle of retirement or modification of system/ equipment.

F. It is assumed that during conversion the DOD will use the optimum mix of metric

and inch-pound specifications for satisfactory performance and minimum price on initial

buy of a new product. As of 1972 the optimum specifications may be inch-pound; as of

1982 they must be metric.

G. Existing force structure with numbers and types of weapons systems as of FY 70

Budget, will be assumed constant for the study with metric weapons systems and equipment

replacing inch-pound as these end their useful lives.

43

APPENDIX c

Agency Cost Data

45
ARMY COST ESTIMATES

The projected cost of metrication of the Army is approximately $4. 35 billion to be spent over a 30-year period. The highest costs are expected during the seventh through tenth

years of the conversion. Tables 1 through 5 summarize the costs expected during the

metrication process. These cost estimates are based on reports from 36 Headquarters

organizations, extrapolated to represent the total Army budget. Most of these 36 reports were extensive compilations of subordinate activity and installation reports. Figures 1 through 10 illustrate the annual costs and cumulative costs for the total Army Budget and

Major Appropriations.

46
Ihai—i oQ ZO>—i H<Ui—caHw%oHHQwW

co<w

05u

i—i H

COOU

OOO0^

wu

rd —i ! 1 oQ

cn

Li

Rj '—l oQ

00

—I—I oQ

HWoQDoWQ0U<u

co

i—i <O0

05&HUwaQ

r-o

o"

00

00oo

ooNO

00

oo00 o

oo

oo

00

rOO

00

0000

CO ooooI oo

00i ooooooo

00 ooooo0-oooooo ooooo

o00

00I oooooo

00

0)

<uuuoh

occ

rt

Li

a, o u<c—! a

si <3

CO

(4

Licu

ID

00

00

inoooX

00

(MI oooooo

cn00

l, o

<xCu3

C/3 , u

1) Ll oooooI oooooo

00

L0

w

oo

r-oo t su< ooooo

<T

v£) 00I oooo

o*o

vO

oo

0)u

Li o

0)>

Li01(0

<u 05

oo

00

oo

00

ino

oo

oo

OO

00o 1 cr- Ln

oo I

r- o o o o o o o o o o O 0s o

ooooooo o o o

CTO

oo cr* 3 ^ 3 o K S (U O < < U w o V S Li « M» O « L, ^ o nj £ < S E < ca

COco• p-l 4-1

ft) Lt to

aj

00

CO

00

00

oo oIs- o

00

ooo

00 <HO

Eh

oo

-*-> ooo

oo o

CD

OO

47
oI—

H<Ui—

Hw

(;•)

rd r-l

l—t0Q

COW

CO i <W

<XUi—

HWou

HWOQD

CQo

r-WQOU<u

COI—

<oo

PhHuwQ

6-

co

r—

I—

oQU

rd —

rHoQ ooIs- o

oor ) OOoo<

Lf) o

If)I ooooooo

CUu0uu

CO

in

COooataIs- 0s oooo

pqoooooo

X)

CU

rd r—

CU «w cu h a,

.w CT < W

-ooO

-tOooo

1-3 r~cm

Lf)I oooooo

CM

Lfl

T3

0)

o2 *->

in a) ^ £

.2"

to

d £ CT S W oooo<

rIf)I Oooooo

If)

(0u

a 3 £

Cfl

a

(3 O

'3

Si

a1

i~<

W CO < ed >s

s-i ni

rd —i

cu <—

« s oooooo<

If)I oooooo

-r

4-> -4-1

<o CU

i—

£ W

co- CU

a,

CO « Is-

.o oo

CM

If)

rMr J OooowIsin

if) oooooo

<u 3 > a1 « W P " 5U <u . 05 u <£S L « D o -3 £

oooD

OO

00o

COoooow

r~

~o

If)I oooooo

If)c£a• -I W

CU 6

CUOA

rdC

rd

CD ^O £ w

rd ^ o c h 2

ft £

00OIs-

(N) CO

CM Is-Is- C0o

CM000s CM vO

CO TDC

fO

m o O r- o ±z

"ra ^ Z3 ° r- "O

CD

c:ro to

a> CO Q_ -o x

CD CDX CD

CD 23 -2ra

j£! ro CO — O O < < <o

48
oI—I <Ui—i HWoHWDQ

coWw

<Jwu

I—I H

COOU

to

1-1

i—i i—i oQ

CO

u

,—i

.—i OQ

-oru

n3 .—i oQwu

03

r-H r—

OQ

HHOQD«o

r-WQOO<«ao«

OhHUw0Q

CO o o

oo

CO

CO oo oo

CO oooo

ooooI oooo

o"oo

TO 4-> 0-: U

CO rtf

a)

u

uu n) < «

00

CO

r-oooooo

COi oooooo

CO

cd <0 H, "* " u u *> "a «J « t:

a> o

co« co 2 °3

oo

00O

ooo

CO* O

COOOOooooo

00I oooooo ou o

CO(M o >

(6 XI6oO 0 cu 1> a > ^

(4O

CO *J n)

Ooo

vD

CM

-tf1 ooooomi oooo©o

in

uo

a.

a,3

co

o3^ co

rd a; u x:

id cu H >

oo

in

CO ooooooo . o

COvOI oooooo o u

in

a 3 O u w

0>

c-o

oo

00oo

rCO

COooooo

rr~oooooo

tOr

cr WO

a.3

COO

g

00

00

oo

COoom

c>

cor- ooooI o

COoo^i oooooo

oo

cin

oo"

00o

CO

CO

cooooooooI ooooooouo

a.

a.3

co

(X) oo3

T3Ou

Oh o

oo

oo

co

co

°° -5 +-> —J

i~n o O r- O ±3

CT3 =3

CO CO oo

a> LO X

a3 CD

CD CD TO oo

r-o

Q- uo X CD CD -j CD T3

uoO o o -a < < <HO

49
2,Oi—

H<U&HUOHWDQ

inW

CO<u

t—

H

COOU

r)

i—i

r—i0Q

09

n3 i—

i—OQ

COui—

oQ o

•Oom

tri oo Ooo

-r o

(M

00o HWOQDo

cor J ar-o cooCO oo

00o 00I—

UQOU<u

CO oo

in

indooooodo oooodo oooooooooooo o o o o o o o o d d o o

in oo JO vOi o o o o o o o o d d o o

00 2<OO

02

!-X HUW ou

01

(3oUuc

c:o

-^-! u3m-*-> coUo

(3

S3

ti i—

a,

^3 <HOH

50
2OH<U«HW

to

in 0)

i-H —I0

oo

00

OHWDQ

cnW

CO<«UZt-t H

COOU

to

Jh

rd rH

~H0Q

tou

cd —II—

oQ

to

Ihrd rH

—IoQ o

ro

vO

oo

00

r-oon o

nOo

oNOo

oo

"oofM

•n

in

nO

in

in

nO

ro nO

(M

CO

ON* LO

^3" CNI

ONroo

rsi ONoooON

LOOro

nO*" ro

r-s. uo

oo "O

rzroOO

oo

O

S5

"rcJ.E = -o C CD C oo

ro t/) CD uo l_ ro clxCD CD

CO CD

CO l_

a) ro Q_ OO X CD

CD Z3 CD > ro

uo ro

Hr-' OO ' o o O "O

HW0QD«o oooo

r- nO oo

f-o*o

ro

Oo

nO

On

(NJ oo

nO ooo ooo ooON

r~

(VI

CNI Onro

NO

oo

ro"

rsi

WQOU<uzol-H H$«o

Oh< ooooo

inoooooooGao

tou

<u Oh>Nu2 8

2< oooo

oomoooooo oo

"2 EV

CO CU 2 Cm

O o o om

CO

ro r- ro ro I O o o o o o o o o o o o

CN) rro roi c

I—

4-1 a.

rd OS

0) Oh

C

ve tio u rt) <D u

CO E V D« < 0 Z£

4) >i

OOomm

ooi oooooo

inoo

fi HH .2 ^ o 2 26a 1 0 o ^ E 2 < oooom

nO

00oooooo

oo

ao

•*-» u3

toCoU^ £

COu

OWZ<

COgl-H H

l-H o

Ph<<HOHP< < <

51
ARMY BUDGET

METRICATION COST PROFILE

YEARLY COST

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

1972 in? iisas mn tma mm 2002

FIGURE 1

52
ARMY BUDGET,

CUMULATIVE COSTS OF METRICATION
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

METRICATION COST PROFILE

YEARLY COST

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

mm

200,000

100,000 --/—

1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002

FIGURE 3

54
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

CUMULATIVE COST OF METRICATION

TOTAL COST,

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

4,000 I

1972 1977 MiM mi tmc 1997 2002

FIGURE 4

55
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION

METRICATION COST PROFILE

YEARLY COST

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

/

f 24,327

"/

\w 15,906

14,267

^11,386

7 —x -

1972 11 mi 1992 mi 2002

FIGURE 5

56
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION

CUMULATIVE COSTS OF METRICATION

TOTAL COST,

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

600,000

400,000

200,000

1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002

FIGURE 6

57
PROCUREMENT OF EQUIPMENT & MISSILES

METRICATION COST PROFILE

YEARLY COST,

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

60,000

1972 1977 1982 1992 1997 2002

FIGURE 7

58
PROCUREMENT OF EQUIPMENT & MISSILES

CUMULATIVE COSTS OF METRICATION

TOTAL COST,

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

600,000

1972 1977 1SS2 1SS7 1992 1997 2002

FIGURE 8

59
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY

METRICATION COST PROFILE

FIGURE 9

60
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY

COSTS OF METRICATION

TOTAL COST 31,715

1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002

FIGURE 10

61

NAVY COST ESTIMATES

The added cost to maintain constant mission capability while adopting the metric

system is estimated to be $7.08 billion. This cost impact is based on the assumptions

set forth in Appendix B of this report and extends over a 30-year period. It includes

estimates for hardware procurement and changeover for resources to support an estimated 96, 000 man-years of effort. The major cost impact would peak in the first ten years when design standards would be changed and incorporated into new systems

design. The peaked requirements are realistic since it is anticipated that the changeover

period would be compressed to assuage long term disruption associated with operating

dual systems (metric and customary).

The cost estimates contained herein do not include increased cost of "off-the-shelf"

type items /equipments. The guidelines for the DOD study stated that the Department of

Commerce will project such costs. Those costs could be significant and represent a general surcharge applied by the manufacturers to their complete lines of products to retrieve the overhead type costs encountered in their engineering departments and machine

shops for changeover to the metric system. Such a surcharge (the extent of which is unknown at this time) would undoubtedly be borne by the DOD and therefore represents an

additive budget requirement.

To preclude duplication, the cost impact estimates have been developed along the

lines used in development of the Navy's budget. The fleets were instructed to exclude

certain costs which could, possibly, have been duplicated by the shore establishment.

Also, the costs at naval activities that operate on the industrial funding concept (where

customer pays cost of job) were reviewed to preclude duplication.

63
64
-ee- <no

COao

•H

O

•HP

cdo

•H

Fh P

.02 op

CO

CD

CQ

cd

CD

Fhoi—

p

CQOo I CMoosOOsH

Csj to

OsH

Csi to

OsHI £>£>

Os

!>

OsHI CMO3 Oo

CQ

Fjcd HOQOQOQ o

rp <js CD

fa

mo

•HPcd •H

FhP.o

ft o

Pi

CD P

fi •Hisao

•HPcd^

CD

p

Pi

CDS

ftOHCD

!>

CD Q

°3,3ou

cd

(D03

Pio

•HPO

=1 pCQoo

ft

CO

2:o

CO

to

O

•H

T3 Fh O CD H ft

Fh0 U

ft cdCD

Fh i>> CQ

ct! P

CD o Pi H CD

CO >n cd CDFh u Fh ft o o CD

<Vh 4-1 Fh

CD CD CD CO w bo

cd cd cd CD (U Fh Fh Fh a.) o o >

Pi Pi cd •H •H

rH P P cd

co 03 O o o o p p

Pi PJ

<u CD o

65

AIR FORCE COST ESTIMATES

The major financial impacts of converting to metric measurements will involve

additive costs associated with the areas of design, development, procurement and support

of new weapon systems, publication of technical data, training of personnel, and storage

generated by metrication. Such additive costs were computed or estimated by the

appropriate Air Force organization. It must be emphasized that the estimates were based

on many variable factors, some of which are outside the purview of Air Force control.

For example,

The assumption was made that parts would be available in either system at no cost

penalty. This is not entirely realistic because the availability of metric components early

in the changeover and the availability of customary units later on will undoubtedly be

limited. This supply shortage most likely will dictate a premium price over and above

add on costs associated with normal business amortization of "metric start-up" costs.

However, until a master plan for metrication is adopted, and the interrelationships

caused by the implementation of the plan are known, this factor cannot be evaluated or costed with any degree of accuracy.

The cost attached to mistakes made by operating personnel due to "metric mix-ups"

was not estimated. A mechanic picks up the wrong type bolt and ruins a part in his attempt

to force it to fit. A training aircraft and crew is stranded for an extra 24 hours after an emergency landing because the wrong replacement part for the engine was flown in to them.

The crew bringing it must make an extra trip to provide the correct size part. A SAC

mission is aborted and an expensive overhaul necessitated because the wrong part was

installed and seemed to fit until take-off power was applied. A fighter aircraft is lost from

a similar malfunction, not discovered until in flight. Hundreds and thousands of delays,

minor and major, will occur - they are bound to. No amount of careful training is now able

to eliminate such problems as tools left in engines, wrong parts installed or incorrect

procedures followed. It would be less than realistic to presume that the change to metric

parts will not open up a whole new spectrum of such mistakes. ATC and the operating

commands have recognized this error potential in their assessment of the metric impact.

They must do all that is physically possible to pinpoint and eliminate the chance for such errors but they will never be able to completely eliminate them.

The costs were developed as percentages of the FY 70 President's Budget and

thus are in 1970 dollars, no inflation factor is applied. If the current 4.2% rate of

inflation is projected over the 10-year period, and l/10th of the costs spent each year, a

little over $300 million additional cost will be generated by this factor. This cost is not

included in those shown on the cost summary table.

The cost as determined by the design and development function, notably Air Force

Systems Command (AFSC) has been subdivided into two areas for estimating purposes and

are added costs. In-house costs will require a 2.1% increase per year to maintain

constant mission capability. Contractual costs of new systems will rise 10-50% per

program depending on how far the acquisition process has progressed when the decision

to "go metric" is made. This characteristic required that a different approach be used in

developing the weapon systems costs. The impact was measured by determining which of

the systems coming into the inventory could be reasonably converted to metric measurements.

Previous studies within the Air Force Systems Command have shown that once a system is committed to production the cost penalty associated with conversion is too great to reasonably assume it would be directed. Thus such systems as A-7, F-4, and Minuteman

were eliminated from consideration. It was found, however, that it would be possible to consider conversion for such systems as the B-l, SCAD, A-X, the tactical AG MX- 3 and

possibly the F-15. The impact upon these and other potential candidate systems was

found to fall into four general areas:

67
First Contract, no Preliminary Design, With Competition - Up to 10% increase over previous similar contracts with delay of one to three months primarily for training

and experimental testing to insure smooth transition.

Contract Awarded and Preliminary Design Completed - Up to 20% increase in cost

of original contract with delay of three to four months. This will include training,

experimental testing and the noncompetitive factor.

Contract with Detail Drawings Complete for Fabrication of Test Articles - Up to 30% increase in cost of original contract with delay of six months. At this point, many

of the parts that make up an assembly have been procured or fabricated.

Contract with Development Testing Completed, Configuration Accepted by

Government and Production Starting - Up to 50% increase in cost of original contract with

delay of 9 to 12 months. This includes cost of repeat testing. It also includes cost of

converting all data which at this point is also ready for production. It does not include

cost of production parts that must be discarded or converted.

The weapon system candidates were sorted into the appropriate categories and

the cost impact for each generated as a percent of their R&D funds. These systems,

which have a total R&D cost of a little over $7 billion yielded a conversion cost of about

$1.3 billion. No cost increase was associated with production funds although any production delay will likely cause a cost increase. The portion of R&D funds used for

personnel pay and support (about $460 million a year) was estimated to require about

$96. 5 million for the 10-year period utilizing the average percentage impact factor

which was developed for AFSC and other major command personnel costs. Lastly, a factor of 3.5% was applied to the balance of costs (about $1.8 billion per year). This

factor is believed representative of the magnitude of the impact on the remaining

Air Force development areas. The logistics area will be affected by complex conversion problems. Efficient

operations and maintenance of weapon systems require that personnel deal with aircraft

and other systems as hundreds of thousands of discrete parts. Moreover, they will react

to, rather than initiate metric conversion. AFLC will have to coordinate the impact of

manifold individual decisions during the metric changeover period. They will have to translate SPO decisions into terms of spare parts stockage and maintenance manpower

requirements in all field operations and depots for which they have responsibility. They

must assume that trained maintenance labor, tools, and spare parts are available to support established weapon system in-commission rates. They must procure both metric

and conventional parts and provide warehouse space for the increased storage requirements

of these parts. Their cost estimate reflects the cost impact first on their operating budget

and second on all other AFLC costs. They estimate that for the first five years their

operating costs will increase annually about 1. 7 % due to metrication, and that the

comparable costs will rise about 2,4% per year for the second half of the conversion

period. This produces a total cost of approximately $600 million. Costs affecting their

other budget areas are estimated to require about the same percentage increase and

generate a cost of about $400 million, or a total impact on AFLC for the ten-year period

of just over $1 billion. In addition to these costs, the study found that there will be items

requiring dual stockage and maintenance for weapon systems with an effective life beyond

1982. For the various AFLC areas this impact will range from under 1% to almost 3%.

The average impact will be about 1% per year, or a cost of about $25 million per year for

at least the next ten years. This cost is in addition to the $1 billion already estimated for

AFLC. Caution must be exercised in the metric conversion to avoid costs in excess of

these estimates. For instance, procurement of conventional parts during the latter part

of the 10-year conversion must be made in advance of actual requirements in order to

63
avoid the cost premiums associated with re -tooling and set-up for conventional parts from

a company which has already "gone metric." It is even possible that some conventional

equipment could be forced into premature obsolescence by the nonavailability of replacement parts or the high cost of acquiring these parts. The area of materials handling

equipment is another which requires careful planning. The AFLC costs are based upon

the assumption that all such equipment will be retained for the duration of its useful life.

If, however, standard cargo containers are replaced by metric containers which cannot

be handled by current equipment, a cost penalty would result from the forced procurement

of such new equipment and the waste of the residual value of the conventional items. Close

coordination between AFSC and AFLC will be necessary in order that the total cost impact

of a decision to proceed with metrication may be assessed prior to the decision being

made. AFLC must know, in sufficient time to procure long-lead time items, arrange for

storage space, etc., when metric units are introduced into the inventory.

In the facilities construction and maintenance area, the directly attributable costs are

anticipated to increase the military construction budget by 1.2% during the transition

period. The major financial impacts of converting to metric measurements will involve

additive costs associated with the areas of maintenance of existing facilities with life cycle of more than 30 years, publication of technical data, training of personnel, and

storage generated by metrication. Costs include the updating of as -built and record

drawings and reports; the procuring and/or altering of hand tools and measuring devices;

the revamping of bench-stock storage to provide both metric and inch-pound materials;

the conversion of technical specifications, production of additional specifications, and

maintenance of changes and publications; and the conversion of master plans and real

property records.

During the conversion period an increase in manpower resources will be required to conduct training programs, as well as safety surveys, to insure the increased accident

potential brought about by the new system is kept to a minimum Air Force -wide.

Productivity will be reduced during the training period and more personnel will be required

to maintain present output in some cases. Evaluation leads to the conclusion that one of the

major financial impacts of converting to the metric system will involve costs associated

with the training of personnel. Air Training Command (ATC) would logically have the

primary task of reworking training manuals and programs to orient personnel toward use

of the metric system. The operational commands would probably emphasize follow-on

training during the transition period when both metric and inch-pound systems are in

effect. Financial analysis indicates an average of approximately $10.8 million yearly

increase in the ATC budget would be required to maintain mission effectiveness during

conversion. This annual sum equates to approximately 1.2% of the ATC operating budget.

This figure does not include funds for construction of new storage facilities which will be

required.

In addition to the aforementioned commands, the cost inputs from all other commands

and activities were examined to assure that a reasonable assessment of the metrication

impact had been made and that the costs were not duplicated. In addition, the dollar impact

was converted to a percentage of the FY 70 President's Budget, as published in the

26 January 70 Force and Financial Plan. This assures that the relative impact upon each

major command was measured from a common baseline. The Commands tended to group

in three major categories. The first generated a minimum cost impact. Such commands

as the USAF Security Service (USAFSS) and the Data Systems Design Center (DSDC) fall into this category. Second were Commands requiring, in addition to training, some degree

of hardware and/or supplies replacement; Air Force Communications Service (AFCS) and

the Air Academy are examples of this group. The last area included cost impact of such

specialized items as dual stockage and warehousing of parts for AFLC, increased

development costs of AFSC, and the heavy training load which will fall upon ATC.

69
The individual commands generated variances in their individual costs which were

the result of estimating technique variance rather than actual differences between command

In order to minimize variances caused by estimating technique, the costs were projected

for the final report by group rather than by individual command. In addition, the use of

the President's Budget as the baseline for the commands assures that no costs have been

duplicated. The Research and Development costs were handled separately. The

problems, and thus the costing methodology for Research and Development are unique.

This area was handled by examining the currently projected weapon system mix over the

next ten years as a whole to determine the impact on this area. The Research and

Development effort was divided into the areas of weapon systems currently approved to phase into the inventory during the 1970's; in-house personnel pay; support paid for by

R&D funds; and all other research programs.

The estimated total cost is shown in the following Cost Summary Table.

70
AIR FORCE COST SUMMARY TABLE

IMPACT OF METRICATION

($ MILLIONS)

FY 70 ANNUAL 10-YEAR

PRES BUDGET COST COST

MINIMUM IMPACT (LESS THAN 1%/ YEAR

USAFSO $ 37.889

USAFSS 230.634

DSDC 6.007

AF RES/ANG 673.369

OTHER 13.564

SUBTOTAL $ 961. 463

MINOR IMPACT (LESS THAN 2%/ YEAR

AIR ACADEMY $ 57. 364

ADC 762 . 124

MAC 878. 953

AFCS 314.217

OTHER 2,042. 759

SUBTOTAL $ 4,055.417

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (2%/ YEAR OR MORE)

AFLC $ 5,278.895

USAFE 569. 579

ACIC 58. 674

ATC 1,131. 740

AFSC (LESS R&D

)

3,868. 453

SAC 1,729. 955

TAC 1,034.583

OTHER (LESS R&D) 2, 692. 432

$16, 364. 311

WEAPONS SYSTEM ACQUISITION (RESEARCH AND

MAJOR WPNS SYS $ 3,080.588

OTHER

SUBTOTAL

$ 7.210 $ 72.000

$ 60. 830 $ 608. 000

$343,644 $3,436,000

$1,258. 000

730. 000

$1,988. 000

10 YEAR METRIC IMPACT ESTIMATE $6,104,000

10 YR FOLLOW-ON COSTS

(O&M FOR LONG ITEMS) 250. 000

TOTAL CONVERSION COSTS $6,354,000

71

DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY COST ESTIMATES

The impact of converting to the metric system on Defense Supply Agency (DSA) falls

primarily into the functional areas of procurement, supply support, technical data,

installations and services, and personnel and training. Consequently, the measurement

of the impact is in terms of the added costs to accomplish the conversion while maintaining

mission capability.

The additional DSA costs will result primarily from the requirement for "dual stockage"

of inventories during the conversion period. This involves the need to continue the support

of major end items of customary inch-pound equipment until the economic retirement point

is reached, while introducing similar major end items of metric equipment requiring

support with metric repair parts and components. Accordingly, it is estimated that the

supply system growth or increase in DSA inventories will peak at approximately 25% and

that the cost to introduce, manage, and stock the additional inventory will approximate an estimated $142.2 million for the 10-year period of conversion phased as follows:

Year % Increase Materiel Management Storage

(Millions) (Millions)

1st 10% $ 3.4 $4.5

2nd 20% 6. 8 9. 0

3rd 25% 8. 5 11. 25

4th 25% 8. 5 11.25

5th 25% 8. 5 11.25

6th 25% 8. 5 11.25

7th 20% 6. 8 9.0

8th 15% 5. 1 6. 75

9th 10% 3.4 4. 5

10th 5% 1.7 2. 25

$61. 2 $81. 00

TOTAL $142.

Enclosure 1 graphically portrays the supply system growth in terms of percentage of

increase by year in relationship to inventory line items.

Procurement costs to support the acquisition of the increased number of line items as depicted in Enclosure 1 are estimated at approximately $63 million for the 10-year

conversion period. This cost is equated to the yearly increase in inventory line items as projected above.

It is anticipated that there will be an impact on Installations and Services to accommodate

the increased inventories, in terms of Base Supply, Transportation and Traffic Management,

and Modification or Replacement of Real Property. This is estimated to approximate

$3.1 million for the 10-year conversion period (see Enclosure 2).

73
There will be added costs in the area of cataloging and standardization involving

conversion of all Federal Stock Catalogs to reflect the metric system of measurement with

the attendant standardization effort. This is estimated to approximate $2.8 million for the

10-year conversion period (see Enclosure 3).

Personnel training, for the most part, can be accomplished without additional cost

during the 5-year preparatory period using in-house capability. For example, the DSA

Contract Administration Services organization which encompasses approximately half of

the total DSA work force has identified the number of mandays of training required, and

considers it within in-house capability (see Enclosure 4).

There will be added costs in other sub -program areas of Command and Support such as Accounting and Finance, Civilian Personnel, etc. which are estimated to approximate

. 5 million per year for the 10-year conversion period. (See Enclosure 5)

Attached as Enclosure 6 is a recapitulation of the cost impact on DSA. This sets forth

the percentage of increase over the DSA FY 70 budget expenditures at an average of

approximately 3.2% per year.

For the purpose of this report, Industrial Plant Equipment (IPE) is treated as a special topic. With respect to IPE, for which DSA has cognizance, a special study was

conducted to determine the impact of converting metal working equipment to accommodate

the metric system of measurement. This could involve either total replacement of equipment

or modification of existing equipment. The study reveals that of the total inventory of

government owned metal working equipment (see Enclosure 7) only 31% of the items would

require conversion to the metric system of measurement. Metal forming equipment, and

other types of metal working equipment that are adaptable to the metric system without

conversion constitute the remaining 69% of the current inventory.

The existing inventory of metal working equipment, with the exception of a relatively

small number of items which are owned by DSA or are in "idle Reserve, " are owned by the

Military Departments as shown in Enclosure 7. Therefore, the costs to replace or modify

existing equipment cannot be assessed as a DSA cost impact, since DSA does not have

responsibility for requirements determination, procurement or budgeting for IPE.

Replacement/modification costs for IPE would be borne by the Military Departments,

except for those items owned by DSA, and those items reverted to "idle Reserve. "

A 5 -year phase -out program of government owned IPE in contractors plants is scheduled, upon passage of legislation (negotiated sales law) by Congress. It is assumed

for the purpose of this study that the legislation will be passed in 1971. An analysis of the

5-year phase-out program (see Enclosure 8) identifies the decrease in government owned

IPE inventory. This reduction in government owned IPE will correspondingly decrease the

cost to DOD of converting IPE to the metric system of measurement.

Taking into consideration the 5 year phase-out program, and the estimate that only

31% of the government owned metal working equipment inventory would require conversion to the metric system of measurement substantially decreases the cost impact on DOD in the IPE

area. The net cost impact for complete replacement of equipment would approximate $37.4

million per year for the 10 -year conversion period, while modification of equipment would

approximate $11.5 million per year over the 10-year period. Enclosure 9 sets forth the

detailed breakdown of this cost impact on the Military Departments and DSA. It is considered that modification of equipment rather than total replacement would be the most

logical and economical course to pursue.

74

ESTIMATED METRICATION COSTS

INSTALLATIONS AND SERVICES

COST INCREASES

FY 70 72-76 77-81

PROGRAM CODE BUDGET* %** $ $

T ra ns po rta Hon

and Traffic

Management

P-500 7.4 2.6% .950 2.6% .950

Base Sudd v P-926 4. 5 2.2% .487

Modification

or Replacement

of Real Property

P-930 7.7 .65% .250 1.3% .500

TOTALS 1.200 1.937

Enclosure 2

All Dollar figures are in millions

Annual percentage increase over FY 70 Budget.

76
ESTIMATED COST IMPACT

P-400

O & M FY 1 ?72 FY 1973 FY 1974 FY 1975 FY 1976

(DIRECT PROGRAMS $ (ooo) 4> ^uuu^ o/

/o /o o/70 4> (UUU) Of

/o

OTHER DIRECT

PROGRAMS

Cataloging

Standardization 2.0 .02 2.0 .02 2.0 .02

326.6

2.0

2.0

.02

326.6

2.0

2.0

.02

TOTAL O&M COSTS 2.0 .02 2.0 .02 2.0 .02 328.6 1.4 328.6 1.4

MANYEARS

DOLLARS 2.0 2.0 2.0

32

328.6

32

328.6

O&M FY 1977 FY 1978 FY 1979 FY 1980 FY 1981

(DIRECT PROGRAMS) $ (000) % $ (000) % $ (000) % $ (000) % $ (000) %

otufp n ipc t—

U 1 ntK U IKtd

PROGRAMS

Cataloging

Standardization

556.3

2.0

3.4

.02

393.0

2.0

2.4

.02

393.0

2.0

2.4

.02

393.0

2.0

2.4

.02

393.0

2.0

2.4

.02

TOTAL O&M COSTS 558.3 2.3 395.0 1.6 395,0 1.6 395.0 1.6 395.0 1.6

MANYEARS

DOLLARS

60

558.3

44

395.0

44

395.0

44

395.0

44

395.0

Enclosure 3

77
DSA CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

1. The training requirements throughout the DSA Contract Administration for

conversion to the metric system are estimated at approximately 10,000 mandays.

This training effort is considered to be within in-house capability, and no

additional personnel would be hired to conduct the training. In addition,

conversion to the metric system would not impact on any equipment (testing or

operational) currently owned by the DSA Contract Administration field activities.

2. Personnel concerned with contract administration will be trained during

the Preparatory Period to recognize the metric units that will commence

appearing in procurement contracts. It is anticipated that this training will

begin on 1 July 1972 and be completed by 1 January 1973.

Enclosure 4

78
COMMAND AND SUPPORT

(Excluding P-926 and 930)

COST INCREASES

$ (Millions)

PROGRAM 72-76 77-81

P-900 .250 .250

(Finance and Accounting,

Civilian Personnel, etc.)

79

Enclosure 5
- CONVERSION TO METRIC SYSTEM -

RECAPITUALTION OF COST IMPACT

MILITARY APPROPRIATION

STRUCTURE - PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

FY 1970

P-100 Procurement

P-200 Materiel Management

P-300 Depot Operations

P-400 Logistic Services

P-500 Transportation Services

P-600 Contract Administration

Services

P-800 HQ and Central Activities

P-900 Command and Support

TOTALS

ON

DSA

DSA ACTUAL

EXPENDITURES - FY 70

(Thousands)

35,468

33,510

108,499

50,346

7,458

246,346

34,804

170,252

$ 686,683

AVERAGE COST

IMPACT PER YEAR

(Thousands)

$ 6,330

6,120

8,100

280

370

0

0

624

$ 21,794

Average percent of yearly increase over 10 year period = Approximately 3.2%

Enclosure 6

80
<D

Si

p

Q) c

0) <n —I D

-o Q_ o

co cr n ill

Q Z

UJ LU z 5 £ 2: Z m

si

UJ§<

COQz 25o

LUozo

0) S

CO

O 12 >

O)o

<1J c u * JI J 14-

Id< o

N.

lotoo

CNo

voo00

u~> O

OCsl o

-oo

CN

Oo 00

CMo o00

00

CN olo00 oCN

CNO o o m

i\ CN

CN CN CO O o CO CN

LOooo

CN

CNoLO

COo00

oo

COoo

CN

ooom

tC

coto

CO CN CN CN CN

CN CN

CN

oo

LO E >Dz <COQ

81

CO

_l<I

o c£D

cr LU

COc

i_o 8

00CO

CNOoCD

0) _DD>

CN

CN5 O

CL

CO

_>>. co

^coc

'io5

J,

>.

l_o-5— c

<D>C

<Ucoc

<uEc

L_>O

a) "5

-»- oO c

<uE

a.D

CT

0)coc

0)CL

(1)

T5Coc

0)E

Q_D

CT

(1) COc

0)E

<u T3_2ocOo

CDcoE

0)

in.Oc

-OO

Q.O

TDDOD
ooo<> oIT)

CO o o O O o o

2><oo<yi

I—

ZDoI LUto<X

Q_<

in

Ll_ O

to

to

>•_J<Z<

-St- o o IT) toCO o CO

CN oUJozo

005CXI rx00

r\ cm co <1

5

co

CNCO

V <D —— inD o i LUo a, u > C < o —

"DO

<Z

O

-2 § u pO o a_ u ^

8. ° 3 to Z CD o

to0 2 0 D Z -c

0) o 1 u

'00 o too

Q_ o

CN

CNOto

CO

CO

CN

to

COo00CN

CO o00

CMCO 00

>v _D

>vDO

O

O

O

CD

-4—

Oi—

O

C £ OU

~0

CD o

a.

</> Qo4—

cr- CNCO

00

<D

L1/) _o

(Jc

CO

CN

00

to

_l<I

o

82
C£ oo

T5

w

CD

cl o LU

D 0>

-*- CO OO O

CO

<u 5 « u < <u ° x O > <u I— 3 U r < -E c

<uE

CDO

_D

O-l

H)cE

<uV

_D0C

<uE

0)u

_o

Q0)

CNO

LO

CM

CN

CN

00

CO

co

CNm

LO

in

00 r-v 00 o o oo co

CN

n o

lo CO 00o C> 00 CO O

CN

O £ «o cn 2; lo o ^ LO CO"

CN

CN E >oZ <ooQ

O0)>coU

L_D

CD >OU

~5CC< Uz

LLJ o<

LUU>

LU

LO>CO

oooU<o<O oU

.*—c

<uE

<uu

_o

Q_

<D 0£

CNco

^" 2 S? o o

CO I\ CO —

— o O o o o 00 LO co 00 o >* CN o o 00 LO CO

LO o LO LO l\CO E >oZ <ooQ OLOO

83

DEFENSE ATOMIC SUPPORT AGENCY

COST ESTIMATES

The percentage increase in current resources necessary to maintain constant mission

capability during the 1972-1982 time period will be approximately .06 percent of the total

budget. During the initial five-year period (1972-1977) the primary effort will be limited

to retraining of personnel accompanied by the purchase of training aids, publications, and

those hand tools and equipment required for training purposes. During the subsequent

five-year period (1977-1982), the training costs will rise and equipment costs will increase

to provide supplementary hand tools, machine tools, and increased spare parts inventory

for the maintenance of dual equippage required during the changeover period. No increase

in facilities or overall personnel resources will be required.

The financial impact of metrication during the period 1972-1992 will average

approximately . 038% of the DASA budget. All problems engendered by conversion from

U.S. Customary units of measure to the Systeme International (SI) and monetary

costs of the program can be largely absorbed within current training programs. No

severe or insurmountable problems are expected during the transition period. Costs are expected to rise little more than nominally to offset training expenses of contractors,

to defray the costs of using SI both in specifications and drawings, and to pay for

closer supervisory control and inspections. Some small time delays are also expected.

These, however, if time becomes critical, can be bought with heavier schedules.

85
METRIC SYSTEM STUDY

COST IMPACT STATEMENT

APPROPRIATION: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

DEFENSE ATOMIC SUPPORT AGENCY

Estimated Cost Impact

O&M 1972- 1977 1977 -1982 1982 -1992 1992 _

Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent

Intelligence &

Communications

_L • 1\ Li 1--' JLC- CL± ViCTCLU*—UIO Operations 89,046 .085 208,738 .199 59,820 .057

2 . Training

J* OUUIl Ut:i ±11 UC 111 — gence and Investigative Activities

Training, Medical

and Other General Personnel

Activities

1. Hospitals

Total O&M Costs 89,046 .085 212,563 .203 59,820 .057 0 0

Manyears Dollars 46,095 .044 95,508 .091 17,672 .017

Fclty & Equip - Dollars 42,951 .041 117,055 .112 42,148 .04

86
METRIC SYSTEM STUDY

COST IMPACT STATEMENT

APPROPRIATION: PROCUREMENT DEFENSE AGENCIES

DEFENSE ATOMIC SUPPORT AGENCY

Estimated Cost Impact

Procurement 1972-1977 1977- 1982 1982-1992 1992

Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent

Atomic Weapons

Material

Vehicles

Other Capital

Equipment

-

Total Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Manyears Dollars

Fclty & Equip - Dollars

87
METRIC SYSTEM STUDY

COST IMPACT STATEMENT

APPROPRIATION: RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION

DEFENSE ATOMIC SUPPORT AGENCY

Estimated Cost Impact

RDT&E 1972 -1977 1977- 1982 1982- 1992 1992-

Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent

Nuclear Weapons

Effects Research 100,000 .018 100,000 .018 50,000 .009 0 0

Nuclear Weapons

Effects Development

Nuclear Weapons

Effects Test 126,460 .023 126,460 .023 50,000 .009 50,000

Total RDT&E Costs 226,460 .041 226,460 .041 100,000 .0175 50,000

Manyears Dollars 202,160 .037 202,160 .037 100,000 .0175

Fclty & Equip - Dollars 24,300 .004 24,300 .004

88
METRIC SYSTEM STUDY

COST IMPACT STATEMENT

APPROPRIATION: FAMILY HOUSING

DEFENSE ATOMIC SUPPORT AGENCY

Family Housing

Estimated Cost Impact

1972-1977 1977-1982 1982-1992 1992-

Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent

Operation &

Maintenance

Total Family Housing

Costs

Manpower-Manye ars Dollars

Fclty & Equip - Dollars

16,396 .126 52,800 .410 58,455 .227 0 0

16,396 .126 52,800 .410 58,455 .227 0 0

8,556

7,840

.066

.061

27,4-57

25,343

.213

.197

30,397

28,058

.118

.109

89
METRIC SYSTEM STUDY

COST IMPACT STATEMENT

APPROPRIATION: OTHER

DEFENSE ATOMIC SUPPORT AGENCY

Military

Construction

(Direct Programs)

Estimated Cost Impact

1972-1977 1977-1982 1982-1992 1992-

Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent

Major Construction

Minor Construction

Planning

Total Mil Const

Costs

Manpower-Manyears

Dollars

Fclty & Equip - Dollars

Military Personnel

Total Mil Personnel Costs

Manpower - Manyear

Dollars

Stock Fund

Total Stock Fund

Costs

Other Appropriations

Total Costs

Manyears

Dollars

Fclty & Equip - Dollars

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

90
DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY COST ESTIMATES

No appreciable increase in resources will be required to maintain constant mission

capability provided that a reasonable schedule for metrication is established. We

believe that the increase in resources will be below the 0.01% cut-off figure.

The Defense Communications Agency (DCA) and its field activities are tenants on Army, Navy or Air Force installations at various locations. These activities are supported

by and required to comply with the host's instructions which implement the appropriate

military departments directives regarding such support. Accordingly, any impact of the

metric system on the DCA will be directly proportional to the impact on the supporting

military department; for example, in the case of host tenant agreements, any change in cost of a metric widget and its support to a military department will likely be transmitted

to the Agency by the department concerned. Likewise major DCA systems and their

support are provided by the military departments. The DCA is not in a position to predict

the problems and costs"" which the metric system will cause the departments.

By conjecture it can be speculated that some inch-pound equipment may have to be

attrited before completion of its useful life due to noncompatibility with ancillary metric

equipment and supplies. For example, graphic reproduction equipment and supplies such

as cameras, enlargers, film and sensitive paper, likewise inch-pound tools and measuring

devices.

A number of DCA projects are for communications facilities leased from the common

carriers, and therefore the impact of changing to the metric system could be determined

only by asking the common carriers to do a detailed study.

Various data files produced and updated by DCA contain nonmetric measurements, and

conversion would have to be made. Preliminary estimates are that there are approximately

50 data fields accessed and updated by 2 5 computer programs that would require conversion.

These conversions could be done manually by changing each individual record, or it could

be programmed at a cost of not less than 1 man year of effort. This would be a one time

cost and there would be no continuing impact. Cost should be tabulated under Operation

and Maintenance for the period 1972-1977.

The total cost for converting the data files and/or computer models of the National

Military Command System Support Center in the Pentagon is estimated at $775, 278. This

is based on the assumption that metric system conversion work had been accomplished by

other organizations such as the Defense Supply Agency or Assistant Secretary of Defense

Installations & Logistics and that documentation, tools, and supplies would be furnished

in the metric system prior to implementation.

At the Defense Commercial Communications Office (DECCO), all statistical data

expressed in monetary units will be unaffected. These data represent the bulk of the daily

operating measurements and specifications and the historical data in their files. One area

of specifications and measurement which will be affected is that of mileage data concerned

with circuitry. Conversion of miles to kilometers presents no major problem or significant

effort and will not affect mission capability. However, DECCO metrication must interface

with that of the commercial communications industry since rates and tariffs are established on the basis of miles which must be converted to kilometers.

The maintenance of communications equipment does not impose any severe logistical

problems within Europe; however, U.S. logistical and manufacturing problems are

foreseeable. Presently, most of the parts are still being manufactured in Europe and may

be classed as off-the-shelf items. In the majority of our geographical areas, the equipment

91
has long been in operation geared to the metric system, to advantage. This equipment

basically was inherited from the military components, some of which does hot meet DCA

standards but is doing the job in today's European Defense Communications Systems (DCS)

to a large degree. Since the metric system is in use within the area, the gradual

transition to the proposed metric system for U. S. made equipment does not appear to pose any severe logistic problems. It is foreseeable, however, that the utilization of

certain types of applique kits and units may be required during some point in time in the

early stages of the change.

The following comments apply to DCS data base, circuit layout cards, and plans of the

DCA areas

DCS Data Base : Trunk miles will have to be converted to kilometers. This should

be no problem, except for trunks extending over 6,000 miles, which when converted, will

be in excess of 10, 000 kilometers. The present data field reserved in the DCS Data Base

for this type of information is limited to four characters.

Circuit Layout Record Cards: Trunk miles will have to be converted to kilometers.

Plans : Weights and measures presently quoted in all DCS/ DCA type of plans will

have to be converted.

92
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY COST ESTIMATES

The cost for metrication would be negligible. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)

monitors and manages but does not fund the Military Departments' intelligence activities.

As a management and intelligence production agency, metric conversion would have no

significant monetary impact. A monetary cost estimate for metrication would approximate

one-tenth of one percent of the FY 70 DIA budget ($107, 102, 000) or a cost of approximately

$100,000 over the assumed ten-year conversion period. The added costs would be derived

from the purchase of new equipment or modification of present equipment, data base file revisions, and training of personnel.

93

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY COST ESTIMATES

We see no need for an increase in people, and an almost negligible increase in space.

Personnel training and equipment conversion will require a budget increase of perhaps 0.1%

during the transition. However, we anticipated that equipment development and procurement

contract costs will increase as much as 25% in the first few years, gradually tapering to a 10% increase. Thus, the transition period will require an NSA budget increase of about. 4%

during each of the first four years. The increase will decline to 3% the fifth year, 2% the

sixth, 1% the seventh, and 0. 1% for the last three years.

95

APPENDIX D

Detailed Advantages

and Disadvantages

97

Advantages Expected During Transition. The following advantages are those that are

peculiar to the transition period. In addition, all of the long-term advantages would be

felt in an increasing fashion as transition progresses.

There will be an opportunity to establish standards based on preferred metric sizes.

The need to convert to SI units will give industry and government an unprecedented

opportunity to review, correct, and update their documents.

Disadvantages During Transition . During transition the natural problems which evolve

with change will occur. Many will subside with familiarity with the particular change.

The following are examples of anticipated problem areas:

The psychological resistance of personnel to change could present a formidable

obstacle. Few personnel, even engineers and scientists who are well versed in metric

units, have the intuitive understanding or "feel" for metric sizes that they have for inchpound sizes.

Capabilities and readiness will be decreased during the transitional period due to confusion associated with having to operate systems /equipments built to either one measurement system or the other or both. This condition will persist until complete

conversion is effected. Conversions should be scheduled by operating unit, so far as

possible, rather than by availability of component equipments. Where mixed systems are

used, procedures must be developed to minimize error and maintain proficiency.

Exercises and drills in making the operationally required conversions must be made a part of the personnel readiness training.

A most significant difficulty will be training and indoctrination of personnel. This

is extremely critical in many areas where incomplete indoctrination can have fatal con- sequences such as safety in operations. From a "training" point of view, the greatest

disadvantages will occur during the early stages of transition and require the expenditure

of resources (manpower, money, time, and materials) to achieve the same degree of

proficiency in the use of metric weights and measures as is now possessed in the use of

the inch-pound system. At least three broad categories of training can be identified. A

familiarization training program will be presented to all employees through formal

training. The second category will be an intensive formal program involving production

as well as service group personnel, facility and weapon engineers, laboratory technicians,

material personnel and quality assurance personnel. The third will be on-the-job training.

The category of training will be based on individual job requirements.

Personnel working with both metric and customary tools and equipment with different

measurements will contribute to increased errors.

Technical data will be an impact area because of the need to accommodate the metric

system. All manuals, regulations, technical orders, monitors, readouts, meters, maps,

blueprints, plans, plant-in-place records, drawings, and other publications and specifications

will have to be inspected and changes made on an as required basis.

Within the R&D area, decisions to determine when and how to change over new

systems will greatly affect both the cost and time to develop each project. It is anticipated

that a development program that was initiated during the middle transition period, 1974-

1978, will experience difficulties in both the cost and schedule areas. During this period,

the designer will find it difficult to determine the optimum mix of metric and inch-pound

specifications required to permit procurement of his design at the minimum cost. During

the period 1977-1982, these factors will no doubt increase in complexity. The increasing

99
number of SI standards will present the designer with a constantly changing basis for his

designs. He will encounter situations where items specified to an SI standard are not

available. These problems will result in many design changes and deviations during the

development. Significant additional design effort is anticipated for redesign of certain

existing parts, components, and subassemblies that would have been suitable for use in a system design in inch-pound system, but are not suitable for use in a metrically designed

system. An interface will have to be established and maintained by design personnel among

designers, shops, and suppliers so that the designs developed can be produced by available

machine tools and from stock materials whose specifications and availability will also be

undergoing change.

The transportation of cargo is based on conventional measurements. Palletization,

containerization, and standard loading systems are all interfaced and must be maintained

compatible. Further, the air cargo operation directly interfaces with surface and sea systems and compatibility must also be maintained. Widespread adoption of the metric

system will require metric orientation guides, guidance, and instructions for use of

shipping and transport personnel. The movement of materials is controlled by the volume,

shape, and weight of the item to be transported. Conversion tables and modified

measuring equipment (scales, etc.) will be required. Rapid response containerized

distribution envisions the interaction of containers, materials handling equipment, transportation equipment and documentation. Trends and efforts toward standardization of van

type containers will require consideration of compatibility with carrier equipment and

distribution methodology. A variety of specialized types of containers are already in existence. However, conversion of current or future containers to new dimensions to comply with a new metric system standard is not considered technically or economically justified

at this time. For example, freight van containers are built in the United States to conform

to standards adopted by the USASI (United States of America Standards Institute), with about

seventy percent of the member bodies of the ISO (International Standards Organization)

having approved the USASI standards.

Depot maintenance operations will require more time and material during the

transition period. Field maintenance organizations must solve the problem of transporting

the extra equipment and material which the metrication process will impose. The maintenance section of an armored cavalry squadron, for example, currently has a prescribed

load list (PLL) of 466 line items. When the squadron goes to the field, the maintenance

section must carry the PLL plus all of its other equipment and tools in organic transportation

This transport is already overcrowded and the addition of 25-50% more to the PLL due to dual part stockage and dual tool sets will further compound this problem.

There will be a need for dual common tools and special precautions will have to be

taken to prevent mixing of common hardware and tools. It can be anticipated that there

will be some increase in damage caused by maintenance technicians due to inadvertent

mixing of inch and metric parts and tools. In some cases additional shop space will be

required for maintaining equipment in both systems especially when separate metric and

nonmetric operations must be maintained.

Metalworking equipment (machine tools) for the most part has a long life span.

Some of the items in use today are over 35 years old and still operating. The Defense

Industrial Plant Equipment Center reports that the DOD has 144, 122 machine tools in the

DIPEC inventory which had an original acquisition cost of approximately $2.4 billion.

Studies indicate that modification of the inventory would cost approximately $115 million.

Gauges, markings, and dials on 95 percent of this equipment are graduated in the inchpound system. Inch-pound and metric machine tools are generally capable of producing

100
components dimensioned in either system of units provided the operator has the necessary

measuring equipment. The major exceptions are screw threads, gears, and splines.

Conversion of the feed mechanisms to enable a machine tool to be used under the metric

system could be achieved in two ways. The first, and usually more expensive method would

be to replace the feed screw and nut assemblies of the machine with units having metric

pitch. The alternative method would be to replace or add to the inch-pound reading

indicator one engraved in metric units.

There will be an increase in Federal Stock numbers due to dual part stockage.

Estimates for this increase range from a peak of 18% to 50%. Parts interchangeability and

shortages of metric material, particularly in the early conversion period, will be a problem. There will be some requirements for more storage space, and perhaps a need

to separate common items.

Metrication will, in the early phases, result in considerable confusion when attempting

to secure quotations for supply, services, and equipment. Additional management effort

will be required specifically for planning and phasing the production and procurement of

metric components. There will be some increase in acquisition and development time,

primarily due to gathering metric information, and preparing drawings with metric or dual

dimensions. Further, there will be a requirement for dual specifications, a need to update

technical documentation and an increase in the number of engineering changes. The procurement of off-the-shelf bits and pieces poses a peculiar conversion problem.

The majority of the dollar costs previously discussed in the report under Sec IV A.

,

Added Cost to Maintain Constant Mission Capability, will occur during this period. In addition to cost, time delays will also be encountered in the system acquisition area.

During the transition period, conversion to SI will result in a major increase in

complexity of industrial readiness planning. Industrial readiness planning will have to be

continuously updated as the conversion to SI proceeds. To maintain industrial readiness

during periods of hostilities or other military commitments, plans will have to be developed

so that production capability under the present system will not be lost until adequate

capability is assured under the metric system.

Computer programs for data systems will have to be revised. For example,

tactical data systems operating as an entity will require simultaneous conversion of all units if they are to retain their usefulness. Present gun and missile fire control computers

are of the analog type, except for some very recent systems which are digital. Analog

synchro data transmission systems are used with the analog computers. Sensors such as fire-control radars and optical rangefinders provide analog data readouts. All of these

elements of the fire control systems (computers, transmission systems, and sensors) are

calibrated in other than SI units. There is no simple and inexpensive way to convert

analog fire control systems to SI units.

New equipment will be designed and constructed using SI units of measurement

while other equipments which were designed and constructed using inch-pound units of

measurement are still in service. This means that the DOD will be operating mixed

equipment for an indefinite period. Under these circumstances, the possibility of

maintenance errors will increase through greater exposure to unintentional use of

improper tools, parts, instruments, and calibrations. It will be necessary to train

maintenance personnel in the use of both measurement systems to counteract possible

confusion and a greater possibility of error. Once the change to the metric system of

measurements is accomplished, the international cross servicing and maintenance of

systems will be less susceptible to error.

101
Installed and support equipment in operational systems may require modifications

to maintain system compatibility during the conversion process.

Communications procedures pertaining to weather, navigation, and takeoff /landing

instructions will have to be revised to accommodate the change.

Observations and weather reports will have to be changed to reflect metric measure

for ceilings, visibilities, altitudes, and windspeeds.

Long-term Advantages.

The establishment of a worldwide standard of weights and measures will facilitate

the interchange of ideas, technology, data, etc. Acceptance of the International System of

Units (SI) will contribute to the establishment of a worldwide standard for measurements.

This will allow elimination of multiple systems of units and will eliminate the necessity for

the time-consuming conversion required to transfer from one system of units to another.

Several of the advantages which will accrue to the DOD are listed below.

There will be the potential advantage of worldwide compatibility in every phase of

operations.

Commonality of items and systems between U. S. and foreign nations will expedite

repairs on inoperative equipment, thus providing possible support in areas where support

is now nonexistent.

An increased potential for international standardization will result in the necessity

to procure, handle, stock, distribute, operate, and maintain fewer systems /equipments

and thus reduce the expenditure of resources.

Metrication will make our measurement system more compatible with that of our

Allies worldwide. This will provide for easier and better interface between our weapons

systems and those of our allies. Exchange of information will also be expedited by

simplifying the understanding of all data including design, operations, and training.

Acceptance of the metric units will provide a simplicity not inherent in the inchpound system or similar systems of units which do not have a base of 10. It will eliminate

the current hybrid mix of units now used throughout the various technologies. There is only one definition and one name for e'ach unit (in the inch-pound system, for example,

there are different sized "ounces" and "pounds" depending upon whether Troy weight or Avoirdupois weight is being utilized); the units in other systems have a mixed relationship

to each other (e.g., inches - feet - yards - rods - miles) but the SI units are related by

factors of 10. As a result, complex conversion factors are not required for calculations.

Calculations will be in the simplest form possible (e.g., no complex conversion factor will

be needed to convert meters to millimeters, which is not the case, for example, in converting

rods to inches and will be performed with ease and less error).

Favorable results from standardization on metric units of measurement can provide

impetus for standardization of hardware.

Metrication will provide potential advantage in standardization and worldwide

availability of standard packages, parts and equipment procured through the local purchase

sources.

102
Metrication will reduce the total training time required to teach and indoctrinate

mechanics, engineers, and others.

The chance for error in computations will be greatly reduced when the metric

system is fully implemented. Compatibility will be achieved among range instrumentation,

scientific measuring devices, and engineering units.

A general modernization and updating of individual plant equipment, ground equipment, and shop hand tools can be expected upon converting to the metric system.

Savings will be realized in automatic data processing time as a result of fewer

conversions and simpler programming.

Long-term Disadvantages .

The completion of metrication will leave some long-term disadvantages. Those that

will occur deal with long life items which will remain in inventory well after the programmed

transition. These include:

There will be difficulty experienced in retaining material and manpower for the

maintenance, modification or activation of existing long-life systems, equipments and

facilities.

Dual (inch-pound and metric) ranges of material and support equipment will have to be maintained in inventory in varying quantities for a period approaching thirty years.

Due to smaller production runs, there will be an increasingly greater cost of

material produced under the inch-pound system for the maintenance, modification or

activation of systems, equipments and facilities.

There will be a continuing need for the training of personnel in the use of inch-pound

systems.

There could be a forced obsolescence of productive, useful and otherwise satisfactory

material.

There could be a loss of skilled manpower due to the inability to train existing

skilled technicians to an equal degree of proficiency in the use of the metric system.

Prepositioned equipment may need conversion before being activated.

103

APPENDIX E

International Standards

and Piece Parts

105
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

One of the most important consequences of a change to the metric system

by the United States would be the effect of the change on international standards.

International standards are now becoming one of the most potent factors in international

trade. The highly industrialized nations of the world are modifying their national

standards to be compatible with those developed by the International Organization for

Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission. The developing

countries are accepting many of these international standards, often without change, as their national standards and as the basis for purchasing goods from abroad.

Practically all standards involve measurements of one kind or another, so any

major change in the system of measurements used in the standards is bound to have a major

effect on the standards themselves. The introduction of SI units into engineering standards

is only one facet of metrication. It is a step now being taken by national standardizing

organizations and is not dependent on the entire country changing its measurement units.

It is a necessary step in fostering the use of United States standards internationally. It is clear that the critical period is upon us and that international standards are and will move

rapidly forward in this decade towards completion of the bulk of the work with or without

us. Our choice is to withdraw and try to adjust later or participate now and influence things

more toward our own desires.

PIECE PARTS

One of the greatest areas of impact would be conversion from the United

States standard off-the-shelf bits and pieces to those of the metric system. If the U. S. decides to convert, the plan must establish exactly where we are going in this area. We

must establish those DOD standard and industry standard bits and pieces we are going to redimension in the metric system and keep, and those which do not conveniently

redimension in the metric system or would be an awkward size or shape in the metric

assortment and hence must be abandoned. The problem closely related to any measuring

system is industrial standardization within the system and the full benefit of a universal

measuring system would not occur unless the industrial countries accept a set of universal

standards such as those of an international standards organization.

The two systems of off-the-shelf items (e.g., screws, nuts, bolts) should

not be mixed on any one weapon system component since it would greatly complicate

logistics support and maintenance. Perhaps, a clean break should be made on those

weapon system components which utilize metric off-the-shelf hardware. In converting the

J-79 engine, the German engineers stuck strictly with the U. S. standard bit and piece

hardware items.

As a result of current investigations, it is now believed that the metric

standard off-the-shelf bit and piece hardware that would be used in a weapon system, is not superior in any way to that available under the U.S. system. For instance, it is not believed that metric bits and pieces would improve performance or increase reliability.

Therefore, the only advantage to transitioning to some metric standard system of hardware

would be to standardize to bit and piece hardware used by several countries. This, of

course, would be of tremendous advantage within an organization such as NATO.

106
APPENDIX

Legal Aspects

107

On 28 July 1866, the thirty-ninth Congress (Session 1, Chapter CCCI) approved "An

Act to authorize the Use of the Metric System of Weights and Measures, " This Act reads

as follows

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this act it shall be

lawful throughout the United States of America to employ the weights and measures of the

metric system; and no contract or dealing, or pleading in any court, shall be deemed

invalid or liable to objection because the weights or measures expressed or referred to therein are weights or measures of the metric system.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the tables in the schedule hereto annexed shall

be recognized in the construction of contracts, and in all legal proceedings, as establishing,

in terms of the weights and measures now in use in the United States, the equivalents of the

weights and measures expressed therein in terms of the metric system; and said tables may

be lawfully used in computing, determining, and expressing in customary weights and

measures the weights and measures of the metric system. "

MEASURES OF LENGTH

METRIC DENOMINATIONS AND VALUES

Myriameter 10,000 meters

Kilometer 1, 000 meters

Hectometer 100 meters

Dekameter 10 meters

Meter 1 meter

Decimeter 1 of a meter

fo

Centimeter ..... 1 of a meter

fob

Millimeter 1 of a meter

1000

METRIC DENOMINATIONS AND VALUES

Hectare 10, 000 square meters

Are 100 square meters

Centare 1 square meter

EQUIVALENTS IN DENOMINATIONS IN USE

6. 2137 miles

0.62137 miles, or 3280 feet and ten inches

328 feet and 1 inch

393. 7 inches

39. 37 inches

3.937 inches

0. 3937 inches

0. 03937 inches

EQUIVALENTS IN DENOMINATIONS IN USE

2. 471 acres

119.6 square yards

1550 square inches

MEASURES OF SURFACE

METRIC DENOMINATIONS AND VALUES OF CAPACITY & WEIGHTS AS EXPRESSED IN

THE 1866 LAW ARE CONTINUED IN TABLES 1 & 2.

109
H

GOOs—

H

13

doi—

—

'os)

CD

(M

03doi—

r—

ni

t-H CD

CM

03do,—

i—

03

CD

U

033a1 cCD

LOO

no

oo

030)od

=5od.—I

CO

oo

oo

1X1 a

n3

in 13TS

•r-l I 1 «fH crd H *Hb-H u

<1p<uoH

PiP Owp

ooH

125 PJ

i—

P

ooWPJ>Q

<!

!3Oi—i HO

13HQU

P3HW

rH

03

o3

cua

!>» Pu

!3 o

en

QJa

cd

03 TJ

Sh

03 X3O

coo

ooXoooo0u

0303

rHo

ShO

r—

H

O

<Da

OO

T3d

03

CD

03 XOooo

Sh03

cr' coo o

a> E o

CD 13Xu

o3 P

03 03

0) 0) 03 X <D o o X! d d o

rH

H

d

03 o O

i-i +> r-l •rH o

fnX

X •rH 03 d X

=3

O o d

cr

CM oCM

CO (M o i—

O O T-H CD CD T"H CD o O CD o o

Sha> +j

0)a

•rH o

0) X5X

rHCD

-t-> 0)a

•rHO

CD -ax

CJ

CfHoO

CD P X3

CJ

U

CD +>

0)a

rHdouX3O

.oo

is P

CD

co

CO

CD XI

T3

0)03

03

CD

rHax

CD

CO <1

dU

110
w

COOi—

EH<OWQ

CO

EHWJ

Ofw oa

fn

•rHO>

CO -acoao

CM

CM

CD CO CO CO CO CO

<D <D r-i (-1 CO T3 CI CJ CJ d •rH •l-l •T-l Ti{J fH

r-i

—

fH

r-t Co CO TO 0 O cd fn fH fn 3 o a o o u too CUD toD O a bD a CD c- CM CO

CD <tf t> CM CM COm

CD

O CM in co

m

O CM in CO

m T"H o O CM (M CO o m H O o

CM

CM

CM CO

cd t—

COw&>Q

coOi—

EHO

S3HQ01—4 PS

EHW o S ^ c

•Th CD 3 ^ 3 | O -ii ^ cd

bo

g

<H-H o

cdfnb0

CO

CDa

rQooooooo3

cdCDo

EH

ShO

fHCD

CJCD

CO

fH

CD -H ooooo ooo 3

cdfn

bJD cd

•rHfH

Oooo

I—

•rH Muo£

cdu

too O

r—

• rH r4 o

CD O

a3fn

too o+jo

CD

CO

fnCD

H-> CDa

•rH +>c

CD

CJo

cd

fntoo cd

CD P

fn

CD

4-= CD

rQ

CJ

cd

fn O

rQOo

rQO

rQ

13O

rH

O IS •

cd J

COCO

CO

rH

CD rQd•rH o T3 o <D o CO 1—

CO

CD

fnaX

CD

CO < a

cd

fntoo

•rHo

CD 0

cd

fn

too

•rH

H-3a

CD U

cd

fn

too

111
The 1866 law and any other enactments which mention inch-pound units of measurement,

should be reviewed by the National Bureau of Standards to determine the need for updating.

It is envisioned that any legal problems would be of the "constructive change theory"

type. Under this concept, contractors may be expected to request price increases due to the metrication schedule and defective specifications wherein the difficulty of converting

from inch-pound units of measurement into exact equivalents in the metric system of

measurement would probably cause manufacturing problems, particularly in tolerances.

Contracts would be let on design disclosures which were improperly converted, making

legal action common for companies to claim government fault. Government material

furnished under a contract would not fit the contractor's machine tools causing added

expense and dissatisfaction, both by the government and contractor alike. If requirements

for metrication were so imposed as to apply to existing contracts specifying inch-pound

measurements, some kind of blanket change terminology would presumably have to be

devised (e.g., "All dimensions stated in the contract drawings in terms of inches are hereby changed to the nearest equivalent measurement in centimeters, carried out to the

nth decimal place"). The contract actions, both the boiler plate section of government

contracts and the quotes contractors submit as a response would contain new statements

disavowing responsibility for problems stemming from the introduction of SI units. In many cases the contractor would be placed at a disadvantage. The government, on the

other hand, could also find itself in a comparable position. Legal action would be much

more common than now experienced.

Armed Service Procurement Regulations (ASPR) should be changed to accommodate

a possible change to the metric system of measurements.

One clause that would require change covers "Guaranteed Maximum Shipping

Weights and Dimensions" (ASPR 2-201(a)B(X)), which includes a requirement to show

weight in pounds and dimensions of containers in inches.

A patent grant gives to its owner the right to exclude others from practicing an

inventive concept not restricted to a particular dimension or quality. Although the patent

system is presently undergoing significant change, this precept is not expected to change.

Each patent must include a complete technical disclosure of a preferred embodiment of the

inventive concept so that one ordinarily skilled in the art may construct and practice the

invention, but the disclosure need not include specific dimensions or quantities unless such

dimensional or quantitative limitations are critical to practicing the concept. Where such

critical limitations are recited in the patent claims in inch-pound units, the patent law

doctrines of substantiality and equivalency will enable the claims to be construed in metric

units. Metric units have traditionally been used in chemical patents and these doctrines

have extended these patents against infringing products or processes where the critical

limitations are characterized in nonmetric units. Accordingly, it is not foreseeable that

any novel legal questions would arise in the field of patent law through metrication.

ASPR IX, Part 1, describes mandatory patent clauses for research and development

contracts awarded by DOD procuring activities. These clauses establish criteria for

determining the relative patent rights of the Government and the contractor in inventories

arising out of such contracts, and they do not alter the basic precept that patents are granted on inventive concepts and are not restricted to specified dimensional or quantitative

embodiments. Accordingly, no changes in these clauses appear necessary at this time for

metrication.

Data rights, often called proprietary rights in data, involve a very complex area

in the law of trade secrets. The data may describe a secret process of manufacture or

characteristics of an end item which cannot be determined by inspection or analysis.

112
ASPR IX, Part 2, deals with this area of the law insofar as Government acquisition of

rights in data. The regulation contains no specific provisions as might relate to metrication,

but there are provisions which might be so construed. These areas should be reviewed to assure they delineate more particularly the respective rights of the Government and

contractors in data converted pursuant to a metrication program. For example, the

rights of the Government should be clarified as to data (converted to SI system at private

expense) pertaining to items developed at Government expense, and as to data (converted

to the SI system at Government expense) pertaining to items developed at private expense.

A copyright grants authors or owners an exclusive right to publish certain types

of works including technical books and drawings. The copyright extends only to the manner

of presentation of information or concepts, and not to the information or concepts themselves.

Metrication may raise questions whether or not a copyrighted work converted from inchpound units to the SI system would result in a copyright infringement. The ASPR data

clause provides for the Government acquiring license to any copyrighted material specified

to be delivered under contract. It appears that this provision and others should be studied

in relation to court decisions to determine whether or not further clarification is required.

Presumably the primary responsibility for drafting the laws necessary for a change to the use of metric measurements would be in the Department of Commerce. After such

law has been drafted, the DOD should have an opportunity to review and comment, prior

to its enactment, from the standpoint of need for exception clauses. It would appear that

sufficient sanctions already are provided under legislation and regulation affecting

personnel and their conduct in relation to orders or directives to effect such compliance

as may be directed. In addition, the attractiveness of any contract award, at a price

satisfactory to the bidder, would appear likely to gain us contractual agreements to employ

the metric system on goods ordered as a necessary incident of compliance with specifications

expressed in metric terms.

113

APPENDIX G

Current Usage

of Metric System

115
The metric system is already in use in many fields of research, i.e., material

sciences, physics, chemistry, earth sciences, biological and medical sciences. In the

more scientifically oriented aspects of research, the use of the metric system is virtually

complete. Both the metric and the inch-pound system of weights and measures are used

extensively in the nuclear sciences and related engineering. Generally, all scientific

measurements in oceanography (other than depth and tide) are made using metric units.

The metric system is the present standard of electrical measurement. The standards

covering the expression of voltage, resistance, current, magnetics, capacitance,

inductance, quantities of power and frequency are directly traceable to SI units. Important

SI units which are the common United States units are the watt, coulomb, joule, ampere,

farad, henry, weber and ohm. Pharmaceuticals, laboratory equipment, surgical measurements, calibration devices, optical instruments, photographic equipments and certain

gunfire control systems are produced in the SI system. Mechanical items now

commercially available in SI measurements include spark plugs and ball bearings.

For international exchange of weather information, Air Weather Service uses the metric

system for observing, recording, and processing of some environmental parameters;

specifically, visibility, temperature, and dew point.

The metric system is quite extensively used in the medical service at the present time.

Clinical laboratories have been and are fully utilizing the metric system of weights and

measures in all their technical procedures. Applicable directives, laboratory texts, etc., are printed to correspond with this actual metric system usage. Hospital pharmacies

uitlize the metric system exclusively in the manufacturing and administration of drugs

(includes prescription writing). Under nursing services, the metric system is used in the

administration of medication (oral, intramuscular, intravenous, anesthesia) in DOD medical

facilities. Measures of input and output of patients are completed in the metric system.

The dental service is already fully using the metric system in the treatment of animals

and operation of their zoonosis control clinic.

The metric system has limited application in the munitions field, i.e., 20mm cannon

and 7.62mm machine gun. Explosive ordnance disposal publication lists explosive weight

in grams /kilograms. Munitions components (fuses, delay elements, boosters, etc.)

have their explosive weight measured in grams. The kilogram is the unit of weight

measurement for radioactive materials.

Field Armies make only limited use of metric measurement or hardware, although

tactical operations are specified in metric units. Army Regulation 310-3 expressly states

that the metric system will be used to express linear distances in matters pertaining to tactical and related administrative support operations, e.g., air and road distances,

rates of movement, etc.

The metric system is currently used in facilities construction in most overseas bases.

Weights and measures of shipments to foreign countries are converted to the metric

system so that they can be handled by foreign transportation contractors.

Common areas of metric system usage are photography, electrical/electronic,

medical photometry, holography, and laboratory equipment. Geodetic measurements

(including satellite geodesy) use metric units. Metric units are also utilized to some degree

in the areas of electromagnetic radiation, propagation, sensing, infrared, ranging devices,

signal processing and interpretation, photographic instrumentation, close air support

operations and mapping.

116
APPENDIX H

Customary Standards

that should be Retained

117
Inch-pound standards that have wide international acceptance should be retained until

suitable metric standards are developed and accepted. An example of this type of

standard would be the unified screw thread standard for fasteners. The ABC (American,

British, Canadian) standardization of the Unified Screw Thread System has established,

throughout the world, a thoroughly documented, efficient system superior to any other

screw thread system in existence today. The ABC Unified Screw Thread System is recognized as an international standard in metric countries. There is no single metric

thread standard in common usage within all of the metric countries at the present time.

Standards/ specifications for these items should not be recommended for conversion to SI units at this time. Other standards have universal acceptance and should not be changed.

Tires and wheels produced in metric countries, as well as in the United States, are manufactured and sold in inch sizes. Similarly, the DOD procures an enormous amount

of petroleum products (oils, greases, gasolines, aviation fuels, etc.) from United States

firms that have affiliates in almost every oil producing country today. The standards/

specifications for these products are accepted and used throughout the metric countries.

They should be retained and not proposed for conversion to SI units at the present time.

Many military standards will remain unchanged since they will be required to support

existing equipment. Special units of measure such as artillery mil for fire control and

wind direction and sieve dimensions for propellant and explosive manufacture should also

remain unchanged. A thorough review of the Department of Defense Index of Specifications

and Standards would be required to list all military standards to be retained.

In addition to standards, there are nonmetric units of measure which have worldwide

acceptance. It seems highly improbable that any nation using SI units would abandon such

units as the hour, day, year, nautical mile, degrees, minute of arc, etc. For example,

the recommended SI unit of angular measurement (radian) provides no significant

computational advantage over using degrees. Further, air traffic control and navigation

instrumentation (glide slope, bearing, etc.) would be needlessly complicated and confused

by converting to radians as a standard for angular measurement. Within navigation,

another unit to be retained is the nautical mile. The recommended SI unit of distance

(kilometers) is not consistent with the divisions of latitude and longitude, the basis for all

navigation. The nautical mile has been devised to be consistent with a minute of latitude.

Navigation could be needlessly complicated if the measurement of nautical miles was

replaced with kilometers. If the knot and nautical mile are retained, the entire system of

navigation as used internationally could be preserved.

118
form NBS-114A (1-71)

ii c ncDT r»F rriUM 1 PI1RI If A T FOW OR RFPORT MO

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA HBS-SP-3U5-9

l^lnn'f Af^'iliCOIAI'l No.

3» \{ e i !

f 1 1 n i s -

: u i. i' s s i un No*

4^ • TTTT 111 1 F". r\AMDIN ^URTTTl jU Dill l..r, F U.S. Metric Study Interim Report:

J-'C UclX OiUCLl 0 Ui UCiCIlOC

5« Publn a 1. 1 on Da te June, 1971

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

L. E. Barbrow, Coordinator

8. Performing Organization

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

• u. rroject/ lasK/ worK unit ino. 1+063129

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period C 0v e re d Interim

14, Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) This publication reports the results of a Department of Defense study, conducted

pursuant to the U.S. Metric Study Act, to determine and evaluate the advantages and

disadvantages, including impact on operational capability, that would attend adoption

of the International System of units of weights and measures (otherwise known as the

Modernized Metric System) for use in the Department (DoD). The report includes

estimates for each of the major components of the DoD of the costs of a transition to

metric system usage. In addition to discussing the specific advantages and disadvantages that would be expected within the Department , the report describes the

dependence of the DoD on the National Industrial Base, and discusses how this

interaction would be involved in a national metrication effort.

7. key words (Alphabetical order, separated by semicolons) Department of Defense; International System

of Units; metric conversion; metric system; metrication; metrication, costs and

benefits of; metrication, impact of; SI; U.S. Metric Study

18. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF PAGES

1X1 UNLIMITED. UNCL ASSIFIED 132

1 1 FOR OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION. DO NOT RELEASE

TO NTIS.

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

22. Price

USCOMM-DC 66244-P71

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRFNTING OFFICE : 1971 O - 437-669