Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1963-03-01
BY CECIL HOLLAND
Star staff Writer

eral Dynamics Corp. OF the
controversial Tx warplane
contract.
This was revealed with the
release today of transcripts Of
closed-door testimony before
the Senate investigations Sub
committee yesterday after
noon. The subcommittee is
undertaking to determine
whether improper influence
figured In the award.
The subcommittee had been
told earlier that the Pentagon's
civilian bosses overruled unan-
imous military recommends
tons favoring a Boeing Aircraft
Co. design that had greater
bomb carrying capacity. longer
range and was less costly by
estimates ranging from 500
million to more than $400
million.
Used Other Figures
Chairman Mcclellan, Demo-
crat Of Arkansas, and SUBJ
committee Counsel Jerome Ad-
lerman said Mr.. Zuckert had
used figures in his justification
other than those of the mill
tary evaluation boards which
recommended the Boeing de-
sign.
Senator Mcclellan demanded
Of two Air Force colonies who
were testifying at the time,
When are we going to get
figures we can rely on?" and
a little later he said:
II don't understand why the
Secretary would use those fig
ures that would be regarded as
less accurate, less reliable, in
writing a letter of justifica-
ton"
One Of Mr.. Zuckert's figures
cited a ferry range attributed
to the General Dynamics plane.
Questions Figures
THE General Dynamics
plane cannot do 1t, but the
figure expressed there is the
figure that the Boeing plane
can do, is that correct?" Mr..
Alderman asked.
II believe that is correct"
replied Air Force Col. Charles
A. Gayle, program director Of
the Tx project.
The Senate investigators also
challenged Mr.. Zuckert's justi-
fication in two other partic-
ulars. In one, the subcommittee
wanted to know why he men,
toned only the General Dy-
namics design in connection
with performance at supersonic
speed when both planes. it was
brought out, could do the
same.
According to the testimony,
the Secretary also erred on the
takeoff capability Of the two
planes. THE Secretary missed
the Boeing figure by SO feet
and General Dynamics by ITO
feet" Mr.. Alderman said.
Assume Mistake
At one point Col. Gayle re-
marked that II can only as
sumo that we made a mistake. "
I'VE have found a good many
mistakes, and I don't want to
be critical" Senator McClel-
Ian commented. II know that in
dealing with a problem like
this, 1t is not easy :"
AS the committee recessed
for the week end. the investi-
eating Senators indicated that
Secretary Of Defense McNa-
mara and Mr.. Zuckert face a
tough siege Of questioning about
the contract and why they
overruled the military recon-
mendations. Both officials and
Navy Secretary Korth will be
witnesses later in the hearing.
The subcommittee earlier en-
tered In the hearing record a
comparison Of the General Dy-
namics and Boeing Aircraft
proposals.
Three Sets Of Figures
Three sets Of cost figures
were included in the subcom-
mittee's table based on infor-
nation supplied and verified
by the Air Force.
They showed that Boeing
first submitted a bid Of $5.364
billion, or about $50 million less
than General Dynamics' offer
on $5.455 billion.
An Air Force adjustment to
include costs Of spare parts
and other supporting consider
atoms increased the Boeing bid
to $5.387 billion. as against
General Dynamics' $5.803 bill
lion, or a difference favoring
Boeing Of more than $3.50 mil
lion.
In another set Of figures the
Air Force estimated that the
program actually should cost
$6.983 billion under the Boeine
proposal and $7.0s3 billion, q
difference Of 500 million.
Savings Queried
Does that mean that the
Air Force estimated that Boe-
ing would save the taxpayers
more money as against Gen.
eral Dynamics than Boeing it.