DECL

ASSI

FIED

-PUB

LIC

DISC

LOSU

RE

IMSM

-130-9

6 DE

CLAS

SIFIE

-MIS

E EN

LECT

URE

PUBL

IQUE

N A m - g E G R C T

S i COPY NO.

NORTH ATLANTIC MILITARY COMMITTEE COMITE MILITAIRE DE L'ATLANTIQUE NORD

7 November 1958 Pages 1

MEMORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY COMMITTEEIN PERMANENT SESSION

SUBJECT: References :

Criteria and Standards for NIKE InfrastructureMCM-II8-58 dtd l6 Sep 58SHAPE AG 644O/E-111A/5Ö LOG dtd 15 Apr 58STAND 258O dtd 19 Aug 58

a.b.c. _ _

ff. DEF 948089 d<a 15 Sep 58

1, By reference a members of the Military Committee inPermanent Session were requested to approve or comment on reference b,as amended by reference c, corrected by reference d.

2. Those comments which have been received in response to reference a are shown in the Enclosure, together with the Standing Group's comments and the recommended Military Committee/action.

3. The Standing Group recommends that the Military Committee take no further action on these comments.

\

4. Your approval of reference b, as amended by reference c_, corrected by reference d, wlll^be sought at your next meeting, scheduled for I3 November 1958.

1 ENCLOSUREReplies to MCM-llB-58 •/ and SGN Comments thereon

DISTRIBUTION : A C D-3 E9 F

A. E. van DISHOECK Lt Colonel, R.Neth.Army Deputy Secretary

Per Authority. T l f S M - Î 3 0*9 6

^ Date§>£X9o

N M Q — 6 E G R E T

DECL

ASSI

FIED

-PUB

LIC

DISC

LOSU

RE

IMSM

-130-3

6 DE

CLAS

SIFIE

-MIS

E EN

LECT

URE

PUBL

IQUE

ENCLOSURE 1Pages 1 - 6 , Incl.

COMMENTS ON MCM-II8-58

NATION RESPONSE SGN RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS

Belgium LMPT 96/14/INFO of 9 Oct 58"1. In message at refer­

ence b, (not received in Standing Group) the Belgian military authorities drew SACEUR's attention to the necessity of including camouflage in the stand­ards for NIKE sites.

"2. This proposal does not seem to have been re­tained and is not shown in the list of amendments offered by Standing Group in message at reference c_. The Belgian authorities request that their pro­posal be afforded consider­ation.

"3. In message at refer­ence c_, Standing Group recommends the addition of a new sentence to para­graph 25 of document AG 644O/É-111A/58 LOG, examined to specify 'that the signal installations of the WACKERNHEIM site will serve as guides.'The Belgian authorities feel that it is indis­pensable that the signal standards be published. Although the 'guidance' of WACKERNHEIM creates possibilities of discus­sion, they do not, even temporarily, constitute an acceptable solution.

"4. I would be grateful to have these two points taken Into consideration."

1. In view of the shortage of infrastructure funds, the facili­ties being provided are planned on the basis that only the mini­mum essential facilities will be constructed. It is recognized that it would be desirable to camouflage these installations. however, camouflage is not con­sidered as a minimum essential facility. Furthermore, initial strikes by an enemy would most likely be directed at the nuclear strike bases and surface-to- surface missile sites rather than at the anti-aircraft means. Hence camouflage of sites, while desir­able, cannot be supported in the criteria governing site construc­tion. SGN recommends, according­ly, that the Mil Com note the comment and make no change in the criteria.2. With reference to the com­

ment pertaining to the signal facilities at the WACKERNHEIM site as a guide, SGN invites attention to para 25 which speci­fically states that signal commu­nications requirements will be issued separately. However, SGN is still of the opinion that the facilities being, provided at the WACKERNHEIM site will be helpful as a guide pending completion of these requirements. SGN recom- . mends that the Mil Com note the comment and make no change in the criteria.

Canada LMPT 96/12/INFO of 23 Sep"1. As requested by

reference <3 Canada has no military comments to offer on reference a as amended by reference b."

No comment,

BB.fjinfflfr - m u m - l - Enclosure 1MCM-159-58

DECL

ASSI

FIED

-PUB

LIC

DISC

LOSU

RE

IMSM

-130-9

6 DE

CLAS

SIFIE

-MIS

E EN

LECT

URE

PUBL

IQUE

NATION RESPONSE SGN COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS

France Approves reference b as amended, ""

No comment.

Italy LMPT 96/16/INFO of 14 Oct"1. The criteria and

standards for NIKE Infra­structure have already been taken into full account for the realiza­tion of the NIKE sites in 'flat terrain.'"2. In their opinion

however it is deemed neces­sary to reconsider the following points:- decision on common financing for 'ready building' regardless of the distance from the launching area;- definition of cost sharing for local utili­ties among host nation and NATO with particular reference to mountain sites."

1. SGN acknowledges that it would be desirable to have a ready building at the site, regardless of the distance of the living area from the control area. However, in view of the shortage of infrastructure funds and in keeping with the policy of providing only the minimum essen­tial facilities, SGN supports SACEUR that a ready building is not essential if the living area is no further than 10 minutes travel time away. It is recommen­ded that the Military Committee note the comment and make no change In the criteria.2. With reference to the cost

sharing of utilities, SGN draws attention to the fact that this is a financial matter beyond the terms of reference of the military authorities. This is a matter for the Council to determine. It is recommended that the Military Committee note the comment and make no change in the criteria.

Portugal LMPT 96/13/INFO of 6 Oct"Regarding paragraph 2

of reference a please note my concurrence for the approval of criteria laid on document In b as amended by reference b,"

No comment.

U.K. LMPT 96/21/INFO of 31 OctApproves reference b as amended.

No comment.

U.S. LMPT 96/13/INFO of 6 Oct"In accordance with

paragraph 2 of reference a, the United States approves reference b, as amended by reference £. "

No comment.

MCM-159-58- 2 - Enclosure 1

DECL

ASSI

FIED-

PUBL

IC

DISC

LOSU

RE

IMSM

-130-9

6 DE

CLAS

SIFIE

-MIS

E EN

LECT

URE

PUBL

IQUE

DII0]ntlr ■m m

NATION RESPONSE SGN COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Greece LMPT 96/18/INFO of 20 Oct"With regard to the

criteria and standards for NIKE Infrastructure, I should like to Inform you that the Hellenic Authori­ties have no comments."

No comment.

Norway LMPT 96/17/INFO of 20 Oct"This is to Inform you

that the criteria and standards for NIICE Infra­structure as amended, is approved by the Norwegian authorities.---- :--- ---- ---r»-- f +.----------

No comment.

Nether- LMPT 96/19/lNFO of 20 Oct lands

"In accordance with reference a, paragraph 2, the Netherlands Military Authorities submit the following comments on the proposed criteria and standards for NIKE Infrastructure.

"1. Reference b, page 5, Chap II, para lie 'General'

It is recommended to use the words 'usable space' as criterion to define areas for buildings. This practice was followed In 'SHAPE criteria and Stand­ards fbr Tactical Airfields.1

"2. Reference b, page 7> Chapter_par~. 16 'Roads and Hardstands.~

To avoid unnecessary troubles in transporting missiles in the launcher area lt is suggested to define the minimum radius of the road curves.

1. Since space normally is a measure of volume and since it is desired to permit flexibility in the utilization of standard type buildings in the various nations, the term area was used. SGN recommends that the Mil Com note the comment and make no change in the criteria.

2. The radius of curvature of roads will be as specified in the definitive drawings referred to in paragraph 4d of criteria.SGN recommends that the Mil Com note the comment and make no change in the criteria.

- NftS# - 3 •~ Enclosure 1MCM-159-58

DECL

ASSI

FIED

-PUB

LIC

DISC

LOSU

RE

IMSM

-130-3

6 DE

CLAS

SIFIE

-MIS

E EN

LECT

URE

PUBL

IQUE

NATION RESPONSE SGN COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Netheiv lands (cont'd)

LMPT 96/19/INFO of 20 Oct

k f g f - 3 ''3. Reference b,

)'arChapter II, _______ ___'Vehicle parking and'main­tenance area. '̂

Reference b, page 17> Annex Fj Serial 27 'Motor pool area. 1 ̂ ' ̀ ~

Defining hardstanding at 35 square meters per vehicle will result in divergent interpretation, because the actual number of vehicles allotted to the units is left to the discretion of the nation concerned.

It is preferred to define the total area of hard- standing needed. This practice was also followed in ’SHAPE Criteria and Standards for Tactical Airfields .* . .

"4. Reference b , page 14, Annex D, Serial Reference b ,: page . l5>Annex E, Serial 10,Reference b, paga 1?,Annex P, Serial 2a,'Fuel storage.rAs a '30 day consump­

tion* is not a concrete standard, different storage capacities will be laid down by the various nations concerned.

It is suggested to define the total storage capacity needed in con­crete numbers. This practice was also fol­lowed in »SHAPE Standards for Tactical Airfields.*

3. The criteria specifies in Annex A the number of vehicles in the battalion. In order to permit flexibility in the use of these vehicles the criteria is based on space per vehicle rather than a total space at battalion and battery sites. SGN recommends that the Mil Com note the comment and make no change in the criteria,

4. Flexibility is permitted in the criteria by specifying that storage up to 30 days consumption will be provided, depending On the remoteness of site* If the site is extremely remote, then 3O days storage will be required for all fuels. On the other hand, if access is ex­cellent and nearby storage is adequate, certainly storage would not be provided for heating purposes. SGN recommends that the Mil Com note the comment and giake no change in the criteria.

_______ - - 4 - Enclosure 1MC M - I 59-58

DECL

ASSI

FIED-

PUBL

IC

DISC

LOSU

RE

IMSM

-130-3

6 DE

CLAS

SIFIE

-MIS

E EN

LECT

URE

PUBL

IQUE

QEODBg - W

NATION RESPONSE SGN COMMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS

Nether- LMPT 96/I9/INFO of 20 Oct lands(cont'd) "5. Reference b, page 15j

Annex E, serials 2 and 4.As no particular bearing

strength is required from the hardstanding of fueling area and launcher aprons - and also considering the fact that concrete is not acid proof - it is con­sidered unnecessary and needlessly expensive to utilize concrete for these facilities.

A more economical con­struction - as rolled road metal or pavement - might satisfy the requirement.

"6. Reference b pageparagraph d, Reference b, page 15, Annex E, Serial 2

As the NIKE HERCULES missile is propelled by solid fuels, it is presumed that the requirement for a 'fueling area' is superfluous for this type. If this presumption is correct it should be so stated. 11

5. Serial 2, page 15, specifies that the fueling area will be of concrete construction.Paragraph l6g, page 7 , speci­fies that areas subject to spillage will be of concrete with acid resistant joint material. Similarly, serial 4, page 15, states the thickness of concrete required. Finally, paragraph 4, page 1, states that plans and specifications of the U.S. Army Wackernheim site will be used as a guide which will indicate the required bearing strengths, SGN, there­fore, re commends that the Mil Com note the comment and make no change in the criteria.

6.. Paragraph lie which was added by reference c, STAND 2580, states: "Liquid fuelling facili­ties will be provided as long as (AJAX) missiles are in the inventory. For economy purposes, the fuelling, warhead assembly, and testing areas should be consolidated subject to the adoption of adequate maintenance, handling and transportation safety standards. Since this adequately covers this statement, SGN recommends that the M il Com note the comment and make no change in the criteria.

Turkey LMPT 96/20/INF0 of 28 Oct"This office approves

the Criteria and Standards of NIKE infrastructure, which should be financed by NATO Common Infra­structure Funds."

No comment,

SBOHW - mm- - 5 - Enclosure 1MCM-159-58

DECL

ASSI

FIED-

PUBL

IC

DISC

LOSU

RE

IMSM

-130-9

6 DE

CLAS

SIFIE

-MIS

E EN

LECT

URE

PUBL

IQUE

rrn m/\

NATION RESPONSE SGN COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Germany LMPT 96/2O/INFO of 28 Oct"1. MOD Bonn agrees to

the amendments to reference document b , proposed in reference £ above. ~

''2. As regards micro­wave radiation safety distances,mentioned in paragraph 7<i> of reference document c, no pertinent information has ever been received by MOD Bonn. Therefore,MOD Bonn would appreciate to know how wide these safety distances are,11

Denmark LMPT 96/21/INFO"In compliance with No comment,

reference a > paragraph 2,I wish to TnfoiTO you that the Danish authorities have no comments on references b and c,"

SHAPE will be requested to forward the information requested in paragraph s to host nations.

- WMfr» - 6 - Enclosure 1MCM-159-58