unclassified ad 403 653
TRANSCRIPT
UNCLASSIFIED
AD 403 653
DEFENSE DOCUMENTATION CENTERFOR
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHN!CAL INFORMATION
CAMERON STATION. ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA
UNCLASIFIE
U NCLASSJFHED
NOTICE: When government or other drawings, speci-fications or other data are used for any purposeother than in connection with a definitely relatedgovernment procurement operation, the U. S.Government thereby incurs no responsibility, nor anyobligation whatsoever; and the fact that the Govern-ment may have fonmulated, furnished, or in any waysupplied the said drawings, specifications, or otherdata is not to be regarded by implication or other-wise as in any manner licensing the holder or anyother person or corporation, or conveying any rightsor permission to manufacture, use or sell anypatented invention that may in any way be relatedthereto.
This report bag been 8p!PrQvmd forel .
Final Report, Contract No. ARDS-6281 COMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS OF MICROWAVE
AND WIRELINE RADAR REMOTING TECHNIQUES
March, 1963
Project Number 151-IS
Prepared for
FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY
SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICE
By
SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH CORPORATIONBoston - Washington40
I
SYSEM ANLSSAN5 5ERH OPRT
FINAL REPORT, CONTRACT NO. ARDS-628
COMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS OF MICROWAVEAND WIRELINE RADAR REMDTING TECHNIQUES
March, 1963
Project Number 151-IS
This report has been prepared by Systems Analysis and ResearchCorporation for the Systems Research and Development Service,Federal Aviation Agency, under Contract No. ARDS-628. Thecontents of this report reflect the views of the contractor,who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the datapresented herein, and do not necessarily reflect the officialviews or policy of the FAA.
SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH CORPORATIONBos ton-Washington
Systems Analysis and Research Corporation, Boston-WashingtonCOMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS OF MICROWAVE AND WIRELINE RADAR
REMOTING TECHNIQUESPrepared by John W. Drake and Robert L. Schein, March 1963,68 pp. includ. 22 tables, Final Report,(Contract Number ARDS-628)
ABSTRACT
The objective of this report is the comparison of thecost to the FAA, of wireline remoting of digitalized radarand beacon data (and beacon only) to Air Route Traffic Con-trol Centers with the costs for microwave remoting of the
F same information in analog form. The second technique in-cludes facilities for subsequent converting of the data todigital form at the center. The costs considered are thosenot yet sunk or committed, i.e., future costs. Costs forboth methods alone, and for a mixed system, are developedfor each of two nationwide remoting networks - that present-ly programmed including new links for which the FAA may becommitted through F.Y. 1964, and a hypothetical network toprovide radar coverage to 5,000' MSL or 3,000' above theterrain, whichever is higher.
Costs are developed for each microwave repeater andterminal pair of each link, based on individual variationsin terrain and hardware requirements.
For FAA/Air Force joint use sites which now have AirForce AN/FST-2 computers, various alternative3 are investi-gated including modifyiný the AN/FST-2 to provide the FAA itsrequired output, installing an FAA-tailored, modernized,solid-state radar processor alongside the Air Force T-2, orinstalling the FAA machine instead of the T-2 if it couldalso meet the Air Force's needs. Wireline costs were de-veloped under the assumption that the FAA would pay allcosts for any remoting equipment which it shares with theAir Force. The alternative assumption that the FAA and AirForce would share operating and maintenance costs equallywas also explored.
The investigation concludes that the difference in costbetween the two transmission methods is small. Where adifference does exist it generally favors the wireline tech-nique. In cases of extreme link length and/or very diffi-cult terrain, wireline is considerably less costly. For thegreat majority of all other links, if non-cost considerationsare of any appreciable importance, costs should probably notgovern any ultimate decision.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Major Assumptions and Conclusions ...................... 1
Assumptions ....................................... 1
Conclusions ....................................... 1
Introduction ........................................... 4
Statement of Problem ................................... 4
General Discussion of Research Approach ................ 5
Information Sources .................................... 7
The Microwave Systems .................................. 7
Siting Methodology ................................ 8
Site Location Classification ...................... 9
Facility Classification ........................... 10
Development of Unit Costs ......................... 10
Basic LMWR Costs ............................. 11
Development of Cost Matrices ...................... 14
Interpretation of Unit Costs ...................... 17
Development of Maintenance Costs .................. 17
Development of Electronic Equipment Costs ......... 19
Development of Data Processing Costs .............. 19
Application of Unit Costs ......................... 22
The Wireline Systems ................................... 30
General Discussion ................................ 30
Network Definitions ............................... 30
The Variables in Wireline Costing ................. 30
iv
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)
Transmission Charges .............................. 30
Data Conversion Cost .............................. 32
Netting ........................................... 33
Allocation of Cost Among Joint Users .............. 34
Beacon and Radar or Beacon Only System ............ 35
Wireline Cost Matrix .............................. 37
Application of Costs .............................. 37
The Least Cost Systems ................................. 47
Discussion of Methodology ......................... 47
Bibliography ........................................... 56
V
ILIST OF TABLESI
I Annual Costs Including Amortization of NewCapital Expenditures .......................... 3
II Development of LMWR Construction and In-stallation Costs ............................. 12
III Development of LMWT Construction and In-stallation Costs ............................. 13
IV Matrix of LMWR Construction and Instal-lation Costs ................................. 15
V Matrix of LMWT Construction and Instal-lation Costs ................................. 16
VI Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
for Microwave Facilities...................... 18
VII Unit Costs for Data Processing Capability.... 21
VIII Systemwide Cost of Microwave Remoting ........ 22
IX Annual Cost Applicable to All-MicrowaveSystems ...................................... 23
X Wireline Transmission Charges ................ 31
XI Total Wireline Charges ....................... 31
XII Costs for Various Duplexed Data Processors(Radar plus Beacon) .......................... 33
XIII Costs for Various Duplexed Data Processors(Beacon Only) ................................ 36
XIV Data Conversion Costs (FAA Pays All Costs)... 38
XV Data Conversion Costs (50-50 AF/FAAO&M Cost Sharing) ............................ 39
XVI Total Link Costs Applicable to All-WirelineSystems ...................................... 40
XVII Total Link Costs Applicable to the LeastCost Systems ................................. 49
vi
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Appendix
A Inventory of Microwave Repeater Sites ....... 57
B(l) FAA Reported Microwave Link Establish-ment Costs (Repeaters Only) ................. 64
B(2) Examples of Total Link Repeater Costs ....... 65
B(3) FAA Reported Microwave Terminal Estab-lishment Costs ............................. 66
C FAA Regional Maintenance Estimates .......... 67
vii
MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The conclusion of this study can be properly under-stood only in the light of the study's important input as-sumptions. These will, therefore, be summarized brieflyhere before setting down the conclusion.
Assumptions:
1. Costs would be calculated and included in the com-parisons made, only if not yet incurred or committed. Thecosts developed were, therefore, to represent as closely aspossible the new obligations which would be required toimplement the alternative new programs.
2. For joint-use sites (with the Air Force) the mostunfavorable assumption from the FAA's standpoint is made;that the FAA pays for all costs of remoting equipment itshares. Other assumptions concerning cost sharing have beencosted out, but the final conclusions concerning the rela-tive cost of wireline are based on the assumption statedabove which tends to maximize wireline costs.
3. No cost adjustments are made for the possiblesharing of either microwave or wireline circuit expenseswith other services or agencies; that is, the radar remotingproblem is costed entirely by itself.
4. Costs for the complex radar and beacon dataprocessors are based on the assumption that they would beordered in quantities ranging upwards from 20 or 25 units.Were the number of units desired to be very small for somereason, it is doubtful that they could be had for the priceindicated.
5. Though microwave remoting makes both processed andunprocessed raw radar available at the ARTCC if desired,wireline does not; however, no cost is assigned to thisdifference in service rendered.
CONCLUSION:
For remoting of radar and beacon data or beacon dataalone to ARTCC's from ARSR's and distant ASR's wirelineshows itself as the cheaper method for the future in themajority of cases. Based on the link-by-link costsdeveloped, however, retention or installation of new micro-wave links would sometimes prove the least expensive. It
-1-
can only be concluded, therefore, that for any link forwhich a clear and unassailable requirement for raw radarvideo does not exist, wireline and microwave cost estimatesshould be prepared in detail and the decision made onlyafter thorough study of both.
As is stated above, the two methods' costs are suchthat though for some links wireline appears cheaper; forothers, microwave appears less expensive. Further stated,the costs are of such a character as to make the cross-oververy gradual; that is, though one or the other is cheaperin each case, in only a small fraction of the total cases,those at the extremes, is the difference very large. Sincethe costs on which the comparisons are based are in a veryreal sense estimates with an inherent margin of error, itis probable that for many of the links the cost differencesindicated fall within the limits of the estimates' error,i.e., they are "in the noise". Thus, it may be concludedthat if non-cost considerations for such links are of anyappreciable importance, costs should probably not govern theultimate decision. Table I summarizes the annual costs ofthe alternative systems.
The results of the study are system costs as follows:
-2-
r- 4-14 o10 H,4) A4
"4 (1) U $4 Cd r 4" I4 r>0,9 .404-1 r4 (n
w -H r~4 0 bo.r4>u
H ý 0 0 p 0C10 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 En C r-)1 -4W 40)4
Oc4 - 00 0 :3 . 1
0 :0 4. *d00 4C.) 00 0 -10 *Z :4 - w0o -4b
-r 00 I 0 ~ rI %O(0 " 0 X
Co W. 1H -4 0 0 E ) r 0 H H0 10 0p 4
00 H1 r4 0 0 w 'C12 z.a. 0O 0 40
W 043 r-4 r-4 r4 COO P--4 .0k
z*0 - .1 H 0i r-4 04 to-
-0c L 0l) 00 HjBcd4-40 44 ICc 000o
H0 000(/)p p
z 0 14 H V) x )H4Coo m
~ H r- c 0. C r4 01 H0 r.0
E- 0ý4- uu 4) 0 W. 0 ý9 41-
a)4-% - r 4-i W41 -0 0 10
E-4 0 u) Hý Hr HJ44 00'1gO H P -12 -4 4 1- 1'- C H OO C: 0 1 I ) 4
CC0 n N 1 04P~ 041JO442 Ja o-Ja%4m0 ) r. 0 00-4
4-4 1. C) 0 >% "w r0 41 -H 1 - tv COOC
C .0 H0 41 :3 >%-44J
0 r:4 H43(
004 J0 4H
ad a4 W 0 *-4 _ cc r4 0
1-4 ~ ~ H W El a : I,"0m r- 4
H- H4 P '--r 4 0 0 )- 10) 0004 xU) 40 4 4 M 4014 W J41Hr
-3-a0 4
INTRODUCT ION
This project was initiated t:o provide a detailed analy-sis of the costs of alternative methods of radar remoting.This interest area was explored in more general terms in"Techniques and Costs of Radar Remoting, prepared by SARCfor Traffic and Economic Analysis Area, Systems ManagementDivision, Systems Research and Development Service, FAA,July 1962 (ARDS-549).
The earlier study examined the several currentlypracticable methods of remoting primary and secondary radarinformation from radar sites to Air Route Traffic ControlCenters (ARTCC). Particular emphasis was given to (a) in-formation content, (b) reliability, and (c cost. The costarea was treated on an average basis, and did not allow forthe many variables which may affect the cost of an individualinstallation.
The first report pointed up of the need for more de-tailed and specific cost comparisons applied to system de-signs under actual consideration.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
According to the contractual work statement this projectwas to accomplish the following tasks:
"Develop estimates of systemwide costs of remotingprimary and secondary radar data from two nationalconfigurations of radar sites by two alternativeconfigurations of remoting links. In each of thealternative methods the remoted data will be con-verted to a form acceptable to a digital computer."
The two national configurations to be considered inthis analysis are:
1. The configuration of long-range surveillanceradars presently progammed through fiscal 1964.(Case I)
2. A hypothetical configuration of radar sites to ob-tain coverage down to 5,000 feet MSL or 3,000 feetabove terrain, whichever is higher. (Case II)
For the first configuration the costs for both an all-microwave remoting system and a least cost combination (ifapplicable) wireline/microwave network will be developed;for the second configuration only the least cost system willbe required.
"-4-
m
GENERAL DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH APPROACH
The general research approach and costing technique re-flect, in addition to the explicit constraints of the con-tractual work statement, an implication that these cost com-parisons are to be used in decision-making.
Specific stipulations were made in the contractual workstatement concerning the treatment of certain costs. Thefollowing passage discussing these considerations is ex-tracted verbatim from this statement:
"In all estimates, existing equipment shall beconsidered sunk costs unless they are to be re-placed, in which case they shall be assigned areasonable salvage value. If equipment removedfrom one site may be advantageously employed atanother location, it may be consigned; nowever,costs shall be estimated for removal, movementand reinstallations."
Since all costs associated with the presently pro-grammed system already expended are to be consideredsunkl/ the comparison for this configuration reduces to thecomparison of the operation and maintenance cost of the all-microwave system with the total cost of the wireline system.
1/ This "sunk" cost concept was considered to apply to theentire FAA all-microwave system as planned through fiscalyear 1964. This assumption tends to understate theannual assignable costs for the Boston area links, theCondon-Seattle link, the Tonopah and Fallon to Oaklandlinks, the Houston-Minneapolis link, Traverse City-Chicago, Tampa-Miami, Dauphin Island-Jacksonville,Tyndall AFB-Jacksonville, Detroit-Cleveland, the Houstonarea links with the possible exception of San Antoniowhich may be salvageable, Amarillo-Albuquerque, Phoenix-Albuquerque, El Centro-Los Angeles which probably will bedeveloped as a commercial link, Cape Charles-Washingtonwhich also may become a commercial linkand Cedar City-Los Angeles. The foregoing links are understood, at thetime of this report, not to have been absolutely fiscallycommitted; therefore, their costs are probably under-stated by the amount of annual amortization of con-struction and installation not yet "sunk."
1 -5-
In the second configuration (coverage to 5,000' MSL)the amortization of the construction and installation costfor only the added links was assigned. Thus, for both con-figurations tie cost indicated for the microwave links isless than the total investment by the amount of the sunkcosts not included. For the intended purpose, this is be-lieved to be consistent with the requirements of a meaning-ful analysis. There is no particular need for an estimateof the total projected investment including past expendi-tures. What is needed for current decisions is an estimateof future expenditures necessary to produce working systems.This estimate is the product of this study.
Since microwave is the present FAA standard and nopurpose would be served by substituting for it a new systemwhich offered no particular advantage, there was a consciouseffort made in this study, when confronted with more sub-jective decisions, to tip the scales slightly in favor ofthe microwave, that is, in favor of the status quo, bymaking it more difficult for the challenging system to demon-strate its economic superiority. It was felt that if thewireline costs worked out to be favorable in spite of this"handicap," the success of the challenge would be less sub-ject to question. It is recognized that the introductionof this sort of bias against the newer system is satisfactoryas a study technique only if it cannot subsequently be saidthat it prevented an otherwise fair hearing for the newmethod. No difficulties of this sort arose in this studysince in spite of the bias against it,the wireline optionfared very well.
The general approach adopted for the development of con-struction and installation costs was one of building up abasic unit cost from detailed cost categories in the con-struction and installation of the individual repeater orterminal station. Each site was classified in one of 16cost categories according to the degree of constructiondifficulty and facility development. Each site was assignedits appropriate cost as calculated for each of the 16 cate-gories. The link cost was then taken as the sum of the in-cluded site costs. This method was adopted after an exami-nation of the reported total link construction and instal-lation costs as reported in the quarterly reports fromregional headquarters showed that they were not detailedenough to allow a meaningful analysis of the cost differences.Further, other areas of costs such as maintenance, and dataprocessing were not available on a basis comparable to theinformation in these quarterly regional reports. Therefore,for the sake of consistency and flexibility of application,
"-6-
the decision was made to develop and use basic unit costsbuilt up from relatively detailed cost accounts and facilityinventory lists.
INFORMATION SOURCES
The primary source of data for this study, particular-ly in the case of the microwave system, was necessarily theFAA.
Lists of the radar sites defining the two operatingconfigurations were furnished by the Agency along with dataconcerning the numbers and location of existing microwavesites. The Agency also provided considerable informationand advice concerning highly technical considerationsmaterially influencing the course of the analysis as wellas cost data concerning specific areas when available.
The wireline data used in this analysis was obtainedfrom a variety of sources. In large part, it represents thebest judgment of the authors after discussing the nature ofthe equipment with the designers of the equipment of theprevious generation, the manufacturers of this equipment,the personnel now working on research, development, manu-facturing, installation, operation and maintenance of therelevant type equipment.
The transmission charges were obtained from a simpli-fied version of the tariff filed with the FCC.
Considerable assistance was given, particularly in thearea of wireline transmission and data processing, by theMITRE Corporation and Burroughs Corporation.
THE MICROWAVE SYSTEMS
With the exception of a few microwave links planned forcommercial operation, the presently programmed remoting net-work is made up of FAA owned and operated microwave facili-ties. For purposes of this study it is assumed that alllinks included in the network herein designated the "Present-ly Programmed System" (Case I) are installed or their fundingis irretrievably committed.
In keeping with the statement of work described in anearlier section of this analysis, the costs assignable to asecond, hypothetical, all-microwave network (designed to
"-7-
provide coverage down to 5,000' MSL or 3,000' above terrain -
Case II) are also developed.
The underlying premise of this cost analysis as putforth in the work statement is that all costs already in-curred are to be considered sunk. The effect of this as-sumption on the analysis of the presently programmed systemis, as was previously stated, to make only the operationsand maintenance cost pertinent to the cost comparison of thealternative transmission techniques. In Case II, however,amortization of the construction and installation costs oflinks not as yet constructed must be considered in additionto the operation and maintenance costs of these facilities.In both cases the procurement and installation costs of therequisite data processing equipment will be included.
SITING METHODOLOGY
In Case I the great majority of microwave repeater lo-cations are already in operation or decisions as to theirprobable location have been made. Wherever this is thecase, the actual locations were used in this analysis.
For links included in both Case I and Case II forwhich the actual siting recommendation had not been made asof this writing, projections were made as to the number andcharacter of the required repeater sites.
The following rules governed the location of repeaterson these projected microwave links:
1. Length of hop shall not exceed 30 miles, and willgenerally be 27 to 28 miles.
2. The first repeater site of a link will be locatedapproximately midway between the radar site and the ARTClocation (wherever known, the most current ARTCC site wasused).
3. The remaining site locations will be plotted inboth directions from the midpoint. This and the previousrule are designed to produce hops at both ends of the linkwhich are somewhat shorter than the average hop over therest of the link, short terminal hops being characteristicof microwave links.
"-8-
4. Consideration of obvious signal fade areas such aslong over-water hops, links very close to coastlines, swampyareas, and desert conditions, shall result in the adoptionof a somewhat shorter average hop length for these areas.
5. Paths projected through very mountainous or otherextremely difficult terrain shall follow the most accessiblerouting (i.e., valleys, large rivers, passes, etc.) con-sistent with circuity considerations.
6. Trunking shall be used wherever practicable, withthe limitation that three paths be the maximum permissibleover one geographical path.
7. Wherever possible, repeaters of links now, or pro-grammed to be, obsolete shall be utilized in projected paths.
8. Projected path intercept angles in trunking situ-ations shall be arranged to avoid violation of transmissionpath separation criteria.
Application of these rules to the radar-center pairsnow connected with RML equipment resulted in a variation ofthe calculated number from the actual number of repeaters ofless than two percent.
SITE LOCATION CLASSIFICATION
For reasons already put forth in preceding sections ofthis report, it was considered expedient to classify re-peater and radar sites according to some method which couldbe used in conjunction with the subsequent costing exercise.It was felt that the minimum number of categories consistentwith the identification of the important cost variancesshould be adopted. More than one-half of the total cost ofa repeater is incurred in construction and installationcosts. Variations in these costs are mainly attributableto variations in labor, transportation, and land acquisitioncosts. These costs, in turn, may reasonably be consideredfunctions of the location of the site. Thus, four cate-gories of location were considered adequate for distinguish-ing between various types of repeater locations:
1. Easy - A site with available access and no extra-ordinary construction difficulties or labor costs.
2. Urban - A site described in much the same way as an"easy" sitewTth the exception of a cost differential which
may be attributed to a slightly higher site acquisitioncost and wage scale.
-9-
3. Remote - A site which requires a considerablygreater expenditure in providing access way and transporta-tion costs. In additionit can be expected that labor costsand the on-site cost of materials will be significantlygreater at these sites.
4. Difficult - A site which is characterized in muchthe same way as a "remote" site and differs primarily in de-gree.
FACILITY CLASSIFICATION
There are also variations to be encountered in thephysical facilities that exist at the various repeater sites.These variations obviously have a significant effect on thecost of the facility. While there may be a great number ofminor differences in the equipment from one facility to thenext, the following four categories of facilities were con-sidered to account for the major cost variations attribu-table to disparities in equipment:
1. Building and Tower Required - This category de-scribes a site which requires the construction of both abuilding and a tower. For both existing and proposed sitesthe assumption is that the facility will be capable ofphysically accommodating a dual path trunkline without ex-tensive structual modification.
2. Building Only Required - This site requires theconstruction of a building, but not of a tower. It is im-plicit that the antenna can be mounted on the building roofor other adjacent structure and still maintain proper fresnelclearance.
3. Tower Only Required - This site has an existingbuilding, but requires the construction of a tower.
4. No Building or Tower Required - This site has anexisting building and tower that can accommodate a proposedadditional path without significant structural modification.
DEVELOPMENT OF UNIT COSTS
In order that link costs would be most accurately re-flected, a methodology based on building up standard basicunit costs for both terminal pairs and repeaters was adopted.This method provides obvious advantages through standardiza-tion of costing procedures and flexibility of modificationto reflect differences in operating environments.
-10-
Development of Basic LMWR Costs
Through reference to copies of submitted abstracts ofBids and Awards (Form ACA 275 Rev. 3-15-41) and consultationwith Agency personnel involved in related areas of effort,the costs in Table II were developed. The costs developedin this table apply to microwave repeater facilities, whilethose in Table III relate to terminal facilities.
1 -11-
TABLE II
DEVELOPMENT OF LMWR CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION COST
Item Urban Easy Remote Difficult
Clearing and Grubbing $ 500 $ 200 $ 500 $ 1,000Site Preparation 400 200 400 600Soil Sterilization 200 150 200 300Surface Material 800 600 1,000 1,500Fence 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,600Gate 80 80 80 90Guard Parts 160 120 160 200Building 12,000 10,000 15,000 20,000Install Engine Generator 500 400 700 1,000Install Fuel Tank 200 150 300 400Erect Tower 2,000 2,000 4,000 4,000Install Grounding Systems 150 100 200 500Additional Ground Rods 60 60 80 100Access Road 0 0 5,000 10,000Engine Generator 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000Towerb/ 4,000 5,000 5,000 3,000
Building Modification.a/ 0 0 1,000 2,000Miscellaneous Govt't. Items3,000 3,000 4,000c/ 5,000./
Total $31,550 $29,560 $45,120 $57,920
A/ Buildings in remote and difficult sites are assumed torequire modification to resist continued exposure to ad-verse conditions and infrequent inspections.
b/ This tower cost assumes a tower height of approximately200 ft. for urban locations, 250 ft. for Easy and Remotelocations, and 150 ft. for Difficult locations.
c/ These sites are often stocked with survival equipment andhave limited personnel accommodations. Also some sitesare equipped with non-standard accessories to protect thestructure and equipment from unusual stresses.
Note: It is assumed that the procurement cost of individualitems of Government furnished equipment will be thesame regardless of where they are installed.
-12-
W C r4 Q)-wIH p 0U- ) c LO >, 4J C -,
I$4 )ul coU r- ~ -,r- 4 -H 4J C0-1r :P00000000 00 >000 cn c ,4coc U)&.4 41
W -i 0 r'd 00C LO) 0 C 0 Lr '0 r-4 4-1 r A U.-r4 0
c~~ o PO a6 0u co 0
E-4~ ~ 0 00 00 00 0010 p1 Q WEn rIz 4V 0 0 P(1 J -
0' to~ .,40 : 4 r r
L) r u 5~ * -rU 03,0
'P r4 IJ. p , 4 1vr 0 0z~ 54. *-4 CO r44- 4) 0 El
H ) a 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0,-4-J 4-4 ca W -E- W C OO Ln OLOOO%0 0 % m CL r. 4
W r- ~O -4r-4 0-00 0-A rfl0 r4 0 0fl ) 414H: H :3 1,4 c c J cu El Q co~ Ej4-J'4-4 4
0 0 .) *4 L 0 4) 1- ) El 0 4 004- )0 .)W- 4J lr4 0
i-i004 <) Co 0 4.-1C oCUDr4 u0o z 41o rý CD 44 JC.z - U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0r a) ,-4C)o -4!
r. E4H r-4-4 r 000 4-4 r-40 >-,H 0
bo 10 0) ,r-4 41 'a-40o -r (J% p- 4J4JCLno ll 0 D D>
H z~ Zl.l 0 0ý r 4-t 4Nr40r o c U0 6.dH 0 -4 - 0 :) m . - r4 Q) ~ 0 It() H
H H E JJ 0 C y q D C4 1 004-Ji44E-4 $4 :3 ) 4 ) >-, u 4 co r
V) - 0 Wt 414 C)4 C:D -r4 u
U) 0 00o Q)44 "0 4-1 > co a - -U .-F4 0 dwr.co oo o o C o-4 En r-4 4J '~
W -H 0 w 0 00 4-J nC)010 00 0 0 Uo14 44. u0CO $4C
v - 0 0 0- I 40r4 C 0 00 04 *r4~ -0) L) a)r 0 Ur-4- E4- O "oJb ~ 40.-4 $4 r 44 O'04r4-ir 10- ;C374.-4 I~lc ý .U 0N0 Q
0)4. 00) - r4- J 0 *H4 v-4 X
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - C.) d &-4 4 .U44 WQQ) Q z )
-,4 co X 0 W- 1
-13-)ý 44J
H 4- - ) 4- o1
Development of Cost Matrices
Since both terminal and repeater sites have variationsin costs due to variations in both inventory and location,the next step in the development of an applicable costmatrix is the gradation of the basic unit costs alreadydeveloped according to the factor which was not consideredin the basic cost computations. In other words, the basicrepeater costs must be shaded to reflect the differences inequipment and the basic terminal costs must be shaded to re-flect variations in location. The method that was used toaccomplish this was to apply the percent variations of the"urban", "remote", and "difficult repeater locations fromthe "easy" location cost to each of the four categories ofbasic terminal costs. Similarly the percent variation ofthe "'building only required", "tower only required", and"no building-no tower required" facility costs from the"building and tower required" terminal facility basic costwas applied to each of the four categories of basic repeaterconstruction costs. This process resulted in the costmatrices presented in Table IV and Table V.
-14-
r- Ovo-t ol
o C*4 0 00r- 0 1-,4 ~ON -tC14 4 4 4.J4'44 . . . . k-r4.4 r-O~ C) D % 0-4*,-4 Ln -1 r-4 Q) 0 *r4
r. (ju aO )
E-obr4Ch 4J4r4 U
M r44
o 04IcH 44 4 4.J.(L 0 f)Ocr-4 %D to 0oca 0
H- 4~J C,4C,40Lf 0 -r4 ýý4 C14c U00x w
<rr ~~4J 0 U'01r-4 H Cd
(I> 44 (1 41$-
W9-r4 r-4 Q)ý4 4 c~o
>. ON C.CJ-4 w 0G 441-
H f TV- 0t .o 4 4 1) 0)0 0 41 bo
,JH ONC 04) u coca0 >N
0~U0
H 0 m nCY 00)Cu 4)C. o .0 ) LtCY)0r Y)04)6
rOs- 0004- p" P 4-r4
H 0449 -44 >ir-4 ~ ~ U -4 0 1-u
CY)C-4-4 r40) C>ý-00A 0 re.-4 4
E-0c 41 ý44..0w
I-i~ 'C .4r r4
0)- *J 0) -4 r4U
"-4 v 4 Wf 0) > 44
aV34 $.d 04 u r.0 t-0) 0) cau j4)
-r4 V.) (1 -4C 10:3 0)o~ 0)0 p 0. o
a 3)* ap0 4 0)44
&4 V $ m 0 -- 4 0)
V. o O 1 b040 0 >.,r. .0 ) 44'
*r-4.,-4 *r4p C:0 r
.9-4.9-0 0
-15-
1-1 U0-
Aj 0 I 4 r >%
.1-4 -l 0C)~ r- :3 A-4 01- COjo4-4 u-- f0) u0 (nu 4)4-4 r-4 0 - . 4)c , 0 0-r4J4)
u (n> 0f0 co Cfl pU Q) 14 p r4 0
co4 0& -r 4)v4.% a) P.04-1 Q) CUHr4 -r4 a) c
0 0,-4 4-J 0 0U CDL.) *4 r-4 CL ~0 )co
J-i flOJJ P $4 ) Ht
o C% ý4L % )4- ) >d, 41 Q cE-4 4J 0v CCU44U 00t-U P
r- c~.or- : Q)4 OCO E o 4
U) 4-JO 42-H 40- 4--)~
4 0Co r44C co 0 .) -4 r -4 r-10000OU- 0 aIWu0 Co%D %0 % %D ,I Cd C41 cou 4.J
En 00 ON -4 41 r-4 a 4-4 0 0
0 ~ ,Cý - 0 P ElCU44 -C4 CISE-4 P 0H0 bOU )10-4 4) .)
W 4c 0 000)a)04) .41 j $4 -,4- 0 41 %0 ur) c,4
Od c- 41) ca -4 co 0) 01"---r(Y
E-4 01 UU P~O r 4440 Q) '.0 0 I
Lr ~ ~4t-0) U W 0444 0J Il Nr40
.04- ~ 0 C' 4~C 'd . rcn -4r-4440 E C CfOr-44 4J 0-H
10 ) u (L ~ - r0 f-4 o 0 0-4~(a Q)CU i4U ~ -4- 0 .- ICU
P U 0rd0440 0 - 40dW J.v4JU i (n CO 0-H 4 J I
0 0 -r4a .4 )0 c
$4) CO4 P4- 4- J Z 04
4) ro ' q)4.C S 04 a) :s 41 c4) -J .J M U WCU fl 00
HaJ~l p40 u) 0 ., -4y- r.
-Hv pH 00)4- .4-
~0Pd0 c0 1 p -(L 01- 00 00 CUI
ro 4 d Q)4-16- r
Interpretation of Unit Costs
The basic repeater construction and installation costcategories were built up on the basis of variations in costsof essentially similar installations. The cost gradationseffected by modifying these basic costs by factors designedto reflect variations in cost of dissimilar installations(from the standpoint of construction and installation) re-quire some further description of the facility to which theyapply.
The basic repeater facility is considered to includeboth a building and a tower. This type of facility for eachsite location classification will be the most costly.
The repeater facility which requires a building only islocated in such a position on the link that the properfresnel clearance can be maintained without the use of atower separate from the building. This category could applyto either an initial installation or the addition of a sub-sequent path which required an extensive modification of theexisting building structure, but not requiring the erectionof a second tower.
The tower-only cost category may be applied to initialinstallation where an adequate structure already exists forhousing the required electronic equipment. It may also beapplied to trunking situations where a third path is to beestablished along an already dualized route and/or when thepath intercept angle is not within proper tolerances to pre-clude interference.
The situation where a facility requires no tower and nobuilding is generally encountered in the establishment of thesecond path on an existing single path route.
Each of the above cost categories has been designed toinclude all attributable costs contingent with the extent ofthe particular facility.
Development of Maintenance Costs
Maintenance costs were developed under much the samephilosophy as the construction and installation costs, i.e.,that these costs vary according to some factor. Since theAgency maintains records concerning local maintenance costs,the development of these costs for use in this study waslargely based on maintenance estimates made by the regions
-17-
for specific repeater and terminal sites or for entirelinks. Again for purposes of standardizing the approachand maintaining flexibility in application, these costlevels were classified in four location categories compa-rable to those used for the basic repeater construction andinstallation costs - easy, urban, remote, difficult. TableVI presents the operation and maintenance costs adopted forthis study.
In general, the classification of sites for purposes ofassigning construction and installation costs governed themaintenance cost assigned. Variations in this rule occurredonly where obvious disparities in the expected constructionand maintenance environments exist. For instance, in coastalareas, fading problems are often encountered necessitating arelatively high maintenance cost cost while there may belittle or no unusual construction problems. In this caseseparate classifications for construction and for mainte-nance were employed. It is recognized that a reasonableargument may be made that there are disparities in themaintenance attributable to whether or not a facility re-quires a separate building and/or tower. For purposes ofthis study such a differential was not considered signifi-cant.
TABLE VI
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTSFOR MICROWAVE FACILITIES
Maintenance Spares TotalRepeaters
Easy $12,000 $2,000 $14,000
Urban 13,000 2,000 15,000
Remote 16,000 2,500 18,500
Difficult 18,000 2,500 20,500
Terminals
Easy $14,000 $3,000 $17,000
Urban 15,000 3,000 18,000Remote 17,000 3,500 20,500
Difficult 25,000 3,500 28,500
-18-
Development of Electronic Equipment Costs
Without prior knowledge of the size of the order orother special variables concerning the procurement of RMLelectronic equipment, the approximate per unit amount of thelast sizeable purchase of this type of equipment was adoptedas reasonable. Procurement costs for this equipment weredetermined not to vary from site to site due to a policy ofcentralized purchasing of large lots. It is recognized thatthere probably exists some differential in the installationcosts of the electronic equipment of the various sites, how-ever, this differential is considered to be part of thedifferential built into the overall construction and instal-lation cost. These assumptions apply to both the equipmentrequired at LMWR and LMWT sites. The costs adopted for usein this study are $24,000 and $130,000 (including purchaseand installation) for a LMWR and a terminal pair re-spectively.
In the case of the "Beacon-Only" option, it is recog-nized that there would be a difference in the procurementcosts of RML electronic equipments designed for transmissionof beacon data only and those costs associated with equip-ments required to transmit raw radar data in addition tobeacon data. However, the fact that the purchase of all therequired RML equipment (all having dual capability) in thepresently programmed all-microwave configuration is con-sidered sunk precludes the necessity for compensating forthis differential in Case I. In Case II, which is presentedas a 'least cost" exercise, it is obvious that there will besufficient surplus RML equipment to equip all remaining newsites, therefore,these equipments are included in the calcu-lation at zero cost.
Maintenance and operation costs for the "Beacon-Only"option are considered to vary from the "Raw Radar plusBeacon" option by $6,000 per terminal pair. No appreciabledifference in the operation and maintenance costs of theelectronic equipment at repeater sites could be determined.
Development of Data Processing Costs./
A specific condition of the work statement was that allremoting networks should include facilities for analog todigital processing of the radar signal.
2/ See Note to "Abstract".
-19-
The data flow for the all-microwave network is ananalog transmission from the radar site via the broad bandmicrowave link to the ARTCC where it is converted intodigital form by special purpose computers similar in manyrespects to military AN/FST-2B's.
After considerable analysis (discussed more fully inthe subsequent section on the development of wireline costs)it was determined that the installation of a new FAA solidstate modernized digital computer (which we shall call an"FAA*T-2B") was the most economical system in every case,including sites now equipped with Air Force owned AN/FST-2sin its various versions and those sites which now have noradar data processing equipment. The cost for a simplexFAA T-2B was determined to approximate $250,000 includingfabrication and installation. An annual maintenance costof $125,000 was assigned to complexes of one to five simplexmachines. An incremental annual maintenance cost of $25,000per machine was used for complexes of more than five simplexprocessors.
For all-microwave remoting networks one simplexprocessor was assigned to each link with one spare processorrequired for complexes of up to four simplex on-line pro-cessors. Two spares were allocated to complexes of five toten on-line simplex processors inclusive.
Following the above system and cost description, TableVII presents the data processing cost according to thenumber of links assigned per ARTCC.
-20-
00 rI,- r40r-400 %D O0r-%0 r4 0 0
0 0 0 o0% ý nL 4u0 U u-41 . . . . . . . .c.,4-0 Ca~ 0 0 . n ý 0 %. * 4 0 L
CUCUCO~ ,-4 CN 0 C~ O.
41 0 ý4CA
p4~ 0 p o co0
440. Q - C 00 0 00 C) D o0 - C 0 C~0 0ACO 0o00o0L OC00 -. NUn-4 a
0 PO x,-4Cr U) 0A U, C'I 0 %.D C4I C*4 -4 U,) ýr (c o 0 - % - , D % CO r4"r-J.4 :031 -4 ý4 dP
0 dHA <rr
0 0 ) o0 0 rn 0 s0 0
0d 0 W 00.00 U,0
(A-ca0 o~ '0 -- C ,t')C~e J ~
z0 0 V).C)
H CA ~ CU w <- coH 3 z4 ~ U "0
P..cUCUO j0 0 r )0C Cl)OM'00-3 0-0 C 00 %0 U,0en-T UUV,0 Ca ca
" PO . 0 0
'04 0 r. L)CJ nC CO0 0 0 -4 04 0 COO *drE- 0 r4-J~ w O O4'% 0m 0' m n n 0 C- 0
-4 *5- 0 *d
co.04C 04 t C: 4-lD 44
C)~0 0 )r4ci ~ -Ai rA$ CO3
C4-J Z 0 ) 0>' ý j ' r w41QE-4 ca c u CO 0 r- N~ .'-N C4 C-4 41 u~ u4 O
41 000 0
00 CO Co CO n 0 ncn 0 1r- co Q). oC C)<i L n %* L r
-U~r-4 4-j C'O od1 U, ' n 0 M -ý4 0' 0 C: a
CU udv4 ~ CUI co 1
-21- (1
APPLICATION OF UNIT COSTS
In order that a meaningful cost differentiation may beobtained on a link-by-link basis, each link was describedand applicable costs assigned on a site-by-site basis forremoting configurations. Table IX is a list of the radarsconsidered in this analysis, the number of their respectiverepeaters and their associated costs.
The method used in the plot and classification of siteshas been described in a preceding section. The inventory ofsites and the applicable link lengths may be found inAppendix A. Table VIII summarizes the systemwide costs ofmicrowave remoting:
TABLE VIII
Presently ProgrammedSystem Hypothetical System
Radar Beacon Radar BeaconBeacon Only Beacon Only
Systemwide Costof MicrowaveRemoting(In Millions) $18.5 $17.4 $24.9 $23.3
-22-
I r-4 Lf) r4C~ In0 1 r-r-. T -r-r r N -,0 D n%0 %D0CDOD O%D ON . % , %D O.O'.r-4U r-4 .t ON -4 ON %D %0 04 LII %Dr4r ý-~ 4 4 %0C14
aa a a a
CH 030 jl: or-Cý9V ;CI ' r^ ,^ -^C4 0 '%D
H 14P1 4C4 -r-4r-r-4r C'~y 4 W) Cr CJev-4 ý r-4 r-4 0<r-4
z 104C') m0CC 0%N4) 0 W) ~ - I0 ' 00 r,ýir%0'L)^ %
a)l pW m rIOOr- cn C4 Or-] r-- C1 k -t 0 D -40E >" 4 r-4 CA00 40 D C4C4C4r r-c.eJ~,4 r-4 -4
>-I co -0
0ýr P 4 r r r-1-4 LI)Lf0 C ) lo
>. %D 000%0C 00010 %DDa 0 0 000
a) 0 00 04 00() )Lr0 10 00 r 0 0v00 n00 r 00L4 4 1 1 00~ Iýo m00Lr I
H. 0'4 4r-4.- 'LO e4 -4e Lrn 04 rI r 1W
U)- U
r.) 00 1 oC o0O1004 *0)- 00c's0-C> 0 00 0 00~--
W. cou 0 ) V) 0ln0i 0-I f
0) 44 U)E-4 0 41 v-Ii 0
0 ~ C/~ CLI *r- -4
z a)o OIQcnod4-
0CUU 41 0)
0J~C) rcO0 *-,0 W00
0) w ooU)4 t
10 C 0 W Ci w-23-u
0 r-.r-r-.J-rr' r- r- un a I LrlO0 0tr) O arl- rln-tON CY1 0O .1 10" o .C,4 Lrn ON 00 P.I%D 0 %0 Ou %D4 r--) VI ra aD a, r- 4D %0 LA ao a. -ON -4 a4 e -aa047% %.o a
cn () -4P- r ý4 I; CC; f~n %0LI4
04r4U4) C)C44 ý C4 N 00 r%- ý o100- 14 04 4 D 1 ý"-4 r-4
o 0 ýo %D ,o I%,o r-, 0001Lr 0 rI-4 %0 0%DýO r-%0 4 N0 CO U aa a4 %D a0 r-%a. ) 0 4 af a n a a r4 M. 4a %0 a
0 .r0 a a
0
'-4 0 00 0 0010 00 0 %.0 %.0%0 0 00 0
pq 4- N-4C0 4M -4I %.D C' LO'.%0 Lfn %D0O C7%H4 4r C40 C-4(% C -4 044 r-4 Lf) C14 r-4
P 0 000 10010 00 C0 010 010 1)001 C1~0 000 0010 0 0 0 0 00 0 0n0 0nV 0 a .j ^ at a
C -t- 0 0 C14C1 %It 04% 14 -4 Un Cs*% C14
'-4
414 W
o 0.-r r-4,4 '4r-
03 0 0n - 0 o .01- a
41l 0 a >r.0H 4w 'r4 4, 4 w 41 0 o rý4 "0 p0 4 1% u WJ4 (A*HW.q 41-
0o -4Q)(A0 0 .,4-4 u q d 0O r-4 O 0 C:WOd
'0'r r40 W 0 44C tSJr C ( .,'4 0-)M4.J 0 -$4 '0 E %4-4 0J 11 1C a 001-P"4 . u'o4~q
0 r~-4
-24-
o. r-Ie r4ý4"r4L WO r% - I-C4 r r4 -4r-.4 M' r4i r-4 -- 4 W TrIC
WO rL)%0r40 4ra % r4 0oaM-'c4Of v)L M~~- DCO) Y) - C C% %DC-
I-O 0aL %% N0 T- Tý . 1 1 -4r r -0 40 D0 nMV aN
-4 4 -4
co.
U) P 0 00 0 0 %. 00-4ý4 CII 00C"JI0% COOOCOCOO~%Lf4 COCOCOCO'0-0o 00 U 4N -4 -4 -It 0 0a' C4C4 1 * -C- . ' CS I!% 04 JCJ
OW r4C1 4a'LrC4 2-4 C4 CO4 oC rA Lr)r-4L~CN~'a C1 4 4 40 C) C1 14- --4r COCY
:3 -40
C: 000I10 I110 00 10 00000 110 0c)0 001110)r-4 0 >ý000 0 10 00 0 00000 0 0000O 0CO U- 000 0 10 It 0 Lf) ýD %0 .0 %,DOi-4 Lt4 0000 0
0a ^ a a a a a . a a
W0 %0-4 'n r- r- 0 04 %D W C14r0 0'%,D CC4J C*go e'I LýmLf)r- %0 M 0.e 0 %0.or--.t00 r- T4 0 DOD -T
He' r4ý 0 4 r-% -4 - 4 C4 r4 rl4 CO 00 C14-4 C1J4 00
ca
$4 0 000 0 0 00 0 00C C000 0 0000 0co0 (~Ln f Lf) 0 ILf 0 LI) 0000Lf L) (I ~LfULn Lr 0
0o0) m r- 00 0 %~D CY)14- r- C) - C14%1* i-4 kfLn r)0 Ltpq CYOC %D 0 4 00COi) CV CJC00~0 m iOa% i C4 ON r-0 a'N
r-4 r4 04I Csl CO C14 ,-I 4 404 4 4~ -4 ON 0.I-4 C14-4 0O
4-4 (1)
a0) 4j M Fnm Onma' m r-4. %, -0 .- r -4 r-4z 4C)
Q) -
r- .4Cr- ) ~J0 4jC C)0 -T -.4 "05-i 0) u ",a -4 &n 0- J0) CO ca -AH ~ r4 w 1 r4,0
"0 41J 0 00 0> 4J CO bpd0o aq r~4 - r4 Hbo
0d cd 4U ccu0pE 0 0 f 0 u> 4 0 ~ I ,10) Yl4-4M
~~004-~UO$~UW a.Oc 0r4J~
E-4 r- 0.4 O0'- C4: 0.40-
-25-
(ON C-J4 rk.0 00"WOn~ CJoooI 0C'J0 0en~rL 0000"W"cCLnrLn" ONOO0OM
uii *4 10 aD 00 en**~ a ar M 0 a nM% . n -O 0I
co 0 .. &^^I
41 ~ a a L) 01 0a a ~ a 0 M "a af . - 0 C 400C
U) 4 C ( m4 r L) 0C)Lf 0cor--400C'-4cc oA r- cc 4 ooo
00
0
-,4
00 11 r, r, ir-- i i1 1 i 14 -ir-
r4 0,l 00 0 %D 0. %0 .0.0%00~
Wol C '00 u0 k.0 C 1.0 LIV.OccIOA Lf
c4C~ -4 %D ~ I- %10mC 0440r
p 0 00 0) 000 0 00010couC 00 0 000 0 0 L) 0 Lr)
(a Q) C4 LfI r- .00 0000 Y o cnr%0 mo' ON ID m 0 M0 cD 04 r-4
-14 C* C4r-4 C4 (Y) C-4 JC'400
0 41 ci)
*O 4j m a'C- t It.cc'o M '" .fl r4I 0 0 0C') m000 91H -4r- r-.4
z 4) En.0-
*r4 p- bo *r-4 4.oS. U)I J 0Qn i. a) 1 o.0L rc. C H
p i 0)-4 *r4 0d C~s0 >.0Q)P
co ,-4,-I -r4 -CU p >,4 '0 4J0I
10 C r 4 1c 0i- O CU I41) OC3Or 0 4)p0C
.H >I'M4) -4 414 rG--4X .4 r-4 % 0C)>%$4 0 0 0)
uLI ý A 4 0 0 E4 N d w 0 i)C,4G~44-E .w u z-4 En
0 0z ~44
-26-
no 00%,O 4 -40 , 4I ,0 ~ Lf) 4 0 4C# 4 V N 0%
rA co
0D 0 D%%0%DD . ON WWWWDW %Do D.o0%D74
0 ou % D1 0 ' D40lr r- r0ý C14CN0 ON0v ý4% - 4 - 0O10 Ioý ^ I^
;0
%D0 D % o 00000 110 %.D 0 % %DD D %O, I 0 D% DO 0 00 00C 0 % 0% D% 0O
-4C'c 4 --
0L')~, 0 0 00 0 0 DI'%D %0 DI%0p % % %0'.%D0m 0 0 000C 0 V. DD%0%0%
cau D 0 D D %D % 4 .T LfrU Lf) Lt)0 0 r- 0- -4- 0O
co ) r mr-Io 0 n mr- 0 .D -4 m "LnW n 00pL
0 41 CA~00a
.rq0) 0 co41J r4 a) 4-) w
-, 4 41J 0 bo
r. 010 0o *H4 -. H
aco)C~ 1h' 2 co P6, "-4 -A-4 o D00 '040 O'M 4 p0 H 0Ir nY4C
Q) -0r4 4 41 P 1-H Q) O r 0 _4 r- ,-4 0$p> -4 V .4~J 0 Q) (I 4 P4Q)CA U C 04J M 2 Q4-) C
L 0 Q)Q OPý ' -4 4C-40cE-4 0 '-4
0 -4 0o
-27-
0 10 D 10 .D-DD10 -0r r -r rN- 4 0000010 m0 ý0 %DD %0%D %DO l Dý' DDL 0000010 r-
r4M000 .t0 0 c - -4 V)Lrlo C:) C14 C) 0 %0cv 00un Cn 0 r T" r 4 O N%0Lr) CV) r-4 -TLLr) O -T
-WL g % o% o%,oo % ýr rý r~-.r4 0000010 0)0 p %D c'.no % 0I% oa% r- %0 %0%0 0n C)I 0000010 ON'0 CO0U -ý4I0 M 4 0.0 4I 0 TCn 0 0 Ln~I ..C0C)
0o Q) 'nr- ,t 00 -I " N r 0 L r- M r- 00 1 t-4ILfl 0
0 <I>
pu
.f-4
r-I ID%0 0 % %0%0 00000 0 0000010 O's- % D '-oIO%'% 00000 10 0000010 0n
a) r4M00'0 10 00J0 o 00~O~ LIA It % ON n 0V-4%\OO0J2l r-40 ,.
u~ ~ ~ 0000 o ' 0o% % 0 coooalo 0oo0o0o 00P 0 ~'s 'o D %0'.O'.0%0O' 00000 10 0000010 0000 u %.''0 r-4r-4 ON Ln COOOCO ILf C 00In r)i0 0 -4
I 4
444 a) -4 c
0 4J CO00a
*4.J4 00 0J'.o 0400r- %04 r - v4 f) 0 00 ko0000 C140 O.- r-
4 -4
v-I,-44z a) W
'-4
41- -4 WJ-r4 c MO v-
4 0a) a) 0)0 0oE-
U) r-4v4 0 4-J 44J" 44 rT
0a 0) k0 tk 0~4 L) 00 4) :j 0 c"0 r-4 a) a . 0 -4 0 c C 4J C r.-4 0
04 o 0 0 ) c O0 $4 rO-4 J 0)~ 0)9- 04
ci 4 00 00 4 w 0 0000m00 41 o r-I 1. 0 Cu 0 pC04P4 3 ) Hrz4 N W E4 44 "rnwcn u
E-1 CO)1 030 o a)
-28-
0 Sil 4.1 (1 o " -.41 ~ 0 1% 0. a) .0
0r4 o ~0 .0bo -41 4 tw -0W 4.1 -4co 0 a 0 0 -r4 I U) r-44
Zo)4 - ) r4 H CA> 0 I 00' : r W 0'r40 00 0 d H 1c 0 '-5 0u 0 4) 1 0 0 r.J -4 000 r40
u)P n 0 VO>- E-4 3 3 r-4 IL
Q) u 0: 0 0 ) 04I~ I-4. 4 >rQl$.i0 0 (L ZJb 41J00 -r 4r4 )c r44 -
.- 4 C r4Ql0*O -4 CO d) 004-4 > ' )40~ 0 - 0~$~ CO >-A p :r
0 pU v-4 *,4Q 4) ) 1 0)ro I-
I.P 0 c: > ,- 0 4) I-i 40 4J0 ) 0 L 0$- 4JU ": rU' 0 Ai 41 H,4(0
0- Ic10 .0 4-) aU I-o Q0 0 -4) aco0o) -41 0 a) 0 ca r~0 u ,- C: roE cn W0
r4-ii CO~ U0rI4 ()-rO-i40v-r4 00 0a4w 0.o ou >C -0 00~ wJ. E-' *r 4 0 ~ 10P
C13 -~r4 co 4 -l p , 0ca $4- ri -g00 orv- $-..1.- .4l~v-
p0 4 CO 40 J r4 04)CfL Cc -Hb $.. > ~ -0 0 -41 ca (1) U0:() )Pa
0~ '-4 4-) 0 ~ U) 0 u.~ 4) p.4W
14 ,0 CJ0a)0r04 04>) 4) .r41 04- W000c*L H> U.0 l t > (A-p p 10 0 uv.
.I.,1 : V4O4J.J~.> f In-I) tv 05-040- 00 10 -A S~f 0 .10IU -4~-4fl CI $4-)d04 0;3 WlP ::j- g). CC0 C r 0- 0 t7.0p"4 4J Z -AQ) 00 -A 44U 0 W 0 M 0 0 4-04J
.14 v4C 0Cf41 00-4 r j()0CII h 00 CIIW Q) -A c a) a, p 0 a) w u
Ca ,IC (1) 30 0 ~ ~ 4 - r 0. C C C: pu 4 - J U4J C 0 o.caQ,) 0-i lr4 C00('-CC -4 0." 4 . -4ý:u4
H. >. 100 0) -A (f41 V " 4 EH 0 0O34 r4>0'-4) U 44)>4:34
Q) 0ti $.04l0 l 0 0- oU )-lMU - r
L) 0 0 i ()4 )pa .r o.1 01 u O$ 4UClqc 1c
0 0 ;3 W UO j 4) -29- 4
THE WIRELINE SYSTEM
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The alternative to microwave transmission of essentiallyunprocessed radar and semi-processed beacon data with subse-quent processing at the ARTCC is that of processing at theradar site and transmitting the resulting data via wireline.See the Rrevious report for further discussions of thismethod .2/
NETWORK DEFINITIONS
The network of Radars and ARTCC's between which trans-missions of radar data is to take place is just the same inthis case as in the microwave cases preceding.
THE VARIABLES IN WIRELINE COSTING
The costs of remoting radar data via wireline may bedivided into two categories: one, those costs associatedwith the actual transmission of the data and the other, thosecosts associated with the conversion of the radar and beaconvideo into digital form suitable for the wireline system.
TRANSMISSION CHARGES
It is estimated that three-voice grade circuits are re-quired to transmit the data from one radar site.4/ Thisnumber includes a spare, normally used as an order wire, butequipped for inqtant employment as a spare circuit. As pre-viously shown,;/ the annual charges for such lines are, forthree lines taken together, $540.00 for termination charpes,$3,840.00 for duplexed Dataphones and line charges as indi-cated in Table X:
3/ Techniques and Costs of Radar Remoting, July 1962, Systems
Analysis and Research Corporation.
4/ Ibid.
5/ Ibid.
-30-
TABLE X
Wireline Transmission ChargesDistance Rate
0-100 miles $135/mile101-300 miles + 87.75/mile301-700 miles + 74.25/mile701-1500 miles + 60.75/mile
TABLE XI
TOTAL WIRELINE CHARGESA/
Distance Annual Charge Distance Annual Chargein Miles In Dollars in Miles In Dollars
0 $ 4,380.00 250 $31,042.5010 5,730.00 260 31,920.0020 7,080.00 270 32,797.5030 8,430.00 280 33,675.0040 9,780.00 290 34,552.5050 11,130.00 300 35,430.0060 12,480.00 310 36,172.5070 13,830.00 320 36,915.0080 15,180.00 330 37,657.5090 16,530.00 340 38,400.00
100 17,880.00 350 39,142.50110 18,757.50 360 39,885.00120 19,635.00 370 40,627.50130 20,512.50 380 41,370.00140 21,390.00 390 42,112.50150 22,267.50 400 42,855.00160 23,145.00 410 43,597.50170 24,022.50 420 44,340.00180 24,900.00 430 45,082.50190 25,777.50 440 45,825.00200 26,655.00 450 46,567.50210 27,532.50 460 47,310.00220 28,410.00 470 48,052.50230 29,287.50240 30,165.00
a/ Including termination, Dataphones (duplexed) and Linecharges for a three circuit requirement.
-31-
For this study distances have been measured from maps .6/The net result of these various charges can be expressed intabular form as in Table XI on the preceding page.
DATA CONVERSION COST
The Data Processor
Data conversion is assumed done by means of a digitalcomputer resembling, in many respects, the Air ForceAN/FST-2. It will be called, for lack of bettern termi-nology, an "FAA, modernized, solid state T-2B" or, forshort, FAA T-2B. The FAA T-2B may be approximated, however,by means of extensive modifications of existing Air ForceAN/FST-2's. A so-called "mod kit" (modification kit) andits installation are needed. It is assumed that thus modi-fied AN/FST-2 will meet Air Force data output requirementsjust as the FAA T-2B will. Inquiry within the FAA, andamong outside manufacturers, agencies and laboratoriesyielded the cost estimates in Table XII for the data processorfor both radar and beacon data (for beacon only, see para-graph below entitled "BEACON AND RADAR OR BEACON ONLYSYSTEM").
6/ Distances are calculated for tariff purposes accordingto a method which divides the country into small "cells"with the distance from any point in a particular cell toany point in another particular cell being considered thesame. This permits the calculation of all cell-to-celldistances and the construction of a handbook (table) whichpermits one to look up the "distance" from any point toany point. This method was checked against the mapmeasuring method used and found to agree very closely.
-32-
TABLE XII
COSTS FOR VARIOUS DUPLEXED DATA PROCESSORS
(Radar plus Beacon)Annual
Initial Cost Operation andType of Installation to FAAM/ Maintenancekb/
AN/FST-2 alone 0/ $150,000AN/FST-2 modified with mod kit $250,000 169,000FAA T-2B installed with AN/FST-2 500,000 175,000FAA T-2B instead of AN/FST-2 500,000 125,000
a/ "Turnkey" cost including construction, installation, etc.All costs shown are for added cost to FAA only and do notinclude cost of basic AN/FST-2 if present. See footnoteC.
b/ Based on contract maintenance costs for comparability ofdata. Thus it is not implied that the Air Force spends$150,000 to maintain their AN/FST-2's themselves. Theymay spend more or less.
c/ Already sunk by Air Force. This line is given only toshow AN/FST-2 maintenance for later use, since theAN/FST-2 alone is not capable of yielding FAA requireddata output.
Thus it can be seen that a number of possibilitiesexist and that one variable to the costing equation is thepresence or absence of an existing Air Force AN/FST-2 at thesite in question.
NETTING
Netting, the practice of tieing a given radar site tomore than one ARTCC, is another important factor in radarremoting costing if, as is the case in this report, thecosts are developed on a link basis rather than a site basis.Clearly, netting reduces the average link cost since thosecosts which are fixed per site are shared by all links radi-ating from that site. For example, if a radar is netted totwo centers, each of the two links need be charged with but
-33-
half of the processor costs for that site. Relatively littlenetting is contemplated by the FAA, but it is clear thatwhen netting is done, the per-link costs are substantiallylowered for the wireline case.
ALLOCATION OF COSTS AMONG JOINT USERS
At some use sites the Air Force, the former "owner",had no requirement for remoting the radar, will have nofuture equirement for remoting the radar, and thus has nointerest in the data processor output. Under these circum-stances, anything the FAA installs, the FAA must pay for infull.
If, however, the Air Force had an AN/FST-2, it isassumed it will want processed radar data in the future.Any of the four alternatives in the foregoing paragraph en-titled "DATA CONVERSION COST" yield the Air Force its data.Any except the first (AN/FST-2 only) yield the FAA theirs.Therefore, any one but the first may be chosen for joint usesites. The question immediately arises, however, of whoshall pay for what. Various assumptions were made for thepurposes of this study which may be briefly summarized asfollows, arranged in order of decreasing attractiveness tothe FAA.
1. The Air Force pays what it is now paying. FAA paysany additional costs. The Air Force, since it has sunk thecost of one AN/FST-2, will not pay any initial costs of theFAA T-2B, except that if FAA spends $500,000 for the FAA T-2Bto get the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs down to$125,000 the Air Force will contribute the $150,000 less$125,000 or $25,000 from their O&M account toward the FAA'samortization of the FAA T-2B.
2. Same as above except that is assumed that the AirForce will not pay the jointly saved O&M money toward theamortization of FAA T-2B.
3. Same as above for initial costs. FAA and Air Forceshare O&M on 50-50 basis if they use the same machine(alternative 2 and 4) except that in the case of the FAAT-2B alone, the Air Force will pay FAA half the saving itrealized through FAA's expenditure of $500,000 for the FAAT-2B rather than the $250,000 for the mod kit. The resultis that FAA's O&M costs are $84,500 for the modified AirForce AN/FST-2 ($169,000 with Air Force paying an equal
-34-
amount) and $51,000 for an FAA T-2B (Air Force pays$125,000 or $62,500 plus half of $84,000 - $62,500 or
$22,000 for a total Air Force contribution of $62,500 +$11,000 or $73,500. This from the $125,000 cost leaves theFAA with $51,500 to pay.)
4. Same as above for initial costs. FAA pays all O&Mcosts for any Air Force processor equipment it uses in wholeor in part, i.e., FAA pays $169,000 O&M for a modifiedAN/FST-2, $125,000 for (O&M) FAA T-2B installed beside theAir Force T-2 (the latter not used by the FAA) and $125,000O&M for an FAA T-2B installed instead of an Air ForceAN/FST-2, but used by both.
The actual nature of the cost sharing which might takeplace would, of course, be the result of negotiations be-tween the FAA and the Air Force.
For this study it was unwise to assume conditions toofavorable to the FAA; conditions which might never materi-alize. For this reason it was decided that only assumptions3 and 4 above, concerning costs sharing, would be used.Furthermore, consultation with the FAA indicated that as-sumption 4 was the most critical one for which it was feltthat results would be essential. Therefore, the problem wasseen through in its entirety only under this assumption.Data for assumption 3 is given in Table XV,but these datahave not been carried through the system cost minimizationprocess. Nevertheless, the data from Table XV may be readilycompared with the data for assumption 4 given in the follow-ing section, titled 'BEACON AND RADAR OR BEACON ONLY SYSTEM,"to see the effect of changing this assumption.
BEACON AND RADAR OR BEACON ONLY SYSTEM
The last important variable on the wireline cost sideis the question of whether the FAA requirement will be onefor both beacon and primary radar data or for beacon dataalone. This is important not because remoting only beacondata would necessarily be a good deal cheaper (it would not),but because to reverse a decision to provide beacon onlymight be rather expensive. Furthermore, in those cases inwhich the Air Force now has an AN/FST-2 installed, no changecan be contemplated which would eliminate the provision ofprocessed primary radar since that is an obvious Air Forcerequirement. Thus the "beacon only" case reverts to the"beacon and primary radar" case at all Air Force sites with
-35-
I
AN/FST-2's, i.e., the FAA T-2B is a full beacon plus radarmachine when used alone, as is the mod kit, for such sites.At FAA sites or Air Force sites without AN/FST-2's a beacon-only FAA T-2B could be installed. Costs for beacon-onlycases are assumed to be the same as for beacon-plus-primary-radar cases, though it might be possible to cut the costs byone-third under certain conditions of low traffic densities.Costs for data conversion for beacon only are indicated inTable XIII.
TABLE XIII
COSTS FOR VARIOUS DUPLEXED DATA PROCESSORSPROVIDING BEACON-ONLY DATA TO THE FAA
AnnualInitial qost Operation anl
Type-of Installation to FAAA/ Maintenanceb/
AN/FST-2 alone 0S/ $150,000AN/FST-2 modified with mod kit $200,000 169, 0 0 0 d/FAA T-2B installed with AN/FST-2 400,000 175,000 IFAA T-2B instead of AN/FST-2 500,000 125,000
a/ "Turnkey" cost including construction, installation, etc.All costs shown are for added cost to FAA only and do notinclude cost of basic AN/FST-2 if present.
b/ Based on contract maintenance costs for comparability ofdata. Thus it is not implied that the Air Force spends$150,000 to maintain their AN/FST-2's themselves. Theymay spend more or less.
c/ Already sunk by Air Force. This line is given only toshow AN/FST-2 maintenance for later use, since AN/FST-2alone is not capable of yielding FAA required data output.
d/ Slight reductions in maintenance costs might be imagined,but these would in any case be so small as to be in thenoise for the purposes of this study.
-36-
THE WIRELINE COST MATRIX
From the discussion above it is clear that to determinethe cost of transmission over a given link for a year, onemust know the following:
1. Whether the radar site has an AN/FST-2 or not. Forour purposes here, sites may be classified as Air Force withAN/FST-2 (AFT2), Air Force without AN/FST-2 (AF) or FAA(FAA).
2. Whether the radar is netted or not and if so, tohow many sites.
3. The cost sharing assumption to be used. In thecase of this report, the last, i.e., the most unfavorableone from the FAA standpoint is used, as was mentioned pre-viously.
4. Whether the system is to transmit both beacon andprimary radar or beacon only.
5. Amortization period for the equipment. Ten yearsis assumed here just as in the previous study.
6. The site-to-center distance.
It will be noted that the annual transmission chargedepends only on the last of these, while the annual dataconversion cost depends only on the first five and not atall on the last.
The total annual cost under any circumstances is then:
(a) the transmission cost from Table I plus
(b) the data conversion cost.
APPLICATION OF COSTS DEVELOPED TO GIVEN COSTS
The minimum costs for the various possible combinationsof circumstances, developed in the previous section, havebeen applied to all the links in the two cases under exami-nation in this study. Table XIV presents the costs underthe assumptions that the FAA pays the entire wireline cost.Table XV assumes that the FAA shares equally with the AF thedata processing costs. Table XVI presents the costs of anall wireline nationwide network.
-37-
TABLE XIV
DATA CONVERSION COSTSa/(in dollars)
(No cost sharing assumed: FAA pays all cost of equipmentit uses.)
Radar and Beacon Beacon OnlySite Type Site Type
OPTION AFT2 AF or FAA AFT2 AF or FAA
Mod KitAmortization 25,000 N/A 25,000 N/AOp. & Maint. 169,000 N/A 169,000 N/A
Total 194,000 N/A 194,000 N/A
FAA T-2B + AN/FST-2Amortization 50,000 N/A 40,000 N/AOp. & Maint. 125,000 N/A 120,000 N/A
Total 175,000b/ N/A 160, 0 0 0b/ N/A
FAA T-2B AloneAmortization 50,000 50,000 50,000 40,000Op. & Maint. 125,000 125,000 125,000 120,000
Total 175,000t/ 175,000t/ 175,000 160,000t/
a/ All costs are for unnetted radar. If sites netted divideby number of centers.
b/ Minimum cost options.
-38-
TABLE XV
DATA CONVERSION COSTa/(in dollars)
(50-50 AF/FAA O&M Cost Sharing)
Radar and Beacon Beacon OnlySite Type
OPTION AFT2 AF or FAA AFT2 AF or FAA
Mod KitAmortization 25,000 N/A 25,000 N/AOp. & Maint. 84,500 N/A 84,500 N/A
Total 109,500 N/A 109,500 N/A
FAA T-2B & AN/FST-2Amortization 50,000 N/A 50,000 N/AOp. & Ma.nt. 87,500 N/A 87,500 N/A
Total 137,500 N/A 137,500 N/A
FAA T-2B AloneAmortization 50,000 50,000 50,000 40,000Op. & Maint. 51.500 125,000 51,500 120,000
Total 101,500b/ 175,0001/ 101,500b/160,)000b/
a/ All costs are for unnetted radar. If site is netted,divide by the number of centers to which radar is remotedto get data conversion cost per link.
b/ Minimum cost options.
-39-
Lr)O0 NLr) C'4 14 0 NLr) r'- Ln N LnW wOI
44 l ý)V.. 00 a4 r- a- a4 a0 aaa*%. W%
y - , I , I -U - 4A 1. . . . .
4.4 0Cd : 01, en cn-4 0'. %Dc ,-4 C4 -4 00 4 (7'
-W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~%O% 9rr44v- ) v-P- -44r-40 .r-4 4r--r 00
U C
:3 Lt 3) Lr~Cr*4 LroC4 u-0 14fr- Le C4 n 00I0CD0C/-I %000ý4r-~I~ Cn C-4 00 'iknT -4%*D Lft 00 %D
(A P-' 0 0 C-4 ~U0 4r4 0rn M ID 1.0 r o0%Dr-.i t-. r- r>%o 0U Ca a a .4 a a a a .1 .~ .A ^aa .j a
Z4 r- r -4 r-4 f-- 4 r--4 C- ý C 4r- 4 "140M
Z -4W -,
3n Lr0 C14 J N *4 ~0CJLn P-t n JLn 000 0 0
>4 r- 04r-4n% P-440 I -L t) %,DD %0 '0 Lf C4 - - .
E-1 (Cv ~ 0J m-4Y T -tC0% m C)r4e 0m0
~Z-4I.4r4-
Hj *rf0CU 000 000L C4 0 00 r - LnC4L)00 00 0ICO r4 %0l 004 -ýCn C14 0 4f -I r44%Dn001
co 0
H 0 _)"ý -4 CI ý ý 4ý4C4L) C C14 U 4ý 4r
rwr4 o
co~~~ ~ ~ ~ 0- 0 1- n0 , 0cn00 n% n"
1 -4 Car4 ~ 3Ccn3
En1 0 2-ý(n. .,-4 -A
r4v- 0a p 0Crco C caJ NcaJ~ 9 > 44 o 4.
~OCU o-E4- c-4a)E-CU, r.0C1 od4 9'p 0) u r
01 U) 0 AJ ý -4 0- c ) b )-
uWOOoun,40kt 14 Lf1)U 00 C OOOCJ001 -W ~4 -4r-4 Lrn "C ' Lo ne -P4Cn 4v-4I .4
44 Q,- u~toCN 41. L r-4r'f ()0.. r-4t 1ý
Or-40
ol)0 ý ý%O r4 cO00Lf r4-M0k r4 r-4 r40rOCNO4 r4'0
0 w u -A 4"I
L)0r4
41 Uv 4 1aa>s 0 1 000 0 0 rn r-00 4 04L)0 L 000C14r 0 C4
En U ) I-.I
Co Xv-qr- mo mmm L)o 1 (Y Cýy4 04 1.Cu ý o "ONO al M4 " M 04C4CIaN 0 : 1 *
C: Pk ~ ~ ~ y ao 4 4- - - 0 -4 CJ 1C"C 0- C14'4ý4r-I %0ao-.' r4-r4 00O'
$4-
*H0 u 00 0 0 L)C400 04L)00 f)00 00 40 Cco C -0 1- ý4 CLn~OC' t~04 r nCY' r aý4 C -4r4 %
4j, 0 - 440 010% n r f n40
Cu > 4 -4~ 0- 0*dvr4ý4U r-4r4-4 n-4 ý 4r40 04
L. )u-0rv4-4 ~ 4-4i
W~ .ý4uu > C~5I >C,~*
co~ C) M ' 00Mr40(% M0ý 4CNo
-41
WWW1nr- 0OONMJrOuwi 0000
LI UO LrO r-44 O y- D 4 00-4 r4
-4 ~o 0 a% 0 00r--ON -4 00NCIS00 ~ t 000 0C) 40000%
ý4ý4r4 4ý4ý r4ý4ý '--4r4 '-4 N ý 4
I r4
0) W Cc0~.~r~- 000e) r-4 Zr 0000
Cl4 0 u %ON.o C) n 0rý 0(Nc4r- 00 ON-4"D0l C-,4 MON4
$4 CO N ýC1 n r-4O 11 C- O L 0 n 0 ) 1
0) ,- pw ( 4N cn M% ~U) o o m I m000 %C - N0 N0ON0041r r4C ý 4r- - ý -Lr%04 r-4 C ýIO4 r'-4 r-- V
r-44
000 0 o"f 00r- 0 0 00400 0 Ln)0o0 0
0U Oi U r-4r-
~ *r4 0 ~ JOJ0)C r-4
>ý0 00 0NL )r4 C l0 0 Or) 0).r d fl ~0000LIý O qr c,4 0 )~0 0 %)4. r4 %D rýe NLneOn%0m* 0Y) l
4oi a)
-42 --
Nouj_, C Zr -4Lrhr- rr-4 O DM n0o V) -4 0 za cn
a- a,44UC - 0 NN00C1 0L N- ON M cr-ON 00 n 0 0 -.1 N -04 (L 0 I - 4 00r- 0 C4 O 0e Y -C - 0 o4 4~r-C400
ca Or4 4r4I4ý - 4 4ý 4 - 4r 1-4 ý 4r4ý 4
r.) I U)U)
to
0 U) wO 40 0L) 00 00 C)or ~OCc0r- 00 ~ n~. OO1 1 000L)M 00Ln e'21N
M.~. 0 PC4I0 wO ~ I~ co 4m0 - - C4 -4r"r-r %DIC I % )0
ý-P4 0o a) a ^ .4 I a^ a .
caodý r4-ýr -4 -4 C1Je' C 4C 4r-4 r-4 r-40 C4--4 4 4
-,4 -4
'-4
.-r4
N3 " w W 0COCO0Y 0 0 u)0 C4 N-
r4%0 f n I-J N %0 4ILN 4 0 M00 4 II41U 014 >a aa .4 00 0a aa .ý a1 aý a- a- a a40Nr-ý )m% 0L
o0 ca0 o0 0 0 0 0 .J c ) ON4 NI c 0 %r-'C 4A CtO IMr- C r-4u a) 0 % 0 ~.aor-.00 r'-- M0 0 0 N0 0~o~ 0r[-0C' N 00 00r- - 00 -4
pqr4 r-4 r4r4ý4 1- -4C4'A-4 r4 rr-4 r4 r4 r4N 1 -4 -4 -4r4 r - 4 ON
1-4 </a
>~ P,0 0- 0000 0 0 rcooaor- 00 CDNN000or)M 0 Lr) oc04 r-0a u mw-0L % nMM 0 04C* %0~~O ~ 0 . Ln'tI' C, - M0 V
r-4
41 r
4J-
co W H ý r )r -. 4
ca Q w C -H- H. 4--4 )u 04 01
ro 0 n o wu H ýCfr *-4~ Wog-4r-4 -r60 040 0 Ud1 Pu 0r4U). r: > HC ,4> A)
0 H p0r CO - -W 4 P-4W X> Q.dO r44-Jw
U i0 0 WC J O -C O*r4.)04P-Jý 0
0a w
*r4 -H ip r1-4 EO .J0o *H- cn 0 4 CJ .. 04 CJC. ('4
-43-
N0000000L(wC 000Ln00cn OWWN44 0 0v~ aaa a a a -a n a - -a a a
0~ 0 - N0 V 4m% 0% N4% -r - ý0
Hlo HH HH HC J HHIt4 )f.44 CO.
0 Cl) M~0eJO00ruc 0~o~ooc~~
U~ -4 C :o - r .~ c 4 .
4f 0g. >% w u r-C)0CY N 0M e)"r-or400 r-- .n 0 0 r- .00i4o
En c 0g . ) 0 00 aa aD aa 4 ' I f a r as an a- 4 an 0 0a 4 m ac
0) 00C1 4-Jr4"4C -H ~ 0 %04 N r4 i-4 C4C4C400 ý4 COC404C4-4O0OO 4C:4~J~-O J' ~ ~ JJcJ
CO CCU--4 f
U a 0 OOO r-0000000 4M 00L m~a O00 00 Cr) 0M00000 0 0 rO4O00 I r4r4r4r ý - 4Ný , r ý400 r4tr.r-% oo- -cl or4-4 r4 ooc1r
0 r--4a a a a a a aaaa -4a
0W Uo r000 40 ýo~-c4r--en 04 0 r- r-~9 r0- r" P, N 0
00 a4 M a aa a .0 a a a a 0rNM M CC)-4 W r- aa4 0 a
(* 4 04ý4ý 0NH4NCq 4 N 4 C C*, 4 00 r- ~ H04C404 A -4C
4J 1bo IN
ri0)0M 0000000000 0000 0 0 0C000
0)41 >. 0
.r4-- 0jri aEn) -,-4 to- .1U 0 41J 4-J
w co o Iq . r. co-~ 0 "0co 4 01.01I'... ,a) 0 0-0,4 0
00 ) W-r 4J I4-J.~ 0,40CO -1 a - 4 c A
:39co - caw ~0 0 ca X : mP>ý4C0) 4J 0 X 4) ~ ' $- co44) a 1 )w L -4( >a op w 0 -4A NWM n04- CO0 z. W Z 0E-
~ 00fC) 4 / 0 0
.-H .-,4 .-,4P - CO) 4-0*9-4 Cl) 0o"U0 au 40 OH r- r4Z.04 WU4-41 44W94 L 9I
-44-
44 4J ~CY JCOI 0nMw -w O Nul 1 OC 4 0 Om~omowo
o w' 0 CJ.~'-?- ~ ej.r~~0 u r-4I a aa a a ja a a a .a
pq ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ,4- - - 4 - ý(4 ý -4 HIriP4r-4r0 r,-4 v-ý -4 r-4r4r
U) 004 0 0 w w 0 0 0J000 0C0 Jt 000 0 0ccoc~ oco v (IN~
a' M P4 p td M L 'I%-m o ~ .'-It r--IO m m 4 %Dr- %,Dr-- cnp4, CUO aaaaa I~ a . a a.I. a
4j o O 0 0 -4 --i mm jve.v4 0 4 L -~4 4C-f4 "C4-
Q)
M nCA0 -0 Y f c, r)% C ) M -~0~4 LI) r-c %o cn .D00L0 '-4nL 10 m% N-tr -It 0 -rtI ý4 04N I-4 40
0 o 0CU4-tr D NL n r4r 04 00 e~CONCO-4 rr-4 j14-4c "jONIe"a) 0 0m000UO 000m co~oo~oCY, ~Co'mmaor- 0r , 0-,
r-4 V>4
p4 c n r I-i CU4 -4 CNZ4~ 4 0 ID 44r- 0.o'a'4P,ý4 c IC.t
"0 q %o(3 4 -44 0 %ocqr c -f j -'o ýo r- r- r--CU ON aa aa a 0a a a- - - Nr- - f 000 aaaa C4 Carj0r00.' Pd0, "Ný -4O'T-40 Ocor- cOO'CJ-40
*0-4
0000000 000000 000C)C
4JC .. 0r4ir
.r 414~ En.O 0CUj r4r4 0)) Q)w 0
co 0 u *-0)C~- 0 pU-0 r4 a l aa
~coP> P4a) w co ja'A 1 o4 ) 41 Cd r. 0 0 U CUW oaco -4 0 0u 4J -4U~ >a~aa 4 0 < U ) n
;s (1) -r4r-4 4 r4:: 4 cUo oC)Oa'C0) cUo 0 t 0-4 0)
CU) 04
*d H .,qH,
0CU r -4 a' C-He J c jCd;4U C w 44 D
-45 -
44 J LrWOMMM-ON~ ou,%004mo W O0 (n 0 4 N f- C4 MMOC4CMIW f-4u0 U r-4 -c~ ~WaJoaH~44U0 Z i4mC4ON f y a% r-4 -r- me a% 0
r-4 P-01 r4'~ C f-4r- C M 4 ý -4IC v-4U 0- , D
0 0) ) r4 -4Z a~
0 0Ci)0 wo0 L 00u-oor- 00I0 0 V)Lr) )0 C) LrbCn 0
J>% p-- u 4owmwmI' 0 O-4 C14Cn un cl C14 0w co 04. p o 0 110 4 C4r- C~4 0 ocn~oOmOmr- .. 04 Lf
En 019 %D o ý~.,?..o 4P Nr4r4% oa% ON r- 0 0"ICO 4 "0 0 0 1,N NTC C-~O~ Cno 00
r- r-4H 04cQ) 1-41-4 w)
.rnoowoi-wwc o-tuaooo %eJ 0
H40 HH 4 m" JI"Lf mw-4~ Ln W
0 Cfl MH aaaa 1 M" m a at aN a a4 a 4r- r4 r4v 4r-- 4H H O ý 4 r- -4 H O H-O- M ý
V)H-t 1-' 0HC'-4N 0 CL
tol rA 4. 0
0)- P6 f > 00aoO co 00 0~CJ)I- Lf n000L)ý )404) a a a 00 00m00O C)0 004 M a4 a00 C
ro PO.~ t y oo~-tým4Ln %10 mI 00 a) 0
co H- Mt~ ON4 C)C ý - 000 -0,-4C 1 -
a0 -4 4)
$ 4 CO
*H4a) CO 000000 00000 z'4i
H4- -4 ý -HC4 04C4 rCJC4 M0 N) c~ m41J '.4 r 41~r
n 4) 0HH Cl ~1-
$4 >4
U) 0W H4W 0 0 H
0 4)~ ;l 4A) a) 41 HO M Cfr4 W0 d S, 0 C P r r r 0 Haoc 000)
0 0 pý40 4 4) 5 _L4- E- p-~01W H'O J-J H41~ 1-4 co0r ( )4 )V
U - 0 4J-4 CO C.)U. 0 0 4-4- 4)ca a) p- 0a >. >-. )(
U)E-4 r- r4
0 0 0,0l 4
>1 r.a) co a 04
41 1 0 4J- 4)) 0 WO -.r4 r4 r4 0 0. l-
000 u C u E-4-4 H H H 4E-4 4
rj4U -. 44 4 4 r. w 0col01 u1
-46-
THE LEAST COST SYSTEMS
In the preceding sections the discussion has centeredon the development of systemwide costs according to either amicrowave or wireline transmission method. While it isapparent that the all-wireline system is less costly thanthe all-microwave system, there is no assurance that the all-wireline system is the least costly system. The probabilitythat a combined wireline/microwave system would provide a"least" cost system is indicated by the fact that for manyindividual links the microwave technique is the lesser costalternative. Thus, the possibility of a lower total centercomplex cost through a combination of the two techniquesexists.
DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY
If wireline is the lower cost option on two of fourlinks associated with an ARTCC, the assignment of these twolinks to wireline requires that the cost assigned to the re-maining microwave links be raised to cover their geater re-maining share of the spare data processor (the one part ofthe ARTCC remoting facilities common to all links). Indoing this the total cost of the complex may rise in spiteof the fact that the wireline costs were lower in two indi-vidual cases. The objective of this exercise was to producethe lowest transmission cost for each ARTCC remoting complex.Therefore, it is conceivable that the retention of microwaveon a given link within a center complex may result in alower total center configuration cost in spite of the factthat on an individual link basis wireline may be the lowercost option. The general rule for this investigation wasto determine whether the conversion of a link (or links) towireline transmission resulted in a saving at least as greatas the resultant loss due to the greater cost assignable tothe remaining wireline links. A general algebraic expressionof this rule is as follows:
-47-
Total Savings onLinks Converted Must be The Number of
to Wireline Greater Than Remaining Links Times
Z - T) > (NM - nT.) X
The difference between
The new data processing the all-microwave datacost per link and processing cost per link
(NM + S) (Cdp) - (nT + S-1) (Cdp) - (NM + S) (Cdp)
NM - nT NM
where:
M = all microwave link costT = wireline link costNM - total number of linksn, - proposed number of wireline linksCap - cost per link of data processing under all-
microwave optionS - number of spare data processors required under
all-microwave configuration
This general expression is predicated on the operatingpremise that the only variation in the cost of the remaininglinks is attributable to the assignment of a greater share ofthe data processing costs.
Table XVII presents the result of this "least cost"system determination. In order to properly interpret theresults indicated in this table, it must be kept in mind thatthe figures presented are merely the results of operating onpreviously evolved basic unit costs. Therefore, the resultsof these operations are no more accurate than the originalestimates. It is virtually impossible to assess the extentof the error of estimate involved. However, while everyeffort has been made to provide as accurate estimates as waspossible within the scope of this analysis, cost comparisonswhich are within five to seven percent of one another cannotbe considered definitive.
-48 -
0 so r- en%D 00 -4 Ln '.T
O0CDC 0-oc -100 - 1 N Mý -W 0
>
100 .O0c O CY % % 0 -4 Lr'h-.t r- -' 0 0 tOIL)r-4 o4)I It0 '~ON 4 0 -I I)%D% %,D 00 0 C4Lr4 t
u V) 00 C4 cnmr- af r- 00 aa a, 4N%
.r4 0Cf 0t-.10,t r 0 0 00 0O 0000 Lrv4-z~4W cz 3 C'4,r-4 r-4C"Plr" ,-4r4%J NC4N 4r-4 r-40C
Q) 124 -4V)4i0
0E-40Iu r--r-n- 'ooo'o0
Lnoo I0slr 000 0 10000%D~ c0 '~~'0 %.D 00 ý 0 0 000 010
0 e*.--
Q))
p) 0 oU) u f 001 n 00 0 1C)C O 0
0. Lf 4 0Cn %D mr4 -4 ,4r
411
0- 4) 1 0
u)0 U),.0 -I*4
u4JCj 04 co-w 1-1OU fl.j- >-r-I-j- C)4~C.CU f
E-49
CO--N ýoO NLr Ci 00L I Lr)0OI or, L N rJ- N 4
0 r % r % M oo%oOcn O'o 0 0 4 %ON 0mON V) CO
4) O~v- 00 00 0 0 %DCO4 n C-1fON Lf) ON Ln 00 D 0%
<0-0
>ýcou OO0n~-4Ok n 0L Lr'IO0IJ c'4C)e'N-e'-410C13 r N0ON f- y -4 r- C* on V Mor-' %o -a% q n qLri c'
cz4 4 -1 av a a0 aD an a L n%4 a- aaaaa 4 an
co rN~O-- M 4 O -4 CI CY 0 Lr' O-4IC00 ON- JONN0LnI%DuN CU2 0'Ov4 0ON 07%0 I4 Ig0V -0 :t 0% 0--A4 0u :3 N 4r4r 14C40 ý Cc'J4I %D 04-4-40r, r -4 N r-4 -4C'Jv-4r 04J) Qd-4 <6-
0
0)
0 U) Ic4 E- a - E-a4 E- a- a- IaZ a a a a a
i Jo(y -inIr 001 1~c~- OCO COCO 1N CO N-C 000 1P-4 r-4J-y- CJ C-4 ,nr -4 m-
4-
4 C1 O % %
P ~0ca u 000) I r4r-
4 c0r I4 04 Nr- CO 10 0'4 1 0 1 00CO 1 z ~co 10 0 000 ý4r-4v-1% N "U LN - r, Cf)4 C14 (),AkDw~ culi a) 0 if C)-440 0~ ID N- Lri Lt CO N- CN4 0
0 Lrn-1" 0 N- CY)ON ON r4 C0 0: -4U N-) N-- Lrnw Cn 4CJ -. C14 -4 0 C14 0 0 0 aN CO% 00'
co Cu j C-4 ,-4v C- 4 J4Cr% A C-4c - .J C4 -4 r4 Lf) 0 'r-.4
'-4
4 Z ZZ IE-4 E4 E-1E4E I E-4 IE-4 E-4 I 'E4 E-4 I 1I
E-4 Ig
r4 rA AlO
Cu -4-Ju4J w-U $-- >% % m
CO r4 JCO > -1U u 'f4-4J p4 r44 0 U J - I> 0 0 0 0 CuIr- Cu 0 - -Au 0-r4 O 0.0 r.0 b0
w CO - 304 w -A JU
cc r-4
-50-
0OoCor-lLnw 00010 0trn0'.DO0I00
00 "0 0" cC~ L)D " e0 Cq'l 00 0cc GOc CV)Iar)oN oo-e'-4H o~aIo 0c0CJ.a)...4 aaaaaa 4 a a% af 00 aa-4a dj a -1 0 n
-4-4-4 r -4,-fl-ý4 U--4 4 r n r P4v4ý w-4 r-4 r-4
0*0
41i
ýc~o ( 00C0C)-4 00 t Le) 00 01000 n ou ocoo00kj0 1E oco 0) C)CDi0v0-C4 or)%D Coo004 t io %.4m
m -.Dm c r4 r- a, a4 en aaaen aa 4 r- a C
o ci~ U) V) 0 r-.o~ 0ou 0 r 0% 0 )o 0ý*rH :j CO CI -4C4 4 -4C~ 04 " 404_J,4 -4N r,-4r-4 C4JeN
0) P4 '- -4
41i0
C: w ZZ -4 &qZE-4 E-4 ZZZE4Z - -
&~4 0H 0
oo 'c C)C 10 c110 00 10 0Ln 00 01 ILr)0 ooC'* 00 '7 C14 'rn occoo 0c00c
0 P. 0cO CY m 4 u-) a%-~ 4 (Y)ou 0 0 0n e
4 co 0)0 4 r~I- r N ' 0 0'i ~ o r-4 M cc
"0ccC0m014 00 mc 00' On f f00000I 00CO a)O oOe' cc m' C'J4 Lr mo4ccooo0 t cc
o r NC4D %0 . ,- ý4 \DC1 C4ý,ý-tc ;.r: C4,
P4 U) r, 0 0 0 cc occ a% r4 r-4 00 Lr) 00 fV
:j, CO 4 ,-4 C4C C* r" eJ14r4 Cf -4 C14P4r-4 r-4 00od v-4 *0j>
>. P4'-4
a) Cfl .,.4 0w 0 (04 E-4 IE-4'I I E-4E-4 I 1 1Z'
P4 coU2m41J
41)
-r4 -WC,4 r~ 4~-C
CO ~~ ~ ~ r 4.0414)O b O~~~ý ~ -a .~)- c u co~
ca w u 4-1 CO- -H 0-- Q 4) CO 44- H0 m " Wr - 0)ci CCOQ ( b Zpca 410 90 .> 04 ca ~ -0) tO 4C:0 PQ
-51-
o"0rMU n 0 ON C'*4 COCJ00LnOII
0 r a 47 r- (1% NI- O r 0 C71c0 4P40* (0Or N f *~r.D4N.u'O-O0,40 -4 ^r%~I~ '-4 ýý O0 'CJO"ýO'.0%0K^
01 r-4 14r-4
4r-4
v-4 r4
r 4p -4
ý4r-4 r P4-4, - 4 - rl04r
"00 0w,4 '-.4co 4'1
P 0
U)00o W00-4 ý4 o00'cn JLI 0 0 J0 ncI0o0 NLn c- r-Cl a Wc O04 0r) 0'-f)I0 o .D4 4 r-r' 4m ý4Ln0 r-O~'Le) -404 1-.0 .D4
-..4 od aa aa .4 a a a a a .~ a ^aaa .4 .
w 3 ONU O ) 00 r, 4 %D O0 aLruLn- 00 - 0Mr-4 % C)k00 .4 C140*d o:3 1 - -Cu4 v-4 r -4 N C'J r -4r-
44
ri-4 0 4ý 4ý rJ-4 4 C4 N44r
0) Pod '-4 <r-
0
CJ) -r4 00U2 E-4HZZ E4Z z14 E4z
W04N .r4 0)0 v4 r,0
u -4
co I , t Ltý4 0040 rý Le;41 0 e'00 0 m 0 Cr) .000 Cý -ON 00 00'%
r- .-.- r- a -a4 a4 a- an a-- a- a aWa a
P 0
Cu o 1 000 x0 -11C'* a' r-4 0 i-4 r-00 r
a aa a) a1 a a4 a aY a an a aNM
to,~Cf 0 a' lO'a, -4 00M 0 w-4 M r-
;loCu C%4 r -4 rJ-4 00 CJr-4 It C%4 y.4'r4ý.4 <rr)
r-.441l
0) CJ) -H 0p r.r)1 -4 E4E-4 E-4 I I E-4E-4 II I E-4E-4E-o11 1 1 1 1
E-4 E
Q) bo -
4.1
Vw 4Jv41) (1)4.01 Ia. 4~ 10 u p4J~
-H : r.~ ~ 0.-4 0,1-4 r-4 -H 4.1 14C13 *-.4JJ41 P 'Cou 0 -r4 V > .'4oo CO- -Ir4 > J ) P ."-r 1 4)
Ud44) ~~CO W 44r i >004 0U) 0 P -f4 ) 41)0
to. Cu * 0 1 c r j Xur4 Q~.Cl) C:41J 0)-Xc,-, cnc oPQ)00 '4J 4 $4 -r '.Cu0* >' rn0.)r-)0)CuP-4 Q) 0)-p
0) 0
-52-
U)) 00r 0OnL0 -1uc r t ) ooIc ooocn o eq co 0ook0
00 -O Cu) O0Lr m-00 Lo-r--.co7% 4en r- O i0 N f)00a 00 I k 00 r--.00 00c- 0 mcocIa%00ao
oý C13 0 0 40 cOe-00 0 000 C10 0 C4 -4 00C40 C-4C
0 ) ONe It%'- 4 4 1 C C)L)Ul0 -
0
Co .r4 00 4 -4E-l p E -E-E-44E-4 E-iEE-4- H E-4-F4&A 4 F4 [-4 E-4Eco U) 41
E-4 r~
C> Lri r-Icyl 00Or- r-cc0Jk14 %I M rf en 00r- CV)0 %.D r-ic 00f-It.r-N 1 0 0 (Y) Ln 4nCJ-4 0 O
El u r-4 O'o-IO ý ^~r-~ . ^f
a)) 0 ON 0 0 , .D- 0 0 0 0 rv- 00 m- -004v004 m
PQr4 44Cl 4t4v- 4r4) r-4 - 4I - -
p00 r 00 4cn 0000 00~0 C* %D OC) CO4C140 1 I I -
C13 10 m 0 u)r- cy C00 r- r-c00 C-J0 M Ln C~ 00r- CY)ý4i c0 a) r-.Ic0 r- -11r- r--NI CV V c~Lf) C1N4 a'0 CY) -40C) t4 I.t en OCO-1 m cn 1.0 M f1-4 Mvpi 3 U) r-4 0 lv -4 c00v-4 00 0a% 0 m C O0 0'-Il N1P.W Cu 1 NC- J 0 C- -1. f -4NNCJ CI4 1 r-4 C C4 0
r--4-
'-4
a) to -H 0p )I E4 E-4 E-4 [-4E-4E-4 -'4 E-4PE-4 E-4EP E-4 I I
PWco U)4
E-4~
01
Cl) ) 0 41 4-1 >~C: o H C. 4.J 41
p '- CO -,I C: c 0)CO *d4Cd ()40 3r -C: : u .O00 1u0
>1,4co A4C1 0*-.Hv-4 oXCu P~ 13 "0 '- P94ý4 P ) r40
L) v-W 0z Q Z 0 '0*-4 Ca--w) 0) CO r4 00OM~ $4 r-I CO > C) CO $4. 0 0§ :: )U)r4c r:3 uz C EnJ~0 0r.4u~~ 9:)Cv- 0 0- ZWP -
S00
-53-
oC14o k0ONk r-4 n O~%00%IW0
co0 r-4 r- NC140 4 00-4 Ln Ln N 0 C1 M %I C ~Ln 0% 0~40%k
41J
"0 tv N an aD M ra an r-0aaaaD 4 a 0 aaa0maa a,
u %D Cor nr ne -4 ON or-sr:jcJ oa'-t-- 1 -.r 1 4CN r4 0 Ov rO4 Le) O 00'1.Omcq 00 r-4 M M 0OOO4IJ CO:1 C1 * r 1 J(%J r -4 4r - - 4r -44 40i 04 C-4 r4) -4
0
1ov- 00 E-4 -HE-4 -E-4 H F4 ZF4 ZE-4 E4FIE-4 E-4 E-4 E-4 E-(
E- .4 E! )
0 a%-I %D Ca -a - 4 r-aC 0aa4 a 00aa a4 ý - O 4r
aC4 4 -IvIr4
,-4
r44r- 4 O ý4ý M r -4 -r4 v -4 00
p' 0
a 000004 0 00 0 00COCOk COOOLr) ON ii 0 C00N- 1 00o '0 v04 n% 0 M -fL~f) rOO- OO DoO% 0 m It00 a'0 r-4p 00 ) m 1.0 14r- O'jaO r-o0r- 0oC14 M r-4 %0 -4Oe'r M C0
W a0 a - ^ .a Ia a 4 a a
0 ~ C14r- inr- I)Cn Or- M ýr- r- C% 00 Oo4 r- C14p- a),o 0 Mr,~4 0 r4 r) oClovoa %ID MC 00 , 01 ooC r-'
0~ %N c'v4 CJer-4 N-I C14-Ir-Ir-4 4401 -4 44v -4Cj% 0i,
4-
0) CA *-A 0
N o 0UC 41)
E-4~
Q) -A.4.1 0d.,-4 > J CWO(CIn 41) o U)W (A
., . )Oa) 1 0) 0
0dp , 4) 0 a- 40) Pr4 .0l 44I 010 4~) 04 U )0 ý4b 3 1U 0Q
CO % )C..0) J (n 04Q Dw0 C0 04E - v0 c-JC4 C r-4 W r40 $4 to> C:~ <' 0c Q0 0 . 004
Q) 4J M0 0 3Ach CO) 0 0 3 v -4 CM )CO 0 00
0 0o
-54-
0Ln~LriC00I Lf)
hia 0 . %0r40 0
U) 0H4 00 0Ltw0o0 00 00o 0d 000%.DJC14I 0V0u o(L 00 a'cc C%'-,tc 00 Vr)
0 n HCJC 0- c 04
H4 0 41i
0 C*0
I 0oO 0CA -r4 0 u.0 w z H E-4E-P-E-H0
E- E r4
.M 0
0 'n cn0OIO LIn 0 0.
rw OH 00 %0 N - -n 0 40 0 ý m 0I- .,1a'O H M 00 -W.0
4)i 00o r. m 0 r-4 00 vn "041 Wo H0H0 O cc% m . d
0 0%
0 0- $4
0 10 0 0 00 %DNe.cn~I a' ON coo co W N0 4a -ub
$. 0 m .'H ýo cn0H LtnH
P oa 0IN r-4 0 0 0 a' 4-I 4ýH C1 C t4ý 0 07
0 ~0I- >
Q)0 CO.H 0 u -.4
E--4.
to ii)r4 0 co H
04r_ 0 aý4 -r -0 40 *r-I
4-I L) UcoH
W~ ~ ~ ý4 0 40 H- >o *0 0 04~
4. caH i4) 0W)-4J H 0 H H CO W liii
0o 0 4 41 0) W0 4 ')I- d0 0 0.1" " r4- H 0 0 0 0 Ia l.C (1
4J)0~ Zd r- 0.0 0 1 ný
-55-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Techniques and Costs of Radar Remoting, Final Report.Prepared for Traffic and Economic Analysis Area.System Management Division, Systems Research andDevelopment Service, Federal Aviation Agency (ContractNo. ARDS-549).
2 Sage Equipment Adaptability to the Beacon AcquisitionProgram; Burroughs Corporation.
3. Costs of Public Communication Services: Project 416.0.4;The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Mass.
4. Radar Air Traffic Control. FAA Office of Personnel andTraining.
5. Federal Aviation Agency Specification - Radar MicrowaveLink System: FAA-R-1119c; December 15, 1959.
In addition to the above, references are made by meansof notes to the text concerning other important sources ofinformation.
-56-
APPENDIX
APPENDIX APage 1 of 7
*1-W Y N~ -It 00 %.0 _,tr- 04% 0 0or-, %D M r-40 0-Co r-4 r-4
N 0
wo .0 goWp
cn 1-4 E-4 E-' E-4~-,444 C14 ~ ME- C-' ri c
E- u rCO 4 N0 p
p 0 .4 CO 0a0)o r-4 w oowo- o
H 4" 1 wo 41 .- i C14• r-4 '• It eq cq 00-4 •
N 0 a0 01- N n HN 4 NE-4C4 PN-
E-4 U Z r r -4 r-4WWW
g r4-,t CJ-4 r4r-4 C- .C4ý -4 r-4 r-4 %0 C14 r-4
OwO
co r4 -mo
0 - 04 C-44d co FHI F-4F H-p H -E4 F-4 PN F-F-F-'
-r40 r4
*r4 cr -4 F-
.0'
H- -- r4 4) C 0 000 )0 000 0 00C 0 00C
zc r. a)O *-It -t m 0 r % m0 M Ln %OU r-4 -tN W~ $4 .-r4 r- 0J i-4 'J ,-4 ,-I4 C %J cN -4 -I-4,
H
r4
-'4 p0 401 EEn~ 0 03--. ý4 0 )
,a ciXOI iI rq- ,-4p- - r.I 0 1-. 0
0boO0 co Ix0 c 0 .0 t)0 o
cd to 0 4J P I-0m p 0J bO -4 0 00)wi-!0-1 41 cz ) 0 -41 w 41 $4 U0) W
C.) 00 u E 4-WJ >4 zr4J " a) rl la. m mC)' cc(00 M0. En:: 3 WXC4 4 L O u 0d0) c0
0 ) mi
-57-
APPENDIX APage 2 of 7
r-4 0 -W
0 0CL -4 4 -4 v-4~0-
tn p 4 r-
M(HH. wO vHh- H 'CJeI ~ ~o4 0"
41 ) j f-4 fI %04 r4 f-%0I 1
v- m 14v-Hen4
044 H H E &MH H v-H w v-HE-4 H H -4 &4 H
0 04
0 4
-A W C 00000 0 00 0 00000 000000car.w t 0 a cn %D (7 C14 r-.o0 cn s"ae 'JLCC' r~- u-4 C14 c.
W- - r-4 r M Hýv C'4 m %1 C qj r--4 Cb4'J0 -H J C14 H
-r4 4) 0 coS
P v-I0 rv4.MIH - 3 0 1 -0O r-4 -W >4 .,4 r-4 Q W. 4J H J0 r-4
-4) CO I~ 0 OHO 02 0 -A O.A g 0 04Q :C:bO
0 c r4.u0 A r4-I 0 W0 JJJ r.-r - u ccu
E-4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4- LI > 0i dA 1 4 ' AO
-58-
APPENDIX APage 3 of 7
44 W4
r4- 0 4J
a0 0 CL C-
E-40 Z4 04
Cu0 -q mw-
4 044 W1 W W-4 M0C-(aI 0N r-4~0 C
0 N0 Lr-4 0 4J N Ný -4
u w w r-4 mcn,' c', ,-4 M',r-4
04. r-4 C-4CW M- C-4 C-4C4 r4 -4 C-4 'N-4C 4C-'N r
0 -A
o r4'.r ' -4 C-4
r4 E-4
r4 Q) CI -
P'4 -4-I r-~C4 N 4 "-I-4 CN C-4 C-I C-4- C-4 C--4 r- C-4E-M
414
4 1
*d0 Cu I 00 00-w00rq4 0 0.0 00 0 00 00 c
ca - -.C .o r. >r. 0 - 041 to 0 0Iw'.0 :1 r.1 C. > 1 M r
r. r 4J~-4 C: 0.0 U O 0 Cu r4Im CCu cc J -W p 04- wu- U' c
-59-
APPENDIX APage 4 of 7
44 4)r-4 0 4-i
0 4900w C-4
*~lL rz~ V-4E-4 -H H &4-EIt-4 0L o C PQ H-4E14 E-q- H -E- 9 -4ME-'- HnOWi w go m E-P ww P HA
0 M"4 00 -.0 %0jz r4r4 P n%CVC% 4),-c 4 Ln H- r-e. in
04-4 E--44 .. ^6-1 E-E4 E4- -1 E-4 ^9
ý4 1 , L l -4 ý4 r-4 v-4 r-4 C4 Cn ý4 4 4 4 -4 .jr.4 r-4 v-I
.r4
-A0
co v4)
4-144
0o W
4-icnW
bO Wi
v-Il ~ ' C% -4 W4-,- -4) r -4 -r4 0 Iy4r! -4e- * eýcýC%
CO 4jWqU ui 4040 14
Od0 C 1 4 A" 0 :03' vi'W - .4. 0 ~ u)fI~ W 4-- )4U0 4lnu2C. ,-1v4., W- v~ ca - )4 t(0C )0
U0 *4d p W -AJ WO C %U )r44J Q - -4 >-I0) w0*r-4 1 r4 c " 04$4CO$ 0.d -4.l 4 '00 X Q)4) CO-4 Q) (L 4E- r ,.~0C44 0 Wr4.EiE uz ý 0w 0 H P4 N W 4.Jw 0 cn
t0 0 0 C0~ W
-60-
APPENDIX APage 5 of 7
0 4 0)ý4- 0 4J-~0I.%~ 4 'OAJ • W • cn Ol 0 1.0 ,-400 ON r. ON r-- t•o C•4O r- r-
O0o 0-'ý4 r -4 r-4 -4C4 -.4
e. i4',j" 0%E-4 E-I• WrE-4 r-4
4 Ow 0 en-4 C14 r4 J0 COC)
.E; &4
•40- . p H ý OOO pO OHO O H O O4
0 •A C O C0 w go H O w r- w4r44M) 004 I¶40 E4 E r- F-r4 r-4 E4 %
u 0 " . 004~~ &.4t r-4 ~ h.
-A ,4 . E0
0 t0wE H HE4E4ýO E-'e4Fl
.Z) W ,w-4w4 "4 W.W
I-4 r- , -4 4 r-4 C 4 l C-1 ,ý4 •-4 rI ,v4
04-A
"40 .0
w) r-4 -4 -4 -4 ý4-4~- r-4 r-4r-4 r-4 r-.4
r-4
r-4 r-4 r4 -4 r-4
0i-4 Ell
H -40)1 0000 00 0000 00 000 00~0 0 I.t 0 (% 0 44 (7%0%CYmr-. 40 r-4 M V-4 m'10
41 0-r*rq 4 00) U 0 4 1J >..C:cadr 0 4-W 4-1
0 0 1oo 0,1 40 0t10 r4 V " >% 4c P)0Pca a'.,-4 4 0X x 3l0 p :00 1 . ' -4 P 04 r-4 P.IM)V4pdr ~0 0< -4 w 0 ' Orq 041 4)r-j 0 @ r4 00~~
0 m p -> v-4 rw -0 4JC , >p~ PW 0
H z.4m u r. 0I UE4-I0 00 w mF
00 r-4
-61-
APPENDIX APage 6 of 7
001
0-40 4174 ,4
t4
- - v4 r4~
C-d 0
0 E 4 -4 r- E4 4 Ha v4 a
r-4 7- 4 ý 1 nr4ý rl c
a ' E-4
(0-0E-4 4 M% 4 E4 a
Cco 0C0J~ w a P .ý
)r4 0 W W o0 4 W0 P0r
41W~ a1 & (14 CJ r- M -4- T y4a
ca COOv ý -4 r4 %D N-O- r%-l -r- r-4H
.. 4 E-4 E-4-E~4 4.-4 E-4 E- E4-M E-4 aaý a0 -20'44-O -4O H po PO HO EO- P0Fý: 4 H-
z :)%D:: w :) :) :D:: = - 95 r : r r,4 r- 04 M ~Cn - 4ý r- 4 C4v-4 r4 %DCJ V) c
0 *-
04co
ml01 -4 I y-4 4 y 4 ý r4rý4 r-I -4 - vv4v.r-4 v-IA r
I- H-
.4.J
01a c 0 00000 00000O:>0 0 000 0 0Wa 0 Q % C- ) -Tfý04 J ULn n n.0 N '0O0~ 00c - m
p. .-r4 r-4Il C -4 M e' CqJ v-4 r-4 r-ICY) ý4 r- 1 C*4 C14
""
Cij 41~ Wi f
ca $4 -4 ,4) O Q O ý4 r 0 44 210 .W 0.~ 0)4 0 0 b04 U 0): a
,1 1 i)-L W~ 4) 4 0 0 L)C C P r-4 0 4-)
L.) JJo 0 00 0 w4 C0CO0W ý44 -4 t cWQ0 0 0H -4~ % w~8~. 44 H r4
co ca0
-62-
APPENDIX APage 7 of 7
-- 0 0b
-W-0 0%000000 00-A r0D 0 ~ ~ * 0 04 CD- 0 4
P z wLn r40 H-
0 0 :3 0 :3414 1- 0 4- .0
co 10 0 pOV 0 054 *- r4 0UC 0"0
PQ E-4 0 0-A 0 W Orl -l
w 0 4 0 "0~ *0 a
0 " r 0 C 4 -r4C $4,-r4 0 W > -A4 04J0*0$HO-WO 0 -W- 0 MOB~4 0 1I 0Q
ka )%r4 U0 -r *0) - J.4 40) . 44.0 M T4 4 h" 0, "0 $4- 0 P 00
PW . 00 -r A J-4 r -440'44 ^ H-4 . 0 ca :s41 w 41 j41
0q0 00 o0 00O-NZ P.H OH 1-4 H CO
,-4,V-4 %.0 M -4 0 0) I I I
$4 b. oE4
*r4 ccUc C :4.) P,4 14CU 00 r-4 020 V-I -4E 0 CO -4
".,- cU Ej4 E-4 CQE-4 1.40
.w $.4 H- 0)0 0) Q) 44-r4*-CU 0)4 z 4J I.) 14-6 a)
H- E4 u 0.~ 0 ( C*-r4C U $40 4 0 -4 0d 'd4 60:j0) r. $4 4)
w ~ 0a 41 10~
60 W- *r4 0 :3 (n0 -r4*-4 0)CO 00 000 ca
cd 0 )00'%O% %?DC en00) .0>4W-Ar4H r-4 Cf C14 C-4 p 41) 0 co. -'D P"H0 -4) , r 0-
Cl) 0 u -4w1
Co H~ > -4 p 4 -A C U 1.4a 1 3 4 4r4M a )U)cCO 0 4CCUCV)- 0 )u4)4 -
0) Q)u 0J> 0uO 414.) Q 40WCJr r
Hr r- 0 u W.0 -2 CdCO rrn 0 :0 ca cu0C. 4 U
ca 0 -4 (n -4 $4i u~$4 pk>- 0 P . CO *-r4 0)
CU $4 $41 $4r-40 CU caa 4$1 0 0i 4 )c caC 0U *-r4 -r4 41 >N0 a
CU C:) 0 PU ) 0) 0)" 1u A4J ,4a 0~ A0i U) o. Pd CO $4 r.CO -4 04
4 9 - '0 CU to . (1) 0 a caC 1 3r r41 r-4ca 0 9zcc P4 nd OOcnI< u cam
O4J CCH P040E4 CI ccC.CI En ý'jf Ni u
Ow~~ ~i P4cl.1 b4rP4d ::)
-63-
APPENDIX B (1.)
00 N 4 O'0 ý0 ooo '-40cto4 -oO %o,-4tw-4 4L) en PC-4 040* 0 r- r4Lo LfnO U0CYN C, 00c
co r- en %0 '%~D V4 r-4 40 0%04 r- r- u Ln r-4 Lf4.W 0 a a a a a a a a a a a
,4r -4H C*4 r4e14 v-4 r-4 C -4 C 4 ý4H,-I,"4
0.-r4
0 1 1 1 10 -TOr-I 1 10 1I 1 11I
r-4 0 O4 0Y 0H 0 41' LfC* r4
P4 M~ 000 01.0 Cn M004J 004 OHLF4 Ln Ln 0 M4-4 000 0 r-4 Cn 0O~Cn 0007% Ln C4 C* r4 H0 40 000 1004t r-4 0 CJ4Ln% irl ~000% 00 ON
E00'uLr h-4,ý%D oOcr-ý r:'-H0' c~a0'u- t 4r:4J ". r'-1 10 r, C%4 M r- M Mc a, 04 r, " r.O,4 n0rMI Hv4 , -4 r4 -4 C*. r-4H rA -4 C4 r4 -4 r-4 f
0 0 t
0
*r4~ 00 C 0C0C'M 4%,D 1 00 1 0000 %O000
H41 w 00uLn 0 cn 4 CD00 Lf 4U 14r-4C" C%4 1 00H 0. u r. .a a a a - a aa .
r4 -140'r-0 004 . 0'4 00i 41 H
-,4
P~ 0004e4 0 -4r- 0 CIJ L1 4 DO)O 00 un uH 4 4 .-4.,-4 0) Ln Mr-- 0C)0 M uYN JC- 4 u0C 0CDr--' " Cl4 Ln -0 0> T0 r0 o0cJ4 t tr- r- o 0un~ -4 tLn% r-. m cr > ca
> ,.4 a a a a a a a a aa0 r44U -r4 Lf) ,t 4 C4 r-=Lr r- M~ %0r-~. %,o r- r0 r-4 0-
4 -4 CJH r--.4 4 -4 -4 H 4
p4 U) $4j
0U J 0 0 0)A4 r44.4 .41
~~~o0 0- - 4 M $
pq~~ ~ ~ ~ -r &)r4 0 )
w'' 04J Hj H004 HQU flo OU4-1 ~H 0 co >U 1 41 ;
U ~ Q)lU 0 4Jr.- 4.40 r. 40 CH0 H Hr 1- -"" 0 .%.)C Y 0 4J -CUr4 0br.0U' .
E t0 r.~ 0. O0r4 J4 r.frC: 0~ CC. 0r 4
04 p U 0 u " 0 PW"A 0 au PA Ca .01 En
-64-
APPENDIX B (2)
EXAMPLES OF TOTAL LINK REPEATER COSTSa/
(No trunked paths included)b/
Numberof Total Average
Radar LMWR Cost $/MWR
Spokane-Seattle 8 $502,206 $62,775Paso Robles-Oakland 6 282,051 47,008Las Vegas-Los Angeles 8 669,867 83,733Cedar City-Salt Lake City 10 414,188 41,419Silver City-Albuquerque 12 383,075 31,923Lusk-Denver 7 242,945 24,706North Platte-Denver 9 268,469 29,829Grand Junction-Denver 9 656,755 72,972Houston-San Antonio 8 249,660 31,207Texarkana-Fort Worth 7 201,745 28,820Oklahoma City-Fort Worth 6 148,738 24,790Odessa-Fort Worth 11 310,500 28,227Nashville-Memphis 7 202,628 28,947Pittsburgh-Cleveland 5 120,051 24,010Charleston-Jacksonville 8 261 ,100 32,637Valdosta-Jacksonville 3 95,101 31,700Roanoke-Washington 10 167,646 16,765Benson-Washington 10 198,314 19,831Montauk-New York 3 148,432 49,477Lewiston-New York 6 155,758 25,960Lynch-Indianapolis 10 169,600 16,960Jackson-Memphis 8 145,750 18,219
a/ includes civil and electronic engineering constructionand installation costs.
b/ In some cases one repeater of the link may be dual ortriple.
SOURCE: Quarterly Report, Facility Establishment Costs.
-65-
APPENDIX B (3)
H- OH "4CY 0 - ýO %0Lf Ln 00~00co -W Lrneo4 000 cooen%0%t 0 Ln0I"-
00 0a
0
-W 00~n I OUn 1 %0 1 01 0Cd 0'%D 0C' en "O 0 LfnH4 00%0 00 i-4' -. nL
CU e'e.J~- ("JY-4
U) 0E-4 ONC l r - 0L 0r
M E-nr444 "r4 *
S 0 LE4 -a 00i4 uL' I~000
U -A-A 0 -4C)O ON~u r%0'tr-4 0 1 0 0 cr4 0$ 0C)0O f-* -aaaaaaaaaaa-A
r. 4 0 o1 OHO V) n 00 % %DLC 0 LrO0 0
4 Jr.J C'J r4 H4%0 cn-,- en ' C"JUo
Z41 U Or4 4GQ 1" 0 '
H u 4 IQ) v- 0 0'
4-44-H
0 ý
;4 4.1 $4 C'04 ooY 0r- C.*OOt 00 00 00 Quýc U) HO ) OC'ýCrl o00r- 4-,t-1 00.40 Ca0 0 -A0) %.OLf)Cn 0OHO- r-H4, O00e'nrH
> 0 a a a a afat
0
4.4
4.11
41 0
P.4 41a 0a 1041 041 0 p
U)CU OH p C2 0 -A H 0)
ad 4xc. ) U) W 1 0 "
0 a0 0ý0 U') r 4-F4 0 ! . CUCUCU 4 *d4.J0 :3 0
-66-
APPENDIX CPage 1 of 2
FAA REGIONAL MAINTENANCE ESTIMATES/
(For Microwave Repeaters and Terminals)
Total No. if Cost CategoriesRepeaters Cost Sites Not Included
Kenansville, Fla. $11,676 1 2, 5, 10, 12, 13Indiantown, Fla. 11,728 1 SameDavis, Fla. 11,125 1 SameFt. Drum, Fla. 11,928 1 SameDel Ray Beach, Fla. 11,434 1 SameMcDill AFB to Patrick
AFB-Miami Link 51,011 4 SameWest Palm Beach, Fla. 12,025 1 SamePalermo, N.J. 12,034 1 SameAtlantic City, N.J. 9,958 1 2, 5, 10, 12, 13, 7Warren Grove, N.J. 10,753 1 2, 5, 10, 12, 13Imlaystown, N.J. 11,858 1 SameSouth River, N.J. 11,968 1 SameSt. Francis, N.Y. 12,879 1 SameAshley Hall, S.C. 17,649 1 SameJacksonboro, S.C. 18,368 1 SameYenasee, S.C. 18,845 1 SameHardyville, S.C. 17,944 1 SameBurroughs, Ga. 17,686 1 SameSouth Newport, Ga. 18,433 1 SameThallman, Ga. 18,066 1 SameSeals, Ga. 18,121 1 SameGarden City-Kansas City 11,794 1 SameCondon-Seattle 151,220 10 SameFallon-Oakland 182,416 12 SameCedar City-Los Angeles 285,013 19 Same
Terminals
McDill AFB (Tampa)- 2, 3, 5, 7, 10,Miami 30,546 2 12, 13
Palermo-New York 15,736 1 2, 7, 8, 5, 9,12, 13
New York-New York 15,737 1 2, 8, 5, 10, 12, 13Charleston, S.C.-
Jacksonville 23,766 2 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13Garden City-Kansas City 17,505 1 SameCondon-Seattle 49,519 2 SameFallon-Oakland 49,519 2 Sameb/Cedar City-Los Angeles 49,519 2 Same
-67-
APPENDIX CPage 2 of 2
a/ No equipment spares included.
b/ Includes $4,000 in trucks and snow vehicles.
Note: Cost Categories
I. Personal Services2. Caretaker/Station Laborers3. Overtime4. Travel5. AF-200 Stocks and Stores6. Transportation of things7. Rents, Communications Utilities8. Other Contractor Devices9. Facility Supply Items
10. Flight Check11. Additional Support Cost12. Special Maintenance Property13. Replacement Test and Working Equipment
-68-