HISTORY - Page 68

September 1956, but at the same time, a statutory fiscal limitation was placed against the JUPITER program retroactive to 1 July. Compliance with this directive was almost an impossibility, as 20,000 documents had already been processed with installations throughout the country. ABMA immediately interposed a reclama to this directive, but it was January 1957 before the restriction was lifted 93 . Two events discussed earlier in the study—Navy pull-out and the DOD decision on roles and missions—caused further adverse action in JUPITER funding. The Air Force had no particular interest in being involved in the development of a second IRBM, and by mid-1957 the Secretary of Defense was becoming more and more of the opinion that only one IRBM was needed. This turn of events had an immediate impact on the ABMA program. Allocations for certain portions of the FY 1957 MCA program were withheld, and the FY 1958 development program was pegged at $35 million to run through November 1957. October world events and recommendations by the ad hoc committee that both IRBM's be developed brought changes. The approved figure in January 1958 for FY 1958 funds stood at $360.35 million. Of this amount, $230.97 million was to cover IOC procurement and production, but OSD-BMC withdrew the amount the next month pending an agreement by the Army and Air Force on reimbursement. Subsequently, the FY 1958 IOC P&P was placed at $202.70 million. As for the FY 1957 MCA, construction was _____________________________
Back Back Forward Forward
93. Hist, ABMA, Jul-Dec 56, pp. 47 & 52; JUP Prog Rpt for Sep 56, 8 Oct 56; JUP Prog Rpt for Jan 57, undated, Hist Off files.
Made with Xara

HISTORY - Page 69

$11,534 million P&P, and a $25 million MCA program 92 . These funds were approved in September 1956, but at the same time, a statutory fiscal limitation was placed against the JUPITER program retroactive to 1 July. Compliance with this directive was almost an impossibility, as 20,000 documents had already been processed with installations throughout the country. ABMA immediately interposed a reclama to this directive, but it was January 1957 before the restriction was lifted 93 . Two events discussed earlier in the study—Navy pull- out and the DOD decision on roles and missions—caused further adverse action in JUPITER funding. The Air Force had no particular interest in being involved in the development of a second IRBM, and by mid-1957 the Secretary of Defense was becoming more and more of the opinion that only one IRBM was needed. This turn of events had an immediate impact on the ABMA program. Allocations for certain portions of the FY 1957 MCA program were withheld, and the FY 1958 development program was pegged at $35 million to run through November 1957. October world events and recommendations by the ad hoc committee that both IRBM's be developed brought changes. The approved figure in January 1958 for FY 1958 funds stood at $360.35 million. Of this amount, $230.97 million was to cover IOC procurement and production, but OSD-BMC withdrew the amount the next month pending an agreement by the Army and Air Force on reimbursement. Subsequently, the FY 1958 IOC P&P was placed at $202.70 million. As for the FY 1957 MCA, construction was _____________________________
92. Hist, ABMA, Feb-Jun 56, p.67. 93. Hist, ABMA, Jul-Dec 56, pp. 47 & 52; JUP Prog Rpt for Sep 56, 8 Oct 56; JUP Prog Rpt for Jan 57, undated, Hist Off files.
Back Back Forward Forward