43. Letter From the Ambassador in Vietnam (Durbrow) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Robertson)1
Dear Walter: I refer to our Telegram No. 206 of August 5, 1958,2 regarding the question of jet trainers for Viet-Nam and the development of jet facilities for the use of the USAF in this area. I refer, in particular, to the sentence in paragraph 2 of the reference [Page 106] telegram reading: “We also plan explore possibilities for creation alternative emergency jet landing facility at least one other site in Central Viet-Nam.”
I discussed the latter point with several visitors from CINCPAC in the last few months as well as with General Williams and the members of the MAAG Air Section. After giving careful consideration to the question, all these officers are convinced that it would be in the interest of the United States to create a second jet facility at Tourane, the first one, of course, being the one we plan to build at Saigon. As I understand it, the fields at Bangkok, Clark and Taiwan are the only ones in this area now capable of handling jets. In case of hostilities in this area, military planners believe it essential to have at least two other alternate fields—Saigon and Tourane.
As in the case of the Tan-son-Nhut Airport in Saigon, it would be necessary to build a jet facility at Tourane under a completely commercial cover. If we endeavored to build a jet facility which was obviously or openly admitted to be for USAF, we would undoubtedly run into serious difficulties with the ICC. Therefore, as pointed out in the reference telegram, we must—if we are to build a jet facility at Tourane—be sure that all agencies concerned concert to maintain the cover that the jet facility at Tourane is also for commercial purposes and a “purely commercial” airport. After thinking the matter through, we believe that a plausible case could be made for building a jet facility at Tourane as an alternate field for the fairly heavily travelled commercial route, Hong Kong-Bangkok. We already have VOR and 4 KWNDB Beacons at Tourane to assist commercial airliners on that route. In case of engine trouble or weather difficulties, it could be contended logically that an alternate commercial jet field should be built at Tourane, strictly as a safety measure.
As you undoubtedly know, in our present aid programs we have no projects or funds earmarked for such an alternate jet facility. Therefore, if the Department and other agencies decide that such a facility should be built for use by the USAF in case of hostilities, it will be necessary, after finding the funds, to have them transferred to ICA for the Viet-Nam Airport Program, so that a completely “commercial” cover for the project can be fully maintained. General Williams [Page 107] is asking CINCPAC to send full military justification3 for this alternate field to Washington for consideration by the Department and other agencies.4
Sincerely,
Elbridge A. Durbrow
- Source: Department of State, Vietnam Working Group Files: Lot 66 D 193, Tan son Nhut Airport. Secret; Official–Informal; Limited Distribution. Drafted with the concurrence of Williams and Burrows.↩
- Document 25.↩
-
A military justification is contained at least in part in a letter from Knight, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, to Robertson, December 30, which reads:
“There is a United States military requirement for two airfields in Viet-Nam capable of sustaining jet operations to accommodate United States Forces in support of United States contingency plans for defense of Viet-Nam.
“There are presently only seven airfields in Southeast Asia that will be capable of operating jet aircraft; one in Burma, two in Malaya and one operational and three being improved in Thailand. Presently the International Cooperation Administration is programming improvement for Tan Son Nhut in Viet-Nam, so that it can accommodate commercial jet aviation.
“As it appears that it will be some time in the indefinite future before the Geneva Accords can be interpreted to permit military jet aircraft for Viet-Nam, it seems desirable that ICA program a second commercial jet airfield in Viet-Nam specifically at Cape St. Jacques. This can be justified on the basis that commercial jet operations from Saigon require alternate landing facilities, Cape St. Jacques being an excellent alternative. These two fields would provide the minimum jet facilities required by United States military plans. The runways of these airfields should be a minimum of nine thousand feet in length.
“It is requested that the Department of State initiate appropriate action with ICA to secure the completion of the new strip at Tan Son Nhut at the earliest practical date and to secure the programming of a second strip at Cape St. Jacques.” (Department of State, Vietnam Working Group Files: Lot 66 D 193, Tan son Nhut Airport)
For Dillon’s response, see Document 67.
↩ -
Robertson responded in a letter to Durbrow, January 30, 1959, as follows:
“We have delayed replying to your letter of December 15, 1958, regarding a second jet airport facility in Viet-Nam for U.S. Air Force use because we had hoped to send a cable to you on this subject at the same time. Since the question of a second jet facility for Viet-Nam requires coordination with W/MSC, ICA and Defense, we considered it advisable to deal substantively with this facility in formal communications since informal letters do not lend themselves well to handling inter-agency matters. Clearance difficulties have held up the cable, but we hope that it can be transmitted shortly to you.
“Shortly after receipt of your letter the Department of Defense sent us a letter proposing that the second jet facility for Viet-Nam be located at Cap St. Jacques rather than at Tourane (as you proposed). We expect the cable now in process to request your view concerning the Defense proposal as well as the means of funding it.
“Your letter states that you understand that the only airfields in your area now capable of handling jets are at Bangkok, Clark and Taiwan. For your background information you may be interested in knowing that, according to Defense, there will be seven airfields in Southeast Asia, excluding those in Viet-Nam, capable of handling jet aircraft: one in Burma, two in Malaya, and one operational and three being improved in Thailand.” (Department of State, Vietnam Working Group Files, Lot 66 D 193, Tan son Nhut Airport)
↩