Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 132
5
Technology Development and
Insertion for Sustainment
INTRODUCTION
This chapter addresses element 3 of the terms of reference (TOR), that is, “De-
termine if any modifications in technology efforts are required, and, if so, identify
them and make recommendations regarding the technology efforts that should
be pursued, because they could make positive impacts on the sustainment of the
current and future systems and equipment of the Air Force.” Since its foundation,
guided by the prescient words of Gen. Henry H. “Hap” Arnold, the U.S. Air Force
(USAF) has demanded that technology development be a key element in provid-
ing the wherewithal to make the Air Force second to none in the world. Although
the specific organizational structures have varied in response to changing times
and needs, research and development (R&D) from the most basic, far-reaching
scientific research through development, and on to testing and evaluation have
been pursued with vigor.
Academic research, coupled with that of the Air Force laboratories and matured
within Department of Defense (DoD)-funded programs and in industry, has led
to the extraordinary array of technical marvels that patrol the air, cyberspace, and
space domains in times of peace and war. Throughout the Air Force’s history, the
results of much of this research effort have appeared in new systems, with emphases
on immediate advancements in performance. Long-term durability was sought
132
OCR for page 133
technology development inseRtion s U s tA i n m e n t 133
And foR
and achieved over time through the application of refined technical understanding
and the development and insertion of new materials and processes. New technol-
ogy also found its way into the maintenance process through the introduction of
refined detection apparatus and enhanced repair protocol. In an environment of
rapid replacement of old systems with new ones, this strategy has been sustain-
able with modest maintenance costs. In the present and projected future, however,
with limited new system procurement anticipated, a new strategy must govern the
introduction of new technology and its impacts on sustainment of the warfighters’
requirements to carry out their assigned missions.
The combination of an aging fleet of aircraft with new aircraft whose technol-
ogy has been primarily utilized to improve the performance of Air Force weapon
systems has created a large sustainment cost problem for the Air Force. This
problem has been made worse as the size of the Air Forces’ fleet has decreased
and some aircraft, although small in overall numbers (e.g., the B-2), require a
huge sustainment effort to keep them “mission ready.” Many examples illustrate
how the injection of technology into an existing aircraft system has increased
reliability and thereby greatly reduced the sustainment burden of the system
(e.g., the F-100 engine required maintenance at 6,000 tacs vs. 4,000 tacs). That
said, the non-recurring cost of injecting technology into existing aircraft may
impede Air Force acceptance even when the life-cycle cost of not introducing
that technology is greater. Although some Air Force technology initiatives have
focused on reducing the Air Forces’ sustainment burden, in general technology
development remains primarily focused on enhanced performance. In addition,
programs that historically have been utilized to inject technology into the existing
fleet have been weakened or no longer exist.
Although much of the new technology investment in the laboratory is origi-
nally targeted at new systems, it may find its way into existing systems. Maintenance
depots are increasingly the locale for the insertion of this new technology into
legacy systems and those under acquisition but in modification sequence. Sustain-
ment will also continue to be an integral part of new system development as the
Air Force focuses attention on its program of Integrated Life-Cycle Management
(ILCM).
In this chapter, the implications of ILCM for the technology development
and insertion processes will be explored; a broad survey of the array of relevant
technologies identified; current technology development and transition processes
described and analyzed; and suggestions made for improvement. The breadth
of the technical areas and the broad charge outlined in the TOR preclude an in-
OCR for page 134
U. s . A i R f o Rc e ’ s A i Rc R A f t s U s tA i n m e n t n e e d s fUtURe
134 in the
depth development of a proposed technical agenda; however, recent studies serve
to complement this study with respect to comprehensive technical analyses.1,2,3,4,5
POLICIES AND GUIDANCE
The task of characterizing the current state of both the technology and institu-
tional and management processes is a daunting one for an institution as complex as
the Air Force and its many partners in system development. In addition, the study
was conducted in an environment of rapid change in these processes within the
DoD and the Air Force in particular. Fortunately, an array of recent related studies
has provided background for the committee’s particular focus. In the next section,
some of these studies will be briefly reviewed to set the stage for the drill-down to
the specifics required by the TOR. The following statements regarding life-cycle
affordability and sustainment reflect the current vision and responsibilities within
senior Air Force leadership:
Science and Technology Program Tenets:
Demonstrate advanced technologies that address affordability by promoting efficiencies,
enhancing the effectiveness, readiness, and availability of today’s systems, and addressing
lifecycle costs of future systems.
S&T Program Priorities:
Priority 1.2: Improve the agility, mobility, affordability, and survivability of Air Force assets.
Priority 2.1: Improve the sustainment, affordability, and availability of legacy systems.
1 Logistics Management Institute (LMI). 2009. Future Capability of DoD Maintenance Depots:
Interim Report. LG901M1. December. Mclean, Virginia: LMI. Available at http://armedservices.
house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=be97f304-3d15-4e96-bc24-689f8cb6c633. Accessed Febru-
ary 20, 2011.
2 LMI. 2011. Future Capability of DoD Maintenance Depots. LG901M2. February. McLean, Virginia:
LMI. Available at http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=394b31e6-4adc-47
ca-a6f5-21547f0751fa. Accessed February 20, 2011.
3 Vince Russo. “Greybeard Assessment of the Sustainment Technology Transition Process.” Presenta -
tion to the committee, February 7, 2011.
4 National Research Council (NRC). 2011. Research Opportunities in Corrosion Science and Engi -
neering. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.
php?record_id=13032.
5 NRC. 2011. Materials Needs and R&D Strategy for Future Military Aerospace Propulsion Sys -
tems. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. vailable at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.
php?record_id=13144.
OCR for page 135
technology development inseRtion s U s tA i n m e n t 135
And foR
Priority 4.1: Be a trusted partner of the acquisition/sustainment community to assess
technology maturity and enhance and accelerate technology transition.6
These priorities must be met within the more specific guidelines that define
the acquisition process. Likewise, in AFI-63-101, the Air Force establishes defini-
tions and assigns roles related to technology implications on ILCM. 7 Critical to
the current discussion is section 1.4.5, where technology planning and insertion
is defined as:
…the timely maturation and incorporation of relevant technology throughout the program
life cycle to ensure an operationally effective and suitable system. Technology planning
and the assessment of technology readiness levels include consideration of such factors as
reliability, producibility, testability, sustainability and operational performance. Successful
technology planning and insertion as part of program life cycle management results in
higher fidelity time phased requirements with a more realistic schedule and improved cost
estimates [emphasis added]. (p. 12)8
Responsibilities for senior leadership in the acquisition chain are clearly articu-
lated. It is the Commander, Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), who is tasked
to “execute the AFMC Mission Assignment Process throughout the ILCM life cycle
[and] establish management responsibilities and align the AFMC acquisition and
sustainment infrastructure in support of approved missions/levels of service to
achieve designated AF ILCM enterprise objectives” (section 2.19.8) and “plan and
execute the S&T Program” (section 2.19.14). Interestingly, in defining the respon-
sibilities for the Commander, Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), AFI-63-101
does not explicitly mention “sustainment,” even though execution of technology
development and support of sustainment operations have long been a traditional
responsibility of the Air Force science and technology (S&T) laboratories. The Air
Force Chief Scientist recently released a 20-year vision document that describes
the realm of the possible and dreamed for capabilities that should guide the Air
Force’s technology development.9 Embedded in this document are statements that
characterize leadership thinking about sustainment:
6 StevenH. Walker, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology and Engi -
neering. “Air Force Science and Technology Strategy.” Presentation to the Air Force Studies Board,
November 16, 2010.
7 USAF. 2011. Air Force Guidance Memorandum to AFI 63-101, Acquisition and Sustainment Life
Cycle Management Incorporating Through Change 3. March 22. Available at http://www.af.mil/
shared/media/epubs/AFI63-101.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2011.
8 Ibid.
9 USAF. 2010. Technology Horizons: A Vision for Air Force Science and Technology During 2010-
2030 (Volume I). May 1. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief Scientist of the Air Force.
OCR for page 136
U. s . A i R f o Rc e ’ s A i Rc R A f t s U s tA i n m e n t n e e d s fUtURe
136 in the
Sustainment is essential to the Air Force mission. As legacy air platforms and other systems
continue to be used throughout this period, and as new platforms and systems are intro -
duced during this time, technologies to support improved sustainability or to reduce costs
associated with sustainment will continue to be essential. (p. 35)
Expanding on this statement of intent, the report clarifies the role of the AFRL
Commander by defining a list of actions required of the AFRL:10
2.1. Determine Alignment of Current S&T Portfolio with “Technology Horizons”
2.2. Identify Fraction of Portfolio to be Aligned with “Technology Horizons”
3.1. Identify Current Efforts Requiring Realignment or Redirection
3.2. Determine New S&T Efforts That Must Be Started (pp. 112-113)
Finding 5-1. The Air Force has recently assigned a higher priority to sustain-
ment technology and has stated its intention to move to an ILCM strategy.
Properly implemented, such a strategy implies sensitivity to sustainment in
all technology development.
Finding 5-2. Implementation of ILCM is at various stages of development
in organizations within the Air Force, but is not yet institutionalized in the
research, development, testing, and engineering (RDT&E) system.11,12
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSITION
As suggested in Finding 5-1, to achieve ILCM, sustainment must be built into
technology development at all stages. Although the detailed management issues
will markedly vary depending on the specifics of the technology and the intended
application (maintenance of legacy systems through to development of envisioned
systems), broad underlying management issues govern the process of all technol-
ogy development and transition within the DoD in general and the Air Force in
particular. These processes have undergone frequent changes over the past decade
or so and are in flux within the Air Force as this report is being written. A recent
NRC report described these changing processes in great detail while constraining
its focus to new systems. The NRC characterized the program it evaluated from
10 USAF. 2010. Technology Horizons: A Vision for Air Force Science and Technology During 2010-
2030 (Volume I). May 1. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief Scientist of the Air Force.
11 Committee Meeting 2, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, December 7-9, 2010.
12 Committee Meeting 4, Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), Tech Edge Innovation and Col -
laboration Center, Dayton, Ohio, February 7- 8, 2011.
OCR for page 137
technology development inseRtion s U s tA i n m e n t 137
And foR
March to August 2010 as one in need of serious attention. Several quotes reflect
the NRC’s concerns:13
None of the many Air Force presenters to the committee was able to articulate a USAF level,
integrated science and technology (S&T) strategy, nor could they identify a single office with
authority, resources, and responsibility for all S&T initiatives across the Service. Instead,
there appears to be an assortment of technology “sandboxes,” in which various players
work to maximize their organizational self-interest, as they perceive it. In such a system,
optimization will always take place at the subunit level, with less regard for the health of
the overarching organization. (p. 7)
Among the most critical resources are robust processes, from the very conception of a
program. For both government and industry, well-defined and well-understood work
processes in all phases of program management are essential to successful technological
development. Repeatedly during the study, evidence was presented that within the Air Force
some of these processes have been diluted in significant ways in the past decade and are
only now beginning to be reinvigorated. (p. 29)
Previous studies suggest that the Air Force needs to do more effective planning in the
earliest stages of programs, when ultimate cost, schedule and technical performance are
most malleable, and thus most readily influenced. Recently, the Kaminski Report addressed
this aspect directly, highlighting the need for systems engineering and the importance of
the role that systems engineering plays in the major systems acquisition process.14 It also
persuasively made the case for a return to the days of Development Planning, describing
how prior to 1990 the Air Force used Development Planning to assess and integrate the
various acquisition stakeholder communities, to include especially combat commands, the
Air Force Research Laboratory, and acquisition Product Centers. According to the Kaminski
Report, the use of Development Planning, coupled with systems engineering, resulted in the
delivery of needed capability to the warfighter in a timely and affordable manner. In addi-
tion to Development Planning, there exist two other significant tools in the quest for clear,
realistic, trade-off tolerant, stable, and universally understood requirements. These tools are
the once-effective ATCs [Applied Technology Councils], in which warfighting commands,
acquisition and logistics organizations, and laboratories managed the linkages between
operational requirements, technology development, and systems acquisition—with the
added benefit of the interpersonal relationships that developed, as well as the face-to-face
communications which ensued. The third tool is the establishment and disciplined use of
measures of technological readiness, so that only when a technology is well-defined and
demonstrated does it make the transition from the laboratory world to become part of a
major system acquisition program. (p. 44)
The NRC’s 2008 report, supported by extensive benchmarking from successful
13 NRC. 2011. Evaluation of U.S. Air Force Preacquisition Technology Development . Washington,
D.C.: The National Academies Press. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13030.
14 NRC. 2008. Pre-Milestone A and Early-Phase Systems Engineering. Washington, D.C.: The Na -
tional Academies Press. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12065.
OCR for page 138
U. s . A i R f o Rc e ’ s A i Rc R A f t s U s tA i n m e n t n e e d s fUtURe
138 in the
technology development and transitions then in place in the United States Navy,
United States Army, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and several
industrial concerns, focused attention on the “three R’s”: requirements, resources,
and the right people. It is worth repeating the definitions of these guiding principles
because they frame the discussion of the current state of sustainment technology
at the close of this chapter:
1. Requirements—clear, realistic, stable, trade-off tolerant, and universally understood;
2. Resources—adequate and stable, and including robust processes, policies, and budgets;
and
3. The Right People—skilled, experienced, and in sufficient numbers, with stable leader-
ship. (p. 3)15
As dramatic testimony to the fact that the Air Force S&T strategy and imple-
mentation are currently in flux, many of the issues raised in the 2011 NRC report
had already begun to be addressed by the Air Force at the time of its final publica-
tion, and other issues are being addressed by this report. Nonetheless, much re-
mains to be done. In 2010, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Science,
Technology, and Engineering) outlined many of these changes to strategy, develop-
ment planning, and prioritization by a process similar to the Applied Technology
Councils (ATCs) and workforce development. These topics will be reviewed later
in this chapter with specific focus on their implications to the development and
insertion of sustainment technologies.16
Finding 5-3. The Air Force is in the early stages of instituting a focused man-
agement approach and of developing plans with requirements, resources, and
right people designed to succeed within the ILCM strategy.
TECHNOLOGY AREAS RELEVANT TO SUSTAINMENT
Defining Sustainment Technology Needs
Technology may influence sustainment of the fleet in many ways. These span
the range of problem identification and repair of legacy systems to the development
of new materials with longer projected lifetimes. Sustainment technology includes
those technological advances that, when inserted on an aircraft or aircraft sub-
system, produce improvements in the performance life and or maintenance of the
15 NRC. 2011. Evaluation of U.S. Air Force Preacquisition Technology Development. Washington,
D.C.: The National Academies Press. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13030.
16 Steven H. Walker, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology and En -
gineering. “Air Force Science and Technology Strategy.” Presentation to the Air Force Studies Board,
November 16, 2010.
OCR for page 139
technology development inseRtion s U s tA i n m e n t 139
And foR
aircraft or aircraft sub-system. Sustainment technology may be inserted on aircraft
engines, airframe structures, sensors, weapon systems, electronics, hardware, and
software. Also included are technologies and advanced processes and practices that
include improved forecasting, lean processes and practices, manufacturing, diag-
nostic and prognostic tools and procedures, personnel education and training, and
integrated databases. Too often, technology development programs characterized
as “sustainment” are exclusively those targeted at legacy system vehicles, when in
fact important sustainment technology opportunities in support of ILCM, includ-
ing long-term research on underpinning science, may be found throughout the
lifecycle. Chapter 4 addresses sustainment of software, while this chapter focuses
primarily on vehicles and engines.
In the vehicle and engine areas alone, there is a broad array of relevant techni-
cal applications and finite available resources, and a process for their prioritization
are required. Recently compiled statistics, shown in Figure 5-1, from the Air Force
FIGURE 5-1
Figure 5-1.eps
Total possessed hours for the KC-10 system. AA, aircraft availability; DFT, depot field team; PDM,
programmed depot maintenance; MOD, modification; UDLM, unscheduled depot-level maintenance.
bitmap
SOURCE: Fran Crowley, Director, Air Force Fleet Viability Board. “AF FVB Feedback for the Air Force
Studies Board.” Presentation to the committee, December 7, 2010.
OCR for page 140
U. s . A i R f o Rc e ’ s A i Rc R A f t s U s tA i n m e n t n e e d s fUtURe
140 in the
Fleet Viability Board might be considered as input to such a prioritization process.
Issues limiting aircraft availability (AA) in the most recent year studied were clas-
sified into the several technical root-cause categories listed.
It may be presumed that significant technology fixes might be developed to
improve some of the identified issues, but it is clear that no single “fix” will by itself
dramatically affect availability of this particular aircraft. Although the S&T com-
munity has often been called upon and in many cases has assisted in the develop-
ment of such point fixes, the preferred strategy is to develop information about
issues that are pervasive across platforms and focus development on technologies
likely to impact broadly across the fleet. Accomplishments in one such area, high-
cycle fatigue, are described in Box 5-1.
In identifying such pervasive technology areas, the S&T community is aided
by programs managed within the Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC): for example,
the Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP), the Engine Structural Integrity
Program (ENSIP), the Functional Systems Integrity Program (FSIP), and the En-
gine Component Improvement Program (CIP). CIP also has a history of assisting
transitions of sustainment technology, but in recent years has done little of this
because of significant budget cuts. With input from the ALCs, appropriate program
offices, industry, and the Air Force and other DoD S&T community, these programs
continue to identify technology needs, share accomplishments in regular confer-
ences, publish standard practices, and in the best of circumstances influence the
identification of priorities for funding by one or more entities. Figure 5-2 depicts
one of the key areas addressed by ASIP; the committee was informed that labora-
tory work is under way at various levels of intensity in each of the areas indicated
in the figure.17
The interaction of the AFRL with these integrity programs is explored further
below, but in the present context, it is worth noting that many of these integrity
programs have a long history (ASIP was initiated in 1958) and represent a signifi-
cant resource for identifying “needs” to be addressed. Translating this list of needs
into funded “requirements” is a complex process involving many other players.
These several independent improvement programs identify opportunities in their
own spheres, but no comprehensive sustainment technology plan currently exists
within AFRL. In its 1997 report exploring the elements that would be expected in
such a plan, the NRC presented a template that might be used as AFRL reexamines
its sustainment portfolio:
1. Develop an overall strategy that addresses the Air Force aging aircraft needs
2. Recommend and prioritize specific technology opportunities in the areas of
17 Pam Kobryn. “Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP).” Presentation to the committee,
February 7, 2011.
OCR for page 141
technology development inseRtion s U s tA i n m e n t 141
And foR
BOX 5-1
High-Cycle Fatigue (HCF)
The solutions to the HCF problem that plagued the Air Force for nearly a decade could not have
been possible without the contributions of the Air Force S&T community.
The combination of high frequencies (up to 1,000 Hz), millions of cycles, and low amplitudes can
result in HCF.1 The presence of manufacturing defects or Foreign Object Damage (FOD) provide sites
from which cracks can grow as a result of many millions (or billions) of cycles at stresses well below
the yield strength of the material.2 FOD provides the source of initiation of the crack. HCF provides the
method of propagation. If not detected in time, the end result is catastrophic failure of the component.
Combining HCF conditions with the increasingly higher performance provided by advanced materials
and designs exacerbated the phenomenon.1
From 1995 to 2003, HCF was the major contributor to the failure of components in military gas
turbine engines.3 Studies of the rates of Air Force mishaps over a period of 15 years showed that more
than 50 percent resulted from HCF. Similar data for the United States Navy showed that more than
40 percent of mishaps resulted from HCF. Also during this time HCF began to appear in commercial
engines to a lesser extent than in military engines but with severe consequences to the manufacturer’s
development programs and revenue service for airlines.1 HCF affected virtually all engine components
and many of the materials. It impacted not only engine reliability and safety of flight, but also sustain -
ment, requiring increased field inspections and depot maintenance and reduced aircraft availability.
This problem became so pervasive that a major program was initiated to solve it. The AFRL began
the HCF Initiative with the strategy of developing the tools and techniques to change the basis of HCF
design from empirically based to physics based and then to demonstrate and transition these tools
to the industry design systems. The Initiative consisted of seven action teams: Materials Damage
Tolerance, Component Surface Treatment, Passive Damping Technology, Forced Response Prediction,
Component Analysis, Aeromechanical Characterization, and Instrumentation. Engine demonstrations
were an eighth action team, but as the engine demonstrators supported the overall Integrated High
Performance Turbine Engine Technology program, they were eventually not counted in the HCF
Initiative.1
The impact of the HCF Initiative on current and development engines was enormous. The field en -
gine inspection workload for HCF was reduced by more than 90 percent, and the proportion of engine
mishaps resulting from HCF was reduced from 54 to 7 percent, far exceeding the HCF program goal
of 50 percent.1 Further, these same tools became enabling technologies for the next generation of
high-performance jet engines, including the F-135 engines for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Without
these tools and methods, the development programs would likely have encountered many unexpected
difficulties with the accompanying delays and cost growth. 1
1Theodore Nicholas. 2006. High Cycle Fatigue, A Mechanics of Materials Approach. London, UK: Elsevier.
2Danny Eylon, University of Dayton, personal communication.
3B.A. Cowles. 1996. High cycle fatigue in aircraft gas turbines—an industry perspective. International Journal
of Fracture 80:147-163.
OCR for page 142
U. s . A i R f o Rc e ’ s A i Rc R A f t s U s tA i n m e n t n e e d s fUtURe
142 in the
FIGURE 5-2
Condition-based maintenance as part of the Aircraft Structural Integrity Program. SOURCE: C.A. Babish IV, “ASC/
EN.” Presentation at Panel Session Kick-Off, Figure 5-2.eps
2008 ASIP Conference.
bitmap
• fatigue, corrosion fatigue, and stress corrosion cracking
• corrosion prevention and mitigation
• nondestructive inspection
• maintenance and repair
• failure analysis and life prediction methodologies18
The 1997 NRC report described in great detail the state of the art of all of the
above and suggested 49 specific technical recommendations. This report was well
received by the Air Force and was influential at the time in determining not only
the research agenda, but also the strategies for inserting technology into practice.
This report offers an appropriate template for the sustainment tasks ahead for
18 NRC. 1997. Aging of U.S. Air Force Aircraft: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: The National
Academies Press. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5917. Accessed November
22, 2010.
OCR for page 159
technology development inseRtion s U s tA i n m e n t 159
And foR
Air Force has adopted a strategy of ILCM and instituted new processes to manage
the S&T portfolio. The following section discusses the current state of this transi-
tion under the headings of the three R’s: requirements, resources, and right people.
Requirements
Guidance for establishing requirements in sustainment technology develop-
ment are now to be drawn from the Air Force Science and Technology Strategy 2010,
described earlier in this chapter. Sustainment, one of eight areas targeted for in-
creased emphasis, will be planned along with other areas according to the approach
sketched in that document (see Figure 5-6). This oversimplified diagram describes
the development of technology as a linear feed-forward process, neglecting the
important feed-back of information and experience that often energizes early-stage
development. Nevertheless, it is a convenient planning structure.
AF & Rapid
Prod Center MAJCOM
Air Force Strategy Reaction
ALC Needs
Technology Horizons Urgent Needs
Needs
Capability Service Core
Science &
Technologies Concepts
Leads to Leads to Leads to Function
Knowledge
(50% TOA) (20% TOA) Capabilities
(20% TOA) (10% Flagships)
Low Tech Maturity High
Transitions to Transitions to Transitions to Transitions to
•Labs •Product Centers •Prod Centers •Warfighter
•Industry •ALCs •ALCs •Fielded Systems
•Ideas •Industry •MAJCOMS Subject Ma tter
•Experiments •Demos Experts
•Proto types
FIGURE 5-6
Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) approach to S&T. SOURCE: General Norton A. Schwartz, Chief
Figure 5-7.eps
of Staff, United States Air Force, and Michael B. Donley, Secretary of the Air Force, “ Air Force Science
and Technology Strategy 2010.”
OCR for page 160
U. s . A i R f o Rc e ’ s A i Rc R A f t s U s tA i n m e n t n e e d s fUtURe
160 in the
Quoting Air Force Science and Technology Strategy 2010, the four stages in this
process are42
Science and Knowledge
Science and knowledge are the foundation of the Air Force S&T Program and the corner-
stone of the future force. Based on visions of the future established by Air Force leadership,
Air Force scientists and engineers identify, nurture, and harvest the best basic research
to transform leading-edge scientific discoveries into new technologies with substantial
military potential. These technologies transform the art-of-the-possible into the near-
state-of-the-art and offer new and better ways for the acquisition community to address
far-term warfighter needs.
Technologies
Air Force scientists and engineers continually interact with warfighters to understand their
capability needs. The Air Force S&T Program addresses these needs by leading and harness -
ing innovation across service laboratories, government agencies, industry, and academia.
These efforts mitigate risk and create the foundation for new capability concepts.
Capability Concepts
Senior representatives from Headquarters Air Force, MAJCOMs, Centers, and Air Force
Research Laboratory (AFRL) will work together to define a balanced set of capability
concepts that support known warfighter needs and mitigate risk from emerging threats.
The highest-priority capability concepts are designated as Air Force “Flagship Capability
Concepts (FCCs).” These FCCs address validated capability gaps and increase Air Force
leadership’s visibility into the Air Force S&T Program.
Service Core Function Capabilities
The Air Force’s investment in S&T ensures the infusion of revolutionary and evolutionary
S&T-enabled capabilities that are needed to maintain air, space, and cyberspace dominance.
The Air Force S&T Program will address the needs identified in each of the twelve Service
Core Functions (SCFs). Each of the MAJCOMS has one or more SCFs. Sustainment is
housed in Agile Combat Support, AFMC’s SCF.
As noted earlier in this chapter, technology development for sustainment should
be found at every stage identified in Figure 5-6, but it is primarily in Technologies
that transitions to the ALCs are identified, while both ALCs and MAJCOMs are
called out as recipients in Capability Concepts. The planning process for sustain-
ment within Technologies is primarily the responsibility of AFRL, demands close
cooperation with the ALCs and programs such as ASIP, ENSIP, and FSIP in iden-
tifying priorities, and is endorsed by higher-level validation within AFMC. As this
report is being written, this planning process has not yet been completed, although
extensive pre-planning is evident. During 2010, AFRL commissioned a study by a
42 General Norton A. Schwartz, Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, and The Honorable Michael
B. Donley, Secretary of the Air Force. Air Force Science and Technology Strategy 2010.
OCR for page 161
technology development inseRtion s U s tA i n m e n t 161
And foR
distinguished group, seeking its advice on priorities and process.43 During 2011,
AFRL will be further aided by the results of the AFSAB study on sustainment that
is under way in parallel to this current study and mentioned earlier in the chapter.
Anticipating a successful planning process, the Air Force has already committed
to an increase in funding for this area. This planned increase of funds is consistent
with statements by the Greybeards that the present effort is underfunded, but until
the planning process is complete, no judgment can be made about its adequacy to
address the need. Also uncertain at this time are the specific process changes that
may accompany this technology development plan and how priorities and funding
will be made available for transition to ALCs and industry.
The planning that leads to Capability Concepts supporting the MAJCOMs is
carried out as part of AFRL’s Integrated Planning and Programming (IPP) pro-
cess.44 This “five body” integrated process, involving the TDs, a Capabilities Coun-
cil, a Capabilities Working Group (CWG), an IPP Council, and the Commander,
was developed to ensure a balanced S&T investment portfolio that addresses near-
to far-term warfighter needs. The CWGs are responsible for managing customer-
AFRL interface, gathering needs, and translating those needs into S&T projects
that will deliver the desired capabilities. There is a CWG for each MAJCOM and
its associated SCFs, and each CWG is chaired by a senior leader in the AFRL. In
the case of sustainment, the AFMC CWG addresses AFMC’s SCF of Agile Com-
bat Support, which includes sustainment needs along with those of several other
areas. This CWG is chaired by the Director of the Materials and Manufacturing
Directorate of AFRL. Two organizational paths now exist for high-level validation
and transition of sustainment technology development within AFRL: (1) selec-
tion at the Air Force Requirements Oversight Council (AFROC) in which a very
few Capability Concepts are identified as Air Force Flagship Capability Concepts
(FCCs) and, more commonly, (2) identification as Advanced Technology Devel-
opment (ATD) programs through the Advanced Technology Council accessed via
the Sustainment Technology Process.45 The Capability Concepts/AFROC process
identifies high-priority candidates that may be designated as FCCs. The definition,
characteristics, and attributes of FCCs are shown in Figure 5-7.
Organized within AFRL, these candidate FCCs then follow the process shown
in Figure 5-8 to become FCCs. In the first FCC submission under this new strategic
management approach (completed in November 2010), AFRL submitted several
43 Vince Russo. “Greybeard Assessment ofthe Sustainment Technology Transition Process.” Presen-
tation to the committee, Dayton, Ohio, February 7, 2011.
44 Personal communication between C. Browning and Dr. James Malas, AFRL/XP.
45 USAF. 2011. Sustainment Technology Process. Personal communication from Claudia Kropas-
Hughes, Deputy Chief, Technology Transition Division, AFMC/A5S, to the committee, May 4, 2011.
OCR for page 162
U. s . A i R f o Rc e ’ s A i Rc R A f t s U s tA i n m e n t n e e d s fUtURe
162 in the
Definition: An integrated technology project collaboratively
developed by MAJCOM(s), Center(s), and AFRL that:
Addresses a documented and prioritized MAJCOM capability need
Is commissioned via Air Force S&T governance structure
Is traced to a CRRA gap and linked to a Service Core Function Master
Plan
Attributes:
Initial systems engineering and Development Planning (DP) initiated
Between a leading DP concept and a prototype
Assigned to lead Center for transition
MAJCOM transition manager identified
Transition funding (6.4) committed 2 years prior to S&T completion
Defined S&T baseline/exit criteria
S&T project ideally completed during current Future Years Defense
Program
1 1
FIGURE 5-7
Definition and attributes of Flagship Capability Concepts (FCCs). SOURCE: Steven H. Walker, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology and Engineering. “AF Science and Tech -
nology Strategy.” Presentation to the Air Force Studies Board, November 16, 2010.
FCC candidates, and the Air Force S&T Board recommended that the following
projects be selected as FCCs:46
1. High Velocity Penetrating Weapon (HVPM)
2. Responsive Reusable Boost for Space Access (RBS)
3. Selective Cyber Operations for Tech Integration (SCOTI)
4. Low Observable (LO) Maintainability
5. Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT)
6. Selectable Effects Munitions (SEM)
7. Next Gen C2 and Operations for remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA)
From this list, the AFROC selected the top three candidates.47 The sustainment
candidate, LO Maintainability, did not make the cut during this cycle. However it
was characterized as an excellent program and will continue to support its prime
46 Major General Ellen Pawlikowski. “AFRL Overview to the Electronic Engineering Steering Group.”
January 2011.
47 Ibid.
OCR for page 163
technology development inseRtion s U s tA i n m e n t 163
And foR
S&T Collaborative Needs/Solutions
S&T Drivers Process
NMS, QDR, DPPG, (MAJCOMs/Centers/AFRL)
AF Strategy, Process ACC
Candidate
OPsCs, CRRA, CFMPs, AMC
Identify S&T Needs & AFSOC
FCCs
Technology Horizons, MAJCOM AFSPC
Propose Technology
AF S&T Strategy, ATC AFMC
Solutions
Wargaming GSC
AETC
S&T solutions responsive
to MAJCOM/Center
AF S&T Group
guidance
Review, Validate, & Recommend
Proposed FCCs (22-23 Sep; DC)
AFROC (A5-led) AFS&T Board
Validate FCCs Prioritize & Approve FCCs
(17 Nov; at AFMC) (8 Oct; DC)
POM Build
AFG/AFB/AFC AFMC/AFRL
AFMC—S&T
A8-led process Document in S&T Plan
User MAJCOMs—6.4
FIGURE 5-8
S&T planning process producing Flagship Capability Concepts (FCCs). SOURCE: Steven H. Walker, Deputy Assis-
Figure 5-9.eps
tant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology, and Engineering. “AF Science and Technology Strategy.”
Presentation to the Air Force Studies Board, November 16, 2010.
customer, ACC. The other candidate programs will likewise continue to be worked
by AFRL and its partners as Capability Concepts. This is certainly the highest vis-
ibility given to a sustainment technology program in recent memory and reflects
well on the Air Force’s commitment to reemphasize this important area. The sec-
ond and more common transition path for sustainment technologies will lead to
the AFMC/ATC via the Sustainment Technology Process. This process, identified
earlier in Figure 5-5, has now been revisited and converted into the seven-step
process depicted in Figure 5-9.48
This process was roughly at step 4 when this report was being written and is
expected to lead to recommendation to the AFMC/ATC in 2012. In lieu of comple-
tion of the process this year, AFMC/A4 has identified HVM as the sustainment
candidate for consideration by the AFMC/ATC scheduled for August 2011.
48 USAF. 2011. Sustainment Technology Process. Personal communication from Claudia Kropas-
Hughes, Deputy Chief, Technology Transition Division, AFMC/A5S, to the committee, May 4, 2011.
OCR for page 164
U. s . A i R f o Rc e ’ s A i Rc R A f t s U s tA i n m e n t n e e d s fUtURe
164 in the
FIGURE 5-9
Newly revised sustainment technology process. SOURCE: Claudia Kropas-Hughes, Deputy Chief, Technology
Figure 5-10.eps
Transition Division, AFMC/A5S, personal communication to the committee, May 4, 2011.
bitmap
Resources
Adequate and timely funding are key factors in any successful technology
transition process. Funding issues affecting the sustainment technology transition
process are (1) the restrictions placed on use of funds associated with each category
of the “technology for sustainment” process: development, implementation, and
maintenance; (2) the amount of funds in these categories required to support the
work needed; and (3) the timing of the available funds. Funds are broken out by
appropriations and are often referred to as “colors of money.” There are several
colors of money within the Air Force, but three are strongly tied to the “technol-
ogy for sustainment” processes. Figure 5-10 illustrates the funding categories for
the Air Force S&T program, along with those of the acquisition and operation and
maintenance (O&M) programs, in addition to the various colors of money that
house these program elements.
Their specified functions prohibit use of funds in any category for reasons other
OCR for page 165
technology development inseRtion s U s tA i n m e n t 165
And foR
than those allowed by statutes. If funding for any stage in the technology transition
shown in Figure 5-6 is inadequate, then it is difficult to cover the deficiency with
funds from another color or level.
In addition to category issues, the successful transition of technologies for
sustainment is greatly affected by the amount of funding within each of the stake-
holders—the blocks within the levels shown in Figure 5-10—and the timing of
these funds. Amounts and timing are firmly linked. Adequate funding at the S&T
stage is essential to creating and sustaining technical expertise, producing a suite of
technologies with potential sustainment applications, and developing totally new
technology solutions to sustainment issues. Inserting S&T solutions that are not
quick reaction support can be very time sensitive. In many cases, there is a window
of opportunity where the need, S&T solution, system lifecycle stage, and funding
all align. If the funding is not there, on time, this delicate balance can be disrupted,
and the window can close very quickly. Because of the time-sensitive nature of the
Color of Money
Activity
3400
System
Operations & Maintenance
System Production
3010
6.3B/6.4/6.5
System Development
6.3
6.3
Advanced Technology Dev
3600
Manufacturing Technology
Critical
ATDs
Experiments
6.2
Applied Research
6.1
Basic Research
FIGURE 5-10
Figure 5-11.eps
Program elements by funding levels.
OCR for page 166
U. s . A i R f o Rc e ’ s A i Rc R A f t s U s tA i n m e n t n e e d s fUtURe
166 in the
insertion process, reprogramming of funds or developing new sources of funds
may not be an option.
As shown in Figure 5-11, the overall DoD S&T budget requests for 6.3 funds
have been relatively constant since FY 2003 and fairly flat for 6.1 and 6.2 funds
since FY 1998. Congressional interest items and external entities, such as DARPA,
have provided additional funds, but these are generally earmarked to specific
organizations for specific technologies. Since the “cost of doing business,” which
includes salaries, contractor costs, facility charges, and supplies, has increased over
this period, the net buying power of the S&T program has effectively decreased.
The combination of AFRL’s reduction in buying power with increased and chang-
ing warfighter needs has inevitably resulted in the prioritization of programs, with
some going unfunded or moved to the out years. With the ever-present competi-
tion for resources, sustainment-related technologies require strong support from
the highest levels to maintain its share of the Table of Allowance (TOA). As this
high-level support waned so did funding for sustainment.
FIGURE 5-11
DoD S&T funding by budget activity. SOURCE: Bob Baker, Deputy Director for Plans and Programs,
Figure 5-12.eps
Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. “Fiscal year 2011 President’s Budget
bitmap
Request for the DoD Science & Technology Program.” April 13, 2010. Available at http://www.dtic.
mil/ndia/2010SET/Baker.pdf. Accessed on August 15, 2011.
OCR for page 167
technology development inseRtion s U s tA i n m e n t 167
And foR
Finding 5-7. Successful development and transition of sustainment technol-
ogy require multi-year coordinated planning by several related organizations
within the Air Force and with its suppliers. This planning must be organized
and then validated at decision levels above those within the AFRL.
Right People
Qualified people at all levels of technical skill and training are critical to the
health of any technology-dependent system. The Air Force is not alone in recog-
nizing that weaknesses in its technical workforce are present and becoming more
significant. Major national studies, including the NRC report Rising Above the
Gathering Storm, have identified serious deficiencies in the current U.S. education
system for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and have
made recommendations for improvement at all education levels.49 The DoD and
individual services have all recognized this need and have instituted programs for
STEM development of various kinds ranging from K-12 through to technical and
graduate study and on to continuing education.
In the spring of 2011 the Air Force released Bright Horizons, a workforce stra-
tegic plan designed to support the S&T visions identified in the 2010 Technology
Horizons.50,51 Bright Horizons defines a process of strategic workforce manage-
ment, identifies specific goals, and articulates a broad array of activities including
identifying technical skill needs throughout the Air Force, encouraging continuing
education opportunities, supporting undergraduate and graduate education, and
engaging in K-12 outreach. Overarching responsibility for execution will be moni-
tored by the newly created STEM Advisory Council, chaired by SAF/AQ. Although
broad in scope and vision, this document is, by its very nature, short on specifics,
including implications of such issues as budget and hiring freezes in the era of
constrained budgets that lies ahead. It will be several years before sufficient detail
is available to see how Bright Horizons influences the scientific and engineering
workforce within the Air Force.
The committee did not perform sufficient research on the specific workforce
needs in the areas covered by sustainment technology to justify detailed findings
and recommendations. Somewhat unique to the case of sustainment, required
expertise has historically been internally developed to be able to authoritatively
supply quick reaction support, to serve as collocated engineers in the SPOs or
49 NRC. 2007. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter
Economic Future. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Available at http://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=11463.
50 USAF. 2011. Bright Horizons…the AF STEM Workforce Strategic Roadmap . Washington, D.C.
51 USAF. 2010. Technology Horizons: A Vision for Air Force Science and Technology During 2010-
2030 (Volume I). Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief Scientist of the Air Force. May 1.
OCR for page 168
U. s . A i R f o Rc e ’ s A i Rc R A f t s U s tA i n m e n t n e e d s fUtURe
168 in the
ALCs, and to understand the ALC/sustainment environment. It became clear
during the study that the AFRL’s commitment to developing and sustaining this
unique talent pool appears to have gradually eroded over the past several years as
sustainment has played a reduced role in Air Force S&T.52 Recent S&T workforce
development efforts have been directed at innovative, longer range technologies,
rather than nearer term “support” technologies. Sustainment as a career field seems
to have lost its luster within AFRL. Any plan developed by the Air Force to address
its sustainment needs must necessarily be cognizant of this workforce issue. Bright
Horizons creates the structure that would encourage identification of these critical
needs and opportunities for addressing them.
RECOMMENDATION
AFRL can point to a long history of attention to sustainment and to many
successful transitions to industry and the ALCs of technology that increased air-
craft availability and/or reduced maintenance costs. In recent years, support for
sustainment-focused technology has waned because of increased attention to other
technical priorities and opportunities, too frequent changes in strategy and process,
and reductions in funding for sustainment technology, especially for the transition
process. There is capability within AFRL development programs to affect sustain-
ment costs on existing weapon systems and to justify increased AFRL investments
and foci in these areas. New processes, commitment to ILCM by management,
and increased attention to sustainment at the highest levels have set the stage for
optimum use of these resources. Missing is the comprehensive plan and subsequent
implementation.
Recommendation 5-1. The Air Force should develop a “technology for sustain-
ment” plan that identifies processes, technical agendas, workforce needs, and
required funding resources. Such a plan should be imbedded within the overall
ILCM strategy that is being developed by the Air Force.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Throughout its history, the Air Force S&T system has made numerous note-
worthy transitions of technology, including intellectual capital, to the sustainment
community, which includes the acquisition, industry, ALCs, and fielded systems.
From emerging technologies to rapid reaction to urgent needs, AFRL personnel
have delivered technologies to support the Air Force mission. For the most part,
AFRL sustainment technology development has focused on the near- to mid-term
52 Committee discussions with AFRL representatives on February 7-8, 2011.
OCR for page 169
technology development inseRtion s U s tA i n m e n t 169
And foR
timeframe. The emphasis on sustainment has ebbed and flowed over the years: it
was a major emphasis area in the early years, was less so during the FLTC era, and is
receiving increased planning emphasis in today’s developing strategy. It is impera-
tive in this changing environment that a comprehensive technology development
and transition plan be completed and implemented with adequate resources and
personnel to achieve the stated Air Force goals of ILCM.
During the past decade, a series of changes in processes for establishing require-
ments and allocating adequate resources has led to a far less than optimum usage
of the highly qualified personnel in AFRL and the ALCs charged with sustainment
tasks. This report was written during a period in which high-level changes to the
S&T system were being developed but had not yet fully reached down into either
the laboratory or the centers. The committee was encouraged to learn of the recom-
mitment to a process that would lead to funding of high-priority areas to ensure
transition. It was also encouraged to learn that sustainment is clearly identified
in the recently released Air Force S&T plan and that a new program element has
been established for this area. Pending rapid development of these new processes
and their subsequent implementation, these steps all tend in the right direction
for the Air Force.
Underlying all of the above is the issue of what specific technology development
areas should be included in the mix when technology for sustainment is identi-
fied. Historically, sustainment technology referred primarily to issues developing
during the life of already acquired systems. Detection of problems and technol-
ogy for repair dominate that arena. Interaction with the ALCs and SPOs has been
and remains critical to the identification of problems needing fixing and viable
approaches to doing so. On the other hand, a broad area of technology develop-
ment is intended to lead to longer life and less expensive maintenance that may
be introduced into new systems. As the Air Force fully embraces the concept of
ILCM now beginning to appear in high-level plans and visions, it will be necessary
to broaden the common understanding of technology for sustainment to include
those technologies and adequately support their development and transition into
new systems. This subject is further explored in Chapter 6 under the heading Pro-
viding for Continued Incorporation of Technology for Sustainment.
