Click for next page ( 171


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 170
6 Incorporating Sustainability into Future Designs INTRODUCTION This chapter addresses element 5 of the Terms of Reference (TOR), that is, “Identify and make recommendations regarding incorporating sustainability into future aircraft designs.” More specifically, this chapter focuses on the importance of the involvement of all Air Force stakeholders in the sustainment process during each of the three major phases of a weapon system’s life cycle: the concept and initial planning phase; the system design and development (SDD) phase, which includes development and implementation of the manufacturing processes; and the deployment and support phase. The sections below discuss the following topics: (1) incorporating sustainabil- ity in the concept and initial planning, SDD, and deployment and support phases; (2) incorporating desirable design features and applying lessons learned during weapon system life-cycle phases; (3) owning data rights/access and the ability to gain weapon system sustainment domain knowledge; (4) considering a blended- support concept; (5) moving to a data-driven sustainment strategy and common enterprise management in new designs; (6) providing for continued incorporation of technology for sustainment; (7) adopting the unique sustainment aspects with respect to rapidly fielded systems; and (8) understanding commercial aviation practices for Air Force consideration. As with other TOR elements, there is a degree of overlap between the subjects covered in this chapter and in the other chapters. In most cases, this chapter refers to, rather than repeats, details found in earlier chapters. The discussion on con- 170

OCR for page 170
i n c o R p o R At i n g s U s tA i n A b i l i t y fUtURe designs 171 into tinued incorporation of software and technology in future systems builds on the earlier discussion found in Chapters 4 and 5. INCORPORATING SUSTAINABILITY IN THE CONCEPT AND INITIAL PLANNING, SYSTEM DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT, AND DEPLOYMENT AND SUPPORT PHASES Air Force personnel responsible for sustainment recognize the need to ad- dress sustainment in the life cycle of any weapon system prior to Milestone A to ensure that sustainable design attributes and support concepts are appropriately considered.1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Special and early emphasis must be placed on the critical nature of sustainment and on the importance of making decisions regarding the terms and conditions for data rights and the details of the manufacturing processes. Contractual arrange- ments between the Air Force and contractors regarding the support concept to be used also occur early in the life cycle. Sustainment professionals need to be involved early to influence the weapon system design and support concepts for sustainability. Early involvement of sustainment personnel, both at the unit and depot level, is important because modern weapon systems can require long-term planning to pro- vide the special skills training, transition original equipment manufacturer (OEM) repair capability, acquire security clearances for depot personnel, and establish a quality maintenance work force as well as to give feedback to the contractor about what works and does not work in a weapon system. In addition, early planning for sustainment will help the Air Force to efficiently meet the legislated guidelines for depot workload split that require long-term planning and budgeting for new 1 Debra K. Tune, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environ- ment and Logistics, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics. “Developing the Right Product Support Concepts for the Future.” Presentation to the committee, October 20, 2010. 2 Findings and recommendations related to incorporating requirements into policy and implement - ing policy into effective practice are presented in Chapter 2. 3 Blaise J. Durante, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition Integration, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, “Budgeting Considerations Related to Sustainment.” Pre - sentation to the committee, October 21, 2010. 4 Major General Kathleen D. Close, Director, Logistics and Sustainment, Air Force Materiel Com - mand. “Weapons System Sustainment.” Presentation to the committee, December 8, 2010. 5 General Donald J. Hoffman, Commander, Air Force Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Personal remarks to the committee, December 9, 2010. 6 Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC) leadership and program managers. Personal conversations with the committee, WR-ALC site visit, January 5-6, 2011. 7 Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center (OC-ALC) leadership and program managers. Personal con - versations with the committee, OC-ALC site visit, January 11-12, 2011.

OCR for page 170
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 172 in the facilities and special equipment. Early involvement of sustainment professionals is also important for vetting technologies that will affect sustainability. Particular emphasis was placed on the early incorporation of lessons learned from recent experience in software, simulation, and low observables maintenance into future weapon systems planning early. A recurring theme from sustainment professionals is that they should be involved in the life cycle prior to Milestone A of programs. Current sustainment requirements, as defined in Department of Defense (DoD) 5000 series instructions and AFI 63-101, are sufficient to define the process for ensuring sustainment deci- sions are made at the appropriate phase of the life cycle. However, a review of the development history of recent programs revealed that the sustainment community was not appropriately considered throughout the development process.8 Congress recognized the need for the sustainment community to be involved in the early phases of the acquisition process.9 With enactment of the 2009 Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA), the Secretary of Defense released guidance that increased the emphasis on sustain- ment and total lifecycle management in major weapon system programs. The FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act, Section 805, established the Product Support Manager (PSM) position for all Acquisition Category Acquisition Cat- egory (ACAT) I and II programs. Requirements were outlined in DTM 10-015, “Requirements for Life Cycle Management and Product Support.” DTM-015 lists the following tasks:10 A. Provide weapon systems product support subject matter expertise to the PSM for the execution of the PSM’s duties as the Total Life Cycle Systems Manager, in accordance with DoD Directive 5000.01. 8 The reasons for this can be traced back to two changes made in the early 1990s. First, the 1994 Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) stressed the use of commercial items and performance- based acquisition strategies. In particular, the FASA significantly reduced the number of military standards and specifications in favor of industry standards, and allowed industry to manage its own configuration data and use its own data systems until the end of the development phase. Second, the accompanying Air Force acquisition workforce reduction, which eroded the organic capabilities for acquisition management of development, logistics, and sustainment, created too much reliance on the contractor serving as the lead system integrator. 9 Peter Levine, Senate Armed Services Committee, General Counsel, Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee, Majority Lead; Lynn Williams, House Armed Services Committee, Readiness Subcommittee, Majority Lead; and Vickie Plunkett, House Armed Services Committee, Readiness Subcommittee, Minority Lead. Discussion with the committee, February 16, 2011. 10 DoD. “Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 10-015 –Requirements for Life Cycle Management and Product Support.” October 6, 2010. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense. Available at https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=399932. Accessed February 16, 2011.

OCR for page 170
i n c o R p o R At i n g s U s tA i n A b i l i t y fUtURe designs 173 into B. Develop and implement a comprehensive, outcome-based, product support strategy. C. Promote opportunities to maximize competition while meeting the objec- tive of best-value long-term outcomes to the warfighter. D. Seek to leverage enterprise opportunities across programs and DoD Components. E. Use appropriate analytical tools and conduct appropriate cost analyses, including cost-benefit analyses, as specified in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94, to determine the preferred product support strategy. F. Develop and implement appropriate product support arrangements. G. Assess and adjust resource allocations and performance requirements for product support, not less than annually, to meet warfighter needs and op- timize implementation of the product support strategy. H. Document the product support strategy in the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP). I. Conduct periodic product support strategy reviews and revalidate the sup- porting business case analysis prior to each change in the product support strategy or every 5 years, whichever occurs first. Air Force executives described the changing environment that recognizes ear- lier sustainment planning as codified by the WSARA. Figure 6-1 outlines how the Air Force views the process.11 Full implementation of new policy guidance may require staffing adjustments, and results will not be known for some time. However, the Air Force has energized its commitment to sustainment with the release of AFI 63-101 and the Acquisition Sustainment Tool Kit (ASTK) Kneepad Checklist. Revised Air Force strategy appears to favor a blended partnership between the Air Force and contractor capabilities across all areas of sustainment as shown in Figure 6-2.12 As part of this strategy, the Air Force accepts some reliance on industry capabilities throughout the weapon system development and blended capabilities in the program’s sustainment phases. However, for recent programs (e.g., C-17, F-22), it appears that overreliance on industry in the development phases has left the Air Force unable to easily stand up capabilities for organic maintenance because it lacks the data rights, domain 11 DebraK. Tune, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environ- ment and Logistics, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics. “Developing the Right Product Support Concepts for the Future.” Presentation to the committee, October 20, 2010. 12 Ibid.

OCR for page 170
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 174 in the • Current Air Force policy requires: • A performance based logistics (PBL) strategy for new ACAT I, IA, and II systems, unless justified by a business case analysis; PBL is preferred on new ACAT III programs • Identifying a product support manager (PSM) as a single point of contact; PSM will be military or government civilian Product support (PS) preliminary Periodic Mission planning Sustainment Assignments Reviews Post MS C • Preliminary PS guidance for CONOPs • Sourcing analysis SSOR (Move from MS B) MS MS MS B C A Production & Capability Engineering & Materiel Strategic Joint ICD Solution TechDev O&S Deployment Based Manufacturing MDD CDD CPD Guidance Concepts Development Assessment Analysis AoA Incremental Development FIGURE 6-1 Figure 6-1.eps A changing environment. ACAT, Acquisition Category; AoA, analysis of alternatives; CDD, Capabilities Devel - opment Document; CPD, Capability Production Document; ICD, Initial Capabilities Document; MDD, Material Development Decision; MS, milestone; SSOR, Strategic Source of Repair. SOURCE: Debra K. Tune, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics. “Developing the Right Product Support Concepts for the Future.” Presentation to the committee, October 20, 2010. knowledge, and access to the tools required to manage the process.13,14,15 Data rights, domain knowledge, and process management tools are addressed later in this chapter. The development of a weapon system is a complex undertaking that results in numerous technical and manufacturing risks that drive program level re-planning and decision making. As the development proceeds and cost/schedule risks emerge, it is clear that recent programs have deferred the costs of establishing critical sus- tainability and training activities to allow completion of development and early 13 Ibid. 14 Ogden Air Logistics Center (OO-ALC) maintenance personnel. Personal communication with the committee, OO-OLC site visit, January 31-February 1, 2011. 15 Grover L. Dunn, Director of Transformation, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Installations and Mission Support, Headquarters U.S. Air Force. “Expeditionary Logistics for the 21st Century (eLog21).” Presentation to the committee, January 17, 2011.

OCR for page 170
i n c o R p o R At i n g s U s tA i n A b i l i t y fUtURe designs 175 into Blended Industry and Government Capabilities • Ensures viable industrial andgovernment base • Protects intellectual property and allows government use Blending Across All Areas of Product Support • Engineering, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Fleet Management Blended Partnerships Approach • No ICS for sustainment; maximize investment funding • Leverage investments with10 USC § 2474 & § 2476 at final location Major Reliance Blended Industry and on Industry Capabilities Government Capability A C B Operations & Materiel Engineering & Manuf Production & Strategic Joint Capabilities - Based Technology CDD O&S MDD CPD Solution Development ICD Support Deployment Guidance Concepts Assessment Development Analysis FIGURE 6-2 FCB Evolving partnerships over the lifecycle of a weapon system. SOURCE: Debra K. Tune, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics “Developing the Right Product Support Concepts for the Figure 6-2.eps Future.” Presentation to the committee, October 20, 2010. production activities. These are prioritization decisions that can and should be made by the System Program Manager (SPM) and Procurement Executive Officer (PEO). However, the total cost of these activities, which must occur at some point in the lifecycle, must remain in program planning with visible estimated costs throughout at least the current planned system lifecycle, and the PSM should be actively involved and able to report such planning. The WSARA and the Air Force implementation planning should allow greater influence on the sustainment process. Having sustainment professionals play an active role in the support system concept development ensures that sustainment requirements are properly introduced prior to Milestone A of the weapon system program. The opportunity now exists during SDD to ensure that the design in- corporates the Integrated Life-Cycle Management (ILCM) perspective on support features and to initiate the development of technologies that assure the designing in of high component reliability, maintainability, and efficient repair techniques prior to system deployment.16 16 Discussions with Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) personnel described in Chapter 5 provide insight into new materials and design features that should be addressed by the Air Logistics Centers

OCR for page 170
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 176 in the Finding 6-1. Sustainment professionals are not actively involved in the early Defense Acquisition Management System (DAMS) phases of weapon system development. As a result, sustainment needs, planning, and costs are not being fully captured. Recommendation 6-1. The Air Force should involve its sustainment profes- sionals throughout the DAMS, from Materiel Development Decision to Pro- duction and Deployment, in all future weapon systems development. Funding for sustainment planning and support should be given the same visibility as that for the development of capabilities and performance. Recommendation 6-2. The Air Force should give funding for sustainment planning and support the same visibility as that given to development of ca- pabilities and performance. Contractor sustainment activities should be devel- oped and tracked as a contract line item separate from capability development. INCORPORATING DESIRABLE DESIGN FEATURES AND APPLYING LESSONS LEARNED DURING WEAPON SYSTEM LIFE-CYCLE PHASES Through telephone interviews with two senior engine company engineering executives 17 and visits with members of the ALCs, 18 the committee developed a list of desirable sustainment attributes (Box 6-1). These discussions highlighted the importance of involving personnel with strong sustainability experience in the system design and development phases and extending into the manufacturing phase, where processes that may impact main- tainability are implemented. The discussions with the engineering managers also noted the value of the “Blue Two” program of the early 1990s in which contractor engineers were integrated into Air Force field maintenance teams and were allowed to see first-hand some of the issues associated with maintaining complex equip- ment in operational environments. A Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) paper (ALCs) as new designs emerge. Existing programs, such as the Component Improvement Program (CIP), address issues that arise in fielded systems and help to accelerate maturation of new systems. SOURCE: Valerie Dahlem, Chief, Fighter Engine Programs Branch, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. “Propulsion Sustainment.” Presentation to the committee, December 7, 2010. 17 Norm Egbert, Retired Vice President of Engineering, Rolls-Royce North America and Frank Gillette, Jr., Chief Engineer, F119 Project, Pratt & Whitney. Personal communication with the com - mittee, April 6 and April 8, 2011. 18 WR-ALC site visit by the committee, January 5-6, 2011; OC-ALC site visit by the committee, January 11-12, 2011; OO-ALC site visit by the committee, January 31-February 1, 2011.

OCR for page 170
i n c o R p o R At i n g s U s tA i n A b i l i t y fUtURe designs 177 into BOX 6-1 Sustainment Attributes Checklist 1. Articulate a well-defined mission and sustainment plan that the design and development engi - neers can address. 2. Secure the commitment of both Air Force and contractor management teams to sustainment goals and requirement. 3. Directly involve Air Force System Program Office personnel as members of the design and de - velopment team. 4. Design the system to “robustness criteria” with over tests for vibration, temperature, and sub - system (sensors) failure with emphasis on both high- and low-cycle fatigue life. 5. Select durable and highly reliable components to reduce maintenance and replacement (extremely important in Low Observable [LO] platforms to avoid intrusion into LO materials areas). For engine components, involve subcontractors in maintainability and have components only one layer deep and removed with their related module. 6. Condition monitoring systems to provide insight into maintenance needs prior to scheduled or unscheduled maintenance actions. 7. Design systems to be modular and accessible to avoid unnecessary intrusion into components not requiring maintenance. 8. Locate components requiring high levels of either scheduled or unscheduled maintenance where they can be easily accessed. 9. Minimize (or eliminate if possible) the need for special tools. 10. Develop the inspection and repair techniques as part of the engineering and manufacturing development processes. 11. Provide maintenance instructions, training, and specifications in contemporary electronic format for application to depot activities to facilitate training, improve efficiency, and reduce the amount of engineering decisions on the floor. 12. Accept that software will evolve throughout the development process and into weapon system deployment. about the F-119 engine program provides an excellent example of how sustainment considerations can be incorporated into design: One of the most important requirements for the F119 engine was that only five hand tools should be used to service the entire engine. All Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) would have to be “one-deep,” meaning that the engine would have to be serviceable without removal of any other LRUs, and each LRU would have to be removable using a single tool within a 20-minute window. The most desired “design for sustainability” feature that was noted

OCR for page 170
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 178 in the was to design for fewer depot visits in the systems life time and reduce the shop time per visit by design.19 A formal approach to using sustainment requirements in the design phase, called Human Systems Integration (HSI), was recently addressed by Liu and colleagues. Human Systems Integration (HSI) is defined as the “interdisciplinary technical and manage- ment processes for integrating human considerations within and across all system elements; an essential enabler to systems engineering practice” (Haskins, 2007). The primary objec- tive of HSI is to integrate the human as a critical system element, regardless of whether humans in the system function as individuals, teams, or organizations. The discipline seeks to treat humans as equally important to system design as are other system elements, such as hardware and software.20 Committee members with experience in airline support noted that important lessons can be learned from commercial aircraft experience, and there was general agreement with this premise when it was raised in the telephone interviews and in a committee briefing by a senior airline maintenance manager. Examples were noted in cases where there was commonality between the commercial and military variants. During its visits to the ALCs, the committee was briefed on the maintenance complexities introduced by the introduction of low observable (LO) technology in deployed systems. It is important for the design, development, and manufacturing functions for future designs to incorporate the lessons learned from the experience with these systems. Considerations include design for simplicity and durability with an emphasis on seals, panels, and edges designed for supportability. Doors and edges or access areas must be damage tolerant, and repairs must be modeled in representative environments such that the majority of unscheduled maintenance events can be accomplished without requiring LO restoration. A high premium was also placed on designing systems such that flight test or complex ground veri- fication testing would not be required after LO maintenance. As outlined in the proceeding paragraphs, the Air Force has enjoyed isolated successes in capturing maintainability and sustainability improvements in weapon systems. However, the successes are not widespread, and opportunities for large-scale improvements have not been institutionalized. 19 F.C. Gillette, Jr. 1994. Engine design for mechanics. SAE International. ISBN 1560915382. Warren - dale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers. 20 K. Liu et al. 2010. The F119 engine a success story of human system integration in acquisition. April 1. Defense A.R. Journal. Available at http://www.dau.mil/pubscats/PubsCats/AR%20Journal/ arj54/Liu%2054.pdf. Accessed May 6, 2011. p. 286.

OCR for page 170
i n c o R p o R At i n g s U s tA i n A b i l i t y fUtURe designs 179 into Finding 6-2. The Air Force does not have an institutionalized process for col- lecting and consistently incorporating desirable design features or applying lessons learned into the requirements documents for new systems or systems being modified. This results in frequent “re-invention” of improvements that could reduce costs and enhance the system supportability, maintainability, and availability. Recommendation 6-3. The Air Force should establish an institutionalized process for collecting and consistently incorporating desirable design features or applying lessons learned from legacy programs into the requirements for new systems or systems being modified in the support phase of the life cycle and into the internal procedures involved in sustaining these systems. DATA RIGHTS/ACCESS AND THE AIR FORCE’S ABILITY TO GAIN WEAPON SYSTEM SUSTAINMENT DOMAIN KNOWLEDGE The importance of the Air Force acquiring adequate weapon system design data was stressed repeatedly to the committee. Current engineering design data must be maintained and delivered as a contract requirement to permit the systems to be supported organically when operationally deployed or in the later years. Most of this data is contained in digital form in electronic data exchange systems such as engineering product data management and software development environments. Future sustainment requires both access to the digital data and understanding of the computing environments in which they were developed. This was noted as be- ing extremely important in cases when the mission and usage of the system changes from the original design intent. Several cases were noted in which the OEM had exited the business or in which the contractor did not view continued engineering support of the system to be economically attractive. Even if the data are available, they can be difficult to use without knowledge of the engineering design standards and guidelines used to develop the data, which are often considered to be proprietary by the contractor. Participation by sustainment professionals in the design process allows for information and domain knowledge transfer beyond that which can be gained from deliverable information. Participa- tion in the design process also helps to determine what data are best to procure in the development phase for future weapon system support. Finding 6-3. The Air Force often does not have the required data rights/access and sufficient domain knowledge to facilitate easy transition to organic support of the overall supply chain and a number of technologies. This is exacerbated by industry proprietary design data, processes, and tools.

OCR for page 170
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 180 in the Recommendation 6-4. The Air Force should place more emphasis and imple- ment additional training for acquisition professionals on the need for, the how to, and the pricing of proper data rights and domain knowledge related to the weapon system. CONSIDERING A BLENDED SUPPORT CONCEPT A blended support partnership between the Air Force and the contractor can provide an efficient support concept if instituted early in program planning. Dur- ing the initial deployment and production phases of the program, the Air Force can realize cost efficiencies because of the contractor’s greater knowledge of the aircraft and ability to combine production and sustainment supply chain activi- ties. In the later stages of the aircraft life cycle, the resources and expertise within the Air Force’s organic sustainment enterprise are invaluable. However, there have been instances in recent acquisitions of long-term performance-based logistics arrangements being established without consideration of the impacts to the Air Force sustainment enterprise.21 As a result, the planning for conversion to organic support was inadequate, and the Air Force incurred unplanned facilitization, equip- ment, and manpower costs. The support issues include shutdown and storage/ maintenance use of production manufacturing tools, stand-up of repair facilities and processes at the ALCs, adequate manpower planning, and transition of data/ domain expertise from the contractor to the government. Finding 6.4. The Air Force has not established an institutionalized process for ensuring that blended partnerships are given real consideration across the full lifecycle. Recommendation 6-5. The Air Force should commit to establishing processes and resources that support consideration of a blended organic-contractor partnership early in the program life cycle and throughout the deployment and support phases. 21 DebraK. Tune, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environ- ment and Logistics, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics. “Air Force Studies Board Sustainment Study: Developing the Right Product Support Concepts for the Future.” Presentation to the committee, October 20, 2010.

OCR for page 170
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 182 in the erational and maintenance data can the safety and efficiency benefits be fully real- ized. The four fundamental elements each have unique data requirements, which are key to developing the specific individual steps or tasks before all four elements interact with each other during the equipment’s life cycle. It is a continuum that begins with an analytical approach then leads to adjustments and improvements based on service experience to change the design or maintenance program or modify the equipment. The Data or Information Systems Needed to Develop the Maintenance Program Development of the maintenance program should begin with the design pro- cess, well in advance of putting the equipment into operational status. The data are derived from the original engineering tests and analyses from the design phase of the aircraft, are based on Failure Mode Effect and Criticality Analysis (FMECA), and take advantage of service experience with similar designs and materials. Both the designers and maintainers must participate in the design process; they need each other’s inputs and access to each other’s information and experience. The pro- cess develops the actual tasks and categorizes them based on safety and operational implications. Although the safety and operational determination is often in the realm of the designers, the timing of task performance and the tasks’ effectiveness is often in the realm of the maintainers. Reaching a common understanding based on information about what makes things work and what keeps things working leads to effective programs. This is a very important concept because neither the designer nor the maintainer will have the full knowledge and experience to fully develop a program in an individual vacuum. The balance of performance considerations with service experience is the basis of program development. This first phase forms the foundation of effective sustainment for the life cycle of the equipment, and its associated data must be available throughout the service life of the equipment. In the commercial world this is accomplished through a cooperative effort between the manufacturer, regu- lators, and airlines using the Maintenance Steering Group Three (MSG-3) process techniques. During a visit to Warner Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC), a committee member saw that the Air Force is adopting this approach but not uni- formly across the total fleet. Information and Data Needs Once a Platform Enters Service Putting equipment into service requires a variety of data systems and informa- tion. Once the maintenance program is in hand, several critical information inputs are necessary: Where and how is the equipment going to operate? What facilities

OCR for page 170
i n c o R p o R At i n g s U s tA i n A b i l i t y fUtURe designs 183 into are available, and what facilities will be needed for the equipment type? What specialized skills will be needed? What levels of inventory and manpower will be needed? What tooling and equipment will be needed? These are just a few of the many questions whose answers have implications for information and data sys- tems. To arrive at the answers, a database from which to draw previous experience and performance of similar and currently operating systems is needed. In the Air Force, a database (REMIS) is used by most weapon systems to track maintenance information. However, this database is a legacy system with wide variations in use. An Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system is critical to the ability to match the planning needs to bring the people, parts, and equipment together at the right place and time. The Air Force is developing a common ERP system, but it is still a long time away. In the meantime there is a clear lack of effective planning and data collection systems. An ERP system is one of the foundations of sustainment. Developing an effective ERP system is quite difficult, and top-down/bottom-up involvement and stakeholder buy-in are essential. System development is not only about software but also about processes and behaviors. Lastly the ERP system is not a stand-alone system. It must be tied into an analysis process to determine that planning and implementation are effective and properly applied across the equipment and the facilities. The existing processes across the various ALCs are inconsistent, which can disguise weaknesses or failures in the process or produce misleading results. Thus, an effective loop of feedback and findings and organiza- tional alignment is needed. Information System Needed for Continuing Analysis and Surveillance of the Sustainment Process When developing effective reliability and maintainability programs, it is im- portant to possess good information about the operating performance of the equipment and the condition of the parts. The status of the maintenance pro- gram in terms of time and cycles is a basic but critical need of Conditioned-Based Maintenance. With this information, all of the inputs can be analyzed and results looped back into the maintenance program to continuously improve effectiveness or optimize operational results. Some measure must be developed to determine how well the program works, how well the suppliers perform, and how well the workers achieve their goals. Obvi- ous measures such as time on wing are essential, but tracking labor hours to deter- mine economic benefits and cost at supplier on a unit basis is also important. Other measures such as delays caused by parts shortages, manpower shortages, waiting on approvals, and sign offs provide useful information. The use of these measures can only work if there is both informational and organizational alignment. The Air Force has a matrix management organization. Matrix management can

OCR for page 170
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 184 in the only work effectively if there is a transparent information system that measures what and who improves the system and what and who impedes the system. Unfor- tunately without effective and transparent systems, performance measurement is very difficult, and consequently the expected performance can deteriorate without designated responsible officials. The committee found that recent weapon systems, namely C-17 and F-22, have adopted data-driven strategies and enterprise manage- ment tools and are performing well above other weapon systems as a result. How- ever, these systems have been developed as proprietary contractor systems with full contractor management and will not necessarily support future Air Force eLog21 and enterprise management concepts. Figure 6-3 shows the current proliferation of contractor-supported weapon system (CSWS) tools. To meet future sustainment requirements an integrated approach must be achieved. Finding 6-5. The Air Force sustainment data collection effort uses a wide variety of legacy systems that are not optimized for enterprise information collection, analysis, or problem resolution. Recommendation 6-6. The Air Force should develop future systems to support a common Air Force enterprise management system, eliminating proprietary contractor data management and exchange approaches. ? ? ? ? FIGURE 6-3 As-is CSWS integration. SOURCE: Grover L. Dunn, Director of Transformation, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logis - tics, Installations and Mission Support, Headquarters United States Air Force. “Expeditionary Logistics for the 21st Century (eLog21).” Presentation to the committee, January 17, 2011.

OCR for page 170
i n c o R p o R At i n g s U s tA i n A b i l i t y fUtURe designs 185 into PROVIDING FOR CONTINUED INCORPORATION OF TECHNOLOGY FOR SUSTAINMENT Overview As noted in Chapter 5, to achieve ILCM, sustainment needs to be built into technology development at all stages. It is important for future systems to not only consider sustainment technologies and development processes prior to Milestone A and Milestone B as a consideration between performance and total life-cycle cost, but also to recognize that there will be opportunities for incremental inser- tion of technologies to address sustainment issues that arise with operation and the emergence of new capabilities. The ALCs generally recognize and appreciate the Air Force Research Labora- tory’s (AFRL’s) capabilities. At the same time, however, there does not appear to be a current, institutionalized process to links the ALCs to AFRL. Without address- ing the full range of specific, sustainment-related technologies that may become available, the following sections discuss three general technology areas—software systems, air vehicles and engines, and integrity programs—that could lead to ad- vances in Air Force sustainment efforts. Software Systems Chapter 4 includes an extensive discussion of software systems, in which potential future sustainability issues relating to the increasing resource require- ments were identified. Future systems will continue to expand software-provided capability and the total delivered software base in lines of code. As a result, it is crucial that software sustainment planning be accomplished early in the weapon system development phase, and that software sustainment professionals be actively involved in the development process. Air Vehicles and Engines Chapter 5 includes examples of relevant sustainment technology areas for air vehicles and engines, including several areas for long-term research. It is critical that future systems take advantage of ongoing science and technology (S&T) programs for sustainment technology, as well as lessons learned from current platforms, to execute a program that matures relevant sustainment technologies in the develop- ment phase prior to Milestone B. In particular such future systems should recognize the potential for much longer extended service lives and should address up front the technologies that will improve fatigue life in structure, materials, and engine components.

OCR for page 170
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 186 in the Integrity Programs New designs will benefit from Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP), Engine Structural Integrity Program (ENSIP), and Force Structural Integrity Pro- gram (FSIP) procedures to insure the structural integrity of new aircraft systems, which, in turn, minimizes sustainment cost. The current interest in balancing sus- tainment requirements with performance requirements provides the opportunity to include the proven technology tools from the earliest design stages and prepare for systematic approaches to sustainment. THE UNIQUE SUSTAINMENT ASPECTS WITH RESPECT TO RAPIDLY FIELDED SYSTEMS Sustainability issues related to systems developed under advanced development projects (ADPs) are unique. A recent Defense Science Board (DSB) report states: All of DoD’s needs cannot be met by the same acquisition processes. Desired systems, capabilities, and material may have major variations in urgency, technology maturity, and life cycle considerations. Collectively, these will dictate the appropriate procedures needed for effective acquisition and timely delivery. To facilitate these goals, the DoD needs to codify and institutionalize “rapid” acquisition processes and practices that can be tailored to expedite delivery of capabilities that meet urgent warfighter needs.22 The report further recommends that: While there may be instances early fielding of prototypes with Contractor Logistics Sup- port is appropriate, the risks must be well understood and parallel efforts should be in place to mature the technology and to insure that sustainment elements are adequate for the system life cycle.23 All ADPs require initial funding to develop the basic tenets of sustainment as these systems are developed. Once a decision is made to take an immature system into the operational environment the Air Force should develop and field a support system in parallel and with the same urgency.24 22 DSB. 2009. Fulfillmentof Urgent Operational Needs. July. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. pp. viii-ix. Available at http://www. acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports2000s.htm. Accessed November 22, 2010. 23 Ibid. 24 Briefers to the committee stressed the importance of the Air Force and other agencies being able to move technology rapidly into the theater to respond to the warfighter’s critical needs, and cautioned against inhibiting the generation and deployment of vital responses. They did, however, express concern about instances when the preparation of system support was less than adequate and the catch-up by either the Air Force or the contractor caused issues during transition to normal

OCR for page 170
i n c o R p o R At i n g s U s tA i n A b i l i t y fUtURe designs 187 into A primary issue with many of the rapid fielding programs currently in service stems from the full reliance on contractor proprietary designs and the lack of any level of sustainment planning even during transition to operational use. As a result the Air Force lacks data to effectively maintain and repair the aircraft outside of the contractor, and post-system acquisition procurement of these data was men- tioned to be unaffordable.25 To this end, the Air Force is establishing additional considerations for its rapid fielding programs. These include tailored logistics health assessment criteria in up-front program planning, and approval and closer interaction with the Air Force acquisition offices to ensure contractual hooks are in place for procurement of repair data if the system is ultimately fielded. Although the Air Force is addressing sustainment policy in line with the DSB report recom- mendations and current tailored sustainment planning processes, more actions are required to assure long-term sustainment of rapidly fielded platforms. Finding 6-7. Emerging ADP systems that are rapidly introduced into the op- erational environment have not had the required sustainment support system development performed prior to deployment into a combat operational envi- ronment or training operational environment. Recommendation 6-7. The Air Force should provide all ADPs at least a mini- mal level of initial funding to identify the long-term support concept and to develop the basic tenets of the support systems. Once a decision is made to take an immature system into the operational environment, the Air Force should seek funding to develop and field a support system as rapidly as possible. COMMERCIAL AVIATION PRACTICES FOR AIR FORCE CONSIDERATION It is particularly interesting to understand how the air transport industry ap- proaches the issue of sustainment. The Air Force, unlike the commercial aviation industry, is required to perform variety of missions that that necessitates a wide spectrum of platforms (e.g., fighters, bombers, tankers, cargo, rotary wing, and commercial derivative special purpose aircraft). Yet, there are valuable applica- tions from the commercial sector that can be applied to Air Force sustainment. operations and training operations. This concern extended to both logistics support and training of support personnel. It was also noted that the form of acquisition used in many of these systems left the Air Force with extremely poor bargaining positions relative to support costs and a dependence on contractor support even though it was not the best value. Certain conditions demand rapid fielding such as those for the Predator, Reaper, and Global Hawk remotely piloted aircraft. 25 Mark Slasor, Director of Logistics, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance and Special Opera - tions Forces Directorate (ASC/WI). “Perspective on Terms of Reference.” Presentation to the com - mittee, December 8, 2010.

OCR for page 170
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 188 in the Among these are consistent data collection, airworthiness certification processes, and maintenance/engineering standards to determine frequency and depth of maintenance actions. The operational equivalent to sustainment in the commercial air transport in- dustry leads to an airworthiness certification. The definition of, and final authority for airworthiness rests, by law, with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as the regulatory body for aerial activity within the air spaces under U.S. jurisdiction. The FAA has established regulations that govern the certification of individuals and organizations necessary to the conduct of air commerce and other air operations, as well as regulations that govern flight rules and general operation of aerial vehicles. As witnessed following the recent Southwest Airlines crown skin failure in April 2011, the FAA regulatory process carries significant weight. Each aircraft maintenance inspection/action standard and interval assures that aircraft are operated throughout their lifetimes in a condition and configuration consistent with current certification standards for each aircraft type. All persons, engineering, processes, parts, materials, training, certification, and servicing/clean- ing fluids (i.e., sustainment practices) exercised on every aircraft must comply with standards approved by the FAA. As the committee reviewed several programs, there was no testimony to similar rigorous application of standards to general aircraft types (e.g., all fighters, all cargo). Delegation Although the FAA retains final authority for the determination of airworthi- ness, it has delegated the authority to verify that the conditions for airworthiness for each particular aircraft are met for all flight operations to the OEM and/or the airlines (Operator), Fixed Base Operator (FBO), or Maintenance, Repair and Over- haul (MRO) facility. This delegation provides a shared approach to airworthiness assurance between the FAA, OEM, and Operator, often referred to as the “3-legged stool” for safety. This triad alignment is made viable through long-established, ef- ficient, and effective processes for communications, planning, and shared action plans to address airworthiness problems. Near the end of this study, the committee learned that the Air Force recently placed airworthiness certification for all aircraft under the Aeronautical Systems Center, Directorate of Engineering. The committee believes this is an appropriate step forward to begin to achieve some standardiza- tion of the results as well as the administrative and engineering processes that lead to the appropriate results. The technical departments of each airline act as the delegated organization with sole responsibility, or Single Process Owner in DoD terms, for airworthiness. As such, the senior officer for maintenance operations has the responsibility, and all required authority, to assure that airworthiness objectives are met. Represen-

OCR for page 170
i n c o R p o R At i n g s U s tA i n A b i l i t y fUtURe designs 189 into tatives from the airline maintenance departments generally participate in the contractual negotiations with the OEM and suppliers to assure that long-term sustainability goals are addressed through contractual provisions and guarantees. Material/supply, engineering, and maintenance finance functions generally fall under the purview of the maintenance department. Thus, technical departments have the controls for all personnel, material, and the financial resources (but not without corporate constraints) necessary to exercise its responsibility to assure airworthiness. Aging Aircraft Sustainment The industry process to address aging begins with the OEM at the design and certification phase for a new aircraft type. The OEM begins multi-life-cycle testing under conditions replicating the operating environment of the aircraft to determine the effects on the long-term durability of the materials and processes incorporated in the aircraft’s design. These life-cycle findings are supplemented by real-life condi- tions of operating “fleet leader” aircraft as each type enters into operation. Airlines generally identify the fleet leaders in their own fleet, as well, and conduct additional maintenance inspections and actions as recommended by their own engineering organizations or the findings of the fleet leader program. Maintenance Program Development The FAA establishes and provides leadership for a team of experts, known as a Maintenance Review Board (MRB), to develop appropriate initial maintenance requirements for newly proposed aircraft. Industry Steering Groups (ISGs) are formed, under the auspices of the MRB. The methodology for the analysis and development of an initial maintenance plan is contained in guidance material de- rived from input by FAA, CAA/UK, AEA, U.S. and European aircraft and engine manufacturers, and U.S. and foreign airlines. The current revision of that docu- ment is MSG-3, and it provides guidance to identify maintenance and structural significant items and to review all structural elements, systems, and components of the aircraft to determine initial maintenance and inspection schedules, as well as servicing and test requirements. Recommendations are submitted to the MRB as part of the certification process for the initial maintenance program for a new or variant of an existing aircraft type. The MSG-3 process continues throughout the life of the aircraft type and focuses on determination of hidden failures and the consequences of failure. The results of the MSG-3 review determine when aircraft structure, equipment, or components should be replaced or, on some occasions, when redesign is required to assure the required level of safety and constitute the means for revising mainte-

OCR for page 170
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 190 in the nance programs over time. Consequently data collection, analysis, and action plan development for critical maintenance/operations activities are global initiatives that have proven to be uncommonly effective in maintaining exceptionally high levels of air worthiness. It is from this departure point that the Air Force efforts for a sustainment enterprise could begin. It was the general observation of the com- mittee that standardized processes such as MSG-3 are not widely used across the Air Force. While MSG-3 or similar processes may be employed, they are used to varying degrees and with various amounts of discipline on a system by system basis. Finding 6-8. The Air Force does not currently use a standardized data collec- tion and engineering process for its aircraft. The commercial aviation industry approach to airworthiness has advantages that may serve the Air Force equally well. Recommendation 6-8. The Air Force should investigate the advantages of ap- plicable commercial policies, engineering efforts, data collection and analysis, and governance structures to manage and improve its sustainment activities as it moves toward an enterprise sustainment organization. Recommendation 6-9. The Air Force should consider incorporating commer- cial-like engineering models and data collection and analysis techniques into the appropriate future platforms and contractually require that these efforts be compatible with Air Force data systems. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS The Air Force and the supporting contractors have strong capabilities in both technology development and maturation as noted in Chapter 5 and in specific cases in this chapter. When specifically focused, these capabilities are applicable to introducing sustainment features into future designs to complement the traditional focus on system performance. The successful application of lessons learned from field experience is exemplified in some recent designs, and evolving human factors techniques provide tools for integrating new maintenance functions and personnel capabilities. The experience base from the most recently deployed systems contain- ing special emphasis on LO features and significantly more use of software also pro- vide a wealth of data for incorporating sustainment capabilities into future designs. During a discussion with two contractors, the committee learned that much of the activity that resulted in incorporating sustainment features into the systems was initiated by the contractor in one case and by detailed sustainment requirements from another service in the other. This again emphasizes the importance of having strong sustainment involvement in all phases of Air Force procurements including

OCR for page 170
i n c o R p o R At i n g s U s tA i n A b i l i t y fUtURe designs 191 into the concept and design phases, in which the requirements and configurations are established, and the deployment and support phase, in which sustainability trends and drivers are identified. The Air Force sustainment enterprise process is enormously complex, and there is a need for the Air Force to address change with a comprehensive and in- clusive management approach. Many of the recommendations made throughout the report address specific areas of the Air Force sustainment enterprise, and these recommendations can produce a positive improvement in operational effective- ness, cost efficiency, systems availability, and overall responsiveness. A true system- of-systems approach, however, that prioritizes and balances the implementation of each of these recommendations will be required for the Air Force to achieve these goals. Finding 6-9. The Air Force has the capability within its existing leadership structure, management acumen, and support tools to achieve success in its sustainment enterprise by moving forward with a system-of-systems approach. Recommendation 6-10 The Air Force should utilize a systems approach in ad- dressing the implementation of the recommendations of this report to achieve a proper balance between organizational structure, management techniques, and performance objectives.

OCR for page 170