Examination of the U.S. Air Force’s
Aircraft Sustainment Needs in the Future
and Its Strategy to Meet Those Needs

Committee on Examination of the U.S. Air Force’s Aircraft Sustainment
Needs in the Future and Its Strategy to Meet Those Needs

Air Force Studies Board

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
                          OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.

www.nap.edu



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 R1
Committee on Examination of the U.S. Air Force’s Aircraft Sustainment Needs in the Future and Its Strategy to Meet Those Needs Air Force Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This is a report of work supported by Grant FA9550-10-1-0411 between the U.S. Air Force and the National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organiza- tions or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-21520-6 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-21520-X Limited copies of this report are Additional copies are available from: available from: Air Force Studies Board The National Academies Press National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, N.W. 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20001 Washington, DC 20055 (202) 334-3111 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) Internet, http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2011 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to as- sociate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON EXAMINATION OF THE U.S. AIR FORCE’S AIRCRAFT SUSTAINMENT NEEDS IN THE FUTURE AND ITS STRATEGY TO MEET THOSE NEEDS S. MICHAEL HUDSON, Rolls-Royce North America (retired), Co-Chair MICHAEL E. ZETTLER, Z-Zettler Consulting, Co-Chair MEYER J. BENZAKEIN, The Ohio State University CHARLES E. BROWNING, University of Dayton DIANNE CHONG, The Boeing Company DAVID E. CROW, University of Connecticut FRANK R. FAYKES, U.S. Air Force (retired) JOHN T. FOREMAN, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University WESLEY L. HARRIS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology HOWARD F. HETRICK, Northrop Grumman Corporation CLYDE KIZER, Airbus North America (retired) THOMAS A. McDERMOTT, JR., Georgia Tech Research Institute LYLE H. SCHWARTZ, University of Maryland BRUCE M. THOMPSON, Sandia National Laboratories RAYMOND VALEIKA, Delta Airlines (retired) Staff CARTER W. FORD, Study Director KAMARA E. BROWN, Research Associate SARAH M. CAPOTE, Research Associate NORMAN M. HALLER, Consultant ZEIDA PATMON, Program Associate MARGUERITE E. SCHNEIDER, Administrative Coordinator v

OCR for page R1
AIR FORCE STUDIES BOARD GREGORY S. MARTIN, GS Martin Consulting, Chair PAMELA A. DREW, TASC, Inc., Vice Chair BRIAN A. ARNOLD, Raytheon Company CLAUDE M. BOLTON, Defense Acquisition University STEVEN R.J. BRUECK, University of New Mexico THOMAS J. BURNS, SET Corporation FRANK CAPPUCCIO, Cappuccio and Associates, LLC JOHN V. FARR, United States Military Academy DONALD C. FRASER, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory (retired) MICHAEL J. GIANELLI, The Boeing Company (retired) LESLIE GREENGARD, New York University DANIEL HASTINGS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology PAUL G. KAMINSKI, Technovation, Inc. ROBERT LATIFF, R. Latiff Associates NANCY LEVESON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology LESTER L. LYLES, The Lyles Group MATT L. MLEZIVA, Wildwood Strategic Concepts C. KUMAR N. PATEL, Pranalytica, Inc. GERALD F. PERRYMAN, JR., Independent Consultant GENE W. RAY, GMT Ventures RICHARD V. REYNOLDS, The VanFleet Group, LLC J. DANIEL STEWART, University of Tennessee REBECCA WINSTON, Winston Strategic Management Consulting Staff MICHAEL A. CLARKE, Director TERRY J. JAGGERS, Deputy Director DIONNA C. ALI, Senior Program Assistant JESSICA R. BROKENBURR, Financial Assistant KAMARA E. BROWN, Research Associate SARAH M. CAPOTE, Research Associate GREGORY EYRING, Senior Program Officer CARTER W. FORD, Program Officer CHRIS JONES, Financial Manager ZEIDA PATMON, Program Associate MARGUERITE E. SCHNEIDER, Administrative Coordinator DANIEL E.J. TALMAGE, JR., Program Officer vi

OCR for page R1
Preface Having now been at war for two decades, the U.S. Air Force is finding that its legacy aircraft are becoming increasingly more expensive to operate and maintain. Looking ahead, and facing a constrained overall budget, the Air Force is concerned that the resources needed to sustain its legacy aircraft may increase to the point where they could consume the resources needed to modernize the Air Force. Rec- ognizing the importance of sustainment, both to the accomplishment of its current wartime missions and to the potential capabilities of its future aircraft, the Air Force asked the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies to conduct this study of sustainment. A committee of experts with significant experience in both technical and op- erational areas related to sustainment was formed to conduct this study. Meeting for the first time in October 2010, the committee quickly grasped the complexities inherent in the terms of reference, which addressed a substantial portion of overall Air Force activities and resources—both current and future. Because of the need for solid data to supplement its own knowledge and capabilities, the committee is very grateful for the responsive and highly informed cooperation of numer- ous representatives from the Air Force as well as from government, industry, and academia. The committee co-chairs especially wish to thank all of the committee members for their many insightful contributions and tireless efforts in producing this report on schedule. S. Michael Hudson, Co-Chair Michael E. Zetter, Co-Chair Committee on Examination of the U.S. Air Force’s Aircraft Sustainment Needs in the Future and Its Strategy to Meet Those Needs vii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures ap- proved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: John-Paul B. Clarke, Georgia Institute of Technology, Stephen P. Condon, Maj Gen, USAF (retired), Dayton Aerospace, Inc., Lawrence J. Delaney, Titan Corporation (retired), Elisabeth M. Drake, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lester L. Lyles, Gen, USAF (retired), Independent Aerospace Consultant, Lisa Mahlmann, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, David Miller, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Charles F. Tiffany, The Boeing Company (retired), and Stephen Wei-Lun Tsai, Stanford University. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommenda- tions, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of ix

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgment RevieweRs x of this report was overseen by Sheila E. Widnall, Massachusetts Institute of Technol- ogy. Appointed by the National Research Council, she was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accor- dance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 15 Overview, 15 Committee Formation and Terms of Reference, 16 Study Approach, 16 Defining Sustainment, 18 Weapon System Sustainment in the Context of the Military Mission, 18 Weapon System Sustainment Defined for This Study, 19 Past, Present, and Future Environments for Weapon System Sustainment, 19 Military Operations, 19 Weapon System Sustainment Goals of the Air Force, 20 Governance: Laws, Policies, Strategies, and Regulations, 20 Relationships, 21 Budget, 21 Report Organization, 22 2 REVIEW OF THE IMPACT OF REGULATIONS, POLICIES, AND 24 STRATEGIES ON SUSTAINMENT Introduction, 24 Air Force Sustainment Goals, 25 Statutes, Regulations, and Policies That Impact Air Force Sustainment, 26 xi

OCR for page R1
contents xii Overview, 26 Statutes and Regulations, 28 Establishing Air Force Sustainment Policies, 33 Engineering-based Decisions, 34 Comprehensive Approach to Gathering and Analyzing Data, 36 Current Governance Structure for Air Force Sustainment, 37 Current Air Force Organization Complexities for Collaboration, 44 Outcome-based Metrics, 45 Past, Present, and Potential Future Strategies for Air Force Sustainment, 48 A Benchmark: Processes and Policies of the Naval Aviation Enterprise, 57 Concluding Thoughts, 63 3 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT SUSTAINMENT INVESTMENTS, 65 INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PROCESSES Introduction, 65 Air Force Investment Process Relating to Sustainment, 65 Current Resources and Investments, 70 Air Force Sustainment Infrastructure, 74 Investment in Infrastructure, 75 Ground Equipment, 77 Current Air Force Sustainment Processes, 77 Workforce, 78 Acquisition, 79 Supply Chain, 80 Maintenance Processes, 81 Resourcing Processes, 82 Fleet Viability Board, 83 Logistics Support, 84 eLog21, 84 Obsolescence and Diminishing Manufacturing Sources, 85 Concluding Thoughts, 86 4 ASSESSMENT OF AIR FORCE AIR LOGISTICS CENTERS 87 Introduction, 87 Methodology for the Assessment, 91 History and Present State of Air Force Air Logistics Centers, 92 Holistic Approach to the Responsibilities and Performance of Air Force Air Logistics Centers, 97 Assessment of the Resourcing of Air Logistics Centers, 99 Policy-Driven Supply Support, 99 Resourcing the ALC Workforce, 100

OCR for page R1
contents xiii 50/50 Affects the ALC Workforce, 101 Critical Support Staff for the ALC Workforce,102 Workforce Training, 103 Labor Relations and Growing the Workforce, 103 Organizing the Air Logistics Centers for Sustainment, 104 Resourcing for Technology Insertion at Air Logistics Centers, 113 Enterprise Management at the Air Logistics Centers, 114 Maintenance Planning and Priorities, 116 Software Sustainment for Legacy and Future Systems, 117 Current Trends in Air Force Software Development and Maintenance, 118 Air Force Policies for Software Sustainment, 119 Software Workforce, 121 Software Facilities, 122 Organization and Management, 123 Future Challenges Based on New Aircraft Entering the Inventory, 123 Sustainment Funding, 126 Efficiency and Effectiveness of Air Force Air Logistics Centers, 127 Concluding Thoughts, 128 5 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND INSERTION FOR 132 SUSTAINMENT Introduction, 132 Policies and Guidance, 134 Technology Development and Transition, 136 Technology Areas Relevant to Sustainment, 138 Defining Sustainment Technology Needs, 138 Long-Term Research, 143 Air Force Sustainment Technology, 146 Overview, 146 Historical Background, 147 Changing Strategies and Processes, 150 Summary of Recent History, 157 Transition to the Future, 158 Requirements, 159 Resources, 164 Right People, 167 Recommendation, 168 Concluding Thoughts, 168

OCR for page R1
contents xiv 6 INCORPORATING SUSTAINABILITY INTO FUTURE DESIGNS 170 Introduction, 170 Incorporating Sustainability in the Concept and Initial Planning, System Design and Development, and Deployment and Support Phases, 171 Incorporating Desirable Design Features and Applying Lessons Learned During Weapon System Life-Cycle Phases, 176 Data Rights/Access and the Air Force’s Ability to Gain Weapon System Sustainment Domain Knowledge, 179 Considering a Blended Support Concept, 180 Moving to a Data-Driven Sustainment Strategy and Common Enterprise Management in New Designs, 181 The Data or Information Systems Needed to Develop the Maintenance Program, 182 Information and Data Needs Once a Platform Enters Service, 182 Information System Needed for Continuing Analysis and Surveillance of the Sustainment Process, 183 Providing for Continued Incorporation of Technology for Sustainment, 185 Overview, 185 Software Systems, 185 Air Vehicles and Engines, 185 Integrity Programs, 186 The Unique Sustainment Aspects with Respect to Rapidly Fielded Systems, 186 Commercial Aviation Practices for Air Force Consideration, 187 Delegation, 188 Aging Aircraft Sustainment, 189 Maintenance Program Development, 189 Concluding Thoughts, 190 APPENDIXES A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 195 B Meetings and Participating Organizations 204 C Navy Enterprise Transformation: Working for the Greater Good 215

OCR for page R1
Acronyms AA aircraft availability ACC Air Combat Command AD Airworthiness Directive AETC Air Education and Training Command AF Air Force AFGLSC Air Force Global Logistics Support Center AFI Air Force Instruction AFMC Air Force Materiel Command AFOSR Air Force Office of Scientific Research AFPD Air Force Policy Directive AFRL Air Force Research Laboratory AFROC Air Force Requirements Oversight Council ALC Air Logistics Center AMC Air Mobility Command AMC/A4 Air Mobility Command Directorate of Logistics AMOC Alternative Means of Compliance ASIP Aircraft Structural Integrity Program BCA Business Case Analysis BOD Board of Directors BRAC Base Realignment and Closure xv

OCR for page R1
AcRonyms xvi CAMS Core Automated Maintenance System CASS Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System CBM Condition-Based Maintenance CFFC Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command CLS Contractor Logistics Support CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration CNAF Commander, Naval Air Forces CNO Chief of Naval Operations DAMS Defense Acquisition Management System DAR Designated Airworthiness Representative DAU Defense Acquisition University DER Designated Engineering Representative DMS/MS Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Materiel Shortages DoD Department of Defense eLog21 Expeditionary Logistics for the Twenty-first Century EO Engineering Order ERP Enterprise Resource Planning FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Air Regulation FBO Fixed Base Operator FMECA Failure Mode, Effect and Criticality Assessment FYDP Future Years Defense Program GM General Motors GSP Globemaster Sustainment Partnership ILCM Integrated Life-Cycle Management ISG Industry Steering Groups LMI Logistics Management Institute LogEA (Air Force) Logistics Enterprise Architecture LRT Logistics Requirements Traceability MAJCOM Major Command ManTech manufacturing technology MICAP Mission Incapable Awaiting Parts MIL-STD Military Standard MMEL Master Minimum Equipment Lists

OCR for page R1
AcRonyms xvii MRB Maintenance Review Board MRO Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul MSG-3 Maintenance Steering Group Three MXW Maintenance Wing NAE Naval Aviation Enterprise NAVAIR Naval Air Systems Command NDI Non-destructive Inspection NRC National Research Council O&M operations and maintenance O&S operations and support OC-ALC Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center OEM original equipment manufacturer ONR Office of Naval Research OO-ALC Ogden Air Logistics Center OPNAV Office of the Chief of Naval Operations OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense PEO Program Executive Office POM Program Objective Memorandum PBL Performance-based Logistics RCM Reliability Centered Maintenance RDT&E research, development, testing, and engineering REMIS Reliability and Maintainability Information Systems S&T science and technology SAE Service Acquisition Executive SAF/AQ Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) SAF/AQX Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition Integration) SAF/IE Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Installations, Environment and Logistics) SECDEF Secretary of Defense SFDM Single Fleet, Driven Metric SIL software integration laboratory SLOC Source Lines of Code SPM System Program Manager SPO System Program Office; Single Process Owner

OCR for page R1
AcRonyms xviii TOA Table of Allowance TOR terms of reference TSPR Total System Performance Requirement TSSR Total System Support Requirement USAF U.S. Air Force WR-ALC Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center