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 R2
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 R3
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 R4
OCR for page R5
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 R6
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 R7
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 R8
OCR for page R9
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 R10
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 R11
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 R12
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 R13
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 R14
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 R15
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 R16
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 R17
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 R18
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
