|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 3
1
Introduction
Each year, the Air Force faces a growing gap between the sustainment needs of its
weapons and its annual sustainment budget. Overall weapon system sustainment (WSS) costs
are growing at more than 4 percent per year while budgets have remained essentially flat. The
cost growth is due in part to aging of an aircraft fleet (the average age is 23 years) that is
suffering from increasing corrosion and fatigue cracking, with the attendant difficulty of finding
replacement parts that are no longer in production and software written in languages that are
no longer used. Costs are also rising due to the need to support higher-performance aircraft
and new capabilities provided by more complex and sophisticated systems, such as the latest
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms. Furthermore, the expectation for
the foreseeable future is that sustainment budgets are likely to decrease, so that the gap
between budgets and sustainment needs will likely continue to grow wider. One workshop
presenter suggested that the cost of ownership may be more threatening to aircraft than the
enemy. Several participants noted that the Air Force will have to adopt new approaches to WSS
if it is going to address this problem and remain capable of carrying out its missions.
These sustainment concerns are not new. The issue has been extensively studied,
including in recent studies by the Air Force Studies Board of the National Research Council
(NRC) and the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board.1,2 There is recognition that part of the answer
lies in bringing consideration of a weapon system’s entire life cycle into the early planning and
design phases of the weapon’s acquisition process. Design choices such as materials, fasteners,
and so on can have a big impact on maintenance costs, and principles, such as modular design
and quick disconnects between modules, can aid in reducing disassembly and replacement
costs. Numerous recommendations have also been made that address the way the Air Force
organizes and manages its sustainment efforts—with many suggesting that the Air Force should
1
NRC. 2011. Examination of the U.S. Air Force’s Aircraft Sustainment Needs in the Future and Its Strategy to
Meet These Needs. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Available at http://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=13177.
2
Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. 2011. Sustaining Air Force Aging Aircraft into the 21st Century. Available
at http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA562696. Last accessed
December 27, 2012.
3
OCR for page 4
manage sustainment as an integrated enterprise, rather than as a series of parallel efforts for
the various weapons programs.
The Air Force has begun to take a more integrated view of sustainment through, for
example, consolidating sustainment responsibilities within the Air Force Materiel Command
(AFMC) and organizing itself around eight core functions, each with an individual designated as
a core function lead integrator. It remains to be seen whether these organizational changes will
help to break down barriers to a more integrated approach to sustainment, although several
workshop participants commented that there were opportunities for positive change.
WORKSHOP TERMS OF REFERENCE
The terms of reference for this workshop are given in Box 1-1.
BOX 1-1 Terms of Reference
An ad hoc committee will plan and convene one 3-day public workshop to (1) discuss how
science and technology can reduce aircraft sustainment costs in the Air Force and (2) review
costs in maintenance, upgrades, and aging aircraft in the Air Force.
The committee will develop the agenda for the workshop, select and invite speakers and
discussants, and moderate the discussions.
In organizing the workshop, the committee might also consider additional topics close to
and in line with those mentioned above. The workshop will use a mix of individual
presentations, panels, breakout discussions, and question-and-answer sessions to develop an
understanding of the relevant issues. Key stakeholders will be identified and invited to
participate. One individually authored workshop summary document will be prepared by a
designated rapporteur.
WORKSHOP STRUCTURE, SCOPE, AND APPROACH
The 3-day workshop, which occurred on December 5-7, 2012, in Washington, D.C.,
consisted of a series of presentations by invited speakers (biosketches of the committee
members are provided in Appendix A; the workshop agenda is provided in Appendix B), with
each presentation followed by general discussion. Broadly, the first day was devoted to
presentations by Air Force and Department of Defense academic personnel; the second day to
presentations on experiences within the other services and industry contractors; and the final
half-day to discussion among all participants.
The original intent of this workshop was to focus on how the Air Force’s science and
technology (S&T) dollars should be spent to reduce sustainment costs, as suggested by Task 1 in
the terms of reference (Box 1-1). Indeed, the workshop participants did hear from
representatives of the Air Force Research Laboratory on its S&T investments and from several
4
OCR for page 5
presenters in the military services and in industry regarding cases in which technology insertion
had saved sustainment dollars.
Chapter 2 of this report provides a summary of the presentations delivered at this
workshop and of the discussion that followed. Chapter 3 summarizes the discussion that
occurred on the last day, organized into the following five general topic areas: (1) leadership
and management; (2) mission statement and metrics; (3) setting budget priorities and funding;
(4) relationships with the contractor community; and (5) culture issues and training.
5
