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.
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 organizations 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 available from: | Additional copies are available from: |
Air Force Studies Board National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 (202) 334-3111 |
The National Academies Press 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20055 (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
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
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 associate 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.
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
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
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. Recognizing 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 operational 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 numerous 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
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 approved 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 recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of
this report was overseen by Sheila E. Widnall, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Appointed by the National Research Council, she was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance 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.
Contents
Committee Formation and Terms of Reference
Weapon System Sustainment in the Context of the Military Mission
Weapon System Sustainment Defined for This Study
Past, Present, and Future Environments for Weapon System Sustainment
Weapon System Sustainment Goals of the Air Force
Governance: Laws, Policies, Strategies, and Regulations
2 REVIEW OF THE IMPACT OF REGULATIONS, POLICIES, AND STRATEGIES ON SUSTAINMENT
Statutes, Regulations, and Policies That Impact Air Force Sustainment
Establishing Air Force Sustainment Policies
Comprehensive Approach to Gathering and Analyzing Data
Current Governance Structure for Air Force Sustainment
Current Air Force Organization Complexities for Collaboration
Past, Present, and Potential Future Strategies for Air Force Sustainment
A Benchmark: Processes and Policies of the Naval Aviation Enterprise
3 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT SUSTAINMENT INVESTMENTS, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PROCESSES
Air Force Investment Process Relating to Sustainment
Current Resources and Investments
Air Force Sustainment Infrastructure
Current Air Force Sustainment Processes
Obsolescence and Diminishing Manufacturing Sources
4 ASSESSMENT OF AIR FORCE AIR LOGISTICS CENTERS
Methodology for the Assessment
History and Present State of Air Force Air Logistics Centers
Holistic Approach to the Responsibilities and Performance of Air Force Air Logistics Centers
50/50 Affects the ALC Workforce
Critical Support Staff for the ALC Workforce
Labor Relations and Growing the Workforce
Organizing the Air Logistics Centers for Sustainment
Resourcing for Technology Insertion at Air Logistics Centers
Enterprise Management at the Air Logistics Centers
Maintenance Planning and Priorities
Software Sustainment for Legacy and Future Systems
Current Trends in Air Force Software Development and Maintenance
Air Force Policies for Software Sustainment
Future Challenges Based on New Aircraft Entering the Inventory
Efficiency and Effectiveness of Air Force Air Logistics Centers
5 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND INSERTION FOR SUSTAINMENT
Technology Development and Transition
Technology Areas Relevant to Sustainment
Defining Sustainment Technology Needs
Air Force Sustainment Technology
6 INCORPORATING SUSTAINABILITY INTO FUTURE DESIGNS
Data Rights/Access and the Air Force’s Ability to Gain Weapon System Sustainment Domain Knowledge
Considering a Blended Support Concept
Moving to a Data-Driven Sustainment Strategy and Common Enterprise Management in New Designs
The Data or Information Systems Needed to Develop the Maintenance Program
Information and Data Needs Once a Platform Enters Service
Information System Needed for Continuing Analysis and Surveillance of the Sustainment Process
Providing for Continued Incorporation of Technology for Sustainment
The Unique Sustainment Aspects with Respect to Rapidly Fielded Systems
Commercial Aviation Practices for Air Force Consideration
Maintenance Program Development
A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members
B Meetings and Participating Organizations
C Navy Enterprise Transformation: Working for the Greater Good
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 |
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 |
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 |