Exceptional Release - Spring 2013

In this Issue:

From the E-Ring..............................................................6 Senior Leadership Perspectives.......................................8 SES Speaks....................................................................7 An Interview with Maj Gen (ret) Robert H. McMahon.......34 Air Force Sustainment Center Production Machine.........56

L ogistics O fficer A ssociation Professionals Shaping the Military Environment EXECUTIVE BOARD President Col Tom Miller

president@loanational.org Vice President Lt Col Jeffrey Hayden Lt Col Chris boring Acting VP

vp@loanational.org

Chief Financial Officer Col Jeff King Major Mike Sander Acting CFO

cfo@loanational.org

Chief Information Officer Ms. Wendy Yonce

InfoOfficer@loanational.org Membership Development Ms. Wendy Yonce

membership@loanational.org Chapter Support Maj Camille LaDrew

chaptersupport@loanational.org Executive Senior Advisor Lt Gen Judith Fedder Webmaster/Website Lt Col JD DuVall Capt Andrew Cobb

webmaster@loanational.org www.loanational.org THE EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE Editor Lt Col Rich Fletcher

editor@loanational.org

Assistant Editor Col (ret) Mary H. Parker, 412 AMXS/MXAD

assteditor@loanational.org

ER Managing Editor/Publisher/Advertising Marta Hannon

marta@loanational.org

ER Worldwide Staff Lt Col Michelle Hall, 43 LRS/CC Lt Col Paul Pethel, AFLCMC/AQL Maj James Dorn, AMC/A4MMQ Maj Timothy Dodson, 438 AEAG, Det 3 Capt Dara Hobbs, AFSPC/A4RDX Capt Scott Manno, 927 LRS/LGR Ms. Donna Parry, AF/A4/7PE

The Exceptional Release Spring 2013 - Contents FEATURES

Click on titles to link to the corresponding article.

EDUCATION

Base Repair Pipeline- Critical to Aircraft Availability

By Captain Emily E. Harris............................................................................................ 16

What is Air-Sea Battle and Why Should I Care?

By Major Michael Boswell.............................................................................................. 20

M1165 Accelerated Brake Wear

By Major John Dickens................................................................................................... 24

KC-10 En Route Performance and Concept of Operations Implementation

By Captain Matthew T. Ratcliffe.................................................................................... 30 LEADERSHIP

It’s All About Leadership: An Interview with Major General (ret) Robert H. McMahon, USAF

By Colonel (ret) Robert E. Hamm Jr............................................................................... 34 FROM THE FLIGHTLINE

Look Out Below! Joint Logistics on Demand

By Second Lieutenant Eric L. Hitzfeld........................................................................... 40

437th APS Makes Baggage Detail Easier

By Senior Airman Dennis Sloan..................................................................................... 44

Strategic Sourcing Solution Demonstrates AF-Wide Benefits

By Ms. Beth Quinter...................................................................................................... 46 EXPEDITIONARY LOGISTICS

‘Door-to-Door’ and the Pit Stops In Between Executing the Largest Multimodal Movement in OEF

By Captain Lindsey R. Nichols....................................................................................... 48 MAJCOM/NAF

The Fuel Efficient Future: Where Are We and How Do We Get There?

By Mr. Jerome Goodin.................................................................................................... 52

The Science of the Air Force Sustainment Center Production Machine

By Mr. Kevin O’Connor................................................................................................. 56

AMC Fuel Efficiency Initiatives

By Major Mark A. Blumke............................................................................................. 62

The Air Mobility Command Fuel Efficiency Office from a Logistics Readiness Officer’s Perspective

By Lieutenant Colonel Laura Radley and Mr. Randy Finney......................................... 66 COCOM/JOINTSTAFF/HAF

DLA’s Incident Response Team: The Quick Reaction Team for Wholesale Logistics

By Colonel Seann Cahill and Lieutenant Colonel Kate Ritzel....................................... 70

Graphic Design MMagination LLC – Atlanta, GA

www.mmagination.com

LOA National PO Box 2264 – Arlington, VA 22202 Issue No. 126 - Spring 2013

Continued on Page 2...

VOICES | PRESIDENT

President’s LOG(istics) Fellow LOA Members: Lt Col Fletcher and his team consistently do a superb job of assembling timely and relevant themes for the Exceptional Release. Their selection long ago of the theme “Efficiencies” for this edition is well timed with the fiscal turbulence our military and our country are currently going through. I encourage you to start with getting the senior logistics viewpoints from General Wolfenbarger, Lt Gen Fedder and Ms. Reardon’s articles; they’ve shared great insight with us in this edition.

Col Tom Miller

At the end of the 2012 Symposium, Lt Gen Fedder asked each chapter to propose one professional development module topic for consideration to use worldwide. Thoughtful subjects were nominated from chapters around the world and submitted to the Air Staff for down-selection to a “Top 12.” These will be developed by the submitting chapters and subject matter experts. In the next few weeks, Lt Gen Fedder will host a webinar where she will discuss the effort and announce the selected subject areas. Once fielded, these modules will give Chapter Presidents great program content relevant to the logistics community and add something new and interesting to local meetings.

We all know LOA is a vital professional development organization that has an important impact on the logistics community through chapter events, The Exceptional Release (the world class publication) and an annual symposium. I listed those engagement methods in that order because that is really the precedence of impact that we have.

Between September 2011 and March 2013 there were no less than seven guidance directives by Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Defense, and the Department of the Air Force on conferences and symposiums. The most recent guidance directed the “cancellation of non-mission critical temporary duties, conferences and symposia” in planning for budget reductions and sequestration. To remain in alignment with the Department of Defense and the Air Force, we have cancelled the hotel contract for the symposium at the Dallas Hyatt in October 2013. In other words we will not host a singular national Table of Contents (Continued from Page 1) symposium in Dallas - - instead we are aggressively developing alterClick on titles to link to the corresponding article. native courses of action. These alternatives include: webcasting of a virtual conferences linked to locally hosted Chapter events, regional VOICES conferences at major chapter locations that can leverage PTDY, and if restrictions are lifted later this year potential partnering with another President’s LOG(istics), Col Tom Miller............................... 2 DoD conference (or a combination of these).

Editor’s Debrief, Lt Col Rich Fletcher................................. 5

From the E-Ring, Lt Gen Judith Fedder.............................. 6 SES Speaks, Mrs. Dee Reardon............................................ 7 Senior Leader Perspectives, In Step with Gen. Janet C. Wolfenbarger................................................................................... 8 Focus on a CGO, Captain C. Jacob Merrell........................... 12 Focus on a Chapter Leader, Major Heather Cooley................ 14 AFSO CrossTalk................................................................. 72 LOA’s Reader’s Choice Reviewed by Captain Keith Meyer.................................... 73 Logistics is Universal

By Captain Paul Hrad....................................................... 74 Chapter CrossTalk............................................................... 76 Milestones........................................................................... 84

2 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

As we develop these COAs with more detail we will share more specifics with you. We fully realize the impact this has on our industry partners and we will pursue options that make it possible to continue the valuable relationship developed over our many years of collaboration.

Thank you for what you do every day to defend our Nation and thank you for being an engaged leader in the logistics community and member of LOA. While the fiscal road is rough our Nation and our Services have been through lean times before with success. The dedication and innovative thinking you provide in leading your units will be an overwhelmingly important element to that success.

V/R,

Tom Col Tom Miller, President LOA National And Your LOA National Board president@loanational.org

LOA Industry Partners Be sure to check out the Industry Partners that support LOA: AAI Corporation www.aaicorp.com

General Dynamics Information Technology www.gdit.com

Oracle www.oracle.com

Aerowing www.aerowing.com

Goodrich Corporation http://www.goodrich.com

Parker Hannifin Corporation www.parker.com

Aging Aircraft Consulting LLC www.agingaircraftconsulting.com

HEICO www.heico.com

Pratt & Whitney www.pratt-whitney.com

AIL, LLC www.avpolintl.com

Honeywell http://honeywell.com

Raytheon www.raytheon.com

ARINC www.arinc.com/defense.html

IHS www.ihs.com

Realization Technologies, Inc. www.realization.com

Array Information Technologies, Inc. www.arrayinfotech.com

Illumination Works, LLC. www.illuminationworksllc.com

Rolls-Royce Defense North America www.rolls-royce.com

ATTI, Inc. www.atec.com

Intergraph www.intergraph.com

SAS Institute www.sas.com

Battelle www.battelle.org

Institute for Defense and Business www.idb.org

Snap-On Tools www.snapon.com

Boeing www.boeing.com

Inst of Defense Studies & Education (Wright State University) www.wright.edu/idse

Standard Aero www.standardaero.com

Booz Allen Hamilton www.boozallen.com CALIBRE www.calibresys.com CDO Technology www.cdotech.com Credence Management Solutions LLC www.credence-llc.com CSC www.csc.com DRS Sustainment Systems, Inc. www.drs.com Dynamics Research Corporation www.drc.com EADS North America www.eadsnorthamerica.com Evanhoe & Associates, Inc. www.evanhoe.com

Intergraph www.intergraph.com Kaiser Aircraft Industries Inc. www.kaiseraircraft.com KMI Media Group www.kmimediagroup.com Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company www.lockheedmartin.com LMI - Logistics Management Institute www.lmi.org MainStream GS, LLC www.mainstreamgs.com Moog www.moog.com Morgan Borszcz Consulting LLC www.mbc360.com Nordam Group www.nordam.com

SupplyCore Inc. www.supplycore.com Systems Implementers www.systemsimplementers.com Teradyne, Inc www.teradyne.com TFD Group www.tfdg.com Tracewell Systems www.tracewell.com Trident University International www.trident.edu URS www.urscorp.com WinWare www.cribmaster.com WL Gore & Assoc. www.gore.com/en_xx

VOICES | EDITOR’S DEBRIEF

VOICES | EDITOR­

Editor’s Debrief Fellow LOA Members: By the time you read this edition of the ER, we will have an idea what sequestration means to the Department of Defense and more closely, our USAF. No matter how it turns out - we know, and have known, things have to change/improve in the way we do our business. In a nutshell, we have to be more efficient in how we “do our business.” The challenge we face has nothing to do with executing the mission. Our Airmen do this exceptionally well.

Often times identifying what needs to change or become more efficient is the easy part. The challenge is in adapting the organization to being more efficient. Doing so will take courage, stamina, and tremendous interpersonal

Lt Col Rich Fletcher

skills…it will take leadership.

This edition of the ER contains a multitude of articles dedicated to efficiencies. It all starts with a perspective of efficiencies from our Air Force leaders. They are followed by a number great articles describing changes at the organizational and MAJCOM level, changes to processes, using the right metrics, and, of course, leadership and managing change. These articles remind us that becoming more efficient and adapting our organizations for change is a responsibility and possibility at all levels…field, MAJCOM, Complex. Your responsibility, as you read the articles in this edition of the ER, is to remind yourself to consider the leadership skills required to make the unit/organization more efficient. I would also ask you to consider whether the actions taken by others apply to your organization. After all, the ER is a forum for professional development.

This edition of the ER also marks the last time Lt Col Paul Pethel will be with the ER Field Editing Team. Paul has been part of the team for the past 8 years and by my count has contributed to review and edit of approximately 64 articles in that period. There is no doubt his contributions were invaluable and projected the ER to the level it is today. The ER editing team will miss Paul’s contributions. All the best to Paul and his family.

Paul’s departure serves as a reminder that we will still accept new members to the field editing team. If you are interested in making a great contribution to the LOA, you can do so as a field editor. Please contact Col (ret) Mary Parker at mary.parker@jsf.mil or (661) 275-3433 DSN 525-3433 if you are interested.

V/R Keep ‘em flying!

Fletch

Lt Col Rich Fletcher and your ER Worldwide Staff

LOA Welcomes its newest Industry Partners

5 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

VOICES | FROM THE E-RING

FROM THE E-RING

From the E-Ring Making Every Dollar Count Efficiency. This one word can mean something different to each person…like ‘transformation’ or ‘enterprise.’ We typically interpret it in the context of time or money, and some of us may scope its application in terms of where we are in the organization—faster processing of a part for issue to a mechanic or cutting millions of dollars from a weapon system acquisition by opting for a less costly material.

Lt Gen Judith Fedder

However you see it, this is a topic that is vital to what each of us does regardless of where we sit. It is on the front burner of Air Force logistics leaders and is shaping the decisions we make every day regarding policy, resourcing, and people. I hope to convince you that it is equally important to what logisticians do at every level given today’s fiscal realities, and that you have an incredibly important part in how successful we are across the Air Force in meeting our efficiency endeavors.

First, consider where we are. You already have a pretty good sight picture on this because it swirls around us as we better understand the challenges of our Nation’s budgeting realities. Just this year we’ve become acquainted with terms like “sequestration” and “fiscal cliff.” On top of those dynamics are the resource requirements related to huge transitions in our wartime posture, having completed the drawdown in Iraq about a year ago and recently reducing Afghanistan presence back to pre-surge levels. Additionally, we are already working on retrograde and are only two years from an established date for a complete military drawdown in Afghanistan…all driving different needs.

You don’t have to search long to find one of the many recent editorials reminding us that our country historically reduces military force structure and defense budgets following every major conflict. Along that vein, the last two Presidential Budgets for Fiscal Years 2012-2017 included savings otherwise known as efficiency projections totaling $160B for the Department of Defense (DoD). Now more than ever, every dollar counts towards satisfying efficiencies while sustaining the all-important objective of remaining ready for the next fight.

So what is the Air Force doing? The answer is plenty. Our service actively manages dozens of initiatives targeted at almost $43B in savings or cost avoidance. Importantly, our HQ USAF A4 staff—along with MAJCOM logistics staffs—oversees almost $10 Billion worth of these initiatives.

Make sure you read Ms. Reardon’s SES Perspective for a really comprehensive overview of our ongoing initiatives to deliver cost effectiveness across the logistics enterprise.

What can you do to help? The first step is easy. . .you’re doing it right now! Get—and stay—informed. Scan the budget environment through Air Force news releases which frequently provide updates on what we are doing to address budget constraints. Seek out on-going efficiency opportunities from your MAJCOM or the Air Staff. Become familiar with our Enterprise Logistics Strategy, where you fit into this strategy, and how our cost effectiveness initiatives impact your particular mission.

Next…contribute. Resource levels have decreased. If you’re a logistician, something you touch now has fewer dollars or manpower (or both) than yesterday. How can you capitalize on that leadership opportunity? You can change your processes, walk time/money waste out the door, and make your corner of the world more cost-effective. We all need to adopt this approach and bring our collective talents to bear in contributing to local or enterprise-wide cost effectiveness initiatives.

Finally, communicate. If you are informed about efficiencies and ready to contribute to our success you need to tell the story. Engage your people, peers, customers, and chain of command about what they, too, can do to help with making Air Force logistics more efficient in our day to day business. This effort requires teamwork. If you encounter problems, identify potential solutions and get some wing- or staff-level help on vetting them.

Ideas—big or small—that have worthy pay off will get attention!

This is an era of opportunity. As logisticians, we will help our service meet its efficiency bogeys through innovation and plain old common sense.

We need both. Together we will meet the challenge and fundamentally improve our enterprise delivery of cost effective logistics to keep our Air Force ready for the next fight. It’s an honor to serve with you in these times.

Lt Gen Judith Fedder Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Installations and Mission Support Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.

6 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

VOICES | SES SPEAKS

SES Speaks

Log Efficiencies….A Critical Campaign!

It’s been a pleasure to serve as the Associate Director of Logistics over the last 15 months. Our Directorate is one of many organizations contributing to DoD and Air Force improvements to business processes and cost effectiveness. Collectively, we’ve made tremendous progress since 2010, but we still have work to do. Thank you to the Exceptional Release for giving me this opportunity to share my perspective on all of the ongoing work logisticians are doing to help the AF become more efficient.

As part of the President’s last two budget submissions to Congress, our Air Force was charged to realize almost Mrs. Dee Reardon $43B in savings between Fiscal Years (FY ) 2012 and 2017. This total savings or “efficiency” bogey was deliberately divided up and assigned to 3-star (or equivalent) Priority Owners by name. The value of each efficiency opportunity (bogey or target) was determined based on business case analyses, requirements reviews, corporate AF deliberation, or in some cases timeconstrained best military judgment.

This deliberate process resulted in 11 AF efficiency priority areas created to produce $43B in savings. Lieutenant General Judith A. Fedder, as the Deputy Chief of Staff, Installations, Logistics and Mission Support, is the priority owner for all Logistics and Installations efficiencies spanning two priority areas: Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization and Logistical Support.

Each priority area consists of one or several objectives. For example, Logistical Support includes eight objectives, each with its own Objective Champion. Later, I’ll talk about three of these. Over the last two years, objective champions developed plans, executed initiatives, and monitored performance metrics for their objective areas. Air Force guidance to objective champions was clear, although immensely challenging…the dollars are gone, so develop and execute plans to produce savings that meet or exceed your bogey without impacting your mission.

Over the last two years our logistics Objective Champions have done just that. Currently, our plans get us to 88% of our FY12-17 Logistics and Installations bogey. Once again in English, we have plans in place to save more than $8 Billion over the next 5 years, which is great news, but we’re still working on a $1.1 Billion gap. What follows are a few examples of what we’re working on across our logistics community.

Weapons System Sustainment (WSS): Our AFMC Vice Commander, Lieutenant General Andrew E. Busch, is the Objective Champion for over $3 Billion of projected savings in our depots. This objective seeks to achieve aircraft availability goals through process improvement and efficient resource allocation given new funding levels. AFMC completely scrubbed depot work package requirements and scrubbed unnecessary workload.

Additionally, process improvement initiatives have increased productivity, increased depot throughput, and maintained aircraft availability targets.

Logistics and Installations: This objective is actually a collection of 11 sub-objectives to produce another $3.1 Billion of savings. One subobjective includes AFMC efforts to decrease costs in our supply chain by decreasing overhead, improving forecast accuracy, bolstering contract oversight controls, and right-sizing readiness spares. Another sub-objective captures plans to implement Repair Network Integration (RNI) for seven commodities. Over the next several years, RNI will fundamentally change our concept for repair of commodities like propulsion, avionics and armament. Additionally, we project to achieve savings through better management of our War Readiness Materiel (WRM). This includes initiatives such as our plan to buy more capable generators for our tent-cities and another initiative to implement smarter/more cost effective swap outs for our prepositioned-afloat munitions ships. Another sub-objective you may have heard about projects savings as a result of AFSO21 6S (Sort-StraightenShine-Standardize-Sustain-Safety) projects and implementation of local electronic bulletin boards to repurpose non-accountable supplies at every base. This initiative was directed by a VCSAF memo sent to all MAJCOM Commanders on 22 May 2012.

Vehicle Fleet Size: This objective targets $360 Million dollars in savings for our vehicle buy, replacement and leasing programs. Major General John B. Cooper, as the Objective Champion, approved plans to delete several thousand vacant vehicle authorizations and work toward eliminating 80% of underutilized vehicles. Additionally, our vehicle fleet experts are working to standardize vehicle fleet packages by mission set (i.e. Fighter Wing, Bomb Wing, Mobility Wing) and to link fleet size to operational mission requirements in order to right-size our AF vehicle fleet.

Our role, put simply…streamline and rapidly evolve the AF logistics enterprise over the next 5 years. Unachieved efficiency targets translate into unacceptable mission and readiness impacts as well as continued loss of modernization for future AF capabilities. The AF will not achieve efficiency targets without your focused support. Many of the initiatives described above trace their origins to AF logistics professionals like you. We are counting on continued innovative solutions from loggies at every level. Now, it is time to take efficiency-minded leadership to the next level and continue to maintain mission readiness every day!

Mrs. Dee Reardon, a member of the Senior Executive Service, is Deputy Director of Logistics, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Installations and Mission Support, Headquarters US Air Force, Washington, DC. She is responsible for organizing, training and equipping more than 180,000 technicians and managers maintaining the Air Force global engagement aerospace weapons system inventory. She provides strategic direction for materiel and equipment management, fuels, vehicle management and operations, distribution, personal property and passenger traffic management. The directorate develops logistics readiness, maintenance and munitions policy, ensuring the readiness of the single largest element of manpower supporting Air Force combat forces worldwide.

7 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

VOICES | PERSPECTIVES

PERSPECTIVES In Step with Gen. Janet C. Wolfenbarger, Commander, Air Force Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio ER: General, thank you for supporting the Logistics Officers Association and the Exceptional Release. This past summer you assumed command of Air Force Materiel Command. What is your No. 1 priority for the command?

Gen Janet C. Wolfenbarger

Gen Wolfenbarger: On my very first day as commander of Air Force Materiel Command, I said that my top priority was to expertly execute the mission of this command. That remains true today. Certainly AFMC’s recent historic reorganization will be a major centerpiece of my time as commander, but my first priority is to excel at executing the command’s primary mission of supporting the warfighter. Despite operating in a climate of change, AFMC is focused on its mission to “Equip the Air Force for World-Dominant Airpower” through the development and transition of technology, professional acquisition and product support management, exacting test and evaluation, and world-class sustainment of Air Force weapons systems. We provide the workforce, infrastructure, cradle-to-grave products, and services necessary to ensure our nation retains the world’s most respected air and space force.

ER: In the past few months, AFMC has undergone a number of organizational changes to include the stand-up of the Air Force Sustainment Center and the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center. What was the impetus for the change, and what impact will these changes have on the Air Force mission “to fly, fight and win ... in air, space and cyberspace”?

Gen Wolfenbarger: It’s important to take a step back and look at the Defense Department’s current operating environment in order to better understand AFMC’s reorganization. In June 2010, the Department of Defense directed the reduction of civilian personnel to Fiscal Year 2010 budget levels. For the Air Force, that meant eliminating more than 16,000 positions. In response, AFMC pursued a strategic solution to reduce civilian personnel, at the same time affording the command an opportunity to perform our core missions more effectively. The intent of this strategic approach was to achieve the required personnel reductions by reducing organizational overhead while maintaining the core mission. In other words, the intent was to reduce “tail” and protect “tooth.”

The AFMC reorganization from 12 centers to five centers was a major part of the Air Force’s response to that DOD challenge. By consolidating overhead, we improve the way AFMC accomplishes its diverse mission, and that provides better support to the warfighter. We’ll approach our business in a more cohesive way, establishing a single center with a single commander for each primary mission. This will enable us to standardize and continuously improve business processes across a mission enterprise, focused on achieving the art of the possible. It will also foster an environment of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, and achieve our goal of presenting a single face to our customers.

AFMC celebrated its 20th anniversary on July 1 of this year, and this is the first major reorganization AFMC has experienced during that timeframe.

The Air Force has changed throughout that span of time, and so too must AFMC. ER: How does this reorganization change the structure of AFMC? Gen Wolfenbarger: Since the command first stood up in 1992, AFMC was organized in a traditional, geographically driven management-staff model, with a center and headquarters staff on each base. By creating a “lead” center for each of five areas – science and technology, life cycle management, test and evaluation, sustainment and nuclear support – we move away from a geographic centric model to a mission-centric model with a single commander responsible for a single mission across multiple geographic locations. The restructure also improves acquisition life cycle management by establishing a single program manager for each weapon system, providing clearer lines of authority and responsibility.

The missions at each location continue at their respective bases, but without the redundant command staffs, eliminating layers of management overhead. Here’s what the command structure and its centers look like now: The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) headquartered at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, has oversight of life cycle management work, delivering affordable and sustainable capabilities to U.S. and international partners – on time, on cost, anywhere and anytime from cradle to grave. AFLCMC is comprised of multiple directorates across AFMC, including Hanscom AFB, Mass.; Eglin AFB, Fla.; Wright-Patterson; Maxwell AFB-Gunter Annex, Ala.; and in program offices at each of the air logistics complexes at Tinker AFB, Okla., Robins AFB, Ga., and Hill AFB, Utah.

8 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

Wolfenbarger The Air Force Sustainment Center (AFSC), headquartered at Tinker AFB, Okla., consolidates oversight of the command’s depot maintenance and supply chain mission at the former air logistics centers at Tinker AFB, Robins AFB and Hill AFB, along with the former Air Force Global Logistics Support Center at Scott AFB, Ill. AFSC delivers combat capability through around-the-clock worldwide sustainment support for Air Force weapons systems. The three former logistics centers at Tinker, Robins and Hill AFBs have been re-designated as air logistics complexes.

The Air Force Test Center (AFTC), headquartered at Edwards AFB, Calif., conducts developmental test and evaluation of air, space and cyber systems to provide timely, objective and accurate information to decision makers. AFTC has oversight of work carried out at three primary locations across AFMC, including Edwards AFB, Eglin AFB, and Arnold AFB, Tenn. The Arnold Engineering and Development Center was re-designated as a complex.

The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), headquartered at Wright-Patterson AFB, merged the Air Vehicles Directorate and the Propulsion Directorate into a single Aerospace Systems Directorate. AFRL continues its mission of leading the discovery, development and delivery of affordable warfighting technologies.

The Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center (AFNWC), headquartered at Kirtland AFB, N.M., also did not change and continues as the command’s center of expertise for nuclear weapon systems, delivering safe, secure, and reliable nuclear capabilities for the warfighter through technology, acquisition, test and sustainment.

ER: The theme for this edition of the Exceptional Release is “Efficiencies.” Could you describe efficiency initiatives in Air Force Materiel Command that you think will have significant benefits for the Air Force and DoD? Gen Wolfenbarger: I would say that the most visible AFMC efficiency initiative is the command’s reorganization. We eliminated more than 1,000 management-level civilian positions, with an expected savings of approximately $109 million annually for this effort. By consolidating similar functions and cutting redundant overhead and some support functions, we’ve worked to greatly improve the way we do business and use taxpayer dollars. Some military positions will be realigned as well. AFMC certainly recognizes the valuable contributions of our civilian workforce, but we also recognize the unique fiscal constraints under which all services are operating.

We have also worked collaboratively with the warfighter to reevaluate the sustainment requirements for weapon systems, ensuring we are looking for every opportunity to reduce costs.

These Weapon System Sustainment efficiencies yielded $3 billion in reductions across a 5-year budgetary planning period to meet our target. Various initiatives, to include the systematic process of reducing requirements and re-negotiating sustainment contracts, have generated significant savings.

ER: What are the mission critical challenges you see on the horizon for Air Force Materiel Command?

Gen Wolfenbarger: Certainly our biggest challenge is providing required support to the warfighter in an environment of constrained budgets. While the fiscal environment is challenging, I contend it also can and should be embraced as an opportunity to figure out ways to accomplish our missions more efficiently and more effectively. AFMC is doing just that. Our mission is as serious today as it ever has been, and Gen Janet Wolfenbarger, commander of Air Force Materiel Command, speaks to a crowd of we’re committed to doing everything we can to make every Airmen, civilians, and community leaders at the base transition ceremony July 18, 2012, at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. The official activation of the 96th Test Wing combined the 96th defense dollar count and directly support the warfighter.

Air Base Wing and 46th Test Wing as part of AFMC’s transition to the 5-Center construct.

(U.S. Air Force photo/Samuel King Jr.)

Ü 9 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

SECTION | STORY NAME ­ ER: Off topic a bit, but would you mind sharing with the ER some of your thoughts on being the Air Force’s first female four-star and major command commander?

Gen Wolfenbarger: First, let me just say, I never anticipated that my career would include a promotion to brigadier general, much less this opportunity to serve at the highest rank in our Air Force. As you may know, I was a member of the U.S. Air Force Academy’s first class of female cadets, and my experience there really provided me with a foundation I’ve relied on throughout my career. The Academy put me in situations that stretched me mentally, physically, emotionally, and academically. I came out on the other side of those experiences knowing I am far more capable than I ever thought I could be. That experience gave me a belief in myself that I have relied on ever since.

Throughout my career, I have always done the very best I could at every job I held. I’ve been very fortunate to have learned and grown from every position entrusted to me. I’ve served in the life cycle management business for most of my career and have had the good fortune to work on the leading edge fighter, bomber, and transport aircraft programs in the Air Force. I’ve had the opportunity to serve as the Lead Program Element Monitor on the F-22 Raptor, the System Program Director of the B-2 Spirit, and the Systems Group Commander on the C-17 Globemaster III. I consider my previous experiences as preparatory to my position today. Not everyone gets the chance to serve at the head of a command they grew up in. I am humbled, I am honored, I am ready, and I am really excited to serve as commander of Air Force Materiel Command. K

Gen. Janet Wolfenbarger (from left), Air Force Materiel Command commander, Brig. Gen. Robert C. Nolan II, outgoing Air Force Flight Test Center commander, and Brig. Gen. Arnold W. Bunch Jr., incoming AFFTC commander, prepare to walk to the stage in order to commence the center’s change of command ceremony held June 19, 2012, at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. In July AFFTC was re-designated as the Air Force Test Center as part of AFMC’s transition to the 5-Center construct. (U.S. Air Force photo)

10 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

VOICES | FOCUS ON A CGO

IN THEIR OWN WORDS… FOCUS ON A CGO There’s no doubt about it that logistics is a dynamic profession. If one thing remains constant though, it is the need to be flexible and adaptable. This is true at home and abroad. Leave it to the Company Grade Officer (along with many other valued service members) to face that challenge with gusto and get the job done right the first time. It is not always the loggie with the most years in service that is called to the job either. It is time to throw them a bone by putting them in the spotlight. Take for example, Captain C. Jacob Merrell.

Captain Merrell began his journey as a logistician after completing Conventional Munitions Maintenance Officer Technical Training in May of 2006. A graduate of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Capt Merrell is currently stationed at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI as the OIC of the 535th Aircraft Maintenance Unit. Capt Merrell has deployed to Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan where he served as the 379th Expeditionary Aircraft Maintenance Unit’s OIC and to Andersen AFB, Guam as the 36th Maintenance Squadron’s Maintenance Operations Officer.

The ER asked Captain Merrell to share his thoughts on being a leader…in his own words.

Captain Merrell on the biggest lesson(s) learned while deployed: In my first deployment I deployed with my unit.

As the troop commander for 278 people, and being my firstever deployment, things got hectic. The most important thing I learned was to just keep going, don’t ever stop. If you stopped you would miss something and catching back up was horrible.

The deployment itself was easy; you’re there with your maintainers, your pilots, your jets…it was great. You really get to see what the real job of the Air Force is and it was rewarding when the jets launch on alert or seeing the video feeds of the aircraft that your maintainers helped put in the air.

During my second deployment I deployed as an enabler, like many other maintenance officers, albeit to Guam. Integrating into a unit that is not assigned to that particular location presented some challenges. Being personable was key to working with others through the various situations that arose. I also learned that no matter where you are some sort of event/ trouble will find you. While I was deployed to Guam, Operation TOMADACHI kicked off in Japan. Being the only maintainer assigned with fighter experience I got tagged to Capt Merrell during one of his deployments. bed down 38 different aircraft and more than 1,200 Sailors who had been evacuated from Naval Air Field Atsugi, Japan.

Things were hectic but once again being personable, and having all the information, really helped to smooth things over which allowed us to press forward in accomplishing the mission.

Captain Merrell on being prepared for deployment: Get things at home straight first; you don’t want that hanging over your head. Always keep in mind, in those months leading up to the deployment, what you are doing and why you are doing it. No matter how you look at it the AF primarily serves in a support role in the current wars. As the poster attached to the Flightline Ops door at Bagram said, “The mission is the 18 year old with a rifle.” Whether you are helping launch close air support fighters or generating tactical and/or strategic airlift you are, in some way, providing that warrior on the ground with airpower; airpower that they desperately need to survive. Also, from the get go, if you are deploying as a unit, be prepared to pick your sharpest SNCO to deploy alongside you and stick with that person to plan most everything. You don’t have to be involved in every aspect of the deployment planning, but you just need to know enough. After all, you still have a shop to run until that day you jump on some sort of airlift headed for the deployed location.

Captain Merrell on his proudest moment(s): I am most proud of maintaining my family. With over 600 days away from home, I’ve learned that I have a really phenomenal and understanding family. With regard to the job, I am most proud of the Airmen I had the pleasure to lead. Seeing them progress through their careers and get promoted is a special feeling…it’s significant to me to know that in some way, good or bad, I was involved in that person’s life. The single point that I’m most proud of – scrambling jets that weren’t previously on alert status in order to provide close air support for a downed F-15E, and still getting it off the ground in less than 10 minutes. Those few minutes were incredible to see…the lack 12 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

AUTHOR NAME­

Capt Merrell hanging out.

of questioning, the lack of complaining, experiencing the attitude that “this is my job to do and nothing is going to stand in my way from making it happen”. My maintainers were amazing.

Captain Merrell on keeping leadership skills honed: Besides continually working, with little time off, I try to interact with people and be as involved as I can without coming across as a micro manager. It is a fine line to be able to do that without turning your people off. Even if it means you know they are going to do something that might not be the best way to do it and then just letting them do it. As long as someone isn’t going to get hurt, equipment isn’t going to get damaged, and it isn’t just a completely dumb idea, it’s good for them to learn the hard way sometimes. Sometimes simply sitting down and having a relationship with your people, in such a way that they trust you enough to talk openly, can be what makes things happen…really happen and not just what they were directed to do.

Captain Merrell on the leadership skills/traits that are most important to logistics officers: The ability to multitask. If you can’t multitask you are going to be in trouble when you get into larger organizations. Time management is also critical. Too often I see Lieutenants staying 14 hours a day but when I come in the next morning to see what they accomplished its usually nothing substantial. Work will be there tomorrow. The need to stay and interact with your Airmen is important but staying for the sake of staying is ridiculous. There will be plenty of days in a logistics officer’s career where the AF will get way more than they pay us for. So go home, go to the gym, do homework, be with family…if work needs you, they’ll use technology to find you.

Captain Merrell on his aspirations: I want to complete my Masters degree and make rank. I hope to command a squadron one day and continue to make an impact on Airmen’s lives. I genuinely love my career. I’ve had good assignments and bad assignments, good bosses and not so good bosses, but I wouldn’t trade this career for any other career out there.

Submitted by Major Heather Cooley, PACAF Weapon System Support Branch Chief. K 13 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

VOICES | FOCUS ON A CHAPTER LEADER

FOCUS ON A CHAPTER LEADER Major Heather Cooley ER: What do you like most about being a loggie?

The people. I was drawn to the maintenance career field by a family friend whose stories about his own career in aircraft maintenance and the people he worked with throughout his career. It sounded like an exciting and rewarding career field--and he was right! Although I thought my work would focus more on the technical aspect of aircraft maintenance, the personnel aspect of it has actually been much more interesting to me. The dedication and perseverance of our Airmen impress me on a daily basis, even after 14 years of service. I am very proud and humbled to serve alongside them.

ER: What was your biggest learning moment?

My learning moment occurred as an instructor at AMMOC. I thought at the time that the flightline was the only place to be a maintenance officer.

I moved to Sheppard AFB for instructor duty dragging my heels the entire way. It was a tough adjustment to go from the flightline to the classroom.

As an AMU OIC, I was used to gathering info and providing direction, but I wasn’t used to conveying information in a learning environment. The opportunity to learn a new skill set, and to pass on my own experience as a maintenance officer, was a turning point in my career. Before this tour as an instructor, I had considered separating from the service, but this job gave me new tools and a new perspective on our Air Force. It has also been very rewarding to see our students’ progress as they make their way through their careers. I taught about 200 officers at AMMOC, so I see them often as we deploy and move around the Air Force.

ER: What are you most proud of in your short time on active duty?

Serving as a squadron commander. It was something I anticipated for half of my career. When I was a lieutenant, I thought it would be a terrible job with too many demands, too many people and too many meetings. But it turned out I just wasn’t ready for that challenge at the time. When the time did arrive, however, my experiences had prepared me for the challenge after all. The chance to command was a huge opportunity and I am glad I had the chance to serve our Airmen as a squadron commander. I commanded in a deployed location, so there were certainly some challenges there. While deployed, we experienced a heavy rotation in the squadron while performing a very diverse mission. The squadron supported the busy flightline operations at that location, as well as performing centralized repair for several other bases in theater. The magnitude of the mission was daunting, but the Airmen I served hit the ground running and we never missed a beat. We turned over our flight chief positions four times during my command, which The Kanaloa Chapter at the 2012 National LOA Symposium, Washington, D.C. Photo courtesy of Col Mike Arceneaux.

14 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

COOLEY 386 AEW Team of the Month award for the C-130 AMU at Ali Al Salem AB. Photo taken by CMSgt Chris Bois.

is very common in the AOR. But each set of flight chiefs left the unit better than they found it and the squadron recognized huge improvements in the time I spent with them.

ER: As a recognized leader in your local LOA Chapter, what activities/events are you most proud of ?

I am most proud of the chapter’s ongoing relationship with the Navy Supply Corps Association Hawaii at Pearl Harbor.

The association gives our members access to a new perspective and to see operations they probably won’t see elsewhere.

Though I’ve only been with the chapter for a few months, it is very rewarding to see this relationship develop and provide new opportunities for our members. K Getting ready to serve Thanksgiving dinner to the Airmen at Al Udeid AB. Left to right: CMSgt Stan Riddle, Maj Ron Betts, Maj Heather Cooley and Maj John Groff. Photo courtesy of Maj Ron Betts.

15 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

EDUCATION

Base Repair PipelineCritical to Aircraft Availability This article is an abridged version of a research paper submitted to the Air Force Advanced Maintenance and Munitions Officer School. The researcher examined the base repair capability as a function of the USAF supply system. Please contact the author directly to obtain an unabridged version of the research.

Emily.harris@tydall.af.mil 16 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

By Captain Emily E. Harris The mission of the United States Air Force is “to Fly, Fight and Win…in Air, Space, and Cyberspace.” In order to accomplish this mission, the USAF must have aircraft and aircrews ready to go at all times. Aircraft must be fully mission capable and aircrews must be fully trained to achieve this task. Aircraft availability is critical to aircrew readiness and the readiness of the USAF. An important aspect of aircraft availability is parts availability. Maintainers cannot fix aircraft if the parts are not available. Aircraft parts come from a number

Above: Crew chiefs inspect aircraft parts for installation during a home station inspection of a C-17 Globemaster III at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash. (USAF photo by Abner Guzman)

of places: they can be new from a contractor or manufacturer, overhauled at a depot location, repaired at the base level, etc. An efficient base repair pipeline is vital to parts availability and therefore, aircraft availability. Parts repaired at base level are returned to the USAF supply system and can be used to laterally support other bases in need of that part. If parts are not circulating through the supply system at the rate the supply system expects or plans for, then the USAF will not have the parts on hand (in the system and ready to be distributed) that the system forecasts or expects.

FIG 2: TURN-IN ANALYSIS

HARRIS

In February 2011, an Air Force Logistics Figure 1. Turn-In Analysis by Type.

Management Agency (AFLMA) study showed that base repair pipeline times exceeded the Secondary Item Requirements Pre-Change Post-Change System (D200A) assumptions by a wide marAverage Average gin. This is significant because the number Occurrences Percent Days Occurrences Percent Days of expected backorders increases for each day the actual pipeline time exceeds the requireServiceable 27,860 25.48% 26.90 24,685 25.91% 31.55 ments system’s assumptions. If the requirements system were to use actual base repair Unserviceable 78,836 72.10% 15.24 68,066 71.45% 15.10 pipeline times, it would cause a significant Warranty increase in the number of required spares Items 2,640 2.41% 20.85 2,510 2.63% 18.28 (parts) in order to minimize backorders. InTOTAL creasing the D200A base repair pipeline as109,336 100.00% 18.35 95,261 100.00% 19.45 sumption by just one day could increase the gross requirement cost for spares by $35M. the supply system, it could ultimately reduce Additionally, the USAF is pursuing enterpriseD200A assumes that serviceable assets will be turned in (which ends the base repair pipe- base repair pipeline times. It is important that level management as part of the Repair Netline time) by maintenance and returned to the maintainers understand how the actions and work Integration (RNI) initiative. By looking supply system within 4 days. A serviceable as- repair pipeline at their base affects the rest of at repair capacity (base, depot, or contractor level) from an enterprise perspective, resourcset can be an item that is repaired in a back- the Air Force. es can be managed to fill the most important shop at the base, or an item in which a failure could not be duplicated. If maintenance What Base X does, in terms of their base re- requirements, thus optimizing support to the cannot duplicate the failure or discrepancy pair pipeline, affects the parts availability for Warfighter. The current base repair process is Base Y and the rest of the USAF in the supply focused on local requirements and repair capacsystem. D200A calculates spares requirements ity, but the process should consider enterpriseThe changes made to AFI based on demand history, aircraft availability wide needs and capacity. This is noteworthy requirements, and the expectation of a 4/10 day in today’s fiscally constrained environment as 21-101 were meant to base repair pipeline. If a base fails to meet that enterprise-wide requirements and priorities highlight the base repair pipeline expectation, then the parts availability warrant consideration above local priorities process to the maintenance for the entire USAF is affected (or entire air- when it comes to the base repair pipeline. community; by educating craft fleet, depending on the part). If numerTo determine the immediate effectiveness of them on the expectations of the AFI 21-101 changes, worldwide Air Force The base repair pipeline the supply system, it could data was used to compare base repair pipeline affects the entire ultimately reduce base times from 4 months before the AFI was pubenterprise, and it is critical repair pipeline times. lished to 4 months after the change was in effect. The overall pipeline time was compared, that each base strive to as well as that of serviceable, unserviceable meet D200A expectations and warranty items. Rather than a base repair that the item was removed for, and the item to maximize parts pipeline, warranty items have a base evacuation is working as expected, then the discrepancy is availability throughout the time. There is no need for base-level maintesigned off as Could Not Duplicate (CND) and nance to attempt repair on assets that are still USAF. returned to the supply system as a serviceable under warranty; these assets should be evacuasset. D200A also assumes that unserviceable ated from the base as quickly as possible for assets experience a base repair pipeline time of repair or replacement by the contractor. no more than 10 days. An unserviceable asset ous bases fail to meet the pipeline expectation, that cannot be repaired at base level is either retrograded to a higher echelon of repair or then there will not be enough parts circulating Findings condemned. Retrograded unserviceable assets in the supply system to meet the needs of the In creating a histogram based on the length of are coded Not Repairable This Station (NRTS) USAF (or fleet). The result is an increase in the base repair pipeline, we see that the data is and sent to another repair facility with greater the number of backorders and awaiting parts distributed the same way for both time periods.

(AWP) time. At the base level, this can drive capabilities.

It also validates that both time periods experian increase in the Total Not Mission Capable ence the same percentage of serviceable, unserAs a result of the AFLMA study, in August for Supply (TNMCS) rate, or in the number of viceable, and warranty item turn-ins.

2011 Headquarters Air Force made changes to cannibalization (CANN) actions (which is an Air Force Instruction (AFI) 21-101, Aircraft increase in workload). The base repair pipeline Through this study, it was discovered that the and Equipment Maintenance Management, affects the entire enterprise, and it is critical overall base repair pipeline time actually inregarding base repair. The changes made to that each base strive to meet D200A expecta- creased after the changes were made to AFI AFI 21-101 were meant to highlight the base tions to maximize parts availability throughout repair process to the maintenance communi- the USAF. Ü ty; by educating them on the expectations of

Final Disposition, Pre/Post Change

17 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

EDUCATION | BASE REPAIR PIPELINE­ 21-101. This overall increase of 1.1 days correlated to the increase in the serviceable asset pipeline time of 4.6 days. There was no change in the base repair pipeline time for unserviceable assets and warranty items.

to an increase in AWP time. Different bases and different parts may experience different issues, requiring individual analysis to correct.

An increase in the pipeline time for serviceable assets can be caused by a variety of factors. For example, it might be taking longer to repair assets or sign them off as CND; there may be capacity issues in the backshops; it may be taking longer to source and receive parts, which leads

This overall lack of improvement in the base repair pipeline times may be attributed to a number of things. The guidance is still relatively new, and programs or process changes may not have been fully implemented to affect the 4 month post-AFI change data.

Discussion

Additionally, this guidance may be unclear to maintenance personnel, causing a delay in process improvement. D200A has always utilized the 4/10 day base repair pipeline expectation in determining spares requirements; however, these expectations have never before been widely publicized to the maintenance community. The supply community commonly refers to assets as either “serviceable” or “unserviceable.” While these terms are not foreign to the maintenance community, in many cases maintainers think of assets as either repaired, or coded as CND, NRTS or condemned.

Maintenance personnel might not understand “serviceable” refers to assets that are either repaired or coded CND, and that “unserviceable” refers to assets that are coded NRTS or condemned. Maintenance personnel, knowing how long it generally takes to repair an asset and return it to the supply system (based on the pipeline time of serviceable assets), may have a hard time believing the expectation to make that repair is only 4 days. These maintainers may think these expectations should be reversed (4 days for unserviceable assets and 10 days for serviceable assets) which perpetuates the misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the guidance.

Further confusing the issue are the base repair guidelines for NRTS codes in Technical Order (TO) 00-20-3, Paragraph 6.4. TO 00-20-3, paragraph 6.4, describes what must take place before an item can be coded NRTS. This guidance goes to great lengths to ensure maintenance makes every attempt to repair an item prior to using a NRTS code. For example, for NRTS code 5, shop backlog, the TO states, “only use NRTS code 5 after MAJCOM or IM (Item Manager) disapproval of a formal request to defer maintenance.” Neither the TO, nor AFI 21-101, defines the point in time at which a formal request is needed, which may cause the base to retain the asset for an extended period of time. Maintenance may hold an asset until they exhaust all alternative options that must be explored per TO 00-20-3.

This may also be why D200A has always used a 10-day pipeline expectation for unserviceable assets.

Cracks glow on a spring under a black light after being run through a magnetic particle machine at the non-destructive inspection (NDI) shop at RAF Mildenhall, England. NDI is crucial in identifying defective aircraft parts to prevent possible failure due to microscopic cracks and fractures on the surface or internally. (USAF photo by SSgt Jerry Fleshman)

18 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

This seemingly conflicting guidance can cause inaction at the base level. Paragraph 11.34.1.1.9 of AFI 21-101 states that, “Non2LM repairable items must be processed within 4 days for serviceable assets and 10 days for unserviceable assets.” This is not corroborated with TO 00-20-3, which precludes the use of a NRTS code until all options are exhausted.

The TO procedures might drive a long base repair pipeline to “repair to fullest extent autho-

HARRIS

rized and within capabilities” as stated in AFI 21-101, paragraph 11.22. While AFI 21-101 and TO 00-20-3 may be interpreted as conflicting guidance, AFI 21-101 appears to be inconsistent with itself.

The priorities described in AFI 21-101, paragraph 11.33 do not support enterprise management. AFI 21-101 bases repair/delivery prioritization on the local mission and flying

Overall, the changes made to AFI 21-101 regarding the base repair process have not yet had a positive impact on base repair pipeline times. It is critical that USAF instructions and technical orders are both aligned with the objectives of today’s USAF.

schedule. The enterprise may have an immediate need for an item, but the base with the asset may not have a need and is therefore not motivated to repair the item. AFI 21-101 does not suggest a course of action for instances when prioritizing asset repair based on the local mission impedes a base’s ability to meet the 4-/10day base repair pipeline expectation.

Overall, the changes made to AFI 21-101 regarding the base repair process have not yet had a positive impact on base repair pipeline times. It is critical that USAF instructions and technical orders are both aligned with the objectives of today’s USAF. Enterprise-wide needs must be considered, and guidance and expectations of USAF personnel (in this case, maintenance) must be clear. Inconsistent guidance may hinder efficiency and effectiveness.

It is vital that the maintenance community understands that if the base repair process can be improved to the point of meeting D200A expectations, support to the warfighter will be improved by providing increased aircraft avail-

Above: A1C Kyle Crawford, 332nd Expeditionary Maintenance Squadron electronics and environmental systems specialist, installs parts of a new environmental control system for an F-16 Fighting Falcon at Joint Base Balad, Iraq. (USAF photo by SrA Christopher Hubenthal)

ability through reduced base repair, and order and ship time pipelines. Reducing pipeline times could reduce USAF gross requirements costs by $35M per day and/or increase weapon system availability by reducing the number of times an item is susceptible to backorders. Reducing the base repair pipeline time is critical to aircraft availability and the overall readiness of the USAF. About the author: At the time of authorship, Captain Emily E. Harris was assigned as a student at the United States Air Force Advanced Maintenance and Munitions Officer School, Class 12A. She is the Operations Officer for the 325th Maintenance Operations Squadron, Tyndall AFB. Captain Harris may be reached at emily.harris@ tyndall.af.mil. K

19 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

EDUCATION

An F-35A Lightning II joint strike fighter and an F22A Raptor. (USAF photo by MSgt Jeremy T. Lock)

What is Air-Sea Battle and Why Should I Care?

By Major Michael Boswell For almost two years, the concept of Air-Sea Battle (ASB) has been a constant echo in the background of the military community, and it’s getting louder and louder with each passing day. Most people believe it’s the way that we are planning to fight a future war with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Others think that it’s a new tactic by the Navy and Air Force to secure funding in an economically austere environment. Some simply don’t understand the concept and are content with focusing on the immediate task in front of them. Regardless of what the military thinks about it, one thing is certainly clear—this new 20 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

doctrine is going to change the way that we do business in the foreseeable future. I am writing this article to shed some light on what the new ASB doctrine is and why we as USAF logisticians must understand it.

If the USAF is going to be successful in executing future ASB engagements, it is important that the logistics community fully understands it and has a voice in its development today.

What is Air-Sea Battle?

As a student at the Naval War College, this new doctrine has been a hot point of discussion and I have found myself defending the necessity

BOSWELL of a shift from Counter-Insurgency (COIN) doctrine to that of ASB. Let’s start by defining what this new doctrine is not. It’s not a doctrine established to fight a war with the PRC. The basic premise for the latest iteration of doctrine focuses on our ability to operate and win in an Anti-Access/Area Denial Environment (A2/AD). The term A2/AD refers to efforts designed to deny and degrade our ability to use sophisticated technological systems, as well as create a physical environment that denies the US the ability to operate freely in a place of its choosing. Military strategists and the academic community have discussed this concept for more than 22 years. Shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, military analysts began assessing future threats to the US in light of the reality that Russia was no longer a world superpower. As a result, in the early 1990s, the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Office for Net Assessments began looking at “peer/ non-peer” threats to national security. The results were very similar to the elements basis of what is now referred to as the ASB concept.

Fast forward to September 2009 when the Air Force Chief of Staff (CSAF), General Norton Schwartz, and the US Navy’s Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead, signed a memorandum, thus solidifying ASB as military doctrine.

The new doctrine’s bottom line is to counter the quickly-emerging threat to the US and its allies in the form of A2/AD technology.

While the vast majority of information on the new doctrine remains classified, the concept centers on an adversary’s ability to deny or limit friendly forces’ freedom of action over or in enemy territory. The air and sea domains are the targets for A2/AD advances, hence the name “Air-Sea” as it relates to ASB. Since World War II, the United States has enjoyed the ability to project power at a time and place of its choosing. This, combined with the latest technological capabilities, as well as the finest men and women who are in uniform, has ensured our global dominance over the past two decades. So, the ASB concept is our ability to counter an enemy’s attempt, via air and sea, to deny an adversary’s freedom of action at a time or place of our choosing.

So, the ASB concept is our ability to counter an enemy’s attempt, via air and sea, to deny an adversary’s freedom of action at a time or place of our choosing.

A few examples of developing A2/AD technology are advancements in long/short range ballistic missile capabilities, unmanned technologies, and sophisticated cyber warfare. This list is not all-inclusive and only provides an unclassified look. Potential adversaries have observed and learned invaluable lessons about the way the US military fights and wins its wars.

As such, they understand the unlikelihood of winning a symmetric war of attrition. This has driven them to develop the capability to deny or limit access to areas needed for force projection for a short or protracted period of time.

The goal of these powers is not to destroy our military capability or the continental United States, but to prevent us from establishing air and sea supremacy in the early stages of conflict. In a military operation, the initial minutes or hours can mean the difference between establishing dominance from the onset versus engaging in a very long and protracted war or operational defeat. This time allows adversaries the ability to establish the foothold necessary to gain a strategic advantage over the US and its allies.

Why China?

If the doctrine is not primarily intended as a mechanism with which to engage in war with the PRC, then why is the PRC often mentioned immediately after ASB? There are two answers to this question. The first is simple: the PRC is actively developing technology to deny the US its ability to project power in the Western Pacific. For the past 20 years, the PRC has been actively accessing and develop-

In a military operation, the initial minutes or hours can mean the difference between establishing dominance from the onset versus engaging in a very long and protracted war or operational defeat. ing technology at an alarming rate to counter our current military capabilities. Additionally, it has established strategies aimed at defeating our capabilities. The PRC doesn’t call it A2/ AD, but rather the “Shashoujian” theory. For those who are not fluent in Mandarin Chinese, this term has two definitions. The first definition refers to an ancient Chinese weapon used by assassins. It can be hidden and deployed instantaneously to kill or maim a target. The second is as a “warfighting concept, a stratagem

(or combination of stratagems), or a method or tactic that enables the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to seize advantage and assure victory against a superior adversary.” Again, the Shashoujian concept does not entail hitting a target head-on, but rather through concealment and stealth.

Many PLA strategists are proficient in the studies of Sun Tzu. The idea of Shashoujian is directly in-line with the following concept from The Art of War: “If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him.

Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.

If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.” Although understanding and developing stratagem to combat this threat in the Asian Pacific is not new, it has been understandably overshadowed due to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq post September 11, 2001. However, as combat forces slowly withdraw from the Middle East and the US pivots to Asia, there is a renewed interest in strategic and operational success in the Pacific theater.

The second reason why the PRC is a risk to US strategic interests is simple. The PRC controls the world’s second largest economy, when factoring in nominal Gross Domestic Product as well as overall purchasing power (2011 estimate of $11.44 trillion). This buying power, combined with how the PRC chooses to spend its money, is a growing concern. Over the past 4 years, the PRC’s economy has grown annually by more than 10%. Additionally, its defense budget in 2001 was estimated at $17.7 billion and exploded to $91 billion in 2012, a 500% increase in only a decade. Considering that the PRC does not have a crippling national debt like the US, and that the PRC’s Research and Development Programs do not face the same limitations as the US, this makes the PRC a formidable adversary.

The predominant focus when discussing ASB has been on the PRC. However, there is significant evidence suggesting Iran is developing the same A2/AD capability, although not nearly as sophisticated as that of the PRC. Another potential outcome of these advancements is the ability for non-state actors or terrorist groups to gain access to this technology. Naval War College professor James Holmes wrote, “From

Ü 21 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

EDUCATION | WHAT IS AIR-SEA BATTLE? an operational standpoint, China’s PLA presents the sternest ‘anti-access’ challenge of any prospective antagonist.” Additionally, “if US forces can pierce the toughest anti-access defenses out there—if they can crack the hardest nut—the softer defenses erected by weaker opponents will prove manageable.” Therefore, it is critical that the military views the ASB doctrine in terms of countering the emerging A2/AD threat, from whatever source, and not simply as war with the PRC or Iran.

Why should loggies care?

The last question, and probably the most important for the purpose of this article, is why we as USAF logisticians must know and understand this emerging doctrine. The ASB office in the Pentagon was established in November 2011. This new office is still in the throes of solidifying strategy and architecture for success. As such, there will be a need for tactical and operational loggies to ensure their voices are heard throughout the DoD when it comes to ASB. We have seen an emergence of the USAF A4 community on the ground of our nation’s most recent wars, literally fighting

Figure1. Emerging Chinese Anti -Access /Area-Denial Capabilities (“Why Air-Sea Battle”)

22 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

alongside the Army and Marine Corps—truly bringing the “combat” to combat logistics. We must take this momentum and ensure that we are not an afterthought or fade into the shadows, as in the rear with the gear.

As such, there will be a need for tactical and operational loggies to ensure their voices are heard throughout the DoD when it comes to ASB. The logistics community must be careful not to fall into the same trap of fighting our nation’s last war. For almost 60 years, we have postured our forces and resources to fight a two major theater war scenario. Past doctrine was predicated on the results of WWII and other doctrine based on war with Russia. A combination of COIN logistics proficiency as well as ensuring that the USAF logistics infrastructure can meet the challenges of a symmetric adversary is vital to tomorrows fight. Is there a difference?

Should there be a difference? All are theoretical and philosophical questions that must be asked and ultimately answered.

So, how do we best prepare our force to meet this new challenge? The A4 community will need to closely examine how the USAF logistics’ enterprise can and will support a quick or protracted engagement in the South China Sea or in the Mediterranean. Moreover, we need to determine how to assist or support the US Navy’s logistics processes. From a J4 perspective, it will be important to find redundancies that we can eliminate, especially in the increasingly austere fiscal environment. The logistics community must evaluate these issues sooner than later to determine most effective solutions. As the ASB office continues to shape and develop the concept of operations for this new doctrine, logisticians will need to ensure that our voices are collectively heard.

As loggies, we must be at the forefront of the USAF as our service develops technological advancements that will aid in future operational and strategic successes. It’s easy for us to depend on the operators to tell us what they need

BOSWELL

for mission success. However, in a world where joint operations are becoming increasingly the norm, we need to be more proactive when opportunities present themselves. One of my favorite quotes comes from military author Tom Peters. He stated that “Leaders win through logistics. Vision, sure. Strategy, yes. But when you go to war, you need to have both toilet paper and bullets at the right place at the right time. In other words, you must win through superior logistics.” We must never lose sight of the fact that logistics makes the difference between wars won and those lost.

Citations for this Article:

Krepinevich, A. (2010). Why Airsea Battle?

Retrieved from http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2010/02/why-airsea-battle/

Cavas C., and Muradian,V. (2009) “New Program Could Redefine AF-Navy Joint Ops,” Air Force Times, Retrieved from http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/11/ airforce_navy_cooperation_111509w/, on November 8, 2009.

Goure, D. (2012). The A2/AD Threat and The Future of Manned Aircraft. Retrieved from

h t t p : / / w w w . l e x i n g to n i n s t i t u te . o r g / t h e a2a d-thr eat-and-the-fut ur e-of-mannedaircraft?a=1&c=1171 Gulf War—Lessons for Chinese Military S&T. (1996). Retrieved from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1996/stmil14.htm Krepinevich, A. (2010). Why Airsea Battle?

Retrieved from

http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2010/02/why-airsea-battle/ Bruzdzinski, J. (2004). Military Modernization and The Cross-strait Balance. Retrieved from http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2004hearings/ written_testimonies/04_02_06wrts/bruzdzinski. php

Griffith, S. (1971). Sun Tzu, The Art of War. Oxford University Press. Print

The World Factbook (2012) Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworld-factbook/geos/ch.html China’s Defense Budget. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ world/china/budget.htm

Holmes, J. (2012). Preparing for War with China. Retrieved from http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/preparing-war-china-7352

Military creates Air-Sea Battle Office. (2011).

Retrieved from http://www.stripes.com/news/military-createsair-sea-battle-office-1.160382 Logistics Quotations.(2012). Retrieved September 22, 2012, from www.au.af.mil/au/awc/ awcgate/navy/log_quotes_navsup.pdf

About the author: Major Michal Boswell is a career Logistics Readiness Officer with experience in Supply/Fuels, Transportation, and Logistics Plans. He earned his commission through Alabama State University in 2001. Currently, Major Boswell is attending the Naval War College at Naval Station Newport in Rhode Island.

Prior to attending Naval Command and Staff College, Major Boswell held the position as the Chief, Logistics Transformation Headquarters USAFE at Ramstein AB. He has earned recognition at squadron, group, and wing levels, as well as Headquarters staff. K 23 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

EDUCATION ­

M1165 Accelerated Brake Wear

By Major John Dickens The United States Air Force is a key stakeholder in the nuclear enterprise. As such, the USAF is vested in nuclear deterrence operations and has assigned this task as one of its 12 core functions, each of which encapsulate how the service contributes to national security. Secretary of the Air Force, the Honorable Michael Donley wrote, “We operate, maintain and secure these nuclear forces to deter potential adversaries and to prevail if deterrence fails”. This statement highlights the importance of effectively performing these tasks and thus ensuring the safety, security, readiness, and reliability of nuclear weapons is of monumental importance in the USAF. The purpose of this research was to focus on a platform that enables USAF security forces personnel to ensure the security of nuclear weapons in any mission set and operational environment. More specifically this research investigated the M1165 Up-Armored (UA) High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV ) and its associated braking system concerns. This issue resonates greatly with the logistics community as this platform was recently selected by Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) to replace aging M1116 model UA HMMWV’s and expand current UA capacity at the following USAF bases: F.E. Warren AFB, Malmstrom AFB, and Minot AFB. Thus, any sustainment and maintenance of this platform is managed and executed by the respective Logistics Readiness Squadron (LRS).

The M1165 accelerated brake wear issue came to light in Sept 2011 at Minot AFB. In Jan 2012, Minot AFB, 5th LRS submitted a Product Quality Deficiency Report (PQDR) to the Warner Robins Air Logistics Complex (WR-ALC) to highlight the concern and seek resolution.

WR-ALC closed the PQDR and it responded with the following statement: “The problem of worn brake pads can be mitigated by doing routine inspections to identify when the brakes should be changed, i.e. every 6 months or 3,000 miles, whichever comes first.” At the time of Minot’s initial PQDR submission, the empirical evidence was not sufficient enough to draw credible inferences regarding the mechanical integrity of the M1165 braking system. Air Force Global Strike Command recently increasing its total M1165 UA fleet to 180 vehicles across the three missile 24 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

wings at Malmstrom AFB, Minot AFB, and F.E. Warren AFB. These vehicles have been delivered from the manufacturer to the respective missile wings and are expected to be fully operational in early 2013.

Thus, when the initial PQDR was submitted, it impacted a relatively small portion of the AFGSC UA fleet, i.e. Minot AFB’s 31 M1165 UA HMMWVs. This research illustrated through empirical evidence that the M1165 needs an enhancement to the braking system to reduce the variance between brake changes and potentially extend the longevity of the brake pads and other braking components.

Several streams of data were used to conduct this research. This was primarily a quantitative analysis that relied on raw data to derive credible inferences. M1165 UA HMMWV brake change data was collected from LRS Vehicle Management Flights at both Minot AFB and F.E. Warren AFB. Minot AFB and F.E. Warren AFB were chosen for quantitative data collection purposes for many reasons. These two bases had the preponderance of AFGSC’s M1165 UA HMMWV’s in its fleet with 31 at Minot AFB and 25 at F.E. Warren AFB at the time of data collection. This data was analyzed separately to illustrate if the results were congruent. The third missile wing located at Malmstrom AFB had only 3 M1165 UA HMMWV’s in its fleet at the time of data collection and its data was not used since it was statistically insignificant due to the low number of potential observations. This study also used other sources of data to derive credible inferences. This data was analyzed to determine the average (mean) life-span of a set of brake pads and the standard deviation between M1165 brake changes. This data spanned a one year time frame from June 2010 to June 2011. An example of the data is illustrated in Table 1.

Table 2 portrays several important results of initial data analysis. The first column in Table 2 identifies the location of where the data was pulled, with the final row in column one illustrating the aggregation of data from both Minot AFB and F.E. Warren AFB. The data was analyzed both separately or by base and combined. This approach was chosen to highlight potential differences in the data that may have been a result of factors that were base dependent, i.e. non-standard maintenance practices. Table 2 is a roll-up analysis of the data presented in Table 1.

DICKENS Table 2 shows the mean, standard deviation and the total number of observations used to calculate the results. Statistically, the standard deviation is an indicator of the variance in the data set. Table 2 illustrates that there is a significant level of variance present in the Minot AFB data when compared to F.E. Warren AFB.

Table 1 – Brake Change Data Example

REG NUMBER 10L00584 10L00585 10L00586 10L00589 10L00590 10L00591

MILEAGE ROTORS 9433 12929 REPLACED 10595 10770 6560 9856

PADS REPLACED REPLACED REPLACED REPLACED REPLACED REPLACED

TURNED IN FOR PMI UNSCHEDULED PMI UNSCHEDULED PMI PMI UNSCHEDULED

TOTAL COSTS $ 471.16 $1,071.98 $980.98 $471.16 $455.94 $619.36

It is also important to view the brake change data through a separate lens that more clearTable 2 - Aggregated M1165 Brake Wear Data ly identifies its relationship in a continuous Mean Std Dev distribution. Advanced statistical software was used to develop a histogram of the data Minot AFB 11,617 4,459 and fit the appropriate distribution. The F.E. Warren AFB 12,021 1,656 data shown in both Figures 1 and 2 below Combined 11,769 3,650 were fit to a normal distribution which is important for several reasons. First this is a stochastic environment, i.e. not all brakes Figure 1 - Minot AFB M1165 Brake Wear Data wear at the same rate, thus a normal distribution is used to accurately reflect character95% of the time brake istics of the data. wear is between 2.6K • By comparison, M1116 brake and 20.6K miles wear avg = 30K miles Figure 1 is truncated at zero miles since Y brake pads cannot wear at negative miles.

Figure 1 shows the mean and how the standard deviation separates the data out to 3 multipliers. More importantly, Figure 1 il34% 34% lustrates that 95% of the time brake wear is between 2.6 and 20.6 thousand miles for any μ = 11,617 miles given vehicle within the data set in Appendix σ = 4,459 miles B, Minot AFB data. This chart indicates an 14% 14% n = 43 miles extreme amount of variance between brake 2% 2% changes for Minot AFB. X μ 2σ 1σ 1σ 2σ 3σ The variance in Figure 1 creates several con0 2.6K 7.1K 11.6K 16.1K 20.6K 25.1K cerns. Such a high level of variance makes Miles it difficult to predict brake life and may require more frequent inspections to mitigate the potential for unexpected brake failure.

This could drive increased demand for ve- Figure 2 - F.E. Warren AFB M1165 Brake Wear Data hicle maintenance personnel if PMI’s are programmed more frequently to compensate 95% of the time brake for the extreme variance in the data. Figure wear is between 8.8K • By comparison, M1116 brake 1 also depicts the average mileage accumuand 15.2K miles wear avg = 30K miles Y lated on a set of M1165 brake pads across 43 observations. The average of 11,617 miles is perceived as unexpectedly low when compared to the M1116 average of 30,000 miles; however, all factors are not equal as 34% 34% the M1116 has a different brake design. By comparison, this is 61.3 percent less brake μ = 12,021 miles pad life with the new M1165 UA HMMWV. σ = 1,656 miles 14% 14% n = 26 miles This too increases the demand on vehicle 2% maintenance personnel since brake pads are 2% X being changed more frequently, due to the 3σ μ 2σ 1σ 1σ 2σ 3σ low average, with the phasing in of M1165 7.2K 8.8K 10.4K 12K 13.6K 15.2K 16.8K vehicles into the Minot AFB fleet.

Miles

Minot M1165 Brake Wear Statistical Analysis

N 43 26 69

FE Warren M1165 Brake Wear Statistical Analysis

Ü 25 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

EDUCATION | M1165 ACCELERATED BRAKE WEAR Figure 2 illustrates a normal distribution for the data set associated with F.E. Warren AFB. Figure 2 shows that 95% of the time brake wear is between 8.8 and 15.2 thousand miles for any given M1165 vehicle from F.E. Warren AFB data. This data is relatively congruent with Minot AFB data in terms of the average amount of life a set of brake pads achieved on an M1165. However, there is significantly less variance between brake changes in the F.E. Warren data when compared to Minot AFB. This is significant because a low level of variance between brake changes makes predicting brake life a more feasible task. However, the level of variance in the F.E. Warren data set is still relatively high and subsequently creates difficulty in accurately determining brake life.

The significant difference in variance between the Minot AFB and F.E. Warren brake change data sets is primarily attributed to base specific maintenance practices. At F.E. Warren vehicle maintainers inspect M1165 vehicles bi-weekly for caliper piston damage and advanced wear.

When a caliper is identified with a problem, the vehicle maintenance personnel repair it prior to causing further damage to brake pads or any other component of the braking system. This approach results in increased demand on vehicle maintenance personnel that was not previously required with the M1116 UA HMMWV. This may not be a feasible long-term solution as more M1165 vehicles are added to the F.E. Warren fleet while older M1116’s are phased out. This maintenance practice is not being exercised at Minot AFB and nor is this research suggesting that it should; rather, there may be a more practical solution that produces a greater result without the added demand on vehicle maintenance personnel.

Clearly the data presented above shows that the brake pads on M1165 UA HMMWV‘s are not meeting longevity and predictability expectations as evident in the average and the advanced variance between brake pad changes. In an attempt to uncover why the brakes were deficient, vehicle maintenance personnel were interviewed to find potential root causes. This discussion ultimately revolved around the design of the braking system. One maintainer interviewed, described the M1165

Figure 4: Top left is a bent brake pin; top right shows accelerated pad wear; bottom is a new pin (Photos courtesy of Maj Dickens)

26 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

Figure 3 - Rear Brake Diagram. Sourced from ARMY TM 9-2320-387-24P, WP 012602

DICKENS

Momentum (Lbs-MPH)

800000

The top left picture in Figure 4 illustrates how the pin could potentially bend, restricting pad retraction. The top right picture shows a pad that experienced accelerated wear in comparison to a pad with even wear. Finally the bottom picture illustrates the visual difference between a new pin that would be used in a caliper in comparison to a bent pin pulled from the data set. The bent pin condition does not occur on every caliper as the data detailed 4 sets of pads that lasted in excess of 20,000 miles. If the pin on these data points had bent, this type of pad longevity would not have been possible. Aside from the design of the braking system, there may be other factors that contribute to this problem.

Max Mfg Speed

As a result of the free-floating design, there are 600000 unintended opportunities for the brake pads to tilt inward at a slight angle from the top of 400000 the brake pad which can produce uneven pad wear or create excessive drag on the rotor if 200000 the pads do not fully retract. With repetition, there is potential for the pin, reference part #5 0 in Figure 3, to bend which further restricts the 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 brake pads ability to retract thereby creating M1165 the conditions for highly accelerated pad wear via brake drag. A comprehensive visual of the impacts of the free-floating design and the Figure 6 - Braking Force and Speed Relationship bent pin can be viewed in Figure 4 below.

40

45

50

100

60

Max Design Force

80

85

80 Force (newt)

60

40

40

20

20

0

Force (newt)

0 3

6

9

12

15

18

3

6

Time (Sec)

Force (Newt) 75 MHP Constant

9

12

Time (Sec)

15

18

Force (Newt) 85 MPH Constant

120

60

75

18% Increased Force Over Design Max

100

60

80

70

Force (Newt) 65 MPH Constant 120

80

100

65

Speed (MPH)

Force (Newt) 55 MPH Constant

120

55

Excess Brake Sys Stress Accelerates Brake Wear

braking system as a free-floating design, where Figure 5 - Momentum and Speed Relationship a single pin, reference part #5 in Figure 3 below, anchors two brake pads within the caliper, M1165 Momentum & Speed Relationship part #4 in Figure 3. Moreover, the caliper has 1400000 two pistons on each side (total of 4 per caliper) 55% that collapse the brake pads into the rotor to 1200000 45% apply braking pressure when directed by the 36% 27% 1000000 operator, reference the circular areas within 18% the caliper in Figure 3 below.

9%

120 100

36% Increased Force Over Design Max

While this researcher did not have any real 40 world data to indicate that operators are driv20 ing in excess of manufacturer maximum rated 0 speeds, i.e. 55 mph, the following charts are 3 6 9 12 Time (Sec) used to illustrate the potential impacts of excessive speed on the braking system. It is important to note that the max speed rating drives the design of the braking system and the force that it can routinely withstand, i.e. up to 55 mph. Figure 5 highlights the linear relationship between M1165 vehicle speed and its associated momentum.

Momentum is calculated in lbs-mph using a fully loaded M1165 weighing 13,600 lbs. The green bars show the momentum in relation to speed within the manufacturers max speed rating. The yellow bar highlights the max amount of momentum that the braking system was designed to absorb. Each of the subsequent red bars illustrates the increase in momentum beyond the max manufacturers speed rating. Thus, if operators were traveling above 55 mph, this chart depicts the increased momentum above what the design of the braking system was built to withstand.

The force in Newtons that is exerted on the braking system is depicted in Figure 6 below.

55% Increased Force Over Design Max

80 Force (newt)

60

Force (newt)

40 20 15

18

0 3

6

9

12

Time (Sec)

15

18

Figure 6 is a quad chart that illustrates the force in Newtons at four constant speeds, i.e. 55, 65, 75, and 85 mph. The variable that changes throughout the quad chart is the operator controlled braking power required to stop within a specified amount of time, i.e. 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 seconds. This chart illustrates the amount of force the braking design was built to withstand at 55 mph (69 Newtons) and the excess force that is exerted on the system beyond it designed capability in 10 mph increments, up to 85 mph. Thus, if an operator were traveling at 85 mph and decided to apply enough brake pressure to halt the vehicle in a 3 second time interval, he/she would be exerting a force in Newtons that is 55 percent greater than the designed capability of the braking system.

Simply put, excessive speed and operator behavior would contribute to accelerated brake wear and tear as the demand on the braking system

Ăœ 27 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

EDUCATION | M1165 ACCELERATED BRAKE WEAR exceeds its designed limits.

Figure 7 – Installed Brake Pad Retracting Spring (Photo courtesy of Maj Dickens)

This research generated several important findings. These are all inferred based upon the data that was presented in this research.

Finding 1: M1165 brake pads wore at an accelerated rate and have a significant amount of variance between replacements.

Finding 2: F.E. Warren was able to decrease the amount of variance between brake changes by manually inspecting the caliper pistons for wear and replacing caliper seals and pistons, when necessary.

However, this practice is not considered a viable long-term solution since the remaining variance remained excessive.

Finding 3: M1165 speed in excess of 55 mph, if occurring, could be a contributing factor to accelerated brake wear.

Finding 4: The M1165 calipers are an insufficient design and an enhancement is necessary to improve the performance of the braking system and increase brake pad life.

There are several potential solutions that could be selected to address this problem. The first option is a complete reengineering of the M1165 brake system. This would encapsulate the design of the caliper and all the materials used in its production. This analysis would also include the brake pads, i.e. surface area and materials used in its production. The greatest benefit from this approach is a long-term solution provided by qualified engineers. However, this approach infers that the entire braking system needs a complete reengineering analysis, which may not be necessary. The trade-off with this type of comprehensive approach is that it may require extensive time and associated costs. There may be equally feasible solutions that are less timely and costly.

An innovative approach to this problem was voiced by a vehicle mechanic at Minot AFB. This individual suggested that a spring with an approximate rating of 10 lbs per sq/in be added as an enhancement to the braking system. This spring would aid in the retraction of the brake pads once the operator releases the brake pedal. More importantly, the spring is not rigid enough to impede the collapse or responsiveness of the brake pads which close through the force of a hydraulic braking system. A visual of the spring within the caliper can be viewed in Figure 7 below.

The retraction spring in Figure 7 has several important benefits. First, it is cost efficient at approximately six dollars per spring. Moreover, it is easily installed as it rests on the pin that anchors the two brake pads within the caliper. Another benefit is it mitigates the possibility for the pads to tilt or not retract within the caliper. Complete brake pad retraction eliminates uneven pad wear or the condition where the pin can bend 28 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

and create excessive accelerated brake pad wear through brake drag.

The retraction spring was recently tested in a M1165 UA HMMWV at Minot AFB. Results of the test showed great potential to enhance the performance of the M1165 braking system. More specifically, in a 4,000 mile test with missile complex conditions, i.e. extensive highway driving, the retraction spring prevented uneven brake wear. Equally impressive, the pad wear measured only 1/16” per pad. This equates to 17 percent wear across the usable pad. If one were to extrapolate these results, the vehicle may have achieved 24,000 miles on paper prior to exhausting the usable pad. To be conservative, the pads would have needed to be changed at approximately 20,000 miles to ensure operator safety.

In conclusion, this research proved through empirical evidence that M1165 brake pads wore at an accelerated rate. Moreover, an enhancement to the braking system is necessary to decrease variance between brake changes and increase brake pad longevity. These associated brake problems directly impact the security forces ability to efficiently and effectively support nuclear security operations as increased vehicle maintenance time negatively affects the M1165 vehicle fleets’ capacity to support operations.

This research recommends continued testing on the brake pad retraction spring enhancement. If the retraction spring proves its merit, it has potential for vast savings in terms of both manpower time and sustainment Table 3 – AFGSC Cost and Time Savings

Savings Cost $34,345 Time (hrs) 666

Performance Increase 19% 73%

AUTHOR NAME­ costs. Table 3 highlights these potential savings and the performance increase over the status-quo.

The savings in Table 3 are conservative in nature and represent only those savings with respect to AFGSC. Thus, AFGSC could save 34,345 thousand dollars and 666 maintenance man-hours per year with the implementation of the retraction spring. This would decrease cost by 19 percent and maintenance time by 73 percent in comparison with current operations. A by step explanation of how these savings were calculated is available in Appendix D. Much greater uncalculated savings could be achieved across the DoD with the implementation of the retraction spring.

There are several areas for future research. While the 4,000 mile test of the brake retraction spring concept shows great potential, more data needs to be gathered to draw credible inferences. Since brake wear is a stochastic process, extrapolation of the test results should not be considered a new standard or even a baseline for comparison since the test was ended at 4,000 miles. The best way to evaluate this retraction spring is to continue the tests across at least 30 vehicles at 4,000 mile intervals. Once the data is collected analysis on the effectiveness of the retraction spring can be conducted. If those results are positive, then this idea needs to be adopted by the M1165 manufacturer, AM General. Moreover, all M1165’s in the DoD need to be retrofitted as well to maximize return on investment.

About the author: Major John Dickens serves as the Director of Operations for the 5th Logistics Readiness Squadron. Major Dickens is a graduate of the Advanced Logistics Readiness Officers Course at Joint Base McGuire Dix Lakehurst in New Jersey. Maj Dickens is responsible for day to day logistics operations for the 5th Bomb Wing and 91st Missile Wing at the only dual-nuclear wing installation in the Air Force. As the Operations Officer he directs the activities of the squadron involving the assigned 412 active duty and civilian employees in support of 28 B-52/150 Minuteman IIIs/7 UH1s valued at $761M. K

This article is an abridged version of a research paper submitted to the Advanced Logistics Readiness Officer Course. Please contact the author directly to obtain an unabridged version of the research. Many references supported this research. For complete list, contact Maj Dickens: john.dickens.2@us.af.mil References: 1. Donely, Michael B. SECAF, USAF (2009). “Fiscal Year 2010 Air Force Posture Statement.” Presentation to the House Armed Services, 19 May 2009.

2. HQ USAF (2011). “Air Force Doctrine Document 1.” 14 Oct, 2011.

3. Burdick, Erik (Sept, 2012). Telephone interview.

4. HQ Department of the Army, et al (2002). Technical Manual. TM 9-2320-387-24P, WP 012602.

29 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

EDUCATION

KC-10 En Route Performance and Concept of Operations Implementation This article is an abridged version of a research paper submitted to the Air Force Advanced Maintenance and Munitions Officer School. The researcher examined the KC-10 performance CONOPS. Please contact the author directly to obtain an unabridged version of the research.

Matthew.ratcliffe@us.af.mil 30 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

By Captain Matthew T. Ratcliffe

Air Mobility Command’s (AMC) en route system supports strategic airlift assets, C-5s and C-17s, as they transit the globe.

These two airframes compose the majority of AMC’s en route traffic, and en route aircraft maintenance manning is structured to support maintenance on these two airframes.

Despite this, the en routes must also support AMC-owned KC-10, KC-135, and C-130 aircraft transiting the theater, even though they do not possess specific manpower positions to support these airframes. An exception to this standard arose in December 2006 when Headquarters AMC’s Directorate of Logistics (AMC/A4) approved the initial “KC-10 Logistics Concept of Operations (CONOPS) to Support AMC Operations in the Pacific Theater. This CONOPS supported the transit of KC-10s in the Pacific theater only because the majority of en route KC-10 traffic occurs in the Pacific rather than the European theater. It provided the capabil-

ity to perform basic KC-10 maintenance tasks (e.g., tows, pre- and post-flight inspections, auxiliary power unit operations, etc.) at most Pacific en route locations.

LDR rates are the percentage of KC-10 launches that took off on time or delayed for a reason other than logistics (maintenance, aerial port, supply, etc.).

In August 2008, Captain John A. Weiss, Jr. of USAF Advanced Maintenance and Munitions Officer School (AMMOS) Class 08B conducted a study on the effects the implementation of this CONOPS had on the Logistics Departure Reliability (LDR) rates of KC-10s transiting the Pacific en route locations. LDR rates are the percentage of KC-10 launches that took off on time or delayed for a reason other than logistics (maintenance, aerial port, supply, etc.). For example, a monthly LDR rate of 75% means 25% of the month’s KC-10 launches had delays for logistical reasons. Captain Weiss found that while the Pacific theater had significantly more KC-10 departures in a 12-month period than the European theater, the mean LDR rate during the same period for

RATCLIFFE the Pacific was not significantly greater than the mean LDR rate for the European theater, despite the KC-10 CONOPS implementation.

As a result, Captain Weiss concluded that the en-route support established by the 2006 KC10 CONOPS was not having a significant impact on LDR rates in the Pacific theater compared to the European theater. However, in December of 2009 HQ AMC/A4 released an updated KC-10 CONOPS, implementing additional changes in the Pacific en route structure, thus warranting additional research into Captain Weiss’ findings.

maintenance manning structure that is qualified on a far greater variety of tasks than those specified in the 2006 CONOPS.

Discussion of the Problem

Importance/Relevance of the Research

The 2009 iteration of the KC-10 CONOPS differed from the 2006 version in that it established 19 KC-10 Special Experience Identifier coded positions allocated between the en routes at Hickam AFB, Hawaii and Yokota AB, Japan, with the intent of making those en routes the primary stops for KC-10 traffic across the Pacific. Selected personnel included individuals from the crew chief, electrical and environmental, engines, hydraulics, guidance and control, and communication and navigation career fields. By December 2010, both en route locations had mandates to be 100% qualified on all KC-10 tasks specified by the CONOPS. The current CONOPS builds off the 2006 version, but provides a more robust

Problem Statement Little or no research has been conducted on whether the implementation of the 2009 KC10 en route CONOPS has had an effect on the logistics departure reliability rates of KC-10s transiting the Pacific theater, or whether a similar CONOPS in the European theater would be beneficial to the Air Force.

The KC-10 provides a unique capability to the Air Force with its 356,000 pound fuel-carrying capacity (almost twice that of the KC-135), and is crucial for supporting aircraft deployments, combat sorties, and other missions. If the implementation of the KC-10 CONOPS in the Pacific theater has resulted in a measureable and beneficial impact on departure reliability and thus tanker availability, then it may prove to be a successful benchmark worth emulating in the European en route system.

Research Question #1: Has the implementation of the 2009 KC-10 CONOPS significantly increased LDR rates at the Hickam AFB and Yokota AB en routes?

Research Question #2: Has the implementation of the 2009 KC-10 CONOPS significantly increased LDR rates at the Pacific en routes compared to the European en routes?

If the implementation of the KC-10 CONOPS in the Pacific theater has resulted in a measureable and beneficial impact on departure reliability and thus tanker availability, then it may prove to be a successful benchmark worth emulating in the European en route system.

Research Design The author gathered LDR rate data for each en route location from equal periods both before and after the implementation of the December 2009 KC-10 CONOPS. Data collected before the CONOPS implementation runs from 1 November 2007 through 31 December 2009.

Data collected since the CONOPS implementation runs from 1 January 2010 through 29 February 2012. The author collected data

Ăœ

31 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

EDUCATION | KC-10 EN ROUTE PERFORMANCE only on the AMC en routes at Hickam AFB and Yokota AB for the Pacific theater and Ramstein AB, Germany and Naval Station (NS) Rota, Spain for the European theater.

The author chose Ramstein AB and NS Rota for the European theater because they have the highest frequency of KC-10 departures in the European system, as determined from the data provided by AMC A4/A4PM. Additionally, Ramstein AB possesses a Tier I en route just as Hickam AFB is, and NS Rota has a Tier II en route just as Yokota AB. In order to answer the research questions, the author ran a two-tailed t-test on the monthly LDR rates for the two European and Pacific en routes from 1 January 2010 through 29 February 2012. The author performed another two-tailed t-test on the monthly LDR rates for the two Pacific en routes, both pre- and post-CONOPS implementation. The author performed the t-test using the analysis tool in Microsoft Excel 2010 to compare the monthly LDR rates between the locations. The results of the t-tests determine whether there is a significant statistical difference or not between the compared data sets.

Assumptions and Limitations To be able to compare the LDR rates from the Pacific and European theaters, and from pre- and post-CONOPS, the author assumed all the data provided by AMC A4/A4PM on global KC-10 departures was accurate. Additionally, the author assumed there were no external variables affecting the LDR rates of KC10s in either theater, such as adverse weather conditions exacerbating maintenance issues to the point where they became prolonged mission-delaying discrepancies. Furthermore, the author assumed there were no surge operations (increased en route traffic above normal levels) or emergencies that forced rapid turn-around times for en route KC-10s, possibly inflating LDR rates.

The author was limited on some aspects of using monthly LDR rates as data. One limitation is using monthly LDR rates in a t-test does not give weight to monthly LDR rates based on the total number of departures. For example, Ramstein AB had a 0% LDR rate in October of 2010, but this resulted from having only one KC-10 departure that month, which happened to be a logistics delay. Later in May of that same year, Ramstein AB had an LDR rate of 100% with six KC-10 departures. Due to the occasionally low number of monthly KC-10 departures at Ramstein AB, NS Rota and Yokota AB, there are several instances of 32 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

0% monthly LDR rates, but this does not accurately reflect on the overall launch performance for those individual en routes as a whole.

The mean LDR rate for these two en routes after the CONOPS implementation was not significantly different from the mean LDR rate before the CONOPS implementation, indicating the CONOPS did not increase LDR rates at those two locations.

Results During the period of 1 November 2007 through 31 December 2009, Hickam AFB had 547 KC-10 departures and Yokota AB had 181 departures. From 1 January 2010 through 29 February 2012, Hickam AFB had 463 KC-10 departures and Yokota AB had 115 departures, resulting in 150 fewer departures in that period pre-2009 CONOPS implementation; a more than 20% decline in departures. The mean LDR rate for these two en routes after the CONOPS implementation was not significantly different from the mean LDR rate before the CONOPS implementation, indicating the CONOPS did not increase LDR rates at those two locations. In fact, the mean LDR rate pre-CONOPS was 84.7%, while postCONOPS it was 81.1%, thus the mean LDR rate at Hickam AFB and Yokota AB actually decreased slightly since the CONOPS went into effect.

From 1 January 2010 through 29 February 2012, Ramstein AB had 95 KC-10 departures while NS Rota had 139 departures, totaling 234 departures. As a result, these two en routes had 344 fewer KC-10 departures in the postCONOPS timeframe as Hickam AFB and Yokota AB. The mean LDR rate for Ramstein AB and NS Rota (79.9%) was not significantly different from the mean LDR rate for Hickam AFB and Yokota AB (81.1%) during the time since CONOPS implementation, indicating that the CONOPS did not significantly increase LDR rates at the Pacific locations compared to the European en routes.

As the results show, the implementation of the 2009 KC-10 CONOPS did not significantly increase the LDR rates at Hickam AFB and Yokota AB, nor did it produce any significant improvements when compared to KC-10 de-

partures from Ramstein AB and NS Rota. The author does not have the evidence and data necessary to conclude as to why this is the case, especially since a multitude of variables can positively or negatively affect LDR rate performance. For example, aircraft aging effects on the KC-10 may have negatively affected LDR rates at the en routes. However, the data pool is extensive enough to show that LDR rates at Hickam AFB and Yokota AB were not significantly changed by the CONOPS. This does not mean that other benefits, such as possible improvements to the KC-10 fleet-wide mission capable rate, were not realized from the CONOPS. However, such metrics are difficult to quantify on a large scale or to attribute directly to the en routes, since they are measured against the KC-10 fleet as a whole, and cannot be discriminated by en route location. LDR rates are the major grading metric for KC-10 en route performance and remain the primary grading criteria for the author.

While this research tested for significant changes in LDR rates to reach a conclusion, the data pertaining to the number of departures from each location illustrate another aspect of this research. As mentioned in the “Results� section above, the number of KC-10 departures at Hickam AFB and Yokota AB fell 20% from the pre- to post-CONOPS time period. Thus, the changes brought about by the 2009 CONOPS are having an impact on fewer aircraft due to the declining number of KC-10 departures in the Pacific during that time. One likely contributing factor to this trend is the reduced number of aircraft deployments and combat sorties flown in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. With fewer fighter and cargo aircraft flying or deploying to support the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the demand for tanker support to get there likely fell as well.

The last USAF combat mission flown over Iraq occurred on 5 December 2011, coinciding with the cessation of combat operations by the US military in that country. While these factors may partially explain the declining number of KC-10 departures at the two leading Pacific en routes, it should be noted the two European en routes only had 44% of the total KC-10 departures that Hickam AFB and Yokota AB since CONOPS implementation. This indicates the Pacific theater has a much greater volume of KC-10 traffic than the European theater, which is in-line with the intent of the CONOPS for improving KC-10 velocity in the Pacific. This disparity in departures should be an additional factor when considering the pros and cons of establishing a similar CONOPS at European en route locations.

RATCLIFFE

Recommendations Due to the lack of significant difference in LDR rates and the disparity in the number of KC-10 departures between the specified European and Pacific en routes, several factors should be addressed. First, the author does not recommend implementing a KC-10 En Route CONOPS in the European theater at this time. While the current CONOPS may have had positive impacts (not LDR related) at the Hickam AFB and Yokota AB en routes, and for the KC-10 fleet as a whole, the sheer difference in the number of departures between the two Pacific en routes and the two leading European en routes lessens the need for a European CONOPS. Such a CONOPS would have an impact on a smaller portion of the fleet, but at a similar cost.

Furthermore, according to HQAMC A4/ A4OM, Strategic Airlift Readiness, AMC established the KC-10 CONOPS in the Pacific theater as a means to counter the staggering distances between CONUS and Asia, as the Pacific has fewer en route locations to stop at for refueling than Europe. KC-10s are a key asset in enabling fighter deployments across

While the current CONOPS may have had positive impacts (not LDR related) at the Hickam AFB and Yokota AB en routes, and for the KC-10 fleet as a whole, the sheer difference in the number of departures between the two Pacific en routes and the two leading European en routes lessens the need for a European CONOPS. the Pacific, necessitating a higher traffic flow compared to Europe, where there are more bases and existing tanker stemming from Air Force Central Command. Thus, the author feels that a separate European CONOPS is not value-added at this time.

The author does recommend keeping the current CONOPS in place, largely due to the reasons mentioned above. The resources required

A Navy F/A-18 Hornet fighter receives fuel from a KC-10 Extender over Afghanistan. (DOD photo by Lt

to support the CONOPS have been committed, and in today’s constrained budgetary environment, removing the manpower positions and equipment associated with the CONOPS may likely be an irreversible move should a need for it arise in the future. If the volume of KC-10 traffic through Hickam AFB and Yokota AB continues to decline, the author recommends AMC/A4 set a threshold for the minimum number of annual departures needed to warrant the continued existence of the CONOPS. Otherwise, the author believes the current CONOPS is still justified due to the physical limitations presented by crossing the Pacific Ocean.

About the Author: At the time of authorship, Captain Matthew T. Ratcliffe was assigned as a student at the United States Air Force Advanced Maintenance and Munitions Officer School, Class 12A. He is currently assigned on the AMC IG staff, Scott AFB, Illinois. Captain Ratcliffe may be reached via the Global Address List at matthew.ratcliffe@us.af.mil. K

33 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

LEADERSHIP

It’s All About Leadership: An Interview with Major General (ret) Robert H. McMahon, USAF 34 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

Maj Gen McMahon speaking to his team. (Photo courtesy of 78 ABW/PA)

By Colonel (ret) Robert E. Hamm Jr. On June 15, 2012, Major General Bob McMahon retired from the United States Air Force after more than 34 years of service. A career aircraft maintenance officer, Gen McMahon led organizations from the flightline to the Air Staff and everything in between, including assignments as the Director of Logistics at Air Mobility Command and the Director of Maintenance at Headquarters, US Air Force. He culminated his career as the final commander of the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC) located at Robins AFB. After his retirement, the Center transitioned into a Complex and is aligned under the new Air Force Sustainment Center at Tinker AFB. The Complex consists of over 16,000 employees responsible for worldwide logistics support of the C-130, C-5 and C-17 transport aircraft, F-15 fighter aircraft and a variety of other support programs such as special operations forces C-130 gunships, electronic warfare radio and infrared jammers, basic expeditionary airfield resources and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. The Complex is the largest industrial employer in the state of Georgia with a $4.5 billion dollar economic impact.

I had the opportunity to sit-down with the General in the weeks leading up to his retirement. The purpose of this article is to share his candid thoughts on leadership and process improvement as captured from our meeting.

HAMM

On Continuous Process Improvement, Leadership and Outcomes:

what my expectations were. I explained to them the vision and the focus for the center during my tenure as a commander for however long that was going to be. We were going to be world-class in acquisition I got a request to talk about Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) and sustainment by exceeding both Warfighter and customer expectaand what we accomplished at the Center and quite frankly I didn’t want tions, leading the DoD in cost management, and reenergizing and susto do the interview because I don’t believe that we, as an Air Force, are taining CPI. In 2004-2005, if you wanted to see how CPI was being committed to CPI. We’ve talked the story now done anywhere, not only in the Air Force but going on a decade, beginning with our industhe DoD, the gold standard for that was WarLeaders create outcomes, trial plants, and trying to spread it across our ner Robins ALC. Sometime after 2005, we lost and the outcomes lead to entire Air Force, with, at best, mediocre results. our way, which said although we had done it, we fulfilling the requirements There are tremendous islands of excellence out weren’t able to sustain it. So my challenge to the there, but in reality our Air Force hasn’t gotten of the United States Air workforce was not only to reenergize CPI, but to to where it should be or could be. But then I figure out how we could sustain this over the life Force, the Combatant rethought it and I asked myself, “Can you ever of the enterprise that we called Warner Robins Commanders, our stop trying?” The answer is no. You should nevAir Logistics Center.

Senior Leaders, and our er stop; you have to continue on the journey to improve. I knew that if I didn’t make the effort Now the vision and focus were downward driven taxpayers. for this interview, I would be a hypocrite in supby me. Folks didn’t get a vote or have a choice porting the idea of CPI. on the vision and focus. I actually referred to my favorite book, From Good to Great, and reminded my direct reports So let me be clear up front, this answer really has nothing to do with about the story of putting people on the bus. It was their choice whether Continuous Process Improvement but it has everything to do with lead- or not they wanted to be on the bus for the journey I outlined with the ership. It is all about leadership and the other big part is outcomes. vision and focus. I gave them until the following Wednesday, which was Leaders create outcomes, and the outcomes lead to fulfilling the require- the day before Thanksgiving, to decide whether or not they wanted to get ments of the United States Air Force, the Combatant Commanders, our on the bus with me. They understood that in some cases perhaps they Senior Leaders, and our taxpayers. It’s leadership and outcomes. would move to a different seat on the bus and that would be okay. If CPI gives better outcomes and that’s why it’s worthy of our time, be- they didn’t want to be on the bus then we’d find something else for them cause it’s an enabler to achieve success. You have to lead, not manage to do, but they only had 5 days to decide whether they wanted to be part CPI, and it has to be in your DNA. Leaders have to be the passionate of the team. Interestingly enough, no one turned in their bus pass so I cheerleaders and the ones that say, “Here’s the expectation, I’m walking knew everyone was ready to get back on track to achieve the level of CPI the walk--not just talking the talk.” Otherwise, it will be just another greatness the Center enjoyed previously. program that will fade from the landscape like it already has in some areas of our Air Force today.

Ü

Since I was a Second Lieutenant...actuALC Strategy Map ally, since I was a cadet at the Air Force WR-ALC Academy, we (the Air Force) have underStrategy Map Vision: scored a point that was drilled into me As of 15 Feb 11 on day one, and it is still as valid today A “World-Class” Center of Acquisition & Sustainment Excellence as it was 38 years ago, and that is--you Focus can’t delegate leadership! If you don’t want to lead, go to K-Mart, go to Wally’s Exceed Warfighter & Customer Expectations Drug Store, or Joe’s Bar-B-Q. Don’t try Lead DoD in Cost Management Wal-Mart because they won’t hire you …

Re-energize & Sustain Continuous Process Improvement they’re looking for leaders too, just like any True North world-class companies are today. And so, DELIVERY SAFETY COST QUALITY if you get to lead--lead! Don’t delegate it!

CPI is all about leading instead of managZero Work Related 100% On Time Delivery Zero Waste Zero Defects ing, and it gets back to the essence of why Injuries or Illnesses CPI is important. It helps generate better outcomes.

On Setting Expectations and Providing Vision and Focus: I took over command of Warner Robins ALC on 19 Nov 2010. I brought all of my direct reports together the afternoon of the change of command and told them

PERFORMANCE QUALITY

25% Improvement

COST

10% Reduction

DELIVERY

SAFETY

95% On Time

25% reduction in TCIR 25% reduction in DART

People First….Mission Always

1

35 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

LEADERSHIP | IT’S ALL ABOUT LEADERSHIP

On Measuring Performance:

Servant Leadership

The second thing I told my folks on November 19th was what we were going to measure everyone to make sure we were making progress. Most high performing organizations focus on four key metrics: quality, cost, delivery, and safety. I identified our True North, the ultimate in perfection to strive for: zero defects for quality, zero waste for cost, 100% on-time delivery, and zero work-related injuries or illnesses. I defined some performance levels of where we wanted to go to get closer to True North and started holding everyone accountable to make progress in that direction.

The Center did not exist to serve me, I existed to serve it.

On Servant Leadership:

Manager

Value Adding People

Workforce Leader

Traditional Leadership

The Center did not exist to serve me, I existed to serve it. Now there was no doubt in the minds of the 16,000 people that worked there that I was a two-star general and commander of the Center, but that didn’t mean the focus should have been on me. No high performing organization should focus on the leaders. Instead, the focus should always be on the people adding value to the products and services

36 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

Servant Leadership

delivered to their customers. When we talk about the idea of lean, there is value added, and there is non-value added. Value added is when you are truly adding value to a product or service and non-value added is any Maj Gen McMahon briefing his team in the ALC Mission Control Room. (Photo courtesy of 78 ABW/PA)

HAMM other action or activity besides that which adds when we looked at it corporately we gave ourThe key was to ensure direct value. So, that made me non-value added, selves a grade of C. which I was very comfortable with and someleaders and organizations So we created a Transformation Plan of Care thing my staff had to overcome because they too responsible for the (TPOC), much like the medical community were non-value added. But when we talk about outcome of a value stream does for a patient. Our patient, in this case, non-value added, there is necessary and there was the Air Logistics Center, and our TPOC not only understood their is waste. I didn’t want them to get to vote on was developed to get the center healthy. The whether or not I was necessary or waste. I told roles and responsibilities, TPOC was an A3 and we utilized the 8-step them I was necessary and they were necessary. but understood the impact problem solving methodology in a formal lean But they had to earn the right of being considof decisions and actions event to drive breakthrough initiatives to help ered necessary by their folks. If they weren’t us get better. If anyone came to visit the Mismade vertically and engaged and trying to drive improvements by sion Control Room [MCR] at WR-ALC while removing impediments for the people who add horizontally.

I was the commander, they would have seen a value, that would make them waste and I didn’t picture of me over the center’s A3. Why? Beneed any more waste around than I already had. cause it’s all about leadership and accountability and it was my job to As a servant leader, one of your most important jobs is to remove the lead the center and get it healthy.

I didn’t delegate it. I couldn’t delegate roadblocks from your direct reports, whose job it is to remove the imit.

That’s what I was paid to do.

And my tool for making that happen pediments from their direct reports, all the way to the personnel who was an A3.

[Note: A3 refers to the paper size used to document the readd value to the work. port. It originated with Toyota as means to capture the problem-solving process. Refer to http://a3thinking.com/ for more information on A3.]

On Value of Horizontal Integration:

We operate in a world of vertical organizational stovepipes. For exam- At the time we built the A3, we were disappointing our customers and ple, pilots are an element of what is necessary for an operating capability they had little faith in us. Some were looking for alternatives to provide in our US Air Force. Mission-capable airplanes are an element, so are the services they needed. That was hard for folks to swallow, but it was aircraft maintainers. But if you think about those three things as three important to define truth at ground zero if we had any chance of getting separate stovepipes you never create combat capability. You have to take better. Until we admit that we have a problem, we can’t get better. So a horizontal cut across all three elements because you can’t optimize one together, the ALC leadership team publicly acknowledged that we had of those at the expense of the others. You’ve got to optimize the out- a problem that we needed to get solved. come, in this case combat capability, by understanding that the outcome Once we all understood we had a problem and quantified it with metis produced across all the elements to be able to get to where you need rics and improvement goals, we did a root cause analysis and identito be. As soon as you think that way, you have a better chance of achievfied countermeasures. The countermeasures included five breakthrough ing your full potential. So, I stressed the idea of horizontal integration initiatives such as deploying high velocity tenets across product lines across the variety of value streams at Warner Robins ALC such as C-5, beyond maintenance to include acquisition, installation support, engiC-130, C-17, electronic warfare, F-15, support equipment, automatic neering, and human capital management. The other major initiatives tests and Command, Control, Intelligence, Surnot related to high velocity tenets involved cost veillance and Reconnaissance. The key was to Finally, one of the leaders management, CPI, leadership, and strategic ensure leaders and organizations responsible for communication. Each breakthrough had an A3 said, “Sir, we’re an F.” the outcome of a value stream not only underdeveloped and added to the MCR with a picstood their roles and responsibilities, but underture of the accountable leader on top of it just stood the impact of decisions and actions made like the center TPOC A3. vertically and horizontally. To enable horizontal integration, we made sure key players outside of the Center such as the Defense Logistics The actual development of the MCR was created as a way of reportAgency and the Air Force Global Logistics Center were on board. We ing overall Center improvement progress and included TPOC updates also committed to leadership standard work with dedicated block time on quality, cost, delivery and safety, breakthrough initiative reviews, and across the ALC and a standard battle rhythm for all leadership meetings Strategic Alignment and Deployment from each ALC organization as to ensure the supported and supporting commanders were always avail- well as AFGLSC and DLA to track True North progression. able to focus on the business of the center.

On Leading Change: In early January, a few months after I took command, I called together all of my direct reports and asked them a very simple question, “How are we doing?” Everybody said we were doing fine and that things were going well. I asked them to give us a grade, like on a report card, and the answer ranged from a C+ to a B-, even up to an A- as an organization.

Now at the time we were delivering aircraft on-time back to our operational commands at a rate just over a 45%. My reply was very simple, “I’m not sure what college you went to, but when I went to school 45% was not a passing grade.” Finally, one of the leaders said, “Sir, we’re an F.” Now the organization couldn’t necessarily accept being an F, and so

On Results and Outcomes:

So where are we today? As of the time of this interview Warner Robins ALC metrics indicate that performance is either at the best ever or close to best ever in nearly every instance. We’ve produced probably 55% to 60% of the aircraft that we are going to produce this year, over 200 aircraft, and we’re sitting at just over 98% on-time delivery back to the Warfighter. Is that perfect? The answer is no, but it is a dramatic change from where we were a year ago.

So did it work for us? The answer is absolutely. Can it work in the rest of the Air Force? The answer is absolutely. What does it require? It

Ü

37 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

LEADERSHIP | IT’S ALL ABOUT LEADERSHIP requires leaders dedicated to making the organization better. It requires leaders defining where the organization needs to go and then leading it to where it should be. It requires asking four questions of each and every individual that works in the organization: What do you do? How are you doing? How do you know? What can I do to help remove impediments, eliminate waste and improve your processes?

hon is now the Chief Executive Officer of the 21st Century Partnership, an organization dedicated to maintaining the viability of Robins through education and advocacy.

About the author: Colonel (Retired) Robert E. Hamm Jr. is the Deputy Director of Maintenance, 12th Flying Training Wing, Randolph AFB, TX. Prior to this assignment, he was the Chief, Process Improvement and Strategy Leaders have to understand through Management, Headquarters Air Educasustainable methodologies a way to tion and Training Command (AETC), Leaders driving the right behaviors by describe to their folks how they are Randolph AFB. He’s commanded three ensuring personnel have the ability doing and help them to do better tosquadrons, was a deputy group comto recognize and eliminate waste morrow than they did today, which mander, and served as a maintenance gets us back to CPI. Leaders driving allows them to be more efficient. This group commander. He has deployed to the right behaviors by ensuring perSaudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE and Bosgenerates better outcomes for the sonnel have the ability to recognize nia. He culminated his military career as enterprise and the essence of CPI is all and eliminate waste allows them to be the Deputy Director, Logistics, Installaabout leadership and outcomes. more efficient. This generates better tions and Mission Support, Headquaroutcomes for the enterprise and the ters AETC. Mr. Hamm is an Air Force essence of CPI is all about leadership and outcomes.

Certified Black Belt CPI Facilitator and has successfully led transformation Maj Gen (ret) McMahon and his wife, Hope, chose Kathleen, GA as efforts at the squadron, group, wing and MAJCOM level. K their home after his retirement. Hope continues her career as the Chief Technology Officer for the Air Force Reserves. Maj Gen (ret) McMaMaj Gen McMahon briefing SECAF. (Photo courtesy of 78 ABW/PA)

38 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

FROM THE FLIGHTLINE

Look Out Below!

Joint Logistics on Demand

M1A1 Abrams tank awaiting download after arrival to Pope Army Airfield.

This is the first time in over a decade that one has landed here. (Photo TSgt Heather Matheney)

By Second Lieutenant Eric L. Hitzfeld It’s Sunday, a day that’s usually very quiet. Except today, the Airmen who work the aerial port at Pope Army Airfield, NC are expecting four specific pieces of cargo that many of them have never seen arrive here before. Two M1A1 Abrams Tanks and two Bradley Fighting Vehicles have just blocked in loaded on a couple of C-17s and these birds are drawing a crowd. People who usually work a “nine-to-five job” are hanging out to watch and participate if there aren’t enough hands to help; but mostly to see these huge behemoths of versatile firepower. The tanks are here to participate in an exercise that takes place at Pope four times per 40 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

year. The Joint Operational Access Exercise ( JOAX) is an opportunity for the Army and Air Force to rehearse their rapid deployment capabilities.

A Tale of Two Bases Fort Bragg, NC is the “Home of the Airborne and Special Operations Forces” to include the XVIII Airborne Corps, 82nd Airborne Division, United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), US Army Forces Command (FORSCOM), and the US Army Reserves Command (USARC) just to name a few. Home to over 57,000 Army

HITZFELD soldiers and 11,000 civilians, calling Fort Bragg “big” is a massive understatement. Home to a tenth of the entire Army, most soldiers will spend at least one assignment here, especially if they are Infantry, Airborne or Special Forces soldiers. For decades, Fort Bragg has played a huge part in the major wars and conflicts around the world.

Global Response Force (GRF) Army brigade on 24/7 standby, ready to deploy anywhere in the world within 18 hours. Its mission—to forcibly enter and seize a defended airfield, then build up combat power to support follow-on military operations.—Defense.gov (Oct 2008)

the ability to occupy any land, any time and provide aid, defense or combat support. Imagine 155mm Howitzers, armored gun trucks and over 2,000 fully equipped paratroopers landing in a blackedout drop zone. This is the Global Response Force (GRF), an option available to our Commander-inChief to execute the above scenario on a short notice recall and deployment timeline. It’s not easy, but through these exercises the logistical training prepares the Air Force and the Army to execute this mission at a moment’s notice. JOAX is unique to Pope and a great opportunity for everyone involved. Air Force squadrons all across the United States as well as jumpers from other nations participate.

Pope AFB was greatly affected by the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) report. After the 23rd Fighter Group relocated with its A-10s to Moody AFB, GA and the 43rd Airlift Wing downsized – including 25 C-130Es that were relocated to Little Rock AFB, Pope AFB was redesignated as Pope Army Airfield. The 43rd Airlift Group (AG) [AMC] makes up the majority of the active duty Air Force personnel stationed here, and the During every JOAX the Air Transportation Spe440th AW [AFRC] is the host unit. Additional units include the 18th cialists (2T2X), or “Port Dawgs” as they prefer to be called, load anyAir Support Operations Group [ACC], the Combat Control School where from five to eight-thousand Airborne paratroopers and over 500 [AETC] and the 21st Special Tactics Squadron [AFSOC]; there are tons of cargo (much of it for airdrops) in just four to five days. The para total of five MAJCOMs represented at Pope Army Airfield. Even ticipating Army units vary from exercise to exercise due to mission and though Pope was downsized, Fort Bragg’s mission requirements were training requirements. It prepares everyone involved for receiving the not. In the past, Pope had missions of its own that it fulfilled separate- phone call that would spin-up the mobilization and deployment of the ly from the Army. The majority of the missions GRF—typically several different Brigade Comthat support Fort Bragg take place on the “Green bat Teams (BCTs) from the 82nd Airborne DiviIt’s not easy, but Ramp” and everyone who works there knows that sion. With varying degrees of readiness, a differthrough these exercises Pope Army Airfield’s main mission is because of ent BCT will always be at the ready, willing and the logistical training its middle name: “Army.” able to deploy within 24-hours. Their capability to deploy at any time to anywhere worldwide is prepares the Air Force what drives JOAX. The 82nd Airborne Division What is JFEX/JOAX/GRF? and the Army to execute also utilizes JOAX to re-certify their Airborne Before it was called JOAX, it was called Joint this mission at a Paratroopers. The Port Dawgs of the 3rd Aerial Forcible Entry Exercise ( JFEX) and it’s exactly Port Squadron (APS) are the driving force that moment’s notice. what it sounds like. Worldwide, the US Army has

Ü

The 3rd Aerial Port Squadron’s A1C Randall Greene ground guides A1C Terrence Slack during lavatory servicing of a C-17. (Photo by SSgt Gabriel Rosa)

41 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

FROM THE FLIGHTLINE | LOOK OUT BELOW! gets these passengers and their cargo onto aircraft and to the fight, simulated or not.

So Who’s in Charge?

Despite the fact that the rapid movement of troops is carried out by Air Force aircraft, the Army leads JOAX. The XVIII Airborne Corps and 82nd Airborne Division conducts JOAX quarterly at Fort Bragg in order to train participating units and staff elements to plan, fight and sustain the force as a Joint Task Force ( JTF) and to train participating BCTs in select Mission Essential Task List (METL) tasks. From the XVIII Airborne Corps down to the 82nd Sustainment Brigade (SB), there are a plethora of meetings that set this massive movement of troops in motion. Those meetings involve joint players from a Contingency Response Group (CRG) along with other flying squadrons around the country

Soldiers and Cargo are loaded on a C-17 as the aircrew, Army planners and safeties discuss their pending mission. (Photo

by SSgt Gabriel Rosa)

42 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

to support this exercise. They are tasked by Air Mobility Command and then the airlift is scheduled by the Tanker Airlift Control Center (TACC). Also attending are leaders from the 43 AG, the 3 APS, 43rd Maintenance Squadron and the 43rd Operations Support Squadron to name a few. At the completion of the Final Planning Conference (FPC), everyone is amped for JOAX to begin. Even the greatest plans have room for improvement and JOAX allows every player involved opportunity to adjust and ensure mission flexibility. The Army releases a document following the FPC that updates all players as things change so everyone is updated simultaneously. We train how we fight, and it wouldn’t be any different during an actual GRF recall. The mission of the 82 SB is to establish a Sustainment Mission Command Cell (SMCC), which upon establishment functions as the daily Outload Support (OST). They’re responsible for transporting the cargo and soldiers from an Intermedi-

HITZFELD ate Staging Base (ISB) to an Aerial Port of Debarkation (APOD) or Sea Port of Debarkation (SPOD). Additionally, the 82 SB provides seamless logistical synchronization and maintains lines of communication throughout from the SMCC to the APOD or SPOD. The 3 APS is the in-place support, needed for providing on-load of passengers and cargo, sometimes hazardous or explosive. The 43rd Logistics Readiness Squadron provides the needed fuel for every aircraft that participates.

Most people wouldn’t even think about it but forecasting how to maintain the lavatories on every aircraft that touches down at Pope is also a part of the logistical planning that takes place.

solid week of rapid mobilization that requires flexibility and the willingness to work as a joint team that doesn’t always speak the same language.

If that call comes, our skill in planning rapid mobility is only as good as our practice learning this skill. As we rehearse different scenarios we learn what works, what could be improved and how to most effectively deliver the right thing, at the right time, to the right location and in the right quantity. Ever since the 2005 BRAC, Pope has dropped in size and as far as daily ops, we continue to conduct Airborne training, JSOC support and a myriad of other functions. These day-to-day operations are put to the test when we participate in JOAX.

Realistic Application

In 2010, the GRF was activated and the 2 BCT was deployed to Haiti to support humanitarian efforts in response to the devastating earthquake that killed thousands and left many more without shelter, food and water. They were on the ground and ready to receive supplies dropped by aircraft from squadrons all over the USAF. Known at the time as Pope AFB, the call was made and Pope was designated as one of the major hubs of movement for supplies and support to Haiti.

Throughout the operation, a total of 484 missions, more than 8,000 passengers and just under 5,000 tons of cargo were delivered. Operation UNIFIED RESPONSE was a massive effort that had to be executed immediately to get lifesaving supplies to the people that desperately needed them. Fort Bragg and Pope Army Airfield answered that call and if asked again, they could utilize the training from JOAX to respond swiftly and effectively. The 82 SB’s Support Operations Mobility Chief, Major Thomas Smith said, “Essentially, it is a must that we conduct JOAX on a regular basis in order to train as we fight and continue to prepare for any contingency operations. We could not achieve the level of excellence that we have in the past without the assistance of our Air Force counterparts. We must continue to work with the Air Force and understand their complexities and capabilities if we are going to achieve interoperability at all levels.” Major Smith is right and furthermore, Pope Army Airfield has secured its future because of the support provided to Fort Bragg alone. It is our responsibility as Air Force logisticians to use these exercises to further our knowledge of joint operations in a military that is becoming more united with every mission.

From a logistics standpoint, JOAX is a test of our abilities as logisticians to adapt to constant change. Four times a year we know that we have a

About the Author: Lt Eric Hitzfeld is the Air Terminal Services Director of Operations with the 3rd Aerial Port Squadron, responsible for overall freight operations at Pope Army Airfield. Also he has served as the Passenger Services Operations Officer and the Air Terminal Operations Center Flight Commander. Lt Hitzfeld is the current Vice President of the LOA Tarheel Chapter. K

43 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

from the flightline

437th APS Makes Baggage Detail Easier

By Senior Airman Dennis Sloan

The 437th Aerial Port Squadron (APS) baggage claim service team at the passenger terminal recently upgraded their baggage bins from weathered wooden bins to steel bins. These bins are used for transporting military member’s baggage to and from the aircraft. The team moves all baggage of deploying and returning military members at Joint Base Charleston, which means they can move hundreds of bags a day. “We support several units on this base when they deploy,” said MSgt Serge Ladd, 437 APS NCOIC of Passenger Service. “When the units deploy, they sometimes use commercial aircraft, which requires us to store the baggage underneath the belly of the aircraft, and getting it there was a hassle before the arrival of the new steel bins.”

The new steel bins reduce the process of moving baggage to and from aircraft by an hour and are easier to use, since they were specifically built for the job. The bins also carry more bags than the previous wooden bins.

“The older bins had to be built-up and broken-down every time we used 44 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

them, and they were not in the best condition having been exposed to the elements throughout the years,” said Ladd. “The new steel bins don’t require build-up or break-down and they’re easier to get in and out of when the Airmen are loading them with baggage.”

The project to replace the older wooden bins began in December 2011.

Ladd researched the internet to see what type of bins were available, but all he found were plastic bins that would likely break and require replacement often. He then decided to create a blue print of a steel bin with a gate on the front for the Airmen to get in and out of when necessary. “We needed something durable and since we were going to purchase new ones, I made sure these bins would be versatile and last a long time,” said Ladd.

After the 628th Contracting Squadron awarded the bid to a local steel company, the 437 APS team received the bins in July 2012. “Since there is no build-up or break-down involved when using the new steel bins, the process of moving baggage requires less people,” said SSgt Trevor

Author Name­

A1C Trevor Vascellaro, 437th Aerial Port Squadron (APS) passenger service agent, moves a steel baggage bin to the flightline for loading bags onto an aircraft at Joint Base Charleston. The 437 APS baggage claim service team recently upgraded their baggage bins from weathered wooden bins to steel bins for transporting military member’s baggage to and from the aircraft. (US Air Force photo/SrA Dennis Sloan)

Miles, 437 APS Passenger Service Facility Manager. The bins have attracted the attention of Air Mobility Command APS inspectors, said Ladd. “We recently had AMC inspectors looking at the bins and they were so impressed, they asked for blueprints of the bins,” said Ladd. “It is possible the bins we created may be used AMCwide and even Air Force-wide, if leadership sees fit.”

The overall cost of replacing the weathered wooden bins and replacing them with the five new steel bins cost approximately $10,000.

“These new bins have increased efficiency, reduced the amount of manpower needed to perform baggage detail, and have made the process safer, so I couldn’t be any happier,” said SMSgt Robert Schultz, 437 APS Passenger Terminal Superintendent.

About the Author: SrA Dennis Sloan works for the 628th Public Affairs at Joint Base Charleston, SC, as an Internal Information writer.

45 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

from the flightline ­

Strategic Sourcing Solution Demonstrates AF-Wide Benefits Photograph of light-emitting diode (LED) technology taxi light.

(Photo courtesy of Ms. Quinter.)

By Ms. Beth Quinter The first contract awarded by the Enterprise Sourcing Group (ESG) since their activation at Wright-Patterson AFB in October 2010, was for LED Taxiway Lighting. This was an award of multiple contracts to ADB Airfield Solutions in Columbus, OH and DME Corporation in Fort Lauderdale, FL for light-emitting diode taxiway lighting fixtures.

These fixtures will replace the current incandescent fixtures on all Air Force airfields in the continental United States.

The contracts were awarded in August 2011, by the Civil Engineering Commodity Council (CECC); one of the ESG’s strategic sourcing flights. During the process the council worked closely with Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency (AFCESA) and Air Force Materiel Command. At the time of award, Mr J. D. “Tad” Clark, Chief, CECC, said “This initiative will definitely help reduce the cost for the Air Force to procure these items, as well as generate a significant reduction in energy and maintenance costs.”

Savings on Multiple Fronts From an energy consumption perspective, the current incandescent lamps used in most Air Force taxiway lighting systems are typically rated at 30-45 Watts, whereas the LED fixtures draw only 5 watts. Replacing the old fixtures with the new LEDs will substantially reduce energy consumption for the Air Force, said Ms. Joanie Campbell, AF subject matter expert for airfield lighting in AFCESA. “The LED lights have an average life expectancy of more than 100,000 hours, compared to the 1,000 hours provided by the current incandescent fixtures,” said Ms. Campbell. With more than 10,000 lights being replaced over the last year, energy savings are being realized.

ings has been confirmed. In addition to purchase savings, the AF realizes significant labor savings from installation contracting squadrons with the longer life-span of the LED lights. In the past, each installation required individual contracts to replace taxiway lights. Now contracting squadrons can access an existing contract thereby providing additional savings in process time. “This is definitely a step in the right direction for strategic sourcing within the Air Force,” said Lt Col Michael E. Knipper, Commander, 771st Enterprise Sourcing Squadron.

ESG is responsible for CONUS enterprise-wide installation strategic sourcing for the Air Force. This is accomplished through efficient purchasing processes and reducing redundant acquisitions, while strengthening support for important socio-economic programs and priorities.

ESG divisions and squadrons execute existing and future contracting workload managed by the Defense Technical Information Center (ESG/ PKS), the Air Force Medical Service (773 ESS), the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment, and Air Force Civil Engineering Service Agency (772 ESS). The ESG also supports the Air Force mission by managing six Commodity Councils, which cover $4.7 billion in strategic sourcing spending (771 ESS).

The 771 ESS Commodity Councils source products and services related to civil engineering, force protection, information technology, medical, office and dormitory furniture, office supplies, and advisory and assistance services.

Additional information on the ESG can be found at: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/units/enterprisesourcinggroup.asp

About the author: Ms Quinter is a Senior Program Manager with the Enterprise Sourcing Group (ESG), Civil Engineering Commodity Council. She has been at Wright Patterson Air Force Base for 25 years working construction, interior design and acquisition program management. She has worked at Base Level Civil Engineering, National Air Space & Intelligence Center, Air Force Research Laboratory and now ESG. She joined the ESG in Mar 2010 before Mr. Dennis Major inspects new lights on the taxiway. the stand up in Oct 2010. K

From a cost savings perspective the contracts have been used to provide replacement lights at 18 Air Force installations in 10 states. Cost savings of 50-60% were anticipated, based on past spending rates for incandescent lamps.

While actual cost savings are still being calcuThe new diode lights are brighter and use less electriclated for the last quarter, $300,000 in cost sav- ity than older models. (USAF photo by William Plate Jr.) 46 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

Enterprise Sourcing Group The Enterprise Sourcing Group, aligned to Air Force Material Command, is responsible for continental United States enterprise-wide installation strategic sourcing. ESG consists of a Small Business Office, the Business Support Squadron, three Enterprise Sourcing Squadrons and the Defense Technical Information Center Contract Support Flight. ESG is also responsible for executing the existing and future workload accepted and managed by its subordinate organizations.

History In a memo dated July 6, 2009, the Secretary of the Air Force and Air Force Chief of Staff approved a revised strategic sourcing strategy recommended by the Installation Acquisition Transformation Governance Board. Rather than employ the previously approved regional concept, the revised strategy created ESG. ESG stood up October 2010 and is responsible for executing enterprise-wide strategic sourcing for commodity councils incuding Medical, Information Technology, Force Protection, Furnishings, Office Supplies, and Civil Engineering.

Additionally, ESG is responsible for contracting resources currently supporting the Defense Technical Information Center, Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency and Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment, Air Force Medical Operations Agency, and Air Force Medical Service Supply Agency.

Industry Impact ESG performs a deeper level of analysis than traditional market research, termed “market intelligence” to obtain valuable market insight from industry. The group uses interviews, surveys, site visits and hosts industry events among other things to obtain valuable market insight. To ensure highest benefit to both the Air Force and industry, it is vital to achieve maximum response from industry on requests for information, attending industry events, participating in market research campaigns, and communicating technological and industrial changes and recommendations to the ESG.

The organization chart above depicts the structure and operating locations of the ESG.

Contact Us Enterprise Sourcing Group Contact esgworkflow@wpafb.af.mil Fact Sheet Point of Contact 88th Air Base Wing Public Affairs Office

Goals The Goals of ESG are:

 Recruit, train, and retain a high performing workforce  Provide compliant, timely and efficient acquisition support to our customers  Leverage Air Force buying power and reduce redundant acquisitions  Strengthen our focus on socio-economic programs

Enterprise Sourcing Group (Current as of August 2011)

EXPEDITIONARY LOGISTICS

A 20-ton Trebel Cargo Loader unloads a M1152 Humvee with Troop Enclosure from an AN-124 at Kabul International Airport. These cargo loaders are able to lower half of the platform while the other half remains securely connected to the aircraft door, enabling rapid loading and unloading of cargo. (Photo SSgt Michael Ladrigan)

‘Door-to-Door’ and the Pit Stops In Between Executing the Largest Multimodal Movement in OEF 48 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

By Captain Lindsey R. Nichols I’d only been in Afghanistan just long enough to get the first coat of dust on my newly issued desert boots when my leadership handed me my first major project: overseeing the Kabul leg of the largest multimodal movement in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. A total of 978 vehicles and 20’ containers of troop clothing, vehicle parts, and computer equipment were sailing from Jacksonville, FL to the port of Jebel Ali, Dubai.

From there, 627 vehicles were to be flown from Dubai to Kabul International Airport (KBL) in Afghanistan via 747s and AN-124s, and then trucked to their respective depots. The remainder would be scattered amongst Bagram Airfield, Kandahar Airfield, Mazar E Sharif Airfield, FOB Shank, and Camp Bastion. Between the vehicle and transportation cost, the entire operation was valued at $189 million. The cost included

Lessons Learned 1. Be flexible – the unforeseen will always occur.

2. Trust that others are doing their job, but verify it’s getting done.

3. Communication, without accuracy and clarity, is just added frustration.

4. Pay attention to the details; mentally walk the process through step-by-step.

NICHOLS In-Transit Visibility (ITV) throughout the movement and door-to-door delivery – the commercial carriers would take the cargo every step of the way. Door-to-door, I was told, meant my job would be easy. The carriers would take care of all of the arrangements themselves.

In retrospect, when the Alliance Charleston pulled out of the Port of Jacksonville and inadvertently left seven vehicles behind, I should’ve taken it as a sign of things to come.

The vehicles were destined to be given to the Afghanistan National Army (ANA) and the Police (ANP). Working alongside the Foreign Military Sales office in Kabul, it was my mission to provide the ITV. Very quickly, it became clear that the mere tracking was not my sole responsibility. Instead, I became the “transportation troubleshooter.” I was to anticipate the “glitches” in the plan, see what could be done to mitigate them, and ensure that the operation continued trucking along. Between arriving at Camp Eggers and the first day that vehicles would begin landing at KBL, I had 3 weeks to establish a plan for delivery and ensure all necessary prep work was completed.

The first order of business was putting together a contact list for who was responsible for what, as well as identifying any constraints.

Communication was a continuous challenge.

Before the movement even started, just establishing points of contact with the subcontractors responsible for the different portions of the movement was the first hurdle. It quickly became clear that there was no single individual from the carrier that was proactively managing and following the vehicles every step of the way.

Instead, each subcontractor only saw their own “small piece of the pie.” Gradually, I was able to piece together contacts: one for shipping the

A M1151 Humvee is driven onto a trailer at Kabul International Airport to be transported for delivery to an Afghan National Army depot in Kabul. (Photo SSgt Michael Ladrigan)

vehicles from Jacksonville, one for putting the vehicles onto aircraft in Dubai, one for downloading vehicles from the aircraft at KBL, and several for the final leg of trucking the vehicles from KBL to the depots. To complicate matters, English was a second language for some of the individuals. When I started to receive calls from local nationals late at night on my cell phone within my first couple of weeks in country, I couldn’t help but wonder if this would be an ongoing trend for the next year.

In addition to the communications challenge, there were operational constraints to consider.

The major constraint that impacted our plans and operations the most, and spawned several other constraints was limited depot receiving

capability. One of the depots responsible for receiving the vehicles had a reputation for very limited intake capacity per day, causing at least a dozen trucks to be lined-up outside their gate every day. This led to the second concern of securing temporary storage space at KBL, a fairly space-constrained airfield, where we could hold the vehicles until they could be successfully delivered to the depots. Additionally, once vehicles left KBL’s gates, they wouldn’t be allowed back on base due to concerns about vehicle borne IEDs (VBIED). So if a vehicle went out for delivery, we had to be positive the depots would be able to accept it that day.

The flights from Dubai to KBL ended up kicking off about a week later than expected when the carriers encountered a string of setbacks. First, A Russian Volga-Dnepr AN-124 long-range heavy transport aircraft. The contracted AN-124 transported cargo to Afmovement of the vehicles ghanistan because the high operations tempos of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom have kept C-17 Globemaster III and C-5 Galaxy aircraft fully engaged. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. Daniel Kacir) from Jebel Ali port to the Dubai airport was delayed because the carriers didn’t have authorization to transport the vehicles on Dubai roadways.

Then the flights were delayed as the carrier worked to obtain diplomatic clearance to fly through Pakistani airspace.

Once the flights started to successfully land at KBL, the subcontractor responsible for the land portion began to have their own delays. The vehicles were to be delivered to two

Ü 49 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

EXPEDITIONARY LOGISTICS | ‘DOOR-TO-DOOR’ different depots. All of the ANA cargo went to one location, and all of the ANP cargo went to another. All of the vehicles came with paperwork and placards identifying their Transportation Control Number (TCN) and their final destination. However, on the first day of deliveries, the carrier took the vehicles to the wrong depot.

Constraints continued to surface as operations were executed. One of the more significant constraints was the availability of land at KBL. Space is a precious commodity at the airport, but having an area to stage the vehicles until they could be delivered was critical because depot receiving capability couldn’t keep up with the air arrivals. Luckily, the carrier was able to secure a long dirt road for parking the vehicles until they were ready to move. However, it was only available for a certain time period. While it was simple enough to calculate how many vehicles would have to be delivered to the depots each day in order to meet the deadline, delays made all of our calculated goals useless.

Between the late start due to diplomatic clearances, driver deliveries to the wrong depots, flight delays due to weather, and depot shutdown for several days during the Eid holiday, our proposed schedule for delivery rates wasn’t worth the time it took to update the PowerPoint slide.

In addition to these operational challenges, keeping track of the current location of every vehicle each day proved to be more difficult

than it should have been. Each day I received reports from four different sources that detailed which vehicle, as identified by TCN, had landed at KBL, been loaded onto a truck for delivery to the depot, or been successfully received by the depot. Almost every day these reports would conflict with one another. The depot would report receiving vehicles that the other reports said hadn’t even arrived in country yet, or a vehicle would be reported as delivered to the depot, and then several days later it would show up on the delivery list again. Without an electronic system to scan each piece of cargo, every TCN was written by hand at each stage of the operation, and with over 620 very similar TCNs…simple human error definitely played its part in muddying waters.

After the first couple of days, operations at KBL found their rhythm. Three to four flights of vehicles came in each day and were prepped and loaded for delivery first thing the next morning. The process of escorting local Afghan drivers through security and on base started to smooth out. In order to avoid overwhelming the depots, the drivers’ interpreter called the depots before any cargo left KBL to verify they could receive it that day. This also allowed us to work within our other constraint of not being able to return any cargo to KBL that wasn’t in-gated by the depot that day. The amount of vehicles the contractors were able to deliver each day steadily increased from a low of eight per day to a high of 62. This rate increase was

a result of, not only calling ahead to see if they could be accepted, but also by ensuring all the vehicles were fully functional before they left KBL. The rate at which the depot could receive vehicles was decreased if vehicles weren’t drivable. By ensuring all vehicles were drivable, and having gas and some mechanical expertise on hand at KBL, we were able to prevent any additional delay in the receiving process.

All in all, from the first flight at KBL, to the last delivery at the depots, operations took 34 days to complete. We narrowly made our deadline for land use at KBL, with the final vehicles delivered to the depots on the last day that the staging area was available for use.

Despite the limited time frame, constraints, communication problems, and the fact that all the arrangements were supposed to be already handled by the carrier in this door-to-door contract, at the end of it all, 620 vehicles were successfully delivered to the depots. As for the seven vehicles that missed the boat the first time around… they finally showed up in Kabul a couple weeks later.

About the Author: Capt Lindsey R. Nichols is a Logistics Readiness Officer assigned to the Security Assistance Office – Afghanistan, Camp Eggers, Afghanistan. She has served as a Vehicle Management OIC, Cargo Deployment Function OIC, Tanker and Special Missions Support Flight Commander, and is currently the Air Ops Movement Chief, In-Transit Visibility Cell. K The Alliance Charleston. This ship hauled troop clothing, vehicle parts, and computer equipment was sailing from Jacksonville, FL to the port of Jebel Ali, Dubai. (Photo courtesy of Shipspotting.com)

50 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

MAJCOM/NAF

A C-17 Globemaster III takes off from an airfield on the Nevada Test and Training Range near Nellis Air Force Base during the Mobility Air Forces Exercise. (USAF photo by A1C Brett Clashman)

The Fuel Efficient Future: Where Are We and How Do We Get There?

By Mr. Jerome Goodin

How does the Logistics Community affect fuel-efficient behavior?

How do Maintenance practices contribute to fuel-efficient outcomes?

How do Aerial Port Operations enhance or detract from efficiency?

How does the use of Petroleum, Oils and Lubricants (POL) in practices and attitudes affect performance?

52 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

Aviation was built on the technology of the internal combustion engine, soon followed by the jet engine. Both of these technologies provide the efficient production of power and thrust to weight required to lift a heavier-thanaircraft into the sky. Currently there is no other technology other than the combination of jet engines and petroleum-based fuels, which can efficiently store and easily convert chemical energy into thrust to make the aircraft flight possible. The entire Air Force is built upon the foundation of this technology to acquire, sustain, deploy, maintain and engage in combat. Without fossilfueled aircraft, the Air Force Why is there such a push to simply cannot perform its mission.

reduce the fuel we need to perform our mission?

So then, why is there such a push to reduce the fuel we

GOODIN need to perform our mission? The first and most obvious reason to reduce fuel-use is simply cost. The cost of each gallon of fuel has gone up steadily since the energy crisis of the 1980s. In 2011, the DoD spent $17.3 Billion on petroleum fuels. Secondly, the operations tempo of our forces drives a tremendous burden on our logistics and DLA-Energy service to provide that fuel. That demand, especially in Afghanistan, puts our troops at risk and presents a security dilemma for protecting the convoys and storage facilities. It is estimated that 10-12% of the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan can be directly attributed to convoy operations. Ultimately, our dependence on fossil fuels presents a strategic security vulnerability to our troops. Cut off our fuel and our adversary could effectively destroy our ability to accomplish our mission. Finally, Air Force Policy Directive 90-17, Energy Management cites our possible impact on the environment and the contribution of operations on global climate change. It states that the “Air Force continually refines its energy programs and creates a culture that is mindful of the footprint we leave on the environment while still fulfilling its mission to produce lethal combat power yielding sovereign options for America.”

Controlling fossil fuel consumption provides a direct contribution to budget savings and enhanced security while also preserving the environment.

The Department of Defense is the largest consumer of petroleum-based fuels in the US Government, using 91% of government purchased petroleum-based fuels. Of that amount, the Air Force constitutes more than 64% of the total DoD fuel-use. Furthermore, aviation fuel-use accounts for 84% of the total Air Force consumption. Between mission types, mobility operations consume 52%, followed by fighter aircraft at 25% and bombers at 7%. In terms of total Air Force consumption, aviation fuel constitutes 95% of energy consumed.

...[A]viation fuel-use accounts for 84% of the total Air Force consumption.

Between mission types, mobility operations consume 52%, followed by fighter aircraft at 25% and bombers at 7%...

It’s easy to see that the Air Mobility Command (AMC) uses the lion’s share of energy to project “Global Reach and Global Power for America.” The mobility fleet consists of many large, three- and four-engine jet aircraft that fly hundreds of flights worldwide daily to support, supply and sustain America’s forces. It should

also not be a surprise that AMC is a leading force in identifying methods to decrease fuel consumption.

AMC Addresses Energy Metrics In an attempt to set a goal for energy consumption, the Headquarters Air Force established the goal to reduce its consumption by 10% over the period during 2006-2015. This goal was supported by a strategy to reduce demand, increase supply, and change the culture and attitudes on energy conservation. To begin assessing energy utilization throughout AMC, there needed to be agreement on how to measure consumption. Metrics on total fuel consumed

by AMC aircraft, as reported by DLA-Energy data, would not be enough. In fact, fuel-use in AMC had gone up by 6.4% during the period FY06-09. The reason was that the AMC fleet grew and supported a larger Warfighter demand. Additional C-17s were procured and were used more extensively worldwide.

AMC could not simply cut programmed flying hours, which drive consumption, to meet the Air Force goal. Instead, reducing the fuel consumed “per hour” of flight would meet the goal.

Performance-based metrics consider both sides of the mobility equation – the inputs and the outputs.

Air Force Aviation Fuel Consumption by Mission Type. (USAF Aviation Operations Energy Plan)

The consumption of fuel by an aircraft fleet per hour is calculated by dividing the average fuel burned by all hours flown. Different conditions dictate how much fuel is burned per hour, and the variations worldwide contribute to the total fuel. For example, a low-level training mission burns more fuel per flight hour than a high-altitude logistic transport flight. Also, an aircraft flying empty after dropping off cargo can fly faster and higher than its fully-burdened counterpart delivering cargo into the objective area. The raw comparison suggested that flying aircraft at high altitude without any cargo was a solution. This is completely contrary to AMC’s mission to deliver supplies. The right thing to do is to move more cargo, more quickly and efficiently. These concepts led

Ü FIGURE 1 Graphic

53 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

MAJCOM/NAF | THE FUEL EFFICIENT FUTURE to the idea of “performance-based metrics.”

Performance-based metrics consider both sides of the mobility equation – the inputs and the outputs. Typically, we consider only the inputs of our efforts to be the measure of our success.

How many sorties did it take? How many flight hours did we log? These quantities only tell half of the story. We also need to ask, “what outputs did we achieve from our efforts?”

The two tasks assigned to the office under this charter were to: 1.) develop, track and analyze fuel-use metrics and 2.) identify (commercial) industry best practices and determine applicability to the Mobility Air Forces (MAF).

Our success in any logistical operation is the measure of how many people, pallets and tons of materiel did we deliver. The materiel delivery is the reason for the mission in the first place.

Mission planning begins with the amount of materiel delivered on a cargo aircraft or fuel delivered by a tanker to any aircraft. To find the answer, AMC’s Fuel Efficiency Office was chartered under the direction of the AMC Vice Commander in October of 2008. The two tasks assigned to the office under this charter were to: 1.) develop, track and analyze fuel-use metrics and 2.) identify (commercial) industry best practices and determine applicability to the Mobility Air Forces (MAF).

Commercial transportation systems like railroads, sealift and airline companies use the metric of “ton-miles” to determine their success in providing transportation services. They measure capacity in terms of transportation available and that utilized by paying customers. The terms “available ton-mile (ATM)” and “revenue ton-mile (RTM)” are aviation indus-

The ton-mile metric seemed to tell the story of how the aircraft were performing their missions. In addition, the ton-mile standard allows us to compare the output of a C-17 to that of a C-5 or even a KC-10.

54 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

try standard measures of effectiveness as described by the Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) website.

It is important that we not only measure the tons of cargo, passengers and fuel that are moved but the distance they are transported.

It’s obvious that a ton of cargo moving from the US to Europe requires less effort than that same ton of supplies being delivered to Afghanistan or Iraq. The ton-mile metric captures the difference in these efforts. During the period from FY06 (the baseline year) to FY09, cargo ton-miles generated by AMC cargo aircraft increased 21.6% due to the increased operations tempo and the growing fleet of C-17s.

The ton-mile metric seemed to tell the story of how the aircraft were performing their missions. In addition, the ton-mile standard allows us to compare the output of a C-17 to that of a C-5 or even a KC-10. All of them can deliver the same ton of supplies – but at what cost in fuel?

Some of the “right things” were decreased carriage of excess fuel, increased cargo loads, and enhanced maintenance practices.

The performance metric for fuel efficiency developed by the Fuel Efficiency Office became “Ton-Miles per Gallon.” It was adopted as the HAF “Enterprise Metric” for AMC’s performance. When fuel was added to the computations of the ton-miles delivered by the airlift fleet, the data showed that ton-miles per gallon increased 14.3% during the period of 2006 to 2009. AMC was doing the right things for the right reasons. Some of the “right things” were decreased carriage of excess fuel, increased cargo loads, and enhanced maintenance practices.

There is definitely a direct link between the efforts of the logistics communities of maintenance, POL and aerial port operations in achieving these results.

The continuing role of logistics in achieving a Fuel Efficient Air Force is centered around four core logistics functions: Acquisition and Sustainment; Maintenance, POL Operations and Aerial Port Operations.

Acquisition and Sustainment: It should be no surprise that in order to operate a fleet of aircraft efficiently, one must first procure the most efficient fleet possible. This

is the role of the acquisition community. Not only must the aircraft system being considered for purchase be able to perform the mission, it must do it in a fuel-efficient manner. One of the tasks ahead is establishing fuel efficiency standards for acquisition programs. When a recommendation for an aircraft purchase is made, it should at least meet or exceed the productivity per gallon of the fleet being replaced.

Also, during sustainment, aircraft system enhancements should be selected based on their ability to contribute increased performance at reduced fuel consumption. The re-engining of our legacy fleets (i.e. KC-135 and C-130) highlights the cost to install these performance-enhancing engines is recouped in the savings of fuel. In fact, those upgrades will return more than their investment cost over the life of the aircraft – while providing enhanced capabilities to the Warfighter.

Maintenance: On the flightline, day-in and day-out, maintenance done correctly and diligently enhance our ability to do the mission – and to save fuel. Boeing, under contract to AMC to provide maintenance services on the C-17 fleet, was routinely performing “engine washes” of the compressors and turbines. This lowered the long-term maintenance cost to Boeing and provided a longer mean time between engine failures. Concurrently, the engines remained more fuel efficient, paying AMC and DLA-Energy an unexpected bonus in fuel cost offsets. Similar “engine washes” are now performed on all AMC’s aircraft. This is just one simple action of regular maintenance that contributes to fuel efficient outcomes. More enhancements are on the way.

POL Operations: Precise fuel loading is one major aspect of cost control that was an initial success of AMC’s fuel savings initiatives. Monitoring the fuel loaded in the chocks before takeoff and remaining after landing was crucial to discovering when excess fuel was carried. If an aircraft takes-off with too much fuel, it’s not just an insurance policy for the pilot and crew. It costs 3% of that weight of fuel per hour to carry the excess. In short, a heavier aircraft burns more fuel. If that fuel is excess or unnecessary, it’s like putting a speed brake out on the wing. More power is required to fly the aircraft, resulting in longer climb times, lower cruise altitudes and slower enroute speeds. All of which lengthen flight time. These factors increase fuel burn and are detrimental to achieving MAF fuel savings goals. Also, the weight of excess fuel

GOODIN

loaded may limit the available cargo weight or impose greater stresses on the aircraft structure which may increase required maintenance actions or even shorten airframe life. Precision and attention to detail in POL operations is critical to maintaining a high degree of fleetwide fuel efficient operations.

Aerial Port Operations: The carriage of cargo and passengers is the primary mission of AMC. Increasing the load on each and every available sortie is critical to making maximum use of the aircraft in service.

An aircraft carrying half of its Available Cargo Load (ACL) may result in another partially loaded aircraft making another flight later. Increasing the density and weight of every pallet, and therefore every mission, is the key to incrementally increasing the fuel efficiency

of the cargo fleets. Minimum pallet weight goals are not enough. Pallets weights should be maximized on each aircraft up to the limit of the aircraft ACL. Often, aircraft depart on their missions with full pallet spaces but lacking full utilization of available cargo weight. It would be preferable for ACL maximum weight to be reached first and leave some pallet spaces empty at the end of loading. This would assure maximum utilization of the airplane and minimize the need for additional sorties.

Logistical expertise and best practices are critical to the Air Force’s fuel efficient future. By applying all of the “tools in the toolbox,” we can not only reduce the fuel consumed by our fleets, but add capability and reduce the cost of operation at the same time. We have the ability to affect change for the Air Force, the DoD,

Aerial port Airmen from the 386th Expeditionary Logistics Readiness Squadron prepare to push pallets of cargo off a K-Loader onto a waiting C-17 Globemaster III. (USAF photo by SrA Laura Turner)

the nation and the environment. Are you already to be part of that Fuel Efficient future?

You should be!

About the author: Mr. Jerome Goodin retired in 2009 as a Colonel from the position of Air National Guard Advisor to 18th Air Force. He then joined the staff of the HQ AMC Aviation Fuel Efficiency office where he assisted in the development of many of the metrics and analysis tools in use by AMC. He is currently employed as an Energy Policy Specialist with ICF, International of Fairfax, Virgina. K

55 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

MAJCOM/NAF ­

The first A-10 to roll out after having its wings replaced with new ones sits at the ceremony held Feb. 15 at Hill Air Force Base to celebrate its roll-out. (U.S. Air Force photo by Alex Lloyd)

By Mr. Kevin O’Connor

The Science of the Air Force Sustainment Center Production Machine 56 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

With the recent stand up of the Air Force Sustainment Center (AFSC), all three Air Logistics Complexes (formerly known as Maintenance Wings), now report to a single commander. In recent months there has been a very aggressive effort to standardize organizational structure, performance metrics, and production philosophies. This paper provides the framework for standardizing production philosophies across the Complexes. It clearly defines a “science” for designing and operating AFSC production machines ensuring consistent execution philosophies that will stand the test of time.

This science is based on fundamental production principles: Little’s Law, Theory of Constraints, and Drum Buffer Rope (DBR) philosophies.

It is important to note that AFSC production machines must be designed to exceed customer expectations and reduce work-in-progress (WIP).

With reduced WIP comes reduced infrastructure and reduced resource requirements – creating capacity for additional workload and reducing costs.

Our goal in the AFSC is to increase the level of throughput through all of our production machines….THROUGHPUT IS KING. A properly designed production machine will drive our operations to improved performance, competitiveness, and throughput.

Part I: The Application of Little’s Law and a Gated Monitoring System Little’s Law: At steady state, all production systems have an average throughput, WIP, and flowtime. The fundamental relationship between all three is determined by Little’s Law: WIP = throughput x flowtime.

Throughput is the required output of a production machine expressed in

O’CONNOR units per time. Flowtime is the average time a unit stays in a production machine. WIP is the average number of items in work throughout the production machine.

target is defined by a.) the customer (in this case the Aircraft Availability requirement) or b.) an internal goal to reduce cost and create capacity. The takt time is calculated by dividing days available by the required output in that available time (365 days/64 units = 5.7 day takt time). Every 5.7 days this machine must output an aircraft. Flowtime then equals WIP x takt time (23 units in WIP x 5.7 day takt = 131 days of flowtime). This production machine must perform at a speed (flowtime) of 131 days to output 64 aircraft per year while maintaining a total WIP of only 23 aircraft.

For the purposes of this paper, we will modify Little’s Law to include the concept of takt time. Takt time is the heartbeat of a production machine. It defines how often a single unit must be produced from a machine. For example, a takt time of 10 days means the machine must produce one unit every 10 days. Mathematically, it is the reciprocal of throughput as defined above. It is determined by dividing the available time by the required output in that amount of time (expressed in units of time). If a process is required to produce 37 units in 1 year, the throughput is 37 units/365 days or 0.1 unit per day. The takt time would be 365 days divided by 37 units equal to a takt time of 10 days. Said another way, every 10 days the machine must produce a unit…and all enabling teammates must support this tempo. The AFSC modified version of Little’s Law now becomes: Flowtime = WIP x takt time Production Machine Design: Let’s start with the basic design of a production machine. It is important to note that the machine is designed for the future state requirement; it is not designed based on existing performance. The machine must be designed to reduce flowtimes and WIP, subsequently reducing required infrastructure and resources.

When designing a production machine, two of the three variables in Little’s Law must be defined. As an example let’s assume that there is a requirement for a production machine to produce 64 aircraft per year with a limited WIP of only 23 aircraft. The production output requirement of 64 aircraft per year is defined by the customer. The WIP

With long flowtime machines, it is critical to break the process into smaller sections or Gates. This provides increased transparency into the performance of the machine, enables more timely constraint identification-elevationresolution, and ensures optimum performance of the overall machine. The application of Little’s Law is just as critical to the design of these individual Gates as it is to the overall production machine design. Let’s look at this production machine broken out into Gates.

In this example, the overall flowtime is broken down into five separate Gates. Defining the WIP in each Gate is an iterative process that will depend on the physical constraints of the system and/or the amount of work to be accomplished within each Gate. Keep in mind that the Gate flow time for your future state machine may seem unattainable relative to current performance, but it is critical to properly prorate the required overall WIP across the entire machine. The defined WIP within the Figure 1. Little’s Law Demonstrated in a Simple Production System.

Gates determines the required flowtime performance for that Gate. As noted above, defining a WIP of 2 in Input Output the “Pre-dock” Gate leads to a required flowtime performance of 11.4 days 1 unit/4 days 1 unit/4 days (Flowtime=WIP x takt or 2x5.7=11.4).

6 units Work-in-Progress [Throughput] [Throughput] Remember, Gate WIPs are defined not [WIP] to exceed the total WIP threshold of Each unit spend 24 days in the machine 23 in this example.

Little’s Law Demonstrated in a Simple Production System

[Flowtime]

WIP = throughput x flowtime

6 units = (1 unit / 4 days) x 24 days

Ü

Figure 2. Production Machine Example.

Available Time (Days) 365

Required Takt Outputs (Days) 64 6 Req'd Flowtime (Days):

Gate 2 Gate 1 Gate 3 Gate 4 Gate 5 (Pre-dock) (Inspect Dock) (Structures) (System Ops) (Post Dock) TOTALS 2 3 10 3 5 23 WIP 11 17 57 17 29 131 Cal Days

57 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

MAJCOM/NAF | THE AF SUSTAINMENT CENTER Figure 3. Gate 2: Inspect Dock.

Gate 2: I-Dock 40 35

WIP 4 3 2 1 0

Early Ordering of Parts

Inspection Dock Process Mapping Event

CPC Scripting

InHouse Plating

Plan

30 Actl.

Gated Monitoring System: Following the mathematical design of a Gated Production Machine, performance must be closely monitored in each Gate.

When monitoring the flow time through a Gate, it is important to drive Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) to the processes in the Gate as opposed to focusing on the individual unit that is flowing through the Gate. In the example below it is easy to see the trends in the Gate flow time performance and the CPI initiatives (starbursts) intended to reduce flowtime. For this example, the Gate 2 WIP and flowtime requirements are 3 aircraft and 17 days.

25 20 15 10 5 0

58-0001 58-0030 57-1502 63-8008 59-1467 57-1488 57-1438 59-1521 58-0083 61-0310 58-0062 61-2672 59-1463

Remaining Days Actual Days

24

20

18

28

31

23

18

28

37

31

11

10

15

6

7

2

Last 10 Avg. 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 If a Gate is not performing at its Machine Rqmt 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 required flowtime, CPI must focus on waste removal, concurrenLast Ten Avg 25.8 Requirement 17 cy opportunities, and constraint resolution. Despite these efforts, breaking out a queue due to a lack of performance is a critical part of enit may be necessary to queue aircraft prior to the constrained Gate. This suring that Gate resources (direct labor employees, engineering, tooling, must be monitored via a queue Gate chart similar to the chart shown support equipment, parts, etc.) are not spread too thin, which will lead in Figure 3 with a requirement of zero days in queue. Recognizing and

The KC-135 PDM Line at the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex, Gate 3 (Structures Docks) Shown (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Bennie J. Davis III)

58 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

O’CONNOR to increased flow times. The Production Machine chart (Figure 4) displays individual Gate performance relative to the machine requirement for all Gates in a production machine. It also shows where the machine is queuing aircraft due to constrained Gates.

A Production Machine

(overall performance showing queue gates) 130.0 110.0 90.0

Days

The AFSC Leadership Model emphasizes a focus on “speed and quality” in our operations….a properly designed production machine (IAW Little’s Law) provides the structure and discipline to drive us to our goals. Focusing on speed enables us to reach our flowtime goals. Staying disciplined to the production machine with respect to WIP also ensures active WIP control and prevents overwhelming the system with too many units in work…stretching resources too thin, multi-tasking beyond the capability of the machine, and reducing the speed of the entire system.

Figure 4. A Production Machine example.

70.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 -10.0

Last 10 Avg Machine Reqmt

Pre Dock 20.9 11.0

Part II: The Application of Theory of Constraints (TOC) and Drum-Buffer-Rope (DBR) For production systems with a high volume of throughput (tens of thousands of units per year) and a lot of variation (different applicable processes, induction mix variations, etc.), the application of DBR is more appropriate than a Gated monitoring system as discussed in Part I of this paper. Prior to introducing DBR, let’s first discuss TOC. Theory of Constraints: The premise of TOC is that production systems act much like a chain and they are only as strong as their weakest link. The weakest link in a production operation is described as the con-

Queue 30.5 0.0

I-Dock 25.8 17.0

Queue 23.0 0.0

Structures 76.8 57.0

Systems 23.0 17.0

Systems 37.3 29.0

straint that prevents the output of the entire system from meeting the desired performance. The constraint is usually identified as the process or shop that has the most WIP queued upstream or the most heavily loaded process or shop in the system. The utilization of TOC requires all CPI to be focused on the constraint. CPI efforts that do not attack the constraint will not improve the overall system performance and could actually make the entire system perform less effectively. The five basic and sequential steps for proper application of TOC are described below (Critical Chain, Eliyahu Goldratt): Identify the Constraint: As mentioned earlier, the constraint is usually identified as the most heavily loaded resource or the process with the largest queue of WIP in front of it.

Exploit the Constraint: Usually this involves obtaining the immediate maximum potential out of the constraint without significant investment. As an example, if a five-axis machine tool was the limit to the system output, exploiting the constraint would be to operate the machine during lunch breaks, second or third shifts, weekends, etc. Buying a second machine tool is not a way to exploit the constraint (see Expand the Constraint below).

Subordinate Everything to the Constraint: It makes no sense to allow non-constrained operations to operate above the level of the constraint because operations upstream of the constraint will simply increase additional WIP in front of the constraint and downstream operations will run out of work. All operations must match the pace of the exploited constraint until the constraint is expanded.

Terry Patton, C-17 Flight Operations senior manager, explains value stream mapping. (Photo retrieved from www.af.mil)

Ü 59 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

MAJCOM/NAF | THE AF SUSTAINMENT CENTER Expand the Constraint: Expansion of the constraint is elevating the output of the limiting process or shop until overall system performance can be met or until another process or shop becomes the limit to the system. This might include the purchase of additional equipment, addition/ realignment of personnel, or preferably an increase in output through waste removal or other CPI activity.

Repeat the Process (steps 1-4): If a constraint still exists, these steps must be repeated until all constraints are removed. It should be noted that if the desired performance of the system is attained, no limiting constraint requires attention – however, different processes or shops may have different capacities (i.e., the system may not be balanced).

Drum-Buffer-Rope: DBR is the planning and scheduling methodology for the application of TOC. The definitions of each component follow (www.focus5.com, Focus 5 Systems Ltd.). “Drum” is the set schedule based upon the constraint’s output capacity. “Buffer” is a protection against variability and is used to protect the performance of the schedule or drum. In DBR, a time buffer is chosen as opposed to a material or WIP buffer. The “Rope” is used to subordinate all other processes to the constraint. In essence, the rope synchronizes the schedule of all resources to the drum or limiting constraint. Each individual process or shop can utilize Little’s Law to determine the appropriate flowtime, WIP, and takt relationships, but the overall production machine is synchronized via the DBR system as shown below.

In order to execute DBR it is important to begin with a commitment to an overall system performance (delivery date of the product). Once this date is established a right-to-left schedule is established for the drum to execute to the delivery schedule. All the processes that occur downstream of the drum are then scheduled so the delivery date is met. A similar process is applied when scheduling work upstream of the drum to ensure material arrives to the constraint on time. Time buffers are utilized at critical locations throughout the system to protect the overall delivery of the schedule against variations due to rework, peak demands, unscheduled production interruptions, etc.

An example of a time buffer is the scheduling of a product from the constraint to the delivery point for 25 days, even though the product delivery is not expected for 30 days after passing through the constraint.

Depending on the existing process variation, the additional 5 days could provide near 100% on-time delivery and can essentially remove delivery uncertainty. A similar time buffer is often applied upstream of the constraint to ensure the original schedule is protected and the drum (limiting constraint) never shuts down due to upstream variability.

Application to Exchangeable Workload in AFSC: The Exchangeable workload in the AFSC is a high volume production system with nuFigure 5. DBR Visual.

Input

(controlled unit release)

merous sources of variability. Variability exists due to changing demands, material supportability fluctuations, product mix changes, and EXPRESS drive limitations (capacity, carcasses, funding and parts).

Normal output variation will also exist due to unscheduled equipment or facility failures, single point failures, unplanned rework, etc. Additionally, most exchangeable backshop production processes require numerous routes to different process monuments creating competing priorities. The variability and competing priorities create a very complex production environment that is conducive to individual and independent shop performance metrics that seldom or never drive to optimum overall system performance. Individual shop metrics drive shop performance to aggregate production output numbers regardless of the upstream or downstream priorities or constraints. The end result is a disjointed attempt to manage priorities by which customer screams the loudest. This practice causes excessive overtime, ever changing priorities, batch processing and overall production inefficiencies. DBR provides the solution to all of these challenges.

Even in complex production environments, there is typically only one process (or very few processes) that actually limit the performance of the entire production system. It becomes paramount to focus CPI efforts on the single process (or limited number of processes) to optimize overall system performance…based on the Drum. Time buffers are established and monitored to protect the schedule and when the buffer starts to be consumed it can be mitigated through the open capacity (nonconstrained) operations. The utilization of DBR essentially facilitates a steady predictable production output that is independent of the input or production variability common to exchangeable production.

How do you know if DBR is working? One of the primary metrics used for determining the successful application of DBR for exchangeable production is the amount of Inventory Turns obtained by the production machine. Inventory Turn by definition is the number of times the inventory is turned over each year. Annual Inventory Turn = Annual Throughput/Average WIP. Annual throughput is expressed in units produced per year. Average WIP is the average number of items in work throughout the production machine.

An example of an Inventory Turn calculation follows: in a single fiscal year, a production machine has produced 10,000 components with an average WIP of 1,750 units. The Inventory Turn = 10,000 units per year/1,750 units per turn or 5.7 turns per year.

Another example based on a single month of data follows: During the month of August, a production machine produced 2,500 assets with an average WIP of 2,200 units. The Inventory Turn = (12 months per year x 2,500 units per month)/2,200 units per turn or 13.6 turns per year. In a real world application, it is best to use a rolling average that will take

DBR Demonstrated in a Simple Production System CONSTRAINT

Process Y

Process X

time buffer

time buffer

drum rope 60 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

Process Z

Output

O’CONNOR into account seasonal variations and eliminate the impact of zero production days that could exist at the beginning of each month, quarter or fiscal year.

It should be noted that the average flowtime is equal to 365 days per year/Inventory Turns per year or in the last example, 365/13.6 = 35 days on average. So, as DBR is executed successfully, the production machine will achieve higher Inventory Turns, producing more assets with a given amount of WIP. At the same time the production machine becomes more responsive to its customers with reduced flowtimes...increased speed!

Figure 6. Example of an Inventory Turn metric.

Speed Annual EOY Goal: 13.3 Actual: 13.1

SUMMARY Both Parts I and II of this paper describe production systems based on constraints based management principles. They provide a methodical approach to defining and monitoring operations in the AFSC. A production machine designed IAW Little’s Law ensures a well-balanced production line and a disciplined approach to controlling active WIP. Monitoring the performance in each Gate provides increased transparency into the performance of the machine, enables more timely constraint identification-elevation-resolution, and ensures optimum performance of the overall machine. This construct is most applicable for low or medium throughput and high flowtime production machines (i.e. engine overhaul and aircraft Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM).

On the other hand, a high throughput, low or medium flowtime production machine (i.e. exchangeable workload…a backshop environment) is most effectively managed by applying the principles of DBR. Identifying the constraint and pacing the entire operation based on that limiting constraint provides an effective framework for managing this production machine. Aggressive CPI is then used to reduce the limitations of this pacing constraint.

All CPI must be analytically driven by data analysis. A strong constraint resolution process must be in place. All levels of management must monitor the performance of the Gates and the DBR process. Metrics must be in place from the shop floor to the senior leader conference rooms and they must be aligned for optimum production machine performance.

While properly designed production machines and the monitoring tools discussed in this paper are meant to limit the impacts of variation on an operation, significant variation will still create serious perturbations to a production machine. Drastically changing the number of units inducting or the mix of units inducting during the year of execution will create ineffectiveness in our operations. This is why accurate and dependable forecasting is critical. Major constraints during the year of execution such as material non-supportability or improper resourcing can also reduce the throughput of the production machines. It is important that everyone recognizes that variation is the enemy. Variation driven by funding changes, induction decreases or increases, material non-supportability, etc. will impact AFSC performance and Air Force success.

Even with a strong adoption of the philosophies outlined in Part I and Part II of this paper and even with aggressive CPI to eliminate waste and constraints, it is imperative to have an active, informed, vigilant, and engaged leadership team. This leadership team must be part of constraint resolution on a regular basis and must continually challenge the production machine for improved performance.

Additional Reading and Reference Material: “Air Force Sustainment Center Leadership Model”, Lt Gen Bruce Litchfield, The Exceptional Release, Fall 2012 The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement, Eliyahu M. Goldratt Critical Chain, Eliyahu M. Goldratt Streamlined: 14 Principles for Building and Managing the Lean Supply Chain, Dr. Mandyam M. Srinivasan Lean Thinking, James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones http://www.focus5.com/html/drumbufferrope.html, Focus 5 Systems Ltd. About the Author: Kevin G. O’Connor is the Vice Director, Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex, Tinker AFB. He serves a 9,500 personnel team responsible for over $3B in revenue. The complex performs programmed depot maintenance on the KC-135, B-1B, B-52 and E-3 aircraft; expanded phase maintenance on the Navy E-6 aircraft; and maintenance, repair and overhaul of F100, F101, F108, F110, F118, F119 and TF33 engines for the USAF, AFRES, ANG, Navy and foreign military sales. Additionally, he is responsible for the maintenance, repair and overhaul of a myriad of Air Force and Navy airborne accessory components, and the development and sustainment of a diverse portfolio of mission critical software.

Contributors to the article include: Michael Barrett, OC-ALC PMXG Deputy Director and Janis Wood, OC-ALC AMXG Deputy Director K

61 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

MAJCOM/NAF ­

By Major Mark A. Blumke

AMC Fuel Efficiency Initiatives

How the Maintenance Community Contributes

SrA Cameron Farrell pulls a hose from a fuel truck during an inspection at an undisclosed location in Southwest Asia. (USAF photo by SSgt Nathanael Callon)

62 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

As we all know, the United States Air Force’s mission is to fly, fight and win … in air, space and cyberspace and its vision is Global Vigilance, Reach, and Power. The Air Force has six distinctive capabilities that make it possible to achieve its mission and vision. They are: Air and Space Superiority, Global Attack, Rapid Global Mobility, Precision Engagement, Information Superiority, and Agile Combat Support. Employment of these capabilities requires well-trained, competent professionals, weapon systems, support equipment, and fuel….lots of fuel! In fact, according to the 2010 Air Force Energy Plan, the Department of Defense (DoD) consumes 91% of all fuel in the US Federal Government. The Air Force consumes the largest proportion of fuel within the DoD (64%), with aviation operations accounting for approximately 84% of the Air Force’s fuel consumption (approximately 50% of DoD’s energy consumption.)

The Air Force, recognizing it is such a large consumer of fuel, has developed a comprehensive energy management framework based on three main pillars: reduce demand, increase supply, and change the Air Force culture to be more energy conscious. The logistics community plays a major role in reducing aviation fuel consumption by implementing a variety of fuel efficiency initiatives. Air Mobility Command’s Directorate of Logistics (AMC/A4) is the “Champion” for many of AMC’s fuel efficiency

BLUMKE

A C-130 Hercules taxis to its parking spot in Southwest Asia. (USAF photo by SrA Chris Willis)

initiatives. This article briefly highlights a few of the initiatives AMC has implemented and plans to implement in the future. As each initiative is addressed, it is clear that logisticians--in the field, the depots, and in industry--are the lynchpins to the success of these initiatives.

There are two main categories of logistics-based fuel efficiency initiatives that are covered in this article: propulsion/power system efficiencies and aircraft weight reduction efficiencies. Propulsion/power system efficiencies include engine upgrades, usage reductions and engine washes.

Usage reductions and engine washes are implemented by policy and have little to no investment cost. Engine upgrades require funding to purchase upgrade kits, but the payback can be substantial.

PROPULSION/POWER SYSTEM EFFICIENCIES CFM Propulsion Upgrade Program AMC successfully advocated for and received FY13 funding to begin the F108 engine (installed on KC-135R/T aircraft) CFM Propulsion Upgrade Program (C-PUP). C-PUP, an upgrade developed by CFM International the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), will install upgraded High Pressure (HP) turbine nozzles, HP compressor blades and vanes, HP turbine shroud assemblies and HP turbine blades in 1,440 F108 engines. The first 60 C-PUP kits will be ordered in FY13 and the first depot upgraded engines will be introduced to the field by 4th Quarter FY13. The plan is to upgrade 120 engines per year starting in FY14. Once upgraded, maintainers in the field will see a 1.5% reduction in fuel consumption and lower engine Exhaust Gas Temperatures (EGT) which results in increased average time-on-wing and reduced

depot visits. C-PUP does not impact the operational parameters of the F108 engine, so C-PUP engines can be intermixed on an aircraft with non C-PUP engines with no impact to the aircrews or mission.

Over the remaining life of the KC-135R/T, the Business Case Analysis (BCA) estimates $1.5B savings in avoided depot visits (avoided maintenance cost) and fuel.

T56-15 Engine 3.5 Modification The T56-15 engine 3.5 Modification (for the C-130H aircraft) is another engine upgrade with the potential for a big payback. The 3.5 Modification was developed by Rolls-Royce, the T56 OEM. It will install a redesigned compressor inlet housing, compressor wheel knife seals, compressor blades, and turbine blades and vanes. Although this modification is currently unfunded, it was submitted for FY15 funding consideration. Data provided by Rolls-Royce showed that the 3.5 Modification would reduce fuel consumption by as much as 7.9%. However, ground testing completed by the US Navy showed that fuel consumption could be reduced by as much as 9.5%.

Flight testing of the 3.5 Modification, funded by the Air Force’s Engine Component Improvement Program, was completed at the 412th Test Wing (a unit of the Air Force Test Center) at Edwards AFB, CA in October 2012. For the test, a single, 3.5 modified T56 engine was installed on a Wyoming Air National Guard C-130H and flown through a wide range of profiles to evaluate engine performance. The final test report was completed in December 2012, and the data looks very promising.

The T56 3.5 Modification will also reduce engine EGT and increase

Ăœ

63 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

MAJCOM/NAF | AMC FUEL EFFICIENCY INITIATIVES engine average time-on-wing. Unlike F108 C-PUP, the 3.5 Modification will increase power output of the T56 engine, so modified engines cannot be intermixed with non-modified engines. The BCA for this initiative estimates $1.97B savings over the remaining lifetime of the C-130H.

KC-10 Engine Coke Cleaning and Variable Stator Vane Track and Trim KC-10 engine coke cleaning and Variable Stator Vane Track and Trim (VSV T&T) was implemented in October 2010. Every two years, the KC-10 goes to a contracted depot facility for a major inspection called a C-Check. During these C-Checks, each CF6-50C2 engine with more than 300 engine cycles will go through a coke cleaning and VSV T&T process. Coke cleaning is a maintenance procedure that sprays a mild abrasive solution containing bituminous coal powder into a running engine to remove aluminum splatter, in addition to silica and dirt buildup from engine high pressure compressor airfoils. Aluminum splatter is caused by the compressor blades rubbing on the aluminum coating material inside the engine casing and silica buildup is caused by the ingestion of sand from desert operations. The track and trim process adjusts the orientation and rotation of the variable stator vanes inside the engine. Together, these two processes improve the mechanical and thermodynamic efficiency of the engine, resulting in reduced fuel consumption and engine EGT. The AF is currently saving approximately 1.2M gallons of aviation fuel per year due to coke cleaning and VSV T&T. The AF expects to see an engine time-on-wing extension of about 400 cycles (equates to approximately 1 year) which reduces engine removals/ overhauls and the associated costs.

Engine Water Washes Like coke cleaning, engine water washes remove dirt and grime buildup from engine high pressure compressor airfoils. Engine water washing

A KC-10 Extender flies over Afghanistan. (USAF photo by SSgt Aaron Allmon)

64 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

is an on-wing (or off-wing) process that sprays atomized water onto the engine to clean compressor airfoil surfaces. Routine cleaning of the compressor airfoils helps maintain optimal efficiency resulting in reduced fuel consumption and increased engine time-on-wing. Commercial airlines implemented engine water washes years ago as a standard, low-cost maintenance practice to reduce fuel costs and increase engine life. Water washes have been performed on the C-17’s F117 engine, during home station checks, since 2007. AMC is now looking to implement water washes on the KC-135R/T and C-5A/B/M fleets. A water wash proof-of-concept was completed in July 2012 on 800 F108, TF39 and F138 engines. Results showed an average fuel consumption improvement of about 0.47%. While this 0.47% improvement doesn’t seem like a lot, it equates to about 1.7M gallons per year in fuel savings.

Proof-of-concept data also showed an average engine EGT reduction of 4.2 degrees Celsius during takeoff and 1.9 degrees Celsius during cruise.

Auxiliary Power Unit Usage Reduction Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) usage reduction is a no cost, policy initiative that was implemented in June 2010. APUs are often used by aircrew and maintenance personnel to complete various checks and procedures of the airframes, but nearly all of these functions can be completed by using Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) instead of the APU. Current policy directs aircrew and maintainers to use AGE to the maximum extent possible consistent with TO guidance and mission requirements.

The current method for collecting APU use data requires crew chiefs to call in every APU run to the Maintenance Operations Center (MOC) and the MOC Controller then enters APU run times into AMC’s Fuel Tracker Database. AMC is closely tracking and reporting the APU use data for the KC-10A, C-17 and C-5A/B/M aircraft. This initiative is saving approximately 250K gallons of fuel per year.

AIRCRAFT WEIGHT REDCUTION EFFICIENCIES C-5 Weight Reduction The second fuel efficiency initiative group is aircraft weight reduction.

C-5 Weight Reduction is an initiative that relies directly on maintainers for implementation.

The current efforts under this initiative include removing the weight and balance computer, water tanks and low pressure pneumatic system, which no longer serve a functional purpose on the aircraft. Removal of these components is being accomplished in the field via Time Com-

BLUMKE

Contractors wash a Charleston AFB C-17 engine with the new environmentally-friendly EcoPower Engine Wash System March 12. The closed-loop system uses atomized water, collects the effluent water and purifies it for recycled use. (USAF photo by SSgt Robert Sizelove)

pliance Technical Order (TCTO) concurrently with other scheduled/ unscheduled maintenance. Removal of these systems is expected to save approximately 70K gallons of fuel per year.

KC-135R/T Zero Fuel Weight Reduction The KC-135R/T Zero Fuel Weight Reduction is a no cost policy initiative. The KC-135 aircraft has received multiple modifications over the last 50 years which have caused the aircraft’s center of gravity (CG) to move aft of 35% Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC) leaving the aircraft in an unstable and tail-heavy condition. In order to maintain aircraft CG forward of the 35% MAC, 3,500 pounds of unusable fuel was carried in the forward body tank. This unusable fuel was included in AMC’s Advanced Computer Flight Plan System as protected fuel, meaning 3,500 pounds of unusable fuel was added to the fuel required to perform the mission. Unfortunately, this method results in a heavier total aircraft weight and higher operating costs. In November 2011, due in a large part to the KC-135 Block 40 modification, the zero fuel weight was reduced by 1,500 pounds, which is expected to save about 1.2M gallons of fuel per year.

Unfortunately, the KC-135R/T is still left with approximately 2,000 pounds of unusable fuel in the forward body fuel tank. AMC is currently investigating the possibility of a low-cost aircraft modification to offset the remaining 2,000 pounds of fuel ballast. If funded, this

modification would add approximately 420 pounds of weight to the aircraft’s station 178 bulkhead to shift aircraft CG forward of the 35% MAC, thus eliminating the need to carry the 2,000 pound fuel ballast.

This would reduce the average KC-135 take-off weight by about 1,580 pounds. The official BCA for this effort is still in work, but if implemented, the modification could save approximately 12M gallons of fuel over the remaining KC-135 lifetime.

The Air Force is executing an enormous effort to change its culture to be more energy conscious. The benefits to our logistics community and our national defense in saving precious resources like fuel and maintenance costs are paramount to support the AF’s comprehensive energy management framework. AMC is always on the lookout for new fuel efficiency ideas from industry, the Science and Technology community and from the maintainer and operator in the field. The AMC Directorate of Logistics is fully committed to doing its part to reduce fuel consumption within the Air Force, and all logisticians should be energized to do the same!

About the author: Major Blumke is an Air Force Reserve officer assigned as the Deputy Chief, Maintenance Systems and Integration Branch, Directorate of Logistics, HQ AMC. K

65 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

MAJCOM/NAF

The Air Mobility Command Fuel Efficiency Office from a Logistics Readiness Officer’s Perspective 66 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

By Lieutenant Colonel Laura Radley and Mr. Randy Finney I left the 22d Air Force Logistics Directorate (A4R) as a traditional reservist almost one year ago to begin long-term active duty orders in Air Mobility Command’s (AMC) Fuel Efficiency Office (FEO). My first day working in the AMC FEO, a Division under the Operations Directorate (A3), I realized I had entered a unique environment where six other officers were aircrew members and the majority of office staff consisted of contractors with varied backgrounds. They quickly taught me the Air Force consumes the most energy in the US federal government.

In FY10, the Air Force spent approximately $8.2 billion to fuel aircraft, fuel ground vehicles and to provide utility services. The Air Force uses approximately 2.5 billion gallons of aviation fuel per year and is the largest consumer of fuel in the federal government. Aviation operations accounted for approximately 84% of the Air Force’s energy consumption and approximately 50% of the DoD’s energy consumption. In the past, aviation fuel seemed an unconstrained resource--but not anymore.

For the Air Force to remain solvent for future years, a culture shift must occur regarding the use of aviation fuel. The FEO developed as a change organization, facilitating several goals enabling a culture shift. Goals of the Air Force are to reduce demand, to increase supply, and to promote a culture change regarding energy. The Air Force Aviation Operations Energy Plan supports the goals through its four pillars: 1.) provide leadership in energy management; 2.) to fly and operate efficiently; 3.) to instill energy awareness; and 4.) to maximize the use of technology for fuel efficiency. The purpose of the FEO centers on energy awareness while providing leadership with energy management information to promote

RADLEY AND FINNEY efficient flying and operating, and maximize the use of technologies.

Three specific objectives tie everyone in the AMC office together.

The first objective is to meet the Secretary of the Air Force’s and AMC Commander’s mandate to reduce the consumption of aviation fuel by 10% in 2015 against a FY06 baseline. The second objective is to meet the Aviation Operations Energy Steering Group’s goal to improve aviation energy efficiency by 10% in 2020 when measured against 2011’s productivity per gallon baseline. Productivity within Transportation Working Capital Fund (TWCF) mission flying is measured by resultant tonmiles (carry more cargo per sortie) and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) sortie flying is measured by effective hours (get more training per flying hour). The third ob- Two M-1 Abrams tanks from Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., are loaded in the cargo area of a C-5M Super Galaxy assigned jective, and arguably most discussed to Dover Air Force Base, Del. (USAF photo by Lt Col Chad E. Gibson) in the office and building, is to meet duty at Arlington, VA, but I needed an AMC Yes and no. In 2010 Headquarters Air Force a Headquarters Air Force (HAF)staff translator to explain the last FEO goal. I removed $842M from the Centralized Asset directed $842M “bogey” over the “FYDP”. thought of “bogey” in the spirit of a classical Management (CAM) Account that Air Force Serving for over 20 years as an active duty dictionary definition: “Military. An unidenti- Material Command manages, under the O&M mobility pilot and reserve logistician I knew fied aircraft or missile, especially one detected as line item: Aviation Fuel. “Bogey” is actually my military acronyms crossing operations, a blip on a radar screen.” So, could the $842M a financial management acronym for Budget maintenance and support. I even spoke a lit- be some type of cost savings/avoidance target Outlay Governing Execution Year (BOGEY ) tle “Pentagonese” from a previous six month in the metaphorical sense over the “FYDP”? and FYDP, means Future Years Defense Plan, in this case for FY12-16. My translation: the Mobility Air Forces (MAF) have to provide required capabilities with less money to pay for fuel so they must fly more efficiently.

With the oversimplified explanation of what had transpired financially at the enterpriselevel, I began to understand the purpose of the FEO through its goals and charter.

While $842M was removed from the aviation fuel account over the FYDP, the message was clear: provide the same combat enabling power supporting the Warfighter while doing it more efficiently!

Aerial port Airmen from the 386th Expeditionary LRS roll a pallet of cargo into a C-17 Globemaster III at an air base in Southwest Asia. The Airmen inspect and palletize all cargo before shipment. They also work closely with aircraft loadmasters to carefully position the cargo inside aircraft. (USAF photo by SrA Laura Turner)

The mission of the FEO is to develop tools, processes, metrics and organizational interfaces that will enable AMC to rapidly

Ü

67 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

MAJCOM/NAF | THE AIR MOBILITY COMMAND FUEL... achieve abilities on par with industry leaders to analyze, propose and lead implementation of aviation fuel conservation improvements (efficiencies) within the command and throughout the MAF, while maximizing operational effectiveness. While $842M was removed from the aviation fuel account over the FYDP, the message was clear: provide the same combat enabling power supporting the Warfighter while doing it more efficiently! Many initiatives dealt with operations, operators and their policies but it impressed me how much of an impact the logistics community (A4); maintenance, aerial port, and fuels Airmen contributed toward achieving FEO goals.

Currently the FEO has implemented more than 20 initiatives with over half contributed by the logistics community.

Currently the FEO has implemented more than 20 initiatives with over half contributed by the logistics community. Maintainers have had a direct impact on the KC-10 coke cleaning/Variable Stator Vane Track and Trim; reduction in Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) usage on the C-17, C-5 and KC-10; the KC-135 fuel ballast reduction which reduces the extra costs to carry more fuel as ballast weight; removing excess equipment off the aircraft for weight reductions; and engine washing on the C-17, KC-135, and C-5A/B/C. Loggies have affected Precision Loading (PL) [formerly known as Next Generation Cargo Capability (NCGG)]; over fuel elimination also known as precise fuel loading; and aft center of gravity loading on the C-5, C-17, KC-10 and KC-135.

As a member of the aerial port community, all aspects of cargo loading for fuel efficiency fascinated me.

The bottom line up front (BLUF) on the cargo loading initiatives: build and load pallets considering aircraft fuel efficiency. PL increased aircraft utilization though building more exact pallets with regard to the specific airframes.

Aerial porters constructed pallets for C-130 aircraft differently than pallets transported on C-17. The focused pallet-building reaped benefits. Initial results saw an 11% increase in pallet utilization and 9.2% increase in aircraft utilization by establishing measurable and attainable cargo weight and volume goals for all airframes and pallet modules. Efficiencies gained led to policy changes, focused on improving aerial port processes including building contoured pallets to maximize the use of newer fuel efficient commercial lift. US Transportation Command’s Joint Distribution

Load planners serve as the first-line of attack in the war on fuel inefficiency.

They provide load plans to aircrew based on optimum aircraft performance taking into account safety of flight and emphasizing the most stable configuration.

A KC-135 Stratotanker aircrew refuels four F-15 Eagles over Afghanistan. (USAF photo by SSgt James L. Harper Jr.)

68 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

RADLEY AND FINNEY Process Analysis Center and the Department of Transportation’s John A. Volpe Center for Transportation validated the program’s methodology. The results were recognized as one of five Chief of Staff of the Air Force Team Excellence Award winners for 2011. As of last year, the expansion of PL to all AMC controlled aerial ports has resulted in the movement of 24,000 more tons of cargo on 418 less commercial 747 aircraft equivalents. Wow! I quickly learned the fantastic, hard-working, ingenious 2T2s had more to give regarding aircraft fuel efficiencies.

Load planners serve as the first-line of attack in the war on fuel inefficiency. They provide load plans to aircrew based on optimum aircraft performance taking into account safety of flight and emphasizing the most stable configuration. A load planner also considers the most efficient upload and down load scenarios affecting a desired aircraft center of gravity toward 38% Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC) for some aircraft. Mr. Steven Spicer, the aerial port data analysis and subject matter expert in the AMC FEO translated that explanation for me: less drag on the airplane helps it to be more fuel efficient. SMSgt Andy Hart from the 53rd Aerial Port Squadron at Pope Field, recently returned from a deployment to Ali Al Salem AB, Kuwait. He elaborated on the intricacies of the various details load planners work while accounting for the planned allowable cabin loads. It is a delicate balance between the cargo bulk versus the weight of the cargo. He explained to me, load planning in the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility was like fitting together the pieces of a puzzle while keeping efficiency as a part of the puzzle picture. I integrated the information from my deployed Airmen with the information from the FEO and talked to an AMC Logistics Transportation Directorate authority, Mr. Randy Finney, to finally understand how all the parts of fuel efficiency fit together regarding our air transportation experts.

The AMC Logistics Directorate, Transportation (A4T), Operations Directorate Standardization and Evaluation (A3V ) and the FEO partnered on a number of tasks to ensure load planners targeted an aft center of gravity, automated the Integrated Computerized Deployment System (ICODES), revised formal guidance, tracked metrics, and released an interim message that provides updated fuel efficiency based on optimum center of gravity targets for all organic (i.e. originated from home station) mission design series and provided examples of potential savings as conditions were met. Ongoing efforts include A4T and AMC

aerial ports working with the new DoD loadplanning tool, ICODES, which includes optimum center of gravity for fuel efficiency. For example, as load planners plan aircraft loads, ICODES displays the current percentage of MAC in relation to the optimum percentage of MAC. The visual display assists the load planner in adjusting the cargo load until they are able to position the cargo as close to the optimum center of gravity as possible for the particular load. A4T partnered with A3V and FEO to publish revised message guidance refining the fuel efficient planning ranges and defining the optimum center of gravity for all AMC organic airframes, including specific examples of the potential fuel savings achievable when a mission is planned for optimum center of gravity. FEO and A4T have developed metrics tracking the MAF success in meeting the most optimized center of gravity for the unique cargo load. The commands and the wings work hand-in-hand to implement and execute processes and operations more efficiently.

Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) saved 6.9M gallons of aviation fuel valued at $21.6M for a total savings of 28.2M gallons of aviation fuel and $88.3M. An on-going discussion between the logistics and operations communities at the command includes refining the data from Fuel Tracker [a hand-inputted computer system to track fuel consumption from an operations perspective-think Global Air Transportation Execution System (GATES) for operators, which currently only regarding fuel consumption data] to account for modifications for optimum center of gravity, information from the Form F, and load plan data. Currently the FEO is discussing manually tracking monthly optimum center of gravity metrics for C-5 and C-17 aircraft. As discussions continue, partnerships solidify where the operations and support communities work together on practices to become more fuel efficient. Data is the key to good metrics which provides analysis tools to decision makers. Whether in the future the aerial port community contributes to Fuel Tracker data or FEO continues to rely on data provided from GATES through the A4T, air transportation workers have provided and will continue to provide great efficiencies assisting with the successful accomplishment of all goals.

By the time you read this article I have worked as a member of the FEO for one year. In that time, FY11, O&M saved 8.4M gallons of aviation fuel valued at $26.3M, the TWCF saved 12.9M gallons of aviation fuel valued at $40.4M, Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) saved 6.9M gallons of aviation fuel valued at $21.6M for a total savings of 28.2M gallons of aviation fuel and $88.3M. We have more work to do, together. The biggest lesson I’ve learned are all of the factors contributing to the savings: education of our aircraft commanders, air transportation Airmen and their leaders; teamwork between the command and the wings, operations, maintenance and aerial port, company grade officer and field grade officers, Airmen and noncommissioned officers, and higher headquarters and its subordinate units and finally initiative and motivation.

Through the ideas and actions of the people loading the planes, flying the plane, and fixing the planes the FEO will meet its goals. Meeting our goals and objectives shows culture change is occurring, preserving the best combat enabling power in the world.

About the Authors Lt Col Laura Radley is assigned as the 53d Aerial Port Squadron Commander, Pope Field NC as a Traditional Reservist while serving as an AMC Fuel Efficiency Officer on military orders. She is a former C-141 SOLL II pilot and American Airlines pilot. Lt Col Radley has worked at Charleston AFB in Wing Plans as a C-17 stage manager and contingency planner. After cross-training as a Logistics Readiness Officer she served as a DO in the 315th Logistics Readiness Squadron and the 38th Aerial Port Squadron, and then as the A4R at 22d Air Force.

Mr. Randy Finney is the Air Cargo Policy Functional Manager for HQ AMC, Air Transportation Division, and has over 30 years of experience in the logistics field. He oversees development and implementation of AMC policies and procedures for the safe movement of cargo. Mr. Finney has won numerous individual awards from Division to HQ AMC level and his Next Generation Cargo Capability program was selected as one of 5 programs to earn the Air Force Chief Of Staff Team Excellence Award 2011. His efforts to move the command’s fuel efficiency program forward earned him the AMC Commanders first ever 2011 AMC Fuel Efficiency Champion Award. K

69 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

COCOM/JOINT/HAF

DLA’s Incident Response Team: The Quick Reaction Team for Wholesale Logistics

By Colonel Seann Cahill and Lieutenant Colonel Kate Ritzel

Command as the standing Defense Support to Civil Authorities Task Force. USNORTHCOM requested a quick response DLA capability The Defense Logistics Agency may often be thought of as a large orgato support Joint Task Force ( JTF) operations. Building upon the initial nization adept at handling wholesale logistics support for the Departcapability development and lessons learned from Operation UNIFIED ment of Defense (DoD) and often not agile enough to respond to imRESPONSE in Haiti, leadership in DLA’s Joint Logistics Operations mediate requests from Combatant Commanders during contingencies.

Center established two global response teams with the capability to The 27,000 dedicated DLA support professupport multiple requests for humanitarian sionals stationed all over the world, often assistance and disaster response missions as DLA designed the IRT program collocated with Combatant Commanders’ needed worldwide. to ensure it stands ready to staffs in theater, work hard to combat that view. Striving every day to fill DLA’s vision support any and all Combatant The teams are made up of at least seven of Warfighter-focused, globally responsive, DLA subject matter experts and leaders, Commanders’ requests at a fiscally responsible supply chain leadership who are operationally aligned with the formoment’s notice. for all organizations in the DoD, they are ward element of the Theater Sustainment constantly improving processes to offer supCommand (TSC). The teams work with port in new and relevant ways. One such improvement is the creation DLA, the TSC, Base Installation Management activities, and vendors to of the Incident Response Team (IRT), a little known capability built to ensure uninterrupted sustainment of DLA commodities to contingenbolster DLA’s contingency response capability for all Warfighters. The cies, humanitarian and disaster response missions. The team’s subject team is DLA’s initial and forward presence in the Joint Operations Area, matter experts are skilled in materiel management, distribution mandeployed to facilitate and expedite the Agency’s support to DoD forces. agement, fuel management, disposal, reutilization, and marketing. They DLA designed the IRT program to ensure it stands ready to support any deploy in support of operations at home and abroad. The IRT serves as and all Combatant Commanders’ requests at a moment’s notice. a focal point for DLA’s efforts supporting DoD logistics. They are the The IRT program began soon after the establishment of US Northern

70 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

agents on the ground collocated with JTF or TSC operations to cor-

CAHILL AND RITZEL

rectly “shape” DLA requirements prior to submission to the agency for acquisition and sustainment actions.

About the authors:

Colonel Seann Cahill is currently the Strategic Initiatives Chief for the DeIRT members attend required semiannual training to stay deployment- fense Logistics Agency (DLA). His responsibilities include leading the inteready. An IRT team can be mobilized within 24 to 48 hours depending gration of policy and operations for the Department of Defense across the five on the location of an event and availability of movement assets. For supply chains for which DLA has been designated as the Executive Agent by the Secretary of Defense. He has had multiple the quickest and most efficient worldwide tours from Wing to Agency level both overseas On call 24/7 to face any response, an IRT team typically will depart and in CONUS to include commands of logisfrom a US location. However, if a JTF Comcontingency requirements, mander, DLA Regional Commander, and DLA’s IRT is a timely, responsive tics readiness squadrons and Special Operations units. the DLA command structure authorize the and flexible capability, ready to deviation, a team has the ability to gather in deploy anywhere in the world Lt Col Kate Ritzel is Chief of Mission Supan overseas location for expedited clearance. the nation’s warfighters need port Branch, Joint Logistics Operations CenDLA’s IRT is designed for response up to ter ( JLOC), Headquarters Defense Logistics logistics support.

90-days which gives DLA headquarters and Agency (DLA), Ft. Belvoir, Va. Lt Col Ritzel DLA regional commanders time to field oversees training, equipping, and mobilization of DLA personnel deploying more robust support capability for the JTF Commander if needed. On in support of Combatant Commander operational requirements. Prior to ascall 24/7 to face any contingency requirements, DLA’s IRT is a timely, suming her current position, Lt Col Ritzel served as a DLA JLOC Current responsive and flexible capability, ready to deploy anywhere in the world Operations Battle Captain. Lt Col Ritzel has served in a variety of joint and the nation’s warfighters need logistics support. special duty assignments throughout her career. K

DLA IRT team. (Photo courtesy of Col Cahill)

71 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

VOICES | AFSO CROSSTALK

AFSO CrossTalk We CANN Rebuild Faster The 62nd Aircraft Maintenance Unit at Luke AFB had consistently busted the scheduled 5-days for a CANN rebuild of an aircraft for the past 6 months. After reviewing the process, it became immediately clear that there was little or no communication between the shifts and shops involved in the rebuild process. This lack of communication caused each shift to spend countless hours reviewing the forms to see what was going on with an aircraft before each task and before any maintenance could be performed.

Once the team mapped out the process on the wall it was immediately clear to them the reasons why the CANN aircraft took so long to rebuild: there was no standard process for conducting turnover of maintenance actions. They also noticed, since every CANN rebuild is not the same, they would need to create an agenda for the rebuild to reduce downtime while waiting on other shops. The team created an agenda, a checklist, a training session, revised the conCold Lake, Canada was the site of Maple Flag 42, an internaional air combat exercise where tinuity book, and 6S’d the workspace as solutions to their air crews from many countries participated. An F-16 Fighting Falcon from Luke AFB maneuproblems. With these solutions in place, they were able to vers during the exercise June 4. (Photo courtesy of Neil Pearson, www.imageaviation.com) reduce the 96-hour rebuild time to 61 hours, the distance travelled from 12 miles to 5 miles, and weekend duty should become an outlier, rather than the norm, as it had been.

For more information please contact Lt Cahn Wadhams, cahn.wadhams@luke.af.mil.

Better Inspections = Happier Customers The Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) flight at Luke AFB recently conducted an AFSO21 process improvement event which focused on its outdated, “traditional” way of performing inspections. Before the event, all equipment inspections were performed on a weekly schedule, all scheduled equipment was brought in on Monday and inspections were performed at a one-to-one, Airman to equipment ratio.

Most equipment was inspected and returned to the flightline for use by COB Thursday, or in some cases, mid-day on Friday.

The team took a detailed look at their current state using a spaghetti diagram and visual state map tools, which culminated in the reorganization of their entire process. After receiving training in LEAN and 6S concepts, the flight constructed a new inspection process built on a foundation of standard work and cell design. Given the new process, and through good use of 6S principles, the AGE flight has witnessed 60% flow time reduction, 35% less work in progress, better training, and an irrefutable heightened sense of morale. This means a much more reliable product in a shorter Senior Airman Samuel McConnell, 56th Equipment Maintenance Squadron Aerospace amount of time, and a more pleasant AGE delivery driver Ground Equipment journeyman, washes a B-4 maintenance stand at Luke Air Force Base to the customer.

March 30. (USAF photo by SrA Darlene Seltmann) For more information, please contact TSgt Michael A. Beach at Michael.Beach.2@luke.af.mil K

72 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

BOOK REVIEW

LOA’s Reader’s Choice Leadership Is an Art

by Max DePree Reviewed by Captain Keith Meyer Welcome to the world of leadership! Whether you have been a leader for a day or a lifetime, it can be an amazing challenge with a roller coaster of highs and lows. One of the wonderful things about being a leader is there are so many different ways to do it, and no singular way is considered the “right way” to lead. Most experts would agree good leaders are flexible; they can evolve over time and can change their particular style based on the situation or scenario that faces them. Someone once told me, “People tend to inherit the traits and characteristics of the three or four people that they spend the most time around.” Think about that for a moment….with whom do you spend the most time? Do you share the same characteristics with them? Is this a person I would like to try to emulate?

In his book Leadership Is an Art, author Max DePree discusses in detail the quality leadership traits he witnessed and experienced during his 40-plus year career as the CEO of the Herman Miller Furniture Company. His writing style is very free flowing and is written to give the reader the ability to simply open the book up to any page and begin reading. It is filled with small anecdotes regarding his ascension to the top of a Fortune 500 company, and Mr. DePree spends a significant amount of time focusing on the values of followership, developing and “liberating other people’s gifts”. His quote, “The signs of outstanding leadership appear primarily among the followers,” is a great summation of the fact that he credits mostly others for his great successes in the business world.

Mr. DePree suggests that a common trait among great leaders is they are all good at empowering their people in some form or another.

This might be something as simple as saying “thank you” to someone as you pass them in the office hallway or asking them to be involved in the dayto-day decision making of the organization. Participative management is one of the main ideas on which he bases most of his philosophies. This is a theory in which leaders and managers spend a large amount of their time and efforts keeping their subordinates informed about the decisions being made in the company. The idea behind this management style is to build the team concept and to keep all members of the organization informed as to the direction that the company as a whole is headed. This builds ownership within the organization and lets team members at all levels know that they are valued assets of the organization. This philosophy enables leaders to obtain buy-in at all levels and gives team members the opportunity to freely express their opinions and ideas they have about the future of the organization.

As a very successful businessman and leader, Max DePree heavily stresses taking care of your people throughout the book. He believes building a successful team by enabling the free exchange of information and opinions is a core function of leadership. He has proven over his 40-year career that following those competencies is critical to building long term health and success in an organization. By taking his advice, surrounding yourself with quality team members, and building “owners” in your organization, you can ensure the long term welfare of your unit and your success as a leader.

About the author: Captain Keith Meyer received his commission via ROTC through the University of Minnesota in 2006. He is a munitions officer that has served in both the conventional and nuclear communities and has been deployed to both the PACOM and CENTCOM areas of responsibility. Currently he is the Special Weapons Maintenance Flight Commander, 898th Munitions Squadron, Kirtland AFB, NM. K

73 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

VOICES ­

Logistics is Universal

By Captain Paul Hrad Pass me another BH50! In case you hadn’t heard, that’s what they call the beer-like substance within the plant before it gets labeled Budweiser.

The Golden Gate LOA Chapter took advantage of a great logistical opportunity in the backyard of Travis AFB—a factory tour at the Anheuser Busch Brewery in Fairfield, CA (corporate name: AB InBev).

Our chapter, comprised of the 60th Maintenance Group and the 60th Mission Support Group, met with the plant operations manager, general manager, industrial engineer, brew master, operators, and Quality Assurance to find that each seemingly diverse section has something in common with operations of the “King of Beers”.

What does beer have to do with the operations at Travis AFB, let alone logistics? Each industry uses complex logistics processes for supply chain management, quality assurance, and communication. In the end, logistical requirements are very similar, despite the dissimilar goals of either making a profit or keeping Airmen and aircraft mission-ready.

Brewing beer is an art form, but AB InBev has it down to a science! The processes used to make and bottle beverages require a sustained supply of high quality ingredients, energy to power production, a plant to produce the product, a distribution network, and knowledgeable personnel to manage each process. The Fairfield AB InBev plant contracts with farmers for a guaranteed supply of grains to ensure availability each season. With time they have come to realize that 74 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

Travis AFB KC-10s. (USAF photo by Lt Col Robert Couse-Baker)

the track record and confidence of a quality supply are just as important, or more so, than cost alone.

Due to the variability between yields from year to year, sampling (and even tasting at multiple stages during production) is required to guarantee consistency. It’s safe to say that tasting is one of the many favorable responsibilities of their employees! AB InBev uses an assembly line to fill cans and press the lids, preserving freshness under inconsistent environmental conditions to guarantee the 120day product shelf life. Each piece of manufacturing equipment requires specialized preventative maintenance and repair.

Although arguably more complicated, Airmen also require a supply chain. Personnel are recruited to perform the mission. The “environmental variations” affecting a person’s “shelf life” will always require further investment in the forms of education, training and career growth.

Aircraft sustainment comparably requires an unending search for new suppliers of spare parts. Each part has to get to the right aircraft at the right time in the right condition, requiring steadfast communication and cooperation between the logistics and maintenance processes. In-transit visibility and forecasting can be challenging due to unscheduled maintenance. Ultimately, a missionready aircraft is our “product,” and the number of ready aircraft, or the duration in which we have these aircraft ready is our “profit.” When it is time to depart on a mission, the mobility process generates quality Airmen and equipment in an assembly line

HRAD fashion. Time-Phased Force Deployment Data (TPFDD) “purchase orders” create the requisitions, which are then filled by the tasked unit to produce Airmen and cargo. Managed by the Installation Deployment Officer, the Cargo and Personnel Deployment Functions provide the same Quality Assurance, ensuring personnel training is current, and cargo is prepared, labeled, and ready for airlift ensures expeditious movement within the Defense Transportation System.

How does AB InBev ensure a quality product? Though beer making is a craft, with certain batches as remarkable as some of the finest cathedrals of Western Europe, standardization is critical to running a successful plant. Variations at every stage must be noted and accounted for in order to ensure a Bud Light enjoyed in San Francisco on Memorial Day has the same taste as one pulled from a New York fridge on New Year’s Eve. To do this, automated or semi-automated quality tests are performed on temperature, acidity, color, and a myriad of chemical properties. Like the proud brew master who boasted that he tastes the product at several points over the brew cycle, our fuels specialists test our jet fuel at multiple stages of delivery to aircraft. A less enjoyable process, no doubt!

In the same way, many of our tools require calibration by our precision measurement equipment laboratory. Whether the item is beer, fuel, or tools, successful logistics depends on limiting the variation.

ity, hazardous waste management, and solid waste recycling. Every unit, not only logistics, is charged with 100% compliance with all applicable environmental regulations throughout our worldwide mission. Logisticians in particular deal with spill prevention, recovery plans, hazardous material handling/distribution, and initiatives to better conserve all our natural resources to include energy.

In all industries, change is constant. Anheuser Busch recently merged with InBev, allowing the team to take the best of both companies and come out stronger. In the end, both quality and efficiency increased.

The Air Force regularly benchmarks with the industry to assure the best outcome for the taxpayer. Whether advancements come from Lean initiatives or process streamlining, continual improvement makes us better every day. The Golden Gate LOA visit to AB InBev was a resounding success and further improved relations between the base and the community. We found much commonality between our logistical operations.

Through the sharing of ideas and networking of partners, we will continue to look for collaborative opportunities in the future.

About the Author: Capt Paul Hrad is the Aircraft Maintenance Unit Officer at the 60 AMXS, Travis AFB, CA. He is currently enjoying an Acquisitions and Logistics Experience Exchange Tour. K

One way to limit variation and control processes is to centralize control. AB InBev has a center run by only two individuals handling the flow of all processes, and reporting critical production variables in real time. In all, information and data tracking on production and distribution is the job of fifteen separate, proprietary software tools. With 24/7 operations at the plant and flightline, communication between shifts is key. Data and metrics are reported across the company, tracking efficiency and discrete problems. Local information flows to a centrally managed system at the St. Louis hub, enabling managers to speak a common language. Much like an Operational Readiness Inspection in the Air Force, visitors from higher headquarters visit the factory periodically to ensure everything is running properly. Both AB InBev and the Air Force know that top quality production results only by actively integrating quality functions and personnel safety protections at every level.

Travis AFB C-17s. (USAF photo by SrA David Carbajal) A notable contrast between this AB InBev plant and aircraft maintenance operations is automation. In many respects producing a new product with new materials is far more streamlined than repairing and generating old aircraft. We “automate” processes by defining procedures in Technical Orders, but still require many people to do the work. Because of this, aircraft maintenance, cargo loading, supply requisitioning, and deployment processing requires far more people. Even where automation is not possible, energy savings and efficiency increase productivity. AB InBev has taken steps that not only allow them to beef up the bottom line, but also reduce its impact on the community.

They load trucks and rail cars for maximum utilization. Energy savings come in the form of a local wind turbine, solar panels, water recycling and treatment, and recapturing methane. Not to be outdone, energy savings/efficiency is one of the hallmarks of the Air Force’s Environmental Management System (EMS).

At Travis, we have created environmental action plans to address natural resources, drinking water availabil- Golden Gate LOA members standing among rows of massive ageing casks. (Photo Mr. Chris Picket)

75 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

VOICES | CHAPTER CROSSTALK

Chapter CrossTalk Bagram LOA Chapter Submitted by Maj Clarence “Mack” McRae At Bagram Air Base, the mission is very diverse and subsequently almost every facet of the logistics chain is represented. This unique mixture provides our chapter with many opportunities to experience true joint logistics in action. Last December, the Chapter jumped on the opportunity to tour the AC-130 logistics and maintenance complex. This tour provided members the chance to witness the daily operations for this low density, high-demand asset. During the tour, we received an on-aircraft familiarization tour which covered the unique challenges associated with the care and feeding of this weapons platform, and the targeting and weapons capabilities this aircraft brings to the fight.

To kick off the New Year, we were able to further enhance our knowledge of joint logistics by touring the U.S Army’s Class I operations. This interesting tour provided members a behind-the-scenes look at what it takes to feed nearly 35 thousand residents at Bagram. These professionals showcased the processes and painstaking measures to ensure accountability and quality of Class I items they receive from around the globe. This operation was truly astonishing considering our location and the transportation requirement associated with tracking, receiving, and storing food and drink items. We look forward to our next joint logistics tour to further enhance our knowledge in current and future joint endeavors.

Crossroads Chapter – Tinker AFB, OK Submitted by Captain Christopher Clark The Crossroads Chapter closed out the final quarter of 2012 on a high note. In early November, our Chapter, along with the Air Force Association hosted our Second Annual Senior Statesman Panel centered on “Leading through Uncertainty” to an audience of over 100 logistics professionals both military and civilian. The panel included Lt Gen (Ret) Don Wetekam, Mr. John Over, Col Gregory Guillot, and Chief Master Sergeant Kevin Vegas. The panel was moderated by Brigadier General (Ret) Ben Robinson and Closing Remarks were provided by Lt Gen Bruce Litchfield, Commander, Air Force Sustainment Center. In mid-November, the Chapter attended a Veteran’s Day Ceremony at the Oklahoma City Veterans Association Hospital visiting and building relationships with many Veterans upon the conclusion of the ceremony. In early December, the Chapter hosted a tour of the 552 Maintenance Group (MXG). Crossroads members were Members of Team Tinker enjoy lunch as Mr. Montoya provides a briefing on civilian profesexposed to the unique and diverse mission of the 552 Air sional development.

Control Wing as well as some processes and initiatives the 552 MXG is utilizing to maximize efficiencies.

The 2013 lineup looks to be another exciting year. We kicked off this year with a civilian professional development luncheon with guest speaker Mr. Gilbert Montoya, Director of Logistics, Air Force Sustainment Center. February’s meeting will feature Brigadier General Donald Kirkland, Commander, Oklahoma City Air Logistic Complex. The Chapter has been working hard to build successful logisticians within Team Tinker as well as positively impact the surrounding community. This will be a great 2013 for the Crossroads!!

Desert Eagle Chapter – Al Udeid AB, Undisclosed location SW Asia Submitted by Capt Randy Turner The members of the Desert Eagle Chapter finished another quarter where supporting the Air Tasking Order (ATO) was every member’s first priority; however, professional development wasn’t far behind. Members were given ample opportunity to get involved as three different tours were offered.

Mobility is a key component of logistics and as LROs embedded with the 1st Expeditionary Civil Engineering Group (ECEG) taught us during the first tour; it is essential to the RED HORSE/PRIME BEEF mission. The tailored structure of the 1st ECEG operations includes specialists from various AFSCs all working together to move teams of engineers in and out of the AOR. Both as large rotations and small dynamic teams tasked with a specific mission. Whenever a movement is needed, the LROs attached to the unit coordinate all movement aspects ensuring personnel, equipment, and 76 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

VOICES | CHAPTER CROSSTALK materiel reach their destination as scheduled.

The folks working for the Silent Sentry program hosted the chapter for the second tour. Silent Sentry offers a very unique capability to the AOR by providing key Intel feeds; and as our members learned, very critical information to support the ATO. The last tour included a site visit of base defense assets and a hands-on tour led by some of our joint forces partners.

In addition to the three tours offered for Desert Eagle logisticians visiting the Silent Sentry Facility in an undisclosed location in Southwest Asia. the quarter, six officer academic sessions were held. Topics ranged from, the supply system, career broadening and even included a question and answer panel with Operations Squadron Commanders from the 379 AEW. Areas discussed by the Squadron Commanders were; what do you expect from your Operations Officers, what in your mind makes a good maintenance officer and what kind of mentorship can you offer from an aviator’s perspective to a mission support officer?

As another quarter approaches the chapter figures to be very busy offering more tours, guest Members of the Desert Lightning Chapter tour Target’s Tucson Distribution Center. speakers and of course more officer academics.

Desert Lightning Chapter – Davis-Monthan (D-M) AFB, Arizona Submitted by Maj Allen Husted Greetings from the Desert Lightning Chapter! The chapter recently visited Target.com’s distribution center where Target’s Col (ret) Dave Carrell, Senior Group Leader – Inbound, delivered a detailed brief and a behind the scenes tour of their Tucson Distribution Center. The tour highlighted Target’s history and e-commerce expansion with an in depth look into their day-to-day supply chain warehouse operations.

Mr. Carrell also spoke to their recent successes in launching their Mount Everest platform that effectively ended the partnership with Amazon.com while detailing future expansion plans in Canada where they just purchased 220 Zellers stores. Further, we recently hosted Major General H. Brent Baker Sr, Commander, Ogden Air Logistics Complex, Hill Air Force Base, Utah. Maj Gen Baker provided senior logistics leader feedback from the 2012 National LOA Symposium and spoke what’s on the horizon for improving current and future initiatives to expand our logistics capabilities for humanitarian operations in the joint environment so we better meet our warfighters needs.

Ü 77 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

VOICES | CHAPTER CROSSTALK Additionally, the chapter recently partnered with DM’s Civil Engineers where they met with representatives from Rosemont Copper Mines. The meeting was held at the Radisson Suites in Tucson where company representatives briefed mining logistics and engineering plans for importing and exporting materials, how mines operate, and the expected mining lifecycle for Rosemont Copper Mines. Last but not least, on 15 Feb, our chapter has been invited out to see the Port of Tucson and their intermodal facility/op- Members of the Desert Lightning Chapter with guest speaker Maj Gen H. Brent Baker Sr. erations, which includes a locomotive ride on their newly completed Phase 2 expansion line.

The port is located on Union Pacific Railroad’s Southern Corridor Main Line (Sunset Route) and it offers a full service intermodal facility that consists of approximately 700 acres with about 30K ft of working rail track, 1.6+ million sq ft of industrial freezer, cold storage, manufacturing and distribution buildings along with zoning approved for an additional 5M sq ft for expansion.

Right: On 15 Feb, members of the Desert Lightning Chapter will tour the Port of Tucson.

EMERALD COAST CHAPTER – EGLIN AFB, FL Submitted by Maj Jose L. Lasso The Emerald Coast Chapter teamed up with members of the Middle Georgia and Air Commando chapters, paying a visit to Marietta’s Lockheed Martin site. Logisticians were provided the C-5 program overview with an update on efforts being taken to modernize the aging fleet. Amongst various upgrades C-5B’s are receiving, the two biggest include: the Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP) and Avionics Modernization Program (AMP). RERP’s biggest improvement is the addition of modern F138-GE-100 jet engines, derived from General Electric’s CF680C2s that power many commercial Boeing 747s, 767s, Airbus 300 and 78 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

VOICES | CHAPTER CROSSTALK 310s, and other aircraft. The upgrade intent is to increase the C-5’s mission capability rate from the present level of 55-60% to better than 74%.

AMP will allow aircraft to comply with reduced vertical separation mandates, and also provides an architecture flexible enough to meet future communications, navigation, surveillance (CNS) and air traffic management (ATM) requirements. AMP is charged with reducing the number of devices and wires in the planes, to decrease costs and improve reliability. As we saw firsthand, more than 12,000 wires are removed, and 4,000 are installed, during a C-5 AMP upgrade—all looked like spaghetti, no small feat! In discussing these initiatives with Lockheed Martin, RERP and AMP upgrades will reduce the Air Force’s total ownership cost fleet-wide by 34% over the C-5M’s remaining life span. We learned that at the conclusion of the modernization plan, currently scheduled for 2016-17, the C-5A will be retired and 95 C-5Bs will become the C-5M. Though, three chapters represented various MDS experience levels, the C-5 tour allowed members to learn how a leading aircraft manufacture conducts business—a great experience we were all able to take back and in some cases, apply such maintenance methods within our own logistics communities. Next on the Emerald Coast agenda is a tour of the Navy Blue Angels maintenance facility!

Golden Gate Chapter - Travis AFB, CA Submitted by Lt Daniel Finney A focus on logistics basics continues to drive Golden Gate LOA as Travis gears up for the upcoming LCAP inspection. To this end, the Chapter created an “Equipment Management 101” class to build a foundational base for many who have never managed such a significant element. The importance of this information was soon brought to life as Travis’ personnel quickly stepped in for Hurricane Sandy relief. The quick response and expert application of the right equipment, at the right time, in the right condition, highlighted the critical nature of logistic preparedness.

Golden Gate LOA then took advantage of a great opportunity to tour the local Anheuser Busch brewery. Through crosstalk with the plant operation manager, industrial engineer, and brew master, we found a surprising correlation between operations on our flightline and their production line which enhanced our understanding and application of local and global logistics.

Members of the Travis AFB LOA Golden Gate Chapter tour the Budweiser production facility discussing application of global logistics.

Next, the Chapter will coordinate a Fuels tour. To provide insight on the fuel purchase and delivery process, we are partnering with our fuel supplier, Kinder Morgan, to trace the fuel route from source through distribution to delivery at the aircraft.

Lt General Leo Marquez Chapter – Kirtland Air Force Base, NM Submitted by Capt Brian Struyk On September 20, 2012 the chapter was privileged to take part in a ceremony renaming Kirtland AFB’s Bicentennial Park to “Marquez Park” honoring the legacy of retired Lt General Marquez. Lt Gen Marquez was known as the “Godfather of Maintenance” and was credited with shaping maintenance and logistics processes throughout the Air Force during his career. The chapter is honored to not only bear his name, but to be a part of cementing his legacy here at Kirtland AFB and throughout the Air Force.

During the ceremony, Lt Gen Marquez’s daughter, Patricia Knighten, said, “I know my Dad is looking down on this today and is proud and honored.”

The Lt General Leo Marquez Chapter was able to send eight chapter members to the national symposium. Of those members, the chapter was fortunate to have two 2012 national scholarship winners, MSgt Bruce Mimms and Amelia Fasting. MSgt Mimms and Amelia Fasting (daughter of chapter member Capt Claus Fasting) were recognized during the 2012 LOA symposium with a scholarship award. Additionally, the chapter’s previous president, Major Andrew Hackleman, was awarded the LOA Maj Gen Saunders Chapter Distinguished Service Award for his local and national contributions. Congratulations to all of them!

Ü

79 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

VOICES | CHAPTER CROSSTALK Local chapter events prior to the New Year included two senior leader mentoring sessions. In the first mentoring session, Col Wes Norris (AFSOC/A4) and Col Robert Miglionico (incoming AFSOC/A4M) met with the chapter to discuss key issues raised during the 21A/M developmental team meeting earlier in the year. The second mentoring session was with Col Joel Hanson (Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center Vice Commander). The chapter greatly appreciates the time these senior leaders spent with the chapter.

This January, chapter members were able to tour the Defense Threat Reduction Agency Nuclear Weapons Design Museum located on Kirtland Air Force Base. The museum displays the history of the nuclear weapons program from its infancy to its current state. Mr. Van Huss, our tour guide, gave the chapter a phenomenal tour.

In 2013, the chapter will tour areas of Kirtland Air Force base and local Albuquerque businesses Family members of Lt. Gen. Leo Marquez unveil a memorial plaque during a ceremony on Sept. 17 at that deal with logistics. Additionally, the chapter Kirtland AFB renaming Bicentennial Park as “Marquez Park. looks forward to making monetary contributions to both local and national scholarship funds.

MacDill Lightning Chapter- MacDill AFB, FL

By Lt Elizabeth Scarberry Somewhere between avoiding Tropical Storm Debbi and Hurricane Isaac, the Lightning Chapter has been able to enjoy a very exciting year with local activities to broaden professional development and officer growth across the services! While military and other agencies come under very close scrutiny with the expenditure of taxpayer funds, the Lightning Chapter planned well in advance to ensure a small cadre could benefit from the LOA Symposium. With a Mini-Symposium in the works upon the return of our conference-goers, we’re going to be able to broaden our demographics of joint logisticians across the spectrum of conflict.

Three of our female logisticians had the pleasure of attending a mentorship dinner with Col Kellie Davila-Martinez, Director of Logistics at the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, Kirtland AFB, NM. She is currently deployed to the CDDOC in Kuwait. This event allowed the ladies to sit down in an informal setting and ask questions about leadership and being a female in the military. One of the major lessons learned was how the decisions you make now can impact what happens to you later in your career. We have three other sessions scheduled in our Women in the Military mentoring series: Focus on an LRO. Lt Col Michelle Adams, CENTCOM/J4, Col Jeanne Hardrath 37th TRG/CC, Lackland AFB, and Col CJ Bausano, 47th Garrison Commander, Shindand, Afghanistan.

In the coming months, we’re planning Joint Crosstalks with our counterparts at HQUSSOCOM, CENTCOM, and SOCCENT to learn more about what a logistician does in the other services. Between learning about Fuels in the CENTCOM AOR, what a Battle Captain does, and taking a tour of the Port of Tampa, we’re bound to be busy!

Second Lt. Elizabeth Scarberry, 6th Logistics Readiness Squadron plans and integration officer in charge, embraces a World War II veteran upon arrival with the seventh Honor Flight West Central Florida at the St. Petersburg Clearwater International Airport, Fla., Sept. 18, 2012. Seventy-seven WWII veterans were flown to Washington D.C. to tour the WWII memorial. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Angela Ruiz)

80 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

VOICES | CHAPTER CROSSTALK

Middle Georgia Robins Chapter- Robins AFB, GA Submitted by Capt Sean Bojanowski and Capt Redahlia Person The NFL was not the only organization with a season kick-off in September.

The Robins Chapter kicked off the 2012 LOA year with a presentation from our new Warner Robins Air Logistics Complex Commander, Brig Gen Cedric George. Gen George discussed who, why and how LOA relates to the Air Logistics Complex. During our kickoff Mrs. Sheryl Cavazos received the Chapter Distinguished Service Award and is competing at the National level. Contributions from the Aerospace Industry Committee, Battelle, Boeing and Lockheed Martin assisted our Chapter in awarding two scholarships to Mrs. Lindsey Tribble (AF Life Cycle Mgt Center) and SrA Stevie Wakes (402 EMXG). SrA Wakes also earned a LOA National Scholarship and an all-expense paid trip to the LOA Symposium in Washington DC. In addition, Robins Chapter hosted a down-home southern BBQ luncheon with the Air Force Sustainment Center Commander, Lt Gen Bruce Litchfield. Lt Gen Litchfield briefed the AFSC Leadership Model and answered questions from many members.

Robins invited Chapters from Eglin AFB and Hurlburt Field to team -up for a tour of Lockheed Martin in Marietta, Georgia. The chapters enjoyed an in-depth look of the C-130J and C-5M production lines. Back at Robins Air Force Base, the Chapters received mission briefs and visits to DLA, PDM production areas and the Special Operations Forces System Program Office. The Robins Chapter held a Mini-LOA Symposium at the Museum of Middle Georgia Robins Chapter President Capt Sean Bojanowski preAviation. Topics included information and lessons learned from the National senting SrA Stevie Wakes (402 EMXG) the $750 LOA Scholarship Check.

Symposium. If you are in the neighborhood & want to attend, please give us a shout because…

Things are definitely KICKING OFF here at Robins!!!

National Capital Region Chapter – The Pentagon, Washington, DC Submitted by Maj Kellie Courtland Greetings from the National Capital Region LOA Chapter.

Recent chapter highlights include a visit from Brig Gen Levy, AMC/A4. Brig Gen Levy addressed LOA members during a luncheon at the Pentagon on 7 December 2012.

Brig Gen Levy shared his unique experiences from Hurricane Sandy and gave members an appreciation of the logistical effort involved in natural disaster response. He also highlighted the importance

Ü LOA Chapter members of Robins, Eglin and Hurlburt Field on the C-130J Production line at Lockheed Martin in Marietta, Georgia.

81 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

VOICES | CHAPTER CROSSTALK of understanding doctrine and mission preparedness. He emphasized to members the importance of seizing opportunities outside of functional comfort zones and pointed out how vital it is for Logisticians to know how to interact with NGOs, FEMA and other DoD agencies. Our members benefited greatly from the perspective and mentorship provided by Gen Levy.

It has also been a very exciting Holiday Season for chapter members. We participated in two community events including the Wreath Laying Ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery and the Winter Wonderland for underprivileged children.

On 15 December, 30 of our chapter members joined with 20,000 volunteers from across America to lay 110,000 wreaths at Arlington National Cemetery.

This was a humbling experience for chapter members and their families as we paid tribute to our fallen comrades.

Above: Brig Gen Lee Levy address the National Capital Region Chapter on 7 December 2012.

Left: NCR Chapter LOA members & their families, Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, VA. Below: NCR Chapter LOA members working at the Winter Wonderland, Alexandria, VA.

Also, on 19 December, 22 of our chapter members participated in the Winter Wonderland at Charles Houston Recreation Center in Old Town, Alexandria, VA. LOA members served as Santa’s Helpers & Elfs to provide a memorable Holiday experience for the children. More than 1,700 underprivileged children from across the National Capitol Region received snacks and toys at the Winter Wonderland.

82 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

VOICES | CHAPTER CROSSTALK

Raptor Chapter – Tyndall AFB, FL Submitted by 2d Lt Preston Smith On Jan 24th Major General Mark Atkinson the ACC/ A4 Director of Logistics visited the 325th Maintenance Group here at Tyndall AFB. As part of his visit he sat down with members of the Raptor Chapter for a Q&A. He addressed topics such as fiscal constraints, changes to AMMOS and the role of CGOs. He spoke about how as maintenance and logistics officers we are in an industrial business. This is not a behind the desk type of job; we need to be out and about.

One of his main points was the need for officers to be involved and able to do more than just talk the talk. He challenged all of us to not just observe what is going on, but to get involved and ask questions. Maj Gen Atkinson concluded saying, “This business we’re in is a leadership business and the Maj Gen Mark Atkinson, ACC/A4 Director of Logistics, meets with members of the Raptor Chapter on 24 Jan. young people [we supervise] deserve great leadership”.

Wolfpack Chapter – Kunsan AB, ROK Submitted by Capt Duane Denney The Wolfpack Chapter at Kunsan AB, Republic of Korea is excited about the reinvigoration of the chapter and the plans for upcoming activities. To account for the annual turnover of personnel, the chapter has recently installed an entirely new executive council and is looking forward to a busy year.

The first of these successful events was the recent luncheon featuring Mr. George Swinehart, Deputy Director of the 735th Supply Chain Operations Group, as the guest lecturer. Mr. Swinehart was able to share his in-depth knowledge of the Air Force supply chain, providing valuable insight into the application of the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model and the roles and responsibilities of the organization that fulfill those functions within the Air Force supply chain. Additionally, Mr. Swinehart was able to expound upon the recent AFMC restructuring initiative and how it will positively impact the ability of Kunsan AB logisticians to posture the Wolfpack to be able to “Take the Fight North” when called upon to do so. K

83 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013

VOICES | milestones

Milestones Col (ret) Michael Pelletier writes:

Lt Col Anthony Mims writes:

Retired in the Robins AFB area after 27 years. Tremendously enjoyed the people I met and worked with and the places I visited while on active duty. I’m now working for a small engineering company outside the gate of the WR-ALC developing solutions to aircraft maintenance challenges. Life as a retired military member is just as good as it was in the Air Force.

After two awesome years in the Pacific Northwest, we are now at Ellsworth AFB. I am currently the commander of the 28 LRS, and having a blast.

Col (ret) Richard Schwing writes: I retired from Active Duty in July 2012 after 26 years. Now I am a Civilian working for Defense Logistics Agency at Tinker AFB. If you are out in Sooner Land please drop me a line!

Maj (ret) Vaughan Whited writes: In November 2012, I accepted a new position with Rhinestahl Corporation in Mason, Ohio as their Regional Customer Manager for US Military accounts. Rhinestahl CTS is the DoD approved OEM supplier for all ground support equipment and tooling for all GE Aviation engines bith Military and commercial. I look forward to continuing the valuable LOA relationships that I experienced as an active duty Maintenance Officer.

Col John Mateer IV writes: The two boys and I moved from 53d Weapons Evaluation Group, Tyndall AFB, FL, to 305th Maintenance Group, McGuire AFB, NJ. Getting a chance to command the great MXG team here! Much nicer than Tikrit, Iraq, I assure you.

Lt Col Eric Jackson writes: Just finished two glorious years leading the mighty 365 TRS. Training the next generation of avionics maintainers to take their place in the pavilion of greatness. Now it’s back to Air Force Space Command where I’ll continue to strive to bring maintenance normalization and rigor to space, and now cyberspace, maintenance. K

In Memoriam Colonel (ret) Steven T. Powers May 26, 1940 – February 27, 2013 USAF Col. (Ret.) Steven T. Powers, age 72 of Madeira Beach, FL and Fairborn, OH, lost his final battle with lung and brain cancer due to Agent Orange exposure on Wednesday February 27, 2013. He was born May 26, 1940, the son of the late Edward and Eulalah (Wise) Powers. Steven was raised in Indianapolis, IN and graduated from Ben Davis High School; he also attended the General Motors Institute in Michigan. Steven enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in 1961 and that turned out to be the love of his life.

He was stationed all over the world and achieved the rank of Colonel in his 26 years of service. During that time he earned the Legion of Merit Award, Meritorious Service Medal with one oak leaf cluster, AF Commendation Medal, AF Outstanding Unit Award with one oak leaf cluster, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with three service stars, Distinguished Presidential Unit Citation, AF Good Conduct Medal, AF Short Tour and Long Tour Ribbon with two oak leaf clusters, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross. Steven was also a lifetime member of the Air Force Association, American Legion, and the DAV of Clark County. Immediately following his retirement from the Air Force in 1987, he was employed with SOFTECH, then General Dynamics and I-NET. With all of his experience he formed his own company, Kelley’s Logistics Support Systems (KLSS) with his wife Anita Kelley-Powers, as CEO. This company was his “dream come true” accomplishment. Steven is survived by his wife, Anita Kelley-Powers; his son, Steven L. Powers, wife Challen, grandsons, Kasey, Brady, and Bennett Powers of Indianapolis, IN; his daughter, Teri A. Borton, husband Nicholas, granddaughters, Austin and Kyly, grandson, Tylor Borton, of Centerville, OH; his brother, James E Powers and wife Loretta of St. Petersburg, FL; nieces; Jamey Powers of St. Petersburg, FL and Michelle Albert of Dunnellon, FL; step-children, Lisa Kelley, Kim Calandriello, Nicki Hyser, Michael Kelley; and special family friend, LeeAnn Puckett. The family wishes to extend their sincere gratitude to the many friends who helped us through this difficult time and especially the doctors and nurses of the Dayton VA that gave us an extra year with Steve. A private burial with full military honors was held by the family. In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to a charity of the donor’s choice –or- Hospice of Dayton –or- the Humane Society of Dayton.

84 | The Exceptional Release | SPRING 2013