Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 1
ER
The Exceptional Release
Expeditionary Logistics/ Supply Chain Management
Logistics Officer Association Post Office Box 2264 Arlington, VA 22202 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
Indicia
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 2
Dynamics Research Corporation
Over 40 Years of Partnering and Dedicated Service to the Warfighter Core Capabilities • • • • • • • • •
IT Services Acquisition and Program Support Engineering Services Logistics Modeling and Simulation Training Analysis and Delivery Knowledge Engineering Navigation Test Equipment Precision Manufacturing
Our Expertise Helps Customers Achieve Their Goals. For more information, contact us.
866-DRCTEAM drc.com
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 1
Logistics Officer Association enhancing the military logistics profession since 1982
Executive Board President
Col Richard A. Dugan president@loanational.org
Expeditionary Logistics/Supply Chain Management•Winter 2002•Issue No.84 Featuring:
4
LOA Website Update by Maj Ben Davis
6
Boots, Spurs and the Unrated Officer by Mr. Maurice R. Commanday
12
A Partnership In Engine Simulation by Col (Ret) Jennifer Fox and Ms. Mary Swinford
16
Modular/Scalable Aviation and Maintenance UTCs by Maj Greg Broardt
HQ AFMC Supply Chain Management (SCM) Training by Wing Commander Andy Gell
20
Engine “MISTR” Production 101 by Capt Dana McCown
Centralized Intermediate Repair Facilities by Maj Patrick Kumashiro
26
Broken Parts = Hangar Space by Capt David L. Peeler, Jr.
Vice President
Col David A. Sowinski vicepres@loanational.org
Treasurer
Maj Patrick T. Kumashiro treasurer@loanational.org
10
Assistant Treasurer Lt Col Roger A. Harville assttreas@loanational.org
Executive Senior Advisor Lt Gen Michael E. Zettler
ANG Advisor
14
Brig Gen Douglas S. Metcalf
Retiree Advisor
Your Troops May Be Closer to a College Degree Than You Think by Mr. Arthur Dunn The Future Logistics Enterprise by Colonel D.C. Pipp
Col Geary W. Wallace, Ret.
Historian Col James E. Maher, Ret.
The Exceptional Release Editor-In-Chief
18
Col Carmen Mezzacappa editor@loanational.org
Assistant Editor Lt Col James R. “Reggie” Hall assteditor@loanational.org
Executive Director, Public Relations
22
Kimberly Kortum pr@loanational.org
LOA Scholarship Committee Chair
Lt Col James Hannon james.hannon@pentagon.af.mil
30
LOA Website www.loanational.org Webmaster Maj Ben W. Davis webmaster@loanational.org
LOA National PO Box 2264 Arlington, VA 22202 Issue No. 84 • Winter 2002
374th Transportation Squadron’s Mobility Element Unique to Air Force by 2d Lt Kevin Kudrna
In Every Issue
2
Vantage Point
34
Chapter Updates
40
On The Move
3
Editor’s Debrief
38
New & Renewed
Correction: LOA apologizes for misspelling Battelle and Mr. Charles Lucius’ name in the title of their article, “Battelle and the U.S. Department of Energy: A 36-Year Partnership” in the Fall 2001 edition of The Exceptional Release. We value our relationship with Battelle, and will see that it does not happen again! The Exceptional Release, Winter 2002
1
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 2
Vantage Point Col Richard A. Dugan, LOA President Greetings fellow loggies…hope everyone had a safe holiday season. There will be a lot going on between now and our conference scheduled for September in Washington D.C. Remember, this year we will celebrate our 20th anniversary as an association and plans are well underway to make this a superb celebration. The National Chapter will be our host and are doing everything they can to help us have a great time in D.C. We have selected a theme for this conference…”Logistics Support for the Joint Warfighter — Today and Tomorrow”…and have developed goals and objectives that have been approved by your executive board and agreed to by our senior advisor: • Examine the relationship among the major joint war-fighting players. • Identify the dynamic elements interacting among JCS, and Unified/Specified CINCs. • Discuss focused logistics responsiveness to the threats of the 21st Century. • Outline New Defense Planning Guidance. • Provide a forum to discuss current Air Force logistics issues of interest to all attendees. • Provide a leadership/mentorship forum for young logisticians; provide them with tools to use on their day-to-day job and highlight how they fit into the future of logistics in the Air Force and beyond. • Award scholarships to deserving enlisted and civilian professionals dedicated to self-improvement and enlarging their role in the logistics com munity. • Conduct LOA National business; chapter leaders share their experiences at the chapter level and participate in an exchange with the LOA Executive Board on LOA’s strategic vision for the future. • Recognize/honor founding MOA/LOA members and celebrate 20th anniversary of MOA/LOA. • Enjoy the camaraderie between fellow logisticians and have fun! • Provide an opportunity to tour interesting aerospace/military facilities within the Washington D.C. area. It is a great pleasure to announce the 2001 General George T. Babbitt Leadership Award winners. The purpose of the Babbitt Leadership Award is to recognize members of the Logistics Officer Association who have demonstrated superior leadership in service to this organization. Each officer serving on the National LOA Executive Board (president, vice-president, treasurer, assistant treasure, editor, executive director of public relations, and the webmaster) nominates one individual each year. Congratulations to Lt Col Rob Belknap, Lt Col Jim Hannon, Maj Julie Plummer, Capt Stephanie Halcrow, Capt Dana Pelletier and Capt Jondavid Duvall. These recipients will be recognized in the next ER, and the award presentations will occur at Conference 2002. In addition to our Babbitt winners, I want to recognize of one of our most generous corporate sponsors. Advanced Testing Technologies, Inc. (ATTI) sent the following mail to our director of public relations shortly after our announcement of canceling Conference 2001: Hi Kim, Please keep the 2001 registration & booth fee and use it as you see fit. ATTI will be glad to pay the 2002 booth fee at the appropriate time. Mr. Hector Gavilla, our president, stated, “the LOA can use our registration and booth fee as necessary to help defray cancellation costs.” Therefore, with our blessings, use it as you see fit and contact me when you are ready to start work on the 2002 Convention. Tom Lingenfelter, Vice President Advanced Testing Technologies, Inc. Thank you ATTI…your generous contribution will help us through to our next conference. We look forward to seeing you in Washington D.C. in September. Another item needs to be mentioned at this point. Many of you have been wondering why it has taken us so long to get the “ER” to you. As you know, the anthrax scare had our Nation’s capitol jumping through hoops, including the Pentagon, where our LOA National mailing address resides. As of early October, the Pentagon mailroom closed all post office boxes assigned there. Our address change happened while our publication was at the printer, requiring us to “stop the presses” and correct the address on the publication. We apologize for the inconvenience, and believe this was a one-time event and everything should be back on schedule. Please make note of our address change. If you use the old address, the Post Office has made no “promises” that your mail will be forwarded. Okay, only a couple of more issues for you to consider. First, I hope all of you have had a chance to get to our “new” improved website. Major Ben Davis and the Boundary Light team have done a fantastic job upgrading our site to make it as user friendly and helpful as possible. See their efforts by logging on to “loanational.org” as soon as you get a chance. Last item…our National Elections will be held this summer. We need candidates to fill all of our elected positions for the next two year term starting at Conference 2002. Please submit your candidates to our election committee chair, Lt Col Mark Atkinson as soon as possible - mark.atkinson@pentagon.af.mil. That’s all for now…CHEERS!
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 3
The Exceptional Release written by logisticians for logisticians
A Professional Military Journal The purpose of the Logistics Officer Association (LOA) is to enhance the military logistics profession. LOA provides an open forum to promote quality logistical support and logistics officer professional development.
Publisher Col Richard A. Dugan, USAF
Editor-in-Chief Col Carmen Mezzacappa, USAF
Assistant Editor Lt Col Reggie Hall, USAF
Production Ms. Kimberly Kortum Policy on Written Submissions The editor invites articles and other contributions on issues that support LOA’s purpose. Direct manuscripts, letters and other communications to:
Col Carmen Mezzacappa Attn: AMXED-D 5001 Eisenhower Ave Alexandria, VA 22333 DSN: 767-9550 or 703-617-9550 Email: editor@loanational.org Deadlines: 15 Dec, March, June, September Format: Double-spaced, typed and electronically submitted to the Editor. Graphics: (black & white or color) should be sent electronically and individually; they should be a resolution of 150 or higher. Submitter data: Rank; full name; service; home mailing address; business name and address; business phone (DSN & commercial); E-mail; three to five sentence biographical sketch; and a photo. Editorial Policy: The editor reserves the right to edit all submission for length, clarity, and libel.
Advertising Contact Ms. Kimberly Kortum 658 Tremont St #7 Boston, MA 02118 617.236.7246 Email: pr@loanational.org
Subscriptions Published quarterly, the ER is available via membership in LOA at the cost of $25 for 12 months. Access membership forms on the website.
Disclaimer The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of LOA or any agency of the Federal Government. Acknowledgement to The Exceptional Release should be made whenever material is quoted from or based on its contents.
Editor’s Debrief Col Carmen Mezzacappa, LOA Editor-In-Chief I'd like to take this opportunity to publicly thank Col (Ret) Kent Mueller for the outstanding, thought provoking work he did for the LOA membership as our previous editor. In fact, the first article in this issue, Boots, Spurs and the Unrated Air Force Officer, by Maurice R. Commanday, was edited by Kent. When I volunteered to become his assistant editor at the Phoenix Conference, I never imagined that just one year later I'd become the editor! It's an honor to serve as your editor, and I don't take my responsibility to you, the membership, lightly. With that said, we have an exciting Winter 2002 issue for you with the theme of Expeditionary Logistics/Supply Chain Management, thanks to all of you who submitted articles under the auspices of the Supply Chain Management theme or put in other, non-related articles that we used. Keep those articles coming in, folks. We will use them as soon as there is room in a future ER! Our centerpiece article is by Major Pat Kumashiro on Centralized Intermediate Repair Facilities (CIRF) and how the concept was used during Operation ALLIED FORCE (OAF) and the test program run during AEFs 7/8 and 9/10 (Sept 2001-Feb 2002) to evaluate, validate and analyze CIRF potential. Other theme-related articles include one written by Col (Ret) Jennifer Fox from Dynamics Research Corporation (DRC) in OK City and Mary Swinford from Wright Pat AFB entitled, A Partnership in Engine Simulation, Air Force Propulsion Partners with the DRC. This article explains the origins and Air Force-Industry partnership all the way through development of the Advanced Engine Simulation and Optimization Program, a new aircraft engine simulation and forecasting program. The next article is by Col D.C. Pipp from the OSD staff explaining how the OSD Office of Logistics and Material Readiness has launched an initiative called the Future Logistics Enterprise to bring focus to the myrad of systems to track 24 major operational and logistics requirements and supply chain integration. RAF Wing Commander Andy Gell's article on Air Force Materiel Command's (AFMC's) new supply chain management training initiative covers the validated need for and the development of a new training course for the command, to include giving the next year's worth of course dates and places it will be taught. From Tinker AFB we have a comprehensive article submitted by Capt Dana McCown on AFMC's Management of Item Subject To Repair, or MISTR, program of inducting repairable assets into the depot. Two articles not tied to the supply chain management theme that both provide great photos from the mid-1940s include the previously mentioned, Boots, Spurs and the Unrated Air Force Officer, that covers some of the history of Air Force engineers and logisticians as compared to aviators since 1917, and Mr. Arthur Dunn's comprehensive article on the Community College of the Air Force degree program that encourages us all to support our enlisted force in taking advantage of the CCAF. Maj Greg Broardt provides us with an article on the current aviation and maintenance unit type code reengineering roadmap, and from Pope AFB comptroller, Capt David Peeler, Jr., we get many innovative ideas on how they funded their 1933-era hangar renovation. Last, and certainly not least, is an article contributed by 2Lt Kevin Kudrna from the 374th Transportation Squadron at Yokota AB, Japan on Combat Mobility Elements. A couple of other ER-related comments. Did you know that whether your ER is forwarded by the US Post Office or whether it is returned and we have to mail it to a new address, it costs LOA double? That's right, we get charged a second time even if the magazine is forwarded! Please take the time to update your address either by website or "snail mail" when you move to a new home or PCS! Also, the theme of the Spring ER is Information Technology. Iwill be out of pocket for a couple of weeks, so send your articles for the Spring 2002 edition to Lt Col James "Reggie" Hall at assteditor@loanational.org. One last note, Maj Kevin Samples from Hill AFB is the new Assistant Editor for the Chapter Updates and the On-The-Move portions of the ER. Capt Eric Nelson assigned to Langley AFB is our new Asst Editor for the New and Renewed portion of the ER. Start planning now to attend LOA's 20th Anniversary Conference in D.C. 4-6 September 2002.
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 4
LOA Website Update Major Ben Davis In early December, all members were e-mailed usernames and temporary passwords for the new member-only area of the website. If you had an old e-mail address on file, don't worry. You can request access from the main page by clicking on the words: " I'm a paid member, but I didn't get my username and password." From there you will be able to send us your new information and receive your username and password in a few days. We began this effort with your privacy and financial security in mind. Our service provider uses the latest security and virus protection. Credit card transactions through Bank of America are conducted using Secure Socket Layer (SSL) protection and 128-bit encryption. Your home address is viewable only by you. Duty information in the member directory is now accessible only to paid members via username and password. For those who want even greater privacy, you can prevent even fellow members from viewing your duty info.
What's new? After log-
tioned by LOA National and offered for sale by various chapters. • Change and Recover Password - For those who don't like remembering passwords, click on "Forgot My Password" as often as you like. You'll receive it minutes later in your in-box. • Chapter leaders have the added capability to send messages to their entire chapter and view inactive members (shaded red) • Help - For an explanation of a page or function, click "Help" in the upper right corner of the screen. You'll find answers to frequently asked questions--each page has its own unique “Help” window!
For prospective members, the membership process is greatly streamlined. No more forms, checks, or mail delays! Point them to http://www.loanational.org where they can join instantly by credit card and receive their username and temporary password minutes later. If you can't find your fellow loggies in the member directory, chances are they don't know how easy it is. Use the AF global address book to send them the link!
Additionally, the web
ging in with username and password, members can access a variety of new functions: • Membership Status - Header bar displays your dues date and how many days until expiration. • Renew - Visa and MasterCard payments are accepted for payment of 1-3 years and optional scholarship donations. • Update My Info - Change your rank, mailing address, duty title, chapter preference, privacy options, and more. • Search Directory - Query the on-line database in real-time by name, base, chapter, or company. Only duty information is displayed.
upgrade provides Executive Board members with valuable tools to manage member records and communicate with chapter leaders, conference attendees, corporate members, and even the entire membership.
One of these tools is a dues renewal reminder that will be sent the month of expiration, and again after expiration to ensure you have ample opportunity to renew prior to inactivation. Although inactive members won't be retained indefinitely, your username and password will still allow you to renew for up to 6 months. After that, you can simply join again as a new member.
For those members who experience technical difficulties or prefer
• Scholarship Donations - Use your Visa or MasterCard to donate any amount.
not to use the Internet, the Executive Board is standing by to assist you. Conventional paper renewals and member updates will always be accepted. Send an e-mail, phone call, or letter and we will take care of your request. Refer membership inquiries to Ms. Kim Kortum at pr@loanational.org. Technical questions may be directed to Maj Ben Davis at webmaster@loanational.org.
• Merchandise - View LOA shirts, coins, watches, and coasters sanc-
Coming soon: Conference registration and on-line voting.
• Mentor Program - Sign up to be a mentor or request a mentor; matches are viewable only by the individuals.
4
www.loanational.org
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 5
Ad on Film - WL Gore
The Exceptional Release, Winter 2002
5
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 6
Boots, Spurs and the Unrated Air Force Officer Maurice R. Commanday While it is true that the primary Air Force objective is to deliver munitions to a target, why should an organization whose activities are largely devoted to the development, procurement and management of advanced complex equipment, limit its principal leaders to those individuals with certified ability to drive aircraft? How does that ability confirm that an individual possesses managerial or broad technical skills? The answers to these questions lie not in logic, but in history, politics, and tradition.
Boots and Spurs...But No Saddle! Late summer 1917: Galloping up to a flight line at the barely established Third Aviation Instruction Centre at Issoudun, France, its first commanding officer shouted, “Turn off those g… d… fans! Can’t you see they’re making my mount nervous?” About the same time, back in the States, the first C.O. of the new Chanute Field pilot training unit posted one of his first formal orders, to wit: “There will be no more crackups!” In 1917 the United States found itself totally unprepared to bear its share of the air war burden as it set forth to “Save the World for Democracy”. Its military planners had virtually ignored aviation. A few obsolete crates, a handful of airmen assigned to the Signal Corps of the Army and twenty five qualified pilot instructors in the entire nation were just about it. Racing to correct the deficiency, the nation launched an urgent program to develop an Air Service as well as an industry to provide equipment. Up to that time, the great military minds considered aviation as nothing more than an unproven possibility to provide battlefield intelligence. In Europe, however, aviation was rapidly proving itself a major military factor. Air bases were hastily established under the command of officers from other branches of the service. Steeped in the tradition of their
6
military training and experience, these worthies leaped to the challenge of administering the activities of newly-inducted eager young student pilots. Some of these characters had the intelligence and imagination to deal with unfamiliar problems effectively. It is clear, however, that many did not.
The General Staff had little knowledge and less sympathy for the problems of aviators. The standard army officer’s uniform of that era included boots and spurs and, “By Jingo” they would wear them while flying! An officer’s blouse was fitted with a high-standing collar that ensured the wearer would maintain parade ground posture at all times. That he might, as a pilot, need to swivel his head constantly in order to survive was of little consequence. Some, returning from flights did so with their necks cut and bleeding. The subsequent Air Corps leaders left the war with their helmets and goggles and a deep-seated distain for officers who were not pilots. At that point a firm unwritten law evolved, later supported by an act of Congress, that no non-rated officer could command an aviation unit ever, ever, again!
One of the somewhat better prepared officers of the era, Hiram Bingham, was an exception. Following his New England education, Bingham, a student of South American History, became an explorer and gained notoriety in 1912 by discovering the ruins of Manchu Pichu in Peru. By March of 1917, he became aware of the growing importance of military aviation. Realizing that the U.S. would soon be declaring war on Germany, he took advantage of the flying boat activities of Glenn Curtiss at Biscayne Bay and learned how to fly. After war was declared he offered his services to the Signal Corps and was appointed to a critical personnel position in the Air Service dealing with the selection and training of pilots. A year later he was sent to France for more personnel duty and, one fine day, was assigned to replace the C.O. of the Third Aviation Instruction Centre at Issoudun. Its current C.O., a young pilot, Major Carl “Tooey” Spatz, flew him to his new post in a two-place Nieuport. (Spatz later changed the spelling of his name to “Spaatz” so that it would be pronounced properly and subsequently became one of the USAF’s most brilliant leaders.)
Bingham wrote a book in 1920 (now long out of print, but still available in a few libraries and used book shops) entitled “An Explorer in the Air Service” (Yale University Press 1920). It describes our catchup efforts and, in particular, provides fascinating details of the Issoudun activities. Bingham later served two Senatorial terms and two as Connecticut’s governor before he died in 1959.
As can be imagined, the Third Aviation Instruction Centre got off to a very rocky start. At one point General Pershing is alleged to
www.loanational.org
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 7
have referred to it as, “The worst mud hole in France”. Located about seven miles northwest of the market town of Issoudun, the Centre consisted of twelve flying fields, each devoted to a particular phase of instruction. The site was well selected for the terrain is quite flat and unobstructed except for an occasional copse of trees
and wooded area. Less cultivated at that time, it is now given over to large wheat fields. Obviously, the aircraft of that period could be safely force landed from almost any place the engine decided to quit.
Today, a visit to the site of its headquarters along route D 960 from Issoudon reveals only a small monument at the side of the road listing the names of some 120 who perished there from various causes, mostly crashes. In November of 1918, however, there were a total of almost 8,000 men and officers assigned with about 1,000 airplanes, mostly French Nieuports of various models. The Centre had managed only about 1,117 flying hours during December 1917 but gradually increased its output until it accomplished 17,113 flying hours during October 1918. This figure is all the more remarkable when it is realized that the Le Rhone rotary engines employed and overhauled at the Centre had service lives of only forty to fifty hours and that few, if any, of the maintenance personnel had ever seen an airplane before 1917. Most of them, of necessity, learned their trades on-the-job at Issoudon!
Bingham wrote, “The system of organizing squadrons in the United States was, at first, especially poor. Men with absolutely no qualifications as mechanics were listed on the squadron organization as tinsmiths, coppersmiths, and expert motor mechanics although in civil life they had been salesmen, clerks, and farm hands. One mechanic’s qualification was ‘having driven a (Model T) Ford occasionally’.”
Bingham was well aware of the critical nature of the maintenance and repair functions of his command. The sixteenth chapter of his book is devoted to describing the organized efforts expended to provide serviceability. He proudly reports the overhaul of 190 engines, 143 magnetos, and 2,140 spark plugs, all within a month’s time. Splintered propellers, bashed landing gear wheels and other airframe components were constantly being refurbished and many parts were fabricated from raw materials in order to overcome spare part shortages.
The appendix of Bingham’s book is given over to a roster of the officers of Issoudon. Listed by rank and duty; of the 250 officers, 36
are assigned as maintenance or engineering officers, some 14% of the total. Clearly, the importance of the function was proven at Issoudon. What happened between the wars?
Almost immediately after WWI the U.S.A. reverted to a state of isolationism. Military budgets were reduced to a minimum. (Hadn’t we fought and won The War to End all Wars?) The Air Service of the Signal Corps became the U.S. Army Air Corps staffed by pilots but dominated by the General Staff. In this sort of military flying club, helmet-and-goggle environment, enlisted personnel furnished repair hands-on know-how. Pilot officers, to whom “Engineering Officer” was an extra duty assignment of little interest, merely signed off maintenance forms. Serious technical problems were referred to an air depot or to the manufacturers of equipment. Civil service technicians staffed air depots, much as they do today.
Between the Wars During the two decades between the wars the Air Service became the U.S. Army Air Corps, as stated, totally dominated by the Army General Staff. Those worthies, themselves hampered by budgets limited by the isolationist politics of the era, refused to budge from their trench warfare mentality. The result was a continuous conflict between the “helmetand-goggle” realists and the “foot-sloggers.” The tragedy of Billy Mitchell has been told and retold. His experience during the Meuse-Argonne offensive, for which he improvised the largest tactical air support system then seen, had a significant influence on the German army’s collapse. That fact was apparently lost to our military leaders in the joyous victory celebration that followed. Mitchell was unable to convince the establishment of his theories and finally, after having been demoted and exiled to a minor post, was subsequently court-marshaled and dismissed from the service on grounds that he had publicly referred to the General Staff as treasonous.
Mitchell was not the only military leader to suffer. Virtually every military aviation leader was penalized in one way or another during the period. Promotions were rare and minimal. It is amazing that
The Exceptional Release, Winter 2002
7
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 8
the Air Corps was able to sustain any development effort at all, given the miserable levels of funding. Somehow it was able to develop blind flying, airborne radios of reasonable reliability, adjustable pitch propellers, and reliable engines of appropriate performance.
The General Staff had little interest in the development of bombers. In 1935, when the first B-17 was tragically destroyed on take-off from Wright Field, with locked controls due to pilot error, the entire B-17 program almost came to a permanent halt. The General Staff insisted upon producing the obsolescent, and almost useless, B-18 in preference. The trials and tribulations of such far-sighted leaders as Generals Frank Andrews and Hap Arnold are well documented in Dwight Copp’s work “A Few Great Captains”, Doubleday and Co. 1980. From that work it is easy to see how the “Boots and Spurs Trauma” of the early days was augmented by the “Trench Warfare Mentality” of the General Staff between the wars.
World War II By the time Germany invaded Poland and precipitated WW II the U.S. had slowly begun a gradual military and naval expansion. The Air Corps needs began to be taken seriously with George Marshall’s promotion to Chief of Staff, replacing Malin Craig. Andrews had briefed him during a tour of Air Corps facilities. Marshall’s open mind was able to perceive the urgency of the situation. As a result of that, and the obvious successes of the Lufwaffe in Spain’s Civil War, acquisition of up-to-date aircraft and the training of airmen and maintenance personnel were accelerated. By then the country had a small but viable aviation industry that moved into gear and began the development and production of the aircraft that proved critical to our success in WWII.
In 1926, the year before Lindbergh’s flight to Paris electrified interest in aviation, the grandson of a Jewish peddler from Switzerland who had struck it rich in the mines of Colorado funded a school of Aeronautical Engineering at New York University. Its immediate popularity prompted the establishment of many more such schools
8
and a significant cadre of aeronautical engineers was educated despite the great lack of employment opportunity. Most of the graduates had to settle for careers in other branches of engineering and even in the retail shops of their fathers during the Depression. But when the time came to expand aircraft production facilities a thousand fold or more, the brainpower was available thanks to Daniel Guggenheim and his son, Harry, who had planted the idea. It is awesome to imagine what would have happened without that supply of trained minds. Too obscure today, Guggenheim’s act may have been the single most critical deed of any individual that assured the outcome of WW II.
Much has been written about the development of the Air Force just prior to and during WW II. Most is given over to the cutting edge of that service which is, of course, the operation of aircraft. That is certainly the province of the pilot and is properly led by officers skilled in the art. However, the U.S. Army Air Forces of WWII required huge logistical activities that included many hundreds of thousands of personnel and the need for managerial skills more typical of industrial organizations than any part of the military. Since that war, especially since the advent of space and missile activity, non-flying activities have become more and more dominant. So much so that were one to compute the time involved in aircraft operational activities and compare them to the number of manhours consumed by non-pilot activities, it should become clear that the Air Force, today is predominantly an industrial activity. Why then must top leadership still be limited to pilots, especially in those functions that have little or no relationship to airplane driving skills?
Beyond the personnel limits of the Air Force, thousands of specialists are called upon daily to make critical decisions on behalf of the Air Force. Engineers who often have little interest or skill in flying aircraft carry out the design and testing of aircraft and weaponry, and assess the air-worthiness of the Air Force inventory. It is obvious that the Air Force cannot limit such critical jobs to pilots. It was, however, required that officers who command air depots or R & D establishments be pilots.
www.loanational.org
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 9
As one who spent most of his
solving complex problems. They usually make the best engineers and industrial executives. The writer has known of several otherwise successful businessmen-pilots who did not survive the conflict between the need for constant attention to their piloting tasks and the siren call of business problems.
WW II Air Force career assigned to service commands, this author encountered pilot commanding officers whose skill at technical management was dismal. Further, it was a widespread opinion that young pilots were generally of little or no use in assignments that did not involve flying, especially technical assignments. They simply were not interested in anything else but flying, nor should they have been. Survival for a pilot is a full time job, especially in wartime.
Towards Future
It has been noted that human intellect varies greatly with respect to an individual’s attention span. Some of us are comfortable concentrating for extended periods in lecture halls, absorbing knowledge or working at lengthy tasks that involve little or no creative thinking. Those folks are described as having low entropy mentalities. Others, at the other extreme of what appears to be a spectrum, find it difficult to remain attentive for long periods and are inclined to “dream”. They are said to have high entropy mentalities. Without casting aspersions or laurels, presentday pilots are often faced with long periods of routine that high entropy people would find boring and they would have difficulty maintaining essential attention to those tasks. It would seem, then, that people of low entropy mentality had best do the airplane driving.
a
Brighter
It finally appears that the USAF is changing and may finally realize that, while airplane driving was a critical “helmet-and-goggle era skill”, managing its enormous industrial complex requires quite a different mentality and background. Air Force Instruction 51-604, Paragraph 5.3, now states that, “Organizations with multiple missions, one of which is flying activities, may be commanded by a non-rated officer.” The Instruction further indicates that in such organizations commanded by a non-rated officer, a rated officer will direct flying activities. Any officer “qualified” for command may command all other organizations. Paragraph 5.3 specifically states that any officer qualified for command may command a missile organization. Let us hope that by applying the faultless axiom of appointing the most suitable qualified person to fill critical positions that the proportion of non-rated officers filling those positions will continue to increase into the 21st century.
Alternately, those of high entropy intellect spend much time in dreamlike states of synthesis. Seemingly absent-minded, they tend to be very creative and gifted at The Exceptional Release, Winter 2002
9
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 10
Your Troops May Be Closer To a College Degree Than They Realize Mr. Arthur Dunn Have you ever considered how close the average maintenance troop is to a degree? Have you ever contemplated education as one of the main reasons people join the Air Force or the fact that assisting in degree completion efforts will pay both short and long-term dividends? The roadmap to
Degree Requirements
Hours
Technical Education
24
are mostly satisfied by the normal training cycle. Physical education requirements are met in basic training; technical credits are satisfied by maintenance and upgrade training (UGT); and management credits are satisfied by PME. Although only 24 technical credits are required, some of the overflow credits can be applied to program electives. Excess Required Ways to Obtain Credit credits from any Tech School, FTD, UGT area can be applied Professional Military Education toward the 15semester hour proBasic Training gram elective Overflow of Technical, LMMS, requirement.
degree completion is Leadership/Mgt/Mil Studies (LMMS) 6 readily available. 4 Giving your troops Physical Education 15 the encouragement Program Electives and time to make an General Education Civilian Credit & Testing As one can see, eduappointment at your Oral Communication 3 Civilian Credit or Testing cational opportunilocal education Written Communication 3 Civilian Credit or Testing ties are widely availoffice, will most likeMathematics 3 Civilian Credit or Testing able for our folks. ly show they are Social Science 3 Civilian Credit or Testing According to a indeed closer than Humanities 3 Civilian Credit or Testing recent AF recruiting they thought to a survey, education is 64 Semester Hrs (SH) Required college degree. This why more than 40 quick appointment can determine how many credits they already have, which credits percent of our recruits join and that 97 percent of all enlistees indiapply where, how many credits are still needed, and ways to obtain cate education as a key goal. Thus, helping them pursue these goals is the right thing to do. Take a quick look at typical education additional credits. options. Today’s bases in conjunction with local colleges offer classThe first chart above is a look at the requirements for an associates es and other credit opportunities that will fit into almost anyone’s in applied science from the Community College of the Air Force schedule. Some options include; night and weekend classes, com(CCAF): puter based or internet Provider Semester Hour Value The typical SrA-TSgt Course Number courses, and testing Tech School 8 SH maintenance troop, I’ll J3AQR2A333H-000 through several nationalFTD 14 SH use the 2A career field as J3ABP2A33H-005 ly recognized programs FTD 8 SH shown at the right as an J3ASF2A3X3J-090 like the College Level FTD 3 SH example, is surprisingly J3ASF2A3X3J-091 Examination Program FTD 2 SH close to an AAS degree J3ASF2A3X3J-092 (CLEP). More than 70 FTD 3 SH through CCAF. This J3ASF2A3X3J-093 percent of active duty FTD 3 SH example of the 2A3X3 J3ASF2A3X3J-094 graduates of the April UGT 4 SH career field identifies the 5 Skill Level 2001 CCAF graduating UGT 4 SH normal training cycle 7 Skill Level class applied testing cred49 SH Technical Credit with upgrade training and it toward degree requirePME 8 SH PME. These credits Airman Leadership School ments. It’s possible and PME 10 SH accrue through the nor- NCO Academy probable that an enlisted 18SH Leadership/Management member who’s been mal training cycle as indicated to the right. Other through basic training, maintenance AFSCs will share a common cycle. tech school, a field training (FTD) course or two, UGT, Airman By comparing these two tables, one can see degree requirements Leadership and NCOA is only a few classes short of graduating. Imagine, an associate’s degree for sitting through a few classes!
10
www.loanational.org
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 11
Field Training offers a wide array of CCAF accredited aircraft maintenance courses. FTD’s mission of “providing world class aircraft maintenance training” will definitely satisfy your maintenance training requirements. With 44 detachments, 700 instructors and more than 650 advanced proficiency courses, FTD stands ready to meet your training needs. FTD courses range anywhere from a 3-day, 1 SH aircraft familiarization course to a 70-day AFSC awarding course with 30 SH credits. Field Training…a proud tradition since 1942. Providing training solutions today, for a more effective tomorrow..
increased competence, self-esteem, and improved job performance. CCAF dividends continue after our folks leave active duty too. These individuals will take with them years of experience and a transferable and marketable record of their college experiences. And finally, the Air Force turns back to the nation, whether in 4, 20, or 30 years a highly trained resource.
Just think, the offer and award of a job-related associates degree in applied science used to enhance the “3-R’s”...Recruiting, Readiness and Retention. Continuing education…enhancing mission effectiveness and meeting personal education goals while supporting the career transitions of Air Force enlisted members to the civilian marketplace. A win-win situa-
Think of the benefits. Statistics show CCAF-degreed individuals are above national norms in technical competence, reading, writing, science and critical thinking. Since education is the reason more than 40 percent of recruits joined and 97 percent desire an associate or higher-level degree, let’s help them obtain their goal! Think of the morale boost this will be. Your maintenance folks can strive and obtain technical competence and academic achievement as well.
One can see how a simple education office visit can lead to
tion…both now and in the future. Mr. Dunn is a career fighter aircraft maintenance technician with a maintenance training background. He recently retired from active duty with 20 years of service and currently is the faculty development chief assigned to the 982d Training Group (Field Training), Sheppard AFB, TX.
FTD Serving the maintainer since 1941
Early fourties photo shows an FTD instructor training maintenance technicians on a P-51 electrical system trainer.
MSgt Richard Lopez, (right) engine instructor instructs four students from the 18 MXS propulsion section, assigned to Kadena AB, Okinawa Japan, using the video imaging borescope. Students are (l-r) A1C Jones, Fox, Samuelson and SSgt Scheck.
The Exceptional Release, Winter 2002
11
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 12
A PARTNERSHIP IN ENGINE SIMULATION
Air Force Propulsion Partners with the Dynamics Research Corporation Colonel (Ret) Jennifer Fox and Mary Swinford
If you think that AESOPTM is the legendary Greek fabulist or the creator of the Fractured Fairy Tale cartoons, you’re wrong! AESOPTM stands for Advanced Engine Simulation and Optimization Program and is the most exciting new aircraft engine simulation and forecasting program to come along in many years. AESOPTM is the one tool in the Propulsion Manager’s “management tool box” that is designed to help our senior leaders make cogent, realistic business decisions, with the end goal of maximizing the number of Net Serviceable Engines (NSE). AESOPTM is the product of a unique partnership between Aeronautical Systems Center Propulsion Directorate, the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Directorate of Propulsion and the Dynamics Research Corporation (DRC).
ORIGINS AESOPTM began in the mid 1990’s when the US Air Force engine community became very frustrated with their inability to accurately forecast the number of serviceable F100 engines over a relatively short period of time, 6 to 12 months, for instance. At that time, the majority of fighter aircraft engines were managed and overhauled at San Antonio Air Logistics Center. Further complicating the situation was the forthcoming closure of Kelly AFB, the transfer of the C-5 depot workload to Warner Robins, and the incorporation of the fighter engine workload at Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center. With the planned draw down and transfer of ALC personnel, this problem was compounded by the uncertainty of manpower effectiveness on engine repair. Further, repair parts support for depot level repair of USAF engines is generally assumed by many people to be the “primary driving force on engine availability”. In fact, there are a multitude of factors that affect engine availability, such as funding, manpower, shop flow times, equipment availability, and the like. In combination, this situation demanded a better alternative and more realistic system for assessing engine supportability.
In an effort to provide a realistic and workable solution with credible assessments and improved engine supportability decisions, Dynamics Research Corporation proposed to the Air Force the development of a Simulation Based Forecasting (SBF) Decision Support System (DSS), which became known as AESOPTM. The
12
AESOPTM DSS is an integrated modeling hierarchy that contains two parts. The first part is the SBF model, which provides an accurate, credible, validated and comprehensive means to assess the impact of all factors, events and decision options throughout the entire life cycle on engine inductions, production, net serviceables, and aircraft performance metrics. The second part of the AESOPTM DSS is a “toolkit” of integrated legacy Air Force assessment models. These models facilitate the performance of rapid “what if”, sensitivity, tradeoff, and optimization analyses that facilitate resource allocation decisions within the SBF.
The Air Force wanted to ensure that data was available to support a simulation based DSS so DRC also proposed a “feasibility study” (Phase 0) to identify and review all required data elements and sources. Once the data and its availability were confirmed, a “proof of concept” study followed. The proof of concept phase (Phase I) served as the foundation for an operational simulation based forecasting DSS that focused on three modules and selected indentured parts of the Pratt & Whitney F100220 and 220E fighter engine. The final portion of the proposal (Phase 2) included full-scale software development and encompassed all five modules and over 100 serially tracked parts for the F100-220 and 220E engine. Phases 3, 4 and 5 of the AESOPTM program encompass the rest of the USAF engine inventory and extend the program through the year 2005.
THE PARTNERSHIP From the beginning with AESOP’s first Integrated Product Team (IPT), the partnership between the USAF propulsion community and DRC has been a strong one. The AESOPTM IPT was composed of a variety of people with skills and talents in such areas as propulsion subject matter experts, equipment specialists, module managers, item managers, actuarial personnel, data base managers, operations research personnel and information technology specialists. Each USAF member of the IPT was chosen by the Propulsion leadership to participate in the AESOPTM program because of their technical expertise and decision-making capabilities. The DRC members were composed of highly skilled people with experience in depot production, APG and propulsion operations, simulation and
www.loanational.org
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 13
modeling, and information technology.
From the beginning, the AESOPTM IPT had the very top senior leadership support with the mandate that success was the goal for the program. Even before the first “kick off” meeting, the IPT agreed to some basic operating rules. To begin with, to streamline the coordination and decision-making process, each USAF member was “empowered” to act on behalf of their division chief when decisions regarding the functionality, business rules or model design were made. This saved much time in the refinement of the requirements to be used in the development of the AESOPTM model and kept the AESOPTM program on schedule. The IPT partnership also agreed that the USAF would formulate and frame the scope of the AESOPTM model and simulation and that this agreement would be documented in the AESOPTM Requirements Document. Frequent Technical Interface Meetings (TIM) were required between the USAF and the DRC team to ensure that all USAF customer technical requirements were addressed as the AESOPTM model conceptual design was formulated. The TIMs were also invaluable in making sure that “requirements creep” did not occur and that the focus of the DSS remained manageable. The AESOPTM IPT goal was to be successful. The importance of providing a unique, stateof-the-art DSS that would allow our USAF propulsion leadership to make timely, intelligent and credible business decisions was a driving factor in every action taken by the AESOPTM IPT.
Once the AESOPTM DSS was fielded, it was important to establish a feedback mechanism to communicate to the model designers where the errors and problem areas were. The IPT agreed that the forum in which this feedback would be accomplished would be through the utilization of a sub-committee from the IPT with a USAF chair. DRC would then assign action items and suspense dates to applicable personnel to ensure that the requested action was completed in a timely manner.
The USAF-DRC AESOPTM partnership was hugely successful because we focused on narrowly defining the user requirements, we eliminated “requirements creep,” we communicated continually
through frequent technical interface meetings and we eliminated problems by tackling them immediately.
THE AESOPTM DECISION SUPPORT TOOL Imagine, if you will, that you are the Fighter Propulsion Division Chief or a propulsion branch chief or staffer in the ALC. Your days are filled with meetings, production decisions, contract negotiations, customer liaison visits, parts problems and a myriad of other activities, all of it in the “pressure cooker” environment of the depot. Critical decisions must be made expeditiously and cogently with the known facts at that time.
Here’s where AESOPTM comes in. The AESOPTM simulation based forecasting model will identify and represent “real world” processes (from base level to depot maintenance and transportation), metrics and rules or logic (policy) that capture the behavior of the F100-220 and 220E engine supply chain. A simulation model is the best approach given the random nature of the engine supply chain and the available data collected by the propulsion community.
The basic concept of the AESOPTM model is to represent the dynamic nature of the “real world” propulsion environment with enough detail to make confident business decisions on the results of the model experiments. An “experiment” will be defined as multiple model runs simulating the occurrence of scheduled and unscheduled failures over a pre-determined time interval. Experiments will represent the accumulation of cycles and scheduled maintenance policies and probabilistic unscheduled failures. The unscheduled failures will be based on pseudo-random variables reflecting historical unscheduled failure occurrence behavior.
AESOPTM collects historical unscheduled failure data for each of the Configuration Item Identifier (CII) items of the F100-220 and 220E included in the model. Each data set is used to fit a statistical failure distribution. Within the simulation, unscheduled failures will occur independently for each CII item based on the associated distribution.
The Exceptional Release, Winter 2002
Continued on page 19 13
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 14
The Future Logistics Enterprise Colonel D.C. Pipp, USAF “Re-engineer.” “Re-form.”Re-invent.” How many times in our careers have we heard these phrases? Now we introduce “the Future Logistics Enterprise.” More of the same? I think not. So what is the future logistics enterprise and why should we care? The underlying issue leading to the development of this initiative is the perception that there is no DoD game plan for logistics…until now. This is not to infer that nothing is being done to remedy age old problems with defense logistics. In fact, there is a proliferation of initiatives by each of the Services and Defense Agencies to get their hands around some of the more perplexing problems inhibiting warfighter support. The USAF Logistics Transformation program is an extensive look at critical dimensions of warfighter support — the gloves are off and no idea or activity is denied an opportunity to enter the fight. Our sister Services have a series of projects and programs with similar, yet different focuses. The Army envisions new ways to support the warfighter to include their Wholesale Logistics Modernization Program (WLMP). The Navy has invested extensive resources in development of a Navy-wide Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system and the Marines are dissecting and re-inventing how they’ll provide support through their Integrated Logistics Capability (ILC) project. Outstanding – so what’s the DoD plan?
The OSD Office of Logistics and Material Readiness recently launched an initiative called the “Future Logistics Enterprise (FLE).” So what’s different besides the name? In a word – “focus.” Previous efforts to attack defense logistics problems often resulted in huge laundry lists of problems and proposed solutions. While well-intentioned, it became onerous at best to keep track of who was doing what and make reasonable assessments regarding “genuine” progress. Likewise, the planning horizon was extensive and collaboration between all the stakeholders could have been more coordinated. These lessons have been well learned by the OSD staff and were key to development of the current approach. Seventy-five over-arching documents were reviewed during the course of developing the FLE
14
concept including; the Defense Planning Guidance, the National Military Strategy, Service logistics transformation plans, Mobility Requirements Study 2005 (MRS05), the Joint Universal Lessons Learned (JULLS), CINC Integrated Priority Lists (IPL), and GAO reports - to name a few. From this extensive review came approximately 1500 requirements that later got synthesized into 24 operational and logistics requirements. This type of critical analyses is essential as the future deployment and employment of our nation’s forces has fundamentally changed over the years.
In the early 70’s our nation’s warfighting strategy was reasonably understood but times have changed. We generally knew who the enemy was, where they were located, what resources were needed, and where and how to successfully prosecute a campaign. Our force structure and infrastructure were considerably larger and our global presence put us generally where we expected to fight. This is not to infer for a moment that warfighting or the attendant logistics planning was “easy” in previous decades—simply that circumstances have changed. The USAF now plans to deploy an AEF in 48 “hours”, up to 5 AEFs in 15 days and reduce the footprint by 50%! This would have been “fictional” expectations in the 60’s and 70’s but have now become imperative. The Army now plans to deploy one brigade in 96 “hours” one division in 120 “hours” and 5 divisions in 30 days. So, business as usual right? I don’t think so. This brings us back to the six critical logistics focus areas.
The six critical focus areas include: depot maintenance partnering, condition-based maintenance, life cycle management, executive agency, end-end distribution and enterprise integration. Enterprise integration is the backbone upon which each of the six focus areas will depend. Why these six? What precipitated the need to re-look at our processes?
The current system is characterized by a sequential series of handoffs both electronically and physically during the course of supporting the warfighter. The system starts with a demand that is serially
www.loanational.org
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 15
processed through possible sources. There is no end-to-end customer relations management in the environment so customers must track their own requirements. Once requested materiel is sourced, it passes through multiple, disjointed nodes…from public or private warehouses or maintenance depots to public or private transportation providers and ultimately to the customer. Multiple stovepiped logistics organizations provide support to many weapon systems, but there is no one entity that can be held accountable. Also, there is no single face to the customer. Material requiring repair or modification is often delayed in our existing depot infrastructure which is aging in terms of its workforce, facilities and industrial equipment. Material headed oversees is shipped by lift that is shaped and resourced to fight MTWs, and not necessarily concerned with exploiting best commercial practices. Lastly, if that material headed for oversees changes nodes…for example, from sealift to truck, it has to wait in a queue to be scheduled because there is no end to end distribution system to schedule in one continuous flow across different modes.
process are other key functions such as OSD comptroller and acquisition folks. Meanwhile, DoD regulations and policies are being reviewed and re-written as needed. For example, the 5000 series acquisition regulations and the DoD Material Management “Superreg” (DoD 4140.1-R) are being re-written to reflect more dynamic and responsive practices and processes brought about through a thorough understanding of supply chain management.
Supply Chain Management is yet another popular phrase and you
provide knowledge, not merely information, and replace stand alone, functional, customized systems. There is a Weapon System Program Manager accountable and responsible for a given weapons system. Sourcing and distribution are integrated as is intermodal transportation. This provides complete visibility across the enterprise. Lastly, transportation is optimized for the new defense strategy. All this is grand but academic unless the program is endorsed by senior leadership.
may question the real merits behind it. Industry studies have shown categorically, that widespread and thorough implementation of effective supply chain practices has reduced costs, improved customer responsiveness, and provides meaningful measurement criteria for continuous process improvement. I might add these are not marginal changes in performance, i.e. 40% reduction in response time, 30% decrease in resource costs, and 35% increase in productivity are not unheard of. Consequently, we need to draw from this well and share SCM practices with each other throughout DoD. The Supply Chain Integration office of OSD recently introduced the “SCM Knowledge Exchange,” a web-based tool for sharing SCM best practices, research, audits, and “lessons learned” from the Services, Defense Agencies, and industry. Its user-friendly format is packed with information on supply chain management and driven by an efficient search engine. The capability exists within the site for anyone within DoD and industry to “contribute” a logistics input that could possibly save resources and, more importantly, improve warfighter support.
The Deputy Under Secretary for Defense for Logistics and Material
DoD spends over $80 billion annually on logistics and employs over
Readiness routinely consults with senior leaders from within OSD, the Services and the Defense Agencies. A formal mechanism has been established to discuss, track and advance efforts to realize the benefits of the future logistics enterprise. The Defense Logistics Executive Board (DLEB) meets twice a month to work out the tough issues and formal presentations are then made to the Joint Logistics Board (JLB). The JLB could be viewed as the corporate “Board of Directors” for the effort. Also within the coordination
one million personnel. The DoD supply chain manages approximately 5 million consumable and reparable items procured from more than 100,000 suppliers and distributed to more than 300,000 customers worldwide. Can we benefit from genuine supply chain integration? Is the Future Logistics Enterprise project worth the investment? Absolutely!
The FLE is much more streamlined. Integrated logistics systems
Col D.C. Pipp is currently working in the OSD Office of Supply Chain Integration. He can be reached at donald.pipp@osd.mil.
The Exceptional Release, Winter 2002
15
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 16
HQ AFMC Supply Chain Management (SCM) Training Wing Commander Andy Gell The Logistics Directorate of the Air Force Materiel Command (HQ AFMC/LG) is currently leading the effort to revolutionize the efficiency and effectiveness of Air Force supply chain operations. To achieve this ambitious goal we must ensure that our Supply Chain Management (SCM) work force has an in-depth understanding of the principles of AFMC SCM. Initial feedback from the SCM community indicated that there was a potential need for some degree of training in this area. Enlightened by this feedback, we immediately put in motion an initiative to conduct a command-wide SCM training needs analysis with the following objectives: • Determine how well SCM principles are being communicated throughout the work force. • Develop the necessary SCM training course content, structure, delivery method and the recommended length and location(s) of suitable training for supply chain managers and their support staffs.
strong need for AFMC-specific SCM training. This article contains a brief synopsis of these results and details the resultant courses that HQ AFMC developed for delivery to the AFMC SCM community in 2002. It is our hope that these training courses will take an important step toward achieving an integrated SCM work force poised to tackle the challenges of supporting one of the largest supply chains in the world.
Results of the AFMC Training Needs Assessment Survey While it is not possible to detail the complete survey results in this short article, it is interesting to highlight some of the key findings: Survey Demographics • 49.7% of the respondents were supply-oriented personnel, 36.9% were maintenance-oriented personnel and the remainder worked other logistics-related positions.
• Determine what, if any, Government or commercial SCM training courses currently exist that could satisfy this training shortfall.
Results Validated the Need for SCM Training
To gauge how effectively SCM principles are currently being com-
• Only 50% of respondents were aware AFMC has an SCM initiative underway.
municated throughout the work force, we worked in conjunction with KPMG Consulting to develop and administer a 59-question SCM training needs assessment questionnaire to 754 personnel throughout the command, including participants from each Air Logistics Center (ALC) and HQ AFMC.
Subsequent in-depth analyses of the survey results identified a
16
• Only 39% said they were familiar with the concepts of SCM. • A full 75% of respondents said they need SCM training. Preferred Method of Instruction • 91% preferred training delivered on-site or local to the workplace.
Executive Level
Working Level
Length
8 Hours
24 Hours
Location
WPAFB (in conjunction with SCM Conferences)
On-Site (ALC or Headquarters)
Frequency
Semi Annually
Three times per year with multiple classes at each ALC
Method of Instruction
Lecture/Presntation
Lecture/Presentation
Target Population
ALC CD/LG, SCMs, Deputy SCMs, Division/Branch Chiefs
Applicable MMT, Fixer, SSC DLA personnel
www.loanational.org
•
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 17
79% preferred classroom presentation vice web-enabled, video teleconferencing, or self-study.
Review of Current SCM Training Availability Results of the survey indicated an overwhelming need for AFMC SCM training. The next step was to determine if there were existing commercial and government education and training offerings that could be utilized for institutionalizing SCM in the AFMC environment. To that end, we completed an extensive review of existing training material, including course offerings of 145 colleges and universities worldwide, 14 professional organizations, and nearly 30 DoD logistics courses from across the Services. The results of this review indicated that, while much of the available information could be of interest and benefit to the AFMC logistics/supply chain professional, most of it would probably be of limited use in their day-today working environments. This limitation is based on the general focus of current material on commercial manufacturing, production, and retail environments. In light of these findings, we quickly set out to develop a comprehensive SCM course tailored to the needs of the AFMC SCM community.
The AFMC SCM Training Course At A Glance Our approach was to tailor make an Executive and a Working-level AFMC SCM course. The resultant 10-module course, detailed below, consists of 24 hours of classroom instruction. While each course will utilize the same 10 modules, the Executive-level course will not include as much hands-on detail as the Working-level course. Module 1: Introduction - Provides the rationale that drove the Command to accept SCM as the method of choice for continuous improvement in logistics support. Module 2: What is SCM? - Provides an understanding of the differences between commercial and AFMC applications of SCM and explains how SCM applications can impact their daily tasks. Module 3: Air Force Organization and Processes - Identifies the main organizational players in the SCM implementation effort and describes the overarching sustainment process they manage. Module 4: AFMC/SCM and the Work force - Develops an understanding of the role of the Supply Chain Manager and support staff in the implementation and execution of SCM in AFMC. Module 5: Policy and Guidance - Describes and identifies the sources for both official SCM policy and general guidance for implementation. Module 6: SCM Accountability - Explains the major conceptual changes that have occurred over the past few years that impact the Supply Chain Manager’s associated responsibilities, authority and accountablility. Module 7: SCM Toolkit - Develops a basic understanding of the purpose, informational content, system location and use of each of the
different applications and how they should be used. Module 8: Key SCM Initiatives (Process) - Identifies key process initiatives that are taking place within AFMC/SCM and outlines impacts on daily tasks as well as the AFMC supply chain. Module 9: Key SCM Initiatives (Information Technology) - Provides a basic understanding of the current and future major Information Technology initiatives and their potential impact on the AFMC supply chain. Module 10: Summary and Wrap-up - Provides an opportunity for open discussion and feedback.
The Training Schedule To ensure the course stands up to the rigid demands of our SCM community, we conducted a pilot course with participants from the ALC’s, HQ AFMC and HQ Air Force from 15-17 January 2002. The course is being modified accordingly and “live” training is scheduled to begin in February 2002. The full 2002 schedule is shown below. To accommodate the large number of applicable trainees, each ALC block of dates will consist of three consecutive 3-day courses. During 2002 alone, we hope to deliver training to approximately 900 people command-wide!
Location
Date 1
Date 2
Date 3
WR-ALC 19 Feb-1 Mar 13-23 May 12-22 Nov OC-ALC 18-28 Mar 15-25 Jul 21-31 Oct OO-ALC 15-25 Apr 12-22 Aug 2-12 Dec HQ AFMC 11-13 Jun Executive-Level presentations in conjuction with SCM Conference
Conclusion We have identified a strong need for AFMC-specific SCM training. Addressing the significant shortfalls in training and education is viewed as a key enabler of a successful AFMC SCM program. However, SCM training cannot and should not replace the functional-level training that every individual receives in order to perform his or her mission. The benefits of setting in place adequate SCM training will provide each individual with an in-depth understanding of how their performance contributes to the operation of the AFMC and overall Air Force supply chains. In addition, we are confident that it will shed light on how the largest logistics operation in the world must work in an integrated, fast-paced environment to provide world-class support to our warfighters. Wing Commander Andy Gell is an officer of the Royal Air Force Supply Branch and, under the auspices of the USAF/RAF Exchange Scheme, has filled a branch chief appointment in HQ AFMC/LG since August 2000. He joined the RAF in 1979 and has filled a variety of appointments in supply, transporter and logistics planning fields. Career highlights include commanding the Air Movements Squadron at RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus and his 6-month out-of-area appointment as Deputy Director C4 in the Combined Task Force HQ for Operation Provide Comfort (now Operation Northern Watch) at Incirlik AB in Turkey. He has an MBA from the UK’s Open University and an MA in Defense Studies from King’s College London.
The Exceptional Release, Winter 2002
17
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 18
MODULAR/SCALABLE AVIATION AND MAINTENANCE UTCs Maj Greg Broardt What’s a UTC?
nance units. ILM UTCs include the following:
The building blocks of the Air Force’s combat
•Jet Engine Intermediate Maintenance
capability are unit type codes or UTCs. UTCs represent a pre-packaged capability the Air Force makes available to the warfighting CINCs in OPLANS and for crisis planning. There are currently well over 575 maintenance related UTCs. Most UTCs contain personnel and equipment. Aviation and maintenance are the last major UTCs to reorganize in order to better suit today’s Expeditionary Aerospace Force.
•Fuel Tank Buildup
What’s the problem?
•Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratory (PMEL)
Currently, our aviation and maintenance UTCs are non-standard-
•Isochronal Inspection
ized (for same MDS and across MAJCOMs) and are still sized for major-theater-war (MTW) OPLAN taskings. The majority of the work needing to be done concerns our fighters. Most active duty fighter units are organized into 18 and 24 PAA packages. These large, cold-war era aviation UTCs are unsuitable for full spectrum operations where typical deployments may be in packages of less than 12 aircraft. In many cases units get tasked for UTCs they don’t even own. In general, there is a great deal of confusion in sourcing aviation and maintenance UTCs.
•Boom Maintenance
•F-15 Avionics Intermediate Station (AIS) •F-16 AIS •Electronic Counter-Measures pod (131 / 184) •LANTIRN (or Litening) pod
The new ILM UTCs will also be right-sized according to the number of aircraft supported or to accommodate small teams supporting their aircraft at centralized intermediate repair facilities (CIRFs).
In addition to the aviation maintenance and ILM UTCs there are several new categories of UTCs designed to round out a maintenance operation at an FOL (if required). They include: •Maintenance Squadron Supervision
What’s the plan?
•Maintenance Operations Center Supervision
The IL/XO UTC reengineering roadmap is a four-phase plan: UTC
•Logistics Support Squadron/Operations Support Squadron
Reengineering, UTC Posturing, AEF Library Alignment and AEF Sourcing. The new UTC construct requires a “building block” approach that segments squadrons into more “right-sized” UTCs. The goal is to produce modular/scalable aviation UTCs suited for steady state through MTW operations. For instance, fighters will be composed of a 12 ship first, with additional follow on packages of 6 ships. Each UTC will be based on a bare base environment and should be capable of War and Mobilization Plan (WMP) 5 sortie rates. UTC manpower will be determined by the Logistics Composite Model (LCOM) and will take into account the number of aircraft assigned. In general, 3 levels will be assigned to UTCs in proportion to unit manning authorizations.
Phase 1/UTC Reengineering UTC reengineering is the most difficult and time-consuming phase, especially for pilot units. There are several significant changes to note: First, aircraft maintenance will be removed from the old “3” series aviation UTCs and combined with the old “ILM” UTCs to form “aviation maintenance” UTCs. Though separate from the operators and aircraft, the maintenance will remain linked to the 3 series UTCs (in packages of 12/6/6) and SORTS reporting will still fall to the owning ops squadron commander. What was once known as ILM (intermediate level maintenance) is now redefined to add-on capabilities in support of aviation mainte-
18
•Quality Assurance Supervision and functional inspectors •Aircraft Battle Damage Repair •Air Force Engineering Technical Services
Once new UTCs are built and registered for use in the joint community, OPLANS and Designed Operational Capability (DOC) statements must be updated and the old UTCs will be deleted.
Phase 2/Posturing UTCs across the Air Force Simply put, posturing a UTC means filling it up with assigned personnel and equipment. All maintenance personnel should be “postured/assigned” to a UTC. Most UTCs for maintenance will be combat coded and made available for deployment. AETC and AFMC units also have a percentage of personnel that will be assigned to deployable combat UTCs.
The actual commanders, maintenance supervision, flight chiefs, shop chiefs and technicians will fill the authorizations identified in each UTC. By far, the most challenging aspect of posturing will be capturing non-aviation units and headquarters/staff personnel.
Phase 3/AEF Library Alignment Once UTCs are postured to the maximum extent possible across the Air Force, they must be organized in a force presentation tool for the
www.loanational.org
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 19
CINCs. The UTCs will be placed in the Air Force-Wide UTC Availability System (AFWUS) and coded properly to align them in AEF libraries to represent the sustainable maintenance force structure for AEFs, AEWs, and enablers. The goal is to maximize team contribution for AEF rotational deployments and contingencies. For most of maintenance, this translates into “follow your iron.” In other words, all deploying flying units (fighter, tactical airlift, tanker, and special mission) and their associated backshop maintainers are expected to be self-supporting; augmentation from “other” units is not a regular part of the maintenance construct. Thus, maintenance will not follow the 2-hit rule established for expeditionary combat support (ECS) and will be considered “aviation”. For example, if base “X” has three fighter squadrons aligned in three AEFs, they must deploy each time with the required flight line and backshop support to sustain their own flying mission/aircraft. NOTE: Although maintenance units may support more than two AEFs, the individuals themselves must still be aligned against only one AEF.
Phase 4/AEF Sourcing Maintenance will follow a UTC-in/UTC-out concept. That is, UTCs will be used to task units to provide personnel and equipment. Modular/scalable UTCs will drive down excessive line remarks and tailoring at execution. Additionally, this tasking/sourcing methodology will provide a more accurate picture of how the capabilities will be deployed/employed. The majority of maintenance capabilities should be expressed as whole UTCs aligned in AEF libraries. In this concept, deploying members, in the numbers required and skills necessary, are provided in the available UTCs.
Summary The CAF is lead for most of the current aviation and maintenance UTC reengineering. Once reengineering is complete, UTCs will be better suited to respond to the full spectrum of conflict. Lt Col (Sel) Broardt is currently based at Langley AFB and assigned to the Aerospace Expeditionary Force Center as the Maintenance Branch Chief. He previously served as the commander of the 363d Expeditionary Maintenance Squadron at Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia.
Continued from page 13 The AESOPTM “data mart” stores all the unique characteristics of the USAF (-220 and 220E) bases used in the model. These characteristics and attributes are built from a data warehouse that incorporates the historical metrics of each base in order to ensure a successful replication of the existing system. The data mart incorporates performance metrics of the depot and contracted sources of repair as well.
The “user” of AESOPTM is able to input various parameters into the
overall worldwide engine requirements by type and quantity of CII items, over a pre-determined time period. The AESOPTM Decision Support System provides the user with the capability to assess the impact of a TCTO by changing the total life cycle or the condemnation factors of a given component or CII item.
“What If” analysis on the variance of base cycle repair time, depot cycle repair time, and logistics response time and how these affect the availability of whole up engines and NSE.
model so that:
Thus, for propulsion managers the AESOPTM Decision Support
A cost trade off analysis is accomplished to determine production
System brings a unique tool to the manager’s decision “tool box”. AESOPTM looks “forward” by utilizing USAF historical data coupled with state-of-the-art simulation technology to make cogent, realistic business decision recommendations with the end goal of providing the maximum number of Net Serviceable Engines to the Air Force.
plans that recommend the best “mix” of parts/modules due to funding constraints. The performance metric for this analysis is the total worldwide NSE available over a predetermined time period. The solution set indicates which types and quantities of parts should be inducted into repair to maximize NSE, given available funding.
Adjustment factors for the AFMC Form 707 report that are based on the differences between the future requirements determined by the AESOPTM simulation model and the future requirements determined by the customer based on historical consumption. A factor is determined for each CII that is included. The purpose of these factors is to enhance the user’s current procedures for developing repair requirements.
Colonel (Ret) Jennifer Fox is the AESOPTM Program Manager for Dynamics Research Corporation in Oklahoma City. She is a long time Logistics Officer Association member and represents DRC in the Cross Roads Chapter of LOA. Mary Swinford is the AESOPTM Program Manager, Directorate of Propulsion, Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
An analysis of the impact of Time Compliance Technical Orders (TCTO) implementations and how those TCTOs will affect the The Exceptional Release, Winter 2002
19
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:49 PM
Page 20
Centralized Intermediate R Major Patrick Kumashiro “Strange as it may seem, the Air Force, except in the air, is the least mobile of all the services. A squadron can reach its destination in a few hours, but its establishment, depots, fuel, spare parts, and workshops may take weeks, and even months to develop.” — Winston Churchill, 1945
Winston Churchill’s characterization of Air Force logistics support over 55 years ago has provided us with a glimpse of how far the USAF has progressed from a garrison-based force to an expeditionary aerospace force. However, Churchill’s comments will continue to provide a catalyst for streamlining Air Force logistics support. Recently, Joint Vision 2020 and Air Force Vision 2020 articulated the objectives of focused logistics and agile combat support. These objectives are consistent with an expeditionary aerospace force that is “light, lean, and lethal” across the spectrum of conflict. Specifically, Air Force Vision 2020 states,
back to the supported unit. Retrograde line replaceabl repair. Supply will continue to manage these 3-level LRU tional maintenance workload at the CIRF, personnel an mined according to established “trigger points”. Clear transportation network to move assets between FOLs total asset visibility and effective distribution planning modes of military and commercial air/surface transporta
“We will streamline what we take with us, reducing our forward support footprint by 50 percent. We’ll rely increasingly on distributed (or reach back) operations to efficiently sustain our forces, providing time-definite delivery of needed capabilities. Fast, flexible, responsive, reliable support will be the foundation of all Air Force operations.”
One logistics concept that supports the vision of an expeditionary aerospace force is the development of Centralized Intermediate Repair Facilities (CIRFs). The CIRF concept provides a regional intermediate repair capability for avionics, engines, and sensors, relying on fast transportation to move assets between the CIRF and forward operating locations (FOLs). The CIRF concept is not merely a maintenance repair initiative, but an integrated supply chain management process that requires synergy between maintenance, supply, transportation, and logistics plans elements. Background
Regionalizing maintenance repair is not a new concept, as it has been used successfully in “Queen Bees” or Engine Regional Repair Centers (ERRC). In 1999, CIRFs provided regional repair support during Operation ALLIED FORCE (OAF). During OAF, the USAF leveraged intermediate repair capabilities within USAFE by repairing avionics, engines, LANTIRN/ECM pods, KC-135 booms and performing aircraft phase/isochronal inspections for 530 deployed aircraft. As a result, the Chief of Staff Logistics Review (CLR) recommended the development of a peacetime/wartime regional repair concept. Consequently, AF/ILM has led a USAF CIRF working group tasked to develop a CIRF concept of operations (CONOPS) for 3-level avionics, ECM/LANTIRN pods, engines, and aircraft phase/isochronal inspections. The CIRF working group identified four CIRF support scenarios—peacetime, steady-state, small-scale contingencies and major theater war (MTW). The CIRF Working Group decided to focus on institutionalizing a steady-state/contingency concept because it best supports the current EAF environment. Concept
The CIRF concept requires that maintenance, supply, and transportation processes be managed by a logistics command and control (C2) organization. Retrograde engines/pods would be transported to the CIRF for “repair/return”
20
www.loanational.org
to efficiently integrate all CIRF support to the warfigh induct, and distribute CIRF assets using information from Why regionalization?
There are several compelling reasons for regionalizing in cept. First, CIRFs reduce the deployment logistics footp Aerospace Forces: Forward Support Location Options” airlift requirements for personnel and support equipme airlift burden on Air Mobility Command. A smaller logis force protection requirements for personnel and sup deployed to a high threat environment. Second, region sustainment of deployed forces without waiting for the
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 21
Repair Facilities (CIRF) ceable units (LRUs) would also be sent to the CIRF for l LRUs as “remove/replace” assets. To support the addinel and support equipment augmentation will be deterClearly, the CIRF concept requires a dedicated, reliable OLs and the CIRFs in a timely manner. This will require nning between the CIRF and supported units using all portation. A robust logistics C2 organization is required
tenance (ILM) Unit Type Code (UTC) packages, typically, a 30-day follow-on package. Third, regionalization improves “economies of scale” by co-locating support equipment at the CIRF; thereby reducing the risk of “single point failures” at a deployed, austere FOL. If necessary, CIRF maintenance personnel could cross-cannibalize parts between multiple test stations to ensure there is always a mission capable station available to repair assets. Finally, regionalization improves overall training and repair quality because each CIRF will leverage a larger pool of experienced maintenance personnel in one location. This provides excellent opportunities for deployed Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve personnel to train active duty 3-levels.
CIRF Test The CIRF concept is being operationally tested at RAF Lakenheath and Spangdahlem AB during AEF 7/8 and AEF 9/10 deployments from Sep 2001 through Feb 2002. Both CIRFs are responsible for providing intermediate repair support for units deployed to Operations NORTHERN WATCH, SOUTHERN WATCH, and now ENDURING FREEDOM. During the test, the CIRFs are repairing F100/F110 engines, ECM (ALQ-131)/LANTIRN pods, and F-15 LRUs (ONW only). The CIRF test has five test objectives. These include: Evaluate CIRF capability to support AEF operations Assess RSS decision authority to prioritize, induct, and distribute assets between CIRFs and supported units Quantify logistics footprint reduction Analyze CIRF logistics costs and spare requirements to support deployed units arfighter. A logistics C2 organization should prioritize, n from a logistics common operating picture.
ing intermediate repair and institutionalizing a CIRF confootprint. According to the RAND Report, “Supporting tions”, leveraging OCONUS CIRFs can reduce strategic uipment by 35%. This dramatically reduces the strategic r logistics footprint also has the direct effect of reducing d support equipment that would have been forward egionalization ensures the immediate employment and or the deployment of follow-on intermediate-level main-
Validate maintenance manpower and support equipment “trigger points” at each CIRF Each test objective will be measured by a specific metric. These metrics include customer wait time, spares level status, transportation pipeline time, footprint savings, repair costs, and repair capacity. The metrics will be included in a final CIRF Test report due April 2002. Summary
I believe Winston Churchill would have been pleased with the CIRF concept because it fundamentally streamlines Air Force logistics support consistent with a flexible, responsive expeditionary aerospace force. However, the CIRF concept is not perfect; it is still vulnerable to the “fog & friction” of war. Therefore, logisticians must continue to refine the CIRF supply management process to ensure continuous logistics support to the warfighter. It is the foundation of our present and future logistics operations! Major Kumashiro is currently Chief, Aircraft Maintenance Integration, Base Maintenance Policy (AF/ILMM). He can be reached at patrick.kumashiro@pentagon.af.mil.
The Exceptional Release, Winter 2002
21
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 22
Engine “MISTR” Production 101 Capt Dana McCown Depot engine reparable asset production has often been a mystery to those of us who come from the field. In fact, we call it “bits-and-piece” part production and Air Force Material Command calls it “Management of Item Subject to Repair” (MISTR) production. We know when we send our unserviceable repairable assets to the depot, like our F100 augmentor parts, F110 divergent flaps and seals, or TF33 4th through 8th stage stators, they go through an intense, highly complex repair. Problem is, very few of us junior loggies understand this wholesale logistics business, so it’s time we teach ourselves how reparable parts enter the depot for repair and what actually happens to the part once it gets here.
Laymen’s View of “The MISTR Process”: The field transfers its unserviceable asset to the depot, after a detour through the receiving area of Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) “Defense Distribution Depot Oklahoma City” (DDOO) at Tinker. The Distribution Depot processes all incoming parts to Tinker and either: 1) sends the part to the depot when there is a known “requirement” (and either depot production or an automated system drives the part into the shop for repair,) or 2) DDOO stows the part in their warehouse with the other 250,000 reparable
Johnathan Jones uses the Mill Machine to repair a F100 Compressor Inlet Variable Vane (CIVV) Cylinder Support mated induction tool, which racks and stacks the current non-contract repair requirements and forwards to depot maintenance for induction.
Although material managers, working with industrial production managers, can manually drive assets into the repair cycle, EXPRESS is the automated depot system that makes critical daily Go/No-Go decisions on what to drive into the repair process. EXPRESS prioritizes overall warfighter demand and compares carcass availability, parts supportability, production capacity, and depot repair funds against a predetermined set of criteria. Once in repair, the part goes through the wickets of the production process. Upon completion, the part is sold, prepared for shipment by DLA, and either stowed as serviceable or shipped to the field according to the D035 system’s release sequence. Money Makes The World Go ‘Round: One of the many complicated factors that the depot has to consid-
and/or consumable assets.
An organic repair requirement exists when the current stock on the shelf doesn’t equal the computed level or, in the case of the F100 engine the level is based on current contractual quantities. The material manager uses Air Force legacy computer systems to compute these requirements and levels. Execution and Prioritization of Repair Support System, or EXPRESS, is the auto-
22
er before repairing the field’s assets is money! In a perfect world, the depot would have a plethora of dollars to execute, so if the field had a backorder, the depot would automatically drive the part in for repair. But there is this thing called cost authority (CA) which “provides for the procurement or repair of items managed in the Supply Management Activity Group (SMAG).” Or simply, the pot of money the depot uses to organically repair reparable assets. Cost authority is budgeted at least two years in advance based on a set of programmed assumptions and “equals the costs the SMAG can incur to support the customer’s needs and projected expenses.” Hence, the depot’s “zero profit, zero loss” philosophy. The obvious challenge is by the time it comes to the current year of execution, the set of assumptions has changed. This drives the depot to prioritize expen-
www.loanational.org
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 23
ditures and to make tradeoffs to offset the finite amount of budgetary resources. EXPRESS automatically attempts to balance the depot’s cost authority by ensuring the depots spread their cost authority over the entire year. As a result, there is a programmed “burn rate” for each source of supply that tells the EXPRESS supportability module how much CA is available for usage that day. So for all practical purposes, EXPRESS could draw a financial line in the sand and only everything above the line would be brought in for repair if it meets the other factors. However, the cost authority “setting” on the module is regularly adjusted to support warfighter needs.
So how does the depot support those inevitable unprogrammed requirements such as Operations NOBLE EAGLE and ENDURING FREEDOM? Just as you’ve heard on CNN, anytime there is a conflict, the military “usually” receives additional money from Congress, so if that’s the case, the depot’s yearly cost authority would be supplemented. In the specific case of Operations NOBLE EAGLE and ENDURING FREEDOM for example, Tinker has surged
The material manager (MM), who used to be called the “item manager,” is responsible for asset management from cradle to grave to include “provisioning, cataloging, calculating requirements, initiating procurement and repair actions, distributing, reclaiming and disposing of assets.” As far as organic repair goes, they work with the industrial production manager (commonly called “the fixer”) to manually adjust EXPRESS to bring in more assets when additional throughput is needed to support the warfighter. In the rare case of the F100 engine, which is not currently EXPRESS driven, the MMs, the fixer, and production schedulers manually negotiate the quarterly input based on factors such as number of backorders, quarterly demand rates, condemnation rates, production capacity, parts supportability, etc. Key to those negotiations is good forecasting, which isn’t just limited to reparables coming into production, but parts supportability for those reparables coming into production. Good forecasting goes well beyond the efforts of just the MM and the fixer—it encompasses an entire program management team entailing program managers, logistics managers, material managers, engineers, equipment specialists, and production representatives. This set of subject matter experts not only embraces parts supportability for the field, but also embraces support for the depot’s production efforts. Besides analyzing known requirements data, this program management team regularly performs deep looks in support of forecasted engine production that’s set to occur within the next 30, 60, 90, 120, and 180 days. They systematically attempt to solve or avoid parts constraints by aggressively working with vendors and original equipment manufacturers to expedite delivery of needed parts and to prevent parts supportability problems from being a factor in the repair of your assets.
The Actual Repair Process: Cathy Gonzalez uses the Vertical Mill to repair a TF33 Combustor Can. 2,776 engine parts in support of these two operations. Although it took the Center almost 23,760 man-hours to complete repair of those assets, the Center was able to accomplish the task in almost half the normal time while still producing record numbers in the MISTR program. In this example, depot engine MISTR production is a success story, but that’s not always the case when the depot has to prioritize other unprogrammed requirements. Unprogrammed requirements exist when we have technical surprises, assets condemn at a higher rate than projected, and/or our repair capabilities change. A fleet of aircraft for example, that goes through an unprojected time compliance technical order modification may drive reparable assets off the wing. This creates a bow wave of parts stacking up in the repair cycle and parts start “fighting for” limited resources. As a result, when you go to the shelf to get your part there may not be one there.
Good Forecasting is Essential:
The fixer is the single focal point for MISTR production. The MISTR program is governed by Air Force Materiel Command’s Depot Repair Enhancement Process (DREP) which “standardizes the repair
Rick Oakley uses the Automated Welding Machine to repair a TF33 Fan Case. Continued on page 24
The Exceptional Release, Winter 2002
23
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 24
Continued from page 23 process for all depot level exchangeable repairs.” DREP ensures “repairs are optimized” in order to minimize the number of flow days (the amount of time it takes to produce the part), balances warfighter needs, and minimizes internal production constraints. Propulsion production currently has four fixers; one for the F100
technician will either perform the repair or route the part to be prepared for repair, such as routing the part to have some material removed so the owning technician can gain access to the area in question.
When material is removed, the work is performed by the machine shop, which utilizes several hundreds of pieces of equipment to grind or machine the part depending upon the type of material, size, or delicacy of the item. After removal, the part is usually sent back to the owning unit for repair.
If material is removed, then logically the part will require the addi-
Weslie Timmerman uses the Liburdi 1000 Automated Plasma Welding System to repair a TF33 3rd/4th Stage Air Seal. program; one for all General Electric engines; one for the Navy’s engines; and one for the TF33 program.
After DLA sends the part over to the depot, the reparable part goes through either a chemical and/or a mechanical cleaning process before having a technician pull the work control document (WCD). For chemical cleaning, the part will be dipped and washed in an industrial strength cleaning solution to prepare the part for repair. Most parts, especially augmentor parts, will also be mechanically cleaned in the blast area which physically blasts away the dirt and debris. The WCD accompanies the part throughout the entire repair process, informs the technicians of the scope and the sequence of work to be performed, and documents who actually does the work. Although the WCDs do not take the place of technical orders, they are comprehensive enough to outline the required procedures and may be up to 60 pages in length. Next, the part will be inspected through the use of eddy current, Xray, or fluorescent penetrant methods and/or a visual and dimensional inspection at the unit or sub-unit level (shop level). After inspection, one of two things will occur…if the part is determined to be beyond depot repairable limits, the part will most likely go to the “material review board” for an engineering review in an attempt to salvage the part. Rather than condemning the asset, the engineer may also opt to redirect the part to an “X-Account,” which is a holding account at DLA’s warehouse. Parts sit in the X-Account until the engineering community has developed a new repair procedure for the part or a new technology comes available to assist in the part’s repair, which potentially saves the high dollar, carcass-constrained asset. Secondly, if the part is determined to be within limits, the 24
tion of new material by either: welding the part, plating the part to increase its content of metal, or running the part through plasma, which increases the strength and durability of certain areas of the part and often provides a thermal barrier coating. Often, once new material is added to the part, the machine shop will have to re-grind or re-machine the part to get it back within the allowable limits. Once the part has been repaired, the part is run through one of the many heat treat processes, which returns the original properties to the parent metal. Then, the part will go back to the unit for final inspection, the technician will fill out the serviceable tags, and the production schedulers will sell the part. Lastly, DLA will come pick up the part, then package and preserve the part, and either send it to the field to meet the demand or stow it in the warehouse.
Obviously, this is an oversimplification of the process and at times, the complexities of the repairs that are performed at the depot are truly mind-boggling! Some parts can be repaired in a matter of days, while others are labor intensive and take up to 6-8 weeks to com-
Marilyn Burkhart inspects the Navy’s F110-400 Low Pressure Turbine Rotor Assembly. plete.
One point to note, many times depot production is limited due to things the field can improve upon such as helping with carcass constraints and misidentification of assets. Carcass constraints, as far as depot production goes, is when there is a requirement to produce an asset, but there is not enough unserviceable reparable assets in the depot repair cycle. Sometimes when the field holds their repara-
www.loanational.org
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 25
ble asset while they wait for bit-and-piece parts, it dries up the limited repair cycle pipeline. That’s why, in severe cases, program management will send out a message to the field asking them to return all of their assets for repair. Additionally, it’s common for the depot to receive misidentified assets, which is when the field sends in a part to the depot and it’s not what’s annotated on the box or it’s the same part, just not the correct “modification” of that part. For obvious reasons, this limits or delays the depot’s ability to produce the right parts for the warfighter.
The Bottom Line: The fact that the F100 MISTR program has produced more MISTR assets in the past 6 months than it had in the past 2 years combined is a reflection of all the “depot cylinders” clicking at once. The reparables were available to be produced, there was enough cost authority to drive in those assets, program management minimized parts constraints, and engine production systematically flowed the parts through the repair cycle in order to achieve maximum results. It’s vital for the junior loggie to understand the challenges and the
John Rowley inspects a TF33 1st Stage Stator Assembly. successes felt in the wholesale logistics arena in order to better prepare your field-level squadron to meet the demands of the highpaced flying mission. I cannot emphasize to you enough how important it is to go out and read AFMCI 21-129, “Depot Maintenance Management, Depot Repair Enhancement Process.” Wholesale logistics affects the way you do your business, and in order to truly understand the whys and the hows, you’ve got to understand what’s happening on the “other side.” That’s one way us junior loggies can become better informed and better at supporting the mission. Captain McCown is a HQ USAF Logistics Career Broadening Officer assigned to the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma. She is an aircraft maintainer with 15 years experience and her past assignments include: RAF Woodbridge, UK; Keesler AFB, MS; Luke AFB, AZ; and Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ where she spent her last two years as the Component Repair Squadron Maintenance
LOA Coasters!
As many of you know, the 2001 Logistics Officer Association Conference in Atlanta, GA was cancelled as a result of the 9-11 event. The Middle GA LOA Chapter was hosting that event and was prepared to sell/make available to LOA members, a special absorbent LOA Coaster.
The cost for each individually boxed coaster is $7.00 (postage and shipping included). You can save a little bit by ordering a set of 4 coasters - only $25.00 - a savings of $3.00) . Please send your name, address, the number of coasters you desire with a check or money order for the appropriate amount to: Middle GA LOA Coaster P.O. Box 98491 Robins AFB, GA 31098
The Exceptional Release, Winter 2002
25
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 26
Captain David L. Peeler Jr.
Broken Parts = Hangar Space Funding the Repair of a Pope AFB Hangar Sitting dilapidated, unavailable for is functional purpose, a majestic 1
historical landmark sat awaiting someone to recognize its potential contribution to the mission. During the course of calendar year 2000 someone did notice. The 23d Fighter Group seized upon an idea to transform supply credits into much needed indoor hangar space. What ensued was a two year journey of learning, planning, and positioning. Ultimately, a contract was let to repair an unused hangar to usable condition.
Constructed at Pope Field–Fort Bragg, North Carolina in 1933, Hangar 5 made up one half of a double hangar project – the east and west wings of which are currently known as Hangar 4 and Hangar 2 5 , respectively. These hangars were completed at a cost of $175,590.97, contained 45,476 square feet of floor space, and were accepted from the building contractor on 5 Nov 1934. Subsequent modifications added heat3 in 1957; and limited structural renovations over the intervening years brought the square footage to its current 53,000. Standing unused by aircraft for the past twenty-five years, the history of Hangar 5 diverged from that of Hangar 4 in 1975. That was the year the Army4 decided to operate helicopters at Pope. The floor of Hangar 5 was converted to office space, for the helicopter mission personnel, by anchoring modular sections within its bay.
The helicopter mission remained only three years but the office space somehow stood until 2000, when attention finally resulted in a contract for its demolition. Between 1975 and the present, Hangar 4 remained operational for aircraft maintenance, while Hangar 5 stood unavailable. No appreciable real property maintenance had been performed inside Hangar 5 for more than 25 years, leaving it unfit for aircraft maintenance and in very poor condition.
Space and facilities are at a premium on Pope AFB, which is confined 26
on three sides by Fort Bragg and on the other by the town of Spring Lake, N.C. Working within this environment, the 23d Fighter Group5 (23 FG) is involved in an ongoing effort to transition from temporary to permanent facilities. Following the 1997 re-host of Pope AFB from ACC to AMC the plan was to leave the 23 FG at Pope only temporarily, but in 2000 its location was determined permanent. Initially housed in sub-par facilities, pending the move that didn’t happen, the 23 FG slowly progresses toward improvement in the quality of their facilities and spatial needs.
Upon determination that it would remain at Pope, the 23 FG began seeking ways to add to its existing six6 indoor maintenance bays. Hangar 5 was immediately proposed to the host base civil engineering squadron (CES) as a possibility to gain maintenance spaces and consolidate dispersed maintenance functions.7 CES responded that no plans existed for the facility and use by the 23 FG would be possible; however, no funds were available to design the facility’s repair. At this point the 23 FG/CC invited his comptroller to become involved and seek funds to repair Hangar 5. Thus began the education process. The immediate funding question dealt with the type of funds required; the proverbial “color of money” question. Both the design and the repair work had to use the same “color” funds. The answer revolved around the type of work to be done. The objective was to return the existing structure to usable aircraft maintenance space by repairing the walls, doors, floors, hoists, offices, grounding, and electrical components.8 Consultation between the Comptroller and the CES Chief of Programming,9 while referencing the applicable AFIs, determined that this project fell under the heading of repair. AFI 32-1032 states, “Repair means to restore real property and real property systems or components to such a condition that they may effectively be used for their designated functional purposes.”10
www.loanational.org
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 27
Decidedly, the proposed project was repair; now, to definitely determine the proper appropriation. Again referencing AFI 321032, “Repair of facilities, or functional areas of multipurpose facilities, using O&M funds is authorized by 10 U.S.C. §2811. There is no limitation on the amount of O&M funds that may be used for repair, but there are approval and notification requirements, depending on the amount being spent.”11 Approval and notification requirements are required on projects whose cumulative total exceeds $5,000,000; a total far beyond aspirations for this hangar.
The local civil engineers estimated that an Architecture and Engineering (A&E) firm12 would charge $200,000 to design the needed repairs; so, the 23 FG set out to find funding sources. One immediate source was their own Repair Enhancement Program (a.k.a. Gold Flag) credits, generated by local repair of unserviceable parts.13 The 23 FG/CC and his comptroller devised a plan to split the design bill four ways. Descriptions and justifications were written for HQ Ninth Air Force Commander Reserve Funds, while the 23 FG/CC worked HQ ACC/CEP for matching funds, and asked his wing commander14 to contribute to funding the design of a Hangar 5 repair project. To many people’s surprise, this resourceful plan came together and a design contract was awarded within four months. The split funding plan was conceived in May; funds arrived from external sources in July; and the design contract award occurred in August 2000.
The design’s progress was attentively followed in anticipation of placing the repair project on the following year’s straddle bid request list. The design progressed throughout the Fall, but became stagnated in February due to a pending HQ decision on switching fire suppression systems from Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) to High Expansion Foam (HEF). HEF was decided upon in April. We awaited the decision because the HEF system cost $500,000 less than the AFFF; and thus provided a means to reduce the cost of the repair contract. However, the delay ultimately prevented the project’s inclusion on Pope’s straddle bid submission, as it wasn’t 100% designed and ready to advertise by the required April date.
Concurrent with the design’s progress throughout the Fall and early Winter, the 23 FG’s Gold Flag program was amassing credits. Thus, a fall back plan to the straddle bid process emerged even before the fire suppression delay precluded straddle bid as an option. At the end of the first fiscal quarter of FY01 the 23 FG Gold Flag shop had generated over $800,000 in cost savings. The comptroller watched the accumulation of credits closely and by February of 2001 realized the group might have enough to fund half the repair project, which was then estimated at $2,300,000. The February fire suppression delay and Gold Flag credit insight corresponded with the repair design’s 60% review. Faced with the facts that delay would eliminate a straddle bid possibility and the availability of Gold Flag credits for over half the estimated project cost, the comptroller proposed a two-front funding strategy:
(1) plan to fund one half of the Hangar 5 repair project, using unit funding as leverage to get the other half funded via a MAJCOM15 split; and (2) have the A&E firm design the project into phases. The latter was an inefficient method to accomplish the needed repairs, but a quicker route to returning the facility to usable hangar space than waiting for future, programmed funding. The commander approved pursuit of both these strategies.
The group continued to advocate MAJCOM responsibility for funding facility repair, attempting to leverage their own willingness to fund one half of the project into full project funding. However, both MAJCOM CE POCs were skeptical, to say the least, about the possibility of executing the contract with an estimated design delivery date of 26 July. This skepticism didn’t slow the Hangar 5 Team16 effort to do the advance work necessary to fund and award the contract.
The Exceptional Release, Winter 2002
Continued on page 28 27
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Continued from page 27
Page 28
When the 90% design review was accomplished in late June 2001, the A&E design approach and the change from AFFF to HEF fire suppression had reduced the estimate to perform the needed repairs from $2,300,000 to $1,600,000. Based upon this development, the 23 FG/CC & FM quickly reassessed the viability of the two funding strategies employed. The 23 FG viewed the new, lower estimated cost as an opportunity to either fund the project outright, if it came to that, or retain a portion of their Gold Flag credits to fund other mission requirements, provided the MAJCOMs were forthcoming with a fair share. The issue of affording the project behind them, the group postured to recoup a portion of their Gold Flag credits.
The ultimate fall-back position was to fully fund the repair project from 23 FG Gold Flag credits, as the end-of-month June tally for cost savings exceeded the $1,600,000 project estimate. However, the 23 FG/CC wished to use some of these credits for other critical needs. While the importance of the project dictated that the group would fund independent of any external funding assistance, both MAJCOMs with interest in Pope AFB were asked to provide funding.
Armed with this more concrete cost estimate, the group reapproached both commands. The 23 FG/CC requested his commander17 and the 43 AW/CC18 elicit support from their respective MAJCOMs, ACC & AMC, to help fund the project. The 4 FW/CC sent a letter to ACC/CE & FM and the 43 AW/CC communicated the need to the AMC functionals. Each requested $400,000 in funds to aid the 23 FG. As before, doubt was expressed about the feasibility of turning a 26 July design delivery date into a contract award in the 67 calendar days, 45 business days, remaining in the fiscal year. Still undaunted the Hangar 5 Team pressed forward. The contract administrator laid the ground work for a quick bid solicitation and slip-free bid review, effectively positioning the contracting office to receive the design, hasten the solicitation posting, and the subsequent award once bids were received. Bid solicitation closed 29 August; previous performance checks were accomplished; and the legal review completed for a contract award on 12 Sep. By priming the process, contracting completed the solicitation and award process – from receipt of design, funding already committed, to award acceptance – in only 35 business days.
On 11 September, the comptroller re-engaged the HQ ACC Director of Budget, who had visited Pope in August, to inform him that the Hangar 5 project was a go with or without MAJCOM funding. However, the unit would appreciate a “rebate” of some portion of the $1,622,000 in Gold Flag credits being obligated on the contract award. As a result of prior positioning the issue, ACC provided $600,000 that afternoon. This amount was an equal sharing between ACC & AMC. More importantly to the unit, the “rebate” provided $600,000 for equipment needs previously deferred in the interest of increasing 23 FG hangar space.
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 29
A quick synopsis of the mission gains achieved by repairing this
6
hangar include: a 40% increase in the tenant group’s indoor maintenance space; a 16% increase in overall Pope AFB indoor maintenance space; a 15% reduction in the 23d Maintenance Squadron Commander’s span of control19,consolidating his entire operations flight into a single location; and the potential to increase 23 FG aircraft availability by three aircraft per month. The 16 month adventure of learning, planning, and positioning came to fruition. This project returns a hangar to usable condition after being abandoned for aircraft maintenance 25 years ago. Additionally, the repair project will restore the interior condition20 of an historical landmark and return its status as a productive contributor to mission accomplishment.
ered maintenance spaces.
With a dock factor of 25% and a PAA of 42 aircraft the group is authorized 11 cov-
7
The 23d Maintenance Squadron has personnel in 27 separate locations across the
base/post. 8
Ultimately, the project included HVAC and, due to applicable code requirements for
such repairs, fire suppression. 9
The latter defined the intended scope of work based upon inputs from the Deputy
Commander for Logistics. 10
AFI 32-1032, Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.1.2. dated 1 September 1999 and 10 U.S.C.
§2811(e). 11
AFI 32-1032, Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.3. dated 1 September 1999 and 10 U.S.C.
§2811(a).
The Hangar 5 Team: 12
At the time Pope AFB was scaling down SABRE in order to re-bid the contract;
Capt David Peeler
23 FG
CMSgt Luis Burgos
23 FG
13
Mr. Karl Miller
43 CES
addresses the financial process.
Ms. Mary Linehan
43 CES
14
Mr. John Howard
43 CONS
TSgt Patrick Boyd
43 CONS
thus, no new SABRE adds. AFI 21-123 covers the Air Force Repair Enhancement Program. Paragraph 7
At the time, the 23 FG was aligned under the 347th Wing at Moody AFB GA, an
arrangement created when Pope re-hosted in Apr 97. The 23 FG was re-aligned in Jun 00 to the 4th Fighter Wing at Seymour Johnson AFB NC. 15
Captain David L. Peeler, Jr. is the 23d Fighter Group Comptroller. He has bachelors degrees in Economics, Mathematics, and Political Science; and earned a Master of Science degree in Cost Analysis from the Air Force Institute of Technology in 1996.
command, AMC, to fund. 16
The uncreative name given the combination of 23 FG and host base CE/contract-
ing folks shepherding the project. 17
1
The 23 FG availed themselves upon both their command, ACC, and the host base’s
Placed on the National Register of Historic Places 16 January 1991.
This time the 4 FW/CC. Recall the 23 FG was re-aligned from the 347th Wing to
the 4th Fighter Wing in Jun 00. 2
Hangar 5, the west wing hangar, is in the foreground of photograph of the double 18
The host base’s wing commander.
19
The 23 MXS has personnel working out of 27 separate locations on Pope AFB and
hangar; its door closed. 3
The original 1957 boiler was coal fired and operated at a pressure of 15 psi for
Ft Bragg. A condition created after the base’s re-host when the 23 MXS functions
steam and 30 psi for water.
were placed in all sorts of out-of-the-way, temporary locations. 4
Pope AFB is owned by the Army/Fort Bragg.
5
The USAF’s largest Active Duty group of A-10s; located at Pope AFB as an ACC
20
The exterior of the entire double hangar has been maintained.
tenant on an AMC installation.
The Exceptional Release, Winter 2002
29
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 30
374th Transportation Squadron’s Combat Mobility Element Unique to Air Force 2Lt Kevin Kudrna While 800 feet in the air, a C-130 prepares to release an airdrop load packed with a vital supply of ammunition and food. One of the crewmembers pushes a button and the roaring sound of an airdrop
AB, Elmendorf AFB, and Osan AB were tasked to stand up the only CMEs in the Air Force, though Osan AB no longer has a CME.
When CME airmen aren’t deployed in the Pacific Theater or elsewhere around the world, their primary duty shifts to supporting the 36th Airlift Squadron with unilateral airdrop training; rigging airdrop loads with parachutes and recovering the airdrop loads after the C-130s perform airdrop training. “CME ensures the 36th Airlift Squadron maintains airdrop proficiency by providing them with airdrop loads packed with precision, which we recover at various drop zones throughout the Pacific” said Amn David La, an Air Transportation Specialist at CME.
The 36th Airlift Squadron performs most airdrop training at Camp
SrA Ben Gonzalez, SrA Ken Tockey, and A1C Dave La prepare a C-130 airdrop load (picture by MSgt Val Gempis, AFN) load being ripped out of the C-130 is heard. From the ground, a group of soldiers intently watch the airdrop load parachute to earth, hitting the ground with a thud and a cloud of dust. The airdrop was successful and the soldiers got their much needed supplies without endangering the lives and equipment of ground troops trying to resupply them.
Fuji, Japan, (a small US Marine Base near Yokota AB), but they also deploy to practice on drop zones in Guam, Korea, and Thailand. CME troops coordinate all of the logistics support including; the airdrop load rigging and loading onto the aircraft at Yokota, the movement of materiel handling equipment overland from Yokota AB to Camp Fuji, the safe recovery of the airdrop loads at the range, and the transport of the loads back to Yokota via contracted surface transportation. It is important that the CME properly rigs airdrop loads because a rigging malfunction can cause the loss of expensive equipment or even worse, death if an uncontrolled load lands in an inhabited area. The CME at Yokota AB can proudly say it won’t happen on their watch as they haven’t had a rigger malfunction in over 112 months; the current record for all CMEs worldwide.
In the Pacific theater, the success of this would-be scenario is directly linked to the efforts of the 374th Transportation Squadron Combat Readiness Flight’s Combat Mobility Element (CME) and the two other CMEs in PACAF. CME plays an important role in the 36th Airlift Squadron’s (Yokota AB C-130E squadron) airdrop training and the Pacific Theater’s peacetime and wartime missions. CME is made up of 21 Air Transporters (AFSC 2T2XX) whose primary job is to establish fixed aerial port operations and 3 Fabrication Specialists (AFSC 2A7XX) whose primary job is parachute rigging and repair. The CME troops are initially qualified on parachute rigging by attending the US Army Rigger School at Fort Lee, Virginia. CMEs were formed from what were once Aerial Delivery Support flights attached to C-130 Squadrons. Previously they were used strictly for rigging aerial delivery loads with parachutes for airdrop training. In 1994,Yokota AB, along with Kadena 30
TSgt Robin Olaes and A1C Mike Powell make final parachute rigging preparations (picture by MSgt Val Gempis, AFN)
www.loanational.org
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 31
CME also provides PACAF with mission support and training support during peacetime operations. While deployed, these air transporters perform their primary duties supporting real world contingencies, joint military exercises, PACAF exercises, Special Assignment Airlift Missions, AEF deployments, and humanitarian
years. There they learn basic survival skills, the first week in a classroom environment. They also learn how to survive in a forward operating base environment, honing their skills in map reading, land navigation, night vision operations, radio operation, and perimeter defense during one week of field training. The perimeter defense part of training is exceptionally difficult, with instructors acting as aggressors harassing the defenders throughout the full week of field training.
The year 2000 was truly a magical year for the CME at Yokota AB because in addition to CME winning the AMC Airlift Rodeo, they also helped the Combat Readiness Flight earn the title of Best Combat Readiness Unit in the Air Force for the Year 2000. They were also key in the 374th Transportation Squadron being named the Best Transportation Squadron in the Air Force as the National Defense Transportation Association’s Military Unit Award Winner for 2000. 2Lt Kevin Kudrna is the Combat Readiness Flight Commander, 374th Transportation Squadron, Yokota AB Japan. He leads 27 personnel (including CME) providing vital wartime readiness The CME hangar at Yokota AB, Japan (picture by MSgt Val Gempis, AFN) to Yokota AB. 2Lt Kudrna led his flight to "Best in USAF" Honors for 2000. He is a prior-service traffic missions. “CME has an extremely high ops-tempo, supporting Pacific management specialist who was commissioned through OTS in Theater missions and AEF deployments year round,” said CME’s 2000. superintendent, MSgt Frank Tuck while watching his airmen prepare airdrop loads. All these deployments and exercises paid off in 2000 when Yokota’s CME captured the title of “The Best Aerial Port Team in the World” by placing 1st out of 44 teams at AMC’s Airlift Rodeo 2000 at Pope AFB, NC.
During wartime, CME is tasked to provide rapid response aerial port capabilities in forward operating bases in the Pacific theater. MSgt Tuck explained, “CME is a highly mobile aerial port team capable of self sustainment while setting up a forward operating base to receive or deploy forces.” Recently Yokota’s CME deployed a 6-man team to a classified location within the Pacific Theater in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, where they processed 700 passengers and 200 tons of cargo to support the deployment of an F15E squadron into a forward operating location. To prepare CME for the potential hazards they may encounter while operating at these forward operating bases, each person assigned to the section must endure an intense two-week air base ground defense course, known as Cope Viper at Kadena AB, Japan.
All members of CME attend Cope Viper training once every two
SrA Ken Tockey checks a parachute load (picture by MSgt Val Gempis, AFN)
The Exceptional Release, Winter 2002
31
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 32
The Capital Chapter is honored to host the Logistics Officer Association’s 20th Anniversary Conference - where it all began here in Washington DC. This year’s theme is Logistics Support for the Joint Warfighter - Today and Tomorrow and will be held at the beautiful Hyatt Regency in Crystal City from 4-6 September. We have secured 400 rooms at the prevailing government rate and can increase the room block based on demand since we expect record-setting attendance for this, the Association’s 20th Anniversary. We have several special events planned to commemorate 20 years of excellence including a tribute to the MOA founders and the annual golf tournament. Reserve your spot today by calling Hyatt reservations at 703-418-1234 (ext 53) or toll free at 800-233-1234. Mark your calendars...this one’s guaranteed to be the best conference ever!
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 33
Ad on Film - AAI
The Exceptional Release, Winter 2002
Chapter Updates
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 34
The Lightning Chapter - MacDill AFB The Lightning Chapter of the Logistics Officers Association held an Executive Council Meeting today. Highlights include: • Lt Tracey Howell-LaPalme has replaced Captain Howard Morgan as our Membership Officer. • Captain Gary Civitella (VP) briefed that we are a legal “Private Organization” on base for the year. We will need to re-register next year and update our status if we open a bank account. • We discussed events scheduling for the next year. The plan includes: • 28 Feb tour of the Fuels Mobility Support Element to learn how the USAF provides contingency fuels support in austere locations. We have had interest from both CINCs on this tour and hope to see some CENTCOM and SOCOM folks on the 28th. 2 Lt Aaron Neiss is our project officer and we will have a flyer and map out soon with details. • March/April Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (AMARC) tour. Captain Brad Archer is our project Officer for this trip. He is currently at SOS, but when he returns he will start working the details hard. We may face airlift complications due to runway closure, but we will not give up yet. Interested in some background? Visit: http://www.dm.af.mil/AMARC/ • March Luncheon with the AFIT Combat Logistics instructor. Lt Donny Bagwell is working to see if we can get something set up so we can pick the brain of a leading loggie academic. (Oxymoron? Are you thinking jumbo-shrimp right now?) • May/June FedEx or UPS tour. Lt Donny Bagwell is working to set this trip up. Again, the CINCs expressed interest. More to come. • July/August - Lt Joe Whittington is going to try to set up an event with SOCOM. We are hoping to get some insight into special ops logistics and their unique requirements. • Sep - 2002 LOA Conference, Washington D.C., 4-6 September 2002. Project Officer TBA. • Nov/Dec - We are exploring possibilities. Discussions included taking a trip to Warner Robins ALC, visiting the Lockheed Martin facility outside Atlanta to see the F-22 and C-130J production lines, tours of the logistics operations at either Busch Gardens (including the brewery) or Disney World. Disney has a formal program, but expenses ($200 per person for the tour) may complicate the issue. We are looking for a project officer. Let us know if you have ideas or want to help! • LOA scholarship publicity should hit the street in May. Captain Civitella is our POC. We have to have the submissions evaluated and into national by early July. • We will have elections in May also. Start thinking about nominees. I am leaving this summer... That’s all for now! Maj L ROBERT M. LETOURNEAU, Major, USAF President, Lightning Chapter
The Capital Chapter - Andrews AFB The LOA Capital Chapter had the rare opportunity to enjoy lunch with General John Jumper a mere 90 days after he assumed command as the Air Force Chief of Staff. This was a particularly unique experience given everything the CSAF has had to contend with since the ferocious attacks of 9-1-1. The quarterly professional development luncheon had an audience of 80 loggies. General Jumper first began talking about the unexpected opportunities he has enjoyed since his appointment to the position, including all the mayhem involved with television broadcasting for his appearance on Larry King Live to his personal representation of the United States military at The World Series. From there, General Jumper went straight to thanking us! He praised logisticians as one of the most talented and hard working groups of people in the USAF. It is our responsibility to communicate this same message to the enlisted troops...the very people we as logistics leaders must be worthy of leading-especially in light of the current world situation. Jumper stressed that now, more than ever, the USAF is the symbol of America, the symbol of international strength. In the past, USAF logisticians have traditionally defined us and our successes in terms of supply, transportation and maintenance. What the Air Force now needs from us is a person who is
34
www.loanational.org
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 35
familiar with all three disciplines and knows how to move things, set things up, and make everything work whenever and wherever needed! From there, he fielded a few questions from the audience regarding operations tempo, force restructuring, and modernization. Overall, the luncheon was a complete success, and the Capital Chapter was honored to have his presence at their quarterly professional development luncheon. Many of the attendees can't help but remember the profound silence that hung over the room when he told us about a personal story he had recently experienced. It was late afternoon, downtown Phoenix Arizona, Bank One Ballpark. It was the seventh game of The World Series, Arizona Diamondbacks versus New York Yankees. General Jumper was in his service dress uniform as the military's senior representation. After a live interview with a reporter was flashed on the stadium's big screens, the entire stadium knew who he was! Immediately following the interview and throughout the night, folks came up to him to shake his hand and express their appreciation for everything the military and our Air Force was doing to help. The one person he most vividly remembered was one of the surviving spouses of a victim of the September 11th attack. When he extended his hand to shake hers--like he had done with everyone else--she hugged him instead and whispered in his ear, "You go get those guys!" General Jumper responded, "We will."
The Gateway Chapter - Scott AFB The Scott LOA Chapter is proud to have General John W. Handy, CINC USTRANSCOM & AMC/CC, renew his membership with the Logistics Officer Association and affiliate with the Scott Chapter. General Handy has been a staunch supporter of the national organization throughout the years and we look forward to his continued participation in our organization and chapter events. The Scott LOA Chapter has hosted four Distinguished Speakers to date. Our latest two have been Lt Gen Michael Zettler, USAF/IL and Brig Gen Pete Hennessey, AMC/LG. Both events were a huge success with great turnouts. We hope Gen Zettler has been sporting his official LOA watch around the pentagon and wearing it proudly! This past summer the chapter’s executive council met to review the President’s 12 Month Plan for our chapter. I would like to highlight some our achievements to date. We have grown by 50% over the past year from a small cadre of 26 members to currently 54 members making the Scott chapter the largest in AMC and 6th largest in LOA. We are extremely proud of our chapter website which has been recognized as a LOA Feature Website this past quarter. Our website serves as our central focal point for news, information, events, and award guidance to base logistics personnel. Be sure to visit it at http://www.loanational.org/scott The singularly defining success in our chapter has been our Logistician of the Quarter program which continues to receive overwhelming support. We saw a need to fill a vitally important gap in the awards program on base ... Premier logisticians were not being recognized as the best in the logistics community each quarter, of course, there are always loggies who win the base quarterly and annual awards, but we wanted our loggies to be able to say “I am the top loggie!” Each quarter the local chapter holds a quarterly awards board were logistics CMSgts and officers select the junior enlisted, NCO, SNCO, and civilian Logistician of the Quarter from all logistics disciplines and military services. The following individuals have held the “Top Loggie” title in the past. Be sure to check the website for the 4th Quarter winners! Apr-Jun 01
Jul-Sep 01 Junior Enlisted
SrA Timothy A. Smith, 375 LSS
Junior Enlisted
A1C Steven W. Kuheny, 375 MXS
NCO
TSgt Lorin Ray, AMCRSS
NCO
SSgt Wendy G. Berry, AMCRSS
SNCO
MSgt Billie Harrison, HQ AMC/LGXW
SNCO
SMSgt Laurie L. Carroll, HQ AMC/DO
Civilian
Mr George Merritt, 375 MXS
Civilian
Mrs Pamela J. Kehrer, 375 LSS
Best Regards, Capt JD DuVall President, Scott LOA
The Exceptional Release, Winter 2002
35
Chapter Updates
The Capital Chapter - Andrews AFB (continued)
Chapter Updates
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 36
The Crossroads Chapter - Tinker AFB As everyone should know by now, the Tinker Crossroads Chapter will host the 2003 LOA National Conference in Oklahoma City (OKC). Some of you may be saying: OKLAHOMA?!?! It’s nothing but a dustbowl with tumbleweeds! Well, my fellow loggies, you are in for a sweet surprise! Oklahoma City more than stands up to the caliber of previous conference sites. You’ll be staying in two outstanding hotels (the Renaissance and Westin both within JTR funding) connected via skywalk/tunnel to a recently renovated 25,000 square feet convention center. The hotels are a short walk to Oklahoma City’s Bricktown which includes a downtown Riverwalk with water taxis, 20 restaurants, the new Bricktown Ballpark, Myriad Botanical Gardens, and Variety of Nightlife/Clubs (Comedy, Dance, Micro-Brewery, etc.). For more info, check out the Oklahoma City Convention and Visitor’s Bureau website: http://www.okccvb.org/ and http://www.bricktown.com. On the outskirts of the city is Tinker AFB. Tinker is home of the largest Air Logistics Center in the Air Force supporting the B-1, B-52, KC-135, and E-3 production lines, various commodities, and is the Air Force engine capital maintaining over 22,000 engines. Stay tuned to our chapter website for the latest updates. We could not have put together our bid without the outstanding support from our senior leadership (ALC Commander, Maj Gen Charles Johnson, and Vice Commander Brig Gen Loren Reno) and our local community (Oklahoma City Mayor Kirk Humphreys, County Commissioner Beverly Hodges, Kim Vann from Oklahoma City Convention and Visitors Bureau, and Ms. Vicki Beshoner from our host hotel, The Renaissance). Even the legendary LtGen (ret) Leo Marquez was impressed with our chapter, Tinker and OKC! Several individuals from our chapter worked very hard putting our winning bid together over the last year: Maj Jack Meyer (bid chairman), Capt Dana Pelletier, Capt Brad Tannehill, Capt Mark Bennett, Capt Eric Johnson, Capt Sean Patterson, Capt Ken Norgard, Capt Jim Delong, Capt Frank Alberga, Capt Dana McCown, Capt Dave Benedict and 1Lt Joe Banks. Our chapter remains extremely active, and we have a great list of events scheduled this year: our annual membership drive (our goal is to be the largest LOA Chapter, by our numbers we are currently #2), a visit from McConnell LOA members, visits by Brig Gen Harrell, AF/ILM, Maj Gen Johnston, Air Warfare Center/CC, BG Gabreski, AFMC/LG, Brig Gen Wetekam, ACC/LG and a Squadron Commander’s perspectives panel. We are also lucky to have 4 Senior Executive Service (SES) civilians at Tinker and plan on having them speak to us as a panel. We have some outstanding tours scheduled as well: Tinker’s Navy TACAMO, Wal-Mart distribution center, and American Airlines heavy maintenance facility in Dallas, TX. We look forward to seeing everyone in Washington D.C. for this year’s conference and wish you all a great year!! OKC in 2003!! Capt Rob Triplett LOA President, Crossroads Chapter
The Razorback Chapter - Little Rock AFB We’ve had a busy year here at Little Rock. Our fledgling chapter grew from 9 members to 37 strong this year and we participated in some fun activities along the way! This past quarter we visited the storage facility for the Clinton Presidential Library, which will be built in downtown Little Rock. Our base supported the movement of five C-5’s worth of presidential papers, and Razorback loggies were instrumental in pulling off this huge project! We also awarded our very own LOA National Scholarship winner, TSgt Joey Bailey, a check for $2000. He plans to use the money to finish his degree and apply for OTS. The most important news, however, is handing the reigns to our new chapter leadership! Our new President is Lt Col Cheryl “C.A.” Allen. Vice President is Lt Chuck Durham. Treasurer is Lt Jim Moore. Recorder is Lt Rachel Baase. We look forward to continued growth and fun in our chapter’s third year!
TSgt Joey Bailey is awarded his LOA National Scholarship. Congratulations!
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 37
We would like to officially announce the birth of a new LOA Chapter, the Fuji Chapter here at Yokota Air Base, Japan. With the election of our founding officers, the Fuji Chapter is now ready to blaze the trail for logisticians here in this dynamic area of the Pacific Theater, into 2002 and beyond. Our founding officers are: President: Maj Richard P. Schwing, Commander, 374th Transportation Squadron
Members of the Fuji Chapter tour, Yokohama North Dock, Japan
Vice President: Capt Jason S. Edelblute, Weapons Safety Officer, HQ 5th Air Force Secretary: 2Lt Jared L. Still, Installation Services Flight Officer-in-Charge,
374th Contracting Squadron Our chapter has been very busy over the last quarter of 2001. In October, 16 officers from the chapter visited the 836th Transportation Battalion, US Army, stationed at Yokohama North Dock, Japan. CPT Dave Preston, the 836th Operations Officer, gave an outstanding briefing on how the Army “grows” logistics officers into the Transportation, Quartermaster, and Ordnance branches of service. In addition, CPT Preston gave a superb overview of the mission of the 836th and Yokohama North Dock, a vital port supporting Military Sealift Command operations for all of Japan. In December, in addition to electing our founding officers, we had a briefing from Maj Schwing on some of the various officer career broadening/professional development assignments that are available. This included an overview of the Logistics Career Broadening Program (LCBP), the Air Force Intern Program (AFIP), the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT), and the Advanced Studies in Air Mobility (ASAM) program. Our new Executive Committee is poised to build on the chapter’s core goal providing professional development to logistics officers throughout the Kanto Plain region of Japan....US Air Force, Navy, Army, Marines, Japanese Self-Defense Forces, and civilians. Upcoming planned events include a tour of AMC’s 730th Air Mobility Squadron here on Yokota, an exchange program with Japanese logistics officers from Iruma Air Base, and a tour of the Maersk SeaLand container port in Yokohama. Richard P. Schwing, Maj, USAF President, Fuji Chapter LOA
The Blackjack Chapter - Nellis AFB We held our annual elections for the Blackjack chapter at our January 18th meeting. The 2002 winners are: • President: Capt Jason Gibson, Falcon AMF, Flight Commander • Vice Pres: 1Lt Mackenzie Shultz, Eagle AMF, Asst. Flight Commander • Membership Officer: Maj Dave Bouska, 57 WG, QA OIC • Activities Officer: 2Lt Marten Humphrey, 11th RS, Sortie Support Flight Commander • Information Officer: 2Lt Paul Egbalic, 57 EMS, Maintenance Flight Commander Congrats to our new officers and a special word of thanks to last year’s officers for all their hard work over the past year. We had Major Blanks from AFPC here at our last meeting and he provided us an outstanding snap shot of all the AFPC news that affects logistics officers. Many of us held one on one sessions with him in regards to assignments and career progression. Our next meeting is scheduled for 22 Feb and our guest speaker is going to be Lt Gen Zettler. We are looking forward to seeing him here at Nellis. The Blackjack Chapter wants to extend an invitation to all TDY loggies who come to Nellis to join us at our monthly meetings. When you arrive, contact one of the chapter’s officers and they will let you know the time and place for the next meeting. Thank you and the mission continues! Capt Michael Miles Outgoing President
Chapter Updates
The Fuji Chapter - Yokota AB
New & Renewed
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 38
Corporate Members
Civilian Members - Retired
It is with great pleasure that LOA announces confirmation of its seventeenth Corporate Membership! Corporate Member #17 is Raytheon Aerospace. The company representatives are: Mr. Clark Estes, General Manager, CFT Operations; Mr. Craig Sonner, Director, CFT Operations; Ms. Jan Atkinson, Program Manager, Mr. Bill Lyles, Program Managers; and Mr. Rex Doll, Area Manager. Raytheon Aerospace is formally affiliating with the Crossroads Chapter of Tinker AFB, Oklahoma. LOA is honored to have Raytheon Aerospace formalize its outstanding relationship by becoming a corporate member.
Maj Gen (Ret) Richard Smith - SVP and Applied Engineering Division Group Manager, CACI, San Antonio, TX; Col (Ret) David Bump - President, Delta Aircraft Support Technology, Inc.; Col (Ret) Rocky Barnard Managing Director, LOGTEC; Col (Ret) William Hall - SVP, Silver Eagle Consulting; Maj (Ret) James Black - Acquisition Project Specialist, MacAulay Brown, Inc.; Col (Ret) Jack Mathews Jr., Consultant, SAIC; Maj Gen (Ret) Lewis G. Curtis - W. Boothbay Harbor, Maine
It is with great pleasure that LOA announces confirmation of its eighteenth Corporate Membership! Corporate Member #18 is Battelle. The company representatives are: Mr. Charles Lucius, Vice President and General Manager, Air Force Market Sector; Mr. Ron Carbon, Relationship Manager, Air Force Market Sector; Mr. Ellis Hitt, Senior Market Manager, Air Force Market Sector; Mr Jeff Melaragno, Senior Market Manager, Air Force Market Sector; and Mr. James M. Walters, Jr., Senior Research Scientist, Information Systems Engineering. Battelle is formally affiliating with the Middle Georgia Chapter, Robins AFB, Georgia and the WrightPatterson AFB Chapter, Ohio. LOA is honored to have Battelle formalize its outstanding relationship by becoming a corporate member. It is with great pleasure that LOA announces confirmation of its nineteenth Corporate Membership! Corporate Member #19 is KPMG Consulting. The company representatives are Mr. Mark Miller, Managing Director; and Mr. Jon Newsome, Senior Manager. Their chapter affiliation is currently being determined. LOA is honored to have KPMG formalize its outstanding relationship by becoming a corporate member. It is with great pleasure that LOA announces confirmation of its twentieth Corporate Membership! Corporate Member #20 is Lockheed Martin. The company representatives are: Mr. William Anderson Jr., Vice President, Customer Support; Mr. Jim Brandt, Director, Customer Assistance, Customer Support; Mr. George Lowe, Director, Supply, Customer Support; Mr. Howard L. (Lon) Scott, Director, Production, Operations & Maintenance, Customer Support; and Ms. Virginia Kay Cosper, Manager, Operations & Integration, Customer Support. Lockheed Martin is officially affiliating with the Fort Worth Chapter. LOA is honored to have Lockheed Martin formalize its outstanding relationship by becoming a corporate member.
Japan, Kadena AB Capt Todd Wydra - Sortie Sup Flt CC, 909 ARS
38
Civilian Members Mr. Donald Carey - Senior Technical and Logistics Engineer, Pratt & Whitney (Military Customer Support); Mr. Chris Pomfret Treble One LLC Hawaii, Hickam AFB 1st Lt Clifton Heen - Aircraft Production Controller, 154th Logistics Group; Capt William Hurt - Transportation Readiness and Resources Officer
Germany Ramstein AB Col Martha Kelley - Deputy Inspector General, USAFE; Maj Daryl Cunningham - Chief, Logisitics Exercises and Training Branch, HQ USAFE
Spangdahlem AB 2d Lt Charles Camerer - Assistant Sortie Generation Flight Commander, 22 FS Belgium, Kleine Brogel AB Maj Nathan Lyden - Senior Maintenance Officer, 52d MUNSS
Alaska Eielson AFB Maj David Brown - Commander, 345th Maintenance Squadron
Elmendorf AFB Lt Col Marc Sarchet - Commander, 3rd Component Repair Squadron; Capt Keith Justice - Logistics Plans and Programs Flight Commander
England, RAF Mildenhall Maj Jon Larvick - Commander, 100th Supply Squadron
Washington State, McChord AFB Maj Greg Endris - Maintenance Supervisor; 1st Lt Eric Klein - OIC, Quality Assurance; 2d Lt Duane Richardson - 62 AGS Blue SGF Production OIC Pennsylvania, AFROTC Maj Scott Boyd - Commandant of Cadets, AFROTC Detachment 730, University of Pittsburgh
Massachussetts, Hanscom, AFB Capt Timothy Trimmell - Chief, Aricraft Countermeasures Branch, Electronic Systems Center
Nebraska, Offut AFB Capt Willa Panzer - Sortie Generation Flight Commander, 45th Reconnaissance Squadron
www.loanational.org
California Los Angeles AFB Capt Don Vandenburg - Logistics Program Manager, Defense Meteorological Satellite Program
Travis AFB 1st Lt Christopher Themak - Sortie Support Flight Commander, 715 Air Mobility Squadron
Vandenberg AFB Mr. Michael Ulin - Chief, Logistics Plans, 30 Space Wing, Plans and Programs
Utah, Hill AFB Capt James Upchurch - Flight Commander, 388 EMS Munitions Flight; Commander, Timothy Bair, Commander, 388th Logistics Group; Maj General Scott C. Bergren Commander, Ogden Air Logistics Center
North Dakota Minot AFB 2d Lt Mark Lahey - Action Officer, Commander’s Action Group; Mr. Charles Mommerency - Finance Manager, 5th Logistics Group; Capt Woody Sherwood - Strategic Weapons Flight Commander, 5th Munitions Squadron; Lt Col Jurgen Smith - Commander, 5th Munitions Squadron
Grand Forks AFB Capt George Unsinger - Maintenance Supervisor, 319th Maintenance Squadron
Arizona, Davis-Monthan AFB Lt Col Thomas Fitch - Commander, 355th Component Repair Squadron
Luke AFB Col William Ponder Jr - Commander, 944 Logistics Group; Lt Col Gregory Iusi - Deputy Commander, 56 Logistics Group; Major Michael Costello - Squadron Maintenance Officer, 309 FS; Capt Jimmy Dobbs Fabrication Flight Commander; Capt Greg Buckner - Sortie Support Flight CC
New Mexico Cannon AFB Capt Steven Orie - Maintenance Supervisor, 27th Component Repair Squadron
Holloman AFB Maj Joseph Connell - Squadron Maintenance Officer, 9th Fighter Squadron
Kirtland AFB Ms. Patricia Horan - Deputy Director for Logistics, HQ AF Inspection Agency; Maj Emil Kabban - Munitions Branch Chief, HQ Air Force Inspection Agency
South Dakota, Ellsworth AFB Capt Amy Graveley - Maintenance Supervisor, 28th Maintenance Squadron; Capt Jordan Murphy - Quality Assurance Flight Commander
Rhode Island, Naval War College Maj Thomas Sadlo - Student, College of Naval Command and Staff; Mr. (Ret) David Buckwalter - Professor of National Security Affairs
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 39
Illinois, Scott AFB
Col James Van Antwerp - Deputy Commander, 57 LG; 1st Lt Brian Biggs - Chief, Red Flag Maintenance and Munitions
Maj Jon Walz - Chief, Operational Contracting Branch, Air Mobility Command
Kansas, Mc Connell AFB 2d Lt Theresa Fountain - OIC, Procedures and Analysis, 22d Supply Squadron; Capt Mark See - Maintenance Supervisor, 22d Maintenance Squadron; 2d Lt Joe Balk - 22 AGS Mobility OIC; 2d Lt Aaron Hager - Maintenance Officer, 22d AGS
Capt Theresa Wardak - Student, Logisitics Management, AFIT; Capt Mark Commenator F-22 IMIS IPT Lead; Mr. Michael Waddell Deputy Lead, Air Force Research Laboratories; Capt David Kieselhorst - Chief, Predator UAV Acquisition Logistics; Capt Ronald Trosclair Chief, Commando Solo Acquisition Logistics
Mississippi, Keesler AFB
Missouri, Whiteman AFB
Col Michael Altom - Commander, 81st Logistics Group, 2d Lt James Lovell - OIC, Vehicle Maintenance; Maj Michael Mistretta Commander, 81st Transportation Squadron; 2d Lt Gerald Proctor - OIC, Vehicle Operations Flight
Maj Dawn Werner - Maintenance Supervisor, 509th Maintenance Squadron; Maj Arthur Trigg - Commander, 509th Supply Squadron; 2d Lt Joseph Fuller - Fabrication Flight Commander, 509 Maintenance Squadron
Florida Eglin AFB
North Carolina Pope AFB
Lt Col Nancy Kunkel - Chief, Joint Fixed Wing Aviation Logistics USSOCOM
Lt Col Kenneth Hosterman - Deputy Commander, 43d Logistics Group; Capt Dominic Clementz - Maintenance Supervisor, 743d Maintenance Squadron
Hurlburt Field
Maryland, Andrews AFB Capt Wayne Goulet - Chief, ANG Fuels Policy & Procedures; 1st Lt Jessica Buck Aircraft Service Flight Commander, 89th APS; 2d Lt Rosalie Shomon - SAM Sortie Support Flight Commander, 89th AGS; Mr. Robert Mason - Avionics Manager, Air National Guard Readiness Center; Lt Col Taro Jones Commander, 113th Logistics Squadron
Texas Dyess AFB Ms. Sharon Williams - MSD Manager, 7th Wing; 2d Lt Abner Nieves - Supply Officer, 7th Supply Squadron; 2d Lt Heather Peterson - Supply Readiness Control Center, 7th Supply Squadron; Lt Col Evan Miller - Commander, 7th Equipment Maintenance Squadron; 1st Lt Jason Ring - Supply Readiness Control Center OIC, 7th Supply Squadron.
Randolph AFB
Ohio, Wright-Patterson AFB
Mr. Milton Everidge - Logistics Management Specialist, Directorate of Maintenance; Maj Martha Pruitt - Chief, Base Maintenance Policy; Capt Jonathan Bland - Air Force Intern; Lt Col John Harris - Chief, Flight Management Branch; Lt Col Paul Wietlisbach - Air National Guard Advisor to HQ USAF/ILM; Ms. Shiona Ward - Logistics Management Specialist, HQ USAF
Langley AFB Lt Col Joe Washington - Deputy Commander, 1st Logistics Group; Col William Etchison Air National Guard Assistant to the Air Combat Command Director of Logistics; Col Daniel Falvey - Deputy Director, Maintenance & Logistics; Capt Steven Bleymaier - Squadron Maintenance Officer, 94th Fighter Squadron; Capt Konrad Cote - Sortie Generation Flight Commander, 71st Fighter Squadron; Captain Clayton Seale - Chief, F-117 Sustainment
Maj Eric Lorraine - Commander, 347th Maintenance Squadron; Capt Margaret Romero - Transportation Officer
Robins AFB Ms. June Taylor - Deputy Director, Space and Special Systems Management; Maj Douglas Fingles - Deputy Chief, LEAN Depot Repair Division; Lt Col Jean Laemmle - Senior IMA to the Director, C-5 SPO; Maj Stacy Boudreaux Commander, 653 CLSS
Capt Shane Blackmer - 33 LGLX Flight Commander
MacDill AFB
1st Lt Todd Pearson - Sortie Support Flight Commander, 336th Fighter Squadron
Maj Paul Wheeless - Chief, Weapons Systems Branch, HQ AFSOC; Capt Kristina O’Brien Project Officer, Logistics, C2B; Maj Brady Scherer - Commander, 16th Component Repair Squadron; Capt Timmothy Patterson Chief, Fixed Wing Systems, Acquistion Logistics
Oklahoma, Tinker AFB
Alabama, Maxwell AFB
Mr. Kenneth Lunsford - Modification Management Branch Chief, B-52 SPO; Capt David Morgan - Maintenance Supervisor, 552 Logistics Support Squadron; Capt Eric Johnson - OC-ALC/LI; Lt Col Kevin Betz Commander, 552d AGS; Maj Chad Gericke OIC, Mobility, 507 CLSS
Maj John Bell - Graduate Student, Auburn University; Lt Col Shirley Rawls; Maj Anthony Meggs; Col Kenneth Knapp - AFMC Chair to Air University; Maj Bruce Bartholomew - Student, ACSC; Col Ronne Mercer - Commander, Air Force Logistics Management Agency
South Carolina, Shaw AFB
Colorado, Peterson AFB
Seymour Johnson AFB
Lt Col Daniel McCabe - Deputy Ops Group Commander for Maintenance
Maj Eliese Wheeler - Chief, Aircraft Maintenance Contracts
Virginia Pentagon
Georgia Moody AFB
Capt Allisom Geis - Chief, Logistics Resources Branch, HQ Air Force Space Command; Capt Scott Fromm - Joint Logistics Officer, NORAD
Congratulations to the following LOA Members who have just been promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel! Below-The-Zone: Kim R. Brooks Montgomery C. Deihl Michael A. Van Doren
Carl A. Buhler Luis E. Rosa-Berrios
In-The-Zone: Donald L. Atkinson Gregory J. Broardt Ann L. Isaacs Mark S. Koopman Larry D. Martin Richard S. Schwing Eugene E. Trizinsky
The Exceptional Release, Winter 2002
Stacy M. Boudreaux Dteven N. Dorfman Walter L. Isenhour Robert M. Letourneau Martha S. Pruitt Jeffrey R. Sick James R. Witter
39
New & Renewed
Nevada, Nellis AFB
On-The-Move
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 40
LOA National is delighted to give its members a substantial On-The-Move section this issue! Thanks to all of the members that wrote in to let us know where they are living and the latest challenges they are undertaking. If you would like to see your information in the next Exceptional Release, mail your submission to LOA National, PO Box 2264, Arlington, VA 22202 or email to Kim Kortum at pr@loanational.org. Or you can make and On-The-Move submission at the Member Services section of LOA’s website, http://www.loanational.org.
Lt Col Michael Pelletier writes:
Lt Col Charlie Westgate writes:
“After four years at Davis-Monthan AFB as the SMO in the 41ECS and the Commander of the 355 CRS, I moved with my family in June of 2001 to Yongsan Army Garrison in Seoul, ROK, for a two-year tour in the Land of the Morning Calm. As the Chief of International Programs Branch on the United States Forces Korea J4 Staff I work several USFK logistics burdensharing and replacement-in-kind programs with the ROK government. I am getting a great perspective on joint and combined operations while also learning how the US and ROK services manage their logistics stockpiles on the Korean peninsula.”
“Will be heading to Korea this summer to become the installation commander at Taegu AB.”
Major Ike Isenhour writes: “We PCS’d to Travis in June 2001 and I took command of the 660 AGS, KC-10 Maintainers. A finer bunch of folks cannot be found and they’ve proven their mettle around the world in OEF and ONE. We’re keeping our Extenders flying at a furious clip and welcome all visiting LOA-ites to stop and visit.”
Lt Col Mark Atkinson writes: “Although this memo is about 9 months overdue, I thought it was time to update my duty title in the LOA database. Since May 2001 I have been assigned as the Chief, Maintenance Management Division, HQ USAF/ILMM.”
Capt Jeffrey Hayden writes: “I have left the KC-135 SPO and moved on to Travis AFB in August of 2001. I am now the Gold Sortie Generation Flight Commander for the C-5. It’s a great job and I’m having lots of fun.”
Lt Col Mac K Gough writes: “Retired from Chief of Logistics Plans, HQ Tenth Air Force, NAS JRB Fort Worth, Texas on 1 February 2002.”
Maj James “Randy” Witter writes: "I completed two years as commander of the 552d Equipment Maintenance Squadron at Tinker AFB, OK and just arrived at Edwards AFB, CA, to serve as the 412th Test Wing DOGM. Hope the Lt Col's board pulls through. Look for Edwards Chapter to rise again."
Lt Col Dave West writes: “From Commander, 93 MXS (JSTARS) to Chief, GPS Division, WR-ALC/LKN. I report to SMC/CZ (AFSPC) and provide joint acquisition and sustainment of all Army, Navy, and USAF GPS warfighter equipment.”
Col Ken Weichert writes: “After a ‘short’ tour of 4 months at USTRANSCOM, we moved to southern Georgia. On 25 October 2001, I took command of the 347th Logistics Group at Moody AFB, GA. It’s great to get back to the field. I’m having a great time!”
Colonel Ronald Lee writes: “I have recently retired and moved to Warner Robins, Georgia. I’m working for Modern Technologies Corporation as a contractor.”
Colonel (Retired) Bob Drewitt writes: “I completed my contract with Sacramento County’s McClellan Base Conversion Office last month and was immediately hired as the President and COO for a woman-owned small business called Alpha Research & Technology, Inc. We design, prototype, produce, integrate, and support rugged hardware solutions for DoD mobile, mission-critical C41 systems like the E-4 NAOC.”
Lt Col Steve Morani writes: “I turned over command of the 388th Equipment Maintenance Squadron and I’m now the commandant of the Air Force’s newest logistics school at Nellis AFB (referred to most recently as the USAF Expeditionary Logistics School). For all you Air Warrior/WIC/RED FLAG warriors visiting Nellis, my door is open.”
Capt Mark Riselli writes: "I just spent three years assigned to the 353d Special Operations Group, Kadena AB, Japan (Shogun Chapter). I’ve been reassigned to the Patuxant River Naval Air Station in Maryland. I will be in the CV-22 Site Activation Office. Thanks LOA!”
It’s not too early to send in submissions for the next Exceptional Release. The Spring 2002 ER will feature articles on Information Technology. Please send your submissions to Lt Col James “Reggie” Hall at assteditor@loanational.org (cc pr@loanational.org). The submission deadline for articles is 15 March 2002 and for advertisements is 1 April 2002. Don’t delay - our membership wants to hear from you! 40
www.loanational.org
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Ad on Film - AAI
Page 41
Winter2002v1
12/10/02
5:50 PM
Page 42