Tài liệu hạn chế xem trước, để xem đầy đủ mời bạn chọn Tải xuống
1
/ 212 trang
THÔNG TIN TÀI LIỆU
Thông tin cơ bản
Định dạng
Số trang
212
Dung lượng
565,94 KB
Nội dung
This PDF document was made available
from www.rand.org as a public service of
the RAND Corporation.
6
Jump down to document
Visit RAND at www.rand.org
Explore RAND Project AIRFORCE
View document details
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law
as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic
representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-
commercial use only. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or
reuse in another form, any of our research documents.
Limited Electronic Distribution Rights
For More Information
CHILD POLICY
CIVIL JUSTICE
EDUCATION
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
NATIONAL SECURITY
POPULATION AND AGING
PUBLIC SAFETY
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TERRORISM AND
HOMELAND SECURITY
TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit
research organization providing
objective analysis and effective
solutions that address the challenges
facing the public and private sectors
around the world.
Purchase this document
Browse Books & Publications
Make a charitable contribution
Support RAND
This product is part ofthe RAND Corporation monograph series.
RAND monographs present major research findings that address the
challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono-
graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for
research quality and objectivity.
+RISTIN&,YNCH*OHN'$REW
$AVID'EORGE2OBERT34RIPP
#2OBERT2OLL*R*AMES,EFTWICH
0REPAREDFORTHE5NITED3TATES!IR&ORCE
!PPROVEDFORPUBLICRELEASEDISTRIBUTIONUNLIMITED
4HE!IR&ORCE
#HIEFOF3TAFF
,OGISTICS2EVIEW
)MPROVING7ING,EVEL,OGISTICS
5IF3"/%$PSQPSBUJPOJTBOPOQSPGJUSFTFBSDIPSHBOJ[BUJPOQSPWJEJOH
PCKFDUJWFBOBMZTJT BOE FGGFDUJWF TPMVUJPOTUIBU BEESFTTUIF DIBMMFOHFT
GBDJOH UIFQVCMJD BOE QSJWBUF TFDUPST BSPVOE UIF XPSME 3"/%T
QVCMJDBUJPOTEPOPUOFDFTTBSJMZSFGMFDUUIFPQJOJPOTPGJUTSFTFBSDIDMJFOUT
BOETQPOTPST
¥
JTBSFHJTUFSFEUSBEFNBSL
ª$PQZSJHIU3"/%$PSQPSBUJPO
"MM SJHIUT SFTFSWFE /P QBSU PGUIJT CPPLNBZ CF SFQSPEVDFE JO BOZ
GPSN CZ BOZ FMFDUSPOJD PSNFDIBOJDBM NFBOT JODMVEJOH QIPUPDPQZJOH
SFDPSEJOH PS JOGPSNBUJPO TUPSBHF BOESFUSJFWBMXJUIPVU QFSNJTTJPO JO
XSJUJOHGSPN3"/%
1VCMJTIFECZUIF3"/%$PSQPSBUJPO
.BJO4USFFU10#PY4BOUB.POJDB$"
4PVUI)BZFT4USFFU"SMJOHUPO7"
/PSUI$SBJH4USFFU4VJUF1JUUTCVSHI1"
3"/%63-IUUQXXXSBOEPSH
5PPSEFS3"/%EPDVNFOUTPSUPPCUBJOBEEJUJPOBMJOGPSNBUJPODPOUBDU
%JTUSJCVUJPO4FSWJDFT5FMFQIPOF
'BY&NBJMPSEFS!SBOEPSH
-JCSBSZPG$POHSFTT$BUBMPHJOHJO1VCMJDBUJPO%BUB
5IF"JS'PSDF$IJFGPG4UBGGMPHJTUJDTSFWJFXJNQSPWJOHXJOHMFWFMMPHJTUJDT
,SJTUJO-ZODI
QDN
i.(w
*ODMVEFTCJCMJPHSBQIJDBMSFGFSFODFT
*4#/QCLBMLQBQFS
6OJUFE4UBUFT"JS'PSDF0QFSBUJPOBMSFBEJOFTT6OJUFE4UBUFT"JS'PSDF
4VQQMJFTBOETUPSFT"JSQMBOFT.JMJUBSZ6OJUFE4UBUFT.BJOUFOBODFBOESFQBJS*
-ZODI,SJTUJO**6OJUFE4UBUFT%FQUPGUIF"JS'PSDF$IJFGPG4UBGG
6("
hhED
5IF SFTFBSDI SFQPSUFEIFSFXBT TQPOTPSFECZ UIF6OJUFE 4UBUFT "JS
'PSDFVOEFS$POUSBDU'$'VSUIFSJOGPSNBUJPONBZCF
PCUBJOFEGSPNUIF4USBUFHJD1MBOOJOH%JWJTJPO%JSFDUPSBUFPG1MBOT)R
64"'
iii
Preface
This report describes a review conducted by theAirForce and the
RAND Corporation called the Chief’s LogisticsReview (CLR).
Somewhat different from a typical RAND study, this was a joint ef-
fort in which RAND acted as analytic advisor to theAir Force. This
effort was directed, in October 1999, by Gen Michael E. Ryan, then
Chief ofStaffoftheAirForce (CSAF), to develop improvement
options to mitigate logistics problems that had arisen in the 1990s.
CLR was placed under the overall direction of Gen John W. Handy,
then Deputy Chiefof Staff, Installations and Logistics, who asked
RAND to develop the analytic approach for the review, choosing
RAND because of its previous research and the confidence of senior
Air Force leaders.
In response to ongoing concerns about declining readiness
trends in aircraft maintenance, General Ryan directed CLR. In pro-
viding guidance for the review, General Ryan emphasized looking at
process and training deficiencies within existing organizations and
directed that the study focus on identifying actions required to re-
solve such deficiencies. This report provides background material on
CLR and describes both the analytic approach (including RAND’s
role in its development) and the results from this reviewofAir Force
wing-level logistics processes. The background material covers both
the initial phase ofthe study, in which the proposed improvements
were determined, and the second phase ofthe study, in which the
improvements were field tested.
iv TheAirForceChiefofStaffLogistics Review: ImprovingWing-Level Logistics
This report also provides insights gained through the study that
should be useful to future generations of logisticians, operators, and
planners throughout the Department of Defense, particularly those in
the Air Force, who struggle with the challenges of maintaining the
most ready and capable aircraft fleet in the face of new threats and
resource environments. It may prove useful to such personnel across
the Department of Defense, as well.
The research addressed in this report was conducted in the Re-
source Management Program of RAND Project AIR FORCE. The
Air Force Deputy Chiefof Staff, Installations and Logistics,
sponsored this project.
RAND Project AIR FORCE
RAND Project AIRFORCE (PAF), a division ofthe RAND
Corporation, is the U.S. Air Force’s federally funded research and de-
velopment center for studies and analyses. PAF provides theAir Force
with independent analyses of policy alternatives affecting the devel-
opment, employment, combat readiness, and support of current and
future aerospace forces. Research is conducted in four programs:
Aerospace Force Development; Manpower, Personnel, and Training;
Resource Management; and Strategy and Doctrine.
Additional information about PAF is available on our Web site
at http://www.rand.org/paf.
v
Contents
Preface iii
Figures
ix
Tables
xi
Summary
xv
Acknowledgments
xxiii
Abbreviations and Acronyms
xxvii
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction 1
CHAPTER TWO
CLR Phase 1: Analytic Approach and Results 7
Analytic Approach
7
Targets of Opportunity
8
Analysis of MAJCOM Inputs
11
Classification of Improvements
13
CHAPTER THREE
CLR Phase 2: Implementation Test Design and Analysis 19
Purpose and Initiatives of Near-Term Test
19
Test Design
20
Analysis Methodology
22
vi TheAirForceChiefofStaffLogistics Review: ImprovingWing-Level Logistics
CHAPTER FOUR
Sortie Production and Fleet Health 27
Sortie Production/Fleet Health Balance (OG/LG Coordination)
28
MOC and Resource Coordination Process
31
Maintenance and Flying Scheduling
33
Maintenance Management (MDSA and QA)
39
Maintenance Corps Career Development (Enlisted/Officer)
43
Sortie Production and Fleet Health Recommendations and
Conclusions
46
CHAPTER FIVE
Materiel Management and Contingency Planning 53
Distribution Process Performance
54
Logistics Readiness Squadron Operations
60
Supply/Transportation Enlisted Career Development
69
Deployment Planning and Execution
74
Career Development Impacts for Officer, Civilian, and Enlisted
Personnel
82
Materiel Management and Contingency Planning Recommendations
and Conclusions
86
CHAPTER SIX
CLR Summary Recommendations and Conclusions 93
Sortie Production and Fleet Health
93
Materiel Management and Contingency Planning
94
Epilogue
97
APPENDIX
A. Study Targets of Opportunity 101
B. Monthly Report Metrics
105
C. Suggested Interviewee List Provided to Test Bases
109
D. Interview Question Sets
113
E. Reporting Metrics and Quantitative Analysis Results in Sortie
Production/Fleet Health
123
Contents vii
F. Detailed Interview Data For Sortie Production/Fleet Health 135
G. Maintenance Organizational Structure: A Historical Perspective
147
H. CLR General Officer and Grey Beard Participants
173
Bibliography
175
[...]... Installations and LogisticsAirForceLogistics Management Agency AirForce Manual AirForce Materiel Command AirForce Regulation AirForce Reserve Command AirForce Specialty Code AirForce Special Operations Command AirForce Space Command Aerospace Ground Equipment Aircraft Generation Squadron Avionics Intermediate Shops xxvii xxviii TheAirForceChiefofStaffLogistics Review: ImprovingWing-Level Logistics. .. policy • Standardize throughout the AirForcethe alignment ofLogistics Plans by placing them within theLogistics Group xx TheAirForceChiefofStaffLogistics Review: ImprovingWing-LevelLogistics For technical training and officer development, the approved initiatives were aimed at improvingthe skills and knowledge ofthe workforce: • Increase the availability of training managers • Standardize... Allied Force/ Operation Noble Anvil, the briefing illustrated declining readiness trends, degraded warfighting skills, and impaired Air and Space Expeditionary Force (AEF) implementation The view presented was one of declining readiness be- xv xvi The Air Force Chief ofStaffLogistics Review: ImprovingWing-LevelLogistics cause of lines of authority that were too fragmented to ensure proper control of aircraft... information and describes the analytic approach (including the RAND Corporation’s role in its development) and results of an Air Force review ofwing-levellogistics processes Thereview was conducted to develop improvement options to mitigate logistics support problems that had surfaced during the 1990s This study was directed by Gen Michael E Ryan, then ChiefofStaff of theAirForce (CSAF), in October... Allied Force/ Operation Noble Anvil, the briefing illustrated declining readiness trends, degraded warfighting skills, and impaired air and space expeditionary force (AEF) implementation The view presented was one of declining readiness caused by lines of authority 1 2 TheAirForceChiefofStaffLogistics Review: ImprovingWing-LevelLogistics being too fragmented to ensure proper control of aircraft... their command views to the meetings and video teleconferences In particular, we wish to thank the following people xxiii xxiv TheAirForceChiefofStaffLogistics Review: ImprovingWing-LevelLogistics from across theAirForce for their hard work and candid discussions: Col Hugh Robinson, Air Combat Command (ACC); Col Jim Russell, Col Carl Lewandowski, and Capt Kenneth Timko ofAir Mobility Command... in the Distribution Flight 63 5.6 Impact of Restructuring Operations in the Readiness Flight 64 5.7 Impact of Restructuring Operations in the Management and Systems Flight 65 5.8 Impact of Restructuring Operations in the Traffic Management Flight 67 xi xii TheAirForceChiefofStaffLogistics Review: ImprovingWing-LevelLogistics 5.9 Impact of Restructuring Operations in the. .. ofthe Future, MR-1179-AF, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2000 3 Although recommended by the MAJCOMs, General Ryan, CSAF during CLR Phase 1, was opposed to major organizational change or realignment In his opinion, there had been enough major reorganizations within theAir Force, and he did not want to make any further significant changes xviii TheAirForceChiefofStaffLogistics Review: Improving. .. named theChief s LogisticsReview (CLR) CLR was placed under the overall direction of Gen John W Handy, then Deputy Chiefof Staff, Installations and Logistics (AF/IL) General Handy asked RAND to assist in conducting the study The arrangement was not typical of a RAND study; this was a joint effort in which RAND acted as an analytic advisor to theAirForce Previous RAND research and the confidence of. .. ChiefofStaff of theAirForce (CSAF) initiated a reviewofAirForce winglevel logistics processes This review, called theChief s LogisticsReview (CLR), was designed to target process and process-enabler shortfalls that limited thelogistics community’s ability to meet increasing readiness demands This report presents background information and describes the analytic approach (including the RAND Corporation’s . opera-
tions tempo, and evolving force employment concepts, the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force (CSAF) initiated a review of Air Force wing-
level logistics. the Air Force, and he did not want to make any further
significant changes.
xviii The Air Force Chief of Staff Logistics Review: Improving Wing-Level Logistics
The