Air Force Journal of Logistics. Volume 11, Number 4, Fall 1987

Carol Schweiger

Abstract
AI

The Air Force is reassessing its logistics capabilities in the face of potential high-intensity, non-nuclear conflicts, as traditional assumptions about resource deployment and base safety are scrutinized. This examination highlights the need for a new logistic operating concept, CLOUT, to better align logistics with operational demands and uncertainties. The paper reflects on past practices, the importance of logistics in sustaining combat readiness, and acknowledges the challenges and complexities involved in adapting logistics strategies for modern warfare.

Figures (23)

The Air Force has for many years operated under the assumption that it would fight a conventional conflict relying on organic capabilities at forward bases augmented with personnel; war readiness materiel (WRM) contained in deployable war readiness spares kits (WRSK); and increased levels of assets at forward bases, known as base-level self- As has always been the case, logistics is the primary player in sustaining a combat force. Placing the right resources at the right place when they are needed has been the logistic objective since the caveman started throwing rocks. However, in examining how logistics is configured to sustain combat forces, some ‘‘tired and true’’ assumptions recently have been questioned; the results of this examination are troublesome and suggest the need for change. There are certain assumptions and facts that lend a great deal of credibility to the realization that perhaps we are not correctly configured to sustain a conventional, high-intensity conflict. There are also some answers to the perplexing problems, but they are not without complexity. One of these answers is a logistic operating concept appropriately named CLOUT—Coupling Logistics to Operations to Meet Uncertainties and the Threat.

F-16 depot maintenance facilities must be integrated into the war effort in the early days of conflict.

flexible, maneuverable, logistics functions capable of being dispersed to support an operational concept based on similar principles. However, the team quickly recognized several indications of a shift in the combat environment of the European theater. This shift, it appeared, would make a concept based on lean operating bases, flexible resupply, and widely dispersed assets very risky. Indeed, the combat environment would be unlike anything seen before by US forces and would demand a logistics concept geared to:

Artist’s concept of a runway area after an attack from enemy aircraft. Illustrates the need for maximum base self-sufficiency.

Secretary of War Newton Baker admitted before Congress that ‘‘there was perfect confusion’? in Washington; “‘everybody was bringing suggestions.’’® Crowell agreed, adding that ‘‘all the paraphernalia that complete the efficiency of combat airplanes were entirely unknown to us.’’? Precedents were nonexistent, and ‘‘the methods of supply found adequate in time of peace proved woefully ineffective (in time of war), equipment lagging far behind personnel.’’® Washington was a madhouse and no more so than in aviation production matters. The administration and Congress created a whole new bureaucracy to cope with this massive undertaking, many of whose elements sprouted from several prewar committees. Appearing before Congress in May 1917, Brigadier General George O. Squier, the newly named Chief Signal Officer, eloquently spoke of putting ‘‘the Yankee punch into the war by building an army in the air, regiments and brigades of winged cavalry mounted in gas-driven flying horses.’’> Squier’s optimism aside, aircraft production planners faced monumental problems on the eve of America’s entry into the war.

Figure 1: Computations for Scenario Data. A summary of the computations done by MAC for the scenario is shown in Figure 1. Currently, MAC computes these values manually® and enters the data via interactive screens in SAM.

Figure 3: C-Levels in SORTS for Nonstrategic Airlift Aircraft. Figure 2: SAM Strategic Airlift System Overview.

Routine airlift requests are handled in a straightforward manner (Figure 1). The user requests airlift transportation using a DD Form 1249, SAAM or JCS Exercise - Airlift Request, which is forwarded to higher headquarters for approval. Before MAC can schedule aircraft against this request, it must be approved by the user’s validator. The validator is usually at the major command or service level transportation office. After the validator has approved the request, it is forwarded to an airlift executive agent. For an intratheater (within theater) airlift request, the request is forwarded to the theater airlift executive agent. For all international commercial aircraft, intertheater (between theaters), and continental United States (CONUS) airlift requirements, requests are forwarded to HQ MAC.

Airlift Force Management

An example that illustrates this point was the deployment of Pershing II missiles to Germany. In November 1983, the German Government was voting on allowing US Pershing Il missiles into Germany. DOD wanted to deploy the missiles as soon as an affirmative vote was announced. Initial discussions

and they expect to be given reasonable start dates for larger jobs. Interestingly, the BCE already has concrete measures for timeliness. Jobs orders, the greatest volume of the BCE’s workload, presently have prescribed time limits for completion. The BCE can satisfy basic customer expectations by emphasizing the importance of completing job orders on time, or, better yet, ahead of schedule.

manual (-1) describes how the aircraft works functionally. Functions described in the -1 are reformatted into logic trees in the fault reporting manual (FRM) which is used to debrief aircraft malfunctions. At the conclusion of the logic tree, a fault code is developed to communicate a specific functional failure to maintenance. Maintenance then uses the fault code for cross reference into a fault isolation manual! (FIM) where another logic tree is used to isolate the cause of the failure. Once the problem is isolated, the FIM identifies job guides and other reference material required to repair the aircraft. When a problem is identified that is not covered by FRM/FIM or there are errors in the logic trees, an AFTO Form 22, Technical Order System Publication Improvement Report and Reply, should be submitted to correct the tech data. Logically, this process should work if initiated and administered properly. This type of manual fault reporting/debriefing process is described in Figure 1.

promotions provided by LCCEP certificates. This is very significant when considering the small proportional numbers of Cadre members. Most importantly, that positive selection trend has continued through FY87. Cadre members are highlighted on each LCCEP certificate as an informational aid to interviewers.

The waiting time for resource type ‘‘i’’ for aircraft priority category ‘‘k’’ is given by ese Ae ee (5) Waiting for resources (DT,,,)- This is the most unique aspect of the model. As in Lilijeqvist’s ROMUS, we use a preemptive, priority modified, multiple channel queuing model to calculate the expected time spent waiting for a resource to become available. ‘‘The arriving aircraft are classified in different categories 1,...,r. An aircraft with higher priority obtains service before one with a lower priority no matter when it arrives to the queue.’’ We define two categories:

investigated to compensate for this drawback. It does not model individual manpower positions but can be used to model groups of skills as resources. It does not handle mission frags and launch windows. It does not handle substitute resources, facilities limitations, maintenance shifts, or resupply capability. It is not a self-contained, in-depth logistics analysis—but it is a first-order approximation.

As a young 2nd Lieutenant fresh out of Radar Maintenance Officer School at Keesler AFB, I was assigned to the 632nd Radar Sq, Roanoke Rapids, NC. There, I had the privilege of working with a man who epitomized the term Logistics Warrior. Although I was his supervisor, I will always remember and be grateful for the lessons on management and life that he taught me. Following are some highlights from the memories of a true Logistics Warrior, CMSgt Cecil H. McClure, USAF, Retired. wry. J's...