Skip to main content

Full text of "DTIC ADA423462: Air Force Journal of Logistics. Volume 6, Number 3, Summer 1982"

See other formats


Air Force Journai^Logistics l—i 

SUMMER 
1982 


DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: 
Approved for Public Release - 
Distribution Unlimited 





/ there is 

involves all of / / 

/Tf IT ,'l 


20040601 



BEST AVAILABLE COPY 









Air Force JouRNAhLoGiSTics 


Dr. Alton E. Keel, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 

General James P. Mullins Development and Logistics 

Commander 

Air Force Logistics Command 


Lieutenant General Billy M. Minter 
Deputy Chief of Staff 
Logistics and Engineering 
HQ USAF 


Editorial Advisory Board 

Mr. Lloyd K. Mosemann II 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 

Logistics 

Department of the Air Force 

Lieutenant General Richard E. Merkling 

Vice Commander 

Air Force Logistics Command 

Lieutenant General George Rhodes 
USAF (Retired) 

Major General Theodore D. Broadwater 
Director of Logistics Plans and Programs 
HQ USAF 

Major General Martin C. Fulcher 
Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff 
Logistics and Engineering 
HQ USAF 

Major General William D. Gilbert 
Director of Engineering and Services 
HQ USAF 

Major General D. K. K. Lowe 
Commander 

Sacramento Air Logistics Center 

Major General Russell E. Mohney 
Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics 
Pacific Air Forces 

Major General Jack W. Waters 
Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics Operations 
Air Force Logistics Command 

Brigadier General Joseph H. Connolly 
Director of Contracting and 
Manufacturing Policy 
HQ USAF 

Brigadier General Lewis G. Curtis 
Deputy Chief of Staff, Maintenance 
Air Force Logistics Command 

Brigadier General Alfred G. Hansen 
Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics 
Military Airlift Command 

Brigadier General Gordon P. Masterson 
Director of Maintenance & Supply 
HQ USAF 

Brigadier General Charles McCausland 
Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans & Programs 
Air Force Logistics Command 

Brigadier General George B. Powers, Jr. 
Director of Transportation 
HQ USAF 


Colonel Donald C. Bass 
Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics 
Air Force Systems Command 

Colonel Leonard L. Clark 
Commander 

Air Force Logistics Management Center 

Mr. Jerome G. Peppers 

Dean, School of Systems and Logistics 

Air Force Institute of Technology 

Editor 

Major Theodore M. Kluz 
Janes. Allen, Assistant 
Air Force Logistics Management Center 

Editor Emeritus 

Lieutenant Colonel Pember W. Rocap 
Office of Defense Cooperation 
APO New York 09784 

Contributing Editors 

Mr. Joseph E. DelVecchio 

Associate Director, Logistics Plans & Programs 

HQ USAF 

Lieutenant Colonel James R. Wilson 
Chief, Acquisitions and Logistics Management 
Air War College 

Lieutenant Colonel Richard J. Rose 
Chief, Logistics Career Management Section 
Air Force Manpower and Personnel Center 

Lieutenant Colonel Gerald F. Saxton 
Director of Management Sciences 
HQ AFLC 

Major Rex E. Beck 
Chief, Logistics Management Branch 
Directorate of Curriculum 
Air Command and Staff College 

Captain Donald L. Brechtel 
Department of Contracting Management 
School of Systems and Logistics 
Air Force Institute of Technology 

Mr. R. A. Reaka 

Chief, Logistics Career Program Branch 
Dffice of Civilian Personnel Operations 


Quote on front cover: Oscar A. Goldfarb 


Graphics 

Mr. Bob Ryan 
Ms Peggy Greenlee 



AFRP 

400-1 


VOL VI 
NO 3 


Air Force JeuBNu-^lgcisncs 


SUMMER 

1982 



ARTICLES 

3 The Challenge for Logisticians—The Future 

Lt Colonel Marvin L. Davis, USAF 

9 Computer Graphics In Logistics Manogement 

Major Samuel B. Graves, USAFR 

15 Integrated Maintenance Information System: 
An Imaginary Preview 

Robert C, Johnson 

18 Integrated Wartime Supply 

Captain Andrew J. Ogan, USAF 
Lt Colonel Joseph H, O'Neill, USAF 

23 The Space Shuttle—Logistics Challenges 

Lt Colonel James L. Graham, Jr., USAF 

26 Liquid Hydrogen—Fuel of the Future 

Colonel Richard B. Pilmer, Ph.D., USAF 

29 The Coming Revolution In Avionic Logistics 

Gordon R. England 
J. Kirston Henderson 

32 Logistics and Advanced Technology 

Dr. Gary H. Lunsford 
David K, Plummer 
Timothy M. Strike 

SPECIAL 

2 Dedication 

37 Directions In Research and 
Development for Logistics 

George A. Mohr, C.P.L. 


DEPARTMENTS 

7 USAF Logistics Poiicy Insight 
21 Career and Personnei information 
36 Current Research 
40 Logistics Warriors 


Purpose The Air Force Journal of Logistics is a non-directive quarterly periodical published in accordance with APR 5-1 

to provide an open forum for presentation of research, ideas, issues, and information of concern to professional 
Air Force logisticians and other interested personnel. Views expressed in the articles are those of the author and 
do not necessarily represent the established policy of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Air 
Force, the Air Force Logistics Management Center, or the organization where the author works. 

Distribution Distribution within the Air Force is F through the PDO system based on requirements established for AFUP 
400-1 on the basis of 1 copy for every 15 logistics officers, top three NCOs, and professional level civilians 
assigned. 

Subscription Subscriptions to this journal can be taken for $10.00 per year domestic ($12.50 foreign) through the 
Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington DC 20402. Single copies are $2.75 
domestic ($3.45 foreign). Back issues are not available. 

Authority to publish this periodical automatically expires on 3 August 1983 unless its continuance is authorized 
by the approving authority prior to that date. 










Traditlonany, a new decade brings plaintive predictions of the future 
and endless evaluations of the past. It Is part of the Journalist’s constant 
search for copy. 

As members of the defense oommunity, we know hill well the 
discussion of new policies, better strategies, and more complete 
doctrines to be useful, worHiwhIle, and Important. We also know that 
without logistics, all are futile; but, then, that Is our secret. That Is the 
backbone of our challenge. 

Your Journal has succumbed and consolously dedicates for the first 
time an erttire Issue to a theme. In this Instance, the theme Is “the 
future,” a chronological device to take us well beyond the narrow 
confines of this decade. The Idea for a theme was suggested to us by 
Mr. Oscar Goldfarb and he In turn did muoh to “beat the bushes” to 
help us get a fair and broad look at some of the oonoepts over our 
horizon. 

To complement our presentation, we have asked for Mr. Goldfarb’s 
words. 

The Editor 



“Our world is in a continuing state of change. A major 
contributor to this change is technoiogy. To a great extent, 
iogistics is a captive of technology especially as it is 
reflected in weapon systems and equipment. 

It is quite a challenge to exploit technology to achieve 
an increasingly high level of weapon system performance 
and at the same time achieve a high level of reliability and 
supportability. It is also quite a challenge to exploit 
technology to achieve the needed ievel of performance 
within our logistics structure and stiii preserve the fiexibility 
now provided by the human being. If we don’t step up to 
these challenges, what are the alternatives? 

The Air Force is stepping up to these challenges. We have 
a logistics R&D program which is becoming the model for 
all DOD. We have an active logistics long range planning 
program to provide the vision and direction for the future. 
We are just at the fringe of exploiting information 
technology which could profoundly affecf the logistics 
structure and processes. These are beginnings and we still 
have a long way to go.” 



Oscar A. Goldfarb, Deputy for 
Supply and Maintenance, Office 
of the AF Deputy Asst Secretary 




2 


Air Force Journal of Logistics 



The Challenge for Logisticians—The Future 

Lt Colonel Marvin L. Davis, USAF 

Directorate of Logistics Plans and Programs 
DCSILogistics and Engineering 
HQ USAF, Washington, D. C. 20330 


It was November 1944, our air units were roving at 
wiil over Germany; Generai Hap Arnoid, then Chief of 
the Army Air Forces, refiected; 

... I had yet another job. That was to project 
myseif into the future; to get the best brains 
avaiiable, have them use as a background the 
latest scientific developments in the air arms of 
the Germans and Japanese, the R.A.F., and 
determine what steps the United States should 
take to have the best Air Force in the worid twenty 
years hence. There was no doubt in my mind but 
that a different pattern must be followed insofar 
as radar, atomics, sonics, eiectronics, jet pianes, 
and rockets were concerned. Thisappiied not only 
to airplanes, to the rockets used from ships and 
airplanes, but also to such types of projectiles as 
the big German \/-2 rocket. When we added all 
such developments together, what did it mean for 
the future? What kind of Air Force must we have? 
What kind of equipment ought we to plan for 
twentyyears, orthirty years hence? (1:532) 

To pursue this objective. General Arnold recruited Dr. 
Theodore Von Karman to head a group of practical 
scientists and engineers. Their charter was to look into 
the future twenty years and determine what the Air 
Force would need. Their efforts were to be a guide to the 
Air Force commanders who would follow. The product of 
the Von Karman team was entitled Toward New 
Horizons; it has been credited with being the guiding 
document for USAF research and development during 
the 1950s. 

Although the year is 1982 and the country is at 
peace, we logisticians also have yet another job. (3ur 
challenge is to address the ideas and capabilities 
needed to provide warfighting support at the turn of the 
century. We too must think ahead twenty years and then 
beyond. Our aim must be to consider the lessons of 
history and develop a vision for a logistics architecture 
in the year 2000. 

The Challenge 

History has traditionally emphasized the operational 
dimensions of warfare—strategy and tactics. As Dr. 
Martin Van Creveld has pointed out in his book 
Supplying War, the logistical dimensions have been 
substantially ignored by most historians. (2:2) Logistics 
provides the "muscle” for an air force to deliver its 
warfighting potential. Without logistics, an airframe is 
nothing more than a hollow hulk—an uncocked rifle 
without bullets. When coupled with strategy and 
tactics, logistics enables the operational commander to 
create and sustain the strength of airpower. 

All three elements of warfare must be well conceived, 
adequately provided for, and integrated if an armed 
force is to fulfill its objectives. As this country moves 
into the twenty-first century, its airpower will be 
measured, not only by the potential performance and 
quantity of its operational forces, but by the ability to 
deliver its destructive potential—where, when, and for 


how long it is needed. Logistics fulfills this potential 
with the essence of power. As General Curtis LeMay said 
in 1956: 

When I speak of strength, I am not speaking only 
of airplanes. I am speaking of airfields, fuel 
supplies, depots, stockpiles of aircraft parts, 
weapons and weapons stockpiles, control and 
communication centers, highly trained and 
skilled manpower—and airplanes. These 
constitute airpower. 

In many cases, the logistics processes and 
infrastructure we possess today are outdated in terms of 
warfighting concepts and technology. The environment 
and operational requirements are changing and will 
continue to change. The battlefield of the future will be 
radically different from anything we have experienced to 
date. 

To prepare for this environment, we logisticians must 
plan for the capabilities needed in the future. Then, we 
must work back from that point to program and budget 
the required resources to build a cohesive and 
integrated architecture like that graphically depicted in 
Figure 1. Our architectural framework for the future 
should drive the budget and not vice versa. 



Figure 1. 


Logistics Long-Range Planning 

The various attempts over the years to establish a 
long-range planning process in the Air Force are 
indicative of our tradition to be future-oriented. Since 
1979, long-range planning has been a segment of the 
overall Air Force planning process. Logistics has been a 
vital part of this endeavor. (3:11) This process starts by 
inserting a long-range perspective into the early stages 
of the annual planning, programming, and budgeting 


Summer 1982 


3 





system (PPBS). The Secretary of the Air Force and the 
Chief of Staff accomplish this by providing a "top- 
do\A/n” focus in terms of objectives and priorities. 

The process to provide this focus can best be 
described through the aviation anaiogy of an aircraft 
penetrating a line of thunderstorms to reach a distant 
airfield. Long-range planners are like a ground radar 
station scanning the horizon to locate thunderstorms 
(threats, obstacles, or limitations) and clear flying paths 
(opportunities). As pianners, we transmit the 
information to those responsible for guiding the aircraft 
(senior Air Force leaders). These leaders, having 
available to them the alternative routes to reach a 
distant airfieid, may then choose an appropriate path to 
reach the ultimate destination (national military 
objectives). But like the nature of thunderstorms, the 
obstacles may move or change their shape over time. 
Thus, the dynamic nature of our environment requires 
us to have a cyclical process. The nature of the 
environment may require an adjustment of the path 
along which the aircraft must travel. Depending on the 
amount of change, the final destination or objective may 
even need to be altered. (4:21) 

In the interactive sessions of discussions about 
logistics held with the Secretary and the Chief, we 
attempt to provide assessments of key support issues 
facing the Air Force. Our aim is to present the 
implications for supporting air warfare at the turn of the 
century and to have our proposed objectives ratified. To 
enable all logisticians to formulate current decisions in 
consonance with these goals, we are documenting our 
future objectives and strategies in the Air Force 
Logistics Long-Range Planning Guide. 

.. logistical dimensions [warfare] have 
been substantially ignored by most historians." 

^\wwwwvw^wvmvv^wwvwv^vvw^wv^^vv^vvv^^^^w^^v^^^vwm^^^^^^v^wv^^wv^^v 

The Future Battlefield 

The future will require logistics support across a very 
broad spectrum of potential conflict. Combat could 
likely range from low level contingencies to theater 
conflicts to global warfare. This global strategy requires 
that air forces be capable of fighting at any ievel of 
conflict and inherentiy be able to move rapidly across 
the continuum of conflict. In order for logistics to 
sustain forces across this continuum, the logistics 
architecture of the future must be compatible with its 
environment. 

The need to survive on the battlefield will be of 
paramount concern. The quest for survival will motivate 
the organizational structure, tactics, and logistics 
doctrine in the year 2000. The logistics infrastructure 
will not only be a direct target, but it faces potentially 
extensive collateral damage. Advanced nuclear, 
biological, chemical, and conventionally oriented 
weapon systems will make support operations extremely 
vulnerable and difficult to sustain. 

Unaccustomed to being a major target on the 
battlefield, logisticians must recognize and deal with 
the fact that our equipment, facilities, and weapon 
systems will be primary targets and highly vulnerable to 
enemy attacks. We must expect our lines of support to 
be significantly damaged, C3 capabilities to be severely 
degraded, and the battlefield environment to be 
extremely hazardous due to multiple weapon threats. 


.. the dynamic nature of our 
environment requires us to have a cyclical 
process." 

mww\^wvvwv\\^vvvvvvvv\^wvvwvwvvwvvv\\^^^w\vv\^^\w^^\\^^^\vvv\\^vvvvv^v 

Our challenge is to devise the concepts and processes 
that will enable the support infrastructure to survive and 
sustain operations. Particuiariy if conflict should 
escalate to global warfare, the potential requirement for 
credible warfighting capabilities poses a herculean 
challenge to logistics. Whether it be global or theater 
warfare, or even a combination of both, the support 
infrastructure may face revolutionary change. 

In a similar fashion, the inherent flexibility and 
maneuverability of air forces will also take on new 
dimensions in the twenty-first century. With the 
surveillance and firepower capabilities of our potential 
adversaries, concentrations of weapon systems or 
support itself will be vulnerable. Air forces will need to 
move frequently on the battlefield. To complement this 
requirement, support capabilities will have to be highly 
tailored as well as mobile and survivable. If our forces 
are to be truly mobile, support requirements must be 
substantiaily reduced. Whether it be in Europe or in 
austere locations with little to no infrastructure, support 
requirements must be reduced for U.S. forces, not only 
to respond rapidly, but to redeploy frequently to survive. 

The lack of time will also be a critical factor. Support 
systems, procedures, and people must be prepared to 
rapidly engage in wartime operations. The environment 
of the twenty-first century will not permit a major 
transition from a peacetime to a wartime posture. Thus, 
in the future peacetime environment, the support 
structure and its people must be organized, equipped, 
and trained in their wartime posture. We logisticians 
need to change our perspective—we must organize for 
war and conduct peacetime operations from within that 
framework. It is our job to enable our forces to be 
sufficiently mobile and flexible so that the National 
Command Authorities have the ability to respond with 
air forces across the full spectrum of conflict. The 
“muscle” of logistics is a vital ingredient in, not only 
providing responsive forces, but also enabling the 
combat commander to employ and sustain the miiitary 
initiative. 

To do this, the logistics force structure—those 
structural elements of logistics which translate 
airframes and consumable resources into decisive 
destructive power—must be focused on the end product 
of combat sorties. The logistics computers, 
telecommunications, process control systems, 
maintenance processes, and our distribution 
capabiiities must be developed to perform essential 
wartime operations. Within this posture, peacetime 
operations should be efficient and streamlined as 
possible, but not at the expense of potential combat 
effectiveness. Our day-to-day perspective must 
emphasize warfighting; management efficiency should 
be a secondary goal. We need to recognize the lessons 
of history: warfare—if one is to be effective—is 
inherentiy inefficient; it has to be in order to appreciably 
increase the probability of success. Peacetime 
requirements and processes must not degrade our 
warfighting capabiiities. 


4 


Air Force Journal of Logistics 


What Do We Focus On? 


VVW%VV\VVVVV\VVW\\VVWVW\VV\VVWW>\\WWVV\VV\\\\WVWVWVVVW(W\\WVVV\WVW 


It is obvious that our future environment poses many 
challenges. The trends suggest that advanced 
technology will continue as an important ingredient in 
contributing to improved weapon system performance. 
But this same factor has been the force behind support 
requirements, and these have been growing 
substantially. To counter this problem, some defense 
analysts have suggested that we should design simpler 
systems if we are to maintain aircraft at high sortie 
rates, particularly in austere environments, 

However, if advanced technology is needed to provide 
increased performance, then a major corollary, 
technology thrust is required to reduce support actions. 
What we need is a balance between performance and 
support to achieve optimum combat capability. Neither 
performance nor supportability is an end in itself. We 
must achieve the appropriate proportion between the 
super performance aircraft for which one sortie a day is 
possible and the degraded performance aircraft for 
which six sorties are possible. The critical factor is the 
future warfighting environment in which we will find 
ourselves. Not only will increased performance be 
necessary, but the essence of support itself will need to 
change in response to the makeup of the support force 
and the threats of the battiefield. Reliable and 
supportable systems must become as critical as the 
technical performance they produce on the battlefield. 

The new technology thrusts must reduce both the 
type and quantity of support actions needed at the 
geographical point where sortie generation occurs. For 
example, the twenty-first century may likely see a 
reduced manpower pool, both in terms of numbers and 
innate abilities to maintain complex systems. If a 
sophisticated weapon system is needed to handle the 
threat, then the technolo^ of that system must be 
transparent to make it easier to replace or fix when it 
fails. If that sophisticated system technology can be 
designed to represent less complexity to the 
maintenance technician, we then reduce the difficulties 
in turning aircraft for combat sorties. 

But since failure will inevitably occur, proficiency 
training should also be conducted with degraded 
systems. Aircrews and support crews alike should train 
in a Red Flag environment with the limited capabilities 
that will invariably exist in combat, particularly when 
high sortie rates are required in austere, dispersed 
locations. 

Although the need for more reliable weapon systems 
is not a new idea, our approach to achieve this goal must 
be. We logisticians must improve the means by which 
we quantify the meaning of supportability in ways that 
make sense to an aircraft design engineer. These 
designers have amassed a great wealth of experience in 
dealing with the “calculus” relating performance to 
design. But experience in relating design to 
supportability is much more sketchy and vague. We 
must develop the means to articulate logistics 
supportability in terms meaningful to the design 
engineer, comparable to the performance criteria of 
energy maneuverability and turn radius. These terms 
have precise meaning to an engineer; meantime 
between maintenance actions, maintenance hours per 
flying hour, and mission capable rates are considerably 
less precise. In other words, we must do a better job of 
defining our maintenance environment of the future to 
the engineer. 


. . we must organize for war and 
conduct peacetime operations 

As we create the quantitative design expressions of 
what supportability is, we must also develop the 
incentives and processes by which aerospace 
companies produce more reliable aircraft and 
subsystems. The name of the game today is still 
performance. For the future, the Air Force must send 
some clear signals to industry that both performance 
and logistics are operational requirements. Without 
these signals, industry will not make the internal 
changes to treat supportability and performance as 
comparable design characteristics. For example, we 
should require our contractors to develop a range of 
aircraft or weapon system designs which would 
represent trade-offs between performance and 
"supportability." These trade-off designs would be 
presented during Milestone 0 acquisition activities to 
enable senior Air Force leaders to select the design 
option that will be suitable for our future operational 
environment. In this endeavor, systems would be 
designed to be highly reliable and supportable, not only 
to sustain operations in future combat locations, but 
also to reduce the need to deploy large amounts of 
complex, highly vulnerable support equipment. 

The second focus of our future planning should be on 
survival. No longer will the fixed base be a sanctuary; 
no longer will we be able to link our forces inherently to 
fixed installations. Forces and their associated support 
will have to disperse to survive and sustain operations. 
Thus, the premium will be placed on small, 
decentralized, self-sufficient support units to sustain 
combat. Just as the signature of aircraft must be 
reduced for aerial combat, small, highly capable 
support units with a reduced signature will also have 
enhanced utility. As depicted in Figure 2, dispersed 
operations will favor aircraft and support systems able to 
operate from a range of locations to include semi- 
improved areas to roads to short strips of damaged 
runways. 




Figure 2. 


The dispersal of critical assets—both weapon systems 
and their support—will be a key tactic in the year 2000. 
Dispersal will conceal or reduce the signature of assets 
on the ground much the same way that stealth 
technology may mask the presence of aircraft in the air. 
Likewise, responsive and mobile support will be as 


Summer 1982 


5 


critical to the mission as are the aircraft they support. In 
organizing for war, the need to survive may also dictate 
that we place more and more of our forces on alert. 
Warning times may be minimal in the twenty-first 
century, and our support structure must be ready. Our 
thinking may need to evolve to the point where we treat 
aircraft like ICBMs; e.g., weapon systems would be on 
alert and that condition would be degraded in order to 
perform essential training and maintenance. 

.. logisticians must improve the 
means by which we quantify the meaning of 
supportability ...." 


To sustain the kind of dispersed combat operations 
that I have portrayed, the concept of self-sufficient 
weapon systems will also be necessary. To complement 
the technology thrust of reliability, weapon systems 
must be designed for integral support. This concept will 
enable small numbers of master mechanics, equipped 
in a mobile configuration, to turn aircraft rapidly for 
high sortie generation rates at austere locations. 

Additionally, this dispersed operational concept will 
obviously warrant new distribution concepts and 
capabilities. For example, some amount of dedicated 
in-theater airlift and highly mobile ground 
transportation will be necessary to sustain dispersed 
operations. The costs may be high but are realistic 
where they are placed in perspective relative to 
enhanced warfighting effectiveness. 


How Do We Get There? 

Change is difficult to bring about in any large 
institution. But the demands of our new weapon 
systems and the needed changes in our logistics force 
structure underscore the importance of our everyday 
actions being forward-looking. Using the focus of our 
logistics long-range planning, we need to orient our 
actions to build a logistics architecture suitable to 
future operational requirements. An essential element 
of the planning activities depicted in Figure 3 is a 
logistics research and studies program. Our intention is 
to express logistics requirements in terms meaningful to 
Air Force research and study agencies as well as to 
industry for their independent research and 
development (IR&D) efforts. For example, the Air Force 
Systems Command laboratories are using the logistics 
long-range planning objectives to develop thrust areas 
aimed at solving problems of reliability, maintainability, 
and support. By combining specific logistics research 
requirements with ongoing activities, the laboratories 
are working to solve long-term logistics problems. 


"... we need to orient our actions to 
build a logistics architecture suitable to future 
operational requirements ." 


One of these laboratory thrust areas concentrates on a 
design for logistics. The basis of the work spawns from 
the recognition that some 85% of the life-cycle cost 
decisions for a major weapon system are locked in 
before full-scale development. Conversely, the actual 
expenditures are smail with roughiy 90% of the iife- 
cycle cost incurred after the production miiestone. The 
leverage achieved through up-front expenditures to 
make design more reliable and compatible with its 
operationai environment becomes very apparent. We 
are moving forward in the areas of integrated logistics 
design, structural design criteria, and diagnostic 
technology in an attempt to reduce the manpower and 
associated logistics burden. 

As we strengthen the logistics R&D program, we 
continue to concentrate on research which wili result in 
long-term improvements. To deal effectively with the 
dynamics of our future environment, we are specifically 
funding for logistics concept development, design 
trade-off, and weapon system demonstrations. The 
potential for R&D to help us solve our problems is 
tremendous. 



When Do We Start? 

The operational environment of the twenty-first 
century presents us with demanding challenges. We 
cannot afford to ignore the challenges nor leave them to 
others. We must start now. The future requires all of us 
to dedicate a portion of our time. Our long-range 
planning process provides us the mechanism to 
examine the future environment and to plan for it. The 
future starts today—every decision we make today 
affects that future. The challenge is there—the real 
question is whether or not we are up to the challenge. 

****** 


"Any air force that does not keep its vision far into the future can only 
deiudethe nation intoafaise sense of security." 

General "Hap” Arnold 


References 

1. Arnold. HenryH. Global Mission. NewYork: Harper and Row, 1949. 

2. Van Creveld, Martin L. Supplying War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 
1977. 

3. Thompson, Robert H. "Logistics Long-Range Planning," Air Force Journal of 
Logistics, Vol IV, Number 4, Fall 1980. 

4. Davis, Gene H. "Long-Range Planning on the Air Staff,” unpublished 
document, October 30,1981. 


6 


Air Force Journal of Logistics 




CHECKMATE To Study Soviet 
Logistics 


New Bare Base Allowances 
Readied 


Logistics Long-Range 
P lanning Team Established 


LOGMARS Implemented 


Recent emphasis upon the United States Air Force’s niaintainability and 
sustainability has prompted Air Force Logistics CHECKMATE to analyze 
Soviet air logistics. The analysis examines the Soviet organization and reviews 
their capabilities to perform five prime logistics functions (aircraft maintenance, 
supply, POL, munitions, and transportation). Even though segments of the 
Soviet system have been well analyzed and documented, to our knowledge, no 
one has evaluated the system as a whole. This analysis of Soviet logistics 
capabilities provides planners a tremendous quantity of detailed data on the 
Soviet system. 

Allowances for Harvest Eagle (TA156), Harvest Bare (TA158), and the Tactical 
Fuels System Equipment (TA929, Part K) are being consolidated mto TA157. 
This new TA will provide a comprehensive allowance source for mobile bare 
base equipment and serve as a guide for determining bare base requirements for 
both hardwall and softwall facilities. Allowances will be based on the number of 
personnel and the quantity/type of aircraft assigned to the bare base. TA157 is 
scheduled for publication 1 Jul 82. Allowances for vehicles required to support 
bare base operations will be established in a separate part of TAOlO, the current 
allowance source for vehicles. 

The Deputy Chief of Staff/Logistics and Engineering and the MAJCOM/Deputy 
Chiefs of Staff for Logistics have established a Logistics Long-Range Planning 
(LRP) Team. The LRP Team supports a Chief of Staff initiative to enhance the 
dimension of the planning, programming, and budgeting process. The Team will 
be built around a cadre of Air Staff and MAJCOM people onented toward future 
logistics planning. Their aim will be to improve the planning throughout he 
logistics community and to develop a clear vision for Air Force logistics m t 
year 2000. The Team members will also focus on near- and mid-term planning to 
ensure that evolving logistics programs are in consonance with Air Force long- 
range goals. 

On 9 October 1980, OSD established the 3-of-9 bar code as the DOD standard 
symbology. OSD memorandum, 16 Feb 1982, directed all DOD components to 
proceed with implementation. The official program title is Logistics 

Applications of Automated Marking and Reading Symbols (LOGMARS). 
LOGMARS bar code technology offers a key to unlocking financial benefits 
necessary to improving productivity within logistics functions and system^ 
PMD No. L-X 2068(1), 15 Mar 1982, designates HQ AFLC as “e TM^l 
responsible for development, initial acquisition, and implementation within the 


Summer 1982 


7 



Air Force. MAJCOMs and SOAs are responsible for individual follow-on 
replacements or upgrade programs to include budgeting and funding after initial 
acceptance. PMO will phase out as the technology becomes fully operational 
within the Air Force. Initial implementation is planned in wholesale receiving 
and base service store operations. 

Readiness of Reserve The Logistics Management Institute is under contract to conduct a study for the 

Logistics Units Examined Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics. 

The study entitled, “Readiness of Reserve Logistics Units,” examines the 
dependence of the total force on logistics assets from the reserve components of 
all services. The scope of the study will include: identifying the wartime 
logistics support functions supplied by reserve components and the planned 
phasing after mobilization for that support; identifying the types of reserve 
component logistics units affected by force modernizations; and assessing the 
adequacy of existing readiness indicators for reserve component logistics units. 
The focus of the Air Force phase of the study is to determine what supply, 
maintenance, and transportation functions will be performed by reserve 
components during war. The study is scheduled to be completed on 30 
September 1982. ^ 

Facility Energy Work Funded The Administration’s amended FY82 budget included, for the first time, funds 

for facility energy work in the O&M arena. The Air Force has distributed 
$27.9M to MAJCOMs in various O&M accounts for energy-related minor 
construction, metering, and building energy surveys. FY83 and succeeding year 
utility budgets have been reduced to reflect anticipated reductions expected from 
use of these funds. The funding fills a need which bases and MAJCOMs have 
had to fill from other programs for the past several years. The Energy Group at 
the Air Force Engineering and Services Center is the OPR for this program. 

Integrated Diagnostics Urged In April 1981, the Air Staff issued as policy a concept called Integrated 

Diagnostics, which requires acquisition managers to incorporate in the systems 
they acquire, a capability to detect and isolate 100% of the faults known or 
expected to occur in the prime equipment and the associated support and training 
equipment. This concept also delineates a program strategy for use to achieve 
this objective and already appears in some PMDs. The Air Staff has now 
chartered an Ad Hoc committee to outline the actions necessary to 
institutionalize this policy; the processing of changes and additions to existing 
directives should be underway in the near future. 

Clothing Support Point Set Up The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (SM&T) has approved the 

establishment of a Specialized Support Point (SSP) for clothing. The SSP will 
be an additive AFLC mission located at Kelly AFB, Texas. Under this concept, 
the DLA depot at Memphis, Tennessee, will transfer management of that portion 
of Air Force uniform items required to support the Lackland Recruit Induction 
Center and military clothing sales stores within a 35-mile radius to the Air Force. 
Significant DOD savings are expected in the planned reduction of retail level 
inventory and the elimination of second destination transportation charges. A 
target date of May 1983 has been established for operation. 

Standard MLV Selected The Air Staff has designated the AN/ASM-607 Memory Loader Verifier (MLV) 

as the standard MLV for all systems having near-term requirements and using 
core memories, and has initiated actions through AFLC and AFSC to implement 
this standard. (MLVs are devices which load software into embedded computers 
at the organizational level of maintenance.) This action is based on the 
acceptance the AN/ASM-607 has received from acquisition agencies and users, 
and is the first step in an initiative which will provide a family of standard MLVs 
to meet all Air Force requirements. Agencies requiring MLVs should advise 
ASD/AXT, AFLC/LOWCT, or HQ USAF/LEYYS before initiating independent 
acquisitions. 


8 


Air Force Journal of Logistics 



Computer Graphics in Logistics Management 

Major Samuel B. Graves, USAFR 

Reserve Augmentee, AFLMC 
Gunter AFS, Alabama 36114 


Abstract 

This paper is intended to serve as a point of departure for 
exploration of concepts and capabilities in computer graphics 
and to investigate the applicability of such systems to Air Force 
logistics management. 

The discussion begins with a brief consideration of the role 
of management as it relates to information absorption and 
processing. The second section provides a description of a 
number of corporate and government applications which may 
provide germinal ideas for possible Air Force employments. 
The third section provides a brief review of the technology 
which is now available and the direction in which it is evolving. 
The last two sections provide, respectively, a measured and 
feasible menu of Air Force applications and a discussion of a 
few considerations necessary regarding cost-effectiveness. 

Role of Management 

To begin, we must ask: What role of management are 
we addressing in this effort to assess the relevance of 
computer graphics to Air Force logistics management 
tasks? The answer is that we are attempting to find ways 
to help supervisors, managers, and executives absorb 
and synthesize information for logical and accurate 
decisions. This mechanism of absorption and synthesis 
of information employs both the analytical and the 
intuitive capabilities of the manager. The process 
requires assimilation of great volumes of data and 
visualization of patterns and projections of that data in a 
search for trends, coherence, exceptional behavior, and 
correlations. How does the manager receive the data 
through which he begins this mental search for 
meaning? Mintzberg, in conducting a study of 
managerial performance, concluded: 

I was struck during my study by the fact that the 
executives I was observing ... are fundamentally 
indistinguishable from their counterparts of a 
hundred years ago... . The information they need 
differs, but they seek it the same way, by word of 
mouth. (15:122) 

Certainly, this is a familiar process to those involved in 
almost any phase of Air Force management. Information 
is first extracted from a data base; next there is a 
subordinate attempt to organize the data into some 
coherent pattern, usually by plotting it on a view-graph. 
Finally, this subordinate verbally presents the data to 
the manager. Frequently, this verbal presentation 
becomes an iterative process wherein the manager 
reviews the presentation and suggests new angles from 
which to view the data, or perhaps requests inclusion of 
more or different data. In a sense, the subordinate in 
this process becomes a middleman between the 
manager and the data base. 

It is possible that this relationship may be changing, 
at least in the corporate world. Many managers are now 
seeking information not by word of mouth but rather 
through pictures (computer graphics). Computer 
graphics systems may allow a machine to do much of 
the aggregation, synthesis, and presentation of data 


which was previously performed manually. The 
fundamental importance of the form of this data 
presentation is emphasized by Herbert Simon, a 
prominent thinker in the field of information processing. 
Simon is quoted by Anders Vinberg as follows: 

That representation makes a difference is a long- 
familiar point.... All mathematical derivation 
can be viewed simply as a change of 
representation, making evident what was 

previously true but obscure. (16:61) 

Graphs are, of course, nothing more than a form of 
representation of data which makes the obscure 
comprehensible. Air Force managers have relied for 
many years upon graphically presented information, but 
this information is generated slowly and at great cost. 
The corporate world has been faced with iike problems. 
In fact, according to Vinberg, the typical large 
corporation may require several hundred graphs to 
describe its operations. (16:61) Vinberg further 

suggests that these graphics may be generated as many 
as 26 times per year, requiring some part of the 
planning staff to spend as much as half of its time 
preparing such presentations. Under these 

circumstances, the data may be obsolete when it is 
presented; and clearly the complexity and 

sophistication of the displays must be limited. 

Some of these problems of information overload, 
perishable data, and cost of production of presentations 
may be mitigated by the current technology of computer 
graphics. According to Takeuchi and Schmidt, the two 
most basic benefits of computer graphics are in saving 
the manager’s time and in helping managers make 
better decisions. (15:123) Computer graphics save the 
manager’s time by simplifying the interpretation of data 
and facilitating the communication of complex findings. 
Computer graphics help managers make better 
decisions by allowing them to: (1) scan and digest more 
information, (2) detect trends or deviations more 
readily, and (3) rapidly generate many different 
presentations. 

The primary beneficiaries of this new technology are 
clearly the supervisory and management personnel. 
Management, however, incurs additional responsibility 
along with this capability. In the future, management 
may routinely be expected to have reviewed and 
evaluated many contingencies and combinations and 
presentations of data, simply because the capability to 
do so is becoming increasingly common. To the extent 
that this capability is used judiciously, it may improve 
the effectiveness and thus the productivity of our 
organizations. This kind of improvement seems 
especially important in light of some recent studies 
which have suggested that management may be part of 
the bottleneck in productivity growth. (15:130) 

The author thanks ILt Karen M. Daniels, USAF, for her assistance. 


Summer 1982 


9 



The evidence suggests that private industry is 
knowledgeable of this possibility, at least to the extent 
that we may take administrative productivity as a 
surrogate for management productivity. Consider, for 
example, the attention which has recently been given to 
automation of office and administrative processes. As 
an index of the intensity of this effort, one might take 
the capitalization level of office and administrative 
workers, expressed as the capital-to-worker ratio. 
According to James H. Bair, that ratio was about $2000 
per person for office workers in 1978. (2:12) In that 
same year manufacturing workers were capitalized at 
about $25,000 per person. According to the same 
source, the 1980 ratio for office workers was expected 
to be about $10,000 per person; a fivefold increase in a 
period of only two years. Such a level of investment 
suggests that corporate managers believe that 
administrative productivity can be improved and that it 
is important to do so. Certainly, computer graphics 
would be among the systems employed to automate 
work which was previously slow and manpower¬ 
intensive. 

Some Examples of Current Use 

The corporate world in the past few years seems to 
have been moving rapidly toward increased use of 
computer graphics in management, engineering, and 
design implementations. Although there is some 
evidence that government and military organizations are 
also embracing this new technology, they appear to be 
considerably slower in their implementation than 
private industry. If it is true that the widespread 
acceptance of this capability in private industry implies 
that such systems contribute positively to productivity 
and profits, then it is important that government and 
military organizations carefully assess operations to 
determine whether they are missing an opportunity for 
productivity enhancement. 

In the following paragraphs, we will discuss a number 
of specific applications by private industry and one 
employment by a US Army project management office. 
The purpose in reviewing these cases is to generate 
thought in the Air Force logistics community as to what, 
if any, current applications should be considered in the 
Air Force logistics system. 

For convenience, we have separated these 
applications into two groups. The first, computer 
assisted design/computer assisted manufacturing 
(CAD/CAM), will be illustrated by two brief examples. 
The second category, management information, 
includes a wide variety of applications; and we will 
discuss a number of these in an effort to stimulate 
thought in this more abstract area. 

In the first group, the field of computer assisted 
design, General Motors and McDonnell-Douglas, to 
mention only two, have been active for more than a 
decade. (15:123) In each of these applications, 
computers store and present three-dimensional 
prototypes of products which are in the design stage. 
Engineers make proposed changes to the design directly 
on the screen and then immediately observe and 
analyze the ramifications of these changes through 
algorithms which are a part of the system software. 

At General Motors, clay models of a proposed car 
design are digitized and then read into computer 
memory. Designers may make tentative alterations in 
the design by using a light pen directly on the screen or 


by typing in specifications of the change. The computer 
immediately calculates the effects of such a proposed 
change on the car’s performance in terms of weight, 
stability, and other factors. In a similar application, GM 
has developed.a computer graphics-assisted technique 
for analysis of combustion chamber design and 
performance. Figure 1 shows the model of a combustion 
chamber, and Figure 2 shows the associated graphics 
output of combustion chamber performance taken 
directly from the GM graphics equipment. 



Figure 1; Model of Combustion Chamber. Reprinted with 
permission ® 1981 Society of Automotive 
Engineers, Inc. 



Figure 2: Graphics of Combustion Chamber Performance. 
Reprinted with permission ® 1981 Society of 
Automotive Engineers, Inc. 


McDonnell-Douglas, in another CAD/CAM 
application, has used computer graphics to assist in 
design work on the F-18 aircraft. Again, the basic 


10 


Air Force Journal of Logistics 

































design of the prototype is digitized and read into the 
memory of the computer. With the basic aircraft design 
displayed on the screen, engineers introduce proposed 
modifications and then observe the predicted changes 
in aircraft performance. Figure 3 is an example of 
graphics used in aerospace design \work. 

Although the relevance of the above applications to 
base-level logistics management tasks is not obvious, 
there may be analogues in hardware-oriented work, such 
as troubleshooting of aircraft systems, fault isolation, 
and testing of proposed corrective actions. 

The second group of computer graphics applications, 
in the field of management information, has been 
divided into two categories. The first category includes 
geographic or geometric information which typically 
requires the depiction of a map or other symbolic 
representation of an area of interest. Figure 4 contains 
an example of a computer-generated map. The second 
category incorporates that whole range of abstract 
presentations of numerical information, including two 
and three dimensional presentations on Cartesian 
coordinates, bar charts, pie charts, Gantt charts, 
network models, and other methods of depiction limited 
only by the imagination. 

In the category of geographic implementations, an 
excelient example of a rather extensive application is 
found in the work of Business Industry Display, Inc., of 
San Diego. (16:63) This company publishes World 
Energy Industry which is a nation-by-nation summary of 
production and consumption of energy. 



Figure 3: Graphic Representation of Space Shuttie. 
Created using Hewlett-Packard 9845C Graphics 
System. 


Their publication includes a full page of data and a 
page containing four-color graphs for each country. In 
all, the report includes 130 color pages with more than 
500 charts and graphs. The negatives for these charts 
are produced by computer graphics and reproduced on 
computer output microfilm (COM) in less than two 
hours. To produce this same product using conventional 
techniques would have required about one day per page. 

General Motors has also been very active in 
applications of computer graphics to the management 
of administrative information. In the field of marketing, 
GM uses massive amounts of data. In fact, one 
marketing manager commented that he was swamped 
by literally truckloads of data products before he turned 



Figure 4: Three-Dimensional Maps. Produced by ODYSSEY 
Software System at Harvard Laboratory for 
Computer Graphics and Spatial Analysis. 


to computer graphics to relieve the information burden. 
(15:124) In one of the most frequently used marketing 
applications, GM uses computer graphics in its site 
location studies. For example, in order to study Cadillac 
dealer locations, GM computer graphics systems plot a 
color-coded map of an area which shows concentrations 
of Cadillacs (or competitive vehicles) registered in that 
area. Overlaid on this plot in a different color are the 
existing dealerships. In viewing this display, it is easy to 
see areas of relatively heavy concentration of high- 
priced vehicles which are not serviced by a Cadillac 
dealership. To digest such information from printouts 
would be a very time-consuming process. To generate 
manual graphics showing the same information 
similarly would be a time-consuming and expensive 
process, and would not be likely to provide up-to-date 
data. 

The Taubman Company, a developer of regional 
shopping malls, has installed a computer graphics 
system which greatly simplifies its review of shoppirig 
mall productivity. As the number of tenants per mall in 
Taubman Properties increased from about 30 or 40 in 
the 1960s to 200 in the 1970s, the problem of 
productivity analysis of mall floor space became 
increasingly burdensome for Taubman executives. 
Drawing rational conclusions from review of the many 
sales reports became increasingly difficult. The 
company instituted a computer graphics capability 
which shows a simplified view of floor space in a given 
mall. Each section of the floor space is color coded 
according to its productivity index (retail sales per 
square foot of selling space), with black showing the 
highest productivity and lighter colors showing lower 
productivity areas. According to management, this 
capability has greatly simplified their task of analysis 
and review of retail productivity. Taubman's vice 
president for marketing believes the system will lead to 
better management of existing operations and better 
planning for future tenant space allocation. (15:126) 

We now turn our attention to the second category of 
applications under the heading of management 
information, the set which includes all of the abstract, 
non-geographic depictions. Let us first consider Gould, 
Inc., a Chicago-based company with annual sales of 
about $1.3 billion. This company recently installed a 
system designed to assist its top decision makers. The 
system takes various performance indicators, such as 
inventories and receivables, directly from the 


Summer 1982 


11 















information in the corporate data base and displays 
them on graphics terminals. Individual terminals were 
installed in the offices of managers both at 
headquarters and in field offices. A manager is required 
only to type in a three-letter keyword to call up a display 
of interest, such as sales figures, balance sheet, 
inventory, etc. There are 75 such displays available on 
the system. The system automatically flags significant 
deviations from planned performance figures and 
ultimately is intended to provide managers with the 
capability to input what-if questions and then review the 
effects on the output displays. In 1976 Gould 
executives, operating a company with annual sales of 
$891 million, had available instantaneous summaries 
of sales, backlogs, receivables, and payables either on 
screens in their offices or on a large screen in the board 
room. Eight years eariier, before implementation of 
computer graphics, with sales of $115 million, 
executives had only monthly summaries of this same 
information on which to base decisions. (9; 16) 

In a similar application, D. W. Phillips International 
employs computer graphics to assist in management of 
24 subsidiaries with over 1400 retail outlets in 17 
countries. Although the company had sales in 1976 of 
$24 million, and was posting an annual growth rate of 
25%, it still operated with only one general 
management official per country. The company has 
instituted an interactive computer graphics system 
which will allow managers to grasp problems at a glance 
and work directly with the computer by using a light 
pen. Management is intent on continuing the firm’s 
international growth with increasing profit margins by 
reducing management overhead through improved 
management effectiveness; clearly this is a company 
which believes that computer graphics is a positive 
factor in management productivity. (9;20) 

Esmark, Inc., has implemented a computer graphics 
capability with three graphics terminals tied to an 
HPIOOO minicomputer. This system is the heart of their 
corporate strategy center, a sort of electronic board 
room. Executives are said to be able to learn the system 
in less than five minutes; inputs are typed on a 
simplified 12-key keypad instead of the usual typewriter 
style keyboard. The equipment allows executives to 
reduce information to simple forms for analysis of 
Esmark stock performance, for evaluation of potential 
mergers and acquisitions, and for numerous other 
analyses. (17:26) Figures 5 and 6 are examples of 
graphics products which are available through the 
Esmark Corporate Strategy Center. 

The United States Army Patriot Program Management 
Office has demonstrated a unique employment of 
interactive computer graphics. This program office has 
loaded a network model of its program plan into an 
interactive computer graphics system. The level of 
resolution of the network is controlled by the user. Top- 
level managers, for example, may choose to view up to 
100 activities at the highest level of aggregation; if they 
desire, they may choose any one of these activities and 
then explode it into its constituent parts. Similarly, any 
one of these components may be expanded into a 
maximum of 100 of its constituents. Thus, a manager 
has the capability to move quickly up and down through 
the hierarchy of the network. Duration, time, and cost 
estimates were originally entered at the lowest level of 
aggregation; the computer then progressively 
summarized these to obtain values for each of the 
higher levels of aggregation. According to Douglas Seay, 



Figure 5; Esmark Stock Performance Analysis. Courtesy 
of Esmark, Inc. 



Figure 6: Historical Turkey Consumption from Esmark 
Data Base. Courtesy of Esmark, Inc. 

Defense Systems Management College, interactive 
computer graphics have been shown in the Patriot 
Program Management Office to be an instrument of 
great potential value in project management. (11:32) 
The technology of computer graphics may be an 
important instrument in the effort to stem the paper 
flood. In the applications which we have reviewed, we 
have found as a common element the desire to gain 
control of the deluge of data—the information overload 
with which many managers are struggling today. 

A testimony to the worth of graphics is found in the 
words of George B. Blake, Vice President for Finance at 
Anderson, Clayton and Co. 

Of all the frustrations of business life, surely one 
of the most aggravating and persistent is the flood 
of paper. Until a year ago, I used to update my 
mental portrait of the company by wading through 
a 100 page monthly budget report on the 
corporation, the divisions, the profit centers, and 
the products. To round out the picture, I also 
slogged through a series of smaller reports on 
collections, bank loans, and the like. These 
added perhaps 50 pages to my pile. 

Now I get a better picture from just one sheet of 
paper. It has 20 small graphs on it. The graphic 
management that has evolved helps stem the 
paper flood and has resulted in many benefits, 
not all of them expected. (5:26) 


12 


Air Force Journal of logistics 




























Wherever major accumulations of information (data 
bases) occur and require periodic review, a potential 
application for computer graphics exists. A particular 
efficiency is realized when managers are granted direct 
hands-on access to current data through coherent 
displays generated almost instantaneously through 
computer graphics. 

According to Computer Decisions: 

Today computer graphics are found in companies 
with sales under $1 million as well as the giant 
industries. They benefit from computer graphics 
in improved management of information, faster 
dissemination of information, improved design 
accuracy, and reductions in lead time. (5:35) 

The Current Technology 

The current technology in computer graphics consists 
of three parts; the display terminal, hard copy 
equipment, and software. Display terminals are 
becoming increasingly powerful and sophisticated while 
their costs are either remaining constant or decreasing. 
Software enhancements are continually increasing the 
versatility of systems while at the same time simplifying 
their use. 

The display terminal serves as the means of 
communication with the computer as well as providing 
for input/output. By direct communication with the 
terminal, either through a keyboard or a light pen, the 
user calls up and modifies various displays. Display 
terminals today are of two main types: storage tube 
displays and refresh displays. 

Storage tube displays are the least expensive and 
provide a high resolution display with very little flicker. 
They are not continually updated; so in order to modify 
the display, the system must erase the entire screen and 
generate the whole image anew for even a slight 
modification of the display. Such systems are not suited 
to an interactive environment where numerous 
modifications of a display are contemplated. Storage 
tube displays are also unable to generate colors. 

The general category of refresh displays can be 
separated into two subsets: vector refresh and raster 
scan. Each of these technologies has a selective erase 
capability which is facilitated by continuous redrawing 
(refreshing) of the display. Vector refresh technology 
provides a very bright, high intensity, high resolution 
image. It has, however, no color capability and can 
display a limited amount of data without flicker. Raster 
scan technology provides an inexpensive refresh 
capability with full color and the capability to mix digital 
information with video (analog) information. The 
disadvantage of raster scan is its relatively poor 
resolution which causes some lines to have a jagged 
appearance. Raster scan displays are becoming 
increasingly popular and, according to iEEE Computer 
Graphics and Appiications, "will probably be the most 
cost-effective devices in many applications within a few 
years.” (16:67) 

Hard copy output equipment is capable of generating 
output on paper, microfiche, or directly on plastic for 
view-graph production. The three rnajor types of 
equipment are pen plotters, electrostatic printers, and 
computer output microfilm (COM) equipment. Pen 
plotters use a conventional pen-and-ink technique to 
produce excellent quality graphics with color capability. 
Pen plotters are, however, relatively slow. Electrostatic 
equipment is faster. It provides good quality graphics 
using up to 200 dots per inch to produce images. It has 


no color capability. COM equipment reproduces graphic 
output directly on microfiche. It provides the highest 
quality output and operates at the highest speeds. It is 
also the most expensive of the three hardcopy output 
devices. 

Computer graphics software has experienced great 
improvements in ease and simplicity of use and in the 
sophistication of its capabilities. Many software 
packages, for example, now provide various choices of 
axes, such as linear, logarithmic, or polar. Many 
include a wide range of symbolic logic, such as Greek 
letters and mathematical symbols. Mapping and 
contouring programs are common features, as are 
packages with standard business-oriented applications. 
Three-dimensional plotting capability is now 
commonplace as is the capability to rotate three- 
dimensional images through space. 

In the future, one would expect to see continued 
development and improvement of these capabilities, 
more advanced graphics and languages, and automatic 
graphic layout features. It appears the time is coming 
when the kinds of capabilities discussed above will be 
available to even low-budget operations. 

Possible Concept for Base-Level Application 

We turn now to a consideration of possible 
applications of this technology to military base-level 
logistics managemont. For ease of comparison, this 
section is arranged in parallel with the earlier discussion 
of industrial applications of computer graphics. We will 
present first those ideas which are similar to the 
CAD/CAM applications described above. We will then 
present ideas related to management information using 
the same two categories as above; (1) those which 
depict geographic relationships and (2) those which 
present abstract management information in charts and 

graphs. . 

To begin with CAD/CAM applications, we must 
identify a logistics function that would benefit frorn the 
presentation of physical objects in three-dimensional 
perspective and the ability to rotate and manipulate 

these objects through three dimensions. 

One such function is load planning (i.e.. planning for 
loading or reloading of items onto cargo pallets and 
possibly for the loading of pallets onto aircraft). The 
standard cargo pallet is 104 by 84 inches across the 
base, with a height limitation determined by the aircraft 
type. Typically, a number of heterogeneous items will be 
stacked onto such a pallet. The pallet is loaded 
manually by iterative methods in an attempt to 
maximize the use of the available space. If the 
measurements of this pallet and its candidate load 
items were typed into a small computer with three- 
dimensional perspective, the items could be iteratively 
^"loaded" onto the pallet by computer, possibly by 
moving the items with a light pen and rotating the 
picture to examine the fit. Certainly, if satisfactorily 
implemented, such a system would be preferable to 
repeated manual handling of these objects. The 
simplest conceivable such system would only take into 
account the shape of each of the items, leaving to the 
operator questions of the stability of the load and the 
best uses of the available space. There are, however, 
other parameters associated with both the pallet itself 
and the items to be loaded which might be included in 
the loading algorithms at the risk of adding some 
complexity to the implementation. Some pallet 
restrictions which could conceivably be included in the 


Summer 1982 


13 


application might be: total pallet load-bearing 
capabiiity, maximum pressure (PSi) limitations, and 
paliet center of gravity (CG) limitations. Some 
characteristics of the loaded items which could be 
considered include; weight, weight support restrictions 
of boxes and crates (i.e., rigidity and strength), and 
identification of items designated as hazardous cargo. 

The field of management information which can be 
presented through its geographical relationships leads 
us naturally to flight-line applications. The flight line, or 
any subset of it, might readily be represented in a 
computer graphics simplification. 

One application which readily comes to mind is a 
representation of fuel storage and "tank farms." These 
might include in the simplest case only jet fuel, or in 
more comprehensive employments, representations of 
jet fuel, motor vehicle fuel, etc. It would seem to be 
reasonably straightforward to set up a computer 
graphics display of the various fuel storage devices and 
their interconnections which could automatically 
monitor the levels in each device, perhaps prompting an 
operator when levels occurred which required certain 
actions. More complex representations can easily be 
imagined, although they increase the risk and difficulty 
of the implementation. 

.Similar applications might be considered in the tasks 
of maintenance control and/or the scheduling of 
aircraft. In such an implementation it might be 
desirable to represent a simplified ramp space 
depiction, with each of the aircraft spots shown. It 
might be possible then to show a macro-view of the 
ramp which includes only aircraft tail numbers at each 
of the spots, as well as some gross indicator of each 
aircraft's maintenance and/or fuel status. Such gross 
indicators could be color-coded symbols to simplify the 
presentation. If additional information is desired, it 
might be possible to call up a different presentation 
which would be a micro-view of a single aircraft. Such a 
presentation might include more detailed status 
information, such as actual discrepancies and 
scheduling information. 

A rather different application, but one which still falls 
in the same general category as above, might be the use 
of computer graphics in electronic troubleshooting. 
Here, we might see on the computer screen a color- 
coded schematic layout of a set of circuits or 
components of an aircraft subsystem. A technician 
might employ such a computer graphics technique to 
troubleshoot a system in much the same way that he 
now uses a technical order. Conceptually, it seems 
algorithms could be written in which the computer leads 
the technician through a step-by-step process of fault 
isolation and then correction. 

The second category of management information is 
that sort of abstract information which is frequently 
presented in standard Cartesian-coordinate graphs. This 
kind of information is embodied in the base-level Air 
Force logistics world by the many management 
indicators which characterize the status of aircraft 
maintenance, the status of aircraft supply, the degree of 
adherence to the published flying schedule, the status 
of various technical orders and modifications, and a 
host of other measures of productivity and status. This 
kind of information resides in a maintenance 
management data base which requires frequent access, 
probably on a daily basis, so that graphic presentations 
may be manually constructed to summarize the 
information for presentation to higher management. 
Certainly this procedure is very much like that of several 


corporations we have reviewed. The commonalities are: 

(1) an automated data base which contains information 
from which performance indicators are derived, 

(2) frequent access to the data base to extract 
information for management, and (3) construction of 
graphics which summarize the information for 
presentation. The difference is that companies such as 
Gould, Inc., Phillips International, and Esmark have 
essentially automated this entire process so that their 
managers and board rooms are connected directly 
through simplified computer graphics with the data 
base which constitutes their source of decision-making 
information. These companies report great satisfaction 
with their systems. Whether the Air Force manager 
would benefit from such a system is a subject which 
calls for study. 

Considerations of Cost/Effectiveness 

We have discussed the uses of computer graphics in 
the corporate world, the nature of the technology which 
is available today, and some possible applications of 
this technology to base-level logistics management 
tasks. We now turn to a brief but important discussion of 
the analysis which must precede adoption of any such 
systems. 

The first and most fundamental point is that one 
should not assume that a system which incorporates 
more advanced technology is a priori better than its 
predecessor. It is essential that we expose the decision 
process to some reasonably rigorous form of cost- 
effectiveness analysis. Unfortunately, the structure of 
these analyses (for purposes of selection of computer 
systems) is usually not well defined. An article by Ira 
Cotton of the National Bureau of Standards documents 
the difficulties of such analyses; the major difficulty is 
that of establishing and measuring the benefits of the 
system. (4:37) 

We may recall from the introductory paragraphs of 
this article the recent increases in capitalization of 
administrative workers from $2000 per worker to 
$10,000 per worker. Consider this figure, which 
implies a pervasive automation of administrative work, 
and the many examples of implementations of computer 
graphics which we have discussed. One might suspect 
that such major movements toward automation would 
have been justified by some cost-effectiveness analysis. 
It may be of value to review in more detail some of the 
corporate applications discussed, with the purpose of 
understanding precisely what criteria of' cost and 
effectiveness were used in the adoption decision. 

There are a number of measures of effectiveness 
which we might consider in any analysis of computer 
graphics systems. These include; production rates per 
labor hour, quality and timeliness of reports, reduction 
in media transformations, improved information flow or 
decision turnaround time, improved management 
planning, and reduction in crisis behavior. All but the 
first of these present some obvious difficulties of 
measurement. And yet, given that one can establish 
some measure of these indicators, there is the 
additional problem of insuring that improvement in one 
of these indicators is favorably related to some measure 
of final output such as—sorties per day. 

We hope through the work involved here to stimulate 
further thought and discussion concerning the 
applicability and relative effectiveness of graphics 
systems in the field of base-level Air Force logistics 
management tasks. Future productivity demands our 
present attention: we should do no less. 

continued on page 35 


14 


Air Force Journal of Logistics 



Integrated Maintenance Information System: 
An Imaginary Preview 

Robert C. Johnson 

Chief, Maintenance Performance Section 
AFHRL Logistics and Technical Training Division (AFSC) 
Wright-PattersonAFB, Ohio 45433 



Prologue 

The hour just before dawn is dark, with just a promise 
of the light to come. The flight line, packed with 
remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs), is slowly coming to 
life. Small vans are fanning out from the maintenance 
building. They will transport maintenance technicians 
to the scheduled aircraft. 

Sgt Bayshore is crew chief of RPV #007. She is just 
preparing to preflight her RPV for a mission. Let us look 
over her shoulder as she works. 

Action 

Unfastening a panel on the left side of the fuselage, 
Sgt Bayshore exposes the control and display panel for 
the central computer system. She inserts a small 
cartridge and then turns on the aircraft battery power 
and punches a button marked ‘‘Preflight System 
Checkout." 

Turning, she begins her visual inspection of the 
airplane. Finding nothing wrong, she returns to the 
panel where the navigation correctional unit is 
identified as being in a deteriorated condition. 

By selecting the appropriate button, she quickly 
receives additional specific information about the 
deteriorated condition. She agrees with the 
recommendation of the computer to remove and replace 
(R&R) the unit, so she requests R&R instructions. She 
finds that the task is assigned to the crew chief; she 
identifies and opens the appropriate panel and quickly 
removes the unit. The panel is now flashing a warning in 
red that the navigation correctional unit is removed. 

Taking a small wand from a small radio device on her 
belt, she passes it over the supply information displayed 
on the screen. Thus, she places the requirement for a 
spare with the local supply center. 

While she waits for the part to be delivered, Sgt 
Bayshore calls up the RPV records on the computer 
display. An aircraft wash is due in three days; weapon 
system certification is due in a week. The few items still 
requiring preventative maintenance are listed and some 
sheet metal work is scheduled for tomorrow. The flight 
schedule indicates a heavy month of flying is planned. 


•This paper was presented by the author at a symposium on "Product 
Support—A Changing Challenge” in Seattle, Washington, on 21-22 
October 1980. The symposium was sponsored by the Aerospace 
Industries Association and the government. The paper was a portion of a 
panel on "Publications-A Look to the Future.” The paper was also 
presented by Ross L. Morgan at a DOD/National Security Industrial 
Association (NSIA) conference on "Personnel and Training Factors in 
System Effectiveness” in San Diego, California, on 6-7 May 1981. The 
author and Ross L. Morgan are associates at the Logistics and Technical 
Training Division of the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory at 
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. 


She checks the Recent Change List: No major changes 
in technical order (TO) procedures, monitoring 
requirements, or performance standards have occurred 
in the past three days, so she is current on everything. 

With everything stored on the cartridge and the 
cartridge updated at the end of every day, it is not 
difficult to keep up with changes. The daily cartridge 
update also dumps the day's collection of historical 
data, flight information, and condition monitoring data 
into the central computer system for this RPV rnodule. 

The cartridge system works very well, but it is out-of- 
date. The cartridge has to be handled every day in this 
system. Sgt Bayshore will be glad when her squadron 
gets the new system which does not use the cartridge. 

The new system communicates directly with the local 
maintenance computer center for update and data 
dumps. New developments in telemetry technology 
make the procedures trouble free and efficient. The 
system will make information available to the RPV 
computer system as it occurs. It will instantaneously 
update the maintenance and operations information 
system for planning and scheduling purposes. 

Sgt Bayshore quickly exchanges the old unit for the 
new one and plugs the new one into the appropriate 
receptacle. The computer senses the changes, makes 
its check, and then flashes an ‘‘all systems go” signal 
on the display screen. 

Just in time—the Flight Operations van approaches. 
Sgt Bayshore gives the thumbs up signal to the driver as 
he passes. The van stops nearby in a position to control 
the movement of all the RPVs as they taxi toward the 
runway. 

Soon, Sgt Bayshore hears her RPV #007 being called 
on the portable radio on her belt. Time to fire it up and 
send it off. Quickly, she does so, checking the computer 
display panel one last time before she steps back and 
tells the Operations van controller that #007 is cleared 
for taxi. She watches as the RPVs make their way like 
robots to the end of the runway and then take off into 
the early morning light. 

Time for a break—the RPV is in the hands of the pilot 
in the van for the next two hours. S^ Bayshore has been 
on the flight line for less than 30 minutes. Not bad-that 
is the 42nd on-time takeoff in a row without an abort. 
The last abort came when she disagreed with the 
computer, thinking that one more flight was possible. 
Oh well, she was new then—now she has learned to 
trust the computer. 

After drinking her coffee, Sgt Bayshore decides to go 
to the local maintenance computer room to find out 
more about this system. On her way to the computer 
room, she passes offices containing the maintenance 
planning, scheduling, and analysis functions. Display 
terminals tied into the local maintenance computer 
system have significantly improved the timeliness and 


Summer 1982 


15 







accuracy of the information required for day-to-day 
management of the maintenance organization. 

With a wave, the computer center operator motions 
for Sgt Bayshore to come in. The computer room is 
small, clean, cool, and quiet. The operator explains the 
system to Sgt Bayshore in detail. 

This small local computer is dedicated to 
maintenance, and it provides all of the computer 
support the maintenance organization needs. It runs the 
maintenance management information system, with 
terminals in all work centers. This includes scheduling, 
controlling, analysis, records, training, and mobility, as 
well as all status and management reporting systems. 

After all the bugs had been worked out of the system, 
the support staff workload had been reduced and 
several people have been reassigned to maintenance 
jobs in the various squadrons. These actions enhanced 
in turn functions such as training and supervision, and 
increased the number of people assigned to sortie- 
producing tasks. 

Of course, the local computer is also the interface for 
the weapon system central data computer at the Air 
Logistics Center (ALC). This interface makes technical 
data available to the bases and inputs historical, trend, 
and operations data to the central data base. All 
technical order information is stored in the central 
computer and transmitted to the local computers for 
temporary storage and distribution. Distribution is made 
to the technicians through cartridges for the aircraft, 
through plug-in, portable units for work away from the 
aircraft, and through direct link with the terminals in the 
shops. 

Under mobility conditions, the local computer can 
operate in a stand-alone mode. It will perform all of its 
normal functions plus providing its own ‘‘central data 
bank" functions. If satellite data links are established at 
the new operating location, the computer can revert to a 
local computer tied to the central data bank or can 
continue to operate independently. The computer is 
designed for mobility conditions and requires only 
minimal attention to a controlled environment and 
special handling. 

Technical data are virtually untouched by human 
hands. The prime contractor prepared the data within 
his own computer system according to the government 
specifications. Task analysis is managed by the system 
to insure quality and thoroughness. Updates and 
changes are made easily and quickly. After validation 
and verification are complete, the data, including 
graphics, are input to the central computer data bank 
for that weapon system at the responsible ALC. 

All engineering changes, corrections, etc., are 
managed by ALC personnel. When a change is required, 
the Air Force requests the work be done; and the 
contractor completes the work and inputs the change to 
the central computer at the ALC. The central computer 
stores, updates, and manages all of the technical data 
system. 

The central system has an artificial intelligence 
capability that permits it to learn from the 
troubleshooting successes and failures of the built-in 
system in each RPV. As the successes and failures are 
combined and analyzed in the central system, the 
artificial intelligence capability makes necessary 
adjustments in the troubleshooting strategy and 
programming. Thus, it provides the most current 
information to a local computer in an instant. 

For each RPV, there is a small cartridge that contains 


the information that previously was contained in the 
aircraft records and in the TOs for the aircraft. This 
cartridge is plugged into the central computer system of 
the aircraft whenever it is flying and whenever 
maintenance is being done. 

At the end of each flight and maintenance day, the 
cartridge is removed and plugged into a receptacle in 
the local maintenance computer room. This dumps the 
accumulated flight operations data, historical action 
taken, aircraft records data, and trend data. This 
information feeds the maintenance management 
system. While the cartridge is plugged into the 
receptacle in the local computer room, the central data 
bank is queried; and if the cartridge does not contain 
the latest technical information or performance 
parameters, the update is made. 

Sgt Bayshore is very familiar with the portable 
technical order device. Weighing less than two pounds, 
the small 7- by 3-inch device incorporates a radio for 
communication with her supervisor, an optical 
character reading wand to order supplies, and the 
display screen, removable input keyboard, voice 
recognition, audio microphone and speaker, power 
pack, and data storage. 

Self-contained, rugged, small, and lightweight, this 
one device is a technician’s most prized possession. It 
provides technical information in either video or audio 
form, or both. It contains graphics that were available 
only on bulky graphic systems just a few years before, 
and it incorporates a training mode that permits review 
or on-the-job training (OJT) whenever and wherever the 
user chooses. The voice recognition capability and the 
extensive interactive capability allow users to ask 
technical questions and receive answers as if a very 
experienced senior technician were personally tutoring 
them. 

Like the cartridge for the aircraft system, this device 
is plugged into a receptacle in the local computer room 
for daily update of the TO information and to dump 
historical data input by the user. It is used for work away 
from the shop or aircraft and where it is not convenient 
to keep referring to the aircraft panel display. It can be 
hand-carried, fastened to a belt, or carried on a shoulder 
strap. 

The computer operator explains that the remaining 
portion of the system is found in the intermediate level 
shops. The shop device is a combination of automated 
test equipment (ATE), automated technical order 
system, and instructional system. The display screen is 
large, 32 inches by 32 inches, and provides 
unbelievable clarity for both text and graphics. An input 
alphanumeric panel provides total input flexibility and 
may be extended to 15 feet away from the screen. When 
a component is hooked up to the device, the proper 
check is run automatically; and the results are displayed 
instantaneously. 

When appropriate or when requested, additional 
troubleshooting information is displayed. All 
information required for any task performed on the 
component is displayed when requested. 

The system also includes a training capability to 
provide individualized instruction, along with a testing, 
evaluation, and tracking capability for a great number of 
students. A built-in projection capability can support a 
classroom and group maintenance environment. 

Being able to support several terminals itself, the 
device thus can be active in any or all of its three modes 
simultaneously. 


16 


Air Force Journal of Logistics 


It is fully deployable to remote locations and requires 
minimum facilities. Each shop device is linked to the 
local computer and is updated whenever changes are 
input to the control system. Thus, the ATE, TO, and 
training materials are always current. 

A few words about the type of technical data are 
appropriate. The information, including script and 
supporting graphics, is stored digitally in the central 
computer. The user can choose from several formats, 
ranging from the most detailed step-by-step procedure 
to animation-type graphics without text. Several levels 
of detail are offered, virtually insuring that any given 
need can be met. Remedial training, quick review, or 
detailed theory can be provided when requested. 

The graphics are most impressive. In full color, fast, 
and fully interactive, they can provide rotation, layering, 
and three-dimensionality with animation to meet all 
needs. 

The audio output, voice recognition, tutorial and 
interactive modes, and the artificial intelligence aspects 
make the system tremendously flexible and effective. 
Extremely simple input requirements and complete 
fulfillment of the informational needs of the technician 
have insured user acceptance. 

Sgt Bayshore still has nearly 45 minutes before her 
RPV is due back. She finds a comfortable chair in the 
crew chief's lounge and turns on her portable TO device. 
Reviewing the table of contents, she asks for the theory 
and operating characteristics of the new terrain¬ 
following bomb-navigation system just installed last 
week. She has decided to get caught up on the new 
technology and speed her professional development. 

Later, after hearing the return of her RPV announced 
on the radio, Sgt Bayshore is waiting as #007 returns to 
its parking spot. Postflight is a virtual repeat of the 
preflight with the computer announcing that no failure 
occurred. She adds some fuel, checks the tires, 
launches and recovers again, and then she can go 
home. These six-hour days are not bad. It is no wonder 
there is a waiting list to get on the flight line. 


Summary 

Let me summarize my major points. First, I obviously 
believe that there should be a system, not several, 
composed of the following: 

- a weapon system computer 

- a local maintenance computer 

- in-shop terminals 

- flight-line information device 


- information module for each RPV 

- RPV display, controls, and computer 

This system consists of a local computer that is tied 
into a weapon system specific computer located at the 
appropriate ALC. This permits the local system to be 
updated with the most current technical data and the 
weapon system computer to be updated with historical 
and trend data from the base. 

The local computer powers the in-shop terminals, 
each of which can support satellite terminals for 
training and evaluation purposes, it also updates the 
portable device and the RPV module. 

The flight-line device is small and performs multiple 
roles. It contains technical data with graphics, a 
training mode, a radio, an audio capability, an optical 
scanning wand, and a voice recognition capability. 

The RPV has a plug-in module that contains technical 
data, operating parameters, checkout and 
troubleshooting information, a data collection 
capability, and a training mode. 

The RPV display, controls, and computer provide 
interactive capability through the RPV module while 
installed on the RPV. 

Epilogue 

Together these components: 

- Store and present the technical data, including 
checkout, troubleshooting, and “learning” 
mode. Updated on a daily basis, the information 
is always current. Designed with the needs of the 
user in mind, the data are more accurate and 
usable than ever before. Inputs are made directly 
from the contractor’s facility, and quality is up 
and costs are down. 

- Provide a training capability, including review, 
OJT, and evaluation. 

- Provide inputs to the maintenance management 
information system via the local computer. 
Impacted are Job Control, Plans and Scheduling, 
Records, Materiel Control, and Maintenance 
Analysis functions. 

- Gather historical and trend data via the system. 
Data are input through the local computer to be 
stored at the ALC. 

- Provide a radio link to maintenance, supply, and 
operations. 

- Are fully deployable to remote locations and, in 
the case of the flight-line device, comfortably 
portable. 



ylioit ^Significant c/l-itic£E. cSJ-ara’ul 


The Editorial Advisory Board has selected “Strategic Materials: An American Achilles’ 
Heel” by Major Cecil J. Smith, USAF, as the most significant article in the Spring 1982 
issue of the Air Force Journal of Logistics. 


Summer 1982 


17 


Integrated Wartime Supply 


Captain Andrew J. Ogan, USAF 

Supply Systems Analyst 
Air Force Logistics Management Center 
Gunter AFS, Alabama 36114 


Lt Colonel Joseph H. O’Neill, USAF 

Chief of Supply 
323 Supply Squadron 
Mather AFB, California 95655 


Introduction 

In modern warfare with evermore complex weaponry 
and sophisticated equipment, the ability of armies to 
move effectively in the field relies heavily on a 
responsive logistics system. Historically, the U.S. 
logistics system has responded well to the nation’s 
needs by providing enormous quantities of supplies at 
locations throughout the world whenever the need for 
sustained military operations arose. Over the past 
several years, however, theability of the U.S. military to 
successfully carry out military campaigns has not only 
been questioned but vigorously challenged. While the 
challenges have taken many forms and addressed varied 
issues, the central theme questions the ability of the 
military logistics system to rapidly and effectively 
support the employment of forces. Even though past 
conflicts have been logistically supported, often the 
quality of that support has been certainly less than 
optimal. 

The major thrust of this article, then, is to examine 
the wartime supply system and the one organizational 
entity that integrates its operation—the National 
Inventory Control Point (NICP). It is apparent that 
wartime conditions under which the NICP once 
successfully supported operations have changed in a 
way that materially affects the ability of the NICP to 
continue wartime support. The conclusions reached 
indicate the need for greater functional integration 
within the NICP through what must be major 
organizational revisions. 

Wartime Supply Network 

The wartime supply network consists of three major 
levels—the defense industrial base or contractors, the 
wholesale management level or NICP, and the retail 
level units or the field operations in the theater of 
conflict (Figure 1). Each of these levels is connected by 
the transportation and information management 
systems. The transportation systems are responsible for 
the flow of materiel, while the management information 
systems provide contract and specification updates and 
requisition information. As seen in the figure, the center 
organization, the NICP, controls the information and 
property flow to each of the other operations. The 
defense industrial base and the field level units rarely 
have any contact with each other. They rely on the NICP 
organization to communicate and manage their joint 
interests. Because of the control this organization exerts 
over the entire logistics structure, the effectiveness and 
quality of wartime supply support are determined largely 
by the NICP. 

Since the NICPs collectively control the materiel flow 
from the defense contractor to the field level units, they 
must centrally procure the food, spares, and equipment 
and then distribute this materiel to the base level units. 
It is also within this organizational entity that a great 
number of maintenance actions take place. What the 
base level organization receives, how quickly it is 
received, and in what quantity are determined by the 
internal management operations of the NICP. Clearly, 

*This article is a follow-up, requested by AFJL, of Capt Ogan's and Lt Cot O'NeiM's 
well-received contribution to the Defense Management Journal, 4th Quarter 1981. 



Figure 1: Wartime Supply Network, 
how the NICP reaches its decisions, as well as the 
amount of time and coordination required to make those 
decisions, determines to a great extent the support 
given field units. 

NICP Organization and Probiems 

The NICP organization is functionally aligned, that is, 
divided into several major operating entities, each 
contributing to the overall mission. Although other 
elements such as manufacturing or maintenance (as in 
the case of the Air Force Air Logistic Center (ALC) 
organizations) may be colocated, the functional 
elements of the NICP itself usually consist of a supply 
unit, an acquisition unit, and a technical unit. Though 
specific titles and structures within the individual 
elements may vary, the functional areas tend to be 
subdivided along commodity lines, with a management 
information system supporting this substructure and 
interfacing with colocated units (such as the ALC 
maintenance structures). 

Each of thesie functions operates independently of the 
other, yet the product from the NICP relies on the 
successful operation of all the NICP functions. The 
problems with these internal operations are, first, that 
all the means to provide wartime supply support are not 
contained in any one function and, second, the 
"completed" job within each of the functions occurs not 
when the customer receives his part but when a properly 
completed piece of paper leaves one functional area 
headed for another. Therefore, the more visible 
problems of lack of goal congruency and organizational 
barriers arise out of these two areas. 


18 


Air Force Journal of Logistics 







To overcome the influence of conflicting factors that 
may fall outside its control, each functional area in a 
typical NICP appears to have developed objectives 
designed to measure its functional performance 
somewhat independently of the other disciplines. For 
example, supply may have a certain customer "fill rate” 
as its primary goal and minimizing back orders as a 
secondary goal. Acquisition may have as its primary goal 
a designated number of contracts awarded and may give 
second priority to minimizing administrative lead time. 
The two sets of goals may only appear to be mutually 
reinforcing. In practice, ariy pressure or priority that 
supply may impose toward improving the fill rate may, 
in fact, only detract from acquisition's goal of reducing 
administrative lead time. If each element tries to force 
the other to divert resources to satisfy a particular goal, 
organizational conflict results. 

Sometimes, the conflict of goals has led to the 
formation of communication barriers between 
functional elements. To protect and insulate each 
function from the demands of others, the 
communication process often becomes more 
formalized. Such barriers usually require additional 
coordination with more and higher levels of 
management within each function. To deal with these 
functional conflicts, managers at the various NICPs 
have developed and implemented various quasi-formal 
and informal structures designed to cut across 
functional lines and integrate the efforts toward overall 
goal achievement. This circumvention of the formal 
organization illustrates the problems of working within 
the existing NICP structure and questions the validity of 
the current structure. 

HICP Wartime Support 

The NICP operation, in previous wars, has relied on 
the tried and true maxim of getting there "fustest with 
the mostest.” Each of the functional elements within 
the NICP worked to acquire and then distribute to the 
theater as much property as possible. The typical 
pattern of NICP support for wartime units is known as 
the "push” system; i.e., distributing in advance of 
known requirements those materials required to sustain 
forces. However, this system remains effective only 
when two logistics conditions are met; there must be an 
abundance of materiel and there must be ample time to 
acquire and move additional materials. 

In World War II, the troops in each theater operated 
with an abundance of property. That abundance is best 
illustrated by a Bill Mauldin cartoon (Figure 2). 
Although we were at war with Germany and Japan, we 
also operated with a time cushion. It took time for our 
enemies to mass troops and ships and to acquire the 
necessary supplies. Consistently, that cushion worked 
to our advantage in wartime supply. The North Africa 
campaign, for example, was delayed largely due to 
logistics problems. Stocks shipped to England to 
support this effort were lost in the large push of supplies 
from the United States. Duplicate shipments were 
required from stateside before the campaign could 
begin. We had the time to wait and the materiel to 
provide duplicate quantities. In Korea and Vietnam, we 
were able to control, for the most part, the timing and 
scope of the conflict. Supply problems could delay 
battles without serious problems. In all of these wars, 
the NICPs generated mountains of supplies and pushed 
them into the theater. Duplicate shipments were not 
uncommon and sometimes necessary to ensure that the 
combat forces received essential supplies. 

The two conditions under which we have operated for 



Figure 2; Those were the days. 


so long have changed. Funding limitations over the past 
several years have reduced the available supplies and 
created a number of "critical spares”—classified as 
such because of the small numbers purchased. These 
funding limitations have also contributed to the decline 
of the industrial base by reducing the number of 
contracting instruments as well as the dollar size of the 
remaining contracts. The NICPs no longer have the 
assets available in great quantities nor do they 
necessarily have the industrial base with which to 
generate a large number of assets quickly. 

The time element has also changed. Where we once 
relied on sealift to fulfill all requirements, we are 
increasingly turning to airlift to meet many of our needs 
in the opening phases of a conflict. Rather than locate 
stocks at forward locations, we anticipate airlifting them 
into the theater quickly. This increases the immediacy 
of wartime supply and also the necessity for the NICP to 
more correctly identify what stocks are required and 
where—and then to acquire and distribute those stocks. 

These two conditions are intertwined; but, 
collectively, they severely impact the way we have done 
business. With an abundance of materiel, we could 
locate stocks where we anticipated a conflict in 
sufficient quantities to give sealift time to respond. 
Without the abundance, we need a faster response time 
to theater requirements. 

integrated NICP Management 

To operate effectively with these changes, the NICP 
must be able to acquire stocks and respond to command 
direction more quickly than ever before. The functions 
within the NICP must begin to work in concert rather 
than in competition with the other disciplines. In 
effect, we must shrink the amount of coordination and 
internal functional realigning that takes place to support 
a conflict. We believe this can best be done by 
improving goal congruency, reducing the 
communication network, and improving the command 
and control structure. The approach that we favor is the 


Summer 1982 


19 



development of a materiel management organization 
(Figure 3). 

The basic changes in the standard NICP organization 
are the development of commodity branches which 
contain the technical, supply, and acquisition functions 
that support an individual commodity. This change will 
organize those elements responsible for the 
performance of the NICP along mission rather than 
functional lines. Such an organization establishes both 
the responsibility and authority for mission performance 
at the lowest practical level, thereby fostering goal 
congruency among the functions and reducing many of 
the communications problems. Those elements 
performing administrative, professional, or system 
management services would matrix across the 
organization. 

Integrated management provides a focal point for 
management resolution of support functions. The 
commander of the NICP who is responsible for the 
overall performance of the organization will have more 
effective command and control. Problems within a 
commodity group can be identified and resolved within 
the organization itself. 

Support problems relevant to individual weapon 
systems can be more easily addressed by the system 
managers under this revised organization. Currently, the 
system manager matrixes across the organization in an 
attempt to identify what is wrong and who is at fault. 
However, the decentralized decision-making on weapon 
system support makes it difficult to identify what 
decision is actually impacting weapon system support. 
The commodity organization gives the system manager a 
focal point for resolution of support problems related to 
his system. 

An integrated support concept similar to the one 
proposed here was tested at the Defense Construction 
Supply Center (DCSC). While the DCSC test was much 
more limited in organizational impact than the one 
proposed, there was improved performance where the 
revised organization was employed. DCSC summarized 
the test results as follows; 


In conclusion, the data and statistics gathered 
before and during the test indicate that overall the 
test group improved in those areas in which data 
was gathered and generally outperformed the 
various control groups. As the factors affecting 
the test were kept to a minimum, improvements 
with this magnitude and scope can only be 
attributed to the effects of the ICP Operations 
Management Conce pt. __ 

Defense Management Journal, 4th Qlr 1981 

Conclusion 

The success of modern military operations is 
dependent more today than ever before on a responsive, 
integrated supply system. The luxuries of a time cushion 
and ample materiel reserves that we enjoyed in the past 
no longer exist. Now, the wartime supply system must 
support field level units more quickly but with less 
reserve stocks and reduced industrial capability. As the 
integrating agency in the wartime supply system, the 
NICP must quickly assess the impacts of these changes 
and resolve them. This demands a more responsive 
system in which internal NICP functions are operating 
to integrate activities with minimum communications 
and goal congruency problems. 

The introduction of a revised NICP organizational 
structure can improve NICP responsiveness in two major 
areas. First, a commodity-oriented approach to 
wholesale management provides the opportunity to 
integrate within each of the commodity areas the entire 
functional family of support. These commodity groups 
become mission rather than functionally oriented. 
(Communication and goal congruency problems are 
greatly reduced or eliminated. Second, command and 
control of the entire NICP organization is strengthened. 
Both the commanders of the NICP and supported 
commands and the system managers have a focal point 
within each commodity where the support problems can 
be resolved or clearly identified. It is with this type of 
focus that they can all work together toward integrated 
wartime support. 


A PROPOSED MODEL FOR A 000 NATIONAL INVENTORY CONTROL POINT 

UNDER THE AUTHORS'PROPOSAL. A COMIVIOOITy MANAGEMENT MODEL WOULD BE BASED ON A CLASSIC MATRIX STRUCTURE. 
GIVEN ALL OF THE TOOLS AND INFORMATIDN NEEDED TO PROVIDE CDMPLETE CUSTDMER SUPPDRT, EACH MANAGER WDULD 
MANAGE AN INDIVIDUAL CDMMDDITV AS A UNIT OR PRODUCT LINE. 


MATERIEL 

MANAGEMENT 

DIRECTORATE 


COMMODITY 


COMMODITY 

DIVISION 


DIVISION 


COMMODITY 

DIVISION 


COMMODITY 

DIVISION 


COMMODITY 

1 COMMODITY 1 

1 COMMODITY 1 

BRANCH 

1 BRANCH 1 

1 BRANCH 1 


I COMMODITY 
BRANCH 


ITEM MANAGEMENT 


ACQUISITION AND 


TECHNICAL 


ADMINISTRATIVE 

SECTION 


CONTRACTING 


SERVICES 


SECTION 

• ALL ITEM 


SECTION 


SECTION 


• TYPING 

MANAGERS FOR 


• BUYING 


• ENGINEERING 


• DATA ENTRY 

THE COMMODITY 


• ADMINISTERING 


SERVICES 


• ACCOUNTING 





• TECHNICAL 


• GENERAL SUPPORT 





SERVICES 




ADMINISTRATIVE 

SERVICES 

DIVISION 


PROFESSIONAL 

SERVICES 

DIVISION 


TECHNICAL 

SERVICES 


ACQUISITION & 
CONTRACTING 
BRANCH 




QUALITY 

ASSURANCE 


TECHNICAL 

SERVICES 

BRANCH 




CUSTOMER 

LIAISON 


SUPPLY 

OPERATIONS 

BRANCH 


ADMINISTRATIVE 

SUPPORT 


SYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT 

DIVISION 


SYSTEM 

A 


SYSTEM 

B 


SYSTEM 

C 


Figure 3; Proposed Materiel Management Organization. 


20 


Air Force Journal of Logistics 



Civilian Career Management 


Logistics Civilian Career Enhancement Program (LCCEP) 


The concept underlying the Air Force Logistics Career Program, 
proposed by Mr. Lloyd K. Mosemann 11, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
of the Air Force for Logistics, was to address a number of problems 
which related directly to the career of our logistics civilian work 
force. Mr. Mosemann, as well as other senior AF logisticians, 
recognized that the Air Force had its share of good civilian 
logisticians but that they could be better prepared to cope with the 
logistics issues of the future. The basic theme of this program is that 
LCCEP was developed for and is administered by logisticians in 
coordination with the personnelists. 

One of the primary objectives of the LCCEP program is to provide 
the Air Force a source of top candidates for career program position 
vacancies. This is done by progressively developing higher potential 
logisticians for senior level jobs and providing expanded visibility on 
career opportunities to other individuals. 

Essential to the operation of the LCCEP is the Personnel Data 
System - Civilian (PDS-C) which contains the personnel records of all 
Air Force employees. The information provided by the PDS-C is used 
for total work force management and career program support. 

Since the inception of the LCCEP, there have been over 208 
position vacancies filled throughout the logistics conununity. Before a 
position can be filled, a Promotion Evaluation Pattern (PEP) must be 
prepared. A PEP is based on detailed job analysis of the position and 
states the skill codes and occupational series that have been identified 
by logistics functional management as representing the knowledges, 
skills, and abilities (KSAs) necessary to perform the duties of the 
positions. All LCCEP PEPs are used in the Central Promotion and 
Placement Referral Subsystem (PPRS) of the Headquarters Air Force 
(HAF)-level PDS-C. When the Logistics Career Program Office 
receives a request to fill a position vacancy, employee records in the 
PDS-C are automatically scanned by the PPRS using the proper PEP 
to identify those people who have the skills which qualify them to 
perform the duties of the position. Also, OCPO/MPKCL provides 
microfiche copies of LCCEP PEPs to all Central Civilian Personnel 
Offices (CCPO). A booklet on definitions of skills codes used in PEPs 
is also available at the CCPO. 

A Career Brief, which can be obtained from your servicing CPO, is 
another valuable aid. It gives you a snapshot of your work history. It 
tells you what is in the PDS-C now in regard to skills, occupational 
series, time in grade, etc. Any suspected errors in your Career Brief 
should be resolved with the Employee Development Specialist at your 
CCPO. Once you have reviewed your Career Brief and know what is 
in the PDS-C, both short- and long-term goals need to be set. To do 
this, you will use three career management tools: the Individual 
Development Plan (IDP) (AF Form 2674), the Master Development 
Plan (MDP), and the Career Patterns in AFR 40-110, Vol IV (25 Sep 


81). The first step in filling out your IDP is to thoroughly review AFR 
40-110, Vol IV, Attachment 3, Master Development Plans. This 
attachment is a guide to experience, training, and education desirable 
for progression in the logistics career field. Next you need to review 
AFR 40-110, Vol IV, Attachment 2, Introduction to Career Patterns. 
Logistics career patterns are standard, stable networks of Air Force 
positions within each logistics career family, showing possible 
progression paths and reflecting the sequence of job exposures. They 
can be used by you to plan experiences which will enhance your 
development as a logistician to achieve career management and 
personal career objectives. The IDP is finalized when approved by 
functional management. The original is then forwarded to the 
servicing CCPO where it is used as an input document to the PDS-C 
and then filed in your official personnel folder (OPF). 

In the process of developing logisticians who are fully qualified to 
meet the broad responsibilities of high grade logistics positions, two 
general areas of development are emphasized. The first is obtaining 
multi-functional, multi-level, and multi-command experience 
relevant to logistics. The second is long-term training and education 
which provides managers with a broad perspective and the academic 
tools needed to better operate in our increasingly complex 
environment. The LCCEP will exploit these objectives by 
encouraging employees who plan to move into the management ranks 
to show personal initiative and achievement. In fact, selection into the 
critical core of logistics managers who will fill the senior management 
positions in the future will be predicated on individual demonstrated 
performance. 


LCCEP ACTIVITY 
(1 OCT 81-31 MAR 82) 



Cadre 

Career 



Reserved 

Essential 

Total 

CERTIFICATES ISSUED 

41 

46 

87 

Selections: 




Cadre 

31 

10 

41 

Non-Cadre 

8 

27 

35 


NOTE: Of the 41 Cadre selections, 38 were promotions and 3 were 
lateral reassignments. Of the 35 non-Cadre selections, 33 were 
promotions and 2 were lateral reassignments. 

Source: OCPO/MPKCL Randolph AFB TX 


Summer 1982 


21 





Comments by Mr. Mosemann 


How is the LCCEP program progressing in relation to your 
expectations? Is the program attracting the best-qualified 
candidates? What, in your judgment, has the program accomplished 
so far? 

My expectation has always been that the LCCEP program would, 
over a period of at least a decade, produce individuals for our senior 
management positions who are more qualified in terms of logistics 
knowledge; who are more skilled in the use of advanced management 
techniques; and who, generally, are more inclined to be creative and 
innovative. We are looking for the development of individuals whose 
ideas and opinions will enhance both productivity, as an ingredient of 
enhanced readiness and management effectiveness, and economy. It 
is somewhat early, after only about two years in operation, to assess 
whether or not we have achieved that goal. Our expectation has 
always been for the real payoff to come in about a decade. 

However, I am encouraged because we are attracting the best- 
qualified candidates, including not just individuals who might have 
been promoted anyway, but those who might not otherwise have been 
selected (10% to 20%). 

The program has accomplished several things thus far: It has, for 
the some 1436 key positions managed under the formal LCCEP 
structure, resulted in the development and publication of standard, 
tegular, consistent promotion evaluation patterns (PEPs). I can 
honestly say that, if the program were to be disestablished tomorrow 
and the PEPs retained, all the blood, sweat, and tears would have 
been worth it. 

However, the program has actually produced more than just PEPs. 
It has created an awareness that; (l)we need “quality” in our 
professional civilian personnel, (2) formal education does make a 
difference with respect to management capabilities, (3) an individual 
who has experience in more than just one or two narrow functional 
specialties is of more value to the Air Force and to the Air Force 
logistics community, and (4) we are attempting to introduce a concept 
of merit and objectivity into our career management and related 
promotion and educational training processes. 

1 do not believe that we will ever have a program that is 100 percent 
meritorious, nevertheless that should still be our objective. In LCCEP 
we have provided the qualifications for those who rise to senior 
management positions, as a goal or a standard for achievers at all 
levels from GS-11 to the top. 

What new or improved controls are in work for the LCCEP to prevent 
it becoming a “buddy system”; i.e., only those providing blind 
allegiance to a few in power have a chance for cadre selection? Are 
all scores set by the few based on a personal patronage system? 

It seems to me the most “serious” opposition to the LCCEP 
program has come from those supervisors, or those employees, who 
see the LCCEP program serving to undermine those local “buddy 
systems” that may now exist. I believe that if the many problems 
associated with geographical moves did not exist and if there were a 
greater opportunity to select people from out of the local geographical 
area, then the demise of the “buddy system” would be even more 
evident than it is. 

But the “buddy system” is not always bad. If by the “buddy 
system” you mean that an astute, forward-looking supervisor has 
identified people as potential successors to himself, and is taking steps 
to groom, to broaden, and ultimately to see that they are the best- 
qualified people to take his position, this represents a fulfillment of 
the LCCEP objectives. 

Since there are good aspects to the “buddy system,” I believe that 
the LCCEP program will be a positive reinforcement. We have 
provided guidelines, criteria, and targets for the supervisor to measure 


his protege against. For example, if the protege is limited to some 
extent, the supervisor can initiate actions to broaden his background. 
If he needs additional education, the supervisor can initiate actions to 
motivate him in this direction. 

We do not ever want senior managers, who identify the future 
leaders, to divorce themselves from that process. What we do want to 
accomplish through the LCCEP program is to establish a framework 
within which senior managers can function to assure consistency and 
equity across the total range of the Air Force logistics community. 

Concerning the setting of scores, we are moving to implement 
changes in our cadre selection process, effective with Cycle 3, which 
will eliminate our dependence on appraisal “scores.” Instead, we are 
moving to broaden the influence of Air Force-wide selection boards. 
As you may be aware, we currently have a single Air Force-wide 
board that selects GS-15 personnel. Last year we had two Air Force¬ 
wide boards that selected GS-14 personnel and a series of regional Air 
Force-wide boards that selected GS-13 personnel. These boards 
ensure that the interviewers are not necessarily the same individuals 
with whom a person works and, therefore, can bring objectivity into 
the interviewing process. 

Are there any future changes planned for LCCEP? 

At the forthcoming meeting of the LCCEP Policy Council, there 
will he several changes discussed. The most significant of these will 
be the abandonment of the MPA (Management Potential Appraisal) 
Form in favor of giving greater weight to the interview process for the 
selection of individuals into the cadre. 

We are open to suggestions for change and have received letters 
from a number of individuals in the Air Force logistics community. 
But we do consider it a progressive program, one that is there to meet 
real needs, for both individual career logisticians and logistics 
managers. 

At the same time, I should like to emphasize that whatever changes 
we make to the LCCEP will be consistent with our basic goals and 
objectives. We do not intend to restructure the program in a way that 
individuals will feel they have been “double-crossed” after having 
made conunitments to self-development or to changes in career 
direction with the incentives of the LCCEP program in mind. We 
certainly would not want to make any radical changes which would 
alter the prospects for those individuals. Most of the changes that I 
foresee are mechanistic in nature; e.g., they will streamline, improve, 
or refine the mechanisms of the process. 

I think it is important, also, to note that the LCCEP program is not 
just for cadre members. All individuals who have registered in the 
inventory stand to benefit. For example, in FY81, of the 125 
individuals selected for positions under the LCCEP program, about 
40% of the individuals selected were non-cadre. Clearly the 
incentives of the program are structured to provide advancement for 
persons with broad-based, multi-level, multi-functional experience, 
regardless of whether or not they are selected into the cadre. 

I believe that in time we will probably see more cadre personnel 
being selected for these positions, since the better qualified people 
will be in the cadre or close to the cadre. Our statistics bear out that 
there is plenty of opportunity now, and in the foreseeable future, for 
individuals who have not been selected into the cadre to be recognized 
and promoted. 


Editor's Note: 

The Military Career Management Department does not appear in this issue 
due to a lack of good relevant material. The Contributing Editor promises to 
return next issue. 


22 


Air Force Journal of Logistics 



The Space Shuttle—Logistics Challenges 

Lt Colonel James L. Graham, Jr., USAF 

Office of Space Transportation Systems 
NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. 20546 


Abstract 

A major program goal of the Space Transportation System 
operations phase will be to fly and refly the system with 
economy, but that goal may prove difficult to attain. Efforts 
have begun to define and start acquiring the hardware, 
logistics capabilities, and support systems needed for 
operations. However, the very success of the logistics concept 
used in development has tended to delay implementing true 
operations logistics support. NASA and the DOD face 
numerous challenges in Shuttle logistics, maintenance, 
hardware support, credibility of requirements, limited life 
hardware, integration of management, and competition for 
resources. 

Each time the Space Shuttle Orbiter touches down 
after another successful mission, the United States is a 
step closer to a fully operational reuseable Space 
Transportation System. The concept of spacecraft reuse 
was articulated in the late 1960s and has now been 
successfully demonstrated. A major program goal is to 
fly and refly the system with economy—in dollars, in 
manpower, and in time expended between missions. 
NASA and the Department of Defense are partners in 
the program, with the Air Force as DOD executive agent. 
Our common goal of economy in Shuttle reuse may 
prove as difficult as was the earlier development. 

The Space Shuttle is a part of the national Space 
Transportation System, or STS. The Shuttle flight 
vehicle itself has several major elements, with the 
Orbiter being the most visible. The Space Shuttle Main 
Engines (SSME) are a separate Shuttle element, as are 
the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) and the External Tank 
(the ET is the only non-reuseable element of the Shuttle 
system). While the Shuttle is the major STS component, 
the European-developed Spacelab, the Inertial Upper 
Stage (lUS - developed by the USAF), other upper 
stages, flight crew and ground support equipment, and 
the East and West Coast launch sites at Kennedy Space 
Center (KSC) and Vandenberg AFB, respectively, are 
also essential in the STS. Not an element of the Shuttle, 
but nevertheless an extremely important ground 
component for Air Force and DOD use of the STS, is the 
Consolidated Space Operations Center, or CSOC, 
planned near Colorado Springs. 

Shuttle development, or DDT&E, included production 
of an initial test Orbiter, OVIOI, or "Enterprise.” This 
vehicle was used primarily for the Approach and 
Landing Tests conducted during 1977, in which the 
Orbiter was released in flight from its carrier aircraft and 
was flown to a dead-stick landing. During 1978 and 
1979, broad development efforts were also bearing fruit 
as the SSMEs, ETs, and SRBs were being tested and 
qualified for fight; Orbiter OVlOl “Columbia” was 
delivered; and ground launch facilities at Kennedy 
Space Center were being completed. 

During this same time, the logistics capabilities 
needed for Shuttle support during DDT&E were being 
positioned. However, the logistics support for 
development was logically different than that which 
would have to follow it for full-scale operations. 


Developmental logistics relied heavily on the fact that 
the system was still in its infancy, iaunch rates were 
low, design work was yet to be done, developrnent 
contractors were involved in system test and operation, 
and configurations were expected to continue changing 
through the successful completion of developrnent. 
Production was just beginning on the remaining 
operational vehicles, which gave NASA managers a 
great deal of latitude in responding to operational 
support requirements. In some cases, production 
components were already on hand, along with many 
subsystems’ engineering mortality and test units. This 
apparent wealth of hardware, coupled with the relative 
immaturity of the program, led to postponing of much 
expenditure until everyone would agree on what is 
needed for Shuttle operational logistics support. 

That is not to say that support for DDT&E was 
inadequate. There has always been a source of 
hardware, a way to perform the required priority 
maintenance, and some method to move required 
supplies and equipment. Further, substantial sums 
were spent for spares specifically for the DDT&E phase 
and baseline methodology had been set up for most of 
the logistics disciplines. Even more important for the 
long run, efforts were begun during DDT&E to define 
and start acquiring the hardware, data, maintenance 
and transportation capabilities, and support systems 
that would be needed for operations. 

STS Operations 

It is pertinent here to briefly describe STS operations. 
The STS will be launched, flown on missions of various 
lengths and descriptions, recovered, and processed for 
re-launch at a greatly increasing rate. By 1988 it is 
planned that this will be occurring 24 times per year: 18 
each year from KSC and 6 each year from Vandenberg 
AFB, using a fleet of four Orbiters. This rapid pace of 
turnaround, with the much larger quantity of hardware 
needed for support, means that logistics support will 
have to be nearly automatic. There will be little time 
and few spare people to perform the kind of hand- 
massaging of requirements and hardware availability 
that has typified developmental stages. 

Here, then, is the origin of the logistics challenges; 
but now it is in development that the big decisions for 
operations must be made. The very success of the 
logistics concept used in development has tended to 
delay that "moment of truth” and has in turn promoted 
a warm feeling that the spare parts needed in higher 
volume operations could continue to be located and 
moved as quickly as they had in DDT&E. The operations 
environment is going to be considerably different. 
Contractors who developed the earlier systems may no 
longer be available or even interested in supporting the 
equipment. When hardware requirements have not 
been properly foreseen, the long and often increasing 
lead times in the program will make new production 
awkward and especially difficult when support of a 
failure is necessary. 


Summer 1982 


23 


Challenges y 

Maintenance Support. On-line or organizational ley^ 
nhalntenance on the Shuttle system Is done by lau/ch 
site vehicle processing contractors. So far, off.fline'" 
maintenance (intermediate and depotrtype 
maintenance) for flight hard\«are systems has/been 
accomplished primarily by a return to the vendor— 
either to Rockwell for example as prime jurbiter 
contractor, to Rocketdyne for the SSME, etc., or to the 
original equipment manufacturer or subcontractor. For 
Orbiter and SRB, maintenance atid fcgistics 
engineering analyses (MEAs and LEAs) /rvdjppajr level 
analyses have been started but are not yeV Mh}jlete. 
Those which have been completed have*been 0 T|/k'lue in 


identifying the proper range of sparesand the'su^ort 
required. When fully accomplished, tfiese analMs will 
insure that necessary economic! trade-oirfs j:fre\ 
considered giving better spare^ jjeguiremehts 
projections. t'' ' / 

Preliminary repair level analyses (for dev|f(^ment) 
have supported the return of most fligtit hardwafe'to the^ 
vendor for repair. For an extended dperations period,*" 
vendor repair might be an expensive alternative, fefidor 
repair will entail longer turnaround (i^-traniitlTlme'fdr' 
reparables and will add another le'^el" of contractor 
overhead. This is offset by vendor ^ailabllity of test 
and check-out equipment, specialised fi)hures, jdata 
and repair procedures, and already frained repair and 
support manpower. In fact, NASA has not yitet pr'ociTred 
much of the data needed for non-venior re|5air of flight 
hardware. In some cases, flight Iquipt'hent is so 
complex or unique that the vendor has a virtual lock on 
the capability to do extensive replir. ©per^tidnally 
oriented repair level analyses should'be perforrhe'dldr 
each Shuttle element in the near tertn, f^ith objective 
assessments to ensure the analyses a'ccurately consider 
all capabilities (actual and potential) {e/Sus^hosedf the 
vendors. Realities of the market may in fafct forcfe the 
development of a new informed laid or e\feh a 'cfepdr 
capability. Also, we expect Airforce and^other! d 0D 
service depot repair facilities tdbecome mo!e and!more • 
attractive as the original Stfuttle equipmefit agei and ! 

original repair sources aremd longer ayarilable:- -~~’~i'^. ■ 

Vendor repair commitments were secured thrdlighihe 
end of the development period several yfears ^£ 0 , and 
the ongoing producticfi program generally guaranteed 
availability of needed fepair parts. A priority afetiorfmow 
is to establish repaV commitments* for/the /early 
operations period, with repair parts‘fidehtifieo and 
stored ahead of the actual requiremfent.' Mairitenance 
capability—primarily repair turnardunlf j tirhe-^must ' ■ 
support and be consistent with Ithe fa^sufhprttths, , 
underlying the procurement of Inajdr 45^res*!f^ 


i\To use Orbiter as an example, there have been some 
laOT million in Orbiter development spares procured; 
Bnd.Njf this, over $30 million worth will be available for 
""■Marry-Over into operations. In addition, about $330 
million's expected to be spent through 1985 on initial 
By-in or line replaceable units (LRUs) for operations. 
I'ead tiroes for hardware are already long and are 
mcreasing (typical complex avionics LRU lead times are 
24-30 months and orbital maneuvering system engines 
40-48 months); As a result, proper phasing of spares 
pj'ocurements*is'|mportant, so the spare hardware will 
- -beon han[) b||h'e.predicted need date. 

! j If hBrdvylre" isinot available, cannibalization will 
robabyfi_ be thi consequence. At its best, 
„ annibilizatioh is an undesirable partial disassembly of 
I |h ope ytionally capable Orbiter for a short period whjie 
vj* pric!fty launch! is supported and the broken 
! Bbmpoffeht repaired! At its worst, cannibalization puts 
i; |fi'pxtr|fnely expen^ve system out of commission for aij 
I ilrondedperiod. | 

i I Ipredibility of Requirements. As long as system 
^dnfiguration is clanging, credibility of computed 
iddres r^'uirements will be suspect. NASA Shuttle 
. projects tjse several systems for estimating spares 


•e'cjuirements, depending on the nature of the hardware 
ind stagi of the Irogram. Launch site GSE spares 


underlying the procurement of STiajpf 
Sources of Hardware Support. For aircfrift pTb^fairiy, ' 
provisioned spares and the maintlnartcfe dra^t^ani|4e * 
considered the main sources of hardvvare surtrtbrt-lfpV - 
the Shuttle program, production and test assets*.liavbj I 
been a major source of logistics hardiifdre'alWell. I 
Shuttle elements continue in prddbc{i'b'n‘|6/'rtfdjoV j 


refurbishment throughout the entire'pWdr^mitHiynd'I ■ 
SRB). For these systems, continue&/u|dpf'pi'6duyt)obj| j 
assets has been accepted as an/^recrtive'rtfebhb^krtj 1| 
providing hardware support witV fa'|lpid41 Ifbrali' I 
expenditure. However, those sykehs, ■ 

production has a finite (and relatively e‘ariyi'com/)ieti6n! 
date, such as the Orbiter and SSME, are today at the 
point of needing actual hardware spares in place rather 
than depending on production. 


lequiremdnts for all practical purposes are determined 
fend repfenished |n the basis of actual usage, 
fconfigura'tion at th# launch site is relatively stable, and 
Ihere is llittle question that quantities and dollars 
projected'are in an ^accurate range. The Orbiter project 
|ises a spires requit'ements model based on the Poisson 
Exponential di^ribfation which calculates that LRU 
requirements reach* desired probability of sufficiency 
|POS) onfan individual item basis. A POS of 95% has 
gbeen the Itated goal for direct mission support Shuttle 
fihardferef ET and [SRB spares requirements are also 
Ibasedbn a similar Ppisson-type calculation. In addition, 
rthe Orbiter model pas an optimizing capability using 
i'^arginal analysis techniques. Since dollars for spares 
< '^re limited, rriargin|l analysis provides computed data 
!5 -showing the best'bequence of spares purchase in terms 
* aof incremental impfoyement in overall system POS per 
\ aplia/spent. NASA believes that this raw data has to be 
\sppplemented ajid results adjusted, using proper 
rengirreeT'irtg'ludgmehl^so that the rote predictability of 
me model |Will not Inadvertently cause illogical 
yocurementl" On^the'other hand, the SSME project 
pnd its’contfaCtdf use a sparing technique which halves 
itiie expected mearttimes between removal (MTBR), 
based orl observed engine component failures and 
. removals*'during telt and mission operations, and uses 
’|i the resuft to calculate the spares quantity required. 

Ilf All ^khes’e fgbhniques have both drawbacks and 
I j|advantage, but*It his become clear that the degree of 
Mlaccuracy^of the resulting spares requirements can be 
i ibased ai much on^the quality of the input data (raw 
Ifailure and;use riat|, turnaround times, costs, etc.) as 
hbn the^|il5^dlbte‘||eal life veracity of the model. 
Iponseqiiehlly■ b* miajor program challenge in the next 
I I Several >/paVs*^ w II be to develop and implement systems 

I Ithat fefedfb’abk rebf liberations and maintenance data for 

II *use ill fcliclj(atili ahd verifying requirements. Such 
U systems fi/fll'h’ava tb tlflect, notonly failure and removal 

event!, du't also' tile operating or exposure time 
experienced by the equipment between events. While 
expensive to devise and operate, these feedback loops 
will almost certainly provide a net savings to the 


24 


Air Force Journal of Logistics 



program. Further, the implementation of ajhulti-user 
Shuttle inventory management system for hm ^teport of 
both the KSC and Vandenberg launcb^ites be 
critical in ensuring that supply issue and dm|nd 
history is maintained across the entire operatrpi^l 
program and the correct inputs ^e generated Wpr 
replenishment procurements. Tigraer control of ^ 
repair cycle will also be a valuable spinoff benefM 
because with limited assets fin the progranii 
intermediate and depot repair turrpround time must bl^ 
reduced to a minimum and assetllocation known at all 
times. I I 

Limited Life Hardware. There Ire really two sides to! 
this particular challenge. One is fairly well/nderstood, I 
and the other may have greater impact.Inan yetf 


appreciated. 

First, some of the equipment v 'hich w: 
use on the Shuttle has not yet Deen d 


i designed for 
alified fd the 


total number of missions, hours,jcycle^^tc. 7 ’thatWre| 


the original design specificatioji. Ex|mpl|s -of^ui 
components are the wing leadingedge, hydrlulicTravi 
units, and power cells for the drbiterJandjjtne SS^ 
turbopumps and nozzles. These compoherits Baye 
time change requirement to ensure that jth( 
changed out ahead of a possibly :ritical f 
Additional work and testing, land | ossioly I 
development, will be needed for! these com|)lone 
realize their originally intended designfliveSj Ho 


ponerits have -a 
that!|the>! are- 
:riticll fa|ure! 
ossib'ly fLMhel- 
comllonems to 


realize their originally intended aesignpves;;However| 
these hardware characteristics Are already covered ir 


IS been 
■towever, 


)poseh to, 

n o kneti 


spares projections because they a e known | and > 
accepted conditions. Ji J f 

The other side of this concern nay ppsenrsome realj 
resource challenges to the STS (iperatibns Piografn. IfeJ 
has taken a long time to achieve the present Sfuittie 
capability. Much of the program hardwire which ^isti 
today is fairly old or well into its usefm lifeljincluding j 
components that have already bem producecjjfortise iW 
subsequent production vehicles. Again, the'jnatufe on 
development period support has been lo use whaleven 
hardware is already in the syfetem es obposea toj 
procuring additional spares. Tt is has l^en a cost-j 
effective approach for the short "un. Hpwevef,'SFuttle J 
equipment is often operated for more |oursJ|n a given j 
process or cycle than was predicted in the design phas^ j 
In addition, when components ar(! shifted from endiitern j 
to end item in order to fill the noles left byjiailures oM 
other asset requirements, the operatingfiours Oh a |ivgn j 
piece of equipment can mount v|ry dbickly. 
predictable consequence is that* equipment!Will feach^V 
the end of its expected life sooner Ihanlhad pafhV^v 
originally calculated based on [mission fref^ uanC y j 
predicted cycles. It appears that, a sigmBcant quantity 
of Shuttle hardware could require repracement during/' | 
the life of the program. This is lik^y to'occiff at ah\rpi 
when many of the original productioriTvendors wftf no 
longer be producing and may not have or |ciesirl the 
capability to retool or restart their productiofi. Injfact, 
even the technology of the existing IdesigB maw be 
obsolete. This concern may be alleviatea to sjSrne,extent 
by judicious recertification techniques and! anal|tical 
condition inspections which could alljiw extension of 
life limits. It seems unlikely that the e|f|ire ptBgraql^an 
be supported with existing vendore and hardware 
design. A major challenge for the eigntie^iwHI be tiifiely 
recognition of items or systems whi# can only be 
supported through changes in vendors%nd/or hardware 
design. 


Integration of Management/Support for Two Launch 
Sites. The difficulty of operating two somewhat different 
launch sites has been accepted as a major challenge to 
both NASA and the Air Force. Actual resolution of the 
potential problem involves primarily the establishment 
of a data management system which allows practically 
instantaneous communication of a very high level of 
detail. This system must cover configuration, 
engineering data, procedures, spares location and 
availability, status of maintenance actions and 
modifications, problem reporting and corrective action, 
operating times, and numerous other features. The goal 
is to be able to launch the Shuttle at one launch site and 
efficiently recover and process it at the other. In 
addition, the full impact of the need for full 
configuration commonality will become apparent as 
functionally similar systems and items are found to have 
become dissimilar logistically. That is, later 
procurements and design upgrades result in different 
internal components which are the same in form, fit, 
McTmuction, but still not the same. 

J From\the standpoint of hardware support for two 
Munch sites, the range and depth of flight spares to be 
ptdcked'iaV Vandenberg itself has yet to be addressed 
|specifically Most of the hardware requirements 

I projections \ave considered the Shuttle mission model 
as a singleino^ogeneous entity. In fact it will make a 
difference il-a limited number of spare assets intended 
|p cover missions from two launch sites are not properly 
Siiread betweerr^the two. The capability to immediately 
support a|vehiclle component failure, particularly in a 
countdown, will!be as critical at Vandenberg as at KSC. 
J Competition hr Resources. Finally, a major problem 
I in any cofnplexi program is the competition for scarce 
tir^urcesjamont the various disciplines which comprise 
Ijthe syslern and its support. This will be particularly so 
Ipth the ipace Shuttle. Because of its complexity, it 
ilrill'i remain an expensive system to maintain and 
I^pebte. lihe co ;t per flight for the Shuttle will have to 
j pe held m its lowest realistic level, because of the 
Sfnroetitive pressures of other launch vehicle 
capabilities and the economic realities of payload 


I teiisferher return on investment. Logistics support will 
^rr^rise a substantial portion of the cost per flight. 
!pnl4& properly and fully justified when costs are 
teavSidablerlogstics may even be seen incorrectly as a 
j fd|s<!f^iion|ry coit. 

|feffh§"umri|ry, |he technical challenges of developing 
I the* Its ifeVe been enormous; and they are being 
I spbcessfurl^ova'come through the dedicated work of 
managers,‘"IffiT^ineers, and technicians both in 
I governmerirand todustry. Effective logistics support for 
Itp Shuttfe musfetand the tests of competition with 
|cdntihuea!developmenY*^d upgrades; with production 
idifa l^ger fleet; v\^h yet ra^e initiated new programs; 
tiiand vvtth ItheTiBstolute yarastick of cost per flight 
pritpria.—This-«^kes* the S-edibility of logistics 
klqu|remehts^e\|q )n|reSmportaimJt emphasizes the 
Wed^Tty tf pinpoint and mihjrpize c&t? for limited life 


Hec^ity tfpmpgintahd mimrmze costs tor limited lire 
laiwa^llNlemands that t^iaBlesouides of hardware 
be e&blished and maintaine‘d;4,t al'sd rnakes selection 
of the most efficient maintenance*^1dyej locations and 
capabilities absolutely mandatory. ^ In fact, the 
competition for scarce resources is what logistics 
support of the Shuttle in the eighties is going to be all 
about: Lowest cost support to maintain a superlative 
space system in a mission capable condition. 


Summer 1982 


25 





Liquid Hydrogen—Fuel of the Future 

Colonel Richard B. Pilmer, Ph.D., USAF 
Crew Protection Branch 
School of Aerospace Medicine 
Brooks AFB, Texas 78235 


News Item 

"A program for the development of a baseline liquid- 
hydrogen fueled vehicle and a liquid-hydrogen-refueling 
system was completed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory 
on September 30, 1981. This program involved the 
cooperative efforts of the Laboratory (funded by the U.S. 
Department of Energy), the Deutsche Forschungs-und 
Versuchsanstalt fur Luft-und Raumfahrt (DFVLR) of the 
Federal Republic of Germany, and the State of New Mexico 
through the New Mexico Energy Institute (NMEI). The results 
of the program provide a reference point from which future 
progress and improvements in liquid-hydrogen on-board 
storage and refueling capabilities may be measured." 

Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 
Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 


The Setting 

July 4th, in the year 2050, routinely witnessed the 
solar scaling of the Amargosa range to initiate yet 
another beautiful morning for a national holiday. As 
sunlight crept over the summit, and down the Western 
slopes from between the spikes of the Funeral and Black 
Mountains, a small kangaroo rat moved from the shadow 
of a jagged peak to the warmth of the day’s first 
sunshine. Ironically, this mammalian marvel of adaptive 
physiology, equipped with a renal system to conserve 
water in a harshly horned toad hot, lizard dry 
environment, stood momentarily in a barely discernible 
fossilized footprint of a prehistoric antelope that 
perished, perhaps by its own biological ineptitude, 
centuries before the life threatening dominion of Homo 
sapiens. 

Using the first light of day to search for a morsel with 
calories to counter the cool of a mountain night, the 
eyes of this small rodent looked also at times to the 
distant Death Valley below—ever alert for a potential 
predator. 

Basined from the Pacific by the Western Panamint 
Range, Death Valley with some 500 square miles below 
sea level was deeply positioned in Inyo County, 
California. Removed from National Monument status 
some twenty years earlier, this dryest, hottest, and 
lowest continental geography was now the site of Valle 
de La Vida Air Force Base. 

The name. Life Valley AFB (LVAFB), was 
dichotomously chosen in honor of a Hispanic American, 
Major Primo de La Vida, killed in the near space 
intercept of a Russian nuclear satellite some years 
earlier, and also for the free life sustaining mission of 
this futuristic center of Air Force logistics. Even from its 
conception, the theme of Life Valley AFB, to provide an 
enviromical* center of hydrogen fuel research and 
logistics to support an energy self-sufficient airlift and 
defense force, was superimposed on carefully 
engineered plans to maintain the natural ecosystems of 
the living desert. 

*Enviromic3l: Creative, Inventive, free enterprise products and services which 
stimulate the economy with the least harmful environmental effect on the healthy 
consuming citizen. 


Away from heavily populated areas, yet central to 
existing key Air Force facilities (such as the Space Flight 
Test Center at Edwards and the Space Launch Center at 
Vandenberg), Life Valley was ideally situated for solar 
aerodynamal, geothermal, photovoltaical, and 
nucleonical development. 

Actually, once the “Hindenburg Syndrome” had been 
overcome (the fear that hydrogen always leads to an 
explosion, similar to the phobia about steam 
automobiles in the early 1900’s), this mecca for H^ 
bloomed with power for all. Some fifteen-hundred 
family units each had 125m2 solar collectors and wind 
turbines with 35m^ wind intercepting surface areas. 
Maintenance and operation of home units were the 
responsibility of the occupants. During optimal 
operation periods, they provided a large net gain for the 
base power system, contributing to the base mission to 
produce liquid hydrogen for operations! 

"‘Hydrogen is an inexhaustible, non- 
poiluting energy source, can be stored and 
transported the same as gasoline in liquid form, 
and has a calorific value 2.5 times that of 
gasoline.”' 

Professor Tokio Ota, 
Yokohama National Univ 

MWVVW^WWVVVVWVV\\VVV^VV^\W^\\VVVV\VVVVVVVVVVVWW\VVVVVW\VVW^W\\^\VV 

Reflection 

Life Valley development did not have the potential to 
provide all resources; but beyond the dependence on 
world oil supplies, there was a great colonial spirit 
reborn in the initiation of a new energy stratagem for 
space research, laser missile intercept, polar shuttle 
launch site operations, high altitude reconnaissance, 
airlift, and now even ground vehicular locomotion from 
semi-truck to forklift. Additionally inspirational, it 
reduced requirements for, and the risk of accident from, 
off-shore or tanker vulnerable oil spills, and perhaps 
even more irnportantly, began to stem (or leaf) the rising 
concentration of CO 2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.^ 

In 2050 intelligent young scientists flocked to the Air 
Forcevin pursuit of positions to ensure the defense and 
environmental security of their country! All went to work 
with the same inventive spirit that drilled the first oil 
well, designed the first carburetor, or fabricated the first 
electric starter (ironically, petroleum addiction had 
begun when hand-cranking was eliminated as ’’ladies 
and gentlemen” kindled the spark that ignited the 
movement toward internal combustion locomotion 
which replaced the successful electric autos of the early 
1900s). With the same hopeful and positive inventive 
spirit, they determined to resolve the demography of 
environmental degradation (Figure 1) with the power of 
scientific, nationalistic, and biologic evolutionary 
purpose. 


26 


Air Force Journal of Logistics 






Actually thousands of people and tons of diesel fuel 
were used to establish the basic plumbing needed 
before LVAFB could spring forth. A 150-mile pipeline 
for filtered 40% desalinized sea water was constructed 
from Carpinteria, California, to LFAFB. About 40 miles 
of this system carried sea water from Carpinteria to near 
Gorman, where a more extensive system included 
underground return gaseous hydrogen lines linking 
LVAFB with Vandenberg, Palmdale International 
(commercial hydrogen aircraft), and Edwards AFB 
(Figure 2). A separate hydrogen gas-only line connected 
Beale AFB with the Life Valley fuel logistics center. 
Clean sea water, after tidal energy filtration treatment in 
Carpinteria, with enough NACL remaining to favor 
electrolyte disassociation, was thus piped from 
Carpinteria to LVAFB.* The desalinization plant at 
Carpinteria also could at times provide completely 
desalinated water for agricultural uses in the desert. 

This essentially unlimited water supply (it was a 
gravity feed system through much of the distance) 
provided LFAFB a virtually unlimited supply of water 
without violating riparian rights of adjacent, arid 
landowners. 

*The energy for this conversion and pumping was generated by oceanic therma! 
gradients. 



FREE RT LAJT/ 


Figure 1: Copyright® 1975 the Chicago Sun-Times. 

‘‘One hypothesis that all three airplane 
manufacturers [Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, 
Lockheed] share is that for aircraft use, fossii 
fuels will eventually he replaced by synthetic 
fueis and that the hypersonics and other jets will 
be powered by liquid hydrogen. Huciear power 
plants have also been envisoned by Boeing for at 
least one airplane design. ” 

Western’s Worid, Jan/Feb 82 


The water was constantly converted to hydrogen and 
oxygen gases by a variety of systems. Solar energy was 
used during daylight hours for photolytic processes of 
conversion. 

When the afternoon winds blew, electrolytic 
conversion was accomplished by electricity from 
aerodynamal turbines. At night, hot-dry-rock 
geothermal and fusion nuclear energy kept the process 
active so that there was always a supply of hydrogen in 
the pipeline system. 

>VVVWVV\VVaVVVVV^VVWVVVVWkVVVV^VV^VV^WVVVVVVWVVVVWVVV^W^WVV\WAl%AV^^ 

“Public and private energy interests wiii 
choose to support or ignore Hydrogen on a 
largely economic basis. Economic caiculations 
increasingly must include international and 
internalized sociai costs, environmentai 
protection costs, and health effects, which tend 
to be determined by public poiicy decisions 
rather than market or corporate poiicy ." 

Kenneth E. Cox, 

Hydrogen: Its Technology and /mp/Zcat/ons (Volume IV). 


At Edwards, Vandenberg, and Beale Air Force Bases, 
and China Lake Naval Weapons Center, the gaseous 
hydrogen was removed from the pipeline and used 
directly, or liquified as a fuel for space or air vehicles. 
Many ground vehicles also used liquid Hgi however, it 
was evident that many hybrid systems had been born 
before the last spasms of the petroleum era. Gasoline, 
diesel, electric, methane, butane, and even osmotic 
systems still abounded. 

The logistics of part supply for so many hybrid 
systems was extremely complex and an item of 
contention for many logisticians who were anxious to 
press on to design and convert all vehicles to the more 
universal use of this most abundant element in the 
universe. (Hydrogen is estimated to comprise 75% of 
the mass of the universe and 90% of all atoms.)^ 

Conclusion 

Granted—such an energy program involves great and 
complex tasks which could bankrupt our system. On the 
other hand, or in this instance the other foot, ours are 
determinedly, seemingly transfixed, to accelerator 
pedals which only take us farther down the deeply rutted 
roads of the petroleum era. In the final analysis, the 
essentially important commodity is human life. Unless 
far-thinking people in the twenty-first century continue 
and advance far-space research. Homo sapiens will 
eventually collectively perish in their own wastes, wars, 
or wishful thinkings, on or within the near-space of 
Earth. 

Long before such a demise, our kind must seed other 
planets or moons within the Solar System, with 
microbes to produce oxygen which, eons in the future, 
will generate an Earth-like atmosphere. The scientist 
who has accomplished primordial thinking in this realm 
also is a codiscoverer of DNA.'^ 

The flip side of extinction is continuation—from here 
to alternity. Hydrogen is the ultimate fuel of the future; 
we should get more extensively into its technology as 
soon as possible. 


Summer 1982 


27 





mmn planning and organization 

PHASE I-TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 
LH2 AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGY 
ENGINE TECHNOLOGY 
HYOflOGEN MANUF. TECH. 

AIRPORT EQUIPMENT TECH. 

PHASE II - EXPERIMENTAL AIRLINE PROGRAM 
GO-AHEAD 

AIRFRAME AND ENGINE 
DESIGN AND PRODUCTION 
FLIGHT TEST 
DELIVERIES 

HYDROGEN MANUF. FACILITY 
AIRPORT FACILITY 
SYSTEM CHECKOUT 
AIRLINE OPERATION 


CALENDAR YEAR 





Figure 2: Schedule for the Development of LHj-Fueled 
Aircraft. 


Epilogue 

"Hydrogen is an excellent fuel because of (1) the widespread 
availability of water, its most common source, (2) the rapid 
recycling from hydrogen to water (regenerating its source 
quickly), (3) the resulting cleaner environment (almost no 
pollution caused from its use), (4) the potentially high 
efficiency in almost every suggested use, and (5) the 
compatibility with nearly every energy application, such as the 
internal combustion engine, and every energy source, such as 
solar. Hydrogen could become the fuel of the future given 
(Dan incentive to change from the present hydrocarbon fuel, 
(2) an energy source to produce the hydrogen, (3) an engine to 
run on hydrogen, and (4) an on-board hydrogen storage 
system. The on-board hydrogen storage system is discussed 
here. 

Hydrogen has a high gravimetric but a low volumetric 
heating value; consequently, hydrogen provides nearly three 
times the chemical energy of gasoline by weight, but only 
about 25% of the energy of gasoline by volume. Thus, a larger 
volume fuel tank Is required for hydrogen than for gasoline, 
although the weight of the hydrogen is considerably less than 
gasoline for an equivalent energy storage. This hydrogen 
storage problem is being solved in various ways. Hydrogen may 
be stored on-board a vehicle as a compressed gas, metallic 
hydride, cryogenic liquicf^^, or in a combination of these 
forms. Those projects involving the use of liquid hydrogen 
storage are described in this report. 

Liquid hydrogen storage is now the only form that can 
compete with gasoline storage on the basis of weight and 
vehicle range; however, a large-volume, well-insulated storage 
container is required because liquid hydrogen is a cryogen of 
low density. The problems to be overcome for liquid hydrogen 
use are (D its volume requirement, (2) its extreme cold, (3) its 
high volatility, and (4) the additional energy (hence, expense) 
for its liquefaction. This raises questions of safety and 
economics. If these questions are resolved, the use of liquid 
hydrogen for on-board fuel storage for the general public will 
then depend on successful demonstrations. For fleet 
operations (buses, trucks, taxis, trains, etc.) the safe use of 
liquid hydrogen is possible now because the transportation, 
handling, and storage of bulk quantities of liquid hydrogen for 
use anywhere within the continental United States has been 
demonstrated with an excellent safety record. The first use of 
hydrogen in the U.S. transportation system is likely to be as a 
commercial aircraft fuel where storage as a liquid provides a 
considerable weight advantage over present fuels. In fact, an 
intercontinental demonstration project of a liquid hydrogen 
fueled cargo aircraft is now in the planning stage " 


“The use of solar energy to produce liquid 
hydrogen from seawater is expected to bring 
about a hydrogen economy ...." 


Professor Tokio Ota, 
Yokohama National Univ 


Some Advantages of Hydrogen Logistics:^ 

1. Hydrogen is enviromical (after the original 
investment) because it saves other fuels for 
more specific purposes; and when used, it 
provides no CO^ pollution. 

2. Hydrogen serves as an intermediate energy 
storage medium. 

*3. The capricious nature of hydrogen 
development and the problems of 
capitalization and eventual commercialization 
will stimulate free enterprise in much the 
same way as did the transition from the horse 
and buggy of 1900. 

4. Hydrogen is the propellant of choice for 
nuclear rockets. Hydrogen heated to high 
temperature and pressure in a space-born 
reactor is ejected at high velocity for 
propulsion. 

5. Liquid hydrogen is increasingly used in 
bubble chambers for photographing paths of 
subnuclear particles (quarks). 

6. Transportation of electricity over long 
distances is less efficient than hydrogen gas 
transmission by pipeline and environmentally 
less desirable. 

7. Hydrogen is a low density, high heat fuel 
and should reduce aircraft noise. Aircraft are 
lighter and fly higher from steeper ascents off 
shorter runways. 

8. H^ can be used in magnetic refrigeration 
systems with lower electrical requirements. 

*9. Hydrogen technology is versatile. For 
example at WPAFB, Ohio, hydrogen vehicles 
and aircraft were fueled from well-cleaned coal 
gasification rather than deuterium nuclear 
electrolytic production. 

10. Hydrogen has many other uses in 
production of ammonia and even conventional 
petroleum fuels. 

*Opinion of the writer. All others are 
documentable. 


References 

1. Pilmer, Richard B. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine (November 
3981), p. 728. 

2. Breuer, George. Air In Danger. Ecological Perspectives of the Atmosphere. 
London: Cambridge University Press, 1980. 

3. Hydrogen, Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 14, NewYork, 1972. 

4 . Crick, Francis. *'Seedingthe Universe," Sc/enceD/gesf (November 1981). 


5. Hydrogen: Its Technology and Implications. Volume 4. Editor: Kenneth E. Cox, 
W. F. Stewart, "Liquid Hydrogen As Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, CRC Press Inc., 1979, Boca Raton, Florida 

an Automotive Fuel.” 33431. 


28 


Air Force Journal of Logistics 







The Coming Revolution in Avionlo Logistics 

Gordon R. England J- Kirston Henderson 

Director, Avionic Systems Department Engineering Specialist, Senior 

General Dynamics Corporation 
Fort Worth Division 
Fort Worth, Texas 76101 


A Perspective 

Since World War II, the capability of avionics has 
improved dramatically—but the way we design and 
support avionics has changed very little. It is interesting 
that, with all of the electronic advances of the past 40 
years, we still design discrete subsystems as we did in 
World War II (radars, displays, navigators, etc.). Each 
subsystem consists of a number of discrete individual 
boxes. While the performance range and accuracy of 
each of these subsystems and boxes have improved 
considerably, the supportability has generally grown 
progressively more difficult. Although recent avionic 
systems such as in the F-16 have improved 
supportability, the long-term trend for supportability is 
nonetheless expected to continue downward. True, 
electronic devices are becoming more reliable. 
However, with a corresponding reduction in device size, 
the device reliability increases will likely be offset by 
designing more and more capability into each box. 
Logistically, this equates to more and more complexity 
in each box. This is the same trend that has persisted 
since WWII. The effects of this development trend on 
logistics are all too evident and have often received 
national attention. Unless new design and 
supportability approaches are implemented, the 
availability, supportability, and affordability of avionics 
will continue to adversely affect our defense posture. 

Promise of the Future 

Fortunately, a number of advanced technologies are 
now becoming available that can reverse this projected 
negative trend. These technologies must be applied in 
concert and in a revolutionary manner, but the payoffs 
can radically change the USAF logistics posture. 
Instead of being faced with the simplicity or complexity 
choices of today, we will be able to implement complex 
functions in simple standard hardware. Instead of 
selecting between quantity and quality, we will be able 
to build large quantities of standard high quality 
modules. Undesirable choices will not have to be made. 

Current line replaceable units (LRUs) will disappear 
in favor of on-airplane replaceable modules housed in 
integrated module racks that remain on the airplane. 
The avionic spares crib will contain a small number of 
multiple-use standard modules instead of a large 
number of diverse electronic SRU and LRU types. 
Avionic functions will self-test before, during, and after 
flight to determine correct operation and, in critical 
cases, will heal themselves by substitution of on-line, 
hot spares. Failures will be automatically isolated to a 
single, on-aircraft replaceable electronic module, 
thereby eliminating the need for most of the Avionic 
Intermediate Shop (AIS). Along with these changes, the 
cadre of avionic and test equipment technicians needed 
to support the aircraft will be greatly reduced both in 
numbers and skill levels. 


These sweeping avionic logistics changes will also 
extend to the depot level. LRU maintenance will 
disappear and many of the standard modules used in 
the avionics will be low-cost, high-reliability, throwaway 
items. Consequently, an avionic depot repair facility for 
these modules will not be required. Since the modules 
will be transparent to technology and will be purchased 
to a form, fit, and function interface standard, 
replacement modules will be built with the then current 
technology rather than with that of the original buy, thus 
keeping pace with advancing technology. As a result, 
the present problems of providing SRU repair parts in a 
constantly changing technology environment will 
disappear. 

Solution Near-Term and Broad-Based 

The promises of the future for improved logistics are 
not utopian. They are achievable with current 
technology. Three of the key advances that can enable 
new avionic designs to obtain the desired logistic 
benefits are: 

1. Low-Cost, Single-Chip Digital Processors 

2. High-Speed, Single-Chip Digital Multiplex Termi¬ 
nals 

3. Single-Chip VLSI/VHSIC Technology 

- Computer Memories 

- Standard Interface Test Chips 

- Standard Functions 

The key element of these technologies is size 
reduction. As size shrinks, bringing reductions in 
cooling and less requirements for power, it becomes 
evident that the opportunities for implementation of 
common hardware can become a reality. For example, 
the size of a MIL-STD-1553 digital multiplex terminal 
has shrunk from three 5" x 7" electronic cards in 1976 
to a single 5" x 7" card today and will shrink to a single 
4" X 5" card by 1984. The next step will reduce the size 
of such a terminal to a pair of VLSI integrated circuit 
chips. Given a standard module package and standard 
casings and fittings, all avionic equipment could then 
utilize the same multiplex terminal hardware. 

Most important, however, is the application of this 
technology on a broad front. This will result in meeting 
the decisive needs and promises of future logistics 
rather than making only small incremental 
improvements. The areas to be addressed in concert to 
achieve the decisive edge are identified as follows: 

- Standard Modules 

- Advanced Architecture and Multiplex 

- Extensive On-Board Self-Test 

- Integrated Avionic Racks 

Independent applications of all of these technologies in 
the normal manner cannot produce the order-of- 
magnitude logistics gains that are achievable through a 
concerted application. 


Summer 1982 


29 



standard Modules 

Analysis of various types of avionic systems has 
shown that identicai types of functions are performed in 
many different systems and in different parts of the 
same systems. Figure 1 shows how this commonality of 
functions is shared between a group of five aircraft 
systems. An unusuai combination of systems has been 
selected to dramatize the commonality of functions 
even among diverse systems. If the more conventional 
avionic systems are added to the list, the same sharing 
of function types is a iso observed. 


'N. COMMON 

\functions 

AVIONIC N. 
SUBSYSTEMS 

Computing 

Analog/Digital 

Interface 

Digital/Analog 

Interface 

Digitai/Analog 

Control 

Discrete 

interface 

Frequency- 
Digital Interface 

Mass 

Memory 

Power 

Supply 

Serial Digital 
Multiplex 

FLIGHT 

CONTROL 



- 

'f 

- 

- 


yf 

y^ 

ENGINE 

CONTROL 





yf 

y^ 

yf 

'f 

y^ 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONTROL 






- 

yf 

yf 

yf 

AIR INLET 
CONTROL 



- 

y^ 

- 

- 

- 

y^ 

yf 

AIR DATA& 
MOTION SENSORS 



- 

- 

- 

- 

- 


y^ 


Figure 1; Common Function Types Are Shared by 
Different Systems. 


In today's avionic designs, each of these common 
functions is performed by a unique hardware design. 
Typicaliy, different vendors wiii provide different 
hardware even though the functions are identicai. This 
situation exists because current designs emphasize 
LRUs (circa World War II) rather than functions. On the 
other hand, if standard interfaces and packaging are 
adopted (as is possible with a unified systems 
architecture), it becomes practicai to design standard 
functionai moduies for muiti-use applications. These 
modules, plus unique sensor and effector interface 
modules, then become the building biocks for a new 
type of system architecture. Virtuaiiy any type of system 
function can be buiit from these moduies together with 
suitable software. Because the common module types 
will be used in many different applications, it will be 
cost-effective to develop special VLSI circuits and 
production methods that will permit such modules to be 
manufactured in large quantities at low cost. 

Figure 2 contains a general description of one such 
module and lists some of the more important features. 
Such a computer module is currently feasible using the 
MIL-STD-1750A processor chip set being developed by 
the F-16 program. Other modules of the family would be 
of similar construction. 

Modules of the type shown in Figure 2 will be 
physically protected from the flight-line environment to 
which they will be exposed. For this reason, hermetic 
sealing will be employed. The modules will become the 
line replaceable units and therefore must be designed 
accordingly. Current module or card design approaches 
will not suffice. 


3"x 5" SIZE 



DUAL CHANNEL 
MUX TERMINAL 


MOUNTINGS HEAT 
CONDUCTION FLANGES 


METAL COVERS FOR 
MECHANICAL SEMI 

POWER REGULATOR FOR 
EMI&EMP PROTECTION 


POWER AND SIGNALS 


Figure 2: Typical Standard Computer Module. 


Advanced Architecture and Multiplex 

A new type of modular architecture will be necessary 
to utilize standard modules of the types discussed. 
Multiplex communication will be used between modules 
and not just between LRUs as in existing designs. This 
approach will largely eliminate many thousands of 
mechanical electrical connections that are used in 
current avionic equipment. It is ironic that, while these 
connectors facilitate rapid field replacement of 
defective elements, they also contribute failures that 
increase the number of maintenance actions. In modern 
digital equipment, even a momentary break in a 
connection tends to register as a hard failure. Evidence 
indicates that connection related problems may be 
responsible for a large segment of the could-not- 
duplicate (CND) and re-test-OK (RTOK) problems that 
(1) tax maintenance resources and (2) tend to repeat in 
flight and reduce combat effectiveness. 

Figure 3 is a block diagram showing an example and 
benefits of such architecture. This example is an inertial 
navigator that uses digital multiplex to the module level 
and is built almost totally from standard modules. 

Elements such as those shown in Figure 3 become 
building blocks in a conventional sense for larger 
subsystems and systems in much the same way that the 
standard modules are building blocks for this element. 
The same standard, digital multiplex communications 
interface is used at all levels to simplify design and 
permit necessary data interchange at all levels of the 
system. 

Advanced multiplex networks of the type needed for 
such applications have already been designed and 
breadboarded. These networks employ advanced data 
switching techniques to provide the necessary data 
transfer rates to handle both high-speed digital and 
wide-band video type data. The terminals transmit less 
than one-quarter watt of power and can be constructed 
entirely with VLSI chip technology. The only remaining 
step is to reduce the hardware to VLSI integrated circuit 
chips suitable for use in small, standard modules. 

Extensive On-Board Self-Test 

standard modules with multiplex interface between 
modules are particularly well adapted to complete, on¬ 
line self-test. First, the 'many thousands of 
interconnects with conventional avionics are 
eliminated, which directly reduces the scope of module 
self-test. Simplified interface equates to simplified, 
more comprehensive self-test. Second, multiplex lends 
itself to end-to-end testing with a pulse-by-pulse self¬ 
test for 100% confidence. Third, VLSI makes it possible 


30 


Air Force Journal of Logistics 




• 80-90% WIRING AND CONNECTION REDUCTION 

• MODULE LEVEL SELF TEST 
•STANDARD INTERFACES 



Figure 3: All-Multiplexed Architecture for an Inertial 
Navigator Using Standard Modules. 

to provide special self-test chips that can be utilized in 
each standard module. 

Since testing is performed during flight, intermittent 
failures are detected and isolated in the environment in 
which they occur. Most CNDs and RTOKs are 
eliminated. In addition, the built-in test capability of 
the modules and the advanced multiplexed 
communications make it practical to provide on-line, 
hot spares for many critical functions. Such spares 
provisions not only permit systems to heal themselves 
after failures, but may also allow maintenance deferral. 
If a system has corrected a failure, the urgency to 
replace failed modules between missions is reduced. 
Finally, the test capabilities provide the maintenance 
personnel with fully automatic identification and 
location of failures, thereby enabling rapid line 
replacement of failed modules. Such failure information 
may be either data-linked ahead from the airplane while 
in flight or read out by maintenance personnel via a 
portable reader capable of transmitting failure data 
stored at a central location on the aircraft. 

Integrated Avionic Racks 

Direct module replacement at the airplane level will 
be a major logistic benefit of the new technology 
avionics. To achieve this goal, an integrated rack 
packaging will be used in place of existing LRUs. Racks 
simiiar to that shown in Figure 4 will permit ready 
access to individuai modules. Many of these common 
integrated racks wiil be used throughout the airplane 
and can be larger or smaller depending on application. 
The rack sections will be separately removable from the 
aircraft to permit back-plane repairs or modifications. 
Compared to current avionics, these repairs should be 
very infrequent, since all racks will utilize back-plane 
wiring that is reduced by approximately two orders of 
magnitude from that of current avionics. 

Individual modules will be enclosed in sealed metal 
cases to provide complete mechanical and EMI/EMP 
protection. These rugged, sealed modules will permit 
flight-line replacement. All modules will be cooled by 
conduction to cold plates in the integrated racks. Either 
forced air or liquid cooled versions of the rack may be 
used. 

Benefits and Problems 

The overali impact of the new avionics technology will 
have widespread effects in many areas of operations, 


STANDARD RACK 
SECTIONS 

COLD PLATE HEAT 
EXCHANGERS 
IN RACKS 

STANDARD RACK- 
MOUNTING BASE 
(4 Racks) 



RACK COOLING 
AIR CONNECTION 


RACK 

ELECTRICAL 

CONNECTIONS 


Figure 4: Typical Integrated Avionic Rack. 

logistics, and equipment acquisition. Figure 5 provides 
a summary of the resulting avionic hardware, 
installation, and the availability, supportability, 
affordability, and performance (ASAP) implications of 
the changes. 

While these avionic benefits will largely solve most of 
the problems being experienced today and probably 
make an affordable Air Force possible in the future, 
there is no assurance that this will occur. Although 
large, decisive improvements are critical for survival and 
victory, they are cuiturally difficuit to implement. A 
revolutionary application of new technology will require 
a revolutionary change in both the USAF and industry. 

Procurement of avionic systems and spares will 
undergo a dramatic change. Industry product lines and 
alignments will change. USAF procurement policies will 
be altered. Standard modules will be procured directly 
by the military from module sources and will be 
provided as GFE to avionic vendors. Avionic systems 
developers will find themselves creating special sensor 
and effector modules and function-unique software to 
be used with standard modules common to many other 
uses. Because most functions of the Avionic 
Intermediate Shop wili disappear, the large 
organizations now associated with this function will be 
greatly reduced. With large numbers of throwaway 
modules, the depot repair facilities and organizations 
will shrink, or the function will revert to the original 
manufacturer. 

These changes can provide far more Air Force fighting 
power per dollar. The task is technically achievable. The 
challenge is to break free of the comfortable post World 
War II path of avionic design and support. Instead of 
incremental applications of advanced technologies with 
incrementaily small improvements, a revolutionary and 
concerted technology application to gain a decisive 
advantage shouid be made. The future of Air Force 
Logistics is in the balance. 



»Eliminates AIS 
»Wide*Band Multiplex 

• Lower Skill Personnel 

• In-Flight Reconfiguration 

• Major Reduction in Spares 

» Low Part Count VLSI/VHSIC 


• Growth-Oriented System 

Architecture 

• Extensive Standardization 

• Module Replacement at A/C 

• Major Reduction in Connectors 


Figure 5: Across-the-Board Benefits. 


Summer 1982 


31 



Logistics and Advanced Technology 

Dr. Gary H. Lunsford David K. Plummer Timothy M. Strike 

Engineering Experiment Station 
Georgia Institute ofTechnology 
Atlanta, Georgia 30332 


Abstract 

Selected improvements for logistics operations are identified 
in the areas of automatic testing, forward-area transportation, 
and computerized communications infrastructure. Various 
concepts associated with these iogistics activities are 
considered, and techniques are presented that can faciiitate 
implementing the suggested changes. An overview is aiso 
provided of advanced technoiogical devices that could be 
incorporated in these proposed improvements and utilized in 
other applications within the logistics purview. 

Introduction 

The logistics community, with much interest, is 
examining new and better ways to perform logistical 
functions by the use of emerging technological devices 
and procedures. Endemic to these considerations is the 
necessity to perform logistical activities with as much 
proficiency and imagination as possible in view of the 
rapidly changing demands placed upon logistical 
operations. The theaters of operation vary from large 
central complexes in totally controlled environments to 
field support in distant lands under potentially hostile 
and/or primitive conditions. In order to meet this broad 
and demanding set of requirements, it is patently 
necessary that the logistical procedures and techniques 
use a technological base that is commensurate with the 
sophistication of the materials and activities being 
supported by the logistical function. 

In this paper we will first review selected concepts of 
logistics support in avionics testing. Communication 
infrastructures will then be considered as a part of the 
overall problem of knowledge and material exchange. 
Attention will then be focused on generic advances in 
technology that may find application in logistics 
activities. The paper will conclude with a brief summary 
of the developing areas of computer technology that 
may be advantageously appropriated by the Logistics 
Command in the near to intermediate future. 

Logistics Support for Avionics 

Automated Test Equipment Considerations 

As military aircraft have evolved into increasingly 
complex systems, there has been a similar trend toward 
greater complexity in the related areas of check-out, 
testing, diagnosing/replacing of defective components, 
and refurbishing of specialized support subsystems. 
This movement toward greater complexity in the 
logistics function has been accompanied by escalating 
costs for the advanced technology support systems and 
infrastructure. At the same time, there has been a 
decrease in the availability of volunteer enlistees who 
are academically qualified for training in advanced 
technology. This shortfall of trainable personnel has led 
to logistics training programs that are based on the 
“smart machine/dumb operator” concept, which has 


been shown to have several undesirable consequences 
(1:22-26, 45-51). Let us consider the implications of 
the evolving and highly sophisticated test equipment 
that is now used in virtually all maintenance programs 
for advanced military aircraft. 

The full impact of this proliferation of complex 
automated test equipment (ATE) for military aircraft 
subsystems was dramatically illustrated during the Red 
Flag maneuvers held at Nellis AFB in June 1980. In 
order to demonstrate the feasibility of supporting a 
squadron of F-15s in a forward area, an F-15 Avionics 
Intermediate Shop (AIS) unit along with its supporting 
Precision Measurements Equipment Laboratory (PMEL) 
was airlifted from Holloman AFB, New Mexico, to Nellis 
AFB, Nevada. The AIS/PMEL unit was operable within 
72 hours (with aid from Nellis AFB to correct “this- 
time-only” type teething problems). Although this 
relocation demonstration was impressive, it must be 
noted that the AIS/PMEL unit, along with the associated 
shelters, power generation equipment, and general 
support items, constituted such an extensive shipment 
that four C-141 transport aircraft were required to 
accomplish the airlift! This transportation requirement 
presents an extreme burden on the Air Force Military 
Airlift Command’s wartime airlift capability for all but 
very limited conflicts. 

From this single illustration of a routine logistics 
function emerges a clear challenge to develop more 
compact and efficient automatic test equipment 
systems. Goals for the near, immediate, and far terms 
can be suggested to address some of these problems: 

(1) Near Term. Develop an AIS system that can 
be airlifted by a single, long-range transport aircraft, 
one that is capable of supporting operations in forward 
areas. 

(2) Intermediate Term. Examine the total AIS 
requirements for all aircraft subsystems (e.g., 
communications, navigation, radar, EW (ESM/ECM), 
IFF, target acquisition/tracking/designation, bomb 
delivery/command/fuzing) and then define a Total 
System Intermediate Shop (TOSIS) concept. The TOSIS 
approach can be best introduced concurrent with the 
development of a new aircraft, while the prime 
contractor still has the opportunity to impose TOSIS- 
compatible requirements on subsystem developers. 

The advantages of a TOSIS approach include at least 
the following items: (1) sharing of common equipment 
(computers, terminals, test jigs, test equipment, 
software organization, etc.), which leads to a significant 
reduction in total weight and volume of ATE; 
(2) utilizing more generic equipment that can 
incorporate microminiaturization and advanced 
technology components; and (3) reducing significantly 
the procurement and operating costs of logistics 
systems as well as the number of items in inventory. 

(3) Far Term. Assess ATE requirements for all 
aircraft systems in the inventory and encourage 
increased parts commonality and modularity in design. 
The emphasis is placed on developing a suite of Generic 


32 


Air Force Journal of Logistics 






ATE (GATE) systems for all USAF aircraft that can 
support all levels of maintenance and all 
electronic/avionics subsystems. Although the full 
realization of this broader goal will not come for many 
years, the definition of studies and the generation of 
requirements for the procurement of future aircraft 
systems incorporating the GATE concept could begin 
immediately. 

The technical capabilities of these projected logistics 
systems can be enhanced by adopting several existing 
and emerging technologies: 

- Solid-state components 

- Optical circuit elements 

- Microprocessor devices 

- Communications/computer nets that are user 
responsive 

- Computer-on-chip 

- Monolithic microwave integrated circuits (MMIC) 

- Very high speed integrated circuits (VHSIC) 

- Very large scale integration (VLSI) 

The great reliability of all-solid-state electronics, the 
many-fold reduction in packaging volume achievable 
with micro devices, and the significant reduction in 
power consumption of such devices will permit the 
TOSIS/GATE systems to be packaged very efficiently. 
Correspondingly, a much less onerous burden will be 
placed on airlift vehicles to transport such systems to 
forward areas. 

Radical Transport Suggestions 

An important aspect of the overall logistics function is 
to provide the means for delivery of personnel and 
supplies. In the area of delivery there have been fewer 
innovations over the years than in the weapons and ATE 
systems themselves. In this subsection, let us consider 
briefly some selected aspects of the delivery mechanism 
and hypothesize about innovations that could be 
introduced. 

During World War II, an attempt was made in Europe 
to drive a wedge through Holland in order to resupply 
and relieve the 1st British Airborne Division that was 
holding the bridge at Arnhem. Had the wedge maneuver 
been successful, the war might have been shortened by 
a full year. However, radio communications failed, the 
main ground transport route could not be opened, and 
air support activity was brought to a standstill because 
of weather conditions. Although considered, the idea of 
using the waterways for delivery was not seriously 
pursued. 

Using present technology, it is more feasible today to 
resupply such forces in similar circumstances; e.g., 
remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs), designed with low 
radar-cross-section (RCS) and equipped with compact 
autopilots, could be used alone or as tugs for carp 
gliders (also having low RCS) to deliver essential 
supplies to an encircled combat group. In addition, 
high-priority emergency items can be accurately 
delivered by special-payload shells/missiles that are 
fired by artillery or are self-propelled and that use air 
brakes/parachutes for soft landings. Special 
submersibles can also be utilized to transport key 
personnel and limited supplies along canals and 
rivers—even along the bottoms. All of these items 
represent special-purpose technologically feasible 
delivery systems which have not been and are not 
presently used as combat support transport vehicles. 

These more exotic means of delivery have not 
received the attention that their potentially critical value 


deserves in comparison with the standard transport 
aircraft that are used for the vast majority of everyday 
deliveries. The fact that these radical delivery systems 
cross traditional service lines should not deter the active 
development, experimentation, and evaluation of 
feasibility demonstration prototypes. In fact, the great 
variety of situations, which exist in the diverse theatres 
of operation in the current geopolitical environment, 
dictates that such “radical” transport systems be 
available when standard delivery means cannot do the 
job. 

The state of existing technology makes such radical 
delivery systems possible and forces recognition of the 
need for increased coordination among the services. 
Such coordination would also promote a greater degree 
of commonality in standard logistics delivery systems of 
the three major services. 


Communications Infrastructure 

The literal “lifeblood” of a complex military operation 
is the capabiiity to communicate among the various 
elements. Indeed, the communications aspect of 
logistics activities is of paramount importance, since 
great coordination of movement and a constant 
knowledge of dynamic status are absolutely essential to 
insure adequate support activity. Within the field of 
communications the use of computer systems for data 
management has come to be considered almost a 
panacea for all problems involving the retention and 
acquisition of knowledge. Considerable effort is 
presently being expended in designing computer 
systems that can operate in both a linked and an 
autonomous manner. Let us examine some of these 
concepts and then postulate how they might be applied 
to the logistics function. 

The basic computer-system configuration that has 
emerged in the last several years involves a large central 
processing facility with extensive memory and data 
banks that can be accessed by remote, intelligent 
terminals (2:27-39). The prioritized needs of the total 
set of on-site and remote users will determine how 
intelligent and how powerful the remote terminals must 
be in relation to the console terminals co-located with 
the host facility. Access to the central facility involves 
both retrieval/refreshing of information resident in the 
data banks and use of the central processing unit in the 
large host computer. 

The question of user priority must be addressed in 
defining the hierarchical structure of information 
processing. Although it is natural and proper to accord 
highest priority to servicing the needs of front-line 
users, care must be taken in planning the supervisory 
control so that lower rated users are not effectively 
screened from accessing the information network. With 
regard to the carrying out of the various logistical 
functions, this networking must be constructed under 
the directive that the overall logistics support function is 
a total process rather than merely a concatenation of 
many isolated activities. Let us now examine these 
concepts further in selective detail. 

The configuring of an information processing network 
with a “hub” computer and several satellite terminals is 
well understood at this time. Most universities and 
industrial development laboratories have had such a 
network configuration for several years. A key point to be 
considered in establishing the network is the degree of 


Summer 1982 


33 



distributed processing that is to be done; i.e., to what 
extent are the remotely located satellite computer 
terminals allowed access to the host complex for 
service. In addition, the extent to which the remotely 
located nodes are permitted to refresh the central data 
base must also be defined. Finally, proprietary 
information must be considered in establishing the 
need for secure data bases with password keys. 

There are several immediate applications of these 
computer system capabilities to the USAF Logistics 
Command function; 

(1) Much benefit can be derived from having 
complete and up-to-date information on all equipment 
and parts stored in a central location that can be 
accessible to all parties with documented needs. This 
information greatly expedites access to equipment 
maintenance schedules and to the status of the spare- 
parts inventory and distribution network. At each nodal 
point on the computer network, the repair record of a 
given piece of equipment could be easily ascertained 
and then a refreshing or an updating of that data be 
made in real-time to reflect local actions toward the 
equipment. In addition, the flow of spare parts could be 
more closely monitored and potential bottlenecks 
avoided or at least minimized. 

(2) The extensive area of systems diagnostics, 
technical orders (TOs), and hardware/software updates 
could come under more centralized control. An 
electronic distribution system for technical diagnostic 
information is vastly superior to the present method that 
relies on mailings and the willingness of individuals to 
take the time to log or "write up” their activities and 
findings. The instant availability of the latest diagnostic 
and troubleshooting information is a tremendous asset 
to field operations that are unduly dependent upon the 
resident talent, skill, and experience of the personnel at 
their particular location. Moreover, the savings in time 
and money of the reduced paper handling would be 
significant. Hard copies of diagnostic procedures, logic 
diagrams, and flow charts can always be obtained from 
local printers tied into the computer network. 

(3) A distributed information processing network 
offers the opportunity to users to participate in 
interactive learning programs. Instructional sessions in 
many subjects ranging from computer languages to 
electronics have been prepared and are available as 
self-teaching aids. One of the major complaints of the 
educationally ambitious service personnel at field 
locations is the lack of on-the-job (OJT) learning 
opportunities. The distributed information processing 
network offers an excellent solution to this problem. 

(4) The Logistics Command is increasingly 
desirous of using stand-alone terminals or computers in 
their analytical activities in addition to processing 
administrative data. These "personal computers” can 
be readily tied into the information network that 
contains other satellite computers and the large time¬ 
sharing host processor. The computer power of the 
network then becomes available to the "isolated” user, 
which greatly enhances the capability and versatility of 
the personal computers scattered throughout several 
facilities. 

It has been our intention in this section to be 
suggestive rather than exhaustive in citing a few direct 
applications of computer networking concepts to 
recognized areas of need in the logistics arena. With the 
advent of geosynchronous communication satellites. 


the possibilities for instantaneous worldwide exchange 
of logistics information can become a reality using an 
information processing network whose technology exists 
today. 


Advanced Technological Elements 

During the past decade, advances in material 
sciences have led to smaller and more diversified 
integrated circuits, hybrid devices, and other forms of 
active electronic components. These advances have 
increased the operating speed of integrated electronics 
while reducing the power required to operate these 
devices. The reduction in size of both the integrated 
electronics and the required power supplies has far- 
reaching effects. Not only are the overall size and weight 
of a system reduced, but thermal stresses are also 
diminished as the heat dissipation problem is 
minimized. Moreover, reliability and maintainability, 
which help to measure system readiness, are improved. 
These advances are affecting avionics and the 
equipment used to test the avionics systems. 

The greatest advances in innovative products have 
been in the area of programmable integrated 
electronics. Several of the new technologies that have 
had significant impact in the memory area include the 
charge coupled device (CCD), dynamic random access 
memory (DRAM), bubble memory, and electrically 
erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM), 
The EEPROM concept is the same as a programmable 
read only memory (PROM) except that the EEPROM can 
be reprogrammed. Although not totally an integrated 
electronic device, bubble technology has permitted the 
size of mass disk type storage to be reduced to a single 
package for insertion onto a printed wiring board. 

The use of these advanced products makes it possible 
to shrink the physical size and power consumption of 
memory required for system minicomputers, as is 
illustrated by the current upgrade of the ALR-46, -46A, 
-69 family of Radar Warning Receivers (RWRs) (3:73- 
75). The original RWR had 5K words of PROM and IK 
of volatile read/write memory located on two 9.6-Inch by 
6.6-inch circuit card assemblies (GCAs). In the 
upgraded RWR, the five-card CPU and the two memory 
GCAs were replaced by a single CCA; and the memory 
was increased to 24K words of nonvolatile read/write 
memory (using EEPROM) and to 8K words of volatile 
read/write memory. These upgrades yielded a 
throughput increase of over four times. This example of 
technology insertion illustrates an enhancement in both 
reliability and maintainability without major impact on 
the software and without any modifications being made 
to the group A (aircraft) wiring for the ALR-46, -46A, 
-69 family of RWRs. Similar upgrades can be achieved 
in other avionics equipment without altering their basic 
overall configurations. 

Advances in integrated electronics have also been 
made in programmable logic. In this area the use of 
programmable array logic (PAL) or field programmable 
logic array (FPLA) devices makes it possible to replace 
approximately 20 standard digital dual in-line packages 
with a single dual in-line package. In addition, newer 
PROMs provide ever-increasing density while reducing 
power and physical size. 

Major advances are also being made in the single chip 
or chip-set high-power processors. The new generation 
of processors can provide, on two or three integrated 


34 


Air Force Journal of Logistics 




circuits, a comparable computing power to that of a 
DEC PDP series of Data General Nova series 
minicomputer. This type of processing power has been 
incorporated into many new and upgraded avionics 
systems, primarily because of the ease of quickly 
updating software parameter values, and also because 
the inclusion of a processor in a system allows self-tests 
and diagnostics to be run with minimal ground support 
equipment. 

The signal processing and communication areas are 
also experiencing major changes. Hybrids and 
VHSIC/VLSI products are reducing physical size by at 
least an order of magnitude while reducing or, at worst, 
maintaining power consumption. In signal processing 
the increase in speed of analog-to-digital/digital-to- 
analog converters, multipliers, and adders has 
permitted digitizers and other subsystems to run faster 
than 200 MHz. These building blocks are used in 
hardware FFTs, correlators, and digital filters, and 
improve the overall throughput of the processing 
system. Some of the new VLSI products contained in a 
single integrated circuit will perform such diverse 
functions as signal processing at the antenna feed, 
target identification processing, sonar signal 
processing, and phased array antenna control. 

Although these innovations have been primarily 
directed toward onboard aircraft systems, associated 
ground support equipment can also benefit from the 
new technologies. In both cases, maintainability 
increases while logistics support requirements 
decrease. These same technology advances can be 
applied to test equipment, which will correspondingly 
lead to reductions in size and in required logistics 
support and will also increase reliability and 
maintainability. The accompanying reduction in power 
requirements for the test equipment will further reduce 
weight, operating temperature, and generator power 
needed to run the equipment, and will make the testing 
facilities more mobile while curtailing downtime. 

In concluding this overview of advanced technological 
innovations, mention should be made of a different type 
of device; namely, products associated with commercial 
point-of-sales markets. In particular, one of these 
products is the bar code reader, which might be used in 
military logistics in the following way. If a sticker 
displaying the serial number were affixed to each piece 


of line replaceable unit (LRU) equipment, then a bar 
code reader could enter this information into the test 
equipment computer. The computer network to which 
the test computer is linked would then be able to recall 
the repair history of the LRU and to display the 
appropriate portions of the TOs and schematics that are 
required for service. This computerized system would 
provide a base of information for identifying needed 
upgrades of poorly performing equipment, eliminate 
excessive amounts of paperwork, and enable current 
updating of the data bank. 


Conclusions 

The concepts and technological advances considered 
in this paper promise higher reliability, improved 
maintainability, and decreased logistics transportation 
requirements for avionics equipment and for their 
associated ground support equipment. These 
anticipated gains can only be achieved through a 
coupling of continued research and development 
activities with a willingness to incorporate these 
innovative approaches into the total logistical systems 
process. The range of advanced technology that can be 
assimilated into the logistical function extends from the 
smallest chip device to new delivery systems for 
transporting personnel and supplies into forward-area 
operations. 

The time has arrived for the USAF to act to reverse the 
trend toward the costly proliferation of many unique 
ATE systems and to implement a system philosophy that 
is based on a Total System Intermediate Shop (TOSIS) 
and a Generic ATE (GATE) support system. 

References 

1. Lunsford, G. H., D. K. Plummer, et al. "F-IS AIS Troubleshooting/Fault 
Isolation Analysis.” Final Technical Report, prepared for Air Force Logistics 
Management Center, Gunter Air Force Station, Alabama, under Contract No. 
F01600-79-D0146, September 1980. 

2. Martin, J. "Design of Real-time Computer Systems.” Prentice-Hall Series in 
Automatic Computation, 1967. 

3. Strike, T. M., D. K. Plummer, et ai "Developmental Design Data fora Field 
Programmable Breadboard Modification Kit for the AN/ALR-46, -46A, -69 
Radar Warning Receivers.” Technical Report on Contract No. F09603-78-G- 
4368, September 1981. 


continued from page 14 


References 


1. Anderson, Walter M. "Advances in Interactive Graphics Systems Architecture,” 
ComputerDes/gn (November 1980), pp. 147-152. 

2. Bair, James H. "Productivity Assessment of Office Information Systems 
Technology,” Trends and Applications in Distributed Processing. Gaithersburg, 
MD: National Bureau of Standards, 1978. 

3. Bliss, Frank W. and George M. Hyman. "Selecting and Implementing a Turnkey 
Graphics System,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol I, No. 2 
(April 1981), pp. 55-70. 

4. Cotton, Ira W. Cost Benefit Analysis of Computer Graphics Systems. 
Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards, 1974. 

5. "Graphics for Everyone (Even for Executives),” Computer Decisions 
(September 1979), pp. 26-35. 

6. Machover, Carl. "Computer Graphics in the 80s," Mini-Micro Systems 
(December 1979), pp. 80-84. 

7. Orr, Joel. "Interactive Computer Graphics Systems,” Mini-Micro Systems 
(December 1979), pp. 68-78. 

8. Osborne, Louis L. COMPES Automated Load Planning System (Draft). Gunter 
Air Force Station, AL: Air Force Logistics Management Center, 1980. 


9. Pcrino, George H. Interactive Computer Graphics Applications for Program 
Management. Fort Betvoir, VA: Defense Systems Management College, 1976. 

10. Sawyer, Gary L. "Raster vs. Storage Tube," Mini-Micro Systems (December 
1980), pp. 95-100. 

11. Seay, Douglas C. Use of an Interactive Computer Graphics Model in Army 
Project Planning and Control. Fort Belvoir, VA: Defense Systems Management 
College, 1976. 

12. Shaw, Peter J. "Architecture for Combined Vector/Raster Graphics,” Af/n/- 
M/c/o Systems (December 1980), pp. 105-112. 

13. Stefferud, Einer, "Convergence of Technologies Points Toward Automated 
Office,” Trends and Applications in Distributed Processing. Gaithersburg, MD; 
National Bureau of Standards, 1978. 

14. Sullivan. Kenneth M. "Does Distributed Processing Pay Off," Datamation 
(September, 1980), pp. 192-196. 

15. Takeuchi, Hirotaka and Allan H. Schmidt. "New Promise of Computer 
Graphics,” Harvard Business Review, Vol 58, No. 1 (January/February 1980), 
pp. 122-131. 

16. Vinberg, Anders and James E. George. "Graphics and the Business Executive • 
The New Management Team,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol 
I, No. 1 (January 1981), pp. 57-70. 

17. Whieldon, David. "Large Companies are Thinking Small Systems," Computer 
Decisions {tiovember 1979), pp. 22-28. 


Summer 1982 


35 




; 


1111111 




Air Force Logistics Management Center - FY82 Program 


Periodically, we, at the Logistics Management Center, contribute to this portion of the Journal. 
Our last contribution appeared in the Spring 1981 edition. Many of the projects that were In that 
listing have been completed, and we sincerely hope the Air Force Logistics community is more 
efficient because of them. 

The cooperative efforts outside of the Center have been outstanding. Students and faculty 
members of Air University and the Air Force Academy provided significant inputs to our projects. 
Other personnel from MAJCOMs and bases have helped us by providing "real world" data; test-bed 
sites; survey participants; "sounding boards" for new approaches; and, in several cases, key 
recommendations on better ways to solve logistics problems. 

If you are Interested in any of these projects, please contact the project officer. If commercial 
lines are used, dial Area Code 205,279-plus the last four digits of the AUTOVON number. 


Current Projects 

COMPES Automated Load Planning Systems (CALPS) 

Objective: (1) Develop an on-line computerized simulation model capable of load planning Air 
Force mobility equipment/personnel on military cargo aircraft and Civil Reserve Air 
Fleet (CRAF) aircraft. (2) Develop an automated program for use at base level to plan 
palletization of cargo using 463L system cargo airlift pallets. The model 
documentation on the two models will provide a baseline for production of a formal 
change to the Contingency Operation/Mobility Planning and Execution System 
(COMPES) Functional Description for development of a standard base-level 
automated load planning system as a subsystem of COMPES. 

(LtCol Osborne, AFLMC/LGX, AUTOVON 921-3535) 

Deployable Mobility Execution System (DMES) 

Objective: Develop prototype deployable microcomputer system for introducing COMPES and the 
COMPES Automated Load Planning System (CALPS) into a wartime environment for 
movement of combat units. 

(Capt Cameron, AFLMC/LGX. AUTOVON 921-3535) 

Computerized Harvest Bare Asset Management Project (CHAMP) 

Objective: (1) Develop an automated system which will enhance Air Force capability to provide 
more accurate and timely Harvest Bare/Eagle execution packages in support of 
deployment tasking. (2) In conjunction with other functional entities, identify other 
aspects of Harvest Bare/Eagle which would benefit from Information in an automated 
Inventory data base. (3) Develop follow-on automated functional management 
reporting systems, as required. 

(Maj Smith, AFLMC/LGX, AUTOVON 921-3535) 

COMPES-M Feasibility Analysis Enhancements 

Objective: Identify logistics feasibility analysis requirements in support of contingency planning 
and operation execution. No Air Force standard system exists for feasibility analysis of 
non-unit related assets such as munitions, rations, TRAP, housekeeping material, 
POL, etc. 

(Maj Leigh, AFLMC/LGX. AUTOVON 921-3535) 

Ground Petroleum Computations 

Objective: Develop and test an automated system that will compute bulk ground fuel 
requirements for WRM vehicles and equipment more accurately than current 
methods. 

(Maj Smith, AFLMC/LGX, AUTOVON 921-3535) 

Wartime Automation Requirements for Maintenance 

Objective: Determine what automated maintenance management processes are critical to the 
ability of maintenance organizations to provide ready maintenance forces for 
contingency and combat operations. Determine the characteristics of the system 
needed to satisfy these requirements. Includes on-going prototype effort for a 
deployable engine tracking capability forF-15, F-16, and A-lOaircraft. 

(LtCol Dietsch, AFLMC/LGM, AUTOVON 921-4583) 

Rivet Ready Maintenance/Supply Interface 

Objective: Review reparable processing system with a view towards improving responsiveness. 

Evaluate current policies, procedures, and problems that hinder responsiveness. 
Recommend policy and general procedural changes to improve responsiveness in 
short range, intermediate range, and long range. Determine implications of major 
policy changes. 

(Maj Hughes. AFLMC/LGM, AUTOVON 921-4583) 

Lifetime Warranted Tool Program 

Objective: Investigate the Quaiity Deficiency Reporting system with respect to hand tools, 
examine the Federal hand tool specification process, identify problems In hand tool 
procurement, and conduct a life cycle cost comparison between General Services 
Administration (GSA) and commercial hand tools. Procure lifetime warranted tools for 
use by AF maintenance activities to increase productivity and reduce O&M costs. 

(Capt Wheeler, AFLMC/LGM, AUTOVON 921-4581) 


Aircraft Maintenance Workcenter Supervisor Handbook 

Objective: Provide each MAJCOM sponsor with an aircraft maintenance workcenter supervisors 
management handbook which functionally explains the management duties and 
responsibilities required by regulation. The handbook will provide step-by-step 
guidance and all references needed to assist supervisors in developing skills necessary 
for workcenter management. It will be written in the language of the inexperienced 
supervisor In terms that are clear and easily understood. 

(Capt Racher, AFLMC/LGM, AUTOVON 921-4581) 

Develop a Base-Level Pricing Guide 

Objective: Provide base-level contracting personnel with practical guidance on how to negotiate 
and document reasonable contract prices. The guide will assist personnel who are 
Inexperienced in price and cost analysis to understand and use the detailed 
procedures contained in applicable contracting directives. 

(SMSgt Britain, AFLMC/LGC, AUTOVON 921-4085) 

Commander's Guide to Air Force Contracting 

Objective: Provide commanders with a tool which outlines their roles and responsibilities in a 
contract environment. This would ensure no degradation in mission capability and 
readiness because commanders would be involved throughout the entire life cycle of a 
contract. 

(MSgt Chapman. AFLMC/LGC, AUTOVON 921-4085) 

Air Force Property Loss Reduction Initiative 

Objective: Evaluate and propose a marking system for AF property. Project will consist of two 
phases. Phase I will be the evaluation and recommendation of a simple system to 
mark AF property with "Property of US Government" or similar marking. Phase II will 
be the evaluation of a sophisticated identification/marking system to trace specific 
lost or stolen AF property. 

(It Hoskins, AFLMC/LGS, AUTOVON 921-4165) 

Source Data Automation (SDA)/Standard Base Supply System (SBSS) Base Service Store 
Enhancement 

Objective: Test SDA technology through the use of commercially available Point of Service (POS) 
equipment in the supply complex, specifically in the Base Service Store retail outlets. 
Provide pilot effort upon which applications of POS equipment within the SBSS can 
be examined. Evaluate alternative machine-readable symbologies for future use within 
Air Force retail outlets. 

(Maj Orenstein, AFLMC/LGS, AUTOVON 921-4165) 

Dyna-METRIC 

Objective: Determine the capability of the Dyna-METRIC model to relate WRSK support levels to 
combat capability and Integrate this model into the Combat Supplies Management 
System (CSMS). 

(CaptOgan, AFLMC/LGS. AUTOVON 921-4165) 

Microcomputer Applications within the Standard Base Supply System 

Objective: Identify those processes within the Standard Base Supply System that might be 
improved with the application of microcomputer technologies, After these processes 
have been prioritized, analyze the improvements possible from microcomputer 
applications. 

(SMSgt Nichols. AFLMC/LGS, AUTOVON 921-4165) 

Vehicle Requirements for Incremental Levels of Conflict 

Objective: Develop an objective method to accurately determine the vehicle requirements 
needed to support various stated levels of wartime activity. 

(Maj King, AFLMC/LGT, AUTOVON 921-4464) 

Hazardous Materials Training 

Objective: Determine Air Force hazardous materials training needs, modify current policies, arid 
create a hazardous materials information distribution mechanism to keep personnel in 
the field updated. 

(Capt FriedI, AFLMC/LGT, AUTOVON 921-4464) 

Tecbno/pgy Transfer and Innovation 

Objective: Create a framework within which Air Force logisticians can keep abreast of relevant 
technological advances and promote the use of ideas from both the military and 
civilian sector. Current efforts are centered on conducting a literature review and 
performing case study analyses to formulate a structure/theory for technology transfer 
in logistics. 

(Capt Alten, AFLMC/LGY, AUTOVON 921-4524) 

Computer Graphics in Logistics 

Objective: Explore and identify potential benefits of computer graphics technology transfer to 
logistic functional areas. Prototyping various applications with in-house resources is 
anticipated. 

(Lt Daniels. AFLMC/LGY, AUTOVON 921-4524) 





Directions in Research and Deveiopment 
for Logistics 

George A. Mohr, C.P.L. 

Manager, Advanced Development Support Systems (ILSD) 
Westinghouse Electric Corporation 
Hunt Valley, MarylandllOSO 


Introduction 

Having participated in the National Security 
Industrial Association (NSIA) Logistics Research and 
Development Symposium held in cooperation \with the 
Department of Defense (DOD) in Arlington, Virginia, on 
March 31 and April 1, 1982, I was impressed with the 
need to play Paul Revere and get the word out. The 
program which was chaired by Mr. Richard C. Banta of 
Westinghouse was relevant and significant to our 
community. Also, since I had also been requested to 
author an article on research and development in the 
defense industry for the Air Force Journal of Logistics, I 
decided it would be beneficial to summarize for the 
Journal readers some of the events of the NSIA 
symposium. A brief listing of current logistics R&D 
projects being accomplished at the Westinghouse 
Integrated Logistics Support Divisions and the 
Westinghouse Central Research Laboratories is also 
included. 

I must point out that the symposium was not recorded 
or transcribed, although several of the speakers did 
provide me with copies of their prepared texts. These 
comments will be brief and names are provided as 
points of contact. 

Keynote Address 

Dr. Lawrence J. Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense, 
Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics (MRA&L), 
expressed his pleasure at the number of attendees 
(approximately 150) representing industry, DOD, and 
the Services who are involved in logistics R&D. Dr. Korb 
went on to state that no matter how stressful today’s 
problems appear, it is essential not to forget the 
importance of logistics research and development. 

Dr. Korb also summarized some of the "people 
problems"; he pointed out the continued decline in the 
17- to 24-age group and touched on the difficulties in 
retaining highly skilled personnel. He also expressed his 
concern “. . . that the new technologies with the 
greatest potential to change support are not focused on 
support problems with much of a sense of urgency.” 
Perhaps very high speed integrated circuit (VHSIC) 
technology could have "... a profound effect on 
readiness and sustainability if one or two orders of 
magnitude improvement in mission reliability for 
avionics were achieved." 

Dr. Korb closed with a discussion of the MRA&L role 
in logistics R&D and how his group might help with 
recommendations to accelerate implementation of a 
logistics R&D program. Dr. Richard Webster, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and 
Material Management, and Dr. Russell Shorey, Director 
for Weapons Support, will be Dr. Kerb's principal 
representatives. A recently completed analysis of 
industry IR&D activities found that about 2% of all 
IR&D man-years are directly allocated to support. 


"Considering that about 25% of initial acquisition costs 
of weapons are logistically oriented, the [logistics R&D] 
field deserves greater attention." Dr. Dick DeLauer, 
Under Secretary of Defense, Research and Engineering 
(USDR&E), has supported this view by issuing a 
logistics IR&D policy statement tasking the Services to 
increase their efforts substantially in this vital area. 
MRA&L and USDR&E are exploring ways to encourage 
Service laboratories to become more involved in 
logistics R&D. One approach wouid establish logistics 
"centers of excellence” for areas such as diagnostics 
and repair. 

Service Presentations 

Marine Corps Logistics R&D 

Brigadier General William G. Carson, Jr., USMC, 
Director, Material Division, Installation and Logistics 
Department, summarized the Marine Corps 
responsibilities and some recent accomplishments in 
logistics R&D. The Marine Corps is responsible for the 
development of amphibious tactics, techniques, and 
equipment. Recognizing the transition to shipping by 
containers, the Marine Corps, in 1975, began a 
program of converting to standard containers for 
virtually all transport. Special-purpose standard 
containers have been developed for a variety of 
purposes, such as water purification, shelters of all 
sizes, medical laboratories and surgeries, bridges, and 
amphibious assault fuel systems. 

The Marine Corps is in the process of converting from 
a motor transport tactical fleet of 54 types to one of only 
7 types. The largest is the "Dragon Wagon,” an 8 x 8 
truck with a capacity of 22.5 tons, a 60-inch fording 
depth, and road speed capability of 55 mph. 

Army Logistics R&D 

Dr. Marvin E. Lasser, Director of Army Research, 
addressed the problem of the Soviets outspending the 
U.S. by two to one in defense and graduating five times 
as many engineers. Dr. Lasser pointed out that 48% of 
U.S. Government spending is for social programs, 10% 
for debt service, 25% for defense, and only 17% for all 
else. Thus, defense expenditures in the U.S. cannot be 
markedly increased. The solution lies in this—our 
ever-expanding "information age.” The younger 
generation is already growing up with the computer, and 
"intelligent” machines are easier to use. These 
developments have led to significant changes in the 
Army. In fact now all commanders will be given 
information to use with flexibility. Information is not 
consumed—\t is not diminished by use. 

Colonel John R. Tedesco, Material Readiness, 
DARCOM, reviewed the development of "Front End 
Readiness and Support Analysis Policies,” MIL-STD- 
1388-1, Logistics Support Analysis (LSA), and the 
establishment of the LSA Steering Group in 1980. 


Summer 1982 


37 





Release of the revised MIL-STD-1388 is planned for 
late 1982. Colonel Tedesco briefly described the 
Standard Army Maintenance System (SAMS). He stated 
that life cycle cost (LCC) estimates for development and 
production costs are relatively good, but estimates of 
operational costs are poor. Colonel tedesco described 
the pilot program use of microfiche Repair Parts and 
Special Tests Lists (RPSTL) in the Missile Command, 
with a final recommendation scheduled for February 
1983. Potential application of videodisc technology for 
technical data storage and presentation and the 
briefcase-sized Personal Electronic Aid for Maintenance 
(PEAM) were mentioned. 

Mr. Roland E. Berg, Assistant Director, Maintenance 
Management, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, 
discussed the Army’s growing commitment to logistics 
R&D and the fact that we need to think in terms of 
equipping the man rather than manning the equipment. 
He commented on the meaning of the Army policy of 
"support‘as far forward as possible." In practice, it is 
"support as far forward as practical." 

Navy Logistics 

Rear Admiral Alexander M. Sinclair, Assistant Deputy 
Chief of Naval Operations for Logistics, spoke of the 
emphasis in the Navy on readiness and sustainability 
and the fact that logistics is not glamorous. Admiral 
Sinclair noted the achievements of a 30% reduction in 
the complement of manpower for modern frigates 
compared with destroyers of 20 years ago and the four 
to one improvement in reliability and maintainability for 
the F/A-18 over the F-4. He is optimistic about the Navy 
being able to fully man a 600-ship fleet and is much 
encouraged by the fact that the Navy is attracting better 
personnel. 

Commander J. Bland, Office of Naval Technology, 
described recent Navy accomplishments in logistics 
which were: 

-Ship-to-shore power cables 

- Field shower/laundry module 

- Fuel storage tank water strippers 
-Automated vehicle scheduling 

- Handheld electric field detector for divers 
-Improvedfuel pumps 

-Above the surf, elevated causeways for over-the-beach 
operations 

- Navy automated publishing system (NAPS) 

Air Force Logistics R&D 

Major General Martin C. Fulcher, USAF, Assistant 
Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, spoke of the Air 
Force plans for logistics R&D. He emphasized the Air 
Force compliance with the “Carlucci Initiatives." 
General Fulcher noted that the Air Force is striving to 
operate in peacetime as closely as possible to wartime. 
In closing, he briefly described the soon-to-be-avaiiable 
"Air Force Logistics Research Studies Program 1982” 
publication which can be obtained from the Air Force 
Coordinating Office for Logistics Research, Wright- 
Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

Colonel Robert Rankine, Commander, Wright 
Aeronautical Laboratories, described the four 
laboratories under his command: Aeropropulsion, 
Avionics, Flight Dynamics, and Materials. Some of the 
current efforts in these laboratories are: 

- F-16 integrated fire and flight control 

- Large composite structure materials 

- Electromagnetic windows 

- JP4 fuel from shale used in the F-16 

- Engine technology 


- On-board aircraft inert gas generator 

-Cooperative sensor subsystem integration 

- Integrated blade inspection system (IBIS) 

- Super integrated power unit 

-Advanced propulsion monitoring system (APMS) 

Perspectives from Industry - Panel 

The Industry Panel was organized and chaired by Mr. 
C. W. Collins, Vought Corporation. 

Mr. W. M. Lyle, Manager, Advanced Logistics, 
McDonnell-Douglas Aircraft Company, stated that, in 
the programs on the F-15, F-16, and AVSB, most of the 
logistics R&D is accomplished through the program 
offices. Two of the current developments are the 
Avionics Fault Tree Analyzer (AFTA), a briefcase-sized 
unit which uses the aircraft as a "hot mockup" and the 
VSTOL tester for the AV8B, a suitcase-sized unit used 
off the aircraft. Mr. Lyle’s strongest point was that repair 
times are measured in hours, but supply system delays 
are measured in days. Improvements must be made in 
the distribution systems. 

Mr. Robert C. Gowans, Manager, Logistics and 
Product Support, Emerson Electric Company, described 
that organization with emphasis on the applied research 
done through the auspices of the Vice President for 
Engineering and Logistics. Current R&D projects at 
Emerson include a videodisc based interactive training 
system with a touch control panel. 

Mr. Kenneth Lawrence, Engineering Manager, FMC 
Corporation, presented current R&D efforts at FMC 
pointing out that BIT for vehicles has not been 
developed to the extent that it has for avionics. He 
stated that the challenging areas of opportunity are 
training delivery systems, future technology, and front- 
end analysis. 

Mr. John R. Griffin, III, Senior Systems Analyst, 
Dialectic Systems Corporation, made the point that 
major advances in science and technology are the result 
of a "paradigm shift’’—a different way of looking at the 
problems. Such a shift occurred in logistics in about 
1968 when the concept of integrated logistics 
developed. 

Mr. T. Begley, Direct Product Support, Boeing 
Marine Systems, discussed current R&D efforts at 
Boeing Marine for various hydrofoil craft. He also gave 
some key points on improving the acceptability of IR&D 
projects in logistics to DOD technical monitors. 

Logistics Management Science 
Research and Development 

This session, organized and chaired by Mr. John 
Goclowski, Dynamics Research Corporation, addressed 
methods for developing the logistics component of the 
total design process. The intent was to give industry 
insight into techniques that the Services are using or 
considering in current and future acquisition programs. 

Mr. James Baker, Army Research Institute, presented 
some of the current efforts at ARI. The thrust of his 
presentation was on matching the capabilities of the 
available personnel to future requirements for Army 
systems. The conceptual and design process for new 
systems must include an analysis of available personnel 
aptitudes and skills. 

Mr. William Wallace, Reliability Engineering, Naval 
Electronics Systems Command, discussed level of 
repair analysis (LORA). He emphasized the need to 
begin LORA in the conceptual phase of new programs 
and the requirement for improved LORA modules with 
better users guides. 


38 


Air Force Journal of Logistics 



Colonel Donald Tetmeyer, Chief of the Logistics and 
Technical Training Division, AF Human Resources 
Laboratory (HRL), described some of his current 
programs. Among the programs discussed iwere: 

- Integrated thermal/avionics design 

-Anthropometric man in softv/are 

-Cybernetic logistics management 

- Personal electronic aid for maintenance (REAM) 

- Better damage repair analysis 

- Integrated training systems 

- Remote systems maintenance for missile sites 

In closing, Colonel Tetmeyer described the need for a 
maintenance support system which is rugged, portable, 
and updateable with distributed adaptive software 
which includes access to original design analysis 
information. 

Application of Logistics R&D 

The intent of this session, organized and chaired by 
Mr. Gary L. Foreman, Hughes Aircraft Company, was to 
show what is happening in the applications world and 
where future activities should be directed. 

Mr. Craig Hunter, DARCOM, discussed the 
preparation of a logistics support analysis record (LSAR) 
handbook which summarizes all available, currently 
used approaches to LSAR. 

Lt Colonel Joseph Campbell, Headquarters USAF, 
discussed logistics capability assessment (LOGCAS) in 
the Air Force. He emphasized that the Air Force is 
currently using logistics computer models as tools for 
management and analysis. Among the models 
described were: 

- Logistics capabilities measurement system (LCMS) 
-Dyna-METRIC model 

-Wartime assessment and requirement system (WARS) 

Mr. M. Wiant, NACMAT, discussed the process and 
use of system availability calculations. Availability, 
calculated for planned systems and measured for 
fielded systems, is an accepted figure of merit. 

Mr. G. T. Lussier, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, 
discussed why the preliminary calculated availability is 
frequently not achieved for fielded systems. In essence, 
the problem is one of definition. 

Summary of Logistics R&D Directions 

Mr. Oscar Goldfarb, Deputy for Supply and 
Maintenance, stated that the same genius that 
produces performance can produce supportability; and 
the greatest marginal gains in supportability can be 
achieved through improvements in the prime systems 
rather than in the support systems. He further stated 
that logisticians can identify problems but the answers 
lie outside —we need to stop talking to ourselves. 

Mr. Russell Shorey, Director, Weapons Support, 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, 
Reserve Affairs and Logistics), stated that the 
commitment to logistics R&D throughout DOD is 
evident. Some of the needs are: deployable systems 


with no support tail, paper free systems, and systems 
with zero processing delay. Finally, Mr. Shorey 
expressed his opinion that NSIA should organize and 
conduct a similar symposium next year. 

Mr. Benjamin S. Blanchard, Assistant Dean for 
Engineering Extension, Virginia Polytechnic Institute 
and President of the Society of Logistics Engineers, 
summarized the symposium in the context of his 
position in academia. He related that logistics R&D in 
universities is minimal. The capability is there, but it is 
not being used. 

As the last speaker in the symposium, i commended 
the previous speakers for their presentations which 
clearly showed where we are headed in logistics R&D. I 
need only look back a few years to see how far the 
Services, DOD, and industry have come in this area. The 
commitment to expand R&D for logistics is evident. 

The new information handling and storage 
techniques, VHSIC, telecommunications, gallium 
arsenide devices, etc., are here. How are we going to 
both support and use these new technologies? We must 
now elevate support planning to the logistic mission 
analysis level. That is, the support system is a part of 
the "total system” that must be given consideration in 
the total mission analysis. We now have the policy and 
direction. We need the implementation of those policies 
via budgetary, IR&D, and contractual considerations. 
Nothing happens without plans and money. 

I believe we are moving toward more effective use of 
technology and systems management techniques 
throughout all of the logistics disciplines. I believe that 
through R&D for logistics, effective solutions to the 
support requirements of the Services will be achieved, 

Addendum 

Logistics R&D in Westinghouse 

For more than a decade, the Westinghouse Electric 
Corporation, Integrated Logistics Support Divisions 
have been conducting R&D programs in logistics, both 
under contract to the DOD and as IR&D projects. The 
IR&D programs, performed at the Westinghouse Central 
Research Laboratories in Pittsburgh and the ILS 
Divisions in Hunt Valley and Columbia, Maryland, have 
addressed many aspects of logistics. 

A brief listing of current projects includes: 

- Computer based simulations of logistics processes 

- An illustration comprehensibility index 

- A data compaction method for illustrations 

- Electro-optical detection and transmission of 
printed circuit board test signals 

- Contactless detection of faults in integrated circuits 

- Rule based artificial intelligence for test 
diagnostics 

- Integrated test, training, and technical data 
systems 

- Remote systems maintenance techniques 

- Automated reading grade level analysis 

- Automated editing system 


Item of Interest 
1983 Air Power Symposium 

Logistics will provide the subject matter for the 1983 USAF Air Power Symposium to be 
held in February. The title chosen is “Sustainability in Prolonged Conflict.’’ The call for 
papers will be made soon by Air War College with submission due in the Fall. 


Summer 1982 


39 




Project Warrior 

Project Warrior is a concept formulated to create an environment 
where our people can learn from the waiighting lessons of the past 
and use that knowledge to better prepare for the future. Air Force 
Chief of Staff General Lew Allen, Jr., said: "I believe that a 
continuing study of military history, combat leadership, the 
principles of war, and particularly the application of airpower, is 
necessary for us to meet the challenge that lies ahead ." 

Logistics Warrior 

Logistics Warrior is the contribution of your journal to help create 
that envimnment. Your suggestions are solicited. 



LOGISTICS WARRIORS: US in France, WWII 

“Grand strategy didn’t win the war. It was combat tactics 
that did it. The grand strategy was completely botched up 
after the first stages of the invasion, because of logistical 
failures. 

General Patton was notorious for his lack of logistical 
knowledge, but major blame cannot be attached to him for 
the failure to carry out the CHASTITY [plan to seize South 
Brittany ports for more supply support]. He was under 
Bradley’s orders. Middleton’s corps, after being detached 
from the 3d Army, operated as directed by Bradley. It was 
Bradley’s responsibility that the corps did not carry out the 
CHASTITY plan. 

General Patton was a great combat general. He saved the 
Allies in the Battle of the Bulge by a magnificent display of 
military tactics. His great faults were his contempt for 
controlling orders from higher echelons and his refusal to 
pay sufficient attention to his logistical needs. . . . 

To sum up, “Com Zone” could have done a much better 
Job had it had a different organization. Lee, its commanding 
general, was not the man for the command. The whole 
supply setup from Supreme Headquarters down was badly 
organized. It could not have adequately supplied the combat 
forces without the facilities of the South Brittany ports and 
railroads. 

Bradley failed to carry out his assigned mission to secure 
the South Brittany ports for several reasons. First, he 
overestimated the ability of the German forces in Brittany to 
be a real threat to our flanks and against our greatly superior 
forces. Second, he never really trusted Patton and his 
tactics. Third, he underestimated the logistical need for 
obtaining the use of Quiberon Bay and the railroads running 
east from there. These were most costly mistakes.” 

From: TTie Critical Error of World War II by Harold L. Mack. 

LOGISTICS WARRIORS: Materials/Friction 

“Clausewitz’s concept of friction describes why things 
naturally go wrong in war. . . . Friction is bad weather 
during the Battle of the Bulge, contagious panic in France in 
1940, an empty prison at Son Tay, and the dominant 
characteristic of the Iranian rescue mission. A famous 
response to fiiction is the WWII phrase: “Keep it simple, 
stupid.” Clausewitz considered friction to be the central 
factor that distinguished real war from theoretical analyses. 
The existence of fnction means that war is not a 
deterministic process. The clarifying question concerning 
the impact of complexity on the man-machine relationship 
in combat is: Does increasing complexity increase or 
reduce fraction? 

By necessity, we need to look at real war so this question 
can only be answered through historical research. Col John 


Boyd, USAF Ret., significantly enriches Clausewitz’s 
concept of friction in his . . . “Patterns of Conflict.” This 
briefing summarizes Boyd’s research on conflict from 
400BC to the present. According to Boyd, Clausewitz had a 
linuted one-sided view of friction. Clausewitz was 
concerned about reducing his own friction (a valid concern) 
but he failed to see the opportunities for increasing his 
enemy’s friction. Boyd observes that the writings of the 
Chinese miltary theorist. Sun Tzu, stress these opportunities 
and that the extraordinarily successful operations of 
Genghis Khan and Tamerlane exploited these opportunities. 
Boyd then synthesizes these two views with the operations 
of Genghis Khan, Napoleon, the successful German 
blitzkrieg commanders, and successful guerrilla 
conunanders into a general theory of conflict—a theory that 
he supports with historical analysis and observations from 
real war. In sharp contrast to the deterministic view of the 
attrition mind-set, the central consideration in Boyd’s 
theory is human behavior in conflict. In this context, he 
suggests that increasing complexity works on our mind and 
makes mental operations more difficult. It causes 
commanders and subordinates alike to be captured by their 
own internal dynamics—i.e., they must devote increasing 
mental and physical energy to maintain internal harmony— 
and hence they have less energy to shape, or adapt to, 
rapidly changing external conditions. In Boyd’s 
perspective, the idea of decreasing complexity to diminish 
our friction and free up our operations gives us the 
opportunity to magnify our enemy’s friction and impede his 
operations. ’ ’ 

From: Drfense Facts of Life by Franklin C. Spinney. 


LOGISTICS WARRIORS: Napoleon in Russia 

“It should be recognized, however, that the worst 
shortages were experienced during the first two weeks of 
the advance (i.e. precisely the period for which Napoleon 
had made his most careful and extensive preparations) and 
that the situation gradually improved afterwards. Also, the 
Grande Armke’s problems were at all times - including the 
retreat from Moscow - largely due to bad discipline. This, 
of course, was itself partly due to logistic shortages. 
However, the fact remains that those units whose 
commanders were strict disciplinarians (e.g. Davout’s) 
consistently did better than the rest, while the Guard even 
managed to keep such good order that, far from running 
away, the inhabitants enthusiastically welcomed it. Nor is it 
true, as is so often maintained, that the country as a whole 
was too poor to support an army. Writing from Drissa early 
in July, Murat - operating as he was in an area which Pfuel 
had selected for the erection of his fortified camp precisely 
because it was supposed to be without resources - informed 


40 


Air Force Journal of Logistics 







Napoleon that while the region around was tolerably well 
provided it would be possible to exploit it only after a 
proper administration was set up and an end put to the 
troops’ marauding. 

“That the Grande Armke suffered enormous losses 
during its march to Moscow is true, as is the fact that hunger 
and its consequences - desertion and disease - played a large 
part in causing these losses. It would, however, be unwise 
to attribute this solely to the problems of supply. The need 
to protect enormously long lines of communication and to 
leave garrisons behind, and the effect of distance per se 
were also factors of major importance. As regeirds the 
army’s material losses, there is reason to believe that much 
if not most of the equipment abandoned on the way to 
Moscow was later retrieved. In 1812 Napoleon’s main 
force marched 600 miles, fought two major battles (at 
Smolensk and at Borodino) on the way, and still had a third 
of their number left when entering Moscow. In 1870, as in 
1914, the Germans, operating over incomparably smaller 
distances, in very rich country and supported by a supply 
organization that became the model for all subsequent 
conquerors, reached Paris and the Marne respectively with 
only about half of their effectiveness. Compared with these 
performances, excellent as they were, the French Army of 
1812, for all its supposedly worthless service of supply, did 
not do too badly. ’ ’ 

From: Supplying War by Martin Van Creveld. 

LOGISTICS WARRIORS: Firepower/Maneuver 

“In war, two great phenomena contend; maneuver and 
fire power. Maneuver is made of circumventing action to 
by-pass the barrier, to outflank the thrust, and to evade the 
main strength of the enemy in all instances from weapon 
design to grand strategy; such maneuver is the product of 
surprise, deception, and above all agility—in thought, 
planning, and action. And then there is firepower, which is 
measured by quantity, by accuracy, and by lethality; 
firepower is a product of industrial strength, transportation, 
and efficient logistic distribution. Throughout history, 
mixtures of maneuver and firepower have contended on a 
thousand battlefields. Maneuver has generally been the less 
costly course; but firepower has always been the surer 
course, and has demanded merely an outright superiority in 
means. But even in the face of superior firepower and 
superior resources, maneuver in all its forms—^tactical, 
operational, theater-strategic and developmental, as well as 
the highest maneuver of grand strategy—has always done 
better than an outright comparison of forces would reveal 
and often has prevailed. ’ ’ 

“But that was before maneuver finally met its match in 
the figure of the American “systems analyst.” When this 
new apparition came to take its place alongside the Great 
Captains of history, maneuver was finally undone. Its fatal 
defect is that no statistical index can be properly attached to 
surprise, deception, or agility; thus no criterion of 
effectiveness stated in numbers can be defined for the 
system analyst’s computations. Firepower by contrast is 
easily quantifiable: volume being tonnage, accuracy being 
hit probability, and lethality being a known factor. ” 

From “On the Need to Refoim American Strategy” by Edward N. Luttwak 
in Planning US Security edited by Philip S. Kronenberg 

LOGISTICS WARRIORS: The Revolution 

“Under the stimulus of the war the public and private 
arms industry expanded production. In the winter of 1775- 
76 the arms makers of Pennsylvania, a center of the 


industry, alone turned out more than 4,000 muskets. The 
production of artillery posed greater problems, but by 1775 
the foundries in Philadelphia, Springfield, and other places 
were casting both bronze and iron guns that were almost as 
good as European pieces. Enough of these were made 
during the war to satisfy most of the requirements of the 
armies, and because of imports from France, American 
forces did not suffer serious shortages of guns. In another 
area of military procurement the Americans began and 
remained dependent upon foreign supplies. Relatively little 
gunpowder was manufactured in the colonies, largely due to 
a lack of saltpeter, and Congress and the states were unable 
to increase production. Over 90 percent of the gunpowder 
used in the war was imported. 

The supply function of Congress did not cease when it 
created money to pay for the supplies or stimulated 
industries to produce them. They then had to be collected 
and distributed to the armies, and this would have to be 
done by a military staff. The Congress knew about the use 
of military staffs in European armies, and in 1775 it 
established its own. It authorized a number of offices, and 
appointed the holders of them, an adjutant general to handle 
records, a paymaster general to disburse money, and others. 
Two of these officials were concerned with supply and 
constituted what in later armies would be called the Services 
of Supply—a commissary general, who purchased and 
issued provisions, and a quartermaster general, who 
supervised the transportation of them to the armies. Later 
Congress appointed a clothier general, who received all 
clothing purchased by the Board of War. The various staff 
and supply officers were responsible to the Board of War, 
but the latter exercised only a loose coordination over them. 

This failure to provide unitary direction reflected 
Congress’s disinterest in efficient administration. The 
attitude was particularly apparent in its regulation of the 
supply services, and particularly calamitous. Thus at one 
time it became disturbed that the commissary general’s 
department was not procuring needed provisions. The 
solution was to split the office into two parts, a commissary 
general of purchases and a commissary general of issues. 
The apparent reasoning was that if the job was too big for 
one man it should be given to two; the result, of course, was 
to divide authority still further. 

The administrative indecision of Congress was one 
reason that shortages of certain supplies, particularly food, 
clothing, and shoes, appeared in the armies as early as 1776 
and continued and grew worse every year thereafter. 

“The suffering of the troops was not entirely due to 
administrative laxity. The goods in short supply were 
usually available in Ae country, but they could not be got to 
the armies. In part the problem was transportation. Just as 
the British had trouble in supplying their forces if they 
moved away from the rivers, so did the Americans. There 
were few good roads . . . , and wagons were scarce. But the 
root cause of the problem was the Continental currency. As 
it depreciated steadily in value, producers tried to avoid 
taking it; many farmers preferred to sell to the British in 
return for specie. Congress was at last driven to 
recognizing the collapse of its currency system and the 
crisis of its supply system. Late in 1779 it authorized a 
requisition of “specific supplies” on the states. Quotas of 
various provisions, meat, flour, and other items, were 
assigned according to their resources. The states were 
expected to fill the quotas by assessing taxes in kind on their 
citizens. Barter was being substituted for currency. ’ ’ 


From: The History of American Wars by T. Harry Williams. 


Summer 1982 


41 





“Militarily, what can we do? We can reinforce. We can run 
away. We can move an analysis team to the scene. We 
can send technical assistance. Corporations can do the 
same thing. But the military must have an instant 
response.” 

General Harold K. Johnson, USA, ret., “Military 
Leadership and the Need for Historical Awareness” 
in New Dimensions in Military History, ed. by 
Russell F. Weigley. 


Mr Force Journal of Logistics 

Air Force Logistics Management Center 

Gunter AFS, Aiabama 36114