Mlf 9 4 final

Rock Island Arsenal Profile O Global DistributionInventory Management

The Publication of Record for the Military Logistics Community

Sustainment Optimizer

Maj. Gen. Kevin O’ConnellCommanderU.S. Army Sustainment Command

www.MLF-kmi.com

May 2015Volume 9, Issue 4

TACOM Life CyCLe MAnAgeMenT COMMAnd

Special pull-Out Supplement

Exclusive Interview with:

Maj. Gen. Gwen BinGhaMCommanderTACOM Life Cycle Management Command

oshkoshdefense.com/JLTV

You can’t substitute for experience driving through a sandstorm.

Oshkosh is JLTV.Anything else is something less.

Operations look different at ground level.

Troops have logged billions of real-world operational miles in Oshkosh trucks to complete their missions. For decades, we’ve provided the protection and performance troops need to overcome threats outside the wire – with confi dence. Today, Oshkosh delivers the next generation of protected mobility to serve the JLTV mission. The Oshkosh JLTV solution, the Light Combat Tactical All-Terrain Vehicle (L-ATV), is designed and built by the truck experts at Oshkosh, and backed by 98 years of vehicle production, integration and lifecycle know-how to keep ground operations moving. When real-life missions depend on the truck experts, troops depend on Oshkosh.

©2015 OSHKOSH DEFENSE, LLC An Oshkosh Corporation CompanyOshkosh Defense and the Oshkosh Defense logo are registered trademarks of Oshkosh Defense, LLC, Oshkosh, WI, USAJLTV_004_2015-US-1

OshD_JLTV-SAND_MilLogisFrm_Ad_4.28.15.indd 1 4/28/15 10:29 AM

Cover / Q&AFeatures

Honeywell Ensures Our Military has Equipment and Material Ready and Waiting, Where and When NeededVisit www.Honeywell.com/HTSI to learn more about how Honeywell solves the military’s logistics challenges.

© 2015 Honeywell International Inc. All rights reserved.

HONEYWELL_DLF_TOC_may15.indd 1 5/4/2015 10:34:19 AM

Major General Kevin o’Connell

CommanderU.S. Army Sustainment Command

13

Departments Industry Interview2 editor’s PersPeCtive10 suPPly Chain19 resourCe Center

dale WinsteadGeneral Manager for Logistics and Supply Chain SAIC

May 2015Volume 9, Issue 4MILITARY LOGISTICS FORUM

20

6Global distributionamong other things, uStRanScOm is tasked to improve the overall efficiency and interoperability of distribution-related activities—deployment, sustainment and redeployment support during peace and war—and to “serve as the single entity to direct and supervise execution of the Strategic Distribution System.”By Peter BuxBaum

8squeezinG inventoryintense budget pressures mean there is no money to waste on inventories in excess of true Defense Department needs and no money to throw away on spoiled inventories. Systems for matching inventories to demand have been continually upgraded in recent years.By Henry Canaday

Transforming defense supply and logistics requires a new perspective.Leidos is building on our legacy support for the armed forces with transformation, innovation and global expertise.

learn more at

leidos.com/logistics

© Leidos. All rights reserved.

1Exclusive interview with:

Major General Gwen BinghamCommanderTACOM Life Cycle Management Command

Who’s Who pictorial of TACOM Life Cycle Management Command’s Board of Directors

3advanCed ManufaCturinGMilitary Logistics Technology recently sat down with Colonel David J. Luders to talk about the Rock Island Arsenal Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center.

SPECIAL SECTION TACOM LIfe CyCLe MAnAgeMenT COMMAndSpeCIAL puLL-OuT SuppLeMenT

At the end of fiscal year 2013, DoD estimated its inventory on hand at about $98 billion. Of that, the Army accounted for $17.7 billion, the Navy with $24.2 billion and the Air Force with $36.5 billion. When compared to a similar review of inventory levels in 2009, the Navy and Air Force levels actually increased ($2.5 billion and $8.3 billion respectively) while the Army inventory dropped by about $4.5 billion.

DoD is required to report its department-wide percentage of on-hand excess inventory at the end of September each year.

Section 328 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 required the Secretary of Defense to submit a comprehensive plan for improving the inventory management systems of the military depart-ments and the Defense Logistics Agency with the objective of reducing the acquisition and storage of secondary inventory that is excess to requirements. The Comprehensive Inventory Management Improvement Plan, which runs into FY 2016, established overarching goals to reduce the department’s percentage of on-hand excess inventory—those items categorized for potential reuse or disposal—and on-order excess inventory—those items already purchased, but that may be excess due to subsequent changes in requirements. DoD’s goal was to reduce on-hand excess inventory to 10 percent of the value of total inventory by the end of FY 2014 and to 8 percent by the end of FY 2016.

According to a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, the services have reported generally meeting DoD’s goal, but reporting issues hinder visibility of their progress in reducing on-hand excess inventory.

The Army and Navy have reported not meeting DoD’s goal for reducing on-order excess inventory, while the Air Force generally has met the goal. According to the GAO, the Army and Navy have weaknesses in their management processes that pose challenges to DoD achieving its reduction goal. Specifically, Army Materiel Command management has not established goals for each of its life-cycle management commands for reducing on-order excess inventory. The Navy is taking steps to reduce on-order excess inventory, but weak-nesses remain that limit the Navy’s visibility of its on-order excess inventory. Lastly, the Air Force regularly reviews on-order excess inventory, including using graduated levels of review based on dollar thresholds and tracking the reasons for not canceling or modifying on-order excess inventory.

As an important tool in inventory management by the services has been focused on improving and monitoring demand forecasting. DoD guidance emphasizes the importance of accurately forecasting demand to support the needs of the customer. In the past, the GAO found that weaknesses in demand forecasting have contributed to the accumulation of excess inventory and backorders across DoD. Improving the accuracy of demand forecasts enhances the precision of planning and funding of procurement and repair actions, results in inventory levels that better satisfy customer demand while reducing excess and backorders and provides stability for suppliers that manufacture and repair spare parts for the services.

Publication of Record for the Military Logistics Community

editorialEditor-In-ChiefJeff McKaughan [email protected]

Managing EditorHarrison Donnelly [email protected]

Copy EditorsKevin Harris [email protected] magin [email protected]

CorrespondentsHeather Baldwin • Christian Bourge • Peter Buxbaum Henry Canaday • Cheryl Gerber • Hank Hogan Marc Selinger • Karen Thuermer • William Murray

art & designArt DirectorJennifer Owers [email protected]

Ads and Materials ManagerJittima Saiwongnuan [email protected]

Senior Graphic DesignerScott Morris [email protected]

Graphic Designers Andrea Herrera [email protected]

advertisingAssociate PublisherJane Engel [email protected]

KMi Media GroupChief Executive OfficerJack Kerrigan [email protected]

Publisher and Chief Financial OfficerConstance Kerrigan [email protected]

Editor-In-ChiefJeff McKaughan [email protected]

ControllerGigi Castro [email protected]

Trade Show CoordinatorHolly Foster [email protected]

operations, Circulation & ProductionOperations AdministratorBob Lesser [email protected]

Circulation & Marketing AdministratorDuane Ebanks [email protected]

CirculationDenise Woods [email protected]

a Proud Member of:

subscription informationMilitary Logistics Forum

issn 1937-9315 is published 10 times a year by

KMI Media Group. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction with-out permission is strictly forbidden. © Copyright 2015.Military Logistics Forum is free to qualified members of the U.S. military, employees of the U.S. government and

non-U.S. foreign service based in the U.S. All others: $75 per year. Foreign: $159 per year.

Corporate officesKMI Media Group

15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 300 Rockville, MD 20855-2604 USA

Telephone: (301) 670-5700 Fax: (301) 670-5701

Web: www.MLF-kmi.com

Military Logistics Forum

Volume 9, Issue 4 • May 2015

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Jeff McKaughanEDIToR

The nation’s largest government-owned and operated arsenal, Rock Island Arsenal sits on an island—hence the name—in the middle of the Mississippi River. Military Logistics Technology recently sat down with Colonel David J. Luders to talk about the Rock Island Arsenal Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center.

Q: Thank you for taking the time to talk with us, Colonel Luders. The Rock Island Arsenal Joint Manu-facturing and Technology Center (RIA-JMTC) was established 152 years ago. Why was it originally established?

A: Acts of Congress in 1809 established Rock Island as a military reservation. Destruction of Harper’s Ferry Arsenal in 1861 spurred Congress to see the need for “insurance” for the military’s ordnance. In July 1862, Congress established RIA as a facility for the deposit and repair of ordnance at Rock Island. In 1865, the mission was amended to include manufacturing of equipment for the Army.

Since then, the Rock Island Arsenal has provided equipment for the military in every major conflict since the Spanish-American War. From making meat cans and horse tack at its inception to producing recoil mechanisms and advanced armor solutions today, this arsenal has answered its call to duty for more than 150 years.

Q: The RIA-JMTC is truly one of a kind in the Department of Defense because of all the manufacturing capabilities and processes under one roof. What are some of those capabilities?

A: We are the only vertically integrated metal manufacturer in the Department of Defense. That is a mouthful to say, but it means that we can take raw material in at one end of the factory and have a com-plete product come out the other end.

RIA-JMTC is home to the only foundry in the Department of the Army. We melt raw metal and then form it into a part using cast-ings. From there, we can machine it in one of our 1,008 machining centers. After that, the piece goes through a heat treat, plating and painting process. Finally, we assemble it together into a final system.

Other capabilities include: heat treating/foundry operations, assembly (production line operations), casting (steel, aluminum and titanium), welding and fabrication (laser, waterjet), forging (open and closed die, impression), tool and gage manufacturing, rapid prototyp-ing/reverse engineering, gear and spring manufacturing, machining (7 axis—236-by-147-by-68 inch), tool and die, plating (chrome, cop-per, nickel and zinc), engineering and laboratory services painting (CARC, camouflage and epoxy), blasting (steel, aluminum oxide and glass), non-destructive testing, and pliable materials fabrication.

Q: In the past, when we profiled RIA-JMTC, we discussed how the arsenal has adapted to support the warfighter in every conflict since the Spanish-American war. How has technology changed over the years to help you adapt?

A: Technology and manufacturing have always been part of our rich history. When General Thomas Rodman was building the arsenal, he chose the Telodynamic system to transfer power to the factory. It was one of the first water-driven power systems ever used, harnessing cables to turn the machines in the factory, and perhaps the only one in the United States.

Prior to World War II, William Baumbeck at the arsenal began experimenting on broaching methods for rifling barrels. The previ-ous hook-cutting method produced an average of only three barrels an hour per machine. Baumbeck developed a method that used a series of progressively larger cutting tools on a single tool mount. His method rifled 35 barrels an hour per machine. The new method was implemented in Army rifle manufacturing and subsequently elimi-nated one of the greatest possible bottlenecks to high-volume rifle and machine gun production at the start of World War II.

More recently, over the past 10 years the arsenal has invested in more than 100 million dollars’ worth of new machining centers and other advanced manufacturing infrastructure to support the warf-ighter. Some of those machines included bridge mills large enough to machine a small car and spring machines that can make the tiniest of springs to go into a small arms weapon.

We continue to look at new technology in manufacturing trends. In addition to the equipment I just mentioned, we also have a Strata-sys Fuse Deposition Modeling 3-D printer that is capable of printing plastic parts. This is allowing us to explore the very initial stages of additive manufacturing. The printer, coupled with our foundry, gives the arsenal the capability to go from printed plastic parts to full metal parts in 10 days using the RIA-JMTC investment casting process.

Q: Manufacturing a sound product is more than just having the right machine; it is about having the right processes as well, isn’t it? Can you speak to this?

A: You are absolutely right. Processes are just as equally important in producing manufactured goods for the warfighter.

Our vision statement states we will “provide versatile manufac-turing solutions that exceed customer expectations using the most

SPECIAL SECTION

www.MLF-kmi.com MLF 9.4 | 3

current technology with our skilled work-force.” I would like to point out “manu-facturing solutions.” We have capabilities that go beyond just manufacturing. We offer engineering services such as reverse engineering and a host of non-destructive testing and laboratory services that allow us to test in-house.

Also, our processes are only as good as the system that runs them. For the past three years, we have been operating under the Logistics Modernization Program (LMP), the Army’s SAP implementation. In June, we will be one of the first organic industrial base organizations to roll out increment two of LMP. This rollout will give the factory a true Manufacturing Execution System (MES) and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system that is tied to the rest of our systems. The new system will allow us to have access to real-time data to help drive business decisions.

Q: You mentioned engineering services. Do you also work closely with the research, development and engineering commands?

A: Yes, we work very closely with those research commands. A very good example would be our relationship with the Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC). We recently completed a prototype for the new line of communication bridge. It was a close partnership between the program manager for Bridging (PM-Bridging) and TARDEC.

We worked hand in hand with them on improving the design for manufacturability. In the end, we helped engineer a bridge that had 87 percent less parts than its predecessor. In addition, we were able to come in 2 million dollars less than the original estimate we had for the prototype bridge.

That is just one good example of how we can work with any program manager across DoD to make a product better.

Q: Additive Manufacturing (AM) seems to be the new buzzword thrown around a lot these days. Where do you see additive manu-facturing in the arsenal’s future?

A: I think additive manufacturing has to be a part of the arsenal’s future. We are already starting to explore how we can capitalize on the existing 3-D plastic printer that we have. We also have a partner-ship with a company that has a metal 3-D printing capability that we have utilized in the past.

There have been discussions within the Army research and engineering communities about how the Army can harness this new technology, and I, fortunately, have been included in some of those discussions. Additive manufacturing (AM) for us is very much a crawl, walk, run type of thing, and we are only on the cusp of crawl-ing. Now is the time to set the conditions for how AM is going to be rolled out across the entire Army enterprise. Who is the owner of the digital files for digital manufacturing? Unfortunately, I’m not the

one to answer those questions, but I’m glad we are able to provide some input to it.

Q: Colonel, this has been a great discussion about technology at your manufacturing center, and it is clear that RIA-JMTC is mov-ing forward. With all these advances in technology, has it opened any new doors to markets that you previously haven’t explored?

A: We are actually looking at how we can provide support to critical flight safety parts for the Army aviation community. We aren’t look-ing into initially breaking into the aerospace arena, but rather if our capabilities can support a niche market within the Army.

We are currently reviewing our processes for AS 9100 compli-ance (AS 9100 is an aerospace standard based on the ISO 9001 qual-ity system requirements) along with doing some first article tests on parts to meet the Quality Engineering Standard 1 (QE-STD-1) to allow us to support Army aviation.

The tolerances and discipline used to manufacture howitzer recoil systems is very similar to producing flight-critical parts. I know we have the right people with the right skill sets to produce the parts; we just need to ensure that we have the proper protocols in place to track the development and processes of the flight-critical parts.

It is certainly a new area that many people are excited about.

Q: Thank you, Colonel Luders, for your time today. Is there any-thing else you want to add?

A: Thank you for taking the time to talk to me. If anyone has never seen the Rock Island Arsenal, I would invite them to come to this amazing island in the middle of the Mississippi River and see first-hand what a national treasure this place is. O

Colonel David J. Luders serves as the 47th commander of the Rock Island Arsenal Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center (RIA-JMTC), a position he has held since July 11, 2013. As commanding officer, Luders oversees operations of the only multipurpose and vertically integrated metal manufacturer in the Department of Defense, applying the unique technical expertise and equipment to manufacture products high in quality and sustainability.

Luders came to RIA-JMTC from the U.S. Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command, where he served as the military deputy commander of the G-3 (Operations) at Redstone Arsenal, Ala. Prior to that, he served as the executive officer for the deputy com-manding general of the Army Materiel Com-mand at Redstone Arsenal.

In addition to his bachelor’s degree in political science and German history from Bir-mingham Southern College, he holds mas-ter’s degrees in Acquisition Management from Webster University and a Master of Strategic Studies from the U.S. Air War College. He is a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and Gen-eral Staff College and Joint CWS, Joint Forces Staff College, Norfolk, Va. He is also a recent graduate of the AMC Depot and Arsenal Execu-tive Leadership Program.

His awards and decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, five Meritorious Service Med-als, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, four Army Commendation Medals, four Army Achievement Medals, two National Defense Service Medals, the Expert Infantryman’s Badge, the Parachutist Badge and the Ranger Tab.

For more information, contact Editor-in-Chief Jeff McKaughan at [email protected] or search our online archives for related stories

at www.mlf-kmi.com.

SPECIAL SECTION

www.MLF-kmi.com4 | MLF 9.4

IOWA

500miles

(804.6 km)

300miles

(482.8 km)

Minneapolis

Kansas City

Omaha

Chicago

St. Louis

Indianapolis

Mississip

pi River

Detroit

Milwaukee

Madison

Des Moines

Louisville

Columbus

QUAD CITIESQUAD CITIES

ILLINOIS

By Peter BuxBaum, mLF CorresPondentustransCom’s roLe as the gLoBaL distriBution synChronizer.

In recent years, the role of the U.S. Transportation Command has grown from distribution process owner to global distribution synchronizer. What difference does that make?

In September 2003, when the secretary of defense, in a memo titled “Actions To Improve Logistics and Supply Chain Manage-ment,” designated the commander, USTRANSCOM, as DoD’s distribution process owner, USTRANSCOM was tasked to “improve the overall efficiency and interoperability of distribution-related activities—deployment, sustainment and redeployment support during peace and war…” and to “serve as the single entity to direct and supervise execution of the Strategic Distribution System.”

In 2011, commander, USTRANSCOM was designated as the global distribution synchronizer in the Unified Command Plan and was tasked to build a campaign plan to ensure an agile, scal-able and resilient global distribution network was in place. The result of that effort, the Campaign Plan for Global Distribution, was approved in January 2014 by then-Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller.

“This seminal effort is the first step in facilitating logistics planning synchronization across all geographic and functional combatant command boundaries, as well as identifying and pri-oritizing necessary distribution network enhancements,” said General Paul Selva, commander, USTRANSCOM, in testimony before Congress last March. “In the first year of execution, we examined the challenges posed by rebalancing and rebasing forces as DoD transitions to a more CONUS-based focus, increased area access and area denial challenges, shifts in strategic focus, and budget reductions affecting the distribution enter-prise’s readiness for future operations. This year, we will conduct more in-depth reviews of geographic combatant commanders’ theater distribution plans, incorporating strategic guidance from DoD’s Guid-ance for Employment of the Force and the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan.”

“The synchronizer role and the campaign plan that comes with it build on responsibilities previ-ously assigned to the commander, USTRANSCOM as the distribution process owner,” said Captain Michelle Morse (USN), chief, Plans, Access and

Capabilities Division, USTRANSCOM (USTC J5-G), in an exclusive interview with Military Logistics Forum. Morse came on board as the plan was moving toward approval and has marshaled the plan through the first year and a half of its execution.

Moving TRANSCOM from a process owner to a distribution synchronizer was meant to begin an effort to eliminate stovepiped distribution-related activities, including infrastructure devel-opment, access and leveraging security cooperation to enable transportation routes. “Experiences in building our capability to support Afghanistan,” Morse said, “pointed to the need to synchro-nize distribution planning across the Department of Defense to proactively set conditions for distribution success.”

The most important aspect of the campaign plan, according to Morse, is that it elevates the conversation about logistics within the Department of Defense. “Every year, the USTRANSCOM com-mander briefs the undersecretary of defense for policy on issues within the Global Distribution Network that allows DoD to deploy, sustain and redeploy U.S. forces around the globe,” she explained. “This is huge for the warfighter.”

Logistics is usually under the purview of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logis-tics (ATL). “Briefing the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy ensures distribution planning is a consideration as we form all of our operational plans,” Morse said. “ATL is in the room, but we briefed the undersecretary for policy and it was policy asking us the questions. As we go through our annual cycles, ensuring that we are getting to the right points of leadership is really key.”

These organizational changes allow logistics and distribution to receive their proper strategic consideration. “We have learned from recent years of operating continuously that establishing and sus-taining a complex global distribution network must begin long before a force movement is validated or sustainment is provided,” she explained. “If we wait, we run the risk of being late to need and it costing more or both. Key lessons learned and global macro trends since Operation Desert Storm have prodded the Department of Defense’s distribution towards a more centralized and integrated system.”

Capt. Michelle Morse


Historically, USTRANSCOM looked at one part of the globe at a time when it came to its planning processes. But the evolution of information technology and the drive towards jointness in the force presented the opportunity to build towards a comprehensive view of the movement of goods.

“We’re now partnered with Defense Logistics Agency in bringing a holistic view of the global distribution network into Department of Defense planning efforts,” Morse said. “In addition, we’re collaborat-ing with combatant commands, services and other defense agencies to build a common view of future network requirements and capa-bilities. The campaign plan allows the distribution community to speak with a single voice and ensure visibility of distribution issues at the highest levels of DoD decision-making for the first time ever. That is pretty exciting for a logistician.”

USTRANSCOM’s ultimate goal in the plan is to be the “transpor-tation and enabling capability provider of choice” across DoD. “With significant changes in the nature of military operations and funding challenges, we have to be absolutely the best at what we do, provid-ing transportation and other capabilities in support of the Depart-ment of Defense and other agencies,” Morse said. “To achieve this, USTRANSCOM is systematically working through the focus areas of our command strategy to preserve readiness capability, achieve information technology excellence, align resources and processes for mission success and developing customer-focused professionals. The ultimate goal is the readiness of our military fleet, and that of our commercial providers, to meet the needs of our customers in times of peace and war.”

The campaign plan is subject to an annual iterative cycle ensuring flexibility in planning and execution, according to Morse. “This annual cycle allows us to readjust the focus of our efforts as conditions change,” Morse said. “Each year, plan execution begins with the development of a strategic framework that identifies the distribution implications of changes in the strategic environment and strategic guidance, emerging threats and opportunities, and the evolution of DoD warfighting concepts.”

As part of that process, distribution and transportation stake-holders assess the capabilities of the global distribution network in light of the strategic framework. “This assessment identifies and pri-oritizes issues that must be worked to ensure the network provides the agility, scalability and resilience we need going forward,” Morse said. “Therefore, each year the plan will look at what has changed in DoD since the last iteration and what that means to the network. By its nature it won’t get outdated sitting on a shelf.”

This process compels members of DoD’s distribution community of interest to speak face to face about changes in the strategic environ-ment, gaps in distribution planning processes and how these may be addressed. “Each year guidance, policy and technology change, so we look at these issues with a fresh set of eyes,” Morse said. “For combat-ant commanders, this means we will have looked with their planners at their geographic area, talked through where they may have to oper-ate in the future, and be set up to support them. Warfighters don’t have to worry whether future operations will require them to go right or left because we will already have anticipated that and have a global distribution network ready for them to fall in on.”

Developments in technology are a key consideration of distribu-tion planning going forward. “Given the heavy reliance of the joint forces on military computer networks and civilian critical infrastruc-ture,” Morse said, “it is essential that we are able to defend key systems and ensure the continuity of critical network functions in the face of

disruption. In the plan, our assessments of the strategic environment, requirements, threats, opportunities and emerging concepts may bring to light capability gaps that will have to compete within Depart-ment of Defense resource allocation processes.”

As new technologies are incorporated into USTRANSCOM’s dis-tribution capabilities, the plan calls for adjusting processes and the global distribution network as appropriate as part of the annual itera-tive process. “In the meantime, we’re working with our DoD partners and commercial providers to enhance security of our distribution cyber data,” Morse said. “We are identifying key data elements and examining where we hold them, how they are secured and where we interact with commercial providers. The Joint Cyber Center at USTRASCOM is leading the way in a lot of areas for DoD, but we still have a long way to go. This is an area we will be working on for the foreseeable future.”

USTRANSCOM’s mission to synchronize distribution planning is still evolving. “In our second year, we are beginning to extend our efforts in building more synchronicity with theater distribution plans across the department, through iterative cycles,” Morse said. “I expect we’ll be working to better integrate and better synchronize our distribution planning efforts for some time going forward, and this iterative plan will allow us to do just that.” O

THE TIME FOR ADVANCED TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS IS NOW.

June 23-25, 2015 | Washington DC

w w w . a r m y n e t w o r k m o d e r n i z a t i o n . c o m

Join leaders from PEO EIS, PEO C3T, PEO IEW&S & more…

TOP 10 REASONS TO ATTEND• Hear fi rst hand about upcoming contracting opportunities

• Meet both industry and military leaders developing this fi eld

• Explore how the Military translates policy to actionable networks

• Understand the importance a reliable network has on maintaining effective situational awareness

• Hear the challenges the logistical community has when utilizing tactical networks

• Explore the concepts behind integrating a high end intelligence platform onto current or future network

• Understand the effect network connectivity has on the individual Soldier

• Explore Next Generation Systems Capable of Integration onto a Tactical Network

• Meet the leaders involved with setting the initial requirements of Army Networks

• Discover the difference between Tactical Networks vs Non-Tactical Networks


at www.mlf-kmi.com.


Intense budget pressures mean there is no money to waste on inventories in excess of true Defense Department needs and no money to throw away on spoiled invento-ries. Systems for matching inventories to demand, tracking all items through the supply chain and preventing spoilage have been continually upgraded in recent years. They are playing a critical role in sustaining defense capabilities at the lowest possible cost.

For example, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) uses several different meth-odologies for determining the most efficient inventory levels, explained Steven St. John, deputy director of DLA Strategic Policy and Logistics Programs. The methodologies are primarily chosen according to whether industry can readily supply an item or if DLA will need to stock the item.

“If the commercial source can satisfy the order directly to our customers, we don’t stock the inventory,” St. John said. “We establish a contract with the source and pass the requisition directly to the vendor, and they ship to the customer, thus avoiding the need for DLA inventory.” This sourcing strategy has been extensively used in the medical, subsistence and food-related com-modities that DLA manages.

When DLA decides to stock an item, historical demand for the item is the most important determinant of the most efficient way to support customer demand. For items with relatively frequent and steady demand, DLA can choose among more than five dif-ferent commercial forecasting models and select the model most appropriate. DLA then uses the forecast demand to optimize its safety stock level and economic order

quantity level to reduce the likelihood of excess inventory.

For items with highly variable demands, DLA recently adopted an inventory level-setting model called Peak and Next Gen. “This model looks at a longer demand history and calculates tradeoffs between inventory invest-ment, customer support and workload to provide the most effective inventory levels,” St. John said. Additional programs are used for items on which customer collaboration can enhance DLA’s support or minimize its inventory investment.

St. John pointed out that another way to minimize inventory investment is reducing the number of places where DLA stores items. “Whenever possible, we try to keep the vast majority of our stock in a single location that best supports our customer requirements.”

In addition to its inventory forecast-ing and level-setting models to determine how much inventory to buy, DLA also uses inventory retention models. These help DLA determine how much to keep when demand decreases. Inventory retention models look at longer-term probabilities of future demand compared with the continued storage cost associated with inventories.

To reduce spoilage in inventories, DLA uses the Distribution Standard System. The DSS provides accountability for inventories with unique storage requirements, including items that require temperature-controlled environments. To minimize spoilage, DLA also uses the first-in, first-out (FIFO) inven-tory storage method. Furthermore, “items with assigned storage and shelf life codes are subjected to inspection, test, restoration or disposal action according to regulatory guid-ance,” St. John said.

For tracking assets, DLA uses a combi-nation of 2-D bar codes, active and passive radio frequency identification (RFID) tags and associated infrastructure. The resulting data are processed through DLA’s IT systems, and all the information is amalgamated in the Defense Department’s in-transit visibil-ity (ITV) servers maintained by the Army’s Product Director Automated Movement and Identification Solutions (PD AMIS).

The U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) is DoD’s lead for ITV. DLA uses active RFID tags on cargo containers and passive RFID tags on lower levels of packing for transportation. DLA obtains ITV using active RFID that generates a systemic Electronic Data Interface (EDI) transaction. These transactions are sent to an RFID server, which in turn updates the Integrated Global Convergence (IGC) system.

IGC provides integrated data and appli-cation services enabling a cohesive distribu-tion solution. It provides a common logistics picture and materiel ITV for DLA customers. DLA is continuing to examine the possibil-ity of expanded use of mobile computing devices in support of this common logistics picture and asset ITV.

One very important defense supply chain is all the supplies and equipment that sup-port DoD’s medical facilities. Here, a special and very sophisticated system yields solid performance and maximum economy.

The Defense Health Agency’s (DHA) Defense Medical Logistics Standard Support (DMLSS) is the automated information sys-tem that enables just-in-time movements in the medical supply chain. It tracks inventory and usage of thousands of types of items in about 210 medical-treatment sites and their

By henry Canaday, mLF CorresPondent

inventory management on tight Budgets is good Business and good stewardshiP oF PuBLiC Funding.


satellite clinics, explained Colonel John Rog-ers, director of DHA’s Joint Medical Logistics Functional Development center.

DMLSS handles 7.5 million transactions worth $4.8 billion each year. On-hand inven-tories are captured either directly in DMLSS or through handheld terminals that allow each facility’s personnel to enter shelf-count information and orders via barcodes. An interface with point-of-use cabinets passes consumption information to DMLSS.

The system manages orders from hospi-tal customers to DHA logistics. This infor-mation allows DMLSS to precisely analyze inventory and usage data, thus predicting exactly how much stock will be needed to keep up with demand.

There is also a close relationship between DMLSS and DLA, as well with as medical distribution companies known as prime ven-dors. These prime vendors have contracts with DMLSS sites to furnish medical, surgi-cal and pharmaceutical supplies.

So DMLSS tracks medical supplies both inside and outside each medical facility. Here is how it works in detail:

Within each facility, DMLSS is man-aged by the facility’s logistics department and the wards, clinics and other sections that consume medical supplies. Each sec-tion maintains an inventory of items. The section updates inventory through DMLSS, recording either quantities on hand during a periodic count or quantities used. Some sec-tions have handheld devices that scan bar-code labels to identify a product. Users enter a quantity on the handheld device, which synchronizes data with the DMLSS server.

Some facilities also use point-of-use cabinets, which maintain small inventories where items are used. When a health care provider uses an item, the cabinet itself captures usage and shares it with DMLSS, which tracks all inventories and usage.

When an inventory drops below a preset level, DMLSS reorders through the facility’s logistics unit. Logistics maintains its own inventories and generates orders to prime vendors, DLA or local suppliers as required.

Externally, DMLSS interfaces with DLA and prime-vendor systems. Electronic advance shipping notices let facilities know that requested materiel is on the way. In theater, DMLSS also interfaces with the Cargo Movement Operations System, which coordinates and tracks shipments through the Global Transportation Network.

DMLSS exchanges predicted usage and orders with prime vendors via Electronic

Data Interchange files. High-quality data and direct communication with vendor sys-tems allow vendors to supply most ordered items within 24 to 48 hours of order.

DMLSS also provides tools such as the Strategic Sourcing Initiative. This enables facility staff to quickly identify items that could be procured more efficiently, for example, by standardizing similar orders as a common item or ordering with a preferred unit of packaging.

Further, DMLSS provides a full suite of equipment-management, maintenance-management and facility-management capa-bilities, some of which are integrated into inventory management. For example, equip-ment work orders can generate requests to a facility’s parts inventory.

The net result is that, instead of main-taining warehouses of materiel needed for a week or month of usage until an order is ful-filled, facilities can maintain just a few days’ worth of inventory. DMLSS enables medical logistics to move from warehouse man-agement to materiel throughput, reduc-ing facility footprint, storage volumes and inventory and labor costs. No small feat, given that just daily usage at many medical facilities is measured in truckloads of thou-sands of different products.

DMLSS helps to reduce spoilage of inventories primarily by closely tracking the usage of each product. It can predict demand and order the right amount up front. By limiting the amount on the shelves, DMLSS enables stocks to be consumed in most cases before their expiration dates.

In addition, DMLSS can track qual-ity assurance data, including product lot numbers and expiration dates. Facility staff members thus have the data to ensure they are rotating stocks. If a facility spots a stock that will not be consumed prior to expira-tion, the prime vendor’s return program can offer credit for an expiring item, rather than forcing its local destruction.

Finally, DMLSS’s quality assurance tracking allows facilities to participate in DoD’s Shelf Life Extension Program. By test-ing representative samples of particular lot numbers, DoD can often extend the shelf life of medical materiel items. This is especially beneficial for items in the War Reserve Mate-rial (WRM) program. WRM stocks are stored for lengthy periods, ready to dispatch glob-ally for military contingencies or natural disasters. By supporting Shelf Life Exten-sion, DMLSS significantly reduces the cost of rotating WRM supplies.

Recently, DMLSS has exploited enhance-ments in prime vendor contracts with phar-maceutical suppliers to add functions for hold orders and delayed deliveries. Hold orders allow facilities to order items that are not immediately available. Previously, facili-ties had to check back repeatedly to reorder the item when available. Now, facilities can place an order that stays open for six months or until it is satisfied, whichever comes first.

Delayed delivery allows facilities to order items for delivery on specific future dates. This will reduce storage and handling requirements at facilities that build deploy-able assemblages, collections of medical items for specific purposes, from first-aid kits to deployable hospitals. Delayed delivery could also be used to pre-order materiel for a deploying unit, having it shipped directly to the unit’s destination to meet it on arrival. In both these cases, delayed delivery ensures the best potency and shelf life for the phar-maceuticals.

DMLSS also supports the Army Health Facility Planning Agency’s Initial Outfit and Transition process. When outfitting a new or renovated Army medical facility, all equipment records are transferred from the outfitting vendor’s system to DMLSS automatically, eliminating manual entry and allowing the facility to validate records before accepting equipment.

DMLSS interacts with a number of other IT systems at DLA, at medical logistics depots, at deployed units and for medical evacuations. But it remains the core of DHA’s ability to ensure hospital supplies are there when needed at the lowest inventory cost.

Any changes to DMLSS required by DHA facilities are made under DMLSS sustain-ment. When funded, these changes can be delivered in weeks or months. DMLSS users are involved from the start, leading to prompter delivery of needed enhancements.

Though funding is tight, DHA would like to move DMLSS away from a client-server architecture and toward into a more net-centric, modern architecture. It also wants to develop a highly intuitive storefront for the application that enhances user experi-ence. Rogers said he would like DMLSS to be as easy to use as Amazon.com eventually. O


at www.mlf-kmi.com.


Training With Industry (TWI) is a 12-month program providing Supply Corps lieutenants and lieutenant commanders with the opportu-nity to represent the United States Navy while serving in fellowships with some of the top corporations in the nation. Officers selected for this program will be exposed to executive-level decision-making at a Fortune 500 Company, expand their professional supply chain and logistics education, and provide a conduit for ideas on logistics innovation back to the Navy.

Candidates for TWI programs will be selected by a flag-led selection board and receive an observed fitness report from the Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command and Chief of Supply Corps.

The list of TWI sites includes Starbucks Coffee Company (Seattle, Wash.), The Home Depot (Atlanta, Ga.), FedEx (Memphis, Tenn.) and ExxonMobil (Houston, Texas).

All lieutenants and lieutenant commanders (not in zone for promotion to commander) who

have completed two operational tours, possess a master’s degree (or will graduate in calendar year 2016 from any of the Supply Corps Post Graduate education programs) and have a planned rotation date (PRD) in 2016 will be considered. Additionally, ExxonMobil candidates will possess (or will earn prior to their PRD) a 1307S, 1307R or 1307Q subspecialty code.

Upon completion of the TWI tour, officers will be selectively detailed to the most chal-lenging assignments.

As the Department of Defense and the Defense Logistics Agency continue to evaluate opportunities to decrease costs, DLA Distribution, a field activity, has found a way to do its part. A joint team across DLA Distribution, made up of experts in packaging and packing policies, base supply, contracting and finance was established to consider how costs could be reduced and standardization could be introduced in the area of packing supplies.

Armed with a goal to reduce the DLA Distribution supply budget by 10 percent, the team evaluated the processes associated with ordering and inventory management and identified areas where processes could be standardized across the network. Along with cost reductions, the team focused on reducing variances and standardizing supplies, including pallets, fiberboard boxes, packing list envelopes and tape.

As a result of the effort, and because they can be ordered in greater quantities, the price of pallets was reduced by $12 each. Packing list envelope types were reduced from 17 to three, an 82-percent reduction. Box types were also reduced from more than 250 down to 115, and five types of tape for standard packing were selected.

The price reduction for pallets, which was the first supply the team standardized, saved $3 million in fiscal year 2014. Overall, the team had a goal of saving $3.9 million from all of the packaging supply initiatives, but will exceed that goal and save almost $34 million in fiscal year 2014.

“It has been a great experience being involved in a process where there are such immediate results involving the whole DLA Distribution enterprise,” said Julie Callahan, DLA Distribution’s continuous process improvement coordinator. “Our savings are a definite result of great teamwork and continuous participation.”

This project did not impact any specialized supplies needed to meet mission requirements in specific packing areas such as hazardous materials. The team is continuing to work on standardizing gloves and tri-walls, focusing on the necessary types for different work areas.

“This particular project will provide consistency and efficiency in what is purchased to support our distribution mission, enabling DLA Distribution to produce cost savings and cost avoidances as we continue to meet the demands for budget reductions,” said Rose Snavely-Howe, chief of the Acquisition Management Division.

Article by Jessica Roman, DLA Distribution public affairs.

This is a synopsis for 24 fully self-contained and controlled portable vehicle lifting systems to allow lifting the vehicle from the front and rear simultaneously to enable under-vehicle work by techni-cians on any floor surface with suspension system unloaded (hanging freely).

The integrated system must be usable for lifting all U.S.

Army MRAP vehicle variants up to 44 U.S. tons. Units will plug into 400 V 50HZ plug-in power from wall sockets. Delivery, setup and training for approxi-mately 80 technicians on site at Coleman Barracks, Mannheim, Germany, is also required. The system includes safety jacks that will suspend the vehicle and support 72 U.S. tons when lifting units are removed.

Training With Industry

DLA Distribution Innovates Packing to Save Money

Army Seeks Portable Vehicle Lifting Systems

Compiled by KMI Media Group staffSUPPLY CHAIN


Tacom Life cycLe managemenT commanD

2015

Team of Teams Leader

maj. gen. gwen BinghamcommanderU.S. army Tacom Life cycle management command

MAXIMIZE YOUR FLEET

TRUSTED VEHICLES

30,000+ vehicles in service

PROVEN SUPPORT

100+ years of success maintaining large fleets

FORWARD THINKING

Next-generation tactical vehicles for the future of warfare

Major General Gwen Bingham assumed command of the U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command on June 25, 2014.

Bingham is a native of Troy, Ala. She graduated from Army ROTC as a Distinguished Military Graduate from the University of Alabama in August 1981 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in general business management. She was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Quartermaster Corps. Bingham has a master’s degree in administration from Central Michigan University and a master’s degree in national security strategy and resources from the National Defense University. On April 19, 2013, Major General Bingham was confirmed by the Senate for promotion to major general.

Her military schooling includes the Quartermaster Officer Basic and Advanced Courses; the Personnel Management Course; Combined Arms and Services Staff School; Commissary Manage-ment Course; Army Command and General Staff College; the Army Inspector General Course; the Industrial College of the Armed Forces; and the CAPSTONE General and Flag Officer Course.

Bingham has served in a myriad of staff and leadership positions throughout her career, including: platoon leader and executive officer, HQ&A Company, 9th Supply and Transporta-tion Battalion, 9th DISCOM, Fort Lewis, Wash.; battalion S1, 2d Forward Support Battalion, 9th DISCOM, Fort Lewis; field ser-vices officer, 1st COSCOM, Fort Bragg, N.C.; group S1/adjutant, 507th Transportation Group, 1st COSCOM, Fort Bragg; officer in charge, Commissary Central Distribution Center, Defense Com-missary Agency (DeCA), Manheim, Germany; chief, Aviation Sup-ply Branch, 4th Corps Materiel Management Center, Fort Hood, Texas; battalion S3 and battalion executive officer, 4th Corps Materiel Management Center, Fort Hood; chief of the Plans Divi-sion, ACofS, Materiel, 13th COSCOM, Fort Hood; chief, G3 Plans Division, 13th COSCOM; deputy commander, 64th Corps Sup-port Group, 13th COSCOM, Fort Hood; executive officer, ACofS J1, USFK, Yongsan, Korea; commander, 266th Quartermaster Battalion, 23d Quartermaster Brigade, Fort Lee, Va.; chief, Sup-port Services Office and deputy inspector general, joint staff, the Pentagon; commander, United States Garrison, Fort Lee; and chief of staff, United States Army Combined Arms Support Com-mand and Sustainment Center of Excellence, Fort Lee. Bingham deployed in April 2010 in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom while serving as special assistant to the

commanding general, 1st Theater Sustainment Command, Camp Arifjan, Kuwait; Kabul, Afghanistan and Kandahar, Afghanistan. She served as the 51st quartermaster general of the United States Army and Commandant of the U.S. Army Quartermaster School, Fort Lee. Prior to her current assignment, she served as com-manding general, U.S. Army White Sands Missile Range, N.M.

Bingham is the recipient of numerous military and civic awards commensurate with her rank. These include the Distin-guished Service Medal; Defense Superior Service Medal; Legion of Merit (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters); Defense Meritorious Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster); Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters); Joint Service Commendation Medal; Army Commendation Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster); Army Achieve-ment Medal; Humanitarian Service Medal; National Defense Ser-vice Medal; Afghanistan Campaign Medal; Iraqi Campaign Medal; NATO Service Medal; Korean Defense Service Medal; Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal; and Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. She is authorized to wear the Joint Staff Identifi-cation Badge. Major General Bingham was presented the 2013 Strong Men and Women in Virginia History award and the 2013 Wise Woman Award; named “2013 Mover and Shaker” in Las Cruces, N.M.; presented the El Paso Chapter, Links, Incorporated

Major General Gwen BinghamCommander

U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command

Team of Teams LeaderUniting a Coalition of Partners from AMC and the Army Acquisition Corps

Q&AQ&A

www.MLF-kmi.com TACOM Life Cycle Management Command | MLF 9.4 | 1

TACOM Life CyCLe MAnAgeMenT COMMAnD

www.MLF-kmi.com2 | MLF 9.4 | TACOM Life Cycle Management Command


Maj. Gen. Gwen Bingham

Command General

Brig. Gen. Brian P. Cummings

PEO Soldier

Brian ButlerIntegrated

Logistics Support Center

Magid AthnasiosDeputy to the Commander

(Acting)

Kristan MendozaArmy Contracting Command-Warren

(Acting)

TACOM Life CyCLe MAnAgeMenT COMMAnd

BOArd Of direCTOrs

Scott J. DavisPEO Combat

Support & Combat Service Support


Command Sgt. Maj. Jesse L. Sharpe, Jr.

Command Sergeant Major

Matthew PauschCommand Counsel

Dr. Paul RogersTank Automotive

Research, Development and Engineering Center

Col. Patricia SellersChief of Staff

Brig. Gen. David G. Bassett

PEO Ground Combat Systems

Alan ParksU.S. Army

Garrison-Detroit Arsenal Manager

John HedderichArmaments Research,

Development & Engineering Center

Dean TomCivilian Personnel Advisory Center

Dr. Joseph L. Corriveau

Edgewood Chemical Biological Center

Col. Mark BrinkmanProgram Manager

Light Armored Vehicles

Paul GayanNetwork Enterprise

Center(Acting)

Suzanne MilchlingNatick Soldier Research,

Development & Engineering Center

(Acting)

TACOM LCMC BOArd Of direCTOrs suppOrT AdvisOrs

Carmen SpencerJPEO for Chemical

and Biological Defense

Kevin FaheySystem of Systems

Engineering and Integration Directorate

“2014 Star Award;” the “Southwest Wom-en’s Law Center 2014 Celebrating Women’s Stories award; and the “2014 Rock of the Year Award” for her community and civic contributions.

Q: Could we start with a quick look at your budget? How do your procurement, RDT&E and O&M funding lines compare to last year? If your requested budget is approved as is, where do you see the big-gest stressors coming from in terms of projects and programs?

A: The TACOM Life Cycle Management Command (LCMC) is a unique organization that enables sustainable readiness. When we talk about TACOM, it’s important to remember that the TACOM LCMC is both a command in the Army Materiel Command (AMC) and also a life cycle management command that unites a coalition of partners from both AMC and the Army Acquisition Corps—crossing the acquisition, logistics and technology functions for an incredible amount of Army systems. Together, TACOM and the three program executive offices aligned with it are responsible for 65 percent of every major end item in a brigade combat team. Ensuring that equipment is not only ready but continually sustained and improved is a tremendous challenge. It really takes a “team of teams” which is how I prefer to describe the TACOM LCMC.

In terms of our budget, not everyone realizes it, but as a specific system moves through its lifecycle, it is funded by different “colors of money.” So, across our team of teams, different entities control different accounts for the systems our soldiers need--emphasizing the importance of collaboration. Of course, the biggest real costs for a system comes after it is fielded—its operation and sustainment costs—which is a major part of the TACOM LCMC’s responsibilities.

As you know, sequestration hit the Army’s operations funding accounts hard. Overall, TACOM LCMC’s budget has decreased by 10 percent from FY14 to FY15. The majority of that change is in our Operating & Maintenance, Army (OMA) account. While there has been some variation in our procurement and RDT&E accounts, the impact is minor and in some cases offset in a shift of funding from one to the other. The primary stressor is a decrease in OMA funding which impacts our most critical requirements. To soften this, we work throughout TACOM, AMC and the Army enterprise to ensure we optimize the readiness of our weapon systems and capabilities. As always, our first priority is to the soldiers in harm’s way.

Q: Tell me about the AMPV program. With the fact that it is to replace the brigade-level M113s (and performance capabilities of that vehicle) how important is it that this program stay on track?

A: In 2007, the Army terminated the M113 armored personnel car-rier program as it had reached the end of its useful life in our cur-rent brigade combat team structure. The M113 was a workhorse for the Army for over 50 years and it no longer was able to expand and modernize. It needed upgrades to offset ineffective force protection;

the inability to incorporate future technologies; and the inbound Army network due to size, weight, power and cooling. The M113 could no longer provide commanders with viable capabilities to maneuver across the full breadth of the battlefield.

In December 2014, the Army awarded a contract for engineer-ing and manufacturing development work to BAE Systems, which set in motion a long-awaited and important modernization effort for the Army.

The AMPV (armored multi-purpose vehicle) is a family of vehi-cles that will fill critical force protection, survivability and mobility capability gaps essential in today’s armored brigade combat teams. At Team TACOM, we’ve worked diligently to take the right steps early on to minimize risks and maximize commonality to ensure AMPV remains an affordable solution for the Army.

The effort will produce 29 vehicles that will be used for rigorous and thorough developmental and operational testing to ensure they are effective and suitable for today’s mechanized warrior. The award also has an optional low-rate initial production phase, where an additional 289 vehicles would be produced.

The AMPV is part of the Army’s Fleet Modernization Plan to upgrade our current fleet. When completed, the AMPV, as a family of vehicles, will fill roles such as medical treatment and medical evacu-ation, command and control and mortar carrier, among others.

Q: With much talk about introducing sustainment into programs at the earliest stages possible, do you see the AMPV program doing that? What are some examples from the program so far that are not just looking at the acquisition costs but at the total cost of ownership?

A: Great question. As I mentioned earlier, we have sat down with our acquisition partners and our higher headquarters to discuss every system, where we see shortfalls and what steps we need to take to minimize the impact of these shortfalls. We use the same process with emerging systems, like the AMPV and the JLTV. It is in our collective interests to discuss sustainment costs of a system early in the acquisi-tion process. So, program management is talking to the contracting,

TACOM LCMC’s budget has decreased by 10 percent from FY14 to FY15. The majority of that change is in the Operating and Maintenance, Army account. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Army]



budget and logistics requirements needed to develop a life cycle cost estimate that tracks everything that goes into a program from cradle to grave. This includes a work break-down structure and all costs associated with a system through all milestone events and transition to sustainment.

Given the current fiscal environment, AMPV must be affordable. It must be based on sound programmatic decision-making and cost analysis to include sustainment costs. It must meet the requirements set forth by Army, including force protection, survivability, mobility and power, which continue to be critical performance drivers for the program. The commonality that the selected solutions has with the Bradley family of vehicles as well as the M109A7 Paladin howitzer decrease our logistical footprint and increase sustainability across the armored brigade combat teams (ABCT) formation.

The increased capability and versatility of the AMPV allows the ABCT to take full advantage of its force protection, survivability, mobility, situational awareness and sustainability by providing a highly survivable and mobile platform to accomplish operational support missions. Units equipped with the AMPV will be able to move as rapidly as the supported primary combat vehicles during unified land operations over multiple terrain sets. The combined protection and automotive performance capabilities of the AMPV will enable units to operate more securely and efficiently in the same operational environment as the combat elements.

Q: At what capacity are the depots performing? Do you have the right number of facilities and what are you doing to maximize their output and workload?

A: TACOM is experiencing the same draw down challenges as the other services, which heightens the importance of maximizing capacity. Some of the causes of these challenges include the reduc-tion in requirements; lower funding levels and reduced overseas con-tingency operations funding and weapon system reset at the depots.

As you may know, TACOM’s organic base consists of five instal-lations with their own unique capabilities as arsenals and depots. There are three depots: Anniston Army Depot for combat vehicles, assault bridging, artillery and small caliber weapons; Red River Army Depot for Bradley fighting vehicles, tactical wheeled vehicles, multiple launch rocket systems, small emplacement excavators and rubber products; and Sierra Army Depot for water purification and fuel storage/distribution systems. There are two arsenals: Rock Island Arsenal Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center for forward repair system and shop equipment contact maintenance, add-on armor and foundry operations; and Watervliet Arsenal Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center for cannons and mortars. TACOM has a government-owned, contract operated facility in Lima, Ohio—the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center.

The Logistic Modernization Program (LMP) one tool we use to maximize our efficiencies, plays a crucial role in supporting the

supply chain and just-in-time deliveries. Material requirements planning within LMP, backwards plans part support based on the end item delivery schedule. The system is able to backwards plan using the routes and bill of materials that are associated with the project. Material requirements planning will tell the installations when they need to order parts to insure they are at the line when they are needed to meet the production schedule.

Another example of how we maximize the use of technology is an enhancement of the Logistic Modernization Program referred to as the expanded industrial base (EIB). When fully implemented, EIB will help maximize the output and workload at all five of TACOM’s depots and arsenals—as well as at the Army Materiel Command’s other 12 organic industrial base sites. EIB will provide for automa-tion of industrial base shop floors, thereby diminishing reliance on paper documentation, manual data collection and complicated processes. By leveraging automated information technology and best business practices, EIB will allow for better collaboration, enterprisewide visibility, and real-time information access.

Q: How much FMS work are you involved with? Do you see more opportunities in this area?

A: During the first two quarters of this fiscal year, we have more than doubled our business from last year. Sales look promising and we will easily quadruple business this year. We are managing 40 more cases than at the end of last fiscal year.

Obvious opportunities exist in overseas contingency opera-tions with new equipping strategies for both Afghanistan and Iraq through FMS. Our excess defense article transfers have sped up to our highest volumes ever and we see that continuing over the next few years. Opportunities for resetting this equipment and providing sustainment support are there. Overall, the FMS case load at the TACOM LCMC is promising.

Q: What are the challenges, especially in a tight budget world, to become more green, less fossil fuel dependent and reduce the amount spent of fuel and energy?

TACOM and the three program executive offices aligned with it are responsible for 65 percent of every item in a brigade combat team. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Army]



A: One of the challenges is that our systems have older technol-ogy. Old engines are not as efficient and therefore typically use more fuel. Yes, newer commercial engines are more efficient, but emission control technologies do not allow the use of some mili-tary fuels. Some U.S. manufacturers are unwilling to change the assembly line to remove emissions equipment for the low-volume military applications we require. In this case, the Army would have to resort to the use of export-certified engines that do not have emissions controls. If we went this route within the Army, they would not be consistently available worldwide.

So, we are looking at several solutions to include pursuing advanced propulsion systems that are lighter in weight with effi-cient transmissions, novel engine designs and improved thermal management. We are looking at vehicle electrification technology that will facilitate reduced energy consumption and the develop-ment of lightweight, compact, high-power auxiliary power units (APU). These APUs will make it possible to generate electrical power while the vehicle is stationary, eliminating the need for the engine to idle for long periods—saving fuel and helping to make us greener.

We are also looking at the development of lower mass vehicles to replace the vehicle fleet. Since vehicle mass is the overriding factor in determining fuel consumption, we are looking at new materials and new vehicle systems that can result in lighter-weight and space efficient designs. Through partnerships with the automotive industry, the Army is investigating the use of fuel cell technologies that utilize hydrogen gas for power and completely eliminate the need for fossil fuels. Such technologies could greatly reduce fuel use in our tactical wheeled vehicles as well as remote forward operating bases and facilities.

A non-scientific approach toward altering the Army’s use of fuels is through improved training and advance planning. It is as simple as changing poor driving habits, reducing unnecessary miles driven, eliminating engine idling, reducing driving speeds and monitoring fuel consumption. These are just some solutions that we are currently looking at.

Q: Over time, the Army has acquired a number of inventory, accounting, communications and other IT-related systems. How would you characterize the TACOM LCMC’s plan to reduce the system duplication, eliminate systems that have trouble com-municating with other systems inside and outside of the TACOM LCMC, and in general streamline the command’s IT networks? Do you have funding for any of this?

A: The Army has implemented a number of accounting and IT-related systems specialized applications that support TACOM’s mission and are in line with the Department of Defense’s and Department of Army’s Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) con-solidation and integration efforts. Over the past several years, we have proactively pursued the reduction or consolidation of a number of systems, which will help to eliminate duplication and make it easier for our systems to work together inside, outside and across the enterprise.

At the TACOM enterprise level, the command provides an application platform that centrally manages core information technology assets and services. This service reduces the total cost of ownership across existing and new systems through economies

of scale. The platform also allows TACOM to consolidate a legacy portfolio of technologies into a common and consistent hardware and software platform.

We are also participating in several commercial-off-the-shelf, best-in-class ERP solutions aimed at reforming the Army’s national-level logistics and financial systems and business pro-cesses. The Logistics Modernization Program (LMP) and the General Fund Enterprise Business System have replaced several TACOM information systems. As the Army moves forward with the deployment of LMP 2, additional systems unique to TACOM will be absorbed and further cost savings will be recognized.

With budget uncertainties and complications from sequestra-tion and competing Army funding priorities, we will continue to look at ways to upgrade our accounting, communications, IT and logistics systems to ensure that we are effectively managing our resources and ultimately saving taxpayer dollars.

Q: Any closing thoughts?

A: In closing, I wish to share a few thoughts that may offer some insight into the likely challenges facing TACOM in the near and long-term future as the command works to meet the needs of the 21st century warfighter.

There is no evidence that the current era of persistent conflict is ebbing. In fact, history shows us that there continues to be more conflicts in the last 20 years than the previous twenty years. That means that the Army will need a full range of capabilities and resources in order to meet a wide spectrum of potential challenges and conflicts—and win. No single system or approach can provide the flexibility and effectiveness the Army will need in future years. We know that some of our capabilities bring more to the fight in a conventional warfare scenario, while other capabilities have unquestioned value in counterinsurgency operations.

Perhaps the biggest challenge in the near term may be our abil-ity to address the Army’s need to prepare for multiple contingency operations while at the same time rebalancing the force in a reason-able and responsible manner during a time of fiscal restraint. This means we’ll have to look to the past, the present, and the future without binding our people, processes, and products too closely to the way we’ve done things before, the way we’re handling things today, or the way we think things will operate in the future. The past is over the present is constantly changing and we must prepare for an uncertain future.

So how do we prepare for an uncertain future? In the past, we looked inward, but now we have to look at the institution of the Army holistically and as an enterprise. This is why it’s so important that we make enterprise thinking the Army’s—and the TACOM LCMC’s—new norm. As an enterprise, we’re all stakeholders. We’re all accountable. As an Army and as a life cycle management com-mand, we have to provide the best possible products, services and support to our warfighters. And we have to do this while we work to rebalance the Army. This is a tough job, but one that we at Team TACOM LCMC embraces. This command has been at the forefront of Army modernization since its inception. Our workforce is passion-ate, highly dedicated and motivated to accept this challenge. We look forward to our continued journey of service, dedication and commitment to excellence as we endeavor to support our soldiers who serve our great nation—HOOAH! O



SupplyCore announced that with the addi-tion of a recent contract award by the U.S. Department of Defense to support the U.S. military’s South Central region, the company has secured more than $1 billion in business during the next five years.

“We are grateful to the Department of Defense for the confidence they have placed in us,” said Peter Provenzano, SupplyCore president and CEO. “We are proud of our associates who continue to help improve supply chain business processes in the spirit of reducing cost without compromising customer service. SupplyCore’s business growth also will allow us to continue its work to enhance our local community by providing more jobs and through reinvesting in our community and in downtown Rockford.”

The company currently has 125 employees and seeks to fill at least 40 additional positions based on its growth.

Contract Grows Jobs and Support Levels

Compiled by KMI Media Group staffSUPPLY CHAIN

General Dynamics NASSCO has been awarded a $24.1 million contract by the U.S. Navy for littoral combat ships (LCS) sustainment execution in support of LCS homeported in or visiting San Diego. General Dynamics NASSCO is a business unit of General Dynamics.

Under the contract, General Dynamics NASSCO will plan, furnish material and provide support and facilities to maintain and modernize twelve LCS-class ships. This contract covers both variants, Freedom and Independence. These ships are fast, agile, focused-mission platforms designed for

operation in near-shore environments and capable of open-ocean operation.

“General Dynamics NASSCO has proven repair experience with a track record of delivering high-quality main-tenance and modernization services to the U.S. Navy,” said David Carver, vice president and general manager of repair at General Dynamics NASSCO. “We look forward to working with the Navy to support the sustainment of the Littoral Combat Ship program.”

The contract has a total potential value of $96 million if all options are exercised.

The United States Marine Corps (USMC) requires a Logistics Chain Management (LCM) system that will modernize the entire USMC Logistics Architecture and Management capa-bilities, providing near real-time visibility of retail supply, wholesale supply, equipment maintenance and repair transactions.

The product support required for this system encompasses sustainment and life cycle support, configuration management, data management, information assurance management, service help desk/GCSS-MC Operations Center support, post-deploy-ment system support, logistics support, asset management, reliability/availability, main-tainability reporting and enter-prise training support.

The Global Combat Support System-Marine Corps/Logistics Chain Management (GCSS-MC/LCM) is the primary technology enabler for the Marine Corps Logistics Modernization strategy

and provides the backbone for all logistics infor-mation required by the Marine air-ground task force. The current core functionality comes from the modern, web-enabled commercial off-the-shelf enterprise resource planning software developed by Oracle.

GCSS-MC/LCM Increment 1 is regis-tered in the Do) Information Technology Portfolio Repository (DITPR) and DITPR for the Department of the Navy (DITPR-DON)

with DITPR-DON number 20396 and DITPR number 303.

GCSS-MC/LCM was designated an Acquisition Category (ACAT) IAM program with Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) acquisition over-sight in July 2004. The rollout of GCSS-MC was planned as several acquisition increments. GCSS-MC/LCM Increment 1 provides the initial retail-level supply and maintenance capabilities.

Increment 1 is to be delivered in two releases. The first, Release 1.1 (Enterprise capability), completed cutover/delivery in March 2013 and is currently operational in more than 72 locations worldwide and avail-able to more than 35,000 users. Currently under way, Release 1.1.1 (Interim Deployable capa-bility), consisting of mobile field services and Enterprise Automatic Task Organization, represents the final addition to Increment 1 prior to reaching its full deployment milestone.

Littoral Combat Ship Support

Logistics Chain Management System


Because failure is not an option

The real world can be challenging, but you face the challenges head on and so should your computer. With the most secure, most manageable rugged notebooks, you can focus on what matters most.

Learn More at Dell.com/rugged

Major General Kevin O’ConnellCommander

U.S. Army Sustainment Command

Sustainment OptimizerMaintaining globally Responsive and Regionally engaged Support

Major General Kevin O’Connell became the commanding general, Army Sustainment Command and Rock Island Arsenal, Ill., on Aug. 21, 2014. O’Connell is a native of Clinton, Md., and a graduate of High Point College, N.C. He was commissioned through Army ROTC in 1982.

His command assignments include the 289th General Supply Company, Fort Hood, Texas; 11th Armored Cavalry Regimental Support Squadron, National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif.; 1st Infantry Division Support Command, Kitzingen, Germany; 1st Sus-tainment Brigade, Fort Riley, Kan., and Operation Iraqi Freedom, Taji, Iraq; and Joint Munitions Command, Rock Island Arsenal.

O’Connell’s previous key staff assignments include inspec-tor general and later aide-de-camp to the commanding general, Fifth U.S. Army, Fort Sam Houston, Texas; support operations officer, 123d Main Support Battalion, Operation Joint Endeavor, Lukavac, Bosnia and Slavonski Brod, Croatia; chief, Division Materiel Management Center, 1st Armored Division, Bad Kreuzn-ach, Germany; senior logistics trainer, National Training Center, Fort Irwin; executive officer to the commanding general, Army Materiel Command, Fort Belvoir, Va.; and Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, U.S. Army Forces Command, Fort Bragg, N.C. He has served in two Joint assignments in the U.S. Pacific Command, first as chief of supply and services in the J-4 and later as the director, Logistics, Engineering and Security Assistance, J-4, both at Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii.

He is a graduate of the Quartermaster Basic and Advanced Courses at Fort Lee, Va.; the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.; the Armed Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Va.; and the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, Pa., where he earned a master’s degree in strategic studies.

Q: Major General O’Connell, tell us about how the missions of the U.S. Army Sustainment Command have evolved over time.

A: We are proud of the Army Sustainment Command’s history and excited about opportunities in the future. The Army Sustainment Command of today can trace its roots back to the 1990s, when the Army announced the “Revolution in Military Affairs.” The goal was to create forces that could deploy quickly from CONUS-based platforms. In response, the Army’s logisticians had to revolution-ize the way they did business, and so went to a more distribution-based logistics system that used automation to better anticipate requirements and move supplies to needed locations.

Following Operation Desert Storm, the Army decided to cen-tralize the management of its War Reserves—now called Army Prepositioned Stocks, or APS—and to expand APS locations from

Europe and Korea to Southwest Asia and afloat aboard ships at sea. The U.S. Army Industrial Operations Command (IOC), a predeces-sor to ASC headquartered at Rock Island Arsenal, was assigned the APS mission. The IOC had a global footprint and was larger than any other two-star logistics command in the Army.

In 2000, IOC was renamed the Operations Support Command (OSC) and designated as Army Materiel Command’s (AMC’s) Single Face to the Field, integrating AMC’s strategic depth down to the Army’s tactical levels. Along with APS, OSC gained three new missions: Command of the AMC Forward elements, the Logistics Assistance Program (LAP) and the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP). Under this configuration, OSC went to war in Afghanistan in 2001. By the end of that year, OSC oversaw the establishment of LOGCAP sites and the deployment of LAP assets in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

In March 2003, Operation Iraqi Freedom began and the ground forces deployed for the operation were almost completely equipped with APS equipment. Soon after, LOGCAP base camps were set up throughout Iraq.

In July 2003, OSC was disestablished and replaced by the Army Field Support Command (AFSC). While the name change did not result in any immediate change in mission, it did mark the start of a series of changes that would culminate in the creation of ASC in 2006.

Q&AQ&ABecause failure is not an option

The real world can be challenging, but you face the challenges head on and so should your computer. With the most secure, most manageable rugged notebooks, you can focus on what matters most.

Learn More at Dell.com/rugged


AFSC oversaw both the Logistics Support Element-Iraq and LSE-Southwest Asia. The two LSEs coordinated all AMC elements in the theater and managed a number of missions primarily per-formed by contractors, including LOGCAP, maintenance facilities and upgrades, new equipment fielding, theater-provided equipment and, by early 2006, redeployment property accountability teams.

The command and control structure for LAP also expanded, and our stateside logistics assistance offices (LAOs) were pre-pared for overseas deployments. The AMC element that supported Stryker units was assigned to AFSC, and AMC CONUS-East and CONUS-West were formed to improve command and control of LAOs in the United States. Meanwhile, the names of AFSC’s colonel-commanded units were changed to Army field support brigades (AFSB), and these eventually became numbered modi-fied table of organization and equipment (MTOE) units, the 401st through 407th AFSBs.

ASC was created as a new command—which retained all of its old missions—and set up its Distribution Management Center to manage the distribution-based logistics system required by modu-larity. ASC also created brigade logistics support teams, which were embedded with the BCTs to provide access to AMC services down to the tactical level. ASC also managed the reset functions of Army force generation, left-behind equipment and pre-deployment training equipment.

In 2011, the DMC became the executing agent for the Army’s Logistics Materiel Integrator. This mission relies on advanced automation to direct the movement and redistribution of assets across the Army.

In 2013, the Directorates of Logistics transferred from the Installation Management Command to AMC and were renamed the logistics readiness centers. With the addition of the LRCs, ASC became present on every post, camp, and station in the Army, making us the most globally dispersed two-star command in the Army. We are now the key player in end-to-end logistics support. ASC has been at the forefront of revolutionary changes to a logis-tics system that is vastly different from the one in place when I first joined the Army in 1982, and we’ll lead the way as military logistics continues to evolve.

Q: Summarize how ASC is structured around the globe today and what you see in the future for structure and missions.

A: Like the Army and AMC, ASC is globally responsive and region-ally engaged. To support today’s home-based deployable Army that employs principles described in the recently published Army Operating Concept, “Win in a Complex World,” ASC has mission command consisting of:

• Seven Army field support brigades located in the United States, Korea, Germany and Kuwait.

• Eighteen Army field support battalions located in the United States, Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Kuwait and Afghanistan.

• A distribution management center that performs Army Lead Materiel Integrator Class VII distribution and redistribution, maintenance management, strategic mobility and management of demand supported supplies.

• Seventy-one logistics readiness centers and Army support agencies in support of joint basing.

• Four Army pre-positioned stocks sets at 11 ground locations and one afloat aboard six different ships, supporting two infantry brigade combat teams, two army brigade combat teams, four sustainment brigades, one fires brigade and 37 operational project stocks.

• Fifteen logistics support teams (predominantly aligned with Training and Doctrine Command installations).

• LOGCAP operations in support of U.S. Africa Command and U.S. Central Command.

As AMC’s operational arm for a “Ready Army,” we are resourced to staff these organizations to accomplish ASC’s global logistics responsibilities of maintenance, supply, transportation and ser-vices, with approximately 700 military personnel, 6,700 Depart-ment of the Army civilians and 35,000 contractors in 32 states and 19 countries. This level of effort is charged to deliver logistics sup-port for home station support, CONUS training, OCONUS region-ally aligned force training and contingency operations.

We are in a period of change and, over the next 36 months, we envision organizational change for this command in at least four areas:

• As conflict in Southwest Asia evolves and we continue to rebalance to the Pacific, we will case the colors of the 402d Army Field Support Brigade in Kuwait in July and reestablish the 402d as an AFSB in Hawaii in August in direct support of U.S. Army Pacific. The 401st AFSB will continue to support the U.S. Army Central Command and U.S. Central Command with three battalions. Relocation of the 402d will also entail redrawing support lines for the three CONUS-based AFSBs.

• Based on Army decisions, we expect to add equipment activity sets and additional sites to the APS footprint. The first additions are ongoing over the next year in the European Activity Set (EAS) and Korea Enduring Equipment Set (KEES). Both builds have started with the establishment of an armored brigade combat team in both locations.

• In October 2016, ASC’s LRC footprint will grow by two when Joint Base Lewis–McChord, Wash., and Soto Cano Air Base, Honduras, are welcomed into the ASC family. Kwajalein Atoll is scheduled to join in Fiscal Year 2017 or 2018.

• Continued expansion of the APS program will require us to adapt to new locations with additional growth.

Finally, we are involved in early planning with Army Materiel Command on consolidating AMC’s field-level sustainment activities.

Q: You have outlined your enduring priorities as the ASC com-mander; please expand on them.

A: I outlined my priorities the day I took command of ASC on Aug. 21, 2014, and they will remain while I am in command. My endur-ing priorities—and the enduring priorities of the Army Sustain-ment Command—are as follows:

• SHARP (the Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention program).

• Supporting deployed forces.• Providing globally responsive readiness. • Building and empowering leaders.


Freedom to Think ForwardPROVEN INTEGRATED LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS FOR SUCCESS IN A COMPLEX WORLD

Leidos is building on decades of integrated logistics solutions with transformation,

innovation and global expertise for the Special Operations Forces community.

Leidos is leading a team to deliver responsive, flexible and tailorable integrated logistics

solutions for USSOCOM Operational Support for Global Special Operations Forces contract.

Learn more at SOFIC Booth #922

leidos.com/SOFIC2015

© Leidos. All rights reserved.

• Taking care of people and families.• Strengthening the command climate.

If you look at the priorities of the Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen-eral Raymond Odierno, and my boss, General Dennis Via from the Army Materiel Command, you will see that my priorities are nested within theirs.

SHARP remains the Army’s number one priority. I recently attended a SHARP summit in Washington, D.C. This area is getting the attention it needs from the highest levels of leadership; however, it remains a complex problem. Within the Army Sustainment Com-mand, we have very positive indicators and very low numbers of incidents when it comes to SHARP, but that doesn’t mean we can rest on our laurels. Sometimes, you don’t know what you don’t know, especially in an area as sensitive as this. We will stay focused on pre-venting sexual harassment and sexual assault and, in the event these crimes are committed, maintain a climate where victims are com-fortable with and confident in their leadership to report incidents.

ASC places a high priority on supporting deployed forces, and has gained a lot of experience in this mission area since our formation. Our brigades and battalions are forward-deployed with our warfight-ing units, providing them with field-level logistics support. We are in constant contact with these units from our global headquarters at Rock Island Arsenal, Ill., and respond to their needs very rapidly.

Providing globally responsive readiness means being able to react quickly to any contingency. We operate in a fast-changing, complex global security environment, so we need to do our part in maintain-ing the readiness of units that are already deployed and units that may be deployed when and if the need arises. The lead time may be very short, so we must always be prepared to respond. This has become more challenging at a time when we face budget cuts, but we must do the very best we can with the resources we are provided.

The final three priorities—building and empowering leaders, taking care of people and families and strengthening the command climate—are somewhat tied together. They are also a critical com-ponent of our ability to perform our global mission, because people are our most valuable and valued asset, and they must be given every opportunity to perform to the best of their abilities and make positive contributions.

ASC’s leaders at all levels must be provided with the latitude to conduct operations within their areas of responsibility and to get the help and support they need from higher levels when needed. We also need to grow leaders from within and provide mentorship and train-ing to all who are interested in attaining positions of leadership.

This is only possible if we take the time to care for our people and their families and if we foster a strong command climate. Those of us who hold positions of authority need to regard every-one on an individual level and constantly ask ourselves some difficult questions. Is everyone being treated with dignity and respect? Are all people free of discrimination on and off the job? Is everyone being given purposeful work? Do they have opportunities to advance? Are promotions and awards being given fairly, solely based on merit? Are conflicts being resolved equitably?

A positive command climate doesn’t just happen; it requires constant questioning and constant monitoring. I believe that establishing and sustaining a positive command climate is probably the most important thing I do as the ASC commanding general, because when the climate is right, everything else tends to fall in place. People will want to come to work, be a valuable member of the

team and do all they can to make the team succeed. All of our oars need to be in the water rowing hard in the same direction, and that’s how we can achieve excellence in performing ASC’s complex and very challenging mission.

Q: You mentioned Army pre-positioned stocks as being a founda-tion mission of ASC’s beginning; please expand on APS and how the creation of regionally aligned activity sets play a role in that program.

A: When I briefed General Via on my 90-day assessment of the com-mand, he said ASC was juggling a lot of glass balls, but APS was the Waterford crystal. Being a proud Irish-American, I can relate to that. APS gives combatant commanders a strategic advantage by having equipment forward positioned so that they don’t have to combat the “tyranny of distance” to move equipment to some of the places in the world that the Army is likely to operate.

APS effectively reduces the initial amount of strategic lift required to support CONUS-based power projection and would sustain the warfighter until sea lines of communications are estab-lished. APS consists of strategically positioned worldwide warfight-ing stocks afloat and ashore that contribute to an agile, strategic stance by optimizing expeditionary power projection. Previously, there were four categories of APS:

• Prepositioned sets (brigade combat teams, separate units and sustainment brigades).

• Operational projects equipment above MTOE for specific operations plans.

• Army war reserve sustainment stocks to support operations until wartime rates of supply are established.

• War reserve stocks for allies, i.e., U.S. assets intended to support allied forces; our APS stocks currently support two infantry brigade combat teams, two army brigade combat teams, four sustainment brigades, one fires brigade and 37 operational project stocks.

Normally, APS sets are stored in climate-controlled warehouses owned by Department of the Army (not the combatant command). The intent was for the Department of the Army to issue the release of APS to support a combatant commander’s operations plan or a contingency. This would provide a theater reserve in a high state of readiness.

Activity sets are a new category of APS that allow for equipment sets to be primarily dedicated to support unit rotations for exercises and theater security cooperation. This expanded role of activity sets more closely resembles theater provided equipment use in recent contingencies, allowing for greater operational flexibility in a power projection environment. Activity sets provide a new Army capability, mixing 21st-century agility with the economy of a reduced logistics footprint while conserving strategic lift. This major step forward com-bines Army lessons learned methodology with supply chain manage-ment philosophy, providing timely capability at minimum expense.

Q: Given that Army Sustainment Command executes its missions with perhaps the largest portfolio of logistics management service contracts in the Army, can you provide some details on the pro-grams and initiatives your command has put in place to manage these efforts?


A: ASC has a relatively small soldier and Department of the Army civilian workforce. The primary way we execute our mission is through service contracts. Roughly 70 percent of our annual budget goes towards service contracts. It is very important that we get this right to achieve mission accomplishment while being good stewards of resources.

Our primary objective in developing acquisition approaches is to incorporate Army strategic planning guidance, Army command priorities and better buying power initiatives into all our acquisi-tion strategies. As a result, we have enhanced the quality of support we provide to the force while significantly improving the efficiency and effectiveness in our acquisition of logistics management ser-vices. We have two major acquisition programs, the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) and the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) program, where we have partnered with our supporting contracting agencies to put in place contracts that allow us to achieve our mission.

The distinction between the “program” and the “contracts” we use to implement our programs is critical. The objectives of the programs are relatively constant. However, the contracts we use to meet these program objectives must constantly be evaluated and, if necessary, evolve to ensure they meet mission objectives.

LOGCAP has been a program since 1985. It’s a Department of the Army (DA) regulatory program that augments the force by providing a service capability to meet externally driven opera-tional requirements for rapid contingency augmentation support. This mission has remained relatively consistent since the incep-tion of the program. To achieve this mission, numerous contracts, including LOGCAP I, II, III and IV, were awarded with strategies that best fit the operational requirements during those time peri-ods. Now, as we see shifts in mission requirements, we are in the process of evolving our contracts to meet combatant command-ers’ needs. We are currently in the process of moving towards the next generation of LOGCAP, using lessons learned to improve the efficiency of that program, and I anticipate we will see resulting cost avoidances.

The EAGLE program was established about three years ago when AMC and ASC took over the logistics readiness centers, formerly known as directorates of logistics, or DOLs, from the Installation Management Command. As we analyzed how those supply, maintenance and transportation services were being pro-vided, it was immediately evident we had significant duplication of effort, and 73 different sets of standards and business processes. To fix this problem, we developed an acquisition strategy to lever-age strategic sourcing initiatives and put in place a contract that eliminated redundancy and inefficiency across the enterprise.

That effort has paid big dividends, as we have achieved a 20- to 25-percent cost avoidance and a 51-percent reduction in the number of contracts since the EAGLE program was put in place. We continue to add task orders in line with our program objectives and schedules and expect similar results.

Internally, we have taken on a life cycle approach to our services contracts. In the pre-award phase, we have new rigor in our requirements approval process. We use a contract acquisition review board to validate large requirements prior to exercising an option year. For new requirements, or when a contract comes up to be re-competed, we use multifunctional integrated process teams to develop acquisition strategies which are reviewed and approved by the command’s acquisition strategy review panel.

The panel is made up of Senior Executive Service members from within our command and supporting contracting agencies.

The other pre-award emphasis has been moving towards stan-dardized performance work statements (PWS) and quality assurance surveillance plans (QASP) facilitated by the Acquisition Require-ments Roadmap Tool (ARRT) available from the Defense Acquisition University. Though this may sound somewhat insignificant, building a quality PWS and QASP is like building a solid foundation for your house. The PWS and QASP are the key components of a quality performance-based service contract, and also have the effects of pro-moting competition, streamlining documentation requirements and expediting staff reviews.

The other life cycle phase we have placed renewed focus on is the post-award activities phase. Like the rest of the Department of Defense, we recognize that a well-defined requirements document supported by a well-written contract does not guarantee the Army will derive best value for the dollars spent. Following up on contractor performance is equally important. We are in the process of reviewing who we have serving as our contracting officer representatives and contracting officer technical representatives. I want to ensure they have the right technical and acquisition competencies, and most importantly, the time and automation tools to properly monitor, assess and document contractor performance in order to reap the benefits of our performance-based services contracts.

Lastly, as we began to review our services contracts processes, we realized we needed to strengthen our services contract manage-ment. ASC established a new organization that will develop core business acumen specific to services contracts, and which can serve as a command liaison between our requiring activities and our sup-porting contracting agencies. Last year, we established the Contract Management Office. We subsequently aligned the EAGLE Business Office and the Logistics Management Services portfolio manager to this office, and placed the office under the LOGCAP Directorate as a natural partner to LOGCAP. The Contract Management Office has already begun to establish a programmatic approach towards manag-ing ASC’s services contracts and has recently begun to look outwards to other commands’ logistics services contracts to seek opportunities to partner and leverage strategic sourcing vehicles. The Contract Management Office is also the ASC hub to perform the horizontal governance tasks in support of AMC’s Command Service Executive and ultimately the Army’s Senior Service Manager.

To summarize, we have adopted a life cycle approach to our ser-vice acquisitions, ensuring pre-award, award and post-award efforts receive equal emphasis, and we are implementing the tenets of Better Buying Power using a multi-functional team approach. This two-pronged effort ensures ASC obtains the best value for the funds we commit to services contracts while still supporting small business and other socio-economic goals that our leaders and citizens have deemed important.

Q: The way the Army conducts Materiel Management has changed. What role does ASC play in Materiel Management, and how does AMC’s role of being designated as the Lead Materiel Integrator for the Army play into that?

A: I am one of the very few people still left on active duty who commanded both a Division Support Command and a sustainment brigade. When the Army moved from being division-centric to BCT-centric, modularity caused materiel management to change


significantly. We no longer have corps materiel management cen-ters (CMMC) or division materiel management centers (DMMC) that provided all those direct support management functions. I think we are still set about right for combat or contingency opera-tions, but we are seeing challenges at home station in garrison.

I don’t see CMMCs or DMMCs coming back in a downsizing Army, so commanders at various levels are having to organize to meet the materiel management needs in an Army where a lot of equipment is moving from unit to unit due to reorganizations, in-activations, modernization, etc. Leveraging the expeditionary sus-tainment commands and sustainment brigades to manage materiel will be very important as we move forward.

ASC’s role has continuously evolved over the past four years to meet requirements resulting from emerging Army equipping priorities. When ASC assumed the Lead Materiel Integrator (LMI) role in March 2011, the Army was engaged in full-spectrum opera-tions such as simultaneous offensive, defensive, and stability or civil support operations, in support of the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operation. Since then, the Army has undergone a brigade combat team reorganization and supports specific regions around the world with regionally aligned forces. In addition, the Army continues to modernize its formations and pursue a high state of equipping readiness across its formations.

As the executing agent for LMI, ASC has led the way and is fully engaged in the distribution, redistribution, and divestiture of equip-ment in support of the initiatives I mentioned.

I foresee that ASC will remain responsible for executing the LMI concept. Our processes and business rules will have to adjust to emerging demands as we continue to support the Army’s reshaping and modernization efforts and to meet Department of Defense and Army equipping requirements.

We recently conducted a materiel management summit in order to discuss roles, responsibilities, processes and authorities for materiel management. The summit allowed us to synchronize stakeholders in a unified forum in order to develop the way ahead for improving readiness, eliminating potential redundancies, miti-gating gaps and achieving efficiencies.

Q: You gained management of the logistics readiness centers two years ago. Tell us about the progress that’s been made under the mission command of ASC and what challenges you see ahead.

A: These logistics readiness centers provide all the supply, mainte-nance and transportation services required to run an installation, and enable commanders to conduct home station training, deploy to combat training centers, and deploy to conduct training and operations worldwide. We have made tremendous progress in the standardization of tables of distribution and allowances and bring-ing staffing of the logistics readiness centers in line with emerging and future mission requirements.

We have also standardized many contract performance work statements across our mission support areas such as dining facility operations, laundry and dry cleaning requirements, local short-distance moves, and direct-procured moves. We have also made tremendous progress in codifying support relationships and service expectations with our strategic partners through the extensive use of basic levels of service definitions and memorandums of agreement for LRC support between Army Materiel Command and the Army service component commands, Army commands and direct reporting units.

We have been successful in informing the Army on our endur-ing and emerging requirements and matching our annual budget to support those requirements. We have seen significant progress as we transform the installation support mission from an Army Force Generation model to a CONUS-based force with a focus on Army power projection platforms and enduring support to the generating force’s training mission.

The challenges are opportunities to continue to shape the LRCs into the single point on each installation where customers can get access to the entire power of the Army Materiel Command. We have exceptional civilian, military and contractor personnel who can rapidly adapt to challenges. While there will be future budget and workforce constraints as the Army postures itself for 2020 and beyond, I am confident we will be able to continually adapt our LRCs to meet any mission requirements.

Q: ASC’s missions directly affect unit readiness. Please expand on your command’s efforts to assure the highest readiness rates.

A: We support unit readiness through two mission sets:First, the command’s seven Army field support brigades are our

mission command elements and are in direct support to the field by integrating acquisition, and technology and delivering logistics sup-port. At OCONUS locations, the AFSBs are aligned with the ASCCs, and in CONUS, the alignment is with I Corps, III Corps and XVIII Airborne Corps. The AFSBs are commanded by centrally selected colonels, and within the seven brigades we have a mix of capabilities in the areas of maintenance, supply, services, and transportation. To execute this logistics support, the subordinate units of an AFSB are brigade logistic support teams (assigned to all BCTs and CABs), APS storage sites, Army field support battalions and logistics readiness centers sites. You’ll find the battalions are either in direct support of divisions or performing mission support at the APS sites. Our formations are located in 19 countries and 32 states and composed of approximately 700 military, 6,700 DA civilians and approximately 35,000 contractors.

It is important to note that the AFSBs are modular and we can plug and play with AMC’s LCMCs (life cycle management com-mands), the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logis-tics, and Technology, and our strategic partners to add any logistics capability required to support a commander.

Secondly, the Distribution Management Center is charged with managing Army-level equipment distribution, redistribution, divestiture of equipment and field level reset in the Army’s force generation process. This mission set has the goal of increasing equipment on hand in accordance with Army equipping priorities. This effort is referred to as the Army’s Lead Materiel Integrator, and the DMC’s efforts have resulted in the Army achieving the highest equipping readiness levels since August 2005. In FY 2014 alone, the DMC was responsible for synchronizing the redistribution of more than 240,000 pieces of equipment resulting in $2.4 billion in cost avoidance for the Army while concurrently reflecting increased equipment on hand ratings of Army formations. The DMC is in full support of brigade combat team inactivation/reorganization, the Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI), the Korea Enduring Equip-ment Set (KEES) and the European Activity Set (EAS) builds.

We’re proud of our contributions to Army unit readiness, and are constantly engaging our supported units on methods to con-tinue to enhance their capabilities. O


The

adve

rtis

ers

inde

x is

pro

vide

d as

a s

ervi

ce to

our

read

ers.

KM

I can

not b

e he

ld re

spon

sibl

e fo

r dis

crep

anci

es d

ue to

last

-min

ute

chan

ges

or a

ltera

tions

.

MLF RESOURCE CENTER

Navistar Defense C2www.navistardefense.com

Navistar Defense 2-3www.navistardefense.com

Special SUppleMeNT

CalendarJune 3, 2015Hot Topic – SustainmentArlington, Va.www.ausa.org/meetings/2015

June 23-25, 2015Mega RustNewport News, Va.www.navalengineers.org

September 1-2, 2015Fleet Maintenance & Modernization SymposiumSan Diego, Calif.https://www.navalengineers.org/events

September 10-13, 2015NGAUSNashville, Tenn.www.ngausconference.com

September 14-16, 2015Air & Space ConferenceNational Harbor, Md.www.afa.org

September 22-24, 2015Modern Day MarineQuantico, Va.www.marinecorpsexpos.com

September 28-30, 2015NDTA-USTRANSCOM Fall MeetingSt. Louis, Mo.http://ndtahq.com/events_cal_events.htm

October 12-14, 2015AUSAWashington, D.C.www.ausa.org

June 2015 Vol. 9, Issue 5NEXTISSUE

The Publication of Record for the Military Logistics Community

Lt. Gen. Andrew e. Buschdirector, defense Logistics agency

Cover and In-depth Interview with:

Defense Logistics Agencya special pull-out supplement featuring:

• an exclusive interview with Brig. Gen. mark m. mcLeod, commander of dLa energy

• a two-page pictorial spread of dLa senior leadership by name and rank• a handy reference guide with a long shelf life

Special SectionSpare parts Sustainmentmanaging the demand for quality spare parts delivered to the right place at the right time.

FeatureSCases and ContainersBetter packing equals better protection. technology is making it lighter and more durable.

Supply Chain ModernizationImproving the supply chain to fit the Pacific focus.

3-d printing and the Supply ChainHow can 3-d printing impact the military supply chain?

Clothing and Textilesrepresenting more than $1.9 billion per year, this dLa supply chain touches everyone in the military.

BonuS DiStriBution• army network modernization• all major logistics trade shows and conferences throughout 2015

Insertion Order Deadline: May 20, 2015 | Ad Materials Deadline: May 27, 2015

DLA ISSUE

advertisers indexDell Rugged Mobility 12www.dell.com/ruggedHoneywell Aerospace 1www.honeywell.com/htsiHoneywell Aerospace C4www.honeywell.com/htsiIDGA/Army Network Modernization Conference 7www.armynetworkmodernization.comLeidos 1www.leidos.com/logisticsLeidos 15www.leidos.com/sofic2015Oshkosh C2www.oshkoshdefense.com/jltvQuad Cities Chamber 5www.quadcitiesfirst.com

Contact Jane Engel at 301.670.5700 x120 or [email protected]


Dale Winstead is SAIC’s General Manager for logistics and supply chain, with overall executive responsibility for 983 employees who perform all aspects of logistics and end-to-end management of customer supply chains. Prior to joining SAIC, Winstead was a nuclear submarine officer in the U.S. Navy. Winstead holds a Bachelor of Science in astrophysics and a Bachelor of Arts in math-ematics from the University of Rochester.

Q: What does SAIC bring to the logistics table and how does that benefit the military?

A: At SAIC, we provide our customers with full life cycle logistics support. Our solutions and services span from planning for sustainment early in the design stage of a product to imple-mentation of supplying, maintaining, repair-ing, and supporting products in the field. Our solutions result in lower operating costs, reduced inventory and higher availability.

Q: How do you enhance your operations and business methodologies to keep in step with the DoD logistics enterprise?

A: We manage supply chains for the Defense Logistics Agency, delivering material totaling about $600 million annually. As DLA’s busi-ness systems have evolved, we have enhanced the systems we use to perform supply chain management to interface with DLA’s Enter-prise Business System. Our interfaces provide our customers with near real-time informa-tion of our supply chain performance.

In supporting fielded products such as command, control and communications equipment mounted on ground vehicles, we have adopted and embraced the concept of a “universal field service representative.” We train them to support a variety of equipment from multiple OEMs, thus reducing the logis-tics footprint and lowering the cost of field support to the warfighter.

Q: What are your primary strategic goals for the next 12 months?

A: We are focused on continuing the enhancement of our IT systems that support our supply chain management and product support services. Our services are seamless

and customizable across the full life cycle of sustainment. Leveraging these systems and continuing our track record of excellent per-formance allows us to continue to grow our logistics support to the military at the depot and in the field. We are particularly interested in customer engagements on performance-based terms such as performance-based logis-tics (PBL) support.

Q: What are some examples of how you work with the military?

A: Our engagements stress side-by-side col-laboration with our military customers to ensure there is no production work stop-pages. A couple of examples are: We provide embedded offsite garrison ground logistics services to the general staff and major sub-ordinate elements of Marine Special Opera-tions Command (MARSOC) across all six functional areas of logistics. We supplement MARSOC’s force structure/manpower across numerous critical combat support ser-vices—102 employees provide supply admin-istration and warehousing, transportation/embarkation, maintenance of various Marine Corps organic and special operations peculiar systems, ammunition control, and armory support.

For our prime vendor contracts with DLA, we provide bench stock at Army and Navy depots. Our material control specialists use our integrated supply chain management systems to ensure depot have the material at hand when needed to support their mainte-nance and repair production lines.

Q: How would you characterize SAIC’s per-formance in innovation and efficiency?

A: We continually focus on innovation and efficiency in keeping with SAIC’s spirit, redefining ingenuity. We are invested in

improving our logistics IT systems to meet our military customers’ evolving needs. Our turnkey solutions enable us to support sys-tems providing well over 90 percent opera-tional availability, to meet supply demands with over 99 percent fill rate, and have proven effective in reducing inventory by up to 55 percent.

Q: How important are industry partnerships in meeting your corporate objectives?

A: Industry partnerships are vital to provid-ing sustainment support to the military. Our approach to product support includes lock-step collaboration with OEMs and suppliers to ensure system availability, including reli-ability or performance improvements that our OEM partners provide.

Q: Are there improvements that would streamline the contracting process?

A: We’d like to see more open govern-ment and industry engagement prior to RFP release. Collaboration results in techni-cal performance requirements, pricing and terms for contracts that are clear, realistic and fair to industry, with a goal of achieving the lowest life cycle costs to the customer. RFPs without prior industry input require multiple rounds of amendments to resolve ambiguities and industry concerns.

Techniques such as low price, technically acceptable evaluations and reverse auctions can be inappropriately used and result in an award decision that has greater risk and ulti-mately more cost to the government.

We embrace contracting on performance based terms. PBL is advantageous to both the military and industry. Under PBL contracts, the customer defines what is truly important to their mission, and the provider, whether organic or contractor, is free to bring to bear the best of their skills, technologies and know-how to achieve that performance. That means warfighters’ weapons and support systems are available more and operate more reliably. The PBL provider benefits from the freedom to choose the best approach to meeting the performance by gaining efficien-cies. Truly a win-win scenario. O

[email protected]

Dale WinsteadGeneral Manager for Logistics and Supply Chain

SAIC

INDUSTRY INTERVIEW Military Logistics Forum


Navy News Weekly is an authoritative review of U.S. Navy, Coast Guard and maritime news and technologies.

A PUBLICATION WWW.NAVY-KMI.COM

PUBLISHED DIGITALLY

EVERY TUESDAY

Navy News Weekly looks at programs at the individual level and how they become integrated into systems of systems. General topics include fixed wing, rotary wing, ships, submarines, unmanned systems, communications, sensors and optics, detection and surveillance systems, survivability, missile defense, logistics, maintenance, weapons and ordnance, to name a few.

Each issue of Navy News Weekly includes...ConTraCT awards

current fiscal year. The Pearl harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Pearl harbor, is the contracting activity.

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $35,600,000 cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order against a pre-

viously issued Basic Ordering Agreement (N00019-14-G-0020) to complete a Joint Strike Missile (JSM) risk reduction and in-tegration study of the F-35 Air System for the government of Norway. The objectives of the study are to further mature JSM weapon design and to ensure compat-ibility of the weapon with the F-35. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (50 percent) and kongsberg, Norway (50 percent), and is expected to be completed in March 2018. International partner funds in the amount of $10,000,000 are being obligated on this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patux-ent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

H & H builders inc., (small busi-ness) Tooele, Utah, is being awarded a maximum amount $30,000,000 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-

quantity job order contract for electrical, mechanical, painting, engineering/design, paving (asphaltic and concrete), flooring (tile work/carpeting), roofing, structural repair, fencing, heating, ventilation and air conditioning and fire suppression/protection system installation in the Naval

Facilities engineering Command South-west area of responsibility for the San Diego, Calif., metropolitan area. No task orders are being issued at this time. Work will be performed at Facilities engineer-ing and Acquisition Division (FeAD) Naval Base Point Loma, FeAD Naval Base San Diego and FeAD Naval Base Coronado (excluding Naval Auxiliary Landing Field San Clemente Island). The term of the contract is not to exceed 60 months with an expected completion date of Febru-ary 2020. Fiscal 2015 operation and maintenance (Navy) contract funds in the

amount of $5,000 are being obligated on

this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was com-petitively procured as a service-disabled veteran-owned small-business set-aside via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with 12 proposals received. The Naval Facilities engineering Command, Southwest, San Diego, is the contracting activity (N62473-15-D-2415).

Sikorsky Support Services inc., Stratford, Conn., is being awarded an $11,582,807 modification to a previ-ously awarded firm-fixed-price contract

(N00019-09-C-0024) to exercise an option for organizational, selected intermediate and limited depot-level maintenance for aircraft operated by Adversary Squadrons. Work will be performed at the Naval Air Station (NAS) key West, Fla., (40 percent), NAS Fallon, Nev., (30 percent) and the Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Ariz., (30 percent), and is expected to be completed in June 2015. Fiscal 2015 operations and maintenance (Navy Reserve) funds

in the amount of $11,582,807 are being obligated at time of award, all of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patux-ent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a $9,603,500 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024 13 C-5403) for Standard

Missile 2 (SM-2) and Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) engineering and technical services. This contract will provide for engineering and technical services in support of SM-2 and SM-6 to ensure continuity in produc-tion, design integrity and total systems integration of the missile round and its components. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy (23 percent) and the governments of Japan (50.2 percent), Taiwan (14.8 percent), the Neth-

erlands (4.3 percent), korea (4.2 percent), Germany (2.9 percent) and Spain (0.6 percent) under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program or cooperative agree-ments. Work will be performed in Tucson,

and is expected to be completed by De-cember 2015. FMS, fiscal 2015 research,

development, test and evaluation, fiscal 2014 weapons procurement (Navy) and Cooperative Agreements funding in the amount of $9,603,500 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.

Krempp Construction inc., (small business) Jasper, Ind., is being awarded $6,699,538 for firm-fixed-price task order 0003 under a previously awarded multiple award design-build construction contract (N40083-14-D-2722) for renovations to Building 2034 and Building 2035 at the Naval Support Activity, Crane. The work to be performed provides for all labor, equipment, tools, supplies, transportation, supervision, quality control, professional design services and management neces-sary to perform asbestos abatement, gutting the existing buildings, construc-

tion of interior partitions, installation of fire-rated ceiling, fire suppression system, electrical and mechanical upgrades, addressing seismic issues, accessibil-

ity compliance, installation of interior finishes, installation of anti-terrorism force protection compliant windows and the installation of an exterior insulation finish system. Work includes but is not limited to design, general construction, alteration, repair, demolition and work performed by special trades. Work will be performed in Crane, and is expected to be completed by July 2016. Fiscal 2015 Navy working capital funds contract funds in the amount of $6,699,538 are being obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Four proposals were received for this task order. The Naval Facilities engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic, Public Works Department Crane, Crane, is the contracting activity.

Correction: Contract awarded Feb. 3, 2015 to Maritime helicopter Support Co., Trevose, Pa., (N00383-11-D-0003F) for $25,499,598, should have stated the completion date as February 28, 2015. The short timeframe is to cover a one-month extension.

WWW.NPeO-kMI.COM

44 | FeBRUARY 10, 2015

PEO Air ASW, ASSAult & SPEciAl MiSSiOn PrOgrAMS

2015

Cindy BurkeBusiness/Financial

Management

Cmdr. Laura SchuesslerChief of Staff

Rear Adm. CJ JaynesProgram Executive Officer

Bruce DinopoulosAssistant Program Executive OfficerLogistics

Jim McLaughlinRDT&E

Shawn SladeScience & Technology

David MeiserAssistant Program Executive OfficerRDT&E

Jim SchmidtTest & Evaluation

Steve NickleContracts

Glenn PerrymanDeputy Program

Executive Officer

Chuck CobaughLogistics

Mac BrownAssistant Program Executive Officer

Test & Evaluation

NAVAIR SUPPORT

HEADqUARTERS

LOGISTICS

RDT&ETEST & EVALUTATION

low-profile Cargo handling System The Boeing CompanyCountry of origin: uSAlanguage: englishAircraft have different spaces and areas. Some of the areas may be

cargo areas for carrying cargo. Cargo areas may be on the main deck

or on the lower deck of the aircraft. while an aircraft is on the ground,

the cargo area may be unloaded and loaded. Existing cargo conveyance

systems used in aircraft may be installed on top of the floor of the cargo

area. The roller systems may be mounted on axles in a track channel,

or tray, that rests on the floor of the compartment. The upper surface of

the rollers, where the cargo will contact, may extend 2’”‘ to 3”‘‘ above

the cargo floor. Since the cargo area may have a fixed height, the height

of the cargo to be loaded may be restricted and the overall useable

volume of the cargo compartment may be reduced. Current cargo conveyance systems may incorporate several roller

trays in a cargo compartment. The roller trays may be oriented along the

longitudinal axis of the aircraft. In addition, transverse trays with balls

may be present in a cargo doorway area. The balls may be metal and

freely rotating. Freely rotating may be defined as rotating in any direction

and around any axis. Existing commercial cargo handling systems allow

the loading of standard or non-standard cargo containers, palletized

cargo or special equipment. Some applications, such as fuselage-mounted auxiliary fuel tanks,

may be loaded or unloaded during maintenance. These fuselage-

mounted auxiliary fuel tanks may increase the amount of fuel that can

be carried but are limited in volume by the restrictions imposed by exist-

ing cargo conveyance systems. Increasing the amount of fuel carried

may be used to increase the range of an aircraft or increase the amount

of fuel that can be offloaded by a tanker aircraft. This design relates generally to a cargo handling system and, in

particular, to a low-profile cargo conveyance system. More particularly,

the present disclosure relates to a method and apparatus for allowing

the loading of taller cargo into a cargo area on an aircraft and increasing

the cargo area volume compared to current cargo conveyance systems.

10 drawings

underwater Vehicle SimulationU.S. NavyCountry of origin: uSAlanguage of origin: englishDaily global ocean forecasts that include a four-dimensional (4-D)

(latitude, longitude, depth and time) estimation of ocean currents can

be generated. An approach taken for the estimation of vehicle position

over time is to start with a known position from infrequent fixes (global

positioning system (GpS), ultra-short baseline (USbL), terrain-based,

etc.) and use the vector sum of the vehicle velocity (heading and speed

through the water) with the forecast current. Validation of this approach can be accomplished using log data that

was received from underwater gliders which provides GpS positions at

each dive and surfacing point. An underwater glider propels itself using

a buoyancy engine and wings that create lift to produce horizontal mo-

tion. From a vehicle motion modeling perspective, an underwater glider

must have vertical motion to move horizontally. Since underwater glid-

ers do not use engines for propulsion, they generally have substantial

endurance suitable for ocean sampling, underwater plume tracking and

sustained surveillance. however, these vessels are slow, with sustained

horizontal speeds typically below 0.5 m/s, and navigating them is chal-

lenging, as ocean currents can exceed 2 m/s. The Naval Coastal Ocean Model (NCOM) was developed to gener-

ate daily global ocean forecasts predicting temperature, salinity and

currents. Figures 1 and 2 show representative current forecasts during

underwater glider deployment exercises. In these figures, color 303

represents current speed in m/s and arrows 301 indicate the current

direction. Figure 1 shows the current at the surface with speeds as great

as 0.8 m/s. Figure 2 shows the current at 1000 m, the maximum depth

of the glider dives, where the speed is predominately below 0.02 m/s.

position estimation for underwater vehicles operating in the open

ocean can be problematic with existing technologies. Using GpS can

require the vehicle to surface periodically, which poses a potential navi-

gation hazard and subjects the vehicle to the faster currents near the

surface. Inertial systems can be ineffective without the use of Doppler

Velocity Logs (DVL) whose ranges can be too limited for deep ocean op-

eration unless the vehicle is very near the seafloor. Surface- or bottom-

mounted transponder systems can be expensive to deploy and restrict

the geographic area that the vehicle can operate in. A ship equipped

with a USbL system can be used to track an underwater vehicle, which

can be an expensive option for long deployments. A complication in the open ocean is that position estimation is

problematic while submerged. Glider depth can be directly measured

by the vehicle using a pressure sensor. Vertical velocity can be derived

from depth versus time, and horizontal speed through the water can be

estimated given vertical velocity, vehicle pitch angle and a parameter-

ized hydrodynamic model for the vehicle. Consequently, the only certain

position information, for purpose of simulation, is depth (as a function of

time), the time of the dive and the starting and ending surface positions.

In the present embodiment, the motion model can use initial simplifying

assumptions, including zero hydrodynamic slip between the vehicle and

ocean current and a symmetric V-shaped flight trajectory. For the simu-

lations conducted, the maximum depth of the dive and the time of the

dive can be used to compute an estimate of a single vertical velocity.

beyond this model, sources of error in position prediction can include

Defense innovationsCompiled by KMI Media Group staff

FEbRUARy 3, 2015 | 33

www.NpEO-kMI.COMCONTINUED ON PAGE 15 ➥

CONTINUED ON PAGE 12 ➥

Nuclear Weapons Safety

and SecurityBY VICE ADMIRAL TERRY J. BENEDICT,

DIRECTOR, NAVY STRATEGIC SYSTEMS

PROGRAMS (SSP)

The first priority, and

the most important, is the

safety and security of the

Navy’s nuclear weapons.

Accordingly, Navy leader-

ship clearly delegated

and defined SSP’s role

as the program manager

and technical authority

for the Navy’s nuclear weapons and nuclear

weapons security.

At its most basic level, this priority is

the physical security of one of our nation’s

most valuable assets. Our Marines and Navy

masters-at-arms provide an effective and inte-

grated elite security force at our two Strategic

Weapons Facilities and Waterfront Restricted

Areas in Kings Bay, Ga., and Bangor, Wash.

U.S. Coast Guard Maritime Force Protec-

tion Units have been commissioned at both

facilities to protect our submarines as they

transit to and from their dive points. These

Coast Guardsmen and the vessels they man

provide a security umbrella for our Ohio-class

submarines. Together, the Navy, Marine Corps

and Coast Guard team form the foundation of

our Nuclear Weapons Security Program, and

my headquarters staff ensures that our nuclear

weapons capable activities continuously meet

or exceed security, safety and compliance

criteria.

SSP’s efforts to sustain the safety and

improve the security of these national assets

continue at all levels of the organization. The

Navy’s nuclear weapons enterprise maintains

a culture of self-assessment in order to sustain

safety and security. This is accomplished

through biannual assessments by SSP head-

quarters staff, periodic technical evaluations,

Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class

Attack Submarine Procurement:

Background and Issues for

Congress

BY RONALD O’ROURKE, SPECIALIST IN NAVAL AFFAIRS

The Virginia-class attack submarine (see

Figure 1) was designed to be less expensive

and better optimized for post-Cold War

submarine missions than the Seawolf-class

design. The Virginia-class design is slightly

larger than the Los Angeles-class design, but

incorporates newer technologies. Virginia-

class boats currently cost about $2.8 billion

each to procure. The first Virginia-class boat

entered service in October 2004.

Past and Projected Annual

Procurement Quantities

Table 1 shows annual numbers of

Virginia-class boats procured from FY1998

(the lead boat) through FY2014, and numbers

scheduled for procurement under the FY2016-

FY2020 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP).

Multiyear Procurement (MYP)

The 10 Virginia-class boats shown in

Table 1 for the period FY2014-FY2018

(referred to as the Block IV boats) are

being procured under a multiyear procure-

ment (MYP) contract that was approved by

Congress as part of its action on the FY2013

budget, and awarded by the Navy on April

28, 2014. The eight Virginia-class boats

procured in FY2009-FY2013 (the Block III

boats) were procured under a previous MYP

contract, and the five Virginia-class boats

procured in FY2004-FY2008 (the Block II

boats) were procured under a still-earlier

MYP contract. The four boats procured in

FY1998-FY2002 (the Block I boats) were

procured under a block buy contract, an

arrangement somewhat similar to an MYP

contract. The boat procured in FY2003 fell

between the FY1998-FY2002 block buy

contract and the FY2004-FY2008 MYP ar-

rangement, and was contracted for separately.

Joint Production Arrangement

Virginia-class boats are built jointly by

General Dynamics’ Electric Boat Division

(GD/EB) of Groton, Conn., and Quonset

Point, R.I., and Newport News Shipbuilding

(NNS) of Newport News, Va., which forms

Table 1. Annual Numbers of Virginia-Class Boats Procured or Projected for Procurement

FY981

FY99 1

FY00 0

FY011

FY02 1

FY03 1

FY04 1

FY05 1

FY06 1

FY07 1

FY08 1

FY091

FY101

FY112

FY12 2

FY13 2

FY14 2

FY15 2

FY16 2

FY17 2

FY18 2

FY19 2

FY202

Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement

Congressional Research Service

4

Figure 1. Virginia-Class Attack Submarine

Source: U.S. Navy file photo accessed by CRS on January 11, 2011, at http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?

story_id=55715.

Multiyear Procurement (MYP)

The 10 Virginia-class boats shown in Table 1 for the period FY2014-FY2018 (referred to as the

Block IV boats) are being procured under a multiyear procurement (MYP) contract10 that was

approved by Congress as part of its action on the FY2013 budget, and awarded by the Navy on

April 28, 2014. The eight Virginia-class boats procured in FY2009-FY2013 (the Block III boats)

were procured under a previous MYP contract, and the five Virginia-class boats procured in

FY2004-FY2008 (the Block II boats) were procured under a still-earlier MYP contract. The four

boats procured in FY1998-FY2002 (the Block I boats) were procured under a block buy contract,

which is an arrangement somewhat similar to an MYP contract.11 The boat procured in FY2003

fell between the FY1998-FY2002 block buy contract and the FY2004-FY2008 MYP

arrangement, and was contracted for separately.

10 For a discussion of MYP contracting, see CRS Report R41909, Multiyear Procurement (MYP) and Block Buy

Contracting in Defense Acquisition: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke and Moshe Schwartz.

11 For a discussion of block buy contracting, see CRS Report R41909, Multiyear Procurement (MYP) and Block Buy

Contracting in Defense Acquisition: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke and Moshe Schwartz.

Figure 1. Virginia-Class Attack Submarine

V. Adm.

Terry J. Benedict

A PUBLICATION

WWW.NAVY-KMI.COM

APRIL 28, 2015

WWW.NAVY-KMI.COM

Plus:• X-47B

AUTONOMOUS

AERIAL REFUELING

• CARRIER STRIKE

GROUP 8 CHANGES

COMMAND

28APR2015

JAnuARy 2014 iMPlEMEntAtion PlAn FoR nAtionAl StRAtEGy FoR ARCtiC REGion

On May 10, 2013, the Obama Ad-ministration released a document titled “National Strategy for the Arctic Region.”20 On January 30, 2014, the Obama Admin-istration released an implementation plan for this strategy.21 Of the 36 or so specific initiatives in the implementation plan, one is titled “Sustain federal capability to con-duct maritime operations in ice-impacted waters.” The implementation plan states the following regarding this initiative:

objective: Ensure the United States maintains icebreaking and ice-strength-ened ship capability with sufficient capacity to project a sovereign U.S. maritime presence, support U.S. inter-ests in the polar regions and facilitate research that advances the fundamental understanding of the Arctic.next Steps: The federal government requires the ability to conduct operations in ice-impacted waters in the Arctic. As maritime activity in the Arctic region increases, expanded access will be required. Next steps include:

• The lead and supporting departments and agencies will develop a document that lists the capabilities needed to operate in ice-impacted waters to support federal activities in the polar regions and emergent sovereign responsibilities over the next 10 to 20 years by the end of 2014.• Develop long-term plans to sustain federal capability to physically access the Arctic with sufficient capacity to support U.S. interests by the end of 2017.

Measuring progress: Sustaining federal capability will be demon-strated through the Federal Government’s ability to conduct operations in the Arctic to support statutory missions and sovereign responsibilities, and to advance interests in the region. progress in implementing this objective will be measured by completion of the capabilities document, and long-term sustainment plan.

Lead Agency: Department of homeland SecuritySupporting Agencies: Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Transportation, National Science Foundation[.]22CoSt EStiMAtES FoR CERtAin ModERnizAtion oPtionSnEW REPlACEMEnt SHiPS

The Coast Guard estimated in February 2008 that new replacement ships for the Polar Star and Polar Sea might cost between $800 million and $925 million per ship in 2008 dollars to procure.23 The Coast Guard said that this estimate

is based on a ship with integrated electric drive, three propel-lers and a combined diesel and gas (electric) propulsion plant. The icebreaking capability would be equivalent to the pOLAR Class

Icebreakers [i.e., Polar Star and Polar Sea] and research facilities and accommodations equivalent to Healy. This cost includes all shipyard and government project costs. Total time to procure a new icebreak-er [including mission analysis, studies, design, contract award and construction] is eight to 10 years.24

The Coast Guard further stated that this notional new ship would be designed for a 30-year service life.

The high-Latitude Study provided to Congress in July 2011 states that the above figure of $800 million to $925 million in 2008 dollars equates to $900 million to $1,041 million in 2012 dollars. The study provides the following estimates, in 2012 dollars, of the acquisition costs for new polar icebreakers:

• $856 million for one ship;• $1,663 million for two ships—an average of about $832 million each;• $2,439 million for three ships—an average of $813 million each;• $3,207 million for four ships—an average of about $802 million each;• $3,961 million for five ships—an average of about $792 million each; and• $4,704 million for six ships—an average of $784 million each.

The study refers to the above estimates as “rough order-of-magni-tude costs” that “were developed as part of the Coast Guard’s indepen-dent polar platform business Case Analysis.”25

25-yEAR SERViCE liFE ExtEnSionSThe Coast Guard stated in February 2008 that performing the exten-

sive maintenance, repair and modernization work needed to extend the service lives of the two ships by 25 years might cost roughly $400 million per ship. This figure, the Coast Guard said, is based on assessments made by independent contractors for the Coast Guard in 2004. The service life extension work, the Coast Guard said, would improve the two

icebreakers’ installed systems in certain areas. Although the work would be intended to permit the ships to operate for another 25 years, it would not return the cutters to new condition.26 An August 30, 2010, press report stated that the commandant of the Coast Guard at the time, Admiral Robert papp, estimated the cost

www.NpEO-kMI.COM

14 | FEbRUARy 3, 2015

Exclusive Q&A interviews with Navy/Coast Guard leadership, program officers and operational force commanders

Acquisition program reviews

Solution-based technologies

Strategy and doctrine analysis

Research and development activities

Budget and funding trajectories

Insightful commentary from military, industry and academia

Industrial Intelligence – monthly U.S. and international patent reviews

For more information and to subscribe, contact Jeff McKaughan at [email protected]

Military Logistics Forum offers you another way to follow the latest information on domestic and international military logistics, from Sustainment, maintenance, Supply chain, life cycle management, Reset, transportation, energy and much more.

Follow us on Twitter @MilLogForum

Follow Military Logistics Forum on Twitter

prepositioning

To learn more about Honeywell’s Logistics Solutions,visit www.honeywell.com/HTSI

© 2015 Honeywell International Inc. All rights reserved.

Honeywell Technology Solutions Inc (HTSI) is a leading prepositioning provider to the Department of Defense supporting mission readiness worldwide. Honeywell sets an industry standard for comprehensive, cost-effective total logistics services. Honeywell’s full-service, tailored logistics solutions provide

an innovative, unique approach to address logistics management challenges.

The benefits to the United States military are:nRapid responsenReduced inventorynSmaller footprintnImproved asset visibilitynImproved supply chain performance

Visit www.honeywell.com/HTSI to learn more about how Honeywell solves logistics challenges.

HONEYWELL_DLF_may2015.indd 1 4/30/2015 1:33:46 PM

Documents

Mlf 9 4 final