SysAdmin, Author at Second Line of Defense

The U.S. Double-Dare: Plus Up and Withdraw

Posted on December 7, 2009 | by SysAdmin | Leave a Comment

12/07/2009

With the announcement of President Obama’s Surge policy in Afghanistan and the addition of 30,000 extra-troops in a six-month framework, a key question was on the lips of many participants of Defense Logistics, the annual cross-service Logistics conference organized by Worldwide Business Research in Arlington, Virginia from November 30th to December 3rd: “how are we going to keep providing the equipment the troops will need once in the Afghan theater?”

Reinforcement has just been done in the past months, as one participant pointed out, without affecting the requirement for a smaller logistic footprint: “there has only been one sustainment brigade, assuming a support role to supporting units, in Afghanistan from the outset, even when additional troops came in“, recalled William Moore, Deputy Commander, Combined Arms Support Command, US Army.

But the current double-dare of “Plus Up Afghanistan” and “a responsible withdrawal from Iraq” poses huge challenges “, underscored Vice-Admiral Thompson, director of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) since 2008. These challenges and the solutions both the government and industry are trying to meet was a significant focus of the conference.

Challenges In the Theater

The challenges on the field are linked to the traditional hardship of fighting a war in Afghanistan, while withdrawing from another major theater of operation. Among the key challenges are the issues of accessibility, the scarcity of forward operating bases and the strategic character of Kandahar and the complexity of the reset and retrograde process.

The issue of accessibility
So far, according to Vice-Admiral Thompson, US troops are in “good shape” as far as the sustainability of supplies has been concerned. He mentioned in particular the fuel supply as a major ” readiness enabler ” and a real “success story”: even though it is trucked via mountainous and perilous areas, the services’ biggest consumer, the USAF, has always been in a position to conduct its missions.The DLA Director also cited as another example the current high tempo of monthly deliveries of 500 MATVs to Afghanistan, with Oshkosh building 1,000 a month. A well-known challenge compared to Iraq is however the nature of the land-locked terrain in Afghanistan, which makes it hard to deliver “the right equipment at the right time.” Air delivery (including via the crucial help of commercial airplanes) and ground roads through Pakistan should soon however be completed by a Northern Distribution network currently under negotiation. Other factors complicate access, such as according to Admiral Thompson, “poor infrastructure, landmines which the Soviets had set all over the country, mostly dirt roads, etc“.

kandahardmap — Kandahar at the Crossroads? (map: Institute for the Study of War)

The scarcity of forward bases and the strategic character of Kandahar
The United States is primarily using Kuwait and Kandahar facilities as their major hubs to re-supply the troops, but with 30,000 troops more in the pipeline along with allied troops, an already crowded Kandahar could be saturated at a time when ISAF and the Talibans seem to be at a stalemate in the area. According to a study released this month by the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War , which describes how the Talibans have gradually taken hold of the surrounding cities since 2004, a victory in Kandahar will be the turning point for total control of the country, one of the reason being that most major access roads go through it.
The Defense Logistics Agency has anticipated the expansion by building a facility in Southern Kandahar for re-supply, as well as to “dispose of unneeded equipment“, explained Vice-Admiral Thompson, but the process is slow, given the landmines military units have to take out one at a time. Land mines surround the airbase from Soviet times.

The complexity of the reset and retrograde process
Everyone knows what a massive and costly job withdrawing U.S. military equipment from Iraq is proving to be but the level of complexity of the decisions needed to be made on a case-by-case manner is sometimes overlooked. Indeed even though some guidelines have been set, key questions remain about what to do with each item and where it should be sent to. One panelist from a discussion on the “Retrograde and Reset Challenges” panel described the multitude of options available and the remaining question marks for some of the supply: whether “it stays in the units, goes from OIF to OEF, whether it is a field maintenance, or if it needs to be reset and configured for Afghanistan“, then the next question is where do you put it? And if it is a CONUS reset, do you decide to reconfigure it to its current capability? What do you do with non-standard equipment? What about military sales?” The surge brings about another set of factors to enter into the equation, as, as one officer put it, “there might not be much retrograde left after all.” While for Colonel James Vohr, Director of Logistics, US Southern Command, reconstitution is the goal and not so much reset. The key point is that the US is not simply seeking to warehouse returned equipment but take key items and make them combat ready. i.e. “restoring units to combat effectiveness, or upgrading them to full-spectrum capacity.”

Challenges In CONUS

The Impact of the current acquisition shift
Given the current acquisition trends, the days for new equipment and thorough upgrades are gone. Warfighters must do with what they have and what they have is getting in many cases rather ragged as the wear and tire is making itself increasingly felt on current equipment. For USMC General Ruack, the toll is already being felt on the homefront in terms of training, while equipment is being redlined. The troops are “digging in on them“, the risk being to go “down to our waistline“. Till now the armed forces benefited from a lot of new equipment and the ratio between reset and field maintenance was roughly 90%/10%: “such a ratio is very likely to shift with 1/3rd procurement, 1/3rd depot and 1/3rd remaining at the field level or not being replaced“. Colonel Vohr also expressed concerns about the dynamic tensions between buying aging equipment and acquiring new ones. For him, the upcoming challenges are the OIF/OEF transition in the context of high equipment degradation rates and a faster use of ground equipment.

The unpredictability factor: the case of the Depots
One of the issues is what is going on at the depot level “where the rubber meets the road” as Dr John Gray, deputy Commander, Letterkenny Army Depot, put it, describing his task as a challenging one. The major difficulty for the depots is what he described as the “lack of predictability.” This lack of predictability is three-fold:

1. The unknown factor: the work-load expectations: No one knows how many pieces of what equipment will be needed ahead of time, since no one knows in advance in what condition it is going to show up to be put back into their initial condition. This makes it impossible for the depots not only to know what they need, but above-all to have some kind of cost-productive series effect, with the notable exception of the Humvees Recap which were fixed in large number and rapidly operational (4,000 a year).

2. The unpredictability factor is financial, since reset money when it started in 2004 mostly came from Supplementals. These are gone, while Dr. Gray’s budgetary forecast points out at a 30 to 50 % decrease in funding with a major plunge coming up in 2012.

3. The availability of spare parts challenge: Dr. Gray spends his entire days looking for these missing parts; he indeed points out that even though DLA is providing about 92% of them, it is always these 8% which will be driving everyone crazy and of course slow down the process and make it even less predictable, no matter how efficient the reset process can be. His regret, he concluded humorously, is that Loewe’s does not build these parts, since for military equipment, each spare part is often unique and specific and that “99% of the parts is 100% failure”.

For the warfighters on the field, the biggest challenge comes from the apparent absence of a reconstitution strategy, “a major strategic risk being taken while the country has been at war for almost ten years“, concluded one of the participant. Resetting the force is in other words “a tough balancing act” in perspective, as General Ruack described it.

———-

***Posted December 7th, 2009

The Coast Guard’s Response Boat Medium Replacement (RB-M) Program

Posted on December 7, 2009 | by SysAdmin | Leave a Comment

This is the first of regular contributions by Rear Admiral (Retired) Ed Gilbert, one of the most experienced and knowledgeable experts on maritime security, who is president of Gilbert Associates and a frequent commentator on the challenges facing the US Coast Guard today.

The pressing need to modernize U.S. Coast Guard long-range assets has been discussed frequently in many different venues. But there has been less focus on the key issues of the other assets, which the USCG needs to modernize. Indeed, the USCG as an integrated force providing of US and global maritime security faces many modernization challenges which, in spite of controversy, need to be accomplished to ensure the safety and security of Americans, friends and partners.

Shorter-range coastal assets need modernization, and this article discusses a program that’s doing just that. Most see the Coast Guard operating in the coastal regions executing several missions and interacting with the maritime public, especially recreational boaters. More than 90% of all search and rescue incidents happen less than 20 miles from the U.S. coast plus there are many other Coast Guard missions to be executed in close-in waters and waterways. These include: safety, law enforcement, security, drug and migrant interdiction, protection for living marine resources, environmental protection, defense operations, and others.

For many years, the Coast Guard’s 41-foot utility boat, which is being replaced, has been a workhorse boat for these missions. On June 21, 2006, the Coast Guard awarded the RB-M contract to Marinette Marine Corporation (MMC) who is partnered with Kvichak Marine Industries (KMI). Construction began in July 2007 at KMI in Kent, Washington. A second production line was opened in Wisconsin in September 2008. Opening of the second production line was made possible by an added $36 million in the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act.

During the next decade, the RB-M Acquisition Project plans to acquire approximately 180 boats with the logistics infrastructure necessary to support them. More than just acquiring new boats, the RB-M contract requires delivery of a response boat system providing an integrated logistics package to support the delivered boats. This includes an interactive web-based system that provides detailed drawings of the boat, complete parts lists, a maintenance planning and tracking system, as well as all applicable manufacturers technical documentation for equipment installed on the boats. The initial cost per boat is about $2 million.

Helo-and-RB-M-45601 — Helo and RB-M-45601

Incorporating inputs from operational commanders and experienced boat users in developing a more capable platform has driven the Project’s approach. During the design process, multiple skilled operators from the existing small boat community were included in design reviews providing an opportunity to hear firsthand what works, what doesn’t, and where the field operator felt there was the most room for improvement.

Capabilities needed for homeland security missions significantly influenced the design which will provide improved mission response. The most visible improvement is in speed going from a top speed of 26 knots with the 41” UTB to a top speed of 42 knots with the RB-M.

While this is the most apparent improvement, in addition the RB-M provides vastly improved navigation and communication capabilities, improved habitability with a climate controlled pilothouse and passenger compartment, shock mitigating seats for the crew, and an overall layout that was specifically designed to improve maintainability as well as operational efficiency through consideration of ergonomic factors.

State-of-the-art marine technology makes the RB-M a high performer with waterjet propulsion, an advanced electrical system, and integrated electronics that allow greater control from the pilot house.

Technological and design features will improve search object tracking, water recovery efforts, crew comfort, and maneuvering/ intercept capabilities for defense operations. With the latest developments in integrated navigation and radiotelephony, command and control will be greatly enhanced, as will crew safety.

The RB-M is designed to use existing facilities and minimize the learning curve to ensure a quick and smooth transition. Life cycle support is part of the design – not just parts support, but all logistics, including training, maintenance, repair, and future upgrades. Equipment was selected for the RB-M based not solely on cost, but on reliability and supportability

In addition, extensive analysis was performed to minimize the training requirements necessary to safely operate and maintain the RB-M, and the design was influenced to minimize the training needs over the 20 year life cycle of the boat.

Given the Coast Guard’s needs to operate in awful weather conditions and sea states, the boat is designed with a self-righting capability should a capsizing occur; hopefully this capability will not be needed (see video of this capability being tested).

In-Water-Testing-of-RB-M-45 — in Water Testing of RB-M-45

In short, the modernization of the small boat capabilities for the USCG is part of improvement necessary for the service to perform its duties in providing for maritime security. Modernization of the platforms and of the systems which connect those platforms are crucial for the USCG to perform its concepts of operations in support of homeland and maritime security. This program is part of the solution.

———-

***Posted December 7th, 2009

Providing Connectivity for the USCG: The Key Enabler for Mission Success

Posted on December 7, 2009 | by SysAdmin | Leave a Comment

: Three MH-60 Jayhawk rescue helicopters attached to Air Station Kodiak fly over Cliff Point on Women’s Bay near the Coast Guard base on Kodiak Island during a formation flight

A key focus of this website is the centrality of connectivity of platforms in shaping capability for the performance of military and security forces to execute their missions. We deliberately prefer connectivity to C4ISR because often C4ISR is seen as a highly technical effort to network forces for high-end warfighting. Network centric warfare has hijacked the common understanding of the impact of C4ISR. It seems however that the ability to connect assets is central to effectiveness in performance of missions, and in a period where platform acquisition will be more difficult, the ability of the US and its allies to work together is increasingly central.

Further, the role of C4ISR is simply not to collect information. The euphoria over the acquisition of unmanned systems has enhanced the preoccupation for data collection; the real task is to improve the ability to make collaborative decisions necessary to achieve successful outcomes. This is why we prefer C4ISR D where the decision-making goals are enhanced, not simply enhancing the size of data sets.

No service better underscores the challenge and the importance of connectivity than does the US Coast Guard. In the criticisms of the Deepwater program, the role of the program in providing for the modernization of the assets which better connect the platforms has been lost. Modernization is platform sensitive, not platform centric. If one loses sight of the significant contributions which modernization of C4ISR understood as enhanced connectivity, one simply misses the impact already achieved by these efforts to enhance performance. And it is often lost on Congress, journalists and analysts that the money spent on connectivity is often MORE important than platforms. But unfortunately when Congress and the Administration address budgets, the connectivity side of the equation gets shortchanged.

Illustrative of the impact is the role the new capabilities have played in a variety of USCG missions, including interdiction of drug trafficking. The Coast Guard combats drug trafficking in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and Eastern Pacific—their work accounts for more than 50% of all cocaine seizures each year. The service also stops thousands of illegal migrants thereby avoiding billions of dollars annually in social services. At the same time, they aid persons and vessels in distress, saving lives and minimizing injuries. In addition to trained personnel, accomplishing these challenging missions requires technology—electronic charts that integrate with radar, computerized planning and tracking systems, infrared-detection gear, all weather day/night cameras and secure channel radios.

USCG-cocaine — Tons of Cocaine seized by the Coast Guard Each Year

Multi-mission stations, cutters, aircraft and boats linked by communications networks permit effective operations. Electronic systems enable coordinated tactics, integrated intelligence, multi-agency interoperability and common situational awareness necessary to fulfilling statutory missions.

A good measure of success of technology implementation is the continued increase in cocaine seizures. New communications systems, coupled with the latest in electronic sensor technology, are credited with making drug trafficking intelligence rapidly available and improving target tracking, thereby achieving effective prosecution of criminal activities. These systems, deployed across multiple types of assets allow for interoperability of electronic equipment and commonality of software. Operators are able to transmit and receive classified and unclassified information to and from other assets, including surface vessels, aircraft, local law enforcement, and shore facilities. The electronic network is the glue that permits them to work together to effectively achieve a common purpose—a true force multiplier.

A common architecture deployed across multiple types of assets allows for commonality of equipment and software systems and supportability of the entire Coast Guard enterprise. In general, the Deepwater C4ISR architecture ensures an open systems approach for design and implementation, providing a web enabled infrastructure. Its architecture adapts to technology insertion and enables the progression to future Coast Guard wide C4ISR architectures.

USCG-Bertholf — The USCG Bertholf (courtesy: U.S. Coast Guard Atlantic Area, 07/09)

The first National Security Cutter, USCGC BERTHOLF, has passed all TEMPEST and information assurance requirements culminating in the authority to operate. Indeed, Lockheed Martin one of the partners in Deepwater was specifically cited in a Coast Guard letter of appreciation dated Jun. 24. Delivery of the second National Security Cutter, USCGC WAESCHE, also received an excellent C4ISR evaluation and the ship was accepted with no C4ISR trial cards. Systems include electronic charts that integrate with radar, computerized planning and tracking systems, infrared-detection gear, all weather day/night cameras and secure channel radios.

The Coast Guard has accepted delivery of missionized HC-130J Long Range Surveillance Maritime Patrol Aircraft. The aircraft’s new mission equipment and sensor packages are designed to deliver enhanced search, detection and tracking capabilities to perform maritime search and rescue, maritime law enforcement and homeland security missions. The aircraft modifications include installation of belly-mounted surface search radar, a nose-mounted electro-optical infrared sensor, a flight deck mission operator station and a mission integrated communication system. The mission system installed on the HC-130J is derived from the same software series developed for the mission system pallet onboard the HC-144A maritime patrol aircraft.

The Coast Guard has also accepted mission system pallets for their new HC-144A “Ocean Sentry” Medium Range Surveillance Maritime Patrol Aircraft. This roll-on, roll-off suite of electronic equipment enables the aircrew to compile data from the aircraft’s multiple integrated sensors and transmit and receive both classified and unclassified information to other assets, including surface vessels, other aircraft, local law enforcement, and shore facilities.

At the heart of all these platforms is a common command and control system. It provides system interoperability as well as commonality for savings in maintenance and training. C4ISR system software reuse across Coast Guard platforms is significant. The same 100% common software between air platforms is also 41% common with the software on the National Security Cutter. The suite on the National Security Cutter leverages nearly 75% of the code from the Navy’s latest Aegis baseline while the air suite is 80% common with Navy’s P-3 Aviation Improvement Program. The command and control system is not only compatible with across the Coast Guard’s land, air and sea assets. It is also interoperable with the Navy and 117 federal agencies.

In ports and coastal areas, one of Deepwater’s most significant capability enhancements clearly is shaping a robust connectivity capability for the USCG and its maritime and security partners. It is a fundamental building block in improving the Coast Guard’s ability to maintain maritime domain awareness focused on meeting the needs of decision makers engaged in operations at sea, ashore, and in the air. The Deepwater architecture is well suited to achieving the objectives of Maritime Domain Awareness as it is common and interoperable across the Navy, Coast Guard and other key departments and agencies. The broad implementation of Deepwater C4ISR, from foreign ports, open oceans, the approaches to the US and coastal waters as well as land stations would permit Maritime Domain Awareness information to be collected, fused and disseminated across the entire Coast Guard enterprise.

In spite of such developments, the Coast Guard has insufficient new assets—much of the fleet is wearing out at an ever-increasing rate. Modern communications and electronic systems are needed so that new and aging assets can be deployed effectively. Changing mission needs and innovative criminal tactics necessitate updating, refreshing and further expanding electronic and communication systems. Without adequate funding, critical missions—seizing illicit drug shipments, intercepting illegal aliens, and conducting lifesaving rescue missions—will be impacted. And the Department of Homeland Security’s ability to manage the threats facing the nation, its friends and partners from the maritime domain will be significantly degraded. And this largely will be done because connectivity is so undervalued as a core competence.

———-

***Posted December 7th, 2009

French Special Forces in Afghanistan: Lessons Learned

Posted on November 30, 2009 | by SysAdmin | Leave a Comment

11/30/2009

In the current issue of Marine, a quarterly publication by the French Navy’s Association of Reserve Officers (Association des officiers de réserve de la Marine nationale) a special series of articles on NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan called «Afghanistan: Which Path for the West?» is being featured.

Beyond the political debate about whether or not Western involvement in general and French increased commitment in particular are legitimate or not, Marine is running an interview conducted by Bertrand de Lesquen with Commander Bruno de Zélicourt on the role and future of Special Forces in Afghanistan. Commander de Zélicourt (Capitaine de Vaisseau) of the French Navy Commandos, was in command between April and August 2006 of the eighth detachment of French Special Forces (FSF) in Afghanistan.

Air Mobility and Intelligence-Sharing Keys to Special Forces Operations

Task Group Ares operated in Afghanistan from July 2003 to December 2006 and was composed of the French Commandos Marine , the 1^st RPIMa, the 13^th RDP and CPA 10. At first, the FSF were operating in the Kandahar region, in the districts of Manif and Arghestan. Then, they were reassigned to the East of the country in the province of Nangarhar. Some facets of the missions included the training of the nascent Afghan Army.

Commander Bruno de Zélicourt describes the types of operations the FSF ran in Afghanistan according three axes:

“ the search for intelligence”;
“foot and motorized patrols in order (…) to assert our presence and reassure the population”;
And finally, “operations meant to intercept Taliban elements” thanks to intelligence tips received by allies.

Commander de Zélicourt points out that “air mobility” is a crucial element in the conduct of an operation. He regrets that the major operations launched by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in the South of the country in 2006 and the simultaneous effort brought by the Americans in Iraq at this time have decreased the presence of helicopters and hence the opportunities of operations. “This type of deficiency is still present to this day in Special Forces operations”, he says.
On the strategy side, he tends to support General Bigeard’s view that the war in Afghanistan is of the ‘same type’ than the war in Algeria in the sense that “one of the key for victory resides in the capacity to deliver intelligence, to uncover the networks, to identify and eliminate the leaders, to break the structures”. This type of strategy, he points out, requires a great deal of intelligence sharing among the different armies and he expresses regrets that these types of exchanges are only limited to the so-called ‘four eyes’ community: the US, the UK, Canada and Australia. He notes however, that the US is trying to expand that circle, which constitutes “a step in the right direction”.

The End of FSF Presence in Afghanistan: the Risk of Being Singled Out and OBE

Bruno De Zélicourt also comments on the end of the FSF presence in Afghanistan, in spite of the fact that France is among the few five nations within NATO qualified to command on a multinational basis several Special Forces units. Except for the continuing training of Afghan Special Forces, the FSF have stopped operating in Afghan territory since 2006. This absence, warns the Commando Marine officer, could single France out in the eyes of NATO allies and could in the longer run “lead to losses of know-how and competencies that could jeopardize the future”.
After leaving the command of the FSF in Afghanistan, Bruno de Zélicourt was posted in NATO Special Operation Forces Headquarter (NSHQ) from September 2007 to July 2009. He explains that this branch was given the mandate to be “the vector for Special Forces transformation in order to make them interoperable and able to participate in NATO’s operations.” Because of the nature of this post and its frequent interactions with other NATO’s Special Forces officers, he concludes that what counts for allies and especially the US are the “boots on the ground”. In that sense, France’s presence in Afghanistan during the Ares mission (2003-2006) has given Paris some credit in the eyes of others. However, he warns that this credit is starting to evaporate because of the FSF withdrawal from the theater under a NATO banner. France is running the risk of being “distanced on the technological side as well as in terms of skills and process,” Zelicourt adds. Norway, he says, is in the eyes of many an example to follow in the realm of Special Forces.

In conclusion, he advocates for France to take more responsibility in the future NSHQ, in order to have a greater say – and hence influence – in the way the Atlantic Alliance conducts its Special Forces operations. He calls for France to resume its Special Forces operations alongside its allies in Afghanistan and to be a leading nation in this field. “We have strong assets especially in the training domain,” Commander Zelicourt stresses.

———-

***Posted November 30th, 2009

The Maintainers at the Heart of the Osprey Enterprise

Posted on November 28, 2009 | by SysAdmin | Leave a Comment

11/28/2009

Crafting the Osprey Enterprise: The Role of the Maintenance Team

New Plane, New Capability, New Support Concept
The Osprey is a new plane, a new capability, and provides a new contribution to the MAGTF and to the joint forces. It is not simply a replacement for the CH-47 or CH-53. As such, being a new platform and a new capability, the Osprey has challenged USMC thinking about concepts of operations; and its impact on joint operations has not really been understood. As a senior member of the Obama Pentagon commented when asked “have you thought about the impact of tiltorotor technology on con-ops,” he responded simply no. Yet the Osprey is one of the truly innovative capabilities being introduced in the USMC and the joint forces.

Not surprisingly, being new requires new approaches to supporting the aircraft as well. It does not perform like a rotorcraft, so it will not be maintained with approaches inherited from USCM experience with rotorcraft. In effect, the aircraft with on board sensors, and data flows available to both the pilot and the ground crew calls for a whole new approach to maintenance. In effect, an Osprey enterprise is being forged in which the pilots, maintenance crews and the contractor support teams are working together to shape effective approaches to support the aircraft. The maintainers are not the last members of the team, but integral players in shaping the evolving approach to sustainment of the aircraft. This perspective was indeed clearly conveyed in a recent sldinfo.com exclusive interview with members of the Osprey maintenance team for the Osprey squadron VM-266 currently stationed in New River air station in North Carolina .

Learning on the field: ” More like dealing with the F-18″
In the conversation with the maintenance crew, the fundamental differences with maintaining the CH-46 were underscored. “This is a whole new bird,” commented one member of the team. The “oldest” member of the team had five years experience with the Osprey, and the team underscored that the core effort to maintain the aircraft was being done by younger Marines for whom “the Osprey is their first aircraft.” This means that the teachers of maintenance for the Osprey has experience going back only a few years; whereas “the CH-46 was being maintained by Marines being taught by instructors with 10-20 years of experience and 3-4 deployments under their belt,” commented one Marine. Fresh approaches were required to deal with what in many ways is a revolutionary aircraft. Training on computers and in dealing with data generated by sensors on the aircraft is central to the technical skills required. “The CH-46 unlike the Osprey is not a sensor rich aircraft and does not generate maintenance data required for the support of the aircraft.”

The differences with traditional rotorcraft were highlighted throughout. As one team member noted: “The experience of maintaining the Osprey is more like dealing with the F-18, than it is like dealing with rotorcraft. The modern systems of the F-18 are more like the Osprey than a helicopter.” Some of the members interviewed had had experience with the first deployment to Iraq of the Osprey. “We were well trained but did not know fully what to expect. We had learned how to maintain the aircraft in the US, but in the field it is a whole different experience.” And the team member added: “We learned a great deal while on deployment.” In fact, one Osprey observer has underscored that “ we catalogued what normally would be 5-6 years of experience into 18 months.” This observation was echoed throughout the interview.

Working in close connection with the contractor: developping a crucial dialogue between engineers, pilots and maintainers
A major emphasis of several of the team members was the evolving nature of the enterprise. “We are working closely with the contractor in shaping new approaches to managing maintenance events. We send the maintenance events to the contractor through an IT system, and the contractor’s engineers work through solutions which are then translated into new approaches and new maintenance standards,” noted one Marine. Another added, “We started with a small book of maintenance standards which has grown into a large book as we are identifying the standards which we will follow in maintaining the aircraft.”

The Marines underscored that the contractor deploys with them in Afghanistan, and this working relationship was central to the dialogue between engineers, pilots and maintainers seen as crucial to shaping the Osprey enterprise. “We see progress all the time,” noted one Marine. “As Marines get to know the aircraft, they see how it saves lives and extends the battlespace. We win converts to the aircraft as Marines see it perform. We view our task as part of an overall team effort to ensure that this battlefield advantage be available to our fellow Marines.”

A core capability driving the entire maintenance effort is that the avionics drive the system. As one Marine commented: “the system provides us with the data with regard to what are the problems which need to be fixed. The challenge is to finding the underlying cause to which the data indicates the problem. As we gain improved understanding of the aircraft, we are getting better at finding the causes, and then shaping more effective maintenance standards.”

Down to a single “brick”
In its simplest terms, the maintenance approach can be broken into three key elements.

The first element is the role of the sensors, the mission systems and the data storage system aboard the aircraft. The sensors generate the data which is analyzed onboard the aircraft in flight and stored real time in a “brick” which contains a PC card. According to Sgt. Mireles, “There are many sensors on the aircraft. A lot of these sensors are analog sensors which send data through data convertors to the mission computers.. where the data can be pulled up for the pilot’s use and to see where the fix can be made.” (See: video 1)
The second element is the processing of the data on the ground. The maintenance crew uses a COTS laptop to run the software, which is updated, on a regular basis with the contractor, and the PC card is put into the computer to run the maintenance evaluations and tests. And the exchange of data with the engineers is a central aspect of determining the evolution of maintenance standards and shaping “maintenance events.” According to Sgt. Gilbertson, “All the data is collected in the maintenance brick for the maintenance download. Inside the brick is a card where your data is stored. From here, it can be used on the (laptop) computer. From there, the aircraft summary of what the aircraft did… (can be analyzed).” (See: video 2)
The third key element is the dialogue between the air and ground crews. Because both teams have access to the same data, they can shape common understanding of the problems and shape paths to resolving the problems. And Sgt. Dean underscored, “When the pilot comes in to discuss a problem with the aircraft, the way we can visualize it with him and see it with him on the aircraft by using the (laptop) computer where we can see the same data as he did on the aircraft.” This ability to share data is crucial for both pilot learning and for the maintainers to understand how to improve performance of the aircraft. This ability to share data is an essential difference from legacy products. (See: video 3)

In other words, the maintenance team is really at the heart of the evolving Osprey enterprise. They are not the last cog in the wheel of the performance of the aircraft, but are an integral part for determining the capability of the aircraft to exercise its unique capabilities in performance of USMC missions. And the new capabilities to be maintained can lead to mission success as well. As one Marine commented: “When a CH-46 has a problem a red light comes on. You have to land it and take care of the problem. If you are doing this in Taliban country, the guy who is coming out may not have a wrench. With the V-22, not only will you know what is the problem, but you have a clear idea how long you can continue to fly with the problem.” In other words, new capabilities provide new ways to operate, and new ways to stay alive in combat situations.

———-

***Posted November 28th, 2009

Special Feature – Alabama Governor Riley on the Future of Aerospace and Defense in the South

Posted on November 26, 2009 | by SysAdmin | Leave a Comment

11/26/2009

Given the centrality of Alabama to two national competitions, i.e. the well-known tanker competition, but also the LCS one, George Talbot, political editor of the Mobile Press-Register and Robbin Laird (Sldinfo.com) sat down with Governor Riley of Alabama on November 17, 2009 to discuss the role of Alabama in aerospace and defense, the new Aerospace Alliance initiative, his visit to Spain to experience the operation of the boom for the new tanker, and his views on the future of aerospace and defense in the region.

Alabama is at the vortex of the two key defense programs up for selection by the Obama Administration. The tanker competition has received the most press, but Mobile is at the heart of the LCS competition as well. Both bids are based on collaboration with foreign firms, Airbus and EADS for the tanker, and Austal for the LCS. In the case of the tanker, collaborating with a foreign company seems akin to original sin, but working with Austal seems to pass without comment on the national scene.

Additionally, one would get the sense from the controversy surrounding the tanker that Alabama was an odd place to build defense systems. But in reality, Alabama provides significant support for the US military in terms of installations, industry and overall support. Indeed, in Huntsville, Boeing is a major industrial player in the US rocket business. In addition to defense capabilities, Alabama has major aviation and MRO or maintenance, repair and overhaul facilities.

Alabama is at the vortex of the two key defense programs up for selection by the Obama Administration.
According to an Alabama presentation, Aviation companies targeted for both the commercial and defense sectors are located throughout the state, with concentrations in central and southeast Alabama. Area companies include GKN Aerospace, with facilities in Montgomery and Tallassee, and Kelly Aerospace in Montgomery. In the south Alabama cities of Abbeville and Mobile, Teledyne Continental Motors employs more than 450 workers in the manufacture of engines, components and ignition systems for general aviation.

The MRO industry is spread across the state. Pemco World Air Services facility in Dothan provides maintenance services for numerous rotary wing aircraft as well as heavy maintenance and major modifications on wide-body and narrow-body aircraft. Alabama Aircraft Industries in Birmingham provides a full range of aviation maintenance and modification services for both U.S. and foreign military, with a specialization in cargo planes. In Mobile, ST Mobile Aerospace Engineering focuses on providing scheduled maintenance and major modifications to wide-body and narrow-body aircraft. In Pike County, Sikorsky Support Services has helicopter service operations.

In addition, U.S. Helicopter operates a large helicopter service facility in Dale County to serve Fort Rucker. AcroHelipro operates a helicopter repair and overhaul facility in Andalusia. In 2006, Aerospace Integration Corporation announced that the company would open a new modification facility in Albertville, Alabama integrating enhanced technology into military helicopters.

“Going deep into history“

For the Governor of Alabama, the aerospace and defense role of the state goes deep into history. As such, Governor Riley underscores that he has been a bit surprised by the pushback from the tanker competition, which suggested to some that Alabama is a Johnny-come lately in the aerospace and defense business. He points out that the Wright brothers opened the nation’s first civilian flying school on an old cotton plantation on the outskirts of Montgomery, Alabama in the early 20th century.

For example, the Army aviation community at Fort Rucker operates with a “state of the art training facility”. “We are doing a significant amount of aviation repair work.” And to support such work “we have built an aviation education capability second to none. We can graduate up to 1,000-licensed AP certified mechanics per year…. Are we going to have the capacity to support the growth of aviation jobs? We have indeed invested in the training facilities and are able to do so.”

“When some questioned whether we could build a tanker in Alabama, it was almost humorous to the people of Alabama….“, he pursues. “In the 50s and 60s, the rockets that went to the moon were built in Alabama. The NASA component is growing. We have Army Material command moving out of Northern Virginia to Huntsville Alabama. Maxwell AFB is a remarkable facility…. One of the largest Army depots is in Fort McClellan. Up there we are rebuilding the tanks and wheeled vehicles coming back from the war.”

The Governor underscores that “we have invested in the capability to train the personnel needed by the Army, Navy or Air Force for any mission that might be asked of us (…) The Austal shipyard is another amazing facility. And if things turn out the way I hope they do, 15% of all new naval ships will be built in Mobile Alabama… This is a state of the art shipyard, which can build modular aluminum, ships efficiently and effectively.”

“Not just talking a good game” : the automobile industry analogy

With some passion the Governor notes that “We feel that we not only talk a good game, but we have stepped up and delivered on every obligation that we have been asked to do for the military.” (See video 1: Walking the Walk)

Discussing the new Aerospace Alliance initiative, he then adds: “You can look back over the last 10-12 years with regard to the automobile industry in the South and you are about to see the same thing with regard to aviation and aerospace. 10-12 years ago, Alabama did not produce an automobile. Today, we have the capacity to do 850,000 cars per year…. But this has also happened across the South…. It has created a critical mass for the automobile sector. Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 suppliers are coming into this area… We want to do the same thing in the Southeast for aviation and aerospace. (…) If you combine Louisiana’s NASA activities, with Mississippi’s activities, with what we are doing and with Boeing’s move to South Carolina to build the Dreamliner, you see the same thing in aerospace that you saw in the automobile industry.”

“We learned a long time ago that when it comes to economic development, the best thing we could do is erase state lines. Whatever happens in Mississippi has a huge impact on Alabama. What happens in Georgia will have a huge impact on Alabama. So today we are trying to create region that we are going to have state of the art facilities, capabilities, work force development and procedures, to allow our people to take advantage of these new opportunities.” (See video 2: Erasing State Lines)

Experiencing EADS tanker’s new refueling boom

On a human-interest side, the Governor also described his experience of going to Spain on the way back from Germany and flying on an EADS tanker. The Governor flew for an hour on an Airbus 310 tanker while deploying the new refueling booms designed to transfer fuel from the tanker to another aircraft. Although he did not refuel an aircraft, he did operate the boom while in flight. The Governor said, “it was fun to operate…. It is extraordinarily easy to use… My host said that it was easy to use because we spent $175 million to develop it over five years…. It was easier to use on the plane than on the simulator.” He then added with some passion: “I hear some people say that the boom does not exist, but I would be hard pressed to be convinced of that because I saw it, was on the plane with it and flew it…” For the Governor, the advantages of the boom being operated from the cockpit seem obvious, as opposed to operating the boom from the back: “I think our forces deserve this capability, and I find it difficult to understand why we would not want the most advanced boom.” (See video 3: Using the new Boom on the Airbus Tanker)

———-

***Posted November 26th, 2009

Notes regarding the slideshow:

The first photo showed the building of a new maritime center in Mobile which became part of the LCS program support.

The photos of the A330 MRTT used for the exercise is the first for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), which is due to be handed over to the customer by mid-2010 and is configured with two hose-and-drogue pods and a centerline-mounted refueling boom. Both systems have completed wet contacts in flight.

In the trial the aircraft took off from Airbus Military’s Getafe facility near Madrid and rendezvous used with two F/A-18A+ aircraft which had flown from the Spanish Air Force base at Torejon. During a two-hour sortie the two fighters received 11,400kg of fuel in a sequence of 13 contacts of which 11 were simultaneous. The operation was conducted at an altitude of around 15,000ft and a speed of 250kt and used only the hose-and-drogue pods.

NDU Study Recommends DOD Step Into The Manufacturing Policy Void

Posted on November 24, 2009 | by SysAdmin | Leave a Comment

11/24/2009

: Global Manufacturing Employment Trends (NDU Study, p. 17)

By Richard McCormack

For the sake of U.S. national security, the federal government and the Department of Defense must stop ignoring the decline of the U.S. manufacturing sector and put in place policies that reinvigorate American production. That is the recommendation from the 2009 Manufacturing Industry Study conducted by the Industrial College of the Armed Forces (ICAF) at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C. It concluded that U.S. manufacturing is “on the wrong side of an emerging inflection point, from which it may not be able to recover without concerted action.“

The study group found that current U.S. government economic policies are “outdated, poorly coordinated and insufficient for the networked 21st century global marketplace.” Policies remain “steeped in the 20th century, industrially-based, free-market model” that no longer work and are “inappropriate for the needs of today’s economic structure where the combination of products, services, knowledge — and increasingly the policies of other countries — enables specialization and competitive advantage across sectors, especially manufacturing.”

The group calls U.S. economic policies, including environmental regulations, corporate tax laws, monetary and fiscal, “myopic.” Pell Grants, R&D spending and small business development support are only “individual pieces of a system…but fail to secure the system itself,” says the ICAF study group.

The study group “overwhelmingly concluded the U.S. manufacturing industry remains critical to U.S. national power and its vital interests. Furthermore, the Manufacturing Industry Study Group concluded the U.S. can and must achieve these three goals: preeminence, high value-added jobs and innovation.”

It recommends that the U.S. government create a National Economic Strategy that will supplement the existing National Security Strategy, an annual report that has been required by law since 1986. “The process of preparing a National Economic Strategy would more effectively inject the economic instrument of power into the national security planning process,” says the ICAF study group. “This would complement existing efforts to bolster interagency economic policy coordination, such as the creation in 1993 of the National Economic Council alongside the National Security Council.”

The ICAF group says efforts to integrate economic policy into national security planning “are insufficient,” and that other countries are benefiting “from having developed mechanisms which ensure their national economic interests are routinely examined in a wide strategic context….U.S. National Security Strategy documents reveal a heavy focus on the military and political instruments of power with informational and economic instruments included only as supporting elements.”

Economic issues must now be made an integral part of the Quadrennial Defense Review, the National Military Strategy and the National Defense Strategy. “There is no supporting interagency report or process that specifically addresses how national economic policy relates to national security strategy, and this is where preparation of a National Economic Strategy would prove most useful,” says the study group’s report. Such a strategy should be developed across numerous government agencies including Commerce, Treasury, Energy, State, USTR and the EPA. “Creating and vetting such a document would impose a discipline of interaction across economic-focused government departments and expand communications channels among these departments, other non-economic civilian entities in government, and the military.”

This National Economic Strategy should address the issues impacting the U.S. manufacturing sector and the defense industrial base. It needs to consider policies that improve the U.S. balance of trade, and it should re-examine trade policies to create a level playing field for U.S. industry. The strategy should also promote policies that ensure the United States captures the economic benefit of developing “frontier” technologies and industries such as nanotechnology, biotechnology and environmental goods.

An NES Will Integrate Key Characteristics of the Manufacturing Industry
(Credit: NDU Study, page 10)

The ICAF manufacturing group recommends that governments at all levels in the United States work together to create policies and target resources and initiatives to support all manufacturing activities through R&D, product design, production, maintenance and administrative functions such as purchasing, inventory control and shipping. “Manufacturing jobs are particularly beneficial to the communities in which they are located and the creation and retention of such jobs often rests on the ability of governments, universities and corporations to coordinate activities that support the process of turning research and ideas into domestically produced goods.” North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park should be used as a model for governments working with industry and universities to create manufacturing clusters that generate wealth and good jobs for local communities.

Finally, the NDU study group says there needs to be an independent panel that reviews the impact of taxes and regulations on domestic manufacturers. “The current combined corporate tax rate of 39.3 percent is a poor advertisement for investment into the U.S. economy,” according to the study group’s recommendation. “An overhaul of the tax code to incentivize domestic R&D and production may be necessary to retain the industrial base.”

The Manufacturing Industry Study Group says that the United States can turn the situation around, “but only through concerted action…and it is imperative this action begins now.”

***

This article is featured in this week’s Manufacturing News at: http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/09/1117/ICAF.html

———-

***Posted November 23rd, 2009

Meeting the Logistics and Sustainment Challenge: Towards a New Bargain Between Industry and Government

Posted on November 23, 2009 | by SysAdmin | Leave a Comment

11/23/2009

Building a Stable and Effective Public-Private Partnership

In a recent interview Sldinfo conducted with Lou Kratz, Vice President, Logistics and Sustainment, Lockheed Martin Corporation, the core significance of shaping an effective partnership between industry and the Department of Defense was underscored. Indeed, Lou Kratz laid out an approach towards shaping a new convenant between industry and government in forging a success-based sustainment model. Such a model would focus on implementing shared understandings of effective outcomes for logistics support and sustainment activities.

Lou Kratz drew upon the findings of a May 2009 Aerospace Industries Association’s (AIA) study on logistics, entitled “Modernizing Logistics“, to underscore that in 2008 more than $272 billion was spent on logistics and sustainment. “The AIA study makes clear that without substantial savings from the logistics and sustainment budgets, we would undercut our ability to buy new equipment and to keep weapon systems at the appropriate readiness levels.” He added that “just by accelerating on-going DoD initiatives and modernizing the logistics sector, an annual saving of up to 32 billion dollars could be achieved.” The AIA study includes several key recommendations, among which Lou Kratz underscored the importance of “the development of an end-to-end supply chain” and “the migration of the acquisition approach towards buying a service rather than a product”.

Lou Kratz emphasized that the new Administration and the Congress were highlighting the significance of logistics and sustainment for the acquisition process. He then identified three key developments, which underscore such a trend:

The first has been to meet the overall “Iraq challenge, which raised the visibility of logistics as a whole, while no asset visibility existed during the Gulf War I”; today the impact of the Iraq withdrawal is even more compelling in demonstrating the need for efficient logistics management and operations: “The Iraq withdrawal will cost billions of dollars and highlight the importance of doing a better job in inventorying equipment and knowing the condition of that equipment. If there were greater transparency with regard to the numbers and condition of the equipment, acquisition would be improved as the Department looks to year procurements.” With the current redeployment from Iraq to Afghanistan, “the challenge for the Pentagon is to retrograde people and equipment: a decision concerning some 300,000 containers deployed in Iraq must be made for them to move to Afghanistan or come back and then reset and synchronized”, he notes.
The second is evidenced by the emphasis which Dr. Carter, the Under Secretary of Defense of Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, is placing upon logistics and sustainment. One manifestation of this is the importance being placed on a study being currently conducted by Randy Fowler, ADUSD (Materiel Readiness). This study is an outgrowth of the work of the Product Support Assessment Team and is focused on concrete ways whereby industry and government and industry can work together to improve product support. The report in draft form is entitled “DOD Weapons System Product Support Assessment: Shaping the Next Generation Life Cycle Sustainment”. Lou Kratz noted that “while some critics in the press have focused on the tensions between the Administration and industry over their working relationship, Carter and Fowler clearly wish to see this working relationship as the engine for delivering capabilities to the warfighter and to the ability to have 21^st century life cycle support.”
The third development is the central role which sustainment considerations will play in the acquisition of major weapons systems. Lou Kratz pointed to the importance of section 805 of new National Defense Authorization Act. This section seeks to “maximize value to the Department of Defense by providing the best possible product support outcomes at the lowest operations and support cost.” To achieve this outcome the Act proposes the creation of “product support managers” for major weapons systems and a comprehensive set of responsibilities to be performed to improve attention to weapon system product support objectives and deliver equipment readiness-benefitting outcomes.

Lou Kratz emphasized that the private sector strongly supports such an effort, and welcomes a more effective set of approaches to achieve product support. “Establishing proper metrics for achieving success and effective communication between the government and the private sector will be important to achieving such a result. (…) “For that to happen”, he added, “ more DoD experts are indeed needed in order to optimize the support of the industry” Although not directly discussing the shift towards more insourcing in the government to replace some private sector contracting efforts, Kratz did emphasize that what both sides want is the same: a stable and effective partnership to shape improved capabilities to deliver more effective outcomes in logistics and sustainment efforts.

Lockheed Martin’s Global and End-to-End Approach: Building a Success-Based Sustainment Model

Lou Kratz believes that logistics and sustainment are no longer the last element of the chain of operations, but that they are at the very heart of any sound acquisition strategy.
Lockheed Martin is involved in a wide-range of logistics and sustainment acitivities. For example, Lockheed Martin is involved in two major ways in the Retrograde process from Iraq: “via asset visibility management (RFID) and via the resetting of equipment once they are back in the organic depots”, he explains. “LMC is also running 22 Performance-Based Logistics Initiatives (PBL) ranging from the F22 Raptor to smaller programs and has been recognized by DoD as a PBL Award winner.”

With the increasingly stringent defense budget, a very dynamic theater environment requiring overall agility, as well as the need to embrace global solutions for logistics and sustainment, whether for deployed US or allied forces or in working with allied or partner governments, Lockheed Martin is playing a key role in the re-crafting of the logistics and sustainment enterprise. Lou Kratz emphasizes that Lockheed Martin plays across the spectrum of logistics solutions and is innovating to shape new approaches to partnering to deliver value to customers.

Certainly, Lockheed, like other Original Equipment Manufacturers, focuses upon leveraging its own platforms to provide logistics and sustainment solutions. The C-130J, Aegis, C-5, F-22 and many other examples come to mind. On the international level, Lockheed “closely works with the United Kingdom via a 25 year contract for the C-130; it also works on the C-130 with Australia and is in the final negotiation with Canada. It has also developed a wide-ranging partnership with Singapore delivering airplanes and its simulators and ensuring pilot training (in this case, the obligation of results for the company and remuneration are directly translated into the number of graduated pilots)”, explains Lockheed Martin’s Vice president, Logistics and Sustainment.

He also points to the new F-35 model as an example of the shift whereby shaping a global support and sustainment for the new aircraft is part of the production model and the business case. Lockheed is leveraging its global partnering experiences with these platforms and programs to build an innovative new approach to the newest combat aircraft, the F-35. “The F-35 will succeed in part because it is more effectively built for sustainability than any tactical aircraft ever built. The global partnership to build the aircraft is already providing core elements of the sustainment model.” Lou Kratz highlights the global reach of the aircraft as providing an ideal opportunity to shape global partnerships and regional support centers for the aircraft. “As such, this allows Lockheed working with its partners to deliver value to the three US services who will use the aircraft as well as our global customers. This is a unique opportunity to shape 21^st century solutions to logistics and sustainment built around a 21^st century aircraft.”

Building New Tailored Skill Sets

For Lockheed Martin, the OEM “extension” model of logistics and sustainment is however only part of the story. LMC is building a portfolio of capabilities, and as such building skill sets which allow it to work with a diverse customer base and to work with a broad set of partners from the commercial and defense industries.

Lou Kratz identified a number of efforts, which reflect the diversity of the Lockheed approach:

One example is the provision of tires to the Navy and the Air Force. Here Lockeed provides assured material availability to the CONUS and deployed Naval and US Air Force airplanes. The team has a track record of 100% fill rate, a turn around in 33 hours in CONUS and a turn around outside of CONUS in 55 hours. The projected savings per year to the government customer of Lockheed management of the supply chain is projected to be around $46 million.
SAVI, which is a wholly owned Lockheed Company, constitutes another example : providing asset-tracking systems for a variety of government and commercial customers, SAVI is indeed the pioneer in RFID tracking technologies and is leveraging this technology to provide new solutions for data transparency.
Another example is the 2008 contract from US Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to help enhance the military’s distribution network. The Lockheed team is merging DLA’s Integrated Data Environment (IDE) distribution systems with USTRANSCOM’s Global Transportation Network (GTN) into a unifed system called IDE/GTN Convergence (IGC). Lockheed Martin builds and maintains GTN and is synchronizing the systems with other key information systems. IGC will provide a common information platform that enables the military to more collaboratively and cost-effectively improve end-to-end supply visibility, responsiveness, decision-making, service and logistics processes. The platform includes a single repository and universal access to logistics data so that any user or developer can easily find, access or manage supply chain information.

This contract is part of an overall effort by Lockheed Martin to shape leading asset management visibility tools and practices. Among the areas where Lockheed works according to Lou Kratz are the following:

Building and managing leading asset visibility tools;
Joint asset management and engineering systems;
Supporting the DOD global transportation network
Developing and supporting DLA business systems;
Supporting the US Air Force global combat support systems.

Towards a Global and Comprehensive Approach

In addition to support for its products and involvement in global IT systems, Lockheed is involved in a number of global activities associated with support for contingency operations. Among the activities in which Lockheed is engaged according to Kratz are the following:

Base operations and support;
Logistical support services;
Peacekeeping support services;
Airfield and airport support services
Personnel placement services.

An example of the above is Lockheed Martin’s role in Africa. PAE , a Lockheed Martin company, currently manages more than 2,000 African workers across the continent and is developing and training African workers to assume jobs, previously held by foreign works. PAE also has experience supporting peacekeeping and law enforcement missions in countries such as Sudan, Sierra Leone, Bahrain, Haiti, Liberia, Timor Leste and Afghanistan. Under a contract from the US Department of State, PAE has supported peacekeepers in Darfur by building and supporting base camps that house African Union’s multi-national force.
Lockheed martin is also currently managing the Roberts International Airport in Monrovia with the Liberia Civil Aviation Authority. And Lockheed is seeking to work with other African nations in the construction and enhancement of their airports. The goal and the hope are that, through security, quality partnering and logistics, Lockheed Martin will contribute to solutions necessary and complementary to the support of African development efforts.

In other words, Lockheed has a broad and comprehensive view of the portfolio to be shaped to engage in logistics and sustainment, in the military, security and civil sectors. Lou Kratz underscored that in “collaboration with our customers we would pursue integrated product support frameworks, develop and support end-to-end supply chain analysis tools, engage in joint logistics concept development and support end-to-end asset management.” In that sense, he considers that “allied integrated logistics and the fact that NATO is now stepping in are absolutely crucial”.
In short, for Lockheed Martin today “logistics and sustainment are not an afterthought. It is central to our core activities and central to our future in working with our customers.”

———-

***Posted November 23rd, 2009