Printer Friendly

Optimal CV-22 intermediate repair facility locations.

Introduction

The CV-22 Osprey is a revolutionary new weapon system that is currently being fielded by Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). (1) It exploits tilt-rotor technology that allows it to fly like a standard turboprop, fixed-wing airplane while also maintaining the flexibility inherent in vertical takeoff and landing like a helicopter. Because the CV-22 is still a relatively new weapon system, some of the logistics questions for the aircraft have not been answered. The AFSOC Directorate of Logistics for Maintenance (A4M) asked the authors to look at two areas: 1) where should a centralized intermediate repair facility (CIRF) be established and 2) what parts and equipment peculiar to the CV-22 should be repaired at a CIRF?

A CIRF provides an intermediate level of aircraft repair. Most continental United States (CONUS) Air Force bases today use a three-level maintenance concept. On-equipment maintenance is maintenance that is done directly to, or on, the aircraft. Off-equipment maintenance requires taking the part off the aircraft and is usually done using specialized equipment located in what are called backshops, but still located at the main base. The final level is depot-level repair. In this case, the part or equipment must be sent to an aircraft or parts depot for repair. There are currently three main depots in the Air Force: Oklahoma Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base (AFB), Oklahoma; Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill AFB, Utah; and the Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center, Robins AFB, Georgia.

Why CIRF?

CIRFs are not a new concept and have been experimented with since the inception of the Air Force in 1947. In the CIRF concept, the off-equipment maintenance requirement for certain preidentified parts and equipment is eliminated at the main base, and instead, the parts or equipment are shipped to a centralized repair facility for repair. Keep in mind, however, that this is not depot-level repair. The logistics involved is similar in that transportation costs, spares levels, and maintenance pipeline repair times all have to be considered. The main goal is to have a more efficient operation to repair parts. The secondary goal is to save money.

AFSOC has already begun implementing CIRF operations for several components. For example, all CONUS based AFSOC C-130 engines are CIRF repaired at Hurlburt Field, Florida. Additionally, several avionics components from AFSOC aircraft are CIRF repaired at Hurlburt Field, Florida.

The realities of today's military, not just the Air Force, demand that organizations find new and better ways of doing business. Budgets are shrinking, manpower is being reduced, and the operations tempo is extremely high. One way the Air Force aircraft maintenance community can minimize the effects of this environment is by using CIRFs. The advantages of CIRFs are that manpower is pooled at one location. This achieves two things. First, it reduces the cost of manpower. For example, let's say the Air Force has three bases doing backshop maintenance with 80 people each. If the backshop operations are combined at a CIRF, all 240 people will not be required (80 personnel x 3 bases). Instead, the efficiencies achieved by pooling the manpower will allow the Air Force to operate the CIRF with fewer personnel, therefore reducing the personnel cost. Second, with Air Force-wide cuts in manpower, this allows the Air Force to achieve the same level of repair and readiness with fewer personnel by pooling manpower at one location. Additionally, CIRFs tend to be steady state. That is, they do not deploy forward This allows for the option of hiring civilian maintenance technicians (either government or contractor) to work in the CIRF, adding an even higher level of experience. Also, in the three-level maintenance concept, the backshops deploy forward with the aircraft. By putting those backshop tasks at the CIRF, it reduces the operations tempo for those personnel, requiring fewer personnel to deploy and to deploy less often.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The objective of this research project was to provide AFSOC A4M a well-researched, feasible options for CV-22 CIRF operations. First, locations for CIRF operations were analyzed using several criteria. Currently, plans call for basing the CV-22 at three CONUS bases, two of which are AFSOC bases. Cannon AFB, New Mexico and Hurlburt Field, Florida are both AFSOC bases. Kirtland AFB, New Mexico is an Air Education and Training Command base, but it too has CV-22s and is the training base for all AFSOC CV-22 operators. There are also CV-22s at Edwards AFB, California used for flight testing. The two main variables of interest for the research were costs to transport the parts requiring repair and time required to transport the parts being repaired to and from the CIRFs.

Parts and equipment that are good candidates to be repaired at the CIRF were identified. Historical data on which parts and equipment have broken on the aircraft plus previous research performed on CIRF operations were used to recommend which parts and equipment should be CIRF repaired.

Where to Repair?

In order to determine where to establish the CIRFs several key assumptions had to be made.

* CV-22s will only be based at the three locations: Hurlburt Field, Florida; Cannon AFB, New Mexico; and Kirtland AFB, New Mexico.

* Transportation will be readily available.

* The time it currently takes to repair a CV-22 part will stay constant and will not vary when repaired at the CIRF.

* The mean time between failure (MTBF) will remain constant and not degrade over time (repairing the same asset multiple times over X years).

* The current maintenance data available for the CV-22 can be applied to the future fleet size and operational requirements.

* The infrastructure necessary to do CIRF operations exists at each base.

* Transportation times and costs will remain constant. That is, shipping a part in May will take the same time and cost the same as shipping a part in September.

The optimal location for a CIRF is based on a balance of cost and transportation time. Transportation cost data and transportation time data obtained from commercial carrier Web sites were used to calculate these costs and times. Only commercial ground transportation was studied because all transportation will occur within the CONUS. In general, if there was a conflict between the cost and the speed of delivery, the speed of delivery was considered more important than the costs of delivery because of mission readiness issues. Transportation costs are secondary to mission readiness.

For this study, three different reparable types of equipment were used to determine optimal locations for the CIRF. First, the engine for the CV-22 was used. Second, a 150-pound avionics component was used to simulate larger avionics components. Last, a 50-pound avionics box was used to simulate smaller avionics components. Each item was simulated arriving at the CIRF in two different ways. The first way was simulating the item arriving from an overseas location to the CONUS at a port. The ports used for this study were Dover AFB, Delaware and Travis AFB, California. These two ports are the primary military ports of entry from the east coast and west coast, respectively. Second, each item was analyzed using shipping information between the potential CIRF locations (Kirtland AFB, New Mexico; Hurlburt Field, Florida; and Cannon AFB, New Mexico). This would simulate the items moving from CONUS-based locations to the CIRF. By doing this, it gave a complete cost picture of how much time and money it would cost to ship the items coming from overseas and between the CONUS bases.

The cost and time data was obtained from FreightCenter.com. This Web site allows one to put in the exact criteria for the item to ship, including shipping class and exact origin and destination. Once the information is input, the site returns quotes for 10 to 16 different shipping companies (depending on the item) for both cost and time. The costs for each company and the times for each company were averaged to provide a consistent, average cost in time and money to ship each item (see Figure 1).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

This averaged data was then input into a linear programming model simulating two criteria. The first was the cheapest cost. The second was the fastest time. Table 1 provides an example of the linear programming model used to simulate shipment of 50 engines from the ports to the three potential CIRFs. The number 50 was a random number used for simulation in the models.

As seen in Table 1, it becomes apparent that it was both cheaper and faster to ship the engines from the ports to Hurlburt Field, Florida. Modeling was done for each of the three items, simulating cost and time from both the ports and between the bases.

What to Repair?

The parts and equipment for CIRF repair were analyzed using several factors. First, previous studies regarding CIRF operations were studied for recommendations on which parts to be CIRF repaired. Second, historical data on part failures, including numbers of failures and MTBFs, were analyzed to determine optimal spares allocation at the base level.

Based on an analysis of previous research, three items were considered for CIRF repair. These were aircraft engines, avionics components, and aircraft pods (targeting pods, electronic warfare pods, and so forth). Using this previous research and information received from Headquarters AFSOC regarding the number and types of aircraft parts failures, candidate parts for potential CIRF repair were identified.

Twenty-nine different components were identified as being potentially CIRF repairable. The historical break rate data for each of these parts was analyzed and forecasted demand was based on an average of the 18 months of data available. The data was then input into an Excel model along with data on order and ship time (OST) and the service-level rate to compute safety stock and reorder points for each item (see Table 2). Based on the model results, recommendations were made for stock levels for each part at the CV-22 bases.

[TABLE 2 OMITTED]

The service-level rates for these models were set at .95. Order and ship time was derived from information provided by logistics personnel at Cannon AFB, New Mexico. If the average demand per month and reorder point information were fractions, they were rounded up to the next integer. For example, if the reorder point came out to be 3.06 engines, as seen in Table 2, it was rounded up to 4 engines.

Results and Analysis

For this study, six linear program models were run to determine the optimal CIRF locations based on cost and transportation time. For engines, the model was run once to simulate engines coming from the ports, and a second time to simulate engines being transferred between the three bases. The same scenarios were run for the 150-pound and 50-pound avionics components.

Once the 29 aircraft parts to be studied were identified using the literature review of previous studies, the safety stock and reorder point Excel model was run for each part--for a total of 29 model runs.

The modeling results for the aircraft engines showed that it was faster and less expensive to ship the engines to Hurlburt Field, Florida from both the ports and between the bases. Each engine averaged $958 and 4 days to be shipped from the ports to Hurlburt Field and $1,015 and 3.5 days to be shipped to or from Cannon AFB and Hurlburt Field (see Tables 3 and 4). In Tables 3 and 4, it should be noted that X1 is Hurlburt Field, X2 is Cannon AFB, New Mexico, and X3 is Kirtland AFB, New Mexico. HRT, CVS, and ABQ are the airport codes for each of the bases, respectively. The number 50 is a random number used in the linear programming model to simulate the number of engines needing to be shipped.

Based on these results, it was recommended that the engine CIRF be located at Hurlburt Field, Florida.

The results for the 150-pound avionics components showed that it was faster and cheaper to ship the items from the ports to Kirtland AFB, New Mexico. It was cheaper to ship the components to Kirtland AFB from Hurlburt Field, but it took slightly longer to ship the components to or from Hurlburt to Kirtland, than to Cannon (3.5 days versus 3.7 days). The average cost to ship the items from the ports to Kirtland was $222 and the average cost to ship the components to or from Hurlburt was $526. The average times were 3.5 days from the ports and 3.7 days to and from Hurlburt Field. Although this time of 3.7 days was slightly longer than the 3.5 days it would take to ship the item to Cannon, it was recommended based on three of the four criteria (favoring Kirtland AFB) that the 150-pound avionics CIRF be located at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico (see Tables 5 and 6).

The results of the 50-pound avionics components showed again that it was faster and cheaper to ship the components from the ports to Kirtland AFB, and that it was cheaper to ship the components to or from Hurlburt Field to Kirtland AFB. However, once again, it was slightly longer to ship the items to/from Hurlburt and Kirtland AFB than to Cannon AFB (3.5 days versus 3.7 days). Based on three of the four data points favoring Kirtland AFB over Cannon, and the small difference in time (.2 days), it was recommend to CIRF the 50 pound avionics components at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico (see Tables 7 and 8).

It should be noted, however, that in almost all the models run, the times and costs were not that drastically different. For example, the cost to ship the 50-pound avionics components to or from Hurlburt to Cannon was only $3.00 more than to ship it to Kirtland AFB. Management decisions based on infrastructure at each base and mission requirements could favor another base other than the one recommended, without a large impact in cost and time.

As stated earlier, there were 29 parts identified as candidates for CIRF repair. It should be noted that not all of these parts fall in the traditional three categories of CIRF-reparable parts (engines, avionics, and pods). However, because historical data was available for those other parts, they were evaluated in order to provide a more comprehensive report to AFSOC and suggest more repair opportunities. Table 9 shows items recommended for CIRF repair.

The Excel model was run on each of the parts. Each part was evaluated on its historical demand rate and individual OST. Table 10 depicts the aircraft engine Excel model.

The historical demand was derived from the data AFSOC analysts provided. It covered an 18-month period from February 2007 to July 2008. The numbers underneath each month are the demand for that month. For example, it can be seen that two engines were demanded in May 2007 and six were demanded in May 2008. The forecasted need was based on an average monthly demand over the 18-month period. For example, 25 engines were demanded over the 18-month period. This comes out to 25 divided by 18 which equals 1.3889. All fractions were rounded up to the next highest integer; thus the forecasted demand was two. The service level was set at .95 for all the different items. Based on the service level and the forecasted demand, the model computed the safety stock and reorder point levels. The base stock level recommendation was that number rounded up to the next integer. In this case, 3.06 engines were the reorder point. Since you cannot order .06 engines, this was rounded up to four. The cargo preparation time (packing, wrapping, moving the item to the transportation dock) and transportation time were summed to provide the total OST. The preparation time was derived from data provided by the 27th Special Operations Logistics Readiness Squadron. In the case of engines, it was 2 days. For the avionics components, it was 1.5 days. The OST was then used to compute the lead time demand, which was used to compute the safety stock and reorder point levels. Table 11 shows the base stock level recommendations.

[TABLE 10 OMITTED]

Conclusion

No doubt, CIRF repair operations are becoming more and more important to the Air Force logistics enterprise. The military can no longer afford to enjoy having full repair capabilities at every base. Manning authorizations are shrinking as are budget levels. At the same time, deployments and other taskings are increasingly taking a toll on the manpower that is available.

Previous research and actual CIRF operations already in place show that CIRFs can be efficient and effective alternatives to base-level repair capabilities. It is already common in the Combat Air Forces and AFSOC to CIRF engines and avionics. This research project took that data and applied it to CV-22-specific activities. Based on the results of this study, AFSOC leadership can make informed decisions about what to repair at CIRFs and where to locate their CIRFs. More importantly, AFSOC leadership can take the tools used for this study and manipulate them to changing situations. If additional components are added to the CV-22 (pods, for example), these can easily be analyzed using the tools provided in this study. Also, as the CV-22 matures as a weapons system and components break at different rates than they do now, that data can also be input into these tools to compute new requirements.

[TABLE 11 OMITTED]

Article Acronyms

AFB--Air Force Base

AFSOC--Air Force Special Operations Command

CIRF--Centralized Intermediate Repair Facility

CONUS--Continental United States

DIRCM--Direct Infrared Counter Measure

ECS--Environmental Control System

EDU--Electronics Display Unit

FADEC--Full Authority Digital Engine Control

FLIR--Forward Looking Infrared System

GPS--Global Positioning System

MTBF--Mean Time Between Failures

OST--Order and Ship Time

RALT--Radar Altimeter

SIRFC--Suite of Integrated Radio Frequency

Countermeasures

TEWS--Tactical Electronic Warfare System

US--United States

Logistics ... embraces not merely the traditional functions of supply and transportation in the field, but also war finance, ship construction, munitions manufacture, and other aspects of war economy.

--Lieutenant Colonel George C. Thorpe, USMC

Logistics comprises the means and arrangements which work out the plans of strategy and tactics. Strategy decides where to act, logistics brings the troops to that point.

--General Antoine Henri Jomini

The hardest thing to change is organizations that have been successful and have to change anyway.

--Deputy Secretary of Defense John White

New conditions require, for solution--and new weapons require, for maximum application--new and imaginative methods. Wars are never won in the past.

--Gen Douglas MacArthur, USA

The creative leader is the one who will rewrite doctrine, employ new weapons systems, develop new tactics and who pushes the state of the art.

--Secretary of the Army John O. Marsh, Jr

Historical Perspective

The battle is fought and decided by the quartermasters before the shooting begins.

--Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

No matter their nationality or specific service, military logisticians throughout history have understood the absolute truth represented in the above quote. Whether they were charged with supplying food for soldiers, fodder for horses or the sinews of modern war--petroleum, oil, and lubricants, they have understood that victory is impossible without them--even if, sometimes, it seemed their vital contributions were forgotten or ignored. None of the great military captains of history were ignorant of logistics. From Frederick the Great to Napoleon to Patton, they all understood the link between their operations and logistics. The great captains also have all understood that history had much to teach them about the nature of the military profession. Yet, military logisticians do not often spend time studying the history of military logistics.

There are at least three general lessons from history that might prove of some use in understanding how best to prepare for the future. The first of these is the best case operationally is often the worst case logistically. The second is promises to eliminate friction and uncertainty have never come to fruition. And the third is technological change must be accompanied by organizational and intellectual change to take full advantage of new capabilities. While these lessons are not exclusive to logistics, when applied to the understanding and practice of military logistics, they provide a framework for understanding the past and planning for the future.

Colonel Karen S. Wilhelm, USAF (Ret)

Concentration and Logistics

To win in battle we must concentrate combat power in time and space. Strategy and tactics are concerned with the questions of what time and what place; these are the ends, not the means. The means of victory is concentration and that process is our focus here. There are only four key factors to think about if we seek success in concentration. This is not a simple task. Although few in number, their impact, dynamics and interdependencies are hard to grasp. This is a problem as much of perspective as of substance. It concerns the way we think, as much as what we are looking at. The factors are not functions, objects or even processes. They are best regarded as conditions representing the nature of what we are dealing with in seeking concentration. They are as follows. Logistics is not independent. It exists only as one half of a partnership needed to achieve concentration. Why is understanding this so important? Logistics governs the tempo and power of operations. For us, and for our enemy. We have to think about the partnership of operations and logistics because it is a target. A target for us, and for our enemy. Like any target, we need to fully understand its importance, vulnerabilities and critical elements to make sure we know what to defend and what to attack. All military commanders, at all levels of command, rely on the success of this partnership. How well they understand it will make a big difference concerning how well it works for them and how well they work for it.

Wing Commander David J. Foster, RAF

Lessons from the First Deployment of Expeditionary Airpower

The lens of history speaks to many of the issues that are significant in today's expeditionary airpower environment. Particularly relevant are the lessons learned during first deployment of expeditionary airpower by the Royal Flying Corps during WWI. These include:

* The use of airpower is an expensive proposition.

* Maintaining aircraft away from home station demands considerable resources.

* Attrition from active operations is often very high.

* Effective support demands the ready availability of spares.

* Transport and protecting the transportation system is critical.

* Preserving mobility (the ability to redeploy quickly) is a constant battle.

* The supply system must be adequate in scope with a margin in capacity to meet unplanned events.

* The essential lubricant is skilled manpower.

Group Captain Peter J. Dye, RAF

Ryan L. Rowe, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF

William A. Cunningham, PhD, DAF, AFIT

Notes

(1.) The Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey was built by a joint venture of Bell Helicopter and Boeing Helicopters. The aircraft was first fielded by the Marine Corps in 2007. The Air Force fielded their version in 2009. See Wikipedia, [Online] Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BellBoeing_V-22_Osprey, accessed 30 March 201l.

Lieutenant Colonel Ryan L. Rowe is the Deputy Director, F-35A Life Cycle Logistics Office, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.

William A. Cunningham, PhD is currently a professor of Logistics and Supply Chain Management in the Department of Operational Sciences in the Graduate School of Engineering and Management at the Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
Table 1. Sample Linear Programming Model for Aircraft Engines

                 A                B     C       D         E

 1   Let X1 = Hurlburt Field                   ST:
 2   Let X2 = Cannon AFB                      X1 + X2 + X3 = 50
 3   Let X3 = Kirtland AFB
 4   MIN 958X1 + 1149X2 +
       1030X3 Cost
 5   MIN 4X1 +4.5X2 + 4X3 Time
 6
 7
 8
 9   Min Cost
10
11   Number to Ship              50     0       0      Totals
11
12  Unit Cost                 958   1149    1030     47908
13   Unit Time (days)            4.0   4.5     4.0       200
14
15
16
17   Constraints                                        Used
18     Engines                    1     1       1        50
19
20
21   Min Time
22                               HRT   CVS     ABO
23   Number to Ship              50     0       0      Totals
24     Unit Cost                 958   1149    1030     47908
25   Unit Time (days)            4.0   4.5     4.0       200
26
27
28
29   Constraints                                        Used
30     Engines                    1     1       1        50

                 A                   F          G

 1   Let X1 = Hurlburt Field
 2   Let X2 = Cannon AFB
 3   Let X3 = Kirtland AFB
 4   MIN 958X1 + 1149X2 +
       1030X3 Cost
 5   MIN 4X1 +4.5X2 + 4X3 Time
 6
 7
 8
 9   Min Cost                                A-S = 15
10                                           H-L = 10
11   Number to Ship
11
12  Unit Cost
13   Unit Time (days)
14
15
16
17   Constraints                 Available
18     Engines                      50
19
20
21   Min Time
22
23   Number to Ship
24     Unit Cost
25   Unit Time (days)
26
27
28
29   Constraints                 Available
30     Engines                      50

Table 3. Linear Programming Results for Engines from the Ports

                A                 B      C       D        E

 1   Let X1 = Hurlburt Field                    ST:
 2   Let X2 = Cannon AFB                       X1 + X2 + X3 = 50
 3   Let X3 = Kirtland AFB
 4   MIN 958X1 + 1149X2 + 1030X3 Cost
 5   MIN 4X1+4.5X2+4X3 Time
 6
 7
 8
 9   Min Cost
10                               HRT    CVS     ABQ
11   Number to Ship              50      0       0      Totals
12     Unit Cost                 958    1149   1030     47908
13   Unit Time (days)            4.0    4.5     4.0      200
14
15
16
17   Constraints                                         Used
18     Engines                    1      1       1        50
19
20
21   Min Time
22                               HRT    CVS     ABQ
23   Number to Ship              50      0       0      Totals
24     Unit Cost                 958    1149   1030     47908
25   Unit Time (days)            4.0    4.5     4.0      200
26
27
28
29   Constraints                                         Used
30     Engines                    1      1       1        50

                A                   F          G

 1   Let X1 = Hurlburt Field
 2   Let X2 = Cannon AFB
 3   Let X3 = Kirtland AFB
 4   MIN 958X1 + 1149X2 + 1030X3 Cost
 5   MIN 4X1+4.5X2+4X3 Time
 6
 7
 8
 9   Min Cost                               A-S = 15
10                                          H-L = 10
11   Number to Ship
12     Unit Cost
13   Unit Time (days)
14
15
16
17   Constraints                Available
18     Engines                     50
19
20
21   Min Time
22
23   Number to Ship
24     Unit Cost
25   Unit Time (days)
26
27
28
29   Constraints                Available
30     Engines                     50

Table 4. Linear Programming Results for Engines Between the Bases

               A              B      C           D

 1   Let X1 =Cannon AFB                         ST:
 2   Let X2 = Kirtland AFB                   X1 +X2=50

 4   MIN 1015X1 + 1059X2 Cost
     MIN 3.5X1 + 3.7X2
       Time
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9   Min Cost                              Variable cell
10                           CVS    ABQ
11   Number to Ship           50     0        Totals
12     Unit Cost             1015   1059       50732
13   Unit Time (days)        3.5    3.7         175
14
15
16
17   Constraints                               Used
18     Engine                 1      1          50
19
20
21   Min Time
22                           CVS    ABQ
23   Number to Ship           50     0        Totals
24     Unit Cost             1015   1059       50732
25   Unit Time (days)        3.5    3.7         175
26
27
28
29   Constraints                               Used
30     Engine                 1      1          50

               A                 E          F

 1   Let X1 =Cannon AFB
 2   Let X2 = Kirtland AFB

 4   MIN 1015X1 + 1059X2 Cost
     MIN 3.5X1 + 3.7X2
       Time
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9   Min Cost                            A-S = 15
10                                       H-L = 10
11   Number to Ship
12     Unit Cost
13   Unit Time (days)
14
15
16
17   Constraints             Available
18     Engine                   50
19
20
21   Min Time
22
23   Number to Ship
24     Unit Cost
25   Unit Time (days)
26
27
28
29   Constraints             Available
30     Engine                   50

Table 5. Linear Programming Results for 150 Pound Avionics from the
Ports

                A                B     C         D          E

 1   Let X1 = Hurlburt Field                    ST:
 2   Let X2 = Cannon AFB                    Xl+X2+X3=50
 3   Let X3 = Kirtland AFB
 4   MIN 246X1 + 241X2 + 222X3 (Cost)
 5   MIN 4X1 + 4X2 + 3.5X3 Time
 6
 7
 8
 9   Min Cost
10                              HRT   CVS       ABQ
11   Number to Ship              0     0        50        Totals
12     Unit Cost                246   241       222       11081
13   Unit Time (days)           4.0   4.5       3.5        175
14
15
16
17   Constraints                                           Used
18     1501b pkq                                            50
19
20
21   Min Time
22                              HRT   CVS       ABQ
23   Number to Ship                    0        50        Totals
24     Unit Cost                246   241       222       11081
25   UN Time (days)             40    ?5        3.5        175
26
27
28
29   Constraints                                           Used
30     1501b pkg                 1     1         1          50

                A                   F        G

 1   Let X1 = Hurlburt Field
 2   Let X2 = Cannon AFB
 3   Let X3 = Kirtland AFB
 4   MIN 246X1 +241X2 + 222X3 (Cost)
 5   MIN 4X1 + 4X2 + 3.5X3 Time
 6
 7
 8
 9   Min Cost
10
11   Number to Ship
12     Unit Cost
13   Unit Time (days)
14
15
16
17   Constraints                Available
18     1501b pkg                   50
19
20
21   Min Time
22
23   Number to Ship
24     Unit Cost
25   UN Time (days)
26
27
28
29   Constraints                Available
30     1501b pkg                   50

Table 6. Linear Programming Results for 150 Pound Avionics Between
the Bases

               A               B     C       D           E        F

 1   Let X1 =Cannon AFB                   ST:
 2   Let X2 = Kirtland AFB                X1+X2=50
 4   MIN 529X1 + 526X2 Cost
 5   MIN 3.5X1 +3.7X2 Time
 6
 7
 8
 9   Min Cost
10                            CVS   ABQ
11   Number to Ship            0    50     Totals
12     Unit Cost              529   526    26279
13   Unit Time (days)         3.5   3.7     185
14
15
16
17   Constraints                            Used     Available
18     Eng                     1     1       50         50
19
20
21   Min Time
22                            HRT   CVS
23   Number to Ship           50     0     Totals
24     Unit Cost              529   526    26451
25   Unit Time (days)         3.5   3.7     175
26
27
28
29   Constraints                            Used     Available
30     Eng                     1     1       50         50

Table 7. Linear Programming Results for 50 Pound Avionics from the
Ports

                A                B     C     D         E

 1   Let X1 = Hurlburt Field                      ST:
 2   Let X2 = Cannon AFB                          X1+X2+X3=50
 3   Let X3 = Kirtland AFB
 4   MIN 246X1 + 241 X2 + 222X3 Cost
 5   MIN 4X1+4X2+3.5X3 Time
 6
 7
 8
 9   Min Cost
10                              HRT   CVS   ABO
11   Number to Ship              0     0     0      Totals
12     Unit Cost                229   234   215      10731
13   Unit Time (days)           4.0   4.5   3.5       175
14
15
16
17   Constraints                                     Used
18     50lb Pk                   1     1     1        50
19
20
21   Min Time
22                              HRT   CVS   ABQ
23   Number to Ship              0     0    50      Totals
24     Unit Cost                229   234   215      10731
25   Unit Time (days)           3.5   3.7             175
26
27
28
29   Constraints                                     Used
30     50lb Pkg                  1     1     1        50

                A                   F        G

 1   Let X1 = Hurlburt Field
 2   Let X2 = Cannon AFB
 3   Let X3 = Kirtland AFB
 4   MIN 246X1 + 241 X2 + 222X3 Cost
 5   MIN 4X1+4X2+3.5X3 Time
 6
 7
 8
 9   Min Cost
10
11   Number to Ship
12     Unit Cost
13   Unit Time (days)
14
15
16
17   Constraints                Available
18     50lb Pk                     50
19
20
21   Min Time
22
23   Number to Ship
24     Unit Cost
25   Unit Time (days)
26
27
28
29   Constraints                Available
30     50lb Pkg                    50

Table 8. Linear Programming Results for 50 Pound Avionics Between the
Bases

              A             B        C         D          E        F

 1   Let X1 = Cannon AFB         ST:
 2   Let X2 = Kirtland           X1+X2 =50
       AFB
 3
 4   MIN 521X1 + 518X2
       Cost
 5   MIN 3.5X1 + 3.7X2
       Time
 6
 7
 8
 9   Min Cost
10                         CVS      ABQ
11   Number to Ship         0       50       Totals
12     Unit Cost           52      51.8      25904
13   Unit Time (days)      3.5      3.7       185
14
15
16
17   Constraints                              Used    Available
18     Eng                  1        1         50        50
19
20
21   Min Time
22                         CVS      ABQ
23   Number to Ship        50        0       Totals
23
24  Unit Cost              521      518      26027
25   Unit Time (days)      3.5      3.7       175
26
27
28
29   Constraints                              Used    Available
30     Eng                  1        1         50        50

Table 9. Items Recommended for CIRF Repair

Engines                             Mission Computer

Multi-Mission Tactical Terminal     Intercom Control Unit

Direct Infrared Counter Measure     Radios
System (DIRCM)

Suite of Integrated Radio           Global Positioning System (GPS)
Frequency Countermeasures (SIRFC)

Radar                               Radar Altimeter (RALT)

Forward Looking Infrared System     Lighting Control Panel
(FLIR)

Tactical Electronic Warfare         Nose Wheel Assembly
System (TEWS)

Full Authority Digital Engine       Main Wheel Assembly
Control (FADEC)

Blade Fold System                   Landing Gear Control Panel

Drive System Interface Unit         Main Landing Gear

Gearbox                             Nose Landing Gear

Proprotor Control System            Anti-Ice System

Electronics Display Unit (EDU)      Flight Control Computer

Interface Unit                      Environmental Control System (ECS)

Digital Interface Receptacle
Unit
COPYRIGHT 2011 U.S. Air Force, Logistics Management Agency
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:contemporary issues
Author:Rowe, Ryan L.; Cunningham, William A.
Publication:Air Force Journal of Logistics
Date:Sep 22, 2011
Words:5372
Previous Article:Stop the change: we've got it right.
Next Article:21st Century logistics challenges.
Topics:

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters