OCR Text |
Show 1 VJ FtW. 3 um i AS. 19M Wm Berth mew AFLC: The (o Id systems ireejuiire foejiisfljes (Q coinidl Commander's Perspective (Part 2) Editor's Note: The Commander's Perspective reflects Gen. James P. Mullins' view of Air Force Logistics Command, in- Funds base. The security assistance commitments described in Part 1 have had a substantial impact, and are becoming more significant as each day passes. For not only do the modern systems we're selling today add to our already large and complex workload, but the older systems we're still supporting are requiring more and more logistics to keep them flying.; Let's concentrate here on what we do for our and the workload this entails. First, own forces a word about our current f inancial situation. We're clearly not rolling in money, but neither are we destitute. Realistically, our financial situation is improved over what it has been. 5,433.3 5,426.1 8,229.1 5,478.8 7,602.7 3,465.7 84.3 4.2 83.6 83.6 4.2 .'3.4 13,796.4 7,690.5 3,552.7 j Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Direct Cite Reimbursable FMS Administrative Budget Grant Aid Subtotal Depot Maint. Service, Air Force Industrial Fund Stock Fund Fuels Division General Support Div. . Systems Support Div. Subtotal TOTAL . $ 567.4 3,940.3 14.2 1.3 3,957.1 - . - - 3,101.4 3,123.8' 5,790.9 1,731.3 1,814.7 9,336.9 5,769.9 5,771.5 1,690.1 ,,1,664.4 1,810.4 9,270.4 1,682.9 9,118.8 $40,130.2 $31,442.2 $20,405.8 3,209.8 No obligation or expenditure data shown as only delivery information is reported. "REVENUE Obligations and Expenditures reflect, in part, multiyear procurement. Revolving funds, designed to lessen the impact of the annual budget cycle on the procurement of certain items. and even the projected FY83 neglect," level Is still well below the 1960s. (figure 5) The diversion of funds to fight the Vietnam War, along with reduced spending in the 1970s has prevented us from replacing aircraft as we once did. Just consider how we used to acquire systems, B-47- .2 1.1 13 3.4 2.2 1.3 20.4 3.7 2.2 12.4 152.0 Security Assistance Programs Unfortunately, however, years of slashed budgets, usually at the expense of spares and other support items, have taken their toll. Just look at the recent history of Air Force outlays in constant dollars. The 1970s were clearly a "decade of B-52- Expenditures $ 403.0 . 3400 Operation & Maintenance Military Family Housing (O&M) Military Family Housing (Constr) Military Construction Claims . Subtotal The workload AFLC has today has a very broad Obllgatlons $ 4,633.4 122.2 1.175.8 $ 5,931.4 . 5,399.0 20.2 Managed $ 6,598.6 256.7 1,606.9 $ 8,462.2 5,405.7 3010 Aircraft Procurement 3020 Missile Procurement 3080 Other Procurement Subtotal 6. COMMAND WORKLOAD and what we've been doing during the last 20 years. Thirty years ago, we were busy acquiring some 2,000 followed by several hundred and a like number of And let's not of the substantial numbers the Century forget ' Series Fighters and AFLC FUNDS MANAGED FY82 (MILLIONS) TABLE 8. cluding Its organization, people, mission, workload and how it provides mission support. Part 2 of the five part series reviews the workload of AFLC today. s, KC-135- s. s, - loo- - : ; FIGURE 5. AIR FORCE OUTLAYS C-13- bought all these systems with the idea of replacing them after 10 years of service; but all that began to change in the 1960s. Beginning with the We (FY83 CONSTANT DOLLARS) we kept everything longer than anyone ever and we haven't done much in the way intended of building new systems. What we've done, of course, is modify the old systems to give thenv. new capability. In fact, a today has only its' B-5- 2, B-5- silhouette mid-1950- in common . 40. . 2 with one from the s. 62 59 61 65 74 71 10 77 13 FY Now, what effect has this had on our logistics mission? First of all, it has increased the cost of s and doing business, both in terms of break-iin can see money. As you figure 6, the costs early in the system's life cycle are driven up by the Immaturity of the system, and by the learn-in- g process we must go through anytime we bring a new weapon into our inventory. But as we learn, and as the system matures, we reach a period of optimum performance which lasts about 5 years. At about 10 years out, though, we again experience a sharp cost increase, mainly.due to air- -' frame aging. Wing changes, reskinning, and are all manifestations of aging and they all substantially impact the systems AFLC workload. . In the past, when systems reached their programmed life, we replaced them. But the number of aircraft in the category tells us how much this has all changed. To date, we've been prolonging system life well beyond expected life and consequently, we in lowith modifications gistics have been responsible for supplying much man-hour- n r 1 f-1- 6 rmm I n e nae vn? win .. g o t F-1- A-1- 0 IW c'a unc WW VI I J acquisition - i j m I jf 10C T J J b I C130E I I I 10C 5 I. I II 10C 10 i 2 5 FIGURE 6. FY81 AIRCRAFT AVERAGE AGE (YRS) : T-3- 6 T-3- 9 TIME I B-5- KC-13- C-1- I I R&D AND ; I I - " F;4C F-4- D F-4- E I 5 i F-4- G ng (Continued on page 11) EF-11- inunf 10C 20 |