Theater Logistician Maj. Gen. Kenneth S. Dowd - KMI Media Group

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8 | MLF 3.7 Transition Progresses Smoothly and On Schedule All transition-related activities are continuing smoothly, and no issues are expected to prevent its completion during FY09. Phase I of the transition, which was completed in January, transferred operational control of the STAMIS legacy systems consisting of the Standard Army Retail Supply System (SARSS) family (SARSS-1, SARSS 2AC/B, SARSS-Gateway, and SARSS-CTASC II), a portion of the Standard Army Maintenance System (SAMS) family (SAMS-1, SAMS-2, and SAMS-I/TDA), some of the Unit Level Logistics System (ULLS) family (ULLS-G and ULLS-A) and the Standard Army Ammunition System- Modernization (SAAS-MOD). Phase II of this transition will transfer complete sustainment management responsibility for the remaining STAMIS bridging systems: Property Book Unit Supply Enhanced, Standard Army Maintenance System-Enhanced, Standard Army Maintenance System-Installation Enhanced, Financial Management Tactical Platform and the Unit Level Logistics System- SEC-Lee is Strongly Committed to the Transition As one of the largest centralized software engineering centers within the Army, SEC-Lee develops and supports logistics, engineering, procurement and subsistence systems for numerous customers, including: Headquarters Department of Army G4; PEO EIS; Project Manager Global Combat Support Systems- Army; Defense Commissary Agency; Army Procurement, Research and Analysis Office; HQDA deputy chief of staff for logistics; HQDA assistant chief of staff for Installation Management; and the assistant secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology). “The entire SEC-Lee force is ecstatic about the STAMIS sustainment mission,” declared Gary Lichvar, SEC Business Mission Area director. “They feel that the systems have gone full circle and are now returning home. In many cases, for SARSS, SAAS, SAMS and ULLS, the original functional and technical personnel still work on the system today. There is a unique bond among the systems, the personnel and the soldiers they support.” Ricky Daniels, SEC-Lee director, sees this new mission as the first of many in the system-support arena as PEOs transition systems after achieving full operational capability. “Our mission is to provide life cycle software products and services that enhance Army and joint war fighting and management and support capabilities and to ensure that America’s warfighters continue to own the decisive edge from the battlespace through the sustaining base,” remarked Daniels. “SEC’s commitment to the PM LIS transition is real; it is personal; and it is borne out in the actions and performance demonstrated throughout the years,” stated Daniels. “By fostering strong teamwork and a dedication to software engineering excellence, SEC-Lee has established an enviable record of delivering solutions and supporting systems that are customer-focused, state-of-the-art and value-driven.” Aviation (Enhanced). This phase of the transition is expected to be completed by the end of August. The Product Management Office for Movement Tracking System (PM MTS), which was one of the logistics information systems under PM LIS, is not transitioning to SEC-Lee. PM MTS, instead, has become a stand-alone, direct report to PEO EIS and will continue to develop and field its critical logistic information system through FY15. PM LIS Sustainment and Management Transfer to SEC-Lee By Jeffrey Davis The Army’s logistics information systems are essential to increasing combat effectiveness. They play a vital, time-sensitive role in managing supplies, equipment and ammunition, which enables the rapid reallocation of resources needed to sustain troops in theater. Since the early 1990s, the project manager for Logistics Information Systems (PM LIS) has been committed to providing the warfighter with the most up-to-date logistics management and information systems available. Now, as these systems move into a sustainment mode, management responsibility for the systems is also shifting from the Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems (PEO EIS) to the Communications-Electronics Life Cycle Management Command Software Engineering Center, Fort Lee, Va. (SEC-Lee). Coordination between PEO EIS, Army G-4, the Army Material Command and the Combined Arms Support Command resulted in establishing a two-phase transition, which was approved in December 2008. The effort formally began in January, and by April, the transition plan was staffed, coordinated, approved and signed by PEO EIS and SEC-Lee. The transition is projected to be fully completed by October 2009. Gaining efficiencies for contracting efforts, testing facilities, information assurance and Customer Assistance Office support were key factors in the decision. Additionally, the change enables PEO EIS to focus its resources on future systems such as GCSS- Army. More than 120,000 combat service support soldiers are using these critical systems on a daily basis, and the Logistics Information Systems program currently reflects a FY10–15 program objectives memorandum of $566 million. SEC-Lee views the PM LIS transition as an opportunity to build an enduring partnership with PEO EIS, characterized by shared goals, candid communications and support for the warfighters. www.MLF-kmi.com
Tanker Needs Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) First, I congratulate you, the men and women who maintain and support our military equipment and keep it in tremendous shape regardless of its age! As a group, you know better than anyone that the U.S. Air Force is in dire need of a replacement for the aging KC-135s. You know we can’t “get there from here” and effectively project power without a robust tanker fleet. Your maintenance and supply personnel know exactly how difficult and costly it is to sustain the current fleet and know it isn’t going to get any easier or cheaper—big bills are on the horizon to keep our 50-year-old tanker fleet flying. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has been trying to acquire a new tanker since 2001. You know the story: The first try, a deal to lease Boeing KC-767s, was riddled with corruption and unfortunately resulted in both Boeing and USAF officials going to jail. The second attempt introduced a competitor, the Northrop Grumman KC-45, based on the commercial Airbus A-330 airframe. After a competitive source selection between the KC-45 and the KC-767, the military decided in February 2008 the KC-45 best met its needs and made a contract award. Boeing protested, the GAO found minor issues with the source selection process, and the Pentagon ultimately canceled the second acquisition. Now, here we go again—a new RFP is expected and a competition between the same competitors will begin anew. Frankly, there is more rhetoric and trash-talking about this competition than there is back home about the Alabama/Auburn football game. But in my view, the most relevant question—what it all comes down to—is which aircraft best meets our military’s needs? Simply put, the military deserves the aircraft that provides the best value. Everything else is secondary. Some, for example, say this competition should be about “Buy America.” In reality, with the globalization of the aerospace industry, both competing aircraft will contain foreign components, but both will have well over 50 percent U.S. content required by the Buy America Act. Some say this competition should be about preserving American jobs. In reality, both aircraft would be built in the U.S. by American workers. KC-767 production will reportedly employ 44,000 U.S. workers; Northrop Grumman’s analysis indicates KC-45 production will employ 48,000 U.S. workers. Some say this competition should be about preserving the U.S. industrial base. In fact, a Northrop Grumman win will mean two brandnew aircraft manufacturing factories in the U.S. Supplier factories are likely to follow. This would represent an expansion of the U.S. industrial base. Furthermore, EADS executives have made clear their desire to manufacture commercial A-330 freighter aircraft on the U.S. production line, adding even more jobs to the U.S. industrial base. Setting these secondary arguments aside let’s return to the most important question: which aircraft best meets our military’s needs? The KC-45 is a derivative of the A-330 commercial airliner. The A-330 is a 14-year newer design than the competing Boeing 767. The A-330 uses modern fly-by-wire control systems; today’s Boeing tanker aircraft does not. The A-330 continues to sell well in the commercial marketplace; the Boeing aircraft is near the end of its commercial sales life. The commercial, worldwide logistics chain for the A-330 should remain robust for decades. The KC-45 has the added advantage of offering an aircraft on the ramp sooner than its competitor. The KC-45 offered to the USAF is very similar to the tanker configuration being delivered to the air forces of Australia, the U.K., UAE and Saudi Arabia. That configuration, including a state-of-the-art boom, is nearing completion of flight test now. In contrast, the KC-767 configuration most recently offered to the USAF combines structural elements of the 767-200, 767-300 and 767-400. Neither this aircraft configuration nor Boeing’s next generation boom have been built, tested or flown. Of course, the ability to offload fuel downrange is the primary job of a tanker. The KC-45 can offload 153,000 pounds of fuel at 1,000 nautical miles (nm); the KC-767 variant offered is projected to offload 117,000 pounds at 1,000 nm. The ability to maintain time on station downrange is also critical. The KC-45 can spend 14.2 hours on station at 1,000 nm, the KC-767 11.8 hours. In addition, the KC-45, based on a more modern, efficient aircraft design, can deliver 1.96 pounds of fuel for every pound burned. The KC-767 delivers only 1.61 pounds for every pound burned. Beyond its primary mission, similar advantages accrue to the KC-45 with regard to a tanker’s secondary missions. The KC-45 can carry more pallets, more passengers and more aeromedical evacuation litters than its competitor. The military requirements for the new tanker are clear: “More is better”—more fuel downrange, more cargo, more passengers and more flexibility to accomplish the mix of missions that will confront our military for the next 40 years. Some have argued that the value of additional capabilities over and above a minimum should not be considered. They argue the Pentagon should simply conduct a “low-cost shoot-out” and award to the lowest cost offer that meets the minimums. This simplistic approach may be okay for buying #2 pencils, but it has no place when it comes to buying complex weapon systems. It would incentivize competitors to offer “stripped-down” tankers that would likely require costly upgrades later. It would not allow the military to even consider the value of “more,” such as additional fuel offload downrange, even though that additional capability would have value to our military. The Pentagon must move forward with increased urgency and conduct a fair, best-value source selection. Then the Pentagon should pick the aircraft that offers the best value in meeting its needs. We must not make short-sighted decisions that will haunt us for decades to come. A best-value approach is the only acceptable path. Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) serves in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives for Alabama’s first district. www.MLF-kmi.com MLF 3.7 | 9
Page 1 and 2: The Publication of Record for the M
Page 3 and 4: MILITARY LOGISTICS FORUM AUGUST 200
Page 5 and 6: Fight proud. Work proud. “I feel
Page 7 and 8: By Keith Lippert Vice Admiral Keith
Page 9: ...................................
Page 13 and 14: Because sustaining the warfighter i
Page 15 and 16: In 2001, OmniQuip modified an exist
Page 17 and 18: Tactical Logistics Support A ROUNDT
Page 19 and 20: • • • • • • • • •
Page 21 and 22: Metalcraft recently announced avail
Page 23 and 24: Q&A Ensuring a Continuum of Logisti
Page 25 and 26: in through the Pacific, working wit
Page 27 and 28: Pack it Up BY STEVE GOODMAN MLF COR
Page 29 and 30: to be shipped anywhere in the world
Page 31 and 32: otationally molded line. Some of th
Page 34 and 35: The new task orders are the continu
Page 36 and 37: DynCorp International, with key par
Page 38 and 39: INDUSTRY INTERVIEW MILITARY LOGISTI
Page 40: Integrated ntegr Logistics Support

Theater Logistician Maj. Gen. Kenneth S. Dowd - KMI Media Group

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?