Expeditionary Operations: intermediate engine maintenance alternatives

Air Force Journal of Logistics, Spring, 2001 by Mahyar A. Amouzegar, Lionel Galway, Amanda Geller, Robert S. Tripp, Clifford Grammich

For the decentralized no-deployment structure (home support), the JEIM remains at the home base and supports deployed forces from there. Some units currently use this method to support operations enforcing no-fly zones over Iraq. To analyze this structure, one-way transportation for engines between an FOL and JEIM was assumed to be about 15 days. [7] The JEIM moves to a wartime schedule when forces deploy, and deployed forces get first priority for repairs. The resources required and the spares performance are illustrated in Figure 2 (which also shows the WRE curves from Figure 1).

Another variation of decentralized support is the decentralized-FSL structure. In this structure, a JEIM shop is located at an FSL in theater and supports engaged forces. During conflict, each home unit deploys some personnel to an FSL ready to begin operations when the JEIM personnel arrive. Transportation between FOLs and the FSL takes about 2 days. [8]

An alternative FSL arrangement is the CSL-FSL structure with some CSL staff performing peacetime JEIM and some deploying to an FSL during war. Total staffing and resource requirements for this case are derived from those identified for the FSL above plus those needed at the CSL during war to support nonengaged forces. The performance of this alternative is the same as that of the decentralized-FSL alternative since the source of resources has no effect on the repair process once established and running.

The final alternative is complete centralization in a single CSL. The CSL would be 2 to 4 days from each CONUS location and about 15 days from forces engaged in an MTW. The simulations for this case also show that using only the specified WRE will leave spare levels dangerously low.

Figure 2 illustrates the results for F100-229 engines for all alternatives. For the deployed JEIM scenario, as many as 12 F-16s and 22 F15s can be without serviceable engines. In contrast, in the worst day of the conflict, only a few F-16s and about 11 F-15s are with holes in an FSL scenario. The table in the figure indicates the total number of resources (rails teams and test cells), retained resources, and deployed resources for all the scenarios.

These results indicate that FSLs are superior for supporting a fast-breaking conflict. Other structures do not perform as well because of their time requirements. Those with more centralization require too much transportation time for maintaining adequate thresholds for sorties. Those with less centralization develop a large backlog of engines during MTWs and, hence, a dangerously low level of spares before a deployed JEIM can begin repairs. Note that, although recovery is ultimately more complete over the war for the deployed JEIM, it requires more resources.

Figure 3 shows similar spares analysis for the 220 engines. The performance for the decentralized system declines through the first 60 days of the contingency but recovers following DepJEIM establishment. Performance for the consolidated options degrades for about the first 30 days and then stabilizes, after which spares performance for the FSL option becomes better than that for the other consolidated options.