I/ T

:~' DEPLOYMENT

AND AUTOMATEDTECHNICAL ORDERSUPPORT

Lt Col Edward J. Higbee

DISTL'MUTON STATE MEMl A

Approved tot public releal

Ditiuio nbIIe

SSS your frank opinion on the contents. All comments-large ..:" or small, complimentary or caustIc-will be gratefully

apprciaed.Maithemnto CADRE/RI, Bualding 1400, xelABA 61-52

i DEPLOYMENT AND AUTOMATED TECHNICAL ORDER SUPPORT

i SSS,SS..

S:S.

S:SiSSSSSSSS

S hn o o ora- -.

.. . m mm nl lm li H II ll

Research Report No. AU-ARI-88-7

DEPLOYMENT AND AUTOMATED TECHNICAL ORDER SUPPORT

by

EDWARD J. HIGBEE, Lt Col, USAFResearch Fellow

Airpower Research Institute

Air University PressMaxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-5532

February 1989

DISCLAIMER

This publication was produced in the Department ofDefense school environment in the interest of academicfreedom and the advancement of national defense-relatedconcepts. The views expressed in this publication are thoseof the author and do not reflect the official policy orposition of the Department of Defense or the United Statesgovernment.

p icy rev ew au orities an isno- cleared fo p licre ease. t is the erty o the Unit States vernm tan is t to be repr uced n whole opar withoupermissio of the comman AUCADRE, Max Air ForceBase, bama.

IAccesion For

NTIS CRA&tDTIC TAB 0Unannounced 0

Availbity OrAe

Lii

r11

Availindfo

Dist C;'

CONTENTS

DISCLAIMER..................................... ii

FOREWORD ........................ ........ v

ABOUT THE AUT O... .... . ..... ...... vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................... . ix

1 INTRODUCTrION....... .. o . .. o..... o .. . .. o . . ...... 1Notes....... -.... oo..._.... . .. .... 3

2 THE AIR FORCE TECHNICAL ORDER MANAGEMENTSYSTI4....................... 5

Overview of the Current System....... ... o.o 5The Nature of Technical orders...... ..... o......10System Weaknesses..........o...... .............. 14Notes.. ................. ......o..... ...... .... 16

3 AUTOMATION INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE THE SYSTEM... 19Automation and the Future... ............... _ 19

Automated Technical Order System ... o..... o. 20Improved Technical Data System.. .......o 21Integrated Maintenance InformationSystem........ ......o......o.......-.... ... 23

Notes.. ........... o. ............ .. . .. o. 25

4 DEPLOYMENT--THE TRUE TEST OF TECHNICAL ORDERAUTOMATION. . . .. o... ......... ........... 27

Deployment Considerations for Automatio n .. 28Situational Environment.... o....... o...... 28Physical Environment..o.o............. 34

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS... ....... o.... 41Notes.o................ .......o... o . .... o . . . 43

ADpendix

A Technical Order System Life Cycle............._ 47

B Automated Technical Order Work Flow .............. 53

C Stage III: Full Integrated MaintenanceInformation System Demonstration ................. 55

iii

Page

D Excerpt of DOD Contract Fl9630-86-R-0011, DODStandard Lap-Held Microcomputer Systems ........ 59

ILLUSTRATIONS

Fiaure

1 Consolidated ALC/AGMC AFTO System SupportBureaucracy ....................................... 8

2 Technical Order Distribution Office

Organization ................................... 9

3 Volume of TOs .................................... 10

4 Types of Publications in the Air Force TOSystem ......................................... 13

5 The ITDS Producer System ....................... 23

6 The ITDS User System ............................. 24

7 Three Stages of IMIS ............................. 24

8 Criteria for Determining Levels of DeployableAutomation Required .............................. 31

9 Levels of Automation Scenarios ................. 32

10 Logic Tree for Assessing Level of Conflictsand Levels of Equipment Criteria ............... 33

A-1 Technical Order System Life Cycle .............. 48

B-1 ATOS Work Flow .................................... 53

C-1 Portable Maintenance Computer Concept .......... 55

C-2 Aircraft Maintenance Panel ...................... 56

C-3 Maintenance Workstation .......................... 57

C-4 IMIS Information Integration ..................... 57

iv

FOREWORDVD

The future capability Of the-nited-States Air Force todeploy and sustain its forces successfully will depend asmuch on modern logistical\support processes as it will on

O advanced weapon systems. Outmoded logistics support systemsar' tbreat within, and t-ky require balanced considerationwith that given to improving our weapon systems. Far moreimportant than initial force projection is our ability tosustain and even multiply those forces logistically untilour national interest is served.

This study provides a rare glimpse of one suchlogistical support process--the Air Force technical order(AFTO) system. The AFTO system, a"paper-based system" withlimited automation based on decades-old technology, isfailing in its mission today. The sheer volume, complexity,and variety of technical orders and the massive bureaucracyrequired to support their accuracy and distribution, makedismal the prospects that the AFTO system will meettomorrow's Air Force mission. Yet, as this study details,improvements through automation are being made to improveour outlook for the future.-- _-"

To be sure, the progress that has been made by theinitiatives summarized is enhancd by better understandingthe environment under which a mode rn, automated technicalorder system must operate. And Ithis study purposefullyserves to improve this understanding by defining some verynecessary considerations for determiining the crisismanagement and wart' e conditions whigh must be faced bysuch a system to sustAin our deployed Ar Force assets. )

Director, Airpower Research InstituteCenter for Aerospace Doctrine, Research,

and Education

v

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Lt Col Edward J. "Edd" Higbee completed this studywhile assigned as the Air Force Logistics Command-sponsoredresearch fellow at the Air University Center for AerospaceDoctrine, Research, and Education (AUCADRE) at Maxwell AFB,Alabama, during academic year 1987-88. Colonel Higbeeenlisted in the Air Force in 1960. In 1967 he wascommissioned as a distinguished graduate of Officer TrainingSchool after completing a bachelor's degree in mathematicsat Florida State University under the Airman Education andCommissioning Program. Following his commissioning, heattended Texas A&M University in a master of computerscience program before entering service as an informationsystems professional. He completed two joint assignmentswith Department of Defense agencies, a tour of duty inVietnam and Thailand, and an extended tour with the StandardSystems Center (SSC)--as currently designated--at GunterAFB, Alabama. In 1981, while chief of Data Systems SupportDivision (SSC), he completed an MBA at Auburn University.Transferring to Headquarters Air Force Logistics Command(AFLC) in 1982, he was selected as program director of twomajor acquisition and development programs: the programmanagement support system (PMSS), operating commandwidesince early 1987; and the secretary of the Air Force-directed automated technical order system (ATOS), theinitial phase of which was implemented operationally in1985. Colonel Higbee is a graduate of Squadron OfficerSchool, Air Command and Staff College, Military OfficerAdvance Cryptologic Course, Computer System Staff OfficerCourse, Professional Military Comptroller School, theDefense Systems Management College's Program ManagementCourse, and the Air War College. He is married to theformer Sharon Diane Smith of Birmingham, Alabama. Theyhave two children: Dana Shanel, age 16, and Heather Diane,age 7.

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The faults that may be found with this work are my own.The merits to be accorded must be shared with others whoprovided the essential patience, encouragement, andassistance required. First and foremost among thesecontributors is my adored wife, Sharon, for her friendlyreminders of the need for progress. Also due great creditis the chairman of my reading group, Dr Lewis Ware. Creditmust also be given to my editor, Preston Bryant.

Finally, special thanks are due two very importantcontributors: Lori Wofford, a dear friend and anextraordinary research assistant from the automatedtechnical order system (ATOS), Program Management Office atWright-Patterson AFB, Ohio; and Lt Col Phillip L. Harris,Air Force Logistics Management Center (AFLMC/LGM), for histhoughts and analytical approach to the "marriage" ofcomputers and the deployment environment. Both were vitalin a substantive way to the completion of this work.

ix

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

"One thing common to every command is logistics. AirForce Logistics Command (AFLC) is a multifaceted commandwhose mission is essential . . . in the accomplishment ofthe combat mission, for without effective logistics support,the war-fighting capability of the Air Force is nil. 1 Onefacet of AFLC that is critical to the combat mission is thelogistics support provided in the form of technicalinformation, including technical orders (TOs).

Traditionally, weapon systems maintenance has beensupported during both fully provisioned base deployments andbare base deployments with printed technical orderinformation acquired from industry by AFLC as a part of theweapon system acquisition process.2 Deficiencies intechnical data have been met by changes in TO type, size,style, and content. This profusion of documents has addedto the already unmanageable problems presented by thegrowing number and complexity of Air Force TOs.

Chapter 2 provides an overview of the management systemdevised by AFLC to deal with the problems inherent inproviding worldwide TO support. This support is threatenedby the large variety and number of TOs as well as the detailand complexity added by new weapon systems, new technology,and frequent modifications to the existing fleet. Thecurrent management system--the Air Force technical order(AFTO) system--is outmoded in terms of both its use ofcomputer technology and its growing bureaucracy, which isneeded to meet user requirements for TO accuracy and timelydistribution.

Chapter 3 presents three major Air Force programs aimedat breaking the traditional "paper habit" for TO acquisitionand use. 3 These programs--the automated technical ordersystem (ATOS), an AFLC initiative; the improved technicaldata system (ITDS), under development by the AeronauticalSystems Division of Air Force Systems Command (AFSC); andthe integrated maintenance information system (IMIS), aresearch and development effort being pursued by the AirForce Human Resources Laboratory (AFHRL)--promise improvedavailability and use of technical information. But they aredesigned primarily for use under circumstances found atstateside bases; the shallow understanding of requirementsfor use in Air Force deployments may jeopardize theiracceptance by the ultimate user, the maintenance technician.

1

Chapter 4 details a framework for understanding themany considerations attendant to integrating an automatedtechnical order system into Air Force deployments.Essential to the analysis is a definition of deployment thatconsiders many factors directly related to warfightingcapabilities as part of the larger situational environment.The pnysical environment must be realistically accountedfor, as must cost, scheduling, technical performance,and--paramount to success--the users' needs.

Funding, scheduling, and technical performance are notaddressed here, as they are rightfully details to be managedby individual program managers. What is addressed here areusers' needs. In important ways, they are quite differentunder deployment conditions; therefore, an effectiveapproach to defining "crisis management/wartime conditions,"or as more generally stated, "deployment conditions," isnecessary.4

At times, clarification benefits from reference to aspecific weapon system platform; the F-15 Eagle is usedhere. Several factors make the F-15 a logical choice.First, it is the current air superiority fighter--thepredecessor of the advanced tactical fighter (ATF); and likethe AFT, it is a candidate for "near paperless" technicalsupport. Second, the F-15 has a very significant and highlyrepresentative deployment mission. Third, the logisticschallenge inherent in the F-15, described as "75,000component parts flying in close formation," makes itexemplary.

5

The major research assumptions are that thenondevelopmental items (NDI) approach currently used for theATOS, ITDS, and IMIS programs will continue to be the mostfeasible in the fiscally constrained period of the late1980s and that the goals of the NDI approach to systemsacquisition--more rapid and cost-effective systems usingoff-the-shelf solutions--make it particularly suited toreplacing the AFTO system.6 These are important assumptionsfor two reasons: a proper approach to the definition ofdeployment, particularly "under crisis management/wartimeconditions," is essential to the success of ATOS, ITDS, andIMIS; and the acquisition process determines to a greatextent the success of fielded systems.

7

The number one inhibitor to achieving NDI goals isoverspecification of environmental conditions. To besuccessful, therefore, requirements for the ATOS, ITDS, andIMIS programs must be specified accurately. Harshenvironmental conditions (temperature extremes, powervariants, electromagnetic interference, etc.) and otherchallenges (e.g., chemical and nuclear warfare) do exist and

2

must be considered; but overspecified requirements such astoo-wide operating temperature ranges and too-great shocktolerance levels can preclude the use of an NDI approach.

8

This research leads to the conclusion that not only isan automated technical order system needed, but an NDIapproach '-o the acquisition would be most effective. An NDIacquisition is therefore recommended as offering theopportunity to bring both the needed system into the AirForce inventory in the most timely manner and reasonablyspecify environmental conditions that meet user needs.

This research also leads to the conclusion that"retail"-level logisticians have a valid concern for loss ofbenefits derived from the current system and that thesebenefits must be factored into the overall understanding ofthe requirements for a replacement system. To accomplishthis, a formal study of the evolutionary linkage between AirForce resource management systems and the AFTO system isrecommended.

A further conclusion is that technician training acrossweapon systems is being jeopardized by "leakage" oftechnical data from the AFTO system. The recommendation inthis instance also is to formally study the development ofautomated test equipment and other sources of weaknesses inthe system.

In general, therefore, the conclusions andrecommendations of this study support development andintroduction of an automated technical order system forweapon system deployments. So this may be donesuccessfully, encouragement is offered for both establishinga support bureaucracy more in concert with today's manpowerrealities and retaining the traditional linkages andstrengths of the AFTO system.

Notes

1. Introduction to the Air Force Logistics Command(AFLC): AFLC Action Officers Guidebook, 2d ed. (Washington,D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1984), i.

2. T(chnical Order Acquisition and Management: Sys230, Syllabus of Instruction (Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1985), 1-14; 1 for the date reference.

3. Automated Technical Order System (ATOS) MissionElement Need Statement (MENS) (Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1987), 3. The parenthetically addedidentifier (G022) is a data systems designator of little

3

meaning except for cataloging and reference purposes. AFR8-2, Air Force Technical Order System, para. l-3a, indicatesthat the office of primary responsibility is HeadquartersAFLC/MMERD; however, I cite a supraorganization exercisingsignificant authority: the Directorate of Reliability,Maintainability, and Technology Policy (HQ AFLC/MMT).

4. Program Management Directive for the AutomatedTechnical Order System (ATOS) (Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office, 29 April 1987), 2. Notably, the ATOSprogram begun by my predecessor that was continued by me inmy two years as ATOS program director (June 1985 to July1987) did not address itself to the harsh conditionsinherent in weapon system deployments.

5. Lt Col William T. McDaniel, Jr., "Combat SupportDoctrine: Coming Down to Earth," Air Force Journal ofLogistics 11, no. 2 (Spring 1987): 14; and Franklin D.Margiotta and Ralph Sanders, eds., Technology, Strategy andNational Security (Washington, D.C.: National DefenseUniversity Press, September 1985), 62.

6. Maj Gen Alan B. Salisbury, USA, as reported in theSeptember 1987 issue of Signal magazine and excerpted from"Off-the-Shelf," Command Environment Course. EvaluationExercise, Research Library. AY 1988 (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: AirWar College, Department of Command and Leadership, AcademicYear 1987-88), pt. 1, sec. G, 22-23.

7. Under secretary of the Army James Ambrose, asreported in the September 1987 issue of Signal magazine andexcerpted from "Streamlining," Command Environment Course,Evaluation Exercise, Research Library, AY 1988 (Maxwell AFB,Ala.: Air War College, Department of Command andLeadership, Academic Year 1987-88), pt. 1, sec. H, 27.

8. Salisbury, 22-23.

4

CHAPTER 2

THE AIR FORCE TECHNICAL ORDER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

This chapter provides an overview of the current AirForce technical order system. The discussion covers thesystem's regulatory basis, the bureaucratic structure, thenature of the technical information involved, and some ofits weaknesses.

Overview of the Current System

Authorization for the AFTO system is provided by AirForce Regulation (AFR) 8-2, Air Force Technical OrderSystem, which "applies to all activities using the AFTOsystem" and "explains the system, describes the devices anddata to be included, and assigns basic responsibilities. 1

Numerous other official documents also detail compliancewith the system. The following TOs, for example, wereissued as military orders of a technical nature in the nameof the Air Force chief of staff and by order of thesecretary of the Air Force:

TO 00-5-1: Air Force Technical Order SystemTO 00-5-2: Technical Order Distribution SystemTO 00-5-15: Air Force Time Compliance Technical

Order SystemTO 00-5-16: Computer Program Identification

Numbering System (CPIN)TO 00-5-17: Computer Program Identification

Numbering System (CPIN)TO 00-5-18: USAF Technical Order Numbering SystemTO 00-5-19: Managing Technical Orders in Support of

Foreign Military Sales (FMS)2

In addition, AFLC Regulation 8-4, Air Force TechnicalSystem, sets forth a detailed description ofresponsibilities; process flow; and procedures to fund,produce, confirm, review, and keep TOs current. Thesystem's main goal is to provide timely data to all usingactivities. Other goals include:

a. Give concise but clear instructions for safeand effective operation and maintenance of systemsand all supporting equipment; and provide a meansof directing and reporting modifications andequipment behavior.

5

b. Make sure that all hazardous aspects of thesystem (operations, processes, etc.) arehighlighted and that all pertinent procedures areincluded to adequately eliminate, minimize, and/orcontrol hazards.

c. Make sure that only essential TOs areprocured.

d. Provide TOs that contain adequate coverage atthe least cost to the government.

e. Stress reduction in cost of TOs used.

f. Tailor TOs to the tasks and needs of the usingand supporting commands. Ensure that TO data isclear enough to permit system support at theoperational level (by the using command, by AFLC,or by contractor personnel) and to allowcompetitive bidding for contract support.

g. Give support to the software program accordingto AFLCR 800-21 (Management and SupportProcedures for Computer Resources User in DefenseSystems].

h. Make sure that commercial technical data isprocured (instead of specification data) when itis useful, available, and determined adequate bythe technical content manager and the usingcommand.

i. Make sure that obsolete TOs are purged fromthe system on a continuing basis.

j. Provide modification instructions according tospecifications.

k. Prevent duplicating TOs by making sure thattechnical instructions do not exist in other DODdocuments.3

Management of the AFTO system is the principalresponsibility of the Directorate of Reliability,Maintainability, and Technology Policy (HQ AFLC/MMTI).4 Theprocess flow is shown in appendix A at figure A-1. As itsuggests, an extensive bureaucracy has been established toaddress TO acquisition, accuracy, stock control,distribution, and use.5 But to detail this bureaucracyexhaustively would unnecessarily lengthen this report anddetract from its main purpose, so only the roles of the

6

major participants within the materiel management (MM) andmaintenance (MA) communities will be described--and thenonly in a very summary fashion.

Technical order acquisition follows a very definitelife cycle, as does systems acquisition in general. Theprocess forges an inseparable bond between equipment and thetechnical information required to operate and maintain it.Technical order development involves four principal stages:(1) a preconcept phase in which the concepts for operationaluse and maintenance are determined from the user's statementof need; (2) task identification, where logistics supportanalysis is initiated as the backbone of systems engineeringand technical order development; (3) validation andverification of the preliminary technical orders, conductedfirst by the contractor(s) against requirements and then bythe government against the system or equipment itself; and(4) printing and distributing the final technical orders.

At all stages of technical order development, AFLC hasa major role to play: "AFLC is responsible for determiningand establishing TO requirements for AFLC and the usingcommands. ''6 This responsibility is delegated to the"center" level, which includes the five air logisticscenters (ALCs) and the Aerospace Guidance and MetrologyCenter (AGMC).

Each affected center assigns overall responsibility fora defense system to a system manager (SM) or system programmanager. It assigns individual equipment itemresponsibilities to an item manager (IM). System managersand item managers are then assigned to the affected ALC/MMEDor AGMC/MLM organizations. For example, the ALC source ofrepair--the designated depot level maintenance activity--forthe F-15 is Warner Robins ALC (WR-ALC). Therefore, a systemmanager at WR-ALC is assigned overall responsibility for alllogistics matters relating to the F-15 from "birth todeath."7 Several item managers are assigned equipment itemresponsibilities.

Then, normally late in the systems acquisition process,after program management responsibility transfer from AFSCto AFLC, the system manager or item manager organizationbecomes the technical order management agency (TOMA) for thesystem and equipment transferred. In this capacity, thesystem man gers and item managers are clearly important foreffective ro acquisition and management from the initialstage of requirement definition until system/equipmentdisposal.

7

The SM or IM organization becomes totally responsiblefor TO accuracy and for maintaining an adequate stock oftechnical manuals, changes, and revisions. Oklahoma CityALC (OC-ALC/MMEDU) is particularly crucial to maintaining TOstockpiles, printing additional TOs, and initiating TOdistribution. Primarily, this is because OC-ALC/MMEDUoperates the automated logistics management of technicalorders system (G022). Special weapons TOs are managed atSan Antonio ALC (SA-ALC/SWPPT).8

At the depot maintenance level of each ALC, TOs aremanaged by a number of technical order distribution accounts(TODAs). These TODAs service a number of technology repaircenters (TRCs). Figure 1 provides a look at theconsolidated center bureaucracies that support stockcontrol, distribution, and use of technical orders withinthe AFTO system.9

This bureaucracy has been mirrored and extended at baselevel throughout the Air Force. Research conducted by theAir Force Logistics Management Center (AFLMC) in 1985 led to

TODCA* Distribution Control Activity(No TOs maintained)

TODO 6,289 - 66,176TOs

1 - 13,87525 to 241 TODA TOs

*In addition to the TO distribution office (TODO) function, each MAAT had a uniqueorganizational element called a technical order distribution control activity (TODCA).

Figure 1. Consolidated ALC/AGMC AFTO System Support Bureaucracy.

8

the conclusion that "an extensive bureaucracy has evolvedto maintain and distribute TOs at base level." 1 0 The finalAFLMC report identified the focal point of the base-levelAFTO system as the TODOs. These TODOs establishrequirements for the base and report them to the ALCs. Theyalso distribute TOs around the base and keep a record of TOsrequested and received from the ALCs. Figure 2, compiled byAFLMC, pictures the base-level TO bureaucracy.

Three levels [of accountability] are authorized[below the TODO]: TO distribution accounts(TODAs), TO distribution subaccounts (TODSs), andTO distribution sub-subaccounts (TODSSs). Thenumber and level of TO ditribution activitiesfalling under a TODO is based on TO usagerequirements and geographic dispersion of AForganizations using TOs.11

AL~s

5 to 40 TOO2,500-3,000 Wing QA/DAper Base TOs or Squadron

5 to 35 1,000-1,500 Squadron orper TODO TODA TOs Section1

2 to 20 TOS50-100 Sectionper TODA TODS TOs or Shop

1 to 100 5-20 Shop orper TODS TOs Workstation

Figure 2. Technical Order Distribution Office Organization.

9

The Nature of Technical Orders

Several factors have contributed to the growth of thebureaucracy: the ever-increasing number of TOs; thecomplexity that new technology fosters; and the staggeringdifferences in size, format, and content standards appliedin TO development.

The number of technical orders in the Air Forceinventory in late 1985 was in excess of 130,000 uniquetitles comprising over 15 million pages. The growth ratewas approximately 10 percent, and approximately 2.3 millionchange pages were being generated annually to maintain TOaccuracy.12 By July 1987 there were "in excess of 150,000different TOs containing more than 20,000,000 pages[requiring) approximately 2,500,000 change pages peryear.,,13

As for the TO volumes required to maintain today'ssophisticated weapon systems, the AFLMC study provides apictorial explanation (fig. 3).14 To appreciate futureimpacts, consider the B-lB bomber:

B-1B

* Total Air Force TO Inventory F-16 |wp-- 20 Million Pages 1986

FB-111 1974 I- -" . EZJ[ I --- r---i --- m--i Z

1967 m F-- E--- I I -I EI]m-7L-Z] EZrLI] r--7][El El] m--

F-86 E i-----I E E-] I] E L--LEZ.._ J-- E--] E-] E-7 -- El] El] E-]

1947 -- '- El Z I El- -- ) --- Ir-- EZ ] E rl] 7 IZ] r--- E-- ] E-7l--]1,000 250,000 750,000 1,000,000Pages Pages Pages Pages

Figure 3. Volume of TOs.

10

[It] will add over 7,000 TOs containingapproximately 1,000,000 pages. In today'senvironment of retaining existing weapon systems,these addition[s] will burden the TO system to astate of unacceptable support and response toreadiness requirements and economic conditions. 15

Then there is the factor of TO variability, includingauthorized differences in size, form, and content, as wellas the fact that a number of other publications areincorporated into the AFTO system.

16

One important TO category encompasses the technicalmanuals (TMs), the most widely and regularly used TOs in theAFTO system. They provide the essential informationnecessary for Air Force personnel "engaged or being trainedin the operation, maintenance, service, overhaul,installation, and inspection of specific items of equipmentand materiel. ''17 TMs for aircraft and missiles, forcommunications, electronics, and meteorology systems, andfor other aerospace equipment include instructions for:

e Assembly; Ground Handling * Repaire Organizational Maintenance * Intermediate Maintenance* Job Guides * Overhaul* Structural Repair * Fault Reportinge Illustrated Parts e Fault Isolation

Breakdown" Scheduled Inspection & * Reconditioning

Maintenance e Calibration" Cargo Aircraft Loading e Facility, Subsystem,

and Off-loading and System Instal-* Power Package Buildup lation-Engineering" Work Unit Codes * General Engineering" Operating Procedures and Planning* Servicing Procedures * Standard Installation

Practices

A second major category comprises the methods andprocedures technical orders (MPTOs). These TOs, general innature, are not related to specific aerospace systems orequipment.

There are two classes of MPTOs:

a. Those that involve policy, methods, andprocedures relating to the TO system; maintenance,administration, or inspection of Air Forceequipment; and control and use of reparable assetsand configuration management. Examples are the

11

00-5 series, 00-20 series, and 00-35A and D seriespublications.

b. Those that involve policies, methods, andprocedures relating to ground handling ofaerospace vehicles; management of precisionmeasurement equipment; and the safe use of AirForce equipment. Examples are "weight andbalance," "welding practices," and "conservation,segregation, and disposal of critical alloys andprecious metals."18

A third category consists of abbreviated technicalorders. Designed to simplify maintenance tasks and otherprocedures, these TOs include:

a. Inspection workcards that prescribe minimumrequirements for performing an inspection.

b. Inspection sequence charts, provided primarilyfor scheduled inspections, that depict a basicplanned work schedule or sequence in which theinspection workcards can be used.

c. Checklists of items in abbreviated form foruse in performing various tasks or operations toascertain operational readiness and minimumserviceable conditions.19

A fourth major category encompasses the time compliancetechnical orders (TCTOs). In general,

A TCTO sets forth instructions for accomplishing amodification to equipment, performing orinitiating special "one time" inspections,imposing temporary restrictions on aircraftflight, missile launch, or usage of airborneground communications-electronics equipment andsupport equipment. Three types of TCTOs areauthorized: immediate action, urgent action, androutine action.20

The final major category consists of index typetechnical orders. These TOs "show the status of all TOs,provide a means of selecting needed T~s, and group TOspertaining to specific items of equipment."'2 1

In addition to the five major TO categories, a numberof other publications are maintained within the AFTOsystem.22 These include but are not limited to:

12

S Air Force

Technical Order System

Technical Manas Methods and Procedures AbbreviatedTechnical Orders Technical Orders

Time Compliance Index TypeTechnical Orders Technical Orders

SJob Guide Manuals AF Technical Order System Inspection Work Cards.

Commercial Type Distribution and Storage Sequence Charts

Publications of AF Technical Order and Worksheets

Mil-M-7298C System Publications Lubrication Charts

Visual Inspection System ChecklistsIr Hi-Value Item ListsAircraft

Missiles (Other)

CEM

Special Weapons

Other Equipment

Technical OrderImmediate Action Index

Urgent Action Alphabetical

Routine Action Cross-Reference TablesRecord Lists of Applicable

Interim Publications (LOAP)

Conventional TMs may also be Preliminary TOs are not Partially verified TOs. Formalused for Intermediate and depot considered a type of TO, but are military specification TOs onlevel maintenance when prepared in limited quantity to which critical, safety/essentialprepared according to applicable test and verify the procedures verification has been completedtechnical content specifications. therein. They are not normally and are acceptable for use in the

used for operation and operational environment whenmaintenance unless they have using the two-phase verificationbeen verified and approved by plan.Headquarters major command.AFSC. and AFLC.

Figure 4. Types of Publications in the Air Force TO System (adapted from TO 00-5-1).

13

1. Preliminary technical orders. These TOs aresupplied with early test and production models of aerospacesystems and equipment. Generally not authorized for use inthe operation and maintenance of supported systems andequipment, they establish the basis for an extensivevalidation and verification process from which final TOsresult.

2. Joint nuclear weapons publications. Resulting frommemoranda of understandings between the Department ofDefense and the Department of Energy, these technicalpublications relate to nuclear devices and substances (theiroperation, maintenance, transportation, safety, etc.).

3. Interservice publications and manuals. Primarilyas a cost-reduction initiative, the Air Force uses TMs fromother services and governmental agencies when AFLCdetermines that they satisfy Air Force needs. TMs acquiredunder the auspices of joint procurement programs fall withinthis category.

4. Commercial manuals, contractor data, and packupdata. When Air Force technical information needs can be metthrough available commercial manuals and contractor data,this alternative is used instead of contracting for TOsdeveloped to Air Force specifications.

Training manuals are not included in the AFTO system,but they are used by Air Training Command (ATC) for trainingpurposes. They may be either preliminary TOs or final TOs,depending primarily on the development of special ATCcourses for their use.

System Weaknesses

As a result of low priority, inattention, and extremeobsolescence, the AFTO system is more liability than asset.Unquestionably, it is inadequate for the Air Force of thefuture. And the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act mandatesreductions in manpower and funding levels, necessitating ahard look at the bureaucracy required by the AFTO system.The Air Force of the future can ill afford a support systemthat redirects significant numbers of maintenance personnelto perform essentially administrative duties, as the AFTOsystem currently does. And the AFTO system's cost isimmense while it continues to become less and lessresponsive to its users' needs.

14

Logistics Command's Directorate of Reliability,Maintainability, and Technology Policy published a missionelement need statement that detailed a number of seriousdeficiencies in the system and assessed the importance ofcorrecting these deficiencies: It "is of the highestpriority to the Air Force due to the nature of the problemand the fact that the entire Air Force is impacted by thestated deficiencies."2 3 These system deficiencies wereidentified principally in terms of their impact on systemusers and the Air Force of the future.

The current system is seen as extremely archaic (basedon 1940s technology)24 and is described as a paper- andmanpower-intensive system that requires "45 days [to]extremes of 120 days or more" for a TO requisition tocomplete the cycle, and "thirteen (13) organizationalprocesses and . . . an average of 270 days" for a routinechange to reach the users. "The only automated portion ofthe entire process is performed by the logistics managementof technical orders system (G022)," which is itself "a1960s era batch-processing system."

The G022 system is in serious condition and spendsa lot of time in a down status. The operationaldemise of the system is variously projected fromsix (6) moniths to two (2) years.25

From the standpoint of the future, when moresophisticated weapon systems and aerospace equipment willincrease the demands placed on it, the AFTO system isequally discouraging. A specific example is the B-lBstrategic bomber, which is already inadequately served.

Finally, consider the impact of the AFTO system on itsprincipal users, the base-level maintenance technicians.They manually post changes, supplements, and revisions toTOs--usually as an additional duty, but often as a full-timeassignment. AFLMC noted, for example, that one tacticalfighter wing had "twenty-three maintenance personnelassigned full time, or nearly full time (75% of dutyactivity) to maintain and distribute TOs, [and the] postingof distribution records alone required 1,083 man-hours eachyears.,,2 6

In summary, most of the deficiencies are a directresult of the paper-based, page-oriented nature of thesystem. And the widespread duplication of TOs furthermultiplies the problems experienced at base level. 27

15

Notes

1. AFIT, Technical Order Acguisition and Management:Sys 230, Syllabus of Instruction (Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office, 1985), 15.

2. Ibid.

3. AFLCR 8-4, Air Force Technical Order System(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 25 May1983), 4.

4. Ibid. Due to an AFLC reorganization not yetreflected in the regulation, the office symbol and thedirectorate's name differ slightly from that provided byAFLCR 8-4.

5. Ibid., 16-19. The reader might prefer or, as in mycase, need to use magnification in order to relate thenarrative flow with the diagram provided. The quality offigure A-1 is better than or equal to that provided in theregulation. The block descriptions have been enhanced.

6. Ibid., 10-17. The quote is taken from page 10.

7. Introduction to the Air Force Logistics Command(AFLC): AFLC Action Officers Guidebook, 2d ed. (Washington,D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1984), 111-6.

8. RJO Enterprises, Inc., Automated Technical OrderSystem (ATOS). Phase II. Economic Analysis (Washington,D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1985), 2-1.

9. RJO Enterprises, Inc., untitled and unpublishedanalysis produced under contract F33600-85-C-7045, WO2274-02, for the ATOS Program Management Office as acorrelate to the AFLMC study conducted at base level (seenote 10), 3 July 1986. In addition to data provided in thefigure, the analysis also determined that TO sub- orsub-subaccounts--respectively, TODS and TODSS--are not usedby the centers.

10. AFLMC Report LM850403, ATOS Phase 3 Concept ofQetion (Gunter AFS, Ala.: AFLMC, 1986), 5.

11. Ibid., 6. The original source for theinformation--Technical Order Distribution System, TO 00-5-2(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1983),2-2--is faithfully preserved.

16

12. Maj Edward J. Higbee, "Automated Technical OrderSystem (ATOS)," address to the Sixth Aerospace IndustriesAssociation Symposium on Mature and Emerging Technology, SanDiego, Calif., 25 September 1985.

13. Headquarters AFLC/MMT, Automated Technical OrderSystem (ATOS) Mission Element Need Statement (MENS), 15 July1987, 2.

14. ATOS Phase 3 Concept of Operation, 4.

15. Headquarters AFLC/MMT, Automated Technical Order,3.

16. AFIT, Technical Order Acquisition and Manaqement;21.

17. Ibid., 19-20. Multiple quotes are taken from thissource to detail the purpose and content of technicalmanuals (TMs). Certain liberties have been taken to removeredundant punctuation in the tabular list of TMs, whilesubstantive content is preserved.

18. Ibid., 23.

19. Ibid., 24.

20. Ibid., 23.

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid., 25-27. Credit for the description of eachpublication is given to this source; however, paraphrasingwas employed in the interest of conciseness.

23. Headquarters AFLC/MMT, Automated Technical Order,

2.

24. Ibid., 2-3.

25. Ibid., 3.

26. ATOS Phase 3 Concept of Operation, 7. Numerousexamples of the types of problems inherent in the currentpaper-based, page-oriented AFTO system were uncovered byAFLMC during their visits to a number of Air Force bases in1985.

27. Ibid., 5.

17

CHAPTER 3

AUTOMATION INITIATIVES TOIMPROVE THE SYSTEM

The close relationship that has existed between theaerospace industry and the Air Force for over four decadeshas resulted in a number of changes in each. The observedadvantages of automation in industry and the substantialreductions in cost, manpower, and time anticipated with theintroduction of automated systems in the Air Force dictatean end to the cumbersome systems in use today. Seniorleaders have therefore directed the Air Force to takemeasured steps in automating today's logistical supportprocesses. Several initiatives are already under way.

Automation and the Future

The early history of technical order development wasdominated by numerous procedural, format, and contentchanges to correct deficiencies. The Job Guide, implementedfirst with the C-141 in 1970, is a well-recognized exampleof such an improvement.1 In addition, a number ofprocedures were automated to enhance productivity.Unfortunatel , they have produced little overallimprovement.z

In 1981 the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP)authorized the Air Force to develop a prototype automatedtechnical order system that could comprehensively addressAFTO system deficiencies.3 The success of this prototypehas ushered in at least three significant automationdevelopments. Collectively, they represent the intent ofthe Air Force to ultimately replace the AFTO system.

These three automation initiatives are the automatedtechnical order system (ATOS), the improved technical datasystem (ITDS), and the integrated maintenance informationsystem (IMIS). They are separately directed and managed,but each deals with many of the same environmentalconditions that must be met by the others; and DOD'scomputer aided acquisition and logistics support (CALS)initiative clearly contemplates fusion of these threesystems. 4 Eventually, System Command's CALS ManagementIntegration Office will integrate management and acquisitionof these systems. The degree of importance placed on CALS,and thereby on ATOS, ITDS, and IMIS, is documented in areport by the Committee on Appropriations referenced in theDepartment of Defense Appropriations Bill of 1987.

19

The DOD Computer Aided [Acquisition and] LogisticsSupport program is crucial to the effective use ofpaperless design and logistics information forimproved weapon systems support. The Committeeexpects to see substantial near-term progress toestablish compatibility for already-developedsystems within DOD, such as engineering drawingrepositories and automated technical manualsystems [such as ATOS, ITDS, and, later on, IMIS),together with common interfaces with industry. 5

Progress for the Air Force will be evaluated in termsof the direction provided by Deputy Secretary of DefenseWilliam Howard Taft IV and former Air Force Vice Chief ofStaff John L. Piotrowski. Direction from Secretary Taftcame in a memorandum dated 24 September 1985. The objectivewas

to transition from the current paper-intensivelogistic support process to a largely automatedmode of operation for weapon systems enteringproduction in 1990 and beyond.

The most significant near-term objective is toapply as many CALS elements to the AdvancedTactical Fighter (ATF) program [which] may serveas the "lead" weapon system for systems of the1990 era.6

On 10 September 1986 General Piotrowski set forth theAir Force objectives in support of CALS in a letter toMAJCOM commanders. He required that all efforts be directedtoward "achieving a 'near paperless' operation by 1992." 7

Beyond this, Air Staff and unit commanders have directedconsideration of such target systems as B-IB, F-15, F-16,and C-17, in addition to the ATF, for early support byautomated logistical support systems.

Automated Technical Order System

The first of the three automation developments is ATOS,a description of which is provided in appendix B. Itevolved from the initial prototype authorized by the JCP in1981. AFLC has managed ATOS as a single system; but becauseof fiscal constraints and technological risks, it has beennecessary to acquire ATOS in accordance with a phaseddevelopment plan. Originally designed as a system withthree phases, ATOS is currently being acquired in two.Phase I, an acquired improvement of the Ogden ALC prototype,was completed with full operational capability in March1987. It has been installed dnd is operdtional at all five

20

ALCs and at the Aerospace Guidance and Metrology Center.The second phase will be acquired and tested as a pilotsystem before full implementation. It is currently in therequirements development stage. Acquisition will be soughtin fiscal year 1989.8

Phase I automates the previously all-manual preparationof TO changes and the publication process at the ALCs. Thisis accomplished through preparation of camera-ready pagemasters for printing and distribution.

Requirements for the second phase have changedrepeatedly over time, and fiscal realities suggest thatfurther change should be expected. Currently defined as apilot program, it accepts digital input from both ATOS phaseI and aerospace contractors and distributes it in digitalform. Air Force users at depot and base level may use theseTOs in digital form or reduce them to paper (the system willhave print-on-demand capabilities).

As currently planned, the ATOS pilot program willconsist of central processing units at two ALCs--OklahomaCity and Sacramento--and remote computers at four StrategicAir Command bases--Dyess AFB, Texas; McConnell AFB, Kansas;Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota; and Grand Forks AFB, NorthDakota. Electrical, hydraulic, and air-conditioningsubsystems maintenance of the B-lB will be supported by TOspresented on computer terminals or printed on demand. Onebase will be supported digitally to the shop level.

Following a successful pilot acquisition and testperiod,

future ATOS acquisitions will automate anddigitize the development, acceptance, storage, andconfiguration management of technical orders andtheir distribution and presentation to Air Forcebases around the world.9

Also significant to the ATOS pilot program is therequirement to "incorporate ITDS type technology." Thiswill probably entail the use of ITDS data, software, andhardware, since the ITDS user system has been proposed as"the Air Force Standard Technical Order PresentationSystem.,,10

Improved Technical Data System

The second automation development is ITDS. Similar inbasic functionality to ATOS, ITDS extends the usefulness oftechnical data (TD). The ITDS user system, the proposed Air

21

Force standard for presentation (i.e., video display of TDoptimized for intended use), also extends digital TD fromthe shop environment to the flight line.

The ITDS producer system is basically a publicationsystem like ATOS phase I, though there are a few significantdifferences. In terms of hardware, the functionalsimilarity is close. The major difference is that theproducer's system has a direct two-way digital link to thedeveloper's logistical support analysis (LSA) data base, thelogistics support management information system (LSMIS).Since LSA is the principal source from which TOs arederived, having the linkage with LSA data allows for earlydetection of conceptual errors in TOs. This capabilityprovides for cost-effective remedies in the design stages ofsystem and support equipmeat development. Two otherdifferences between ATOS phase I and the ITDS producersystem involve the added software and data capabilitiesavailable with !TDS.

Producer system software permits a closer integrationof related TO data by introducing added intelligence intoche data itself. Data produced by the ITDS producer systemis for new weapon systems acquired with an all-digitalsupport concept--the ATF, for example. ITDS data containsembedded control codes, referred to as tags and hooks, thatlink together procedure-related data elements (e.g.,paragraphs with illustrations). This permits maintenancetasks to be completed through use of displayed data withminimal use of computer keyboard or through use oftouch-sensitive display. To facilitate user training andacceptance of this form of improved access, TO data is alsocoded to permit printing as required.

Data is entered into the producer system through thesystem terminal, through computer-aided design(CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) workstations, orthrough text scanners and graphics scanners. Opticalcharacter recognition (OCR) scanners scan textual data,illustration scanners convert graphic images into digitalform. The producer system manages access to the filemanager, where TO data is stored, and provides for printingor transfer of data to the user system, which is located ina base-level shop or section (fig. 5 ).11

The user system then stores data and associated changesin a local library, which controls distribution to therequesting users. Distribution records are maintained toassure that TO changes are sent to all users. The usersystem also provides print-on-demand capabilities andinterfaces with those embedded systems that are capable ofdisplaying ITDS-compatible data (e.g., onboard aircraft

22

systems, automated test equipment, and training systems).The user system also distributes data to networked deliverydevices, which provide it to technicians in shelteredenvironments, and to portable delivery devices, whichprovide it to remote locations and severe workingenvironments (fig. 6).12

When fully implemented in fiscal year 1990, ITDS willalso prciide environmentally hardened extended memorymodules (EiMs) that can be transported to the point of use.The EMM is to be designed for loading on the crew (or bread)trucks normally used for transportation on the flight linetoday.

Integrated Maintenance Information System

The last of the three automation initiatives is IMIS, aresearch and development program managed by the Air ForceHuman Resources Laboratory. IMIS, as its name implies, wasdesigned to integrate the myriad information systems thatare inundating Air Force maintenance personnel. It isintended to become the single maintenance aid by the late1990s.

~ UserSFile System

Authoring Optical ManagerCharacter -/ '

Recognition OCR

LSACADW

CAM ProducerLSMIS/LSA Computer

Printed CopiesCAD/CAM lllustra',on

Scanner

Figure 5. The ITDS Producer System.

23

Local

NetworkedPrinter Delivery I

Device

AE

Aircraft PortableDevice

Figure 6. The ITDS User System.

IMIS will interface with ATOS and ITDS. The first twoof IMIS's three research stages are well under way (fig.7) .13 Stage I, the computer-based maintenance aids system,involves two separate prototypes established in intermediatemaintenance facilities during 1984-85. These prototypeswere designed to discover the basic cequirements for anautomated technical order system. Stage II, the portable

CMAS PCMAS IMIS

1985 1988 1982Intermediate-Level Flight Line Maintenance ComplexUser Requirements Flexible Research Tool Increased Capabilities

Off-the-Shelf Durable Rugged

Figure 7. Three Stages of IMIS.

24

computer-based maintenance aids system, was designed to(1) implement the stage I TO presentation on the flight lineand (2) demonstrate interactive diagnostics and aircraftbattle damage repair assessments. Stage II will also beused to test the feasibility of these concepts during afield test. Stage III, full IMIS demonstration, will extendthe concepts specified in stages I and II. Emphasis will beplaced on information system integration throughout themaintenance complex.14 Appendix C, provided by the AirForce Human Resources Laboratory (AFHRL/LRC), completelydetails stage III of IMIS which is currently scheduled for1992.

Notes

1. AFLMC Report LM850403, ATOS Phase 3 Concept ofOperation (Gunter AFS, Ala.: AFLMC, 1986), 4.

2. Headquarters AFSC/PLX, U.S. Air Force Plan forImplementation of Computer Aided Logistics Support, 1 July1986, 1. The DOD initiative described in this plan hassince undergone a name change to better represent its fullrange of applicability. It is now called the Computer AidedAcquisition and Logistics Support (CALS) initiative.

3. Headquarters AFLC LMSC/SMIA, "Automated TechnicalOrder System (ATOS)," LOGSARC Milestone 0 briefing,Headquarters AFLC, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, 22 July 1987.

4. Mark Hollobaugh, Headquarters AFLC/MMT, "ComputerAided Technical Order Strategy," briefing to Office ofSecretary of Defense action officers, Headquarters AFLC,Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, 28 August 1987.

5. United States Air Force Computer Aided Acquisition& Loaistics SUDDort (CALS) Strategic Requirements Document(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1987), 12.Interpolations have been included to clarify the currentname for the CALS initiative and to indicate where thegeneral systems reference is applicable to the Air Forceprograms cited. The reader will also note the futuristicimplication attached to IMIS, which at this writing is morean engineering study than a developed program.

6. Ibid., 1-4. The block quotation is combined from areference to the DOD "goal" on page 1 and a reference to therole of the ATF on page 4.

25

7. Gen John L. Piotrowski, Headquarters USAF/CV,letter, subject: Acquisition and Use of Air Force WeaponSystems Technical Information in Digital Form, 10 September1986.

8. Headquarters AFLC LMSC/SMIA, Automated TechnicalOrder System (ATOS) Pilot Program. Communications-ComputerSystems Program Plan (CSPP), 7 August 1987, 5-2. Futurefiscal realities may alter ATOS acquisition plans.

9. Program Management Directive for the AutomatedTechnical Order System (ATOS), PMD 72501(1)/71112F/72895F/78012F, 29 April 1987, 1.

10. Ibid., 4; and message, 271904Z FEB 87 (U), issuedby Headquarters AFSC/PL, subject: Automated Technical OrderWorking Group Minutes, 27 February 87, 4.

11. Maj Thomas D. Brown, Jr., ITDS program manager(ASD/AL-1), "Improved Technical Data System (ITDS),"briefing, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, 15 May 1987. Thedescription of figure 5 is based on the figure and onexperience with ITDS.

12. Improved Technical Data System (ITDS) User SystemType A System Specification (Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting office, 1987), 3-4.

13. AFHRL/LRC, "IMIS: Integrated MaintenanceInformation System, A Maintenance Information DeliveryConcept" (Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: AFHRL, 6 August 1986),1-3.

14. Ibid., 2, 6-8. Quotes and appendix C were drawn,respectively, from the page references indicated.

26

CHAPTER 4

DEPLOYMENT--THE TRUE TEST OFTECHNICAL ORDER AUTOMATION

Only deployment can provide a true test, of course--inparticular, deployment under crisis management/wartimeconditions. And the first task here is to define theworking environment, "particularly with regard to theautomated data processing (ADP) equipment which would beused at a bare base . . . because we should buy hardware anddesign software capable of operating efficiently andreliably under wartime conditions [and] because we shouldpractice in peace the way we expect to operate in war.'1

Whenever the term deployment is used, almosteveryone has an understanding. Whether the understanding isa shared one, though, often depends on the existence ornonexistence of a common deployment experience. Deploymentis essentially a rebasing operation. It can occur for anumber of reasons and under a wide variety of circumstances.Some of the more usual reasons for undertaking deploymentsare presented here.

1. Weather avoidance. Weather is a frequent reasonfor unit deployments. Deployments such as Snow Bird forGuard and Reserve units and similar deployments for activeunits occur several times a year to avoid severe weather.

2. Training exercises. Environmental concerns suchas noise abatement, restricted flight profiles overpopulated areas, and the locations of limited andspecialized ranges are other reasons for deployments. Thereare two principal scenarios for aircraft deployment intraining. The first is deployment of single flights forshort periods, possibly a day or less. The second isdeployment of entire units, including support personnel, forlonger periods of time--usually a week or more. Examplesinclude Combat Echo, Green Flag, and Copper Flag at Eglinand Tyndall AFBs, Florida, and Red Flag at Nellis AFB,Nevada.

3. Practice wartime tasking. Deployment missions arealso conducted in order to experience basing conditionssimilar to those anticipated at locations to which units areassigned for contingency operations. Examples include:Checkered Flag and Crested Cap.

27

4. Military or political employment. When nationalleaders direct the employment of forces in support of adiplomatic mission, or to enter a conflict to resolve acrisis, deployment is an obvious and essentialconsideration.2 Unquestionably, the latter instance is themore difficult of circumstances and the one with which theterm crisis management/wartime conditions is most likelyassociated.

Crisis management/wartime conditions appear morereadily acceptable as a range of conditions than as adiscrete set of conditions. The term is defined here as "acrisis or conflict that involves the deployment of forces,whether or not such forces are actually used in resolvingthe crisis or conflict--for example, a natural disaster,a national contingency, or a war." If the crisis involvesan adversary, the act of deploying forces may be asufficient deterrent; but the definition requires thepresence of a real crisis or conflict, thus eliminatingroutine training deployments and planned readinessexercises. These latter deployments usually involvelimited training for ground-support personnel--logisticsimplications are either not planned or are "simulatedaway"; 3 an automated technical order system should be usedas soon as it is practical.

Deployment Considerations for Automation

Deployments involving an automated technical ordersystem introduce a set of additional considerations,including the extent of automation required and howsurvivable that automation is. A situational modeldeveloped by the Air Force Logistics Management Center ispresented here to establish some of the basicconsiderations. It is not intended to be exhaustive in itstreatment.4

Situational Environment

Frequently bypassed and overlooked in a rush toconsider the harsh effects introduced by conditions in thephysical environment are the who, what, when, where, why,and how questions of deployment.

The tendency to think of logistics support as anafterthought is as disturbing as are the results of doingso. For example, AFLMC researchers reviewing the support ofdeployed aircraft maintenance units in the early 1980sreported:

28

While deployed, if a phone line is available,daily calls are made to relay flying time,maintenance problems, and engine data . . . to thehome base's data collection system. Othermaintenance data is generally collected for inputupon return from the deployment; unfortunately,large amounts of data are frequently lost. [And]for small deployments, 12-14 aircraft for 15-30days, the aircraft AFTO Forms 781 series are theonly historical records generally taken along,necessitating almost total reliance on the homestation .... 5

It is clear, then, that logistics support considerationafter the fact creates significant communications costs andcauses the loss of valuable maintenance data.

AFLMC was tasked to develop an interim deployablemaintenance system (IDMS) that essentially duplicatescertain functions of the maintenance management informationand control system (MMICS) and the core automatedmaintenance system (CAMS). An IDMS was fielded, but AFLMCnoted certain unacceptable results:

Although IDMS and MMICS produced the same desiredresults, the user interface to obtain theseresults is significantly different. The input andoutput screens for IDMS and MMICS are totallydifferent. The keyboard functions and set up forthe UTS40 (MMICS) and the Z120/248 (IDMS) are alsodifferent. The user is therefore required tolearn two systems; one for everyday use, and asecond system for use while deployed. This is notan acceptable method of operation.6

This after-the-fact logistics support resulted in separatesystems to support different levels of maintenance. This,of course, carries its own penalties in terms of humanerrors and inefficiencies.

A final example illustrates a more tangible consequenceof neglecting deployable logistics support as a matter ofup-front design. The avionics intermediate shop (AIS) is atest bench used to diagnose electronic warfare equipment andavionics (black box) systems for the F-15, the F-16, and anumber of other aircraft. In theory, the AIS is animprovement in avionics maintenance; but the improvement hasa significant price where deployment is concerned:

29

The F-15's dependence on an Avionics IntermediateShop (AIS) is symptomatic of [a] current need forlarge amounts of specialized support. At leastthree C-141s are required to transport an AIS andwhen in operation this AIS requires 4500 ft oflevel, air-conditioned floor space. . . . In sum,deployment of a typical F-15 squadron currentlyrequires 13 to 18 C-141s to carry flight-lineeqaipment and spares just to set up operations ata prepared MOB--and much more equipment and sparesto set up at an unprepared base. 7

The F-16 AIS is different from the F-15 AIS, of course, sothe problems of inflexible manning, training costs, andother maintenance issues add to this price. And, too, theAIS concept of maintenance is quite different from theconcept for maintenance typically performed at a home base.

The bottom line of the combat logistician regarding howwe deploy says a "deployable" anything--by itself--makes nosense; it's a "poor and costly concept."'8 Deployabilityshould be a consideration in up-front design, not anafterthought. "Engineers must be indoctrinated so they donot design an aerospace vehicle. Instead, they must designan aerospace system. Their specific objective should be toreduce the people, materiel, facilities, and informationneeded to employ a vehicle in war.''9

Next comes the criteria for levels of automationrequired for deployment. Three sets of criteria areoffered: criteria that serve to define deployment levels,criteria established by level of conflict, and criteria forthe automated equipment required. The first criteriasuggested are the number of aircraft to be deployed, theanticipated duration of the deployment, the maintenancecapability needed at the site, the availability ofcommunications, and the level of intensity (fig. 8).

The least requirement for automation exists when thedeployment involves: (1) the fewest number of aircraft; (2)the shortest anticipated time; (3) minimum maintenancecapability; and (4) the least amount of communicationssupport combined with high intensity. For example, ascenario could readily be envisioned wherein three or fouraircraft are dispersed to an unimproved site (such as theautobahn in West Germany) for a couple of days to concealtheir presence.1 0

The only occupants of the aircraft are the pilots andthe crew chiefs, and the only communications available arethrough the aircraft radios. Intensity is high due to

30

Number of Aircraft

rimeLow to High

Maintenance Capability

Communications -

Intensity M0 High to Low

Least MostLevel of Automation

Figure 8. Criteria for Determining Levels of Deployable Automation Required.

multiple overflights each day by enemy fighter andreconnaissance aircraft. In this situation, there are fewrequirements for automation and maintenance--just for "gunsand gas." These pilots need to get airborne and deliverordnance (fig. 9). 11

Consider now a different scenario. Assume that thenumber of aircraft increases to between 18 and 20, asquadron-sized deployment. The time on site is expected tobe several weeks. Now there is a need for equipmentspecialists--perhaps even an aircraft maintenance unit. Amobile communications team may be set up. This deploymentconstitutes a basic show of force. It represents a totallydifferent environment from the first scenario, and itsinformational demands will be numerous and systematic.Where previously all one really needed to know was whetherthe airplane could fly and deliver ordnance, now one needsto know the hydraulic work load level. And one needs statusinformation in aggregates and percentages, not simple yes orno answers as in the earlier scenario. One wants to knowtechnical things in more detail--and one wants bettertechnical performance, which requires automated tracking.

Further along the continuum, a wing of 40-50 aircraftis deployed for months or years. Now, national resourcesare brought to bear; many kinds of communicationsequipment--HF, VHF, UHF, SATCOM, and possibly DDN andAUTOVON--are put in place; the deployment tends -'0 peak interms of requirements and available resources; andautomation is called upon to enhance information and provideproductivity across the board. Reporting in proper formats,with automatic distribution, typifies the scene.

31

Number of Aircraft - 3 to 4 18 to 20 40 +

Time - Days Weeks Years

AircraftMaintenance Capability- Organization Maintenance Wing

UnitCommunications - UHF Mobfle Full

Communications

Intensity High Show of Force Peace

Least Most

Level of Automation

Figure 9. Levels of Automation Scenarios.

Clearly, deployment isn't a single, well-defined entitybut a multitude of possibilities with varying requirementsfor automation support. This is true whether or not thesupport is an automated technical order system and whetheror not the deployment has a conflict orientation.

The remaining criteria, which deal more specificallywith level of conflict and level of equipment, will be dealtwith together. Deployment need not involve conflict; butwhere conflict is involved, key automation issues likeprocess criticality and the availability of manualalternative processes become more pressing. These issuesnotwithstanding, there will always be instances where logicof a higher order imposes use of automation and exposure torisks deemed acceptable. Then there is the question of howmuch automation is enough. Greater distance raises thepremium on supportability; that is, more spares and suppliesare required. And certain physical environment extremesplace restrictions on operations, reliability, andmaintainability (fig. 10).

32

Manual Alternative

Yes No

Critical

No YesNot

Required ReImposed

No Yes

Figure 10. Logic Tree for Assessing Level of Conflict and Levels of EquipmentCriteria.

Regardless of the level of conflict, realityrequires some automation for deployments that involveappreciable degrees of self-sufficiency. And that certainlyapplies to European deployments due to conflict. Theconclusion of the Project RELOOK study team was that"successful logistics support had to be based upon USinstallations in Europe being self-sufficient to the maximumextent possible.''12 Also, even though automation isn'taccepted as a panacea in all cases where technical data areused, it is an essential for engine maintenance. It haseither become physically impossible to perform some enginemaintenance functions manually or it is impractical to doso. Today's engines, for example the F-110 and the F-220,cannot be interrogated without specially developed automatedtest equipment.

If the answer concerning the availability of a manualalternative is "yes," then both methods must be measuredagainst the deployment continuum in figures 8 and 9 toassess the level of automation required. As a practicalmatter, manual alternatives probably will not exist for manyautomated procedures at the extremes of the continuum. Atthe low end, where intensity is high, it may simply be amatter of deploying the automated procedure and having itwork or else. At the opposite extreme, sufficient manpower

33

will normally be available to develop and implement a manualalternative. Nevertheless, ample redundancy or repair forthe automated system should be available to assure itscontinued use.

If no manual alternative exists or can exist, thenwhether the automated procedure is critical to operationsmust be determined. If the procedure is deemed critical,then it has to be deployable. In this case, the physicalenvironment must be measured against the automated systemand the mission profile. The key for acquiring an effectiveautomated logistical support system is to tailor it to theuser's intended use and work environment; the limitingfactor is man, not machine.

13

If the system is not critical, then the question iswhether its use is to be imposed. For reasons that may notbe obvious, higher authority may determine that an automatedsystem should be deployed. When this occurs, the deploymentsituation will establish the appropriate level of automatedsupport.

The automation industry provides a broad range ofhardware options: from highly portable laptop computerssuch as the Air Force and Navy standard, the Z-184, tostand-alone microcomputer systems; from a local areamicrocomputer network to a mobile device with a built-inradio; and from minicomputers to mainframe computers.

Physical Environment

Probably cited for its effects on automation more thanany other element is the physical environment. As a combatlogistician recently commented,

The system has got to work where the maintenancetechnician has to work, and this is critical whereno manual alternative exists. Yet, if you're in asituation such as we are today with "black box"maintenance, where you simply cannot fix a "blackbox" in a non-air conditioned place because youhave to have humidity control, etc.; then it makesno sense to get a support device that takes threepounds of nuclear over-pressure, works under threefeet of water, and will take 500 G's. A humancan't survive 500 G's and a technician won'tnormally work under water in the Air Force. Ithas got to make sense! If the computer won't workin dust; well, now you've got a problem. For atechnician can work in dust and normally does. 14

34

Echoing the same sentiment in different words, a majormanufacturer of computers built to military specificationsays:

Why pay extra for survivability features thatenable the equipment to withstand battlefieldconditions that their human operators cannotendure? For example, it seems redundant on someprograms to require an operating temperature rangeof -550C to +710C [the common military requirementfor operations] for equipment that will beconfigured within an air-conditioned S-250 orS-280 ground-based shelter, a surface ship'scombat information center, or an aircraft's crewcompartment.15

What is needed, then, is a balance between theenvironment, logistics-support possibilities, and the basicunderlying requirement that "the system . . . work where themaintenance technician has to work."

'16

An example of how a deployment can be accomplishedwithout requiring the stringent specifications ofMIL-E-5400, MIL-E-4158, and MIL-E-16400 comes from an actualdeployment of the 21st Tactical Fighter Wing's F-15s toAlaska during Cobbler Freeze '87.

Ambient temperature was minus fifty-one degreesFahrenheit. Wind chill factors brought theapparent temperature down to 100 below zero. "Wewere working under the barest of bare-baseconditions," said CMSgt James Helms, 21st TFWmaintenance supervisor. "We had absolutely noaircraft hangaring facilities. So allmaintenance, no matter how extensive, had to beperformed on the flight line. In order tomaintain the aircraft, we had to do someinnovative things. For example, . . . we borrowedsome parachutes . . . and rigged a shelter. ...We used cargo straps to pull the chutes acrossthe aircraft wings, then put sandbags around thebottom. Then we piped heat in with a hose. Itwas surprisingly warm; the kids could take offtheir parkas and work barehanded to complete therepairs.,"17

Yet, even with this situational evidence, determiningwhether an automated technical order system requires fullmilitary specification, hardening of commercial equipment,or acceptance of commercial hardware at the expense of somesurvivability, remains a difficult choice.

35

But consider the implied question, "what constitutes abalanced environmental concern?" Appendix D contains therelevant excerpt of environmental considerations in theAugust 1987 multimillion-dollar contract for the standardAir Force and Navy lap-held microcomputer system. It wasacquired because it can operate in many deploymentsituations. Temperature, humidity, and power were keyconsiderations. 18

About the power problem, it "is not one ofavailability, but rather one of reliability and quality(consistent in terms of voltage and cycles)."'19 AFLMCrecognizes that power in deployed locations outside theUnited States, particularly during wartime, will not meetstandards to which US consumers are accustomed. But theavailability of power was not considered a problem:

If we intend to go to war with microcomputers anddepend on them to increase mission capability,then we must procure and stock standby,uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) to ensure wehave continuous, reliable electrical power.20

In addition to these basic considerations, a number ofothers exist. They are detailed here as concerns forbattlefield survivability involving mechanically,radiologically, biologically, and chemically inducedfailures.2 1

The easiest battlefield concerns to address are themechanically induced computer failures.

Mechanical failures can occur in one of two ways.The most obvious [way] is that attacking forcescould damage a computer. However, the daily abusethat any electronics used on the battlefield wouldreceive is also a concern.22

The former factor is largely an unknown. The generaltendency is to "harden" computers used fzr deployment.Hardening is expected to protect against mechanical failuresinduced by the operational environment and those induced bymishandling. But hardening requires the user to bear aweight penalty and additional penalties may be paid in easeof use and maintainability. Yet, this need not be the case.

36

Many computers intended for tactical use have beenmanufactured to military specifications whichimprove their reliability. Because ofexpense . . . and an increasing tendency to useNDI (nondevelopmental items), there has been arecent trend away from Mil-Speccomputers. . . . Instead, the DoD is purchasingruggedized versions of commercial computers,ranging in complexity from PCs to mainframes. Inmany cases, the ruggedized version actually hasbeen smaller and lighter than its commercialcounterpart. [And] it is probably safe to statethat mechanical survivability is no longer asevere concern.23

"Nuclear survivability, however, is a concern.''24 Ourbasic understanding of hardening against radiologicallyinduced failures is the direct result of our experience inspace. But there have been few space systems to consider,and the cost is prohibitive when the number of computerdevices needed in deployment situations is considered.

It is most likely that hardness requirements willbe defined at levels comparable to ones personnelcan tolerate. With minimal shielding, theselevels should be achievable with standard CMOS(configuration management operating system]devices.25

Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a much more difficultproblem than radiation. A destructive form of energy, EMPis released with a nuclear explosion. It is particularlydamaging to computers, communications equipment, and radars.

Personnel can tolerate levels of EMP that willdestroy electronic circuits, and thesusceptibility of integrated circuits to EMPincreases as feature sizes shrink.2 6

Protecting against EMP can be accomplished to a degreeby increasing the fault tolerances of computer devices andreplacing conventional wiring with optical fibers.27 And anArlington, Virginia, firm has done extensive testing of an"isolator electronic equipment shelter" that apparentlyprovides a high degree of EMP protection.28

The difficulty of the hardening task depends uponseveral factors--the dose rate level, mostobviously, the circuit configuration and the typesof components required or available for theapplication.29

37

Finally, an understanding of biologically andchemically induced failures is needed. The Air Force"obviously need[s) research into the possible effects ofsuch agents upon electronic equipment." 0 Nevertheless, itappears likely that the protection necessary for anautomated technical order system will be driven more by thelevel of protection necessary for the system's operator."This would be accomplished through shelter design.'3 1

On the whole, the prognosis for battlefieldsurvivability is good, but we must reassessthreats in all four areas [mechanical, nuclear(radiological), biological and chemical] to ensurethat they are anticipated in tactical computerdesigns.32

Notes

1. Capt Vaughn D. Wassem, "Taking Microcomputers toWar: What Transporters Have Learned," Air Force Journalof Logistics 10, no. 4 (Fall 1986): 2.

2. Lt Col Thomas E. Thurston, "Tactical BasingIssues," Research Report No. AU-AWC-87-213 (Maxwell AFB,Ala.: Air War College, March 1987), 47-48.

3. Lt Col Thomas C. Nettles, "Project RELOOK: TheCase for Base Self-Sufficiency," Air Force Journal ofLogistics 11, no. 4 (Fall 1987): 7.

4. Lt Col Phillip L. Harris, Air Force LogisticsManagement Center (AFLMC/LGM), "Deployed AutomationRequirements," briefing, Headquarters USAF/LEX, 17 February1988.

5. Lt David N. Crippen, Maj Susan E. Alten, and JamesK. Shaw, DeDlovable Core Automated Maintenance System(DCAMS), AFLMC Project No. LM831215 (Gunter AFS, Ala.:AFLMC, August 1984), 2.

6. Capt Donald C. Fandre, Interim DeployableMaintenance System (IDMS), AFLMC Final Report LM840302(Gunter AFS, Ala.: AFLMC, June 1987), 5.

7. M. B. Berman and C. L. Batten, Increasing FutureFighter Weapon System Performance by Integrating Basing,SUDDort. and Air Vehicle Requirements, Rand Note N-1985-1-AF(Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, April 1983), 3.

38

8. Lt Col Phillip L. Harris, Capt Gary Gemas, andLarry Hartman, interviews with author, 17 February 1988.

9. Lt Col William T. McDaniel, Jr., "Combat SupportDoctrine: Coming Down to Earth," Air Force Journal ofLogistics 11, no. 2 (Spring 1987): 14.

10. Lt Col Phillip L. Harris, briefing, Air ForceLogistics Management Center (AFLMC/LGM), 17 February 1988.

11. Ibid.

12. Nettles, 5.

13. Comments from several qualified AFLMC logisticspersonnel indicate intention to advocate and supportautomated system developments using Air Force standardmicrocomputer systems; that is, Z-248 and Z-184 (17 February1988).

14. Lt Col Phillip L. Harris, Air Force LogisticsManagement Center (AFLMC/LGM), interview with author, 17February 1988.

15. William Morrison and David M. Russell, "C31Programs Demand Cost-effective Data Processing Solutions,"Defense Science & Electronics 6, no. 1 (January 1987): 30.

16. Harris interview.

17. Rana Pennington, "Eagles Over the Icepack," AirForce Magazine 70, no. 7 (July 1987): 88.

18. Air Force Computer Acquisition Center (AFCAC),AFCAC Project No. 275, Contract No. F19630-86-R-0011, 21July 1986 (the date is the date of Request for Proposal[RFP] issue); according to Jerry Goodwin, acting branchchief, Test and Evaluation Branch, Small ComputerAcquisition Office, Standard Systems Center (SSC/SSMCT),Gunter AFB, Ala., interview with author, 17 February 1988(the contract was awarded on 12 August 1987).

19. Capt Vaughn D. Wassem, "Taking Microcomputers toWar: What Transporters Have Learned," Air Force Journal ofLogistics 10, no. 4 (Fall 1986): 2.

20. Ibid.

21. "Computer Survivability on the Battlefield,"Defense Science & Electronics 5, no. 5 (May 1986): 58.

39

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid., 59.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid.

28. Dr Norman J. Rudie, "Hardening Techniques," DefenseScience & Electronics 5, no. 4 (April 1986): 63.

29. Ibid.

30. "Computer Survivability," 59.

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid.

4

40

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This research built a framework for understanding themany considerations attendant to integrating an automatedtechnical order system into Air Force deployments. The needfor an automated technical order system, which stems fromweaknesses in the current system, was detailed in chapter 2.The three major development programs--ATOS, ITDS, andIMIS--that are addressing the need and the deployabilityrequirements were summarized in chapter 3. In chapter 4,with a focus on deployment under crisis management/wartimeconditions, several environmental variables were related tothe use of computer systems. This chapter coversconclusions and recommendations concerning the use of anautomated technical order system for Air Force deployments.Implications for further research are also discussed.

The first conclusion apparent from this research isthat a replacement of the AFTO system is long overdue. Thatthe replacement should be an automated system is supportedby both DOD and the Air Force, especially as they areassociated with the computer aided acquisition and logisticssupport (CALS) initiative. There is a need to expeditedistribution and eliminate the intolerable loss ofmaintenance time to administrative overhead. For eventhough the processes have been improved by innovations indocument design and new technologies, the system is nolonger responsive to its users; nor is it fulfilling itsmission intent.

Although aware of the need for a better system, usersat the "retail" level are nevertheless concerned that theAFTO system's replacement will fail to consider and properlyaccount for all the benefits derived from the currentsystem. These benefits include the resource managementstandards and the technical data content standards that givethe system universal applicability and make standardtraining possible. In addition, these users indicate thatstandardized training and the capability of Air Forcemaintenance technicians to troubleshoot equipment arethreatened by a "leakage" of technical data from the AFTOsystem.

Tech data [is] being siphoned out. . . . Thefirst place we saw it was in the AIS, anintelligent test bench used in the intermediateshop, with the intelligent part being the techdata. . . . The bench holds the data forassessment, and the AIS makes the assessment. So,

41

we called it automated test equipment (ATE). Wedidn't call it test equipment that has tech databuried in it, so it escapes this whole disciplineof the AFTO System. Now it is AIS for the F-15and F-16, Comprehensive Engine Management System(CEMS) for engines, and things coming up like theComputerized Fault Reporting (CFR) System. So,what you've got now is that the poor user sees nostandards. 1

Yet another danger exists in replacing the AFTO system,however: The undocumented but essential relationships thathave evolved between this system and others could bemisinterpreted or ignored.

We fail to perceive the true relationship betweenthe technical. order process--the AFTO System--andour resource management system. The two have beeninvisibly, yet carefully, lashed together. It wasnever written down. . . . Now, automation is justshredding that interaction--that mutual dependencethat one system has on the other.2

It is clear, then, that environmental considerations gofar beyond those posed by the physical environment. Theymust include the purpose and nature of the deployment, thesize of the force deployed, the duration of the deployment,technical data requirements, maintenance and communicationscapabilities, and intensity. In addition, carefulconsideration must be given to protecting automatedequipment against environmental effects by means other thanimposing military specifications for device hardening.

This research suggests that the nondevelopmental itemapproach should be pursued in the development of anautomated technical order system. A system that isadaptable to the factors in the deployment environmentdiscussed in chapter 4 is recommended as a minimumconsideration. Development of a deployable system as anafterthought to a "wholesale" logistics system should beavoided, as should a system that is distinct in size andfunction from that required and used at an established andfully functional base.

A formal and complete study should document the currentAFTO system and its relationships with existing resourcemanagement and training systems. The knowledge gainedshould be utilized in replacing the AFTO system in anevolutionary, across-the-board process.

42

Future research should also focus on environmentalstandards and the performance limits of maintenancepersonnel. The research results would be helpful as a guidefor developing realistic environmental constraints forcomputer hardware and software.

The technical data support problem is important notonly to our own forces; with increased sales of frontlinesystems to our allies, it may yet prove to be a foreignpolicy disaster.

Notes

1. Lt Col Phillip L. Harris (AFLMC/LGM), interviewwith author, 17 February 1988.

2. Ibid.

43

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A

TECHNICAL ORDER SYSTEM LIFE CYCLE

Air Force Regulation 8-2 authorizes the current AirForce technical order (AFTO) system. The technical order(TO) life cycle from preconcept analysis through printingand distribution to the end user is shown in figure A-i onthe following page. A block-by-block description of theflow chart accompanies figure A-i.

DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS SHOWN IN FLOW CHART

Block 1--Maintenance Concepts. Planning for TOs to supporta system and associated equipment begins with the integratedlogistic support plan. This document includes themaintenance concept and shows the type of maintenance to beperformed, the levels of maintenance, skills type and level,etc. From this information, TO needs can be decided.

Block 2--Technical Order Planning Conference. For majorsystems and equipment, a TO planning conference is held.Within 60 days after the award of the system contract [sic],the system manager (SM)/item manager (IM), Air LogisticsCenter (ALC) requests the HQ AFSC program manager to conductthe conference. During this meeting, HQ AFSC, HQ AFLC,using command, ATC, and contractor decide specific TOrequirements for support of the system and associatedequipment.

Block 3--Procurement of Technical Orders. MMEDT documentsTO requirements through use of numbered AFAD 71-531 seriesand the Contract Data Requirements List (DD Form 1423).Military specifications are used to provide the instructionsfor preparation of TOs. The applicable specifications arelisted in Data Item Description DI-M-3407; current dates,amendments, and revisions are contained in the Department ofDefense Index of Specifications and Standards (DODISS).When requirements have been properly documented, HQ AFSCfunds and procures the TOs. Once TO requirements areestablished, the HQ AFSC program office won't alter anyrequirements without agreement of the SM/IM.

Block 4--CFAE/CFE Notice System. The contractor-furnishedaerospace equipment (CFAE)/contractor-furnished equipment(CFE) notice method is used when large numbers of TOs areinvolved or the TOs can't be predetermined. The contractorsubmits CFAE/CFE notices as equipment is developed or

47

040

40 Ch

0

,

00

48

selected. Recommendations for TOs are included. The SM/IMALC decides if the recommended TOs are needed and, if so,approves the notice for inclusion in the contract.

Block 5--ALC Approves TO Requirement. ALC-approved TOs areplaced on contract. If conflicts occur between HQ AFSC andHQ AFLC agencies relating to TO requirements, they areelevated to the necessary level for resolution.

Block 6--Contractor Prepares Technical Orders. The samecontractors who sell the equipment to the Air Force usuallyprepare the TOs using proper military specifications.Commercial manuals may be furnished when it is moreeconomical, practical, or timely, and if the commercialmanuals are considered adequate by MMEDT, MM_R, usingcommand, and the SPO. (Note: The " " is commonly used togeneralize the functions performed by a number oforganizations with office symbols that only change where thesymbol is used.) When technical data is needed from two ormore associate contractors, one is given primeresponsibility. Through the procuring agency, MMEDT assiststhe contractor in TO preparation with interpretation andclarification of requirements or specifications.

Block 7--Validation and Verification Reviews. All TOs aresubject to review. Provisions for reviews are merged in thecontract. The reviews are accomplished in a manner thatensures the Air Force receives the highest quality technicalorders. The reviews are done prior to delivery at thecontractor's plant or on site. The reviews ensurecompliance with military specifications, work statements,contractual documents, and adequacy of technical content.

Block 8--Contractor or Local Printing. TOs are printedeither by Government Printing Office (GPO) contractor or inthe ALC printing plants using reproducible copy or negativesdelivered by the contractor.

Block 9--Technical Order Distribution System andBlock 10--TO Using Activities. Initial distribution of TOsis made according to instructions established through theG022 system/TO 00-5-2 at Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center(OC-ALC/MMEDU). (Special weapons TOs are excluded from theG022 system. Initial distribution is made according toinstructions provided by SA-ALC/SWPPT.)

Block lI--ALC Obtains Technical Order Number from OC-ALC.When the SM/IM ALC approves the TO requirements in block 5,a separate series of actions begins at the central TOdistribution organization at OC-ALC. OC-ALC centrallyassigns numbers to all Air Force TOs except special weaponsTOs. San Antonio Air Logistics Center (SA-ALC/SWPPT) is the

49

central TO distribution organization for special weapons TOsand assigns these TO numbers.

Block 12--OC-ALC Lists Technical Order in TO Index andBlock 12A--OC-ALC Prepares Indexes. OC-ALC and SWPPT listsTOs in the TO index from which using activities may identifytheir TO requirements.

Block 13-19 (respectively)--Using Activities Furnish TOQuantitative Requirements, OC-ALC ADP Machine Output,Listing of ID Quantities, AFTO Form 273 ID, ALC Review ofRequirements and Backup Quantities, Total PrintingRequirements, Approved AFTO 273. The using activities'requirements are machine processed by OC-ALC and SWPPT toset up printing quantities and shipping labels. AFTO Form274, Initial Distribution Label, applies to classifiedshipments. The SM/IM ALCs review these requirements anddecide backup stock requirements. These collective actionsdecide the total printing requirement. The publications arethen normally distributed directly from the printer.

Block 20--Using Activity Requisition. If using activitieshave requirements in addition to those previouslyestablished (block 13) they submit increased requirementswith requisition or one-time requisitions through the G022system at OC-ALC and SWPPT.

Block 21--OC-ALC Prepares AFTO 273 Requisition. The G022system outputs requisitions at the prime ALC.

Block 22--Prime ALC. Prime ALC fills requisitions frombackup stock to using activities (block 20).

Block 23--Backup Stock. The prime ALC keeps a backup stockof TOs from which to satisfy requisitions.

Block 24--Reprint Backup Stock Quantity. Reprints are doneas needed to keep a backup stock.

Block 25--Command Reviews. After the TOs are in use, thereare several ways they may be changed or completely revised.Some TOs, particularly flight manuals, are subject toperiodic command reviews. These reviews may result inchanges to the TOs based on operational experience.

Block 26--AFR 66-1, Maintenance Management Policy, and AFR66-5, Single Manaaer for Modification. Major Maintenance andTest Programs on Air Force ICBM Systems, Data. Themaintenance data collection system (MDCS) may showdeficiencies that require correction through the TO system.

50

Block 27--AFTO 22 System. Using activities submit TOimprovements on AFTO Form 22, which may result in TOupdates.

Block 28--ECPs and MIPs. Modifications generated through[si] engineering change proposals (ECPs), and materielimprovement projects (MIPs) result in many changes to TOs.The impact of a modification is sometimes greater on TOsthan on the equipment itself.

Block 29--Technical and Engineering Review. All proposedTOs are processed through a technical and engineering reviewto preclude negative impact on other systems and ensurepositive Air Force impact.

Block 30--Publication Changr and TCTO. MMED publisheschanges to applicable Time Compliance Technical Orders(TCTOs).

Block 31--Prepares Data and Fabricates Kits. Modificationkits and TCTO information must be available for mod proofingand must be released concurrently.

Block 31A--AFLC Form 874, Supply Information. AFLC Form874, TCTO supply data requirements, contains vitalinformation to ensure parts availability and to precludeoverrequisitioning of parts no longer required. MMP mustclosely monitor each modification to ensure properpreparation and distribution of the form.

Block 32--Mod Proofing. All modifications must be proofedto ensure that TCTOs are accurate and understandable andthat all required parts are available.

Block 33--ALC Concurrent Release. TOs, TCTOs, andmodification kits are released at the same time by the ALC.Printing and distributing TO changes associated withmodifications are done in the same manner as the basicpublications (blocks 8-10).

Blocks 34-36 (respectively)--Kits, Drawings, Stock Lists,etc.; Other Distribution Systems; TO Using Activities. Kitsand other materiel are distributed by the appropriatesystems to the using activities.

51

APPENDIX B

AUTOMATED TECHNICAL ORDER SYSTEM WORK FLOW

When a technical order (TO) change request is received,the production manager enters the change package as a "job"into ATOS at the production control system (PCS) terminal.If the TO pages affected by this change are not in the ATOSdata base, a review session is held to determine the mostefficient method of entering the data into ATOS. New datacan be captured using the Capture Subsystems or created ontext entry or computer-aided design (CAD) graphicsworkstations. The type of information on the page, thequality of the copy, and the current operator work loads arefactors which determine the methods to be used. PCS routesthe text and graphics data files to the operators assignedto the job. The workstation operators enter the changeindicated by the production manager and print copies of thechanged pages for review and approval.

OProduction Control System(PCS)

/ Text /

Keyboard Entry Generation

Text Capture S

iL ; Camara-TO Change Cy

Request Ente tPublication Composer

New Job Peiw CmoeFiguesB SyAe System

~On-L no

Keyboard Entry GraphicsDaaB sGraphics Capture Generation

System

rOn-Line

Figure B-1. ATOS Work Flow.

source: SYSCON Corporation, prime contractor for ATOS phaseI, developed this diagram to illustrate the system of theirdesign.

53

When all of the changes to text and graphics have beenapproved, PCS routes the pages to the publication previewsubsystem for final review prior to phototypesetting on thecomposer subsystem. Completed pages are camera-ready copyready for printing.

The text and graphics files stored in the ATOS database provide the data necessary to produce additionalchanges or a revision of an entire document. The ATOS database also contains the data necessary to reproducecamera-ready copy of previous changes so that the change canbe reproduced if the original copy or the plate made from itis damaged.

54

APPENDIX C

STAGE III: FULL INTEGRATED MAINTENANCE INFORMATIONSYSTEM DEMONSTRATION

The IMIS concept consists of four major subsystems:(1) the technician's portable computer/display; (2) anaircraft maintenance panel connected to on-board computersand sensors; (3) a maintenance workstation connected tovarious ground-based computer systems; and (4) sophisticatedintegration software which will combine information frommultiple sources and present the data in a consistent way tothe technician.

The technician's primary interface with IMIS will bethe extremely portable battery-powered unit, which is ruggedenough for flight line use (fig. C-1). A library ofremovable memory cartridges will store all the technicalorder information and diagnostic aids needed for one weaponsystem. The memory cartridges will be designed for fast,easy, and accurate updating. A high resolution, flat paneldisplay will clearly display data under all lightingconditions. The man-machine interface will be designed forease of operation to eliminate the need for the user to havetyping skills. The portable computer will have theprocessing power to quickly display complex graphics andprovide rapid response to the technician's request.Interactive troubleshooting routines and artificialintelligence-based diagnostic aids will provide advice fordifficult fault isolation problems. (It is important topoint out that the portable computer will functionindependently to display most of the information the

PortableLess than 10 lbs Radio Communications10" x8" x3"

Memory CartridgesRuggedzed o RemovableErop Proof NonvolatileEnvironment Proof More than Four MBytes

Interfaces- - - Microprocessors

Airborne Systems 32-bitHigh-Speed Graphics

Ground-Based Computers Al Capabilities

Battery Powered Flat Panel Display

internal Battery High ResolutionA/C Power Day or Night visibilityAircraft Power

Human-Machine InterfaceSuited to Maintenance EnvironmentIntegrated User-friendly Interface

Figure C-1. Portable Maintenance Computer Concept.

55

technician needs for on-equipment maintenance. Even if thebase-level computer systems are unavailable or the aircraftsystems are malfunctioning, the computer will be able todisplay technical order information and diagnostic aids tothe technician.)

Avionics Flight Engine OtherComputers Control Monitoring Aircraft

and Systems Systems SensorsSensors

- Interface(s) to

Airborne Systems

Maintenance ConnectionsPanel 00 0for Portable

Computer

Technician

Figure C-2. Aircraft Maintenance Panel.

The technician will be able to perform most aircraftmaintenance tasks without climbing into the cockpit. Anaircraft maintenance panel on the outside of the aircraftwill provide the interface with onboard systems (fig. C-2).The portable computer will be able to retrieve and analyzeflight information, interrogate or control availablebuilt-in-test systems, or input test signals fordiagnostics. The interface panel will also be used toupload or download mission configuration/capabilityinformation.

The technician will interface with ground-based systemsthrough a maintenance workstation (fig. C-3). The desktopworkstation will include a keyboard, a printer, and acomputer interface. The interface will have the protocolsoftware required to access the other available data system.The portable computer will connect to the workstation andprovide the display and processor for the workstation. Thetechnician will then be able to access and exchangeinformation with systems like the core automated maintenancesystem (CAMS) and the automated technical order system(ATOS).

56

Supplyistr Maint I Core I ob i nf ps

Figur C-3.Maintenance Wrsain

System

Technical Interface C omputer the AidedOrders o InstuctionStmystem

i Portable Computer

Workstation sh

V . . - - . - - - K e y b o a r d

Technician

Figure C-3. Maintenance Workstation.

The most beneficial feature for the technician will bethe integration of information. Instead of dealing withseveral automated systems and accessing separate groups ofinformation through several devices, the technician willaccess all information through one device (fig. C-4). At a

DiagnsticsTechnical

Supply and IMIS TrainingManagement Systems

Data FlghtCollection Dt

Figure C-4. [MIS information Integration.

57

superficial level, the system will integrate information byemploying standard commands and display formats. At adeeper level, through sophisticated software, the systemwill integrate information from all available sources toprovide a coordinated maintenance package.

The development of the full IMIS demonstration willproceed in four phases. During the first phase, astructured analysis methodology will be used to determine aninformation system architecture. This architecture willdefine requirements for users' information needs, forinterfaces, and for functional implementation. The secondphase will be the hardware and software analysis, design,and review. Hardware fabrication and software programming,along with system tests and reviews, will occur during thethird phase. Finally, in the fourth phase, the system willbe evaluated in the operational environment by Air Forcemaintenance technicians. The product of the IMIS effortwill be field tested and validated so that specificationsfor implementing this maintenance concept on Air Forceweapon systems can be drafted.

58

APPENDIX D

EXCERPT OF DOD CONTRACT Fl9630-86-R-0011,DOD STANDARD LAP-HELD MICROCOMPUTER SYSTEMS

Note, although a DOD standard was established by thiscontract, only the Air Force and Navy are bound to use thestandard. The Army may do so, as it wishes. Theenvironment-related conditions are extracted verbatim, withintervening references eliminated where unrelated toenvironmental conditions to be met by the lap-heldmicrocomputer acquired.

Environment and Physical Facilities. The systemshall be capable of normal operation within thephysical facilities and throughout the range ofpower and environmental tolerances stated below.

a. Facilities:

(1) Power. All equipment must have theability to operate from a 105-125 VAC, 50 and 60Hz Single Phase Power source. The equipment mustalso have the capability to operate with 210-240VAC, 50 and 60 Hz single phase power. Thiscapability can be switchable on the equipment orbe supplied separately. ...

(2) All equipment must meet the NationalElectrical Code (AFOSH Standard 127-11).

b. Environment Conditions. No site airconditioning or environmental conditioning will beprovided. The system will be used in offices,public and private transportation, commercial,establishments, homes, submarines, ships, trucks,aircraft, and other environments. All equipmentmust operate under the following environmentalconditions:

(1) Operating temperature: 10 to 40degrees Celsius (50 to 104 degrees F).

(2) Storage/Transport temperature: -25to 56 degrees Celsius (-13 to 140 degrees F).

(3) Humidity: 20 to 80 percent(noncondensing).

59

ME_ ~nm mnl m m

(4) After the lap-held microcomputer hasbeen removed from the storage/transportenvironment, the system must be capable of full,normal operations within 60 minutes.

n. Power. The lap-held microcomputer . . .must operate with and include the following powerdevices:

(1) Rechargeable battery pack. Thebattery pack shall power the lap-heldmicrocomputer for a minimum of 3 hours ofcontinuous use (prior to any low batteryindication) with 20-percent dual-drive disk usage(with only one of the two drives in use at any onetime). ...

(2) AC/DC adaptor. The adaptor must:

(a) Accept power from 100 to 130 VACat 50/60 Hz.

(3) Step down power converter. The stepdown power converter must:

(a) Convert power from 190-240 VAC50/60 Hz to 105-125 VAC 50/60 Hz.

(4) Line conditioner/stabilizer. Theline conditioner/stabilizer must:

(a) Convert power from 96-138 VAC50/60 Hz to 105-125 VAC 50/60 Hz.

A U GAF 9 AL. (891545 )1000660