Intratheater Airlift Functional Solution Analysis (FSA)

216 Pages·2011·1.95 MB·English

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that
EDUCATION AND THE ARTS helps improve policy and decisionmaking through
research and analysis.
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from
INFRASTRUCTURE AND www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND
TRANSPORTATION
Corporation.
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
LAW AND BUSINESS
Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16
NATIONAL SECURITY
POPULATION AND AGING
PUBLIC SAFETY
Support RAND
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Purchase this document
TERRORISM AND
HOMELAND SECURITY Browse Reports & Bookstore
Make a charitable contribution
For More Information
Visit RAND at www.rand.org
Explore RAND Project AIR FORCE
View document details
Limited Electronic Distribution Rights
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated
in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND
intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting
of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND
electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required
from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents
for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see
RAND Permissions.
This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series.
RAND monographs present major research findings that address the
challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono-
graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for
research quality and objectivity.
Intratheater
Airlift Functional
Solution Analysis
(FSA)
David T. Orletsky, Daniel M. Norton,
Anthony D. Rosello, William Stanley,
Michael Kennedy, Michael Boito,
Brian G. Chow, Yool Kim
Prepared for the United States Air Force
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
PROJECT AIR FORCE
The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States
Air Force under Contract FA7014-06-C-0001. Further information may
be obtained from the Strategic Planning Division, Directorate of Plans, Hq
USAF.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication.
ISBN: 978-0-8330-5085-4
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve
policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND’s
publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients
and sponsors.
R
® is a registered trademark.
© Copyright 2011 RAND Corporation
Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as
long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for
commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND documents to a
non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND documents are protected under
copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please
visit the RAND permissions page (http://www.rand.org/publications/
permissions.html).
Published 2011 by the RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050
4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665
RAND URL: http://www.rand.org
To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact
Distribution Services: Telephone: [phone];
Fax: [phone]; Email: [email protected]
Preface
This functional solution analysis (FSA) for U.S. Air Force (USAF) intra-
theater airlift is the third in a series of three documents that together
constitute a capabilities-based assessment (CBA) required as part of the
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS). The
first document in the series, the functional area analysis (FAA),1 identi-
fied the operational tasks, conditions, and standards needed to achieve
military objectives—in this case, certain intratheater airlift missions.
The second, the functional needs analysis (FNA),2 assessed the ability
of the current assets to deliver the capabilities identified in the FAA.
The third document in the series, the FSA, is an operationally based
assessment of current capabilities to determine whether a materiel solu-
tion is required to close any identified capability gap identified in the
FNA. In this case, the FSA determined that no nonmateriel solution
could address the shortfall. Therefore, an analysis of alternatives (AoA)
was undertaken to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various materiel
solutions.
The intratheater airlift FNA found that, within the next decade
or so, the available C-130 fleet would no longer be able to meet the
minimum requirement identified in the Mobility Capabilities Study
1 David T. Orletsky, Anthony D. Rosello, and John Stillion, Intratheater Airlift Functional
Area Analysis (FAA), Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, MG-685-AF, 2011.
2 John Stillion, David T. Orletsky, and Anthony D. Rosello, Intratheater Airlift Functional
Needs Analysis (FNA), Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, MG-822-AF, 2011.
iii
iv Intratheater Airlift Functional Solution Analysis
(MCS).3 It was therefore necessary to undertake an FSA to determine
whether a nonmateriel solution could close this capability gap.
This monograph presents the results of the FSA. The analysis con-
sidered a large number of potential nonmateriel solutions that included
changes in doctrine, organization, training, leadership, personnel, and
facilities. Because service-life extension programs (SLEPs) and new air-
craft acquisitions are materiel solutions, this FSA touches on them only
briefly, reserving detailed analysis for the AoA.
Maj Gen Thomas P. Kane, Director, Plans and Programs, Head-
quarters, Air Mobility Command, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois (Head-
quarters AMC/A5), sponsored this research. The work was performed
within the Aerospace Force Development Program of RAND Project
AIR FORCE as part of a fiscal year (FY) 2007 study, “Intratheater
Cargo Delivery Functional Solution Analysis (FSA).”
RAND Project AIR FORCE
RAND Project AIR FORCE (PAF), a division of the RAND Cor-
poration, is the U.S. Air Force’s federally funded research and devel-
opment center for studies and analyses. PAF provides the Air Force
with independent analyses of policy alternatives affecting the devel-
opment, employment, combat readiness, and support of current and
future aerospace forces. Research is conducted in four programs: Force
Modernization and Employment; Manpower, Personnel, and Train-
ing; Resource Management; and Strategy and Doctrine.
Additional information about PAF is available on our website:
http://www.rand.org/paf/
3 U.S. Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mobility Capabilities Study,
Washington, D.C., December 2005, Not Available to the General Public.
Contents
Preface ............................................................................. iii
Figures ............................................................................. ix
Tables .............................................................................xiii
Summary ..........................................................................xv
Acknowledgments .............................................................xxix
Abbreviations .................................................................xxxiii
ChAPTer One
Introduction and Background ................................................. 1
Capabilities-Based Assessment Objectives ...................................... 2
Functional Area Analysis .......................................................... 3
Functional Needs Analysis ........................................................ 6
Organization of This Document ................................................. 8
ChAPTer TwO
Intratheater Airlift Fleet Condition and Status ............................11
Fleet Composition and Status ...................................................11
C-130 Structural Issues and the Equivalent Baseline Hours Metric ........16
Other System Issues .............................................................. 28
ChAPTer Three
Functional Solution Analysis Methodology ................................33
Current and Projected Fleet Sizes ...............................................33
Analysis Methodology ............................................................35
Three Classes of Options .........................................................37
Delaying the Need to Recapitalize—Where’s the Leverage? ................ 38
v
vi Intratheater Airlift Functional Solution Analysis
ChAPTer FOur
Delaying C-130 recapitalization by reducing Accumulation of
equivalent Baseline hours ............................................... 43
How Different Types of Flying Relate to Accumulation of Equivalent
Baseline Hours ...............................................................45
The C-130 Flying-Hour Program: Understanding Where Flight (and
Equivalent Baseline) Hours Can Be Reduced ............................47
Options Analyzed .................................................................51
Increase Use of Simulators for Training ......................................51
Increase Use of Companion Trainers .........................................57
Shift High-Severity-Factor Operational Missions to Other Aircraft .....62
Reduce Crew Qualifications and High-Severity-Factor Training ........ 64
Options Eliminated During Initial Screening Process ...................... 64
Rotate Aircraft Among Components ........................................ 64
Increase Experience Mix .......................................................67
Change Active-Reserve Mix .................................................. 68
Add ARC Associate Units to Active Squadrons .............................69
Increase Squadron Size .........................................................69
Place Flight Restrictions on Specific Aircraft ................................70
Observations .......................................................................70
ChAPTer FIve
Delaying C-130 recapitalization by Increasing the Supply of eBh ...71
Options Analyzed .................................................................72
SLEP or Repair the Aircraft ...................................................72
Buy Additional Aircraft ........................................................76
Accept Greater Risk ............................................................76
Options Eliminated During Initial Screening Process .......................78
Develop Better Diagnostic Tools ..............................................78
Observations .......................................................................81
ChAPTer SIx
Delaying C-130 recapitalization by reducing the number of Aircraft
needed to Meet the requirement ........................................83
Options Analyzed .................................................................83
Shift C-17s to Intratheater Role ...............................................83
Contents vii
Shift More Air Education and Training Command Aircraft
During Peak Demand .................................................... 86
Options Eliminated During Initial Screening Process ...................... 86
Shift Some of the Theater Lift Burden to Surface Lift .................... 87
Fly Strategic Airlift to Forward Operating Locations ..................... 88
Change Theater Routes .........................................................89
Increase the Maximum Number of Aircraft on the Ground ............. 90
Increase the Crew Ratio ....................................................... 90
Use the Joint Precision Airdrop System ..................................... 92
Increase Army Days of Supply ............................................... 92
Pool Theater Airlift Assets .....................................................93
CHOP Fewer Aircraft and Improve In-Transit Visibility ..................93
Observations .......................................................................93
ChAPTer Seven
how Current Operations Influence the Demand for C-130s ............95
Aircraft Requirements for Ongoing Operations ............................. 96
Force Structure Required to Support Ongoing Operations ................. 98
Potential Options to Increase the Ability to Support Operations ......... 101
Change Active-Reserve Mix ................................................. 102
Use Remote Tours ............................................................ 103
Reduce Dwell-to-Deploy Ratio ............................................. 106
Increase Number of Personnel per Squadron .............................. 109
Reduce Noncontingency Temporary Duty ................................ 109
Summary of Individual Options ............................................ 110
Combinations of Options .................................................... 113
Options That Reduced Air Reserve Component Forces Exclusively .... 113
Observations ..................................................................... 114
ChAPTer eIghT
Cost-effectiveness Analysis .................................................. 117
Cost-Effectiveness Framework ................................................. 117
The Components of Net Present Value ....................................... 119
Evolution of the Mobility Air Forces C-130 Force Structure .............. 120
Elements of Cost Estimates .................................................... 124
Acquisition Cost .............................................................. 124
viii Intratheater Airlift Functional Solution Analysis
Sustainment Cost ............................................................. 126
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Results ........................................... 134
The Simulator Cases Are Cost-Effective ................................... 134
The Companion Trainer Case Is Not Cost-Effective ..................... 136
The C-17 Case Is Not Cost-Effective ....................................... 136
Conclusions ...................................................................... 137
ChAPTer nIne
Conclusions ..................................................................... 139
APPenDIx
C-130 Structural Issues ....................................................... 143
Bibliography .................................................................... 169