U.S. Army AviAtion And miSSile life CyCle mAnAgement CommAnd And ProgrAm exeCUtive offiCe AviAtion

2015

readiness Providers

major general Jim richardsonCommander

mary C. dickensdeputy to the Commanding generalU.S. Army Aviation and missile life Cycle management Command

Major General Jim Richardson is a native of Myrtle Beach, S.C., and a 1982 graduate of the University of South Carolina.

Richardson’s most recent assignments include deputy com-manding general, III Corps and Fort Hood. While deployed, he was assigned as the deputy commanding general, United States Force- Afghanistan, and commander of the U.S. National Support Element. Throughout his career, he has served in Army units in the United States, Republic of South Korea, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan. Richardson is a Master Army Aviator who has commanded soldiers in combat on six different occasions in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and has commanded at every level.

Mary C. Dickens was appointed to the senior executive service in June 2009. Since May 2013, she has served as the deputy to the commanding general, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM). In this position, Dickens manages a multifaceted and diverse organization with an annual budget of over $4 billion and a global workforce of over 11,000 military and civilian employees.

From June 2009 to April 2013, Dickens served as the top acquisi-tion authority, consultant and advisor to the commanding general and the deputy to the commander, Research, Development and Acquisition, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command (USASMDC/ARSTRAT), AMCOM and Army Contracting Command-Redstone (ACC-R). In this role, she managed and directed the acquisition program consisting of contract awards of $25 billion annually and active contracts of $110 billion.

Major General Jim RichardsonCommander

U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command

Mary C. DickensDeputy to the Commanding GeneralU.S. Army Aviation and Missile Life

Cycle Management Command

Readiness ProvidersEfficient Stewardship of Army Assets and Resources

Q&AQ&A

www.MLF-kmi.com U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command and PEO Aviation | MLF 9.2 | 1

U.S. ARmy AviAtion And miSSilE lifE CyClE mAnAgEmEnt CommAnd And PEo AviAtion

Jimmy DownsDeputy Project

Manager

Col. James KennedyProject Manager

Lt. Col. (P) Chris MillsProduct Manager

Armed Recon

Lt. Col. JB WorleyProduct Manager

Kiowa Warrior

ARMED SCOUT FixED Wing

Todd MillerDeputy Project

Manager

Col. Steve ClarkProject Manager

Lt. Col. Brian ForrestProduct Manager Special Electronic Mission Aircraft

Lt. Col. Kirk McCauleyProduct Director Transport Aircraft

AviATiOn SySTEMS

Lt. Col. Jon FrasierProduct Manager, ATC

Col. Jerry DavisProject Manager

Rod BellowsDeputy Project

Manager

Lt. Col. Scott EvertonProduct Manager

AME

John WelchProduct Manager (A)

AnMP

Lt. Col. Kirk RingbloomProduct Manager

AgSE

APAChE hELiCOPTERS

Lt. Col. Tal SheppardProduct Manager

Longbow

Col. Jeff hagerProject Manager

Rich TylerD Deputy Project

Manager

Lt. Col. Brian StehleProduct Manager

Block iii

Lt. Col. Louis KingProduct Manager

Sensors

Lt. Col. Alex AlejoProduct Manager

international

Brig. gen. Bob Marion

PEO

Marsha JeffersAPEO

Administration

John BeckChief of Staff

Rusty WeigerDeputy PEO

John MullAPEO, Business

Terry CarlsonAPEO, iT

Dave SainsburyAPEO, Security

Ray SellersAPEO, Engr & Tech

Col. Brian TachiasAPEO, Life Cycle

Management

hEADqUARTERS

PROgRAM ExECUTivE OFFiCE AviATiOn

U.S. ARmy AviAtion And miSSilE lifE CyClE mAnAgEmEnt CommAnd And PEo AviAtion

Maj. gen. Jim Richardson

Commander

Cmd. Sgt. Maj. glen velaCommand

Sergeant Major

Col. Sheila A. BryantChief of Staff

Cathy DickensDeputy Commander

CWO 5 Leonte CardonaBranch Aviation

Maintenance Officer

Kelvin nunnDeputy Project

Manager

Col. James BrashearProject Manager

Dwayne Jones(A) Product Director

Scout/Attack & Cargo Utility

Lt. Col. Craig BesawProduct Director

Mi‐17/Mi‐35

nOn-STAnDARD ROTARy Wing AiRCRAFT

Paul BakerDeputy Project

Manager

Col. Rob BarrieProject Manager

Lt. Col. Calvin LaneProduct Manager ‐

47 Mod

Lt. Col. Reese hauensteinProduct Manager

Ch‐47F

CARgO hELiCOPTERSUTiLiTy

Lt. Col. David CheneyProduct Manager

h‐72A

greg goreDeputy Project

Manager

Lt. Col. Roger KuykendallProduct Manager Common Engine

Lt. Col. Paul AndersonProduct Manager

MEDEvAC

Raymond hayes Jr.Product Director

international Programs

Andrew KsepkaProduct Director

Modifications

Anthony DupreeProduct Manager

Uh‐60v

Forrest CollierProduct Manager

h‐60L Digital

Col. Thomas Todd iiiProject Manager

Lt. Col. Bradley BruceProduct Manager

Uh‐60 M

UnMAnnED AiRCRAFT SySTEMS

viva KelleyProduct Director

Unmanned Sys Airspace integration Concepts

Lt. Col. William venableProduct Manager Common Systems

integration

Lt. Col. nick KioutasProduct Manager Small UAS/Mod

Rich KretzschmarDeputy Project

Manager

Col. Courtney CoteProject Manager

Lt. Col. Tory BurgessProduct Manager

Tactical UAS

Lt. Col. Tony DavilaProduct Manager Medium Altitude

Endurance

AviATiOn AnD MiSSiLE COMMAnD

Q: Toward the end of December 2014, you led AMCOM 101 for Army aviation stakeholders. Tell me what AMCOM 101 is all about and what you wanted to achieve.

A: AMCOM 101 is an outreach program by which we educate our customers on what we do, how we do it and, most importantly, on how we can assist them in maintaining a high level of combat readi-ness. Our customers in this case are combat aviation brigade, Army Air Defense Command, commanders and their key staff members. I define key staff as command sergeants major, brigade executive offi-cers, brigade maintenance officers and key members of the brigade’s maintenance and logistics staff.

I kick off all AMCOM 101 sessions with a welcome briefing and attend as many of the sessions as I can. All of my key staff—my dep-uty, my command sergeant major, my branch maintenance officer and the executive director of the AMCOM Logistics Center—actively participate in these sessions. We also bring in subject-matter experts to brief their areas of expertise. For example, the chief of our readi-ness directorate briefs in detail on the capabilities of our logistics assistance representatives, the role we want them to play in the unit and the training we give to them.

AMCOM has been doing a version of AMCOM 101 since early in the war effort, but I am placing renewed emphasis on it because I know firsthand how mission and training requirements can con-sume the attention of a brigade commander. I want to push our capabilities to our customers and let them know what we can do for them, rather than wait for them to request help. And we can achieve that by taking the time to personally interact with customers in the AMCOM 101 forum.

Q: How is AMCOM working to manage spare parts inventory to ensure there is little sitting on the shelves but everything is where it needs to be when it needs to be there? Is this part of your overall enterprise resource planning strategy?

A: AMCOM is working a number of efforts to accomplish exactly what you describe, i.e., better balance our inventory against require-ments, and make sure that the inventory we do have is properly accounted for, properly stored and readily accessible to our soldiers in the field. The umbrella term we use is ‘cost-wise readiness,’ which was coined by our executive director of the AMCOM Logistics Cen-ter, and encompasses a wide variety of initiatives that improve our supply chain from the foxhole to the factory.

As the name implies, our goal is to maintain warfighter readi-ness while being good stewards of Army resources. This program covers multiple actions: reduction of excess inventory; recovery of inventory from wartime theaters; improved inspection and parts overhaul programs; detailed and recurring reconciliations of open requisitions and financial obligation documents; and regular plan-ning sessions with our parts suppliers, including industry and the Defense Logistics Agency. A key component of achieving Army-wide visibility of spare parts inventory versus requirements is the effec-tive implementation of enterprise resource planning (ERP) tools.

In our case, the tool is the Logistics Modernization Program (LMP), the ERP tool for the Institutional Army, which AMCOM implemented in 2008 and which we’ve worked to improve upon continuously ever since. LMP has enabled us to execute our depot repair programs, which include major assemblies such as engines

along with smaller spare parts, in a much more cost-effective manner, which leads inevitably to more dollars for spares and increased readiness. Now that the Army is fielding the operational Army’s ERP, the Global Combat Service Support System (GCSS-A), our challenge is to achieve an effective link between the logistics ‘requirements’ data resident in GCSS-A and the ‘replenishment’ data resident in LMP.

We are working with both unit customers and the Army’s proj-ect managers to achieve a seamless integration of these ERP sys-tems in order to ensure that AMCOM’s responsiveness remains high and that real requirements drive out resupply decisions.

With all that said, I must remind the audience that we are sup-porting a war-fighting Army, not a business entity which measures success by profit and loss statements. To maintain readiness for combat and effectively support combat operations, we must accept that there is a balance to be struck between a business model of just-in-time logistical delivery and a contingency model of “just in case” logistical stockpiles. We will not maintain iron mountains of spare parts, but I also will not assume the risk of not being able to fill a unit’s requisitions, whether it’s to support training or a deployment.

We at AMCOM must be ready to support our soldiers’ needs, and we will work with them and the entire supply chain to accom-plish that.

Q: What is AMCOM’s role in the future vertical lift program? What is your take on the program’s path to date?

A: Because Future Vertical Lift (FVL) is a science and technology pro-gram (S&T), AMCOM’s role is primarily an advisory one at this point.

We have AMCOM personnel embedded in the program man-agement offices of PEO Aviation, and since I serve as the materiel release authority, AMCOM subject-matter experts are full partici-pants in the materiel release process. We use both of these avenues to participate in the development process that encompasses S&T programs such as FVL.

Since we are the logistical providers of the life cycle manage-ment approach used here at Redstone, my goal in a S&T program is to advise on the development of the logistical key performance parameters, things like engine performance specs, fuel economy and mean time between failure rates for key spares and assemblies. This approach engineers logistical sustainability early in the acqui-sition process. If we can accomplish that, we will drive down the long-term cost to sustain our fleets.

About 70 percent of a system’s total cost to the Army is incurred during the sustainment phase of the life cycle, i.e., after all the development, testing and procurement actions are completed. If we can drive down that cost by better engineering our systems to achieve higher levels of performance at lower operating costs, we will do the Army a tremendous service.

Q: How do you communicate and coordinate with the other PEOs on system support? For example, on any given UAS when the platform comes to you but the sensors need to go off in another direction, how does that all fit into the pipeline?

A: You are asking a system integration question, and we rely on our two supported PEOs: PEO Aviation, and PEO Missiles and Space—to work the systems integration issues. Each PEO approaches this

www.MLF-kmi.com4 | MLF 9.2 | U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command and PEO Aviation

U.S. ARmy AviAtion And miSSilE lifE CyClE mAnAgEmEnt CommAnd And PEo AviAtion

challenge a little bit differently, but both of them have PEO staff that work these issues and also support the project managers when they need it.

Our involvement is focused on the sustainment of the over-all system, and our embedded logisticians provide the business case and sustainability analyses that assist PMs in the integration decision-making process. Of course, our logisticians communicate daily with their counterparts in other PEOs, and especially in other life cycle management commands, to work sustainment questions that involve other command sub-systems. At the end of the day, it’s our job to sustain the helicopter or missile system; if the radios or radars are down, the entire system is down, so we work all sustain-ment issues before they arise.

Q: How are the workloads at your depots at Corpus Christi and Letterkenney for the rest of 2015? Are the depots running at the capacity levels the Army needs?

A: As you can probably guess, our depots are both seeing reduced workloads as the pace of deployments slows.

Both depots do have work programmed through the remainder of the fiscal year, and they also have fairly solid projections of work in 2016. These projections, of course, can change due to decisions about sequestration, or if Army units are given unanticipated con-tingency missions. What’s important to relay to you is that both

depots, as well as the AMCOM staff, work closely with our sup-ported customers—which in this case, are our aviation and missile project management offices—to plan workload carefully to meet all requirements.

Some of our work includes repair and return programs support-ing foreign military sales customers, and that’s an area we are trying to grow as support requirements for the Army diminish.

To answer your second question: Yes, both depots are running at the capacity levels the Army needs right now. And they can increase their production rates if required.

Q: Will the depots be adding any new work lines or capacity in the near future?

A: We continually add new capability through use of the Depot Capi-tal Improvement Program; this is an Army investment account that provides a vehicle to purchase specialized, state-of-the-art industrial equipment.

For example, we’ve recently added improved engine and trans-mission test equipment and a fluid cell press (to create aircraft structural parts) at Corpus Christi Army Depot. Smart investments like this allow us to add production capacity without expanding our footprint.

In addition to productivity increases, these investments usually provide improvements in safety and environmental impact.

www.MLF-kmi.com U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command and PEO Aviation | MLF 9.2 | 5

U.S. ARmy AviAtion And miSSilE lifE CyClE mAnAgEmEnt CommAnd And PEo AviAtion

GS-35F-0673JContract GS-35F-0673J

Obviously, this is something to strive for, so our depots continue to identify capability upgrades that can be achieved through the capital improvement program.

As far as new work lines, we are working with supported PMs to identify programs that can be supported by the depots. I am on a personal mission to move as many programs as are feasible from contractor logistics support arrangements to support by the Army’s soldiers and organic industrial base. I believe that is the right thing to do for many reasons, not the least of which is lower cost of support to the Army. Some candidates include PAC-3 missiles, THAAD and AH-64E unique components.

Q: When you look at the Army’s helicopter fleets, does the age of the fleet cause you any pause? What is your approach to man-aging the required readiness requirements when looking at the maintenance requirements?

A: The age of the fleet is a concern, but our aircraft continue to meet mission requirements and readiness targets precisely because of the maintenance investments we have made over the past 10 years.

I am speaking, of course, of the reset program, which AMCOM has managed since 2004 and which has, without question, extended the lifespans of our fleets. The reset program’s approach—complete teardown, thorough cleaning, structure and frame inspections, and repairs to airframes and components as needed—has proven to be tremendously effective in improving an aircraft’s readiness track record and in finding issues that normal maintenance practices would not likely spot.

Add to this AMCOM’s corrosion control and prevention pro-gram, which provides both training and solutions to the corrosion challenge, and it’s clear that a proactive approach to performing maintenance is the key to success. The success of reset has led to another AMCOM-managed program called airframe inspection maintenance and sustainment, which provides a reset-like mainte-nance effort to aircraft that have not deployed to combat. The best example is our training aircraft at Fort Rucker—the AIMS Pilot program started with Fort Rucker aircraft and found structural damage and fatigue. We are working issues as we find them, and this approach will extend aircraft service lives sufficient to enable a successful transition to the next generation of Army rotary-wing aircraft.

Q: Kiowa, for one, still hangs in there? How is that platform fitting into your sustainment and support plan?

A: As you probably know, the Army plans to retire the Kiowa fleet as part of the Aviation Restructuring Initiative (ARI).

We are deeply involved in the planning and execution of ARI, and our involvement gives us great insight into the inactivation schedules of Kiowa-equipped units. We are balancing available resources to keep readiness levels high for these units, right up to the moment when they begin inactivation and equipment turn-in.

Kiowa will be in Army formations for a couple more years, so we must maintain them appropriately and keep them combat ready, should a contingency mission arise.

Q: What is AMCOM’s role in foreign material sales (FMS)?

A: All of our supported program managers have FMS programs, some of which are quite large. We have a dedicated staff element, the Security Assistance Management Division (SAMD), that sup-ports FMS sales, equipment delivery and sustainment. Our SAMD personnel are professional logisticians who specialize in security assistance work, which is quite demanding and has a unique set of requirements that cannot be learned overnight.

Our SAMD supports FMS programs for current systems, such as Patriot and Apache, but they also support the sustainment of systems that the U.S. Army no longer uses, such as the Cobra attack helicopter and the Hawk and Chapparal missile systems.

Aviation and Missile FMS programs are present in some form in 82 countries around the world, and the dollar value of these programs rivals the total dollar value of AMCOM sustainment efforts to the Army, so we play a very large role in this key component of U.S. national security policy.

Q: Any closing thoughts?

A: I deployed an attack helicopter battalion to combat in both Afghani-stan and Iraq, and later deployed a combat aviation brigade to combat in Afghanistan.

We could not have succeeded in our missions without the support that AMCOM provided. When my soldiers needed rapid and agile logis-tics support, AMCOM was there for them.

It is now my turn to give back to the Army by doing our very best to provide the same level of support to the soldiers manning our avia-tion and missile systems today. I am proud to serve in AMCOM and our outstanding team of professionals will continue to reach out to our customers to learn their logistical requirements and deliver the support they need. O

An aging Army helicopter fleet is a concern, but investments in maintenance have allowed the fleet to meet mission requirements. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Army/by Captain Andrew Cochran]

www.MLF-kmi.com6 | MLF 9.2 | U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command and PEO Aviation

U.S. ARmy AviAtion And miSSilE lifE CyClE mAnAgEmEnt CommAnd And PEo AviAtion