In this report, force structure event-centered risk equipment repair platform for modifications powered by an automated framework is presented.  The purpose of this platform is to properly train dispatchers. This simulation will progress as repair events impacting supplier capacity warrant.  

Upon receiving notice of equipment repair events reported at multiple installations, dispatchers integrate assessments of supplier capacity predictions, adjust their views on installation requirements & act according to new quote schedules.

Equipment repair action at installations taken by dispatchers have been found to collectively shape force structure adjustment dynamics. We will present the underlying components that are employed for this exercise & discuss the practical significance of such a platform.

Supplier capacity risk assessment has changed from direct exchange services without quote consideration to advanced contracting arrangements according to schedule with dispatchers guaranteeing quotes.

Since the scope of equipment deployment is so wide & future platforms so intricate in design, dispatcher behaviour design has become much more important but also extremely challenging. What makes equipment repair so critical is real-world operations are behind all the quotes in any form.  

Even though the volume in incoming quotes has overtaken capacity of supplier services, real-world quotes are still critical since the supply & demand balance of equipment & subsequent quotes are still the primary determinants behind force structure adjustment cases.  

Key to understanding equipment infrastructure relation to force structure adjustments is the fact that, no matter how complex quotes are, they all need to closely reference services provided by suppliers. Quotes are influenced significantly by all the elements that link together supplier capacity for each side of installation demand signals.  

For example, some of the many factors present in function of repair site disruption or schedule delay of equipment deployment will impact quotes dispatched to repair simulations. Other factors, like work order routing patterns, exert significant impacts force structure adjustment cases.
 
Therefore, to ensure successful dispatcher assessments of supplier risk in a particular force structure adjustment case, dispatchers need to be very familiar with real-world supplier capacity for different types of equipment. These requirements are the primary considerations in deciding what dispatcher training platforms will be subject to automation.   

On the other hand, complex requirements probably also explain why fully automated quote scheduling not taken over dispatcher platforms yet. On some level, this is what motivates our design of equipment repair simulations. 

We want to create work order space realistic enough so dispatchers can be effectively trained & document dispatcher behaviours in the face of complex supplier risk factors, with the ultimate goal of making automated platforms for equipment repair function just as dispatchers would in designing force structure adjustment cases.

Despite the fact that there is an incredible amount of literature in defence sectors that could, in principle, be applied to quote modeling for force structure adjustment cases, in the final analysis, we find them unsuitable for our purposes, since there is a fundamental lack of links between real-world equipment repair events & quote schedule dynamics.  

To address this need, we have designed force structure event-centered risk assessment platforms for repair simulations at multiple installation in which events related to quote automation are detailed according to a series of user-defined events. By allowing events to be defined by dispatcher behaviour, we also grant ourselves the ability of creating force structure adjustment case details that are often overlooked but extremely important to mission success.  

Stated conceptually, our principle goal is create platforms with constructive quote schedules to recruit, train & introduce dispatchers into equipment repair systems. When Installation events are announced for repair simulations, dispatchers will assess risk supplier capacity relations to force structure adjustment cases according to assigned team function. Subsequently, repair events & information will result in equipment deployment according to defined quote schedules.   

Force structure dynamics at installations will be shaped by joint dispatcher actions for simulating equipment repair. As demonstrated in initial simulations we have designed, we have shown accurate quote schedules can be generated with fairly simple dispatcher training strategies.


1)    Strive for consistency:  Consistent sequences of action should be required in similar operations/elements for achieving similar tasks. Directions must be consistent across prompts, menus & help screens. Consistent commands must be used throughout the system.

2)    Enable frequent users to use shortcuts:  Advanced users that use the system frequently will want to reduce the steps required to produce results using the system. Shortcuts offered could be function keys & hidden commands to automate certain interactions.

3)    Offer informative feedback: There must be feedback for every action by the user, if there is an error this feedback should inform the user of what went wrong and, if possible, why.

4)    Design dialogue to yield closure: There must be a clearly identifiable beginning, middle & end to a sequence of actions. The feedback at the completion of a sequence should signal to the user that the task has been accomplished and that they can move on to the next sequence.

5)    Offer simple error handling:  System must be designed in such a way that it is difficult for a user to make a serious error, but if an error is made then simple process techniques handling the error should be offered.

6)    Permit easy reversal of actions:  This enables users to experiment and explore unfamiliar options. Attributes of objects indicate how system must be used.

7)    Support internal locus of control: Advanced users must be in charge of the system, which must respond to user actions. The system must be designed to make the user the initiator and not a responder.

8)    Promote higher function visibility:  Users will likely know what sequence to perform next. If the functions are less visible, users might get lost in information overload.

9)     Provide Constraint Feedback:  System must restrict type of interaction that can take place in a given situation. Users must send information back about what action has been done and what was accomplished.

10)   Establish Mapping Techniques:  Links between controls and their effects must be incorporated into system, for example, use of the up/down arrows on a keyboard to page up and down on a display.

Central to DoD Logistics systems is receipt of information used to define Item design and to support, maintain, or operate the item.

DoD must utilise acquisition strategies to provide for future delivery of technical design information in case scenarios arise to select different source for all or partial logistics support or to offer the work out for competition.

With the intent of staying with the prime contractor for life, DoD has bought aircraft & maintenance services, as well as spare & repair parts but prime contractor price went up over time.

Based on technical design potential maintenance contractors received from DoD, it bought spare & repair parts, only to discover that they were not useful to the Mission. The purchase was based upon DoD’s furnished information, apparently for an earlier version of the end item.

DoD was forced to immediately hire back the prime contractor and absorb all the costs associated with ending the other contract, including the disposal of worthless spare and repair parts that could not be used in support of the end item.

The lesson DoD learned from that fiasco was to buy the technical design information and associated rights so competition could be encouraged.

If DoD has contributed to maturation of equipment design and can prove such a claim by the examination of work order time cards, then it can negotiate for some level of rights to associated engineering details.

It is essential DoD challenge the claim of sole source prime contractors to insure that the claim is accurate. 

At prime contractor office, person sitting at Logistics Desk would stamp all the engineering drawings. One day I asked him what he was doing, and he said, “I stamp all these with ‘We own the Rights’ whether they need it or not.” He explained DoD would always have to come back to his office for spares & repair parts.

DoD must consider competing the actual building of a new version of an end item  and/or major weapons system. If DoD has the engineering drawings of the prior designs and the rights to use logistics information for competition, acquisition success can be realised. Without rights to engineering drawings, DoD is always locked into dependent scenarios.

Of crucial importance is the level of detail required in the engineering drawings, which depends on what function DoD programme is competing. Is mission requirement to carry out maintenance or to rebuild?

Rebuilding scenarios require detailed drawings & all associated lists; maintenance might not require as much detail, but does require enough to be able to procure the appropriate spare and repair parts as well as conduct maintenance work order completion.

I. Aircraft Structures

1.     Flight Loads are typically divided into what two types?

2.     What are the principal load-carrying structures of an airplane?

3.     What is the purpose of drag & anti-drag wires?

4.     Describe the construction/purpose of a typical stabiliser?

5.     Name the primary & secondary control surfaces of an airplane?

6.     What is the purpose of a structural fuse on an engine pylon?

7.     How are the forces acting on helicopter different than fixed wing aircraft?

8.     What are the advantages of composite construction on helicopters?

9.     What are the functions of the tailboom on helicopter?

10.            What types of landing gear may be used on helicopters?


II.  Landing Gear

1.     What are two different configurations of landing gear?

2.     What is the purpose of the metering pin in a shock strut?

3.     What features must a nose gear strut assembly have that are not required for main gear?

4.     Explain the purpose of the overcenter linkage in the nose gear mechanism.

5.     How are power steering systems typically controlled by the pilot?

6.     What is the purpose of the follow-up differential mechanism in a nose-wheel steering system?

7.     What power sources are employed for the operation of retractable landing gear?

8.     Why is it not possible to land aircraft with wheels locked if the antiskid system is armed?

9.     What may be the cause of dragging brakes, grabbing breaks & fading breaks?

10.   What would be the effect of a leaking seal in master cylinder?


III. Fuel Systems

1.     What requirements have been established to assure reliability of fuel systems of an aircraft?

2.     What internal pressures must a metal fuel tank be able to withstand?

3.     What is the general requirement for fuel tank capacity?

4.     Why is positive pressure required within the vapor space of fuel cells and how is this pressure maintained?

5.     Describe the arrangement required for the venting of fuel tanks.

6.     Explain the requirement for a bypass valve in a fuel pump.

7.     What provision is made in a fuel pump relief valve to compensate for changes in atmospheric pressure?

8.     What provision is made to prevent overfilling of fuel tanks when a pressure fuel system is employed?

9.     What precaution must be observed before repairing a metal fuel tank by soldering or welding?

10.    What inspections should be made of a fuel system immediately before each flight?


IV. Instruments

1.     What type of mechanism is generally used for instruments that measure high pressures?

2.     What correction should be applied to the airspeed indication as altitude increases to obtain true airspeed?

3.     What are the two basic types of altimeters and how do their displays differ?

4.     What would be the effect of a leaking or disconnected static line inside a pressurised airplane?

5.     How does a turn-and-bank indicator differ from a turn coordinator?

6.     Explain the basic operation of an engine pressure ratio gauge?

7.     How does a resistance-type fuel quantity indicator operate?

8.     Explain the basic operational concept of a flux gate.

9.     What conditions are observed in the inspection of the tubing, hoses & fittings in instrument systems?

10.    What precautions must be taken in blowing air through pitot-static lines to clear out dirt & water?


V. Fluid Power Systems

1.     What is the principal difference between a hydraulic power system and a pneumatic power system?

2.     Give three methods by which a hydraulic reservoir can be pressurised?

3.     Describe two types of variable delivery pumps and explain the operation of each.

4.     How does a pressure regulator or unloading valve serve to prolong the life of the system pump?

5.     How are the selector valves in an open-center system connected with respect to each other?

6.     What can occur if a sequence valve is not is not properly adjusted?

7.     What precautions should be taken before removing an accumulator from a hydraulic system?

8.     How is lowered pressure obtained from the high pressure air source?

9.     What conditions can cause banging or chattering in a hydraulic system?

10.   What may cause the pressurised section of a hydraulic system to lose pressure?


VI. Plastics

1.     What are the two general classifications of clear plastics used in aircraft and which is more common?

2.     Describe the thermal conductivity of plastics in general and its effects upon working with plastics?

3.     How is the low thermal conductivity of plastics counteracted?

4.     What adjustments to standard drilling practices when drilling partially through plastics?

5.     How can heat be applied to plastics for forming?

6.     Under what conditions does a technician need to be concerned with the preshrinking of plastics?

7.     What is the effect of annealing a plastic and when should annealing be accomplished?

8.     Why should machines not be used to polish plastic surfaces?

9.     What are the three techniques that can be used to remove paint?

10.   Describe the preparation of mounting holes for plastics.


VII.      Composite Materials

1.     Why is proper curing technique important to aircraft bonded structures?

2.     How are composites different in structure than metals?

3.     Where are the greatest and least load-carrying capabilities of a composite?

4.     What are the most commonly employed reinforcement fibres used in aviation and how does usage differ?

5.     What are the parts of a weave and what is the function of each of these parts?

6.     What is a composite matrix and what is its primary function?

7.     How are the parts of a two-part matrix measured?

8.     What types of defects can be detected by acoustic emission testing?

9.     Describe why a knowledge of the coefficient of expansions of the materials involved is important.

10.    If damage occurs to core material &  replacement piece is required, describe the removal of damaged area.


VIII.  Assembly & Rigging

1.     What is the difference between aircraft assembly and rigging?

2.     Give a brief description of the procedure for aligning an aircraft structure?

3.     How does a controllable trim tab differ from a fixed tab?

4.     If the trim tab on a rudder is moved to the right, what effect does it have on the flight of an aircraft?

5.     How is the cockpit control for a control system held in the neutral position while rigging?

6.     What is the effect of temperature on cable tension?

7.     What are the effects of overtightening control cables?

8.     How is heading control maintained in a single rotor helicopter?

9.     What part of the helicopter is associated with low-frequency vibrations?

10.     List the different methods for tracking main rotor blades.


IX. Sheet Metal Structures

1.     Explain some of the causes of cracks in sheet metal structures.

2.     Describe how a load is transmitted through a rivet joint.

3.     Explain how the rivet gun, rivet set, and bucking bar are used in installing rivets.

4.     For what type of work would rotary slitting shears be used?

5.     How can very large radius bends be made?

6.     Explain how a rivet should be removed from an assembly.

7.     If adjacent rows of rivets have different numbers of rivets, how are they best laid out?

8.     What are the general design assumptions of an approved sheet metal repair design?

9.     How is a load transferred on a multi-row rivet repair?

10.    What mechanical property relationships determine edge distance and rivet spacing?


X. Auxiliary  Systems

1.     What type of fire-detection system is termed a rate-of-rise detection system?

2.     Describe the theory of operation of a spot detector and a thermocouple system.

3.     Describe three types of tubular fire detectors, or sensors.

4.     Explain the importance of correct routing for overheat and fire warning sensors?

5.     Describe the method by which the discharge head attached to a container releases the extinguishing agent.

6.     What indicators are required to show the discharge of extinguishing agent?

7.     What type of extinguishing agent should be used for electrical fires?

8.     What parts of an airplane are subject to ice collection during icing conditions?

9.     How are dicer boots attached to leading-edge surfaces and what is the supply source of air and heat?

10.    What is the purpose of a takeoff warning system?

Site Visit Executive has noticed many weapon systems utilised by the military services are supported by supply of more than 2 billion spare parts which comprise over 10 billion dollars of DoD 2017 Budget. Dispatcher systems logistics teams must address composition of components, equipment & subassemblies made up of thousands of parts. Spare parts are procured to replace those parts worn out in service, malfunction or break. Procurement of parts & administration of spare parts cache is required to keep weapon systems fully operational.

Site Visit Executive has noted logistics experience is limited in most major weapon system programmes, so replenishment spare parts breakout in supply line connections is usually not understood very well by DoD. Replenishment spare parts are those consumable or repairable parts purchased after provisioning of that part for replacement, replenishment of stock, or use in the maintenance, overhaul & repair of equipment. Provisioning is technique utilised to provide the initial spare parts necessary to field a weapon system prior to receipt of sufficient usage information to meet parts stock criteria.

Dispatcher application of mechanistic breakout models involves improvement in logistics techniques designed to assess spare parts acquisition status by deliberate Site Visit Executive action. It is often possible to buy spare parts competitively when DoD had previously bought item under noncompetitive conditions. Parts can be bought from original supply line connection entities instead of prime contractor who does not produce the actual part. Many times, prime contractors acquire mission-critical components from original suppliers either semi-finished or complete. Unless the prime contractor accomplishes additional processing of item status no intrinsic value to DoD is added to the parts. Increased pass-through costs added by prime contractor are often significant.

Generally speaking, DoD acquires spare parts through two distinct/separate logistics processes, initial provisioning & replenishment. During initial stages of weapon system life, Site Visit Executive has directed dispatchers to participate in supply line connection conferences with prime contractors to make decisions concerning spare parts required in an initial provisioning package for use during fielding of the system including prices, method of acquisition & sources of supply.

How does DoD define replenishment spare parts and how are these parts acquired during breakout supply line connections? Replenishment spare parts are defined as consumable or repairable parts purchased, after provisioning of a part, for replacement, overhaul & repair of equipment. Replenishment spare parts are procured in an ongoing logistics process promoted by Site Visit Executive. Basically, requirements for replenishment spare parts from repair actions in the field are compiled by an automated parts control system producing purchase requests. Requests are screened by dispatchers for status errors and submitted to supply line connection episodes for procurement action.

Dispatchers assign parts to work orders describing the competitive status of the part in DoD information systems. Under a breakout programme, continuing logistics action by Site Visit Executive is taken to improve the competitive status of a part for the life of the part or until it can be procured competitively. Dispatchers are provided with individual breakout work orders with each procurement request for recommended current acquisition model as well as dispatch of available supply sources.

The breakout procedure is complex and time consuming for Site Visit Executive requiring significant number of additional dispatch labour assignments in acquisition process to achieve optimum procurement lead times so state of readiness is not compromised. DoD must make more effort to establish new processes involving screening of spare parts, assessing procurement packages & qualifying additional sources, Logistics activities will require additional technical training and recruitment of dispatchers with increasingly higher skill levels. For example, administration of procurement packages and additional sources requires knowledge of supplier processes/techniques, work site conditions, & critical part work order characteristics considerations.


One key objective of tactics Site Visit Executive has proposed is to reduce costs in the procurement of replenishment spare parts by breakout of parts for purchase from supply entity other than the prime weapon system contractor. Breakout action establishes dispatch screening process with step-by- step logistics instructions for examining the competitive status & condition of technical information for any particular part. Provision is made internal to determination of specified additional direct/indirect costs to DoD for breakout involving costs of special tooling, source assessments/qualification, correction of deficient information packages/rights & quality control.

Site Visit Executive has implemented logistics processes so DoD is empowered to screen for breakout candidates as early as possible in procurement process to determine technical/fiscal characteristics of parts impacting potential for breakout to competition. Effective utilisation of resources in accomplishing breakout requires dispatcher application of work order priorities in assuring  concentration of breakout efforts for parts offering greatest potential for meeting real-world field-level mission requirements.

DoD must establish Breakout processes divided into two dispatch processes: full screen & limited screen reviews. Full screen breakout is applied to replenishment parts, and is performed well in advance of a planned procurement. Limited screen breakout entails review supply line connection episodes of  items already in the procurement phases that covers only essential logistics points technical evaluation. Limited screen breakout can be performed by any procurement activity & breakout decision is made by Site Visit Executive based upon the information available to dispatchers on site, or information processing which can be furnished in a timely manner. For this reason, limited screen breakouts usually involve materiel which is not highly technical in nature and for which it is readily apparent sole source contractor adds no value to the product.

Dispatchers screen parts based on suspense date established during initial or previous screening determined by logistics circumstances surrounding individual supply line connection episode established for part items. The period between suspense dates varies. Work orders assigned as the result of limited screening have the lowest suspense period. In extreme cases highlighted by DoD where the status of the part is not expected to change, a longer suspense period is assigned subject to local controls. Other provisions to ensure effective assignment of breakout resources include termination of screening when part item reaches competitive status. Lastly, effective resource assignment is encouraged by Site Visit Executive advocate policy incorporation of the screening process with other existing mechanised processes at the part procurement activity.

In order for DoD to accomplish periodic screening according to supply line connection buy value and part review date, utilisation of post grid extract listings must be served to establish part status determination/review dates, & creation of  standardised logistics tickler systems. Dispatchers must tag part espisode status with labeled work order clips signalling the proximity of review dates to preclude unnecessary and inefficient review of all part components during periodic Site Visit Executive assignments.

Site Visit Executive promotion of Breakout Programmes forms integral part of current DoD Service initiatives to increase competition & control fiscal conditions of spare parts. Logistics task design features take into consideration dispatcher requirements for configuration control and parts standardisation. The breakout process subjects the breakout decision to these considerations, by design, to maintain the integrity of supported systems & its equipment. During screening process, prior to actions establishing additional sources for a part, allowance is made for consideration of source control, design control, required master tooling, special testing, qualified product work order control, high reliability, and whether design of the part is yet unstable.

Although dispatch breakout screening and many logistics actions arising to effect breakout under a variety of situations can be a lengthy, time consuming process, Site Visit Executive has made explicit to DoD provisions for temporarily by-passing the breakout process to satisfy urgent mission requirements. Both the limited screening process for immediate buy requirements and an allowance for actually bypassing the process altogether must be provided for meeting immediate/urgent mission requirements of real-world, field-level scenarios.

1.     At what logistics unit level is the replenishment spare parts breakout programme administered and why?

2.     What are the published standard operating logistics procedures for breakout programme?

3.     What are logistics organisation requirements of work orders on replenishment spare parts breakout?

4.     Which logistics dispatcher divisions are key players in the breakout decision-making process?

5.     When/why was replenishment spare parts breakout first accomplished at logistics unit level?

6.     What are the driving logistics goals behind suitability of breakout decision?

7.     When in the acquisition logistics process is breakout of replenishment spare parts breakout accomplished?

8.      When are logistics processes in part supported system service life breakout accomplished?

9.     How do logistics teams utilise technical specs in replenishment spare parts breakout?

10.      Are use of breakout decision-making models or logistics checklists utilised? If so, what are its key features?

In order to maximise benefits attributable to equipment standardisation efforts, key sustainment concepts must be involved as early as possible in acquisition process. Attacking the problem requires standardisation be guiding principle in equipment design phases. To realise mission success, designers must have access to widest variety of logistics information regarding what equipment is already in DoD supply line systems & how it can be adapted to new systems. Both performance & physical characteristics must be delivered in order to facilitate implementation of designs utilising multiple application equipment.

Basic logistics requirements, item identification & work order cataloging is important process associated with standardisation critical to success of field-level missions. Current DoD approaches do not address sustainment problems head-on, either. DoD has emphasised performance specifications & standards aiming for supply line connection goals of obtaining common use items. This offers designers only limited information based on technical mandates and many items marked by variations can satisfy such requirements. Specification & standards do not identify existing equipment, so new/different equipment types are introduced at great logistics expense.

DoD work order type catalog functions identify the “Universe of Equipment” while the standardisation functions works to compress this “Universe.” Logistics Systems have been designed with intent to provide application, identification, physical/performance characteristics, availability of specification record, points of contact with dispatch specialists to initiate sustainment plans & information on repeatable supply line procurement sets for all equipment currently installed in fleets responsible for real-world mobile mission sets.

Logistics Models identify work order variables associated with service life phased support of equipment and determine cost/benefit of sustainment operations to be considered in processes assessing supply line competition procurement of functionally interchangeable equipment. The vast majority of equipment used by DoD is procured through performance specifications. This procurement approach results in greater flexibility with respect to equipment design & supply line competition, intended to produce more accurate cost/benefit assessment of item quality.

Traditional DoD methods for measuring operational/fiscal advantage of supply line competition is to compare difference in procurement expenditures. This process is quite logical in situations where no follow-on logistics support & service life phase sustainment expenditures are anticipated.

When follow-on logistics support is required as it is for most DoD equipment, additional operational/fiscal considerations must be evaluated to realistically measure cost/benefit associated with supply line competition. This evaluation has typically not been considered by DoD in the past since bills for service life phase sustainment expenditures are passed on to future fiscal years budgets, to the detriment of real-world, mobile Readiness Status.

1.       Common or compatible operational administrative & logistics procedures

2.       Common or compatible specification procedures & criteria

3.       Common or compatible, interchangeable supplies & equipment components

4.       Common or compatible tactical doctrine with each logistics service

5.       Improvement of operational readiness realised by service divisions

6.       Conservation of troop levels, time, money & resources

7.       Optimisation of items on work orders utilised in logistics support

8.       Enhancement of Plug & Play capacity, reliability & maintenance

9.       Specification of requisite product quality obtained for essential missions

10.   Assurance product specs, standards imposed in acquisition reflect field requirements

DoD has long been working toward goal of establishing sound policy & programmes to result in effective/efficient weapons system upgrade/repair processes. There currently exist several pilot programmes to assist in planning/execution of work order package assignment so equipment availabilities are achieved to make possible product support at lowest installation levels capable of carrying out work order tasks utilising best practise suited to mission success.

The final product of all plans, assessments & inspection of Fleet  elements required prior to start of availabilities is the compilation of assigned work order tasks required for upgrade/repair simulation success. Here we examine what resources must be established for Site Visit Executive to define work order packages & identify current barriers to implementation resulting from outdated DoD policies.

Site Visit Executive has taken on challenges to include work order task definition to improve current DoD policies/procedures so success is realised in execution of equipment upgrade/repair simulations. At issue is adequacy of current processes to transmission of accurate operational information for determining with high level of accuracy when/where is upgrade/simulation established.

Existing programme design has also been challenged in terms of cost/benefit control in fiscally constrained budget phases. How upgrade/repair simulation requirements are translated into satisfactory budget requests is another critical long-standing problem encountered by DoD year after year. The initial step to be achieved in addressing these problems is to assess current procedures for construction, approval & authorisation of work order packages.

Here we examine/define what resources must be assigned to programmes Site Visit Executive has proposed to establish what procedures are required for solid definition of work order packages critical to success of field-level missions. With dispatcher team organisation lies responsibility for designating and accomplishing smart assignment of work order execution actions to be utilised in upgrade/repair simulations.

Site Visit Executive has promoted assumption of responsibility for establishing requirements to make tradeoffs between cost, schedule & mission in assigning notional duration/intervals for upgrade/repair availabilities so materiel readiness is improved based on demand signals from Field-level operatives.

Here we provide for consolidated look at established areas proposed by Site Visit Executive for improvements in DoD policy to be implemented at organisational, strategic & action-oriented levels so work order packages can be tracked from beginning to end.

Actions to be carried out by dispatch assist teams must be well-defined so utility of services provided can be integrated with overall strategies. Site Visit executive has set out the following criteria as general policy for execution of upgrade/repair simulations:

1.    DoD must upgrade/repair equipment in manner completely consistent with capability to meet field-level mission requirements when materiel condition is assessed.

2.    DoD must execute upgrade/repair simulations so operational availability is quickly achieved. Actions must be completed with attention paid to priority, capacity & capability.

3.    DoD must view upgrade/repair simulations as continuous process to encompass all dispatcher levels utilising tests & availabilities components of actions.

4.    DoD must characterise upgrade/repair actions as either preventative or corrective selected to maximise reliability & minimise total load of work order packages.

5.    DoD must create work order packages for new equipment design to define specific upgrade/repair availabilities applicable to type on case basis.

6.    DoD must establish new upgrade/repair simulation plans for each type consistent with smart reliability concepts to accomplish maximum operational availability & minimise expenditure.

7.    DoD must provide for assignment of work order packages at each installation to describe all upgrade/repair requirements at organisational field-level units.

8.    DoD must ensure capacity for intermediate level upgrade/repair simulations to achieve reliability above field-level operations but not to require depot employment.

9.    DoD must recognise instances where Depot level upgrade/repair simulations sequestered to individual installations & other designated work order package points.

10.   DoD must define all logistics requirements for support of upgrade/repair simulations scheduled over service life phases with resource allocations programmed upon transit status.

Test/Evaluation of Military Systems and Equipment is conducted to support assessments of system performance characteristics. These assessments are an integral part of the decision process essential to acquisition phases.

In creation of many tracker application systems, testing has become controversial issue. Questions that arise include the following:

1.     How much testing is enough?

2.     Is the application ready for testing?

3.     Are requirements/assessment parameters adequately defined?

4.    Does Testing effort represent minimum time & resource programme consistent with useful results?

5.    Have operational testing phases been integrated to form productive evaluations?

And so on……….

Here we present concepts/techniques for creating test plans to verify previously established system suitability requirements have been achieved.

Of course, test resource availability may be compromised by cost, schedule & operational urgency constraints. In such cases, alternate test plans representing most meaningful, timely and cost-effective approach consistent with these constraints must be created.

In any event, it is essential all participants understand the critical issues being addressed as well as acquisition risks present in conducting limited test programmes.

Smart design of good testing programmes is no accident. It requires deep dives and planning in addition to complete concept master of testing techniques, test system and operating scenarios.

Test results must also support creation of realistic performance estimates for entire capacity runs after being tested in limited amounts of systems.

Here, utility of modern tracker application concepts we have presented is apparent. We have advanced the potential for command to move forward tracker application concepts subject to test design and performance assessments.

In short, these concepts, when combined with common sense and technical expertise, formulate basis for all sound testing programmes.

Dispatchers control administration of operational parameters to result in extension of the equipment service life beyond expectations & arrive at a plan for DoD to deal with changes in operational tempo with goal to define work order strategies in terms of controlling mission requirements & expensive sustainment operations. The bottom line is to reduce number of equipment failures by monitoring condition indices to predict problems & enable remedial actions to be taken to achieve availability for critical mission tasks. Even while upgrade/repair operations are usually performed by DoD at individual installation levels, a successful strategy must take a global approach to the entire system; addressing real-time supply line connection systems integration & trend evaluation.

Dispatchers describe impacts of urgent equipment upgrade/repair processes to result in unpredictable performance at the expense of DoD objectives as evidenced by high downtime, supply line connection materiel disruptions, upgrade/repair time, deficits in operational tempo associated with the loss of function & equipment component replacement requirements in work orders. Operational Downtime affects productive/functional capability of equipment, resulting in a reduction of availability, increasing operational expenses per unit performance indication episode.

Dispatchers report instances DoD command becomes inundated with supply line connection information, choosing to not utilise emerging useful aspects of technology solutions offering information to achieve considerable time of value in executing field-level missions. Report generation becomes a time-consuming task for DoD of sifting through piles of unsorted work order information to find relevant measures for achieving operational availability. With over-stretched installations absorbed in day-to-day functioning of equipment upgrade/repair simulations, DoD is tempted to put off monitor/entry until reports are almost due or when upgrade/repair simulation results must be sent out, compromising potential for operations to succeed under increased demand signals during surge contingency scenarios.

Dispatchers create systematic & responsive work order approaches to equipment upgrade/repair simulations designed to mitigate competing sets of risks to availability for missions. Accurate, up to date information about condition enable predictions to made & acted on by DoD. With information collected at the right time, supply line connection schedules can be immediately updated to react to the latest trends. Real-time condition monitoring systems deliver better sustainment results, while still ensuring supply line connections remain reliable & efficient. The dominant factor is often the organisational challenge of responding effectively to a changing situation, not technical ability to detect it in the first place.

Dispatchers assess potential for work orders to use changed equipment condition in determination of when an operational failure is likely to happen. For example, as component of operating life progresses, requirements for upgrade/repair are bound to occur. It becomes immaterial what the reasons are for performance deficits; fact is that equipment can no longer meet the original function for DoD requirements and/or its level of performance falls. Detecting deficits in the condition of items serves as advanced warning that supply line connection updates are required. If changes in performance level monitors can be detected in advance, ways & means to forecast future operational availability will have been realised. 

Dispatchers observe condition/performance of equipment from conclusions drawn by the monitoring system, and all subsequent supply line connection operational decisions must be based upon receipt of accurate information in work orders with the right properties measured from the outset. If systems are designed to collect/compare information describing operational tempos affecting performance & manner of its operation, DoD will have a much wider context within which to judge current and future condition. Monitoring system recommendations are only as strong as speed of information collection/transfer, critical properties essential to availability.

Dispatchers combine/integrate multiple work order approaches & principles to equipment upgrade/repair operations. DoD has demonstrated decent understanding of principles, techniques & policy for achieving availability in isolation, but true organisational change will only be realised when requirements for teamwork between divisions & capacity for creative assessments are implemented. Several common principles are found at the core of each monitor design.  Processes must capture information to determine current state of equipment components, flagging early warnings of problems & updating results of monitoring into a central registered source of verification.  Decision support must allow for best course of supply line connection action to be identified, based on the latest operational information, as well as implementation of strategy for inspection & sustainment.

Dispatchers evaluate many factors when selecting and prioritising conditions to monitor such as the work order frequency schedule, determination of equipment components to be selected & what actions must be taken by DoD. To make the process simple, equipment condition monitor candidates are prioritised based criticality assessments aimed at identification of components have the greatest effect on availability if they were to fail. Decisions based on condition/performace fault diagnosis & trends predicting problems become critical for planning & control of supply line connection updates critical to upgrade/repair operations.

Dispatchers administer installation only work order requirements to monitor equipment components condition systems & quality of supply line connections. DoD is likely to be content with availability information that is stored during operations and downloaded at a later date, it can probably manage with a simple equipment upgrade/repair information system with on-board monitor of mission condition/performance indices. Although system alerts are not real time in this case, areas for concern are marked & stand out when information is compiled, alerting command about equipment components to require attention.

Dispatchers demonstrate typically high demands for real-time work order information to monitor progress of equipment upgrade/repair operations designed to determine whether corrective action is needed to compensate for slips in availability schedules. Information about current status of equipment components greatly enhance opportunities to change supply line connections on the fly. Upgrade/repair schedules can be rebuilt at central stations & transit to appropriate installations. 

Dispatchers detail requirements for frequency of reporting back to the central station responsible for building work orders-- another issue that distinguishes system effectiveness. Most installation systems are now moving toward exception reporting, whereby an equipment component only reports into the central station when it is outside pre-established on-time condition/performance indices parameters, with monitor information collected at an interval established according to operational tempos. Times for individual supply line connection pick-up could be pre-established with systems employed at installations complete with internal controls to find out where and when actions to increase availability are required.

Dispatchers notice equipment upgrade/repair simulation factors contributing to well-designed work orders are not clear cut & defined within current DoD protocols responsible for supply line connections establishment. It might be perfectly acceptable for different instances of the same equipment component type to perform within widely defined range provided it does so consistently. In these cases, absolute availability models are usually too restrictive to add value. Assuming upgrade/repair simulations have been set up correctly from the outset, the key aim of monitor design solution is to detect, categorise and report changes in mission effectiveness.  No two equipment components are set up alike & monitor systems must ensure the right parameters are set up within allowable tolerances & remain stable, critical steps forward to take by DoD.

Dispatchers experience equipment upgrade/repair instances when monitoring systems detect a change in the state of equipment condition to require immediate intervention. DoD must be certain availability information signals are communicated to work order builders in the form of a system alert as soon as possible, to the right recipient, using the right medium. To ensure timeliness of supply line connection response & minimise the chances of additional problems, systems must detect/report operational changes as close to the occurrence as possible. At minimum, the alert message should contain equipment component identity, date/time monitor picked up change occurred with clear description of events & confidence measurement of the diagnosis.

Dispatchers conclude equipment upgrade/repair monitoring systems are powerful tools for DoD to implement so operations can be protected to maximise availability, reliability & performance of the Force. In short, making equipment components work harder & smarter and allows for the delivery of greater value in combination with both existing & new work order technologies to produce an integrated repair/upgrade simulation. Effectiveness of supply line connections in providing mission-critical components is rooted in strong design & this is particularly true of equipment upgrade/repair simulations. A well-implemented system can impact every part of an organisation, increasing operational uptimes, reducing problems associated with sustainment & enhancing reputation of the unit.



1.       Baseline work order comparison studies of opportunities for new equipment condition/performance requirement assessments must updated as changes occur to identify areas to establish sustainment support for design modifications.

2.       Updates to upgrade/repair work orders must be identified & sourced for each modification to phase & schedule.  Design trade-off reviews must be enacted as design/tech changes for possible introduction of new processes for equipment reset goals.

3.       Equipment upgrade/repair work orders must be adaptable as programmes progress. Efforts must be responsive to design modification timelines to ensure accurate condition/performance assessments reflective of current configurations.

4.       Equipment upgrade/repair work order plans must continue to identify, schedule & support design constraints, requirements & sustainment activities for all component sourcing phases.  Each installation must enact new review & information collection processes. 

5.       Equipment reset approaches must continue to consider work order tech advances & put mechanisms in place to identify & consider cost/benefit of incorporation of new technologies for insertion into design processes.

6.       Equipment upgrade/repair work orders must identify lessons learned from review of similar fielded programmes & must be periodically updated for application to improve condition/performance assessments & consideration of reset strategies.

7.       Effective approach for equipment reset programme progression, use & update of upgrade/repair work order modifications based on in-service sustainment reviews must be in place based on up-to-date information.

8.       Equipment upgrade/repair work order results must be incorporated into technical updates detailing sustainment operations & provisions must be in place to ensure condition/performance assessment requirements are not changed without review.

9.       Component sourcing phase schedule plans must be reviewed/updated for use in upgrade/repair work orders & reset programmes for in-service equipment.  Condition/performance assessments must continue periodically to be responsive to advances in process inputs.

10.   Equipment upgrade/repair work order programmes must continue to be integral to overall sustainment approaches, including incorporation into tech updates as appropriate.  Review results must update condition/performance assessments requirements based on availability schedule factors.