U.S. Naval air SyStemS CommaNd

2015

agility Provider

rear adm. Paul SohlCommander, Fleet readiness Centersassistant Commander for logistics and industrial operations Naval air Systems Command

Rear Admiral Paul Sohl serves as commander, fleet readiness centers and as assistant commander for logistics and industrial operations, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. Previously, he served as commander, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake and Point Mugu, Calif., and as assistant commander for test and evaluation, NAVAIR.

Sohl is a 1985 graduate of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he received a Bachelor of Science in aeronautical engineering. He holds a Master of Science in aeronautical and astronautical engineering from Stanford University. He received his commission through the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps and was designated a naval aviator in 1988.

Sohl reported to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 113 aboard USS Independence (CV 62), where he deployed to the Western Pacific during Operation Desert Shield. He is a 1993 graduate of the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School and reported to the Weapons Test Squadron, China Lake, where he was later selected as an aerospace engineering duty officer (AEDO).

As an AEDO, he was the deputy program manager for the F/A-18 pro-gram at Naval Aviation Depot, North Island, Calif. Next, he reported to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program Office, first as the executive assistant to the director and second as a member of the JSF Source Selection Team.

Additionally, he served on the staff of commander, NAVAIR, where he volunteered for a tour in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom.

Sohl’s decorations include the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal and the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal.

Q: Being NAVAIR’s readiness and logistics component, what are the chal-lenges facing your team—and how are they being addressed?

A: We face many challenges that are common to most industrial facilities, such as maintaining a safe work environment that is free of contamination, fall hazards and other risks. Beyond those challenges, there are issues that are somewhat unique to our organization, among them being hiring of enough civilian and contract (CSS) employees to enable us to return aircraft, engines and components to the fleet, which has been very difficult in the last two years for a number of reasons. These reasons include sequestration-related hiring freezes and restrictions, mandated reductions in the CSS workforce and litigation related to insourcing. Those problems have largely been resolved, and we are now in a hiring surge to address increased work in progress and increased levels of attrition.

There is also concern about levels of military manning due to reduc-tions in force. In order to have an effective forward presence, our sailors and Marines rightfully need to be at sea. Unfortunately, it also impacts our shore

operations. It’s a difficult balance, and we’re working to make sure that we have the right people at the right place, doing the right job at the right time.

From a platform standpoint, being able to produce enough F/A-18 A-D aircraft to meet our customers’ needs is critical to our success. The Hornet was designed for 6,000 hours, however, we’ve asked far more from the aircraft that was ever envisioned. Many of these aircraft have been extended beyond 8,000 hours; a pre-selected subset of high-flight hour (HFH) Hornets will undergo repairs and modifications to extend their structural service life up to 10,000 flight hours. The engineering, material and produc-tion effort required to achieve these life extensions on tactical aircraft are extraordinary and unprecedented.

As the fleet gets more usage out of the Hornets, the faster they’re com-ing into the FRCs. Due to the inherent variability in material condition from one aircraft to the next, the amount of time spent in an FRC can vary greatly with each aircraft. While the Navy and Marine Corps have enough aircraft to meet their operational needs, it is incumbent on the FRCs to return aircraft to the fleet as quickly as possible. The average turnaround time for each aircraft inducted for a HFH inspection is 631 days, which accounts for both stand-alone and concurrent with other depot-level maintenance actions.

Commander, Fleet Readiness Centers (COMFRC) is continually exam-ining and transforming to serve the fleet with efficiency, agility and velocity. This means that “business as usual” isn’t good enough anymore. The fleet performs its missions and requirements in real time, and we must enable ready-for-tasking readiness in real time.

Planning an effective depot-level maintenance solution early in a sys-tem’s acquisition life cycle is a precursor to timely depot source of repair assignments. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has put an initiative in place to support aviation weapons system programs with their early depot-level maintenance and repair-solution planning and to maintain

Rear Admiral Paul SohlCommander, Fleet Readiness Centers

Assistant Commander for Logistics and Industrial Operations

Naval Air Systems Command

Agility ProviderContinually Examining and Transforming to Serve With Efficiency, Agility and Velocity

Q&AQ&A

www.MLF-kmi.com U.S. Naval Air Systems Command | MLF 9.3 | 1

U.S. NAVAl Air SySTEmS CommANd

Garry Newton Deputy Commander

Cmd. Master Chief Shaun Brahmsteadt

Vice Adm. David Dunaway

Commander

NAVAIR SYSCOM

Brig. Gen. Frank L. Kelly

USMCVice Commander

Rear Adm. Mark Darrah

Unmanned Aviation & Strike Weapons

Lt. Gen. Christopher C. Bogdan

F-35 Lightning II Program

Rear Adm. CJ Jaynes Air ASW

Assault & Special Mission Programs

Rear Adm. Donald GaddisTactical Aircraft

PROgRAM ExECutIVE OffICERS2015

NAVAir U.S. NAVAl Air SySTEmS CommANd

Toni Meier Director, Logistics

Management Integration Department

Dennis WestDeputy Commander,

Fleet Readiness Centers and Director, Industrial Operations

Todd MellonDirector,

Design Interface and Maintenance

Planning Department

Capt. Eric SchochActing Director,

Aviation Readiness and Resource

Analysis Department

Rear Adm. Paul Sohl Commander Fleet Readiness

Centers and Assistant Commander for Logistics & Industrial Operations

Capt.Bob Farmer

Executive Director

Tracy MoranDirector, Industrial &

Logistics Maintenance Planning/Sustainment

Department

Todd Balazs Deputy Assistant Commander for Logistics and

Industrial Operations

Gary KurtzAssistant CommanderCorporate Operations

& Total Force

Keith Sanders Assistant Commander

for Acquisition

Rear Adm. Michael Moran

Commander, NAWC Weapons Division and Assistant Commander,

Test and Evaluation

James MeadeAssistant Commander

Contracts

Rear Adm. G. Dean PetersCommander, NAWC Aircraft

Division and Assistant Commander, Research

and Engineering

NAVAIR COMPEtENCIES

LOgIStICS & INduStRIAL OPERAtIONS

U.S. NAVAl Air SySTEmS CommANd

compliance with applicable statutes and regulations. The two major tools of the initiative are the preliminary industrial assessment (PIA, the DoD milestone that approves a weapon system’s entry into the technology devel-opment phase of acquisition performed prior to Milestone A certification) and the industrial assessment (IA, the milestone that approves a weapon system’s entry into the engineering and manufacturing phase of acquisition performed prior to Milestone B certification).

The components of the PIA and IA are a core logistics analysis (CLA, a determination of what capabilities are needed to support a repair), source of repair analysis (an analysis of possible locations for the repairs), workload estimates (to include effort, time, required expertise and cost) and any applicable strategic considerations that will enable programs to plan resource expenditures early and to support timely decisions on depot maintenance posturing. Along with providing programs with early planning junctures, the PIA/IA has the benefit of initiating early/upfront discussions between the programs and COMFRC/fleet readiness centers (FRC) business offices, and other services’ depot, workload planning orga-nizations. This proven framework supports programs by determining best value depot-level maintenance and repair solutions.

Q: How would you characterize the information technology (IT) connec-tivity, and how well the various elements of contracting, maintenance, supply, scheduling, etc. communicate within NAVAIR logistics?

A: In the recent past, our IT infrastructure mirrored our former command construct with little interoperability from site to site. The IT solution set was optimized locally at the separate FRCs at the expense of cost and long-term maintainability. In the last 10 years, the FRC infrastructure has prioritized process integration and design for maintainability while increasing security hardening and reducing cost. Our efforts in data and application standardization culminated in our recent migration of the FRC infrastructure to a Defense Information Systems Agency center. Closing our individual FRC datacenters reduced our server footprint by more than 400 servers.

Many of our recent enterprise IT initiatives have been sponsored to increase process integration, operability and communication, such as the recent integration with our material supplier partner, Defense Logistics Agency.

We have given a great deal of attention to three vital tenets of logistics: maintenance planning, scheduling and execution (MPS&E), particularly with regard to IT connectivity. We have been using the acronym MPS&E to remind our team of the need to think holistically at solving our readiness and cost problems. In recent years, NAVAIR and the fleet saw increases in out-of-reporting rates, turnaround time and costs. In the program offices, we are seeing more and more late cycle and expensive changes in support strategies and delays in repair capability standup. Last year, we launched an initiative to align stakeholders and put together an MPS&E capability improvement program involving training, guidance material and a highly-connected, integrated suite of IT tools.

By replacing the stovepiped and sometimes crude methods of the past, and enabling efficiency gains in our core disciplines affecting MPS&E, we will effectively increase support to programs and the fleet. Our subject-matter experts in program offices and across the fleet service teams will have much greater insight into how best to evolve a program’s mainte-nance concept into the final product support package and keep it current based on actual performance in the field. This capability, some of it already available and in use, will be phased in over time across the Naval Aviation Enterprise and is demonstrating its ability to safely extend maintenance

intervals in some cases and/or arrange maintenance efficiently thereby getting the most out of our resources, including cost.

From a Naval aviation logistics IT portfolio viewpoint alone, one can see a history of independently developed systems, applications and databases with overlapping capabilities, capability gaps, stovepipes, and minimal integration. This is simply not a viable strategy in a resource-constrained environment. As such, we have been aggressively pursuing an initiative to centrally govern and manage the development and sustainment of NAVAIR’s logistics IT solutions in an effort we call the Aviation Logistics Environment (ALE). There is exceptional potential for ALE to leverage existing capabilities in creating enterprise solutions spanning all naval aviation programs.

Centrally managing the ALE portfolio is the catalyst for achieving application reconciliation, data center consolidation, system integration and system interoperability. The modernization of the ALE portfolio will make our logistic business processes faster and more robust, reduce errors, allow for processing of iterative scenarios and alternatives, and structure the data management framework to support higher-level busi-ness intelligence and advanced analytics. And if that were not enough, it will also save the Navy money.

Q: Tell me about the work necessary to integrate new aircraft systems—the P-8 and F-35 come to mind—into the existing pipeline of mainte-nance, supply chain, etc.

A: As a commercial derivative weapon system, the P-8 Poseidon offers the opportunity to leverage a vibrant support market. NAVAIR employs a dis-ciplined maintenance planning process to establish support capability for its peculiar subsystems. Our FRCs and support organizations possess the expertise in maintaining the kinds of complex mission systems that make the P-8 such a capable warfighting asset.

During its more than six decades of operation, Fleet Readiness Center East (and its predecessor) has provided maintenance, repair and overhaul support to virtually every weapons platform in the Marine Corps fleet. We were extremely excited to add the Corps’ newest aircraft, the F-35B Lightning II, to the list when the first aircraft was inducted for required modifications on July 15, 2013. So, the process for integrating this aircraft into the Navy’s maintenance and logistics support system has already begun for us. I will say that there have been challenges along the way. For example, we’ve expe-rienced learning curves associated with the restoration process for the low observable coatings on the aircraft and with accessing Lockheed Martin’s unique Autonomic Logistics Information System. However, our team has responded to every challenge very well with great results, capturing lessons learned and then employing solutions on the next inducted aircraft as an iterative process improvement program. We look forward to future support opportunities and forging long-term relationships with our F-35 customers.

Q: Is eight the right number of FRCs? Based on the projected workloads, do you foresee a time where consolidation or expansion would be in NAVAIR’s best interest?

A: Because we take an enterprise approach to most of our activities, we are continually examining not only the way we are doing business but how and where we are doing business. There is a certain amount of efficiency having FRCs located as close to the flight line and our customers as possible, but we have to make sure what is near the customer is what the customer needs.

We’re examining whether it makes sense to concentrate certain func-tions at one FRC rather than have the task being performed at two or more sites. Our goal is to make best use of existing capacity and plan for our

www.MLF-kmi.com4 | MLF 9.3 | U.S. Naval Air Systems Command

U.S. NAVAl Air SySTEmS CommANd

future needs and to respond to our customers’ needs with efficiency, flex-ibility and velocity.

We have brilliant minds working on the issues we see, both tactically and strategically. We employ some of the best people in aviation mainte-nance, and they know how to do their jobs better than anyone.

Q: Many people talk in terms of incorporating industrial best practices into the DoD world. Are there examples of your best practices that have shown results and could be useful in the commercial world?

A: In some areas, we are doing better than incorporating industrial best practices. In NAVAIR logistics, we are working with industry and DoD counterparts to converge best practices into actual standards and “how to” guidebooks. Some examples include logistics product analysis and data, other analytical disciplines such as reliability centered maintenance and level of repair analysis (LORA). Each of these in turn produces prod-ucts that drive our industrial resources. We have a leading advantage because of our diverse portfolio of programs, along with many lessons learned along the acquisition trail. Standards are important but we need to evolve our industrial practices (like we see in the IT and communica-tion industry) if we want to remain a world-class industrial repair facility.

I think one thing we have in common with our commercial counter-parts is the desire to produce the best product as we can as efficiently as pos-sible. While there are differences in the purpose of commercial and military aircraft, both require aircraft operating on time and on budget.

Within COMFRC, we have several initiatives that help us reduce costs and improve agility. We have found redundant overhead, different processes from site to site, multiple rates for the same type of work and local views on investments. We’re squeezing that out of our business by being more stra-tegic and global with decisions, creating common processes and procedures and by being bold with leadership. Reducing our administrative burdens helps reduce cost to our customers.

Q: Do you have responsibility for unmanned systems—air and maritime? What are the challenges in striking the balance between repair and replace?

A: We are re-energizing some old-school disciplines such as LORA, using the latest standards and modeling technology available, that helps our program managers determine the balance between repair and replace.

NAVAIR Logistics and Industrial Operations (AIR 6.0) has the respon-sibility to provide unmanned air system (UAS) logistics expertise to the program executive office. Affordability is key challenge for both manned and unmanned air systems, and we continually look for ways to reduce cost at all levels. One area of focus for our logistic teams is operation and support (O&S) costs. UAS logistics teams are influencing O&S costs early in the acquisition phases by leveraging lessons learned from manned platforms, conducting rigorous business case analyses (BCA) (that includes qualitative and quantitative factors), and conducting LORA to determine the most cost-efficient support strategies and maintenance concepts. Our teams constantly strive for the lowest cost alternative while maintaining readiness. Mainte-nance decisions are based on BCAs and LORAs regardless of size.

Q: How are you working to increase production of F/A-18 Hornets and other aircraft and components and get them back out to the fleet?

A: The Navy and Marine Corps are engaged all over the world. Opera-tional tempo is high, which not only means a high demand for aviation assets but increases pressurization on naval aviation repair facilities. An

unprecedented number of Hornets have been inducted into the FRCs and our workforce has encountered unusual aircraft conditions in recent years. We are working to accelerate the rate of production using critical chain project management (CCPM). A proven project-management methodology used by FRCs in the past, CCPM is based on the theory of constraints and accounts for variability and resource sharing across projects.

FRC Southeast has completed its initial CCPM implementation and is now in the execution phase. FRC Southwest is currently undergoing implementation and execution of CCPM is anticipated by third quarter, fiscal year 2015.

The methodology calls for the FRCs to focus on a small set of aircraft that can be worked on today and to get those aircraft through the system before inducting the next aircraft for maintenance. An aircraft does not progress to the next phase or move to another repair area if the work cur-rently being performed hasn’t been completed. That is the key.

We are seeing increases in throughput from the FRCs that are using it, and future plans call for expanding its application to other FRCs.

Q: Nearly half of the Navy’s F/A-18A-Ds are not available to meet the operational needs of the Navy and Marine Corps because they are in the fleet readiness centers waiting for maintenance, repair or over-haul. What is being done to get these aircraft back to the fleet?

A: Nearly half of Hornets are out of reporting. Now what does that mean? That means they are at FRCs waiting to get to get fixed by somebody other than a fleet flight line maintainer. So you can imagine with the number of Hornets that are out there with half of them in that status, there is a shortage of Hornets in the fleet. You couple that with today’s high operational tempo and that makes our challenge monumental to begin with. Couple that with furloughs in late 2013 and sequestration, which created budget uncertainties, it adds up to reduced production.

I invite people to visit a fleet readiness center to see for themselves what we are doing. We take these aircraft and we completely break them down to their smallest component. We perform center barrel replacements (CBR) for aircraft as a matter of course. (CBR repairs forward and aft dorsal decks, and forward, aft and keel longerons (structural beams)). The innova-tion started with some very smart folks at FRC Southwest (at Naval Station North Island, Calif.) who believed they could put together a good nose and a good tail from Hornets and a new center barrel to produce a full aircraft. It took two years of experimentation, and now we do it routinely.

I would argue that that very repair process for center barrel is exactly why the Hornets are living today. Without that we would have had to buy more aircraft. That is an exciting piece of how we do our business and I want others to share in that experience, so I just say come visit.

Q: Additive manufacturing is a cutting-edge technology. What are you doing to use that technology?

A: Additive manufacturing is playing a huge part in keeping Hornets in the hands of the warfighter because we can speed that process of building parts that are either obsolete, out of production or a one-off piece that is an actual part on an aircraft or a support piece for fixing an aircraft. If I can’t get it quickly from the manufacturer, I might be able to 3-D print the part, get it right back to the line and keep that repair process moving. The name of the game is to keep the work going. And that is what is great about the FRCs.

We think sometimes about just fixing the aircraft, but additive manu-facturing piece is a huge enabler that helps us meet the customer’s needs.O

www.MLF-kmi.com U.S. Naval Air Systems Command | MLF 9.3 | 5

U.S. NAVAl Air SySTEmS CommANd

Client: Pratt & Whitney Military EnginesAd Title: Carrier Varient - Breakthrough FighterPublication: Military Logistics Forum - AprilTrim: 8.375" x 10.875" • Bleed: 1/4" beyond trim • Live:

The breakthrough fighter for blue water ops.

The 5th generation Pratt & Whitney F135 engine is in production – bringing safe, proven and reliable power to the F-35 Lightning II. What’s more, highly advanced engine technologies designed specifically to meet the demands of Navy blue water operations will increase readiness and reduce maintenance costs to keep the F-35 flying and projecting Navy power. Learn more at f135engine.com.

It’s in our power.™

31753 F135 CV Breakthough_MilitaryLogisticsForum.indd 1 3/31/15 2:55 PM