In-place readiness spares packages - Exploring the Heart of Logistics - military bases' operational preparedness

Bases with in-place readiness spares packages (IRSP) can, and do, have base-requisitioning objectives (RO) less than their total wartime requirement (TWR). (The base RO is the sum of the wartime RO and the peacetime operating stock [POS] RO and should never be less than the TWR.) As a result, these bases may not have the spares on hand needed for a conflict.

Some Air Force bases are designated as fight in place bases; in other words, they do not deploy to a theater of operations. Instead, they fly their wartime sorties from home station. As a result, these bases have an IRSP instead of a mobility readiness spares package. These IRSP bases are given a TWR for each recoverable item spare (XD3 national stock number [NSN]) loaded at the base, which should be at least equal to the base's RO (the RO is actually one greater than the TWR if there is a positive readiness-based level [RBL]). This TWR includes the sum of the POS, which in the vast majority of cases is the RBL minus one, and the IRSP level.

TWR = IRSP level + (POS level - 1)

or

TWR = IRSP level + (RBL level - 1)

The TWR is set at the USAF Readiness Spares Package (RSP) Review Conference. The IRSP level authorization is determined based on the POS thorization; that is, the IRSP level is set such that IRSP plus the RBL (minus one) equals the TWR. Some exceptions can occur when the base does not receive an RBL for an item that also has an IRSP level, such as for two particular types of RBL-identified problem items. For the purpose of simplicity, this article will assume the RBL is the POS quantity used in the offset calculation, although that may not always be the case. Regardless, the analysis was not affected by the exceptions. For the exceptions, merely substitute the RBL with the base-computed, repair-cycle demand level. The IRSP level does not vary when the kit is fielded, even if the RBL subsequently changes. RBLs are computed quarterly and, therefore, vary. As a result, if the RBL decreases on a future date, the base's RO declines and could decline below the TWR. In determining the IRSP base's RO, the RBL in eff ect at the time of IRSP level computation is subtracted from the TWR to determine the IRSP authorization using the following formula:

IRSP level = TWR - (RBL - 1

where (RBL - 1) is known as the offset quantity

IRSP Computation Example

The following example will be used to explain both the current problem and suggested alternatives for addressing the problem. Recall that the IRSP authorization is set to the TWR minus the RBL minus one. Also, the IRSP authorization is set at the RSP review, which could occur up to 9 months prior to fielding the IRSP. That IRSP level is then used for at least a year while the kit is fielded. With current funding shortfalls, some of today's kits have remained loaded in the field for nearly 2 years. The RBL can and does change quarterly. For example, assume the following:

TWR = 5

RBL = 4 therefore,

Offset = 3 ((RBL - 1) or (4- 1 = 3)) and

IRSP = 2 ((TWR - (RBL - 1)) or ((5-(4-1)) thus

RO = 6 (RBL + IRSP) or (4 +2)

The base RO of six is the sum of the RBL and IRSP level, four plus two, and exceeds the minimum need, the TWR of five.

If the RBL changes, say from four to two, then the base's RO becomes four, which is less than what is needed, the TWR. In today's system, the IRSP level remains at two, and the base RO becomes four. This means the base may not be able to meet its wartime sortie and aircraft objectives and cannot, under current policy, requisition up to its TWR. The base RO should remain at six; therefore, under ideal circumstances, the IRSP authorization should increase to four to make up for the lower REL, something that does not occur today. So the optimal system would update the IRSP quantity as the POS level changes.

If the POS level changes to five, the base RO becomes seven, more than the TWR plus one and, therefore, more than the base needs. The base RO should remain at six, and the IRSP authorization should decrease to one because of the larger RBL level.

Reason for POS Offset

Since bases with IRSPs fight in place, there is a definite need for a POS offset. There are 13 IRSPs in the Air Force today, 6 in the Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) and 7 in Air Mobility Command (AMC). Since the bases with IRSPs fight in place, they can use any on-hand stock at their bases to meet the 30-day (60 for strategic airlift) wartime tasking. Some POS should be available at the start of hostilities, and the Air Force should not have to buy additional wartime spares to cover needs that can be filled by these available peacetime spares. The Air Force uses a simple rule of thumb to determine the amount of the POS level that is expected to be on hand. Only on-hand stock is looked at because current policy assumes no depot resupply for the first 30 days (60 for strategic aircraft) of the war. The rule of thumb for computing on-hand stock is the POS level minus one, effectively the RBL minus one for most cases. Subtracting one accounts for the fact that one of the spares filling the POS level will not be avail able because it will be in the not-reparable-this-station (NRTS) pipeline or on order from the depot (the order and ship time [O&ST] pipeline). Thus, to avoid understating the IRSP quantity, an accurate offset would be to compute the NRTS pipeline quantity plus the O&ST pipeline quantity and subtract that sum from the POS level. Empirical evidence shows that about 90 percent of the NRTS, plus O&ST pipeline quantities, are less than one. Hence, the simple rule of thumb is to subtract one (a reasonable estimate for the rounded value of the NRTS plus O&ST pipeline quantity) from the POS level.

That is the theory behind the offset and its calculation, but why bother? Is there enough of a savings to require this computation and build a system to update it? The answer is, yes, there is a significant potential for reducing the overall spares budget by using POS assets to offset IRSP requirements. For the PACAF kits evaluated, which represent 6 of the 13 IRSPs in the Air Force, about $9.7M in POS levels is available as offsets. For six of the seven AMC IRSPs, there is nearly $44.8M in POS levels available as offsets. The Air Force can afford to make system changes to continue reducing its overall gross spares budget by the amount offset in the PACAF and AMC IRSPs.

Optimal Solution

The Seamless Supply Working Group (SSWG) developed an RSP initiative that addresses the system changes needed to resolve this problem. It proposes an interface between the Weapons System Management Information System (WSMIS) and the D035E/RBL system that will update the offset data, recompute IRSP authorization quantities, and then push the new IRSP levels to the bases. This is the optimal alternative to today's system but requires system changes. It is important that the Air Force Requirements Management System (RMS), or D200A, also reflect the accurate total requirement as well as an accurate segregation of the source of that requirement, as either POS or war reserve materiel (WRM). The two requirements are treated differently at the wholesale and retail levels. The WRM requirement is additive and pushed to the bases in RSPs, while the POS requirement is usually computed and pushed via RBLs. The retail system uses a higher priority to replenish WRM, so it is important for the requirement to be accurately st ratified in RMS.

Initially, eight potential solutions to the problem were developed, including the optimal solution, and were briefed to the Air Force Supply Wartime Policy Working Group (AFSWPWG). The AFSWPWG then tasked the Air Force Requirements Team to further analyze four of the eight options.

Alternatives

With today's system, the offset and, therefore, the IRSP authorization are fixed for the period of time the IRSP is fielded. Since the RBL can change, there is no guarantee the base's RO will be accurate (equal to the TWR plus one for NSNs that have a positive RBL).

Alternative 2: Update Offset--The Optimal Solution

The second method, the optimal solution, is to update the offset and, therefore, the IRSP authorization as RBLs change. This method would ensure an accurate base RO and should be the long-term solution to the problem. However, the Air Force also needs a short-term solution, one that does not require any major system changes. The remaining six alternatives are described below and are meant as short-term solutions.

An adjusted stock level (ASL) is a quantity that can be loaded at the base to influence that base's RO. A minimum ASL indicates to the RBL model that the base should have a POS level no less than the minimum ASL. A fixed ASL would instruct RBL to allocate a POS level exactly equal to the fixed quantity, no more, no less. Finally, a maximum ASL sets the maximum allowable POS level; RBL will not allocate more than the maximum ASL quantity. If a sufficient worldwide requirement, as computed by RMS, exists, then RBL will honor the ASLs. If there is not a sufficient requirement to honor the ASL quantity, then the RBL model flags the NSN as a problem item and, using a heuristic, allocates whatever requirement exists to best reduce expected back orders.

Alternative 3: Minimum Adjusted Stock Level--Additive

This option requires the base to load a minimum ASL equal to the RBL used at the time of IRSP computation, upon fielding of a new IRSP. The minimum ASL will give the base a level at least equal to the offset plus one, thereby guaranteeing the base RO will at least equal the TWR plus one.

Example: TWR = 5, RBL = 4, Offset = 3, IRSP = 2 and RO = 6. The base will set a minimum ASL equal to four (equal to the RBL or the offset plus one). If the POS level increases to five, then the RO increases to seven. The minimum ASL prevents the RBL allocation from dropping below four (or RCDL for the exception cases); therefore, the RO will remain at six.

This option guarantees the RO to be at least equal to the TWR plus one and allows a base to receive extra POS levels if its demand increases. It is also an easy solution to implement. However, the worldwide requirement (at least the base RO) will increase. In the example, if the POS level increases to five, the IRSP authorization should decrease to one, but with this method, the IRSP authorization remains the same at two. So the RO of seven is one unit too large. Whenever the POS level increases, this option will provide a higher RO than required. Two other disadvantages include the need for manual recomputation of ASL quantities annually when new IRSP kits are fielded and the danger that non-IRSP bases could have their POS levels reduced (transferred to the IRSP bases since RBL cannot allocate base levels that, when summed, exceed the worldwide requirement as computed by the RMS). The latter disadvantage could increase expected back orders and increase RBL-identified problem items.

Alternative 4: Minimum ASL--Nonadditive

The base or the D035E/RBL programmer would load pseudo ASLs, those that will act the same as normal ASLs within RBL except they would not be passed to the RMS to become an additive to the worldwide requirement. Since this solution need apply only to IRSPs, there would be no buy requirement. Therefore, it would only affect the Air Force repair requirement, which is currently a fixed number of standard deviations computation. Therefore, the ASL quantity may not have a significant effect on any portion of the worldwide requirement.

This option has the same advantages and disadvantages as the previous option. However, this option would tend to create unsupportable base levels, levels for which there is no worldwide requirement. The levels would be unsupportable because the RMS would not receive the ASL quantities from RBL for inclusion in the RMS computation; therefore, RMS may not compute a large enough requirement to support the levels.

Alternative 5: Fixed ASL

This option is the same as Alternative 3, only the base would load fixed rather than minimum levels. This guarantees the base RO is at least the TWR and prevents additional requirements growth. Our example will illustrate:

Example: TWR = 5, POS = 4, Offset = 3, IRSP = 2. The base would load a fixed ASL equal to four, making the RO equal to six. If pipeline changes would generate a POS level increase to five, the fixed ASL will prevent RBL from allocating an additional level, maintaining the POS level at four and the RO at six. If pipeline changes would generate a POS level decrease to two, the fixed ASL will hold the RBL level at four, and the RO will remain six.

A fixed ASL incorrectly suppresses the base's RBL whenever it would exceed the TWR as a result of additional demand. There were several cases of that occurrence, which were highlighted during the analysis of the actual IRSP data.

Alternative 6: Set the IRSP Equal to the TWR-- Maximum Level

The next three options set the IRSP authorizations equal to the TWR. That would ensure the base RO meets the TWR, but the worldwide requirement would increase by the amount of the peacetime levels that can be offset. The first version of setting the IRSP equal to the TWR sets a maximum level of zero for the P05 level, thereby preventing RBL from allocating any POS level at all.

Example: TWR = 5, POS = 0, Offset = 3, IRSP = 5 and RO = 5. Regardless of the P05 level RBL would generate, the maximum ASL would ensure the RO remains at five.

This option will ensure the RO equals the TWR and the IRSP base would not steal a POS level from another base. Setting a maximum level of zero does not affect the worldwide requirement, only how the requirements are allocated to the bases. It does restrict the IRSP base from getting additional POS levels if pipeline changes warrant.

Alternative 7: Set the IRSP Equal to the TWR-- Let the POS Float

This alternative allows the IRSP base to receive POS levels.

Example: TWR =5, POS = 4, Offset =3, IRSP =5 and RO = 9. Like the previous alternative, the IRSP is equal to the TWR, but the base is allowed to receive POS levels as the demand and pipeline data warrant within RBL.

This option ensures the RO is at least equal to the TWR and allows a base to earn a POS level. However, it increases the worldwide requirement and overestimates the RSP requirement. The base RO should actually be six (TWR plus one), and this option results in an RO of nine.

Alternative 8: Set the IRSP Equal to the TWR-- Decrease POS

Decrease the amount of worldwide requirement for RBL to allocate by the offset amount and allow RBL to allocate the remainder optimally to reduce worldwide EBOs. This option ensures the worldwide requirement does not grow.

Example: TWR = 5, POS = 4 Offset =3, IRSP = 5, then the RO =9. Like the previous example, this results in the correct base RO regardless of the POS level, and the base can earn P05 levels based on its demand and pipeline data.

This base earned a POS level of four after the worldwide POS requirement was reduced by three, the offset amount. This method ensures the RO is at least the TWR, does not inflate the worldwide requirement, and allows the IRSP base to earn extra POS levels in later RBL computations. The disadvantage of this approach is that it increases the RSP portion of the worldwide requirement by the POS offset amount (although the same amount is reduced from the POS requirement). That could improperly affect repair and shipping priorities. This approach will also take levels from non-IRSP bases (the offset amount subtracted from the worldwide requirement results in fewer levels allocated to non-IRSP bases). The biggest disadvantage is that this is a long-term approach. It requires system changes. And if changes are to be made, they should be for the optimal option.

Identifying a Solution

Alternatives for Further Analysis

Alternatives were briefed to the AFSWPWG in May 2000; they discarded half of the alternatives as not being viable because of their negative impact on the requirements system. They asked for further examination of the following options: Alternative 2, Update Offset--the Optimal Solution; Alternative 3, Minimum ASL--Additive; Alternative 5, Fixed ASL; and Alternative 7, Set the IRSP Equal to the TWR and Let the POS Float. Comparison is made to the actual impact--using current POS levels data and RBL levels from April 2000--on existing IRSPs for these options.

Offset Values as of June 2000

Tables 1 and 2 summarize the dollar value of the offset for the 431 PACAF and 829 AMC NSNs with sufficient POS levels to offset at least part of the IRSP. The PACAF gross requirement reduction at the initial fielding of the kit was $19.6M. The offset amount is the amount entered in WSMIS at the time of the RSP review. It is doubtful the PACAF offset amount was accurate when it was entered in WSMIS since the PACAF offsets were generally too high. The new offset values were computed using April 2000 RBL data. It was expected there would be an even spread with some new offset values being lower than the older ones, some equal to the older offsets, and some greater. In 70 percent of the cases, the new offset value was much less than the old one, leading to the conclusion that the original offset values were too high. This could have been caused by inaccurate computation of offset values by the Standard Base Supply System or forecasting offsets using old, inaccurate data. Therefore, a better estimate was provided of the amount of POS that could be offset in the fourth column. The estimate is based on the actual RBLs as of April 2000, yielding $9.7M of POS levels for PACAF that could have been offset. For AMC, the total is $44.8M. Of the 1,260 NSNs examined in the tables, 383 of them had base ROs less than their TWR.

Comparison of Alternatives

Tables 3 through 5 provide the individual kit and major command (MAJCOM) total comparisons for each of the four alternative P05 offsets. For example, Table 3 shows the results for four PACAF IRSPs, including the Kadena KG-135R IRSP. Using optimal alternative 2, at Kadena, the IRSP cost would increase by the $0.02M in repair cost. There were 53 NSNs whose base RO would increase by 76 units and 5 NSNs whose RO would decrease (that is, RBL previously allocated levels larger than the original offset). Note that Alternative 7, Set the IRSP Equal to the TWR--Let the POS Float, increased kit cost the most because this option can never decrease the base RO.

Table 3 shows the remaining IRSPs plus the PACAF totals. The optimal alternatives would increase the repair cost by $0.88M. (The repair cost is the relevant cost because changing the IRSP authorization will not affect the D200A RMS buy computation. Therefore, the only expense the Air Force will incur from changing the levels associated with the fielded IRSP kits is the repair cost.) In contrast to the optimal alternative, Alternative 5, Fixed ASL, would increase the repair cost by a smaller amount because this alternative reduced levels more than they should be reduced. The bases earned POS levels above the TWR, but the fixed ASL prevents RBL from allocating anything more than the fixed quantity, which was less than the computed offset. So the Fixed ASL option erroneously limits levels by $0.25M ($0.88M-$0.63M). Likewise, the Minimum ASL option erroneously overstates levels by $0.23M ($1.11M-$0.88M). Alternative 7, Set the IRSP Equal to the TWR--Let the POS Float, is the costliest and theoretically inferior to the other methods. Tables 5 and 6 show the AMC totals for the kits analyzed.

The optimal alternative actually reduces AMC total repair costs by $0.1M (the decreases in repair cost are larger than the repair cost increases (Table 5). Again, compared to the optimal approach, Alternative 5, Fixed ASL, would erroneously reduce repair cost by $0.07M ($0.1M - $0.032M), while the minimum-ASL method, Alternative 3, would overstate repair costs by $0.109M ($0.1M + $0.009M). Alternative 7, IRSP Equals TWR, again, is the costliest and most erroneous option.

Table 6 summarizes the totals for PACAF and AMC and provides totals for overall comparison and evaluation of the results. Note that overall, for PACAF and AMC, the optimal alternative repair costs increase by $0.78M. The minimum ASL approach incurs an excess repair cost error of $0.34M ($1.11 9M-$0.78M)), while the fixed ASL approach incurs an understated repair cost error of $0.18M ($0.78M-$0.598M).

Selection of an Alternative

Because of its superiority to any other method of maintaining the TWR, the Air Force should take immediate action to implement the optimal method, alternative 2. Using this alternative will ensure levels computed by both Air Force level-setting systems, RBL and WSMIS, are properly allocated and supported with D200A-computed requirement. This means establishing an interface between RBL and WSMIS. There are two options for the interface:

* Data (IRSP, TWR, and current offset) could be provided by WSMIS to RBL, which could then recompute the offset and IRSP with the latest POS levels data. RBL would then push RSP and POS levels to the bases. RBL would also provide RSP additive data to D200A to update the worldwide requirement.

* RBL could provide an automated update of POS levels to WSMIS semiannually so WSMIS could recompute and push new IRSP levels to compensate for any POS changes. WSMIS would push the levels directly to the applicable base as well as update D200A with accurate requirement data.

Until the Air Force completes the RBL and WSMIS system changes, Alternative 3, Minimum Adjusted Stock Level--Additive, best meets the AFSWPWG goal to find a way to maintain the proper RO without making a system change. Alternative 7 is not a viable option because it creates unsupportable base levels and is the most expensive option. Alternative 3 is better than Alternative 5 because Alternative 3 does not artificially constrain POS levels for cases where the P05 exceeds the TWR and only marginally increases repair costs as compared to the next best option (alternative 5). Alternative 3 generates a smaller RO-levels error than the Fixed ASL option. As shown under Air Force totals for levels gained in Table 7, minimum ASLs would increase IRSP bases' RO by 833 levels but would prevent the loss, under the Fixed ASL alternative, of 1,390 levels for cases where demand would generate RBLs exceeding the TWR. In comparison to the optimal method, 607 levels should be lost, but 783 should remain untouched. Both the min imum or fixed ASL options will meet Air Force needs, but the minimum ASL option errs on the side of providing increased mission support.

To implement the minimum ASL option, IRSP bases should load an ASL detail equal to the amount of the IRSP offset. The bases should load an ASL for one plus the TWR minus the IRSP authorized quantity for all cases where the TWR minus the IRSP is positive. If the TWR equals the JRSP (that is, TWR minus IRSP is zero), then no ASL is needed. For example, if the TWR equals two and the JRSP authorized quantity is zero, the ASL would be three. (Recall the offset is the P08 level minus one.) If the TWR equals two and the IRSP also equals two, no ASL is needed.

One exception is made to the rule: when there is no consumption data for that NSN at the IRSP base (the RBL level would be zero), the ASL should be set so the IRSP plus the offset equals the TWR (not the TWR plus one). This is because all POS should be on hand at the beginning of a contingency if there is no demand. For example, if the TWR equals two, the IRSP is one, and the base daily demand rate (DDR) is zero (therefore, the RBL is zero), the ASL should be set at one.

Summary for Determining the Minimum ASL Quantity

If the TWR = IRSP, then no ASL is needed

If the TWR > IRSP, and

a. If the DDR > 0, set the ASL quantity to 1 + (TWR -- IRSP)

b. If the DDR 0, set the ASL quantity to TWR -- IRSP

Implementation Actions

In August 2000, AFSWPWG implemented the minimum ASL options. IRSP bases loaded ASLs for the currently fielded kits rather than waiting for the new kits. The ASLs were loaded with an Air Force level directed by code D, so that RBL will accept the base-generated XE4 transactions containing the ASL data (for transmission to the D035E database) directly from the base and load the ASL without requiring item-manager-specialist file maintenance.

The Air Staff appointed the Requirements Team to oversee the process to ensure the ASLs are properly loaded at the base and in the RBL database (D035E). The Requirements Team coordinated with the MAJCOMs and bases and ensured ASLs loaded at the base were accurately reflected in D035E. When the new IRSP is fielded, the team will ensure the old ASLs are deleted and new ASLs are properly loaded. The Requirements Team will periodically reconcile the base-provided list of ASLs with the data loaded in D035E. AMC developed a surge program to automate the creation of ASL load images (1F3).

Related Issue

The offset amount exceeded the TWR in many cases. Also, eight of the IRSPs (Osan A-l0 and F-16, Kunsan two F-16s, Kadena KC-135R and E-3, and McChord C-141 and C-17) are colocated and share common components. This complicates the process of determining the proper offset amount. The offset is the POS level minus one, yet for a shared item (an item in more than one IRSP at the same base), the entire POS level cannot be applied to both IRSPs. Since the kit reviews are at different times for different weapon systems and there is no systemic way to group kits or offset amounts by base, it is unclear whether the offset amounts are being properly determined and loaded into WSMIS. The kit requirements are computed by kit, not by base, yet the most accurate way of applying offsets is by base for common items.

Only 50 to 60 common items in the kits were examined, so a systemic solution may not be cost-effective. But clear procedures should be provided to determine the proper offset amount for items at a base common to two or more IRSPs. The offset should be determined for the base as the POS level minus one. Then the IRSPs should share the offset quantity. For example, a base with a POS level of four has two IRSPs, one with a TWR of two and one with a TWR of four. The total offset is three (four minus one). The first IRSP should have an offset of one, and the second IRSP should have the remaining two as an offset.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Bases with IRSP have ROs less than their TWR. PACAF has 210 NSNs with ROs less than the base TWR. AMC has 173 such cases. Offsetting wartime levels with POS expected to be on hand for wartime activity at bases with IRSPs is theoretically sound and saves the Air Force nearly $55M of gross requirement. The optimal alternative (that is, best long-term solution) is interfacing WSMIS and the D035E RBL system. Either one of two methods will work:

* Vary the IRSP level depending on the most current RBL for the using base.

* WSMIS provides RSP data to RBL, and RBL then pushes RSP levels in addition to RBL-computed POS levels (this solution requires system changes).

As a short-term approach, the minimum ASL option will ensure base levels at least equal their TWR and will not constrain base ROs for bases that are allocated peacetime levels above their TWR. This option has minimal impact on the requirements system, increasing repair costs by an estimated $0.34M over the optimal method, and does not require any systems changes.

The fixed ASL option will ensure base levels are at least equal to their TWR and actually reduces repair costs by almost $0.1 8M over the optimal method, but it will reduce POS levels by 1,390, more than twice as many as the optimal method, more than is prudent. Setting the IRSP level equal to the TWR (in essence treating the IRSPs like mobile readiness spares packages) is the costliest option. It increases the Air Force repair requirement by $1.13M over the $0.78M repair cost for the optimal method.

Eight of the current IRSPs have parts common to other colocated IRSPs and, therefore, may have improper offset calculations.

The AFWSPWG should approve and implement the Seamless Supply Working Group initiative that makes system changes to implement the optimal method. In the interim, the AFWSPWG should approve IRSP bases to load minimum ASLs at their applicable offset quantities, equal to what the POS level should be to ensure that the base RO meets its TWR; specifically, one plus the TWR minus the IRSP authorized quantity (1 + TWR IRSP) for all cases where the TWR minus the IRSP quantity is positive. The only exception to this rule would be cases where the base's DDR is zero; then the ASL should be set so the ASL plus the IRSP equals the TWR. The AFWSPWG should develop and implement a surge program to compute and format ASL loads for items where the TWR does not equal the IRSP authorized quantity. It should assign the Air Force Requirements Team to oversee the process to update ASLs for IRSP bases and develop and document clear procedures for determining peacetime offsets for items common to two or more IRSPs at the same base.

Table 1.

Amount of Offset PACAF

                   Offset             Number
                     in    Estimate   of NSNs
Weapons            WSMIS   of Actual   with
System     Base      $M    Offset $M  Offset

E-3        Kadena   8.2       1.0       150

KC-135R    Kadena   3.4       1.8       87

E-/KC135R  Kadena   0.2       0.1        5
Common
NSNs

F-16       Kunsan   5.4       4.0       78

F-16       Osan     0.6       1.5       40

A-10       Osan     0.8       0.8       53

F-16/A-10  Osan     1.0       0.5       18
Common
NSNs

Totals             19.6       9.7      431
Table 2.

Amount of Offset AMC and USAF Totals

                        Offset  Estimate   Number
                          in    of Actual  of NSNs
Weapons                 WSMIS    Offset     with
System      Base          $M       $M      Offset

C-5         Dover         13.3    18.4       196

C-5         Travis        9.1     11.2       132

C-141       McGuire       3.5      6.9        91

C-141 (x2)  McChord       5.8      6.7       265

C-17        Charleston    1.1      1.6       145

Totals                   32.8     44.8       829

 Air Force  AMC and
  Totals    PACAF        52.4     54.5     1,260
Table 3.

PACAF Alternative Offset Comparison

                                  Kadena KC-135R              Kadena E-3

Alternative              2         3     5 (*)       7         2
Levels lost             18         0        76       0         5
NSNs with lower RO       5         0         6       0         4
Levels gained           76        76        76     140       129
NSNs with higher RO     53        53        53      69       117
Repair cost ($M)        .2        .3        .2      .4        .6

                               Kadena E-3                 Osan A-10

Alternative             3      5 (*)       7         2         3
Levels lost             0          8       0        13         0
NSNs with lower RO      0          5       0         4         0
Levels gained         129        129     151        13        13
NSNs with higher RO   117        117     128        10        10
Repair cost ($M)       .6         .5      .7       .05       .06

                          Osan A-10                  Osan F-16

Alternative          5 (*)       7         2           3     5 (*)
Levels lost             42       0        14           0        16
NSNs with lower RO      12       0         1           0         3
Levels gained           14      72        12          12        12
NSNs with higher RO     10      22         9           9         9
Repair cost ($M)         0     .15       .03         .06       .01

                     Osan F-16                 Kunsan F-16

Alternative            7           2       3       5 (*)       7
Levels lost            0          23       0          42       0
NSNs with lower RO     0           8       0          12       0
Levels gained         23          14      14          14     119
NSNs with higher RO   13          10      10          10      39
Repair cost ($M)     .11       (.02)     .05       (.12)     0.5

                                Kadena/Osan Common               PACAF
                                                                 Totals

Alternative               2         3      5 (*)     7           2
Levels lost               9         0          2     0          82
NSNs with lower RO        9         0          2     0          31
Levels gained            14        14         14    31         258
NSNs with higher RO      11        11         11    16         210
Repair cost ($M)        .02       .04        .04   .11         .88

                              PACAF Totals

Alternative              3     5 (*)        7
Levels lost              0       182        0
NSNs with lower RO       0        37        0
Levels gained          258       258      536
NSNs with higher RO    210       210      287
Repair cost ($M)      1.11       .63     1.97

(*)Note: The fixed ASL option reduces the RBL on some NSNs that were
above the TWR.
Table 4.

AMC Alternative Offset Comparison

                                    Dover C-5                 Travis C-5

Alternative                2      3      5 (*)        7            2
Levels lost              248      0        878        0           83
NSNs with lower RO        66      0         90        0           35
Levels gained            209    209        209     1092          256
NSNs with higher RO       61     61         61      183           46
Repair cost ($M)       (.01)   .004      (.02)      .03         .000

                               Travis C-5               McGuire C-141

Alternative              3      5 (*)       7            2          3
Levels lost              0        111       0          104          0
NSNs with lower RO       0         46       0           40          0
Levels gained          256        256     759           27         27
NSNs with higher RO     46         46     119           16         16
Repair cost ($M)      .003     (.009)    .015       (.002)       .000

                        McGuire C-141              Charleston C-17

Alternative           5 (*)       7            2            3   5 (*)
Levels lost             110       0            8            0       9
NSNs with lower RO       42       0            6            0       6
Levels gained            27     221            9            9       9
NSNs with higher RO      16      79            5            5       5
Repair cost ($M)     (.002)    .006       (.000)         .000  (.000)

                     Charleston            McChord C-141 and C-17
                        C-17

Alternative             7            2            3    5 (*)      7
Levels lost             0           82            0      100      0
NSNs with lower RO      0           38            0       40      0
Levels gained          29           74           74       74    356
NSNs with higher RO    13           45           45       45    109
Repair cost ($M)     .001         .113         .002   (.001)   .009

                                    AMC Total

Alternative                2      3       5 (*)        7
Levels lost              525      0       1,208        0
NSNs with lower RO       155      0         224        0
Levels gained            575    575         575    2,457
NSNs with higher RO      173    173         173      503
Repair cost ($M)       (.10)   .009      (.032)      .01

(*)Note: The fixed ASL option reduces the RBL on some NSNs that were
above the TWR.
Table 5.

PACAF,  AMC, and Air Force Totals

                                   PACAF Totals               AMC Totals

Alternative                2        3      5          7            2
Levels lost               82        0    182          0          525
NSNs with lower RO        31        0     37          0          155
Levels gained            258      258    258        536          575
NSNs with higher RO      210      210    210        287          173
Repair cost ($M)         .88     1.11    .63       1.97        (.10)

                               AMC Totals               Air Force Totals

Alternative              3          5        7          2             3
Levels lost              0       1208        0        607             0
NSNs with lower RO       0        224        0        187             0
Levels gained          575        575    2,457        833           833
NSNs with higher RO    173        173      503        383           383
Repair cost ($M)      .009     (.032)     .061        .78         1.119

                       Air Force Totals

Alternative              5         7
Levels lost          1,390         0
NSNs with lower RO     261         0
Levels gained          833     2,993
NSNs with higher RO    383       790
Repair cost ($M)      .598     1.909

Captain Spencer is a logistics career-broadening officer at the Oklahoma Air Logistics Center, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma. At the time of writing of this article, he was Chief Requirements Policy Branch, Supply Division, Air Force Logistics Management Agency, Maxwell AFB, Gunter Annex, Alabama.

COPYRIGHT 2001 U.S. Air Force, Logistics Management Agency
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group