Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
THESIS
ALLOCATING FLIGHT HOURS
TO ARMY HELICOPTERS
by
Bradley
W.
Pippin
June 1998
Thesis Advisor:
Robert
Second Reader:
Thomas Halwachs
Approved
is
F. Dell
unlimited.
is
estimated to average
Form Approved
OMBNo. 0704-0188
hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Send comments
regarding
burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters
Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1 21 5 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of
Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503.
this
1.
(Leave blank)
2.
REPORT DATE
3.
June 1998
4.
TITLE
Master's Thesis
AND SUBTITLE
5.
FUNDING NUMBERS
6.
Pippin, Bradley
7.
W.
PERFORMING
ORGANIZATION REPORT
8.
NUMBER
SPONSORING
MONITORING
10.
11.
and do not
of the Department of
12a.
Approved
12b.
DISTRIBUTION CODE
13.
Army
battalion) to
This thesis models the battalion's flight hour allocation problem using
The
nd
th
Aviation Regiment
Mechanized Division currently uses a spreadsheet implementation of the quadratic program developed by the author called
QFHAM (Quadratic Flight Hour Allocation Model), that is available to other battalions for use with existing software and
computer resources. The mixed integer linear program, called FHAM (Right Hour Allocation Model) more appropriately models
the problem, but requires additional software. This thesis validates the two models using actual flight hour data from a UH-60
optimization;
it
Battalion, 4
of 4
th
flight
maintenance backlog and providing a fixed number of aircraft available for deployment. This thesis also addresses the negative
impact of current helicopter battalion readiness measures on deployment and offers alternatives.
14.
SUBJECT TERMS
Right Hour
Helicopter,
15.
NUMBER OF
PAGES
56
17.
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF
REPORT
Unclassified
NSN 7540-01-280-5500
18.
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF
THIS
PAGE
Unclassified
19.
OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified
16.
PRICE CODE
20.
LIMITATION
OF ABSTRACT
UL
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18
Approved
is
unlimited
W.
Pippin
Submitted in
Army
Academy, 1988
partial fulfillment
of the
ABSTRACT
Army
million
flight
(UH-60 Blackhawk
battalion) to
battalion), allocate
decrease in battalion deployability. This thesis models the battalion's flight hour
allocation
nd
it
Battalion, 4
th
Aviation Regiment of 4
th
Mechanized
models the problem, but requires additional software. This thesis validates the two
flight
UH-60
and contingency scenarios. The models provide a monthly flight hour allocation for the
battalion's aircraft that results in a steady- state sequencing
maintenance, thus eliminating phase maintenance backlog and providing a fixed number
of aircraft available for deployment. This thesis also addresses the negative impact of
current helicopter battalion readiness measures
on deployment and
offers alternatives.
DISCLAIMER
The reader
is
all
may
time available, to ensure that the programs are free of computational and logic errors,
they cannot be considered validated.
additional verification
is at
Any
VI
the
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION
BATTALION ORGANIZATION AND MAINTENANCE
A.
BACKGROUND
B.
C.
PROBLEM DEFINITION
D.
OUTLINE
II.
RELATED RESEARCH
IE.
ALLOCATION PROBLEM
IV.
15
A.
15
B.
QFHAM FORMULATION
20
COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS
21
A.
21
B.
23
28
D.
31
E.
34
C.
V.
35
A.
READINESS IMPROVEMENT
35
B.
RECOMMENDATIONS
37
C.
QFHAM IMPLEMENTATION
39
LIST OF
REFERENCES
41
43
vu
Vlll
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Army
million
flight
(UH-60 Blackhawk
battalion) to
battalion), allocate
The
st
currently assigned in
aircraft flight
Germany, provides an
battalion reported
However, the
all
st
89%
fully
mission capable
reportable indications
st
The
commander
aviation brigade
remaining
until
showed a
impending deployment, and when the Dayton Peace Accords were signed
it
in late
UH-60 Blackhawks
would not deploy. This problem was previously unnoticed above the brigade
was
st
management within
level
and
the
battalion.
This thesis models the battalion's flight hour allocation problem using
optimization;
The 2
nd
it
Battalion, 4
Aviation Regiment of 4
th
IX
QFHAM (Quadratic Flight Hour Allocation Model), that is available to other battalions
for use with existing software
program, called
problem, but requires additional software. This thesis validates the two models using
actual flight
UH-60
is
battalion
maintenance that eliminates phase maintenance backlog and provides a fixed number of
aircraft available for
on deployability and
offers alternatives.
(83.3%
vs.
number of deployable
62.5%)
The
AD's UH-60
commanders a
st
aircraft for
less
The
initial
battalion
model
by 20.8
set-up
is
simple
by-aircraft flight
The
be adjusted
aircraft flight
easily
hour allocation
planning process that previously has either been ignored or estimated using time-
easily
process.
The percent
An
aircraft is
it
deployable
if
provides very
it
is
both
little
FMC
until
FMC can
recommended
and 75 hours. This report gives an immediate indication of the actual number of
deployable
aircraft, in
The bottom
line:
XI
INTRODUCTION
I.
Army
models the
battalion's flight
develops both a mixed integer linear program and a quadratic program. The 2
Battalion, 4
th
Aviation Regiment of 4
th
QFHAM
it
that
is
with existing software and computer resources. The mixed integer linear program, called
FHAM (Flight Hour Allocation Model) more appropriately models the problem, but
requires additional software. This thesis contrasts both programs and
shows
that both
provide helicopter battalions with a valuable planning tool for allocating flight hours.
A.
Army
is
reorganizing
headquarters company performs the battalion's administrative activities and maintains the
battalion's
flight
companies operates
its
eight aircraft
maintenance
of 24
aircraft
valued
at
all
approximately
million for an
AH-64 Apache
after a fixed
number of flight
Army
fleet,
for
aircraft
hours.
For the
phase maintenance occurs every 500 hours (DA, 1996), 250 hours (DA,
intensive requiring
(DA, 1989)
respectively.
anywhere from 30
to
Phase maintenance
is
can translate into lack of deployability with no quick fix for battalions that do not
properly
manage
their aircraft.
DA (1995) advocates using the "Sliding Scale Method" to help manage the flow
of aircraft into phase maintenance. The sliding scale method has battalions sequentially
plot the aircraft's remaining flight hours until phase maintenance
remaining to
Army goal,
remaining
least
referred to as the
until
1).
phase maintenance.
io
ai
o
Tail
Figure
between
rng:
eo
<n
t?
cb
oo
oo
- Sample Battalion Flow Chart for a UH-60 Battalion. The graph shows the relationship
hours for sequentially sorted aircraft and the DA goal (shown as line). The DA
flight
aircraft.
For
(OPTEMPO)
month, then the next phase maintenance begins in about 2 months (60 days).
the aircraft
on the
maintenance
is
equal.
DA goal
it)
By keeping
Many battalions
ignore
(MOEs) do
The primary
MOE for a helicopter battalion is the percentage of aircraft that are Fully Mission
Capable (FMC) with a
The
battalions
It is
if
is
it
both
little
would not be
few
on the
visible
manage
aircraft
B.
aircraft flight
fly.
until
battalion's
for a given
phase maintenance
monthly
FMC,
complete. This
is
report.
flight
flight
90% FMC
Battalions that do
company's
of each month.
th
15
As long
maintenance.
provides very
it
deployable
phase maintenance.
its full
aircraft is
able to perform
The percent
An
is
company commander)
basis,
dictating
with the
on a by-
company commander.
st
currently assigned in
aircraft flight
Germany, provides an
deployable helicopter battalion. During the Dayton Peace Accord arbitration process,
prior to the U.S. implementation force
Blackhawk
battalion reported
indications
showed the
st
was ready
st
AD's UH-60
all
reportable
to Bosnia,
battalion
(IFOR) deployment
for deployment.
of 75%,
Upon
notification of its
The Dayton
in late
November
1995, and
st
flag."
The
aviation brigade
commander
UH-60
hours remaining until phase maintenance would not deploy. This affected nine of the
battalion's
was
further acerbated
by the high
OPTEMPO
of the
600
unocNcocMor-ocDcocMor-oocMi^ooco^root-T-cD
o-Trocn(N'>TCM05Tr(oa>o(orom->3-a>(N'<3-ooooococD
'0
mi^^riO"<rT-'>5-'<r'>3-T-ro(o^r'^r^'^-'3-Tooo
oo
Aircraft Tail
Figure 2
- Sample
Battalion
Flow
for
st
'
,3
"
,:1
Number
recollection, actual data not available). All aircraft to the right of aircraft
there
is
hours).
now
st
AD is by no means exceptional.
goal
line.
at
DA
number
flight
maximum
intentional deviation
C.
DA goal line
Chapter
V addresses
PROBLEM DEFINITION
An Army
helicopter battalion must be prepared for missions that can vary daily.
from the
DA goal
its
combat aviation
commander
missions (DA,
unit,
from
direct,
high intensity conflict to operations other than war, battalions can expect to deploy as
either a battalion assigned to an aviation brigade level task force or as smaller sized
battalion
The
his operation
maintenance
allocation
typically
effort.
The
The
battalion
company commanders
commander manages
is
monthly and
studies, although
this thesis
FHAM and QFHAM are appropriate for any planning cycle length).
The
flight
each aircraft assigned to the battalion at the beginning of each planning cycle. Prior to
making
this
recommendation, he must
commander's
know the
following information:
Battalion
flight
the battalion.
Most probable
status
flight
hours each
company
receives.
at the
end of the
planning cycle.
flight
flies
cycle.
benefit
QFHAM.
criteria
Having solved
and
aircraft.
The
aircraft limitations
battalion
while setting
the battalion maintenance officer then issues flight hour allocation goals for the flight
company commanders
FHAM validates the exportable (to battalions) QFHAM. FHAM is a mixed integer linear
program with penalties per hour deviation
from the
desired
The
possible to the
DA goal line and thereby provide a steady-state flow of aircraft into phase
maintenance.
management
to proactive
flight
managing on a mission-by-mission
flexibility to
manage
his
own
hour allocation on a
planning
cycle rather than having the choice of aircraft for missions dictated on a daily basis.
D.
OUTLINE
Chapter
integer linear
II
UH-60
from both
implementation of
results
V discusses the
RELATED RESEARCH
H.
However,
not directly adaptable to the problem addressed by this thesis. The bulk of the
for aircraft scheduling addresses mission assignment to specific aircraft with
work done
no
major scheduled maintenance procedures, systems are grouped by age of device with no
consideration to individual systems
(e.g., aircraft).
DA. The
that
battalions, the
draw a
linear
approximation of this
plot;
Divide the number of flight hours available for the next planning cycle
(given by battalion
to the
battalion;
Subtract the average flight hours per aircraft from the Y-axis intercept of the
linear
aircraft flow;
and
Draw
it
The
line,
recommended
flight
hours
is
If an
not flown.
Example of SSSM
500- ^>s^
si
<D
400- :>
.,
A^
"O"^
DA Goal Line
^^V^^*
Oh
300-
J^^""*^/
Adjusted
200-
Goal Line
1001
JLinear Approximation
""'^{J^s.
"^^^v*.
**
'
"^^^^^
III
4
5
Aircraft
"r
"
Figure 3
is
shown
for a flight
The adjusted
goal line
is
company
level.
companies with
management
ARI
organized battalions as
it
is
at the
phase maintenance
own maintenance
company
is
level.
now managed
much
at a
larger flight
10
battalion, all
At the battalion
level,
SSSM
does not ensure any type of equitable distribution of flight time between the companies.
Also,
when
aircraft fall
line,
fall
below
the allocated flight hours for the planning cycle. In general, the sliding scale scheduling
tool,
but
its
make
it
in the literature.
Bargeron (1995)
addresses readiness issues from scheduling depot level maintenance of Marine Corps
Ml Al
main
battle tanks.
commodity network
integer
He
program solves
in
674.29
CPU seconds
on an
constraints.
The
linear integer
Bargeron' s linear integer program has some similarities, such as scheduled maintenance
based on usage and a time intensive maintenance procedure. However, there are some
basic differences between his linear integer program and the problem addressed in this
thesis:
is
to
in order to avoid
linear program.
Sgaslik' s
mixed integer
linear
an
elastic,
mixed integer
variables, 9,000
non-zero elements, and 1,200 constraints. The mixed integer linear program solves in
less
than 15 minutes on an
11
missions to individual
known
aircraft.
is
the assignment of
finite
queuing theory to
evaluate the costs as well as design of a service facility. Fabrycky and Blanchard track
items based on a device age grouping and models parts requirements and repairs using
nested
Markov
chains. This
REPS model
also in the stochastic nature of unscheduled maintenance while this thesis does not
A final model that deals with Army helicopters is the "Phoenix" model (Brown,
Clemence, Teufert, and Wood, 1991). The Phoenix model schedules procurement and
retirement for the
Army's helicopter
fleet.
in
different helicopter
Phoenix model:
new
through completely
Procuring
aircraft
Service
Retirement of obsolete
life
aircraft.
12
Although Phoenix does not address issues involved with the problem addressed
thesis,
Phoenix shows
Army
in this
13
14
m.
PROBLEM
The mixed
(FHAM)
(QFHAM)
Battalion
the
Commander's
flight
Number of flight
the battalion.
Minimum
Most probable
company.
status
at the
end of the
planning cycle.
flight
flies
cycle.
more heavily
This approximation
from the
DA goal
line.
A.
UH-60 Blackhawk
AH-64
flight
or
CH-47
commander's
allocation
battalions.
is
flight
hour
goal.
The
distribution
of
DA goal line.
15
FHAM' s
Indices:
Interval
from the
1,2,... ,10);
Aircraft
Company
tail
number
(e.g.,
(e.g.,
080, 254,
);
nd
st
(e.g.,
,2
. .
,24
th
);
and
A, B, or C).
Sets:
AIRCRAFT^
Company c.
Given Data:
BFH
Minimum
flight
BFH
Maximum
flight
DAGp
(hours);
HTP T
Flight hours remaining until phase maintenance due for aircraft "x"
(hours);
INTERVAL^
(hours);
MAXFLYx
Maximum
MTNCOc
Minimum
MTNFLYt
Minimum
flight
NEGPEN
r> ,
flight
company "c"
(hours);
th
I
interval for aircraft "x" (e.g., 0,1 0,30,..., 170) (penalty units
hour);
16
POSPEN
r>
th
i
hour); and
TAH
Decision Variables:
devnegx
,,
The
flight
devposT
,,
The
flight
is
below the
within the
DA goal line
interval (hours);
DA goal line
fly x
Flight hours for aircraft "x" during planning cycle (hours); and
x t>p
One
if aircraft
"x"
is
17
FORMULATION
Minimize the Objective Function...
X [POSPEN,
Subject
devpos ri + NEGPEN,
* devneg
Objective
to...
HTP
-JIy T
-^DAG p *x
HTP
-fly t
-^DAG
*x
<^Tdevpos Ti
Vr
Constraint #1
<^devneg zi
Vr
Constraint #2
tt
I *. =
I *,, =
V/>
V-c
Constraint #3
Constraint #4
Constraint #5
./Ty,
>
Vc
MHVCO
re AIRCRAFT. c
M
MINFLY
< cfevpos
/fr T
< INTERVAL
*,.,
Constraint #6
Vt
Vt,/'
Constraint #8
VxJ
Constraint #9
Vt,/>
{0,1}
18
Constraint #7
The
objective function
battalion's aircraft
different
from the
is
the
sum of the
DA goal line.
assigned to the 5
th
position and
is
0,
POSPEN25<2 =
interval.
flight
V/')
10,
POSPEN254; =
The
DA goal line.
Each
first
#254
is
interval allows
190.
aircraft x.
aircraft x.
aircraft
is
fills
is
exactly one aircraft. Constraint (5) ensures equitable flight hour allocation between the
flight
companies. Constraint (6) ensures that the sum of the individual aircraft flight
hours
is
within the upper and lower bounds of the battalion commander's goal of flight
hours within the planning cycle. Constraint (7) ensures that individual aircraft fly the
minimum
maximum
hours allowed or exceed the remaining flight hours until phase maintenance
Constraints (8) and (9)
interval.
19
is
flight
due.
B.
QFHAM FORMULATION
QFHAM's
below the
objective function
is
the
flight
hours above or
DA goal line,
-|2
Objective
= MirT^
HTP
-fty r
-^DAG,*x
ttl
A pre-
processing step fixes aircraft position based on current flight hours remaining until phase
(MTNFLY
With
t ).
flight
based on the
result,
1996) subtracts
MINFLY
from HTI\,
^Tjly T
>MNCO
Vc
Constraint #5
rzAIRCRAFTc
BFH
MINFLYt
QFHAM's
Constraint #6
objective function
is
Vr
Constraint #7.
the
constant
HTP
-^DAG p *x
This
Ttf
p
is
is
to be a global
form
minimum.
20
minimum,
it
is
Sherali,
and
guaranteed
COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS
IV.
real
perspective of the customer of the model (the aviation battalion) (DA, 1993).
MHz PC within 62
The
is
model
to
no more
continuous variable model. The run time for the Excel solver with
objective function
GAMS XA
(Brooke,
QFHAM' s
quadratic
upgrades for the Excel solver. The Premium Solver ($495) increases the variable
capacity to 800.
800 variables, but decreases solution time significantly and simplifies sparse matrices
input (only requires non-zero element input)(Frontline, 1998).
A.
flight
flown by a
nd
Battalion, 4
th
Aviation Regiment as
21
aircraft
this analysis
using
intensity missions.
their
home
station
when basing
out of
FHAM uses the allocated total monthly hours for the purpose of
planning cycles.
above (BFH
or below
BFH
often
percent.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
471 427 234 236 389 177 502 267 273 282 226 458
Table
The
initial
start
hours
A422
A427
A428
until
Aircraft
is
Hours
to
Phase
Aircraft
to
B401
254
494
298
200
441
A442
A446
A749
492
170
AO66
250
B084
Table
Hours
149
B430
B490
B593
B750
B843
B888
A431
398
2: Initial state
436
230
198
231
Shown are
Aircraft
Hours to Phase
C140
C163
C392
C432
C437
C495
C505
C600
12
aircraft
by company,
until
443
446
153
414
306
102
500
tail
B593 belongs
number, and
to
B Company
phase maintenance.
Validation Battalion
<r>
the
aircraft.
Phase
172
show
Initial
State
soo
(0
.c
Q_
400
300
200
V)
i_
3
O
100
X
Aircraft
Figure 4: Initial state of validation battalion on 15 January 1997. Notice that the initial state
shows very little adherence to the DA goal line. This is typical for Army helicopter battalions. Also note
that the sequencing of aircraft into phase is not steady-state (parallel to DA goal line). This can lead to a
22
FHAM fixes each aircraft's maximum monthly flight hours as the minimum of 30
or
its
flight
maintenance
in
28 hours, the
maximum
if
an
aircraft is
due phase
hours.
or
its
is
28
flight
FHAM analyzed each month based on the initial conditions of 15 January 1997,
and the
flight
month
show a comparison of
FHAM results and the actual hours flown by the battalion after five months.
23
SOO
400
300
<
200
100
^a. J
-x
-x
15 February 1997
ff
A
4
2
4
4
e
4
1
2
f
s
2
f
'W
>
a
a
i
i
4
t
a
4
500
-J
i^*-^
400
300
200
-T-w
*
^-IK. **.
15
March 1997
*<*^
100
*4L^*-
"
*>
_^J[
500
400
300
200
<
A
O
18
Iff)
a.
15 April 1997
.ijT
*-4L^ yr^
"*^4
100
^**
<^. ^_^
A
<
500
<
400
300
<
>
>
<
<
>
C
t
J"!
*
200
*00
"""JF?*^,,
15
May 1997
>
<
<
<
'
next month.
th
12
C
1
4
5
5: Shows the flow results of FHAM aircraft allocation on the validation battalion for
- May 15 th The end condition of each planning cycle becomes the initial condition for the
Figure
February 15
24
FHAM
</>
CO
a.
S2
3
O
Aircraft
Validation Battalion 15
June 1997
(/)
<o
Q.
+^
</)
3
O
14
4
6
Aircraft
Figure
7:
The
FHAM's
the
DA goal line.
resulting flow
The
actual data
for the
FHAM results.
25
is
now begins
to parallel
DA
An
into
essential
problem handled by
phase maintenance.
reporting
when
is that
(e.g., less
standard
FMC percentage.
MOE is increased.
maintenance on multiple
when
now
for phase
(NMC)
is
FMC,
making the
a vicious cycle
aircraft to
is
aircraft
maintenance
commander may
then
DA
delay bringing an
problem can
since fewer
aircraft
careers are
on the
DA standards in FMC.
This
is
line.
one
aircraft in
phase maintenance
at
OPTEMPO, there
is
no need
show how
shows
that aircraft
battalion.
#C505
higher as
OPTEMPO.
The annual
flight data
of the
1997.
1997.
The
actual phase
is
more than
for
May
26
the actual phase maintenance flow for the battalion in July 1997. Figure 9
their
shows what
FHAM.
Aircraft
Figure
8:
Shows the
FHAM
at
on 15 July 1997.
CCAACBBCBCCACABABBABBACA
5144344871 44444008485744
042493905634920684389432
507620000372581843183922
Aircraft
Figure
9:
Shows the phase maintenance flow based on FHAM allocation on 15 July 1997.
shown in Figure 8 above by adhering to the DA goal line.
27
FHAM
aircraft
A422
aircraft
500
additional
As
flight
make
9).
for a
in July 1997,
until
actually
phase maintenance grew during this time and the battalion was eventually required to
aircraft
available.
As
capabilities necessary.
software,
C.
without supporting
QFHAM,
The
results
t ).
same
for both
models (BFH,
28
after five
months
(as
QFHAM
of 15 June
97).
QFHAM
CBCAACCBBCACABABBABBACAC
47444440084857445
14
490249635349206843894320
000762300725816431839225
6
Aircraft
DA goal line.
Validation Battalion 15
June 1997
CBACABABCCCCAABBABBAACBC
144644471 344404048847455
494023456939260838424390
006070203275861418329235
Aircraft
Figure
l:The actual flow for the battalion as of 15 June 1997. Note the deviation of the
As with FHAM,
along the
DA goal line.
from the
DA goal line.
battalion,
29
QFHAM allocation
The
using
resulting flow
QFHAM (Figure
10)
is
chart, a result
close in
from
FHAM's
similar.
on the flow
results
of the two
is
very
scenarios.
Aircraft
5.00
5.00
11.46
15.19
22.16
25.89
30.00
30.00
9.81
13.04
30.00
30.00
B401
B430
B490
B593
B750
B843
B888
A066
6.94
11.07
B084
30.00
QFHAM FHAM
Aircraft
A422
A427
A428
A431
A442
A446
A749
30.00
5.00
5.00
24.03
6.92
0.00
0.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
9.68
13.40
Aircraft
QFHAM FHAM
C140
C163
C392
C432
C437
C495
C505
C600
5.00
5.00
30.00
30.00
7.29
5.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
5.00
5.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
Table 3: Comparison of FHAM and QFHAM results from validation battalion's planning cycle of
15 Jan 97 - 15 Feb 97. Note that both models yield similar allocation results. Both models started
with identical initial conditions.
QFHAM FHAM
Aircraft
A422
A427
A428
A431
A442
A446
A749
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
20.86
18.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
B401
B430
B490
B593
B750
B843
B888
5.00
B084
30.00
30.00
5.00
5.00
AO66
Table
5.00
4: Comparison
15 April 97
this case
15
of
May 97.
used the
is
the
QFHAM FHAM
Aircraft
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
8.95
30.00
12.86
13.90
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
9.10
QFHAM FHAM
C140
C163
C392
C432
C437
C495
C505
C600
0.00
2.10
22.38
13.43
5.00
5.00
14.99
8.55
15.12
5.00
5.00
5.00
8.85
11.66
30.00
27.26
that both
results.
Both models
in
Aircraft
same
Both models
30
some
cases, the
of a
D.
UH-60
detachment
aircraft
(five
The 2
battalion.
UH-60' s)
nd
is
Battalion of the
st
The
five
were
200
flight
The
battalion
at the time, so
commander predicted
minimum
flight
months
later.
hour requirement of 20
hours per month for the five aircraft deploying to Bosnia. The battalion commander
tasked the non-deploying aircraft to fly a normal training
OPTEMPO.
Figure 12 shows
31
Contingency Battalion
Initial
State
CAACCBBCACABABBABBACACCB
6443147444440084857*451*
024963534920684389432049
076230072581643183922500
Aircraft
Figure 12:Initial status of Contingency Battalion's aircraft on 20 December 1995 prior to
deployment to Bosnia.
The
The
aircraft
chosen for the deployment are C600, A446, C437, A066, and B843.
is
given
in
Table
425 hours
440 hours
425 hours
BFH
first
three
5.
operations in Bosnia.
aircraft flight
Flight
planned a
minimum
OPTEMPO
aircraft
flight
hour allocation
is difficult.
In this actual
company commanders
this,
at all.
32
This scenario
aircraft
flow
is
after three
easily handled
by
QFHAM.
is
shown
500
as
that aircraft
flight
JZ
Q.
(0
3
o
ACBBCAABB
414744444
463534920
630072581
QFHAM
Figure 13:The resultant aircraft flow after three months of contingency operation using
DA
it
The
it
aircraft
5 minutes.
would
shift
operation case,
state
The
a battalion as
analysis required for each planning cycle takes the battalion maintenance
where
state for
it
is
parallel to the
DA Goal line.
mid
Based on hour
14).
is
exactly
allocation,
up towards the
months
Even
in a
contingency
is
QFHAM
only three months of use under contingency operations. In actuality, the Contingency
33
Aircraft
aircraft
QFHAM would have made a great difference in the overall deployability of the battalion.
500
CBACCACBBCAABBAABABBACAC
1446341474444*0084857445
492094635349208843894320
00702630072581463183922S
i
Aircraft
Figure 14: The resultant flow after three months of contingency operations using
allocation, with aircraft
E.
capabilities
and
allocation.
flexibility
flight
hour
allocation.
QFHAM,
Excel,
still
flight data
meets
to
meet variable
limits within
34
QFHAM.
most problems
V.
battalions a decision support system that provides an optimal flight hour allocation. It
recommended
Army
that
is
new
software.
The
flight
hour
allocation planning process that previously has either been ignored or estimated using
is
easily handled
by
QFHAM.
QFHAM prevents phase maintenance backlog and provides a fixed number of aircraft
available for deployment.
reactive
A.
micro-management
to proactive
management
at the flight
company
level.
READINESS IMPROVEMENT
This thesis addresses U.S.
Army Helicopter
Although an
it
is
a valid
MOE for a
performance
historic
What
The
effects
on deployability of an achieved
maintenance vary depending on the battalion's actual flow. The historic case study
gives an example of the negative effects of failing to maintain
offered in Chapter
steady-state flow.
The
operations in Bosnia (Figure 15) given the deployment criteria of 75 aircraft hours
35
Had the
Historic
aircraft
non-deployable.
o
(/)
500
(0
.C
Q.
400
O
W
i_
300
*-
200
100
_J
Aircraft Tail
Number
Figure 15:Historic case study's battalion phase maintenance flow upon receipt of orders to deploy
to
Bosnia
Note
aircraft hours
that nine
of 24
aircraft fail to
less
than 75
QFHAM Allocated
Battalion
Aircraft Tail
Figure 16: Approximation of
Flow
Number
would have
failed to
ceiling.
In this scenario,
vs.
62.5%). For long-range maintenance planning, steady-state flow of aircraft into phase
maintenance offers the highest deployability possibilities for a battalion. With advance
warning of deployment, battalions can adjust
flight
36
aircraft
above
planned deployment
criteria.
RECOMMENDATIONS
B.
The Army's
to effective
Army
looks at
(DOD), 1982).
DOD defines reliability as the probability that an item performs its intended
function for a specified interval under stated conditions
is
(DOD,
retained
in,
1982).
DOD defines
or restored to a specified
condition within a given period if prescribed procedures and resources are used
(DOD,
1982).
The
when
the mission
is
is in
called for at a
random
point in time
(DOD,
at
1982).
A helicopter
earlier,
may be FMC,
but
an
it
aircraft
is
with
not
available.
37
as an additional helicopter
deployability.
UH-60 Blackhawk
battalion
is
shown
in
Table
An example
for a
6.
DA
Standard
21
21
21
20
19
18
6: Sample report from a battalion with a good aircraft phase maintenance flow. The first
column shows the reported hour level. The second column shows the number of aircraft this
battalion has above that hour level. The third column is the DA standard. In each reportable
category, this battalion exceeds the DA standard, meaning this battalion does not have a phase
Table
maintenance backlog.
shown
in
Table
25
50
75
Table
as
7.
the
7: Sample
Standard
21
18
20
15
18
report from the historic case study battalion Note that the battalion failed to meet
deployability
DA
20
problem
exists.
This report would alleviate the problem with phase maintenance backlog. The
If there
is
just
one report
is
at the
to discourage
25 hour
level, the
backlog up to 25 hours instead of at zero hours. This tiered reporting alleviates the phase
hour
levels,
five
state
at
higher
is
Army
OPTEMPO
of 15 hours (per
analysis,
aircraft,
flow within five months. Battalions with aircraft requiring phase maintenance every
38
levels.
accomplish
this
by not reporting
aircraft in
between
FMC rates
aircraft.
FMC MOE.
The 30 day
C.
initial
limit
would ensure
30 days,
their
With these
QFHAM IMPLEMENTATION
QFHAM is a valuable for a helicopter battalion.
The
initial
QFHAM set-up is
simple and should require a battalion less than an hour. All procedures are
button driven using Visual Basic macros. The output provides flight
commanders a
commander
command
company
The
battalion
company commanders
The monthly
less than 15
The
flight
flight
if
hour allocation planning process that previously has either been ignored or
now
easily be
accomplished with
an automated process.
The bottom
line:
deployability.
39
40
LIST OF
Bargeron,
J.
REFERENCES
Inc.,
DC,
1993.
Users Guide,
GAMS Development
1996.
Brown, G. G, Clemence, R. D., Teufert, W. R., and Wood, RK., An Optimization Model
for Modernizing the Army's Helicopter Fleet, Interfaces 21, pp. 39-52, July- August 1991.
Department of the Army,
Government Printing
TM 55-1920-1342-10,
Office,
Department of the Army, Functional Users Manual for the Army Maintenance
Management System, DA Pamphlet 738-751, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington DC, 15 June 1992.
Department of the Army, Verification, Validation, and Accreditation ofArmy Models and
Simulations, Pamphlet 5-11, Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1993.
Department of the Army, Army Aviation Maintenance, Field Manual 1-500, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 27 January 1995.
Department of the Army,
Government Printing
TM 55-1920-1348-10,
Office,
U.S.
WA,
1996.
and Services,
1998.
41
Available: HTTPAYvvww.frontsys.com,
Jackson, P. (Ed.), Janes: All the World's Aircraft, 1997-1998, Sentinel House, Surrey,
UK,
1997.
Robinson,
J.,
Sgaslik, A.,
The Future
is
Que
Now, Army
42
No. Copies
Defense Technical Information Center
8725 John J. Kingman Rd., Ste 0944
Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-62 18
Code OR/De
J.
Moore
Room 3 A5 3 8
400 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-0400
5.
CPT Bradley W.
508 E. 27
th
Pippin
Ave
Belton,TX 76513
6.
Commander
4
Fort Hood,
TX 76530
43
H&10
10/99 22527-20