MPP banner
Air Force Two Level MaintenanceTitle

ISSUE: (U) Convert Air Force aircraft maintenance for avionics and engines to two Levels of Maintenance (2LM) from the current Three Levels of Maintenance by using modern communications, computer controls and transportation systems to rapidly move unserviceable parts through the repair processes. This conversion results in significant reductions of people, facilities, equipment and spare parts associated with the Intermediate Maintenance shops at "unit" level. Maintenance previously done by the Intermediate level will now be done either on the Flightline or in Depot repair shops.

BACKGROUND: (U) SECAF-directed study of 2LM began in March 1992, driven by fiscal constraints in FY94 and beyond. The 2LM study had no pre-determined force reductions or mandated savings. Rather, the goal was to see if there were less expensive ways to support Air Force aircraft while sustaining readiness. The study looked at implementing 2LM where it made economical and readiness sense and focused on costs, savings and impacts.

SECAF and AF/CC decided in July 1992 to proceed with 2LM implementation planning for the majority of weapon systems. Ground rules included no additional money for spare parts, and two depot sources of repair for each avionics and engine line replaceable unit (LRU) or commodity.

In December 1992, the Air Force initiated 2LM program became an approved Defense Management Review Decision, DMRD 983. Implementation planning continues for full conversion to 2LM beginning October 1, 1993. Weapon System conversions will occur on an aggressive phase-in schedule throughout the FY94-99 Defense Planning Cycle. DMRD 983 cumulative savings to the Air Force and DOD through FY99 are estimated to be $384.9M.

RESOURCES: (U)

    Dollars (Millions)
    FY94
    FY95
    FY 96
    FY97
    FY98
    FY99
    EQUIPMENT
    (35.7)
    (35.8)
    (34.4)
    (31.0)
    (30.5)
    (33.8)
    MILPERS AF
    31.6
    19.1
    (49.6)
    (71.7)
    (81.6)
    (90.7)
    O&M AF
    55.0
    38.6
    (13.4)
    (48.3)
    (45.7)
    (64.5)
    MILPERS AFR
    (0.6)
    (2.0)
    (4.4)
    (6.4)
    (6.8)
    (7.2)
    O&M AFR
    (0.5)
    9.6
    16.5
    20.2
    20.1
    27.8
    MILPERS ANG
    0.0
    0.0
    (3.0)
    (6.1)
    (6.5)
    (6.9)
    O&M ANG
    (8.2)
    1.4
    23.0
    25.7
    26.7
    25.5
    TOTAL
    41.60
    30.90
    (65.30)
    (117.60)
    (124.30)
    (149.80)

    Manpower (# of People)
    FY94
    FY95
    FY 96
    FY97
    FY98
    FY99
    AF MIL
    (937)
    (1019)
    (1837)
    119
    (133)
    74
    ANG MIL
    0
    0
    (1083)
    (2)
    (80)
    (0)
    AFR MIL
    (190)
    (179)
    (445)
    (19)
    (39)
    (0)
    MIL TOTAL
    (1127)
    (1198)
    (3365)
    98
    (252)
    (74)
    MIL CUM
    (1127)
    (2325)
    (5690)
    (5592)
    (5844)
    (5770)
    AF CIV (DMIF)
    172
    188
    235
    50
    30
    0
    ANG CIV
    0
    0
    (555)
    (2)
    (47)
    0
    AFR CIV
    (41)
    (42)
    (87)
    (6)
    (13)
    0
    CIV TOTAL
    131
    146
    (407)
    42
    (30)
    0
    CIV CUM
    131
    277
    (130)
    (88)
    (118)
    (118)
    TOTAL
    (996)
    (1052)
    (3772)
    140
    (282)
    74
    TOTAL CUM
    (996)
    (2048)
    (5820)
    (5680)
    (5962)
    (5888)

ISSUES & OPTIONS: (U) The primary issue for 2LM is that depot repair becomes tied directly to our Air Force flightline and unit sortie generation capabilities. This makes Air Force management of the depots absolutely critical to thereadiness of our weapon systems on a daily basis. Should a decision be made to restructure management and control of the Air Force depots into a "Defense Depot Maintenance Agency" under OSD control, the 2LM savings under DMRD 983 would be lost, and the Air Force would discontinue 2LM implementation and revert to Three Levels of Maintenance.


ISSUES & OPTIONS: (U) The primary issue for 2LM is that depot repair becomes tied directly to our Air Force flightline and unit sortie generation capabilities. This makes Air Force management of the depots absolutely critical to thereadiness of our weapon systems on a daily basis. Should a decision be made to restructure management and control of the Air Force depots into a "Defense Depot Maintenance Agency" under OSD control, the 2LM savings under DMRD 983 would be lost, and the Air Force would discontinue 2LM implementation and revert to Three Levels of Maintenance.

The second significant issue is funding for Depot Level Reparables (DLR). Under the current Three Level Maintenance system, units do not "pay" the Defense Business Operating Fund (DBOF) for those avionics and engine parts repaired in the Intermediate maintenance shops. However, the Air Force bottom line costs for keeping people, equipment, and repair parts at each unit are significant and must be reduced. By moving repair of these avionics and engine repair parts to depot shops, savings are accumulated as unit-level people and equipment are reduced. However, unit budgets must be adjusted for the increased requirement to spend DLR for 2LM parts repaired in the depots under the DBOF. The FY 93 budget is short approximately $425.9M in the DLR accounts. FY 94 DLR shortfalls have not been determined pending development of the Air Force financial plans. Sufficient DLR funding is essential to the success of 2LM.

The third issue for 2LM is that OSD(P&L) continues to question the validity of the 2LM concept. OSD's concern is that readiness will degrade as we begin to repair avionics and engine components at depots which are located varying distances from the operating units. OSD is not convinced that the Air Force can use modern businesss practices to increase the velocity of parts through repair. OSD is also concerned that the Air Force has not done sufficient "testing" of the 2LM concept, even though testing of 2LM avionics to date has resulted in significant reductions in the movement of reparable parts through the repair cycle.

Congressional interest has been minimal to date, but recent requests for 2LM information have come from the House Appropriations Sub-Committee.

(U) Implementation of 2LM continues for F-16 avionics and began for jet engines April, 1 1993.

MAJCOMS developed Program Plans (PPLANS) for each weapon system to accomplish the implementation plans.

Phased implementation of 2LM began October 1, 1993.

Security Statement | Send your Comments to the Webspinner | This site is hosted by ACQWEB | Site Map | Accessibility/Section 508
Army | Navy | Air Force | Marines | Joint Chiefs | TRANSCOM | DoD
 
SCI home page RM home page DLA home page L&MR home page PS home page