The Department of Defense (DoD maintains a core logistics capability that is government-owned and government-operated. Each military department owns and operates organic industrial facilities to maintain, repair and overhaul equipment. These facilities collectively referred to as the organic industrial base (OIB), consists of depots and shipyards that perform depot-level maintenance and repair. Section 2476 Title 10, United States Code, stipulates investment in the “capital budgets of the covered depots of that military department a total amount equal to not less than six percent of the average…workload at all the depots of that military department for the preceding three fiscal years.” This directive, executed as the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), was established to ensure the departments reinvest in facilities and equipment. This forum will examine OIB infrastructure modernization – how are we identifying, planning, funding and implementing physical plant and facilities for future maintenance? Discussions will include the CIP process and its’ role in getting equipment and facilities, facility improvement efforts to prevent downtime, and facility layout optimization.
1300-1309: Welcome and Overview – Greg Kilchenstein (OSD-MPP)
1309-1310: Administrative Notes – Debbie Lilu (NCMS)
1310-1340: “Smart Factory” Automated Component Shop (Bldg 9001) – Christian Olivero (Tinker AFB)
1340-1405: Data Driven Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems for the Aircraft Maintenance Environment – Joshua Campbell, (562 AMXS, WR-ALC) & James Hill, Aging Aircraft Consulting LLCAging Aircraft Consulting)
1405-1430: Shipyard recapitalization and renewal – Steve Lagana – (NAVSEA)
1430-1455: Mechanized Materiel Handling at WPAFB – Brad Thompson (WPAFB)
Event: On 31 July 2018, the Joint Technology Exchange Group (JTEG), in coordination with the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS), hosted a virtual forum on “Facilities”.
Purpose: The purpose of this forum was to examine OIB infrastructure modernization – how are we identifying, planning, funding and implementing physical plant and facilities for future maintenance – and highlight a few facility improvement efforts to prevent down time, and facility layout optimization.
Welcome: Greg Kilchenstein – OSD(MPP) welcomed everyone to the forum, thanked the presenters and all the listeners for their attendance, and briefly previewed the agenda.
Administrative: This was an open forum. The presentations, along with questions and answers, were conducted through Adobe Connect. A separate audio line was used. Approximately 40 participants from across DOD and industry joined in the forum.
Smart Factory Automated Component Shop – Kristian Olivero (Tinker AFB) provided an overview of Building 9001 at Tinker AFB which started as a General Motors automotive plant. Through community support, Tinker has leased 3.8M square feet of production facilities in the building, which now houses 1,844 employees in shops including the KC-135 Boom, B-1 Stabilizer Repair, F-101 and F-110/118 Engine, KC-46 Software Integration Facility and Pacer Comet IV. The building can track energy consumption rates and has an intelligent reduction effort capability. Access to the building is open to government, industry, academia and the public.
Data Driven Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems (RMS) for the Aircraft Maintenance Environment – James Hill (Aging Aircraft Consulting LLC Aging Aircraft Consulting) provided a brief on the RMS model, which is a decision support tool that lowers the cost and time required to make predictions about the future state of the manufacturing machine. They are developing an RMS model to adapt to the maintenance environment at the Air Force ALCs, specifically WR-ALC. The purpose of the model is to 1) increase manufacturing agility to product changes, 2) change capacity to meet demand, and 3) responsive to changing conditions. The vision is a decision support tool connecting material & resource needs of AMXG, and the ALC enterprise the ability to assess tradeoffs between maintenance groups to optimize overall cost, schedule and throughput.
Shipyard Recapitalization and Renewal – Steve Lagana (NAVSEA) provided an overview of Navy shipyard infrastructure optimization. He stated that Phase I analysis provided 7% savings in reducing wasted movement of personnel and material, and that at PSNS & IMF 70% of personnel movement is related to material movement. A Report to Congress has been well received and all levels of Navy leadership support the Shipyard the Nation Needs. Shipyard Optimization PMS 555 is being staffed by NAVSEA, CNIC, and NAVFAC. Phase II will be industrial analysis through modeling and simulation.
Mechanized Materiels Handling System (MMHS) at WPAFB – Brad Thompson (WPAFB) described how the AFLCMC provides materials handling engineering services to Air Force logistics functions worldwide to deliver more efficient and more effective storage and movement of Air Force assets. He described numerous types of MMHS to include consolidated took kits, cranes systems (bridge, gantry, etc.), mezzanines, pallet racking, vertical carousels, modular cabinets, and mobile or narrow isle systems. MMHS benefits include modernizing and equipping facilities, reducing facility footprints, increasing the flow of materials and efficiency, improving safety and customer service, and reducing operating costs and material damage.
Q&A – A Q&A occurred after each briefer finished their presentation. Questions and answers will be posted on the JTEG website with these minutes.
Closing Comments: Greg Kilchenstein thanked the presenters for their contributions and the audience for their participation. He suggested continuing the information exchange beyond the forum and the importance of collaboration within the DoD maintenance community.
- Once the briefings are cleared for “public release”, they will be posted on the JTEG website at http://jteg.ncms.org/ .
Next JTEG Meeting: The next scheduled JTEG virtual forum is 28 August, 1:00 – 3:00 pm EST. The topic is “Corrosion”.
POC this action is Ray Langlais, firstname.lastname@example.org , (571) 633-8019
“Smart Factory” Automated Component Shop (Bldg 9001) – Kristian Olivero (Tinker AFB)
Q1. How did OKC justify the cost and effort required to bring bldg 9001 into the fence line? How is ROI calculated and what was the capacity requirement argument?
A1. Demolition of legacy facilities at Tinker AFB, restrictions to operate in existing buildings, but still needed capability. The community shouldered a lot of the cost. Also, it occurred during the time of the depot reformation/transformation. We performed a capacity calculation and used the standard DoD format. We did not compute ROI because our costs were only $5 for a 5 year lease.
Q2. What was the impetus behind the smart factory?
A2. Just deploying smart factory capabilities. Today energy costs are tracked and an intelligent reduction effort is implemented. It is more cost effective to sustain equipment.
Q3. Do you have online capabilities?
A2. We are building the “Tinkernet” and adding sensors. Currently the data is collected manually.
Q4. Does this facility include innovation space for such things as Additive mfg that can be used by startups, universities, small businesses etc. in the local area?
A3. The first model was a DoD model for DoD to leverage the facility. The second model would be having small to med companies and academia leverage the facility. Anyone can use our facility…there is a huge demand. We are working the demand and partnering with academia and business. It has been difficult writing the contracts for the second model. It takes too long to get on contract.
Data Driven Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems for the Aircraft Maintenance Environment – James Hill, Aging Aircraft Consulting LLC Aging Aircraft Consulting)
Q1. How long did it take to develop your simulation model and what kind of data did you collect?
A1. We started collecting data in Oct 2017 and building the simulation model in Feb 2018. It does not take long to build. The longest portion of time is waiting for the data and input analysis.
Q2. What AF systems are providing data to the models?
A2. Originally DDMSS at the major job level, but we found the data unreliable. Now we use single page status sheets, which are commonly used to manage by the Air Force.
Q3. Could empirical data provided by the “smart factory” be input into the manufacturing model to continuously monitor performance to plan and continuous process improvement?
A3. Absolutely. We definitely want a feedback loop to help improve the model.
Q4. Is the optimization algorithm done? Can it be used in other industrial processes other than paint and re-paint?
A4. We are not finished yet. Yes, it could be used for other processes.
Shipyard Recapitalization and Renewal – Steve Lagana – (NAVSEA)
Q1. Is Navy depending on Congressional Adds to meet the investment requirements above and beyond historical NSY investment?
A1. Yes and No. We ask for top line relief, and received an emphatic “No”. We are looking for plus-ups.
Q2. What is the plan to assess what technology will be included in the modernization plan going forward?
A2. We are looking for what private shipyards are doing. AM is almost a requirement for us.
Q3. What level of consultation/input have you requested/received from private shipyard industry, both DOD and non-DOD?
A3. We have just started reaching out so we have requested any consulting other than the initial discussions to see if there are opportunities for further consultations. We are focusing only in CONUS right now until we have a firmer requirement to start exploring OCONUS.
Q5. Who are best in class commercial yards that could serve as benchmarks?
A5. I do not think I could classify anyone as being the “best”. Each part of the industrial base has characteristics that have a direct correlation to what we are trying to achieve. Our mission is to take all of the information we gather and apply only those best practices that support our portfolio to our plan.
Q6. If you automate material movement, does that solve 70% of your cost issue?
A6. I do not believe that is a one for one trade off. What it will do, is free up personnel to conduct more “work” during those times they would otherwise be moving material. This would increase the capacity of the workforce to conduct depot level work in a given timeframe.
Q7. Were any studies done for the ship repair facilities, such as Yokosuka? Or will it be included?
A7. Only shipyard “proper” locations were evaluated in Phase I. Shipyard detachments and other maintenance facilities will be evaluated in the future (FY20 target) to apply all principals and lessons learned from the shipyard “proper” locations.
Q8. Have you considered the impact on existing workload? Since Puget and Norfolk are the CVN yards, and Pearl & Portsmouth are submarine yards, will the workload be reduced 50% during this upgrade?
A8. No workload will be reduced while we execute this plan!!!! We will impact ongoing operations but we have to reduce that impact as much as we can. Analogy: In Washington DC the “mixing bowl” is a major thoroughfare and was constructed while managing the traffic patterns in such a way, minimal disruption was experienced by the commuters. Dry Docks are easy; when no work is scheduled in a dry dock we will schedule the upgrades for the dock and neighboring areas to occur during that time. Other considerations we are evaluating are: construction only during non-working hours (third shift and/or weekends) and 3 shift construction to reduce the time the impacts are felt. We will work those strategies out when we are finished with the Phase II analysis.
Q9. What is the timeframe needed to execute the $21B investment and plan?
A9. We submitted to congress a 20-year plan. We can take as long as needed but 20 years is the most aggressive schedule that can be executed (in our opinion) top maximize the production efficiency returns. The longer this drags out we essentially eat away at any of the returns in the early years. I will also add, that the last time the Navy executed this level of investment in the shipyards was during the WWII build up. This plan would be a 100-year multi-generation investment for the Navy and thus why we are focusing on innovative ways to scope the investments accurately (modeling and simulation) and reducing the burden of the infrastructure for the future unknown Navy (flexible and re-configurable infrastructure)
Mechanized Materiel Handling at WPAFB – Brad Thompson (WPAFB)
Comment: A common theme of all 4 briefers is “Synergy”. It requires partnerships and cooperation to achieve the results and success discussed in the briefs.