How EA-6B Sailors Can Advance Careers
By Lieutenant Commanders John W. D. Kurtz and Adam Carlstrom, U.S. Navy
A recent change in EA-6B Prowler junior officer detailing has created a unique opportunity for enlisted Sailors. By simply realigning the existing billets within a Navy Prowler squadron, leaders can create a cadre of loyal, empowered Sailors to lead the electronic attack community into the future.
In the past year, the Navy has begun assigning each Prowler squadron a senior JO training officer (TO) to oversee squadron standardization and tactical readiness. Such a billet is not unprecedented; it exists in other naval aviation communities, but is only now becoming standard within the electronic attack squadrons. The structure has advantages up and down the chain of command, as a JO with top-notch qualifications has credibility with the newest aviators while not appearing to be part of the "political" squadron leadership, and commanding officers gain an expert dedicated to enhancing squadron readiness and air crew tactical capabilities.
But such a role already exists in Prowler squadrons. Traditionally, the department-head electronic warfare officer acted as the primary officer for maintaining air crew tactical qualifications and updates. The addition of the training officer creates a duplication of responsibilities. In our opinion, the best way to handle this situation is to place all tactical readiness responsibilities under the TO and align the TO under the Operations Department.
Such realignment creates a shortened planning cycle, with all air crew training prioritized and scheduled within one department. (For a more detailed discussion on Prowler training officer integration and alignment, see the spring 2007 issue of Electronic Attack News, www.eaws.navy.smil.mil.) With a bit of unique thinking, it also creates an opportunity for squadrons to enhance their Sailors' careers by using the expertise of the newly unemployed department head.
The squadron's existing educational services officer and command career counselor could be aligned under the now jobless department head, thereby forming the Professional Development Department (PDD). The PDD would act as the command's one-stop shop for professional and personal education, training, and advancement expertise.
Such a structure goes a long way toward fulfilling the number one directive as set forth in the 2006 Department of Navy Objectives, signed by the CNO, Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Secretary of the Navy: "Execute the Department of Navy strategy to optimize the workforce with emphasis on attracting and retaining the proper mix of high quality people" (DON message DTG 08FEB2006).
The PDD's short term goal is to develop, schedule, and administer advancement exam preparation courses within the squadron. Using experts within each rate and experienced senior enlisted members, the PDD builds syllabi, solicits volunteer instructors, and schedules classes around squadron working hours and operational commitments. Imagine a Basic Military Requirements refresher for third class petty officers, taught by a front-running E-5 and a respected CPO.
Developing Professionally
The squadron benefits on both sides of the podium. The students learn from successful role models, while instructors refine their leadership and instruction techniques. Advancement exam courses must be the first product, as advancement equals more money and responsibility. With success creating demand, the PDD attracts sufficient students and instructors.
As the PDD becomes established, it standardizes all manner of training and professional development within the squadron, removing most ancillary training requirements of the work centers and allowing them to focus on rate-specific training. This may include general military training and chain of command-mandated training, and professional development boards can track progress and plan career strategies. All work-center instructors receive standardized teaching materials from the PDD, thereby ensuring that the CO gets the same high level of training to each Sailor.
The PDD's services are not solely for the deck plate Sailors, but for the ready room also. Officers with different experiences can brief preparing records for screen boards, the responsibilities of different strike group watch stations, or the intricacies of air tasking order preparation. The goal is a well-rounded ready room, with awareness beyond the tactical.
Loyalty Down and Up the Chain
The PDD system is meant to advance and educate the Sailor, producing a more skilled individual and eventually a squadron leader. The second-order effects can be even more important, as the PDD demonstrates the command's loyalty to its Sailors. A senior officer is dedicated to their advancement and development-in turn, it is hoped, loyalty is returned back up the chain of command. A Sailor who knows leadership is on his side is more likely to be on leadership's.
Once loyalty is established, then word spreads. Front-running Sailors request orders to the squadron to boost their advancement, and other commands request the squadron's Sailors because of the quality person being produced. The precise outcome is impossible to gauge, but a feeling of ownership up and down the chain of command-the intended goal of the PDD concept-is sure to improve performance at all levels.
Three entities must buy into the Professional Development Officer concept for it to succeed. First, commanding officers must undertake a realignment of the traditional squadron structure and ensure proper prioritizing of resources, such as time for classes and people to participate. Second, command master chiefs must pass to the PDD their oversight of the Professional Development Boards and other enlisted training. This will free the command master chiefs to focus on quality of life issues and individual Sailor mentoring. But the CMCs will still be senior enlisted members of the Professional Development Boards for individual Sailors, as well as acting as advisers and mentors for Sailors plotting careers or personal paths, much like COs and XOs for officers.
Finally, Sailors themselves must buy into the concept. Classes shouldn't be designed to pull them up; instead, they should be designed to provide the opportunity for Sailors to pull themselves up. Advancement classes should be scheduled outside of working hours, but be readily available, providing a review of material, sample questions, and chances to clear up confusion.
The Prowler community is on the verge of major changes in airframe that will affect manning, but for now, squadrons are going to find themselves with overlapping billets. This presents a choice: continue the way it's always been done, or take this opportunity to create a community of educated, motivated, loyal Sailors using existing personnel. The EA-6B community should choose progress, and create Sailors who will lead it into the future.
Lieutenant Commander Kurtz is tactics officer in VAQ-136. He previously served as strike operations officer for Carrier Air Wing 11, and as an air wing instructor at the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, NAS Fallon, Nev.
Lieutenant Commander Carlstrom is a department head in VAQ-140. Previously he served as training officer/Prowler tactics instructor in VAQ-132, and at the Electronic Attack Weapons School at NAS Whidbey Island, Wash.
Computerizing Aircraft Maintenance
By Lieutenant Commander Wade Townsend, U.S. Navy (Retired)
The heat is on to reduce sustainment costs in an environment of declining resources. The aviation fleets of the U.S. Departments of Defense and Homeland Security are being modernized, but the costs associated with legacy fleets will continue to drive the sustainment equation for years to come. Condition-based maintenance is a technology solution that proposes to change the maintenance and logistics paradigm under which the armed services have labored for the past 25 years, or longer. But how will it be achieved, and what are the strategic implications for aviation logistics?
The Joint Aeronautical Logistics Commanders recently evaluated a proposed strategy (known as component mapping, CMAP) for planning and achieving condition-based maintenance.1 At the heart of this strategy is an analytical process, based on reliability-centered maintenance (RCM), that determines which component failure modes can be monitored by sensors or other devices.
CMAP promises to bring focus and structure to a technically complex endeavor, and to inform investment decisions. The capabilities of aircraft condition-based maintenance (CBM) will evolve in relation to baseline and end-state configurations of the sensor suite. Condition-based strategies are determined by the sensor's ability sensor to detect a specific failure mode, or to monitor usage, and are usually associated with individual aircraft components or sub-components.
The end-state configuration of the sensor suite is, therefore, defined by numerous sensor-failure mode relationships, which can be individually evaluated and managed according to return on investment.
The CBM End State: CBM+
As its name implies, CBM is based on evidence of need. Maintenance is conducted only when diagnostic or prognostic indications of actual or incipient failure are evident. It is a preemptive approach that allows maintenance managers to plan for a scheduled event rather than react to an unscheduled one.
Traditionally, engineers have relied on preventive maintenance tasks (visual inspection, non-destructive inspection, and vibration analysis) to detect failures and mitigate engineering risk for some failure modes. At the component level, CBM substitutes technology and diagnostic or prognostic algorithms for those preventive maintenance tasks.
The technology used might be the familiar sensor technology found in current-generation Health and Usage Monitoring Systems (HUMS), or it could be passive technology such as the SR-2 Fatigue Gauge being developed by Northrop Grumman, lead contractor for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's Structural Integrity Prognosis Systems.2 Passive technology may be the breakthrough needed for structural monitoring-without the attendant costs associated with conventional sensors and data collection.
At the logistics enterprise system level, where the aggregate requirements (replacement components) for the aviation fleets of the armed services constitute an enormous "logistics footprint," the implications are staggering. Onboard technology and embedded prognostic algorithms, which enable true demand-based forecasting of these requirements, promise to significantly reduce this footprint while facilitating readiness with just-in-time delivery of parts. This proactive, anticipatory environment is the end-state vision of CBM, called CBM+ in the DOD logistics community. Unfortunately, the vision and reality don't coincide.
To realize the end-state vision of CBM+, a structured methodology (CMAP) is required. This will determine whether or not CBM can be achieved for targeted components, and will allow for fiscal and strategic planning.
How CMAP Delivers CBM+
In theory and practice, a preventive maintenance task exists to mitigate a risk, the engineering failure mode. CMAP exploits that relationship to eliminate preventive maintenance (PM) tasks. It uses RCM and sensor information to map relationships between sensors and failure modes. When completed, a reference baseline is created against which the CBM end state can be defined.
The relevant relationships are depicted in a thread (e.g., C^sub 1^-F^sub 6^-FF^sub B^-FM^sub 1^-PM^sub x^). Thread analysis examines the specific engineering failure mode in relation to the detection method, to determine the feasibility of condition monitoring. The engineering failure mode (fractured inboard retention plate [fatigue], designated FM^sub 1^) can be detected by a sensor (S^sub 2^) that monitors vibration thresholds. The associated PM task (torque check on inboard retention plate bolts, designated PMx) can, therefore, be eliminated when the sensor is installed (e.g., C^sub 1^-F^sub 6^-FF^sub B^-FM^sub 1^-S^sub 2^).
A more accurate, direct method of detection thus replaces an indirect one. In this instance, a multipurpose sensor (S^sub 2^) also replaces one nearby (S^sub 1^, installed for tail rotor blade balancing), an important efficiency for the space and weight constraints of onboard HUMS. Finally, 16 maintenance man hours are eliminated-a huge savings when multiplied across the fleet. Maintenance man hours are the primary screening criteria for thread analysis. In addition to reducing the logistics footprint, reducing the maintenance burden is a key reason for implementing CBM.
Like any aircraft system, the risks associated with sensors, onboard processors, or system software must be addressed during design and qualification. CMAP assumes qualified, airworthy systems with at least a baseline (design) RCM analysis.
After technical feasibility has been established by the engineering airworthiness authority, the proposed monitoring solution is evaluated for return on investment (ROI) by the platform program manager. Thread analysis iteratively suggests other components to monitor, and ROI confirms the choice.
Monitoring solutions are developed for the entire aircraft, by system. Ranked according to ROI, the highest-priority component candidates for condition monitoring are packaged for incremental fielding, as in block upgrades. When measured against the baseline, platform CBM configuration end states can now be defined and planned for incorporation.
Mapping an entire aircraft may seem like a daunting and expensive proposition, but the process is bounded by the ROI and thread-analysis selection criteria. More important, the process uses existing RCM and sensor data, and can be iterated when new information or technology is available. When integrated with the RCM process, CMAP represents an affordable opportunity to strategically examine fleet aircraft.
Realistic Future Expectations
As future technology evolves under the continued pressure of diminishing resources, CBM will eventually prevail. CMAP provides the strategic assurance to define the road ahead and measure incremental progress toward an end state where CBM will become the pervasive reality of DOD logistics and maintenance.
In the short term, current technology can be an effective hedge against the sustainment costs of legacy fleets. In the longer term, CBM will ride the technology curve into a more affordable reality. CMAP is a means to that end, and CBM, once implemented, will reduce the logistics footprint and the maintenance burden, delivering more affordable sustainment in the near future.
1. The JALC are chartered to develop and improve joint aeronautical logistics processes and procedures. The chairmanship rotates between the services and is currently held by MG James R. Myles, USA, Commander, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command. Previous chairmen include MG James H. Pillsbury, USA, former Commander, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command; and VADM Walter B. Massenburg, USN, former Commander, Naval Air Systems Command.
2. W. F. Ranson, J. Nardiello, et al., "Crack Detection and Monitoring Crack Growth in Fastener Holes Using the DMI Optical SR-2 Strain Measurement Technology," paper presented as part of pre-conference course given at SEM Annual Conference and Exposition on Experimental and Applied Mechanics, Sheraton Springfield Monarch Place hotel, Springfield, Mass., 3 June 2007. Link to paper through www.directmeasure.com.
Llieutenant Commander Townsend is a former aeronautical maintenance duty officer. He is a senior engineer and maintenance analyst for Bonham Technologies in Huntsville, Ala. Currently supporting the Utility Helicopters Project Office, Townsend developed a split-phase maintenance concept for the UH-60 Black Hawk that was adopted by the U.S. Army. He served with the Westar Aerospace and Defense Group as an adviser to the Director of Condition Based Maintenance.
Use NMETLs and NWTS for Transformation
By Captain Brian Barrington, U.S. Navy; and David K. Brown
We have direct guidance from DOD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the CNO. We are supposed to be professionally acquainted with Navy Mission Essential Task Lists (NMETLs), and we are supposed to be using them in our efforts to improve performance. We don't need a new system. What we need is to learn and use the existing system-the one built on NMETLS and the Navy Warfare Training System (NWTS).
In December 2005, the CNO published a message entitled "Anchoring Sea Enterprise" in which he listed five key fundamentals:
Senior leaders must drive transformation by setting aligned expectations.
Leaders must create a continuous improvement culture by defining and measuring outputs, balancing risks, and ensuring accountability.
Navy-wide alignment of organizations and processes must share best practices, leverage core competencies, and become more efficient.
All must embrace best practices and employ lessons learned in a continuous improvement process.
All must develop "business acumen." Leaders must become knowledgeable about the systems and processes leading to greater effectiveness.1
In carrying out this directive, commanders should keep in mind two critical points:
* NMETLs and the NWTS present commanders a pathway to visualize the mission and its context, value each contribution to success, verify progress, and validate chosen courses of action. The NWTS is a continuous improvement engine in which all phases run simultaneously. NMETLs are refined when necessary, future planning occurs in the midst of execution, and assessments are updated and reported in near real time. Commanders use the Navy Warfare Training System to generate readiness assessments and develop ideas for future improvements through DOTMLP-F (doctrine, organization, training, material, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities) enhancements.2
* If we would learn the system and employ its developing capabilities, we would unleash the aligning power of NMETLs to create "metrics that matter" and propel efficient excellence in readiness and operations.
The past few years have seen a great emphasis on NMETLs derived from mission analysis. Doctrine states: "NMETLs allow a commander to quantify both the level and scope of effort needed to achieve mission objectives."3
METLs has become the mission performance language, and we should be comfortable with the following structure: Do this task, under these conditions, to this standard. (An NMET standard consists of a measure and a criterion. Tasks may have more than one standard-and normally they have measures to evaluate both processes and results.)4
Current Use
NMETLs are being used not only to create training plans and certification programs, but are also now being applied to readiness reporting, lessons learned, concept development, and systems design and procurement throughout DOD.
Because the new definition of a capability includes the means and ways to execute a set of tasks to standards under specified conditions, the NMETL framework can be used to define future capabilities and set the background for architectures for network-centric warfare.5
Concepts of operations and NMETL development should proceed in parallel, each refining the other.
As articulated in the Fleet Training Continuum, the Navy Warfare Training System provides a systematic approach to prepare naval forces for combatant commanders, in four phases.6
1. Requirements: Mission-based capabilities are expressed as NMETLs.
2. Plans: Fleet training curricula, notional schedules, and resource requirements are assembled into Navy Warfare Training Plans (NWTPs).
3. Execution: Commanders conduct, evaluate, and report results of cost-effective, efficient training. They also report results from ongoing operations.
4. Assessment: Leaders throughout the Navy collect and analyze the results of training and performance to predict readiness, validate investments, and develop solutions.
Training transformation involves two key aspects: transparency and mission rehearsal. Not only must we train like we fight and fight like we've trained, we must also strive to train forces under conditions that resemble their future operating environment. As commanders learn to measure performance based on NMETL standards (during training and operating events), they will become more skilled at assessing effects and mission progress.
Requirements
NMETLs are already in place for most Navy operating forces, from strike group and warfare commanders down through all deployable units, including ship types, aircraft squadrons, explosive ordnance disposal detachments, and naval coastal warfare squadrons.
During the late 1990s with joint staffs, U.S. Fleet Forces Command supervised the construction of NMETLs for five core Navy missions to support major combat operations: air superiority, maritime superiority, power projection, amphibious operations, and anti-terrorism/force protection. NMETL templates were developed for "responsible organizations" based on ship class, aircraft type, and command level. By 2000, this structure was centered on Fleet organizations.
Because of new challenges and missions, NMETL refinement has been ongoing. To comply with new Defense Readiness Reporting System requirements, NMETL development is proceeding throughout the Navy.
Commander Naval Installations Command has begun assembling NMETLs for regional and installation commanders.7 Moreover, Naval Network Warfare Command has begun an NMETL development effort. Remember: NMETLs are mission performance requirements!
Plans
The four major type commanders (Naval Air Forces, Submarine Forces, Surface Forces, and Naval Expeditionary Combat Command), as well as Naval Network Warfare Command and Commander Naval Installations Command, are assembling NWTPs to take their organizations through mission rehearsal, building and certifying NMETL proficiency. The NWTP curriculum is based on each organization and its specific NMETLs. It consists of phases, events and sub-events.
* Each phase contains scheduled events based on the operational demands of the organization.
* Every event consists of the necessary sub-events, with focused training objectives and training resource packages designed to attain competency and improve the proficiency of specific NMETs.
* Training resources include flying hours; steaming days-both in-port and under way-operational areas; ordnance; services such as target towing, recovery, and salvage operations; simulators and training devices; targets; time allotted; and ranges.
Identifying all the resource requirements employed in Fleet training has enabled the assembly of the Fleet Training Capability Cost System. FTCCS efforts began in 2003 to support the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution System. Current plans call for using FTCCS data in the Program Objectives Memorandum 2010 budget submissions.
At every stage of the NWTP, we follow a similar process to build mission rehearsal practices. Often called crawl-walkrun or talk-walk-run, a progressive series of schoolhouse, Fleet Synthetic Training, and live training events produce an experienced and capable organization ready to perform their NMETs to standards of their certification.
Schoolhouse training and walk-through or talk-through events help newly assigned operators learn the basics of their responsibilities in a safe environment. Fleet Synthetic Training, during each phase and at each level, allows individual organizations to rehearse their actions in preparation for certification. Several certifications actually occur during simulation events.
Live exercises verify that our training and certification programs are effective and yield the greatest confidence in future performance. Vice Admiral Mark Fitzgerald, former commander of the U.S. Second Fleet, emphasized the significant role of Fleet Synthetic Training rehearsal before live events: "We practice in-port so we can validate at sea."8
Execution
Execution starts as we prepare for an NWTP event. Several prerequisites lead to success in training sub-events. At a minimum, briefs should include a review of the specific NMETs, with assignments, duties, and responsibilities for accomplishment of specific tactics, techniques, and procedures. Also, the data collection and analysis plan is studied and any locally collected performance data-including the measures and conditions-should be clearly articulated and assigned.
This data collection plan incorporates the goals of the assessment phase:
* Is this a workup or walkthrough-type sub-event?
* Is this the final dress rehearsal before actual mission rehearsal?
* What new equipment or systems are we testing?
* With what new concept are we experimenting?
Fleet trainers and commanders record data on organizational performance, system performance, resource expenditures, and expert observations. The Quantitative Fleet Feedback Program assists commanders in data collection and analysis. Commanders make a quick evaluation of the actual value of the sub-event: Did NMET performance meet standards? Then they make an immediate decision for more or different training to certify NMET proficiency. Post-exercise reports assemble issues and ideas for lessons learned and improvements to operating concepts, doctrine, and future systems.
Assessment
This phase verifies performance and mission progress and either validates the current approach or yields ideas to strive for further improvements. Results of the assessment phase include lessons learned, improved NMETLs and NWTPs, NMET performance and readiness indicators, and budget and execution data.
NMET readiness means confidence that the organization can perform specific NMETs to standards. Because of the top-down approach to building the NMETL and developing the NWTP, there is a "drill-down capability" feature for the analysis. Not only do we produce a snapshot or track history of a specific responsible organization's performance, we also can look across the force for key performance indicators that yield forcewide ideas for enhancements.
Although the NWTS originally focused on Fleet Training, it really can become the Navy's performance improvement engine fueled by lessons learned, concept development, advanced technology demonstrations, and experimentation. Every new operational challenge should be addressed using the NWTS process: Visualize the mission. Value the contributions. Verify performance. Validate the course of action-by employing the fourphased process of requirements, plans, execution, and assessment-to produce cost-wise readiness and drive transformation.
1. CNO WASHINGTON DC 291813Z DEC 05, "Anchoring Sea Enterprise," http://www.npc.navy.mil/NR/rdonIyres/F7541 B30-B294-4E6D-8DCF-ECDD61107EF3/0/ NAV05341.txt.
2. DOTMLP-F stands for the seven focal points of Defense Transformation. See http://www.defenselink. mil/transformation/.
3. The Navy Warfare Library, NTTP 1-01 (April 2005), P 1-6. http://www.nwdc.navy.mil/Library/nttp1-01.aspx
4. Universal Naval Task List, OPNAVINST 3500.38B, 30 Jan. 2007, p. 1-1, http://www.nwdc.navy.mil/Library/ UNTL_NMETL/default.aspx
5. Universal Joint Task List, CJCSM 3500.04D w/Chg 1,30 Sept. 2006, pA-1, https://jdeis.js.mil/jdeis/jel/template.jsp?title=ujtlportal& filename=ujtl_portal.htm
6. COMUSFLTFORCOM/COMPACFLT INSTRUCTION 3501.3A Fleet Training Continuum, 20 Dec. 2006, ñ 7.
7. Ed Wright and Zena Lewis, eds., "N7 is 'METLing' the Shore Forces," Commander Naval Installations Command, The CNiCommunicator 1, no. 5 (15 Dec. 2006): p. 10. www.cnic.navy.mil; http://www.cnic.navy. mil/cnic_hq_site/AboutCNIC/index.htm
8. Former COMSECONDFLT VADM Mark Fitzgerald's tagline when discussing the training continuum at MTSEC 2006, Orlando, Fla., 4-7 Dec. 2006.
Captain Brian Barrington is the N72 on the staff of Commander U.S. Fleet Forces Command.
Mr. David K. Brown of Dynamics Research Corporation is a retired naval officer with significant command, operational, education and training experience, and is the unofficial NMETL advocate at U.S. Fleet Forces Command.