1. DoD Composite Maintainers TIM Aviation Engineering Directorate
Presented to:
DoD Composite Maintainers TIM
Hill AFB, UT
Composite Design for Supportability in Army Aviation
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.
Presented by:
Dave Stone
Aviation Engineering Directorate
U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center
24 Aug 2017

2. Who is AMRDEC?
U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering
Center provides increased responsiveness to the nation's Warfighters through aviation and missile capabilities and life cycle engineering solutions.
Headquartered at Redstone Arsenal, AL
5 Directorates
9,000 scientist & engineers
$2.45 billion in reimbursable funding, FY 16
$339 million in Science & Technology funding, FY 16
AMRDEC Priorities
Strategic Readiness – provide aviation and weapons technology and systems solutions to ensure victory on the battlefield
Future Force – develop and mature Science and Technology to provide technical capability to our Army’s (and nation’s) aviation and weapons systems
Soldiers & People – develop the engineering talent to support both Science and Technology and materiel enterprise

3. Questions to Ask Ourselves?
What is the role of supportability vs being able to get the aircraft fielded in the first place?
The fight between optimizing composite structures to increase strength and reduce weight vs being able to maintain them?
The tools, personnel, training, supplies that each service uses to maintain composites?
Issues when an aircraft will be used by multiple services that have different capabilities to maintain composites?
How does composite supportability mesh with the larger design for supportability guidance from the Pentagon?
Who pays for maintenance? PMs or users? The role of PBL? How do we reduce sustainment costs?
How does this support Army Readiness (as the Army’s #1 priority) and build the Future Force (#2)?

4. DoD Documents
MIL-HDBK-502A PRODUCT SUPPORT ANALYSIS, Dated 8 March 2013
§ Major criteria. …. The four prime factors that govern system acquisition programs are cost, schedule, performance, and supportability.
§ 5.3 Supportability objectives. It is essential to conduct PSA early, in an acquisition program to identify constraints, thresholds, and targets for improvement, and to provide supportability input into early tradeoffs. It is during the early phases of an acquisition program that the greatest opportunity exists to influence design from a supportability standpoint. These analyses can identify supportability parameters for the new system/equipment which are reasonably attainable, along with the prime drivers of supportability, cost, and readiness. The drivers, once identified, provide a basis for concentrated analysis effort to identify targets and methods of improvement.

5. Army Regulations AR 70-1, Army Acquisition Policy, 16 June 2017
§7.2 “Army PMs have overall responsibility and accountability for their systems over the entire life cycle.”
§7.3.b limits special tools, test equipment and unique items.
AR , Integrated Product Support, 11 October 2016
Proponent of this regulation is ASA(ALT)
§1-19, AMC Commander shall:
e.(5) Ensure interoperability through standardization of technical data and common look and feel for electronic technical manuals (ETM) and interactive electronic technical manuals (IETM).
§5, Design
§5-1.b.(2) – Reduce Logistics Footprint
§5-3 – Maximize commonality, minimize tool requirements, use standard kits, minimize repair complexity, skills and training.
§5–6. Design for standardization and interoperability - Develop a standardization and interoperability management process to ensure the materiel design … the most efficient use of the total Army and DOD resources, and that the Army can effectively and efficiently participate in combat, contingency, and operations with other military services and allied forces.
§7-1 Technical Data – Requires tech data to be procured from contractors
§8-5 Logistics Footprint & §8.6 – Special Tools: Maximizes use of standard tools and reduce requirements for spare parts

6. AR 70-62, Airworthiness of Aircraft Systems, 11 May 2016
Army Regulations
AR 70-62, Airworthiness of Aircraft Systems, 11 May 2016
§2–4. Airworthiness determination
Airworthiness determination is the process of assessing the capability of the aircraft system and/or subsystem to meet the approved airworthiness requirements throughout the system and/or subsystem life cycle.
c. The results of the airworthiness qualification process are used to establish limitations for the safe use and maintenance of the aircraft system, subsystem, component or allied equipment. These limitations include those covering crew requirements and—
(3) Structural life and wear limits that are critical to continued safe operation.
e. The basis for continued airworthiness determination is—
(2) Maintenance that is current and compliant with established maintenance procedures, including intervals and conditions for inspection, replacement, and overhaul that are required for sustaining the properties and performance of the aircraft.
Continued airworthiness definition
Compliance with the processes (for example, aircraft maintenance, operator and maintainer training and certification, sourcing of spare parts, and configuration management) to ensure that, at any time in its life cycle, an aircraft complies with the technical conditions established at the issuance of the AWR or SAQ and is in a condition for safe operation.

7. Army Pamphlets DA Pam 700-127, 28 September 2016 Chapter 5, Design,
Section I, Design considerations
It is critical that MATDEVs influence the materiel design early in the acquisition process to ensure that the materiel can be supported in the intended operational environment at the lowest LCC. The PEO must assign a PSM to the CAPDEV’s PSMIPT by MDD to ensure that early design decisions balance technical performance, supportability requirements and LCC goals.
§ 5–3. Maintenance task design parameters
Ease of repair in the forward battlefield area is a key design parameter for all Army equipment. The maintenance task design interface for a materiel must emphasize—
Use of standard Army sets, kits, outfits, and tools and test, measurement and diagnostic equipment (TMDE) to meet tool and TMDE requirements.
Minimizing requirements for special tools and special test equipment.
Reducing required maintenance skill levels.
Designing for rapid repair.
Redundancy of mission essential functions.
Ease of implementing battlefield damage assessment and repair techniques.
Increased availability through—
Increased MTBF.
Reduced MTTR.

8. Army Pamphlets
Army Acquisition Procedures Pamphlet 70–3, 11 March 2014 Section IV, Support Strategy
§ 3–18. Integrated logistics support There are 10 elements included under ILS as follows: Maintenance Planning; Manpower and Personnel; Supply Support, Support Equipment; Training and Training Support; Technical Data; Computer Resources Support; Facilities; Packaging, Handling, Storage, and Transportation; and Design Interface.
a. The earlier in a system’s life cycle that supportability and sustainment implications are addressed, the larger the potential reduction in TOC and logistics footprint. Therefore, the CBTDEV must ensure that acquisition logistics management activities are begun in the Pre-Systems Acquisition activities, as part of the MSA and TD acquisition phases.
b. The CBTDEV designates an ILS point of contact (POC) or assigns ILS responsibility to a staff/action officer lead to oversee the acquisition logistics management program as outlined in AR 700–127.
f. “Supportability is to be given equal consideration as cost, schedule and performance in all program decision making.”

9. Issues How do these regulations get implemented?
New Aircraft Acquisitions vs. Block Upgrades vs. Aircraft Modifications?
Combat need, emerging threats, etc….
Multiple project managers in a PM?
Legacy aircraft designs that are 50+ years old?
New vs Legacy Regulations?
Comanche & Army Advanced Composite Repair
Supportability in R&D & ManTech programs?
Maintenance Qualification
System Performance vs Supportability?
Manufacturability vs Supportability?
Damage Tolerance vs Reparability?
New Technologies?
Resource Constraints, $, Time, Personnel
One new blade program, after being briefed in 2008, did not have funding to address repair before fielding.
Program size?
Breadth & depth?
Remove & replace vs CLS vs Organic Maintenance?
Tech Data
Design specific data, including structural adequacy, stiffness, strength and damage limits
Allowables, especially for adhesives
Specs & Standards, Industry vs Military vs Proprietary?

10. AED Approach Structural substantiation on a case by case basis
Use standard materials
Common fabrics, epoxy wet layup resin, paste adhesives and potting compounds for field repairs
Common industry spec prepregs and adhesives for depot
Use common tools. Justification required for tools not in the composite shopset
Use common procedures
TM adapted to a particular design
Common carbon and glass wet layup procedures
Guidance on how to write a procedure so it looks, smells, feels and tastes the same regardless of part or platform.
Common materials, tools & procedures reduce unique training
Legacy procedures are still an issue
All of the above are to ensure airworthiness, reduce the burden on the maintainer & reduce sustainment costs
Where is new technology inserted?
How do we maintain repair commonality while not impeding technology insertion?
When do new repair technologies justify the costs to field them across the entire fleet?

11. AMRDEC Web Site
Facebook
YouTube
Twitter
@usarmyamrdec
Public Affairs