Mlf 9 4ww final

Tacom Life cycLe managemenT commanD

2015

Team of Teams Leader

maj. gen. gwen BinghamcommanderU.S. army Tacom Life cycle management command

MAXIMIZE YOUR FLEET

TRUSTED VEHICLES

30,000+ vehicles in service

PROVEN SUPPORT

100+ years of success maintaining large fleets

FORWARD THINKING

Next-generation tactical vehicles for the future of warfare

Major General Gwen Bingham assumed command of the U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command on June 25, 2014.

Bingham is a native of Troy, Ala. She graduated from Army ROTC as a Distinguished Military Graduate from the University of Alabama in August 1981 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in general business management. She was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Quartermaster Corps. Bingham has a master’s degree in administration from Central Michigan University and a master’s degree in national security strategy and resources from the National Defense University. On April 19, 2013, Major General Bingham was confirmed by the Senate for promotion to major general.

Her military schooling includes the Quartermaster Officer Basic and Advanced Courses; the Personnel Management Course; Combined Arms and Services Staff School; Commissary Manage-ment Course; Army Command and General Staff College; the Army Inspector General Course; the Industrial College of the Armed Forces; and the CAPSTONE General and Flag Officer Course.

Bingham has served in a myriad of staff and leadership positions throughout her career, including: platoon leader and executive officer, HQ&A Company, 9th Supply and Transporta-tion Battalion, 9th DISCOM, Fort Lewis, Wash.; battalion S1, 2d Forward Support Battalion, 9th DISCOM, Fort Lewis; field ser-vices officer, 1st COSCOM, Fort Bragg, N.C.; group S1/adjutant, 507th Transportation Group, 1st COSCOM, Fort Bragg; officer in charge, Commissary Central Distribution Center, Defense Com-missary Agency (DeCA), Manheim, Germany; chief, Aviation Sup-ply Branch, 4th Corps Materiel Management Center, Fort Hood, Texas; battalion S3 and battalion executive officer, 4th Corps Materiel Management Center, Fort Hood; chief of the Plans Divi-sion, ACofS, Materiel, 13th COSCOM, Fort Hood; chief, G3 Plans Division, 13th COSCOM; deputy commander, 64th Corps Sup-port Group, 13th COSCOM, Fort Hood; executive officer, ACofS J1, USFK, Yongsan, Korea; commander, 266th Quartermaster Battalion, 23d Quartermaster Brigade, Fort Lee, Va.; chief, Sup-port Services Office and deputy inspector general, joint staff, the Pentagon; commander, United States Garrison, Fort Lee; and chief of staff, United States Army Combined Arms Support Com-mand and Sustainment Center of Excellence, Fort Lee. Bingham deployed in April 2010 in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom while serving as special assistant to the

commanding general, 1st Theater Sustainment Command, Camp Arifjan, Kuwait; Kabul, Afghanistan and Kandahar, Afghanistan. She served as the 51st quartermaster general of the United States Army and Commandant of the U.S. Army Quartermaster School, Fort Lee. Prior to her current assignment, she served as com-manding general, U.S. Army White Sands Missile Range, N.M.

Bingham is the recipient of numerous military and civic awards commensurate with her rank. These include the Distin-guished Service Medal; Defense Superior Service Medal; Legion of Merit (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters); Defense Meritorious Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster); Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters); Joint Service Commendation Medal; Army Commendation Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster); Army Achieve-ment Medal; Humanitarian Service Medal; National Defense Ser-vice Medal; Afghanistan Campaign Medal; Iraqi Campaign Medal; NATO Service Medal; Korean Defense Service Medal; Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal; and Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. She is authorized to wear the Joint Staff Identifi-cation Badge. Major General Bingham was presented the 2013 Strong Men and Women in Virginia History award and the 2013 Wise Woman Award; named “2013 Mover and Shaker” in Las Cruces, N.M.; presented the El Paso Chapter, Links, Incorporated

Major General Gwen BinghamCommander

U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command

Team of Teams LeaderUniting a Coalition of Partners from AMC and the Army Acquisition Corps

Q&AQ&A

www.MLF-kmi.com TACOM Life Cycle Management Command | MLF 9.4 | 1

TACOM Life CyCLe MAnAgeMenT COMMAnD

www.MLF-kmi.com2 | MLF 9.4 | TACOM Life Cycle Management Command


Maj. Gen. Gwen Bingham

Command General

Brig. Gen. Brian P. Cummings

PEO Soldier

Brian ButlerIntegrated

Logistics Support Center

Magid AthnasiosDeputy to the Commander

(Acting)

Kristan MendozaArmy Contracting Command-Warren

(Acting)

TACOM Life CyCLe MAnAgeMenT COMMAnd

BOArd Of direCTOrs

Scott J. DavisPEO Combat

Support & Combat Service Support


Command Sgt. Maj. Jesse L. Sharpe, Jr.

Command Sergeant Major

Matthew PauschCommand Counsel

Dr. Paul RogersTank Automotive

Research, Development and Engineering Center

Col. Patricia SellersChief of Staff

Brig. Gen. David G. Bassett

PEO Ground Combat Systems

Alan ParksU.S. Army

Garrison-Detroit Arsenal Manager

John HedderichArmaments Research,

Development & Engineering Center

Dean TomCivilian Personnel Advisory Center

Dr. Joseph L. Corriveau

Edgewood Chemical Biological Center

Col. Mark BrinkmanProgram Manager

Light Armored Vehicles

Paul GayanNetwork Enterprise

Center(Acting)

Suzanne MilchlingNatick Soldier Research,

Development & Engineering Center

(Acting)

TACOM LCMC BOArd Of direCTOrs suppOrT AdvisOrs

Carmen SpencerJPEO for Chemical

and Biological Defense

Kevin FaheySystem of Systems

Engineering and Integration Directorate

“2014 Star Award;” the “Southwest Wom-en’s Law Center 2014 Celebrating Women’s Stories award; and the “2014 Rock of the Year Award” for her community and civic contributions.

Q: Could we start with a quick look at your budget? How do your procurement, RDT&E and O&M funding lines compare to last year? If your requested budget is approved as is, where do you see the big-gest stressors coming from in terms of projects and programs?

A: The TACOM Life Cycle Management Command (LCMC) is a unique organization that enables sustainable readiness. When we talk about TACOM, it’s important to remember that the TACOM LCMC is both a command in the Army Materiel Command (AMC) and also a life cycle management command that unites a coalition of partners from both AMC and the Army Acquisition Corps—crossing the acquisition, logistics and technology functions for an incredible amount of Army systems. Together, TACOM and the three program executive offices aligned with it are responsible for 65 percent of every major end item in a brigade combat team. Ensuring that equipment is not only ready but continually sustained and improved is a tremendous challenge. It really takes a “team of teams” which is how I prefer to describe the TACOM LCMC.

In terms of our budget, not everyone realizes it, but as a specific system moves through its lifecycle, it is funded by different “colors of money.” So, across our team of teams, different entities control different accounts for the systems our soldiers need--emphasizing the importance of collaboration. Of course, the biggest real costs for a system comes after it is fielded—its operation and sustainment costs—which is a major part of the TACOM LCMC’s responsibilities.

As you know, sequestration hit the Army’s operations funding accounts hard. Overall, TACOM LCMC’s budget has decreased by 10 percent from FY14 to FY15. The majority of that change is in our Operating & Maintenance, Army (OMA) account. While there has been some variation in our procurement and RDT&E accounts, the impact is minor and in some cases offset in a shift of funding from one to the other. The primary stressor is a decrease in OMA funding which impacts our most critical requirements. To soften this, we work throughout TACOM, AMC and the Army enterprise to ensure we optimize the readiness of our weapon systems and capabilities. As always, our first priority is to the soldiers in harm’s way.

Q: Tell me about the AMPV program. With the fact that it is to replace the brigade-level M113s (and performance capabilities of that vehicle) how important is it that this program stay on track?

A: In 2007, the Army terminated the M113 armored personnel car-rier program as it had reached the end of its useful life in our cur-rent brigade combat team structure. The M113 was a workhorse for the Army for over 50 years and it no longer was able to expand and modernize. It needed upgrades to offset ineffective force protection;

the inability to incorporate future technologies; and the inbound Army network due to size, weight, power and cooling. The M113 could no longer provide commanders with viable capabilities to maneuver across the full breadth of the battlefield.

In December 2014, the Army awarded a contract for engineer-ing and manufacturing development work to BAE Systems, which set in motion a long-awaited and important modernization effort for the Army.

The AMPV (armored multi-purpose vehicle) is a family of vehi-cles that will fill critical force protection, survivability and mobility capability gaps essential in today’s armored brigade combat teams. At Team TACOM, we’ve worked diligently to take the right steps early on to minimize risks and maximize commonality to ensure AMPV remains an affordable solution for the Army.

The effort will produce 29 vehicles that will be used for rigorous and thorough developmental and operational testing to ensure they are effective and suitable for today’s mechanized warrior. The award also has an optional low-rate initial production phase, where an additional 289 vehicles would be produced.

The AMPV is part of the Army’s Fleet Modernization Plan to upgrade our current fleet. When completed, the AMPV, as a family of vehicles, will fill roles such as medical treatment and medical evacu-ation, command and control and mortar carrier, among others.

Q: With much talk about introducing sustainment into programs at the earliest stages possible, do you see the AMPV program doing that? What are some examples from the program so far that are not just looking at the acquisition costs but at the total cost of ownership?

A: Great question. As I mentioned earlier, we have sat down with our acquisition partners and our higher headquarters to discuss every system, where we see shortfalls and what steps we need to take to minimize the impact of these shortfalls. We use the same process with emerging systems, like the AMPV and the JLTV. It is in our collective interests to discuss sustainment costs of a system early in the acquisi-tion process. So, program management is talking to the contracting,

TACOM LCMC’s budget has decreased by 10 percent from FY14 to FY15. The majority of that change is in the Operating and Maintenance, Army account. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Army]



budget and logistics requirements needed to develop a life cycle cost estimate that tracks everything that goes into a program from cradle to grave. This includes a work break-down structure and all costs associated with a system through all milestone events and transition to sustainment.

Given the current fiscal environment, AMPV must be affordable. It must be based on sound programmatic decision-making and cost analysis to include sustainment costs. It must meet the requirements set forth by Army, including force protection, survivability, mobility and power, which continue to be critical performance drivers for the program. The commonality that the selected solutions has with the Bradley family of vehicles as well as the M109A7 Paladin howitzer decrease our logistical footprint and increase sustainability across the armored brigade combat teams (ABCT) formation.

The increased capability and versatility of the AMPV allows the ABCT to take full advantage of its force protection, survivability, mobility, situational awareness and sustainability by providing a highly survivable and mobile platform to accomplish operational support missions. Units equipped with the AMPV will be able to move as rapidly as the supported primary combat vehicles during unified land operations over multiple terrain sets. The combined protection and automotive performance capabilities of the AMPV will enable units to operate more securely and efficiently in the same operational environment as the combat elements.

Q: At what capacity are the depots performing? Do you have the right number of facilities and what are you doing to maximize their output and workload?

A: TACOM is experiencing the same draw down challenges as the other services, which heightens the importance of maximizing capacity. Some of the causes of these challenges include the reduc-tion in requirements; lower funding levels and reduced overseas con-tingency operations funding and weapon system reset at the depots.

As you may know, TACOM’s organic base consists of five instal-lations with their own unique capabilities as arsenals and depots. There are three depots: Anniston Army Depot for combat vehicles, assault bridging, artillery and small caliber weapons; Red River Army Depot for Bradley fighting vehicles, tactical wheeled vehicles, multiple launch rocket systems, small emplacement excavators and rubber products; and Sierra Army Depot for water purification and fuel storage/distribution systems. There are two arsenals: Rock Island Arsenal Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center for forward repair system and shop equipment contact maintenance, add-on armor and foundry operations; and Watervliet Arsenal Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center for cannons and mortars. TACOM has a government-owned, contract operated facility in Lima, Ohio—the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center.

The Logistic Modernization Program (LMP) one tool we use to maximize our efficiencies, plays a crucial role in supporting the

supply chain and just-in-time deliveries. Material requirements planning within LMP, backwards plans part support based on the end item delivery schedule. The system is able to backwards plan using the routes and bill of materials that are associated with the project. Material requirements planning will tell the installations when they need to order parts to insure they are at the line when they are needed to meet the production schedule.

Another example of how we maximize the use of technology is an enhancement of the Logistic Modernization Program referred to as the expanded industrial base (EIB). When fully implemented, EIB will help maximize the output and workload at all five of TACOM’s depots and arsenals—as well as at the Army Materiel Command’s other 12 organic industrial base sites. EIB will provide for automa-tion of industrial base shop floors, thereby diminishing reliance on paper documentation, manual data collection and complicated processes. By leveraging automated information technology and best business practices, EIB will allow for better collaboration, enterprisewide visibility, and real-time information access.

Q: How much FMS work are you involved with? Do you see more opportunities in this area?

A: During the first two quarters of this fiscal year, we have more than doubled our business from last year. Sales look promising and we will easily quadruple business this year. We are managing 40 more cases than at the end of last fiscal year.

Obvious opportunities exist in overseas contingency opera-tions with new equipping strategies for both Afghanistan and Iraq through FMS. Our excess defense article transfers have sped up to our highest volumes ever and we see that continuing over the next few years. Opportunities for resetting this equipment and providing sustainment support are there. Overall, the FMS case load at the TACOM LCMC is promising.

Q: What are the challenges, especially in a tight budget world, to become more green, less fossil fuel dependent and reduce the amount spent of fuel and energy?

TACOM and the three program executive offices aligned with it are responsible for 65 percent of every item in a brigade combat team. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Army]



A: One of the challenges is that our systems have older technol-ogy. Old engines are not as efficient and therefore typically use more fuel. Yes, newer commercial engines are more efficient, but emission control technologies do not allow the use of some mili-tary fuels. Some U.S. manufacturers are unwilling to change the assembly line to remove emissions equipment for the low-volume military applications we require. In this case, the Army would have to resort to the use of export-certified engines that do not have emissions controls. If we went this route within the Army, they would not be consistently available worldwide.

So, we are looking at several solutions to include pursuing advanced propulsion systems that are lighter in weight with effi-cient transmissions, novel engine designs and improved thermal management. We are looking at vehicle electrification technology that will facilitate reduced energy consumption and the develop-ment of lightweight, compact, high-power auxiliary power units (APU). These APUs will make it possible to generate electrical power while the vehicle is stationary, eliminating the need for the engine to idle for long periods—saving fuel and helping to make us greener.

We are also looking at the development of lower mass vehicles to replace the vehicle fleet. Since vehicle mass is the overriding factor in determining fuel consumption, we are looking at new materials and new vehicle systems that can result in lighter-weight and space efficient designs. Through partnerships with the automotive industry, the Army is investigating the use of fuel cell technologies that utilize hydrogen gas for power and completely eliminate the need for fossil fuels. Such technologies could greatly reduce fuel use in our tactical wheeled vehicles as well as remote forward operating bases and facilities.

A non-scientific approach toward altering the Army’s use of fuels is through improved training and advance planning. It is as simple as changing poor driving habits, reducing unnecessary miles driven, eliminating engine idling, reducing driving speeds and monitoring fuel consumption. These are just some solutions that we are currently looking at.

Q: Over time, the Army has acquired a number of inventory, accounting, communications and other IT-related systems. How would you characterize the TACOM LCMC’s plan to reduce the system duplication, eliminate systems that have trouble com-municating with other systems inside and outside of the TACOM LCMC, and in general streamline the command’s IT networks? Do you have funding for any of this?

A: The Army has implemented a number of accounting and IT-related systems specialized applications that support TACOM’s mission and are in line with the Department of Defense’s and Department of Army’s Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) con-solidation and integration efforts. Over the past several years, we have proactively pursued the reduction or consolidation of a number of systems, which will help to eliminate duplication and make it easier for our systems to work together inside, outside and across the enterprise.

At the TACOM enterprise level, the command provides an application platform that centrally manages core information technology assets and services. This service reduces the total cost of ownership across existing and new systems through economies

of scale. The platform also allows TACOM to consolidate a legacy portfolio of technologies into a common and consistent hardware and software platform.

We are also participating in several commercial-off-the-shelf, best-in-class ERP solutions aimed at reforming the Army’s national-level logistics and financial systems and business pro-cesses. The Logistics Modernization Program (LMP) and the General Fund Enterprise Business System have replaced several TACOM information systems. As the Army moves forward with the deployment of LMP 2, additional systems unique to TACOM will be absorbed and further cost savings will be recognized.

With budget uncertainties and complications from sequestra-tion and competing Army funding priorities, we will continue to look at ways to upgrade our accounting, communications, IT and logistics systems to ensure that we are effectively managing our resources and ultimately saving taxpayer dollars.

Q: Any closing thoughts?

A: In closing, I wish to share a few thoughts that may offer some insight into the likely challenges facing TACOM in the near and long-term future as the command works to meet the needs of the 21st century warfighter.

There is no evidence that the current era of persistent conflict is ebbing. In fact, history shows us that there continues to be more conflicts in the last 20 years than the previous twenty years. That means that the Army will need a full range of capabilities and resources in order to meet a wide spectrum of potential challenges and conflicts—and win. No single system or approach can provide the flexibility and effectiveness the Army will need in future years. We know that some of our capabilities bring more to the fight in a conventional warfare scenario, while other capabilities have unquestioned value in counterinsurgency operations.

Perhaps the biggest challenge in the near term may be our abil-ity to address the Army’s need to prepare for multiple contingency operations while at the same time rebalancing the force in a reason-able and responsible manner during a time of fiscal restraint. This means we’ll have to look to the past, the present, and the future without binding our people, processes, and products too closely to the way we’ve done things before, the way we’re handling things today, or the way we think things will operate in the future. The past is over the present is constantly changing and we must prepare for an uncertain future.

So how do we prepare for an uncertain future? In the past, we looked inward, but now we have to look at the institution of the Army holistically and as an enterprise. This is why it’s so important that we make enterprise thinking the Army’s—and the TACOM LCMC’s—new norm. As an enterprise, we’re all stakeholders. We’re all accountable. As an Army and as a life cycle management com-mand, we have to provide the best possible products, services and support to our warfighters. And we have to do this while we work to rebalance the Army. This is a tough job, but one that we at Team TACOM LCMC embraces. This command has been at the forefront of Army modernization since its inception. Our workforce is passion-ate, highly dedicated and motivated to accept this challenge. We look forward to our continued journey of service, dedication and commitment to excellence as we endeavor to support our soldiers who serve our great nation—HOOAH! O



Mlf 9 4ww final

Documents

Transcript of Mlf 9 4ww final