Detailed Information on the
Air Force Aircraft and Weapons Readiness Assessment

More closely align funding decisions for the Air Force Flying Operations Training program to the performance metrics by using these metrics in the Air Force's annual Budget Justification materials for Congress.

Work toward creating better linkages among funding decisions, Air Force flying operations training plans, and unit readiness.

Create better efficiency measures to help develop better annual budgets for the flying hour training program.

Evaluate base operations as an individual program in the future. It was included in this PART due to its role in enabling operations training.

Measure: Percentage of Programmed Flying Hours Flown

Explanation:Total hours necessary for the active Air Force to ensure it is capable of executing all flying operations missions.

Measure: Hours per Crew per Month for Fighter Aircraft for the Active Air Force

Explanation:Measure evaluates whether the assigned aircrews for fighter aircraft receive sufficient training to be proficient

Measure: Hours per Crew per Month for Fighter Aircraft for the Air Force Reserve

Explanation:Measure evaluates whether the assigned aircrews for fighter aircraft receive sufficient training to be proficient

Measure: Hours per Crew per Month for Fighter Aircraft for the Air National Guard

Explanation:Measure evaluates whether the assigned aircrews for fighter aircraft receive sufficient training to be proficient

Measure: Hours per Crew per Month for Bomber Aircraft for the Active Air Force

Explanation:Measure evaluates whether the assigned aircrews for bomber aircraft receive sufficient training to be proficient

Measure: Hours per Crew per Month for Bomber Aircraft for the Air Force Reserve

Explanation:Measure evaluates whether the assigned aircrews for bomber aircraft receive sufficient training to be proficient

Measure: Percentage of Programmed Flying Hours Flown

Explanation:Total hours necessary for the Air Force to ensure it is capable of executing all flying operations missions.

Measure: Aircraft Utilization Rate (UTE) (Hours per Aircraft per month) for Active Air Force F-16C Fighters

Explanation:Measure evaluates whether a sufficient number of hours were flown by aircraft type per month to enable the aircraft to meet all assigned missions.

Measure: Aircraft Utilization Rate (UTE) (Hours per Aircraft per month) for Air Force Reserve F-16C Fighters

Explanation:Measure evaluates whether a sufficient number of hours were flown by aircraft type per month to enable the aircraft to meet all assigned missions.

Measure: Aircraft Utilization Rate (UTE) (Hours per Aircraft per month) for Air National Guard F-16C Fighters

Explanation:Measure evaluates whether a sufficient number of hours were flown by aircraft type per month to enable the aircraft to meet all assigned missions.

Measure: Aircraft Utilization Rate (UTE) (Hours per Aircraft per month) for Active Air Force B-52H Bombers

Explanation:Measure evaluates whether a sufficient number of hours were flown by aircraft type per month to enable the aircraft to meet all assigned missions.

Measure: Aircraft Utilization Rate (UTE) (Hours per Aircraft per month) for Air Force Reserve B-52H Bombers

Explanation:Measure evaluates whether a sufficient number of hours were flown by aircraft type per month to enable the aircraft to meet all assigned missions.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Air Force Flying Operations Program is a vital contributor of the U.S. capability to project force, respond to the full spectrum of international crisis and win. To accomplish this responsibility the Air Force must have qualified, proficient pilots.

Evidence: The Air Force's Flying Operations Aircrew Training program goal, as outlined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 11-201 Volume 1 is to provide trained pilots (qualification and proficiency) to execute all unit missions. Trained pilots ensure that the Air Force develops and maintains a high state of mission readiness for immediate and effective employment across the range of military operations.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: Air Force flying units must be ready to deploy and execute missions in support of national security objectives. Dominant air power has proven essential to successful resolution of our conflicts. Recent conflicts have shown the need for air forces that contribute to the defeat of enemy forces and the protection of American lives.

Evidence: The flying hour program addresses the Air Force's responsibility to provide prompt and sustained offensive and defensive air operations which in turn contributes directly to the Defense policy goals of dissuading future military competition, detering threats and coercion against U.S. interests, and if deterrance fails, decisively defeat any enemy. The Air Force's responsibility is found in their basic doctrine document (Air Force Doctrine Document 1) and the Defense Policy goals are framed in the Defense Quadrennial Review (QDR).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Even though each of the branches of the Armed Services has a capability to provide air operations, those capabilities are in a secondary supporting role to their primary mission. The air operations of the other Services help complement the capabilities found in the Air Force. The United States Air Force however has air operations as its primary mission and is responsible to organize, train, and equip aviation forces primarily for prompt and sustained offensive and defensive air operations.

Evidence: DOD Directive 5100.1 specifies that one of the primary functions of the U.S. Air Force is to organize, train, and equip aviation forces primarily for prompt and sustained offensive and defensive air operations. To ensure it meets this function many factors must be present. Of primary concern of those factors is having qualified, capable, proficient pilots. The United States Air Force ensures that it can fulfill that responsibilitiy through its flying hour program. No other organization is tasked with that same function.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The ability to effectively re-orient funding (as quickly as monthly) to the most critical requirements, the programs proven ability to execute training operations, and the Air Force's proven combat air combat record over the last 20 years all demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the program.

Evidence: In the Air Force's 2004 Posture Statement, the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF) provide anecdotal evidence of the excellance of the program. They state, " Through recent combat operations, the Air Force maintained its almost 50 year-old record of "no U.S. ground troops killed by enemy air Attack"." This fact could not have been accomplished unless the program continued to produce highly qualified pilots. Additionally, the program is reviewed for execution on a monthly basis. Funding can be adjusted (if neccesary) to target the most critical areas. Over the last two years the Air Force has executed over 100% of its planned flying hour program.

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: The program is well designed. Resources are targeted directly to the most critical areas within the program to ensure the program provides the maximum capability. The Air Force, in the last few years, has made a concerted commitment to ensure that resources for this program do not migrate to other non-flying hour accounts. This program is the Air Force's top priority and it receives the appropriate level of scrutiny and management. The Air Force, on a monthly basis, reviews the execution of the program and may adjust the funding of program elements within the program periodically to achieve the maximum capability. OSD also performs a "mid-year" review that evaluates the execution of the program.

Evidence: The Air Force uses the Single Flying Hour Model to determine the appropriate amount of flying hours given force structure and mission requirements. Cost factors developed by the Air Force Cost Analysis Group (AFCAIG) are then applied to the hours to determine necessary resources. Once necessary resources are determined to execute the program the Air Force provides guidance to subordinate elements on resource allocation, and reporting and execution requirements.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The Air Force goal is to provide trained pilots to combatant commanders. The Air Force uses flying hours and a measure of operating tempo (OPTEMPO) called aircraft standard utilization rates (UTE) to measure annual training performance and establishes the baseline hours and rates that units will execute to maintain proficiency and qualification. Prior to FY04 the Air Force used a different metric for OPTEMPO (hours per crew per month). The Air Force determined that the old metric was not a sufficient analytical tool. Each type of aircraft for each location has the same meaure but a different metric.

Evidence: The Air Force identifies the long range goals of fully executing its budgeted flying hours and UTE in a series of Air Force Policy Directives, Air Force Instructions, and flying hour funding and guidance messages. These long term performance measures are also identified in the FYDP. These long term performance measures tie directly to having trained and proficient pilots.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Flying hours and UTE have realistic and quantifiable 5 year targets. Because these targets are based upon anticipated future mission/training requirements the target adjusts as you get closer to the year of execution as doctrine, force structure, mission requirements, and the global security posture evolve.

Evidence: These targets are identified in the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) and are adjusted every two years as part of the Defense Department's Planning Programming, Budgeting System (PPBS).

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Flying hours and UTE are the annual performance metrics. The metrics provide an analytical tool into whether Air Force pilots are receiving enough flying training to maintain qualification and proficiency. Execution of the flying hour program is reported monthly/quarterly/annually and measured against programed flying hours. The Chief of Staff of the Unites States Air Force receives a report quarterly on flying hour and UTE execution.

Evidence: The President's Budget justification documentation provides details on the planned flying hours, flying OPTEMPO (UTE) and funding to support those hours. Prior to FY2004 the OPTEMPO metric was the flying hours per crew per month. The Air Force believes that the new UTE performance measure provides a better metric to indicate air crew training proficiency. This metric however has not been adopted in DoD's Budget Justification materials yet.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Flying hours and UTE have realistic and quantifiable annual targets. These targets are developed based on known mission requirements, historical flying rates needed to maintain proficiency and force structure requirements.

Evidence: These targets are identified in the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) and are presented in the justification materials submitted along with the President's Budget on an annual basis. The POM targets are adjusted as outyears come into the budget preparation process. Execution in prior years along with known real world impacts/missions adjust targets for the submission of the President's Budget.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The Air Force's flying hour program's main partners are the Air Force Major Commands (MAJCOM). Supporting contractors in the process are bound by contractual commitments. Prior to the start of each fiscal year, each of the Air Force MAJCOMs develop month-by-month execution plans. During the year all units attempt to execute against the plan. Each unit executes approved training exercises and missions.

Evidence: Subordinate units in each MAJCOM execute their approved flying operations and report their progress on a monthly basis. The individual unit submissions are consolidated at each MAJCOM headquarters. These consolidated reports are forwarded to Headquarters, U.S. Air Force for analysis. Additionally, MAJCOMs perform their own analysis and make recommendations to HQ, Air Force for adjustments to the flying hour program as required.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Because the flying hour program is a core aspect of the United States Air Force, the flying hour program receives periodic review from both internal and external independent evaluations. Audit reports are normally accomplished by the Government Accounting Office, Air Force Audit Agency and Rand. They are sufficiently independant and of high quality. These audit agencies are highly independant and have a high level of expeertise in evaulating Department of Defense programs.

Evidence: During the last 5 years more than 15 individual audits, conducted by non-Air Force activities, have evaluated aspects of the flying operations of the U.S. Air Force. For example, the General Accounting Office (GAO), in 1999, evaluated the formulation and execution of the flying hour program and found the basic methodology to be sound but criticized the Air Force's failure to fly the programmed hours and the migration of flying hour funding to other requirements. The Air Force took corrective actions to fully execute the flying hour program and limit the realignment of flying hour funding. Other audits reviewed other selected portions of flying operations. DoD and the Air Force concurred on a very large percentage of all recommendations, which is a testimony to the quality and value of the reports. In addition, the Air Force through the Department of Defense and it's Inspector General provides regular updates on the status of open audit actions and the implementation of GAO recommendations.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The Air Force's computer model (called the Single Flying Hour Model) identifies the required number of flying hours required based on force structure, required missions, pilot availability, etc. These hours are then fully funded in the President's Budget. The DoD Program Planning and Budgeting System (PPBS) requires budgeting based upon a determination of the resources needed to achieve the required flying hours and flying OPTEMPO within the overall flying operational program based on the approved mission requirements.

Evidence: The President's Budget justification materials identify the performance goals and the resources necessary to accomplish them. These goals match the requirements that were generated by the Single Air Force Flying Hour Model and applied cost factors. These justification materials also provide the actual execution for the fiscal year two years prior to the budget request. The data on previous year resource execution in the justification books is verified by the Defense Finance and Accounting report 1002s.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Air Force constantly reviews past operations, current operations, future force requirements, and the flying hour program to determine if its strategic planning assumptions and the models that underpin them are accurate and consistent. As an example, the Air Force Audit Agency documented in its November 2000 audit on the Air National Guard Flying Hour Program that multiple models were being used to determine flying hour requirements for the ANG and these were not the same models being used by the Active Air Force and Air Force Reserve. Multiple models can create inconsistencies across the Air Force in flying hour requirements determinations.

Evidence: The Air Force is committed to an ever evolving evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses. The 2004 Air Force Posture Statement states "we will incorporate the lessons learned form rigorous evaluation of past operations, detailed analysis of ongoing combat operations, and thoughtful prediction of the capabilities required of a future force. To correct the issues surrounding multiple models, the Air Force is now using only one model to determine flying hour requirements. This guidance is specified in Air Force Instruction 11-102.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: DoD and the Air Force collect monthly performance information on elements of the flying operations program. This information is analyzed and recommendations are made to Air Force and DoD senior leadership for execution and programmatic decisions.

Evidence: The CSAF Flying Hour Guidance, Flying Hour Execution Guidance, Initial Distribution General and Specific Funding Guidance, AFI 11-101 Management Reports on the Flying Hour Program, and AFI 11-103 Aircraft Standard Utilization Rate Procedures all require the collection of performance information on a monthly, quarterly and yearly basis. These reports allow senior Air Force leadership to make informed management decisions to maximize program capability. As a result of these reviews, the Air Force in FY04 has transferred 15,300 Airlift flying hours to bombers, fighters, and air refueling missions as well as adding an additonal 51,000 hours for bombers, fighters, and air refueling to support additional mission requirements. A copy of a quarterly Flying Hour Execution Update is also provided.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Air Force Major Commands (MAJCOMs) and Wings are the primary partners for this program. Various Air Force directives hold these subordinate activities responsible for the execution of the planned program, under their control, within the overall flying hour program. On a quarterly basis, MAJCOM Commanders, Headquarters, Air force staff and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force review program execution.

Evidence: Various Air Force instructions/directives assign accountability of the flying hour program to the Air Force Major Commands (MAJCOMs). Each MAJCOM receives a specific flying hour program prior to the start of each fiscal year. Performance against that program is assessed monthly/quarterly by Air Force and Department of Defense leadership. Inability to execute the program results in the loss of flying hours and/or funding. Because the flying hour program is the core of the Air Force's mission, this program has the highest visibility and is looked at very closely by Air Force Headquarters, the Department of Defense and Congress.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Funds to keep the aircraft operating are spent as needed by local units. The Air Force centrally adjusts funds, thru the MAJCOMS, to the unit level and amongst the three major components of expense (supplies, spares - depot reparables - and fuel). Prior to the beginning of each fiscal year the Air Force develops a monthly obligation plan for the program. The Air Force tracks the obligations for the program monthly and compares it against the plan. DoD conducts an annual "Mid-year Review" of the obligation and expenditure data to ensure that funds are obligated efficiently and in accordance with DoD standards.

Evidence: The execution of the Air Force flying hours has improved from 98.1% of budgeted hours in FY01 to 101.8% in FY03. This is shown in the FY 04 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) congressional budget justification Overview Book.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Air Force examines the execution of its flying hours and UTE rates on a monthly basis. The CSAF receives a quarterly report on the status of flying hours executed and UTE rates. This constant review of the program allows the Air Force to adjust resources to effectively and efficiently manage its program. The Air Force also conducts a formal Flying hour execution review in August of every year. MAJCOM's that are underexecuting will have excess flying hours or funding directed to other MAJCOMs or other flying operation elements.

Evidence: Multiple instructions and guidance specify the requirements for reporting on execution and cost deviations. The cost deviations must be explained. Because the Flying Hour Program is fully funded in each budget request, it is in the Air Force's best interest to efficiently use these resources. Any savings in resources, while still flying all required hours, can be re-directed to other areas of flying operations where requirements are still present. AF execution reports from FY02 and FY03 demonstrate the cost efficiencies attained.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Air Force is places a high priority on improving operational effectiveness by developing joint doctrine. Each of the Services plan, model, program, and execute their own individual program. The Air Force Flying Operations program is independent of the programs of the other Armed Services. They are complementary but not collaborative.

Evidence: No evidence available.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: DoD's financial management weaknesses have been well documented. The financial systems continue to improve however slowly. The inability of the financial system to receive an unqualified audit opinion proves its continued weakness. DoD/Air Force has no audit reports showing the flying operations program is free of internal control weaknesses.

Evidence: None of the Reports or Audits specifically cite the Air Force's Flying Program for material financial weakness however none of the audits specifically looked at that aspect of the program. Given DoD's financial weaknesses, we can expect that those same weaknesses are present in the Air force's flying hour program.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The flying hour program is under constant review for right mix of weapons systems and hours (updated each President's Budget). During these reviews the Air Force determined that it needed a better metric to measure flying OPTEMPO to help determine air crew proficiency. In the late 1990's, the inability of the Air Force to fully execute its flying hour program was determined to be a mjor management deficiency.

Evidence: The Air Force identified that one of its previous performance management measures (flying hours per crew per month) did not provide an adequate measure of air crew training. To correct the deficiency the Air Force developed a new measure (aircraft utilization standard rates (UTE)). Instructions for the new measure are contained in a new draft Air Force instruction. Since the flying hour program was an essential element to the Air Force's core competencies, in 1997, General Ryan (CSAF at the time) directed that the Air Force would fully execute all flying hours identified in the President's Budget. This was a change in culture for the Air Force. It took a few years to accomplish with the Air Force achieving this goal in FY02.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Within the last 6 years improvements have been made regarding the full execution of the flying hour program (overexecuting in FY02 and FY03)

Evidence: The execution of flying hours has improved from 96.5% to 101.9% during the time frame FY98 - FY03.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The AF has fully executed the flying hour program and exceeded the flying OPTEMPO metric for the last 2 fiscal years.

Evidence: DoD's Operation and Maintenance Overview Congressional Budget Justification Book for each fiscal year Presidents Budget request provide a section on Air Operations which provides the performance metrics.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: In addition to meeting both flying hour execution and aircraft OPTEMPO measures for the past two years the Air Force continues to provide trained aircrews to combatant commanders when called to do so.

Evidence: Since FY 01 the Air Force has exceeded its flying hour goals.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The Air Force's flying operations mission is different than that of the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps. Although some of the same metrics are used by each service, the level of the metric will vary based upon the uniqueness of each Service's mission. Because the metrics have different standards a direct comparison cannot be made. The Air Force is the only military service with an assigned function to conduct prompt and sustained offensive and defensive air operations and air logistics support for all services. The Air Force also has the unique responsibility to provide airlift support of troops and equipment to rudimentary airfields as well as all long range bombing requirements.The air operations of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps support the air operations of their respective service missions.

Evidence: No evidence available.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: There are no systematic evaluations by organizations independent from DOD. However, DOD routinely certifies Air Force assessments of how well their training, equipment, and personnel can meet the requirements of real-world military missions. This assessment of Air Force readiness is reported to Congress in classified form on a quarterly basis. Ongoing combat operations and these reports show that Air Force units are ready to meet their real-world combat missions.

Evidence: See 4.3 above. In addition, the most recent quarterly readiness report to Congress and ongoing combat operations show that Air Force units are ready to meet their real-world military missions.