New Combat Readiness Directorate focused on increasing readiness and reducing costs

  • Published
  • By Air Force Life Cycle Management Center Public Affairs
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio – On Oct. 1, the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) officially stood up the Combat Readiness Directorate, as part of a larger Department of the Air Force effort to better position the Air Force and Space Force to deter and, if necessary, prevail in an era of Great Power Competition.

The new directorate is comprised of five divisions which are Automatic Test Systems, Support Equipment and Vehicles, Human Systems, the Air Force Metrology and Calibration Office and the Rapid Sustainment Office.

During a recent interview, Scott Boyd, the Deputy Program Executive Officer for Combat Readiness, spoke about the directorate, its mission and priorities, and impact it’s having in the field.

Q: Can you talk about the stand up of the Combat Readiness Directorate?

Boyd: As part of the [former] Secretary of the Air Force’s plan for Great Power Competition he very specifically called out the need to do some reorganization within the acquisition world. The Combat Readiness Directorate was stood up, with Lt. Gen. Donna Shipton serving as the Program Executive Officer, to consolidate a lot of related programs that focused on readiness, in order to drive cross-cutting capabilities and product support across platforms. It was all about bringing together these organizations and asking them to focus on looking across weapon systems platforms. AFLCMC is very good at looking at a single weapon system – whether it’s F-35, or F-16, or C-130 – and making sure that system is supported. We organize around that platform, and we take care of it. Where we can improve is being more strategic and looking for ways to increase readiness and reduce costs by finding cross-cutting or common or enterprise solutions that can be applied across all these different weapon systems. That’s really what we [Combat Readiness Directorate] have been challenged to do.

Q: Since the stand up on Oct. 1st, has there been any significant changes within the organization?

Boyd: I would say the biggest change we're trying to bring in is more of a cultural change, of how to get these five divisions to work together and to look for those cross-cutting common solutions that we've been charged to identify.

These Divisions were looking for those previously, but it wasn't a primary driver. We are expecting some internal changes to help focus on this goal of looking for common solutions, but we have not yet implemented any dramatic changes.

Q: As far as looking for cross-cutting solutions, and ways to work better, are you seeing any early successes?

Boyd: Yes, we are. Some of these [successes] started prior to the reorg and we've been able to see them to fruition. Some examples include our Automatic Test Systems team. They worked with an F-16 unit to minimize its deployment footprint. The unit were deploying, and they were noticing that to ensure power to test their F-16 weapons while deployed, they needed to bring several large pieces of equipment and wiring, because they never knew what kind of power they would have in a deployed location.
Our engineering team partnered with them and came up with an idea to field a modified cable adapter. Simply by having this new cable adapter, we were able to eliminate the need for that unit to deploy with a significant portion of that equipment.

Q: What are the leadership priorities for the team and what do you want to work on over the next year?

Boyd: Our focus is on developing common and enterprise solutions for our warfighters. We’re going to ensure that our team understands the vision, that they are properly trained and are empowered to be more proactive in engaging with warfighters.

Q: Prior to your current role, you were the Deputy Program Executive Officer for Mobility Aircraft and before that, the Chief of the C-130 Hercules Division. How does that experience influence your perspective?

Boyd: The fact that I spent a significant time in the mobility world has helped me with my direct connections to the warfighter, and understanding their mission needs and bringing that way of thinking into this combat readiness perspective. We certainly had readiness challenges in the mobility world and those challenges were impacted by what is now within the combat readiness [directorate’s] sphere of influence and what it’s responsible for.
For example, the KC-46 was delivered with a lot of very peculiar and unique support equipment, much of it oversized. It takes a lot of C-17s to deploy a KC-46 unit just because of all the equipment you have to take. We need to find modernized solutions to the support equipment for the KC-46, to reduce its footprint so that it can have more options as to where it can operate out of.  And this same challenge is found with most of the aircraft weapon systems in the Air Force inventory.

Q: Is there anything you would like to add?

Boyd: Lt. Gen. Shipton and I are excited for the opportunity to work with our incredible team, and are looking forward to fielding capabilities that dramatically improve readiness and efficiency.