The authors developed a new approach to leverage and aggregate authoritative data sources that feed the current readiness reporting system to better measure the ability of Air Combat Command forces to meet scenario demands. Combat power readiness would be measured by linking the status of personnel and equipment to specific capability sets that contribute to the required set of Unit Type Codes demanded by specific scenarios.
Developing Operationally Relevant Metrics for Measuring and Tracking Readiness in the U.S. Air Force
Download eBook for Free
|PDF file||4.1 MB||
Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.
Purchase Print Copy
|Add to Cart||Paperback44 pages||$18.00||$14.40 20% Web Discount|
- What changes in the reporting and analysis of readiness factors are needed to enable decisionmakers at Air Combat Command to assess readiness in an operationally relevant manner?
- How can readiness data be aggregated to measure deployable units?
Current force readiness and availability metrics have important deficits that limit their ability to inform U.S. Air Force decisionmakers about the number of units available and to identify capability and capacity shortfalls in meeting scenario demands. The authors of this report developed an approach that allows authoritative data sources that feed the current readiness reporting system to be leveraged and aggregated and therefore better measure the readiness of Air Combat Command forces to meet scenario demands. The methodology proposes the definition of combat power as the specific collection of personnel and equipment to fulfill a given capability (e.g., the air superiority capability of a six-ship of F-22 aircraft). Combat power readiness would be measured by linking the status of personnel and equipment to specific capability sets (e.g., fly the aircraft, maintain the aircraft) that contribute to the required set of Unit Type Codes demanded by scenarios when said power would be utilized.
- The existing UTC construct provides a foundation for defining combat power and measuring its readiness.
- The proposed approach can be used to assess combat power readiness from a manpower perspective. Shortfalls in personnel availability tend to drive low readiness; thus, a personnel assessment provides a close approximation of reality.
- Improving access to some existing data and information would enable combat power readiness to be assessed and would provide decisionmakers with a metric that informs the availability of usable capability.
- Track and make available personnel data at the individual level and equipment data at the part level. Including more-detailed personnel and equipment data in existing systems (e.g., Defense Readiness Reporting System–Strategic) will help to complete the readiness assessment.
- Explicitly link personnel availability data to personnel training data. Personnel availability and training data must be considered and accessed simultaneously at the individual level, since bringing together availability and training data at the unit level overlooks important information.
- Define or update descriptions and groupings of UTCs that enable their aggregation into relevant force packages. A more clear and concise description of mission capability statements of the UTCs is needed to provide the foundation for the grouping of UTCs into combat power.
Table of Contents
Current Readiness Reporting and Its Shortfalls
An Approach to Measure Operationally Relevant Readiness and the Challenges to Implementing It
Summary and Recommendations
Capability and Resource Readiness Reporting
Description of UTCs from MISCAPs and MEFPAK
Research conducted by
This research was commissioned by the U.S. Air Force and conducted within the Force Modernization and Employment Program of RAND Project AIR FORCE.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.