Tested Maintenance Principles from National Training Center Rotation 22-07

Tested Maintenance Principles from National Training Center Rotation 22-07 by MAJ Patrick K. Kuiper and LTC Russell B. Thomas Many authors write articles to address practical advice for Army leaders about maintenance. Two articles our unit found most beneficial in setting the groundwork for a solid mainte nance program were “Winning the Maintenance Fight at Pace” by COL Michael Simmering1 and “P4T3 Sup porting ‘Ready Now’ Maintenance” by Chuck Brown.2 Both articles provide specific technical advice to improve the maintenance program and posture sustainment for high-intensity opera tions. After completing National Training Center (NTC) Rotation 22-07, where 3rd Cavalry Regiment trained in largescale combat operations (LSCO) with greatly extended lines of communica tion compared to other rotations, we discuss in this article three general principles to consider when leading a maintenance program. NTC Rotation 22-07 validated that a maintenance program grounded in the principles of accountability, support and stability can thrive in LSCO over extended lines of communication. Accountability Several critical systems exist to en force accountability for maintenance. One of the most important of these is the equipment-status report (ESR). The ESR is the Army’s system of record for vehicle issues and parts ordering, and is the one true method for track ing maintenance. Often a new leader will feel pulled to develop or use nonstandard accountability mechanisms (Microsoft Excel or PowerPoint track ers, for example) to understand and visualize the performance of their maintenance enterprise; however, the ESR must remain the exclusive docu ment to visualize performance. The ESR’s prominence as a tool is crit ical. The ESR lets anyone in the main tenance enterprise understand cur rent faults on a piece of equipment, the required corrective action status of parts required to fix it, in addition to a myriad of other data. When a maintenance fault occurs and is accu rately annotated on the ESR, a de mand signal to the Army that the item is broken is generated. These events occur nearly automatically to rectify the fault. However, just as critical as an accurate and active ESR is the general concept of accountability. Leaders at every echelon must be held accountable for what is printed on the ESR. This print, and thus the faults and equipment sta tus of the organization, must be weighed against practical, event-oriented operational perfor mance. Operational performance at an event could be gunnery training, an impromptu deployment readiness “roll-out” drill or a company com bined-arms live-fire. The ESR must be validated with equipment perfor mance at these events and leaders must be held accountable via formal counseling and performance evalua tions for the status of their equip ment. Leaders must ensure accountability for both the maintainer professionals and combat-arms organizations alike. We recommend a completely even divide Figure 1. A pack change is made in the field during Operation Rifles Forge, a troop situational-training exercise/combined-arms live-fire exercise, at Fort Hood, TX. In February 2022. (U.S. Army photo by MAJ Patrick Kuiper)

Fall 2022 when balancing time and effort to ward assessing accountability be tween these organizations. For exam ple, a unit with poor maintenance could be the result of an ineffective maintenance organization or a collec tion of infantry companies who do not execute proper preventive-mainte nance checks and services (PMCS) with faults accurately annotated on the Department of the Army (DA) Form 5988E (Equipment Maintenance and Inspection Worksheet). Most of ten the fault lies near the middle be tween maintainers and the combat-arms organizations. Holding the ap propriate organization to account for its shortfalls and encouraging all mem bers of the organization to be great teammates is critical for overall suc cess. A culture of accountability within the organization need not be toxic or dra conian. Rather, as on any good sports team, this accountability stems from mutual respect for one another and the requirements to ensure the over all success of the unit to fight and win in LSCO. During NTC Rotation 22-07, we found that once accountability, coupled with authority to act, were applied each member of the mainte nance team strove to do their part and facilitate the success of the squadron. Support The maintenance specialists who have the primary responsibility to repair Army equipment require the support of end-users. These end-users are of ten combat-arms personnel such as vehicle drivers, gunners and com manders. If left to their own devices, many of these end-users would prefer to annotate a fault, bring the vehicle to a mechanic and ask for a message when the vehicle or equipment is ready for pick-up. In the Army, and es pecially a Stryker brigade, the number of mechanics is not nearly enough to allow for this type of support. When conducting LSCO, the number of re pairs required due to the pace of op erations simply requires all end-users to take an active role in supporting maintenance operations. For successful maintenance opera tions in LSCO, both end-users and maintenance specialists must support one another as teammates to ensure equipment is sustained properly. Therefore, leaders at all levels must adjudicate this symbiotic support re lationship to ensure all parties uphold the standards of their profession and occupational specialties. A mainte nance program will only be successful when the support relationship is recip rocated by all. This support relationship starts with an accurate and effective flow of the DA Form 5988E. During NTC Rotation 22-07, the standard flow of 5988Es was 72 hours. The troop executive of ficer would issue new 5988Es to the unit. All crews would conduct daily PMCS on their equipment using that same 5988E, and then on the third day the executive officer would retrieve the 5988Es from the unit (providing a new one with annotated faults from the last turn now on the print) and for ward those to the unit-maintenance command post via the logistical resup ply point. With the regular push of 5988Es, faults were validated by embedded troop-level maintenance teams, up dated in the Global Combat Support System-Army and placed on order. This same process was used on a staggered rotational 72-hour basis for weapons; communications equipment; nuclear, biological and chemical equipment; and vehicles. This rotation balanced generating accurate demand signals from equipment operators with the lo gistical overhead of the paperwork ex change, ensuring operators provided 5988Es updated on a class of equip ment at every daily logistics package. Providing support on the ground when a vehicle requires repair includes hav ing the operator crews present for the duration of the work required to push the vehicle back in the fight. In Tiger Squadron (1st Squadron, 3rd Cavalry Regiment), we empowered crew mem bers to conduct installation of simple parts, often “slash faults,” so that the mechanics could focus their efforts on more difficult repairs. All repairs were inspected and certified by a mechanic, but items such as periscope repair, seat installation or side-mirror repair could often be installed by the crew. Leveraging operator crews to com plete this work saves valuable me chanic time. Also, the crew should always be on hand to assist the mechanics with in stallation of those more difficult tasks. This teamwork reduces the overall re pair time significantly. For a successful maintenance program in the field, it is critical that support goes both ways (maintenance special ist to end-user and back). Command ers and leaders at all levels must con tinually enforce and demand this co operation from each teammate so the unit is as effective as it can be. Stability There is no perfect maintenance pro gram in the Army. Every program can be improved, and it is true that each must continually strive to be better so it is as effective as it can be. However, before conducting a “bold shift” in a maintenance program, a commander should check whether an established system is being leveraged appropriate ly before inventing new methods to bring labor, parts or any other re source to bear against an existing pro gram. The two published articles men tioned at this article’s introduction provide excellent advice on systems to use for ensuring an effective mainte nance program. Most often, consistent and simple battle-rhythm events – such as maintenance meetings, motor pool formations, equipment-service reviews and equipment inspections – provide the stability a maintenance program requires to thrive. Maintenance is not a “surge” event. While there may indeed be times when a unit does have to surge on maintenance – such as following a large battle/training event or after a particularly long movement over diffi cult terrain – the preponderance of maintenance must be steady-state. With that in mind, leaders must devel op a maintenance program based on established Army systems, enforce ac countability of all members of the maintenance program and facilitate mutual support by all to make the pro gram effective. If solid systems are in place, creating a unit norm during the friction of war and/or difficulties in the LSCO environment will only re quire minor adjustments to allow the organization to realize continued maintenance success.

Fall 2022 Acronym Quick-Scan Recent conflicts across the globe have demonstrated that the ability to fight over extended lines of communication is essential to maintaining tempo in today’s current operational environ ment. A conscious and continuous ap plication of the three principles ac countability, support and stability will help units maintain high operational-readiness rates to fight and win in combat. MAJ Patrick Kuiper is a doctoral stu dent at Duke University. Previous as signments include squadron executive officer for 1st Squadron, 3rd Cavalry Regiment, Fort Hood, TX; squadron op erations officer, 1/3 Cavalry Regiment, Fort Hood; operations officer, CJ33, Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve, Baghdad, Iraq; assis tant professor, Department of Mathe matical Sciences, U.S. Military Acade my (USMA); and master’s student and Draper Fellow, Harvard University. He served in leadership positions at pla toon and troop command levels in 2nd Infantry Division’s 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team and in 101st Airborne Di vision (Air Assault). His operational de ployments include Operations Iraqi Freedom, New Dawn, Inherent Resolve and Enduring Freedom. MAJ Kuiper’s military schools include Command and General Staff College (CGSC) (blended: Fort Belvoir, VA, and West Point) and Ranger School. He has a bachelor’s of science degree in operations research from USMA and master of engineering degree in applied mathematics from Harvard University’s School of Engi neering and Applied Sciences. MAJ Kui per’s awards and badges include the Meritorious Service Medal, Bronze Star Medal and Ranger tab. LTC Russell Thomas commands 1/3 Cavalry Regiment, Fort Hood. Previous assignments include aide-de-camp to the deputy commanding general, Army Futures Command, Austin, TX; interagency fellow, Office of Russian Affairs, Department of State, Washing ton, DC; senior instructor and com mander, Specialist Wing, Australian School of Infantry, Singleton, Australia; and brigade operations officer, 1st Bri gade, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, TX. LTC Thomas’ operational experi ence includes time in Stryker, armored and airborne-infantry units. He has three combat deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. LTC Thom as’ military schools include CGSC and Ranger School. He has a bachelor’s of science degree in civil engineering from USMA and a master’s of science degree in environmental engineering from the University of Texas. LTC Thomas’ awards and badges include Meritorious Service Medal, Bronze Star Medal, Combat Infantryman’s Badge and Parachutist Badge. Notes 1 COL Michael J. Simmering, “Winning the Maintenance Fight at Pace,” The Compa ny Leader, March 16, 2020, https://com panyleader.themilitaryleader. com/2020/03/16/winning-the-mainte nance-fight-at-pace/. 2 Chuck Brown, “P4T3 Supporting ‘Ready Now’ Maintenance,” Flightfax Edition 78, June 2019, chrome-extension://efaidn bmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https:// safety.army.mil/Portals/0/Documents/ ON-DUTY/AVIATION/FLIGHTFAX/Stan dard/2019/Flightfax_78_June_2019.pdf. CGSC – Command and General Staff College DA – Department of the Army ESR – equipment-status report LSCO – large-scale combat operations NTC – National Training Center PMCS – preventive maintenance checks and services USMA – U.S. Military Academy Send Us Your Manuscripts ARMOR magazine’s manuscript suspenses for 2023:

• Spring 2023 edition: Feb. 11, 2023

• Summer 2023 edition: May 9, 2023

• Fall 2023 edition: July 18, 2023 For planning purposes, ARMOR magazine suspenses are an average of 10-11 weeks before the edition is published.