BY ORDER OF AIR FORCE POLICY DIRECTIVE 10-9
THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE 1 november 1995

Operations

Lead Operating Command Weapon

Systems Management

HSUMMARY OF REVISIONS
HThis revision changes aircraft lead MAJCOM assignments in figure A2.1. It deletes the H-3 which is no longer in the inventory, changes the EC-137 to AFSOC only and renames the DC-130 to NC-130. The lead for C-12 is now AFMC. A H indicates revisions from the previous edition.

1. The Air Force employs many diverse weapons and support systems in executing its global mission. Operating, maintaining, and modifying these systems to upgrade or extend economical service life greatly consumes the Air Force's budget. Ultimately, the Air Force must develop, purchase, and field new systems to replace systems economically obsolete or beyond economical repair. The Air Force assigns responsibility for overall management of each system to a "lead-command" to ensure that all requirements associated with every system receive comprehensive and equitable consideration This lead-command provides a primary input into the process of developing and maintaining a force structure with a balance of complimentary capabilities, and it establishes a basis for rational allocation of scarce resources among competing requirements. The identity of the lead-command is obvious when only one command has the system assigned to it. However, when active Air Force major commands (MAJCOM) "share" a system among themselves or with units of the Air Reserve Components (ARC), the Air Force clearly designates a lead-command so that all using and supporting organizations know who is the overall advocate for that system over its life cycle.

2. The Air Force will designate a lead-command or agency when more than one Air Force MAJCOM or agency possesses the same type of weapon system. It designates all other MAJCOMs or agencies possessing that weapon system as "user" commands.

3. Lead-command for weapon systems operated by both active MAJCOMs and the ARC will prioritize requirements, resources, and schedules within a total force context. The Air Force normally will give priority to warfighting tasked forces which will enter the fight first, without command or component assignment being the predominant factor.

3.1. If actions by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) or Congress approve items to improve capability of weapons systems, the Air Force will make every effort to take advantage of the opportunity. All people involved must support the Air Force's effort to maintain fleet-wide configuration control and commonality for interoperability within total force operations.

4. The Air Force will work needs which the user perceives as adding value to a system without bias in the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System. Once the Air Force validates, prioritizes, and makes decisions on requirements regarding Resource Allocations, all participants will adhere to its priorities. If circumstances change or new information is available concerning a system, the user should bring the new data to the lead-command which has the obligation to revisit the priority.

5. The directive established the following authorities and responsibilities which are applicable to both primary weapon systems, and support and training systems:

5.1. The lead-command is the weapon system advocate and will respond to issues addressing weapon system status and use. Advocacy includes planning, programming, and budgeting for designated system-wide unique equipment, modifications, initial spares, replenishment spares, and follow-on test and evaluation.
5.2. The lead-command will provide appropriate operational and support agency representation in the requirements and modification process.

6. In addition to the responsibilities in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2, lead-commands will:

6.1. Follow established directives when establishing and prioritizing modification requirements.

6.2. Identify Minimum Essential Subsystem List (MESL) items. If necessary, user commands can supplement with their own specific requirements.

6.3. Oversee weapon systems configuration following established MAJCOM and weapon system single manager (formerly System Program Director [SPD]) procedures.

6.3.1. The weapon system single manager is responsible for maintaining system engineering integrity; the lead-command is responsible for fleet-wide interoperability and commonality. Therefore, both the lead-command and the single manager must first approve any implementation of permanent modification for which there was no previously validated need.

6.4. Establish formal training requirements, tasks, and standards for both operations and maintenance (for Air Force Special Operations Command, provisions of US Air Force or US Special Operations Command Memoranda of Agreement apply).

6.5. Manage munitions issues (SEEK EAGLE).

6.6. Establish minimum Readiness Spares Package standards (user commands can supplement with their own specific requirements, if necessary).

6.7. Manage contractor logistics support contracts (user commands will program and budget for their portion of the contract costs).

6.8. Control disposition (ownership) and condition or storage status of excess weapon systems.

6.9. Identify weapon system funding requirements and in event of budget realignment, recommend funding sources when tasked by Headquarters United States Air Force.

7. User commands retain responsibility for accomplishing the above duties for command or mission unique equipment, modifications, and requirements.

8. The Air Force will continue to manage other fleet management items (Depot Level Repairable, Depot Purchased Equipment Maintenance, maintenance requirements document review, etc.) following existing and future command-to-command agreements.

9. Field operating agencies and others which are not able to perform full lead-command duties may negotiate transfer of certain functions to MAJCOMs or agencies with more capability in those areas.

10. This policy directive provides overarching policy covering a wide range of activities impacted by the lead-command concept. Cognizant agencies should develop implementation strategies and procedures tailored to their particular activity.

11. See attachment 1 for measures used to assess compliance with this policy.

12. See attachment 2 for lead-command assignments.

RALPH E. EBERHART, Lt General, USAF
DCS/Plans and Operations

3 Attachments
1. Measuring and Displaying Compliance With Policy
2. Lead MAJCOM or Agency Assignments
3. Interfacing Publications
MEASURING AND DISPLAYING COMPLIANCE WITH POLICY

A1.1. HQ USAF/XOFP will measure compliance with Air Force lead-command policy by comparing the percentage of types of aircraft weapon systems shared by more than one MAJCOM or agency with those having a lead-command assignment. The desired trend is an increasing percentage of weapon systems assigned to a lead-command or agency. HQ USAF/XOFP will track this data and report it on a semiannual basis, using the format in figure A1.1.

Figure A1.1. Sample Metric of Aircraft Managed by a Lead MAJCOM.

LEAD MAJCOM OR AGENCY ASSIGNMENTS

HA2.1. Figure A2.1 represents in graphic form the initial assignment of aircraft to five MAJCOMs -- Air Combat Command (ACC), Air Mobility Command (AMC), Air Education and Training Command (AETC), Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) -- for lead command purposes. Assigned commands should begin exercising lead command duties and responsibilities effective immediately. HQ USAF/XOFP is responsible for updating lead command assignments as required by events.

Figure A2.1. Lead MAJCOM or Agency Assignments.

ACC
 
AMC
 
AETC
 
AFSOC
 
LEAD ASSIGNED LEAD ASSIGNED LEAD ASSIGNED LEAD ASSIGNED
A-10 (multi) C-17 (AMC/AETC) T-37 (AETC only) AC-130 (SOC/AFR)
B-1 (ACC/ANG) C-141 (multi) T/AT-38 (AETC/ACC) HC-130 (multi)
B-52 (ACC/AFR) C-20 (AMC/AFE) T/CT-43 (multi) MC-130 (SOC/AETC)
C-130
(GEN)
(multi) C-21 (multi)
 
 
MH-53J (SOC/AETC)
E-3 (ACC/PACAF) C-5 (multi)
 
 
MH-60 (multi)
EC-130 (ACC/ANG) C-9 (multi)
 
 
 
 
F-15 (multi) C/KC-135
(GEN)
(multi)
 
 
 
 
F-16 (multi) KC-10 (AMC/ACC)
 
 
 
 
F/RF-4 (ACC/ANG)
 
 
HAFMC
 
AFSPC
 
HH-60 (multi)
 
 
LEAD ASSIGNED LEAD ASSIGNED
OA-10 (multi)
 
 
HC-12 (multi) H-1 (multi)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FOLLOWING AIRCRAFT ASSIGNED ONLY ONE MAJCOM, NOT LEAD COMMAND ISSUE
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

ASSIGNED

 
ASSIGNED
 
ASSIGNED
 
ASSIGNED
B-2 (ACC only) VC-25 (AMC only) JPATS (AETC only) C-12 (multi)
C-27 (ACC only) HC -137 (AMC only) T-1 (AETC only) C-18 (AFMC only)
E-4 (ACC only)
 
 
T-3 (AETC only) C-23 (AFMC only)
E-8 (ACC only) C-22 (ANG only) T-41 (AETC only) CT-39 (AFMC only)
E-9 (ACC only) C-26 (ANG only)
 
 
HNC-130 (AFMC only)
EC-135 (ACC only) LC-130 (ANG only) TG-3,4 (USAFA only) EC-18 (AFMC only)
EF-111 (ACC only)
 
 
TG-7,9 (USAFA only) NA-37 (AFMC only)
F-111 (ACC only) WC-130 (AFR only) UV-18 (USAFA only) NKC-135 (AFMC only)
F-117 (ACC only)
 
 
 
 
OA-37 (AFMC only)
F-22 (ACC only) HEC -137 (AFSOC only)
 
 
T-39 (AFMC only)
RC-135 (ACC only)
 
 
 
 
 
 
TC-135 (ACC only)
 
 
 
 
 
 
OC-135 (ACC only)
 
 
 
 
 
 
U-2 (ACC only)
 
 
 
 
 
 

INTERFACING PUBLICATIONS

AFPD 10-6, Mission Needs and Operational Requirements

AFI 10-601, Mission Needs and Operational Requirements Guidance and Procedures

AFPD 16-5, Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System

AFI 16-501, Control and Documentation of Air Force Programs

AFPD 63-1, Acquisition System

AFI 63-101, Acquisition System Procedures

AFI 63-107, Weapon System Program Management

AFI 63-114, Rapid Response Process

AFPAM 63-115, Guidelines for Successful Acquisition and Management of Software Intensive System-Weapon System and Management Information

AFI 63-116, Industrial Base Guidelines for Acquisition Decision Makers

AFI 65-6, Budget

AFI 65-601 Vol 1, US Air Force Budget Policies and Procedures

AFI 65-601 Vol 3, Budget Management for Operations

AFI 65-601 Vol 5, US Air Force Budget Investment Appropriations

AF Supplement to DoDI 5000.2, Defense Acquisition Management Policies and Procedures