Ship Maintenance

1
Ship Maintenance

• RADM Jeff Brooks
• FFC N43

Ver VSRA Final 15 Feb 07
2
Required Focus
3
Desired Outcomes

• CNO understanding of
• Maintenance governance
• Maintenance requirements process approach
  validity
• Maintenance communication thresholds
• FY07 execution plan
• Supporting Information
• Maintenance process changes underway across Fleet
  Readiness Enterprise (FRE)
• Maintenance process/performance metrics in
  use/development to identify and drive change
• Future maintenance risk items with threshold
  potential

4
Agenda

• Where we are today
• Discussion of Alignment, Governance and
  Thresholds
• Vision of where we are heading
• Maintenance process improvements
• Aligning warfare enterprises around common
  processes
• Potential out-year domain challenges

Deliver efficiency effectiveness aligned with
FRP
5
Navy Ship Maintenance Activities
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Intermediate
Maintenance Facility (PSNS IMF) (RMC)
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
Nuclear Submarine Support Facility New London
SUPSHIP Groton
Norfolk Naval Shipyard
Mid-Atlantic RMC Norfolk
SUPSHIP Newport News
Ship Repair Facility Yokosuka (RMC)
Southwest Regional Maintenance Center (RMC) San
Diego
Trident Refit Facility Kings Bay Southeast RMC
Mayport
South Central RMC Ingleside
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard IMF (RMC)
Mission funded aligned through One Shipyard
construct.
AS-39 USS EMORY S LAND _at_ La Maddalena AS-40 USS
FRANK CABLE _at_ Guam
6
Todays Strategy
NCCs
Units Ready For Tasking
FRP Readiness Life Cycle Readiness
COCOMs
Cost
Demand Signal
Material Readiness
Ship Maintenance Modernization Domain

Fleet Readiness Enterprise
POM/Budget Process
MODERNIZATION
Inputs
(Platform Sponsors/PEOs)
Requirements Generation
7
Maintenance Supports Ops
Notional CVN FRTP
INTEGRATED TRAINING
BASIC TRAINING
REDEPLOYMENT (SUSTAINMENT)
MAINTENANCE PHASE
DEPLOYMENT
6 Mo Planned Incremental Availability (PIA) or 10
½ Mo Docking PIA
Continuous Maint. (CM) Periods

• PIAs DPIAs are Hard Scheduling Targets
• Dry-dock Constraints
• FY s
• Industrial Base Loading
• CM Schedules More Flexible
• Max Interface w/ TYCOM and Fleet N3s

Ao FRTP Ao Life Cycle Ao Total
8
Maintenance Program Content
100
75
Executed Maintenance Man-days
Modernization
50
Corrective Maintenance (CSMP)
Class Maint Plan (CMP) Engineered Requirements
25
0
FY05
FY98
FY05
FY98
FY98
FY05
Surface
Carrier
Submarine
9
Should Maintenance Content be the Same?

• Class Maintenance Plan content differs because
  of
• System certifications (nuclear, subsafe, flight
  deck)
• Aging Effects
• Hull life expectancy
• Maintenance scheduling intervals

10
How Do We Determine the Right CMP Content?
Modernization
100
CSMP
8
16
23
21
21
21
21
20
10
Executed Maintenance Man-days
43
75
10
13
21
43
50
Modernization
Corrective Maintenance (CSMP)
70
82
64
58
36
41
25
Class Maint Plan (CMP) Engineered Requirements
21

• Class Maint Plans
• Maintenance Requirements
• Assessment Procedures
• Maintenance Strategies

0
Carrier
Submarine
Surface
Work Package Development
Maintenance Execution
Ship Configuration Integration
Requirements Deferral Review
Maint History Feedback
Continuous Improvement
Cycles of Learning Drive CMP improvements.
11
What are the Big Cost Drivers?

• Corrosion control
• Planning/Support services
• Maintenance intensive components/systems
• Modernization

100
1
1
1
1
1
3
9
16
7
13
18
1
Habitability/Upgrades
7
8
7
6
2
75
7
8
Program Alterations
11
24
13
Executed Maintenance Man-days
16
Fleet Alterations
30
24
50
Corrective Maintenance
58
Class Maint Plan (CMP) Corrective, contingency
41
42
CMP Scheduled Rqmts
27
25
29
CMP Corrosion, contingency
18
6
5
12
13
Corrosion Control
0
7
6
1
1
Surface
Carrier
Submarine
Targets for Maintenance Improvement
12
Maintenance Cost Improvement Initiatives

• Fleet-wide LEAN/Six-Sigma Implementation (ECD
  Jan 07)
• Hull-specific Maintenance Modernization
  Business Plans (ECD Jun 07)
• Joint-Fleet/ASN/NAVSEA National Contracting
  Strategy (Implement Oct 06)
• Paint/Preservation Task Force (ECD Jan 07)
• Single Fleet Modernization Process (ECD Sep 07)
• Ship Material Condition Metrics MFOM 2.0
  (Deploy Oct 06)

13
Trends Over Time?
CLASS DEPOT LIFECYCLE MANDAYS
Integrated Class Maint Plan Maint Requirement
System
SHIPMAIN Results
100
of Original
CVN 68
CRU/DES
50
SSN 688
Adherence to Class Maint Plans Atrophied
Beginning of Life
Present
Program Life
14
Ship Maintenance Funding Trends
9,000
360
8,000
320
7,000
280
6,000
240
5,000
200
Constant FY06 Dollars (M)
Ships
4,000
160
The FRE Challenge!
3,000
120
2,000
80
1,000
40
0
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
FY
POM08
Requirement
Battle Force Ships
15
Enterprise Relationships
CNO
Navy Enterprise
RDA
N8/ FMB
CFFC/CPF
FleetReadiness Enterprise
FMBOD
OPNAV N8/6/4/1
TYCOMs
Warfare Enterprises
Providers
Resource Sponsors
16
Alignment
Ship Repair

• Technical Authority
• Contract Authority
• Life Cycle Mgmt.
• Class Maint Plans
• Shipyard Operation

Units Ready For Tasking
Warfare
Enterprises
FRP
Alignment
FRE
17
Governance Structure
Local Boards Of Directors (LBODs)

• Members
• RMC Cdr. (chair)
• Customer TYCOMs
• PHIBGRUs
• DESRONs
• SUBRONs
• Ship ISICs
• FMO (Reps)

• Purpose
• Manage port workload
• Align
• Priorities
• Funds
• Resources

18
FMBOD Responsibilities

• Chartered by CFFC/CPF to
• Establish overarching Fleet Maintenance Policy
• Determine ship maintenance resource requirements
• Adjudicate cross-enterprise ship maintenance
  issues
• Implement best practices and lessons learned
  across the Fleet Readiness Enterprise to enhance
  productivity
• Oversee standardization of maintenance processes
  across all platforms
• Develop meaningful ship maintenance metrics
• Maintain awareness of national ship repair
  industrial base
• Oversee availability assignment process
• Ensure stakeholders advised of threshold issues

19
Fleet Readiness Status Indicators
(3) YTD Financial Execution Readiness
Impact
UNCLAS VERSION FOR BRIEF PURPOSES.
(1) Strike Group Readiness FRP, O-Plan
Account YTD Readiness Impact Comments
Air Ops G G
Air Maint. from CNAF
Ship Ops G G
Ship Maint. Y G Carrier overlap at Norfolk Naval Shipyard
Combat Ops Y G Contracts committed, but not obligated. Close EOY on plan.
RFT Groups RFT Groups Cur-rent Next 6 mo Comments
CSG Presence G G Meet CCDR demand
CSG Surge(6 1) Y Y 60 surge 60
CSG Tempo Y Y CNO approval for Enterprise
ESG Presence G G Meet CCDR demand
ESG Surge Y Y Reduced LPD availability
ESG Tempo G G All metrics within red line
G
Y
(2) Unit Readiness FRP, O-Plan
(4) Readiness Support
Provider Current Comments
CNSF G
CNAF G Expeditionary
CSF Y Peak in units unavailable
NECC G FRP is green 1NCD,
NNWC G
MSC G
Support Comments
Personnel G FIT, IA notification time
Training TBD Live training/ranges, synthetic training
Ordnance G Weapon stations
Supply G Average Customer Wait Time
Installations G
Environment Y USWTR, sonar, exercise concerns
Health Svcs G Individual health status data
Con. Develop. Experiment G
20
Maintenance N43
Status indicators
Previous slide
G

• Ability to Meet COCOM Tasking
• Nothing to report
• CNO Avail Planning and Execution
• Growth and New work issues shipyard performance
• Funding
• Program execution funds timing
• Industrial Base Issues
• Availability assignments out of home port One
  Shipyard performance
• Congressional Issues
• Balancing public shipyard workload

G
G
G
G
GREEN No impact on Fleet readiness and or
maintenance YELLOW Potentially impacts Fleet
readiness and or maintenance RED Significantly
impacts Fleet readiness and or maintenance (cost
and/or schedule)
21
Thresholds

• Advise CNO/Stakeholders if/when
• Maintenance impacts major Navy metric and/or
  Combatant Commander event(s) (e.g., 60 vice 61
  CVN deployment date slip)
• Noteworthy maintenance discovery (e.g., FFG hull
  thinning)
• Funds beyond normal appropriation guidelines
  required
• Public/Political interest is likely (e.g., public
  shipyard work loading)
• Decisions affecting out-year programming (e.g.,
  CVN tanks)
• Industrial base capacity critical skills issues
  (e.g., CVN overlap solution)

22
Informed Decision Making
Software indicates which items should be repaired
to support selected mission.
23
Feeding Other Metric Systems
DRRS-N Screen
DRRS Screen
Total Force Integrated Readiness Model (TFIRM)
Defense Readiness Reporting System-Navy
Personnel Equipment Supply Training Ordnance
NTAs
MFOM
Connecting Cost via TFIRM
24
Maintenance Domain Risk Items

• One Shipyard execution of Norfolk Naval Shipyard
  carrier overlap workload
• USS ENTERPRISE FY08 availability
• Congressional Hot Points
• Potential shipyard downsizing impacts

25
Naval Shipyard Workload Forecast

• The CNO brief contained a workload forecast graph
  that was classified For Official Use
  Only-Business Sensitive. To avoid classifying
  this version of the brief in that manner, the
  graph was removed for purposes of general
  distribution and key points noted below.
• Graph key points
• Submarine workload begins significant decline in
  FY09
• BRAC retention of all four SYs exacerbated
  capacity overload
• High overtime the norm thru FY08 due to projected
  requirement reduction starting in FY09
• Manning reduction glide slope feasible without
  adverse personnel actions

26
FY 07 Execution Plan
CNO was provided a synopsis of the FY07 ship
maintenance execution plan that included the
challenge noted in the banner below for all ship
maintenance domain members to execute all
requirements using only 95 of projected funding.
Specific briefing numbers included in the
version of this brief presented to the CNO have
been removed as they are no longer current.
5 Challenge is in Addition to Previous Marks and
Mitigations
27
Take-Aways

• Maintenance governance is correctly aligned

• Maintenance requirements process approach is valid

28
(No Transcript)
29
Top 5 Cost Drivers by Ship Class
Slide 10 backup.