Estimated Impact of Corrosion on Cost and Availability of DoD Weapon Systems. FY18 Update

Transcription

1 Estimated Impact of on Cost and Availability of DoD Weapon Systems FY18 Update March 2018

2 Estimated Impact of on Cost and Availability of DoD Weapon Systems FY18 Update Eric F. Herzberg Trevor K. Chan Siwei Guo Alexander K. Morris Anne Stevenson Rebecca F. Stroh March 2018

3 NOTICE: THE VIEW S, OPINIONS, AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT ARE THOSE OF LMI AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS AN OFFICIAL AGENCY POSITION, POLICY, OR DECISION, UNLESS SO DESIGNATED BY OTHER OFFICIAL DOCUMENTATION. LMI ALL RIGHTS RES E RVE D T 1

4 Contents Chapter 1 Introduction Study Objectives Report Organization Chapter 2 Impact on Navy Equipment Impact by Segment Impact by TMS Cost Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets Cost Impact on Marine Corps Ground Vehicles and Ground Systems Cost Impact on Navy Vessels Availability Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets Impact by Work Breakdown Structure Cost Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets Availability Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets Cost Impact on Ground Vehicles Cost Impact on Navy Vessels Cost and Loss of Availability Chapter 3 Impact on Army Equipment Impact by Segment Impact by TMS Cost Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets Cost Impact on Ground Vehicles and Ground Systems Availability Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets Availability Impact on Ground Vehicles Impact by WBS Cost Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets Availability Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets Cost Impact on Ground Vehicles Availability Impact on Ground Vehicles Cost and Loss of Availability Chapter 4 Impact on Air Force Equipment Impact by Segment iii

5 Impact by MDS Cost Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets Availability Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets Impact by WBS Cost Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets Availability Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets Relationship between Cost and Loss of Availability Chapter 5 Impact on DoD Impact by Segment Impact by Service Appendix A Impact Study History Appendix B Data Sources for Each Service Appendix C Abbreviations Tables Table 2-1. Cost and Availability Impact on Department of Navy Equipment Table 2-2. Trends in Navy and Marine Corps Aviation and Missile Maintenance and Costs Table 2-3. Trends in Navy and Marine Corps Aviation and Missile Maintenance and Availability Table 2-4. Trends in Marine Corps Ground Vehicle Maintenance and Costs Table 2-5. Trends in Marine Corps Ground Vehicle Maintenance and Table 2-6. Trends in Navy Vessels Maintenance and Costs Table 2-7. Trends in Miscellaneous Equipment Maintenance and Costs (Unadjusted for Inflation $) Table 2-8. Top 10 Contributors to Navy Aviation and Missile Costs, FY Table 2-9. Top 10 Aviation and Missile Types by Average Cost per Item, FY Table Navy Aviation and Missiles Assets with Highest Combined Ranking for Average and Cost, FY Table Top 10 Contributors to Marine Corps Ground Vehicle Costs, FY Table Top 10 Marine Corps Ground Vehicles or Systems by Average Cost per Item, FY iv

6 Contents Table Marine Corps Ground Vehicles and Systems with Highest Combined Ranking for Average and Cost, FY Table Top 10 Contributors to Navy Vessels Costs, FY Table Top 10 Navy Vessels by Average Cost per Item, FY Table Navy Vessels with Highest Combined Ranking for Average and Cost, FY Table Top 10 Contributors to Navy Aviation and Missile, FY Table Aviation and Missile Cost by System, FY Table Aviation and Missile Cost by Maintenance Action, FY Table Highest 10 Contributors to Aviation and Missile Non-Availability by System, FY Table Top 10 Contributors to Aviation and Missile by Maintenance Action, FY Table Top 10 Contributors to Marine Corps Ground Vehicle Cost by System, FY Table Cost and Maintenance Cost Ranking by Maintenance Action, FY Table Top 20 Contributors to Navy Submarines by System, FY Table Top 20 Contributors to Navy Surface Vessels by System, FY Table Cost and Maintenance Cost Ranking by Maintenance Action for Navy Vessels, FY Table Aviation and Missile Equipment Cost and Availability Relationship, FY Table 3-1. Cost and Availability Impact on Department of Army Equipment Table 3-2. Trends in Army Aviation and Missile Maintenance and Costs Table 3-3. Trends in Army Aviation and Missile Maintenance and Availability Table 3-4. Trends in Army Ground Vehicle Maintenance and Costs Table 3-5. Trends in Army Ground Vehicle Maintenance and Availability Table 3-6. Trends in Army Miscellaneous Equipment Maintenance and Costs Table 3-7. Top 10 Contributors to Army Aviation and Missile Costs, FY Table 3-8. Top 10 Army Aviation or Missile Types by Average Cost per Item, FY v

7 Table 3-9. Army Aviation and Missiles Assets with the Highest Combined Ranking for Average and Cost, FY Table Top 10 Contributors to Army Ground Vehicle Costs, FY Table Top 10 Army Ground Vehicles or Systems by Average Cost per Item, FY Table Army Ground Vehicles and Systems with the Highest Combined Ranking for Average and Cost, FY Table Top 10 Contributors to Army Aviation and Missile, FY Table Top 10 Contributors to Army Ground Vehicle, FY Table Army Aviation and Missile Cost by System, FY Table Army Aviation and Missile Cost by Maintenance Action, FY Table Army Aviation and Missile Availability Impact by Highest 15 Systems, FY Table Army Aviation and Missile Availability Impact by Maintenance Action, FY Table Army Ground Vehicle Cost by System, FY Table Army Cost and Maintenance Cost Ranking by Maintenance Action, FY Table Army Ground Vehicle Availability Impact by System, FY Table Army Ground Vehicle Availability Impact by Maintenance Action, FY Table Army Aviation and Missile Equipment Cost and Availability Relationship Table Army Ground Vehicle Cost and Availability Relationship Table 4-1. Cost and Availability Impact on Department of Air Force Equipment Table 4-2. Trends in Air Force Aviation and Missile Maintenance and Costs Table 4-3. Trends in Air Force Aviation and Missile Maintenance and Availability Table 4-4. Trends in Air Force Miscellaneous Equipment Maintenance and Costs Table 4-5. Top 10 Contributors to Air Force Aviation and Missile Costs, FY vi

8 Contents Table 4-6. Top 10 Aviation and Missile Types by Average Cost per Item, FY Table 4-7. Air Force Aviation and Missiles Assets with the Highest Combined Ranking for Average and Cost, FY Table 4-8. Top 10 Contributors to Air Force Aviation and Missile NAHs, FY Table 4-9. Top 10 Aviation and Missile Cost by System, FY Table Top 10 Aviation and Missile Cost by Maintenance Action, FY Table Top 10 Aviation and Missile Availability Impact by System, FY Table Top 10 Aviation and Missile NAHs by Maintenance Action, FY Table Aviation and Missile Equipment Cost and Availability Relationship Table 5-1. Cost and Availability Impact on DoD Table 5-2. Comparison of Annual Impact Table 5-3. Cost and Availability Impact by Service vii

9 viii

10 Chapter 1 Introduction In the 1990s, Congress became increasingly concerned about the high of corrosion in the DoD. In 2002, it enacted legislation that gave the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, USD(AT&L), primary responsibility for mitigating or preventing the effects of corrosion on military equipment and infrastructure. 1,2 In carrying out that responsibility, USD(AT&L) established the Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team (CPC IPT), a cross-functional team of personnel from the military departments and private industry. The CPC IPT began collecting and analyzing corrosion-related, readiness, and safety data. (Appendix A contains the results of the corrosion impact studies performed since 2004.) In almost all cases, the studies pulled data from the Services standard maintenance and production recording systems. The study methods also included obtaining data from other-than-normal production systems, such as the Army s Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA) sample data collection. (Appendix B lists the data sources used for each Service.) The CPC IPT also created standard methods for measuring the - and availabilityrelated effects of corrosion on DoD s military equipment and infrastructure. In April 2006, the CPC IPT published the results of the first corrosion study using its corrosion estimation method. Study Objectives This report presents the results of the most recent corrosion impact studies on and availability. 3 These studies had five specific objectives: 1. Estimate the most recent annual sustainment of corrosion for DoD aviation, missile, ground, and vessel assets. 2. Estimate the most recent corrosion-related effect on availability for DoD aviation and ground assets. 3. Identify corrosion -reduction opportunities for DoD aviation, missile, ground, and vessel assets. 4. Identify corrosion-related availability improvement opportunities for DoD aviation and ground assets. 5. Analyze trends and draw conclusions using the results of the initial and most recent DoD aviation, missile, ground, and vessel studies. 1 The Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law , December 2, 2002, p Public Law was enhanced by Public Law , The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Section 371, January 28, The figures in this report have not been adjusted for inflation. 1-1

11 We do not discuss the study method in depth because it was recently presented in a separate report. 4 Report Organization The remainder of this report consists of four additional chapters and three appendices: Chapter 2 describes the corrosion and availability impact on Navy and Marine Corps aviation assets and on Marine Corps ground vehicles. It also details the corrosion impact on Navy vessels and Navy miscellaneous equipment. Chapter 3 describes the corrosion and availability impact on Army aviation, missiles, and ground vehicles. It also presents the corrosion impact on the Army s other miscellaneous equipment. Chapter 4 describes the corrosion and availability impact on Air Force aviation and missiles. Chapter 5 summarizes the total corrosion impact on the and availability of DoD equipment. Appendix A summarizes the results of the corrosion impact studies performed since Appendix B shows the data sources used for each service. Appendix C lists the abbreviations used in this report. 4 Eric F. Herzberg, Determining s Effect on the Cost and Availability of DoD Weapon Systems and Equipment: Methodology, SAL41T1 (Tysons, VA: LMI, November 2015). 1-2

12 Chapter 2 Impact on Navy Equipment The estimated total annual of corrosion for Department of the Navy equipment (based on FY16 data) is $8.63 billion, or 23.2 percent of the Navy s total equipment maintenance expenditure of $37.2 billion. In addition, the impact of corrosion on the availability of Navy aviation and missiles, and Marine Corps ground assets, is an estimated 392,040 non-available days (), again based on FY16 data. This level of is 27.5 percent of the total availability loss of 1,424,979 days for this equipment. In this chapter, we detail these results by type/model/series (TMS), system, and maintenance action. (We recently published a more thorough discussion of our analytical method in a separate report. 1 ) Impact by Segment Table 2-1 shows the impact of corrosion by study segment. Table 2-1. Cost and Availability Impact on Department of Navy Equipment impact availability impact Study segment Maintenance percentage percentage Aviation and missiles 12,299 3, , , Ground vehicles 1, , , Vessels 17,588 3, Other equipment 5,417 1, ,235 8, ,424, , Navy vessels and Navy and Marine Corps aviation assets have roughly the same amount of corrosion, but Navy and Marine Corps aviation assets have a higher corrosion from a percentage-of-maintenance aspect than vessels, ground vehicles, or other equipment. More than two-thirds of that is preventive in nature, and the largest single preventive corrosion is the inspection of aircraft. From an availability loss perspective, the total number of incurred by Navy and Marine Corps aviation assets due to corrosion is higher than the number of corrosionrelated for Marine Corps ground vehicles. Navy vessels and other equipment do not show any availability loss due to corrosion because the Navy does not report loss of availability for its vessels and the vast majority of other miscellaneous equipment. Table 2-2 through Table 2-3 show the historical trends of corrosion and availability loss by equipment type. In each table, we compare the percent change in s or availability from the most current year of the study for the equipment type being measured to 1 See Note 3, Chapter

13 Data baseline both the earliest and midpoint study execution years for the same equipment type. We do not adjust the s for inflation. Tables with comparisons have an earlier starting year than availability tables because availability studies did not start until FY08 (except for Marine Corps ground availability studies, which started in FY09). Table 2-2. Trends in Navy and Marine Corps Aviation and Missile Maintenance and Costs DM and FLM s maintenance Change from FY05 (%) maintenance Change from FY10 (%) maintenance of maintenance FY05 10,407 2, FY06 10,670 2, FY08 11,846 2, FY09 11,727 3, FY10 12,743 2, FY11 12,383 3, FY12 12,771 3, FY13 12,574 2, FY14 11,943 2, FY15 12,977 2, FY16 12,299 3, ,340 32, Note: DM = depot maintenance; FLM = field-level maintenance. Table 2-3. Trends in Navy and Marine Corps Aviation and Missile Maintenance and Availability Data baseline DM and FLM Change from FY10 (%) maintenance DM and FLM of DM and FLM FY10 593, , FY11 578, , FY12 608, , FY13 653, , FY14 696, , FY15 698, , FY16 731, , ,285,633 1,323, In Table 2-2, the total corrosion s reached their highest levels in FY12, decreased until FY14, and then have been increasing toward the FY12 levels over the last several years. This is true for total and as a percentage of total maintenance. The impact of corrosion on availability shows a worrisome trend. As depicted in Table 2-3, the number of corrosion-related has been increasing every year since FY10 and increased significantly in FY

14 Impact on Navy Equipment Table 2-4 and Table 2-5 show the trends in corrosion and availability for Marine Corps ground vehicles. Table 2-4. Trends in Marine Corps Ground Vehicle Maintenance and Costs Data baseline DM and FLM s maintenance Change from FY05 (%) maintenance Change from FY10 (%) maintenance of maintenance FY05 2, FY07 2, FY08 2, FY09 2, FY10 2, FY11 1, FY12 2, FY13 2, FY14 2, FY15 2, FY16 1, ,090 4, Table 2-5. Trends in Marine Corps Ground Vehicle Maintenance and Data baseline DM and FLM maintenance Change from FY09 (%) DM and FLM Change from FY12 (%) DM and FLM of DM and FLM FY09 2,218,860 84, FY10 2,157,965 68, FY11 2,037,695 72, FY12 1,038,477 82, FY13 1,586, , FY14 896, , FY15 1,114, , FY16 693, , ,743,286 1,013, The total corrosion for Marine Corps ground vehicles had been increasing since FY08. That trend reversed dramatically in FY16, as the corrosion returned to FY13 levels. 2-3

15 The availability results (Table 2-5) show an erratic pattern that suggests data inconsistencies. The total maintenance have decreased from more than 2.2 million in FY09 to 693,892 in FY16. This decrease in reported availability loss affects all TMSs. During this same period, the Marine Corps was transitioning its FLM and production recording system from the Marine Corps Integrated Maintenance Management System to the Global Combat Support System Marine Corps. This transition likely affected the reporting of Marine Corps ground availability data. In addition, the Marine Corps is the only service that said it does not have an authoritative top-down reporting of. This means the total amount of non-availability is determined by aggregating the found in maintenance records in which are reported. This bottom-up aggregation approach to determining the total amount of non-availability will always be susceptible to variation because of possible missing data records. Although we can reconcile the initial totals we find with any records we believe are missing, this is still an estimation not a true top-down reporting figure. Until the Marine Corps adopts a true top-down reporting convention for non-availability like the one the other services have, it will not truly know its availability rates for each vehicle type. This lack of a true top-down authoritative total for creates a potential for significant variation, so we do not draw any conclusions concerning the amount of corrosion-related non-availability. Table 2-6 and Table 2-7 show the trends in corrosion for Navy vessels and miscellaneous equipment, respectively. Table 2-6. Trends in Navy Vessels Maintenance and Costs Data baseline DM and FLM s maintenance Change from FY04 (%) maintenance Change from FY10 (%) maintenance of maintenance FY04 10,618 2, FY06 12,443 2, FY07 11,880 2, FY08 12,819 2, FY09 13,335 2, FY10 15,116 3, FY11 16,323 4, FY12 16,451 4, FY13 15,739 4, FY14 17,338 4, FY15 16,958 3, FY16 17,588 3, ,020 37, The trend of increasing corrosion s for Navy ships since FY08 was reversed in FY15, and corrosion s continued to decrease in FY16. s had been increasing each year, largely as a result of increasing maintenance expenditures during the study period. Over 10 years (FY04 14), both corrosion s and maintenance s had increased by more than 50 percent. Since FY14, however, corrosion s have 2-4

16 Impact on Navy Equipment Data baseline decreased by nearly $1 billion, and corrosion as a percentage of maintenance is at the lowest level since FY07. This is a significant improvement. Table 2-7. Trends in Miscellaneous Equipment Maintenance and Costs (Unadjusted for Inflation $) DM and FLM s maintenance Change from FY04 (%) maintenance Change from FY09 (%) maintenance of maintenance FY04 6,240 1, FY05 5,126 1, FY06 5,388 1, FY07 5,328 1, FY08 5,443 1, FY09 6,443 1, FY10 6,574 1, FY11 7,111 1, FY12 7,554 1, FY13 5,860 1, FY14 5,089 1, FY15 5,376 1, FY16 5,417 1, ,949 16, s for Navy miscellaneous equipment have been driven by the amount of maintenance spending since the first study year. Although the corrosion s have ranged from a low of $1,042 million in FY08 to a high of $1,878 million in FY12, their percentage of maintenance has stayed in a narrow range since FY04 (19.1 to 24.9 percent). This consistent range of corrosion percentage indicates that the corrosion impact on maintenance for miscellaneous equipment has stayed constant over the previous 10 years. Impact by TMS We also examined the corrosion impact by TMS of equipment. In this section, we focus on aviation, missiles, ground equipment, and vessels because the corrosion impact on miscellaneous equipment is limited to only and many of the miscellaneous equipment categories, such as ammunition, clothing and textiles, and support equipment, do not have TMS designations. Cost Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets Table 2-8 shows the top 10 total corrosion contributors. The MV-22B cargo, transport, and utility helicopter and the two MH-60 series helicopters have the highest total corrosion among the Navy s aviation assets for FY16. All aircraft listed in the table have similar corrosion percentages, suggesting a common cause such as exposure to seawater or common maintenance policies or practices. The three aircraft highlighted in Table 2-8 also are among the highest 10 corrosion contributors by TMS every study year since the inception of the corrosion impact studies. The F-414 turbofan engine is the only non-aircraft in the table. 2-5

17 Table 2-8. Top 10 Contributors to Navy Aviation and Missile Costs, FY16 Rank TMS Description maintenance corrosion of maintenance 1 MV-22B Cargo, transport, and utility MH-60S Combat search and rescue MH-60R Combat search and rescue CH-53E Cargo, transport, and utility FA-18E Fighter FA-18C Fighter FA-18F Fighter P-3C ASW and patrol ENG-F-414 Turbofan engine EA-18G Early warning and EW Note: ASW = antisubmarine warfare; EW = electronic warfare. Table 2-9 highlights the highest average corrosion contributors, although we limited our focus to TMSs that have a minimum fleet size of 10 because of the potential for smaller sizes to skew the results. Table 2-9. Top 10 Aviation and Missile Types by Average Cost per Item, FY16 Rank TMS Description Item inventory corrosion Average corrosion per item 1 E-6B Early warning and EW E-2C Early warning and EW MH-53E Combat search and rescue CH-53E Cargo, transport, and utility C-2A Cargo, transport, and utility HH-60H Search and rescue KC-130J Cargo, transport, and utility P-3C ASW and patrol MV-22B Cargo, transport, and utility MH-60R Combat search and rescue Two electronic surveillance aircraft, the E-6B and E-2C, have the highest average corrosion among the Navy s aviation assets for FY16 at $3.6 and $1.6 million per aircraft, respectively. The two aircraft highlighted in the table have been among the highest 10 TMSs in average corrosion every study year. Although reviewing the total and average corrosion s is useful, examining these parameters together renders the best view of corrosion impact by TMS (Table 2-10). We treat the total and average corrosion with equal weight in this table. 2-6

18 Impact on Navy Equipment TMS Table Navy Aviation and Missiles Assets with Highest Combined Ranking for Average and Cost, FY16 Description per item Per-item corrosion rank corrosion rank Combined rank score CH-53E Cargo, transport, and utility MV-22B Cargo, transport, and utility MH-60S Combat search and rescue MH-60R Combat search and rescue FA-18E Fighter E-2C Early warning and EW P-3C ASW and patrol E-6B Early warning and EW KC-130J Cargo, transport, and utility MH-53E Combat search and rescue Weapon system rank The CH-53E and the MV-22B cargo, transport, and utility helicopters are the two highest corrosion contributors from a combined ranking standpoint. In fact, the top four aircraft in Table 2-10are helicopters. The two aircraft highlighted in Table 2-10 have been among the highest 10 contributors to corrosion from a combined ranking standpoint for each of the study years since the first corrosion impact study in FY05. Cost Impact on Marine Corps Ground Vehicles and Ground Systems Table 2-11 presents the top 10 Marine Corps ground vehicles based on total corrosion s. The E0846 amphibious assault vehicle and the E0947 light armored vehicle have the highest total corrosion. The E0947 light armored vehicle is the only Marine Corps ground vehicle that has been among the highest total corrosion contributors for each of the study years since the first corrosion impact study 10 years ago. Table Top 10 Contributors to Marine Corps Ground Vehicle Costs, FY16 Rank TMS Description maintenance corrosion of maintenance 1 E0846 Amphibious assault vehicle E0947 Light armored vehicle D0027 MRAP vehicle D0003 Armored truck D0030 Utility truck D0052 Armored vehicle D1158 Utility vehicle D0036 M-ATV E1442 Rifle, 5.56 mm D0025 MRAP vehicle Note: MRAP = mine resistant ambush protected, M-ATV = MRAP all-terrain vehicle. Table 2-12 displays the highest average corrosion contributors, based on TMS with a minimum fleet size of

19 Table Top 10 Marine Corps Ground Vehicles or Systems by Average Cost per Item, FY16 Rank TMS Description Item inventory corrosion ($000) Average corrosion per item ($000) 1 E0856 Amphibious assault vehicle D0023 MRAP vehicle E1378 Recovery vehicle D0027 MRAP vehicle E0796 Amphibious assault vehicle A1503 Radar set E0846 Amphibious assault vehicle 1, E0947 Light assault vehicle B0589 M9 armored combat earthmover D0053 LVSR armored tractor Note: LVSR = logistic vehicle system replacement family. The E0856 amphibious assault vehicle and the D0023 MRAP vehicle have the highest average corrosion per vehicle. Amphibious assault and MRAP vehicles predominate the list in Table 2-12 for highest average corrosion per vehicle. None of the vehicles or systems depicted in the table has been among the highest average corrosion contributors for every study year. Again, an examination of both total corrosion and average corrosion per item together renders the best view of corrosion impact by TMS (with the total and average corrosion treated with equal weight). We show the results of this examination in Table Table Marine Corps Ground Vehicles and Systems with Highest Combined Ranking for Average and Cost, FY16 TMS Description per item Per-item corrosion rank corrosion rank Combined rank score Weapon system rank D0027 MRAP vehicle E0846 Amphibious assault vehicle E0947 Light assault vehicle E1378 Recovery vehicle E0796 Amphibious assault vehicle E0856 Amphibious assault vehicle D0052 LVSR armored cargo vehicle B0589 M9 armored combat earthmover D0036 M-ATV D0053 LVSR armored tractor The D0027 MRAP vehicle and the E0846 amphibious assault vehicle have the highest combined total and average corrosion rankings. The E0947 light armored vehicle 2-8

20 Impact on Navy Equipment and the E0846 amphibious assault vehicle are the only two Marine Corps vehicles that have been among the highest 10 total and average corrosion contributors for every study year. Cost Impact on Navy Vessels Table 2-14 shows the total of corrosion for Navy vessels by TMS. The DDG-51 destroyer and the CVN-68 aircraft carriers have the highest total corrosion by a significant margin. However, this is primarily a function of maintenance expenditures as the corrosion as a percentage of maintenance for these two vessel classes is similar to the other surface vessel types in Table The highlighted entries in the table are ship types that have been among the 10 highest corrosion contributors for every year of the study. Table Top 10 Contributors to Navy Vessels Costs, FY16 Rank TMS Description maintenance corrosion of maintenance 1 DDG-51 Surface warfare 4, CVN-68 Carriers 2, CG-47 Surface warfare 1, SSBN-726 Ballistic missile 1, LHD-1 Amphibious 1, LSD-41 Amphibious SSN-774 Nuclear attack SSN-688 Nuclear attack 2, LPD-17 Amphibious SSGN-726 Guided missile Table 2-15 shows the highest average corrosion contributors by TMS. The CVN-68 aircraft carriers and the LHD-1 amphibious vessels have the highest average corrosion per vessel, while the three highlighted vessels have been among the highest average corrosion contributors for every study year. 2-9

21 Table Top 10 Navy Vessels by Average Cost per Item, FY16 Rank TMS Description Item inventory corrosion Average corrosion per item 1 CVN-68 Carriers LHD-1 Amphibious LSD-41 Amphibious CG-47 Surface warfare SSBN-726 Ballistic missile DDG-51 Surface warfare LPD-17 Amphibious SSN-774 Nuclear attack MCM-1 Surface warfare LCS Surface warfare TMS Again, an examination of both total corrosion and average corrosion per item together renders an excellent picture of corrosion impact by TMS (with total and average corrosion treated with equal weights). These results are displayed in Table Table Navy Vessels with Highest Combined Ranking for Average and Cost, FY16 Description per item Per-item corrosion rank corrosion rank Combined rank score CVN-68 Carriers LHD-1 Amphibious DDG-51 Surface warfare CG-47 Surface warfare SSBN-726 Ballistic missile LSD-41 Amphibious SSN-774 Nuclear attack LPD-17 Amphibious SSN 21 Nuclear attack SSGN-726 Guided missile Weapon system rank The CVN-68 carriers and the LHD-1 amphibious vessels have the highest combined corrosion contribution of total and average corrosion. The five vessels highlighted in the table have been among the highest 10 total and average corrosion contributors for every study year. They also have five of the highest six combined corrosion contribution of total and average in FY16. Availability Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets We next examine the corrosion impact on availability by TMS for both total and average per unit for TMS incurring the largest loss of availability. As Table

22 Impact on Navy Equipment shows, three aircraft of the F-18 series are among the four highest contributors to corrosion-related loss of availability. The FA-18C has the highest average corrosionrelated loss of availability at 91.7 days per aircraft. Table Top 10 Contributors to Navy Aviation and Missile, FY16 TMS Description all categories related to corrosion Percentage of related to corrosion Average per item related to corrosion FA-18C Fighter 83,774 30, MH-60S Combat search and rescue 53,072 17, FA-18F Fighter 58,888 16, FA-18E Fighter 54,278 16, MV-22B Cargo, transport, and utility 51,426 14, MH-60R Combat search and rescue 38,371 12, T-45C Trainer 38,168 11, CH-53E Cargo, transport, and utility 33,816 10, FA-18D Fighter 31,179 10, FA-18A Fighter 25,018 8, Impact by Work Breakdown Structure This section focuses on the impact of corrosion by work breakdown structure (WBS). The WBS for each maintenance record shows both the system or subsystem level of detail (the item being maintained) and the type of maintenance action performed. Cost Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets AWBS system code We begin by showing the corrosion impact at the system level (Table 2-18). Table Aviation and Missile Cost by System, FY16 System description Maintenance of maintenance 02 Hull/frame body and exterior 2,739 1, Engines 2, Electrical and electronic 1, Miscellaneous aircraft Communications and electronics Toolbox hardware Wheels and axles Rotor and propeller system Electronic, data processing and recording Weapon system Transmission Fuel system Hydraulics/pneudraulics

23 AWBS system code Table Aviation and Missile Cost by System, FY16 System description Maintenance of maintenance 13 Environmental control Ground support equipment Night vision assembly Note: AWBS = aviation work breakdown structure. See LMI, Determining s Effect on the Cost and Availability of DoD Weapon Systems and Equipment: Methodology, November 2015, for more details. The airframe, engines, and electrical systems have the highest total corrosion for Navy aviation assets, and the airframe has more than double the corrosion s of the next highest system. Table 2-19 shows the corrosion impact by type of maintenance action for Navy aviation and missile assets. Table Aviation and Missile Cost by Maintenance Action, FY16 Second character of AWBS Description Maintenance of maintenance I Inspect/test 4,235 1, F Fix without replacing 2, R Replace 2, C Clean and wash T Treat P Preserve B Calibrate M Modify or reconfigure L Install S Service E Dispose O Administrative, planning, engineering A Assemble D Disassemble H Haul, carry, transport, store Inspections are the type of maintenance action that incurs the largest corrosion, followed by fixing without replacing. Inspections incur more than double the corrosion of the next highest action. Availability Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets Table 2-20 highlights the availability impact by system. The airframe and electrical/ electronic systems have the highest total corrosion. The airframe makes intuitive 2-12

24 Impact on Navy Equipment sense as a corrosion-related degrader of availability because it is also the highest corrosion driver by system. Electrical and electronic systems fail frequently due to corrosion; wiring issues are a major contributor to failure within this system. Table Highest 10 Contributors to Aviation and Missile Non-Availability by System, FY16 AWBS system code System description Maintenance of maintenance 02 Hull/frame body and exterior 191,098 75, Electrical and electronic 74,245 19, Toolbox hardware 40,686 18, Engines 76,380 17, Miscellaneous aircraft 44,406 13, Communications and electronics 41,174 12, Electronic, data processing and recording 45,508 12, Rotor and propeller system 35,952 11, Wheels and axles 42,480 11, Transmission 28,647 9, contributed a total of 228,471 for Navy aviation and missile assets in FY16, or 31.3 percent of the total for aviation and missiles. In addition, Table 2-20 shows that two of the three highest corrosion-related contributors had corrosion percentages significantly higher than the average of 31.3 percent, but the rest did not. This result suggests that these two systems (airframe and toolbox hardware) may be more susceptible to corrosion-related than other systems and that the total corrosion are not just a matter of more maintenance being performed on these systems than others. Toolbox hardware is essentially consumables that cannot be tied to one of the other systems due to lack of information. For example, if the non-availability is due to replacing a gasket or seal, and no other information is in the data record, the system will be recorded as toolbox hardware. The overall number of for this system are relatively low. This means that toolbox hardware is not a system that is recorded as contributing to a large amount of non-availability, but when it is, it tends to be more corrosion-related. This is also reflected in the high corrosion percent (45.7 percent) shown in the last column of Table In Table 2-21, we show the corrosion availability impact by type of action. Inspect/test incurs the largest corrosion-related loss of availability, followed by fix and replace. Inspections and fix without replacing were also the two highest corrosion-related drivers by action (from Table 2-19). 2-13

25 Table Top 10 Contributors to Aviation and Missile by Maintenance Action, FY16 Second character of AWBS Description Maintenance of maintenance I Inspect/test 195,474 72, F Fix without replacing 130,931 51, R Replace 205,425 48, C Clean and wash 39,535 30, T Treat 22,287 16, P Preserve 3,371 2, B Calibrate 24,831 1, E Dispose 27,694 1, L Install 37, M Modify or reconfigure 13, Cost Impact on Ground Vehicles GWBS system code Table 2-22 shows the impact of corrosion by WBS for Marine Corps ground vehicles. The hull/frame and weapon systems have the highest total corrosion for Marine Corps ground vehicle assets. The corrosion attributed to the hull/frame is significantly higher than any other system for Marine Corps ground vehicles. Table Top 10 Contributors to Marine Corps Ground Vehicle Cost by System, FY16 System description Maintenance of maintenance 02 Hull/frame body and exterior Weapon system Electrical and electronic Communications and electronics Miscellaneous ground vehicle Ground support equipment Transmission Wheels and axles Engines Toolbox hardware Note: GWBS = ground vehicle work breakdown structure. See LMI, Determining s Effect on the Cost and Availability of DoD Weapon Systems and Equipment: Methodology, November 2015, for more details. Table 2-23 shows the corrosion impact by type of action. Preventive measures (such as inspections, painting, applying corrosion-preventive compounds, cleaning, and washing) incur the largest corrosion, followed by fixing without replacing. Once again, the large amount of unknown maintenance actions are due almost exclusively to commercial depot maintenance work. Because the Marine Corps does not require 2-14

26 Impact on Navy Equipment commercial maintenance organizations to provide detailed maintenance records, we could not determine the actions taken for each vehicle. Table Cost and Maintenance Cost Ranking by Maintenance Action, FY16 Second character of GWBS Description Maintenance ($000) ($000) of maintenance I Inspect/test T Treat C Clean and wash F Fix without replacing S Service U Unknown A Assemble R Replace O Administrative, planning, engineering D Disassemble H Haul, carry, transport, store P Preserve M Modify or reconfigure E Dispose L Install B Calibrate or adjust Cost Impact on Navy Vessels Table 2-24 and Table 2-25 display the impact of corrosion by WBS for Navy submarines and surface vessels, respectively. Table Top 20 Contributors to Navy Submarines by System, FY16 VWBS system code System description Maintenance of maintenance SHP Entire ship Emergency generators Hull structure Hydraulic compensating system Fuels and lubricants, handling and storage Shell plating, non-pressure hull Recording and television systems Computer hardware and software Oil pollution control system Alarm, safety, and warning systems Missiles

27 Table Top 20 Contributors to Navy Submarines by System, FY16 VWBS system code System description Maintenance of maintenance 831 Weld surveillance (HY-80) Reactor coolant service systems Diesel lube oil service and transfer system Batteries and service facilities Chilled water cooling distribution system Air conditioning plant Superstructure Launching devices Drainage and ballasting system Note: VWBS = vessel work breakdown structure. The Entire ship code and emergency generators are the two systems with the highest total corrosion for Navy submarines. The majority of the entire ship code (SHP) corrosion is due to docking and undocking (essentially a parking charge for the vessel). Because this charge is significant and a portion of the work done during this docking period is due to corrosion, an equal portion of the docking charge is allocated to corrosion. A system designated by SHP also means the work was for the entire ship, for example, engineering and design support or pre-availability planning. Table Top 20 Contributors to Navy Surface Vessels by System, FY16 VWBS system code System description Maintenance of maintenance SHP Entire ship 1, Hull insulation Main deck Auxiliary lubrication systems Hull deck (forecastle and poop decks) Hydraulic fluid system Emergency propulsion Auxiliary boilers and other heat sources th deck and decks below Kingposts and support frames Hull decks Sea chests Administration spaces Deck covering Steering and diving control systems Lighting system and fixtures Distilling plant Aircraft recovery support systems Auxiliary fresh water cooling Hovering system (HOV)

28 Impact on Navy Equipment As is the case for submarines, the Entire ship code was the system with the highest corrosion for surface vessels. This was followed by corrosion s associated with hull insulation and work on the main deck. Table 2-26 shows the corrosion impact by type of maintenance action for Navy submarines and surface vessels. This table shows the combined result for submarines and surface vessels because they both use the same maintenance action codes. Fixing without replacing, replacement of parts, and clean and wash incur the largest corrosion. Clean and wash includes blasting, stripping, and other methods of paint removal. preventive actions such as clean and wash, treat, and preserve have the highest corrosion percentage of maintenance. This is to be expected, as the primary reason for performing these actions is to mitigate the negative impacts of corrosion. Only a relatively small amount of unknown maintenance actions appear, contrary to other types of weapons systems (such as aviation, missiles, and ground vehicles) because the Navy requires commercial shipyard maintainers to provide detailed maintenance records. Table Cost and Maintenance Cost Ranking by Maintenance Action for Navy Vessels, FY16 Second character of VWBS Description Maintenance of maintenance F Fix without replacing 4,255 1, R Replace 4, C Clean and wash T Treat O Administrative, planning, engineering 2, P Preserve I Inspect/test S Service 1, B Calibrate M Modify or reconfigure 1, E Dispose A Assemble D Disassemble H Haul, carry, transport, store U Unknown Cost and Loss of Availability This section summarizes the corrosion impact study results, focusing on the relationship between total corrosion and corrosion-related loss of availability by TMS. Table 2-27 shows the Navy s aviation and missile equipment total corrosion and corrosion-related loss of availability by the 10 highest corrosion contributors. 2-17

29 Table Aviation and Missile Equipment Cost and Availability Relationship, FY16 TMS Rank corrosion of maintenance Rank -related of total MV-22B , MH-60S , MH-60R , CH-53E , FA-18E , FA-18C , FA-18F , P-3C , EA-18G , AV-8B , We found only a slight correlation between Navy and Marine Corps corrosion s and corrosion-related loss of availability, from either a total corrosion or corrosion rank standpoint. We obtained an R-squared value of 0.42 in a least squares regression analysis. 2 We do not perform a similar analysis on the Marine Corps ground vehicles corrosion and corrosion-related loss of availability due to the lack of authoritative top-down availability totals for each piece of equipment. 2 A perfect correlation between two variables has an R-squared value of 1.0, while an R-squared value of 0 means no correlation. 2-18

30 Chapter 3 Impact on Army Equipment The estimated total annual of corrosion for Department of the Army equipment (based on FY16 data) is $3.1 billion, or 15.5 percent of the total equipment maintenance expenditure of $19.7 billion. In addition, the impact of corrosion on equipment availability is an estimated 668,417 for Army aviation, missile, and ground assets (also based on FY16 data), or 7.7 percent of the total availability loss of 8,644,655 days for this equipment. In this chapter, we detail these results by TMS, system, and maintenance action. (We recently published a more thorough discussion of our analytical method in a separate report. 1 ) Impact by Segment Table 3-1 shows the total corrosion impact by Army study segment. All three study segments have corrosion s that are fairly low compared with other DoD study segments. These s have also been decreasing over the 10-year study period. Table 3-1. Cost and Availability Impact on Department of Army Equipment Study segment Maintenance impact percentage availability impact percentage Aviation and missiles 5,522 1, ,751 47, Ground vehicles 8,052 1, ,231, , Other equipment 6, ,702 3, ,644, , From an availability loss perspective, the total number of incurred by ground vehicles due to corrosion is more than 10 times that of corrosion-related for aviation and missiles. This result is primarily a function of fleet size the Army has nearly 100 times more vehicles than aircraft. In Table 3-2 through Table 3-6 we show the historical trends of corrosion and availability loss by equipment type. In each table, we compare the percent change in s or availability from the most current year of the study for the equipment type being measured to both the earliest and midpoint study execution years for the same equipment type. We do not adjust the s for inflation. Tables with comparisons will have an earlier starting year than availability tables because availability studies did not start until FY08. 1 See Note 3, Chapter

31 Table 3-2. Trends in Army Aviation and Missile Maintenance and Costs Data baseline DM and FLM s maintenance Change from FY05 (%) maintenance Change from FY11 (%) maintenance of maintenance FY05 6, FY07 6, FY08 6,407 1, FY09 7, FY10 7,628 1, FY11 9,366 1, FY12 7,480 1, FY13 6,839 1, FY14 6,327 1, FY15 6, FY16 5,522 1, ,817 12, Table 3-3. Trends in Army Aviation and Missile Maintenance and Availability Data baseline DM and FLM maintenance Change from FY08 (%) DM and FLM Change from FY11 (%) DM and FLM of DM and FLM FY08 468,105 87, FY09 499,342 61, FY10 517,466 81, FY11 445,866 72, FY12 467,555 74, FY13 440,717 39, FY14 426,845 36, FY15 420,016 55, FY16 412,751 47, ,098, , The total corrosion for Army aviation and missiles has been decreasing since FY11, and the corrosion as a percentage of maintenance has been decreasing since FY12 until the most recent study year. The corrosion s for FY16 increased to their FY14 levels. More concerning is that the corrosion as a percent of maintenance increased to its second highest level since these studies began in FY05. This can be seen in the Table 3-2. In contrast, as depicted in Table 3-3, the corrosion-related loss of availability, although somewhat erratic, continued its downward trend in FY16 after seeing an increase in FY15. Coupled with the pattern shown in Table 3-2, this could indicate the Army is 3-2