Estimated Impact of on Cost and Availability of DoD Weapon Systems FY18 Update March 2018
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
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 2018. ALL RIGHTS RES E RVE D.11393.000.00T 1
Contents Chapter 1 Introduction...1-1 Study Objectives...1-1 Report Organization...1-2 Chapter 2 Impact on Navy Equipment...2-1 Impact by Segment...2-1 Impact by TMS...2-5 Cost Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets...2-5 Cost Impact on Marine Corps Ground Vehicles and Ground Systems...2-7 Cost Impact on Navy Vessels...2-9 Availability Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets... 2-10 Impact by Work Breakdown Structure... 2-11 Cost Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets... 2-11 Availability Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets... 2-12 Cost Impact on Ground Vehicles... 2-14 Cost Impact on Navy Vessels... 2-15 Cost and Loss of Availability... 2-17 Chapter 3 Impact on Army Equipment...3-1 Impact by Segment...3-1 Impact by TMS...3-4 Cost Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets...3-5 Cost Impact on Ground Vehicles and Ground Systems...3-6 Availability Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets...3-8 Availability Impact on Ground Vehicles...3-9 Impact by WBS...3-9 Cost Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets... 3-10 Availability Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets... 3-11 Cost Impact on Ground Vehicles... 3-12 Availability Impact on Ground Vehicles... 3-14 Cost and Loss of Availability... 3-15 Chapter 4 Impact on Air Force Equipment...4-1 Impact by Segment...4-1 iii
Impact by MDS...4-4 Cost Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets...4-4 Availability Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets...4-6 Impact by WBS...4-6 Cost Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets...4-6 Availability Impact on Aviation and Missile Assets...4-8 Relationship between Cost and Loss of Availability...4-9 Chapter 5 Impact on DoD...5-1 Impact by Segment...5-1 Impact by Service...5-2 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...2-1 Table 2-2. Trends in Navy and Marine Corps Aviation and Missile Maintenance and Costs...2-2 Table 2-3. Trends in Navy and Marine Corps Aviation and Missile Maintenance and Availability...2-2 Table 2-4. Trends in Marine Corps Ground Vehicle Maintenance and Costs...2-3 Table 2-5. Trends in Marine Corps Ground Vehicle Maintenance and...2-3 Table 2-6. Trends in Navy Vessels Maintenance and Costs...2-4 Table 2-7. Trends in Miscellaneous Equipment Maintenance and Costs (Unadjusted for Inflation $)...2-5 Table 2-8. Top 10 Contributors to Navy Aviation and Missile Costs, FY16...2-6 Table 2-9. Top 10 Aviation and Missile Types by Average Cost per Item, FY16...2-6 Table 2-10. Navy Aviation and Missiles Assets with Highest Combined Ranking for Average and Cost, FY16...2-7 Table 2-11. Top 10 Contributors to Marine Corps Ground Vehicle Costs, FY16...2-7 Table 2-12. Top 10 Marine Corps Ground Vehicles or Systems by Average Cost per Item, FY16...2-8 iv
Contents Table 2-13. Marine Corps Ground Vehicles and Systems with Highest Combined Ranking for Average and Cost, FY16...2-8 Table 2-14. Top 10 Contributors to Navy Vessels Costs, FY16...2-9 Table 2-15. Top 10 Navy Vessels by Average Cost per Item, FY16... 2-10 Table 2-16. Navy Vessels with Highest Combined Ranking for Average and Cost, FY16... 2-10 Table 2-17. Top 10 Contributors to Navy Aviation and Missile, FY16... 2-11 Table 2-18. Aviation and Missile Cost by System, FY16... 2-11 Table 2-19. Aviation and Missile Cost by Maintenance Action, FY16... 2-12 Table 2-20. Highest 10 Contributors to Aviation and Missile Non-Availability by System, FY16... 2-13 Table 2-21. Top 10 Contributors to Aviation and Missile by Maintenance Action, FY16... 2-14 Table 2-22. Top 10 Contributors to Marine Corps Ground Vehicle Cost by System, FY16... 2-14 Table 2-23. Cost and Maintenance Cost Ranking by Maintenance Action, FY16... 2-15 Table 2-24. Top 20 Contributors to Navy Submarines by System, FY16... 2-15 Table 2-25. Top 20 Contributors to Navy Surface Vessels by System, FY16... 2-16 Table 2-26. Cost and Maintenance Cost Ranking by Maintenance Action for Navy Vessels, FY16... 2-17 Table 2-27. Aviation and Missile Equipment Cost and Availability Relationship, FY16... 2-18 Table 3-1. Cost and Availability Impact on Department of Army Equipment...3-1 Table 3-2. Trends in Army Aviation and Missile Maintenance and Costs...3-2 Table 3-3. Trends in Army Aviation and Missile Maintenance and Availability...3-2 Table 3-4. Trends in Army Ground Vehicle Maintenance and Costs...3-3 Table 3-5. Trends in Army Ground Vehicle Maintenance and Availability...3-3 Table 3-6. Trends in Army Miscellaneous Equipment Maintenance and Costs...3-4 Table 3-7. Top 10 Contributors to Army Aviation and Missile Costs, FY16...3-5 Table 3-8. Top 10 Army Aviation or Missile Types by Average Cost per Item, FY16...3-5 v
Table 3-9. Army Aviation and Missiles Assets with the Highest Combined Ranking for Average and Cost, FY16...3-6 Table 3-10. Top 10 Contributors to Army Ground Vehicle Costs, FY16...3-7 Table 3-11. Top 10 Army Ground Vehicles or Systems by Average Cost per Item, FY16...3-7 Table 3-12. Army Ground Vehicles and Systems with the Highest Combined Ranking for Average and Cost, FY16...3-8 Table 3-13. Top 10 Contributors to Army Aviation and Missile, FY16...3-8 Table 3-14. Top 10 Contributors to Army Ground Vehicle, FY16...3-9 Table 3-15. Army Aviation and Missile Cost by System, FY16... 3-10 Table 3-16. Army Aviation and Missile Cost by Maintenance Action, FY16... 3-11 Table 3-17. Army Aviation and Missile Availability Impact by Highest 15 Systems, FY16... 3-11 Table 3-18. Army Aviation and Missile Availability Impact by Maintenance Action, FY16... 3-12 Table 3-19. Army Ground Vehicle Cost by System, FY16... 3-13 Table 3-20. Army Cost and Maintenance Cost Ranking by Maintenance Action, FY16... 3-13 Table 3-21. Army Ground Vehicle Availability Impact by System, FY16... 3-14 Table 3-22. Army Ground Vehicle Availability Impact by Maintenance Action, FY16... 3-15 Table 3-23. Army Aviation and Missile Equipment Cost and Availability Relationship... 3-15 Table 3-24. Army Ground Vehicle Cost and Availability Relationship... 3-16 Table 4-1. Cost and Availability Impact on Department of Air Force Equipment...4-1 Table 4-2. Trends in Air Force Aviation and Missile Maintenance and Costs...4-2 Table 4-3. Trends in Air Force Aviation and Missile Maintenance and Availability...4-2 Table 4-4. Trends in Air Force Miscellaneous Equipment Maintenance and Costs...4-3 Table 4-5. Top 10 Contributors to Air Force Aviation and Missile Costs, FY16...4-4 vi
Contents Table 4-6. Top 10 Aviation and Missile Types by Average Cost per Item, FY16...4-5 Table 4-7. Air Force Aviation and Missiles Assets with the Highest Combined Ranking for Average and Cost, FY16...4-5 Table 4-8. Top 10 Contributors to Air Force Aviation and Missile NAHs, FY16...4-6 Table 4-9. Top 10 Aviation and Missile Cost by System, FY16...4-7 Table 4-10. Top 10 Aviation and Missile Cost by Maintenance Action, FY16...4-7 Table 4-11. Top 10 Aviation and Missile Availability Impact by System, FY16...4-8 Table 4-12. Top 10 Aviation and Missile NAHs by Maintenance Action, FY16...4-8 Table 4-13. Aviation and Missile Equipment Cost and Availability Relationship...4-9 Table 5-1. Cost and Availability Impact on DoD...5-1 Table 5-2. Comparison of Annual Impact...5-2 Table 5-3. Cost and Availability Impact by Service...5-2 vii
viii
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 107 314, December 2, 2002, p. 201. 2 Public Law 107-314 was enhanced by Public Law 110-181, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Section 371, January 28, 2008. 3 The figures in this report have not been adjusted for inflation. 1-1
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 2004. 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
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 3,430 27.9 731,087 228,471 31.3 Ground vehicles 1,931 489 25.3 693,892 163,569 23.6 Vessels 17,588 3,534 20.1 Other equipment 5,417 1,176 21.7 37,235 8,629 23.2 1,424,979 392,040 27.5 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 1. 2-1
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 2,743 26.4 FY06 10,670 2,941 2.5 7.2 27.6 FY08 11,846 2,803 13.8 2.2 23.7 FY09 11,727 3,010 12.7 9.7 25.7 FY10 12,743 2,977 22.5 8.5 23.4 FY11 12,383 3,227 19.0 17.6 2.8 8.4 26.1 FY12 12,771 3,624 22.7 32.1 0.2 21.7 28.4 FY13 12,574 2,798 20.8 2.0 1.3 6.0 22.3 FY14 11,943 2,416 14.8 11.9 6.3 18.8 20.2 FY15 12,977 2,975 24.7 8.4 1.8 0.1 22.9 FY16 12,299 3,430 18.2 25.0 3.5 15.2 27.9 132,340 32,944 24.9 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 593,723 136,610 23.0 FY11 578,866 140,892 2.5 3.1 24.3 FY12 608,573 157,414 2.5 15.2 25.9 FY13 653,756 163,403 10.1 19.6 25.0 FY14 696,731 168,062 17.3 23.0 24.1 FY15 698,920 194,048 17.7 42.0 27.8 FY16 731,087 228,471 23.1 67.2 31.3 5,285,633 1,323,416 25.0 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 FY16. 2-2
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 2,758 434 15.7 FY07 2,110 332 23.5 23.4 15.8 FY08 2,239 294 18.8 32.3 13.1 FY09 2,154 322 21.9 25.9 14.9 FY10 2,569 330 6.8 24.0 12.8 FY11 1,947 341 29.4 21.4 24.2 3.4 17.5 FY12 2,479 429 10.1 1.1 3.5 30.2 17.3 FY13 2,223 468 19.4 8.0 13.5 42.0 21.1 FY14 2,443 501 11.4 15.6 4.9 52.1 20.5 FY15 2,237 593 18.9 36.8 12.9 80.0 26.5 FY16 1,931 489 30.0 12.8 24.8 48.4 25.3 25,090 4,534 18.1 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 84,553 0.0 0.0 3.8 FY10 2,157,965 68,193 2.7 19.3 3.2 FY11 2,037,695 72,624 8.2 14.1 3.6 FY12 1,038,477 82,619 53.2 2.3 8.0 FY13 1,586,123 188,886 28.5 123.4 52.7 128.6 11.9 FY14 896,130 148,981 59.6 76.2 13.7 80.3 16.6 FY15 1,114,145 203,878 49.8 141.1 7.3 146.8 18.3 FY16 693,892 163,569 68.7 93.5 33.2 98.0 23.6 11,743,286 1,013,303 8.6 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
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 2,835 26.7 FY06 12,443 2,280 17.2 19.6 18.3 FY07 11,880 2,135 11.9 24.7 18.0 FY08 12,819 2,760 20.7 2.6 21.5 FY09 13,335 2,930 25.6 3.3 22.0 FY10 15,116 3,256 42.4 14.9 13.3 11.1 21.5 FY11 16,323 4,171 53.7 47.2 22.4 42.4 25.6 FY12 16,451 4,229 54.9 49.2 23.4 44.3 25.7 FY13 15,739 4,038 48.2 42.5 18.0 37.9 25.7 FY14 17,338 4,517 63.3 59.4 30.0 54.2 26.1 FY15 16,958 3,907 59.7 37.8 27.2 33.4 23.0 FY16 17,588 3,534 65.6 24.7 31.9 20.6 20.1 159,020 37,057 23.3 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
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 1,475 23.6 FY05 5,126 1,083 17.9 26.6 21.1 FY06 5,388 1,050 13.7 28.8 19.5 FY07 5,328 1,126 14.6 23.7 21.1 FY08 5,443 1,042 12.8 29.4 19.1 FY09 6,443 1,516 3.3 2.8 23.5 FY10 6,574 1,345 5.4 8.8 20.5 FY11 7,111 1,630 14.0 10.5 8.2 21.2 22.9 FY12 7,554 1,878 21.1 27.3 14.9 39.6 24.9 FY13 5,860 1,340 6.1 9.2 10.9 0.4 22.9 FY14 5,089 1,069 18.4 27.5 22.6 20.5 21.0 FY15 5,376 1,104 13.8 25.2 18.2 17.9 20.5 FY16 5,417 1,176 13.2 20.3 17.6 12.6 21.7 76,949 16,834 21.9 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
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 931 275 29.6 2 MH-60S Combat search and rescue 741 250 33.8 3 MH-60R Combat search and rescue 671 240 35.7 4 CH-53E Cargo, transport, and utility 703 209 29.8 5 FA-18E Fighter 617 190 30.9 6 FA-18C Fighter 622 175 28.1 7 FA-18F Fighter 580 156 26.9 8 P-3C ASW and patrol 339 94 27.8 9 ENG-F-414 Turbofan engine 587 85 14.4 10 EA-18G Early warning and EW 270 75 27.7 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 16 58.0 3.62 2 E-2C Early warning and EW 43 69.1 1.61 3 MH-53E Combat search and rescue 30 44.0 1.47 4 CH-53E Cargo, transport, and utility 146 209.5 1.43 5 C-2A Cargo, transport, and utility 35 47.5 1.36 6 HH-60H Search and rescue 14 18.6 1.33 7 KC-130J Cargo, transport, and utility 51 64.3 1.26 8 P-3C ASW and patrol 77 94.2 1.22 9 MV-22B Cargo, transport, and utility 264 275.4 1.04 10 MH-60R Combat search and rescue 235 239.6 1.02 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
Impact on Navy Equipment TMS Table 2-10. 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 1.43 4 209.5 4 8 1 MV-22B Cargo, transport, and utility 1.04 9 275.4 1 10 2 MH-60S Combat search and rescue 1.00 11 250.3 2 13 3 MH-60R Combat search and rescue 1.02 10 239.6 3 13 4 FA-18E Fighter 0.66 17 190.3 5 22 5 E-2C Early warning and EW 1.61 2 69.1 12 14 6 P-3C ASW and patrol 1.22 8 94.2 8 16 6 E-6B Early warning and EW 3.62 1 58.0 16 17 8 KC-130J Cargo, transport, and utility 1.26 7 64.3 14 21 9 MH-53E Combat search and rescue 1.47 3 44.0 20 23 9 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 2-11. Top 10 Contributors to Marine Corps Ground Vehicle Costs, FY16 Rank TMS Description maintenance corrosion of maintenance 1 E0846 Amphibious assault vehicle 187 57 30.4 2 E0947 Light armored vehicle 87 26 29.8 3 D0027 MRAP vehicle 49 24 48.2 4 D0003 Armored truck 69 19 27.5 5 D0030 Utility truck 51 13 26.3 6 D0052 Armored vehicle 34 13 37.2 7 D1158 Utility vehicle 56 12 21.4 8 D0036 M-ATV 38 12 31.2 9 E1442 Rifle, 5.56 mm 44 11 25.2 10 D0025 MRAP vehicle 23 11 45.9 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 10. 2-7
Table 2-12. 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 58 5.3 0.09 2 D0023 MRAP vehicle 24 1.9 0.08 3 E1378 Recovery vehicle 91 7.3 0.08 4 D0027 MRAP vehicle 331 23.8 0.07 5 E0796 Amphibious assault vehicle 95 6.4 0.07 6 A1503 Radar set 13 0.7 0.06 7 E0846 Amphibious assault vehicle 1,046 56.9 0.05 8 E0947 Light assault vehicle 498 25.9 0.05 9 B0589 M9 armored combat earthmover 121 6.0 0.05 10 D0053 LVSR armored tractor 74 3.2 0.04 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 2-13. Table 2-13. 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 0.07 4 23.8 3 7 1 E0846 Amphibious assault vehicle 0.05 7 56.9 1 8 2 E0947 Light assault vehicle 0.05 8 25.9 2 10 3 E1378 Recovery vehicle 0.08 3 7.3 13 16 4 E0796 Amphibious assault vehicle 0.07 5 6.4 15 20 5 E0856 Amphibious assault vehicle 0.09 1 5.3 20 21 6 D0052 LVSR armored cargo vehicle 0.03 15 12.6 6 21 7 B0589 M9 armored combat earthmover 0.05 9 6.0 17 26 8 D0036 M-ATV 0.02 25 11.9 8 33 9 D0053 LVSR armored tractor 0.04 10 3.2 33 43 10 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
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 2-14. 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 2-14. Top 10 Contributors to Navy Vessels Costs, FY16 Rank TMS Description maintenance corrosion of maintenance 1 DDG-51 Surface warfare 4,883 993 20.3 2 CVN-68 Carriers 2,500 689 27.6 3 CG-47 Surface warfare 1,859 376 20.2 4 SSBN-726 Ballistic missile 1,094 290 26.5 5 LHD-1 Amphibious 1,075 239 22.2 6 LSD-41 Amphibious 616 158 25.6 7 SSN-774 Nuclear attack 400 125 31.1 8 SSN-688 Nuclear attack 2,482 114 4.6 9 LPD-17 Amphibious 533 105 19.6 10 SSGN-726 Guided missile 293 93 31.6 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
Table 2-15. Top 10 Navy Vessels by Average Cost per Item, FY16 Rank TMS Description Item inventory corrosion Average corrosion per item 1 CVN-68 Carriers 10 689.1 68.9 2 LHD-1 Amphibious 8 239.1 29.9 3 LSD-41 Amphibious 8 157.8 19.7 4 CG-47 Surface warfare 22 375.5 17.1 5 SSBN-726 Ballistic missile 18 289.9 16.1 6 DDG-51 Surface warfare 62 993.4 16.0 7 LPD-17 Amphibious 9 104.7 11.6 8 SSN-774 Nuclear attack 13 124.7 9.6 9 MCM-1 Surface warfare 11 42.0 3.8 10 LCS Surface warfare 7 19.2 2.7 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 2-16. Table 2-16. 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 68.9 1 689.1 2 3 1 LHD-1 Amphibious 29.9 2 239.1 5 7 2 DDG-51 Surface warfare 16.0 6 993.4 1 7 3 CG-47 Surface warfare 17.1 4 375.5 3 7 4 SSBN-726 Ballistic missile 16.1 5 289.9 4 9 5 LSD-41 Amphibious 19.7 3 157.8 6 9 6 SSN-774 Nuclear attack 9.6 8 124.7 7 15 6 LPD-17 Amphibious 11.6 7 104.7 9 16 8 SSN 21 Nuclear attack 30.9 17 92.6 11 28 9 SSGN-726 Guided missile 23.2 18 92.7 10 28 9 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 2-17 2-10
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 2-17. 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 30,254 36.1 91.7 MH-60S Combat search and rescue 53,072 17,943 33.8 70.9 FA-18F Fighter 58,888 16,757 28.5 64.4 FA-18E Fighter 54,278 16,260 30.0 56.7 MV-22B Cargo, transport, and utility 51,426 14,558 28.3 55.6 MH-60R Combat search and rescue 38,371 12,914 33.7 59.5 T-45C Trainer 38,168 11,093 29.1 56.3 CH-53E Cargo, transport, and utility 33,816 10,511 31.1 70.5 FA-18D Fighter 31,179 10,186 32.7 80.2 FA-18A Fighter 25,018 8,972 35.9 94.4 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 2-18. Aviation and Missile Cost by System, FY16 System description Maintenance of maintenance 02 Hull/frame body and exterior 2,739 1,016 37.1 01 Engines 2,087 416 19.9 04 Electrical and electronic 1,177 270 23.0 09 Miscellaneous aircraft 811 245 30.2 19 Communications and electronics 965 236 24.5 20 Toolbox hardware 443 203 45.7 03 Wheels and axles 832 179 21.5 05 Rotor and propeller system 420 146 34.9 11 Electronic, data processing and recording 593 139 23.4 35 Weapon system 457 130 28.5 06 Transmission 416 118 28.4 10 Fuel system 283 84 29.7 07 Hydraulics/pneudraulics 304 83 27.4 2-11
AWBS system code Table 2-18. Aviation and Missile Cost by System, FY16 System description Maintenance of maintenance 13 Environmental control 231 65 28.3 14 Ground support equipment 122 48 39.5 34 Night vision assembly 69 19 27.5 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 2-19. Aviation and Missile Cost by Maintenance Action, FY16 Second character of AWBS Description Maintenance of maintenance I Inspect/test 4,235 1,537 36.3 F Fix without replacing 2,035 660 32.5 R Replace 2,746 479 17.4 C Clean and wash 477 370 77.6 T Treat 349 265 75.9 P Preserve 59 50 84.3 B Calibrate 425 37 8.8 M Modify or reconfigure 235 10 4.4 L Install 777 7 0.9 S Service 135 5 3.4 E Dispose 94 4 4.4 O Administrative, planning, engineering 223 2 1.0 A Assemble 360 2 0.6 D Disassemble 124 1 0.7 H Haul, carry, transport, store 16 1 4.9 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
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 2-20. 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 75,287 39.4 04 Electrical and electronic 74,245 19,338 26.0 20 Toolbox hardware 40,686 18,590 45.7 01 Engines 76,380 17,777 23.3 09 Miscellaneous aircraft 44,406 13,863 31.2 19 Communications and electronics 41,174 12,489 30.3 11 Electronic, data processing and recording 45,508 12,296 27.0 05 Rotor and propeller system 35,952 11,816 32.9 03 Wheels and axles 42,480 11,215 26.4 06 Transmission 28,647 9,382 32.7 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 2-20. 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
Table 2-21. Top 10 Contributors to Aviation and Missile by Maintenance Action, FY16 Second character of AWBS Description Maintenance of maintenance I Inspect/test 195,474 72,407 37.0 F Fix without replacing 130,931 51,722 39.5 R Replace 205,425 48,607 23.7 C Clean and wash 39,535 30,350 76.8 T Treat 22,287 16,842 75.6 P Preserve 3,371 2,903 86.1 B Calibrate 24,831 1,930 7.8 E Dispose 27,694 1,566 5.7 L Install 37,955 846 2.2 M Modify or reconfigure 13,663 456 3.3 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 2-22. Top 10 Contributors to Marine Corps Ground Vehicle Cost by System, FY16 System description Maintenance of maintenance 02 Hull/frame body and exterior 476 154 32.4 35 Weapon system 338 87 25.7 04 Electrical and electronic 139 39 28.2 19 Communications and electronics 318 38 12.1 09 Miscellaneous ground vehicle 126 37 29.3 14 Ground support equipment 79 30 38.5 06 Transmission 77 20 26.2 03 Wheels and axles 55 14 26.1 01 Engines 67 14 20.4 20 Toolbox hardware 25 13 49.8 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
Impact on Navy Equipment commercial maintenance organizations to provide detailed maintenance records, we could not determine the actions taken for each vehicle. Table 2-23. Cost and Maintenance Cost Ranking by Maintenance Action, FY16 Second character of GWBS Description Maintenance ($000) ($000) of maintenance I Inspect/test 613 158 25.8 T Treat 162 100 61.6 C Clean and wash 133 87 65.2 F Fix without replacing 277 81 29.3 S Service 171 13 7.3 U Unknown 24 12 51.1 A Assemble 72 11 15.6 R Replace 208 6 3.1 O Administrative, planning, engineering 128 6 5.0 D Disassemble 23 4 17.1 H Haul, carry, transport, store 5 3 63.4 P Preserve 5 3 49.5 M Modify or reconfigure 42 2 5.6 E Dispose 13 1 9.2 L Install 36 1 1.9 B Calibrate or adjust 20 0 2.2 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 2-24. Top 20 Contributors to Navy Submarines by System, FY16 VWBS system code System description Maintenance of maintenance SHP Entire ship 540 78 14.4 312 Emergency generators 265 55 20.9 100 Hull structure 125 28 22.4 556 Hydraulic compensating system 93 24 25.3 540 Fuels and lubricants, handling and storage 146 21 14.6 112 Shell plating, non-pressure hull 29 21 73.6 439 Recording and television systems 335 19 5.8 412 Computer hardware and software 73 15 20.1 593 Oil pollution control system 33 14 41.9 436 Alarm, safety, and warning systems 69 13 19.1 718 Missiles 40 12 31.0 2-15
Table 2-24. Top 20 Contributors to Navy Submarines by System, FY16 VWBS system code System description Maintenance of maintenance 831 Weld surveillance (HY-80) 65 12 18.9 214 Reactor coolant service systems 58 11 19.5 346 Diesel lube oil service and transfer system 61 11 17.9 313 Batteries and service facilities 69 10 14.0 511 Chilled water cooling distribution system 43 10 22.5 513 Air conditioning plant 40 10 23.7 150 Superstructure 49 9 19.2 714 Launching devices 66 9 14.3 529 Drainage and ballasting system 31 9 29.0 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 2-25. Top 20 Contributors to Navy Surface Vessels by System, FY16 VWBS system code System description Maintenance of maintenance SHP Entire ship 1,101 197 17.9 630 Hull insulation 226 181 79.8 124 Main deck 180 107 59.6 541 Auxiliary lubrication systems 445 100 22.5 131 Hull deck (forecastle and poop decks) 211 91 43.2 551 Hydraulic fluid system 424 68 16.0 234 Emergency propulsion 250 60 24.1 512 Auxiliary boilers and other heat sources 146 60 40.9 130 5th deck and decks below 101 57 56.6 167 Kingposts and support frames 154 55 36.0 123 Hull decks 170 49 29.1 150 Sea chests 139 49 35.2 611 Administration spaces 82 49 59.5 634 Deck covering 141 46 32.3 555 Steering and diving control systems 150 44 29.1 314 Lighting system and fixtures 275 43 15.8 526 Distilling plant 71 42 59.1 581 Aircraft recovery support systems 91 35 38.1 531 Auxiliary fresh water cooling 126 32 25.2 556 Hovering system (HOV) 145 32 21.8 2-16
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 2-26. 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 1,310 30.8 R Replace 4,331 710 16.4 C Clean and wash 969 555 57.2 T Treat 452 298 65.9 O Administrative, planning, engineering 2,037 234 11.5 P Preserve 256 204 79.8 I Inspect/test 942 163 17.3 S Service 1,119 53 4.7 B Calibrate 353 4 1.2 M Modify or reconfigure 1,201 2 0.2 E Dispose 35 1 1.9 A Assemble 522 0 0.0 D Disassemble 191 0 0.0 H Haul, carry, transport, store 47 0 0.0 U Unknown 197 0 0.0 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
Table 2-27. Aviation and Missile Equipment Cost and Availability Relationship, FY16 TMS Rank corrosion of maintenance Rank -related of total MV-22B 1 275 29.6 5 14,558 28.3 MH-60S 2 250 33.8 2 17,943 33.8 MH-60R 3 240 35.7 6 12,914 33.7 CH-53E 4 209 29.8 8 10,511 31.1 FA-18E 5 190 30.9 4 16,260 30.0 FA-18C 6 175 28.1 1 30,254 36.1 FA-18F 7 156 26.9 3 16,757 28.5 P-3C 8 94 27.8 14 4,732 31.9 EA-18G 10 75 27.7 15 4,587 23.3 AV-8B 11 69 0.3 11 6,179 28.4 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
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 1,081 19.6 412,751 47,224 11.4 Ground vehicles 8,052 1,189 14.8 8,231,904 621,193 7.5 Other equipment 6,128 786 12.8 19,702 3,056 15.5 8,644,655 668,417 7.7 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 1. 3-1
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 6,000 997 16.6 FY07 6,521 896 8.7 10.2 13.7 FY08 6,407 1,001 6.8 0.3 15.6 FY09 7,526 958 25.4 3.9 12.7 FY10 7,628 1,379 27.1 38.3 18.1 FY11 9,366 1,682 56.1 68.7 18.0 FY12 7,480 1,547 24.7 55.2 20.1 8.0 20.7 FY13 6,839 1,166 14.0 16.9 27.0 30.7 17.0 FY14 6,327 1,082 5.5 8.5 32.4 35.7 17.1 FY15 6,200 947 3.3 5.0 33.8 43.7 15.3 FY16 5,522 1,081 8.0 8.5 41.0 35.7 19.6 75,817 12,737 16.8 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 87,856 18.8 FY09 499,342 61,270 6.7 30.3 12.3 FY10 517,466 81,427 10.5 7.3 15.7 FY11 445,866 72,761 4.8 17.2 16.3 FY12 467,555 74,731 0.1 14.9 16.0 FY13 440,717 39,082 5.9 55.5 5.7 47.7 8.9 FY14 426,845 36,386 8.8 58.6 8.7 51.3 8.5 FY15 420,016 55,808 10.3 36.5 10.2 25.3 13.3 FY16 412,751 47,224 11.8 46.2 11.7 36.8 11.4 4,098,664 556,546 13.6 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