1 / 29

Ship Maintenance

Ship Maintenance. RADM Jeff Brooks FFC N43. Ver: VSRA Final 15 Feb 07. A + A. A =. Life Cycle. FRP. o. o. Fleet. o. Required Focus. Desired Outcomes. CNO understanding of: Maintenance governance Maintenance requirements process approach validity

munin
Download Presentation

Ship Maintenance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ship Maintenance RADM Jeff Brooks FFC N43 Ver: VSRA Final 15 Feb 07

  2. A + A A = Life Cycle FRP o o Fleet o Required Focus

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

  4. Agenda • Where we are today • Discussion of Alignment, Governance and Thresholds • Vision of where we are heading: • Maintenance process improvements • Aligning warfare enterprises around common processes • Potential out-year domain challenges Deliver efficiency & effectiveness aligned with FRP

  5. MARMC Det. Naples MARMC Det. Bahrain Navy Ship Maintenance Activities Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PSNS & IMF) (RMC) Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Nuclear Submarine Support Facility New London SUPSHIP Groton Norfolk Naval Shipyard Mid-Atlantic RMC Norfolk SUPSHIP Newport News Ship Repair Facility Yokosuka (RMC) Southwest Regional Maintenance Center (RMC) San Diego Trident Refit Facility Kings Bay Southeast RMC Mayport South Central RMC Ingleside Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard & IMF (RMC) Mission funded & aligned through “One Shipyard” construct. AS-39 USS EMORY S LAND @ La Maddalena AS-40 USS FRANK CABLE @ Guam

  6. CONDITION BASED MAINT. ENGINEERED MAINT. PLANS (SYSCOMs) (Fleets) Today’s Strategy NCCs Units Ready For Tasking FRP Readiness + Life Cycle Readiness COCOMs Cost Demand Signal Material Readiness Ship Maintenance & Modernization Domain $ Fleet Readiness Enterprise POM/Budget Process MODERNIZATION Inputs (Platform Sponsors/PEOs) Requirements Generation

  7. Maintenance Supports Ops Notional CVN FRTP: MAINTENANCE PHASE BASIC TRAINING INTEGRATED TRAINING REDEPLOYMENT (SUSTAINMENT) DEPLOYMENT 6 Mo Planned Incremental Availability (PIA) or 10 ½ Mo Docking PIA Continuous Maint. (CM) Periods • PIAs & DPIAs are “Hard” Scheduling Targets • Dry-dock Constraints • FY $$’s • Industrial Base Loading • CM Schedules More Flexible • Max Interface w/ TYCOM and Fleet N3’s Ao FRTP + Ao Life Cycle = Ao Total

  8. 8 16 23 21 21 21 21 20 10 43 10 21 13 43 70 82 58 64 36 41 21 Maintenance Program Content 100% 75% Executed Maintenance Man-days Modernization 50% Corrective Maintenance (CSMP) Class Maint Plan (CMP) Engineered Requirements 25% 0% FY98 FY05 FY05 FY05 FY98 FY98 Submarine Carrier Surface

  9. Should Maintenance Content be the Same? • Class Maintenance Plan content differs because of: • System certifications (nuclear, subsafe, flight deck) • Aging Effects • Hull life expectancy • Maintenance scheduling intervals

  10. How Do We Determine the Right CMP Content? Modernization 100% CSMP 8 23 16 21 21 21 21 20 10 Executed Maintenance Man-days 43 10 75% 21 13 43 50% Modernization 82 70 Corrective Maintenance (CSMP) 58 64 36 41 25% Class Maint Plan (CMP) Engineered Requirements 21 Class Maint Plans • Maintenance Requirements • Assessment Procedures • Maintenance Strategies 0% Submarine Carrier Surface Work Package Development Maintenance Execution Ship Configuration Integration Requirements Deferral Review Continuous Improvement Maint History & Feedback Cycles of Learning Drive CMP improvements.

  11. 26 16 21 21 15 What are the Big Cost Drivers? • Corrosion control • Planning/Support services • Maintenance intensive components/systems • Modernization 100% 1 1 1 1 1 3 9 7 16 13 1 18 7 Habitability/Upgrades 8 7 6 2 75% 8 7 11 Program Alterations 24 13 Executed Maintenance Man-days 16 Fleet Alterations 30 24 50% Corrective Maintenance 58 Class Maint Plan (CMP) Corrective, contingency 41 42 CMP Scheduled Rqmts 27 25% 29 CMP Corrosion, contingency 18 6 5 13 12 Corrosion Control 6 7 0% 1 1 Submarine Carrier Surface Targets for Maintenance Improvement

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

  13. Trends Over Time? CLASS DEPOT LIFECYCLE MANDAYS Integrated Class Maint Plan & Maint Requirement System SHIPMAIN Results 100 % of Original CVN 68 CRU/DES 50 SSN 688 Adherence to Class Maint Plans Atrophied Beginning of Life Present Program Life

  14. Maint Funding With Supp PB07 Ship Maintenance Funding Trends 9,000 360 8,000 320 7,000 280 6,000 240 5,000 200 Constant FY06 Dollars (M) # Ships 4,000 160 The FRE Challenge! 3,000 120 2,000 80 1,000 40 0 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 FY POM08 Requirement Battle Force Ships

  15. VCNO Threshold reports Enterprise Relationships CNO Navy Enterprise RDA N8/ FMB CFFC/CPF FleetReadiness Enterprise FMBOD OPNAV N8/6/4/1 TYCOMs Warfare Enterprises Providers Resource Sponsors

  16. CNAF CNSF CSF Shipbuilding CFFC CPF NAVSEA FMBOD & Modernization PEOs/Platform Sponsor Alignment Ship Repair • Technical Authority • Contract Authority • Life Cycle Mgmt. • Class Maint Plans • Shipyard Operation Units Ready For Tasking Warfare Enterprises FRP Alignment FRE

  17. Navy Ship Maintenance Oversight Board (NSMOB) Fleet Maintenance Board Of Directors (FMBOD) Members • SEA 00 (co-chair) • OPNAV N4 (co-chair) • DASN (Ships) • DASN (Log) • CFFC (FMO) • CPF (FMO) • PEO (Ships/Carriers/Subs) • OPNAV N8 Members • FMOs (chair) • SEA 04/08 • OPNAV N43 • TYCOM N43s Purpose • Ship maint. enterprise issues • Cross enterprise maint issues • Major policy changes • Major avail changes • Budgetary impacts/ options • Drives Productivity Purpose • Execution issues w/ significant impact on shipbuilding and repair industrial base • PPBE issues w/ potential impact on shipbuilding and ship repair industrial base Governance Structure Local Boards Of Directors (LBODs) Members • RMC Cdr. (chair) • Customer TYCOMs • PHIBGRUs • DESRONs • SUBRONs • Ship ISICs • FMO (Reps) Purpose • Manage port workload • Align: • Priorities • Funds • Resources

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

  19. Fleet Readiness Status Indicators (3) YTD Financial Execution Readiness Impact UNCLAS VERSION FOR BRIEF PURPOSES. (1) Strike Group Readiness: FRP, O-Plan Y G (2) Unit Readiness: FRP, O-Plan (4) Readiness Support

  20. Maintenance [N43] Previous slide Status indicators G • Ability to Meet COCOM Tasking • Nothing to report • CNO Avail Planning and Execution • Growth and New work issues; shipyard performance Funding • Program execution; funds timing Industrial Base Issues • Availability assignments out of home port; “One Shipyard” performance Congressional Issues • Balancing public shipyard workload G G G G GREEN: No impact on Fleet readiness and or maintenance YELLOW: Potentially impacts Fleet readiness and or maintenance RED: Significantly impacts Fleet readiness and or maintenance (cost and/or schedule)

  21. Thresholds • Advise CNO/Stakeholders if/when: • Maintenance impacts major Navy metric and/or Combatant Commander event(s)(e.g., 6+0 vice 6+1; CVN deployment date slip) • Noteworthy maintenance discovery(e.g., FFG hull thinning) • Funds beyond normal appropriation guidelines required • Public/Political interest is likely(e.g., public shipyard work loading) • Decisions affecting out-year programming(e.g., CVN tanks) • Industrial base capacity & critical skills issues(e.g., CVN overlap solution)

  22. Informed Decision Making Software indicates which items should be repaired to support selected mission.

  23. P E S T O Feeding Other Metric Systems DRRS-N Screen DRRS Screen Total Force Integrated Readiness Model (TFIRM) Defense Readiness Reporting System-Navy Personnel Equipment Supply Training Ordnance NTAs MFOM Connecting Cost via TFIRM

  24. Maintenance Domain Risk Items • One Shipyard execution of Norfolk Naval Shipyard carrier overlap workload • USS ENTERPRISE FY08 availability • Congressional Hot Points • Potential shipyard downsizing impacts

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

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

  27. Maintenance communication thresholds • FY07 execution strategy Take-Aways • Maintenance governance is correctly aligned • Maintenance requirements process approach is valid

  28. A + A A = Life Cycle FRP o o Fleet o

  29. Top 5 Cost Drivers by Ship Class Slide 10 backup.

More Related