THE ESTIMATED EFFECT OF CORROSION ON THE COST AND AVAILABILITY OF MARINE CORPS GROUND VEHICLES

Transcription

1 THE ESTIMATED EFFECT OF CORROSION ON THE COST AND AVAILABILITY OF MARINE CORPS GROUND VEHICLES REPORT DAC21T3 Eric F. Herzberg Trevor K. Chan Norman T. O'Meara DECEMBER 2013

2 NOTICE: THE VIEWS, OPINIONS, AND FINDINGS CON- TAINED 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 RESERVED.

3 The Estimated Effect of Corrosion on the Cost and Availability of Marine Corps Ground Vehicles DAC21T3/DECEMBER 2013 Executive Summary LMI was tasked by the Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team (CPC IPT) to measure the effect of corrosion on the availability and cost of Marine Corps ground vehicle systems. Using data from FY2011, 1 we estimated the annual corrosion-related cost to be $418 million, which equates to 14.3 percent 2 of the total maintenance costs for all Marine Corps ground vehicles. We also estimated that corrosion is a contributing factor in approximately 209,115 non-available days (NADs) of Marine Corps ground vehicles each year, which equates to 6.0 percent of the total ground vehicle NADs and an average of 5.5 days of corrosion-related nonavailability per year for every reportable 3 ground vehicle or system. This review is part of a multiple year plan to measure the cost of corrosion for DoD weapon systems. It is the first study to analyze the effect of corrosion on the availability of Marine Corps ground vehicles. Table ES-1 lists previous and future ground vehicle studies on the cost of corrosion, while Table ES-2 lists all studies related to the effect of corrosion on availability. 4 Study year a Table ES-1. Marine Corps Cost-of-Corrosion Studies Data baseline Corrosion as a percentage of maintenance Annual cost of corrosion FY % $499 million FY % $390 million FY % $415 million FY % $374 million FY % $398 million FY % $418 million a Study period is 1 calendar year. 1 Data was collected for FY , but we based the corrosion-related cost and availability of ground vehicles on FY2011 data, the most recent year for which study data was available. 2 Percentage calculation does not include $108 million in costs outside normal reporting, as comparable costs are not available as part of the Marine Corps ground vehicle maintenance total. 3 The total corrosion-related NADs (209,115) account for 169,029 days the Marine Corps reported as not-mission-capable in its current method for reporting non-availability. The remaining 40,086 NADs were categorized as unreported not-available days, which were due to depot maintenance. 4 DoD funded these cost and availability studies. iii

4 Study year a Table ES-2. DoD Studies on the Effect of Corrosion on Availability Data baseline Study segment Annual non-available time attributable to corrosion Total Avg. per vehicle FY Army aviation 1,717,898 hours 17.4 days Navy and Marine Corps aviation 95,237 days 26.5 days Air Force 2,102,476 hours 15.9 days FY Army ground vehicles 662,649 days 1.7 days FY Marine Corps ground vehicles 209,115 days 5.5 days a Study period is 1 calendar year. Maintenance expenditures fluctuate and supplemental maintenance funding is variable; so, too, are corrosion-related cost totals. Therefore, corrosion cost as a percentage of maintenance cost is a better indicator of overall trends when looking at the effect of corrosion on the cost of weapon systems. 5 Although the percentage increased during the last study year (to 14.3 percent), it is among the lowest for DoD weapon systems studied thus far. The Marine Corps has made significant progress in mitigating the effects of corrosion on costs since the initial study using FY2005 data. The corrosion cost as a percentage of maintenance cost for Marine Corps ground vehicles has averaged 13.4 percent since that initial study. We segregated the corrosion-related costs for Marine Corps ground vehicles within three separate schemas: depot versus field-level maintenance, corrective versus preventive costs, and costs associated with structure versus parts. Table ES-3 shows both the costs and percentages within each schema for FY2011. Table ES-3. Nature of Corrosion-Related Costs for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles (FY2011) Schema for corrosion-related costs Corrosion-related cost (in millions) Percentage within schema total Depot maintenance (DM) $223 53% Field-level maintenance (FLM) $87 21% Maintenance outside normal reporting $108 26% Total $ % Corrective maintenance $232 75% Preventive maintenance $74 24% Unable to classify $4 1% Total $ % Structure $164 53% Parts $142 46% Unable to classify $4 1% Total $ % 5 We calculated the most recent cost estimates by aggregating the corrosion-related costs of 131 types of Marine Corps ground vehicles, major systems, and support equipment. The scope of our cost-of-corrosion study accounts for an inventory of more than 63,950 vehicles and systems. To our knowledge, this includes all types of Marine Corps ground vehicles. iv

5 Executive Summary Depot and field-level maintenance account for 74.0 percent ($310 million 6 ) of the combined corrosion-related cost for Marine Corps ground vehicles. Corrosionrelated DM costs exceed corrosion-related FLM costs both in terms of total cost and percentage of maintenance. The corrosion-related DM cost as a percentage of total Marine Corps ground vehicle DM is 45.3 percent, significantly exceeding the same FLM measure, 5.2 percent (see Table ES-4). Table ES-4. Comparison of Corrosion-Related Cost for DM and FLM Type of maintenance Maintenance cost (in millions) Corrosion-related cost (in millions) Percentage of corrosionrelated maintenance cost Depot $491 $ Field-level $1,669 $ TAMCN Costs to correct corrosion were significantly higher ($232 million) than costs to prevent corrosion ($74 million). Whereas, corrosion-related costs associated with repairs to structure ($164 million) were only slightly higher than corrosion-related costs associated with repairs to parts ($142 million). We also stratified the corrosion costs for Marine Corps ground vehicle systems by Table of Authorized Materiel Control Number (TAMCN), total cost, and cost per item. We ranked the systems by their total and average corrosion-related costs (see Table ES-5). Table ES-5. Highest Average and Total Corrosion-Related Costs (FY2011) Description Corrosion-related cost Total (in millions) Rank by total cost Average corrosion-related cost Average Rank by avg. cost Combined rank (total + avg.) D0001 Truck, utility, up-armored HMMWV, M1114 $24 2 $202, B0589 Tractor, full-tracked, armored doz. $10 7 $99, E0947 Light armored vehicle (LAV), 25MM, LAV-25 $16 3 $37, E0846 Assault amphibious vehicle, personnel, AAPV7A1 $25 1 $24, D0013 Tractor, MTVR, armored, AMK31 $8 9 $25, E0946 LAV, command/control, LAV-C2 $3 22 $90, E1378 Recovery vehicle, heavy, M88A2 $3 21 $52, D0235 Semi-trailer, 40-ton low-bed, 12- wheel, M870 $7 11 $19, E0942 Light armored vehicle, anti-tank, LAV-AT $4 20 $38, E0856 Assault amphibious vehicle, personnel, AAPV7A1 $3 25 $57, The remaining $108 million is for corrosion-related maintenance that is outside normal reporting. These costs reflect the maintenance performed by operators with a non-maintenance occupation specialty, which typically is not recorded in standard maintenance systems. v

6 TAMCN All the vehicles in Table ES-5 present an opportunity to focus resources to mitigate the negative impacts of corrosion; however, vehicles that merit the most attention have a high total cost of corrosion and a high average cost of corrosion per vehicle. Two ground vehicles were among the top 10 contributors for both total cost and average cost: TAMCN D0001, the M1114 up-armored HMMWV, and TAMCN B0589, a full-tracked armored tractor. The TAMCN D0001 is being phased out of the Marine Corps fleet. We believe the average corrosion costs for TAMCN D0001 are not as high as depicted in this report because of the significant decrease in inventory. Corrosion-related NADs (209,115 days) account for 6.0 percent of the total nonavailability reported. 7 We show the highest 10 contributors to corrosion-related NADs in Table ES-6. Table ES-6. Total Corrosion-Related NADs for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles with the Highest Total NADs (FY2011) Description Avg. no. of vehicles Total NADs NADs Related to corrosion Percentage of NADs Avg. NADs per vehicle E0846 Assault amphibious vehicle AAVP7A1 1, ,325 15, % 9 D0198 Truck, cargo, 7-ton, MK23/MK25 2, ,367 8, % 4 D0025 MRAP JERRV, ,575 2, % 3 D0003 Truck, armored, 7-ton cargo, AMK23 1, ,996 3, % 2 D0030 Truck, utility, expanded capacity, M1151 3, ,990 5, % 2 D0036 MRAP all-terrain vehicle (M-ATV) 2,614 84,308 3, % 1 D0022 Truck, utility, expanded capacity, M1152 2, ,740 3, % 1 D1158 Truck, utility, cargo, M998 4, ,347 4, % 1 D0034 Truck, utility: expanded capacity 2,883 79,576 1, % 1 B0891 Generator set, 10 Kw, MEP-003A/803A 2,817 88,989 1, % 1 TAMCN E0846, an amphibious assault vehicle has the highest corrosion-related NADs as well as the highest percentage of corrosion-related NADs. With the exception of this vehicle, the average corrosion-related NADs per year are fairly low, ranging from 1 day to 4 days. This indicates the Marine Corps does not typically place a vehicle into not mission capable (NMC) status for corrosion-related reasons. 7 We measured the total corrosion-related non-available days in a manner consistent with how the Marine Corps reports its NMC results with the exception of depot non-availability. The Marine Corps does not capture NMC days for vehicles undergoing DM. We established a separate nonavailability calculation for vehicles that incurred DM based on production schedules and maintenance records provided by the Albany and Barstow production plants and the Anniston (Alabama) Army depot. vi

7 Executive Summary The relationship between cost and availability is not strong for Marine Corps ground vehicle types with the highest corrosion-related cost (see Table ES-7). Only 3 of the 10 ground vehicle types with the highest corrosion-related cost were also among the 10 greatest contributors to corrosion-related NADs: TAMCN E0846, the amphibious assault vehicle; TAMCN E0947, a LAV-25 light armored vehicle; and TAMCN D0198, the 7-ton cargo truck. Table ES-7. Total Corrosion-Related Cost and NADs by TAMCN (FY2011) TAMCN Description Rank Corrosion-related cost Total (in millions) Corrosion-related NADs As a percentage of total maintenance Rank Total As a percentage of total NADs E0846 Assault amphibious vehicle, 1 $ % 1 15, % personnel, AAPV7A1 D0001 Truck, Utility, UAH, M $ % 15 3, % E0947 Light armored vehicle, 25MM, 3 $ % 10 4, % LAV-25 D1158 Truck, utility, cargo, troop carrier, 4 $ % 11 4, % M998 D0209 Power unit, front, 4 4, 12 1 / 2-ton, 5 $ % 23 3, % MK 48 D0003 Truck, armored, 7-ton cargo, 6 $ % 18 3, % AMK23 B0589 Tractor, full-tracked, armored doz 7 $ % 26 2, % D0198 Truck, cargo, 7-ton, MK23/MK25 8 $9 8.7% 4 8, % D0013 Tractor, MTVR, armored, AMK31 9 $8 38.9% 52 1, % E1154 Intensifier, image, night vision 10 $7 18.7% 192 N/A The lack of an otherwise strong relationship between corrosion-related costs and NADs most likely stems from the low level of overall corrosion-related NADs for all ground vehicles. This implies the level of corrosion-related NADs is most likely being driven by common issues that affect all vehicles, rather than a special cause associated with a particular vehicle type. vii

8 viii

9 Contents Chapter 1 Background and Analysis Method STUDY OBJECTIVES BACKGROUND Maintenance Structure Key Maintenance Organizations Corrosion Prevention and Control Organization Vehicle List Analysis Method Summary of Cost Estimation Method Summary of Availability Estimation Method Study Method Limitations DATA STRUCTURE AND ANALYSIS CAPABILITIES REPORT ORGANIZATION Chapter 2 Determining the Cost of Corrosion COST OF CORROSION FOR DM (NODES A AND B ) Cost of Corrosion for Organic DM (Nodes A1 and B1 ) Cost of Corrosion for Commercial DM (Nodes A2 and B2 ) COST OF CORROSION FOR FLM (NODES C AND D ) Top-Down FLM Analysis Bottom-Up FLM Analysis COST OF CORROSION FOR ONR (NODES E, F, G ) Labor of Non-Maintenance Ground Vehicle Operators (Node E ) RDT&E and New Facility Costs (Node F ) Purchase Cards (Node G ) CORROSION-RELATED COSTS FOR MARINE CORPS GROUND VEHICLES (NODES A THROUGH G ) ix

10 SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS TOTAL COST OF CORROSION Trend of Corrosion Costs Corrosion-Related Cost Views Corrosion-Related Costs by System Cost of Corrosion Adjusted for Inflation Chapter 3 Determining Corrosion s Effect on Availability MARINE CORPS AVAILABILITY REPORTING Reporting Metrics Reporting Results TYPES OF NON-AVAILABILITY Not Mission Capable Non-Availability Unreported Non-Availability TOTAL NON-AVAILABLE DAYS NON-AVAILABILITY RELATED TO CORROSION Analysis of Corrosion-Related Data Sources Analysis of Corrosion-Related Maintenance Effect of Corrosion on Availability Summary: Total Corrosion-Related NADs CORROSION-RELATED AVAILABILITY VIEWS Corrosion-Related Non-Availability by Vehicle Type Corrosion-Related Non-Availability by System Corrosion-Related Non-Availability by Nature of Work Chapter 4 Relationship between Corrosion-Related Cost and Non-Availability CORROSION-RELATED RELATIONSHIP BY TAMCN CORROSION-RELATED COST AND NON-AVAILABILITY BY GWBS CORROSION-RELATED COST AND NON-AVAILABILITY BY NATURE OF WORK Appendix A Marine Corps Ground Vehicle Equipment Appendix B Data Sources for the Corrosion-Related Costs of Marine Corps Ground Vehicles Appendix C Depot Cost Work Centers Corrosion Profile Appendix D Corrosion-Related Keywords x

11 Contents Appendix E Ground Vehicle Work Breakdown Structure Coding Appendix F Marine Corps Survey Results Appendix G Total MC and NMC Rates by TAMCN Appendix H Total Corrosion-Related NADs by TAMCN Appendix I Abbreviations Figures Figure 1-1. SYSCOM and LOGCOM Organizational Relationship Figure 1-2. Marine Corps Corrosion Prevention and Control Organization Figure 1-3. Preventive and Corrective Corrosion-Related Cost Curves Figure 1-4. The Relationship between Availability and Spending on Corrosion-Related Maintenance Figure 1-5. Availability over Time at Zero Corrosion-Related Spending Figure 1-6. Data Structure and Analysis Categories Figure 2-1. Corrosion-Related Cost Tree for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles (FY2011) Figure 2-2. DM Cost of Corrosion for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles ($ in millions) Figure 2-3. Organic DM Cost of Corrosion for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles ($ in millions) Figure 2-4. Labor Cost Tree for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles in Organic DM ($ in millions) Figure 2-5. Notional Application of a Corrosion-Related Keyword Search in an Organic DM Database Figure 2-6. Organic DM Materials Costs for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles ($ in millions) Figure 2-7. Cost Tree for Commercial DM ($ in millions) Figure 2-8. Example of Determining Corrosion-Related Commercial DM Costs for a Notional Ground Vehicle Using Corrosion-Related Ratios for Organic DM Figure 2-9. FLM Costs for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles ($ in millions) Figure Organic FLM Labor Costs for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles ($ in millions) Figure Organic FLM Materials Costs for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles ($ in millions) xi

12 Figure Commercial FLM Costs for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles ($ in millions) Figure Corrosion-Related ONR Costs for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles ($ in millions) Figure Cost of Corrosion for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles Figure 3-1. Calculating Non-Available Days Tables Table 1-1. DoD Cost-of-Corrosion Studies to Date and Future Efforts Table 1-2. DoD Corrosion-Related Availability Studies to Date and Future Efforts Table 1-3. Comparison of DoD Maintenance Categories to USMC Maintenance Designations Table 1-4. CRF Locations and Organizational Assignment Table 1-5. CST Locations and Organizational Assignment Table 2-1. Cost of Corrosion for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles at Organic and Commercial Depots ($ in millions) Table 2-2. Notional Application of Corrosion-Related CWC Percentages and Keywords to DIFMS Maintenance Records ($ in millions) Table 2-3. Example of Allocating Materials Costs to Labor Records Table 2-4. GWBS Codes for End-Item Type Table 2-5. GWBS Codes for Maintenance Activity Table 2-6. GWBS Maintenance System Codes Table 2-7. Example of GWBS Subsystem Codes and Descriptions for System Table 2-8. Staffing Levels and Costs by Marine Corps Component for Organic FLM Personnel (FY2011) Table 2-9. Parts-Related Budget for Marine Corps Organic FLM Materials (FY2011) Table Number of Personnel and Costs by Marine Corps Component for Field-Level Maintainers of Ground Vehicles Table Parts-Related Budget for Organic FLM Materials for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles (FY2011) Table Corrosion-Related Fault Codes within MIMMS and GCSS-MC (FY2011) Table Number of Marine Corps Ground Vehicles by Vehicle Type and Marine Corps Component xii

13 Contents Table Number of Marine Corps Ground Vehicles Operated by Personnel with a Non-Maintenance Specialty (by Type and Military Component) Table Summary of Time Spent on Corrosion-Related Maintenance by Non-Maintenance Personnel Who Operate Ground Vehicles Table Corrosion-Related Cost of Non-Maintenance Personnel Who Operate Ground Vehicles Table FY2011 Corrosion RDT&E Projects for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles ($ in millions) Table Corrosion-Related Facility Projects for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles in FY Table Trend Analysis of Corrosion-Related DM and FLM Costs for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles in FY2005 FY2011 ($ millions) Table Corrosion-Related Costs for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles by Node and Sub-Node for FY2009 FY Table Marine Corps Ground Vehicle Cost Trends for Fluctuating Corrosion-Related Cost, by Node and Sub-Node Table Top 10 Contributors to the Total Corrosion-Related Costs of Marine Corps Ground Vehicles (FY2011) Table Top 10 TAMCNs by Average Corrosion-Related Cost per Vehicle for FY Table Marine Corps Vehicles with the Highest Average Corrosion-Related Cost per Vehicle and Total Corrosion-Related Cost (FY2011) Sorted by Combined Rank Table Corrosion-Related Costs and Cost Ranking by Maintenance Activity (Second GWBS Character) Table Top 10 Corrosion-Related Costs by GWBS (Third and Fourth Characters) Table Top 10 Vehicle Frame (GWBS Code 02) Costs by TAMCN ($ in millions) Table Corrosion-Related Corrective and Preventive Costs for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles Table Corrosion-Related Costs for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles by Parts vs. Structure Table Corrosion-Related Costs for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles Adjusted for Inflation Table 3-1. Marine Corps Availability Metrics Table 3-2. Example of Marine Corps Availability Reporting Table 3-3. Marine Corps Availability Reporting for the 20 Ground Vehicle Types with the Highest Average Inventory (FY2011) xiii

14 Table 3-4. Availability Reporting of NMC Days for the 20 Ground Vehicle Types with the Highest Average Inventory (FY2011) Table 3-5. Number of UNA Days for the 20 Ground Vehicle Types with the Highest Average Inventory (FY2011) Table 3-6. Total NADs for the 20 Marine Corps Ground Vehicle Types with the Highest Average Inventory (FY2011) Table 3-7. Calculating the Effect of Corrosion on NADs Table 3-8. FY2011 Maintenance and Availability for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles and Systems Table 3-9. Summary of Corrosion-Related NADs for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles (FY2011) Table Total Corrosion-Related NADs Table Effect of Corrosion on FLM NADs for the 10 Marine Corps Ground Vehicles and Systems with the Highest Total NADs (FY2011) Table Corrosion-Related DM NADs for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles and Systems with the Highest Total NADs (FY2011) Table Total Corrosion-Related NADs for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles and Systems with the Highest Total NADs (FY2011) Table Effect of Corrosion on NADs by the Marine Corps Ground Vehicles and Systems with the Highest Total NADs (FY2011) Table Effect of Corrosion on NADs for the Hull/Frame System by Vehicles and Systems with the Highest Total Corrosion-Related NADs (FY2011) Table Effect of Corrosion on FLM NMC Days by Nature of Work (FY2011) Table Effect of Corrosion on DM UNA Days by Nature of Work (FY2011) Table Effect of Corrosion on Total NAD by Nature of Work (FY2011) Table Total Corrosion-Related NADs by Corrective Maintenance Activity (FY2011) Table 4-1. Total Corrosion-Related Cost and NADs by TAMCN (FY2011) Table 4-2. Average Corrosion-Related Cost and NAD by TAMCN (FY2011) Table 4-3. Total Corrosion-Related Costs and NADs for the 10 Marine Corps Ground Vehicle Systems with the Highest Corrosion-Related Costs (FY2011) Table 4-4. Total Corrosion-Related Cost and NAD by Nature of Work (FY2011) xiv

15 Chapter 1 Background and Analysis Method Congress, concerned with the high cost of corrosion, enacted legislation in December 2002 that assigned the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD[AT&L]) with policy and oversight responsibilities for preventing and mitigating the effects of corrosion on military equipment and infrastructure. 1 To perform its mission of preventing and mitigating corrosion, fulfill congressional requirements, and respond to Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommendations, the USD(AT&L) established the Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team (CPC IPT), a crossfunctional team of personnel from all the military services as well as representatives from private industry. In response to a GAO recommendation to develop standardized methodologies for collecting and analyzing corrosion cost, readiness, and safety data, 2 the CPC IPT created standard methods for measuring both the cost 3 and availability 4 impact of corrosion for DoD s military equipment and infrastructure. In April 2006, the CPC IPT published the results of the first corrosion-related cost study, 5 which used the standard corrosion-related cost estimation method. We present the results of the cost studies in Table 1-1 and the availability studies in Table 1-2. More recently, LMI was tasked by the CPC IPT with measuring both the corrosion-related cost and the effect of corrosion on weapon system availability for all DoD aviation and ground vehicle assets. The current annual cost of corrosion for DoD is $23.3 billion. We derived this total by aggregating the most recent cost of each study segment (less the totals from the Coast Guard aviation and vessels study). 6 1 The Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law , December 28, 2002, p. 201; Public Law was enhanced by Public Law , The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Section 371, January 28, GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Corrosion Costs and Increase Readiness, GAO , July 2003, p LMI, Proposed Method and Structure for Determining the Cost of Corrosion for the Department of Defense, Report SKT40T1, Eric F. Herzberg, August DoD CPC IPT, The Impact of Corrosion on the Availability of DoD Weapon Systems and Infrastructure, October LMI, The Annual Cost of Corrosion for Army Ground Vehicles and Navy Ships, Report SKT50T1, Eric F. Herzberg et al., April We disregarded the Coast Guard aviation and vessels total of $0.3 billion in this study because the U.S. Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security. 1-1

16 Table 1-1. DoD Cost-of-Corrosion Studies to Date and Future Efforts Study year a Data baseline Study segment Annual cost of corrosion FY2004 Army ground vehicles $1.6 billion FY2004 Navy ships $3.4 billion FY2005 DoD facilities and infrastructure $1.8 billion FY2005 Army aviation and missiles $1.6 billion FY2005 Marine Corps ground vehicles $0.5 billion FY Navy and Marine Corps aviation $4.1 billion FY Coast Guard aviation and vessels $0.3 billion FY Air Force $4.3 billion FY Army ground vehicles $2.3 billion FY Navy ships $2.9 billion FY2006 DoD other equipment $5.1 billion FY2007 Marine Corps ground vehicles $0.5 billion FY2008 Marine Corps ground vehicles $0.4 billion FY DoD facilities and infrastructure $1.9 billion FY Army aviation and missiles $1.5 billion FY Air Force $5.4 billion FY Navy and Marine Corps aviation $3.8 billion FY Navy ships $3.8 billion FY Army ground vehicles $1.4 billion FY2009 Marine Corps ground vehicles $0.4 billion FY2010 Marine Corps ground vehicles $0.4 billion FY2011 Marine Corps ground vehicles $0.4 billion FY DoD facilities and infrastructure Pending FY Army aviation and missiles Pending a Study period is 1 calendar year. Table 1-2. DoD Corrosion-Related Availability Studies to Date and Future Efforts Study year a Data baseline Study segment Annual non-availability due to corrosion Average annual corrosion-related NADs per end item FY Army aviation 1,717,898 hours 17.4 days Navy and Marine Corps aviation 95,237 days 26.5 days Air Force 2,102,476 hours 15.9 days FY Army ground vehicles 662,649 days 1.7 days FY Marine Corps ground vehicles 209,115 days 5.5 days Note: NAD = non-available day. a Study period is 1 calendar year. 1-2

17 Background and Analysis Method In 2011, we completed our most recent studies on the effects of corrosion for both the maintenance cost and availability of DoD aviation and missile assets. The availability studies represented the first effort of its kind to quantify the effect corrosion has on weapon systems in terms of their non-availability related to maintenance activities. Future cost and availability studies will produce updates to help the services identify trends over time. This report presents the results of our analysis on the effects of corrosion on the maintenance cost and availability of Marine Corps ground vehicles. This is the first study to quantify the effects of corrosion on the availability of Marine Corps ground vehicles. STUDY OBJECTIVES BACKGROUND We had five specific objectives for this study: 1. Estimate the most recent annual sustainment cost of corrosion for Marine Corps ground vehicle assets. 2. Estimate the most recent corrosion-related effect on availability for Marine Corps ground vehicle assets. 3. Identify corrosion-related cost-reduction opportunities for Marine Corps ground vehicle assets. 4. Identify corrosion-related availability-improvement opportunities for Marine Corps ground vehicle assets. 5. Analyze trends and draw conclusions using both the initial and most recent cost-of-corrosion studies for Marine Corps ground vehicles. The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) procures weapon systems and components and maintains equipment readiness under the direction and support of two primary organizations: U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command (SYSCOM) and U.S. Marine Corps Logistics Command (LOGCOM). 7 Both organizations have important roles in preventive and corrective corrosion control throughout a weapon system s life cycle. 8 The organizational chart in Figure 1-1 shows the relationship of SYSCOM and LOGCOM under the commandant. 7 For simplicity, we shortened the formal acronyms of MARCORSYSCOM (U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command) and MARCORLOGCOM (U.S. Marine Corps Logistics Command) to SYSCOM and LOGCOM. 8 DoD Directive and Marine Corps Order

18 Figure 1-1. SYSCOM and LOGCOM Organizational Relationship Commandant of the Marine Corps Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps LOGCOM Sustainment lead focuses on support actions after weapon system fielding SYSCOM PPA PPB BIC Acquisition lead focuses on actions leading up to weapon system fielding Marine Corps depot-level facilities SYSCOM is the Marine Corps commandant s principal agent for acquiring weapon systems. 9 One of SYSCOM s responsibilities is to ensure USMC properly integrates maintenance into each weapon system s acquisition program. 10 To fulfill that responsibility, SYSCOM focuses its efforts on maintenance actions that take place before a weapon system is fielded. LOGCOM has the overall responsibility of providing worldwide, integrated logistics support and depot maintenance to weapon systems, as well as of strategic prepositioning of fielded weapon systems. 11 LOGCOM has three major subordinate commands: Production Plant Albany (PPA) in Albany, Georgia; Production Plant Barstow (PPB) in Barstow, California; and the Blount Island Command (BIC) 12 in Jacksonville, Florida. Although LOGCOM adjusts maintenance programs throughout a weapon system s life cycle to increase operational availability and reduce total ownership costs, 13 it focuses its efforts primarily on maintenance actions after it fields a weapon system. 9 SYSCOM s mission statement is available at 10 DoD Directive , Maintenance of Military Materiel, March 31, 2004, p. 3; and Marine Corps Order , Marine Corps Total Life Cycle Management, September 16, LOGCOM s mission statement is available at 12 While both PPA and PPB perform depot maintenance on Marine Corps ground vehicles, LOGCOM s Maritime Pre-positioning Force based at Blount Island provides pre-positioned equipment and supplies to Navy and Marine Corps ship-based forces outside the continental United States during a crisis or incident. 13 DoD Directive , Maintenance of Military Materiel, March 31, 2004, p. 5; and Marine Corps Order , Marine Corps Total Life Cycle Management, September 16,

19 Background and Analysis Method SYSCOM and LOGCOM work together to maximize unit readiness and sustainability at the lowest-possible cost. Although both organizations have mutually supportive missions, they operate as independent commands under the Marine Corps commandant. Maintenance Structure Marine Corps maintenance is generally categorized as either depot maintenance or field-level maintenance: Depot maintenance (DM) is the most complex repair work performed by civilian artisans in a government-owned and -operated Marine Corps facility (i.e., organic depot) or a commercial contractor s facility. Organic depots include Marine Corps and other DoD facilities (such as Anniston Army Depot, or ANAD). Field-level maintenance (FLM) is performed at DoD organizational and intermediate levels. For the Marine Corps, FLM includes the contracted maintenance performed by BIC, 14 corrosion-related rehabilitation facilities (CRFs), and corrosion-related service teams (CSTs). The Marine Corps often uses the term echelon when referring to maintenance levels. Table 1-3 shows the relationship of Marine Corps maintenance echelons to DoD s levels of repair and maintenance categories. 15 For the purpose of this report, we used the maintenance category terms field to refer to the first four echelons of maintenance and depot to refer to the fifth echelon. Table 1-3. Comparison of DoD Maintenance Categories to USMC Maintenance Designations DoD maintenance category DoD levels of repair USMC maintenance designation Field Organizational 1st echelon Field Organizational 2nd echelon Field Intermediate 3rd echelon Field Intermediate 4th echelon Depot Depot 5th echelon DM is highly centralized, with the overwhelming majority being performed at just two production plants: PPA and PPB. FLM is more decentralized; it is performed at numerous Marine Corps organizational and operational locations throughout the world. Although DM tends to be more extensive, FLM can also involve complex remove-and-replace operations for components and subcomponents. 14 BIC information is available at 15 DoD Directive , Maintenance of Military Materiel, March 31,

20 Key Maintenance Organizations Because the Marine Corps has a unique maintenance structure compared to other DoD services, this section highlights a few key USMC maintenance organizations and their roles. DEPOT-LEVEL MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS DM organizations include organic and commercial depots. As Figure 1-1 shows, two organic plants, PPA and PPB, handle nearly all depot maintenance for the Marine Corps. Both plants provide DM support on Marine Corps ground combat weapon systems, with limited capacity to support other military services with similar systems. Organic depots for the other services, meanwhile, provide limited augmentation support to the Marine Corps. ANAD is the major organic DM provider outside of PPA and PPB. ANAD provides DM for certain Marine Corps tactical, combat, and engineering equipment that are similar to existing Army equipment (for example, the M1A1 Abrams tank and the Assault Breacher Vehicle). FIELD-LEVEL MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS FLM comprises the organizational and intermediate repair activities that exist throughout the Marine Corps. Several organizations, however, provide unique FLM support: BIC plans, coordinates, and executes the logistics and maintenance support of the Marine Corps pre-positioning programs. Many of BIC maintenance facilities and capabilities are similar to those found at PPA and PPB. CRFs and CSTs have unique corrosion-oriented maintenance operations. We provide more information on these key corrosion-related FLM activities in the following section. Corrosion Prevention and Control Organization To combat the effect of corrosion on its ground vehicle equipment, the Marine Corps commandant established the Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPAC) organization in July Table 1-2 shows the CPAC organization CPAC s organization has remained static since

21 Background and Analysis Method Figure 1-2. Marine Corps Corrosion Prevention and Control Organization DC(I&L) CPAC Commander, SYSCOM (CPAC Manager) Contractor support LOGCOM MCCDC Marine Forces Command Marine Forces Pacific Marine Forces Reserve CRF and CST PPA II MEF I MEF PPB CRF and CST III MEF CRF and CST BIC CRF and CST Notes: MCCDC = Marine Corps Combat Development Command; MEF = Marine Expeditionary Force. CPAC s mission is to identify, implement, and, when necessary, develop corrosion-related prevention and control products, materials, technologies, and processes. The organization focuses its efforts on both repairing existing corrosionrelated problems and preventing or reducing future corrosion-related damage affecting ground equipment. 17 The Marine Corps Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics (DC[I&L]) provides policy and program advocacy support to CPAC for all corrosion prevention and control. The principal members of CPAC are SYSCOM and LOGCOM. The SYSCOM commander serves as the CPAC manager responsible for ensuring that all Marine Corps acquisitions and fielded systems adequately incorporate the organization s initiatives to resolve both current and future corrosion-related issues. The CPAC manager also chairs a CPAC working group that brings together representatives of CPAC member organizations, who collaborate to identify problems and challenges associated with corrosion prevention and control, evaluate potential solutions, and take steps to make the necessary corrections. 17 Marine Corps Order B, Corrosion Prevention and Control Program, July 16,

22 LOGCOM also has a pivotal role in carrying out CPAC s mission. Because its depot centers perform the majority of maintenance work on fielded Marine Corps weapon systems and tackle the most complex and diverse problems, personnel at these depots are best positioned to identify and track corrosion-related issues and the most effective actions to correct or mitigate those issues and report their findings to LOGCOM s CPAC representative. The following are other key CPAC members. MCCDC develops future operational capability requirements, including corrosion-related prevention, and initial capability documentation for Marine Corps tactical ground equipment. It also establishes CPAC training and education standards for all ground system operators, maintenance personnel, and managers. Each Marine Corps Forces Reserve commandant battles corrosion daily using their organic FLM resources and via CRFs and CSTs. While CPAC works with these commands on initiatives to prevent and combat corrosion on their ground vehicles, the CRFs and CSTs provide unique, field-level, and corrosion-related maintenance capabilities to the operating units. CRFs provide Marine Corps force commanders with corrosion-related maintenance through limited depots, at the intermediate level of repair (i.e., the third and fourth echelons). The capability of each CRF varies, but all are capable of complete repainting. Many also perform extensive vehicle structure restoration, including body repair, corrosionrelated repair and protection, and painting. These facilities are geographically dispersed to provide easily accessible support to the MEF units, as shown in Table 1-4. Table 1-4. CRF Locations and Organizational Assignment CRF location Organizational assignment Camp Pendleton, CA I MEF MCB Barstow, CA I MEF (support facility) a Camp Lejeune, NC II MEF Cherry Point, NC II MEF Camp Kinser, Okinawa, Japan III MEF Iwakuni, Japan III MEF Kaneohe Bay, HI III MEF Mobile CRFs (3) MARFORRES b a MCB complements I MEF CRF operations by supporting oversized equipment that cannot be accommodated at the I MEF CRF location due to facility constraints. b The Marine Forces Reserve (MARFORRES) has three mobile corrosion-related repair facilities that service multiple MARFORRES sites within the continental United States (CONUS). 1-8

23 Background and Analysis Method The CRF facilities are government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO). In FY2011, they provided corrosion-related maintenance on more than 3,300 Marine Corps ground vehicle end items. CSTs provide Marine commanders with the capability to combat the effects of corrosion on ground equipment at the organizational level. CSTs are mobile teams that provide preventive corrosion-related services, such as vehicle assessments, the preparation and coating of vehicle surface, and the application of corrosion inhibitor. 18 The Marine Corps has contracted CST support. As Table 1-5 shows, the Marine Corps had CST support available for all three MEFs and MARFORRES in FY2011. All told, these teams provided corrosionrelated services to more than 24,000 ground vehicle end items. Table 1-5. CST Locations and Organizational Assignment CST location Organizational assignment Vehicle List Camp Pendleton, CA I MEF 29 Palms, CA I MEF Camp Lejeune, NC II MEF Cherry Point, NC II MEF Camp Kinser, Okinawa, Japan III MEF Iwakuni, Japan III MEF Kaneohe Bay, HI III MEF Mobile CSTs (2) MARFORRES a a MARFORRES has two mobile CRFs servicing multiple MARFORRES sites within CONUS. For the scope of this study, we included all wheeled, tracked, and towed vehicles in the Marine Corps fleet in FY2011. Within each of those vehicle categories, the Marine Corps has 131 total types of vehicles at the Table of Authorized Materiel Control Number (TAMCN) level of detail, for a total of more than 63,950 pieces of equipment. 18 More details on these activities are available in the Marine Corps CST After Action Report, which is available at CSTs act in accordance with USMC Technical Manual /1, Organizational Corrosion Prevention and Control Procedures for USMC Equipment, April

24 Analysis Method We compiled the list of Marine Corps wheeled, tracked, and towed ground vehicles at both the TAMCN and national stock number (NSN) 19 levels of detail using data from the Marine Corps Visibility and Management of Operating and Support Costs (VAMOSC) database. VAMOSC is a management information system that collects and reports U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps historical weapon system inventory and associated operating or support costs. Cost and inventory data on Marine Corps ground systems have been stored in this system since FY1995. For this report, we tallied the inventory of each vehicle type by aggregating data from VAMOSC as well as data provided by SYSCOM on the inventory of new ground vehicles. In Appendix A, we provide the complete inventory of all Marine Corps ground vehicles included in this study. We applied the same analysis methods to Marine Corps ground vehicle assets as those we outlined in the first corrosion-related Marine Corps ground vehicles study produced for the CPC IPT. 20 For the sake of brevity, we only provide a brief description of those methods in this report. Chapter 1 of that first report, The Annual Cost of Corrosion for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles, contains more information on how we measure the cost of corrosion. Chapter 2 of a later study, The Impact of Corrosion on the Availability of DoD Weapon Systems and Infrastructure, contains details about our estimation method to measure the effect of corrosion on availability. 21 To ensure consistency in our study, we used the definition of corrosion that Congress developed: the deterioration of a material or its properties due to a reaction of that material with its chemical environment. 22 We have applied this definition of corrosion to each of the corrosion-related studies we produce for DoD. 19 The NSN is a unique 13-digit number that identifies an item in procurement systems. 20 LMI, The Annual Cost of Corrosion for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles, Report SKT504T, Eric F. Herzberg et al., May LMI, The Impact of Corrosion on the Availability of DoD Weapon Systems and Infrastructure, Report DL907T1, Eric F. Herzberg, October Public Law , p

25 Background and Analysis Method Our estimation method for the effects of both corrosion-related cost and availability segregates maintenance activities by their source and nature, using the following three schemas: Depot maintenance corrosion-related costs incurred while performing depot maintenance Field-level maintenance corrosion-related costs incurred while performing organizational or intermediate maintenance Outside normal maintenance reporting (ONR) corrosion-related costs not identified in traditional maintenance reporting systems Corrective maintenance costs incurred while addressing an existing corrosion-related problem 23 Preventive maintenance costs incurred while addressing a potential future corrosion-related issue Structure-related costs direct costs of corrosion incurred by the body frame of a system or end item Parts-related costs direct costs of corrosion incurred by a removable part of a system or end item. Summary of Cost Estimation Method The method we used to estimate costs focuses on the direct costs of material, labor, and services, as well as some indirect costs, such as research, development, and evaluation (RDT&E); facilities; and purchase card expenditures (i.e., those materials and services purchased using a charge card). To estimate the overall corrosion-related cost for Marine Corps ground vehicles, we used a top-down to bottom-up evaluation approach. For the top-down portion, we used summary-level cost and budget documents to establish spending ceilings for DM and FLM at both organic and commercial maintenance depots and facilities. This established a maximum cost of corrosion for each maintenance area. For the bottom-up portion, we used detailed work order records to aggregate any specific occurrences of corrosion-related maintenance and activity. This established a minimum corrosion-related cost in each activity area. Where necessary, we used statistical methods to bridge any significant gaps between the topdown and bottom-up figures to derive a final estimate for the cost of corrosion in each maintenance area. It was useful to determine the ratio between corrosion-related corrective maintenance costs and corrosion-related preventive maintenance costs. This ratio is typically an inverse relationship that is, the higher the amount of spending on 23 According to International Organization for Standardization 9000:2000, corrective costs are incurred when removing an existing nonconformity or defect. Corrective actions address actual problems, whereas preventive actions address future problems. Preventive costs involve steps taken to remove the causes of potential nonconformities or defects. 1-11

26 corrosion-related preventive measures, the lower the required corrosion-related corrective spending. This indicates that, over time, it is usually more expensive to fix a problem than it is to prevent one although it is also possible to overspend on preventive measures. Classifying the cost elements as either corrective or preventive helps decision makers strike the appropriate balance between the two categories and minimize the overall cost of corrosion. We illustrate this relationship in Figure 1-3. Figure 1-3. Preventive and Corrective Corrosion-Related Cost Curves Cost of corrosion Total cost of corrosion curve Minimum overall cost of corrosion Preventive cost curve Corrective cost curve High Ratio of preventive-to-corrective cost Low Summary of Availability Estimation Method To estimate the overall effects of corrosion on the availability of Marine Corps ground vehicles, we again used a combined top-down to bottom-up approach similar to what we used to estimate corrosion-related costs. For the top-down portion, we used monthly data the Marine Corps reported for not-mission-capable hours for each individual ground vehicle. This established a maximum ceiling for total corrosion-related non-available hours for organic and commercial FLM activities. Because the Marine Corps does not report notmission-capable hours for vehicles undergoing DM, we estimated the top-down non-availability for DM based on the reported not-mission capable hours reported for FLM. For the bottom-up portion, we used detailed work order records to aggregate any specific occurrences of corrosion-related maintenance activities. We identified those records that account for the reported top-down, non-available hours within the bottom-up data. We then aggregated the corrosion-related non-available hours associated with only these maintenance records. This approach established a minimum level of corrosion-related non-availability in each maintenance activity area 1-12

27 Background and Analysis Method (i.e., organic DM, commercial DM, organic FLM, and commercial FLM). Where necessary, we used statistical methods to bridge any significant gaps between the top-down and bottom-up figures to derive a final estimate for the effects of corrosion on non-availability within each of these maintenance areas. As was the case for the cost portion of the study, we classified each maintenance record into its preventive or corrective nature of work. We found it useful to determine the relationship between corrosion-related spending and corrosion-related availability, as Figure 1-4 illustrates. Figure 1-4 displays two relationships. The first is the relationship between corrosion-related preventive maintenance spending and corrosion-related corrective maintenance spending. As with the corrosion-related corrective versus preventive maintenance costs, this too is typically an inverse relationship that is, the higher the amount of spending on corrosion-related preventive measures, the lower the required corrosion-related corrective spending due. This indicates that the amount of preventive spending drives the resultant corrective actions. Figure 1-4. The Relationship between Availability and Spending on Corrosion-Related Maintenance Spending on corrosion Point of minimum non-available days Preventive cost curve Number of non-available days Corrective cost curve Low Effect of corrosion on availability Potentially high The second relationship is the amount of both types of corrosion-related maintenance spending and their effect on availability. An extreme amount of spending on preventive measures that does not result in a further reduction of corrective maintenance actions will have an overall negative effect on availability. This result is similar to the effect of changing the oil in a car too often (say, monthly rather than quarterly). The increased frequency of preventive maintenance has only a negligible effect on improving the reliability of the car s engine, 1-13

28 yet it reduces the car s availability during the time it is undergoing the maintenance. Spending too little on preventive measures, however, will eventually result in greater corrective spending. This, too, can have a negative effect on availability. But the latter is only a potential negative impact, because organizational units could increase their efficiency when dealing with unplanned corrective requirements, or they could take exceptional measures such as working an extensive amount of unplanned maintenance hours to minimize the effects of corrosionrelated corrective actions on availability. The point of minimum NADs on the curve in Figure 1-4 represents a theoretically optimum preventive-to-corrective maintenance ratio. It is also useful to examine the effect on availability from not spending on corrosion-related maintenance, as shown in Figure 1-5. The initial impact is minimal but, as corrosion starts to degrade all Marine Corps ground vehicles over the same period of time, the negative effect on availability accelerates and creates the potential for the compound effect of multiple vehicles undergoing maintenance simultaneously. Figure 1-5. Availability over Time at Zero Corrosion-Related Spending Effect of corrosion on availability L(X) Amount of non-available days due to corrosion L(0) T(0) Note: L(0) = initial level of corrosion-related availability; L(X) = level of corrosion-related impact on readiness at time interval X; T(0) = start time; T(X) = time interval X. Study Method Limitations Time The combined top-down and bottom-up approach, although a useful and comprehensive estimating technique, has its limitations. The most significant of these results from the lack of detailed Marine Corps maintenance descriptions and coding, gaps in available data, and the lack of commercial depot records. T(X) 1-14