American Society of Naval Engineers ( ASNE ) Brief

American Society of Naval Engineers (ASNE) Brief

RDML Jeff Harley

President, Board of Inspection and Survey

31 July 2014

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Board of Inspection and Survey2

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Board of Inspection and Survey

U.S. Code Title 10Section 7304. Examination by Board

(a) The Secretary of the Navy shall designate Boards of Naval Officers to examine Naval vessels … Each vessel shall be examined at least once every three years, if practicable.

(b) A Board designated under subsection (a) shall submit to the Secretary in writing its recommendations as to which vessels, if any, among those it examined should be stricken from the Naval Vessel Register.

MissionInspect the Fleet’s in-service and new construction ships,

determine their material readiness, and report this assessment to Congress and Navy Leadership.

3

Legal Authority And Mission

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


• Inspect Naval Vessels and recommend to SECNAV which to strike from the Naval Vessel Register.

• Inspect ships to determine fitness for service, through trials, material inspections, and surveys.

• Identify performance capabilities and material conditions which limit mission capability.

• Compile statistical information on material deficiencies.• Develop and maintain Fleet-wide standardized assessment

procedures … and metrics.

4

Why Do We Exist?

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


MATERIAL INSPECTIONS (MI): 35 so far this fiscal year: 25 surface ships, 8 submarines, and 2 CVNs.

- Surface MI trends: Of the 20 surface functional areas inspected, none are significantly down although Aviation and Habitability are trending toward “degraded.” Aviation was degraded primarily by JP-5 fuel system problems, and habitability was degraded due to emergency egress panels, electrical safety, and leakage from fuel tank coverings into berthing spaces.

- Submarines continue to score well in all areas except Information Systems.

- CVN scores were at or above historical averages in all areas except Information Systems.

TRIALS: 7 trials conducted year to date. There are 6 trials scheduled for the 4th quarter including a one-day Special Trial on LCS 2. This past quarter included the first ever Final Contract Trial on an LCS 2 variant, the USS CORONADO LCS 4.

Inspection Findings

5

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


5-Year Fleet IFOM Average

*No CVN MIs conducted in 2013.

Fleet: 43

Surface: 27

CVN: 2

Sub: 14

Fleet: 43

Surface: 25

CVN: 3

Sub: 15

Fleet: 30

Surface: 19

CVN: 1

Sub: 10

Fleet: 39

Surface: 30

CVN: 0

Sub: 9

Fleet: 35

Surface: 25

CVN: 2

Sub: 8

6

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


Fleet 5-Year IFOM Trends

7

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


8

Resourced Level

Acceptable Readiness

Design Standard (Ship Specs)

0

100

Below Acceptable Readiness

80

INSURV Readiness Measures

• Ships historical IFOM (and other resourcing levels) is approx 80%• Above 80% is thus not resourced• Scoring attributes above 80% skew ship’s force performance• Two actions: (1) as a separate INSURV score, adjust 80% as the resourced norm

(2) normalize scoring matrix for “ship’s force capable” and Program of Record shortfalls

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Board of Inspection and Survey9

Audits

OPNAVINST 4700.7L directs INSURV to audit and validate material condition metrics. To this end, INSURV conducts maintenance process audits. Summary highlights below:

• Class Maintenance Plan (CMP) accomplishment: – Surface force remains steady at 92% as recorded by the technical community for

FY14, up from 72% in 2010. – Submarine and CVN compliance remains strong and is only spot-checked.

• Surface Ship Tank & Void assessments reveal that the material condition of 92% of T&Vs is known, up from 87% last year.

• Surface Ship Hull Structure assessments reveal that the material condition of 66% of Hull Structures is known, up from 61% last year.

• Modernization audits reveal both fewer temporary alterations remaining onboard past scheduled removal date and fewer alteration installations that were reported complete with missing items than last year.

• Manpower and Training audit commenced this year and reveals that ships are manned to 93% with 82% of required NECs onboard.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


Surface EOC Scores

Definitions:0.00 – 0.03: STEADY0.04 – 0.08: UP / DOWN >0.08: SIGNIFICANTLY UP / DOWN

3 of 20 Functional Area scores have IMPROVED over 2013, while 6 DECLINED.

Functional Areas 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014TRENDS

2014 vs 2013(Ships Inspected) (27) (25) (19) (30) (25)

Main Propulsion 0.79 0.79 0.85 0.85 0.80 DOWN

Auxiliaries 0.77 0.81 0.88 0.87 0.89 STEADY

Electrical 0.80 0.83 0.85 0.85 0.87 STEADY

Damage Control 0.73 0.83 0.77 0.78 0.74 DOWN

Deck 0.66 0.81 0.85 0.87 0.83 DOWN

Mine Warfare 0.76 0.87 0.83 0.79 0.88 SIGNIFICANTLY UP

Anti-Sub Warfare 0.86 0.89 0.78 0.78 0.80 STEADY

Operations 0.82 0.83 0.85 0.82 0.82 STEADY

Navigation 0.87 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.89 STEADY

Weapons Systems 0.81 0.84 0.76 0.76 0.81 UP

Communications 0.78 0.83 0.81 0.83 0.82 STEADY

Information Systems 0.85 0.85 0.83 0.67 0.61 DOWN*

Aviation 0.83 0.83 0.86 0.85 0.79 DOWN

Supply 0.85 0.87 0.83 0.84 0.83 STEADY

Habitability 0.85 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.79 DOWN

NAVOSH 0.80 0.81 0.87 0.90 0.93 STEADY

Ventilation 0.73 0.76 0.77 0.76 0.83 UP

Environmental Protection 0.71 0.79 0.83 0.83 0.83 STEADY

Medical 0.90 0.93 0.95 0.93 0.95 STEADY

Preservation 0.68 0.81 0.85 0.86 0.86 STEADY

10

* INSURV began an enhancedinspection of Information Systems in 2013.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


Surface Demos


3 of 12 demos scores have IMPROVED over 2013; 4 have DECLINED.

Demos 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 TRENDS2014 vs 2013

Full Power Ahead 0.79 0.80 0.81 0.86 0.73 SIGNIFICANTLY DOWN

Quick Reversal Astern 0.89 0.77 0.95 0.92 0.83 SIGNIFICANTLY DOWN

Quick Reversal Ahead 0.90 0.81 0.98 0.91 0.82 SIGNIFICANTLY DOWN

Steering 0.87 0.87 0.91 0.95 0.96 STEADY

Anchoring 0.69 0.88 0.93 0.96 0.94 STEADY

AD DTE 0.78 0.83 0.75 0.74 0.73 STEADY

Self Defense DTE 0.78 0.83 0.72 0.66 0.70 UP

BMD NA NA 0.81 0.78 .78 STEADY

USW DTE 0.84 0.95 0.72 0.77 0.82 UP

Ballast 0.83 1.00 0.88 0.85 0.91 UP

Mine Sweeping 0.49 0.82 0.67 0.79 0.80 STEADY

Mine Hunting 0.28 0.87 0.78 0.85 0.66 SIGNIFICANTLY DOWN

11

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


Surface Worst 10 For 2014 Worst 10 of 184 sub-systems. Ranked by lowest % of SAT/green.

(Numbers in bars indicate ships inspected)

12

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


Submarine EOC Scores


13 of 16 EOC scores have remained STEADY from 2013; 3 have DECLINED.

Functional Areas 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 TRENDS (Boats Inspected) (14) (15) (10) (9) (8) 2014 vs 2013

Main Propulsion 0.88 0.86 0.90 0.89 0.89 STEADY

Auxiliaries 0.86 0.84 0.80 0.85 0.84 STEADY

Electrical 0.86 0.84 0.83 0.86 0.86 STEADY

Damage Control 0.86 0.87 0.89 0.88 0.86 STEADY

Weapons 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.81 0.80 STEADY

Navigation 0.87 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.89 DOWN

Operations 0.83 0.90 0.87 0.90 0.87 STEADY

Information Systems 0.87 0.91 0.90 0.88 0.64 SIGNIFICANTLY DOWN*

Deck 0.86 0.87 0.90 0.92 0.93 STEADY

Supply 0.82 0.83 0.81 0.86 0.81 DOWN

Habitability 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.92 0.91 STEADY

NAVOSH 0.80 0.79 0.83 0.85 0.88 STEADY

Environmental Protection 0.83 0.86 0.85 0.88 0.91 STEADY

Survivability/Escape 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.86 0.85 STEADY

Medical NA 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.93 STEADY

Preservation 0.84 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.89 STEADY

13


UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


Submarine Demos


Demos 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 TRENDS2014 vs 2013

Full Power Ahead 0.90 0.91 0.90 0.91 0.92 STEADY

Quick Reversal Astern 0.82 0.92 0.87 0.88 0.93 UP

Quick Reversal Ahead 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 STEADY

Steering 0.81 0.83 0.90 0.96 0.97 STEADY

Anchoring 0.69 0.65 0.84 0.75 0.84 SIGNIFICANTLY UP

Angles 0.84 0.84 0.91 0.87 0.88 STEADY

External Countermeasures NA NA NA 0.96 0.93 STEADY

2 of 7 demos scores have IMPROVED over 2013; none have DECLINED.

14

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


Submarine Worst 10 For 2014 Worst 10 of 72 sub-systems. Ranked by lowest % of SAT/green.


15

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


CVN EOC Scores


Functional Areas(ships inspected)

2010(4)

2011(1)

2012(1)

2013(0)

2014(2)

TRENDS 2014 VS 2012

Main Propulsion 0.78 0.71 0.86 0.83 STEADY

Auxiliaries 0.72 0.87 0.88 0.81 DOWN

Electrical 0.76 0.90 0.78 0.82 UP

Damage Control 0.65 0.81 0.55 0.69 SIGNIFICANTLY UP

Deck 0.62 0.84 0.73 0.87 SIGNIFICANTLY UP

Operations 0.81 0.87 0.77 0.80 STEADY

Navigation 0.79 0.85 0.88 0.90 STEADY

Weapons Systems 0.79 0.86 0.74 0.81 UP

Communication 0.74 0.75 0.78 0.85 UP

Information Systems 0.82 0.88 0.85 0.58 SIGNIFICANTLY DOWN*

Aviation 0.87 0.79 0.91 0.84 DOWN

Supply 0.79 0.82 0.69 0.74 UP

Habitability 0.82 0.92 0.78 0.80 STEADY

NAVOSH 0.78 0.84 0.83 0.88 UP

Ventilation 0.70 0.74 0.62 0.89 SIGNIFICANTLY UP

Environmental Protection

0.76 0.86 0.76 0.96 SIGNIFICANTLY UP

Medical 0.90 0.82 0.92 0.90 STEADY

Preservation 0.71 0.87 0.79 0.88 SIGNIFICANTLY UP

1610 of 18 Functional Area scores have IMPROVED over 2012, while 3 DECLINED.


UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


CVN Demos


Demos 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 TRENDS 2014 VS 2012

Full Power Ahead 0.76 0.81 0.47 0.75 SIGNIFICANTLY UP

Quick Reversal Astern 0.80 0.33 0.32 0.88 SIGNIFICANTLY

UP

Quick Reversal Ahead 0.72 0.68 0.59 0.87 SIGNIFICANTLY

UP

Steering 0.72 0.30 0.98 0.76 SIGNIFICANTLY DOWN

Anchoring 0.61 0.90 0.78 0.80 STEADY

Self Defense DTE 0.78 0.90 0.67 0.65 STEADY

17

3 of 6 demos scores have IMPROVED over 2012; 1 has DECLINED.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


CVN Worst 10 For 2014 Worst 10 of 144 sub-systems. Ranked by lowest % of SAT/green.


18

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


INSURV Initiatives(Complete)

OBJECTIVE HOW ACHIEVED RESULT

• Safer • 0700 underway time• All events complete by

2200• Tuesday start

• ORM compliant

• Increase efficiency • Eliminated outdated requirements

• 3-days vice 5-days

• More data • Leveraging linkages from other material assessments

• Exploiting Mid-Cycle data

• 2X assessment data

• Reduce costs • 3-days vice 5-days • Travel costs reduced by up to 40%

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


INSURV Initiatives(In Progress)

OBJECTIVE HOW ACHIEVED RESULT

• Reduce RMC workload • PMS checks conducted during TMIT/READ-E-7

• Two part inspection, but RMC workload and costs reduced by up to 50%

• Relevant scoring • Develop “ship capable” in addition to design score

• Started in July

• Enables analysis of operational readiness

• More realistic functional area scores (less prep)

• Relevant timing • Annual report based on fiscal vice calendar year

• Can better inform testimony season

• Expand analysis capacity • Partnerships with CNA, NSWC Corona, and FAC

• More staff analysts

• Be able to answer the “so what” questions

20Creating a smarter INSURV!

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


INSURV Grading: 2013 And Beyond

21

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


SignificantlyBelow

Average

Below Average Average

AboveAverage

Excellent

TwoStandard

Deviations

OneStandardDeviation

MeanTwo

StandardDeviations

OneStandardDeviation

68%

13.5%13.5%

2.5% 2.5%

Ships Capable Grading

22

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


Contact Us:

[email protected]

[email protected]

23

mailto:[email protected]

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED


5 - Year Score Trend

FiscalYear

Material InspectionsMajor Mission Degrades

0 1 >1

MI Rate0 Mission Degrades

Trial InspectionsMajor Mission Degrades

0 1 >1

Trial Rate0 Mission Degrades

2010 33 – 9 – 1 80% 14 – 0 – 1 93%

2011 34 – 5 – 4 81% 14 – 0 – 1 93%

2012 24 – 5 – 1 81% 11 – 2 – 0 85%

2013 32 – 6 – 1 81% 14 – 1 – 0 93%

2014 29 – 3 – 3 83% 6 – 0 – 1 86%

24

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Board of Inspection and Survey* Rank is a rolling average over past five years of inspections.

FY 2014 IFOM Results

Ship IFOM Rank*

BUNKER HILL (CG 52) 0.80 12 of 19CAPE ST GEORGE (CG 71) 0.85 3 of 19

ARLEIGH BURKE (DDG 51) 0.81 30 of 46JOHN PAUL JONES (DDG 53) 0.86 13 of 46FITZGERALD (DDG 62) 0.87 11 of 46ROSS (DDG 71) 0.84 21 of 46DECATUR (DDG 73) 0.77 39 of 46

DONALD COOK (DDG 75) 0.86 15 of

46

O’KANE (DDG 77) 0.78 37 of

46SHOUP (DDG 86) 0.69 45 of 46JAMES E WILLIAMS (DDG 95) 0.84 20 of 46

TRUXTUN (DDG 103) 0.83 26 of

46STERETT (DDG 104) 0.83 25 of 46DEWEY (DDG 105) 0.73 44 of 46

MESA VERDE (LPD 19) 0.73 4 of 4

THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN 71)

0.83 1 of 6

HARRY S TRUMAN (CVN 75) 0.78 2 of 6

Ship IFOM Rank*

VANDEGRIFT (FFG 48) 0.82 11 of 17GARY (FFG 51) 0.69 17 of 17ELROD (FFG 55) 0.87 2 of 17RODNEY M DAVIS (FFG 60) 0.86 5 of 17INGRAHAM (FFG 61) 0.81 12 of 17

COMSTOCK (LSD 45) 0.69 5 of 5

DEVASTATOR (MCM 6) 0.85 7 of 10PATRIOT (MCM 7) 0.89 2 of 10

TYPHOON (PC 5) 0.95 1 of 8WHIRLWIND (PC 11) 0.93 3 of 8

OHIO (SSGN 726) 0.82 16 of 17NEBRASKA (SSBN 736) 0.82 15 of 17RHODE ISLAND (SSBN 740) 0.88 2 of 17

BREMERTON (SSN 698) 0.82 36 of 41

PITTSBURGH (SSN 720) 0.90 5 of 41

PASADENA (SSN 752) 0.89 7 of 41SANTA FE (SSN 763) 0.84 28 of 41TOLEDO (SSN 769) 0.87 11 of 41

25

Documents

American Society of Naval Engineers ( ASNE ) Brief