Depot Maintenance Requirement Studies - SAE …sae.org/events/dod/presentations/2010/B2GreggFogarty.pdf · Depot Maintenance Requirement Studies for ... –POM 2012 Will begin to

Depot Maintenance Requirement Studies for

2010 DOD Maintenance Symposium

Breakout Session: Programming Challenges

Chien Huo, Ph.D.Force and Infrastructure Analysis Division (FIAD)

Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE)

Office of the Secretary of Defense

v 5.4.2, 21 October 2010

Working Document-Numbers Are Not Authoritative.

210/21/2010 v 1.0

UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED

Bottom Line Up Front

Studies

– Devised Common Graphic Interface (CGI)

– Defined aircraft requirement metrics based on Services’ force structure

and weapon system operational standards

– Applying the CGI methodology to Ground Vehicles

– Launch software study

– Receive sample software requirements data and metrics

Scheduled Impact on SNaP OP-30

– POM 2011 Added depot level data

– POM 2012 Will begin to include aircraft requirement metrics.

– POM 2013 Will begin to include requirement metrics for Ground

Vehicles & software maintenance

310/21/2010 v 1.0

UNCLASSIFIED

Outline

Purpose: Overview of Depot Maintenance Study

Topics

– Introduction

– Studies

• Ground Combat Vehicles and Aircraft Studies

• Common Graphic Interface (CGI)

• Software Study

– Summary

410/21/2010 v 1.0

UNCLASSIFIED

Business Case

Problem

– Services must have appropriate level of funding support to effectively meet the warfighters’ needs. Depots will benefit from a common method of reporting depot projected requirements to DoD.

– DoD leadership lacks the clarity to quickly and effectively evaluate capability/risk regarding depot maintenance investment to effectively meet the warfighters’ needs. This hinders programming decisions.

Goal

– Improve the clarity of the depot maintenance requirements projection to support the Planning Programming Budget Execution System (PPBES)

Leverage existing programming and budget process

Allow Services to shape the measurement that relates depot maintenance to equipment readiness

Strategy

510/21/2010 v 1.0

UNCLASSIFIED

DOD Depot Maintenance Account

-

10

20

30

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

De

po

t M

ain

ten

ance

($

B T

Y)

Fun

din

g an

d R

eq

uir

em

en

ts

RMD PB 11 less RMD

Appropriated Funding Inflated FY 2003

Base Prog Req't PB11 Base Prog Req't PB10


Base Prog Req't PB07

Historical Data Budgetary DataHistorical Data Budgetary DataHistorical Data Budgetary DataHistorical Data Budgetary Data

70%

90%

67%

Source: PB11 and prior PB positions

TBD

610/21/2010 v 1.0

UNCLASSIFIED

DOD Depot Maintenance Account

Must re-establish DMx base program.

67%

-

10

20

30

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Dep

ot

Mai

nte

nan

ce ($

B T

Y)

OSD Wedge Requested OCO

Appropriated OCO RMD

PB 11 less RMD Appropriated Funding

Inflated FY 2003 Base Prog Req't PB11



70%

90%


70%

90%


70%

90%


70%

90%

Fun

din

g an

d R

equ

irem

ents


TBD

710/21/2010 v 1.0


<<< Increased Risk --- Increased Capability >>>

Dep

ot

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Req

uir

emen

ts (

$M

)

DMx Requirements = f ( Readiness, Force Structure,

Weapon System Operational Standard, …)

Common Graphical Interface (CGI)

810/21/2010 v 1.0

UNCLASSIFIEDCollaborative Results of

the Aircraft Study

Collaborative results from the CPI conference at WR-ALC in February 2009 and follow-on meetings

910/21/2010 v 1.0


Aircraft Common Metrics

Capability Requirements <=> $$$

USAF

AEF

USA

CAB

USN/USMC

CVW

Common Graphical Interface (CGI)

AA: Aircraft Availability MC: Mission Capability RFT: Ready for Tasking

AEF: Air Expeditionary Force CAB: Combat Aviation Brigade CVW: Carrier Air Wing

GR: Global Reach; GP: Global Power

GV: Global Vigilance

Services assess the health of individual weapon systems in that mission area against

their respective operation standard, i.e. aircraft availability (AA), ready for tasking (RFT),

or mission capability (MC).

Aircraft Availability (AA)

Mission Capability (MC)

Ready for Tasking(RFT)

1010/21/2010 v 1.0

UNCLASSIFIED

FY 20XX Aviation DMx Portfolio

Reduced Req't

Flying Hrs DMx/SE

(18,922)

(1.1%)($61M)

(27,422)

(1.6%)($89M)

(36,461)

(1.7%)($118M)

(78,231)

(4.5%)($259M)

(127,416)

(7.4%)($341M)

(221,029)

(12.9%)($405M)

PY Accu

Deferred

CY

Deferred

Reconstitution

Cost Time

160 AF

235 EN

57 AF

81 EN$68M

X1

YR

160 AF

235 EN

82 AF

118 EN$98M

X2

YR

160 AF

235 EN

107 AF

162 EN$130M

X3

YR

160 AF

235 EN

230 AF

365 EN$284M

X4

YR

160 AF

235 EN

287 AF

598 EN$375M

X5

YR

160 AF

235 EN

314 AF

1050 EN$445M

X6

YR

Notional Data

In Work3+3+2+2

$XXX M

3+3+2+1

$XX1 M

3+3+1+1

$XX2 M

3+2+2+0

$XX3 M

3+1+2+0

$XX4 M

3+1+1+0

$XX5 M

2+1+0+0

$XX6 M

Legend:

AF: Airframe EN: Engines SE: Supporting Engineering #+#+#+# Fleet Readiness Plan

Data for illustration purposes, does not reflect actual values.

1110/21/2010 v 1.0


Depot Maintenance Requirement Studies

Purpose: Provide decision makers with a tool that provides clarity to quickly and effectively evaluate capability/risk regarding depot maintenance investment.

Prior Year Studies

– Ground Combat Vehicles (2008) and Aircraft (2009)


– Efficiency Improvement: Reduced 89% of cycle time (from 28 to 3 days)

– Defined aircraft requirement metrics based on Services’ force structure and weapon system operation standards

Current Year and Future Studies

– Software (2010), Ships (2011), Missiles, Ordnance and Munitions (2012), Electronics and Communications (2012-2013)

Joint efforts

– OSD(CAPE), OUSD (AT&L) / ASD(L&MR) / ADUSD(MPP), and OSD(C)

1210/21/2010 v 1.0

UNCLASSIFIEDDefinition of Software

Depot Maintenance (SW DMx)

The USC 10,Section 2460 defines depot-level maintenance as: “… regardless of the source of funds for the maintenance or repair or the location …all aspects of software maintenance classified by the Department of Defense as of July 1, 1995, as depot-level maintenance and repair…”

Activities of depot software maintenance following hardware initial operating capability (IOC) must be reported regardless of location or funding source with exception as listed in Title 10 USC, Section 2460, via the annual SNaP OP-30 programming and budgeting process. Depot-level software maintenance includes all activities to correct faults, improve performance, adapt the software to environmental changes or new requirements, or maintain operational capability:

(1) Changes made to operational software resident in military materiel (including weapon systems and their components and space control systems and their components) as well as the associated software technical data, ATE, including ITA and TPS, and laboratory support (simulation or stimulation software, data acquisition or reduction software); and

(2) Infrastructure maintenance which includes the purchasing of license agreements, maintaining standards for certification and accreditation (C&S) to operate safely, and information assurance vulnerability assessments (IAVAs), etc.

ISO/IEC 14764 and IEEE 14764-2006 defines the repair activities as follows:

– Fixes:

• Corrective maintenance successfully repairs faults discovered in the software.

• Preventive maintenance correct latent faults in the software.

– Upgrades:

• Adaptive maintenance incorporates changes made necessary by modifications in the software or hardware (operational) environment of the program.

• Perfective maintenance incorporates changes demanded by the users.

Working Progress

1310/21/2010 v 1.0


Software Study Schedule

Apply study methodology to Services’ software assets– Understand Services’ requirements generation process

– Receive sample requirements data and metrics

– Add sample data to the OSD Data Warehouse Test Bed

Visit Services’ depots

– TBD

Hold Process improvement event if needed

Expanding and improving requirement metrics

Complete study for POM 2013

Dec 2009

Feb 2010

Fall 2010

Fall 2010

Mar 2011

Comp Date

1410/21/2010 v 1.0


Summary

Depot maintenance base program must be re-established.

Front-end studies on maintenance requirements


– Defined metrics of aircraft DMx requirements based on Services’ force

structure and weapon system operational standards

– Applying the CGI methodology to Ground Vehicles and software

Scheduled Impact on program/budget Process - SNaP OP-30

– POM 2011 Added depot level data

– POM 2012 Will begin to include aircraft requirement metrics.

– POM 2013 Will begin to include requirement metrics for ground vehicles

& software maintenance.

1510/21/2010 v 1.0

UNCLASSIFIED

Tab A. Aircraft Study

De

po

t M

ain

ten

ance

Avia

tion

Fun

din

g

(AM

AE

, R

R0

3, R

R0

4)

($M

)

METRIC 3:

% of TDA/USAR

Aircraft

Fully Ready

EOH and MC

Requirement: 80%

<50%

80%

60%

50%

< 4

CABs

6 CABs

5 CABs

4 CABs

<9 CABs

12CABs

10 CABs

9 CABs

$6,000

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

METRIC 2:

# of NG CAB(E)

Fully Ready

EOH and MC

Requirement: 6

AVN Depot Maintenance –Impact on ARFORGEN Readiness – FY 2010-15

METRIC 1:

# of AC CAB(H), CAB(M)

Fully Ready

EOH and MC

Meeting ARFORGEN

Requirements

Active Guard TDA/Reserve

Notional Data

16Data for illustration purposes, does not reflect actual values.

AVN Depot Maintenance – Impact on ARFORGEN Readiness

METRIC 3: TDA/USAR

% of TDA/USAR Aircraft

Fully Ready

EOH and MC

Requirement: 80%

<50%

80%

60%

50%

< 4

CABs

6 CABs

5 CABs

4 CABs

<9 CABs

12CABs

10 CABs

9 CABs

$6,000

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

METRIC 2: ARNG

# of NG CAB(E)

Fully Ready

EOH and MC

Requirement: 6 CABs

METRIC 1: AC

# of AC CAB(H), CAB(M)

Fully Ready

EOH and MC

Meeting ARFORGEN

Requirements

Dep

ot

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Avia

tion F

undin

g

(AM

AE

, R

R03, R

R04)

($M

)

<50%

80%

60%

50%

< 4

CABs

6 CABs

5 CABs

4 CABs

<9 CABs

12CABs

10 CABs

9 CABs

$6,000

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

Notional Data

17Data for illustration purposes, does not reflect actual values.

Navy AVN Depot Maintenance

– Fleet Response Plan optimum Availability (FRP Ao) level defines the Naval mission. Navy identifies (A: 3+3+1) => (X: $1,440M)

– If requirement is funded at a lower level ($1,400M), the risk associated with achieving 3+3+1 increases until the point B where the minimum amount of hardware isn’t available and we move to point C. (X-Y) ($90M), is the trade space where risk replaces dollars or vice versa.

– C is FRP Ao 3+2+2 => (Y: $1,350M)– D is FRP Ao 3+2+1 => (Z: $1,295M)

Data for illustration purposes, does not reflect actual values. UNCLASSIFED

FRP Ao

X-Y

Dep

ot

Ma

inte

na

nce

Req

uir

emen

t, F

un

din

g a

nd

Met

ric

($M

)

Y

X

ABC

Z

3+0+1 3+1+1 3+1+2 3+2+1 3+2+2 3+3+1 3+3+2

Off Limit

D

Notional Data

18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

13.25 26.5 51 59.4 66.9 69.1 71.59

Funding

Capability

Based Programming

Note: any funding that pushes capability more than 2.5% above the

AA std is in excess (red)

Funding includes:

depot maintenance,

tech data, &

sustaining eng

Integrity – Service – Excellence

Data for illustration purposes, does not reflect actual values.

UNCLASSIFED

Req

uir

emen

t ($

M)

<<< Increased Risk --- Increased Capability >>>

AA

AA

Std

67.9%

Notional Data

19

2010/21/2010 v 1.0

UNCLASSIFIED

Stakeholders

ArmyNavy /

Marine CorpsAir Force OSD

HQDA/G-8/PAED

G-44 & G-48

OPNAV N43, N80, N82

HQMC P&R & I&L

HAF/A47PY &

A4LMCAPE/FICAD

AMCNAVAIR

MCLCAFMC

OUSD(AT&L)/

ASD(L&MR)

ADUSD(MPP)

AMCOM, TACOM,

CECOMCOMFRCs ALCs

OUSD (C)/

Mil Operations

Army Depots FRCs and MC Depots Maint Wings JS/J-4/Maint Div

Legend:

L&MR: Logistics & Material Readiness MPP: Maintenance Policy & Programs

AMC: Army Material Command AMCOM: Aviation & Missile Command

CECOM: Comm. and Electronics Command TACOM LCMC: Tank Automotive Command

AFMC: Air Force Material Command ALCs: Air Logistic Centers

FRCs: Fleet Readiness Centers

MC: Maintenance Center MCLC: Marine Corps Logistic Command

2110/21/2010 v 1.0

UNCLASSIFIED

Tab B. Software Study

2210/21/2010 v 1.0

UNCLASSIFIED

Source: PB 2011 SNaP OP-30 ($M)

FY2011 Services’ Allocated

Software DMx

16%17%

15%

6%

2%3%

2% 2%2%

0% 0% 0%0%

10%

20%

FY2009 FY2010 FY2011

Air Force

ARMY

NAVY

Marine Corps

Source: PB 2011 SNaP OP-30

2310/21/2010 v 1.0

UNCLASSIFIED

USA DMx – PPSS PB 2011

148 163 188 230 219 232 245

81 143

634 603 636 652

540

352

311 393

400 431 368 395

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

-

500

1,000

1,500

FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15

So

ftw

are

De

po

t F

un

ds

(%

)

Soft

war

e D

ep

ot

Fun

ds

(TY

$M

)

OCO TOA Funded

TOA Required Inflated

% DOD (%)

Historical Data Budgetary Data


Post Deployment Software Support (PDSS) data were not

reported in SNaP OP-30 programming and budgetary data

submission.

TBD

2410/21/2010 v 1.0

UNCLASSIFIED

USN Aircraft Software DMx

93 103 90 81 91 93 89 90 66

83 83 86 87

1 -

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

-

200

400


So

ftw

are

De

po

t F

un

ds

(%

)

Soft

war

e D

ep

ot

Fun

ds

(TY

$M

)

OCO

Series5

TOA Required

Inflated

%

Software data for surface and subsurface platforms were not

reported in SNaP OP-30 programming and budgetary data

submission.

TBD


2510/21/2010 v 1.0

UNCLASSIFIED

USAF DPEM - Software

468 469 497 517 498585

514619 672

486 512570 567

33

-

-

500

1,000

1,500


Soft

war

e D

ep

ot

Fun

ds

(TY

$M

)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

So

ftw

are

De

po

t F

un

ds

(%

)

TOA Funded OCO TOA Required Inflated %

Budgetary DataHistorical Data

TBD


2610/21/2010 v 1.0

UNCLASSIFIED

USMC DMx PB 2011

Software data were not reported in SNaP OP-30 programming

and budgetary data submission.

154112 114 128 125

82 98 95 98162 168 170 174

465

545

- - - -

--

-

500

1,000


De

po

t Fu

nd

s (T

Y$

M)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

De

po

t Fu

nd

s (%

)

OCO

TOA Funded

Inflated

TOA Required

%

Budgetary DataHistorical Data


TBD

Documents

Depot Maintenance Requirement Studies - SAE …sae.org/events/dod/presentations/2010/B2GreggFogarty.pdf · Depot Maintenance Requirement Studies for ... –POM 2012 Will begin to