1 / 0

SWE SURFACE BOARD VTC

SWE SURFACE BOARD VTC. 19 February 2014. Surface Board Agenda 19 February 2014 (1300-1440 ET). 2. SWE AIP B246 Review Deferred Maintenance Process and Reassess Where Authority Rests to Make Final Decisions to Defer Work. CAPT Michael L. Malone 19 February 2014.

yori
Télécharger la présentation

SWE SURFACE BOARD VTC

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. SWE SURFACE BOARDVTC 19 February 2014
  2. Surface Board Agenda19 February 2014 (1300-1440 ET) 2

  3. SWE AIP B246Review Deferred Maintenance Process and Reassess WhereAuthority Rests to Make FinalDecisions to Defer Work

    CAPT Michael L. Malone 19 February 2014
  4. AIP B246 Review and Status Update In August I reviewed: The deferral, assessment, and reporting processes as codified in the JFMM. Compliance and enforcement issues remain. Status of all assigned Mandatory Tasks (MTRs) SEA 05D Technical Authority for Surface Ship Requirements Ship Sheets as the OPNAV approved budget for each ship Accomplishment of MTRs effect on risk to ESL and clearing/reducing the Surface Maintenance Backlog as a top priority Today I will present: The “As Is” Deferral Process The “Recommended” Deferral Process and a decision matrix And will request your concurrence on four decision points
  5. Executive Summary FLEET/TYCOM have (3) opportunities to strengthen the deferral process: FRP 1: Deferral recommendation letter to SEA 05D (via SURFMEPP) for adjudication of mandatory technical requirement. Branded A6 FRP 2: If same requirement is subsequently deferred to the 2nd FRP (FRP2): Deferral recommendation letter must be accompanied by a MAJOR DFS FRP 3: Deferrals beyond 3rd FRP (FRP 3) require documented FLAG approval. Branded AD A6 = Reprogrammed BAWP items from previous maintenance cycles AD = DFS resulting from a mandatory assessment Major DFS requires a 2-kilo/JSN with corresponding block 35 comments
  6. E2E Deferral Process – “AS IS” Deferral Decisions LCPC Deferral Authority ** Start Process CDNS “A” Branded Tasks No A-240 Deferral Letter CMP / SSEOC No Yes Yes Complete Task Now Next FRP A-120 Deferral Letter No Yes NAVSEA 05 Technical Review 3rd Deferral Letter No Yes Complete Task Next Cycle A6 Branded A-35 & Forward No Yes RMC Chief Engineer Capacity, Cost, Capability, Awareness, OPSKED Yes Non-technical TYCOM, MT, RMC Closeout TYCOM, MT, RMC deferrals may be driven by non-technical factors
  7. E2E Deferral Process – Recommended JFMM Change Required A6 Branded FRP 1 COMNAVSEA Complete Task Now – FRP 2 SEA 05 Technical Deferral Review No SEA 05 SEA 21 No Yes TYCOM SEA 21 Major DFS to SEA 05 No Yes Programmatic Deferral Review A6 Branded AD Branded deferral requires Flag adjudication Yes AD Branded FRP 3 FRP 2 FRP 4 Programmatic review supports ESL, Ao, Budget processes
  8. SWE AIP B246Review deferred maintenance process and reassess where authority rests to make final decisions to defer work. Problem Description: 94% of the MTRs are accomplished, but there is room for improvement. Of the 6% not accomplished, most were screened and brokered by the Port Engineer and were properly adjudicated in advance by NAVSEA 05 IAW JFMM. Of the remaining MTRs, the JFMM deferral process was not complied with because deferral was never requested or deferral was disapproved by NAVSEA, but MTR was still not accomplished. Description of Current Process:TYCOM submits deferral letters to SEA 05D via SEA 21 at A-240 and A-120. SEA 21 forwards adjudication recommendation to SEA 05D. SEA 05D conducts review and sends recommendation to TYCOM via SEA 21. Impact:Lack of centralized decision authority could contribute to: Reduced opportunity for TYCOM FLAG engagement in deferral process. Reduced force structure and ability to meet mission demands for Surface ships. Non-accomplishment of required Life Cycle maintenance, poor material condition, and reduced Ao. Increase in incremental discovery during execution causing increased premiums, duration and G/NW. Degraded ability to accurately capture Surface Ship resourcing requirements. Recommendation: Required Maintenance “A” branded task final deferral adjudication recommendation to the TYCOM: NAVSEA (SEA05, SEA21) Desired Maintenance “B” branded task final deferral adjudication authority: TYCOM Major DFS required after 2nd deferral “A” Branded work tasks cannot be deferred more than 3 maintenance cycles without FLAG Officer adjudication Y Y Y Y N N N N
  9. P- Pillar Update RDML John “Sarge” Alexander, USN Assistant Commander for Career Management Navy Personnel Command (PERS-4) Nature of Brief Informational
  10. P-Pillar Report Metrics 1. Personnel Dashboard * Fit / Fill * Manpower Rqmts / BA * Short term manning actions 2. Status of O-FRP action items Surface Force Rating Community Health Updates Organization Leadership: RADM Covell, CNPC; RADM Steindl (P-CNPC); Deputy RDML Alexander, PERS-4 Principal Assistants/Action officers: CAPT DeSantis, CNSP; CAPT Ward, CNSP N1; Team members: Fleet Manning - TYCOM N1s CAPT Ward (CNSP), CAPT Eder (CNSL); BUPERS-3, CAPT Deshotel, LCDR Seigler; PERS-40, CAPT Allmon; PERS-41, CAPT Black; TYCOM Class Advocates; USFF/CPF; Distribution Policy & Programs- PERS-40, CAPT Allmon; PERS-41, CAPT Black; CAPT Schriver (N132); NETC N7; PMO; BUPERS-3; PMS-339; Manpower & Personnel Policy & Programs- CAPT Schriver (N132); TYCOM Class Advocates; NAVMAC; OPNAV N12/N13, N95, N96 & N15 FIT; BUPERS-3; PMO. BAH Support - Beth Galvez, Dave Borah, Glenn Williams. Additional Members as required. Priority Issues 1. Manning the Fleet 2. MPTE Actions for Optimized FRP 3. Developing Our Sailors: Career Management
  11. Bottom Line up Front Unfunded CG / LSD BA in FY-14 continues to impact all surface ships Overall Manning is incrementally improving Career Paths are increasingly specialized Continue Quality of Service Initiatives and at sea incentives FCRC O-FRP Manning Initiatives Supply Chain Efficiencies
  12. Complex Enlisted Supply Chain Process Requirement GoalingLetter Recruiting NSTCThroughput NETCThroughput Sailor to Fleet Optimize ‘Street to Fleet’ supply chain: getting accession flow/capacity right 78initial accession source ratings Over 900 enlisted accession training paths 48 learning centers (13 in NETC) Over 700 different learning sites w/multiple courses (241 in NETC) Basic Skills Cohort TIME ABE, ABH, BM, PS, DC, QM, SH, YN Short lead time Medium cohort Basic skills 6 Months Intermediate Skills Cohort TIME AC, IC, STG, AO, MT, PR, HM Moderate time Large cohort Intermediate skills 6-18 Months Long lead time Medium cohort Advanced skills Advanced Skills Cohort TIME AIRC, AIRR, CTI, EOD, FC(A), SB, SO 18-24+ Months Long lead time to effect fleet manning Categories based on STF Observations Source: PMO SCFI and COGNOS STF Data Timeframe: JAN13 to DEC13
  13. ALNAV Goat Through the Snake(FY13 Goals/FY13-15 Projected Gains to Fleet)Active Component Only Goat thru the Snake represented by 6,630 Plus-up in FY-13 Goal (between Rev.0 and Rev. 5) FY-13 Goals FY14 AC Accession Mission: 33,800 - Contingency to reduce 414 FY15 AC Accession Mission: 34,000 - N132 continues to access the need for modifications based on the new PB15 controls 98% 2013 Projected Gains: 32,887 2013 Actual Gains: 33,611 Projected Gains to Fleet Slide Owner: PMO Expecting ≈ 5,800of the 6630 Plus-Up to arrive in the fleet between Dec 13 and May 14. Increasing AI/AT time may delay completion of Plus-Up arrivals to Fleet until summer 2014.
  14. Enlisted Sea Duty Manning 94.8% 89.2% Fall NWAE Fit=Paygrade COB/BA Fill=COB/BA Red Flares 18,167 average unfunded/non-distributable to sea inventory. Does not include under endstrength shortages. Risk Sea duty gaps preclude sustaining Fit and Fill standards for units across the FRP using normal distribution practices. 2,750 billets (see assessment details) being filled without EPA to support will mean gaps in other units because the inventory does not exist to support Fit or Fill. Assessment BA in FY-14 will be ~1,500 higher than FY-14 EPA due to BA for 3 CGs and 2 Amphibs not carried in EPA. P9 BA has been removed and special NMP is in place to continue manning these units. Additionally, 4 CGs are being manned with special NMP in due to loss of 1,252 BA in Sep13. BA reflected on slide includes the 1,252 special NMP (which is not funded). If this BA were removed, it would raise Fill by 0.8% to 95.6%. If Sailors were re-distributed, they would improve Fit at least 0.5%. 14 COGNOS/PERS4013 20 DEC2013 Owner: PERS-4013
  15. Fit and Fill Gaps at Sea Data reflects AC and FTS personnel Fit=Paygrade COB/BA Fill=COB/BA Assessment The number of Fit gaps in December decreased from 15,588 (20NOV13) to 14,692 (20DEC13); a decrease of 896 Sailors. Fill decreased by 437 Sailors. BA increased by 3,049 this month due to inclusion of overseas shore duty activities that count as sea duty (USFF direction). Red Flares None. Risk Non-distributable inventory in the Navy negatively impacts sea duty manning. 15 COGNOS/PERS4013 20 DEC 2013 Owner: PERS-4013
  16. CNSF Enlisted RCN Sea Fit / Fill(Ship’s company, no precomm or decomm crews ) Fit Fill Fit Threshold Fit = PaygradeCOB/BA Fill = COB/BA. Source: Jan COGNOS archived data Trending Upward
  17. CNSF Enlisted NEC Sea Fit / Fill(Ship’s company, no precomm or decomm crews ) Fit Fill Source: Jan COGNOS archived data Fit = PaygradeCOB/BA Fill = COB/BA. Trending Upward
  18. CNSF Enlisted CNEC Sea Fit / Fill(Ship’s company, no precomm or decomm crews ) Fit Fill Source: Jan COGNOS archived data Fit = PaygradeCOB/BA Fill = COB/BA. Trending Upward
  19. Fit Fill by Class (Ships’ Company, no Precomm or Decomm) 19 Source: JAN COGNOS Archived data
  20. Supervisor/Journeymen by Class (Ships’ Company, no Precomm or Decomm) 20 Source: JAN COGNOS Archived data
  21. Supervisor/Journeymen by Class (Ships’ Company, no Precomm or Decomm) 21 Source: JAN COGNOS Archived data
  22. Apprentice by Class (Ships’ Company, no Precomm or Decomm) 22 Source: JAN COGNOS Archived data
  23. Enlisted Ratings on Surface ShipsFY15 Sea EPA, Sea BA and Planned-Decomm Ships 12 of 35 Ratings < 98% Inv/Sea BA w/oDecomm 18 of 35 Ratings < 98% Inv/Sea BA w/ Decomm added Decomm = 7 CGs + 2 LSDs Data Source: NMPBS 17 Jan 2014
  24. Actions to Support Optimized FRP Green – on track to complete by ECD Yellow – slight risk to completing by ECD Red – moderate risk to completing by ECD Gray – on hold * - Date shifted; WG determined scope of coordination effort exceeded original ECD (items #1 and #3); ECD shifted left (item #12) 24
  25. Closed Actions ROC/POE task closed at 24 OCT FCRC SSF has been evaluated for all POM15 scenarios, no change recommended OPNAV 1500.76C approved AUG13; NTSP notification/feedback process established 25
  26. Critical Leadership (CSMM / Top Snipe / 3MC) Established optimal assignment paths • Created 3MC special detailer page • Developed tracking NEC’s for Top Snipe and CSMM • Coded Top Snipe billet on each ship • Tracking leadership gaps in Oct 12 and today - Top Snipe (24 11) CSMM (12 5) Shipboard 3MC (20 1) Commenced initial discussions with Class Advocates to gather data and define proficiency
  27. Additional Focus Areas All RKC Assessment Findings ATG & RMC Manning Surface Board Approved Levers Billet Based Distribution (BBD) Metrics PERSTEMPO Critical NEC Review (May 2014) Officer Health Issues
  28. “P” Pillar Questions 28
  29. CEP/RKC UpdateCG/LPD-17 CAPT Steve MucklowCNSP N40 Nature of Brief Decisional
  30. Purpose Report to the Surface Board on the results of the Readiness Kill Chain (RKC) Assessments and Class Execution Plans (CEP) for CG and LPD-17 Classes, including trends Recommend action to resolve specific issues and correct problems discovered Recommendations will be grouped three ways: Approve Pillar way ahead Forward to FCRC for 4-star action Task Cross Pillar Team (CPT) or SWE Board
  31. Agenda For each ship class (CG & LPD-17) BLUF Wholeness picture Capability and capacity to meet Global Force Management (GFM) demand Cost/spending considerations RKC findings & trends Recommendations Decisions

  32. CG 47 Class

  33. BLUF (CG) Cruisers need help across the board Trends Improving for Personnel – Fit/Fill slowly increasing Supply – OPN-8 NM/NA reqs, Aggregated OCONUS DLA Defense Depots (DD) forward facing fill rate Training – SEWTC Funding, Increased NTSPs approved, additional ATG Billets & manning improving Data shows trends Declining for Infrastructure Major problems requiring decisions/further planning: Policy/Resources: Unfunded billets (2,732) strains distribution CG MPN & Modernization Plan Requirements: RMC manpower review, Critical Schools Validation, platform NMETL development Resources: P-E-S-T-O funding adjustments for SMOSF Process: End-to-end (E2E) maintenance process adherence, variance, obsolescence P E S T O I N APR 13 JAN 14
  34. CG 47 Class Overview Highly capable warship class passing through midlife Two sub-classes (15+7, moving to 11+11) with different wholeness and warfare capability end states. 33% of class service life remains; would complete midlifes by FY15 Given 35-year ESL, CGs would decommission between FY21-28 Need to evaluate how to meet continuing operational demand for CSG/ theater AAW commander and BMD ESL+5 or Lay-up/bring back alternatives High operational demand for Air Defense and CG BMD Extended/multiple deployments per cycle – unpredictable demand Maintenance and Modernization time squeezed/cost and time overruns High Class variance Deferred maintenance drives up costs Compressed/Incomplete unit warfare training driving down class expertise Class needs for technical experts directly compete with DDG and BMD ashore
  35. CG Capacity Gap NOTE: Update required following CG Lay-up and Modernization planning
  36. CG Schedule Factors Alignment and transition CG Maintenance and Modernization is not yet aligned with the USFF proposed OFRP schedule; lay-up and modernization planning is in progress Proposed OFRP schedule is not yet aligned with the proposed CNO strategic laydown Class size and capability to meet OFRP and laydown demand changing rapidly, driven by budget, not operational needs Temporary layup may eliminate transition gap with DDG Flt III, but lowers overall GFM capacity Service Life Extension & Modernization Program for CGs based on SMOSF is under development Will require scheduling and shaping against available funds Resolve using Surface Master Plan/Class Execution Plan/Ship Integrated Schedule Review approach in concert with USFFC and Resource Sponsors
  37. CG Cost Considerations Relative to surface ship average, Cost Per Mission Day (High) Capability (Large number of missions) + Personnel costs (High due to medium large crew size) = Large training/schools requirement Fuel costs (Medium to High) Maintenance costs (High and increasing) Plus Mid life (35 yrs ESL) costs Plus (optional) ESL +5 extension costs Cost drivers – Life cycle maintenance & repair costs Corrosion Painting and preservation Uptakes/Intakes Structural cracking / Hull integrity Shaft Sparing Combat systems support – A/C and compressed air systems Combat Systems Ao declining: SPS-73, SPS-49, SQS-53B Sonar Surface, Air search radars and sonar reliability poor and declining
  38. CG RKC Findings Personnel - MPN for 7 of 22 CGs unfunded Equipment - CMP not funded for SMOSF ships - Availabilities not meeting cost and schedule - Inconsistent TSRA scheduling & execution - Mandatory technical requirements - CASREP/DFS high & Tech Assists not timely Supply Maintenance support (effectiveness) Training Adv Exercise / Platform NMETL development ATG manning Improvement Critical Schools validation GLAKES Fire Fighting Trainer Networks High variance within the class No C5I E2E Testing requirement (C5I SOT) Cyber Security “POR” scores failing
  39. CG RKC Action

  40. LPD 17 Class

  41. BLUF (LPD17) Trends Improving for P-Pillar is overall rated “Yellow” but improving Training – SEWTC Funding, Increased NTSPs approved, additional ATG Billets & manning improving Supply – OPN-8 NM/NA reqs, aggregated OCONUS DLA DDs forward facing fill rate Data shows trends Declining for Infrastructure Major Issues to be discussed: Requirements: RMC manpower review, Critical Schools validation Resources: P underfunded friction and Individuals Account Process: E2E process, variance, obsolescence P E S T O I N JAN 13 JAN 14
  42. LPD 17 Class Overview Falling behind in efforts to dig out of a wholeness deficit while simultaneously meeting more commitments than sustainably possible. LPD-17, 18, 19 wholeness restoral delayed Current commitments above sustainable level leads to extended deployments, unmet surge requirements, pressure to shorten maintenance, and compressed/incomplete training for USN and USMC Unfunded Wholeness Task Force & follow-on recommendations Priority 1 & 2 recommendations are funded Top Modernization priority is overcoming severe ASW/FM bio-fouling and galvanic corrosion for LPDs (17-22) (Funded) Top Supply priority is shore basing long-lead parts to cut class down time Individual Training challenges limit class expertise - Changed training strategies mid-stream from on-board to en route Interim vendor training as a near-term solution Mid-term: develop NTSPs and training for major HM&E Systems. Long Term: develop, fund and execute NTSPs for other systems. LPD 20 to FDNF in FY15
  43. LPD-17 Capacity Gap More ships deployed than are sustainable within SFRM and maintenance models through FY17: High GFM demand Avails running long Training and PERSTEMPO standards squeezed Loss of class experience & readiness Capacity Gap *Sustainable Deployers ratio improves to 5:1 from 6:1 in FY15 as average maintenance avail length decreases
  44. LPD-17 Schedule Problems Alignment OFRP proposed for ARG/MEUs after implementation for CSGs Analysis in progress at USFFC & MARFORCOM First task is to establish a mutually supportable FRP cycle Similar issues to CGs, plus need to align with USMC needs Maintenance and Modernization aligned with OFRP schedule OFRP aligned with the proposed CNO strategic laydown USMC MEU sustained support for 8-month deployments + training + surge LPD 20 to FDNF planned for FY15 as LPD9 replacement requires interim deployer coverage (LHA 5 just before decomm), and new ATG/RMC capabilities Resolve using Surface Master Plan/Class Execution Plan/Ship Integrated Schedule Review approach in concert with USFFC and Resource Sponsors
  45. LPD-17 Cost Considerations Relative to surface ship average, Cost Per Mission Day (Medium) Capability (Medium-low number of missions) + Personnel costs (medium due to medium crew size) = moderate training/schools requirement (not fully funded) Fuel costs (Moderate) Maintenance cost High and increasing – plan in place to drive it down Wholeness task force and post wholeness task force fixes via modernization Midlife planning begins now New ships already “more whole” Cost drivers – Life cycle maintenance & repair costs Corrosion Painting and preservation Enclosed Masts Uptakes/Intakes HM&E: Combat systems support (A/C, sea water & compressed air) Combat Systems Ao: SPS-48E
  46. LPD-17 RKC Findings Equipment Schedule adherence Availability execution TSRA scheduling & execution CASREP/DFS & Tech Assists Supply - Maintenance support (effectiveness) Training Adv Exercise / Platform NMETL development ATG manning improvement Critical Schools validation Individual training GLAKES Fire Fighting Trainer Networks - High variance within the class - No C5I E2E Testing requirement (C5I SOT) - Cyber Security “POR” scores failing
  47. LPD-17 RKC Actions

  48. Decisions

  49. Decisions Endorse following in-pillar actions: Strictly adhere to Maintenance Availability Planning (E2E process) and TSRA Scheduling (E) Lock known Maintenance and Modernization requirements into availability planning earlier (E) Improve Maintenance Support (S) Develop basic phase Advanced Exercises and platform training NMETLs (T) Validate FLTMPS Critical Schools (F&T) Requirements (T) Continue LPD-17 Individuals schools fielding (T) Execute and monitor mitigation strategies for ordnance loadout/ship fill shortages (NULKA, ESSM, MK54 LWT and SM3) (O) Establish MK216 Sundown/Replacement fielding plan (O) Execute Variance Reduction Plan (PEO C41) (N) Establish Cyber Security Way Ahead (N)
  50. Decisions (Cont.) Forward following actions for FCRC consideration: Fully restore MPN end strength for 7 CGs (P) Continue to fully fund Friction/Individuals Accounts (P) Continue Quality of Service Initiatives/FCRC O-FRP Manning plan (P) With SWE, re-plan CG Operational/Decommissioning schedule (E) Validate RMC capability/capacity manpower requirements (E) Prioritize (Increase) ATG Manning to support SFRM & O-FRP (T) Fund Great Lakes Firefighting Trainer restart (T)
  51. Decisions (Cont.) Assign to Cross Pillar Teams: Examine Planning and execution milestones to minimize short notice changes to equipment funding as this causes billet requirement / personnel detailing mismatches (C/F) Manage removal of equipment/capability to reduce obsolescence and promote variation control (C) Execute the Surface and Expeditionary Warfare Training Plan (SEWTP) (F) Develop way ahead for CG Modernization (F) Continue developing decommissioning plans utilizing DECOM best practices and SURFMEPP cognizance of Class Wholeness (C) Continue to implement and formalize Ship Integrated Scheduling Reviews (SISR) to meet OFRP and other GFM needs within the SMP process (F) Define requirement & develop C5I SOT implementation plan (C) F – FRCPT C – CRCPT
  52. AIP Update RADM Dave Lewis PEO Ships Nature of Brief Decisional
  53. AIP Discussion/ Presentations AIP B255: Provide LPD-17 Class Construction Lessons Learned. AIP B243: Validate required fill dates for Critical NECs Additional OPEN AIPs Decision Slide
  54. AIP B255“Provide LPD-17 Class Construction Lessons Learned. PEO SHIPs to provide the LPD-17 Class construction failure lessons learned on how to prevent these failures in future ship classes.” Mr. Jay Stefany PEO SHIPS Executive Director Amphibious, Auxiliary & Sealift Office 121
  55. Historical Issues The initial LPD 17 class ships have suffered from a number of significant production and system reliability deficiencies in the Fleet. 2. Undersized Pipe Welds Root Cause: Inadequate Government inspection 1. Cracks in Lube Oil Piping System Root Cause: Inadequate pipe hangers 5. ECS Reliability/SWAN Root Cause: Lack of ECS segregation created signal overloads that significantly impacted system performance. 4. Engine Debris Construction debris in lube oil system (Undetermined source on LPD 17 – occurred after post-deployment PMA) 3. Engine Alignment Root Cause: Inadequate alignment procedure (not properly aligned to reduction gears increasing wear) 122
  56. Historical Issues – Resolution All significant issues have been resolved and process improvements/lessons learned have been incorporated into new construction build plans. Cracks in L/O Piping System: Improvements to design and QA processes Undersized Pipe Welds: Government QA process revamped (training and manning increase) Engine Alignment: Engine alignment procedures re-written, requirements revisited, and additional quality oversight checkpoints have been added to the engine alignment process Engine Debris: Revised flushing procedures, filter improvements, and revised piping fabrication care and protection ECS Reliability: Reliability issues improved through physical and logic segregation. ISEA installation of software upgrades and ECS dedicated switches. Technical resolutions identified and developed through the Strike Team have been incorporated in-line on new construction and back-fit into Fleet assets. Completed – 78% Scheduled – 17% Unfunded – 5% 123
  57. Resolution and Initiative Results Higher Quality Ships Delivered Fewer Builder/Acceptance trial (BT/AT) cards Improved INSURV scores Better Performance in the Fleet Improved Ao Fewer systemic issues Cumulative Ao for LPD Class is 0.86 (0.95 since March 2011) 124
  58. Cross-Program Recommendations Waterfront Oversight – Recognize and maintain oversight manning and training requirements Influence the Shipbuilder – Incentivize quality (performance and trial cards at AT, Delivery, and Sailaway) Strike Team (est. 2008) Purpose: to identify and review the top systematic class issues that cross technical, programmatic, fleet maintenance, PSA, and construction yards and develop class-wide solutions Technical resolution completed for 95 significant issues Shipbuilder Process Improvements Revision of flushing procedures Increased care and protection requirements ECS Reliability Improvements Network Segregation: autonomous functionality Land Based Testing: test all foreseeable plant configurations and loads Best Value Availability Execution Post-Delivery industrial availability awarded to best value to improve balance of cost, schedule, and quality of PSA execution (particularly important early in the Program) Initial Requirements Validation – Verify requirements early in Program execution Variance Reduction Board (est. 2014) Purpose: to identify common systems and solutions between Programs to leverage common engineering solutions with the goal of improving quality while reducing cost Recommendation: CLOSE AIP B255 125
  59. AIP B243“Scrub/ validate CG CNSF Critical NEC list and validate required fill dates for Critical NECs. “ RDML John Alexander Assistant Commander Navy Personnel Command (PERS-4) 126
  60. AIP B243: Scrub/ validate CG CNSF Critical NEC list and validate required fill dates for Critical NECs Part 1 - Scrub/ validate CG CNSF Critical NEC list - COMPLETED & CLOSED. CNEC Annual Review approved by USFF in May 2013 Part 2 - Validate required fill dates for CG Critical NECs (CNEC) Current FFC tenets provide for a goal of “90% Fit / 90% Fill / 1 of each CNEC” manning at deployment FFC NEC Fit Target Working Group has established targets of DRRS-N CNEC thresholds for Phased implementation in 2014 Under Optimized FRP and commencing in FY-15 with HST CSG, FFC/PERS will start manning HST CSG with the goal of people and equipment ready for trainingat the beginning of the basic phase, manning goals of 92/95% Fit/Fill and meet CNEC DRRS-N thresholds Recommend Close. P-pillar will continue to monitor and advise the Surface Board of status of Optimized FRP actions during periodic updates
  61. B243: Scrub/ validate CG CNSF Critical NEC list andvalidate required fill dates for Critical NECs. Recommend Close. P-pillar will continue to monitor and advise the Surface Board of status of Optimized FRP actions during periodic updates. Approve/Disapprove Decision Slide 128
  62. Additional Open AIPs
  63. B243: Scrub/ validate CG CNSF Critical NEC list and validate required fill dates for Critical NECs. Recommend Approve Way Ahead and Close B246: Review deferred maintenance process and provide recommendations. Recommend approve Way Ahead and Close B255: PEO Ships provide LPD-17 Class Construction Lessons Learned. Recommend Close Approve/Disapprove Approve/Disapprove Approve/Disapprove Decision Slide
  64. Variance Control Way Ahead Strategy: Use BCA-based decision-making and metric-based assessment, and pursue in-service variance reduction on select systems and equipment of select ship classes with sufficient service life; in-service variance control through modularity and commonality in modernization; and new construction variance control through policy that pursues class wholeness, total ownership cost decision-making, and commonality in what we buy, build and design. Conduct in-service variance reduction and control based on Business Case Analysis to the component level Conduct in-service variance control through modularity and commonality, and incorporate into Class Execution Plans and the Surface Master Plan Conduct in-service variance reduction on select ship classes towards an objective-based configuration and architecture Establish new construction and in-service variance control policy that pursues wholeness and commonality in what we buy, build, and design ACTION: Determine whether the SCIB should be re-invigorated (Lead: NAVSEA) ACTION: Establish variance control policy guidelines and business rule priorities (Lead:ASN/RDA) ACTION: Evaluate and determine any changes that need to be made to the SCD proposal process (Lead: NAVSEA / TYCOM input) ACTION: Complete Flexible Modular Ship roadmap (Lead: PEO Ships) ACTION: Develop decision points based on opportunities to assess acquisition costs vs. total ownership costs (Lead: ASN/RDA) ACTION: Complete SMP (Lead: CNSP N40) ACTION: Identify the formal requirement for Business Case Analysis (Lead: OPNAV N4) ACTION: Conduct BCA for LPD17 and DDG Flight IIA equipment and systems to identify consolidation and bundling candidates in achieving the ideal configuration for these ship classes (Lead: Ship Program Managers) ACTION: Select LPD17 and DDG Flight IIA as test platforms for a holistic review of reduction across the pillars and determine a proposed 2019 ideal configuration for these ship classes. (Lead: Ship Program Managers) New AIP Recommendation: Execute variance control strategy and supporting actions; conduct IPR in Jun ‘14.
  65. Financial Comments Resource Sponsors & Providers Nature of Brief Informational
  66. Surface Board Agenda20 March 2014 (1300-1435 ET)
  67. CNSF Commander’s Priorities Developing Our Sailors Training our Crews to Fight and Win Providing Warships Ready for Combat

  68. Around the HornClosing Comments

    VADM Tom Copeman Commander Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet
More Related