Team,
I would like to congratulate USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) on completing and passing her underway material inspection (UMI) conducted by the board of inspection and survey (INSURV) earlier this month. Anyone who has served on a ship in our Navy knows very well the tireless effort that goes into preparing for an INSURV inspection. I am very pleased with OAK HILL’s results; in fact, the scores she achieved were outstanding. The crew, the ISIC and the TYCOM put in a superb effort to prepare her for this inspection and the results of their hard work speak for themselves – 16 functional areas graded “green” and just two “yellow.” Her scores exceed those of any other CNSL surface ship that has undergone a material inspection in the past year. Furthermore, she scored twice as high as two other Atlantic Fleet LSDs that recently completed UMIs.
Now, I want to be clear that OAK HILL did not simply get lucky. Her crew worked very hard and they were clearly very well-prepared for this inspection. But, as with any success story, there are a lot of lessons we learned that we must now apply going forward.
OAK HILL did not get here overnight; in fact, a year ago she was in very poor condition. We had to put an extraordinary amount of funding, oversight, remedial training, and repair resources into OAK HILL to restore her to a condition of compliance with our standards of safety, preservation, and material condition – standards which she, and all of our ships, are expected to maintain at all times.
Although the results of OAK HILL’s UMI suggest that even our most poorly maintained ships can be reinvigorated, this diversion of waterfront resources will not serve as the de facto model for every ship in the Fleet. RADM Thomas and I both agree that this is exactly the wrong model for generating current readiness and ensuring our ships serve the full extent of their expected service lives.
Improving the overall readiness of our Surface Force has taken a steady effort from all of us – ISICs, TYCOM, and, most importantly, the ships crew; we have a long way to go. OAK HILL’s performance shows us the importance of sufficiently funding maintenance and adequately manning our ships, but we cannot get the Fleet where we need it to be by “surging for INSURV” every few years. We need a steady and predictable flow of resources, well-trained Sailors in sufficient numbers and properly funded maintenance plans, for the Fleet which is precisely what I have been focused on, and will remain focused on, as Commander, US Fleet Forces.
I made a commitment to our Sailors to provide them with the tools, training and time they need to execute their missions (which includes maintaining the material health of their ship) and I absolutely intend to do all I can to deliver on that promise.
In return, I expect the CO and the leadership team to take ownership of their ships and hold their crews accountable to the high standards we must maintain every single day – not just during workups or material inspections. Leadership oversight (XO, CHENG, and BOSN, as particularly called out by the Senior Inspector) and honest feedback up and down the chain of command were major factors in OAK HILL’s performance. That assessment is not surprising to me. I’ve always known that our Sailors, when properly trained and well led, will always, rpt always, give you their best.
Well done, OAK HILL!
All the best, JCHjr
15 April 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"I made a commitment to our Sailors to provide them with the tools, training and time they need to execute their missions (which includes maintaining the material health of their ship) and I absolutely intend to do all I can to deliver on that promise."
BZ Sir!
And Double BZ (made that rating up:)) to the leadership and crew who really made this happen when given the tools they needed for success. We can all be given tools for success and it is especially promising when they are utilized for maximum success.
The Sailors are the secret sauce of that success.
"..this diversion of waterfront resources will not serve as the de facto model for every ship in the Fleet. RADM Thomas and I both agree that this is exactly the wrong model for generating current readiness and ensuring our ships serve the full extent of their expected service lives."
However, this is 'THE MODEL' that has existed for the last 3-4 years. When you have formalized preinspection grooms (PIGs) to find and fix what ship's company has been failing to recognize, then the systemic problems will continue. One has to ask were the other two LSD Insurvs as well funded as Oak Hill or did they take on Insurv as it was intended, "a snapshot of a typical day" onboard the ship?
Expending extra funds on the weak and lazy means other ships dollars are reduced to keep tail-end charlie treading water and the INSURV results to Congress and CNO are in effect not really true on the condition of our ships. If the ships look great (after adding tons of extra money) then we don't need as much maintenance money that we continue to beg for every year since the USS Constitution first got wet. The vicious cirle caused by decit.
Retired 0-6
"Retired O6" is exactly correct. A dedicated 12 months of preparation, practice and millions of dollars does not say much for the Navy's maintenance programs.
What a waste to spend money on find and fix assessments - it totally defeats the so called Navy concept PMS, RCM and CBM strategies necessary for maintaining ships at a material condition level to meet the overall mission of the Navy.
INSURV inspections were initiate to ensure the Navy was maintaining their ships and judiciously spending tax payer dollars. Not cramming for a five (5) year (not 3 years) milestone. It is so bad that the ship life cycle maintenance plans have established INSURV MIs as a significant maintenance availability event similar to going on deployment or going into a major overhaul ----- not sure how this approach helps the country or the Navy.
NUCLDO
As the Retired O6 stated INSURV has become a diversion for the NAVY and totally contrary to the intent of what an inspection is to accomplish - see SECNAVINST 3040.
Inspections are to provide leadership with the information they need to evaluate. The IG is also supposed to be evaluate the results. INSURV does not establish the criteria only the results of standards/specs to as found conditions.
The below excerpt from a Navy publication should really raise a red flag to the most obvious observer - it took the Stennis over a year of preparation to achieve the status of "fit to conduct sustained combat operations."
" Stennis Completes INSURV Story by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kathleen O’Keefe
Stennis successfully completed its Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) assessment Thursday at Naval Air Station NorthIsland.
The successful completion of INSURV means Stennis is fit to conduct sustained combat operations. The six-day assessment began Feb. 27 and despite a busy underway schedule, Stennis performed better than fleet average in 11 of 18 functional areas.
“The crew has worked through a really trying year,” said INSURV Coordinator Cmdr. Stevin Johnson. “They have been able to work though PIA, sea trials, TSTA/FEP and CoNA while still preparing for INSURV. The cleanliness of the ship and the engagement of the crew have left a lasting impression on the inspectors.”
Fast Attack
The real and official measure of a ships material condition is it Operational Availability, Ao, overtime. Not a rushed three (3) day failure finding inspection by INSURV. The most significant thing INSURV do is find the status of how much money is being applied to a each ship above and beyond that established by it life cycle cost plan when compared to the big ticket items of which Hull and HM&E systems. Whereas for Combat Systems the Navy already has excellent measuring tools that follow the CNO policy contained OPNAVINST 3000.12 for determining whether systems or equipment meet design standards for operational availability.
Team,
I appreciate you taking the time to comment on this important issue. I actually believe we have very similar views on the purpose of INSURV and how we should (or should not) be preparing our ships for these inspections. I also absolutely agree that our ships need to be meeting the standards every day, not just for INSURV. As I mentioned in my post, the diversion of additional resources to OAK HILL is not the ideal way to bring a ship up to standards and should not, rpt not, be the de facto model for other ships in the future. INSURV should be an inspection that validates how we do our job operating and maintaining our ships and not be the justification for getting our ships up to standard.
But today’s reality is that we’re fighting to overcome a structural deficit that we built into the surface force through the cumulative effects of years of reduced manning, lower deckplate experience levels, decreased training levels and diminished maintenance resources. I believe the basic changes outlined in the Fleet Readiness Review Panel Report (restoring the focus of our shipboard maintenance efforts, improved ship and maintenance facility manning, etc.) will, over time, get us to the point where a satisfactory INSURV inspection no longer requires such a herculean effort. But until we’re there I need to help our crews get their ships where we want them to be, and need them to be, and use the process to train and educate all levels in the chain-of-command on what is required to keep our ships in fighting trim. All the best, JCHjr.
Post a Comment