This is another post on Navy ship maintenance realities. I restate the fundamentals of Navy ship maintenance (knowing, planning, doing, and testing) and do a deep dive on Class Maintenance Plans.

Navy ship depot maintenance is expensive. The only way to significantly lower repair costs is to do less of it. This isn’t good for long term ship material readiness or budgets. Neither is espousing rubbish about ship repair.

Achieving acceptable performance in Navy ship depot maintenance is hard. Diagnosing the key problems when things aren’t going well is even tougher since so many factors that contribute to delays aren’t under the control of any one Navy activity. Ship lifecycle management poor performance has many components. Depot maintenance is just one of them.

This is another post in my series devoted to ship overhaul. I continue examining Navy ship maintenance through GAO publications by responding to comments and digging deeper into causes of ship maintenance delays.

I examine Navy ship maintenance performance through the lens a GAO statement based on numerous GAO reports. Spoiler alert: after all those reports, things aren’t getting better.

The focus of this post is what can interfere with the support the ship’s crew should provide to the SY in an overhaul.

Providing work and test support in overhaul is challenging for the crew. This post defines good shipyard support.

Overhaul is hard for the crew because of the knowledge gap between ship’s force and shipyard managers about the work and schedule.

This is the first of a series of posts explaining why sailors don’t like ship overhaul. I use the analogy of getting a filling, routine teeth maintenance, as an illustration.

While they can seem like chaos, overhauls have three major parts: setting plant conditions, repairs, and testing the repairs. These parts can be divided even further. Some aspects of overhaul are subtle or fiendishly counterintuitive.