as a PDF

AMPTIAC is a DOD Information Analysis Center Administered by the
Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Technical Information Center
The United States military has recently tackled some tremendous
challenges, the most difficult of which being the global war on terrorism. Even while military operations are underway in Iraq and
elsewhere, the Department of Defense (DOD) is directing some of
their energies against other threats less obvious, but nonetheless
harmful and insidious. By the encouragement of the Congress
(through an amended federal law), the DOD is now waging war
against corrosion. The DOD has embraced both the spirit and
intent of the congressional action, and efforts are already underway.
Editorial: New DOD Policy Will
Reduce the Cost of Corrosion
The Deputy Secretary of Defense has appointed a Corrosion
Executive to lead this initiative, and the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD) has established within its organization the Office of
Corrosion Policy and Oversight. A formal policy requiring all programs to develop and implement corrosion prevention and control
plans is being written. This policy will apply evenly to weapon systems, support equipment, and infrastructure. OSD has chosen this
special issue of the AMPTIAC Quarterly to announce the initiative.
Effectively mitigating and controlling corrosion on a Department-wide basis requires a new and innovative process; one that
involves all stakeholders. In the past, individual Defense programs
have implemented an array of highly effective corrosion prevention
and control (CPC) processes. Unfortunately, little has been done to
transition the CPC technologies developed in support of a specific
program (and their resulting benefits) to other applicable programs,
oftentimes leaving program managers to “reinvent the wheel.” This
way of doing business must change. If we can become proactive at
transitioning technologies between programs, then the DOD will
see much greater returns on their acquisition investments. Making
our existing assets more impervious to corrosion’s effects can ultimately reduce maintenance costs, extend life (thus reducing reprocurement costs), and increase readiness. The support of all stakeholders is needed to make this strategy a reality.
Mitigating corrosion in existing systems is only part of the battle,
as it only strives to manage the vulnerabilities inherent in these systems. At the same time we must also endeavor to develop new systems that are corrosion resistant. We can only achieve this through
improved diligence on the part of Defense contractors. More rigor-
Editor-in-Chief
Wade G. Babcock
Special Issue Editor
Christian E. Grethlein, P.E.
Creative Director
Cynthia Long
David H. Rose
AMPTIAC Director
The AMPTIAC Quarterly is published by the Advanced Materials and Processes Technology Information
Analysis Center (AMPTIAC). AMPTIAC is a DOD sponsored Information Analysis Center, administratively
managed by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).
The AMPTIAC Quarterly is distributed to more than 15,000 materials professionals around the world.
Inquiries about AMPTIAC capabilities, products and services may be addressed to
David H. Rose
Director, AMPTIAC
315-339-7023
[email protected]
Information Processing
Judy E. Tallarino
Patricia McQuinn
EMAIL:
Inquiry Services
David J. Brumbaugh
AMPTIAC
Product Sales
Gina Nash
ous materials selection practices that stress upfront corrosion analyses are needed to make this happen. But the burden is not the contractors’ alone. The DOD has a responsibility to provide them with
the requirements to ensure rigor in their design practices. About ten
years ago the Pentagon’s Acquisition Reform initiative eliminated
many standards, converted some to performance-based specifications and others to commercial “equivalents.” Today a team is examining various existing and rescinded corrosion-related specifications
and standards to identify elements that should be emphasized in
future contract requirements.
DOD also must provide the tools and information needed by
designers so they can employ the best available technology. Fully
informed materials selection decisions are needed to ensure adequate
corrosion resistance. Achieving this requires the DOD to provide
technical information directly to designers so they can quickly and
cost effectively select the best available technologies. DOD has
already invested untold millions in CPC technologies, but the data
addressing these programs are difficult to obtain and use. Providing
it directly through on-line expert systems is sure to enable real
reform of current design practices.
Changing the current culture is a long-term proposition – one
that will be facilitated if we address the very root of the problem.
Designers coming out of our universities do not have a fundamental understanding of corrosion processes and prevention. The
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) must
get involved and implement changes to college curricula that stress
a more thorough understanding of materials selection and corrosion
prevention and control. Increased sensitivity towards corrosion, coupled with improved access to DOD’s corrosion knowledgebase will
help ensure future success.
The DOD has embraced the need to improve acquisition and
sustainment practices by placing a focus on CPC, but truly solving
this difficult problem requires all stakeholders to accept the need for
change. We must collectively change our culture to reflect this
increased CPC emphasis. There certainly are some challenging times
ahead, but I have no doubt that as the DOD corrosion prevention
and control program evolves, readiness of our warfighting assets will
improve. As a consequence, our country will be in a better position
to defend against those who would like nothing more than to
destroy our way of life.
URL:
h t t p :/ / a m p t i a c . a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m
We welcome your input! To submit your related articles, photos, notices, or ideas for future issues, please contact:
ATTN: WADE G. BABCOCK
201 Mill Street
Rome, New York 13440
PHONE: 315.339.7008
FA X : 3 1 5 . 3 3 9 . 7 1 0 7
EMAIL:
[email protected]
Andrew Timko and Owen R. Thompson
Logistics Management Institute
McLean, VA
Many of the articles in this issue deal with some type of corrosion prevention technology, where systems and their components are protected by
modifying or enhancing them in some way to be impervious to the effects of their environment. This article turns the question of corrosion
protection inside out: instead of adapting the system to fit the environment, what if the environment were adapted to fit the system? The
elegance of this technical solution lies in its simplicity. - Editor
INTRODUCTION
Moisture-driven degradation of weapon systems and equipment
represents an important cost of ownership issue within the
DOD. Current costs are difficult to establish, but estimates
range between $10 billion and $20 billion annually. [1]
Numerous non-financial effects also exist, the most important
being the reduced readiness and sustainability of these systems
and equipment. There are also environmental consequences,
such as those that result from the use of hazardous chemicals to
treat corrosion.
This paper surveys and summarizes current use of controlled
humidity protection (CHP) within the Department of Defense.
CHP is an extremely effective way to mitigate the effects of corrosion since moisture levels are kept sufficiently low to minimize
water-induced electrochemical reactions. The sidebar at the end
of this article provides background information on the effects of
moisture and relative humidity on weapon systems as well as the
results of various CHP evaluations.
BACKGROUND
Traditional methods of corrosion control are designed to mitigate or alter the effects of corrosion upon items, equipment, or
systems by employing technologies that help counteract the
effects of moisture. CHP takes an opposite approach that seeks
to alter the environment by removing the moisture itself through
control of the relative humidity (RH). The processed air is then
recirculated into or around the item, equipment, or system
being protected. [2, 3] By reducing the RH to a level where
water cannot condense, damaging corrosion mechanisms can be
controlled.
Weapon systems and equipment in storage (such as excess or
retired systems, pre-positioned equipment, and war reserve
materiel) are currently protected to the extent possible. The
primary concern of this paper, however, is the protection of
weapon systems and equipment in mission-ready status. In this
context, CHP is viewed as a maintenance technology, not a
storage technology.
74
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4
There are four categories of CHP systems employed within
DOD. The categories differ in a number of characteristics,
including the amount of time the weapon systems or other end
items remain in CHP. Additional characteristics include whether
maintenance requirements are deferred, and also the number of
weapon systems or end items that can be protected by a single
CHP system. The four CHP system categories are long-term
preservation (LTP); modified long-term preservation (MLTP);
operational preservation (OP); and Single Vehicle Environment
Stabilization System™ (SVESS™). [4]
LTP is used for long-term storage of vehicles and other critical equipment. The storage timeframe for LTP is 1 to 3 years,
with equipment being rotated out of the facility every three
years. LTP facilities are environmentally controlled structures.
While conditions vary somewhat by facility, all LTP facilities
maintain a storage environment below 50% relative humidity
(RH), with some enclosures maintaining as low as 30%RH. The
dry environment slows equipment deterioration rates to the
point that scheduled maintenance on stored equipment may be
deferred up to five years.
MLTP is a variant of LTP which provides all the benefits of
LTP (equipment in MLTP are stored in LTP facilities), but
P-3 in OP
M113s in LTP
Figure 1. CHP Systems.
MLRS in MLTP
SVESS
M1 in OP
Table 1. Characteristics of CHP Systems.
LTP
MLTP
preserve the enclosed spaces of
vehicles, such as crew compartType of CHP system
Shelter
Shelter
External dehumidifier
Dehumidifier that replaces
ments and equipment spaces. It
connected to weapon
the hatch on a ground
is a highly successful approach
system/end item
combat vehicle
that reduces component failures
Protects the weapon
Yes
Yes
No
No
and unscheduled maintenance.
systems’ external
In a typical OP configuration,
structure/hull
vehicles and equipment are conProtects the weapon
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
nected to a dehumidification
systems’ internal systems
apparatus while standing in their
Weapon system
See note See note
Combat vehicles: 20
1 weapon system
ambient environment. In some
capacity of CHP system
Aircraft: 1 or 2
cases, a portable dehumidifier is
Duration of vehicles
1–3 years 90 days to 1 or more days
1 or more days
brought to the vehicle (such as
in CHP
1 year
the EP-3E and other aircraft). In
Authorization to
Yes
Yes
No
No
other cases, such as armored
defer scheduled
vehicles, multiple vehicles are
maintenance
parked at a facility, where they
Note: Shelters normally range from 5,000 sq. ft. to 30,000 sq. ft. For example, approximately 25 M1 tanks can be placed in a
are connected via hose into a
10,000 sq. ft. shelter. Shelters are sized to meet the unit’s CHP requirements.
central dehumidification system. The primary benefit of OP
allows equipment to be taken out periodically for training
is that it may be connected to (or detached from) a given piece
purposes. The storage timeframe for MLTP ranges from 90 days
of hardware in minutes, allowing equipment to be pressed into
to 1 year. Maintenance schedules for MLTP equipment are
service on demand, and thus maintain its readiness.
based on actual usage (accrued time out of the facility).
The downside for armored vehicles protected by OP is that
OP utilizes humidity preservation techniques for vehicle
they must drive to and park at a multi-vehicle facility to be preand equipment in active service. It is used to dehumidify and
served. SVESS economically does for these vehicles what OP
OP
SVESS
Table 2. Estimates of DOD Systems in CHP.
Service or
Type of
No. of
component
CHP
locations
Equipment in CHP
No. of CHP
systems or shelters
Estimated CHP
system capacity*
Army
ARNG
MLTP
OP
1
60
Wheeled and tracked vehicles
M1, BFV, MSE, M109A6, FF radar
49 shelters
293 systems
1,225
5,860
ARNG
MLTP
79
M1, BFV, M109A6, Avenger, Patriot, FF radar,
engineering equipment, ROWPU, wheeled vehicles
129 shelters
3,225
ARNG
LTP/MLTP
9
M1, M113, MLRS, engineering equipment,
field artillery, other miscellaneous equipment
40 shelters
1,000
ARNG
LTP
5
M1, BFV, MLRS, ROWPU
5 shelters
125
ARNG
SVESS
2
M1, M109A6
8 systems
8
Army Reserve
(USAR)
MLTP
3
Engineering equipment and miscellaneous
wheeled vehicles
3 shelters
75
OP
6
EP-3E aircraft
16 systems
32 aircraft
Navy
Navy
MLTP
2
Miscellaneous aircraft components
3 shelters
75
Navy
MLTP
4
Miscellaneous aircraft support equipment
4 shelters
100
Navy
MLTP
3
Miscellaneous equipment, including radio, electronic,
and ship support
13 shelters
325
USAF
OP
1
VC-25 (Air Force 1)
1 shelter
2 aircraft
USMC
OP
2
Light attack and amphibious assault vehicles
4 systems
80
USMC
MLTP
2
Miscellaneous wheeled and tracked vehicles
17 shelters
425
USMC
MLTP
2
AV-8B Harrier and V-22 Osprey
4 shelters
100
USMC
MLTP
3
Metrological measuring sets/Fire Finder Radar
3 shelters
75
* This information attempts to “normalize” the CHP capacity of existing LTP and MLTP shelters. Because the shelters vary in size (normally ranging from 5,000 to 30,000 sq. ft.) and
because the user can vary the type and quantities of individual weapon systems or end items inside the shelters, it is impossible to precisely list the systems currently in CHP. To illustrate the
approximate CHP capacity, however, we assumed each shelter is 10,000 sq. ft. and all of the vehicles in CHP are M1s (which require ~400 sq. ft. each). The numbers identified represent
the approximate number of M1s that could be accommodated in existing CHP shelters (if they average 10,000. sq. ft. each). Other assumptions are as follows:
• For OP CHP on-ground combat systems, each system can accommodate 20 vehicles; therefore, that is the quantity listed.
• For OP CHP on aircraft, each system can support two aircraft; therefore, that is the quantity listed.
• For SVESS, each CHP system can support one weapon system.
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4
75
Guard (ARNG) has been in the forefront in the application of
CHP to its weapon systems and end items.
Figure 2. ARNG M1s in OP.
does for aircraft. It consists of a small dehumidification unit that
preserves the environment of crew compartments in many types
of armored vehicles. These units are portable, can be mounted
and secured into the crew hatch, run on household electricity,
and can be transported with the vehicle. SVESS benefits fielded
combat systems by reducing their maintenance costs. Figure 1
depicts examples of the four CHP categories and Table 1 identifies their primary characteristics.
CHP has been extensively evaluated and is now widely
applied by many nations as a maintenance technology for operational weapon systems. Within DOD, the Army National
Evaluating
Moisture, Relative
Humidity, and the
Effects of CHP
CURRENT EFFORTS
Each of the Services is using CHP to protect a segment of their
weapon system inventories. For example:
• The Army has tracked and wheeled vehicles in nearly 50
MLTP shelters in Qatar.
• The Navy has 16 EP-3Es in OP at 6 different locations.
• The Air Force has its two VC-25s (Air Force One) in OP at
Andrews AFB.
• The Marine Corps has assault vehicles in OP at Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Albany.
Overall, DOD’s current CHP capacity can protect roughly
6,000 weapon systems in OP and nearly 7,000 weapon systems
in MLTP/LTP.[5] The majority of the weapon systems (and end
items) in CHP belong to the ARNG – approximately 98% of
the weapon systems in OP and about 64% of the weapon systems in MLTP/LTP. Table 2 presents, by Service or component,
a summary of CHP implementations. [6]
Separate sections detailing the ARNG and the other Service
CHP programs follow. The ARNG is presented separately
because they possess the majority of CHP systems.
Army National Guard
By any measure, the ARNG possesses the most significant CHP
capability within DOD. About 500 CHP systems or shelters are
currently in place at nearly 150 locations, with the capability to
The corrosive effects of moisture are well known. A 1935 British study determined that the rate
of corrosion of iron and steel changes above 50% relative humidity (RH) from a linear to an exponential progression.[1] More recent research identified the relationship between RH and corrosion
in both high-strength low-alloy and low-carbon steels, finding that the rates of corrosion at high
humidity are 100 to 2,000 times greater than at lower humidity.[2] Other studies have found
similar results for nonferrous metals, including brass, copper, nickel, and zinc.[3]
Less apparent, but just as serious, is moisture degradation of avionics and electronic systems. For
example, corrosion on gold plating used in electronics increases from 5 corrosion attacks per
square centimeter at 40% RH to more than 120 attacks at 85% RH – a 24-fold increase. Further,
a typical resistance value for nylon wire insulation at 10% RH is 1014 ohms. At 90% RH, that
value drops to 107 ohms. [4] This more than million-fold decrease in resistance can contribute to
reliability problems in the extensive wiring of modern electronic systems.
In general, corrosion remains a significant problem until RH is reduced to less than 45%.
But it should be noted that very low relative humidity, less than 25%, is also problematic, causing
damage such as the cracking of seals.
Evaluations
Within DOD, all of the Services have evaluated CHP on some of their weapon systems, including Army Cobra helicopters in Europe, Navy EP-3Es on Guam, Air Force F-4G and F-16C
fighters in Europe, and Marine Corps T/AV-8Bs in North Carolina. In the early 1990s the
US Navy, under the aegis of the DOD Foreign Weapons Evaluation Office, evaluated CHP with
operational aircraft. This 6-month test on A-6E aircraft showed a 21% increase in avionics mean
time between failures (MTBF) and associated material savings.
76
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4
Other
15%
Avenger
3%
500
Combat Vehicles
17%
Wheel/Mix
19%
M1A1
16%
No. of CHP Systems
400
300
200
100
MSE
15%
M1/BFV
10%
0
OP
M1A1/BFV
3%
M1
2%
MLTP
Current CHP Systems
MLTP/LTP
LTP
SVESS
Planned CHP Systems
Figure 3. Weapon System and End Item Mix in ARNG CHP.
Figure 4. ARNG CHP Systems by Category.
protect more than 10,000 weapon systems and end items. At the
completion of their CHP fielding period (estimated to be in
2007), the ARNG expects to have 25% of their total ground
fleet (that is eligible for protection) in some form of CHP. In
addition, of the combat vehicles and mobile subscriber equipment (MSE) that can be preserved via the OP systems, 75% of
that total will be in an OP line. As an example, Figure 2 shows
M1 tanks in OP.
Nearly 500 CHP systems are currently fielded by the ARNG.
Figure 3 illustrates the categories of weapon systems and end
items that are being protected. Figure 4 depicts the number of
ARNG CHP systems by category – current and planned –
through 2007.
The benefits to the ARNG were recently calculated under
procedures established by the Army’s Cost and Economic
Analysis Center. An economic analysis of their CHP program
identified a potential for benefits in the range of $1.2 billion
during the economic life of that program (through FY07).
Empirical data showed a 9-to-1 benefit-to-investment ratio
could be expected. [7] The economic benefits (cost avoidance)
are derived from reduced maintenance hours and spares.
Additional benefits that cannot yet be quantified include
Many foreign defense forces currently use CHP as a maintenance technology for their operational weapon systems. An industry
analysis of eleven European defense forces [5] revealed that the majority have instituted CHP technology in both operational and
longer-term applications. Nine nations have applied CHP to at least some of their aircraft, while seven have applied CHP to some
of their ground combat vehicles. This acceptance is highlighted by Germany’s decision to apply the technology to all operational
military aircraft. CHP is also used on Canadian P-3 and CF-18 aircraft, Australian Blackhawk helicopters, and NATO Airborne
Warning and Control System (AWACS) E-3 aircraft.
Benefits
The tangible benefits of CHP as a maintenance technology, as identified by these evaluations, can include reduced costs of ownership for weapon systems and equipment, and, at the same time, increased readiness and sustainability. For example, the Swedish
Defense Force, after applying CHP as a maintenance technology, reported an overall aircraft readiness increase of 5 % – the equivalent of an additional aircraft being permanently assigned to each fighter squadron – and an investment payback of 2.4 months. A US
Naval Audit Service report on CHP indicated tests by the Navy and foreign governments showed that dehumidification has been
successfully applied to operational aircraft. [6] The report added that test data and user experience indicate CHP would increase mission capability rates by 4 to 6%, reduce maintenance hours per flight hour by 4 to 22%, and increase avionics MTBF by 7 to 30%.
REFERENCES
[1] Naval Audit Service, Audit Report 025-95, Dehumidification of In-Service Aircraft, February 22, 1995, p. 10
[2] Dry Air Technology for Defense Applications, First ed., Munters Incentive Group, Cambridge, UK
[3] Application of Dry Air Systems, Directorate of Materiel, Royal Netherlands Army, System Major Equipment System Group,
Communication Systems Division, The Hague, May 1994, p. 5
[4] Ibid. p. 6
[5] Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom
[6] Naval Audit Service, Dehumidification of In-Service Aircraft, July 1995, p. 9
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4
77
Figure 5. USMC V-22s in OP at New River, NC.
increased readiness, reduction of maintenance backlog, and
reduced transportation costs.
Other DOD Services and Components
The ARNG’s CHP program and the active Army’s 49 MLTP
shelters in Qatar account for approximately 90% of current
CHP applications within DOD. While each of the Services is
currently employing CHP to protect weapon systems or end
items, CHP is targeted to specific, and relatively limited,
requirements. Table 3 depicts the principle DOD weapon systems and end items (excluding the ARNG) currently protected
in specific CHP systems/shelters. Figure 5 illustrates the Marine
Corps V-22s in OP.
Known future initiatives include OP lines for all LAVs in the
Marine Corps’ light attack reconnaissance battalions (Camp
Pendleton, CA; Camp Lejuene, NC; Camp Williams, UT;
Okinawa, Japan; and Camp Fuji, Japan) and continuing expansion of CHP within the Army Reserve.
It should be noted that each Service has active ongoing corrosion protection and control (CPC) programs that consider
CHP. For example, the Marine Corps explicitly names CHP as
one of its three CPC focus areas (along with its corrosion prevention products and materials program, and its corrosion control and coating program).[8] And the Naval Air Systems
Command (NAVAIR) policy states “Dehumidification…is the
preferred method of preservation.” [9]
There is also considerable interchange of CPC information
(e.g., new technologies, lessons learned) among the Services. For
example, the Air Force’s Corrosion Prevention Advisory Board
was expanded to include other rotary wing aviation users (Army,
Navy, and Coast Guard). The Joint Technology Exchange Group
and the Army’s annual Aviation Control Summit also include
representatives from all Services. Finally, the OSD-sponsored
Virtual Corrosion Control Consortium (V-3C) is a promising
venue for exchanging CPC information.
In general, Service CPC focal points are very aware of CHP
technology and its potential applications, and they consider
CHP an important tool in their CPC toolbox. In addition, the
consensus is that there may be potential applications within the
Services that have not been fully exploited by CHP primarily
because of funding limitations.
Table 3. Principle DOD CHP Applications (Excluding the ARNG).
Service Protection type
Location
Weapon systems and equipment
Army
USAR
USAR
USAR
Navy
Navy
Navy
Navy
Navy
Navy
Navy
Navy
Navy
Navy
Navy
Navy
Navy
Navy
Navy
USAF
USMC
USMC
USMC
USMC
USMC
USMC
USMC
USMC
USMC
78
MLTP
MLTP
MLTP
MLTP
MLTP
MLTP
MLTP
MLTP
MLTP
MLTP
MLTP
MLTP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
MLTP
OP
OP
OP
OP/MLTP
MLTP
MLTP
MLTP
MLTP
MLTP
MLTP
Qatar
Fort Dix, NJ
Fort McCoy, WI
Spinelli Barracks, Germany
North Island, CA
NAS Jacksonville, FL
NAS Atlanta, GA
NAS Belle Chase, LA
NAS Andrews, MD
NAS Brunswick, ME
Charleston, SC
JRTC, Ft. Worth, TX
NAS Whidbey Island, WA
Bahrain
Greece
Spain
Misawa, Japan
Kadena, Japan
Sasebo, Japan
Andrews AFB, MD
MCLB Albany, GA
Camp Lejeune, NC
MCAS New River, NC
Camp Pendleton, CA
MCLB Albany, GA
MCAS Cherry Point, NC
Camp Lejuene, NC
JRTC, Ft. Worth, TX
Okinawa, Japan
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4
CHP shelters or aircraft
Wheeled and tracked vehicles
Engineering equipment
Engineering equipment
Miscellaneous wheeled vehicles
Miscellaneous aircraft components
Miscellaneous aircraft components
Aircraft MSE
Aircraft MSE
Aircraft MSE
Aircraft MSE
Radio/electronic equipment
Miscellaneous equipment
EP-3E
EP-3E
EP-3E
EP-3E
EP-3E
EP-3E
Miscellaneous ship support equipment
VC-25 (Air Force 1)
LAV and AAV
LAV
V-22 Osprey
MMS/fire finder radar
Miscellaneous wheeled and tracked vehicles
AV-8B Harriers
Miscellaneous wheeled vehicles
MMS/fire finder radar
MMS/fire finder radar
49 shelters
1 shelter
1 shelter
1 shelter
2 shelters
1 shelter
1 shelter
1 shelter
1 shelter
1 shelter
6 shelters
6 shelters
3 aircraft
2 aircraft
3 aircraft
5 aircraft
1 aircraft
2 aircraft
1 shelter
2 aircraft
2 shelters
2 shelters
1 shelter
1 shelter
15 shelters
3 shelters
2 shelters
1 shelter
1 shelter
CONCLUSION
Each of the Services is currently protecting some weapon systems
and other end items using humidity-controlling technology.
They are also actively pursuing other control prevention and control initiatives. However, programmatic and technical issues have
precluded broader DOD CHP implementation, despite the
known benefits. Programmatic issues range from the certification
process for authorizing the use of a new piece of equipment on a
weapon system to the procurement process that actually gets the
new equipment item into the hands of the user (although recent
Small Business Innovation Research [SBIR] Phase III contract
revisions have virtually eliminated this hurdle). In addition, these
obstacles encompass nearly the entire planning, programming,
and budgeting process. Because most of the benefits of CHP do
not occur instantaneously, advocates face the challenge of
resourcing initiatives without immediate results. Technical obstacles cover a number of issues, (including supportability questions
generally unrelated to the weapon systems) such as utility (power)
availability; the design, operation, and safety of the dehumidifiers
themselves; and staffing implications.
While not discounting the above issues, the most significant
implementation issues may be the Services’ operational requirements and logistics concepts that may not lend themselves to a
wider adoption of CHP – particularly in the operational protection category. Some of the factors that may limit the use of CHP
in operational equipment include:
• Fighter aircraft canopies remaining open while parked to minimize avionics heat build-up.
• Cargo aircraft entrance doors that are frequently opened and
closed to allow for maintenance activities.
• Additional equipment (and power requirements) on the flight
line.
• Deployability of CHP equipment.
• Guidance (such as the need to “train like you fight”).
It is essential however, that CHP remain in the Services’ CPC
arsenal so that it can be fully exploited wherever appropriate.
The potential for a 9-to-1 return on investment (based on the recent economic analysis of the ARNG’s CHP program) and likelihood of increased weapon system readiness and sustainability
would appear to justify the examination and resolution of potential implementation issues. With the establishment of the DOD
Office for Corrosion Policy and Oversight, the timing may be
right for DOD as a whole to reexamine the capabilities and benefits of CHP as part of a long-term investment strategy to protect existing and emerging weapon systems.
REFERENCES
[1] General Accounting Office Report entitled “Defense
Management Opportunities to Reduce Corrosion Costs and
Increase Readiness,” GAO-03-753, July 2003
[2] US Navy, NAVAIR Technical Manual 15-01-500, Section I
(Introduction), pp. 6-1 and 6-2, Section II (Static Dehumidification), p. 3-2
[3] Within the Army, the acronym CHP refers to controlled
humidity preservation. Other Services may use different terms to
describe the controlled humidity protection system.
[4] Single Vehicle Environment Stabilization System (SVESS) is
a trademark of Logis-Tech, Inc.
[5] Calculation of the estimates is explained at the end of Table 2
[6] Primary data sources were the Army National Guard, LogisTech, Inc., and CALIBRE Systems, Inc.
[7] Controlled Humidity Preservation Program, Mid-Life Cycle
Economic Analysis, “Executive Summary,” CALIBRE Systems,
Inc., February 2003
[8] MCO 4790.18A, Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPAC)
program, December 3, 2002, pp. 2–3
[9] OPNAV 4790.2H, The Naval Aviation Maintenance
Program, Volume II, Chapter 8, June 2, 2001
Mr. Andrew Timko is a Research Fellow at the Logistics Management Institute. He has accomplished a number of
research efforts authoring reports on a wide range of subjects including: materiel readiness, deferred maintenance,
dehumidification, logistics metrics, automatic identification technology, and source of repair selection methodology.
Formerly an Air Force logistics officer, Mr. Timko previously held a number of DOD positions including: Chief of
International Logistics and Engineering in the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Director of Logistics for the Air
National Guard. He received a BS degree in commerce from Duquesne University, an MBA from the University of
Utah, and is a graduate of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.
Mr. Owen (Dick) Thompson is an Adjunct Research Fellow in the Logistics Management Institute’s Materiel
Management Group, where he develops policy, procedures and responsibilities related to logistics engineering
processes for the Department of Defense. Mr. Thompson has more than thirty years of commercial and government
logistics and engineering experience. He has an MS in aerospace engineering and a BS in civil engineering, has
acquired certification from the Society of Logistics Engineers as a Certified Professional Logistician (CPL), and holds
an FAA Commercial Pilot rating.
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4
79