________________________________ Page 1 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Volume 7, Number 1 Spring 2011 Top Story

DoD Assesses Corrosion Potential on F-35 and F-22

GAO Audits Resulting Corrosion Study for Congress

By Cynthia Greenwood

The DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, under Director Daniel J. Dunmire, submitted a full corrosion-related assessment of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to Congress. As part of its study, the DoD Corrosion Office also analyzed a host of corrosion-related findings on the F-22A Raptor aircraft and the implications of those findings for the F-35 (also known as the F-35 Lightning II). Congress directed the Defense Department to perform the study as part of the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act.

On December 16, 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a performance audit of the DoD’s F-35 corrosion study to the chairman and ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees and the House and Senate Defense Appropriations subcommittees. (Click here for the full GAO report—Defense Management: DoD Needs to Monitor and Assess Corrective Actions Resulting from Its Corrosion Study of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.)

To carry out the evaluation, Dunmire assembled a team of experts from government and industry that was approved by the Honorable Ashton B. Carter, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. Dunmire chose the team based on required areas of technical expertise and professional independence from the F-35 and F-22 program offices to avoid conflicts of interest. “To conduct the analysis, my team visited the F-35 and F-22 program offices, manufacturing and operating sites, service laboratories, and any other locations needed to collect the data required for our report,” said Dunmire. In its report summary, GAO concluded: “The corrosion study was generally consistent with research standards that define a sound and complete study with regard to design, execution, and presentation.” GAO also noted that the corrosion study’s lack of formal

recommendations, omitted by the Corrosion Office evaluation team to avoid delays in releasing their results, may make it “difficult for DoD and Congress to monitor and assess corrective actions…”

Dunmire commented on the evaluation process and results that were set forth in the publicly released GAO performance audit.

Here is some background to place the Corrosion Office evaluation in context. A few months after the F-22 was first fielded at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, in 2005, users found corrosion on the aluminum skin panels. During the following year, more than 200 corrosion findings were documented at 18 locations on the aircraft. Dunmire explained these findings: “The root cause of this problem lay within the galvanic couple between the conductive gap filler and aluminum skin panels. By October of 2007,” Dunmire said, “a total of 534 corrosion findings were documented on the F-22, and substructure

Issues Common to the F-22 and F-35

Evaluation Results—F-22A Raptor

Evaluation Results—F-35 Lightning II

Conclusions

Evaluation Team Focus Areas

AF-1 (rear) and AF-2, two F-35A Lightning II joint strike fighters, complete a test flight on May 11, 2010, from the Lockheed plant in Fort Worth, Texas. The crew prepared for a nonstop flight to Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., on May 17, as part of extended flight test operations. Photo by David Drais.

________________________________ Page 2 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

corrosion occurrences were becoming prevalent.” Realizing that this rate of corrosion damage could not continue indefinitely, the F-22 program office began developing, testing, and installing new materials and fixes on both fielded aircraft and aircraft in production.

Dunmire noted that the F-22 Raptor’s corrosion problems could have been anticipated. “For example, according to Military Standard 889, the galvanic dissimilarity of the materials used on the F-22 is at a high enough level to indicate extreme risk for corrosion. Fortunately, the F-35 program office benefited from the Air Force and Navy’s awareness of this and other problems on the F-22. The F-35 program office adopted more stringent corrosion testing and pushed for a more maintainable design.” He added that while the F-35 program has benefited from a greater awareness of corrosion issues, the program still faces problems involving the lack of material compatibility and competing design criteria, which require ongoing attention.

Issues Common to the F-22 and F-35

The evaluation team found two fundamental causes of corrosion issues that are common to both the F-22 and F-35 aircraft, Dunmire said. First, on neither aircraft is “corrosion resistance” defined as a requirement for the user, in spite of the fact that users operate and maintain both systems in severely corrosive desert and saltwater environments. Second, presently there are no tests for corrosion on either aircraft at the operational level. “Even though system specifications call for a design service life of 20 years for the F-22 and 30 years for the F-35, we have no method for verifying that tests on aircraft components will translate into these respective service lives,” he said. According to the GAO report, “No operational-level test for corrosion was conducted on the F-22 prior to initial operating capability, and none are currently planned for the F-35.”

Both programs followed a performance-based acquisition approach during the contracting process. “The fact that both of these aircraft were designed and produced in a performance-based acquisition environment complicates any effort to prolong their life cycles,” Dunmire said. “In general, the current environment is a disincentive for contractors to meet performance baselines and write requirements that are well-defined. Also, neither program has a requirement that instills attention to life-cycle cost consideration such as corrosion mitigation. In this type of environment, the government assumes the risks and costs of failure, and has done so with both of these programs.”

In reviewing the consequences of the use of performance-based acquisition by the F-22 and F-35 program offices, the GAO report noted: “. . . neither aircraft had a corrosion prevention user requirement that would drive CPC [corrosion prevention and control] as a design requirement.” In addition, the expression “corrosion resistance” within system specifications for the F-22 and F-35 program offices is “a poorly defined and nonspecific term that is difficult to ensure incorporation into aircraft components and to verify,” the report states.

Only five years after the F-22 went into service, the government is paying multi-millions of dollars for repairs and retrofits related to corrosion, Dunmire said. “Our review team was concerned that life-cycle costs should be considered in design trades on either program. The government must have the authority to make decisions about corrosion performance, or there is risk that corrosion will affect life-cycle sustainment costs and readiness.”

As an example of this lack of accountability, Dunmire cited the instance in which a sub-tier supplier for the F-22 changed the configuration of a flight-critical avionics system mistakenly believed to be below the purview of government review. The F-22 program office was unaware that the supplier had made the change. “This situation resulted in increased field maintenance of the aircraft, putting it out of service, which drove up costs and reduced availability,” Dunmire said.

“Also, climatic testing was severely reduced for the F-22, reducing the ability to identify corrosion issues early in the program for the aircraft user,” Dunmire said. “These tests, if used correctly, can be critical ways in which DoD finds areas on the aircraft that are susceptible to corrosion,” Dunmire said.

An F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) test aircraft banks over the flight line at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, on April 23, 2010, sending contrails streaming off the wings. The aircraft is the first F-35 to visit the base, which is the future home of the JSF training facility. Photo by Senior Airman Julianne Showalter, U.S. Air Force.

________________________________ Page 3 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

“The corrosion study concluded that if the F-22 program had accomplished testing earlier in the program, many of the corrosion problems could have been addressed at greatly reduced cost, and the associated readiness issues [could have been] avoided,” stated the GAO report.

Evaluation Results—F-22A Raptor

Dick Kinzie, DoD Corrosion Office Senior Analyst, discussed other findings during the team’s corrosion evaluation of three cases involving the F-22A Raptor. At some point the program initiated the use of a galvanically dissimilar gap filler and paint that were used in close proximity to the aluminum structure. “This combination constitutes a well-known corrosion risk,” Kinzie said.

“The F-22 program is now aggressively implementing fixes in production and through retrofits to include the use of barrier materials and improved gap fillers,” Kinzie said. “Also, fixes to the drainage system are being investigated. Each of these continued risks is being mitigated through rigorous testing, planned aircraft inspections, and the identification of alternatives.”

The team also encountered the use of non-chromated primer, applied for environmental reasons, on the outer mold of the aircraft. “This did not provide the necessary corrosion protection,” Kinzie said. “So when Air Combat Command discovered severe corrosion problems during their operations, the program was directed to use the more corrosion-resistant hexavalent chromium to achieve the needed protection.”

As a result of the corrosion team evaluation, the F-22 program is applying a variety of fixes during production of new aircraft, as well as retrofitting old aircraft.

Evaluation Results—F-35 Lightning II

The F-35 has several technical performance metrics that are indirectly driving a more supportable and maintainable design for corrosion. “One of these, known as the sortie generation rate, is a key performance parameter for the program,” Kinzie explained. “In addition, our joint DoD requirements drove a more rigorous corrosion design for the F-35, which included more rigorous corrosion qualification tests.”

The F-35 program has adopted the many “lessons learned” related to corrosion from the F-22 program in the areas of materials, according to the GAO report’s analysis of the DoD corrosion study. The GAO report also states, “The F-35 program is mitigating corrosion risk associated with conductive gap filler—the sealant between exterior panels?and paint by using a gap filler that is less galvanically dissimilar [to] aluminum, an alternative to the conductive paint, a design with fewer seams that require gap filler, and more representative verification and qualification testing.” As Dunmire stated above, the GAO report noted, “Many of the F-22’s corrosion problems were linked to problems with gap filler materials and paint.”

Dunmire said, “The F-35 program has launched several mitigation actions to deal with the risk, including plans to conduct additional and more representative verification and qualification tests. Organizational changes that integrate personnel working with corrosion materials and processes with stealth or low-observable technology are also resulting in more integration of signature corrosion materials and processes to functional areas.”

“For example, the F-35 drainage design is significantly improved compared to that of the F-22,” Dunmire said. “Most drain holes are adequately sized and complete drain paths have been analyzed to account for and prevent fluid entrapment. It will be important during climatic testing to verify the drain paths.” The GAO report also noted: “Drain holes in the F-22 were found to be too small to enable good water drainage.”

Members of the 27th Expeditionary Aircraft Maintenance Unit completed the first accelerated packaged maintenance plan on an F-22 Raptor in a deployed environment on August 4, 2010, at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. Photo by Master Sgt. Kevin J. Gruenwald, U.S. Air Force.

________________________________ Page 4 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

“Second, the choice of primer coating on the F-35 airframe represents a significant corrosion risk,” Dunmire said. “In the judgment of the evaluation team, non-chromated primers may pose a larger corrosion risk than primers that contain chromates.” In its section on “potential future corrosion issues for the F-35,” the GAO report stated: “The F-35 has also chosen to use a non-chromated primer that has never been tested on an aircraft in a corrosive operating environment.”

And third, Dunmire said, magnesium components on the F-35 engine gearbox also present a corrosion risk. Furthermore, components that have been qualified by similarity rather than test have an increased corrosion risk. In addition, the aluminum gearbox components that are not protected with a primer and topcoat, in contrast with those traditionally used in such military systems, represent increased risk.

Conclusions

“Overall, the team found that both the F-35 and F-22 programs are currently at risk for corrosion, even though that risk is not as great for the F-35,” Dunmire said. “Much work remains to be done, but it is certainly possible for the F-35 program to identify future corrosion risks through adequate planning and mitigation methods. However, this evaluation has concluded that the fixes being used by the Air Force on the F-22 carry further risk for corrosion. It is incumbent upon the Air Force to aggressively mitigate these additional risks in order to prevent further damage.”

According to the GAO report, “the study also names a number of new weapon systems that could benefit from CPC lessons learned from both the F-22 and F-35. These systems include the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, CH-53K helicopter, Joint High Speed Vessel, Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System, and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.”

Dunmire’s office is in the process of addressing what all the services can do to manage the issues raised by the corrosion evaluation. “While we will assess our findings more in the coming weeks, our review of the F-35 and F-22 programs has pinpointed a number of areas for improvement that should be executed by all DoD weapon system program offices,” he said.

Dunmire added, “With respect to corrosion prevention, all DoD program offices, including the F-35 and F-22, need independent, credible evaluation and clear requirements that can be traced through sub-tier documents. We also need design guidelines and trade studies that are balanced, as well as verification and validation through testing that represents how the weapon system performs in service. Most important, during testing and evaluation these systems should be exposed to corrosive locations similar to the areas where the system could be deployed.”

Evaluation Team Focus Areas

To perform the evaluation, core members of Dunmire’s evaluation team were joined by contracted subject-matter experts who support the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight. There were 10 team members who evaluated existing corrosion-related requirements for both the F-35 and F-22 programs, along with issues related to corrosion verification, validation, and testing, noted Kinzie. “Our 10-member team was broken down into five areas of focus,” Kinzie explained. The focus areas included science and technology, systems engineering and program management, materials and processing, structures, and manufacturing.”

In a concluding section, noting that the corrosion study was “well-executed,” the GAO report stated: “The study team gathered and reviewed program documents; conducted site visits to program offices, service laboratories, manufacturing facilities, and major depots; and analyzed the information it obtained for contributing causes, lessons learned, and applications of best or accepted practices.”

An F-22 Raptor soars through the air on July 1, 2010, on its way home to Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii. Photo by Senior Airman Gustavo Gonzalez, U.S. Air Force.

________________________________ Page 1 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Volume 7, Number 1 Spring 2011 Top Story

NAVAIR CPT Improves Data Capture and Inspection Protocols

Wing Personnel and Commanders Alike Hold Stake in the Battle

By Cynthia Greenwood

Since the Naval Aviation Enterprise formed its 80-member Corrosion Prevention Team in 2007, it has waged a system-wide attack on corrosion. The team has acted on new strategies for battling corrosion aimed at ensuring aircrew safety, readiness for training and deployment, better aircraft service life management, and reduced ownership costs. (See Naval Aviation Enterprise Poised to Tackle Corrosion.)

For years NAVAIR has understood that corrosion does more than just drive up costs. “It degrades the readiness and availability of aircraft needed for vital missions,” said Randy Boatwright, Action Officer for NAE’s Corrosion Prevention Team.

These efforts have resulted in improved software documentation of corrosion discrepancies on each aircraft by wing personnel during routine Material Condition Inspections, and enlisting the support of top naval commanders who have made corrosion abatement a priority. The team driving these efforts consists of representatives from the Commander, Naval Air Forces (CNAF); NAVAIR; the Fleet Readiness Centers (FRCs); Fleet Service Teams; and wing personnel who provide oversight to the squadrons that operate and maintain the aircraft. (See CorrDefense Featured Interview with Captain David Randle.)

“Although corrosion has always been a thorn in our side, recent cost of corrosion studies, coupled with the efforts of the Corrosion Prevention Team and leadership, have provided increased awareness and understanding and reinvigorated the emphasis on mitigating this pervasive menace,” said Boatwright. “Leadership has a huge effect on our progress, and we have their support. Currently we are implementing key goals system-wide, and as we do so, we are transitioning the ownership of new corrosion prevention processes to the proper functional authorities.”

Corrosion Focus Area Lists Yield High Corrosion Cost Drivers

Foremost, the Corrosion Prevention Team is working to improve corrosion control prevention, detection, and treatment processes across the fleet of naval aircraft. This has involved creating an efficient process for managing the corrosion-prone areas of each aircraft. “Our new focus area lists are an integral part of our corrosion prevention

strategy,” said Captain David Randle, NAVAIR’s Military Director for Maintenance Planning and Logistics Sustainment. He and Boatwright explained that as of August 2010, CNAF has disseminated a standard list of corrosion “hot spots” or corrosion focus areas on the F/A-18 Hornet, the E-2/C-2, the H-53, and the H-60. The corrosion focus areas comprise 15 to 20 items per aircraft type, and these hot spots degrade readiness and drive up maintenance costs.

An F/A-18E Super Hornet assigned to the Argonauts of Strike Fighter Squadron 147 in the Pacific moves into position to catapult from the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan in February 2011. The Carrier Strike Group is conducting a joint task force exercise before deploying to the western Pacific Ocean. Photo by Navy Mass Communication Specialist Nicholas A. Groesch.

________________________________ Page 2 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

“In order for an area to make it on the focus area list for an aircraft such as the F/A-18, it either had to occur frequently, or it had to be a significant resource consumer,” noted Capt. Randle. “The focus area list is a great tool for highlighting where to concentrate our efforts.”

“By analyzing the resources we put into these focus areas for each type of aircraft, we have discovered that 20 percent of corrosion discrepancies are causing 80 percent of our problems on these systems,” Boatwright said.

CNAF has made the corrosion focus area lists a key part of the Material Condition Inspection performed by wing personnel within each squadron. “Also, each of the wings operating the F/A-18, E-2/C-2, H-53, and H-60 has rewritten their Material Condition Inspection instruction to include their focus area list, which more accurately targets the right corrosion-prone areas,” said Capt. Randle. Next, CNAF plans to roll out a focus area list for the EA-6B and the P-3 aircraft, he said.

New System Improves Data Quality

The Corrosion Prevention Team is also committed to improving the data upon which all aircraft maintenance plans, Fleet Readiness Center (depot) events, and Maintenance Requirement Cards are written. The team has understood that inconsistencies exist in the data it tracks, realizing as well that it needs a better way to capture and report data collected by each wing during Material Condition Inspections. The team’s new Automated Data Capture System, also known as ADCS, gives the inspector the dynamic hand-held capability to log inspection data and act on the collected information a lot more quickly and accurately than is possible using a clipboard. “The use of ACDS makes the aircraft inspector’s job a lot more efficient and accurate,” Capt. Randle said.

“We are also improving the way the data is used,” Boatwright said. “In our current system, data from depot events goes into an archive that improves our Reliability Centered Maintenance program and In-Service Engineering. That, in turn, drives corrosion repair specifications used during maintenance events.”

“In our new system, we’re looking to improve the feedback loop,” Boatwright explained. Data collected through the new system at the Fleet wings will be transmitted to the Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) engineers in near real-time to provide for a more complete analysis of the type, severity and frequency of occurrence of corrosion being found and documented on each aircraft “Depot estimators and evaluators are also training wing inspectors about precisely what they are seeing on incoming aircraft. This will allow early detection and mitigation of corrosion prior to FRC induction for scheduled maintenance events. The goal is to have a strong, two-way communication link, coupled with an integrated tool that tracks the condition of the aircraft from the fleet to the FRC, with all that data feeding into RCM.”

The automated data capture system is an integrated software application that runs on both pen tablet and desktop computers. It uses a collection of interlocked, restricted, drop-down menus to assist the inspector in recording data according to specified codes and standardized nomenclature. The hand-held system is used on-site and eliminates the likelihood of discrepant data.

As the Corrosion Prevention Team disseminates the new automated system throughout the fleet wings, it will further refine it by instituting a new set of corrosion-related malfunction and work unit codes for the corrosion focus area lists.

Updating Impractical Requirements

To standardize repair processes further, NAVAIR has begun issuing regular Aviation Maintenance Advisories to squadrons, with the express goal of stopping harmful and unnecessary requirements. For example, a now-defunct mandate for squadrons to disassemble newly reworked aircraft to verify serial numbers was ill advised because it

An MH-60S Seahawk, assigned to the Fleet Angels of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 2 in January 2010, transports supplies to the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson in the Atlantic. Photo by Navy Mass Communication Specialist Daniel Barker.

A C-2A Greyhound assigned to the Rawhides of Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 40 and an E-2C Hawkeye assigned to the Seahawks of Airborne Early Warning Squadron 126 prepare to launch from the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the Atlantic in December 2010. Photo by Navy Mass Communication Specialist Kilho Park.

________________________________ Page 3 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

subjected parts of an airframe to the corrosive salty atmosphere too early in its service life. Other advisories have also eliminated unclear and outdated hourly requirements for fixing corrosion.

The Corrosion Prevention Team is also investing energy in gathering information about whether or not squadrons are being allowed to comply with requirements for routine aircraft washes while underway. “By doing this, we can tell which fleet commanders are allowing aircraft to be washed and which ones aren’t,” Boatwright said. “This is critical if we are to affect corrosion at the source.”

Better Communication

The Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE) consists of more than 3,700 aircraft and 11 aircraft carriers used by Navy and Marine Corps personnel. Aircrews who operate the Navy’s fleet of fighter jets and helicopters conduct training missions from key bases such as Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, NAS North Island, NAS Lemoore, NAS Jacksonville, NAS Whidbey Island. Marine Corps crews operate from Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, MCAS New River, MCAS Miramar, MCAS Yuma, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, and others across the globe.

Given the vast numbers of technicians and aircrews involved in maintenance and inspection, the Navy’s Corrosion Prevention Team sees communication as key to combating corrosion fleet-wide. “If we can improve the knowledge exchange among our sailors, marines, and Fleet Service Teams, we will undoubtedly realize a marked improvement in the material condition of our aircraft throughout their service life,” Boatwright said.

“In addition, NAVAIR is committed to ensuring that senior enlisted personnel on the shop floor are more aware and knowledgeable about corrosion. In turn, these deck-plate leaders are leading the charge with sailors and marines to ensure they are doing their corrosion corrective and preventive maintenance the way it needs to be done,” Boatwright said.

A formation of F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters flies over San Diego Bay during the Centennial of Naval Aviation Parade of Flight in February 2011 at Naval Air Station North Island. Photo by Navy Mass Communication Specialist Trevor Welsh.

________________________________ Page 1 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Volume 7, Number 1 Spring 2011 Top Story

CorrDefense Featured Interview: Captain David Randle

Captain David Randle, who is based in Patuxent River, Maryland, is NAVAIR’s military director for Maintenance Planning and Logistics Sustainment. Cynthia Greenwood, CorrDefense editor at large, spoke with Capt. Randle about the latest efforts of the Naval Aviation Enterprise Corrosion Prevention Team. In the interview, Capt. Randle addressed the progress the Navy is making in its long-term goal of improving aircraft availability and readiness. He discussed the Corrosion Prevention Team’s efforts to improve data accuracy and implement the results of several Human Performance Center studies. (See NAVAIR CPT Improves Data Capture and Inspection Protocols).

CorrDefense: Over the past two years, the Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE) Corrosion Prevention Team has been working to improve the accuracy of its data and the circular feedback of that data. In your 2009 interview with CorrDefense, you mentioned that in order for NAE to tackle the problem of corrosion effectively, the team must start with the data. I understand that your new automated data capture system has been successful at Naval Air Station (NAS) Lemoore and that you’re kicking it off at Oceana NAS on January 14. What are your plans for rolling out the data system fleet-wide?

Randle: We have received approval for full funding to implement the automated data capture system at each of the remaining Fleet wings beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2012. This year we plan to implement the second phase of our pilot at NAS Oceana, as you mentioned above. We also are planning to implement the system at the H-60 West Coast wing [known as the Helicopter Sea Combat Wing Pacific] this year as well. Once we receive FY12 funding, we will roll the system out to the remaining platforms.

CorrDefense: Can you provide any statistics showing what success looks like at NAS Lemoore?

Randle: The implementation of the data capture system was successful at NAS Lemoore, but was only recently completed. The benefits will begin to show themselves over the coming months, but it’s too early to provide any statistical data relative to the success of the effort at this time.

CorrDefense: Are there any other challenges related to data capture that you’ve discovered since 2009?

Randle: Yes. We realized early on that we needed a greater level of granularity in the data in order to be able to see and understand the complete picture of how, and to what degree, corrosion is affecting our weapon systems. To that end, we have recently developed a new set of corrosion malfunction codes—known as MAL codes—that will add greater fidelity to the data. These new MAL codes enable maintainers to document the type and severity of corrosion on each corrosion discrepancy using a single set of codes. These codes will help us identify areas that require greater attention and analysis and will be used by Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) engineers to make improvements to the maintenance plan.

CorrDefense: Please highlight some major conclusions from your performance deficiency analysis on the EA-6B, F/A-18 and H-60. I recall you were initiating these studies when we last spoke in 2009.

Captain David Randle

________________________________ Page 2 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Randle: Although there were many take-aways from the Human Performance Center studies, two stand in the forefront. The first is that although we sampled aircraft that perform a variety of missions and operate in diverse environments, we found that the issues, concerns, and recommendations were relatively consistent across all platforms. Of these, training stood out as one of the top areas requiring attention. Since the completion of these studies, we have been successful in a variety of initiatives aimed at improving training across the continuum. Most notable is the Training Requirements Analysis study that we launched to look at a pilot platform involving the F/A-18 Hornet A-D series, which involved analyzing the Aviation Structural Mechanic rating to determine what training was being given, how it was being given, and how often across the training continuum. Two things came out of the study. One was an automated, repeatable process that can be used across all platforms and maintenance ratings to do similar analysis. The second was a list of findings and recommendations that can, and are, being used to improve the curriculum taught to our sailors and marines both in the schoolhouses and on the flightline. We have also recently been successful in obtaining FY13 funding to continue the analysis. We plan to analyze the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet for all maintenance specialties. This funding will also provide for curriculum development and training to the Fleet for that platform.

CorrDefense: Would you speak to some degree about the application of research on structurally amorphous metals and low-temperature colossal super saturation?

Randle: First let me say that we work together with many other research entities, including DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), ONR (Office of Naval Research), and NRL (Naval Research Lab). Amorphous solids, such as amorphous metals and bulk metallic glasses, have industrial applications to make ultra-thin films on items such as electronic semiconductors. Low-temperature colossal super-saturation already has commercial application in the making of corrosion-resistant fasteners.

CorrDefense: When we visited Oceana Naval Air Station a couple of years ago, a squadron maintenance chief discussed the common problem of inconsistent washing of aircraft during his carrier deployments. Your colleague in maintenance and logistics Randy Boatwright mentioned that NAE is attempting to monitor this more closely through reporting. How easy will it be to change a squadron’s wash procedures and what are some of the main challenges to keeping new aircraft washed in the ideal way?

Randle: Wash spots aboard ship are never easy—there are a limited number of places to wash aircraft aboard a ship, plenty of aircraft, and not much deck space. There is also a limited amount of fresh water available. When aircraft move around the flight and hangar decks, getting access to a wash spot usually takes a lower priority to moving it for a wing-spread or engine turn, and sometimes that means a squadron will have to replace a scheduled aircraft wash with just hand-wiping the aircraft. Improved reporting will enable us to precisely document just how often this occurs. Impetus to change current reality needs to come from the top, both from ship and squadron leadership, to say that washing aircraft is a priority.

CorrDefense: Randy Boatwright mentioned that one of NAE’s biggest accomplishments is the attraction of increasing support from top naval commanders such as the Commander of Naval Air Forces (CNAF), for starters. How did this come about? Also, your team has cited the cooperation of “deckplate leadership” as a success. Perhaps you can elaborate on how you went about securing this level of cooperation.

Randle: The Naval Aviation Enterprise puts a heavy focus on readiness. In 2007, when CNAF studied all the different factors that hurt flightline readiness, corrosion was consistently among the top three issues. (I think there is a word(s) missing in the next sentence but I’m not sure what.) That study drove NAE leadership to form the Corrosion Prevention Team. In addition to top-level support from the NAE, we’ve enjoyed deckplate-level success by always remembering who our customer is. The last thing we want to do is to increase the maintenance burden on our sailors and marines.

CorrDefense: Recently Steve Spadafora, the Head of NAVAIR’s Materials Engineering Division, agreed to serve as the Navy’s Corrosion Prevention and Control Executive. How might Mr. Spadafora’s materials engineering management background benefit NAE’s long-range corrosion prevention efforts?

Randle: Steve Spadafora understands that corrosion prevention starts with material selection. When choosing the materials that make up an aircraft, resistance to corrosion should rank as a significant factor along with material weight and strength. Many of those ideas are now incorporated in DoD Instruction 5000.67.

________________________________ Page 1 © 2005-2010 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Volume 7, Number 1 Spring 2011 Top Story

GAO Report on Redundancy Recognizes Efforts of Corrosion Office

By Cynthia Greenwood

Within a federal audit that cites 34 areas in which the objectives of government agencies and offices are overlapping or redundant, efforts by the DoD Corrosion Office to improve military corrosion prevention and control are being held up as means for government to save money. "Improved corrosion prevention and control practices could help [the Defense Department] avoid billions in unnecessary costs over time," noted a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report titled “Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenues.” The report found that addressing duplicative efforts on even one issue could save taxpayers billions.

The GAO report, released March 1, also summarizes 47 additional areas in which federal agencies or Congress could potentially reduce government costs or enhance revenue. GAO prepared the report after President Obama sought a review of all federal regulations in an effort to increase government efficiency.

Explaining how the government could potentially save taxpayers billions, the GAO report reviewed DoD’s assessment of the far-reaching effect of corrosion upon the federal budget and on military readiness, based on data from fiscal year 2006. While corrosion costs the Defense Department approximately $22 billion annually, one-fourth of the $80 billion spent on maintaining ships, aircraft, missiles, and vehicles is absorbed by corrosion costs, the report said. In addition, $1.9 million of the $10 billion that DoD spends to maintain 577,000 military facilities is spent on corrosion. (See section of GAO report titled “Improved Corrosion Prevention and Control Practices Could Help DoD Avoid Billions in Unnecessary Costs.”)

The report stated: “According to DoD, increased corrosion prevention and control efforts are needed to adequately address the wide-ranging and expensive effects of corrosion on equipment and infrastructure. However, DoD did not fund about one-third of acceptable corrosion projects for fiscal years 2005 through 2010.”

Acknowledging that the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office research and technology demonstration projects aimed at preventing corrosion offer taxpayers a return on investment of 50 to 1, the report outlined opportunities for corrosion-related cost savings. Specifically, the report noted: “If the corrosion prevention and control projects accepted [by the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office] from fiscal years 2005 through 2010 had been fully funded, DoD potentially could have avoided $3.6 billion in corrosion-related costs—assuming those projects achieved the same level of cost-effectiveness as was estimated for all accepted projects in those years.”

“Similarly, by under-funding all of its estimated corrosion prevention and control requirements, DoD may be missing an opportunity for additional cost avoidance totaling $1.4 billion,” the report said.

Daniel J. Dunmire, director of the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, stated that he was unaware that the Office’s initiatives would be highlighted in the GAO report. “Without the hard work of the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team comprising DoD and industry corrosion experts, the Corrosion Office would not have widened its influence to the extent that GAO has recognized in this report,” Dunmire said.

________________________________ Page 1 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Volume 7, Number 1 Spring 2011 Featured Project

Keeping the Navy’s Green Fleet from Rusting

By Ben Craig

The Department of Defense consumes more energy than any other entity in the United States. Thirty percent of that energy is used by the Navy, primarily to power ships and submarines.

As a result, the Navy has been very active in developing and implementing energy conservation efforts, energy-efficiency standards, and renewable energy technologies. Since three-quarters of the energy used by the Navy is used to power its seagoing vessels, the service has made it a priority to develop, test, and apply alternative fuels, such as biodiesel.

Jason S. Lee, a materials engineer at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), and a team of scientists at NRL recently conducted studies to assess how the use of biodiesel may affect corrosion in existing infrastructure such as pipelines, fuel tanks, storage units, and associated equipment in the absence of chlorides. The Office of Naval Research Alternative Fuels Program funded their research.

“Biodiesel is the common description of first-generation biofuel made from plant oils or animal fats,” said Lee, principal investigator of the studies. Biodiesel is produced through a process called transesterification, where the plant/animal products are reacted with an alcohol to form fatty acid methyl esters (FAME).

While traditional diesel is derived from naturally occurring petroleum deposits, it is not a renewable resource—meaning, the supply is not endless. However, renewable sources of naturally occurring oils and fatty acids (e.g., algae, coconut, rapeseed, soy, peanut, sunflower) can be used to produce fuel that is functionally similar to traditional diesel. Biodiesel can be used neat, in the version known as B100, but is often blended with traditional diesel, such as the B20 alternative, which is 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent traditional diesel.

Although the immediate economic benefits of using an alternative fuel may be obvious, the Navy must ensure that employing such an alternative fuel will have no significant negative consequences on the existing infrastructure, such as increased mechanical wear on an engine or an increased rate of corrosion in fuel containment and distribution systems.

NRL researchers discovered through their experiments that alloys used to construct structures that store and transport ship fuel may exhibit increased microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) when exposed to first-generation biodiesel compared to traditional diesel.

Sailors stand their post (top and bottom) aboard the Riverine Command Boat as it conducts test runs at Naval Station Norfolk in October 2010. The boat is powered by an alternative fuel blend of 50 percent algae-based and 50 percent NATO F-76 fuels, designed to reduce total energy consumption on naval ships. Photo by Navy Mass Communication Specialist Clifford L. H. Davis.

________________________________ Page 2 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Both traditional diesel and biodiesel are often contaminated with microorganisms such as bacteria. In addition, diesel fuel invariably contains small amounts of dissolved water. If left stagnant in a pipe or storage tank, the heavier water condenses and collects at the bottom of the structure, providing a suitable environment for microbial growth. “Previous studies involving traditional petroleum-based fuels have highlighted the occurrence of accelerated corrosion at or below the fuel/water interface. The blending of biodiesel with traditional diesel (B20) resulted in the first known demonstration of localized corrosion of aluminum in the fuel layer itself,” said Lee. Since water is more soluble in biodiesel, NRL researchers suggest that biodiesel will be more susceptible to biofouling and MIC. It should be noted that while localized corrosion (pitting) was observed in aluminum, stainless steel exhibited passive behavior in all exposures.

Combining Two Already Severe Environments Leads to Microscopic Challenges

Many naval vessels use compensated fuel ballast systems. These systems help maintain the vessel’s stability by replacing consumed fuel with seawater. Although this method helps maintain the vessel’s ballast, it exposes the fuel tank to marine microorganisms and chlorides, leading to accelerated corrosion and fuel degradation.

MIC has been a challenge for sea-based petroleum operations for years and is said to cause millions of dollars in damage to equipment and infrastructure that support the exploration, production, transportation, and storage of oil.

The combination of fuel and seawater results in an ideal environment for microbiological activity, which has been shown to frequently lead to corrosion of certain structures. Biodiesel has been shown to be especially susceptible to degradation by certain microbial species and may accelerate MIC.

Though MIC associated with conventional petroleum-seawater environments has been investigated, the NRL researchers’ investigation of corrosion in biodiesel-seawater environments is novel. “The addition of marine microorganisms and chloride to alternative fuels changes both the biofouling and electrochemical characteristics of the fuels,” Lee explained.

So what do these results mean? These laboratory results may indicate the effect of first-generation biofuel in Navy applications. Lee and his NRL team are already engaged in continuing the work to make sure the Navy remains at the forefront of efforts to apply renewable energy sources while mitigating potential corrosion problems.

“The Navy is also examining newer alternative fuels such as hydro-refined biofuels and algae-produced biofuels for use in Navy systems,” said Lee. At present, Lee plans to take a closer look at the impact of adding seawater to alternative fuels and investigate more state-of-the-art biofuels.

The Navy is looking at the possibility of using biofuels for powering its sea-going vessels. To do this, they must ensure that the future green fleet will not be subjected to more corrosive conditions when renewable fuels are used.

Carbon steel (UNS C10200) after 60 days’ exposure to natural seawater with biodiesel addition illustrating biofilm formation at magnifications of a) 250X, b) 4000X, and c) localized corrosion after acid cleaning. Photos courtesy of the Naval Research Laboratory.

________________________________ Page 1 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Volume 7, Number 1 Spring 2011 Featured Project

Electro-Osmotic Pulse to Reverse Concrete Corrosion at Kentucky Army Air Field

Fort Campbell Parking Ramps Affected by Alkali Silica Reaction

By Dana Finney

The Army Corps of Engineers’ Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) is investigating yet another use for electro-osmotic pulse (EOP) technology. The current initiative aims to stop the slow deterioration of concrete caused by an alkali silica reaction (ASR) in the transient parking ramp concrete at Fort Campbell, Kentucky Army Airfield. The ongoing project is being funded under the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control Program managed by the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office. (See Army Innovation to Halt Water Seepage at Historic Hirohito Bunker.)

The affected parking ramp sections at Campbell Army Air Field were built in the early 1940s, and the ASR was discovered five to 10 years later. The parking ramp is composed of 20-foot by 20-foot concrete slabs that are 17 inches thick. “At Ft. Campbell, the ASR-induced expansion of the concrete causes the slabs to grow and move adjacent slabs, which becomes a major issue,” said Orange Marshall, senior research project manager at ERDC’s Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL). The concrete expansion quickly closes expansion joints in the pavement, and the compressive forces begin to crush adjacent concrete surfaces or move

entire slab sections. “This particular expansion moved the fire house off of its foundation a few years ago,” said Marshall.

Marshall explained that the alkali-silica reaction (ASR) is a form of concrete corrosion that slowly deteriorates concrete from the inside by forming highly expansive gels that cause the concrete to expand or swell. It is a chemical process in which alkalis, mostly from the Portland cement and pozzolans used in the concrete mix, react with certain types of silica, such as chert, quartzite, opal, and strained quartz crystals, within the aggregate when moisture from the soil, snow, and rain infiltrates the concrete.

“This reaction produces an alkali-silica gel that expands, generally causing cracking, heaving, and pop-outs of the concrete,” he said. As a retrofit solution, CERL is demonstrating and evaluating a design for installing EOP technology into the pavement that will seek to stop the ASR by transporting moisture away from the concrete’s interior.

The EOP system was installed in two sections near the edge of the parking ramp. One section is 60 feet wide and 95 feet long and the other, 80 feet wide and 95 feet long.

Pictured is an overview of alkali silica reaction damage common to colliding slabs, which took place at Fort Campbell, Kentucky Army Airfield. Photo courtesy of the Army’s Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL).

One slab tore another after the cumulative effects of alkali silica reaction at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Photo courtesy of ERDC-CERL.

________________________________ Page 2 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

According to the test design, Electro Tech Cathodic Protection installed anodes at half the thickness of the pavement to be treated, and they placed cathodes in the soil below and around the pavement as well as near the top surface.

“To be successful, this configuration will need to reduce the moisture content of the cross-section of concrete to less than 70 percent relative moisture,” Marshall explained.

The EOP system installation was completed in December 2009 and activated in March 2010. Marshall noted: “We are collecting internal concrete moisture and temperature data at two-inch, five-inch, and eight-inch depths at 32 locations. We are also collecting data related to the slab expansion and movement at 21 locations both in and adjacent to the treated sections.”

“We plan to monitor the system’s performance through March 2012,” Marshall said. “The next step is to gather the data from one year of operation and analyze it to determine the system’s effectiveness at achieving the 70 percent internal moisture level, while also determining the slab expansion and movement. These conclusions will be included in a CERL technical report.”

Cynthia Greenwood contributed to this report.

Buckling occurred at Fort Campbell after one slab compressed against another. Photo courtesy of ERDC-CERL.

________________________________ Page 1 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Volume 7, Number 1 Spring 2011 Featured Project

New Edition of the DoD Corrosion Handbook Coming Soon

By Ben Craig

The Advanced Materials, Manufacturing, and Testing Information Analysis Center (AMMTIAC), a DoD Center of Excellence, is planning to release a third edition of its corrosion handbook: Corrosion Prevention and Control: A Program Management Guide for Selecting Materials. Referred to as Spiral 3, the new edition includes an important chapter on nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methods for detecting and measuring corrosion. (See Corrosion Handbook Helps Program Managers Oversee Materials Selection.)

As DoD assets, such as vehicles, aircraft, ships, and infrastructure, age, there is a greater need for more reliable, more effective, and less time-consuming methods to inspect these assets for corrosion. While many of the NDE techniques, methods, and technologies have been available for several decades, there has been significant progress in the development of NDE for detecting and characterizing corrosion in the last several years. The new edition of the corrosion handbook will offer a synopsis of some of the recent advances in this important area of detecting and monitoring corrosion through nondestructive methods.

To introduce the concept of NDE for corrosion, the new chapter first presents a comparison to nondestructive methods used to detect and characterize conventional or non-corrosion related defects and damage. It then describes the importance of categorizing corrosion damage in one of three classes: localized corrosion, environmental cracking, and property degradation in the absence of crack or pit formation. The chapter subsequently introduces the concept of hidden corrosion, which is corrosion that is not easily detected by any existing surface inspection technique.

The main portion of the new chapter provides some technical detail on the various inspection techniques and their ability to evaluate corrosion; it also includes recent advancements and corrosion applications for these techniques. The chapter covers all of the common NDE evaluation methods and their relevance to corrosion detection, including visual, enhanced optical, magnetic, eddy current, ultrasonic, acoustic emission, thermography, radiography, microwave, and terahertz NDE methods.

Implementing NDE methodologies for assessing corrosion is not as simple as selecting the method. It also involves determining the frequency and required accuracy or tolerance for detecting corrosion damage. The chapter on NDE methods offers information to assist with the selection of a NDE method for corrosion detection and characterization. Some key advantages and disadvantages of each evaluation method, as well as the primary types of defects and damage from corrosion, are concisely summarized for quick reference. It also addresses the reliability of inspection techniques, including probability of detection as it pertains to inspection for corrosion. This is an important factor, especially as NDE methods are applied to critical structures such as aircraft.

The chapter concludes by providing a summary of NDE of corrosion advancements for particular fields and industries, as well as a brief prognosis for this facet of NDE.

________________________________ Page 2 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

This new edition of the corrosion handbook succeeds the version that was published in September 2006, and the original edition published in July 2005. Spiral 3 is in the stages of final review and when it is approved, a digital copy will be made available to the public through the AMMTIAC and CorrDefense Web sites.

________________________________ Page 1 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Volume 7, Number 1 Spring 2011 Featured Project

Corrosion Handbook Helps Program Managers Oversee Materials Selection

By Gretchen Jacobson

The corrosion handbook, Corrosion Prevention and Control: A Program Management Guide for Selecting Materials (2nd ed.), is intended as a guide to provide acquisition personnel with the fundamental background they need to understand the cause, effect, and ramifications of corrosion. Its intent is not to train engineers in corrosion but to provide enough technical background so that those in a program management role will have enough knowledge to oversee the materials selection process and ensure that corrosion-tolerant structures, systems, and equipment are delivered to the end user.

Nine detailed chapters discuss such topics as reducing acquisition risk by designing in corrosion resistance, selecting materials for improved corrosion resistance, and how environments affect corrosion processes. There are extensive sections on the various forms of corrosion, properties of metals, and corrosion control methods, monitoring, and inspection technologies.

A chapter specific to the DoD provides numerous examples of field experience with the corrosion of military assets, including aircraft, ships and submarines, ground vehicles, and structures. For each type of asset, the chapter describes typical corrosion environments, major components susceptible to corrosion, forms of corrosion observed, types of metals used, corrosion prevention and control methods and maintenance, and corrosion monitoring.

The handbook features numerous photographs, figures, and tables to illustrate corrosion concepts and control methods. A comprehensive glossary lists definitions of many technical terms used in the industry.

The third edition of the Corrosion Prevention and Control: A Program Management Guide for Selecting Materials will be available soon to the public.

Editor’s Note: The above article was excerpted from the Fall 2007 Issue of CorrDefense.

________________________________ Page 1 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Volume 7, Number 1 Spring 2011 Inside DoD

DoD Conference Stresses Corrosion Education’s Role in Policymaking

Military Corrosion Experts Gather at Historic Palm Springs Resort in Summer 2011

By Cynthia Greenwood

The 2011 DoD Corrosion Conference will highlight the importance of corrosion training and education for officials and technicians at all levels of government and military policy-making. From July 31 through August 5, 2011, experts from the military services and related industries will convene at the La Quinta Club and Resort, a historic Waldorf Astoria Collection hotel in Palm Springs, California.

“Since 1967 the DoD Corrosion Conference has emphasized featured speakers presiding over panel discussions, as well as authors of technical papers from an array of corrosion technology areas,” said Daniel J. Dunmire, director of the DoD’s Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office and the conference chairman. “The conference also features exhibitors from DoD and industry who are interested in DoD’s requirements for the production and maintenance of military equipment and infrastructure.”

Dunmire said, “We have learned from our recent evaluation of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft that military corrosion experts need to be advising our DoD weapons systems program managers, as well as our DoD facility managers. Corrosion impacts the Department negatively to the tune of $22.5 billion annually. Tackling this problem requires people who understand corrosion at all levels.”

Dunmire added, “My hope is that our 2011 DoD Corrosion Conference attendees will gain a clear understanding of how corrosion education impacts corrosion prevention and mitigation, asset preservation, materials degradation, and the logistics footprint of the war fighter.” The meeting’s policy track features luncheon panels on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, while the Wednesday evening program features an invited keynote speaker after an afternoon of technical sessions.

Featured Speakers and Panel Discussions

LeVar Burton, the actor, director, and author, has been invited to deliver the keynote speech at the Wednesday night banquet on August 3. Burton has supported the DoD Corrosion Prevention Integrated Product Team (CPC IPT) on three educational videos produced by Bruno White Entertainment. The first, “Corrosion Comprehension:

Combating the Pervasive Menace,” was released in 2009. Burton’s fourth DoD video, “Corrosion Comprehension: Portraying Polymers,” was released on October 13, 2010.

Preview of 2013 DoD Corrosion Conference: “Corrosion Challenges in the Pacific Rim” Sept. 22-27, 2013, at the Sheraton Waikiki

Hotel in Honolulu, Hawaii

Click here for dates of future conferences

________________________________ Page 2 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

“LeVar Burton will be in Palm Springs next summer to complete a new video on DoD operations in corrosion environments, so he has agreed to be our keynote speaker,” Dunmire said. (See LeVar Burton Stars in New DoD Training Video.)

Four panelists will participate in the Corrosion Education and Training panel on Monday, August 1. They include Luis Proenza, president of the University of Akron; Neil Thompson, a consultant for DNV Columbus and founder of CC Technologies, who serves as president of the NACE Foundation; Oliver Moghissi, director of DNV’s Materials and Corrosion Technology Center and NACE International vice president; and Bill Shoup, executive director of SSPC—The Society for Protective Coatings.

Officials from Curtin University (Perth, Australia), Aalen University (Aalen, Germany), and Manchester University (Manchester, United Kingdom) have been invited to discuss their institutions’ programs in corrosion education and training during a luncheon panel on Tuesday, August 2.

On Thursday, August 4, three panelists have been invited to speak on a panel titled “Corrosion Education and Technology Challenges.” They include Roger W. Staehle, the corrosion scientist and an adjunct professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at the University of Minnesota; Ric Sylvester, vice president of AIA (Aerospace Industries Association) and a former DoD policymaker; and Shannon E. Cunniff, director of Chemical and Risk Management in the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment.

The U.S. Army will serve as the technical lead for the conference, while NACE International, The Corrosion Society, serves as the conference organizer. The conference will also feature at least 20 technical sessions that cover topics related to corrosion and facilities management; corrosion modeling, fundamentals, detection, and sensors; and life cycle management. Other session topics include paints and coatings and their application processes, corrosion inhibitors, surface preparation, inorganic and metallic coatings, and corrosion-resistant metallic alloys.

Thursday night will feature an appreciation reception for all conference presenters, session co-chairs, support staff, and members of the DoD CPC IPT who helped organize the conference. “NACE International is planning the appreciation reception on Thursday night to thank everyone who will have worked so hard for the entire conference week,” Dunmire said. “We’re trying to arrange for reasonable live entertainment, food, and beverages. Invitees don’t want to miss this one.”

The 2015 DoD Corrosion Conference will take place in

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Subsequent conferences will be held in Baltimore, Maryland, in

2017 and Cleveland, Ohio, in 2019.

________________________________ Page 1 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Volume 7, Number 1 Spring 2011 Inside DoD

Meet the Experts in DoD’s Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office

By Cynthia Greenwood

The DoD Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight has grown into a team of four full-time government staffers, a contract executive assistant, and six senior consultants. While the Pentagon offices undergo renovation, the expanded team, based in Crystal City, Virginia, runs the day-to-day operations of the DoD Corrosion Office under Director Daniel J. Dunmire. Dunmire serves as a Principal Staff Assistant in corrosion matters to the Honorable Ashton B. Carter, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

“Those of us who are employed by the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office receive huge, ongoing support from the DoD Corrosion Integrated Product Team, the military department Corrosion Prevention and Control executives, and the acquisition and maintenance workforce, which includes research specialists and technical experts in corrosion from the Pentagon, all military services, the Coast Guard, NASA, and industry,” Dunmire said.

Rich Hays | Jody Tran-Le | Major John Woodruff | Donna Paulson | Larry Lee Richard Kinzie | George Keller | Michael Carpenter | David Robertson | Greg Redick

Rich Hays, Deputy Director E-mail: richard.hays@osd.mil Telephone: 703-607-4065

Duties: Rich Hays conducts technical evaluations of acquisition programs as the Defense Acquisition Board/Office of the Integrated Product Team leader. He also provides technical oversight for the University Corrosion Collaboration, serves as the Office’s representative on the Corrosion Board of Directors, which includes Dunmire, Corrosion Office director, and corrosion executives from the Army, Navy, and Air Force. He also provides technical oversight on corrosion projects funded by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, serves as the Outreach and Communications committee chair for the DoD’s corrosion prevention forum, and implements corrosion policy.

________________________________ Page 2 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Jody Tran-Le, Financial and Budget Analyst E-mail: jody.tran-le@osd.mil Telephone: 703-607-4064

Duties: Jody Tran-Le provides expert advice about all phases of the budgeting process, including formulation, preparation, and execution. She serves as an advisor to the Corrosion Office director with responsibility for working with organizations to define, implement, and report about financial/budget project and operational metrics. She also serves as an advisor on financial and budgetary issues that are submitted to Congress as part of the annual agency-wide budget.

Major John Woodruff, Military Chief for Contract and Program Management E-mail: john.woodruff@osd.mil Telephone: 703-601-5003

Duties: Maj. John Woodruff manages programs for the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, and his responsibilities in this area include developing Corrosion Office acquisition support strategies and administering all contracts related to the Office. He also performs all military assistant duties on behalf of the Corrosion Office director.

Donna Paulson, Executive Assistant E-mail: donna.paulson.ctr@osd.mil Telephone: 703-607-4046

Duties: Donna Paulson, the executive assistant to the director of the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, is a facilitator in charge of the director’s schedule, oversight for Congressional tasks, and coordination for DoD Corrosion Forums.

Larry Lee, Chief of Staff E-mail: lleeva@gmail.com Telephone: 571-265-5786

Duties: Larry Lee serves as the Chief of Staff to the director of the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight. He oversees key projects and activities for the Corrosion Office, arranging and assisting in-process reviews and site visits.

________________________________ Page 3 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Richard Kinzie, Chief Technical Engineer/Consultant E-mail: richard.kinzie@gmail.com Telephone: 571-265-3137

Duties: Richard Kinzie provides technical and engineering support to the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight.

George Keller, Senior Consultant E-mail: gkeller@lmi.org; geo.keller@verizon.net Telephone: 703-551-0097; Cell: 703-403-5484

Duties: George Keller develops and maintains the strategic plan and associated action plans, while also developing and producing corrosion speeches, briefings, video scripts, and abstracts. He acts as advisor to the project evaluation panel, performs data envelopment analysis of submitted projects, reviews return on investment computations for funded projects, assists submitting agencies in developing project plans, maintains the project selection database, assists in the development of budget requirements and reports, and provides data, statistics, and audit responses to the Government Accountability Office.

Michael Carpenter, Program Management Lead E-mail: michael.carpenter@achievia-solutions.com Telephone: 937-901-2799

Duties: Michael Carpenter fulfills a variety of policy and program management responsibilities and reviews weapon systems programs at milestone reviews. He also supports the development of corrosion prevention policy and oversight.

David Robertson, LMI Program Manager E-mail: drobertson@lmi.org Telephone: 703-917-7177

Duties: David Robertson manages all LMI consulting activities supporting the DoD corrosion program. He develops congressionally required reports, serves as technical manager for the University Corrosion Collaboration, assists in developing policy, program and budget requirements, and provides technical assistance on structural and reliability impacts, internal program status reporting, and the DoD Corrosion Forums.

________________________________ Page 4 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Greg Redick, Consigliore E-mail: greg@potomacredan.com Telephone: 703-472-1212

Duties: Greg Redick oversees training and certification efforts for the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, identifying the current base of training and what new training is needed to effect greater cultural change across DoD. He develops continuous learning modules in the Corrosion 200 series and serves as the Office’s liaison with the Naval Service Warfare Center Corona and Corrosion Independent Assessment Center Corona (CIACC). He also supports the Corrosion Office by addressing all manner of acquisition, contracting, and business-related issues.

________________________________ Page 1 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Volume 7, Number 1 Spring 2011 Inside DoD

NAVAIR’s Head Materials Engineer Named as Navy Corrosion Executive

By Cynthia Greenwood

The Honorable Sean J. Stackley, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, has named Stephen J. Spadafora, NAVAIR’s head of Materials Engineering, as the Department of the Navy’s Corrosion Prevention and Control Executive. Spadafora assumed this two-year post, replacing E. Dail Thomas when Thomas’ two-year term ended on January 21, 2011.

Since the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2009, officials in the Army, Navy, and Air Force have appointed their own executives to ensure that Department of Corrosion Prevention and Control policy and management reflect the goals of the DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office under the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

As the Navy's Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive, Spadafora will serve as the principal point of contact responsible for coordinating department-level corrosion control and prevention program activities with Daniel J. Dunmire, Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight, program executive officers, and relevant major subordinate commands.

Beginning January 21, 2011, and running through January 2013, Spadafora will serve as the Corrosion Executive within Stackley’s Chief Systems Engineer’s Office under Ricardo Cabrera. Initially, Spadafora’s position as NAVAIR’s Materials Engineering Head at Patuxent River will be performed by Kevin Kovaleski.

Corrosion significantly affects the Department of the Navy’s budget, costing more than $7 billion annually. Specifically, Navy and Marine Corps Aviation spends approximately $3 billion annually on corrosion costs, according to a June 2008 study by LMI Government Consulting authorized by the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team. In addition, LMI’s January 2010 study of annual corrosion costs for Navy Ships estimates NAVSEA’s yearly corrosion costs to be $3.2 billion.

________________________________ Page 1 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Volume 7, Number 1 Spring 2011 Inside DoD

DoD Corrosion Community Releases Four Videos

NAVAIR VODcast Spotlights Corrosion Prevention Team

By Cynthia Greenwood

Recently the DoD Corrosion Prevention Integrated Product Team (CPC IPT) produced and released three videos designed to help the DoD community understand important processes used by DoD and industry to mitigate corrosion more efficiently. In addition, NAVAIR (Naval Air Systems Command) released a VODcast in January 2011 highlighting the recent progress of its Corrosion Prevention Team.

All four videos are housed on the CorrDefense Web site home page under Corrosion Videos and Podcasts. Here are the latest titles in the CorrDefense video library:

Intro to Specifications, Standards, and Qualification Process: The director of the DoD CPC IPT and two military corrosion experts explain the latest method available to suppliers for corrosion mitigation products. The online tool allows industry suppliers to introduce corrosion prevention products to the military in a rapid, standardized fashion.

Corrosion Comprehension: Portraying Polymers: This video, hosted by LeVar Burton and several polymer experts, introduces the types and uses of polymers as effective deterrents against corrosion. Burton traces the science of polymers—their chemical and mechanical properties—and discusses the particular anti-corrosion characteristics of polymer coatings and materials.

The CPAT Workshop: This podcast discusses specific DoD instructions mandating the corrosion prevention of military assets and the recent emphasis on corrosion prevention in DoD acquisition strategies. DoD corrosion experts outline key strategies that weapon systems program managers need to know in order to set up an effective corrosion prevention program using a corrosion prevention action team (CPAT) and contractors who can focus on technical and design considerations.

Naval Aviation Enterprise Corrosion Prevention Team: In this video, Capt. David Randle of NAVAIR’s Logistics and Maintenance Planning division discusses the profound impact of corrosion on Navy aircraft availability and readiness, and what NAVAIR is doing to reduce the cost of corrosion. He reviews the Navy’s successful efforts to fight corrosion through the capturing of better data, enhanced performance deficiency studies and analysis of training requirements, and materials research and innovation.

________________________________ Page 1 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Volume 7, Number 1 Spring and Summer 2011 Conferences

MARCH

2011 IEEE Aerospace Conference March 5-12, 2011 Big Sky, MT http://www.aeroconf.org/

SPIE: Smart Structures/NDE 2011 March 6-10, 2011 San Diego, California http://spie.org/smart-structures-nde.xml

RadTech UV (Ultraviolet) and EB (Electron Beam) Technology Expo & Conference 2011 March 8-9, 2011 Santa Clara, California http://www.uvebwest.com/

NACE International—CORROSION 2011 March 13-17, 2011 Houston, TX http://www.nacecorrosion.org

2011 Coatings Tech Conference (American Coatings Association) March 14-16, 2011 Rosemont, Illinois http://www.paint.org/meetings/coatings_tech.cfm

ShipTech 2011 March 15-16, 2011 Biloxi, Mississippi http://www.ncemt.ctc.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.details&eventID=69

IEEE SoutheastCon 2011 March 17-20, 2011 Nashville, Tennessee http://www.regonline.com/Register/Checkin.aspx?EventID=933471

________________________________ Page 2 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

GOMACTech 2011 Government Microcircuit Applications & Critical Technology Conference March 21-24, 2011 Orlando, FL http://www.gomactech.net/

National Defense Industrial Association March 28-31, 2011 Miami, FL http://www.ndia.org/meetings/1730/Pages/default.aspx

APRIL

Navy League Sea-Air-Space Expo SAS 2011 April 11-13, 2011 National Harbor, Maryland http://www.seaairspace.org/

Annual Science & Engineering Technology Conference/DoD Tech Exposition April 12-14, 2011 Charleston, South Carolina http://www.ndia.org/meetings/1720/Pages/default.aspx

Marine South Marine Military Expo April 27-28, 2011 Camp Lejeune, North Carolina http://www.marinemilitaryexpos.com/marine_south/show/about-the-show

MAY

GSA Expo 2011—U.S. General Services Administration May 10-12, 2011 San Diego, California http://expo.gsa.gov/index

Aircraft Air Worthiness and Sustainment 2011 May 18-21, 2011 San Diego, California http://www.airworthiness2011.com/

Society for the Advancement of Material and Process Engineering (SAMPE 2011) May 23-26, 2011 Long Beach, California http://www.sampe.org/events/2011LongBeachCA.aspx

________________________________ Page 3 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Joint Engineer Training Conference (JETC) & Expo 2011—Society of American Military Engineers (SAME) May 24-27, 2011 Grapevine, Texas http://posts.same.org/jetc/

Air Force Corrosion Program Conference Date to be announced (May–June 2011 time frame) Macon, Georgia http://afcpo.com/

JUNE

Mega Rust 2011—Navy Corrosion Conference June 6-9, 2011 Norfolk, Virginia http://www.nstcenter.com/CurrentMegaRust.aspx

NASF SUR/FIN 2011 (National Association for Surface Finishing) June 13-15, 2011 Rosemont, Illinois http://nasfsurfin.com/

NSTI NanoTech Conference & Expo 2011 June 13-16, 2011 Boston, Massachusetts http://www.techconnectworld.com/Nanotech2011/

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Infrastructure Systems Conference June 13-17, 2011 Atlanta, Georgia http://www.usace-isc.org/home.asp

INCOSE International Symposium June 20-23, 2011 Denver, Colorado http://www.incose.org/symp2011/

2011 National Space & Missile Materials Symposium (NSMMS) June 27-30, 2011 Madison, Wisconsin http://www.usasymposium.com/nsmms/default.htm

________________________________ Page 4 © 2005-2011 CorrDefense Online Magazine

JULY

DoD Corrosion Conference July 31-August 5, 2011 Palm Springs, California http://events.nace.org/conferences/dod2011/callforpapers.asp

AUGUST

Military Vehicles Exhibition & Conference August 10-12, 2011 Detroit, Michigan http://www.militaryvehiclesexpo.com/Event.aspx?id=431724

DMSMS & Standardization Conference 2011 (Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages) August 29-September 1, 2011 Hollywood, Florida http://www.dmsms2011.com/index.html