Impacts of the Fleet Response Plan on Surface Combatant Maintenance

Roland J. Yardley, Raj Raman, Jessie Riposo, James Chiesa, John F. Schank

ResearchPublished May 17, 2006

To achieve a more responsive and more readily deployable fleet of surface combatants, the Navy adopted the Fleet Response Plan (FRP) in 2003 to replace its traditional ship maintenance and readiness cycle. The goal of the FRP is to have non-deployed ships achieve a high level of readiness earlier and to maintain high readiness longer so that they can deploy on short notice. However, a challenge of implementing the FRP is establishing the processes and procedures, as well as a ready industrial base, to facilitate maintenance planning and execution to meet the now unpredictable FRP surge requirements and maintenance demands. By concentrating specifically on the DDG-51 class of destroyers, the authors of this report look at the effects the FRP has had thus far and determine whether maintenance resources are meeting maintenance demands and whether related industry resources have been coordinated effectively. Overall, the authors determine that the initiative appears to have promising effects but that more time will be needed to assess maintenance supply and demand apart from the increase of funding tied to military operations post–September 11, 2001.

Topics

Document Details

  • Copyright: RAND Corporation
  • Availability: Web Only
  • Year: 2006
  • Pages: 62
  • Document Number: TR-358-NAVY

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Yardley, Roland J., Raj Raman, Jessie Riposo, James Chiesa, and John F. Schank, Impacts of the Fleet Response Plan on Surface Combatant Maintenance. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2006. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR358.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

The research described in this report was prepared for the United States Navy. The research was conducted in the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Department of the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community.

This publication is part of the RAND technical report series. RAND technical reports, products of RAND from 2003 to 2011, presented research findings on a topic limited in scope or intended for a narrow audience; discussions of the methodology employed in research; literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; and preliminary findings. All RAND technical reports were subject to rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.