corrosion control manual navy
LINK 1 ENTER SITE >>> Download PDF
LINK 2 ENTER SITE >>> Download PDF
File Name:corrosion control manual navy.pdf
Size: 1812 KB
Type: PDF, ePub, eBook
Category: Book
Uploaded: 2 May 2019, 17:29 PM
Rating: 4.6/5 from 731 votes.
Status: AVAILABLE
Last checked: 4 Minutes ago!
In order to read or download corrosion control manual navy ebook, you need to create a FREE account.
eBook includes PDF, ePub and Kindle version
✔ Register a free 1 month Trial Account.
✔ Download as many books as you like (Personal use)
✔ Cancel the membership at any time if not satisfied.
✔ Join Over 80000 Happy Readers
corrosion control manual navyPlease try again.Please try again.Please try again. It also contains requirements and guidance concerning the concurrent evaluation of structural supports for selected ancillary equipment such as tank level indicators, ladders, piping system components, etc., and for sacrificial anodes. The authority for development of this manual is assigned to the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division by NAVSEA 05P. SEA05P2 is the technical authority for all coatings and sacrificial cathodic protection system evaluation and maintenance requirements covered by this manual, and is responsible for updating and disseminating this manual. SEA05P4 is the technical authority for all structural evaluation and maintenance requirements covered by this manual. Naval Sea Systems Command, Ship Design, Integration and Engineering (NAVSEA 05) maintains the overall technical authority for the manual. This document contains both mandatory requirements and guidance information derived from NSTM Chapter 100, NSTM Chapter 631, and the JFMM. This manual consists of six chapters as follows: Chapter 1 - General Information Chapter 2 - Surveyor Qualification Requirements Chapter 3 - Scheduling Of Surveys Chapter 4 - Conduct Of Surveys Chapter 5 - Data Collection and Reporting Chapter 6 - Disposition and Maintenance Actions Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. In order to navigate out of this carousel please use your heading shortcut key to navigate to the next or previous heading. Register a free business account To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzes reviews to verify trustworthiness. Increase Readiness (07-JUL-03, GAO-03-753).http://xn--76--pdd4bl.xn--p1ai/pic/userfile/dtsearch-engine-manual.xml
- Tags:
- navy corrosion control manual 509, corrosion control manual navy, corrosion control manual navy seal, corrosion control manual navy service, corrosion control manual navy card, corrosion control manual navy line.
The resulting increase in required GAO was asked Specifically, this report examines the extent of the impact of Costs and Increase Readiness July 2003 DEFENSE MANAGEMENT Opportunities to Reduce Corrosion Costs and. Increase ReadinessReadiness, and Safety Indicate That. Corrosion Control Is Not EffectiveExecutive Action 39 Agency Comments 40. Appendixes. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 42. Appendix II: Examples of Corrosion Prevention Efforts That Have Not. Realized Their Full Potential 45. Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense 52 Figures Figure 1. Corrosion on Army 5- Ton Truck in Hawaii 8. Figure 2: Corroding Bridge Columns at Naval Station Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 9. Figure 3: Corrosion on Army UH- 60L Black Hawk Helicopter 11 Figure 4. Corroded 500- Pound Bombs at Andersen Air Force Base. Guam 14 Figure 5: Cracked Runway at Point Mugu Naval Air Station. California 17 Figure 6: Marine Corps Helicopter Rinsing Facility Kaneohe. Bay, Hawaii 20. Figure 7: Army National Guard Controlled Humidity Preservation 23 FigureCorroded Connectors on Air Force F- 16 Main Fuel. Shutoff Valve 30 Figure 10: Corrosion Inhibitor Application Facility at. Figure 11: Corrosion on High Temperature Pipelines at Air Force Tracking. Facility Antigua, West Indies 36 Figure 12: Corroded Air- Conditioning. Valves at Quantico Marine Corps Base, Virginia 38. Abbreviations. ASPRCS Aviation Systems Performance Readiness and Corrosion Study DOD. Department of Defense GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. HMMWV High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles. This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyrightIt may be reproduced and distributed inHowever, because thisJuly 7, 2003 Let er t The Honorable John Ensign Chairman The Honorable. Daniel Akaka Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Readiness and. Management Support Committee on Armed Services United States Senate. The Honorable Joel Hefley Chairman The Honorable Solomon Ortiz Ranking.http://airholic.com/UpFiles/WebEditorFiles/dtt-2200-manual.xml Minority Member Subcommittee on Readiness Committee on Armed Services. House of Representatives The Department of Defense (DOD) maintainsThe resultingBecause numerous advances in products andAt the unit level,The Congress, recognizing corrosion as a serious military concern, enactedThe Secretary of Defense is required toYou requested that we review military activities related to the preventionIn this report we address the followingTo respond to these questions, we reviewed numerous studies and discussedResults in Brief Although the full impact of corrosion cannot beCorrosion has also been shown to substantially increase equipmentFor example, a 2001 study concludedIn 2001, DOD also reportedFinally, a number of safetyDuring the 1980s, theMore recently, Navy. F- 14 and F- 18DOD and the military services do not have an effective approach to preventWhile the military services have achieved someFor example, DOD does notCost estimates were not audited.CC Technologies and NACE International in cooperation with the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sept. 30,Harold Mindlin et al.; Metals Information Analysis Center, February 1996.Instead, each service has multiple corrosion offices within variousFurther, corrosion control offices act largely inThese weaknesses combine to reduce theIn addition, we areThe department also providedCorrosion affects all military assets, including approximatelyCorrosion is defined as the unintended destruction or deterioration of aIt includes such variedFactors influencing the development and rate of corrosion include the typeThe rate of corrosion increasesCorrosion canThe effects of corrosion on DOD equipment and infrastructure have becomeThe aging of military systems poses a unique challenge for maintenance andA number of DOD and commercial studies have identified and evaluatedThe studies alsoCongress has recognized the need to significantly reduce the economicIn November 2002, CongressThis would translate to 60-Department of Defense not later than 1 year after the date of theImpacts on Military Numerous studies in recent years have documented theCosts, Readiness, and corrosion and its various effects on militaryAlthough the full impact of corrosion cannot be quantified due to the. Safety Indicate ThatCorrosion Is anExtensive ProblemReadiness is also severely impaired becauseThe effects extend toFurther, corrosion has an equallyIn a 2001 government- sponsored study, corrosion is estimated to cost the. Another study done in. The costs identifiedHowever, there are also indirect costs that, were they to be quantified,Indirect costsEven more difficult to quantify is the cost of using equipment that, whileConsidering theCorrosion also shortens the service life and accelerates the depreciationThere are numerous examples of how profoundly corrosion affects costs. ForFunding Priorities and Strategic Planning Needed to Improve the ConditionReport, Number 93- 156, August 13, 1993. Figure 1: Corrosion on Army 5- Ton Truck in Hawaii. Source: U. S. Army. Corrosion was found to be so extensive on some of the trucks that theAtlantic Fleets estimate that about 25 percent of their total combinedS. Army TACOM- ARDEC communication referenced in Corrosion Costs and. Preventative Strategies in the United States, Gerhardus H. Koch, Ph. D.,Figure 2: Corroding Bridge Columns at Naval Station Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Source: U. S. Navy.Air Force Research Laboratory, NCI Systems, Inc., Fairborn, Ohio, MarchDegrades Equipment and thereby reducing readiness. Whether it affects aFacilities Readiness pipeline, corrosion is a major contributor to theDepending on the kindWhether scheduled or not, maintenance translatesAs a result, readiness is diminished because theThe effects on readiness are extensive throughout the military services,Figure 3: Corrosion on Army UH- 60L Black Hawk Helicopter. Fuel cell compartment Control rod linkage Spindle bolts Source: U. S. Army.While the Air Force has yet to quantify the totalThis extends aircraft downtime andCorrosion has also reduced the readiness levels. According to Navy officials, corrosion hasWhile theseThe effects on readiness extend well beyond aviation and include virtuallyArmy vehicles. In 1996, the Army identified corrosion as the reasonWheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) had been particularly diminished because ofForce also identified severe corrosion on its ground vehicles, resultingSome of the vehicles showedCorrosion and its impact on readiness are especially a concern for the. Navy, because its ships operate in highly corrosive salt water and inA notable example of these effects occurred inMaintenance problems,Even more recently, theOperation Enduring Freedom, with significant maintenance problems thatAs a result, the carrier is expected toSuch effects are found Navy- wide, and the Navy estimates that about 25During this extendedThese repairs, too, have an impact onCorrosion also impairs the readiness of military armament. For example,Corrosion is also identified asIn addition,Figure 4: Corroded 500- Pound Bombs at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. Source: U. S. Air Force. According to Air Force records, of the approximately 450,000 bombs of thisWhile many of these bombs are repairable, aSome of the bombs, however, are tooMilitary facilities are also decayingEach of the military services hasDeterioration of this kind was even identified in airfields used forFor example, runway cracks at Pope Air. Force Base, North Carolina, were so extensive that several C- 130 cargoU. S. installations. Further, Navy facilities officials told us that infrastructureCorrosion of facilitiesThe Pacific Air. Force Command cited corrosion as the cause of failures of numerousThe Command noted thatCorrosion Poses Numerous Corrosion also poses numerous safety risks and isSafety Risks concern to all military services. This concern isAccording to an ArmyDuring calendarJust 2 years earlier, the Navy had identified corrosion as the cause of aDespite regular inspections, stress cracking in the landing gear evadedPerhaps evenReplaceable Units. Although these containers provide considerableThe equipment failures wereCorrosion alsoPerhaps the greatestFigure 5: Cracked Runway at Point Mugu Naval Air Station, California. Source: U. S. Navy. One of the causes of this deterioration results from a corrosive chemicalAirfield cracking due to corrosion and the safetyExamples of thisArmy Airfield, Kentucky. Naval Air Station Point Mugu, California; and Marine Corps Air Station. Iwakuni, Japan. The foreign object debris hazard was so severe at the. Little Rock Air Force Base that the Air Mobility Command assessed aAt Naval Air Station Pensacola,Pipelines that contain natural gas and other kinds of fuel also pose aA majority of the pipelines are quiteAir Force facilitiesThe services areFacilities officials told us that despite these measures and periodicThey said that until all of the existing pipelinesHowever, replacing pipelines is very expensive, and facilities officialsCalifornia, said that they have experienced several fuel line ruptures,They said fuel lines that run alongside baseFull Impact of Corrosion For more than a decade, a number of DOD, militaryUnknown Due to private- sector studies have cited the lack of reliableIncomplete Cost, Readiness, assess the overall impact of the corrosionThey said these data limitations make itFacilities officialsThey told us they wouldWe identified many examples of how the lack of reliable and completeThey cited the lack ofHarold Mindlin, et al.; Metals Information Analysis Center, February 1996;Gerhardus H. Koch, Ph. D. et al.; CC Technologies Laboratories, Inc. September 30, 2001. 12 Aviation Systems Performance Readiness and. Corrosion Study (ASPRCS), Ken Mitchell, Study Director, Center for Army. Analysis, 2001. 13 A Study to Determine the Annual Direct Cost of. Corrosion Maintenance for Weapon Systems and Equipment in the United. States Air Force, prepared for the Air Force Corrosion Program Office, NCI. Information Systems, Inc., Fairborn, Ohio, February 6, 1998.They also said that although they doCorps faced similar obstacles in justifying the installation of aFigure 6: Marine Corps Helicopter Rinsing Facility Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. Source: U. S. Marine Corps. Officials told us that the corrosion maintenance costs they would avoid inApproach to corrosion prevention projects, significant weaknesses in theirCorrosion ControlIn addition, but. Has Achieved coordination within and among the services is limited, andSome Successes implement and fund them are frequently in conflict. As aSome Corrosion Prevention Major commands, program offices, and researchImprovements Are Being centers servicewide have made and continue to makeIntroduced during and in the methods and techniques for preventingProduction Process production phases or some time after equipment isSystems as diverse as the joint strike fighter, the DD- X destroyer,Our recent report on total ownership costs ofRegarding the maintenance of existing equipment and infrastructure, weNavy ships to 20 years instead of the 5 years formerly possible. TheHowever, by theNavy officials told us they frequently haveThe Command has numerous other projectsFigure 7: Army National Guard Controlled Humidity Preservation. Source: Army National Guard Bureau.According to an Air Force study, treating castAir Force officials told us that the totalAppendix II provides more detailed information about these and otherStrategic Plan Lacking for DOD does not currently have a strategic planDOD and Service mitigation, and the services either have not developedCorrosion Efforts not implemented them. However, DOD is required within 1 year of enactment of the Bob Stump. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (i. e., by. December 2, 2003) to submit to Congress a report setting forthResults Act of 1993 (GPRA). 16 GPRA offers a model for developing anUnder GPRA, agencies atAs a result, managers are not in a positionThe military services either have not established effective strategicThe limitations to the militaryThe strategyHowever, theArmy corrosion control officials told us that theyOfficials at the. Army Center for Economic Analysis told us they have not measuredFor example, it identified threeAir Force Equipment Maintenance Instruction that identifiesAlthough an Air Force. Instruction on Performance Management states that performanceThey said that, in the past, thereNaval Sea. Systems Command) have engaged in some strategic planning for corrosionThe Naval Air Systems CommandThe corrosion control and preventionThis office hasWithout this information, the office is not inMarine Corps officials told us thatCorrosion control officials said they measure progress through aIntegrated Product Teams. 20 They also rely on the evaluations ofThey told us that they wouldThese teams areAlthough the services haveMilitary officials told usAlthough a central office forFurther, individual weapon system program offices within each command mayIn addition, installationsDepartment of Public Works and the Army Corps of Engineers. The recentlyThe Navy and Air Force also have multiple corrosion prevention andLike the Army, these commands haveThe Naval Facilities Engineering CenterMarine Corps and, in turn, relies on the individual installations toThe Air Force Civil Engineering Support. Agency provides this service for the Air Force. This fragmentation of corrosion prevention efforts minimizes coordinationFor example, in. Hawaii Army officials for the Reserve and National. Guard and active units stated that they had limited knowledge of oneIn addition, Air Force facilitiesFigure 8: K- Span Shelter at Army Reserve Unit Fort Shafter, Hawaii. Source: GAO. These officials were unable to acquire the shelters because they did notFigure 9: Corroded Connectors on Air Force F- 16 Main Fuel Shutoff Valve. Source: U. S. Air Force. Air Force officials estimate that using corrosion- inhibiting lubricants. Although the use of these lubricants is recommended in a joint technicalAir Force and Navy have developed different product specifications for theAs a result, the Air Force created a new specification for lubricant use,Air Force officials want the Navy toAccording to Air Force officials, these and other difficulties inNational Guard officials toldAvionics Cleaning and Corrosion Control, NAVAIR 16- 1- 540, Air Force TO-Barracks, Hawaii. Source: GAO. The services have created some valuable mechanisms, including specialHowever, these mechanisms do notThe effectiveness ofFor example, each of the services hosts anFurthermore, the dissemination ofCorrosion Prevention and Advisory Boards, and various Science and. Technology Advisor programs. DOD has also established working groups suchExchange Group, and the Joint Logistics Commanders to share information onSeveral of the officers acting as corrosionThey added that some, but not all, of the conference papers and briefingsConflicting Incentives and Because of the differing priorities betweenPriorities Limit Corrosion and long- term preventative maintenance needs,Project Implementation often given a low priority. Corrosion control offices act largely in an advisory role, providingThese priorities andWhile these commands also strive for better corrosion prevention, theyBecause the corrosion control offices generally receive only limitedHowever, these commands often haveAs a result, manyThese conflicting incentives and priorities are demonstrated by the factOfficials at Marine Corps Base Camp PendletonThe backlog is not limited to this. Navy- wide. Navy officials said they do not have accurate data butAt the same time, the Army, in its 2002 Annual. ReportTraining Strategy without further degrading its infrastructure and relatedOfficials of the new Installation. Management Agency said that the goal of centralization is to halt theAs of the end of fiscal year 2002, the Navy has only been able to installConflicting priorities are also evidenced by Navy and Marine Corps effortsNavy officials informedFigure 11: Corrosion on High Temperature Pipelines at Air Force Tracking. Facility Antigua, West Indies. Source: U. S. Air Force. Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center officials told us that they doNaval facilities officialsFigure 12: Corroded Air- Conditioning Valves at Quantico Marine Corps. Base, Virginia. Source: GAO. However, the process is labor- intensive and, therefore, very expensive. They said that as a rule they must attend to more immediate problems, andConclusion At present, DOD and the military services do not systematicallyWithout a more systematic approach toAs a result, DOD and the militaryRecommendations for In an effort to improve current military approaches toExecutive Action the Bob Stump Defense Authorization Act of 2003 requiresIf properly crafted,To craft an effective strategy, we recommend that the Secretary of DefenseAgency Comments In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurredThe comments are included in this report inIn its technical comments, DOD did not concurDOD noted that the department developsDOD noted that corrosion isWe are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the. Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interestedWe will also make copies available to othersPlease contact me on (202) 512- 8365 if you or your staff have anyKey contributors to this report were. Allan Roberts, Allen Westheimer, Dorian Dunbar, Sarah Prehoda, Sandra. Sokol, and. Susan Woodward. William M. Solis, Director Defense Capabilities and. Management. Appendi Appendi xes I x Scope and Methodology Our study focused on how theTo perform our review, weWe also attendedConference, and we reviewed papers and presentations of other service andServices Corrosion Conferences and Forums To determine the extent to which. DOD and the military services have an effective approach to corrosionFor equipment,Force Corrosion Prevention and Control Office, the NAVAIR and NAVSEA. Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs, and the Marine Corps CorrosionFor infrastructure weAir Force Civil Engineer Support Agency, and the Naval Facilities. Engineering Service Center Command. We also contacted and obtainedWe reviewed corrosion prevention andWe also visitedMarine Corps Air Station Miramar. City Unit Training and Equipment Site, Hawaii Army. Corps Camp H. M. Smith We conducted our review from August 2002 through. April 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditingExamples of Corrosion Prevention Efforts. Appendi I I x That Have Not Realized Their Full Potential Durable CoatingsBecause of theirMaintaining the tanks is labor intensive, costly, and extends the amountNaval Sea Systems Command has developed coatingAccording to the Navy, the effort couldHowever, inNavy officialsNavy officials added that becauseThese officials told us that theIn addition, the officialsArmy National The Army National Guard maintains a wide range of equipmentGuard Controlled includes M1 tanks, howitzers, air defense artilleryThis equipment is susceptible to corrosion, and one of the primary causes. Humidity PreservationThe Army National Guard estimates it couldDepending on the type of equipment, some will beThe project, which started inThese officials stillThey acknowledgeFly Ash in Concrete airfield pavements for all of the military servicesConcrete Airfields experienced cracking and expansion that poseOne of the causes ofExamples ofCampbell Army Airfield. Kentucky; Naval Air Station Point Mugu, California; and Marine Corps Air. Station, Iwakuni, Japan. The foreign object debris hazard caused byCommand assessed a taxiway at Little Rock Air Force Base as unsuitable forThe Navy determined that one way to mitigate the effects of alkali- silicaNavy officials told usThe study did not include cost savings orThe study did note that fly ashNavy officials told us that their understanding ofThe Air Force recommends the use of fly ash, but only in certainHowever, Air ForceThe services continue to study the effects of alkali- silica reaction andHowever, due to limited funding, efforts toIn the meantime, airfields continueArmy Corrosion Corrosion damage to tactical wheeled vehicles and groundInhibitors costly and prolongs equipment downtime. According to officialsArmy Materiel Command, seawater that seeps into the inner cavities ofThe equipment thenThis kind of corrosion damage was so extensive that in 1998 the Commanding. General U. S. Army Pacific requested that all ground vehicles shipped toArmy data indicated that 17In 1999, the. Commanding General of the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii indicated thatArmy testing hadInitial estimatesThe contract was later doubled,The Army has over 341,000 tacticalThe Army originally planned to establish an all- purpose, full serviceThe center, which would haveFor example, at an Army National. Guard facility in Hawaii officials told us that they were not aware of theAir Force Bomb The Air Force stores about 450,000 cast iron general-Metalization in locations throughout the world. The bombs are estimated toMany of the locations are inAs of FebruaryUntil 1996, all the bombs were renovatedThe bombs would undergo this labor- intensiveIn 1996, the Air Force converted a bombThe plant conversion. A metal wire arc spray coating is expected toBased on previous successes, the Air ForceTo date, the systemAir Force studies show that although the metal arch spray coating processDespite these benefits, about 3 percent of Air. Force bombs have been treated with this coating process. While Air ForceForce Material Command and Pacific Air Force Command together mustF- 16 Aircraft Although not visible, the corrosion of connectors onCorrosion Inhibitors equipment is prevalent throughout DOD and aThe resources spent on this kind ofThe costs are high because of the significant amount of labor that isAvionics corrosion hasFor several decades, the Air Force has conducted extensive studies on theAlthough the Air Force did not complete a return on investment analysis,The Air Force has yet to take full advantage ofForce does not require the use of the lubricants, the service loses theAviation Corrosion Prevention and Control office, these facilities areThe project is estimated to cost. Even more notable was the analysis showing a 31 to 1 return on investment,Citing opportunities toArmy recommended identification of locations and deployment areas forDespite the potential benefits,Army officials told us thatAppendi I I I x Comments from the Department of Defense (350219)GAO United States General Accounting Office. Although the full impact of corrosion cannot be quantified due to theFinally, a number of serious safety concerns have also been associatedThey have had someEach service has multiple corrosionAs a result, proposedTogether, these problems reduce the effectivenessWhile DOD is in the process of establishing aLeft: Corroded 500- pound bombs, Guam. Right: Corroding bridge column. Pearl Harbor. The Department of Defense (DOD) maintains equipment and infrastructureGAO was asked to review military activities related to corrosion control. Specifically, this report examines the extent of the impact of corrosionIn written comments, DOD agreedGAO- 03- 753. To view the full product,Highlights of GAO- 03- 753, a report to. Congressional Committees. July 2003Page i GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Contents. Contents. Page ii GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 1 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management United States General Accounting. Office Washington, D. C. 20548. Page 1 GAO- 03- 753 Defense ManagementPage 3 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 4 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 5 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 6 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 7 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 8 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 9 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 10 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 11 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 12 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 13 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 14 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 15 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 16 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 17 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 18 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 19 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 20 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 21 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 22 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 23 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 24 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 25 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 26 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 27 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 28 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 29 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 30 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 31 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 32 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 33 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 34 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 35 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 36 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 37 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 38 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 39 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 40 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 41 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 42 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Appendix I. Appendix I Scope and Methodology. Page 43 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Appendix I Scope and Methodology. Page 44 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Page 45 GAO- 03- 753 Defense Management. Appendix II.