Military Readiness: Actions Needed to Further Implement Predictive Maintenance on Weapon Systems
Fast Facts
DOD spends $90 billion a year to keep ground systems, ships, and aircraft combat-ready using scheduled maintenance or waiting until things break to fix them.
Using predictive maintenance based on data analysis could allow personnel to avoid doing work too soon—and prevent accidents. DOD told the military services to begin using predictive maintenance 20 years ago, but they made limited progress until recently. Also, DOD doesn't have firm plans on where to increase its use service-wide or measure results.
We recommended that the military services organize, plan, and measure the shift to predictive maintenance to support continued improvements.
Sailors on an Aircraft Carrier Install Equipment on an F/A-18E Super Hornet
Highlights
What GAO Found
The Department of Defense (DOD) issued an interim predictive maintenance policy in 2002, but the military services made limited progress implementing it until recently. In 2007, DOD instructed the military services to designate a single focal point for predictive maintenance, provide funding, and begin implementing predictive maintenance to achieve readiness at the best cost where it is technically feasible and beneficial. While the military services have begun piloting predictive maintenance programs on some weapon systems, they do not replace parts or components regularly based on predictive maintenance forecasts. GAO found that the military services have not consistently adopted and tracked implementation of predictive maintenance. By developing plans to implement predictive maintenance, including action plans and milestones for weapon systems, the military services would be better positioned to determine where, when, and how to effectively adopt predictive maintenance.
The military services have reported examples of how predictive maintenance has improved maintenance outcomes. According to military service officials, unplanned maintenance—which adversely affects costs and operations—can be reduced through greater use of predictive maintenance. Army and Navy officials also provided examples of predictive maintenance possibly preventing accidents on aircraft such as the AH-64 Apache and the F/A-18 Super Hornet.
Predictive Maintenance Has Been Used for AH-64 and F/A-18 Aircraft
Military service officials acknowledge that, while they have examples of improvements they attribute to predictive maintenance implementation, the examples are from limited experience, and the military services generally lack metrics to evaluate the results of predictive maintenance. By developing plans with goals and metrics, and establishing procedures to monitor predictive maintenance, the military services will be better able to determine whether predictive maintenance achieves expected results and improves military readiness.
The military services identified personnel, parts, and technology resource challenges to implementing predictive maintenance and have taken some actions to address challenges. For example, temporary policy exemptions allow personnel hours saved using predictive maintenance to be used to address maintenance backlogs in other systems. The military services have also begun efforts to allow units to order parts ahead of need rather than waiting for the part to break. The military services also recognize that shifting to predictive maintenance is a cultural challenge that requires sustained leadership focus.
Why GAO Did This Study
DOD is continually challenged to provide battle-ready ground combat systems, ships and submarines, and aircraft to its warfighters, spending nearly $90 billion each year on weapon systems maintenance. To improve availability of weapon systems, DOD is implementing predictive maintenance. Often used in the private sector, predictive maintenance relies on personnel to use condition-monitoring technology and data analytics to schedule maintenance based on evidence of need.
House Report 117-118, which accompanied a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, included a provision for GAO to examine the use of predictive maintenance for the sustainment of ground combat systems, ships and submarines, and aircraft. GAO examined the extent to which the military services have (1) implemented and (2) assessed the performance of predictive maintenance, and described (3) challenges and efforts to address challenges with implementing predictive maintenance. GAO reviewed DOD guidance and budget materials for predictive maintenance, interviewed maintenance officials, and visited units implementing predictive maintenance.
Recommendations
GAO is making 16 recommendations to the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force to develop plans to implement predictive maintenance and assess its performance. DOD generally concurred with the recommendations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should designate a single entity with sufficient authority and resources necessary to support the implementation of predictive maintenance across the Army. (Recommendation 1) |
The Department of the Army concurred with this recommendation. In response, in February 2024, the Army assigned primary responsibility to the Program Executive Office, Command, Control and Communications-Tactical for predictive maintenance platforms. By designating an entity with the authority, staffing, and funding necessary to support predictive maintenance, the Army is better positioned to determine how, when, and where to adopt predictive maintenance.
|
| Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, should designate a single entity with sufficient authority and resources necessary to support the implementation of predictive maintenance across the Marine Corps. (Recommendation 2) |
The Department of the Navy concurred with this recommendation. In response, in January 2025, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition designated the Department of the Navy Condition-Based Maintenance Plus Community of Practice as the responsible entity for implementing and expanding predictive maintenance throughout the enterprise. The Community of Practice is overseen by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Sustainment, in collaboration with the principal staff of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. By designating an entity with the authority and resources necessary to support predictive maintenance, the Marine Corps is better positioned to determine how, when, and where to adopt predictive maintenance.
|
| Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy should designate a single entity with sufficient authority and resources necessary to support the implementation of predictive maintenance across the Navy. (Recommendation 3) |
The Department of the Navy concurred with this recommendation. In response, in January 2025, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition designated the Department of the Navy Condition-Based Maintenance Plus Community of Practice as the responsible entity for implementing and expanding predictive maintenance throughout the enterprise. The Community of Practice is overseen by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Sustainment, in collaboration with the principal staff of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. By designating an entity with the authority and resources necessary to support predictive maintenance, the Navy is better positioned to determine how, when, and where to adopt predictive maintenance.
|
| Department of the Air Force | The Secretary of the Air Force should designate a single entity with sufficient authority and resources necessary to support the implementation of predictive maintenance across the Air Force. (Recommendation 4) |
The Department of the Air Force concurred with this recommendation. In response, in April 2023, the Air Force designated the Rapid Sustainment Office as the Air Force's predictive maintenance center of excellence to lead the implementation and execution of predictive maintenance across the Air Force enterprise. By designating an entity with the authority, staffing, and funding necessary to support predictive maintenance, the Air Force is better positioned to determine how, when, and where to adopt predictive maintenance.
|
| Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should develop a comprehensive implementation plan for predictive maintenance, which includes action plans and milestones for current weapon systems, outcome-related goals and objectives, a process for evaluating progress, and a framework to develop and track milestones. (Recommendation 5) |
The Department of the Army concurred with this recommendation. In response, in April 2024, the Army validated a predictive maintenance document that identified goals, objectives, measures of performance, and a schedule of milestones. By developing an implementation plan, the Army is better positioned to determine how, when, and where to adopt predictive maintenance.
|
| Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, should develop a comprehensive implementation plan for predictive maintenance, which includes action plans and milestones for current weapon systems, outcome-related goals and objectives, a process for evaluating progress, and a framework to develop and track milestones. (Recommendation 6) |
The Department of the Navy and U.S. Marine Corps partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that a comprehensive strategic implementation plan is necessary, but not all weapon systems are suitable candidates for predictive maintenance. As of November 2024, the Navy stated it requires deliberate study and analysis for determining which weapon systems should implement predictive maintenance, and to what degree implementation is deemed necessary and beneficial. In March 2026, Marine Corps Systems Command issued Marine Corps Systems Command Order 4151.22A, "Reliability-Centered Maintenance Program." This directive provides Marine Corps Program Managers with explicit, structured guidance to evaluate and determine whether to integrate predictive maintenance planning into a weapon system's acquisition strategy, Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP), or Single Acquisition Management Plan (SAMP). Based on our assessment, the order directs Marine Corps Program Managers to determine whether to incorporate predictive maintenance technology during early system development, and holds them accountable for verifying that predictive maintenance planning is executed and tracked across all major acquisition decision points and milestones. According to the Marine Corps, this order establishes the necessary policy, tasks, and structured responsibilities to implement predictive maintenance throughout weapon systems development planning. In August 2026, we assessed that this order met the intent of our recommendation and closed it as implemented.
|
| Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy should develop a comprehensive implementation plan for predictive maintenance, which includes action plans and milestones for current weapon systems, outcome-related goals and objectives, a process for evaluating progress, and a framework to develop and track milestones. (Recommendation 7) |
The Department of the Navy partially concurred with this recommendation. The Naval Air Systems Command and Naval Sea Systems Command issued strategic implementation plans for predictive maintenance in December 2023 and October 2024, respectively, noting this was done in part as a response to our report. The strategic implementation plans include an action plan with milestones, objectives to fully operationalize and scale predictive maintenance, and performance measures that include measurement of progress and effectiveness. By developing an implementation plan, the Navy is better positioned to determine how, when, and where to adopt predictive maintenance.
|
| Department of the Air Force | The Secretary of the Air Force should develop a comprehensive implementation plan for predictive maintenance, which includes action plans and milestones for current weapon systems, outcome-related goals and objectives, a process for evaluating progress, and a framework to develop and track milestones. (Recommendation 8) |
The Department of the Air Force concurred with this recommendation. In response, in May 2023, the Air Force updated its predictive maintenance Strategic Implementation Plan. This plan identified the process for selecting current weapon systems, measures of effectiveness, and a framework for tracking and reporting. By developing an implementation plan, the Air Force is better positioned to determine how, when, and where to adopt predictive maintenance.
|
| Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should develop a plan with specific quantifiable metrics and goals for evaluating predictive maintenance. (Recommendation 9) |
The Department of the Army concurred with this recommendation. As of May 2024, the Army stated metrics will be developed as part of the Predictive Logistics Capabilities Development Document process, of which Predictive Maintenance is a subset. The Army stated that experimentation and assessments of predictive maintenance capabilities will allow metrics to be designed and refined to appropriately evaluate predictive maintenance. The Army expects this effort may occur in 2027. As of January 2026, the Army has provided no further updates. When we confirm the actions the Army has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
| Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, should develop a plan with specific quantifiable metrics and goals for evaluating predictive maintenance. (Recommendation 10) |
The Department of the Navy and U.S. Marine Corps concurred with this recommendation. According to Marine Corps documentation, the goal for using predictive maintenance is to cost-effectively achieve and sustain target materiel readiness levels for weapon systems and components throughout their operational life cycle by forecasting component failures and detect performance degradation before operational degradation occurs. In November 2024, the Department stated the Navy and Marine Corps were executing pilot studies on various aviation, maritime, and ground combat systems to expand implementation and adoption of predictive maintenance to Department weapon systems. The Department added that these pilot studies intended, in part, to assess how to measure predictive maintenance and determine the correct metrics for tracking and accountability at the correct echelons of oversight and governance. In August 2026, the U.S. Marine Corps stated it has actively implemented a structured plan using specific, quantifiable metrics to evaluate predictive maintenance capabilities. First, in May 2026 the Marine Corps expanded its active predictive sustainment monitoring of ground systems to encompass more than 1,000 medium- and heavy-tactical vehicles across multiple platforms, effectively scaling up the use of predictive maintenance on fielded systems. The Department demonstrated for us screens from a Marine Corps " Condition-Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) Dashboard" that provides decision-makers with live, sensor-derived telemetry. The dashboard displays quantifiable performance metrics, including the quantity and classification of "active faults" and "potential warnings" flagged by vehicle-borne sensors. Last, in August 2025 the Marine Corps published a requirements memorandum for developing an integrated, Marine-Corps-wide predictive-maintenance decision support tool platform that would consolidate, measure, and store predictive maintenance data systematically, allowing the Service to conduct advanced predictive logistics analytics. These steps fully address our recommendation, and in August 2026 we closed it as implemented.
|
| Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy should develop a plan with specific quantifiable metrics and goals for evaluating predictive maintenance. (Recommendation 11) |
The Department of the Navy concurred with this recommendation. The Naval Air Systems Command and Naval Sea Systems Command issued strategic implementation plans for predictive maintenance in December 2023 and October 2024, respectively, noting this was done in part as a response to our report. The strategic implementation plans include metrics for measurement, tracking, and reporting of predictive maintenance outcomes. Specifically, the department is evaluating predictive maintenance on selected major weapon systems through specific quantifiable metrics such as scheduled and unscheduled maintenance manhours per flight hour, maintenance, and mean time between failure. By developing a plan with specific quantifiable metrics and goals for evaluating predictive maintenance, the Navy will be better positioned to gauge progress and results to inform decision makers about the changes being made to support increased readiness.
|
| Department of the Air Force | The Secretary of the Air Force should develop a plan with specific quantifiable metrics and goals for evaluating predictive maintenance. (Recommendation 12) |
The Department of the Air Force concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2024, the Air Force stated it was updating its Condition Based Maintenance Plus Strategic Implementation Plan to include quantifiable metrics and goals for evaluating predictive maintenance. Additionally, the Air Force stated that an Air Force Instruction supplement is in development which will codify the plan to include specific quantifiable metrics and goals for evaluating predictive maintenance. The Air Force expects to complete this effort by December 2025. As of January 2026, the Air Force has not provided an update. When we confirm the actions the Air Force has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
| Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should establish procedures and conduct ongoing monitoring and reporting of the results from predictive maintenance for major weapon systems. (Recommendation 13) |
The Department of the Army concurred with this recommendation. In May 2024, the Army stated that reporting and governance will occur in accordance with the existing acquisition framework. Based on the notional Capabilities Development Document acquisition schedule, the Army expects the first predictive maintenance programs of record to be available in fiscal year 2027. Once systems are fielded, the Army stated the program office will conduct ongoing monitoring and reporting. As of January 2026, the Army has provided no further updates. When we confirm the actions the Army has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
| Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, should establish procedures and conduct ongoing monitoring and reporting of program performance and results from predictive maintenance for major weapon systems. (Recommendation 14) |
The Department of the Navy and Marine Corps concurred with this recommendation, stating that they are aligned with the Department's initiatives to develop and implement mechanisms for tracking and analyzing lifecycle sustainment data. In August 2026, the Marine Corps further stated that it recognizes that systematic collection, measurement, and storage of predictive maintenance data is foundational to supporting logistics commanders and decision-makers at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels. The Marine Corps added that it monitors, tracks and reports on key sustainment metrics through integrated enterprise dashboards. Specifically, the "CBM+ Dashboard" delivers continuous, real-time health and performance metrics for ground weapon systems. The Department corroborated this statement by demonstrating to GAO how the "Dashboard" tracks the status of more than 1,000 tactical vehicles currently utilizing predictive maintenance technology. The dashboard screens we reviewed show that logisticians can monitor critical performance indicators, including the exact volume of vehicles flagged as "overdue" for service, or those vehicles displaying "active faults" and "potential warnings" generated by onboard sensors. The Marine Corps also established the Ground Systems Enterprise (GSE), which establishes a collaborative partnership of supported and supporting Title 10 stakeholders across the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps stated that this step further institutionalizes predictive maintenance monitoring and reporting procedures and ensure continuous leadership oversight. In August 2026 we closed this recommendation as implemented, based on these actions.
|
| Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy should establish procedures and conduct ongoing monitoring and reporting of program performance and results from predictive maintenance for major weapon systems. (Recommendation 15) |
The Department of the Navy concurred with this recommendation, stating that the Department of the Navy is aligned to the Office of the Secretary of Defense's initiatives to develop and implement mechanisms for tracking and understanding sustainment data. In response, in April 2025, the Navy provided guidance on the development and reporting of predictive maintenance metrics to be reported annually. Further, the Navy developed a dashboard to measure and report predictive maintenance metrics. By establishing procedures, conducting ongoing monitoring, and reporting on results from predictive maintenance, the Navy will be better positioned to determine whether predictive maintenance achieves expected results and supports continuous improvement.
|
| Department of the Air Force | The Secretary of the Air Force should establish procedures and conduct ongoing monitoring and reporting of program performance and results from predictive maintenance for major weapon systems. (Recommendation 16) |
The Department of the Air Force concurred with this recommendation. In October 2024, the Air Force stated that an Air Force Instruction supplement is in development which will establish procedures to conduct ongoing monitoring and reporting of program performance and results from predictive maintenance for major weapon systems. According to the Air Force, weapon system program offices will follow the procedures outlined in the Air Force Instruction supplement to execute the tracking and reporting of program performance/results from predictive maintenance to appropriate authorities. The Air Force expects to complete this effort by June 2026. As of January 2026, the Air Force has not provided an update. When we confirm the actions the Air Force has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|