A Methodology for Determining Air Force Deployment Requirements

To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 9.0.124 or greater is installed.

Please login or register to make a comment!

This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND Corporation. 6 Jump down to document Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Project AIR FORCE View document details This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non- commercial use only.

Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents. Limited Electronic Distribution Rights For More Information CHILD POLICY CIVIL JUSTICE EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS NATIONAL SECURITY POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUBSTANCE ABUSE TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE The RAND Corporation is a nonpro.t research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution Support RAND This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series.

RAND monographs present major research /ndings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards ... more. less.

for research quality and objectivity. DON SNYDER, PATRICK MILLS Prepared for the United States Air Force Approved for public release, distribution unlimited A Methodology for Determining Air Force Deployment Requirements The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND 9s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R ® is a registered trademark. © Copyright 2004 RAND Corporation All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2004 by the RAND Corporation 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 201 North Craig Street, Suite 202, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-1516 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/ To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: order@rand.org Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Snyder, Don, 1962- A methodology for determining Air Force deployment requirements / Don Snyder, Patrick Mills. p. cm. cMG-176. d Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-8330-3567-3 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. United States. Air Force 4Foreign service. 2. Airlift, Military 4United States. 3. Deployment (Strategy) 4. Military planning 4United States. I. Mills, Patrick, 1975 3 II. Title. UG633.S58 2004 358.4'14'0973 4dc22 2004005316 The research reported here was sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract F49642-01-C-0003. Further information may be obtained from the Strategic Planning Division, Directorate of Plans, Hq USAF. iii Preface Transforming from threat-based planning to capabilities-based plan- ning has highlighted the need for the Air Force to be able to quantify quickly the manpower and materiel necessary to support a desired capability. From a logistical point of view, the transition accentuates the utility of having a rapid, analytical method for determining the total support required to deploy specified forces to bases across the full range of support infrastructures, including austere bases. This monograph presents such a methodology for determining manpower and equipment deployment requirements and summarizes a prototype research tool 4called the Strategic Tool for the Analysis of Required Transportation (START) 4which illustrates the meth- odology. (The appendix serves as a user 9s guide for this prototype tool.) The START program, an Excel-based spreadsheet model, de- termines the list of Unit Type Codes (UTCs) required to support a user-specified operation, along with the movement characteristics of the materiel for a wide range of support areas. It therefore is a de- mand generator of the manpower and materiel needed at a base to achieve initial operating capability, and a fully implemented tool based on this prototype should be useful for both deliberate and cri- sis-action planning. This work was conducted by the Resource Management Pro- gram of RAND Project AIR FORCE and was jointly sponsored by the USAF Deputy Chief of Staff of Installations and Logistics (USAF/IL) and the USAF Directorate of Operational Plans and Joint Matters (USAF/XOX). It is one element of a larger study entitled iv A Methodology for Determining Air Force Deployment Requirements cForward Support Locations (FSLs) and Other Wartime Support, d which in turn is part of a series of studies entitled cSupporting Expe- ditionary Aerospace Forces. d Other reports in this series are: " MR-1056-AF, Supporting Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: An In- tegrated Strategic Agile Combat Support Planning Framework by Robert S. Tripp, Lionel A. Galway, Paul S. Killingsworth, Eric Peltz, Timothy L. Ramey, and John G. Drew " MR-1075-AF, Supporting Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: New Agile Combat Support Postures by Lionel A. Galway, Robert S. Tripp, Timothy L. Ramey, and John G. Drew " MR-1174-AF, Supporting Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: An Analysis of F-15 Avionics Options by Eric Peltz, H. L. Shulman, Robert S. Tripp, Timothy L. Ramey, Randy King, and John G. Drew " MR-1179-AF, Supporting Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: A Con- cept for Evolving the Agile Combat Support/Mobility System of the Future, Robert S. Tripp, Lionel A. Galway, Timothy L. Ramey, Mahyar A. Amouzegar, and Eric Peltz " MR-1225-AF, Supporting Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: Ex- panded Analysis of LANTIRN Options by Amatzia Feinberg, H. L. Shulman, L. W. Miller, and Robert S. Tripp " MR-1263-AF, Supporting Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: Lessons From the Air War over Serbia by Amatzia Feinberg, Eric Peltz, James Leftwich, Robert S. Tripp, Mahyar A. Amouzegar, Russell Grunch, John G. Drew, Tom LaTourrette, and Charles Robert Roll Jr. (for official use only; not releasable to the general public) " MR-1431-AF, Supporting Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: Alter- natives for Jet Engine Intermediate Maintenance by Mahyar A. Amouzegar, Lionel A. Galway, and Amanda Geller " MR-1536-AF, Supporting Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: An Op- erational Architecture for Combat Support Execution Planning and Control by James Leftwich, Robert S. Tripp, Amanda Geller, Patrick H. Mills, Tom LaTourrette, Charles Robert Roll, Cauley Von Hoffman, and David Johansen. Preface v This report should be of interest to logisticians and planners throughout the Air Force. The software described in this report can be obtained from the authors upon request (contact Don Snyder at snyder@rand.org and Patrick Mills at pmills@rand.org). RAND Project AIR FORCE RAND Project AIR FORCE (PAF), a division of the RAND Corpo- ration, is the U.S. Air Force 9s federally funded research and develop- ment center for studies and analyses. PAF provides the Air Force with independent analyses of policy alternatives affecting the development, employment, combat readiness, and support of current and future aerospace forces. Research is performed in four programs: Aerospace Force Development; Manpower, Personnel, and Training; Resource Management; and Strategy and Doctrine. Additional information about PAF is available on our web site at http://www.rand.org/paf. vii The RAND Corporation Quality Assurance Process Peer review is an integral part of all RAND research projects. Prior to publication, this document, as with all documents in the RAND monograph series, was subject to a quality assurance process to ensure that the research meets several standards, including the following: The problem is well formulated; the research approach is well de- signed and well executed; the data and assumptions are sound; the findings are useful and advance knowledge; the implications and rec- ommendations follow logically from the findings and are explained thoroughly; the documentation is accurate, understandable, cogent, and temperate in tone; the research demonstrates understanding of related previous studies; and the research is relevant, objective, inde- pendent, and balanced. Peer review is conducted by research profes- sionals who were not members of the project team. RAND routinely reviews and refines its quality assurance pro- cess and also conducts periodic external and internal reviews of the quality of its body of work. For additional details regarding the RAND quality assurance process, visit http://www.rand.org/ standards/. ix Contents Preface ............................................... iii Figures .............................................. xi Table ............................................... xiii Summary ............................................. xv Acknowledgments ....................................... xxi Acronyms ........................................... xxv CHAPTER ONE Introduction ........................................... 1 CHAPTER TWO Quantifying Deployment Requirements ....................... 5 The Scope and Output of the START Model .................... 5 The Inputs for the START Model ............................ 7 Base Type ........................................... 9 Aircraft ............................................ 10 Threat Level ......................................... 10 Methodology and Sources of Data ........................... 11 CHAPTER THREE Functional Areas Treated and How They Deploy ................ 13 Sortie Generation ....................................... 14 Sortie Generation Functional Areas ........................ 14 Aviation and Maintenance Readiness Spares Packages ............ 19 Sortie Generation Summary .............................. 20 Aerial Port Operations ................................... 21 x A Methodology for Determining Air Force Deployment Requirements Civil Engineering ....................................... 22 Engineer Craftsmen ................................... 22 Readiness ........................................... 22 Fire Protection ....................................... 23 Explosive Ordnance Disposal ............................. 24 Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operations Squadron ......... 24 Bare-Base Support ...................................... 25 Harvest Falcon ....................................... 26 Harvest Eagle ........................................ 27 Deployment of Bare-Base Support Sets ...................... 27 Munitions ............................................ 29 Fuels Mobility Support ................................... 30 Deployed Communications ................................ 33 Force Protection ........................................ 35 Medical .............................................. 36 General-Purpose Vehicles ................................. 38 CHAPTER FOUR Example Applications of the START Analysis Tool .............. 41 Crisis-Action Planning ................................... 41 Setting Manpower and Equipment Authorizations ................ 42 War Reserve Materiel Prepositioning and Forward Support Locations .. 43 CHAPTER FIVE Conclusions and Recommendations ......................... 45 Develop Formal Definitions for Deployed Locations .............. 45 Develop Formal Defiinitions of Conventional and NBC Threat ...... 46 Establish an Office of Primary Responsibility for Maintaining the Model ......................................... 46 APPENDIX User's Guide to the START Program ........................ 49 Bibliography .......................................... 69 xi Figures 1.1. Flow Diagram Showing How START Fits into Translating Operational Capability into Movement Characteristics ........ 4 3.1. Relationships of Model Inputs to Functional Outputs ....... 15 3.2. Functional Area Subdivisions ......................... 16 A.1. START Program Input Worksheet ..................... 50 A.2. START Program Input Dialog Box .................... 52 A.3. Example Tables Worksheet .......................... 62 A.4. Example Partial Output of the Base List Worksheet ......... 63 A.5. Example Partial Output of the Rqmts TPFDD Worksheet .... 65 A.6. Example Partial Output of the Graphics Worksheet ......... 66 xiii Table 3.1. Bomb and Missile Loadings Used in START for Movement Calculations ..................................... 30 xv Summary The Air Force is transitioning from a threat-based planning posture to a capabilities-based planning posture. Adopting a planning strategy based on a portfolio of capabilities 1 suggests the need to develop a means to calculate swiftly the manpower and equipment required to generate each of the capabilities in that portfolio. This need, in com- bination with the current expeditionary posture of the Air Force, highlights the value of expediting deployment-planning timelines. Much of the logistical component of planning involves gener- ating time-phased force deployment data (TPFDD). A TPFDD is a list of which units of capability need to be deployed in order to sup- port the mission objectives, who will supply these capabilities, and details of the timing and routing of their transport. These units of capability are called Unit Type Codes (UTCs), and this list of UTCs is assembled by specialists in each career area, who are called func- tional area managers. For deliberate plans, this process can take on the order of a year. When a crisis occurs, assembling the TPFDD for a real deployment benefits from the experience of generating the de- liberate plans (and sometimes planners use a deliberate plan as a tem- plate), thus compressing the time-scale, but the process still takes weeks to months to complete. An analysis tool that can automate as much of this planning work as possible would greatly expedite the planning process and hence would help to usher along the transition to a capabilities-based, ____________ 1 Rumsfeld, 2001. xvi A Methodology for Determining Air Force Deployment Requirements expeditionary Air Force. This monograph presents a prototype analy- sis tool that illustrates a methodology for developing this capability. The analysis tool was developed with two objectives in mind: to demonstrate the feasibility of a tool to generate a parameterized list of UTCs necessary to support a specified mission based on a limited number of inputs, and to estimate the movement requirements to achieve initial operating capability at all deployed locations. Quantifying Deployment Requirements Requirements in a theater can be approximated by adding the re- quirements at each base (including theater-level requirements on at least one base, such as command and control), and then subtracting theater-level efficiencies, such as centralized maintenance facilities. Hence, our analysis focuses on calculating requirements at a base level and aggregates over bases to estimate theater requirements. 2 At a base, the principal factors that drive which and how many UTCs deploy are " the existing base infrastructure and working Maximum on Ground (MOG) " the number, type, and mission of the aircraft bedded down " the total base population " the level of conventional and unconventional threats to which the base is exposed. Using these general inputs, we compiled rules for the deploy- ment of UTCs for the following functional areas: aviation and main- tenance, aerial port operations, civil engineering, bare-base support, munitions, fuels mobility support equipment, deployed communica- tions, force protection, medical support, and general-purpose vehi- cles. These areas constitute the bulk of the deployed manpower and ____________ 2 Galway et al., 2002. Summary xvii equipment. The rules were compiled from detailed interviews with senior noncommissioned officers and functional area managers at Air Combat Command (ACC) and Air Mobility Command (AMC), as well as consulting published Air Force documents. The result is a prototype Excel-based model called the Strategic Tool for the Analysis of Required Transportation (START). It trans- lates specified operational capability at a deployed location into a list of UTCs needed to generate that capability. Inputs to the program are type, number, mission, and sortie rate of aircraft bedded down at the site; generalities of the existing infrastructure at the base, selected from a checklist; and levels of conventional and nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) threats to which the base is vulnerable. Using these inputs, the model determines a list of core UTCs needed to support these requirements. This UTC list, along with movement characteristics listed in the Manpower and Equipment Force Packaging (MEFPAK), 3 are then aggregated by functional area to indicate the movement requirements by weight (short tons) and volume (cubic feet). These movement characteristics are then further aggregated into C-17 equivalents. The user can view these aggregate figures in tabular and graphical form, as well as drill down to the UTC lists. Example Applications A fully implemented tool based on this prototype should be useful for a range of Air Force planning needs. Three potential applications are as follows: Crisis-Action Planning 4 An analysis tool that can generate a first approximation of a TPFDD within minutes without the planner having special experience in lo- ____________ 3 Taken from the December 2001 MEFPAK list. 4 See pp. 41 342. xviii A Methodology for Determining Air Force Deployment Requirements gistics would provide operational planners with rapid feedback on the logistical feasibility of their plans, and once a plan is agreed upon, would provide a template for the logisticians to build the execution TPFDD. An analysis tool should greatly accelerate both phases of the crisis-action planning process. Setting Manpower and Equipment Authorizations 5 In capabilities-based planning, planners may wish to evaluate dozens of scenarios requiring capabilities of varying scope in unspecified loca- tions. 6 An analytical tool that can rapidly generate a requirements TPFDD would permit such an analysis by providing an assessment of the manpower and equipment needs to achieve each element of the desired portfolio of capabilities. War Reserve Materiel Prepositioning and Forward Support Locations 7 The analysis tool described in this report can generate the movement requirements for a range of possible scenarios at a range of locations. This demand can, in turn, be combined with data on storage capaci- ties, transportation times and capacities (air, land, and sea), and other logistical constraints for each potential war reserve materiel (WRM) site to optimize for the location of these sites and distribution of WRM among these sites. Recommendations We foresee no theoretical impediments that would prevent the START prototype tool described in this monograph to be developed into an execution-level tool. To facilitate this implementation, we make the following recommendations: ____________ 5 See pp. 42 343. 6 Davis, 2002. 7 See p. 43. Summary xix Develop formal definitions for deployed locations. 8 Other than for a bare base, no accepted vocabulary exists that describes common types of sites to which the Air Force typically deploys. Defining a limited number of standard deployment sites will permit UTCs to be tailored and sized according to a common set of planning factors. Develop formal definitions of conventional and NBC threat. 9 Uniform definitions for these threats agreed by all relevant groups would provide a common vocabulary for advanced echelon (ADVON) teams and facilitate rapid decisions on which UTCs are needed across all functional areas. Establish an office of primary responsibility to maintain the spreadsheet model. 10 Maintaining a spreadsheet model to generate the UTC lists that are necessary to support operations will give the Air Force a greater expeditionary posture and facilitate its transition to capabilities-based planning. ____________ 8 See pp. 45 346. 9 See p. 46. 10 See pp. 46 347. xxi Acknowledgments This project was sponsored by both AF/IL and AF/XOX; we thank our sponsors Lt Gen Michael Zettler and Maj Gen Jeffrey Kohler for their support of this work, as well as our action officer Col Connie Morrow (AF/ILGX). The primary sources of data for this study were interviews with the staffs at ACC and AMC. At ACC, we thank Col Hugh Robinson (ACC/LG) and Col Bridget McGovern (ACC/LGX) for access to their staff. Col Robinson also granted us an extended interview. Lt Col Kenneth (Keith) Grimes (ACC/LGXI) and Capt Curtis Lee (ACC/LGXI) organized our visits to Langley Air Force Base (AFB), and tirelessly found the right functionals to answer our questions, of- ten on short notice. At AMC, Capt Joshua Meyer (AMC/LGXI) ar- ranged our interviews and found the right functionals to supply the data that we needed. The Air Force personnel at ACC and AMC who contributed to our research are too numerous to cite individually. Those whom we contacted several times or who provided especially important information are cited directly in the text. We thank Lt Col Coert Scoggins (60 OSS/OGT) at Travis AFB and Lt Randolph Lake (965 AACS) at Tinker AFB for arranging our visits and interviews at these active units. During the course of this work, we had the opportunity to pre- sent progress briefs to a number of groups within the Air Force. During these visits, we received useful feedback that substantially im- proved this work, and often learned of new sources of data. At the Air Force Logistics Management Agency (AFLMA), we thank Capt Todd xxii A Methodology for Determining Air Force Deployment Requirements Groothuis (AFLMA/LGX), Capt Timothy Gillaspie (AFLMA/LGX), CMSgt John Drew (AFLMA/LGM), and SMSgt Cedric McMillon (AFLMA/LGM). At Air Force Studies and Analysis (AFSAA), we thank Lt Col Stephen Alsing (AFSAA/SACE) and his staff for their input, and for introducing us to the staff at AF/CC-AEF. At AF/CC- AEF, we thank Lt Col Rick Cornelio (AF/CC-AEF) and Maj Doreen Pagel (AF/CC-AEF) for information on the Force Module efforts. At Air Forces United States Central Command (CENTAF), conversa- tions with Maj Dennis Long (CENTAF/A4-LGX) about bare-base support were helpful, especially how Harvest Falcon assets are stored and deployed. Visits with the Air Staff were similarly helpful. We es- pecially thank Lt Col Robert Michael Cleary (AF/ILGV), Lt Col William McKinley (AF/ILGE), and Lt Col Jim Reavis (AF/ILMW). We received considerable assistance in the area of fuels support. We would like to thank the staff of the Air Force Petroleum Office (AFPET) for information on how fuels support deploys and for re- leasing to us the Fuels Mobility Support Equipment (FMSE) calcula- tor. In particular, we thank CMSgt Thomas Gillenwater (ACC/ LGSF), CMSgt William Rozier (AF/ILGP), SMSgt Shawn Simon (AFPET), and SMSgt Robert McGonagle (AFLMA/LGS) for their help. We would also like to thank Maj Kathy Goforth (9 MUNS/ LGW) for the opportunity to attend the Air Force Combat Ammuni- tion Center senior officers orientation course, for information on munitions handling and building, and for introducing us to Lt Col James Reavis (AF/ILMW). We benefited greatly from discussions with many colleagues within RAND, especially (in alphabetical order) Mahyar Amouzegar, Lionel Galway, Lt Col David Johansen (now at AF/ILGX), Jim Leftwich, and Tim Ramey. We thank Robert Tripp and Robert Roll for their guidance and leadership in the project, and for placing us in contact with the right staff in the Air Force. MSgt Les Dishman ex- pedited our access to Air Force data, sites, and staff, often on short notice. Acknowledgments xxiii External to RAND and the Air Force, discussions with Tony Dronkers (Synergy) and Dick Olson (ANSER) were helpful. Also, we thank Bob DeFeo for helping to arrange our visit to Travis AFB. Formal reviews by Eric Peltz and James Masters greatly im- proved the presentation. We, of course, assume responsibility for any errors or omissions. xxv Acronyms ACC Air Combat Command ADVON advanced echelon AFB Air Force Base AFH Air Force Handbook AFLMA Air Force Logistics Management Agency AFPAM Air Force Pamphlet AFPET Air Force Petroleum Office AFRES Air Force Reserve AFSAA Air Force Studies and Analysis AG Air-to-Ground AGM Air-to-Ground Missile AIM Air Intercept Missile AMC Air Mobility Command AMCI Air Mobility Command Instruction ANG Air National Guard APO aerial port operations AWACS Airborne Warning and Control System BDR battle damage repair BEAR Base Expeditionary Airfield Resources BOS base operating support xxvi A Methodology for Determining Air Force Deployment Requirements CAP combat air patrol CAS Close Air Support CENTAF United States Central Command Air Forces CIRF centralized intermediate repair facility CONUS Continental United States C2ISR command, control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance ECU environmental control unit EMEDS Expeditionary Medical Support EOD explosive ordnance disposal FAM functional area manager FMSE fuels mobility support equipment FOC full operating capability FOL forward operating location FSL forward support location GBU Guided Bomb Unit HMMWV high-mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle HUMRO humanitarian relief operation HQ Headquarters ILM intermediate-level maintenance IOC initial operating capability JEIM jet engine intermediate maintenance LANTIRN Low-altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night LIN liquid nitrogen LOX liquid oxygen LMST Lightweight Multi-Band Satellite Terminal Acronyms xxvii LOGFOR Logistics Force Packaging System MAJCOM major command MDS mission design series MEFPAK Manpower and Equipment Force Packaging MHE materiel handling equipment MISCAP Mission Capability MMS Munitions Maintenance Squadron MOG Maximum on Ground MRC major regional conflict MTon Measurement ton NBC nuclear, biological, and chemical NCO Noncommissioned Officer OCONUS Outside the Continental United States PAA Primary Aircraft Authorized PACAF Pacific Air Forces PAR population at risk Prime BEEF Prime Base Engineer Emergency Force RED HORSE Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operations Repair Squadron RSP readiness spares package SATCOM Satellite Communications SEAD suppression of enemy air defenses SIOP Single Integrated Operational Plan SOF Special Operations Forces SPEARR Small Portable Expeditionary Aeromedical Rapid Response SSC small-scale contingency xxviii A Methodology for Determining Air Force Deployment Requirements START Strategic Tool for the Analysis of Required Transportation STon Short ton TPFDD time-phased force deployment data USAFE United States Air Forces in Europe UAV unmanned aerial vehicle UTC Unit Type Code VBA Visual BASIC for Applications WRM war reserve materiel 1 CHAPTER ONE Introduction The world security environment has recently changed considerably. Because of new and changing threats over just the past several years, the United States military has been called upon to perform more than 80 operations in dozens of countries worldwide, 1 many of which fell outside the scope of its deliberate plans, and some of which it was called upon to do with minimum planning time. It seems that, for the foreseeable future, the United States cannot expect to know with confidence who its enemies may be or where it may need to fight. Deployments may require response at short notice for any level of engagement from humanitarian relief operations through major thea- ter war. The Department of Defense has responded to this new security environment by transitioning from a threat-based posture to a capa- bilities-based posture. 2 The threat-based posture revolved around de- liberate plans for countering specific threats in particular regions of the world. For each specific threat, detailed operational plans were assembled for how that conflict was to be executed. The new ap- proach to planning is to develop a cportfolio of capabilities that is robust across the spectrum of possible force requirements, both func- tional and geographical. d 3 This change shifts the emphasis from pre- paring to fight specific conflicts in specified regions, to one of defin- ____________ 1 Kaplan, 2003. 2 Rumsfeld, 2001. 3 Rumsfeld, 2001, p. 17. 2 A Methodology for Determining Air Force Deployment Requirements ing and maintaining a set of capabilities that the military must pos- sess. Adapting to this new planning environment will require the United States military to develop a new analytic architecture. 4 From a logistics perspective, one prominent implication of the shift to capabilities-based planning is the desirability of a means to quantify logistical support rapidly. In the previous threat-based mode of planning, the logistical component revolved around generating a limited number of time-phased force deployment data (TPFDD) to support a limited number of specific operations in particular geo- graphic locations. A TPFDD is a list of which units of capability need to be deployed in order to support the mission objectives, who will supply these capabilities, and details of the timing and routing of their transport. These units of capability are called Unit Type Codes (UTCs), and this list of UTCs is assembled by specialists in each ca- reer area, who are called functional area managers. For deliberate plans, this process can take on the order of a year. When a crisis oc- curs, assembling the TPFDD for a real deployment benefits from the experience of generating the deliberate plans (and planners sometimes use deliberate plans as a template), thus compressing the time-scale, but the process still takes weeks to months to complete. An analytical methodology to shorten this time frame would fa- cilitate the transition to capabilities-based planning. First, it would make tractable the task of generating a portfolio of planning TPFDDs to support the specified portfolio of required capabilities. That is, for each defined capability, the Air Force would have a viable means to generate a planning TPFDD. This capability would provide a ready means to evaluate manpower and equipment authorizations and to provide a framework for posturing UTCs. Second, an analyti- cal tool to assist in TPFDD building would expedite crisis action planning, reducing the time required to generate the TPFDD, and thus reducing the response time to exigencies. ____________ 4 Davis, 2002. Introduction 3 The Air Force has made progress in this direction with the de- velopment of Force Modules. 5 Force Modules are fixed lists of UTCs assembled to perform common Air Force operations. Five Force Modules are being developed: open the airbase, provide command and control capabilities, establish the airbase, generate the mission, and operate the airbase. The idea is that these sets of UTCs will be as lean as possible but sufficient to perform the stated mission. In keep- ing with capabilities-based planning, they will quantify the capabili- ties that the Air Force possesses and serve as building blocks for TPFDD development during crisis-action planning. In this monograph, we explore a further parameterization of the TPFDD building process, designed to give planners and Air Force leadership a further refinement for generating a ctailored d TPFDD. The tool described in this report, the Strategic Tool for the Analysis of Required Transportation (START), is a prototype of this method 4a tool for the strategic planner that translates an operational capability at a deployed location into a list of needed UTCs, along with their movement requirements. Figure 1.1 shows where START fits into this translation process. The user begins with a desired operational capability specified by several parameters (i.e., aircraft, mission, characteristics of de- ployed location, etc.). The model then outputs a list of UTCs re- quired to effect that operational capability, as well as the movement characteristics of the materiel. The remaining chapters describe this prototype tool in detail. Chapter Two provides an overview of the tool, including its scope, levels of input and output, methodology and sources of its data, and its uses and limitations. Chapter Three provides details on the logic and sources of data for each functional area treated. The level of de- scription in that chapter provides the user with enough information to evaluate the fidelity of the results for any application of interest. Chapter Four presents some illustrative applications using the analysis ____________ 5 Elliott, 2003. 4 A Methodology for Determining Air Force Deployment Requirements Figure 1.1 Flow Diagram Showing How START Fits into Translating Operational Capability into Movement Characteristics Operational capability Set of inputs START UTC list Movement characteristics RAND MG176-1.1 tool. Chapter Five presents our conclusions and recommendations. Finally, the Appendix serves as a detailed user 9s guide, providing step- by-step instructions on how to input data and how to read the results of the calculations. 5 CHAPTER TWO Quantifying Deployment Requirements The Scope and Output of the START Model The total amount of materiel and manpower needed in a theater to achieve a certain operational capability can be viewed as an aggregate of what is needed at a given base for it to have its own organic capa- bility, plus theater needs (such as theater-level command and control equipment), minus whatever benefits may be gained by economies of scale and centralization of supply and repair (such as centralized in- termediate repair facilities [CIRFs]). 1 The base-level requirements thus form the building blocks for determining the theater-level re- quirements, 2 and, hence, the prototype analysis tool described in this report operates at the base level. It converts the operational capability desired at a deployed location into a list of materiel and manpower needed to generate that capability. Theater requirements are calcu- lated by summing requirements at multiple bases. The model builds requirements at the UTC level, when possi- ble, 3 and with the exception of munitions, it does not estimate con- ____________ 1 Tripp, et al., 1999; Peltz et al., 2000; Feinberg et al., 2001; Amouzegar, Galway, and Geller, 2002. 2 Galway et al., 2002. 3 Some commodities do not have a UTC (e.g., most general-purpose vehicles) or are com- monly shipped as **Z99 UTCs (e.g., munitions). In these cases, we list the items individually as a c**Z99 d UTC. See Galway et al., 2002. 6 A Methodology for Determining Air Force Deployment Requirements sumables (e.g., food and fuel). 4 The UTC is a natural unit to quan- tify movement requirements because it forms the components of de- ployment TPFDDs. START combines the output list of UTCs with the Manpower and Equipment Force Packaging (MEFPAK) 5 move- ment characteristics for each UTC. We have extended the movement characteristics listed in the MEFPAK to estimate the number of C-17 equivalents that would be needed to move the contents of these UTCs, while keeping in mind both maximum volume and weight constraints. The analysis tool was developed with two objectives in mind: to demonstrate the feasibility of a tool to generate a candidate list of UTCs necessary to support a specified mission, and to estimate the movement requirements to achieve initial operating capability at all deployed locations. Achieving these objectives can be accomplished without compiling rules for the deployment of each of the 2,000-plus Air Force UTCs. Many UTCs are either seldom deployed (requiring the judgment of an expert) or constitute very little of the manpower or weight of materiel that needs to be in place (contributing little to the movement requirements). We compiled rules for the deployment of UTCs that constitute the core capabilities in the following func- tional areas: aviation and maintenance, aerial port operations, civil engineering, bare-base support, munitions, fuels mobility support equipment, deployed communications, force protection, medical support, and general-purpose vehicles. In sum, these capabilities con- stitute the vast majority of the mass and volume of materiel that must be at a site to initiate and sustain operations. Hence, they provide a starting point for a TPFDD and provide an estimate of the move- ment requirements to reach initial operating capability (IOC) at a base and to sustain a planned sortie rate. UTCs that are not treated (i.e., those for which we did not define a rule) are generally those with isolated personnel in functional areas not treated, those deployed ____________ 4 Munitions are included because they require considerable lift due to their weight and, un- like many consumables, cannot be procured on the local market. 5 The December 2001 version was used. Newer versions of the MEFPAK can be easily im- ported. Quantifying Deployment Requirements 7 only under special circumstances, or those that are comparatively light. The Inputs for the START Model The aspects of an operational capability that principally drive the ma- teriel and manpower needs are the aircraft, the total base population, and the level of threat to which the base is exposed. For a non-bare base, any existing infrastructure at the base may also reduce the movement requirements. The type, number, mission, and sortie schedule of the aircraft drive materiel needs in areas such as aviation, maintenance, aerial port operations, munitions, and munitions han- dling. Base population principally drives materiel needs in civil engi- neering, bare-base support, medical services, and communications. And the threat level, both conventional and nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC), drives needs in the areas of force protection, explo- sive ordnance disposal (EOD), and medical support. These relation- ships will be further detailed in Chapter Three. Other factors can play a role in materiel and manpower needs, especially the topography and layout of the base. A geographically extended base will increase certain needs, such as the need for vehi- cles, and place higher demands on force protection. Further, if facili- ties such as antennae must be erected outside the base perimeter, ad- ditional force protection will be required to secure those assets. Topography can impede line-of-sight communications, necessitating additional communications equipment. On the other hand, topogra- phy can make the base easier to defend, thereby reducing the force protection requirements. Base layout and topography substantially affect requirements for only a few of the functional areas. For this reason, and to keep the tool as flexible as possible and to obviate the need for a detailed base survey, we have estimated the requirements for a given operational capability with a ctypical d deployed base layout and topography. Hence, for the purposes of this model, the principal characteristics that determine materiel needs at a base are the following: 8 A Methodology for Determining Air Force Deployment Requirements " The existing base infrastructure and working Maximum on Ground (MOG) 6 " The aircraft bedded down or using the base as an en-route loca- tion " The total base population " The threats to which the base is exposed. As the model is designed for strategic, not tactical, use, we have kept these inputs as general as possible. Details of these inputs are discussed in the next chapter. The inputs to START are " a checklist specifying the nature of the existing infrastructure at the base (e.g., Is there an adequate hard fuel supply, or is fuels mobility support equipment [FMSE] needed? Is force protection needed?) " the type and number of aircraft that are bedded down (or that use the base as an en-route location) as well as the mission and sortie rate of those aircraft " the level of threat to the base, both conventional and NBC. A option in START allows the user to specify whether the cal- culation is for IOC or full operating capability (FOC), which we use to mean IOC plus maintenance equipment for operations beyond 30 days, and munitions for operations up to seven days. Although it is not an explicit input to the tool, START uses the total base popula- tion to determine the demand for many support UTCs; the base population is estimated from the number of aircraft bedded down using bare-base planning factors. 7 These planning factors give a range ____________ 6 Working Maximum on Ground is the number of aircraft that can be serviced on the ramp, whether refueling or loading or unloading cargo. Parking MOG is the number of aircraft that may be parked at the base. The latter number is typically much larger than working MOG, and we exclude it as a limitation or driver of UTC deployment. For the rest of this report, MOG will be used to mean working MOG and will refer to how many aircraft can be simultaneously loaded or unloaded on the ramp. 7 Air Force Pamphlet (AFPAM) 10-219, 1996, Vol. 5, p. 34. Because the manpower esti- mates are incomplete for some of the career fields 4viz., command and control (1C), intelli- Quantifying Deployment Requirements 9 of anticipated base population as a function of the number and size of the aircraft bedded down at the site. We use the conservative, upper estimates. Base Type For the purposes of this model, the Air Force does not currently de- fine a suite of terms that adequately describes the range of locations to which forces deploy. A cbare base d describes some of the sites recently used, but no formal definitions capture the range of other sites, such as use of international airports, use of non 3United States military air bases, and so forth. In an effort to keep the input as general as possible yet flexible enough to describe a wide range of potential deployment sites, we have defined two types of bases: a bare base and what we call an ces- tablished base, d which is a user-defined base with infrastructure be- yond a bare base. This approach allows a fairly detailed description of the existing base infrastructure without creating a range of base defi- nitions. A bare base is ca site with a usable runway, taxiway, parking ar- eas, and a source of water that can be made potable. d 8 The baseline assumption for a bare base is that anything needed for operations must be supplied. As a default, we do not assume that heavy con- struction is required (e.g., building or runway construction), but if needed, the user can specify this requirement and the appropriate Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operations Repair Squadron (RED HORSE) teams are added to the movement requirements. We define an established base, for the purposes of this tool, as any base with infrastructure beyond that of a bare base. This includes ______________________________________________________ gence (1N), safety (1S), weather (1W), logistics planners (2G), supply (2S), transportation and vehicle maintenance (2T), historian (3H), public affairs (3N), services (3M), manpower (3U), paralegal (5J), contracting (6C), financial (6F), and special investigations (7S) 4the model estimates the total base population expected for the number of aircraft and operations of those aircraft using planning factors, detailed in Chapter Three. A fully implemented model would use planning factors as a seed for the base population, calculate the manpower requirements based on this base population, sum the calculated manpower positions to esti- mate the base population, and iterate the calculation. 8 AFPAM 10-219, 1996, Vol. 5, p. 8. 10 A Methodology for Determining Air Force Deployment Requirements main operating bases, international airports, coalition-country mili- tary bases, and so forth. For these cases, the user is able to characterize the additional infrastructure that will be needed to achieve the desired capability. Examples of infrastructure considered by START include whether a new airframe will be introduced to the site, and whether additional billeting, communications, fuels equipment, medical facili- ties, and force protection are required. If heavy construction is needed, the user can select whether it is horizontal (ramps, runways, etc.) or vertical (buildings, etc.). Chapter Three provides details that assist the user in making these selections. This range of options should allow the user to tailor the charac- teristics of a deployed location without having to define a large num- ber of cumbersome base definitions and without being constrained to a limited number of restricted definitions that do not adequately de- scribe the location. Aircraft For aircraft input, the user specifies the type of aircraft, their number, the mission (e.g., combat air patrol [CAP]; air-to-ground bombing; suppression of enemy air defenses [SEAD]; transport; refueling; command, control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance [C2ISR]), whether the aircraft are bedded down or use the site as an en-route base, and the sortie rate (for the strike aircraft). The user can select multiple airframes at the same location. Most aircraft are listed and are grouped as fighters and attack aircraft, Special Operations Forces (SOF) aircraft, bombers, mobility aircraft, and C2ISR assets. Threat Level Two threat-level categories are defined with levels within each of them. The first category, which we call the conventional threat level, measures the vulnerability of the base to ground attack and is used to determine the level of force protection needed. (It does not include capabilities that are not organic with the Air Force, such as Patriot missile batteries or heavy ground troops.) The second category, which we call NBC threat level, is the likelihood of attack by non- Quantifying Deployment Requirements 11 conventional weapons. It determines needs in the areas of medical support and engineering readiness. Methodology and Sources of Data Knowledge of what materiel is needed at a base to attain IOC given the state of the base, the type and mission of the aircraft, and other parameters exists organically within each functional area of the Air Force. Some functional areas have compiled rules that serve as a tem- plate for estimating what manpower and materiel need to be de- ployed under a range of circumstances. No set of rules, however, ex- ists that embraces more than one functional area, and hence no model exists that compiles a comprehensive list of UTCs needed at a base in order to attain IOC. 9 When possible, we have taken the rules developed by functional areas and incorporated them directly into the START model. Other- wise, we collected the information necessary to devise these rules. Various sources contributed to this collection effort, the most impor- tant of which are " interviews with functional-area managers and senior non- commissioned officers (NCOs) " Air Force publications. We relied primarily on interviews with senior NCOs at Headquarters (HQ) Air Combat Command (ACC) and HQ Air Mobility Com- mand (AMC) in early 2002. These specialists are most familiar with the exact UTCs needed to attain a given capability and are also most familiar with program changes in these commodities. We asked these specialists what considerations drove what they needed to fulfill their various missions, and which specific UTCs they would deploy to achieve a desired capability. We also inquired about any UTC re- ____________ 9 Galway et al., 2002. 12 A Methodology for Determining Air Force Deployment Requirements engineering foreseen in the near future and any recommendations for changes, including prepositioning of materiel. Their responses not only provided the core of the logic that we implemented to generate the output list of UTCs but also helped refine what the critical inputs of the model should be. Air Force documents (mostly pamphlets and instructions) sup- plemented these interviews. In some cases, functional areas have al- ready formalized their requirements as rules (e.g., fuels equipment) and have published them in Air Force documents. In other cases, we used these documents to fill in gaps and ambiguities that arose from the interviews. Finally, in some instances, we used unclassified Mis- sion Capability (MISCAP) statements for guidance. Chapter Three elaborates further on sources for each functional area. We have not used historical deployment data as a significant in- put for three reasons. First, for most deployed sites, the nature and quantity of existing infrastructure, manpower, and equipment at the site are poorly documented. Because these resources are needed for operations, yet are not on the TPFDD, the TPFDD underestimates the requirements. Likewise, some materiel is not at the site and also not listed on the TPFDD, because it was readily available locally (for example, leasing of general-purpose vehicles). Second, a large fraction of deployed UTCs are significantly or wholly tailored. Additionally, some are listed in the TPFDD as c**Z99 d and, as such, contain insuf- ficient detail for our needs. Third, in historical deployments, the de- sired operational capability of a site may change with time, making it difficult to correlate a specific capability with materiel on the TPFDD. For example, some materiel sent during Operation Noble Anvil was intended for Operation Papa Bear, although the conflict ended before the latter operation was executed. 13 CHAPTER THREE Functional Areas Treated and How They Deploy This chapter provides a brief overview of each functional area treated by START, highlighting what determines which UTCs are deployed to support a specified mission. As such, this chapter serves two pur- poses: first, as a primer for how each of the functional areas treated deploys, and second, as a guide to the fidelity of the calculations. For each functional area, we explain what is modeled in START and any UTCs that are omitted from the model. Sources of data for the rules are documented, along with our best assessment of the accuracy of the estimates. Placing an absolute value on the accuracy of any of the calcula- tions in impracticable. No absolute baseline exists that establishes ex- actly what is needed to accomplish desired operational effects. 1 Which UTCs are deployed will vary somewhat depending on the judgment of the planner, what level of risks is considered acceptable, and operational priorities. Nevertheless, we can make qualitative as- sessments of the fidelity of the estimates for each functional area. These assessments take the form of statements of how well established the rules are for the deployment of UTCs in a given functional area and how well the level of inputs to START capture the independent variables of those rules. These qualitative statements give an appraisal of the crobustness d of the estimates in the following sense: how sensi- tive the list of chosen UTCs would be to factors outside the range of ____________ 1 One of the potential applications of this type of analytical tool is to illuminate the conse- quences of the current Air Force planning factors, indicating areas that would profit most from footprint reduction efforts. See Galway et al., 2002. 14 A Methodology for Determining Air Force Deployment Requirements inputs to START and to the vicissitudes of which individual is tasked to make decisions of which UTCs to deploy during contingency operations. Together, the sections in this chapter provide the user with an introduction to how the Air Force deploys and enough background to understand the limitations as well as the power of this kind of tool. Figure 3.1 summarizes graphically which inputs drive which func- tional outputs. Further, Figure 3.2 breaks out the subdivisions, if any, of each functional area. Sortie Generation For the purposes of this model, we group together the functional ar- eas that the Air Force deploys directly to support mission generation (as opposed to base operating support [BOS], which indirectly sup- ports operations), and call this group csortie generation. d Sortie gen- eration packages are used to provide a range of services to the war- fighter, including, but not limited to, moving aircraft around the flightline, maintaining the aircraft, and loading munitions. Sortie Generation Functional Areas We divide sortie generation into the same three categories as the Air Force does: aviation, maintenance, and munitions maintenance. We also include in the discussion in this section the readiness spares packages (RSPs) for the aircraft. Aviation. Aviation packages roughly correspond to flightline maintenance capability and enable maintainers to move aircraft around the flightline, examine the aircraft, and diagnose and perform a limited number of repairs. These UTCs all begin with 3****. Mate- riel includes tow vehicles, trailers, maintenance stands, tools, power generators, air conditioners, heaters, and spare parts kits. The princi- pal manpower requirements are aircrew, maintainers, logisticians, and supply specialists. Approximately 280 UTCs (of which we use 65) cover these capabilities. In developing the rules used in this tool, we Figure 3.1 Relationships of Model Inputs to Functional Outputs Operational capability Set of inputs START UTC list Standard munitions load Bare-base planning factors Base personnel estimate Movement characteristics Movement characteristics Munitions Deployed communications Bare-base support Civil engineering General purpose vehicles Medical Fuels mobility support equipment Aviation and maintenance Aerial port operation Force protection Operational capability RAND MG176-3.1 Existing base infrastructure Threat levels Sortie rate Aircraft beddown Functional Areas Treated and How They Deploy 15 Figure 3.2 Functional Area Subdivisions RAND MG176-3.2 Munitions Deployed communications Bare-base support Civil engineering General- purpose vehicles Medical Fuels mobility support equipment Sortie generation equipment Aerial port operation Force protection Inside the gate Outside the gage First 400 feet Postal/visual/ information management Aviation Maintenance Munitions Engineer craftsmen Readiness Fire protection EOD RED HORSE Housekeeping Industrial operations Initial flightline Follow-on flighline Harvest Falcon Harvest Eagle 16 A Methodology for Deter m ining Air Force Deploy m ent Require m ents Functional Areas Treated and How They Deploy 17 have consulted unclassified MISCAP statements and a number of functional area managers (FAMs) at ACC and AMC. 2 Two factors, aircraft mission design series (MDS) and number, determine which of these UTCs are deployed. Simply put, if an air- craft deploys, so do its aviation UTC(s). In reality, numbers of air- craft different from those found in UTCs are deployed, but the model limits the user 9s choices of aircraft quantities to those found in the corresponding aviation UTCs (or sums of those quantities). Most aviation UTCs are quite heavy, generally between 100 and 300 short tons each. While fighter UTCs tend to be the heaviest, they usually have equipment for 18 or 24 aircraft versus those for heavy aircraft, which usually have equipment for fewer than ten aircraft. By weight per aircraft, then, C2ISR (e.g., E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System [AWACS]) aviation UTCs outweigh those of smaller airframes. 3 C-5s and C-17s have no aviation UTCs. Equipment used to turn and repair these aircraft is found in their maintenance UTCs. Maintenance. Maintenance UTCs, for most aircraft, contain intermediate-level maintenance (ILM) capabilities (e.g., avionics, jet engine intermediate maintenance [JEIM]). These UTCs give main- tainers a cbackshop d capability where they can disassemble compo- nents and perform more-intensive diagnosis and repair than with aviation UTCs. Materiel includes maintenance stands, trailers, and testing equipment. Manpower requirements include maintainers, lo- gisticians, and supply specialists. Approximately 300 UTCs cover these capabilities (60 of which are included in START), all beginning with the prefix HE*** or HF***. Unclassified aviation UTC MISCAP statements specify which maintenance UTCs should deploy ____________ 2 Interviews at the headquarters of ACC (Langley AFB) on January 27, 2002, and June 10, 2002, and at the headquarters of AMC (Scott AFB) on January 8, 2002. 3 Fighter UTCs average about ten short tons per aircraft, and C2ISR UTCs average about 50 short tons per aircraft. Small C2ISR aircraft, such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or U-2 are exceptions to this rule. 18 A Methodology for Determining Air Force Deployment Requirements with particular aviation UTCs and when they should deploy. 4 We have followed those rules as closely as possible. This logic was con- firmed by interviews with senior NCOs and FAMs. 5 In START, three factors (aircraft MDS, number of aircraft, and operating capability [i.e., full versus initial]) govern which of these UTCs are deployed. Generally, if IOC is selected, no maintenance capability is added to aviation packages. If FOC is chosen, most cor- responding maintenance UTCs are deployed. Many MDS have mul- tiple maintenance UTCs. For example, a squadron of 18 F-16CGs would require only one aviation UTC (3FKM3) but several mainte- nance UTCs (basic ILM [HFAGC], JEIM [HFAM4], and Munitions Maintenance Squadron [MMS] [HGHAD]). Mobility aircraft follow a different logic. Because these aircraft may use a base as either an en-route location (to deliver cargo or to refuel) or a beddown location, different factors drive UTC selection. If the base will be en-route for a type of aircraft, the base MOG will drive the number of aircraft supported (maintenance equipment in proportion to the MOG is deployed for each aircraft selected to use the base for en-route support). Therefore, if C-17s will flow through the base, and the MOG is 4, then the UTC for a MOG of four C-17s will deploy. If a base will be a beddown location for a type of aircraft (potentially any mobility aircraft except the C-5), the number of aircraft selected and whether FOC is chosen will drive the deploy- ment of maintenance UTCs (except for C-17s, which only have UTCs designed for increments of MOG). 6 Because C-5 and C-17 UTCs are designed around MOG rather than total number of air- craft, there are no drop-down menus in START for selecting the number of C-5s and C-17s. ____________ 4 Some aviation UTCs require a corresponding maintenance UTC to be fully operational (e.g., KC-10), and some require them only if operations exceed 30 days. 5 Interviews at HQ ACC (Langley AFB) on January 27, 2002, and June 10, 2002, and at HQ AMC (Scott AFB) on January 8, 2002. 6 Although the C-17 was designed with many tactical capabilities, its deployment concept, like that of the C-5, was as a strategic lifter. UTCs are therefore designed to support working MOG in relatively small numbers, rather than bedding down in large numbers (like the KC-135). Functional Areas Treated and How They Deploy 19 Because they constitute a small fraction of the materiel, and are driven by factors beyond the scope of the inputs to START, we ex- cluded four types of equipment that fall into the maintenance series of UTCs: battle damage repair (BDR), surveillance and reconnais- sance equipment, war reserve materiel (WRM), and fuel tanks. Although maintenance UTCs are being redesigned, some are currently not available in increments as small as the aviation UTCs. For example, there are aviation UTCs for F-16CJs in increments of six (i.e., for 6, 12, 18, and 24 aircraft), but maintenance UTCs for only 18- or 24-ship packages. We have matched maintenance UTC quantities as closely as possible to user-selected quantities. Require- ments will therefore be overstated in at least two instances: when the smallest available maintenance UTC is designed for a larger number of aircraft than the user-selected quantity and when there are no ap- propriate dependent maintenance UTCs available. Munitions Maintenance Squadron. Approximately 100 UTCs (we use 15) cover the Munitions Maintenance Squadron capabilities, all of which start with the prefix HG*** or HH***. These UTCs are used to store, retrieve, assemble, and transport munitions for loading onto aircraft. Materiel includes generators, lights, trailers, bomblifts, forklifts, and bobtails. Manpower requirements largely fall within munitions systems maintainers and supply specialists. Unclassified aviation UTC MISCAP statements specify which MMS UTCs should deploy with particular aviation UTCs. We have followed those rules as closely as possible. This logic was confirmed by inter- views with senior NCOs and FAMs. 7 Aviation and Maintenance Readiness Spares Packages RSPs are a fourth class of equipment that contain aircraft spare parts. This equipment is sometimes found in aviation UTCs (e.g., fighters), in maintenance UTCs (e.g., C-5, C-17), or in separate UTCs alto- gether (e.g., KC-135). There are 26 UTCs that cover these capabili- ties, all beginning with the prefix JFA**. We include three of these ____________ 7 Interviews at the headquarters of ACC (Langley AFB) on January 27, 2002, and June 10, 2002, and at the headquarters of AMC (Scott AFB) on January 8, 2002. 20 A Methodology for Determining Air Force Deployment Requirements UTCs: JFAFS for C-17s and JFAKN and JFAKP for KC-135s. Note that KC-10s have no RSP UTCs because their supply is wholly sup- ported by their commercial contractor. Sortie Generation Summary Four classes of aircraft are modeled in START 4strike aircraft (fight- ers, bombers, and attack), C2ISR, mobility (transport and refueling), and SOF (fixed-wing and helicopters). When an MDS has more than one model (i.e., AC-130 U versus the older H model), the most re- cent model has been used. Of the Air Force aircraft in the current inventory that deploy in any numbers, the only airframe excluded is the C-141. We omit this airframe because it is being phased out of the inventory. Some other excluded airframes can be approximated by using their analog airframe (e.g., using the A-10 to approximate the OA-10A equipment requirements). Also, no Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) aircraft were included, because they do not typically deploy in any numbers in support of conventional opera- tions. Few UTCs specific to the Air National Guard (ANG) or Air Force Reserve (AFRES) are used in the model. 8 ACC and AMC UTCs generally have enough flexibility to capture the movement characteristics, regardless of which command provides the aircraft. When ANG or AFRES UTCs are used by START, it is done to give the user more flexibility in choosing aircraft quantities and then only for those in which both major commands (MAJCOMs) use identical aircraft. The model 9s input choices for quantity of aircraft at a base are limited to the quantities (or sums of quantities) specified in the UTCs. For example, the B-1B has UTCs for three- and six-ship packages. Therefore, the model offers choices such as 3, 6, and 9, but not 8 or 10. All selections should be as accurate as the UTCs them- selves, with one exception: Not all MDS have independent and de- pendent UTCs. ____________ 8 The ANG and AFRES have UTCs that differ from those of the active forces for two rea- sons. First, they often fly different models or blocks of aircraft. Second, they generally have different squadron sizes (i.e., ACC has squadrons of 18, while ANG has squadrons of 15). Functional Areas Treated and How They Deploy 21 Independent UTCs are lead UTCs that provide all the capability necessary to support the aircraft in question. Dependent UTCs are follow-on UTCs that are deployed to augment the number of aircraft of an MDS already deployed. Because a dependent UTC requires an initial deployment of the corresponding independent UTC, the for- mer excludes some equipment that is in the latter, and is conse- quently lighter. When a larger-than-squadron-size deployment is se- lected for an MDS with no dependent aviation UTCs, the model will consequently overestimate the deployment requirements, sometimes significantly. Aerial Port Operations Aerial port operations (APO) packages are used to load and unload cargo from aircraft, and to move cargo around a base. About 40 UTCs cover these capabilities, all of which start with the prefix UFB**. Most are for individual apparatus, such as lights, water and latrine trucks, and materiel handling equipment (MHE), such as forklifts and loaders. Most manpower requirements are transporters, but a few fall within supply or information management. Our data for the number of UTCs deployed derive from interviews 9 and from an internal, unpublished Air Force document. 10 APO support in START is always included for a bare base. (We assume that adequate

less