The Movement Estimator Tool An Options Analysis and Decision Support Tool for Movement Planners

(1)

Defence R&D Canada

Centre for Operational Research & Analysis

Canadian Operational Support Command

The Movement Estimator Tool An Options Analysis and Decision Support Tool for Movement Planners

Patricia Moorhead

Force Readiness Analysis Team DRDC CORA

Gregory Campbell

Chief of Operational Support Transformation CANOSCOM HQ

DRDC CORA TM 2012-254 October 2012

(2)

(3)

The Movement Estimator Tool

An Options Analysis and Decision Support Tool for Movement Planners

Patricia Moorhead

Force Readiness Analysis Team DRDC CORA

Gregory Campbell

Chief of Operational Support Transformation CANOSCOM HQ

Defence R&D Canada – CORA

Technical Memorandum DRDC CORA TM 2012-254 October 2012

(4)

Principal Author

Original signed by Patricia Moorhead Patricia Moorhead

Force Readiness Analysis Team

Approved by

Original signed by Isabelle Julien Isabelle Julien

Section Head Land, Commands and Readiness

Approved for release by Original signed by Paul Comeau

Paul Comeau

Chief Scientist, DRDC CORA

Defence R&D Canada – Centre for Operational Research and Analysis (CORA)

(5)

Abstract ……..

This paper describes a strategic level movement options analysis simulation tool that has been developed for the Operational Support Logistics Movement section of the Canadian Operational Support Command. The aim of the Movement Estimator Tool (MET) is to enable movement staff to quickly compare various movement plan options and determine the “best” plan. Given a list of items to be moved, specifications for the strategic lift assets that could be utilized and possible lines of communication, the MET uses simulation to estimate the time and cost of the move for multiple possible movement plans. Based on these results, graphical representations of the cost/time trade-off region can be created. By combining this information with additional concerns such as strategic lift asset availability, and time and budgetary constraints, movement staff can decide upon the best course of action. To illustrate the functionality of the MET, a hypothetical redeployment of Canadian Forces materiel from an overseas area of operation back to Canada is analysed.

Résumé …...

Le présent document décrit un outil de simulation qui effectue une analyse stratégique des options de mouvement, qui a été développé pour la section de contrôle des mouvements logistiques — soutien opérationnel du Commandement du soutien opérationnel du Canada. L’outil d’estimation des mouvements (OEM) vise à permettre au personnel du contrôle des mouvements de comparer rapidement diverses options du plan des mouvements afin de déterminer laquelle est la

« meilleure ». À l’aide d’une liste d’articles à déplacer, des spécifications relatives aux moyens de transport stratégique pouvant être utilisés et des lignes de communication possibles, l’OEM effectue une simulation pour estimer la durée et le coût des déplacements pour différents plans de mouvements possibles. En fonction des résultats obtenus, des représentations graphiques des compromis entre le coût et la durée peuvent être établies. En combinant cette information à d’autres facteurs préoccupants, comme la disponibilité du moyen de transport et les restrictions temporelles et budgétaires, le personnel du contrôle des mouvements peut choisir la meilleure option. Afin d’illustrer l’utilisation de l’OEM, un redéploiement hypothétique du matériel des Forces canadiennes à partir d’un emplacement outre-mer vers le Canada a été analysé.

DRDC CORA TM 2012-254 i

(6)

This page intentionally left blank.

ii DRDC CORA TM 2012-254

(7)

Executive summary

The Movement Estimator Tool: An Options Analysis and Decision Support Tool for Movement Planners

Patricia Moorhead; Gregory Campbell; DRDC CORA TM 2012-254; Defence R&D Canada – CORA; October 2012.

Introduction: The Movement Estimator Tool (MET) is a strategic level movement options analysis simulation tool that has been developed for the Operational Support Logistics Movement section of the Canadian Operational Support Command (CANOSCOM). Prior to development of the MET, movement staff lacked a decision support tool that enables quick, repeatable and verifiable comparison of multiple movement plan options, based on the key factors of time and cost, in order to select the “best” option(s) for further detailed planning.

Methodology: Given a list of items to be moved, specifications for the air and/or sea strategic lift assets that could be utilized, and possible lines of communication, the MET uses simulation and deterministic calculations to estimate the time and cost of the move for multiple possible movement plans. Each possible movement plan is defined by a particular combination of the possible strategic lift assets and values for certain input parameters, such as the maximum permissible payload for each aircraft type. The simulation module component of the application is used to generate the movement plan options which are then passed to the calculation module wherein estimates of the associated times and costs are generated.

Based on the simulation results, graphical and tabular displays for representing the trade-off between cost and time can be created. Of particular utility to movement planners are:

x the time cumulative frequency plot, which indicates the level of reliability with which a move can be completed within a certain number of weeks; and

x the cost/time trade-off region curves, which plot representative costs (based on 90^th percentiles) against the time to complete the move.

Results: To illustrate the functionalities of the MET, a fictional situation was analysed. A combination of direct airlift, and airlift to an intermediate staging base followed by sealift, are to be used to redeploy materiel from an overseas area of operations back to Canada. The lines of communication were analysed, with various mixtures of multiple aircraft and a single sea vessel being possible modes of transportation. Combining the results from the lines of communication yielded estimates of the total time required and associated cost, for each of the many possible combinations of airlift and sealift assets that could be used.

Significance: Based on the results produced by the MET, movement planners can quickly discriminate between multiple movement plan options, on the basis of estimated time and cost.

By combining this information with additional concerns, such as lift asset availability, and time and budgetary constraints, movement staff can decide upon the “best” course(s) of action.

Detailed movement planning can then be conducted on a limited number of options with a level of certainty as to their preference over the remaining options. The MET has been used to support

DRDC CORA TM 2012-254 iii

(8)

movement planning analyses for operations in Haiti and Afghanistan, and is now part of the CANOSCOM movement planning tool-kit.

iv DRDC CORA TM 2012-254

(9)

Sommaire ...

The Movement Estimator Tool: An Options Analysis and Decision Support Tool for Movement Planners

Patricia Moorhead; Gregory Campbell; DRDC CORA TM 2012-254; R & D pour la défense Canada – CARO; octobre 2012.

Introduction: L’outil d’estimation des mouvements (OEM) est un outil de simulation qui effectue une analyse stratégique des options de mouvement, qui a été développé pour la section de contrôle des mouvements logistiques - soutien opérationnel du Commandement du soutien opérationnel du Canada (COMSOCAN). Avant d’avoir accès à cet outil, le personnel du contrôle des mouvements ne disposait pas d’outil d’aide à la décision qui lui permettait de comparer rapidement, de façon répétée et vérifiable, les diverses options de mouvement en tenant de facteurs importants, comme la durée et le coût, afin de choisir la « meilleure » option qui sera examinée plus en détail au stade de la planification.

Méthodologie: À l’aide d’une liste d’articles à déplacer, des spécifications relatives aux moyens pouvant être utilisés pour le transport stratégique maritime ou aérien et des lignes de communication, l’OEM fait appel à des simulations et des calculs déterministes pour estimer la durée et les coûts du déplacement pour plusieurs plans de mouvement possibles. Chaque plan de mouvement est défini à l’aide d’une combinaison particulière de moyens de transport possibles et de valeurs pour certains paramètres d’entrée, comme la charge utile maximale admissible de chaque type d’aéronef. Le module de simulation de l’application sert à générer les options du plan des mouvements, qui sont ensuite transmises au module de calcul qui produit des estimations de la durée et du coût pour chaque option.

À partir des résultats de la simulation, des affichages tabulaires et graphiques représentant les compromis entre la durée et le coût peuvent être établis. Les fonctions particulièrement utiles pour les planificateurs de mouvements sont les suivantes :

x la courbe temporelle des fréquences cumulées, qui indique le niveau de fiabilité à l’intérieur duquel un déplacement peut être complété dans un nombre donné de semaines;

x les courbes de compromis coût/durée, qui tracent un graphique des coûts représentatifs (fondés sur le 90e percentile) par rapport au temps nécessaire pour achever le déplacement.

Résultats: Pour illustrer les fonctionnalités de l’OEM, une situation fictive a été analysée. Une combinaison des méthodes suivantes doit être utilisée pour redéployer du matériel d’un emplacement outre-mer au Canada : transport aérien direct, transport aérien vers une base d’étape intermédiaire suivi du transport maritime. Les lignes de communication ont été analysées en utilisant comme modes de transport possible différentes combinaisons comprenant plusieurs aéronefs et un seul navire. En combinant les résultats obtenus grâce aux lignes de communication, on a pu obtenir des estimations du temps total requis et des coûts connexes pour chacune des différentes combinaisons des moyens de transport aérien et de transport maritime qui pourraient être utilisés.

DRDC CORA TM 2012-254 v

(10)

Portée: Grâce aux résultats de l’OEM, les planificateurs de mouvements peuvent rapidement déterminer les différences entre les diverses options du plan de mouvements sur les plans de la durée et du coût estimatifs. En combinant cette information à d’autres facteurs préoccupants, comme la disponibilité du moyen de transport et les restrictions temporelles et budgétaires, le personnel du contrôle des mouvements peut décider quelle option est la « meilleure ». Une planification détaillée des mouvements peut ensuite être réalisée pour un nombre limité d’options, afin de déterminer avec certitude si l’option choisie est préférable aux autres options. L’OEM a été utilisé pour appuyer les analyses dans le cadre de la planification de mouvements lors des opérations à Haïti et en Afghanistan. Il fait maintenant partie de la trousse de planification des mouvements du COMSOCAN.

vi DRDC CORA TM 2012-254

(11)

List of figures

Figure 1: Components of the Movement Estimator Tool... 3

Figure 2: Structure of the application interface ... 5

Figure 3: Aircraft Requirement screen ... 6

Figure 4: Maritime Requirement screen... 8

Figure 5: Air Movement Monte Carlo Simulator screen... 8

Figure 6: Time cumulative frequency plot for direct airlift options... 27

Figure 7: Cost/time trade-off region for direct airlift options... 28

Figure 8: Time cumulative frequency plot for airlift to staging base options. ... 32

Figure 9: Cost/time trade-off region for direct airlift to staging base options... 33

List of tables

Table 1: Logic flow of the simulation module within a single replication... 15

Table 2: Prioritized combination options based on three types of aircraft. ... 17

Table 3: Direct airlift aircraft planning factors... 26

Table 4: Time and cost comparison at benchmark reliability levels. ... 29

Table 5: Airlift to staging base aircraft planning factors... 30

Table 6: Airlift to staging base time and cost ($M) comparison. ... 34

Table 7: Lane meter and payload usage by sealift trip. ... 36

DRDC CORA TM 2012-254 ix

(14)

x DRDC CORA TM 2012-254

Acknowledgements

This work could not have been accomplished without the dedication and assistance of the CANOSCOM Operational Support Logistics Movement section. Many thanks are owed to Maj.

Virginia Shea, CWO Paul Vincent, Capt. Dominic Adams, Maj. Eric Remy, LCol Steve Dewar, Maj. Dave Carlson and Maj. Annette Dombrowski.

(15)

1 Introduction

The Operational Support Logistics Movement (OS Log Mov) section of the Canadian Operational Support Command (CANOSCOM) is responsible for the planning and execution of movement support for the deployment, sustainment, rotation and redeployment of personnel and equipment for both expeditionary and domestic operations. This includes determination of the transportation infrastructure and resources required for deployment, sustainment and redeployment.

There are several tasks involved in determining transportation infrastructure and resource requirements. The tasks of specific interest here are as follows:

x determine the lines of communication (LOC)¹ necessary to support deployed operations;

x determine the availability of integral and contracted strategic lift assets;

x coordinate and match lift requirements against the actual strategic lift assets made available;

x identify environmental conditions (e.g., weather) that may delay, divert, change the maximum permissible payload, or cancel strategic airlift/sealift;

x make recommended changes to transportation modes, assets or routing to minimize negative environmental impacts or exploit favourable conditions to enhance mission success; and x estimate the cost of, and time needed to effect the movement of material, equipment and

personnel to/from a theatre of operations.

It is not the responsibility of OS Log Mov staff to compile the movement load list (the list of material, equipment and/or personnel to be moved). This information is provided to the movement staff, as are the origin and destination for the move. In some instances there is only one viable LOC from origin to destination. In other cases there is more than one possibility, and OS Log Mov staff will examine each option to determine the most appropriate LOC. The questions of what types of strategic lift assets should be used and how many of each type will be required, must also be answered.

1.1 Role of LOGFAS in Movement Planning

Once the movement load list, LOC and type and number of strategic lift assets have been determined, OS Log Mov staff can use a suite of tools to conduct detailed deployment planning and monitor plan execution. The Logistic Functional Area Services (LOGFAS) suite, developed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Consultation, Command and Control Agency (NC3A) is used extensively by OS Log Mov.

The Allied Deployment and Movements System (ADAMS) module of LOGFAS allows move planners to create a detailed deployment plan. Individual forces or units are split into movement components, a LOC is assigned to each movement component, and the timings of the movement

1 A line of communication (LOC) is a geographic path from origin to destination that is to be used. A LOC can be direct (non-stop), or consist of many intermediate nodes (e.g., refueling or crew change locations) along the way.

DRDC CORA TM 2012-254 1

(16)

components are allocated. Lift assets are then assigned to each movement component, and based on factors such as lift asset speed and capacity, the detailed deployment plan is completed. [1]

To monitor execution of the deployment plan, the Effective Visible Execution (EVE) module of LOGFAS is used. It is a spreadsheet based system that allows the user to make changes to individual movements (e.g., asset allocations, timings, routes), in response to actual conditions during execution, without having to make changes to the original detailed deployment plan. [1]

While extremely useful for developing and following the execution of a detailed deployment plan, the LOGFAS suite does not offer a ready capability to determine which movement plan option in a collection of possibilities is the one to be planned in detail. To use the LOGFAS suite, the LOC and lift asset mixture must be known. What was missing in the OS Log Mov tool box was a simple application that would enable movement staff to quickly compare various movement plan options and decide which is “best” based on factors such as cost, time to complete the move, travel route restrictions and lift asset availability. In other words, what movement plan should be entered into ADAMS and EVE?

1.2 Determining Which Plan is “Best”

Another tool at the disposal of OS Log Mov staff was an Excel spreadsheet calculation aid that allowed users to quickly estimate the number of airlift flights (also called chalks) required to move personnel and cargo in support of an operation. While useful, this calculation aid was restrictive. Firstly, the spreadsheet was designed to consider only four pre-determined aircraft options. If movement staff wished to estimate the number of chalks for additional aircraft combinations, the calculation aid could not be used. As the spreadsheet was designed for airlift calculations, there was no support for estimating sealift requirements. Additionally, the tool estimated the number of trips required only; it did not provide the functionality to estimate the cost of the move, or the time it would take to complete.

Another shortcoming of the calculation aid was the approach used to determine the number of chalks required. The algorithms compared the total weight and volume of the items on the movement load list with the weight and volume restrictions of the aircraft under consideration.

This approach essentially assumes that individual items can be divided up into parts and distributed across chalks, which is not always the case, especially with items such as vehicles. For load lists containing a large variety of small and large items, this “averaging” may have little effect on the estimate of the number of chalks. However, for load lists dominated by large items (e.g., sea containers and vehicles), such averaging can result in noticeable underestimates of the lift requirement. Greater fidelity was desired.

The OS Log Mov requirement for a more robust decision aid tool to assist with determination of the “best” movement plan led to the development of the Movement Estimator Tool (MET). Given a list of items to be moved, specifications for the lift assets that could be utilized, and a possible LOC, the MET estimates the cost and time of the move for multiple possible movement plans.

Graphical representations of the cost/time trade-off region can be generated from the simulation results. OS Log Mov staff can then decide on the “best” plan taking into account additional issues such as lift asset availability, and time and budgetary constraints. Once a viable course of action is chosen, the detailed movement plan can be developed using the LOGFAS suite of tools.

2 DRDC CORA TM 2012-254

(17)

1.3 The Movement Estimator Tool

The MET is a stand-alone application, built in Visual Basic. Underlying the application is an Excel spreadsheet in which all data inputs and outputs are recorded. This spreadsheet is completely visible to the user, and can be copied and archived as required to maintain a corporate record of all analyses.

As depicted in Figure 1, the tool has three main components: an application interface, a simulation module, and a calculation module. The necessary input data is entered via the application interface. This includes the movement load list, information on the lift assets that could be used for the move, and the proposed LOC. Once the necessary data and planning factors have been entered, the simulation module can be activated. The simulation module generates a series of movement scenarios, each of which is defined by a particular combination of the possible lift assets. Each scenario is replicated a user-defined number of times, with the source of variability coming from:

x re-ordering of the items in the movement load list;

x stochastically generated values for the maximum permissible payloads of any airlift assets;

x and stochastically generated values for the Canadian/American currency exchange rate.

While there is an absolute maximum value for the weight an aircraft can carry (as specified by the manufacturer), the maximum permissible payload refers to the practical limit that results from atmospheric conditions at the time of take-off. For example, as air temperature rises and air density decreases, the amount of lift that can be generated under the wings of an aircraft is reduced, thus reducing the weight of cargo that can be safely carried.

Figure 1: Components of the Movement Estimator Tool

The scenario information for each replication is passed to the calculation module wherein the cost and time associated with the movement option under consideration is estimated. The results from the replications of each scenario can then be summarized and graphical representations of the

(18)

cost/time trade-off region created; these reports facilitate comparisons of the various move plan options.

The dashed arrow from the application interface to the calculation module in Figure 1 indicates that the simulation module can be bypassed. If strictly deterministic calculations are desired, which do not take into account variability in input parameters, the calculation module can be activated directly from the user interface. The dashed arrow from the calculation module to the movement options analysis component reflects the fact that creation of summary reports, such as cost/time trade-off region graphics, is not an automated process.

There are some limitations to the functionality of the MET. Firstly, only one LOC can be considered at a time. If several LOCs need to be examined, the analyses must be conducted separately for each, and the results compared manually afterwards. Secondly, cross-loading along a given LOC is not supported by the application. That is, only one single mode of transportation can be considered at a time. If a movement is to consist of an airlift from location A to B followed by a sealift from location B to C, the two segments of the move will have to be analysed separately, and the results combined manually to obtain overall time and cost estimates.

The current version of the MET supports two types of strategic lift: air and sea. Six different aircraft types are available for selection, but a maximum of three can be chosen in a particular scenario. With regards to sealift, the MET currently offers only one option, for which the default parameter values reflect the Full Time Charter (FTC) vessel that was being used by the Canadian Forces (CF) at the time of MET development. Since the MET provides full access to the Excel spreadsheet in which the lift asset data is recorded, the specifications for any lift asset can be changed and/or replaced by data for a different air or sea lift asset. For example, the CF frequently utilizes commercial liner services to move small amounts of materiel along sea routes.

By changing the default parameter values for the maritime lift asset, the FTC can be replaced with any other chartered vessel or liner service.

The simulation module is used strictly for airlift modelling. Due to the limited sealift options available for use by the CF, it was determined to not be necessary to implement a simulation analysis capability for examining sealift options. All estimates of time and cost associated with sealift are obtained using the calculation module.

Road and rail transportation analyses are not available in the MET. These may be added at a later time if there is a requirement for such a capability within OS Log Mov; to date, this has not been requested.

1.4 Document Outline

The next Section presents the structure of the Movement Estimator Tool. In Section 3 the process by which a scenario is defined is described. In the fourth Section the logic of the simulation and calculation modules, and the options analysis process are discussed. Example applications of the MET are presented in Section 5. Future development plans for the application are discussed in the final section of the paper.

(19)

2 Structure of the MET

2.1 Overview

As noted previously, the MET has three main components: an application interface, a simulation module, and a calculation module. All user interaction with the tool is conducted via the application interface, which controls the flow of information to the Simulation and Calculation Modules. The general structure of the application interface is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Structure of the application interface

Upon launching the application, the main screen opens from which the user can choose to activate either the simulation or calculation module. To estimate the time and cost of a maritime movement, the calculation module is selected; a simulation capability for sealift options was deemed to be not necessary due to the limited number maritime assets available to the CF. For airlift estimation, the user can choose to conduct a single calculation for a particular scenario via the calculation module, or to simultaneously examine many scenarios using the simulation module. The simulation module will create various airlift scenarios, which are then passed to the

“Aircraft Requirement” component of the calculation module to perform the actual cost and time calculations.

Also on the main screen are a series of links providing access to various reference documents and some file import functions; as this report is not intended to be a detailed user manual, these features will not be discussed further here.

(20)

2.2 The Calculation Module

Within the calculation module, the user can choose to conduct either a maritime or airlift computation for a specific movement scenario.

2.2.1 Airlift Computation

Selecting the airlift computation option opens the “Aircraft Requirement” window (Figure 3). As will be described in more detail later, the MET uses a one week time step for airlift, with each aircraft type conducting a given number of chalks (trips) per week. In a given week, the order in which the available chalks are to be filled (i.e., the load strategy) must be declared.

Figure 3: Aircraft Requirement screen

(21)

Two load strategy options are available for selection:

1. fill the smallest aircraft first; or

2. fill the aircraft according to a user-defined order of priority.

After selecting the load strategy, the user populates the load table spreadsheet with data on the items to be moved. The next steps are to declare the LOC to be used and the flight schedule (the number of available chalks per week, for each type of aircraft to be used).

If the first load strategy (fill the smallest aircraft first) is chosen, the next step is to select the available aircraft from a displayed list; any or all of the six aircraft types listed can be chosen. If the priority sequencing option was chosen as the load strategy, at most three types of aircraft can be selected for use, and the order in which they are to be filled must be declared.

The last step is to specify values for various airlift planning factors, such as aircraft capacity, speed and operating cost. These inputs will be discussed in more detail in Section 3. The calculator module then computes the estimated time and cost to complete the move using the aircraft chosen.

2.2.2 Maritime Computation

Selecting the maritime computation option opens the “Maritime Requirement” window (Figure 4). The first step here is to populate the movement load table with the list of items to be moved.

The maritime LOC is then declared along with various maritime lift parameters such as the number of lane meters on each deck of the vessel. These inputs will be discussed in detail in Section 3. The calculator module then estimates the time and cost associated with the sealift scenario under consideration.

2.3 The Simulation Module

Selecting the “Air Movement Simulator” option from the main screen opens the “Air Movement Monte Carlo Simulator” menu, which is shown in Figure 5. It is via this screen the user enters the information required to create a series of airlift scenarios to be simulated. These inputs will be described in Section 3.

As noted previously, the simulation module generates the airlift scenarios to be examined. The information defining each scenario is sent to the calculation module, wherein the cost and time estimates are determined.

(22)

Figure 4: Maritime Requirement screen

Figure 5: Air Movement Monte Carlo Simulator screen

(23)

3 Defining a Scenario

There are five main steps to follow when defining scenarios in the MET. These are:

1. choose the mode of transportation (air or sea) for the movement;

2. populate the movement load list;

3. choose a LOC;

4. declare the usage schedule for the strategic lift assets that could be used; and 5. declare various additional planning factors.

3.1 Mode of Transportation

The MET currently supports two types of strategic lift: air and sea. As noted previously, only one mode of transportation can be considered at a time by the MET. That is, cross-loading along a given LOC is not supported by the tool. If a movement is to consist of an airlift from location A to B followed by a sealift from location B to C, the two segments of the move will have to be analysed separately.

3.2 Movement Load List

Underlying the MET is an Excel spreadsheet containing several pre-formatted worksheets in which all data inputs and outputs are stored. One of these worksheets is for recording the movement load list. For each line item in the cargo list, the following information is required:

x the movement priority (values of 1 to 10, with 1 being the highest priority);

x item name and/or description;

x the quantity of the item to be moved;

x item dimensions (length, width, height) and weight in either metric or imperial units; and x for a movement by sea, which ship deck(s) the item can be loaded onto.

Data fields to record item equipment configuration codes (ECC) and Canadian Forces Registration (CFR) numbers are also available, however their use is optional.

One of the worksheets in the Excel document contains a searchable database of common CF materiel. A built-in “wizard” enables quick searches by name, ECC or CFR. When an item is selected the MET automatically adds the item to the movement load list along with its relevant dimensional and weight information. The load list record is completed by declaring the movement priority, quantity and ship deck(s) manually.

(24)

The movement load list does not need to be populated via the application interface. The Excel spreadsheet can be opened directly and the requisite data entered. If the default Excel file name is retained, the MET will automatically link to the spreadsheet when launched. If the Excel file has been renamed, the user will need to tell the application to link to the new file. A button is provided on the application main screen to accomplish this action. There is also an option to import the movement load list data directly from an appropriately formatted task force movement table.

3.3 Line of Communication

The LOC is the geographical path from origin to destination that is to be used. It can be direct, or can have one or more intermediate nodes along the way. The default method for declaring a LOC is to select points on a global map. A minimum of two points (origin and destination) must be chosen. Once a path has been chosen, the MET will automatically “connect the dots” to create the LOC. In the special case of a direct movement from origin to destination, with no intermediate nodes in between, it is possible to declare the LOC by entering the longitude and latitude coordinates of the origin and destination nodes.

The distance along the LOC is calculated using the Haversine formula [2] for great circle distance. For any ș in radians, the haversine function is defined by Equation (1).

¸¹

¨ ·

©

§ sin 2 )

sin(T ² T

haver (1)

For any two points on a sphere,

) sin(

) cos(

) sin(

sin ¸ M₂ M₁ M₁ M₂ 'O

¹

¨ ·

©

§ haver haver

R

haver d (2)

where

x d is the great circle distance between the two points;

x R is the radius of the sphere;

x ĳ1 is the latitude of point one;

x ĳ2 is the latitude of point two; and x ǻȜ is the longitude separation.

Solving for the great circle distance yields

h R

h haver R

d sin¹( ) 2 arcsin (3)

(25)

where h is haversin(d/R). Implementation of the great circle distance calculation within the MET is based on a programming script published by Movable Type Scripts [3].

3.4 Lift Asset Usage Schedule

As noted previously, two modes of strategic lift are considered by the MET: sealift and airlift.

The requirement to declare a lift asset usage schedule applies only to airlift assets.

3.4.1 Maritime Asset Usage Schedule

Recall that the MET considers only one sealift option, which by default is the single FTC vessel that was in use by the CF at the time of MET development. With only one vessel to choose from, it is not necessary to set up a schedule for the order in which assets are to be used. Additionally, when it is deployed a charter vessel typically operates on a continuous cycle; that is, the vessel is loaded with materiel, travels to the destination, is unloaded, and immediately returns to reload for the next trip. Hence, there is no requirement to declare a departure schedule for the FTC vessel.

The time and cost associated with a move via the FTC vessel is determined based on the total number of trips and the time and cost per trip.

The department also frequently utilizes liner services to move small quantities of materiel. This can be modelled in the MET by changing the maritime lift asset parameter values. The MET will however assume there is only one vessel, and that it will operate on a continuous cycle until the movement of materiel is complete.

3.4.2 Air Asset Usage Schedule

While not necessary in the case of maritime movements, a lift asset usage schedule is critical for estimating the cost and time of air movements. The MET calculates the airlift requirements based on a weekly utilization schedule. This weekly time step was chosen as a compromise between daily and monthly time steps. Since the MET is not a detailed movement planning tool (such as ADAMS and EVE), but rather a tool for providing quick order of magnitude estimates, a daily time step is not necessary. A monthly time step was not chosen as many movements are measured in weeks, not months.

The utilization schedule is defined by the aircraft types that are to be considered, their priorities, and the maximum number of chalks that each type of aircraft could conduct in a given week. The lift asset priority determines the order in which the lift assets will be loaded within each one week time step, with the chalks associated with the Priority 1 aircraft being filled first, followed by the chalks for the Priority 2 aircraft, and so forth. This pattern is repeated every week until the move is complete.

Six different aircraft types, chosen in consultation with Log OS Mov staff, are available for selection:

x CC-130 Hercules, CC-150 Polaris and CC-177 Globemaster III which are Canadian owned assets; and

(26)

x Ilyushin IL-76, Antonov AN-124 and C5 Galaxy which could be leased from commercial providers and/or allied nations.

Any of these pre-determined types of aircraft can be replaced with other options by simply overwriting the relevant aircraft parameter values with new data.

The number of types of aircraft that can be selected for use in a scenario is constrained within the MET. With one exception (discussed below), a maximum of three aircraft types can be chosen at a time. Thus, combinations of up to at most three different types of aircraft can be considered in each scenario.

For each type of aircraft to be considered for use in the airlift, it is necessary to declare the maximum number of chalks that could be conducted on a weekly basis. Note that this is not the same as declaring the number of actual airframes of each type that are available; the MET does not consider the number of actual airframes, but rather the number of chalks. It is up to the user to translate the number of chalks into the number of airframes (and vice versa).

Each of the selected types of aircraft is also assigned a priority. As described above, the chalks associated with the highest priority aircraft will be filled first in each one week time step, and those associated with the lowest priority aircraft will be filled last.

There is one exception to the number of types of aircraft that can be considered at a time. If the user is conducting a static calculation for a single scenario and chooses the “Fill smallest a/c first”

loading strategy, there is no constraint on the number of aircraft types that can be selected: any or all of the six available aircraft types can be selected. Additionally, because a strategy that fills the smallest aircraft first has been chosen, aircraft priorities are not utilized. In each one week time step, the chalks associated with the smallest aircraft will be filled first, followed by those for the second smallest, and so on.

3.5 Additional Planning Factors

The remaining planning factors required to define a scenario can be grouped into three general categories:

x lift asset properties;

x loading constraint parameters; and x foreign exchange rates.

All of the following planning factors have been assigned validated initial values within the MET.

These can be edited as required and the changes saved.

3.5.1 Lift Asset Properties

For each strategic lift asset type, the following set of planning factors is required by the MET.

x Cargo bay dimensions: It is assumed that each airlift asset has a single cargo bay. The length, width and height (in meters) of the cargo bay for each type of aircraft must be

(27)

declared. For the single sealift asset, the total number of available lane meters² on each deck must be declared.

x Maximum carrying weight: The maximum permissible payload (MPL) for an aircraft varies with atmospheric conditions. To account for this variability, the MET uses triangular distributions which are based on user-defined lower limit, most likely, and upper limit values for the MPL associated with each type of aircraft. For the maritime vessel, the MET uses the maximum cargo weight capacity of the ship. All weights are declared in kilograms.

x Lift asset speed: The user declares the average speed for each type of lift asset. For aircraft the units are kilometres per hour; for maritime vessels the units are knots.

x Operating cost: For Canadian owned airlift assets the operating cost is expressed as an hourly operating cost in Canadian dollars ($Cdn/hr). For leased airlift assets, the scale is cost per round trip in American dollars ($US/round trip). With regards to leased sealift assets, the MET uses the hiring cost in $US/day.

x Fuel costs: Fuel costs for airlift assets are assumed to be accounted for in the hourly operating and leasing costs. Fuel costs are not included in the hiring cost for sealift assets.

Thus the MET requires an average daily fuel cost for sealift expressed in $US/day.

3.5.2 Loading Constraint Parameters

In addition to the strategic lift asset planning factors, there may be constraints on how the assets can be loaded with cargo. The user can declare values for the following two influencing factors as appropriate.

x Inter-item distances: The amount of space (in metres) to be left between items when placed in an aircraft cargo bay can be declared. There are two values to be entered: end-to-end spacing and inter-lane spacing. The end-to-end spacing is the distance between the back of one item and the front of the next item (i.e., distance between bumpers for vehicles). The inter-lane spacing is the distance between the side of one item and the nearest side of the next. For maritime movements, inter-item distances are not required as the spacing between items (if any) results from the process by which lane meter equivalents are calculated. This will be discussed in detail in Section 4.3.1.

x Sea container stacking limits: Sea containers can be stacked on top of each other on the weather deck of the FTC vessel. The user declares the number of layers of sea containers to allow, with a minimum of one and a maximum of three.

3.5.3 Foreign Exchange Rate

Since many of the cost figures are provided in American dollars, the final planning factor required by the MET is the Canadian to American currency exchange rate. If conducting a static calculation for a fixed scenario, a single exact exchange rate value is used. If the MET’s simulation capability is to be used, lower and upper limits for the exchange rate must de declared.

The MET will generate a uniform distribution on this range for use during the simulations.

2 For movement planning purposes, one lane meter is an area 1m long by 2.75m wide.

(28)

4 Logic of the MET

Recall that the MET has three main components: an application interface, a simulation module and a calculation module. As discussed in the previous section, the interface facilitates entering the data that defines the scenario(s) to be examined. The simulation module generates the scenarios, and the calculation module estimates the cost and time associated with each movement scenario that was generated.

As previously mentioned, to estimate the time and cost of a maritime movement, the calculation module is activated directly; a simulation capability for examining sealift options was deemed to be not necessary due to the limited number of maritime strategic lift assets available to the CF.

To estimate the time and cost for airlift, a single calculation for a particular scenario can be conducted via the calculation module, or many scenarios can be examined simultaneously using the simulation module. The simulation module will create various airlift scenarios, which are then passed to the “Aircraft Requirement” component of the calculation module to perform the actual time and cost calculations (as shown in Figure 2).

The following sub-sections describe the logic implemented by the simulation and calculation modules for analysing strategic airlift and sealift movement scenarios.

4.1 Air Movement Simulator (Simulation Module)

The aim of the Air Movement Simulator (the simulation module) is to automatically generate all possible airlift combination options based on the types of aircraft selected, their priorities, and their maximum number of chalks permitted per week, and then run each option for a user- declared number of replications. Across replications the sources of variability come from: re- ordering of items on the movement load list; the MPLs of the various aircraft; and foreign exchange rate. Each replication of each option is sent to the calculation module wherein time and cost estimates, for moving the cargo with the given combination of airlift assets, are obtained.

To ensure results are comparable across airlift combination options, the exact same set of replications must be used for each asset combination scenario; that is, the same re-orderings of the cargo items, the same MPL variants and the same set of foreign exchange rate values. This is accomplished by first looping through replications, and within each replication cycling through the airlift combination options. Table 1 outlines the simulation module logic flow within a single replication.

(29)

Table 1: Logic flow of the simulation module within a single replication.

Step Description

1 For each type of aircraft that has been selected, generate an MPL value from the user- defined triangular distribution.

2 Generate a currency exchange rate ($Cdn to $US) from the user-defined uniform distribution.

3 Randomize the order of items in the movement load list.

4 Generate an aircraft combination.

5 Send the scenario information to the calculation module for estimation of the time and cost associated with movement of the listed cargo items by the aircraft combination generated.

6 Return to Step 4 and generate a new aircraft combination. Loop between Steps 4 and 6 until all viable aircraft combination options have been examined.

4.1.1 MPL and Currency Exchange Rate Generation

Within each replication, the first step is to generate an MPL value for each type of aircraft that has been selected. The user-declared lower limit, upper limit and most likely values for the MPL of each type of aircraft (see Figure 5), are used by the MET to define triangular distributions.

Within each replication, the simulation module will generate an MPL value for each selected aircraft type from its corresponding triangular distribution.

The next step is to generate a currency exchange rate between Canadian and American dollars. As part of the scenario data inputs, the user declared a lower and upper bound for this exchange rate.

A uniform distribution is created over this range and the simulation module generates a currency exchange rate from this distribution that will be used in the given replication.

4.1.2 Randomizing the Order of Items

The MET emulates loading of items into cargo bays according to their priority and position in the movement load list. The highest priority (priority one) items are loaded first, and within each priority group items are loaded in the order they appear on the list. Altering the order of items within each priority grouping can change the estimate of the number of chalks required to move the cargo, due to differences in load configuration.

To allow for the effect of load configuration variations, for each replication the MET randomly re-orders the items within each priority group listing. This is accomplished by assigning a random

(30)

number to each item. The list is sorted on this field, followed by sorting according to priority. The end result is a prioritized list where the order of items within each priority group is based on their random number values.

4.1.3 Generating an Aircraft Combination A single aircraft combination is defined by two components:

x the types of aircraft being used; and x the usage schedule of those aircraft types.

The MET provides a list of six different aircraft from which to choose: CC-130, CC-150, CC- 177, AN-124, IL-76 and C5. The user has the ability to replace any of these with another option of their choice; this is done by replacing the no-longer desired aircraft parameter data with the new information.

Up to three of these aircraft types can be selected for use at one time; at least two must be selected when running the Air Movement Simulator. For combinations involving two types of aircraft, the simulator will generate all possible ordered pairings of the aircraft types selected, as well as all single aircraft options. For combinations of three aircraft types, the simulator will generate all ordered combinations of three and two types of aircraft, as well as all single aircraft options.

For each type of aircraft selected, a usage schedule must be declared. There are two parts to this schedule: the maximum number of chalks per week and priority for each type of aircraft. The MET uses the maximum number of chalks per week value as an upper limit on the range of possible values. For example, if up to four chalks per week of a CC-177 are possible, the MET will generate five possibilities for the number of CC-177 chalks per week: zero, one, two, three, four and five. As noted previously, the actual number of airframes involved is neither an input parameter nor an output of the MET. It is up to the user to do the translation between the number of chalks and the number of airframes (and vice versa).

Aircraft prioritization determines the order in which the aircraft are loaded in each weekly cycle of the movement. That is, in each week of the airlift, the chalks associated with the priority 1 aircraft will be filled first, followed by the priority 2 aircraft chalks, and so on. This pattern is repeated every week until the move is complete. Given the aircraft priorities, the simulator automatically generates all possible prioritized combinations for the selected aircraft.

4.1.4 A Simple Example

For illustrative purposes, consider the following example. Suppose the CF is intending to use some combination of CC-177, AN-124 and IL-76 aircraft to conduct an airlift. A maximum of two CC-177 chalks per week are possible but only one weekly flight for each of the AN-124 and IL-76. With three aircraft types, two of which can fly at most one chalk per week and the third able to conduct a maximum of two flights per week, and three priority levels, there are 26 possible ordered combinations (triples, doubles and singles) of these airlift assets. Table 2 shows

(31)

the set of unique airlift combination options that would be generated by the simulation module in this case.

Table 2: Prioritized combination options based on three types of aircraft.

Combination Priority 1 Aircraft Priority 2 Aircraft Priority 3 Aircraft

1 1 x CC-177

2 2 x CC-177

3 1 x AN-124

4 1 x IL-76

5 1 x CC-177 1 x AN-124

6 2 x CC-177 1 x AN-124

7 1 x CC-177 1 x IL-76

8 2 x CC-177 1 x IL-76

9 1 x AN-124 1 x CC-177

10 1 x AN-124 2 x CC-177

11 1 x AN-124 1 x IL-76

12 1 x IL-76 1 x CC-177

13 1 x IL-76 2 x CC-177

14 1 x IL-76 1 x AN-124

15 1 x CC-177 1 x AN-124 1 x IL-76

16 2 x CC-177 1 x AN-124 1 x IL-76

17 1 x CC-177 1 x IL-76 1 x AN-124

18 2 x CC-177 1 x IL-76 1 x AN-124

19 1 x AN124 1 x CC-177 1 x IL76

20 1 x AN124 2 x CC-177 1 x IL76

21 1 x AN124 1 x IL76 1 x CC-177

22 1 x AN124 1 x IL76 2 x CC-177

23 1 x IL-76 1 x CC-177 1 x AN-124

24 1 x IL-76 2 x CC-177 1 x AN-124

25 1 x IL-76 1 x AN-124 1 x CC-177

26 1 x IL-76 1 x AN-124 2 x CC-177

Assume 1000 iterations are to be conducted. For the first iteration, the simulation module would generate MPL values for each of the CC-177, AN-124 and IL-76 aircraft, according to the user defined triangular distributions. Next a foreign exchange rate would be generated, and the order of items on the movement load list randomized within each priority grouping.

The simulator would then generate one of the 26 combinations shown in Table 2. This combination information (types of aircraft, number of chalks per week and priority) along with the MPL values, exchange rate and movement load list are then sent to the calculation module, for estimation of the time and cost of the move.

Once that calculation is complete, the application returns to the simulation module and generates the next airlift combination option, while retaining the MPL, exchange rate and movement load list data already generated. These data are then sent to the calculation module. This process is repeated until all 26 unique combination options have been analysed. At this stage, the first of the

(32)

1000 iterations is complete. The entire process described above is then repeated for the remaining 999 iterations.

4.2 Aircraft Requirement (Calculation Module)

Given a particular movement plan scenario and all necessary data, the calculation module estimates the cost and time associated with the move. In the case of an airlift move, the data elements that define the scenario are as follows:

x the LOC;

x the combination of airlift assets to be used (the types of aircraft, the number of chalks per week for each aircraft type, and the priority ranking for each aircraft type);

x the movement load list;

x an MPL value for each type of aircraft; and

x a value for the Canadian to American dollar currency exchange rate.

Declaration of the LOC is one of the first steps in defining the scenario data. The process by which this is done was discussed in Section 3.3. As described in the section above, the simulation module generates instances of the airlift asset combination, movement load list, and MPL and exchange rate values, based on various user defined parameters.

If a specific movement plan scenario needs to be examined on its own, rather than conducting a simulation of many plan options, the calculation module can be accessed directly. In this case, the scenario data inputs that would have been generated by the simulation module must be declared manually. These are: the types of aircraft to be used; the priority assigned to each type of aircraft;

the exact number of chalks per week for each aircraft type; the exact MPL value for each type of aircraft; and a single value for the currency exchange rate. The movement load list, with items listed in the order initially provided by the user, will be used as is.

The calculation module estimates the time and cost associated with the specific movement plan under examination by first estimating the number of chalks required to complete the move. This information is then combined with the user-defined aircraft usage schedule and cost factors to obtain time and cost estimates.

4.2.1 Estimating the Number of Chalks Required

The weekly aircraft usage schedule and priorities dictate in which order the various aircraft chalks are to be filled with cargo. Cargo items are loaded onto aircraft in the order in which they appear on the movement load list, and for each flight the cargo bay is filled to the maximum extent possible.

For example, consider combination #16 from Table 2, wherein there are two CC-177 flights, one AN-124 flight and one IL-76 flight per week. The CC-177 is the first priority aircraft followed by the AN-124 and IL-76 respectively. In the first week of the move the first item on the movement load list will be loaded onto the first CC-177 flight, if the item fits.

(33)

There are three steps to assessing item fit. First, the item is assessed to determine whether or not on its own it would cause bulk-out or weigh-out of the aircraft. If the item fails this test, it cannot be moved by the CC-177. If an item cannot be carried by any of the aircraft chosen, the move will be incomplete and the user will need to identify other means by which the affected item can be moved. Incomplete moves can be identified by examining the simulation output.

The next step is to calculate the percentages of the aircraft’s carrying capacity (%CC), by area and weight, occupied by the item. Let L, W and M be the length, width and weight of the item, respectively. Similarly, let L_a and W_a be the length and width of the cargo bay, and M_a the MPL of the aircraft. If the inter-item distances in the cargo bay are d_l (lengthwise) and d_w (widthwise), then the percentages of the CC-177’s carrying capacity occupied by the item are given by

1 1

%

*

%

¿¾

½

¯®

»¼»

«¬«

¿¾

½

¯®

»

¼

« »

¬

«

»

¼

« »

¬

«

M CC M

d and W

d W d

L d

CC L _Weight ^a

w w a l

l a

Area (4)

where is the floor operator function. The space remaining, by area and weight, on the CC-177 after loading the first item will be one minus each of these quantities respectively.

¬ ¼

The third step is to compare the %CC_Area and %CC_Weight occupied by the item to the available capacity remaining on the aircraft. If the item will not fit by either area or weight, the MET will search the load list in sequential order to see if any items further down the list will fit in the remaining space instead.

The fit test and loading of the first CC-177 chalk continues for each item on the movement load list until the cargo bay is full, or all items on the list have been assessed, whichever comes first. If there are more items than can fit on this one chalk, the MET will then begin to fill the second CC- 177 flight for that week. The first item to be loaded onto this second chalk will be the first item on the movement load list that fits and has not yet been loaded onto an aircraft. After the second CC- 177 chalk has been filled, and assuming items still remain to be moved, the MET will proceed to load the single AN-124 flight, followed in turn by the one IL-76 chalk scheduled for that week.

The weekly pattern of ordered aircraft chalks will be repeated until all items that can be moved using the chosen airlift assets have been moved. As each simulated week passes, the MET updates the cumulative total of the number of chalks required by each type of aircraft to complete the move.

It should be noted that the MET does not replace the role of the loadmaster, who would also consider load balancing issues when assigning items to lift assets. For the purposes of the MET, which are to obtain order of magnitude estimates for the time and cost of a move, it is assumed that the set of items assigned to a given chalk form a balanceable load.

4.2.2 Estimating the Airlift Cost and Time

The weekly schedule of flights is repeated until the move has been completed. The number of pattern repeats provides a time estimate (rounded up to the nearest week). For example, five full

(34)

repeats of the example pattern from above, plus one additional CC-177 flight, yields an estimate of six weeks to complete the move.

The total cost of a move is the sum of the costs incurred by each Canadian owned and each leased aircraft that was utilized. Let T_i be the number of chalks conducted by aircraft type i. For Canadian owned aircraft, denote the speed (km/hr) and hourly operating cost ($Cdn/hr) by v_i and r_i respectively. For leased aircraft, contracts typically stipulate a fixed cost per single use of the asset, whether it is a one-way or return trip, commencing in Canada or another nation. Let R_i denote the leasing cost ($US) per single use of leased aircraft type i. If D is the one-way trip distance to be travelled, and E is the currency exchange rate from Canadian to American dollars, the total cost of the airlift movement in Canadian dollars is given by Equation (5).

¦

Leased i

i i i

Cdn i i

i E

T R v r

T D Cost

Total 2 * *

* ₍₅₎

The one-way distance is doubled for Canadian owned strategic airlift assets as it is assumed they will always begin and end their journey in Canada.

4.3 Maritime Requirement (Calculation Module)

Recall that the simulation module of the MET applies to airlift movements only; the application does not include a simulation capability for sealift options. Given the limited strategic sealift options available to the CF, such a simulation capability was determined to be not necessary.

Given a particular maritime movement plan scenario and all necessary data, the “Maritime Requirement” component of the calculation module estimates the time and cost associated with the move. The data elements that define the scenario are as follows:

x the LOC;

x the sealift asset to be used (currently the FTC, by default);

x the movement load list;

x an average daily cost of fuel;

x the daily hire cost; and

x a value for the Canadian to American dollar currency exchange rate.

As described previously in Section 3.3, the LOC is declared by selecting a path on a global map.

Via the “Maritime Factors” screen the various planning factors that define the carrying capacity and speed of the FTC vessel, as well as costing parameters, are entered. The calculation module does not re-order items on the movement load list, so the order will remain unchanged from that provided by the user.

The calculation module estimates the time and cost associated with the maritime movement by first estimating the number of trips by the vessel that will be needed to complete the move. This

(35)

information is then combined with distance, vessel speed and cost data to obtain overall time and cost estimates.

4.3.1 Estimating the Number of Trips Required

Since the movement load list is ordered by priority, the MET will attempt to load the highest priority items first, and lowest priority items last. As described in Section 3.2, for maritime movements the user is required to declare which decks of the vessel each item can be loaded onto.

Since the design of the maritime component of the MET is based on the properties of the FTC vessel, it is assumed there are up to three decks: a top deck which is open to the weather, a covered main deck and a covered lower deck. Should there be more or fewer decks on the vessel under consideration, the capacities of any of these decks can be increased or set to zero.

The MET provides four deck combinations to choose from:

x weather (top) deck only;

x main (middle) deck only;

x main deck or weather deck; or x main deck or tank top (lower deck).

For the latter two options, the MET will attempt to place the item on the weather deck / tank top first.

Item fit is assessed based on weight and lane meters. The MET first compares the weight of the item to be loaded with the remaining capacity of the vessel. If there is insufficient capacity remaining, so that loading the item would cause weigh-out of the vessel, the item is not loaded on that particular trip.

The next step is to compare the number of lane meters (LM) the item occupies with the remaining lane meter capacity on the deck where the item is to be placed. A lane meter is an area 1m long by 2.75m wide. The lane meter equivalents for each item are calculated based on their length and width. Let L_i and W_i denote the length and width (in meters) of item i. The lane meter equivalent LM_i is then given by

i i

i W L

LM ,1 *

75 .

max 2 »

»

« º

«

ª ¸

¹

¨ ·

©

§ (6)

where is the ceiling function. It should be noted that the MET does not rotate items in an attempt to reduce the number of equivalent lane meters. For example, an item 3m in length and 1m wide will require 3 lane meters. If the item were to be rotated, to be 1m in length and 3m wide, the lane meter equivalency reduces to 2. Such rotations are not done by the MET, but could be enforced by the user by switching the length and width measurements of items on the movement load list.

The Movement Estimator Tool An Options Analysis and Decision Support Tool for Movement Planners

Defence R&D Canada

Centre for Operational Research & Analysis

The Movement Estimator Tool An Options Analysis and Decision Support Tool for Movement Planners

The Movement Estimator Tool

An Options Analysis and Decision Support Tool for Movement Planners

Defence R&D Canada – CORA

Abstract ……..

Résumé …...

Executive summary

The Movement Estimator Tool: An Options Analysis and Decision Support Tool for Movement Planners

Sommaire ...

The Movement Estimator Tool: An Options Analysis and Decision Support Tool for Movement Planners

Table of contents

List of figures

List of tables

Acknowledgements

1 Introduction

1.1 Role of LOGFAS in Movement Planning

1.2 Determining Which Plan is “Best”

1.3 The Movement Estimator Tool

1.4 Document Outline

2 Structure of the MET

2.1 Overview

2.2 The Calculation Module

2.3 The Simulation Module

3 Defining a Scenario

3.1 Mode of Transportation

3.2 Movement Load List

3.3 Line of Communication

3.4 Lift Asset Usage Schedule

3.5 Additional Planning Factors

4 Logic of the MET

4.1 Air Movement Simulator (Simulation Module)

4.2 Aircraft Requirement (Calculation Module)

¬ ¼

¦

¦

4.3 Maritime Requirement (Calculation Module)

ª º