Presentation for ICNS 3 May 2006 The MITRE Corporation Edward Wigfield, Kelly Connolly, Alexander Alshtein, James DeArmon, Richard Flournoy, William Hershey, John James, Paula Mahoney, Jennifer Mathieu, John Maurer, and Paul Ostwald
Slide 1
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-
Background
On 3 April 1996 a military version of the Boeing 737 crashed in Dubrovnik, Croatia
Sec. of Commerce Ronald Brown one of 35 killed USAF investigation found faulty navigation equipment partly to blame
Slide 2
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-
Slide 3
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-
Key Assumptions
Civilian Air Traffic will continue to increase
In line with Eurocontrol forecasts
Flexible Use of Airspace (FUA) and European Single Sky initiatives will further constrain military
Limited availability of special use airspace (SUAs) ALTRVs (reserved air corridors) will be hard to obtain Missions will be required to fly within civil traffic Longer Military routes to mission operations areas
Slide 4
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-
Analysis Hypothesis
Premise: Aircraft equipped with specific CNS capabilities gain from civil authorities
More optimal routing; more efficient use of civil airspace Reduced airspace denials More flexibility resulting from less setup time and planning
Premise:Uncertainties regarding use of civil airspace drive workarounds and contingency planning
Pilots plan for worst case Result is inefficient mission plans and in-transit routing
Slide 5
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-
Analysis Process
1.
2.
3.
4.
Individual aircraft ETAs and variance aggregated to assess strike package formation
Failures to form strike packages can be varied to reflect experience
5.
Slide 6
Hypothetical Mission
Objective:
Air strike on a military airport in Southwest Asia
Scenario 1:
Fighters based in UK Current and future CNS/ATM capabilities
Scenario 2:
Fighters based in Eastern Europe Current and future CNS/ATM capabilities Include a fighter drag case
Slide 7
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-
ATO
AOC Model
1. FalconView
2. CAPER
5. MSIM
Capable and Non-Capable Military Routes Aircraft Flight Time for Each Route ETA Distributions for Each Route
Sortie Rate
Missed Packages
Slide 8
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-
Equipped B52
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-
Slide 11
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-
Structured Routes
Slide 12
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-
Model Reroute
Slide 13
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-
Execute Reroute
Slide 14
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-
2010
35 4. 36 1 9. 38 1 4. 39 1 9. 41 1 4. 42 1 9. 44 1 4. 45 1 9. 47 1 4. 48 1 9. 1
Not Capable: 451 minutes, 145 spread CNS Capable: 377 minutes 133 spread
Percent of Count Cumulative Probability
75 50 25 0 75 50 25 0
2015
35 3. 36 6 9. 38 6 5. 40 6 1. 41 6 7. 43 6 3. 44 6 9. 46 6 5. 48 6 1. 49 6 7. 6
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-
29 1. 30 2 6. 32 2 1. 33 2 6. 35 2 1. 36 2 6. 38 2 1. 39 2 6. 41 2 1. 42 2 6. 2
Cumulative Probability
0.8
Percent of Count
100
1.0
28 2. 29 7 7. 31 7 2. 32 7 7. 34 7 2. 35 7 7. 37 7 2. 38 7 7. 40 7 2. 41 7 7. 7
100
1.0 0.8
Cumulative Probability
0.8
Percent of Count
100
1.0
100
1.0 0.8
ME1
(4 Aircraft, Time Period 4, 2010) Note: sortie rate shows relative differences not absolute values Base in Hungary (F-15C)
Not Capable Capable Not Capable Drag 435 +28 504 +28 minutes 470 +26
Package Formation
8.33 Area
664 +36
7%
8%
2%
1.7 2.0
15%
2
Slide 16
Slide 17
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-
B52
1,200,000
Fighters
20
For Both 2010 and 2015, ~300,000 lbs more fuel is used, equivalent to 5 more Tankers
1,000,000
800,000
15
600,000
10
400,000 5 200,000
KC-135E Loads *
Pounds of Fuel
2010 Not Capable 2010 Capable 2015 Not Capable 2015 Capable
* Estimate of gross number of KC135E assumes 1500 nm mission radius and takeoff at standard sea level atmosphere on 10,000 ft dry runway
Slide 18
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-
Tanker Drag
For CAF perceived to work well BUT for MAF inefficient use of tankers Greater assurance of on-time arrival, BUT, sortie rates decrease, limiting flexibility. ETA variance unchanged, loitering continues at marshalling point wasting fuel. BUT flight time, fuel consumption, crew wear and tanker usage all go up. Sortie rates decrease, reduced flexibility. Can work well BUT bilateral negotiations required; potential economic impacts; no guarantees, future availability in doubt
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-
2.
Leave Earlier
3.
4.
Slide 19
Phase 2 Summary
Validated hypotheses: CNS capabilities analyzed provide considerable operational improvement for scenarios studied
Reduced ETA variability and associated waiting times Reduced tanker utilization and fuel expense Improved sortie rates Improved capability for dynamic tasking at AOC
Workarounds can maintain ability to get to a specific place at a specific time, at least over the short run
Impacts are wide-ranging and increase over time Current workarounds may be unavailable in the future
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-