NPS-97-07-004 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Riverine Sustainment 2012 by Michael F. Galli Cheng Hwee Kiat Eric L. Pond James M. Turner Goh Choo Seng Joshua G. Sundram Kristopher A. Olson Ho Chee Leong Tan Boon Leng Michael G. Mortensen Hui Kok Meng Tan Kian Moh Neil D. Wharton Lim Han Leong Teng Choon Hon Everett C. Williams Lim Meng Hwee Yow Thiam Poh Thomas F. Schmitz Mak Wai Yen Ong Wing Shan Matthew C. Mangaran Phua Poh Sim Gil Nachmani Ong Hsueh Min June 2007 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California 93943-5001 Daniel T. Oliver, VADM, USN (Ret) Leonard A. Ferrari President Provost This report was prepared for the Meyer Institute of Systems Engineering, Naval Postgraduate School, 777 Dyer Rd., Monterey, CA 93943. Reproduction of all or part of this report is authorized. This report was prepared by Systems Engineering and Analysis Cohort Eleven (SEA-11): CDR Michael F. Galli (USN) Cheng Hwee Kiat LT James M. Turner (USN) Goh Choo Seng LT Kristopher A. Olson (USN) CPT Ho Chee Leong (SNA) LT Michael G. Mortensen (USN) Hui Kok Meng LT Neil D. Wharton (USN) Lim Han Leong CPT Everett C. Williams (USA) CPT Gil Nachmani (IDF) ENS Thomas F. Schmitz (USN) Lim Meng Hwee ENS Matthew C. Mangaran (USN) Ong Hsueh Min LT Eric L. Pond (USN) Ong Wing Shan MAJ Mak Wai Yen (SNA) CPT Joshua G. Sundram (SNA) CPT Phua Poh Sim (SNA) MAJ Tan Boon Leng (RSN) CPT Teng Choon Hon Adrian (SNA) Tan Kian Moh Terence CPT Yow Thiam Poh (SNA) Reviewed by: ______________________________________ ______________________________ EUGENE P. PAULO, Ph.D. PAUL SHEBALIN, RADM, USNR SEA-11 Project Advisor SEA-11 Project Advisor _______________________________________ WAYNE P. HUGHES, Jr., CAPT, USN (RET) Chair, Systems Engineering and Analysis Curriculum Committee Released by: ______________________________ Dan C. Boger, Ph.D. Associate Provost and Dean of Research THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED June 2007 Technical Report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE: Riverine Sustainment 2012 5. FUNDING NUMBERS 6. AUTHOR(S) Michael Galli, James Turner, Kristopher Olson, Michael Mortensen, Everett Williams, Thomas Schmitz, Matthew Mangaran, Eric Pond, Gil Nachmani, Cheng Hwee Kiat, Goh Choo Seng, Ho Chee Leong, Hui Kok Meng, Lim Han Leong, Lim Meng Hwee, Mak Wai Yen, Ong Hsueh Min, Joshua Sundram, Tan Boon Leng, Tan Kian Moh, Teng Choon Hon, Yow Thiam Poh, Phua Poh Sim, Ong Wing Shan 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING Naval Postgraduate School ORGANIZATION REPORT Monterey, CA 93943-5000 NUMBER NPS-SEA-07-001 9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING N/A AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES: The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. 12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. A 13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words) This technical report analyzed the Navy’s proposed Riverine Force (RF) structure and capabilities for 2012. The Riverine Sustainment 2012 Team (RST) examined the cost and performance of systems of systems which increased RF sustainment in logistically barren environments. RF sustainment was decomposed into its functional areas of supply, repair, and force protection. The functional and physical architectures were developed in parallel and were used to construct an operational architecture for the RF. The RST used mathematical, agent-based and queuing models to analyze various supply, repair and force protection system alternatives. Extraction of modeling data revealed several key insights. Waterborne heavy lift connectors such as the LCU-2000 are vital in the re-supply of the RF when it is operating up river in a non-permissive environment. Airborne heavy lift connectors such as the MV-22 were ineffective and dominated by the waterborne variants in the same environment. Increase in manpower and facilities did appreciable add to the operational availability of the RF. Mean supply response time was the biggest factor aeffecting operational availability and should be kept below 24 hours to maintain operational availability rates above 80%. Current mortar defenses proposed by the RF are insufficient. 14. SUBJECT TERMS riverine, sustainment, repair, force protection, supply, communications, 15. NUMBER OF forward operating base, mobile operating base, global fleet station PAGES 544 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF THIS CLASSIFICATION OF OF ABSTRACT REPORT PAGE ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 1.1 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................1 1.1.1 Countering the New Threat ................................................................2 1.1.2 Sustainment Definition ........................................................................3 1.1.3 Historical Analysis ...............................................................................7 1.2 PURPOSE.........................................................................................................8 1.3 SCOPE ............................................................................................................10 1.4 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS............................................................13 1.4.1 Economy..............................................................................................13 1.4.2 Geography ..........................................................................................14 1.4.3 Climate and Weather.........................................................................15 1.5 PHYSICAL BASING ALTERNATIVES....................................................15 1.5.1 Forward Operating Base (FOB).......................................................17 1.5.2 Mobile Operating Base (MOB).........................................................17 1.5.3 Global Fleet Station (GFS)................................................................18 1.6 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................19 1.6.1 System Engineering ...........................................................................19 1.6.2 Systems Architecture.........................................................................21 1.6.3 Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System...............24 1.6.4 RST Systems Engineering Design Process.......................................25 1.6.5 Project Management Plan.................................................................25 1.7 ASSUMPTIONS.............................................................................................27 2. OPERATIONAL CONCEPT ...................................................................................35 2.1 OVERVIEW...................................................................................................35 2.2 OPERATIONAL PHASES ...........................................................................38 2.2.1 Pre-Deployment Phase.......................................................................39 2.2.2 Deployment Phase..............................................................................39 2.2.3 Employment Phase.............................................................................41 2.2.4 Withdrawal Phase..............................................................................43 2.3 RIVERINE SCENARIO ...............................................................................44 2.3.1 Mission ................................................................................................44 2.3.2 Situation..............................................................................................45 2.3.3 Considerations Affecting Possible Courses of Action.....................47 2.3.3.1 Terrain and Geography ..........................................................47 2.3.3.2 Hydrography............................................................................48 2.3.3.3 Transportation.........................................................................48 2.3.3.4 Enemy Relative Combat Power ..............................................50 2.3.3.5 Friendly Relative Combat Power............................................51