NPS-SE-08-004 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Maritime Interdiction Operations in Logistically Barren Environments by SEA-13 Integrated Project Team June 2008 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited Prepared for: Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93943 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA Daniel T. Oliver Leonard A. Ferrari President Executive Vice President and Provost This report was prepared by the students of Cohort 13 of the Systems Engineering Analysis (SEA) program as an integral part of their educational process and is a degree requirement for them. The SEA team was augmented by students from Singapore, under the auspices of the (Singapore) Temasek Defense Systems Institute (TDSI) as well as students from other curricula to permit the team to address the broad, interdisciplinary nature of the project. The team consisted of: SEA Students: LT Raymond Alconcel LT Labrisha Mason LT Omar Sanchez ENS Robert Beauchamp ENS Abel Marten LCDR Walt Sandell Miss Hui-Ling Chen Mr Mike Matson ENS Virginia Taylor LT Bryan Koehler ENS Christopher McCook ENS Andrew Turo TDSI Students: Miss Ai Lin Tan, Sharon Mr Hoe Wai Leong CPT Leong Kar Koh LT Eric Paul Boernke MAJ Hoon Hong Teo CPT Lior Harari Mr Cheng Hoe Kee MAJ Kah Wei Ho, Danny MAJ Lu Pin Tan CPT Cher Howe Ong Mr Kandasamy Jaya Kumar CPT Mun Lok Soh Mr Choon Seong Chua Mr Khim Yee Kam Mr Pick Guan Hui CPT Choon Wei Poh Mr Kim Soo Ong CPT Say Beng Neo Mr Choong Wee Cheong CPT Kok Kiang Lee LCDR Robert Andrew Silva CPT Chor Chow Seng CPT Kong Pin Foo, Gilbert Mr Teck Hwee Wong Mr Chuan Lian Koh LT Brett Christopher LeFever Mr Weng Heng Chua CPT Chun Hong Low CPT Lee Tat Lim, Rudy Mr Yew Heng Kwok Mr Eng Siong Ng Other Curricula: LT Randal Eric Fuller – IW & SE MAJ Roy De Souza - SE Mr Kine Seng Tham – SE Reviewed by: Gary O. Langford Charles N. Calvano Project Advisor SEA Coordinating Committee Chair Accepted By: Accepted By: David H. Olwell James N. Eagle Systems Engineering Operations Research Dept. Dept. Released By: Daniel C. Boger Interim Vice President and Dean of Research THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 074-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this 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 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED blank) 9 JUL 2008 Technical Report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Maritime Interdiction Operations in Logistically Barren NPS-97-08-003 Environments 6. AUTHOR(S) See previous page 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER Naval Postgraduate School N/A Monterey, CA 93940-5000 9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER N/A N/A 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the authors 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 unlimited 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words) This report contains analysis that shows that existing technology exists to improve Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO) by approximately 30%. Furthermore, analysis contained herein will aid MIO planning for future operations. Since MIOs are an inherently dangerous, but necessary activity with far reaching implications to theater political and economic dynamics, this improvement is of great interest. MIO is a Naval solution to the problems of smuggling weapons, explosives, people and narcotics. MIO, when employed correctly has the potential to save lives and limit economic/political damage. 14. SUBJECT TERMS: Maritime Interdiction Operations, Narcotics, Improvised Explosive Devices, 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Human Trafficking, Ion mobility Spectrometry, MANA, Naval Simulation System, Search and Detection 393 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UU NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18 298-102 i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii ABSTRACT This report contains analysis that shows that existing technology exists to improve Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO) by approximately 30%. Furthermore, analysis contained herein will aid MIO planning for future operations. Since MIOs are an inherently dangerous, but necessary activity with far reaching implications to theater political and economic dynamics, this improvement is of great interest. MIO is a Naval solution to the problems of smuggling weapons, explosives, people and narcotics. MIO, when employed correctly has the potential to save lives and limit economic/political damage. iii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iv TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION TO MARITIME INTERDICTION OPERATIONS (MIO)..... 19 A. DEFINITION OF MIO ......................................................................... 19 B. PURPOSE OF MIO ............................................................................ 21 C. SCOPE OF ANALYSIS...................................................................... 22 D. FUNCTIONS IN A MIO....................................................................... 32 II. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING OF A MIO.......................................................... 37 A. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING MANAGAMENT PLAN (SEMP)............. 37 B. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING PROCESS.............................................. 51 C. ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS.......................................................... 64 III. SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 77 A. PURPOSE.......................................................................................... 77 B. INTRODUCTION TO COMBINED OPERATIONS............................. 78 C. BACKGROUND ................................................................................. 80 D. SCENARIO SETUP............................................................................ 81 E. PHASE 0: SHAPING THE MARITIME ENVIRONMENT ................... 87 F. PHASE 1: DETERENCE OPERATIONS ........................................... 89 G. PHASE 2: SEIZE THE INITIATIVE .................................................... 90 H. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................. 91 IV. OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT ................................................................... 93 A. INTRODUCTION TO OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT ...................... 93 B. MAP AWARE NON-UNIFORM AUTOMATA (MANA) SIMULATION ..................................................................................... 93 C. DISCRETE EVENT SIMULATION ..................................................... 97 D. ASSET PREDICTION DISCRETE EVENT SIMULATION ............... 100 E. CONTINGENCY OVERVIEW........................................................... 103 F. CONTINGENCIES............................................................................ 104 G. CREATING A COMMON OPERATING PICTURE........................... 110 H. LAW OF THE SEA AND MARITIME INTERCEPT OPERATIONS.. 111 V. BOARDING................................................................................................. 115 A. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 115 B. PHASE SHAPING............................................................................ 116 C. SCOPE OF PAIR-WISE COMPARISON ......................................... 117 D. PAIR-WISE COMPARISON CHARACTERISTICS.......................... 117 E. RESULTS OF PAIR-WISE COMPARISON ..................................... 122 F. OPTIMIZATION OF FORCE STRUCTURES THROUGH CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................................... 124 G. FORCE PACKAGE MODEL RESULTS .......................................... 128 H. RESULTS AND MODEL CONCLUSION ......................................... 134 I. HELICOPTER VISIT BOARD SEARCH AND SEIZURE ................. 135 J. RECOVERY ..................................................................................... 138 v VI. SEARCH..................................................................................................... 141 A. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 141 B. APPROACH..................................................................................... 141 C. CURRENT PRACTICE OF SEARCH............................................... 142 D. PROBLEM DEFINITION AND CONSTRAINTS............................... 143 E. FUNCTIONAL DECOMPOSITION................................................... 143 F. IDENTIFYING THE TECHNOLOGIES AND EQUIPMENT .............. 145 G. MODEL ...........................................................................................