MORS Power and Energy Workshop Working Group 3 Modeling and Simulation for Campaign Analysis

1. MORS Power and Energy WorkshopWorking Group 3Modeling and Simulation for Campaign Analysis Chair – Rob Roche, USA/AMSAA Co-Chair – Michael Samsa, Argonne National Laboratory Synthesis Team - Tim Hope, WBB Consulting Nov 30 – 3 Dec 2009

2. WG3 Purpose/Focus Purpose – Identify current status, gaps, and future needs of modeling and simulation (M&S) and other tools to properly analyze the combat effectiveness and related logistical impacts of integrating new P&E-related strategies, CONOPS and requirements.  Goal – Consolidate our individual views into a collective set of observations and recommendations that address common issues or themesacross multiple domains and suitable for senior-level decision makers.

3. WG3 Purpose/Focus • Working Group 3 Objectives – • Better understand the relationships between (1) operational energy demand, (2) force capabilities, and (3) mission risks from irregular threats that exploit fuel logistics vulnerabilities. • Assess how well DoD decision tools and analytic methods consider mission risk from denial or severe disruption of fuel logistics in the future battlespace. • Define needed improvements to tools, methods and decision processes to more realistically manage fuel risk to forces in senior-leader force structure and trade-space decisions. • Develop recommendations to DoD analytical leaders on how to modify current analytic assumptions, models, and operational concepts to better manage risks to US mission success arising from RED threats to US fuel logistics.

4. Levels of Analysis Data/ Meth. Aggregation Theater / Campaign Force Level Small Units System & Technology Sub-Systems, Engr & Technology

5. Bottom-line up Front P&E Performance / Effects • Current campaign / force level modeling focused on traditional combat effectiveness (e.g. Conventional Campaign) • Some capability to play logistics and vulnerability of logistics train • Need to balance to show P&E effects on operation in more broad campaigns (eg., Phase IV/V) • Several recommendations made Combat Effectiveness

6. WG3 Approach • Discussions are (roughly) organized into three topical sessions and one consensus/synthesis session leading to the development of path forward recommendations: • Session 1: Primary Combat and Study Planning Models • Session 2: Fuel Consumption and Requirements Calculations • Session 3: Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel • Session 4: Working Group Consensus and Synthesis • Topical sessions begin with briefing presentations by the Services to establish a common basis for the Working Group discussion. • Discussions periods are intended to capture the collective knowledge, views, and opinions of Working Group participants:

7. WG3 Session Goals Establish among WG3 participants, a common understanding of primary combat and study planning approaches utilized within the Services. Document capability of primary models to fully integrate and address campaign energy and power (P&E) requirements and define desired future P&E capability. Document models and analytical processes that support the primary combat and study planning models and review M&S tools and techniques used by the predict fuel consumption and requirements. Identify common or significant gaps in model or analytical processes and define future requirements for models to support primary combat and study planning models. Document models and analytical processes that support the Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel (FBCF) calculations and how such models are implemented in the Services. Identify and document both common and differential gaps across the array of primary, supporting, and FBCF models. Define analytic approaches, tools, and/or data required to bridge identified gaps.

8. Session 1 Briefing Agenda

9. Session 2 Briefing Agenda

10. Session 3 Briefing Agenda

11. WG3 : Some items of focus and thought? • M&S study planning / strategies (metrics, key players, scenario development, guidance, req’ts, standards, etc) • Key players (who is involved now, need to be involved, when?) • Primary M&S capabilities/limitations used for campaign / operational analysis (P&E Focus, can they play “log tail”?) • Secondary M&S tools/techniques used to support operational/campaign analysis (hinder or help?) • Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions • Critical inputs (data, guidance, scenario, force structure, req’ts, etc) • Integration of logistical analysis in overall operational analysis? • More than just fuel…full energy spectrum (Warfighter, Platforms)? • How much is too much detail? Where is the line drawn? • Key gaps and common themes

12. Observations / Emerging Themes ( 1 of 3) • Data Constraints / Issues from lower to higher analytical levels • Uncertain data pedigree / sources • Need data mapping of sources / “validated sources” / metadata • Format consistency / standards / release authority • Aggregation and calculation methodology consistency • Gaps in data ( Probability of Log tail interdiction) • Models not taking advantage of fidelity of data • Classification level; Adequate markings • Scenario / Study plan • Need to plan for P&E issues early to include scenario and force structure allocation • Analytical agenda more of a broad guide, services need to create depth for simulations • Modeling scenarios more Phase I-III … with need for more Phase 0, IV-V • What level analysis? (Theater vs. smaller units) • Need for longer scenarios to stress / show a need for longer logistics tail … • Paradigm shift on traditional roles for AoA and analytical support, may need to address at levels not traditionally examined • How much is “good enough” (precision versus accuracy) • How different prices of fuel/energy affect the FBCF/campaign? Is there a crossover point?

13. Observations / Emerging Themes ( 2 of 3) • Traditional combat simulation capability to monitor requirements / play vulnerability of the force and logistics tail • Traditional focus of combat simulations is force effectiveness (i.e., “the fight”) … Narrow focus • Most campaign / force level models can play limited logistics monitoring and log tail vulnerability • Logistics traditionally secondary effect as compared to primary focus … study execution and CPU time traditionally limited inclusion … played more as parallel study or M&S efforts • Models need series of data inputs and outputs from lower level or higher fidelity models • Could use vignette analysis, but may need campaign model to show large enough effects (i.e., one HEMTT tanker will most likely not make an impact on operational effectiveness … taking out pipeline will) • Rigor of the validation of model logic • Consider Logistics model centric approach for Phases IV and V • Secondary logistics model capability: • Several adequate models / analysis methods to calculate fuel requirements • Force effectiveness impacts more appropriate in traditional combat simulations • Models need series of data inputs and outputs from lower level or higher fidelity models

14. Observations / Emerging Themes ( 3 of 3) • Metrics • Operational effectiveness: OPTEMPO reduction, mission success … based on disruption/interdiction of logistic tail • Burdened Delivery Price: $ / gallon • Performance: demand (gallons consumed for the force / platform) • How and where should metrics be shown (e.g., cost per combat effectiveness?) • Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel • More than just FBCF, need both performance (i.e., risk of KPP) and cost element • Need sensitivity of the cost factors to see what makes a difference • Seem to be various data elements that can be leverage from combat models, but need to refine exact needs as FBCF methodologies are matured • Other energy source inclusion challenges • Standardize the elements of analysis within the FBCF (e.g., design an experiment to validate logic and elements) • Analytical approach by services (Army large institutional structure)

15. Objective 1: Better understand the relationships between (1) operational energy demand, (2) force capabilities, and (3) mission risks from asymmetric / irregular threats that exploit fuel logistics vulnerabilities. Current campaign / force level modeling focused on traditional combat effectiveness (e.g. Conventional Campaign) Need to balance to show P&E effects on operational outcome over full campaign, especially Phases 0,IV, and V Need to show KPP impacts on operational risk Institutional knowledge limited or focused on traditional combat effectiveness WG3 FindingsObjective 1

16. Objective 2: Assess how well DoD decision tools and analytic methods consider mission risk from denial or severe disruption of fuel logistics in the future battlespace. Some capability in traditional combat models, but utility unknown due to primary focus on conventional campaign and study execution timelines Scenario typically do not model all joint phases, especially Phase 0, IV, V (i.e., length of scenarios) Secondary tools have appropriate level of logistics effects fidelity, but limited ability to apply / assess operation effectiveness… hybrid approach / appropriate linkages possibly needed Traditional roles of key players in AoA’s may need to be reevaluated, due to the paradigm shift Models need series of inputs and outputs elements (data, metrics, logic) from lower level or higher fidelity models WG3 FindingsObjective 2

17. WG3 FindingsObjective 3 (1 of 2) Objective 3: Define needed improvements to tools, methods and decision processes to more realistically manage fuel risk to forces in senior-leader force structure and trade-space decisions. Need to determine the appropriate analytic framework / methodology to include metrics, data sources, inputs/outputs, etc to assess the impact of P&E on operations Need appropriate forum to continue to communicate / elevate M&S challenges and gaps and increase institutional knowledge Need to develop enterprise approach to look at holistic P&E effects (i.e., not one model, series of model interactions) Need to examine consumption and vulnerability of the logistics train Need to fully understand our M&S portfolio capability (computation capability, fidelity levels, inputs/outputs, metrics, data needs, etc.) New types of data /methodology needed (e.g., Probability of Logistics Tail Interdiction and effect , no data for contract support)

18. Objective 3: Define needed improvements to tools, methods and decision processes to more realistically manage fuel risk to forces in senior-leader force structure and trade-space decisions. Need to plan for P&E issues early in study plan development to include scenario and force structure allocation Influence analytic agenda to emphasize Phases 0, IV, and V Need appropriately identify the level of modeling needed to address the question Assess/recommend the appropriate time and resources to examine impacts appropriately Data needs to be collected for each node of logistics train Need to understand the energy footprint of all battlefield entities (ground vehicles, Warfighter, generators, contract support) WG3 FindingsObjective 3 (2 of 2)

19. WG3 Recommendations 1: Power and Energy (PE) Community should participate in development / execution of analytic agenda 2: Should develop a consistent methodology / framework (e.g., data, metrics, terminology, logic) to address power and energy WRT operational effectiveness across the spectrum of models (system to theater) 3: Should decompose / define / standardize the elements of FBCF (categories/metrics) to understand how it is used within consistent methodology 4: Should consider establishing a joint community of interest (COI) to capture the requirements and establish the standards, data sources, authorities, etc 5: Should conduct a more detailed survey to assess the adequacy of PE representation in models Should develop a catalogue of PE inputs/outcomes from current suite of models 6: Charter a specific pilot study to examine the potential impact of PE on the war fight across all phases

20. Immediate Opportunities/Actions Immediate: 6 months to a year, or less Influence analytic agenda MSFD Conference in Feb MORS Meeting on analytical agenda in March HQDA G4 Log Planning Conference EOM Jan Leverage current AoA’s for lessons learned Establish / Integrate Analytic Joint / Industry COI Establish framework for survey Establish a collaborative environment on DKO Determine key players and potential available resourcing for COI and/or pilot study

21. Longer-term Opportunities/Actions Longer term—beyond a year Influence high level acquisition policy (i.e., Is current guidance adequate?) Is new elements needed (i.e., collection of data?) Examine current capabilities to influence other policy areas Mature consistent methodology / framework (e.g., data, metrics, terminology, logic) to address power and energy operational effectiveness and FBCF M&S Survey / Catalogue Establishment Joint / Allies / Industry / Inter-agency capability Execute pilot study and determine adequacy of current tools / processes Potentially Influence M&S (campaign) strategy / development Further involvement in Analytic Agenda Explore inclusion of full energy source spectrum(renewable / alternative) Formalize self sustaining COI

22. WG3 Summary P&E Performance / Effects • Current campaign / force level modeling focused on traditional combat effectiveness (e.g. Conventional Campaign) • Some capability to play logistics and vulnerability of logistics train • Need to balance to show P&E effects on operation in more broad campaigns (eg., Phase IV/V) • Several recommendations made Combat Effectiveness