United States Marine Corps - Information on military ...… · Web viewUnited States Marine Corps. Findings and Recommendations. ... As this model was used to design and focus the

DRAFT

United States Marine Corps

Findings and Recommendations

Analysis of Combat Service Support (CSS) Requirements for Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command

(MARSOC)

Submitted by:

Analysis Branch, Operations Analysis Division

27 January 2009

UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO

DRAFT

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO

DRAFT

Executive Summary

Background and Purpose1. At the request of Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) a team from Operations Analysis Division, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (OAD MCCDC) conducted a study to determine the requirements for an expeditionary Combat Service Support (CSS) capability. The study, executed by OAD personnel with support from the Wargaming Division of the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL), ran from June to December 2008.

2. Now completing its third year of operation, the first MARSOC deployment occurred six months after stand up. Since August 2006:

MARSOC companies have continuously deployed, primarily to Central Command (CENTCOM)

o Employment is directed by the Theater Special Operations Commander (TSOC)

o Support is provided through the Joint Special Operations Task Force (JSOTF)

MARSOC teams (i.e., an element with 12-14 personnel) have deployed regularly to other theaters. Teams typically arrange for logistical support through contracts with local vendors. These contracts are coordinated with personnel at the appropriate US Embassy and contribute to mission success while minimizing the need for organic logistic support.

Appendix A contains more detailed information on MARSOC, it’s constituent elements and descriptions of typical special operations missions

3. Prior to commencement of this study, MARSOC conducted an internal re-organization, resulting in the transfer of a number of logistics billets from the Marine Special Operations Support Group (MSOSG) to the Marine Special Operations Battalions (MSOB). This led to a revised Table of Organization (T/O), and a new deployment model, for the Marine Special Operations Company (MSOC). The MSOC now deploys with its organic complement of 53 Marines and Sailors, supported by an enabling detachment of 31 Marines and Sailors. This organization is shown in Figure 1. Note that most of the MSOSG personnel provide operational capabilities, while most of the personnel from the MSOB provide logistics capabilities.

Matt Aylward Page 1 5/5/2023UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO

DRAFT

Figure 1MSOC Deployment Model

4. The Full Operational Capability (FOC) set for MARSOC includes deployment of, and operation as, a Marine Special Operations Task Force (MARSOTF). FOC entrains the requirement to provide logistical support to subordinate elements; a capability absent in the current MARSOC TO&E. This leads to the purpose of this study, identification of the requirements for an expeditionary CSS capability.

Methodology and Findings

Methodology1. The study team used three operations research methods to identify, refine and analyze the required capabilities.

Multi Objective Decision Analysis/Value Focused Thinking (MODA/VFT) : a technique developed from decision support theory that allows an organization to:

o Identify the objective that, if achieved, brings the greatest value to the organization; in other words, the preferred end state

o Determine the functions and tasks the organization must execute to reach the desired objective

o Develop functions that relate performance on metrics (e.g., miles per gallon, purchase price) to a consistent scale (i.e., utility)

o Assign weights to the utility functions, as a method to express the organization’s priorities

o Generate and evaluate alternative solutions to the problem at hand Wargaming : the team used a multi-cell, one-sided game design. Each cell was

presented with an overall scenario broken into a series of moves; their task was to develop solutions that satisfied the CSS requirements identified in each move.

Discrete event simulation : a software program that allows a series of mathematical models (e.g., consumption of water, mission duration, combat losses) to interact while managing the forward movement of time. Since many of


DRAFT

the underlying math models feature an element of probability the simulation software also manages the creation of random numbers. In a discrete event simulation, time advances in irregular steps; where step-size is based on the time to next scheduled event.

2. To implement MODA/VFT process, the study team worked with the Study Project Officer (SPO) to schedule, develop and facilitate a series of Value Model Workshops; please see Appendix B for more details. Sessions were held during the summer of 2008 with participants drawn from the G-4 and G-3 sections of MARSOC. The Study Sponsor (MARSOC G-4) was briefed on the workshop products; with the diagram shown in Figure 2 as the primary focus. The numbers in the various boxes of the value model are the global weights assigned to them during the MODA/VFT process. As this model was used to design and focus the wargame, the 12 most valuable tasks are highlighted. Details of model development are found in Appendix B.

Figure 2 Value Model used in Wargame

Please note that the term ‘Perform FSC’, seen on one of the boxes in the far right column, is misleading. This task deals with the ability to call for air and surface delivered fires; not with the de-confliction of fires.

3. Wargaming Division of MCWL led the effort to design and execute the wargame; details are found in Appendix C. During the game, three cells composed of MARSOC


DRAFT

personnel were presented with information regarding the game scenario. Each cell independently developed a proposed Course of Action (COA) and briefed it to the Sponsor. The cells were trying to identify ways to overcome gaps in the expeditionary CSS capability of MARSOC; using the prioritized list of gaps developed in the VFT workshops. The primary objective was identification of the structure needed to achieve a desired level of performance (i.e., for those tasks in the value model listed under the heading of ‘Organic to MARSOC CSSE’). Figure 3 is an example of the products each cell developed during the game moves.

Figure 3 Sample Player Cell Out brief

At the conclusion of the game, the study team was presented with three COA for bridging the gaps in MARSOC expeditionary CSS capabilities. Each COA consisted of a recommended T/O as well as a logistics concept for operations (CONOPS).

4. The study team took the three COA, analyzed them for overlap, compared them to the MARSOTF HQ value model, and then developed a representation of them in simulation software. A commercial product called ExtendSim (http://www.extendsim.com) provided the necessary tools for simulating CSS operations in the wargame scenario. A screen shot from the tool is shown in Figure 4.


http://www.extendsim.com/

DRAFT

Figure 4 Screen Shot from ExtendSim

Experiments with the simulation were conducted to see the effect CONOPS, levels of staffing (numbers, MOS, rank), distance between supported & supporting units and road networks had on mission performance. In particular, the study team tracked system response in terms of CSS personnel utilization (e.g., how busy they were over the simulation run) and logistic readiness at the supported unit locations. Details on the simulation design, experiment parameters and results can be found in Appendix D.

FindingsBased on the results of simulation runs, the study team developed a recommended T/O for the CSS Element (CSSE). This unit provides a robust logistics capability to the MARSOTF HQ while reducing the workload on supported units. The composition of the CSSE, shown in Table 1, consists of four functional groupings:

HQ: to provide CSS C2 and 2nd/3rd echelon maintenance JSOTF Liaison: to expedite intra-theater logistic support Convoy Operations: to move personnel, supplies and equipment between the

MARSOTF HQ location and the supported units Company Support: to act as a logistics C2 node at the company level, as well as

providing 2nd echelon maintenance for company equipment. Two notes on the Company Support group

o Two (2) MTVR are provided for moving personnel, equipment and material between the MSOC site and MSOT sites

o The MT Operators (line 42) are cross-trained to operate Material Handling Equipment (MHE)


DRAFT

CSSE Personnel at MARSOTF FOB:LineN

o Billet MOS RankMarOf

f MarEnl NavOff NavEnl1 OIC 0402 Maj. 12 2IC XXXX CWO 13 SNCOIC 0491 GySgt 14 MT Maint Chief 3529 SSgt 15 MaintMgmnt Clerk 0411 Cpl 16 MT Mechs 3522 Cpl-Sgt 27 HE Mech 1341 Cpl 18 HE Operator 1345 Pvt-L/Cpl 29 Electrician 1141 Cpl 210 Ord Maint Chf 2112 SSgt 111 Armorers 2111 Cpl-Sgt 112 Electro Optics Tech 2171 SSgt 213 CommElec Maint Chf 2862 SSgt 114 Ground Radio Repair 284x L/Cpl-Cpl 215 Ammo Tech 2311 Cpl-Sgt 216 Supply Chf 3043 Sgt 117 Supply Admin 3043 Pvt-L/Cpl 218 Warehouseman 3051 Pvt-L/Cpl 319 Contract Specialist 3044 SSgt 120 Rigger 0451 Cpl-Sgt 421 Embark Specialist 0431 Pvt-L/Cpl 222 Generator Mech 1142 Cpl-Sgt 223 Engineer Squad Ldr 1371 Sgt-SSgt 124 Engineer Team Ldr 1371 Cpl-Sgt 325 Combat Engineer 13xx Pvt-L/Cpl 9

Subtotal: 2 47 0 0

CJSOTF LIAISON ELEMENTLineN


f MarEnl NavOff NavEnl26 Logistics Chief 04xx SSgt-GySgt 127 Supply Chief 3xxx SSgt-GySgt 128 Clerk xxxx Cpl-Sgt 1

Subtotal: 0 3 0 0

CSSE Personnel for Convoy Operations:LineN


f MarEnl NavOff NavEnl29 OIC 0402 Lt-Capt 130 Convoy Leaders 353x SSgt 331 MT Mech 3521 Cpl-Sgt 132 MT Operator 3531 Pvt-L/Cpl 933 Wrecker Operator 3536 Cpl-Sgt 134 Field Radio Operator 0621 Pvt-L/Cpl 335 Corpsman xxxx SN-PO2 3

Subtotal: 1 17 0 3


DRAFT

CSSE Personnel at Company Sites (quantities for two (2) sites shown):LineN


f MarEnl NavOff NavEnl36 NCOIC XXXX Sgt 237 MaintMgmnt Clerk 0411 Cpl-Sgt 238 Warehouseman 3051 Pvt-L/Cpl 239 Electro Optics Tech 2171 Cpl-Sgt 240 Armorer 2111 Cpl-Sgt 241 MT Mech 3521 Pvt-L/Cpl 242 MT Operator 3531 Pvt-L/Cpl 4

Subtotal: 0 16 0 0Total: 3 83 0 3

Table 1 Recommended CSSE T/ONotes on Table 1:

‘XXXX’ in the MOS column indicates that any logistics MOS is acceptable At line 30, two of the Marines will lead convoys and one will handle dispatch

duties At line 32, the ratio of MT Operators to MTVR is 1.5:1 (i.e., 9 operators and six

MTVR)

Conclusions and Recommendations

ConclusionsTo accomplish its mission, MARSOC requires an expeditionary CSS capability, which it currently lacks. This study developed a recommended T/O for a CSSE that can perform the most important logistic tasks facing the organization. It ensures continued, responsive support to units subordinate to the MARSOTF HQ while minimizing the demand on the JSOTF.

The methodology was appropriate for the scale of the problem, the range of possible solutions and the study timeline. Each step in the process is transparent and traceable, allowing external agencies the chance to audit results and understand the numbers behind the study results.

RecommendationsThe study team proposes two (2) recommendations for consideration by the Sponsor:

Conduct a follow-on study to look at the use of air delivery options, with emphasis on production of air-delivered bundles and sortie allocation

Undertake collection of detailed data on equipment performance and maintenance actions; use this information in the MARSOC CSS simulation to refine the recommended T/O


DRAFT

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


DRAFT

1 PurposeThe primary purpose of this study was development of the requirements for an expeditionary CSS capability for MARSOC. Once identified, solutions to satisfy the requirements were developed and analyzed for suitability. At the conclusion of the effort, the study team provided the Sponsor with a recommended T/O.

Because the supporting material and final products associated with the MODA/VFT process and the wargame have been delivered to the Sponsor under separate cover, they will not be duplicated in this final report. Also, a run time version of the simulation will be delivered to the Sponsor for subsequent in-house analysis; MARSOC personnel will be able to change parameters and run the model but won’t be able to alter its underlying structure.

Following development of the recommended T/O, the study team provided additional support to the G-4 section as they prepared to brief CG MARSOC. This support was primarily in the area of identifying existing sources for the T/O (e.g., looking at units in the MSOSG for the desired MOS/rank mix), mapping from source to sink and identifying T/O shortfalls. These shortfalls will become the subject of a request to the Marine Requirements Oversight Council (MROC) for end-strength growth.

2 Execution of the Study PlanThe study was conducted as described in the executive summary. The study plan, found in Appendix E, was generally executed as written. However, there were three developments that deviated from the plan:

Because of the current model for deploying MARSOC units (i.e., the companies rely heavily on the JSOTF for logistic support), there is little information on maintenance actions in Marine Corps systems (e.g., SASSY, MIMMS)

An internal staff study on re-organization to create the CSSE was expected to provide alternative COA for study in the wargame. This staff study was cancelled, so the wargame shifted from analyzing the COA to developing the COA

The discrete event simulation was intended to support adjudication during the wargame. Because of the shift in game focus (i.e., from analyzing COA to developing COA), the simulation would have been out of place. Spreadsheet models were developed to provide the player cells with a reasonable logistic demand signal

2.1 Analysis Plan: OverviewThe Executive Summary section gives an overview of the study’s methodology, but is light on details of how the methods (MODA, wargame, simulation) are fit together. Error: Reference source not found illustrates the approach used in this study; each step builds on the preceding, with upward movement options decrease, but clarity increases. The penultimate step is the application of military judgment, stepping in where other analysis techniques were inappropriate, inapplicable or unable to provide needed insight.


DRAFT

Figure 5 Steps in the Analysis Plan

Marine Corps Warfighting Publication (MCWP) 4-1, Logistic Operations, is the doctrinal basis for creating a CSS T/O. However, the breadth and depth of functions described in this document requires an organizational structure along the lines of the Combat Logistics Group (CLG). In defining the requirements for an expeditionary CSS capability, MARSOC leadership recognized two things:

The MARSOC CSSE focus is primarily on tactical level logistics, and secondarily on the operational level; the CLG model would be much too large

MARSOC elements (both operational and logistical) work in a Joint world, so the ability to plug into an existing JSOTF is critical

The preceding bullets suggest that the functions of the MARSOC CSSE are a subset of MCWP 4-1; the elements of that subset were defined through the process of building the value model (Figure 2). The value model gave the study team three things:

1. A prioritized, weighted list of tasks that the CSSE must perform2. An initial categorization of tasks (i.e., Organic to MARSOC, Sourced by

Doctrine, Ad Hoc)3. A method for scoring the performance of alternatives on the tasks

During the wargame, player cells concentrated on developing solutions (e.g., structure, equipment, CONOPS) that addressed tasks in descending order. In fact, they were asked to only consider the first twelve (12) tasks in their out briefs. As the game progressed,


DRAFT

the cells adjusted their solutions in response to the moves, adding or subtracting elements as determined by their collective military judgment. Post-game analysis revealed a degree of commonality across the cells, indicating that some tasks should move from one category to another. Table 2 shows the migration of tasks from one category to another.

Task Number

Task Pre-Wargame Category

Post-Wargame Category

Comments

1.1

Order, store, distribute Class I-

IX Organic Organic

1.3Operate Logistic

AIS Organic Organic

1.4Provide Level I &

II health care Organic Organic

2.1Maintain & repair

equipment Organic Organic

4.1 AT/FP Organic Doctrine/policy

Addressed with Request For Forces (RFF)

4.4 Provide CSS C2 Organic Organic

4.5Conduct convoy

operations Organic Organic2.2 Construct FOB Doctrine/policy Organic2.3 Operate BOS Doctrine/policy Doctrine/policy

3.1 Move PAX Doctrine/policy Organic

Does not include

movement from APOD to FOB

3.2 Move Class I-IX Doctrine/policy Organic

4.2

FSC (in reality execute calls for

fire) Organic Doctrine/policy

Addressed with Request For Forces (RFF)

Table 2 Post-Wargame Analysis: Task MigrationNotes on Table 2:

Though the MARSOC CSSE has an intrinsic ability to execute Task 4.1 (AT/FP) and Task 4.2 (FSC), it will supplement this with a RFF tailored to the operational environment

The JSOTF typically makes extensive use of contracted logistics; the study assumes that JSOTF is responsible for the flow of sustainment from the JSOTF location to the MARSOTF HQ location

Task 2.2 (Construct FOB) is a necessary capability for expeditionary CSS Task 2.3 Operate Base Operations Support (BOS) refers to activities that are

typically the responsibility of the Camp Commandant

The study team now had a set of nine (9) logistical tasks organic to the MARSOC CSSE, along with the outlines of an organizational structure (i.e., TO&E) that would have to


DRAFT

accomplish them. While the solution space had narrowed, there was still some uncertainty; a combination of steps 3 and 4 (refer to Error: Reference source not found) led to the recommended CSSE T/O.

Task Number Task Evaluation Method Comments

1.1Order, store,

distribute Class I-IXSimulation/Military

Judgment (MJ)

Distribution and storage simulated:

MJ used for ordering/expediting

activities

1.3Operate Logistic

AIS Military Judgment

1.4Provide Level I & II

health care Not EvaluatedNo casualty stream

available

2.1Maintain & repair

equipment Simulation

4.4 Provide CSS C2Simulation/Military

Judgment

C2 assets for convoy control

simulated: MJ used for overall CSS C2

4.5Conduct convoy

operations Simulation

2.2 Construct FOB Military JudgmentAssisted by

spreadsheet model 3.1 Move PAX Simulation3.2 Move Class I-IX Simulation

Table 3 Methods used to Evaluate CSSE T/O on Required Tasks

The methods used to evaluate the CSSE T/O on the nine (9) required tasks are shown in Table 3; results of the evaluation process are discussed on page 25.

3 Simulation Design and DevelopmentThe decision to use a discrete event simulation for this study was driven by three facts:

There was very little experience with service as a MARSOTF HQ, as only a few field trials have occurred and they focused on C2 issues

Data on equipment performance, maintenance actions and workload was not available from the normal Marine Corps resources. The Marines of 2nd MSOB generously gave of their time, but the study team was only able to collect anecdotal information

There was a strong desire on the Sponsor’s part to make the CSSE just big enough; in other words, it should not be sized to meet every possible contingency, but it should be big enough to operate successfully in expeditionary situations.


DRAFT

3.1 Simulation Development and UtilizationSimulation development began in earnest at the end of the MARSOC wargame, in the latter weeks of October 2008. The simulation design used the same scenario, and the elements to be represented were drawn from the player-developed COA.

Baseline Scenario: The simulation is an abstract representation of the game moves, so certain steps were not treated explicitly. In particular, the actions of the engineers in Move 1 (i.e., development of the FOB) were not modeled, as they are deterministic. The simulation runs illustrate activities of the MARSOTF HQ and CSSE from approximately D+15 onward. Error: Reference source not found shows the essential elements of the scenario. During the wargame, player cells used the values shown.

Figure 6 Baseline Scenario

During a simulation run, each team is randomly assigned a mission type. Another random draw determines if the team expends all its ammunition during the mission. A final random variable determines mission duration. Table 4 shows the parameters used in the simulation experiments. Values in columns 1, 3 and 4 come from discussions with MSOC operators, conducted during the wargame. The values in column 2 are drawn from a NPS thesis (Army Special Operations Forces Logistics Planning Aid, LTJG Timothy S. Lanquist, USN, September 1998).


DRAFT

Mission Type P[Assignment] P[Ammo Expenditure] Mission DurationSR_2 0.2 .096 1-5 daysDA_6 0.2 .318 1-3 daysUW_7 0.2 .376 1-3 daysFID_8 0.4 .435 1-5 days

Table 4 Mission Parameters

Once the simulated team completes a mission, the simulation calculates the proportion of time the team’s vehicles operated. The value for this random variable is drawn from a Uniform Real, and one value is drawn independently for each vehicle type. Table 5 shows the parameters used in the simulation. The values in the second column were developed during the wargame, from discussions with MSOC operators. The values in the third column are taken from a study conducted for the Operations Analysis Division of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MAGTF Logistics Planning Factors, Decision Engineering, 22 March 2006, Contract Number M00264-01D-0002, Delivery Order 0012).

Vehicle Type % of Time in Use Consumption (GPH)GMV ~Uniform Real (0, 0.7) 6

M1114 ~Uniform Real (0, 0.7) 5MRAP ~Uniform Real (0, 0.2) 16

Table 5 Vehicle Parameters

During the wargame, demand for Class I (water) was treated as a random variable, defined as (Number of Marines at site)*[(~Uniform (5.8, 9) +~Uniform (0.6, 3.2)]. The first random number represents potable water usage in an arid climate and the second represents non-potable water usage in an arid climate. The simulation used the expected value of each variable, multiplied by the number of personnel present at the site, to calculate water demand.

Logistics Concept of Operations: The information in Figure 7 is generally self-explanatory. However, the last bullet is important for understanding the simulation results. During a simulation run, there are four (4) teams created at each site; the teams sit in a queue until assigned a mission. They execute the mission according to the parameters discussed above. Then the team goes into a two (2) day rest/refit period. During this period, their equipment is maintained and the team members only consume Class I items. In reality, the MSOC has only three (3) teams out conducting operations, with the headquarters element remaining at the FOB. So the demand signal for logistic support in the simulation is at least 130% of normal. This was a deliberate design choice, made to compensate for the limited operational data; with an expectation that the model will suggest a robust solution.


DRAFT

Figure 7 Elements of Logistics CONOPS

Assumptions: The assumptions used in the simulation based analysis portion of the study are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9. Four items bear further discussion:

In the simulation, the default vehicle for moving personnel, supplies and equipment is the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR); the assumed payload is seven (7) tons and the vehicles operate on a road network

Figure 1 shows the composition of the enabler package that accompanies each deploying MSOC. Since all of the logistics personnel are drawn from the MSOB, they are under control of the MSOC commander and are not available to assist the CSSE with its tasks. So, the simulation ignores their presence at the MSOC site; an issue relevant to modeling maintenance actions

JP-8 and water move through the system in SIXCON modules, and the transfer of liquids to bladders is treated implicitly. The modules are not tracked and are not considered a constraint on the logistics system

At the end of each mission, equipment used by the MSOT is inducted into a maintenance cycle. If there is a 2nd echelon maintenance capability at the MSOC site (e.g., there is a 2111 at the site), then all the equipment is given a full LTI. Based on a random draw, some items of equipment will need repair:

o If the parts are available (another random draw) repairs are effectedo If the parts aren’t available, the equipment sits in a queue until the parts

arrive


DRAFT

o If 3rd echelon maintenance is required, then the equipment is evacuated to the MARSOTF HQ for repair

o Note: there are no communications/electronics technicians in the support element at the site, so any equipment needing repair goes directly to the MARSOTF HQ

Figure 8 Assumptions, Part I


DRAFT

Figure 9 Assumptions, Part II

Table 6 shows the type and quantity of equipment the simulation created at the end of each MSOT mission; an extract from the Hotel Company EDL. The equipment is routed to the proper queue for LTI/CM based on the TAMCN code. Note that the table reflects communications equipment; even though there are no communication technicians at the site, the simulation needs these values to evaluate if 2nd/3rd echelon maintenance is required.

TAMCN TAMCN NOMENCLATURE Qty Tm Equip typeA A1260 NAVIGATION SET,SATE DAGR AN/PSN-13 29 Comm otherA A8010 TELEPHONE,SECURE UN STE OFFIC-442 1 Comm otherA A8025 ELECTRICAL TRANSFER TSEC/KYK-13 2 Comm otherA A8023 TRANSFER UNIT,CRYPT AN/CYZ-10V3 3 Comm otherA A0874 IOW AN/UYQ-88(V)2 intel. computer 1 ComputerA A0904 DIGITAL IMAGING SET (AN/PSQ-13) 1 ComputerA A2546 LAPTOP,ULTRA PORT T 2 ComputerA A9003 BLUE FORCE TRACKING 2 ComputerA A9300 COMPUTER SYSTEM,DIG 2 ComputerA A0918 RADIO SET, satellite AN/PSC-5 1 RadioA A0067 AN/VRC-111 (AN/MRC-148) 4 RadioA A0075 Radio set, vehicle, HF, AC/VRC-104 4 Radio


DRAFT

A A2079 RADIO SET AN/PRC-119F 1 RadioA A2042 RADIO,HF AN/PRC-150 3 RadioA A2068 RADIO SET AN/PRC-117F 4 RadioA A2044 MBITR MARITIME VERS AN/PRC-148 29 RadioD D0022 TRUCK,UTILITY (D1152 based GMV) 4 VehicleD TRUCK,UTILITY (M114) 3D MRAP 1E E0994 MACHINE GUN,GRENADE (Mk-19) 0 WeaponE E1760 SHOTGUN,12 GAGE,RIO 2 WeaponE E0994 MACHINE GUN, GRENADE (Mk-19) 1 WeaponE E0311 RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMET 2 WeaponE E0890 LAUNCHER,GRENADE,40mm, M79 2 WeaponE E1761 SHOTGUN,COMBAT, AUTOMATIC 2 WeaponE E0960 MACHINE GUN,5.56 MI (SAW) 3 WeaponE E0980 MACHINE GUN, .50 cal M2 4 WeaponE E0892 LAUNCHER,GRENADE, 40mm, M203 5 WeaponE E0989 MACHINE GUN,7.62 MI (M240) 7 WeaponE E0190 CARBINE,5.56 MILLIM 19 WeaponE E1460 RIFLE,SNIPER M40A3 2 WeaponE E1475 RIFLE,SEMI-AUT,.50C SASR 2 WeaponO A2560 TLDHS,AN/PSQ-19 tgt designator 1 OpticO E0006 ILLUMINATOR,INFRARE 2 OpticO E1978 VIEWER,NIGHT VISION (thermal, long range) 2 OpticO E1048 LASER RANGE FINDER 3 OpticO E1162 AV/PVS-17, 5.2X 3 OpticO E1154 NIGHT VISION DEVICE AN/PVS-14 11 OpticO E1162 NIGHT SIGHT VISION AN/PVS-17B 12 OpticO E0017 SIGHT,BORE,OPTICAL 19 OpticO E1798 ILLUMINATOR,INFRARE AN/PEQ-2A 19 OpticO EL001 AIM POINT COM 2 19 OpticO E1030 LASER TARGET DESIG 1 OpticO E1976 SIGHT,THERMAL (heavy HTWS) AN/PAS13D 4 Optic

Table 6 MSOT EDL in Simulation

Simulation Output: ExtendSim can produce a variety of charts, tables and graphs, depending on the needs of the study. During the simulation runs, the study team tracked two (2) key metrics. One dealt with the utilization rate of CSSE personnel (e.g., drivers, maintainers) and the other dealt with the logistic readiness level at each site. This latter metric is displayed in charts similar to Figure 10. Unfortunately, due to file compression, it is difficult to read numbers from the figures in this section. Appendix D. Simulation Results, contains graphs that are easier to read. In these charts, the following conventions apply:

The ammunition on hand, expressed in Days of Supply (DOS), is shown by the green trace, and uses the scale on the left side of the graph

The JP-8 on hand, expressed in gallons, is shown by the blue trace, and uses the scale on the right side of the graph

The water on hand, expressed in gallons, is shown by the red trace, and uses the scale on the right side of the graph

The horizontal axis measures time, expressed in days


DRAFT

On Day 1, each MSOC site has:o 20 DOS of ammunitiono 10K gallons of JP-8o 10K gallons of water

Figure 10 Understanding Output from ExtendSim

Example Results: All of the parameters discussed to this point define the context for running simulation-based experiments. Some of the parameters are deterministic (e.g., vehicle mix, fuel consumption planning factor) while others are stochastic (e.g., mission duration).

Attention now turns to the experimental variables; these are factors the study team controlled in order to assess the response of the CSSE. Post game analysis led the study


DRAFT

team to adopt the logistics CONOPS reflected in the recommended T/O for the CSSE; that is, a logistics organization of four elements, with one dedicated to sustaining the force (i.e., conducting convoy operations), one dedicated to maintaining the force (i.e., the support elements at each MSOC site), one dedicated to liaison with higher headquarters and one dedicated to CSS C2. The simulation represents the sustaining and maintaining tasks carried out by two elements of the CSSE. (NOTE: maintenance actions at the MARSOTF HQ (i.e., 2nd and 3rd echelon) were included in the simulation). The study team used three experimental variables:

The number of trucks and drivers available for sustainment operations The number of maintainers at the MSOC site The type of convoy dispatch used; either a pull signal from the MSOC site or a

push decision from the MARSOTF HQ

In analyzing the results of simulation runs, the study team considered four metrics: Supply Readiness: the objective was to minimize the number of days the MSOC

site fell below:o 10 DOS of ammunitiono 5K gallons of JP-8o 5K gallons of water

Material Readiness: the goal was to ensure that the average wait in any of the maintenance queues did not exceed two (2) days, as this was the rest/refit window for the MSOT before starting the next mission

Equipment Utilization: the goal was to keep vehicle use below 40%, with a utilization rate of 33% being the objective

Personnel Utilization: the goal was to keep personnel use below 40%, with a utilization rate of 33% being the objective. Note: by setting an objective of 33%, the study team could reasonable assume that the Marine would have enough time to eat, sleep and perform a range of extra duties (e.g., unloading supplies, standing guard, doing laundry) without having to account explicitly for each hour

Figure 11 shows the results on one simulation run, representing 90 days of operations. In this example, there are six (6) MTVR available to support the two (2) MSOC sites, and re-supply convoys are dispatched in response to requests from the MSOC. The variation in on-hand water (the red trace) is a little more regular, because it is decremented equally each day. On-hand ammunition and JP-8 show a less regular pattern, as they are both subject to random consumption. While the on-hand levels for water and ammunition never reach the minimum, there are several days (vicinity of day 75-85) where the on-hand level of JP-8 dips below 5K gallons.


DRAFT

Figure 11 Output for 90 Day Simulation Run, Log-Pull

In contrast to the first example, the trace of supply readiness in Figure 12 shows much less variation in the on-hand levels of water and JP-8, with only one case (vicinity of Day 22) where JP-8 levels approached the minimum acceptable. In this simulation run, supply convoys are dispatched on a regular basis, while also responding to re-supply requests from the MSOC sites (triggered when water/fuel reach 7K gallons or ammunition reaches 12 DOS). In this case the supply readiness metric is at an acceptable level and, compared to Figure 11, the number of convoys is reduced.


DRAFT

Figure 12 Output for 90 Days, Push & Pull

Key Findings and Robustness: The simulation helped the study team identify bottlenecks and try alternate configurations of the CSSE. Because the experiment plan used just three variables, and the sustainment operations presented the noisiest demand signal, the study team worked first to identify the equipment and personnel needed to support the MSOC sites. From this point, it was possible to build in the needed CSS structure to support sustainment operations.

There were some constraints on the size of the support element at the MSOC site (e.g., minimal logistics footprint at the sites so the benefits for the commander outweigh the cost of additional security measures). In this case, the study team reverse engineered the equipment failure rates and time to repair to meet the material readiness and personnel utilization metrics. In essence the simulation represents the worst case capability of the maintainers; if equipment fails at a higher rate, or repairs take longer than modeled, maintainers will work unacceptably long hours. This is the basis for recommending follow-on study of the maintenance process as it is actually practiced.


DRAFT

Figure 13 Key Findings for Simulation Runs

The method for calculating fuel consumption in the simulation was also used in the wargame, and the players saw the figures (i.e., the demand signal) at several points in the game. However, the study team cannot state for certain that they are a reasonable model of reality. Further study of this aspect of logistics operations is needed, with an emphasis on collecting real world data for comparison.

While the simulation treated logistics operations as being in a ‘steady-state’, player cells in the wargame considered other critical phases of the operation. In their out briefs, teams recommended varying numbers of mobility assets to move the MARSOTF HQ and MSOC to their operating bases. The study team recognizes this, and does not claim that the recommended T/E of six (6) MTVR could move the MARSOTF from the APOD to the FOB in a timely manner. The TO&E of the convoy operations element is designed to sustain, not mobilize.

Because the recommended TO&E for the CSSE satisfied the four metrics used in the simulation, and the demand signal is larger than normally seen (Figure 14 applies), it appears that MARSOC will have a robust expeditionary CSS capability.


DRAFT

Figure 14 Robustness

Excursions and Recommendations: Due to the limited time allowed for this study, it was not possible to conduct a range of excursions. Some candidate excursions are shown in Figure 15. With the value model in place, and the discrete event simulation built, the study team can respond rapidly to requests from the Sponsor. Further, when the run-time version of the model is delivered, MARSOC personnel will be able to conduct their own ‘what-if’ analysis.


DRAFT

Figure 15 Possible Excursions

4 Findings

4.1 Scoring the CSSE T/OThe recommended T/O (please refer to Table 1) for the CSSE consists of four elements:

HQ: to provide CSS C2 and 2nd/3rd echelon maintenance JSOTF Liaison: to expedite intra-theater logistic support Convoy Operations: to move personnel, supplies and equipment between the

MARSOTF HQ location and the supported units Company Support: to act as a logistics C2 node at the company level, as well as

providing 2nd echelon maintenance for company equipment

Using the scoring functions from the MODA/VFT process (refer to Appendix B, Value Model Workshop, starting on page 31), the study team calculated the value accruing to MARSOC. These results are shown below.

Task Number Task Measure Score Utility Weight Value

1.1

Order, store, distribute Class

I-IX

P[CSSE Successfully

Performs Task]Likely, by

MJ 0.75 0.08 0.06

1.3Operate

Logistic AIS

P[CSSE Successfully


MJ 0.75 0.09 0.07

1.4

Provide Level I & II health

care%Time Corpsmen

BusyNot

Evaluated 0.0 0.09 0.02.1 Maintain & Average Daily R- 90%, by 0.80 0.08 0.06


DRAFT

repair equipment Rating Simulation

4.4Provide CSS

C2

P[CSSE Successfully


MJ 0.75 0.08 0.06

4.5

Conduct convoy

operations

P[CSSE Successfully


MJ 0.75 0.09 0.07

2.2 Construct FOB Days to Construct5 Days, by

Spreadsheet 0.80 0.05 0.04

3.1 Move PAX%Time MTVR Operators Busy

40%, by Simulation 0.5 0.07 0.04

3.2Move Class I-

IX%Time MTVR Operators Busy

40%, by Simulation 0.5 0.07 0.04

Total Value: 0.43Table 7 Scoring the CSSE T/O

Notes on Table 7: For Tasks 3.1 and 3.2, the simulation used 12 drivers to operate the 6 MTVR, MJ

reduced the number in the T/O to 9, leading to lower utility from these tasks The scores for Tasks 2.1 and 2.2 are conservative estimates, assuming marginal

conditions for both tasks Rounding errors in Totals, due to use of two (2) decimal places in numbers

Theoretically, if the CSSE T/O was without flaw, risk or shortfall, each Measure would achieve the maximum Score, and return a Utility of 1. As these nine (9) tasks carry 70% of the available weight (as shown in the Value Model, Figure 2), the maximum Total Value the CSSE T/O could provide is 0.7. As the actual Total Value is 0.43, this version of the CSSE T/O gives MARSOC about 61% of the theoretical Total Value.

5 RecommendationsThe study team recommends that MARSOC undertake two follow-on studies; because they are intimately related to the current effort, they should begin as soon as possible.

5.1 Air Delivery OptionOAD is currently conducting a study to see if it is feasible to support widely dispersed infantry units through aerial delivery. The scenario can be quickly modified to address MARSOC interests and the analytical tools will be in place to execute the study quickly. There are three factors that may be of interest to MARSOC:

Throughput at the Rigging Shed: How many bundles of size X can Y riggers prepare in Z hours?

Sortie Allocation: How many are needed to sustain the MSOC sites and how many would be available?

Supported Unit Trade Space: Is precision delivery a critical enabling capability? Do the supported units need MHE at the drop zone? How does the air delivery option affect the security posture at the MSOC site?


DRAFT

5.2 Maintenance ModelingAs noted at various points in Section 3, the modeling of maintenance activities at the MSOC sites lacks fidelity. In fact, the associated parameters reflect a worst case scenario for the maintainers; if the equipment fails more frequently, if repairs take longer, or if parts are harder to get, then the whole maintenance effort could grind to a halt. OAD recommends a study to look at these principle factors:

A task analysis to understand the repair process for currently fielded equipment. What repairs are most commonly done? How long do they take? Does a particular repair item limit the repair process?

Collect and analyze data from current MARSOC deployments, to complement and refine the data available in SASSY/MIMMS/MERIT

Calculate the total footprint of the maintenance personnel. What sets, kits and chests do they need? Do more tools mean better readiness?

What should be the composition of the Class IX block? Quantity, weight, volume, cost to carry


DRAFT

6 Appendix A. Acronyms and DefinitionsThe material in this section is provided to familiarize the reader with terms used throughout this document.


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT

7 Appendix B. Value Model Workshop

This section contains slides used to brief the Sponsor on the final results of the MODA/VFT workshops. They provide dates for when the workshops were held, and the related work products. As the slides summarize work to date, they’re unable to give the detailed description of how the workshops were conducted. If there are questions about the supporting spreadsheets (pages 34-36, and 58-60), please contact the study lead at OAD, MCCDC.

A discussion of the MODA/VFT methodology can be found in chapter 19 of Methods for Conducting Military Operational Analysis, Loerch, A.G. and Rainey, L.B. editors, Military Operations Research Society, 2007. The relevant chapter, Value-Focused Thinking, was written by Gregory S. Parnell.


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT

8 Appendix C. Wargame The following slides were used to brief the player cells on the MARSOC 08 wargame. At the end of each turn, cell leaders presented their COA recommendations to the Sponsor. All game-related materials, along with a quick look analysis report, were forwarded to MARSOC under separate cover.


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT


DRAFT

9 Appendix D. Simulation ResultsThe study team built a simulation of the CSSE that emerged from the wargame, as modified by military decision makers. Once the simulation logic was in place it was possible to input a range of values for the experiment variables and observe the system’s response. The analysis proceeded in three steps:

Step 1: Vary the number of MTVR available Step 2: Vary the logistics C2 and the number of MTVR available Step 3: Conduct multi-run analysis on the most promising configuration to

develop a confidence interval for system response

As noted in the main body of the report, the number of maintainers at the MSOC site was constrained by expert judgment (i.e., don’t let the cost of protecting the support element outweigh the benefit of their presence). So there was not much room for experimentation on this aspect of the CSSE T/O. On average:

Motor Transport Mechanics were busy ~29% of the time Armorers were busy ~42% of the time Optics Technicians were busy ~39% of the time

Because the figures above are sensitive to assumptions about MTBF and MTTR, the study team does not make any strong claims regarding the veracity of the results. For this reason, a follow-on study of this issue is recommended.

Step 1: Vary Available MTVR: Starting with fourteen (14) MTVR and a simulation run of 90 days; results for supply readiness at MSOC A are shown below.


DRAFT

Figure 16 Logistics Pull, 14 Trucks, and 90 Days

The red line in the graph indicates a value of ‘15’ on the left scale (measuring DOS of ammunition) and ‘5000’ on the right scale (measuring JP-8 (blue trace) and water (red trace)). As can be seen, there are several periods where the MSOC site has less than the minimum stock of JP-8. Pulling information from a dialog box in the simulation shows that an individual MTVR was used 13.71% of the time. This indicates that 14 is an excessive quantity of trucks. NOTE: in analyzing results, the study team looked at conditions at both sites. However, as the two sites are identical in operation, only one graph is shown for clarity.

Using the same logistics C2 model (i.e., sustainment is only sent when the MSOC pulls from the CSSE) and ten (10) trucks, produces the response shown in Figure 17. Since this figure and the preceding one show just one run, there is little value in comparing them to each other. In the case of Figure 17, MTVR utilization rose to 18.82%


DRAFT


When just six (6) MTVR are available, their average utilization is 30.95% and the system responds as shown in Figure 18. As in the previous figures, the red line is added for clarity, but there is no analytical basis for comparing the three cases. However, when there are six (6) MTVR in the CSSE, the utilization rate moves closer to the desired level.


DRAFT


Step 2 Vary the Logistics C2 and Vary the MTVR: The scenario is run again, starting with fourteen (14) MTVR available to the CSSE. But now sustainment convoys are pushed to the MSOC sites on a regular schedule (NOTE: only fuel and water are pushed, ammo is still delivered on demand); and of course, the CSSE must have the ability to respond to re-supply requests from the sites. There is a large change in system response, and the red line in Figure 19 now indicates ’12.5’ and ‘5000’ on the left and right scales, respectively.


DRAFT

Figure 19 Logistics Push and Pull, 14 Trucks 90 Days

While a direct comparison to preceding figures remains invalid, the study team noted that the supply states for JP-8 and water seemed to vary less, and it is apparent that minimum levels are less frequently violated. With fourteen (14) MTVR available, the average truck is used 15.41% of the time.

Reducing the number of trucks to ten (10) increases their utilization rate to 21.97% and results in the supply readiness shown in Figure 20.


DRAFT

Figure 20 Logistics Push and Pull, 10 Trucks, 90 Days

When the number of MTVR is reduced to six (6), the utilization rate rises to 32.79%. The supply situation shown in Figure 21 appears generally acceptable, though there are several days where the available fuel drops below 5K gallons. At this point, the study team determined that a reasonable stopping point had been reached; six (6) MTVR in the CSSE and a push/pull C2 model became the starting point to develop confidence intervals.


DRAFT

Figure 21 Logistics Push and Pull, 6 Trucks 90 Days

Step 3 Confidence Intervals: To develop the confidence intervals, the 30 replications of the simulation were run, each for 90 days. The resulting statistics are shown in Table 8.

Table 8 Confidence Interval for Supply Readiness

The interpretation of the numbers is straightforward; for the given scenario, using six (6) MTVR and push/pull logistics C2, the CSSE can ensure that 95% of the time:

The MSOC site will have at least 5,162 gallons of JP-8 on hand and that on average, there will be 7,820 gallons available

The MSOC site will have at least 6,480 gallons of water on hand and that on average, there will be 8,232 gallons available

The MSOC site will have at least 14 DOS of ammunition on hand and that on average, there will be 17 DOS available


Supply Category Mean-2*StdDev Mean Mean +2*StdDevFuel (gallons) 5162 7820 10477

Water (gallons) 6480 8232 9984Ammo (DOS) 14 17 20

DRAFT

Based on these statistics, the study team recommends the use of push/pull logistics C2 and the presence of six (6) MTVR in the CSSE. From this foundation, and using military subject matter experts, the remaining portions of the CSSE T/O were built. The final product can be seen at Table 1.


DRAFT

10 Appendix E. Study PlanStudy Plan for the Analysis of Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command

Combat Service Support (MARSOC CSS)

1. Background

By assuming existing structure from 1st and 2nd Force Reconnaissance Companies, Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) initiated operational deployments of company-sized elements a little more than one year after establishment of the Command. In addition, deployments by the Foreign Military Training Unit (FMTU), re-designated as the Marine Special Operations Advisory Group (MSOAG) have continued and are increasing in terms of locations, duration and frequency.

While supporting an ever expanding range of deployments, establishing the structure to recruit, screen, assess, select and train operators, MARSOC also confronted the challenge of developing an appropriate logistic capability. In the near term, this capability must support deployments of 14 to 54 operators, ranging from six weeks to six months, and respecting a 1:2 dwell time. In the longer term, in addition to the expeditionary logistics capability, MARSOC must provide small, tailored, mission-focused detachments, for limited deployment windows. An example might be a team of engineers to repair a village’s generator system, in the operating area of a MSOAG element.

Though all SOF-specific equipment is supported by the Special Operations Forces Support Activity (SOFSA); the Marine Corps is required to support the forces and equipment it provides to Special Operations Command (SOCCOM).

In less than two years, MARSOC will reach Fully Mission Capable (FMC) status. At that point, the Command must be able to support deployments of battalion-sized elements, organized to function as a Special Operations Task Force Headquarters (SOTF HQ).

During the transition period from IOC to FOC, much of the operational effort will be focused on support to CENTCOM in OIF and OEF. After 2010, the proportion of deployments to austere theaters will increase; significantly increasing the demands on the Command’s organic logistics capability.

2. Objective

Answering the following questions is the study’s primary objective: What level of expeditionary logistics capability provides the greatest benefit,

across the widest range of operational environments? Are there opportunities for MARSOC elements to leverage the logistical

capabilities of deployed Marine forces, such as a MEU? If the capabilities (logistic and/or operational) of MARSOC elements are used in

combination with those of expeditionary Marine force, what is the impact on the CJSOTF?


DRAFT

Answers to the above questions support MARSOC submissions to the MROC, due in December of 2008. Developing these answers depends on several sub-objectives:

Review of existing policy and doctrine governing logistical support provided to MARSOC by the Marine Corps, both the Operating Forces and the Supporting Establishment.

Assessment of concepts for supporting MARSOC operations, considering their operational effectiveness and estimating their impact on expeditionary Marine forces.

Analysis of alternative TO/E in terms of their capability to provide expeditionary logistics to deployed MARSOC elements.

2.1 Study Directions

The study must consider the likely geographic dispersion of TSC missions, the challenges of synchronizing MARSOC deployments with the deployment cycle for expeditionary Marine forces, the execution of short-duration deployments by team-sized elements and the need for MARSOC logistics to act as a Joint Special Operations Task Force (JSOTF) enhancer. The study should consider operations in the 2010-2020 timeframe.

Marine Corps participants in this study should include MARSOC, Marine Forces Command (MARFORCOM), Marine Forces Pacific (MARFORPAC,) Headquarters Marine Corps Plans, Policies and Operations (HQMC (PP&O)), Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC), the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab (MCWL) and Training and Education Command (TECOM).

2.2 Constraints

Specific direction by the study sponsor guides the efforts of the study team. This set of directions includes:

Deployment tempo based on the FY10 Training and Exercise Employment Plan (TEEP)

Operating environment: NE Asia, SW Asia and Africa Size of deploying units: small teams (e.g., 14 Marines and Sailors) to MSOB Logistical requirements for deployed elements are based on:

o Marine Special Operations Company (MSOC) conducting Direct Action (DA) and Special Reconnaissance (SR) operations under the operating concept of Foreign Internal Defense (FID)

o Marine Special Operations Advisory Groups (MSOAG) Teams conducting FID operations

o Theater Special Operations Commander (TSOC) directed support to other SOCCOM elements

Forces available to generate required logistical capability include:o Existing MARSOC structureo Proposed MARSOC structureo MEU(SOC)


DRAFT

o Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG)o JSOTFo Other US agencieso Host Nation Support (HNS)o Goods and services purchased from the local economy

Marine Corps logistical functions are effected by on-going LOGMOD efforts MARSOC capable of 1st , 2nd and limited 3rd echelon maintenance for Marine

Corps equipment MEU(SOC) capable of 1st, 2nd and limited 3rd echelon maintenance for Marine

Corps equipment Analysis of logistical support for Distributed Operations (DO) is applicable to

MARSOF operations

3. Limitations and Assumptions

3.1 Limitations

The resources of the study team (e.g., time, tools, personnel), as well as the availability of data, place limits on the contents of the final report. To ensure a clear understanding with the sponsor, the following limitations on the study team’s capabilities are presented:

Due to the relatively small number of MARSOC deployments to austere theaters, limited operational data exists

Due to the compressed schedule for draft results, analysis will require the use of some planning factors, ratios, and SME input to supplement detailed process analysis.

3.2 Assumptions

To fill information gaps (e.g., what operations MARSOC elements will execute in the out-years), the study team developed a set of assumptions. They are numbered to facilitate discussion during the first phase of the study effort. At the end of the study, some assumptions will become irrelevant, some will be replaced with actual information and some will be validated.

3.2.1 Current operations (e.g., OIF, OEF) continue in their current form for the first two years of the study period. During the remainder of the study period, the operations will be balanced among FID, DA and SR

3.2.2 LOGMOD will be fully implemented on schedule; the brief at https://logmod.hqmc.usmc.mil/index.htm pertains.


https://logmod.hqmc.usmc.mil/index.htm

DRAFT

3.2.3 TSOC Request For Forces (RFF) in the latter portion of the study period may include logistical support, sourced from MARSOC, for SOCCOM elements.

3.2.4 The deployed MSOC has no organic aviation capability; transport, assault support and CAS are provided by CJSOTF or other TSOC assets

3.2.5 The deployed MARSOC elements always tie into the CJSOTF for operational logistics

3.2.6 If the deployed MARSOC element is serving as a SOTF HQ, it will have to provide life support services at the FOB

3.2.7 If the deployed MARSOC element moves into an austere area of operations, occupying a basic FOB, it will improve the FOB as indicated by METT-T

4. Methodology and Tasks

4.1 Methodology

The study uses three analysis techniques to support the MARSOC submission to the MROC:

Decision analysis:o Value model workshop, involving personnel from MARSOC G-3,

G-4 and MSC, to do three things: Identify the desired capability for expeditionary logistics Specify the associated functions and tasks Determine how to measure the capability

Wargamingo Use of a seminar wargame, involving MARSOC, SOCOM and

SOCENT personnel to identify solutions for creating the expeditionary logistics capability

Simulation o Evaluation of alternatives through the use of stochastic discrete

event simulation o Design of experiment (DOE) and sensitivity analysis to assess

performance of recommended alternative across a range of operational settings

4.2 Tasks

To employ these techniques, the study team carries out the following series of tasks.

4.2.1. Task 1 - Literature review of all relevant material relating to the logistic and operational capabilities of MARSOC and expeditionary Marine forces, as well as current logistics modernization initiatives.


DRAFT

4.2.2. Task 2 – Support development of the MARSOC value model through a series of internal workshops; OAD study team will facilitate discussions, record minutes, track action items and publish decisions.

4.2.3. Task 3 – Present the MARSOC value model to MARSOC personnel. The OAD study team facilitates the workshop to develop feasible alternatives that address the analytical questions outlined above.

4.2.4. Task 4 – Design a seminar wargame to assess issues identified in the alternatives development workshop. Identify and invite participants, distribute game materials and coordinate support for game execution.

4.2.5. Task 5 – Support execution of the wargame, capture key observations and lessons learned. Participate in quick look analysis and contribute to the final report.

4.2.6. Task 6 – Using a stochastic simulation of a deployed MSOC, analyze and score alternatives.

4.2.7. Task 7 – Combine the results of the wargame and simulation runs to identify that alternative with best-value for MARSOC. Brief the Study Advisory Committee (SAC) on the combined output, solicit input and incorporate comments as appropriate.

4.2.8. Task 8 – Prepare and deliver final report to the Study Sponsor with any information needed to finalize the Study Completion Letter (SCL). Be prepared to support the review process of the brief.

5. Performance

5.1 General

The study will be performed per the provisions of MCO 3902.1D, Marine Corps Studies System (MCSS). Additionally, this study may become a classified study or involve the collection and analysis of classified information. In this case, all personnel involved in this study will be required to have a current secret clearance.

5.1.1. Time of Performance

The study will be completed NLT 25 November 2008. In Progress Reviews (IPR) will include a brief of study progress to date followed by a working session to address the subsequent task. The following is the proposed timeline for the tasks:


DRAFT

Task / Deliverable Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecTask 1: Literature ReviewTask 2: Value Model WorkshopsTask 3: Alternatives WorkshopTask 4: Wargame DesignTask 5: Wargame ExecutionTask 6: Simulation RunsTask 7: Analyze ResultsTask 8: Prepare Final Report

10.1 On-going SupportIPR 1 XIPR 2 (brief preliminary results)

X

Brief Draft Final X

6. Deliverables

General

Deliverables will be provided according to the following schedules. All reports will be written unless otherwise stated.

Deliverables Item

Content Format Due Date

IPR #1 Brief Tasks 1 - 3

Annotated MS Power Point file 29 Sep 08

IPR #2 Brief Tasks 4 - 7

Annotated MS Power Point file 5 Nov 08

Brief Draft Final Task 8 Annotated MS Power Point file 14 Nov 08

Final Report Task 8 MS Word file 15 Dec 08


DRAFT

Travel

Trip #

Travelers Duration From - To Purpose

1 2 28-31 Jul 08 Quantico toCamp Lejeune

Value Model Workshops

2 2 25-27 Aug 08 Quantico to Camp Lejeune

10.2 Alternatives Workshop

3 2 29-30 Sep 08 Quantico to Camp Lejeune

10.3 Brief IPR #1

4 2 5-6 Nov 08 Quantico to Camp Lejeune

10.4 Brief IPR #2

5 2 13-14 Nov 08 Quantico to Camp Lejeune

10.5 Brief Draft Final

Additional travel associated with Task 5, Wargame Execution, may be required, depending on the location of the game.

Local Travel

Local travel within the Washington Metropolitan area is necessary.

7. References

References: The study performer shall review the following references for applicability to completing this study. The study sponsor will provide these documents upon commencement of the study.

Results of Emerald Express 06.

Results of Expeditionary Warfare 04, especially Core Objectives 2 and 5.

CNA after action report on ‘Det One’

CNA report on relation between deployed MARSOC elements and MEU(SOC)

MARSOC Campaign Plan

MARSOF TEEP

Army study on logistics reorganization for ARSOF


DRAFT

Any SOCOM or DoD policy documents, directives, MOUs, or MOAs applicable to CSS support of MARSOC

8. Coordinating Instructions

Study Sponsor Col Pete Warker, AC/S G-4, MARSOC.

Study Advisory Committee

Study Project Officer:

Maj Charles M. Long, USMC G-4 Operations OfficerBuilding: H-1Floor: 1GSCamp Lejeune, NC 28542Phone: 910-451-3643Email: [email protected]

Study Lead:

Matt AylwardOAD, MCCDC3300 Russell Road Quantico, VA 22134Phone: 703-784-5989Email: [email protected]

Study Advisory Committee Membership:

HQMC: DC P&RDC I&LDC M&RADC PP&O

MCCDC:MAGTF Integration Division (C 11)Logistics Integration Division (C 13)C2 Integration Division (C 16)Total Force Structure Div (C 18)Training & Education Command (C 46)Marine Corps Warfighting Lab (C 52)


DRAFT

MarCorLogCom:Operations Division

Marine Forces:MarForPac: Attn: G-4 MarForCom: Attn: G-4MarCent: Attn: G-4MarSoc: Attn: G-3, G-4

SOCOM J-4


Documents

United States Marine Corps - Information on military ...… · Web viewUnited States Marine Corps. Findings and Recommendations. ... As this model was used to design and focus the