Team 3 Final Report

2LT Caballero

CPT Neusse

MAJ Wilson

MAJ Tomaziefski

2

Purpose and AgendaPurpose of this briefing:

• To provide the study results of an analysis of seven COAs in order to allow the commander to select the best COA that degrades Attica’s military capabilities.

Agenda:• Background• Problem Statement & Study Objectives• Analysis BLUF• Courses of Action• Constraints, Limitations, Assumptions• Nesting Chart Study Issues / EEAs / MoMs• Method Processing Chart• Findings, Insights, Conclusions• Integration• Sensitivity• Excursion• Final Recommendation

3

Background•Situation

•Enemy–Capabilities important to study focus

•Set conditions for Phase IV of Operation

• Possible COAs COA 1: F-16 PureCOA 2: MLRS PureCOA 3: CCM PureCOA 4: F-16/MLRS/CCMCOA 5: F-16/MLRSCOA 6: F-16/CCMCOA 7: MLRS/CCM

Attica has significant anti-access capabilities that must be destroyed in order to set conditions for Phase IV operations of CJTF-Freedom.

Platform Ranges:AF: 2 x F-16 Squadrons (Yellow)Army: MLRS (Blue)Navy: CCM (Purple)

Cruise Missiles

MLR

S

MLRS MLR

S

F-16

F-16

Aerial R

efueling

4

Problem Statement: CJTF-Freedom requires a force structure in order to reduce Attican military capabilities and set conditions for freedom of maneuver during Phase IV operations.

Problem Statement & Objectives

Study Objective: Recommend best COA relative to CJTF-Freedom J-3 Priorities.

Potential COAs

COA 1: F-16 PureCOA 2: MLRS PureCOA 3: CCM PureCOA 4: F-16/MLRS/CCMCOA 5: F-16/MLRSCOA 6: F-16/CCMCOA 7: MLRS/CCM

CJTF J-3 PRIORITIES

Priority 1: Destroy 100 identified Attican targets.

Priority 2: Minimize friendly casualties.

Priority 3: Minimize collateral damage.

Priority 4: Minimize cost.

5

RecommendationCOA 4 – F-16/MLRS/CCM

COA 4 achieves fewer friendly casualties and less collateral damage than COA 1, but costs $50 million more than COA 1.

• COA 4 destroys all 100 targets with the least risk for friendly casualties and lowest collateral damage, albeit at significant munitions cost.

• 5 friendly casualties.• 23 killed, 67 injured as collateral damage.• $60 million munitions cost.

• COA 1 destroys all 100 targets with almost twice the friendly casualties, three time the collateral damage, but less than a sixth the munitions cost.

• 8 friendly casualties.• 58 killed, 175 injured as collateral damage.• $9 million munitions cost.

• COA 4 dominates in all priorities when the analysis includes the cost of a downed F-16 ($47 million).

6

Constraints and LimitationsConstraints

• Man power & timeline.• Required to analyze and provide feedback for 7

distinct COAs.• Must defeat the identified 100 targets.• Available platforms & munitions.• $500,000 for study.

Limitations• Precision and accuracy of data.• Limited access to software & computing power.

Our team continues to study and analyze the problem to highlight risk and provide insight within the these constraints and limitations.

Key Assumptions

These assumptions allow our team to address the critical factors pertinent to analyze the COAs within limits and constraints. 7

• Air superiority, air refueling & F-16s can engage multiple targets.• Target destroyed when the sum of the mean area effect of munitions assigned to that target exceeds 50% of the target area (except for air bases and terrorist camps 5%).

• Number of munitions assigned to each targeted provides a 99.99% chance of achieving effects on target.

• Friendly casualties only caused by F-16 shot down (10%) and counter battery artillery fire against MLRS (1.5%).

• Collateral damage results from excess mean area effect of munitions multiplied by the population density of 40/km2 (historical casualty ratio from bombs 1 deaths to 3 injuries).

• Cost estimates based solely on the cost of total number of munitions assigned to destroy all targets.

EEA 2.1Which COA Min

Friendly Casualties

Problem DecompositionProblem Statement: CJTF-Freedom requires a force structure in order to reduce Attican military capabilities and set conditions for freedom of maneuver during Phase IV operations.

Study Objective: Recommend best COA relative to CJTF-Freedom J-3 Priorities

Issue 1Target Destruction

Issue 2Friendly Casualties

Issue 3Collateral Damage

Issue 4Cost

EEA 1.1Which COA Can

Destroy 100 Targets?

EEA 3.1Which COA Min

Collateral Damage

EEA 4.1Which COA Min

Cost

MOM 1.1.1Can the

munitions range TGT?

MOM 1.1.2Number of

munitions to defeat TGT

MOM 2.1.1What is the

expected casualty rate per platform

MOM 4.1.1What is cost per defeated TGT in

dollars & resources

MOM 3.1.1What is the

expected collateral damage rate per

munitions & target

8

Analytical Methodology

Research and Data Collection

Recommended COA

Multi-attribute Decision making

Process

Input:F-16 Operational Probabilities

Output:•Value matrix with rank ordered COAs•Sensitivity Analysis•Excursions

Output:•Target & Platform locations•Munitions range•Target size•Mean area of effect of munitions•Operational probabilities •Population density•Munitions Cost

Simulation

Output:F-16 Causality Rate

Output for each COA:•Number of targets destroyed•Munitions to target matrix•Expected causalities• Collateral damage estimate•Cost estimate

Input:7 Potential COAsCJTF J-3 Priorities

Goal Program:•Min Casualties•Min Collateral •Min Cost

9

10

Feasible Courses of ActionFindings:

Insight:• COAs 2,3, and 7 infeasible due to inability to range and destroy all

identified targets (screening criteria). • Infeasible COAs minimize risk of friendly causalities, but have the

ability to engage at most 34 targets (COA 7), thus leaving Attica with significant military capability.

Conclusion: All feasible COAs require the utilization of F-16s and aerial refueling to destroy all identified targets, and represent a higher risk of friendly causalities.

Feasible Courses of Action Infeasible Courses of Action

COA 1: F-16 PureCOA 4: F-16,MLRS, and CCMCOA 5: F-16 and MLRSCOA 6: F-16 and CCM

COA 2: MLRS PureCOA 3: CCM PureCOA 7: MLRS and CCM

11

Friendly Casualties

Findings and Insight: • Casualties only caused by F-16 shot down (10%) and counter battery artillery fire against MLRS (1.5%).• COA 4 results in the least amount of expected friendly casualties (lowest risk).• COA 1 represents a 37% increase in friendly casualties as compared to COA 4 (highest risk).• COA 4 reduces the amount of F-16 sorties, therefore reduces the number of casualties.

Conclusion: COA 4 is optimal in respect to the J-3’s second priority of minimizing friendly casualties.

F-16 (COA 1) F16/CCM/MLRS (COA 4) F-16/MLRS (COA 5) F-16/CCM (COA 6)0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

8

45

7

1

1

Friendly Casualties per Feasible COA

F-16 Casualty

MLRS Casualty

8

5

67

12

Collateral Damage

Conclusion: COA 4 is optimal in respect to the J-3’s third priority of minimizing collateral damage.

F-16 (COA 1) F16/CCM/MLRS (COA 4) F-16/MLRS (COA 5) F-16/CCM (COA 6)0

50

100

150

200

250

5822

45 33

174

67

135

98

Collateral Damage per Feasible COA

Civ. Injures

Civ. Deaths

Findings and Insight:• Collateral damage results from excess mean area effect of munitions multiplied by the population density of 40/km2 (historical casualty ratio from bombs 1 deaths to 3 injuries).• COA 4 presents the lowest risk of incurring collateral damage, and is a 32% more effective to next best COA (COA 6) and is 62% better than worst COA (COA 1).

Civilian Deaths

Civilians Injured

232

90

180

131

13

Integration

Ris

k: L

ow

er is

bet

ter

COA4: F-16/MLRS/CCMIs the best COA at the current priority levels

The “best” COA changes as priority weights change.

Sensitivity to Priority Weights

14

Prio

rity

Wei

ght

s

CO

A R

isk

Prio

rity

Wei

ght

s

CO

A R

isk

Prio

rity

Wei

ght

s

CO

A R

isk

FRIENDLY CASUALTIES

FRIENDLY CASUALTIES

FRIENDLY CASUALTIES

COLLATERAL DAMAGE

COLLATERAL DAMAGE

COLLATERAL DAMAGEMUNITIONS COST

MUNITIONS COST

MUNITIONS COST

COA1: F-16

COA4: F-16/MLRS/CCM

COA5: F-16/MLRS

COA6: F-16/CCM

• Risk of COAs change as priority weights change.

• When minimizing Friendly Casualties and Collateral Damage are the highest priorities COA 4 offers the least risk.

• When minimizing munitions cost is the highest priority COA 6 dominates.

MINIMIZE FRIENDLY CASUALTIESCOA RISK vs. PRIORITY WEIGHTS

MINIMIZE COLLATERAL DAMAGECOA RISK vs. PRIORITY WEIGHTS

MINIMIZE MUNITIONS COSTSCOA RISK vs. PRIORITY WEIGHTS

Sensitivity Analysis

• COA4 provides the least risk of friendly casualties until the shoot down probability of an F-16 decreases to .03 (3%).• This crossover occurs when MLRS batteries have a greater risk of casualties than F-16s.

15

16

Excursion

8 FC 5 FC 6 FC 7 FC

233 CD

90 CD

180 CD131 CD

$8 Mil

$60 Mil

$60 Mil $15 Mil

8 FC 5 FC 6 FC 7 FC

233 CD

90 CD180 CD

131 CD

$385 Mil

$296 Mil

$342 Mil $345 Mil

• KEY ASSUMPTION:Cost estimates based solely on the cost of total number of munitions assigned to destroy all targets.

• Best when minimizing collateral damage has priority over cost:

COA4: F-16/MLRS/CCM. • Best when minimizing cost has priority over collateral damage:

COA6: F-16/CCM.

• When including the cost aircraft lost:

COA4: F-16/MLRS/CCM Dominates for any and all

priorities.

Ris

k: L

ow

er is

bet

ter

Ris

k: L

ow

er is

bet

ter

17

Final Recommendation

• Destroys all 100 targets.• Lowest risk for friendly casualties.• Lowest risk for collateral damage.• Priority Weights – COA 4 offers lowest overall risk

unless cost is 1st or 2nd priority.• Sensitivity Analysis – COA 4 offers lowest overall

risk until F-16 casualty rate drops below 3%.• Excursion – COA 4 dominates for all priorities in all

mixes of priority weights if the cost of lost aircraft are included.

COA 4 – F-16/MLRS/CCM

18

Conclusion

Questions?