IIIAdltla Project2.5 operational profiles 9 2.6 multi-mission employment 10 2.7 multi-mission...

DOT-CG-N-01 -92-1.4•°;v.÷•.•92..,,Aids to NavigationDOT-VNTSC-CG-92-2. IIIAdltla ig to

AD-A258 809 Service Force Mix 2000~I~IEElllIHHIIIUIIIllllfll Project

Volume IIIAnalysis of Multi-Mission Requirements andDevelopment of Planning Factors for theReplacement Buoy Tender Fleet

SELECTEW VA•E

S DEGC03 1992 -

A

~ ~ :nt hos been approvedI. :." ; l, l ,c~aj,ý cad s-ale; its

e .týitz.±tion is unlimited. USCG Office of NavigationSafety and Waterway ServicesShort Range Aids to NavigationWashington, DC 20593-0001

June 1992

This document is available to the publicthrough the National Technical InformationService, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-I!

- U.S. Department -%W/4 of Transportation

United StatesCoast Guard

Office of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services

Washington, DC 20593

The Aids to Navigation Service Force Mix 2000 Project is documented in a Project Overview and threeseparately bound volumes. Volume I, "Development and Application of an Aids to Navigation Service ForceMix Decision Support System -- Final Report" documents the Volpe Center's analysis and development of theproposed replacement buoy tender fleet. Volume II, "Development and Application of an Aids to NavigationService Force Mix Decision Support System - Aid Assignments and Vessel Summary Reports" contains theDSS outputs associated with the findings of Volume I. Volume III, "Analysis of Multi-Mission Requirementsand Development of Planning Factors for the Replacement Buoy Tender Fleet", documents the USCG's analysisand development of baseline multi-mission requirements of the replacement buoy tender fleet. All fourdocuments are available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including thetime for reviewing instructions searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, andcompleting and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any otheraspect of this collection of invormation, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters

mav~ Sutq10uarrntonrVServices. Directorate for information perations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Hig way1 rtington VA2702-4 he Office of M naton and Budget Paperwork Reduction roeAninaton DC 27503

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVEREDJune 1992 Final Report

July 1991 - June 1992

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERSAids To Navigation Service Force Mix 2000 Project

Volume III Analysis of Multi-Mission Requirements and CG269/B2006

Development of Planning Factors for the Replacement Buoy

Tender Fleet

6. AUTHOR(S)CDR Dennis Ihnat

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONUSCG Office of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services REPORT NUMBER

Short Range Aids to Navigation Division DOT-VNTSC-CG-92-2.111

2100 2nd Street, SW

Washington, DC 20593-000

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORINGUSCG Office of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

Short Range Aids to Navigation Division DOT-CG-N-OI-92-1.4

2100 2nd Street, SW

Washington, DC 20593-0001

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

This document is available to the public through the National

Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)The Aids to Navigation (ATON) Service Force Mix (SFM) 2000 Project is documented in a Project Overview and three

separately bound volumes.The Project Overview describes the purpose, approach, analysis, and results of the ATON SFM 2000 Project conducted

by the USCG's Office of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services, Short Range Aids to Navigation Division.Volume I, "Development and Application of an Aids to Navigation Service Force Mix Decision Support System -- Final

Report", documents the Volpe Center's analysis and development of the proposed replacement buoy tender fleet. Thedocument describes current ATON operations, the concept, development, and operation of the Decision Support System(DSS), the data utilized by the DSS, validation of the DSS, and the proposed service force mix.

Volume II, "Development and Application of an Aids to Navigation Service Force Mix Decision Support System -- AidAssignments and Vessel Summary Reports", contains the DSS outputs associated with the findings of Volume 1. Includedare maps of the aid assignments for each vessel in both the current and proposed fleets and the associated one-page DSSsummary printouts.

Volume 111, "Analysis of Multi-Mission Requirements and Development of Planning Factors for the Replacement BuoyTender Fleet", documents the USCG's analysis and development of baseline multi-mission requirements of the replacementbuoy tender fleet. The document describes buoy tender employment categories, historical tender employment data, thedetermination of underway hours per underway day, and projected impacts on multi-mission requirements resulting fromalternative replacement fleet scenarios.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES64

Aids to Navigation, Bouy Tender, Decision Support System,

Geographic Information System 16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACTOF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18298-102

Analysis of Multi-mission Requirements and Development of Planning Factors for theReplacement Buoy Tender Fleet

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 BACKGROUND 1

1.2 INPUT PARAMETERS 1

1.3 METHODOLOGY 2

1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER WORK 2

2.0 BUOY TENDER EMPLOYMENT 3

2.1 FOCUSED MISSION/MULTI-MISSION 3

2.2 EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY DEFINITION 3

2.2.1 PRIMARY MISSION EMPLOYMENT 3

2.2.2 TRAINING AND MISCELLANEOUS OPERATIONS (TMO) 4

2.2.3 ESSENTIAL MULTI-MISSION EMPLOYMENT 4

2.2.4 OTHER MULTI-MISSION EMPLOYMENT 4

2.3 HISTORICAL RESOURCE HOUR EMPLOYMENT/REPLACEMENTTARGETS 4

2.3.1 SEAGOING BUOY TENDERS 5

2.3.2 COASTAL BUOY TENDERS 5

2.4 RESOURCE HOURS AND UNDERWAY DAYS 7

2.5 OPERATIONAL PROFILES 9

2.6 MULTI-MISSION EMPLOYMENT 10

2.7 MULTI-MISSION RESOURCE HOUR REQUIREMENTS 11

2.7.1 TMO, SAR AND DOMESTIC ICEBREAKING 12

2.7.2 MARINE SCIENCE ACTIVITIES 12

2.7.3 MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE 14

2.7.4 OTHER MULTI-MISSION 15

i1i

Analysis of Multi-mission Requirements and Development of Planning Factors for the

Replacement Buoy Tender Fleet

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CON'T)

2.8 FLEET MIX SCENARIOS 20

3.0 PLANNING FACTORS DEVELOPMENT 25

3.1 WORKING GROUP 25

3.2 PROGRAM DIRECTORS CONSIDERATIONS 25

3.3 PLANNING FACTORS 28

4.0 CONCLUSION 30

APPENDIX A. ABSTRACTS OF OPPERATIONS SUMMARY SPREADSHEETS A-1

APPENDIX B. COMMANDANT'S DECISION MEMO ON PLANNING FACTORSAND MULTI-MISSION CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS A-2

FIGURES

FIGURE 1. WLB RESOURCE HOURS PIE CHART 5

FIGURE 2. WLM.133 RESOURCE HOURS PIE CHART 6

FIGURE 3. WLM.157 RESOURCE HOURS PIE CHART 6

FIGURE 4. COMBINED WLM RESOURCE HOURS PIE CHART 7

iv


TABLE OF CONTENTS (CON'T)

TABLES

TABLE 1. AVERAGE UNDERWAY HOURS PER UNDERWAY DAY 8

TABLE 2. BUOY TENDER OPERATIONAL PROFILES (CURRENT) 9

TABLE 3. BUOY TENDER OPERATIONAL PROFILES (PROJECTED) 9

TABLE 4. WLB RESOURCE HOUR EMPLOYMENT PER DISTRICT 11

TABLE 5. PROJECTED PER-SHIP REQUIREMENTS 12

TABLE 6. PROJECTED WLBR MSA EMPLOYMENT (DAYS/DISTRICT) 13

TABLE 7. PROJECTED WLBR MER EMPLOYMENT (DAYS/SHIP) 14

TABLE 8. PROJECTED WLBR MER EMPLOYMENT (DAYS/DISTRICT) 14

TABLE 9. PROJECTED WLBR "OTHER" EMPLOYMENT (DAYS/DISTRICT) 16

TABLE 10. WLBR "OTHER MULTI-MISSION REQUIREMENTS 17

TABLE 11. "VESSEL OF OPPORTUNITY" DAYS PER WLBR BY DISTRICT 18

TABLE 12. GEOGRAPHIC DAYS BY DISTRICT 19

TABLE 13. NON-PRIMARY MISSION IMPACT - 19 WLBR SCENARIO 21

TABLE 14. NON-PRIMARY MISSION IMPACT- 16 WLBR SCENARIO 21

TABLE 15. NON-PRIMARY MISSION IMPACT - 12 WLBR SCENARIO 21

Accesion For

NTIS CRA&I

DTI, TABL..a.; .oo;iced i

J..stification. .....

By ........ ........ . .Diet ibution I

v/vi A-I

Analysis of Mufti-mission Requirements and Development of Planning Factors for theReplacement Buoy Tender Fleet

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report analyzes multi-mission employment requirementsfor the replacement buoy tender fleet and identifies the keyplanning factors for the Aids to Navigation Service Force Mix2000 Project.

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Coast Guard is in the process of acquiring new resourcesto replace the capabilities of its aging seagoing and coastalbuoy tender fleet. The Short Range Aids to Navigation Divisionhas worked closely with the Office of Acquisition from the onsetof this project, developing a detailed Mission Needs Statement,Sponsor's Requirements Documents, Circulars of Requirements andRequests for Proposals. In support of KDP-4 of the acquisitionprocess, including the required advance budget planning, therequired number of replacement seagoing buoy tenders (WLBRs) andreplacement coastal buoy tenders (WLMRs) must be determined.

1.2 INPUT PARAMETERS

Several input parameters, or Planning Factors, critical tothe effective employment and support of the replacement buoytender fleet are identified in this report. In particular,multi-mission employment requirements have a major impact on theATON Service Force Mix. These requirements are analyzed indetail.

The Mission Needs Statement indicates that the replacementseagoing buoy tender will continue to be a multi-mission resourceand the replacement coastal buoy tender will be a focused-missionresource. The total number of ships required to service aids tonavigation is expected to be less than currently required, butremain relatively constant regardless of the mix of replacementbuoy tenders. Therefore, the higher the multi-missionrequirements, the higher the number of WLBRs and lower the numberof WLMRs. Conversely, the lower the number of WLBRs, the lowerthe amount of multi-mission employment available from the buoytender fleet. In addition to multi-mission impact, other "publicpolicy" considerations affected by the number of WLBRs includehome port locations and workforce impacts.

Page1 June 1992

Analysis of Multi-mlsslon Requirements and Development of Planning Factors for the


1.3 METHODOLOGY

We have conducted a three-pronged effort to determine CoastGuard multi-mission requirements for seagoing buoy tenders. Wecollected data from the Abstract of Operations (AOPS) reports forthe past five years. We also requested information from otherprogram managers on planned use of seagoing buoy tenders foroperations in their programs. Finally, we collected data fromthe field on individual districts' multi-mission requirements, asa combination of geographic and per-ship employment. Thevariance between program managers' and districts' reported multi-mission needs is also addressed.

1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER WORK

The field inputs used in developing the planning factorsidentified in this report, particularly the multi-missionrequirements, were obtainted through the Expert Study of the Aidsto Navigation Service Force Mix. The Expert Study was acombination of individual district projections of their requiredservice force mix, telephone conference answers to the BuoyTender Operations Survey conducted jointly by the Short RangeAids to Navigation Division and the John A. Volpe NationalTransportation Systems Center, and individual district analysisof multi-mission employment requirements. The Expert Study isdescribed in more detail in the Aids to Navigation Service ForceMix 2000 Project Report Overview. The analysis in this reportforms the basis for the Baseline Multi-mission Requirements usedin exercising the Aids to Navigation Service Force Mix DecisionSupport System developed by the Volpe Center and described in theAids to Navigation Service Force Mix 2000 Project Report,Volume I.

Page 2 June 1992



2.0 BUOY TENDER EMPLOYMENT

For analysis purposes, we need to clearly identify how ourbuoy tenders' time is spent. The most readily available sourceof this information is the Abstract of Operations (AOPS).Resource hours expended in various employment categories arerecorded for each ship. Days spent underway, in high readiness,involved in inport operations, in maintenance status, and instandby status are also recorded.

Although the AOPS data is recorded in a computer data base,direct access for generating the data summaries, reports andgraphs was not possible. The required data was manually enteredinto spreadsheets developed by the Short Range Aids to NavigationDivision for this analysis. Individual spreadsheets wereprepared for each seagoing and coastal buoy tender, includingAOPS data from FY-86 through FY-90. The information on thesespreadsheets was then combined on summary spreadsheets, reportingsummary employment information by cutter class for each District,for both Areas, and Coast Guard wide. Copies of these summaryspreadsheets are provided in Appendix A to this report.

2.1 FOCUSED MISSION/MULTI-MISSION

We have identified in our Mission Needs Statement for theSeagoing and Coastal Buoy Tender Replacement Project that theWLBRs will be "multi-mission" and the WLMRs will be "focusedmission". To get a handle on what that means, we have dividedthe Abstract of Operations (AOPS) employment categories into fourgroupings: Primary Mission, Training and MiscellaneousOperations, Essential Multi-mission, and Other Multi-mission.

As focused mission ships, WLMRs would not normally beassigned missions in the "Other Multi-mission" employmentcategories except as vessels of opportunity. WLBRs could beassigned missions in all of these employment category groupings.This breakdown gives us a consistent method to examine resourcehour requirements in terms that correspond to our Mission NeedsStatement and the Sponsor's Requirements Document. Using theseemployment category definitions, even "focused mission" ships areemployed to some extent in Coast Guard Missions above and beyondtheir primary employment categories.

2.2 EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY DEFINITION

Employment category definitions will differ for Coast Guardresources with different primary mission areas and differentinherent capabilities. For buoy tenders, the followingdefinitions apply.

2.2.1 Primary Mission Employment - For ATON servicing vessels,the primary mission AOPS categories include Short Range Aids toNavigation and Radionavigation Aids (e.g. tender time spentservicing the mooring buoys and coordinating the refueling ofLORSTA Kure Island).

Page 3 June 1992


2.2.2 Training and Miscellaneous Operations (TMO) - For ATONvessels, this includes time spent in support of Coast Guardemployment categories just by virtue of being a Coast Guardvessel. The amount of employment in these categories depends onthe number of ships available. These Abstract of Operationscategories include: Marine Inspection Program; Boating Safety;Cadet and OC Training; Port Safety and Security; Public andInternational Affairs; Miscellaneous and Other (includesDistrict Inspections, Operational Readiness Inspections, MLCCompliance (and other) Inspections, monthly personnel andmaterial inspections, etc.); Operational Training (includesOperational Training portion of REFTRA); Reserve Training; andBridge Administration. Within TMO, Operational Training is thelargest single resource employment category. Operationaltraining accounts for almost 10 days per ship per year onaverage.

2.2.3 Essential Multi-mission Employment - These are consideredthe minimum non-ATON operational requirements, based onidentified service needs, to which ATON vessels are assigned.Abstract of Operations categories include: SAR (both vessel ofopportunity response and dedicated standby); DomesticIcebreaking; Marine Environmental Response (WLBR and WLMR); andMarine Science Activities (eg. traditional NOAA buoy servicingrequirements and International Ice Patrol). WLMRs and BUSL'swould not be scheduled for SAR stand-by or NOAA buoy ops.

2.2.4 Other Multi-mission Employment - These are somewhatdiscretionary multi-mission requirements based on identifiedservice need, which could be assigned to multi-mission ATONvessels with available time. Time in these categories isgenerally scheduled based on the need in a particular geographicarea, but subject to re-allocation as necessary for "surgeresponse" to primary mission employment categories. Abstract ofOperations categories include: Enforcement of Laws and Treaties(ELT FISI:-DOM, ELT FISH-FOR, ELT DRUGS, ELT MIGRANT, and ELTOTHER); Military Operations (MIL OPS, MIL TRA (includes MilitaryTraining portion of REFTRA), and MIL EX); and Cooperation withOther Agencies (FED, STATE, and LOCAL).

2.3 HISTORICAL RESOURCE HOUR EMPLOYMENT/REPLACEMENT TARGETS

The AOPS data provides the best description of how we havehistorically employed our buoy tenders. For this analysis, weare primarily interested in the resource hours expended. Whenusing this data, however, we need to realize that the informationreported may not be absolutely accurate. Even with fairlycomprehensive guidelines for completing the Abstracts ofOperations, variations occur in how different units report theiremployment. For example, some units may have reported resourcehours employed in NOAA Buoy Operations as ATON hours instead ofMSA hours. Sometimes variations also occur from year to year dueto Program guidance from headquarters. For example, a few yearsago units were encouraged to increase their reporting of ELT

Page 4 June 1992


involvement. Resource hours spent travelling from buoy to buoymay have been reported as ELT hours, even though the ATON workcould not have been accomplished without those ELT resourcehours. With these limitations in mind, we can review thehistorical data.

2.3.1 Seagoing Buoy Tenders - As shown in Figure 1, 58.8% of thetotal WLB resource hour employment has been in their primaryemployment categories (i.e. ATON). This is a slight increase

WLB RESOURCE HOURSFY-86 TO FY-90

PRIMARY MISSION EMPLOYMENT 58.8X

SSENnAL MULTI-MISSION 8.4X

OTHER MULTI-MISSION 18.8% TRAINING & MISC OPERATIONS 14.1X

FIGURE 1.

since the previous study which found WLB's employed approximately55% for ATON. This may be accounted for with the decommissioningof HOLLYHOCK and SAGEBRUSH and loss of MESQUITE. For example,just prior to decommissioning, SAGEBRUSH had been employed only44% of the time in ATON.

The employment target indicated in the Sponsor'sRequirements Document for the replacement seagoing buoy tenderclass (WLBR)is 60% for ATON. This acknowledges the multi-missionnature of the seagoing buoy tender fleet. Based on the AOPShistorical data, the 60% ATON employment target is realistic.While multi-mission employment requirements for the WLBR will bediscussed in detail in a later section, it is important to notethe potential impact of this employment target approach. Sinceseagoing buoy tenders are designed to service aids to navigation,the numbers of WLBRs will be based on the number required toperform the ATON servicing mission. Even with a consistent 60%ATON employment level, if fewer WLBRs than current WLB's arerequired for the ATON mission, fewer total hours will beavailable for multi-mission employment.

2.3.2 Coastal Buoy Tenders - As shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3,the employment profiles of the two classes of coastal buoy

Page 5 June 1992


tenders are very similar. A review of the AOPS data for WLM133'sand WLMI57's for FY-86 through FY-90 shows some differencesbetween the two classes in the distribution of resource hours inthe non-primary-mission employment categories. These differencesare

WLM.133 RESOURCE HOURSFY-86 TO FY-90

N1M & MISC OPORANONSSMAND MULll--LaSSON 12%

FIGURE 2.

WLM.157 RESOURCE HOURSFY-86 TO FY-90

PMIM"WW MISUON IUPLMMEW 87.5

IPAMING & MISC OPMRA1ONAND MULTI-MISSION 12.5w

FIGURE 3.

minor, however. Since we :)nsider the coastal buoy tenders to be"focused mission" resources and the ATON employment profiles arevery similar, Figure 4 is an accurate reflection of thehistorical coastal buoy tender employment.

Page 6 June 1992

Anaysis of Multi-mission Requirements and Development of Planning Factors for theReplacement Buoy Tender Fleet

COMBINED WLM RESOURCE HOURSFY-86 TO FY-90

PMMM MtSS*NPLONWWNT 87.

AD UMULf--MUI.ON 12.2%

FIGURE 4.

The employment target indicated in the Sponsor'sRequirements Document for the replacement coastal buoy tenderclass (WLMR)is 85% for ATON. This acknowledges the focusedmission nature of the coastal buoy tender fleet. Based on theAOPS historical data, the 85% ATON employment target isrealistic.

2.4 RESOURCE HOURS AND UNDERWAY DAYS

As reflected in the different sections of the AOPS reports,we talk about employment data both in terms of resource hours andin terms of days. Time spent in support of an employmentcategory is reported in terms of hours. The number of underwaydays is reported in total, but not for any particular employmentcategory. For example, a buoy tender may get underway to servicethe aids to navigation in a waterway. After transiting for acouple hours and working two hours servicing two buoys and afixed structure light, it finds a person in the water clinging tothe next buoy. It spends two hours rescuing the person (whoseboat had sunk) and transporting the survivor in its RHIB to theclosest town for medical attention. The buoy tender spends twohours cleaning up the small oil slick coming from the sunken boatand then returns to home port. The AOPS report for that day'swork would reflect 6 resource hours for ATON, 2 for SAR, and 2for MER (total 10 resource hours) and one underway day. As youcan see, using only resource hours or only underway days wouldnot give a full picture of our resource employment.

One measure of how our resources are used is to look at theratio of total resource (underway) hours to total underway days.For example, a cutter which gets underway infrequently but forlong trips would have a higher ratio than one which does many

Page 7 June 1992


shorter day-trips. Table 1 shows the average over 5 years ofthis ratio for our buoy tender fleet. These operational profilesreflect the shorter endurance of our coastal buoy tenders and thegeographically concentrated nature of ATON servicing. Incomparison, a medium endurance cutter involved in law enforcementpatrols over a wide geographic area may average over 20 hours perunderway day.

TABLE 1.

AVERAGE UNDERWAY HOURS PER UNDERWAY DAY FY-86 TO FY-90

(low) Average (high)

WLM(133) 10.09 (DOl) 11.16 12.59 (D08)

WLM(157) 8.92 (DOl) 9.67 10.17 (DO5)

WLB 12.78 (DlI) 14.49 17.50 (D08)

This analysis is valuable to us in any type of modelingprocess - from our individual seat-of-the-pants heuristic models,to more complex computer simulations. For example, we know fromthe AOPS reports how many resource hours the average 180' WLBspent servicing Aids to Navigation in FY-86 to FY-90 (1069.76).Of the average total underway days in that same period (125.58),we can estimate the mumber of days spent servicing aids tonavigation as 73.83 days. This is calculated by dividing ATONResource Hours by Underway (Resource) Hours per Underway Day(1069.76 + 14.49 = 73.83).

As with any data analysis tools, however, we must be awareof the limitations of this analysis. Since our buoy tender fleetprovides resource hours for several Coast Guard employmentcategories, sometimes during the same day as described above,converting resource hours to days is valuable only for analyticalpurposes. It does not reflect the reality of multi-missionunderway days. In addition, the operational profiles for thedifferent missions are different, so the average resource hourper underway day in reality will vary by employment category.For example, the average WLB which does both ATON servicing andMLE patrols averaged 14.49 resource hours per underway day. Ifmedium endurance cutters average over 20 resource hours perunderway day, we would expect that WLB's would also have a higherresource hour per underway day for its MLE patrols than their14.49 hour average. It would also follow that the average forservicing ATON would be lower than the 14.49 hour per dayaverage.

Page 8 June 1992

Analysis of Muhi-mlsslon Requirements and Developmert of Plannlnj Factors for the


2.5 OPERATIONAL PROFILES

Both the Seagoing Buoy Tender and the Coastal Buoy TenderSponsor's Requirements Documents (SRD's) project an operationalprofile of 150 underway days for each ship of each class ofreplacement buoy tender. Table 2 shows the historicaloperational profiles for our buoy tender fleet.

TABLE 2.

BUOY TENDER OPERATIONAL PROFILES FY-86 TO FY-90

UNDERWAY DAYS/YR RESOURCE HRS/YR ATON HRS/YR

WLM(133) 107.80 1357.70 1240.60

WLM(157) 127.00 1227.88 1074.80

WLB 125.58 1820.27 1069.76

Based on a review of this data, a target of 150 underwaydays per year for our replacement buoy tender fleet appears to beoptimistic. We do expect, however, to see less maintenance timewith the new fleet, due both to the age of the fleet and to thelow maintenance design requirements in the SRD's.

Table 3 shows the projected replacement buoy tenderoperational profile which will be used in modeling the serviceforce mix of replacement resources.

TABLE 3.

PROJECTED REPLACEMENT BUOY TENDER OPERATIONAL PROFILES

UNDERWAY DAYS/YR RESOURCE HRS/YR ATON HRS/YR

WLMR 150 1500 1275

WLBR 150 2100 1260

Projected resource hours per year were calculated bymultiplying the projected underway day target (150 days per year)

Page 9 June 1992


by 10 underway (resource) hours per underway day for the WLMR,and by 14 underway (resource) hours per underway day for theWLBR. The underway (resource) hours per underway day are basedon the historical averages shown in Table 1, rounded to thenearest whole number. Projected ATON hours per year werecalculated by multiplying the projected resource hours per yearby the ATON employment targets (85% of resource hour employmentfor WLM's and 60% for WLBRs).

2.6 MULTI-MISSION EMPLOYMENT

Traditionally, we have considered employment in categoriesother than primary mission areas as "multi-mission" employment.This description does not adequately account for the resourcehours expended by our buoy tenders, or any other cutters for thatmatter. As we have seen in our analysis of the AOPS data, someresource hours must be accounted for as TMO - resource houremployment generated by virtue of the fact that these are CoastGuard cutters. The remaining hours (after accounting for primarymission employment and TMO) are available to operationalcommanders for discretionary multi-mission employment.

The Mission Needs Statement indicates the multi-mission nature ofthe WLBR and the "focused mission" nature of the WLMR. It alsoindicates that the number of ships will be based on ATONrequirements, not driven by multi-mission requirements. Thismeans that relative employment levels in multi-mission areasshould remain constant as a % of resource hours expended by buoytenders. Total levels of multi-mission hours available will be afunction of the number of ships. That is, fewer ships would meanless multi-mission employment available. The operationalrequirements for multi-mission employment of seagoing buoytenders will therefore be one of the key inputs in developing theATON Service Force Mix. Multi-mission scheduling for ourseagoing buoy tenders is desired in order to provide surgecapacity (for additional primary or essential multi-missiontasking), while otherwise keeping them fully employed. The 60%ATON target provides for this, regardless of the number of buoytenders.

For WLMRs the combined resource hour employment target inthe "TMO" "Essential multi-mission" and "Other multi-mission"categories is 15%. Historical employment of WLM's in thesecategories is 12.2%. Due to the relatively low percentage oftime dedicated to multi-mission employment, this analysisconsiders WLM's and their replacements to be "targets ofopportunity" for this employment. The slight increase in thetarget (15%) over the historical level (12.2%) will account foran increase of essential multi-mission employment due to theWLMRs Vessel of Opportunity Skimming System (VOSS) capabilities.Further analysis of non-primary mission resource hour employmentfor WLMRs was not conducted.

Page 10 June 1992


The WLB fleet resource hour employment from FY86 to FY90averaged 14.1% in "TMO", 8.4% in "Essential multi-mission", and18.8% in "Other multi-mission" categories. Table 4 shows thehistorical resource hour employment in these categories bydistrict.

TABLE 4.

AVERAGE WLB RESOURCE HOUR EMPLOYMENT PER DISTRICT (FY-86 TO FY-90)

WLBRTARGET (%) D01 D05 D07 D08 D09 DlI D13 D14 D17

PRIMARY 1031 1002 1297 1232 758 1001 1174 996 1249(60%) (65%) (69%) (63%) (56%) (50%) (53%) (68%) (54%) (58%)

TMO 211 148 187 314 250 257 154 199 413(14%) (13%) (10%) ( 9%) (14%) (16%) (14%) ( 9%) (11%) (19%)

ESSENTIAL 131 48 81 278 115 224 140 231 173( 9%) ( 8%) ( 3%) ( 4%) (13%) ( 8%) (12%) ( 8%) (13%) ( 8%)

OTHER 214 249 481 361 402 396 264 411 311(17%) (13%) (17%) (24%) (17%) (26%) (21%) (15%) (22%) (15%)

1588 1447 2046 2184 1524 1877 1731 1838 2146TOTAL (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)

2.7 MULTI-MISSION RESOURCE HOUR REQUIREMENTS

The "multi-mission" employment categories have been dividedinto two groups: "essential" and "other" (i.e. morediscretionary). The primary employment targets of 60% ATON forWLBRs and 85% ATON for WLMRs are derived from historicalaverages, acknowledging the "multi-mission" nature of the WLBRand the "focused mission" nature of the WLMR, as well as "TMO"requirements. Within a fairly static fleet (by numbers of ships)the historical AOPS analysis is valid. It requires a closerlook, however, when considering fleet replacement.

Historical multi-mission employment represents bothgeographic requirements and "vessel of opportunity" usage of buoytenders. It is also important to recognize that geographicrequirements may differ among districts (for example, District 1will have greater DOM ICE requirements than District 7). To helpproject future multi-mission employment requirements, an attemptmust be made to identify those geographic-specific requirements.In addition, new requirements and capabilities such as spilled

Page 11 June 1992


oil recovery may require a change in allocation of hours between"essential" and "other" multi-mission employment categories.

2.7.1 TMO, SAR and Domestic Icebreaking - As stated previously,employment in these non-primary mission categories is based bothon geographic requirements and "vessel of opportunity" usage. Itis impossible to distinguish between these types of employmentbased solely on review of the AOPS data. To make projections ofthe requirements for the WLBR fleet, some simplifying assumptionsare required.

1. TMO is mostly a function of the resource itself andwill remain near average historical levels per ship.

2. Projections of "essential" multi-mission employmentwill consider employment in SAR and DomesticIcebreaking as target of opportunity and will remainnear historical levels per ship per district.

Table 5 shows the days per ship reserved from the non-primarymission employment target for TMO, Search and Rescue, andDomestic Icebreaking. TMO days were calculated by multiplyingthe SRD projected underway days (150) by the TMO percentage(14%). SAR and DOM ICE days were calculated by dividing eachDistrict's average (FY-86 to FY-90) resource hours per ship bythat District's average underway (resource) hours per underwayday. (See Appendix A.)

TABLE 5.

PROJECTED REPLACEMENT SEAGOING BUOY TENDER PER-SHIP REQUIREMENTS (DAYS)

D01 D05 D07 D08 D09 DlI D13 D14 D17

TMO 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21

SAR 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 10 4

DOM ICE 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 0

2.7.2 Marine Science Activities - Employment in MSA is primarilygeographically based. In addition to International Ice Patrolresponsibilities, the Coast Guard has agreements with NOAA toservice their deep water moored weather data buoys and coastalmarine automated network (C-MAN) stations. Many of thesemissions require seagoing buoy tenders' capabilities. Resourceemployment is coordinated with the NOAA Data Buoy Center (NDBC)and is commonly referred to as NDBC OPS. Table 6 shows thedevelopment of MSA projections in days per district.

Page 12 June 1992


TABLE 6.

PROJECTED WLBR MSA EMPLOYMENT (DAYS PER DISTRICT)

D011 D052 D073 DOS D094 DlI D13 D14 D17 5

HISTORICALAVG (*) 19 2 9 24 5 27 6 17 7

NDBC (**)PROJECTION 11 11 14 21 27 15 34 23 18

DISTRICTPROJECTION 49 15 23 23 36 24 10 16

TARGET 39 15 10 23 27 24 10 16 7

* SEE AOPS DATA APPENDIX A. CALCULATED BY DIVIDING AVERAGE TOTAL MSAHOURS IN EACH DISTRICT BY THE DISTRICT' AVERAGE UNDERWAY(RESOURCE) HOURS PER U/W DAY.

** NDBC PROJECTED DAYS FOR FY-92 IS USED AS A CHECK ON THE HISTORICALAVERAGES AND DISTRICT PROJECTIONS. PROJECTIONS ARE FOR SCHEDULEDVISITS AND DO NOT INCLUDE NEW STATION DEPLOYMENTS OR UNSCHEDULEDSERVICING. THESE NUMBERS ARE THEREFORE CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATES,ALTHOUGH ALL SERVICING IS NOT ALWAYS PERFORMED BY SEAGOING BUOYTENDERS.

Notes to accompany Table 6.

1 District 1 estimates include 30 days International Ice Patrol previously

done by USCGC EVERGREEN which was decommissioned in 3rd. QTR FY-90. G-NIOhas validated the requirement for this mission for buoy tenders, butestimates an average of 20 days per year.2 Discrepancy between Historical Average and the NDBC and District

projections believed to be due to units recording NDBC operations as ATONvs. MSA.

Weighted toward Historical Average. In FY-91, the majority of NDBCrequirements were accomplished by other than buoy tenders.

Target weighted toward NDBC Requirements. District projection appears tobe weighted toward FY91 employment, which was 300 hrs. more than FY90.Most NDBC employment in the Ninth District has been handled by WLB's. Note2 also applies.

District projection not yet provided.

Page 13 June1992

Anaysi of Mul-misslon Requirements and Development of Planning Factors for theReplacement Buoy Tender Fleet

2.7.3 Marine Environmental Response - Employment in MER is acombination of geographic requirements (spill response) and per-ship requirements (operational training and exercises).Historical data is an inadequate predictor due to changes inplatform requirements and capabilities (e.g. built in Spilled OilRecovery System (SORS) ). Inputs on projected requirements weredeveloped by the Districts in consultation with their localCOTP's and MSO's. Commandant (G-MEP) has also reviewed theseprojections. Target reflects G-MEP inputs.

Table 7 shows the MER days per ship required from the non-primary mission employment target.

TABLE 7.

PROJECTED WLBR MER EMPLOYMENT (DAYS PER SHIP)

DISTRICT D01 D05 D07 D08 D09 Dll D13 D14 D17 TARGETREQ'M'TS. (*)

TRAINING 10 2 4 4 14 5 4 4 4

EXERCISES 5 2 2 1 7 5 4 1 2

EQUIPMENTCLEANING 1 2 1

TOTAL 16 6 6 5 21 10 8 5 7

(*) DISTRICT 17 INPUTS NOT YET RECEIVED

Table 8 shows the additional MER days per district requiredfrom the non-primary mission employment target.

TABLE 8.

ADDITIONAL PROJECTED WLBR MER EMPLOYMENT (DAYS PER DISTRICT)

DISTRICT D01 D05 D07 D08 D09 Dll D13 D14 D17REQ'M'TS. (*)

SPILLRESPONSE 2 0 2 5 7 12 7 14

EQUIPMENTCLEANING 0 0 2 1 6 0 6 3

TOTAL 2 0 4 6 13 12 13 17

TARGET 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 6 11

*) DISTRICT 17 INPUTS NOT YET RECEIVED

Page 14 June 1992


2.7.4 Other Multi-mission -- Employment in the "Other Multi-mission" categories can also be considered a combination ofgeographic requirements (e.g. fisheries or drug law enforcementpatrol areas) and per-ship requirements (vessel of opportunity).For seagoing buoy tenders, these are the most discretionaryemployment categories. For example, if a hurricane or typhoondamaged the ATON system in a given OPAREA, the buoy tenderassigned to restore the system may "buy" the time for thisunscheduled servicing (surge response) from its "other multi-mission" schedule. Time for primary mission employment takespriority. These "other multi-mission" categories are, therefore,the most likely to be reduced if the multi-mission capacity ofthe buoy tender fleet is reduced. Identifying the operationalrequirements - what the Coast Guard needs or expects from thebuoy tender fleet for these "other multi-mission" categories - isnecessary for determining the ATON Service Force Mix.

Program inputs received from G-OP indicate minimalrequirements for WLBR resource hours. There is no requirementfor ELT employment. While the ELT Program benefits from seagoingbuoy tender resource hours, the Program considers them as"vessels of opportunity". MILOPS employment projections are 5days per WLBR per year. Cooperation with other agencies (COOP)was not discussed.

These inputs are at variance with, historical data,indicating that the operational commanders sometimes use buoytenders in ways not directly related to Program requirements. Itis important to identify what the district commanders believe arebuoy tender "other multi-mission" employment requirements.District Aids to Navigation offices were asked to provideprojections of their district's requirements for "other multi-mission" resource hour employment. Coupled with historicalaverages and Program inputs, these projections can be used tohelp identify multi-mission requirements.

Table 9 shows the development of this information. Alldistricts reported employment in these categories geographically(independent of the number of ships). In addition, the FirstDistrict projects an additional per-ship requirement of 28 daysper ship for MILOPS and 14 days per ship for COOP. Forcomparison purposes, these per-ship requirements were multipliedby the current number of WLB's to determine the per-districtrequirements.

Page 15 June 1992

Analysis of Mul-misslon Requirements and Development of Planning Factors for theReplacement Buoy Tender Fleet

Analysis of Table 9 shows that with the exception of Districts 1, 8,and 11, district projections for "Other Multi-mission" employment are lowerthan historical averages. These projections appear to be the districtcommander's best estimate of minimum "Other Multi-mission" requirements.

TABLE 9.

PROJECTED WLBR "OTHER MULTI-MISSION" EMPLOYMENT (DAYS PER DISTRICT)

D01 D05 D07 D08 D09 DlI D13 D14 D17 6

DISTRICTPROJECTION

ELT 74 5 10 4 0 0 10 31

MIL OPS 84 5 4 54 36 72 15 6

COOP 42 5 4 4 14 10 5 4

TOTAL 200 15 18 62 50 82 30 41

PROGRAMPROJECTION

TOTAL 7 15 15 10 10 15 10 10 15 30

HISTORICAL

AVG

ELT 12 6 71 25 125 30 16 71 79

MIL OPS 24 38 8 13 3 23 17 7 19

COOP 13 13 6 4 16 8 7 4 15

TOTAL 49 57 85 42 144 61 40 82 113


6 District input not yet received.

5 days/ship, multiplied by current number of ships for comparison.8 Calculated by dividing the FY-86 to FY-90 district average u/w (resource)hours per underway day into the average total resource hours for thatdistrict.

Page 16 June 1992


Table 10 combines historical AOPS averages with Program inputs anddistrict projections to develop a comprehensive analysis of "Other Multi-mission" requirements for seagoing buoy tenders.

TABLE 10.

WLBR "OTHER MULTI-MISSION" REQUIREMENTS

DOI D05 D07 D08 D09 DII D13 D14 D17

DAYS PERDISTRICT

ELT 129 5 10 4 010 0 10 31 79

COOP 13 5 4 4 611 1012 5 4 15

TOTAL 25 10 14 8 6 10 15 35 94

DAYS/SHIP

MIL OPS13 5 5 5 514 5 110 15 1 5 1 5


Used historical average. District projection far exceeded average, andDistrict Service Force Mix analysis was not received to validate inputs.10 D09 ELT projection is significantly below historical averages. This

reflects fact that ELT Program has no need for WLB ELT time and thereforeD09 seagoing buoy tenders will no longer be sent out of the Lakes for ELT.

D09 Service Force Mix analysis states 3 WLBRs would be used, providing 7days MIL OPS/COOP per ship, for a district total of 21 days. This is lessthan the district multi-mission projection, but more in line withhistorical AOPS averages. The 21 days was allocated here as 5 days MIL OPSper ship and 6 COOP per district.12 Dll District Service Force Mix analysis states 2 WLBRs Would provide a

total of 530 "Other Multi-mission" hours. Divided by the District'saverage 12.78 u/w hours per u/w day = 41 days. If Q-Route Surveys are nolonger required, Dli (oan) indicates 10 days/ship for MIL OPS plus 10 daysfor COOP would meet Dll "Other Multi-mission" requirements.13 Used Program inputs. No more Q-Route surveys anticipated. REFTRA hours

provided in "Overhead". Dll req 10 days/ship; more exercises than average.14 D08 MIL OPS projection (Table 9) was higher than the historical average

in order to include REFTRA which was previously recorded in the CG Overheadcategories. Since historical average overhead is used for this study, D08MIL OPS was changed to program input. (REFTRA included in CG Overhead).

Page 17 June1992


Tables 11 and 12 combine the per-ship requirements, non-primaryission days available per ship, and per-district requirements to determinehe number of replacement seagoing buoy tenders required to meet thedentified multi-mission requirements.

TABLE 11.

"VESSEL OF OPPORTUNITY" DAYS REQUIRED PER WLBR BY DISTRICT

DO1 DO5 D07 D08 D09 DlI D13 D14 D17

DAYS/SHIPREQUIRED

TMO 1 5 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21

SAR 1 6 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 10 4

DOM ICE17 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 0

MER 1 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

MIL OPS19 5 5 5 5 5 10 5 5 5

TOTAL/SHIP 36 37 35 35 45 41 35 43 37REQUIRED

DAYS/SHIP 2 0AVAILABLE 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

DAYS/SHIP 2 1REMAIN 24 23 25 25 15 19 25 17 23

rotes to accompany Table 11.

5From Table 5.6 From Table 5.

From Table 5.8 G-MEP has reviewed the MER requirements. Values used in this Table are

ýstimates based on G-MEP inputs (Table 7).MIL OPS is the only "Other Multi-mission" category with per-ship

equirements. Values from Table 10.:0 150 day u/w day target (Table 3). 60% ATON target = 90 days. daysemaining for overhead and multi-mission 150 - 90 = 60 days.

Days/ship available minus total days/ship required.

Page 18 June 1992


TABLE 12.

GEOGRAPHIC DAYS REQUIRED BY DISTRICT 2 2

D01 D05 D07 D08 D09 DlI D13 D14 U17DAYS/DISTRICTREQUIRED

MER 2 3 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 6 11

MSA24 39 15 10 23 27 24 10 16 7

"OTHER" 2 5 25 10 14 8 6 10 15 35 94

TOTAL 72 33 30 37 41 40 31 57 112

REMAIN 124 23 25 25 15 19 25 17 23

SHIPS PEý7I 3.0~ 1.4! 1.2 1.5 2.71 2.11 1.21 3. 4.DISTRICT _ _ _ .......


22 Total days required per district is a function of the geographicrequirements PLUS the "vessel of opportunity" days per ship required inthat district.23 G-MEP has reviewed MER requirements. Values here are estimates based oninputs from G-MEP (Table 8).24 From Table 6.

"25 "Other Multi-mission" from Table 10.

26 From Table 11.

27 Calculated by dividing the total Days/District Required by Days per Ship

Remaining.

Page 19 June 1992



2.8 FLEET MIX SCENARIOS

Tables 13, 14 and 15 present the information from Tables 11and 12 for three sample WLBR mix scenarios. The shortfall inrequired non-primary mission days is allocated among employmentcategories as one possible indication of the impact of thatshortfall. The shortfall is first apportioned to the "OtherMulti-mission" employment categories; any remaining shortfall isthen apportioned to the "Essential Multi-mission" categories.

Page 20 June 1992

Analysis of Multi-mlssion Requirements and Development of Planning Factors for theReplacement Buoy Tender Fleet

TABLE 13.

SAMPLE NON-PRIMARY MISSION IMPACT - 19 WLBR FLEET MIX SCENARIO

D01 D05 D07 D08 D09 D11 D13 D14 D17

WLBRs 2 9 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 4

TMO 63 21 21 42 42 42 21 63 84

SAR 9 3 2 4 6 6 2 30 16

DOM ICE 0 1 0 0 18 0 0 0 0

MSA 39 15 10 23 27 24 10 16 7

MER 29 15 13 20 22 20 13 27 39

ELT 12 5 10 4 0 0 10 31 79

MIL OPS 15 5 5 10 10 20 5 15 20

COOP 13 5 4 4 6 10 5 4 15

TOTAL DANOREQUIRED 180 70 65 107 131 124 66 186 260

TOTAL DAPROVIDED 180 60 60 120 120 120 60 180 240

TOTAL DAYS

SHORTFALL 0 -10 -5 +13 -11 -4 -6 -6 -20

SHORTFALL APPORTIONED BY EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY3 2

SAR

DOM ICE

MSA

MER

ELT -4 -3 +3 -3 -4 -14

MIL OPS -3 -1 +7 -7 -2 -1 -2 -3

COOP -3 -1 +3 -4 -2 -2 -3

Page 21 June 1992


TABLE 14.


D01 D05 D07 D08 D09 D1I D13 D14 D1729

WLBRs 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 4

TMO 42 21 21 21 42 21 21 63 84

SAR 6 3 2 2 6 3 2 30 16

DOM ICE 0 1 0 0 18 0 0 0 0

MSA 39 15 10 23 27 24 10 16 7

MER 22 15 13 13 22 13 13 27 39

ELT 12 5 10 4 0 0 10 31 79

MIL OPS 10 5 5 5 10 10 5 15 20

COOP 13 5 4 4 6 10 5 4 15

TOTAL DA•REQUIRED 144 70 65 72 131 81 66 186 260

TOTAL DA•PROVIDED 120 60 60 60 120 60 60 180 240

TOTAL DAYSSHORTFALL -24 -10 -5 -12 -11 -21 -6 -6 -20

SHORTFALL APPORTIONED BY EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY3 2

SAR

DOM ICE

MSA

MER -1

ELT -8 -4 -3 -4 -3 -4 -14

MIL OPS -7 -3 -1 -4 -7 -10 -1 -2 -3

COOP -9 -3 -1 -4 -4 -10 -2 -3

Page 22 June 1992

Analysis of Multi-mission Requirements and Development of Planning Factors for the Replacement Buoy TenderFleet

TABLE 15.


D01 D05 D07 D08 D09 Dl1 D13 D14 D17

WLBRs29 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 2 4

CODB 21 21 21 0 42 21 0 42 84

SAR 3 3 2 0 6 3 0 20 16

DOM ICE 0 1 0 0 18 0 0 0 0

MSA 39 15 10 23 27 24 10 16 7

MER 15 15 13 6 22 13 6 20 39

ELT 12 5 10 4 0 0 10 31 79

MIL OPS 5 5 5 0 10 10 0 10 20

COOP 13 5 4 4 6 10 5 4 15

TOTAL DA6REQUIRED 108 70 65 37 131 81 31 143 260

TOTAL DAyPROVIDED 60 60 60 0 120 60 0 120 240

TOTAL DAYSSHORTFALL 1-48 -10 -5 -37 -11 -21 -31 -23 -20

SHORTFALL APPORTIONED BY EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY 3 2

SAR -2

DOM ICE

MSA -9 -23 -10

MER -7 -6 -1 -6

ELT -12 -4 -3 -4 -10 -15 -14

MIL OPS -5 -3 -1 -7 -10 -7 -3

COOP -13 -3 -1 -4 -4 -10 -5 -1 -3

Page 23 June 1992

Analysis of Mufi-misslon Requirements and Development of Planning Factors for theReplacement Buoy Tender Fleet

Notes to accompany Tables 13, 14 and 15.

28 Only WLBRs are considered in these scenarios. The numbers of WLMRs willvary, but impact on multi-mission requirements is not considered sincethese are focused-mission ships and their multi-mission employment is low.

29 Estimated geographic distribution of WLBRs for the given mix scenario.

30 Calculated as: # of WLBRs multiplied by Days/Ship Required (Table 11)PLUS Total Geographic Days Required (Table 12). In Table 13, for example,District 1 MER is calculated as: (3 x 7) + 8 = 29.

31 Total Days/Ship Available (Table 11) multiplied by # of WLBRs.

For example, District 1 is calculated as: 60 x 3 = 180.

32 The shortfall is allocated to each employment category based on theratio of the days in that category to the total days in the employmentcategory grouping.

In Table 13, for example, D17 shortfall allocation is calculated:

SHORTFALL = 20 DaysELT + MIL OPS + COOP = Total = 79 + 20 + 15 = 114Shortfall Allocation to ELT = (ELT/Total) x Shortfall

= (79/114) x 20 = 13.86 = 14Shortfall Allocation to MIL OPS = (MIL OPS/Total) x Shortfall

= (20/114) x 20 = 3.5 = 3Shortfall Allocation to COOP = (COOP/Total) x Shortfall

= (15/114) x 20 = 2.6 = 3

Page 24 June 1992

Analysis of Multi-misslon Requirements and Development of Planning Factors for the


3.0 PLANNING FACTORS DEVELOPMENT

As discussed in Section 1.2, several input parameters, orPlanning Factors, are critical to the effeictive employment andsupport of the replacement buoy tender fleet. In Section 2.0, weexamined buoy tender employment. Multi-mission employmentprojections for WLBRs were analyzed in terms of:

1. Historical use of the existing fleet, from review of theAbstract of Operations Data (FY-86 to FY-90)

2. District (oan) projections for use of future fleetcapabilities

3. Headquarters program inputs on projected fleetrequirements

Historical data and district projections of resource employmentdiffer from some program projected requirements, specifically inthe ELT, MIL OPS and COOP employment categories.

At the direction of G-CCS, a working group of Program Directors'representatives was convened to address these differences and theimpacts of the possible mix scenarios on engineering andpersonnel support.

3.1 WORKING GROUP

The working group included representatives of G-CPA, G-E,G-M, G-N, G-O, G-P and G-R. Based on the tasking frcm G-CCS,this working group met to:

1. Review/validate G-N's analysis of projected multi-mission employment levels (Section 2.0 of this report)

2. Review diffei-ences between projected employment levelsand program projected requirements

3. Recommend multi-mission employment capacity forreplacement seagoing buoy tender fleet (i.e. the number ofships each program could accept in terms of need for WLBRmulti-mission employment).

In addition to multi-mission employment considerations,Program Directors identified other key input parameters whichmust be accounted for in developing the Service Force Mix for thereplacement buoy tender fleet.

3.2 PROGRAM DIRECTORS' CONSIDERATIONS

Each Operating Program Director's representative reviewedG-N's analysis of projected multi-mission employment of the buoytender fleet from their Program's perspective. In addition,Support Program Directors' representatives reviewed the projected

Page 25 June 1992



3.2 PROGRAM DIRECTORS' CONSIDERATIONS (CON'T)

operational profiles for impact on personnel, training andengineering support requirements. The following is a summary ofeach Program Director's findings.

3.2.1 Office of Engineering, Logistics and Development - The G-Erepresentative indicated either the nineteen or sixteen WLBRfleet mix scenario would have an impact on engineering supportconsiderations. Specific concerns include the need to providesufficient shore-based maintenance support billets in personnellevels requested for the replacement fleet. While still understudy, the number of billets required for maintenance and crewsupport may range from six to ten per WLMR. Also of concern isthe reduction of afloat engineering billets.

3.2.2 Office Marine Safety, Security and EnvironmentalProtection - The G-M representative indicated that the resourcedays spelled out in Section 2.7.3 are days that must be set asidefor the replacement buoy tenders in order to meet MEPrequirements. These days are critical to plan for pollutionresponse and also to meet the intent of the Oil Pollution Act of1990 § 4203 for replacement buoy tenders to have readilyavailable oil skimming capabilities. The resource daysidentified as "vessel of opportunity" days (for training andexercises) are also necessary for response preparation, not onlyfor the buoy tender itself but also for overall Coast Guard oilspill response preparedness.

The G-M Program Director states that either the nineteen orsixteen WLBR fleet mix scenario would meet the mission needs forMarine Environmental Protection. The Marine EnvironmentalProtection program needs are a multi-mission capability that theWLBRs and WLMRs must have.

3.2.3 Office of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services - As theproject sponsor, the G-N Program Director was represented bythree separate divisions. Each division's representativeaddressed concerns related to their areas of responsibility.

The Search and Rescue Division representative supported theSAR analysis, projecting continuation of the "vessel ofopportunity" employment in SAR for WLBRs and WLMRs. Concern wasexpressed that operational commanders require a significant "highreadiness" SAR standby role for the current WLBRs. As thedistrict's only heavy weather offshore resource, SAR readinessrequirements should be considered in determining the geographicdistribution of WLBRs.

The Ice Operations Division representative validated thedomestic icebreaking employment levels, increasing the number ofdays in District Nine (+3 days/ship) and deleting the requirement(-1 day/ship) for District Seventeen. He also validated theInternational Ice Patrol requirement for District One.

Page 26 June 1992


3.2.3 Office of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services (Con't) -The Short Range Aids to Navigation Division representatives

reported that based on preliminary results from exercising theAids to Navigation Service Force Mix Decision Support System, theAids to Navigation mission could successfully be accomplishedwith a service force mix that includes 16 WLBRs. While as few as12 WLBRs (with a commensurate increase in the number of WLMRs)could accomplish all routine ATON servicing requirements, thiswould not provide adequate geographic distribution for surgeresponse requirements. Surge response includes unusually heavyATON servicing requirements caused by severe ice seasons orhurricanes. It also includes emergency discrepancy or oilpollution response beyond normally assigned operating areas tomeet operational requirements when the responsible WLBRs are inmaintenance or training status. Responsible fleet managementrequires a minimum of 16 WLBRs.

A reduction in the number of ships in the buoy tender fleetwill impact the performance of operational and administrativerequirements usually performed by a ship's crew in inportoperations status. For example, many discrepancies are respondedto by a team of personnel from a ship, using either the ship'ssmall boat or a station boat, while the ship is moored. WAMSstudies are also conducted by ship personnel. In ports orgeographic regions with fewer replacement ships, additional buoyboats and/or billets must be provided to augment ANTS, stationsand groups for discrepancy response. Billets must also beprovided to district staffs to accomplish the waterwaysmanagement functions lost with the reductions.

3.2.4 Office of Law Enforcement and Defense Operations - The G-Orepresentative indicated that the program has no identified needfor scheduled WLBR ELT employment. However, the employmentlevels in the Section 2.7.4 analysis are the best estimate of howthe WLBRs may actually be employed by operational commanders.The numbers of WLBRs should not be based on the projected ELTemployment levels.

Based on the above analysis, the G-O Program Director canaccept the shortfall in program days identified in either the 19WLBR or 16 WLBR fleet mix scenario.

3.2.5 Office of Personnel and Training - The G-P representativeindicated that any replacement fleet mix scenario will havesignificant impact on the workforce due to the projected numbersof billets and pay grade/rating distribution. Specific concernsinclude the decrease in afloat CWO billets, afloat trainingbillets, junior officer afloat opportunities, and afloat non-ratepool. Projected increases in E-8 billets could pose a long-termproblem with the E-8 cap. Concern was also expressed that thereduced crewing levels specified will require increased emphasison "pre-arrival" training. This may require an increase in theGeneral Detail percentage allocated for each ship. In addition,shore based maintenance support billets need to be included inpersonnel levels requested for the replacement fleet.

Page 27 June 1992


3.2.5 Office of Personnel and Training (Con't) - The G-P ProgramDirector states that the fleet mix scenario which includes 16WLBRs and 14 WLMRs is acceptable if the above concerns areconsidered. With the phased introduction of the replacementfleet, these workforce issues can be effectively managed.

3.2.5 Office of Readiness and Reserve - The G-R representativesupports the five days per year per WLBR figure used in theanalysis for MIL OPS as previously provided by G-ODO. The Navyno longer supports the Q-Route mission and can find no crediblethreat for continuing to fund this area of operations.Projections indicate that by the time the replacement buoy tenderfleet is in operation, MARDEZLANT will no longer require thismission. Additionally, reduced emphasis on major FTXs involvingWLBRs is expected.

The G-R Program Director supports a fleet mix scenario whichcalls for at least 18 WLBRs which will best meet projectedmilitary utilization rates. However, it is recognized that theincreased cost for providing more WLBRs than required for theprimary mission capability (ATON) is probably unsupportable.

3.3 PLANNING FACTORS

The Mission Needs Statements, Sponsor's RequirementsDocuments, Circulars of Requirements, and Coast Guard policy andoperational directives all provide guidance for the effectiveemployment and support of the replacement buoy tender fleet.Based on this guidance and input from cognizant ProgramDirectors, several key input parameters, or planning factors,have been identified. Planning factors used in this processwhich impact on the multi-mission employment considerations andengineering and personnel support requirements include:

1. Employment targets established in the Sponsor'sRequirements Documents remain valid.

2. WLMRs will be focused-mission resources and WLBRs willbe multi-mission.

3. Marine Environmental Protection is an essentialmulti-mission requirement.

4. Both the WLBR and WLMR will operate with reduced crewinglevels (as compared with the existing fleet). The WLMR willbe minimally crewed for operations.

(a) Shore-based maintenance support billets must beprovided.

(b) Additional billets to augment aids to navigationteams, groups and district staffs must be provided toreplace discrepancy response capabilities and waterwaysmanagement functions lost with the reduction of ships.

Page 28 June1992

Analysis of Multi-misslon Requirements and Development of Planning Factors for the


3.3 PLANNING FACTORS (CON'T)

(C) Billets must be included in the General Detail toprovide pre-arrival training to ensure assigned crew membersarrive fully qualified. This may require an increase in theGeneral Detail percentage allocated to each ship.

5. The analysis described in section 2.0 of this reportaccurately reflects Coast Guard WLBR multi-missionrequirements and employment projections.

Page 29 June 1992



4.0 CONCLUSION

We have identified in our Mission Needs Statement for theSeagoing and Coastal Buoy Tender Replacement Project that theWLBRs will be "multi-mission" and the WLMRs will be "focusedmission". Based on traditional employment of these resources,this means that the WLBR will spend 60% of its resource hours onaids to navigation and the WLMR will spend 85% of its resourcehours on aids to navigation. Within these guidelines, the totalnumber of ships required will be based on ATON servicingrequirements. The amount of multi-mission employment availablefrom the buoy tender fleet will depend on the number of WLBRs inthe ATON service force mix. The analysis in this report wasconducted to identify the multi-mission employment capacityrequired from the buoy tender flea t to ensure that the number ofWLBRs provided in the service forue mix would meet these minimum,baseline requirements.

At the direction of the Chief of Staff, a working group ofcognizant Program Directors' representatives was convened toreview the multi-mission requirements analysis and to identifyany other input parameters critical to effective employment andsupport of the replacement buoy tender fleet. The planningfactors identified in section 3.3 reflect the Program Directors'considerations.

Based on the multi-mission analysis and Program Directors'review, 16 WLBRs is the recommended baseline, or minimum,requirement. Fewer WLBRs would result in an unacceptableshortfall in essential multi-mission capacity. It would alsoprovide an unacceptable level of ATON support due to lack ofsufficient geographic distribution for surge responsecapabilities. While 3 additional WLBRs (with a commensuratedecrease in WLMRs) would provide more multi-mission capacity toaccomplish identified requirements, it does not appear to be acost-effective use of resources. The shortfall in multi-missionemployment capacity provided by 16 WLBRs is acceptable to theProgram Directors; alternative resources such as patrol boatsand medium endurance cutters will be considered by ProgramDirectors to overcome any operational shortfalls as required.

The results of the multi-mission capacity analysis andreview by the Program Directors were provided to the Commandantof the Coast Guard in a decision briefing on 27 February 1992.In a decision memo from G-N, on 12 March 1992 the Commandantapproved the planning factors (identified in section 3.0 of thisreport) and determined that the multi-mission capacity providedby 16 WLBRs is the baseline multi-mission requirement fordeveloping the Aids to Navigation Service Force Mix. A copy ofthis decision memo is included in Appendix B to this report.

Page 30 June 1992


APPENDIX A

ABSTRACTS OF OPERATIONS SUMMARY SPREADSHEETS

FY86 - FY90

E02

nfn

0~

C) ./ *-0 C) ,lO N a o

Ln V) 0 O 0' I- - r-.r ~ 7 N0'J~ 01Lr .Lf 0 CLn C400 C L)i .

Q* a, C) C- f- --C n C n wM0

LT O 13.* m 0I . T1 0 C1 (n * ~ 0 *Q -CN I-T0 . 0'-0 -4 4n CLff GO fn coC C

Li' N M. CN Ln *C* *0- -- 1 f )CO . 0 -U)- C

f~n f'n 4Lf) -,

C, ID in C 1 N 1 r o 0 ' w 0w 1 -m ITCNr- 41 m -. 4t4 4en(71-- (71 r- r-. 4n 4NWL ,W- r

O30 P ,C 1 P4 N 4T 4ý Lf"- 4 -

4 I nO OC NO3. 00r CN0'-.'V)00. * o 4 4 -U 0'eLf *, V)*o 0' 0' C> Wr -- r- -o - 0-~ 4, -Z

4 V , c4 C 4

I-.. 4 44 4

c i C 4 4 4

C) 4T C4 'D ' 4C4 C -Lr -

LL.n z 0

=4 - DC40 0mC 0 C1 *D ol ocn

00 C-~L -4c 0c~ <- 0

.4 9-o 0 '.Z-3- h~.0 Fi40 -4 - ' ~ '

U4 CL9-4 Cj 2* < ZnC Z Z 0

0 7r -.7 -4 \0 *Or: ' 'CN *CN *e- w r *C f n T pJN

Cr 7 P- L%. Ol Ch t\~-0 m - O CO \

m- *e L) C! 00O *eLnr-C *u O-

0 * *- C,0 u3'4 In ~ - CNI>C* ~ , L* 121' LEln n'

Lni ? n - 0O~ C'\ -C-4 \0 w ,I X;'

-ý -, ,D r40')en-Tr

C) D'U en ( 0' ~rCO Lt) D 2)'nC- r 0e'r VI-- r-. 0 CNeY0-DO 0L, -r C-Z 0 r- -1 0'N V . - \ C f

-, *r 'CN en . *j 0N

01 V* Ch 0,c 'L% N G -

0O -HnC n V -*n w 'U ' C* \0

fn 100 '-4 C- C' 0U CO

Uy 72 nC 2 c> C-4 en 0\h~ C.) Cn\.D 0o.' en 0 r- C7 Ci, CO'LýrV) V) 01 CY.J H0 00.-J -- -~- 0 J' CO~ r-*0 r-'Tr

C/)0 ~ ~ ~ ~ f 0c14~c MH H JO .h'-'H - U

C.) *00N.0~U0 0

z0

U)ZVl) <

D>0

0<Mw <

0flH 00

LLJ zl

U cn

llý 0

C)C

0 0•

00 00

VO0 Go O'''0 o '0 m C) 0l r-0 Go Cc - 00C T

(n - -:r --'0 t D O- '0 r n0e D 00 .~04 0 *l *W n ( D0'

~. * ~ N(C~ C14 -, -1 en* C

.0" = -04 04 . oC a* V~~ 4~ Ch 4I0 go ~ *Ln ~ en CO e *Te

< * n m - 1 *n 01C 0 Q IT C14 m0 t IT .'0. .LA' *

Un-. *1 In**

cn 00 'T C, *nC ,0 D0 D C4C4i Or - T G - 0

T (N (N' CN rO'( 0a' CM Ucn * IDt*

(n * - *4 *

o- cj cc' -"0 O'.. CO 01 *.

l4'-C/ tn -o -, ... C.cn C4 IT

1% en C1 V* 0 Sn ON 0.nýe F 0 ýCJ% 7 Dýmn0 n

In"'-r -O~, ' O ' r--7- *!- G"

0 c0q V'. M .% l' 'e % 0C T O O

H~ ' 0ct , *, Li Sn en OS 10 C4S' ' TM

0:ci 00.O%" 0' en -- eNr~n -w ,% - C-4'.~ C~N10 e22,I - Nc % -L Ln 40 0' -ý C.'. C-4 10 C14 10'

- kn Cy %0 *' 'T m Di n 00(n F4 CA 55rý

* S* n

z- z ) V) 5f cn 5 n V-U )

U, 0 0 2 >.- d> - :. S

a~l . 0 -C 0 0-4 00 O"0Cn -. c'J %U W Oj..4.C PQ 960 0*z

0- 0C- H .4 -. (NH 0 1- % = M Hw

0 zo *4 * A. 06 S

S- H IX 9

>' =~3 Z , ,,0.c, : = " =

* ~ ~~~~~~~~ .4. 0.r 00o O z Q. .0O *~''0 N~=U3Os "N.0'( -Cr,..0 '.r. O. 4

0%(.-C'. 0 0'~ * IOc-

I--0f 'C. : ,. N ( , *S ( .S S H

V) OH -C,

C6 S *I.

00

co

3C

Ocn 'Tc nC NC.MCý0 0 1-1W0 L n% nGo ~ IT en 0tn' o N 00 ,O .0 1 0 r-.uN m * ne

00 '-r-* ~0 C- *.*0 ý-:

>N *C ~C-4 ca. In**u

- - um = nC4 r- 00O %4 % - O 'O r, C- O N % nMU% I 79 --~ CL. ~0 , *.

-0 1 0 LnL n C Cd- *1D '0 -N c 0, * 10.S 0 0) - l In~

~' 0

WN e4 * ý * % 10 *n V*TC40 ý 4 DC4r D

C4 M C4 - Q *ýL n mfnWI

ix 1 .T - MDwcq eq C4( .7lyj10CN 0F.E M . C4I 00 en

OD 0nI D? a oC 0 a 4;01rC 0

CS -4 C3 04 o 0 nO .%el~ em0 en

1-44 m * .OZ C

14" H <0 Wj <ZW . C4 1. *1-03 _-*--)m.CawH

WH - I- C 0. * -.

0. = Z1-4 0 ~C

0 nenr r- Q 0 O~ 0, u Co 0 O'0~~ r- O0 (- fnC n i n n n o00 0.C !C ý0 1 tn1 !Io- = e~ el.- cj

W -a Cfl en**

Go Vt~ .0 - 00 0 c Ul f- .,* 0.00' t ~ r0 * ren tn 0 (".,,go o V* cn Co-o V,~'ui~' ~ ?.VO .*,0u4

'-'C7, ' 'I ~ ~ E .* rr O"C) > 00., N . ~ ' '

c) * *,

.4IJ W >. 0 00cj. C- C-4 .0 '0'- ,ý , , r-0 C 00u ~ 0 Q * u * -n CNt In44r. 0

go 4 4 4 . 'J 4 , * *r O

- 0 * nN

>i 00 ý V) C DC4t,0' >0 ?C - , P T0C

C7, ,. ,0 *?'T

*ý Q e ne- 000~rnm r-o,0O 0 r-,-o M i.Or0 *- C-4)r.,

:O*=, ( (*U* C-4* . oo - ý o4,1-ý CV 0 rýi' .N C .: *ý10

U W - -,J C'4 .,. ,'0'4 W W ,f)I. **** ,**0

H o c, en *l '- '0'q e

g4 ,N C- en , *I

C. 01-4N~ * 0.~ ,4 00000'0410N-0,00 0 r0o'~ -1 -te'0 * 'f-.n CM en~ 0' C-4.1' -7* m, ='4 m

z' 0) 0 *ý . %> > .>

13 '0 0 0 9 0 6

0 inJ 0 -W- go 0. owNU W o Hu

0IZ- -C M H 6 en W0 A. 96 Z -C

U) ' ' '1-40 =njJo -< >. 0 0U

0 . . . . . . . ..I

11 Q00 '0 00 00 00000'000T0'Q00 Qo n 42 n nr C1 00o~- 0>~~~*1 -0- 'o o rC'o 0 .o~ -4 ' r%

C-4 000*(00C1 oe o -.T o M oo-'N r0~f- 1 'co -0'

0 *- -, en %D ~ C. 'N *ý 'On 'C' *ý * '

W >~I'. = 0 ' 4c n e , (O C - nC4I

*j, -0- 00 Q00?-- 0'0 m0 c - 'l Cli en U

W" 0 Z - -. 0 o' Q U" VI '0 0C%0Q )A coI 0COCN o C

W~*.O=I '00%9) 0 0 00 Q ýT , 0 0,0 '00 0 0 4 f 'E)n'' 'Cn a, 00'' '0

a,, a, .0 r, 00 04*%G T O I

6- N ~ 0 o0iC)000as�00-rs00.0"-e C0-4 ' 0

u 94 000 oT 0o' 000

99 C * W. = * 0 0 : C- D0'e T' 4 rr -T 0 nC, e>. = 0 , en C- C7 m m %c0'n

19 '. 9 4 >. -C *. >. -.

'-' '0 0' -n =r = ad'4 t 0 rr-O -ba nt fn w~ w' *n wt 0 wU~ w

3 *- > ' * .~4 >r- I- w , -. .0 u>5'Mgm W"gm *WW 4C.3 W' g4000

o 0Cc~ N (- W * 96 Zad wE''-r CA = ZP"U -~0-*br Ur - =o'.r - .. .0>We

0 a -:

*0 0~~ 0

CD.

10

.4MD w

- cJ:l:I ý 9 9 1ckr9

"WN %n0 000 C1 D.T 0 C'0 ODL%4(0 'T4, 10 .U hhi% 00, C". '0' cnu CN0 - C

0? *a f- . -ý ci CV)

"CD Ani , en ' -r 0 ' T' l 7

H ~ ~ ~ r '-Cf fn -A eLn 110t~ 0 e'

U, % U C4 -0 0 r, 0 'ý t 00 0 0 %mVt=ww= C4 ,n w .7 ne ' nM' n COe

m w >d = 0 CI %0r 'Cjr f 401 n

U) W W >.W WW0 1

o 0CU 0 % >. -C> .S

0 o m ý'.30 Z > 4>0wZWWc 60 2 oUP

w' 0.0 0Z 13,WH u z W g

W.4 w cc =-*- C -

HW 0 26 .' fl U U C l~2~~~~- "C Z ' '' 0

hi~~~3 0i* 0' . 0 C i

W, C0 '0. '0 0Wl ,' ' 2 ~ ' 0~Z>Oh hi-J i-J~.,U,"-J0

2HZH ~' 4 4E 44.-i~JH') ~' 0 Cihl" 00 IZ alIHO ' ~ ' ' ~ i 'E ~ O

Oc .. .

C.2 0 0 ... * -'4 ~.e.J ~. .- . . . . . . . .u C,

: fl 0 *O * 0',00r - 0 r rCO c ýuýr ý0( r

w 00c 0 .l *n CO r-- (n

> f C!NC e.C-4 ' W)-~' '

0 C w U)- ,MCJ6% UýO n mL% r NN ý-T % ýT rn fn ),

C- HD *0 .l fn .4 O.C o cc o wI 3 ne

-v&Ac C4. D W a, a,

WN kn 0$ C M %0Inr Mm~

00 0 U~aaN , elr l W ,1 . *W C-4 1 eoV14 , I-I,zz10 " M

C~~C C4 .)

z cn co = >. *) c n W U)r : l

0 'C I-. >- g~ > -C 0

cl) U) = Ow0m 12.12,1 A. to*960 0 *Z Z 0

A. E Z 0 w Z

0 *A

*ooo ,00 - ~o0r- ~00000~ O O Col

9. '0 .O . . . . . C. C'

0 n (D rn 0 >C4e oV- 40 5 m 0 .C4(1 J- " ( n 0I

cL. *N " co k - ,' ( = 3

0 CA'

U, *4 l r, .r ~ .N1 ý

-a -=, , m~ , U4 (

0 G r-~.. -, f-. C3 0- V, - 0 c nC y n

0. * , ,- C- .0 L j r T nI ,1

>~04~ 04

I-~r C- UL NrN0.(0 ~ ~~~~~ .( N NN,., . '

sO~000: 000000O000O,0000: 0000: 00c'0' 000

0. 0

000 6 0* co ýo ', ,0 6 .D *m ý 7 ' Ne4c r

0 00~ c4 fn

0 N W. en 00 0-( 0 4 fn ý04.0 0Q4JCN 0% Wir . 0r

o ~~~ 1- 0.U4 V4~ IN( 0

0C F 0 Lm -m

04a 400 0'a " -D ,, Go .- O Ta 4ý -1 - V v0

W;-o 0 0 C-o4 r4~ e r %A fn o = !: 6^ r.u(7 *- :! '' . UCN a

'Co 0 0D c4 CC l c

0EZE 0 OJ1C 04>-- Z -. 0 UgaCOO 1 ~ 13111-4 O1-"C '40 -C I= 4c < C<

M t- 0 ocWO : I- 01W~04 I.

N, 1-4 x E' 0Z 4C - U :Z 0 W <

w C -C4 0. 0 0~~" 0ý 2 a14Ho- 0 . -c0ý b d( cH9 0 N -:.W'mC1 mI-1 u

z .0 w < 00E- Ua, , o 0. CL.= . -

o-4 I..- o. 0 z

01 " 4 C6 - 2-

0. <l - .- H

> ~.4O= .o-~.7 00 00e.. 0 0OIn0mm r" *-r- ~ 0e'(n

'00 C C4 D OO 0- D r, GO 90 'T& *4a

C)( Den e = ) r- C>e > ( nr , ,n OD e

"C~, CU) . ,,

IfIJ C-4-~' C14 (nr( O' u~c f'O

coo M~o ,r .) .0 C4C04% 1 .

H0 0N.- (N MA~ cn O- f~'0~ ~r-Irn,C.) > , .

* ,,

Cc ) * - .l m a, Co C, V9'.ý ý ' A10r

r" ~ ~ e ~ e o o ,~ f'-0N0 17I I4An7e

= III U* 00 C! GI e4.04 .- f-LA ) ID 0('In9A r- (N(

-, 'O '0 a, N~ U). In. C4(*'0S-

fJ. fn m ,N r, e

"C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~3 '.0) 'Sf90D Omo0~O~-0- .~e0~r0.( 'D''S~-4 - knQ "0, ( 'O 00'.e-U)- f1O0( f"D~O O' .'.7' N V)

a, a , on In.

e0 'TU r- a, a, ,ý n O c ,Te n' Te Necc c ý-o a L - ' O O 0U . N 0, en' -Tc~~~0 U)2U U' ,O eno '0 S( O.I U) .

I- &I' IT P. .LO % C~~I C .cTC% .n . 4t 0CC 06O a, .T f" el 0 ,0 D na

W 21 0 &M el ,y n% , CUC nC n

0' *- . ..

IA . ca CA >. ca UW

0 0 Z:> 9z- =C 0C =0

CK = Q,' 0 .0 0 0 0

z z w z 0 U) Usa -C 1=0 &Z -4 ".a401 WE" Ed- w~4 U OO0

0 gg -C w ca0 ):2~0 .< Moo08M4

U) b XM14U n U

"C~- 9HR 4"Z~ .

Z~~ "CR A-14 ~ ~ " '0 Z *'-~~I4 -414 '6U hi~ s 40~'' ~)L) -

K U) ,

994* Z '

0

C14 (3 , w 'T ,r 0 c C

00 -O 04 c" C4 C4 CN- '-' -0 %n CO4

w* C,. a,.a, u 0 C.L'0IrT O O 0 a'D =-0m'*en'0'4O- w ~l

CH m . , .4n 0 L" V) , 00C4 C 0 4D I,- 7* , Go C7 CV

= U) " - (71 10* 0c ,Ce )%

U) r, 0ci (7 evg' 'ý C4O n t 'D ' 0

C'J en O'U)0'0'CN 0C% CIO aeU'% en.~ Go e.L *elTTm rl en' r' Ltn~ 0 7 '-a m~l~ 'InOITO'V I

H~r CfC ,4

I%= 1U4~ OU ý I.- )U)U)0 Fs0 '~ ~UN" r'- a.0 C.4CU O 'C0% r4SlQ'aU)en U0 D l C a fn m 1s00r a, wr-.t .O* 0 0 G

U) C4 C4 '.

0 CC * H ''H H H0 0U) U3 0 0 0 0 0

Wý 4 -0N - W W 0 9 AOH M4O O U OH E-

"14 Q 414- c . 1'' -4 wl ' o0.Wc C 3 4=9 94 u

U) 0 ca W 0*-C 'aa H ad 0. *

.-4 0 0C'H4 U) ' 0

0.H 0

ocn ,' .) 0 .Y 01 C ;'

CD 0. ~ OO

C> * 0. CD CD -en r(n D " Cn P. - -'0 r .- f- t

ý1.* 0 - ;Q ; L"40 0 ,r ,7 c*n ,

*~~e . c. *

F-, "1 .4 000 'tn 0,0 Nmc nC n n t T0C

*f 0 C> r-c%0c Tr ,c)P

* 0 0 0 '~~; 0 0e 0k ' 0 0 u 0 0 0 iF4 0 %DOM~~-. N'00~-

in 47. ,,

*W WW - " 0 C> *0 C ND( W1 -C400 - r- -C4C o f

Ix- G 0:'. .000 tno00 oooooofN oL ooe F o oo. ONONN

0 '-7 -7 -4 Ný .- C, ''0 *- ,* -

11 x0~ 0 0000000000 CD0 0 00 ~~0 0N~ '000.D0 ljC

S'0 0 .0 CJaO jC T0u r- OOM0'' CN C%4 -C~. . 17' e-0 c 00 N N jrc' 00' 0 -M

'0 o- .ý o ' n *0. .3* 0 -- L

a, ,l * ,*

C,, co .A 0 , ,T0 n0 nL % 00 ,C N

o n 'T-~' O CN g qG 7 r nt 00C;. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r C0'4 .7 Cl.7 '.ý~j. ' *~

=) *D 'a ,M ,4 ?t "(1 0r ,.4l64

wo= -Ca * *

) to 0 n C*0 Q 0I

(A) U) '= ix

Of6~ 0 0W WI- *4*0OOO'c z

In1- .F4 z .- 0' f-4 W. H . ZIx1. Do A.. W .3 -aOZW 4 W

W R 1%. = A. z -C

U,= Z ~ , 1-4 V)

.4 * 2 * 0 Ci

.1-' ~ ~ 1 . .

-.To0 e

0 0 1AOIS 0 00 014OOenC

C.D C- fn 10C CC''DC4'w 0002 d a,

.. n 'ao~

1-4 0D .

c o o M. f.--1 w 0 V 'De nI-4 Url Lm

on V- 0()* %cr-C'4 Ll. C-4,"

Ca.0 %D 2.0 enj ~ '

CS co 0n 0-21A0Cale C.--'.

2U2 U) 0 0 '0~ Q da, U) .2 3 2

A.00~~ cn~ ' ~ " ,-...s~ , * a.A. 0 QC.mI- Z-mlbýZE. 0 z 0 w

-C m i ta 0- 0 < 01 164OO0.CH E U'

=C fn U) 04A C6ncnb =.A.' z-C.ix w 4U, 8 = "I V) *: U5'2-l

U3 *'3' 0hI ~ ~ ~ -*0~*'C~'

0114

.0 * . 'a

Cocn,C."'W. 00Q0 O00coo~oo0.00000.0~oo0* color,-

0~0

ID ) 4 0l~ '0 00'.F Oe.00000.0,o o.t0' ooo C in -- Co

Go==) co'00-r~Q0 0000 0 00 . 0 00 0 0.OO. 0 0

C~0000 '0000. o0%oo- 00O0-'aD~~ItO

(n ON 47 .nC

encn CI,4c

-O-4F. C-4 c"C - -CO

In ~ ~ O C" -- ,* *C'J N-1A.'

C) o. LID * , '

ý w Z 000 '0000 " O ofn=0F. m ,0O~'r- P nr-. *F.-0UC o

"C~e 1 0 0' -.10J ,0 o * C-4 a,~'-U~

2 0' 0 0e, O " , en an C- ,n -0i -e

*00 ''N Ln enr00*

at 0 ' 000... *r

IK *0 Cc C7 .ý ,F L' - ,- ,, - (0 & ,

ba >. 0 0 0% ,y .. r-.t t 0

.. ,4 . . .' ,

"PC z30. M >. -C > ,.) , 0la =<Q *C = 4c 0 4c - Cr'

U2 fn '.U)'U1cC

H ZH'-4..0O-JH<8 H -C2'0 U)

tz H .C H.4 - =<n 0'I' w u"o b3 H H~ '-000' F.0

0 WOZ 0 a-~'" H H

hi WHW m 92 00cn H P4 A. H:

C.,

en

0' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .'w x ,0 ,~j~c ,n 00'Cu

' 00ooQ oD o ofn o o ooo oro-oo '.4 00

100UW 000 000C>0 0 0-00000(N~ ,0000 -0001 000

MW DOD 00--r o TC , ,-n - r. co ,nc

:) = 0 . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

P- - , ,- ," ,* (7 nc- N&nc n , oc

Oci.rl . ,,

10 % 00 00To ,ac ST C4

U.' ." .0 QX 00 04jM TC 1 r -V1I

'C0 0 4>< >.M>-C> > 0

o %-Ci wI-Z 3 'a.~f A0.=~ 0. 'C''

IU W .03w W-s M~ . -40 0 0 00 z 0 t"o :m = =-~.

) ,- W' U0 - U

*0 Z"SI-s4 C6

0C/)'= :~ rýOr 000 00ofmroo-,e r-co0 0 C) en r

COO: 0.. .0 -T 0

0j X M (n Ce ,0Mf-C4r - C4CJ0 nr I NMW L nC l

L n O4:* C* CC 0e, 'n 00TV

-n cz 00r -en" 0r- C rr 'CN JrN r- ID

C4

E-m 0 V . *.,

0Z 'C'C0N 000 10 Go4-0f - en10 a

=~~~~ ~ ~, -71 Li' 0-- W ,D~n 0C

z:sCl z *n *a . . U) U ) W cnI : 1

0 0w 4: 0 0n O

Al 0 < - 0 o.a~ 0 f In94 90 0 =Nz Z

0hZl- Q 0 OHW 1- '04; =4 =0Cf~~'

94 2C -4 Ad 20 u30 4: ;z~* C4*~4 wm< 000

0 m C6 U) 0 In w4' 'h

'1-4 ~ ~ ~ C I-4c* f4U

140 * ** h

.. .... ...

Analysis of Multi-mIsslon Requirements and Development of Planning Factors for theReplacement Buoy Tender Fleet

APPENDIX B

COMMANDANT'S DECISION MEMO ON PLANNING FACTORS ANDMULTI-MISSION CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS

DEPARTMENT OF APPROVAL:TRANSPORTATIONU.S. COAST GUARD SIGNATURE: -CG-4229 (Rev. 6-90)

I--

28 FEB 92

FROM: G-N

O TO: G-CCS

RE: DECISION MEMO - WLBR MULTI-MISSION CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS

1. Attached is the decision memo requesting that the Commandant establishthe multi-mission requirements for the relacement seagoing buoy tenderfleet. Attached as'enclosures to the decision memo are the briefing slidesand script presented on 27 FEB 92, as well as copies of the Multi-missionIssue Paper and Multi-mission Background Paper.

2. I have included in the decision memo the planning factors that affectthe size and mix of the replacement ATON fleet. These factors are criticalto the effective employment and support of the replacement buoy tenderfleet and must be locked in.

4SER'spect fOMlyT

SIGNER'S COMMENTS

U.S. Department Memorandumof Transportation

United StatesCoast Guard

FEB 2 8 !992;ubject: AIDS TO NAVIGATION SERVICE FORCE MIX Date:

MULTI-MISSION CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS 16500

Replto: G-NSRFrom: Chief, Office of Navigation Safety and An.ot: CDR Ihnat

Waterway Services X70980

To: Chief of Staff

1. ISSUE: To establish the multi-mission employment capacityrequirements for the replacement buoy tender fleet.

2. BACKGROUND: The Coast Guard is in the process ofacquiring new resources to replace the capabilities of itsaging seagoing and coastal buoy tender fleet. In conjunctionwith that effort, a detailed analysis of the required numberand mix of the new generation buoy tenders has beenundertaken.

In 1991 we contracted with the Volpe National TransportationSystems Center (TSC) to develop a computer based DecisionSupport System (DSS) for the Coast Guard to use in analyzingfleet mix requirements. TSC has submitted their draft reporton the development and application of the Aids to NavigationService Force Mix Decision Support System (SFM DSS).

TSC's Aids to Navigation SFM DSS uses a Geographic InformationSystem (GIS) with built-in transportation analysis routines toproject buoy tender employment in servicing aids tonavigation. Inputs include numbers, locations andcharacteristics of the aids to navigation population, weatherfactors, discrepancy response requirements, special operatingconstraints, and planned capabilities of the replacementfleet. The SFM DSS was validated by applying existing vesselcapabilities and service force mix as inputs and comparing theDSS hours predicted with historical data. I am satisfied withthe validity of the SFM DSS itself, and that the inputparameters adequately describe aids to navigation servicingpractices.

My staff conducted a three-pronged effort to analyze themulti-mission capacity requirements for the replacement buoytender fleet. They analyzed data from the Abstract ofOperations (AOPS) reports for the past five years. Theyrequested information from program managers on planned use ofseagoing buoy tenders for multi-mission operations. Finally,they collected data from the field on individual districts'multi-mission requirements.

Subj: AIDS TO NAVIGATION SERVICE FORCE MIX MULTI-MISSIONCAPACITY REQUIREMENTS

3. DISCUSSION: Our analysis of multi-mission capacityrequirements is based on the following planning factors whichaffect the total number and mix of ships in the replacementATON fleet.

(1) Employment targets established in the Sponsor'sRequirements Documents remain valid.

(2) WLMRs will be focused-mission resources and WLBRswill be multi-mission.

(3) Marine Environmental Protection is an essentialmulti-mission requirement.

(4) Both the WLBR and WLMR will operate with reducedcrewing levels (as compared with the existing fleet). TheWLMR will be minimally crewed for operations.

(a) Shore-based maintenance support billets must beprovided.

(b) Additional billets to augment aids to navigationteams, groups and district staffs must be provided to replacediscrepancy response capabilities and waterways managementfunctions lost with the reduction of ships.

(c) Billets must be included in the General Detailto provide pre-arrival training to ensure assigned crewmembersarrive fully qualified. This may require an increase in theGeneral Detail percentage allocated to each ship.

(5) The analysis described in the Multi-missionEmployment Background Package (enclosure (1)) accuratelyreflects Coast Guard WLBR multi-mission requirements andemployment projections.

Multi-mission capacity requirements are analyzed in scenariosdeveloped in terms of numbers of WLBRs.

A 16 WLBR scenario would annually provide 960 days of non-primary mission employment capacity. While this is ashortfall of 115 multi-mission days from the projectedrequirements, multi-mission requirements are substantiallymet.

A 19 WLBR scenario would reduce the above shortfall to 49multi-mission days. The cost for gaining these 66 days is anincrease of approximately $90 million in ship acquisitioncosts alone.

2

Subj: AIDS TO NAVIGATION SERVICE FORCE MIX MULTI-MISSIONCAPACITY REQUIREMENTS

As indicated in the Multi-Mission Employment paper of 14February 1992 (enclosure (2)), program directors have statedthat the projected multi-mission capacity provided by the 16WLBR scenario would be acceptable.

4. RECOMMENDATION: As discussed in the decision briefing forthe Commandant on 27 February 1992 (enclosure (3)), Irecommend that the Commandant:

(1) approve the planning factors indicated in paragraph 3above; and

(2) determine that the multi-mission capacity provided bya 16 WLBR scenario is the baseline multi-mission requirementfor developing the Aids to Na ation Service Force Mix.

W .. ZK&ER

Encl: (1) Multi-Mission Employment Background Information(2) Multi-Mission Employment Issue Paper(3) Commandant Briefing Slides (with script attached)

3

G-CPA16500

9 MAR 1992

FIRST ENDORSEMENT ON G-N memo 16500 of 28 Feb 92

From: Chief of StaffTo: Commandant

Subj: AIDS TO NAVIGATION SERVICE FORCE MIXMULTI-MISSION CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS

1. The attached information documents the results of G-N'sanalysis of multi-mission requirements for the new buoy tenderfleet. I was extremely impressed with the depth of analysis

"-conducted by G-N and personally believe this will be thebenchmark from which future ones will be compared. G-N'srecommendation is procedurally sound and is defensible, bothinternally and externally. The process G-N used to review theirmission need and come to a recommendation throws out the previousnorm of one-for-one replacements and instead focuses on themission to be accomplished and the best way to accomplish it.

2. One special concern I have with our decision - alsohighlighted by G-N - is the impact of the reduced crewing on thenew fleet. First, we must insist on pipeline training for theWLB and WLM crews, because of their minimal manning. Secondly,we must ensure that shore maintenance detachments are availableas the ships are deployed. With your concurrence, I will ensurethat these important issues are accounted for in our futurebudget requests.

3. I recommend that you:

a. Approve the planning factors in paragraph 3 of G-N'smemo; and

b. Determine that the multi-mission capacity provided by the16 WLB scenario is the baseline multi-mission requirement fordeveloping the Aids to Navigation service Force Mix.

I. T. NELSON

Approve Disapprove

k110 W. K! E Date 2,

IIIAdltla Project2.5 operational profiles 9 2.6 multi-mission employment 10 2.7 multi-mission...

Documents

Transcript of IIIAdltla Project2.5 operational profiles 9 2.6 multi-mission employment 10 2.7 multi-mission...