Comparison of three Combat Logistic Force models

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Authors
Harris, Sinclair M.
Subjects
replenishment models
Naval Logistice
RASM
BFORM
RSRG/SOS
logistic measures of effectiveness
MOE
Advisors
Hughes, Wayne P. Jr.
Date of Issue
1989-03
Date
March 1989
Publisher
Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School
Language
en_US
Abstract
This thesis compares the results from three recently developed Combat Logistic Force (CLF) models using a variety of measures of effectiveness. The models used in this analysis were Battle Force Operation Replenishment Model (BFORM), The Replenishment-At-Sea Model (RASM) and the Resupply Sealift Requirements Generator and Ship On-Line Scheduler (RSRG/SOS). The measures of effectiveness (MOEs) used were average time off station, minimum commodity level, final commodity level and number of unreps completed. Several generic scenarios were employed in comparing the models' results. Variables evaluated were Speed of Advance (SOA), replenishment mode, force disposition, and level of combat operations. The commodities evaluated were fuel (DFM and JP-5) and missiles (AAM/SAM). Analysis showed that RASM and BFORM results were very similar. However, BFORM results tended to be less optimistic than RASM. RASM and BFORM shared many common strengths and weaknesses. Most notable of the models' strengths was the flexibility that the user had in defining the scenario. Significant weaknesses in the models included assumptions of no attrition and unrealistic scheduling of CLF assets. RSRG/SOS did not compare well with the other models because of its aggregated modelling design.
Type
Thesis
Description
Series/Report No
Department
Operations Research
Organization
Naval Postgraduate School (U.S.)
Identifiers
NPS Report Number
Sponsors
Funder
Format
67 p.: ill.
Citation
Distribution Statement
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Rights
This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States.
Collections