MAGTF Bulk Fuel Study Final Report_29 October 2010

Modeling of the MEB Scenario in Extend

Assumptions in the Extend Model

• Refueling Protocol

  • A threshold on the remaining fuel in refueling vehicles (MK970s for 2010/2016 and MTVRs for 2024) was established.

  • Nearly empty vehicles return to TAFDS for refilling before refueling other aircraft, enhancing speed in refueling.

• Tear-Down Process

  • Tear-down of fuel-consuming equipment began 1 hour before scheduled unit departure.

  • Duration was randomly selected, not exceeding 1 hour, preparing units on schedule while incorporating variability.

• FARP Conditions

  • The FARP was designed to securely accommodate H-1 aircraft, allowing them to land and wait for refueling.

  • In cases of inadequate fuel/ammunition, aircraft queued at FARP instead of returning to FOB, reflecting maintenance issues.

• Resupply Procedures

  • When fuel/ammunition falls below two-thirds of maximum, the next scheduled MV-22 mission carries out a resupply rather than returning to base after dropping off.

• CLR Awareness

  • The CLR was presumed to know daily needs for units it serviced and planned resupply accordingly.

  • Ensured units like M1151A1 had sufficient fuel for operations the next day based on prior usage data.

• Fuel-Consuming Unit Protocols

  • Any limited fuel-consuming unit would complete their mission when able, and MK970s would offload fuel as soon as TAFDS had capacity.

Daily Supply and Fuel Requirements

• Supply Relationships

  • MEB and LCE HQ received daily fuel directly from CLR without daily convoy needs.

  • Fuel-consuming equipment in ACE sourced supplies from TAFDS without including additional transport costs.

• Logistics Consumption Data

  • Tracking daily resupply convoys, counted not just fuel but other supplies necessary for supported units.

  • Non-combat-related water supplies were assumed available in the theater, with no need for CLR resupply.

Estimating Fuel Consumption

• Fuel Needs for MEF Scenarios

  • In 2010 and 2016, fuel requirements were based on T/Es collected from TFSMS, matched to the proper fuel consumption rates and HPD data.

  • Daily requirements calculated as:

    • Formula: AAO Quantity x Fuel Consumption Rate (GPH) x HPD.

  • Total calculated for each unit was summed to find overall MEF consumption.

• Future Estimates

  • Since TFSMS lacked data past 2016, FMAST database supplemented for FYDP+10 estimates. Surrogates found when necessary to close data gaps on new TAMCNs.

Analysis of Fuel Consumption Across Timeframes

• Consumption Estimates by MAGTF Element

  • Estimated fuel consumption ranged from approximately 1.63 to 2.19 million gallons across studied timeframes.

  • Major Contributions: ACE accounted for 61-68% of total consumption in various operational modes due to equipment variances.

Summary of Fuel Consumption Data

• Total Daily Requirements (2010, 2016, FYDP+10):

  • CE: 82,423 - 97,899 gallons in different modes.

  • GCE: 401,593 - 465,729 gallons impacted primarily by operational capacity.

  • ACE: 1,287,748 - 1,429,068 gallons showcasing high usage.

• Incremental Increase: Fuel consumption rose with the transition of key units and aircraft, further increasing operational dependency.

Graphical Representations and Observations

• Graphical Data: Shown for MEF across different operations highlighting usage trends over time in relation to overall operational years.

Fuel Management Adjustments and Observations

• Detailed Fuel Cost Observations

  • Accurate tracking of fuel consumption is crucial for efficient resupply with timely operational readiness.

General Conclusions and Key Takeaways

• The analysis illustrated a significant correlation between operational logistics management and effective refueling/adaptations to real-world demands.

• Ensuring that the fuel support logistics in a Marine Corps Tactical Fuel System adapt continually with scenarios for maximum operational effectiveness.