CNS/ATM Planning: Modeling USAF and Civilian Air Traffic
Interactions in European AirspacePresentation for ICNS 3 May 2006
The MITRE Corporation Edward Wigfield, Kelly Connolly, Alexander
Alshtein, James DeArmon, Richard Flournoy, William Hershey, John
James, Paula Mahoney, Jennifer Mathieu, John Maurer, and Paul
Ostwald
Slide 1
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No.
06-0068 06-
BackgroundOn 3 April 1996 a military version of the Boeing 737
crashed in Dubrovnik, CroatiaSec. of Commerce Ronald Brown one of
35 killed USAF investigation found faulty navigation equipment
partly to blame
Global Access, Navigation, and Safety (GANS) program established
in 1997Focal point for Air Force requirements
Air Force policy (2001)Conform to the appropriate civil
communication, navigation, surveillance/air traffic management
(CNS/ATM) performance standards to guarantee access to worldwide
controlled airspace.
Slide 2
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No.
06-0068 06-
Some key pointsCNS/ATM capability is expensiveEquipment costs
plus integration costs Range up to millions of dollars per
aircraft
Mobility Air Force (MAF) supports Combat Air Forces
(CAF)Different platforms, different philosophies, and different
goals
US Air Force is a user of civilian-managed airspace
Slide 3
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No.
06-0068 06-
Key AssumptionsCivilian Air Traffic will continue to increaseIn
line with Eurocontrol forecasts
Political considerations will drive stricter regulatory
environmentBasing limitations Denial to airspace access; waiver
process delays
Flexible Use of Airspace (FUA) and European Single Sky
initiatives will further constrain militaryLimited availability of
special use airspace (SUAs) ALTRVs (reserved air corridors) will be
hard to obtain Missions will be required to fly within civil
traffic Longer Military routes to mission operations areas
Slide 4
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No.
06-0068 06-
Analysis HypothesisPremise: Aircraft equipped with specific CNS
capabilities gain from civil authoritiesMore optimal routing; more
efficient use of civil airspace Reduced airspace denials More
flexibility resulting from less setup time and planning
Premise:Uncertainties regarding use of civil airspace drive
workarounds and contingency planningPilots plan for worst case
Result is inefficient mission plans and in-transit routing
Hypothesis: Aircraft with better CNS capability gainReduced
variability in arrival times Improved ops tempo Better resource
utilization Improved dynamic task execution
Slide 5
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No.
06-0068 06-
Analysis Process1.
Falconview, standard Mission Planning tool, generated air
routesAccomplished at detailed level; operationally realistic First
cut at tanker/fuel utilization
2.
Military routes overlaid on civilian traffic in CAPERCongestion
impact assessed at sector level by altitude Weather based on U.S.
experience Refueling variance based on AMC inputs/experience
3.
CAPER output passed through Monte Carlo processRan five hundred
missions per day; 100 trials per aircraft; Partitioned results into
four periods per day Variance resulting from weather, congestion,
and refueling Ops tempo metrics for individual aircraft and tanker
utilization
4.
Individual aircraft ETAs and variance aggregated to assess
strike package formationFailures to form strike packages can be
varied to reflect experience
5.
Number of failures used to generate AOC impacts in MSim
modelFailures to form strike packages treated as critical event
within AOCApproved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case
No. 06-0068 06-
Slide 6
Hypothetical MissionObjective:Air strike on a military airport
in Southwest Asia
Notional Strike Package:B-52 (1) F-15D (4) F-15C (2) F-16C (4)
E-3 E-8 RC-135 KC-10
Scenario 1:Fighters based in UK Current and future CNS/ATM
capabilities
Scenario 2:Fighters based in Eastern Europe Current and future
CNS/ATM capabilities Include a fighter drag case
CNS Capabilities Considered:8.33 kHz Voice Communications FM
Immunity
Slide 7
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No.
06-0068 06-
Steps of Analysis and Tools used in CNS/ATM Impact
StudyScenarios Based on CAF/MAF Processes, CNS Roadmap, and
Eurocontrol Regulations
ATO
AOC Model
Resource Utilization (People)
Civilian Air Traffic
Time on Target (From ATO)
1. FalconView
2. CAPER
3. 1st Monte Carlo
4. 2nd Monte Carlo
5. MSIM
Average Time to Process a Critical Event
Capable and Non-Capable Military Routes Aircraft Flight Time for
Each Route ETA Distributions for Each Route
Sortie Rate
Output from Tool Used as Input Input to Tool Tool Output
Missed Packages
Resource Utilization (Fuel, Tankers)
Slide 8
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No.
06-0068 06-
Fighter and Bomber Routes UK-Based ScenarioF15Cs, F15Ds
F16s and Equipped B52 Unequipped B52Slide 9
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No.
06-0068 06-
Fighter and Bomber Routes European-Based ScenarioF16s F15Cs
Equipped B52
F15Ds Unequipped B52Slide 10
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No.
06-0068 06-
Civilian Air Traffic Visualization
Slide 11
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No.
06-0068 06-
Structured Routes
Slide 12
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No.
06-0068 06-
Model Reroute
Slide 13
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No.
06-0068 06-
Execute Reroute
Slide 14
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No.
06-0068 06-
Bases in UK, F-15C, Time Period 4Not Capable: 435 minutes, 134
spread CNS Capable: 363 minutes, 107 spreadPercent of Count
Cumulative Probability75 50 25 0 75 50 25 0
0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
2010
35 4. 36 1 9. 38 1 4. 39 1 9. 41 1 4. 42 1 9. 44 1 4. 45 1 9. 47
1 4. 48 1 9. 1
Flight Duration (minutes)
Not Capable: 451 minutes, 145 spread CNS Capable: 377 minutes
133 spreadPercent of Count Cumulative Probability75 50 25 0 75 50
25 0
0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
2015
35 3. 36 6 9. 38 6 5. 40 6 1. 41 6 7. 43 6 3. 44 6 9. 46 6 5. 48
6 1. 49 6 7. 6
Flight Duration (minutes)
The CNS capable case arrives faster, with better
predictability.Slide 15
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No.
06-0068 06-
29 1. 30 2 6. 32 2 1. 33 2 6. 35 2 1. 36 2 6. 38 2 1. 39 2 6. 41
2 1. 42 2 6. 2
Flight Duration (minutes)
Cumulative Probability
0.8
Percent of Count
100
1.0
28 2. 29 7 7. 31 7 2. 32 7 7. 34 7 2. 35 7 7. 37 7 2. 38 7 7. 40
7 2. 41 7 7. 7
Flight Duration (minutes)
100
1.0 0.8
Cumulative Probability
0.8
Percent of Count
100
1.0
100
1.0 0.8
CNS Capable: 72 minutes faster and 27 minutes less
variability
CNS Capable: 74 minutes faster and 12 minutes less
variability
ME1
(4 Aircraft, Time Period 4, 2010) Note: sortie rate shows
relative differences not absolute values Base in Hungary (F-15C)Not
Capable Capable Not Capable Drag 435 +28 504 +28 minutes 470
+26
Package Formation
Sortie Rate 2.9
8.33 Area664 +36
3.1 3.3 2.2 2.4 2.8 4.3 4.4 4.5
7%
Base in Italy (F-16C)Not Capable Capable Not Capable Drag 510
+35 609 +35
8%
Base in Macedonia (F-15D)Not Capable Capable Not Capable Drag
337 +43 332 +38 316 +42
2%
Base in the UK (F-15C)Not Capable Capable 819 +51 954 +61
1.7 2.0
15%
2Slide 16
In Transit, Waiting at Marshaling Point, Completing Attack
Phase, ReturnApproved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited;
Case No. 06-0068 06-
Effect of Packages Missed on Critical Event Response TimeNumber
of People Added to Handle AOC WorkloadAverage Additional Response
Time for Critical Events (hours) 4 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 Number of
ATO Packages Missed
Slide 17
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No.
06-0068 06-
Package Fuel Requirements (Bases in UK)1,400,000 25
B521,200,000
Fighters20
For Both 2010 and 2015, ~300,000 lbs more fuel is used,
equivalent to 5 more Tankers
1,000,000
800,000
15
600,000
10
400,000 5 200,000
KC-135E Loads *
Pounds of Fuel
2010 Not Capable 2010 Capable 2015 Not Capable 2015 Capable
0
* Estimate of gross number of KC135E assumes 1500 nm mission
radius and takeoff at standard sea level atmosphere on 10,000 ft
dry runway
Slide 18
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No.
06-0068 06-
Workarounds Produce Ripple EffectsSignificant cross-enterprise
feedback between CAF, MAF, and civilian ATM CAF workarounds produce
wide-ranging ripple effects:1.
Tanker Drag
For CAF perceived to work well BUT for MAF inefficient use of
tankers Greater assurance of on-time arrival, BUT, sortie rates
decrease, limiting flexibility. ETA variance unchanged, loitering
continues at marshalling point wasting fuel. BUT flight time, fuel
consumption, crew wear and tanker usage all go up. Sortie rates
decrease, reduced flexibility. Can work well BUT bilateral
negotiations required; potential economic impacts; no guarantees,
future availability in doubtApproved for Public Release;
Distribution Unlimited; Case No. 06-0068 06-
2.
Leave Earlier
3.
Plan to avoid regulated airspace
4.
Special Use Airspace (SUAs), Altitude Reservations (ALTREVs)
Slide 19
Phase 2 SummaryValidated hypotheses: CNS capabilities analyzed
provide considerable operational improvement for scenarios
studiedReduced ETA variability and associated waiting times Reduced
tanker utilization and fuel expense Improved sortie rates Improved
capability for dynamic tasking at AOC
Workarounds can maintain ability to get to a specific place at a
specific time, at least over the short runImpacts are wide-ranging
and increase over time Current workarounds may be unavailable in
the future
Can support enterprise decision processesCNS/ATM roadmap (other
capabilities, platforms, scenarios) Specific issues, e.g., ability
to address funding reductions of E8 CNS/ATM program Flow of assets
into AOR (by integration with AF ICE)Slide 20
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited; Case No.
06-0068 06-