Report - The Optimal MSVS Fleet For First-Line Replenishment

The Optimal MSVS Fleet for First-Line
Replenishment
Bohdan L. Kaluzny
Adrian J. Erkelens
Materiel Group Operational Research
DRDC CORA TR 2006–026

December 2006
Defence R&D Canada

Centre for Operational Research and Analysis

Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel)
National Défense
Defence nationale
The Optimal MSVS Fleet for First-Line Replenishment
Bohdan L. Kaluzny
Adrian J. Erkelens
Defence R&D Canada – CORA

Technical Report
December 2006
Principal Author
Original signed by Bohdan L. Kaluzny

Bohdan L. Kaluzny
Approved by
Original signed by P. Comeau

P. Comeau
Section Head (Joint and Common OR)
Approved for release by
Original signed by R. G. Dickinson

R. G. Dickinson
Director Joint and Strategic Analysis
The information contained herein has been derived and determined through best practice and adher-
ence to the highest levels of ethical, scientific and engineering investigative principles. The reported
results, their interpretation, and any opinions expressed therein, remain those of the authors and do
not represent, or otherwise reflect, any official opinion or position of DND or the Government of
Canada.

c Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by the Minister of National Defence,
2006

c Sa Majesté la Reine (en droit du Canada), telle que représentée par le ministre de la Défense
nationale, 2006
Abstract
The Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS) Project will purchase 1,500 standard military pat-
tern (SMP) vehicles to support deployable units. One of the tasks of the SMP MSVS variants, a
4.5 ton cargo vehicle and an 8 ton Load Handling System (LHS), will be to transport the stores and
equipment necessary to support deployed forces. This study determined the daily stores required by
a model organization, computed the minimal number of vehicles required to resupply the unit using
various fleet configurations, analyzed the replenishment cycle for these configurations under cen-
tralized and decentralized scenarios, and recommended an optimal mix of MSVS LHS and Cargo
variants.
Résumé
Le projet de système de véhicule de soutien moyen (SVSM) fera l’acquisition de 1 500 véhicules
d’un modèle militaire normalisé pour appuyer des unités déployables. L’une des tâches des variantes
des ces véhicules, un transport d’une capacité de 4,5 tonnes, et un véhicule muni d’un système de
chargement de 8 tonnes, consistera à transporter les fournitures et le matériel nécessaires au soutien
des forces déployées. La présente étude a déterminé les fournitures quotidiennes requises par une
organisation modèle, calculé le nombre minimum de véhicules nécessaires pour ravitailler l’unité
en question en ayant recours à diverses compositions du parc de véhicules, analysé le cycle de
ravitaillement pour ces compositions dans des scénarios d’unités centralisées et décentralisées ; elle
a enfin recommandé une composition optimale de variantes de SVSM avec système de chargement
et de variantes de transport.
DRDC CORA TR 2006–026 i

This page intentionally left blank.
ii DRDC CORA TR 2006–026

Executive summary

Bohdan L. Kaluzny, Adrian J. Erkelens; DRDC CORA TR 2006–026; Defence R&D
Canada – CORA; December 2006.
Background: As part of a major crown project, the Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS)
Project will purchase two variants of the standard military pattern (SMP) vehicle; a 4.5 ton cargo
vehicle with a 200 bed, and an 8 ton Load Handling System (LHS) capable of lifting and carrying
200 containers or quadcons as twenty foot equivalent units. One of the roles of the MSVS will be to
transport the stores and equipment necessary to support deployed forces.
Scope: In support to the Project Director MSVS Project, Directorate Material Group Operational
Research (DMGOR) developed a methodology to determine the optimal mix of MSVS variants
required for the replenishment of first line units. The study consists of four steps:
1. Calculating the daily lift requirement to sustain a deployed task force.

2. Computing the minimum number of vehicles needed to transport the lift requirement using
an integer linear program.
3. Analyzing the effects of various fleet mixes, the use of trailers and quadcons and the geo-
graphical deployment of the unit on replenishment operations using a simulation model.
4. Recommendation of an optimal fleet (mix of vehicles) that minimizes the logistics footprint
of deployed combat service support units while maximizing the efficiency of replenishment
operations.
The following six fleet configurations were examined:
1. MSVS LHS vehicles (transporting 200 containers);

2. MSVS LHS and MSVS Cargo vehicles;
3. MSVS LHS and MSVS Cargo vehicles with respective trailers;
4. MSVS LHS and MSVS Cargo vehicles transporting 200 containers or quadcons;
5. MSVS LHS and MSVS Cargo vehicles with respective trailers, transporting 200 containers or
quadcons; and
6. MSVS LHS and MSVS Cargo vehicles with respective trailers, Heavy Logistic Vehicle Wheeled
(HLVW) Palletized Loading System (PLS), HLVW Cargo, using 200 containers or quadcons.
Principal Results: The optimal mix between MSVS LHS and Cargo variants, being the lightest
fleet that minimizes the number of prime movers, depends on the deployment concept. A 40/60
split of Cargo/LHS is optimal for decentralized replenishment while 25% of the fleet can be Cargo
variants if the supported unit is centralized at one location. A total MSVS LHS fleet is optimal if
DRDC CORA TR 2006–026 iii

the Heavy Logistics Vehicle Wheeled (HLVW) is not utilized to transport the heavier commodities.
While trailers can reduce the number of prime movers by up to 50%, they can increase the duration
of the replenishment cycle by up to 50%. Using quadcons can reduce the requirement for prime
movers by 10% regardless of replenishment scenario.
Future Work: While the final results presented in this report are specific to the model task force
chosen, the vehicles considered, and replenishment cycle assumptions, the optimization and simu-
lation models were built to be generic to accommodate future (specialized) studies on optimal fleet
mixes.
iv DRDC CORA TR 2006–026

Sommaire

Bohdan L. Kaluzny, Adrian J. Erkelens ; DRDC CORA TR 2006–026 ; R & D pour la
défense Canada – CARO ; décembre 2006.
Explication : Dans le cadre d’un projet important de l’État, le projet de système de véhicule de
soutien moyen (SVSM) fera l’acquisition de deux variantes d’un véhicule de modèle militaire nor-
malisé : un véhicule de transport d’une capacité de 4,5 tonnes muni d’un châssis de 20 pi, et un
véhicule muni d’un système de chargement d’une capacité de 8 tonnes capable de soulever et de
transporter des conteneurs de 20 pi ou des mini-conteneurs Quadcon équivalant à des conteneurs de
20 pi. L’un des rôles du SVSM consistera à transporter les fournitures et le matériel nécessaires à
l’appui de forces déployées.
Portée : En appui du projet SVSM du directeur de projet, le Directeur - Recherche opérationnelle

(Groupe des matériels) (DROGM) a développé une méthodologie pour déterminer la composition
optimale des variantes de SVSM nécessaires au ravitaillement des unités de première ligne. Cette
étude se compose de quatre étapes :
1. Calcul des besoins de transport quotidien pour soutenir une force opérationnelle déployée.
2. Calcul du nombre minimum de véhicules nécessaires pour transporter le matériel requis à
l’aide d’un programme linéaire à nombres entiers relatifs.
3. Analyse des effets de diverses compositions du parc de véhicules, de l’utilisation de re-
morques et de mini-conteneurs Quadcon, ainsi que le déploiement géographique de l’unité
lors d’opérations de ravitaillement à l’aide d’un modèle de simulation.
4. Recommandation d’une composition optimale du parc de véhicules, ce qui minimise l’espace
logistique des unités de services de soutien au combat tout en maximisant l’efficacité des
opérations de ravitaillement.
Les six compositions du parc de véhicules suivantes ont été examinées :
1. SVSM avec système de chargement (qui transportent des conteneurs de 20 pi) ;

2. SVSM avec système de chargement et des variantes de transport ;
3. SVSM avec système de chargement et des variantes de transport avec les remorques ;
4. SVSM avec système de chargement et des variantes de transport qui transportent des conte-
neurs de 20 pi ou des mini-conteneurs Quadcon ;
5. SVSM avec système de chargement et des variantes de transport avec les remorques, transport
des conteneurs de 20 pi ou des mini-conteneurs Quadcon ; et
6. SVSM avec système de chargement et des variantes de transport avec les remorques, véhi-
cules logistique lourd à roues (VLLR) avec système de chargement palettisé (SCP), VLLR
de transport, transport des conteneurs de 20 pi ou des mini-conteneurs Quadcon.
DRDC CORA TR 2006–026 v

Principaux Résultats : La composition optimale des variantes SVSM avec système de chargement
et des variantes de transport pour constituer le parc le plus léger minimisant le nombre de véhicules
tracteurs dépend du concept de déploiement. Une composition 40/60 de véhicules de transport/à
système de chargement est optimale pour un ravitaillement décentralisé tandis que 25% du parc de
véhicules peut se composer de variantes de transport si l’unité à appuyer est centralisée en un seul
endroit. Un parc consistant totalement en véhicules SVSM à système de chargement est optimal si
le véhicule logistique lourd à roues (VLLR) n’est pas utilisé pour transporter les chargements plus
lourds. Bien que les remorques puissent réduire le nombre de véhicules tracteurs jusqu’à 50%, ils
peuvent accroître la durée du cycle de ravitaillement jusqu’à 50%. L’utilisation de mini-conteneurs
Quadcon peut réduire le besoin en véhicules tracteurs de 10%, quel que soit le scénario de ravi-
taillement.
Travaux Futurs : Tandis que les résultats finals présentés dans ce rapport sont spécifiques à l’orga-
nisation modèle choisie, les véhicules considérés, et des prétentions d’opérations de ravitaillement,
les modèles d’optimisation et de simulation sont génériques et peuvent être adapter pour d’autres
études (spécialisées) des compositions du parc de véhicules.
vi DRDC CORA TR 2006–026

Table of contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Résumé . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Sommaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Table of contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
List of tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
List of figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1 Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3 Cargo Compatibility Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4 Forward Resupply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Scenario Model and Resupply Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1 Organization and Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 Supply Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4 Minimizing the Number of Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1 Optimization Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2 Overview of Centralized Scenario Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3 Overview of Decentralized Scenario Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4 MSVS Substitution for HLVW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.5 Number of Cargo Vehicles in MSVS Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
DRDC CORA TR 2006–026 vii

4.6 The Effect of Quadcons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.7 The Effect of Trailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.8 Sensitivity Analysis of Ammunition Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5 Analysis of Replenishment Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1 Simulation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2 Simulation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6 The Optimal Mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1 Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.2 Ranking of Fleet Mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Annex A: Consumption Rates and Lift Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Annex B: Ammunition Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Annex C: ILP Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
C.1 Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
C.2 Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
C.3 Main Decision Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
C.4 Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
C.5 Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Annex D: Centralized Optimization Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Annex E: Decentralized Optimization Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Annex F: Simulation Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
List of symbols/abbreviations/acronyms/initialisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Distribution letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
viii DRDC CORA TR 2006–026

List of tables
Table 1: Vehicles and Trailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2: Shipping Container Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 3: Model Organization Unit Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 4: Decentralized Scenario: Sub-unit Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 5: Supply Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 6: Calculated Centralized Lift Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 7: Calculated Decentralized Lift Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 8: Vehicle and Trailer Requirements for Centralized Replenishment . . . . . . . . 12
Table 9: Vehicle and Trailer Requirements for Decentralized Replenishment . . . . . . . 13
Table 10: The Effect of Quadcons in Centralized Replenishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 11: The Effect of Quadcons in Decentralized Replenishment . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 12: Vehicle Load Times (minutes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 13: Distribution of Load and Unload Resources for Decentralized Scenarios . . . . 20
Table 14: Vehicle Unload Times (minutes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 15: Replenishment Cycle Duration (hrs) for Fleet Mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 16: Probability of Breakdown for Different Fleet Mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 17: Scoring Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 18: Rating of Fleet Mixes for Centralized Replenishment Operations . . . . . . . . 28
Table 19: Rating of Fleet Mixes for Decentralized Replenishment Operations . . . . . . . 29
Table 20: Percentage of MSVS Variants in Top Ranked Fleet Mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table A.1: Task Force Daily Consumption (kg/day) (Less Ammunition) . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table A.2: Task Force Daily Lift Requirement (Standard NATO Pallets) (Less Ammunition) 36
Table C.1: Sets Used in ILP Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
DRDC CORA TR 2006–026 ix

Table C.2: Payload Capacity Minus Container Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table F.1: RP Load Times (hrs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table F.2: Convoy Duration for Different Fleets (hrs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table F.3: Unload and Load at Camp Time (hrs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table F.4: Unload at RP Time (hrs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
List of figures
Figure 1: Load Handling System (LHS) Unloading ISO Container . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2: Four Quadcons form a TEU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 3: Prime Movers Required for Centralized Replenishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 4: Prime Movers Required for Decentralized Replenishment . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 5: Sensitivity to Ammunition Usage Rate: % LHS vs. % Cargo . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 6: Average Replenishment Cycle Time (hrs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 7: Example of Sensitivity of RP Load Times (hrs) to the Number of Resources . . 25
Figure F.1: RP Loading Times (hrs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Figure F.2: Convoy Duration for Various Fleet Mixes (hrs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Figure F.3: Avgerage Unload and Load at Camp Time (hrs) Dominated by Time to Load
Containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Figure F.4: Unload at RP (hrs) for Vehicles Carrying Containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
x DRDC CORA TR 2006–026

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to aknowledge Maj. B.J. Chapman, Royal Military College, Kingston,
Canada, for helpful discussion on modeling lift requirements; and Maj. J.M. Morin and Captain
V. Plourde, Director Land Requirements, Ottawa, Canada, for providing timely feedback and data
required to model the replenishment cycle.
DRDC CORA TR 2006–026 xi

xii DRDC CORA TR 2006–026

1 Introduction
For nearly twenty five years the Canadian Forces (CF) have relied on the Medium Logistic Vehicle
Wheeled (MLVW) for land combat service support functions as the MLVW has the most wide-
ranging support and operational tasks of all vehicle fleets [1]. Acquired in 1982, the MLVW is
nearing the end of its service-life, due to increased maintenance costs, corrosion, and reduced part
availability [2]. As part of a $1.2 billion project, the Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS)
Project will purchase 1, 500 standard military pattern (SMP) vehicles to support deployable units
[3]. Two variants of the SMP MSVS will be acquired: a 4.5 ton cargo vehicle with a 200 bed,
and an 8 ton Load Handling System (LHS) capable of lifting and carrying 200 containers, sets of 4
quadcons, or flat racks. One of the roles of the MSVS will be to transport the stores and equipment
necessary to support deployed forces.
The Project Director of the MSVS Project/Directorate Land Requirement 6 (DLR 6-2) asked the Di-
rectorate Material Group Operational Research (DMGOR) to develop a methodology to determine
the optimal mix of SMP MSVS variants required for the resupply of first line units [4]. Further
background discussion is provided in Section 2.
1.1 Scope
The DMGOR response, detailed in this report, was to:
– Determine the daily amount of supplies required by a model organization consisting of a wheeled
battle group sized task force of 1403 personnel split into 11 sub-units.
– Determine the minimum number of vehicles required to resupply the battle group. The study con-
siders MSVS variants, Heavy Logistic Vehicle Wheeled (HLVW) variants, trailers, and different
types of containers for both centralized scenarios (all sub-units co-located) and decentralized
scenarios (sub-units split among five camps each requiring its own resupply).
– Study the replenishment cycle of different vehicle mixes for both centralized and decentralized
scenarios. Factors such as vehicle and trailer loading and unloading times, vehicle reliability,
convoy speeds, and availability of material handling equipment were considered.
– Recommend an optimal fleet of vehicles for centralized and decentralized scenarios.
DMGOR conducted the study in four phases. The daily supply requirement for the modeled task
force was calculated using standard planning consumption rates and pallet weights for North At-
lantic Treaty Organization (NATO) classes of supply. We exhibit the calculations in Section 3. Next,
the minimum number of vehicles required to perform the resupply was determined by modeling and
solving an integer linear program (ILP). Multiple fleet configurations were considered. The model
and results are explained in Section 4. The third phase examined the replenishment cycle for var-
ious fleet configurations. A simulation model was built to analyze factors such as loading times,
reliability, convoy speeds, equipment availability, etc. (Section 5). Finally, multi-criteria decision
analysis determined the optimal mix of MSVS vehicles required to resupply the battle group. In
section 6 we detail the findings.
DRDC CORA TR 2006–026 1

2 Background
Historically the medium lift capability has been filled by a 2.5 ton capacity vehicle, however ad-
vances in wheeled vehicle mobility and the ever increasing logistic support requirements of modern
forces have led various countries to either increase the carrying capacity of the medium vehicle
fleet or procure a mixed payload fleet. A Directorate of Operational Research (Joint) study in 2001
[5], recommended that the 2.5 ton vehicle, that has been standard for half a century, be replaced
with a vehicle with a larger payload. Establishing vehicle payload for the resupply of combat arms
units and applying a multi-criteria penalty factor, it was determined that a mixed fleet of 4.5 ton
and 7 ton vehicles was optimal. A 4.5 ton truck with capacity to lift 10 standard NATO pallets was
required. For ammunition, and other heavy stores, a payload of 7 tons was required as unit echelon
vehicles tend to bulk out before weighing out when carrying the unit maintenance load, except for
ammunition, which weighs out before bulking out.
2.1 Vehicles
The fleet of vehicles considered in this study, namely the future MSVS and the existing HLVW
provide deployable tactical sustainment lift capability. The MSVS vehicles that are considered are
a generic prototype of potential contenders. The carrying capacity of vehicles and trailers are those
specified as essential in the MSVS Statement of Requirements (SOR) [1] and are detailed in Table
1.
Table 1: Vehicles and Trailers
Vehicle Type Payload (kg) Volume Towing Capacity (kg)
MSVS Cargo 4, 500 10 pallets 8,000
HLVW Cargo 10, 000 10 pallets not considered
MSVS LHS 8, 000 200 ISO 12,000
HLVW PLS 16, 000 200 ISO not considered
MSVS Cargo Trailer 5, 000 10 pallets towed by MSVS Cargo
MSVS LHS Trailer 8, 000 200 ISO towed by MSVS LHS
Figure 1: Load Handling System (LHS) Unloading ISO Container
2 DRDC CORA TR 2006–026

2.2 Containers
International Standards Organization (ISO) type shipping containers will be used to deliver pre-
configured loads directly into a supported unit’s location. Container dimensions and capabilities
can vary dramatically depending on the manufacturer and the target customer. The shipping con-
tainers used in this model are based on generic prototypes of single end-opening containers: ISO 200
containers and military quadcon containers as described in industry advertisements. The containers
conform to ISO specifications as described in [6] which are summarized in Table 2. Four quadcons
have to be linked together to form the equivalent footprint of a 200 ISO container - referred to as a
twenty foot equivalent unit (TEU) - in order to be lifted by either the HLVW PLS or MSVS LHS
equipment. This is necessary as the load handling system is designed to lift only 200 containers
and their equivalent, such as flat racks and A-frames. The payload of 200 containers and TEU of
quadcons is effectively limited to the payload limitation of vehicles, 16,000 kilograms (kg) in the
case of the HLVW PLS which has the maximum payload capacity of the vehicles we consider.
Figure 2: Four Quadcons form a TEU
Table 2: Shipping Container Characteristics

Type Internal Internal Internal Pallets Payload Tare Weight
Length Width Height (kg) (kg)
(in) (in) (in)
200 Container 230 92 87 20 20, 000 2700
Quadcon 90 56 87 4 4, 280 800
4 Quadcons 16 17, 120 2400
2.3 Cargo Compatibility Constraints

In addition to the volume and weight limitations for each type of vehicle, trailer and container, there
are carrying limitations based on the nature of the cargo. The Transportation of Dangerous Goods
Act and military regulations place restrictions on mixing classes of dangerous goods while being
transported. Regulations prevent certain dangerous good classes of supplies from being shipped
together on the same vehicle regardless of the packaging or containerization employed [7, 8]. Other
classes may be combined on to one vehicle if they are packaged or containerized in such a manner as
to prevent leakage from contaminating non-compatible items. The strictest rules apply to Danger-
ous Goods Class 1, Explosives. There are Divisional compatibility regulations that prevent certain
types of ammunition being mixed in storage and transportation. As a simplifying assumption, it

was assumed that there were only four compatibility groups as described below. This compatibility
system is similar to the one used in the Arseneau and Taylor study [5]. Items in different compati-
bility groups can be combined on a vehicle or trailer as long as they are in different containers. The
compatibility groups are:
– Rations: fresh rations, Individual Meal Packs (IMP), Meals Ready to Eat (MRE) and water.
– Packaged petroleum oils and lubricants (POL).
– Ammunition: all types of ammunition. No dangerous goods divisional conflict between various
types of ammunition was modeled.
– Mixed stores: all other classes of supply, less those listed above, were grouped together as mixed
stores. Mixed stores consisted of general and technical (G & T) stores, engineering stores, defen-
sive stores, medical items, repair parts, amenities, and postal material.
Additional restrictions are placed on the transportation of ammunition. Ammunition is not permitted
to be loaded onto trailers; all ammunition has to be transported on vehicles. Vehicles carrying
ammunition can only be loaded to 80% of their payload limit [9].
Individual quadcons are considered to be separate containers. For example, a single MSVS LHS
can transport four quadcons: one with rations, one with POL, one with ammunition, and one with
mixed stores.
2.4 Forward Resupply

In the past, unit resupply for land operations was traditionally conducted through the delivery points
(DP) system. A DP was conducted under cover of darkness and required the combat service support
unit, second line, to move forward and rendezvous with the transport elements of their supported
units who moved rearwards. A different location had to be secured for each DP. At the DP, stores
would be cross-loaded by hand from second line transport vehicles to a first line unit’s vehicles.
This process was labour and resource intensive as well as time consuming.
The DP system has been replaced by a system of forward delivery where the combat service support
unit delivers stores directly to the supported unit’s location thus eliminating the need to secure a site
for each DP and the effort of cross-loading stores. Forward delivery also enables loads to be pre-
packaged onto pallets or into ISO containers. This leads to a more streamlined resupply system
which minimizes the double handling of items.
Forward delivery and the pre-packaging of loads enhance the efficiency of the replenishment sys-
tem. Directorate Army Doctrine stated that “Essential to success [of future replenishment opera-
tions] will be a balanced combination of technologically advanced containers, container-handling
equipment, and ground delivery platforms [ISO compatible]” [10].

3 Scenario Model and Resupply Requirements
3.1 Organization and Scenarios
The model organization provided by the sponsor, Project Director MSVS Project, consists of a
wheeled battle group sized task force with 1403 personnel. The unit structure consists of 11 sub-
units described in Table 3.
Table 3: Model Organization Unit Structure
Sub-unit Number of personnel
Task Force Headquarters 173
Mechanized Infantry Company 159
Light Infantry Company 157
Direct Fire Support Squadron 144
Engineer Squadron 162
Artillery Battery 186
Combat Service Support Company 166
Armored Recce Troop 90
Signal Troop 44
LAV Ambulance Platoon 76
Chemical Biological Radiation 46
Nuclear Platoon
Total Establishment 1403
Two replenishment scenarios were modeled. The first scenario is a centralized concept where all
sub-units are co-located on one camp. The second consists of the sub-units being dispersed on five
decentralized camps as specified in Table 4.
3.2 Supply Requirements

We now outline the logic and methodology used to determine the daily supply requirements for first
line units. While a task force may operate in any environment and span the spectrum of operations
from humanitarian assistance to war fighting, consumption rates were based on war fighting re-
quirements as they would provide the extreme requirement of supplies that have to be lifted. NATO
and the CF group material, equipment and supplies are separated into ten classes as described in
Table 5. Only dry cargo requirements were included in the calculations of unit supply requirements.
Bulk liquid cargo, fuel and water are assumed to be delivered in specialized vehicles and trailers
equipped with tanks. Palletized water was included to represent a potential extreme lift require-
ment. Class VII stores and major end items are also excluded from this study. Class X supplies and
material for non-military programs are carried on a space available basis with no vehicles dedicated
to transporting them [11], they are excluded from this study.
For the purposes of this study, the assumption was made that units would be on a push replenish-
ment system. Push replenishment is defined as the automatic issue of stores and supplies based on

Table 4: Decentralized Scenario: Sub-unit Locations
Camp Sub-units Total Camp Strength
Camp 1 Task Force Headquarters
Combat Service Support Coy
Signals Troop
LAV Ambulance Platoon
Engineer Squadron Headquarters and
Support Troop
Chemical Biological Radiation 577
Nuclear Platoon
Camp 2 Light Infantry Company
Engineer Troop 204
Camp 3 Mechanized Infantry Company
Engineer Troop 202
Camp 4 Direct Fire Support Squadron
Armored Recce Platoon 234
Camp 5 Artillery Battery 186
established operational or administrative procedures. Each day, units are issued a pre-configured
amount of stores based on forecasted usage rates as per the Staff Data Handbook (SDH) [12]. Units
do not submit requirements for specific items. The weight and volume of stores that needed to be
lifted were determined by using SDH planning figures. SDH provides standardized usage rates for
each class of supplies. Usage rates are given as kilograms per person per day. SDH also provides
standardized weights per pallet for each class of supply. Some of these values were adjusted in the
study by Arseneau and Taylor [5] into medium logistic vehicles. The adjusted values were retained
for this study with the approval of the sponsor. The volume of a commodity required to be lifted
each day, in terms of standard NATO pallets, is calculated as:

# of personnel (persons) × usage rate (kg/person/day)
# of Pallets = . (1)
weight per pallet (kg/pallet)
The values for the daily consumption rate and weight per pallet used in this study are provided in
Table 5. The supply requirements for the model organization were calculated for both centralized
and decentralized scenarios, and are presented in Tables 6 and 7. The detailed usage rates and lift
requirement calculations are contained in Annex A for all commodities less ammunition, and in
Annex B for ammunition. The calculation of daily supply requirements determined that the task
force required a total of 118,894 kg of supplies. This was distributed on 210 standard NATO pallets
in the centralized scenario. As all stores were palletized and classes of supplies were not mixed on
a pallet, the decentralized scenarios required 231 pallets, a 10% increase in the number of pallets
over the centralized scenario.
The ammunition usage of a unit in operations is based on the type and intensity of operations and
the environment in which the unit is operating. War fighting entails significantly higher ammunition

Table 5: Supply Requirements
Supply Commodity Daily Weight per Remarks

Class Consumption Pallet (kg)
Rate
(kg/soldier/day)
I IMP 4.98 698 Assumed that only
IMP were consumed
I Meals Ready to Eat 2.4 1006
I Fresh rations 3.1 350
I Water 13.97 900 For personal
consumption only
II G & T Stores 2.9 300
III POL (Packaged) 21.7 425 Bulk POL
not included
IV Engineer Stores 6.3 544
(Construction)
IV Defensive Stores 4.3 288
(Barrier)
V Ammunition Requirement calculated separately
VI Personal 1.5 150
Demand Items
VII Major End Items not included
VIII Med and Dental Stores 0.76 100
IX Repair Parts 0.07 500
X Material for not included
non-military programs
Postal 0.25 100
consumption than peace support or humanitarian operations. War fighting is defined as when a
unit is tasked to seek out and engage the enemy. War fighting consumption rates were used as
they represent the extreme requirement that would be placed on the replenishment system. In the
decentralized scenarios a high rate of ammunition was used by all sub-units located at Camps 2, 3, 4,
and 5. Sub-units located at Camp 1 were assumed to consume 25% of the war fighting ammunition
usage rate. This is to reflect the high percentage of combat service support and combat support
units located on Camp 1. In sustainment doctrine, each weapon system is given a basic load of
ammunition that is the anticipated usage amount during a period of time. The SDH provides a
three-day basic load of ammunition for each type of weapon in terms of rounds per weapon. The
daily consumption rate of ammunition was taken as one-third of the basic load as given by the
SDH. The ammunition requirement was calculated as the sum of the number of weapons of each
type multiplied by the daily consumption rate. The number of rounds per pallet and weight per
pallet for each nature of ammunition was obtained from [13]. The exact number of rounds per
pallet and pallet weight for a specific nature of ammunition can vary due to the way it is packed
into cartons and boxes before being palletized. A representative pallet composition was selected for

Table 6: Calculated Centralized Lift Requirement
Class Name Wgt/Pallet # Pallets
I IMP 698 11
I Water 900 22
III POL Packaged 425 10
V Ammunition 755 84
IV Engineer Stores 544 17
(Construction)
IV Defensive Stores 288 21
(Barrier)
II G & T Stores 300 14
VI Amenities 150 15
IX Repair Parts 500 1
VIII Medical & 100 11
Dental Stores
Postal 100 4
Total: 210
Table 7: Calculated Decentralized Lift Requirement

Camp 1 Camp 2 Camp 3 Camp 4 Camp 5
Name wgt/ # plt wgt/ # plt wgt/ # plt wgt/ # plt wgt/ # plt
plt plt plt plt plt
IMP 698 5 698 2 698 2 698 2 698 2
Water 900 9 900 4 900 4 900 3 900 3
Packaged 425 4 425 2 425 2 425 2 425 2
POL Products
Ammunition 1011 4 539 7 819 10 754 21 755 45
Engineer Stores 544 7 544 3 544 3 544 3 544 3
(Construction)
Defensive Stores 288 9 288 4 288 4 288 3 288 3
(Barrier)
G & T Stores 300 6 300 2 300 2 300 2 300 2
Amenities 150 6 150 3 150 3 150 2 150 2
Repair Parts 500 1 500 1 500 1 500 1 500 1
Medical & 100 5 100 2 100 2 100 2 100 2
Dental Stores
Postal 100 2 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 1
Total Pallets: = 58 = 31 = 34 = 42 = 66
each nature of ammunition. A simplifying assumption was made that all pallets conformed to the
dimensions of a standard NATO pallet. For each sub-unit, fractions of pallets for specific natures of

ammunition were summed to obtain the total number of pallets of ammunition required (see Annex
B). A weighted average of pallets weights was taken as a representative pallet weight.

4 Minimizing the Number of Vehicles
Given the daily resupply requirements, the next phase of the study was to determine the minimum
number of vehicles that would be required to lift the stores. The HLVW Cargo, HLVW PLS, MSVS
Cargo, MSVS LHS and associated MSVS trailers were considered as transporters, with the HLVW
PLS, MSVS LHS and MSVS LHS trailer capable of carrying 200 containers or quadcons. The
sponsor requested that multiple configurations were to be analyzed; from a basic fleet consisting of
MSVS LHS vehicles carrying 200 containers, to an all-inclusive configuration including all trans-
porters and container types. In particular, the following six fleet configurations were selected:

quadcons; and
6. MSVS LHS and MSVS Cargo vehicles with respective trailers, HLVW PLS, HLVW Cargo,
using 200 containers or quadcons.
4.1 Optimization Model

The optimization problem was modeled mathematically as an integer linear program (ILP): a system
of (decision) variables directed by a linear objective function, constrained by linear inequalities. ILP
models have been studied extensively 1 and their solvers provide a mechanism of sifting through
many combinatorial possibilities, such as the ones presented by the vehicle loading problem. The
ILP formulation is detailed in Appendix C, however we provide the reader with insight into how the
problem was modeled in the following paragraphs.
Primary variables of the ILP were chosen to represent the number of vehicles, number of trail-
ers, number of 200 containers, and number of quadcons transporting a particular commodity group.
Secondary variables represented the number of pallets of a certain commodity to be loaded onto a
vehicle/trailer/container. The objective function modeled the minimization of the number of vehi-
cles, while also minimizing wasted payload capacity of vehicles: it is favourable to use vehicles with
lighter payload capacity when possible. The system of linear inequalities modeled the problem con-
straints: all pallets must be lifted, the bulk and payload capacities of all vehicles/trailers/containers
must be respected, ammunition cannot be carried on trailers, and vehicles carrying ammunition
can be maximally loaded to 80% of their payload capacity. The ILP was modeled using ZIMPL
[15] which facilitated generation of different fleet configurations. Each configuration specific ILP
formulation was then solved using ILOG’s CPLEX 6.01 [16], an industry-leading ILP solver. The
solution obtained from CPLEX sets the model variables of the ILP at optimality - the absolute min-
imum number of vehicles that would be required to lift all supplies under the given assumptions,
vehicle mix, and chosen organization.
1. For an introduction to ILP see [14].

The model was built to determine the minimum number of vehicles that could transport the supplies.
It does not specify how to load each of the individual transporters. Bulk and payload constraints
were modeled so that the total bulk and total weight of a commodity placed onto transporters of a
particular type averaged out to satisfy the restrictions of individual transporters.
Let us illustrate by examining a sample ILP solution to our model. Consider the centralized scenario
requirements (refer to Table 6) where only MSVS LHS vehicles carrying 200 containers or quadcons
are permissible. The ILP solution to the formulation indicates that the lift can be accomplished using
25 MSVS LHS: 10 carrying 200 containers and 15 carrying quadcons. Of the ten 200 container-
carrying MSVS LHS, six are to carry the 33 pallets of rations. The six 200 containers, with a total
of bulk capacity of 120 pallets, can clearly fit 33 pallets. However, it is the weight of the 33 pallets
of rations, 27,478 kg, that forces the distribution of the pallets across 6 vehicles, whose combined
payload capacity is 5, 300 × 6 = 31, 800 kg. The remaining four vehicles carrying 200 containers
are designated to carry all pallets of the defensive stores, G & T, amenities, repair parts, medical
& dental, postal, and 9 of the 17 engineering store pallets. This represents a total of 75 pallets
weighing 19,394 kg being distributed across four vehicles with total bulk capacity of 80 pallets and
weight capacity of 21,200 kg.
The example’s solution indicates that the remaining supplies are to be loaded into quadcons. 15
MSVS vehicles carry 60 quadcons. At least 2 quadcons are to be used to carry the remaining 8
pallets of engineering stores, at least 3 quadcons for the packaged POL, and at least 21 quadcons
for ammunition. In each case the quadcons will bulk out before weighing out. While the minimum
number of quadcons required in total is 26, the average weight of a TEU (four of these bulked-out
quadcons) exceeds the weight capacity of an MSVS LHS. However spreading the supplies over 60
quadcons lowers the average weight of a TEU combination loaded onto an MSVS LHS.
As the example illustrates, we note that the optimal solution to the ILP model does not specify
how to load individual vehicles, rather it describes the number of pallets per commodity that could
fit onto the optimal number of vehicles/trailers. Similarly, the model does not explicitly dictate
groupings of four quadcons to link together to form a TEU. The constraint restricting quadcon-
carrying vehicles carrying ammunition to be loaded to at most 80% of their payload capacity was
modeled by restricting each quadcon carrying ammunition to be loaded at 80%. Nonetheless, for
each vehicle mix modeled and examined in this study, all ammunition-carrying vehicles were loaded
under 80% capacity.
The detailed ILP results are presented in Annex D, while Tables 8 and 9, Figures 3 and 4 display the
objective value for the six configurations in question 2 . In the remainder of this section, we analyze
the results of the optimization.
4.2 Overview of Centralized Scenario Results

1. MSVS LHS vehicles (transporting 200 containers): Twenty seven MSVS LHS vehicles
were required, six weighed out vehicles carrying rations, one vehicle comfortably carrying
2. For easier comparison, we list all transporters in Table 8 and 9. The transporters considered in each configuration
are in bold font and have an arrow to the right.

Table 8: Vehicle and Trailer Requirements for Centralized Replenishment
MSVS Cargo → MSVS Cargo 0
& trailer → & trailer 0
→ MSVS LHS 27 → MSVS LHS 15
HLVW Cargo HLVW Cargo
HLVW PLS HLVW PLS
quadcons? No Tot: 27 vehs quadcons? No Tot: 15 vehs, 12 trls
→ MSVS Cargo 7 → MSVS Cargo 0
HLVW PLS HLVW PLS
quadcons? No Tot: 27 vehs → quadcons? Yes Tot: 14 vehs, 11 trls
HLVW Cargo → HLVW Cargo 0
HLVW PLS → HLVW PLS 7
→ quadcons? Yes Tot: 25 vehs → quadcons? Yes Tot: 11 vehs, 4 trls
packaged POL, 15 weighed out (at 80%) vehicles carrying ammunition, 5 weighed out MSVS
LHS carrying mixed stores.
2. MSVS LHS and MSVS Cargo vehicles: Once again 27 vehicles accomplish the lift, 20
MSVS LHS and 7 MSVS Cargo. The distribution is similar to the previous configuration,
except that packed POL has been transferred to a Cargo vehicle to minimize wasted pay-
load capacity. For the same reason one LHS and five Cargo vehicles transport rations, and
some of the mixed stores can be transferred to replace an MSVS LHS with a Cargo vehicle.
Ammunition, being heavy, remains on 15 MSVS LHS.
3. MSVS LHS, MSVS Cargo vehicles along with respective trailers: The optimal solution for
this configuration just transfers all of the non-ammunition supplies onto MSVS LHS trailers.
Fifteen MSVS LHS carrying ammunition pull 12 trailers. No Cargo vehicles are used.
4. MSVS LHS and MSVS Cargo vehicles transporting 200 containers and quadcons: Using
quadcons, two vehicles can be eliminated (in comparison to the first two configurations) for
a total of 25 vehicles. Fifteen MSVS LHS are still required to carry all the ammunition,
however using quadcons we can fit some of mixed stores into quadcons to form TEU with
ammo quadcons which satisfy the payload restrictions of individual MSVS LHS. Six Cargo
vehicles carry rations and POL, and four 200 containers carry the remaining rations and mixed
stores.
5. MSVS LHS and MSVS Cargo vehicles along with respective trailers, transporting 200
containers and quadcons: The lift is accomplished using 14 MSVS LHS vehicles carrying
quadcons full of ammunition and some mixed stores. The vehicles pull 11 trailers carrying

Table 9: Vehicle and Trailer Requirements for Decentralized Replenishment
MSVS Cargo → MSVS Cargo 9
HLVW PLS HLVW PLS
quadcons? No Tot: 35 vehs quadcons? No Tot: 22 vehs, 15 trls
HLVW PLS HLVW PLS
quadcons? No Tot: 35 vehs → quadcons? Yes Tot: 20 vehs, 14 trls
HLVW Cargo → HLVW Cargo 0
HLVW PLS → HLVW PLS 5
→ quadcons? Yes Tot: 31 vehs → quadcons? Yes Tot: 15 vehs, 10 trls
200 containers full of POL, rations, and mixed stores.

6. HLVW PLS, HLVW Cargo, MSVS LHS and MSVS Cargo vehicles with respective trail-
ers and carrying 200 containers or quadcons: Only 11 vehicles are required to transport all
stores. The significant change is due to the availability of the HLVW PLS vehicles whose
heavier payload capacity is ideal for carrying the heavy ammunition and ration stores. Seven
of the vehicles are HLVW PLSs, while the remaining four vehicles are MSVS variants that
are used to transport lighter POL pallets and mixed stores.
4.3 Overview of Decentralized Scenario Results

1. MSVS LHS vehicles (transporting 200 containers): Thirty five MSVS LHS vehicles were
required. All camps, with exception to Camp 1, required only one vehicle for each of the
non-ammunition commodities. Ammunition requirements for the individual camps were the
main difference in the number of vehicles. Camp 1 has a higher demand for rations and mixed
stores and requires additional LHS vehicles for transportation.
2. MSVS LHS and MSVS Cargo vehicles: The availability of MSVS Cargo vehicles did not
affect the total number of vehicles; however fifteen Cargo vehicles were used to carry the
lighter loads - minimizing wasted payload capacity.
3. MSVS LHS, MSVS Cargo vehicles along with respective trailers: Similarly to the cen-
tralized scenario, all of the non-ammunition stores were transferred onto trailers, reducing the
number of vehicles required to 22 MSVS variants pulling 15 trailers.

30
HLVW PLS
25 MSVS Cargo
7 MSVS LHS
6
20
Number of Vehicles
15
27
10 20
19
15 7
14
5
1
3
0
MSVS LHS MSVS LHS and MSVS LHS and MSVS LHS and MSVS LHS and HLVW, MSVS,
Cargo Cargo with Cargo with Cargo with Trailers and
Quadcons Trailers Trailers and Quadcons
Quadcons
Fleet Mix
Figure 3: Prime Movers Required for Centralized Replenishment
4. MSVS LHS and MSVS Cargo vehicles transporting 200 containers and quadcons: Em-
ploying quadcons allows for three of the camps to reduce the number of vehicles required.
Camps 1 and 4 deduct one vehicle, while Camp 5 - which has a minimal lift requirement for
POL and rations - reduces its number of prime movers by two. Camps 2 and 3 are indifferent
to using quadcons.
5. MSVS LHS and MSVS Cargo vehicles along with respective trailers, transporting 200
containers and quadcons: Adding quadcon capability to an MSVS fleet with trailers does
not affect the number of vehicles and trailers for Camps 2, 3, and 4. At Camp 1, commodities
can be transfered to quadcons to eliminate one vehicle and trailer. At Camp 5, one less vehicle
is required with an additional trailer however. In all, twenty MSVS variants pulling 14 trailers
are required.
6. HLVW PLS, HLVW Cargo, MSVS LHS and MSVS Cargo vehicles with respective trail-
ers and carrying 200 containers or quadcons: The extra payload capacities of HLVW PLSs
have an impact on the number of vehicles in Camps 3, 4 and 5. Camps 1 and 2 are unaffected
as the number of heavy pallets (ammunition and water) is limited and can be transported on
MSVS vehicles. A total of 15 vehicles and 10 trailers can lift the requirements in this case.
4.4 MSVS Substitution for HLVW

Though the MSVS variants have the same cargo space as HLVW variants, they have a significantly
lower weight carrying capacity. The MSVS LHS is limited to 8,000 kg compared to 16,000 kg for

40
HLVW PLS
35 MSVS Cargo
MSVS LHS
30
15 7
25
Number of Vehicles
20
35 9
8
15
24 5
10 20
4
13 12
5
6
0
Quadcons
Fleet Mix
Figure 4: Prime Movers Required for Decentralized Replenishment
the HLVW PLS, while the MSVS Cargo can carry 4,500 kg compared to 10,000 for the HLVW
Cargo. A homogeneous fleet of HLVW PLS transporting 200 ISO containers requires 15 vehicles to
lift the task force’s daily supply requirements under a centralized replenishment concept. In this case
the vehicles carrying rations and ammunition will weigh out while vehicles carrying mixed stores
bulk out. The POL stores fit easily into a HLVW PLS. To lift the same daily stores requirement with
just MSVS vehicles, 27 are needed. These additional 12 prime-movers represent an 80% increase
in vehicles. The additional vehicles are required due to the weight of rations, including water, and
ammunition. To support the task force in 5 decentralized camps a total of 25 HLVW or 35 MSVS
vehicles are required. Substituting MSVS vehicles for HLVW vehicles represents a 40% increase
in the number of vehicles.
4.5 Number of Cargo Vehicles in MSVS Fleet

As the MSVS LHS has both a larger payload and volume capacity than the MSVS Cargo variant,
the minimal fleet size of a pure MSVS fleet, in terms of number of prime-movers, can always be
achieved with a fleet consisting entirely of MSVS LHS. However, in order to have a lighter fleet of
transport vehicles, MSVS Cargo vehicles can substitute for MSVS LHS vehicles on a one for one
basis in some cases. In the centralized replenishment scenario, using only 200 containers and no
trailers, 7 of the 27 (26%) of the MSVS vehicles could be replaced by the smaller cargo variants.
Under the decentralized concept 15 of 35 (43%) of the vehicles can be replaced by MSVS Cargo.

4.6 The Effect of Quadcons
Quadcons have two competing effects on the requirement for prime-movers. The decreased cargo
capacity (16 pallets of cargo space and 3200 kg tare weight of four quadcons compared to a capacity
of 20 pallets and 2700 kg tare weight of the equivalent 200 container) is offset by the ability of a
single vehicle to transport more than one commodity group. To put the 500 kg weight difference
into perspective, it is less than the average weight of one pallet, 566 kg. Surprisingly, the results
show that the effect of using quadcons is almost equivalent for both centralized and decentralized
scenarios. It was expected that using quadcons for decentralized scenarios would provide substan-
tially more savings than for centralized scenarios. However, as seen in Table 10, using quadcons
for centralized replenishment reduces the vehicle requirement by 7% for fleet mixes of just MSVS
Cargo and LHS vehicles. For decentralized scenarios, the number of prime movers for a fleet of just
MSVS Cargo and LHS vehicles dropped from 35 to 31, a 11% decrease. In a fleet of MSVS Cargo
and LHS vehicles with trailers, the use of quadcons reduced the number of prime movers from 22
to 20, a 9% reduction in the number of vehicles (see Table 11).
Table 10: The Effect of Quadcons in Centralized Replenishment
MSVS LHS & Cargo MSVS LHS, Cargo & Trailers

type Cargo LHS # of % Cargo Cargo LHS LHS # of %
Movers Cargo Trl Trl Movers Cargo
Only 200 : 7 20 27 26% 0 0 15 12 15 0%
Both: 6 19 25 24% 0 0 14 11 14 0%
Difference in # of Prime Movers: 7% Difference in # of Prime Movers: 7%
Table 11: The Effect of Quadcons in Decentralized Replenishment
MSVS LHS & Cargo MSVS LHS, Cargo & Trailers

type Cargo LHS # % Cargo Cargo LHS LHS # %
Movers Cargo Trl Trl Movers Cargo
Only 200 : 15 20 35 43% 9 5 13 10 22 41%
Both: 7 24 31 23% 8 5 12 9 20 40%
Difference in # of Prime Movers: 11% Difference in # of Prime Movers: 9%
4.7 The Effect of Trailers

It was anticipated that using trailers would significantly decrease the number of prime-movers and
therefore drivers required to sustain a force and its logistics footprint. For centralized scenarios, the
number of prime-movers is cut nearly in half when trailers are introduced. However, for decentral-
ized scenarios, the effect is slightly less, just over one third of the vehicles can be removed.
Using trailers also changes the optimal mix between the MSVS Cargo and LHS. Since the MSVS
LHS has a higher payload capacity than the Cargo, it is more likely to carry ammunition which is
heavy in nature. When trailers are introduced, it is often the lighter, non-ammunition, pallets previ-
ously loaded on Cargo vehicles that can be transferred to the new trailers, reducing the percentage

of Cargo vehicles.
The lightest and smallest fleet of MSVS prime-movers required to support the task force is achieved
by employing both trailers and quadcons. Only 14 MSVS LHS with 11 trailers (no MSVS Cargo
variants) are necessary when trailers and quadcons are available in centralized operations. Decen-
tralized operations require 20 prime-movers, 8 MSVS Cargo, 5 with trailers, and 12 MSVS LHS
with 9 trailers to support the task force.
4.8 Sensitivity Analysis of Ammunition Requirements

The most significant factor in determining the total number of vehicles required to sustain the task
force, and distribution of variants within the fleet, is the ammunition lift requirement. Using SDH
consumption rates to represent the high consumption of war fighting operations, the daily lift re-
quirement for ammunition was 84 pallets totaling 63,647 kg of cargo. The artillery battery accounts
for 54% of the task force’s ammunition requirement. This rate of ammunition expenditure required
27 MSVS vehicles, 7 Cargo and 20 LHS to sustain the force. To study the sensitivity of the ve-
hicle distribution to ammunition usage, we analyzed the lift requirement for varying ammunition
usage rates. Figure 5 displays the results for the pure MSVS fleet for centralized replenishment.
At mid-intensity operations, 50% of the ammunition requirement, the MSVS vehicle requirements
fall from 27 to 20 with a even split of 10 MSVS LHS and 10 MSVS Cargo. At low-intensity, 10%
of the ammunition requirement, the total number of vehicles decreases to 14: 5 MSVS LHS and 9
MSVS Cargo. As expected, when the lift requirement for heavy commodities drops, the number of
vehicles with lighter payload capacity used increases.

100%
80%
60%
LHS
CARGO
40%
20%
0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of Ammunition Consumption
Figure 5: Sensitivity to Ammunition Usage Rate: % LHS vs. % Cargo

5 Analysis of Replenishment Operations
The third phase of the study analyzed the replenishment cycle, modeled using Arena Simulation
Software 10.0 [17]. The daily replenishment cycle is outlined below, followed by an explanation in
detail.
Step 1: Load vehicles/trailers at replenishment point (RP)
Step 2: Form convoy
Step 3: Road move to unit location(s)
Step 4: Unload stores
Step 5: Load retrograde stores and containers
Step 6: Reform convoy for return road move
Step 7: Road move back to RP
Step 8: Unload retrograde stores and containers
5.1 Simulation Model

Step1: Load vehicles/trailers at RP
The replenishment cycle commences when vehicles arrive at the RP. Vehicles and trailers arrive
empty and ready to be loaded. Vehicles and trailers are loaded if loading resources are available, or
wait in queue until a resource is available. Loading resources consist of forklifts (for cargo vehi-
cles/trailers) and maneuvering spaces (for container-carrying vehicles/trailers). Loading resources
are dedicated to their associated transporters. A forklift can unload pallets from a cargo vehicle, but
not from a container, and a container cannot be unloaded in the area reserved for forklift operation.
The time required to load a vehicle was obtained from 1 Service Battalion [18] and 2 Service
Battalion Transport Companies [19]. These companies polled personnel with recent operational
experience to obtain an estimate of the minimum, most likely and maximum time required to load
HLVW PLS and Cargo vehicles with and without their trailers. The average of the two units’
estimates, which were very similar, was taken (Table 12).
For cargo vehicles and trailers not loaded to bulk-carrying capacity, the loading time was multiplied
by a factor to account for the reduced time to load fewer pallets. Vehicles and trailers were con-
solidated into four groups based on the number of pallets actually loaded compared to the vehicle’s
bulk-carrying capability. A cargo vehicle loaded between 0% and 25% capacity was assumed to
take 25% of the full load time (the values in Table 12 were multiplied by 0.25). Similar scaling
was applied for vehicles loaded 26% − 50%, 51% − 75% and 76% − 100%. For each iteration, the

Table 12: Vehicle Load Times (minutes)
Minimum Most Maximum
Likely
Container onto HLVW PLS 12.5 20 35
10 pallets on HLVW Cargo 20 27.5 45
Container onto HLVW PLS 42.5 55 105
and a container onto trailer
10 pallets on a HLVW Cargo 40 57.5 105
and 10 pallets onto trailer
model selected a loading duration from a triangular distribution with the minimum time, most likely
time and the maximum time as parameters. The time to load an MSVS variant was assumed to be
equal to the load time for the equivalent HLVW variant.
The number of loading and unloading resources was kept constant throughout all scenarios in order
to allow a common base for comparison. In the centralized scenario, 10 spaces are available for
maneuvering container-carrying vehicles, both at the RP and the unit location. One space is required
to load/unload a vehicle or a vehicle and trailer combination. Five forklifts are available at both the
RP and at the unit location. A vehicle and trailer utilizes only one forklift at a time. Table 13
displays the distribution of loading and unloading resource for decentralized scenarios.
Table 13: Distribution of Load and Unload Resources for Decentralized Scenarios
Location Maneuvering Spaces Forklifts
RP 10 5
Camp 1 5 2
Camp 2 2 1
Camp 3 2 1
Camp 4 2 1
Camp 5 5 2
Step 2: Forming the convoy
Once individual vehicles are loaded they wait in queue until the last vehicle is loaded. The convoy
then departs with all vehicles required to replenish the unit(s). The packet system of road movement
was not used as a large single group of vehicles is becoming the tactical norm.
Step 3: Road move from RP to unit location(s)
The road move to the unit or sub-unit locations was set at 150 kilometers (km) in all cases. For
all iterations, the move duration was between 1.8 and 2.5 hours (hrs), randomly selected from a

uniform distribution. This represents an average speed that varies between 60 and 80 kilometers
per hour (kph). The road move distance and duration were selected by the Directorate of Land
Requirements (DLR) [20]. The presence of trailers in a convoy has an effect on the speed that a
convoy can maintain due to the additional weight being pulled by the prime mover and the increased
difficulty in maneuvering a vehicle that is hauling a trailer. If one or more of the vehicles haul a
trailer, the duration of the convoy was increased by a factor between 8 and 10%, randomly selected
from a uniform distribution. This represents the convoy having to reduce speed in order to accom-
modate the slowest vehicles. If a vehicle suffers a mechanical breakdown during the road move, the
convoy duration increases as the vehicle must be repaired in-situ or connected to another vehicle
and towed to the convoy destination. The reliability of HLVW and MSVS vehicles are significantly
different. Based on CF data, the HLVW runs 2844 km between hardware failures, while the MSVS
is projected to achieve 10, 000 km between hardware failures [21]. The probability of an equipment
failure is determined from the exponential failure distribution 3 : given the Mean Distance Between
Failure (MDBF) of a vehicle, the probability that a vehicle fails in a move of length t is
−t
F(t) = 1 − e MDBF , (2)
−t
where R(t) = e MDBF is the reliability of the vehicle. For a 150 km route, an MSVS vehicle (with
MDBF of 10, 000 km) has a probability of failure of F(150 km) = 0.0149, a 1.49% chance of
breakdown. A HLVW vehicle (with MDBF of 2844 km) has F(150 km) = 0.0514, a 5.14% chance
of breakdown during the route. The probability that one or more vehicles of a convoy break down
during the road move depends on the number of vehicles of each type. The reliability of a convoy
of vehicles is equal to the product of the reliability of individual vehicles. Hence, for a convoy with
x MSVS variants and y HLVW variants, the probability of a breakdown during a 150 km route is
−150 −150
1 − (e 10000 )x (e 2844 )y . (3)
Trailers are considered to be very mechanically reliable and were given zero probability of break-
down. The simulation imposes a delay for mechanical breakdown if the probability of a breakdown
is greater than a randomly selected number between 0 and 1. The duration of the delay varies
between 15 and 60 minutes [20], randomly selected from a uniform distribution.
In a decentralized scenario, all vehicles travel together until the convoy split point. The convoy then
separates into packets destined for the respective camps. No time delay is incurred at this point.
Step 4: Unload stores
When the convoy or packet arrives at the respective camp, the vehicles immediately commence
unloading. Vehicles are unloaded as forklifts and maneuvering spaces become available. If the
required resource is occupied, then the vehicles wait in a queue until a resource becomes free. The
time required to unload a vehicle/trailer was taken as the average of the estimates provided by the
two Service Battalion Transport Companies [19, 18] (Table 14).
3. For information on reliability theory see [22].

Table 14: Vehicle Unload Times (minutes)
Minimum Most Maximum
Likely
Container onto HLVW PLS 10 15 32.5
10 pallets on HLVW Cargo 20 30 45
Container onto HLVW PLS 45 60 90
and a container onto trailer
10 pallets on a HLVW Cargo 42.5 60 105
and 10 pallets onto trailer
Step 5: Load retrograde stores and containers
Once a vehicle/trailer is unloaded, it is reloaded with palletized retrograde stores or an empty ISO
container as applicable. All vehicles carrying ISO containers are loaded with a container to be
returned to the RP. The container may be empty. It was assumed that the amount of palletized
retrograde stores to be returned to the RP is 20% of the total palletized cargo delivered. Cargo
transporters are loaded to bulk capacity with palletized retrograde stores. Once all of the unit’s
retrograde stores are loaded, the remaining cargo vehicles remain empty after being unloaded. Once
the unloading/reloading is complete, a one hour delay is imposed on the convoy to simulate the time
required for refueling, maintenance, driver rest and feeding. The one hour delay is irrespective of
any time spent waiting to be unloaded.
Step 6: Reform convoy for return move
All vehicles wait at their respective camp until the last vehicle has completed the rest and feeding
break. Vehicles then depart the camp in a single group. In decentralized scenarios, the packets
reform a convoy when the last packet is ready to depart its camp.
Step 7: Return road move from camps to RP
The return road move mirrors the outbound road move with respect to the duration, the effect of
having one or more trailers in the convoy and the probability and delay associated with a mechanical
breakdown.
Step 8: Unloading returning vehicles/trailers at RP
Upon arrival at the RP, containers and pallets are unloaded from the vehicles. As all container-
carrying vehicles were loaded with return stores or empty containers at the camp, all must be un-
loaded. However, only the cargo vehicles/trailers that were reloaded at the camps need unloading.
The replenishment cycle ends when the last vehicle is unloaded.

5.2 Simulation Results
Each of the six different fleet mixes optimized in Section 4 were analyzed. One thousand iterations
of each scenario was run. The following statistics were captured:
– Time to load cargo pallets at RP;

– Time to load containers at RP;
– Convoy duration;
– Time to unload containers at destination and load retrograde containers;
– Time to unload cargo pallets at destination and load retrograde cargo pallets;
– Return convoy duration back to RP;
– Time to unload retrograde containers at RP;
– Time to unload retrograde palletized cargo at RP;
– Probability of a mechanical breakdown during a convoy; and
– Total replenishment cycle duration.
The time required to complete the cycle is the summation of the loading time at RP, the convoy
duration to the unit location, time spent at the unit(s), the return convoy duration to the RP and
the time to unload retrograde stores. The total time taken by the various fleets for both centralized
and decentralized scenarios is listed in Table 15. Figure 6 displays the average replenishment cycle
times. Charts and statistics for each of the separate parts of the replenishment cycle are available in
Annex F.
The simulation results point to a pure MSVS fleet of LHS and Cargo vehilces without trailers as the
optimal configuration with respect to minimizing the replenishment cycle duration. The statistics
collected back this claim for both centralized and decentralized scenarios.
The effect of loading resources
The replenishment cycle time is sensitive to the number of forklifts and maneuvering spaces. The
impact of the number of resources depends on the scenario and fleet composition. In the major-
ity of cases, the most predominant factor delaying the replenishment cycle is the waiting time for
maneuvering space for loading and unloading containers. For this reason the load times for de-
centralized operations is not necessarily longer than for centralized operations, despite requiring
more vehicles. The fleets for the decentralized scenario usually have a better balance of container
and pallet-carrying vehicles/trailers and therefore a better utilization of forklifts and maneuvering
spaces. This is demonstrated when comparing the loading times for a fleet of MSVS LHS and
Cargo vehicles with trailers and quadcons (see Table F.1 in Annex F): the centralized replenishment
requires 14 LHS vehicles and 11 LHS trailers that take an average of 2 hours to load, while the
equivalent configuration for decentralized replenishment employs a fleet of 12 LHS vehicles with 9
trailers and 8 Cargo vehicles with 5 trailers, taking 1.64 hours to load.
The impact of changing the number of resources varies depending on the fleet mix. For example,
since a fleet with HLVW PLS, MSVS LHS and Cargo vehicles with trailers, 200 containers and
quadcons requires fewer vehicles and trailers than a fleet consisting of just MSVS LHS and Cargo

Table 15: Replenishment Cycle Duration (hrs) for Fleet Mixes
Fleet Mix Central Decentral Fleet Mix Central Decentral
MSVS Cargo → MSVS Cargo
& trailer → & trailer
→ MSVS LHS avg: 10.19 12.12 → MSVS LHS avg: 14.50 16.32
& trailer min: 9.11 10.62 → & trailer min: 12.82 14.61
HLVW Cargo max: 12.03 14.20 HLVW Cargo max: 16.81 18.56
HLVW PLS HLVW PLS
quadcons? No quadcons? No
→ MSVS Cargo → MSVS Cargo
HLVW PLS HLVW PLS
quadcons? No → quadcons? Yes
HLVW Cargo max: 10.50 13.42 → HLVW Cargo max: 13.37 14.22
HLVW PLS → HLVW PLS
→ quadcons? Yes → quadcons? Yes
18.0
Centralized
Decentralized
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
Hours
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Fleet Mix Quadcons
Figure 6: Average Replenishment Cycle Time (hrs)

vehicles, 15 to 27, it is less affected by decreasing the number of loading resources. This is depicted
in Figure 7.
14.00
HLVW PLS and Cargo, MSVS LHS and Cargo
MSVS LHS and Cargo with 20' Containers
with Trailers with 20'
Containers and
Quadcons
12.39
12.00 12.03
11.66
11.32 11.32
Hours
10.00
9.07
8.89
8.00
7.84
6.00
Infinite 12 Spaces 10 Spaces 5 Spaces
Resources 4 Forklifts 5 Forklifts 2 Forklifts
Loading Resources
Figure 7: Example of Sensitivity of RP Load Times (hrs) to the Number of Resources
The effect of trailers
A dominant factor, when comparing the cycle duration of different fleet mixes, is the use of trailers.
Adding trailer capability can increase cycle duration by 50%, representing five more hours in some
cases. This is partly due to the fact that it takes longer to load containers onto a vehicle and trailer
than onto two vehicles, one after the other: a vehicle hauling a trailer must first unhitch its trailer,
then unload the vehicle container, then realign with the trailer to unload the trailer’s container.
Also, the lower weight limit on trailers results in more containers being needed which lengthens the
loading process. For centralized replenishment, the load times increase from an average of 0.93 to
2.15 hours if trailers are included in a fleet mix of MSVS LHS and Cargo vehicles. Decentralized
loading time increases from an average of 0.92 to 2.92 hours when trailers are included in a fleet mix
of MSVS LHS and Cargo vehicles. The use of trailers also significantly lengthens the time it takes
to unload and reload stores and containers. Including trailers in a fleet of MSVS LHS and Cargo
vehicles with both 200 containers and quadcons increases the average unload/reload time from 2.48
to 6.08 hours, a 145% increase.
As depicted in Table 16, including trailers in the MSVS LHS and Cargo vehicle fleet reduces the
probability of a failure from 0.32 to 0.21, or 34%, for centralized replenishment and from 0.42 to
0.32, or 24%, for the decentralized scenario. However, the increase in reliability is overshadowed
by reduced convoy speed. The presence of one or more trailers in the convoy reduces the speed of
the convoy by between 8 and 10%. The top three fleet mixes with shortest cycle time do not include
trailers.

Table 16: Probability of Breakdown for Different Fleet Mixes
Fleet Composition Centralized Decentralized
MSVS LHS 0.32 0.42
MSVS Cargo and MSVS LHS 0.32 0.42
MSVS Cargo, MSVS LHS 0.21 0.32
and trailers
MSVS Cargo, MSVS LHS 0.32 0.40
and quadcons
MSVS Cargo, MSVS LHS, 0.20 0.27
trailers and quadcons
MSVS Cargo, MSVS LHS, 0.35 0.35
HLVW Cargo, HLVW PLS,

6 The Optimal Mix
The optimal fleet configuration to replenish a deployed task force should minimize the number of
vehicles, minimize replenishment cycle time, and have a minimal probability of breakdown.
6.1 Criteria
Number of prime movers
In order to maximize the operational capability of a deployed task force and minimize the time
required to deploy the task force overseas, the logistics footprint must be kept to the minimum
possible. The logistics footprint consists of all the combat service support personnel, equipment,
and supplies required to sustain the task force. Reducing the number of vehicles and drivers is the
most effective way to reduce the logistics footprint. Trailers have a significantly smaller impact on
the logistics footprint than prime movers.
Replenishment cycle time
The replenishment cycle is timed from the commencement of loading at the RP until the last vehicle
or trailer is unloaded at the RP. The duration of the replenishment cycle is the major factor affecting
transportation operations. Longer replenishment cycles increases the demand on drivers. Transport
Directive 309 [23] limits the duty day of drivers to 16 hours - the maximum time allowable to
complete the replenishment in one day.
Probability of breakdown
The reliability of a vehicle fleet was measured by the probability that there would be a mechanical
failure during a 150 km convoy to the unit location(s).
Since these are competing objectives, a weighted average of the three criteria was used. Each fleet
mix was assigned a rating in each criterion based on a five point scale. The scores are based on
relative performance. The range between the best performance and the least desirable performance
was divided into five sub-ranges for the score. A weighted average was then taken to determine the
optimal fleet mix. The criteria and their weighting, approved by Project Director MSVS Project,
are detailed in Table 17.
6.2 Ranking of Fleet Mixes

The raw and weighted average scores for the six fleet mixes are contained in Tables 18 and 19.
For centralized replenishment operations, the optimal fleet mix consists of MSVS LHS and MSVS
Cargo vehicles with trailers, 200 containers and quadcons. This fleet mix received maximum points

Table 17: Scoring Criteria
Score # of Prime Cycle Prob. of
Movers Duration (hrs) Breakdown
Weight: 5 3 2
Best Possible 5 < 15 <9 < 0.20
Above Average 4 16 − 20 9 − 10.5 0.21 − 0.25
Average 3 21 − 25 10.5 − 12 0.25 − 0.30
Below Average 2 26 − 30 12 − 13.5 0.31 − 0.35
Least Desirable 1 > 30 > 13.6 > 0.36
for minimizing the number of prime movers and reliability. The second best fleet mix consisted
of HLVW PLS, MSVS Cargo and LHS variants, trailers and both 200 containers and quadcons.
While this fleet consists of fewer vehicles than a pure MSVS fleet, the lower reliability of the
HLVW makes this a less desirable fleet due to increased frequency of breakdowns. The top two fleet
mixes for centralized replenishment are also the top two for decentralized replenishment operations,
but in reverse order. The fleet of HLVW and MSVS variants with trailers carrying 200 containers
and quadcons performs better in decentralized operation than a pure MSVS fleet. This is because
the number of HLVWs make up a smaller portion of the fleet and therefore there is a less drastic
difference in reliability scoring between the two fleets.
Table 18: Rating of Fleet Mixes for Centralized Replenishment Operations
Weighted Avg. Score
Weighted Ranking
# Prime Movers
Cycle Duration
Raw Ranking
Raw Score
Reliability
Criteria Weight: 5 3 2
MSVS LHS 2 3 2 7 6 23 6
MSVS Cargo and MSVS LHS 2 4 2 8 5 26 5
MSVS Cargo, MSVS LHS 5 1 4 10 2 36 3
and trailers
and quadcons
MSVS Cargo, MSVS LHS, 5 2 5 12 1 41 1
The number of MSVS Cargo variants in the optimal fleets is the maximum possible without increas-

Table 19: Rating of Fleet Mixes for Decentralized Replenishment Operations
Weighted Avg. Score
Weighted Ranking
# Prime Movers
Cycle Duration
Raw Ranking
Raw Score
Reliability
Criteria Weight: 5 3 2
MSVS LHS 1 2 1 4 6 13 5
MSVS Cargo and MSVS LHS 1 3 1 5 4 16 4
and trailers
and quadcons
ing the total number of prime movers. The distribution between MSVS Cargo and LHS vehicles is
dependent on the replenishment scenario and whether HLVW PLS are used to transport stores. The
distribution between the MSVS variants for the top two ranked fleet mixes are presented in Table
20.
Table 20: Percentage of MSVS Variants in Top Ranked Fleet Mixes
Scenario Fleet MSVS Cargo MSVS LHS
Centralized HLVW and MSVS variants 25% 75%
with trailers and quadcons
Centralized MSVS variants 0% 100%
Decentralized HLVW and MSVS variants 40% 60%
Decentralized MSVS variants 40% 60%
The ranking of the various fleet mixes is not sensitive to criteria weighting. When all criteria are
given equal weighting, the top two fleets in each scenario remain the same.

7 Conclusion
This study addressed the question of determining the optimal mix of SMP MSVS variants; the 8
ton Load Handling System (LHS) and the 4.5 ton Cargo, required for the resupply of first line units.
The sponsor selected a 1403 person task force engaged in high intensity war fighting operations
as a representative unit. To represent possible future deployments, two scenarios were studied.
First a centralized replenishment concept, where all sub-units were co-located on one camp. A
decentralized concept, were sub-units were dispersed to five separate camps, was also studied.
The optimal mix of MSVS variants was determined via a four phase model.
Phase 1: The weight and volume of the daily stores requirement needed to sustain the task force
was calculated using Staff Data Handbook consumption rates for the NATO supply classes.
Phase 2: An integer linear program model was solved to compute the minimum number of vehicles
required to lift supplies. Various fleet mixes consisting of differing combinations of HLVW
and MSVS variants, trailers and container types were considered.
Phase 3: Using the ILP results, the impact on replenishment operations of the different fleet mixes
was analyzed by developing a simulation model.
Phase 4: Multi-criteria decision analysis determined the optimal fleet mix that minimizes the lo-
gistics footprint and maximizes the efficiency of replenishment operations based on criteria
evaluation weights provided by the sponsor.
Each phase of the model is highly dependent on the results of the previous phases, especially on the
daily stores requirement calculated in Phase 1.
The vehicles, trailers and containers that were included in this analysis were:
MSVS LHS, MSVS Cargo, HLVW PLS, HLVW Cargo,

MSVS LHS trailer, MSVS Cargo trailer,
200 ISO container, and quadcons.
The optimization model and simulation model are built to handle any vehicle configuration. The
following six fleet mixes were considered for analysis in particular:
1. MSVS LHS vehicle carrying 200 ISO containers.

2. MSVS Cargo and MSVS LHS vehicles carrying 200 ISO containers.
3. MSVS Cargo and MSVS LHS vehicles and their trailers carrying 200 ISO containers.
4. MSVS Cargo and MSVS LHS vehicles carrying 200 ISO containers or quadcons.
5. MSVS Cargo and MSVS LHS vehicles and their trailers carrying 200 ISO containers or quad-
cons.
6. HLVW Cargo, HLVW PLS, MSVS Cargo, MSVS LHS vehicles and their trailers, 200 ISO
containers or quadcons.

The daily supply requirements were calculated using Staff Data Handbook consumption rates for
high intensity operations in order to have a worse case scenario. In total, the task force’s daily
lift requirement was 118,894 kg. Stores were divided into four compatibility groups based on
NATO classes of supply: rations, packaged POL, ammunition, and mixed stores (which consisted
of engineer and defensive stores, general and technical stores, amenities, repair parts, medical &
dental stores and postal requirements). As all stores were assumed to be palletized, 210 pallets were
transported each day for centralized replenishment operations and 231 pallets when the task force
was decentralized. Ammunition made up a significant portion of the lift requirement, with 63,647
kg on 84 pallets being required each day. The artillery battery required 54% of the ammunition.
The minimal number of vehicles, trailers and containers required to load all stores, while respect-
ing the compatibility constraints, varied considerably depending on the fleet mix and replenishment
scenario. The HLVW PLS’s large payload capacity makes it essential to achieving the smallest pos-
sible fleet size. For centralized replenishment, the smallest fleet of vehicles was 11 prime movers:
7 HLVW PLS, 1 MSVS Cargo and 3 MSVS LHS with a total of 4 trailers and employing both 200
containers or quadcons. For decentralized replenishment, the minimum number rose to 15 prime
movers: 5 HLVW PLS, 6 MSVS LHS, 4 MSVS Cargo and 10 MSVS trailers. The optimization
results revealed the following notable observations:
– The main factor driving the number of vehicles was the ammunition requirement.
– The use of quadcons reduces the number of prime movers by around 10% regardless of the
replenishment scenario.
– Using trailers can eliminate the need for about half of the vehicles for centralized replenishment,
however only by about a third in the decentralized scenario.
– MSVS Cargo vehicles are utilized more in decentralized scenarios where vehicle payloads are
lighter. The distribution between LHS and Cargo variants is sensitive to the consumption rates of
heavy commodities.
– HLVW Cargo vehicles are not selected in optimal vehicle mixes as their payload and bulk capac-
ity is dominated by either MSVS LHS or HLVW Palletized Loading System (PLS) vehicles.
To analyze the effects of the various fleet mixes on replenishment operations, Arena software was
used to build a simulation model of the replenishment cycle. The model consisted of loading ve-
hicles and trailers at the replenishment point, conducting the road move to the unit location(s),
unloading stores at the destination and reloading return stores, the return road move back to the
RP and finally the unloading of vehicles and trailers. To load or unload vehicles and trailers, load-
ing resources consisting of a limited number of maneuvering spaces and forklifts. The simulations
revealed the following notable observations:
– A pure MSVS fleet consisting of LHS and Cargo variants without trailers results in the quickest
replenishment cycle time for both centralized and decentralized scenarios.
– For centralized replenishment, cycle duration ranged from an average of 8.96 hours for a fleet of
MSVS LHS and Cargo vehicles to 13.99 hours for an MSVS LHS and Cargo fleet with trailers.
– For decentralized operations the cycle took between an average of 10.54 hours for an MSVS LHS
and Cargo vehicle fleet to 16.32 hours if trailers were included in the fleet mix.
– Despite requiring more vehicles, decentralized operations do not necessarily have a longer cycle
duration than the centralized scenario.
– Trailers are the most significant factor affecting the replenishment cycle time. Including trailers

results in a 50% increase in cycle time - over 5 extra hours in some cases.
– Trailers increase convoy reliability by at least 20%. (This can be attributed to the assumption
that trailers are mechanically very reliable. Under this assumption, a vehicle and trailer is more
reliable than two vehicles.)
To determine the optimal fleet mix, three criteria were used to determine a weighted average score.
In descending order of importance they were:
1. Number of prime movers required;

2. Replenishment cycle time; and
3. Probability of breakdown.
The top two ranked fleet mixes were the same for both centralized and decentralized replenishment
operations. The fleet of MSVS LHS and Cargo with trailers and 200 containers and quadcons
performed best under centralized replenishment. The fleet of HLVW and MSVS variants (25%
Cargo) with trailers, 200 containers and quadcons was a close second. The top two performing fleets
were in reverse order in the decentralized scenario. Here the maximum percentage of cargo vehicles
was 40%.
The optimal distribution between the MSVS Cargo and LHS variants is dependent on the replen-
ishment concept and whether HLVW PLS are used to transport task vehicles. In decentralized
replenishment, the maximum percentage of MSVS Cargo for replenishment of first line units is
40%. Under a centralized replenishment concept, if HLVW PLS vehicles are used as task vehicles,
then the maximum percentage of cargo variants in the MSVS fleet should be 25%. If HLVW PLS
vehicles are not used, then an all MSVS LHS fleet is optimal.

References
[1] Canadian Department of National Defence (2003), Statement of Operational Requirements
00002346 Medium Support Vehicle System.
[2] Desmier, P.E. (2004), Estimating the Reliability of the Medium Logisitics Vehicle Wheeled
(MLVW), (Research Note RN 2004/03) ORD, Directorate of Operational Research
(Corporate), Ottawa, Canada.
[3] Canada First Defence Procurement - Medium-Sized Logistics Trucks (online),
www. f orces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id = 1961 (Access Date: June 27,
2006).
[4] Desmier, P.E. (2005), DMGOR Responses to Call Letter FY 05/06.
[5] Arseneau, L. and Taylor, I. (2001), A Methodology For Determining Cost-Effective Land
Force Vehicles, (Technical Report RN 2001/05) Directorate of Operations Research (Joint).
[6] United States Department of Defence (January 1997), JP 4-01.7 Joint Tactics Techniques and
Procedures for Use of Intermodal Containers in Joint Operations (online),
www.dtic.mil/doctrine/ jel/new_ pubs/ j p4_01_7.pd f .
[7] F.T. Bognar, Dangerous Goods Policies, Directorate Supply Chain Operations, E-mail:
Transportation of Dangerous Good in Quadcons, 07-21-2006.
[8] Director Ammunition Program Management (2005), C-09-153-001/TS-000, Ammunition
and Explosive Safety Manual Volume 1, Storage and Transportation Edition: BASIC C/W
CH 001.
[9] Maj. A.R. Haines, DMGSP, E-mail: Ammunition Transportation, 04-07-2006.
[10] Director Land Strategic Concepts (2003), Future Force Concepts for Future Army
Capabilities, Chapter 11 (online),
armyonline.kingston.mil.ca/LFDT S/143000440015374/FPAC_ENG.PDF.
[11] Maj. Fitzsimmons, J4 Task Force Afghanistan, E-mail: Material for Non-military Programs,
Lift Requirements, Fri 04-21-2006.
[12] Department National Defence, Staff Data Handbook, B-GL-303-004/AF-001, Chapter 6.
[13] J4 Ammo (2005), C-74-300-D01/TA-000, Ammunition and Explosives Technical
Information Ammunition - Logistical Data.
[14] Wolsey, L.A. (1998), Integer Programming, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[15] K., Thorsten (2004), Rapid Mathematical Programming, Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität
Berlin. ZIB-Report 04-58.
[16] CPLEX Version 6.0, ILOG CPLEX Division, Incline Village, Nevada.
htt p : //www.cplex.com/.
[17] Arena Simulation Software 10.0, Rockwell Software Inc.
htt p : //www.arenasimulation.com/.
[18] Captain S.J. Brinkema, Transport Company 1 Service Battalion, E-mail: HLVW PLS
Loading and Unloading Times, 04-04-2006.
[19] Maj. S.L. Hart, Transport and Administration Company 2 Service Battalion, E-mail: HLVW
PLS Loading and Unloading Times, 03-10-2006.

[20] Maj. Morin, Director Land Requirements 6-2, Personal Communication, April 2006.
[21] Maj. Morin, Director Land Requirements 6-2, E-mail: Mean Times Between Failures MSVS
Study, 04-26-2006.
[22] Blischke, W.R. and Murty, D.N.P. (2000), Reliability, Modeling, Prediction, and
Optimization, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[23] DLBM/TM 5 (2006), Transportion Manual, Directive 309, Control of Drivers’ Hours.

Annex A: Consumption Rates and Lift Requirements
The consumption rates in Table A.1 are based on the Electronic Battle Box [12] usage rates for
operations within a Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group context.
Table A.1: Task Force Daily Consumption (kg/day) (Less Ammunition)
Commodity Centralized Decentralized

NATO Class Name Usage Camp 1 Camp 2 Camp 3 Camp 4 Camp 5
Supply Rates
Class (kg/man/day)
Personnel 1403 577 204 202 234 186
Strength:
I Cbt 4.98 6986.94 2873.46 1015.92 1005.96 1165.32 926.28
Rations
I Water 13.97 19599.91 8060.69 2849.88 2821.94 2598.42 2598.42
III POL 2.8 3928.4 1615.6 571.2 565.6 520.8 520.8
Packaged
IV Engr Stores 6.3 8838.9 3635.1 1285.2 1272.6 1171.8 1171.8
(Construction)
IV Def Stores 4.3 6032.9 2481.1 877.2 868.6 799.8 799.8
(Barrier)
II G &T 2.9 4068.7 1673.3 591.6 585.8 539.4 539.4
VI Amenities 1.5 2104.5 865.5 306 303 279 279
VIII Med & 0.76 1066.28 438.52 155.04 153.52 141.36 141.36
Dental
IX Repair Parts 0.07 98.21 40.39 14.28 14.14 13.02 13.02
Postal 0.25 350.75 144.25 51 50.5 46.5 46.5
All supplies were palletized in standard NATO pallets. Items were segregated by NATO supply
classes and could not be mixed on a pallet.

Table A.2: Task Force Daily Lift Requirement (Standard NATO Pallets) (Less Ammunition)
Commodity Centralized Decentralized
NATO Class Name Weight/ Camp 1 Camp 2 Camp 3 Camp 4 Camp 5
Supply pallet
Class (kg)
I Cbt 698 11 5 2 2 2 2
Rations
I Water 900 22 9 4 4 3 3
III POL 425 10 4 2 2 2 2
Packaged
IV Engr Stores 544 17 7 3 3 3 3
(Construction)
IV Def Stores 288 21 9 4 4 3 3
(Barrier)
II G&T 300 14 6 2 2 2 2
VI Amenities 150 15 6 3 3 2 2
VIII Medical & 100 11 5 2 2 2 2
Dental
IX Repair Parts 500 1 1 1 1 1 1
Postal 100 4 2 1 1 1 1
Total 126 54 24 24 21 21

Annex B: Ammunition Requirements
Ammunition Packing Details
Ammunition Type AIC Rounds/box Box/pallet Rounds/pallet kg/pallet
25 mm HEI A975 30 42 1260 1099
25 mm APFSDS 0103 30 42 1260 987
76mm Smoke Grenade 0303 24 15 360 635
7.62 4B1T Linked 0047 880 27 23760 1155
0.50 Cal A557 200 27 5400 969
9 mm A360 2880 24 69120 1076
5.56 mm Ball 0086 910 72 65520 1095
5.56 4B1T Linked A064 1600 32 51200 1176
M-72 H557 15 3 45 271
Carl G HEAT 0636 6 9 54 335
Carl G Smk 0636 6 9 54 335
Carl G Illum 0636 6 9 54 335
Eryx 9815 1 4 4 122
ALAAWS Missile 9815 1 4 4 122
40 mm Gren HE B546 72 27 1944 714
41 mm Gren VT B546 72 27 1944 714
60mm mort HE 1031 4 60 240 701
60mm Ill 1033 4 64 256 828
60mm smole 1045 4 60 240 668
81mm mort HE 0584 3 64 192 1004
81mm smoke 0650 3 54 162 1003
81mm illum 0651 3 54 162 872
How 105 C444 2 20 40 995
155mm propellant 1514 1 20 20 380
155 HEDP, ICM D563 8 3 24 1191
155 HE D544 8 3 24 1087
155 Illum D505 8 3 24 1083
155 smoke D506 8 3 24 1086
TOW II PB93 1 12 12 531
ADATS 9810 1 4 4 680
105 Tank APFSDS 0635 2 10 20 680
105 HESH 0550 1 16 16 673
105 Smoke C512 2 15 30 1010
Data Source: Ammunition and Explosives Technical Information Publication, C-74-300-D01/TA-000
AIC is Ammunition Interchangability Code
Armoured Reconnaissance Squadron

2 x 4 76 mm smoke
grenade co-axial 7.62 mmn &
Weapon 25 mm M242 Cannon dischargers C6 anit-aircraft C6 MG Pistol C8 Eryx HMG
5.56
76 mm Smoke 7.62 4B1T mm
Ammunition HEI APFSDS Grenade Linked 7.62 4B1T Linked 9mm Ball Eryx .50 Cal 60mm HE
WLAV LAV III CP 1 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV LAV III ISC(Gun Tractor) 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV COYOTE RECCE W/GRD
MTD SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM 4 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV COYOTE RECCE W/MAST
MTD SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV COYOTE COMMAND 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV MRT 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV Engr Recce 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV LAV III BC/FOO/MFC 150 180 3 587 587
MARV 4 3 400
MMEV (ADATS)
TUA (TOW II)
MGS (105)
Launcher; Grenade 40 mm (M203A1)
Pistol 9mm; Browning 6 9
Rifle Assault (C7)
Rifle Carabine (C8) 84 67
GPMG Coax Mtd (C6) 587
SRAAWL (M72)
SRAAW (M2) Carl G
Eyrx 4 1
ALAWS
LMG (C9A1)
GPMG Flex (C6) 8 587
HMG 50 Cal 400
Mortars 60mm 5
Mortars 80mm
Howitzer 155
Total Rounds 750 900 27 7627 2933 54 5600 4 1600 0
Rounds per Pallet 1260 1260 360 51200 51200 69120 65520 4 5400 240
Kg/pallet 1099 987 635 1155 1155 1076 1095 122 969 701
Number Pallets 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Total Pallets 2.973
Aveage Pallet Weight 722.610

38
Artillery Battery
2 x 4 76
mm smoke co-axial 7.62
25 mm M242 grenade mmn & anti-
Weapons Cannon dischargers C6 aircraft C6 MG Pistol C7 C9 Carl G CASW
Smoke 7.62 4B1T 7.62 4B1T 5.56 mm 5.56 4B1T 40 mm 81mm 81mm 81mm 155mm 155mm 155mm 155mm 155mm How
Ammunition HEI APFSDS Grenade Linked Linked 9mm Ball Linked HEAT Gren HE .50 Cal HE Smoke illum Propellent How He How Illum How Smoke DPICM
WLAV LAV III CP 6 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV LAV III ISC(Gun Tractor) 7 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV COYOTE RECCE W/GRD MTD
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM 150 180 3 587 587
MTD SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV MRT 1 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV Engr Recce 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV LAV III BC/FOO/MFC 3 150 180 3 587 587
MARV 3 400
MMEV (ADATS)
TUA (TOW II)
MGS (105)
Launcher; Grenade 40 mm (M203A1) 4 30
Rifle Assault (C7) 162 67
Rifle Carabine (C8)
SRAAWL (M72)
SRAAW (M2) Carl G 8 1
Eyrx
ALAWS
LMG (C9A1) 8 500
HMG 50 Cal 4 400
Mortars 60mm
Mortars 80mm 3 40 10 6
Howitzer 155 6 68 36 5 16 11
Total Rounds 2550 3060 51 12320 9973 117 10800 4000 8 120 1600 120 30 18 408 216 30 96 66
Rounds per Pallet 1260 1260 360 51200 51200 69120 65520 38400 54 1944 5400 192 162 162 20 24 24 24 24
Kg/pallet 1099 987 635 1155 1155 1076 1095 1063 335 714 969 1004 1003 874 380 1087 1083 1086 1191
Number Pallets 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 20 9 1 4 3
Total Pallets 44
Average Pallet Weight 755

Task Force Headquarters Squadron
2 x 4 76 mm co-axial 7.62
smoke grenade mmn & anit-
Weapon 25 mm M242 Cannon dischargers C6 aircraft C6 MG Pistol C7 C9 Carl G Eryx 60 mm Mortar
Ammunition 76 mm Smoke 7.62 4B1T 7.62 4B1T 5.56 mm 5.56 4B1T 60mm 60 mm

Type HEI APFSDS Grenade Linked Linked 9mm Ball Linked HEAT Eryx 60mm HE Smoke Illum
WLAV LAV III CP 14 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV LAV III ISC 4 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV COYOTE RECCE W/GRD MTD
WLAV COYOTE RECCE W/MAST MTD
WLAV Engr Recce 150 180 3 587 587
MARV 3
MMEV (ADATS)
TUA (TOW II)
MGS (105)
Launcher; Grenade 40 mm (M203A1)
Rifle Carabine (C8)
SRAAWL (M72)
Eyrx 1 1
ALAWS
LMG (C9A1) 9 500
HMG 50 Cal
Mortars 80mm
Howitzer 155
Total Rounds 2700 3240 54 11147 10560 342 8400 4500 2 1 5 5 8
Rounds per Pallet 1260 1260 360 51200 51200 69120 65520 38400 54 4 240 240 256
Kg/pallet 1099 987 635 1155 1155 1076 1095 1063 335 122 701 668 828
Number Pallets 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Pallets 6
39
Chemical Nuclear Radiation Biological Platoon
co-axial 7.62 mmn &

Weapon C6 anit-aircraft C6 MG Pistol C7 C9 Carl G
7.62 5.56
4B1T 4B1T
Ammunition Linked 7.62 4B1T Linked 9mm 5.56 mm Ball Linked HEAT
WLAV LAV III CP 587 587
WLAV LAV III ISC(Gun Tractor) 587 587

WLAV COYOTE RECCE
W/GRD MTD SURVEILLANCE
SYSTEM 587 587
WLAV COYOTE RECCE
W/MAST MTD SURVEILLANCE
SYSTEM 587 587
WLAV COYOTE COMMAND 587 587
WLAV MRT 587 587
WLAV Engr Recce 587 587
WLAV LAV III BC/FOO/MFC 587 587
MARV
MMEV (ADATS)
TUA (TOW II)
MGS (105)
Launcher; Grenade 40 mm
(M203A1)
Rifle Carabine (C8)
SRAAWL (M72)
Eyrx
ALAWS
LMG (C9A1) 6 500
HMG 50 Cal
Mortars 60mm
Mortars 80mm
Howitzer 155
Total Rounds 3520 0 18 2933 3000 2
Rounds per Pallet 51200 51200 69120 65520 38400 54
Kg/pallet 1155 1155 1076 1095 1063 335
Number Pallets 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Pallets 0
Average Pallet 979
Combat Service Support Company

co-axial 7.62 mmn
2 x 4 76 mm smoke & anit-aircraft C6
Weapon 25 mm M242 Cannon grenade dischargers C6 MG Pistol C7 C9 Carl G HMG
76 mm Smoke 7.62 4B1T 5.56 4B1T
Ammunition HEI APFSDS Grenade Linked 7.62 4B1T Linked 9mm 5.56 mm Ball Linked HEAT .50 Cal
WLAV LAV III CP 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV LAV III ISC(Gun
Tractor) 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV COYOTE RECCE
W/GRD MTD
WLAV COYOTE RECCE
W/MAST MTD
WLAV COYOTE
COMMAND 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV MRT 3 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV Engr Recce 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV LAV III
BC/FOO/MFC 150 180 3 587 587
MARV 3 400
MMEV (ADATS)
TUA (TOW II)
MGS (105)
(M203A1)
Rifle Carabine (C8)
SRAAWL (M72)
Eyrx
ALAWS
LMG (C9A1) 15 500
HMG 50 Cal 2 400
Mortars 60mm
Mortars 80mm
Howitzer 155
Total Rounds 450 540 9 8800 1760 135 8867 7500 4 800
Rounds per Pallet 1260 1260 360 51200 51200 69120 65520 38400 54 5400
Kg/pallet 1099 987 635 1155 1155 1076 1095 1063 335 969
Number Pallets 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Pallets 1.572
Average Pallet 1015.325

Direct Fire Squadron
2 x 4 76 mm smoke co-axial 7.62 mmn &

Weapon 25 mm M242 Cannon grenade dischargers C6 anit-aircraft C6 MG Pistol C8 ADATS TOW II 105mm Gun
76 mm Smoke 7.62 4B1T 5.56 mm 105 MM 105

Ammunition HEI APFSDS Grenade Linked 7.62 4B1T Linked 9mm Ball ADATS TOW II APFSDS 105 HESH Smoke
WLAV LAV III CP 9 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV LAV III ISC 1 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV COYOTE RECCE
W/GRD MTD
WLAV COYOTE RECCE
W/MAST MTD

WLAV MRT 4 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV Engr Recce 150 180 3 587 587

MARV 3
MMEV (ADATS) 6 5
TUA (TOW II) 4 4
MGS (105) 4 12 7 2
(M203A1)
Rifle Assault (C7)
Rifle Carabine (C8) 134 67
SRAAWL (M72)
SRAAW (M2) Carl G
Eyrx
ALAWS
LMG (C9A1)
GPMG Flex (C6) 587
HMG 50 Cal
Mortars 60mm
Mortars 80mm
Howitzer 155
Total Rounds 2100 2520 42 8213 8213 90 8933 30 16 48 28 8
Rounds per Pallet 1260 1260 360 51,200 51,200 69120 65520 4 12 20 16 30
Kg/pallet 1099 987 635 1155 1155 1076 1095 680 531 680 673 1010
Number Pallets 1.667 2.000 0.117 0.160 0.160 0.001 0.136 7.500 1.333 2.400 1.750 0.267
Total Pallets 17.492
Average Pallet 759.675
Engineer Sqadron (Minus Field Troops)

25 mm
M242 2 x 4 76 mm smoke co-axial 7.62 mmn &
Weapon Cannon grenade dischargers C6 anit-aircraft C6 MG Pistol C7 C9
76 mm Smoke 7.62 4B1T 5.56 mm

Ammunition HEI APFSDS Grenade Linked 7.62 4B1T Linked 9mm Ball 5.56 4B1T Linked
WLAV LAV III CP 7 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV LAV III ISC(Gun
Tractor) 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV COYOTE RECCE
W/GRD MTD
WLAV COYOTE RECCE
W/MAST MTD
WLAV COYOTE
COMMAND 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV MRT 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV Engr Recce 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV LAV III
BC/FOO/MFC 150 180 3 587 587
MARV 3
MMEV (ADATS)
TUA (TOW II)
MGS (105)
(M203A1)
Rifle Carabine (C8)
GPMG Coax Mtd (C6) 2 587
SRAAWL (M72)
SRAAW (M2) Carl G
Eyrx
ALAWS
LMG (C9A1) 8 500
HMG 50 Cal
Mortars 60mm
Mortars 80mm
Howitzer 155
Total Rounds 1050 1260 21 6453 5280 45 2933 4000
Rounds per Pallet 1260 1260 360 51200 51200 69120 65520 38400
Kg/pallet 1099 987 635 1155 1155 1076 1095 1063
Number Pallets 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Pallets 2
Average Pallets 1042

Field Troop
co-axial 7.62 mmn
25 mm M242 2 x 4 76 mm smoke & anit-aircraft C6
Weapon Cannon grenade dischargers C6 MG Pistol C7 Carl G
Ammunition HEI APFSDS 76 mm Smoke Grenade 7.62 4B1T Linked 7.62 4B1T Linked 9mm 5.56 mm Ball HEAT .50 Cal
WLAV LAV III CP 2 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV LAV III ISC(Gun Tractor) 4 150 180 3 587 587

WLAV COYOTE RECCE
SYSTEM 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV COYOTE RECCE
W/MAST MTD SURVEILLANCE
SYSTEM 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV MRT 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV Engr Recce 150 180 3 587 587
MARV 3 400
MMEV (ADATS)
TUA (TOW II)
MGS (105)
(M203A1)
Rifle Carabine (C8)
SRAAWL (M72)
Eyrx
ALAWS
LMG (C9A1)
HMG 50 Cal 2 400
Mortars 60mm
Mortars 80mm
Howitzer 155
Total Rounds 900 1080 18 4693 3520 9 2933 2 800
Rounds per Pallet 1260 1260 360 51200 51200 69120 65520 54 5400
Kg/pallet 1099 987 635 1155 1155 1076 1095 335 969
Number Pallets 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Pallets 2.012
Average Pallet Weight 1020.491
LAV Ambulance Platoon

Weapon Pistol C7
5.56 mm
Ammunition 9mm Ball
WLAV LAV III CP
WLAV LAV III ISC(Gun Tractor)
WLAV COYOTE RECCE W/GRD

MTD SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM

MTD SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
WLAV COYOTE COMMAND
WLAV MRT
WLAV Engr Recce
WLAV LAV III BC/FOO/MFC
MARV
MMEV (ADATS)
TUA (TOW II)
MGS (105)
(M203A1)
Rifle Carabine (C8)
GPMG Coax Mtd (C6)
SRAAWL (M72)
SRAAW (M2) Carl G
Eyrx
ALAWS
LMG (C9A1)
GPMG Flex (C6)
HMG 50 Cal
Mortars 60mm
Mortars 80mm
Howitzer 155
Total Rounds 9 5000
Rounds per Pallet 69120 65520
Kg/pallet 1076 1095
Number Pallets 0.000 0.076
Total Pallets 0.076
Average Pallet Weight 1094.968

Light Infantry Company
Weapon C6 Pistol C7 C9 Carl G Eryx CASW 60 mm Mortar
Ammunition 7.62 4B1T 9mm 5.56 mm Ba5.56 4B1T HEAT Eryx 40 mm Gre .50 Cal 60mm HE 60mm Smo60 mm Illum
WLAV LAV III CP
WLAV LAV III ISC 587
WLAV COYOTE RECCE

W/GRD MTD
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM 587
WLAV COYOTE RECCE

W/MAST MTD
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM 587
WLAV COYOTE
COMMAND 587
WLAV MRT 587
WLAV Engr Recce 587
WLAV LAV III
BC/FOO/MFC 587
MARV 400
MMEV (ADATS)
TUA (TOW II)
MGS (105)
(M203A1) 5 30
Rifle Carabine (C8)
GPMG Coax Mtd (C6)
SRAAWL (M72)
Eyrx 13 1
ALAWS
LMG (C9A1) 20 500
HMG 50 Cal 2 400
Mortars 80mm
Howitzer 155
Total Rounds 4693 63 8667 10000 4 13 150 800 20 20 32
Rounds per Pallet 51200 69120 65520 38400 54 4 1944 5400 240 240 256
Kg/pallet 1155 1076 1095 1063 335 122 714 969 701 668 828
Number Pallets 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
Total Pallets 4
Mechanized Infantry Company

2 x 4 76 mm
25 mm M242 smoke grenade co-axial 7.62 mmn & anit-
Weapon Cannon dischargers C6 aircraft C6 MG Pistol C7 C9 Carl G Eryx
76 mm Smoke 7.62 4B1T 5.56 mm 5.56 4B1T

Ammunition HEI APFSDS Grenade Linked 7.62 4B1T Linked 9mm Ball Linked HEAT Eryx
WLAV LAV III CP 2 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV LAV III ISC 13 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV COYOTE RECCE
SYSTEM 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV COYOTE RECCE
W/MAST MTD

WLAV MRT 2 150 180 3 587 587
WLAV Engr Recce 150 180 3 587 587

MARV 3
MMEV (ADATS)
TUA (TOW II)
MGS (105)
(M203A1)
Rifle Carabine (C8)
GPMG Coax Mtd (C6) 7 587
SRAAWL (M72)
Eyrx 9 1
ALAWS 0
LMG (C9A1) 18 500
GPMG Flex (C6) 587
HMG 50 Cal
Mortars 60mm
Mortars 80mm
Howitzer 155
Total Rounds 2550 3060 51 9973 14080 63 8933 9000 4 9
Rounds per Pallet 1260 1260 360 51,200 51,200 69120 65520 38400 54 4
Kg/pallet 1099 987 635 1155 1155 1076 1095 1063 335 122
Number Pallets 2.024 2.429 0.142 0.195 0.275 0.001 0.136 0.234 0.074 2.250
Total Pallets 7.760
Aveage Pallet Weight 767.116


Annex C: ILP Formulation
We modeled the problem of minimizing the number of prime movers and wasted payload capacity as
an integer linear program (ILP). We first define sets and specify the input parameters, then proceed
to the model variables, objective function and constraints.
C.1 Sets
Let T = {1, .., 9} be the set of transporters where
1− HLVW Cargo,
2− MSVS Cargo,
3− MSVS Cargo trailer,
4− HLVW PLS carrying a 200 container,
5− MSVS LHS carrying a 200 container
6− MSVS LHS trailer carrying a 200 container,
7− HLVW PLS carrying four quadcons,
8− MSVS LHS carrying four quadcons,
9− MSVS LHS trailer carrying four quadcons.
We also define the subset Q = {7, 8, 9} as the set of transporters carrying quadcons, and T RL =
{3, 6, 9} as the set of trailers. Further sets based on the commodities are defined in Table C.1.
C.2 Input Parameters

As input, we are given the pallet weight, wi , and number of pallets to be lifted, li , for each commod-
ity i ∈ ALL. We are given the bulk capacity, bi , of each i ∈ T ; cargo transporters can carry up to ten
pallets (b1 , b2 , b3 = 10), up to twenty pallets can be stacked into 200 containers (b4 , b5 , b6 = 20), and
each quadcon can carry a maximum of four pallets.
The payload capacity, p̂i , of each transporter i ∈ T is given, from which we calculate the actual
payload capacity, pi , which takes into account the weight of containers (Table C.2). Each quadcon
weighs 800 lbs and a 200 container weighs 2700 lbs.
C.3 Main Decision Variables

Define integer variables xi, j to be the number of pallets of commodity j ∈ ALL to be loaded onto
transporter i ∈ T \ Q. Define integer variables zi, j to be the number of transporters i ∈ T \ Q that
carry commodities j ∈ C.
For transporters carrying quadcons, define integer variables xi, j to be the number of pallets of com-
modity j ∈ ALL to be placed into quadcons that will be loaded onto transporters i ∈ Q. Define
integer variables zi, j to represent the total number of quadcons loaded with commodity type j ∈ C
allocated to transporters i ∈ Q.

Table C.1: Sets Used in ILP Formulation
C = {r, p, a, m} the set of commodity types:
r− rations
p− packaged POL
a− ammunition
m− mixed stores
ALL = {1, ..., 15} the set of all commodities
RAT IONS = {1, ..., 4} the set of rations:
1− Cbt rations
2− water
3− MRE
4− fresh rations
POL = {5} the set of packaged POL:
5− packaged POL
AMMO = {6} the set of ammunition:
6− ammunition
MIXED = {7, ..., 15} the set of mixed stores:
7− engineering (construction)
8− def (barrier)
9− G & T
10− amenities
11− repair parts
12− medical and dental
13− postal
14− other
15− other
Table C.2: Payload Capacity Minus Container Weight
p̂1 = 10000, p1 = p̂1 ,

p̂2 = 4500, p2 = p̂2 ,
p̂3 = 5000, p3 = p̂3 ,
p̂4 = 16000, p4 = 13300,
p̂5 = 8000, p5 = 5300,
p̂6 = 8000, p6 = 5300,
p̂7 = 16000, p7 = 12800,
p̂8 = 8000, p8 = 4800,
p̂9 = 8000, p9 = 4800.
Finally, define integer variables vehi to be the number of transporters i ∈ T that are required. The
number of cargo and 200 container-carrying transporters is calculated by the equation
vehi = ∑ zi, j for i ∈ T \ Q, (C.1)

j∈C

and the number of transporters carrying quadcons is greater that the number of TEU:
∑ zi, j
j∈C
vehi ≥ for i ∈ Q. (C.2)
4
C.4 Objective Function

The goal is to determine the minimum number of vehicles required to lift all required supplies,
min ∑ vehi . (C.3)

i∈T \T RL
However, in the case of a tie, preference should be given to loading vehicles so as to minimize the
number of trailers and also to minimize wasted vehicle payload capacity:
min ∑ vehi (C.4)

i∈T RL
and
min ∑ vehi · p̂i − ∑ ∑ w j · xi, j . (C.5)

i∈T \T RL i∈T \T RL j∈ALL
This ILP objective function is modeled by choosing suitable weights to prioritize the objectives:
min ∑ 100000 ∗ vehi + ∑ 100 ∗ vehi + ∑ vehi · p̂i − ∑ ∑ w j · xi, j . (C.6)

i∈T \T RL i∈T RL i∈T \T RL i∈T \T RL j∈ALL
C.5 Constraints
All supplies must be lifted by the set of transporters. This is modeled as
∑ xi, j = l j for all j ∈ ALL. (C.7)

i∈T
The bulk restrictions of all transporters i ∈ T \ Q must be respected,
∑ xi, j ≤ bi · zi,r , (C.8)

j∈RAT IONS
∑ xi, j ≤ bi · zi,p , (C.9)

j∈POL
∑ xi, j ≤ bi · zi,a , (C.10)

j∈AMMO
∑ xi, j ≤ bi · zi,m , (C.11)

j∈MIXED

as well as payload restrictions of transporters: for i ∈ T \ Q,
∑ w j · xi, j ≤ pi · zi,r , (C.12)

j∈RAT IONS
∑ w j · xi, j ≤ pi · zi,p , (C.13)

j∈POL
∑ w j · xi, j ≤ 0.8 · pi · zi,a , (C.14)

j∈AMMO
∑ w j · xi, j ≤ pi · zi,m . (C.15)

j∈MIXED
Note that constraint (C.14) restricts vehicles loaded with ammunition to 80% of the vehicles payload
capacity. When loading quadcons (to be placed on transporters i ∈ Q), the bulk capacity of four
pallets per quadcon must be respected:
∑ xi, j ≤ 4 · zi,r , (C.16)

j∈RAT IONS
∑ xi, j ≤ 4 · zi,p , (C.17)

j∈POL
∑ xi, j ≤ 4 · zi,a , (C.18)

j∈AMMO
∑ xi, j ≤ 4 · zi,m . (C.19)

j∈MIXED
The payload capacity of a quadcon is 4280 lbs, requiring the constraints:
∑ w j · xi, j ≤ 4280 · zi,r , (C.20)

j∈RAT IONS
∑ w j · xi, j ≤ 4280 · zi,p , (C.21)

j∈POL
∑ w j · xi, j ≤ 0.8 · 4280 · zi,a , (C.22)

j∈AMMO
∑ w j · xi, j ≤ 4280 · zi,m . (C.23)

j∈MIXED
To model ammunition restrictions, quadcons carrying ammunition were loaded to 80% (constraint
(C.22)). To ensure that groups of four quadcons could be placed together on transporters without
exceeding the transporter payload capacities, the expected weight of a quadcon carrying four pallets

of a commodity was calculated,
∑ wj ·lj
j∈RAT IONS
· 4 = EXPQr , (C.24)
∑ lj
j∈RAT IONS
∑ wj ·lj
j∈POL
· 4 = EXPQ p , (C.25)
∑ lj
j∈POL
∑ wj ·lj
j∈AMMO
· 4 = EXPQa , (C.26)
∑ lj
j∈AMMO
∑ wj ·lj
j∈MIXED
· 4 = EXPQm . (C.27)
∑ lj
j∈MIXED
The expected weights were used to form constraints so that the average weight of a representative
TEU would satisfy the transporter’s payload limitation:
EXPQr · zi,r + EXPQ p · zi,p + EXPQa · zi,a + EXPQm · zi,m ≤ vehi · pi . for i ∈ Q (C.28)
If the average weight of the quadcons is too heavy, leading to over-weight TEUs, then constraint
(C.28) will drive the number of vehicles up, simulating either placing empty quadcons beside full
ones or spreading out the pallets among more quadcons, until an acceptable average weight of a
TEU is achieved.
The number of trailers cannot exceed the number of vehicles that can pull them,
veh2 ≤ veh3 , (C.29)

veh5 + veh8 ≤ veh6 + veh9 , (C.30)
and ammunition cannot be carried on trailers:
zi,a = 0 for all i ∈ T RL. (C.31)


Annex D: Centralized Optimization Results
We present the detailed ILP results for the six vehicle configurations. The figures found in this sec-
tion are snapshots from a spreadsheet that was used for result verification. Each table corresponds
to a specific vehicle mix. This is indicated on the table heading. The tables are colour-coded for
easier interpretation of the ILP solution:
– The first three columns specify the commodity name, weight per pallet, and number of pallets to
be lifted.
– The remaining 9 columns (with first 3 rows in blue) represent the different transporter possibili-
ties.
– The dark green row specifies how many transporters of each type are used.
– The following four rows, coloured orange, gray, yellow, and green, show how many transporters
of each type are used per commodity group - rations, POL, ammunition, and mixed stores re-
spectively. For quadcon transporters (last 3 main columns), these rows indicate the number of
quadcons used.
– The next set of coloured rows indicate where individual pallets of a particular store are to be
loaded.
– The last four 4-row coloured blocks show how much weight and bulk is loaded, per commodity
type, compared to the capacity for each transporter.
The results are presented in the following order:
quadcons; and
6. MSVS LHS and MSVS Cargo vehicles with respective trailers, HLVW PLS, HLVW Cargo,
using 200 containers or quadcons.

52
MSVS LHS
Number Tow
Container ContainerTr
Cargo Vehicles that don't carry containers Vehs/Trls Carrying 20 Ft Containers Vehs/Trls Carrying Quads Trls ailers
MSVS (4.5T) 20 Ft on 20 Ft on MSVS 10 Ton MSVS MSVS
HLVW (Cargo) Cargo MSVS Cargo Trl PLS LHS 20 Ft on LHS Trl PLS LHS LHS Trl 0.0 27.0
Max number of pallets 10 10 10 20 20 20 4 4 4
Max weight/veh 10000 4500 5,000 13,300 5,300 5,300 12,800 4,800 4,800
Veh Length in m 1.01 0.98 1.02 0.99 1.02 0.99
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 SHOULD WE USE TRANSPORTER?
Weight/ Total Pallets

Class Name pallet to be lifted 0.0 0.0 0.0 OBJECTIVE:
Total Reqr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Quadc number of 26.73 <- Minimize number of vehicles times preference factor
Ration Reqr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 <-Minimize number of vehicles
POL Reqr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24206.0 <-Minimize unused weight capacity
Ammo Req 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 2724206.0 <-Minimize Num of Veh AND unused weight capacity
Mixed Reqr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lifted
I Cbt Rations 698 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0
I Water 900 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.0 Ave Wgt x No Quad 0 0 0
I MRE 1006 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I Fresh Rations 350 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
III POL Packaged 425 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
V Ammo 755 84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.0 4295
Engr Stores
IV (Construction) 544 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0
Def Stores
IV (Barrier) 288 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0
II G &T 300 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 Wieght Lifted 118894
VI Amenities 150 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 Weigth Capacity 143100.0
IX Repair Parts 500 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Difference 24206.0
Med and Dental
VIII Stores 100 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 Goal is to minimize number of vehicles and unused weight capacity
IX Postal 100 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0
spare 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
spare 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
210 210.0
Ration Constraints 118894
Volume
Contraint Total Pallets per Fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DON’T DELETE!!
Max Pallets per Fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 120.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weight
Constraint Weight per Fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27478.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Max weight/fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31800.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
POL Constraints PERCENTAGE USE

Contraint Total Pallets per Fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HLVW CargoMSVS CAMSVS TRL
Max number pallets/fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rations
Weight Weight per Fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4250.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 POL
Max Weight/Fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ammo
Mixed
Ammo Constraints
Volume
Contraint Total Pallets per Fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Max number pallets/fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <--No Ammo on Trailers
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63600.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <--No Ammo on Trailers
<--Ammo Carrying Vehicles Loaded at 80%
Mixed Constraints
Volume
Max Number pallets Fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26500.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MSVS Cargo and LHS
Number Tow
Max weight/veh 10000 4500 5,000 13,300 5,300 5,300 12,800 4,800 4,800
Veh Length in m 1.01 0.98 1.02 0.99 1.02 0.99


I Cbt Rations 698 11 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0
I MRE 1006 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I Fresh Rations 350 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
III POL Packaged 425 10 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
V Ammo 755 84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.0 4295
Engr Stores
IV (Construction) 544 17 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0
Def Stores
IV (Barrier) 288 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0
Med and Dental
IX Postal 100 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0
spare 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
spare 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
210 210.0
Volume
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 22500.0 0.0 0.0 5300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Max number pallets/fleet 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rations 54.0
Weight Weight per Fleet 0.0 4250.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 POL 100.0
Mixed 100.0
Ammo Constraints
Volume
Weight
Mixed Constraints
Volume
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 4500.0 0.0 0.0 21200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Constraints
53
54
MSVS Cargo LHS with quads no trls
Number Tow
Container ContainerT
Cargo Vehicles that don't carry containers Vehs/Trls Carrying 20 Ft Containers Vehs/Trls Carrying Quads Trls railers
Max weight/veh 10000 4500 5,000 13,300 5,300 5,300 12,800 4,800 4,800
Veh Length in m 1.01 0.98 1.02 0.99 1.02 0.99

Class Name pallet to be lifted ` 0.0 15.0 0.0 OBJECTIVE:
I Cbt Rations 698 11 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0
I MRE 1006 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I Fresh Rations 350 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
III POL Packaged 425 10 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
V Ammo 755 84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.0 0.0 84.0 4295
Engr Stores
IV (Construction) 544 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 17.0
Def Stores
IV (Barrier) 288 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 21.0
Med and Dental
IX Postal 100 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0
spare 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
spare 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
210.0
Volume
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 22500.0 0.0 0.0 5300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Max number pallets/flee 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rations 54.0
Mixed
Ammo Constraints
Volume
Weight
Mixed Constraints
Volume
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15900.0 0.0 0.0 25680.0 0.0
Constraints
Total Pallets to be lifted = Total Lifted

4.5 T Trailers =< MSVS Cargos
LHS Trailers =< MSVS LHS
No vehs for Quad =< No Quad*4
No vehs for 20 ft =20 ft
Weighted average of
number of pallets and Pallet Weight for Commodity Average
weight per commodity Groups X 4 pallets per Quad include Cont
Rations 833 3331 4131
POL 425 1700 2500
Ammo 755 3020 3820
xed Stores 286 1144 1944

6 MSVS Cargo and LHS with Trl
Number Tow
Max weight/veh 10000 4500 5,000 13,300 5,300 5,300 12,800 4,800 4,800
Veh Length in m 1.01 0.98 1.02 0.99 1.02 0.99


I Cbt Rations 698 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0
I MRE 1006 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I Fresh Rations 350 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
III POL Packaged 425 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
V Ammo 755 84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.0 4295
Engr Stores
IV (Construction) 544 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0
Def Stores
IV (Barrier) 288 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0
Med and Dental
IX Postal 100 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0
spare 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
spare 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
210.0
Volume
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31800.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mixed
Ammo Constraints
Volume
Weight
Mixed Constraints
Volume
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26500.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
55
56
15 MSVS LHS and trl and Quads
Number Tow
Max weight/veh 10000 4500 5,000 13,300 5,300 5,300 12,800 4,800 4,800
Veh Length in m 1.01 0.98 1.02 0.99 1.02 0.99

Ration Reqr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 <-Minimize number of vehicles
POL Reqr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 -4822.0 <-Minimize unused weight capacity
Ammo Req 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 Total 1396278.0 <-Minimize Num of Veh AND unused weight capacity
Mixed Reqr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Lifted
I Cbt Rations 698 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0
I MRE 1006 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I Fresh Rations 350 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
III POL Packaged 425 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
V Ammo 755 84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.0 0.0 84.0 4295
Engr Stores
IV (Construction) 544 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 17.0
Def Stores
IV (Barrier) 288 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0
IX Repair Parts 500 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Difference -4822.0
Med and Dental
IX Postal 100 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0
spare 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
spare 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
210.0
Volume
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31800.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mixed
Ammo Constraints
Volume
Weight
Mixed Constraints
Volume
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21200.0 0.0 8560.0 0.0

16 All vehs with Quads
Number Tow
Max weight/veh 10000 4500 5,000 13,300 5,300 5,300 12,800 4,800 4,800
Veh Length in m 1.01 0.98 1.02 0.99 1.02 0.99

I Cbt Rations 698 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0

I MRE 1006 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I Fresh Rations 350 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
III POL Packaged 425 10 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
V Ammo 755 84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 4.0 0.0 84.0 4295
Engr Stores
IV (Construction) 544 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 8.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 17.0
Def Stores
IV (Barrier) 288 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0
Med and Dental
VIII Stores 100 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 Goal is to minimize number of vehicles and unused weight capacity
IX Postal 100 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0
spare 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
spare 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
210.0
Volume
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 13300.0 0.0 0.0 17120.0 0.0 0.0

Max number pallets/flee 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rations
Mixed 50.0
Ammo Constraints
Volume
Weight
Mixed Constraints
Volume
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 0.0 5000.0 0.0 10600.0 10600.0 0.0 4280.0 0.0
Constraints
Total Pallets to be lifted = Total Lifted

4.5 T Trailers =< MSVS Cargos
LHS Trailers =< MSVS LHS
No vehs for Quad =< No Quad*4
No vehs for 20 ft =20 ft
Weighted average of
number of pallets and Pallet Weight for Commodity Average
weight per commodity Groups X 4 pallets per Quad include Cont
57
Rations 833 3331 4131
POL 425 1700 2500
Ammo 755 3020 3820
xed Stores 286 1144 1944

All Vehs with Trailer and Quadcons Camp 1
Vehs to
Number Tow
MSVS MSVS
MSVS Cargo HLVW MSVS LHS HLVW w LHS w LSH Trl w
HLVW Cargo MSVW Cargo Trailer PLS MSVS LHS Trailer Quad Quad Quad
Max weight/veh 10000 4500 5,000 13,300 5,300 5,300 12,800 4,800 4,800
Veh Length in m 1.01 0.98 1.02 0.99 1.02 0.99

Class Name pallet to be lifted 0.0 2.0 OBJECTIVE:
Ration Reqr 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 <-Minimize number of vehicles
POL Reqr 1.0 1270.2 <-Minimize unused weight capacity
Ammo Req 1.0 Total 31570.2 <-Minimize Num of Veh AND unused weight capacity
Mixed Reqr 1.0 4.0 Lifted
I Cbt Rations 698 5 5.0 5.0
I Water 900 9 5.0 4.0 9.0 Ave Wgt x No Quad 0 0 9589
I MRE 1006 0 0.0
I Fresh Rations 350 0 0.0
III POL Packaged 425 4 4.0 4.0
V Ammo 1011 4 4.0 4.0 4295
Engr Stores
IV (Construction) 544 7 1.0 6.0 7.0
Def Stores
IV (Barrier) 288 9 5.0 4.0 9.0
II G &T 300 6 6.0 6.0 Wieght Lifted 13829.81375
VI Amenities 150 6 6.0 6.0 Weigth Capacity 15100.0
IX Repair Parts 500 1 1.0 1.0 Difference 1270.2
Med and Dental
VIII Stores 100 5 1.0 4.0 5.0 Goal is to minimize number of vehicles and unused weight capacity
IX Postal 100 2 2.0 2.0
spare 0 0 0.0
spare 0 0 0.0
58.0
Ration Constraints 13829.81375
Volume
Weight
lift requirement and allocation for the five camps is presented.
Max weight/fleet 0.0 4500.0 5000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4280.0

Max number pallets/fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 Rations 50.0 50.0
Weight Weight per Fleet #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! ####### #VALUE! 1700.0 POL
Mixed
Ammo Constraints
Volume
Contraint Total Pallets per Fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 vehicle and trailer at 50%
Weight
Constraint Weight per Fleet #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 4045.8 #VALUE! ####### #VALUE! #VALUE!
Mixed Constraints
Volume
Annex E: Decentralized Optimization Results
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17120.0
Constraints
59
We present the decentralized ILP results for the optimal configuration determined in Section 6. The
60
Number Tow
MSVS (4.5T) 20 Ft on 20 Ft on MSVS 20 Ft on LHS 10 Ton MSVS MSVS

HLVW (Cargo) Cargo MSVS Cargo Trl PLS LHS Trl PLS LHS LHS Trl 0 36
Max 10 10 10 20 20 20 4 4 4
Max 10000 4500 5,000 13,300 5,300 5,300 12,800 4,800 4,800
Veh 1.01 0.98 1.02 0.99 1.02 0.99

Reqr 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 Quadc number of 1.97 <- Minimize number of vehicles times preference factor
Reqr 1.0 2.0 <-Minimize number of vehicles
Req 2.0 Lifted 21839.8 <-Minimize Num of Veh AND unused weight capacity
Reqr 1.0 2.0
I Water 900 4 4.0 4.0 Ave Wgt x No Quad 0 6040 5148
I MRE 1006 0 0.0
V Ammo 539 7 7.0 7.0 4295
Engr Stores
IV (Construction) 544 3 3.0 3.0
Def Stores
IV (Barrier) 288 4 4.0 4.0
Med and Dental
VIII Stores 100 2 0.0 Goal is to minimize number of vehicles and unused weight capacity
IX Postal 100 1 21.0 21.0
spare 0 0 0.0
spare 0 0 0.0
49.0
Volume Total Pallets per
Contraint Fleet 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DON’T DELETE!!
Max Pallets per 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 0.0 5000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
POL Constraints p PERCENTAGE USE

Contraint Fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 HLVW CargoMSVS CAMSVS TRL
Max number 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 Rations 60.0
Weight Weight per Fleet #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 850.0 POL
Mixed 100.0
Ammo Constraints
Contraint Fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 1 vehicle and trailer loaded at 80%
Max number 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 <--No Ammo on Trailers
Weight
Constraint Weight per Fleet #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 3776.2 #VALUE!
Mixed Constraints
Contraint Fleet 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0
Max Number 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 4500.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8560.0

Number Tow

Max 10 10 10 20 20 20 4 4 4
Max 10000 4500 5,000 13,300 5,300 5,300 12,800 4,800 4,800
Veh 1.01 0.98 1.02 0.99 1.02 0.99

Class Name pallet to be lifted 1.0 OBJECTIVE:

Req 3.0 Lifted 24161.1 <-Minimize Num of Veh AND unused weight capacity
Reqr 1.0
I MRE 1006 0 0.0
V Ammo 819 10 10.0 10.0 4295
Engr Stores
Def Stores
IV (Barrier) 288 4 4.0 4.0
Med and Dental
VIII Stores 100 2 2.0 2.0 Goal is to minimize number of vehicles and unused weight capacity
IX Postal 100 1 1.0 1.0
spare 0 0 0.0
spare 0 0 0.0
34.0
Max Pallets per 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Max number 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 Rations
Weight Weight per Fleet #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 850.0 #VALUE! #VALUE! POL
Mixed
Ammo Constraints
Contraint Fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0
Weight
Constraint Weight per Fleet #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 8192.9 #VALUE! #VALUE!
Mixed Constraints
Contraint Fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Max Number 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
61
62
Number Tow

Max 10 10 10 20 20 20 4 4 4
Max 10000 4500 5,000 13,300 5,300 5,300 12,800 4,800 4,800
Veh 1.01 0.98 1.02 0.99 1.02 0.99

Class Name pallet to be lifted 1.0 OBJECTIVE:
Req 1.0 4.0 Lifted 33561.9 <-Minimize Num of Veh AND unused weight capacity
1.0
I MRE 1006 0 0.0
V Ammo 754 21 5.0 16.0 21.0 4295
Engr Stores
Def Stores
IV (Barrier) 288 3 3.0 3.0
Med and Dental
IX Postal 100 1 1.0 1.0
spare 0 0 0.0
spare 0 0 0.0
41.0
Max Pallets per 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 4500.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Weight Weight per Fleet #VALUE! #VALUE! 850.0 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! POL 20.0
Mixed
Ammo Constraints
Weight
Constraint Weight per Fleet #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 3771.4 #VALUE! 12068.6 #VALUE! #VALUE!
Mixed Constraints
Contraint Fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Max Number 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Number Tow

Max 10 10 10 20 20 20 4 4 4
Max 10000 4500 5,000 13,300 5,300 5,300 12,800 4,800 4,800
Length in 1.01 0.98 1.02 0.99 1.02 0.99


Req 3.0 1.0 Lifted 59207.3 <-Minimize Num of Veh AND unused weight capacity
1.0 1.0 2.0
I MRE 1006 0 0.0
V Ammo 755 45 41.0 4.0 45.0 4295
Engr Stores
Def Stores
IV (Barrier) 288 3 3.0 3.0
Med and Dental
IX Postal 100 1 1.0 1.0
spare 0 0 0.0
spare 0 0 0.0
66 66.0
ation Constraints 40192.68384
Max Pallets per 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 4500.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
OL Constraints PERCENTAGE USE

Weight Weight per Fleet #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! ####### #VALUE! 850.0 POL
Mixed 20.0
mmo Constraints
Weight
Constraint Weight per Fleet #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 30945.6 #VALUE! #VALUE! ####### 3019.1 #VALUE!
xed Constraints
Contraint Fleet 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 8.0
Max Number 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 8.0
Weight
Max weight/fleet 0.0 0.0 5000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4280.0 8560.0
63

Annex F: Simulation Statistics
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
Centralized
H o u rs
Decentralized
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Quadcons
Fleet Mix
Figure F.1: RP Loading Times (hrs)
Table F.1: RP Load Times (hrs)

HLVW PLS HLVW PLS
HLVW PLS HLVW PLS

Table F.2: Convoy Duration for Different Fleets (hrs)
HLVW PLS HLVW PLS
HLVW PLS HLVW PLS
2.60
2.55
2.50
2.45
H o u rs
2.40 Centralized
Decentralized
2.35
2.30
2.25
2.20
MSVS LHS MSVS LHS MSVS LHS MSVS LHS MSVS LHS HLVW, MSVS,
and Cargo and Cargo and Cargo and Cargo Trailers and
with with Trailers with Trailers Quadcons
Quadcons and Quadcons
Fleet Mix
Figure F.2: Convoy Duration for Various Fleet Mixes (hrs)

Table F.3: Unload and Load at Camp Time (hrs)
Centralized Decentralized
Unload/ Unload Diff. Unload/ Unload Diff.
Reload Reload Reload /Load
Pallets Container Pallets Container
Average 0.00 3.44 3.44 0.00 4.99 4.99
MSVS LHS Min 0.00 3.11 3.11 0.00 4.19 4.19
Max 0.00 3.90 3.90 0.00 5.94 5.94
Average 2.07 2.57 0.50 3.45 3.71 0.26
MSVS Cargo and Min 1.78 2.16 0.39 2.95 3.01 0.05
MSVS LHS Max 2.39 3.01 0.62 3.94 4.45 0.52
MSVS Cargo, Average 0.00 6.45 6.45 5.56 7.35 1.79
MSVS LHS with Min 0.00 5.48 5.48 4.61 6.09 1.48
trailers Max 0.00 7.53 7.53 6.75 9.03 2.28
MSVS LHS with Min 1.66 2.17 0.51 1.91 3.77 1.85
quadcons Max 2.30 2.85 0.55 2.72 5.51 2.80
MSVS LHS with Min 0.00 5.02 5.02 3.09 3.22 0.14
trailers and quadcons Max 0.00 7.31 7.31 5.08 4.98 -0.09
HLVS PLS & Cargo, Average 3.65 3.82 0.17 3.74 4.37 0.62
MSVS LHS & Cargo, Min 2.68 3.02 0.34 2.82 3.43 0.62
trailers and quadcons Max 4.81 4.68 -0.13 4.95 5.38 0.43
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
Centralized
4.00
Decentralized
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Quadcons
Fleet Mix
Figure F.3: Avgerage Unload and Load at Camp Time (hrs) Dominated by Time to Load Containers

Table F.4: Unload at RP Time (hrs)
Centralized Decentralized
Unload/ Unload Diff. Unload/ Unload Diff.
Reload Reload Reload /Load
Pallets Container Pallets Container
Average 0.00 1.05 1.05 0.00 1.31 1.31
MSVS LHS Min 0.00 0.86 0.86 0.00 1.10 1.10
Max 0.00 1.32 1.32 0.00 1.55 1.55
Average 0.56 0.81 0.25 1.01 0.82 -0.19
MSVS Cargo and Min 0.38 0.63 0.25 0.79 0.61 -0.18
MSVS LHS Max 0.75 1.03 0.28 1.29 1.04 -0.26
MSVS LHS with Min 0.00 1.70 1.70 1.31 2.24 0.93
trailers Max 0.00 2.58 2.58 2.89 3.16 0.26
MSVS LHS with Min 0.36 0.58 0.23 0.41 0.73 0.32
quadcons Max 0.74 0.98 0.24 0.75 1.17 0.42
MSVS LHS with Min 0.00 1.56 1.56 0.82 1.18 0.35
trailers and quadcons Max 0.00 2.50 2.50 1.72 1.86 0.14
HLVS PLS & Cargo, Average 1.13 1.22 0.09 1.38 1.38 0.00
MSVS LHS & Cargo, Min 0.72 0.80 0.08 0.90 1.08 0.18
trailers and quadcons Max 1.74 1.49 -0.25 1.74 1.74 0.00
3.00
Centralized
Decentralized
2.50
2.00
Hours
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
MSVS LHS MSVS LHS and MSVS Cargo and MSVS Cargo and MSVS Cargo and HLVW, MSVS,
Cargo LHS with Quadcons LHS with Trailers LHS with Trailers Trailers and
and Quadcons Quadcons
Fleet Mix
Figure F.4: Unload at RP (hrs) for Vehicles Carrying Containers

List of symbols/abbreviations/acronyms/initialisms
Cbt Combat
CF Canadian Forces
Coy Company
DLR Directorate Land Requirements
DMGOR Directorate Material Group Operational Research
DP Delivery Point
DROGM Directeur - Recherche Opérationnelle (Groupe des matériels)
G&T General and Technical
HLVW Heavy Logistics Vehicle Wheeled
hrs hours
ILP Integer Linear Program
IMP Individual Meal Pack
in Inches
ISO International Standards Organization
kg kilograms
km kilometers
kph kilometers per hour
LAV Light Armoured Vehicle
LHS Load Handling System
MLVW Medium Logistics Vehicle Wheeled
MRE Meals Ready to Eat
MSVS Medium Support Vehicle System
MDBF Mean Distance Between Failures
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
PLS Palletized Loading System
plt Pallets
POL Petroleum Oils and Lubricants
RP Replenishment Point
SCP Système de Chargement Palettisé
SDH Staff Data Handbook
SMP Standard Military Pattern
SOR Statement of Requirements
SVSM Système de Véhicule de Soutien Moyen
TEU Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit
trls Trailers
vehs Vehicules
VLLR Véhicules Logistique Lourd à Roues
wgt Weight


Distribution letter
3552-1 (DMGOR)
27 November 2006
Distribution List
Reference: Bohdan L. Kaluzny and Adrian J. Erkelens, The Optimal MSVS Fleet for First-Line
Replenishment, DRDC CORA TR 2006–026, November 2006 (enclosed).
1. Please find enclosed the Defence Research and Development Canada—Centre for
Operational Research and Analysis Technical Report DRDC CORA TR 2006–026, entitled The
Optimal MSVS Fleet for First-Line Replenishment. The report analyzes the use of MSVS vehicles,
trailers, and containers for first-line replenishment and recommends an optimal mix of MSVS
Load Handling System (LHS) and Cargo variants.
2. The CF intends to purchase 1,500 MSVS vehicles. One of the tasks of the MSVS variants,
a 4.5 ton cargo vehicle and an 8 ton LHS, will be to transport the stores and equipment necessary to
support deployed forces. This study determined the daily stores required by a model organization,
computed the minimal number of vehicles required to resupply the unit using various vehicle fleet
configurations, analyzed the replenishment cycle for these configurations under centralized and
decentralized scenarios, and recommended an optimal mix of MSVS LHS and Cargo variants.
3. The optimization and simulation models developed in this study can be customized for
future vehicle/fleet loading analysis. Questions or comments are welcomed and may be addressed
to Bohdan L. Kaluzny at (613) 944-5203 or by e-mail at Kaluzny.B@forces.gc.ca. Electronic
copies of this report are available upon request (Repsys.R@forces.gc.ca) or directly from the ORD
intranet site (http://ord.mil.ca/pages/corporate/library_e.asp).
R. G. Dickinson
Director Joint and Strategic Analysis
Distribution List (see page 2)
Enclosures: 1

Distribution List
Internal
DLR
DLR 6
PD MSVS (3)
PM MSVS
DLSS (2)
LFDI (2)
DAD 9 (2)
DRDC CORA//DG CORA/DOR(Joint)/DOR(MLA)/Chief Scientist (1 copy on circulation)
DRDC CORA/LFORT
DRDC CORA Library (2)
DRDKIM (2)
Spares (5)

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA
(Security classification of title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when document is classified)
1. ORIGINATOR (The name and address of the organization preparing the 2. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION (Overall
document. Organizations for whom the document was prepared, e.g. Centre security classification of the document
sponsoring a contractor’s report, or tasking agency, are entered in section 8.) including special warning terms if applicable.)
Defence R&D Canada – CORA UNCLASSIFIED

Dept. of National Defence, MGen G.R. Pearkes Bldg.,
101 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A
0K2
3. TITLE (The complete document title as indicated on the title page. Its classification should be indicated by the appropriate
abbreviation (S, C or U) in parentheses after the title.)

4. AUTHORS (Last name, followed by initials – ranks, titles, etc. not to be used.)
Kaluzny, B.L.; Erkelens, A.J.

5. DATE OF PUBLICATION (Month and year of publication of 6a. NO. OF PAGES (Total 6b. NO. OF REFS (Total
document.) containing information. cited in document.)
Include Annexes,
Appendices, etc.)
December 2006 88 23
7. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (The category of the document, e.g. technical report, technical note or memorandum. If appropriate, enter
the type of report, e.g. interim, progress, summary, annual or final. Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is
covered.)
Technical Report
8. SPONSORING ACTIVITY (The name of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development –
include address.)
Defence R&D Canada – CORA

Dept. of National Defence, MGen G.R. Pearkes Bldg., 101 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada K1A 0K2
9a. PROJECT NO. (The applicable research and development 9b. GRANT OR CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable
project number under which the document was written. number under which the document was written.)
Please specify whether project or grant.)
N/A
10a. ORIGINATOR’S DOCUMENT NUMBER (The official 10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NO(s). (Any other numbers which may
document number by which the document is identified by the be assigned this document either by the originator or by the
originating activity. This number must be unique to this sponsor.)
document.)

11. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY (Any limitations on further dissemination of the document, other than those imposed by security
classification.)
( X ) Unlimited distribution
( ) Defence departments and defence contractors; further distribution only as approved
( ) Defence departments and Canadian defence contractors; further distribution only as approved
( ) Government departments and agencies; further distribution only as approved
( ) Defence departments; further distribution only as approved
( ) Other (please specify):
12. DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT (Any limitation to the bibliographic announcement of this document. This will normally correspond
to the Document Availability (11). However, where further distribution (beyond the audience specified in (11)) is possible, a wider
announcement audience may be selected.)
13. ABSTRACT (A brief and factual summary of the document. It may also appear elsewhere in the body of the document itself. It is highly
desirable that the abstract of classified documents be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall begin with an indication of the
security classification of the information in the paragraph (unless the document itself is unclassified) represented as (S), (C), (R), or (U).
It is not necessary to include here abstracts in both official languages unless the text is bilingual.)
The Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS) Project will purchase 1,500 standard military pat-
tern (SMP) vehicles to support deployable units. One of the tasks of the SMP MSVS variants, a
4.5 ton cargo vehicle and an 8 ton Load Handling System (LHS), will be to transport the stores
and equipment necessary to support deployed forces. This study determined the daily stores
required by a model organization, computed the minimal number of vehicles required to resupply
the unit using various fleet configurations, analyzed the replenishment cycle for these configura-
tions under centralized and decentralized scenarios, and recommended an optimal mix of MSVS
LHS and Cargo variants.
14. KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTORS or IDENTIFIERS (Technically meaningful terms or short phrases that characterize a document and could
be helpful in cataloguing the document. They should be selected so that no security classification is required. Identifiers, such as
equipment model designation, trade name, military project code name, geographic location may also be included. If possible keywords
should be selected from a published thesaurus. e.g. Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) and that thesaurus identified.
If it is not possible to select indexing terms which are Unclassified, the classification of each should be indicated as with the title.)
MSVS
Integer Linear Program
Optimization
Fleet Size
Simulation
Replenishment
Forward Resupply
Lift Requirement
DRDC CORA
www.drdc-rddc.gc.ca

Report - The Optimal MSVS Fleet For First-Line Replenishment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report - The Optimal MSVS Fleet For First-Line Replenishment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Optimal MSVS Fleet for First-Line

DRDC CORA TR 2006–026

Defence R&D Canada

Materiel Group Operational Research

Defence R&D Canada – CORA

Original signed by Bohdan L. Kaluzny

Original signed by P. Comeau

Approved for release by

Original signed by R. G. Dickinson

DRDC CORA TR 2006–026 i

ii DRDC CORA TR 2006–026

The Optimal MSVS Fleet for First-Line Replenishment

1. Calculating the daily lift requirement to sustain a deployed task force.

The following six fleet configurations were examined:

1. MSVS LHS vehicles (transporting 200 containers);

DRDC CORA TR 2006–026 iii

iv DRDC CORA TR 2006–026

The Optimal MSVS Fleet for First-Line Replenishment

Portée : En appui du projet SVSM du directeur de projet, le Directeur - Recherche opérationnelle

Les six compositions du parc de véhicules suivantes ont été examinées :

1. SVSM avec système de chargement (qui transportent des conteneurs de 20 pi) ;

DRDC CORA TR 2006–026 v

vi DRDC CORA TR 2006–026

Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Table of contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

2.3 Cargo Compatibility Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.4 Forward Resupply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3 Scenario Model and Resupply Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.1 Organization and Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.2 Supply Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4 Minimizing the Number of Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.1 Optimization Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.2 Overview of Centralized Scenario Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.3 Overview of Decentralized Scenario Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4.4 MSVS Substitution for HLVW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.5 Number of Cargo Vehicles in MSVS Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

DRDC CORA TR 2006–026 vii

4.7 The Effect of Trailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4.8 Sensitivity Analysis of Ammunition Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5 Analysis of Replenishment Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5.1 Simulation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5.2 Simulation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

6 The Optimal Mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

6.2 Ranking of Fleet Mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Annex A: Consumption Rates and Lift Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Annex B: Ammunition Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Annex C: ILP Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

C.2 Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

C.3 Main Decision Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

C.4 Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Annex D: Centralized Optimization Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Annex E: Decentralized Optimization Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Annex F: Simulation Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

viii DRDC CORA TR 2006–026

Table 2: Shipping Container Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Table 3: Model Organization Unit Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 4: Decentralized Scenario: Sub-unit Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 5: Supply Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 6: Calculated Centralized Lift Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 7: Calculated Decentralized Lift Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 8: Vehicle and Trailer Requirements for Centralized Replenishment . . . . . . . . 12

Table 9: Vehicle and Trailer Requirements for Decentralized Replenishment . . . . . . . 13

Table 10: The Effect of Quadcons in Centralized Replenishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16