CREW: U.S. Coast Guard: Deepwater Contract: MPA AOA Update Brief G-C

Integrated Coast Guard Systems
17 December 2002
Managing Change through Partnership
MPA AoA Update Analysis

Final Results Presentation
INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

Agenda
Introduction
Overview of Results
Operational Effectiveness using Joint System
Analysis Simulation (JSAS) Model
Operational Effectiveness (Search Area Analysis)
Total Ownership Cost
Transportation Analysis
USCG Aviation Concerns
OIPT Recommendation
MPA Future Development Activities and Schedule

MPA Candidate Aircraft Descriptions

Item Alenia C-27J CASA CN 235 CASA CN 235ER

Max T/O Wt (2.25 G) 70,000 Lbs 36,340 Lbs 38,140 Lbs
Max Payload (2.25 G) 22,000 Lbs 11,942 Lbs 11,942 Lbs
10,886 (2.5 G)/
Max Fuel Wt 20,700 Lbs 9,150 LBs
13,503 LBs
Fuel Consumption
1,670 Lbs/Hr 800 Lbs/Hr 800 Lbs/Hr
(Normal Transit Speed)
Pallets 4 3.5 3.5
Cargo Cabin 37.5' L x 8.04' W x 31.67' L x 7.75' W x 31.67' L x 7.75' W x
Dimensions 7.4' H 6.25' H 6.25' H
Engines Allison AE-2100D2 GE CT7-9C3 GE CT7-9C3
Radius of Action (ROA) 1,400 Miles 910 Miles 1,140 Miles
Tactical Speed 303 kts 240 kts 240 kts
Patrol Speed 197 kts 176 kts 176 kts

USCG FW Aircraft Descriptions
HU-25 Item HC-130H

32,000 Lbs Max T/O Wt (2.5 G) 175,000 Lbs
2,000 Lbs Max Payload (2.5 G) 45,000 Lbs
10,431 LBs Max Fuel Wt 62,900 Lbs
Fuel Consumption
1950 Lbs/Hr 3,440 Lbs/Hr
(Normal Transit Speed)
0 Pallets 5
Cargo Cabin 41' L x 10.25' W x
n/a
Dimensions 9' H
ATF3-6-2C Engines T56-A15
620 Miles Radius of Action (ROA) 1,660 Miles
350 kts Tactical Speed 320 kts
250 kts Patrol Speed 248 kts

Introduction
Purpose:
– Consider Potential IDS Baseline Revisions (6 or 16 C130J’s
introduced into the IDS and NSF/MSST Organic Air
Transportation)
Initial Submission (30 September):

– Aviation IPT identified concerns with Initial Submission of
MPA AoA Analysis that required resolution
Future Actions:
– Establish POAM for Addressing Aviation IPT Concerns with
CN-235 300M Aircraft Variants
Not a Formal MPA “Source Selection”

Overview of Results
Operational Effectiveness:
– C27J is a more capable asset (speed, range, endurance, cargo capacity, etc.) than the CN-
235 300M aircraft variants
– CN-235 300M aircraft variants meet IDS MPA allocated performance requirements as
modeled in JSAS
Total Ownership Cost:

– C27J is a more costly asset (NRE, productions, operations & support, etc.) than the CN-
235 300M aircraft variants (exclusive of costs associated with resolution of operational
issues)
Transportation Analysis:
– No MPA candidate is capable of meeting the pending Organic Air Transport
Requirements
– C130’s are required to meet NSF and MSST transportation requirements (NSF is the
driver)
Technical Risk/Mitigation:
– CN-235 300M aircraft variant concerns need to be resolved during the execution of C&TD
and SD&D DTO’s and may result in increased costs

JSAS Modeling Assumptions
JSAS was utilized to compare Operational Effectiveness of candidate

aircraft:
– The most stressing quarter by geographic region were used to determine
target demands…from Modeling Simulation Master Plan (MSMP)
– 30 repetitions were run for each scenario
– MPA schedules held constant for each scenario, by region
– The same mission package and sensor system was employed on each MPA
candidate aircraft
– Each of 3 geographic regions were modeled with the following MPA aircraft
configurations:
• 7 – Northeast (Sited at CGAS Cape Cod and CGAS ECity)
• 12 – Southeast (Sited at CGAS Clearwater, CGAS Miami and CGAS Borinquen)
• 9 – West (Sited at CGAS Astoria, CGAS San Diego and CGAS Barbers Point)
– MPA scenarios include 3 scenarios for each aircraft type: CN 235-300, CN
235-300 ER, and C-27J
Adjustments made within JSAS
– Modeled aircraft speeds and operating weights were jointly determined by Air
IPT members (CG and ICGS) from manufacturer’s data
– CASA 235-300M ER take off fuel quantity adjusted by region at Air Stations to
obtain 2.4% climb gradient
– CASA 235-300M ER take off fuel quantity adjusted for 6% projected growth
margin
– Candidate aircraft take off fuel quantity adjusted to reflect current CG reserve
fuel quantity requirements.

Tactical Surveillance Detection Results
Managing Change through Partnership and C-27J Annual PFH Calculations
Detections by MPA (%) Note: The adjacent chart represents MPA
CASA 235 CASA 235 ER C - 27J detection percentages based on searching the
Northeast All 45.8% 45.9% 46.0% assigned areas within JSAS. The C-27J
MARPOL 37.3% 37.6% 37.7% accomplished this task in less time. This
LMR 48.2% 48.2% 48.3% could equate to either increased search area
DRUG 48.9% 48.9% 48.6% or decreased flight hours. For the purposes of
AMIO 28.7% 30.9% 34.1% this analysis, the flying less hours approach
Other 44.0% 44.0% 44.1% was taken (JSAS could not be modified to
Southeast All 18.3% 18.2% 18.0% model flying additional patrol areas in the
time period of this study). The below chart
DRUG 27.7% 27.6% 27.2%
represents the calculations utilized to reduce
MARPOL 13.5% 13.3% 13.5%
C-27J annual Program Flight Hours (PFHs).
LMR 11.3% 11.3% 11.1% This reduction of 42 hours per aircraft
AMIO 28.3% 28.0% 27.4% annually results in an operating cost savings
Other 20.8% 20.7% 20.5% of $4M. However, if the C-27J were to fly 1200
West All 24.9% 25.1% 26.9% annual PFHs as per IDS CONOPS, there would
AMIO 19.5% 19.9% 21.1% be approximately 256,500 extra track miles.
DRUG 25.2% 25.5% 27.3% This would equate to an additional 7.7M
MARPOL 51.4% 51.7% 51.7% square miles being searched (assuming 30NM
LMR 18.3% 18.8% 19.8% sweep width & track spacing) at an additional
Other 24.9% 25.0% 26.9% $4M per year in operating cost.
Surveillance SAR Training Total flight

# of MPA hours per hours per hours per hours by
Region Reduction in region region region region region
NE 7.70% 7 4,807 1,396 1,680 7,883
SE 4.80% 12 8,499 2,468 2,880 13,847
West 1.10% 9 6,622 1,923 2,160 10,705
32,435 Total Flight Hours
1,158 PFH per C-27

JSAS Modeling Concerns
JSAS Results Do Not Represent System Level IDS

Operational Effectiveness Results:
– Only the first 45-day period of the Quarter was modeled for
each region (not all search areas were modeled)
– MPA’s were the only assets modeled (no other assets in the
system were modeled)
– Target demand levels modeled at 70th percentile of MSMP
Expected Level of Events (OPTEMPO for “normal” CG
operations?)
– Using the same sensor system on all aircraft candidates, in
combination with modeled MPA CONOPS, “normalizes”
candidate aircraft detection results
Other Aviation IPT Concerns:
– Air-to-Air Intercept capability and SAR escort of RW aircraft
are not modeled
– Organic transport of MSST and NSF equipment and ETOPS
considerations addressed outside JSAS

Search Area Analysis

The 3 geographic regions (Northeast, Southeast, & West) where MPAs were based
were analyzed to assess if the three candidate aircraft (CN 235-300, CN 235-300
ER, and C-27J) could cover each assigned patrol area, and if not, what percentage
was covered
Sortie length and coverage area of each search area in each region was
determined
Analysis included assessment for each MPA aircraft type utilizing track miles and
transit distances to the search area and the following aircraft performance
parameters: Fuel Capacity, Launch and Recovery Fuel Consumption Constraints,
Transit and Patrol Fuel Burn Rates, and Transit and Patrol Speeds
Track Spacing of 30 NM and 10% Fuel Reserve were utilized
The results below summarize the total number of patrol areas in each region not
covered (including those that could not be reached) and the average coverage
factor
The numbers in parenthesis for each region represent the number of unique
search areas in the region assigned to the MPA as identified by ICGS CONOPS
The number in brackets represents the number of search areas that could not be
reached. A value of 0% was used in calculating the average coverage factor
Aircraft Northeast (27) Southeast (46) West (48)

CN 235 300M 1: 73% 5[1]: 53% 41[5]: 38%
CN 235 300M ER 1: 74% 5[1]: 54% 41[5]: 38%
C 27J 1: 96% 2: 80% 36: 51%

Independent Search Area Analysis produced similar results

Southeast Region Search Areas
Managing Change through Partnership not covered by CN-235 300M ER
Grenada Search Area (Guantanamo Bay)
– C-27J covers 75% of this search area
Grenada

West Region Search Areas not
Managing Change through Partnership covered by CN-235 300M ER
Baja 2 Search Area (San Diego)
Howland Baker EEZ LMR Search Area (Pago Pago)
Howland Baker EEZ LMR search Area (Kwajalein Atoll)
Howland Baker EEZ LMR search Area (Christmas Island)
Hawaii Northwest (Midway )
HSDN Area
Hawaii Northwest
Hawaii Prohibited Area
Hawaii East
Wake EEZ
Johnston Atoll EEZ
Guam EEZ
Palmyra EEZ
Howland-Baker EEZ Jarvis Island EEZ
Baja 2
Samoa EEZ

TOC Assumptions
Costs are 2002 Economic Conditions in Subcontractor’s dollars (this is not the cost
to the CG to acquire an MPA)
Baseline 3.1 Implementation Plan was used for MPA asset introduction into the IDS
(C-27J cannot be delivered in accordance with this schedule)
ROM numbers for C-27J costs vs. FFP for CN-235 300M and CN-235 300M ER costs
(apply 15% ROM factor to account for delta)
Logistics commonality for the C-27J and C-130J, where applicable and quantifiable,
has been included
Mission System cost common across A/C platforms (common mission system cost
used)
Flight hours are based on JSAS modeling output (MSMP)
CN-235 300M and CN-235 300M ER cost for Power by the Hour includes technology
obsolescence; C-27J cost for technology obsolescence is included in condemnation
cost
Model puts NRE in first year and one time AC&I spread over first five years
CN-235 300M and CN-235 300M ER PBH OE costs that were “double counted” were
removed
Updated information was provided to CG regarding C-27J ROM costs and was
considered in the analysis
MPA AC&I and OE Comparison
C-27J (15% ROM

CN-235 300MER C-27J
Adjustment)
AC&I Non
$163.5 M $155.8 M $158.8 M
Recurring
AC&I Recurring
(per aircraft $21.9 M $31.6 M $35.5 M
purchased)
Total AC&I $930 M $1,262 M $1,401 M
OE Recurring
(per operational $2.67 M $3.15 M $3.32 M
aircraft)
Total OE (per
$82.8 M $97.7 M $102.9 M
year)
TOC (AC&I + 30
$3.5 B $4.2 B $4.5 B
years OE)

MPA TOC Comparison
TOC Comparison of 35 C27's vs 35 CN-235 ER's costs (with Adjustments)
300
Note: Dollar figures are preliminary estimates
and should not be considered contractually
binding.
Costs are in 2002 E.C in Subcontractor $ TOC
Millions
250 is AC&I and OE
C-27J TOC with 15% ROM factor
CN 235-ER TOC
200
C-27J TOC w/o ROM factor
Dollars
150
100
50
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
Years

TOC Unresolved Issues
Closed loop parts pool considered for C-27J; Commercial parts pool
considered for CN-235 300M and CN-235 300M ER (cost adjustment for
transition from an open loop to a closed loop parts pool was not
reasonably quantifiable)
– CASA estimates up to an additional $6M non recurring AC&I for initial
provisioning will be required to establish the rotable parts pool required to
support a closed loop parts pool for flight critical parts
OE Training cost commonality has not been included in the analysis
(commonality savings was not reasonably quantifiable)
– The CG has estimated that up to approximately $1M per year OE cost savings
could be realized per year due to C-130J and C-27J training commonality
issues including reductions in initial course development cost, reductions in
“C” School recurring costs, reduction in pilot initial and recurrent training
costs, reduced mishap costs and increased safety, and increased retention of
enlisted aircrew/mechanics.

Integrated Coast Guard Systems MPA AC&I and OE Comparison
($6M Increase for Closed Loop Parts Pool resolution
Managing Change through Partnership and $1M savings for Training Commonality)
C-27J (15% ROM

CN-235 300MER C-27J
Adjustment)
AC&I Non
$169.5 M $155.8 M $158.8 M
Recurring
AC&I Recurring
(per aircraft $21.9 M $31.6 M $35.5 M
purchased)
Total AC&I $936 M $1,262 M $1,401 M
OE Recurring
(per operational $2.67 M $3.15 M $3.32 M
aircraft)
Total OE (per
$82.8 M $96.7 M $101.9 M
year)
TOC (AC&I + 30
$3.5 B $4.2 B $4.5 B
years OE)

Integrated Coast Guard Systems MPA TOC Comparison ($6M Increase
for Closed Loop Parts Pool resolution and $1M
Managing Change through Partnership savings for Training Commonality)
TOC Comparison of 35 C27's vs 35 CN-235's costs
300
Note: Dollar figures are preliminary estimates
and should not be considered contractually
binding.
Costs are in 2002 E.C in Subcontractor $ TOC
M illions
250 is AC&I and OE
C-27J TOC with 15% ROM factor
CN 235-ER TOC
200
C-27J TOC w/o ROM factor
D olla rs
150
100
50
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
Years

Organic Air Transport Assumptions
NSF MSST
NSF will be transported only by RB-Ss are pre-located at all strategic ports
HC-130s except for inland river sites.
– Note: Two C-27Js may be able to Mobile MPAs are not used because they will
transport NSF equipment if the trailer not have load masters
height was decreased from 9' to In order to maintain SAR B-0 at home unit,
approximately 8'. limit the MPAs to fly MSSTs as follows:
Launch time from home station = – 3 aircraft
aircraft unit
unit = 1 deployable
deployable aircraft
aircraft
1.5 hrs to remove mission – 4 aircraft
aircraft unit
unit = 2 deployable
deployable aircraft
aircraft
– 5 aircraft
aircraft unit
unit = 3 deployable
deployable aircraft
aircraft
equipment – 6 aircraft
aircraft unit
unit = 3 deployable
deployable aircraft
aircraft
Cycle time at loading site is 2 hrs Launch time from home station = 1.5 hrs to
for C-130 remove mission equipment
NSF equipment and personnel are Subsequent launches from same home
available for loading when aircraft station add 1/2 hour to previous launch
arrives Cycle time at loading site - 1.5 hrs for MPA,
2 hrs for C-130
Flight crews will be doubled up or Simultaneous loading is possible at loading
pre-positioned to keep the aircraft site
moving MSST equipment & personnel are available
The only destinations used are the and ready for loading when aircraft arrives
Strategic Ports established in MPA Hot day and 6% weight growth limits CN-235
study. cargo weight
– No effect on C-27J or C-130J
Flight crews will be doubled up or pre-
positioned to keep the aircraft moving.

Organic Air Transport Results
6 C-130’s in Kodiak:
– No scenarios attain the goal of airborne in 6 hours and on-scene in 8 hours
16 C-130’s in PACAREA:
– No east coast districts attain the goal of airborne in 6 hours and on-scene in
8 hours
– Mid CONUS districts do get airborne within 6 hours, but arrive on-scene after
8 hours
– West coast districts attain both goals of airborne in 6 hours and on scene in
8 hours
– Alaska and Pacific districts are airborne within 6 hours, but arrive on scene
well beyond 8 hours
13 C-130’s in PACAREA and 3 C-130’s in Elizabeth City:

– Most districts attain the 6 hour airborne and 8 hour on-scene criteria
– Exceptions:
• D7 & D8 because there are no C-130s in Clearwater
• D 14 & D17 on-scene well beyond 8 hours

MSST Transport Cost Analysis
Having 16 vs. 6 HC-130Js reduces cost by slightly less than ½
Placing HC-130Js in Elizabeth City has little affect on cost
Using C-27Js costs slightly less than using CN-235s
Annual MSST Transport Costs for

One MARSEC II Event per Region per Year
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000 MPA = CN-235
$400,000 MPA = C-27J
$200,000
$-
6 C-130s 16 C-130s 16 C-130s
@ Kodiak @ PACAREA @ PAC &
LANT

USCG Aviation Concerns
Safety/Human Factors:
– Safety:
• One Engine Inoperative (OEI) Single Engine Climb Gradient
– Approach Modeled Reduced Fuel Load to Compensate for Achievement of 2.4% Climb Gradient
• Extended Range Two Engine Operations (ETOPS)
– Approach Modeled Identified Operations Greater than Two Hours from a Suitable Landing Area
– Engage the FAA to Evaluate the CASA Electrical System
System toto Meet
Meet the
the Intent
Intent ofof ETOPS
ETOPS
– Open Loop Maintenance Philosophy
• CASA maintenance philosophy utilizes an “open loop” parts supply system.
– This philosophy is unacceptable for a number of serial number tracked parts that are critical to
flight safety.
– Human Factors:
• Scanner Position and Search Window
• Crew Egress Upon Ditching
Growth/Margins:
– Max Gross Weight:
• CN 235 300M ER Aircraft currently has no Life Cycle Gross Weight Growth Capability…May Impact
Mission Growth Capability
• Concerns w/ Continuous Operations at Max Gross Weight
– Cargo Hauling Capability:
• Neither MPA Candidate is Capable of Meeting the OAT Requirements
Operational/Capability Limitations:
– Air Intercept Mission:
• Requirement Not Definitized
• Mission Max Speed Not Identified
– Operations in Icing Conditions:
• CASA 235 Series Aircraft are FAA Certified for Civil Flight into Heavy Icing

OIPT Recommendation
Continue with execution of CLIN 0040A

– Resolve outstanding IPT concerns associated with MPA
– If unable to resolve concerns, then the Coast Guard and ICGS
will pursue other MPA alternatives to provide the required IDS
capability
G-DPM-5 to brief G-O and G-S re way ahead in CLIN
0040A
ICGS/G-D to brief OIPT re MPA Operational
Effectiveness contributions of MPA in IDS

MPA Future Development Activities

CLIN 0040BA (Long Lead Materials for MPA [Aircraft

01 & 02]) currently scheduled to be issued 01/29/03
– ICGS /G-D developing ordering timeline to minimize financial
exposure prior to conclusion of CLIN 0040A
– CLIN 0040A System Requirement Review Scheduled for
01/29/03 & 01/30/03
– CLIN 0040A Preliminary Design Review Scheduled for 04/15/03
CLIN 0040A Scheduled to be completed 04/15/03
CLIN 0040BB (System Development & Demonstration
of MPA [Aircraft 01 & 02]) scheduled to be issued
04/16/03

MPA CLIN 0040 (Series) Schedule
CLIN 0040A $21,743,823
08/08/02 01/29/03 4/15/03

CLIN 0040BB $152,652,695
C/A 0040A SRR PDR CLIN 0040BA $13,975,552
10/03 01/05 04/05
C/A CDR Start A/C DT Complete

0040BB A/ C DT
01/29/03
C/A “Start
Complete
0040BA Production”
Production
Aircraft
Delivery to
Long Lead: Production Lead Time AR&SC
“start – 9 months” A/C #1 – 24 months (total
including lead time)
CASA - 30 month lead time for A/C #1 Delivery

CREW: U.S. Coast Guard: Deepwater Contract: MPA AOA Update Brief G-C

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CREW: U.S. Coast Guard: Deepwater Contract: MPA AOA Update Brief G-C

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Integrated Coast Guard Systems

MPA AoA Update Analysis

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

MPA Candidate Aircraft Descriptions

Item Alenia C-27J CASA CN 235 CASA CN 235ER

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

HU-25 Item HC-130H

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

 Initial Submission (30 September):

Not a Formal MPA “Source Selection”

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

 Total Ownership Cost:

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

 JSAS was utilized to compare Operational Effectiveness of candidate

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

Surveillance SAR Training Total flight

1,158 PFH per C-27

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

 JSAS Results Do Not Represent System Level IDS

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

Search Area Analysis

Aircraft Northeast (27) Southeast (46) West (48)

CN 235 300M ER 1: 74% 5[1]: 54% 41[5]: 38%

C 27J 1: 96% 2: 80% 36: 51%

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

Howland-Baker EEZ Jarvis Island EEZ

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

C-27J (15% ROM

Total AC&I $930 M $1,262 M $1,401 M

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

TOC Comparison of 35 C27's vs 35 CN-235 ER's costs (with Adjustments)

250 is AC&I and OE

C-27J TOC with 15% ROM factor

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

C-27J (15% ROM

Total AC&I $936 M $1,262 M $1,401 M

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

TOC Comparison of 35 C27's vs 35 CN-235's costs

250 is AC&I and OE

C-27J TOC with 15% ROM factor

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

 13 C-130’s in PACAREA and 3 C-130’s in Elizabeth City:

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

 Having 16 vs. 6 HC-130Js reduces cost by slightly less than ½

 Placing HC-130Js in Elizabeth City has little affect on cost

 Using C-27Js costs slightly less than using CN-235s

Annual MSST Transport Costs for

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

 Continue with execution of CLIN 0040A

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

MPA Future Development Activities

 CLIN 0040BA (Long Lead Materials for MPA [Aircraft

INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

CLIN 0040A $21,743,823

08/08/02 01/29/03 4/15/03

C/A 0040A SRR PDR CLIN 0040BA $13,975,552

10/03 01/05 04/05

C/A CDR Start A/C DT Complete

CASA - 30 month lead time for A/C #1 Delivery

Initial Submission (30 September):

Total Ownership Cost:

JSAS was utilized to compare Operational Effectiveness of candidate

JSAS Results Do Not Represent System Level IDS

13 C-130’s in PACAREA and 3 C-130’s in Elizabeth City:

Having 16 vs. 6 HC-130Js reduces cost by slightly less than ½

Placing HC-130Js in Elizabeth City has little affect on cost

Using C-27Js costs slightly less than using CN-235s

Continue with execution of CLIN 0040A

CLIN 0040BA (Long Lead Materials for MPA [Aircraft