Capability planning tool

JP8218 Deployable Camp Calculator

A simple planning tool to explore deployment footprint and sustainment demand for expeditionary camp concepts.

About this tool

Welcome. If you have arrived here from my LinkedIn network, this tool is a simple thought experiment inspired by the JP8218 Deployable Infrastructure program. It allows you to explore the logistics footprint behind deployable camps — how changes in camp size, environment and duration affect deployment load, sustainment demand and transport requirements. The model is deliberately simplified and indicative, but it provides a useful way to visualise the scale and trade-offs that sit behind expeditionary infrastructure concepts.

Feedback from practitioners is very welcome. The assumptions used in the model are deliberately simplified and should be treated as indicative only.

DECNet logo
Publisher
DECNet
Status
Indicative planning tool
Version
0.2
Scenario definition

Define the scenario

Start by defining the camp population, duration and environment. Then compare two scenarios to see how the deployment and sustainment burden changes.

Scenario A

Scenario

Scenario B

Scenario
Deployment footprint

Movement and establishment burden

Scenario A

150 personnel • 30 days • Temperate

Containers
40
Deployment load
Trucks
29
Convoy estimate
C-17 sorties
2
Heavy airlift equivalent
Setup time
19 hrs
Initial establishment
Scenario B

500 personnel • 30 days • Tropical

Containers
148
Deployment load
Trucks
107
Convoy estimate
C-17 sorties
7
Heavy airlift equivalent
Setup time
65 hrs
Initial establishment
Sustainment demand

Primary scenario resource demand

Scenario A
Daily water
9,000 L
Indicative daily requirement
Daily food
375 kg
Indicative daily requirement
Daily diesel
630 L
Indicative daily requirement
Daily waste
180 kg
Indicative daily output
What does this mean?

A deployable camp can require a surprisingly large logistics train before sustainment even begins. The infrastructure is only part of the story. The more difficult question is often how much movement, fuel, water and support effort the concept imposes once it is deployed.

Comparison insights

Trade-off summary

A versus B
Metric
Scenario A
Scenario B
Delta
Containers
40
148
+108
Trucks
29
107
+78
C-17 sorties
2
7
+5
Setup time
19 hrs
65 hrs
+46 hrs
Daily water
9,000 L
40,000 L
+31,000 L
Daily diesel
630 L
2,400 L
+1,770 L
Daily food
375 kg
1,250 kg
+875 kg
Footprint
713
3,971
+3,258 m²
Generators
3
9
+6
Water treatment units
1
2
+1
Structure and systems

Primary scenario subsystem estimate

Scenario A
Accommodation modules
10
Assumed at 15 personnel per module
Kitchen modules
1
Assumed at 1 per 150 personnel
SAL units
4
Assumed at 1 per 40 personnel
Generators
3
270 kW estimated peak load
Water treatment units
1
Assumed at 25,000 L/day per unit
HQ / office modules
1
Scaled with population
Warehouse modules
0
300 m² per module where applicable
Maintenance shelters
0
Only added for larger operating nodes
Operational footprint
713 m²
Built-up operating area only
Analyst notes

What stands out

Scenario B changes the deployment burden by 108 containers compared with Scenario A.
Daily water demand shifts by 31,000 litres. That is usually where naive camp concepts start to fall apart.
Daily diesel demand moves by 1,770 litres, which directly affects convoy size, storage and resilience.
Environment alone changes the footprint and setup assumptions. That is the point: the same brochure solution is not the same operational solution.
Duration totals

Primary scenario cumulative demand

Water270,000 L
Food11,250 kg
Diesel18,900 L
Solid waste5,400 kg
Model basis

Assumptions and caveats

This model is intentionally simple. It is built for early discussion, not compliance, pricing, or engineering certification.

Transport figures are ISO-equivalent approximations only. Air and sea lift equivalents are broad planning proxies.

Larger camps trigger warehousing and maintenance elements because forward logistics nodes have a different burden to a small temporary camp.

The right use is to test scale and assumptions. The wrong use is to treat the output as a final answer.