 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
| Copyright © 2012. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
od''rinn ~
for
~1
i
ID
he Logistics Burden
R~m''Rfter Next
Doing More with Less
Committee to Perform a Technology Assessment
Focused on Logistics Support Requirements
for Future Army Combat Systems
Board on Army Scienc
and Technology
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
National Research Council
NATIONALACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1999
OCR for page R2
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National
Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the
National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible
for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of
distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science
and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the
Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific
and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the
National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the
responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors
engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes
the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of
. . .
. ~ngmeerlng.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to
secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters
pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National
Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its
own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of
the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916
to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering
knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined
by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of
Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and
the scientific and engineering communities. The council is administered jointly by both Academies and the
Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman
respectively, of the National Research Council.
This is a report of work supported by Contract DAAG55-97-C-0044 between the U.S. Army
and the National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed
in this publication are those of the authoress and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or
agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-06378-7
Limited copies are available from:
Board on Army Science and Technology
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
Additional copies are available for sale from:
National Academy Press
Box 285
2101 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20055
800-624-6242 or 202-334-3313
(in the Washington Metropolitan Area)
Copyright 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
OCR for page R3
COMMITTEE TO PERFORM A TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
FOCUSED ON LOGISTICS SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS FOR
FUTURE ARMY COMBAT SYSTEMS
GERALD E. GALLOWAY, JR., chair, International loins Commission,
Washington, D.C.
STEVEN R.~. BRUECK, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
PATRICK F. FLYNN, Cummins Engine Company, Inc., Columbus, Indiana
ALAN B. FOWLER, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights,
New York
KENNETH I. GRAHAM, Atiantic Research Corporation, Gainesville, Virginia
ALLEN F. GRUM, Mercer University, Macon, Georgia
FREDERICK E. HARTMAN, The Foxhall Group, Washington, D.C.
EDWARD I. HAUG, University of Iowa, Iowa City
MERRILEA I. MAYO, Pennsylvania State University, University Park
SURESH MENON, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
ERNEST N. PETRICK, General Dynamics Land Systems, (retired) Ann Arbor,
Michigan
JOSEPH R. PICKENS, Concurrent Technologies Corporation, Gleneig, Maryland
LEON E. SALOMON, Rubbermaid, Inc., Wooster, Ohio
MEHMET SARIKAYA, University of Washington, Seattle
NAMES K. STEDMAN, Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia
National Research Council Staff
ROBERT I. LOVE, Study Director
KNIFER AUSTIN, Senior Project Assistant (December, ~998)
DELPHINE D. GLAZE, Senior Project Assistant (January 1998)
MARGO L. FRANCESCO, Publication Manager
DEANNA SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant (unti! December 1997)
ROBERT I. KATT, Technical Consultant
Board on Army Science and Technology Liaison
KATHRYN V. LOGAN, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
. . .
111
OCR for page R4
BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
WILLIAM H. FORSTER, chair, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland
THOMAS L. MCNAUGHER, vice chair, RAND Corporation, Washington, D.C.
GARY L. BORMAN, University of Wisconsin, Madison
RICHARD A. CONWAY, Union Carbide Corporation, Charleston, West Virginia
GILBERT S. DECKER, Alliant Tech Systems, Inc., Los Gatos, California
LAWRENCE I. DELANEY, Delaney Group, Potomac, Maryland
ROBERT I. HEASTON, Guidance and Control Information Analysis Center
(retired), Naperville, Illinois
ELVIN R. HETBERG, Heiberg Associates, Inc., Mason Neck, Virginia
GERALD I. TAFRATE, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana
KATHRYN V. LOGAN, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
JOHN H. MOXLEY, Korn/Ferry International, Los Angeles, California
STEWART D. PERSONTCK, Bell Communications Research, Tnc., Morristown,
New jersey
MILLARD F. ROSE, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
GEORGE T. SINGLEY III, Hicks and Associates, Inc., McLean, Virginia
CLARENCE G. THORNTON, Army Research Laboratories (retired), Colts Neck,
New Jersey
JOHN D. VENABLES, Venables and Associates, Towson, Maryland
JOSEPH I. VERNIER, ENSCO, Inc., Melbourne, Florida
ALLEN C. WARD, Ward Synthesis, Tnc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
Staff
BRUCE A. BRAWN, Director
MARGO L. FRANCESCO, Staff Associate
ALVERA WILSON, Financial Associate
DEANNA SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant
IV
OCR for page R5
Preface
This study lays out steps that should be taken for the Army to field combat
systems with reduced logistics support requirements for a highly mobile and lethal battle
force that is fundamentally self-sufficient. Although the study is based on a notional
battle force concept provided by the Army to illustrate possibilities and alternatives, the
findings also can be applied to the development of systems for other missions.
Reductions in logistics demand that can be achieved by addressing logistical implications
during system design will be more significant than improving the ways that logistics
support is provided.
The study provides a road map for research and technology development based
on logistical considerations and offers a unique perspective on ideas and technologies
currently being considered by the Army. The committee believes that current technology
can be adapted to support the incorporation of logistical considerations in planning to a
degree not previously imagined. Clearly, attention to logistics trade-off analysis is
absolutely essential for the Arrny to get the most "bang for its buck" by 2025. For
perhaps the first time, the Arrny has both an opportunity and the technology to consider
fully the logistical implications in designing a force. Recognizing the likely threats and
required capabilities, the Army has every reason to do so.
The scope and complexity of issues surrounding the AAN are challenging. The
committee relied heavily on the Arrny for information on conceptual requirements and on
the status of research activities. We appreciate very much the willingness of everyone
involved to provide background data and to discuss issues candidly.
Gerald E. Galloway, Jr., Chair
Committee to Perform a Technology Assessment
Focused on Logistics Support Requirements
For Future Arrny Combat Systems
v
OCR for page R6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse
perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the
National Research Council's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent
review is to provide candid and critical comments that wall assist the authors and the
National Research Council in making the published report as sound as possible and to
ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and
responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the review comments and draft
manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We
wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report:
Lloyd Duscha, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (retired), Reston, Virginia
David C. Hardison, Consultant, Falls Church, Virginia
John B. Mooney, I. Brad Mooney Associates, Arlington, Virginia
Julia Phillips, Sandia National Laboratones, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Donald S. PihI, General Dynamics, Sterling Heights, Michigan
Craig Rogers, University of South Carolina, Columbia
Randall L. Simpson, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, Livermore
California
Cynthia Whitney, Tufts University, Arlington, Massachusetts
While the individuals listed above have provided many constructive comments
and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the
authoring committee and the National Research Council.
via
OCR for page R7
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 15
Statement of Task, 16
Concept for Arrny After Next Operations, 16
Study Concept, 19
Report Organization, 19
2
MILITARY LOGISTICS AND THE ARMY AFTER
NEXT REQUIREMENTS.........................................
Military Logistics, 22
Strategic, Operational, and Tactical Logistics, 22
Historical Analysis of the Impact of Logistics on Modern Warfare, 23
Concepts of Warfare for the Twenty-First Century, 24
Logistics Concepts for the Anny After Next, 25
Logistics Burdens for the Battle Force, 26
Burden Reduction Goals, 27
LOGISTICS TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS .....
Factors in Trade-off Analyses, 29
Capabilities for AAN Performance and Reducing
Logistics Burdens, 30
Requirements for AAN Trade-off Analysis, 31
Companson with the STAR 21 Study, 33
Modeling and Simulation Environment to Support Logistics Trade-off
Analyses, 34
Using the M&S Hierarchy for Exploratory Development and
Defining Research Needs, 36
Mobility Trade-off Analyses, 37
Trade-off Analyses for Small-Unit and Force-on-Force
Engagements, 40
Trade-off Analyses to Support AAN Mission Reliability, 42
Facilitating a Modeling and Simulation Environment to Support
System Trade-off Analyses, 44
Setting Prionties, 45
Securing Buy-in and Commitment from Others, 45
Focusing on Logistics Trade-offs, 45
. .
Vll
..21
..29
OCR for page R8
. ~ .
Vlll
Science and Technology Initiatives to Reduce Logistics Burdens
through Trade-off Analyses, 46
4 FUEL AND ENERGY
/
CONTENTS
Increasing the Energy Supply, 48
Hydrogen as a Battlefield Fuel, 49
Nuclear Fuel for Transportable Power Plants with High
Power Density, 5 ~
Coupled Nuclear-Electnc-Hydrogen System, 52
Reducing Energy Demand, 55
Lighter Vehicles through Materials Substitution, 55
Lighter Vehicles through Optimized System Perfo~ance, 58
Efficient Energy Management, 59
Fuel Economy as a Functional Specification, 59
Hybrid Vehicles, 60
Science and Technology Initiatives to Reduce Energy-Related
Logistics Burdens, 61
Increasing the Energy Supply, 61
Reducing Energy Demand, 62
Efficient Energy Management, 63
is
.48
OPERATIONAL AND TACTICAL MOBILITY
Operational Mobility, 64
Tactical (Battlefield) Mobility, 66
Wheeled Versus Tracked Vehicles, 69
Remote Sensing to Enhance Battlefield Ground Mobility, 72
Reducing the Size of Vehicle Crews, 72
Distnbuted Modeling and Simulation Environment for
Vehicle Design, 78
Status of Current Modeling and Simulation Tools, 78
Technology Extensions, 80
Science and Technology Initiatives to Reduce Mobility
Logistics Burdens, 84
Operational Mobility, 84
Tactical Ground Mobility, 84
.64
6 ENGAGEMENT 87
Situational Awareness, 87
Projectile Weapon Systems, 90
Gun Systems, 90
Small Missile Systems for Precision Attack 94
Precision Guided Munitions, 96
Propellants, Explosives, and Warheads, 98
Logistics Implications of Projectile Weapon Systems, 104
Directed Energy Weapons, 104
Lasers, 105
Microwave Devices, 106
Less-than-Lethal Weapons, 107
OCR for page R9
CONTENTS
IX
Science and Technology Initiatives to Reduce Logistics Burdens of
Engagement Systems, 107
Situational Awareness, 107
Projectile Weapon Systems, 108
Directed-Energy and Less-than-Lethal Weapons, 109
RELIABILITY CONCEPTS 110
Logistical Implications of Highly Reliable Systems, 110
Pulse-Reliable Systems, 110
Fast Refitting through Improved Maintainability, 1 ~ 2
AAN Mission Reliability Versus Ultrareliability, 112
AAN Mission Reliability and RAMD, 113
Using an M&S Environment to Develop AAN Mission-Reliable
Systems, 114
Adequate M&S Systems, 116
Defining Reliability in Measurable Characteristics, ~ 16
Iterative Simulation, ~ 17
Valid Data on Alternatives, 11 ~
Preserving Mission Reliability during System Trade-offs, 119
The Third Approach: Research to Enable New Reliability Solutions, 121
Improving System Reliability at the Level of Component
Analysis and Design, 121
Science and Technology Initiatives to Achieve AAN
Mission Reliability, 125
AAN Mission Reliability, 125
Three Approaches to Mission Reliability, 126
8 SOLDIER SUSTAINMENT
Compact Power, 128
..................................................................................... 128
Microturbines, 128
Nuclear "Batteries," 129
Protection of Personnel, 129
Body Annor, 130
Active Protection Systems, 130
Medicine and Nutrition, 130
Other Technologies, 131
Findings, 132
9 JOINT FORCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
Strategic Lift Capabilities, 133
Long Range Supporting Fire, 135
Interoperable Command and Control Systems, 136
Findings, 136
10 INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR RESEARCH AND
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT...........................
Role of Defense Research and Development, 137
Army Science and Technology Program, 139
.133
..137
OCR for page R10
x
CONTENTS
Strategic Research Objectives and S&T Objectives, 140
Strategic Research Objectives and AAN Situational Awareness. 140
Strategic Research Objectives and Lightweight Materials 142
~C7
,
Strategic Research Objectives for Logistics, 142
Investments to Reduce Logistics Support Requirements for AAN Systems, 143
Road Map Objectives, 143
Distributed M&S Technology, 146
Lightweight Materials for Air and Ground Vehicles, 148
Airframe and Engine Designs, 149
Unmanned and Minimally Crewed Vehicles, 150
Mobility Systems, 150
Terrain Awareness, 151
New Energy Delivery Systems, 151
Lethal Systems Performance and Reduced System Weight, 152
Situational Awareness and Precision Guidance, 152
Reducing the Ammunition Burden through Lethal Systems
Performance, 154
Energetic s and Warhead Materials, 154
Systems Design for Reliability, 155
Compact Power, 156
Lightweight Protection Systems for Individual Soldiers, 156
Advances in Combat Medicine, Nutrition, and
Soldier Fitness, 157
AAN Logistics Trade-off Analyses across Burden
Reduction Goals, 157
Situational Awareness for Logistics Operations, 158
11 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES ...................................
APPENDICES
159
163
A STATEMENT OF TASK 171
B MEETINGS AND ACTIVITIES 172
C TECHNOLOGIES FOR MATERIALS SELECTION
AND DESIGN 183
D
E
F
MATERIALS OPTIONS FOR FUEL EFFICIENCY AND
PROTECTION 190
DUTY CYCLES AND FUEL ECONOMY OF HYBRID
VEHICLES
SITUATIONAL AWARENESS
95
97
OCR for page R11
FIGURES, TABLES AND BOXES
FIGURES
1-1
2-1
3-1
3-2
4-1
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
3-1
4-1
5-1
5-2
Illustration of the Army After Next operating environment, 1
Joint Vision 2010 operational concepts, 25
Hierarchical system of modeling and simulation for AAN trade-off
analyses for a vehicle system, 34
Component design considerations, 35
Alternative energy systems for the AAN, 54
Schematic representation of the situational awareness system, 89
Rail gun projectile, 93
Major BAT subsystems, 97
Comparison of engine technologies, 100
Calibration curve from large-scale card gap tests of conventional
warhead explosives used by the Anny and PBX replacements, 103
Hierarchy of model domains, 115
Joint Vision 2010 operational concepts, 135
DoD's decreasing share of the market for integrated circuits, 13
Army funding for research, 139
Materials engineering technologies to support system design, 184
Duty cycle for a 3.4 metric-ton vehicle with an engine rated at 235 brake
horsepower and a maximum torque of 440 ft-lb, 196
TABLES
ES-1 Logistics Burdens, Burden Reduction Goals, Road Map Objectives,
Technology Development Areas, and Research Areas, 6
Rank Ordering of Technologies Identified in the STAR 21 Technology
Relevance Matrix, 33
Densities of Elements That Form the Basis of Major Structural Alloys,
56
Battlefield Mobility Trade-offs for Transport Aircraft, 65
Unmanned Vehicles Worldwide, 75
Xl
OCR for page R12
. .
Xll
FIGURES, TABLES, AND BOXES
10-! Logistics Burdens, Burden Reduction Goals, Road Map Objectives,
Technology Development Areas, and Research Areas, 6
BOXES
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
4-1
5-1
5-2
Technology-Dependent AAN Capabilities with Significant Effects on
Logistics Demand, 30
14-Day Self-Sustainment Requirement Must Dictate Materiel Design, 31
Critical M&S Needs for AAN Trade-off Analyses in Support of
Reducing Logistics Demand, 32
Characteristics of an AAN Unit for Small-Unit and Force-on-Force
Engagement Analyses, 41
M&S Tools to be Linked for AAN Logistics Trade-off Analysis, 42
Facilitating AAN Logistics Trade-off Analyses, 44
Fuel Cells, 53
Russian WIG Vehicles, 68
Limitations in M&S Tools for Engineering Analysis of Ground Vehicle
Concepts, 79
5-3 Mobility M&S Technology Developments, 81
5-4 M&S Tools for AAN Mission Rehearsal Analysis, 82
5-5 Vehicle Motion Simulators, 83
6- ! Benefits of Less Sensitive Munitions, 102
7-1 Classical Definitions of Reliability and Related Concepts, ~ 1
10-1 Army Strategic Research Objectives, 141
OCR for page R13
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACRONYMS
AAN Army After Next
AFSS advanced fire support system
AMC Army Materiel Command
AMSAA Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
ARL Army Research Laboratory
ARO Amy Research Office
ATACMS Army tactical missile system
ATM asynchronous transfer mode
ATR automated target recognition
BAT brilliant anti-tank
BUSE battle unit support element
BVRAAM beyond visual range air-to-air missile
C3I command, control, communications, and intelligence
C4ISR command and control, communications, computers, intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance
CAE computer-aided engineering
CAV composite armored vehicle
CBW chemical/biological warfare
CECOM Communications-Electronic Command Center
CKEM compact kinetic energy missile
CMOS complementary-metal oxide on silicon
CNP compact nuclear power
COPS compact nuclear power source
CRAP Civilian Reserve Air Fleet Program
DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DEW directed energy warfare
DTS distributed interactive simulation
DOC Department of Commerce
DoD Department of Defense
EM electromagnetic
EMP electromagnetic pulse
ETC electrothermal chemical
. . .
xzz~
OCR for page R14
xlv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
FCS Future Combat System
FEL free electron lasers
FLTR forward-Iooking infrared
FSCS future scout and cavalry system
GTRAS gas-inflated ram air stabilizer
GPS global positioning system
GS general support
HLA high level architecture
HMMWV high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles
HMX high melting explosive
HEM high power microwaves
HPMM high power millimeter wave
TAT Institute for Advanced Technology
TO integrated circuit
IDA Institute for Defense Analysis
THPRPT Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology
TFF identification of friend or foe
IR infrared
ICS Joint Chiefs of Staff
IRP Joint Robotics Program
KEP kinetic energy penetrator
EMSR large, medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off
LRP Tong rod penetrator
LTL less than lethal
M&S modeling and simulation
MRE meals ready-to-eat
MLRS multiple launch rocket systems
NATO North Atiantic Treaty Organization
NIMA National Imagery and Mapping Agency
NRC National Research Council
NRMM NATO Reference Mobility Model
NRO National Reconnaissance Office
NSA National Security Agency
PBX plastic-bonded explosive
PEM proton exchange membrane
PNGV Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles
POL (petrol, oil, lubricants) petroleum
QW]:P quantum-well infrared photodetector
RAMD reliability, availability, maintainability, and durability
RDEC research, development engineering center
OCR for page R15
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
RDT&E
RDX
RHA
RML
RSTA
S&T
SA
SGE
SRO
STO
TARDEC
TE
TOE
TRADOC
UAV
UGV
UGVTEE
WV
WES
WIG
cm3
Ft-lb
KE
kg
kW.h
km/in
kW
MW
mJ
nm
xv
research, development, testing and evaluation
rapid detonating explosive
rolled homogeneous armor
Revolution in Military Logistics
reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition
science and technology
situational awareness
surface ground-effect
strategic research objective
science and technology objective
Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering
Center
thermoelectric
table of organization and equipment
Army Training and Doctrine Command
unmanned aerial vehicle
unmanned ground vehicle
UGV Technology Enhancement and Exploitation
unmanned undersea vehicles
vehicle dynamics subsystem
Waterways Experiment Station
. .
wmg-m-grounc ~
cubic centimeter
foot pound
kinetic energy
kilogram
kilowatt hour
kilometer hour
kilowatt
megawatt
megawatt hour
millijoule
nanometer
ABBREVIATIONS
OCR for page R16
