Force Multiplying Technologies
for Logistics Support to Military Operations
Committee on Force Multiplying Technologies for Logistics Support to Military Operations
Board on Army Science and Technology
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
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 competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. W911NF-13-D-0002-0001 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Army. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-30733-8
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-30733-3
Limited copies of this report are available from
Board on Army Science and Technology
National Research Council
500 Fifth Street, NW, Room 940
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 334-3118
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW,
Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2014 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
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. Ralph J. Cicerone 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. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
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. Victor J. Dzau 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. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE ON FORCE MULTIPLYING TECHNOLOGIES FOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT TO MILITARY OPERATIONS
GERALD E. GALLOWAY, JR., University of Maryland, College Park, Chair
GERALD G. BROWN, Naval Postgraduate School, California
CHARLES R. CUSHING, C.R. Cushing & Company, New York
STEVEN W. DELLENBACK, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas
THOMAS M. DONNELLAN, Pennsylvania State University, State College
JULIA D. ERDLEY, Pennsylvania State University, State College
RONALD P. FUCHS, Independent Consultant, Bellevue, Washington
CHARLES F. GAY, Greenstar Foundation, Westlake Village, California
THOM J. HODGSON, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
LEON A. JOHNSON, Independent Consultant, Irving, Texas
GREG H. PARLIER, GH Parlier Consulting, Madison, Alabama
KAUSHIK RAJASHEKARA, University of Texas, Dallas
LEON E. SALOMON, Independent Consultant, Gulfport, Florida
PRABHJOT SINGH, GE Global Research, Niskayuna, New York
BRUCE M. THOMPSON, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
DALE G. UHLER, Battelle Memorial Institute, St. Petersburg, Florida
Staff
BRUCE BRAUN, Director, Board on Army Science and Technology
JAMES C. MYSKA, Senior Research Associate, Study Director
NIA D. JOHNSON, Senior Research Associate
DEANNA SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator
BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
DAVID M. MADDOX, Independent Consultant, Arlington, Virginia, Chair
JEAN D. REED, Independent Consultant, Arlington, Virginia, Vice Chair
DUANE ADAMS, Independent Consultant, Arlington, Virginia
ILESANMI ADESIDA, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
STEVEN W. BOUTELLE, CISCO Consulting Services, Herndon, Virginia
MARY E. BOYCE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
EDWARD C. BRADY, Strategic Perspectives, Inc., McLean, Virginia
W. PETER CHERRY, Independent Consultant, Ann Arbor, Michigan
EARL H. DOWELL, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
JULIA D. ERDLEY, Pennsylvania State University, State College
LESTER A. FOSTER, Electronic Warfare Associates, Herndon, Virginia
JAMES A. FREEBERSYSER, BBN Technology, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
PETER N. FULLER, Cypress International, Springfield, Virginia
W. HARVEY GRAY, Independent Consultant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
JOHN J. HAMMOND, Independent Consultant, Fairfax, Virginia
RANDALL W. HILL, JR., University of Southern California Institute for Creative Technologies, Playa Vista
JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
BRUCE D. JETTE, Synovision Solutions, LLC, Burke, Virginia
ROBIN L. KEESEE, Independent Consultant, Fairfax, Virginia
WILLIAM L. MELVIN, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Smyrna
WALTER F. MORRISON, Independent Consultant, Alexandria, Virginia
ROBIN MURPHY, Texas A&M University, College Station
SCOTT PARAZYNSKI, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston
RICHARD R. PAUL, Independent Consultant, Bellevue, Washington
DANIEL PODOLSKY, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas
LEON E. SALOMON, Independent Consultant, Gulfport, Florida
ALBERT A. SCIARRETTA, CNS Technologies, Inc., Springfield, Virginia
JONATHAN M. SMITH, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
DAVID A. TIRRELL, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
MICHAEL A. VANE, DynCorp International, Lorton, Virginia
JOSEPH YAKOVAC, JVM LLC, Hampton, Virginia
Staff
BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director
CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate
JAMES C. MYSKA, Senior Research Associate
DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator
Preface
Logistics provides the backbone for Army combat operations. Without fuel, ammunition, water, rations, and other supplies, the Army would grind to a halt. This fact is frequently acknowledged in conversation but not as often rewarded in the allocation of resources necessary to carry out logistics functions. In 1997, I was asked to chair the Committee to Perform a Technical Assessment Focused on Logistics Support Requirements for Future Army Combat Systems. That committee authored the report Reducing the Logistics Burden for the Army After Next: Doing More with Less.1 The charge to the 1999 committee was similar to the charge to the authoring committee of this report, the Committee on Force Multiplying Technologies for Logistics Support to Military Operations—examine logistics burdens and identify where technology, operating adjustments, and efficiencies might offer opportunities for improvements. In 1999, the committee found that there were several areas in which logistics burdens could be reduced through the use of emerging technologies. It also identified ways for Army logistics to be better supported in its analytical efforts. Some of the committee’s recommendations were adopted, especially with respect to weapon systems reliability. Other recommendations, however, were either put into the “too hard box” or the “awaiting funding drawer.” Now, 15 years later, many of the findings and recommendations of this report follow in the footsteps of the earlier report.
This committee is concerned that logistics activities within the Army do not receive the attention necessary to ensure the effective sustainment of operational forces on the battlefield over the long term. Because the logistics community has worked tirelessly to ensure that soldiers get what they need when they need it, the assumption is frequently made that these activities are being performed in the most efficient manner, and at the least fiscal and personal cost. In research and development, analyses, exercises, and planning, logistics challenges are often minimized, or the need to come to grips with them is postponed until another day. A recent study by the Joint and Coalition Operational Analysis division, a part of the Joint Staff J-7, identified “enduring lessons” from the past decade of military operations.2 Although many of the lessons from that study touched on issues raised in this report, the analysis did not address any specific logistics topics, even though a substantial number of the challenges faced over this last decade involved the sustainment of the force. It is time to give appropriate attention to logistics.
The National Research Council assembled an outstanding group of experts to carry out this study. It brought together scientists, engineers, policymakers, analysts, and logisticians. The members brought their exceptional expertise and years of experience to the study. I would like to express my personal appreciation to GEN (ret.) Leon Salomon, a former Army G-4 and former commander of the Army Material Command, and also a member of the 1999 committee that authored Reducing the Logistics Burden for the Army After Next: Doing More with Less. GEN Salomon served as chair of this committee when I was not available. I would also like to express my personal appreciation to the other members of the committee for their professionalism, willingness to operate in a collaborative environment during difficult discussions, and to continuously focus their efforts on providing the most useful study possible to the United States Army.
________________________
1 National Research Council, Reducing the Logistics Burden for the Army After Next: Doing More with Less, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
2 Joint and Coalition Operational Analysis, Decade of War, Volume 1: Enduring Lessons from the Past Decade of Operations, June 15, 2012, http://blogs.defensenews.com/saxotech-access/pdfs/decade-of-war-lessons-learned.pdf.
The committee very much appreciated the efforts made by organizations to provide the information that was requested and to share their insights into the challenges that they and the Army face. The committee expresses its appreciation to all of those who took time out of their busy schedules to meet with the committee as a whole or with individual members. Their dedication to mission accomplishment was evident. A list of the majority of people and organizations contacted by the committee is given in Table 1-1, and a more detailed listing is in Appendix A. At the request of some interviewees, their names were not included on this list.
This study was directed to be unclassified, and as a result, some information identified as “For Official Use Only” was not provided to the committee. This may have resulted in small gaps in the study coverage.
In its deliberations the committee examined the potential for developing a strawman research and development (R&D) strategy for logistics and logistics-related actions, but quickly learned that the absence of information needed and the complexities of integrating such a strategy across all Army elements would make such development infeasible. A strategy begins with a clear definition of the mission and goals to be achieved. It was clear to the committee that the Army is in a period of great transition and is seeking, through organizations such as the Army Capabilities Integration Center, to better define how the Army will doctrinally and organizationally meet future challenges and how a new force will be equipped. Logistics burdens follow equipment choices and tactical demands, strategies employed and missions assigned to the Army. Much is said about the Army becoming expeditionary, yet much of the large forward operating base memory still drives planning. Development of a strategy for science and technology and R&D affecting logistics will require agreement on the tradeoffs among operational capabilities, logistics demands, and personnel requirements in programs far outside the purview of the G-4. While the committee determined that development of forward looking logistics R&D strategy would be infeasible (especially considering that none currently exists), it did provide advice in Chapter 9 as to the collaborative development of such a strategy by the Army staff as a whole.
The committee would like to express its sincere thanks to our study director, Mr. James Myska. His tireless efforts to provide the committee the information it requested, identify opportunities to expand the horizons of the committee, and, of critical importance, shepherd final writing of the report merits the highest levels of praise. The committee also expresses its appreciation to Mr. Bruce Braun, BAST director, Ms. Deana Sparger, and Ms. Nia Johnson for their assistance to the committee throughout its life.
Finally, the committee would like to pay special tribute to LTG Ray Mason, the Army G4 at the inception of the study, for his willingness to undertake this study and to share his personal views on logistics with the committee. His dedication to the improvement of Army logistics will make a difference to the Army as a whole in the years ahead.
Gerald E. Galloway, Chair
Committee on Force Multiplying Technologies for
Logistics Support to Military Operations
Acknowledgments
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its 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 review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Claude M. Bolton, Jr, Claude Bolton & Associates, LLC;
Lillian C. Borrone, NAE, Eno Center for Transportation;
W. Peter Cherry, NAE, Independent consultant;
Walt DeGrange, CANA Advisors, LLC;
Mitra Dutta, University of Illinois at Chicago;
Kathleen Gainey, Cypress International, Inc.;
Mary L. Good, NAE, University of Arkansas at Little Rock;
Michael R. Johnson, NAE, University of Arkansas;
David M. Maddox, NAE, Independent consultant;
M. Frank Rose, Radiance Technologies; and
Robert G. Traver, Villanova University.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Claude F. Christianson, independent consultant. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Contents
Logistics as a Key Battlefield Element
Overview of Committee Activities and Approach
2 THE CURRENT LOGISTICS PICTURE
Organization and Responsibilities
Logistics Operations and Players
Logistics in Joint and Combined Operations
Assessing the Logistics Burden
3 REDUCING THE MAJOR LOGISTICS DEMANDS
Water Technologies, Current and Future
Distillation and Nanotechnology
Water from Diesel Engine Exhaust
Microgrids, Power Generation, and Distribution
Alternative Energy Sources and Energy Storage
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
Caseless, Polymer-Cased, and Case-Telescoped Ammunition
Reducing the Ammunition Burden
Small Radionuclide Power Sources
Single Charger for Various Batteries
Soldier Power Integration and Management
Mobility Into the Theater and Within the Theater
Maneuver Support Vessel to Replace Army Landing Craft
Ship-to-Shore Connector as a Replacement for LCAC
Offshore Petroleum Distribution System
Prior Autonomy Efforts Relevant to Logistics
Applying Autonomy to Logistics
Readiness-Responsive Retrograde
Improving Retrograde Efficiency
Synchronizing Retrograde with Depot Repair
6 LOGISTICS ENTERPRISE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND DECISION SUPPORT
Logistics Enterprise Information System
Army Enterprise Systems Integration Program
Joint and Coalition Considerations
In-Transit Visibility and Supply Chain Management
Making Better Logistics Decisions
Operations Research and Logistics Decision Making
(Lack of) Analysis of Logistics Issues Related to Acquisition
Operations Research Support for Logistics
7 USE OF CONTRACTORS AND THE ARMY RESERVE
Studies of Operational Contract Support
Integrating Contractors into Planning and Operations
8 OPTIMIZING THE LOGISTICS EFFORT
Logistics Support of Special Operations Forces
Recognition of the Logistics Mission
Taking Advantage of Technology Innovation
9 LOGISTICS-CENTRIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT STRATEGY
10 FUTURE OPERATIONS: HOW IT MIGHT BE
11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Key Findings and Recommendations
Logistics Enterprise Information System
Use of Contractors and the Army Reserve
Logistics Support of Special Operations
Taking Advantage of Technology Innovation
Logistics Science and Technology and R&D Strategy
Findings and Recommendations from the Chapters
Chapter 3—Reducing the Major Logistics Demands
Mobility Into and Within the Theater
Chapter 5—Maintenance, Retrograde, and Waste
Connecting CBM to the Supply Chain
Chapter 6—Logistics Enterprise Information Systems and Decision Support
Logistics Enterprise Information System
Making Better Logistics Decisions
Chapter 7—Use of Contractors and the Army Reserve
Integrating Contractors into Planning and Operations
Chapter 8—Optimizing the Logistics Effort
Logistics Support of Special Operations Forces
Taking Advantage of Technology Innovation
Chapter 9—Logistics-Centric Science and Technology and Research and Development Investment Strategy
Tables and Figures
TABLES
S-1 Daily Resupply Requirements for a FIB and HBCT from CAMEX 2008 (tons)
S-2 Road Map and Areas to Focus Logistics S&T and R&D Efforts
2-1 Daily Resupply Requirements for a FIB and HBCT from CAMEX 2008 (tons)
2-2 Four-Day Sustainment Requirements for an HBCT and How the Required Cargo Was Delivered
2-3 Four-Day Sustainment Requirements for a FIB and How the Required Cargo Was Delivered
2-4 Total Sustainment Requirements Over CAMEX 2008 and How those Requirements Were Delivered
4-1 Percentage of Time Different Littoral Areas Experience Sea State 3 or Less
4-2 Major Classes of Army Hull-Borne Landing Craft
4-3 Planned Capabilities of the MSV, by Class
7-1 Contractor Support Breakout in Afghanistan, 2014
7-2 Breakdown of Contractor Personnel in Afghanistan in 2010, 2012, and 2014
9-1 Road Map and Areas to Focus Logistics S&T and R&D Efforts
D-1 Various Sea State Classification Systems
FIGURES
2-1-1 Aerial view of the hospital at Bagram Airfield
2-1 Phases of notional operation plan phases versus level of military effort
3-1 A containerized system of 100 kW rolls of flexible photovoltaic cell arrays
3-2 The High Energy Laser-Mobile Demonstrator (HEL-MD)
3-4 Two concepts for D-cell sized radionuclide power sources
4-2 The strategic mobility triad
4-3 Artist’s concept of an LMSR alongside, and transferring cargo, to an MLP
4-7 Artist’s conception of an MSV-light
4-9 Artist’s concept of an SSC
4-10 Deployed JLOTS causeway segments
4-13 Artist’s conception of the LCMS in use by an M1 Abrams
4-15 An example of a road train
4-16 Ground Unmanned Support Surrogate undergoing testing
4-17 Artists’ renderings of ARES
4-19 Helicopter sling for delivering cargo by JPADS, during testing
5-1 The prognostic replacement alert signal and order ship time (OST)
5-2 Test results for the AH-64 nose gear box
6-1 Army Logistics Enterprise Systems
6-3 Officer ORSA (Army Functional Area 49) authorizations in AMC from FY1988 through FY2003
6-4 Civilian ORSA strength in AMC from FY1990 through FY2002
7-1 Contractor personnel and their functions in Iraq, 2008-2012
7-2 Size of the contractor workforce, by functional area, in Afghanistan in 2010 and 2012
F-1 Transformational analytics: Capacity, inventory, and knowledge
F-2 Management innovation for improved logistics decision-making
F-3 An organizational construct for an engine for innovation
BOXES
2-1 Base Camps in Iraq and Afghanistan
3-1 Current Army Research Efforts in Energy Efficiency and Fuel Demand Reduction
3-2 Types of Hybrid Power Trains
Abbreviations and Acronyms
| A2/AD | anti-access/area denial |
| AESIP | Army Enterprise Systems Integration Program |
| AFSB | Afloat Forward Staging Base |
| AGC | Army Geospatial Center |
| AMAS | Autonomous Mobility Appliqué System |
| AMC | Army Materiel Command |
| ARES | Aerial Reconfigurable Embedded System |
| ASL | Authorized Stockage List |
| CAMEX | computer aided map exercise |
| CASCOM | Combined Arms Support Command |
| CAST | Convoy Active Safety Technology |
| CBM | condition-based maintenance |
| CBM+ | condition-based maintenance-plus |
| CBRNE | chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives |
| DARPA | Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency |
| DE | directed energy |
| DLR | depot level reparable |
| DoD | Department of Defense |
| ELCAS-M | elevated causeway system-modular |
| ERP | enterprise resource planning |
| ESC | Expeditionary Support Command |
| FIB | fires brigade |
| GCSS-Army | Global Combat Support System-Army |
| GPH | gallons per hour |
| HBCT | heavy brigade combat team |
| HEL-MD | High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator |
| ICAAPS | Intelligent Collaborative Aging Aircraft Spare Parts Support project |
| INLS | Improves Navy Lighterage System |
| ISPDS | Integrated Soldier Power and Data System |
| IT | information technology |
| ITEP | Improved Turbine Engine Program |
| JHSV | Joint High Speed Vessel |
| JLOTS | Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore |
| JOEI | Joint Operational Energy Initiative |
| JPADS | Joint Precision Airdrop System |
| LCAC | Landing Craft Air Cushion |
| LCM | Landing Craft, Mechanized |
| LCMS | Lightweight Modular Causeway System |
| LCU | Landing Craft, Utility |
| LMP | Logistics Modernization Program |
| LMSR | Large, Medium-speed, Roll-on/Roll-off Ship |
| LOC | line of communication |
| LOTS | logistics over-the-shore |
| MASMC | Mobile Aircraft Sustainment Maintenance Capability |
| MBF | mission-based forecasting |
| MLP | Mobile Landing Platform |
| mpg | miles per gallon |
| MRE | meal-ready-to-eat |
| MSV | Maneuver Support Vessel |
| NDU | National Defense University |
| NRC | National Research Council |
| OEF | Operation Enduring Freedom |
| OIF | Operation Iraqi Freedom |
| OR | operations research |
| ORSA | operations research/systems analysts |
| PV | photovoltaic |
| R&D | research and development |
| RBS | readiness-based sparing |
| RCM | reliability-centered maintenance |
| RFID | radio frequency identification |
| ROWPU | reverse osmosis water purification unit |
| S&T | science and technology |
| SARTRE | Safe Road Trains for the Environment |
| SMR | small modular reactor |
| SMSS | Squad Mission Support System |
| SOCOM | Special Operations Command |
| SOF | special operations forces |
| SOFC | solid oxide fuel cell |
| SRL | sustainment readiness level |
| SSA | Supply Support Activity |
| SSC | Ship-to-Shore Connector |
| T&E | test and evaluation |
| TARDEC | U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center |
| TOC | theory of constraints |
| TRAC | U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center |
| TRADOC | U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command |
| TRANSCOM | U.S. Transportation Command |
| TRL | technology readiness level |
