Dominant Logistics
An Introduction to Dominant Logistics
Introduction
There
are those who are calling for a conversion of our current military to one based on the
concept of Dominant Manuever. The best example of this type of concept in actual
practice is the German Blitzkrieg forces of World War II. The basic idea is to hit
the enemy very hard, very fast, out outmanuever the enemy before they are able to take
defensive action.
But as any student of WWII knows, there's a catch. While this type of warfare is
extremely effective, it is also highly dangerous in that it can be relatively easy to not
only outmanuever your opponent, but also your own logistics. In a nutshell, this is
what happened to the Germans on the Russian front. The causes of the overall failure
were numerous and varied, but the bottom line was a disconnect occurred between the German
forces and their logistics. And when this occurs, no amount of training can save
you. If we are going to embrace the concept of Dominant Manuever, it is critical
that we combine this concept with another - Dominant Logistics.
Dominant Logistics is a military adaptation of a civilian concept known as Just In Time
inventory management, or JIT. This system was developed to reduce the overhead costs
of manufacturing goods by providing components as they are needed in the manufacturing
process instead of stocking up on components and maintaining a large inventory. In
the civilian world, this process can result in dramatically lower operating costs; in the
military, particularly at a tactical level, this concept can greatly reduce the weight and
volume associated with supporting deployed forces.
Reducing the weight and volume of sustainment resources can result in dramatically more
flexible logistics. Fewer vehicles are needed for sustainment operations. Many
trailers can also be eliminated. Weak points in the logistical chain can be
eliminated entirely. In essence, we are replacing the current Straight-Line
Efficiency Model of Logistics with what can best be described as a Logistics
Net. But we also need to address organizational, training, and transportation
resources because this system must be dominant in the air, on the land, and in the
seas. So let's set aside the Gavins, Bufords, and Wiesels for a moment and see what
it will take to not get dead while practicing Dominant Manuever.
Organization
The fundamental elements of logistics are supply, transportation, maintenance, and
communications. Because of this, the organizational level activities of these
respective Corps' should be reorganized into a unified Logistics
Corps with a basic fundamental skill set. For example, in the infantry, many
roles are filled but everyone is initially trained in the fundamentals of being an
infantryman and then they progress to dealing with mortars, anti-tank systems, etc.
The Logistics Corps must have a similar structure.
The basic skills package for logistics personnel would consist of supply fundamentals,
vehicle operations, communications fundamentals, and general diagnostic and
troubleshooting skills. This training should take a total of no more than four
months at which point the personnel would be assigned to their particular unit and
additional training will come on the job. At the unit level, supply, maintenance,
and comms personnel would become Combat Technicians and would serve all of these
functions. Logistics officers would receive the same fundamental skill set as
well. With this design, personnel moving up the ranks will have training in all of
the areas of logistics as a whole instead of plugging personnel into logistics positions
that have no understanding or experience with the bigger picture.
Log
Packs
A log pack system should be developed to replace the myriad of
logistical tasks that currently are in place. With log packs, the basic necessities
needed to survive in a deployed environment are provided automatically with logistical
personnel only needing to coordinate type of pack, quantities, and deliveries. The
individual log pack would consist of the following:
- Six improved MREs (incorporate the spork//razor/toothbrush item proposed by 1st TSG).
- Two gallons of water in a bag similar to what the mess halls currently use for milk
(additional water will be available but we need to limit total weight of the pack).
This could also be pre-packaged in collapsible canteens or a Camel-bak type system.
- Six pairs of 100% cotton disposable fieldd socks (2 pairs each of small, medium, and
large). Wool is another option but this needs to be a dual use item, providing the
troops with material for weapons and equipment maintenance as well as strips of cloth for
camo or other combat related purposes.
- Two packs of medicated body powder (sometthing like a trial size pack of Gold Bond).
This is to help in reducing and alleviating heat rash and foot problems.
- Two packs of heavy-duty disposable wipes (5 wipes each of a human version of Pledge
Grab-It Wet Floor Wipes). One for each foot, one for the groin, one for the butt,
and one to finish up the hands when done. Ain't great but better than nothing and
can incorporate a waterless antibacterial cleanser if desired.
- Two packs of all-purpose field soap. p; Field soap is an off the shelf item and can
be used for shaving, brushing teeth, or bathing.
- Applicable sundry items (pens, pads of paaper, news updates, snacks, cards, etc.)
With this package, all of the necessities for sustainment in a field environment are met
within the single pack. Each pack provides two days worth of supplies to address
food, water, and the fundamentals of field hygiene. The basic field pack can be
packaged in boxes like the existing MREs. Combat packs would come in a rucksack with
ammo. The label inside the top flap of the ruck would be color-coded based upon the
type of ammunition in the pack. The basic log pack with standard ammo should weigh
in at less than 25lbs.
Log packs also allow us to remove some logistic systems from the deployed force. For
example, if all rations are provided in this manner, kitchen trailers and their associated
support equipment will no longer be required. Since water will be provided by this
system, water buffaloes and ROWPU systems can also be removed from the deployed force.
So while this may seem more complicated than current operations, this allows us to
significantly reduce some very vulnerable links within the current logistics chain.
Palletization
The system is based upon the idea of every deployed unit receiving a single pallet of
supplies every two days on a normal basis. No matter where they are or what they are
doing, they will get a pallet of supplies. This pallet will include the units log
packs as well as any additional supplies the unit has requested. Mail will also be
incorporated into this delivery system.
The basic tactical pallet should be a 7.5 ton pallet based on
the existing design from Boughton Trailers in the U.K. This leaves plenty of weight
capacity on the pallet for accommodating large quantities of ammo or additional water
requests. The pallet needs to be compatible with Palletized Loading Systems (PLS),
sling loading, and airdrop operations.
For addressing contingencies, a smaller one ton pallet should be
available. Dimensionally, the pallet should fit between the wheel wells of the
HMMWV or internally in an M113A3. The pallet would feature raised nubs that allow
forklift blades to fit underneath but are also rounded to allow for easy sliding on smooth
surfaces. The pallet can be airdropped as a door bundle, carried internally in
vehicles, or deployed with a new Fast Rope Delivery System. This system would
utilize a spring-loaded tension block allowing for the pallet to be shoved out of the hold
of a helicopter air assault style. This allows for rapid delivery of critical items
while minimizing the time the helicopter would be in a dangerous position of hovering.
This pallet should be an expendable item to allow use of the pallets as overhead
cover for fighting positions, floors in command and medical tents, and spaced armor on
vehicles.
Current 16.5 ton pallets should also be retained for moving bulk items at the strategic
level. For many applications, palletization is not a suitable option. For
example, many small unit operations require very little in
the way of supplies but these small quantities must be delivered more often and tend to be
more critical. To meet these needs, we'll need to use door bundles packaged in
small, turboprop aircraft as well as supply bombs like those commonly used in
Vietnam. We will also need to use a mix of ground vehicles to meet unconventional
requirements.
Ground
Vehicles
We need to establish a tactical prime mover to replace the FMTVs. The ideal design
would be a Tracked Support Vehicle (TSV) based on the M1108.
The TSV would include a PLS for the 7.5 ton pallets and would have a companion trailer
that could carry the same size pallet (as is the case with current PLS vehicles).
The vehicle should feature a hybrid diesel electric powertrain and band tracks to minimize
road wear. This vehicle/trailer combination would weigh roughly the same as existing
MTV/trailer combinations but would take less space, carry twice the payload, and would
have all of the benefits that are consistent with track vehicles. The hybrid
powertrain also reduces fuel requirements and increases range. This also would
eliminate the need for nearly all Material Handling Equipment (MHE) in forward areas like
drop zones. This is no minor benefit as even the smallest units currently deploy
with a variety of MHE systems of considerable weight. This one change could
potentially reduce the airlift requirements of a division by about two sorties and
possibly three depending on load circumstances. And every transport sortie that
doesn't have to carry equipment can then be carrying ammunition, rations, or other needed
supplies.
The military's basic "grocery getter" should continue to be the HMMWV. It
can carry the proposed one ton pallets and is ideal for most general uses. Work
should commence immediately to adapt the existing hybrid powertrain
from the M113A3. While most HMMWVs should retain the standard powertrain, shelter
carriers and command vehicles should have the hybrid powertrain. This will
dramatically reduce the need for extra power generation equipment for comm systems and
other shelter-based systems. Here again, we're freeing up a number of deployment
sorties as even in light divisions, there are dozens of HMMWV trailer-mounted generators
being used to power shelter-based systems.
Some have proposed fielding a Transportation Assault Battalion in
each light division. These units should feature M113A3s with the available
amphibious kit for most of the vehicles but should also include TSVs
with a similar amphibious kit. Besides enabling existing units to conduct
amphibious operations, these vehicles would be available for delivery of supplies under
virtually any conditions for those situations where air delivery is not a viable option.
At the strategic level, we need to develop an amphibious version of
the current HEMTT. A PLS version of the HEMTT is already available and this
would allow for large scale transport of supplies from ships to virtually anywhere on
land. Existing amphibious transport assets are largely limited to deliveries to
shore only - this HEMTT "duck" could move supplies to shore and then easily
transit hundreds of miles via anything that closely resembles a road. This opens up
the use of rivers and lakes as transport routes in addition to roads, lessening the load
on aircraft systems.
Existing PLS assets can be retained in their current form for over-the-road transit of
large quantities of supplies. This system can essentially function as a train
without the need for tracks moving up to 33 tons of supplies at a time.
There is no way to completely eliminate the need for MHE so a tactical fork lift should be
developed by taking the boom and forks of the existing 6K forklift and mounting them in
surplus M113s. This should be nothing more than a basic cut and weld conversion to
field a true tactical MHE system. Additionally, an M1108-based vehicle should be
developed for rear ops to move pallets in the depot areas. This vehicle should
include scales to ensure proper balance and weight of the pallets.
Additionally,
we need to field a lightweight combat engineering system that
would be an air-droppable version of the M1-based Grizzly. The chassis should be a
lengthened M113A3 that will feature a five piece front blade with three booms to adjust
shape, positioning, and height. The vehicle will also include the backhoe section of
the old SEE tractor and a smoke generator. The vehicle will be uparmored for
protection against 30mm and RPG. It will also retain the ability to tow the MICLIC
trailer set.
Rotary
Aircraft
The greatest challenge of using helicopters is getting them to the
needed location from the U.S. To meet this need, some have proposed converting
to compound helicopters but this tends to increase the complexity of aircraft that are
already highly complex and maintenance intensive. Instead, I propose we develop a
bolt-on wing kit for existing helicopters that would include pusher engines in the
wing. For long-range transport, bolt up the wings and put a fuel bladder in the
cargo area. Once you arrive, remove the wings and send them to a rear area for
maintenance and carry on with your normal helicopter. With this approach, the
problem can be addressed in all current and future helicopter designs. Another
option would be to have a removable tail assembly with options for a conventional
tailrotor or a Piasecki VTDP assembly. There may be some benefit to having a modest
fleet of dedicated compound helicopters but the detachable system approach should be used
for the bulk of the fleet to minimize maintenance and operations costs.
The primary helicopter should continue to be the Blackhawk
but the Army and Marines need to be purchasing the MH-60 variant. This version
features greater payload and shipboard compatibility. It can also carry and fire
Hellfire missiles, artillery rockets, and could potentially be used to simply carry
artillery rounds over an enemy and drop them. Because of this, all current attack
helicopters in the divisions should be replaced with MH-60s as well, with the Apaches
being moved to supporting regiments and only pulled out when needed. This increases
our helicopter transportation capacity without giving up the benefits of attack
helicopters when needed.
The CH-47 should be retained for its life span but the Army needs to move up to the more
powerful CH-53 family of helicopters to allow for airborne movement of armored vehicles
like the M113A3. The CH-53 should come in two variants.
The first should be a standard helicopter designed to carry M113A3s internally, including
the amphibious version. It should also be able to land on water and unload that
amphibious vehicle. The second variant should be a single, large-engined autogyro
version that will ultimately replace the bulk of the C-130 fleet. Using the same
technology as the VTOL version of the F-35, this CH-53X should be able to take-off and
land vertically with over 20 tons because it will not need to hover so we can alter the
rotor design accordingly. It would also be amphibious but with only a single engine
and the autogyro design, this aircraft should dramatically reduce maintenance and
operational costs as well as susceptibility to ground fire.
The CH-47 should be retained to provide for transport of critical
bulk liquids, especially fuel. For a helicopter, the CH-47 offers a good balance
between capacity and operational cost so this should be our best option for air delivery
of bulk liquids. Most fuel and water will continue to be delivered by ground
systems but this is another option for when it is needed. Ultimately, the CH-47
should be replaced with a tilt-wing Joint Transport Rotorcraft design. The JTR
should be capable of VTOL as well as ESTOL operations but is primarily intended for
transport and airdrop operations - it is not a vertical assault aircraft.
Fixed
Wing Aircraft
The primary logistical aircraft that the force currently needs is a modified design of the
proposed KC-33A (1st TSG). This proposal takes a standard 747 cargo aircraft,
reinforces the upper deck to hold light armored vehicles, and includes tanks and pumps in
the lower deck for refueling operations. The only change that I propose is to add
what I call the Aerial Transport System (ATS). Because the
747 is an extremely robust airframe, it should be more than capable of towing fighters and
attack aircraft, similar to the way in which gliders are towed. ATS would consist of
lines extending from the wing and fuselage that would include a tow line for load bearing,
a fuel line to keep the fighter topped off, and a data line for transfering flight
controls. The 747 should be able to tow three fighters or attack aircraft in this
manner. The towed aircraft would have a strut that would raise above and behind the
cockpit to bear the weight and also would include the refueling probe. With this
design, the KC-33A could function as a cargo aircraft, a tanker, or as a tow vehicle to
deliver support aircraft like the A-10 or F-16.
In this proposal, the bulk of the tactical airlift mission will ultimately be taken over
by the Joint Transport Rotorcraft and the CH-53X autogyro. In the interim, the C-130
will continue to be the mainstay of the tactical airlift fleet. As these other
systems come online, the C-130 will transition to a supporting
role. Simply put, we have a lot of airframes with a lot of life left in them and
they are ideal for a variety of roles. One such mission is as a Sonic Warfare
platform. In this configuration, the Hercules would be outfitted with an array of
amplifiers and speakers to broadcast different types of sounds at incredible
volumes. This may be to support psychological operations, to mask helicopter and
small aircraft movements, or to engage in deception operations. Another
configuration would be a modern attack bomber design that would serve as an airborne
artillery platform for initial entry forces. It is also very suitable for radar,
electronic warfare, and communications roles. Some existing C-130s should be
converted to seaplanes to fill this needed role until the future systems come online with
amphibious capabilities
The military should adopt the existing 767 from Boeing for its general
purpose needs. It features long range and lower operating costs than existing
alternatives. This airframe is ideal for general cargo and personnel transportation.
It can also be converted to a tanker. The 767 can fill all roles currently
occupied by 707 variants. A possibility is to adopt Carlton Meyers' idea to use a
variable purchasing agreement with Boeing to obtain a lower price on these aircraft.
Because hundreds would be getting purchased, Boeing could ramp up their production
and vary the number of sales to the military to adjust for civilian purchases.
The heavy lift fleet will require expansion. We cannot expand the C-5 fleet and
these aircraft are aging rapidly so these should be limited to carrying outsized cargo
without getting carried away with the weight. Expand the C-17
fleet to 200 aircraft and rely on these to carry the heavier items. This should
allow for the C-5 lifespan to be extended considerably. This would give us a
combined total of around 500 strategic airlifters between the C-5, C-17, and the KC-33A
fleets. Work should begin immediately to field the successor to the C-5 aircraft - Lighter Than Airship. Using these glorified blimps, it is
entirely possible to build an aircraft with a speed of 100 mph that carries 200 tons of
supplies while burning very little fuel. While this lacks the speed necessary for
many combat applications, a large fleet would be ideal for meeting the constant demands
for food, fuel, ammunition, and other items that deployed forces consume on a continual
basis.
Naval
Vessels
The Navy needs to take a different approach to its goals for naval warfare. As many
within the Navy are already proposing, there needs to be a shift away from the current
super-carrier based force to a more flexible design. If this change is done
properly, it can greatly benefit our overall logistical capabilities.
It begin with, the super-carrier force should be reduced by three carriers and these
should be replaced by six LHD carriers. You can still use
them as aircraft carriers by using VTOL F-35s but they are also more suitable for
helicopter and amphibious operations. Using RO/ROs for transport is all well and
good but you can't airlift men and materials from a RO/RO to the battlefield - you can
from an LHD. The LHDs also include support capabilties for three LCAC and can handle
virtually any vehicle currently within the military's inventory. They are also
better for littoral operations because they can carry smaller vessels in their well.
The ship also comes with extensive medical support facilities, eliminating the need for
ground forces to airlift these in from CONUS in many situations.
This shift in carrier type should free up sufficient personnel to man a new
fleet of 200 HSVs (Joint Venture). The HSV is a relatively small vessel but it
can carry substantial weight and volume in its design, it has good range characteristics,
depending on load factors it travels at two to three times the speed of conventional
transports, its relatively cheap, and it requires a crew of only 30 people. The
military is currently evaluating this vessel for a limited future role in the force but
this must be expanded to a wider role. RO/ROs may be technically more efficient in
transporting supplies but they are also very slow, highly vulnerable to commando-style
attacks, and require deep water ports. The HSV has no such limitations. A
textbook example of how beneficial a fleet would be is the support operations in the
Atlantic during WWII. Using the Liberty ships, we were able to move insane
quantities of men and materials to Europe even with a very substantial threat from German
subs throughout the transport routes. And these ships couldn't even make 10
knots. At it's maximum load, the HSV can do over 20 knots and with lighter loads it
can do over 40 knots. At current prices, a fleet of 200 of these vessels would cost
only $17 billion; if we can't come up with that kind of money in the defense budgets we
have, we aren't trying. And this doesn't even get in to the variety of potential
naval warfare roles that this vessel could engage in. We need this fleet, period.
The next system is a relatively new idea I call the Towed Support
Platform (TSP). To make naval formations more capable and deployable, we should
develop a support platform that can be towed by larger ships over blue water to operate in
the brown water regions. This platform should include its own propulsion system for
operating once it has arrived in theater, but this would be a pod system that could be
raised and lowered for greater flexibility. The platform should be available in two
configurations. The basic platform would be a pontoon design with four pontoons to
minimize drag for easier towing. The center section of the platform would include
two power pods, one fore and one aft. These could be raised and lowered as
needed. The pods could also be rotated 360 degrees for maximum
maneuverability. Combinations of TSPs could be arranged for a variety of uses.
A floating drydock configuration would feature an open deck on each side of the center
section. In each open section would be a drydock arrangement that could hold a
Pegasus Fast Attack boat, a Landing Ship Barge, a LCU, or two smaller attack craft (such
as a weaponized CG Patrol Boat). With this arrangement, the TSP would carry
additional fuel and parts to provide support for these craft. This would also allow
for an increased number of boats to be available for amphibious assault formations.
A floating deck configuration would have a full deck and with the pods fully lowered, the
entire deck would be open. This platform would be capable of carrying 4 LCACs or it
could be used as a helicopter deck. Another use would be to enable existing
Roll-On/Roll-Off ships to function as amphibious assault ships. The ramps of the
RO/RO would extend down to a TSP sitting alongside. It could also be used to expand
deck space or as a transport ship to move cargo like fuel or water into shallow or smaller
areas. Both configurations could be combined to provide for amphibious operations en
masse. Current amphibious ships are limited in how many vehicles and boats can be
embarked rapidly. These platforms would allow for a larger formation to be
positioned to move to shore simultaneously. You could also put a number of these
platforms end-to-end to form up a large pier heading in to the shore. Many uses are
possible with this design.
Communications
One of the biggest challenges with logistics in the modern era is keeping everybody
communicating on the move. There are a number of ways to address this issue.
The most basic is to use airborne relay equipment instead of ground-based systems.
Carlton Meyer has suggested expanding the use of E-2 Hawkeyes in support of ground forces.
We need to make this happen and adapt the Army's major communications systems to
work with the systems that are already present in the Hawkeye. The E-2 is the
primary comms relay used by Marines for deployment purposes - there's no reason that the
Army couldn't use the same approach.
Another key step is to adapt the current communication networks to work with civilian cell
phones when deployed. For most communication purposes, a cell phone is a vastly
better option than traditional military radios. They are lighter, more compact, and
most military radios are not secure anyways. Many troops have their own cell phones
so its simply a matter of setting up our comms hardware so that these phones will work
with the system. Cell phones are already available with vibrating ringers and text
messaging for those situations where noise discipline is critical - military comms lack
these features.
Another key system is to augment the E-2 based communications with a system
that fits in a U-2 that is converted to fly as a UAV. The U-2 is very cheap to
operate, flys at altitudes that most enemies cannot deal with, and can stay airborne a
very long time. Because of the ranges involved, this would mainly be for higher
powered radio systems but it will reduce the load on the E-2 systems and offer much
greater relay range because of the higher altitudes. You could also use this as the
basis for a satellite phone type of system. Instead of relying on satellites where
you have serious interference issues in rough terrain, you can have a quantity of U-2s
flying at high altitudes (away from air operations) offering superior coverage.
Current ground and satellite systems can continue to cover most of our critical
communcation needs but for dealing with forces on the move, these airborne systems will
fill in the critical gaps without breaking the bank. This also provides
full-spectrum communcation capabilities on day one of a conflict to achieve full
functionality with modest capacity until ground based systems can get set-up and
operational. The U-2 based system could also potentially offer a constant
near-real-time source of digital overhead imagery. The aircraft would be
preprogrammed to fly a racetrack pattern over the conflict area. If we can fit the
imaging hardware in with the comms, we'll have a constant stream of overhead imagery along
with our comms for a price that should be substantially less than Global Hawk.
Many have noted the need to increase our space launch capacity in order to maintain and increase our bandwidth capacity for satellite systems. Today, this need has only become more critical with continued problems with the existing space shuttle system. Years ago, attempts were made to develop a gun-based launching system. Today, we have more than adequate technology to turn this concept into reality. A gun-based system would take today's launch capacity of a handful of launches per year and increase it to a handful of launches per week. It would also allow for the development of a modular satellite system that will dramatically improve our space systems in terms of capacity, flexibility, and survivability. It would also result in incredible reductions in cost and would allow for launch capabilities regardless of weather conditions.