Militarys Green Revolution

Now that fuel consumption and keeping the environment clean has become such an issue, the military has taken it upon themselves to do their part. The Navy is taking the lead on this mission by coming up with what they call the "Great Green Fleet". It was established in 2009 by the Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus where he announced five aggressive energy goals to reduce the consumption of energy and reliance on foreign fuels. One of these goals is to launch a Carrier Strike Group fueled by alternative sources of energy. This is paired with a three year $510 million energy reform effort with the departments of Agriculture and Energy as part of a larger push to change the way the US Military flies, sails, marches, and thinks.

In order to create this environment friendly transportation the Navy is using a 50-50 blend of bio-fuel and standard JP-5 shipboard aviation fuel for their planes. The ships and Aircraft in the Great Green Fleet are powered by this alternative fuel, either nuclear or advanced bio-fuel blends. The bio-fuel blend is made from used cooking oil and algae as well as petroleum based marine diesel, giving them the name 50-50 blend.

 The Navy's Green Fleet plans their debut at the 2012 RIMPAC (Rim of the Pacific) Exercise, utilizing 40 surface ships, six submarines, more than 200 aircraft, and involving 25,00 personnel. Many fleets in attendance are here sharpening their focus to use alternative fuels. Some of the United States participants in the Fleet are; USS NIMITZ, Carrier Wing 11, USS CHAFEE, USS CHUNG HOON, USS PRINCETON, and USNS HENRY J KAISER.

During this demonstration the Navy also showed off some different maritime efficiency measures. The first was that of Solid State Lighting which uses light emitting diode (LED's) to save energy and allow lights to last longer. the Gas Turbine On-Line Water Wash allows compressors to be washed while the engine is still running instead of having to turn the engines completely off. It reduces maintenance and reduces fuel consumption. The Navy is grooming a new generation of "Energy Warriors" by incentivizing this move towards a cleaner mobile force.

“Things Don’t Get Magically Moved to Where You Need Them to Go,” But Soon They Will.

 

            Today’s logistic model is faster, more accurate, and efficient than it has ever been before. While, every system has its flaws, our military logistics model works well enough to provide us with the supplies we need. Of course, as we covered today in class, things do not just magically appear and get moved to where we need them to go. There is a matter of generating what we need, transporting it from point A to point B, sustaining the supply, and sometime redeploying. However, the future looks bright and what we need may really be a fingertip and a printer away.  3D Printers are the latest craze in technology:  from printing a 30-round AR magazine to a human ear, the possibilities are endless.  The Army Rapid Equipping Force (REF) has already deployed its first mobile 3D expeditionary printing lab capable of producing components for weapons and bombs.

            3D printing is the next revolution in our logistics system.  Take for granted, it is only now in its infancy and only small parts and prototypes are currently produced by the printers, but we could quite literally increase the efficiency, speed, and accuracy of all four components of our logistics model G-T-S-R in one machine.  The Generation aspect would no longer take weeks as orders would be submitted and the item produced virtually on the spot.  Facilities, such as the REF labs, established on an outpost or FOB would basically cut out transportation (or at least long distance shipping); and sustainment would essentially entail maintaining a serviceable and operational 3D printer.      

          

  Despite such a forward step with REF, the Army will meet resistance, as the head of DMI described in class today, to change by those who are reluctant to welcome alien and abstract technologies.  3D printers are already widely used in prototypes and models across the country.  You can even purchase your own home 3D printer made by MakerBot or accessible through companies such as Braintree Printing.  Despite the resistance that may occur in introducing the new technology into our logistical system or adapting around the technology, it will eventually impact our model.  Even General Schuyler saw resistance as he thought about the future logistical details during the Revolutionary War.  While he was not well liked, his thoughts and plans on how to keep soldiers fed and supplied as fast as possible kept troops from freezing and fed (to an extent) throughout the winter campaign.  The same can be said for those who use the 3D printer, while they may not be well received; someday they will be able to print out food and weapons faster than ever before.

UASs and the Logistical Footprint

Would a Logistically designed UAS dangerously increase the Logistical Footprint Army?

With the use of unmanned systems on the rise designed to go above and beyond the call of duty and keep as many of America's precious resources out of harm’s way, several arguments have been made discouraging the use of unmanned systems. Although there are many articles that praise the performance of surveillance UASs like the RQ-11 Raven and the Wasp that are used primarily in Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance missions. A couple of problems that are currently plaguing researches & developers are how to reduce the logistical footprint, cost and still make it can effective asset on the battlefield. The military is now considering fielding a UAS designed for supply missions like the Kaman K-MAX largely developed by Lockheed Martin. Now I'm fully aware that such logistical design could very well enable the military to complete dangerous resupply missions, however the question should posed if this unmanned system will increase our logistical footprint in regards to more support equipment that will be needed in conjunction with this unmanned system. I ask this question to really ask the question of how we can effectively transport and deploy this unmanned system without creating more problems for our military logistically.

If we take time to compare the lift capacities of the aircraft system the UH-60 Blackhawk against newly designed unmanned K-Max, the UH-60 Blackhawk has 4.5 tons to 2 tons advantage over the K-Max. Researches and developers are saying that although there may be a disparity in the lift capacity against the UH-60 Blackhawk this unmanned system will still keep soldiers out of hostile territory. However in reality many of these unmanned systems do not have weapons installed to deter enemy fire resulting in many of them being shot down. I had a chance to interview some junior level officers to conduct a stakeholder analysis about the unmanned systems they had to chance to work with in theater. From those interviews, I gathered that these unmanned systems are very expensive due to their sophisticated designs and the sensitive technology they use. In addition to using these company level assets, most of the junior officers experienced frustration with having to go on a separate mission just to recover the UAS after it was shot down in enemy territory. The problem that we need to answer in the future is how we can effectively design and use the Unmanned Aircraft Systems is such a capacity that if unfortunate circumstances take place we do not risk the lives of our soldiers to recover these systems.

Army GCV: The Bigger They Are, The Harder They Fall

Last week, one of my typical mornings of sipping coffee, listening to smooth jazz, and scanning interesting articles recently posted on the Defense Tech Blog was interrupted when I stumbled upon something extraordinary.  What caught my eye was a picture of a monstrous tank that resembled a Bradley and an article titled, “Army: GCV Needs to Be Big and Tracked.”  I immediately got excited and delved into the article, thinking to myself “Ah yeah!  A new tank, this thing is gunna be B.A.”   Several lines into the article I learned that the Ground Combat Vehicle being developed by DARPA is destined to be the replacement armored fighting vehicle in Heavy and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams…and that it is projected to weigh 84 TONS!!!!  I nearly spit out my coffee when I read that.  That's a really heavy vehicle.  Here are some facts to put 84 tons into perspective.  The M1A2 Abrams weighs 68 tons, the M2 Bradley weighs 28 tons, and the Stryker weighs only 18 tons.

The GCV’s increased size allows it to accommodate a nine man squad instead of just 6 soldiers that the Bradley can carry.  Extra weight is also added on because of a new floating floor design that protects the crew and passengers from direct IED hits.  Still, though.  84 tons?  That must have some affect on the ability to transport the vehicle.  Colonel Rocky Kmiecik, director of Mounted Requirements Division at Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, defended the vehicle when asked how the vehicle’s weight affects deployability.  He responded, “It doesn’t because it takes the same amount of planes the same amount of times to deploy Bradleys as it does Ground Combat Vehicles.  If you are moving tanks to a place those planes are going to be able to support the Ground Combat Vehicle.”  My immediate thoughts were how large the disconnect between the developers of this program and logisticians must be.  What about contingency operations that do not require tanks, but maybe require a lighter fighting vehicle?  I also question Colonel Kmiecik on the deployability of the GCV.  The C-17 can carry up to 85 tons, and can carry 3 Bradleys at once.  With weighing 84 tons, a C-17 would only be able to transport only one GCV at a time.  That means it would take three times as many flights to move a force into theater using the GCV, using up valuable time, space, and money. 

The GCV would also increase the number of support assets required to keep the unit moving.  The increased weight of the vehicle would probably also increase fuel consumption, increasing the number of tankers required to be flown into theater.  Also, a good question is whether the Army has a recovery vehicle capable of towing an 84 ton GCV.  Who knows what would happen if a GCV were to go down far away from a FOB.  I imagine it would look something like an Imperial AT-AT going down on Hoth. 

A tracked vehicle is also much harder to maintain than a wheeled vehicle.  Putting on a spare tire after one is blown off by an IED is a much easier fix than putting on whole new set of tracks.  

           The size and weight makes the use of this vehicle seem impractical.  If the GCV is to be the replacement system for Heavy and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams, the logistical footprint of those units would become exponentially larger, decreasing their deployability. 

A Look Back in Time: Supplying the Pacific

“Never before … had there been an invasion armada the equal of the 1,600 seagoing ships carrying 545,000 American GIs and Marines that streamed across the Pacific,” wrote historian Robert Leckie in Delivered From Evil: The Saga of World War II. The battle of the Pacific during WWII was no doubt depending on logistics and military strategy. The United States had never before supplied an operation 7,500 miles away. For Quartermasters to supply Class I,II, III, and IV items, the pacific proved to be force projection on a grand scale. The ability to generate was not a major issue for the US. However, the process of procurement must have been a difficult task to do proper inspections, supply management, and administrative work to correctly inventory the supplies needed to then be transported to the pacific. Quartermasters had to deal with issues relating to proper storage. Almost all items required at least some care in packaging and handling, and protection from the elements before they are being transported. In class, we discuss generate, transport, and sustainment, and what makes the Pacific operation so unique is that the US never before had to transport such massive amount of goods over a distant such as the Pacific. Indeed perishable foods such as fresh meat, vegetables, and dairy products required even more protection, so the techniques and procedures created to ensure the Pacific campaign would be successful shows how the Quartermaster Corps and overall logistics grew during WWII. What makes the Pacific campaign even more unique is long lines of communication that place heavy burden on ship’s security. The longer ships had to travel, the more vulnerable they are to the enemy. When the island was finally taken over by the United States, the military found the Japanese Navy Underground Headquarters that stretched 450 meters to sustain 4,000 people. It is interesting to see how the enemy at the time sustained their troops, but with the discovery of underground headquarters with locations to feed and store 4,000 personnel, it truly is amazing to see the ingenuity that both sides displayed logistically in trying to sustain their forces.

Freedrop Delivery System

       A key component of logistics in the field is the the ability to get supplies to ground troops as quickly and effectively as possible even if those troops are located in areas with limited access. This is especially true for those of the Special Operations community. These forces often operate in areas where it can be difficult to get the maximum amount of supplies on the ground while utilizing the traditional method of airdropping supplies using parachutes. This method often limits the amount of supplies that can be dropped quickly in a restricted environment due to the amount of time required to deploy cargo with parachutes.
       This is where the Freedrop Delivery System comes into play. The Freedrop Delivery System, or FDS, is a part of the Logistics Innovation Agency's Freedrop Packaging Concept Project. This project aims to develop innovative packaging concepts where supplies can be dropped from low altitudes and without parachutes. The strong structural attributes of the FDS containers allow the supplies carried within to be delivered with no damage and in a condition that allows for quick and easy recovery of the container's contents. In a recent test of the FDS, all 16 loads that were dropped from a C-23 Sherpa landed within 35 meters of the drop zone's designated impact point.
       The key component of the FDS project is to develop a low-cost cargo system that can hold up to 150 pounds and be versatile enough to hold a variety of supplies. Currently the Freedrop Delivery System has been successfully tested with cargo such as 5.56 mm, 7.62 mm, and .50 caliber ammunition. It has also been successfully tested with MREs, bottled water, and other rations- all of which were delivered with little or no damage.
       A system like the FDS would allow for the fast, accurate, and effective delivery of a variety of supplies to troops in terrain where an parachute airdrop would be ineffective. The nature of the FDS also allows for supplies to be recovered quickly and with little effort thereby increasing the efficiency of nearly every step of the logistics process.  

Army’s Doctrine to Cut Vehicle Weights

M-1 Abrams Tank

Since the movement of vehicles is limited by its weight, it is necessary for the Army to figure out how to maximize their transportation capabilities with its current vehicles.  Maybe it is easier to just design a new vehicle platform?  This is exactly what the Unites States Army is currently researching.  Paul Rogers, the director of the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) stated that the Army has to re-evaluate how its current vehicles operate.  This is necessary because the current vehicle platforms are so dependent upon the composition of the materials associated with each of the vehicles armor which, the majority of the time, results in heavy weight.  The procurement of materials that provide the same protection at a lesser weight is currently being researched by the military.   

All of this increased weight associated with the vehicles is due to enhanced armor.  This armor weighs down the vehicle and because of it, speed is sacrificed.  The problem with all of this is that there is currently no solution to a similar amount of protection that is provided by its current armor.  It is expected that the Army can see a six ton reduction in tank weights over the next 30 years.   

Many pros and cons have been brought up because of this issue.  If weight is limited, then armor is sacrificed along with other technology that provides heightened operational mobility.  A more high tech approach in terms of developing a lighter yet stronger material is needed.  This high tech approach may bring about increased maintenance as well.

Black Knight

Another alternative solution would be to make the vehicles autonomous.  They would operate similar to drones and by doing so, it would remove the individual soldier from the vehicle as well as the majority of the communication equipment and reconnaissance equipment associate with such vehicles.  If vehicles operated like drones, then they would have the capability to collect real time data for soldiers.  This would take the soldier out of the battlefield and as a result help to reduce casualties.  There is currently a Remote Controlled Armored Vehicle called the Black Knight which is being developed by a British defense company.  The Black Knight may one day replace tanks on battlefields.

 

Until the Army either changes to an autonomous system or discovers a lighter yet stronger material platform, the goal is to still produce a combat system that is effective.  If armor is sacrificed for light weight and speed then the United States will be building tanks at the speed in which they were being produced during WWII with the Sherman tanks.