Logistics, Sustainment Challenge Afghan Army

As the Obama administration begins to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan, one of the United States’ main focuses is on training and supplying the Afghan Nation Army. With this in mind, the Obama administration along with decision makers within the Pentagon must consider how the US will put the finishing touches on the training of Afghan military forces, and what supplies and equipment to leave with the Afghans. In his recent article for Defense News, David Pugliese brings to light the struggles that Afghan military officials are facing in preparation for US withdrawal, and the security takeover of homefront operations by Afghan security forces. Pugliese states that Afghan security forces are currently equipped with a mix of US and Soviet weapons, which have been satisfactory in their fight against the insurgency, but are almost completely reliant on funding from other nations, namely the United States. With significant military funding cuts and personnel draw-downs, monetary support from the United States will become slim, which has potential to significantly affect Afghanistan’s ability to sustain their security forces. Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defense, Maj. Gen. Afzal Aman, states that one of their main weaknesses is a lack of air power, and that although they are training helicopter and fixed-wing pilots, the main issue is a shortage of competent maintenance personnel to sustain significant flight training.

Another significant factor that will affect the logistics and sustainment system, Pugliese notes, is the issue regarding the Bilateral Security Agreement. President Karzai has shown significant resistance in his refusal to sign the agreement, which would govern the continued presence of international troops in country. With the upcoming April presidential elections, many believe that Karzai will be forced out of office, and with that, the signing of the Bilateral Security Agreement by the new president. Despite the Obama administration’s plan to completely withdraw from Afghanistan, they are still considering the Bilateral Security Agreement upon the election of a new Afghan president.  

Textron-built Commando Select Armored Vehicle

As stated earlier by Pugliese, the Afghans are currently using a mix of US and Soviet made weapons, but where do they get their aircraft and ground vehicles from? Senior Pentagon officials decided that $1 billion would be spent on Russian built Mi-17 helicopters, which roughly resembles the Sikorsky-built Blackhawk, only slightly larger. The US has also promised to supply the ANA with 500 Textron Commando Select Armored Vehicles. Pugliese states that other sources of equipment supply have come from the Canadian Army, which has donated Humvees and Ford Trucks to the ANA, because they are simpler to maintain. Pugliese goes onto state that NATO has been very reluctant to supply the Afghans with western tanks and other complex vehicles because of Afghanistan’s inability to sustain maintenance operations on such complex pieces of equipment. 

This is not the first time that Afghanistan has had to deal with a withdrawing foreign Army. In a very similar case, the withdrawal of Soviet forces in the late 1980’s left Afghan forces with stockpiles of Soviet-built small arms that are still used today. The Soviet’s continued to supply the Afghans for some time after their withdrawal, however after years of providing a crutch to the Afghan army, the Soviets cut funding, and the result was dismal for the Afghans.

There are several concerns that NATO and the United States have considering the outcome of Soviet funding cuts in the 1980’s, but two stand out immediately from Pugliese’s article. First, today’s technology is much more sophisticated, and with more sophistication comes greater need for training. Currently, the Afghans are struggling to train their own forces at the tactical level with small arms and un-armored vehicles. Their ability to conduct satisfactory training on more advanced pieces of equipment seems highly unlikely.

Russian Mi-17

Secondly, once Afghanistan begins to be weaned of the American funding plan, Afghan forces will likely run out of munitions and fuel for aircraft and armored fighting vehicles. It seems that if Afghanistan got their wish, and received a fleet of advanced helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, and tanks, these vehicles would quickly turn into inoperable pieces of metal. Afghanistan’s ability to sustain anything more complex and sophisticated than what they are working with currently seems impossible given their economic standpoint and ability to fund their own security programs. Until Afghanistan strikes gold, or opium becomes globally legal, it simply seems impossible for Afghanistan to sustain a sufficient “tail” to support a stronger and more complex “tooth.”

Supporting Special Operations Forces

Special Operations Forces have rewritten a logistics plan during their time in the Middle East. They have streamlined the acquisition of mission critical equipment to the front line in order to maintain their high pace dynamic operations. MAJ. Joel Anderson, a public affairs officer with an extensive background in logistics, explains in his article Mission-Critical support for Special Operations Forces, that due changes in "the support structure originally envisioned", which has forced SOF "to create their own capabilities...especially for things like logistics." The SOF logistics elements, called CSOTF, has a forward logistics cell at Bagram Airfield in order to reduce response time to the far reaching remote locations, particularly to the East and North Kabul. MAJ Anderson goes on to describe how the effective logistics support by the CSOTF team, in conjunction with civilian contractors used to transport goods, is dependent upon, "deliberate and meticulous planning in order to anticipate the needs of teams in the field and ensure mission success.
This, "push logistics" system is similar the idea that was fielded during the conflict in Vietnam. During this conflict,austere conditions, a counterinsurgency environment and areas of operations far from main supply hubs created a need for advances in logistics; these three conditions are all seen in the war in the Middle East. What has changed, however, is the advancement in the ability to track supplies and the means of transporting them.

Special Operations Logistics

 Push vs Pull logistics is debated by logisticians and industrial engineers in the field. The push idea has a rear element anticipating the needs of the troops in contact based on trends and mission types. This can lead to excess in some materials and shortages in others, but it does reduce the overall wait time for units to receive materials. The Pull idea, however, is dependent upon requests from the field resulting in a larger lag time for the front line troops to receive the material as well as an overemphasis of the priority in which the unit needs the supplies.

Another theme evident between the two conflicts is the balance between civilian contractors and military personnel. During the conflict in Vietnam, the cap on troops forced the military to contract out transportation of goods to companies such as Alaska Barge. In the current conflict, MAJ Anderson explains that troop and contractors, "all work together to deliver world-class logistics in eastern Afghanistan." USSOC was given their own power to independently contract not only people as described in the article by MAJ Anderson but materials, research and development.
From its own logistics support to contracting abilities,  some argue USSOC is acting as its own branch within the military. While they are efficient, a follow on report by Deputy Assistant Inspector General of Acquisition and Contract Management, Bruce A. Burton discussed the wasteful tendencies behind some of the contracting officers within USSOC. He sites that Special Operations Forces Support Activity did not develop and implement a quality assurance surveillance plan on several task orders as well as directing funds to procurement rather than their designated research and development appropriation. As we look into the future, there will be a debate about how autonomous USSOCOM can act.

A New Focus for Warfare

For the past 12 years, the Canadian Army has been focused on conflict in the desert. As the war in Afghanistan winds down and the Arctic Ocean ice continues to melt at a rapid pace, the Canadian government is looking into options to ensure that their troops are able to deploy anywhere in the world they are needed. As one of 8 nations with ties to the Arctic coastline, the ability to defend their territory anywhere in the world is of major concern to the Canadians.

Arctic Boundaries

 

Other nations with strong territorial claims are also working to assert their sovereignty over the Arctic Circle, and more specifically the North Pole. Russia has already tried to declare the North Pole their own in 2007. And as a 2010 US report by the Geological Survey stated, almost 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of its natural gas could be located in the Arctic, making it a place of strategic importance due to its vast amount of rich natural resources.

As the Canadians work to establish a force capable of sustaining itself in the cold, logistical issues abound. In their several weeks of training in the North during Exercise Trillium Response, the Canadian forces practiced carrying 75 lbs of supplies and pulling another 200 lbs by sled. If a long term force were to be established or necessary, the difficulties in providing enough supplies to sustain a force of decent size will be significant. Already, companies have spent vast amounts of money, including $6B by Royal Dutch Shell, to determine that they are unable to succeed in the Arctic.

In addition, the logistical issue of supplying troops is further confounded by the extreme cold and fact that forces will not be able to generate their own supplies, they will have to rely on air lifts and drops in order to sustain themselves. As seen in the Berlin Airlift, this can be a very complicated process and costly to sustain. The cold weather conditions of the Arctic will further limit the ability of the Canadians to sustain supplying their troops adequately.

View of Arctic Ocean & North Pole

While there are logistical issues to the idea of having an Arctic force, the issue is important to look at as other nations also consider increasing their claims on the Arctic circle and securing their valuable natural resources. Canada’s training and preparation of troops will have provide them with additional knowledge on the importance and difficulties of supplying and sustaining a force in harsh weather conditions.

F-35 Necessities and Shortcomings

Military Logisticians have a duty to generate and transport needed resources for strategic use. This is necessary for commanders to keep a strategic flexibility. Without that flexibility, commanders are fighting with a hand behind their backs. In the G-T-S-R framework of logistics, logisticians must anticipate commander and soldiers needs and plan to meet them. They must generate the resources needed, supply them to the war-fighter and sustain them when used.

Over the last two decades there has been a proliferation in air power as well as air defense. Following operation Desert Storm, the world saw how out of date air defense measures were. Surface to Air Missile (SAMs) systems have improved since to match every advancement US forces have made in air power.  Russian and Chinese SAM systems can now reach distances of 200 miles where 40 years ago just 50 miles was a stretch. Moving on from anti-air defenses and onto air power projection, the Chinese and Russian militaries have made great strides in improving their latest jet fighters to not only be a challenge to our legacy F-15c and F-16 but also outmatch them. In the dog-fighting world, the plane that sees first, shoots first; and the plane that shoots first wins the fight. In this battle, we are losing.

Logisticians  also have a duty to get soldiers the right tools they need. Soldiers in the right place at the right time with the wrong tools are ineffective for a commander. The military's previous attempt to acquisition a new fighter plane was a failure on many levels that bought over a hundred flawed aircraft built for a problem that would never exist (the F-22 was built to fight soviet aircraft that never materialized because of the fall of the USSR). The acquisition continued despite spectacular flaws because of the politics of a project so large. Congress kept voting to stick with the F-22 raptor program because it created jobs in their districts and states. The new F-35 plane is $165 billion over budget and 7 years behind schedule in much of the same way the raptor was late and costly. The difference this time is the glaring need for a fighter plane to outmatch our potential enemies. Both Russia and China sell their SAMs and fourth generation aircraft to countries all over the world. Because of this we must generate a tool for commanders to maintain a strategic advantage.


After observing the failures of the F-22, logicians are already looking to avoid mistakes already made. The F-22 required 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. Attention is already turning to Hill Air Force Base for how the personnel there will be cutting costs in maintaining the new F-35. Though congress has once again bought an expensive new untested plane before driving it, this acquisition may not turn out to be a failure. Lt. Gen Chris Brogdan is in charge of the F-35 program and is holding Lockheed Martin accountable for providing quality in the production of the 2,000 plus the military is expected to buy.

The F-35 program is projected to cost $1 trillion and be the most costly acquisition in the history of armed forces. it will be replacing the air frames for the Navy, Air force and Marines; as well as the fleets for some allied countries. production is well underway and some think that the program is a waste in a time when we are cutting back on spending and downsizing our forces. Critics call it unnecessary and full of flaws. Despite its many problems, cutting our losses here like we did the F-22s - that will never see combat - will result in a worse case scenario where we may not have the right tools to accomplish the mission. We will be leaving commanders to fight without strategic flexibility.

RuBee: Helping the Organization of Explosives

     One of the largest problems in times of lower levels of conflict The Size of a RuBee tracker for a military is the storage of surplus military equipment. There needs to be this basic level of surplus in peace so that when the military needs to rapidly deploy to a place in the world in need of America's help, it does not have to wait for the generation of equipment.There are many items in the military warehouses that cannot be tracked with traditional radio wave technology namely explosives. The new RuBee tracker uses magnetic tracking as opposed to Radio Frequency Identification (RFID). 
      This technology is not new but according to a recent blog by Valerie Insinna, the military is taking a serious look into replacing the current tracking methods utilized with RFID technology. RuBee can automatically conduct an audit decreasing the man power and man hours required significantly. RuBee guarantees that the system will always be readable, can work on explosives, and is the most secure of the tracking systems. 
        RuBee works on a three layer security system that takes personnel responsibility and moves more of it into the system. This graphic below explains the organization of the RuBee three layer security network. The security system has a constant inventory on the shelf. It then verifies all checkouts using an iPad in the counter. Lastly, there are exit and entry detection of the tag.

        The model of Generate - Transport - Sustain - Redeploy is aided by this new system of security and tracking. Warehouse organization will be easier to sustain on Army Posts and theaters of combat. The generation of equipment will be more efficient and quick. Transportation will be simpler to achieve when a tag can be scanned at location to location. The organization will be smoother and much more streamline. Sustainment and redeployment are both aided by the easy in storage and transportation as well.
       A large issue in World War 1 was the organization and transportation of supplies. If a technology had been available to move equipment and supplies quicker and easier. An in-processing center would be able to receive supplies and organize them easily. Then a commander could acquire what is necessary for his unit to function easier. The organization of shipping would be much more simplistic. America might not have needed the assistance of French and British material if a simple tracking tool like this could have been utilized.  This technology was not possible in the early 20th century but in the current era, the US military could benefit heavily. 
      RuBee also helps to minimize the logistics snowball effect described in Logistics in the National Defense by Henry E Eccles. This system would reduce the amount of people needed to inventory and audit the equipment. Joe Doaks would not be replaced by Buck Rogers in this situation but the snowball would be minimized considerable because the number of people would need to be less. 
     In times of constricting budget, the US Army is looking for innovative solutions to reduce the need for man power, the Rubee system would allow for additional cuts to the logistics system. This would allow for additional funding to go towards other priorities that are desperately being fought to protect.

The New Flying Fortress

The troubles of transporting large amounts of supplies over vast distances to far reaching military operations have plagued logisticians since the beginning of warfare.  In past times, carts and wagons could only carry a small amount of supplies and required large amounts of resources to support the horses that pulled them. Soldiers can only carry so much on their backs. In the current age, trucks, ships, and especially cargo planes require large amounts of fuel, maintenance, and support structures to function. In other words, such mediums for transportation are not incredibly efficient, at least compared to an emerging technology,

The issues stated above, and many more, could be addressed with the HAV 304: the worlds largest airship currently being built in Great Britain. While it's not a very aesthetically pleasing beast, this new airframe boasts some very serious statistics. It has the capability of carrying up to 50 tons of equipment/supplies in it's cargo bays. With this cargo load, it is 70% more efficient on fuel than a traditional cargo plane. The selling point is that it can fly for up to 5 days straight without the need for in-air-refueling. It also does not require a landing strip in order to take off or land, and can land on virtually any surface (to include water). Exactly how is it capable of doing this?

The HAV (Hybrid Air Vehicle) gets sixty percent of its lift from the large helium-filled chambers that the cockpit and cargo bays hang from, much like a traditional airship. The difference with this airship is that the hull/helium chambers act as a hydrofoil, creating the other 40% of the lift capability. It can operate in nearly any temperature range and will continue to fly for a reasonably long period of time if its hull is penetrated(a great war zone capability).

The U.S. Military already purchased the first aircraft three years ago and put it through testing and use but abandoned the project due to the large initial investment cost for the new prototype vehicle (and a shrinking budget).

When the vehicle becomes producible in large quantities in upcoming years, it could have a serious impact on the military logistics world. In regards to the G-T-S-R framework with which we analyze much of the logistical world, the HAV could have significant impacts on the transport, sustain, and redeploy realms. The simple act of transporting our supplies over long distances would become much more efficient without having to worry about mid-air refueling or maintaining refueling bases. In cases where our forces are deploying to a region with no large airport infrastructures, this airframe would allow logistics units to transport large amounts of supply until airstrips for cargo planes could be built. Had this capability existed in the early 1990's, operations like Desert Storm might have been able to start much earlier.

The ability for this transport airframe to land on water also fits in perfectly with the U.S. military's web of prepositioned supply stocks floating in various oceans around the world. Such stocks could be relocated much faster and in larger quantities than before. It would also create the need for fewer modes of transport as it would be able to carry supplies from stocks directly to sustainment bases in the theater of conflict.

These are just a few of the possibilities that the Airlander HAV presents to the military logistics world. It is a bold product that tackles traditional and new challenges with transporting supplies, sustaining forces in conflict, and re-deploying them to the far reaches of the globe.