Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Reducing the Logistics Burden for the Army After Next Doing More with Less Committee to Perform a Technology Assessment Focused on Logistics Support Requirements for Future Army Combat Systems Board on Army Science and Technology Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1999 i
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose mem- bers are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineer- ing programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of 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 initia- tive, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of sci- ence and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. This is a report of work supported by Contract DAAG55-97-C-0044 between the U.S. Army and the National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-06378-7 Limited copies are available from: Board on Army Science and Technology National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Additional copies are available for sale from: National Academy Press Box 285 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20055 800-624-6242 or 202-334-3313 Copyright 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. ii (in the Washington Metropolitan Area)
Committee to Perform a Technology Assessment Focused on Logistics Support Requirements for Future Army Combat Systems GERALD E. GALLOWAY, JR., chair, International Joint Commission, Washington, D.C. STEVEN R.J. BRUECK, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque PATRICK F. FLYNN, Cummins Engine Company, Inc., Columbus, Indiana ALAN B. FOWLER, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York KENNETH J. GRAHAM, Atlantic Research Corporation, Gainesville, Virginia ALLEN F. GRUM, Mercer University, Macon, Georgia FREDERICK E. HARTMAN, The Foxhall Group, Washington, D.C. EDWARD J. HAUG, University of Iowa, Iowa City MERRILEA J. MAYO, Pennsylvania State University, University Park SURESH MENON, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta ERNEST N. PETRICK, General Dynamics Land Systems, (retired) Ann Arbor, Michigan JOSEPH R. PICKENS, Concurrent Technologies Corporation, Glenelg, Maryland LEON E. SALOMON, Rubbermaid, Inc., Wooster, Ohio MEHMET SARIKAYA, University of Washington, Seattle JAMES K. STEDMAN, Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia National Research Council Staff ROBERT J. LOVE, Study Director JENIFER AUSTIN, Senior Project Assistant (December, 1998) DELPHINE D. GLAZE, Senior Project Assistant (January 1998) MARGO L. FRANCESCO, Publication Manager DEANNA SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant (until December 1997) ROBERT J. KATT, Technical Consultant Board on Army Science and Technology Liaison KATHRYN V. LOGAN, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta iii
Board on Army Science and Technology WILLIAM H. FORSTER, chair, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland THOMAS L. MCNAUGHER, vice chair, RAND Corporation, Washington, D.C. GARY L. BORMAN, University of Wisconsin, Madison RICHARD A. CONWAY, Union Carbide Corporation, Charleston, West Virginia GILBERT S. DECKER, Alliant Tech Systems, Inc., Los Gatos, California LAWRENCE J. DELANEY, Delaney Group, Potomac, Maryland ROBERT J. HEASTON, Guidance and Control Information Analysis Center (retired), Naperville, Illinois ELVIN R. HEIBERG, Heiberg Associates, Inc., Mason Neck, Virginia GERALD J. IAFRATE, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana KATHRYN V. LOGAN, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta JOHN H. MOXLEY, Korn/Ferry International, Los Angeles, California STEWART D. PERSONICK, Bell Communications Research, Inc., Morristown, New Jersey MILLARD F. ROSE, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama GEORGE T. SINGLEY III, Hicks and Associates, Inc., McLean, Virginia CLARENCE G. THORNTON, Army Research Laboratories (retired), Colts Neck, New Jersey JOHN D. VENABLES, Venables and Associates, Towson, Maryland JOSEPH J. VERVIER, ENSCO, Inc., Melbourne, Florida ALLEN C. WARD, Ward Synthesis, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan Staff BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director MARGO L. FRANCESCO, Staff Associate ALVERA WILSON, Financial Associate DEANNA SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant iv
Preface This study lays out steps that should be taken for the Army to field combat systems with reduced logistics support requirements for a highly mobile and lethal battle force that is fundamentally self-sufficient. Although the study is based on a notional battle force concept provided by the Army to illustrate possibilities and alternatives, the findings also can be applied to the development of systems for other missions. Reductions in logistics demand that can be achieved by addressing logistical implications during system design will be more significant than improving the ways that logistics support is provided. The study provides a road map for research and technology development based on logistical considerations and offers a unique perspective on ideas and technologies currently being considered by the Army. The committee believes that current technology can be adapted to support the incorporation of logistical considerations in planning to a degree not previously imagined. Clearly, attention to logistics trade-off analysis is absolutely essential for the Army to get the most "bang for its buck" by 2025. For perhaps the first time, the Army has both an opportunity and the technology to consider fully the logistical implications in designing a force. Recognizing the likely threats and required capabilities, the Army has every reason to do so. The scope and complexity of issues surrounding the AAN are challenging. The committee relied heavily on the Army for information on conceptual requirements and on the status of research activities. We appreciate very much the willingness of everyone involved to provide background data and to discuss issues candidly. GERALD E. GALLOWAY, JR., CHAIR COMMITTEE TO PERFORM A TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOCUSED ON LOGISTICS SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS FOR FUTURE ARMY COMBAT SYSTEMS v
Acknowledgments This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and the National Research Council in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Lloyd Duscha, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (retired), Reston, Virginia David C. Hardison, Consultant, Falls Church, Virginia John B. Mooney, J. Brad Mooney Associates, Arlington, Virginia Julia Phillips, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico Donald S. Pihl, General Dynamics, Sterling Heights, Michigan Craig Rogers, University of South Carolina, Columbia Randall L. Simpson, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, Livermore, California Cynthia Whitney, Tufts University, Arlington, Massachusetts While the individuals listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring committee and the National Research Council. vi
Contents Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 15 Statement of Task 16 Concept for Army After Next Operations 16 Study Concept 19 Report Organization 19 2 Military Logistics and the Army After Next Requirements 21 Military Logistics 22 Strategic, Operational, and Tactical Logistics 22 Historical Analysis of the Impact of Logistics on Modern Warfare 23 Concepts of Warfare for the Twenty-First Century 24 Logistics Concepts for the Army After Next 25 Logistics Burdens for the Battle Force 26 Burden Reduction Goals 27 3 Logistics Trade-off Analysis 29 Factors in Trade-off Analyses 29 Capabilities for AAN Performance and Reducing Logistics Burdens 30 Requirements for AAN Trade-off Analysis 31 Comparison with the STAR 21 Study 33 Modeling and Simulation Environment to Support Logistics Trade-off Analyses 34 Using the M&S Hierarchy for Exploratory Development and Defining Research Needs 36 Mobility Trade-off Analyses 37 Trade-off Analyses for Small-Unit and Force-on-Force Engagements 40 Trade-off Analyses to Support AAN Mission Reliability 42 Facilitating a Modeling and Simulation Environment to Support System Trade-off Analyses 44 Setting Priorities 45 Securing Buy-in and Commitment from Others 45 Focusing on Logistics Trade-offs 45 CONTENTS vii
Science and Technology Initiatives to Reduce Logistics Burdens through Trade-off Analyses 46 4 Fuel and Energy 48 Increasing the Energy Supply 48 Hydrogen as a Battlefield Fuel 49 Nuclear Fuel for Transportable Power Plants with High Power Density 51 Coupled Nuclear-Electric-Hydrogen System 52 Reducing Energy Demand 55 Lighter Vehicles through Materials Substitution 55 Lighter Vehicles through Optimized System Performance 58 Efficient Energy Management 59 Fuel Economy as a Functional Specification 59 Hybrid Vehicles 60 Science and Technology Initiatives to Reduce Energy-Related Logistics Burdens 61 Increasing the Energy Supply 61 Reducing Energy Demand 62 Efficient Energy Management 63 5 Operational and Tactical Mobility 64 Operational Mobility 64 Tactical (Battlefield) Mobility 66 Wheeled Versus Tracked Vehicles 69 Remote Sensing to Enhance Battlefield Ground Mobility 72 Reducing the Size of Vehicle Crews 72 Distributed Modeling and Simulation Environment for Vehicle Design 78 Status of Current Modeling and Simulation Tools 78 Technology Extensions 80 Science and Technology Initiatives to Reduce Mobility Logistics Burdens 84 Operational Mobility 84 Tactical Ground Mobility 84 6 Engagement 87 Situational Awareness 87 Projectile Weapon Systems 90 Gun Systems 90 Small Missile Systems for Precision Attack 94 Precision Guided Munitions 96 Propellants, Explosives, and Warheads 98 Logistics Implications of Projectile Weapon Systems 104 Directed Energy Weapons 104 Lasers 105 Microwave Devices 106 Less-than-Lethal Weapons 107 CONTENTS viii
Science and Technology Initiatives to Reduce Logistics Burdens of Engagement Systems 107 Situational Awareness 107 Projectile Weapon Systems 108 Directed-Energy and Less-than-Lethal Weapons 109 7 Reliability Concepts 110 Logistical Implications of Highly Reliable Systems 110 Pulse-Reliable Systems 110 Fast Refitting through Improved Maintainability 112 AAN Mission Reliability Versus Ultrareliability 112 AAN Mission Reliability and RAMD 113 Using an M&S Environment to Develop AAN Mission-Reliable Systems 114 Adequate M&S Systems 116 Defining Reliability in Measurable Characteristics 116 Iterative Simulation 117 Valid Data on Alternatives 118 Preserving Mission Reliability during System Trade-offs 119 The Third Approach: Research to Enable New Reliability Solutions 121 Improving System Reliability at the Level of Component Analysis and Design 121 Science and Technology Initiatives to Achieve AAN Mission Reliability 125 AAN Mission Reliability 125 Three Approaches to Mission Reliability 126 8 Soldier Sustainment 128 Compact Power 128 Microturbines 128 Nuclear "Batteries" 129 Protection of Personnel 129 Body Armor 130 Active Protection Systems 130 Medicine and Nutrition 130 Other Technologies 131 Findings 132 9 Joint Force Research and Development 133 Strategic Lift Capabilities 133 Long Range Supporting Fire 135 Interoperable Command and Control Systems 136 Findings 136 10 Investment Strategy for Research and Technology Development 137 Role of Defense Research and Development 137 Army Science and Technology Program 139 CONTENTS ix
Strategic Research Objectives and S&T Objectives 140 Strategic Research Objectives and AAN Situational Awareness 140 Strategic Research Objectives and Lightweight Materials 142 Strategic Research Objectives for Logistics 142 Investments to Reduce Logistics Support Requirements for AAN Systems 143 Road Map Objectives 143 Distributed M&S Technology 146 Lightweight Materials for Air and Ground Vehicles 148 Airframe and Engine Designs 149 Unmanned and Minimally Crewed Vehicles 150 Mobility Systems 150 Terrain Awareness 151 New Energy Delivery Systems 151 Lethal Systems Performance and Reduced System Weight 152 Situational Awareness and Precision Guidance 152 Reducing the Ammunition Burden through Lethal Systems Performance 154 Energetics and Warhead Materials 154 Systems Design for Reliability 155 Compact Power 156 Lightweight Protection Systems for Individual Soldiers 156 Advances in Combat Medicine, Nutrition, and Soldier Fitness 157 AAN Logistics Trade-off Analyses across Burden Reduction Goals 157 Situational Awareness for Logistics Operations 158 11 Conclusions and Recommendations 159 References 163 Appendices 169 A Statement of Task 171 B Meetings and Activities 172 C Technologies for Materials Selection and Design 183 D Materials Options for Fuel Efficiency and Protection 190 E Duty Cycles and Fuel Economy of Hybrid Vehicles 195 F Situational Awareness 197 CONTENTS x
Figures, Tables and Boxes FIGURES 1-1 Illustration of the Army After Next operating environment 18 2-1 Joint Vision 2010 operational concepts 25 3-1 Hierarchical system of modeling and simulation for AAN trade-off analyses for a vehicle system 34 3-2 Component design considerations 35 4-1 Alternative energy systems for the AAN 54 6-1 Schematic representation of the situational awareness system 89 6-2 Rail gun projectile 93 6-3 Major BAT subsystems 97 6-4 Comparison of engine technologies 100 6-5 Calibration curve from large-scale card gap tests of conventional warhead explosives used by the Army and PBX replacements 103 7-1 Hierarchy of model domains 115 9-1 Joint Vision 2010 operational concepts 135 10-1 DoD's decreasing share of the market for integrated circuits 138 10-2 Army funding for research 139 C-1 Materials engineering technologies to support system design 184 E-1 Duty cycle for a 3.4 metric-ton vehicle with an engine rated at 235 brake horsepower and a maximum torque of 440 ft-lb 196 TABLES ES-1 Logistics Burdens, Burden Reduction Goals, Road Map Objectives, Technology Development Areas, and Research Areas 6 3-1 Rank Ordering of Technologies Identified in the STAR 21 Technology Relevance Matrix 33 4-1 Densities of Elements That Form the Basis of Major Structural Alloys 56 5-1 Battlefield Mobility Trade-offs for Transport Aircraft 65 5-2 Unmanned Vehicles Worldwide 75 FIGURES, TABLES AND BOXES xi
10-1 Logistics Burdens, Burden Reduction Goals, Road Map Objectives, Technology Development Areas, and Research Areas 6 BOXES 3-1 Technology-Dependent AAN Capabilities with Significant Effects on Logistics Demand 30 3-2 14-Day Self-Sustainment Requirement Must Dictate Materiel Design 31 3-3 Critical M&S Needs for AAN Trade-off Analyses in Support of Reducing Logistics Demand 32 3-4 Characteristics of an AAN Unit for Small-Unit and Force-on-Force Engagement Analyses 41 3-5 M&S Tools to be Linked for AAN Logistics Trade-off Analysis 42 3-6 Facilitating AAN Logistics Trade-off Analyses 44 4-1 Fuel Cells 53 5-1 Russian WIG Vehicles 68 5-2 Limitations in M&S Tools for Engineering Analysis of Ground Vehicle Concepts 79 5-3 Mobility M&S Technology Developments 81 5-4 M&S Tools for AAN Mission Rehearsal Analysis 82 5-5 Vehicle Motion Simulators 83 6-1 Benefits of Less Sensitive Munitions 102 7-1 Classical Definitions of Reliability and Related Concepts 111 10-1 Army Strategic Research Objectives 141 FIGURES, TABLES AND BOXES xii
Acronyms and Abbreviations ACRONYMS AAN Army After Next AFSS advanced fire support system AMC Army Materiel Command AMSAA Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity ARL Army Research Laboratory ARO Amy Research Office ATACMS Army tactical missile system ATM asynchronous transfer mode ATR automated target recognition BAT brilliant anti-tank BUSE battle unit support element BVRAAM beyond visual range air-to-air missile C3I command, control, communications, and intelligence C4ISR command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance CAE computer-aided engineering CAV composite armored vehicle CBW chemical/biological warfare CECOM Communications-Electronic Command Center CKEM compact kinetic energy missile CMOS complementary-metal oxide on silicon CNP compact nuclear power CNPS compact nuclear power source CRAF Civilian Reserve Air Fleet Program DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DEW directed energy warfare DIS distributed interactive simulation DOC Department of Commerce DoD Department of Defense EM electromagnetic EMP electromagnetic pulse ETC electrothermal chemical ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xiii
FCS Future Combat System FEL free electron lasers FLIR forward-looking infrared FSCS future scout and cavalry system GIRAS gas-inflated ram air stabilizer GPS global positioning system GS general support HLA high level architecture HMMWV high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles HMX high melting explosive HPM high power microwaves HPMM high power millimeter wave IAT Institute for Advanced Technology IC integrated circuit IDA Institute for Defense Analysis IHPRPT Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology IFF identification of friend or foe IR infrared JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff JRP Joint Robotics Program KEP kinetic energy penetrator LMSR large, medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off LRP long rod penetrator LTL less than lethal M&S modeling and simulation MRE meals ready-to-eat MLRS multiple launch rocket systems NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NIMA National Imagery and Mapping Agency NRC National Research Council NRMM NATO Reference Mobility Model NRO National Reconnaissance Office NSA National Security Agency PBX plastic-bonded explosive PEM proton exchange membrane PNGV Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles POL (petrol, oil, lubricants) petroleum QWIP quantum-well infrared photodetector RAMD reliability, availability, maintainability, and durability RDEC research, development engineering center ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xiv
RDT&E research, development, testing and evaluation RDX rapid detonating explosive RHA rolled homogeneous armor RML Revolution in Military Logistics RSTA reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition S&T science and technology SA situational awareness SGE surface ground-effect SRO strategic research objective STO science and technology objective TARDEC Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center TE thermoelectric TOE table of organization and equipment TRADOC Army Training and Doctrine Command UAV unmanned aerial vehicle UGV unmanned ground vehicle UGVTEE UGV Technology Enhancement and Exploitation UUV unmanned undersea vehicles VEHDYN vehicle dynamics subsystem WES Waterways Experiment Station WIG wing-in-ground cm3 cubic centimeter Ft-lb foot pound KE kinetic energy kg kilogram kW·h kilowatt hour km/h kilometer hour kW kilowatt MW megawatt MW·h megawatt hour mJ millijoule nm nanometer ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xvi
