The future of the United States military logistics are pack animals, narco subs, floating platforms
and aluminum as fuel.
Seriously!
Given the recent events and Russia’s logistical failure in Ukraine, western analysts were
quick to identify the point of failure: tanks running out of fuel, sunken ships and 40 kilometers
convoys that go nowhere.
But are the American supply lines as good as one might think?
For example, The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments found that the current
and programmed defense maritime logistics force… is inadequate to support a major
military operation against China or Russia, as there is a gap between operational needs
and logistical capability.
NATO defines logistics as the “bridge between deployed forces and the industrial base which
produces materials and weapons that those deployed forces need in order to accomplish
their mission”.
You see, when Washington funds the Pentagon, money tends to go to missiles and fighter
aircraft instead of logistical platforms.
American logistic services have been underfunded for decades and are now simply outdated as
you will soon discover.
The modern battlefield has changed, so the platforms need to be refreshed, but to do
that, the “thinking” needs to be refreshed first.
The current logistics networks suffer not only from underinvestment but also from lack
of imagination.
And imagine we shall.
During World War II, in Roosevelt's eyes, the key to winning the war was to “out-produce”
the enemy.
The same holds true today, and it is evident during the present Russo-Ukrainian war.
Ukrainians are clearly at an advantage from a procurement point of view as NATO is supplying
them with military equipment.
In contrast, Russia is struggling.
In fact just recently they had to shut down their only tank factory due to lack of parts
procured from other countries, as a result of sanctions.
Over the years, supply chains have been transformed by consolidation, offshoring, and foreign
investments that affect commercial industries that also have military applications, like
telecom, circuit boards and batteries.
The US Department of Defense draws from many of the same procurement sources as the commercial
sector does.
American industries have moved more than 40,000 manufacturing facilities overseas in the past
25 years, and this has created vulnerabilities that cannot be quickly mitigated, in a crisis.
The risks of this fragile system are well known, but often ignored.
Commercial supply chains are effective means of delivering goods at lower prices but they
often lack the resilience to withstand disruptions, be it natural disasters, pandemics or war.
Imagine a major conflict with Russia, it’s easy if you try!
Such a conflict can send shock waves, not only through commercial supply chains, but
for that of defense.
And this brings us to mules!
social media is like a mule that carries news and information to us!
Except for the news that we receive has been filtered by algorithms to feed our confirmation
bias.
Which is why I’m excited about today’s sponsor, Ground News.
Ground News scours the internet to show you every article on any given issue.
The app and website make it easy to compare news sources and it even shows you the political
leaning of those sources.
For example, the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk has been evenly reported on both sides
of the political aisle But the concerns expressed by the WhiteHouse as a result of this deal,
have not been covered on the left as much as it has on the right.
Conveniently for you, Ground News has a dedicated Blindspot Feed so you can quickly browse through
stories you might be missing.
Ground News is a small team of independent media outsiders concerned about the future
of news.
They are not funded by a media company, big tech or institutional investors - they’re
supported by subscribers.
So if you’re looking for a better way to stay informed about current events around
the world, check out Ground News by clicking the link in the description.
Before you dismiss the idea of pack animals being used in modern battlefields, consider
this…
. Yeah, right!
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA spent $42 million dollars developing
a robotic packhorse known as Legged Squad Support System or simply LS3.
The LS3 was supposed to help marines and soldiers carry up to 400 pounds of supplies.
But it turned out to be a flop.
Not only it’s range was limited by fuel, it would constantly break down, and worst
of all, it was fu**ing loud.
Not ideal for a combat zone.
But I can see why the Pentagon funded the robotic mule.
The struggle .. is real!
Mules are often called the AK-47s of logistics for their rugged utility.
A mule costs only a few thousands dollars compared to ground vehicles such as the Joint
Light Tactical Vehicle that costs $350,000 dollars.
Pack animals can reliably carry hundreds of pounds of water, fuel, munitions and equipment
in a terrain that is too difficult for motor vehicles to traverse.
Compared to vehicles, mules are also harder to detect either optically, on radars or infrared.
Of course there are exceptions Besides, pack animals have been used for thousands of years.
During World War II, German logistics was powered by more than 600,000 horses.
A big problem for ground vehicles like JLTV or even tanks is that they require fuel.
A LOT of it.
A defense science board estimates that by tonnage, as much as 70 percent of supplies
needed to sustain army operations is fuel.
And that's a big problem.
Modern weapons such as drones and portable guided missile systems can destroy supply
convoys in no time.
The Russian experience in Ukraine is a perfect example of this.
In Afghanistan, American forces were using as much as 22 gallons of fuel per person,
per day!
Reducing fuel consumption will be an operational necessity in distributed operations.
Pack animals don't need fuel, as they can survive on water and forage in their environment.
Relying on pack animals also reduces the need for spare parts and costly maintenance of
ground vehicles.
The warfare of the future, calls for simple, cheap and portable platforms that do not need
a decade to be designed and tested.
Just look at tanks, no matter how sophisticated their defense systems are, simple and relatively
inexpensive Javelins and NLAWs will overwhelm tanks in no time.
The US Marine corps is currently in the process of figuring out how to sustain an expeditionary
force across east asian littorals.
The plan that is currently in the works is calling for the use of pack animals, such
as mules and horses, and ironically despite all the technological advancements, the pack
animals might be the best option for supply logistics in a wide variety of terrains, but
primarily mountainous and wooded regions.
Currently, only the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center teaches marines and
army special forces how to employ and care for pack animals.
There are growing calls within the Pentagon to expand the use of pack animals in the future.
But how about the US Navy’s capability to resupply themselves during a full blown conflict.
It's truly not what you think!
Military Sealift Command operates and crews 125 ships that replenish the navy at sea.
But out of those 125 vessels, only 31 are designed to resupply warships during combat,
and they are unarmed for the most part, besides small firearms to deal with pirates, and,
they are manned by civilian forces - because it's … cheaper.
Those undefended/civilian-run oilers and dry cargo ships will be easy targets during a
naval conflict, especially now, in the missile age.
China’s military has made it clear that those ships will be targeted in a potential
conflict.
Losing even a few oilers or dry cargo ships would severely limit Military operational
abilities.
During World War II, the US Navy had about 100 oilers, and a few thousand dry cargo supply
ships.
27 hundred (2,710) Liberty-class ships were built alone.
To protect the resupply convoys, the US Navy had 507 escort destroyers and 71 escort carriers.
The escort carriers and destroyers protected the supply ships from enemy airplanes and
submarines.
To protect the fleet of supply ships that currently exist under the US Navy, you would
need to have a fleet of escort vessels, install missile defense systems on the supply ships
and have military personnel operate those defense systems.
Wait, but why can’t the supply ships just sail under the protection of the carrier strike
groups?
They can’t, because they are too slow.
Only two supply ships in the US Navy are fast enough to keep up with carrier strike groups,
and that’s USNS Arctic and USNS Supply.
But even if all supply ships were fast enough, they would still have to sail back and forth
between combat zones and harbors to replenish supplies.
But even if we forget about the vulnerability of supply ships during transit, the way the
replenishments are currently conducted put the combat fleet in a vulnerable position.
Vertical replenishment, which is mostly done by MH-60S Seahawks requires both a high level
of precision and crew coordination.
Sometimes aircrews encounter load oscillations because of aerodynamic properties of the external
cargo, and this can slow down the entire operation which can be lethal in combat.
Manufacturers are currently working on a stabilization system to dampen the rotation and oscillation
of helicopter external loads to make VERTREP much safer and more efficient..
On the other hand, during “alongside connected replenishment”, the supply ship and receiving
ship have to maintain constant course and speed while in formation.
A constant speed of 12 to 16 knots lessens the relative motion due to wave actions and
allows for better heading control.
But being hooked up to a supply ship via rigs and hoses for hours makes a warship more vulnerable
to long range weapons, especially hypersonic missiles.
One possible solution to this problem comes from US Navy Commander Justin McCaffree who
proposed the use of something similar to Mulberries that were used during World War II.
Mulberries were portable harbors that were used by Allies in Normandy in the absence
of traditional port facilities.
Today, artificial floating platforms, including inflatable platforms, could be used to connect
both supply ships and warships in the middle of the ocean.
This artificial logistical space would function as a raceway pit stop where crew would rapidly
service surface combatants with fuel, food and munitions.
But more importantly, combining these platforms with an advanced stabilized crane system could
provide a capability to replenish the mark 41 vertical launch system at sea.
These innovative inflatable platforms could drastically shorten the replenishment process,
reducing vulnerabilities.
The reality is that there’s no one perfect solution.
Modern warfare demands something that doesn’t take decades to develop, is inexpensive, and
can get the job done.
This is why the American military is looking beyond conventional logistical models, and
more toward adaptive and innovative models, in part, thanks to narcotics!
Since 1971, the war on drugs has cost American taxpayers an estimated $1 trillion dollars.
The efforts to counter smuggling of narcotics range from deploying arrays of radars mounted
on blimps which guard the southern borders, to direct operations in the jungles of south
america , to even deploying B-1 bombers to track drug smugglers.
Yet, despite decades of work, narcotics continue to flow into the United States.
The success of narco traffickers can be attributed to three things: redundancy, the use of multiple
platforms, and geographical flexibility, and these principles could be applied to wartime
logistics.
Traffickers play a numbers game by simply using a large number of vessels to smuggle
narcotics.
Even if 90% of those shipments are intercepted, the margins are so high that it would still
be a profitable business.
The delivery platforms are expendable, meaning that they are used for a one-way delivery
of the cargo, after which, they are deliberately sunk.
But smugglers also use a variety of platforms: go fast boats, narco subs, tunnels, narco
torpedoes and even full scale submarines.
At one point, aircraft were also used, but improved radar coverage in the southern United
States borders discourages delivery via airplanes.
In addition, traffickers use geography to their advantage.
When trafficking at the southern border became more difficult, smugglers quickly shifted
80% of the volume from the US/Mexico border to narco operations in the Caribbean.
Meanwhile law enforcement couldn’t keep up with this swift change of strategy.
Supplying military operations in Western Pacific have similarities to narco operations in the
Caribbean.
The traffickers have consistently shown that what matters is not the platform, but the
cargo.
Following that thought process, inexpensive platforms should be used for delivery, and
enough of them should be sent so an adequate amount of supplies would actually get through.
Joint forces should be supplied by air, land, or sea, as opposed to a single platform.
And go where the enemy is not.
Changing routes on a dime and reorienting logistics forces can lead to an increase in
the success rate, by supplying faster than the adversary can react.
Another option is to take the idea of low profile boats from smugglers and modify them
so that they could carry tens of tons of cargo thousands of miles between safe logistics
hubs in the Pacific.
Low profile boats operate almost entirely submerged with only a small snorkel and cockpit
visible, and would be a perfect candidate for an unmanned system that can travel slowly.
Even if not all of them make it, swarms of them will deliver goods to where they need
to, from GUAM or Australia.
Traditional logistics, both civil and military, operate on a “push-pull” principle.
When units need supplies, they are requisitioned.
Under ideal conditions, it takes 23 minutes to complete an individual order-approval transaction
by a deployed Marine Expeditionary Unit.
The Central authority creates a schedule for logistical assets and executes the plan, which
early on used to be done by hand, then spreadsheets, and then more advanced tools such as Replenishment
at Sea Planner, and the latest Complex Adaptive System Composition and Design Environment.
But as the use of automated systems increases, so do vulnerabilities.
The Pentagon relies on more than 12,000 subcontractors that support nine supply chains.
This creates multiple attack vectors for adversaries.
Even slowing down the communication network can disrupt the supply chain by preventing
effective transfer of information.
What comes next is disruptive Artificial Intelligence systems.
Advanced AI can estimate expenditures of various types of ammunition, therefore inferring the
time and location of the assets when they need to be resupplied.
This effectively reduces lead times from days to hours.
But during fierce conflicts with limited resources, AI can take it to a whole other level.
The logistical systems may themselves decide which battles to reinforce, and which battles
to forsake by choosing which combat formations to reinforce with limited supplies.
With this comes a basket of ethical dilemmas as a logistics software may have the power
to decide which friendly forces live and which ones die.
As mentioned earlier, about 70% of all military logistical supplies by volume is fuel.
The liquid fuel supplied to forward units is often highly visible as it is transported
either by a vulnerable oil tanker or fuel truck convoys.
This vulnerability is well documented during US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where disproportionately
more US casualties came from fuel convoys.
But what if you could replace the highly combustible fuel with something solid?
The answer is aluminum solid fuel.
It has double the energy density of diesel fuel and is not a fire hazard.
When aluminum reacts with water, it produces hydrogen, which in efficient fuel cells, generates
electricity that can power up military vehicles like tanks.
And you don’t need that much water.
One liter of water that reacts with aluminum fuel can produce 1368 liters of hydrogen.
And the water can be any water, be it dirty water or snow melt.
It really doesn’t matter.
Now without getting too deep into the physics of aluminum fuel cells, they won’t solve
the Earth’s energy crisis, and it is the only viable fuel source for emergency and
military uses.
The military benefits are clear: solid fuels can dramatically reduce logistical needs of
expeditionary forces, and make supply convoys less vulnerable.
Running vehicles on hydrogen fuel cells reduces their thermal signature compared to combustion
engines, and there is also no visible exhaust.
As of now, the US Military has been researching aluminum solid fuels for over a decade and
a version of aluminum fuel cells has already been implemented on Unmanned Undersea Vehicles.
The potential of solid fuels is limitless.
Imagine, you could build unmanned vehicles from aluminum that would feed off their own
structures, and self-destruct once they’ve accomplished their mission.
I hope no narco traffickers are watching!