A high-level Army task force is scheduled to complete, by August
1, a comprehensive plan to reform the way the service conducts logistics-support
operations.
The so-called Logistics Transformation Task Force, formed in early
May, was directed to figure out ways for the Army to reduce its
“logistics footprint,” to become more deployable and
to improve the quality of the logistics services to forces in the
field, said Maj. Gen. N. Ross Thompson III.
“The task force has to put together an integrated plan that’s
executable year by year,” said Thompson, who heads the Army’s
Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, and is a member of the logistics
task force.
In a recent interview, Thompson explained that, this time, he hopes
the reform plan will lead to real-world changes, rather than become
“just another study.”
He recognizes that there is skepticism in the Pentagon about the
service’s ability to adapt to change. For that reason, said
Thompson, “We need to do a better job in showing and demonstrating
to people that there is a lot of movement and a lot of momentum
in this area.” The task force plan, he said, will include
short, medium and long-term actions.
Asked how the Army will measure results, Thompson said that no
specific numbers have been set, but he noted that, most probably,
the Army would seek reductions in the manpower and equipment needed
to sustain a force in the battlefield. More than two-thirds of the
load that the Army brings to a war is made up water, fuel and ammunition.
Any future reductions in the logistics footprint likely will be
achieved by finding ways to consume less fuel and techniques to
generate water in the field, for example.
“We haven’t set a certain percentage reduction yet,”
he said. Army officials currently are modeling several scenarios,
to try to determine how much logistics support is really necessary
to deploy a heavy brigade, medium-size brigade or a division-size
force.
“We have to determine the delta between what we have to put
in there today, and what we have to do in the future,” said
Thompson.
Additionally, he said, “We are going to look at what we have
in pre-positioned stocks, both afloat and in theater. We will look
at what will be needed in the future. Hopefully the answer will
be ‘a lot less.’”
Currently, Thompson said, “We’ve got a lot of pre-positioned
combat equipment.” The makeup of the equipment may change
in the years ahead, he said. (See related story)
“A lot of that is left over from what was bought during the
Cold War. I am not sure that we are going to be able to afford to
pre-position combat equipment in the future.” A more affordable
option, he said, would be to pre-position support equipment, such
as trucks. “It’s expensive, but a lot less expensive
than the combat vehicles.”
The task force realizes, Thompson said, that it must garner credibility
within the Defense Department, where some top officials have criticized
the service for not doing enough to lighten the force.
The logistics transformation report, he said, is likely to be scrutinized
by the Joint Logistics Board, headed by Diane K. Morales, deputy
undersecretary of defense for logistics and materiel readiness.
She explained that the Joint Logistics Board will focus on “end-to-end
weapon system support and integration,” and will be “leading
efforts to make sure changes are implemented” in the logistics
arena.
A series of studies to take place this summer—in preparation
for the Defense Department’s fiscal 2004 budget submission—will
address logistics requirements and possibly a consolidation of the
transportation and supply functions within the military services,
said Morales at an industry conference.
Nobody wants to relive the “DMR,” she said. The 1989
Defense Management Review—directed by then-deputy defense
secretary Donald Atwood—aimed to cut logistics, personnel
and base operating costs in order to save $71 billion from fiscal
1991-97. At the time, the plan was to eliminate 30,000 civilian
and 40,000 military jobs.
“We don’t want to repeat DMR,” said Morales.
“A lot of money went by the wayside. ... This time, I fought
very hard to avoid across-the-board cuts in logistics.”
The ongoing studies will continue through the fall, she said.
Thompson, meanwhile, is confident that the Army can “convince
the Joint Logistics Board and others that [the Army is on] the right
path.” Logistics in a theater is a joint operation, he said.
But the Army has the most resources to provide that support.
Working in parallel with the logistics task force study is an Army
Science Board panel looking at logistics, as a well as an ad-hoc
team studying the “sustainment” issues associated with
the Future Combat System.
Obviously, Thompson said, “There are a lot of other things
going on. We have to stay linked to all those other efforts. I don’t
want to duplicate. We don’t have the time.”
By August, said Thompson, “I hope to have an objective, honest
assessment that can stand up to OSD [Office of the Defense Secretary]
scrutiny.”
Further, “We are going to do some detailed analysis to back
up the recommendations,” he said. “Some will be major
shifts in culture. ... It’s not all about dollars. A lot of
it is change in our processes and the way we think about things.”
In the Army, he said, “We spend a lot of time worrying about
supply.” That is OK, but it’s also important to plan
ahead, and figure out, for instance, how vehicles should be designed,
so they require less maintenance and burn less fuel, he explained.
“There is an opportunity to do that now.”
Thompson also is involved in an overarching “industrial base
study” that is scheduled for review by the Army chief of staff
in September, he said. The study is expected to paint a detailed
picture of the Army’s organic industrial capabilities, as
well as the availability of commercial sources for ammunition and
other weapons.
One initiative under way is the realignment of the Army’s
depots and arsenals, in order to create a “ground systems
industrial enterprise,” said Thompson. The plan is for TACOM
to take over the management of the Watervliet, N.Y., and the Rock
Island, Ill. Army arsenals. TACOM already manages the Anniston,
Ala., Red River, Texas, and the Lima, Ohio, depots. The two arsenals
currently report to the Operations Support Command. Bringing all
five organizations under TACOM would make sense, said Thompson,
because it would help to “maximize the capabilities”
of each facility and ensure they all get enough work to stay in
business. “OSC will have more of a munitions focus in the
future,” he said. “Arsenals are now part of OSC, but
it’s not a natural fit. Arsenals would fit better as part
of the ground systems enterprise.
“I would foresee that as early as this summer, operational
control of the two arsenals could shift to TACOM,” said Thompson.
At press time, the Army was briefing the depots’ and arsenals’
congressional representatives about the reorganization.