Naval Expeditionary Logistics

Enabling Operational Maneuver From the Sea

Committee on Naval Expeditionary Logistics

Naval Studies Board

Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
1999



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
--> Naval Expeditionary Logistics Enabling Operational Maneuver From the Sea Committee on Naval Expeditionary Logistics Naval Studies Board Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1999

OCR for page R1
--> NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members 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 competences 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 engineering 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 initiative, 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 science 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 Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. This work was performed under Department of the Navy Contract N00014-96-D-0169/0001 issued by the Office of Naval Research under contract authority NR 201-124. However, the content does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the Department of the Navy or the government, and no official endorsement should be inferred. The United States Government has at least a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license throughout the world for government purposes to publish, translate, reproduce, deliver, perform, and dispose of all or any of this work, and to authorize others so to do. International Standard Book Number 0-309-06429-5 Copyright 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Copies available from: Naval Studies Board National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
--> Committee on Naval Expeditionary Logistics NORMAN E. BETAQUE, Logistics Management Institute, Chair NORVAL L. BROOME, Mitre Corporation ROY R. BUEHLER, Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems CHRYSSOSTOMOS CHRYSSOSTOMIDIS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology WILLIAM FEDOROCHKO, JR., Logistics Management Institute LYNN G. GREF, Jet Propulsion Laboratory WILLIS M. HAWKINS, Woodland Hills, California LEE D. HIEB, Yuma, Arizona MICHAEL R. HILLIARD, Oak Ridge National Laboratory ERWIN F. HIRSCH, Boston Medical Center DAVID B. KASSING, RAND JOHN B. LaPLANTE, Alexandria, Virginia PETER J. MANTLE, Science Applications International Corporation HENRY S. MARCUS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology IRWIN MENDELSON, Singer Island, Florida PHILIP D. SHUTLER, Center for Naval Analyses ROBERT A. WILSON, Edgewater, Maryland Navy Liaison Representatives MajGen Edward Hanlon, Jr., USMC, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N85 (through July 29, 1998) MajGen Dennis T. Krupp, USMC, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N85 (as of July 27, 1998) Col James N. Strock, USMC, Marine Corps Combat Development Command LCDR Frank Valente, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N85 Consultants Sidney G. Reed, Jr. James G. Wilson Staff Charles F. Draper, Program Officer

OCR for page R1
--> Naval Studies Board DAVID R. HEEBNER, Science Applications International Corporation (retired), Chair VINCENT VITTO, Charles S. Draper Laboratory, Inc., Vice Chair ALBERT J. BACIOCCO, JR., The Baciocco Group, Inc. ALAN BERMAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University NORMAN E. BETAQUE, Logistics Management Institute NORVAL L. BROOME, Mitre Corporation GERALD A. CANN, Rockville, Maryland PAUL K. DAVIS, RAND and RAND Graduate School of Policy Studies SEYMOUR J. DEITCHMAN, Chevy Chase, Maryland, Special Advisor ANTHONY J. DeMARIA, DeMaria ElectroOptics Systems, Inc. JOHN F. EGAN, Nashua, New Hampshire RICHARD J. IVANETICH, Institute for Defense Analyses DAVID W. McCALL, Far Hills, New Jersey ROBERT B. OAKLEY, National Defense University WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, Northstar Associates, Inc. HERBERT RABIN, University of Maryland JOSEPH B. REAGAN, Saratoga, California HARRISON SHULL, Monterey, California JAMES M. SINNETT, Boeing Company KEITH A. SMITH, Vienna, Virginia ROBERT C. SPINDEL, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington DAVID L. STANFORD, Science Applications International Corporation H. GREGORY TORNATORE, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University J. PACE VANDEVENDER, Sandia National Laboratories PAUL K. VAN RIPER, Williamsburg, Virginia VERENA S. VOMASTIC, Institute for Defense Analyses BRUCE WALD, Arlington Education Consultants MITZI WERTHEIM, Center for Naval Analyses Navy Liaison Representatives RADM John W. Craine, Jr., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 RADM Richard A. Riddell, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N91 (through May 29, 1998) RADM Paul G. Gaffney II, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N91 (as of May 29, 1998)

OCR for page R1
--> Marine Corps Liaison Representative LtGen John E. Rhodes, USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command Ronald D. Taylor, Director Charles F. Draper, Program Officer Susan G. Campbell, Administrative Assistant Mary G. Gordon, Information Officer Larissa M. Markarian, Senior Project Assistant (through October 16, 1998)

OCR for page R1
--> Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications PETER M. BANKS, Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Co-Chair W. CARL LINEBERGER, University of Colorado, Co-Chair WILLIAM BROWDER, Princeton University LAWRENCE D. BROWN, University of Pennsylvania MARSHALL H. COHEN, California Institute of Technology RONALD G. DOUGLAS, Texas A&M University JOHN E. ESTES, University of California at Santa Barbara JERRY P. GOLLUB, Haverford College MARTHA P. HAYNES, Cornell University JOHN L. HENNESSY, Stanford University CAROL M. JANTZEN, Westinghouse Savannah River Company PAUL G. KAMINSKI, Technovation, Inc. KENNETH H. KELLER, University of Minnesota MARGARET G. KIVELSON, University of California at Los Angeles DANIEL KLEPPNER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JOHN KREICK, Sanders, a Lockheed Martin Company MARSHA I. LESTER, University of Pennsylvania M. ELISABETH PATÉ-CORNELL, Stanford University NICHOLAS P. SAMIOS, Brookhaven National Laboratory CHANG-LIN TIEN, University of California at Berkeley NORMAN METZGER, Executive Director

OCR for page R1
--> Preface One of the core objectives of the President's national security strategy is to "enhance our [the nation's] security with effective diplomacy and with military forces that are ready to fight and win."1 The Navy and Marine Corps play an essential role in the implementation of the strategy, which requires that U.S. interests be both promoted and protected worldwide. The challenge for the Navy and Marine Corps is not only to maintain the ready capability to support the national security strategy through deterrence, crisis management, and conflict resolution, but also to do so in a constrained budgetary environment in concert with the other military services. Through their evolving strategies of Forward From the Sea2 and Operational Maneuver From the Sea,3 the Navy and Marine Corps have recognized that in any future conflict the team will likely be the first on the scene, that the situation must be contained until heavier forces and other military services arrive, that their mission calls for projecting forces inland from the littoral, that the conflict must be resolved rapidly with minimum casualties, and that forces withdrawn should be reconstituted for redeployment. As described, the mission calls for 1   The White House. 1997. A National Security Strategy for a New Century, U.S. Government Printing Office, May. Available online at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/Strategy/>. 2   Department of the Navy. 1994. "Forward . . . From the Sea, Continuing the Preparation of the Naval Services for the 21st Century," U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., September 19. 3   Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps. 1996. "Operational Maneuver From the Sea," U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., January 4.

OCR for page R1
--> those units making the transition from sea to land to be lighter, more maneuverable, and more widely dispersed, and that, in addition to fire support, the sea based forces be prepared to provide logistical support to rapidly moving inland forces on an efficient "on call" basis. Always recognized as the critical element in any military campaign (tacticians worry about battles; strategists worry about logistics), although often neglected, logistics must now evolve to accommodate the new strategy of the Navy and Marine Corps operating within a joint environment. At the request of the Chief of Naval Operations (see Appendix A for a copy of the letter from Admiral Jay L. Johnson, USN), the National Research Council (NRC) conducted a study to determine the technological requirements, operational changes, and combat service support structure necessary to land and support forces ashore under the newly evolving Navy and Marine Corps doctrine. The Committee on Naval Expeditionary Logistics, operating under the auspices of the NRC's Naval Studies Board, was appointed to (1) evaluate the packaging, sealift, and distribution network and identify critical nodes and operations that affect timely insertion of fuels, ammunition, water, medical supplies, food, vehicles, and maintenance parts and tool blocks; (2) determine specific changes required to relieve these critical nodes and support forces ashore, from assault through follow-on echelonment; and (3) present implementable changes to existing support systems, and suggest the development of innovative new systems and technologies to land and sustain dispersed units from the shoreline to 200 miles inland.4 In the course of its study, the committee soon learned that development of OMFTS is not yet at a stage to allow, directly, detailed answers to many of these questions. As a result, the committee addressed the questions in terms of the major logistics functions of force deployment, force sustainment, and force medical support, and the fundamental logistics issues related to each of these functions. The study began in late 1997 and lasted for approximately 8 months. During that time, the committee held the following meetings and visited the following military bases: December 10–11, 1997, in Washington, D.C. Organizational meeting. Navy and Marine Corps briefings. January 21–22, 1998, in Washington, D.C. Navy and Marine Corps briefings. March 11–12, 1998, in Oceanside, California. Site visit to learn more about logistics initiatives underway at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. 4   Points (1), (2), and (3) are addressed in the report, although not necessarily in the order stated.

OCR for page R1
--> March 13, 1998, in Port Hueneme, California. Subcommittee site visit to Naval Surface Warfare Center for tour and demonstration of underway replenishment. April 15–16, 1998, in Washington, D.C. April 22–23, 1998, in Jacksonville, North Carolina. Subcommittee site visit to observe medical field exercises at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. May 13–14, 1998, in Washington, D.C. Army, Navy, Marine Corps briefings. June 17–18, 1998, in Washington, D.C. August 5, 1998, in Washington, D.C. The resulting report represents the committee's consensus view on the issues posed in the charge.

OCR for page R1
This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
--> Acknowledgment of Reviewers 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 (NRC's) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and the NRC 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 contents 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: LtGen James A. Brabham, USMC (retired), Riverview, Florida, Carol M. Jantzen, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, John Neerhout, Jr., Union Railways Limited, Daniel Savitsky, Stevens Institute of Technology (retired), James G. Wenzel, Marine Development Associates, Incorporated, and Richard S. Wilbur, Institute for Clinical Information. Although the individuals listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring committee and the NRC.

OCR for page R1
This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
--> Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   A TIME OF CHANGE FOR U.S. NAVAL FORCES   13     New Concepts for Warfighting and Logistics   13     Study Scope   15     Report Outline   16 2   LOGISTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF OPERATIONAL MANEUVER FROM THE SEA   17     Supporting Current Amphibious Operations   17     Supporting Operational Maneuver From the Sea   18     Key Undefined Features of OMFTS   20     OMFTS Concept of Operations Needed   23 3   FORCE DEPLOYMENT   25     The Deployment Dilemma   25     Center for Naval Analyses Study   27     Maritime Prepositioning Force Composition   29     MPF 2010+ Ship Alternatives   29     High-speed Sealift   31     High-speed Landing Craft   32 4   FORCE SUSTAINMENT   34     The OMFTS Logistics Challenges   34

OCR for page R1
-->     Reducing the Logistics Footprint   37     Providing Support Over Extended Distances   42     Supporting Forces from a Sea Base   46     Total Logistics Concept   50 5   FORCE MEDICAL SUPPORT   52     A New Concept of Casualty Care   52     First-Responder Care   53     Forward Surgical Unit   54     Aeromedical Evacuation   54     Chemical and Biological Decontamination   55     Medical Management and Integration   55     Medical Research and Development   56 6   CLOSING COMMENT   58     APPENDIXES         A  Charge to the Committee   63     B  Naval Gun, Missile, and Aircraft Ranges   65     C  Force Sustainment Data and Calculations   69     D  Logistics Productivity of Aircraft LtGen Philip Shutler, USMC (Ret.), Senior Fellow, Center for Naval Analyses   76     E  Committee Biographies   88     F  Acronyms and Abbreviations   94