U.S. Army Deployability Challenge Cut 2


Published on


  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

U.S. Army Deployability Challenge Cut 2

  1. 1. Addressing The Army’s Deployability Challenge • Strategic • Operational • TacticalConus Operational Staging Area Area
  2. 2. Summary• Current and future crises will require long range rapid deployment of US forces from CONUS.• Deployment time likely to be critical.• US lacks adequate deployment assets for achieving response time objectives for current forces.• Army’s “transformation” a positive but inadequate step.• Forced entry and early entry forces especially need help.• More deployment friendly combat and CSS vehicles can make a dramatic difference.• Need to consider making part of the “transformation force” able to meet response time objectives.• NDI vehicles exist that can provide a significant reduction in deployment time.
  3. 3. Deployment Is Accomplished in Several Ways• Forward Deployed Troops and Equipment• “Temporarily” Deployed Troops and Equipment• Pre-positioned Equipment and Supplies• Troops and Equipment Afloat• Conus Based Forces - Operational• Conus Based Forces - Deployable • By ship - necessary for and significant deployment • By helicopter - necessary for tactical maneuver • All need efficient utilization of deployment assets
  4. 4. Limitations That Currently Impair The Conduct Of Strategic Deployment Operations • Transportation assets available • Speed, range, and payload of transportation platforms • Physical characteristics of military equipment to be transported on military, CRAF, and VISA transportation platforms • Political will to make require changes • Fiscal constraints • Resistance to change • Security “firewalls” between classified and unclassified portions of the same information system (e.g. GTN) • Time-distance factors from origin to destination • Infrastructure in the JOA* Strategic Deployment, 10 May 2000, Joint Forces Command J-9, Concept Division J-92
  5. 5. Consider The Deployment Assets Available/UsedConus Strategic Operational TacticalRail Ships Rail Convoy * *Trucks Trucks Helicopters AirConvoy Transport Convoy •CH47 * •C5 Air •UH60 A/L •C17 Transport •CRAF •C130 • The quality, capability, and characteristics of these assets change very slowly. * Rapid deployment assets
  6. 6. Need To Make Efficient Use of Available Transport• The commercial sector does - so should the military – On land – On ships } footprint critical – On aircraft - dimension and weight critical• Only take what is needed/when needed and minimize need• Consider transport characteristics to design efficient cargo - especially for air transport – Transport characteristics hard to change – Expensive to buy and operate more transport assets – “More” may not be compatible with available infrastructure• Much of the design of Army equipment did not emphasize deployability (especially rapid deployability)
  7. 7. The Army Has A Major Rapid Deployment Challenge• The goal has been set - “96 hours”, etc . . .• An interim force has been designed and acquisition underway (IBCT)• An objective force is being designed (BCT/FCS)• Both require acquisition of significant new (expensive) deployment assets• Heavy competition for available airlift• None of the combat vehicles can be delivered to forward landing strips by C130• None of the combat vehicles can be tactically deployed by existing US helicopters• Aviation/Air Defense/Other requires additional lift• Forced Entry/Early Entry forces not helped
  8. 8. A Different Approach To The Vehicle Requirement For A Portion OfThe “Transition Force” Can Make A Dramatic Improvement In Deployability • Strategic • Operational • Tactical
  9. 9. Improvements Are Substantial• Greatly reduced sortie requirements• Deployable on commercial air freighters (to staging areas)• Reduced acquisition and O & S costs• Reduced fuel consumption• Rapid tactical deployability by helicopter• Better mobility/agility - especially cross-country• Complies with NDI objective (early availability)• Uses currently planned organization/staffing/comms/sensors/weapons• Complimentary to current plan• Provides significant benefits for forced and early entry forces
  10. 10. The New Approach Uses A Non- Traditional Vehicle Design• Uses variants of two versions of a proven NDI light weight, self stackable, space frame, four wheel drive, military vehicle for all combat and CSS roles• Environmental and ballistic protection provided by field installable kits as required by the military situation Current Proposed •309 IAV Variants •547 Flyer 21 Variants •114 MTVs •441 Flyer 31 Variants •55 HEMMTs •441 HMMWVs some others
  11. 11. The Lightweight Tailored Dimensions and Stacking of the Flyer Vehicles for Transport Provides Different Sortie Options C17 Sorties 747-400 Sorties C130 Sorties 70 800250 69 712 60 700 212200 50 600 50 500150 40 403 34 400 99 30 310100 300 75 20 221 50 200 50 0 10 100 0 0 0 Current Flyers Partially Stacked Current Flyers Partially Stacked Current Flyer Partially Stacked Stacked Flyers Stacked Flyers Stacked Flyers Flyers Flyers Flyers Strategic Deployment Operational Deployment
  12. 12. The Lightweight and Dimensional Tailoring Of The Vehicle Provides SignificantTactical Deployability Under All Environmental Conditions• All proposed vehicles deployable by both UH60s and CH47s, often with useful tactical loads at “high-hot” conditions• Little capability for deploying current vehicles by either UH60s or CH47s
  13. 13. Other Benefits From Light Weight and Stacking• Stacking for rail or truck transport typically cuts transport requirements by two• Stacking for ship transport doubles the use of deck and below deck space• Stacking and loading into ISO containers for further stacking allows even more efficient use of ship deck space• Potential for stacked vehicles to be air dropped
  14. 14. The Flyer Family of Vehicles (Flyer 21 and Flyer 31) Result From A Non-Traditional Approach To The Design Of Military Vehicles• Utilized off-road racing technology and experience while meeting typical military requirements and emphasizing deployability – Light weight, rugged, high cross-country performance – High payload, reliability, durability, flexibility, transport compatibility• Flyer 1 in military service in Singapore; Flyer 21 (narrow) in Marine/SOCOM evaluation; Flyer 31 Proof-of-Design version (R25) in military use in Israel• Vehicle demonstrated and formally tested in a number of countries• Extensive ILS documentation available
  15. 15. Conclusions• Improving deployability is a high priority objective that can be met• Achieving improved deployability will require more deployment assets and improving the deployment efficiency of what is taken• Acquiring more assets mainly requires money• Improving efficiency of deployment mainly requires changing the way things are done• Both need to be done at the same time• Without doing both the Army’s deployment objectives will not be met
  16. 16. Helicopter Transport Varies Greatly With Temperature and Altitude External 30 mile radius UH60A* Max Sea Level, 60°F 2000, 70° F 4000, 95° F 7843 lbs 7302 lbs 4700 lbs LAV (38k) 0 0 0 HEMMT (40k) 0 0 0 LMTV (20k) 0 0 0 FMTV (23k) 0 0 0 HMMWV (7k) 1 + 800 lbs 1 + 300 lbs 0 Flyer 21 (3.4k) 2 + 1000 lbs or 1 + 4800 lbs 2 + 500 lbs or 1 + 4300 lbs 1 + 1300 lbs Flyer 31 (4.5k) 1 + 3500 lbs 1 + 2800 lbs 1 + 200 lbs Avenger (10.3k) 0 0 0 LOSAT (10.3k) 0 0 0UH60L* Max Sea Level, 60°F 2000, 70° F 4000, 95° F 9000 lbs 9000 lbs 6630 lbsLAV (38k) 0 0 0HEMMT (40k) 0 0 0LMTV (20k) 0 0 0FMTV (23k) 0 0 0HMMWV (7k) 1 + 2000 lbs 1 + 2000 lbs 0Flyer 21 (3.4k) 2 + 2200 lbs or 1 + 5400 lbs 2 + 2200 lbs or 1 + 5400 lbs 1 + 2200 lbsFlyer 31 (4.5k) 2 + 0 or 1 + 4500 lbs 2 + 0 or 1+ 4500 lbs 1 + 2000 lbsAvenger (10.3k) 0 0 0LOSAT (10.3k) 0 0 0 *Assumes no aux fuel provisions installed