We have too much equipment, and sustaining it consumes enormous volumes of resources. We don’t have enough mechanics in the Fleet to maintain the equipment, parts are expensive, and running the equipment periodically through depot-level rebuilds represents a huge bill for the Service.
But how much is enough? Consider this: our current construct assumes that every unit in the Marine Corps (minus reserves) could generally line up in formation, simultaneously, and have all their equipment. In fact, our readiness metrics drive us in this direction (measuring Supply Readiness, or “S-Ratings”). But what scenario or OPLAN calls for the entire Marine Corps to line up in formation simultaneously?
Remember ECON 101? What if we treated our equipment like we treat money? I mean, we carry enough money around in our pockets to do what we need from day to day, and keep the rest in the bank. If everyone tried to get ALL of their money out of the bank at the same time, we’d have Black Friday all over again.
So… what if units had enough gear to train with, and when they needed their full complement, they could “withdraw from the bank?”
That was from an interesting article by Kirk Spangenberg, A Logistics Force Design Imperative: Saturday Afternoon Thoughts. I think some experimentation along those lines is warranted, especially given new information technology that can handle that kind of inventory and distribution.
He addressed my immediate question of, “what about if the Marines need to surge?” He points to TRANSCOM, which has agreements with private companies to help surge, and then points to the fact that “some of our stuff is just commercial gear painted green.” I don’t think that’s quite right, especially because if his point is to reduce equipment it will take a long time to ramp up new production units.
I think mothballing equipment might be a viable alternative. Keep producing to excess, but only field the minimum necessary. But when does the DoD really need to “surge”? Probably only with a peer competitor, otherwise like in Iraq, the DoD can takes its sweet time stockpiling and positioning for a strike.
Then the question is: will a war start more like WWI (with little warning) or more like WWII (with a lot more warning)? In the first situation, you’d want a ton of excess equipment laying around to respond. In the second, you don’t want excess equipment, because by the time you get to the real fight it’s all outdated. Instead, you’d want to have less equipment on hand and a hugely robust R&D and manufacturing R&D centers to keep pushing tech/CONOPS and surge the newest/best equipment “just-in-time.”
Leave a Reply