In an industry where gaining advantage can be the difference between mission success and failure, standing still has never been an option for military organisations and defence in-service support providers, and least of all during the next 12 months.
Why? Because from an asset and equipment perspective, military organisations have found themselves at an interesting crossroads: Budgets have to be balanced between keeping older, but still vital, assets in service and the attraction of shiny new investment in next-generation equipment; but this is set against a backdrop of a real shortage of personnel, particularly from a maintenance engineering standpoint.
As a result, the spotlight will fall directly on to military logistics and supply chain technology as an enabler to deal with these issues in 2020.
In this article, Graham Grose the Vice President and Industry Director Aerospace & Defence at IFS, looks at three interlinked technology developments that will shape the logistics strategy of military forces, OEMs and in-service support providers over the next 12 months—and beyond.
According to IFS, Graham Grose is responsible for supporting all IFS business development within the A&D industry, together with associated industry marketing and overall product direction. Graham has specialized in the supply of Logistics IS tools in a variety of senior appointments within Sema, BAeSEMA, BAe, BAE Systems and IFS since leaving the RAF in 1991, where he was a Supply Officer serving in a variety of operational and IS appointments. Graham is a supply chain specialist and business analyst and is also a Fellow of the Institute of Management Accountants, a Member of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply, and a Chartered Director.
Here are my three tech frontrunners for 2020 and beyond. As I put these together I realised that each development linked to the next in a positive way, to help defence forces look to straddle both the past and present to maintain force readiness—a phrase we have heard a lot about in 2019, sometimes in a negative sense. Here is how they can turn the tables in the battle for readiness in 2020.
- AI gets embedded for predictive maintenance for military aircraft systems
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly maturing to help improve the readiness of military equipment. Over the course of the last year all of the US military services have launched predictive maintenance projects to shrink the readiness gap. At the same time some of the latest military assets in design are allowing for a whole new approach to through-life equipment support.
With the F-35 rolling off production lines it’s natural that the industry will start to turn its attention to the sixth generation of fighter aircraft—the F-35 is only the beginning for high-tech stealth fighters. It’s sustained by the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS)— the most advanced sustainment solution of its kind, which turns data from many sources into actionable information.
At the recent IFS World Conference, it was interesting to hear Lockheed Martin discuss the role of technology in the sustainment of advanced military platforms—in particular the length of time associated with the design of a ‘next generation’ military asset. In fact, IFS was involved in supporting the ALIS system as far back as 1999!
“If we were to do it all again, we would probably do something different, just like anything we’re talking about and building today. If you were to roll the clock forward 15 years from now, it will be like, ‘why were they building those things like that?’ It doesn’t make any sense,” explained Mark Adams, Logistics and Technology Development, Lockheed Martin, in his IFS World conference breakout session.
For the aircraft being developed into the new decade, it will be AI which will take centre stage in sustainment software, from aircraft design, right through to manufacture and maintenance. Witness the British-led Tempest and the Franco-German-Spanish Future Combat Air System—AI is set to have a huge role in how those aircraft operate from both a maintenance and repair standpoint, but also operationally.
- From a game of drones to a swarm of drones – UAV swarm technology and autonomous flight systems
And it’s fair to say AI is already coming to the fore to actually operate military equipment. Many predictions last year centred around unmanned equipment, but the advancement a year on is the potential of grouping AI-controlled UAVs together to provide a Swarm—a development that is incredibly difficult to defend against from a military perspective.
We’ve seen the US military test simple Perdix drones dropped from F/A18 jets in the past, but the intention is that pilots will soon be able to leverage AI in the cockpit to control a small group of advanced drones flying nearby the aircraft to perform sensing, reconnaissance and targeting functions. This takes control away from the ground, where drone operations are currently co-ordinated and puts it in the hands of the warfighter themselves. Such prototype projects have been revealed this year, including the US Air Force XQ-58A Valkyrie ‘Sidekick’ drone and Boeing Australia unveiling its own ‘Loyal Wingman’.
The key benefits of this new age of warfare are of course tactical, most air defences are ill-prepared to deal with an aerial swarm, but simpler unmanned equipment can also be manufactured and maintained far more cost effectively—reducing the logistics footprint of an aerial squadron and putting less servicemen at risk.
- The future of the battlefield is electric
It’s in the area of logistics footprint that I also expect to see further developments, maybe further away from the frontline of operations, but with similar benefits of removing servicemen from harm’s way. One of the most influential changes to keep an eye out for is battlefield electrification—a development hot on the agenda when I attended DSEI at the latter end of 2019.
The battlefield has been relatively immune to the wave of electrification hitting the civilian world, from cars to homes and public transport. However, this is about to change, and will be about so much more than simply ‘green energy initiatives’, we are talking about delivering strategic benefits by introducing new ways to power military operations. In the long-term we may see full electrification of military vehicles – witness the US Army’s project to produce two prototype electric tanks by 2022 – but in the near term it will be electrification of secondary support which will hit the battlefield first.
Fossil fuels come at a significant cost to military forces in terms of logistics support—witness the high number of supply casualties experienced in the fuel convoys of the Afghanistan War. Consider that forward operating bases consume vast volumes of electricity, often 1000s of kWh a day. This demand is currently met almost entirely by generators fuelled with diesel, which brings forward the supply chain concerns around efficiency and safety.
Reducing the number of fossil-powered generators and replacing them with renewable alternatives such a solar and wind power vastly reduces the logistics footprint of a forward operating base—keeping forces lean, minimising attack vulnerability and ultimately reducing supply chain casualties.
Forewarned is forearmed in 2020
The coming year and beyond will involve developments on two fronts. On one hand the challenge will be supporting and prolonging the life of assets currently in service—the average service life of USAF aircraft is currently over 20 years. On the other hand, new plans need to be put in place to support the assets of the future.
Of course, adapting to changing requirements and finding new ways to prolong asset life requires inherent organisational flexibility, something defence organisations typically struggle with—right down to the software they use to manage operations and equipment. As technologies which have previously seemed like buzzwords such as AI and UAVs begin to prove themselves operationally, those who prepare now can set themselves up for a strong decade.
But surely logistics is about bridging, pallets, containers, sealift, more bridging, more containers, cable ties, and pallets again…?
So Gary Numan wasn’t wrong when he came out with his first Nbr 1 hit.
Its all very easy to walk around DSEI and get taken in by the shiny new toys. But without the scientific and engineering understanding that goes into implementing this new technology, you’ll just be chasing rainbows.
Military vehicle electrification realistically is a long way off. The reason is simple, batteries are shi*. They simply do not have the power density or duration to make applications for all electric military vehicles viable. This is the same as generating electricity to supply a camp. You are going to need at least an acre of solar panels to power a small camp. If the camp has radar and other high powered radio, you are going to need significantly more panels. How are you going to hide them if you are operating under war conditions? The internal combustion engine, supplied by a portable and energy rich fuel like diesel, is here to stay for the foreseeable future. I suppose you could use a stirling engine powered by waste bio-fuel, but I’ve yet to see one that can replace a small mobile generator. I would say in the near future you should expect to see more hybrid vehicles, where a diesel engine is used to spin a generator that powers a set of motors and charges the on-board batteries. For all electric vehicles the infrastructure must be worked out in conjunction with a break through in battery technology. For example if you only have 10 miles of charge left and are 12 miles away from your base, what do you do – phone the REME for a charger, really?
I think the person who wrote this piece is living in cloud cuckoo land. For example Kandahar airbase in Afghanistan had a population of nearly 10,000, made up of personnel from lots of Nations. The base had two diesel power stations each capable of powering a small town. If we were to replace these with wind farms and solar panels, the square footage would be 5 times the size of the base, which was about 14km squared at its peak, Bastion was even bigger. Besides how long will it take to erect the solar farm and put up the wind turbines? It would require a team with the unenviable task of going out every day to wipe the dust of the panels. Will wind turbines affect search and mortar detection radar, most likely, thus interfering with the security of the base.
I see that the US are investigating portable nuclear for such installations. With that kind of power electrification isn’t quite such a pipe dream.
Battery tech is poor but with the billions pouring in to it now, advancements will come at a pace. For instance only last week researchers announced they’d developed a way to build an industrially scalable lithium sulphide battery with three to four times the capacity as traditional lithium ion. Researchers are making strides in potassium and sodium batteries which will be a lot cheaper than lithium based batteries and a whole lot more available.
By the time primary systems and associated details are worked out sufficiently to build an electrified system I am quite confident the battery technology will be there.
I have a hunch though, I think synthetic hydrocarbons produced “locally” from aforementioned nuclear and a myriad of new containerised, industrial processes will steal a march on batteries and extend the life of the IC engines. But, we will see.
I agree. In 15-20 years we might be able to get a MBT thousands of miles on a battery the size and weight of box of jaffa cakes – who knows? The key thing is that when kit is designed now using current tech we ensure we can easily remove the power source and replace it with something new when and if it arrives.
Forget the MBT in 15-20 years, I WANT JAFFA CAKES NOW!
For an interesting read, try looking up the Chrysler TV8 tank. This was a concept tank developed in the late 1950’s and used electric motor drive, one of the concepts used a small fission reactor to power it.
Seriously though, the US Department of Defense (DOD) in January 2019 solicited proposals for a “small mobile reactor” design which could address electrical power needs in rapid response scenarios. Each reactor should be a high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTR) with high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) TRISO (tristructural-isotropic) fuel (not weapons grade) and produce a threshold power of 1-10 MWe for at least three years without refuelling. It must weigh less than 40 tonnes and be sized for trans-portability by truck, ship, and C-17 aircraft. Designs must be “inherently safe”, ensuring that a meltdown is “physically impossible” in various complete failure scenarios such as loss of power or cooling, and must use ambient air as their ultimate heat sink, as well as being capable of passive cooling. The reactor must be capable of being installed to the point of “adding heat” within 72 hours and of completing a planned shutdown, cool down, disconnect and removal of transport in under seven days.
So to break this down, the US require a small modular reactor to be air trans-portable. This brings into question of who will allow the reactor to travel over their borders, if the US actually admits to transporting it in the first place. What safety measures will be in place in case the aircraft crashes. They were originally looking at a low yield U235 as the fissile material, but this has since changed to variations of molten cobalt and various salts. However, a lot of the budget for developing the small reactor is also being fed by NASA. Who require a small reactor for powering a manned space ship on possible trips to Mars. One of issues they are trying to mitigate is when the reactor is launched and something happens to the rocket. A lot of safety measures will be put in place, which is also being used for the mobile “land” version of the reactor.
Realistically, this is the only viable method to supply the required electrical power of a deployed main operating base, instead of fossil fuel. Especially as it can be generated using a relatively small footprint and perhaps have surplus energy for charging vehicles etc. IT can also be up and running in days rather weeks/months using solar or wind power. The US DoD have said they’d like the reactor, control, cooling and generator to be contained within four to five standard size iso containers for ease of transportation. They have also asked for methods of storing surplus power ready for increased demands. It remains to be seen if the reactor can be scaled down in size for perhaps forward operating base deployments.
The MOD must adapt to rapid development of newer cutting edge stuff defensive and offensive weapons. I’m not sure the mind set is there at the moment?
Oh dear oh dear. Same old same old. Spend even more zillions on developing tons of cutting edge stuff that is not only not developed yet but not even thought of yet. And by the time we ever get to develop it, its already out of date and we “must have” to spend even more on gazillions more on all the newer still cuttingest bestest stuff that is just over the horizon.
Very witty Trevor ?
History teaches us that when you don’t keep moving forward with tech you get problems and those that forget that lesson are in for a bad time.
A cursory analysis of every conflict form and including WW1 will prove my point.
Much of the tech will come from the private sector. There are billions being spent on new batteries and carbon free power generation as we speak and if it is better we need to be able to adapt it for defence purpose or suffer the consequences.
My point about the MOD is there is a mindset which suggests that you have to spend gazillions normally with existing suppliers. Perhaps they need to press the reset button and look for some new suppliers – get out of their offices and god forbid go out and see new potential suppliers. Whatever next ….
I am undoubtably anxious that the MoD gets its act together. It rarely seems to. It may be fair to say that we might possibly just ought to spend a few billion more on defence, but it strikes me that none of the 3 services or the men from the ministry have or ever will have the clarity and vision to spend that money efficiently or wisely.
In theory it might be desirable to set up a separate group to look into this stuff bypassing the normal channels. This approach has worked in the past – hopefully this will occur to the politicians.
The future is fuel cell technology, the us army are looking at the utility of this and have a test bed vehicle ZH2.