The Dumbness of Oneness

[SJPONeill]

In a couple of projects that I've been working on this year, I have come across very strong drivers towards what I call the PLA uniform approach i.e. only one colour and one size fits all. There are three examples that keep coming up.

The first is the drive towards 'one fuel' policies even though to achieve the efficiency of the 'one fuel' we may have to sacrifice effectiveness at the tactical level where some capabilities will not work at all or as well due to the lack of specific fuels. Capabilities driven my small capacity engines are one example e.g. lightweight motorcycles and outboard motors.

The second is the drive towards a common ammunition 'fleet', the 'all the way with 5.56' crew even though they has been some fairly robust science and operational analysis that shows that different rounds and calibres fill specific capability niches in specific operation environments. This 'oneness' seems even more ludicrous when you consider that even within the 5.56mm fleet, even ammunition types to the same specification e.g. SS109 may not work and play well in weapons from other nations.

The final instance is the drive towards unified doctrine. While obviously divergent doctrine is probably not a good thing, does a trend towards convergence in doctrinal principle and approaches not run the risk of emptying out the toll box that our commanders at whatever level should be able to reach into and select the best approach for the situation? As one researcher said last year "Does doctrinal blandness lead to conceptual laziness?"

To me, it seems that we are still reluctant to give up our rooms at the Fulda Gap Railway Station, and cast off the legacy of an industrial age military and transform into nichist force predicted in the Tofflers' War And Anti-War in the mid-90s. For twenty years since DESERT SHIELD/STORM we have been in the game of working with shake'n'bake coalitions, that might loosely be described as task-organised but it is only now that maybe perhaps we are starting to recognise the true complexity of war as a coalition where not one member is prepared to waive their national card in favour of going down a coalition path of oneness in logistics, doctrine or key policy...?

Do we need to make a concerted effort to shake the 'dumbness of oneness' at all levels and focus more on coming to grips with the internal complexity of the contemporary environment (just the coalition, never mind the bad guys)?

[William F. Owen]

I cannot say I have ever really encountered the "dumbness of oneness" in the terms described.

I think one-fuel type for all A and B vehicles makes perfectly good sense, but yes, keep speciality fuels for specialist applications. You certainly do not want A and B vehicles with the terrible "multi-fuel" engines like we tried in 1970s.

For a whole lot of reasons I am very happy with a good 5.56mm round and 7.62mm belt as the major rounds in the platoon. Maybe some specialist sniper ammunition natures and some 9mm for pistols - not a problem really.

As concerns doctrine, we keep drinking the bath water because most folks do not know what doctrine is and thus cannot write it - so yes, when you have "Joint Doctrine," you probably make a bad idea, very much worse.

Personally I see too much diversity as we flip-flop from one fad to the next. The British Army has procured 8-11+ specialist vehicles in the last 6 years, and we now have more platoon weapons than at any time in history!

[Van]

A technical point-

- re: one fuel - Diesel motorcycles are in production and use. I suspect that if you can make a diesel motorcycle, other small diesels are not to challenging, technologically. Given the tremendous logistical simplification from a single fuel, I think you're on shaky ground with this point.

[Firn]

Indeed not. Modern engines can be surprisingly compact, light and efficient (well compared to older models), see also here and there.

Some aircrafts run btw. also on modern diesels.

Considering that fuel makes up the big bulk in shipping overall simplification and lower fuel consumption make sense.

Firn

[KenWats]

Considering that fuel makes up the big bulk in shipping overall simplification and lower fuel consumption make sense.

Firn

I would also add that in addition to big bulk, it requires specialized vehicles to move around (for the most part) and those specialized vehicles are easily identifiable and make nice juicy targets. Reducing the number of those big juicy targets can't be a bad thing and should be weighed in the balance at any rate.

[SJPONeill]

A technical point-

- re: one fuel - Diesel motorcycles are in production and use. I suspect that if you can make a diesel motorcycle, other small diesels are not to challenging, technologically. Given the tremendous logistical simplification from a single fuel, I think you're on shaky ground with this point.

I don't think you could class a 667cc KLR as a 'lightweight motorcycle'...by lightweight, I mean a bike that can be easily manhandled over obstacles, mounted on the back of a 'mother' vehicle, etc along the lines of the FX bike - that's the one that I've seen although there are no doubt others...To get a diesel to efficiently power a bike in this class without inflicting an undue weight penalty has yet to be done...

So far as "..tremendous logistical simplification..." is concerned, you might was well extend that same 'logic' to the military health sector and only accept soldiers with a common blood type; only have one style of MRE menu (now we're talking potential mutiny!); only recruit soldiers within a specified median of size in order to 'tremendously simplify' clothing and footwear items of supply; and only have one information system that does everything.

This is all very much 90s thinking from an era dominated by management graduates encouraged by the myth that logistics won DESERT STORM. in 2000 a MAJ Morris wrote a great paper on flying columns and he makes a couple of comments regarding this arrogance of logisticians, who in the final analysis are just one of a number of supporting acts to operations...

he injunction of Field Marshal Rommel to

watch closely the quartermasters

is particularly apt in an inherently tenuous OMFTS logistic environment.

As the commander usually pays great attention to his quartermaster and allows the latter's estimate of the supply possibilities to determine his strategic plan, it has become the habit for quartermaster staffs to complain at every difficulty, instead of getting on with the job….

The best thing is for the commander himself to have a clear picture of the real potentialities of his supply organization and base all his demands on his own estimate. This will force the supply staffs to…produce many times what they would have done left to themselves." B.H. Liddell Hart,, ed., The Rommel Papers (New York: Da Capo Press, Inc., 1953), 96-97.

These 'oldies' like Rommel and Liddel-Hart, in fact, pretty much ALL military commanders up to and including DESERT STORM seem to have quite capably coped with logistic complexity in the interest of greater effectiveness. As Wilf says above, coping with a variety of ammunition types at platoon level never used to be a problem and my recollections at that level are the same where we had to juggle 7.62 ball and belt and 5.56 ball and belt at platoon and section level. Sure it would be nice to have a common ammunition nature that does everything but NOT at the expense of effectiveness...

[SJPONeill]

I'm just watching discussion on the current nuclear summit on TV and it strikes me that if the logistic imperative for simplicity is such a driver then perhaps we should be seriously considering either directly nuclear powered vehicles or more practically, electrically powered vehicles topped up by portable nuclear generators. Not only would that greatly reduce the logistic chain for fuels, but it would also reduce carbon emissions (for those who care)...in this era of 'nice' war, it's not likely that anyone would really shoot at us and mean it - would they?

[SethB]

The DoD Energy Blog had a story about using nuclear energy to make hydrogen to power Strykers...

That said, the SFC uses JP8 to power everything. In reality, almost everything would run off diesel fuel, which is more energy dense. But then I hear that fuel is graded and best of it is used in aircraft anyway.

So the SFC might be best divided into ground and air fuels.

[KenWats]

Agreed that logistics shouldn't drive the train, but it should be a consideration at least? Otherwise why bother with standardizing anything? Are there operational benefits to (some) standardization?

Some balance should be arrived at between "one size fits all interchangeable parts" and "everybody gets to be a special snowflake that gets their own special ammunition, food, and fuel". You say it's going to close to the "one size fits all" side of the spectrum. I don't know and won't argue with you on that. My information and experience would be ten years out of date at any rate.

[Chris jM]

Not only would that greatly reduce the logistic chain for fuels, but it would also reduce carbon emissions (for those who care)...

For the first time, I saw the term 'carbon-neutral military' in defense documentation yesterday. Wow.

Fear us, Al Qaeda, for while you are having to pay carbon credits we will be enjoying the efficiencies and feel-good factor of a green military-economic machine well into the future!

[mikefx]

A technical point-

- re: one fuel - Diesel motorcycles are in production and use. I suspect that if you can make a diesel motorcycle, other small diesels are not to challenging, technologically. Given the tremendous logistical simplification from a single fuel, I think you're on shaky ground with this point.

The HDT diesel motorcycle is up around 300kg/650lb, used as a convoy outrider, base transportation etc.

My company has tested our 57kg/125lb gasoline motorcycles with the NZ Army (Infantry and SAS) and had a request for quotation from the US Army.

Applications: recon, special operations, mobility over tight, broken terrain and obstacles, transportability on mother vehicles.

Unfortunately it is impossible to reduce the size/weight of a diesel engine to anything much less than the HDT scale.

So the choice is simple given the current and foreseeable technology: allow for alternative fuels to gain additional capabilities, or go without.