This series began with a discussion about the necessity to minimise resupply vehicle movements between echelons, considering the potential prevalence of FPVs and UAS on a modern battlefield.
Personnel in static or semi-static positions will require resupply, but resupply vehicles will be under constant threat up to 20 km behind the forward positions.
Should we adopt a static mindset, or should we continuously consider manoeuvre to avoid being fixed in place? This is a reasonable question, but it does not change the premise of this series.
Effective counter-UAS measures and uncrewed vehicles, both aerial and ground-based, are the obvious solutions, as evidenced by their use by both combatants in Ukraine.
That said, given the relatively slow pace of adoption of these systems by NATO forces, the conversation turned to practical measures that can be implemented quickly, and by quickly, we meant cheaply.
With this in mind, this series looks at the problem from both ends, demand reduction, and improving existing vehicle efficiency
Demand Reduction
Demand reduction is the most obvious first step, use less stuff and less stuff has to be transported.
Commodities that have to be moved include water, food, medical supplies, ammunition, defence stores, in some cases fuel, and in others, charged batteries.
Vehicle Efficiency
For that residual demand, reducing the number of vehicles moves by making any one vehicle carry more, by definition, decreases the number of times that vehicle has to move.
This is all about risk reduction in the near term
Until we have AI controlled cargo drones and UGVs in service with the Field Army, the Field Army will have to make do with its existing vehicles, from an e-bike to a MAN SV truck.
Every truck roll and every quad move, will have risk, we need to think how to reduce that risk.
The rest of the series will look at these in turn…
