Assessing Conventional Army Demands and Requirements for Ultra-Light Tactical Mobility
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Assessing Conventional Army Demands and Requirements for Ultra-Light Tactical Mobility Matthew E. Boyer, Michael Shurkin, Jonathan P. Wong, Ryan Schwankhart, Adam Albrich, Matthew W. Lewis, Christopher G. Pernin C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/rr718 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN 978-0-8330-8776-8 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2015 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover photo courtesy of Spc. Jesse LaMorte, Special Operations Task Force - South Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface For over a century, the conventional Army has formally and informally used relatively small and light ground vehicles to meet tactical mobility needs in circumstances where standard tac- tical vehicles were too heavy, too large, or otherwise inappropriate. These platforms are smaller than the Army’s standard light tactical vehicle fleet and are therefore informally referred to as ultra-light tactical mobility (UTM). As used in this report, UTM refers to ground mobility platforms intended and/or employed for tactical functions that, with a maximum combined vehicle weight of 4,500 pounds in combat configuration and internally transportable by a CH-47 in combat configuration, are smaller, lighter, and more transportable than the standard service vehicles (SSVs) that make up the Army’s light wheeled vehicle fleet. To better understand the conditions that have precipitated UTM needs and the capabili- ties required to meet current mobility needs, the Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG) asked RAND to investigate historical and recent usage of ultra-light tactical transportation capabili- ties, such as motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and quadrupeds to understand how these capabilities might best be used by Army forces in current and future operations. This report presents the analysis, key observations, and recommendations from this AWG-sponsored study. It identifies how the Army has developed and employed UTM capabil- ities and describes key requirements and recommendations for conventional Army development and sustainment of UTM capabilities to meet its mobility needs. This report includes some discussion of Special Operations Forces (SOF) UTM employment primarily to identify and illustrate its key implications for conventional Army consideration, development, and employ- ment of UTM. This report’s findings should be of interest to those commands responsible for identifying requirements for, developing, sustaining, or employing vehicles for mobility and support of ground forces. This research was sponsored by Colonel Patrick Mahaney, Commander of the Asymmet- ric Warfare Group, and conducted within the RAND Arroyo Center’s Force Development and Technology Program. RAND Arroyo Center, part of the RAND Corporation, is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the United States Army. The Project Unique Identification Code (PUIC) for the project that produced this docu- ment is RAN136494. The point of contact for this document is Matthew E. Boyer, 310-393-0411 x7131, [email protected]. iii Contents Preface ........................................................................................................... iii Figures ........................................................................................................... ix Tables ...........................................................................................................xiii Summary ........................................................................................................xv Acknowledgments ...........................................................................................xxix Abbreviations ................................................................................................ xxxi CHAPTER ONE Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 Background and Purpose ....................................................................................... 1 What Is Ultra-Light Tactical Mobility (UTM)? ............................................................. 2 Trends in Army Mounted Mobility Affecting UTM Demands and Use ................................. 5 Trends in Army Dismounted Mobility Affecting UTM Demands and Use ............................. 9 The Army’s Persistent Demands and Requirements for UTM Capabilities ...........................11 Why the Army Has Avoided Maintaining Formal UTM Capabilities in the Past ...................12 About This Report ..............................................................................................14 CHAPTER TWO Defining the UTM Demand .................................................................................15 Defining the Requirement .....................................................................................15 Tactical Mobility Demands ....................................................................................16 Maneuver Force Security/Reconnaissance .................................................................18 Local Patrolling/Engagement ...............................................................................19 Coordinated Maneuver ..................................................................................... 20 Immediate Pursuit ............................................................................................21 Troop Mobility ............................................................................................... 22 Traveling Support ............................................................................................ 22 Casualty Evacuation (CASEVAC) ......................................................................... 22 Internal/Ferry Support ...................................................................................... 23 Key Factors and Constraints Motivating Operational UTM Demands ................................ 24 Constrained Operating Space ...............................................................................25 Constrained Transport/Delivery Capacity ................................................................ 26 Insufficient Road Infrastructure ........................................................................... 27 Extreme Terrain .............................................................................................. 28 Partner Capabilities ...........................................................................................32 Threat Avoidance ............................................................................................. 34 v vi Assessing Conventional Army Demands and Requirements for Ultra-Light Tactical Mobility Operational Signature ........................................................................................35 Platform Availability/Support Limitations .................................................................35 Surface Conditions .......................................................................................... 36 Key Factors Discouraging Operational UTM Employment .............................................. 36 Threat Vulnerability ..........................................................................................37 Hazard Vulnerability ........................................................................................ 38 Lack of Interoperability ..................................................................................... 38 Sensory Capacity Demands ................................................................................ 38 Key Observations from UTM Case Studies .................................................................39 Future Operational Scenario Illustrating Factors Motivating UTM Demand ..........................39 Summary ........................................................................................................ 42 CHAPTER THREE Army and Joint UTM Demand Profiles ...................................................................45 Representative Army UTM Demand Profiles ..............................................................45 Airborne: XVIII Airborne Corps Long-Range Surveillance Company and 2 IBCT Headquarters ............................................................................. 46 Air Assault/Aviation Support: 159th Combat Aviation Brigade (Air Assault) .......................