Combat Supply Support Communications and Information Systems Term Paper

Pages: 12 (3763 words)  ·  Style: Harvard  ·  Bibliography Sources: 15  ·  File: .docx  ·  Topic: Military

Combat Supply Support Communications and Information Systems Requirements for Future Logisticians

The only thing worse in war other than "having to fight with allies is having to fight without allies."

Winston Churchill during World War II)

The purpose of this study is to examine the coalition partnership between Australia and the United States in regards to the requirements of combat supply communications and information systems requirements for future logisticians.

The work of Colonel Patrick J. Dulin states that it is stated that a commented made by Winston Churchill during World War II was that the only thing worse in war other than "having to fight with allies is having to fight without allies." (2002) Furthermore, it is also stated that General Omar Bradley, during the very same conflict stated: "Logistics were the lifeblood of the allied armies." (Dulin, 2002) Coalition forces are of integral importance to U.S. operations that are based in other countries and other areas of the world. This work explores the coalition forces agreement as it presently exists between the United States and the government of Australia.


The limitations of this study are the short time allotted for research and the availability of materials which to review for this study.

I. TECHNOLOGICAL/CAPABILITY GAPDownload full Download Microsoft Word File
paper NOW!

TOPIC: Term Paper on Combat Supply Support Communications and Information Systems Assignment

There is a technological and capability gap existing between the United States and its coalition forces. The work of Engler, Gladowski and Lee entitled: "Coalition Operations: Politically Necessary Yet Operationally Challenging" states: "The fact that the United States will continue to conduct military operations with collation partners is a given. What makes this endeavor operationally challenging is the fact that the United States has a significant technological military capability and an overwhelming defense budget by international standards." (2004) This work relates that spending is known to be short in terms of technology and information systems on the part of coalition forces and that the issues of interoperability and capability will continue to present challenges for "quite some time." (Engler, Gladowswki and Lee, 2004) Engler, Gladowski and Lee note the technology gap that exists operationally between the capability of the U.S. forces and coalition forces. The gap is in actuality one described as "more a capabilities gap than a technological one" in the work entitled: "Transatlantic Interoperability in Defense Industries: How the U.S. And Europe Could Better Cooperate in Coalition Military Operations" (2003) However, it is held in other reports that the gap is in technology is one of the nature that "even the most advanced NATO allies have not been able to keep up with the multiple U.S. Army digitization plans." (Zaninni and Morrison, 2000) Evidence for the impact this gap has on the operations of U.S. forces was demonstrated in the Gulf War which, according to Engler, Gladowski and Lee a geographic separation of the smallest of coalitions with the British taking the southeastern sector of Iraq and U.S. forces concentrating on the remainder. The reasons for that arrangement have yet to emerge from the classified reports, but capability gaps due to technological differences in communication equipment, inter alia, are likely to be one of the major aspects. If the United States can't operate effectively in a coalition with its NATO allies, working closely with other nations will only become even more challenging." (2004) the gap has only grown since September 11, 2001.

Zannini and Morrison (2000) hold that the gap in technology that "characterized past operations will continue to grow." The gap began with differences in spending that took place in the 1980s. The following chart illustrates the defense budget spending patterns of the U.S. And NATO Europe between 1980 and 2001.

NATO Europe Defense Budget Spending vs. U.S. Defense Budget Spending

Source: Engler, Gladowski and Lee (2004)

Engler, Gladowski and Lee state: "Some huge differences in defense spending and technological advances of U.S. historical coalition partners have been noted; these differences have manifested themselves several ways both during preconflict planning and during the fray. Without going into each coalition-involved operation, some lessons can be proven to be cross-cutting in nature." (2004) Stated as the 'key shortfalls' that were identified on a repeated basis for Desert Storm, Bosnia and Kosovo operations were those of:


command and control;

precision strike;


surveillance and reconnaissance; and logistic/life capabilities. (Engler, Gladowski and Lee, 2004)

Engler, Gladowski and Lee relate that used in the endeavor of force planning and execution monitoring for U.S. air operations is done using the Contingency Theater Air Planning System (CTAPS) and the follow-on Theater Battle Management Core System (TBMCS). NATO has developed the Interim CAOC Capability (ICC) for force-level planning, with a planned follow-on to the Air Command and Control System. Neither of the NATO systems was developed with interoperability with U.S. systems in mind, and the current ICC was built to control from 200 to 1,000 sorties per day, compared to CTAP's 3,000 sorties per day. " (2004)

Reported in the work of Engler, Gladowski and Lee (2004) are two partnership projects between the United States and Australia. The first of these is the Joint Training Facility which is planned to be established in Australia with the goals of refining operational aspects and interoperability between their armed forces." This initiative is stated to include "pre-positioning of stores and equipment in Australia to aid the U.S. strategic intention of rapid force projection capability." (Bostock, 2004) the second joint initiative was reported by the Australian Minister of Defense who stated that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) will be signed in the United States establishing a framework for cooperation. Engler, Gladowski and Lee (2004) report: "Expected within the initiative is the construction of three air warfare destroyers (AWDs) for the Royal Australian Navy. The initial capability for these ships will be initial identification and tracking of ballistic missiles. This information would be transmitted to U.S. Navy ships able to intercept and destroy missiles in flight. Future enhancements would give Royal Australian Navy ships identification, tracking, and engagement capability through the long-range Standard SM-3 ship-based theater defense missile. Capabilities of the Missile Defense System are inclusive of the following capabilities:

intelligence systems to detect preparations for missile launches;

sensors to detect missile launches;

tracking systems and sensors to discriminate decoys from warheads;

mobile launchers for short-range or boost phase interceptors;

space, sea or land-based launchers for mid-course interceptors;

home-based launchers for terminal interceptors;

range of weapons, such as explosive, kinetic (high speed) and laser weapons; and command and control systems. (Australian Department of Defense, 2004)


In order to improve coalition logistics there are several areas of logistics that must be factored into that which must be improved. According to Dulin (2002) improvement of coalition logistics begins with: (1) acquisition logistics; and (2) Tactical and operational logistics. Specifically stated by Dulin (2002) is the following: "Coalition partners' requirements most often are reflected in a narrow, regional interoperability focus; for example, potential coalition partners from a tropical area will have little need for interoperability with equipment under development for cold weather operations. Furthermore, even for a single region, a program cannot accommodate every potential coalition partner. There simply is not that much discretionary funding available in any program. Thus, the managers of an acquisition program require even greater discernment to identify those countries that are the most likely future coalition partners within any one region (in other words, a regional priority scheme). In short, the present acquisition logistics process simply does not provide a coalition advocate to identify an intraregional priority of potential coalition partners and to identify interoperability standards for poorer coalition partners" (Dulin, 2002) Presently the countries of Thailand, Australia, and the United States are participating in the "CTL ACTD. PACOM's staunch advocacy role for potential coalition partners as a regional CINC is critical to the success of CTL ACTD. By developing a mechanism that enables potential but less sophisticated partners to participate in coalition operations, PACOM enables formerly disenfranchised countries to effectively lend support. Essentially, PACOM's example constitutes my recommendation to alleviate the command and control friction point by exploiting lessons learned from the CTL ACTD and by further expanding the CINCs' roles as advocates for potential coalition partners in their regions." (Dulin, 2002) Recommendations stated by Dulin include the following three Recommendations which are focused on elimination of the three major points of friction identified by Dulin as the following: (1) lack of an advocate to push coalition interoperability; (2) Lack of a uniform exportable set of command and control procedures; and (3) Lack of a mechanism for allocation of burden-sharing liabilities for funding.

These three all are stated by Dulin (2002) to revolves around two primary and central themes of: (1) increasing the involvement of the regional CINCs; and (2) obtaining additional funding and burden-sharing. Finally, Dulin (2002) ultimately recommends enhancement of both time and money in terms of the commitments made toward building of coalitions.


Of primary importance, regarding coalition forces information systems and technology standardization and integration is the modernization of intelligence processes, security, information operations and assurance… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Download full paper (12 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

Information System on Ethical and Moral Issues Research Paper

Supply Chain Management Systems Literature Review

Use of Geographical Information Systems in Combat Research Proposal

Electronic Security Information Documentation Term Paper

Addressing the Issue of Medical Errors With Mandatory Reporting Systems and Computer Technology Term Paper

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "Combat Supply Support Communications and Information Systems" Term Paper in a Bibliography:

APA Style

Combat Supply Support Communications and Information Systems.  (2008, May 15).  Retrieved September 21, 2021, from

MLA Format

"Combat Supply Support Communications and Information Systems."  15 May 2008.  Web.  21 September 2021. <>.

Chicago Style

"Combat Supply Support Communications and Information Systems."  May 15, 2008.  Accessed September 21, 2021.