Land systems
With the pilot showing promising results, it could be extended to the full complement of US Army vehicles.
benefits the MCoE – but also has the potential to improve operational flexibility for commanders across the US Army. “Vehicle maintenance enables a unit’s training strategy,” says Woods. “For operational commanders, this significantly improves their flexibility to manage their annual training strategy – by cutting the number of vehicles in half and better aligning the mechanic to task ration.”
This is obvious in practice: by reducing the number of vehicles that need to be serviced at any given time, units can better align their maintenance schedules with their training and operational needs. As Woods says: “What we’ve seen with the availability rate is, because our mechanics can now keep up with the services, our availability rate is staying much closer to the operational readiness rate.”
No less impressive, the pilot has also helped capture unscheduled maintenance needs that might have been overlooked during routine services, further contributing to the overall readiness of the fleet. Woods, for his part, highlights so-called ‘predictive maintenance’ as a promising technology here, arguing sensors and other devices could help spot problems before they become visible to crews or engineers. “It would give you real time data on the engine performance and then help identify where you may have problems,” he says. “Instead of waiting till an engine blows – an M1 engine costs $1.1m to change – if you could have got performance indicators that told you that you needed to change your fuel injectors, that could save you a lot of time and money.”
Shared success
The success of the M1/M2 Service Optimization Pilot has sparked interest far beyond the US Army. While the pilot is still in its early stages, there is already enthusiasm for its principles to be adopted
by allied and partner nations that use US military equipment. “I would encourage all countries to be looking at how you’re servicing your equipment,” emphasises Woods. “We can’t afford to overburden our soldiers in today’s environment and we can’t afford to be burdening our mechanics.” Certainly, the move towards more flexible and adaptive maintenance models is a logical step as the technology continues to evolve. That’s especially as predictive maintenance technologies become more advanced, allowing armies across the globe to streamline their maintenance processes – and ultimately reduce costs.
All the same, the implementation of new maintenance systems isn’t without its challenges. Changing long-established standards is difficult, especially in an organisation as large and tradition bound as the US Army. Yet the initial success of the M1/M2 Service Optimization Pilot suggests there’s a growing openness within military circles to embrace change. “There’s been this growing acceptance that something needs to change,” says Woods, “So we were surprised when we started implementing things like this that there was an overwhelming openness.” As a matter of fact, the pilot’s positive results have already led to requests for its expansion to the entire operational force. It seems clear, in short, that the M1/M2 Service Optimization Pilot represents a crucial step towards modernising military vehicle maintenance. By offering greater flexibility and reducing unnecessary maintenance burdens, the pilot promises to enhance the readiness and effectiveness of the US Army’s armoured forces. As the pilot progresses, meanwhile, the implications for equipment-to-maintainer ratios, repair costs, and overall mission readiness will become increasingly obvious – potentially setting a new standard for military maintenance in the 21st century, both in the US and among its partners. ●
Defence & Security Systems International /
www.defence-and-security.com
23.2%
The percentage of the US Army’s budget allocated to operation
and maintenance in 2023.
DoD 11
Ryanzo W. Perez/
Shutterstock.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51
