Chapter Three
Enabling New Technology Insertion
The goals of the Army with respect to its fleet of trucks are to reduce the logistics footprint, maintenance costs, and fuel burden while maintaining other performance parameters. The lightweight structural materials and new processing technologies described in Chapter 2 can help achieve these goals.
USE OF LIGHTWEIGHT MATERIALS FOR ARMY TRUCKS
States. Today, it accounts for less than 20 percent.1 Decreased R&D funding, combined with reduced direct funding for Army trucks, will make it difficult for the future Army truck fleet to achieve world-class capability. At current
funding levels, the truck fleet will continue to degrade at a significant rate.
According to one estimate, 28 percent of the Army truck fleet was judged to be over age in 1997, and this statistic is expected to increase to 40 percent by 2013.2 Although recent events have created a more positive political attitude toward military spending, the Army will most likely have to continue to do more with less.
Few Design Cycles
The commercial automotive industry is able to continuously improve its production systems and products because of the large number of design cycles per product. Technical risk is mitigated because new technology can be introduced in smaller steps or piloted on lower-volume products until proven ready for large-scale introduction. This sequence of events also helps bring down costs prior to large-scale deployment. Constant practice keeps the design, engineering, and manufacturing teams at top efficiency and
capability. Automotive manufacturers, however, still rely heavily on computer- aided design and prototype development, especially when new technologies or materials are being introduced.
Fewer design cycles and limited capability for prototype development increase risk. The Army will need to decrease its use of heavy conventional materials such as mild steel and begin using lighter materials for primary and secondary truck structures. Although the lightweight materials most likely to be used (high-strength steel, aluminum, and composites) have already been used in ground vehicles and aircraft, they will now require different design, development, fabrication, joining, use, and maintenance practices. To reduce risk, the Army should employ the same practices used in commercial product development: computer simulation supported by prototype development and testing. In addition, the Army should leverage appropriate technologies developed for commercial vehicles over the course of multiple design cycles.
1National Research Council. 2002. Equipping Tomorrow’s Military Force: Integration of Commercial and Military Manufacturing in 2010 and Beyond. Washington, D.C.:
National Academies Press.
2U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM). 1998. Tactical Vehicle Fleetbook. Washington, D.C.: Fleet Planning Office, U.S. Army TACOM.
56
Enabling New Technology Insertion
While advanced materials research has been funded, relatively little funding is available for materials system integration and development testing, and none has been allocated for field-testing and evaluation of new materials systems.3
Low Production Volumes
Insertion of lightweight materials technologies in Army trucks is inhibited by the fact that development costs must be distributed over the
comparatively low production volumes typical for military vehicles.4 Obvious fixed costs associated with truck manufacture include buildings, equipment, and tooling. Additional costs that are largely fixed are those associated with development, such as vehicle design, engineering, testing, certification, and documentation. These costs can contribute significantly to the overall unit cost of a low-volume truck. Variable costs per unit also tend to decrease as production volume increases, owing to the greater purchasing power of a high-volume buyer and the greater flexibility regarding whether to make or buy components that a high-volume manufacturer has.
Most contracts for new Army trucks call for low production volumes compared with those for commercial products. Because of the difficulty in recovering the costs of low-volume production without setting high prices, many high-volume vehicle manufacturers have withdrawn from bidding on military contracts, resulting in a reduction in the competitive field. The Army must find other ways to minimize unit costs. Several steps are already being taken, including the use of common parts across truck lines, where possible, and the use of modular design permitting commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components. A strong case has been made for accelerating the use of
3J. Eberhardt, U.S. Department of Energy. 21st Century Truck Program: Research and Development Funding Allocation and Project Reviews. Presentation to the
committee,.April 23, 2001.
4The cost of manufacturing a product is generally dependent on the production volume. The elements that contribute to the cost of a product are categorized as either fixed or variable. Fixed costs are those that do not vary with production volume, such as capital equipment costs. Variable costs are those that do vary with production volume, such as raw materials costs. When the number of units being produced is small, the per-unit allocation of fixed costs becomes large, and the product becomes more expensive.
USE OF LIGHTWEIGHT MATERIALS FOR ARMY TRUCKS
commercial technology and components.5 Additional strategies to control and minimize the costs associated with low-volume manufacturing include
minimizing fixed costs and buying flexible fixed assets.
One method of increasing the Army’s purchasing power is to partner with other NATO nations in contracting for basic truck structural architectures and standard commercial components. More sensitive systems, such as
electronics unique to the U.S. Army, could be added later as “black box”
components. Although this approach seems feasible from a business perspective, it may be difficult politically. Changes proposed for DOD business practices, however, may make such an approach possible in the future.6