The New Logistics – The Freedomist

One of the features of the military world, in general, is that no one likes to talk about “logistics”. That is because the field of military logistics is always bout being “the party of NO” – Logistics is not about planning operations, but about telling the planners what their options are…or are not.

The old military adage that “amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics” has never been more relevant than in today’s contested global environment. Military logistics — the complex art of moving, supplying, and maintaining forces — is experiencing its most significant transformation since the advent of the containerization revolution of the 1960’s, as a new generation of planners confront the reality that the mostly unchallenged supply lines of conflicts in recent decades are unlikely to exist in future wars.

This new focus is being termed “resilient” or “contested logistics”.

For over two decades, Western militaries have operated in environments where, despite the tactical dangers of IED’s and ambushes, strategic supply lines have remained largely secure. Ships moved freely across oceans, cargo aircraft landed on established airfields, and the primary logistical challenge was the “last mile” delivery in hostile territory. This operational comfort has begun to evaporate as both near-peer competitors and non-state actors demonstrate both the capability and intent to target the entire logistics chain from factory to frontline.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has provided a sobering case study in logistical vulnerability. Russian forces, operating merely 100 miles from their own borders, experienced catastrophic supply failures in the war’s opening phases. Vehicles ran out of fuel, troops lacked food, and sophisticated equipment sat idle for want of spare parts. This failure stemmed not from distance but from an inability to adapt to disruption — a warning for Western forces that have operated at far greater distances during recent conflicts against forces not considered in the “near-peer” category.

Similarly, the Houthi campaign targeting commercial shipping in the Red Sea has created ripple effects throughout global military supply chains, ripples that extend far beyond the immediate tactical challenges. Since late 2023, these attacks have forced a fundamental recalculation of military logistics planning across NATO and allied nations.

The most immediate impact has been the diversion of naval assets to escort operations, straining already limited fleet resources. Western navies, particularly the U.S. and British, have deployed destroyers and cruisers to the region that were scheduled for maintenance or other operational commitments. This reallocation has created cascading delays in naval readiness across multiple theaters.

For military logistics planners, the Red Sea crisis has exposed vulnerabilities in assumptions about secure maritime transit. Defense departments have relied heavily on commercial shipping for the movement of non-critical military supplies and equipment, with approximately 90% of military cargo traveling on commercial vessels during peacetime. The Houthi attacks against civilian shipping have forced a reassessment of this dependency, with military commands now requiring contingency routing for critical components.

The economic impact has been equally significant. Shipping insurance rates have increased by over 2,700% for Red Sea transit, dramatically raising costs for military-contracted shipments. These price spikes have strained defense budgets already under pressure from inflation in other sectors, to say nothing of slashing Red Sea transits by commercial vessels be over 60%. For European forces supporting operations in the Middle East and Asia, the forced rerouting around Africa adds 10-14 days to transit times, delaying equipment deliveries and increasing wear on existing frontline systems.

Perhaps most concerning for Western defense planners is the demonstration effect: a relatively small non-state actor, using low-cost weapons, has effectively disrupted global shipping lanes, providing a strategic template that other adversaries are almost certainly studying closely.

Additionally, although considered a remote possibility by many, a naval confrontation between Algeria and Morocco would severely disrupt Mediterranean civilian and military logistics chains beyond the immediate combatants. The Strait of Gibraltar, which handles approximately 300 vessels daily connecting the Atlantic and Mediterranean, would face restricted transit or complete closure during active hostilities. Military planners in Europe and the United States would be forced to route naval assets through the Suez Canal — itself already constrained by Red Sea security concerns, as noted above. The disruption would particularly affect NATO’s “southern flank” operations and force a reallocation of naval forces currently deployed elsewhere. Both countries’ proximity to critical European supply routes would likely trigger immediate diplomatic and possibly military intervention from NATO powers, particularly Spain and France, further complicating an already stressed regional security environment.

Modern resilient military logistics systems are being redesigned around several core principles. First is the concept of dispersal, moving away from the massive, centralized supply hubs that served as efficiency centers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Future supply networks will feature smaller, more numerous nodes that present less attractive targets and can continue functioning if some are destroyed.

Additive manufacturing, commonly known as “3-D printing“, represents another pillar of this transformation. The U.S. Marine Corps has already deployed Mobile Fab Labs capable of producing critical parts in forward areas, reducing dependence on vulnerable supply chains. Advanced systems now allow for printing in metals and composites, expanding the range of battlefield-repairable equipment.

Autonomous delivery systems form a third component of resilient logistics. Unmanned aerial vehicles for medical evacuation and resupply have moved from experimental to operational in multiple forces. The U.S. Navy’s “Sea Hunter” autonomous vessel program points toward a future where unmanned platforms may be able to maintain supply lines through contested waters without risking crew lives, which is a critical concern, given ongoing recruiting issues.

Energy resilience has emerged as a critical focus area, with significant vulnerabilities exposed in Ukraine. Modern militaries are once again exploring portable nuclear power (because that’s a good idea), advanced solar systems, and localized synthetic fuel production to reduce dependence on traditional fuel convoys, which have proven particularly vulnerable to attack.

Perhaps most significantly, artificial intelligence is being integrated into logistics planning. Predictive algorithms can anticipate supply needs before units request them, while automated inventory management reduces human error in critical supply tracking. These systems incorporate redundancy and operate on isolated networks to maintain functionality even during communication disruptions.

The shift toward resilient logistics also involves uncomfortable trade-offs between efficiency and redundancy. The just-in-time inventory systems that have dominated commercial and military logistics for decades optimize costs but prove brittle under stress. Military planners are now deliberately building inefficiency into systems—accepting higher costs and larger inventories to ensure functionality under attack.

This transformation extends beyond equipment to human capital. Specialized logistics personnel must now train to continue operations under electronic warfare conditions, with degraded or absent communications, and the constant threat of precision strikes. This represents a significant cultural shift for logistics units accustomed to operating from secure rear areas.

As military planners prepare for potential future conflicts with near-peer adversaries, the race to build resilient logistics systems has become as crucial as any weapons development program. The side that can maintain supply flows while disrupting their opponent’s will likely prevail, regardless of tactical superiority or advanced weaponry.

Food for thought.