Risk Vs Reward With Vehicle Unit Deployment Lists
By 1LT Patrick Donovan
Article published on:
in the Fall 2025
edition of Army Sustainment
Read Time:
< 5 mins
The leadup and outload for a major training rotation is a stressful time.
Condensed timelines and a large number of moving parts make it a whirlwind
few weeks. Individual packing lists must be gathered, tough boxes packed,
and mission planning completed. A massive piece of the outload process is
the maintenance and upload of vehicles that are on the unit deployment
list (UDL).
From my perspective as an engineer company executive officer during the
outload for the Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center ( JPMRC)
rotation in Alaska this past winter, a ton of effort from mechanics and
vehicle operators was put into getting UDL vehicles to a
full-mission-capable (FMC) status. Many UDL vehicles were not fixed in
time for outload, and some that were fixed broke down in the preliminary
stages of the exercise. Was the juice worth the squeeze? Was the amount of
effort expended to fix vehicles that gave us no value during the exercise
justified? Is there a more proactive way to determine what to focus on
during the outload process?
Getting the Most Value Out of Your Time and Effort
Each vehicle on the UDL is critical to the mission in some capacity,
whether it be as a troop mover, an asset hauler, or a piece of engineer
equipment. Scratching any vehicle on that list introduces risk to the
unit’s ability to effectively complete the mission. Alaska’s harsh
climate, dynamic operational tempo, and the hard miles already put on
these vehicles make keeping them FMC throughout the year a substantial
challenge.
In my company’s case, only six out of the 15 total vehicles on the UDL
were FMC once the outload truly began for JPMRC, which was about a month
before the exercise started. That month consisted of long hours at the
motor pool trying to fix as many vehicles as possible and to get them
uploaded via rail, commercial linehaul, or convoy. We fixed 10 out of the
15 in time for upload, but three of those 10 broke down before even
entering the box. Another three vehicles broke down during the box. Other
companies had similar numbers.
Despite the huge amount of time and effort invested into getting certain
vehicles into the fight, many served little or no purpose toward the
mission and created more of a headache trying to get them back to home
station because they were broken. It is difficult to cut ties early and
make the decision to scratch a piece of equipment you have already spent a
lot of time trying to fix. At the company and possibly battalion level it
is simply not an option to tell your higher headquarters you are
scratching a vehicle, except at the very last minute. But at the end of
the day, if the goal during the outload process is to be as efficient as
possible with our time, we must spend the most time on the vehicles that
are going to give us the most value. In the next section we look at ways
to determine which vehicles will do that.
Machine Learning to Aid Decision Making
A more proactive approach to determining which vehicles to focus
maintenance efforts on may be found using machine learning, which is a
subfield of artificial intelligence that uses results from historical data
to make predictions on the outcome of input data. In LTG Christopher O.
Mohan’s recent article in the
Army Sustainment Professional Bulletin titled “Predictive
Logistics is the Way of the Future,” he writes, “Predictive logistics
represents a shift from traditional, reactive sustainment models to a
proactive, data-driven approach that allows us to position supplies to
ensure the right resources are available at the right time and place.”
Just as predictive logistics is the next step for allocating supplies on
the battlefield, predictive maintenance is the next step for allocating
resources into fixing vehicles and equipment.
For this to work, we must first understand what problem we want to solve.
Should we try and fix this vehicle to bring it to the fight, or should we
scratch it because it is not worth the effort? Second, we must collect
data that helps determine when vehicles may break down. Readings from
vibration sensors on wheel bearings and temperature gauges on engines are
examples of the data that paints a picture of when a machine is in good
shape and when it is about to break. We must train the complex machine
learning network by feeding it that sensor data and whether the associated
machine broke down. We must also feed it important information like
outside temperature and the type of roads the vehicles were driving.
Lastly, we must attach some sort of weight to the importance of each
vehicle, like what the Army does when they say that certain vehicles are
pacers and others are not. For example, a High Mobility Engineer Excavator
is going to be more important to the mission than a Humvee. The system
places vehicles into two categories. Vehicles in the first category will
receive precious time and resources for repair, while vehicles in the
second category will not because the risk that they will break down is too
great compared to their potential value.
Conclusion
Organizations traditionally use predictive maintenance to decide when to
do maintenance on an engine, not whether to do maintenance. This is a
worthwhile goal to achieve eventually. For example, when a piece of
important engineer equipment is conducting obstacle emplacement during the
defensive phase of an operation, a trained machine learning network can
determine the remaining use of the vehicle from its sensor data. Just as
LTG Mohan points out, this represents a more proactive approach that
allows maintainers to fix important equipment before having a critical
shortage of it at a very inopportune time. As for recommendations to
implement predictive maintenance initially, the vibration sensors and
temperature gauges mentioned earlier must be included in all newly
procured Army equipment. The data from those sensors must go into a
centralized system such as Global Combat Support System-Army so that we
can start gathering data that can train a machine learning system with
measurements that are associated with vehicles breaking down.
Author
1LT Patrick Donovan is executive officer for B Company,
6th Brigade Engineer Battalion (BEB), 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team
(Airborne), 11th Airborne Division, at Fort Richardson, Alaska. His
previous role was as a sapper platoon leader in A Company, 6th BEB. He
graduated from the University of Massachusetts Lowell in 2021 and
sub-sequently attended Army Officer Candidate School and Engineer Basic
Officer Leadership Course.