The Army’s most dangerous logistics problem is hiding behind motor pools

The U.S. Army has spent decades refining sustainment doctrine, modernizing combat systems and investing billions in readiness transformation. Yet, across installations, behind motor pools, inside storage yards and buried within disconnected property systems, a growing threat to operational readiness continues to expand unnoticed. The Army is quietly losing visibility of its own equipment.

This loss of accountability is not the result of enemy action, theft or lack of resources. Instead, it stems from fragmented asset management practices, administrative disconnects and sustainment systems that no longer align with the complexity of modern warfare.

Across the force, leaders routinely encounter equipment parked behind facilities with no clear ownership, containers filled with property that has never been validated and major end items separated from critical components.

Errors in LINs, NSNs and BOM structures inside GCSS‑Army compound these issues, while inventories frequently reveal administrative discrepancies that accumulate over time. In many units, excess equipment remains on property books for years with no operational purpose, and “Found on Installation” items linger outside the active supply chain with no clear path back into accountability.

For years, these challenges have been dismissed as routine administrative friction — something to be managed rather than addressed. They are not. They represent a steady erosion of readiness occurring in plain sight.

As the Army prepares for future large‑scale combat operations, sustainment visibility will become a decisive factor in operational endurance. The ability to locate, employ and sustain equipment will matter as much as ammunition, fuel and maneuver capability.

Without accurate, integrated accountability across the sustainment enterprise, the Army risks entering the next fight with equipment it cannot find, cannot fix and cannot employ at the speed required for modern conflict.

The Army’s current accountability structure is no longer sufficient

The Command Supply Discipline Program (CSDP) remains one of the Army’s foundational accountability frameworks — reinforcing standards, responsibility and command oversight across formations. However, CSDP was designed to ensure compliance, not to provide enterprise‑level asset synchronization.

Today’s Army operates within an environment far more complex than the sustainment systems many units still rely upon. Modern sustainment now requires:

• Real‑time asset visibility
• Lifecycle management
• Predictive sustainment analytics
• Maintenance‑to‑supply synchronization
• Redistribution integration
• Administrative correction oversight
• Cross‑functional logistics visibility
• Supply chain reintegration capabilities

These responsibilities are dispersed across commanders, executive officers, supply sergeants, maintenance sections, clerks and sub‑hand receipt holders who are already overwhelmed by competing operational requirements.

Now, units are simultaneously balancing: rotational deployments; modernization transitions; equipment fielding and divestment; readiness reporting; maintenance operations; deployment preparation; lateral transfers; excess turn‑ins; and continuous inventories.

The result is predictable.

Administrative accountability continues to function, while operational asset visibility steadily erodes. The Army currently lacks a dedicated company‑level leader responsible for synchronizing end‑to‑end asset management across sustainment systems.

That gap is becoming increasingly dangerous.

‘Found on Installation’ equipment is a national readiness warning

One of the clearest indicators of this growing problem is the rising volume of Found on Installation (FOI) equipment across Army installations. FOI equipment refers to property physically present on an installation but lacking accurate ownership linkage or proper synchronization within the Army supply chain.

In many cases, the equipment is still serviceable, operationally relevant, repairable and valuable to Army readiness. Administratively, however, it becomes disconnected from the force.

Once equipment enters FOI status, it often becomes trapped and remains outside maintenance visibility, redistribution channels, readiness forecasting and operational planning cycles

Effectively, the Army begins losing combat power without physically losing the equipment itself. At scale, this drives hidden readiness erosion across the force.

In an era when the Army emphasizes modernization, transformation and fiscal responsibility, the inability to maintain accurate asset visibility threatens all three priorities simultaneously.

The Army must transition from accountability to asset dominance

For decades, the Army has normalized a level of sustainment dysfunction that quietly erodes readiness. Administrative backlog, inaccurate cataloguing, disconnected accountability, excess accumulation, equipment visibility gaps and supply chain inefficiencies have become routine. But normalization is not effectiveness.

The Army has already transformed sustainment into a warfighting capability. It has transformed sustainment into operational reach. Now it must transform asset management into a strategic readiness advantage.

The future force will not succeed simply because it possesses advanced equipment. It will succeed because it can see, track, synchronize and sustain that equipment faster and more effectively than its adversaries. That begins with visibility.

Equipment that cannot be accurately identified, synchronized, tracked or reintegrated into the supply chain is not combat power. It is wasted readiness hiding behind motor pools.

The sustainment gap nobody owns

The Army assigns leaders to operations. It assigns leaders to maintenance. It assigns leaders to supply. But no leader is solely responsible for synchronizing company‑level assets across the entire sustainment lifecycle. This absence of singular ownership creates the conditions where sustainment friction grows quietly and continuously.

Within this gap, small issues begin to compound. Administrative discrepancies multiply, equipment visibility fades and BOM errors sit unresolved. Excess equipment accumulates in motor pools and storage yards; supply chain disconnects appear without warning; and the accuracy of operational readiness reporting begins to erode.

These are not isolated administrative problems. They represent structural sustainment vulnerabilities embedded within the system itself.

Modern warfare will expose these vulnerabilities rapidly. During a time defined by complex logistics networks, accelerated modernization and distributed sustainment requirements, the lack of dedicated asset synchronization at the company level creates a blind spot the force can no longer afford.

When equipment becomes misaligned with the supply chain, the Army doesn’t simply lose visibility; it loses operational tempo, predictability and ultimately combat power.

Recognizing and closing this gap is now essential. Without a leader tasked specifically with end‑to‑end asset integration, sustainment friction will continue to grow beneath the surface, quietly degrading readiness long before it is noticed at higher echelons.

The solution: establish company-level asset management chiefs

To close the widening gap between accountability and operational readiness, the Army should establish a dedicated Asset Management Chief within every company‑sized formation. This role must be distinct from the Property Book Officer, whose mission is administrative accountability and is fundamentally different from the traditional supply or maintenance responsibilities found in current formatio

Source: www.armytimes.com — article syndicated from the publisher’s feed; all rights remain with the original publisher.