Evaluating the Combat Payoff of Alternative Logistics Structures for High-Technology Subsystems
Jan 1, 1988
The AH-64 Apache Helicopter
|PDF file||3.7 MB||
Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.
|Add to Cart||Paperback95 pages||$25.00||$20.00 20% Web Discount|
Using data on the high-technology subsystems of the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, this report hypothesizes five alternative logistics structures (two traditional ones that rely on conventional depot support of intermediate repair and three that focus on more responsive support) and evaluates them in terms of comparative cost-effectiveness and robustness. The study found that the responsive support alternatives featuring Special Repair Activity support of critical items or fast-turnaround continental U.S. (CONUS) depots tied to the theater by assured rapid transportation offer a means for providing cost-effective support of the Apache in a variety of conditions. The research substantiates previous RAND research on the M-1 tank that argued that the Army must increase the responsiveness in its logistics structures or face a loss in combat capability.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Report series. The report was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1948 to 1993 that represented the principal publication documenting and transmitting RAND's major research findings and final research.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.