s upplying nato forces in a fghanistan arjun chandrasekaran praveesh govindan ashwin sukumar janet...

SUPPLYING NATO FORCES IN

AFGHANISTAN

Arjun ChandrasekaranPraveesh GovindanAshwin SukumarJanet YehNing Zhong

ISYE6203 HW5Question #2Group 4Dr. Marc Goetschalckx10/28/2010

OVERVIEW

Introduction

Location characteristics

Supply network

Advantages/disadvantages

LOCATION: TERRAIN

Hindu Kush Sub range of Himalayas Sparse population

Khyber Pass ridgelines Safed Koh mountain range

Used for infiltration Movement of supplies

Limited use of helicopters Landlocked

LOCATION: WEATHER/POLITICAL ISSUES

Weather Combat season: March-October Snow in mountain passes prevent combat

activity Flooding, mudslides from spring thaw

Political relations Frequent attacks on NATO convoys US-Pakistan tension and retaliation

9/30/2010 U.S. air attack

ROUTES THROUGH PAKISTAN

PAKGLOC 80% of cargo to Afghanistan shipped through

Pakistan 20% through Chaman route, 80% through

Torkham Route Remaining supplies through Central Asia/by

air Cargo ships docked in Karachi port Truck transport to Chaman, Torkham points

850 miles, frequent stops

TORKHAM ROUTE

Begins in Peshawar, Pakistan Through Hindu Kush in Spin Boldak Khyber Pass Ends in Jalalabad, Afghanistan Final destination: Bagram air base, Kabul

Largest U.S. air base in Afghanistan

CHAMAN ROUTE

Begins through Balochistan in Chaman Final destination: Kandahar air base

NORTHERN DISTRIBUTION NETWORK

NDN Northern Route From Baltic Sea to Riga, Latvia Loaded on rail through Russia, Kazakhstan,

Uzbekistan Truck transport into Afghanistan

NDN Southern Route From Black Sea to Tbilisi, Georgia Loaded on rail through Armenia, Azerbaijan Loaded on ships across Caspian Sea to

Kazakhstan Loaded on rail to Uzbekistan Truck transport to Afghanistan

NORTHERN DISTRIBUTION NETWORK (2)

ADVANTAGES

PAKGLOC No rail networks required Most convenient method to reach Afghanistan

NDN Reduced dependency/freight volume on

PAKGLOC Potential establishment of “Modern Silk Road”

DISADVANTAGES

PAKGLOC Frequent attacks on convoys Route bans (specifically Torkham route) Increased U.S.-Pakistan tensions

NDN Potential increase in Russian demands Necessary relationship with Uzbekistan More transportation coordination required

UPDATED FREIGHT DISTRIBUTION

50% PAKGLOC 30% NDN 20% Air

Fuel 40% PAKGLOC 60% NDN

THANK YOU

REFERENCES"Afghanistan, Pakistan: Battlespace of the Border." Stratfor Global Intelligence. 14 Oct. 2010. Web. 23 Oct. 2010. <http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20081014_afghanistan_pakistan_battlespace_border>.Georgy, Michael. "NATO's Supply Network in Pakistan Hit by Supply, Closure." Reuters. 7 Oct. 2010. Web. 23 Oct. 2010. <http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6961E620101007>."Logisticians Face Challenges in Afghanistan Surge." Defense Talk. Army News, 10 May 2010. Web. 23 Oct. 2010.

<http://www.defencetalk.com/logisticians-face-challenges-in-afghanistan-surge- 26248/>.McGirk, Tim. "Taliban Stepping up Attacks on NATO Supply Convoys." Time Magazine. 7 Oct. 2010. Web. 23 Oct. 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1928899,00.html>.Tynan, Dierdre. "U.S. Military Chief Announces New Supply Network for Afghanistan." Eurasianet. 19 Jan. 2009. Web. 23 Oct. 2010. <http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/eav012009c.shtml>.