Army officer: US Army "losing visibility" of its own equipment

The U.S. Army may be accumulating a readiness problem in plain sight: equipment that physically exists but is increasingly difficult to identify, track, maintain and return to the supply chain, according to an opinion piece by Capt. Scottie G. J. Huggins, a U.S. Army Quartermaster officer, published by Military Times.

In the analytical piece, Huggins argues that fragmented asset-management practices, administrative discrepancies and disconnected sustainment systems are creating what he describes as a growing blind spot across the Army.

He points to equipment parked behind facilities without clear ownership, containers containing unvalidated property and major end items separated from critical components. Errors involving line-item numbers (LINs), national stock numbers (NSNs) and bills of materials (BOMs) within GCSS-Army can further complicate accountability, he writes.

According to Huggins, inventories frequently uncover discrepancies that accumulate over time, while excess equipment can remain on property books for years despite having no operational purpose.

One particular concern highlighted in the piece is so-called “Found on Installation” (FOI) equipment — property physically located on an Army installation but lacking accurate ownership or proper integration into the supply chain.

Huggins argues that serviceable or operationally relevant equipment can effectively become disconnected from maintenance, redistribution, readiness forecasting and operational planning once it enters FOI status.

The problem, he contends, goes beyond administrative inefficiency.

“The Army is quietly losing visibility of its own equipment,” Huggins writes, arguing that inaccurate asset visibility could undermine operational readiness as the force prepares for future large-scale combat operations.

The piece examines the limits of the Army’s existing Command Supply Discipline Program (CSDP), which Huggins describes as an important framework for accountability and command oversight but not one designed to provide enterprise-wide asset synchronisation.

Modern sustainment, he argues, requires real-time asset visibility, lifecycle management, predictive analytics, maintenance-to-supply coordination, redistribution integration and supply-chain reintegration.

Huggins identifies what he sees as an organisational gap at the company level: while commanders and other leaders oversee operations, supply and maintenance, he argues that no single leader is responsible for synchronising equipment throughout its entire sustainment lifecycle.

His proposed solution is the creation of a permanent Asset Management Chief within every company-sized formation.

According to the proposal, the position would be separate from the Property Book Officer and would focus on ensuring that equipment remains visible, validated and synchronized across sustainment systems.

The proposed responsibilities include GCSS-Army asset validation, LIN, NSN and BOM verification, FOI recovery, property-book synchronisation, lifecycle tracking, maintenance-to-supply integration, redistribution, excess management and supply-chain reintegration.

Huggins argues that such a role should be a dedicated position rather than an additional duty or temporary assignment.

The broader argument of the Military Times opinion piece is that equipment accountability should be treated not merely as an administrative requirement but as a component of combat readiness. Huggins contends that in large-scale combat operations, failures in asset visibility could translate into delays in maintenance, redistribution and deployment — potentially affecting the Army’s operational endurance.

By Sabina Mammadli