Air University

Lt Gen Allen G. Peck, Commander

Air Command and Staff College

Brig Gen Anthony J. Rock, Commandant

Col Robert J. Smith, PhD, Dean

Lt Col Kyle Gresham, PhD, Director of Research

Col Brett E. Morris, PhD, 

and Maj John L. Mansuy, Series Editors

Lt Col Terry Bullard, Essay Advisor

Air University Press

Gen John A. Shaud, USAF, Retired, PhD

Director, Air Force Research Institute

Demorah Hayes, Project Editor

Andrew Thayer, Copy Editor

Ann Bailey, Prepress Production

Daniel Armstrong, Cover Design

Please send inquiries or comments to

Editor

The Wright Flyer Papers

Air Command and Staff College (ACSC/DEI)

225 Chennault Circle, Bldg. 1402

Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6426

Tel: (334) 953-6810

Fax: (334) 953-2269

E-mail: ACSC@maxwell.af.mil
AIR UNIVERSITY

AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE

Tracking Next-Generation 

Automatic Identification 

Technology into 2035

Richard N. Holifield, Jr. 

Major, USAF

Winner of the 2010 International 

Society of Logistics Award

Air Command and Staff College

Wright Flyer Paper No. 47

Air University Press

Air Force Research Institute

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama

December 2010
ii

This Wright Flyer Paper and others in the series are 

available electronically at the Air University Research 

Information Management System website at http://

research.maxwell.af.mil and the AU Press website at 

http://aupress.au.af.mil.

Disclaimer

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are 

solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US 

government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited.
iii

Foreword

It is with great pride that Air Command and Staff College 

presents another in a series of award-winning student research projects from our academic programs that reach 

nearly 11,000 students each year. As our series title indicates, we seek to promote the sort of imaginative, forwardlooking thinking that inspired the earliest aviation pioneers, 

and we aim for publication projects which combine these 

characteristics with the sort of clear presentation that permits even the most technical topics to be readily understood. We sincerely hope what follows will stimulate thinking, invite debate, and further encourage today’s air war 

fighters in their continuing search for new and better ways 

to perform their missions—now and in the future.

ANTHONY J. ROCK

Brigadier General, USAF

Commandant

v

Abstract

This paper explores the advances in automatic identification technology, specifically radio frequency identification, and seeks to exploit these capabilities for use in the 

Department of Defense (DOD) supply chain. Using technological trends, a thorough literature review, and the opinions of experts, the paper compares current technology to 

a 2035 requirements forecast to identify capability gaps. 

The end goal is logistics situational awareness, whereby 

the DOD has the ability to provide end-to-end visibility 

throughout its supply chain and can rapidly mobilize, deploy, sustain, and redeploy forces in support of national 

security objectives.

1

Introduction

On 13 January 2035 at 0115 CST, the red blip on the computer screen startled Senior Airman Maddock as he sat at 

the security forces controller desk at Minot AFB, North Dakota. 

It was a cold night with a temperature of 15 degrees below 

zero, and he was happy to be inside drinking his coffee while 

many of his fellow Airmen were out on base patrol. The red 

blip and subsequent alarm ended his happy thoughts because he knew what had happened: a nuclear warhead was 

out of place in the munitions storage area. Airman Maddock 

immediately grabbed his checklist and started the phone 

calls in accordance with established procedures. His mind 

filled with possible outcomes, but he focused on the task at 

hand. Within minutes, eight security forces patrol cars surrounded the munitions storage area. The security forces set 

a cordon, and the on-scene commander, Colonel Buchanan, 

established communication with the 5th Bomb Wing battle 

staff. Activity in the munitions storage area came to a halt.

Forty-five minutes earlier, Technical Sergeant James, Staff 

Sergeant Cook, and Airman First Class Gilbreath had just 

started their midshift work. They received the normal midshift brief from Master Sergeant Gray and were given the 

task of building the munitions for the next day’s B-52 flying 

schedule. The air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) load was 

an important certification for the munitions personnel, weapons load personnel, and aircrew for the next day’s mission to 

Barksdale AFB, Louisiana. Strict procedures were in place, and 

the two-man rule was the norm for these die-hard ammo troops 

within the munitions storage area. The week before, the 5th 

Bomb Wing underwent a limited nuclear surety inspection 

and passed with a “satisfactory” rating. Unfortunately, in 

the rush to return to normalcy after the inspection, a nucleartipped ALCM was accidently placed in the wrong storage 

case, the one marked “Inert—Captive Flight Only.” As Sergeant Cook and Airman Gilbreath opened the case, they followed the technical data but had no idea that they had a live 

nuclear warhead. While the nuclear ALCM was loaded on 

the munitions trailer, the three-person team continued to assemble the other seven ALCMs. As the end of the shift neared, 

personnel loaded all eight ALCMs on the munitions trailers 

and started the slow transport to the weapons load facility, 
2

where the ALCMs would be carefully populated on an empty 

rotary launcher. As Sergeant Cook drove the bobtail through 

gate 4 in the storage area, the alarms sounded. Everyone 

stopped dead in his or her tracks.

With the help of radio frequency identification (RFID) readers mounted on each munitions igloo and vehicle, munitions 

control was able to identify the location and status of all the 

munitions personnel, vehicles, equipment, tools, and munitions on base at the touch of a button. According to established procedures, Colonel Buchanan sent security forces 

personnel and the 5th Munitions Squadron munitions accountable systems officer into the munitions storage area 

with handheld sensors to verify each person, his or her qualifications, and the security clearance on his or her badge. 

Everyone was verified. Then the munitions trailer with the 

nuclear warhead was discovered at gate 4. Using the handheld sensors, security forces personnel promptly located the 

nuclear warhead, removed it, and stored it in the correct 

container. The nuclear warhead’s RFID tag had alerted security personnel that it was out of place. The positive inventory 

control system enabled by RFID started the chain of events 

and averted another Minot-Barksdale nuclear weapons 

transfer incident.

A common axiom in military circles is that “amateurs 

study strategy, but professionals study logistics.” Throughout history, wars have been won or lost depending on a nation’s ability to support and sustain a fielded force. Just 

ask the Nazis, who, during World War II, could not sustain 

the German war machine because of Allied destruction of 

logistical lines. The lessons to be learned today, though 

similar, are attenuated because of advances in technology, 

a globalized world economy, and interdependencies of nations waging war. Likewise, in a resource-constrained environment, nations and companies are “looking for ways to 

cut costs, improve quality, increase efficiencies and enhance their competitiveness.”1 It is no different for the Department of Defense (DOD), especially in the area of global 

mobility and combat support. In fact, it is safe to say that 

logistics situational awareness is a critical enabler of global 

mobility and will dictate whether countries survive in the 
3

future strategic environment. Today, the logistics tail of the 

DOD is ripe for improvement. Efficiencies in the daily movement of personnel, cargo, and equipment will effect large 

returns on investment. Most importantly, the ability to provide end-to-end visibility throughout the DOD supply chain 

will permit forces to rapidly mobilize, deploy, sustain, and 

redeploy in support of national security objectives.

This paper surveys the current automatic identification 

technology (AIT) capabilities, forecasts the 2035 requirements using environmental scanning and interviews, identifies the capability gaps, and provides inputs for an AIT 

implementation road map. The key question is, how will the 

DOD leverage AIT and help optimize the visibility of assets 

in the DOD supply chain for operations in 2035? DOD investments in AIT will promote efficient logistics operations, 

streamline supply chains, provide in-transit visibility, and 

enhance situational awareness to enable rapid global mobility, agile combat support, and power projection for the 

DOD in 2035.

Background

AIT is a tool set of technologies “enabling the automatic 

capture of data, thereby enhancing the ability to identify, 

track, document, and control assets.”2 AIT encompasses a 

variety of data storage and transfer technologies, including 

“bar codes, magnetic strips, integrated circuit cards, optical 

laser discs, satellite tracking, and radio frequency identification (RFID) tags.”3 This paper primarily focuses on RFID 

technologies, applications, future trends, and implications. 

It is important to note that “AIT is not a system or a single 

product” but a family of technologies.4 When AIT is integrated with information systems, it becomes a powerful logistical tool. The situational awareness, or asset visibility, 

supplied by AIT is the “capability to provide timely and accurate information on the location, movement, status and 

identity of units, personnel, equipment, and supplies.”5 The 

DOD has invested over 30 years of research into AIT, starting with the bar code and progressing now to advanced 

technologies, and considers AIT a key enabler to daily operations.6 However, the DOD relies heavily on current com-
4

mercial investment and applications of AIT, more precisely 

RFID, which began much earlier.

History of AIT and RFID

During the 1800s inventors such as Michael Faraday, 

James Clerk Maxwell, and Heinrich Hertz published theories on light and radio waves, which laid the foundation for 

understanding electromagnetic energy.7 The 1900s saw 

progress, with the birth of radar in 1922 and the early development of “identification, friend or foe (IFF) for aircraft” 

in the 1950s.8 During Vietnam the Igloo White system used 

RFID and other networked sensors to track enemy movements on the Ho Chi Minh Trail.9 While early DOD applications drove much of the initial research, commercial applications accelerated it. In the 1970s the retail supply chain 

pursued bar codes as the primary technology for auto identification.10 The 1990s saw technology developments in 

RFID for transportation and “wide scale deployment of electronic toll collection in the United States.”11 More recently, 

RFID has been used to track positions of assets, identify 

personnel and vehicles, and sense an enemy sniper’s location using acoustic sensors coupled with RFID.12 However, 

it was not until mid-2008 that RFID applications led to a 

breakthrough in industry. Experts attribute this development to two things: (1) passive tag technology in ultra-high 

frequency (UHF) stabilized, and (2) the apparel distributor, 

Dillard’s, began placing passive RFID tags on clothing 

items in the retail supply chain.13 Today applications are 

prolific, and RFID operates in “industrial manufacturing 

sites, in warehouses, at ocean and aerial ports, in retail 

stores, at ammunition storage and manufacturing sites, at 

transportation distribution facilities, and in austere environments.”14 The appendix provides a more complete list 

of current RFID applications.

At the basic level, “RFID is a generic technology that refers to the use of radio frequency waves to identify objects.”15

RFID is “an automatic identification method, relying on 

storing and remotely retrieving data using devices called 

RFID tags or transponders.”16 These tags can be attached to 

or incorporated on just about any object for identification 

and usually consist of two parts: (1) an integrated circuit 
5

for storing information, processing information, and modulating radio frequency (RF) signals and (2) “an antenna for 

receiving and transmitting the signal.”17 RFID tags can be 

either active or passive. Active tags are powered by batteries 

and have one- or two-way radio transceivers, data storage 

memory, and a read range of up to 300 feet.18 Passive tags 

are powered by the current induced from an RF signal, have 

short read ranges of up to 15 feet, and have the advantages 

of reduced size, less upkeep, and greater cost effectiveness, 

making them prime candidates for nanotechnology miniaturization.19 Technologists agree that batch fabrication of 

passive RFID tags with mini-circuits and antennas would 

drive the unit price down and increase reliability.20 As this 

technology continues to miniaturize, it may even be possible 

to embed tags on smaller objects, like metal bolts or washers.

The active or passive tags also rely on interrogators, fixed 

or portable handheld devices that “emit electronic signals to 

communicate with the tags.”21 The interrogators, or readers, 

are usually fixed on poles, loading docks, or doorways to 

allow for accessible read ranges in proximity to the tagged 

items. Additionally, a computer connected to a network helps 

control the interrogator, capture the necessary data, and 

send the data in the established technical architecture. Finally, the data read by RFID technology provides valuable 

information to decision makers. Software and information 

technology architectures help channel and mine the data 

for trends and decision tools; however, how the data is used 

becomes even more important than getting the data.

The tags, interrogators, computers, and data make up 

the main components of an RFID system. The system of 

interrogators and active tags work with networked information systems to provide visibility. As a networked tag is 

placed on an item, the user has the ability to inventory, 

determine where an object is located and where the object 

has been, remove outdated objects, eliminate stock-outs, 

and provide in-transit visibility on a global network.22

Significance of RFID

According to the analyst firm IDTechEx, RFID is big business, with a global market of $5.29 billion (2008).23 Its market is predicted to grow, with some forecasting “a 15 per-
6

cent annual growth rate over the next five years.”24 Many 

experts attribute the jump-starting of RFID applications to 

Walmart’s mandate in June 2003 to place RFID tags on 

pallets and cases from its top 100 suppliers.25 Albertson’s, 

Target, Proctor & Gamble, and the DOD followed with pursuits to improve the supply chain and reduce costs.26 Overall, every organization agrees that the pursuit of “information 

visibility (and the corresponding timeliness of information) 

is critical to supply chain operations.”27 With RFID serving 

as a “business process enabler,” these organizations are 

reaping the benefits of increased visibility.28 As one Walmart 

chief information officer said, “I view RFID as a strategy 

that offers tremendous competitive advantage.”29

What is RFID’s significance for the DOD? Consider the 

recent decision by Pres. Barack Obama to send 30,000 more 

troops to Afghanistan.30 The United States Transportation 

Command (USTRANSCOM) is charged with the daunting 

task of moving and distributing all troops and equipment. 

One Army brigade combat team (BCT) has approximately 

3,500 personnel, 1,200 short tons of airlift cargo, and 

200,000 square feet of sealift cargo, all of which requires 80 

C-17 airlift missions and two ships.31 Multiply this by 10, 

and then consider the transportation modes to Afghanistan, where 50 percent of the cargo goes by truck, 30 percent by rail, and 20 percent by airlift.32 Imagine you are a 

commander in charge of deploying a BCT and all of your 

personnel and equipment must end up at your deployed 

location on a certain date. RFID, along with other AIT, will 

provide an efficient way to manage the personnel and cargo 

strewn out across the globe. RFID technologies will be crucial to providing asset visibility and in-transit visibility for 

the passengers and equipment moving from origin to destination by commercial airlift, sealift, and surface assets.

Current State of RFID

Organizations pursue RFID to enhance information visibility. In fact, experts in supply chain management suggest 

that “the success of a supply chain system depends on the 

level (and timeliness) of visibility it has on the materials 

from suppliers to customers.”33 With visibility as the overarching goal, industry and government organizations have 
7

taken RFID technology, translated it into process efficiencies, and reduced costs. According to USTRANSCOM, the 

DOD’s primary use of AIT is “to facilitate data management” 

by improving data accuracy, reducing data capture and 

processing time, reducing data latency, and enhancing 

supply chain management monitoring.34

Current RFID Capabilities

To summarize the information found during environmental scanning, this section highlights some broad categories of AIT capabilities and provides current examples 

from government or industry:

•	 Automation

•	 Asset management

•	 Inventory management

•	 People management

•	 Layering AIT

•	 Standards

Automation. As industry and government seek ways to 

make processes more efficient and reduce costs, automation has been a key focus, especially in processes where 

humans conduct repetitious action. RFID helps eliminate 

manual entry, parses data, and is “not constrained by line 

of sight,” which allows tags to be a distance away as long as 

they are within the reader’s signal range.35 Unlike bar codes, 

many RFID tags can be read simultaneously, which allows 

batch processing versus one-piece flow.36 Another characteristic of RFID is its ability to operate in harsh environments where human access is prohibitive or less cost effective. Tags are “resistant to heat, dirt, and solvents and 

hence are not physically damaged easily.”37 One perfect example of automation is electronic toll collection. The first 

electronic tollbooth, opened in 1991 in Oklahoma, used 

RFID to automate a previously manual process.38 Passive 

tags on cars pass through the readers (interrogators) located in the tollbooth. The RF signal sent from the readers 

attenuates the passive tags, and the interrogators read the 

attenuated return signal from each tag. The computer sys-
8

tem then links the unique passive tag on the car to a user 

account from which the toll is debited. Based on this example and others, it is clear RFID allows organizations to 

save time and labor by exploiting the technology’s automation features.

Asset Management. It is logical that an organization 

needs to know where its assets are located. However, this is 

just one aspect of asset management. RFID also allows organizations to track and trace assets across an enterprise 

system. It answers the question, where is my asset? The 

ability to identify, locate, and sense the condition of an asset and automate timing or sequence in a timely manner 

provides great efficiency to any process. For example, after 

the Taiwan nuclear shipping incident of 2008, the Nuclear 

Weapon Center at Hill AFB, Utah, opened a new facility to 

manage nuclear-related material.39 This facility uses the 

positive inventory control system (PICS) to track nuclearrelated assets in storage, transit, or maintenance activities.40 Using passive RFID tags, unique item identification 

(UID), handheld readers, portal interrogators, and an enterprise data system, the PICS manages the delivery, receipt, and 

verification of critical nuclear assets at any point in their 

lifecycles.41 Additionally, Airbus has implemented RFID to 

help manage assets at the A380 final assembly plant in 

Hamburg, Germany.42 Assembling an A380 requires 750 

containers of parts, and the bulky containers are delivered 

across a four-story assembly plant.43 The asset management system tracks over 3,000 containers from suppliers 

and ensures they are delivered to a specific assembly location “on time, the right time, the first time.”44 Airbus not 

only has saved time, money, and space, but also knows the 

timing, sequencing, and visibility of its containers.

Inventory Management. Inventory management answers the question, how much do I have? In government, 

retail industry, and health care, an accurate, real-time inventory is a critical process enabler and often improves 

safety. Take, for instance, the application of RFID to help in 

air-to-air refueling between KC-135 tankers and other aircraft. In June 2010 the USAF demonstrated the capability 

to read specialized passive RFID tags on aircraft being refueled; these tags identify the type of aircraft, time, location, and amount of fuel passed.45 The biggest benefit is the 
9

accuracy of the fuel inventory. Before, boom operators 

could not read tail numbers, or they miscalculated the fuel 

passed, which accounted for millions of dollars of unpaid 

fuel bills. Now all the fuel is accounted for, aircraft information is automatically recorded, and the boom operator can 

focus on safely refueling without having to record information.46 Likewise, Walmart has found that RFID improves the 

efficiency and effectiveness of its processes. One study revealed that the company reduced out-of-stocks by 26 percent, reduced the number of receiving errors, improved the 

accuracy of inventory, and ultimately was able to better 

forecast and replenish items for customers.47 These benefits have great relevance to the DOD distribution centers 

where assets are received, inventoried, stored, and shipped 

to customers worldwide.

People Management. RFID applications for people management include embedding chips in humans (similar to 

RFID chips in animals), but this capability is wrought with 

legal and privacy concerns. More common applications are 

identity cards, passports, or magnetic credit cards that provide identity verification, control access to buildings, or 

limit use of equipment. An example is the common access 

card (CAC) issued to DOD employees for positive identification and access to computer networks. The RFID tag in the 

card contains personnel information but is also capable of 

holding medical information, training qualifications, and 

other pertinent data. 

While cards like the CAC are common in many industries, using RFID for people management is most prominent in the health-care sector. Not only do hospitals “track 

and manage medical devices, wheelchairs, and surgical 

equipment,” but they also monitor patients.48 A US healthcare provider has introduced infant ID tags that alert hospital staff when a tag is tampered with or lock doors when 

the ID tag is approaching an exit.49 In addition, some medications are tagged to ensure the right patient receives the 

right dose at the right time.50 In areas such as drug dosage, 

laboratory samples, or patient wristbands, health-care providers are seeing solid improvements in safety, cost, and 

process efficiency using AIT.

Layering AIT. AIT is a family of technologies, of which 

RFID is one. Because of the economic realities of business, 
10

a layering of technologies has proven feasible. The sunk 

cost of legacy systems combined with the redundancy of 

technologies helps mitigate risk and provides flexibility in 

infrastructure planning. As the promises of passive RFID 

gained ground in the late 1990s, the bar code gave way to 

the electronic product code (EPC), an electronic bar code that 

uniquely identifies an object, even differentiating between 

like objects by using an extra set of numbers.51 In 2003 the 

DOD mandated the use of item unique identification (IUID), 

for which the EPC was well suited. The purpose of IUID was 

to “distinguish one item from another,” even identical part 

numbers, so the DOD could “achieve total asset visibility, 

improved item management, and clean financial audits for 

DOD property.”52 The IUID and EPC combination made an 

item globally unique, enabling it to be tracked in “operation, 

maintenance, storage, and finally disposal.”53 IUID 2-D 

markings, EPC labels, integrated sensors, and the bar code 

are examples of other technologies commonly put on products in addition to RFID tags. In fact, the DOD has mandated that the “linear bar codes will remain as a recommended backup baseline AIT” for all items.54

Packaging for distribution is a science with standardized 

practices to follow. Figure 1 illustrates the standardized 

consolidation layers the DOD employs. Different AIT media 

are used at each layer, and one can see that shipments can 

become complex when the stakeholders in the process 

have different infrastructure or capabilities to support the 

AIT media. One current example is the shipment of mineresistant, ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles to Afghanistan. Due to the MRAP size and value, active RFID tags are 

strapped to the vehicle’s bumper. As the ship or aircraft 

conveys the vehicle, the active tags work with GPS satellites 

and interrogators at all ports to track the shipment until 

the final destination. The layering of active tags, interrogators, and satellite networks provides the in-transit visibility 

for the MRAP shipment.

Standards. Before 2000, privacy activists had many concerns about standardization; however, the start-up of EPCglobal and Walmart’s 2003 decision to use RFID tags helped 

cement the robust standards still in place today. RFID follows 

several standards, including the International Organization 

for Standardization (ISO), International Electrotechnical 
11

Commission (IEC), EPCglobal, and European Telecommunications Standard Institute (ETSI).55 Standard frequency 

ranges for RFID include low frequency (LF), high frequency 

(HF), UHF, and microwave frequency, with RFID readers 

supporting UHF and microwave frequencies in recent years.56

For the DOD, USTRANSCOM is the lead agent responsible for RFID and AIT standards, security, and technical 

matters. Additionally, USTRANSCOM participates in DOD, 

commercial, national, and international standards committees and forums.57 In the DOD, “application of the various 

AIT technologies shall be based to the maximum extent 

practicable on consensus based commercial standards” as 

dictated by public law.58 In other words, the DOD follows 

commercial investments in standards to cut costs and facilitate interoperability with commercial systems.59

Current Limitations and Shortfalls

Current AIT capabilities have some limitations and shortfalls requiring thought, further research, or investment. 

This section summarizes some broad categories of limitaFigure 1. Consolidation Layering. (Reprinted from USTRANSCOM, DOD 

Automatic Identification Technology Concept of Operations for Supply 

and Distribution Operations, 11 June 2007, 3-10.)
12

tions and shortfalls and raises issues that need further exploration. The following limitations are discussed:

•	 Expectation versus reality

•	 Form factor

•	 Readers or interrogators

•	 Data management and security

•	 Interoperability

•	 Cost

Expectations versus Reality. The single biggest limitation of RFID is not with the technology itself but with users’ 

expectations. The hype over Walmart’s 2003 implementation has given way to disillusionment over how to use RFID 

technology and the data it provides. In fact, experts currently place RFID in the “trough of disillusionment” or 

“slightly up the slope of enlightenment” on the hype cycle.60

One expectation is that RFID will supersede the bar code. 

Government and industry have approached RFID as a bar 

code replacement system and consider it better than the bar 

code.61 However, the bar code has many advantages: bar 

code reading is a line-of-sight operation; it requires no power 

source; one bar code is read at a time; the bar code is less 

expensive than RFID; it can be used around water and 

metal; and it can be preprinted.62 The myth is that every 

process will benefit from RFID, when, in fact, the bar code 

or some other method might be sufficient. An expert has 

suggested that “80 percent of a process must use some type 

of AIT media to make the investment even worthwhile.”63

Unless the technology enables the process, the process details—not necessarily the technology—are critical.

The second expectation is that item-level visibility is better than pallet-level visibility. Some say the “slap and ship” 

approach to individual items enhances the process, while 

others say the pallet-level tags limit visibility in the supply 

chain. Given an apples-to-apples comparison, this may be 

true, but consider this example: Federal Express, one of the 

world’s logistical leaders, does not use RFID tagging because it slows down operations.64 The time it takes to put a 

tag on a package and read the package on high-speed con-
13

veyors suboptimizes the process. The lesson for the DOD is 

that not every process may benefit from RFID applications.

Form Factor. Form factor refers to the technology’s size, 

packaging, durability, data capacity, and attaching or affixing methods.65 Currently both active and passive tags must 

get smaller, since many processes demand that small items 

be tagged to provide the item-level visibility needed. However, how small is too small? Antenna technology is limited 

by physics, circuit technology by manufacturing, and data 

capacity by size; packaging may dictate orienting a tag on 

top of the item. These factors will affect tag size. Additionally, tag power is a critical feature affecting size and performance. Passive tags have no battery, but “the life of an active tag is directly related to battery life.”66 Therefore, 

durability is an issue when choosing whether to include a 

battery. Another performance tradeoff is between the attaching or affixing method. Will the tag be reusable? Will 

the tag be imbedded in the item? Will layering of AIT still be 

required? Will the tag be durable enough to withstand 

harsh conditions? Can the tag be attached to cardboard, 

wood, plastic, or metal?67 These are all complex questions 

whose answers limit RFID tag capabilities.

Readers and Interrogators. Not only are the RFID tags 

affected by their environment, but readers and interrogators have similar limitations. Primarily, the read range of 

current interrogators is constrained. Bar codes require line 

of sight, passive tags readable at 10 to 20 feet, and active 

tags readable up to 300 feet away.68 Read ranges, in turn, 

affect mobility and quantities of the reader infrastructure. 

These performance requirements severely limit the footprint and layout of distribution centers or portals. While 

handheld readers provide some mobility, other characteristics such as size, ergonomics, power, and connectivity to 

back-end databases also affect performance.

Another common complaint about RFID readers involves 

their less-than-perfect read rates. Not all tags that pass 

within range of the interrogators are read. It is well documented that RF signals do not perform well around liquids 

and metals.69 Attenuation and RF interference play a significant role in degrading a reader’s performance. Additionally, signal frequency, signal power, packaging, and physical 

obstructions also affect the read rates. In fact, one recent 
14

study of palletized consumer products found that readability 

was most dependent on forklift speed through the reader 

portals.70 Overall, RFID readability rates have not reached 

full potential because of several complex technical limitations.

Data Management and Security. When industry and 

government organizations implement RFID, a common question is, how do we use the data captured? Data management is a big hurdle—data can be difficult to understand, 

manipulate, and consolidate. However, the data must be 

usable. In many cases, filtering data may be necessary because of missing reads, multiple reads, layout problems, 

or hardware malfunctions.71 Also, the decision software, 

network capacity, and network architecture need “to handle 

vast quantities of data generated by RFID.”72 Upfront planning is needed to manage this volume of data flow.

Data security is another contentious RFID issue. 

Sparked mainly by consumer privacy advocates, fear has 

spread that proliferation of RFID tags on consumer products will threaten civil liberties.73 In business applications, 

corporate espionage is a sizable risk because of the unsecure wireless data sent between the tag and reader.74

Currently, commercial EPC tags “do not offer access controls for reading the EPC, only for write-protecting data on 

the tag.”75 This is an information assurance risk for the 

DOD as well, since many active tags store data and are 

susceptible to adversary intelligence collection. Overall, 

the shortfalls in data security could reduce competitive 

advantages in business sectors and put personnel or 

equipment at risk in future DOD ventures.

Interoperability. With the many commercial, national, 

and international standards in place for RFID, operating 

global supply systems has become a challenge. Interoperability between RFID hardware and various information technology systems requires robust middleware that is 

not yet mature.76 Many organizations operate enterprise resource systems that compile and store all back-end data, 

but this data migration is costly. To complicate matters, 

implementation with legacy systems in any organization is 

also IT intensive. Additionally, most RFID devices work in 

certain frequency ranges (for example, UHF for most supply 

chain applications), but international infrastructure may 

operate on different frequency bands. As a result, organiza-
15

tions (the DOD especially) may have limited visibility in certain locations due to incompatibilities. These risks require 

strong mitigation plans and in-house experts to consider 

viable alternatives.

Cost. Cost is a prohibitive factor for many organizations seeking to implement RFID systems. Infrastructure 

alone creates the largest bill (readers, software, computers, and data storage), but the unit cost can be sizable 

too. Current bar codes cost pennies compared to passive 

tags costing 20 cents to $5 and active tags costing $70 to 

$100, depending on capability.77 One recent study found 

that USAF base-level supply should remain with current 

bar-code technology because of the investment cost-benefit 

and reduced risk.78 In particular, bar-code technology is 

a fielded technology, has less risk for read errors, has 

user confidence, and is capable of handling the process 

volume.79 Interestingly, volume was the most significant 

variable in the base supply and distribution process examined.80 Additionally, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report in 2006 highlighted that the “DOD’s 

current RFID policy does not require active tags to be 

returned or reused even though these tags are designed 

for repeated reuse.”81 With the DOD having purchased 

over 1.1 million active tags by 2006 at an average unit 

price of $100, the report urged more efficient management of active tags and mandatory reuse to potentially 

save millions of dollars in active tag purchases.82 As one 

can see, economic considerations drive many RFID implementation decisions and will keep some potential users 

out of the market until costs decrease.

Future State of RFID

As Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, “In preparing for 

battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”83 While many people discount the 

accuracy of forecasting and futures research, the real value 

is in the process of future forecasting. Future forecasting is 

not magic, but rather understanding the strategic environment and trends and applying the rigor of common sense.
16

Future Trends

It is important to keep in mind that the DOD logistics 

system must maintain a strategic advantage to win the nation’s wars. To do so, DOD leaders must understand the 

future strategic operating environment. To characterize 

this operating environment, I have identified the following 

future trend categories as most relevant to AIT:

•	 Political, social, and economic environment

•	 Future warfare

•	 Computing

•	 Power

•	 Sensors

•	 Wireless networks

Political, Social, and Economic Environment. While 

the United States is expected to be a dominant power, differences between developed and undeveloped countries will 

narrow by 2025, with nonstate actors increasing in 

strength.84 Economic growth is expected to boom in Brazil, 

Russia, India, and China (BRIC) over the next 20 years with 

the shift of “manufacturing and service industries to Asia.”85

As the global population increases, the “demand for food 

will rise by 50 percent by 2030,”86 and “energy scarcity will 

drive countries to take actions to assure their future access 

to energy supplies.”87

This scarcity will increase threats to US interests and 

strain energy resources as well as economic and diplomatic 

relations with global partners. While the United States will 

continue to grow economically, limited resources will force 

companies to push efficiency, improve processes, reduce 

labor costs, and seek automation. The trend toward complexity will continue to the point that no major global event 

is isolated in a globalized economy.

Future Warfare. What will warfare be like in the next 25 

years? Irregular warfare will be the order of the day, but the 

United States must be able to fight a major conventional 

confrontation with a near-peer adversary. As the military 

intervenes in humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping, stability and reconstruction, or counterinsurgency operations, 
17

its ability to mobilize forces and project power around the 

globe will be critical. The United States will continue to fight 

wars with approaches similar to those it has used in the 

past: favoring casualty-sensitive, technology-oriented, expanded battlefields (to control the tempo, size, and depth) 

and desiring short-duration conflicts.88 The demands for 

accuracy, speed, and versatility in future warfare dictate 

close coordination and interoperability with US government 

agencies, commercial industry, coalition partners, and 

nongovernmental organizations.89 Nonlinear operations in 

a highly networked battlespace will be the norm as simultaneous movement along multiple lines of operation will be 

required. Sustaining trained and equipped forces will also 

be complex as there may be limited access to sea or aerial 

ports in contested environments or difficult terrain.

Computing. Many futurists, strategists, and policy makers predict large commercial investment in micro- and 

nanotechnologies with benefits of increased information 

throughput, reduced size, reduced weight, and robust materials that will enable AIT. With this form-factor reduction, 

mobile communication devices will have an ever-increasing 

computing power. In fact, “digital electronics with increased 

density (~ 128X) is projected by the integrated circuit industry over the next 15 years.”90 As the integrated circuit 

density increases, trends toward new structures (dual-gate 

and depleted, silicon-on-insulator integrated circuits), effective power management, and increased computational 

power will continue.91

Data memory has also benefited from micro- and nanotechnologies, with a “62.5-fold increase in data-storage capacity” since 1998.92 Active research in carbon nanotubeenabled memory, phase-change memory, magneto-resistive 

random-access memory, and ferro-electric random-access 

memory has shown potential to provide larger capacity, reduce manufacturing costs, maintain nonvolatility, and reduce power consumption.93

Power. According to RAND, “Batteries and power-storage 

devices . . . have the greatest potential to influence future 

growth of mobile-computing devices.”94 The advances in 

nanostructured material research continue to fuel the potential for these devices as researchers seek “to increase 

the capability and computational power . . . while minimiz-
18

ing the power they consume.”95 Thin-film batteries hold 

great promise over conventional batteries because of the 

composition of solid-state materials, wide operating temperatures, longer shelf life, producible form factors, and 

fixed cost per area.96 These thin-film batteries are ideally 

suited for “embedded power on printed circuit boards . . . 

smart cards, and smaller active-RFID tags.”97 Additionally, 

research with carbon nanotubes has shown that electrodes 

with more surface area have a greater charge capacity.98

This makes ultracapacitors a possible choice for mobile devices because of their resistance to shock and temperature.99 Other energy-harvesting technologies to harness the 

energy of sunlight or mechanical vibration are mature; 

however, the harvested energy must still be stored.100

Sensors. Integrating advanced monitoring and sensing 

devices is also an emerging AIT capability. Specifically, wireless sensor nodes (“motes”) and microelectromechanical 

systems (MEMS) show great promise “to revolutionize lowcost, low-power sensing.”101 The goal is “to enable networked 

surveillance” by “improving the security and efficiency of 

supply chains.”102 These sensors provide the ability to 

detect movement, acceleration, pressure, biological substances, chemicals, fluid flow, and audio.103 For the DOD, 

the interest lies in monitoring “condition and health indicators of operating systems to warn of conditions such as 

equipment failures, needed maintenance, or breaches to 

security.”104 So “fundamental changes in sensing architectures” will be needed for the integration of “multi-spectral, 

multifunctional sensors.”105

Wireless Networks. The growth of mobile devices has 

skyrocketed in the past few years with the help of cell phone 

technology. Some futurists predict that by “giving so many 

more people the tools and ability to connect, compete, and 

collaborate,” the technology will act as an “equalizing power” 

for societies.106 Technological progress depends on open 

communication, collaboration, and easy access or exchange 

of information. This trend will drive systemic and integrated 

hardware for communication networks linked by software.

Another key trend is the need and technical feasibility for 

longer-range wireless networks and ubiquitous computing 

for intelligent autonomous operations. In fact, a 2006 RAND 

study ranked RFID tagging and ubiquitous information ac-
19

cess in the “top 16” technology trend areas for 2020 with a 

strong market need and high technical feasibility.107 As 

RFID tags gain the capability to double as readers, a “mesh 

network” is formed with the ability to sense the surrounding environment. These connected nodes provide a continuous, redundant, and reliable network that can operate even 

when a node or connection breaks.108 As wireless networks 

expand, software will be required to control a mobile device’s range, power consumption, and data rate, in addition 

to operating and communicating using multiple frequencies and protocols.109 Interoperability will be crucial as AIT 

operates in a multisensory environment consisting of passive tags, active tags, UHF, LF, ultra wideband, Wi-Fi, and 

a “low-power wireless technology called Zibee.”110

Requirements Forecast for 2035

As the maxim says, “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” In other words, our first inclination 

is to look at future requirements through the lens of today’s 

technology. Though helpful initially, this approach blinds 

us to many possibilities and future courses of action. While 

recognizing that RFID is not the only AIT, this forecast has 

limited the courses of action by focusing on RFID. However, 

the observations and judgments gleaned from this research 

show RFID to be the most promising and widely flexible 

technology within the AIT technology family. This study 

seeks to avoid portraying RFID as a “plug and play” or “onesize-fits-all technology” for the future and instead focuses 

on its inherent capabilities.

As stated in the introduction, the purpose of this paper is 

to help the DOD navigate the advances of technologies and 

exploit the capabilities of logistics situational awareness to 

win the nation’s wars in the coming decades. The AIT requirements for 2035 are listed below.

•	 Identification: The DOD needs the ability to uniquely 

identify an item with a part number, serial number, 

manufacturing information, value, and maintenance 

history (similar to UID or EPC).111 It also must be able 

to move a single item through a supply chain and distinguish it from other items, even if part of a consolidated shipment.
20

•	 Location: The logistics system should be able to dynamically update the precise position information of 

any asset, in any location (fig. 2). This is especially 

important for “critical items that are in short supply.”112

•	 Condition Monitoring: The technology should allow 

trackers to monitor an asset “in the supply chain to detect 

a specific condition that would be adverse to the serviceability, functionality, safety, or security of the item.”113

•	 Connectivity: The DOD needs flexibility in connecting 

continually to wired, wireless, mesh, or ad hoc networks to enable synchronized, reliable data delivery.

•	 Interoperable Architectures: The AIT media, readers, 

and IT infrastructure must be able to operate on multiple networks and frequencies in austere locations. 

This architectural framework must be capable of managing a sensor-based logistics system with coalition, 

commercial, and government agencies. This includes 

command and control data architecture interoperable 

with commercial or coalition standards and physical 

architectures that are mobile and deployable.

Figure 2. Three Dimensions of Asset Visibility. (Reprinted from USTRANSCOM, DOD Automatic Identification Technology Concept of Operations for Supply and Distribution Operations, 11 June 2007, 4-11.)

IUID

(Item Unique Identification)

ID technologies

Bar codes, 2D symbols

ECM

(Environmental and Condition

Monitoring)

Sensor technologies

MEMS, remote semsor networks)

RF-ITV

(Radio Frequency –

In-transit viability)

RF technologies

Active and passive tags,

satellite and cellular

communications

Asset

Visibility

Identity

Condition Location

AIT
21

•	 Software: The architectural framework demands 

user-friendly software that seamlessly links legacy 

systems and a sensor-based system. The goal of the 

software is to enhance visibility across an enterprise, 

which necessitates collecting, integrating, storing, and 

analyzing data to enable better decisions.114

•	 Dynamic Routing: A combination of AIT should facilitate tracking, evaluating, and redirecting shipments in 

real time using a combination of AIT. Using the information of a networked battlespace, the DOD must move 

and track assets with accuracy and enough flexibility 

to adapt to the fog and friction of war.

•	 Security: The DOD needs to move assets and pass 

information without threat of loss, theft, interference, 

or monitoring. Security requirements include “access 

control, data encryption, message authentication, key 

exchange, and certification of trust.”115

•	 Reliability and Survivability: Maintenance-free devices 

must provide reliable read rates while withstanding harsh 

operating conditions and surviving those operating conditions throughout the life cycle. Devices must be able to 

transition quickly from powered state to unpowered state 

or power harvest to minimize power consumption.116

RFID Challenges for 2035

Gen George C. Casey once said, “Somewhere on the far 

end of the supply and distribution chain is a customer who 

needs something . . . amplified by distance and time. Our 

job is to respond and deliver.”117 So what are the capability 

gaps and risks in delivering these AIT capabilities for the 

future? Using the 2035 requirements forecast as a future 

state, the following challenges and hurdles must be overcome for full implementation of the 2035 vision.

•	 Implementation Challenges: The focus should be on 

processes and not just implementing AIT across the 

board. There is a risk of suboptimizing a process by using AIT to enable efficiencies in one area but creating 

bottlenecks in the overall process.118 AIT should be a 

process enabler “linked to a valid business approach.”119
22

In a resource-constrained environment, the high infrastructure cost of AIT must demonstrate an investment return.

•	 Operating Environment: The DOD must possess the 

ability to provide global logistics support for widely dispersed operations while retaining the ability to determine 

the time, tempo, and terms of the conflict or operation.

•	 Expeditionary Capability: Likely deployment locations 

will not have the IT infrastructure to support RFID. Deployable infrastructure and mobile readers are needed to 

establish mobile port-opening capability packages with 

the necessary command and control functions.

•	 Transportation Infrastructure Dependencies: The 

DOD must manage the complex interaction among capacity, demand, and reliability to assure on-time delivery. The transportation system must adapt to constraints 

in various ways, including shifting modes, shifting demands in time and space, moving manufacture points, 

choosing alternative points of entry, and changing 

prices.120 The reliance on commercial transportation 

networks and international ports increases the risk of 

timely access to the global lines of communication.

•	 Information Assurance: If AIT sensors are all over 

the world gathering and transmitting information, the 

DOD may face problems with customer profiling, manipulation of data by adversaries, and theft of intellectual property. In addition, the reliance on IT creates 

increasing DOD vulnerabilities, which produce asymmetric avenues of approach for adversaries that must 

be secured. Capturing, securing, and accessing the 

data are the main concerns. In some cases, keeping 

data on an active tag is necessary. In other cases, data 

could be stored in a secure database and referenced 

with a license plate scan. Data encryption will not be 

enough if interoperability is a key performance attribute. Some may say, “To have more security we have 

to give up some privacy.”121 AIT benefits are great in a 

networked environment; however, experts suggest a 

cautious approach to ensure that data security and 

privacy violations are open for public debate.
23

•	 Data Capture: In a multisensory environment, bandwidth and frequency spectrum deconfliction will be 

paramount. Multipath propagation effects, jamming, 

and data latency will affect data delivery and must be 

minimized.122 Additionally, more research is needed 

for AIT read rates and errors around water, metal, or 

glass. The most severe limitation of RFID is the read 

ranges possible. Right now, AIT capabilities are layered (for example, passive tags, linked to active readers, linked to satellite communications) to account 

for this limitation; however, integration and expense 

remain high.

•	 Data Integration: As mentioned previously, RFID 

systems generate huge volumes of data. The future 

wireless multisensor network will require “making 

the sensor data available and finding an optimal way 

to store those data so they can be available for other 

services and applications.”123 This is further complicated by interoperability requirements with coalition, 

commercial, and other US government agencies for 

ongoing irregular warfare operations, which require a 

shift to security cooperation and whole-of-government 

approaches for stability, reconstruction, and transition operations. Each service has legacy stovepipe 

systems with fragmented data that other systems 

may need. The challenge is in integrating the DOD 

supply chain enterprise and providing the stored data 

to the customer in need. Most importantly, what system or portal helps commanders manage the deployed inventory and reach back to the enterprise 

resource-system data?

•	 Software: The architectural framework to fuse legacy 

systems and new enterprise resource systems is very 

software and middleware intensive. After the data is 

captured, using and analyzing all the data becomes a 

complex software issue as well. Artificial intelligence 

systems will have to enable the decision-making software to recognize patterns or cue the decision maker. 

Additionally, CAC network access for handheld readers and tag read/write IT systems will require software patches.
24

•	 Item-Level versus Container-Level Visibility: Tracking shipping containers has limitations, since users 

remain blind to what is inside the container. The DOD 

will need the ability to update changes to containers 

and track those items accurately. Odin Technologies 

demonstrated a “SMART container” in 2009 that uses 

“passive RFID readers to interrogate tagged items 

within a container” and then pass the information to 

an active tag or satellite communications.124 This is 

only a small step in the right direction.

•	 Design Challenges: Form factors are limited by the 

physics of antenna design, power sources, sensing capabilities, data storage capabilities, and manufacturing capabilities for mass production. In addition, the 

power source limits the ability to sense the environment for extended periods and is a factor in reuse capabilities. Further, certification of items operating in 

an RF environment (munitions and nuclear material) 

and items with embedded RFID tags proves challenging. To complicate matters, these performance characteristics affect the durability and reliability of devices 

over a life cycle, which undermines requirements for 

maintenance-free and reusable devices.

Conclusions

While the challenges are daunting, the benefits of RFID 

make it worthy of further investigation and investment to 

provide in-transit visibility for the DOD’s logistics system. 

While RFID is not the panacea technology for the future, a 

noteworthy attribute is the flexibility to enhance processes 

in a myriad of environments. RFID will continue to have a 

disruptive effect on outdated business processes.

As Staff Sergeant Briscoe inspected the HC-130’s #3 engine truss mount bolt, he noticed something was not right. 

The aircrew had reported weird vibrations during today’s 

mission, and the troubleshooting tree pinpointed this area. 

Black soot hid the cracked bolt head, but not many aircraft 

discrepancies could get by this keen-eyed dedicated crew 
25

chief. As a part of the 71st Expeditionary Rescue Squadron 

(ERS), Sergeant Briscoe had adjusted to the sweltering heat 

and stink of Djibouti. The Horn of Africa was an austere location where progress was being made to oust terrorists trying 

to find sanctuary in weakly governed African nations. The 

71st ERS was there to help. As the sun beat down at 1430 

local time, Sergeant Briscoe walked over to his toolbox, 

scanned his ID card over the reader on the side of toolbox, 

and then picked up his torque wrench with attachments. He 

really liked the new RFID-tagged tools and the efficiency of 

the new tool accountability system. With his laptop, he referenced the necessary technical orders, filled out the electronic 

aircraft forms, and removed the bolt. The process was seamless and quick; however, Sergeant Briscoe laughed at how 

the maintenance actions now took longer than the paperwork. As he inspected the bolt, Sergeant Briscoe found the 

2-D UID on the bolt and scanned it using the laptop’s reader. 

The UID information combined with the laptop’s access to the 

Global Supply Enterprise Network (GSEN) allowed Sergeant 

Briscoe to order parts direct from the flight line. As usual, the 

bolt was not available on base; however, 13 truss mount 

bolts were available at the supply warehouse in Ramstein AB. 

Master Sergeant Perry, the production superintendent, came 

to the aircraft to discuss the situation and verify that the part 

needed to be ordered as a mission capable (MICAP) request. 

Sergeant Perry scanned his ID card to verify the MICAP. In 20 

seconds, the GSEN provided the optimized solution. The bolt 

would arrive at 2320 tonight on the C-17 rotator. Sergeant 

Perry was pleased and selected the MICAP tracking feature 

to have auto-updates on the bolt sent directly to his laptop. 

He could now track the bolt from Ramstein AB to Djibouti. 

The currently broken aircraft would make tomorrow’s scheduled humanitarian mission to Sudan, and there would be 

enough time to reconfigure the aircraft before the bolt arrived. 

Sergeant Briscoe finished the electronic forms, scanned his 

tools for turn-in, briefed the oncoming shift crew chief, and 

headed to the dining facility. It had been a busy but productive day in the world of aircraft maintenance.

The scanable ID cards, the toolbox auto-checkout, handheld readers to scan old parts, the wireless laptop to view 
26

real-time supply levels, the time-definite delivery solution, 

and the in-transit tracking of the MICAP part are all enabled by RFID technology. While the maintenance scenario 

described above is not possible today, the technology for 

streamlining logistics using networked RFID tags holds 

great promise. Coupled with the positive trends in enabling 

technologies, RFID will reshape logistics and facilitate realtime decisions because of complete DOD asset visibility.

Recommendations for an AIT 

Implementation Road Map

While USTRANSCOM has an established road map and 

implementation plan in its 2007 concept of operations, the 

following inputs should be added to the plan in light of the 

research provided in this essay. The DOD should

1. Invest heavily in frequency agile architectures (LF, 

HF, UHF, very high frequency [VH], etc.) and network architectures (Wi-Fi, Zigbee, ultra-wide band, 

mesh, ad hoc, cloud computing, etc.) to capture 

data in a multisensor environment.

2. Develop balanced research strategies to invest in 

software, software architectures, and middleware 

that exploit the data available from AIT, enable interoperability with legacy systems, and provide business intelligence for decision making.

3. Move decisively to develop a deployable command 

and control architecture and infrastructure that facilitate real-time decision making.

4. Ensure that information assurance requirements are 

compliant at all levels of the supply chain with continued exploitation of encryption, anticounterfeiting, 

and secure transmission.

5. Evaluate the costs and benefits of RFID implementation according to each unique business process to prevent a cookie-cutter implementation across the DOD.

6. Continue investigating and monitoring microsensor 

and satellite linkages to extend the range and functionality of AIT media.
27

7. Seek opportunities to develop a prototype and integrate new MEMS technology in RFID tags and mobile reader applications.

8. Invest in item-level versus pallet-level visibility where 

the business process demonstrates a return on investment (e.g., the SMART container).

9. Collaborate with and provide incentives to commercial logistics organizations to implement AIT infrastructure and ensure that each transportation mode 

is capable of item-level visibility.

10. Monitor the commercial progress of embedded RFID 

tags within items and selectively invest research 

and development resources in those that have direct application to the supply chain.

Research Results

Someone once said, “No matter how much you push 

the envelope, it’ll still be stationary.” Advances in AIT 

have grabbed the attention of scientists, researchers, futurists, governmental officials, the military, and the public. Technology applications have flourished in health 

care, global logistics, manufacturing, nuclear material 

accountability, maintenance tool accountability, and intelligence tracking for humans or equipment. Furthermore, AIT and RFID hold great promise for streamlined 

supply chains, efficient inventory operations, and situational awareness of assets anywhere.

While micro- and nanotechnologies promise intriguing 

future capabilities for AIT, technology management and 

system integration will dictate what is possible over the 

next two decades. A recent GAO report highlights the imperative for logistics: “Lack of visibility over inventory and 

equipment shipments increases vulnerability to undetected 

loss or theft and substantially heightens the risk that millions of dollars will be spent unnecessarily.”125 More importantly, an inefficient DOD distribution system will not get 

critical supplies to combat forces and will impede combat 

readiness. Now and in the future, it is imperative to sustain 

forces with the right stuff, delivered to the right place, at 
28

exactly the right time. Such an imperative is enabled by a 

logistics system trusted by the customer that saves money, 

improves performance, and ultimately saves lives. Therefore, the DOD must continue to invest wisely in AIT areas 

by methodically addressing the infrastructure, hardware, 

and software capability gaps to exploit the capabilities of 

logistics situational awareness in the coming decades. In 

the networked battlespace of 2035, the United States must 

have the ability to provide end-to-end visibility throughout 

the DOD supply chain and enable commanders to make 

real-time decisions. AIT, specifically RFID, will be the lynchpin of DOD operations to ensure US forces can rapidly mobilize, deploy, sustain, and redeploy in support of national 

security objectives.

Notes

(All notes appear in shortened form. For full details, see the appropriate 

entry in the bibliography.)

1. Attaran, “Keeping the Promise of Efficiency,” 47.

2. USTRANSCOM, DOD Automatic Identification Technology Concept of 

Operations, 1-1.

3. Ibid.

4. USTRANSCOM website, “AIT.”

5. Ibid.

6. USTRANSCOM, DOD Automatic Identification Technology Concept of 

Operations, 1-1.

7. Landt, Shrouds of Time, 3.

8. Ibid., 3–4.

9. Cook, Lanzisera, and Pister, “SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust,” 1179.

10. Delen, Hardgrave, and Sharda, “RFID for Better Supply-Chain 

Management,” 615.

11. Landt, Shrouds of Time, 5.

12. Cook, Lanzisera, and Pister, “SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust,” 1179.

13. Bill C. Hardgrave (executive director, Information Technology Research Institute/RFID Research Center, University of Arkansas), interview 

by the author, 24 February and 10 March 2010.

14. US Army AIT website, “Frequently Asked Questions.”

15. Delen, Hardgrave, and Sharda, “RFID for Better Supply-Chain 

Management,” 615.

16. USTRANSCOM website, “AIT.”

17. Ibid.

18. US Army AIT website, “FAQs.”

19. Jeppsson, “Emerging Technologies,” 58.

20. National Research Council, Implications of Emerging Micro- and 

Nanotechnologies, 4.

21. US Army AIT website, “FAQs.”
29

22. Niederman et al., “Examining RFID Applications,” 98.

23. Blanchard, “Five Stages of RFID,” 51.

24. Attaran, “Keeping the Promise of Efficiency,” 46.

25. Delen, Hardgrave, and Sharda, “RFID for Better Supply-Chain 

Management,” 613; and Blanchard, “Five Stages of RFID,” 51.

26. Delen, Hardgrave, and Sharda, “RFID for Better Supply-Chain 

Management,” 615.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid., 613.

29. Walmart, “New CIO Confirms Wal-Mart Commitment to RFID.”

30. Garamone, “Logisticians Ready for Afghan Transportation Task.”

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid.

33. Delen, Hardgrave, and Sharda, “RFID for Better Supply-Chain 

Management,” 614.

34. USTRANSCOM, DOD Automatic Identification Technology Concept 

of Operations, 4-10–4-11.

35. Delen, Hardgrave, and Sharda, “RFID for Better Supply-Chain 

Management,” 615, table 1.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid.

38. Reaz et al., “RFID Reader Architectures,” 26; and Landt, Shrouds of 

Time, 5.

39. US DOD, “Fact Sheet to Support SECDEF.”

40. Reboulet, “AIT Project Management Office [PMO] Update.”

41. Ibid.

42. Ward, “Up, Up, and Away.”

43. Ibid.

44. Ibid.

45. Mark Reboulet (AF AIT Program Manager, HQ AFMC/403 SCMS/

GUEA) with Chad Pfoutz and Peter Ramirez, interview by author, 12 March 

2010.

46. Ibid.

47. Delen, Hardgrave, and Sharda, “RFID for Better Supply-Chain 

Management,” 621.

48. Attaran, “Keeping the Promise of Efficiency,” 48.

49. Ibid., 49.

50. Ibid., 48.

51. Delen, Hardgrave, and Sharda, “RFID for Better Supply-Chain 

Management,” 616.

52. Tillotson, Unique Identification (UID) Depot, 2.

53. Ibid.

54. USTRANSCOM, DOD Automatic Identification Technology Concept 

of Operations, 5-20.

55. Reaz et al., “RFID Reader Architectures,” 24.

56. Ibid.

57. USTRANSCOM website, “AIT.”

58. USTRANSCOM, DOD Automatic Identification Technology Concept 

of Operations, 4-9–4-10.

59. Ibid., 4-10.
30

60. Hardgrave, interview; and Reboulet, “AIT PMO PIC AIDC Update.”

61. Ibid.

62. Delen, Hardgrave, and Sharda, “RFID for Better Supply-Chain 

Management,” 615, Table 1.

63. Reboulet, “AIT PMO PIC AIDC Update.”

64. Ibid.

65. USTRANSCOM, DOD Automatic Identification Technology Concept 

of Operations, 4-8.

66. Rawal, “RFID,” 62.

67. USTRANSCOM, DOD Automatic Identification Technology Concept 

of Operations, 4-8.

68. Ibid., 4-3.

69. Delen, Hardgrave, and Sharda, “RFID for Better Supply-Chain 

Management,” 615, table 1.

70. Singh et al., “RFID Tag Readability Issues,” 440.

71. Delen, Hardgrave, and Sharda, “RFID for Better Supply-Chain 

Management,” 623.

72. Niederman et al., “Examining RFID Applications,” 98.

73. Attaran, “Keeping the Promise of Efficiency,” 47.

74. Santosh and Smith, “RFID in the Supply Chain,” 127.

75. Fabian and Günther, “Security Challenges of the EPCglobal Network,” 122.

76. Attaran, “Keeping the Promise of Efficiency,” 47.

77. USTRANSCOM, DOD Automatic Identification Technology Concept 

of Operations, 4-3.

78. Booz Allen Hamilton, Air Force Base-Level Supply, 66.

79. Ibid.

80. Ibid.

81. GAO, Defense Logistics, 2.

82. Ibid., 4.

83. Quoted by Nixon, Six Crises, 235. 

84. National Intelligence Council, Global Trends 2025, vi.

85. Ibid.

86. Ibid., viii.

87. Ibid., x.

88. Zinni, Battle for Peace, 94.

89. Casey, address.

90. National Research Council, Implications of Emerging Micro- and 

Nanotechnologies, 16.

91. Silberglitt and Wong, Global Technology Revolution China, 76–77.

92. Ibid., 70.

93. Ibid., 71–72.

94. Ibid., 73.

95. Ibid., 76.

96. Ibid., 73.

97. Ibid., 74.

98. Ibid.

99. Ibid.

100. Cook, Lanzisera, and Pister, “SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust,” 

1184–85.
31

101. Ibid., 1177.

102. Silberglitt and Wong, Global Technology Revolution China, 75.

103. Ibid.; and Cook, Lanzisera, and Pister, “SoC Issues for RF Smart 

Dust,” 1183.

104. USTRANSCOM, DOD Automatic Identification Technology Concept 

of Operations, 4-6.

105. National Research Council, Implications of Emerging Micro- and 

Nanotechnologies, 16.

106. Friedman, World Is Flat, x.

107. Silberglitt et al., Global Technology Revolution 2020, xviii.

108. USTRANSCOM, DOD Automatic Identification Technology Concept 

of Operations, 4-4.

109. Silberglitt and Wong, Global Technology Revolution China, 77.

110. ZigBee Alliance, “Awarepoint with ZigBee”; and Hardgrave, interview.

111. Tillotson, UID Depot Implementation Study, 2.

112. USTRANSCOM, DOD Automatic Identification Technology Concept 

of Operations, 4-13.

113. Ibid., 4-12.

114. Hardgrave, Information Technology Research Institute, 29.

115. Cook, Lanzisera, and Pister, “SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust,” 1182.

116. Ibid., 1181.

117. Casey, address.

118. Hardgrave, interview.

119. McCoy, address.

120. Moore, address.

121. Williams, “Technology and the Future of Warfare,” 2.

122. Cook, Lanzisera, and Pister, “SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust,” 

1180–81.

123. Silberglitt and Wong, Global Technology Revolution China, 75.

124. Odin Technologies, “Government RFID Contracts.”

125. GAO, Defense Logistics, 1.

33

Appendix 

Radio Frequency 

Identification Applications*

•	 ISO container tracking

•	 Vehicle tracking

•	 Fleet management

•	 Deployment support

•	 Air pallet tracking and accountability

•	 Repair parts tracking

•	 Warehouse management and inventory

•	 Manufacturing production control

•	 Sensitive items inventory/issue

•	 Reusable container tracking

•	 Ammunition tracking, receipt, and inventory

•	 Supply chain management

•	 Cargo security

•	 Cargo classification

•	 Reparable parts tracking and financial credit verification

•	 Personnel locating

•	 Personnel access control

•	 Baggage tracking

•	 Marathon runner tracking/timing

•	 Library book inventory/sign-out

•	 Retain antitheft

•	 Industrial clothing cleaning plant control

•	 Biometrics validation

•	 Materials handling equipment tracking

•	 Medical equipment locating

•	 Criminal tracking

•	 Livestock tracking

•	 Pharmaceutical accountability/safety

•	 Passports

•	 Credit cards

•	 Toll collection

*This list is based on US Army, “Frequently Asked Questions,” Army AIT Program

Office website, http://www.ait.army.mil/technology/faqs.html.

35

Abbreviations

AIT automatic identification technology

ALCM air-launched cruise missile

BCT brigade combat team

BRIC Brazil, Russia, India, and China

CAC common access card

DOD Department of Defense

EPC electronic product code

ERS expeditionary rescue squadron

ETSI European Telecommunications Standard 

Institute

GAO Government Accountability Office

GSEN Global Supply Enterprise Network

HF high frequency

IEC International Electrotechnical Commission

IFF identification, friend or foe

ISO International Organization for Standardization

IT information technology

IUID item unique identification

LF low frequency

MEMS microelectromechanical system

MICAP mission capable

MRAP mine-resistant, ambush-protected

PICS positive inventory control system

RF radio frequency

RFID radio frequency identification

UHF ultra-high frequency

UID unique item identification

USTRANSCOM United States Transportation Command

VH very high frequency

37

Bibliography

Adamson, Ian, Anteneh Ayanso, and Hemantha Herath. 

“Sharp Cost Data.” Industrial Management, November/

December 2008, 10–13.

Attaran, Mohsen. “Keeping the Promise of Efficiency.” Industrial Engineer 41, no. 3 (March 2009): 45–49.

Bainum, Maj Gregory C. “Battlefield RFID Super Tag Capability for the 21st Century.” Research Report. Maxwell 

AFB, AL: Air Command and Staff College, 2007.

Berube, David M. Nano-Hype: The Truth behind the Nanotechnology Buzz. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2006.

Bitko, Gordon. “RFID in the Retail Sector: A Methodology 

for Analysis of Policy Proposals and Their Implications 

for Privacy, Economic Efficiency and Security.” PhD 

diss., Pardee RAND Graduate School, October 2006.

Blanchard, David. “The Five Stages of RFID.” Industry Week

258, no. 1 (January 2009): 50–53.

———. “A New Generation of RFID.” Industry Week 258, no. 

2 (February 2009): 62.

Booz Allen Hamilton. Air Force Base-Level Supply and Distribution Processes Automatic Identification Technology 

Analysis of Alternatives. Dayton, OH: Air Force Automatic Identification Technology Program Management 

Office, June 2008.

Briefing. United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM). Subject: Automatic Identification Technology (AIT), 30 October 2007. http://www.transcom

.mil/ait/.

Burden, Col Pat, program manager, Joint Automatic Identification Technology. Address. Air Force AIT Warfighter 

Conference, St. Louis, MO, 24 March 2009.

Casey, Gen George C., chief of staff, US Army. Address. Air 

Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, AL, 9 

March 2010.

Chino, Koichi, Dinesh Manandhar, and Ryosuke Shibasaki. 

“GNSS plus RFID Seamless Tracking.” GPS World 20, 

no. 8 (August 2009): 30–34.

Chung, Christopher A., and Erick C. Jones. “Education in 

Modern Solutions.” Industrial Engineer 40, no. 8 (August 2008): 29–33.
38

Cook, Ben W., Steven Lanzisera, and Kristofer S. J. Pister. 

“SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust.” Proceedings of the 

IEEE 94, no. 6 (June 2006): 1177–96.

Delen, Dursun, Bill C. Hardgrave, and Ramesh Sharda. 

“RFID for Better Supply-Chain Management through 

Enhanced Information Visibility.” Production and Operations Management 16, no. 5 (September–October 

2007): 613–24.

Dragoman, Daniela, and Mircea Dragoman. “Tunneling 

Nanotube Radio.” Journal of Applied Physics 104, no. 

7 (October 2008): 074314 1-3.

EPCglobal. “GS1 EPCglobal Glossary,” 9 June 2009. http://

www.epcglobalinc.org.

Fabian, Benjamin, and Oliver Günther. “Security Challenges 

of the EPCglobal Network.” Communications of the 

ACM 52, no. 7 (July 2009): 121–25.

Friedman, Thomas. The World Is Flat, 3.0: A Brief History of 

the Twenty-First Century. New York: Picador, 2007.

Fuqua, Maj Donovan O. “Radio Frequency MicroElectromechanical System (RF-MEMS) Enabled Joint 

In-Transit Visibility (JTAV) and Logistics Optimization.” Research Report. Maxwell AFB, AL: Air Command and Staff College, 2008.

Garamone, Jim. “Logisticians Ready for Afghan Transportation Task.” Defense.gov, 9 December 2009. http://

www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=57040.

Goel, Rajni. “Managing RFID Consumer Privacy and Implementation Barriers.” Information Systems Security 16, 

no. 4 (2007): 217–23.

Goodman, Steve. “On Track.” Military Logistics Forum 3, no. 9 

(October 2009). http://www.military-logistics-forum

.com/mlf-archives/204-mlf-2009-volume-3-issue-9

/2038-on-track.html.

Government Accountability Office (GAO). Defense Logistics: 

More Efficient Use of Active RFID Tags Could Potentially 

Avoid Millions in Unnecessary Purchases. GAO-06-366R. 

Washington, DC: GAO, 8 March 2006.

Hall, J. Storrs. Nanofuture: What’s Next for Nanotechnology. 

Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2005.

Hardgrave, Bill C., ed. Information Technology Research Institute 2008–2009 Annual Report. Fayetteville, AK: 

University of Arkansas, August 2009.
39

Harrigan, Kevan, department head, United Kingdom National Codification Bureau. Address. Defence Logistics 

Europe 2008, Okura Hotel, Amsterdam, 10 July 2008. 

http://www.defenceiq.com/videoiframe.cfm?id=214&

content_title=Kevan%20Harrigan%20Discusses%20

Defence%20Logistics.

Jeppsson, Jessica. “Emerging Technologies: Innovative Tools 

of the Trade.” Industrial Engineer 40, no. 8 (August 

2008): 58–59.

Lai, Elaine M. “An Analysis of the Department of Defense Supply Chain: Potential Applications of the Auto-ID Center 

Technology to Improve Effectiveness.” Bachelor’s thesis, 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003.

Landt, Jeremy. Shrouds of Time: The History of RFID. Pittsburgh, PA: AIM, Inc., 1 October 2001. http://www

.transcore.com/pdf/AIM%20shrouds_of_time.pdf.

Legg, Gary. “ZigBee: Wireless Technology for Low-Power 

Sensor Networks.” CommsDesign, 6 May 2004. http://

www.commsdesign.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID

=192200323.

Lun, Y. H. Venus, Christina W. Y. Wong, Kee-Hung Lai, and 

T. C. E. Cheng. “Institutional Perspective on the Adoption of Technology for the Security Enhancement of 

Container Transport.” Transport Reviews 28, no. 1 

(January 2008): 21–33.

Magid, Julie Manning, Mohan V. Tatikonda, and Philip L. 

Cochran. “Radio Frequency Identification and Privacy 

Law: An Integrative Approach.” American Business 

Law Journal 46, no. 1 (March 2009): 1–54.

McCoy, Maj Gen Gary T., commander, Air Force Global Logistics Support Center. Address. Air Force AIT Warfighter Conference, St. Louis, MO, 24 March 2009.

Moore, Robert, deputy director of logistics and security, Assistance Directorate, United States European Command. Address. Defence Logistics Europe 2008, Okura 

Hotel, Amsterdam, 10 July 2008. http://www.defence

iq.com/videoiframe.cfm?id=212&content_title=New

%20and%20Existing%20Logistics%20Requirements.

National Intelligence Council. Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. Washington, DC: Department of National Intelligence, November 2008.
40

National Research Council. Implications of Emerging Microand Nanotechnologies. Report. Washington, DC: Air 

Force Science and Technology Board, 2002.

Neuby, Barbara L., and Elizabeth Rudin. “Radio Frequency 

Identification: A Panacea for Governments?” Public Organization Review 8, no. 4 (December 2008): 329–45.

Niederman, Fred, Richard G. Mathieu, Roger Morley, and 

Ik-Whan Kwon. “Examining RFID Applications in Supply Chain Management.” Communications of the ACM

50, no. 7 (July 2007): 93–101.

Nixon, Richard. “Kruschev.” In Six Crises. New York: Doubleday, 1962.

Odin Technologies, Inc. “Government RFID Contracts.” http://

www.odintechnologies.com/government-rfid-contracts.

Rawal, Amit. “RFID: The Next Generation Auto-ID Technology.” 

Microwave Journal, March 2009, 58–76.

Reaz, M. B. Í., J. Uddin, S. Hussain, A. N. Nordin, M. T. 

Tbraiiimy, and F. Moiid-Yasin. “RFID Reader Architectures and Applications.” Microwave Journal 52, no. 12 

(December 2009): 24–34.

Reboulet, Mark, Air Force AIT Program Manager. “AIT Project Management Office PIC AIDC Update.” Address. 

Air Force AIT Warfighter Conference, St. Louis, MO, 24 

March 2009.

Santosh, Brian L., and Lars S. Smith. “RFID in the Supply 

Chain: Panacea or Pandora’s Box?” Communications of 

the ACM 51, no. 10 (October 2008): 127–31.

Silberglitt, Richard, and Anny Wong. The Global Technology 

Revolution China, In-Depth Analyses: Emerging Technology Opportunities for the Tianjin Binhai New Area 

(TBNA) and the Tianjin Economic-Technological Development Area (TEDA). RAND Technical Report. Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND, 2009.

Silberglitt, Richard, Philip S. Antón, David R. Howell, and 

Anny Wong. The Global Technology Revolution 2020, 

In-Depth Analyses: Bio/Nano/Materials/Information 

Trends, Drivers, Barriers, and Social Implications. RAND 

Technical Paper. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2006.

Singh, Jay, Eric Olsen, Keith Vorst, and K. Tripp. “RFID Tag 

Readability Issues with Palletized Loads of Consumer 

Goods.” Packaging Technology and Science 22, no. 8 

(December 2008): 431–41.
41

Tillotson, F. W. Unique Identification (UID) Depot Implementation Study. Applied Research Laboratory. State College, PA: REPTECH, 20 December 2005.

United States Army. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Army 

AIT Program Office website. http://www.ait.army.mil

/technology/faqs.html.

United States Department of Defense. “Fact Sheet to Support SECDEF Summary Statement.” Office of the Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs). http://www.defense

.gov/DODCMSShare/briefingslide/332/080605-D

-6570C-001.jpg.

———. Logistics Automatic Identification Technology Concept 

of Operations. Washington, DC: Office of the Deputy 

Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics), November 1997.

———. United States Department of Defense Suppliers’ Passive RFID Information Guide Version 14.0. Washington, 

DC: Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

(Logistics and Materiel Readiness), September 2009.

United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM). 

“AIT.” Website. http://www.transcom.mil/ait/.

———. DOD Automatic Identification Technology Concept of 

Operations for Supply and Distribution Operations, 11 

June 2007.

———. DOD Automatic Identification Technology Implementation Plan for Supply and Distribution Operations, vol. 

1, March 2008.

USTRANSCOM Instruction 20–2. Tactics, Techniques, and 

Procedures for In-Transit Visibility (ITV), 17 March 2006.

van Oranje-Nassau, Constantijn, Helen Rebecca Schindler, 

and Maarten Botterman. Policy Options for Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Application in Healthcare; 

a Prospective View: Final report (D5). RAND Europe 

Technical Report. Cambridge, UK: RAND, 2010.

Walmart. “New CIO Confirms Wal-Mart Commitment to RFID.” 

http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/news/5697.aspx.

Wang, John, and L. H. Dong. “Learning from RFID in 

China.” Industrial Management, January/February 

2009, 23–25.

Ward, Andrew. “Up, Up, and Away.” Financial Times Special 

Insert, 12 September 2007. http://www.odintechnologies

.com/case-studies-airbus.
42

Webb, Warren. “RFID in Embedded Designs: Your Move.” 

EDN Europe 56, no. 1 (January 2009): 21–24.

Williams, Mark. “Technology and the Future of Warfare.” 

Technology Review (MIT), 23 March 2006. http://

www.technologyreview.com/business/16620/page1/.

ZigBee Alliance. “Awarepoint with ZigBee Improves Patient 

Care and the Bottom Line.” http://www.zigbee.org

/Markets/SuccessStories.aspx.

Zinni, Gen Tony. The Battle for Peace: A Frontline Vision of 

America’s Power and Purpose. New York: Palgrave, 2007.

Zylstra, Kirk. “Distribution Made Lean.” Industrial Engineer, 

January 2005, 31–35.