By Paul R Salmon FCILT FSCM FCMI
Chair, CILT Defence Forum
Introduction
In the high-stakes world of defence logistics, time is often the most valuable currency. When operations must be mounted with speed, coordination, and precision, having the right kit in the right place at the right time is non-negotiable. To support this, one of the enduring tools in the military logistician’s toolkit has been the Priming Equipment Pack (PEP)—a pre-configured, ready-to-deploy bundle of essential equipment designed to “prime” an operational capability before the wider sustainment system kicks in.
On paper, PEPs are a textbook example of anticipatory logistics. In practice, however, their effectiveness is highly variable. Are they still fit for purpose in the face of modern, multi-domain, data-driven, coalition-centric operations? This article takes a critical look at the concept, application, and optimisation of PEPs across UK Defence, drawing lessons for broader supply chain resilience and readiness.
What Are Priming Equipment Packs?
Priming Equipment Packs are essentially starter kits for military operations. They are designed to be deployed early, typically alongside or just ahead of troops, to provide the critical initial capability needed until the formal supply chain catches up. They may include spare parts, tools, communications gear, rations, medical supplies, or even specialist equipment depending on the mission profile.
Their utility lies in their simplicity: modular, easily stored, rapidly deployable, and focused on initial-effect generation.
In a typical use case, a PEP might support:
Deployment of a rapid reaction force to a new theatre Equipment sustainment for a capability arriving in advance of its logistic tail Backfilling obsolescence or fragile supply chains during crisis surges
The Strategic Promise
The concept of priming isn’t new—it’s aligned with logistics principles going back to the Roman legions. What’s modern is the application of data, standardisation, and automation to improve their effectiveness. Done well, PEPs can:
Accelerate readiness: By staging the initial uplift in advance, they shorten the time between deployment and operational effect. Enable agility: They reduce dependency on complex, emergent logistic systems in theatre. Increase resilience: They act as buffers against uncertainty—buying time for logistic systems to stabilise. Simplify planning: By removing decision fatigue in early phases, PEPs provide a known quantity of capability.
In essence, PEPs are the “ignition switch” of force projection.
The Ground Truth: How Good Are Our Packs?
Despite their conceptual strength, field experience reveals mixed results. In many cases, PEPs suffer from:
1. Stale Contents
Some packs are built to old requirements, with little review over time. As missions change, the relevance of their contents degrades. Items become obsolete, duplicated, or simply irrelevant to today’s threat environment.
2. Poor Integration with Systems
Many PEPs are not aligned with current supply chain systems (e.g., JAMES, MJDI, or Defence Support Chain Operations & Movements). This limits visibility, tracking, and usage recording.
3. Inefficient Refresh Cycles
Without structured feedback loops or governance, packs often fall into the trap of “set and forget.” As a result, they become shelf-bound—technically available but operationally useless.
4. Duplication and Waste
In the absence of central coordination, PEPs risk duplicating items already held in other logistic streams, wasting storage space, money, and transport capacity.
5. Misaligned Ownership
Responsibility for the design, approval, funding, and refreshment of PEPs is often unclear—leading to underinvestment or unmanaged risk.
Lessons from Live Ops and Exercises
Recent multinational operations and high-tempo exercises have shed light on the real-world performance of PEPs. Key takeaways include:
“One size fits none”: Standardisation must be balanced with adaptability. Packs need tailoring by mission type (e.g., humanitarian aid vs. armoured warfare). Feedback is fuel: Units in the field often lack easy ways to report back on what worked or didn’t. This prevents meaningful improvement. Pack and platform misalignment: In some cases, PEPs didn’t match the configuration of in-service platforms, leading to compatibility issues. Visibility is vital: Logistic commanders need full oversight of what’s in the pack, where it is, and whether it’s been opened, repacked, or deployed. Too often, that data is absent or siloed.
How to Make PEPs Work Better
To truly unlock the potential of Priming Equipment Packs in the modern battlespace, a step-change is needed in how they are designed, maintained, and employed.
1. Data-Driven Design
Use forecasting tools, failure rate analysis, and AI-based modelling to determine what items should be included. Modern support modelling tools can simulate the likely demand profile of a mission or platform in its first 30–60 days of operation.
2. Modularisation
Break PEPs into mission-configurable modules—e.g., an “armoured sustainment module,” “communications starter module,” or “medical response module.” This increases adaptability while maintaining standardisation at the sub-pack level.
3. Linked to the Item Data Catalogue
Ensure every item in a PEP is digitally catalogued with a NATO Stock Number (NSN), linked to its Equipment Failure Mode, platform, and maintenance policy.
4. Refresh Governance
Institute a formal review cycle—e.g., every 12–18 months—where PEP contents are validated against current operational requirements, platform configurations, and obsolescence risk.
5. User Feedback Loop
Build structured debriefing into exercises and operations. Include PEP-specific feedback prompts in Joint Lessons frameworks and deploy mobile inspection teams.
6. Digital Twin Integration
For major platforms or units, integrate PEPs into digital twins—simulating their performance under stress, stock depletion rates, and resupply timelines.
7. Ownership and Funding Clarity
Assign formal ownership of each PEP to a capability team or delivery manager, with dedicated sustainment funding embedded in the Equipment Support Plan (ESP).
Beyond Defence: What Industry Can Learn
While PEPs are rooted in military operations, the principles are broadly applicable:
Civilian Context. Military Equivalent
Emergency relief kits Humanitarian deployment PEPs
First-run service kits for complex machinery. Platform-specific tech PEPs
Business continuity stockpiles. Theatre entry priming packs
Critical spares kits for manufacturing plants. Surge sustainment PEPs
Companies with long, fragile or just-in-time supply chains—such as in aerospace, automotive, or healthcare—can benefit from building and maintaining similar priming kits. But as with Defence, their success depends on governance, data integrity, and feedback-driven evolution.
A Smarter Future for Priming
In the era of digital logistics, PEPs must evolve. They should no longer be seen as static boxes of parts, but as dynamic capability enablers—linked to the latest operational intelligence, demand forecasts, and usage data. With today’s modelling tools and AI capabilities, we can simulate the likely degradation, demand, and attrition profile of a mission—and prime accordingly.
The future of PEPs lies in:
Automated pack optimisation based on predictive analytics Integrated dashboards showing real-time pack status and utilisation Cloud-based configuration control across allied nations for interoperability Embedded QR/NFC tech for faster auditing, deployment, and repacking
Done right, the humble PEP could be reimagined as a smart logistics enabler—delivering assured capability at speed, with agility, and with foresight.
Final Thoughts
Priming Equipment Packs remain a useful concept in defence logistics—but their continued value is not guaranteed. Without proper governance, data integration, and operational alignment, they risk becoming artefacts of a legacy supply model. But with the right reforms, they can evolve into smart, adaptive, and interoperable tools—fit for contested, dynamic, coalition-led environments.
For UK Defence, NATO, and global partners, the question isn’t just how good our packs are now—but whether we’re prepared to make them smarter, leaner, and truly mission-relevant in the years ahead.
Leave a Reply