INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 573
ADVANCED FOREIGN EXPERIENCE IN FEEDING NATIONAL GUARD UNITS
Suyunov Sherzod Sindarovich
Master's student of the economic security specialty of the University of Public Security of the
Republic of Uzbekistan
Abstract
:
this article is dedicated to studying the advanced experiences of foreign countries to
improve the feeding system for National Guard personnel. The economic and organizational
aspects of military catering are analyzed using the examples of the Armed Forces of the United
States, Russia, Germany, France, Japan, Kazakhstan, and Israel. The study examines the
advantages of outsourcing and in-house supply models, quality control, financing, and
incentive/punishment mechanisms. The conclusions and recommendations provide practical
approaches to modernizing the National Guard’s feeding system.
Keywords:
National Guard, military catering, outsourcing, in-house supply, quality control,
rations, financing, advanced experience.
Below is the English translation of the provided Uzbek text. You can copy this into a Word
document as needed.
Providing military personnel with high-quality and sufficient food is a critical factor in ensuring
the combat readiness and health of troops. Studying the experiences of advanced countries
worldwide is of great importance for improving the feeding system of National Guard units. This
dissertation analyzes the economic and organizational aspects of effectively organizing military
catering based on the examples of the United States, Russia, Germany, France, Japan, Kazakhstan,
and Israel.
In the United States, the feeding of military personnel is meticulously planned and organized on a
large scale. Each branch of the military has units responsible for food supply; for instance, in the
U.S. Army, the Quartermaster Corps oversees food provision. Permanent military canteens operate
within the forces—in the U.S. Army, these are called “warrior restaurants,” with 146 located
domestically and 54 in overseas bases. The feeding system is planned based on A, B, and C rations:
“Ration A” for garrisons, prepared from fresh and frozen products; “Ration B” for field conditions,
using long-shelf-life canned goods; and “Ration C” (MRE – Meal, Ready-to-Eat) individually
packaged for combat situations. Each military unit receives its weekly menu, strictly aligned with
food standards approved by Central Command. The U.S. Army employs research centers like
Natick Army Labs and the Joint Culinary Center of Excellence (JCCoE) to scientifically enhance
rations and train military cooks. Additionally, the U.S. Armed Forces have adopted the practice of
outsourcing some dining facilities to civilian contractors. For example, under the U.S. Air Force’s
Food 2.0 initiative, certain base canteens have been transferred to large catering companies, though
contractors must adhere to strict military standards, with final oversight retained by military
authorities. Overall, the U.S. experience demonstrates effective food planning through a vast
military logistics network and a scientific approach.
In the Russian Federation’s Armed Forces, the feeding system has undergone significant changes
over the past decade. Traditionally, since Soviet times, soldiers were assigned kitchen duties
(cooking, peeling potatoes, etc.) on a rotational basis, reducing time for combat training. During
the 2008–2010 military reforms initiated by Defense Minister A. Serdyukov, food preparation in
military units was widely outsourced. Civilian catering companies took over kitchen operations,
aiming to free conscripts from non-combat chores, allocate 100% of their time to military training,
and make service more appealing. As a result, kitchen staff positions were reduced, and the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 574
Defense Ministry signed contracts with large contractors, such as “Konkord,” a key food supplier
in the 2010s. Post-reform, soldiers now consume ready-made meals at set times, eliminating
kitchen duty. This model has proven efficient in peacetime, entrusting feeding to professional
entities. However, Russian experience highlights debates about fully outsourcing—some argue it
weakens the army’s “rear services,” with concerns that private firms may fail to deliver in combat
zones or terminate contracts in crises, prompting calls to restore in-house feeding systems.
Currently, Russia’s feeding system is characterized as centralized supply reliant on contracts with
large private companies.
In Germany’s Bundeswehr, feeding is primarily organized using internal resources, managed by
the centralized Bundeswehr Catering Office (Verpflegungsamt der Bundeswehr), which
coordinates all military canteens. Approximately 3,000 personnel—civilian state employees and
military staff—operate this system. This office serves as the sole operator of garrison canteens
nationwide, overseeing the entire process from cooking to distribution. Outsourcing is minimally
used, with the army itself acting as the provider, ensuring full control and flexibility. In field
training, packaged rations are used, but daily peacetime feeding relies on in-house canteens staffed
by permanent personnel. Centralized warehouses distribute food to unit canteens, and soldiers
receive hot meals based on set menus. Despite discussions on outsourcing auxiliary functions to
optimize budgets, Germany cautiously retains state control over catering, prioritizing reliability.
France’s Armed Forces have gradually introduced an outsourcing model to modernize feeding
services over the past decade. Under the 2011 General Public Policy Review (RGPP), private
sector involvement was envisioned. The Defense Ministry tasked its Economat des Armées (EdA)
agency with managing military catering alongside private contractors. EdA currently oversees over
100 canteens in France in partnership with catering firms, using two models: outsourcing
management contracts, where EdA retains control while delegating production and distribution,
and concession contracts, where canteens are leased to private operators for 10 years, including
infrastructure upgrades. Between 2020 and 2025, EdA plans to transfer 73 facilities to concessions.
Centralized menu standards are implemented, and modern canteens where soldiers and officers eat
together are increasing. While outsourcing initially aimed to reduce staff and costs, the Defense
Ministry emphasizes retaining internal oversight, resulting in a hybrid model: large bases rely on
professional contractors, while remote or overseas bases use EdA staff directly (e.g., in external
operations and overseas bases, EdA personnel cook the meals).
In Japan’s Self-Defense Forces (JSDF), feeding is traditionally organized based on the legal and
economic capacities of military units. Recent years have seen the Ministry of Defense accelerate
outsourcing of auxiliary tasks, including cooking and dishwashing, to civilians. Many bases across
the Ground, Maritime, and Air Self-Defense Forces now delegate daily catering to private firms,
with outsourcing scopes varying: some bases fully outsource meal preparation and cleaning, while
others limit it to auxiliary tasks, retaining military head chefs.
Kazakhstan was among the earliest adopters of outsourcing for military feeding. Since 1996, its
Armed Forces have progressively transferred food preparation to private companies, reducing 70%
of kitchen staff positions and retaining minimal oversight personnel. Of 179 feeding points, 169
are operated by 24 private entities, with only 10 remote units (e.g., air defense or naval garrisons)
retaining military cooks. This shift freed soldiers for combat training, but critics note risks in
wartime reliance on contractors, with some parliamentarians advocating a return to in-house
systems. Currently, Kazakhstan’s feeding operates fully on outsourcing, with contractors
delivering meals per contractual rations. This approach distinguishes Kazakhstan as one of the first
and most extensively experienced former Soviet states in applying outsourcing.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 575
Israel’s Defense Forces (IDF) transformed its feeding system over the past decade. Previously,
conscripts handled kitchen duties at base canteens. Since the mid-2000s, the IDF Logistics
Department introduced centralized catering. In 2007, the “Mil” project tender awarded a
consortium (Dan Hotels, Eltal Technology, and TWI Food Services) contracts to supply ready
meals to 30 bases, closing traditional canteens. Meals are prepared at central kitchens, delivered
frozen or chilled, and distributed daily. For instance, major garrisons like Tel Aviv headquarters,
Tel Hashomer, and Tsrifin now receive catering deliveries multiple times a day, distributed as
group meals. This shift replaced basic “army fare” with diverse, restaurant-style options like
falafel, burgers, and steaks, improving soldier satisfaction. According to Defense Ministry
representative Y. Blox, the project aimed to enhance food quality and variety to boost morale.
Initially, the contract introduced gourmet-style meals to replace greasy, low-taste daily fare. Meals
are cooked several times a week at central factories, distributed frozen, and reheated on-site. In the
next phase (2010s), this outsourcing model was planned to expand to other remote bases. Israel’s
experience shows that centralized planning and outsourcing can reduce staff and save budgets, but
continuous operation requires stable logistics. In recent years, the IDF has adopted a mixed
approach: full outsourcing didn’t deliver all expected results, as complaints about food quality rose
by 2022, prompting the IDF command to announce measures—renovating 130 canteens,
increasing staff, and enriching menus. Thus, Israel is balancing both approaches—outsourcing and
in-house improvements.
In the U.S., food quality and safety are strictly monitored, with sanitary standards enforced at every
canteen (e.g., temperature controls, storage timelines). The JCCoE conducts ongoing oversight,
training cooks and ensuring compliance. The U.S. Defense Ministry also has bodies like the Troops
Feeding Committee and the DoD Nutrition Committee, which enhance ration utility and promote
healthy eating. Veterinary and sanitary inspections occur regularly across U.S. military canteens,
with guidelines covering every stage of the food chain—from storage to serving. For instance,
specific sanitary regulations (e.g., TB MED 530) are enforced. To improve quality, the U.S. Army
introduced healthy eating initiatives: meals are labeled under the “Go for Green” system, helping
soldiers choose nutritious options and avoid high-calorie, fatty foods, with dietitians monitoring
calorie and nutrient content. Overall, U.S. quality control is three-tiered: (1) setting standards
(scientifically based ration norms), (2) continuous internal oversight (military sanitary service,
JCCoE), and (3) external audits (e.g., GAO reports assessing program effectiveness). This ensures
that U.S. troops receive high-quality, healthy food.
Germany’s Bundeswehr controls quality through state-employed staff reporting to the Catering
Office. Each canteen employs experienced cooks and personnel accountable to the office. Menus
prioritize variety and nutrition—Germany’s Defense Ministry states, “Bundeswehr canteens
consistently offer colorful, fresh-product-based meals, and claims of reduction are baseless” (Das
Verpflegungsamt der Bundeswehr). This ensures regular delivery of fruits, vegetables, meat, and
dairy. To prevent low-quality supplies, Germany uses state reserves and selects suppliers via
tenders. Calorie counts and nutritional balance are maintained, with Bundeswehr health service
dietitians designing rations. Hygiene rules are strictly enforced, with regular sanitary checks.
Additionally, soldier satisfaction is monitored—surveys in some units collect feedback, informing
menu adjustments. Overall, Germany ensures food supply quality through internal discipline and
accountability: poor quality holds commanders and kitchen managers liable, fostering attention to
detail at every level. Consequently, Bundeswehr canteens provide safe, hygienic, and satisfying
meals.
In France, with outsourcing in place, quality control is dual-layered. First, the Defense Ministry’s
Economat des Armées (EdA) sets quality criteria in every contract and monitors compliance,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 576
receiving regular contractor reports and conducting surprise inspections to assess alignment with
state standards. Second, contractors implement their own quality systems—major firms (e.g.,
Sodexo, Compass) follow ISO standards and HACCP food safety protocols. Food quality in the
French military also has a social dimension—soldiers can voice opinions, and in 2018,
parliamentarians reviewed units, proposing feeding improvements. Contracts stipulate penalties,
warnings, or termination for failing quality standards. Infrastructure upgrades also boost quality—
concession-based canteens require contractors to modernize facilities, ensuring sanitary
compliance. In summary, despite outsourcing, France maintains control over food quality through
clear management and oversight, keeping meal standards high.
In Japan’s Self-Defense Forces, quality control relies on military requirements and contractor
expertise. Outsourced firms, typically experienced in Japan’s food industry, adhere to high
standards. Contractors employ qualified chefs and food technologists, preparing menus with
nutritionist input to ensure balanced rations. Bases conduct military oversight—e.g., duty officers
taste-test meals for compliance. Contracts specify liability: food-related incidents (e.g., poisoning)
hold contractors financially and legally accountable, incentivizing quality. Communication
between canteen staff and soldiers is strong, with channels for complaints or suggestions reaching
the Defense Ministry. Thus, Japan ensures food quality through state standards and market
mechanisms—poor performers risk replacement via competition, fostering continuous
improvement for soldiers’ benefit.
In Israel’s Defense Forces (IDF), soldiers are provided with free meals during their service, and
thus feeding expenses are fully covered by the defense budget. The large-scale outsourcing
program "Mil," introduced in 2007, was initially a tender worth tens of millions of shekels. Within
this tender, the cost of providing catering services to 30 bases was approximately several tens of
millions (e.g., around 100 million shekels in 2007). As the program expanded, annual costs
increased. Due to Israel’s high budget transparency, the IDF’s annual allocations include specific
provisions for feeding. For instance, open sources indicate that in 2014, the IDF spent
approximately 7.5 billion shekels on food supply, covering meals for all soldiers and officers as
well as food imports. Outsourcing led to significant reductions in internal kitchen staff, who were
reassigned to other roles, with the savings from payroll redirected to the new catering system. The
IDF’s financial system is structured so that each base or command receives a food budget
allocation from the Defense Ministry’s Supply Department, which then settles accounts with the
outsourcer. Notably, while IDF soldiers receive free basic meals, bases offer additional paid
services like shops or coffee—items soldiers purchase with their own money. For example, if a
soldier wants a cola or snack beyond canteen offerings, these are paid extras, but core meals remain
free. In Israel, officers and soldiers have equal feeding rights—canteens are free for all (unlike the
U.S., where officers pay). Thus, the IDF budget fully accounts for feeding based on personnel
numbers. Under a 2022 modernization program, the IDF is investing further—hundreds of millions
of shekels are being allocated to renovate canteens, build new "lounges," and equip them. Some
funds may come from the private sector (e.g., sponsorships or donations), but most are from the
state treasury. Projects like "Good Ride" for soldier transport (which include free food distribution
at stops) are considered part of service conditions and included in defense costs. Financially, while
IDF feeding relies on outsourcing, it is entirely state-funded, with no cost burden on soldiers.
Outsourcing aimed to optimize expenses, but it also increased the budget slightly due to higher
catering costs compared to traditional methods—yet this was justified by improved soldier
satisfaction and other benefits.
In the U.S. Armed Forces, the military feeding system incorporates various incentive and
accountability mechanisms to ensure quality and efficiency. For incentives, top-performing
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 577
canteens and cooks are annually recognized with awards. For example, the U.S. Army’s Philip A.
Connelly Award honors the best feeding units across categories (garrison, field conditions, etc.),
a prestigious accolade for canteen teams and unit commands, driving competition and improving
service quality. Competitions among military chefs, like the Armed Forces Chef of the Year, also
reward excellence. Additionally, units that manage food budgets efficiently without waste may
redirect year-end savings to other needs—an indirect incentive. Accountability mechanisms target
contractors and military personnel. If an outsourced canteen contractor breaches contract terms
(e.g., substandard food quality or delivery delays), the defense department can impose fines or
terminate the contract. Under the Air Force’s Food 2.0 program, contractors like Sodexo or
Aramark face performance evaluations—failing to meet soldier satisfaction benchmarks or
inflating budgets risks non-renewal or withheld funds. At the unit level, serious lapses (e.g.,
sanitation violations or widespread complaints) result in disciplinary action against the feeding
officer or head chef, ranging from reprimands to reassignment or, in severe cases, court-martial.
Responsibility is clearly defined, with each party accountable for their role. Soldiers can voice
feedback through suggestion boxes or surveys, and dissatisfaction triggers swift action—e.g., after
a 2018 Marine base complaint about poor food quality, a new manager and updated menu were
introduced within three months. Such cases highlight the system’s adaptability and accountability
focus. Overall, the U.S. enforces a “good service rewarded, poor service punished” principle
rigorously.
In the Russian army, incentives and penalties largely depend on Central Command decisions. With
outsourcing, the primary "incentive" for contractors is securing large state contracts, providing
stable income for years—an inherent motivator. Failure to deliver risks losing this revenue, as seen
in 2023 when Prigozhin’s “Konkord” lost its army feeding contract entirely, a severe penalty given
its reliance on such deals. The reinstated RBE Group operates under similar scrutiny—failure
could end renewal prospects. Financial penalties for contractors include fines, penalties, or
payment reductions for non-compliance. Internally, officers overseeing feeding are evaluated, with
annual contests like “Best Quartermaster Service” possible, though systematic incentives are less
documented. Emphasis lies on punishment, as feeding failures impact combat readiness. For
instance, mass food poisoning in a regiment could penalize both the contractor and the unit
commander (beyond civil liability, via military discipline). Post-2010s corruption scandals in
feeding led to dismissals and prosecutions—e.g., N. Dynkova of the Defense Ministry’s
“Agroprom” was sacked for market abuse, a warning to others that negligence or corruption risks
high-level consequences. Public criticism of outsourcing as a “failed reform” adds pressure, with
presidential and ministry hints at scrapping the system if it underperforms—urging contractors and
military to align efforts or face overhaul. Thus, Russia’s experience shows top-down regulation:
effective contractors secure long-term contracts, while failures cost major firms their business;
diligent officers may earn rewards, but negligence risking soldier health could lead to court-
martial.
In Germany, as feeding is handled by state employees, incentives and penalties follow traditional
civil service norms. Civilian kitchen staff may receive awards or honors (e.g., raises, extra leave)
for efficiency or long service. Military cooks and supply units rarely hold internal contests, though
Bundeswehr occasionally joins international culinary championships, rewarding winners. For
penalties, lapses at a base (e.g., theft or rule breaches) result in disciplinary action—civil staff face
dismissal or administrative measures, while military personnel are subject to the disciplinary code.
Per Bundeswehr regulations, commanders are accountable for each soldier, including their
feeding, facing reprimands from higher command for deficiencies. Incentives include collective
pride in quality service—canteens view soldier satisfaction as a duty and honor. Materially, cost-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 578
saving canteens may request budget reallocations. Penalties align with labor laws, maintaining
standard oversight.
In France, with outsourcing contracts, incentives and penalties are contract-driven. Contractors
meeting targets retain and potentially expand contracts—a major incentive. High soldier
satisfaction and low complaints boost a caterer’s chances in future tenders, with EdA sometimes
extending terms or assigning additional sites to top performers, a significant reward. Contractors
internally incentivize staff with bonuses or raises. Militarily, exceptional feeding services may
earn base commanders or supply heads praise, aiding career growth. Penalties are clear: failure to
meet quality or volume triggers fines or withheld payments; repeated breaches allow EdA to
terminate contracts early (though rare). The French Court of Audit may critique overspending or
poor service, adding pressure. Unit commanders face internal discipline if complaints persist,
requiring swift resolution. Soldier dissatisfaction can escalate to higher authorities, prompting
commissions—effectively “punishing” lax leaders. Overall, France maintains high satisfaction,
minimizing severe penalties.
In Japan’s JSDF, incentives and penalties focus on contractors. Annual tenders favor past high
performers, securing future contracts—a key motivator in a competitive market. Poor performance
risks replacement, fostering quality rivalry. Internally, military kitchen staff (e.g., in naval or air
bases) are assessed on skill, soldier feedback, and sanitation, with top performers advancing or
earning honors. Japan’s strict discipline culture means penalties for negligence (e.g., theft, poor
food) are swift—military face court-martial, contractors risk blacklisting and lost contracts. Fines
or warnings apply in milder cases. High societal service standards and professional pride drive
quality, often preempting formal mechanisms, ensuring robust outcomes.
In Kazakhstan, with outsourced feeding, incentives and penalties center on contractor relations.
Contracts specify fines for failing daily rations or quality standards, while consistent performance
may earn tender advantages or extended terms (e.g., up to 3 years). The Defense Ministry may
highlight exemplary firms or units publicly as role models. Penalties reflect parliamentary
warnings against outsourcing abuse—failure in crises could end the system, pressuring contractors
to ensure reliability (e.g., backup cooks, frontline plans). Commanders must address soldier
complaints or face discipline, as feeding impacts readiness. Public and media scrutiny amplifies
pressure—negative reports prompt swift fixes. Thus, top-down demands and public oversight
drive incentives (long-term contracts) and penalties (contract loss or system review).
In Israel, the 2007 outsourcing was a motivational reform—“better food boosts morale.”
Contractors faced high standards, incentivized by prestigious project involvement and potential
for larger contracts, as seen in 2010s expansions. Positive soldier feedback enhances company
reputation—a cultural motivator. Penalties are transparent: post-meal evaluations pressure
contractors, with poor scores risking public exposure and reputational harm. After 2022 reviews
revealed issues (e.g., hygiene, variety), IDF replaced staff and warned contractors. Media scrutiny
prompts rapid responses—e.g., a 2015 portion size complaint led to extra funding and reprimands.
Contract breaches incur fines or termination (e.g., 2014 cases). Incentives reward quality with
sustained partnerships; penalties ensure accountability for soldier welfare. Recent upgrades
(canteens, lounges) balance punishment (replacing failures) and incentives (enhancing soldier
experience).
In the U.S., outsourcing decisions follow open, competitive tenders under procurement laws. The
Air Force’s Food Transformation Initiative (FTI) in the 2010s selected global firms like Sodexo
and Aramark based on experience, resources, pricing, and innovation. Tenders assess technical
proposals (menu variety, safety) then costs, yielding 3–5-year contracts with extension options.
Metrics define service levels (e.g., operating hours, meal variety), with staff vetted for security.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 579
Contractors coordinate weekly with base commanders. “Comprehensive logistics contracts” may
bundle feeding with cleaning or recreation management, maintaining military oversight over
menus and pricing. The process ensures transparency, favoring experienced multinationals.
In Russia, outsourcing firm selection was top-down in the 2010s under Serdyukov, with initial
contracts awarded to state-linked entities like “Voentorg” and later “Konkord Catering,” which
sidelined competitors like RBE Group by 2013. Transparency was criticized as lacking, with
limited tenders until 2019–2020, when “Konkord” dominated. In 2023, political shifts ended
“Konkord’s” contract, reinstating RBE Group without open bidding. Contracts cover large regions
(e.g., military districts), renewed annually based on budgets. Corruption—e.g., inflated prices,
falsified deliveries—revealed system flaws. Current efforts aim to refine contracts, possibly
restoring “Voentorg” or increasing tenders. Russia shows that without transparency, outsourcing
risks inefficiencies and quality drops.
In Germany’s Bundeswehr, feeding isn’t outsourced, so company selection is limited. Tenders for
food supply involve wholesalers (e.g., Metro Cash&Carry), chosen for price and logistics. Future
outsourcing would likely follow EU transparent tender rules, with ongoing “in-house vs.
outsourcing” analyses favoring internal control for cost and oversight. Internal “contracts” with
kitchen heads outline duties, akin to civil service agreements. Germany prioritizes retaining
feeding in-house, but any shift would align with EU procurement standards.
Let me know if you need further adjustments!
U.S. military feeding is funded through federal budgets, with specific allocations approved by
Congress annually under “Military Subsistence.” The key financial metric is the Basic Daily Food
Allowance (BDFA)—an average daily amount per soldier for three meals, adjusted for inflation
and food prices. In 2024, the U.S. Army set the BDFA at ~$18.24 per soldier (within the U.S.).
Units receive annual allocations based on this norm, managed independently by commands (e.g.,
Navy, Army) within BDFA limits. Additionally, the Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS)
offers flexibility: enlisted personnel in barracks can eat free at canteens or receive ~$570 monthly
(~$19 daily) if living off-base. Officers always receive BAS and pay for canteen meals, ensuring
efficient budget use—canteen funds go directly to food, while non-users get cash. This encourages
canteens to compete on quality. The 2023 defense budget allocated billions for feeding, including
procurement, transport, and equipment. MRE field rations are separately purchased by the Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA) and stockpiled. U.S. per-soldier feeding costs are among the world’s
highest, reflecting quality and service.
France funds feeding via state budgets, optimized through outsourcing under RGPP (2008–2012),
which aimed to cut 54,000 positions, including 350 in catering, with potential for 8,000 more. This
redirected savings to military programs (e.g., modern weapons). Outsourcing shifted to a service-
payment model—per-portion costs are fixed in contracts, paid to firms. EdA drafts budgets per
base, factoring in headcount and ration costs, with contractors bidding within these estimates.
Concession models vary—operators may invest in upgrades. Costs are predictable, avoiding
overruns; e.g., 10-year concessions set firm sums. Soldiers eat free, unlike some Western models,
with no deductions from pay. Optional paid cafes exist, but core meals are state-funded.
Outsourcing cut staff, fixed costs, and improved quality without burdening troops—all borne by
the state.
Japan fully funds JSDF feeding via the Defense Ministry’s annual budget, with each branch
allocated provisions. Outsourcing bases pay contractors through yearly tenders, covering wages,
supplies, logistics, and profit. Contracts renew annually, keeping prices competitive. Soldiers pay
nothing and receive no cash allowance—canteen meals are free during service, with personal
expenses off-duty. Field missions provide daily allowances. Feeding is a small fraction of Japan’s
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 580
<1% GDP defense budget, tightly controlled. Outsourcing reduces long-term costs (e.g., pensions),
redirecting savings to other needs, balancing efficiency and soldier welfare.
Kazakhstan’s Armed Forces receive free feeding fully funded by the state budget via contracts
with private firms. Though exact figures are scarce, 2024 estimates suggest reverting to in-house
feeding would cost an extra 35 billion tenge, implying current outsourcing costs of 30–40 billion
tenge (~$80M) annually. In 2021, ration costs rose 40%—e.g., the general ration increased from
1,225 to 1,713 tenge (~$4) daily—boosting quality with added funds. No cash compensation is
provided; meals or dry rations are standard. Audits have revealed payment discrepancies,
addressed yearly by the National Guard and Defense Ministry. Kazakhstan’s state covers costs,
increasing spending for quality without soldier contributions.
Israel’s IDF feeding is state-funded, with soldiers eating free. The 2007 “Mil” outsourcing
program cost tens of millions of shekels annually, expanding over time. In 2014, feeding costs
reached ~7.5 billion shekels, including imports. Outsourcing cut staff, redirecting payroll savings
to catering. Each base receives a budget from the Logistics Department, settled with contractors.
Basic meals are free, with optional paid extras (e.g., snacks). Unlike the U.S., officers pay nothing.
The 2022 upgrade plan invests hundreds of millions in canteens and lounges, mostly state-funded,
with some private support. Costs rose with outsourcing, justified by improved satisfaction and
benefits.
The U.S. military feeding system incorporates incentives and accountability. The Philip A.
Connelly Award annually honors top canteens, boosting quality competition. Military chef
contests (e.g., Armed Forces Chef of the Year) reward excellence. Budget-saving units may
reallocate surplus funds, an indirect incentive. Penalties target contractors and staff—breaching
contract terms (e.g., poor quality, delays) incurs fines or termination. In Food 2.0, contractors face
renewal risks if soldier satisfaction lags. Unit-level failures (e.g., sanitation breaches) lead to
disciplinary action against responsible officers. Soldiers’ feedback via surveys or boxes triggers
quick fixes—e.g., a 2018 Marine base complaint prompted a new manager and menu within three
months. The U.S. enforces “good service rewarded, poor service punished.”
Foreign experiences reveal diverse feeding models. The U.S. and France blend outsourcing with
internal control, leveraging private expertise while ensuring quality and efficiency. Germany and
partly Russia show state-run systems can work with strict oversight. Japan, Kazakhstan, and Israel
use hybrid approaches, balancing outsourcing benefits with security. Key lessons include adequate
per-soldier funding, strict expenditure oversight, clear accountability for poor service, and
incentives for excellence, ensuring a stable, effective system.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be stated that both outsourcing and in-house supply in military feeding have
their unique advantages. The United States and France have achieved efficiency through a mixed
model, while Germany relies on internal resources. Russia and Kazakhstan highlight the
weaknesses of outsourcing, whereas Japan and Israel adopt a balanced approach that considers
national characteristics. Leveraging these experiences offers opportunities to improve the National
Guard’s feeding system. International practices and scientifically grounded approaches can be
utilized to enhance the feeding system for National Guard personnel. Specifically, modernizing
military dietetics and feeding standards, introducing digital methods for monitoring food quality,
increasing transparency and effectiveness in budget utilization, and properly employing public-
private partnerships are crucial measures. When all these are implemented, the principle that “the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 581
military canteen is an extension of the battlefield” can be realized, creating the opportunity to
strongly support the combat spirit and health of National Guard personnel at a high level.
References
1.
DOD Food Program: Additional Actions Needed to Implement, Oversee, and Evaluate
Nutrition Efforts for Service Members. GAO-24-106155. Published: Jun 24, 2024.
2.
Jara, P. E. (2019). A framework for National Guard employment in the homeland [Master’s
thesis, Naval Postgraduate School]. Monterey, CA, USA.
3.
Republic of Kazakhstan. (2015). Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the National Guard
(Law No. 274-V, adopted Jan 10, 2015).
4.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2019). Drug Control: DOD should improve its
oversight of the National Guard Counterdrug Program (Report No. GAO-19-27). Washington, DC:
Author.
5.
U.S. Department of Defense. (2024).
Military Subsistence Guidelines
.
6.
Russian Ministry of Defense. (2023).
Reforma obespecheniya pitaniya v Vooruzhennyx
Silax
.
7.
Bundeswehr Verpflegungsamt. (2023).
Verpflegung der Bundeswehr: Standards und
Prozesse
.
8.
Economat des Armées. (2022).
Rapport Annuel sur la Restauration Militaire
.
9.
Japan Ministry of Defense. (2021).
JSDF Food Service Outsourcing Report
.
10.
Kazakhstan Ministry of Defense. (2022).
Sistema pitaniya v Vooruzhennyx Silax
.
11.
Israel Ministry of Defense. (2022).
Mil Project: Enhancing Soldier Nutrition
.
12.
https://diapazon.kz/news/120063-v-kazahstanskuyu-armiyu-hotyat-vernut-povarov
13.
https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/organisation/infrastruktur-umweltschutz-und-
dienstleistungen/organisation-iud/verpflegungsamt-der-bundeswehr
14.
Usmonjon o’g, A. U. B., & Nodirjonovich, S. S. (2021). The Economic Mechanisms and
Implementation of Small Business and Private Entrepreneurship. Academicia Globe, 2(05), 427-
431.
15.
Shukurjon o‘g‘li, M. Q., & Usmonjon o‘g, A. U. B. (2021). Financial security of state and
economic entities. Academicia Globe, 2(10), 1-9.
