TOPIC: FORCE PROJECTION
DISCUSSION. "The challenge is...the funneling and feeding of vehicles and people in an orderly fashion off the air-head line and quickly into the objective area. That needs to be worked at home station. There have been many a logjam at the...airfield. It all goes into rehearsals, having the right people at the key nodes, having advanced parties on the ground and making assembly areas, so there is a smooth transition from arrival airfield out into the area of operations."
"We are causing units to think about building combat power rather than doing an administrative draw. I think over time that we'll also have a dramatic impact on not only the units coming to train here, but also the Army at large because we are going to start having units that are thinking about force projection and how to get there. How do you draw equipment and how do you do that in either a mature or semimature theater? How do you measure combat power over time during the course of drawing equipment? It has got a lot to do with how you build combat-capable organizations."
"Last rotation we used Edwards Air Force Base as the Aerial Port of Debarkation in an armored movement scenario. There is a potential there for getting the Military Traffic Management Command and the Air Force involved and operating the aerial port for the Army."
"We are now doing formal AARs on reception and onward movement at battalion and brigade levels."
"Deployment skills are integrated into the rotation in terms of units coming here from home station. They have to deploy by both rail and wheel convoy. We are currently looking at whether or not we can reasonably try to have a unit fall in on a set of POMCUS equipment as if they were deployed here by aircraft."
"I think because we are a power projection Army, we need to get much more into the deployment piece than we have before.... I would like to see us doing some deployment initially and either forced entry or onward movement of forces flowed through the port. After deployment, have a hiatus for a period of time, reset and go into the warfighting piece. I think (deployment) needs to be done under the auspices of a JTF. We have JTFs deploying and we don't do very much training with them right now. The more I see it, the more I realize how much we are in our infancy with that sort of training."
"Everything we do here, as far as assessing the unit and doing analysis, we use the Army standard. (During) AARs, that's what the O/Cs lead off with. What is the task, condition, and standard and what's your evaluation of your performance?"
CURRENT ASSESSMENT. The elimination of large-scale exercises such as REFORGER and TEAM SPIRIT has decreased the opportunities for most units to develop and sustain deployment skills. The challenge to train the force projection Army remains. CTC rotations can offer part of the solution, but the CTCs need direction and resources to maximize the quality of force projection training. The TRADOC commander, General Hartzog, recognized the need for force projection training at the CTCs in the TRADOC 1995 Strategic Plan by including the following as a supporting goal in shaping the training base and sustaining its relevancy into the 21st Century: "Assist FORSCOM and AMC in expanding training at the Combat Training Centers to include deployment, reception, recovery, and redeployment operations."
The CTCs have long recognized the need and unique opportunity to incorporate force projection training into the rotation. Each CTC is pursuing different ways to include some aspect of force projection in the rotations, with different levels of sophistication. These efforts are highly situational and resource dependent. For instance, the NTC and JRTC conduct AARs on reception, staging, onward movement, and integration (RSOI). No CTC, however, conducts AARs on the full scope of a unit's force projection tasks from deployment to redeployment.
One problem that inhibits further development of force projection training is lack of comprehensive doctrine supported by implementing publications. Lack of joint doctrine makes it difficult for Army units to mesh smoothly with the joint service providing transportation. The Army has published some capstone doctrine material on the subject, one example being FM 100-17, Mobilization, Deployment, Redeployment, Demobilization. Army force projection doctrine is not comprehensive in covering all aspects of force projection and it is not supported by training publications describing the tasks, conditions, and standards. Without commonly understood joint and Army doctrine, there is no way to ensure the validity or uniformity of training.
There are already some aspects of joint force projection training at each CTC, but there are wide differences in the level of that training. Primarily, the current training deals with the Army/Air Force interface in deployment operations. The strength of this training is based on the cooperation achieved between the CTC Commander and the Air Force Commander providing the air lift support. CTC scenarios rarely incorporate the full use and coordination of the land, sea, and air resources necessary to project forces worldwide. While the initiatives undertaken by the CTCs are commendable and are having a positive affect on the Army, with minor adjustments in key areas, the full potential for CTCs to train force projection skills could be realized.
FUTURE IMPLICATIONS. The Army should capitalize on the work already started by the CTCs by formalizing, guiding, and resourcing force projection training at each center, to include BCTP. For this to succeed we need to consider the following additional steps:
- Doctrine. Publish capstone joint and Army doctrine covering all aspects of force projection. Standards should drive the CTCs in scenario development, unit training, and performance evaluation. Published standards would also promote uniformity in the training conducted among all the CTCs. The Joint Staff, working with the unified commands and TRANSOM, should publish the doctrine, and the Army should set the standards and write training publications. TRADOC should refine and specify the level of proficiency Army units must attain to meet the joint standards.
- Technology. Information-Age technology provides affordable alternatives to train force projection skills. A force projection computer simulation should be developed to test the adequacy of unit plans and give commanders experience building combat power. The simulation could be designed for multiple applications, like training a JTF using live, constructive, and virtual simulations, combined using distributed interactive simulations like STOW. BCTP could use such a simulation as an adjunct to the warfighter exercises. The maneuver CTCs could use the same simulation to depict the rotational brigade's deployment as part of a division or corps level deployment plan.
- Joint Training. Ideally, the more joint participation in force projection training, the better. A force projection phase of every CTC rotation offers tremendous opportunities for joint training. CTCs are well suited as locations for mission rehearsals for components of a JTF after notification of an operation. Distributed simulations offer many opportunities. A possible JTF headquarters could exercise CONPLAN units through inactive BBS, CBS, or a TRANSCOM-developed simulation. For some JTFs with a large NAVFOR/AFFOR component, distributed simulation integration provides a valuable opportunity for a remote-based JTF headquarters to combine an actual brigade CTC deployment with a major Navy or Air Force exercise. While taking maximum advantage of joint training opportunities, the Army must remain in control of the CTCs. Large joint training exercises should be an annual event, testing skills from alert to conflict termination.
- Resources. Since units already have to deploy and redeploy to the maneuver CTCs, formalizing force projection training should not increase the expense of a rotation. There would be a resource bill to pay in additional personnel and in time. Some CTCs may need additional O/Cs to accomplish expanded force projection training. Trained, experienced O/Cs are a vital component in the quality of the training conducted at the CTCs. This increase in the number of O/Cs could be offset by augmentation of personnel from other services with specialized skills not found in the Army. There should be only a slight increase in the time it takes to complete a rotation by formalizing the force projection phase. Additional time is needed to allow for preparation of formal AARs, for both deployment and redeployment operations. The time would vary among the CTCs, but potentially one or two days would be added to each rotation, which is feasible, given fewer rotations for fewer units.
by LTC DOUGLAS B. BLAKE, QM
Main
Table of Contents
Topic:
Battle Staff Proficiency
Topic:
Doctrine Development
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
