Find a Security Clearance Job!

Military

SASO TRENDS, Mountain Eagle I, III, IV, and V

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(NOTE: Trends are numbered sequentially for ease of reference, and are not in any priority order.)

TA.5 INTELLIGENCE BOS

Positive Performance

TREND 1: S-2 intelligence support is normally provided to standard. (TA.5.0)

TREND 2: Incident tracking was generally performed to standard. (TA.5.2)

Needs Emphasis

TREND 1: HUMINT assets are not utilized to their full potential. (TA.5.2)

TREND 2: Use of available assets. (TA.5.2)

TREND 3: Attached elements not fully integrated into the collection plan. (TA.5.2)

TREND 4: S-2s frequently lack a system for tasking or receiving reports from the numerous collection assets available throughout the AOR. (TA.5.2)

TREND 5: R&S plans for stability and support operations are frequently inadequate. (TA.5.2)

TREND 6: Reconnaissance & Security plans are not updated as the situation develops or changes. (TA.5.2)

TREND 7: Frequently S-2s do not fully understand how to maintain incident overlays and conduct pattern analysis. (TA.5.3)

TREND 8: Lack of incident tracking overlays frequently hampers pattern analysis. (TA.5.3)

TREND 9: S-2s seldom leverage all intelligence assets and necessary agencies to conduct sufficient IPB and R&S planning for SASO. (TA.5.4)

TREND 10: Reporting lower, higher, and lateral needs more detail. (TA.5.4)

TREND 11: Incomplete IPB (TA.5.4)

TA.1 MANEUVER BOS

Positive Performance

TREND 1: Platoon-Level PCIs (TA.1.1.1.1)

TREND 2: Platoon Movement Formations and Terrain Driving (TA.1.1.2)

TREND 3: Terrain Driving (TA.1.1.2)

Needs Emphasis

TREND 1: Units failed to aggressively conduct R&S. (TA1.1)

TREND 2: Mounted Land Navigation (TA.1.1.3)

TREND 3: Mounted Land Navigation (TA.1.1.3)

TREND 4: Aviation units are slow to transition back to combat operations. (TA.1.2)

TREND 5: Platoon Actions on Contact (TA.1.2)

TREND 6: Company Actions on Contact (TA.1.2)

TREND 7: TF units not repositioned to mass combat power against the enemy. (TA.1.2.3)

TREND 8: Units have difficulty establishing and operating lodgment areas. (TA.1.3.2)

TREND 9: Units training for stability operations demonstrate a tendency to focus on the occupation of the zone of separation (ZOS). (TA.1.3.2)

TA.2 FIRE SUPPORT BOS

Positive Performance

TREND 1: Company FIST Team Performance (TA.2.0)

TREND 2: Company FIST Team Performance (TA.2.0)

TREND 3: TF FSE Performance (TA.2.0)

Needs Emphasis

TREND 1: The trend in fire support planning is top-down planning and bottom-up refinement. See TA.4.3, Determine Actions.

TREND 2: The largest gap in fire support community is lack of a standardized rehearsal. See TA.4.4.1.1, Develop and Complete Plans or Orders.

TREND 3: During stability and support operations the task force fire support officer takes on added responsibility and has many more assets at his disposal. (TA.2.0)

TREND 4: Fire support products are not completed to standard. (TA.2.1)

TREND 5: Target file management at brigade FSE and DS field artillery FDC is inadequate. (TA.2.1.1)

TREND 6: Unit SOPs fail to adequately define procedures for investigating suspicious Q36 radar acquisitions during stability and support operations. (TA.2.1.1)

TREND 7: Field artillery units conducting stability operations do not consider all Firefinder radar positioning requirements when selecting the radar positions in a lodgment area. (TA.2.1.2.1)

TREND 8: Applicability of Firefinder radar zones during stability operations is not well understood. (TA.2.1.2.1)

TREND 9: The brigade commander authorized the use of indirect fires, but did not specify the type or amount of ammunition to be fired. (TA.2.1.2.3)

TREND 10: Artillery units often fired indirect fires without the benefit of a trained observer positively observing and identifying the target. (TA.2.2)

TREND 11: Synchronize Fires with Maneuver (TA.2.2)

TA.3 AIR DEFENSE

Needs Emphasis

TREND 1: ADOs fail to link up with the supported task force before deploying. See TA.4.4.5, Synchronize Tactical Operations.

TREND 2: Lack of unit stability operations (STABOPs) SOPs. (TA.3.0)

TREND 3: Air defense units fail to conduct predeployment inspections. (TA.3.0) See TA.4.4, Direct and Lead Subordinate Forces.

TREND 4: Planning for air defense early warning lacks detail. (TA.3.1)

TA.6 MOBILITY/SURVIVABILITY

Positive Performance

TREND 1: Mine Awareness (TA.6.1)

TREND 2: Engineer assets are routinely integrated into the TF QRF. (TA.6.1)

TREND 3: QRF for Base Camp Security (TA.6.3)

TREND 4: Base Camp Security - Field Trains (TA.6.3)

TREND 5: Base Camp Security (TA.6.3.4)

Needs Emphasis

TREND 1: Nonmetallic/buried mine detection (TA.6.1.1.1.1)

TREND 2: Minefield marking (TA.6.2.3)

TREND 3: Route Status Marking (TA.6.2.3)

TREND 4: No SOP for heliborne mine marking and reporting. (TA.6.2.3)

TREND 5: Mine/UXO reporting procedures not standardized. (TA.6.2.3)

TREND 6: Mine/UXO initial marking procedures not standardized. (TA.6.2.3)

TREND 7: EOD elements must be included in the force package. (TA.6.2.4)

TREND 8: Position tow cables across the rear of the lead vehicles when engaged in road clearing, route proofing, and lodgment area/assembly area clearing. (TA.6.3)

TREND 9: Soldiers did not have picket pounders and the proper gloves when pounding pickets or when handling concertina and barbed wire. (TA.6.3)

TREND 10: The CTCP/UMCP/aid station failed to establish security when deployed. (TA.6.3)

TREND 11: Aviation units do not have the manpower to properly conduct base security. (TA.6.3.4)

TREND 12: Soldiers do not know how to properly pull guard duty. (TA.6.3.4)

TA.7 COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT

Positive Performance

TREND 1: Unit OR Rate (TA.7.3.2)

TREND 2: The unit ministry team (UMT) and battalion CSM are key advisors to the battalion commander. (TA.7.4.3.4)

TREND 3: UMT focuses primarily on individual soldier care issues. (TA.7.4.3.4)

TREND 4: Division chaplain's plan for UMT training and sustainment. (TA. 7.4.3.4)

TREND 5: CASEVAC (TA.7.4.4.2)

TREND 6: CASEVAC (TA.7.4.4.2)

TREND 7: Conducting Unit Resupply (TA.7.5.2)

TREND 8: Unit Resupply (TA.7.5.2)

Needs Emphasis

TREND 1: The medical platoon leader is not involved in the planning and writing of the health service support (HSS) plan. See TA 4.4.5, Synchronize Tactical Operations.

TREND 2: Inadequate support for nonorganic units. (TA.7.0)

TREND 3: Battalions are not prepared to conduct extended cold weather operations. (TA.7.0)

TREND 4: Lodgment areas should integrate CSS for all resident elements. (TA.7.0)

TREND 5: Procedures and Policies - Field Trains (TA.7.0)

TREND 6: FIST-V and Related Equipment Maintenance (TA.7.3.2)

TREND 7: Considerable basic load deployment shortfalls. (TA.7.4.3.4)

TREND 8: Procedures for handling the media vary greatly across the brigade sector. (TA.7.4.3.5)

TREND 9: Difficulty establishing command and control at the mass casualty location. (TA.7.4.4)

TREND 10: Units do not plan for or use far-forward care IAW FM 8-10-4. (TA.7.4.4.1)

TREND 11: Use of nonmedical vehicles for casualty transportation and medical evacuation. (TA.7.4.4.2)

TREND 12: Battalions are not prepared to conduct adequate field sanitation operations during extended deployments. (TA.7.4.4.3)

TREND 13: Unit supply distribution systems not flexible enough to meet the needs of the unit. (TA.7.5)

TREND 14: Internal distribution and prioritization of Class IV stocks are inadequate. (TA.7.5.2)

TREND 15: LOGPAC Operations (TA.7.5.2)

TREND 16: Processing Deadline Faults (TA.7.5.2)

TREND 17: Centralized Management of Engineers (TA.7.6)

TREND 18: Prepare LZ/PZ (TA.7.6.2)

TA.4 COMMAND AND CONTROL

Positive Performance

TREND 1: Company Command Post Operations (TA.4.0)

TREND 2: Tracking Scout Strength/Sending Spot Reports to Higher (TA.4.1.3)

TREND 3: Situational Awareness - CSS (TA.4.2.1)

TREND 4: TOC Operations (TA.4.3)

TREND 5: Flexibility (TA.4.3)

TREND 6: Risk Assessment (TA.4.3)

TREND 7: Determine capability of subordinate units prior to operations. (TA.4.4)

TREND 8: Concern regarding lack of 19D specific train-up prior to operation. (TA.4.4)

TREND 9: Unit capitalizes on the soldiers with SASO experience. (TA.4.4)

TREND 10: The unit maintained a superb safety record during operations. (TA.4.4)

TREND 11: Operator Level Maintenance (TA.4.4)

TREND 12: General Knowledge of SASO (TA.4.4)

TREND 13: Soldier Knowledge of JM/ROE (TA.4.4)

TREND 14: Units routinely schedule rehearsals (TA.4.4.1.1)

TREND 15: Engineer drills are well-rehearsed and executed. (TA.4.4.1.1)

TREND 16: CSS Rehearsals

TREND 17: The company meets the 1/3, 2/3 standard. (TA.4.4.1.1)

TREND 18: JAAT Operations (TA.4.4.5)

Needs Emphasis

TREND 1: Noncombat arms battalions demonstrate a lack of proficiency in the planning, preparation, and conduct of stability and support operations. (TA.4.0)

TREND 2: TF leadership initially overwhelmed by the complexities of SASO. (TA.4.0)

TREND 3: Documentation and Reporting (TA.4.1.1)

TREND 4: Information Flow (TA.4.1.1)

TREND 5: Lack of knowledge of ROE. (TA.4.1.1)

TREND 6: FARPs perform well but are forgotten. (TA.4.1.1)

TREND 7: A/L Net in the CTCP (TA.4.1.2)

TREND 8: Battle Tracking (TA.4.1.3)

TREND 9: Situation paragraph of OPORD not briefed in stability and support operations (SASO). (TA.4.2.1)

TREND 10: Situational Awareness - Tracking CTCP (TA.4.2.1)

TREND 11: The trend in fire support planning is top-down planning and bottom-up refinement. (TA.4.3)

TREND 12: The TF staff did not use the doctrinal TDMP model at any time during the rotation. (TA.4.3)

TREND 13: FIST Team Copperhead Planning (TA.4.3)

TREND 14: Smoke to Obscure Friendly Forces (TA.4.3)

TREND 15: CSS Staff Planning (TA.4.3)

TREND 16: Ineffective TF Communications Planning (TA.4.3)

TREND 17: Nonstandard Tactical Decision-Making Process (TA.4.3)

TREND 18: Lack of Familiarity with TDMP (TA.4.3)

TREND 19: Fire Support Planning (TA.4.3)

TREND 20: Contingency Planning (TA.4.3)

TREND 21: Tactical Decision-Making Process (TA.4.3)

TREND 22: Focus planning on the worst possible contingency that can happen on any given day of operations. (TA.4.3.2)

TREND 23: Link analysis is weak. (TA.4.3.2)

TREND 24: The TF staff does not effectively wargame. (TA.4.3.3)

TREND 25: Precombat inspection (PCI) lacks critical items needed for peace support operations. (TA.4.4)

TREND 26: Air defense units fail to conduct predeployment inspections. (TA.4.4)

TREND 27: Shift change briefings do not include all key players and not all important information is included. (TA.4.4)

TREND 28: Changes in scout task organization prior to mission. (TA.4.4)

TREND 29: LOGPAC and CASEVAC Execution (TA.4.4)

TREND 30: Lack of familiarity with JMC Handbook. (TA.4.4)

TREND 31: Precombat Inspections (PCIs) (TA.4.4)

TREND 32: Company-level engagement area development for a deliberate defense. (TA.4.4.1)

TREND 33: Platoon Orders Process/Troop-Leading Procedures (SCOUT) (TA.4.4.1)

TREND 34: Lack of Written Company SOP (TA.4.4.1)

TREND 35: Assembly Area Procedures (TA.4.4.1)

TREND 36: TACSOP (TA.4.4.1)

TREND 37: Orders/TLP (TA.4.4.1)

TREND 38: Poor OPORD Format (TA.4.4.1)

TREND 39: OPORD Paragraph 4 (Logistics) (TA.4.4.1)

TREND 40: Base Camp Defense Planning (TA.4.4.1)

TREND 41: Fire support rehearsals are not conducted or are ineffective. (TA.4.4.1.1)

TREND 42: Fire support rehearsals are not conducted to standard during SASO. (TA.4.4.1.1)

TREND 43: The largest gap in fire support community is lack of a standardized rehearsal. (TA.4.4.1.1)

TREND 44: TF incapable of generating overwhelming combat power at decisive point. (TA.4.4.1.1)

TREND 45: Incomplete Company OPORDs (TA.4.4.1.1)

TREND 46: Rehearsals (TA.4.4.1.1)

TREND 47: Rehearsals (TA.4.4.1.1)

TREND 48: Orders issued without clear task and purpose. (TA.4.4.1.1)

TREND 49: Fire Support Rehearsals (TA.4.4.1.1)

TREND 50: Rehearsals - CSS (TA.4.4.1.1)

TREND 51: Mine Strike QRF Team (TA.4.4.1.1)

TREND 52: Issue FRAGOs (TA.4.4.2)

TREND 53: Staff Integration of the TDMP (TA.4.4.5)

TREND 54: Poor coordination between battery/platoon elements and maneuver/lodgment area HQ during stability and support operations. (TA.4.4.5)

TREND 55: ADOs fail to link-up with the supported task force before deploying to CMTC. (TA.4.4.5)

TREND 56: The medical platoon leader is not involved in the planning and writing of the health service support (HSS) plan. (TA.4.4.5)

TREND 57: Aviation task forces do not have standardized SOPs. (TA.4.4.5)

TREND 58: Aviation units are called into the fight using "911." (TA.4.4.5)

TREND 59: Close air support (CAS) is not well-synchronized. (TA.4.4.5)

TREND 60: LOs placed with ground TFs are not properly utilized. LOs are not properly trained or prepared. (TA.4.4.5)

TREND 61: Command and control becomes ambiguous when flying missions in different sectors. There are no clear-cut command relationships. (TA.4.4.5)

TREND 62: TF R&S not always synchronized. (TA.4.4.5)

TREND 63: Limited success in integrating engineer into TF maneuver plan. (TA.4.4.5)

TREND 64: Unit and Staff Integration (TA.4.4.5)

TREND 65: Engineer integration is inadequate. (TA.4.4.5)

TREND 66: Advance Coordination - Maintenance (TA.4.4.5)


btn_prev.gif 1.18 KIntroduction
btn_next.gif 1.17 KIntelligence BOS



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list