Practical Sustainment Concepts for the Non-Linear Battlespace

an understanding in both networks that a high degree of visibility and control is required
high up in the hierarchical chain (at servers or in the SB), in order to locate the service
or the information and push it where it is required.
Ownership of the nodes
Another consideration for comparing the various levels of nodes is the responsibility
for node management. Typically, a single organization should have overall command of
a given point on the ground in order to facilitate defence planning and coordination.
However, it could be argued that node command responsibility should be matched to the
nature of the effort required for node management. In the case of a leaguer or SP, for
example, node management is predominated by force protection and security. The
commanding organization would arguably be combat arms, as they retain the expertise
for protection and security tasks. On the other hand, node management activities in a
FOB or a camp could be largely predominated by service support issues (garbage
removal, toilets, showers, food services, etc.). The more complex infrastructure requires
attention that could eventually exceed the effort required for force protection.
Consequently, it would be logical that the overall commanding organization be a
sustainment one.
Figure 8: A comparison of the ratio of management effort between sustainment and force protection
activities for three levels of tactical infrastructure.
During OP ARCHER R4, this was largely true. The command of KAF, at least the
Canadian portion, was an NSE responsibility, including even the management of the
force protection elements. The command of leaguers, SP and PB remains with the
manoeuvre units. Contention arose during discussions about the command of FOBs
and Camps, which was originally assigned to the Battle Group (BG) and the Provincial
Reconstruction Team (PRT). This had the negative effect of fixing the sub-unit
headquarters to the ground to manage largely sustainment issues. Company
Sergeants-Major, as Camp SM, had to invest time and effort on sewage and garbage
issues in lieu of concentrating their efforts on the support of the next operation. At one
point, the BG CO made a request to the NSE CO, to please take the FOBs, alluding that
the NSE take ownership and command of both sustainment issues and force protection
of each FOB, and be allocated resources accordingly. The BG companies would then
only be tenants on the FOB, until deploying on the next operation. However, despite
efforts to liberate the command and control and administrative resources required, the
NSE organization was not sufficiently endowed to take on such a task. In the end, the
manoeuvre units retained the FOBs, and they absorbed the impact on their operations.
The Deployable Sustainment Detachment: The A3
On both the linear and non-linear battlefields, there are situations in which
sustainment at a given location must be surged in order to support a priority operation.
In the linear battlefield, this led to the deployment of the forward logistics group (FLG),
54 Canadian Army Journal Vol. 11.2 Summer 2008