THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY

Recommendations

Info

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION The Secretary of the Army ultimately is responsible for the allocation of Army National Guard personnel and force structure to the states and territories and has delegated this authority to the CNGB through a complicated, although still identifiable, chain of authority. Under the current NGB process, the Director, Army National Guard (DARNG) makes Army National Guard force structure allocation decisions on behalf of the CNGB. THE ARNG ROLE IN TOTAL ARMY ANALYSIS Total Army Analysis (TAA) is the process by which the Army structures the forces necessary to support the Combatant Commands in executing their National Military Strategy and Defense Planning Guidance tasks (see Figure 13). Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) G3/7- Force Management leads the TAA process with oversight by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. The process balances the Army’s force structure demands (manpower and equipment) against available and planned resources while addressing risk to mission and risk to the force. TAA is codified in Army Regulation 71-11 and is shaped by Department of Defense and Army strategies, Office of the Secretary of Defense–approved war plans, programming and budget guidance, doctrine, and current operational demands. The HQDA G-3/7 Force Management Directorate publishes TAA guidance each year for a corresponding fiveyear TAA cycle that coincides with the fiscal timeline of the Program Objective Memorandum (POM, part of the five year budget process). TAA is a two-phased process consisting of a Capability Demand Analysis Phase (Requirements Phase) and a Resourcing Phase. The Capability Demand Analysis Phase is a quantitative analytic process using models and simulations to establish capability requirements for Army forces across a broad range of scenarios. These scenarios are used to shape the Army to meet a wide variety of current operational and possible wartime demands. This phase constitutes the “science” of Total Army Analysis. The second phase in TAA, the Resourcing Phase, addresses the “art” of the TAA process. It adds the human in the loop to translate raw data into an Army that is sized to meet the findings identified in the Requirements Phase with as little risk as possible, given current and projected resource constraints. This phase culminates with a resourcing decision codified in the Army Structure Message endorsed by the Chief of Staff of the Army and approved by the Secretary of the Army. ARNG FORCE STRUCTURE ALLOCATION PROCESS Within the TAA process, the Army National Guard allocates its portion of the resourced force structure across the fiftyfour states and territories using the Force Program Review. The process is designed to support the force structure needs of the Army National Guard using objective tools to help make informed decisions for growth or reductions in structure. The process gives consideration to the supportability, suitability, and balance of personnel and capabilities across the fiftyfour states and territories, which is referred to as collective obligation. Outputs from each TAA cycle require the Army Figure 13 TOTAL ARMY ANALYSIS REGULAR ARMY G-3/5/7 Determines changes to or within unit types NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU Determines for ARNG, by unit type, which states grow or receive reductions. G-3/5/7 Proposes changes to Army structure SECRETARY OF THE ARMY Decision U.S. ARMY RESERVE 100 National Commission on the Future of the Army
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION National Guard to reassess its force structure and mix to ensure that adequate and effective support for both federal and state missions continues even as doctrine and unit designs adapt to meet changes in the strategic environment. The goal is to ensure mission success while minimizing turbulence within formations to limit decreases in readiness and increases in costs. State Adjutants General (TAGs) provide input annually to the TAA process by submitting a Force Structure Strategic Plan. This annual input is solicited from the fifty-four states and territories and outlines an Adjutant General’s strategic vision for force structure within his or her state. This document is used by the Army National Guard to both acquire and distribute force structure generated by the TAA resourcing phase. Two tools are fundamental to Army National Guard force structure analysis when divesting or allocating forces identified in the early steps of TAA: the Unit Analysis Tool (UAT) and the Force Structure Decision Support Tool (FSDST). These tools generate an order of merit list (OML) of units for divestment and a given state’s potential for success if receiving new structure (see Figures 14 and 15). The UAT is a metricbased model designed to assess and compare the reported readiness criteria of “like-type” capabilities across multiple states. The FSDST uses similar metrics and criteria for all capabilities in a given state for stationing new structure and restationing existing units. The generated OML ranks capabilities based on personnel and Unit Status Report metrics to help identify quantitative priorities for both divesting and stationing capabilities across the Army National Guard. Both the UAT and FSDST use a set of evaluation criteria fully vetted across the National Guard community. These National Guard-unique tools are used when the TAA process determines the need for force structure changes in the Army National Guard. When stationing new force structure is required, a stationing analysis memo prepared by a state provides qualitative information to be reviewed by a board or working group. Upon the need to inactivate or move a unit, the Chief, Force Management (CFM) at the NGB notifies the Force Structure General Officer Advisory Committee and all fifty-four states and territories of the reductions. Depending on the complexity and magnitude of the force structure reductions, one of two processes occurs. If structure reductions or moves are limited in scope, then the Standard Reduction Process is used to make routine recommendations for the reduction of Army National Guard Force Structure. This process combines the quantitative metrics of the Unit Analysis Tool with qualitative input from the TAGs. A Force Management Unit Review Board (FMURB), with membership from the ARNG Directorate and the fifty-four states and territories, convenes to make recommendations. The FMURB consolidates the “science” and “art” portions of this Figure 14 STATIONING PROCESS FLOW CHART DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE and DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY STEP 1 Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) / Headquarters, Department of the Army Directs Allocation of New Capability STEP 2 Force Structure Decision Support Tool (FSDST) Creates Order of Merit List (OML) STEP 3 ARNG Force Management convenes a board or working group to review the FSDST OML, state input, and DARNG guidance. The board provides recommendations to the Chief, Force Management STEP 4 Chief, Force Management reviews recommendations and forwards to DARNG for decision STEP 5 Decision Notification to the states National Commission on the Future of the Army 101
Page 1:
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE O
Page 4 and 5:
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 7 and 8:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY “Not later than
Page 9 and 10:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Developing One Ar
Page 11 and 12:
U.S. Army National Guard photo by S
Page 13 and 14:
WHY THE NATION NEEDS AN ARMY CIVILI
Page 15 and 16:
WHY THE NATION NEEDS AN ARMY Figure
Page 17 and 18:
WHY THE NATION NEEDS AN ARMY “The
Page 19 and 20:
National Commission on the Future o
Page 21 and 22:
THE COMMISSION’S MISSION AND METH
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Richard W.
Page 35 and 36:
FUTURE CHALLENGES Figure 7 ARMY IN
Page 37 and 38:
FUTURE CHALLENGES Iran poses a mult
Page 39 and 40:
FUTURE CHALLENGES terrorists or oth
Page 41 and 42:
FUTURE CHALLENGES anti-Americanism,
Page 43 and 44:
FUTURE CHALLENGES to prevent the So
Page 45 and 46:
U.S. Army photo. “The Commission
Page 47 and 48:
FISCAL CHALLENGES Figure 8 BUDGET U
Page 49 and 50:
FISCAL CHALLENGES if the Army is to
Page 51 and 52:
FISCAL CHALLENGES MEASURING COSTS A
Page 53 and 54:
“The Commission shall…make reco
Page 55 and 56: THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE A WORD ABOU
Page 57 and 58: THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE Recommendat
Page 59 and 60: THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE Bradley Fig
Page 61 and 62: THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE Recommendat
Page 63 and 64: THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE POSSIBLE ST
Page 65 and 66: U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class B
Page 67 and 68: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY Figure 9 ARMY F
Page 69 and 70: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY Operational emp
Page 71 and 72: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY integration of
Page 73 and 74: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY Furthermore, th
Page 75 and 76: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY authorities wit
Page 77 and 78: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY Reserve). The I
Page 79 and 80: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY unity of effort
Page 81 and 82: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY across all Army
Page 83 and 84: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY Due to much sho
Page 85 and 86: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY “When you joi
Page 87 and 88: Photo by Capt. Jesse Paulsboe “Th
Page 89 and 90: APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES
Page 103 and 104: National Commission on the Future o
Page 105: ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION Figu
Page 109 and 110: ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION proc
Page 111 and 112: ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION the
Page 113 and 114: APPENDIX A: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CO
Page 115 and 116: APPENDIX A: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CO
Page 117 and 118: APPENDIX B: RECOMMENDATIONS BY RESP
Page 125 and 126: APPENDIX C: OFFSITE AGREEMENT Natio
Page 127 and 128: APPENDIX D: ARMY BUDGET AND END STR
Page 129 and 130: APPENDIX D: ARMY BUDGET AND END STR
Page 131 and 132: APPENDIX F: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AA
Page 133 and 134: APPENDIX F: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS PD
Page 135 and 136: APPENDIX G: TESTIMONIES AND COMMENT
Page 157 and 158:
APPENDIX G: TESTIMONIES AND COMMENT
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
APPENDIX H: COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
APPENDIX I: SUBCOMMITTEES OPERATION
Page 193 and 194:
APPENDIX I: SUBCOMMITTEES FORCE GEN
Page 195 and 196:
APPENDIX I: SUBCOMMITTEES DRAFTING
Page 197 and 198:
APPENDIX J: SOURCES CONSULTED Defen
Page 199 and 200:
APPENDIX J: SOURCES CONSULTED Pippi
Page 201 and 202:
APPENDIX J: SOURCES CONSULTED U.S.
Page 203 and 204:
APPENDIX J: SOURCES CONSULTED U.S.
show all

THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?