THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY

Recommendations

Info

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION Figure 15 DIVESTMENT PROCESS FLOW CHART DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE and DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY STEP 1 OSD/HQDA Directs Divestment of Force Structure STEP 6 Is this a standard divestment process? If YES continue; if NO continue to Complex Process YES NO STEP 2 Unit Analysis Tool generates an Order of Merit List (OML) STEP 7 DARNG provides guidance to Force Management Unit Review Board (FMURB) and the Advisory Committee identifies board members COMPLEX PROCESS STEP 6A ARNG Force Management Notifies Advisory Committee of working group requirement STEP 3 ARNG Force Management identifies capabilities for reduction STEP 4 ARNG Force Management notifies an Advisory Committee and all 54 states of divestments and board requirements STEP 8 FMURB reviews impact assessments and OML STEP 9 Chief, Force Management reviews and presents the Board recommendation to DARNG STEP 6B ARNG Force Management conducts working group in coordination with Advisory Committee chairs STEP 6C Chief, Force Management presents recommendations to DARNG STEP 5 The Adjutants General submit an impact assessment to their state of the potential divestment STEP 10 DARNG notifies the Adjutants General of decision 102 National Commission on the Future of the Army
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION process and reports recommendations to the TAGs with courses of action and recommendations for submission to the DARNG for decision. The Complex Reduction Process is used to implement large-scale systemic force structure changes in the Army National Guard, such as reduction from a 350,000 to a 335,000 force-structure allowance. To manage the intricacy of large-scale changes, a Complex Force Management Working Group is convened comprising designated representatives from the fifty-four states and territories as well as limited representation from the Army National Guard Directorate. The working group reports the recommendations to the CFM, who reviews them with a General Officer Advisory Committee prior to submission to the DARNG for decision. Representation and state involvement through either the standard or complex process provides transparency to the states in their roles as voting members or observers. The transparency and quantitative data directly address the concerns of state and territory leaders when past allocation actions were perceived as neither analytical nor transparent. These qualitative and quantitative allocation processes provide a holistic look when stationing or reducing force structure. The Force Program Review process allows the Army National Guard to balance the aggregate force among the states. The process also provides senior leaders the ability to shape the force by looking at the supportability, suitability, and balance of personnel and capabilities across the fiftyfour states and territories. Applying collective obligation as a shaping tool within the Force Program Review ensures that the fifty-four states and territories are balanced, with no one state’s force structure disproportionally reduced or increased. Collective obligation also helps in assessing whether each state has sufficient forces for both Title 32 requirements and Title 10 requirements, especially the capacity needed to support current and anticipated homeland defense and disaster assistance missions in the United States. TOTAL FORCE TRAINING During force-on-force training at Camp Shelby, Mississippi, in August 2015, tank platoons from the 155th Armored Brigade Combat Team, Mississippi Army National Guard, maneuvered against the 3d Brigade’s 1-12 Cavalry, home based at Fort Hood, Texas. The training was in preparation for a platoon-level, live fire exercise. In that exercise the 155th ABCT was joined by the 142d Battlefield Surveillance Brigade, Alabama Army National Guard, which identified targets in the engagement area and called for indirect fire, delivered by the 2-114th Field Artillery Battalion, Mississippi Army National Guard, using unmanned aerial systems to support intelligence collection and monitor round impacts. After an attack weapons team of Apache helicopters from A/1-149 Attack Reconnaissance Battalion, Texas Army National Guard, engaged targets using diving rocket fire, the 155th tank platoon maneuvered and engaged stationary and moving targets. The 143d Expeditionary Sustainment Command, U.S. Army Reserve, provided sustainment support, and joint tactical air controllers from the Mississippi Air National Guard’s 238th Air Support Operations Squadron controlled the airspace. While the Regular Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve must overcome real or perceived legislative and administrative hurdles to function effectively together— hindering the implementation of the Army’s Total Force Policy—mission-mindedness within the Profession of Arms eclipses component affiliation during operations. This was clear during the Total Force live-fire exercise at Camp Shelby’s eXportable Combat Training Center in August 2015. The foundation for such training is the Total Force Partnership Program the U.S. Forces Command established in 2014. The program pairs Regular Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve formations to best use limited resources and develop leaders. Multicomponent training events enhance understanding across all the components and will pay off when the components conduct missions together during deployments. Coordination for the August exercise began in 2014 when Colonel Jeffrey Van, commander of the 155th ABCT, called Colonel Matthew Van Wagenen, commander of the 3d Brigade, to coordinate their partnership training plans. Key enabler units were eager to join the training exercise. Each unit performed their mission-essential tasks using common graphics and a common scenario for day and night operations. “The lessons learned here about successful partnerships— how BCT commanders who are ‘all in’ backed up by two-star leaders who value partnership enough to provide funding to ensure proper coordination occurs—must be codified fully into policy,” said COL Van. National Commission on the Future of the Army 103
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 and 106: ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION Figu
Page 107: ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION Nati
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 159 and 160:
APPENDIX G: TESTIMONIES AND COMMENT
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?