THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY

Recommendations

Info

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY U.S. Army photo by Master Sgt. Michel Sauret Corporal Brock O’Shaughnessy and Corporal James Farran, combat engineers with the 374th Engineer Company (Sapper), take part in a night land navigation course at Camp San Louis Obispo Military Installation, California. some cases, course attendance was waived. In other instances, the length of a course was reduced significantly in order to allow soldiers to complete the requirement. For example, the original four-week Primary Leader Development Course with extensive leadership training to prepare enlisted soldiers to become noncommissioned officers adjusted numerous times, temporarily shortening by more than 30 percent. Some Army National Guard and Army Reserve units must choose between soldiers and their leaders attending schools or annual training periods where collective unit training is paramount. The Commission also noted some military education courses are stretched over a year or more in the reserve components, yet completed in weeks or months for Regular Army soldiers. Additionally, the importance and relevance of Joint professional military education (JPME) continues to increase. The 1986 passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Act created a standard for officer JPME. While the Army has made senior enlisted JPME a prerequisite for attending the Sergeants Major Academy, career-long mandatory JPME standards are not mandated similar to officer standards. The Army recognizes the sacrifice made in leader development across the institution and how critical training and education are to sustaining the All-Volunteer Force. Nevertheless, the Commission encountered uneven resourcing for military and civilian leader development, especially professional education. The Commission is concerned that as budgets tighten, sustaining investments in Army human capital could again wane without continued senior leader emphasis. In an era of tremendous budgetary pressure, the Army must continue to focus on developing today’s leaders for tomorrow’s war. This includes greater innovation and assuming more risk to provide the right education to the right leader at the right time. Recommendation 40: The Army should retain formal leader development activities as a high priority for all uniformed and civilian personnel. Recommendation 41: Congress should direct the Department of Defense to review enlisted Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) requirements, determine which should become mandatory requirements, and report within one year. The Army School System In the 1990s, the Army started a series of initiatives to improve, streamline, and consolidate its school system due to budgetary constraints. The primary goal was to develop The Army School System (TASS) that improved the performance and efficiency of the Army’s existing school system by raising standards and consolidating facilities. TASS consists of initial military training; reclassification training; officer, warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, and Department of the Army civilian professional development training; functional training; and education. The long-term goal of TASS was to be more efficient and integrated across the components of the Army. The resulting program centered on a regional system for reserve component schools with the first pilot program established in the southeastern United States (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida). In 2009, the Army implemented the One Army School System (OASS) as a set of processes synchronizing all three components to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of TASS. Army Regulation 350-1 states, “the One Army School System is comprised of RC and AC institutions that utilize training resources to train soldiers in the most efficient and effective manner possible without regard to component.” OASS leverages existing infrastructure in all components to efficiently project training requirements and program training capacity. The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) commands twenty-nine Army schools, colleges, and institutions and provides accreditation and quality control 74 National Commission on the Future of the Army
DEVELOPING ONE ARMY across all Army schools inside and outside of TRADOC. These schools and training sites fall into six training regions. The highest density of schools outside TRADOC is in the Army National Guard, which has eighty-five training institutions at sixty-six locations across the fifty-four states, territories, and the District of Columbia. Each state, territory, and the District has a Regional Training Institute. As of September 2015, TRADOC has fully accredited eighty-three of the eighty-five Army National Guard training institutions. TRADOC has made notable progress by reorganizing its existing structure and capacity to meet training requirements and improve the quality of its programs. For example, the Army projects a $5 million savings in travel and 77,000 training days returned to operational units by fiscal year 2018. OASS implementation and refinement continues to address capacity, law, and policy, standardizing programs of instruction, and expanding the Army Training Requirements and Resources System. The Commission concludes that OASS is not only a worthwhile effort, but its timeline should be accelerated. This may increase initial costs, but OASS’s recent savings indicate more money would be saved in the long run. During its site visits to training facilities for the Regular Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve, the Commission encountered an alarming number of incidents of under-utilized training facilities and inefficient choices in training dollars spent. Many facilities belonging to different components are co-located on the same installation or in close geographic proximity. These facilities often offer the same courses of instruction and technical training that soldiers travel to other regions to attend. Consequently, though fully staffed, many of these schools were not filled to student capacity. Additionally, the Commission found that Regular Army soldiers were traveling to Regular Army training facilities at other installations—consuming travel funds doing so—though the required course was being taught at a TRADOC-certified reserve component school on or near their home installation. If there is one Army schools system, the Commission concludes that it must be managed under one organization that controls staffing, student attendance, and the types of instruction offered at each training or education location. Recommendation 42: The Army should conduct an end-to-end review of The Army School System and report to Congress within a year of publication of this report on the efficiencies gained by consolidating under-used capacity. The review should take a holistic look at successes and shortfalls from current strategy and ensure consistent naming conventions to minimize confusion. Two members of the 773rd Civil Support Team, 7th Civil Support Command, take part in a Training Proficiency External Evaluation of the unit’s readiness to respond to a real-world chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear event. Recommendation 43: The Army should establish true regionalization of the Army’s school system and continue to consolidate the infrastructure where efficiencies can be gained. The Army should acknowledge and explain any unused capacity, and develop a plan to retain or eliminate the unused capacity, ensure the correct balance of infrastructure and capacity to meet the nation’s needs, and take into consideration the ability to regenerate and expand the Army. The Army should complete this plan within a year of publication of this report. Recommendation 44: The Army should immediately implement the entire One Army School System to realize savings sooner. ONE ARMY IN ACTION The Army has generated forces and evolved its processes and readiness models as demand, operational conditions, and military strategies have changed. During the Cold War, the Army developed a static, tiered readiness methodology Photo by Sgt. 1st Class Matthew Chlosta National Commission on the Future of the Army 75
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: THE COMMISSION’S MISSION AND METH
Page 31 and 32: THE COMMISSION’S MISSION AND METH
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: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY unity of effort
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 and 108: ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION Nati
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 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?