Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1983

3

Force Development and Training

During FY 83, the "Year of Excellence," the Army moved forward with plans and programs to build and train forces, soldiers and leaders, for the purpose, as described by General William C. Richardson, Commander, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC): "To meet and defeat any adversary, at any time, on any battlefield." To meet this goal, the Army continued its force modernization efforts, updating and carrying out modernization plans, including those pertaining to the Army 86 Modernization Plan, making force structure modifications, such as Division 86 and the light division concept, improving the combat power, deployability and sustainability of all Army divisions, preparing for mobilization, and determining the emphasis and focus of their training.

On 22 November 1982, the Army published the second edition of the Force Modernization Master Plan (FMMP), which provides direction for the Army's force modernization efforts. Inherent in this plan is a detailed road map showing both system and organizational modernization activities scheduled during the 1980s and 1990s, and an assessment process that measures the ability of the Army's major commands (MACOMs) to execute the plan. In large part, these assessments aid Army planners in modifying key programming and budgeting guidance documents, including the Army 90 Transition Plan, the Army Modernization Information Memorandum (AMIM), the Army Plan, and the FMMP itself.

Consistent with modernization efforts, this fiscal year Active Component (AC) and Reserve Component (RC) units in both CONUS and USAREUR began converting to the Division 86 Organizational design for improved operational effectiveness and increased combat capability of both existing and new weapons systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank, the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the multiple launch rocket system (MLRS), and the UG 60A Black Hawk helicopter. Modernization efforts included activating new organizations, fielding new systems into new organizations, fielding new systems into existing organizations, and

[31]

transferring some older systems into both AC and RC organizations.

TRADOC also continued with another aspect of Army 86 planning-the study of the air assault/airborne division (AA/AB). TRADOC's goal was to design two highly mobile divisions to meet both contingency and NATO combat requirements. The study incorporated basic Army 86 precepts including integrating air-land battle concepts, incorporating programmed new equipment into the divisions, initiating requirements for materiel to meet identified needs, and optimizing human resources.

Following the methodology used in the development of Division 86, TRADOC schools and integrating centers designed the air assault/airborne divisions to perform the critical battlefield missions prescribed by the TRADOC Battlefield Plan. To promote standardization, yet keeping unique mission requirements of the airborne and air assault divisions, TRADOC incorporated in AA/AB 86, where applicable, previously approved Army 86 designs as well as many recommendations from the 82d and 101st Airborne Divisions.

Also consistent with the Army 86 Modernization Plan, the Army staff, in a joint effort with the Air staff examined broad strategic concerns, but primarily focused on intratheater airlift needs during FY 83. Their study produced the Long-Term Airlift Modernization Report (LTAMR), in which an analysis of various snapshots from theater operational plans, that depicted delivery of combat forces and equipment into forward-austere runways, indicated that combat units could move faster when using several short-austere runways in an operational area rather than be restricted to a single main sophisticated operating base. After examining various alternative airlift capabilities, the report concluded that the Air Force's C-17 aircraft, currently in engineering development, would ideally meet the Army's airlift needs. The study team members briefed the final report through the Deputy Operational Deputies of the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (OJCS) and forwarded it to OJCS J-4 (Logistics Section) for recommendation.

An important aspect of force development and training is the updating of field manuals to incorporate and then disseminate the changes in combat operations doctrine. In July 1983, TRADOC published the final draft of a field manual for large unit combat operations-FM 106-16, "Echelons Above Corps: Support Operations." This draft field manual filled a doctrinal void. Recent Army doctrine in the Echelons Above Corps (ELAC) was written for the division level, and now the Army is broadening its scope. The Army expects publication of the approved manual in FY 84. A complementary effort addressing larger unit

[32]

combat operations (echelons above corps) is underway at the Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, in cooperation with the Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. The Army staff will assist in the staffing and finalizing of this major doctrinal initiative.

The Army's emphasis this year on high technology divisions resulted in the establishment of the U.S. Army Development and Employment Agency (ADEA), in April 1983, as a Field Operating Agency (FOA) of Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), replacing the High Technology Test Bed (HTTB). ADEA's mission is to identify, evaluate, and expedite operational concepts, organization, and materiel requirements, which improve the combat power, deployability, and sustainability of all Army divisions, concentrating on the light infantry units. While supporting the transition of the 9th Infantry Division to a High Technology Motorized Division (HTMD), ADEA will act as the Army "skunkworks," exploring new concepts, high technology equipment, and innovative tactics under field conditions.

Following conversion to the HTMD, the 9th Infantry Division will have the capability to deploy rapidly to a contingency area. Once there it will be able to defeat enemy forces ranging from light infantry to tank or motorized units in organizations. The Army is structuring the division primarily for a Southwest Asia environment but with the capability of use in NATO. Upon complete conversion to HTMD, the division will retain part of its organization in a test bed role in support of ADEA and other light and heavy division efforts.

Other major events this fiscal year concerning the development and employment of tactical forces included manpower surveys on 9 December 1982 and 16 May 1983, the submission to the Combined Arms Combat Development Activity (CACDA) of twenty-two Quick Reaction Program (QPR)/Required Operational capability documents and nineteen major tests, eleven in conjunction with 91D Field Training Exercises LASER MACE (May 1983) and CABER Toss (September 1983).

LASER MACE, a tactical exercise designed to train and test the High Technology Light Battalions, exercised the Light Motorized Infantry Battalion (LMIB), the Light Attack Battalion (LAB), the Mobile Assault Gun Battalion, the Light Air Cavalry Troop, the Military Police Company, the NBC Company, the Military Intelligence Forward-Support Company, and the Airborne Surveillance concept. Exercise CABER Toss, a logistical exercise designed to evaluate the Army's ability to support the High Technology Light Brigade on maneuvers, tested the Forward-Support Battalion, the Dual Purpose Chemical Platoon, and the Palletized Loading System. The remaining tests the Army

[33]

conducted during the year included: January-February: Mounted Teampack, Extended Cold and Wet Clothing System; July: Fighting Load, Existence Load Hot and Dry Clothing System, Physical Fitness Sustained; and August: Light Attack Company.

During FY 83, ADEA experienced much growth and change. The Army established a TRADOC liaison element with liaison officers from each of the TRADOC integrating centers and schools, and developed plans to add a Combat Developments Experimentation Command (CDEC) Board in early 1984 at Fort Lewis, Washington, to assist ADEA. With the inclusion of the onsite DARCOM (U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command) Materiel Support Activity, the organizational combination of TRADOC, DARCOM and FORSCOM participation underlines the Army's emphasis on the light infantry divisions into the 1990s and beyond.

The Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA) damage criteria study and force mix analysis are efforts to determine the proper mixture of U.S. strategic forces in the drive to modernize and expand them. The Army actively participated in these efforts to ensure that strategic planners maintain a proper perspective on requirements for a balanced nuclear and conventional deterrent. Recognizing the need for an effective strategic deterrent, Army leaders strived to ensure that the large costs associated with such systems did not result in loss of the conventional military capabilities that are essential for a balanced deterrent. Hence, the Army is working to ensure that strategic modernization does not jeopardize the maintenance of conventional capabilities that provide options in responding to expected challenges from potential enemies. In other words, that funds for modernization do not detract from funds for spare parts. Additionally, the Army is pursuing the President's Strategic Defensive Initiative (SDI) that allows a more balanced approach between offensive and defensive forces. Within the next year, this effort will be more focused as DOD decisions and guidance are forthcoming on appropriate approach roles and missions related to SDI.

Of major importance to force modernization during FY 83 were the U.S.-USSR Nuclear Disarmament and Force Reduction talks. Regarding Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF), Rounds IV, V, and VI, took place this year. Initially the U.S. proposed its "zero-zero" solution, in which the U.S. would agree not to deploy its Army controlled Pershing II (PII) and ground-launched cruise missiles (GLOM) in return for Soviet destruction of all of its SS-20 missiles. At the end of Round IV, however, the U.S. proposed an interim solution for equal and finite levels of missiles on both sides. The Soviets rejected both proposals. Furthermore, during Round VI, the U.S. proposed to apportion any

[34]

reductions between both the PII and the GLOM. The Soviets' demands that French and British nuclear forces be included in any agreement and the deployment of U.S. INF missiles to Europe became major points of contention between the U.S. and the USSR. By the end of FY 83 an agreement had not yet been reached.

Talks also centered on the U.S. START proposal, whose main objective calls for a significant reduction in ballistic missile warheads and limits on deployed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) and heavy bombers. During Rounds II (Fall 1982) and III (Winter 1983), working committees laid the groundwork that led to the tabling of the U.S. Draft Treaty in Round IV (Summer 1983). The period between Rounds III and IV was frenetic as the START Interagency Group worked to develop and adjust the treaty in light of major Soviet concerns expressed during earlier sessions and the impact of the presidential Commission on Strategic Forces report (the so-called Scowcroft report) released in April.

Throughout the period of negotiations and in preparation for Round V (Fall 1983), the Army played an important role in expressing views on the balance of arms control issues, the modernization of strategic forces, and the maintenance and improvement of general purpose forces. While the U.S. and USSR made little measurable progress towards a START agreement in FY 83, the U.S. did improve its proposal, and the service staffs, in support of the JCS input to the START Interagency papers, continued to work on the serious issues not yet resolved. The Army's role as "honest broker" may become increasingly important in the future as the arms control community develops the U.S. approach to further rounds of START The Army views effective arms control as a vital aspect of U.S. National Security Policy.

During FY 83 the first year Total Army Analysis (TAA) was conducted on a biennial basis, the Army, in its quest for excellence, initiated TAA 90. Through TAA 90, the Army analyzed and programmed major force structure initiatives regarding its light forces. The results of TAA 90 became the force structure basis for Program Objective Memorandum (POM) covering FY 86-90.

This year the Air-Land Battle doctrine, exemplified in FM 100-5, became the cornerstone of the Army of Excellence, as the Army and the U.S. Air Force took important joint initiatives concerning the doctrine and future concepts. The Air Force agreed to use the Air-Land Battle doctrine in conjunction with its aerospace operational doctrine (two-series manuals) as the basis for the conduct of joint combat operations and to use the AirLand Battle field manual as the basis for joint tactical training and field

[35]

exercises. Subsequently, additional agreements expanded the scope of the two services' joint efforts in such areas as development of joint tactics, techniques, and procedures. Building on the 10 August 1982 update of AirLand Battle 2000, TRADOC is working to develop force designs and functional subconcepts to support the overall operational concept. This effort is linked to the FOCUS 21 process to develop a joint Army and Air Force future concept based on AirLand Battle 2000 and Air Force 2000. During July 1983 an initial draft of FOCUS 21 was staffed; the concept is being refined based upon the initial staffing.

To ensure that future doctrine and the doctrines of its Allies are compatible and to improve interoperability, the Army has maintained close liaison with them concerning the Air-Land Battle doctrine. The Army has participated in bilateral staff talks with Britain, France, and Germany, and in discussions with Australian, British, Canadian, and American representatives on the subject.

In the last quarter of FY 83, the Army took an important step toward excellence by tasking the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) to design a new light infantry division that could be deployed more rapidly than existing heavy divisions in the first days of an impending crisis, and to diffuse the crisis with a show of force, thereby to preclude possibly the deployment of greater forces later. TRADOC will present the design at the October 1983 Army Commanders' Conference. It calls for an elite, hard-hitting light infantry force of approximately 10,000 personnel with high ratios of combat power to overall strength and of officers to enlisted men. The entire division of nine infantry battalions is to deploy in 500 or less C-141 sorties and to capitalize whenever possible on lessons learned from the experience of the High Technology Light Division (HTLD). The Army would use the division primarily for low- to mid-intensity contingency missions in undeveloped theaters and secondarily, when augmented, for missions in Europe and Southeast Asia.

To respond to low-intensity conflict in the Third World and in non-NATO areas, the Army also plans to use the Special Operations Forces (SOF). Since 1981, the Army staff, in conjunction with the John E Kennedy Center for Military Assistance, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, has been reviewing the broad strategic roles of SOF in the decade ahead. The review suggested that there was a void in national strategy and force capabilities at the precrisis and low-intensity conflict levels and reconfirmed the need for SOF skills. This review led to the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) tasking TRADOC, in 1982, to conduct a SOF Mission Area Analysis (SOFMAA) to identify deficiencies of SOF and recommend solutions for these areas. TRADOC

[36]

completed the SOFMAA in June 1983. As a result, to prepare, provide and sustain SOF, the Army formed the 1st Special Operations Command (1st SOCOM) as a major command subordinate to FORSCOM this fiscal year. The Army also established the John E Kennedy Special Warfare Center under TRADOC. These two organizations helped the Army to correct the major deficiencies identified in the SOFMAA. TRADOC began developing doctrine for Rangers, reconnaissance, aviation, and an SOF "umbrella" manual, while the Special Warfare Center began revising doctrinal manuals and the how-to-fight manuals as required in the areas of Special Forces, civil affairs, psychological operations, and low-intensity conflict.

Consistent with Army preparedness, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (DCSOPS) established the Force Planning Analysis Office (FPAO) in July 1983 as a field operating activity and "think tank." Based on its assessment of congressionally imposed limitations on materiel, men, and money, the FPAO examined alternative force structures and issues. By conducting such force structure assessments, force analyses, and special studies, FPAO provides a quantitative basis for Army force planning, force structuring, and force programming decisions in a period of austere budgets. FPAO projects for the DCSOPS include determining the most effective Total Army that best meets strategic and mission requirements within resource constraints, analysis of the light infantry division, and analysis of the capabilities of the Total Army force.

The composition of forces greatly influences their sustainment criteria overseas during combat. An armored division naturally requires a greater daily tonnage of all classes of resupply than does a light infantry division. In force development, therefore, the Army must take into account war reserves, POMCUS, and host-nation support. During FY 83, the Army made improvements in these factors to support an Army of Excellence.

For FY 83, war reserve secondary items, which are on-hand and are intended to provide support (for weapons systems and for the individual soldier) to sustain operations until resupply from CONUS can occur, were funded at $470 million-$249 million for Procurement Appropriation (PA) and $221 million for Army Stock Fund (ASF). To determine the need for war reserve secondary items for the Army's equipment, a new computer model, SES4WAR, was run for the first time in late 1982 and produced requirements that appeared excessive. During the first few months of 1982, the Army reviewed the model input and output,

[37]

deleted erroneous numbers, and used a new run from the model to prepare programming data for the five-year projection of cost. Henceforth the Army will update the data annually.

Also regarding war reserves, during FY 83, the Army maintained forty-one operational projects valued at over 1.8 billion dollars to support worldwide Army operational and contingency plans. The projects include pre-positioned and nonprepositioned materiel and are intended to provide additional initial provisioning for Army units engaged in combat above and beyond current materiel authorizations.

Pre-positioned war reserve materiel stocks, as opposed to operational project stocks, are intended to sustain units once they are committed to combat. The Army acquires the reserve materiel in peacetime and stockpiles it overseas to reduce initial wartime transportation requirements and to ensure that Army forces can continue to fight until resupply arrives from the United States. Stocks pre-positioned in Europe and Korea will provide immediate logistical support to forward-deployed and reinforcing U.S., NATO, and ROK units in the event of war. Supplies pre-positioned in stateside depots support Army elements of the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force.

Two significant actions affecting war reserves occurred this year. First, Congress reviewed and concurred with the Army's action to contract storage service facilities with the German government until NATO can provide these facilities. Such action enables the Army to increase sustainability in a significantly shorter period of time and to reap substantial savings. Second, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) removed temporary NATO construction limits for covered storage of war reserve materiel for Europe. After a review of the construction limits policy, undertaken at the request of our NATO Allies, indicated that the objectives of the policy (to obtain an early German decision on host-nation support and to improve Allied performance on pre-positioning division sets (DS) 4, 5, and 6) had been met, the JCS concurred that further limitations would constrain Europe's ability to plan for future sustainability requirements.

During FY 83 progress continued in the POMCUS program on several fronts. The Army filled divisional and nondivisional sets of equipment and constructed storage sites for DS 5 and 6 in Belgium and the Netherlands. Although Congress deleted funding for sets 5 and 6 in the FY 83 DOD appropriations bill, it subsequently approved a $5 million supplemental request. It authorized this supplemental funding to train civilian personnel who would be responsible for maintaining the Hendrick POMCUS site, scheduled to be completed on 1 March 1984 as the first in the series of POMCUS 5 sites. The Army also continued to

[38]

station a skeletal force of the 7th Support Command and a small element of the 54th Area Support Group in Rheinberg, Germany, and initiated plans to obtain congressional approval for acquisition of permanent facilities for these units as well as expansion of community support for remote sites in the western portion of northern Germany.

The Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics (ODCSLOG) development of a new way to measure the effectiveness of POMCUS-stocked sites significantly influenced POMCUS planning for FY 83. DCSLOG measured effectiveness by the number of days of lift required to deploy the POMCUS force to Europe. Over the past year, Army supported actions to stock POMCUS sites have significantly reduced the days of lift required to deploy current POMCUS units overseas thereby strengthening the ability of the United States to support the 1987 Long Term Defense Plan for Europe.

In a second significant action, Congress approved $37.6 million in the FY 84 budget for POMCUS sets 5 and 6, but placed restrictive language in the bill that required the Army to ensure that for those items being shipped to DS 5 and 6, the Active Component and Reserve Component established requirement would not fall below 70 percent and 50 percent fill, respectively. An initial analysis determined that by, FY 89, 68 percent of the major items will be filled sufficiently in the AC and RC units to allow filling of DS 5 and 6 with POMCUS stocks. Although the legislation permits the Army to begin shipping equipment to these sets, it must closely balance the fill to meet the congressional restrictions.

In a third significant action, the Army developed a new POMCUS Authorization Document (PAD) process, which draws congressional attention to the POMCUS force through the budget years. The new PAD will consist of two volumes. The first identifies POMCUS requirements for the budget execution year; forces in Europe will use it to establish the requirements for that year. The second identifies requirements for the budget year and the five programming years; the Army will use it for planning and programming purposes.

The Army continued to emphasize the necessity of host-nation support (HNS) to satisfy some support requirements of its forces deployed overseas in times of crisis or war. The use of HNS resources to supplement U.S. military capabilities and force structure, within the bounds of prudent risk, is considered essential to achieve the support level needed to ensure that maximum combat power is available to forward-deployed and deploying U.S. forces.

In a major NATO-related HNS development, the U.S. and Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) signed a reinforcement

[39]

exercise agreement in January 1983. The United States and German working groups are currently negotiating the specifics of the civilian and military portions. The latter provides for the formation of German reserve units of approximately 93,000 men to provide manpower (about 50,000 men) to support U.S. forces in time of crisis or war. The United States and Germany expect to complete negotiations and sign both technical agreements before the end of 1984. The United States also has negotiated umbrella and general technical agreements with Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Italy, and Norway, indicating that these countries can provide the U.S. with most of the host-nation support that it requests. The United States European Command (USEUCOM) is preparing joint logistical support plans to cover details of the host-nation support. It will make initiatives, when politically feasible, with the NATO southern flank countries of Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Turkey in order to develop such support. In developing joint logistical support plans, USEUCOM initiated action to establish Logistics Coordination Cells (LCC) to operate as the in-country extension of USEUCOM. These on-site LCC will be critical to continued rapid description of and agreement on detailed host-nation support of U.S. forces.

U.S.-HNS policy in Southwest Asia involved opening discussions with selected regional countries to explore the development of possible contingency support for U.S. forces. Although the political climate in the region has slowed initiatives, limited progress has been made in the areas of access agreements, pre-positioning, and initial HNS talks.

In Northeast Asia, HNS focuses on the Republic of Korea and Japan. The combined-defense improvement projects (CDIP) program, the HNS effort in Korea, continues as a successful program. The U.S. currently benefits from Japan's support primarily by Japanese deferral of base rentals and construction costs.

Furthermore, WESTCOM has initiated a Friendly/Allied Nation Support (FANS) program to determine the capability of other Pacific countries to provide HNS for U.S. forces.

Well-planned, supported, and executed mobilization plans sustain units in wartime. To realize the level of excellence the Army sought during FY 83, mobilization efforts focused on mobilization planning review, augmentation and preassignment programs to provide pretrained individuals to Regular Army and Reserve Component units upon mobilization, and expansion of the training base.

[40]

Review of the Army's mobilization master plans (MMPs) for emergency-critical installations, begun by Corps of Engineers' districts in 1982, continued during FY 83. Instead of peacetime population data, the mobilization master plans are based on the task assignments, populations, and timetables of these installations in wartime. The methodology for preparation of these plans is flexible and allows for their expansion when the Army develops scenarios for "total" mobilization, which means a military involvement approaching the scale of World War II. This fiscal year, the Army completed plans for most of the 55 troop installations and for 10 out of the 25 ammunition plants, with some of the plans receiving their first update to incorporate revised planning information and new Corps of Engineers building designs. The advantage of the Corps' civil works districts preparing the mobilization plans is that their tasks include support of military installations within their areas. This enables many additional Corps personnel to familiarize themselves with military planning and construction procedures. Consequently, the procedure enhances their preparation to assume their mobilization assignment in wartime.

Another mobilization issue involved the augmentation and preassignment programs. Through these programs the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) and the Retiree Mobilization Program continue to provide a pretrained manpower pool to meet unfilled mobilization requirements in the Regular Army and Reserve Component units. Of the 260,778 personnel in the Individual Ready Reserve, 8,124 Individual Mobilization Augmentees (IMAs) are preassigned to positions that would be filled during mobilization. Another 9,903 IRR members are also preassigned (includes Active Guard/Reserve personnel). An additional 208,168 personnel are earmarked by the September 1983 Mobilization Personnel Processing System (MOBPERS) to fill Active and Reserve Component units during mobilization. This past year the personnel pool on which the Army can draw during a period of mobilization increased as the Army identified an additional 27,000 enlisted soldiers of the IRR and brought them under reserve management for a total of 206,000. An extra 40,000 enlisted soldiers of the IRR were identified and placed under active management for a total of 120,000. The Retiree Mobilization Program has preassigned approximately 126,000 retired Army personnel to include 123,800 for CONUS positions and 2,200 for positions in Europe and Korea.

Expansion of the training base to meet mobilization requirements received unprecedented emphasis during FY 83. Army initiatives included traditional and innovative construction techniques and systems, such as leasing privately owned nonindustrial

[41]

facilities (NIP), fabricating polyurethane foam structures for temporary storage, stocking approximately 12,000 (General Purpose) GP-medium tents for use in overseas base development in support of a contingency, and supporting legislation to permit mobilization construction prior to an actual presidential declaration of a national emergency.

In mobilization planning, construction project requirements and facility types designs became of major importance. During the year, the Army received a total of ninety mobilization construction project requirements amounting to $5.7 million from CONUS-based installations (including DARCOM Army Ammunition Plants). Moreover the Congress appropriated $7.5 million for mobilization planning this year in an effort to develop standardized "M" drawings for eighty-five different facility types, which can be site-adapted once the design is authorized upon a declaration of emergency.

As a result, the mobilization facilities designs program continued to progress during FY 83. The program will include four phases corresponding to the relative importance of the facility types and will eventually develop standard designs for approximately 120 types of facilities. The first three phases cover the development of standard designs for temporary facilities. The fourth phase involves semipermanent facility standard designs. In 1981 and 1982 the Army contracted with two separate architectural and engineering (AE) firms for the phase I and II development. This year the Army contracted with a third AE firm for development of the phase III series of standard designs for twenty facility types. The phase I contractor completed 33 of 37 facility designs and should complete the final 4 by June 1984. The phase II contractor should complete 71 facility designs by August 1984, satisfying the contract requirements. The Army is currently evaluating the phase IV development of semipermanent facility standard designs and it should decide whether or not to continue phase IV by March 1984.

The facilities design development program suffered a setback this past year when Congress did not fund fully the FY 84 budget requests. From the original proposal for $13 million, Congress cut $9.5 million, which the Army was to use for adapting the standard drawings to specific sites in CONUS. According to Congress, inadequate site information caused the funding cut. The $3.5 million authorized for FY 84, however, appears sufficient to complete the standard design requirements at present identified. The Army anticipates an initial distribution to the Corps of Engineers' Field Operating Agencies (FOAs) of completed standard design in August 1984.

[42]

This fiscal year the Corps of Engineers' responsibility for preparing and executing construction required for mobilization received clearer definition when a description of this idea referred to as the Direct Support/General Support (DS/GS) concept, appeared in the Corps of Engineers Mobilization and Operations Planning System (CEMOPS) dated May 1983. The DS/GS concept aims to provide a single responsible mobilization Corps district for each mobilization installation. The concept also provides an important activity for districts normally engaged only in civil works because, as noted previously, it allows them to prepare in peacetime for their mobilization responsibilities.

For example, those districts charged with peacetime military construction responsibilities will provide direct support to all installations within their peacetime boundaries and are referred to as direct support (DS) districts. All other districts are in general support, thus general support (GS) districts. In peacetime, the DS district will serve as the single point-of-contact (POC) for its installations and is responsible for the preparation of installation support books (ISBs), mobilization master plans (MMPs), and mobilization construction. The DS district will task the assigned GS district with the preparation of ISB, MMP, and for the design and construction of preplanned mobilization projects once these projects receive approval. Relationships of the GS district to the DS district are similar to that of an architect/engineer firm to the GS district. This relationship is not intended to preclude all contact between the GS district and the installation. Taskings to the GS district will come through the DS district. For instance, during peacetime, the Savannah District is responsible for the military construction support of Fort Bragg, North Carolina, but, during mobilization, Wilmington District will also have responsibility for Fort Bragg. In support of its possible future role, Wilmington, as the GS district, is now preparing the ISB and the MMP for Fort Bragg. This first hand experience working with Fort Bragg should provide the basis of a solid working relationship in event of mobilization. Further, if the Army requires any premobilization design and/or construction, it will task Wilmington. However, the responsible district will remain Savannah, the DS district.

To date the Army has allocated funds for the ISB program, which consists of two subprograms and totals 101 installations the 55 Reserve Component mobilization stations and the 46 DARCOM production base facilities (28 Army ammunition plants and 18 Army depots); the Army also has initiated 98 ISBs. The ISB provides essential information for use by the DS and GS district staffs and the on-site Corps of Engineers field representative to design and construct mobilization facilities at a specified

[43]

installation. The DS district is responsible for overseeing preparation of the ISB by the assigned GS district, which uses their organic capabilities in close cooperation with each installation. In general, ISB addresses points of contact, environmental and mobilization project information on a specified installation, and information on the supporting district.

The Corps of Engineers made significant strides in support of preparations for mobilization through a variety of initiatives during FY 83. Besides their work on ISBs, the Corps continued efforts on standardized mobilization facilities designs, considered other ways to meet expected construction needs, worked at obtaining more complete and specific mobilization construction requirements from historical and anticipated wartime users of Corps of Engineers' services, established exportable mobilization training packages for Corps personnel and developed draft legislation for mobilization construction.

By continuing efforts on standardized mobilization facilities designs ("M" drawings), the Corps of Engineers essentially completed 40 out of the 120 required designs at year's end and anticipates completion of the remainder by the end of next year. These drawings, which call for the use of readily available construction materials and contractors for all work, will enable the Corps to quickly build required construction should mobilization occur.

Wartime mobilization would cause significant shortages in troop housing and existing standardized facilities designs fail to meet all anticipated construction needs within an acceptable period. The Corps considered alternatives to meet expected construction needs, while minimizing the time lag between identification of requirements and occupancy. For example, the Corps is working on the feasibility of using hastily constructed, pressure-sprayed, quick drying, polyurethane "foam domes" as a partial solution to the anticipated extensive construction requirement of mobilization; a Corps laboratory is developing a stationing analysis model (SAM) to assist in the planning for mobilization at military installations. SAM will make available unclassified data on planned troop concentrations by installation once the program is functioning next fiscal year.

The Army also continued its efforts to obtain more complete and specific mobilization construction requirements from historical and anticipated wartime users of Corps of Engineers services. Based on experience during FY 83 the Corps anticipates working more closely with other federal agencies in order to assist them in determining their mobilization construction requirements. The rationale for this effort is that many of these projects will likely be

[44]

presented to the Corps, in its "Federal Engineer" role, for responsive execution.

This fiscal year the Army completed the first group in a series of exportable mobilization training packages for Corps of Engineers personnel, with more essential training to follow in the future. These courses will train Corps employees to accomplish emergency construction, procure materials, and accept real estate responsibilities before and after the declaration of mobilization. Courses fielded during FY 83 included Military Construction Project Management (November 1982) and Real Estate Procedures (April 1983). Training packages nearing completion at the end of the fiscal year focused on Military Finance and Accounting Procedures, Military Construction Surveillance, Cost Reimbursement, Military Construction Design, and Expediting Materials and Procurement for Mobilization.

The Corps of Engineers developed draft legislation for mobilization construction during FY 83. The main thrust of the several legislative packages included maintaining the Corps in readiness to respond to extensive mobilization construction requirements, authorizing the president to direct the Chief of Engineers to perform construction if the nation's security is threatened (i.e., prior to a formal declaration of war or national emergency), authorizing the Corps to carry out work with any Army-specific funds available, enabling the Corps to terminate any projects determined not immediately necessary and shifting funds to other emergency projects, and authorizing the waiver of the requirements of any federal laws that are unreasonable in light of the circumstances of mobilization. The Corps will pursue efforts to gain Congress's approval of this package in FY 84.

This fiscal year technology transfer activities played an important part in mobilization expansion of the training base. The Environmental Technical Information System (ETIS), a remote terminal system operated and maintained by the University of Illinois, assisted Army planners to forecast and mitigate the critical economic consequences of any proposed action on an installation. All major commands in the Army and Air Force extensively use this system, which provides information via an 800 number. This year the Army also had access to the Computer-Aided Engineering and Architectural Design System (CAEADS), an on-line interactive graphics computer system, which integrates the professional contribution of the programmer, architect, engineer, and cost estimator in developing a concept design for a facility. Finally, Army mechanical engineers used the BLAST (Building Loads Analysis and System Thermodynamics) system in energy analysis of facilities.

[45]

The Army undertook a number of additional initiatives this fiscal year to expand the mobilization training base. Funding continued for refinement and/or development of second generation mobilization programs of instruction. These provide, together with TRADOC's Training Base Capacity Study, a comprehensive, validated list of resources needed to operate the training base on a full mobilization basis and satisfy the 180 day post mobilization training base output requirement (PMTBOR). During the second quarter of this fiscal year, reorganization and realignment of functions within the Training Directorate resulted in the transfer of the Training Base Mobilization Team from the Unit Training Division to the Institutional Training Division. At the end of this fiscal year, the Army completed and fielded the third iteration of the Mobilization Army Program of Individual Training (MOB ARPRINT). This planning document provides guidance for detailed expansion of the mobilization training base. The Army also completed preparations to transfer proponency of the Army Training Requirements and Resources System (ATRRS), which produces the MOB ARPRINT, from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (ODCSOPS) to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER).

In 1983 training focused on combat readiness-a fundamental requisite of an Army of Excellence. To accomplish this goal, the Army consolidated its training strategy and inculcated it into the training programs and supporting materials being produced in the schools, expanded training facilities and courses of instruction, targeted training to individuals and systems, and conducted training with simulators as well as with new modernized equipment reaching the force for units to sharpen tactics.

In fiscal year 1983, the Army published its first Training Strategy as a portion of Army Guidance Volume 1. By providing a framework for the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution of training, the Training Strategy supports the Total Army mission of training both active and reserve components and prepares the training base for prompt and sustained land combat operations. Training Strategy also gives direction in individual and collective training and in the supply of products designed to support training. Recognizing that the training of individual soldiers is a continuous process from entry until release from active duty, the Army's Training Strategy includes a physical fitness program and guidance for training the new and junior soldier, the noncommissioned officer (NCO) as well as the commissioned Army officer. Focusing on wartime mission training requirements, collective

[46]

training guidance emphasizes systems-oriented training, support force as well as combined-arms combat unit training, and joint training efforts. In providing training support, the Training Strategy promotes the standardization of products designed to support training and directs that training is improved while remaining cost-effective.

Training forces for combat readiness is the first priority in today's Army. As the October 1983 Grenada operation demonstrated, well-trained, physically fit soldiers, psychologically prepared for combat, do perform well in battle. In FY 83, forces training had emphasized physical toughness, diagnostics, and realistic training, as well as the use of technology in maintaining individual and unit proficiency. Combat mission simulators, electronic devices, and extensive use of local training areas were a few of the training tools the Army had successfully integrated into its training program.

The National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, California, now in its second year of operation, provides an excellent training area to better prepare soldiers and leaders for combat. The two-week training course at the NTC teaches leaders and soldiers alike the combined-arms team tactics in field exercises as close to combat as the Army can devise. Exercises match "friendly" battalions against "opposing force" battalions in realistic, objectively assessed, fully instrumented force-on-force engagements (using eye-safe lasers) to demonstrate lessons in gunnery, tactics, logistics, and leadership. The level of realism allows soldiers to test their skills in a combatlike environment. The NTC course will witness eighteen battalion task forces training this year, including one reserve battalion.

There were other Army initiatives taken in order to improve the collective training effort. These included upgrading the Army Training and Evaluation Program (ARTEP) to incorporate expanded training and evaluation outlines that will allow commanders to evaluate better training performance and needs, and to plan more effectively to address these needs. To provide training in joint and combined teamwork, the Army participated in joint and combined exercises such as MOBEX (Fort McPherson, Georgia), LOGEX, PROUD SABER (throughout CONUS), REFORGER and TEAM SPIRIT (Korea). to a degree unprecedented in peacetime. Furthermore, the first RC battalion completed training at the NTC this fiscal year demonstrating the Total Army commitment. More than 400 RC units also participated in the Overseas Deployment Training (ODT) program, which provided in-country training. In summary, the forces training program prepared individuals and units to meet their responsibilities as part of the Army of Excellence.

[47]

The institutional training community has continued to seek, develop, and execute programs that transform civilians into physically tough, disciplined, and qualified soldiers. Such goals center on building a strong cadre of NCO trainers and training a capable officer corps in support of the Army of Excellence. Employing its resources wisely, enabled the Army to institute the light division, field major new weapons systems, and add new training courses. These, in turn, permitted the approval of directed military overstrength for 890 personnel in the training base in order to achieve the aims of the training program.

Another significant improvement in institutional training management occurred when the Army transferred the peacetime and mobilization ATRRS and MOB ARPRINT from ODCSOPS to ODCSPER. The transfer consolidated existing personnel automated systems to manage better accessioning, recruiting, and filling of programmed training slots with soldiers. ODCSOPS, however, remains responsible for training resources and policy determination within the institutional training arena.

Priority for the professional development of the career soldier has caused the expansion and implementation of several programs this year. Analysis revealed the weakest link in the Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) to be Skill Level 2/3 technical training for Combat Support/Combat Service Support (CS/CSS) soldiers. The Army responded with Primary Technical Courses (PTC) and Basic Technical Courses (BTC), which provide training in critical tasks to enable E-5 and E-6 NCOs to gain the competency required for their Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). A total of 151 courses will be available by 1986.

In a related action, the Army submitted for fiscal years 198589 the Program Objective Memorandum (POM). This POM interaction approved additional resources for the PTC and BTC programs, expanded most of the Officer Basic Courses (OBC) an average of four to five weeks, and increased the number of officers attending the Combined Arms and Services Staff School (CAS3) to 4,500 in fiscal year 1986. The CAS3 course allows all captains to receive quality training as staff officers in order to ensure that those filling the staff positions in combat units, combat support, and combat service support units are trained properly for such assignments.

In another effort to develop a highly qualified Officer Corps, the Army approved a pilot program to add a second year to the year-long Command and General Staff Officer (CGSO) course for selected students. The one-year Advanced Military Studies Program (AMSP) provides broad, in-depth, military education in the science and art of war at the tactical and operational levels.

[48]

Officers selected for AMSP will be those demonstrating the greatest potential for future command responsibilities at battalion and brigade level and for duty as principal staff officers of division and corps echelons. A need, as perceived by the Army's senior leadership, for innovative tacticians in the field and thorough planners at all echelons was the genesis for AMSP Although the pilot AMSP involves thirteen students in combat arms MOS, plans eventually call for an annual enrollment of ninety-six students in specialty codes: 35, Military Intelligence; 41, Personnel Program Management; 54, Operations Plans Training and Force Development; and 92, Materiel and Services Management, by academic year 1986-87.

Training devices assumed increased importance as effective training support this year. Lieutenant General Fred K. Mahaffey, DCSOPS, DA, Chairman of the Standards in Training Commission (STRAC), announced that STRAC phase II, incorporating the use of electronic devices and combat mission simulators to enhance baseline strategies, would replace the STRAC phase I weapons training strategies based on live-fire of ammunition. The emerging family of electronic devices will provide realistic, challenging training, while conserving other, increasingly costly or scarce training resources, such as ammunition, fuel, repair parts, and time.

Training support also included the upgrading of phase I of the instrumentation system at the National Training Center to accommodate 500 players, instead of the previous 125. This year NTC began two leader training programs. The first provided an orientation for brigade and battalion command designees to visit the NTC for a period of four days, as part of their precommand training. These same commanders will subsequently bring their battalions to NTC for training exercises. The second course is for the division commander to train his staff at the NTC six months prior to a subordinate brigade's scheduled rotation.

During this fiscal year, the Army significantly expanded modernization training initiatives, centering their efforts on four major areas. First, the Training Directorate revised the army regulation governing Army Modernization Training (AMT). This document provides policy and guidance for New Equipment Training (NET), Displaced Equipment Training (DET), Doctrine and Tactics Training (DTT) and Sustainment Training (ST). Second, the Army sought to develop an automated and viable data base to consolidate all training information under one system and thereby provide AMT with a requisite management tool. Third, the modernization effort has placed significant emphasis on the Training Support Work Group (TSWG) process. The TSWG serves as an ad hoc forum to bring together the major

[49]

command representatives in the New Equipment and Doctrine and Tactics Training Arena in order to review the consolidated training plans, identify, and resolve deficiencies in the ongoing Army modernization program. Fourth, the Army initiated improvements in the training of the rapidly modernizing RC force by assigning RC roundout units the same priority as parent AC organizations for issuance of new equipment. This decision underlined the meaning of the Total Army concept and Army Modernization Training.

The FY 83 Army Study Program consisted of approximately 330 studies, about 53 percent continued efforts initiated earlier. For the first time, studies were categorized in terms of Total Army goals. The readiness and materiel goals accounted for almost 55 percent of the total studies, and received more than 40 percent of program resources. The future development goal represented less than 20 percent of all studies, but received more than one-third of the resources.

Continuing the trend of past years, Army agencies completed over two-thirds of the studies and about 15 percent were contracted out to private individuals or corporations. The remainder was accomplished through combinations of in-house and contractor efforts.

The continued maturation of the Army 86 studies proved to be the year's highlight as well as the analysis element at the California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, now officially known as the Arroyo Center. This organization, as it continues to grow in size and experience, will help meet a recognized Army need for forward-looking studies to support Army planning and programming for future change.

In his retirement address in June 1983, General Donn A. Starry, TRADOC Commander, stated that the Army's needs regarding training and schooling are the same today as they were ten years ago when TRADOC was instituted.

The need for quality training, the importance of modernizing the force, an imperative for the right doctrine and tactics, the ever-present possibility of the need to mobilize-these all are very real, near-term concerns in our quest for an Army of excellence. I believe TRADOC has well served the purpose for which it was created; we must continue to address these and other missions as we prepare the Army to meet its potential wartime-mission responsibilities during the years ahead.

The Army's activities this fiscal year in the area of force development and training did much to address the needs identified by General Starry and to build an Army of Excellence.

[50]

Return to Table of Contents

	Return to CMH Online
	Last updated 9 March 2004