The Progression of Army Readiness Models into the 21st Century The Army has progressed through three different readiness models since the turn of the 21st Century. Force requirements drive changes to the system. In turn, force requirements have changed dramatically due to the Army’s involvement in the Global War on Terror. The method of change is one of evolution rather than revolution. Stressors on the force from global contingency operations serve to identify issues within readiness models. The readiness models then changed over time to meet the needs of the Army as a whole. Force Generation Models Three separate readiness models have served the army and its three components over the change from the 20th to 21st centuries; the Tiered …show more content…
The major change between the systems was the shift from a reset, train, ready model, to one of, prepare, ready, mission model (See Appendix). Under ARFORGEN, units would be unavailable for contingency operations after a deployment due to a decrease in readiness resulting from personnel turnover and training gaps. This downtime lead to the 1:1 BOG ratio during the surge. The Sustainable Readiness Model could fix this. Allowing units to be available during their first phase after a deployment increased overall readiness rates dramatically. The central concept behind the Sustainable Readiness model is the elimination of downtime post deployment (Chad R. Foster, 2016). With commanders required to maintain readiness for contingencies at all times, the percentage of available forces naturally increased. Associated costs rising is one of the notable detriments to Sustainable Readiness. The ARFORGEN model had peaks and valleys within its timeline, reducing costs during downtime. The Sustainable Readiness Model is more flat-line. Consistency in unit training is better. The responsibility to maintain readiness numbers is at the Brigade or Battalion level instead of the Corps or division level of previous models. Commanders at these levels typically have a better picture of the training requirements within their formations. While this …show more content…
The Sustainable Readiness Model will inevitably perform as advertised for the current fore structure with which the Army operates. The current environment is one of multiple conflicts separated by different countries generally in the Central Command area of operations. Say for instance that a near-peer enemy came into conflict with the United States of America. How would the current Readiness Model survive? There is no answer to say that the battle would even be long enough to require a replenishment of forces after the outset of conflict, possibly only lasting as long as the initial thermos-nuclear barrage on capital cities and force multipliers. Aside from the inevitability of nuclear war, a protracted battle with a near-peer is what may eventually push the Sustainable Readiness Model to change. More units are required for a head on head fight compared to the current requirement of our counterinsurgency force. The driving fact in modern readiness models is that change in the opponent creates a change in the readiness model. From opposing Russia in the Cold war, to combating the various factions in Afghanistan and Iraq, readiness has constantly evolved. It will continue to evolve according to whomever we oppose in the future. It may be possible through future planning and war-gaming to
The Army Problem Solving Model was design to be use when time is not critical. The Army Problem solving model is a systematic way to arrive at the best solution. This system considers the risk and a detail analysis of each course of action to prepare an unbiased solution for the decision maker. In contrast with the Rapid Decision Makin and Synchronization Process (RDMS) was design to give the commander the ability make timely and effective decision without the expending too much time on processing or analyzing all the information.
The Army Problem Solving Model, and the Rapid Decision Making and Synchronization Process (RDSP) are systems that commanders use to solve issues that may arise. Both systems require time to complete. Commanders use Army problem solving when the problem is the pressing issue, and time is secondary. Commanders and staff use the RDSP when time is the major factor rapid is the key.
Unified Land Operations defines the army operational design methodology (ADM) as “a methodology for applying critical and creative thinking to understand, visualize, and describe unfamiliar problems and approaches to solving them. The operational design methodology incorporated into army doctrine serves as a method to compliment the military decision making process (MDMP). Although the ADM it is often confused with replacing MDMP, its purpose is to address complex problems from a nonlinear approach. ADM helps the commander to answer questions to problems. However, only a collaborative effort of an operation planning team (OPT) will achieve the approach to answering complex problems. Doctrine alone does not provide the answer to complex problems, but rather offers a guide to solve them. To conceptualize the MDMP, planners must incorporate ADM to provide a better understanding, visualization, and description of the problem. The purpose of this paper is to provide the framework to support why ADM is required in the MDMP.
War finds success and failure inescapably linked to how well the Combined, Joint, and Multinational Commander ensures the Joint War Fighting Function “Sustainment” planning is linked to strategic, operational and tactical objectives. General Eisenhower’s Operation OVERLORD, the Allied cross channel, air, and seaborne invasion of France during World War II provides an excellent case study to show successful integration of the principles and the spirit of the Joint War Fighting Function “Sustainment.” OVERLORD required synchronizing, coordinating, and integrating the logistics capabilities of coalition forces, their equipment as well as civilian manufacturing capabilities to meet the strategic end state (e.g. the defeat of Germany). This article will review the purpose and definition of Joint Sustainment, its imperatives and logistics planning principles and examine how Eisenhower and his planners incorporated these imperatives and principles into Operation OVERLORD.
Both systems require time to complete. Commanders’ use Army problem solving when the problem is the pressing issue, and time is secondary, staffs use this system to identify a problem or the root cause of the issue. Commanders and staff use the RDSP when time is the major factor” rapid” is the key. This process is used when mission variables have changed, or a course of action is no longer valid, or when an opportunity that can be exploited for decisive action.
LM06, Strategic Planning Student Guide. (2013). Maxwell-Gunter AFB. Thomas N. Barnes Center for Enlisted Education (AETC).
Shalikashvili, J.M. (n.d.). Shape, Respond, Prepare Now -- A Military Strategy for a New Era. National Military Strategy. Retrieved September 14, 2004, from http://www.dtic.mil/jcs/nms/index.html#Top
O'Shea, Brandon J. "ARMY.MIL, The Official Homepage of the United States Army." "OPERATION POWER PACK. N.p., 20 Apr. 2010. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
In today’s operational environments, the U.S. Army is facing a range of problems and mission sets that are arguably more complex than previously encountered. Forces face an array of demands that encompass geo-political, social, cultural, and military factors that interact in unpredictable ways. The inherent complexity of today’s operations has underscored the need for the Army to expand beyond its traditional approach to operational planning. In March 2010 in FM 5-0: The Operations
As we transition from subjective training to objective, it is critical to understand the emphasis on training has not changed, just the language. Commander will continue to focus on battle focus training developed by long- range, short- range and near- term planning. The Sustainable Readiness Model (SRM) is the Army’s newest system for prioritizing resources for units on a 5-year cycle based on the level of readiness they must achieve. Each year of the cycle has established Personnel (P), Sustain (S) and Readiness (R) Aim Points on the Unit Status Report (USR). The SRM seeks to stabilize units in a “band of excellence,” even following their READY year, maintaining the highest readiness level instead of automatically downgrading their readiness to a C4 level regardless of whether they deployed. Guidelines in the Prepare Year (PY) found in the SRM will assist Commanders at every level on key training events they will need to focus on for that particular
Leaders today need to have an appreciation for the operation process, understand a situation, envision a desired future, and to lay out an approach that will achieve that future (Flynn & Schrankel, 2013). Plans need to be created that can be modified to changes in any factors considered. However, plans should not be dependent on specific information being precise or that require things to go exactly according to schedule. Instead, the staff NCO should be flexible where they can and always be prepared for the unexpected. Today’s military members are fighting an unconventional war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The enemy constantly changes their tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP’s) to counter the United States technological advances, making planning very difficult for leaders. There are multiple tools at a staff NCO’s disposal to try to anticipate an outcome of a current operation, but also assist with the development of concepts in follow-on missions. The Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) is just one tool a staff NCO can utilize. In order to stay ahead of the enemy, create effective plans and orders, it is critical for a staff NCO to assist the commander, and understand that the MDMP and planning are essential in defeating the enemy and conserving the fighting force.
“Operational design is a journey of discovery, not a destination.” Operational design provides a framework, with the guidance of the Joint Force Commander (JFC), that staffs and planning groups can use to give political leaders, commanders, and warfighters a comprehensive understanding of the nature of the problems and objectives for which military forces will be committed, or are planned to be committed. Furthermore, operational design supports commanders and planners to make sense of complicated operational environments (often with ill-structured or wicked problems), helps to analyze wicked problem, and devise an operational approach to solve the problem in the context of the operational environment.
The Strengths and Weaknesses of Joint Warfare Armed with numerous studies, and intensive public hearings, Congress mandated far-reaching changes in DOD organization and responsibilities under the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. This landmark legislation significantly expanded the authority and responsibility of the chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. Included in this expanded authority and responsibility was the requirement for the chairman to develop a doctrine for the joint employment of armed forces. As operations Urgent Fury, Just Cause, and Desert Storm have vividly demonstrated, the realities of armed conflict in today's world make the integration of individual service capabilities a matter of success or failure, life or death. Furthermore, the operation Desert One demonstrated the need for a strengthened Joint Warfare Doctrine and the consequent change in Joint Warfare Employment.
Military leaders make decisions and solve problems every day. Some need a decision quickly while others can take time. The US Army has several decision-making methods to assist leaders. The Army Problem Solving Model (Process) (PSM) is a systematic approach to identifying the best possible solution to an issue or problem and a deliberate method of decision-making (FM 6-0, 2009). Leaders use it to solve a problem when time is not critical and they can put some thought into different solutions. The solution must be objective and based on facts in order for the decision to be relevant and practical. The Rapid Decision Making and Synchronization Process (RDM) is a decision-making and synchronization technique typically used during the execution phase of an operation (FM 5-0, 2010). Besides its use during execution, this style of decision making is quick and focuses on the ability to modify the plan, due to changing circumstances, and synchronize those changes with subordinate elements. Determining which method to apply requires an understanding of the similarities and differences of both techniques.