The USAG Ansbach 2020 LOE Staff Matrix

What components should be included in the planning efforts and the final plan? How are operational plans defined, and what do they contain?

2. A high level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures esp. of a governmental

IX. Identify problems and solutions with your plan (develop it) and also your aims and objectives:

Being at war for the last 14 years the Army now finds it has the best trained and the most combat experienced force in its history. However, the intense focus on a relatively small number of mission sets such as irregular warfare detracts resources for the other missions required by Geographic Combatant Commander (GCC). To address this shortfall, the Chief of Staff of the Army General Ray Odierno directed implementation of the Regional Alignment of Forces (RAF) concept as means to address Combatant Command’s (CCMD) requirements. Regional alignment of Army units provides the GCC assigned units for a dedicated period , capable of executing myriad of specified missions as outlined in their Lines of Effort

The USAG-Ansbach 2020 Campaign Plan operationalizes the vision of the Garrison Commander over a 5-year period (2015-2020). This plan is intended as a change management document to guide, shape, and drive the direction of the command’s future actions. The plan provides the necessary guidance and a framework to progress toward the USAG-Ansbach 2020 end-state.

SUMMARY: With over 28 years of education and experience in the Marine Corps’ Ammunition/Explosives Occupational Field, an active Secret clearance, and thorough knowledge of military policies, government contracts and leadership hierarchy, I am a retired USMC officer ready for the next challenge. My experiences have allowed me to grow in many different management areas: program management, Defense Acquisition, logistics, configuration management, creating budget exhibits that included briefing senior leadership, quality assurance, production audits, establishing plans of action and milestones, personnel supervision and, foreign military sales.

Normally, before any new equipment can be purchased, the need must be proven and prioritized (MRAPs, Irregular Warfare, and Pentagon Reform, 20). The Pentagon uses the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) to determine requirements and only select projects are important enough to be considered by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) and the others are passed down to lower levels (Ibid.). JROC and JCIDS assist the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff counsel the Secretary of Defense on the military capabilities (Ibid.). The process of determining requirements is laborious due to the number of compromises and concerns that need to be considered before making a decision to spend billions of dollars. Key issues for consideration include the importance of the requirement to mission success and determining the best resources required to satisfy the need (Ibid.). Other considerations include impacts to training, tactics, doctrine, organizations, leader development, personnel, and facilities (Ibid.). The requirements process is purposely designed to be strenuous since its goal is to decrease waste and take full advantage of benefits (Ibid.). The main point is that is not possible to acquire military equipment without a validated requirement or without considering if other less costly solutions might address the problem. Although the normal acquisition process focuses primarily on future requirements, it does permit a review of urgent needs from field commanders (Ibid.). Finally, the normal acquisition process requires a sequential phasing process characterized by developmental testing, operational testing, production, integration, fielding, disposal and requirements refining (Dikici,

General Dempsey articulated the United States military is the premier global military with a decisive military advantage but dominance just doesn’t happen necessitating the United States military to maintain the decisive edge. Dempsey’s statement is the catalyst for the premise of Joint Force 2025 in which the United States military embarks upon a transition and rebalance to address a wide continuum of emerging threats to our nation’s national interests in the foreseeable future. Dempsey correctly states that adaptation and innovation are essential to the Joint Force 2025 as ‘we have to out-learn and out-think our adversaries.’ This essay will recommend general capabilities of Joint Force 2025 which are necessary to transition and rebalance the force based on strategic guidance and the global security environment which provides the combatant commander with right-sized capabilities in support of the nation’s strategic interests. Utilization of national strategic guidance will lay the foundation for the assessment of each service’s general capabilities in support of Joint Force 2025 while also appraising risk implications in the foreseeable global security environment.

Contemporary theater and service planners successfully applied OIF lessons learned, and adopted adaptive operational planning throughout the joint operational planning process. In fact, post-OIF joint operation planning evolved from the antiquated Joint Operations Planning and Execution System (JOPES) to the Adaptive Planning and Execution (APEX) model, providing flexible options for application of military force to national decision makers.24 (Campaign Planning Handbook, p.11) In that, the Joint Operations Planning Process (JOPP) and APEX advanced theater and inter-service planning through institutionalized iterative dialogue and collaborative planning between echelons of command, ensuring the military instrument of national power is synchronized

Through the JCIDS and in conjunction with the Defense Acquisition System (DAS), the joint capabilities are developed. Within the DAS there are five phases of development to be considered.9 These are materiel solution analysis, technology development, engineering and manufacturing development, production and deployment, and operations and support.10 These phases demonstrate the validity of the capabilities and are dependent various milestones being met. Finally, the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process enables the funding of the validated capabilities.11 This extensive process allows consideration of the support requirements for new capabilities including research, development, training, education, procurement, military construction, ammunition, operations and maintenance, civilian and military personnel.12 Additionally, the JCIDS process assesses the needs of all services, avoids duplication, conserves resources, and provides a coordinated approach for determining military capabilities for the future

The KMS contains learning documents from operations that are part of the core competencies and ensures that everyone has an understanding of the organization and its mission (Darling, Parry, & Moore, 2005). The goal is to foster an environment of learning and facilitated knowledge flow between all army units from the leaders to subordinates. However, one problem is that generals are held solely responsible to make sure all lessons are completed between commanders, staffs, and subordinates. It is imperative that all army units are onboard and using the system in order to collect accurate data to analyze on the four questions that are asked. It is also key that leaders correct any deficiencies from the training assessment and identify the strengths and performance of the both the individual soldiers and those who are in charge. The benefits of the system outweigh the areas that need improvement and are crucial as they provide a knowledge advantage on new military technologies and strategies. This system is also modular and highly adaptable and as new technological innovations are readily integrated into the

The first JPG requirement regarding USPACOM CONPLAN 55XX, was to understand the current operational environment. Team One’s responses for Phase 1 demonstrated a clear understanding of the strategic guidance and hit all major elements of the current operational

It was also stressed the importance of what Maj.-Gen. Patch referred to as “building your case” in regards to equipment requirements that may perhaps be falling behind around the workshop. In 2012, his predecessors managed approximately 30 major fleets, representing approximately 22,685 platforms and 280,531 centrally managed line items, including all ammunitions, and approximately 100 in-service support contracts. A portfolio of vehicles and equipment this large requires ongoing maintenance and repair, as well as upgrades and eventual disposal. Given its size and complexity, it has been a growing expectation that the readiness levels of fleets must be maximized in order to meet operational demands in a security environment that continues to be unpredictable and volatile. Although it is one of RCEME’s great strengths to be able to do more with less, the further we document in detail the needs of our individual working environments, the better we can gain access to new equipment strategies.

The Army must evolve to transform and develop its existing capabilities into a more complex or better form. The Army accomplishes this through the use of DOD and Army resourcing processes like the Program Objective Memorandum (POM), long-range investment requirement analysis (LIRA), and the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS). The Army then works to ensure that the material solutions are integrated fully with existing capabilities across DOTMLPF solutions.

In order to provide a schematic response to this question, we return to the structure used to provide an answer to question one, being the four purposes of planning and budgeting processes.