Force Projection Symposium IV 8 May 2003 LTG Chuck Mahan United States Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4 LTG Chuck Mahan United States Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4 “Deploying the Objective Force”

2 of 16 Given our current operations, what force projection challenges did we face, what lessons did we learn, and what can we do better?

3 of 16 Transporting soldiers and equipment to and from Iraq will run $7.1 billion. On any given day, more than 120 U.S. ships packed with supplies are on the seas…. The United States has sent more than 145 million pounds of cargo and supplies to the Persian Gulf by plane since January. An additional 1.1 billion pounds have arrived by sea. Renae Merle, “Fighting, In Dollars And Cents”, Washington Post, 12 April 2003

4 of 16 ACCESSIBILITY CHALLENGE Northern ports (Turkey) lacked depth, which required smaller, slower, shallower draft ships CHALLENGE “Anti-access” implied “hostile” environment, must also consider diplomatic and bureaucratic “anti-access” DISCUSSION 12 LMSRs to move 101 st AA Division with enablers vs. 29 “Cape class” ships to move 4ID and its enablers Change in ports required change in plan and review of priorities (what equipment, supplies were needed most) Requirement for customs / convoy clearances and overflight permission Theater Support Vessel ISB / TSV ITV

5 of 16 DEPORD PROCESS – TPFDD* FLOW CHALLENGE Incremental approval of deployment orders and port accessibility issues resulted in changes to TPFDD flow DISAGGREGATION OF TPFDD Movement of personnel through mobilization sites Challenge in processing soldiers / DA civilians / contractors at CONUS Replacement Center (CRC) and preparing for onward movement Maintenance of unit integrity (combat loading) Enabling units arriving after combat units Challenge in matching arriving equipment with mobilizing / arriving soldiers *TPFDD – Time Phased Force Deployment Document

6 of 16 RELIANCE ON THE RESERVE COMPONENT CHALLENGE Over 70% of all EAD CSS is in Reserve Component SecDef directed “Reserve Component Comprehensive Review” intended to reduce reliance on RC early in operations (first Major Combat Operation (MCO) totally active component??) * Source: SAMAS AUG 02 Master Force File AC ARNG USAR TOTAL 26.5% 29% 44.5% 100.0% ACARNGUSAR UNITS 51,989 57,594 87, ,968 AUTH DISCUSSION RC (particularly theater-level logistics) must be mobilized early RC OPTEMPO (what can be sustained? – emerging policy is one 270-day deployment / 60 months)

7 of 16 “I’m certain that when the history of this campaign is written that people will look at this move that the land forces have made in this amount of time as being not only a great military accomplishment, but an incredible logistics accomplishment.” LTG John Abizaid Deputy Commander (Forward) Combined Forces Command, CENTCOM 31 March 2003 Richard Lewis, Associated Press

8 of 16 We had great success in Operation Iraqi Freedom, but PHYSICS STILL APPLY.

9 of 16  Demand reduction  “Spartan” support There are five complementary and necessary strategies for effectively deploying and sustaining the Objective Force….  Deployment capabilities  Forward positioning  Distribution-based logistics

10 of 16  Deployment process improvement (e.g., TC-AIMS II, Movement Tracking System, In-transit Visibility, Logistics Common Operating Picture)  Increase lift capacity through increased numbers of legacy lift systems and development of new systems  Infrastructure improvement (e.g., improved port throughput) DEPLOYMENT CAPABILITIES CONSIDERATIONS Better Processes, Lift Capacity, and Infrastructure Improvements Will Increase Capabilities Movement Tracking System Radio Frequency Tag TC-AIMS II

11 of 16 FORWARD POSITIONING  Pre-positioning of equipment Materiel (composition of stocks) Facilities (humidity-controlled warehouses, vessels) Location (adjacent to strategic transportation nodes)  Permanent forward basing of units’ equipment (with rotating units)  First to Fight equipment

12 of 16 Source: CASCOM Rock Drill DISTRIBUTION-BASED LOGISTICS  Distribution-based logistics reliant on reach Limited days of supply upon initial deployment Limited carrying/storage capacity – cargo and fuel trucks Bulk water and bulk fuel must immediately come from reach Reduced patient holding capacity  Sustainment flow requirements Configured loads Must establish immediate sustainment flow, concurrent with deployment Sustainment flow must be frequent and consistent Aerial sustainment as required by METT-TC Broad, shallow ASL with rapid replenishment Reduces Footprint, But Introduces New Sustainment Flow Requirements

13 of 16 DEMAND REDUCTION  Platform efficiency More efficient platforms through new technologies (e.g., hybrid electric engines, embedded diagnostics / prognostics) More efficient CSS equipment (e.g., organic upload / download capability, No RTCH outside of APOD / SPOD)  Force efficiency More efficient forces through combat multipliers (e.g., throughput without re-configuration) More efficient forces through commonality (e.g., one common chassis)  Personnel efficiency (e.g., built in diagnostics) Improved treatment of sustainment in requirements development and acquisition

14 of 16 SPARTAN SUPPORT  Use augmentation or reach for: Infrequently needed capabilities (e.g., POW evacuation) Tasks that can be deferred or scheduled outside of combat periods (e.g., scheduled vehicle services) Capabilities that can be foregone for short periods of time (e.g., hot food)  Accept increased risk to reduce resources (e.g., refuel every other day instead of topping off each day) Minimizes Initial and Forward Requirements- Only What Must Be With a Force Every Day Will Be Organic to a Force

15 of 16 Today’s requirements compared to our force projection capability….. This will not change without an integrated approach to our force projection strategies.

Phone: (703) (DSN 225) LTG Charles S. Mahan, Jr. HQDA DCS, G-4 ATTN: DALO-ZA, Suite 1E Army Pentagon Washington, DC Return Address SEND ME YOUR CARDS AND LETTERS

17 of 16 THE ARMY AT WAR AND TRANSFORMING