Dominant Logistics
The Future U.S. Army
With transformation being the dominant theme of military discussions today, I feel a need to define the overall picture of what I believe the Army should be. While many are calling for developing an overall "expeditionary" structure for the force, I feel this ignores the fact that most missions require greater manpower and resources than small, highly deployable forces can offer. For example, many have raised criticisms over the inadequate size of forces sent to Iraq to overthrow the Hussein regime and restore peace - and yet this "small" force consisted of multiple divisions of troops.
The notion that there is a single size or single type of unit that can meet all Army needs is pure fiction. This is arguably the greatest fault within the current Future Combat Systems plan - there is no magical single answer to all missions. We need a large, diverse force capable of meeting all our defense needs. We need expeditionary forces but we also need peacekeeping forces that are equipped and trained to deal with rebuilding that which we destroy. We need airborne and other light forces for rapid deployment but we also need survivable forces that can engage conventional legacy systems like tanks and artillery. In short, we need just about every idea being proposed today in a cohesive force.
Today's force is an armor intensive affair that is overly dependent on Reserve and Guard units. While the active component of today's Army is only ten divisions, another 18 divisions lie in various reserve formations. Reserve units are useful and very cost-effective, but it is critical that the active component be able to operate without calling up reserves every time a mission arises. I will leave the distribution of active and reserve units to people more qualified than myself and focus on the total Army force that we need for future wars.
It should also be noted that I believe the entire system of having organizations higher than division should be eliminated altogether. Many have noted the problems associated with having excessive layers of command and it only makes sense to deal with this problem immediately. The modern era is no place for Corps and Army echelons, particularly when every engagement we enter seems to require units from across the spectrum of warfare.
Light Infantry Divisions (Four Divisions)
Our most deployable and useful formations should continue to be light infantry divisions. Today's light infantry are too light to be effective in most roles so they should be reequipped with the proposed light infantry combat systems. The LID should consist of three Brigade Combat Teams, not unlike those in current divisions. In accordance with proposed personnel rotations, one division would be available for peacekeeping and similar missions while the other three would be in a combat ready state.
All LIDs would be air deployable and all equipment within the LID can be dropped by parachute. These divisions would rely heavily on modernized M113 combat vehicles to augment their capabilities and survivability. The days of the dedicated air assault division should come to an end as they have become technologically obsolete and all LIDs must be capable of full spectrum helicopter operations. If a light infantryman isn't capable of performing in air assault operations, then he has no business being a light infantryman.
Mechanized Infantry Divisions (Four Divisions)
The existing mechanized and armor divisions should be converted into the proposed Mechanized Infantry divisions with updated Bradley variants, to include a Bradley Medium Tank. While being a mechanized division, these units remain pretty manpower intensive and are still suitable for OOTW, moreso than current mech and armor units. As with the LIDs, one division will be available to perform OOTW missions at any given time while the remaining divisions remain on a go-to-war status.
The proposed MIDs are more deployable than existing mech and armor units and have a limited ability to deploy by air. For larger units and missions, sea transport will remain the option of choice but for smaller tasks, air transport is an option. Sustainability of the MID is enhanced by moving Abrams and other resouce intensive systems to other formations.
Peacekeeping Divisions (Six Divisions)
A new division should be developed specifically to handle OOTW missions. While many talk about avoiding these mission altogether, the reality is that these capabilities are necessary if for no other reason than to deal with the mess made by other units in war. Our nationbuilding efforts should be limited but it is a capability that needs to be available to the force as even in war, these capabilities are required to some degree.
Peacekeeping divisions should be tailored and trained for operating in specific regions of the world to optimize their effectiveness. These units are also ideal to use for reserve forces as they are rarely needed and when called upon, are typically used in smaller groups of battalion or brigade size. Ideally, the Peacekeeping divisions should be organized so that battalion-sized elements are self-sustaining.
Armored Combat Regiments (Sixteen Regiments)
Armored Combat Regiments are the units that will retain our current strengths in the area of manuever warfare. While it is popular to dismiss this concept as being no longer useful, the reality is that many situations arise on a regular basis that can be dealt with more effectively by armored forces than by any other. Whether in Bosnia, Somalia, or Iraq, the need to retain serious armored units cannot be disputed.
By reducing the overall size of the formation and replacing supporting systems with lighter versions, we can build ACRs that much more deployable and useful than today's armored units. These units will likely be in high demand, even in humanitarian roles to provide robust security in hostile regions. They can also retain their current mission as a supporting force for larger formations.
Airborne Combat Regiments (Eight Regiments)
The Airborne Combat Regiment represents a foray into the world of the Air-Mechanized Strike concept. Structured similar to Armored Combat Regiments, the Airborne Regiments are equipped for parachute and heliborne operations on a 3D battlefield. These units are particularly well-suited for forced-entry operations where units don't have the luxury of pre-staging before engaging the enemy.
Probably the best way to organize these units is to have three active regiments forming the 82nd Airborne division, three more active regiments forming a new parachute-capable 101st Airborne division and placing the remaining two regiments in reserve. The divisional labels would be purely organizational.
Artillery Cavalry Regiment (Eight Regiments)
Most of the formations I propose converting to are somewhat light in their artillery and air defense capabilities - this is because these assets are of very limited value in most of the conflicts we are involved in. I would relocate the excessive assets into formations of Artillery Cavalry Regiments. Frankly, this is the sort of unit you hope to never have to use but it needs to be available just in case.
This formation combines a very large quantity of air defense guns along with heavier, long range artillery rockets and missiles. For most conflicts, these systems aren't needed but if we ever find ourselves in a real shooting match against a real enemy, these systems will be critical. It's also a good way to provide a defensive formation for some types of peacekeeping and humanitarian missions where a larger Armored Combat Regiment isn't suitable.
Aviation Cavalry Regiment (Six Regiments)
The Aviation Cavalry Regiment is designed to augment the aviation assets of other units or to convert other units into airmobile forces. This unit also returns to the Army a modest quantity of light fixed wing assets for use in supporting low intensity conflicts. Some have suggested forming units that would be entirely airborne to be used to cover very large areas and this unit could be used in that role as well.
General Overview
Upon close inspection, one will probably notice that these suggestions are a lot more about reorganizing the assets we currently have than about creating something new out of thin air. With view exceptions, the major systems involved in this proposal would be remanufactured systems from existing assets. On the whole, we are actually reducing the total quantities of major systems while increasing the need for individual manpower. But even here, most of the manpower changes are shifts away from higher echelon organizations to larger and stronger line units.
For performing OOTW missions, we will have substantially greater resources available. At any given time, this proposal, combined with personnel rotation suggestions, would have a total of six peacekeeping divisions, two combat divisions, four armored combat regiments, two airborne combat regiments, and six aviation combat regiments, available for OOTW. Many of these units will be in reserves but this will free most of the force from non-combat missions, allowing the Army to focus on fighting and winning the nation's ways.
We're also incorporating a number of novel concepts for engaging in future wars without sacrificing the gains that have been made. Major combat units are being reduced to more manageable sizes, we're incorporating air-mechanization as well as aviation cavalry, and we're restructuring to a more deployable force overall. If we take the simple steps of procuring Skycat 1000 airships and developing a self-deployment capability for our helicopters, we'll find that every suggested unit except the mechanized infantry divisions can be deployed by airship in 20 sorties or less.