Draft FM 5-0?

[sullygoarmy]

Just wondering if anyone has heard or seen anything on a new rewrite of FM-5.0? A buddy of mine in theater was asking and I know I haven't seen anything yet.

Sully

[Jim Rodgers]

I have an issue paper on this dated late 2007. I think it was supposed to follow the new 3-0, which has been out for a few months now. Someone else might be able to speak to where the process is now (I have no idea), but I'll forward you what I have. I'm bouncing all over the place right now, so ping me via PM with your AKO address if you haven't heard from me in a couple of days.

There are some interesting changes. Not sure how big of a deal they are yet.

Jim

[sullygoarmy]

I've got the draft verison of the new 5.0 if anyone is interested. Contact me and I can shoot it out to you.

Sully

[Shek]

I've got the draft verison of the new 5.0 if anyone is interested. Contact me and I can shoot it out to you.

Sully

Sully,
Any updates on the publishing timeline? Thanks.

[Cavguy]

Sully,
Any updates on the publishing timeline? Thanks.

It's still in the bowels of CAC/CADD. I think the target is the end of the year. They are incorporating "Design" into it, and then it has to go through the sausage machine of comments/revisions.

[Klugzilla]

Yes, it has to go through at least one more round of comments. However, it may get hung up due to design. The nature of design and because so many people see it differently (which I think is a good thing, but it makes writing design doctrine difficult) may take some time. I would not be surprised to see a counsel of colonels at some point. If you need more detail on the timeline, I can ask the author.

[Shek]

Yes, it has to go through at least one more round of comments. However, it may get hung up due to design. The nature of design and because so many people see it differently (which I think is a good thing, but it makes writing design doctrine difficult) may take some time. I would not be surprised to see a counsel of colonels at some point. If you need more detail on the timeline, I can ask the author.

Thanks Neil and Klug. I've got a ballpark timeline now, which is sufficient for my purposes.

Best,
Shek

[Hacksaw]

Unless mistaken... CoC is very near future... and yes Design is the main culprit in terms of points of contention... However, an additional pinch is the pressure to reduce the number of manuals and size of our doctrinal manuals... I know CADD is attempting to not be redundant from FM to FM... in other words if a discussion of operations process is found in one FM, you will only find a reference to that FM whenever the operations process is appropriate in another manual (maybe not strictly applied but reflects the intent)... For my own purposes this makes some of the new doctrine writing a little "jumpy"... of course we want to be consistent, but sometimes it makes sense to discuss a topic in more than one FM...

I can say this without much reservation... FM 5-0 is priority and is being pursued with all alacrity possible

Live well and row

[Klugzilla]

Yes, your general points on doctrine are all accurate (I work in CADD, and who would claim to be that who was not). However, I just talked to the author about the CoC. It apparently happened last week, but there were some points that were deferred--specifically related to design and info ops. The latter only makes sense given they stared a CoC on the Info Ops FM yesterday. The deferred points will be addressed by other decision makers in the near future.

[Cavguy]

Yes, your general points on doctrine are all accurate (I work in CADD, and who would claim to that who was not). However, I just talked to the author about the CoC. It apparently happened last week, but there were some points that were deferred--specifically related to design and info ops. The latter only makes sense given they stared a CoC on the Info Ops FM yesterday. The deferred points will be addressed by other decision makers in the near future.

Good to see you here Jon. Nice pic.

[Hacksaw]

Klugzilla... ok I get it... how are you doing Jon... Didn't realize they held the CoC last week... honestly thought it was next week... This week's CoC is not as much about 3-13 as it is about how we will fundamentally think about info, cyber, etc.... which obviously has 3-13 and 3-0 implications...

You are closer to the source than I... I defer to your assessment

Live well and row

[Klugzilla]

Good to see you here Jon. Nice pic.

Thanks, Niel. Mao the master insurgent is up on me 7-1.

[DaveDoyle]

Was there any serious thought about placing the design section in 6-0 instead of 5-0?

[Klugzilla]

There were several COAs evaluated. However, prior to FM 5-0's current draft there was an FMI on design. The way ahead after the release of FM 5-0, FM 6-0, and the design FMI was to incorporate design into a future version of 5-0 (primarily) and 6-0 (when appropriate). However, the ongoing doctrine reengineering effort aim to cut down on the overall number of manuals and redundancy between manuals; thus, it was decided that design would doctrinally be covered in this iteration of 5-0 and the FMI was dropped. As I mentioned in a previous post, some of the decisions on design have been temporarly deferred. When I hear something concrete, I will post it here. I hope that helps.

[Jedburgh]

There is a FM 5-0 Council of Colonels (https://www.us.army.mil/suite/folder/18132983) folder under the CADD Doctrine KCC (https://www.us.army.mil/suite/kc/1931153) on AKO. Several versions of the draft FM can be found there.

[HumanCOGRachel]

Folks,

Check with user "Dr. Jack," I believe he has all the intel on the matter.

With regards to Operational Design, see the thread in the catch all military art & science folder.

Cheers,
Rach