AUSA Fires Symposium - Fort Worth, Texas

20 July - The Fires Symposium started at 1200 with an intro from GEN (R) Sullivan and follow-up from MG Halverson. Topics this week include - Implications of Modnerization of the Force, Organizational Impacts to the Fires Force, Operational Fires in the Maneuver Enviroment, Material Implications Change the Way Forward, Integration of the SMDC, Implication of Space/Missle on Fires, Leader Development Impacting the Force and the Fires Functional Concept.

We will post seminar notes and key points of interest from the panels and speakers, feel free to engage and participate in the open dialogue.

The reality for the US Army budget is that the affects of the National Debt will have an impact on our future developments and force structures. It will be a zero sum game in regards to the budget and we must adjust accordingly. To keep force structure, we may have to give up material.

Other points -

- Key to the Fires community is a on Networking, Organizations, Integrating ADA/FA Capabilities into a composite organization and gaining flexibility and functionality between the two where possible.

- Portfolio reviews are ongoing and we need challenge requirements to see if they are still valid, we must establish cost as a varible and look to pursue evolutionary vs. revoluntionary improvements.

There is no live feed to the AUSA conference, but you can review the presentations once loaded at the AUSA site: http://www.ausa.org/meetings/2010/sy...s/default.aspx

Focused on the rapid pace of change and how the acquisition reform will be required to achieve DOTMIL-PF integration rather than the historical “M” approach with a DOTLPF follow-up. The Army must be able to change faster with 2 year revisions of concepts. The Army must be able to do two things: conduct combined arms maneuver and wide area security (WAS) operations. These are the guiding missions for developing the AOC, material support, and DOTML-PF integration. ARCIC is working to get a baseline review established and then review every 2 years to analyze alternative futures. We must choose between performance and cost/time – we cannot have all three. Responding to a question reference his dealings with Coalition partners – he stated that “they seem more interested in doctrine, training and leader development than they are our material development” suggesting they know they cannot keep pace with us materially.

LTC Elfendahl described the change documents starting with the ACC (Army Capstone Concept), through the AOC (Army Operating Concept) which guides the ATC (Army Training Concept), ALC, (Army Learning Concept) and the a new document AHD(Army Human Dimension). The AOC expands on the missions of Combined Arms Maneuver and Wide Area Security. He also outlined 3 components of the Military Solution and 7 supporting ideas described in the AOC. These doctrinal concepts will shape the six functional concepts. He also talked about increasing BCT capabilities, but reducing the number of them (again personnel and resources is a zero sum game). There is no talk of changing the current command structure – Theater Army, Corps, Division and BCTs, but there is talk changing the paradigms in which they function (i.e. regional alignment and habitual association of forces. Three AOC concepts that will shape the Fires Functional Concept – 1) decentralizing access to fires, 2) developing the proper mix of precision vs. near precision and 3) employing offensive and defensive fires in a variety of settings. COL Dyekman tied in how this will and has shaped the Fires Functional Concept in the areas of offensive and defensive fires and air-ground integration (AGI). Our focus is “change through integration.” COL Dyekman also discussed challenges of determining where we require redundancy and where we can accept risk. Integrated learning is a key to our ability to change effectively. We must also close the gap between the TCMs (operating forces) and PMs to bring them in line with a quicker, integrated acquisition process.

MG Halverson, MG Ferriter, Mr. Golson and COL George – MCoE is at IOC and will assume full role May/June 2011. MG Ferriter talked through leader development as three levels – distinct branch training, blended, and combined (this approach will retain branch identity). MG Ferriter focused on key points of each Army Concept mission (Wide Area Security and Combined Arms Operations). His key points on WAS included decentralization, a system of outposts and continuous engagement of the population.

Mr. Golson discussed 9 points supporting the tactical fight from an AVCoE perspective. He also discussed the on-going debate regarding the need for deep attack with AH-64s. Weaponized UASs can provide the same capability at less risk to the force (i.e. protection of the live deep attack force to the engagement through UAS). He then asked what does “deep attack” mean on today’s battlefield?

MG Halverson addressed the key components of providing fires in support of maneuver – TLE and the elements of APF are still important – to get more range for the WAS mission we have to have precision at those extended ranges. Joint Fire Planning requires Fires Leaders at lower levels to have a broader base of knowledge to fight in today’s environment.

COL George, current Commander 4/4 ID talked about how relevant fires where in his 12 months in OEF. His brigade fired over 14,000 rounds throughout his battlespace. He felt that the fires were responsive. He used his FA Bn Cdr as a battlespace owner.

BG Ridge and COL McCants – Discussed access to joint fires being key and ensuring that the Army has the right mix of munitions for the maneuver commander. He also addressed the need of JTACs at Battalion and Company level, and if the USAF cannot support this, then the Army will likely have to fill that void with JFOs. He responded to three questions – 1) Is there a need for gunnery, 2) Are fires as responsive as they can be and 3) Need for senior fires leaders in division and above.

COL McCants stated that 42% of the ADA force is forward deployed. He emphasized three areas 1) IAMD C2, 2) Training and Personnel, 3) Communications. We need systems that are interoperable and capable of plug-and-play.

MG Dellaroco, BG Cole, Mr. Van Rassen and Mr. Shields – Discussed the impact of the era of persistent conflict on the acquisition process. We are executing many programs in a quick reaction mode. BG Cole stated there are two ways to develop material needs – 1) Program of Record – full process, and/or 2) QRC – abbreviated process (less testing). To be more responsive, we need to capture where we are (rather than where we’d like to be) and then push that capability through the acquisition process and out to the field. Incremental (evolutionary change) vs. revolutionary change – how do we get there from here. In order to lower costs we need to look at international businesses and their products – many of their systems are cost effective and fit into our architecture.

BG Cole highlighted the need to have an architecture which integrated sensors, EW and Intel – C5ISR. Having the architecture to share data with our team and also with our allies is key and we need to gain the capability to allow a true plug-and-play option. He also stated we do not need more (sensor in this case) but we need to make better use of what we already have.


Dr. Messervy, COL Cuthbertson, Mr. Burger – SMDC Panel – Dr. Messervy discussed “filling the gaps” of responsive space assets, high altitude instruments, and cyberspace. SMDC continues to work advanced technologies and directed energy (high energy lasers). High altitude gives a warfighter many options and dramatically expands the field of view for many systems. The increased field of view coupled with high loiter times make such platforms immensely capable, but payload is the tradeoff.

BG Theole – Leader Development – He discussed updates in leader development strategy and mentioned changes in ILE to enact ALDS. Three primary changes were discussed 1) integration of interagency partners, 2) importance of international programs and 3) emphasis on operations in an information environment. BG Theole introduced a new Center of Interagency Cooperation at Fort Leavenworth. CAC is reviewing the CCC POI and the educational approach – there are many ideas for changes or upgrades, but no clear way ahead. They are reviewing the pedagogy because learning styles have changed and technology can further enhance learning, thus, better aligning us with the ALC. BG Ridge talked about the USAFAS partnering with academia and MG Halverson emphasized the importance of education with regard to being a leader and professional. Other ideas CAC is reviewing is the concept called TDE – Temporary Duty for Education – establish a Soldier in a full-time educational status at their home station via distance learning.

MG Halverson led the panel discussion with insight into the FCoE initiatives. The panel then discussed the fires functional concept and the work being done at Fort Sill to move forward. The panel fielded numerous questions from “How do we train a technical and tactical NCO?” to questions on the investment strategy. BG Ridge addressed the leadership challenges. He also reinforced the importance of teaming with academia and working with institutions of higher education regarding instructor education/teaching initiative. The panel finished the presentation with the “Top 6 Fires Gaps” and the Fires Way Ahead slide. Throughout the panel, leader development at the officer and NCO level was a key message. In closing, MG Halverson invited the audience to be part of the solution by using the FCoE social media sites and providing input to doctrine and the processes at the FCoE – “Do we have all the answers, no, but we have agile open minds to adapt...”

If you don't mind my asking, what were the fires gaps?