Draft FM 5-0?

[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.