Draft FM 5-0?

[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.