Soldiers go over mission plans during a war fighter exercise in July. (Army)
- Filed Under
A recent Army war game against a North Korea-like failed nuclear state with powerful ground forces has exposed some materiel capability gaps that deeply worry planners, service leaders said.
After more than a decade of being able to use Kuwait as a staging area for Iraq and Afghanistan, officers worried that the ability to move into more remote areas without a nearby staging area has atrophied. More worrying is meeting the “anti-access/area denial” challenge presented by foes with missile and rocket standoff capabilities that would make any attempted forced entry a bloody affair.
The answer, officers said, lies in a variety of solutions, from light airborne forces to mobile firepower to upgraded watercraft.
The officers had taken part in the Army’s latest Unified Quest war game; they went over some of the game’s lessons with reporters during a daylong seminar March 19 at National Defense University in Washington, D.C.
“We saw the brittleness of our ability to defeat projected [year] 2020 anti-access/area-denial challenges of potential adversaries during the game as units became isolated and some withdrew,” said Col. Kevin Felix, Future Warfare Division chief at Training and Doctrine Command, during a roundtable discussion. While U.S. forces were able to gain a foothold in the contested territory, “there were problems with the buildup of follow-on forces and sustainment.”
Felix added that in the war game, “we found ways to create access” by airdropping Strykers and using the tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey to get small units in quickly, but moving so quickly with such limited numbers meant that those units were often quickly surrounded by larger enemy forces.
TRADOC is working on a joint-entry operations concept that would use Army airborne forces to counter an enemy’s potential area-denial tactics.
Col. Rocky Kmiecik, the Mounted Requirements Division director at the Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence, said the XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg, N.C., is helping develop the concept by looking at “mobile protected firepower for light airborne infantry.”
The idea is that since the Army divested of its light Sheridan tanks, “airborne forces have a capability gap of mobile protected firepower,” he said. One solution the Army is considering is the Stryker Mobile Gun System, which is armed with a 105mm cannon.
Kmiecik warned that the Army “[doesn’t] know whether or not the MGS can meet what the light forces need.”
The concern over light, mobile firepower was echoed by Lt. Gen. Keith Walker, director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center, at a breakfast meeting March 20.
“Our force is heavy,” he said. “I’m not saying we have too many tanks and Bradleys, but how do you get to the fight when you need to have the ability to do strategic maneuvering?”
The Army is “probably a couple of Nobel Prizes away” from being able to field lighter vehicles that have the protection and firepower that leaders see as essential on future battlefields, he cautioned.
At National Defense University, Maj. Gen. Bill Hix, director of TRADOC’s Concepts Development & Learning Directorate, said although there have been tests in airdropping the Stryker, the problem remains, “how do you close that gap between early entry forces and follow-on forces?”
Air-dropping Strykers might be the answer, he said.
Army war gamers also found watercraft useful during Unified Quest.
These boats “allowed us to get after a series of key places where [weapons of mass destruction were] suspected to be, very rapidly” while having the add-on effect of creating confusion within the enemy’s ranks due to multiple landings in a variety of locations.
The Army’s increasing desire to take to the sea has also been outlined in a new Army equipment modernization strategy document released March 4 that offered a path forward for the modernization of the service’s watercraft fleet.
“Our aged fleet is slow and does not have the cargo capacity to deliver combat configured forces and sustainment materials/equipment to the point of employment,” the paper says, noting that the Army’s landing craft utility platforms were built in the 1960s and 1970s and are “in need of immediate modernization to provide the Army and the joint force the ability to meet its expeditionary employment concepts.”
The equipping plan, which stretches between fiscal 2014 and fiscal 2048, maintains that the Army wants to make force protection on its watercraft a priority by integrating technologies such as “scalable non-lethal-to-lethal escalation of force, selective integration of structural armor, ballistic glass and remote weapons and robust communications architecture.”
While adding these capabilities, service planners admit they are willing to accept some risk in areas “such as sea mines, anti-ship cruise missiles, rockets, cannons and mortars.”
Between fiscal 2019 and fiscal 2027, the service also wants to find a replacement for the logistics support vessel while looking to make use of commercial solutions “with military-unique upgrades.”
While Unified Quest exposed capability gaps that the Army must grapple with as budgets are being squeezed, the service is looking to innovate both doctrinally and materially as it continues to pore over lessons learned in Iraq.
In remarks at National Defense University on the 10th anniversary of the 2003 invasion, TRADOC commander Gen. Robert Cone concluded that while the U.S. “collapsed the Iraqis’ air defenses, their command and control, their logistics” in a matter of weeks, “that didn’t stop them from finding an alternative way of waging war.”
The trick, he and other Army leaders concluded, is to try to understand and anticipate those alternative ways of making war before the enemy does.
Join trending discussions in the military's #1 professional community. See what members like yourself have to say from across the DoD.