Twitter Facebook Google RSS
 
National Defense > Blog > Posts > Army Presses Case for Relevance of Ground Forces (UPDATED)
Army Presses Case for Relevance of Ground Forces (UPDATED)
By Sandra I. Erwin



The U.S. Army has been frequently criticized for being slow and heavy, and therefore less likely to be called upon to respond to a crisis halfway around the world, whereas the Marine Corps or special operations forces can get there fast.

As per orders of its chief of staff, Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army must become “expeditionary,” which implies that it must be lighter and faster. Odierno has pushed back on suggestions that the Army is trying to displace the Marine Corps, and insists that he is simply preparing for a post-Afghanistan world in which U.S. forces will not be occupying countries but will be expected to intervene in unforeseen crises.   

A team of Army strategists, think tank analysts and academics recently gathered at the College of William & Mary, in Williamsburg, Va., to debate how the Army might change in order to be more relevant in a changing world.

“Based on the analysis we've done, we see things happening more quickly, not slower,” said Maj. Gen. Bill Hix, deputy director of the Army Training and Doctrine Command’s Capabilities Integration Center. The command is conducting a series of seminars to probe how the Army would organize and equip its forces after 2020.

“We do not see that we have the gift of time when crises arise in areas where our interests are at stake,” Hix said Jan. 22 during a conference call with reporters.

But how exactly the Army would become lighter and faster is still to be determined. Although the Army appears to be struggling badly to adapt to smaller budgets and massive troop cuts, Hix said the period between now and 2020 will be a transition like others the Army experienced before. “This is not the first time the Army has faced this,” Hix said. “These periods [of downsizing] have also been great periods of innovation.”

The wars of the past decade compelled the Army to turn into an occupation force that had to worry primarily about protecting troops from bombs and rocket attacks, and demanded a huge logistics tail. The conflicts of the future will be about “fast power” and “influencing events” at a rapid speed, said Hix.

These conditions, especially if future crises occur in far-flung regions such as the Pacific Rim, clearly favor forward-deployed branches of the military such as the Air Force or the Navy. Army officials are trying to make the case that there is, too, a role for ground forces because solving crises usually requires face-to-face human contact.

The United States can exert influence from ships off the coast and from the air, Hix said. But many missions cannot be performed “from 35,000 feet or 12 miles off shore,” he said. “There is a role for responsive land forces.”

The most immediate change happening in the Army is that its ranks are thinning. Army leaders announced last year they would cut a dozen combat brigades over the next five years, from 45 to 33. The force would drop from 535,000 to 490,000 soldiers by 2017. Further reductions that would bring the force down to 420,000 are a real possibility if the Army has to stay within congressionally mandated budget caps during the next decade.

Being expeditionary might make sense in theory, but not easy to implement. It will require a change in the Army’s mindset, officials said. This means “getting away from predictive deployment cycles,” said Col. Chris Cross, chief of science and technology at the Army Capabilities Integration Center. “We are not sure where we are going to go but we know we need to get there faster.”

Force size will not be as important as the quality of the force and equipment, Hix said.

The Army will need lighter vehicles that can be transported by air, although officials will seek to avoid repeating the procurement missteps that led to the failure of the Future Combat Systems, a $100 billion program that was conceived in the 1990s precisely to provide light vehicles and make he Army more expeditionary.

Although budgets are coming down, the Army intends to preserve research-and-development funding for technologies that can lighten the logistics load, such as robots and new materials to shield vehicles. “The Army is working very hard to protect its R&D budget,” said Hix. “We will look for opportunities to achieve a leaner force that is more capable, and more expeditionary, more responsible, able to deploy more rapidly.”

The Army already has embraced robotics and expects to do more with unmanned vehicles, said Hix. “There's potential to replace manpower,” he said. “At a minimum, robots will augment dismounted soldiers” in birddog-like roles. Driverless trucks also could be used in supply convoys.

“It is hard to conceive that we'll fight a fight in 2030 without the integration of some unmanned combat platform,” Cross said. The Army also will have to confront advanced enemy robots, he said. “We will fight against robotics platforms and adversaries' application of robotics technology.”

The toughest technological challenge will be designing combat vehicles that are more easily transportable. The failed Future Combat Systems sought unachievable 20-ton tanks. The emergence of improvised bombs and mines in Iraq and Afghanistan as the preferred weapons aimed at U.S. forces compelled the Army to add heavy armor. Early designs of its newest ground combat vehicle, or GCV — which would replace the Bradley troop carrier —  weighs 68 tons, or nearly as much as an Abrams tank.

“I think the GCV is evidence of the fact we have to make the science and technology investment” in lighter materials, Hix said. “The weight and size now is driven by the reality of the 360-degree combat environment. Improvised explosive devices are not going away.”

Cross said it will be a “cornerstone of Army science and technology efforts” to find lighter materials for vehicles. The bulk and weight of the Army’s equipment severely limit its options and prevent it from being expeditionary, said Cross. “The problem we face in the Army is that we are very predictable,” he said. “We go into a predictable point of entry. We drive predictable supply routes. We assemble large forces in predictable areas,” he said. Being able to surprise an enemy is a “principal driver in becoming expeditionary.” At the same time, commanders have to worry about protecting troops from rockets, missiles and smart bombs. That, today, requires heavy armor. “Enemy kinetic capabilities are increasing at a faster rate than the [technology for the] protection of vehicles.”

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post had an incorrect spelling of the last name of Maj. Gen. Bill Hix. 


Photo Credit: Army

Comments

Re: Army Presses Case for Relevance of Ground Forces (UPDATED)

The relevance of ground forces is directly proportional to our rules of engagement. If an enemy sniper justifies the elimination of a city block via air strike, the number of ground troops is smaller. If we accept that civilian casualties are irrelevant, certainly we have the ability to deliver overwhelming force and elimintate the enemy. However, even discarding any concern over foreign civilians leaves the simple reality that wanton killing of civilians may not be the best way to win the hearts and minds in many of today's conflicts.

Clearly, there have been numerous occasions where I'd have rather seen more concern for the lives of our troops than foreign civilians, but until our leaders (military & civilian) are both willing to be less discriminate, which involves taking the responsibility for it, there's no way to get around boots on the dirt.
Ed Calvin at 1/23/2014 8:17 AM

Re: Army Presses Case for Relevance of Ground Forces (UPDATED)

The Army has always maintained an agile "expeditionary" force. It has just always refused to deploy it. Why should it be entrusted now with money for another charade?

The 75th Ranger Regiment is a regimetal-size expeditionary force. The 173d Airborne is a brigade-sized expeditionary force. The 82d Airborne Division's ready brigade is a brigade-sized expeditionary force. The 82d Airborne Division (which now includes armor) is a DIVISION-SIZED expeditionary force. The Army's problem with 82d Airborne is that it has made it more conventional and bloated it with heavy equipment, slowing its response time and effectiveness.

The 101st Airborne Division could have been maintained as a pure "airborne" division, and thus allowed the Army a two divisional-size expeditionary force. But in its typical wisdom, the Army saw fit to convert 101st Airborne into some sort of airmobile somethingorother, thus bloating and weighing it down.

Remember, in the only TRUE military emergency this country has faced since World War II, when U.S. forces were squeezed into the tiny Pusan perimeter on the Korean penninsula, desperately screaming for help, the Army refused to deploy the still agile 82d Airborne Division, and had disbanded the Ranger battalions. The Army has historically treated its premier "expeditionary" force as little more than a Home Guard. No, the Army should never again be entrusted with an "expeditionary" responsibility.
thrasherback at 1/23/2014 8:45 AM

Re: Army Presses Case for Relevance of Ground Forces (UPDATED)

Obama destruction of America on three fronts: Domestic Policy, Foreign Affairs and the gutting of our nation's military.

The Marines are by definition expeditionary.  And as we have seen time and again we have no problems in delivering "shock and awe" quick strikes with overwhelming force.  What we did not do so well in is holding ground taken by the quick striking forces - ie the occupation part of the Iraq and Afghanistan.  Those conflicts made clear that stronger and better armored vehicles, are vital to an occupational role. 

But of course Obama, as he (ghost) wrote in his autobiography, views America and NATO as an evil-empire sort of Western Civilization Colonialism reborn in modern times, and therefore seeks to completely destroy any role in which our armed forces can being used as an occupying force. 

It's another tragedy of his 8 years and I just hope we can manage to survivie the next three years without too much irreversible damage done to our nation.
DMiller at 1/23/2014 12:44 PM

Add Comment

Items on this list require content approval. Your submission will not appear in public views until approved by someone with proper rights. More information on content approval.

Name: *

eMail *

Comment *

Title

Attachments

Name: *


eMail *


Comment *


 

Refresh
Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.

Characters *

  

Legal Notice *

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.

 

 

Bookmark and Share