Table Of Content

06Pass 9/25/96 11:52 AM Page 11 Marines unrolling mobility matting during Agile Provider ’94. Unified Endeavor ’95 and Modeling gh) bau Effective Training ohn Lucken J Navy ( S. U. By R A L P H W. PA S S A R E L L I and F R A N K E. S C H WA M B U nder the unified command plan, U.S. Program Summary Atlantic Command (ACOM) is respon- JTF training is conducted in three phases (see sible for the joint training of assigned figure1).Thefirstconsistsoffivedaysofseminars forces in the continental United States. heldinthreeparts.PhaseIAconsistsofthreedays Accordingly, it conducts training to prepare joint dealingwiththerolesandorganizationofJTFhead- task force (JTF) commanders and staffs for joint quarters,staffprocedures,jointdoctrine,andjoint operations. Unified Endeavor ’95 (UE ’95) was the tactics, techniques, and procedures (JTTP). Phases first in a series of training exercises held in this IBandICfocusonjointplanningandoperational program. ACOM viewed it as an opportunity to procedures,respectively.Theyaredesignedtohelp learn what works for JTF staff training and what thestaffprepareforphasesIIandIII.PhaseIIissix needs improvement. This article describes the daysofjointplanningthatleadtodevelopmentof training program and the results of an evaluation an operations order (OPORD). During phase III of UE ’95 by the authors. bothcommanderandstaffexecutetheOPORDina six-daysimulation-drivenexercise. Phase IA is led by joint subject matter ex- Figure 1: ACOM JTF Commander and Staff Training perts drawn from ACOM directorates. Phases II and III require more support. For these, ACOM stands up a joint task force training team (JTT) Phase IA: Academic Training and joint exercise control group (JECG). When ACOM plays the role of the supported command, Phase IB Phase II: OPORD Development Exercise a CINC crisis action team (CAT), an operations planning group (OPG), and an ACOM deployable joint task force augmentation cell (DJTFAC) also Phase IC Phase III: OPORD Execution Exercise are activated. JTT (with some 40 subject matter experts) and a senior mentor (retired flag/general Days 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 officer) offer interactive instruction and feedback to exercise participants throughout both phases. A joint exercise control group (150 people) guides the entire process and ensures that the training remains focused on its objectives. CAT and OPG Ralph W. Passarelli and Frank E. Schwamb are both field representatives support CINC play. DJTFAC (14 individuals) aug- of the Center for Naval Analysis affiliated with U.S. Atlantic Command ments a JTF commander’s staff. and U.S. Pacific Command, respectively. Summer 1996 / JFQ 11 Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 1996 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-1996 to 00-00-1996 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Unified Endeavor ’95 and Modeling Effective Training 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION National Defense University,260 Fifth Ave SW,Fort Lesley J REPORT NUMBER McNair,Washington,DC,20319 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 5 unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 06Pass 9/25/96 11:52 AM Page 12 n MODELING TRAINING JTASC, MTP, and SOP play impor- Figure 2: Command Structure and Locations, UE ‘95 tantrolessincetherearenostandingJTF headquarters organizations. Headquar- tersmustbeformedeachtime.Thecom- Higher Authorities(cid:13) Suffolk, Virginia plexprocessofquicklystandingupaJTF JECG(cid:13) (cid:13) headquarters with as many as 1,000 men and women, of whom more than Supported(cid:13) U.S. ATLANTIC(cid:13) Supporting(cid:13) CINC COMMAND CINC Norfolk, Virginia 60 percent could be augmentees, re- quires that we jointly train sufficient personnelandhavewrittenguidance. CJTF(cid:13) North Fort Hood, Texas (III CORPS) Unified Endeavor ’95 UE ’95 was conducted in three (III ACRORFPOSR((cid:13)–)) (NCCADVGF–O1R2)(cid:13) (II MAREFF(OFWRD(cid:13))) A(8FthF AOFR)(cid:13) J(8FthA ACFC)(cid:13) (SJOSCAOCTOFM(cid:13)) (1JstPPOO TBFN(cid:13)) phases spread over four months: IA, Fort Hood,(cid:13) Portsmouth,(cid:13) Camp Lejeune,(cid:13) Barksdale,(cid:13) North Fort Hood,(cid:13) North Fort Hood,(cid:13) North Fort Hood,(cid:13) academic training seminars (January Texas Virginia North Carolina Louisiana Texas Texas Texas 9–11); IB/II, operations order development exercise (February 5–11); and IC/III, operations order execution exercise (April 18–24). To reduce costs, distributed interactive simu- ThescenariowascastinSouthwestAsiaandre- lation (DIS) technology is utilized to produce a re- quiredtheJTFcommandertoplandefenseofanal- alistic environment for tactical activity in phase lied nation against an aggressive neighbor and, if III. Realism is enhanced by actual command, con- necessary, to repel an invasion. U.S. Central Com- trol, communications, computer, and mand (CENTCOM) was the supported command realism is enhanced by intelligence (C4I) systems, a thinking played by ACOM and a CENTCOM liaison cell. opposition force, and role playing to CommanderIIICorpscommanded the exerciseJTF. C4I systems, a thinking simulate the Joint Staff, Department During phase I, the JTF headquarters and opposition force, and of State, and governmental agencies. component staff principals assembled at Fort The costs of moving actual units are Hood, Texas, for three days of academic training role playing avoided by computers which simu- seminars led by ACOM subject matter experts. late movement and interaction. Phase II was preceded by a day of academic Moreover, separating staff training and unit/plat- training(phaseIB)focusedonjointplanningand form joint field training makes both more effi- organization.ThisinstructionhelpedtheJTFplan- cient. Joint staff training is freed of field exercise ners prepare for six days of joint planning (phase restrictions (such as safety and range require- II),whichledtotheUE’95operationsorder. ments). Units/platforms can schedule joint field Phase III was preceded by a day of academic training without staff training being driven by training (phase IC) intended to help the 800 JTF the scenario. Simulation-supported joint staff staff members prepare for the execution phase. training has replaced joint field exercise staff The JTF command structure and locations for training (the Ocean Venture and Agile Provider phase III are shown in figure 2. During phase III, series) at ACOM because it provides better JTF a JTF commander and his headquarters operated headquarters training at less cost. from North Fort Hood. The commander felt that To structure and further enhance JTF staff conditions there more nearly replicated those a training, ACOM is developing a Joint Training JTF might expect if deployed in a mounting crisis. Analysis and Simulation Center (JTASC) with fa- The joint force air component commander cilities, systems infrastructure, communications, (JFACC), joint special operations task force simulations, technical support, analytical sup- (JSOTF), and joint psychological operations task port, and control mechanisms for joint training force (JPOTF) also operated from North Fort as well as operational rehearsals. Hood, while the service component commanders ACOM is also developing a JTF headquarters operated from home stations. mission training publication (MTP) that will serve At the end of UE ’95 participants anony- as a descriptive, performance-oriented guide for mously filled out questionnaires. ACOM used the commanders, staff sections, and personnel. A responsestoidentifyareaswherethetrainingcon- headquarters standing operating procedures cept or its implementation needs improvement. (SOP) document is also being developed. It offers Of two hundred forms submitted, 84 percent felt general guidance on responsibilities, organiza- thatUE’95providedbothusefulandeffectiveJTF tion, and practices for JTF headquarters sections headquarters training for their position. The in- and personnel. struction was generally perceived as effective throughouttheentirestaff.However,thiswasthe 12 JFQ / Summer 1996 06Pass 9/25/96 11:52 AM Page 13 Passarelli and Schwamb also be part of this process. He normally Figure 3: UE ’95 Compared with a Model for Effective Training focuses on training requirements that ensure JTF and component headquarters staffs can respond to various mis- A Proposed Model(cid:13) for Effective JTF(cid:13) (cid:13) Applying the Model to Unifed Endeavor '95 sions. Therefore, his requirements can Training usually be stated in terms of the ability CINC Requirements G of a JTF staff to perform the required Requirements (cid:13) CJTF Requirements G Simulation Support G joint planning and operational Driven JMETs G Communications G processes independent of a scenario. It Realistic(cid:13) Simulation Above M is frequently possible to express the Environment Below G training requirements of both a CINC MTP/SOP M Instruction JTT Facilitated G Participants Components M and JTF commander in terms of joint CJTF G mission essential tasks (JMETs), and Feedback Designers G that was precisely the process used in Man hours G Controllers G UE ’95. Figure 4 displays the connection Cost-Effective Travel G between the requirements of a CINC G – GOOD Support G M – MODIFY and JTF commander and the UE ’95 staff training tasks. Linking training in this manner ensures that it is focused on requirements articulated by a CINC Figure 4: Translating Training Requirements into Tasks and JTF commander and helps avoid re- peating unnecessary training. Joint Mission (cid:13) Second, training should be conducted Essential Tasks(cid:13) in a realistic, supportive environment. The (JMETs) questions that follow are of interest in CINC(cid:13) evaluating a simulations-driven training Training(cid:13) Requirements JTF(cid:13) JTF Commander (cid:13) environment. How close are we to re- Mission(cid:13) and(cid:13) producing stimuli that a JTF can expect Training(cid:13) Plan Staff Training Tasks in actual operations? Is the headquar- CJTF(cid:13) Training(cid:13) ters dealing with issues one would ex- Requirements pect in actual operations? Are participants getting appropriate stimulation from above and below? Do they receive realistic inputs in the expected amounts from organic C4I systems? Are these in- firsttimemanyparticipantswereexposedtojoint puts believable in terms of timeliness, responsive- trainingsotheyhadlittletocompareitwith. ness, accuracy, relevance, and sufficiency? Finally, Participants were asked to contrast UE ’95 are trainees being led logically through the train- training with joint field exercise training if they ing tasks? had previously been in a field exercise at JTF For UE ’95, we gathered data on the realism headquarters level. Of the 40 who responded, 82 of the simulation support, communications, and percent felt that UE ’95 provided more effective stimulation from above and below JTF command JTF headquarters training than field exercises. level. In UE ’95, simulations-driven tactical movement and engagement support was provided by a A Model confederation of service simulations using distrib- Effective training must be focused on specific uted interactive simulation (DIS) technology. The requirements, occur in a realistic atmosphere, be simulations remained on-line throughout phase supported with instruction and feedback, and be III—an outstanding performance for a develop- cost-effective. Using the model shown in figure 3, mental exercise. a comparison of the elements of In a perfect exercise participants are unaware UE ’95 suggests five points. of simulation support and remain focused on the in a perfect exercise First, the training process training. However, 55 percent of UE ’95 partici- participants are unaware should be requirements driven. The pants found that simulation was particularly no- theater training concerns of a ticeable or intrusive at their position. We will of simulation support CINC and the need to assess the never get to the point where everyone agrees on soundness of war plans and crisis response capabilities normally drive training requirements. The needs of a JTF commander must Summer 1996 / JFQ 13 06Pass 9/25/96 11:52 AM Page 14 n MODELING TRAINING Clark) D. C. ps ( British Gurkhas Cor ldauyriinngg cCoJvTeFrX f i’r9e6 . Marine S. U. Mallard) S. Randy Air Force ( S. U. Main compound for UE ’95 at North Fort Hood. the model results. However, when over half of the (such as the ambassador) were quite effective. participants find the simulation intrusive, the vis- When surveyed, the JTF was very satisfied with ibility of the models needs to be reduced. It the amount of interaction between the JTF and should decrease as ACOM gains experience with CINC staff. But JTF headquarters spent more time exercise design and control and JTASC stands up. dealing with tactical issues from below than For the most part participants used their com- strategic and operational issues from above. This mand and control systems. Employing them dur- would not be expected in real operations. ACOM ing the execution phase adds to realism and im- exercise designers are working to provide more proves training. This practice should be considered stimulation from over the JTF level. essential to good simulations-supported training. One should not lose sight of the proper role Appropriate levels of stimulation for a JTF for simulations and scenarios. Joint staffs train to staff from both above and below is another con- processes (or tasks), not to particular scenarios. sideration. Stimulation from below is easier to What matters is that the staff can coordinate air achieve because simulations interact primarily at assets in support of the assigned mission, not component level (from under). This plus strong simulation results used to drive training. Realistic component play provided significant stimulation scenarios and simulation results allow JTF staffs from below JTF headquarters command level dur- to execute such processes (tasks) while reacting to ing UE ’95. appropriate stimuli. Thus, improving simulation Stimulation from above JTF level is more dif- fidelity by 10 percent will have little effect on ficult. Current models do not do it. It only can be joint training. done by a CINC and his staff or credible role players. During UE ’95, the on-scene role players 14 JFQ / Summer 1996 06Pass 9/25/96 11:52 AM Page 15 Passarelli and Schwamb Third, training should include formal and facilitated instruction. ACOM JTT provided the formal and facilitated instruction. It was thestrengthofUE’95trainingand achievedthehighestrecognitionof any training element. Phase IA seminars were so effective that JTF staff principals recommended that future phase IAs include more members of the JTF staff and addi- Wilson) tional topics. At the end of phase R. IttIhhIe,ait8r0JtrTapTienrficeneegndatbnaodcfkppeahrrfatodircmiipmaannpcrteso.vfeeldt USS Nassau. Navy (Johnny S. During UE ’95, we discovered U. that phases IB and IC (academic training)wereparticularlyeffectiveyethardtoac- Fifth, the training must be cost-effective. If complish. On arriving at the exercise site for training is too costly in dollars or man-hours, it phases II and III, participants were anxious to may not be performed often enough by ACOM to begin planning and organizing for operations. maintain proficiency. In this regard UE ’95 is There was pressure to compress IB and IC. How- commendable. Its estimated cost was less than a ever, by the end of phases II and III participants tenth that of Agile Provider ’94. Large joint field expressedagrowingappreciationforIBandIC.At exercises are clearly not the venue for training JTF theendofphaseII,76percentoftheparticipants staffs; they are too expensive and infrequent. indicatedmoretimeshouldhavebeendevotedto However,iftheUE’95seriesofexercisesisto phaseIB,whichlastedonlysixhours. remainthemostcost-effectivejointstafftrainingit Fourth, the training must compete with other simulation-based train- support costs can be controlled should include substantive ing approaches. While this comparison was not feedback to both partici- made,UE’95wouldlikelycontrastquitefavorably. by matching simulation fidelity pants and designers. JTT Total training expense is comprised of ele- to JTF training processes provided the participant ments that can be examined individually for cost- feedback in UE ’95. It in- effectiveness. In particular, simulation-support cluded four formal after costs may vary widely but can be controlled by action reviews for the staff principals, interactive matching simulation fidelity to JTF training proc- individual feedback by JTT members during the esses. For example, if an electronic terrain map exercise, and a mini-after action review between with 1-meter accuracy would not normally be the JTT members and their respective staff sec- available there is no reason to provide it as part of tions at the end of each phase. Headquarters was the training. Exercise designers can pursue a cost- surveyed and found to be quite satisfied with the effective staff training program by protecting low feedback process. cost/more effective elements at the expense of Reaction for designers was also substantial. It some high cost/less effective elements. included an after action review with the JTF principals and CINC, a survey of the entire JTF staff ACOM is incorporating the lessons of UE ’95 for ways to improve training, written self-evalua- into training for JTF commanders and staffs. tions by each ACOM directorate, and assessments Methods for improving JTF stimulation from by both JECG and JTT. This feedback concen- above are under development, and MTP and SOP trated on design and control. are being revised. JTASC will soon achieve full op- However,JTFcomponentswerenotincluded erational capability to improve the ability of inthereactionprocesstoadegreethatmadethem ACOM in creating increasingly realistic training full participants in the training. During UE ’95, environments. JFQ JTT focused on the JTF headquarters staff. The components viewed the JTF after action reviews viavideoteleconference.AttheendofUE’95,the components recommended that JTT members be stationedattheirlocationstoprovideself-directed training and feedback focused at the component level.Thissuggestionwillbepursued. Summer 1996 / JFQ 15