The Case for Army XXI (1998)

30 Pages·1998·0.16 MB·English

by  Strategic Studies Institute

THE CASE FOR ARMY XXI (cid:147)MEDIUM WEIGHT(cid:148)
AERO-MOTORIZED DIVISIONS:
A PATHWAY TO THE ARMY OF 2020
John Gordon IV
and
Peter A. Wilson
May 27, 1998
*****
The authors would like to acknowledge the helpful comments and
insightsfromourcolleaguesatRANDandtheArmycommunitywhile
writing this article. Naturally, we take full responsibility for the
opinionsandaccuracyoffactscontainedtherein.Further,thecontentof
thisarticleisnotendorsedbyRANDandrepresentsthepersonalviews
oftheauthors.JohnGordonIVandPeterA.Wilsonaremembersofthe
senior professional staff at RAND.
*****
Theviewsexpressedinthisreportarethoseoftheauthorsanddo
notnecessarilyreflecttheofficialpolicyorpositionoftheDepartmentof
the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This
report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited.
*****
Comments pertaining to this report are invited and should be
forwarded to: Director, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War
College,122ForbesAve.,Carlisle,PA17013-5244.Copiesofthisreport
maybeobtainedfromthePublicationsandProductionOfficebycalling
commercial(717)245-4133,DSN242-4133,FAX[phone],orvia
the Internet at [email protected]
*****
Selected 1993, 1994, and later Strategic Studies Institute (SSI)
monographsareavailableontheStrategicStudiesInstituteHomepage
forelectronicdissemination.SSI(cid:146)sHomepageaddressis:http://carlisle-
www.army.mil/usassi/welcome.htm
*****
ii
FOREWORD
SincetheendoftheColdWarnearlyadecadeago,there
have been repeated calls for the U.S. Army to make major
changes to accommodate to a transformed geo-strategic
environment. Specifically, advocates of major change
believe the Army should become strategically agile while
maintaining a high in-theater combat and mobility
capability.Forexample,muchofthedesignworkassociated
withtheArmyAfterNext(AAN)exerciseserieshasfocused
on the development of a next generation of combat forces
which have very high strategic/theater mobility and
dramaticallyenhancedcombatpower.Unfortunately,some
of the concepts associated with the AAN are true
(cid:147)leap-ahead(cid:148) technologies that even in the most favorable
budgetary circumstances and development schedules will
not likely be available during the 2020 timeframe. At
present, the Army appears to have settled on the selective
modernization of its current force structure that is a
mixture of very light and ultra-heavy combat formations; a
(cid:147)barbell posture.(cid:148) This approach provides an inadequate
strategy for dealing with near-term political military
challenges and acting as a transition to a true next
generation Army.
Thepurposeofthismonograph,therefore,istostimulate
a debate within the Army as to whether there is a credible
transitionstrategytomodifyaportionofitsforcestructure
to gain some ANN-like attributes(cid:151)enhanced strategic
responsiveness coupled with enhanced theater agility and
combat power. The authors believe there is a mix of extant
and near-term combat systems and technologies that will
allow the Army to create a number of (cid:147)aero-motorized(cid:148)
divisions within likely budgetary constraints by the end of
thenextdecade.Thesemediumweightcombatunitswould
exploit the large investment the Air Force is making to
modernize its strategic and theater airlift fleets during the
first decade of the 21st century. The authors believe that
forces equipped with light armored vehicles, next
generation combat aviation, and enhanced indirect fire
iii
support will provide the Army with a strategic (cid:147)fist.(cid:148)
Aero-motorizedforcescanbeusedeitheraspartofaleading
edge of a large and inherently slower to deploy
expeditionary force or as a central combat component of
futurelessercontingenciesincludingoperationsotherthan
war. Finally, the aero-motorized concept will allow the
Armytodevelopthoroughlythedoctrineandconceptofland
forces operations that have the strategic agility of current
lightforcesandapproachthecombatpowerofcurrentheavy
forces(cid:151)major features of a desired next generation Army.
The Strategic Studies Institute strongly encourages
readers to participate in a continuing discussion on the
future of American land power and the challenges it holds
for the U.S. Army.
LARRY M. WORTZEL
Colonel, U.S. Army
Director, Strategic Studies Institute
iv
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
OF THE AUTHORS
JOHN GORDON IV graduated from The Citadel in 1977 with a
bachelor(cid:146)sdegreeinhistory. Healsoholdsamastersininternational
relations from St. Mary(cid:146)s University in San Antonio, Texas, and a
mastersinbusinessadministrationfromMarymountUniversityin
Arlington, Virginia. Currently, he is a candidate in George Mason
University(cid:146)s Public Policy Ph.D. program. Following graduation
from The Citadel, he entered the Army as a Field Artillery officer.
His assignments included the 82d Airborne and 2d Infantry
Divisions, the Field Artillery School, and Training and Doctrine
CommandHeadquarters. Forthelast4yearsofhisArmycareer,he
servedatHeadquarters,DepartmentoftheArmywherehewasthe
ChiefoftheDoctrineTeamintheOfficeoftheDeputyChiefofStaff
forOperationsandPlans(DCSOPS). Hewasalsotheleaderofthe
Army(cid:146)sDeepAttack/WeaponsMixStudy(DAWMS)team. Whilein
DCSOPS, Mr. Gordon was a member of the Army(cid:146)s Roles and
Missions Commission team and represented the Army at several
QuadrennialDefenseReview(QDR)panels. Heistheauthorofover
30 articles in various publications such as Army, Military Review,
Joint Force Quarterly, Naval Institute(cid:146)s Proceedings, and
Georgetown University(cid:146)s National Security Studies Quarterly. He
joined RAND in May 1997.
PETER A. WILSON graduated from Princeton University in 1966
withaB.A.inpoliticalscience. HethenattendedtheUniversityof
Chicago where he earned an M.A. in political science in 1970. Mr.
Wilson is a member of the senior staff at RAND. During the last
several years, he has been working on a number of interrelated
projects including the co-authorship of the (cid:147)The Day After(cid:148) policy
exercise series which have explored the implications of major
challenges(counterproliferation,strategicinformationwarfare,and
electronic commerce) to post-Cold War national security planning.
Mr. Wilson is co-teaching a course at Georgetown University(cid:146)s
School for Foreign Service that will use the RAND exercise
experiencetoexaminetheimplicationsofthesenewtechnologiesto
asignificantchangeoftheearly21stcenturydefinitionofnational
security. Mr.Wilson(cid:146)swrittenworkshaveappearedinParameters,
Naval Institute(cid:146)s Proceedings, National Defense University Press,
theProgressivePolicyInstitute,WashingtonQuarterly,andinclude
the co-authorship of several major RAND studies.
v
THE CASE FOR ARMY XXI (cid:147)MEDIUM WEIGHT(cid:148)
AERO-MOTORIZED DIVISIONS:
A PATHWAY TO THE ARMY OF 2020
Theabilitytoprojectlethalforces(cid:151)intheair,onthesea,oron
the land(cid:151)will be essential. Toward that end, our ability to
project combat power anywhere in the world will require new
technologies,operationalconcepts,andcapabilitiestomeetnew
challenges. First among these new challenges is the need for
muchsmallerforce(cid:147)footprint(cid:148)characterizedbyfewerbutmore
capable attacking troops and platforms supported by an even
smaller logistics element. Priority challenges will also include
an enhanced military responsiveness distinguished by its
increased range of employment and resulting in reduced
exposure of our forces.
National Defense Panel Report
December 1997
Overview.
The authors contend that today(cid:146)s Army is essentially a
(cid:147)barbell(cid:148) shaped organization: very light or very heavy
forceswithlittleintheformof(cid:147)middleweight(cid:148)units.Oneof
thefundamentaldecisionsthattheArmymustmakeinthe
coming decade is whether it intends to continue this
organizational structure or modify it modestly or radically.
If major modification is appropriate, what are the options?
Fortunately, the Army has several years to consider such
issues.
Probably for at least a decade the United States and its
allies will not be confronted by a major military competitor
or a collection of medium-sized states that are capable of
successfully threatening our vital interests with (cid:147)conven-
tional(cid:148) combined arms forces.1 That does not mean that
some regional adversary could not achieve a short-term
successbyinvadingandseizingterritoryfromitsneighbor.
Furthermore, that (cid:147)smash and grab(cid:148) strategy could be
1
reinforced by the deft threat or actual use of nuclear,
biological,chemical(NBC)weapons(cid:151)afeaturedescribedas
a plausible major theater war (MTW) scenario by both the
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and National Defense
Panel (NDP). Additionally, future opponents are likely to
exploit long-range missile systems (both ballistic and
cruise) armed with advanced non-NBC munitions to
threaten the military viability of any future U.S.
expeditionary force. Such a victory could certainly be
reversed; for the foreseeable future the United States and
its friends can certainly turn back overt aggression if they
choosetodoso.Thecriticalstrategicquestioniswhetherthe
United States and its allies will be prepared to reverse this
act of aggression. Under the shadow of a NBC/missile
threat,thecostmightbeperceivedasveryhighespeciallyif
the United States has not adapted its forces to that
plausible contingency.2
OneoftheclearpremiumsoffutureU.S.combinedarms
forces will be their ability to rapidly deploy into a menaced
theater and operate in the face of enhanced NBC and
long-range missile threats. The early deployment of a high
performance combat force will have a profound impact on
the probability, duration, and overall cost of a major
campaign.3
More probable than MTWs is the possibility that the
United States will be confronted by a whole series of lesser
crises or small-scale contingency (SSC) operations. Civil
wars that threaten to spill into other nations, relatively
limited armed struggles between religious and/or ethnic
groups,andbreakdownsincivilorderwithin(cid:147)failedstates(cid:148)
areallexamplesofthekindsofoperationswhereU.S.forces
could conceivably be deployed. Significantly, many areas
where such breakdowns in order could occur are where the
United States does not have forces permanently stationed
ashore. Finally, many of these future conflicts will take
place in an urban environment, which reflects the global
migration from the countryside to the cities. Should the
United States elect to intervene with ground force, deploy-
2
mentsfromdistantlocationswouldhavetotakeplace.This
changingrealityhasasignificantimpactonhowthefuture
Army should be configured.4
The (cid:147)Barbell(cid:148) Army.
The Army has undergone at least four major organ-
izational eras since the end of World War II. First was the
immediatepost-WorldWarIIforce.ThiswastheArmythat
fought the Korean War. Organizationally, doctrinally, and
in its equipment, this force was virtually identical to the
World War II Army. Second was the mid-1950s (cid:147)Pentomic(cid:148)
armythatwasacontroversialattempttoorganizetheland
force for nuclear combat. The (cid:147)Pentomic(cid:148) era is generally
regarded as a failure.5 Third came the Vietnam-era force.
Organizationally, the Army of the 1960s owed much to the
World War II model and was a large conscript force whose
divisions were modeled on the armored division of World
War II and whose fundamental tactics were based on
massiveapplicationoffirepowerandarmoredshocktactics.
The most important innovation for (cid:147)high intensity(cid:148) ground
war was the creation of the mechanized infantry division
witheachinfantrybattalionequippedwithorganicarmored
carriers.6InVietnam,theArmyfocusedontheexploitation
of helicopter technology to free it from the (cid:147)tyranny of
terrain.(cid:148)Followingourgeo-strategicdefeatinVietnam,the
Army slowly moved into the successful Army of Excellence
period, which is still in effect.
During the 1980s some experimentation included the
permanent assignment of an attack helicopter brigade to
the armored and mechanized divisions, the creation of the
9th (cid:147)high technology light division(cid:148) (motorized infantry
division) and the Light Infantry Division.7 The air combat
brigade concept became institutionalized while the
motorizedconceptdiedduringthelate1980sduetoalackof
investment in a light armored vehicle family and hostility
from both the Armor and Infantry branches of the Army.
The light infantry division concept became the Army(cid:146)s
3
model for air transportable units. Structurally, today(cid:146)s
ArmyisquitesimilartotheforceattheendoftheVietnam
period(cid:151)amixofverylightandveryheavyunits.Thisisthe
force that is on the verge of being transformed into Army
XXI with a focus on major upgrades in command, control,
communications, and computers (C4) and improved
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
systems.Currently,thisconceptdoesnotcallforanymajor
change in organization or concept of operations for either
the light or heavy combat formations.8
With the brief (cid:147)Pentomic(cid:148) era and 9th Motorized
Infantry Division experiments being the exceptions, a
hallmarkofthepost-WorldWarIIArmyisthatithashada
(cid:147)barbell(cid:148) characteristic. The Army has been generally
configuredintoeitherveryheavyarmoredandmechanized
units armed with large numbers of heavy fully tracked
vehiclesorverylightinfantry-typeunitsthatareprimarily
footmobile.Onedivision,the101stAirAssaultremainsasa
positive legacy of the Vietnam experience. Of course, both
typesofforcesincludeawidevarietyofsub-units,artillery,
aviation, all kinds of support organizations. A glance at
today(cid:146)s Army is illustrative.
The Current Army
Light Forces Heavy Forces
Medium Forces
1stArmored 1stInf(M)
82ndAirborne
1stCavalry 2ndInf
10thLight 101stAirAssault 3rdInf(M)
25thLight
4thInf(M)
The10-divisionArmyof1998hassix(cid:147)heavy(cid:148)armoredor
mechanizeddivisionsononeendofthespectrumandthree
air transportable or light divisions on the other end. The
singleairmobiledivisionliessomewhatinthemiddle.While
4
the101stAirborne(AirAssault)divisionisnotencumbered
with large numbers of armored vehicles, it is nevertheless
logistically equivalent to a heavy division and difficult to
move strategically due to the large numbers of current
generation helicopters that are difficult to self-deploy over
long distances.
The Need for Medium Forces.
What the Army has lacked since 1945 are (cid:147)medium(cid:148)
forces that combine a degree of mobility, firepower, and
protection greater than the generally foot-mobile light
forces, yet are less strategically and operationally
cumbersome than the heavy armored and mechanized
units. The latter require either prepositioning, relatively
slowsealift,orwide-scalerail/heavyequipmenttransporter
(HET)supportinordertodeployintoareaswhereforcesare
not already stationed.
During the Cold War, the primary and potentially most
challenging Army missions were the defense of Western
Europe and Korea. In both locations the Army had
relatively large forces in place. The deployment penalty
associated with armored units weighed heavily on military
plannersandledtoagreatdependenceuponprepositioned
equipmentsets(POMCUS)andsealift.WhentheGulfcrisis
tookplaceinAugust1990,theUnitedStateswasfortunate
to be confronted by an incompetent opponent who yielded
the strategic initiative once his initial objectives were
seized.ThisaffordedtheU.S.-ledcoalitionthetime(nearly
5months)thatwasneededtodeploybyseatheheavyforces
that would eventually lead the counteroffensive to retake
Kuwait. The operational immobility of heavy forces was
furtherrevealedduringOperationJOINTENDEAVOR,the
deployment of Army forces to Bosnia during the winter of
1995-96.Thedeploymentofareinforcedbrigadeofonlyfour
armoredandmechanizedinfantrybattalionsfromsouthern
Germany via rail and roads took nearly 2 months.9
5