O
ver the past 10 years at war and in two very different landscapes, the Army has made significant strides in
adapting its sustainment techniques, tac- tics, and procedures (TTPs) to meet the requirements of the Soldiers and units in the fight. Since we were in theater while making these changes, we were “fixing the engine in mid-flight,” so to speak, making the effort that much more challenging.
In order to capture all of the issues that deployed sustainment units were facing, as well as the solutions they implemented to overcome those issues, the U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command (CASCOM) instituted an after-action reporting technique called the Reverse- Collection and Analysis Team (R-CAAT) program. Similar to the Collection and Analysis Team program used by the Cen- ter for Army Lessons Learned (CALL) at Fort Leavenworth, KS, the R-CAAT brings redeployed sustainment command- ers and key unit personnel to CASCOM to collect all of their theater experiences and garner their feedback.
Since its inception in 2006, the R-CAAT process has amassed invaluable informa- tion about the state of our sustainment operations. This article briefly highlights the most important lessons learned from the R-CAAT program, and what the Army has done to bridge gaps and elimi- nate roadblocks.
MANAGING CONTRACT SUPPORT
One of the issues with sustainment in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom was the lack of a systemic organizational process to manage the large number of contracts in theater. In response, the Army increased the available contracting officer’s representatives and established the Operational Contract Support Course. Here, two contractors sort and load recyclable materials at Joint Base Balad, Iraq in December 2010.
MODULAR SUSTAINMENT FORCE STRUCTURE Beginning in 2005, the Army transi- tioned from a division-centric force to a brigade-centric force, meaning that the force structure of units provided a “plug- and-play” functionality that enabled the Army to tailor sustainment brigades to meet the mission.
There was no home-based test to validate this modularity concept; it was tested in theater during deployments. Throughout the initial deployments of these tailor- made sustainment units, we were able to adjust and restructure according to the needs on the ground.
BUILDING STRONG RELATIONSHIPS Commanders reported that superior sus- tainment on the battlefield resulted from the outstanding supporting and supported relationships that were built as sustain- ment commanders integrated themselves into the staff and battle rhythms of the maneuver commanders.
Due to the modularity within the Army, mission command supported a decentral- ized design that empowered custodians of resources and capabilities. As such, sustainment commanders were given the latitude to provide resources based on the maneuver commander’s requirements.
ALONG WITH DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT, THE LACK OF PROPERTY ACCOUNTABILITY WAS HINDERING THE SUSTAINMENT MISSION. SPLITTING PROPERTY BOOKS, OVERSIGHT OF EQUIPMENT LEFT BEHIND AT THE GARRISON, AND TRACKING THEATER- PROVIDED EQUIPMENT ALL CONTRIBUTED TO THE ISSUE.
ASC.ARMY.MIL 41
LOGISTICS
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180
