The Special Operations Forces Christmas List
Although the summer heat may not feel like the season for giving, I assure you that it is. This time each year the U.S. Congress starts building the budget for the next fiscal year. During this time the Military Services send to Congress their “list of additional requirements”. It is much like a child sending his/her “Christmas list” to Santa—hoping he brings the toys he/she wants. At times, the Department of Defense has told the Services to not send their requests to Congress, directing them instead to just say they support the President’s Budget. Even at these times, Congress ends up receiving the detailed lists from the Services – the “unofficial” requests always seem to make their way to the Hill. For the fiscal year 2019 budget build it does not appear that the Department of Defense has attempted to restrict the Services. This is a good thing.
To be frank, the Services should be encouraged to ALWAYS render the actual requirement to Congress. The reality is that there is a finite amount of resources, and, based on Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the decisions about what to fund in the U.S. military falls to the U.S. Congress. No administration should ever consider it disloyal for a Service Chief or senior leader to state what they believe to be the true requirement. And yes, requirements do change based on evolving threats, and we have to evolve with those threats if we want to defend the nation and protect our global interests. We should want our senior leaders to provide candid and professional assessments, regardless of the political climate.
As the U.S. builds the 2019 budget, congress should prioritize the additional requirements that reflect operational needs first and foremost. Based on joint doctrine the Geographic Combatant Commands (GCC) have the requirement to articulate what they need in their theater, but studies have shown that the Services are vaguely interested in what the GCCs request. I have not seen the list the Services are sending up this year, but I would bet you will not find any Service asking for anything that supports their most operationally committed force – their Special Operations Forces (SOF). If Congress approves anything for SOF, it will not be because the Services asked for something to support their SOF under their Title X obligations. It will be because SOF gets it directly from Congress.
So the real question is: what should the USSOCOM “Christmas list” look like? USSOCOM’s request has to focus on the Deployment Tempo (DEPTEMPO) to reduce the stress on the force. The Joint Staff directive is to have a 2 to 1 ratio, meaning 2 days at home for every 1 day deployed. Many of the SOF military occupational skills are not even at 1 to 1. If we want to maintain the force, then Congress has to look past the normal big ticket platforms and do things to sustain SOF.
Additionally, the USSOCOM list should be focused on the future and not on adding more of what they already have. Historically, SOF get Service-provided platforms and USSOCOM-peculiar funding called Military Force Program -11 or MFP-11 is used to modify the platform or system to match what SOF needs. Unfortunately, there are situations in which no level modification will get an existing platform close to the real requirement. To that end, there is a move to provide USSOCOM with additional Research Development Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding to do innovative things besides just modify platforms. That is a great start.
An example of asking for something new that is designed to protect the force would be stealth rotary wing assets. Everyone that watched the movie Zero Dark Thirty knows that the US used two MH-60 Blackhawk variants that were modified to be stealthier than the standard MH-60. Aviation noise can and has compromised missions, and compromised missions get people killed. Pilots go to great extremes to ensure they mask the noise as much as possible, but there are so many variables that impact how noise travels that they cannot plan for everything. As long as SOF seeks to infiltrate an area without compromise, then aircraft need to be quieter and stealthier. Over the last 20 years we have not had to infiltrate elaborate air defense systems, but any action against targets in Iran, North Korea or Russia would require more and better capability.
The 2019 US National Defense budget build is starting, and growth is expected. SOF is carrying the bulk of the operational commitments, and they should not hesitate to provide the complete requirement to Congress irrespective of the cost. We should allow our elected representatives the chance to figure out what the nation can afford. SOF will not get it all, but nothing ventured is nothing gained. Ask Santa for all of the toys and see what shows up on Christmas morning.
Retired
7 年What Peter Phillips said earlier about creativity is spot on. Without creative thinking you will be stuck going to a GFE warehouse blowing dust off equipment that will or is already obsolete. In the first design of a helicopters ESSS (glass) cockpit, the mission processors were loaded with an obsolete 8088 processor chip. The flight director was slow and often took 2 minutes to calculate. I asked why we couldn't use one of the newer processor chips, answer: we route the program for an 8088 chip and it would cost to much to rewrite. A little creative thinking and a little time looking at the market they might have made a better decision.
Founder eGro.dk and President StartupBorgen.dk
7 年I completely recognize your conclusion that the in a high threat theater, the next parameter is noise. In fact maybe it already is... It reminds me of the listening devices that were used to direct flack on bomber armadas over Europe in WWII, before integrated radar fire control centres could be used. Also the Hungarian have claimed they can detect and possibly track high flying stealth jets through their noise. Recently I watched a documentary about Royal Danish Air Force and how they would typically release their JDAMs from 45sec - 1min 10 sec out. They had to stay far away during Close air support missions, or the target would realise that they were around. The wingman doing the spotting in a holding pattern lasing up the target. That is too far away for spotting with IR in a foggy Asian jungle, rainy Europe or correct me if im wrong... It came to me that the drones of the future would have an electric short burst charge and sail in and out of the window of being able to be heard from the ground. That would be the solution to get it closer to the target, while lasing and making smaller ordonance like 70mm hydras with strap on laser guidance be the ammunition. Systems that would have a higher hit rate to drop into designated rooms of a building, and not collapse the whole structure with overkill 500 lb or 2000lb or expensive Hellfires. Just like an operator would be able to direct his own fire. Platform would cost way less, it would be much faster from detecting target - to drop - to impact, and the collateral damage minimal. Future of Close Air Support in my eyes. Some quote like: - "The next war is never fought with the tactics that won the last war." ("Fighting the last war" - strategy)
Senior Executive, Mentor, Speaker, Consultant
7 年What is always missing is creativity and a new acquisition team that understands the 21st century the battle our future force will face. So long as our enemy is under funded we will continue to appear to win. One day it will not be the same I hope we will see the hearings and cases that will put acquisition folks in jail for their over conservative nature that as held back SOF for over a decade.