Table Of Content06Pass 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 develop-
ment exercise (February 5–11); and
IC/III, operations order execution exer-
cise (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 headquar-
ters 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 partici-
pants 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 move-
ment 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 re-
quirements. 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 prin-
cipals 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
