Protection Analysis
By Mrs. Sonia L. Taylor
Article published on: January 1, 2023 in the Protection 2023 Issue
Read Time: < 7 mins
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21236/AD1307208
The primary purpose of Army analysis is to provide the information that senior leaders need to make informed decisions or better understand complex problems. Over the years, protection has been one of those complex problems that the Army has struggled to adequately analyze and understand. Numerous studies and experiments have been conducted on topics including force protection, base defense, decision tools, sensors, and systems to examine portions of protection; however, there has been no holistic study of protection with full community involvement until now.
As the Army focuses on modernizing and shaping the future force, a new view of protection—one that promotes moving the Army to be more proactive in all domains—has led to the development of U. S. Army Futures Command (AFC) Pamphlet (Pam) 71-20-7, Army Futures Command Concept for Protection 2028, also known as “the Protection Concept.” Shortly after the Protection Concept was signed in April 2021, the Maneuver Support (MS) Capability Development Integration Directorate (CDID), Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, was tasked to lead a multiyear capability-based assessment (CBA) for all-domain protection (ADP) so that AFC could assign priority gaps to organizations to work on doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities, and policy (DOTMLPF-P) integrated solutions. The ADP CBA, which began in Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, was challenged with translating the Protection Concept into something that the Army could do.
The Protection Concept describes how the Army realizes ADP using protection activities and requirements spanning multiple proponents and organizations to achieve required effects on the expanded battlefield when properly integrated and synchronized at echelon across the competition continuum. Multidomain operations pose challenges that will require the future force to proactively deny and defend against enemy action and conduct protection activities to achieve the three core components of the Protection Concept:
- Preserve critical capabilities, assets, and activities.
- Deny threats and enemy freedom of action.
- Enable access to achieve protected windows of superiority.
The CBA—one of the primary analysis tools used to study Army concepts and capabilities—provides the analytic foundation for developing joint capabilities integration and development system documentation. It is a structured study that helps capability developers identify requirements and associated capability gaps to determine future warfighting requirements and recommend potential materiel or nonmateriel approaches to resolving or mitigating those gaps.
The ADP CBA process consists of three phases:
- Needs analysis—identifying required capabilities and their associated operational characteristics and attributes.
- Gap analysis—determining the capability gaps and associated operational risks.
- Solutions analysis—assessing possible solution approaches for the capability shortfalls.
The problem statement, or study issue, for the ADP CBA is “How can the Army converge effects to identify, open, and exploit protected windows of superiority while maintaining persistent protection for select mission-essential nodes, thus realizing ADP for multidomain operations?”
The methodology, or approach, for conducting the ADP CBA begins with the Protection Concept, moves through the three CBA phases, and ends with recommendations and solutions. To help alleviate conflicts of interest and strive to conduct an unbiased assessment, a retired general officer has been serving as a senior mentor to guide the discussion and challenge conventional thinking. Oversight is provided by a study advisory group comprised of the CDID directors and chaired by the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center Deputy to the Commanding General. To date, the ADP CBA has completed the needs analysis and gap analysis phases. The analytic conditions for both phases consisted of a series of workshops that brought the protection stakeholders together to facilitate discussions and data collection. Approximately 115 participants from more than 30 organizations provided thorough examination and lively debate and offered many insights concerning the protection of the future force in a complex multidomain environment.
The needs analysis phase aimed to determine what must be accomplished and what capabilities the warfighter needs to achieve mission success within an operational context. Four vignettes within an approved scenario were designed using the multidomain operations context of competition, armed conflict, and return to competition (as described in the Protection Concept)—with an extra phase called “crisis deter aggression” added between competition and armed conflict. It was not feasible to chase all 44 required capabilities defined in the Protection Concept within the constraints of the CBA, so the focus was narrowed to 12 that directly supported the problem statement. Participants were challenged to think more broadly in their approach to protection. As discussions unfolded, the scope expanded to include other appropriate tasks from any required capabilities detailed in the Protection Concept. As the tasks were reviewed to determine which were directly related to the required capabilities, they were grouped into four areas: new tasks, tasks of interest to all warfighting functions, tasks of interest to two or more warfighting functions, and critical tasks per vignette. The needs analysis resulted in the identification of more than 150 total tasks, of which more than 20 were new. Following the task review board, the study advisory group approved the required capabilities and tasks, enabling the transition to gap analysis.
Figure 1. Capability-based assessment process and assessment approach
During the gap analysis phase of the ADP CBA, which was conducted in FY 23, the tasks, measures, and metrics were further refined to determine the tasks that failed, the resulting gaps, and the operational risk to mission accomplishment if the gaps were not mitigated. At the recommendation of senior leaders, the first gap analysis workshop focused on the operational- to theater strategic-level tasks and the second workshop focused on division and below tactical-level tasks. Once the failed tasks were identified, stakeholders developed gap statements and assigned an operational risk category of extremely high, high, moderate, or low to each gap. After a presentation to the gap review board and a review by the study advisory group, the final gap analysis product consisted of a prioritized list of gaps. Overall, there were more than 60 extremely-high-risk and more than 20 high-risk gaps for Army 2030 formations in the given scenario, which involved a 2035 threat and operating environment.
The ADP CBA solutions analysis phase, which is designed to assess potential DOTMLPF-P approaches to solving the prioritized capability gaps approved during the gap analysis phase, is poised to be completed in FY 24. Protection stakeholders have identified numerous tasks, metrics, and gaps in order to find possible solutions to realize ADP. AFC will assign examination of materiel and organization gaps to the CDIDs, and the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) will assign examination of the doctrine, training, leadership and education, personnel, facilities, and policy gaps to the centers of excellence during solutions analysis. Both commands will synchronize efforts to ensure the delivery of integrated solutions.
The ADP CBA is not just an MS-CDID or AFC effort but a whole Army effort that touches all CDIDs, proponents, and stakeholders within the Army Modernization Enterprise. Analysis has produced many key takeaways, enabling leaders to stretch conventional thinking, apply new approaches, and integrate efforts. Protection is not a traditional war-fighting function; it is a mindset that everyone must develop in order for the Army to succeed on the future battlefield. Operationalizing protection and fully realizing the concepts of AFC Pam 71-20-7 depend on the results of the ADP CBA in developing new protection solutions and educating the force.
Endnotes
Author
Mrs. Taylor is an operations research/systems analyst serving as the deputy director of the Maneuver Support Battle Laboratory, Fort Leonard Wood. She holds a bachelor’s degree in mathematics from Harding University, Searcy, Arkansas.