Gulf War Air Power Survey
Partial Mobilization, 18 January 1991
Download 5.55 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Figure 9 Selected Reserve and Active Strength Comparison Figure 10 Employment of Reserve Components During Desert Storm
- Members of the U.S. Air Force debark from a C-141B Starlifter aircraft upon their arrival in Saudi Arabia.
- 28 February 1991, Cease Fire: Demobilization
- Readiness of the Reserves
- Table 10 Partial Mobilization Authorities Compared to Number Activated
- Figure 11 Guard and Reserve Support Unit Sorts July 1990
- Personnel Support for Contingency Operations
Partial Mobilization, 18 January 1991
With inputs from commanders and approval from Secretary Rice and General McPeak, Air Staff operational and personnel planners developed mobilization requirements for each command and operating agency. Carefully scrutinizing the requirements, Secretary Rice allocated 41,560 [of the 52,000-authorization] to Major Air Force components of Unified Commands and Special Operating Agencies.992 The commands and agencies received a ceiling of 39,660. Two hundred mobilization augmentees and 1,000 members of the individual ready reserve were authorized to be activated. Each command had authority to mobilize reservists and guardsmen to meet operational needs as they saw fit, both in the United States and in the theater of operations. Additionally, the Secretary of the Air Force, under Title 10 U.S. Code 688, authorized the activation of 700 active duty retirees. A comparison of Air Force selected reserve and active duty strength levels during Operation Desert Storm is illustrated in Figure 9.993 Figure 10 shows the numbers and functions the reserves performed during Operation Desert Storm deployment.994 Figure 9 Selected Reserve and Active Strength Comparison Figure 10 Employment of Reserve Components During Desert Storm For the first time, on a large scale, the Air Force utilized members of the Individual Ready Reserves, active duty retirees, Stand-by Reserves, and retired reserves, otherwise known as the Pretrained Individual Manpower (PIM), which do not train with an active unit. Generally considered less ready from a military perspective, this resource of personnel does possess many critical skills (medical, engineering, scientific, etc.) needed during wartime. On 12 January 1991, under Title 10 U.S. Code 688, the Secretary of the Air Force implemented Push-Pull and eventually recalled 118 active duty retirees,995 who filled specific needs as physicians, enlisted medical technicians, and explosive ordinance disposal technicians. The medics provided critical skills needed to backfill medical facilities in the United States, and the ordinance technicians assumed duties at munitions facilities and ranges. During partial mobilization, 842 individual ready reservists were activated.996 Again, the medical personnel were mainly utilized as backfills in the United States. 6
aircraft upon their arrival in Saudi Arabia. A concern voiced by pretrained reservists was the short time-span given between notification and reporting dates.997 Since the overwhelming majority were doctors, it was necessary to transfer patient loads before reporting to active duty. Although policy allowed for delays and exemptions, some reservists were not aware of this option. For that matter, a number of problems in command and control surfaced between planning and reality in mobilizing the reserves. Unlike the Army and Marine Corps, where entire units deploy as one warfighting entity, the Air Force planned and used during the Gulf War deployment by unit type codes (UTC). That is, the Air Force deployed in groups of less than unit size and strength that were combined with other functions and units to form larger force packages of both combat and support functional areas. Such "units" brought with them the people and equipment needed to perform a specific wartime mission. In the past, both active and reserve planners assumed that air reservists would be mobilized and utilized as entire units and accessed into the active duty personnel system. The unit and individual reservist would then be completely transferred into the active component. This concept was not based on limited regional contingencies, but on post-World War II experiences and global war scenarios. It was also assumed that mobilized reserve units would be utilized for an extended period of time, certainly more than the six months of Operation Desert Storm.998 During the Gulf War, the reserve component was mobilized, deployed, and utilized exactly like the active forcesby unit type codes. Mobilized in small functionally aligned groups, and in some cases split and simultaneously redeployed to multiple locations in theater, the non-unit integrity approach was a departure from previous planning assumptions. Economy of force, the nature and relative size of the contingencycompared to a global war scenariowere factors leading to the less-than-whole unit approach.999 Operational control of reserve component personnel and units passed to the gaining major commands as planned. However, administrative control remained with the Air Reserves. This was not planned, and the division of administrative and operational control created confusion among personnel planners at all levels. This confusion resulted in conflicts of policy guidance in the areas of reserve personnel programs and entitlements. Reservists called to active duty fell under active-duty personnel policies for accountability, benefits, and entitlements. Moreover, they remained under administrative control and management of the Air Reserves, and they also fell under reserve personnel policies for promotion, pay, leave accounting, and records (automated as well as paper) management. This led to further confusion in determining administrative treatment of mobilized reservists.1000 Furthermore, mobilized reservists would frequently receive conflicting guidance from major commands, the reserve component personnel planners, as well as their home units. In a survey conducted by the General Accounting Office of forty activated reservists from eighteen different reserve and guard units in all three services, ten Air Reserve members from Aerial Port units indicated a broad range of problems associated with their mobilization,1001 specifically dissatisfaction with: • limited notice received before mobilization, • uncertainty of the period of mobilization, • calling up only parts of units and disregarding unit integrity, • assignment to jobs not trained to perform, • initially, not receiving timely pay and travel reimbursement. As discussed earlier, the Air Force did not mobilize entire units. Since Air Reserve Component support personnel who normally provided services to their units were not mobilized, active duty units were not staffed or trained to handle the problems raised in mobilizing reserves. Mostly, the survey participants considered the difficulties inherent to the mobilization process, especially during a short contingency.1002 The assistance they sought dealt primarily with the uncertainty of reemployment rights following demobilization. To achieve cooperation and understanding among reservists, guardsmen, and their employers with regard to mobilization and employee rights, reservists chartered the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserves. The committee was active during and after the Persian Gulf crisis,1003 through advertising campaigns targeted at employers and other postwar assistance programs. During a 14-day period in August 1990, the committee's Ombudsman Program handled more than 5,300 telephone inquiriesmore than a 200 percent increase for assistance concerning reemployment rights, compensation, and the implications of voluntary versus involuntary activation. Legal opinions of Title 38, U.S. Code Chapter 43, Section 2024, rendered during the Gulf War indicated that reserve component volunteers activated under Title 10 U.S. Code 672 (d) authority had the same reemployment rights as those involuntarily activated. As a result of Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm, many employers developed personnel programs and improved policies to support their reservist-employees.1004 28 February 1991, Cease Fire: Demobilization Offensive operations ended, and on 8 March 1991 the Secretary of the Air Force directed early demobilization of reservists,1005 delegating this authority to the major commands.1006 This flexibility allowed them to demobilize forces when they were no longer needed. On 18 April 1991, DOD published demobilization guidance to the Services.1007 From a planning perspective, demobilization had been treated as a low priority. The last opportunity requiring demobilization on this scale was at the close of the Berlin Crisis in 1961-62.1008 As mentioned earlier, mobilization plans were based on post-World War II scenarios designed for global war. No real emphasis had ever been placed on practicing demobilization, even during JCS annual mobilization exercises. Therefore, existing policies and procedures were sketchy and untested. Inexperience with the demobilization process coupled with early demobilization presented situations not anticipated by personnel planners.1009 To help reservists transition to civilian status required modification of policies dealing with problems such as finance, medical, etc. As with mobilization, tracking the progress of demobilization manually was a difficult task. Table 10 compares the selected reserve manpower ceiling compared to the number activated by each Service as of 17 March 1991.1010 Readiness of the Reserves Readiness, sustainability, modernization, and force structure are the four components of combat capability. The Defense Department defines readiness as the ability of forces, units, weapon systems, and equipment to achieve the results for which they were designed. It also includes the ability to deploy without unacceptable delays, quality, training, and manning levels of military personnel, condition and maintenance of equipment, state of training in units, and others. Measuring the readiness of a unit is a complex issue and should consider both the objective as well as the subjective. Table 10 Partial Mobilization Authorities Compared to Number Activated
The Joint Chiefs of Staff designed the Status of Resources and Training System to provide active and selected reserve units with criteria for reporting the level and condition of unit resources and level of training on a particular date. These criteria consist of four resource areas: personnel, equipment and supplies on-hand, equipment condition, and training. The category levels, or C-levels, progress from C-1 through C-5. Category C-1 identifies a unit with required resources and training to undertake a full wartime mission for which it is organized or designed. Level C-2 identifies a unit that can undertake the bulk of the wartime mission for which it is organized or designed. Units reporting level C-3 can undertake major portions, while units reporting C-4 require additional resources and/or training in order to undertake its wartime mission but could be directed to undertake portions of the mission with resources on-hand. Units undergoing a service-directed resource change and not prepared to undertake wartime mission report category level C-5. As indicated in Figure 11, ninety-five percent of the guard and reserve support units reported a level of readiness in categories C-1 or C‑2 during the Gulf War, while only five percent reported C‑3 or C-4.1011 Of the support units reporting C-3 or C-4, less than one percent reported C-4. Figure 11 Guard and Reserve Support Unit Sorts July 1990 7
A unit's readiness cannot be reflected in such a report alone. Other considerations, including subjective and intangible factors such as age, job stability, education, skill retention, and career continuation, as well as leadership, morale, and physical fitness, also affect combat readiness. Results of mobilization tests, operational readiness inspections, combat readiness evaluations, and combat skills competition should also be considered. The most critical concerns affecting the readiness of Air National Guard units during fiscal year 1990, according to the Reserve Forces Policy Board, were a shortage of state-of-the-art simulators and computer-based training systems, as well as aircraft and ground support spares. The Reserves reported an inadequate number of fully trained personnel in aeromedical evacuation, combat communications, liquid fuels maintenance, and rapid runway repair units. Nevertheless, even with these known shortages, the evidence indicates that the Guard and Reserves were ready to perform their wartime mission in August of 1990. Air Force Guard and Reserve units continue to have the highest personnel continuation rates among all Selected Reserves in the Department of Defense.1012 For fiscal years 1988 through 1990, continuation rates for first-term and career personnel averaged eighty-four and ninety-one percent respectively, a six percent higher rate for first-term and a three percent higher rate for career personnel than the other Services. For fiscal year ending 1990, the Air Force Reserves and Air National Guard also had the highest percentage of enlisted personnel fully qualified in their current duty positions with ninety-six and ninety-four percent respectively.1013 In comparison, the Navy Reserves had ninety-two percent; Army Guard, eighty-two percent; Marine Corps Reserve, seventy-five percent; and the Army Reserve, seventy-three percent. Additionally, the Air Reserve Component continues with higher than average numbers of reservists having prior active duty experience.1014 Keeping trained and talented people provides for a level of stability in the reserve force. In this respect, the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserves also have a higher percentage of personnel between the age of thirty-five to fifty than the active force. In particular, when comparing ages of active and reserve officer corps, the Reserves and Guard have almost thirty percent of their officers between the age of forty-one and forty-five, compared with only about fifteen percent of the active officer corps.1015 While not absolute, it does reflect a more mature and experienced reserve force to work and train with the same equipment. Some reserve crew chiefs have been assigned to the same individual aircraft for as long as ten years, while their active counterpart may average only three to four. This aspect manifests itself in air-to-air and air-to-ground competition and in performance, gunnery, and maintenance.1016 Personnel Management The focal point for Air Force Personnel management during wartime is the Air Force Manpower and Personnel Readiness Center network made up of manpower and personnel planners from base level to the Air Staff. Empowered to monitor and coordinate wartime manpower and personnel actions, the Center is the lead activity responsible for monitoring and informing senior leadership of significant wartime situations that can affect personnel policies. Beginning in August 1990, this network operated on a twenty-four-hour schedule. The Air Staff Personnel Center, collocated with the Air Force Combat Operations Staff, served as the lead manpower and personnel agency for the JCS and Air Staff operational and personnel planners. Augmented by Personnel and Manpower planners from the Air Staff, Center staffers became a part of the Air Force Chief of Staff's Crisis Action Team. During the war, they undertook hundreds of personnel and manpower actions and inquiries affecting every facet of personnel management. The immensity of this task was tremendous in deployment and strength accounting. While the Air Force had vigorously trained for mobility, no one expected to deploy so many people from so many units to so many bases in such a short period of time. The speed of the deployment was unprecedented10,000 personnel deployed during the first 10 daysand 30,000 deployed within the first 39 days of the operation.1017 The need to deploy as many combat aircraft to the theater as quickly as possible prevented commanders from taking the number of support personnel normally needed. This situation exerted such a strain on the Contingency Operation Mobility Planning and Execution System that it never caught up. Additionally, the lack of a plan that would identify a starting point for personnel requirements was a contributing factor in matching requirements with deployed resources. The lack of a centralized statement of Air Force manpower requirements compelled each supporting command to develop its own manpower document. As a result, many command documents used nonstandard codes, which made automated consolidation of all Air Force requirements next to impossible.1018 Since the plan was being modified daily, requirements could not be built as fast as personnel deployed. This lack of planning created situations where people were not properly accounted for in the theater of operations. Commanders lacked accurate information on current or future requirements for their mission, or type of personnel arriving in the near future. Manpower planners, not part of the initial deployment, established requirements upon later deployments at each site based on schedules when personnel had deployed. Once in place, they made progress in catching up, until the push to double the force in December 1990, and again the accountability system became cumbersome and inflexible. It was not until January 1991 that the requirement numbers began to reasonably match the personnel numbers in theater. Exacerbating the accountability problem was the lack of in-theater trained Combat Personnel Control System operators. When personnel requirements data did arrive, many of the operators did not know how to process the incoming data.1019 Inaccurate projections sent from stateside bases complicated matters even more. When this loop broke, so did accountability. To fix the accountability problem, bases in the United States established work-arounds, such as projection of all personnel departures, then transferred this information by modem to each site. CENTAF-Rear Manpower and Personnel planners sent people to the theater to help with communication and personnel control, requirements documents, and modem interfaces. Although this method of transferring data was not planned, timely, or accurate, it did allow CENTAF to pass accountability information to the Military Personnel Center, U.S. bases, supporting major commands, and the Air Staff. Personnel Support for Contingency Operations As a result of lessons learned from the conflict in Vietnam, in 1973 the Air Force established Personnel Support for Contingency Operations (PERSCO) teams. This team concept was introduced to provide deployed commanders with basic strength accounting and casualty reporting. Additionally, Combat Personnel Control Systems were developed in 1989 to give deployed personnel support teams an automated means to perform strength accounting and other personnel actions. The Gulf War was the first time that the Combat Personnel Control System was used in a wartime environment. At the height of the contingency, 41 support teams representing almost 200 personnel along with 33 Control System machines were deployed to the theater of operations. These personnel represented 39 Air Force bases. By the end of the conflict more than 370 control and personnel support staff had served in Southwest Asia.1020 Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm identified the need to redesign personnel control for deployed commanders with more long-term personnel sustainment support. During Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm, deployed commanders requested more routine personnel support than had been envisioned. Early deployed teams did not have the right mix of expertise and training to provide commanders with full service personnel actions. In many cases the personnel office based in the states had to support the member. Later in the deployment, line remarks added to the deployment requirements document identified the added specialized qualifications for each team. A combined staff assistance visit by the Air Staff, the Personnel Center, and the CENTAF-Rear staff to the theater confirmed the need for a broader range of personnel services. After-action reports noted training deficiencies in all personnel support areas. Very few people knew how to operate the Combat Personnel Control System, and even fewer were prepared to process automatic digital network data.1021 Of 342 deployed members in the Personnel Support for Contingency teams, only 28 percent had received the special experience identifier to certify as a fully trained team member.1022 Directory: sgp -> library sgp -> Sgp country Programme Strategy for op6 sgp -> Itu-d study groups sgp -> Internship with Congressional Campaign Exploratory Committee — Only 4 spots left! sgp -> Using Well Logs in the Petroleum Industry sgp -> Telecommunication development bureau itu-d study groups Download 5.55 Mb. Share with your friends:
|