Army Experimentation: Developing the Army of the Future-Army 2020

The Chief of Staffof directed effort to redesign of 2020 in response to increasingly constrained resources and changes in defense strategy. As begins to reduce its active from 570,000 to 490,000 or less, and as budgets continue to shrink, it is critical to design an effective warfighting around new numbers. 1 The is at a crossroads and must determine how it will remain a globally effective based in continental United States, under resource constraints.A History of DrawdownsAll U.S. military services faced such challenges when forces drew down after World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. As largest service, Army's challenges during 20th century were particularly significant as it sought to retain structure it anticipated needing for future commitments.2 The Army's difficulties were exacerbated when political pressure to cut costs accelerated reduction of force. Drastic reductions of after World War II to meet fiscal constraints, for example, caused many units to become below strength and under trained. When Korean War began, was woefully underprepared for conflict and experienced embarrassing defeats as a result.3After Vietnam, conducted a drawdown that led to hollow force of late 1970s and early 1980s.4 To counter this deterioration, focused on developing a contemporary through what was known as the Division 86 Project.5 The subsequent reorganization was based on a concept called AirLand Battle, which became Army's warfighting doctrine of mid-to-late 1980s. Thus began a modern era of thought focused on anticipating how combat would be fought in future and what would need to remain successful in accomplishing its mission. Experimenting with different ideas was a common approach to analyzing potential effectiveness of new organizations, without combat. These early experiments represented future threats and capabilities in a projected environment and then evaluated results of these war games to determine validity of emerging concepts.The ability to create and examine tailored learning venues that replicate Army's complex challenges remains raison d'etre of operational experimentation. Today, experimentation continues to examine future structures and reductions (both human and hardware) in real-world scenarios. Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) runs experimentation through organizations subordinate to its Capabilities Integration Center. The Joint and Experimentation Division, concept development and integration directorates at each center of excellence, and other partners conduct experimentation. Experimentation is an objective method of determining capabilities, organization, and command and control needed to counter any threat at any anticipated time or place. The models, simulates, and war games various structures and unit designs to determine most effective use of its limited resources. This deliberate process reduces risk to soldiers and increases odds of getting things right first time a faces real-world adversaries. In past few years, some experimental designs have worked well, while others have not.Starting in 2012, embarked on a threeyear effort to examine implications of Army 2020, assessing major design changes that would transition from an involved in two intensive conflicts to a peacetime capable of meeting any threat. This article discusses results of experiments in fiscal years (FYs) 2012 and 2013. The Joint and Experimentation Division uses a collaborative approach for investigating critical issues through an experimentation community of practice comprised of TRADOC and battle laboratories and other joint and interagency stakeholders.6Fiscal Year 2012 ExperimentationIn FY 2012, community focused on design; reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities; intelligence, sustainment, and communications capabilities; and command and control requirements. …