The Core Concept is a work-in-progress that aims to dramatically improve the ability of the US military to engage in warfare in the defense of US interests. While most reform efforts have to date been developed by combat arms personnel to better focus the capabilities of combat systems, the Core Concept seeks to focus on applying improved logistical concepts and structures to make proposed force structures more supportable. The emphasis of the Core Concept is that any military is only as good as its ability to sustain itself in combat.
There are many exceptional military ideas that are rejected by the Core Concept. This is not because these ideas and/or systems are not good ideas but because the realities of how the US military must utilize these assets makes them untenable from a logistical standpoint. Most combat arms personnel struggle to grasp that the problem with today’s force is not the weight of the Abrams tank, as an example, but the plethora of exceptionally heavy assets needed to make it functional. Any system, no matter how capable, cannot be effectively used in combat if we cannot logistically sustain the system in combat.
To look at this concept another way, consider this. When the US military engages in warfare, it typically does so by projecting military force over very long distances. The enemies we are facing typically are fighting on or near their own areas while US forces are a long way from home. Because of this, US forces tend to be sent into combat heavily weighted down with everything but the kitchen sink while we engage enemies that are lighter and more mobile because they can access supplies readily if required.
The Core Concept combines a number of military operational concepts into a force that is capable of addressing the full spectrum of warfare while remaining relatively small and mobile. It combines forces of varying mix and capability that can be utilized in a piecemeal or combined fashion. Redundant units and purely strategic elements are removed from the basic branches and grouped into joint units to function together for the collective force. This approach allows us to employ a number of novel logistical and tactical techniques to regain the mobility advantage.
Operationally the Core Concept divides the force into four primary types of combat groups. Core groups form a block around which a larger force can be built. While capable of operating independently, core groups are designed to emphasize mobility on a strategic level and offer limited tactical mobility. They can be delivered rapidly to any given theater and operate across the full combat spectrum both offensively and defensively. Maneuver Support Groups lack the overall strategic mobility of the Core groups but offer greater tactical mobility. They feature greater firepower and combat survivability and can be used to rapidly surround a given foe. Fire Support Groups are deployable forces designed to boost the overall firepower of a given force. To improve the mobility and flexibility of Core and Maneuver groups, most large-scale firepower assets are grouped in the FSGs. Additionally, there is a need for task specific forces that can specialize in given areas. For this role, the Core Concept provides Task Oriented Units to fill these gaps.
The three combat core groups are the Army (Infantry), Navy (Naval Warfare Groups), and Air Force (Expeditionary Air Wings). These forces represent the basic building blocks of both offense and defense in any given major warfare scenario. The Army should be based on a design similar to that of the current Light Infantry division but equipped and restructured to improve performance against a wider variety of foes. The divisional structure gives these units sufficient bulk while keeping the unit light to allow for rapid strategic mobility with the ability to quickly entrench itself within a given theater if the situation requires. Naval Warfare Groups should be based on a multi-role version of the existing LHD conventional carrier combined with current nuclear attack submarines. These carriers can carry various assets from VTOL jet fighters and ESTOL attack scout planes to small littoral warfare boats and amphibious forces. The Air Force will use wings of fighters similar to the current Aerospace Expeditionary Force structure but smaller in size. These units will feature a mix of F-22 fighters, F-16 fighters, and a new F-16 variant. All of these fighters will feature a new system for rapid deployment to any location in the world.
Maneuver Support Groups offer greater mobility on a tactical level while remaining small enough to provide for rapid strategic mobility as well. While lacking the versatility of the Core groups, they can be used to rapidly engulf any enemy in any battlefield environment. On land, Armored Combat Regiments of various types fulfill the MSG role. At sea, the MSG consists of Battleships and Heavy Cruisers with limited escorts as Surface Action Groups. In the air, Strategic Air Wings fill the MSG role using wings of various versions of the F-16 fighter.
FSGs are forces that are designed to provide a greater degree of firepower projection over the basic core group. FSGs are built around a limited number of types of platforms that can be configured in a variety of ways to provide various types of fire support to combat forces. On the ground, Fire Support Regiments make up the FSG force. At sea, Carrier Battle Groups provide the FSG capability. In the air, Attack Bomber Wings make up the FSGs.
TOUs are designed for specific military missions. They are sized and equipped for specific tasks. Because military capabilities and needs change with time, TOUs are small units that can be refocused in short order to meet a given need. These forces are not designed nor intended to fight on their own except in very limited circumstances. On the ground, the TOUs are the Marine Corps. At sea, Auxiliary Escort Groups make up the TOU force. In the air, Special Air Wings provide TOU capabilities.
Providing the direct, physical support of these combat units are the units of the Combat Support Corps. This Corps would be a joint operation including forces from all branches of service. This core capability includes the training, personnel, and finance units necessary to ensure that the combat units continue to actually exist. The three supporting units of the Combat Support Corps are the Engineering and Maintenance Corps, the Health and Welfare Corps, and the Supply and Transport Corps.
Providing the ability for all of these forces to operate on a global scale is the mission of the Strategic Defense Corps. This Corps incorporates all existing Intelligence, Communications, and Information assets beyond the combat unit level. The Corps would be supported by the Naval Strategic Defense Corps, the Aerial Strategic Defense Corps, and the National Strategic Defense Corps. The supporting Corps’ would incorporate existing strategic weapons, defenses against these types of weapons, and the nationalized homeland defense assets such as Coast Guard, National Guard, FEMA, INS, Customs, etc.
ã Core Force 2002, All Rights Reserved