TE-12 Contractor After-Action Report for Warfighter Exercise 23-4 Redacted.pdf

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Basic Document/Annex PAGE

Executive Summary 3

ANNEX A: General Administration and Logistics 5

ANNEX B: Training 8

ANNEX C: Exercise Operations and Support Systems/ 10 Simulation Control Plan (SCP) and Exercise Manning

ANNEX D: Archiving and Enhanced Retrieval (ARCHER) System 15

ANNEX E: Exercise Simulation Development 16

ANNEX F: Exercise Control (EXCON) and Joint Training 18

Information Management Systems (JTIMS) and Logistics Federation (LOGFED)

ANNEX G: Technical Support Team Summary 19

ANNEX H: Recurring Deficiencies 20

ANNEX I: Software Change Requests (SCR) 21

ANNEX J: MCTP Headquarters Support Team (HST) 22

ANNEX K: Federation of Models 23

ANNEX L: Specific 24

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Contractor’s After-Action Report

Fort Hood, Texas Fort Bliss, Texas

Fort Bragg, North Carolina Fort Riley, Kansas

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

Warfighter Exercise 23-4

1.0 General: WFX 23-4 was the largest warfighter exercise conducted to date. It encompassed five training locations (Fort Bragg, Fort Hood, Fort Riley, Fort Bliss and Fort Leavenworth) and an entire United Kingdom Division (3UK) at Fort Hood Texas.

This event tested the upper limits of manpower and equipment provided by the Mission Command Training Program both for the military and its supporting contractors. One significant deficiency identified was the lack of available space that is mentioned in several of the AAR comments. There are numerous minor challenges that need to be addressed for future warfighter exercises.

2.0 General Administration and Logistics: Lack of space made available to MCTP at the Fort Hood MTC was the biggest hinderance to operations. A tent was provided to support operations groups A and B, but the tent was an unsatisfactory solution due to lateness of setup, minimal environmental controls, and noise. Even when fully set-up late in the exercise, they were still unsatisfactory for operations due to excessive noise from the generators and vulnerability of enclosed electronic equipment to inclement weather.

3.0 Training: A need was identified to complete the current Lithuania River Study to include the entire country.

4.0 Exercise Operations and Support Systems/Simulation Control Plan (SCP) and Exercise Manning: A need was identified to assess current MCTP equipment to determine if sufficient equipment exists to support the size of upcoming warfighter exercises. Specifically, there was a shortage of ECC boxes identified. A recommendation was made to develop an SOP for how to save and transport files between exercises. A recommendation was made to maintain version control over Simulation Control Plans (SCP). The need for portable scanners capable of scanning multiple pages was identified.

5.0 Archiving and Enhanced Retrieval (ARCHER) System: ARCHER support techs were exceptional in maintaining the systems.

6.0 Exercise Simulation Development: A recommendation was made to change the battlefield system identifier in WARSIM from fixed wing to UAV.

7.0 Exercise Control (EXCON) and Joint Training Information Management System (JTIMS): No items submitted, 88..00 TTeecchhnniiccaall SSuuppppoorrtt TTeeaamm ((TTSSTT))::TThhee oovveerraallll ssuuppppoorrtt rreecceeiivveedd ffrroomm tthheeTTeecchhnniiccaall

SSuuppppoorrtt TTeeaamm wwaass eexxcceeppttiioonnaall..

99..00 RReeccuurrrriinngg DDeeffiicciieenncciieess:: TThhee pprreesseennttaattiioonn llaappttooppss uusseedd ttoo ccoonndduucctt AAfftteerr AAccttiioonn

RReevviieewwss aarree oolldd aanndd ccoonnssttaannttllyy ddrrooppppiinngg ccoonnnneeccttiioonnss aanndd ffaaiilliinngg ttoo ppeerrffoorrmm..

10.0 Software Change Requests (SCR): None submitted.

11.0 MCTP Headquarters Support Team (HST): Comments included in other sections.

12.0 Federation of Models: None submitted.

13.0 Specific: A need was identified to have

programmers attend a warfighter exercise to better identify how their systems are used to support the warfighter event and how users use the systems to pull data.

Annex A: General Administration and Logistics:

Issue: IMO Support for OGA

Discussion: There was limited IMO involvement in the planning cycle.

Recommendation: Incorporate the IMO early in the planning processing and ensure they are part of all planning events both at Fort Leavenworth and the supported location.

Submitted by: .

Issue: Memorandum of Agreement enforcement

Discussion: MCTP did not have copy and print capability early on during the CPX III portion of the exercise which created difficulties producing start-up products.

Recommendation: Ensure the MOA is agreed to and understood by the supported unit.

Submitted by:

Issue: Additional Space requirements

Discussion: The size of recent warfighter exercises exceeds the capability of local mission training centers resulting in the need for additional building space. MCTP generally frowns on the use of tents because of the possibility of damage to computer equipment.

Recommendation: MCTP planners identify additional space requirements early in the planning process and stress the need for hard facilities capable of connecting to the simulation.

Submitted by:

Issue: The badging system needs improvement / support for all personnel (Part Timers and augmentee military) operating in Bldg. 429 and the RSC at Fort Leavenworth.

Discussion: During WFX 23-4 preparation phase, multiple personnel arrived on Friday, 14 APR 23, after standard work hours and were not able to receive the appropriate swipe card from the S2 for Bldg. 429 or enable CACs through the NSC Security for entry into the RSC since neither control points work weekends. The absence of badging personnel on weekend duty during exercise execution hindered members of the WCOPFOR Staff or the WCOPFOR Support Division in preparing for the WFX with train up activities and had to conduct workarounds (piggy-back) to allow entry into the buildings which is not the preferred method.

Recommendation: To mitigate the risk of personnel being delayed in conducting their individual / collective missions in preparation to the WFX, there are several options:

1) Request that MCTP leadership have S2 and NSE personnel on hand for weekend badging when needed to solve entry issues as they arise. This course of action would result in additional costs for ACPs due to weekend and/or overtime hours.

2) Allow for Part Time Contractors (PTOCs) to arrive one to two days earlier to handle badging issues if their first day of work would otherwise be a SAT or a SUN. This course of action would result in additional costs in the form of hotel, rental car, per diem, and hourly wages.

Submitted by:

Issue: At FHTX there was no MILPOC/MILNCO for the Exercise Control Group (ECG).

Discussion: With FHTX being the lead site for the CPX III, the ECG was not prepared to brief senior leadership when they arrived in the morning. The MILPOC is responsible for briefing senior leadership when they arrive and running the Chief Controller Update (CCU) each morning. The first two mornings COL Harmon came in and reviewed V3D, then during the CCU briefed each site. On the third morning he asked, “Who is going to brief me today?” The S33 ACPs were not prepared to brief the Chief Controller.

Recommendation: Recommend that there is a MILPOC at each location. It is the responsibility of the S33 section to brief the Chief Controller. If it is not possible to brief the current situation from the Chief Controller’s location, someone at an alternate location should be identified for this task.

Issue: Designation and Coordination of MAAR and FAAR times and facilities

Discussion: Because the FHTX footprint was extremely congested (IIIAC, 1CD and 3

UK) the AAR schedule wasn’t determined until very late. This needs to be synchronized and locked in before STARTEX. This affects Audio-Visual and VTC teams that must setup and operate the AAR facilities during execution. The congestion in the AAR facility required 3UK to conduct their main Division MAAR in their COIC.

Recommendation: Lock in the MAAR/FAAR Division and Corps and WfF AAR times and locations at the FPE. Then hold the training audience accountable for agreements made in the FPE and stated in the MOA.

Annex B: Training

Issue: MSEL training conducted in a tent

Discussion: Limited space inside the MTC resulted in MSEL training being conducted in a tent. The tent was not an effective learning environment due to excessive noise from the generator and multiple other agencies also operating from the tent constantly entering and exiting the training location.

Recommendation: All efforts should be made to conduct training inside the MTC.

Submitted by:

Issue: At Pre-STARTEX, Loren “Renn” Cannon identified that the River Study currently included in the Base OPORD does not include rivers/bridges in the northern and western regions of Lithuania.

Discussion: When we used Baltic Scenario 1.0, it was reasonably assumed the training audience would never reach the northern or western regions of Lithuania, due to the presence of Donovian forces in the region and the length of the exercise. The Baltic Scenario 1.5 however, allows for greater opportunity for a Corps and Divisions to rapidly maneuver throughout the entire country.

Recommendation: Update the current Lithuania River Study to include the entire country when we utilize the Baltic Scenario 1.5.

Issue: Using Backslashes in Naming WARSIM Objects (i.e., minefield)

Discussion: Some WC/RCs named their WARSIM engineer emplace minefields IAW their tactical SOP and Standard Naming Conventions. These included a forward/backward slash in the minefield designation. This “slash” caused WARSIM to continue searching and eventually locked up the ARCHER system.

Recommendation: Brief OICs and all WICs to emphasize NOT using slashes when naming WARSIM objects. Include this as a warning in the WC/RC Virtual Warrior training POI administered by the WICs.

Issue: OC/T LNO coverage after Academics and before CPX3

Discussion: OG-B OC/Ts dedicated to 3UK redeployed to FLKS for the period between 3UK Academics and the beginning of CPX3. The absence of our OC/T LNOs became apparent as the CSTTG personnel where on site and were requesting information / coordination for data and products development prior to the start of the

CPX3.

Recommendation: Ensure we have OC/T LNOs available throughout the Academics, CPX3, and Warfighter.

Submitted by:

Issue: VALEX and Fire Support Technical Rehearsal Naming Convention

Discussion: Some OC/Ts were calling the former “Fire Support Technical Rehearsal”

(FSTR) the VALEX. The VALEX specifically refers to the culminating WARSIM exercise for the WC/RC Virtual Warriors (Puckers) conducted by the WICs during pre-STARTEX.

The formerly named FSTR should not be called a VALEX to preclude confusion of execution between the two events.

Recommendation: Continue to call the WARSIM WC/RC culminating exercise the

“VALEX”. Rename the FSTR, if that’s a requirement, Fires Preparation Exercise or something that sets it apart from the VALEX.

Annex C: Exercise Operations and Support Systems/Simulation Control Plan (SCP) and Exercise Manning

Issue: At FHTX there were 2 trailers on the SCP for the OPSGRPs to use.

Discussion: At FHTX the 2 trailers were never provided. A large fest tent was provided in place of the trailers. Though the square footage was adequate, the tent as a usable facility was very challenging. The issue started with the tent not being erected on time.

Then there was no power for the tent, there were not enough tables, chairs, power generation, light, A/C and other equipment for the tent. The additional guard and associated concertina wire delayed the tent from being used even longer. The tent with late set up and missing equipment and guard force caused OC/T and other functions to delay beginning of work.

Recommendation: Identify exercise site facility space shortfalls no later than the Initial Planning Event and include resolution of identified shortages as a priority topic in the IPE out brief and every Exercise Working Group until resolved. Continue to elevate the issue until resolution; preferably no later than the end of the Final Planning Event.

Issue: Retention of Mission Partner Environment (MPE) exercise files for use and/or network retrieval at future MPE exercises is ineffective.

Discussion: The volume of files retained between MPE exercises is excessive and limits the ability of the MCTP FDO to review files for disclosure to varying multi-national/alliance personnel. Common files are not identified and prioritized or prepared in a manner that enables timely FDO review. Both the excessiveness and lack of prioritization of common MPE exercise files prevents efficient and timely access to necessary briefing products during setup and execution.

Recommendation: Users need to sanitize, organize and prioritize files that they desire to be retained for future WFXs as we migrate between networks and classifications/caveats.

Issue: There were three different versions of the SCP in use at FRKS causing confusion during site set-up.

Discussion: Differing versions of the WFX Simulation Control Plan (SCP) caused confusion at one or more exercise facilities. Lack of participation in SCP working groups, multiple files containing multiple versions of the SCP throughout planning, and last-minute changes after final approval contribute to the version control issue.

Recommendation: The site-specific SCP folders within MS Teams are closed and removed from MS Teams once the DRAFT SCP is published following the SCP Decision Board. The draft and final SCP are then published in the SCP folder on MS Teams. As a new version of the SCP is published the previous version is removed from MS Teams to eliminate confusion.

Issue: Request, use, and tracking of special munitions does not support collaborative access to data.

Discussion: The current methodology for tracking the use of special munitions (Bonus Rounds, Switchblades, and SPIKE/NLOS) requires the requesting Work Cell / Response Cell (WC/RC) to call Fort Leavenworth Senior Control (FLSC) and report over the phone 8 separate required data points to execute the appropriate work around.

Special munitions are generally limited to a specific amount per training audience which can vary from WFX to WFX. Fort Leavenworth Senior Control maintains an Excel spreadsheet to track special munition missions, BDA, and round count, but this is the only centralized tracking mechanism. If there is a disagreement about how many rounds have been used or was the BDA appropriate, there is no location for all stakeholders to review the recorded data and ensure the appropriate stimuli is provided to the Training Audience (TA).

Recommendation: Provide a “Special Munitions Tracking” tab on the EXCON portal to be used by WC/RC personnel to input data required to execute a special munitions mission. Once the data is input to the tracking log FLSC could execute the Work Around and enter the appropriate BDA. A written log entry would ensure the data for a specific mission could be reviewed, mitigating the potential for “stubby pencil” mistakes for data taken over the phone. Adjudication by EXCON personnel would only be required by exception if there is a disagreement between a WC/RC and FLSC, which is very rare. Another advantage to maintaining a special munitions tracking log is it would provide OC/Ts a quick look site to see how their TA is using the special munitions.

Issue: OPFOR OSC-W does not currently have a near pear equivalent to BLUEFOR armed, unmanned aircraft system (UAS), the Gray Eagle.

Discussion: BLUEFOR fly armed, unmanned aircraft systems which provide OPFOR a unique problem set defending critical assets from unmanned ISR platforms missile strikes. OPFOR has the Hermes 450 in its inventory that can carry up to four Rafael

Spike anti-tank guided missiles. An OPFOR armed UAV capability would further replicate a near peer threat with similar capabilities. This capability requires BLUEFOR to further think through defending critical assets from a deep collection asset with the ability to strike immediately.

Recommendation: Change one of the Hermes 450 companies in 12 UAV BN to an armed company with two Rafael Spike anti-tank guided missiles, or WARSIM Equivalent missile, and an Electro Optical / Infrared payload.

Issue: The current scanners provided to ARCHER can only scan one page at a time.

Discussion: There will always be a need to scan in certain documents no matter the exercise. Sometimes the documents are quite lengthy. The scanner currently available from tech support handles only one page a time. Scanning in a lengthy document (30-

50 pages) takes a significant amount of time.

There are numerous small, high-quality and low-cost scanners available on the market.

These scanners can easily handle multi-page documents in a much more efficient manner. Many of them do not require an internet connection to function properly.

Recommendation: That MCTP purchase small, portable scanners that can handle a minimum of 20 pages at a time, and one that does not require an internet connection at any time.

Issue: IIIAC Graphics for ARCHER/V3D, specifically Corps NAIs

Discussion: Because of the 3UK’s ability to utilize National Assets to collect intelligence focused on Corps and 3UK NAIs, having these graphics is essential to replicate this process. After, some discussion with OG-A, the OG covering IIIAC, the graphics were created by day 2 of the WFX.

Recommendation: The OG covering or creating Corps graphics build Corps NAIs as part of their ARCHER Crosshair graphics.

Issue: Sharing of products digitally with the CSTTG was not achieved.

Discussion: Though 3UK established a portal on the III Corps page to share their orders and other products, we were not able to establish a protected link between

CSTTG and MCTP to upload data products created by Analysts for CSTTG’s use for

AARs. In lieu of this digital method, paper products were provided though not as timely due to the CSTTG’s location out in the field next to 3UK Command Post.

Recommendation: Ideally, establishing this protected link between CSTTG and MCTP would be the preferred method of sharing Analyst collected data for the CSTTG’s use.

Maintaining a paper method will work but not as timely.

Submitted by: .

Issue: Use of a Framed Tent for MCTP “Overflow” i.e., Analysts, AV, V3D, DMGs, OC/Ts

Discussion: Because the FHTX MTC was congested (IIIAC, 1CD and 3 UK) the OGB

WfF Analysts, AV, V3D and DMGs were allocated a tent for operations for the WFX.

This was also the OGB OC/T “Hooch”. It proved to be problematic from the arrival of the

ADVON throughout the WFX. The tent required an ECU because of the computer systems resident in the tent and the conduct of 24-hour operations. This required a generator and generator fuel. It was a constant struggle to get the maintenance accomplished and to get fuel for the generator. The constant engine/ECU noise made the tent very uncomfortable for people working 12-to-13-hour shifts. As the size of the

WFXs continues to increase, square footage for our SCPs will continue to be a challenge to get all required MCTP assets into an MTC.

Recommendation: MCTP should not consider tents as a viable option to the lack of square footage. We should seek other buildings and/or refine our approach on how we do business before making a tent the “go to solution”.

Annex D: Archiving and Enhanced Retrieval (ARCHER) System

Issue: Insufficient number of ARCHER computers

Discussion: The size and scope of Warfighter 23-4 resulted in a shortage of ARCHER computers.

Recommendation: The government should consider purchasing additional computers to support the anticipated size of future exercises.

Annex E: Exercise Simulation Development

Issue: BLUEFOR and OPFOR Unmanned Aerial Systems/Vehicles (UAS/UAV) battlefield system identifier in WARSIM is fixed wing.

Discussion: During WFX 23-4, BLUEFOR and OPFOR systems shot down all aerial targets when turned on, regardless of the aerial targets value, location, or threat to mission. We noticed BLUEFOR and OPFOR Unmanned Aerial Systems/Vehicles (UAS/UAV) battlefield system identifier in WARSIM is fixed wing. The fixed wing identifier may cause issues for BLUEFOR and OPFOR Air Defense Systems Algorithms in WARSIM when determining targets.

Recommendation: Change the battlefield system identifier in WARSIM to UAV to determine whether the battlefield system identifier impacts the ADA system’s ability to differentiate targets.

Issue: Approved Room Builds/Simulation Control Plan were well executed, and the Tech Support Team service was very responsive.

Discussion: It was obvious that the Tech Support Team was well organized and provided timely and excellent response to identified issues. Systems were functional or problems rectified in an expedient manner.

Recommendation: Continue the excellent, timely support.

Issue: Database Changes for the 3UK

Discussion: The 3UK was unable to get all database additions and changes fully implemented prior to pre-STARTEX activities. The NGSC database technician worked long hours reacting to, and updating, the 3UK database. Over 17,000 lines of data had to be updated. This is a habitual problem with the 3UK and will probably continue to be a problem for all multinational exercises. This issue was also exacerbated by “fighting” future capabilities.

Recommendation: Continue to emphasize during the ELC how important it is to get the database as correct as possible prior to pre-STARTEX activities. Also consider taking more database technicians to the training site where the muti-national unit (3UK) is located.

Annex F: Exercise Control (EXCON) and Joint Training Information Management

Systems (JTIMS) and Logistics Federation (LOGFED)

None submitted.

Annex G: Technical Support Team (TST) Summary

Observation: The TST representative ) did a great job supporting this exercise.

Discussion: The TST representative is the single point of success or failure for all things in the technical field. In addition, he is responsible for managing the shipment of equipment and accountability of sensitive items. did a great job managing the myriad of responsibilities that fall on his shoulders. Mat remained professional through trying times and dealing with difficult people. He truly represented MCTP well.

Recommendation: Sustain.

Issue: At FHTX the CIC personnel were present for every VTC including the ones held in the ECG.

Discussion: Each VTC meeting had a CIC person in the room to dial in. They stayed in the room to deal with any issues and then ended the VTC. CIC personnel also made sure that all the TVs were set to the right input prior to each meeting, this allowed the ECG to display any slides, V3D, OneNote or any other needed visual aid.

Recommendation: We keep CIC personnel getting access to VTCs.

Annex H: Recurring Deficiencies

Observation: The presentation computers in the AAR are outdated and frequently lock up at the worst possible times.

Discussion: The two presentation computers used in the Main AAR Room are constantly having problems, lose connections or lock up at the worst possible times.

These computers are the centerpiece of the MCTP After Action-Review process and are used to present products to the highest level in the Army. These are not computers that should be ‘adequate’. They should be the most powerful, updated computers in the command.

Recommendation: These computers are simply not reliable and must be replaced with new, state of the art hardware immediately.

Submitted by:

Issue: Training Audience (TA) accounts and how briefings are to be broadcast.

(Recurring issue from exercise to exercise.)

Discussion: During the mid and final planning conferences, requirements for issuing

TA accounts and how the TAs will broadcast their briefings / working groups should be addressed. When the DMAs arrive on site for an exercise, it is difficult at best to get this information and obtain access to the TA’s portals without an already-approved account and knowledge of how the briefs are being broadcasted.

Recommendation: By/during the final planning conference, TA portal accounts should be issued for MCTP personnel who require that access, and the platforms the TA briefs will be pushed on should be identified.

Annex I: Software Change Requests

None submitted.

Annex J: MCTP Headquarters Support Team (HST)

Incorporated throughout this report.

Annex K: Federation of Models

None Submitted.

Annex L: Specific

Issue: Programmers sometimes have difficulty in understanding analysts needs and/or recommendations for changes in the ARCHER system.

Discussion: TST Programmers are not analysts and sometimes analysts have difficulty in explaining their ideas or problems to them with the ARCHER system. Somethings, such as the difference between V3D and Crosshair maps, are easy to see on an exercise but difficult to explain otherwise. This was evident during the latest Innovations

Control Board meeting that we held on March 30, 2023. OGA also had three authorized but vacant analyst slots on this exercise. If a programmer could attend an exercise, even for a short time (i.e. – 1 week, STARTEX to MAAR), I think they would gain a greater understanding of the analyst’s needs.

Recommendation: That a programmer be assigned in an analyst slot (if that slot is unfilled) so that they could attend an exercise and see first-hand some of the challenges that an analyst face.