2006 Engineer Summit GCE Breakout Group

1
2006 Engineer SummitGCE Breakout Group

• 18-20 Dec 2006

2
Purpose

• To focus attention, action, and results towards
  the growing Engineer capabilities gap from
• Inadequate Structure
• Organizational Change
• Institutional Growth
• Long War

3
Key Questions

• Are we organized, manned, and equipped to fulfill
  our stated METLs?
• Do our METLs meet current future warfighting
  needs?
• OIF/OEF?
• Continuum of warfare?
• 202K USMC, 23K proposed increase, what part of
  this should be Engineers?
• If not, what changes do we recommend in
  structure, manning, equipment, etc. to meet our
  METLs?
• Can we compensate some of our current structure?

4
End State

• Articulation of structure and equipment
  requirements
• T/O
• T/E

5
BLUF

• Problem We are not organized, manned, and
  equipped to meet our METLs
• Insufficient structure
• Manning inadequate
• Suboptimal employment of CEB units in OIF
• CEB HQ not employed inadequate C2 of CEB units
• Piecemeal employment loss of synergy/mass
• Recommended Solutions
• Add a CEB HQ, 2 line companies and support
  company
• Per 202K end strength initiative
• New structure used to establish 3rd CEB
• Balances MAGTF
• Supports GCE requirements, including RFF-2
• Meets 12 Dwell per CMC direction
• Phased reactivation additional units to 1st
  2nd CEB prior to reactivation
• Man CEBs to 100 percent of T/O

6
BLUF

• Other Recommendations
• Activate Mobility Assault Company
• ABV, JAB, Route Clearance Equipment
• Additional mission of Engineer Recon
• Modify T/O to establish RC platoon
• New T/E
• Submit TOECR to add (1) M88 Retriever per CEB
• Ensure TOECR to return 11XXs to CEB from HQ Bn
  is finalized

7
Current Organization
CEB
Eng Support Company
Company B
Company C
Company D
A
B
C
D
8
Interim Organization
CEB
1st 2nd CEB
Eng Support Company
Mobility Assault Company
Company B
Company C
Company D
A
B
C
D
9
Future Organization
CEB
1st 2nd CEB
Eng Support Company
Mobility Assault Company
Company B
Company C
A
B
C
10
Future Organization
CEB
3rd CEB
Eng Support Company
Company B
Company C
A
B
C
C Co CEC, CAB
11
Organization

• Are we organized to meet METLs?
• OIF requirements employment issues
• Decision to not deploy CEB HQ
• Rationale insufficient structure
• Cant meet RFF-2 requirement
• Cant provide CEB HQ and Supt Co
• End result
• For MAGTF loss of experience, lack of depth in
  engineer planning, integration of engineer
  operations
• For CEB
• Lack of employment leads to loss of experience
• Battalion staff skills atrophy
• Lack of mentorship for engineer officers SNCOs

12
Organization

• Are we organized to meet METLs?
• OIF requirements employment issues
• Insufficient structure to provide close combat
  engineer support to infantry units
• Also need to provide forces for Recon, LAR, etc.
• Route Clearance pulled from out-of-hide
• Insufficient assets for FP and Survivability
  missions
• Barrier and Class IV transport and emplacement
• Employment task organization
• Annex A mentality for T/E T/O no flexibility
  to move forces to meet requirements attached vs
  GS
• Loss of synergy due to inability mass
• Reliance on joint capability Army has
  diminished capacity to support, e.g. shortfalls
  for OIF 06-08
• Engineers used in non-engineer missions QRF,
  security, etc.

13
Organization

• Are we organized to meet METLs?
• OIF requirements employment issues
• Requirement to train provide CS to ISF in
  addition to organic units
• This requirement will continue for CEB well after
  infantry units are transitioned to QRF
• What is ISF Div Engineer structure when is it
  standing up (Co going to Bn or regt?)
• Need commensurate rank to partner with ISF
  Engineer personnel Capt Co Cdr is probably not
  sufficient
• Engineer specific MTTs looming on horizon

14
Organization

• Are we organized to meet METLs?
• Changes required for new equipment/capabilities
• Route clearance, ABV, JAB
• Stand-Up an Mobility Assurance Company (MAC)

15
Manning

• Are we manned to meet METLs?
• Current manning of CEBs is less than 90 percent
  of T/O
• If we were manned to priority level what could we
  do differently?
• Man up mobility company
• Mobility company not a line company
• Would not resolve Dwell issues
• Still only 7 companies supporting 9 regiments
  plus 8 separate maneuver battalions
• Would not balance the Marine Corps
• III MEF/3rd MarDiv would still have far less
  capacity

16
Equipped

• Are we equipped to meet METLs?
• See ACL
• Standing up the mobility company will require new
  T/E
• ABV, JAB, MRAP already purchased
• MRAP not a POR
• New structure will require additional equipment
• Examine training allowance for 4th CEB
• E.g., AAO for ABV and JAB does not extend to 4th
  CEB

17
Proposed Solutions

• Does the HQMC proposed solution meet our existing
  capabilities shortfall?
• If so, what equipment do we need to go with it,
  i.e., associated T/E?
• How should we phase it? Priority for the build?
  
• Where to we place it?
• Other DOTMLPF issues?
• Is there anything else we need?

18
HQMC Proposed Solution

• HQMC proposal as part of the 202K end strength
  initiative to add the following units
• (1) CEB HQ
• Proposed 15/103 118
• Actual requirement 16/135 (current T/O)
• Navy requirement not included
• (1) Engineer Support Co 5/164 169
• Concur
• (2) CEB Line Companies 5/109 114
• Concur

19
HQMC Proposed Solution

• The proposed solution addresses the following
  deficiencies
• Dwell
• Provides inventory to reach 12 Dwell
• 3rd CEB enables three battalion OIF rotation
• Ability to meet RFF-2 requirement
• C2 for OIF CEB forces
• Partner with ISF develop planned ISF engineer
  units
• Balances the MAGTF
• Provides forces to support III MEF

20
HQMC Proposed Solution

• Key questions with proposed solution
• If so, what equipment do we need to go with it,
  i.e., associated T/E?
• Other sub working group
• How should we phase it pending re-activation of
  3rd CEB?
• One T/O line company per 1st 2nd CEB
• Commensurate augmentation of 1st and 2nd CEB HS
  and Support Companies
• Synchronize with OIF rotations
• Once all forces are stood up and facilities
  established, reactivate 3rd CEB at designated
  location
• Must increase 3rd CEB Support Co per the pending
  TOECR for 1st and 2nd CEB to mirror these units
• 1 WO and 33 enlisted 11XXs

21
HQMC Proposed Solution

• Key questions with proposed solution
• Where do we place it?
• Ideally co-located with 3rd MarDiv units
• Basing and training issues at Guam or Okinawa may
  make this infeasible
• 29 Palms
• Ample training opportunities units that are
  located at 29 Palms and the training ranges
• Space for facilities
• Equipment access through EEAP JAB, ABV, and
  route clearance equipment
• Synchronize 3rd CEB unit support to UDP

22
HQMC Proposed Solution

• Key questions with proposed solution
• Other DOTMLPF issues?
• Doctrine N/A
• Organization addressed elsewhere
• Training
• Entry level training pipeline may be stressed
• MCES can handle increased load, but uncertain
  impacts on other MOS producing schools
• PTP implications
• Material
• T/E
• Two Line Company T/Es same as standard line co
  transfer D Co tool kits from 1st and 2nd CEB
• Standard Support Co T/E minus slice that would
  support a 3rd line company
• MA Co will generate a new T/E for this company
• Increased usage in all classes of Supply
• Fiscal implications increased OM fund
• TOECR to add an M88 per CEB

23
HQMC Proposed Solution

• Key questions with proposed solution
• Other DOTMLPF issues?
• Leadership
• Need to consider grade shaping
• Proper mix of restricted and unrestricted
  officers
• Personnel
• See proposed T/O
• Facilities
• Facilities will be required

24
Additional Requirements

• Manning to 100 percent of T/O
• Enables us to establish Mobility Assaultce
  Company
• T/O see recommended changes
• T/E equipment required
• ABV FY 07-08 fielding
• JAB FY 09-10 planned fielding
• Route Clearance
• UUNS MRAP UUNS Husky
• Reemphasize need to conduct DOTMLPF assessment to
  transition MRAP and IVMMD to POR for Combat
  Engineer Vehicle (CEV) and family of MCM/CIED/UXO
  equipment emphasize in post-Summit message
• Ensure T/OECR to return 11XXs to CEB from HQ Bn
  is finalized in Feb ASR
• TO/ECR from Ground Board, Jan 06
• 1 WO/33 Enlisted

25

• Back-Up Slides

26
T/E INCREASES
27
T/E INCREASES
28
T/E INCREASES
29
Compensation

• Compensated structure
• Sufficient MOS/grade compensated structure does
  not exist in the CEBs, Division, or supporting
  establishment
• Assumptions Minimal impact on the remainder of
  the MAGTF
• Sufficient Support Co MOSs available in
  supporting establishment for additional CEB
• Insufficient 2x Line Co structure

30
Additional Notes

• 4th CEB and MFR contribution
• Thorough FOS needs to be done before signing up
  4th CEB to do anything
• Link to loss of capability in the MLG
• With CLB concept, MLG as significant degradation
  of capability
• Over-reliance on the NCR

31
Additional Notes

• 4th CEB and MFR contribution
• Thorough FOS needs to be done before signing up
  4th CEB to do anything
• Link to loss of capability in the MLG
• With CLB concept, MLG as significant degradation
  of capability
• Over-reliance on the NCR

32
MAC Route Clearance Platoon

• Discussion Topic- Assured Mobility Company
  Staffing and Equipment
• - Who should be integral to the Assured Mobility
  Company?
• - As of right now the T/O for one of the line
  platoons is 1/35. This line platoon will be
  restructured into the Route Clearance Platoon.
• - 36 man platoon 1/35 is suggested for the route
  clearance platoon, with 26 Combat Engineers,
  already tasked as operators. These include 4
  Buffalo, 2 Husky, 12 Cougar, and 8 RG operators,
  as well as 1 platoon commander.
• - The other 9 members of those platoons would
  be (6) 1341, (1) 3521, (1) 1316, and (1) 1349
  GySgt. These members will provide the deployable
  maintenance for the vehicles that are integral to
  this platoon.
• - With regards to MOSs, none of the maintainers
  would come from Support Co. These would come from
  MOS changes, from 1371 to the various maintenance
  MOSs.
• Total vehicles for per route clearance
  section/team
• 1 Buffalos
• 4 Cougar/JERRVs
• 2 Huskies
• Possible to make this into one platoon with three
  RC sections/teams
• 3 per Buffalo X 1 3
• 3 per Cougar X 4 12
• 1 per Husky X 2 2
• 6 others section leader and mechanics
• Total 23 per section/team

33
Interim Organization
CEB
1st 2nd CEB
Eng Support Company
Mobility Company
Company B
Company C
Company D
A
B
C
D
34
Future Organization
CEB
1st 2nd CEB
Eng Support Company
Mobility Company
Company B
Company C
A
B
C
35
Future Organization
CEB
3rd CEB
Eng Support Company
Company B
Company C
A
B
C
36
Wording of Message

• The engineer community concurs with proposal to
  add a 3rd CEB Bn HQ, 2 line companies, and a
  engineer support company as identified in the
  202K end strength initiative.
• Recommend that additional structure be integrated
  with existing 3rd CAB engineer assets to build a
  3rd CEB. IOT provide the following capabilities
• Ability to meet RFF-2 requirements, i.e., provide
  a CEB HQ and Support Co for OIF requirements
• Provides Bn HQ that gives ability to partner with
  ISF as they transition CS and CSS elements
• Provides requisite C2 and doctrinal employment of
  CEB HQ
• Allows the stand-up of a third CEB which enables
  a three battalion OIF rotation
• Enables 12 Dwell if current force laydown
  remains the same
• Increase in force laydown will require
  commensurate increase in CEB units
• Balances the MAGTF 3rd CEB for 3rd MarDiv

37
Wording of Message

• Introduction of structure be scaled incrementally
  to augment existing 1st 2nd CEB capabilities
  synchronized with projected OIF rotations pending
  establishment of 3rd CEB. Priority of structure
  implementation achieves desired 12 dwell IAW CMC
  guidance and provides optimum/requisite DS
  Engineer support to the GCE.