全球智库信息集成服务系统

The multiple, complex deployment concepts should be codified in joint and service doctrine and multi-service TTPs.

• While direct access should be maintained in select CCMDs, staging should play a bigger role in capabilities development for the GRF.
• Concepts should include alternate deployment methods for all or portions of the GRF and supporting forces, such as using alternative air or sealift options.
• Concepts should include more variety of missions — including being used as a flexible deterrent, support of WMD elimination.
• Follow-on forces and flows should be better defined.

Deployment concepts should be validated for readiness through plans, planning, and exercises.

• Joint plans for GRF employment should be created to identify requirements.
• Plans should incorporate basing clusters as necessary, and how services plan to operate at disparate sites.
• Planning should occur to ensure shared knowledge of requirements for GRF employment.
• ISB choices should be updated regularly to determine investments in infrastructure for developing the most austere basing.
• Exercises should begin with more-developed CCMDs.
• Site preparation of ISBs should ensue pending plans, planning, and other factors.

Tailoring force packages, for both initial-entry and follow-on forces, should be done to meet demands of the environment and limitations in Joint assets (like strategic lift).

A joint letter between Army and Air Force should lay to rest an ongoing perception of constraints in airdrop-crew availability for airborne operations.