Joint Exercise Transportation Program Working Group

1. Joint Exercise Transportation ProgramWorking Group Lt Col Brian Livergood Joint Staff / J7

2. Monday Agenda

3. Tue Morning Agenda

4. FY09 JETP Execution as of 5 Aug 09

5. FY09 Budget Review as of 18 Aug 09 • Includes July bills, but not Aug • Reflects CTP distributed (based on requests) NOT CTP Authorized • Great progress with MSC and SDDC billing • Only reflects bills received (don’t know what is still “out there”)

6. FY10-11 Target Budget • FY10 budget still unstable • HASC proposing a $26M cut to CE2T2, SASC will vote on this in Sep • OSD taxes still unknown • FY11 planning factors • Reflects a $9M fuel cut (RMD 800) • JETP portion of FY11 CE2 mark unknown (fair share ~ $5M) • TALISMAN SABER on year / BRIGHT STAR off year • Strategic priorities re-alignment

7. JETP Funding Methodology? Throw in a few historical numbers for good housekeeping… Should we cut their budget?...

8. Funding Methodology closed collaborative closed collaborative closed collaborative subjective calculated subjective calculated subjective calculated variable predictable variable predictable variable predictable low high low high low high low high low high low high green = optimal red = sub-optimal 8

9. Program Execution Examples Funds removed at start of FY and then returned in 4QTR—could not execute • No single variable is a good indicator to determine future funding • Many factors influence the COCOMs ability to execute their program • Current funding methodology seeks to meet future needs without penalizing for effect of external influences AFRICOM using EUCOM budget Country clearances pulled just prior to major deployment VCJCS cancelled #1 exercise due to world events No major issues—program executed as expected 9

10. Assessing Execution • Current Metrics are ineffective and do not translate to any meaningful assessment or forecasting tool • Financial Management Regulation (FMR) OP-5, Attch 7 defines metrics for the “JCS Exercise Program” • Must report Airlift hrs flown (C-17 equivalent), Sealift days steaming, cost of PH/IT • Broken down by exercise • Assessment standard outdated • JETP is no longer a line item in the budget—rolled into CE2T2 • Inconsistency across CE2—only program reporting cost elements instead of program performance or effectiveness • Legacy mindset—assumes cost of 3 modes of stratlift = cost of EX • Current FMR requirement hinders development of new metrics • Accounting efforts are focused on maintaining legacy reporting • Release from outdated requirement enables new thinking 10

11. Adding New Exercises • Three new exercises added as CE2 JEP Events • Joint Exercise India (PACOM) • UNITAS RIVERINE (SOUTHCOM) • EMERALD WARRIOR (SOCOM) • Exercise process defined in CJCSI 3500.01F (draft), Joint Training Policy • COCOM coordinates with its components and TRANSCOM during fall conferences • COCOM nominates exercise at the Jan Deconfliction conference • JS J7 reviews for consistency with directives and staffs with Service HQs and financial organizations—writes an assessment • New exercise announced at Spring WJTSC • Exercise list finalized during the summer for start of next FY 11

12. FY10 TAC Codes

13. Exercise Issues • FY10 funding on 1 OCT 09 • If budget is passed and waiting for funds: I can only send out MIPRs (airlift, sealift, SDDC) subject to availability of funds • If under a CRA: I can send MIPRs and FADs up to JETP’s authorized funding level for the month • If no CRA and no budget: everything stops • Funding Options • Units cash flow CTP, PH, IT, SCCP and JETP will reimburse • Obligate FY09 funds by 30 Sep to fund travel in first few days of FY10 • MPF ship costs increasing 13

14. Instead of CTP… Have You considered using more IT?

15. CTP Funding Status

16. CTP Needs an Overhaul • JS Lines of Accounting and DTS cross-orgs at the JS level will not continue in FY10 • Too many unintended consequences • Services continued to execute “their own way” • In FY10 the Joint Staff will return to sub-allocations (FADs through PBAS) for all CTP, PH, IT, and SCCP (if a TAC cannot be used) • The remaining question is: Which organizations will receive the FAD? • COCOMs • Services • MAJCOMs/MACOMs/CSAs

17. JETP Execution by Cost Components A process change here will yield the greatest impact TI-97 Sub Allocated 17

18. $.04M $.38M $.02M $.07M $.57M $.29M $.19M $.98M Current Execution Process • JS J7 executes COCOM budget—sends funds to over 40 agencies • Inherent inefficiencies due to JS acting as arbitrator between COCOM and components • COCOM has limited visibility into component spending COCOMs AMC LINER SDDC Joint Staff/J7 $26.3M RAIL PH/IT MSC $.88M $.06M AREUR FORSCOM JFCOM COCOM USMC USAFE FFC SOCOM 18

19. COA1: FAD to COCOMs • Maximizes COCOM’s visibility of costs, flexibility to execute their budget, and overall control of costs • JS J7 continues to directly fund 80% of costs and shifts 20% to the COCOMs • COCOM best positioned to authorize and distribute to their components • COCOM validates TPFDD and knows appropriate level of funding • Eliminates JS as middle man adjudicating COCOM vs. component needs Joint Staff/J7 FAD MIPR TAC COCOMs AMC MSC SDDC AREUR FORSCOM JFCOM USMC USAFE FFC SOCOM COCOM 19

20. COA 2: FAD to Service HQs • Determining appropriate level of funding by Service is inaccurate—COCOMs plan at the cost component top line • COCOM loses visibility of funds—current concerns with SIF are propagated • COCOMs must submit quarterly breakout, by Service, for CTP, PH, IT & SCCP to J7 • J7 sends FAD to Service HQ for further distribution to units • Service HQ will report status of funds to JS Comptroller & J7 COCOMs MIPR TAC AMC Joint Staff/J7 SDDC MSC FAD ARMY USMC USAF FFC COCOMs units units units units CSAs 20

21. Other Funding Options • JS suballocates to individual major commands or agencies • Method used in the past and deemed ineffective • COCOMs had very limited visibility of component spending and no control to shift funds between exercises • Inefficient reporting process due to disparate agencies, accounting systems, and organizational layers between JS and organizations • JS MIPRs funds to COCOMs • Legal constraint prevents redistributing a MIPR 21

22. Funding Distribution Way Ahead • Funding is for CTP, PH, IT, SCCP only • Airlift, sealift, SDDC funding remains direct from JS J7 • JS J7 will continue to perform overall JETP management consistent with CE2 management • Promote a simplified execution process that empowers the COCOMs • Goal is to make CTP and other programs more responsive • Faster funding upfront • More units spending JETP funds instead of their own • Greater accuracy in accounting • COCOM & SERVICE POSITIONS… 22

23. Transportation Alternatives? The latest hybrid concept car

24. Deconfliction of Combatant Command Exercise Resources Briefer: Lt Col Livergood Issue 08-014: Scheduling resources to support combatant command events is challenging given daily operations tempo, personnel, fiscal, and time constraints and multiple events executing during the same period. Need overall deconfliction resolution process for Combatant Command Exercises. Discussion: Limited Service resources (forces, equipment, exercise support) preclude the ability to support competing combatant command exercises. Without a force management process, Services will be forced to prioritize / reduce support for competing combatant command exercises. Current exercise schedules have major combatant command exercises back-to-back or overlapping, limiting the Services’ ability to support. In the future, exercises must be more evenly distributed across the fiscal year, or Service support must be scaled back or possibly cancelled. Endstate: Robust resolution process involving all stakeholders to effectively deconflict resources supporting combatant command exercises. Deliverable product from the conference is a deconflicted and validated exercise schedule. Unresolved issues are highlighted for Stakeholder Leadership Team consideration and combatant command leadership awareness. POA&M: JS J-7 lead a USJFCOM hosted conference to focus on future year planning 2-5 years out, deconflicting three areas: USJFCOM Distributed Training Team support to combatant commands, USTRANSCOM support to combatant commands, and validating supportability of exercise schedules by forces, lift assets, and budgets. Combatant commands, Services, and components identify shortfalls and present courses of action to minimize risk to the exercise community. OPRs: JS J-7; OCRs: COCOMs, Services JAN/FEB 09 MAR 09 AUG 09 AUG 08 DEC 08 JAN/FEB 09 JS J7 lead/USJFCOM hosted conference Presented at CE2 SLT for review USJFCOM-sponsored Stakeholder Scheduling Meeting JS J7 updates SLT on conference agenda USJFCOM update CE2 SLT On Process WJTSC Scheduling WG CE2 SLT resolve conflicts 24

25. Deconfliction Conference Basics • Three main building blocks for the conference • Deconflict support teams from JWFC, TRANSCOM, STRATCOM • Identify exercise execution issues using a JTIMS graphic layout • JTIMS stratlift module updates and modifications • Conference takeaways: • Support teams deconflicted • Identify where there are execution problems in upcoming years • Services provide an assessment of supportability • Inform senior leaders and prepare for March WJTSCs • What it will NOT do… • Prioritize exercises 1 to N across COCOMs • Line-by-line scrub of JTIMS for requirements • Move exercises (unless rep is empowered to do so)

26. Conference Skeleton • Location: Hosted at JFCOM • Timing: • 3 day conference with Mon and Fri as travel days • End of Jan • Expectation: Open dialogue between COCOMs and Services discussing requirements and supportability • Agenda

27. Deconfliction Conference Focal Point

28. Deconfliction Conference Way Ahead • Open Discussion • COCOM & SERVICE POSITIONS… • Agree / Disagree • Alternatives 28

29. Questions from the Field Can we us a TAC code for this?

30. Question #1 • Who approves a new joint exercise? • The ONLY person approving a joint exercise is the combatant commander • The Joint Staff will provide an assessment of whether it meets the criteria of a CE2 JEP Event identified in CJCSI 3500.01F. If the JS disagrees with the COCOM, funding availability can be adjudicated by OSD (P&R). This process parallels CE2 governance • Services are given an opportunity to provide a supportability assessment back to the COCOM

31. Question #2 • Is it possible to deploy foreign military on a commercially chartered or U.S. Military aircraft in support of an exercise? • CJCSI 3511.01a only addresses foreign nationals flying CTP—they must be permanently assigned to the command to use CTP • Although not addressed by CJCSI, the practice of using US aircraft or AMC contracted aircraft is not advisable nor supported by AMC.

32. Question #3 • Who resolves a discrepancy between CTP Message allocated totals based on USTRANSCOM city pair costs versus what the units are submitting based on their Carlton office? • the COCOM is in the driver seat to determine how much to spend on an exercise • The TRANSCOM message is used as the baseline for CTP costs because it is based on validated COCOM TPFDD requirements. • If the supported COCOM agrees to the additional charges/requirements, an email to the JETP manager from the COCOM acknowledging and requesting the higher amount is all that is needed

33. Question #4 • Can members of CYBER COMMAND use CTP to travel to the annual Star Trek Convention? • NO! And it doesn’t matter that your Exercise Control Group is located in the transporter chamber near the Klingon display.

34. Tue Morning Agenda

35. J7 Points of Contact • Lt Col Brian Livergood, USAF Brian.Livergood@js.pentagon.mil 703-695-5745 (DSN 225) • Mr. Caleb Klein Caleb.Klein@js.pentagon.mil 703-693-6700 (DSN 223) • Ms. Cristina Cardona Cristina.Cardona@js.pentagon.mil 703-695-5546 (DSN 225)