Transforming Doctrine and Organization to Meet the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Requirements of the Brigade Combat Team Commander
Versandkostenfrei!
Versandfertig in über 4 Wochen
59,99 €
inkl. MwSt.
PAYBACK Punkte
30 °P sammeln!
The metamorphosis of the United States Army's tactical Military Intelligence (MI) organization and doctrine since 1976 has been remarkable. Transitioning from a conglomerate of capabilities borrowed from disparate organizations, MI units became holistic MI organizations. Equipped with increasingly robust collection capability MI became ever more capable of all-source intelligence production. Change continues through the provision of MI capability to lower echelons. As collection capability in the brigade combat team (BCT) increased collective MI experience and leadership in planning and direct...
The metamorphosis of the United States Army's tactical Military Intelligence (MI) organization and doctrine since 1976 has been remarkable. Transitioning from a conglomerate of capabilities borrowed from disparate organizations, MI units became holistic MI organizations. Equipped with increasingly robust collection capability MI became ever more capable of all-source intelligence production. Change continues through the provision of MI capability to lower echelons. As collection capability in the brigade combat team (BCT) increased collective MI experience and leadership in planning and direction of collection decreased. While intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets and soldiers transferred from the division echelon to the BCT, the MI collective experience and leadership did not. Additionally, a 30-year old inconsistency concerning staff authority in collection direction continues. With an increasing ISR capability, reduction in collective MI experience influencing BCT ISR, and an ongoing rift in collection direction authority, does the Army model for ISR meet the needs of the BCT commander of the future?
Andere Kunden interessierten sich für
