Determining Route Status in LSCO

Determining Route Status in LSCO?
Sustainment Lessons Learned from a Corps Warfighter Exercise

Introduction

       Who determines route status in Large Scale Combat Operations (LSCO)? Is it the Corps Transportation Officer (CTO), the Corps Engineers, or perhaps the Protection team? In LSCO, determining the status of military routes is a complex and multifaceted process that extends far beyond the apparent simplicity of assigning this responsibility to a single entity such as the CTO, Corps Engineers, or the Protection team. While it might initially seem that establishing route status falls solely under the transportation domain, the reality is far more intricate, involving coordinated efforts across multiple warfighting functions. To gain a comprehensive understanding of who actually determines route status, it is essential to delve into the mechanisms and collaborative processes that underpin this task. Unlike the simplistic view that assigns this responsibility to a single role, the determination of route status requires the integration of diverse expertise and input from various warfighting functions. Each of these warfighting components plays a critical role in ensuring that the logistical pathways essential for operational success are both secure and functional.

Route Status Analysis

       Reflecting on my recent experience during the I Corps Command Post Exercise 2 (CPX 2), I realized that assessing and maintaining route status is a highly complex endeavor, demanding input and coordination from several key players. The CTO oversees transportation logistics, and our role is complemented by the Corps Engineers, who assess and address terrain and environmental factors that may affect route viability. Additionally, the Protection team provides assessments related to security threats and ensures that routes remain safe for troop and supply movements. Intelligence officers supply critical information regarding enemy activities and terrain challenges that inform route status. Logistics experts like me assess supply chain needs along the routes and ensure efficient dissemination of all updates regarding route status across the command structure. 

       In LSCO, considering the massive Area of Operations (AO) and location, determining route status for every route can be even more difficult. One might ask how one determines route status for an entire route that you may not ever see. Is the route status red or green if the enemy is anywhere involved on any side of the route? This is a very good question. Analysis from various warfighting functions plus subordinate units plays a critical role in answering the question. We grasped this complex matter by implementing a few different processes. In LSCO, we must establish checkpoints along routes in order to be successful. Checkpoints help establish route status on a smaller scale from multiple points inside one route. For instance, on one Main Supply Route (MSR), checkpoint 1 to checkpoint 2 might be green, but checkpoint 4 to checkpoint 5 might be red based on enemy activity in the AO for that perspective unit. Once the CTO receives the report, the CTO can make a determination with Corps Engineers and Protection about which route to assess, but ultimately the decision stems from the operations channels. To help with determining whether a status qualifies as black, green, amber or red it makes sense to use some sort of Route status criteria chart for units to use for determining their AOs as shown in the chart below with (Enemy Threats (G2), Explosive Hazards (G34), Trafficability (Roads and Bridges) (G3ENG), Congestion (CTO): 

       We created the route status criteria chart depicted above as a baseline tool that provides units a means to send up reports for Corps to review and consolidate and get a full snapshot of the entire AO. At the Corps level, Corps can only control what it can see from the Corps Support Area (CSA) and below. Subordinate units must provide information for all routes beyond the CSA. For route status to work, everyone must collaborate. The best way to involve everyone is through daily status reports, followed by a Distribution Working Group (DWG) that reviews and synchronizes everyone’s reports from their respective AOs for one clear picture. The DWG may not resolve all issues, but it is a good meeting that incorporates all transportation and mobility operations across the entire Corps from both subordinate units and enablers to help see the battlefield. The key to making the DWG work and subsequent meetings following as it pertains to route status is having an Operations presence available in each meeting to validate routes according to what is reported from each units respective AOs. If the DWG cannot resolve routes and warfighting functions cannot agree on the final outcome of a route, the decision needs escalation to a higher authority level and likely assessment at the Protection Working Group (PWG) for subsequent resolution at the Protection Decision Board (PDB) by the Deputy Commanding General of Protection (DCG-P). The PWG is crucial for gathering and consolidating feedback from each previously mentioned Office of Coordinating Responsibility (OCR) to suggest alterations to route status, which in turn affects travel requirements. With continuous protection monitoring throughout this process, the PDB can empower the DCG-P to decide whether to "close" routes or designate them as black. Black routes would halt travel and necessitate immediate action. In cases of significant issues on routes, operations might be conducted by Engineers for repairs or by the Maneuver Enhancement Brigade (MEB) for clearance. Additionally, if the operation lacks a DCG-P to decide, then responsibility falls on the Deputy Commanding General of Sustainment (DCG-S) to make decisions at the Sustainment Decision Board (SDB).

Final Thoughts and Considerations:

        In conclusion, our recent experience during CPX 3 and the Corps Warfighter Exercise (WFX) highlighted that success in route status relied on making it a dynamic process and delivering real-time updates through the Maven Smart System (MSS). While there were opportunities for more in-depth discussions on route status, we found that the most effective approach was for battle space owners to provide periodic updates on their routes based on their assessments from the route criteria chart and for the Corps Support Area (CSA) COIC to consistently update the MSS layer for real-time visibility. Additionally, we established a quick-action team, composed of representatives from each warfighting function, to address major events—such as downed bridges along routes from enemy attacks—without waiting for a formal meeting. Our DWG meeting focused on route validation, while the PDB was dedicated to route adjudication, determining the actions needed to return a route from black to amber or red to green.

       In the context LSCO, determining the status of military routes is a complex and collaborative endeavor. This process demands the integration of knowledge and decision-making from a wide range of military disciplines. Each discipline contributes its specialized expertise, reflecting the multifaceted nature of military operations. Recognizing this complexity unveils the intricate interplay of skills and coordination required to successfully support and sustain operations, especially in challenging environments where conditions can change rapidly. 

       The status of a route is a critical component of operational planning and execution. It requires thorough evaluation and input from various warfighting functions such as intelligence, logistics, and engineering, to name a few. These warfighting functions work together to assess factors like terrain conditions, enemy activity, and logistical feasibility. Their collective assessments ensure that the routes selected are safe, reliable, and advantageous. 

       The significance of route status extends throughout the duration of combat operations, influencing the movement and supply of troops and equipment. Therefore, it is necessary to consider route status meticulously and monitor it continuously, with heavy involvement from operational planners and support from enabling warfighting functions. The effective management of route status compiles the essence of collaboration, adaptability, and strategic awareness from all warfighting functions – not just one.