Critical Assessment of TPFDD for the Next Operating Environment

The Time Phased Force Deployment Data (TPFDD) process has been a cornerstone of U.S. military logistics, crucial for large-scale deployments like Operations DESERT STORM and IRAQI FREEDOM. However, the changing nature of modern warfare, marked by near-peer adversaries with greater operational reach and speed, challenges the effectiveness of TPFDD in future conflicts. This assessment critically examines TPFDD’s suitability for the next operating environment, drawing insights from various studies and the historical context provided by Major Brian M. Newberry’s monograph “To TPFDD or Not to TPFDD: Is the TPFDD Outdated for Expeditionary US Military Ops?”¹.

Historical Context and TPFDD’s Strengths

Historically, TPFDD has facilitated the organized movement of U.S. forces. During Operation DESERT STORM, despite initial challenges, TPFDD enabled the large-scale deployment of troops and equipment, contributing to a decisive victory. The structured nature of TPFDD provided a clear logistics framework, ensuring that forces were moved in a phased, prioritized manner, essential for large, planned operations¹. In DESERT STORM, TPFDD helped mobilize over 500,000 U.S. personnel and millions of tons of equipment through meticulous planning and coordination, despite initial setbacks such as inexperienced personnel and outdated logistical plans¹.

Limitations in Modern Context

However, the modern operating environment poses distinct challenges. Near-peer adversaries can rapidly mobilize and adapt, potentially outpacing the phased deployments characteristic of TPFDD. The Request for Forces (RFF) process used during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM illustrated the need for more flexible, responsive deployment strategies, though it introduced its own set of challenges, including bureaucratic delays and inefficient force package management¹². Additionally, advances in technology and communications have changed the warfare landscape. The rigid structure of TPFDD may not leverage these advancements effectively, hindering rapid decision-making and adaptability in dynamic operational scenarios².

Case Studies: DESERT STORM and IRAQI FREEDOM

Comparing DESERT STORM and IRAQI FREEDOM highlights both the strengths and limitations of TPFDD. In DESERT STORM, TPFDD’s success was due in part to extensive pre-planning and the operation’s large scale, allowing for a more predictable deployment environment¹. Despite initial setbacks, TPFDD ensured a steady and structured flow of forces into the theater, crucial for the coalition’s success². Conversely, IRAQI FREEDOM’s reliance on the RFF process demonstrated the need for greater flexibility and responsiveness. The ad hoc nature of RFF allowed for adjustments based on real-time developments but also led to significant logistical challenges and delays². The initial TPFDD was discarded due to perceived inflexibility, and the RFF process, while more adaptable, often resulted in critical delays and bureaucratic bottlenecks³.

Evaluation Against Near-Peer Adversaries

Against a near-peer adversary, several considerations are critical. Near-peer adversaries with superior operational reach and speed necessitate a deployment process that can match or exceed these capabilities. TPFDD’s phased approach may be too slow and predictable, making it vulnerable to disruption³. Modern conflicts require adaptive planning capabilities that can respond to fluid situations. While TPFDD provides structure, its adaptability is limited compared to more flexible approaches like RFF, albeit with its own challenges⁴. Future deployments will benefit from integrating advanced technological tools that enhance situational awareness, real-time decision-making, and logistics management. TPFDD’s current form may not fully exploit these capabilities, necessitating an evolved approach⁴.

Critical Needs for Future Deployment Processes

To ensure U.S. forces remain competitive against near-peer adversaries, several critical needs must be addressed. Enhanced flexibility and responsiveness are essential. A hybrid model that incorporates the structured planning of TPFDD with the flexibility of RFF can allow for rapid adjustments and real-time decision-making, reducing the bureaucratic delays hindering current processes⁵. Improved technological integration is also crucial. Leveraging advanced logistics management systems, artificial intelligence, and real-time communication tools can significantly enhance the deployment process, providing better situational awareness, optimizing resource allocation, and enabling faster decision-making⁵. Streamlined bureaucratic processes are necessary. Reducing layers of approval and streamlining the bureaucratic processes involved in force deployment can enhance speed and efficiency, delegating more decision-making authority to commanders in the field and using pre-approved deployment plans that can be activated as needed⁶. Comprehensive training and doctrine updates are also needed. Military personnel must be trained in both structured and adaptive deployment processes, and updating military doctrine to reflect the hybrid approach will ensure forces are prepared for modern warfare complexities⁶.

The Way Forward: Managing Employment of U.S. Military Forces

Addressing the challenges posed by near-peer adversaries requires considering various force deployment strategies. Response packages and Dynamic Force Employment (DFE) are two such strategies. Response packages, pre-configured sets of forces and capabilities, can be rapidly deployed in response to specific threats. While they provide readiness and speed, they may lack the flexibility needed in unpredictable environments. DFE, focusing on the flexible use of military forces to complicate an adversary’s planning and create strategic unpredictability, allows for dynamic adjustment of force posture based on real-time intelligence and emerging threats7. The Immediate Response Force (IRF) concept involves maintaining a force ready to deploy on short notice to address immediate threats. This strategy enhances readiness and responsiveness but requires significant resources and constant maintenance of high readiness levels[^8]. The new Air Force Force Generation (AFFORGEN) model aims to create a sustainable and predictable cycle for deploying air forces, balancing readiness, sustainability, and the ability to surge forces when needed, providing a structured yet flexible approach to force deployment8.

Conclusion and Recommendations

While TPFDD has proven effective in past large-scale operations, its suitability for the next operating environment against a near-peer adversary is questionable. The need for speed, flexibility, and technological integration suggests that an evolved deployment process, potentially incorporating elements of both TPFDD and RFF, would be more appropriate. A hybrid approach combining the structured planning of TPFDD with the flexibility of RFF ensures rapid and adaptive force deployment. Integrating advanced logistics management tools and real-time communication systems can enhance the responsiveness and efficiency of the deployment process. Updating military training and doctrine to reflect the hybrid approach will ensure personnel are equipped to manage both structured and adaptive deployment scenarios.

By addressing these recommendations, the U.S. military can enhance its operational readiness and effectiveness in facing near-peer adversaries in the future operating environment.

Sources

1. Newberry, B. M. (2005). To TPFDD or Not to TPFDD: Is the TPFDD Outdated for Expeditionary US Military Ops? U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.
2. Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2018). Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES). Department of Defense.
3. Woodward, B. (2004). Plan of Attack. Simon & Schuster.
4. United States General Accounting Office. (2003). Defense Logistics: OIF Deployment Challenges. GAO-04-305R.
5. Fontenot, G., Degen, E. J., & Tohn, D. (2004). On Point: The United States Army in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Combat Studies Institute Press.
6. United States Transportation Command. (2004). USTRANSCOM OIF Historical Study. USTRANSCOM Research Center.
7. Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2020). Joint Publication 5-0: Joint Planning. Department of Defense.
8. Department of the Air Force. (2021). Air Force Force Generation (AFFORGEN) Implementation Plan. Department of the Air Force.