Joint Reporting Structure Logistics: Fill & Download for Free

During his visit to New Delhi in 2006, George W Bush proposed the Logistic Support Agreement with India. Defense Minister during UPA-1 and UPA-2 Mr. A K Antony did not favor the deal very much and the deal went undecided for a very long time. In April, this year India signed the deal with the USA with a different name- The Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA). [Militaries of US, India to share their facilities]The two security council members, Russia and China were apprehensive of India’s move. The warmth in Indo-US relation was not a breaking news for the world community, however military involvement was a great deal. Russia did not show any visible signs of opposition against this decision of India, but China explicitly warned India that it would imbalance the power structure in Asia and India needs to establish greater ties with China and not with the US.This year, the hot topic of discussion was the entry of India in Nuclear Supplier Group countries. A number of NSG members supported India’s inclusion but China did not. China indicated towards an important criteria to be fulfilled before becoming the member of NSG- to be signatory of Non-Proliferation Treaty and India is not. India was hopeful that they would convince China[Hopeful we can convince China on NSG membership issue, says Sushma Swaraj], but they couldn’t.China’s response was more direct but Russia chose an indirect way. Russia took part in a joint military operation with Pakistan and invested in several energy projects in Pakistan. It was enough to tease Indian foreign affairs experts.The news of Russian involvement in CPEC can be seen as one of the elements in the same series. However, after a great deal of speculation Russia denied in November of any kind of investment and involvement in CPEC.[Russia dismisses reports of 'secret negotiation' with Pakistan on CPEC]. Russia’s envoy to Islamabad Alexey Y Dedov claimed on Pakistani radio that Russia ‘supports’ CPEC. And Pakistani media was not going to miss a chance on teasing India. [Russia supports CPEC making India uncomfortable]. It took only several hours for Russia to deny that claim again.[Russia Rejects Reports of Involvement in China Pakistan Economic Corridor].Again, we need to understand in which ways Russia actually supports CPEC. Russia does not deny the possibility of merging Eurasian Economic Corridor with the Chinese Silk Road project in future. In the quest of greater markets of middle east and Africa, Russia does not outright reject the idea of involvement in CPEC.It would not be correct that Russia’s recent steps are the direct response of India’s growing closeness with the USA. Concern for energy and the access to a greater market is even more substantial. We need to wait for a significant time to come at any conclusion. But right now it would be right to say that the reasons behind such steps are ‘kind of mix of all’.Related answer- Do you think that Chabahar Port run by India would be as successful as CPEC?Edit- It would be great if you visit my profile, if you aren’t already visiting. Thanks!!!!

The time has come for me to rant.Every time I come across commenters on the internet who argue that numbers dictates victory (China has 300 cruise missiles!) or a technical readout on a tank makes it invincible (Arjun has Kanchan armour! Abrams have Chobham!), I think of this.On the internet, it is common to come across people who don’t know anything about something but they pretend that knowing a little statistics is everything. They are grating to deal with and they add nothing to the knowledge pool.A little knowledge is a dangerous thingI call them ‘General/Admiral Statistics’.Attributed to Daniel Boorstin rather than HawkingI am not saying that people cannot learn. Quora is a brilliant place for people to learn, but to learn one must first acknowledge the limits of ones knowledge in order begin the learning process.Thankfully Quora is filled with people most willing to share as well as learn from one another.Rant over. Back to the topic.Have you ever played a real war gaming software, where all restrictions are unshackled? It takes several thousands of man hours to plot each phase of move.This is unlike any game or board game you can find. There are a lot of things in planning that isn’t covered by military history books. A lot of unwritten yet vital cooperation between the different departments to push for a war plan.I mean is there any 4-Star Armchair General who can tell me,what is the longest span of armoured launched bridge does his country’s army have? 30m? 40m? 50m?How about fuel consumption of his country’s tanks?What are his Force Sustainment plans?Oh he’s got satellite signal units. That’s cool! So how much additional fuel does the satellite genset consume? Who is going to carry that fuel?What are the projected attrition rates for personnel?How many hours after hostilities commence will the navy be able to support him at XX reporting line?How many hours does it take for an armoured brigade to cross a 100m river?How far can forward recon operate from the main body?Which unit is the DIVARTY seconded to?How many salvoes does the counter-battery have?What is the contact rate of mechanised infantry?What is his naval defensive plan should his amphibious assault fail? (This is naval liaison's problem)What seconded air assets are there to deal with enemy naval units that will harass his beach party?Who should become his reserve after the first phase?The flotilla has one Corvette short, is there a flying asset that can coordinate with his nearby DIV naval battery to close the defence gaps?How long are air force strike windows open for?Can his supply lorries follow the same path as his armoured vehicles?Based on the map and reported enemy assets, which are the bridges the enemy will avoid using?I cannot describe to you how mindbogglingly complex military planning and operations are. Planning groups can reach numbers as big as 1,000 personnel to plan a week long conflict (1967’s 6-day war). Imagine the Gulf War under Norman Schwarzkopf. To execute it, the US must have laid contingency plans for such an outcome years before.Generally, in the military, there are deep reservations with working with higher ranking superiors​ who have no reputation to speak of. Most Generals would have established some kind of reputation or rapport by the time they are up there.Armchair generals lack this entirely.For a 2 or 3 star General who oversees war planning or strategic planning, the planning isn’t actually done by the General. Instead, the planning is done by the General Staff, led by the Chief Of Staff. Each staff officer is backed by his own team of highly experienced personnel. Generals usually advise or mentor the Chief Of Staff and approve plans.To look at it another way, the General is the President (with executive powers) while the Chief Of Staff is the Prime Minister.Generals also have the required authority to call for manpower replenishments or assets activation that falls outside of his corps.Armchair Generals are in no position to advise the Chief of Staff or the other General Staff.I feel that Pat Sullivan’s answer here describes it best. A corps commander would have surpassed 99.9% of his cohort. They climb through so many levels of the military to have at least a rough idea of the problems they will face when they plan operations.Here’s something else that not many people know. Generals, real ones, are intellectuals. They are unbelievably smart people. They often have an intuitive grasp of the situation at hand, and an equally intuitive understanding of what is happening on the micro and the macro levels.Yes even smart people can make mistakes. However, there is no way any Armchair General or Admiral Statistics can ever replace a career officer.Bookmark this answer. The next time someone tries to smartass his way around, stick this in his face.I think these guys are bulletproofEDIT:There’s a misunderstanding with my answer, in that readers assume I refer to logistics being actual edge of the military. The edge of a well developed army isn’t just its well thought-out logistics. The true edge is in their organisational structure and how departments speak to each other. How Intel coordinates with Fires, how Arty work with Logistics, how Armour speaks to the air force. How air force passes information to Joint Intel and navy.This coordination is the true edge of a developed military, not just logistics alone. In my answer, I mentioned a number of times about coordination. The force that is well coordinated will have an edge over an adversary that isn’t.I always say that at the start of a war, the first battle any military will need to fight, is their paperwork. Conquer that, and everything else sorts itself out.Notes:I wrote these below to better explain military operations.My explanation of how a combined arms division works in a fictional settingHow would an armoured brigade or division fight against zombies?Strategy maps of the militaryWhat do maps used by military strategists look like?Rivers affect the kinds of tanks you buy How would river impede military operation?River Crossing OperationsHow do tanks with snorkels not get stuck in sediment on the river bed while fording rivers?Why you need a teeth to tail ratio of 1:4Can an army with a teeth to tail ratio of 1:1 have good force projection and endurance?Equipping the infantryWhy don't infantry carry squad automatics instead of rifles?The context of military hardwareThe relevance of expensive armoured assetsThe bigger picture of warThe dragon and the eagleSEA Defence Review - If you like my stuff, follow this blog for my thoughts on defence related matters!

NEW EDIT (31 JULY 2019)As of a few days ago, Acting Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy had ordered an end to the previous plans to divest as many as two of the LSVs, along with 18 LCU-2000s, up to 36 LCM-8, 20 tugs, and a pair of floating crane barges. His memorandum reportedly also puts a stop to the inactivation of at least nine watercraft units and reassignment of those personnel to other positions with the Army.Maybe they have come to their senses finally.EDIT: Well it is happening. The GAO has listed the 6,000 ton LSV-7 up for auction. Original cost $26 million, current bid $1 million. Auction closes 31 July 2019. Look for a lot more in the next two years.THIS IS A BAD MISTAKEOriginal answer:Currently, the US Army operates 35 Runnymede class large landing craft. 6 Nathanael Greene large coastal tugs, 8 Besson class logistic support vessels and 40 LCM-8 Landing Craft Mechanized (due to be replaced by 36 Maneuver Support Vessels (Light) by FY26).In addition, the Army has a fleet of approximately 300 other watercraft, operated by units of the US Army Transportation Corps and the US Army Corps of Engineers.The Army’s “fleet” is not well maintained because the Army’s maritime shore side support system, called Area Maintenance Support Activities, was designed by the Army’s Tank and Automotive Command, and is structured to maintain ground systems, such as tanks and trucks. Maintaining watercraft is far different than maintaining tanks and trucks.Why they were not called upon during the Puerto Rico crisis left a lot of heads scratching.USAV Robert Smalls (LSV-8) conducting joint logistics over the shore (JLOTS) training at Roosevelt Roads Puerto Rico in 2008.