미군의 작전수행개념 발전과 부대구조 연구 : 공지작전과 다영역작전을 중심으로 = A Study on the Development of the U.S. Army’s Operational Concept and Unit Structure : Focusing on Air-Land Operations and Multi-Domain Operations

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to examine the development of the Republic of Korea Army’s future operational concept and the corresponding evolution of designated unit suited to the security environment on the Korean Peninsula. This analysis is conducted through a comparative study of the U.S. Army’s successful operational concepts—Air-Land Operations and Multi-Domain Operations—and their associated designated unit, with further consideration of directions for whole-of-government cooperation.
The US Army’s Air-Land operations were developed based on the lessons learned from the failure of the Vietnam War and the Fourth Middle East War, and Multi-Domain operations were developed based on lessons learned from the A2AD strategy of Russia and China and the annexation of Crimea by Russia. At that time, the establishment of the US Army’s Training and Doctrine Command and Future Command allowed for the successful development of new operational concepts, Air-Land operations and Multi-Domain operations, and played a pivotal role in combat development. In addition, the first Training and Doctrine Command Commander, General DePuy, and his successors, as well as the first Future Command Commander, General Murray, led the cooperative system with other military branches such as the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, as well as industry, academia, research, and allied forces through a four-year term of office, and were able to successfully promote the development of concepts and military modernization. This was possible because they received strong support and assistance from the US government.
In contrast, the ROK Army’s operational concept development system, the unit structure in charge of it, and the organizational system in charge of power development were identified as relatively inadequate. Therefore, the development direction is suggested as a result of comparing and analyzing the operational concept development system, the dedicated unit structure and role, and the government-wide collaboration system of the US and ROK Army.
First, the development of a future operational concept that is suitable for the security environment of the Korean Peninsula is required. To this end, a systematic writing procedure is required when writing the basic ground operation concept document, and in order to collect and share opinions, some parts that are not textual should be converted to plain text, and the term of office of the training commander should be guaranteed for at least 2-3 years. Considering the appropriate timing for the ongoing Russo-Russian War, a local training analysis team should be dispatched to derive lessons, and it can be seen that the development of the operational concept including practical preparation for the North Korean nuclear threat is required.
Second, to support the development of future operational concepts and combat development, the Army Training and Doctrine Command should be reorganized into a function-centered unit that focuses on core warfighting functions. The military academy system is still the main system, so there is no unit organization to research and develop command and control, mobility, information, firepower, defense, and sustained support. We must face the fact that we must develop jointness and joint operations with other military forces, and we must not delay any longer the reorganization of the unit into an integrated center for each combat function that suits our circumstances.
Third, we must create a dedicated unit to oversee future power development that suits the operational environment of the Korean Army. The Combat Development Department of the Education Command in the combat development system and the Planning and Management Staff Department of the Army Headquarters in the planning and management system and the Future Innovation Research Center are divided, resulting in duplication of effort and unnecessary administrative requirements. Therefore, we must comprehensively review similar organizations including these three organizations and create a so-called Combat Development Command to serve as a general unit in charge of future work.
Fourth, in order to maintain momentum in connection with Defense Innovation 4.0, we must establish and promote a pan-governmental collaboration system. As we can see that there are differences in the driving force of defense innovation depending on the interests and tendencies of the past governments, we must activate a collaborative system with active publicity and policy mindset. We must gather the Army's ideas to elicit government-wide support and support, knowing that government budget support is an essential element in building military power.
Keywords: Operational Concept, Unit Structure, Air-Land Operations, Multi-Domain Operations, Training and Doctrine Command, Futures Command.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목 차 ⅰ
• 그림목차 ⅳ
• 표 목 차 ⅵ
• Ⅰ. 서 론 1
• 1. 문제 제기 및 연구목적 1
• 2. 연구의 범위 및 방법 3
• Ⅱ. 이론적 배경과 선행연구 고찰 7
• 1. 이론적 배경 7
• 1) 군사력 건설과 전투발전체계 이해 7
• 2) 작전수행개념의 정의와 역할 10
• 3) 군구조와 부대구조, 작전수행개념과의 관계 13
• 4) 군사혁신 및 군사전략 이론과의 연관성 15
• 5) 미군의 작전수행개념 발전과정 개관 17
• 2. 선행연구 고찰 21
• 3. 분석의 틀 27
• Ⅲ. 미군의 공지작전 수행개념 발전과 부대구조 분석 29
• 1. 공지작전 개발 배경과 원인 29
• 2. 교육사령부 창설과 역할, 부대구조 33
• 1) 창설과 역할 33
• 2) 교육사령부 부대구조 및 편성 40
• (1) 교육사령부 편성 41
• (2) 기동센터 편성 45
• (3) 보병학교 및 기갑학교, 예하 부대편성 53
• (4) 기능센터 편성에 대한 시사점 56
• 3. 공지작전 수행개념 발전과정과 성과 58
• 1) 공지전투(작전) 개념과 발전과정 58
• 2) 공지전투(작전) 성과 및 영향 65
• 4. 분석 결과 평가 68
• Ⅳ. 미군의 다영역작전 수행개념 발전과 부대구조 분석 70
• 1. 다영역작전 개발 배경과 원인 70
• 2. 미래사령부 창설과 역할, 부대구조 74
• 1) 창설과 역할 74
• 2) 미래사령부 부대구조 및 편성 76
• (1) 본부 및 직접지원부대 역할 77
• (2) 예하 주요 센터 및 사령부 역할 81
• 3) 미래사령부와 교육사령부 관계, 업무체계 86
• 3. 다영역작전 수행개념 발전과 영향 91
• 1) 다영역작전 발전과정과 정의 91
• 2) 다영역작전 작전환경 94
• 3) 다영역작전 수행과정과 전략적·작전적 틀 98
• 4) 다영역작전 구현을 위한 노력과 영향 104
• 4. 분석 결과 평가 108
• Ⅴ. 한국군 작전수행개념 체계 및 부대구조와 비교 분석 111
• 1. 미군의 작전수행개념 발전과 부대구조 분석 결과 종합평가 111
• 2. 미래 작전수행개념 개발 및 발전체계 115
• 1) 미군의 개념 개발 및 발전체계 115
• 2) 한국군의 개념 개발 및 발전체계 120
• 3) 미군과 한국군의 개념 개발 및 발전체계 비교 분석 121
• 3. 교육사령부 역할과 부대구조 126
• 1) 미군의 교육사령부 역할과 부대구조 126
• 2) 한국군의 교육사령부 역할과 부대구조132
• 3) 미군과 한국군의 교육사령부 비교 분석 136
• 4. 미래 전력발전 업무수행체계와 조직 편성 143
• 1) 미군의 미래사령부 역할과 구조 143
• 2) 한국군의 전력발전 업무수행체계와 부대구조 147
• 3) 미군과 한국군의 미래 업무수행체계 비교 분석 153
• 5. 범정부적 협업 158
• Ⅵ. 한국군 특성에 부합된 개념과 부대구조 발전방안 161
• 1. 한반도 안보 환경에 부합된 미래 작전수행개념 발전 161
• 2. 미래 작전수행개념과 전투발전을 위한 교육사령부 개편 169
• 1) 전투수행기능 중심의 부대 개편 필요성 170
• 2) 한국 육군 교육사령부 부대 개편(안) 174
• 3) 한국 육군 기능센터 부대 개편(안) 177
• 3. 미래 전력발전을 위한 전담부대 창설 182
• 1) 전력발전 전담부대 1단계 부대통합 개편(안) 184
• 2) 전력발전 전담부대 2단계 부대통합 창설(안) 186
• 4. 추동력 유지를 위한 범정부적 협업 190
• Ⅶ. 결 론 194
• 1. 연구 결과 요약 194
• 2. 학술적 의의와 정책적 함의 199
• 3. 연구의 한계 및 추가 연구 방향 200
• 참 고 문 헌 202
• 영 문 초 록 209
• 감 사 의 글 212