3.1.1. These phases are bi- directional and iterative. Often, they overlap and targeteers perform sev-eral of them simultaneously.

3.2. Phases of the Targeting Process. 3.2.1. Objectives and Guidance Derivation . Objectives and guidance derivation comprise the foundation of the targeting process, originating at the national level and becoming more specific and dynamic at progressively lower echelons of command. Unified command objectives establish priori-ties for targeting, damage criteria, and restrictions on force employment. Guidance includes princi-ples of war, the international Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), and established rules of engagement. Objective and guidance should be clear and unambiguous so as to be interpretable at the lowest level of command. The necessary first step as a targeteer is to understand objectives and guidance to pro-vide correct targeting advice to commanders. (Within an Air Force AOC, objectives and guidance will normally come from the Strategy Division.)

3.2.2. Target Development . During target development, a planner analyzes a potential target sys-tem and its components to estimate the commander's best course of action to achieve a given objec-tive. All- source intelligence data bases are reviewed and potential target systems and targets are selected for consideration. A subset of target development is target analysis, which examines poten-tial targets to determine military importance, priority of attack, and weapon feasibility to obtain a desired level of damage, casualties or to achieve the desired effect. The selected target systems are then further analyzed to determine their components and critical elements. A priority listing of these critical elements is used for weaponeering assessment. Target development includes validation of the target and nomination to the appropriate authority.

3.2.3. Weaponeering . The output of weaponeering is a recommendation of the quantity, type, and mix of lethal and non lethal weapons needed to achieve a probable level of target damage or effects while avoiding unacceptable collateral damage. It is important to note weaponeering results are prob-abilistic and not predictive. Considerations are: 29

29 Page 30 31 30

3.2.4. Force Application. Force application planning is the fusion of target nominations with the optimum available lethal and non lethal force. In this phase, forces are analyzed to determine likely results to be achieved against target systems and their activities. For lethal force, this is based on probabilities of damage and arrival for a weapon system. For non lethal force this is based on the expected outcome (consequences). The result of force application is a strike package nomination for the commander's approval that has coordinated recommendations from operations, plans, and intelli-gence. This includes actions in preparation for attack once force selection recommendations are approved. Targeteers prepare the target intelligence portion of plans and assist in air tasking order (ATO) preparation.

3. 2.4.1. During force selection, targeting analysts work closely with operators and planners to match targets with available weapon systems, munitions, and possible non lethal force options. Force sizing is then optimized in light of available resources and other constraints.

3. 2. 4.2. Targeteers also assist in attrition analysis or calculations for potential friendly force losses to enemy defenses. Attrition analysis bears on both delivery tactics and optimal force siz-ing.

3.2.5. Execution Planning . Execution planning is the more detailed planning required to actually fly the mission and employ weapons. It is both a component and unit function. At the air operations center (AOC), preparation for the execution of the ATO entails review of plans, weather, logistics, and current situation. At the unit level, it involves mission planning. Unit functions for targeteers have evolved with the automation of mission planning tools, and the laborious work of hand drawn radar predictions, old mensuration tools, and slide rule weaponeering is approaching an end. With a single Air Force- wide intelligence tool (Combat Intelligence System) and a single mission planning tool (Air Force Mission Support System), we have begun to standardize targeting tasks and ease train-ing problems.

3.2.5.1. Targeteers provide the approved targets list, weaponeering, and target materials, such as maps, charts, mensurated coordinates, and imagery. They assist operators in selecting mission routing, axis of attack, aimpoints, and fuze settings.

3.2.5.2. Targeting planners also prepare mission folders containing charts (annotated with ingress and egress routing, and aimpoints), strip charts, threat data, and battle damage assessment (BDA) reporting guidelines.

3.2.6. Combat Assessment . Effective campaign planning and execution require a continuing evalu-ation of the impact of joint force combat operations on the overall campaign. Combat assessment (CA) evaluates combat operations effectiveness in achieving command objectives and recommends changes to tactics, strategies, objectives, and guidance. It has several sub- assessments including mis- 30

30 Page 31 32 31

[Back]

[Index]

[Next]

USAF INTELLIGENCE TARGETING GUIDE AIR FORCE PAMPHLET 14- 210 Intelligence 1 FEBRUARY 1998