crisis action planning
DESCRIPTION
CTF Training. Crisis Action Planning. CTF Staff Estimates. 01 January 2006. UNCLASSIFIED. Purpose. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Crisis Action PlanningCrisis Action Planning
01 January 2006
CTF Staff EstimatesCTF Staff Estimates
UNCLASSIFIED
CTF Training
2
Purpose
The purpose of this class is to discuss formulating and using the staff estimate as part of the Crisis Action Planning (CAP) / Commander’s Estimate military course of action (COA) development process.
3
Agenda
• Definition• Staff Estimate Objectives• Staff Estimate Process• Staff Estimate Steps• Staff Estimate Submission• Staff Estimate Format
4
References
JP 3-0 Doctrine for Joint OperationsJP 3-0 Doctrine for Joint Operations
JP 5-00.2 JTF Planning JP 5-00.2 JTF Planning Guidance & ProceduresGuidance & Procedures
MNF SOPMNF SOPMULTINATIONAL FORCE
STANDING OPERATING PROCEDURES(MNF SOP)
Version 1.6February 2006
5
Definition
• Staff Estimate: Assessments of courses of action by the various staff elements of a command that serve as the foundation of the commander’s estimate.
6
Staff Estimate Objectives
• Ensures COAs developed are complete from staff element’s perspective
• Refines COAs prior to analysis and provides staff input for COA comparison and selection
• Provides analysis, recommendations and conclusion of staff sections on applicable COAs
• Serves as the basis for Commander’s Estimate
• Create concepts and products for CTF order
7
Crisis Action Planning Process
CRISIS
ISituation
Development
IICrisis
Assessment
IVCourse of
ActionSelection
VExecutionPlanning
AND/OR
IIICourse of
ActionDevelopment
IMission Analysis/Restated Mission
IIIAnalysis of Opposing
Courses of Action
IICourse of Action
Development
Commander’s Estimate Process
OPORD
Deployment Data Base
VIExecution
PlanningOrder
AlertOrder
WarningOrder
ExecuteOrder
IVComparison of OwnCourses of Action
VCommander’s
Decision
Staff Estimates
The Staff Estimate
8
Staff Estimate Process
• Staff estimates begin with mission analysis and continue throughout the planning process to ensure the commander has the best information on the supportability of the operation
• Staff estimates are a comprehensive review that translate threat/enemy and friendly strengths and weaknesses into capabilities and estimates of supportability
• Staff estimates are a repetitive process and are in a constant state of refinement
9
Staff Estimate Process
• Staff estimates ensure COAs have all planning in place prior to COA analysis to facilitate and maximize the benefits of “Wargaming”
• Staff estimate focus is on the KEY information that is needed to develop a COA for acceptance or rejection
10
Staff Estimates
• Mission Analysis
• COA Development
• Gathers information for later use in planning, identifies any obvious problems
• Staff elements use functional area expertise to ensure COA is fully fleshed out and has best probability of success from functional perspective
Step Staff estimate purpose
11
Staff Estimates
• COA Analysis • Staff elements adjust estimates as a result of information gathered in “Wargaming”. Staff elements identify and address any shortfalls. Staff elements gather information on each COA to make recommendations to Commander.
Step Staff estimate purpose
12
Staff Estimates
• COA Comparison/Selection
• Staff elements provide an estimate judging validity (suitable, acceptable, feasible, distinct) of each COA, identify shortfalls or issues, and finally, make a recommendation to the CCTF.
Step Staff estimate purpose
13
STAFF ESTIMATES
Mission Analysis
MISSION STATEMENT
MISSION ANALYSIS
BRIEFSTRATEGIC
COMMANDER’S PLANNING DIRECTIVE
MISSIONANALYSIS
14
STAFF ESTIMATES
COA Development
WARNING ORDER
STAFF ESTIMATE UPDATES
MISSION AND TASKS
STATEMENTS SKETCHES AND
TASK ORGANIZATION
COMMANDERS GUIDANCE
COADEVELOPMENT
15
STATEMENTS SKETCHES AND
TASK ORGANIZATION
COA Analysis
STAFF ESTIMATE UPDATES
WARGAME RECORD
ADVANTAGES AND
DISADVANTAGES
UPDATED STAFF
ESTIMATES
COAANALYSIS
16
STAFF/DEPUTY COMMANDER, CTF
RECOMMENDATIONS
COA SELECTION
COA Selection
CTF COMMANDER’S ESTIMATE TO
THE SUPPORTED STRATEGIC
COMMANDER
FINAL DECISION
COA MODIFICATIONS
COMMANDER’S OWN ANALYSIS
AND COMPARISON
17
Staff Estimate Submission
• C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7• Special staff sections
– Staff Judge Advocate (SJA)– Information Operations (IO)– Media Support Staff / PAO– Force Protection– Coalition/Combined Logistics Coordination
Center (CLCC)– Coalition Coordination Center (CCC)
• Other sections as directed
18
Staff Estimate In Support of COA Comparison
Format
• Mission: Staff Section Mission as a function of the CTF mission
• Suitability: • Acceptability:• Feasibility:
– Assessment of the Suitability, Acceptability and Feasibility of the respective COAs. States which COA is most Suitable, Acceptable or Feasible from the staff elements’ perspective.
• Concerns/Issues: Staff elements state concerns or issues with each COA as applicable.
• Shortfalls: The staff section identifies significant shortfalls that may impact accomplishment or success of each COA.
• Recommended COA: The staff element recommends a COA based on their perspective with brief reasoning why.
19
EXAMPLE: AIR CELL ESTIMATES
• Differences in COA Characteristics– CFACC ashore in COA 1 & 2; afloat in # 2
Either concept supportable Infrastructure already in place on CVBG Preponderance of air assets land based
20
• Mission Areas– Air Superiority: 100 sorties/day
(s/d)– Air to Ground (CAS, AI): 300 s/d– Strat Lift: 5 s/d– Tac Lift: 32 s/d
– ISR: – Air Refueling: – CSAR: – Airborne C2:
Enemy Sortie Capability
Estimated 60 per day(D Day)
Estimated 0 per day(D+1)
EXAMPLE: AIR CELL ESTIMATES
21
• Validity Tests
– Suitable – Feasible – Acceptable – Complete
• Recommendations– Tanker/Bomber/Airlift basing at
XX,YY,ZZ– Fighter basing at XX,XX,TT,CC
Force capability ratios:
An overwhelming air advantage!
EXAMPLE: AIR CELL ESTIMATES
22
EXAMPLE: MARITIME STAFF ESTIMATES
• Mission: COA 1 – Light Footprint• Suitability: Yes. (4.1 of 5)• Feasibility: Yes. (3.9 of 5)• Acceptability: Yes. (4.0 of 5)• Concerns / Issues:
– Consider movement of the ISB from XXXX to XXXX to reduce inorganic sealift requirement.
– Mines could be an issue. – Anti-ship Missiles will need to be defended against.
• Shortfalls: – Small organic lift capability.
• Recommended COA:– Smallest Naval (warships + contracted lift)
footprint – least exposure to enemy forces• OVERALL ESTIMATE: (4.2 of 5)
23
EXAMPLE: C1 STAFF ESTIMATES COA1
• Mission. LIGHT FOOTPRINT
• Suitable. Yes. Allows for rapid deployment of personnel.
• Feasible. Yes. The required resources to accomplish the mission are readily available.
• Acceptable. Yes. However, it is the highest risk of personnel losses due limited forces and offensive capability.
• Concerns/Issues: Casualties may be higher due to lack overwhelming force
• Shortfalls. Limited FP and ground forces
24
• Mission. MEDIUM FOOTPRINT
• Suitable. Yes. Allows for rapid deployment with more robust force.
• Feasible. Yes. The required resources to accomplish the mission are readily available
• Acceptable. Yes. More forces available which limits risks to personnel
• Concerns/Issues: More personnel increases the requirement for more robust FP and intel resources
• Shortfalls. None.
EXAMPLE: C1 STAFF ESTIMATES COA2
25
• Mission. HEAVY FOOTPRINT
• Suitable. Yes. However, size of force may be more than what is required.
• Feasible. Yes. However, it will take longer to deploy all forces to AO.
• Acceptable. Yes. More FP available for the increase in personnel
• Concerns/Issues: Heaviest drain on personnel requirements.
• Shortfalls. None
EXAMPLE: C1 STAFF ESTIMATES COA3
26
• Suitable - YES• Feasible - YES• Acceptable - YES• Concerns/Issues - WEATHER TERRAIN COMM• Shortfalls - CRYPTOLINGUISTS TROJAN SPIRIT PHL MIG ANALYSIS TEAM J2X HUMAN EXPLOITATION TEAM
EXAMPLE: C2 STAFF ESTIMATES COA1/2
27
• Suitable - YES• Feasible - YES• Acceptable - YES• Concerns/Issues - WEATHER TERRAIN COMM• Shortfalls - CRYPTOLINGUISTS TROJAN SPIRIT PHL MIG ANALYSIS TEAM J2X
EXAMPLE: C2 STAFF ESTIMATES COA3
28
Mission: Provide transportation and logistics support for HA operation in JOA. - Facilitate transition of logistics to NGO/IO.Suitability: COA 1 is most suitable because it best meets commander’s guidance to minimize footprint.Acceptability: All COAs are equally Acceptable.Feasibility: COA 1 is most feasible because places less emphasis on CTF logistics assets.Concerns/issues: The time required to transition to NGO/IO based HA support is not fixed. This may lead to extending limited CTF resources past their maintenance cycle timelines. Shortfalls: The CTF has only 80% of the anticipated HET support required for any selected COARecommended COA: CTF J4 recommends COA 1 based on current and anticipated requirements and capabilities.
Example C4 Staff Estimate
29
EXAMPLE: C4 STAFF ESTIMATE COA1
• Mission: SOF Option – Light Footprint (All SOF forces, USN forces including MEU(SOC), USAF forces and all AFP forces)
• Suitability: YES, logistics can support the time line.
• Feasibility: YES, resources required are available to accomplish the mission (HSVs, LCUs, Tactical Airlift, LCACs)
• Acceptability: YES, minimal logistical losses expected
however, will require more time and resources to push supplies forward.
• Concerns / Issues: Time for establishment of ISB and forward movement into offensive operations.
• Shortfalls: Limited HNS and inland transportation.
• Recommended COA: No
30
EXAMPLE: C4 STAFF ESTIMATE COA 2
• Mission: Medium Footprint (Expeditionary Option), All forces not to include US Army (Hooaa)
• Suitability: YES, logistics can support the time line.
• Feasibility: YES, organic resources are sufficient for 30 DOS for US MEB and 3 DOS for RP Forces.
• Acceptability: YES, minimal logistical losses expected
however, will require more time to source transportation requirements.
• Concerns / Issues: Movement and re-supply of RP Forces to and throughout the JOA.
• Shortfalls: Limited HNS, inland transportation and lack Level III care.
• Recommended COA: No
31
• Mission: Heavy Footprint, Utilize all forces listed. • Suitability: YES, logistics can support the time line.
• Feasibility: YES, organic resources are sufficient for 30 DOS for US Forces and 3 DOS for RP Forces.
• Acceptability: YES, however, it will require extensive
HN infrastructure improvements to flow in personnel.
• Concerns / Issues: Very time consuming.
• Shortfalls: Limited HN APODs, inland transportation and lack Level III care.
• Recommended COA: COA 3 – best accomplishes mission
EXAMPLE: C4 STAFF ESTIMATE COA 3
32
EXAMPLE: C5 STAFF ESTIMATE COA 1/2/3
• Mission: Conducts the initial planning to Transition to a Peace Keeping Force, or the Host Nation of Camry governmental agencies and armed forces.
• Suitability: Yes
• Feasibility: Yes
• Acceptability: Yes
• Concerns / Issues: None
• Shortfalls: None
• Recommendations: None
33
EXAMPLE : C7 STAFF ESTIMATE COA 1/2/3
• Mission. CCATF (or CMOTF) Evaluates HNS capabilities, conducts CMO, PRC. Be prepared to conduct HA/DR in post hostility phases
• Suitable. Yes CCATF / CMOTF is doctrinally supportable. Missions are within scope of CA force Structure
• Feasible. Yes Forces (RC & AC) are available within timeline constraints
• Acceptable. Yes Recommend organic forces T/O with habitually assigned services
• Concerns/Issues: Takes up to 30 days to mobilize and deploy CA units (RC) Minimal staff & troop augmentation during initial phases
• Shortfalls: • Linguist requirements unknown, CCATF/CCMOTF can assume mission• COA 2 & 3 transition period too brief for adequate completion of HA/DR
- addressed in COA 2 with extended CA deployments
• Recommended COA: All supportable
34
Summary
• Definition• Staff Estimate Objectives• Staff Estimate Process• Staff Estimate Steps• Staff Estimate Submission• Staff Estimate Format
Questions?
CTF Training
Enhancing Multinational OperationsEnhancing Multinational Operations
UNCLASSIFIED