Joint Doctrine Analysis Division JDAD Special Study on JP 3-03, Joint Interdiction JP 3-09, Joint Fire Support JP 3-09.3, Close Air Support Overall classification of this brief is UNCLASSIFIED LCDR J. Mark Berwanger Joint Doctrine Analysis Division DSN 668-5140 Comm: 757-203-5140 Jason.M.Berwanger.mil@mail.mil

Purpose To inform the JDDC on the conduct and findings of this special study

Background Directed in the Calendar Year 2018 Joint Doctrine Development and Assessment Schedule “..enhance strategic and operational effectiveness by delivering joint doctrine that is adaptive to the needs of the Joint Force.” CJCSM 5120.01A – Joint Doctrine Development Process “… the principal target audiences for these publications are military forces performing at the operational level of warfare…” “JPs are not intended as single-source documents, but are to be used in conjunction with other JPs in the joint hierarchy.” Special Study was started in December with consultation with the LAs and JSDSs for each of the three JPs and was completed in March of this year in anticipation of being briefed at the JDPC  

Facts and Assumptions Methodology (F)There is TTP level content within the selected JPs (F)Only Approved JPs were used for this analysis (A)There is repetitive content within the selected JPs Methodology Determine if subject matter is covered separately and in the same level of detail in other sources Determine if subject matter would be better covered in Service doctrine or TTP type publication Determine utility of combining two or all three of the JPs into one consolidated JP No Drafts or current revisions were used in order to not paralyze the process. While TTP may be found within joint doctrine, DJ7 believes JPs should focus on enabling strategic and operational success. This special study includes potential solutions to reduce excessive TTP within the examined JPs . , per JP 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States, “Joint doctrine provides the fundamental principles that guide the employment of US military forces in coordinated action toward a common objective…In developing joint doctrine, existing Service, multi-Service, and multinational doctrine is considered.” “Joint Doctrine is not dogmatic-the focus is how to think about operations, not what to think about operations…Joint doctrine should not include detail that is more appropriate in Service doctrine.”

Research and Analysis JPs DOD and CJCS Issuances Service Doctrine JP 2-0, Joint Intelligence JP 3-0, Joint Operations JP 3-01, Countering Air and Missile Threats JP 3-03, Joint Interdiction JP 3-09, Joint Fire Support JP 3-09.3, Close Air Support JP 3-30, Command and Control of Joint Air Operations JP 3-52, Joint Airspace Control JP 3-60, Joint Targeting JP 5-0, Joint Planning DOD and CJCS Issuances This study required detailed research and study of the content and subject matter within the three JPs. Emphasis was placed on going through each JP page by page to grasp the content and its organization. These documents were reviewed to identify redundancies and content more appropriately suited at the MTTP or TTP level-type publications.  Other relevant JPs were referenced and studied - especially those mentioned or cited within the three JPs. CJCSI 3160.0B, No-Strike and Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology CJCSM 3162.01A, Joint Methodology for Battle Damage Assessment CJCSM 3130.03, Adaptive Planning and Execution Planning Formats and Guidance Service Doctrine Field Manual 3-04, Army Aviation Navy Tactical Reference Publication 3-22.2 –FA18

Sources Air Land And Sea (ALSA) Pubs Classified Sources MTTP for Airspace Control MTTP for Air Operations in Maritime Surface Warfare MTTP for Aviation in Urban Operations MTTP for Multi-Service Brevity Codes MTTP for Conventional Forces and Special Operations Forces MTTP for Dynamic Targeting MTTP for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Optimization MTTP for Joint Application of Firepower MTTP for Joint Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses MTTP for Kill Box Planning and Employment MTTP for Strike Coordination and Reconnaissance MTTP for Theater Air-Ground Systems MTTP for the Tactical Employment of Unmanned Aircraft Systems ATP 3-91.1/AFTTP 3-2.86, Joint Air Ground Integration Center The study was extended beyond joint doctrine to include MTTP , as well as Service-specific doctrine or TTP (including classified sources). Classified Sources (U) Air Force 3-1 for B-1, B-2, F-15, F-16, and A-10 (U) TOPGUN Manual Chapters 35, 36, 37, and 46

Questions to LAs and JSDSs Do you feel it is feasible to combine two or more of the publications? – No Is there content in these JPs that is repetitive and/or better explained in other JPs or Service/multi-Service Doctrine? – Command and Control Is there content in these JPs that is excessively tactical in its level of discussion and should be moved to Service/multi-Service doctrine or TTP? – JP 3-09.3

From The LA of JP 3-09.3 “The CAS publication has a lot of TTP in chapters 3 and 5 that are tactical in nature, but required to standardize CAS procedures. JP 3-09.3 is the recognized source document for conducting CAS TTP (utilized as a source document in all US tactical aviation school houses), is used by partner nations, and is fairly incorporated into NATO CAS doctrine. While some of the procedures are TTP, and could go in a MTTP, there are foreign disclosure obstacles with the JFIRE, which would preclude potential partner, and JTAC MOA (memorandum of agreement) signatories, from accessing the information required to conduct CAS. Because CAS is a mission shared by many partners and all the Services; which has a risk for fratricide, CIVCAS (civilian casualties), and unacceptable collateral damage; the procedures must be standardized and strictly adhered to.” The LA for JP 3-09.3 stated it best in his response, “The CAS publication has a lot of TTP in chapters 3 and 5 that are tactical in nature, but required to standardize CAS procedures. JP 3-09.3 is the recognized source document for conducting CAS TTP (utilized as a source document in all US tactical aviation school houses), is used by partner nations, and is fairly incorporated into NATO CAS doctrine. While some of the procedures are TTP, and could go in a MTTP, there are foreign disclosure obstacles with the JFIRE, which would preclude potential partner, and JTAC MOA (memorandum of agreement) signatories, from accessing the information required to conduct CAS. Because CAS is a mission shared by many partners and all the Services; which has a risk for fratricide, CIVCAS (civilian casualties), and unacceptable collateral damage; the procedures must be standardized and strictly adhered to.”

Findings COAs There is a large amount of repetitive information There is an excessive amount of TTP information COAs COA1 – Combine all three JPs into one publication COA2 – Combine JP 3-03 and JP 3-09 into one publication and leave JP 3-09.3 as a standalone pub COA3 – All three JPs remain standalone pubs, while every effort is made to reduce redundancies and excessive TTP info during the next revision cycle Overall: JP 3-03 is 56 pages in length. Those 56 pages contain approximately 20 pages of unique interdiction-related information not found in other JPs or MTTPs. Overall: JP 3-09 is 93 pages in length including unique appendices. Those 93 pages contain approximately 43 pages of unique fire support-related information not found in other JPs or MTTPs. Overall: JP 3-09.3 is 304 pages in length including unique appendices. Those 304 pages contain approximately 70 pages of unique, non-excessively TTP-oriented, CAS-related information not found in other JPs or MTTPs. COA-1 Pros (1) Reducing the redundancies inherent in the three publications - especially in C2, planning processes, and the joint targeting cycle, and removing the excessively TTP-oriented information would bring the publication more in line with the strategic and operational-level information, and DJ7 intent. (2) Making three closely related Fires missions easily referenced in one publication. COA-1 Cons (1) Inconsistency among other “Fires” related publications, especially in the 3-XX series Removing any TTP information out of a joint publication deals with the uncertainty of where information will go and what is the associated risk of removing the information. This COA is contrary to the unanimous recommendations from the LAs and JSDSs. COA2 – Pros Reducing the redundancies inherent in the two publications - especially in C2, planning processes, and the joint targeting cycle, and removing the excessively TTP-oriented information would bring the publication more in line with the strategic and operational-level information, and DJ7 intent. (2) Making two closely related Fires missions easily referenced in one publication. COA2 – Cons (1) The disadvantages to this COA include all the drawbacks of COA 1 COA3 – Pros (1) Unanimous agreement amongst LAs and JSDSs to keep JPs separate COA3 – Cons (1) Ultimately, without removing the excess TTP information in JP 3-09.3, the issue of focusing JPs at the strategic and operational level is not addressed. Guiding Principal when selecting a recommended COA was the reality that tactical actions at the operational level of warfare have strategic implications Additionally, COA 3 preserves a common body of work where this information resides while making a concerted effort to purge excessive repetitive information.

COA Recommendations COA3 – reduce the repetitive and TTP information to a minimum Preserves the current structure (unanimously agreed upon by the LAs and JSDSs) while making a concerted effort to purge overly repetitive information Incorporated into current and future JP revisions

Questions