1. Joint Doctrine Analysis Division
JDAD Special Study on JP 3-03, Joint Interdiction JP 3-09, Joint Fire Support JP , Close Air Support Overall classification of this brief is UNCLASSIFIED
LCDR J. Mark Berwanger
Joint Doctrine Analysis Division
DSN
Comm:

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

3. 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 A – 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

4. 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.”

5. 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 , 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 B, No-Strike and Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology
CJCSM A, Joint Methodology for Battle Damage Assessment
CJCSM , Adaptive Planning and Execution Planning Formats and Guidance
Service Doctrine
Field Manual 3-04, Army Aviation
Navy Tactical Reference Publication –FA18

6. 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 /AFTTP , 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

7. 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

8. From The LA of JP
“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 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 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 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.”

9. 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 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 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 , 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.

10. 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

11. Questions