Identify constraints relevant to EW—
Actions EW operations must perform.
Actions EW operations cannot perform.
Other constraints.
z
Analyze mission, enemy, terrain and weather, troops and support available, time available and civil considerations from the EW perspective.
4-10. The EW officer and EW working group members determine enemy and friendly centers of gravity and list their critical capabilities, requirements, and vulnerabilities from an EW perspective. (They determine how EW capabilities can best attack an enemy’s command and control system.) The center of gravity analysis process outlined in figure 4-2 helps identify and list the critical vulnerabilities of enemy centers of gravity. The EW officer and EW working group members also list the critical requirements associated with the identified command and control critical capability (or command and control nodes) and then identify the critical vulnerabilities associated with the critical requirements. Through this process, the EW officer and EW working group members help determine which vulnerabilities can be engaged by EW
capabilities to produce a decisive outcome.
Figure 4-2. Example of analysis for an enemy center of gravity
4-11. Additionally, the EW officer and EW working group members determine how EW can help protect friendly centers of gravity. The center of gravity analysis process as outlined in figure 4-2 can also be used help identify critical vulnerabilities of friendly centers of gravity. The EW officer and EW working group members list the critical requirements associated with the identified friendly command and control critical capability. Then, the EW officer and EW working group members identify the critical vulnerabilities associated with the critical requirements. These vulnerabilities can help determine how to best use EW
25 February 2009
FM 3-36
4-3
Chapter 4
capabilities to defend or protect friendly centers of gravity from enemy attack. Key to this portion of the analysis is to assess the potential impact of EW operations on friendly information systems such as electromagnetic interference.
4-12. The EW officer and EW working group members identify and list—
z
High-value targets that can be engaged by EW capabilities.
z
Tasks that EW forces perform according to EW subdivision (electronic attack, electronic warfare support, and electronic protection) in support of the warfighting functions. These include—
Determining specified EW tasks.
Determining implied EW tasks.
4-13. The EW officer and EW working group members—
z
Conduct initial EW force structure analysis to determine if sufficient assets are available to perform the identified EW tasks. (If organic assets are insufficient, they draft requests for support and augmentation.)
z
Conduct an initial EW risk assessment and review the risk assessment done by the entire working group.
z
Provide EW perspective in the development of the commander’s restated mission.
z
Assist in development of the mission analysis briefing for the commander.
4-14. By the conclusion of mission analysis, the EW officer and EW working group members generate or gather the following products and information:
z
The initial information requirements for EW operations.
z
A rudimentary command and control nodal analysis of the enemy.
z
The list of EW tasks required to support the mission.
z
A list of assumptions and constraints related to EW operations.
z
The planning guidance for EW operations.
z
EW personnel augmentation or support requirements.
z
An update of the EW running estimate.
z
EW portion or input to the commander’s restated mission.
COURSE OF ACTION DEVELOPMENT
4-15. After receiving the restated mission, commander’s intent, and commander’s planning guidance, the staff develops courses of action (COAs) for the commander’s approval. Figure 4-3 depicts the required input to COA development and identifies the key contributions made by the EW officer and EW working group members during the process and output stages (center and right of figure 4-3). The actions the EW
officer and EW working group members perform to support COA development are discussed in more detail in paragraphs 4-16 through 4-20.
4-4
FM 3-36
25 February 2009
Electronic Warfare and the Operations Process
Figure 4-3. Course of action development
4-16. The EW officer and EW working group members contribute to COA development through the following planning actions—
z
Determining which friendly EW capabilities are available to support the operation, including organic and nonorganic capabilities for planning.
z
Determining possible friendly and enemy EW operations, including identifying friendly and enemy vulnerabilities.
4-17. Additionally, the EW officer and EW working group members help develop initial COA options by—
z
Identifying COA options that may be feasible based on their functional expertise (while brainstorming of COAs).
z
Providing options to modify a COA to enable accomplishing a requirement within the EW area of expertise.
z
Identifying information (relating to EW options) that may impact other functional areas and sharing that information immediately.
z
Identifying the EW-related tasks required to support the COA options.
4-18. The EW officer and EW working group members determine the forces required for mission accomplishment by—
z
Determining the EW tasks that support each COA and how to perform those tasks based on available forces and capabilities. (Available special technical operations capabilities are considered in this analysis.)
z
Providing input and support to proposed deception options.
z
Ensuring the EW options provided in support of all possible COAs meet the established screening criteria.
4-19. The EW officer and EW working group members identify EW supporting tasks and their purpose in supporting any decisive, shaping, and sustaining operations as each COA is developed. These EW tasks include those—
z
Focused on defeating the enemy.
z
Required to protect friendly force operations.
25 February 2009
FM 3-36
4-5
Chapter 4
4-20. The EW officer and EW working group members assist in developing the COA briefing as required.
By the conclusion of COA development, the EW officer and EW working group members generate or gather the following products and information:
z
A list of EW objectives and desired effects related to the EW tasks.
z
A list of EW capabilities required to perform the stated EW tasks for each COA.
z
The information and intelligence requirements for performing the EW tasks in support of each COA.
z
An update to the EW running estimate.
COURSE OF ACTION ANALYSIS (WAR-GAMING)
4-21. The COA analysis allows the staff to synchronize the elements of combat power for each COA and to identify the COA that best accomplishes the mission. It helps the commander and staff to—
z
Determine how to maximize the effects of combat power while protecting friendly forces and minimizing collateral damage.
z
Further develop a visualization of the battle.
z
Anticipate battlefield events.
z
Determine conditions and resources required for success.
z
Determine when and where to apply force capabilities.
z
Focus IPB on enemy strengths and weaknesses as well as the desired end state.
z
Identify coordination needed to produce synchronized results.
z
Determine the most flexible COA.
Paragraphs 4-22 to 4-23 discuss actions the EW officer and EW working group members perform to support COA analysis. (See FM 5-0 for more information on war-gaming.)
4-22. During COA analysis, the EW officer and EW working group members synchronize EW actions and assist the staff in integrating EW capabilities into each COA. The EW officer and EW working group members address how each EW capability supports each COA. They apply these capabilities to associated time lines, critical events, and decision points in the synchronization matrix (see table 4-1). During this planning phase, the EW officer and EW working group members aim to—
z
Analyze each COA from an EW functional perspective.
z
Recommend any EW task organization adjustments.
z
Identify key EW decision points.
z
Provide EW data for synchronization matrix.
z
Recommend EW priority intelligence requirements.
z
Identify EW supporting tasks to any branches and sequels.
z
Identify potential EW high-value targets.
z
Assess EW risks created by telegraphing intentions, allowing time for enemy to mitigate effects, unintended effects of electronic attack, and the impact of asset or capability shortfalls.
4-23. By the conclusion of COA analysis (war-gaming), the EW officer and EW working group members generate or gather the following products and information:
z
The EW data for the synchronization matrix.
z
The EW portion of the branches and sequels.
z
A list of high-value targets related to EW.
z
A list of commander’s critical information requirements related to EW.
z
The risk assessment for EW operations in support of each COA.
z
An update to the EW running estimate.
4-6
FM 3-36
25 February 2009
Electronic Warfare and the Operations Process
Table 4-1. Sample input to synchronization matrix
25 February 2009
FM 3-36
4-7
Chapter 4
COURSE OF ACTION COMPARISON
4-24. COA comparison starts with all staff members analyzing and evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of each COA from their perspectives. Staff members present their findings for the others’
consideration. Using the evaluation criteria developed during COA analysis, the staff outlines each COA, highlighting its advantages and disadvantages. Comparing the strengths and weaknesses of the COAs identifies their advantages and disadvantages with respect to each other. (See FM 5-0 for further discussion of COA comparison).
4-25. During COA comparison, the EW officer and EW working group members compare COAs based on the EW-related advantages and disadvantages (see center of figure 4-4). Typically, planners use a matrix to assist in the COA comparisons. The EW officer may develop an EW functional matrix to compare the COAs or to use the decision matrix developed by the staff. Regardless of the matrix used, the evaluation criteria developed prior to war-gaming are used to compare the COAs. Normally, the chief of staff or executive officer weights each criterion used for the evaluation based on its relative importance and the commander’s guidance. (See FM 5-0 for more information on COA comparison and a sample decision matrix.)
Figure 4-4. Course of action comparison
4-26. By the conclusion of COA comparison, the EW officer and EW working group members generate or gather the following products and information:
z
A list of the pros and cons for each COA relative to EW.
z
A prioritized list of the COAs from an EW perspective.
z
An update to the EW running estimate if required.
COURSE OF ACTION APPROVAL
4-27. The COA approval process has three components. First, the staff recommends a COA, usually in a decision briefing. Second, the commander decides which COA to approve. Lastly, the commander issues the final planning guidance.
4-28. During COA approval, the EW officer supports the development of the COA decision briefing and the development of the warning order as required. If possible, the EW officer attends the COA decision briefing to receive the commander’s final planning guidance. If unable to attend the briefing, the EW
officer receives the final planning guidance from the G-3 or S-3. The final planning guidance is critical in that it normally provides—
z
Refined commander’s intent.
z
New commander’s critical information requirements to support the execution of the chosen COA.
z
Risk acceptance.
z
Guidance on priorities for the elements of combat power, orders preparation, rehearsal, and preparation.
4-8
FM 3-36
25 February 2009
Electronic Warfare and the Operations Process
4-29. After the COA decision has been made, the EW officer and EW working group members generate or gather the following products and information:
z
An updated command and control nodal analysis of the enemy relevant to the selected COA.
z
Required requests for information to refine the enemy command and control nodal architecture.
z
Latest electronic order of battle tailored to the selected COA.
z
Any new direction provided in the refined commander’s intent.
z
A list of any new commander’s critical information requirements that can be used in support of EW operations.
z
The warning order to assist developing EW operations required to support the operation order or plan.
z
Refined input to the initial intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) plan, including—
Any additional specific EW information requirements.
Updated potential collection assets for the unit’s ISR plan.
ORDERS PRODUCTION
4-30. Orders production consists of the staff preparing the operation order or plan by converting the selected COA into a clear, concise concept of operations. The staff also provides supporting information that enables subordinates to execute and implement risk controls. They do this by coordinating and integrating risk controls into the appropriate paragraphs and graphics of the order.
4-31. During orders production, the EW officer provides the EW operations input for several sections of the operation order or plan. See appendix B for the primary areas for EW operations input within an Army order or plan. The primary areas for EW input in a joint order, if required, also are shown in appendix B.
(See CJCSM 3122.03C for the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System format).
DECISIONMAKING IN A TIME-CONSTRAINED ENVIRONMENT
4-32. In a time-constrained environment, the staff might not be able to conduct a detailed MDMP. The staff may choose to abbreviate the process as described in FM 5-0. The abbreviated process uses all seven steps of the MDMP in a shortened and less detailed manner.
4-33. The EW officer and core members of the EW working group meet as a regular part of the unit battle rhythm. However, the EW officer calls unscheduled meetings if situations arise that require time-sensitive planning. Regardless of how much they abbreviate the planning process, the EW officer and supporting members of the EW working group always—
z
Update the EW running estimate in terms of assets and capabilities available.
z
Update essential EW tasks with the requirements of the commander’s intent.
z
Coordinate support requests and intelligence requirements with appropriate staff elements and outside agencies.
z
Provide EW input to fragmentary orders through the G-3 or S-3 as necessary to drive timely and effective EW operations.
z
Deconflict planned EW actions with other uses of the spectrum, such as communications.
z
Synchronize electronic attack and EW support actions.
z
Synchronize other intelligence collection in support of EW requirements.
z
Deconflict EW activities specifically with aviation operations.
z
Synchronize EW support to the command and control warfare and information protection information tasks.
25 February 2009
FM 3-36
4-9
Chapter 4
THE INTEGRATING PROCESSES AND CONTINUING ACTIVITIES
4-34. Commanders use several integrating processes and continuing activities to synchronize operations throughout the operations process. (See figure 4-5.) The EW officer ensures EW operations are fully synchronized and integrated within these processes and continuing activities. Other staff members supporting the EW working group assist the EW officer. Paragraphs 4-35 through 4-52 outline some key integrating processes and continuing activities. These processes and activities require EW officer involvement throughout the operations process.
Figure 4-5. Integrating processes and continuing activities
INTELLIGENCE PREPARATION OF THE BATTLEFIELD
4-35. Intelligence preparation of the battlefield is the systematic, continuous process of analyzing the threat and environment in a specific geographic area. Intelligence preparation of the battlefield is designed to support the staff estimate and military decisionmaking process. Most intelligence requirements are generated as a result of the intelligence preparation of the battlefield process and its interrelation with the decisionmaking process (FM 34-130). The G-2 or S-2 leads IPB planning with participation by the entire staff. This planning activity is used to define and understand the operational environment and the options it presents to friendly and adversary forces. Only one IPB planning activity exists within each headquarters; all affected staff cells participate. (FM 2-0 provides more information on IPB.) Paragraphs 4-36 through 4-40 discuss how the EW officer and the EW working group support IPB during operations.
4-36. In addition to the input provided to the initial IPB (during step 2 of mission analysis), the EW officer supports IPB throughout the operations process by providing input related to EW operations. (See figure 4-6.) This input includes (but is not limited to) the following EW considerations:
z
Evaluating the operational environment from an EW perspective.
z
Describing how the effects of the operational environment may impact EW operations.
z
Evaluating the threat’s capabilities; doctrinal principles; and tactics, techniques, and procedures from an EW perspective.
z
Determining threat COAs.
4-10
FM 3-36
25 February 2009
Electronic Warfare and the Operations Process
4-37. When evaluating the operational environment from an EW perspective, the EW officer—
z
Determines the electromagnetic environment within the defined physical environment:
Area of operations.
Area of influence.
Area of interest.
z
Uses electronic databases to identify gaps.
z
Identifies adversary fixed EW sites such as EW support and electronic attack sites.
z
Identifies airfields and installations that support, operate, or house adversary EW capabilities.
z
In coordination with the G-2 or S-2 and G-6 or S-6, helps identify enemy electromagnetic spectrum usage and requirements within the area of operations and area of interest.
Figure 4-6. Electronic warfare support to intelligence preparation of the battlefield 4-38. When describing how the variables of the operational environment may impact EW operations, the EW officer—
z
Focuses on characteristics of both the land and air domains using the factors of observation and fields of fire, avenues of approach, key and decisive terrain, obstacles, and cover and concealment.
z
Identifies key terrain that may provide protection for communications and target acquisition systems from exploitation or disruption.
z
Identifies how terrain affects line of sight, including effects on both communications and noncommunications emitters.
z
Evaluates how vegetation affects radio wave absorption and antenna height requirements.
z
Locates power lines and their potential to interfere with radio waves.
z
Assesses most likely and most dangerous avenues of approach (air, ground) and where EW
operations would likely be positioned to support these approaches.
25 February 2009
FM 3-36
4-11
Ch