Expeditionary Training Group(ETG)

ETG Maritime Security Operations Ready UNCLASSIFIED

Navy Staff PlanningEODGRU TWO

25-28 AUG 14

MissionMissionAnalysisAnalysis

COADevelopment

COACOAAnalysisAnalysis

COACOADecisionDecision

OrdersOrdersDevelopmentDevelopment

TransitionTransition

Navy Staff Planning Model

Use mission analysis data and CDR’s guidance to produce multiple courses of action

Examine each course of action for validity

Consider branch plans

COA ComparisonCOA Comparisonand Decisionand Decision

Courses of Action

A COA is a broadly stated potential solution that results in the accomplishment of the mission developed during mission analysis

COA development should consider all force/unit capabilities necessary to achieve the commander’s objectives

The planning team should attempt to develop at least two (and often more) valid and distinguishable COAs for the commander

Courses of Action

Multiple COAs = Distinct options

– “Collectively exhaustive/mutually exclusive”

– Complete (Who, What, When, Where, Why

...and How)

– Variety (meaningful difference) between COAs

COA Considerations

Factors that impact COA development

• CDR’s planning guidance• Scheme of maneuver• Sequential and simultaneous operations• Sequencing task accomplishment• Requirement for supporting effort(s)• Employment of forces/units• ROE• End State

ABCs of COA Development

A – Focus on “actions on the objective area”

- What do I need/how do I allocate forces to accomplish the mission? (ex. NCHB at APOD, NCHB at SPOD, etc.)

- Movement between/C2/mutual support between APOD, SPOD, HQ

B – How do I accomplish force buildup to support execution at APOD, SPOD, HQ? - immediate buildup

- phased buildup

ABCs of COA Development

C – How do I get my forces there?

- Advance Party (tasks)

- Initial force buildup

- Main Body (increase footprint to intended capacity/capability)

D – How do I sustain the effort?

- How do I account for “BPT” or emergent tasks?

E – Retrograde planning (as required)

Phasing

• Logical, well-defined, sequential events in a complex mission Example: Phase I - Transit to objective area

Phase II – Insert of ground forces

Phase III – Establish waterborne cordon

Phase IV – Extraction of ground forces

Phase V – Return to FOB

COA Sketch

• Brief and tentative – Written for each COA; provides the big picture to the CO

• Essential to each COA Presentation– Forces required (WHO)– Tasks to be accomplished (WHAT)

• main and supporting efforts

– Timeframe (WHEN) • Phasing/sequence of events

– Area of Effort (WHERE)– Scheme of maneuver (HOW)– Intent (WHY)– Advantages/Disadvantages / Pros and Cons

Statement: RR3 conducts a five-phase insert/extract of ground forces to and from the objective area while providing security, water-borne cordon, fire support, CASEVAC, and EOD support to eliminate the MARK threat in the West Point area.

II

II

III

IV

IV

ground force

COA Sketch and Statement

COA Statement: The airborne forced entry COA is an aggressive offensive operation aimed at neutralizing the Redland 23 Guard divisions in order to attack and destroy the terrorist organization in Redland.

COA Sketch and Statement

COA Name:

PH I:

PH II:

PH III:

PH IV:

Pros:

Cons:

SKETCH

COA STATEMENT:

COA Template

COA Testing

Determine validity of the COA

• Primary test – Suitability (Does it accomplish the tasks &

mission and comply with CDR’s guidance?)• Secondary tests (preliminary)

– Feasibility (Can it be done?)– Acceptability (Justifies risk/cost in resources?)– Variety (Differs from other COAs?)– Completeness (Are all tasks included?)

Unresolved Assumptions?

Think Branch Plans!

Branch Plan

An option built into the basic plan or course of action for changing the mission, disposition, orientation, or direction of movement based on anticipated events, opportunities, or disruptions.

Example: What if we discover the harbor/river is mined?

Deliverable:

COA Presentation to planning team- Sketch and Statement- Phases with tasks to be

accomplished in each phase and by whom

- Pros / Cons- Risk (branch plans)- RFFs (Requests for Forces)

Assistance Phase

MissionMissionAnalysisAnalysis

COACOADevelopmentDevelopment

COAAnalysis

COA ComparisonCOA Comparisonand Decisionand Decision

OrdersOrdersDevelopmentDevelopment

TransitionTransition

Navy Staff Planning Model

Assess each COA against enemy COAs

Discard or retain COAs

• Friendly COAs vs Enemy COAs

• Friendly COAs likelihood of success compared to the Enemy Most Likely and Most Dangerous COAs

• Retain or Modify Friendly COA

COA Analysis

General Rules

25

1. Remaining objective and not allowing personality or sense of what the commander wants to influence participants. Avoid defending a COA just because the participant(s) personally developed it.

2. Recording advantages and disadvantages of each COA accurately as they emerge.

3. Continuously assessing feasibility, acceptability, and suitability of each COA. If COA fails any of these tests, reject it.

4. Avoid drawing premature conclusions and gathering facts to support such conclusions. Avoid comparing one COA to another during the analysis. (This occurs during COA comparison.)

EC 1 EC 2

Most Likely Most Dangerous

COA 1

COA 2

COA 3

Modifications

COA Analysis

EC 1 EC 2

Most Likely Most Dangerous

COA 1

COA 2

COA 3

Modifications

None

None – acceptable risk

Collapse Scheme of Maneuver to allow

mutual protection, shift OA’s randomly

COA Analysis

Simple Wargaming

28

• The simplest form of wargaming is the manual tabletop approach. - Members of the planning team use a map or chart of the operational area (OA) and manually war-game events as outlined in the COAs.

COA # Critical Event:

Sequence #

Action Reaction Counter Action

Assets Remarks

1

2

3

Wargaming Methods

• Essential Tasks Method (Critical Events):– War-games critical events (usually those associated with each phase)

in sequence• Avenue in Depth Method:

– Focuses on one approach at a time, beginning with the main effort executing the decisive action

– Good for COAs that attempt to “seize the initative” • Belts Method

– Divide the operating space into areas that span the width of the OA and conduct sequential analysis of events in each belt

• Box Method– A detailed analysis of a critical area, such as an amphibious objective

area

29

Sample Wargaming

30

COA # Critical Event: Establish and Maintain Security at the Redland Lake Dam

Sequence # Action Reaction Counter Action

Assets Remarks

1 Forces position in the Redland Lake and adjacent waterways, demonstrate show of force and prepares for future operations.

Insurgent forces position to JTF positioning to deny JTF forces freedom of action (FOA) and protect waterways for continued use.

JTF forces demonstrate FOA through maneuver (SUW, ASW, MIW) and actions within published ROE.

CRG MAST, Riverine vessels, Security vessels

CRG is the supported component.JFMCC requests supplemental ROE to meet emerging threat actions .CCIR: (PIR) Add indications of offensive mining.

2 JTF forces engage Redland maritime forces in OA Lions, Tigers, and Bears as required to demonstrate FOA and maritime superiority.

Insurgents engage JTF forces to deny use of the Redland Lake and adjacent waterways.

JTF forces conduct strikes to destroy CDCM sites affecting JTF FOA, employs OCA, defensive counter-air (DCA), ASW, SUW, to destroy insurgent forces.

No change Consider additional strikes on mine storage facilities, identified command and control nodes, and maritime assets not underway in port.

Deliverable:

COA Analysis

Assistance Phase

MissionMissionAnalysisAnalysis

COACOADevelopmentDevelopment

COACOAAnalysisAnalysis

COA Comparison and Decision

OrdersOrdersDevelopmentDevelopment

TransitionTransition

Navy Staff Planning Model

Retained friendly COAs evaluated against established criteria and each other

Conduct staff supportability estimate

Conduct COA brief

Decision made by the Commander

• Assists staff in refining COAs

• Assists staff in providing recommended COA

• Assists commander in making a sound decision

COA Comparison

• Decision Matrix

• Advantages/Disadvantages Matrix

• Staff Estimates of Supportability for each COA

COA Comparison

Compare COAs Framed by Governing Factors

- Received from Commander’s guidance

Weighted or Non-Weighted?

Decision Matrix

Examples of Governing Factors– Least complicated by ROE– Offers the greatest operational flexibility– Offers least operational risk– Easiest to support C2– Best logistic/sustainability– Offers best use of transportation links– Accomplishes objective in shortest

amount of time– Will best facilitate future ops

Decision Matrix

Decision Matrix

Governing Factors

WeightCOA 1 COA 2 COA 3

C2 2 2 4 2 4 1 2SIMPLICITY 1 3 3 1 1 2 2SUSTAINABILITY 2 3 6 2 4 2 4FLEXIBILITY 1 1 1 3 3 2 2RISK 1 2 2 1 1 3 3                                             TOTAL     16   13   13

Weighted

Decision Matrix

Governing Factors COA 1 COA 2 COA 3C2 2 2 1SIMPLICITY 3 1 2SUSTAINABILITY 3 2 2FLEXIBILITY 1 3 2RISK 2 1 3                     TOTAL 11 9 10

Non-Weighted

• List advantages and disadvantages for each COA

• Modify COA if necessary

• Reevaluate feasibility and acceptability

Advantages/Disadvantages

Advantages/Disadvantages

Staff Estimates

COA 1 COA 2 COA 3 PREFERRED

N2

N3

N4

N6

EOD

LNO

Staff Estimates

COA 1 COA 2 COA 3 PREFERRED

N2 1

N3 1

N4 1

N6 1

EOD 3

LNO 2

Staff Estimates

COA 1 COA 2 COA 3 PREFERRED

N2 1

N3 1

N4 1

N6 1

EOD 3

Det LNO 2

Deliverable:

Decision MatrixAdvantages/Disadvantages Matrix √ Staff Estimates of Supportability

Refine COA decision brief for CO

Assistance Phase

Approved Mission StatementReview of Cmdr’s COA Development GuidanceOrientationUpdate of RFIs/RFFs/IntelCOA Briefs

Sketch/Overview StatementPhases Pros & Cons

Risk AssessmentConvoy Plan Comm Plan / C2 ArrangementsBug Out Plan MEDEVAC PlanAdditional CO Guidance Issues/Concerns(Staff) COA Analysis, Comparison, Estimates…RECOMMENDED COA

Sample COA Brief Format

QQQ

Questions?