NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED

AJP-3.9.2

AJP-3.9.2

LAND TARGETING

MAY 2005

RATIFICATION DRAFT

ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- ii -
AJP-3.9.2 RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

NATO STANDARDIZATION AGENCY (NSA)

NATO LETTER OF PROMULGATION

1. AJP-3.9.2 – LAND TARGETING is a NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED publication.

The agreement of nations to use this publication is recorded in STANAG 2285.

2. AJP-3.9.2 is effective on receipt.

J. MAJ
Brigadier General, PLAR
Director, NSA

- iii -
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- iv -
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

RECORD OF RESERVATIONS

CHAPTER RECORD OF RESERVATIONS

BY NATIONS
1
2
3
4

-v-
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

NATION RESERVATIONS

- vi -
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

RECORD OF CHANGES

Change Date Effective By Whom

Date Entered Date Entered

- vii -
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- viii -
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION 1-1

Chapter 2 - JOINT TARGETING

Introduction 2-1
Targeting and Targets 2-2
Principles of Targeting 2-3
Effects-based Targeting 2-3
Legal Considerations 2-4
Joint Targeting Cycle 2-5
Target Nominations 2-5
Coordination Elements 2-6

Chapter 3 - THE LAND TARGETING CYCLE

Land Targeting and the Decision-Making Process 3-1

Effects-based Targeting 3-1
Targeting Methodology 3-1
Targets 3-2
Command, Control and Coordination 3-2

Chapter 4 - LAND TARGETING METHODOLOGY

Introduction 4-1
The Decide Function 4-2
Target Nominations 4-3
Decide Function Products 4-3
The Detect Function 4-4
The Track Function 4-4
Target Reporting 4-5
The Deliver Function 4-5
The Assess Function 4-6

- ix -
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-x-
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

0101. Foreword. Targeting is a staff planning function that supports the commander
and the staff decision-making process. Each Component of a Joint organization will
utilise a Targeting methodology that best suits its operational aims and capabilities.
There is no contradiction in each Component using a different Targeting technique and
there are fundamental differences between the Land Targeting Cycle and the Air
Targeting process. NATO Targeting doctrine and terminology is currently focussed on
the Air, and some Joint, elements thus leaving Targeting in the Land dimension less
well represented. It is important that a Land Targeting doctrine is established quickly in
order to support current and future NATO operations.

0102. Scope. The need for a NATO Land Targeting document was identified by the
Allied Joint Operational Working Group in 2000. The task of production was
subsequently, through the Army Board, passed to the Artillery Working Group that has
staffed the document over a period of time and during a number of meetings. NATO
Land Targeting doctrine has been developed from a combination of existing NL, UK and
US methodologies in order to support NATO land operations throughout the spectrum
of conflict.

0103. Applicability. While the general principles of Targeting can be applied at all
levels, Land Targeting doctrine is directed at land operations and aims primarily to
support headquarters at brigade level and above. The format has been kept generic in
order to aid interoperability and make the methodology more universally acceptable
within the alliance. The central theme of a Land Targeting Cycle, containing a number
of supporting functions, is already practiced by a number of NATO land forces.

0104. Relation to Other Doctrine. The Land Targeting doctrine will, in places, appear to
contradict existing NATO publications and use terminology that is not contained in
AAP-6. These definitions are contained in AAP-38. This position is a reflection of the
state of some supporting publications and the relatively new nature of some Land
Targeting concepts and terminology. Links can be made with AJP-01, AJP-2.1, AJP-3,
AJP-3-2, the future AJP-3.9 and the evolving intelligence, surveillance, target
acquisition and reconnaissance documents

1-1
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1-2
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

CHAPTER 2

JOINT TARGETING

’No study is possible on the battlefield; one does there simply what one can in order to
apply what one knows. Therefore, in order to do even a little, one has already to know
a great deal and to know it well’
Marshall Foch

Introduction

0201. Joint targeting is a function within the military decision-making process that
supports joint operations planning and execution. Individual components and staff
functions will further tailor this process to meet their detailed and specialized needs.
Targeting must be focused on creating specific effects in order to achieve the Joint
Commander’s objectives or the subordinate component commander’s supporting
objectives. Joint targeting matches Joint objectives, guidance and intent with inputs
from each component and staff function to coordinate required forces and effects. The
Joint commander will, with the advice of component commanders, set priorities, provide
targeting guidance and determine the weight of effort to be provided to various
operations.

0202. The purpose of targeting is to provide a logical progression, as an aid to

decision-making, in the development of solutions to meet operational objectives.
Principles of targeting span the full range of lethal and non-lethal application of effects,
are applied to multinational operation and can be applied throughout the range of
military operations. Effective targeting is characterized by the ability to generate the
type and extent of effects necessary to fulfil the commander’s intent linking sensors,
delivery systems and desired outcomes. A Joint targeting process is flexible, adaptable
to a wide range of circumstances and will take account of collateral effects throughout
the battlespace.

0203. The Joint Commander will establish a joint targeting process within an
organizational framework. A consideration in organizing this framework will be the
ability to coordinate, de-conflict, prioritize, synchronize, integrate and assess joint
targeting operations. Component commanders employ forces in accordance with these
priorities and guidance. The targeting process requires fluid staff activity across and
between traditional functional and organizational boundaries.

0204. Targeting occurs at all levels of command within the joint force and is applied by
component-level forces capable of attacking targets with both lethal and non-lethal
means to achieve the desired effect. This linkage between component targeting is

2-1
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

outlined in Figure 2.1 below. All components should establish procedures and
mechanisms to manage targeting functions. The Land Targeting Cycle fulfils that
function at the operational and tactical level for land forces. Maritime, Air and Special
forces will have complementary targeting methodologies and collaboration is a critical
element of the execution of targeting at all levels of joint forces.

J o in t T a r g e tin g
H ig h e r T a r g e tin g
A u th o r ity

J o i n t T a r g e t in g P r o c e s s /C y c l e

Land A ir
M a r itim e T a r g e tin g T a r g e ti n g S p e c ia l F o r c e s
T a r g e tin g P r o c e s s /C y c le P r o c e s s / C y c le T a r g e tin g
P ro c e s s /C y c le P r o c e s s /C y c le
F o r m a tio n
T a r g e tin g
P r o c e s s /C y c le

Figure 2-1 Joint Targeting

Targeting and Targets

0205. Targeting can be defined as ‘the process of selecting and prioritizing targets and
matching the appropriate effect to them taking account of operational environment and
capabilities’.

0206. A target can be defined as ‘an area, complex or installation, force, equipment,
capability, function or behaviour identified for possible action to support the
formation/manoeuvre commander’s objectives, guidance and intent’.

0207. Military targets match the levels of warfare:

a. Strategic Targets. Targets that influence the overall war effort, or political
objectives, are classified as strategic.

b. Operational Targets. Targets deemed critical to the enemy's capability to

conduct successful campaigns are classified as operational. The
distinction between the Operational level and the Tactical level has
become less well defined as technology has advanced.

2-2
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

c. Tactical Targets. Targets that produce immediate (or near immediate)

effects on the battlefield, or to the outcome of current operations, are
classified as tactical.

Principles of Targeting

0208. Principles of targeting will apply regardless of the component concerned or of the
prevailing operational environment:

a. Focused. The process is focused on achieving the commander’s

objectives.

b. Effects-based. Targeting is concerned with producing specific effects.

Targeting analysis will consider all possible means and the art of targeting
is to achieve desired effects with the least risk and expenditure of
resources.

c. Interdisciplinary. The targeting effort relies on the coordinated contribution

of headquarters and staff functions.

d. Systematic. Targeting is a rational and iterative process that seeks to

manage effects in a systematic manner.

Effects-based Targeting

0209. Effective targeting is distinguished by the ability to identify targeting options,

lethal and non-lethal, to achieve the desired effect. Targeting effects are designed to
influence operational outcomes and are the cumulative results of operational actions
taken. Targeting effects can be categorized in two forms:

a. Direct Effects. The immediate consequence of military action.

b. Indirect Effects. Delayed and/or displaced consequences of military

action.

0210. Effects tend to be both cumulative and cascading in nature. Effects tend to be
compound and the end result is often greater than the sum of individual operational
actions. Effects are likely to flow from higher to lower levels as a result of layers of
targeting effort. Effects terms will be used to describe the commander’s targeting
objectives. These higher level aims might include terms such as Capture, Degrade,
Deceive, Limit, Disrupt, Delay, Divert, Exploit or Damage. These terms are not mutually
exclusive and several terms may be applied to a given targeting objective.

0211. The terms above should not be confused with terms used to determine the
degree of damage or duration of effects on a specific target. Such terms may include
the traditional artillery effects of destroy, neutralize, suppress and harass.

2-3
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

Legal Considerations

0212. There must be due consideration of any collateral and/or additional effects as a
result of the targeting process. Effects can spill over to create unintended
consequences, usually in the form of damage unrelated to the military objective.
Planning should consider the risk of unintended consequences alongside the routine
consideration of Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and Rules of Engagement (ROE).
Therefore a legal advisor should be included as early as possible in the planning
process in order to ensure that all relevant issues are taken into account. Attention
should be brought to that fact that actions taken at the tactical level may have effects at
the operational and strategic level. The global impact of a single unintended event is
likely to be out of proportion with the actual incident.

0213. Targeting at all levels will always be governed by the parameters set by the
LOAC and ROE. LOAC forms part of international law and are characterized as being
either Hague or Geneva law. The former relates to the conduct of operations whilst the
latter relates to the protection of persons and property. The basic concepts of LOAC
are:

a. Military Necessity. This means that belligerents are justified in applying

force to that extent which will ensure the submission of the enemy at the
earliest possible moment, with the least possible cost and using methods
and means of warfare that are not prescribed by international law in
attacking a military objective.

b. Unnecessary Suffering. This relates to the means of warfare and methods

of combat whose foreseeable harm would be clearly excessive in relation
to the military advantage to be gained. In relation to a civilian population,
it means whether the risk of incidental injury to the civilian population
caused is so indiscriminate as to constitute a direct attack on the civilian
population.

c. Proportionality. The formation/manoeuvre commander should have an

expectation that a military action will make a relevant and proportional
contribution to military objectives. In relation to civilians, this concept
means that incidental civilian casualties and damage to civilian property
cannot be excessive in relation to the military advantage to be gained.

d. Distinction. An emerging subsidiary concept means that there must be a

distinction between military and civilian objects as well as between
civilians and combatants.

0214. ROE, which will usually be restrictive in nature, will define when, where and how
force may be applied. All formation/manoeuvre commanders must instruct their forces
carefully on the ROE. It is essential that a targeting group knows the ROE and is able
to apply them correctly to the operations in hand.

2-4
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

Joint Targeting Cycle

0215. A joint targeting process might look like the cycle of activities in Figure 2.2 below.

Joint T argeting C ycle

C om m ander’s
O bjectives
C om bat T arget
A ssessm ent D evelopm ent
C oordinate

E xecution C apability
A nalysis
F orce
A ssignm ent

Figure 2.2 Joint Targeting Cycle

Target Nominations

0216. Various target lists may be developed by the joint targeting organization as a
result of submissions from higher authorities or from component Target Nomination
Lists (TNL). These can include:

a. Joint Target List. (No AAP-6 definition.) 1

b. Joint Integrated Prioritized Target List. (No AAP-6 definition.) 2

c. No-strike List. (No AAP-6 definition.) 3

1
joint target list. A consolidated list of selected targets considered to have military significance in the
combatant commander’s area of responsibility. Also called JTL. (US, Joint Publication 1-02)
2
joint integrated prioritized target list. A prioritized list of targets and associated data approved by a joint
force commander or designated representative and maintained by a joint force. Targets and priorities are
derived from the recommendations of components in conjunction with their proposed operations
supporting the joint force commander’s objectives and guidance. Also called JIPTL. (US, Joint Publication
1-02)
3
no-strike list. A list of geographic areas, complexes, or installations not planned for capture or
destruction. Attacking these may violate the law of armed conflict or interfere with friendly relations with
indigenous personnel or governments. Also called NSL. (US, Joint Publication 1-02)

2-5
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

d. Restricted Target List. (No AAP-6 definition.) 4

0217. An essential element of the joint targeting process is to take into account the
needs of the full range of ’clients’ and to manage resources in order to deliver the
commanders requirements.

Coordination Elements

0218. It will be important at the joint level that a common understanding of component
commander aspirations is developed and maintained. The deployment of coordination
elements at appropriate levels of command will aid understanding and reduce
organizational friction.

4
restricted target list. A list of restricted targets nominated by elements of the joint force and approved
by the joint force commander. This list also includes restricted targets directed by higher authorities. Also
called RTL. (US, Joint Publication 1-02)

2-6
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

CHAPTER 3

THE LAND TARGETING CYCLE

Land Targeting and the Decision-Making Process

0301. Targeting aims to focus capability to create specific effects in order to achieve
the formation/manoeuvre commander’s objectives. Effective targeting is the ability to
create the necessary effects through the synergistic coordination of Joint and
Component capabilities. Land Targeting is an integral part of a military decision-making
process.
0302. Land targeting seeks to describe the activities conducted by the elements of the
Land Component in support of both Joint and Land Component objectives. This activity
is complementary to other component targeting processes and is conducted in all
operations throughout the operational framework in both current and planned future
operations. Targeting has utility throughout the operational spectrum, from high to low
intensity operations and throughout the range of lethal and non-lethal systems. In
addition, formation/manoeuvre commanders in rear areas may benefit from the
application of targeting principles. The introduction into service in recent years of
sophisticated systems able to accurately detect and track targets together with new
effects systems has heightened the profile of targeting.

0303. The objectives of targeting for a particular campaign or operation should be

stated simply, but authoritatively, and should be clearly understood across the
combined and joint environment of operations. Targeting objectives must focus on
aspects of the operational environment that could interfere with the achievement of
friendly objectives. Targeting objectives are not mutually exclusive and actions
associated with one objective may also support other objectives.

Effects-based Targeting

0304. In achieving the formation/manoeuvre commander’s intent, targeting is

concerned with producing specific effects in a systematic manner. Targeting
methodology considers all targeting options, both lethal and non-lethal, to achieve
desired effects with the least risk, time and expenditure of resources.

Targeting Methodology

0305. The emphasis of targeting is on identifying resources (targets) that the adversary
can least afford to lose or that provide him with the greatest advantage, then further
identifying the subset of those targets which must be acquired and effected, to achieve
friendly success. Denying these resources to the adversary makes him vulnerable to
friendly plans. Successful targeting enables the formation/manoeuvre commander to
synchronize detection systems and effects systems to attack the right target with the
right system at the right time and place.

3-1
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

0306. Targeting methodology is based on the formation/manoeuvre commander and

his targeting staff performing a continuous but fully flexible cycle of the functions known
as Decide, Detect/Track, Deliver and Assess. The methodology is outlined in Figure 3-
1 below and details of each function are fully explained in Section 4. A continuous and
systematic method of analyzing the enemy and the operational environment within a
given geographical area (sometimes known as Intelligence Preparation of the
Battlespace (IPB)) is a foundation of successful targeting.

THE LAND TARGETING CYCLE

COMMANDERS
MISSION - DIRECTION - INTENT

DECIDE FUNCTION

ASSESS FUNCTION DETECT FUNCTION

COORDINATE

TRACK FUNCTION
DELIVER FUNCTION

Figure 3-1 The Land Targeting Cycle

Targets

0307. Potential targets include a wide array of mobile and static forces, equipment,
capabilities and functions that an enemy can use to conduct operations. The threat
posed by a target may be lethal or non-lethal. A target must contribute to the
attainment of a military objective before it can become a legitimate object of military
attack. In this context, military objectives are those objectives that make an effective
contribution to military action, or whose destruction, capture or neutralization offers a
definite military advantage. The key is whether the target contributes to the adversary’s
war fighting capabilities. However, a potential target does not become a target until
military action is planned against it.

Command, Control and Coordination

0308. Targeting is a command responsibility that requires the personal time, energy
and attention of the formation/manoeuvre commander. It is therefore essential that the

3-2
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

formation/manouevre commander understands, and becomes involved in, the targeting

cycle. Following direction from higher levels of command the commander has to give
clear direction for the aims, priorities and degree of effort to be accorded to targeting.
The formation/manouevre commander may delegate the detailed control of targeting to
a clearly identified individual or staff section (with the experience and authority
appropriate to the level of command).

0309. The detailed composition of a targeting group (see Section 4 Annex D) will be
subject to organizational/situational requirements and will vary with the level of
command. Key members of a targeting group will be representatives from the
intelligence, plans, operations (including fire support representatives) and other HQ
staff cells, augmented as necessary by other specialist staff.

0310. Targeting and intelligence synchronization is best achieved by means of regular

targeting group meetings. The format should be adapted as necessary to reflect the
staff and time available for targeting meetings at all levels of command.

3-3
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

3-4
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

CHAPTER 4

LAND TARGETING METHODOLOGY

Introduction

0401. The land formation/manoeuvre commander must determine which targets

presented to him are of the most importance to the adversary and, of those, which he
must effect to help him better achieve his own mission. The purpose of this chapter is
to describe in detail the land targeting cycle methodology that has been developed to
assist the formation/manoeuvre commander, and his staff, in making these decisions.
The methodology has utility throughout the operational spectrum and can be used to
manage lethal and non-lethal effects.

0402. The Land Targeting Cycle is based on a cycle of functions; Decide, Detect/Track,
Deliver and Assess. This methodology provides a systematic approach to enable the
right target to be effected with the appropriate system at the right time and place. The
process is shown diagrammatically at Figure 4-1. The process provides an effective
method for matching friendly capabilities against the most important targets in order to
achieve the formation/manoeuvre commanders desired effects. It is a dynamic process
that allows those involved in the targeting process to keep up with rapidly changing
situations. The methodology, tools and products described in this chapter must be
continually reviewed as the situation develops and updated on the basis of situation
reports and combat assessments. The functions are not necessarily phased or
sequenced and may frequently occur throughout operational planning and execution.

THE LAND TARGETING CYCLE

COMMANDERS
MISSION - DIRECTION - INTENT
DECIDE FUNCTION
1 - Identify Target Types
2 - Identify Target Areas
3 - Establish Target Location Standards
4 - Establish ISTAR/BDA Requirements
5 - Input to Collection Plan
6 - Develop Attack Guidance Matrix

ASSESS FUNCTION
DETECT FUNCTION
10 - Perform Combat Assessment
7 - Execute Collection Plan
COORDINATE

DELIVER FUNCTION TRACK FUNCTION

8 - Manage Collection Plan
9 - Effect Target

Figure 4-1 - The Land Targeting Cycle

4-1
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

The Decide Function

0403. The Decide function is the initial, most involved, part of the cycle and will take the
most staff effort. The effectiveness of staff effort in the Decide phase will probably
determine how effective the operational targeting effort will be. Targeting takes place at
the same time and in parallel with, operations staff estimates and the intelligence
collection effort. It may assist in setting priorities for intelligence collection and effects
planning.

0404. This function is divided into 6 elements:

a. 1 - Identify Target Types. Target types and categories will depend on the
nature of the operation and the range of effects available. Targets will be
developed into target lists and further refined through intelligence
collection and the need to manage the dynamic nature of the
formation/manoeuvre commanders’ operational requirements.

b. 2 - Identify Target Areas. This stage will consider the Area of Operations
and identify areas of targeting interest. All dimensions of the battlespace
environment should be considered and limitations such as protected areas
taken into account.

c. 3 - Establish Target Accuracy. The capabilities of available detection

systems and effects systems will dictate technical and procedural limits
that should be established. It is important to match appropriate ISTAR
and effects systems in order to engage targets.

d. 4 - Input to Intelligence Collection Plan. Targeting input to the intelligence

collection mechanism aims to provide a focus for the management of
detection systems. Input will identify priority targets, how they might be
detected and whether target tracking is required.

e. 5 - Establish Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) Criteria. Decisions must

be made early in the process as to what can be defined as a successful
(or unsuccessful) attack. There should also be decisions concerning the
direction of systems to obtain BDA. Only effective BDA can assess that
the effects desired by the formation/manouevre commander are being
produced.

f. 6 - Develop Attack Guidance Matrix (AGM). The AGM provides a

consolidated, tabulated support tool for operational targeting decisions
and is the culmination of the Decide phase of the cycle. The matrix is
intended to act, as far as practical, as an executive document allowing
rapid engagement decisions to be made during current operations. AGM
should be developed for each phase of an operation and for different
operations.

4-2
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

Target Nominations

0405. Target Passed to Higher Formations. Targets and missions beyond the
capability of the formation are passed to the next higher formation HQ for action. The
staff must know when the requests must be submitted for consideration within the target
planning cycle of the higher formation. The synchronisation of these missions with
current operations may be critical to the success of the mission. A key to co-ordination
for both planning and execution is the exchange of trained liaison staff between HQ’s.

0406. Targets Received from Higher Formations. Targets and missions may be
included in orders or guidance from higher formations. The staff must include these
targets in their own targeting decisions and assign the proper priority to them using the
guidance provided by the commander. These targets may have a direct impact on
detect, track and attack asset availability for the prosecution of their
formation/manoeuvre commander’s targets.

Decide Function Products

0407. The result of the Decide function should be a focused targeting effort and a
series of supporting products. Some of the product possibilities are listed below:

a. High Value Target (HVT) List (HVTL). The HVTL is derived from
consideration of the mission, enemy intentions and vulnerabilities, and
direction provided by the formation/manoeuvre commander arising from
the formation estimate process. The HVTL is normally generated by the
intelligence staff. HVTs are those assets, the loss of which would
significantly damage the enemy's capability to achieve his intentions.
There will be several categories of warfighting target and, probably
different non-warfighting targets. Some possible categories are listed in
Annex A.

b. High Payoff Target List (HPTL). The HPTL identifies those HVTs; the loss
of which would significantly contribute to the success of the commander’s
mission and which can be effected, given the systems available. The
HPTL should change according to the phase and nature of operations and
may be used to focus the intelligence collection effort. The HPTL is a
Command decision and should be disseminated accordingly. An example
of an HPTL is at Annex A.

c. Target Selection Standards (TSS). TSS are criteria that are applied to
possible future targets to determine what degree of accuracy and
timeliness is required from detection systems, to enable the selected
attack weapon system to achieve a successful attack. An example of a
TSS matrix is at Annex B.

d. Attack Guidance Matrix (AGM). The AGM provides detail on specific

HPT's, when and how they should be attacked and any attack restrictions.
It allocates assets to targets and, in so doing, facilitates future tactical and

4-3
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

logistic planning. The AGM may also identify target tracking requirements.
An example of an AGM is at Annex B.

e. Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) requirements. Those targets on which

BDA is required are identified and passed to the intelligence staff/section.
BDA is further discussed in the Assess function.

f. Combined HPT/TSS/AGM. It may be useful to combine decision products

and an example is at Annex C. Individual products should still be
developed and maintained to provide a decision audit function.

0408. These products should be briefed to and approved by the formation/manoeuvre

commander or, if time and circumstances do not permit, to the person nominated by the
formation/manoeuvre commander to control and co-ordinate the targeting effort.

The Detect Function

0409. During detection the intelligence staff supervises and co-ordinate the efforts of
assets to execute the intelligence collection plan. Appropriate systems are tasked to
acquire information and report their findings back to their controlling HQ that, in turn,
reports the information to the tasking agency. Some systems produce actual targets,
while others must have their information processed to produce targets. The targeting
priorities developed during the Decide function are used to expedite the processing of
target information. The information collected and processed is used to update and
amend the HPTL and AGM as necessary.

0410. The practical application of this function is the execution of the intelligence
collection plan. Targeting staff should be active in this process in order to maintain the
dynamic nature of the targeting cycle.

0411. It is essential that all available, allocated systems (and, where appropriate, those
with superior, subordinate and flanking units and formations and joint systems) be used
efficiently and effectively. Clear and concise information requirements must be given to
the systems chosen to detect given targets. Duplication of effort should be avoided
unless it is required to confirm target information. At the same time, there should be no
gaps in the intelligence collection effort. In particular, HPT’s must be detected in a
timely, accurate manner.

The Track Function

0412. Target tracking supplements the detect function but is distinct from it since target
tracking requires specific asset management decisions. Many of these tracking
decisions will have been agreed during the Decide phase and will be articulated in the
AGM. Once detected, HPT’s that cannot be immediately attacked, which are planned to
be attacked during a later phase, or which require validation, must be tracked to ensure
that they are not lost and to maintain a current target location. Targeting staff must
bear in mind that systems used for tracking will generally be unavailable for further
target detection.

4-4
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

0413. Management, by the Targeting staff of the collection plan seeks to exploit the
intelligence collection process in order to ensure that targets are not lost prior to
engagement.

0414. There should be a requirement to manage sensor handoff in order to track

targets. As more sensors become available to the intelligence co-ordination
responsibility, so the challenges of managing accurate and reliable sensor handoff
increase.

Target Reporting

0415. As the intelligence collection effort is executed and target information is received,
it is forwarded to the targeting function and, where appropriate, to target analysts for
evaluation. It is important that full target reports are given.

The Deliver Function

0416. General. The primary activity during the deliver phase of the targeting process is
the application of the desired effect to targets in accordance with the AGM.

0417. This stage in the Cycle is intended to ensure the efficient delivery of the most
appropriate effect. Matching lethal effects to conventional targets may be relatively
simple while the application of non-lethal effects to CRO targets will prove more difficult
to manage.

0418. Important targets may appear outside the decisions made during the Decide
function. These opportunity targets are processed in the same manner as planned
HPT’s. Opportunity targets, not on the HPTL, are first evaluated to determine when,
and if, they should be attacked. The decision to attack opportunity targets is based on
a number of factors such as the activity of the target and the potential target pay-off
compared to other targets being processed for attack.

0419. The final tactical decision is to confirm the selection of an appropriate effects
system for each target in line with the AGM. For planned targets, this decision will have
been made during the Decide function of the targeting process. Nevertheless, a check
has to be made to ensure that the selected effects system is available and can conduct
the attack as planned. If not, the targeting group must determine the best available
system for the attack. In some cases more than one system, or type of system, may be
used to attack the same target.

0420. Once all tactical decisions have been made the appropriate staff issue orders for
the designated system(s). The attack system formation/manoeuvre commander
determines whether or not his system can meet the requirements and, if so, carries out
the attack. If, for any reason, his system cannot meet the requirements he should notify
the staff so that further analysis and checks can be carried out and/or another system
can be ordered to carry out the attack.

4-5
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

The Assess Function

0421. Assessment is the concluding function of the targeting process and is the
determination of the effectiveness of attacks on selected targets. Assessment will be a
dynamic process and will be a constant feature of the staff effort.

0422. One method of assessment, known as Combat Assessment comprises BDA,

Munitions Effectiveness Analysis (MEA) and re-attack recommendations.

0423. BDA is the timely and accurate assessment of damage resulting from the
application of lethal or non-lethal effects against a target. The need for BDA for specific
HPT’s is determined during the decide function of the targeting process and the
requirements for it are recorded on the AGM and in the intelligence collection process.
The production of BDA is generally an Intelligence staff responsibility.
Formation/manoeuvre commanders and their staffs should always be aware that
resources committed to BDA are not available for further target acquisition and
development. As such, priorities for the use of each type of detection system may have
to be established and promulgated. BDA results are received and processed to
determine whether or not the desired effects have been achieved for a given target and
the results are disseminated to the targeting group. Effective BDA accomplishes the
following purposes:

a. At the tactical level, BDA allows formation/manoeuvre commanders to get

a series of snapshots of the effects current operations are having against
the enemy. It provides formation/manouevre commanders with an
estimate of the enemy’s combat effectiveness and residual capabilities.

b. As part of the targeting process, BDA helps to determine if further strikes

on selected targets are necessary. Formation/manoeuvre commanders
use this information to allocate, or redirect, attack systems to make best
use of available combat power.

0424. MEA is an assessment of the effectiveness of the selected strike system and is
generally an operations staff function.

0425. The combination of BDA and MEA will provide staff with the information required
to make recommendations to the formation/manoeuvre commander. The effectiveness,
or not, of a particular attack may require different attack options to be considered or for
the formation/manoeuvre commander to alter aspects of the plan in order to meet the
prevailing situation.

Annexes:
A. Example Target Category table and HPTL.
B. Examples TSS table and AGM.
C. Example Combined HPTL, TSS and AGM Matrix.
D. Targeting Group and Targeting Meetings

4-6
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

ANNEX A TO
CHAPTER 4

EXAMPLE - HIGH PAY-OFF TARGET LIST (HPTL)

Priority Target Category Target Classification Remarks

(Note 1) (Note 2) (Note 2)
(a) (b) (d)
1 ISTAR Weapon Locating By type
Radar

2 Fire Support MRL Large calibre first

3 Manoeuvre Tank Unit

4 AD Surface to Air Mobile systems

Missile Systems

5 C2 HQ Trunk
communications

Notes.

1. This column is used to denote the priority given to a target. The assessment will
be based principally on the relative importance of effecting each type of target in order
to achieve the mission.

2. Target categories will vary according to the target sets and the operational
environment. Each target category can be subdivided to allow the targeting group to
focus in on a more detailed classification of targets. The tables below give some
suggestions for target categories.

Warfighting

Target Category Sub-Category

C3 HQ Locations
Communication sites
Fire Support Rocket artillery
Fire Support Centres
Ammunition
Manoeuvre Main Battle Tanks
Infantry Fighting Vehicles
Air Defence Mobile missiles
Static missile sites
Engineer Bridging equipment
Mobility equipment
ISTAR UAV control stations
Weapon locating radar

A-4-1
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

EW Communication Nodes
Ground Control Radar Sites
Air/Aviation Forward Arming sites
Aviation fuel
Weapons of Mass Destruction Long Range Rockets
Storage facilities
Combat Service Support Lift
Ammunition
POL
Lines of Communication Bridges
Tunnels
Crossroads

Non-Lethal Targets

Target Category Sub-Category

Popular Support Politicians
Teachers/Students
Military/Police
Prevent Violence Factions
Politicians
Supporters

3. Target categories will not be exclusive. For example, a UAV associated with an
artillery system may be considered under the Fire Support, ISTAR or Air/Aviation
categories. The importance of the UAV to each of those systems and the relative
importance of each system to the targeting effort will determine which category is most
appropriate.

A-4-2
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

ANNEX B TO
CHAPTER 4

EXAMPLE - TARGET SELECTION STANDARDS (TSS)

Serial High Payoff Target Delivery System Accuracy Acquisition Time

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
1 MRL Battery Rocket artillery 300m CEP* 10 minutes*
2 HQ site Rocket artillery 300m CEP* 45 minutes*
3 AD missile site Artillery 100m CEP* 2 hours*
4 Fuel site Artillery 100m CEP* 12 hours*
* All data is for example only and does not portray realistic values.

Notes.

1. TLE = Target Location Error. The accuracy with which the target location must
be established to permit the nominated strike system to engage successfully. This has
implications for the choice of the most suitable systems.

2. Acquisition Time. The maximum length of time from acquisition to attack that the
target information is valid. It is based on an estimated doctrinal dwell time of the target.

3. Selection standards for non-lethal effects may also be developed.

EXAMPLE ATTACK GUIDANCE MATRIX (AGM)

Serial HPT When Effect Delivery Remarks

System
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
1 Mobile ADA I S Cannons SEAD
2 MRL A D MLRS Counterfire
3 Regt CP P N GS Arty Plan in Preperation
4 Reserve Bn P N Atk Helo Prevent Movement
Legend: When(I) = Immediate Effect(S) = Suppress
When(A) = As Acquired Effect(N) = Neutralize
When(P) = Planned Effect(D) = Destroy

Notes: This is only an example of an AGM. Actual matrixes are developed based on
the situation.

Lethal and Non-lethal effects may be considered.

B-4-1
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

B-4-2
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

ANNEX C TO
CHAPTER 4

EXAMPLE COMBINED HPTL, TSS AND AGM MATRIX (BLANK)

Priority HPT ISTAR ISTAR TSS Attack Strike Effect BDA ROE Remarks
Detect Track When Asset Required Asset (verified)
Asset Asset /Criteria
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k)
1.
2.
3.
4.

Notes.

1. TSS: 1 = Required TLE. 2 = Minimum Size of Unit. 3 = Static or Moving. 4 = Time of Acquisition. Completed in conjunction with
the delivery standard matrix appropriate to the target category.

2. Attack: I = Immediate. P = Planned. A = As Available. TOT = Time On Target.

3. Examples of possible effects: D = Destroy . N = Neutralise. E = Exploit. S = Suppress. H = Harass. Di = Disrupt. De = Delay
(hours).

4. ROE column indicates that the attack meets the ROE. It may be indicated by a simple check mark, individual’s (Legal Advisor’s)
initials or applicable paragraph number from the ROE.

C-4-1
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

C-4-2
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

ANNEX D TO
CHAPTER 4

TARGETING GROUP MEETINGS

1. General. Targeting group meetings accomplish the Decide function of the

targeting cycle by providing a forum and format for discussion and detailed co-
ordination. The meetings are chaired by the individual responsible for targeting whose
primary role is to keep the agenda focused on the mission, the formation/manoeuvre
commander’s intent, and targeting objectives. The frequency of the meetings is
dictated by the operational situation.

2. Tasks. Tasks of the targeting group may include:

a. To assist intelligence staff to identify HVT’s.

b. To produce and update the HPTL.

c. To produce and update other Targeting products.

d. To co-ordinate ISTAR and attack systems.

e. To continually monitor the current tactical situation.

f. To identify targets to higher formation (e.g. target nominations or requests

not to engage certain targets).

3. Participation. Representative staffs from the plans, operations, intelligence and

the various staff cells are key members of the targeting group and must attend. They
are supported and advised as necessary by representatives from specialist staff cells.

Staff Branch Outline Responsibilities

Formation/manouevre commander Provides direction/intent
Senior Artillery Staff Officer Principle staff officer
Targeting Manages the meeting/agenda
Intelligence Intelligence input
Operations Current and planned friendly
operational picture
Artillery and Air Defence Asset updates
Air/Aviation Asset updates
Engineer Current and planned activity
Electronic Warfare Current and planned activity
Information Operations Current and planned activity

D-4-1
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

4. Agenda. A possible agenda for targeting group meetings at divisional level is

shown at Appendix 1.

Appendix:
1. Example Agenda for Targeting Group Meetings.

D-4-2
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

APPENDIX 1 TO
ANNEX D TO
CHAPTER 4

SAMPLE AGENDA FOR TARGETING GROUP MEETINGS

Serial Event Responsibility

(a) (b) (c)
1 Roll call (vital to avoid constant repetition)
2 Focus of meeting and changes to the
formation/manouevre commander’s intent.
3 Current enemy situation including any BDA
received, influence of weather, development of
HVT and HPT.
4 Intelligence assessment including likely enemy
actions over the next 24/48/72 hrs and changes
to HVT’s and HPT’s.
5 Review of the mission and concept of operations
concentrating on any changes.
6 Overview of the targeting battle and any changes
to responsibilities between LCC/Corps /Division/
Brigade.
7 Update by ISTAR and staff branches
concentrating on:
Significant activity since last meeting.
Summary of targets engaged and results.
Current deployment and availability of assets.
Future intentions.
8 Review of targeting priorities. Review
HPTL/AGM.
9 Review intelligence collection plan.
10 Confirm attack systems available during the next
period and confirm HPT’s to be attacked.
11 Confirm areas of synchronisation that need to be
resolved.
12 Summary and time for next meeting.

D-1-4-1
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED
AJP-3.9.2

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

D-1-4-2
AJP-3.9.2RatDraft May 2005 ORIGINAL
NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED