Deliberate Dynamic Targeting

By CW3 David Brown

Article published on: March 1, 2024 in Field Artillery 2024 Issue 1

Read Time: < 6 mins

Rotational Training Units (RTUs) at the National Training Center (NTC) often do a respectable job adhering to and conducting their battle rhythm targeting events. They tend to not do as well publishing the orders products resulting from this meeting, however. Targeting product development and distribution, especially target selection standards (TSS) and attack guidance matrices (AGMs), continues to challenge units. Additionally, inconsistent adherence to the priorities listed therein when confronted by target simultaneity or troops in contact (TICs) is a recurrent trend for some units. The best targeting tools are simple, specific and specified, allowing for rapid execution or decision making when leaders confront variance or circumstances requiring adjustments.

Firstly, Target Selection Standards apply the criteria of target location error (TLE), size, activity (stationary or moving) and timeliness to reports about enemy activity to help analysts determine what enemy objects are actionable targets versus just suspected targets which need further development or confirmation.

Example Standalone Target Selection Standards

• High-payoff Target (HPT): Refers to specific, prioritized commander approved targets that collection assets must acquire for a given phase, critical event, battle period, or Air Tasking Order (ATO) day. Generated from high value targets (HVTs).
• Target Location Error (TLE): Measurement of the difference between actual and perceived target locations. Here, it means the maximum allowed sensor detection error, expressed as a circular radius in meters, to engage targets. Varies by weapon system.
• Timeliness: Latest time information is of value (LTIOV) to weapon systems based on the target’s expected dwell time or on station time. To use a sports analogy, this is your shot clock or how long you have to take the shot and engage the target before needing to reconfirm that the target is still present or actionable.
• Activity: Describes the status of the enemy activity required for engagement. Varies by weapon system.
• Size: Minimum number of target elements required for targeting or worth engaging. May also vary by weapon system.

Because several TSS elements vary by weapon system (TLE, activity, size), many targeting officers choose to combine the TSS and high-payoff target list (HPTL) with the AGM.

Example combined HPTL, AGM and TSS

Regardless of format, the field artillery intelligence officer (FAIO) uses target selection standards to keep the brigade intelligence-support element (BISE) focused on acquiring and developing the HPTs in the areas the unit needs to attack to ensure success of the friendly course of action. As such, they should drive its development and enforce its use. Typically at NTC, new or junior S2 analysts send a lot of raw data, not information, that isn’t actionable. The FAIO filters, prioritizes and converts that data to information, sending actionable targets to the appropriate shooters or fire support elements (FSEs) in accordance with commander targeting priorities and the unit’s operational framework.

Notional FAIO steps in Killing a Target

• Sensor acquires a target. Analysts passes target information to FAIO.
• FAIO checks acquisition/report time to determine validity.
• FAIO evaluates target: HPT, size, & activity check. TLE check. Request collection cross cueing for target location refinement if necessary.
• FAIO generates fire mission and sends to appropriate echelon shooter based on target location and operational framework (Inside/ Outside AO, long/short of BDE/DIV CFL, etc.)
• FAIO prompts collection for BDA if target requires it.
• FAIO prompts BISE to update common intelligence picture.

An attack guidance matrix (AGM) is a commander approved targeting tool that addresses when and how to attack targets and the desired effects against those targets. As such, deviations from this product should be rare and informed by knowledgeable decision makers. Effective AGMs are intelligible, specific, consistent and distributed to the current operations (CUOPs) at large.

Example Attack Guidance Matrix

• High-payoffTarget(HPT): Refers to specific, prioritized commander approved targets that collection assets must acquire for a given phase, critical event, battle period, or Air Tasking Order (ATO) day. Generated from HVTs.
• When: Probably the most misunderstood part of the AGM. This column comparatively indicates when the target should be attacked and is tantamount to mission precedence. As such, this column should mirror your HPT priority; this is to say, immediate (I) targets correspond to higher priority targets. We’ve seen some units list their third or fourth priority HPT as an “immediate” strike, causing confusion during execution regarding what to strike first, the immediate or the supposedly “higher” priority target on the HPTL.
• How: Weapon systems (in order of employment priority) that will engage the target.
• Effect: Desired effects, physical and functional, against the target and or target system.
• Remarks: Battle damage assessment (BDA) requirements, coordination requirements, attrition goals, criteria for HPTL change, measures of performance (MOPs) and measure of effectiveness (MOEs), etc.

Lastly, your tools are only as good as the thought and flexibility you’ve put into them because they have limits. The AGM, for example, doesn’t account for all the planning factors or machine variables that can actually determine fire mission value in operations or in Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS). While accounting for high payoff targets, the standard AGM leaves out other factors that could influence fire mission value. Four variables determine fire mission value in AFATDS:

• Target Type (High-payoff Target)
• Priority of Fire
• TAI Precedence
• On Call Target Precedence

As a thought experiment, consider the case of units simultaneously calling for fire. Whose targets would you service first: a unit with priority of fire calling for fire on targets that don’t meet the TSS/AGM or a unit calling for fire on HPTs that presumably do? The “correct” answer, in truth, varies according to the circumstances ruling at the time and your commander’s intent. The case for HPT importance is self-evident but prioritizing priority of fire may be appropriate when a main effort battalion/squadron is leading a brigade attack or movement to contact and risks culminating. Deliberate targeting becomes deliberate dynamic targeting when we recognize, adapt to and confront variance in our plans. As fire supporters, we are often the first to recognize the operational importance of indicators and spot reports in the command post as it relates to resource requests and synchronization in support of the maneuver plan. This analysis should occur in real time during operations when any reports come in. It could also occur during synchronization drills such as a two or seven minute drill.

Notional Deliberate to Dynamic Targeting Sequence Informed by Information

In any case, the targeting working group (TWG) is the primary deliberate synchronization meeting where you plan, establish and rank proposed priorities for commander approval before the target decision board (TDB). Your targeting priorities and the criteria for their change, produce requirements and really matter in the case of target simultaneity, when you may be only able to prosecute a few targets when many present themselves. Targeting products are the commander’s priorities, information aids and execution tools. Without priorities or execution tools, units run the risk of prosecuting targets in a first in first out undisciplined fashion while potentially more impactful targets languish in a Joint Battle Command-Platform (JBC-P) chat or AFATDS target workspace queue. The most effective units keep their priorities simple, specific, specified and socialized with the entire CUOPs down to the JBCP operator who may be the only one calling out reports in the command post.