Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Terminology question

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Terminology question Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Terminology question - 12/22/2014 2:02:44 AM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2033
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
Quick question for writing orders...

Is there a standard vocabulary and method of phrasing used to describe threat levels? For example, if I say something like...

AIR THREAT CONSIDERED LOW TO MINIMAL. SURFACE THREAT CONSIDERED MODERATE. SUBMARINE THREAT UNKNOWN.

...I assume people understand what I mean, but is that how it would actually be phrased? (Again, just trying to get the little details right so the game experience will be more believable and more fun.)

Thanks in advance.




Post #: 1
RE: Terminology question - 12/22/2014 2:07:45 AM   
STKS

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 7/29/2014
Status: offline
Low and minimal are interchangeable, I wouldn't use them both

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 2
RE: Terminology question - 12/22/2014 10:37:47 AM   
CV60


Posts: 849
Joined: 10/1/2012
Status: offline
When I was on active duty, (many years ago) we used White, Yellow and Red for the individual warfare area threat levels, and used a "shorthand" of including the WCS with the threat level description. For instance, AAW "White and Tight" meant that the AAW threat level was low, and weapons were tight. "Red and Free" meant that you were in a high threat environment, and weapons release had been granted. These threat levels were given for each of the major warfare areas, i.e., AAW, ASW and ASUW. I'm not familiar with the current Joint pub definitions, and whether other warfare areas (for instance cyber) are now also routinely included in the warfare threat levels (although I assume they would be). However, Joint Pub 3-01 (JP 3-01) at page V-24 gives the following definitions for Air Defense Warning Conditions. I assume the current NWPs would give modified versions of this for ASUW and ASW:

(a) ADWC White—An attack by hostile aircraft or missile is improbable.
(b) ADWC Yellow—An attack by hostile aircraft or missile is probable.
(c) ADWC Red—An attack by hostile aircraft or missile is imminent or in
progress.

For additional design realism, JP 3-01 defines the WCS as follows:

a) Weapons Free—The least restrictive status; when any target not positively identified as friendly in accordance with current ROE may be engaged. Weapons free zones may be established around key government infrastructure when other areas are designated weapons tight or weapons hold.
(b) Weapons Tight—The normal status. Units may only fire on targets identified as hostile in accordance with current ROE.
(c) Weapons Hold—The most restrictive status. Units may only fire in self- defense or when ordered by proper higher authority.

The current JP 3-01 may be downloaded from
www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_01.pdf
quote:

Quick question for writing orders... Is there a standard vocabulary and method of phrasing used to describe threat levels? For example, if I say something like... AIR THREAT CONSIDERED LOW TO MINIMAL. SURFACE THREAT CONSIDERED MODERATE. SUBMARINE THREAT UNKNOWN. ...I assume people understand what I mean, but is that how it would actually be phrased? (Again, just trying to get the little details right so the game experience will be more believable and more fun.) Thanks in advance.


< Message edited by CV60 -- 12/22/2014 12:13:21 PM >

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 3
RE: Terminology question - 12/22/2014 4:48:10 PM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2033
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
Okay, I was using "Weapons Safe" instead of "Weapons Hold." It looks like the two terms are now both used interchangeably (probably to avoid confusion since, as I understand it, some services were using "weapons hold" and others were using "weapons safe.") Am I getting this right?





(in reply to CV60)
Post #: 4
RE: Terminology question - 12/22/2014 5:05:38 PM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2033
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
Back to the original question, as I look through various manuals, etc., I'm seeing the Red/Yellow/White and Free/Tight/Hold terms quite often, but I'm not seeing terms advising players/commanders about the most likely threat. Am I correct that there is no standard terminology for this, and instead what should be done is to simply say, in clear language, something like:

AIR THREAT IMMINENT. SURFACE AND SUBMARINE THREAT POSSIBLE.

???

(edited slightly)




< Message edited by Mgellis -- 12/22/2014 6:44:13 PM >

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 5
RE: Terminology question - 12/22/2014 10:19:02 PM   
pepolk0001


Posts: 29
Joined: 12/17/2014
Status: offline
To my knowledge, you are correct--I know of no standard way of presenting particular threats.

//

For some insight into real-world mission orders...

The commander will define acceptable levels of risk (ALR) in their standing air operations directives. For a hypothetical example:

LOW-no losses
MED-losses at historical rate, SEAD required for MEZ entry
HIGH-higher than historical losses acceptable, no SEAD required for MEZ entry

There could be even more intermediate levels defined, and the wording and criteria is entirely up to the commander.

If you wanted to structure your orders similar to real world, you could organize your briefing with a commander's intent section and an intelligence brief as follows:

1. State the commander's intent. Some key elements of commander's intent: (1) the desired end state and mission objectives and (2) an ALR for that mission. The ALR could be overarching, or it could be broken down by types of assets (e.g. could be HIGH for fighters and LOW for tankers, etc...).

2. Include an intelligence brief section. The specific threats that you mentioned in your post would be addressed by the unit intelligence personnel during mission planning and before mission execution. Typically such briefs are tailored to that particular mission, and the format and content varies widely among the services and from unit to unit. However, mission planners (the player) should ensure their plans comply with the specified ALR.


< Message edited by pepolk0001 -- 12/23/2014 5:17:50 AM >

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 6
RE: Terminology question - 12/22/2014 11:57:10 PM   
CV60


Posts: 849
Joined: 10/1/2012
Status: offline
I'm not saying that you are wrong-Certainly, historically the terms I used were associated with the Composite Warfare Commander, a USN concept. However, they are now being promulgated in Joint Publications, so I assume the USA and USAF have adopted them. Am I incorrect on this?
quote:

NOTE: In the US military, the weapons and threat conditions mentioned in the earlier post replies are associated with the Navy.

(in reply to pepolk0001)
Post #: 7
RE: Terminology question - 12/23/2014 4:17:03 AM   
pepolk0001


Posts: 29
Joined: 12/17/2014
Status: offline
Yes you're right, I'll edit that "NOTE" out of my previous post so as not to put out potentially misleading information.

I think the context of our answers also differs here--mine was framed more in the context of planning offensive operations, whereas the weapons control status and air defense warning condition are defensive postures.


(in reply to CV60)
Post #: 8
RE: Terminology question - 12/23/2014 8:37:00 PM   
magi

 

Posts: 1517
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline
Order of engagement[edit]

Several U.S. Navy ships firing missiles in a live fire exercise
Once a commander has considered the geography of a mission, he examines the assets the enemy is believed to have available - the enemy's order of battle (OOB); what friendly units are needed to succeed at the mission objective; and the added constraints placed by mission requirements (time etc.). This produces a path of intended motion (PIM) for the friendly forces - not the route, but the direction in which the force is heading at any time and so the area which must be checked and passed through.

As enemy forces are encountered and identified, they are categorized by potency and immediacy and the friendly OOB altered to reflect this. There are four threat classes: A, B, C and D.

Class A is Potent and Immediate; this is a need to drop everything and respond immediately. This might be a gaggle of sea-skimming missiles racing towards a capital ship, or something as powerless as a tug - that is radioing the fleet's position to a more distant enemy.
Class B is Immediate only; this requires fast action but does not threaten the mission; for example, a small boat detected in the outer screen.
Class C is Potent only; this is a 'win' for the fleet commander: a significant threat detected far enough away that force can be massed to destroy it or to avoid it.
Class D is Neither Immediate nor Potent; a target of opportunity which is not a threat and the destruction of which does not aid the assigned mission.
This classification is similar to the time management method of judging things to be urgent/not urgent and important/not important.

Fleet formation[edit]

(in reply to pepolk0001)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Terminology question Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.145