Campaign Planning ProcessCampaign Planning Process

28 March 2006

Step 3B – System Center of Gravity Step 3B – System Center of Gravity AnalysisAnalysis(S-COG)(S-COG)

UNCLASSIFIED

2UNCLASSIFIED

Learning ObjectivesLearning Objectives

This module will cover Step 3B of the Campaign Planning Process.

•Aim of Step:– Identifies the specific connections and key components of the system within the operational environment which, in turn, will allow identification the operational S-COG that must be influenced by the CTF to achieve the operational end state.

3UNCLASSIFIED

Learning ObjectivesLearning Objectives

•Starting Conditions:– C5 and other members of a Systems

Analysis OPT have gained a broad understanding of the system and desired end state from the Situation Review (Step 2) and Mission Analysis (Step 3a).

– The CCTF has drafted his intent and operational end-state.

– CTF staff is conducting Factor Analysis (i.e., “staff estimates”).

– CTF Components have commenced their own analysis of the tactical environment.

4UNCLASSIFIED

Learning ObjectivesLearning Objectives

• Basic Process:– C5 PLANS forms a small OPT to conduct this S-COG

analysis. The CCTF or other senior members of the Command Group may desire to be present.

– The CCTF will receive a back brief on this analysis with a very small group of key planners, staff, & the COS.

• Ending Conditions: – The Operational S-COG is identified– The Strategic S-COG is confirmed.– Steps 2 and 3A & 3B (& “cross-walked” with info from

3C) are merged into Warning Order 2.

• End Product of the Step:– Warning Order 2 – Mission Statement, Commander’s

Intent, Operational End State, and Operational S-COG.

5UNCLASSIFIED

Preliminary NotesPreliminary Notes

•What is a “center of gravity” (COG)?– Doctrinally, a COG is usually defined as

“characteristics, capabilities or localities from which a nation, an alliance, a military force, or other group derives its freedom of action, physical strength or will to fight.”

– COGs are normally identified for the strategic, operational & tactical levels.

– Traditionally, operational military planners have focused ONLY on operational & tactical centers of gravity for enemy & friendly forces. With the aim to “attack” the enemy COG &

“protect” the friendly COG.

6UNCLASSIFIED

Preliminary NotesPreliminary Notes

Centre of Gravity (COG):

• “Characteristics, capabilities or localities from which a nation, an alliance, a military force, or other group derives its freedom of action, physical strength or will to fight.”

Example COG:

• Enemy’s Second Operational Maneuver Group

Critical Capabilities (CCs):

• What can it do that makes it a COG?

• - Manoeuvre in depth to disrupt friendly main effort

• - Mass combat fires against friendly light recon forces

• - Speed can present too many options to defend against

Critical Requirements (CRs):

• What essential conditions or resources are needed for the COG to function?

• - Command & Control

• - Manoeuvre Space & Routes

• - Ammunition• - Fuel• - Defensive

Counter Air• - SOF Support

Critical Vulnerabilities (CVs):

• Which requirements or components are vulnerable to external influence?

• - C2 limited during manoeuvre

• - Manoeuvre Space & Routes can be interdicted

• - Supply elements vulnerable to attack

• - Enemy air limited to day & visual meteorological conditions

• - SOF insertion phase vulnerable

7UNCLASSIFIED

Preliminary NotesPreliminary Notes

– Traditional COG concept presents several significant problems to the operational planner in the complex crisis response situations in the 21st Century: Traditional COGs do not translate well to military

operations other than war & complex stability operations.

Traditional COG analysis focuses on separate adversary & friendly forces, each with its own gravitational system, when in reality they are joined, each influencing the other within a common environment.

With multiple adversaries, parties (military or civilian), & actors / stakeholders all trying to exert influence in different ways, problems are compounded with use of the traditional COG approach.

8UNCLASSIFIED

Preliminary NotesPreliminary Notes

•Differences between traditional COG concept & System-COG:– In MDMP, the friendly and enemy COG is a

focus of the campaign which need to be attacked or protected and measured.

– In the Campaign Planning Process, the S-COG is: A broader conceptual tool to assist in the analysis of

the entire system to develop a particular operational end state.

It includes the perspective of ALL actors / stakeholders (not just adversary & friendly) & all elements of the crisis (not just military) in a coherent perspective of the entire environment.

9UNCLASSIFIED

Coord-inatedEnd

State

Systems Perspective (Understanding)

Preliminary NotesPreliminary Notes

•S-COG Definition:– “That element of a system that provides the

most potential to exert its influence on all component parts of the system in bringing about a particular end-state.”

Disordered Perspective

CrisisResults

???Crisis

MI

E

D

S

S-COGCrisis

10UNCLASSIFIED

Step 3B – System Center of Gravity Analysis Main Action

• The Systems Analysis OPT determines the S-COG using the following process:

– Review the results of the Mission Analysis Template, Commander’s Guidance, & an assessment of the actor / stakeholder end states & objectives (based upon the OIPE).

Note: In the event that a Strategic S-COG is not provided, the OPT will have to derive one out of the Strategic End State & OIPE (ensure the Strategic S-COG is coordinated with the Strategic Military Command staff).

– Key components of the operational end state are analyzed to identify the moral, physical, and / or political factors that allow for the achievement of the operational end state. These become candidates to be considered as the Operational S-COG.

11UNCLASSIFIED

Step 3B – System Center of Gravity Analysis Main Action

– The candidate Operational S-COGs are “brainstormed” focusing on the Critical Capabilities (CC) for each one.

– Also, an on-going assessment and comparison of candidate Operational S-COGs is conducted based to determine:

The CC that will deliver the MOST influence on the system to induce the desired operational end state.

– After the Operational S-COG is identified, the Critical Capabilities (CC), Critical Requirements (CR) and Critical Vulnerabilities (CV) are deduced (see the COG analysis template).

12UNCLASSIFIED

Step 3B – System Center of Gravity Analysis COG Analysis Template

S-COG Analysis TemplateOperational End State – What is the overarching effect required?What are the component conditions that enable the operational

end state?

S-COG – What moral, physical and or political element are essential to influencing the attainment of the end-state? (i.e. What element of a system has the most potential to exert its

influence on all component parts of the system in bringing about a particular end-state.

Critical Capabilities (CCs):

• What can it do that makes it a COG?

Critical Requirements (CRs):

• What essential conditions or resources are needed for the COG to function?

Critical Vulnerabilities (CVs):

• Which requirements or components are vulnerable to external influence?

13UNCLASSIFIED

Note: The Operational S-COG is normally “nested” within the Strategic S-COG as one of Critical Requirements (CRs) – or closely associated with Strategic S-COG.

Strategic Systems COG (S-COG) – identified by Supported Strategic Commander (with support of CCTF as required or

desired)

Critical Capability (CC) Critical Requirement (CR) Critical Vulnerability (CV) 1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 34 4 4

Operational Systems COG (S-COG) – identified by CCTF

CC CR CV 1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 34 4 4

Step 3B – Develop the Campaign Framework Main Actions

14UNCLASSIFIED

Step 3B – System Center of Gravity Analysis Organizational Actions

•C5 forms an Operational Planning Team (OPT) to conduct the S-COG Analysis.–This small OPT (~10 to 15 personnel) is formed with experienced planners possessing an advanced understanding of the art and science of military planning & operations, and also possessing an appreciation for the importance of the other elements of the broader system (i.e., political, economic, social, cultural, informational, etc.).

–Key governmental, UN and other major stakeholders should be considered.

15UNCLASSIFIED

Campaign PlanningProcess Products

• Planning Document 1 - Warning Order 1

• Planning Document 2 - Situation Review Summary (Operational Intelligence Preparation of the Environment-OIPE)

• Planning Document 3 - Mission Analysis Template

• Planning Document 4 - Warning Order 2

• Planning Document 5 - Campaign Plan

• Planning Document 6 - Warning Order 3

• Planning Document 7 – Commander’s Estimate

• Planning Document 8 - OPLAN

• Planning Document 9 - OPORD

CTF ComponentsCTF Staff Command Group

30%

50%

20%

Ste

ps

1 t

o 3

Ste

ps

4 &

5Ste

ps

6 &

71 – Commander’s Scoping

2 – Situation Review

3A – Mission Analysis

3B – S-COG Analysis

WARNO 1

OIPE

Msn Analysis

WARNO 2

Strategic Military Direction (HHQ Warning Order to JTF / CTF)

17UNCLASSIFIED

Summary

•Identification of the S-COG and Operational End State become the overall focus that provides a coherent vision of the conditions that need to be established for success.

•S-COG Analysis provides an intuitive framework for understanding a system during a crisis.Focus on the entire system vice just

seeking enemy & friendly military perspectives.

18UNCLASSIFIED

Quiz

Discussion

UNCLASSIFIED