JOINT ANALYSIS LESSONS LEARNED CENTRE NATO'S LEAD AGENT JOINT ANALYSIS

Notes
Recommendation
From the observation, the
obvious recommendation is that
Alliance nations should send
adequately trained staff.
However, in this instance, the
job descriptions did not specify
the training requirements
properly.
Title
Title is short and concise.
Observation
Observation
Note that the observation again
describes exactly what
happened.
Recommendation
Job descriptions of Info Ops staff on
the JFC Naples peace establishment
should be reviewed to include in the
essential requirements for the post
completion of the NATO Info Ops
training course. Action Body: JFC
Naples Human Resources.
MARITIME EXAMPLE
Title
Minehunting planning and evaluation,
fraction of mines buried.
During minehunting clearance
operation trials with different ships
from different nations, the reported
percentage clearances varied
significantly.
Discussion
Several minehunters from the NATO Standing Group took part in a trial
to investigate how well the parameter percentage clearance could be
evaluated. Accurate percentage clearance values are essential to be
able to determine the risk remaining from naval mines to follow-on
shipping.
The trials were held over a period of days in the same area. A number of
exercise mines were laid to provide targets for the minehunters. All the
participating units used NATO doctrine and procedures to plan and
evaluate their minehunting operations, supported by the standard NATO
mine countermeasures (MCM) tactical decision aid MCM EXPERT.
The participating units used MCM EXPERT to plan the ordered
clearance operation requiring a percentage clearance of 96% of the
maximum achievable. The units were
told to carry out their own assessment
of the minehunting environment in the
trials’ area, On completion of the
minehunting operation, the units used
MCM EXPERT to evaluate the
percentage clearance achieved and report the value.
Discussion
The discussion provides a bit of
a story and indicates how the
conclusion was obtained. It is
logical to follow.
One of the factors contributing significantly to the widely varying reported
percentage clearance (from 48.0% to 96%) was the different estimates
of the parameter “fraction of undetectable mines due to mine burial”. For
example, one unit estimated this parameter as 50% while another unit
estimated it was 0%. De-briefs of the operations officers from the units
after the trials demonstrated that this parameter was frequently being
misinterpreted as the fraction of mine case that was buried, rather than
the fraction of mines that were totally buried. The relevant paragraphs of
the supporting NATO doctrine were open to different interpretations as
the wording was not sufficiently clear.
C-2