JP 3-01 Countering Air and Missile Threats - Defense Innovation ...

Chapter III
13. Identification, Commitment, and Engagement Authorities
a. The AADC has certain authorities, delegated by the JFC, that must be understood and
may be delegated to subordinate commanders such as a RADC/SADC. The authorities of
ID, commitment, and engagement are required for decisions based on established criteria that
may be tied to operational capability and are rooted in the ROE. Delegation of those
authorities is a means of decentralizing the execution of DCA operations. In joint and MNF
operations, subtle differences may exist in the processes and terminology used to authorize
the employment of weapons. It is imperative that the command lines, engagement
authorities, engagement procedures, ROE, and terminology be standardized, documented,
clearly understood, and rehearsed (if possible) before an engagement decision is necessary.
b. Identification Authority. The AADC will establish the policy for ID authority, with
JFC approval, and will promulgate it via the AADP, SPINS, and/or an OPTASKLINK
supplement. Execution of the ID policy normally is delegated to the tactical level, but care
must be taken that the tactical commander is capable of performing the ID function in real
time. There are seven track classification symbols, but due to varying host-system
implementations of Military Standard 6016D, Tactical Data Link (TDL) 16 Message
Standard, only three can be used across the IADS to produce a common and unambiguous
(unique) track display: friend, hostile, and unknown. The next closest unique symbol is
“neutral,” but there are inconsistencies in how “neutral” is interpreted and displayed by some
Service component systems. Some systems implement variations in symbols such that use of
“pending,” “suspect,” and “assumed friend” carry a significant risk of system-to-system
variance and will produce an uncommon MTN picture. Proper and consistent execution of
the ID policy is extremely important to minimize fratricide and prevent enemy tracks
misidentified as friendly/neutral from successfully penetrating the defenses for an attack.
(1) The criteria for track classifications and the meanings of those classifications
are approved by the JFC as part of the AADP, and any changes, especially those regarding
ROE (e.g., meaning of hostile and engagement criteria) would be promulgated on the current
SPINS and through ROE serial changes. An ID of hostile, subsequently placed on the
TDL with a hostile symbol, normally does not constitute authority to engage (employ
weapons). Engagement criteria are a product of threat analysis, risk management, and
collateral damage assessment as determined by the JFC. Based on the ROE, a positive
engagement order normally is required, such as a voice or specific electronic direction to
engage. An ID of hostile may be assigned a track based on procedural ID, but the
engagement decision normally is based on positive ID or affirming hostile intent or a hostile
act. To avoid fratricide and potential TDL ambiguities, any uncertainty as to what
specifically constitutes engagement authority must be resolved within tactical timelines
before allowing weapons employment (engagement).
(2) Once identified, a track is followed until it is no longer of significance (friendly
or neutral) or required to be engaged (confirmed hostile by CID or hostile intent). It is not
uncommon for a procedural ID of a track to be changed, based on better information, such as
a later positive ID or a change in the determined intent.
III-16 JP 3-01