Joint Doctrine for Amphibious Operations - Historic Naval Ships ...

Command and Controlcommands executing the amphibiousoperation, or by delegating OPCON ortactical control (TACON) of the amphibiousforce to a Service or functional componentcommander. Forces, not command relationships,may be transferred between commands.When forces are transferred, the commandrelationship the gaining commander willexercise (and the losing commander willrelinquish) over those forces must bespecified.b. Control of Amphibious Forces. TheJFC will organize the amphibious force insuch a way as to best accomplish the missionbased on the concept of operations.• If conducting operations through theService components, the JFC mayestablish a support relationship betweenthe Navy component commander and theService component commander of theLF, or delegate OPCON or TACON ofthe assigned or attached amphibiousforces to a Service component.• If conducting operations through acombination of Service and functionalcomponent commands with operationalresponsibilities, the JFC may establish asupport relationship between thefunctional components, Servicecomponents, or other appropriatecommanders, or delegate OPCON orTACON of the assigned or attachedamphibious forces to a functionalcomponent or Service componentcommander. Normally, joint forces areorganized with a combination of Serviceand functional component commandswith operational responsibilities.c. Command Authority Options BetweenAmphibious Forces. The commandrelationships established among the CATF,CLF, and other designated commanders of theamphibious force is an important decision.The type of relationship chosen by thecommon superior commander, or establishingauthority, for the amphibious force should bebased on mission, nature and duration of theoperation, force capabilities, C2 capabilities,battlespace assigned, and recommendationsfrom subordinate commanders. Commandrelationship options include either anOPCON, TACON, or support relationshipsas described in JP 0-2, Unified Action ArmedForces (UNAAF).Typically a support relationship isestablished between the commanders andis based on the complementary rather thansimilar nature and capabilities of the ATFand LF. However, it is not the intent tolimit the common superior’s authority toestablish either an OPCON or TACONcommand relationship as appropriate.d. Planning Relationships. Regardless ofthe command relationships, when the orderinitiating planning for the amphibiousoperation is received, unique relationships areobserved during the planning phase. Thecommanders designated in the orderinitiating the amphibious operation arecoequal in planning matters and decisions.All decisions must be reached on a basis ofcommon understanding of the mission,objectives, and procedures and on a freeexchange of information. Any differencesbetween commanders that cannot be resolvedare referred to the establishing authority. If achange in the mission occurs aftercommencement of operations or if anamphibious operation is initiated from anafloat posture, coequal-planning relationships(either as described above or as specified inthe order initiating the amphibious operation)will apply to any subsequent planning.However, as the operational situation dictates,the commander delegated OPCON of theamphibious force may specify planningrelationships to coordinate planning efforts,especially where time-sensitive planning isrequired under the provisions of the Chairmanof the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual (CJCSM)II-3