Effects-based operations
Thread Starter
Effects-based operations
So there I was sitting in the crew-room and whiling away a few minutes with the current edition of 'Air Power Review'.
In this august publication is an article about something called 'Effects-Based Operations'. A sidehead in the article (page 36) says "EBO, put simply, are those operations that are planned, executed, assessed and adapted as a result of a comprehensive understanding of the operational environment in order to influence or change behaviour or capabilities by exploiting the integrated application of selected instruments of power to achieve directed objectives".
To which my rejoinder is a) if that's putting it simply, God help me because I don't understand a word of it b) some of it sounds like a candidate for Pseud's Corner and c) if I wrote or edited prose like that, I'd have no clients left.
Can some kind soul please explain to me what 'Effects-Based Operations' are in words of one syllable?
In this august publication is an article about something called 'Effects-Based Operations'. A sidehead in the article (page 36) says "EBO, put simply, are those operations that are planned, executed, assessed and adapted as a result of a comprehensive understanding of the operational environment in order to influence or change behaviour or capabilities by exploiting the integrated application of selected instruments of power to achieve directed objectives".
To which my rejoinder is a) if that's putting it simply, God help me because I don't understand a word of it b) some of it sounds like a candidate for Pseud's Corner and c) if I wrote or edited prose like that, I'd have no clients left.
Can some kind soul please explain to me what 'Effects-Based Operations' are in words of one syllable?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree it's gobbledegook. Personally:
What Effect are you trying to create?
I want to stop the enemy seeing me coming.
Traditional Approach:
Kill the Radars, C2 Sites, Comms Nodes etc etc = Bomb everything = V.Expensive.
Effects-Based Approach:
Destroy 1 radar by long-range HARM or similar. Use info ops to make sure he knows exactly how you did it and how simple it would be to do it again if he even thinks about radiating. Radars remain switched-off and the effect is achieved.
OK, I accept this particular example may have holes in it, but the point is that you don't have to destroy everything. Other people will, I am sure, produce better real examples. Here's another one:
10 AWACS airframes. Requires at least 10 weapons on tgt to take them out (assuming on ground). One PGM on the flight catering section, or destruction of the pie lorry would have exactly the same effect and for a fraction of the cost
That's one interpretation of the theory anyway - in practice, there are those who see this as a political line to justify cuts, and we all know that once you lose a capability it is virtually impossible to get it back!
STH
What Effect are you trying to create?
I want to stop the enemy seeing me coming.
Traditional Approach:
Kill the Radars, C2 Sites, Comms Nodes etc etc = Bomb everything = V.Expensive.
Effects-Based Approach:
Destroy 1 radar by long-range HARM or similar. Use info ops to make sure he knows exactly how you did it and how simple it would be to do it again if he even thinks about radiating. Radars remain switched-off and the effect is achieved.
OK, I accept this particular example may have holes in it, but the point is that you don't have to destroy everything. Other people will, I am sure, produce better real examples. Here's another one:
10 AWACS airframes. Requires at least 10 weapons on tgt to take them out (assuming on ground). One PGM on the flight catering section, or destruction of the pie lorry would have exactly the same effect and for a fraction of the cost
That's one interpretation of the theory anyway - in practice, there are those who see this as a political line to justify cuts, and we all know that once you lose a capability it is virtually impossible to get it back!
STH
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 47
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aren't all operations effects based? Surely every operation is planned with a desired outcome (effect) or did we in the past just carry out ineffective-based operations? And what is an "instrument of power"?
Why not just say "EBO are operations using all the assets at your disposal to plan and co-ordinate blowing the enemy/insurgency to bits thus ensuring their surrender/capitulation/acceptance of a US-led constitution"?
Why not just say "EBO are operations using all the assets at your disposal to plan and co-ordinate blowing the enemy/insurgency to bits thus ensuring their surrender/capitulation/acceptance of a US-led constitution"?
Thread Starter
Thank you, STH -- I think I get the idea. Having just re-read the article, there's more sense in your example than there is in the entire piece!
So EBO = GICASI but subtly :-)
So EBO = GICASI but subtly :-)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I like the idea. Bit like the effect the Israelies wanted to achieve - knoick out the Egyptian Air Force. First kill the runways.
Or the classic anti-air-war system. A hard kill can be achieved by killing all the aircraft or killing all the aircrew. Pebble Island was a good case of the former; the Argies were just lucky the guys didn't go for double top.
Bombing Stanley Airport or sinking a cruiser were both EBO. So really what is new?
Or the classic anti-air-war system. A hard kill can be achieved by killing all the aircraft or killing all the aircrew. Pebble Island was a good case of the former; the Argies were just lucky the guys didn't go for double top.
Bombing Stanley Airport or sinking a cruiser were both EBO. So really what is new?
My understanding of EBO is that it tries to move away from the "typical" military approach of simply aiming to inflict overwhelming damage on the opponent, and specifically, on his fielded military forces. At the operational level, this means considering what the overall campaign objective is and creating a plan that aims to achieve this effect as efficiently as possible.
Perhaps the most famous example is the first Gulf War. John Warden wanted to conduct a purely strategic (this does not mean nuclear) campaign against Saddam's control apparatus to isolate him as a leader. His plan was to completely ignore the deployed troops in southern Iraq and Kuwait and effectively run a decapitation plan. Without effective leadership, Warden proposed that the deployed troops would revolt/retreat/surrender thus achieving the campaign goal: removal of Iraqi presence in Kuwait.
In the event, he was overruled (well, he was only a colonel) and only a small proportion of the Desert Storm sorties were strategic. Nevertheless, we all remember the footage and effectiveness of what was done in Baghdad. Within 24 hrs, the capital's infrastructure had been brought to a halt and Saddam spent most of his time running from one hideout to another. EBO - QED.
At the tactical level, STH's comments are also examples of EBO. To muse for a moment, at the Grand Strategic level, one could argue that Reagan's economic arms race with the soviets was also a good example of EBO - Goal: win cold war; Solution: bankrupt enemy; Avoid: blood and destruction on the North German plain.
Possibly all b**ll*cks, just my 2d worth.
Perhaps the most famous example is the first Gulf War. John Warden wanted to conduct a purely strategic (this does not mean nuclear) campaign against Saddam's control apparatus to isolate him as a leader. His plan was to completely ignore the deployed troops in southern Iraq and Kuwait and effectively run a decapitation plan. Without effective leadership, Warden proposed that the deployed troops would revolt/retreat/surrender thus achieving the campaign goal: removal of Iraqi presence in Kuwait.
In the event, he was overruled (well, he was only a colonel) and only a small proportion of the Desert Storm sorties were strategic. Nevertheless, we all remember the footage and effectiveness of what was done in Baghdad. Within 24 hrs, the capital's infrastructure had been brought to a halt and Saddam spent most of his time running from one hideout to another. EBO - QED.
At the tactical level, STH's comments are also examples of EBO. To muse for a moment, at the Grand Strategic level, one could argue that Reagan's economic arms race with the soviets was also a good example of EBO - Goal: win cold war; Solution: bankrupt enemy; Avoid: blood and destruction on the North German plain.
Possibly all b**ll*cks, just my 2d worth.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
There was an air power article around the time of GW1 that was really EBO just didn't have the catchy name. Basically the enemy and allies could be considered as onion rings.
In the case of Saddam you either had to peel away each layer or go for the executive option. At the time EO was frowned upon as not quite sporting - I think it was based on Carter's orders.
In the case of the allies Sadam's target set was the outer layer of our onion. Kill people create a peace movement.
Both EBO depended upon the correct selection of target and aim.
In the case of Saddam you either had to peel away each layer or go for the executive option. At the time EO was frowned upon as not quite sporting - I think it was based on Carter's orders.
In the case of the allies Sadam's target set was the outer layer of our onion. Kill people create a peace movement.
Both EBO depended upon the correct selection of target and aim.
My understanding is EBO is providing the effects to achieve your aim. What it does not mean is having the spare capacity for unexpected occurences.
In short....nothing in reserve. If the task requires a Company of men, that is what will be deployed. Actually, it wil be Coy(-) because a Coy ORBAT maintains a reserve force. It is a bit like ignoring flying to a MLA.
Bean counters involved in decisions they have no practical grasp of.
In short....nothing in reserve. If the task requires a Company of men, that is what will be deployed. Actually, it wil be Coy(-) because a Coy ORBAT maintains a reserve force. It is a bit like ignoring flying to a MLA.
Bean counters involved in decisions they have no practical grasp of.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir TH's description is spot on and ought to be titled EBO for Dummies.
Another good example - effect required = disrupt or deny enemy C2. Possible course of action drop PGMs on hardened, submerged bunker from which enemy conducts war. Alternative course of action drop single PGM on power transforming station which supplies said bunker with all energy.
Simple really.
Another good example - effect required = disrupt or deny enemy C2. Possible course of action drop PGMs on hardened, submerged bunker from which enemy conducts war. Alternative course of action drop single PGM on power transforming station which supplies said bunker with all energy.
Simple really.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There would seem to be at least one danger in putting too much confidence in EBO and that is a reliance on intelligence to ascertain the right power station, pie wagon (by smell at ground level but from the air ?) etc. A crafty enemy could feign your EBO effectiveness and come back to life as you move to take advantage of your apparent success with his fighting force virtually undamaged. Whichever way you look at it a destroyed weapon can not fight back.
You are right Art in that EBO is absolutely dependant on understanding the enemy "as a system". Based on the plans of the Army Corps Tactical School of the 1930s the Americans chose the Germans' ball bearing production to be a critical vulnerability. Thus the abortive attacks on Schweinfurt which achieved nothing.
Bottom line - intel is everything, but only when right and on time.
BTW Beagle, it's an urban myth that sugar in fuel tanks kills engines. In reality, the sugar does not dissolve - the only way it will cause problems is if there is enough to block the filter - but sand will achieve just the same objective in this regard. (pedantic mode OFF)
Bottom line - intel is everything, but only when right and on time.
BTW Beagle, it's an urban myth that sugar in fuel tanks kills engines. In reality, the sugar does not dissolve - the only way it will cause problems is if there is enough to block the filter - but sand will achieve just the same objective in this regard. (pedantic mode OFF)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EBO. This is going to be like the ebola virus. Something that we hoped would be kept within monkeys (at JDCC) but has leaked out like the thread in a Tom Clancy novel.
EBO=common sense. It's what we've been doing for years.
Cliches such as 'sledge hammer to crack a nut' spring to mind; don't waste brain power on something that is a clever way of packaging what the military has been doing for years.
To add to the thread, the genesis of EBO is EBB. Effects based Bollocks.
EBO=common sense. It's what we've been doing for years.
Cliches such as 'sledge hammer to crack a nut' spring to mind; don't waste brain power on something that is a clever way of packaging what the military has been doing for years.
To add to the thread, the genesis of EBO is EBB. Effects based Bollocks.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of the reason for the systemic phraseology is the media age we live in - all mention of death is to be suppressed to maintain the illusion that modern war is advanced and bloodless.
It is entirely consistent with brainless MoD policy to invent an new language to describe warfare. The next big thing will be a series of expensive glossy pamphlets entitled "EBO for Dummies" paid for out of the public purse, money that could have been spent on things that go bang or that benefit the man or woman in uniform. There will still be puzzled looks in crewrooms across the world wherever the map is Imperial pink.
It is entirely consistent with brainless MoD policy to invent an new language to describe warfare. The next big thing will be a series of expensive glossy pamphlets entitled "EBO for Dummies" paid for out of the public purse, money that could have been spent on things that go bang or that benefit the man or woman in uniform. There will still be puzzled looks in crewrooms across the world wherever the map is Imperial pink.
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]brainless MoD policy to invent an new language to describe warfare.
They that produced the mind-numbing gobbledebollocks that was/is AP3000?
Defence Studies lot?
They that produced the mind-numbing gobbledebollocks that was/is AP3000?
Defence Studies lot?