===== How does Threat Assessment work? =====

Threat Assessment is designed to allow users to define an acceptable range of S2A threat in an area for JAOP planning.  The acceptable threats are assigned by platform and SCL, meaning users can weigh the stealthiness of the platform and the standoff range of the SCL’s munitions to determine how much risk is acceptable.  If  the platform is stealthy enough, or can standoff far enough from the target, the threat in the area might not be an issue.  On the other hand, users may also prescribe a //minimum// acceptable threat for a platform/SCL combination, assuring that the most capable assets are used only when necessary instead of "wasting" them when a less capable asset could have been used.

Air Defense (AD) BSE Types are listed in BSE Type Data >> AirDefenseBseTypes.  This listing maps specific BSE Types (ex. Red_SAM_SA20_BTRY) to an AD system type (ex. SA20).  It is a many-to-many mapping, meaning that Red_SAM_SA10_BTRY can also be mapped to SA20.  

This mapping is used for a couple things.  First, it is used for adjudication data (ex. to define the components [radars, launchers, missiles] which make up the system, the command data, and the PK data).  For this discussion, we’re considering how it is used for threat assessment.



Modelers are then allowed to define the relative threat value of each of those AD types.  In Annex C >> Air Operations >> Threat Assessment Rules, users can enter the Minimum Number to Consider High Threat (ADSiteMinHighThreatNumber) for each SA type, if desired. 

{{:jas:threatassessment1.jpg|}} 

For instance, a RED_SAM_LONG_RANGE might be considered so threatening that the presence of 2 is considered high threat (100%), whereas it might take 3 SA6s in an area to be considered high threat.  Users might choose not to even enter the SA7.



So how is the threat value calculated?  Examples, given the numbers above:

//Example 1//
^AD Type	^Number Present in Area^	Threat Value^
|RED_SAM_LONG_RANGE	|2	|100|
|SA6	|3	|100|



The "fuzzy" math to calculate the total threat value (combining the two systems’ individual values) is done as follows (where A & B are individual system threat values):



Total Threat = A + B - (A * B)



Total Threat = 1.0 + 1.0 - (1.0 * 1.0) = 1.0



Note: Threat values are percentages, and are converted to decimal for application to the formula. Individual threat values can never be greater than 1.0 (100%), so for this formula use the threat value based on the total number of that AD type, or the defined high threat number, whichever is less. 



//Example 2//
^AD Type	^Number Present in Area^	Threat Value^
|RED_SAM_LONG_RANGE	|3	|100|
|SA6	|2	|67|


Total Threat = 1.0 + 0.67 - (1.0 * 0.67) = 1.0

//* Note that the total or neither the individual system threat values will exceed 100//

//Example 3//
^AD Type	^Number Present in Area^	Threat Value^
|RED_SAM_LONG_RANGE	|1	|50|
|SA6	|2	|67|


Total Threat = 0.5 + 0.67 - (0.5 * 0.67) = 0.83





//What is it used for?//



Target planning is done by area (i.e. JAOP area, sector, region, or playbox).  For each area considered during target planning each planning cycle, the number & type of each AD system "in" the area is recalculated based on UnitMEZes //perceived// still active (see below).  Since it is recalculated each day, it is possible for the threat in an area to either increase or decrease.  For a threat AD site to be considered "in" the area, its MEZ radius must overlap the area; the AD BSE need not be located within the area.  Given the numbers of AD systems and their ranges, it is impossible for users to determine the number "in" the area, so that is reported in the instrument **Air Plan Threat S2A Systems in Area**, and the aggregate threat value is reported in **Air Plan Threat in Area**.



Note that the definition of High Threat is global by side for all areas/phases/states; therefore, the size and shape of the JAOP area has a major impact on threat assessment.  Larger areas are likely to overlap more threat UnitMEZes than smaller ones.



//So how is the threat value used in target planning?//

A "threat tolerance" value/range is assigned to each aircraft and SCL combination to filter which aircraft and SCLs are allowed to be considered for planning.  The range is from minimum to maximum, for either inside or outside a push.  The values for A2A are not currently used.

{{:jas:threatassessment2.jpg|}}

  *  Campaign View:  Asset >> Platform >> [Platform ID] >> Air Configurations >> [SCL ID]
  *  Data View:  AssetData >> PlatformData >> [Platform ID] >> Configurations >> [SCL ID]


The difference between inside and outside a push reflects that aircraft assigned to a push will have SEAD support (jamming and lethal) to help mitigate the threat.  Only SCLs permitted for the threat value calculated for that planning cycle will be planned.  Let’s look at some examples:


^Area	^Calculated Threat Value^
|Area 1	|100|
|Area 2|	50|
\\ 


^SCL	^Min S2A Threat	^Max S2A Threat in Push	^Max S2A Threat Outside Push^
|SCL 1|	0|	80|	60|
|SCL 2|	0|	100|	100|
|SCL 3|	60|	90|	80|
|SCL 4|	40|	100|	80|
\\ 


^Area	^Plannable SCLs in Push	^Plannable SCLs Outside Push^
|Area 1	|SCL 2 & 4	|SCL 2|
|Area 2	|SCL 1, 2 & 4	|SCL 1, 2 & 4|
\\ 



Since the threat in Area 1 is 100, only SCL 2 can be planned outside a push, but both SCLs 2 & 4 can be planned inside a push.  SCLs 1, 2 & 4 can all be planned for Area 2 (both inside and outside a push).  SCL 3 is not planned for Area 2, since the threat value is below the Min S2A Threat.  If "wasting" valuable standoff munitions in lower threat areas wasn’t critical, the Min Threat for SCL 3 could be set lower.



As general (notional unclassified) guidance, set bombers with ALCMs to [50 - 100] so they get used for high threats, but not wasted on low threats.  Set stealthy platforms to [0 - 100] if you don't care about "conserving" their use; [75 - 100] if you do.  Set F16s with GBUs to [0 - 40] so they don't get sent into high threats.  Set F16s with JSOW to [30 - 75].  The bombers & stealth will be used on the first day to kill the SAMs, then the non-stealthy non-standoff pick up the bulk of the work while standoff/stealth move to the next area.  



Continuing our notional example, you may choose to assign any SCL with a standoff range of more than 50 km a Max Threat of 100; between 30 and 50 km, perhaps choose 60; between 0 and 30 km, perhaps choose 25.  To determine the standoff range of an SCL, pick its A2G munition with the longest standoff distance (since that is the point at which A2G adjudication will occur).  



Threat Assessment can be "turned off" by assigning a Min - Max range of [0 - 100] for each platform and SCL, or by removing all AD systems from the Minimum Number to Consider High Threat.



//What is the effect on air platforms designated as "Assumed Risk"?//



As far as Threat Assessment, none.  Assumed Risk means that a platform may be planned inside or outside a push (see FAQ 19), but in either case it will follow the Threat Assessment rules as described here.



//Is it just for JTCB planning, or preassigned missions (PMs) too?//



Threat Assessment is used for JTCB-planned missions only.  Air Plan Tgt Wpn Failure instrument will report "N/A" for threat failure for PMs; since users select the SCL for PMs, that overrides the threat tolerance.



//When will the AD site be perceived as inactive?//



The UnitMEZ will deactivate when the BSE is no longer "AD Capable", meaning it no longer has the necessary resources (AQ radar, FC radar, TEL, missiles) to maintain an AD site’s capability, which is reported in **Air ATO Exec MEZ Active**.  But the AD site’s //incapability// isn’t weighed into threat assessment.



But just because the MEZ deactivates, that doesn’t mean we //know// it is deactivated, so JTCB planning will continue to consider it a threat.  A MEZ will be perceived as deactivated based upon timing of ELINT reports and Mission Reports, perceived assets, and whether the MEZ is on a maritime BSE.  See the figure below from Release 2.0 Vol 3, Appendix D, para 7.16. 

{{:jas:threatassessment3.jpg|}}

An ELINT emitter will continue to work%%--%%and be detected%%--%%so long as the BSE can interact (i.e. is not routed or dissolved), regardless of the MEZ status, so unless there is a (post-strike) mission report from //after// the latest ELINT report, the MEZ will be considered operational.  



If we want to perceive a MEZ as inactive/not operational after (ground truth) deactivation then:



  *  ELINT reports must stop
    *  BSE rout or dissolve, or collection plan not collect ELINT there anymore
      *  A possible enhancement (code or overlay) would be to require ELINT detection to be contingent on MEZ being active
    *  BSE’s pacing items must allow it to deactivate after being adjudicated
  *  BSE’s soft factors must allow it to rout or dissolve


Limitations



  *  Threat Assessment is calculated only for S2A threats; A2A references are unused
  *  It doesn’t directly consider route or jamming (in some cases, even though there are S2A systems in an area, careful route planning might avoid the threats)
  *  It doesn’t consider target sequencing (i.e. assume a targeted system will be killed by a given time)


Note:  The BSE Type’s C2 determines if it can rout or not.   GroundC2 and LandC2, frequently used for strategic SAMS (fixed sites), do not rout; therefore a SAM with one of these will still be considered a threat, even after its UnitMEZ has deactivated and it is no longer operational.  Give the SAMs one of the C2s that allow routing (recommend BaseVirtualC2); you’ll have to ensure the BSE has all the appropriate unit info added, but this will allow the threat assessment process to disregard non-operational AD sites.  
