Volume 27, Issue 3, May - June  2013

An Evolution in Intelligence Doctrine:
The Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Mission Type Order

Over the past several years, the Department of Defense rapidly expanded intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets, responding to a directive from former secretary of defense Robert Gates that established the department’s ISR Task Force. Secretary Gates commissioned the task force to provide resources to keep US forces safe worldwide. Although quick to field ISR platforms, the task force does little to address inadequate collection-management processes that hinder timely and relevant ISR operations. This article highlights the ISR mission type order (MTO) as a means of overcoming impractical and constrictive tasking procedures rooted in doctrine, and inflexible theater guidelines that detract from the gains in hardware. The ISR MTO, a more flexible alternative to the traditional ISR tasking method, is a proven and effective corollary to the traditional process. This article argues that the Air Force must ensure that both service doctrine and joint doctrine, as well as current tactics, techniques, and procedures, continue to reflect the benefits of undiluted, layered, and responsive ISR operations offered by MTOs.

More Articles about Global Integrated ISR

Share This Article

Comments

Leave a Comment
  • Legacy MOC 9/1/2012 6:55:06 AM

    If you check Army and Marine doctrine they also use a 72hr "planning" cycle, not just the Air Force. ISR operations have been "executed" dynamically well before the MTO. ISR asset tasking is routinely adjusted to meet GFC intent within seconds/minutes. The RSTA already tells a MOC who & what their crew is tasked to support for each mission. Since the start of OEF/OIF, MOCs prior to and during the mission engage with the ground user and determine intent, and then adjust collection accordingly. MTO is just a formal term used to describe what MOCs have done since 2002.

  • Josh 9/4/2012 2:51:42 PM

    Legacy MOC - Where the failings occur with the traditional tasking process is based at the level of control. If, for example, an op is being directed by a BDE which encompasses multiple BNs, CAOC level approval would be required by the RSTA to swap an FMV asset from one BN to another. In the same situation, under an MTO, the BDE would have the say on asset movement allowing for stacking multiple assets on a TST in order to cover multiple dynamic movers. That sensor tasking/supported unit swap authority is not something that has ever existed for the MOCs.

  • Kurt Dittmer 9/4/2012 7:41:24 PM

    Outstanding article to clue many to the evolving concepts for ISR tasking and execution.

  • Karl Hammerle 9/12/2012 1:50:08 PM

    What Capt Haley is asking for was at one time satisfied by used of special emphasis tasking in the SIGINT community. It allowed the unit level analyst to adjust coverage and assets as needed to follow the target. At one point some years ago, I had four additional positions tasked against a high priority target in support of the Navy. While this tasking was only for an hour at a time, it could be extended as needed. This put a total of seven people working a target normally covered by two. It worked, the customer was happy.

  • Pete 9/20/2012 3:34:17 PM

    Things have really changed since I retired from Air Force Intelligence Command 19 years ago. We just starting the process of getting out from behind "the Green Door" and becoming more integrated with the movers and shooters. My beloved RC-135 Rivet Joint has been joined by the MC-12 Project Liberty birds to provide even better service to our many customers. They key thing field commanders must remember is to tightly tailor your information requirements because if you don't, you will be drowning in data.

  • Old-School MOC & AIO 9/26/2012 3:06:17 PM

    I propose that most of the problem is self-inflicted due to the CAOC's bureaucracy and tendency to micromanage. They focus on the "Centralized Control" and forget about the "Decentralized Execution". Going back to the 90s (Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo), if a supported unit needed focused ISR, I could just dial up the MOC and RJ on VPN and we'd work out a contract right there over the radio...no CAOC intervention. The MOC and Raven made the call on loss/gain. How about we start trusting our mission crews again? MTOs are a good thing; I'm just disappointed we have to reinvent the wheel.