F3ead Vs D3a Essay

It is hard for me to agree that F3EAD, compared to D3A, provides a holistic approach, “flatter” command and decision-making structure. I never had a chance to use F3EAD in combat operations, but I have participated, and observed training that included some or all the steps of the process. I would argue that, it is the people and organizations that matter when it comes to F3EAD vs. D3A, and not the actual system. This idea returns to the SOF truth, which states that people are more important than the equipment. FM 3-60 discusses D3A on corps and division level, distinguishing between the two based on organic or attached capabilities. F3EAD can function on tactical, small unit level, and does not need a “core” formation to function at a hundred percent. One of the examples I observed included RSE conducting the find, while CRF conducted the fix and finish portions with follow on EAD conducted by the Military Intelligence elements. I visualize any number of different JIIM units

It empowers each separate unit’s commander to take control of his specific segment of the F3EAD cycle. In my personal experience, flatter command depends on the commander’s comfort with his subordinate commanders and has nothing to do with the actual decision making process. D3A commander (division/corps commander) can empower his leaders to conduct specific tasks in D3A and provide him with the final product. In D3A, just like in F3EAD, the commander needs to issue the initial guidance on what he expects the unit to do, what his most important targets are, and general effects he wants on those targets (FM 3-60, p. 3-6). As the unit moves into assess/analyze cycle, the commander’s personality will drive his decision whether his operations and Intel fusion cell takes over the cycle or ha re-issues new guidance. Both cycles are self-feeding and can run many iterations with initial commander’s