AFDD 2-1.9, page 50

40 It is critically important to stress that all estimates generated during this phase are situation-specific, reflecting the pairing of a particular force against a particular target, under a particular condition of employment. As such, users of this information should be cautioned against assuming that the estimated effectiveness of a force capability under one set of circumstances is broadly applicable to other circumstances. Relatively minor targeting variations may have an exaggerated impact on effects estimates. It is equally important to stress these estimates of performance are not designed to take into account considerations outside of the realm of weapon-target interaction (e.g., they do not address whether or not the delivery system will survive to reach the target.) Targeteers must know the capabilities of platforms, weapons, and fuzes for kinetic weapons available for use and be aware of their availability. They must also be familiar with the standard conventional load platforms in their theater and delivery tactics. Weaponeering results will only be useful if the employment parameters assumed in weaponeering match those used in combat. Targeteers should work closely with the operations and logistics staff to obtain required information. As a rule of thumb, theater component targeting branches should request a copy of the time-phased force and deployment data (TPFDD) to obtain units’ expected input options selected from the JMEM’s automated programs, to provide realistic planning data. Weaponeering must also take into account the availability of the various weapons being considered. Certain high value weapons, such as those capable of deep penetration or other special effects, are normally limited in number and should only be used against those targets that both require the weapon for successful attack and are of sufficiently high priority to warrant the expenditure of the resource. Making these decisions is part of “target allocation.” Finally, some weapons, particularly certain IO capabilities, require long lead times in planning, deployment, and approval, which means that such capabilities must be thought about early and included in the JAEP. Allocation. As mentioned previously, there are two types of allocation relevant to the tasking cycle. The first is “target allocation” and it starts early in the targeting process. Prior to the TET target coordination meeting, the MAAP team determines how many aimpoints can be serviced on the given ATO day from the MAAP Team. The TET then goes over the lists of nominated targets and determines which “make the cut” on that day’s proposed JIPTL. The TET must work closely with the SD and the MAAP team to ensure the prioritized list ties into the JAOP and AOD appropriately. The SD must ensure the TET understands how effects and objectives are prioritized, how they are to be achieved over time, and that it has a macro-level idea of the number of targets associated with each objective. The TET then collects target nominations from other sources and works a daily allocation of targets that have been planned against the effects and objectives to build the daily JIPTL. Approaching JIPTL construction in this way helps avoid an ad hoc, target-servicing approach. The second type of allocation is “force allocation” (or air allocation as it is customarily thought of). This is the translation of the air apportionment decision into the total number of sorties or missions by weapon system type available for each operation or task. (Note: This modifies the joint definition found in JP 1-02.) It falls under the