Battle Damage Assessment (BDA), the Modern Approach – Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) is a fundamental process in modern military operations (conventional and cyber operations) used to determine what results were actually achieved by the application of lethal or non-lethal military power to a target or target system.
It is absolutely critical, as it functions as an integral part of the Joint Targeting Cycle. It is not only related to the destruction of a target but also to its effectiveness and whether a mission fulfilled its intended military purpose. It is part of the broader combat assessment cycle, as it helps to plan how future operations should be planned.
It must answer three basic questions: what was affected, how badly it was affected, and whether it still poses a threat. It is worth noting that battle damage assessment should not be confused with the simple counting of damage (e.g. craters or destroyed targets) and with purely photographic assessment as it is a continuous analytical process that can continue for days or even weeks after an attack.
Historical context
The historical development of battle damage assessment is directly linked to the progress of technology, especially in the field of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). Until World War I, it was quite primitive and was based mainly on visual observations and data collection. Observation of the battlefield was attempted from hills or tall buildings and after the enemy had retreated.
This information was included in commanders’ reports, which were often incomplete, subjective, and exaggerated for the main purpose of propaganda and personal glory. Data collection was mainly concerned with counting losses after the end of the conflict (counting dead, wounded, and damaged equipment).
With the entry of aircraft into the battlefield, the battle damage assessment known as bomb damage assessment changed radically. In World War II, it relied mainly on aerial photography, which was slow, manual, and the large-scale bombing (area bombing) made the interpretation of photographs inaccurate.
During the Cold War and the Vietnam War, the technological race improved the means of gathering information. In particular, aerial photography developed rapidly with the use of aircraft such as the U-2 and SR-71 (with more advanced cameras, as well as infrared and electro-optical sensors) as it was linked to military reconnaissance to serve nuclear and conventional attack planning.
In the Gulf War in 1991, precision-guided weapons, combined with the increase in their range (and by extension the increase in the distance between the target and the target) and the rapid pace of operations, created the requirement for more accurate assessment of combat damage in near real time.
In the 21st century, battle damage assessment has moved to the level of a holistic, high-tech operational and systemic assessment to support network-centric operations by creating dedicated analysis centers and synthesizing information from multiple sources in real time. The use of unmanned aerial vehicles, satellite imagery, and the integration of cyber-operations and electronic attack impact assessments have become established.
following U.S. Tomahawk Land Attack Missile strikes April 7, 2017 from the
USS Ross (DDG 71) and USS Porter (DDG 78), Arleigh Burke-class
guided-missile destroyers. The United States fired Tomahawk missiles into
Syria in retaliation for the regime of Bashar Assad using nerve agents to
attack his own people.
Battle Damage Assessment as a Decision Guide
It is the main feedback mechanism that allows the Commander-in-Chief to make critical decisions to continue the battle or campaign while always maintaining the desired pace of operations. It helps in understanding the threat by providing a clear picture of the enemy’s remaining capabilities and how they can hinder or confront friendly forces. It optimizes the use of resources and prevents any waste by saving weapon systems for other priorities.
At the operational level, it helps in the decision to review and adjust operational plans (reattack recommendations / future targeting) in case the damage was smaller or the opponent quickly replaced the losses. At the strategic level, it signals the transition to the next phase of the operations if the attacked targets have been completely neutralized.
