Operational and Tactical Planning in the CAF

By Lieutenant-Colonel Gilbert Desgrosseilliers, Foreword by: Lieutenant-Colonel Ryan Moore - April 2nd, 2026

Reading Time: 12 min

FOREWORD

With upcoming changes to the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) current bespoke planning processes for military planning at the tactical and operational levels, it is instructive to review current analysis and encourage professional discussion as it relates to this significant change for Canadian military planners. By August 2026, the Canadian Army (CA) will adopt the NATO Standard – Allied Procedural Publication 28 (APP-28 DWAN access only) Tactical Planning For Land Forces, as its tactical level planning tool – replacing the Canadian Army Operational Planning Process (CAOPP). That same year, the Canadian Forces College (CFC) has signaled its intent to transition to teaching Allied Joint Publication 5 (AJP-5 DWAN access only) Allied Joint Doctrine for the Planning of Operations as the new CAF joint planning process at the operational level.

Adopting APP-28 as the tactical planning process will enhance the CA’s interoperability with NATO Allies while modernising the CA’s tactical planning process and better nesting this process within the operational level planning framework employed by the CAF and NATO. With permission, Lieutenant-Colonel Gilbert Desgrosseilliers has agreed to share a briefing note prepared as a part of his Joint Command and Staff Programme (JCSP) course requirements, that summarizes the differences and interdependencies between the operational level and tactical level of planning in the context of the CAF’s adoption of NATO AJP‑5 and APP-28.

CONTEXT

The Canadian Forces Operational Planning Process (CFOPP) has been the basis for joint planning at the operational level within the CAF since 2002. It is formally taught as part of the JCSP and Joint Staff Operations Programme (JSOP), both through the CFC. The Canadian Joint Warfare Centre (CJWC) and the Strategic Joint Staff (SJS) have announced their intention to adopt changes to the joint planning doctrine at the operational level to align it with AJP-5, which is the NATO standard. The CFC intends to transition teaching the new joint planning process at the operational level in the 2026/2027 academic year. At the same time, the CA has announced its intention to develop a new tactical planning doctrine for land forces in accordance with APP‑28, replacing the CAOPP. Updating the doctrine for operational and tactical planning must be a coordinated effort, requiring an in-depth understanding of the nature of the different levels of conflict, their specific needs in terms of planning and their interdependencies.

DISCUSSION

The CAF recognizes four levels of conflict: national strategic, military strategic, operational and tactical. These levels provide a framework for planning¹. They are not delineated by the level of command or the size of the forces in question, but rather by the intended outcome based on achieving national objectives through tactical actions².

Using the example of CAF combat operations in Afghanistan, the national strategic level is at the executive branch of the federal government that establishes the national political objectives. The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) and SJS represent the military strategic level, establishing the military objectives to achieve the national political objectives. The operational level comprises Canadian Expeditionary Force Command Headquarters (CEFCOM HQ) and Canadian Operational Support Command (CANSOCOM) – which were amalgamated in 2012 to become the Canadian Joint Operations Command [CJOC]) – with the national command (Joint Task Force [JTF] Afghanistan) and support elements connecting the strategic and tactical levels through planning, executing and sustaining CAF operations in Southwest Asia. The operational level is inherently joint in nature, as it synchronizes and coordinates the activities of maritime, land, air and special forces. The tactical level, focused on the planning and execution of battles or engagements, is represented by the units and formations making up the land and air components in Afghanistan, such as Task Force (TF) Kandahar (including the Battle Group and the Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team) and the JTF Afghanistan Air Wing (including all the CAF air resources in the Southwest Asia theatre of operations).

The levels of planning correspond to the levels of conflict and are adapted to the specific needs and expected outcomes of the commanders and strategic, operational and tactical staff. Therefore, the planning models and tools are also adapted at each level. In the CAF, the CFOPP is the strategic and operational framework for translating strategic direction into missions and tasks at the tactical level and provides a process for operational planning and campaign design³. At the tactical level, the estimate process is the basic planning tool for every level of command⁴. However, the CAOPP may be used at higher tactical levels, as it is better adapted to allow the commander and their formation staff to process larger and more complex factors and data to develop a plan. The CAOPP is a simplified version of the CFOPP, adapted to land tactical planning requirements.

The CFOPP and CAOPP follow the same steps, but vary in Orientation Stage activities: while operational design is a CFOPP Orientation Stage activity, it is absent from the CAOPP. The importance of operational design being the difference is highlighted in B-GL-335-001/FP-001 Decision-Making and Planning at the Tactical Level: “The key difference between the two is that, at the tactical level, the desired end state is given and is the basis for planning; at the operational level, the military end state must be derived from the strategic direction issued”⁵. According to the CFC OPP Playbook, “developing a well-crafted end state is the most important step in building an operational design”⁶. Therefore, operational design is the primary tool that enables the commander and their Staff to identify the operational end state (“ends”) to then develop the methods (“ways”) and resources (“means”) needed to achieve it. Operational design also uses tools such as the Centre of Gravity, Lines of Operations and Lines of Effort that are not found in tactical planning models.

According to Figure 4-3 above, operational design is not an activity of the CA OPP Orientation Stage 2⁷.

Operational design is also the key element that differentiates NATO’s operational planning and tactical planning processes for Land Forces—it appears in the Mission Analysis Stage of AJP‑5, but is missing from the formal process in APP-28. However, NATO doctrine provides for the possibility of tactical design being embedded in operational design, thereby ensuring deeper coordination between the two levels of planning⁸. Even without tactical design, NATO doctrine formally describes the interdependencies of operational level and tactical level planning, specifying the critical role played by component commands (CCs) as bridges between planning Operation Plans at the operational level to develop campaigns and major operations, and tactical Operation Orders to coordinate battles, engagements and activities⁹. Furthermore, while a JTF HQ plans the synchronization of effects between the different CCs, each CC then synchronizes the effects at their level and makes sure to align them with the JTF’s. Therefore, NATO sees CC planning as a bridge between the operational level and tactical level¹⁰.

Figure C-1 above shows the differences and the overlap between NATO operational level planning and tactical level planning. The overlapping area between the operational level and the tactical level is held by the Land Component Command¹¹.

Adopting planning doctrines that are consistent with NATO’s is an opportunity to better manage coordination between each level of planning. It is recommended that a document be developed like NATO’s Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive, which serves as a coherent framework for all levels of planning and identifies the interactions and interdependencies between each level of planning¹².

CONCLUSION

The operational and tactical levels of conflict are distinct based on how they enable national objectives to be achieved: the tactical level is focused on specific battles and engagements, while the operational level is a bridge between tactical activities and national objectives. According to the different natures of the planning levels and expected results for each one, their planning models and associated tools have been designed to address their specific needs. The transition to a NATO-based doctrine will help better develop a more coherent framework for the various levels of planning, allowing for better synchronization of their efforts to achieve national objectives.

ENDNOTES

1. B-GJ-005-000/FP-001, CFJP 01: Canadian Military Doctrine, Sept 2011, p. 2-10.
2. Ibid, p. 2-10.
3. Ibid, p. ii.
4. B-GL-335-001/FP-001, Decision-Making and Planning at the Tactical Level, Feb 2017, p. 4-1.
5. Ibid, p. 4-1.
6. CFC - CF OPP Instruction Manual, 27 Apr 2022, p. 2-27.
7. B-GL-335-001/FP-001, Decision-Making and Planning at the Tactical Level, Feb 2017, p. 4-7.
8. APP-28: Tactical Planning for Land Forces, Ed. B, Ver. 1, NATO, 2024, p. C-6.
9. Ibid, p. C-1.
10. Ibid, p. C-2.
11. Ibid, p. C-2.
12. Ibid, p. C-4.