DOCSLIB.ORG

New Technology for NATO: Implementing Follow-On Forces Attack (Part 5 Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Technology for NATO: Implementing Follow-On Forces Attack (Part 5 Of PART II Analyses Chapter 3 Introduction and Background CONTENTS Page Introduction. 49 Background . 50 History .. ... ... ... ... ● * 50 The Role of FOFA in NATO Strategy . 51 Chapter 3 Introduction and Background INTRODUCTION In late 1984, the North Atlantic Treaty Orga- 1986, accomplished the first two tasks listed nization (NATO) adopted the Follow-On Forces above. This report covers the others. In the Attack (FOFA) concept as one of a few critical special report, OTA suggested to Congress warfighting tasks for its conventional forces. that in considering how best to support the Although the concept had been under devel- FOFA concept, systems ought to be considered opment for several years at the Supreme Head- not individually, but as complete packages to quarters Allied Powers, Europe (SHAPE), it support clearly defined operational concepts; was adopted in general terms only. This pre- nonetheless, some systems will be “key sys- cipitated much activity on the part of the mem- tems”; all component systems will have to be ber nations, SHAPE, and the NATO interna- procured in sufficient quantities; practice and tional staff to define more clearly what FOFA training will be important; and some redundancy is, how it is to be implemented, and what the may be desirable. Readers wishing an elabora- individual nations are going to do to support tion on these points, or greater background on its implementation. the FOFA concept and the technologies of in- terest, are referred to that special report. As part of the U.S. effort, the Office of Tech- nology Assessment (OTA) was asked by the After outlining the rest of the report, this House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the chapter provides a brief review of the history House Committee on Armed Services, and the of the FOFA concept, and of how FOFA fits Senate Committee on Armed Services to con- into NATO’s strategy. A fuller description is duct a study of options for implementing found in the special report. FOFA. In particular, OTA was asked to: Chapter 4 addresses the threat: Warsaw ● discuss the military and deterrence ra- Pact forces, and what we know about that part tionale; of Soviet doctrine that is relevant to FOFA. ● survey the status of various applicable ca- All Warsaw Pact forces will follow Soviet doc- pabilities and programs, including those trine. There has been some controversy in the to develop advanced conventional muni- West regarding Soviet doctrine and the appro- tions; priateness of FOFA as a response. This chap- ● review relevant Soviet doctrine and plans; ter reviews those areas of controversy. ● review the attitudes of our NATO Allies; ● assess the strengths and weaknesses of Chapters 5 and 6 discuss the specific objec- various existing and proposed alter- tives for several different types of attacks on natives; follow-on forces, and the operational concepts ● assess the likelihood that various plausi- being considered for achieving those objec- ble combinations would meet U.S. and tives. This sets the stage for the discussion of NATO goals; and packages of systems to implement these con- ● discuss a range of policy options, their cepts and the technical issues surrounding pros, cons, and timing of availability. those systems, found later in the report. This report is the final product of that study. Chapter 7 analyzes possible Soviet responses An earlier report— Technologies for NATO to FOFA, and chapter 8 reviews the attitudes Follow-on Forces Attack Concept: A Special of our Allies toward FOFA. FOFA was con- Report of OTA's Assessment on Improving ceived by SHAPE as an Alliance-wide effort NATO Defense Response–released in July (although primarily concerning those nations 49 50 New Technology for NATO: Implementing FoIIow-On Forces Attack with forces in the Central Region); its value ticularly regarding Joint STARS, PLSS, re- would be diminished if only the United States motely piloted vehicles, and advanced smart were to implement it, or if national responses anti-armor weapons. These are the subject of were uncoordinated. NATO’s current abilities chapters 10 and 11. to attack follow-on forces are reviewed in chap- Chapter 12 analyzes how existing and new ter 9. systems could be brought together into com- The technological advances that are impor- plete packages to implement the operational tant for FOFA were described at some length concepts discussed in chapter 6. in the special report. Although these are pri- Chapter 13 reviews previous studies of im- marily mature technologies that could result plementing FOFA, summarizes their conclu- in fielded systems over the next decade, ma- sions, and discusses major common threads. jor issues—technical and other—remain, par- BACKGROUND History Force declared its support for AirLand Bat- tle, and in late 1982 the services signed the In the late 1970s, both the U.S. Army and Joint Operational Concept Joint Attack of the U.S. Air Force began to study seriously the Second Echelon (J-SAK) that laid out proce- idea that much could be done to break up a dures for cooperation between Army and Air Soviet-style offensive by attacking deep into Force units in deep attack. enemy territory. Air bases and other major fixed facilities, major formations of ground Also in 1982, the staff at SHAPE produced forces, logistics, transportation nodes, and in- a study of attacking follow-on forces. This led dividual high-value targets like command to the NATO Defence Planning Committee posts and missile launchers were among the (DPC) formally approving SACEUR’s Long targets considered. To be sure, attacking into Term Planning Guideline for FOFA on Novem- enemy territory was nothing novel for either ber 9, 1984, making FOFA officially part of service. The Air Force had always had inter- NATO strategy. diction of various forms as a major mission, Although FOFA was a SHAPE develop- and the Army had always relied on firepower ment (known at various times as ‘deep strike, delivered by these interdiction aircraft and by ‘‘strike deep, and the ‘Rogers plan’ ‘), its con- its own artillery to “soften up” the enemy nection to the United States was inescapable, forces prior to engaging them. And within and amplified by General Rogers’ also hold- NATO’s integrated military command, into ing the job of Commander-in-Chief of U.S. which elements of both services would be in- forces in Europe. The AirLand Battle concept tegrated in the event of war, nuclear planning was unpopular among Europeans because of had always considered such targets to be of its emphasis on counterattack, and it soon be- prime importance. came confused with FOFA in the debate that followed. In addition, many were (and some At the same time, the Army-in part because remain) skeptical of the value of attacking deep of long-standing criticism that accused it of rather than waiting to engage the advancing being too static and insufficiently mobile for enemy forces in the close battle. modern warfare-was developing a new doc- trine called “AirLand Battle. ” AirLand Bat- After the November 1984 DPC meeting, the tle, officially published in 1982, called for a concept was turned over to the NATO inter- combination of deep fires to break up the national staff for coordination and refinement, enemy’s offensive, and counterattacks to re- and subsequently to the office of the Assistant store losses and seize the initiative. The Air Secretary General for Defence Support to pro- Ch. 3—Introduction and Background ● 51 vide a forum for the member nations to coordi- tlefield in a conventional war-such as Ger- nate their armaments programs. The focus has many—have the greatest interest in sending now largely shifted from doctrine development the Soviets a clear message that aggression to arms procurement, particularly arms trade would lead quickly and directly to nuclear war. and cooperation. However, the attitudes of the Although NATO anticipates a conflict that individual members regarding FOFA have not would involve its Northern and Southern Re- as yet completely jelled. gions in Europe (as well as the Atlantic), the On a parallel track, SHAPE is still develop- focus is expected to be the Central Region. ing the concept. The original rather general ap- Warsaw Pact successes there would split the proach, of delaying, disrupting, and destroy- Alliance and make the defense of the rest of ing enemy forces from just beyond the range Europe all but untenable. Furthermore, Ger- of direct fire weapons to as far in the enemy many is the focus in the Central Region: its rear as NATO’s forces can reach, is becoming collapse would almost certainly produce defeat a set of more specific goals phased to coincide in the Central Region. with the introduction of new capabilities. NATO strategy for a conventional defense Meanwhile, both the Army and the Air Force in the Central Region is dictated by political continue to refine their deep battle and inter- and geographic considerations as well as by diction concepts taking FOFA into account. the threat facing it. Ground and air forces of the United States, the United Kingdom, the The Role of FOFA in NATO Strategy Federal Republic of Germany, the Nether- lands, and Belgium are under the command Flexible Response is a strategy for deterring of the Commander-in-Chief Central Region, aggression, underwritten by a triad of conven- who in turn reports to the Supreme Allied Com- tional, theater nuclear, and strategic nuclear mander Europe (SACEUR). SACEUR is re- forces. NATO would respond to any attack at sponsible for the Northern, Central, and South- an appropriate level of violence, and reserves ern Regions. France, although a member of the the right to escalate a conflict, including the Alliance, is not part of this integrated military first use of nuclear weapons.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Blitzkrieg: the Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht's
    East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works 8-2021 Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era Briggs Evans East Tennessee State University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Evans, Briggs, "Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era" (2021). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3927. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/3927 This Thesis - unrestricted is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era ________________________ A thesis presented to the faculty of the Department of History East Tennessee State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in History ______________________ by Briggs Evans August 2021 _____________________ Dr. Stephen Fritz, Chair Dr. Henry Antkiewicz Dr. Steve Nash Keywords: Blitzkrieg, doctrine, operational warfare, American military, Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, World War II, Cold War, Soviet Union, Operation Desert Storm, AirLand Battle, Combined Arms Theory, mobile warfare, maneuver warfare. ABSTRACT Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era by Briggs Evans The evolution of United States military doctrine was heavily influenced by the Wehrmacht and their early Blitzkrieg campaigns during World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • From Airland Battle to Airsea Battle: the Image of War in the United States Army and Air Force from 1980 to 2012
    Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2016 From AirLand Battle to AirSea Battle: the image of war in the United States Army and Air Force from 1980 to 2012 Fuhrer, Daniel Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-204544 Dissertation Published Version Originally published at: Fuhrer, Daniel. From AirLand Battle to AirSea Battle: the image of war in the United States Army and Air Force from 1980 to 2012. 2016, University of Zurich, Faculty of Arts. From AirLand Battle to AirSea Battle: The image of war in the United States Army and Air Force from 1980 to 2012 Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences of the University of Zurich for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Daniel Fuhrer Accepted in the fall semester 2015 on the recommendation of the Doctoral Committee: Prof. Dr. Rudolf Jaun (main advisor) Prof. Dr. Sven Trakulhun Zurich, 2016 Index Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 7 Topic .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Question and limitation ............................................................................................................... 11 State of research ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Synchronizing Airpower and Firepower in the Deep Battle
    After you have read the research report, please give us your frank opinion on the contents. All comments—large or small, complimentary or caustic—will be gratefully appreciated. Mail them to CADRE/AR, Building 1400, 401 Chennault Circle, Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6428. Synchronizing Airpower and Laughbaum Firepower in the Deep Battle Thank you for your assistance COLLEGE OF AEROSPACE DOCTRINE, RESEARCH, AND EDUCATION AIR UNIVERSITY Synchronizing Airpower and Firepower in the Deep Battle R. KENT LAUGHBAUM Lt Col, USAF CADRE Paper Air University Press Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6610 January 1999 Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited. ii CADRE Papers CADRE Papers are occasional publications sponsored by the Airpower Research Institute of Air University’s College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education (CADRE). Dedicated to promoting understanding of air and space power theory and application, these studies are published by the Air University Press and broadly distributed to the US Air Force, the Department of Defense and other governmental organizations, leading scholars, selected institutions of higher learning, public policy institutes, and the media. All military members and civilian employees assigned to Air University are invited to contribute unclassified manuscripts. Manuscripts should deal with air and/or space power history, theory, doctrine or strategy, or with joint or combined service matters bearing on the application of air and/or space power.
    [Show full text]
  • The Uncertain Role of the Tank in Modern War: Lessons from the Israeli Experience in Hybrid Warfare
    No. 109 JUNE 2016 The Uncertain Role of the Tank in Modern War: Lessons from the Israeli Experience in Hybrid Warfare Michael B. Kim The Uncertain Role of the Tank in Modern War: Lessons from the Israeli Experience in Hybrid Warfare by Michael B. Kim The Institute of Land Warfare ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY AN INSTITUTE OF LAND WARFARE PAPER The purpose of the Institute of Land Warfare is to extend the educational work of AUSA by sponsoring scholarly publications, to include books, monographs and essays on key defense issues, as well as workshops and symposia. A work selected for publication as a Land Warfare Paper represents research by the author which, in the opinion of ILW’s editorial board, will contribute to a better understanding of a particular defense or national security issue. Publication as an Institute of Land Warfare Paper does not indicate that the Association of the United States Army agrees with everything in the paper but does suggest that the Association believes the paper will stimulate the thinking of AUSA members and others concerned about important defense issues. LAND WARFARE PAPER No. 109, June 2016 The Uncertain Role of the Tank in Modern War: Lessons from the Israeli Experience in Hybrid Warfare by Michael B. Kim Major Michael B. Kim currently serves as the Squadron Executive Officer for the 8th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 2d Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2d Infantry Division. Prior to his current position, he graduated from the Command and General Staff College (CGSC), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and completed the Art of War Scholars Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Airland Battle and Modern Warfare
    AirLand Battle and Modern Warfare Carter Malkasian This paper is about AirLand battle and its application in modern warfare. The topic of AirLand battle has lain dormant for over a decade, as the United States has been immersed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, the theory is again under consideration. This is happening for three reasons. First, the rise of competitors for the United States means that future wars will not simply be irregular. How to fight a conventional war is again a major question. Second, in this context, the US Army is reconsidering its role in US defense and reassessing its doctrines. Third, AirLand Battle has received increased attention because of the introduction of a sister doctrine—AirSea Battle—which attempts to use some aspects of AirLand Battle. This paper will explain AirLand Battle and its applicability to the current strategic environment. It will also discuss whether amphibious warfare fits the current strategic environment, specifically because certain forms of amphibious warfare are similar to AirLand Battle and AirSea battle raises the possibility of amphibious operations. After this section, the paper will discuss the possible uses of AirLand battle and amphibious operations in East Asia. Finally, the paper will discuss AirSea Battle. The main points of the paper are: 1) AirLand Battle is unsuited to the modern strategic environment 2) Amphibious operations will be used in a very limited fashion in the future 3) In East Asia, both AirLand Battle and amphibious operations are suited for very limited or defensive operations. 4) AirSea Battle makes sense as a means of degrading the systems of an enemy on the offensive.
    [Show full text]
  • Air University Review: May-June 1984, Volume XXXV, No. 4
    The Professional Journal of the United States Hovv lhe Army got its AirLand Batile Who should conirol air assets in the Clausewitz, Jomini, Douhet, concept—page 4 AirLand Batile?—page 16 and Brodie—How are they linked to our curreni nuclear posture? Should vve move now to ballistic missile defense?— page 54 Attendon The Air University Review is the professional journal of the United States Air Force and serves as an open forum for exploratory discussion. Its purpose is to present innovative thinking concerning Air Force doctrine, strategy, tactics, and related national defense matters. The Review should not be construed as representing policies of the Department of Defense, the Air Force, or Air University. Rather, the contents reflect the authors’ ideas and do not necessarily bear official sanction. Thought- ful and informed contributions are always welcomed. Al R UNIVERSITYrcuicw May-June 1984 Vol XXXV, No 4 2 T he Next War Editorial 4 T he Evoli tion of the Air L and Battle Concept John L. Romjue 16 T acair Si ppo r t for Air L and Battle Maj. James A. Machos, USAF 25 T he Q i est for Unitv of Comma nd Col. Thomas A. Cardvvell 111, USAF 30 I ra C. Eaker Essav Competition Second-Prize Win n er L eaüer ship to Match O i r T echnologv Lt. Col. Harry R. Borowski, USAF 35 EQL ALITV IN THE COCKPIT Li. Col. Nancy B. Samuelson, USAF 47 T he Air Forc:e Wif e— H er Per spect ive Maj. Mark M. Warner, USAF Differing views and provocaiive 54 C lassical Mil it a r v Stratecy and quesuons on the nuclear issues oí Ballistic Miss il e Defense lhe 1980s—page 81 Maj.
    [Show full text]
  • The Army and Multi- Domain Operations: Moving Beyond Airland Battle
    October 2019 The Army and Multi- Domain Operations: Moving Beyond AirLand Battle COL Dennis Wille Last edited on September 23, 2019 at 1:59 p.m. EDT Acknowledgments The author would like to thank the leadership, program directors, and staff of New America for their guidance and support throughout this inaugural Army fellowship opportunity. I am especially grateful for the mentorship of Peter Singer, Peter Bergen, and Sharon Burke as they shaped my overall experience. Thanks are also owed to two extraordinary members of New America’s International Security Program, Melissa Salyk-Virk and David Sterman, who provided constant administrative support and editorial review for this and other projects during the fellowship. Additional thanks to Phil Evans, Kelly Ivanoff, and the entire U.S. Army War College team for providing me with excellent support throughout the fellowship year. This paper, and the entire fellowship experience, would not be what it is without the extensive advice and help of so many people. All errors of fact or interpretation are, of course, the author’s alone. newamerica.org/international-security/reports/army-and-multi-domain-operations-moving-beyond-airland- 2 battle/ About the Author(s) Colonel Dennis Wille was a U.S. Army Fellow at New America. He has been an active duty member of the United States Army for more than 23 years. About New America We are dedicated to renewing America by continuing the quest to realize our nation’s highest ideals, honestly confronting the challenges caused by rapid technological and social change, and seizing the opportunities those changes create.
    [Show full text]
  • Theories of Warfare
    Theories of Warfare French Operations in Indo-China Author Programme Alexander Hagelkvist Officers Programme, OP 12-15 Tutor Number of pages Stéphane Taillat 71 Scholarship provider: Hosting unit: Swedish National Defence Report date: 2015-06-02 Écoles de Saint-Cyr University Coëtquidan (FRANCE) Subject: War Science Unclassified Institution: CREC (le Centre de Level: Bachelor Thesis Recherche des Écoles de Coëtquidan) Alexander Hagelkvist War science, Bachelor Thesis. “French Operations in Indo-China” Acknowledgements First and foremost I offer my sincerest gratitude to the Swedish Defence University for the scholarship that made my exchange possible. Furthermore to Écoles de Saint-Cyr Coëtquidan for their hospitality, as well as le Centre de Recherche des Écoles de Coëtquidan. I wish to express my sincere thanks to Director Doare, Principal of the Faculty, for providing me with all the necessary facilities for the research. I also want to thank Colonel Renoux for constant support and availability with all the surroundings that concerned my work at the C.R.E.C. And to my supervisor, Stéphane Taillat, who has supported me throughout my thesis with his patience and knowledge whilst allowing me the room to work in my own way. I attribute the completion of my Bachelor thesis to his encouragement and effort and without him this thesis, would not have been completed. I am also grateful to Lieutenant Colonel Marco Smedberg, who has provided me with the interest and motivation for my subject. I am thankful and grateful to him for sharing expertise and valuable guidance. I take this opportunity to express gratitude to Guy Skingsley at the Foreign Languages Section, War Studies at the Swedish Defence University for his help and support on the linguistic parts of the thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Fm 6-20 Fire Support in the Airland Battle
    Field Manual *FM 6-20 No 6-20 HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Washington, DC, 17 May 1988 FIRE SUPPORT IN THE AIRLAND BATTLE TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE CHAPTER 1 FOUNDATIONS OF FIRE SUPPORT COMBAT POWER ...................................................................................... 1-1 MANEUVER ................................................................................................ 1-1 FIREPOWER .............................................................................................. 1-1 PROTECTION.............................................................................................. 1-1 LEADERSHIP .............................................................................................. 1-2 FIRE SUPPORT .......................................................................................... 1-2 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM .......................................................................... 1-2 NATURE OF FIRE SUPPORT ..................................................................... 1-2 BASIC TASKS OF FIRE SUPPORT ........................................................... 1-3 FIRE SUPPORT AND THE PRINCIPLES OF WAR ................................... 1-5 FIRE SUPPORT AND THE AIRLAND BATTLE .......................................... 1-7 FIRE SUPPORT AND THE THREAT .......................................................... 1-7 FLEXIBILITY OF FIRE SUPPORT .............................................................. 1-8 CHAPTER 2 COMPONENTS OF THE FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM Section I FIELD ARTILLERY RESPONSIBILITIES...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE LAND WARFARE PAPERS Building the Army for Desert Storm
    -THE LAND WARFARE PAPERS No. 9 NOVEMBER 1991 Building the Army for Desert Storm By Charles E. Kirkpatrick A National Security Affairs Paper Published on Occasion by THE INSTITUTE OF LAND WARFARE ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY Arlington. Virginia -�. BUILDING THE ARMY FOR DESERT STORM by Charles E. Kirkpatrick THE INSTITUTE OF LAND WARFARE ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY ., AN AUSA INSTITUTE OF LAND WARFARE PAPER In 1988 the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) established within its existing organization a new entity known as the Institute of Land Warfare. Its purpose is to extend the educational work of AUSA by sponsoring scholarly publications, to include books, monographs and essays on key defense issues, as well as workshops and symposia. A work selected for publication as a Land Warfare Paper represents research by the author which, in the opinion of the editorial board, will contribute to a better understanding of a particular defense or national security issue. Publication as a Land Warfare Paper does not indicate that AUSA agrees with everything in the paper but do es suggest that AUSA believes the paper will stimulate the thinking of members and others concerned about important defense issues. LAND WARFARE PAPER NO.9, NOVEMBER 1991 Building the Army for Desert Storm by Charles E. Kirkpatrick Charles E. Kirkpatrick is an historian at the United States Army Center of Military History, where he is presently at work on a volume in the Army's official history of the Vietnam War. A retired soldier, he is a graduate of the Defense Language Institute and Command and General Staff College who served in Air Defense Artillery units in NATO and the United States and taught history at West Point.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint All-Domain Command and Control: Background and Issues for Congress
    Joint All-Domain Command and Control: Background and Issues for Congress March 18, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46725 SUMMARY R46725 Joint All-Domain Command and Control: March 18, 2021 Background and Issues for Congress John R. Hoehn The Department of Defense (DOD) is in the process of a once-in-a-generation modernization of Analyst in Military its approach to commanding military forces. Senior DOD leaders have stated that the Capabilities and Programs department’s existing command and control architecture is insufficient to meet the demands of the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS). Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) is DOD’s concept to connect sensors from all of the military services—Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Space Force—into a single network. DOD points to ride-sharing service Uber as an analogy to describe its desired end state for JADC2. Uber combines two different apps—one for riders and a second for drivers. Using the respective users’ positions, the Uber algorithm determines the optimal match based on distance, travel time, and passengers (among other variables). In the case of JADC2, that logic would find the optimal platform to attack a given target, or the unit best able to address an emerging threat. For JADC2 to work effectively, DOD is pursuing two emerging technologies: automation and artificial intelligence, and new communications methods. Several agencies and organizations within DOD are involved in JADC2-related efforts. The following list highlights selected organizations and projects associated with JADC2 development: DOD Chief Information Officer: Fifth Generation (5G) Information Communications Technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Capabilities and Multi- Domain Operations in Future High-Intensity Warfare in 2030
    Cyber Capabilities and Multi- Domain Operations in Future High-Intensity Warfare in 2030 Franz-Stefan Gady Research Fellow Cyber, Space and Future Conflict Division International Institute for Strategic Studies Alexander Stronell Research Assistant Cyber, Space and Future Conflict Division International Institute for Strategic Studies Abstract: Synchronised kinetic and cyber operations across domains that present ‘multiple dilemmas’ are a fundamental tenet of multi-domain oper- ations. Recent practice and study of the battlespace use of cyber capabilities in conjunction with kinetic operations, however, have shown the difficulties in creating joint effects due to insufficient synchronisation of operations or lack of coordination and control of cyber effects. This paper outlines three requirements needed to conduct integrated cyber and kinetic operations in a future high-intensity conflict involving NATO and a near-peer adversary: firstly, an internet of military things (IoMT) in conjunction with an artifi- cial-intelligence (AI)-enabled command and control (C2) capability for in- tegrated cyber and kinetic operations; secondly, multi-domain formations integrated with cyber commands or their respective organisational equiv- alents for coordinated theatre-wide cyber campaigns; and thirdly, a cyber mission command doctrine based on decentralised decision-making and de- centralised execution to enable an accelerated operational pace. The analysis presents three comparative country studies— the US, UK and Germany— to assess the status of the integration of cyber capabilities into multi-domain warfighting concepts for high-intensity conflict in 2030. It also offers a pre- liminary set of recommendations on technical capabilities, new organisa- tional structures and doctrinal changes required to facilitate the better inte- gration of cyber with kinetic capabilities.
    [Show full text]