First things first, COL Walters, USMC, has a nice day 1 wrapup, with photos, over at social.consimworld.com
Right now, COL(R) Caffrey is talking about why wargaming is effective. The day started with a briefing about how technology moved forward the American way of war, with particular focus on WWII.
The wargaming point is that we can create "virtual veterans" who have been faced with the decisions before and can cycle through them relatively quickly compared to someone who's never faced it and has to start from scratch on the cognitive processes.
More to follow after the morning break.
Restarting now...
Matt asking about how we can use wargaming to anticipate future tech needs.
FLTC WG 10 inbrief
AFRL Wargame is a Decision Support Wargame that serves 3 sets of leaders:
HQ USAF: responsible for org, train, equip
HQ AFRL: S&T resource prioritization
Concept Managers / Authors: creating and optimizing focused long-term challenge (FLTC) warfighter concepts
All wargames can teach you about decisions, but some are optimized for particular purposes.
Concept guys are currently stratified by technology: sensors, engines, weapons, etc.
FLTC guys are charged with integrating the advances in each tech area into each other and project "based on advances in sensors, what kind of aircraft do I need to carry it, in what year, to give me what capability?"
COL Walters: USMC pushed Angelfire out of AFRL into theater in Al Anbar province. USMC ran with it based on a "here's what we can do" presentation they saw with someone else.
Why are we playtesting here? Connections participants get glimpse of AFRL wargame?
AFRL gets 'free' consulting/playtesting on the development of the wargame.
1979 Navy Global - First Title 10 Wargame
1990s - Initial USAF Title 10 wargames
2008 - First "FLTC wargame"
When projecting near-future (and even medium-future) you need to also consider not just the technology and the science behind it, but you also need to consider the manufacturing/lead time.
Improved support to AF Title 10: concepts played out in advance, incl employment and adjudication
Increased insights into AFRL: HQ insights into relative military utility; concept authors get visibility across concepts
digression alert
Title 10 Wargames: Navy started in 1979 as a large exercise at nat'l strategic level (Newt Gingrich actually played POTUS in first game) and some folks were convinced the Navy budget in the 80s went up as a result of the Congressional involvement and observation.
Navy argued that they had a Title 10 responsibility to train/organize/equip and that wargames could inform them of.
Other services fell in line and started doing similar Title 10 wargames focused on projecting train/org/equip concepts rather than learning about decision-making
3 design axes: Scope, Granularity, Depth
The sum along those 3 axes is constant. If you increase granularity, you must reduce scope.
AFRL told their primary consideration is depth into the campaign beyond single engagements or sets of sorties.
With that constraint, primary trade-offs are between scope and granularity.
Scope of this scenario:
IW/UW, COIN
Catastrophic potential, with nuke-armed all and adversary
Disruptive - Super-empowered ally + technologies
Traditional - Large conventional forces
Era: 2028, then jump to 2030
Theater: Same as UE10 - Different Situation (Pacific)
Elements: World in 2028; Blue & red theater briefs; Blue "off the shelf" O-Plan & info for red; Blue & red crisis briefing
Every two years, the COCOMs have to bust out their numbered O-Plans and wargame them for validation and updating to current events.
Each COCOM also now has a STPA List (science & technology projection & acquisition) for concepts they need to address for the far future and what to consider out there.
Current plan is 5 moves of 6-12 days each (grand tactical based on desire for granularity)
BOGSAT adjudication (lack of better options)
3 blue teams, each get to chose from 30 new technologies, but if 2 teams get one, then the other doesn't (each team gets max 20 new tech concepts)
greater depth + -------- + greater scope
Where on the spectrum does number of concepts fall?
In recent Title 10 games with COCOMs, S&T officers present to help nominate for STPA lists
Currently going thru game-specific briefing for today's activities. Not going to run through it all b/c much of it is very visual...
Actors of concern in this scenario (PACOM-based, NE area)
nation: pro; con
Russia: Proxy conflict with China, growing mil strength; could irregular conflicts expand?
China: Proxy conflict with Russia; could irregular conflicts expand?
Korea: Reunified, old regime loyalists, retained forces since reunification; escalating internal insurgency and possible issues with Koreans in China
Japan: growing economy, graying population (demographic pressures); escalation of bank of nationalism strategy (China-Japan uneasiness still after WWII)
Extensive/detailed discussions of each national situation. Lots of detail on China (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Not sure I agree with their way of making the Taiwan "problem" go away, but it's fine for postulating a game.
Now splitting up into working groups w/ a short break, so not sure how much I'll be able to blog this during the working groups.
By: Brant
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment