08 February 2012

GameTalk - AirSea Battle

How is the new US AirSea battle doctrine going to play out on the cardboard battlefield? What C2 changes will need to be realized in wargames? What are some current games you see that can allow you to test-drive the new AirSea doctrine, and what mods would need to be made to those games to allow you to model the doctrine correctly?


Your thoughts below!

By: Brant
Posted by Brant at 16:22
Labels: ,

5 comments:

PaulV said...

Since the details are not going to released to the public, its not going to be any time soon ;)

Now the Joint Operational Access Concept has a lot of interesting implications, a lot of which would be "under the hood" of typical hobby games (like planning process, assessment process, OPCON and TACON etc).

"Cross-domain synergy" - its "central idea" takes interservice 'combined arms' in a different direction, but not in a way any game I know of can really represent (or WANT to represent?? C2 sausage making is not a gaming strength ;)

08 February, 2012 18:02
mithril said...

the ideal place to employ it is open ocean engagements with China..such as a chinese attempt to blockade Tiawan.

of course, it's real test will be in the same place reality will test it... in small unit army and Marine actions in afghanistan and somalia against low-tech insurgents and pirates... :P

08 February, 2012 18:46
PaulV said...

Huh? What access challenges to Somali Pirates pose? The Joint Operational Access Concept (Unclassified parent to ASB Concept) has noting to to with small unit land tactics. Its about operational level of manuever and force applicaiton to be able to get forces where you need them in a theater without getting schwacked while doing...

10 February, 2012 18:28
mithril said...

rather my point actually. the conflicts we are actually going to be fighting for the forseeable future are in places where the air-sea-battle appraoch won't help at all. yet the military is preparing to totally remake itself to conform to this new approach.

11 February, 2012 01:25
PaulV said...

That assumes we get to pick where we fight and will choose to fight against opponets who are significantly infoerior technology -wise. As precision weaponry of increasing rnage proliferates, we will enjoy the luxury of only dealing with the Somalia's of the world at our adversaries discretion.

Kinda late to start thinking about how to storm the castle when the bad guys have started using it as a base to raid your caravan system.

The current regime of global trade is based on freedom of the seas. If bad actors can establish sanctuaries to opperat from that we can't effectively attack, then that takes the piracy thing to a new level that starts to hurt. Particularly if its being done by somebody llike Iran.

If we have activly work on dealing with the proliferation of A2Ad thech , then it may deter bad guys from thinking they can exploit it later.

AirLand Battle was a similar thing. It really was not needed against anybody but the Commies attacking Europe. It was deterrent in nature - it convinced them that if they tried it, they were gonna get their asses handed to them. Teh fact we now know they never intended to attack first and were consumed by prospect we might use it to attac them, was immaterial as we only found that out in hindsight.

It happened to come i handy in desert Storm, but we would have won that even if we fought it like WWII redux, just with more casualties.

JOAC (and ASB) is is a deterrent to make those who think they can buy some toys and keep us from going where we need to go. The fact it doesn't help against Somali pirates or Afghan Warlords doesn't make it a waste of time, it just means its number one goal, like Air Land Battle before it is NOT being used...

20 years from now it might even come in handy for something unrelated to its present intent, like we found with AirLand Battle in a desert...

15 February, 2012 18:40

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)