+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Introduction

Introduction

Date post: 14-Jan-2016
Category:
Upload: presta
View: 23 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
Growing Data Standards for the Simulation of Counterinsurgency and Irregular Warfare: An Assessment William Riggs JHU/APL March 27, 2012. Introduction. Live-Virtual Constructive Architecture Roadmap Implementation (LVCAR-I) Project Common Data Storage Formats (CDSF): Nine Categories - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
16
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory 11100 Johns Hopkins Road Laurel, MD USA 20723-6099 2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory 11100 Johns Hopkins Road Laurel, MD USA 20723-6099 Growing Data Standards for the Simulation of Counterinsurgency and Irregular Warfare: An Assessment William Riggs JHU/APL March 27, 2012
Transcript
Page 1: Introduction

The Johns Hopkins University

Applied Physics Laboratory

11100 Johns Hopkins Road

Laurel, MD USA 20723-6099

2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop

The Johns Hopkins University

Applied Physics Laboratory

11100 Johns Hopkins Road

Laurel, MD USA 20723-6099

Growing Data Standards for the Simulation of Counterinsurgency and Irregular Warfare:

An Assessment

William RiggsJHU/APL

March 27, 2012

Page 2: Introduction

2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop

Introduction

2

• Live-Virtual Constructive Architecture Roadmap Implementation (LVCAR-I) Projecto Common Data Storage Formats (CDSF): Nine Categories

Geospatial data Manmade environmental features Unit order of battle/force structure Electronic order of battle/network Platform/weapons performance and/or characteristics Plans/scenarios Behavior (including organizational and individual) Logistics Event results

• This paper addresses the impact of Irregular Warfare and Counterinsurgency scenarios on the semantics and syntax associated with SISO standards dealing with plans and orders (e.g. Military Scenario Definition Language (MSDL); Coalition Battle Management Language (C-BML))

Page 3: Introduction

2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop

How Irregular Warfare Has Changed Military Doctrine and Terminology Renewed emphasis on various forms of low-intensity conflict

Growing de-emphasis on classic or convention forms of armed conflict (e.g. state-on-state violence)o Sometimes conflated with “asymmetric warfare

Involves all elements of National Power: o “Three D’s: Defense, Diplomacy, Development

The 1993 version of FM 100-5, “Operations” was the first to introduce “Operations Other than War” as a primary mission area

Expansion of roles and missions associated with “peace operations”

Evolution of “Operational Themes” with similar rules of engagement, tactics techniques and procedures across mission areas

3

Page 4: Introduction

2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop

“Operational Themes” (from FM 3-0)

Major Combat Operations, including Offense, Defense and Retrograde Operations

Irregular Warfare, includingo Counterinsurgency,o Support to an Insurgency *, o Unconventional Warfare,o Foreign Internal Defense (FID) *o Combating Terrorism *

Peace Operations, including*o Peacekeepingo Peace Enforcemento Peacemakingo Peace Buildingo Conflict Prevention

4

Limited Intervention, includingo Noncombatant Evacuation Operations *o Raido Strikeo Show of Force *o Foreign Humanitarian Assistance (FHA) *o Consequence Managemento Enforcement of Sanctions

Peacetime Military Engagement (PME)o Multinational training events and exerciseso Military Support to Security Assistanceo Joint Combined Exchange Trainingo Recovery Operationso Nation Assistance *o Arms Control *o Counterdrug Operations*Previously associated with Stability Operations

Page 5: Introduction

2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop

JHU/APL MSDL Change Request as Submitted (from October 2011)

5

• Three Recommendations Pertaining to the Representation of :o Structured Planning Data. o Perceived, Assumed and Desired States. o Description of planned execution of orders

•Does the Consideration of Irregular Warfare Affect These Recommendations ?

• If So, How ?

Page 6: Introduction

2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop

Not All The Actors are Military Organizations

6

Locus Level of War InteragencyOrganization(s)

Civilian Organization

Military Organization

Home Nation

StrategicNational

Country Reconstruction & Stabilization Group*

DepartmentRegional Bureau

OSD/Joint Staff

Country Strategic Theater/Operational

Country TeamIntegrated Planning Cell*Advanced Civilian Team (ACT) Headquarters (HQ)

Embassy or other State Department Mission type

Combatant CommandJoint Task ForceMilitary AssistanceAdvisory Group

Provincial Tactical ACT HQ*Field ACTs

ConsulateACT HQField ACTs or PRT

Division and belowProvincial Reconstruction Team (PRT)Human Terrain Team

Table 1: Interagency Roles & Relationships in Reconstruction and Stabilization Operations

*Key Planning Element in State Department Interagency Management System

Page 7: Introduction

2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop

Advance Civilian Team (ACT):Roles and Tasks

7

Echelon Roles and TasksACT Headquarters 1. Coordinate and Conduct R&S Operations

2. Direct field teams3. Knowledge Management and Progress Monitoring (periodic situation reporting with policy, planning and programming recommendations

Field ACT (FACT) 1. Direction of R&S activities2. Assessments (Local/regional)3. Negotiations and Support to Local Governance4. Information (Gathering) and Reporting

Page 8: Introduction

2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop

Counterinsurgency: Lines of Operations*

8

Incorporation of COIN doctrine has resulted in a tailoring of the Operations Process, and the products thereof (e.g. operations plans and orders), to integrate these logical lines of operations into the commander’s concept and tasks assigned to subordinate units.

Characterization of a COIN scenario may require an expanded methodology to capture the dynamic interactions among collaborating and competing parties.

* From FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency, December 2006

Page 9: Introduction

2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop

Situation Assessment: An Activities Matrix*

9 * From FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency, December 2006

Page 10: Introduction

2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop

Situation Assessment: Geospatial Overlays

10

• Population support overlays track the measured or assumed position of the population with respect to the government and insurgents.

• Ethnicity overlays track the demographic composition of neighborhoods and regions within an area of operations

•Since many current insurgencies are n-sided, with multiple competing insurgent groups, this overlay may require a variety of categorizations for each population segment.

Page 11: Introduction

2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop

Extending the Analysis of Operational Terms

11

Source Concepts Relevant Concepts %Relevant

JP 1-02 3508 1654 47%FM 1-02 2002 1198 60%Common to JP 1-02 and FM 1-02

818 516 63%

DOD Total 4692 2336 50%CCO Lexicon 771 303 39%Common to CCO Lexicon and DOD Pubs

328 203 62%

Grand Total 5019 2436 48%

Except for terms derived from JP1-02, DIME terminology is less mature, more limited

Page 12: Introduction

2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop

Classification of Operational Terms: DIME/PMESII Differentiation

12

Classification JP 1-02 FM 1-02 CCO Lexicon Total

Who 439 (77%) 188 (32%) 61 (11%) 570

What (Action) 314 (58%) 333 (62%) 108 (20%) 537

What (Object) 827 (67%) 605 (49%) 176 (14%) 1238Where 224 (60%) 238 (64%) 25 (7%) 373When 82 (76%) 67 (62%) 3 (3%) 108

How 230 (67%) 162 (47%) 25 (7%) 343

Why 29 (65%) 16 (36%) 13 (30%) 44Multiples 470 390 96 737% Multiples 28% 33% 32% 30%

Total 1654 1198 303 2436

DIME terminology least robust in operational and tactical details (Where, When, How), but more robust in rationale for actions taken (Why)

Page 13: Introduction

2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop

Data Modeling Issues: Previous Analysis Confirmed (with Some Added Complexity)• Normalization of Operational Terms: o Similar patterns, even greater use of generalized tasking verbs.o Example “TF 1-15 IN conducts counterinsurgency operations in

AO Hawkeye to (LO Goal #1), (LO Goal #2)…(LO Goal #n)o Some additional incongruities (e.g. “Buffer Zone”) across domains

• Indirect Referencingo Similar patterns, new instances associated with situational

awareness (e.g. Population Overlays, Social Network Analyses• Complexityo Abstract terms drawn from academic environments more often

encounteredo Example: Empowerment “means giving a person or group more

power…”o Some terms require acceptance of a theoretical frame of reference

(e.g. “framing” 13

Page 14: Introduction

2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop

Summary and Conclusion

• As long as Low Intensity Conflict remains an ongoing concern, one can expect the operational terminology and its use associated with these scenari0s to evolve

• Current products prove some support for OOTW and Irregular Warfare symbologyo MSDL Support for 2525Co CBML and JC3IEDM: Partial Support for DIME/PMESII Activitieso SME Engagement Needed to Improve These Products: Especially with Civilian

Agencies

• JHU/APL MSDL Change Package addresses much of the OOTW, Irregular Warfare problem spaceo Situational Awareness Overlays and Matrices Need to Be Addressed in MSDL and

C-BML Development

• SISO Product Development Groups (e.g. C-BML, MSDL) can accommodate these issues within their current schedules, but:o If JC3IEDM remains the backbone tasking language, DIME/PMESII extensions

need to be brought into that process

• Shared Public Specifications May Be Considered as a Gap Fillers14

Page 15: Introduction

2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop

Questions and Feedback

15

Page 16: Introduction

2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop

Backup Slides

16


Recommended