Visual signals like star clusters or fluorescent panels can serve as a more direct form of communication. Similarly, small units can use auditory and visual signs to indicate the distance, direction, and concentration of other forces massed on the battlefield. The same patterns exist in simulated swarms in artificial intelligence. Self-organizing systems in biology rely on proximity to other organisms, pheromone placement, or terrain clues for cues to interact. It can allow swarming units to communicate without using the network. Stigmergy relies on coordinating indirectly through the environment. But while rules-based decision making creates troops that do not need direction from their higher headquarters, they still can’t organize into swarms or replace electronic communications by themselves. Junior leaders’ ability to quickly apply these rules instead of relying on their command structure for guidance allows small units to act independently and speed up decision-making cycles. Rules-based decision making replaces hierarchical command structures with a pre-determined set of responses to specific situations. The US military can use rules-based decision making and stigmergy-the use of environmental cues to communicate-to generate self-organizing swarms that function without electronic communications. Synthesizing Arquilla and Edward’s work with concepts inspired by biology, however, creates an image of a command structure useful in today’s fluid information environment. On its own, information-intensive networked swarming can’t work without assured communications. This allows small units to disrupt and potentially destroy larger formations. Swarming units attack from multiple directions, paralyzing the enemy’s ability to decide, respond, and concentrate their efforts. The type of networked swarming Arquilla, Ronfeldt, and Edwards describe has significant advantages over more traditional, linear tactics. He assessed that swarms require elusiveness and superior situational awareness to evade long-range weapons. Sean Edwards built on their theory by dividing swarming into four stages: locate, converge, attack, and disperse. John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt define swarming as “engaging an adversary from all directions simultaneously, either with fire or in force.” While swarming has the potential to be an effective form of maneuver, it is also the most information-intensive. Adapting the concept for infantry tactics will allow US ground forces to dominate in an increasingly contested environment, adding to the doctrinal development of an important niche in multi-domain battle. Paul Scharre has described UAVs’ potential to swarm the enemy. The multi-domain concept has generated buzz through its application to networked drones, such as the demonstration DoD’s Strategic Capabilities Office conducted on CBS’s 60 Minutes this spring, with over one hundred such drones that were able to communicate collectively. Swarming soldiers may offer the way to open the battlefield against an enemy focused on denying access, scrambling communications, and precisely targeting US forces.
Army leaders need to be prepared to rapidly improvise on the battlefield, operating in a world where many recent US advantages, including quickly communicating shifting orders or commands and relaying large amounts of information, are no longer available. The Army has advanced the multi-domain battle concept to respond to this environment, aiming to overcome local threats with small units instead of exposing major assets to anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems. American troops will also face massed precision fires that will threaten US assets in a future war. China, Russia, and other potential enemies now boast an arsenal of advanced area denial capabilities, electronic warfare tools to disrupt communications, and precision-guided munitions that could stop American aircraft carriers or fighter jets from disabling high-value assets and enabling ground troops to enter the fray. America can no longer assume the military advantage over its enemies on land or at sea-once the bread and butter of US power. In fact, the alarming reality is that the US military may operate at a local disadvantage in future conflicts. As China and Russia begin to aggressively project their military might and revisionist ideas, the Pentagon must develop operational concepts aimed at outpacing technologically sophisticated nation-states. When the US military prepares to fight its next major war, it won’t be planning to fight the insurgents it has faced over the last fifteen years. They will have to aggregate and disaggregate rapidly. Just to survive, our formations, whatever the wire diagram looks like, will likely have to be small.
0 kommentar(er)
