Category Archives: Chinese Military Future Wars

China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Military Cognitive Domain Operations, Chinese military cognitive warfare, Chinese Military Future Wars, Chinese Military Informatization, Dissipative Warfare, 中國解放軍敘事戰爭, 認知戰, 軍隊「三化」融合聚焦探索戰力生成

軍隊「三化」融合聚焦探索戰力生成

Leave a comment

Integration of “Three Modernizations” within the Chinese Military Focusing on Exploring Combat Effectiveness Generation

【資訊×（火力+機動性）】情報

——「三化」融合中的戰鬥力生成模型分析

●戰鬥力生成模式的轉變不是“你唱我就出現”，而是新戰鬥力因素與原有戰鬥力因素相互作用的過程。 這種交互過程會因新戰力因素的不同特性而改變。

●隨著智慧無人武器平台不斷進入戰爭舞台，人工智慧決策和演算法對抗為戰鬥力的生成增添了新的智慧因素。 作戰體系的對抗方式也從資訊主導的火力平台轉向以人、網路和機器的群體智慧引發認知對抗，推動「資訊×（火力+機動性）」的戰鬥力生成模式和進化到更高級的「【資訊×（火力+機動性）】」智能。

目前，現代戰爭正處於機械化、資訊化、智能化（以下簡稱「三化」）融合發展的十字路口。 探索「三化」融合條件下戰鬥力生成模式的內在規律，對於洞察新的戰爭制勝機制、掌握未來戰場主動權至關重要。 權利具有重要意義。

「火力+」的演變：融合

戰鬥力生成模式的轉變不是“你唱我上台”，而是新戰鬥力因素與原有戰鬥力因素相互作用的過程。 這種交互過程因新的戰鬥力要素的不同特性而改變。

機械化時代之前的疊加模式。 縱觀人類歷史，戰力的生成模式一直以「+」的方式演變。 從石器時代人的體力和技能的疊加，到冷兵器時代刀劍穿透力的加成，再到火藥時代火力的注入，再到機械化時代機動性的產生，軍事戰鬥力生成模型遵循疊加法。 形成了「體力+穿透力+火力+機動性」的發揮方式。 這種以疊加為特徵的戰鬥力生成模式，使人多勢眾的軍隊在戰場上具有壓倒性的優勢。 同時，雖然資訊的力量在戰場上一直起著決定性的作用，諸如「知己知彼，百戰不殆」就體現了資訊在古代戰場上的重要性。 但由於種種條件，“知己知彼”並不能完全保證“知己知彼”，“知己知彼”則更難。 資訊力量成為戰鬥力因素中最不可控的環節，從而在戰鬥力的生成中發揮從屬作用。

資訊時代的資訊乘數模型。 網路資訊時代，泛在網路提供了無所不包的訊息，促進了資訊的無所不在。 也將人們在資訊互動過程中引入「網路-資訊」空間； 而資訊單元的嵌入、智慧微塵的分散、微納感測器的部署，將坦克、戰鬥機、火砲、船等機械系統轉變為「資訊物理」系統。 在此過程中，資訊力、火力、機動性跨界鏈接，在戰鬥力的生成方式上產生疊加之外的乘法關係，呈現出「資訊×（火力+機動性）」的新方式。 這種以資訊力量為乘數因素的戰鬥力模型，首先是由資訊力量滲透火力和機動性的特徵決定的； 其次，資訊力量的地位高於火力和機動性； 第三，資訊力的強弱，可能由戰鬥力倍增或負荷銳減決定。 這遵循資訊力量的不確定性，取決於資訊與戰場情勢的匹配程度。

智慧時代的智慧指數模型。 人類從未停止對戰鬥力生成規律的探索。 近年來，隨著智慧無人武器平台不斷進入戰爭舞台，人工智慧決策和演算法對抗為戰鬥效果的生成增添了新的智慧化因素。

文尼斯。 作戰系統的對抗方式也從資訊主導的火力平台轉變為基於人、網路和機器的群體智慧所能獲勝的認知對抗，推動「資訊×資訊」的戰鬥力生成模式。（火力+機動性）」並進化到更高級的「【資訊×（火力+機動性）】智能」階段。 這種以「智力」為指數因子的戰鬥力生成模式的核心，是從最初的火力、機動性、資訊的對抗走向人類最高層次的對抗——認知對抗。 雖然現階段這種戰鬥發電模式尚未大規模應用於實戰，但未來它將成為高強度對抗的主角。 其對戰鬥力的影響源自於人工智慧，表現在三個方面：一是把人類從越來越礦山的「資訊困境」中解放出來； 其次，賦予無人系統武器自主攻擊和防禦能力； 第三，機器學習和演算法最佳化提供了不同於人類指揮和決策的全新解決方案。

「資訊×」的本質：賦能

當機械化時代的火力和機動性遇到物理極限時，資訊就成為戰鬥力產生的穿透性因素。 它以訊號、知識和指令的形式穿越物理域、認知域和社會域，產生資訊互動、資訊傳播、資訊力量賦能其他戰鬥力因素等效果。

資訊賦能指揮與控制，將其提升到「藝術+科學」的新高度。 傳統戰場上的資訊受到感知、傳輸和處理手段的限制，處於不完整、不準確、非即時狀態。 在這種資訊狀態下指揮控制活動的對抗，只能依靠指揮官的策略賦予「藝術」生命力。「三化」一體化條件下，戰場資訊極為豐富，資訊的準確性、完整性、及時性得到大幅提升，從而推動指揮決策從單純的人腦規劃向機器計算、模型優化、規則適應邁上新台階；指揮員減少了因主觀推測或假設信息匱乏，從原來的“現狀”到預測“未來形勢”進入新的預測層面；作戰平台的對抗注入了數學模型計算的計算成分，大大提高了「科學」成分的作戰指揮。

資訊賦能火力，使其走向「精準釋放」新形態。 傳統資訊賦能火力，主要為火力單位提供目標的總結資訊。 這就是為什麼傳統戰場上需要火力覆蓋、火力延伸和火力壓制的原因。 「三化」融合條件下，戰場資訊賦能火力。 在追蹤定位目標時，為火力平台提供公分級目標位置資訊和目標運動軌跡等數學資訊； 在規劃作戰任務時，指揮官利用泛在網路上資訊的流動和流動，在系統中關聯出最適合執行任務的兵力和武器，形成基於資訊利益相關者的動態“作戰力量圈”，大大減少了系統中的冗餘負荷。作戰系統的運作並實現作戰系統的精確度。 匹配; 在火力打擊行動中，火力平台內嵌的信息單元將對比分析目標來襲軌蹟的實時變化信息，以及目標可能採取的躲避策略信息，並結合火力打擊方法，消防平台的時機和策略。 ，實現目標發現、姿態調整、攻擊時機等全過程「資訊-火力」互動。

資訊賦能移動，引領移動進入「即時存取」的新境界。 傳統作戰體系中的機動性主要指陸上平台、海上平台、空中平台的機動速度。 受指揮關係、部署區域和反應延遲的影響，平台的機動性往往受到限制。 「三化」融合條件下的武器裝備處於即時網路線上狀態，所有武器平台的機動性匯聚成類似「資源池」的東西。 當戰鬥系統感知到

外部威脅訊息，距離威脅發生的地方最近。 任務規劃系統提取最適合應對威脅、最快感知威脅的武器來執行即時作戰行動。 這大大提高了作戰系統的瞬時響應能力。 在「匯集」效應下，不同作戰平台的機動性超越了時間、空間和指揮關係的分離，成為「即時可達」機動性的新狀態。

「智慧指數」注入：跨越式變革

戰鬥發電模式中智慧指標的注入「[資訊]戰鬥系統三個面向包括戰鬥結構、計算資源和戰鬥模型。

戰鬥結構的適應性調整會產生情報。 「三化」融合條件下的作戰體係是一個基於網路的複雜系統。 在這個複雜的系統中，有大量的網路存取節點，用戶連線的特徵是分散。 這些特點使得戰鬥系統在運作過程中始終從混亂狀態走向穩定狀態。 然後由於外界的刺激，系統的運作狀態出現不平衡，進入新的混沌狀態。 系統各要素相互作用、相互連結、相互協調，系統逐漸進入新的穩定狀態。 當然，戰鬥系統並不是一個可以自由成長的複雜系統。 這種自我一致性或自適應調整不僅來自於指揮官對系統內部隊和武器的決策、任務規劃、行動控制和作戰協調，也來自於每個成員根據自身行動採取的行動。 預先商定的規則自主做出相關反應，以及每個成員在依照規則運作的過程中自己學習或演化出的相關規則。 戰鬥系統在自洽的過程中，化解相關要素之間的衝突，清除系統中的痛點、斷點、阻塞點，使系統進入融合共生的狀態，激發要素結合產生新的戰鬥力。結構。 力量。

計算資源的自適應分配產生智慧。 贏的越多，贏的就越少。 傳統戰場上的「算計」依賴指揮官的規劃、計畫、預測和策略。 它面臨三個問題：一是計算主體是一個或極少數個別指揮官； 二、計算過程首先是戰鬥相關資訊的線性疊加； 三是計算結果是靜態的、滯後於實際情況的結論。 「三化」融合下的戰場作戰系統的運算能力，除了指揮官的心算外，還得益於「雲+邊緣+終端」的運算資源部署模式，即大型雲端運算中心提供強大的高階算力支持，作戰系統邊緣配置的「作戰雲」提供客製化算力支持，內嵌資訊單元的智慧端對感測平台的目標訊號進行初級處理。 這種運算資源分配模型很好地適應了戰場資訊豐富、網路傳輸資源有限、不同作戰單位資訊處理需求差異很大的特徵。 計算資源和計算任務很好地融合在一起。 配對後，指揮官、作戰人員、情報中心、作戰平台等都能得到有效的算力支持，大大增加了戰場上「多重機率勝利」的機率。

戰鬥模型的自適應最佳化會產生情報。 人腦對抗中的策略往往會受到人類生理特徵的影響，例如緊張、慣性思考、危險迴避等，這些人性中的「智力缺陷」可以被機器決策有效克服。 2020年8月20日，一名參加美國空軍「阿爾法空戰競賽」的人類飛行員表示，「AI戰鬥機之所以優越，是因為它極具攻擊性。 它使用人類飛行員不常用的攻擊方法來進行操作，這讓人類飛行員非常不舒服。” 這足以證明「三化」融合條件下戰場上機器植入的作戰模式與人類指揮官在決策過程中使用的策略有很大不同。機器作戰的另一個特點模型就是它的自學習能力，累積戰鬥經驗的過程可能需要數年時間

人類要完成的事情，智慧機器只需幾十天甚至幾十個小時就能完成。 當機器的學習能力超越人類時，演算法的勝利將成為戰場對抗的另一個焦點。 然而，戰爭始終是由人類主導的，無論機器進化得多麼先進，這一點都不會改變。 因此，設計人為幹預條件下的作戰模型，制定合理的規則，促進機器作戰模型的自適應優化，是未來戰場戰力情報指標競爭的關鍵。

人類以同樣的方式生產，以同樣的方式戰鬥。 軍隊的戰鬥力生成模式是時代的產物，必然會深深打上時代的烙印。 戰爭形態已進入資訊化、智能化時代。 智力因素從過去的加數變成了指數。 地位、作用、結構發生了翻天覆地的變化。 戰爭勝利機制徹底刷新，「昨天的舊船票」不再登上未來的「客船」。

面對時代巨變，軍隊戰鬥力生成模式的轉變是取得勝利的前提。 一流部隊主動掉頭，二流部隊跟隨，三流部隊被迫掉頭。 作為一名軍人，要想贏得未來，就必須學會做“桅杆上的瞭望員”，敢於走出思維的“舒適區”和“熟悉區”，主動求變，積極探索，用思想的風暴掃除舊的、僵化的思維。 掌控勝利的命脈。

外文音譯：

[Information × (Firepower + Mobility)] Intelligence

——Analysis of the combat effectiveness generation model in the integration of “three modernizations”

●The transformation of the combat power generation model is not “you sing and I will appear”, but a process of interaction between the new combat power factors and the original combat power factors. This interaction process changes due to the different characteristics of the new combat power factors.

●As intelligent unmanned weapons platforms continue to enter the war arena, artificial intelligence decision-making and algorithmic confrontation have added new intelligent factors to the generation of combat effectiveness. The confrontation method of the combat system has also shifted from information-led firepower platforms to human-based and The swarm intelligence of networks and machines leads to a cognitive confrontation that promotes the “information × (firepower + mobility)” combat power generation model and evolves to a more advanced stage of “[information × (firepower + mobility)]” intelligence.

Currently, modern warfare is at the juncture of the integration of mechanization, information, and intelligence (hereinafter referred to as the “three modernizations”). Exploring the inherent laws of the combat power generation model under the conditions of the integration of the “three modernizations” is essential for gaining insight into new war winning mechanisms and mastering the initiative on future battlefields. Rights are of great significance.

The evolution of “Firepower+”: Fusion

The transformation of the combat effectiveness generation model is not “you sing and I come on stage”, but a process of interaction between the new combat effectiveness factors and the original combat effectiveness factors. This interaction process changes due to the different characteristics of the new combat effectiveness factors.

Superposition patterns before the age of mechanization. Throughout the history of mankind, the generation model of combat power has been evolving in a “+” manner. From the superposition of physical strength and skills of people in the Stone Age, to the addition of the penetrating power of swords in the cold weapon age, to the injection of firepower in the gunpowder age, and the generation of mobility in the mechanization age, the generation model of military combat effectiveness follows the superposition method. A display method of “physical strength + penetration power + firepower + mobility” has been formed. This combat power generation mode characterized by superposition gives an army of large numbers an overwhelming advantage on the battlefield. In the meantime, although the power of information has always played a decisive role on the battlefield, such as “know yourself and the enemy, you can fight a hundred battles without danger” reflects the importance of information on the ancient battlefield. However, due to various conditions, “knowing yourself” cannot fully guarantee “knowing yourself” and “knowing the enemy” It is even more difficult. Information power has become the most uncontrollable link in the combat effectiveness factor, thus playing a subordinate role in the generation of combat effectiveness.

Information multiplier model in the information age. In the era of network information, the ubiquitous network provides all-encompassing information and promotes the ubiquity of information. It also draws people into the “network-information” space in the process of information interaction; and the information unit Embedding, the dispersion of smart dust, and the deployment of micro-nano sensors transform mechanical systems such as tanks, fighter planes, artillery, and ships into “information-physical” systems. In this process, information power, firepower, and mobility are linked across boundaries, and a multiplicative relationship in addition to superposition is created in the generation mode of combat power, showing a new method of “information × (firepower + mobility)”. This combat power model in which information power acts as a multiplier factor is determined by, first, the characteristics of information power permeating firepower and mobility; secondly, by the fact that information power has a higher status than firepower and mobility; thirdly, by the fact that information power has It may be determined by the multiplication factor of combat effectiveness or the sharp reduction in load. This follows the uncertainty of information power and depends on the degree of matching between the information and the battlefield situation.

Intelligence index model in the era of intelligence. Humanity has never stopped exploring the laws of combat effectiveness generation. In recent years, as intelligent unmanned weapons platforms continue to enter the war arena, artificial intelligence decision-making and algorithmic confrontation have added new intelligent factors to the generation of combat effectiveness. The confrontation method of the combat system has also changed from information-led firepower platforms to one based on In the cognitive confrontation that can be won by the swarm intelligence of people, networks and machines, it promotes the combat power generation model of “information × (firepower + mobility)” and evolves to a more advanced stage of “[information × (firepower + mobility)] intelligence” . The core of this combat power generation model that uses “intelligence” as an exponential factor is to move from the original confrontation of firepower, mobility, and information to the highest level of human confrontation – cognitive confrontation. Although this combat power generation model has not yet been used in actual combat on a large scale at this stage, it will become the protagonist in high-intensity confrontations in the future. Its impact on combat power originates from artificial intelligence and appears in three aspects: First, it transforms human beings into To be freed from the “information dilemma” that becomes more and more mined; secondly, to give unmanned system weapons autonomous attack and defense capabilities; thirdly, machine learning and algorithm optimization provide brand-new solutions that are different from humans in command and decision-making.

The essence of “information ×”: empowerment

When the firepower and mobility of the mechanization era encounter physical limits, information becomes a penetrating factor in the generation of combat effectiveness. It travels through the physical domain, cognitive domain and social domain in the form of signals, knowledge and instructions, resulting in information interaction, information dissemination, Effects such as information power empower other combat effectiveness factors.

Information empowers command and control, taking it to a new level of “art + science”. The information on the traditional battlefield is limited by the means of perception, transmission and processing, and is in an incomplete, inaccurate and non-real-time state. The confrontation of command and control activities in this information state can only rely on the commander’s strategy to give “art” “Vitality on. Under the conditions of the integration of “three modernizations”, the information on the battlefield is extremely rich, and the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of the information have been greatly improved, thus promoting command decision-making from pure human brain planning to machine calculation and model optimization. , a new level of rule adaptation; the commander reduces the subjective speculation or assumption due to lack of information, and enters a new level of prediction from the original “current situation” to the prediction of “future situation”; the confrontation of the combat platform is injected with The computational component of mathematical model calculations greatly improves the “scientific” component of combat command.

Information empowers firepower, leading it to a new form of “precise release.” Traditional information empowers firepower, mainly providing firepower units with summary information about targets. This is why fire coverage, fire extension and fire suppression are required on traditional battlefields. Under the conditions of “three modernizations” integration, information on the battlefield empowers firepower. When tracking and positioning targets, it provides the firepower platform with centimeter-level target position information and target movement trajectories and other mathematical information; when planning combat missions, commanders use The flow and flow of information on the ubiquitous network associate the most suitable forces and weapons for the mission in the system, forming a dynamic “combat power circle” based on information stakeholders, greatly reducing the redundant load on the operation of the combat system and achieving the accuracy of the combat system. Matching; during a fire strike operation, the information unit embedded in the fire platform will compare and analyze the real-time change information of the target’s incoming trajectory, as well as information about the evasion strategies that the target may adopt, with the fire strike method, timing and strategy of the fire platform. , to achieve “information-firepower” interaction in the entire process of target finding, attitude adjustment, attack timing, etc.

Information empowers mobility, leading it to a new state of “instant access”. The mobility in the traditional combat system mainly refers to the maneuvering speed of land platforms, sea platforms, and air platforms. Affected by command relationships, deployment areas, and response delays, the mobility of platforms is often limited. Weapons and equipment under the conditions of “three modernizations” integration are in a real-time network online state, and the mobility of all weapon platforms converges into something similar to a “resource pool.” When the combat system senses external threat information, it is closest to the place where the threat occurs. The weapons that are most suitable for responding to threats and the fastest to perceive threats are extracted by the mission planning system to perform real-time combat operations. This greatly improves the instantaneous response capability of the combat system. Under the “pooling” effect, the mobility of different combat platforms transcends the separation of time, space and command relationships, and becomes a new state of “instantly accessible” mobility.

Infusion of “Intelligence Index”: Leap Change

The injection of intelligence index in the combat power generation mode “[Information The three aspects of the combat system include combat structure, computing resources and combat models.

Adaptive adjustment of combat structures generates intelligence. The combat system under the conditions of the integration of “three modernizations” is a complex system based on the network. In this complex system, there are a large number of network access nodes, and the characteristic of user connection is decentralization. These characteristics make the combat system always go from a chaotic state to a stable state during operation. Then due to external stimulation, the operating state of the system is unbalanced and enters a new chaotic state. The interaction of various elements of the system , mutual relations, and mutual coordination, the system gradually enters a new stable state again. Of course, a combat system is not a complex system that can grow freely. This self-consistency or adaptive adjustment comes not only from the commander’s decision-making, mission planning, action control, and combat coordination of the forces and weapons in the system, but also from the actions of each member based on their actions. The pre-agreed rules make relevant responses autonomously, as well as the relevant rules that each member learns or evolves by themselves in the process of operating according to the rules. In the process of self-consistency, the combat system resolves the conflicts between related elements, clears the pain points, breakpoints and blocking points in the system, brings it into a state of integration and symbiosis, and stimulates the combination of elements to produce new structures. force.

Adaptive allocation of computing resources produces intelligence. The more you win, the less you win. “Calculation” on the traditional battlefield relies on the commander’s planning, planning, prediction and strategy. It faces three problems: first, the subject of calculation is one or a very small number of individual commanders; second, the calculation process The first is the linear superposition of combat-related information; the third is the conclusion that the calculation result is static and lags behind the situation. The computing power of the combat system on the battlefield under the integration of “three modernizations”, in addition to the commander’s mental calculations, also benefits from the “cloud + edge + terminal” computing resource deployment model, that is, large cloud computing centers provide powerful high-end Computing power support, the “combat cloud” configured at the edge of the combat system provides customized computing power support, and the intelligent end with embedded information units performs primary processing of the target signals of the sensing platform. This computing resource allocation model is well adapted to the characteristics of the battlefield where information is abundant, network transmission resources are limited, and different combat units have very different information processing needs. Computing resources and computing tasks are well integrated. When matched, commanders, combat personnel, intelligence centers, combat platforms, etc. can all receive effective computing power support, which greatly increases the probability of “multi-probability victory” on the battlefield.

Adaptive optimization of combat models generates intelligence. Strategies in human brain confrontation are often affected by human physiological characteristics, such as nervousness, inertial thinking, danger avoidance, etc. These “intelligent flaws” in human nature can be effectively overcome by machine decision-making. On August 20, 2020, a human pilot who participated in the U.S. Air Force’s “Alpha Air Combat Competition” said, “The AI ​​fighter plane is superior because it is extremely aggressive. It uses attack methods that are not commonly used by human pilots to carry out operations, which makes human pilots very uncomfortable.” “. This is enough to prove that the combat model implanted in the machines on the battlefield under the conditions of “three modernizations” integration is very different from the strategies used by human commanders in the decision-making process. Another feature of the machine combat model is its self-learning ability. The process of accumulating combat experience that may take years for humans to complete can be completed by intelligent machines in only dozens of days or even dozens of hours. When the learning ability of machines surpasses that of humans, algorithmic victory will become another focus in battlefield confrontations. However, wars are always led by humans, and this will not change no matter how advanced the machines evolve. Therefore, designing a combat model under human intervention conditions and formulating reasonable rules to promote the adaptive optimization of machine combat models are the key to the competition of combat effectiveness intelligence index on the future battlefield.

Only by proactively seeking change can we win the times

In the same way that humans produce, they fight in the same way. The military’s combat effectiveness generation model is a product of the times and will inevitably be deeply marked by the times. The form of war has entered the era of informationization and intelligence. The intelligence factor has changed from an addend in the past to an exponential. The status, role and structure have undergone earth-shaking changes. The mechanism for winning wars has been completely refreshed, and “yesterday’s old tickets” can no longer board the “passenger ships” of the future.

Facing the great changes of the times, the military’s transformation of its combat effectiveness generation model is a prerequisite for victory. The first-rate troops took the initiative to turn around, the second-rate troops followed suit, and the third-rate troops were forced to turn around. As a soldier, to win in the future, you must learn to be a “lookout on the mast”, dare to step out of the “comfort zone” and “familiar zone” of thinking, take the initiative to seek change, actively explore, and use the storm of ideas to sweep away the old and rigid thinking. Take control of the lifeblood of victory.

中國軍事資料來源：http://www.mod.gov.cn/gfbw/jmsd/4888828.html

Chinese Military Future Wars, Chinese Military Informatization, Chinese Military Views - 中國軍事觀, Dissipative Warfare, 中國解放軍敘事戰爭, 認知戰, 軍事認知戰

中國人民解放軍洞察認知戰的演變趨勢

Leave a comment

Chinese People’s Liberation Army Insights into the Evolving Trends of Cognitive Warfare

原始中國軍事繁體普通話：

認知是人們獲取、處理和應用資訊和知識的過程。 目前，認知領域逐漸成為競爭新戰場，認知戰逐漸引起各國關注。 隨著科技革命的發展和戰爭實踐的擴大，認知戰爭正呈現加速演變的趨勢。

認知技術正成為戰爭演變的基本驅動力。 科技改變戰爭形式，也改變認知戰爭方式。 如果資訊網路的大規模普及推動了資訊領域成為作戰領域，而數據和網路規模的指數級增長是資訊領域成熟的標誌，那麼認知技術和資訊科技的大規模應用則推動了資訊領域的發展。認知技術的不斷迭代發展將成為驅動認知戰成熟的標誌。 未來認知環境、認知感知、認知控制、人工智慧等技術將反映認知技術對社會認知對抗和軍事認知對抗可能產生的變革性影響。 人類正進入全民通訊時代，全球網路空間高度互聯。 網路已成為國家行為體與非國家行為體全面競爭的戰場。 通訊糾紛和通訊戰已成為高強度軍事行動的一部分。 目前，世界主要國家紛紛佈局認知技術前沿，展開認知技術競賽。 透過建模和分析，尋求滲透和控制人腦網路、資訊網路和社交網路； 他們透過深度運算、精算、巧妙運算等方式，最大限度地獲得人們認知世界和認知領域的控制。

認知領域正成為混合戰爭的重要戰場。 在智慧時代，人類的溝通方式正在發生複雜而深刻的變化。 線下傳播讓位於更多的線上傳播，各類新媒體平台成為大眾了解戰場的主要管道，大型社群平台成為認知博弈鬥爭的主戰場。 因此，未來戰爭的作戰領域將持續擴大。 空間域將從陸、海、空、天網路擴展到深空、深海、深地，邏輯域將從物理域擴展到資訊域和認知域。 戰爭不再局限於傳統戰爭的物理威脅，而是轉向大眾傳播媒體和技術進步所帶來的社會意識威脅。 圍繞通訊平台的封鎖與反封鎖、主導與反主導將成為認知戰的焦點。 以資訊為彈藥爭奪國際話語權已成為當今認知對抗的主要手段。 從混合戰爭的角度來看，思想宣傳灌輸、價值觀文化滲透、傳統輿論心理和法律攻防、資訊網路戰等都成為認知戰的重要面向。 混合戰爭可以透過認知戰等綜合賽局手段，達到以小戰甚至不戰而勝的目的。 認知領域的攻防將是一場不間斷的常態化鬥爭，戰鬥力將不斷累積並逐步釋放。 。

認知優勢正成為高端戰爭的致勝優勢。 戰爭中的行為自由是軍隊的命脈。 從認知角度來看，對戰場環境和作戰對手的了解越深，行動的自由度就越大，相對優勢就越大。 然而，隨著戰爭中作戰資料的指數級增長，指揮官開始面臨資料沼澤、資料迷霧、資料過載的認知困境。 擁有資訊優勢並不意味著擁有認知優勢。 人工智慧技術的一個重要軍事應用方向是即時處理大量數據，幫助指揮官擺脫認知超載，快速形成認知優勢。 在智慧戰爭中，認知優勢將主導決策優勢，決策優勢將主導行動優勢。 認知優勢有四個關鍵指標：更強的資訊取得能力、更快的人工智慧機器學習速度、更有效的緊急處置能力、更高的新技術、新製程開發應用能力。

新知識。 例如，具有數據驅動智慧傳播新特徵的輿論戰與傳統軍事行動實現了高度協同和融合。 這種虛擬與現實作戰相結合的作戰方式比單純的軍事作戰具有更強的戰鬥力，從根本上改變了傳統的作戰方式。 改變。 認知優勢連結疊加，將加速戰力轉化，成為贏得戰爭的根本優勢。 認知理論正在成為博弈贏得戰爭的前線。 認知戰是軟實力和硬實力的結合，也是當今時代影響國家安全的重要因素。 目前，認知空間中滲透與逆滲透、攻擊與反攻擊、控制與反控制的競爭十分激烈。 認知科學理論正進入軍事領域，認知負荷、認知增強、認知免疫、認知顛覆等概念不斷被引入。 ，在國外認知戰研究領域頻頻出現。 外軍認為，認知域是人類戰爭的“第六作戰域”，是大國競爭時代“相互交織的衝突領域”的核心，是未來軍事理論創新的重要方向。 顯然，認知戰已成為贏得未來戰爭的戰略制高點。 認知理論已成為理論創新的前沿。 認知技術將加速認知戰爭，成為智慧軍事革命的重要「引爆點」。 隨著認知戰新科技、新理論、新方式的加速孕育，未來戰爭或許將呈現令人驚訝的新局面。

Chinese People’s Liberation Army Insights into the Evolving Trends of Cognitive Warfare

外文音譯：

Cognition is the process by which people obtain, process and apply information and knowledge. At present, the cognitive domain has gradually become a new battlefield for competition, and cognitive warfare has gradually attracted attention from all countries. With the development of the technological revolution and the expansion of warfare practice, cognitive warfare is showing an accelerated evolution trend.

Cognitive technology is becoming a fundamental driving force in the evolution of warfare. Technology changes the form of warfare and also changes the way of cognitive warfare. If the large-scale popularization of information networks has promoted the information domain to become a combat domain, and the exponential growth of data and network scale is a sign of the maturity of the information domain, then the large-scale application of cognitive technology and the continuous iterative development of cognitive technology will become A sign of maturity in driving cognitive warfare. In the future, technologies such as cognitive environment, cognitive perception, cognitive control, and artificial intelligence will reflect the transformative impact that cognitive technology may have on social cognitive confrontation and military cognitive confrontation. Humanity is entering the era of universal communication, and global cyberspace is becoming highly interconnected. The Internet has become a battle space where state actors and non-state actors compete comprehensively. Communication disputes and communication wars have become part of high-intensity military operations. At present, major countries in the world have laid out the frontiers of cognitive technology and carried out cognitive technology competitions. Through modeling and analysis, they seek to penetrate and control human brain networks, information networks and social networks; through deep calculation, actuarial calculation, clever calculation, etc., they aim to maximize Gain control over people’s cognitive world and cognitive domains.

The cognitive domain is becoming an important battlefield in hybrid warfare. In the era of intelligence, the way humans communicate is undergoing complex and profound changes. Offline communication has given way to more online communication, various new media platforms have become the main channels for the public to understand the battlefield, and large-scale social platforms have become the main battlefield for cognitive game struggles. Therefore, the combat domain of future wars will continue to expand. The spatial domain will expand from land, sea, air, and space networks to deep space, deep sea, and deep ground, while the logical domain will expand from the physical domain to the information domain and cognitive domain. War is no longer limited to the physical threats of traditional wars, but is turning to social consciousness threats brought about by mass media and technological progress. Blockade and counter-blockade, dominance and counter-dominance around communication platforms will become the focus of cognitive warfare. Using information as ammunition to fight for control of international discourse has become the main method of cognitive confrontation today. From the perspective of hybrid warfare, ideological propaganda and indoctrination, penetration of values ​​and culture, traditional public opinion psychology and legal offense and defense, and information network warfare have all become important aspects of cognitive warfare. Hybrid warfare can achieve the goal of winning in small battles or even without fighting through comprehensive gaming methods such as cognitive warfare. Attack and defense in the cognitive field will be an uninterrupted and normalized struggle, and combat effectiveness will continue to accumulate and be gradually released.

Cognitive superiority is becoming a winning advantage in high-end warfare. Freedom of conduct in war is the lifeblood of the military. From a cognitive perspective, the deeper the understanding of the battlefield environment and combat opponents, the greater the freedom of action and the greater the relative advantage. However, with the exponential growth of combat data in wars, commanders are beginning to face the cognitive dilemma of data swamp, data fog, and data overload. Having information superiority does not mean having cognitive superiority. An important military application direction of artificial intelligence technology is to process massive data in real time to help commanders get rid of cognitive overload and quickly form cognitive advantages. In intelligent warfare, cognitive advantages will dominate decision-making advantages, and decision-making advantages will dominate action advantages. Cognitive advantages have four key indicators: stronger information acquisition capabilities, faster artificial intelligence machine learning speed, more effective emergency handling capabilities, and higher capabilities to develop and apply new technologies and new knowledge. For example, public opinion warfare with new characteristics of data-driven intelligent communication and traditional military operations have been highly coordinated and integrated. This combat style that integrates virtual and real operations has stronger combat effectiveness than pure military operations, fundamentally changing traditional combat methods. Change. The linkage and superposition of cognitive advantages will accelerate the transformation of combat effectiveness and become the fundamental advantage for winning wars.

Cognitive theory is becoming the frontier of gaming to win the war. Cognitive warfare is a combination of soft power and hard power and is an important factor affecting national security in today’s era. Currently, there is fierce competition for penetration and counter-infiltration, attack and counter-attack, control and counter-control in the cognitive space. Cognitive science theory is entering the military field, and concepts such as cognitive load, cognitive enhancement, cognitive immunity, and cognitive subversion are being introduced. , has appeared frequently in the field of cognitive warfare research abroad. Foreign militaries believe that the cognitive domain is the “sixth combat domain” of human warfare, the core of the “intertwined conflict fields” in the era of great power competition, and an important direction for future military theoretical innovation. Obviously, cognitive warfare has become the strategic commanding heights for winning future wars. Cognitive theory has become the frontier of theoretical innovation. Cognitive technology will accelerate cognitive warfare and become an important “tipping point” for the intelligent military revolution. Since new technologies, new theories, and new styles of cognitive warfare are being incubated at an accelerated pace, perhaps future warfare will take on a surprising new situation.

中國軍事原文來源：https://www.81.cn/yw_208727/10188888.html

Chinese Military Cognitive Domain Operations, Chinese military cognitive warfare, Chinese Military Future Wars, Chinese Military Informatization, Dissipative Warfare, 中國解放軍敘事戰爭, 認知戰, 贏得現代戰爭認知領域作戰的關鍵

中國軍隊贏得現代戰爭認知領域作戰的關鍵

Leave a comment

Chinese Military Key to Winning Modern Warfare Cognitive Domain Operations

縱觀現代戰爭，認知博弈已成為攻防的焦點。 是否精通認知領域的作戰策劃，將大大影響戰爭的方向和結果。 深刻理解認知域作戰的內涵、外延和範疇樣式，精確掌握其勝利機制與發展趨勢，是理解戰場脈絡、打贏現代戰爭的關鍵。

認知域作戰是兵棋新焦點

與傳統作戰不同，認知域作戰不再侷限於陸地、海洋、空中、太空、電力、網路等領域。 它突破了傳統的物理域和資訊域。 具有獨特優勢，呈現新特點，拓展現代戰場新領域。

認知域作戰拓展了戰爭域空間。 首先，認知領域的戰場空間廣闊，主要體現在人的精神、心理、思考、信念等認知活動。 其打擊對象主要是敵對國家元首和政治人物、軍事人員、社會菁英和廣大民眾。 其次，認知域作戰的形式多種多樣，包括但不限於政治外交壓力、經濟封鎖和製裁、文化滲透和侵蝕等。第三，認知域作戰的目標廣泛，主要是為了動搖破壞敵人的信仰，瓦解敵人的意志，影響改變敵人的決策，進而造成社會混亂、決策錯誤、敵軍士氣低落，甚至顛覆國家政權。

認知域作戰模糊了戰爭域的界線。 認知域運作的主體是人。 人是戰爭中最活躍的因素，尤其是高層決策者的認知，體現了戰爭的整體意志，直接影響戰爭的全局，決定了戰爭的勝負。 國家領導人和軍隊將領的認知是認知域作戰的重點目標。 民意、社會基礎、國際輿論通常是認知域作戰的基礎，是推動戰爭進程與方向的關鍵力量。 認知域作戰混合了常規和非常規作戰，模糊了戰場的界線。 它旨在對訊息接收者進行認知誘導和攻擊，繞過傳統戰場，直達最薄弱的環節——人。 戰術行動可以實現戰略目標，從根本上改變戰場環境，改變戰爭結果。

認知域作戰達到最終戰略目標。 中國古代兵法有云：“用兵之道，先攻心，下攻城；先戰心，下戰兵。” 認知域作戰的目的在於佔領認知優勢，影響敵方決策和行為。 以最小的成本取得最大的戰鬥力。 正如克勞塞維茨在《論戰爭》中提到的，「戰爭是迫使敵人服從我們意志的暴力行為」。 由於認知域作戰不是針對有生命力量的硬殺傷，而是針對隱形目標的軟殺傷，因此不僅可以“迫使敵人服從我的意志”，而且客觀上可以使敵人從內部摧毀自己，使其無力反抗。 、瓦解，最終不戰而屈人之兵，實現「全面勝利」的戰略目標。

認知域作戰是軍事改革的新產物

目前，世界百年未有之大變局正在加速發生。 國際情勢日益複雜，局部戰爭和區域衝突持續。 認知域作戰作為一種新的作戰方式，在新一輪軍事改革浪潮的推動下變得越來越重要。

戰爭法則是認知領域戰鬥的基本規則。 認知域作戰仍遵循戰爭的基本法則。 首先，正義必須伸張。 正義戰爭推動歷史發展並最終戰勝非正義戰爭，佔據道德高地的認知域作戰具備先勝條件。 二是強者勝，弱者敗。 科學與技術的進步催生了先進的軍事理論，推動了高科技裝備的發展。 奪取控制權和控制權可以實現降維打擊，瓦解敵軍。 第三是主觀引導符合客觀實際。 認知域的運作必須建立在一定的客觀物質基礎上。 必須綜合考慮戰場環境、狀況

必須權衡各方利益，做出有利的決定。 四是重點操作牽動全局。 在以網路為中心的系統作戰中，認知域往往成為最關鍵的環節，其成敗可以決定戰局。

理論創新是認知領域運作的基礎支撐。 近年來，美軍先後提出「混合戰」、「馬賽克戰」、「灰色地帶衝突」等新作戰理論。 它以認知域作戰為主要作戰手段，已形成較成熟的理論。 俄軍在長期的軍事實踐中也形成了自己的一套混合戰方法，特別是在敘利亞戰場，巧妙地運用「格拉西莫夫」戰術來應對「混合戰」。 日本近年來也大力發展軍事實力。 在其新版《國防白皮書》中，首次提及「跨域」作戰概念，旨在突破傳統領域，將認知域等新領域作為其軍事力量發展的重點方向，使它更加主動。 和外向性。

軍事實踐是認知域作戰的重要基礎。 從近期局部戰爭來看，認知域戰已成為現代戰爭的主要作戰方式，並且取得了較高的戰鬥力。 認知戰與反認知戰的對抗相當激烈。 2010年，美國等西方國家發動認知戰，炒作突尼斯民主運動，製造“阿拉伯之春”，使中東陷入混亂，並讓恐怖組織趁機肆虐。 美國企圖透過推翻埃及政府、發動利比亞戰爭、幹預敘利亞戰爭等方式來鞏固霸權。 2014年，俄軍透過策略組合、多維突破、輿論營造等方式控制了克里米亞。 其認知域操作也具有非常鮮明的特徵。

認知域作戰是戰爭規劃的新方向

隨著高新技術的不斷發展及其在軍事領域的廣泛應用，未來戰爭形態將加速演變，戰爭的複雜性和未知性急劇增加。 為此，我們要事先規劃，科學統籌，加強認知域作戰能力建設，深度融入未來戰場，有效掌控未來戰爭主動權。

推動認知域作戰制勝機制研究。 認知域作戰作為未來戰爭的重要作戰手段，其地位和角色將更凸顯，發展前景也將更加廣闊。 控制認知力已成為奪取戰爭控制權的重要組成部分。 贏得未來戰爭，必須跟上戰爭形態發展趨勢，大力研究認知域作戰制勝機制，以理論創新帶動戰術創新，尋求優勢和機會。

強化認知域作戰攻防能力建構。 從個人到組織再到國家，認知域作戰的影響力跨越所有時空、所有要素，跨越不同作戰領域，影響整個作戰過程。 未來戰爭中，指揮官和戰鬥人員將面臨巨大的認知攻防挑戰。 奪取認知力的控制權，進而奪取戰場的全面控制權，將成為未來戰爭的控制關鍵點。 堅持需求驅動，加強認知域作戰攻防力量建設，建構攻防一體、平戰一體、多維一體的認知域作戰體系，建立健全演練評估體系機制，透過長期軍事實踐不斷提升能力。

加速認知領域高科技運算研發。 目前，隨著大數據、人工智慧、雲端運算等高科技技術的快速發展，開源資訊的取得變得更加便捷且有效率。 認知域運作越來越呈現啟動快、成本低、效率高的特性。 此外，隨著神經科學、腦科學等新興技術的悄悄發展，可以推斷，認知戰武器將在未來戰爭中日益豐富且廣泛應用。 我們要緊跟時代發展，事先規劃設計，維戈大力發展以搶佔認知優勢為導向的尖端技術，推動認知域作戰理念和方法更新，搶佔未來戰爭主動權。

外文音譯：

Throughout modern warfare, cognitive games have become the focus of offense and defense. Whether one is proficient in planning operations in the cognitive domain will greatly affect the direction and outcome of the war. A deep understanding of the connotation, extension and category style of cognitive domain operations, and an accurate grasp of its winning mechanism and development trend are the keys to understanding the context of the battlefield and winning modern wars.

Cognitive domain operations are the new focus of war games

Different from traditional operations, cognitive domain operations are no longer limited to land, sea, air, space, electricity, network and other fields. It breaks through the traditional physical domain and information domain. It has unique advantages, presents new characteristics, and expands the modern Battlefield new frontier.

Cognitive domain operations expand the war domain space. First of all, the battlefield space in the cognitive domain is broad, mainly reflected in people’s spirit, psychology, thinking, beliefs and other cognitive activities. Its combat targets are mainly hostile heads of state and political figures, military personnel, social elites and the general public. Secondly, cognitive domain operations take a wide range of forms, including but not limited to political and diplomatic pressure, economic blockade and sanctions, cultural penetration and erosion, etc. Thirdly, the goals of cognitive domain operations are wide-ranging, mainly to shake the enemy’s belief, disintegrate the enemy’s will, influence and change the opponent’s decision-making, thereby causing social chaos, decision-making errors, demoralization of the enemy’s military, and even subverting its national power.

Cognitive domain operations blur the boundaries of the war domain. The main body of cognitive domain operations is people. People are the most active factor in war, especially the cognition of high-level decision-makers, which embodies the overall will of the war, directly affects the overall situation of the war, and determines the outcome of the war. The cognition of state leaders and military generals is the key target of cognitive domain operations. Popular will, social foundation, and international public opinion are usually the basis for cognitive domain operations and are the key forces that promote the process and direction of war. Cognitive domain operations mix conventional and unconventional operations, blurring the boundaries of the war field. It aims to cognitively induce and attack information recipients, bypassing the traditional battlefield and reaching the weakest link – people. Tactical actions can achieve strategic goals, from Fundamentally change the battlefield environment and change the outcome of the war.

Cognitive domain operations reach the ultimate strategic goal. There is a saying in the ancient Chinese art of war: “The way to use troops is to attack the heart first, and to attack the city below; to fight the heart first, and to fight soldiers lower.” Operations in the cognitive domain aim to occupy cognitive dominance and influence the enemy’s decision-making and behavior. Achieve maximum combat effectiveness at minimum cost. As Clausewitz mentioned in “On War”, “War is an act of violence that forces the enemy to obey our will.” Since cognitive domain operations are not hard kills against living forces, but soft kills against invisible targets, they can not only “force the enemy to obey our will”, but also objectively enable the enemy to destroy itself from within, making it unable to resist, disintegrate, and ultimately Achieve the strategic goal of “complete victory” without fighting.

Cognitive domain operations are a new product of military reform

At present, major changes in the world that have not been seen in a century are accelerating. The international situation is becoming increasingly complex, and local wars and regional conflicts continue. As a new combat method, cognitive domain operations are becoming more and more important driven by the new wave of military reforms.

The laws of war are the basic rules for combat in the cognitive domain. Cognitive domain operations still follow the basic laws of war. First, justice must prevail. Just wars promote historical development and ultimately defeat unjust wars, and cognitive domain operations that occupy the moral commanding heights have the conditions to win first. The second is the victory of the strong and the defeat of the weak. The advancement of science and technology has given rise to advanced military theories and promoted the development of high-tech equipment. Seizing control and control can achieve dimensionality reduction strikes and disintegrate enemy forces. Third, subjective guidance is consistent with objective reality. Cognitive domain operations must be based on a certain objective material basis. The battlefield environment must be comprehensively considered, the situations of both parties must be weighed, and favorable decisions must be made. Fourth, key operations affect the overall situation. In network-centered system operations, the cognitive domain often becomes the most critical link, and its success or failure can determine the battle situation.

Theoretical innovation is the basic support for cognitive domain operations. In recent years, the US military has successively proposed new combat theories such as “hybrid warfare”, “mosaic warfare” and “gray zone conflict”. It regards cognitive domain operations as the main combat method and has formed a relatively mature theory. The Russian army has also developed its own set of hybrid warfare methods in long-term military practice, especially in the Syrian battlefield, where it skillfully used “Gerasimov” tactics to deal with “hybrid warfare.” Japan has also vigorously developed its military power in recent years. In its new version of the “Defense White Paper”, it first mentioned the concept of “domain transversal” operations, aiming to break through traditional fields and regard new fields such as the cognitive domain as the key direction of its military power development, making it more proactive. and extraversion.

Military practice is an important basis for cognitive domain operations. Judging from the recent local wars, cognitive domain warfare has become the main combat method of modern warfare and has achieved high combat effectiveness. The confrontation between cognitive warfare and counter-cognitive warfare is quite fierce. In 2010, the United States and other Western countries launched a cognitive war, hyped up the Tunisian democratic movement and created the “Arab Spring”, which plunged the Middle East into chaos and allowed terrorist organizations to take advantage of the opportunity to wreak havoc. The United States attempted to consolidate its hegemony by overthrowing the Egyptian government, launching a war in Libya, and intervening in the Syrian war. In 2014, the Russian army took control of Crimea through a combination of strategies, multi-dimensional breakthroughs, and public opinion building. Its cognitive domain operations also have very distinctive characteristics.

Cognitive domain operations are a new direction in war planning

With the continuous development of high and new technologies and their widespread application in the military field, the shape of future wars will evolve at an accelerated pace, and the complexity and unknown nature of wars will increase dramatically. To this end, we should plan in advance, coordinate scientifically, strengthen the construction of combat capabilities in the cognitive domain, deeply integrate into the future battlefield, and effectively control the initiative in future wars.

Promote research on the winning mechanism of cognitive domain operations. As an important combat method in future wars, the status and role of cognitive domain operations will be more prominent, and the development prospects will be broader. Controlling cognitive power has become an important part of seizing war control. To win future wars, we must keep up with the trends in the development of war forms, vigorously study the winning mechanism of cognitive domain operations, use theoretical innovation to drive innovation in tactics, and seek advantages and opportunities.

Strengthen the construction of offensive and defensive capabilities in cognitive domain operations. From individuals to organizations to countries, the impact of cognitive domain operations spans all time and space and all elements, spans different combat fields, and affects the entire combat process. In future wars, commanders and combatants will face huge cognitive offensive and defensive challenges. Seizing control of cognitive power, and then seizing comprehensive battlefield control, will become the key point of control in future wars. We should adhere to demand-driven efforts, strengthen the construction of offensive and defensive forces in cognitive domain operations, build a cognitive domain combat system that integrates offense and defense, peacetime and war, and multi-dimensional integration, establish and improve drill and evaluation mechanisms, and continuously improve capabilities through long-term military practice.

Accelerate the research and development of high-tech cognitive domain operations. Currently, with the rapid development of high-tech technologies such as big data, artificial intelligence, and cloud computing, the acquisition of open source information has become more convenient and efficient. Cognitive domain operations are increasingly characterized by fast start-up, low cost, and high efficiency. In addition, with the quiet development of emerging technologies such as neuroscience and brain science, it can be inferred that cognitive warfare weapons will become increasingly abundant and widely used in future wars. We should keep up with the development of the times, plan and design in advance, vigorously develop cutting-edge technologies oriented to seizing cognitive advantages, and promote the update of cognitive domain combat concepts and methods, so as to seize the initiative in future wars.

中國軍事 資料來源： 資料來源：中國軍事網-解放軍報 作者：趙全紅

https://www.81.cn/ll_208543/10170888.html

China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Military Future Wars, Chinese Military Informatization, 中國的情報戰, 中國認知戰和領域作戰, 馬賽克戰

中國軍隊從“網路戰”到“馬賽克戰”

Leave a comment

Chinese Military From “Cyber Warfare” to “Mosaic Warfare”

繁體中文原文：

理論是行動的先導。 加強作戰理念創新、推動作戰指導創新一直是世界各國軍隊培養軍事優勢的重要途徑。 近年來，美軍先後提出「網路戰」、「馬賽克戰」等前線作戰理論，以實現作戰模式的「生產關係」能夠更適應「生產力」的發展的作戰能力。 透過這兩種作戰理論的比較分析，世人可以一窺美軍作戰能力建設思維的變化，特別是對「馬賽克戰」制勝機制的認識，從而有的放矢，找到有效的把關。和餘額。

● 從威脅反應到戰爭設計—

積極塑造並推動作戰能力提升

「基於威脅」或「基於能力」是軍事作戰能力建構的兩種基本方式。 「威脅為本」體現需求牽引，著力解決近中期實際問題，是軍隊作戰能力建構應遵循的基本法則； 「能力為本」體現目標牽引，瞄準未來戰略任務，以新作戰理論支撐戰略理念，是軍事行動的關鍵。 這樣，才能實現能力的創新與超越。 從「網路戰」到「馬賽克戰」的發展，體現了上述兩種方式內在規律的差異和演變，也體現了近年來美軍推進作戰能力建設的思路和理念的變化。

觀念開始改變。 網路空間最初是為了解決人類的交流需求而創建的。 後來逐漸演變為獨立於陸、海、空、天的新作戰域。 由此衍生出以爭奪網路空間主導權為核心的「網路空間」。 相較之下，「馬賽克戰」是美軍為維持戰略優勢、直接針對競爭對手而主動研發設計的新作戰理念。其形成過程體現了需求驅動與能力驅動相結合、戰略性、主動性、牽引力更加突出。

技術應用新思路。 「網路戰」強調發展新一代技術來支持作戰理念的轉變和實施。 《馬賽克戰》突破了這個模式，並不過度強調新一代裝備技術的研發。 更注重軍民共性技術的快速轉化和成熟技術的漸進式迭代。 其基本想法是，依照叫車、眾籌開發等服務平台的應用理念，在現有裝備的基礎上，透過模組升級和智慧化改造，將各種作戰系統單元「鑲嵌」成單功能、可靈活組裝的單元。 、易於更換的“積木”或“像素”，建構動態協調、高度自主、無縫整合的作戰系統，體現新技術驅動的概念。

路徑開發新設計。 「網路戰」是網路空間的一個伴隨概念。 網路空間發展到哪裡，「網路戰」就會隨之而來。 一般來說，我們在進行「主觀」概念設計之前，先考慮「客觀」物質條件。 ，對路徑發展有很強的依賴。 「馬賽克戰」首先從「主觀」演變為「客觀」。 透過開發能夠動態調整職能結構的部隊設計模型，能夠適應不同的作戰需求和戰場環境的變化。

可見，與以往的「網路戰」等作戰概念相比，「馬賽克戰」目標更明確、技術更成熟、路徑更可靠，體現了美軍積極塑造的思維轉變。

● 從網路中心到決策中心—

群體智慧實現系統能量優化釋放

人工智慧技術是資訊時代的關鍵變量，也是「馬賽克戰」體系發展的核心增量。 “網路戰”強調“網路中心”，而“馬賽克戰”緊緊圍繞著人工智慧技術核心，將制勝關鍵從“網路中心”調整為“決策中心”，將作戰系統架構從“從系統級到平台級的聯盟轉變為功能級、要素級的融合，尋求在網路能量充分匯聚的前提下，利用群體智慧技術實現系統能量的最佳化釋放，賦予網路新的內涵。智慧戰爭的致勝機制

時代。

用“快”控制“慢”，在認知上佔上風。 未來戰爭中，戰場情勢瞬息萬變，時間元素的權重將持續上升。 「快」與「慢」可以產生近乎尺寸縮小的戰鬥打擊效果。 「馬賽克戰」利用資料資訊技術與人工智慧技術，提升己方「OODA」循環的單循環決策速度，擴大並行決策的廣度，降低群循環決策的粒度，加快系統運作進度，整體打造領先一步的典範。 「先發制人」的姿態旨在牢牢掌控戰場認知決策的主導地位。

用“低”控“高”，累積成本優勢。 與追求高端武器平台的傳統作戰概念不同，「馬賽克戰」著重於利用人工智慧技術挖掘現有武器平台和作戰資源的潛力並提高效率。 透過在眾多中低階武器平台上載入並運行智慧演算法和特定功能模組，可以實現與高階武器平台相媲美的作戰性能。 這整體提高了武器平台投入產出的成本效益，進而累積成本優勢。

以“散”控“聚”，求可持續生存。 「馬賽克戰」強調運用去中心化思想和非對稱制衡，利用開放的系統架構，在各種有人/無人平台上去中心化配置偵察、定位、通信、打擊等各種功能，實現力量的分佈式部署。 同時利用智慧演算法，提升各平台的自組織、自協調、獨立攻擊能力，進而實現集中火力。 當部分作戰平台被消滅、打亂或剝離時，整個作戰體系仍能正常運行，進而增強部隊集群的戰場生存能力。

用“動”控“靜”，提高系統靈活性。 「馬賽克戰」強調進一步突破各作戰領域的障礙。 透過將不同作戰域的固定“殺傷鏈”變成動態可重構的“殺傷網”，將“OODA”大環拆解為小環，將單環分化為多環。 根據作戰流程和作戰需求的變化，依靠智慧組網，實現作戰力量的動態分割、動態部署、動態組合。 這樣，一方面可以增強作戰系統的彈性和適應性； 另一方面，它也可以抵消複雜網路的節點聚合效應，使對手很難找到關鍵節點來擊敗自己的系統。

「馬賽克戰爭」為智慧戰爭提供了參考原型。 但同時，「馬賽克戰爭」作為一種理想化的力量設計與運用框架，也需要與其密切相關的技術、條令、政策等支撐支撐。 距離完全實現還有很長的路要走。 與傳統戰爭相比，系統共存的局面將長期存在。

● 從要素整合到系統重組—

動態結構增強作戰系統靈活性

結構和關係常常決定功能和屬性。 「網路戰」與「馬賽克戰」建立在資訊時代相同的物質基礎上，遵循相同的演化範式，但係統建構的原理和效果不同。 「網路戰」所形成的架構可以靜態解構，而「馬賽克戰」則依照一定的建構規則動態組合功能單元，形成具有自組織和自適應特性的彈性架構，類似「動態黑盒子」。 常規手段難以追蹤和預測。 這種靈活的結構經常「湧現」新的能力，以增強和提高作戰系統的效率。

網路與雲端融合發展，使作戰空間和時間更具動態性和可塑性。 網際網路和雲端是資訊作戰系統運作的基礎環境。 它們重塑了傳統作戰中的情報、指揮、攻擊、支援等流程要素，同時衍生出新的作戰時空。 「網路戰」主要針對網路空間，其作戰時間和空間相對靜態。 「馬賽克戰」並不限於單一的作戰空間。 在資訊基礎設施網路隨雲而動、雲端網融合的發展趨勢下

無形空間和無形空間可以進一步鉸接，作戰空間和時間的界限更加靈活，作戰資源的配置更加靈活。 戰鬥架構更加動態。

數據跨域流動，使戰鬥控制更加無縫協調。 在指揮控制環節，「網路戰」著重於聯合作戰指揮機構對作戰單位的指揮控制，資料的跨域交換與流動主要集中在戰區戰場。 「馬賽克戰」將聯合作戰的水平進一步降低到戰術端。 透過戰術層面資料的獨立跨域交換和無縫流動，可以將各種資料孤島按需聚集成資料集群，從而產生顯著的「溢出」效應，使得資料的動態、離散、敏捷、並行的特性作戰指揮控制迴路更加明顯，更有利於實現各作戰單元按需敏捷連動、高效協同行動。

演算法穿透各個維度，讓系統運作更自主、更有效率。 演算法是人類意識在網路空間的映射，形成兩種基本形式：意圖轉化的編譯碼和知識轉化的神經網路。 在《網路戰》中，大量使用編譯程式碼，而神經網路僅在本地使用。 在「馬賽克戰爭」中，演算法拓展到塑造規則和提供引擎兩大關鍵功能，應用的廣度和深度更為凸顯。 塑造規則以編譯碼為主，神經網路為輔，建構「馬賽克戰」系統的流程架構與運作邏輯，為其不確定性、適應性和「突現」能力奠定結構基礎； 提供引擎主要整合智慧演算法模型，分送到邊緣要素進行運算，形成知識擴散效應，從而全面提升「馬賽克戰」系統的智慧自主作戰能力。

邊緣能量的獨立釋放，讓戰鬥方式更靈活多元。 邊緣是各種有人/無人作戰功能單元的抽像模型，也是系統能力「湧現」的直接來源。 在「網路戰」體系中，邊緣要素與上級和下級指揮控制流程緊密耦合，處於精確控制狀態。 在「馬賽克戰爭」系統中，邊緣要素的感知、互動、推理、決策能力大幅提升。 其「OODA」循環無需回溯至上級指揮機構，有利於支撐形成高低、有人/無人的分散組合。 優化的作戰集群形態可以賦予邊緣分子更多的自組織權威，顯著增強戰場對抗優勢。

可見，如果說「網路戰」被稱為精密的戰爭機器，那麼「馬賽克戰」則可以被視為一個能夠激發作戰能力動態增長的複雜「生態」。 網路雲、資料、演算法和邊緣設備產生的新技術變化促進了動態且複雜的「架構」的形成。 這種結構反過來又對要素、平台和系統進行反向調節，不斷湧現新的能力，對作戰系統的賦能和演進發揮重要作用。

● 從制度突破到複合對抗——

分析利弊，尋求有效制衡

「馬賽克戰」在某種程度上代表了未來聯合作戰的可能發展方向。 要充分研究掌握「馬賽克戰」制勝機制，將資訊通信領域塑造成為打破傳統戰爭時空界限的新領域，打造雲化作戰新理念，建構強大的資訊通訊領域新格局。國防資訊基礎設施保障能力。 突顯軍事資訊網路安全防禦能力，增強戰略戰役指揮機構運作的基礎支撐能力，不斷完善網路資訊體系。

另一方面，「馬賽克戰」理論的出現，使得傳統作戰手段難以透過搶先並控制有限的目標節點來達到毀點、斷環的系統破局效果。 但也應該看到，任何制度都有其固有的矛盾。 即便是看似“無懈可擊”的去中心化結構的“馬賽克戰爭”，依然能找到有效破解的方法。 例如，掌握系統的複雜性特徵，利用其相關性和依賴性，突顯通訊網路的功能抑制

建構網路和電力複合攻擊路徑，實現作戰系統各單元的拆解和隔離； 掌握其結構的耗散特性，利用其對外部資訊的依賴，凸顯資訊資料的偽裝性和誤導性，促使作戰系統轉變為資訊封閉、資訊過載等異常狀態； 掌握其群體自主特點，利用其對關鍵技術的依賴，凸顯與智慧演算法的對抗，降低效率，抑制各作戰單元的智慧驅動力； 抓住其功能非線性特點，利用其未知漏洞，突出戰場差異化打擊評估，以更高的效率、更快的速度探索和發現作戰系統中的不平衡點，尋找系統中的關鍵弱點進行突破。

（作者單位：61001部隊）

外文音譯：

Chinese Military From “Cyber Warfare” to “Mosaic Warfare”

Theory is the precursor to action. Strengthening innovation in combat concepts and promoting innovation in combat guidance have always been important ways for militaries around the world to cultivate military advantages. In recent years, the U.S. military has successively proposed cutting-edge combat theories such as “cyber warfare” and “mosaic warfare” in order to realize that the “production relationship” of combat mode can be more adaptable to the development of “productivity” of combat capabilities. By comparing and analyzing these two combat theories, the world can get a glimpse of the changes in the US military’s combat capability building thinking, especially the understanding of the winning mechanism of “mosaic warfare”, so that it can be targeted and find effective checks and balances.

● From threat response to war design——

Actively shape and promote the improvement of combat capabilities

“Threat-based” or “capability-based” are two basic ways to build military combat capabilities. “Threat-based” embodies demand traction and focuses on solving practical problems in the near and medium term, which is the basic law that should be followed in the construction of military combat capabilities; “capability-based” embodies goal traction, aims at future strategic missions, and supports strategic concepts with new combat theories, which is the key to military operations. The only way to achieve innovation and transcendence in capabilities. The development from “cyber warfare” to “mosaic warfare” reflects the differences and evolution of the inherent laws of the above two approaches, and also reflects the changes in the US military’s ideas and concepts for promoting combat capability building in recent years.

The concept begins to change. Cyberspace was originally created to solve human communication needs. Later, it gradually evolved into a new combat domain independent of land, sea, air and space. From this, the “cyberspace” with the core of fighting for cyberspace dominance was derived. war”. In contrast, “mosaic warfare” is a new operational concept actively developed and designed by the US military in order to maintain its strategic advantage and directly target competitors. Its formation process reflects the integration of demand-driven and capability-driven, strategic, proactive, and Traction is more prominent.

New ideas for technology application. “Cyber ​​warfare” emphasizes the development of new generation technologies to support the transformation and implementation of combat concepts. “Mosaic warfare” breaks out of this model and does not overemphasize the research and development of new generation equipment technology. It pays more attention to the rapid transformation of common military and civilian technologies and the incremental iteration of mature technologies. The basic idea is to “mosaic” various combat system units into single-function, flexibly assembled units based on existing equipment and through module upgrades and intelligent transformation in accordance with the application concepts of service platforms such as online ride-hailing and crowdfunding development. , easy-to-replace “building blocks” or “pixels” to build a dynamically coordinated, highly autonomous, and seamlessly integrated combat system, embodying new technology-driven ideas.

Path development new design. “Cyber ​​warfare” is an accompanying concept of the cyberspace. Wherever the cyberspace develops, “cyber warfare” will follow. Generally speaking, we first consider the “objective” material conditions before making the “subjective” conceptual design. , has strong dependence on path development. “Mosaic warfare” first evolved from “subjective” to “objective”. By developing a force design model that can dynamically adjust the functional structure, it can adapt to different operational needs and changes in the battlefield environment.

It can be seen that compared with previous combat concepts such as “cyber warfare”, “mosaic warfare” has clearer goals, more mature technology, and more reliable paths, reflecting the change in thinking actively shaped by the US military.

● From network center to decision-making center——

Group intelligence to achieve optimal energy release of the system

Artificial intelligence technology is a key variable in the information age and a core increment in the development of the “mosaic warfare” system. “Cyber ​​warfare” emphasizes “network center”, while “mosaic warfare” tightly focuses on the core of artificial intelligence technology, adjusts the key to victory from “network center” to “decision center”, and changes the combat system architecture from system level to Platform-level alliances are transformed into functional-level and element-level integration, seeking to use group intelligence technology to achieve the optimal release of system energy on the premise that the network is fully energy-gathered, giving new connotations to the winning mechanism of war in the intelligent era.

Use “fast” to control “slow” and gain the upper hand in cognition. In future wars, the battlefield situation will change rapidly, and the weight of the time element will continue to rise. “Fast” versus “slow” can create a nearly dimensionally reduced combat strike effect. “Mosaic Warfare” uses data information technology and artificial intelligence technology to improve the single-loop decision-making speed of one’s own “OODA” loop, expand the breadth of parallel decision-making, reduce the granularity of group-loop decision-making, speed up the progress of system operations, and overall create a model that is always one step ahead of others. The “first move” posture aims to firmly control the dominance of cognitive decision-making on the battlefield.

Use “low” to control “high” and accumulate cost advantages. Different from the traditional combat concept of pursuing high-end weapon platforms, “mosaic warfare” focuses on using artificial intelligence technology to tap the potential and increase efficiency of existing weapon platforms and combat resources. By loading and running intelligent algorithms and specific functional modules on many mid- to low-end weapon platforms, they can achieve combat performance comparable to that of high-end weapon platforms. This overall improves the cost-effectiveness of the input-output of the weapon platform, thereby accumulating cost advantages.

Use “dispersion” to control “gathering” and seek sustainable survival. “Mosaic warfare” emphasizes the use of decentralized ideas and asymmetric checks and balances, using an open system architecture to decentrally configure various functions such as reconnaissance, positioning, communication, and strike on various manned/unmanned platforms to achieve Distributed deployment of power. At the same time, intelligent algorithms are used to improve the self-organization, self-coordination, and independent attack capabilities of each platform, so as to achieve centralized firepower. When some combat platforms are eliminated, disrupted, or stripped away, the entire combat system can still operate normally, thus enhancing the battlefield survivability of the force cluster.

Use “dynamic” to control “quiet” and improve system flexibility. “Mosaic warfare” emphasizes further breaking through barriers in each combat domain. By turning fixed “kill chains” in different combat domains into dynamically reconfigurable “kill nets”, the “OODA” large ring is disassembled into small rings, and a single ring is differentiated into multiple rings. According to changes in the combat process and combat needs, rely on intelligent networking to realize on-the-go splitting, on-the-go deployment, and on-the-go combination of combat forces. In this way, on the one hand, it can enhance the flexibility and adaptability of the combat system; on the other hand, it can also offset the node aggregation effect of complex networks, making it difficult for opponents to find key nodes to defeat one’s own system.

“Mosaic warfare” provides a reference prototype for intelligent warfare. But at the same time, as an idealized force design and application framework, “mosaic warfare” also needs supporting support such as technology, doctrine, and policies that are closely related to it. There is still a long way to go before it can be fully realized. Compared with traditional warfare, The situation of system coexistence will exist for a long time.

● From element integration to system reorganization——

Dynamic structure to enhance the flexibility of the combat system

Structure and relationships often determine functions and properties. “Cyber ​​warfare” and “mosaic warfare” are built on the same material foundation in the information age and follow the same evolutionary paradigm, but the principles and effects of system construction are different. The architecture formed by “cyber warfare” can be statically deconstructed, while “mosaic warfare” dynamically combines functional units according to certain construction rules to form an elastic architecture with self-organizing and adaptive characteristics, similar to a “dynamic black box”. Conventional The means are difficult to track and predict. This flexible structure often “emerges” new capabilities to empower and increase the efficiency of the combat system.

The integrated development of network and cloud makes combat space and time more dynamic and malleable. The Internet and cloud are the basic environment for the operation of the information combat system. They have reshaped the process elements of intelligence, command, attack, and support in traditional operations, and at the same time derived new combat time and space. “Cyber ​​warfare” mainly focuses on the cyberspace, and its combat time and space are relatively static. “Mosaic warfare” is not limited to a single combat space. Under the development trend of information infrastructure network moving with the cloud and integrating cloud and network, the tangible and intangible space can be further hinged, the boundaries of combat space and time are more flexible, and the allocation of combat resources is more flexible. The combat architecture is more dynamic.

Data flows across domains, making combat control more seamlessly coordinated. In the command and control link, “cyber warfare” focuses on the command and control of combat units by joint combat command institutions, and the cross-domain exchange and flow of data is mainly concentrated on theater battlefields. “Mosaic warfare” further lowers the level of joint operations to the tactical end. Through the independent cross-domain exchange and seamless flow of data at the tactical level, various data islands can be gathered into data clusters on demand, thereby generating significant “overflow” “” effect makes the dynamic, discrete, agile, and parallel characteristics of the combat command and control loop more obvious, and is more conducive to realizing agile connection and efficient coordinated actions of various combat units on demand.

The algorithm penetrates all dimensions, making the system run more autonomously and efficiently. Algorithms are the mapping of human consciousness in cyberspace, forming two basic forms: compiled codes transformed by intentions and neural networks transformed by knowledge. In “Cyber ​​Warfare”, compiled code is used extensively and neural networks are only used locally. In the “mosaic war”, the algorithm has expanded to two key functions: shaping rules and providing engines, and the breadth and depth of its application are more prominent. The shaping rules mainly focus on compiled code, supplemented by neural networks, to construct the process framework and operating logic of the “mosaic warfare” system, laying a structural foundation for its uncertainty, adaptability and “emergent” capabilities; providing the engine mainly integrates intelligence The algorithm model is distributed to edge elements for operation, forming a knowledge diffusion effect, thereby comprehensively improving the intelligent autonomous combat capabilities of the “mosaic warfare” system.

The independent release of energy at the edge makes the combat style more flexible and diverse. The edge is an abstract model of various manned/unmanned combat functional units and is also the direct source of the “emergence” of system capabilities. In the “cyber warfare” system, edge elements are closely coupled with the superior and subordinate command and control processes and are in a state of precise control. In the “Mosaic Warfare” system, the perception, interaction, reasoning, and decision-making capabilities of edge elements are greatly improved. Its “OODA” loop does not need to be linked back to the higher-level command organization, which is conducive to supporting the formation of a decentralized combination of high-low and manned/unmanned. The optimized combat cluster form can give edge elements more self-organizing authority, which significantly enhances battlefield confrontation advantages.

It can be seen that if “cyber warfare” is called a sophisticated war machine, “mosaic warfare” can be regarded as a complex “ecology” that can stimulate the dynamic growth of combat capabilities. New technologies generated by network clouds, data, algorithms, and edge devices Changes promote the formation of a dynamic and complex “architecture”. This structure in turn regulates elements, platforms, and systems in reverse, constantly emerging new capabilities, and playing an important role in empowering and evolving the combat system.

● From system breach to compound confrontation——

Analyze the pros and cons and seek effective checks and balances

“Mosaic warfare” represents, to a certain extent, the possible direction for the development of future joint operations. We should fully study and grasp the winning mechanism of “mosaic warfare”, shape the information and communication field as a new domain that breaks the time and space boundaries of traditional wars, create a new concept of cloud-enabled operations, and build a strong defense information infrastructure support capability. Highlight the security and defense capabilities of military information networks, enhance the basic support capabilities for the operation of strategic and campaign command institutions, and continuously improve the network information system.

On the other hand, the emergence of the “mosaic warfare” theory makes it difficult for traditional combat methods to seize and control limited target nodes to achieve the system-breaking effect of destroying points and breaking links. However, it should be noted that any system has its inherent contradictions. Even the seemingly “impeccable” decentralized structure of “mosaic warfare” can still find ways to effectively crack it. For example, grasp the complexity characteristics of the system, use its correlation and dependence, highlight the functional suppression of the communication network, build a network and electricity composite attack path, and achieve the disassembly and isolation of each unit of the combat system; grasp the dissipative characteristics of its structure, Make use of its dependence on external information to highlight the camouflage and misleading of information data, prompting the combat system to transform into abnormal states such as information closure and information overload; grasp its group autonomy characteristics, use its dependence on key technologies to highlight the confrontation against intelligent algorithms Reduce efficiency and inhibit the intelligent driving force of each combat unit; grasp its functional non-linear characteristics, take advantage of its unknown vulnerabilities, highlight differentiated strike assessment on the battlefield, and explore and discover imbalance points in the combat system with higher efficiency and faster speed , looking for key weaknesses in the system to break.

(Author’s unit: Unit 61001)

中國軍事資源：http://www.mod.gov.cn/gfbw/jmsd/4894888.html

Chinese Military Future Wars, 中國軍事未來戰爭

中國軍事設計與發展聚焦未來戰爭的作戰概念

Leave a comment

Chinese Military Designs & Development for Operational Concepts Focusing on Future Warfare

原始國語（繁體）：

自21世紀以來，隨著世界新軍事革命的深入，世界軍事強國提出了一系列新的作戰概念，並在戰爭實踐中不斷完善，導致戰爭加速演變。 隨著雲端運算、區塊鏈、人工智慧、大數據等資訊科技的快速發展以及在軍事領域的廣泛應用，人們認識戰爭的模式逐漸從總結實戰經驗轉變為研究判斷未來戰爭。 目前，作為軍事能力建構的源泉，作戰理念發展能力的強弱將直接影響戰爭的勝負。 特別是世界新軍事革命方興未艾，時刻呼喚作戰理論創新。 只有建立新的作戰理念，前瞻性地設計未來戰爭，才能贏得軍事鬥爭準備的主動權。

作戰理念從根本解決如何打仗

一流的軍隊設計戰爭，二流的軍隊應對戰爭，三流的軍隊跟隨戰爭。 所謂“真正的戰爭發生在戰爭之前”，就是在戰爭開始之前，戰爭的理論、風格、戰鬥方式就已經設計好了。 照設計打仗怎麼可能打不贏呢？ 設計戰爭的關鍵是在認識戰爭特徵和規律的基礎上，設計和發展新的作戰理念，推動作戰方式和戰術創新，從根本上解決「如何打戰爭」。

在設計戰爭時，理論是第一位的。 近年來，美軍提出“網路中心戰”、“空海戰”、“混合戰”等新概念，俄軍提出“非核遏制戰略”、“戰略空天戰役”和“國家資訊安全主義”，體現了世界軍事強國正大力研究作戰理論，搶佔軍事制高點。 從某種程度上來說，作戰概念是作戰理論形成的「組織細胞」。 沒有完整的概念生成能力，就很難產生先進的理論。 當一種作戰理論提出後，需要發展相關的作戰概念，使作戰理論能夠具體“下沉”，更好地完善，轉化為軍事實踐。 在沒有作戰理論概念的情況下，作戰概念創新可以為作戰理論研究提供「原料」。 軍事領域是最不確定的領域，人們對戰爭的認知總是不斷演變。 然而，作戰理論的創新不能等到認識成熟之後才開始。 相反，需要在現有認識的基礎上積極發展和創新作戰理念，建構未來作戰圖景，探索未來制勝機制，指導和指導軍事實踐。 掌握戰爭主動權。 因此，作戰理念創新正在成為軍隊建設和發展的戰略支點和槓桿。

營運概念開發著重於設計核心營運概念。 核心作戰理念是作戰理念的核心與胚胎。 它體現了作戰的本質要求，蘊含著作戰理念成長的「基因」。 整個概念體係都是由此衍生發展出來的。 目前，對資訊化、智慧化戰爭制勝機制的認識逐漸清晰，戰爭設計的著力點應該集中到主要作戰理論和關鍵作戰理念的發展。

經營理念是經營思想的抽象表達。

「作戰概念」一詞源自美軍。 這是對未來如何戰鬥的描述。 日益成為推動軍隊建設發展的重要抓手。 美國陸軍訓練與條令指揮概念發展指南指出，作戰概念是一種概念、一種想法、一種整體理解和基於作戰環境中具體事件的推論。 它概述了最廣泛的意義和更具體的措施。上面描述了戰鬥是如何進行的。 美國海軍陸戰隊作戰發展司令部作戰發展和整合指令指出，作戰概念表達瞭如何打一場戰爭，用於描述未來的作戰場景以及如何利用軍事藝術和科學能力來應對未來的挑戰。 美國空軍作戰概念發展條令指出，作戰概念是戰爭理論層面的概念描述。 它實現了既定的營運理念和意圖

透過有序組織作戰能力和作戰任務。

綜上所述，作戰理念可以理解為對當前或未來具體作戰問題的作戰思路和行動方案的抽象理解。 一般來說，作戰構想包含三個部分：一是作戰問題的描述，即作戰構想的背景、作戰環境、作戰對手等；二是作戰構想的描述。 二是解決方案的描述，即概念內涵、應用場景、動作風格。 、制勝機制、能力特性及優勢等； 三是能力要求描述，即實施作戰理念所需的裝備技術、基本條件、實施手段等。 可見，作戰概念應具有針對性、科學性、適應性和可行性等特點，其內涵和外延會隨著戰略背景、軍事政策、威脅對手、時空環境、能力條件和作戰能力的變化而不斷調整。其他因素。

從某種意義上說，作戰理念實際上是作戰理論的一種過渡形式，其最終價值在於指導和拉動軍事實踐。 發展新作戰理念的目的和歸宿是挖掘和增強軍隊戰鬥力。 將作戰理念轉化為作戰條令、作戰方案，其價值才能充分發揮。

作戰理念創新驅動作戰方式變革

進入21世紀以來，世界軍事強國根據國家戰略要求，應對新威脅新挑戰，把發展新作戰理念作為軍事能力轉型的關鍵步驟，推動軍事力量變革。作戰風格，並尋求在未來戰場上獲得勝利的機會。 為了進一步加強軍事領導力，世界軍事強國正加速推出一系列新的作戰概念。

美軍積極抓住科技進步帶來的機遇，綜合運用新一代資訊科技、人工智慧技術、無人自主技術等尖端技術，提出馬賽克戰爭、多域作戰、分散式殺傷、決策作戰等。集中作戰、聯合全局指揮控制。 等一連串新的作戰概念，推動作戰思想、作戰方式、作戰空間、作戰體系發生根本性變革。

與美軍不同，俄軍在軍事實踐中實行作戰理念迭代創新。 近期，俄軍致力於推動聯合作戰能力建設，加速新型無人裝備研發部署，著力打造網路資訊化戰場優勢，不斷豐富傳統作戰理念內涵，與新時代融合發展。混合戰和心理戰等作戰概念。 用於指導戰爭實踐。

總體而言，近年來，世界軍事強國提出的新作戰理念正在導致作戰方式的深刻變化。 其能力、特徵和優勢主要體現在以下五個方面：一是無人作戰裝備，基於新作戰理念的無人裝備系統比重顯著增加，有人與無人協同作戰成為主要作戰方式之一。風格，形成利用無人系統控制有人部隊的優勢。 其次，部署方式是去中心化的。 基於新作戰概念的兵力部署是分散式的、系統間互聯的、具有互通能力的，形成單獨系統和組合的優勢； 第三，殺傷網絡複雜。 基於新作戰理念的殺傷網絡，功能更加多元。 單一系統可以執行多種任務，其故障對作戰系統影響較大。 規模小，形成多用控制單單的優勢； 四是反應時間敏捷，新作戰概念強調快速決策，出其不意，形成以快慢的優勢； 五是作戰領域多維度，新作戰理念更重視多域連動，將戰場從傳統的陸、海、空拓展到電磁、網路、認知領域，形成無形、有形的優勢。

營運理念開發應堅持系統化設計思路

以營運理念指導建設

f軍事力量是世界軍事強國的普遍做法。 相較而言，美軍擁有較為完善的作戰概念發展機制，建構了較為完整的作戰概念發展體系，由概念類型、組織結構、規範標準、支撐手段等組成。

從概念類型來看，美軍作戰概念基本上可分為三類：一是各軍種主導下發展的一系列作戰概念。 他們主要從本軍種角度出發，研究潛在敵人和未來戰場，重新定義作戰方式，尋求勝利。 新方法。 二是參謀長聯席會議領導下所發展的一系列聯合作戰概念，主要由頂層概念、作戰概念、支撐概念三個層次組成。 第三類是學術界、智庫等發展出來的操作概念，這類操作概念的數量雖然沒有前兩類那麼多，但仍是操作概念體系的重要組成部分。 透過此體系，美軍將大軍事戰略透過作戰理念層層落實到部隊的各項作戰行動、各項作戰能力、各項武器裝備性能中，指導聯合部隊和各軍兵種建設。

在組織架構上，以聯合作戰理念的發展為例，美軍建立了由五類組織組成的工作體系。 一是聯合概念工作小組，主要職責是檢視概念大綱和概念發展的整體問題； 二是聯合概念指導委員會，主要職責是監督指導概念發展計畫； 三是核心編寫團隊，主要職責是編制概念大綱，將概念中原有的概念轉化為聯合可操作的概念； 四是概念研發團隊，主要職責是提供可操作的概念開發方法和方案； 五是獨立紅隊，主要職責是獨立評估，判斷概念的嚴謹性和科學性。

在規範標準方面，對於聯合作戰理念的發展，美軍有完整的製度體系約束和指導，將概念發展規範化、規範化、程序化，這主要體現在參謀長聯席會議主席的一系列指令和聯合出版物中。 例如，《聯合概念制定和實施指南》旨在建立聯合概念制定的治理結構，明確聯合作戰概念規劃、執行和評估的框架，推動聯合作戰概念的實施； 「聯合條令準備流程」旨在製定聯合條令準備流程，並為將作戰概念轉化為作戰條令提供明確的流程架構。

從支援手段來看，營運概念的設計、開發和驗證是一個系統工程，離不開各種開發工具和手段的支援。 例如，DODAF2.0模型、IDEFO模型、SYSML建模語言等工具可以為戰鬥概念設計者提供標準化的結構化分析模型和邏輯描述模型； 基於模型的系統工程方法可以為作戰概念設計者和評估驗證者提供作戰概念中裝備要素的能力模型，用於設計和建構作戰概念架構。 美軍聯合作戰概念開發採用基於網路的數位軟體，具有很強的互聯能力。 參與開發的各機構可即時分享訊息，提高開發效率。

營運理念的成熟發展需要多方的配合

制定作戰概念是一項多學科、多領域的工作，涉及軍事學、哲學、運籌學、系統科學等許多領域。 它需要多方合作，確保在理論層面上具有先進性、前瞻性，在實踐層面上具有適用性和可行性。

建立小核心、大外圍的研究團隊。 主導制定作戰理念的部門要充分發揮主導作用，統籌協調與調度研究工作； 建立聯合研發團隊，充分發揮群體智慧與作用

d 廣泛獲取各方對作戰理念研究的新思路、新思路。 方法與新視角； 成立跨領域、跨部門的專家委員會，多角度監督、審查、指導相關工作。

形成多部門連動工作機制。 為了確保各部門之間溝通順暢、有效率運轉，首先要明確各自的任務與職責。 例如，概念發起部門負責總體規劃和實施，實驗室負責技術驗證，工業部門負責裝備研發，作戰部隊負責實戰測試。 其次，要製定相關規範文件，確保各項工作有秩序地進行，並為可操作理念的研發提供製度支撐。 最後，要建立需求牽引機制、協同研究機制、迭代回饋機制等，打通作戰概念從研發到實際運用的環節。

促進理論與實務的有機結合。 只有透過「設計研究-推演驗證-實戰測試」的循環迭代，才能逐步調整、優化、完善作戰理念，帶動戰爭理論的發展。 因此，操作理念的發展必須特別注重理論創新與實際應用的結合。 透過理論與實踐的相互驅動，才能達到引領新一代優質作戰能力生成的根本目的。 具體方法包括將成熟的作戰理念及時納入作戰條令，編寫相應的訓練大綱或教材，逐步向部隊推廣； 組織相關演練或試驗，在接近實戰的條件下檢驗作戰理念的成熟度和可行性。 自然，發現問題並解決問題； 以作戰理念確定的能力指標作為裝備需求論證的參考，帶動裝備技術發展，促進作戰能力提升。

新時代科學技術快速發展，為軍事能力建構帶來許多新的機會與挑戰。 發展新的作戰概念，有利於敏銳抓住科技進步帶來的軍事機遇，積極應對科技發展帶來的威脅和挑戰，及時掌握戰爭形態演變的方向和規律，為戰爭形態的演變提供指導。引領未來戰爭風格，抓住勝利機會。 重要的支持。 目前，國際安全情勢複雜多變。 打贏未來資訊化戰爭，需要把作戰理念發展作為國防和軍隊建設的抓手，積極開展軍事技術創新，推動武器裝備升級換代，實現跨越式發展，從而引領新時代。 軍事革命趨勢。

（作者單位：中國航太科工集團第二研究院）

現代外語英語翻譯：

Since the 21st century, with the deepening of the world’s new military revolution, the world’s military powers have proposed a series of new combat concepts and continuously improved them in war practice, thus leading to the accelerated evolution of war. With the rapid development of information technologies such as cloud computing, blockchain, artificial intelligence, and big data, as well as their widespread application in the military field, people’s mode of understanding war has gradually changed from summarizing actual combat experience to studying and judging future wars. At present, as the source of military capability building, the strength of operational concept development capabilities will directly affect the opportunity to win the war. In particular, the new military revolution in the world is booming, calling for innovation in combat theory all the time. Only by developing new combat concepts and designing future wars with a forward-looking perspective can we gain the initiative in preparing for military struggles.

The concept of combat fundamentally solves how to fight a war

First-rate armies design wars, second-rate armies respond to wars, and third-rate armies follow wars. The so-called “real war happens before the war” means that before the war begins, the theory, style, and fighting methods of the war have already been designed. How can it be unwinnable to fight a war according to the design? The key to designing a war is to design and develop new combat concepts based on understanding the characteristics and laws of war, promote innovation in combat styles and tactics, and fundamentally solve “how to fight a war.”

In designing a war, theory comes first. In recent years, the US military has proposed new concepts such as “network-centric warfare”, “air-sea warfare” and “hybrid warfare”, and the Russian military has proposed theories such as “non-nuclear containment strategy”, “strategic air and space campaign” and “national information security doctrine”, reflecting The world’s military powers are vigorously studying combat theories and seizing the military commanding heights. To a certain extent, operational concepts are the “organizing cells” for the formation of operational theories. Without complete concept generation capabilities, it is difficult to generate advanced theories. When a combat theory is proposed, relevant combat concepts need to be developed so that the combat theory can be “sinked” concretely, better improved, and transformed into military practice. When there is no operational theory concept, operational concept innovation can provide “raw materials” for studying operational theory. The military field is the most uncertain field, and people’s understanding of war is always evolving. However, innovation in combat theory cannot wait until the understanding matures before starting. Instead, it needs to actively develop and innovate combat concepts on the basis of existing understanding, construct a future combat picture, explore future winning mechanisms, and guide and guide military practice. Take the initiative in war. Therefore, innovation in operational concepts is becoming a strategic fulcrum and lever for military construction and development.

Operational concept development focuses on designing core operational concepts. The core combat concept is the nucleus and embryo of the combat concept. It reflects the essential requirements of combat and contains the “gene” for the growth of the combat concept. The entire concept system is derived and developed from this. At present, the understanding of the winning mechanisms of informatization and intelligent warfare is gradually becoming clearer, and it is time to focus the focus of designing wars on the development of main combat theories and key combat concepts.

The operational concept is an abstract expression of operational thoughts.

The term “operational concept” originated from the US military. It is a description of how to fight in the future. It is increasingly becoming an important starting point to promote the construction and development of the military. The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Concept Development Guide points out that an operational concept is a concept, an idea, an overall understanding, and an inference based on specific events in the operational environment. It outlines what will be done in the broadest sense, and in more specific measures The above describes how the battle is fought. The US Marine Corps Combat Development Command Operational Development and Integration Directive states that an operational concept expresses how to fight a war and is used to describe future combat scenarios and how to use military art and scientific capabilities to meet future challenges. The US Air Force Operational Concept Development Doctrine points out that an operational concept is a conceptual description at the theoretical level of war. It realizes established operational concepts and intentions through the orderly organization of combat capabilities and combat tasks.

To sum up, the operational concept can be understood as an abstract understanding of operational ideas and action plans for specific current or future operational problems. Generally speaking, the operational concept includes three parts: first, the description of the operational problem, that is, the background of the operational concept, operational environment, operational opponents, etc.; second, the description of the solution, that is, the conceptual connotation, application scenarios, and action styles. , winning mechanism, capability characteristics and advantages, etc.; the third is the description of capability requirements, that is, the equipment technology, basic conditions, implementation means, etc. required to implement the operational concept. It can be seen that the operational concept should have the characteristics of pertinence, scientificity, adaptability and feasibility, and its connotation and extension will be continuously adjusted with changes in strategic background, military policy, threatening opponents, time and space environment, capability conditions and other factors.

In a sense, the operational concept is actually a transitional form of operational theory, and its ultimate value is to guide and pull military practice. The purpose and destination of developing new combat concepts is to tap into and enhance the military’s combat effectiveness. Only by transforming combat concepts into combat doctrine and combat plans can their value be fully exerted.

Innovation in combat concepts drives changes in combat styles

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the world’s military powers, in accordance with national strategic requirements and in response to new threats and challenges, have regarded the development of new operational concepts as a key step in the transformation of military capabilities, promoted changes in operational styles, and sought to gain opportunities for victory in future battlefields. In order to further strengthen their military leadership, the world’s military powers are accelerating the launch of a series of new combat concepts.

The U.S. military actively seizes the opportunities brought by scientific and technological progress, comprehensively uses cutting-edge technologies such as new generation information technology, artificial intelligence technology, and unmanned autonomous technology to propose mosaic warfare, multi-domain operations, distributed destruction, decision-centered warfare, and joint full-domain command and control. and a series of new operational concepts, promoting fundamental changes in operational thinking, combat styles, combat spaces and combat systems.

Unlike the US military, the Russian army implements iterative innovation in operational concepts in military practice. Recently, the Russian military has been committed to promoting the construction of joint combat capabilities, accelerating the development and deployment of new unmanned equipment, focusing on creating network information battlefield advantages, constantly enriching the connotation of its traditional combat concepts, and integrating them with new combat concepts such as hybrid warfare and mental warfare. Used to guide war practice.

Generally speaking, in recent years, the new combat concepts proposed by the world’s military powers are leading to profound changes in combat styles. Their capabilities, characteristics and advantages are mainly reflected in the following five aspects: First, unmanned combat equipment, based on the new combat concepts The proportion of unmanned equipment systems has increased significantly, and manned and unmanned coordinated operations have become one of the main combat styles, forming the advantage of using unmanned systems to control manned forces. Second, the deployment method is decentralized. The deployment of forces based on new combat concepts is distributed and inter-system They are interconnected and have interoperability capabilities, forming the advantage of separate systems and combinations; third, the kill network is complex. The kill network based on new combat concepts has more diverse functions. A single system can perform a variety of tasks, and its failure has a greater impact on the combat system. Small, forming the advantage of using more to control single orders; fourth, the response time is agile, and the new combat concept emphasizes quick decisions, taking the enemy by surprise, and forming the advantage of using speed to control the slow; fifth, the combat field is multi-dimensional, and the new combat concept Pay more attention to multi-domain linkage, expanding the battlefield from traditional land, sea and air to electromagnetic, network and cognitive domains, forming intangible and tangible advantages.

Operation concept development should adhere to systematic design ideas

Using operational concepts to guide the construction of military forces is a common practice among the world’s military powers. Comparatively speaking, the U.S. military has a relatively complete operational concept development mechanism and has built a relatively complete operational concept development system, which consists of concept types, organizational structures, specifications and standards, and support means.

In terms of concept types, U.S. military operational concepts can be basically divided into three categories: First, a series of operational concepts developed under the leadership of each service. They mainly start from the perspective of their own services to study potential enemies and future battlefields, redefine combat styles, and seek to win. new ways. The second is a series of joint operations concepts developed under the leadership of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which are mainly composed of three levels: top-level concepts, operational concepts and supporting concepts. The third is the operational concepts developed by academia, think tanks, etc. The number of such operational concepts is not as large as the first two categories, but it is still an important part of the operational concept system. Through this system, the US military implements grand military strategies layer by layer through operational concepts into various combat operations, various combat capabilities, and various types of weapons and equipment performance for the troops, guiding the construction of joint forces and various services and arms.

In terms of organizational structure, taking the development of joint operations concepts as an example, the US military has established a working system composed of five types of organizations. The first is the Joint Concept Working Group, whose main responsibility is to review the concept outline and overall issues of concept development; the second is the Joint Concept Steering Committee, whose main responsibility is to supervise and guide the concept development plan; the third is the core writing team, whose main responsibility is to compile the concept outline The original concepts in the concept are transformed into joint operational concepts; the fourth is the concept research and development team, whose main responsibility is to provide operational concept development methods and plans; the fifth is the independent red team, whose main responsibility is to carry out independent evaluation to judge the rigor and scientificity of the concept.

In terms of norms and standards, for the development of joint operations concepts, the U.S. military has complete institutional system constraints and guidance to standardize, standardize and program the concept development, which is mainly reflected in a series of joint chiefs of staff chairman Directives and joint publications. For example, the “Joint Concept Development and Implementation Guide” aims to establish a governance structure for joint concept development, clarify the framework for joint operational concept planning, execution and evaluation, and promote the implementation of joint operational concepts; the “Joint Doctrine Preparation Process” aims to develop joint doctrine Standardize the preparation process and provide a clear process framework for transforming operational concepts into operational doctrine.

In terms of support means, the design, development and verification of operational concepts is a systematic project that cannot be separated from the support of various development tools and means. For example, tools such as DODAF2.0 model, IDEFO model and SYSML modeling language can provide standardized structured analysis models and logical description models for combat concept designers; model-based system engineering methods can provide combat concept designers and evaluation Verifiers provide capability models of equipment elements in the operational concept, which are used to design and build the operational concept framework. The U.S. military’s joint operations concept development uses network-based digital software, which has strong interconnection capabilities. All agencies involved in the development can share information in real time and improve development efficiency.

The mature development of operational concepts requires the cooperation of multiple parties

Developing an operational concept is a multi-disciplinary, multi-field work involving military science, philosophy, operations research, systems science and many other fields. It requires the cooperation of multiple parties to ensure that it is both advanced and forward-looking at the theoretical level and It is applicable and feasible at the practical level.

Establish a small core and large peripheral research team. The department initiating the development of operational concepts should give full play to its leading role and coordinate and schedule the research work from an overall perspective; establish a joint research and development team to give full play to the role of group wisdom and widely obtain new ideas and new ideas from all parties on the research of operational concepts. Methods and new perspectives; establish a cross-field and cross-department expert committee to supervise, review and guide related work from multiple perspectives.

Form a multi-departmental linkage working mechanism. In order to ensure smooth communication and efficient operation among various departments, it is necessary to first clarify their respective tasks and responsibilities. For example, the concept initiating department is responsible for overall planning and implementation, the laboratory is responsible for technical verification, the industrial department is responsible for equipment research and development, and the combat force is responsible for actual combat testing. Secondly, it is necessary to formulate relevant normative documents to ensure that all work is carried out in an orderly manner and to provide institutional support for the research and development of operational concepts. Finally, a demand traction mechanism, a collaborative research mechanism, an iterative feedback mechanism, etc. must be established to open up the link from research and development to practical application of combat concepts.

Promote the organic integration of theory and practice. Only through the cyclic iteration of “design research-deduction verification-actual military testing” can operational concepts be gradually adjusted, optimized and improved, and drive the development of war theory. Therefore, the development of operational concepts must pay special attention to the combination of theoretical innovation and practical application. Through the mutual driving of theory and practice, the fundamental purpose of leading the generation of new quality combat capabilities can be achieved. Specific methods include incorporating mature combat concepts into combat doctrine in a timely manner, preparing training syllabuses or teaching materials accordingly, and gradually promoting them to the troops; organizing relevant drills or tests to test the maturity and feasibility of combat concepts under conditions close to actual combat. nature, find and solve problems; use the capability indicators determined by the combat concept as a reference for equipment demand demonstration, drive the development of equipment technology, and promote the improvement of combat capabilities.

The rapid development of science and technology in the new era has brought many new opportunities and challenges to military capability building. Developing new combat concepts can help to keenly seize the military opportunities brought by scientific and technological progress, actively respond to threats and challenges caused by scientific and technological development, and timely grasp the direction and laws of the evolution of war forms, which can provide guidance for leading future war styles and seizing the opportunity to win. important support. At present, the international security situation is complex and ever-changing. To win future information-based wars, we need to regard the development of operational concepts as the starting point of national defense and military construction, actively carry out military technological innovation, promote the upgrading of weapons and equipment, achieve leapfrog development, and thus lead the new era. Military revolutionary trends.

(Author’s unit: Second Research Institute of China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation)

中國軍事原文來源：https://www.81.cn/gfbmap/content/2022-06/22/content_318888.htm