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.
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.
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.
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)
