Category Archives: Cross-domain attacks

#Artificial #Intelligence, #cyber #warfare, #Information Support Force, #informatization, #intelligent warfare, #intellligentization, #網路戰爭, #認知戰, Asymmetric Warfare, China Cyber Dilemma in the 21st Century, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Artificial Intelligence, Chinese Military Characteristics & Development Trends of Cognitive Domain Operations and Warfare, Chinese Military Cognitive Domain Operations, Chinese military cognitive warfare, Chinese Military Future Wars, Chinese Military Informatization, Chinese Military Intelligentization, Chinese Military Use of Cognitive Confrontation within the Combat Domain, Chinese Military Views - 中國軍事觀, Cognitive Confrontation, Cognitive Domain Warfare, Combat Planning, Cross-domain attacks, Dissipative Warfare, Information Support Force, Intelligent Warfare, Mosaic Warfare, Strategic Support Forces, 中國解放軍敘事戰爭, 中國軍隊做好戰爭準備, 中國軍隊對耗散戰的戰術運用, 以認知為中心的戰爭：應對複雜戰爭的作戰概念, 認知域戰, 認知戰

Chinese Military Intelligence Drives Accelerated Development of Cyberspace Warfare

Leave a comment

中國軍事情報推動網絡空間戰爭加速發展

現代英語：

The report to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China pointed out that it is necessary to “accelerate the development of military intelligence and improve joint operational capabilities and all-domain operational capabilities based on network information systems.” Today’s *PLA Daily* published an article stating that military intelligence is a new trend and direction in the development of the military field after mechanization and informatization. We must develop intelligence on the basis of existing mechanization and informatization, while using intelligence to drive mechanization and informatization to a higher level and a higher standard. Cyberspace, as a new operational domain, is a new field with high technological content and the greatest innovative vitality. Under the impetus of military intelligence, it is ushering in a period of rapid development opportunities.Illustration: Lei Yu

Military intelligence is driving the accelerated development of cyberspace operations.

■ Respected soldiers Zhou Dewang Huang Anwei

Three key technologies support the intelligentization of cyberspace weapons.

Intelligence is a kind of wisdom and capability; it is the perception, cognition, and application of laws by all systems with life cycles. Intelligentization is the solidification of this wisdom and capability into a state. Cyberspace weapons are weapons used to carry out combat missions in cyberspace. Their form is primarily software and code, essentially a piece of data. The intelligence of cyberspace weapons is mainly reflected in the following three aspects:

First, there’s intelligent vulnerability discovery. Vulnerabilities are the foundation of cyber weapon design. The ransomware that spread globally this May exploited a vulnerability in the Microsoft operating system, causing a huge shock in the cybersecurity community. Vulnerabilities are expensive, with a single zero-day vulnerability costing tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Previously, vulnerability discovery relied mainly on experienced hackers using software tools to inspect and analyze code. However, at the International Cybersecurity Technology Competition finals held during this year’s China Internet Security Conference, participants demonstrated how intelligent robots could discover vulnerabilities on-site, then use these vulnerabilities to write network code, creating cyber weapons to breach target systems and capture the flag. This change signifies that vulnerability discovery has entered the era of intelligent technology.

Second, intelligent signal analysis and cryptography. Signals are the carriers of network data transmission, and cryptography is the last line of defense for network data security. Signal analysis and cryptography are core technologies for cyberspace warfare. Breaking through signals and cryptography is the fundamental path to entering cyberspace and a primary target of cyber weapons attacks. Intelligent signal analysis solves problems such as signal protocol analysis, modulation identification, and individual identification through technologies such as big data, cloud computing, and deep learning. Cryptography is the “crown jewel” of computational science. Intelligent cryptography, through the accumulation of cryptographic data samples, continuously learns and searches for patterns to find the key to decryption, thereby opening the last door of the network data “safe” and solving the critical links of network intrusion and access.

Thirdly, there is the design of intelligent weapon platforms. In 2009, the U.S. military proposed the “Cyber ​​Aircraft” project, providing platforms similar to armored vehicles, ships, and aircraft for cyberspace operations. These platforms can automatically conduct reconnaissance, load cyber weapons, autonomously coordinate, and autonomously attack in cyberspace. When threatened, they can self-destruct and erase traces, exhibiting a certain degree of intelligence. In the future, the weapons loaded onto “Cyber ​​Aircraft” will not be pre-written code by software engineers, but rather intelligent cyber weapons will be designed in real-time based on discovered vulnerabilities, enabling “order-based” development and significantly improving the targeting of cyberspace operations.

The trend of intelligentization in network-controlled weapons is becoming increasingly prominent.

Weapons controlled by cyberspace, or cyber-controlled weapons, are weapons that connect to a network, receive commands from cyberspace, execute cross-domain missions, and achieve combat effects in physical space. Most future combat weapon platforms will be networked, making military information networks essentially the Internet of Things (IoT). These networks connect to satellites, radars, drones, and other network entities, enabling control from perception and detection to tracking, positioning, and strike. The intelligence of cyber-controlled weapons is rapidly developing across land, sea, air, space, and cyber domains.

In 2015, Syria used a Russian robotic force to defeat militants. The operation employed six tracked robots, four wheeled robots, an automated artillery corps, several drones, and a command system. Commanders used the command system to direct drones to locate militants, and the robots then charged, supported by artillery and drone fire, inflicting heavy casualties. This small-scale battle marked the beginning of robotic “team” operations.

Network-controlled intelligent weapons for naval and air battlefields are under extensive research and development and verification. In 2014, the U.S. Navy used 13 unmanned surface vessels to demonstrate and verify the interception of enemy ships by unmanned surface vessel swarms, mainly by exchanging sensor data, and achieved good results. When tested again in 2016, functions such as collaborative task allocation and tactical coordination were added, and “swarm awareness” became its prominent feature of intelligence.

The development of swarms of small, micro-sized drones for aerial combat is also rapid. In recent years, the U.S. Department of Defense has conducted multiple tests of the Partridge micro-drone, capable of deploying dozens or even hundreds at a time. By enhancing its coordination capabilities during reconnaissance missions, progress has been made in drone formation, command, control, and intelligent management.

Space-based cyber-control weapons are becoming increasingly “intelligent.” The space-based cyber-control domain primarily comprises two categories of weapons: reconnaissance and strike weapons. Satellites of various functions mainly perform reconnaissance missions and are typical reconnaissance sensors. With the emergence of various microsatellite constellations, satellites are exhibiting new characteristics: small size, rapid launch, large numbers, and greater intelligence. Microsatellite constellations offer greater flexibility and reliability in performing reconnaissance and communication missions, and currently, the world’s leading satellite powers are actively developing microsatellite constellation plans with broader coverage.

Various hypersonic strike weapons are cruising in the air, like a sword of Damocles hanging over people’s heads. The U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory stated that the “hypersonic strike weapon” will begin flight testing around 2018, and other countries are also actively developing similar weapons. The most prominent features of these weapons are their high speed, long range, and high level of intelligence.

Intelligent command information systems are changing traditional combat command methods.

Cyber ​​weapons and weapons controlled by cyberspace constitute the “fist” of intelligent warfare, while the command information systems that direct the use of these weapons are the “brain” of intelligent warfare. Cyberspace operational command information systems must keep pace with the process of intelligentization. Currently, almost all global command information systems face the challenge of “intelligent lag.” Future warfare requires rapid and autonomous decision-making, which places higher demands on intelligent support systems.

In 2007, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) launched the “Deep Green Program,” a research and development program for command and control systems, aiming to enable computer-aided commanders to make rapid decisions and gain a decisive advantage. This is a campaign-level command information system, developed to be embedded into the U.S. Army’s brigade-level C4ISR wartime command information system, enabling intelligent command by commanders. Even today, the U.S. military has not relaxed its development of intelligent command information systems.

In cyberspace warfare, network targets are represented by a single IP address accessing the network. Their sheer number makes efficient manual operation difficult, necessitating the support of intelligent command and information systems. Currently, intelligent command and information systems need to achieve functions such as intelligent intelligence analysis, intelligent sensing, intelligent navigation and positioning, intelligent decision support, intelligent collaboration, intelligent assessment, and intelligent unmanned combat. In particular, they must enable swarm operational control of unmanned network control systems. All of these requirements urgently demand intelligent command and information systems, necessitating accelerated research and development and application of relevant key technologies.

In conclusion, intelligent cyber weapons and network control weapons, coordinated through intelligent information systems, will form enormous combat capabilities, essentially enabling them to carry out all actions in current combat scenarios. Future warfare, from command force organization to target selection, action methods, and tactical applications, will all unfold within an intelligent context. The “gamification” of warfare will become more pronounced, and operational command methods will undergo significant changes.

In future battlefields, combat will require not only courage but also intelligence.

■ Yang Jian, Zhao Lu

Currently, artificial intelligence is entering a new stage of development and is rapidly penetrating various fields. Influenced by this process, military competition among nations surrounding intelligent technologies has begun. Our army has always been a brave and tenacious people’s army, determined to fight and win. On the future battlefield, we should continue to carry forward our glorious traditions while more broadly mastering and utilizing the latest technological achievements to develop more intelligent weapons and equipment, thereby gaining a decisive advantage on the future battlefield.

Intelligentization is a trend in human societal development, and intelligent warfare is rapidly approaching. The development of military intelligence has a solid foundation thanks to successful innovations that transcend existing computational models, the gradual popularization of nanotechnology, and breakthroughs in research on the mechanisms of the human brain. Consequently, intelligent weaponry is increasingly prominent, surpassing and even replacing human capabilities in areas such as intelligence analysis and combat response. Furthermore, intelligent weaponry offers significant advantages in terms of manpower requirements, comprehensive support, and operating costs, and is increasingly becoming the dominant force in warfare.

The development and application of intelligent weaponry have proven to expand the scope of military operations and significantly enhance the combat effectiveness of troops. In the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, drones have undertaken most of the reconnaissance, intelligence, and surveillance support missions, and have been responsible for approximately one-third of the air strike missions. In the past two years, Russia has also repeatedly used highly intelligent unmanned reconnaissance aircraft and combat robots in the Syrian theater. Intelligent weaponry is increasingly demonstrating its significant value, surpassing that of traditional weapons.

In future wars, the contest of intelligent combat systems will be the key to victory in high-level competition and ultimate showdowns. As the development of technology-supported military means becomes increasingly uneven, whoever first acquires the capability to conduct intelligent warfare will be better positioned to seize the initiative on the battlefield. Those with a technological advantage will minimize the costs of war, while the weaker will inevitably suffer enormous losses and pay a heavy price. We must not only accelerate innovation in core technologies and the development of weaponry, but also research and explore organizational structures, command methods, and operational models adapted to the development of intelligent military operations. Furthermore, we must cultivate a talent pool capable of promoting intelligent military development and forging intelligent combat capabilities, fully leveraging the overall effectiveness of our military’s combat system, and winning wars in a more “intelligent” manner against our adversaries.

現代國語：

党的十九大报告指出，要“加快军事智能化发展，提高基于网络信息体系的联合作战能力、全域作战能力”。今天的《解放军报》刊发文章指出，军事智能化是机械化、信息化之后军事领域发展的新趋势和新方向，我们要在现有机械化和信息化基础上发展智能化，同时用智能化牵引机械化和信息化向更高水平、更高层次发展。网络空间作为新型作战领域，是科技含量高、最具创新活力的新领域，在军事智能化的牵引下，正在迎来快速发展的机遇期。制图：雷 煜

军事智能化牵引网络空间作战加速发展

■敬兵 周德旺 皇安伟

三大技术支撑网络空间武器智能化

智能是一种智慧和能力，是一切有生命周期的系统对规律的感应、认知与运用，智能化就是把这种智慧和能力固化下来，成为一种状态。网络空间武器是网络空间遂行作战任务的武器，其形态以软件和代码为主，本质上是一段数据。网络空间武器的智能化主要体现在以下三个方面：

一是智能化漏洞挖掘。漏洞是网络武器设计的基础，今年5月在全球范围内传播的勒索病毒软件，就是利用了微软操作系统漏洞，给网络安全界带来了巨大震动。漏洞价格昂贵，一个零日漏洞价值几万到几十万美元不等。以往漏洞的发现，主要依靠有经验的黑客，利用软件工具对代码进行检查和分析。在今年中国互联网安全大会期间举办的国际网络安全技术对抗联赛总决赛中，参赛人员演示由智能机器人现场进行漏洞挖掘，然后通过漏洞编写网络代码，形成网络武器，攻破目标系统，夺取旗帜。这一变化，意味着漏洞挖掘进入了智能化时代。

二是智能化信号分析和密码破译。信号是网络数据传输的载体，密码是网络数据安全最后的屏障，信号分析和密码破译是网络空间作战的核心技术，突破信号和密码是进入网络空间的基本路径，是网络武器攻击的首要目标。智能化信号分析将信号的协议分析、调制识别、个体识别等问题，通过大数据、云计算、深度学习等技术进行解决。密码破译是计算科学“皇冠上的明珠”，智能化密码破译通过对密码数据样本的积累，不断学习、寻找规律，能找到破译的钥匙，从而打开网络数据“保险柜”的最后一道门，解决网络入侵和接入的关键环节。

三是智能化武器平台设计。美军在2009年提出“网络飞行器”项目，为网络空间作战提供像战车、舰艇、飞机这样的平台，可以实现在网络空间里自动侦察、加载网络武器、自主协同、自主攻击，受到威胁时自我销毁、清除痕迹，具备了一定的智能化特征。未来“网络飞行器”加载的武器，不是软件人员编好的代码，而是根据侦察结果直接对发现的漏洞，现场实时进行智能化网络武器设计，实现“订购式”开发，从而极大地提高网络空间作战的针对性。

网控武器的智能化趋势愈加凸显

受网络空间控制的武器简称网控武器，是通过网络连接，接受网络空间指令，执行跨域任务，在物理空间达成作战效果的武器。未来的各种作战武器平台，大多是联网的武器平台，这样军事信息网本质上就是物联网，上联卫星、雷达、无人机等网络实体，从感知到发现、跟踪、定位、打击都可通过网络空间控制，网控武器的智能化已在陆海空天电等战场蓬勃发展。

2015年，叙利亚利用俄罗斯机器人军团击溃武装分子，行动采用了包括6个履带式机器人、4个轮式机器人、1个自动化火炮群、数架无人机和1套指挥系统。指挥员通过指挥系统调度无人机侦察发现武装分子，机器人向武装分子发起冲锋，同时伴随火炮和无人机攻击力量支援，对武装分子进行了致命打击。这仅仅是一场小规模的战斗，却开启了机器人“组团”作战的先河。

海空战场网控智能武器正在大量研发验证。2014年，美国海军使用13艘无人水面艇，演示验证无人艇集群拦截敌方舰艇，主要通过交换传感器数据，取得了不错的效果。2016年再次试验时，新增了协同任务分配、战术配合等功能，“蜂群意识”成为其智能化的显著特点。

用于空中作战的小微型无人机蜂群也在快速发展。近年来，美国国防部多次试验“山鹑”微型无人机，可一次投放数十架乃至上百架，通过提升其执行侦察任务时的协同能力，在无人机编队、指挥、控制、智能化管理等方面都取得了进展。

空天网控武器越来越“聪明”。空天领域主要包含侦察和打击两类网控武器，各种功能的卫星主要执行侦察任务，是典型的侦察传感器。随着各种小微卫星群的出现，使卫星表现出新的特征：体积小、发射快、数量多、更加智能。小微卫星群在执行侦察和通信任务时，有了更大的灵活度和可靠性，目前世界卫星强国都在积极制定覆盖范围更广的小微卫星群计划。

各种高超音速打击武器在空天巡航，仿佛悬在人们头顶的利剑。美国空军研究室称“高速打击武器”将在2018年前后启动飞行试验，其它各国也正在积极研发类似武器。这类武器最大的特点是速度快、航程远、智能化程度高。

智能化指挥信息系统改变传统作战指挥方式

网络空间武器和受网络空间控制的武器，是智能化战争的“拳头”，而指挥这些武器运用的指挥信息系统是智能化战争的“大脑”，网络空间作战指挥信息系统要同步跟上智能化的进程。当前，几乎全球的指挥信息系统都面临着“智能滞后”的难题，未来战争需要快速决策、自主决策，这对智能辅助系统提出了更高要求。

2007年，美国国防部高级研究计划局启动关于指挥控制系统的研发计划——“深绿计划”，以期能实现计算机辅助指挥员快速决策赢得制胜先机。这是一个战役战术级的指挥信息系统，其研发目的是将该系统嵌入美国陆军旅级C4ISR战时指挥信息系统中去，实现指挥员的智能化指挥。直到今天，美军也没有放松对智能化指挥信息系统的开发。

在网络空间作战中，网络目标表现为一个接入网络的IP地址，数量众多导致人工难以高效操作，作战更需要智能化指挥信息系统的辅助支撑。当前，智能化指挥信息系统需要实现智能情报分析、智能感知、智能导航定位、智能辅助决策、智能协同、智能评估、智能化无人作战等功能，尤其是实现对无人网控系统的集群作战操控，这都对智能化指挥信息系统提出了迫切需求，需要加快相应关键技术的研发和运用。

综上所述，智能化的网络武器和网控武器，通过智能化的信息系统调度，将形成巨大的作战能力，基本能遂行现行作战样式中的所有行动。未来战争，从指挥力量编组、到目标选择、行动方式、战法运用等，都将在智能化的背景下展开，战争“游戏化”的特点将更显著，作战指挥方式也将发生重大变化。

未来战场 斗勇更需斗“智”

■杨建　赵璐

当前，人工智能发展进入崭新阶段，并开始向各个领域加速渗透。受这一进程的影响，各国围绕智能化的军事竞争已拉开帷幕。我军历来是一支英勇顽强、敢打必胜的人民军队，未来战场上应继续发扬光荣传统，同时要更加广泛地掌握和利用最新的科技成果，研制出更多智能化的武器装备，在未来战场上掌握制胜先机。

智能化是人类社会发展的趋势，智能化战争正在加速到来。正是由于超越原有体系结构计算模型的成功创新、纳米制造技术的逐步普及，以及对人脑机理研究的突破性进展，军事智能化发展才拥有了坚实的基础。因此，智能化武器装备的表现日益突出，并在情报分析、战斗反应等方面开始超越并替代人类。此外，在人力需求、综合保障、运行成本等方面，智能化武器装备也具有明显的优势，正在日益成为战争的主导力量。

事实证明，智能化武器装备的发展应用，拓展了军事行动的能力范围，大幅提升了部队的作战效能。在阿富汗和伊拉克战场上，无人机已承担了大部分侦察、情报、监视等作战保障任务，并担负了约三分之一的空中打击任务。近两年，俄罗斯在叙利亚战场上也多次使用具有较高智能化程度的无人侦察机、战斗机器人等装备。智能化武器装备正在愈来愈多地展现出超越传统武器的重要价值。

未来战争中，作战体系智能化的较量将是高手过招、巅峰对决的制胜关键。随着以科技为支撑的军事手段发展的不平衡性越来越大，谁先具备实施智能化作战的能力，谁就更能掌握战场的主动权，拥有技术代差优势的强者会尽可能将战争成本降到最低，而弱者必然遭受巨大损失，付出惨重代价。我们不仅要加紧核心技术创新、武器装备研制，还要研究探索适应军事智能化发展的组织结构、指挥方式和运用模式，更要培养一支能够担起推进军事智能化发展、锻造智能化作战能力的人才队伍，充分发挥我军作战体系的整体效能，在与对手的较量中，以更加“智慧”的方式赢得战争。

中國原創軍事資源：http://www.81.cn/jwzl/2017-11/24/content_7841898885.htm

#Artificial #Intelligence, #Chinese Military Joint Oprations, #cross-domain collaborative operations, #Information Support Force, #intelligent warfare, #跨域協同作戰, Cross-domain attacks, Mosaic Warfare, Multi-domain fusion operations, Multi-Domain Operations, 多域融合作戰, 跨域協同作戰

Advantages, Prospects of Multi-domain Integration & Cross-domain Attack and Defense

Leave a comment

多域融合與跨域攻防的優勢與前景

現代英語：

“Multi-domain fusion operations” and “cross-domain collaborative operations” are the latest operational ideas proposed by the US military in recent years, guiding the gradual upgrade and evolution of the US military’s combat concepts to joint concepts, and building a new war style based on this, covering all combat fields such as “land, sea, air, space, and network”, and integrating various capabilities such as space, network, deterrence, transportation, electromagnetic spectrum, and missile defense. Through this new combat idea, we can compete with competitors such as Russia in various fields, develop asymmetric advantages, and ensure the leading position of our country’s military strength. What advantages do multi-domain fusion operations and cross-domain offense and defense have in actual combat, and what are their development prospects?

The evolution of the concept of global warfare

After the mid-1970s, the U.S. Army successively proposed combat concepts such as “central combat”, “expanded battlefield” and “integrated battlefield”, forming the “air-ground integrated combat” combat theory. Air-ground integrated combat requires the coordination and unity of ground forces and the air force, and conducts deep operations on the basis of the air force’s battlefield air interdiction and offensive air support. For the first time, the combat concept of multi-service coordinated operations appeared, and this combat theory was also tested in actual combat in the Gulf War. This is the starting point for the birth of the concept of multi-domain warfare and even global warfare.

On October 3, 2016, at the annual meeting of the Association of the United States Army, General David G. Perkins, then commander of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, delivered a public speech in which he used the word “domain” for the first time to accurately summarize the new form of international warfare, and put forward the view that “all domains of the United States are challenged” and “advantages in a single domain cannot win the war”, and then introduced the concept of “multi-domain combat”. The operational concept of “multi-domain combat” requires close cooperation between the combat forces of various services, abandoning the inertia of the service thinking of pursuing control in a single domain, and providing a “multi-domain solution” for the national command authorities.

In October 2018, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command issued the 1.5 version of the concept of “U.S. Army Multi-Domain Operations 2028”. As the most mature version of the concept, it replaced the original word “battle” with “operation” and extended the concept of “multi-domain combat”. The concept of “multi-domain combat” is only applicable to the conflict stage, but in the case that the competition between nation states has become a new factor in the world situation, simply winning the actual conflict has very limited significance for the overall combat background, so the concept of “multi-domain” must be extended and deepened. The concept of “multi-domain combat” introduces relevant cross-government and cross-institutional elements into the “competition continuum” of “competition, armed conflict and return to competition”, and puts forward the three core concepts of “calibrating force posture, using multi-domain formations, and achieving multi-domain aggregation” in “multi-domain warfare”, clarifies the specific needs of “multi-domain formations”, and refines the corresponding combat capabilities that troops at different levels need to have in “multi-domain warfare”.

“Cross-domain coordination” refers to the mutual cooperation of various services to make up for the deficiencies of other forces in combat, thereby achieving complementary efficiency in various fields and successfully completing combat missions. Guided by the basic ideas of multi-domain integration and cross-domain coordination, the US military has formed the concept of “full-domain warfare”, that is, to develop the joint combat capabilities of various services throughout the entire process of combat and training, and realize the transformation of the army into a joint combat force.

The advantages of all-domain operations are obvious

Judging from the current international military development situation, countries will face an increasingly complex, deadly, extremely active, and urbanized battlefield. The combat environment is becoming increasingly fragile, and the combat mode of the traditional battlefield is no longer applicable to contemporary warfare. Against this background, the US military has proposed the concept of full-domain warfare in order to cope with the increasingly complex international environment. What are the advantages of multi-domain warfare and cross-domain attack and defense on the modern battlefield?

Multi-domain integration enables the advantages of different arms to overlap and their disadvantages to complement each other. The predecessor of multi-domain warfare, “Air-Land Integrated Warfare”, was a combat style of joint operations between the Air Force and the Army that the U.S. military attempted to establish in the early 1980s in response to the huge threat posed by Soviet tank clusters to NATO on the European plains. This combat mode requires a high degree of coordination between ground forces and air forces. Ground forces conduct offensive mobile defense operations on the front line, while the Air Force blocks the replenishment of front-line forces by striking the enemy’s rear, thereby providing tactical support to the front-line army. This is also the first time in the history of the U.S. military that the Air Force and the Army have conducted in-depth cooperation, which has increased the complexity and flexibility of the U.S. military’s operations, made the U.S. military’s tactical options richer and more dynamic, and posed a greater strategic deterrence to the enemy.

On the other hand, cross-domain attack and defense can expand asymmetric advantages and impose greater restrictions on the enemy’s power. Since the concept of cross-domain attack and defense emphasizes the coordination of offensive and defensive forces in different fields, during the battle, the army can exert greater pressure on the enemy through its own advantageous fields, making it difficult for the enemy’s power to be maximized, thereby expanding the asymmetric advantage, maximizing its own strength and weakening the enemy’s power. In recent years, all countries have attached great importance to the technical development and research in the field of network electromagnetics. To some extent, this is because the field of network electromagnetics is a new product that came with the information age. Emerging powers that try to catch up with old powers can establish their own advantages through the development of this field, while old powers do not want to be overtaken and have fields that can be used as weaknesses by the enemy. Therefore, all countries have unanimously regarded the research and development of the field of network electromagnetics as one of their current key areas of development, which also reflects the great power of cross-domain attack and defense in modern information-based intelligent warfare.

Global war has broad prospects for development

At present, the concept of “global warfare” only has a theoretical basis, and it still takes a lot of effort to convert theory into practice. The vice chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff clearly stated in an interview: “The seamless integration of various fields and effective command and control are still a daunting challenge. We are not sure how to do it, and no one has a ready-made answer.”

In the process of achieving true joint operations, there are obstacles in various aspects, including culture, economy, and politics. These problems will affect the establishment of truly joint combat forces and joint combat modes. First, each service has formed its own unique combat style and combat culture in the long-term development process. The differences in the culture of different services may lead to different concepts of combat focus on the construction of joint combat forces, which in turn leads to unclear directions and goals for force construction. Secondly, the budget for military construction is limited, and each service will try its best to use it for the update and research and development of its own weapons and equipment, resulting in the budget giving priority to meeting the needs of each service rather than joint combat needs. Finally, it is difficult for the Ministry of National Defense to obtain the power of integrated government and allies. “Cross-domain coordination” is a game of national comprehensive power, which includes politics, economy, diplomacy, intelligence and other aspects. It requires the coordination and coordination of government agencies in various fields of the country, and relying solely on the Ministry of National Defense does not have enough power to achieve the integration of various forces.

These issues all affect the development of “all-domain warfare”, but in any case, as a new combat concept, “all-domain warfare” will surely become an important mode of future combat. The United States released the “Joint All-Domain Combat Software” in April this year, aiming to develop theater-level joint all-domain combat software to allocate combat resources and achieve coordinated killing in the fields of land, sea, air, space, and electromagnetic fields. This action also shows the United States’ determination to achieve “all-domain warfare.” (Zhang Haoyue, Shen Qiyou, Ma Jianguang)

(Editors: Huang Zijuan, Chen Yu)

現代國語：

“多域融合作戰”與“跨域協同作戰”是美軍近年來最新提出的作戰思想，指導著美國軍種作戰概念逐步向聯合概念升級演進，並以此為基礎打造全新戰爭樣式，建設涵蓋“陸、海、空、天、網”等全部作戰領域，融合太空、網絡、威懾、運輸、電磁頻譜、導彈防禦等各種能力的聯合作戰部隊。透過這種全新的作戰思想與俄羅斯等競爭對手在各領域內角力較量，發展不對稱優勢，確保本國軍事實力的領先地位。多域融合作戰與跨域攻防在實戰中有著怎樣的優勢，發展前景又如何呢？

全局戰概念演變過程

1970年代中期後，美國陸軍先後提出了「中心戰」、「擴大的戰場」和「一體化戰場」等作戰思想，形成了「空地一體戰」作戰理論。空地一體作戰要求地面部隊與空軍協調統一，在空軍實施戰場空中遮斷和進攻性空中支援的基礎上進行縱深作戰，首次出現了多兵種協同作戰的作戰思想，這一作戰理論也在海灣戰爭中得到了實戰檢驗。這就是多域戰乃至全局戰思想誕生的起點。

2016年10月3日，美陸軍協會年會上，時任美國陸軍訓練與條令司令部司令的大衛·G·珀金斯將軍發表公開演講，首次使用“域”一詞精確概括出了國際戰爭的新形式，提出美國“所有領域均受到挑戰”、“單一領域的優勢 無法贏得戰爭”等觀點，進而推出了“多域戰鬥”的概念。 「多域戰鬥」的作戰思想要求各軍種作戰力量之間密切合作，摒棄追求各自單一領域制權的軍種思維慣性，為國家指揮當局提供一種「多域方案」。

2018年10月，美國陸軍訓練與條令司令部頒布了《美國陸軍多域作戰2028》概念1.5版本，作為目前最為成熟的一版概念，它以“作戰”一詞替換了原有的“戰鬥”，對“多域戰鬥”概念進行了延伸拓展。 「多域戰鬥」的概念僅適用於衝突階段，但在民族國家競爭成為世界局勢新要素的情況下，僅僅贏得實戰衝突的勝利對於作戰大背景的意義是非常有限的，因此必須將「多域」概念延拓深化。 「多域作戰」這個概念就是在「競爭、武裝衝突和重回競爭」這個「競爭連續體」中引入了跨政府、跨機構的相關要素，提出「多域戰」中的「校準力量態勢、運用多域編隊、達成多域聚合」三項核心理念，明確了「多域編隊」的具體需求，細化了不同層級部隊在「多域作戰」中具備的具體領域作戰能力」。

「跨域協同」指的是各軍種透過相互合作彌補其他部隊在戰鬥中存在的不足進而實現各領域的互補增效，最終成功完成戰鬥任務。在多域融合與跨域協同的基本思想指引下，美軍形成了「全域戰」的概念，即在戰訓的全過程中發展各兵種聯合作戰的能力，實現軍隊向聯合作戰部隊轉型。

全局作戰優勢顯著

就目前國際軍事發展情勢來看，各國面對的將是一個日益複雜、致命、極度活躍、都市化的戰場，作戰環境越來越脆弱，傳統戰場的作戰模式已經不再適用於當代戰爭。在這種背景下，美軍提出了全域戰的理念，以期應對日益複雜的國際環境。多域作戰與跨域攻防在現代化戰場上究竟有何優勢呢？

多域融合能使不同兵種力量優勢疊加，劣勢互補。多域戰的前身「空地一體戰」就是20世紀80年代初，美軍為應對蘇聯坦克集群在歐洲平原對北約造成的巨大威脅而試圖建立的空軍與陸軍協同作戰的作戰樣式。這種作戰模式要求地面部隊與空中力量高度協同，地面部隊進行前線進攻性機動防禦作戰，空軍則透過打擊敵軍後方阻滯其對前線兵力的充實，進而為前線陸軍提供戰術支援。這也是美軍歷史上 首次進行空軍與陸軍的深度協作，提高了美軍軍隊作戰的複雜度與靈活性，使美軍戰術選擇更加豐富且具有活力，對敵人造成更大了戰略威懾。

另一方面，跨域攻防能擴大不對稱優勢，對敵軍力量發揮產生更大限制。由於跨域攻防的概念強調不同領域攻防力量相互配合，因此，在戰鬥過程中，軍隊可以透過自己的優勢領域向敵軍施加更大壓力，使敵人的力量難以得到最大程度的發揮，進而擴大不對稱優勢，最大程度展現自身實力而削弱敵軍力量。各國近年都來非常重視網路電磁領域的技術開發研究，某種程度上就是因為網路電磁領域是隨著資訊時代而來的新產物，試圖趕超老牌強國的新興大國能夠透過這個領域的發展建立自身優勢，而老牌強國不希望被追趕，出現能夠被敵軍當作弱點打擊的領域。因此各國都不約而同地將網路電磁領域的研究發展作為了自己目前發展的重點領域之一，這也體現了跨域攻防在現代資訊化智慧戰爭中的巨大力量。

全局戰發展前景廣闊

目前，「全局戰」這一理念只是擁有了理論基礎，要將理論轉換為實踐仍需許多努力，美軍參聯會副主席在接受采訪時明確表示：“各領域的無縫融合和有效 指揮控制仍是一項艱鉅的挑戰，我們還不清楚究竟要如何做到，沒人有現成的答案。”

在實現真正的聯合作戰過程中，存在著包括文化、經濟、政治等各方面的阻礙，這些問題都會影響真正意義上的聯合作戰部隊、聯合作戰模式的建立。首先，各軍種在長期發展過程中都形成了本軍種特有的作戰樣式與戰鬥文化，不同軍種文化的分歧可能導致對聯合作戰部隊建設的作戰重點觀念不同，進而造成部隊建設的方向模糊，目標不明確。其次，軍隊建設預算有限，各軍種都會盡力爭取用於自身武器裝備更新研發，導致預算優先滿足各軍種需求而非聯合作戰需求。最後，國防部難以獲取整合政府與盟國力量，「跨域協同」是國家綜合力量的博弈，包含了政治、經濟、外交、情報等各個方面，需要國家各領域政府機構力量的配合協同，而僅依靠國防部是沒有足夠的權力實現各力量的整合。

這些問題都影響著“全局戰”的發展進程，但無論如何，作為新型作戰理念的“全局戰”都必將成為未來作戰的重要模式，美國更是在今年4月發布了“聯合全局作戰軟體”，旨在開發戰區級聯合全局作戰軟體，以編配作戰資源，實現陸、海、空、天、電磁等領域的協同殺傷。這項行動也昭示了美國實現「全域戰」的決心。 （張顴月、申起有、馬建光）

(編按：黃子娟、陳羽)

中國原創軍事資源：https://military.people.com.cn/n1/2020/0817/c1011-31824792888.html