Tag Archives: Chinese Military Future Wars

Chinese Military Identifying Characteristics of Intelligent Transformation of Command and Control


中國軍隊指揮控制智慧轉型特點

現代英語:

Grasp the characteristics of intelligent transformation of command and control

Command and control is the key to the operation of the war system and is the most sensitive to the core technologies that shape the war situation. With the accelerated development of artificial intelligence, especially military intelligence, human-machine integration, intelligent game, and network empowerment have gradually become key factors for winning on the battlefield, and intelligent warfare is coming step by step. Studying the development and changes of command and control in the evolution of war situations is an inevitable requirement for actively designing wars, seeking command advantages, and winning future battlefields.

Flat mesh command systems tend to be more elastic and self-organized

The command system covers command elements, command institutions, command relationships, and other contents, and has a global and fundamental impact on combat command. The development of “network +” towards “intelligence +” has accelerated the reconstruction of the command system. The command elements of the linkage network are more compact and flexible. While information warfare reduces the command gradient, it also increases the command span, resulting in the complexity of the command link and a greatly compressed response time limit. The breakthrough changes in intelligent technology enable it to achieve intelligent migration through simple replication or appropriate transformation, which can not only assist commanders to improve their control, but also leave flexible command redundancy. In the future, intelligent systems can fight one enemy against ten or even one hundred, and can continuously upgrade themselves through self-game iteration. Command agencies with centralized authority tend to be distributed and self-organized. Information on the informationized battlefield accelerates the flow of information, and command agencies must quickly classify and handle problems like sorting machines on an assembly line. The intelligent battlefield emphasizes systematization. Relying on the resource pool, wisdom library, and tactics shelf of the “Comprehensive Integration Seminar Hall”, each command agency can have a clear view of the battlefield situation in a distributed environment and dynamically adjust the investment in manpower, intelligence, and computing power, which not only reduces the burden on the command core but also improves its battlefield survival rate through decentralization. Clear and stable command relationships tend to be dynamically reconfigurable. The information chain determines the command relationship. The “smoke-filled” information system is inefficient and faces the risk of being “broken and paralyzed” by the enemy during a war. The intelligent-driven border monitoring and early warning system and the endogenous traceability defense system can quickly verify the source of the attack, randomly jump the command link, dynamically adjust the command relationship, increase or decrease the command intensity as needed, and maintain the stable operation of the command system.

The operating mechanism of system confrontation emphasizes that victory is determined by superiority

The operating mechanism is the invisible baton of the command and control system, which interacts deeply with the winning mechanism and affects the outcome of the war. The core of the system has shifted from being human-centered to being coaxially driven by humans and machines. The debate over the decision-making power of intelligent warfare has been going on for a long time. Due to the political nature of war and the inorganic nature of intelligent systems, the final decision must be made by humans. The complexity, emergence and uncertainty of the intelligent battlefield require a reasonable division of labor between humans and machines. By strengthening the top-level design to establish the human-machine boundary and the cooperation mechanism, commanders will be freed from heavy physical and mental labor to focus on creative thinking activities. The system operation has developed from step-by-step transmission to on-demand linkage. Modern warfare pursues “unimpeded communication from sensor to shooter”. The high mutation and unpredictability of battlefield situations require the command and control system to be more adaptable. Compared with traditional step-by-step command, the intelligent command and control system focuses on cross-domain linkage under unified command, which can be “pseudo-controlled” according to the enemy, situation and circumstances, and can fully stimulate and mobilize the subjective initiative of subordinates. The utility model changes from comprehensive control to key point energy release. Intelligent warfare has the distinct characteristics of non-contact, asymmetric and nonlinear. From the accelerated militarization of space, to the exposure of the world’s largest network arsenal, to the nuclearization of weapon power and the frequent testing of hypersonic weapons, the trend of military powers seeking to implement key point energy release through technological assault is obvious. Adhering to the principle of “you fight yours, I fight mine” and countering asymmetric threats with asymmetric advantages will be the basic effectiveness model of intelligent warfare.

The battlefield situation of full-dimensional perception is extended to deep cognition

Battlefield situation is the premise for judging the situation and planning decisions. Through the transmission of the value chain of “data-information-knowledge-cognition”, it promotes understanding of the battle situation and reaching consensus. Intelligent situation perception helps to penetrate the surface and gain insight into the essence. The rise of distributed access and edge computing promotes situational equality. The acquisition of informationized battlefield data is greatly facilitated, but there are also problems such as uneven configuration of infrastructure, inconsistent standard formats, and difficulty in sharing and privacy protection. Large data centers face challenges such as difficulty in load balancing and stable operation. With the promotion and deployment of flexible and ad hoc access networks, autonomous trusted computing, and lightweight data centers, modular forces will gain more equal, friendly, and convenient situational authority, significantly improving situational response efficiency. Situational analysis transforms from intelligence extraction to cognitive discovery. As the offensive and defensive forces expand from tangible space to intangible space, facing true and false, chaotic and disordered situational data, based on data correlation analysis, intelligent knowledge graphs, and intelligent analysis of diversified corpora, a three-dimensional but incomplete “portrait” of the target can be made, and with the help of battle case libraries and typical behavior models, the real enemy behind the complex situation can be understood. Situational services expand from correlation integration to on-demand push. Traditional situation services are limited by static display, delayed update, and indiscriminate simultaneous release. It is difficult to reasonably distinguish the granularity and number of meshes, which increases the burden on users. Visual demonstration graphics can efficiently convey information. Relying on data visualization, electronic sandbox, and situation map hierarchical push, it can realize on-demand customized push, reduce data congestion, and improve the accuracy of delivery.

Scientific and normative planning and decision-making call for the integration of wisdom and strategy

Planning and decision-making are the core of command and control, and are also the stage for war technology and art to compete and flourish. Planning and decision-making in the intelligent era will shift from “decision-making based on intuition” to “decision-making based on data” to “decision-making based on wisdom”. The role of commanders is more creative. In a fast-paced and highly complex decision-making environment, the amount and efficiency of information processed by the human brain are limited, which is more suitable for creative thinking activities. In the decision-making mechanism of human-machine “co-conspiracy”, the machine “staff” will mainly undertake various difficult and overloaded “calculation” tasks, while the commander will focus on “calculation” work such as setting up a situation, implementing strategies and using them, so as to maximize their respective advantages. Intelligent computers are the key to understanding the war situation. In the face of the fog of war, “dispersing or bypassing the fog” depends on the commander’s operation and means of support. In the case that the characteristics of the commanders of both sides, tactics and regulations, main combat equipment and support systems are difficult to hide, the dominant side will have targeted layouts and obstacles. Autonomous and controllable intelligent systems can surpass human thinking and create new strategies without input or weak intervention, making it possible to break through the fog. Human-machine integration fills the gaps in the battlefield system. In the future battlefield, the modular force system, the fully interconnected information system, and the command system of human-machine cooperation will inevitably have gaps or barriers, which are often the “weak points” of the enemy system. The edge computing nodes and terminal decision-making entities that constitute the human-machine system can form a highly adaptable interface environment through human-machine brain connection, playing the role of a combat system adhesive.

Accurate and efficient coordinated control emphasizes cross-domain linkage

Coordinated control is the practical chapter of command control. In the intelligent era, coordinated control will move from two-dimensional to three-dimensional, with greater emphasis on cross-domain linkage. The selection of combat targets has evolved from careful selection to precise attack with full visibility. Critical targets and key nodes are like the “life gate” of the combat system, and are the key to attack and defense. How to locate the target? How to evaluate the target? How to measure the benefit? If the control is not appropriate, once a misfire or misinjury occurs, it will inevitably cause serious political and military consequences. In the future, the combination of “front-line cheap unmanned equipment + mid-stage solution and recognition system + back-stage judgment and evaluation personnel” can not only quickly identify and locate targets, but also intelligently screen and distinguish high-value targets. The control of the combat process has evolved from precise control to dynamic adjustment. The goal of coordinated control is to effectively connect various sub-domain directions, various participating forces, various offensive and defensive actions, and operations at all stages. Usually affected by the time lag of commands, it is difficult for deep command organizations to accurately control front-line troops in real time. The use of virtual augmented reality, real-time situation sharing, and data concurrent links can enable commanders to see, judge, and control the battle situation as if they were “on the scene”. The achievement of combat effectiveness has evolved from focusing on energy release to cross-domain coupling. Joint operations emphasize the close coupling and joint response of multi-domain battlefields, bringing about a positive superposition of combat effects. With the help of situation tracking systems, strike evaluation models, and effect diffusion algorithms, commanders can accurately predict the battle situation, reasonably seek benefits and avoid harm, and comprehensively control combat effects.

Precise and quantitative performance evaluation pursues iterative efficiency improvement

Effectiveness evaluation is a test of the degree of command and control, and is also the basis for optimizing and improving the combat system. The promotion of intelligent deduction and evaluation theories and methods will further demonstrate the benefits of “learning war from war”. Classic battle examples contribute new quality combat power under a new perspective. The military inherits military traditions, and past battle examples are an important carrier. With the help of behavioral logic modeling, intelligent image synthesis, natural language compilation and other technologies, historical scenes can be “reproduced”, key figures can be “revived”, key decisions can be reviewed, and opponents can be preset in a targeted manner to improve the readiness of war and combat command. Realistic operations reduce uncertainty in simulation verification. Organizing war games before the launch of a campaign action, after the end of a combat action, or during a major exercise can verify combat concepts, practice tactics and processes, and identify strengths and weaknesses. Under intelligent conditions, command agencies rely on computer war game systems to repeatedly conduct pre-war simulations, design intelligent blue troops to cooperate with actual military exercises, and organize post-war reviews based on data identification and image synthesis, which can approach the “standard answer” in “violent actions”. Wars are happening in combat laboratories in advance. In the future, people with more and more machine-like superpowers and machines that are more and more like humans will fight side by side. By constructing realistic battlefields, mixed human-machine formations, creating multi-script rules, defining flexible boundaries between humans and machines, and simulating extreme training conditions, it will help the troops understand the intelligent battlefield, deepen human-machine collaboration, rehearse future battles, and proactively open the door to intelligent warfare.

國語中文:

指揮控制是戰爭體系運作的樞紐,對塑造戰爭形態的核心技術最敏感。隨著人工智慧特別是軍事智慧化加速發展,人機融合、智慧博弈、網絡賦能逐步成為戰場制勝關鍵因素,智慧化戰爭正一步步走來。研究戰爭形態演變中指揮控制的發展變革,是主動設計戰爭、謀求指揮優勢,制勝未來戰場的必然要求。

扁平網狀的指揮體系較趨向彈性自組織

指揮體系涵蓋指揮要素、指揮機構、指揮關係等內容,對作戰指揮具有全局性、根本性影響。 「網絡+」向「智慧+」方向發展,加速了指揮體系重構。聯動網聚的指揮要素較趨緊湊有彈性。資訊化戰爭在縮減指揮梯度的同時也帶來指揮跨度增加,導致指揮鏈路複雜化和響應時限極大壓縮。智慧技術的突破性變革使其可透過簡單複製或適當改造實現智慧遷移,既能輔助指揮員提高掌控力,又留有彈性指揮冗餘。未來智慧系統,可以一敵十甚至以一敵百,並能不斷自我博弈迭代升級。集中權威的指揮機構較趨分佈自組織。資訊化戰場資訊加速流轉,指揮機構要像流水線上的分揀機一樣快速分類處理問題。智慧化戰場更強調體系性,各指揮機構依托「綜合整合研討廳」的資源池、智慧庫、戰法貨架,可在分散式環境下通視戰局,並能動態調整人力、智力、算力投向投量,既降低了指揮核心的負擔又通過去中心化提高其戰場生存率。清晰穩固的指揮關系更趨動態可重構。資訊鏈決定指揮關系,「煙囪林立」的資訊系統效率低且面臨戰時遭敵「斷鏈癱體」的風險,智慧驅動的邊界監測預警系統和內生溯源防禦系統,可快速查證攻擊源、隨機跳變指揮鏈路、動態調組指揮關系、按需增減指揮強度,維持指揮體系穩健運作。

體系對抗的運行機理更強調優勢決勝

運行機理是指揮控制體系的隱形指揮棒,與制勝機理深層互動交鏈並影響戰爭勝負走向。體系核心由以人為主轉為人-機共軸驅動。智慧化戰爭決策權的爭論由來已久,由於戰爭的政治性和智慧系統的無機性,做出最終決策的必然是人。智慧戰場的複雜性、湧現性和不確定性,要求人與機器合理分工,透過加強頂層設計確立人機分界及協作機制,將使指揮員從繁重的體力腦力勞動中解放出來專事創造性思維活動。體系運轉由逐級傳動向按需聯動發展。現代戰爭追求“從傳感器到射手無障礙貫通”,戰場形勢的高突變性和不可預知性,要求指揮控制體系更具適應性。較之傳統按部就班式指揮,智能化指揮控制體繫著眼統一指揮下的跨域聯動,既可因敵、因勢、因情「擬態」調控,又可充分激發調動下級主觀能動性。效用模式由全面瞰制向要點釋能轉變。智慧化戰爭具有非接觸性、非對稱、非線性的鮮明特徵。從太空加速軍事化,到全球最大網絡武器庫曝光,再到武器動力核能化和高超聲速武器頻繁試驗,軍事強國謀求以技術突襲實施要點釋能趨勢明顯。堅持“你打你的,我打我的”,以不對稱優勢反制不對稱威懾將是智能化戰爭的基本效用模式。

全維感知的戰場態勢向深度認知拓展

戰場態勢是研判情況和規劃決策的前提,透過「數據-資訊-知識-認知」的價值鏈傳遞,促進理解戰局、達成共識。智慧化態勢感知有助於穿透表象洞察本質。分散式接取和邊緣計算興起促使態勢平權。資訊化戰場數據獲取極大便利化,同時也存在基礎設施配置不均、標準格式不統一、共享和隱私保護難等問題,大型數據中心面臨負載平衡難和穩定運行難等挑戰。隨著彈性隨遇接取網絡、自主可信計算和輕量化資料中心推廣部署,模塊化部隊將獲得更為均等、友善、便捷的態勢權限,顯著提升態勢響應效能。態勢分析由情報提取向認知發現轉型。隨著攻防較量由有形空間向無形空間拓展,面對真假互見、零亂無序的態勢數據,基於數據關聯分析、智能知識圖譜、多樣化語料庫的智能化分析,可對目標作立體但不完整的“畫像”,並配合戰例庫和典型行為模型,洞察復雜態勢背後的真實敵情。態勢服務由關聯綜合向按需推送拓展。傳統態勢服務受靜態展示、延時更新、無差別同放等限制,粒度、目數難以合理區分,導致用戶負擔加重。形象化簡報圖形可高效傳遞訊息,依托資料可視化、電子沙盤、態勢圖分級推送等手段可實現按需客製化推送,降低資料擁塞,提高投放精準度。

科學規範的規劃決策更呼喚智謀融合

籌劃決策是指揮控制的核心,也是戰爭技術、藝術競爭的舞台。智慧時代的籌劃決策將由「靠直覺決策」經由「靠數據決策」轉變為「靠智慧決策」。指揮員角色更富創造性。在快節奏和高複雜度決策環境下,人腦處理資訊的量度和效能受限,更適合創造性思維活動。人機「共謀」的決策機構,機器「參謀」將主要承擔各種高難度、超負荷「計算」任務,指揮員則聚焦設局造勢、施計用謀等「算計」工作,從而使各自優勢最大化發揮。智慧型機腦是洞悉戰局的關鍵。面對戰爭迷霧,「驅散或繞開霧團」取決於指揮員運籌和手段支撐。在雙方指揮員特點、戰法條令、主戰裝備及支撐體係等較難隱藏情況下,優勢一方將有針對性佈局設障。而自主可控智慧系統可在無輸入或弱幹預情況下超越人類思維開創嶄新策略,使沖破迷霧成為可能。人機交融彌合戰場體系縫隙。未來戰場,模塊化編組的力量體系、全域互聯的資訊體系、人機配合的指揮體係不可避免存在縫隙或壁壘,往往是遭敵體系破擊的「七寸」。構成人機系統的邊緣計算節點和末端決策實體,可由人腦-機腦接駁形成高適應性介面環境,並發揮作戰體系黏合劑的功能。

精準高效率的協調控制更強調跨域聯動

協調控制是指揮控制的實踐篇章,智慧時代的協調控制將從平面走向立體,並更加強調跨域聯動。作戰目標選取從甄選慎打到通視精打。要害目標及關鍵節點猶如作戰體系的“命門”,是攻防之要。如何定位目標?如何評價目標?如何測算效益?若掌控失當,一旦出現誤擊誤傷,勢必造成嚴重政治軍事後果。未來「前沿廉價無人裝備+中台解算識別系統+後台判讀評估人員」的組合既可快速識別、定位目標,更能智慧篩選、區分高價值目標。作戰過程掌控從精確控製到動態調節。協調控制的目標是使各分域方向、各種參戰力量、各類攻防行動及各階段作戰有效銜接。通常受指令時滯性等影響,縱深指揮機構很難即時精準掌控前線部隊。虛擬增強現實、態勢即時共享和數據並發鏈路等的運用,可使指揮員「身臨其境」般通視、研判和掌控戰局。作戰效果達成從聚力釋能到跨域耦合。聯合作戰強調多域戰場緊密耦合與聯動呼應,帶來作戰效果正向疊加。借助態勢追踪系統、打擊評估模型及效應擴散演算法,指揮員可精準預測戰局,合理趨利避害,綜合調控作戰效果。

精細量化的效能評估更追求迭代增效

效能評估是對指揮控制達成度的檢驗,也是優化完善作戰體系的依據。智慧推演評估理論與手段推廣,將使「從戰爭中學習戰爭」的效益進一步顯現。經典戰例在新視域下貢獻新質戰力。軍隊傳承軍事傳統,既往戰例是重要載體。借助行為邏輯建模、智慧影像合成、自然語言編譯等技術,可「重現」歷史場景、「復活」核心人物、復盤關鍵決策並有針對性預設對手,提升戰爭和作戰指揮準備度。現實作戰在模擬驗證中降低不確定性。在戰役行動發起前、作戰行動結束後或重大演訓期間組織兵棋推演,能夠驗證作戰概念、研練戰法流程、查擺優長不足。智能條件下,指揮機構依托計算機兵棋系統反復進行戰前推演、設計智能藍軍配合實兵演練、基於數據標識與影像合成組織戰後復盤,可在“暴力窮舉”中逼近“標準答案” 。戰爭較量提前在作戰實驗室打響。未來,越來越具備機器般超能力的人和越來越像人的機器將並肩作戰。透過構設逼真戰場、人機混合編組、創設多腳本規則、劃定人機彈性分界、發展極限研練條件,有助於部隊認知智慧戰場、深化人機協作、預演未來之戰,主動叩開智能化戰爭之門。

魯曉彬

來源:解放軍報 作者:魯曉彬 責任編輯:劉上靖 2021-05-25

中國國防部原文資源:http://www.mod.gov.cn/gfbw/jmsd/4885987.html

中國軍事設計與發展聚焦未來戰爭的作戰概念

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