Air University Review , November-December 1980

Technological Competence
and the Military Commander

OF THE more important attributes of a senior Air Force officer are those that enable him to conduct successful military operations. These attributes were once equated to the military qualities of a warrior--his operational prowess, wisdom, dedication, and courage; but in today's technologically intensive Air Force, another important dimension must be included among those necessary qualities of the military leader. This dimension is technological competence. It enables an officer to make decisions based not only on experience and judgment but also on scientific methods of analysis and information processing for the planning and execution of military operations.

Technological competence will become increasingly essential during the 1980s, when many of the underlying concepts of strategy and tactics will undergo significant evolutionary changes as a result of the introduction of new weapon systems. Sophisticated weapons with automatic capabilities, such as precision-guided munitions and advanced command, control, and communication systems, will require a new generation of Air Force officers capable of using the full potential of the emerging computerized force structure. Also, with austere defense budgets, not only must the systems themselves be cost-effective over the total life cycle but also their performance in the operational environment must be optimal.

The requirement to maintain and operate technologically complex weapon systems implies the need for people with superior technical capabilities to develop, acquire, and operate them also. Consequently, the operation of appropriate education and training programs for the Air Force, incorporating the latest scientific methods and techniques in military operations, is tantamount to maintaining effective military forces.

Historical Perspectives

The use of scientific methods to enhance the effectiveness and success of military operations is not new. About 214 B. C. Archimedes helped break the Roman naval siege of Syracuse by designing machines of war, including catapults and missile throwers that terrified the Romans. One legend is that Archimedes constructed concave mirrors that burned the ships of Roman general Marcus Claudius Marcellus by concentrating the sun's rays on them.¹ This unusual defensive measure could perhaps be described as the first application of a directed energy weapon. In more recent times Napoleon, during his Egyptian expedition of 1798, enlisted the services of the famous French mathematician Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier.² World War I witnessed the first serious attempts to apply established scientific methods to the solution of military operational problems. In 1916 Frederick Lanchester developed a mathematical analysis of air combat,³ which later served as a fundamental model in developing theories of combat and calculating attrition rates in military operations. Also during World War I, Thomas Edison conducted investigations into submarine warfare for the United States Navy.⁴ World War II provided still further impetus to such applications; and the discipline of operations research, in which scientific methods were applied to improve military operations, was born.⁵

This new discipline originated in the United Kingdom, where it was called operational research. It resulted from the initiative of A. P. Rowe, Superintendent of the Bawdsey Research Station, who organized research teams to develop effective techniques for using the then newly developed radar to locate enemy aircraft. At the outbreak of war on 1 September 1939, Rowe sent a small group of scientists from Bawdsey to the Royal Air Force fighter command headquarters at Stanmore.6 This group played a very important role in developing interception tactics for British fighter aircraft, tactics that played a decisive role in the Battle of Britain. By 1941 formal operational research groups had been established in all three of Britain's military services.

As in Britain, the introduction of radar was responsible for stimulating scientific development in the U.S. Army Air Forces. In October 1942, General Henry "Hap" Arnold urged all commands to establish operations research groups, and, by the end of the war, 26 such groups were in existence.⁷

After World War II, operations research in both military and industrial applications began rapid growth. In the United States the Operations Research Society of America was formed in 1952, followed by the Military Operations Research Society in 1966. Also a number of private and governmental organizations in operations research were established, such as the Institute of Defense Analyses in Washington, and the Studies Analysis and Gaming Agency within the Department of Defense. In Germany Industrieanlagen-Betriebsgesellschaft was established as the principal institution in defense research for the German armed forces. In the United Kingdom the Defense Operational Analysis Establishment was created to assist the British Ministry of Defense. Some of the other prominent centers of military operations research in Europe are the SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe) Technical Center in The Hague, the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment, and the Centre Interarmées de Recherche Opérationnelle in France.

The importance of operations research is emphasized at the highest echelons of the United States Army, Navy, and Air Force. The Army has an office of the Deputy Undersecretary (Operations Research); the Navy operates the Center for Naval Analyses; and the Air Force has its Studies and Analysis Office on the Air Staff.

There are indications in the Soviet Union that applications of scientific method to military operations also receive much attention. Having achieved a substantial numerical superiority in weaponry, the Soviets are now placing greater emphasis on combat readiness of their armed forces. Their force mobility, striking force, and firepower have increased in recent years, and the forces are showing greater concern for qualitative development.⁸ In pursuing this goal the Soviets are striving for continuing introduction of the achievements of science and technology into military practice.⁹ Modern mathematical techniques are being applied to determine the optimum use of weapon systems, to achieve a better theoretical understanding of the conduct of large military operations, and to analyze the effectiveness of weapon systems.¹⁰

The importance of science and technology in Soviet military practice was underscored by the late Soviet Minister of Defense and Marshal of the Soviet Union A. A. Grechko when he wrote:

In this regard, the interests of reliable defense of the Soviet Motherland demand that we do not let up on the scientific exploration front. that we continue scientific research and experimental design work, that we make use of the results of scientific and technical progress for creation of planning models of weapons and combat equipment. and that we reduce the time for the introduction of the results of scientific research into production.¹¹

The Scientific Method
in Military Operations

To illustrate the scope of scientific methods and techniques in military operations, this section provides a cursory summary of the more important categories. However, the list is by no means complete.

As previously mentioned, in 1916 Lanchester developed basic concepts for a theory of combat. He stated that if the number of blue combatants (or weapons) is denoted by X_B then the attrition rate of the blue force dX_B/dt is equal to the product of the effective firing rate of the red force a_R and the number of the red combatants (or weapons) X_R.

Mathematically, this is expressed as

where t denotes time and the negative sign signifies attrition, i.e., force reduction in combat. Similarly, for the red combatants (or weapons)

These equations, or their modified forms in which αβ and α_R are not constant but vary with time and depend on the size of forces involved, are still used today in various analytical studies to express attrition rates in combat. Exact solutions of these equations are obtained in terms of hyperbolic functions (cosh and sinh) as shown:

N_B represents the number of blue combatants (or weapons) at the beginning of combat engagement (i.e., t = 0), and N_R is the corresponding number of the red forces.

The parameter S can be used to measure the force superiority of either blue or red forces. If S is greater than one, the blues are stronger than the reds, and the combat engagement will end in victory for the blues when the red force strength is reduced to zero, as shown in Figure 1; if S is less than one, the opposite is true; and if S is equal to one, neither side has an advantage. The parameter S can also be used to gain some insight into a perennial argument for quantitative versus qualitative superiority. Noting that neither side has an advantage when S is equal to one, we can then relate the quantitative superiority NB/NR to the qualitative superiority αB/αR, as shown in Figure 2. Thus if the reds outnumber the blues numerically by two to one (i.e., Ns/NR = 0.5), the blues will need a four-to-one qualitative advantage to achieve parity (i.e., αβ/αR=4).

These simple results can only be regarded as a gross approximation to the real situation. Nevertheless, they allow us to obtain useful insights into the dynamics of combat and identify the critical parameters affecting the attrition rates. Other applications of scientific methods to military problems are discussed here in considerably less detail.

The theory of probability is a branch of analysis in which a function called the probability expresses the likelihood of an event to occur. The value of the probability function varies between 0 and 1. In some situations this function can be estimated through a numerical data gathering. The process of analyzing and making inferences from the data is encompassed in statistics theory. For example, gun or missile dispersion data can be used to determine the circular error probable. Probability theory can be used to determine the probability of kill (PK), to obtain mathematical models of target coverage, and to design test procedures through which systems or equipment reliability can be established with a specified degree of confidence. One of the most useful theorems in probability theory is the conditional probability theorem (Bayes' theorem), which is used to determine probabilities of hit for multiple shots or for salvos.

Recently, the methods of statistical inference have been modified under the general description of decision theory to analyze decision-making in the face of uncertainty-a common situation in military operations. Decision theory deals with a set of possible states that can be modified by the acts of the decision-maker. If all possible consequences of the acts are known and can be assigned utility factors, then an optimal choice of acts can be determined that maximizes the utility of all consequences incurred. The available choices are best illustrated by drawing a decision tree, on which all possible decision paths are shown. If several consecutive decisions are needed, the selection process may call for the use of computers to find the optimum path.

The analysis techniques known as linear programming have been developed to solve problems of allocation of resources subject to various constraining conditions. Such problems arise whenever a number of activities must be performed but limitations on either the amount of resources available or the manner in which these resources can be allocated prevent accomplishing each separate activity in the most effective way. The linear programming technique determines how these resources should be allocated in order to optimize the total effectiveness of the system. Problems that can be solved using this technique include the allocation of cargo among different types of aircraft for air logistics support, allocation of sorties to a target, allocation of bombs to a target system, and munitions storage.

Queueing theory deals with people or items in sequence and is used to minimize the cost of providing service or the waiting time of users. Many maintenance problems in the Air Force can be treated as queueing problems, since items requiring service are like users of service. Moreover, inventory problems and sortie generation can be treated as queueing problems. Some military operations consist of a network of tasks to be carried out only once, some simultaneously, and some in sequence. In such processes coordination of starting times is necessary to optimize the final outcome. Queueing theory is useful here in determining optimal schedules.

Network theory can be applied to the network routing problems that commonly arise in communication and airlift support. A typical problem is finding an optimum route (fastest, least costly, shortest, or most survivable) between two or more locations in relation to the total time, cost, distance, or survivability. Air Force applications of network theory are important in flight scheduling, logistics support, and determining the survivability of communication networks or strategic bombers.

Game theory is used to study conflict situations involving more than one decisionmaker. Its mathematical form is in many respects similar to situations represented by common games of strategy, such as poker, tic-tac-toe, checkers, bridge, and chess. Conflict situations arise if the interests of two or more sides pursuing different goals clash. Without doubt, any situation in combat actions can be classified as a conflict situation. The main purpose of using game theory is to draw up plans of action for the rational behavior of the players involved. The plans represent optimal strategies for each player. Game theory provides a number of theorems applicable to studies of choices of different military strategies.

Differential games are used to study conflict situations in which the players may vary their strategies with time. Only a very limited number of problems can be solved. The most important class for which solutions are available is that of pursuit games in which two persons are involved, the pursuer and the evader. This class of problems has practical applications in the study of pursuit and evasion in air battles or the pursuit of a missile by an antimissile.

Through the process of modeling the real environment, military operations can be simulated by means of war-gaming or computer simulations. In war-gaming, which may involve map maneuvers, sand tables, or computer interactive games, people play roles to simulate the decision process, while simulations use computer algorithms to represent the decision-making process. Computer simulations usually employ random numbers to determine the outcome of random events and in such cases, because of the probabilistic nature of the outcome, are called Monte Carlo simulations.

Simulated warfare provides a means of gaining experience, exploring the consequences of alternative strategies and tactics, identifying weaknesses, and improving skills without the necessity of "acting out" the situation in the real world. War-gaming techniques have been used extensively to train officers in military forces throughout the world. Gaming exercises simulate the search for novel and more effective strategies and tactics and encourage innovation. But, more important, motivations aroused in war-gaming in peacetime may have carry-over values that will payoff handsomely in the ultimate test of actual war.

New Program at AFIT

Recognizing that improvements in the management of operational planning of Air Force systems could be made through specialized graduate education, the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) developed an 18-month graduate program in Strategic and Tactical Sciences (S&TS) leading to a Master of Science degree.¹² During the summer of 1976 the original concept was presented to the major operating commands and the Air Staff. Although the program grew out of an AFIT initiative, it was structured in response to potential user needs. The first class of students entered the AFIT program in August 1977 and graduated in March 1979.

The S&TS curriculum has been designed in response to the growing need for quantitative and analytical techniques in operational planning and execution. This new curriculum can be construed as a merger of three academic areas: military operations, quantitative sciences, and weapons engineering. In effect the curriculum creates a new operation-oriented scientific discipline unique in its conceptual philosophy and intended applications. The curriculum presents an interdisciplinary program educating generalists in skills spanning the range of modern military engineering.

Although the S&TS program includes the essential analytical techniques in conventional operations research degree programs, it differs from them in two important respects: First, all practical applications of analytical techniques discussed in the classroom pertain to military operations; and, second, students acquire considerable background knowledge of operations and the engineering of weapon systems. Consequently, graduates from the program have a good knowledge of the potentials and limitations of military systems. This knowledge combined with analytical skills prepares them to perform meaningful analysis for weapons planning, employment, targeting, threat assessment, and performance optimization in a given strategic or tactical scenario.

To emphasize the value of this program to the Air Force, perhaps it is sufficient only to mention the types of problems studied in the Effectiveness/Trade-off Studies course included in the program. Among the problems are the following:

• The definition of measures of weapon systems effectiveness and the combination of these measures into objective functions
• The specification of alternative means of employing weapons and supporting resources and the construction of new alternatives
• The description of weapons and resources available for use and the nature of constraints on their use
• The process of determining appropriate criteria for choosing preferred alternative means of weapon employment.

Students in the program are required to complete an independent thesis research project on a topic selected from strategic and tactical problems provided by the Air Force. The first class dealt with such typical topics as these:

• Comparison of the tactical air-to-ground systems effectiveness model and Red Flag operational training exercises
• Simulation model of attack helicopter survivability in a hostile artillery environment.
• Inference of probability of kill of air-to-ground missiles in various attack modes. Sensitivity of aircraft attrition estimates to aiming distribution parameters of antiaircraft artillery.

THE military planner or decision-maker needs to know analytical tools and how and when to use them. The fast-growing requirement for technical managers of complex military operations has generated the need for operational commanders who possess quantitative skills at almost the same level as the engineer or professional analyst. The art of military operations has now been transformed into an "art-science" specialty, which evolves around modern weapon technologies and scientific methods of analysis. Simply knowing the technology of weapon systems is not enough; operational commanders must recognize strategic and tactical implications of the technologies involved and the available means of exploitation of these technologies in a possible military conflict.

Another important area to be emphasized by operational commanders and planners is the interaction between weapon systems development on the one hand and strategy and tactics development on the other. All too frequently new systems have been designed without a proper understanding of their expanded capabilities, which invariably require new tactics and deployment concepts. Concern has also been expressed that the elapsed time spent between the system design formulation and the development of tactics and doctrine is entirely too long.

Technological advances in weapon system design must be accompanied from their inception by studies of strategic and tactical innovations to take full advantage of the projected system capabilities. Accomplishing this requires the cooperation of operational officers, systems technologists, and systems designers. But most important, we need to educate a new breed of military experts who understand military operations and weapon systems engineering and technology and who, at the same time, can employ modern analytical tools from the quantitative sciences to enhance the efficacy of current and projected Air Force systems. In response to this need, the present graduate program in Strategic and Tactical Sciences at AFIT contributes significantly to the development of these new skills for the Air Force.

1. George Sarton, A History of Science, vol. 2 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1959), pp. 69-70.

2. I. Grattan-Guinness, Joseph Fourier, 1768-1830 (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1972), pp. 14-16.

3. Frederick W. Lanchester, Aircraft in Warfare: The Dawn of the Fourth Arm (London: Constable and Company, 1916), pp. 39-66.

4. Naval Operations Analysis, 2d edition (Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1977), p. 5.

5. P. M. S. Blackett, Studies of War (New York: Hill and Wang, 1962), pp. 205-39.

6. Ibid., pp. 206-7.

7. Joseph F. McCloskey and Florence N. Trefethen, editors, Operations Research for Management (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1954), pp. 12-20.

8. General of the Army Yevdokim E. Mal'tsov, "Leninist Concepts of Defense of Socialism," February 14, 1974, The Soviet Ministry of Defense Newspaper Red Star, as translated in Strategic Review, Winter 1975, p. 101.

9. Colonel V. Bondarenko, "Soviet Science and Strengthening the Defense of the Country," Communist of the Armed Forces, September 1974, as translated in Strategic Review, Summer 1975, p. 126.

10. Ibid., p. 132.

11. A. A. Grechko, The Armed Forces of the Soviet State (Moscow. 1974), p. 178.

12. Institute Catalog, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, vol. 19, 1980-81, pp. 43-44.

Janusz S. Przemieniecki (Ph.D., University of London) is Dean of the School of Engineering and Senior Dean of the Air Force Institute of Technology. Before joining the AFIT faculty in 1961, he was a member of the design team for the Anglo-French supersonic transport, Concorde, and the Mach 3 fighter aircraft, type 188. Dr. Przemieniecki is the author of Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis and has published over forty papers in scientific and technical journals. He received the Air Force award for Exceptional Civilian Service in 1978.

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor