Pace (2010) wargames at apl


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Pace (2010) wargames at apl

  1. 1. D. K. PACE AND R. E. GINGRASA Retrospective on Warfare Analysis at APLDale K. Pace and Russell E. Gingras D eveloping a fundamental understanding of a problem is an integral part of APL’s system engineering process. Since the 1940s, the Laboratory has used its warfare analysis capability to analyze military needs for the future, to evolve appropriate requirements to meet those needs, and to evaluate alternative solutions to meet those requirements. Information developed from APL warfare analysis contributed to important decisions which shaped our military forces. APL warfare analysis also contributed to the development of analytical tools and collaborative analysis techniques that have been widely shared and adapted within the defense analytical community. This article describes the origins and evolution of warfare analysis at the Laboratory and how it has been applied to a wide range of problems. (Keywords: Analysis techniques, Simulation, Warfare analysis, Wargaming.)INTRODUCTION Warfare analysis, the analysis of military forces for and the troop attrition rates resulting from confronta-both peacetime and combat situations, has a long his- tions with adversary units.3tory and is very diverse. From ancient times, warfare The history of warfare analysis addressing “system”analysis has helped military commanders determine design also dates back to antiquity. Martin van Creveld3how to fight, as indicated by Chinese military theorist traces the adaptation of contemporary technology toSun Tzu in The Art of War 2500 years ago: “With many warfare back to 2000 B.C. Such “analyses” led to thecalculations, one can win; with few one cannot. By this narrow entrances of Sumerian palaces so that only onemeans I examine the situation and the outcome will be person could pass at a time and to particular charac-clearly apparent.”1 The use of war games with signifi- teristics for Assyrian chariots and siege engines.4 How-cant military detail began three centuries ago with ever, warfare analysis as a “systematic scrutiny in theKoenigspiel (the King’s Game).2 The rise of mathemat- spirit of science,” and the use of its tools to address theically based natural sciences in the 17th century led to operation of complex systems involving people aremore quantitative methods in warfare analysis. British modern developments, dating back only to the mid-mathematician Frederick Lanchester developed equa- 1930s.5 Initial development of this approach to prob-tions to study World War I trench warfare by establish- lem solving occurred in the operations research en-ing quantitative relationships among unit quality, size, deavors in England and the United States during World192 JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 21, NUMBER 2 (2000)
  2. 2. A RETROSPECTIVE ON WARFARE ANALYSIS AT APLWar II, and became publicly available with the 1951 personnel have, at times, assisted parts of the intelli-printing of the first textbook on operations research by gence community in its technical analysis of foreigntwo American World War II operations research lead- systems.ers, Philip M. Morse and George E. Kimball.6 4. Operational context. Is the context rich enough to Warfare analysis at APL likewise has a long history ensure that all relevant considerations are addressed?and is diverse, addressing aspects of warfare ranging The Aegis Threat Handbook (which was developedfrom campaign strategy to weapon system design. By far, concurrently with the Aegis System) was designed tothe larger part of warfare analysis at APL has focused ensure that all proposed modifications to the Aegison weapon system design and modification. This article system were evaluated thoroughly by defining aexamines the beginning of warfare analysis at APL and baseline set of scenarios and operational situationsaspects of its evolution (a full tracing of the subject is that had to be assessed. That document evolved intofar beyond the scope of a single article), emphasizing the AAW Threat Handbook and stimulated similarboth the Laboratory’s contribution to warfare analysis threat handbooks for naval surface warfare and lim-methodology and insights from and consequences of ited-warfare/low-intensity conflict (contingency op-the analyses. erations). The emphasis on balance, scope, and com- Four primary considerations that are at the core of prehensiveness in warfare analysis is continuing todayAPL warfare analysis are explored: with the use of a littoral warfare handbook and Design Reference Missions (DRMs). These documents, all of1. Logical soundness. Is the analysis conceptually robust which the Laboratory had major roles in developing and adequate to address the issue? This involves both for the Navy, characterize the principal factors that problem formulation and the analysis plan. Does the must be considered when evaluating proposed designs analysis plan address all viable alternatives? Or is it or modifications of specified weapon systems as well as too narrowly focused to ensure the best result? when evaluating proposed changes in concepts of2. Technical soundness. Are the characteristics assumed operation. for the systems correct? Do they come from theory, test, and operational experience? Are all data used in This article interweaves three themes. The first deals the analysis of the same type and credibility? GIGO, with methods of warfare analysis. The second addresses the acronym for “garbage in, garbage out,” became a the kind of warfare analyzed, and the third looks at the buzzword early in the computer era to help avoid level of warfare (weapon, combat system, unit, force) overinfatuation with computational capabilities. The considered. Particular attention is given to warfare potential for such overinfatuation is even greater analysis during APL’s first three decades, “the early today when elaborate graphics associated with simu- years,” and the endeavors of APL’s Joint Warfare Anal- lations can have such a strong emotional impact. If ysis Department (JWAD) and its predecessor organiza- valid data do not drive the simulation, an impressive tions. Table 1 illustrates some of the evolution of visualization of simulation results can lead to wrong warfare analysis at APL in these areas. conclusions. Valid and credible warfare analysis in- volves far more than merely selecting appropriate measures of effectiveness (such as kill probability) for THE FIRST THREE DECADES—THE a particular weapon system; it involves an under- EARLY YEARS standing and appreciation of all technical and opera- The Laboratory was established early in World War tional factors for which that measure of effectiveness II, just 3 months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, to is sensitive. make practical a bold idea, the variable time (VT)3. Tactical and operational soundness. Does the analytic proximity fuze for shells fired from shipboard anti- process correctly represent the way that systems are aircraft guns. The VT fuze was an early precision likely to be used? Does it represent the way systems weapon that greatly increased weapon effectiveness. In could be used? Has adequate input from experienced its initial application of shooting down aircraft, the VT military personnel been obtained? An important part fuze was 3 to 4 times more effective than time-fuzed of tactical and operational soundness in analysis is shells and 50 times more effective than contact-fuzed the appropriate representation of adversary forces projectiles.7 General Patton lauded the effectiveness and actions. Representation of the threat in the of the VT fuze: “The new shell with the funny fuze analysis must be appropriate and characteristic of an is devastating.”8 adversary exhibiting capabilities and behavior that During most of World War II, warfare analysis at are responsive to our developments. APL maintains APL focused on how to develop the VT fuze so that a close relationship with the defense intelligence it would be reliable and effective, and on the APL- agencies so that our analysts can use information in developed Mark 57 gun director to enhance its effec- published intelligence sources properly. Laboratory tiveness in air defense.8 For the first 2 years of theirJOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 21, NUMBER 2 (2000) 193
  3. 3. D. K. PACE AND R. E. GINGRAS Table 1. Examples from APL’s warfare analysis evolution. Initial application Expansion in Expansion in Decade of techniques warfare analysis emphasis analysis scope/focus 1940s Air defense Weapons 1950s Graphical analysis Strategic nuclear Weapon systems “Event-store” digital simulation Combat systems 1960s Air Battle Analyzer Anti-ship missile defense Unit/platform Interactive graphical simulation Undersea warfare Navy ballistic missile operations Strike and electronic warfare 1970s Interactive graphical simulation Strike and electronic warfare Battle group 1980s WALEXs Cruise missile defense Multiwarfare missions 1990s WALEXs with ESS Theater ballistic missile defense Joint force Remote WALEXs Unconventional warfare Coalition/allies Simulation credibility enhancement (terrorism and chemical/ via VV&A biological) Distributed simulation through Land warfare HLA Information warfare 2000 WAL 2000 Note: WALEX = Warfare Analysis Laboratory Exercise, ESS = electronic seminar support, VV&A = verification, validation, and accreditation, HLA = High Level Architecture.combat use, proximity fuzes were restricted to at-sea task that APL undertook in developing a missile-basedapplication because air defense system.8 The secret of their design was considered so crucial that they Warfare analysis at APL also expanded with move- were banned from use over land, for fear that a dud might lead ment into this new technical arena. It progressed to enemy facsimiles or countermeasures. . . . [Even] the terms beyond the issues of development and operation of “influence” or “proximity” were classified, thus, the name the gun fire control director and the fuze. APL anal- variable-time (VT) fuze.7 yses began to address issues related to missile guidanceAfter the veil of wartime secrecy was finally lifted, and warhead lethality—the latter analyses ultimatelyGeorge Kistiakowsky of Harvard University, and later led to development of the continuous rod warheadPresident Eisenhower’s science adviser, noted that the that was deployed on many Navy surface-to-air mis-development of the proximity fuze was second only to siles (SAMs).9 This expanded scope of warfare anal-the atomic bomb in its contribution to winning the ysis caused the Laboratory to institutionalize part ofwar.9 By the end of World War II, a third of America’s its warfare analysis activities by establishing theelectronics industry was engaged in fuze work.8 Central Laboratory Assessment Group in October Even before the end of the war, Navy leadership 1948 under J. Emory Cook, who was succeeded byunderstood that gun-based air defense would be inad- A. George Carlton in 1949, and then by Charlesequate to cope with the evolving air and missile threat F. Meyer in 1950. The group later became the Assess-to the Fleet and tasked APL to develop a guided mis- ment Division, and was headed by Meyer untilsile–based defensive system. Merle Tuve (APL’s first 1980 (see the boxed insert). Its primary purpose wasDirector) gave this project the code name “Bumblebee” to develop systematic studies that would enhance ci-in early 1945 because of a quotation that he had recent- vilian developers’ knowledge of military operators’ly encountered: “According to recognized aerotechni- needs regarding military requirements and weaponscal tests, the bumblebee cannot fly because of the shape effectiveness.11and weight of his body in relation to the total wing area.But the bumblebee doesn’t know this, so he goes ahead Graphical Analysisand flies anyway.” “Bumblebee” seemed an apt, though During the early and mid-1950s, APL warfare anal-somewhat ironic, moniker to characterize the daunting ysis focused on the requirements and effectiveness of194 JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 21, NUMBER 2 (2000)
  4. 4. A RETROSPECTIVE ON WARFARE ANALYSIS AT APL DEVELOPMENT OF THE JOINT WARFARE ANALYSIS DEPARTMENT In 1963, several members of APL’s Central Assessment FSD’s Systems Evaluations Branch, supervised by Robert F. Division were asked to help the Laboratory’s Fleet Systems Gehrke, merged with the new Assessment Division to be- Department (FSD) to establish an analysis group, headed by come the Naval Warfare Analysis Department (NWAD). Richard J. Hunt, to focus on the needs of FSD. Much of the NWAD focused on applying technical intelligence to the group’s early work addressed missile system availability and systems engineering and operational employment of both helped the Navy to make significant improvements in that aircraft combat systems and cruise missiles to defeat enemy area through implementa- air defense systems by tac- tion of the Daily System tics and countermeasures. It Operational Test Program. was first led by Hunt, and An availability model de- later by Gehrke after Hunt’s veloped by Hunt10 showed retirement in 1992. NWAD how this approach would addressed analysis as the produce more substantial basis for the specification of improvements in missile requirements and needs; system availability than analysis of systems, opera- merely improving the reli- tions, and technical intelli- ability of individual com- gence; development of tac- ponents. The approach tics and countermeasures; also helped to quantify the and utilization of computer significance of the frequen- models and simulations. cy and scope of the tests so As the result of a Lab- that appropriate decisions oratory reorganization in could be made about them. 1996, NWAD became the Two years later, this analy- Joint Warfare Analysis De- sis group officially detached partment (JWAD) to re- itself from the Assessment Richard Hunt, Charles Meyer, and Alec Radcliffe (Assistant Super- flect its growing focus on Division and became a for- visor of the Assessment Division) (left to right) discuss a distribution the analysis of multiservice mal part of FSD. at the blackboard (circa 1970s). activities. The part of JWAD In 1981, when Charles that focused on cruise mis- F. Meyer, Head of the Assessment Division, retired, the sile analysis and airborne countermeasures tactics and re- Assessment Division and the Fleet Systems Effectiveness quirements became part of the newly formed Power Projec- Group merged to form the new Assessment Division under tion Systems Department. Russell E. Gingras was appointed Hunt. Another merger occurred the following year when Head of JWAD in 1997 after Gehrke’s retirement.missile-based air defense, especially of naval units, i.e., As such, the Air Battle Analyzer was the forerunner ofAAW. These analyses addressed not only the Navy the Warfare Analysis Laboratory (WAL).Terrier, Tartar, Talos, and Typhon missile systems, butalso analyzed land-based Nike SAM systems. Initially, Digital Simulationsmanual tactical simulations were employed, but their As capabilities of digital computer systems in-output was severely limited. For example, two good creased, APL was at the forefront of developing com-analyst-operators using a graphical aid such as the puter simulations to support warfare analysis and wasTerrier Tactical Simulator could only analyze about 10 one of the first organizations to develop a major mis-iterations of a 30-target attack in a day. Such graphical sile-based air defense computer simulation, which wasdevices supported the computation of SAM firepower. programmed for a UNIVAC-1103 computer. That In the latter half of the 1950s, findings from studies simulation was used to compare the effectiveness ofon search radar detection and tracking, fire control radar Nike and Talos SAMs for defense of the continentalacquisition, launcher delays, missile trajectories, weapon United States. During the same period (mid-1950s),delivery accuracy, and warhead damage were incorporat- warfare analysis at APL addressed questions about po-ed into these analytic methods as well. This approach tential Talos anti-ICBM capabilities and about the sizeto warfare analysis evolved into a kit of tools and meth- (yield) needed for the Talos nuclear warhead. A newodologies that were made available to the Navy’s warfare simulation, the Fleet Air Defense Simulation, was pro-analysis community in the early 1960s. That kit, the Air grammed for a UNIVAC-1103A in 1958, and laterBattle Analyzer (see Fig. 1),12 forced a disciplined and reprogrammed for an IBM-7090 computer.systematic consideration of technical issues in the con- The computer hardware and software limitations oftext of air battle geometry, timing, and possible tactics.11 the era required that a simulation be reprogrammed anyJOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 21, NUMBER 2 (2000) 195
  5. 5. D. K. PACE AND R. E. GINGRAS At APL, the most successful teams often consisted of about six people. This size allowed the free flow of information and perspective among all team members. The team would spend about 2 years producing and checking a program of 20,000 machine instructions. As more capable machines became available, high-level computer languages were used for warfare analysis sim- ulations. However, the time required to construct the simulations was not reduced noticeably because the models used within them became larger and addressed more factors than in previous simulations. Because major simulations always require substantial effort to develop, they are often built on the thinking and some- times the code of previous ones. The challenge for the warfare analyst is to ensure that the reused ideas and code are appropriate for the new application because inappropriate reuse of existing software can have cat- astrophic consequences (as happened with the Ariane 5 disaster).13 APL was an early leader not only in the develop- ment and uses of warfare analysis simulations but also in the development of analytic and programming meth- odology for computer simulations. It is often difficult to determine where a particular technique was first employed because similar development activities wereFigure 1. Stuart Ball (left) and John Long use Air Battle Analyzer proceeding rapidly at several organizations simulta-nomographs to correlate horizontal, vertical, and time perspectives neously, such as at the Rand Corporation and theof a tactical situation (circa 1960). Center for Naval Analyses as well as at APL. In addi- tion, interactions among staff members of these orga- nizations at meetings of the Military Operations Re-time it was to be run on a different machine. search Society, Society for Computer Simulation, andThis simulation was revised in 1961 and became the similar professional societies, as well as during theFleet Anti-Air Wargame, a simulation with a suffi- performance of multiorganizational tasks for DoD, al-ciently modular structure to allow repeated revision lowed sharing of ideas, which facilitated developmentand continued use until the mid-1970s! Early on, these of methods and capabilities at all of the organizations.simulations were used to examine threat evaluation and Also, in many cases, the classified nature of the workweapon assignment doctrines. These analyses formed prevented general publication about methods and sim-the foundation for doctrines used in ship-based ulations at the time of their initial application.air defense by Terrier, Tartar, and Talos SAMs in the Some of APL’s early digital computer simulationNaval Tactical Data System and Weapon Direction analytic and programming techniques, i.e., those of theSystem Mk 11. 1950s and 1960s, included the following: During the 1950s and early 1960s, considerable ef-fort had to be devoted to overcoming early computer • The Event-Store Technique for simulation timelimitations and extending the range of their applica- management14tions. Internal storage constraints often required pro- • Use of random walks to simulate underwater soundgramming in assembly language. The rudimentary conditionsstate of early operating systems frequently required the • Development of packages of subroutines for geom-analyst/programmer to devise methods of connecting etry, kinematics, and detection in FORTRAN andcomputer and peripheral equipment. Initial successes of PL/1 to simplify and unify the construction of com-these early warfare simulations resulted from using puter-supported wargamesnew machines (with their increased capabilities) and • Use of methods to separate the decision logic fromsmall teams that combined experienced analysts, who computations in complex simulationsunderstood the key factors of the problem being • Interactive, graphical simulation of naval warfareaddressed, and young professionals, who grappled with • Use of simulation results for preprocessing data forthe software and hardware intricacies of those early Fleet exercise critiques and for assessment of othercomputers. simulations196 JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 21, NUMBER 2 (2000)
  6. 6. A RETROSPECTIVE ON WARFARE ANALYSIS AT APL Table 2 identifies the kinds of warfare analysis sim- in tests as well as theory is one of the ways in whichulations that APL was the first or among the first to the Laboratory ensures that its warfare analysis is tac-develop. Many of the warfare analyses during those tically and operationally sound as well as technicallyyears, both at APL and elsewhere, were possible owing correct and logically these developments. High-Fidelity Engineering SimulationsExpansion Beyond Air Defense Since the 1960s, warfare analysis at APL has become In 1957, APL became involved in an analysis of increasingly more diverse. Individual programs andpossible roles for Navy aircraft in a strategic (nuclear) departments have performed detailed engineering anal-war with the Soviet Union and its allies (Project Tau). yses for specific systems to enhance the quality of theIn 1958, APL became an initial participant of the systems’ design, to determine how best to use them, andNavy’s War Games Project that included the Naval to establish their effectiveness. These efforts have in-War College, Naval Electronic Warfare Simulator, and cluded specialized simulation facilities such as theNaval Weapons Laboratory. APL’s role was to construct Guidance System Evaluation Laboratory, a hardware-models in naval strike warfare, antisubmarine warfare in-the-loop facility to examine missile guidance issues(ASW), anti-air warfare (AAW), and limited warfare using missile seeker hardware, and the Submarineto examine the Navy’s role in strategic warfare. These Combat Information Laboratory, a mock-up of a sub-models became feasible because of the recently devel- marine command center used to evaluate a number ofoped Event-Store Technique for managing simulation operational issues. Other engineering analyses ad-time and sequence of events, which provided a new and dressed how to combine test and simulation results topowerful method for describing the complex interac- achieve a specified level of confidence in performancetions of events in naval tactics. APL support of Navy from a minimum number of submarine-launched bal-strategic warfare analyses continued for many years. listic missile flight tests. In 1965, because of its understanding of SAM sys-tems, APL was asked to participate in Project F/O 210,an endeavor that analyzed U.S. aircraft losses and Visualizationdeveloped tactics and techniques to counter North In 1968, a computerized extension of the Air BattleVietnamese air defenses. Four years later, APL was Analyzer, known as Tactical Analysis Digital Simula-invited to the first conference on requirements and tion (TADS), was completed. TADS allowed the hu-tactics for the EA-6B, the Navy’s jamming aircraft, and man decision processes of the Air Battle Analyzer tosoon was tasked with developing requirements and tac- be combined with the presentation of formatted datatics for Navy airborne jamming systems, a responsibil- that simulated an operation likely to be encountered byity that continues today. In the mid-1970s, the Air personnel. In order to implement the interactive natureForce asked APL to help with requirements and tactics of TADS, the simulation was developed to run on thefor the EF-111A, the Air Force’s jamming aircraft. The computer and display equipment used in a shipboardparticipation of APL personnel and military operators combat information center. TADS was used in evalu- ations of what later became the Aegis SPY-1 radar and in evaluations of large-screen displays for AAW com- manders on Aegis ships. APL developed similar graphical, interactive sim- Table 2. Large computer simulations developed at APL believed to be the first of their type. ulations for ASW applications, including the Antisub- marine Graphic Allocation Model designed to repre- Year Computer simulation sent allocation of ASW patrol aircraft and ships against hostile submarines, the War at Sea Graphical 1957 Shipborne AAW and land-based air defense Analysis Model adopted by the U.S. Naval Academy 1959 Submarine and air barrier operations in the late 1970s as a training device, and the Local- 1959 Naval air strike operations ization and Tracking ASW Model. Although today 1961 ASW localization and kill graphic simulations are commonplace, in the late 1962 Submarine detection and localization 1960s and early 1970s, they were rare. SOSUS/patrol aircraft 1963 Submarine approach and attack 1966 Submarine training FROM INDIVIDUAL SYSTEM DESIGN 1968 Interactive computer-supported war game TO FORCE-LEVEL OPERATIONS Note: SOSUS = Sound Surveillance System. APL conducted warfare analyses, sometimes with other organizations, that identified paths for correctingJOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 21, NUMBER 2 (2000) 197
  7. 7. D. K. PACE AND R. E. GINGRASproblems with deployed weapon systems and defined programs analysis during the 1980s and 1990s. A morecharacteristics required for future generations of weap- recent example of a simulation import is the Extendedon systems. These analyses also established the effec- Air Defense Simulation, developed and managed bytiveness of individual systems alone and in combina- Teledyne Brown Engineering, which APL and otherstion with other systems in a military force. In the early are using in air and missile defense analyses.1960s, the 3T Get Well Program addressed the transfor- The Relative Contribution Model (RCM) was onemation of the Terrier, Tartar, and Talos radars, launch- of the simulations that the Laboratory exported toers, interceptor missiles, and weapon control capabil- other organizations. It went to the Naval Ship Weaponities into reliable and effective defensive systems. The System Engineering Station and to the Naval Weapons1965 Advanced Surface Missile System Study, also Center at China Lake, California, in the early 1970s.known as the Withington Study, analyzed and defined RCM was an early example of simulation portability,weapon system characteristics that would be specified i.e., a simulation that could be run on a variety oflater in the 1972 contract for the Aegis weapon system computer platforms and used by different organizations.(which entered the Fleet on the first Aegis cruiser in The model was designed to provide insight about the1982). relative contribution of soft-kill weapons (such as jam- AAW coordination analyses of the mid- and late ming and chaff) and hard-kill weapons (like guns and1970s identified not only the Fleet air defense limita- missiles) to ship defense against anti-ship cruise mis-tions imposed by the contemporary naval data link siles. It was used extensively in the 1972 and 1975(Link 11), but also those limitations that could be Anti-Ship Missile Defense Analytic Assessment Pro-expected with the next-generation data link, the Link gram studies. Sometimes simulations exported from the16 Joint Tactical Information Distribution Systems Laboratory were the modified and updated versions of(JTIDS). These studies determined the increase in ef- simulations that had originated elsewhere, such as thefectiveness resulting from fuller AAW coordination and APL-MBER simulation (derived from MBER men-provided impetus for what was originally called the tioned earlier). In the mid-1990s, APL-MBER becameBattle Group AAW Coordination Program, which later the Navy’s community-approved Tomahawk Effective-became the Cooperative Engagement Capability.15,16 In ness Model.the 1980s and 1990s, assessments of AAW coordinationbecame much more sophisticated with higher-fidelityrepresentation of communications, doctrine, radar BATTLE AND WARFARE ANALYSISfunctions, etc., in engagement simulations. This capa- TECHNIQUES AND ACTIVITIESbility allowed more realistic assessment of the potentialbenefit from force-level coordination and enhanced the Evolution of the WALEXcapability to assess coordination of the various weapons The disciplined consideration of technical aspects ofused in ship self-defense. As a result of these assess- a warfare problem, along with the geometry, timing,ments, high-energy laser systems were added to the list and possible tactics embodied in the warfare analysisof possible weapons in the AAW suite along with process that characterized the Air Battle Analyzer, wasmissiles, guns, and electronic countermeasures. carried a step further in the early 1980s when APL From the 1960s through the 1990s, APL continued established the WAL. It was designed to facilitate theits warfare analysis interactions with other parts of the warfare analysis process with display capabilities, sim-defense community, especially with elements of the ulation support, and data recording capabilities.Navy. The Laboratory was often involved in multior- The warfare analysis process using the WAL, calledganizational studies, and sometimes exchanged simula- a WALEX for Warfare Analysis Laboratory Exercise, hastions with other organizations. One simulation import been applied to a wide variety of warfare problems.was the Force Level Operational Analysis and Tactical Some WALEXs are in-depth engineering examinations,Simulation from the Center for Naval Analyses in the e.g., the early 1980s exploration of appropriate “if-then”early 1970s. APL modified this simulation and used it logic for Aegis Doctrine Management Systems whenin warfare analyses for more than a decade to evaluate multiple Aegis ships were deployed together, and thecandidate AAW systems for the FFG 7 guided missile mid-1990s Air-Directed SAM WALEXs (see the articlefrigates, Tartar destroyers, New Threat Upgrade Terrier by Kauderer, this issue). Other WALEXs are senior pol-cruisers, and the DDX class of guided missile destroyers icy–level assessments of issues, e.g., the late 1980s(later called the Aegis DDG 51 class). WALEXs that played a central role in establishing the Other imported simulations were the Maritime potential effectiveness of antisatellite system candidatesAnti-Ship Tactics and Multi-Battlefield Engagement and in building consensus as to program need.17 A sim-and Reaction (MBER) simulations (from Kamak Cor- ilar WALEX in the mid-1990s discussed Theater Missileporation in the mid-1980s). The Laboratory signifi- Defense acquisition policy issues for the Under Secre-cantly modified them and used them for cruise missile tary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, the198 JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 21, NUMBER 2 (2000)
  8. 8. A RETROSPECTIVE ON WARFARE ANALYSIS AT APLBallistic Missile Defense Organization Director, and application of such a group decision system to supportother senior defense officials of the United States and DoD’s Program Planning Budget System process wasits NATO allies. Topics addressed in WALEXs can be the 1992 Navy Flag Level Joint Mission Area Assess-warfare-related (such as weapon and technology prolif- ment, which used the WAL’s Electronic Seminar Sup-eration); however, nonmilitary problems (such as trans- port System, a commercial group decision system.portation issues for advanced highway systems) have APL helps others understand this kind of collabo-also been analyzed. rative warfare analysis through publications available The capabilities of the WAL have been enlarged to to the community.19–21 The defense community’s broadsupport the needs of increased sophistication in warfare participation in WALEXs increases the understandinganalysis. The original WAL had a single large-screen of this approach to warfare analysis as well. In additiondisplay tied to a limited computer suite. The current to WALEXs at APL, since the mid-1990s APL warfareWAL configuration has four large-screen displays and analysts have led seminar games (called “WALEXs”flexible video switching that allows the displays to be because of their methodology and their use of a por-driven not only by simulations, databases, and other table group decision support system) at a number ofinformation on any computer within the WAL, but also locations in the United States (e.g., Pacific Command,by remote computers that can be accessed via various Atlantic Command, Joint National Test Facility, andmeans. This kind of capability facilitates more high- the Pentagon) and abroad (e.g., NATO Headquartersfidelity examination of complex issues than may be and what was formerly the Supreme Headquarterspossible otherwise. Appropriate and timely displays are Allied Powers Europe [SHAPE] Technical Center). Inalso very valuable in creating a common frame of ref- the 1980s and 1990s, APL provided training in thiserence for WALEX participants, which helps to ensure methodology for analysts from other organizations andthat the more significant issues of a problem are ad- shared insights about the WAL with others who builtdressed and that disputes that might otherwise impede wargaming and decision support facilities of their own,progress in solving problems can be settled. drawing on the experience and design of the WAL. Increased Simulation Capabilities APL was an early leader not only in the Dramatically increased computational capabilities development and uses of warfare analysis in the 1990s enabled computer simulation to advance far beyond past capabilities. Warfare analyses using simulations but also in the development of extensive simulation could consider many more pa- analytic and programming methodology for rameters than was possible in the 1960s through the 1980s. However, although more relevant factors could computer simulations. be addressed, analysts could lose sight of driving issues and focus on mere computation. Throughout this decade, APL analysts were developing analysis meth- Although electronic group decision support systems odology directly related to the issue of increased sim-have been used to assist business management activities ulation capabilities by providing theoretical and prac-since the late 1980s,18 APL became one of the first tical help in simulation verification, validation, andorganizations to employ such technology in defense war- accreditation (VV&A). VV&A is the key to simula-fare analyses with the installation of a group decision tion correctness and credibility. APL personnel havesupport system in the WAL in 1992. The system allowed contributed to Navy, National Security Agency, andmore complete data collection during WALEXs and other defense VV&A policy development efforts, havefacilitated multiple, simultaneous discussions among published extensively about it, and are providingWALEX participants by allowing electronic communi- VV&A leadership in a number of areas.cation to supplement verbal communication. Individual As computational capabilities increased, warfareparticipants could ensure that their ideas were captured analysts were expected to put their findings in morecorrectly since they could input them into the WALEX extensive contexts than had been required before. Thisrecord directly. Because participants were stimulated expectation led to three new areas of emphasis withinand enlightened during the WALEX by comments from the Joint Warfare Analysis Department during the mid-others in the group decision support system, the in- and late 1990s: simulation-based acquisition, afford-tellectual content of the exercise was enriched. In ad- ability (especially as it pertains to weapon system ac-dition, the system enabled greater use of techniques quisition decisions), and the linkage of warfighting and(voting tools, analytic hierarchy methods, etc.) that logistics. In the past, APL warfare analyses focusedallowed all WALEX participants to simultaneously mainly on system requirements, performance, and ca-evaluate alternatives against multiple criteria. The first pability. These efforts addressed system reliability andJOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 21, NUMBER 2 (2000) 199
  9. 9. D. K. PACE AND R. E. GINGRASavailability, but largely left consideration of logistics to other sources of information into a vast, intertwined,others. In 1997, APL began the Warfighting and Lo- and heterogeneous tapestry of electronic interchange.gistics Technology and Assessment Project to demon- The global fusion of networks changes the characterstrate the feasibility of linking legacy logistics and of each individual network. Networks will no longerwarfighting models to study their interrelationship. serve simply as the medium through which people in different places can communicate, enhancing their inTopic and Issue Comprehension situ activities. The global fusion of networks creates a A fundamental premise of warfare analysis at APL network ecology—literally, a place in which peopleis that a complete understanding of the issues by the can gather and do business. People will be able toanalysts is essential for good analysis. Otherwise, the conduct their activities increasingly in the globalproblem may be formulated inappropriately, critical network ecology, the Infosphere.issues may be neglected, and conclusions may be The Infosphere Seminar Project began in 1997 withreached that do not have the desired logical and factual a seminar for APL leadership, followed by a seminar forrobustness. APL warfare analysts address the subject of APL cyber specialists. The possible impacts of theissue comprehension in a variety of ways, three of Infosphere (not only information warfare issues) onwhich are discussed briefly below: use of “war rooms,” military operations and organizational structures wereInfosphere considerations, and human behavior and explored. These seminars provided a number of in-decision making. sights, both about military operations and about APL’s own functioning. They underscored the importance ofWar Rooms working in an Infosphere environment. An Infosphere- engaged workforce, deft leadership, and Infosphere The use of war rooms is a technique that APL compatibility in policies, organization, and environ-employs to develop appropriate understanding of a ment are important for effective and productive orga-topic so that subsequent analyses related to that topic nizations in the defense community.have the needed depth, breadth, and perspective. APL shared insights from these seminars throughDuring the 1990s, the Warfare Analysis Department conferences at the Naval War College and the Jointestablished war rooms for this purpose on combating National Test Facility, and through a widely distributedterrorism, network-centric warfare, joint warfighting paper, The Navy and the Infosphere.22 APL started arequirements, theater missile defense, strike warfare, series of Cyber Tech Seminars during 1998, in whichand small-scale contingencies. This approach was also leaders from various cutting-edge information enter-applied to APL’s comprehensive strategic planning ac- prises shared their visions of the future in publictivity in 1998 in analyzing the external business envi- forums and discussed their implications with theirronment and its implications for the Laboratory. A war peers.22 Endeavors such as the Infosphere and Cyberroom was assembled to cover future world situations, Tech Seminars are examples of ways that APL warfarepotential threats, fiscal trends, expected technology ad- analysts develop a more complete understanding ofvances, and the changing acquisition environment. issues related to the problems they address.From the analysis, APL identified several new strate-gic initiatives to pursue, including counterproliferation,information operations, commercial space, and law The Human Factorenforcement. More complete representation of the information aspects of warfare must also include the way that humanInfosphere Considerations behavior and decision making are represented in war- Information operations, information warfare, and fare analysis. The likelihood of correct choices, factorsnetwork-centric warfare are buzzwords found frequently that determine choices, times to reach decisions, etc.,throughout contemporary defense analyses. They indi- must be represented more explicitly than in the past.cate that future warfare analysis will have to address As pointed out by APL warfare analysts, it is notinformation aspects of warfare more completely than in enough simply to ensure that the model used in thethe past. The Joint Warfare Analysis Department has analysis fully addresses the network-centric warfareundertaken a number of initiatives to help the Labo- flow of information through communication channelsratory and its sponsors consider implications of advanc- and displays. “The human is the governing factor ines in information, communication, and networking total information dominance and network-centric war-technology for military operations, defense community fare.”23 This was an important perspective of the Lab-organizations, and society. oratory’s work in the late 1990s for the Marine Corps One of these initiatives was the Infosphere Sem- relative to maneuver warfare, a perspective which isinar Project. “Infosphere” refers to the fusion of the now being incorporated in the next generation of landworld’s communications networks, databases, and warfare models.200 JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 21, NUMBER 2 (2000)
  10. 10. A RETROSPECTIVE ON WARFARE ANALYSIS AT APLAttention to “Neglected” Topics environments and the need to minimize collateral In a 1989 meeting at APL, the President of The damage, military operations other than war, and infor-Johns Hopkins University raised a question about mation operations and warfare) for which existingwhether adequate attention was being given to the analytic techniques are not as mature as those appliednon-Soviet submarine threat. A team within the to other topics (e.g., traditional air defense or blueWarfare Analysis Department was assigned to examine water AAW). There are also more stringent demandsthis issue. Was the non-Soviet “rest of the world” sub- on system designs, such as those required by hit-marine threat basically a lesser included case? Or was to-kill missile defense systems (compared to theit sufficiently different and threatening to warrant spe- demands of system designs for traditional SAMcial consideration on its own? The conclusion: ade- systems), which require more accurate and precisequate response to the “rest of the world” submarine analytic techniques than in the past in order to pro-threat would not be a fallout of the U.S. Navy program vide guidance with acceptable levels of technical counter the Soviet threat. The analysis was suffi- 2. Expectations have become higher. Many sponsors,ciently convincing that the Director of the ASW military commanders, and defense leaders expectDivision in the Chief of Naval Operations Naval simulations and other analysis tools to be interoper-Warfare Directorate began a campaign for recognition able and capable of supporting integrated, collabora-of this danger. That campaign included an article in tive analysis. They all want high-quality analysesthe U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings24 and briefings to immediately and cheaply.the Secretary of the Navy and the Vice Chief of Naval 3. Temptations are greater than ever merely to pleaseOperations, with the result that significant attention consumers of analysis, especially with sophisticatedis now being given to Third World ASW, especially to graphics and animation, without providing adequatesubmarines. attention to real issues and facts. It is too easy to retreat to an emphasis on process when grapplingPushing for Novel Capabilities with an important, yet difficult, complex, and intrac- table problem, instead of focusing on developing a In 1996, APL led the multiorganizational Cost and real solution to it.Operational Effectiveness Analysis for the Long-Term 4. Analytic stakes are higher. Fewer defense dollars areMine Reconnaissance System. This analysis was able to available, both for forces and for analysis. Thus, it isdefine a system capable of being launched from a sub- imperative to get correct answers, to ensure that theremarine torpedo tube that would have adequate range are no fatal flaws in military capabilities, and to doand capability (including reliable autonomous behav- this with fewer resources for analysis.ior) to satisfy the stringent system requirements. TheNavy Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Program Man-ager was confident enough in this approach that he CONCLUSIONSproceeded with system development for deployment Examples of the breadth and depth of warfare anal-early in the next decade. ysis at APL and how the Laboratory has contributed to advances in analytic capabilities within the defense community were examined in this article. WhereasCURRENT TRENDS AND FUTURE many important topics were mentioned only brieflyCHALLENGES here because of space limitations, other articles in this In the decade from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, issue provide substantial descriptions, insights, andthere was growing emphasis on the analysis of naval methodologies of specific, current APL analyses. APLforces in multiwarfare and in Joint force contexts. These analysts continue to develop innovative warfare anal-trends required that APL warfare analysis address issues ysis techniques and tools needed to provide defensewith more sophistication. The role of space and its decision makers with information and insights aboutimpact on warfare as well as theater ballistic missiles and the increasingly complex problems associated withdefense against them were also given more attention. defense systems.Toward the end of this period (i.e., the mid-1990s), REFERENCESmore analysis was devoted to what has come to be called 1Tzu, S., The Art of War, available at operations and information warfare, as well Hills/9741/lit/war/i.html (accessed 16 Dec 1999).as ways to properly represent them in warfare analysis. 2Perla, P. P., The Art of Wargaming, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD, Four major challenges confront future warfare p. 17 (1990). 3van Creveld, M., Technology and War: From 2000 B.C. to the Present, Freeanalysis: Press, New York, pp. 243–244 (1989). 4Durant, W., Our Oriental Heritage, Vol. 1, in The Story of Civilization, Simon & Schuster, New York (1954).1. Problems have become more difficult to analyze be- 5Miser, H. J., and Quade, E. S., “Preface,” in Handbook of Systems Analysis, cause they involve situations (e.g., conflict in urban H. J. Miser and E. S. Quade (eds.), North Holland, New York, p. xi (1985).JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 21, NUMBER 2 (2000) 201
  11. 11. D. K. PACE AND R. E. GINGRAS 6Morse, P. M., and Kimball, G. E., Methods of Operations Research, Wiley, New 17Acquisition Decision Memorandum for Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite York (1951). (KE-ASAT) Concept Definition Selection, Under Secretary of Defense Memo- 7MacCutcheon, E. M., “World War II Development and Expansion (1942– randum for the Secretaries of the Military Departments (15 Dec 1989). 1945),” Chap. 7, in Naval Engineering and American Seapower, R. W. King 18Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D. R., and George, (ed.), The Nautical & Aviation Publishing Company of America, Inc., J. F., “Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work,” Comm. ACM Baltimore, MD, pp. 207–258 (1989). 34(7), 40–61 (1991). 8Klingaman, W. K., APL – Fifty Years of Service to the Nation: A History of The 19Pace, D. K., and Moran, D. D., “Technology Gaming,” Nav. Eng. J. 101(3), Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, JHU/APL, Laurel, MD, 240–250 (1989). (1993). 20Pace, D. K., “Seminar Gaming: An Approach to Problems Too Complex for 9The First Forty Years: A Pictorial Account of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Algorithmic Solution,” Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Dig. 12(3), 290–296 (1991). Physics Laboratory Since its Founding in 1942, JHU/APL, Laurel, MD (1983). 21Pace, D. K., “Use of Seminar Gaming to Obtain Insights About Theater10Hunt, R. J., “Availability Model for Shipboard Equipment,” Johns Hopkins Missile Defense,” in Proc. Seventh Multinational Conf. on Theater Missile APL Tech. Dig. 2(5), 9–16 (1963). Defense (TMD), Annapolis, MD (21–24 Jun 1994).11Gibson, R. E., “Reflections on the Origins and Early History of the Applied 22Vlahos, M., and Pace, D., The Navy and the Infosphere, JWR-99-002, JHU/ Physics Laboratory,” Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Dig. 15(2), 2–32 (1976). APL, Laurel, MD (Mar 1999); also available at, M. C., Air Battle Analyzer Handbook, Report TG 421, JHU/APL, (accessed 28 Oct 1999). Laurel, MD (Dec 1961). 23Zimm, A., “Human-Centric Warfare,” U.S. Naval Institute Proc. 125(5), 28–13Doyle, J., “Virtual Engineering: Toward a Theory for Modeling and Simulation 31 (May 1999). of Complex Systems,” App. B, in Volume 9, Modeling and Simulation, Technology 24Fitzgerald, J., and Benedict, J., “There Is a Sub Threat,” U.S. Naval Institute for the United States Navy and Marine Corps 2000–2035: Becoming a 21st Century Proc. 116(8), 57–63 (Aug 1990). Force, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 158–159 (1997).14Rich, R. P., “Simulation as an Aid to Model Building,” J. Oper. Res. Soc. Am. 3, 15–19 (1955).15“The Cooperative Engagement Capability,” Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Dig. 16(4), 377–396 (1995). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: In addition to references cited, materials about warfare16O’Driscoll, M. J., and Krill, J. A., “Cooperative Engagement Capability,” Nav. analysis history at APL were compiled by Milton Gussow and F. O. Mitchell during Eng. J. 107(2), 43–57 (Mar 1997). the 1980s. Other materials were obtained from the APL archives. THE AUTHORS DALE K. PACE is a member of APL’s Principal Professional Staff in the Information Analysis Group of the Joint Warfare Analysis Department. He studied mathematics and physics at the University of Chicago (1957–1960), and received a B.D. from Capital Bible Seminary in 1969 and a Th.D. from Luther Rice Seminary in 1974. Dr. Pace is a specialist in operations research, systems analysis, wargaming and seminar gaming, scenario development, and defense analysis. He has been a major contributor to simulation verification and validation ideas and is the Associate Editor of Simulation for Validation. Dr. Pace also taught in the graduate Technical Management Program of the JHU Whiting School of Engineering from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. His e-mail address is RUSSELL E. GINGRAS is a member of the APL Principal Professional Staff and the Head of the Joint Warfare Analysis Department. He received a B.S. degree in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering and technical management from The Johns Hopkins University. Since joining APL in 1969, he has conducted a wide range of requirements and effectiveness analyses. He supervised the Concept Evaluation and Mission Analysis Groups over a period of 12 years and was Assistant Department Head for 3 years. Mr. Gingras also was responsible for the initial development and applications of the Warfare Analysis Laboratory. His e-mail address is JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 21, NUMBER 2 (2000)