Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

DEFENSE ADAPTIVE RED TEAM CONTRACT NOO140-01-D-H029 HICKS AND ASSOCIATES INC. "

DEFENSE ADAPTIVE RED TEAM CONTRACT NOO140-01-D-H029 HICKS AND ASSOCIATES INC. "Unified Vision 01 DEFENSE ADAPTIVE RED TEAM DART WORKING PAPER #02-4 December 2002 POC: Dr. Jim Miller Hicks & Associates, Inc. 1710 SAIC Drive, Suite 1300 McLean, VA 22101 703.676.8817 james.n.miller.jr@saic.com DART Working Papers address critical issues associated with joint concepts, experimentation, and red teaming best practices. Comments are welcome. A Practical Guide for Developing and Writing Military Concepts by John F. Schmitt DRAFT WORKING PAPER DEFENSE ADAPTIVE RED TEAM ii WORKING PAPER HICKS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Preface The Defense Adaptive Red Team (DART) is a pilot project. Its mission is to serve as an independent red team that challenges the joint community to develop more robust and resilient concepts for conducting joint operations, and to develop a code of best practices for red teaming. The DART is organized as a network; in its first year of operations, over fifty individuals have participated in concept analysis, experimentation, and studies of red teaming best practices.1 While a captain on active duty, John F. Schmitt authored the Marine Corps’ keystone doctrinal manuals Ground Combat Operations, Warfighting and Campaigning. He later authored the Marine Corps Doctrinal Publications Command and Control (MCDP 6), Planning (MCDP 5), and Expeditionary Operations (MCDP 3), as well as the revision of Warfighting (MCDP 1). The author would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance. LtGen. Paul K. Van Riper, USMC (Ret), was a partner in every aspect of the development of this paper, collaborating in its organization and structure, contributing to the formulation of ideas, and reviewing every draft. Dr. Jim Miller provided support and encouragement, as well as substantive input, at every stage of development. Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret), provided important comments and recommendations on several drafts of the paper. LtCol. Matthew Lopez, USMC, provided significant insights and guidance, and championed the paper in the Joint Staff. This paper benefited greatly from review at two workshops. Col. John Collins, USMC, Mr. Jeffrey Cooper, Dr. Williamson Murray, and COL Richard Hart Sinnreich, USA (Ret), all provided insightful comments and recommendations at the first workshop; their efforts improved the paper significantly. At the second workshop, Dr. Jim Blaker and COL Mike Starry, USA (Ret), provided detailed and extremely helpful commentary on the second half of the paper. The following individuals also contributed to the paper through their active participation in the second workshop: Col. Gary Anderson, USMC (Ret); LTC Michael Coss, USA; Mr. Shane Deichman; Col. Thomas Hammes, USMC; Maj. William Inserra, USMC; LtCol. Doug King, USMC; LTC Randal Lane, USA; LTC Ronald Miller, USA; Mr. Joe Purser; Mr. David Reeths; CAPT John Sandoz, USN (Ret); Col. Fred Wenger, USMC; and LTC Kevin Woods, USA. 1 DART work is conducted under contract # GS-23F-8006H, Delivery Order #: DASW01-01-F-0984 for the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Advanced Systems and Concepts. The publication of this working paper does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official position of that Agency. WORKING PAPER DEFENSE ADAPTIVE RED TEAM iii WORKING PAPER HICKS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Contents 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................1 Part I. A Framework for Military Concepts..............................................................................3 2. Military Concepts.......................................................................................................................3 3. Institutional Concepts ................................................................................................................6 4. Operating Concepts....................................................................................................................7 5. Functional Concepts...................................................................................................................9 6. Enabling Concepts ...................................................................................................................10 Part II. Assessing Future Operating Concepts.........................................................................12 7. Purpose.....................................................................................................................................12 8. Reasons for a New Operating Concept....................................................................................12 9. Foundations of a Good Future Operating Concept..................................................................12 10. Elements of Future Operating Concepts................................................................................15 11. Attributes of a Good Future Operating Concept ....................................................................19 12. Epilogue: The Concept Development and Validation Process...............................................22 Annotated Glossary ....................................................................................................................24 WORKING PAPER DEFENSE ADAPTIVE RED TEAM 1 WORKING PAPER HICKS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose. The purpose of this paper is to provide a common framework and practical guidelines for developing and writing military operating concepts and for evaluating the validity and quality of those concepts, with the ultimate goal of encouraging the development of more thoughtful and useful concepts. 1.2. Background. With the adoption of a concepts-based combat development process, so-called operational concepts have proliferated, to the point that an important and useful military term has been rendered practically meaningless. This point was compellingly made in a recent article by Col. David A. Fastabend, “That Elusive Operational Concept.” 2 Some operational concepts are legitimately that; that is, they describe the conduct of military action at the operational level of war. Most, however, are not. The term operational concept has come to be applied loosely to any description of military (or even non-military) activity or capability. Consequently, descriptions of purely technical or procedural activities are promoted as operational concepts. As a result, the difference between high-order descriptions of military action and mere procedures can be lost, and the conduct of military action thereby risks being reduced to technique or procedure. A standard web search uncovers “operational concepts” numbering in the hundreds. To name only a few examples from such a search, approved or proposed military “operational concepts” exist for the following: • Potable Water Support • Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile (EFOGM) Company Employment • Air Defense Data Links • Combat Health Support • Air Force Electronic Publishing • Night Vision Goggles • Vertical Takeoff and Landing Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VTUAV) Program • Use of Army Bands in Combat Areas • Combat Service Support Adding to the confusion, these types of concepts are sometimes also mistakenly referred to as concepts of operations, which term properly has a different meaning altogether. Additionally, Joint Vision 2020 identifies dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics, and full dimensional protection as operational concepts. These, of course, are modified descriptions of the traditional battlefield functions of maneuver, fires, logistics, and security. These concepts would more properly comprise the main functional elements of a true operational concept. 2 Army, June 2001. www.ausa.org/www/armymag.nsf. WORKING PAPER DEFENSE ADAPTIVE RED TEAM 2 WORKING PAPER HICKS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1.3 Recommendations. This paper proposes to implement the following remedies, which will be adopted throughout the paper: 1.3.1. Define the term operational concept narrowly to refer only to the application of military art and science at the operational level of war. 1.3.2. Introduce the generic term operating concept to refer more broadly to the description of the application of military art and science, independent of the level of war. Operational, as well as strategic and tactical, concepts would thus be categories of operating concepts. 1.3.3. Establish a hierarchy of military concepts to identify the full range of military concepts, their purposes, and their relationships to one another. 1.4 Caution against prescriptive use. This paper is not meant to prescribe specific steps which must be followed in the writing of military concepts, nor in any other way to mechanize or restrict concept development. Instead, the intent is to offer an intellectual framework to assist concept developers in the exercise of judgment and creativity, both of which are essential to the development of good concepts. WORKING PAPER DEFENSE ADAPTIVE RED TEAM 3 WORKING PAPER HICKS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Part I. A Framework for Military Concepts 2. Military Concepts 2.1. Defined. A military concept is the description of a method or scheme for employing specified military capabilities in the achievement of a stated objective or aim. This description may range from broad to narrow. It may range from describing the employment of military forces in the broadest terms and at the highest levels to specifying the employment of a particular technology system or the application of a particular training system. 2.2. Viewed as ends, ways and means. Military concepts can be viewed in terms of ends, ways and means, of which the concept corresponds generally to the ways. The means are the military capabilities to be employed in the given situation. They may range from the full arsenal of military forces available at the operational or strategic levels to a particular capability such as a weapon system, vehicle, training system or specific unit at a lower level. The end is the stated objective, ranging from a broad strategic aim to the accomplishment of a particular task. The ways are the method or scheme (that is, the “concept”) by which the means are applied to accomplish the ends. The essence of a concept is this description of method. A description of a capability by itself does not constitute a concept; capabilities can be created but not used as envisioned, while identical capabilities employed differently would constitute different concepts. Likewise, the description of a desired objective does not constitute a concept; any number of different approaches or methods, employing various capabilities, could conceivably accomplish that objective. The end is necessary to provide context, and the means are needed to describe what resources will be applied, but the essence of the concept is the way in which those capabilities are to be employed. In this sense, military concepts are primarily descriptions of how things are done. 2.3 Historical, current and future military concepts. Military concepts may describe past, present or future military actions or capabilities. 2.3.1 An historical concept describes its uploads/Philosophie/ dart-guide.pdf