"I expect every member of the Department to log in, learn it, and incorporate it into your workflows immediately. Al should be in your battle rhythm every single day" says Pete Hegseth

Arthur Besse@lemmy.ml · 6 days ago

"I expect every member of the Department to log in, learn it, and incorporate it into your workflows immediately. Al should be in your battle rhythm every single day" says Pete Hegseth

Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca · 4 days ago

Actually yes. A not insignificant part of battle planning is to try and disrupt the opposing side’s OODA loop. The whole idea was to make it so you could react faster and more appropriately.

Lots of the tools and information processing systems used in the modern battlefield are designed to quickly take raw data and present that into a format which the decision maker can use to actually make the correct decision.

Which is why I am leery of using AI in this fashion. Oh sure, if you want to use it to create a briefing note on the forecasted widget usages, meeting minutes about the feasibility of a Christmas party at Montana’s or so on, that’s fine but to actually parse and data that will result in application of lethal force is a whole different kettle of fish.

Now yes, there are currently systems that are Auto Engage, but they are very much not AI and the only thing they are generally used for is anti air defense where you have a very limited window in which to successfully prosecute a threat.

merc@sh.itjust.works · 4 days ago

A not insignificant part of battle planning is to try and disrupt the opposing side’s OODA loop

That concept has existed long before anyone had ever heard of an “OODA loop”. Sun Tzu wrote about “disrupting the opposing side’s OODA loop” centuries ago, using different terms.

Even in WWI it was smoke to prevent them from seeing (observing) clearly. Artillery to disrupt things so they can’t make good plans (which was labelled as “orient” for some strange reason). Barbed wire to prevent them from moving, thereby disrupting the “act” phase. Fundamentally since OODA is such a non-obvious acronym for such an obvious and all-encompassing subject, you can frame everything in terms of “disrupting an OODA loop”, but that doesn’t mean talking about OODA loops is insightful in any way.

Also, fundamentally that’s all secondary to having more troops, greater firepower, more range, etc. If one side has a phalanx and the other side has an attack helicopter, the battle isn’t going to come down to whoever has the least disrupted OODA loops.

Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca · 4 days ago

Ah, wonderful that you’re familiar with Sun Tzu! Indeed he did write about this, in particular how the acme of generalship was to “balk the enemy’s plans”. The whole concept has just been refined and reframed using twentieth and twenty-first century terms and context. However, his basic premise remains as true as it was back then.

Now, most state on state conflict these days isn’t phalanx on attack helicopter as both sides have broadly equivalent firepower and capabilities. As such it really does come down to doctrinal differences. For instance, in the First Gulf War, Iraqi C2 was crippled via precision attacks which severely hampered their ability to respond to Coalition ground attack. Yes, the Abrams and the Challenger tanks heavily outclassed the Iraqi armour, however, it was due to the Coalition having overwhelming situational awareness and being able to exploit the weaknesses that developed after the initial strikes.

I must say, I am truly enjoying this discussion! You bring up some really good points!

merc@sh.itjust.works · 4 days ago

As such it really does come down to doctrinal differences

Not for the US. The US hasn’t had to face a near peer enemy since WWII. When was the last time the US didn’t have air supremacy in a conflict? They had it even in Korea and Vietnam and since then the advantage has only grown. Plus now it’s not just air, it’s satellites and drones. That allows the US to use GPS-guided weapons, or use GPS to move forces, with satellites and drones to verify that the path is clear. Also, US air supremacy means the US can strike any enemy target in any position from the air, knocking out enemy communications, radar, power, ammo dumps, etc.

For instance, in the First Gulf War, Iraqi C2 was crippled via precision attacks which severely hampered their ability to respond to Coalition ground attack

Yes – attack helicopters vs. phalanxes. How was the US able to perform these precision attacks? Its overwhelming advantage in firepower, tech, etc. meant that it quickly established air supremacy and was able to strike Iraqi targets at will. It’s not that Iraq didn’t think of crippling the US forces in the same way, it’s that it was completely unable to do that because of the US superiority in numbers, tech and firepower.

Yes, the Abrams and the Challenger tanks heavily outclassed the Iraqi armour, however, it was due to the Coalition having overwhelming situational awareness

Which was the result of a massive difference in tech, plus complete air supremacy allowing them to completely disrupt any Iraqi communication. The US could have been using WWII Sherman tanks and still would have won because they had control of the skies and were able to use that to isolate Iraqi units. And, that’s not to mention that the US tanks had night vision systems while the Iraqis didn’t, so a lot of engagements were designed to happen at night when the Iraqis were blind and the US forces could see clearly.

The US victory in the first Iraq war had nothing to do with the US being clever and disrupting Iraq’s “OODA loops” and everything to do with the US having a massive advantage in tech, firepower, etc.

If you wanted to look at a conflict where the side with the better doctrine is having a better result, you could look at Ukraine vs. Russia. Russia has a huge manpower advantage, and started the war with a huge advantage in equipment. But, Russia is famous for having rigid command structures and top-heavy decision making. Ukraine isn’t winning the war, but just not losing is a major achievement given all the advantages Russia has. And, at least some of that comes down to Ukraine having much better visibility into what Russia is doing (thanks in part to US and European tech) allowing them to make better decisions, so that when they act they have a better chance of success. Russia’s ability to see what Ukraine is doing is weaker because they lack the latest NATO tech, and they make worse decisions and make those decisions slower because of the structure of their military. So, Ukraine’s information and control structure advantages are helping offset the disadvantage they face because they’re so much smaller than Russia.

Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca · 4 days ago

I would argue that one of the major advantages that our friends in Ukraine have is that they are using both playbooks. Consider, for the great majority of the twentieth century, the Ukrainian Forces were a vitally integral part of the USSR and thus learned to fight in the Soviet style. However, upon the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainians began to develop closer ties with NATO and NATO aligned countries, thus learning some of our battle strategy, which was, for the most part, designed to counter the USSR and their way of warfare. So essentially, they know what the Russians will likely try and also they know what steps should be taken to counter those actions.

I suspect we have strayed somewhat from the original topic under discussion, but that’s fine with me!

merc@sh.itjust.works · 4 days ago

My guess is that since Russia invaded Ukraine there have been a lot of Americans and other NATO people spending time in Ukraine, teaching and training. Most of it is probably done in a quiet, plausibly deniable way. Like, former soldiers hired through a private foundation that has a secret donor list. It would be very cheap for NATO countries to do, and it could be very effective. Even if countries can’t get their public to agree to ship weapons to Ukraine, European leaders almost certainly know that Russia is a major threat, and as soon as it defeats Ukraine that threat will be aimed at them. A small investment now to keep Ukraine fighting means less needs to be spent later if Russia wins.

Anyhow, my point is that that’s one of the few modern conflicts where there are near-peer forces fighting each-other. In the earliest days of the invasion Russia’s advantage over Ukraine might have been as big as the US advantage over Iraq. But, since then with training, arms, ammunition and tech from NATO countries, Ukraine is probably on par with Russia in some ways, and ahead of them in others, though still way behind in total manpower. Because of that, I think it’s one of the few conflicts where the conflict won’t simply be decided by the side with the newest tech or the side with the biggest army. Instead it’s one where disrupting the opposition’s surveillance, analysis, planning and execution can have the greatest impact.

Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca · 4 days ago

The Ukrainians received a lot of training from our side prior to the current conflict. One example being OP UNIFIER which was the CAF contribution that trained the Ukrainian Forces.

I think a big advantage that the Ukrainians have currently is that the western/NATO battle doctrine encourages (theoretically) initiative and action at all rank levels whilst the Russian doctrine seems to require strict obedience to hierarchy. Something that was trained into us was “if you have no idea what to do next, win the war/act decisively”.

What do you think might be some good steps for Ukraine after the conflict and if they are victorious? I think one of the areas that Ukraine was definitely lacking in at the outset was their Naval forces. I’d suggest that a small professional submarine force would be a good place for them.

merc@sh.itjust.works · 4 days ago

Even if Ukraine “wins” the war, they’re in massive trouble. A big fraction of their working-age population is dead or severely injured. A lot of their infrastructure is badly damaged or destroyed. For a short time they’re going to have a niche as one of the few countries that has expertise in fighting a war against a big, modern, well-equipped opponent. Maybe they can find a way to generate money from that. But, if they’re not careful it will just result in Ukrainians emigrating with that expertise to take up consultant type roles in other countries.

I think the last think Ukraine wants to do after a conflict like this is to maintain a large standing military. They can’t afford that either financially, or afford taking prime-age people out of other jobs. So, I think they’re hoping to have a small military and have the UN or NATO take up the slack of defending their borders.

Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca · 3 days ago

I’d have to agree with you there. War is a most terrible thing and even if you “win” it often is a most costly and painful affair. I think the point you make is correct that it’s likely that NATO or the UN is going to have to enforce some sort of border agreement. Unfortunately, that’s the way things are when you aren’t a super power.

I can see the Ukrainian Forces develop into a very niche specialist outfit, in particular with emphasis on drone warfare. They will obviously have to demob after the cessation of hostilities but they will definitely have a core of good professional fighters.

Thank you so much for the conversation by the way!