arealdeadone | 12 Apr 2021 11:18 p.m. PST |
It turns out USAF wargaming assumes a lot of capabilities that don't exist and many which aren't even funded or active programs (eg transport planes used as arsenal aircraft) including planned F-35 variants that haven't entered service as well as things that haven't entered service and whose final configuration is unknown! And even the US loses or at best win a pyrrhic victory (so the real outcome based on REAL capabilities is a US loss). link I know Fanatik thinks these officers are super intelligent and well trained and know more than us armchair generals, but planning to fight wars around capabilities that don't exist is the epitome of stupid. As I've mentioned before the USMC is doing the same – planning based on funded programs, delayed programs or theoretical concepts.
Seems US military planners are no different to wargamers who pack as many Tiger tanks they can in games representing battles where there were no German tanks at all, let alone Tigers! |
Striker | 13 Apr 2021 3:24 a.m. PST |
If you're not going to fight it doesn't matter what the capabilities are or aren't. Lots of "we need to build this because of China" and not a lot of "China is a problem and we need to address it". |
aegiscg47 | 13 Apr 2021 6:57 a.m. PST |
Hopefully, you do realize that they run a number of war-games based upon current capabilities, next gen capabilities, and with a widely varying array of situations? Some of these are intentionally played out with the goal of getting funding for projects, closing out funding for others, or trying to make a point in terms of strategy, basing, number of assets allocated, etc. Professional (military and think tank) war-games are nowhere near the miniatures and board games that we play. |
Thresher01 | 13 Apr 2021 7:01 a.m. PST |
It is a good way to test out, and determine if some of the weapons systems and tactics in development may work in the future. That's all well and good, provided that they also conduct scenarios with current capabilities too, and that the referees don't intercede when things don't go as planned for the factions involved. |
Legion 4 | 13 Apr 2021 10:23 a.m. PST |
So … it's a Sci-fi wargame ? 🤔🛸 |
arealdeadone | 13 Apr 2021 2:52 p.m. PST |
Thresher, from.what I have read US military wargaming is increasingly rigged to get the outcomes the US military wants. Eg USMC commander General Berger shut down all wargaming units save the one promoting his new model for the USMC. This air force one was rigged too – article talked about Red Comnander being effectively forced to play the dumb game and act illogically. And even having stacked the game, USAF still wins a pyrhhic victory despite downgradong opponent anf givong themselves weapons that don't exist or may never be procured. |
Legion 4 | 13 Apr 2021 4:30 p.m. PST |
Don't see that doing a lot for readiness …
I know Fanatik thinks these officers are super intelligent and well trained and know more than us armchair generals, That being said many are very smarter, well trained, etc., than the armchair generals here. At least the few I had worked/had contact, '79-'90 … |
pzivh43 | 13 Apr 2021 5:00 p.m. PST |
From my reading of the article, this was not a wargame planned for the current USAF capabilities. Rather it was one to game some capabilities that the USAF is hoping to have (if funding comes) in 2030 or so. And I didn't see any indication (in the article) of rigging the red player to play dumb---the refs just made him attack when he felt it was not rational for the CCP to do so. Apples and oranges, arealdeadone. |
arealdeadone | 13 Apr 2021 6:07 p.m. PST |
rigging the red player to play dumb---the refs just made him attack when he felt it was not rational for the CCP to do so. Well actually that's what dumbs down the scenario – the red player is literally hamstrung into doing what the USAF wants them to do, regardless of sound military logic. It's actually an endemic problem in US military planning – the enemy is assumed to be predictable (and times static and reactive). And as we've seen even with jihadis and Russian and Chinese hybrid warfare in Crimea and SC Sea, the enemy is not predictable. I've read of other exercises ala some Red Flags etc where the Red players are constrained into predictable patterns of behaviour and often without many assets a real world opponent would have (eg no AEW&C despite Chinese and Russians fielding this capability). |
Striker | 14 Apr 2021 4:41 p.m. PST |
wargames in defense dept, thinking of something like this? link |
arealdeadone | 14 Apr 2021 6:03 p.m. PST |
Striker, Superb example of how flawed US planning/wargaming is and how it's skewed badly to letting Americans win. Interesting that the exercise in the party was actually mandated by Congress and they actually had an independent party commanding red force. Otherwise the exercise would have been another rigged rubber stamp of US military supremacy. These exercises should be viewed as a learning platform, not a politically driven exercise in self aggrandisement. |
Legion 4 | 14 Apr 2021 7:51 p.m. PST |
These exercises should be viewed as a learning platform, That is the way we did it when I was on active duty … not a politically driven exercise in self aggrandisement. That is no way to run an army … |
Striker | 14 Apr 2021 10:56 p.m. PST |
Ok, broader question for the hive: Are some exercises/games run in such a way to learn from or are they just a form of "hey we have this and it does that". Not being in the know I would think a game where red force is out to win however they can would be much more useful and I don't think the entire military establishment is just looking for jobs at a well paying defense co. I've heard rumors, never been there, that NTC is like that, looking to beat down the visiting force. Not trying to equate it but I'm thinking a Dirty Dozen type plan where the rules are pushed and the object is to win would be much more valuable even if embarrassing than an echo chamber of superiority. Anyone been to these exercises/games? |
Legion 4 | 15 Apr 2021 12:57 p.m. PST |
Most training exercises are just that … to train and learn. However sometimes you being evaluated so you want to get a GO vs. a NO GO. Generally you are always being evaluated by someone even when not being on a specific evaluated exercise. But bottom line training in all forms is important for combat readiness, etc. Some say you learn more from losing than winning. The NTC is a good example of that. Yeah … we got our butts kicked … Most did. But we did learn … That is why after almost every exercise you do an After Action Report or debriefing. Lessons learned and another reason we study history. There is a way to do things and a way not to them, etc. And that varies on a lot depending on terrain, situation, etc. Generally speaking depending on the situation a "Dirty Dozen" type plan would probably be frowned upon. But sometimes you may get away with it. Depending on the level of training and exercise. But believe me, e.g. at the NTC at an AAR, I got pretty embarrassed when seeing footage, etc., shown by the OPFOR Cdr that overran my Co. position in the middle of the night … But the same happened to most of the rest of the Bn/Bde so I was not alone. And I did learn … My one Bde Cdr used to talk about the freedom to fail during training. Don't be afraid at times to take a calculated risk, etc. We were training not only to prepare but learn. But it still does not feel very good when your unit gets it's butt handed to it. You try to learn and not make it a habit so to speak. Combat Arms units are full of Alphas, so competition is not unexpected. Confidence and aggressiveness goes along with that … |
Striker | 15 Apr 2021 10:59 p.m. PST |
That's good to hear Legion. My current experience is in IT land and one thing that never is listened to is an AAR of an incident. Most techs know it's something to identify and fix to prevent the same thing, but mgr types like to give a "we got past that" response and surprise the same thing happens. Not a lot of hard questions or honest answers. During reading I come across commanders who test ideas, challenge sop, or try to think like an enemy and it seems quite obvious to do but then I come across something else where "how did they not see this coming" is the take away. So, I would think in a world where people shoot at you there would be more honesty in exercises and AARs. I know, people are people. Just being foolishly hopeful. |
Thresher01 | 16 Apr 2021 2:51 p.m. PST |
Leaders and people don't always do the logical, rational thing. |
Legion 4 | 16 Apr 2021 4:34 p.m. PST |
That's good to hear Legion. AARs/debriefings, etc. are all part of the learning/training cycle. And yes, if you screwed up … you heard about it. And vis verse … It actually sometimes meant more to me many times when a Senior NCO told you did a good job, on whatever the mission, operation, etc., was. |