Re: The Next World War
 

That "netted enterprise" assumes maximum use of and effect from the various systems. OK, you lose your ability to share info with everyone else, so your overall battlefield awareness is reduced (probably drastically). Does that make all your combat systems useless? By no means. Pilots can still spot and engage targets, artillery can still be called in via radio, etc.

We've had GPS for years, yet in the Marines at least we still train with, and use a map an compass because only a fool would assume you'll always have batteries and satellite links.

So yes, hacking and EMP will effect things, but it won't make everything useless.

Re: The Next World War
 

The effect of a successful hack say on the F-35s threat warning system is sufficient to doom that pilot. The microchips may have been enginnerred in a way to process a foe signal as a friend. Then, before the pilot can react or even if he or she does, the missile homes on the plane. Or, the hack chains a bank of microchips to signalthe missile, rendering the pilot doomed.

Now, imagine the subject unit is a command, control, and signal station say at brigade and the affected threat signal processors grant friend status to a foe. Bam. Now the various companies cannot share data and their effiency is horrible degraded. Havong a map and GPS does not tell a company commander where the enemy is.

The article covers such threats as a result of cyber warfare. We are not talking about EMPs jamming or any number of battlefield disruptions. The hack may have began during a simple maintenance of microchips in the threat proceesing system back state side.

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

I'm afraid you (like many people) have a rather inflated opinion of what's probable with hacking.

Let's assume the F-35 threat warning system is hacked ... OK ... a single raid is blown out of the air, totally destroyed. Guess what, the next raid that goes out doesn't use the same compromised system.

IFF systems are hardly new, they've been used in aircraft for years. That doesn't render the enemy aircraft invisible to visual identification or MPADs/AA-guns.

The military isn't incapable of operating without GPS and battlefield info sharing, just less efficient.

Re: The Next World War
 

That reply should not have been posted. A cursory review of thw subject would have stayed your hand from pressing the "submit reply."

I'll play along and bite.

What if it's not a raid but a CAP on fleet defense. The two F-35's are 125 km out from the battle group at angels 30k. The threat is processed as a friend, that false info is relayed to the ships below. Bam.

But in our game we'd be more concerned with the lost of command and control. Now, our commanders know the enemy is out there but it does not know composition or strength. Well, in "God" view the player knows composition, strength, and position. Let's imagine a battle where the commander (player) no longer has that information. Is it possible to do so. Maybe. Let's find out. The A0 unit is lost.

But let us say the scenario occurs in 1953 before modern battlefield situation awareness as we know it today, then what occasions "God" view.

It is refreshing our services are as technical as they are today. A kid needs 50 on his or her ASVAB for the Navy and USAF while the Marines and Army only a 30.

And, our leaders both civilian and military are acutely aware of the threats of cyber warfare rather than adopting a cavalier attitude to the issue. This is really big stuff.

I framed this thread around reducing "God" view to what an individual unit can see on the map with respect to cyber war fighting. But, I could have easily chosen to make case as a result of the technical ability of militaries over the decades; i.e scenarios set in Korea, etc. Similar to what we do with purchasing units where unit capabilities are bounded by the year that gear was in use, so might "God" view.

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

You're assuming your hackers have perfect battlefield intelligence and know the precise time and place to institute their hack. And also assuming the hack is 100% successful.

Re: The Next World War
 

It doesn't work that way. The "hack" is a programmed routine in one of hundreds of banks contained in one microchip. The routine is called when a particular signal is received. So, say the threat atenna picks up a signal from a Chinese missile, rather than processing the signal as a threat, the routine processes the signal as a friend. Or, the array of attennai chained together as a block emit a homeing signal.

Either way the so called "hack" does not require battlefield intelligence.

Now, the malware (routine) infected microchips are purchased by a maintenance sub contractor from legitimate firms. The sub contractor inserts the chips. Testing each chip would require a test across a very large spectrum of frquencies, not impossible to test for but the problem is to isolate as you can imagine that one frequency the adversary uses. We don't know that. In a war situation, the adversary would program it's planes and missiles to exploit the "hacked" chips.

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

So now you're assuming the manufacture of the chips used in a system was compromised in the first place and remained undetected?

Re: The Next World War
 

You should acquaint yourself with the subject matter. There's a lot of papers and several think tanks, and a number of authors have published books with the technical material covered in a Tom Clancy style (for easy reading by a lay person) available in the public domain. Check them out.

You might start with: "Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War" (Singer & Cole, Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, June 30, 2015)

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

I prefer science fiction to science fantasy.

Rather a large difference between probable and possible. ANYTHING is possible, if you want to go that route then there's no point debating it, just do it.

Re: The Next World War
 

If you wanted to simulate something like this or even diffrent command & control for diffrent time periods / countries you could resort to pen & paper & rough orders plus a command system.

Define points cost for specific actions
Platoon stops, advances in current direction, changes direction etc.
Squad does one of the above independently.
Possible extra cost if unit does not have radio.

Each Leader, platoon, company, HQ gets a certain number of command points that they can use to comand lower units.

Diffrent armies & timefrmes would have more or less command points for the leaders & so be more orless flexible. Could also make it important to protect Leaders, pinned lose a command point. Platoon Leader broken lets hope Company leader has points available otherwise using HQ points.

So you might want to give USA leaders more points than Russian leaders to simulate better training.
Germany vs France WWII same German leaders get more points than the French. If you also made giving a unit independant orders more expensive with no radio the French tank formations would end up acting like they did.

Still have your gods eye view but now you need to think, cant just send that unit right at a moments notice if you have used your points.
Can make as complex as you like perhaps include rallying a unit costs a point so tough choice, rally the unit or give another unit an independant order?
Calling in directing support could cost so FOOs can only direct so much. Would cos platoon leaders more than a FOO
HQ could call in direct free so any additional calls could be made by them if run put of points.

Does that make sense?