1. On the application of simple OR models to the Land Force Peter J Dortmans, Stephen Bourn, Richard Egudo, Svetoslav Gaidow, Wayne Hobbs & Denis Shine Land Operations Division Defence Science & Technology Organisation Edinburgh, AUSTRALIA

2. Summary Defining Simple Modelling Some Land Force examples Food for thought

3. Defining Simple Modelling Some Land Force examples Food for thought

4. Simple Models All models are wrong – some models are useful!  Occam’s Razor –models should be as simple as possible, but no simpler! ?What is a ‘simple model’?

5. Simple vs Detailed Models: A viewpoint

6. Defining Simple Modelling Some Land Force examples Food for thought

7. Combat ID ?Question: What advantages do CID give?  Technique: Modified Lanchester

8. Combat ID -Data fa and fb are fratricide coefficients

9. Combat ID - Results

11. Combat ID ?Question: What advantage do CID give?  Technique: Modified Lanchester Better: Is CID always an advantage?  Minimise all blue casualties vs minimise blue fratricide casualties

12. Tactical Effects ?Problem: Land forces in 2025?  Technique: Agent-based distillations  Explore problem space oCreate “conceptual forces” based on: Engagement, Information Collection, Communication, Decision Making, Sustainment, Movement, Protection

13. Tactical Effects – MANA simulation e.g. Envelopment – On contact: back away, fan out, then attacks – Focus: Information Collection, Decision Making and Movement

14. Tactical Effects – MANA simulation Default ScenarioEnvelopment SucceedingEnvelopment Failing e.g. Envelopment – On contact: back away, fan out, then attacks – Focus: Information Collection, Decision Making and Movement

15. Tactical Effects - Observations

17. Tactical Effects ?Problem: Land forces in 2025?  Outcomes  Areas of impact  Synergies and antagonisms  Emergent Behaviour  Basis for further studies

18. Risk Management Matrix ?Comparing future force structures - 2015  What can go wrong? & What can get better?

19. Risk Management Matrix

20. ?Comparing future force structures - 2015  What can go wrong? & What can get better?  SME input – AHP facilitated

21. Risk Management Matrix

22. ?Comparing future force structures - 2015  What can go wrong? & What can get better?  SME input – AHP facilitated Relative merits of forces and issues/risks

23. Asymmetric Conflict ?Problem: Adapting conventional forces to asymmetric threats  Techniques: Conceptual Modelling; SME input; Pair-wise comparisons

24. Asymmetric Conflict:

25. Asymmetric Conflict: Conceptual Model

26. Asymmetric Conflict

27. Enhance HUMINT Reduce Local Support

28. Asymmetric Conflict ?Problem: Adapting conventional forces to asymmetric threats  Techniques: Conceptual Modelling; SME input; Pair-wise comparisons Indicate opportunities & threats

29. Defining Simple Modelling Some Land Force examples Food for thought

30. Simple models –scope problem –raise questions –set boundaries How do we assess their ‘goodness’? How do we manage ‘complexity’? How do we make sure they are used appropriately?

31. Questions