War ‘It Failed Miserably’: After Wargaming Loss, Joint Chiefs Are Overhauling How the US Military Will Fight - In a fake battle for Taiwan, U.S. forces lost network access almost immediately. Hyten has issued four directives to help change that.

Defenseone.com / Archive is not working / Outline

‘It Failed Miserably’: After Wargaming Loss, Joint Chiefs Are Overhauling How the US Military Will Fight

In a fake battle for Taiwan, U.S. forces lost network access almost immediately. Hyten has issued four directives to help change that.

A brutal loss in a wargaming exercise last October convinced the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. John Hyten to scrap joint warfighting concepts that had guided U.S. military operations for decades.

“Without overstating the issue, it failed miserably. An aggressive red team that had been studying the United States for the last 20 years just ran rings around us. They knew exactly what we're going to do before we did it,” Hyten told an audience Monday at the launch of the Emerging Technologies Institute, an effort by the National Defense Industrial Association industry group to speed military modernization.

The Pentagon would not provide the name of the wargame, which was classified, but a defense official said one of the scenarios revolved around a battle for Taiwan. One key lesson: gathering ships, aircraft, and other forces to concentrate and reinforce each other’s combat power also made them sitting ducks.

“We always aggregate to fight, and aggregate to survive. But in today’s world, with hypersonic missiles, with significant long-range fires coming at us from all domains, if you're aggregated and everybody knows where you are, you're vulnerable,” Hyten said.

Even more critically, the blue team lost access to its networks almost immediately.

“We basically attempted an information-dominance structure, where information was ubiquitous to our forces. Just like it was in the first Gulf War, just like it has been for the last 20 years, just like everybody in the world, including China and Russia, have watched us do for the last 30 years,” Hyten said. “Well, what happens if right from the beginning that information is not available? And that’s the big problem that we faced.”

The October exercise was a test for a new Joint Warfighting Concept. But the new joint concept had been largely based on the same joint operations concepts that had guided forces for decades, Hyten said, and the red team easily defeated them.

After the October loss, the Joint Chiefs began an overhaul and shifted toward a new concept they call “Expanded Maneuver.” Hyten wants the U.S. military to be ready to fight under this overhauled Joint Warfighting Concept by 2030, using many of today’s weapons, aircraft, and ships.

Related articles

Will 2021 Be the Year JADC2 Takes Off?

Pentagon’s Accelerating ‘Connect-Everything’ Effort Hinges on Uncertain Cloud Program

Hyten: US Must Broaden Its Strategic Deterrence Concept — and Keep Its ICBMs

Earlier this month, Hyten released four directives to the services: one each for contested logistics; joint fires; Joint All-Domain Command and Control, or JADC2; and information advantage. On Monday, he revealed new details about these “functional battles.”

Contested logistics. Creating new ways to deliver fuel and supplies to front lines. U.S. Transportation Command and the Air Force are working on using rockets and a space trajectory to get large cargo spaceships into and out of battlefields.

Joint fires: “You have to aggregate to mass fires, but it doesn't have to be a physical aggregation,” Hyten said. “It could be a virtual aggregation for multiple domains; acting at the same time under a single command structure allows the fires to come in on anybody. It allows you to disaggregate to survive.” Hyten said the joint fires concept “is aspirational. It is unbelievably difficult to do.” And the military will have to figure out what part will be affordable and practical, he said.

JADC2: The Pentagon’s push to connect everything demands always-on, hackerproof networks, Hyten said. “The goal is to be fully connected to a combat cloud that has all information that you can access at any time, anyplace,” so that, like with joint fires, the data doesn’t get exposed or hacked because it’s housed in one centralized location, he said.

Information advantage: This element is the sum of the first three, Hyten said: “If we can do the things I just described, the United States and our allies will have an information advantage over anybody that we could possibly face.”

Don't miss:

The new operating concept comes as the U.S. military reshapes its footprint in the Middle East to better prepare for a fight with China. On Monday, President Joe Biden announced U.S. troops will end their combat role in Iraq by the end of the year; the announcement comes just two months after Biden announced a full withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“You've seen it in Afghanistan and you're seeing it play out now in Iraq.” Hyten said. “We have to not ignore the threats in the Middle East, but deal with the threat to the Middle East in a different way, with a smaller footprint, so we can divert more of our body on threats in China and Russia."
 
JADC2: The Pentagon’s push to connect everything demands always-on, hackerproof networks, Hyten said. “The goal is to be fully connected to a combat cloud that has all information that you can access at any time, anyplace,” so that, like with joint fires, the data doesn’t get exposed or hacked because it’s housed in one centralized location, he said.
Duh! Hackerproof, centralized networks! How come no one thought of this before?
 
With how much Russia and China have been pushing hyper-sonic cruise missiles and other new network tech, I fully believe that this war game was a disaster.

I remember reading awhile back that the US was about 10-15 years behind current missile tech and would be curb-stomped by EMP and other hyper-sonic stuff in an actual tier 1 war. Basically, USA R&D got lazy and sat on their asses during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. (Because militants in caves just didn't demand actual new attack and defense systems.)

Also, that the current branches are way too dependent on the military network and a capable enemy would jam it up with DDoS within hours of a conflict.

Edit: Wasn't all gloom though. It recognized that the US Navy is still overwhelmingly superior to anything the rest of the developed world combined could throw at us. That alone will give the USA a massive long term advantage in open conflict. Especially since the Navy effectively owns the Pacific theater.
 
Last edited:
You fucking morons complaining about diversity. When this is about Network based warfare and technology. You actually want more diversity in that kind war because your average war fighting meat head ain't going to cut it in that field.


This was also a Wargame. Another reason that shows why the U.S. military is the top military because it troubleshoots itself more than any other military.
 
You fucking morons complaining about diversity. When this is about Network based warfare and technology. You actually want more diversity in that kind war because your average war fighting meat head ain't going to cut it in that field.


This was also a Wargame. Another reason that shows why the U.S. military is the top military because it troubleshoots itself more than any other military.

Your average "diverse" network warfare specialist is going to be a white or asian male
 
“Without overstating the issue, it failed miserably. An aggressive red team that had been studying the United States for the last 20 years just ran rings around us. They knew exactly what we're going to do before we did it,” Hyten told an audience Monday at the launch of the Emerging Technologies Institute, an effort by the National Defense Industrial Association industry group to speed military modernization.
Our government has played footsies with known foreign intelligence assets and allowed them to copy and distribute field manuals and a host of other classified intel who then spread it to the four winds. This specific enemy has been studying up for the last 20 years; but was never given privileged access or acted as a double agent, the American intelligence system is a super serious and professional organization.

“We basically attempted an information-dominance structure, where information was ubiquitous to our forces. Just like it was in the first Gulf War, just like it has been for the last 20 years, just like everybody in the world, including China and Russia, have watched us do for the last 30 years,” Hyten said. “Well, what happens if right from the beginning that information is not available? And that’s the big problem that we faced.”
When we were curb-stomping barely functional armies and more or less resistance pockets and other shit that didn't have the ability to stop our air power.

“We always aggregate to fight, and aggregate to survive. But in today’s world, with hypersonic missiles, with significant long-range fires coming at us from all domains, if you're aggregated and everybody knows where you are, you're vulnerable,” Hyten said.
We haven't fought an enemy on equal footing with us since World War II; and we're completely shocked these people who spy, steal, and otherwise gain access to our cool shit have managed to make it themselves and learn how to use it. It's also surprisingly more difficult to wage war from the ocean and not dry land, this is an unexpected complication.

Not that I needed any confirmation; but our military leadership is retarded.
 
Surely the answer is even more aircraft carriers, as opposed to land bases in Taiwan that can be hardened and don't take weeks to arrive.

I mean, you do intend on actually defending Taiwan and not arriving too late and saying "oh well," right?
 
Turns out having all of your ships in a close, stationary, defensive formation, constantly pinging each other with Networked communications makes them vulnerable to a network hack followed by hypersonic cruise missiles.

Who would've figured?

Buddy of mine in the military says they're still using largely civillian-compatible networking stuff instead of a closed, secure military-only network, so this issue has been coming for a long time.
 
Surely the answer is even more aircraft carriers, as opposed to land bases in Taiwan that can be hardened and don't take weeks to arrive.

I mean, you do intend on actually defending Taiwan and not arriving too late and saying "oh well," right?
They like to pretend that bases at Kadena, Okinawa, Iwakuni, Kusan, Osan, Daegu (and whatever other air fields in the Orient) are there to help stabilize the region; but China invading Taiwan would be far faster than any response from the Islands of Japan or the Korean Peninsula.
 
Turns out having all of your ships in a close, stationary, defensive formation, constantly pinging each other with Networked communications makes them vulnerable to a network hack followed by hypersonic cruise missiles.

Who would've figured?

Buddy of mine in the military says they're still using largely civillian-compatible networking stuff instead of a closed, secure military-only network, so this issue has been coming for a long time.

Does it really matter? We will continue to hire Chinese nationals at defense contractors, and what they don't steal we will give to our greatest ally, Israel, who will then sell it to them.

We should continue our long term strategy of poisoning chinese youth with western media and Hollywood movies.
 
These articles are a bit disengenuous because every war game is essentially set up to be lost by the US. Whether it's joint air war training with another country where they can use everything at their disposal and the US can just throw tennis balls out of a hole drilled in the cockpit or sea exercises where the US shuts off all defenses on the ships to learn what would happen.

Ita kind of the point. You don't learn where improvents are needed to low level stuff when your overwhelming technology would just auto win.
 
Back