· Upskilling of the Commanders. Any AI-driven system would necessitate that commanders be in the know of what the end product is likely to be and capable of making a human intervention should an emergency arise. This requirement would mean the commander is well-versed in the workings of the AI system. The usual reliance on staff to feed the inputs to the commander would be a strict 'No', as the decision loop would not permit the luxury of time. Any intervention would be concurrent, as the process is happening, requiring a hands-on commander. A tech-savvy military would need a tech-savvy commander. Thus, upgrading the commander's skills would be the first part of this Management of change.
· Upskilling the Hands-on Soldiers and Reduction in Manpower. Automated systems would necessitate a reduction in personnel manning the sensors or the weapon and upgrading the skills of the residual manpower. This upgrade would translate into a higher education entry into the Army, a higher professional curriculum in the army training schools and centres for the men, or a combination of both. It would be a leadership challenge. How to get the best fit, since higher education graduates desire better pay and lives. These aspirations are not in tune with soldiers' lives and pay scales. Reduction in manpower would have a concomitant effect on the ability to maintain the equipment with less manpower or necessitate a sturdier weapon system requiring minimal maintenance. The latter would be a procurement challenge to be addressed at the top of the leadership ladder.
· Decision Making. The third part of the OODA loop is decision-making. Decision-making would change due to the way the commanders receive information. The concept of CCs has been discussed earlier. However, below the CCs levels are the fighting units, the companies and platoons in physical contact with the enemy. They also would be AI-equipped. E.g. surveillance drones operated by the troops in contact with the enemy. These drones, being digital, would be linked to the operator as well as to a command post in the rear. The flow of information would be forward to back, back to forward, and lateral as well. Since multiple sources are sending a feed, it would be essential for commanders at all levels to be aware of the entire situation to make the correct decisions. For, whether to engage an impromptu target or wait to get more information out of it is a command decision dictated by the level of situational awareness. A lower commander might want an engagement, yet his higher commander is unsure how the future will unfold. He might feel the enemy has not yet played his whole hand. Such decision dilemmas would continue to confront the commanders due to multiple inputs coming simultaneously. The answer to these dilemmas may be quicker dissemination of information forward and backwards.
· To Act. Action in the AI environment will gain a sharper cutting edge. The sensors would be more sophisticated even at the soldier level, and the means of destruction like rifles, automatic weapons, artillery guns, and the air force would all be on a tablet. What would never change is the raw courage required of a soldier to confront the enemy. Thus, The challenge is to have a soldier who is mentally and physically strong and, at the same time, intelligent enough to grasp the nuisance of a dynamic battlefield. AI would thus change even an infantry soldier, asking him to be more aware of the situation and his surroundings. This facet would change the complete training curriculum of an infantry soldier, the tank crew, the artillery forward observation officer and his party. The feedback loop would also be more time-sensitive as rapid enemy reaction must be countered. In short, the pace of battle would be more rapid. Consequently, the aspects of leading from the front, teamwork, clarity of objective, and situational awareness would pose more significant challenges for the leadership.
· Operations of the Air Force and the Navy. The OODA loop for the Air Force and the Navy would follow the same pattern and could be described in similar detail. The selection or destruction of impromptu targets that have emerged from the fog of war would assume greater significance. Link with the sensor, which may be an airborne CC, and updating target location and profile would become critical and a part of routine training for the pilots. There is a possibility of pilotless aircraft joining the Air Force fleet. Unmanned aerial vehicles: Global Hawk and Predators are currently in service with the US Air Force in counter-insurgency conflicts in the Middle East and the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. A proliferation of weaponised pilotless fighter aircraft is a distinct possibility, and it would pose a significant challenge to the tactics and flight formations of the Air Force. Common sense reasoning is one quality that is easy to come by in humans and impossible for AI. Thus, reacting in dynamic situations in the fog of war would be a big challenge for AI-driven machines. Would the Air Force and the Navy lose manpower due to excessive automation? The answer would be 'Yes'; it would lose a proportionate share of its manpower from its WETs (War Tables). The challenges facing their commanders would be similar.
· The challenges given above would be over and above the challenges that exist in the current time, mainly about shortage of manpower and other resource, shifting operational responsibilities and difficult terrain. On the overall matrix, the challenges in the AI environment would be far more complex than what is possible to explain in a few paragraphs.
No comments:
Post a Comment