Sections

Introduction

Warfighting Domains – Five Dimensional Construct

Cebrowski’s Domains of Conflict

The 21st Century Battlespace – A Brief Analysis

References

Introduction

Two earlier posts have discussed the changing nature of warfare over the last several centuries. While the first of these posts gives an overview of warfare taxonomies under the paradigms of “generations of warfare” and “revolution in military affairs,” its follow-up post brings out different flavours of modern warfighting which have emerged over the last few decades.

Here, we attempt to analyse the complex nature of the “arena” in which 21st century warfare is conducted. It is the increasing complexity of the modern warfighting arena which has prompted the replacement of the traditionally used term “battlefield” by the term “battlespace”, as the former tends to implicitly highlight the pre-dominance of land based operations over others, while “battlespace” as a term has a neutral flavour with respect to the nature of the arena.

Going by current terminologies in use in today’s military doctrines and other literature, the multi-faceted nature of the modern warfighting arena is discussed below under two different heads: Warfighting Domains/ Dimensions and Domains of Conflict.

Warfighting Domains – Five Dimensional Construct

Several military doctrines of today describe the modern battlespace as comprising of five domains, namely, land, sea, air, space and cyberspace. These domains are also sometimes referred to as spheres or dimensions of warfare. These are elaborated upon below.

Land Domain

The Ground or Land warfighting domain comprises of military operations that take place predominantly on the land surface of the planet. It is categorized by the use of large numbers of combat personnel employing a diverse set of combat skills, methods and a wide variety of weapon systems and equipment, conducted in diverse terrains and weather environments. The Land warfighting domain in history has undergone several distinct transitions in conduct, from large concentration of largely untrained and irregularly armed populace used in frontal assaults to current employment of combined arms concepts with highly trained regular troops using a wide variety of organisational, weapon and information systems and employing a variety of strategic, operational and tactical doctrines.

Air or Aerial Domain

The Aerial or Air warfighting domain covers the use of military aircraft and other flying machines in warfare. It includes bombers attacking enemy concentrations or strategic targets, fighter aircraft battling for control of airspace, attack aircraft engaging in close air support against ground targets, naval aviation flying against sea and nearby land targets, gliders, helicopters and other aircraft to carry airborne forces such as paratroopers, aerial refuelling tankers to extend operation time or range and military transport aircraft to move cargo and personnel. Historically, military aircraft have included lighter-than-air balloons carrying artillery observers, lighter-than-air airships for bombing cities, various types of reconnaissance, surveillance and early warning aircraft, cameras and radar equipment, torpedo bombers to attack enemy shipping, and military air-sea rescue aircraft for saving downed airmen. Modern aerial warfare includes missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles. Surface forces are likely to respond to enemy air activity with anti-aircraft warfare.

Sea or Naval Domain

The Sea or Naval warfighting domain comprises of combat in and on seas, oceans or any other major bodies of water such as large lakes and wide rivers. Modern naval tactics are based on tactical doctrines developed after World War II, following the obsolescence of the battleship and the development of long-range missiles. The open sea provides the most favourable battlespace for a surface fleet. Naval tactics and weapons systems can be categorized by the type of opponents they are intended to fight. Anti-air warfare involves action against aircraft and incoming missiles. Anti-surface warfare focuses on attacking and defending against surface warships. Anti-submarine warfare deals with the detection and destruction of enemy submarines. In shallow waters, the detection of submarines and mines is especially problematic. There has been no major naval conflict since World War II, with the exception of the Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 1971 and the Falklands War.

Space Domain

The Space warfighting domain includes combat that takes place in outer space, ie, outside the atmosphere. It therefore includes ground-to-space warfare, such as attacking satellites from the Earth, as well as space-to-space warfare, such as satellites attacking satellites. In one interpretation, it does not include the use of satellites for espionage, surveillance, or military communications, although some authors do tend to include these military assets in the “space” dimension. Only a few incidents of space warfare have occurred in world history, and all were training missions, as opposed to actions against real opposing forces. As early as the mid-1980s, a US Air Force pilot in an F-15 successfully shot down the P78-1, a communications satellite in a 555 kms orbit. In 2007, China used a missile system to destroy one of its obsolete satellites and in 2008, the US similarly destroyed its malfunctioning satellite USA-193. Till date, there have been no known human casualties resulting from conflict in space, nor has any ground target been successfully neutralized from orbit. International treaties governing space limit or regulate conflicts in space and limit the installation of weapon systems, especially nuclear weapons.

Warfighting Domains/ Dimensions

Cyberspace Domain

Cyberspace consists of many different and often overlapping networks as well as the computing nodes. Though not all nodes and networks are globally connected or accessible, cyberspace continues to become increasingly interconnected. Networks can be intentionally isolated or subdivided into enclaves using access controls, encryption, disparate protocols or physical separation. With the exception of physical separation, none of these approaches eliminate underlying physical connectivity but only limit access. The US formally incorporated Cyberspace as an operational domain in 2011, as per its “Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace” [1], which states that “DoD must ensure that it has the necessary capabilities to operate effectively in all domains – air, land, maritime, space, and cyberspace. At all levels, DoD will organize, train, and equip for the complex challenges and vast opportunities of cyberspace.” Its doctrine on “Cyberspace Operations” of 2013 also states that “Cyberspace, while a global domain within the information environment, is one of five interdependent domains, the others being the physical domains of air, land, maritime, and space [2]. Many other countries [3, 4], including India [5], have fallen suit, with their respective military doctrines now talking of a five-dimensional battlespace.

Inter-Dependence of Domains

Cyberspace Operations (CO) rely on links and nodes that reside in the physical domains and perform functions experienced both in cyberspace and the physical domains. For example, network servers may reside in a land-based data complex or at sea aboard warships, and wireless network transmissions pass through air and space and even underwater. Similarly, activities in cyberspace can enable freedom of action for activities in the physical domains. Activities in the physical domains can create effects in and through cyberspace by affecting the electromagnetic spectrum or the physical infrastructure. The relationship between space and cyberspace is unique in that virtually all space operations depend on cyberspace and a critical portion of cyberspace can only be provided via space operations. Space provides a key global connectivity option for CO. Conversely, CO provide a means by which space support is executed. These interrelationships are important considerations across the spectrum of war-fighting domains [2].

Cebrowski’s Domains of Conflict

The concept of warfighting in multiple domains has become central to discussions on modern warfare, not least because of the elevation of information and increasing complexity of conflicts in today’s Information Age. As a departure from the five-dimensional construct on “domains of warfare” presented above, which has been adopted by several modern armies over the last few years, A K Cebrowski, as Director, Office of Force Transformation, US DoD, presented a different perspective on “domains of warfare”, specifically in relation to the concept of Network Centric Warfare (NCW). He contended that conflict on the modern battlespace encompasses the physical, information, cognitive and social domains [6]. While the relationship of these domains to NCW warrants a separate piece, an overview of the domains as envisaged by Cebrowski is given out in succeeding paragraphs.

Physical Domain

The physical domain is the traditional domain of warfare where a force is moved through time and space. It spans the land, sea, air, and space environments where military forces execute a range of military operations and where the physical platforms and communications networks that connect them reside. Comparatively, the elements of this domain are the easiest to measure and, consequently, combat power has traditionally been measured in the physical domain.

Information Domain

The information domain is the domain where information is created, manipulated and shared. It is the domain that facilitates the communication of information among warfighters. This is the domain of sensors and the processes for sharing and accessing sensor products as well as “finished” intelligence. It is where Command & Control of military forces is communicated and the commander’s intent is conveyed. Consequently, it is increasingly the information domain that must be protected and defended to enable a force to generate combat power in the face of offensive actions by an adversary.

Cebrowski’s Domains of Conflict

Cognitive Domain

The cognitive domain is in the mind of the warfighter. Many, though not all, battles, campaigns and wars are won in this domain. The intangibles of leadership, morale, unit cohesion, level of training and experience as well as situational awareness are elements of this domain. This is the domain where the commander’s intent, doctrine, tactics, techniques and procedures reside. This is also where decisive battlespace concepts and tactics emerge. This domain finds resonance with Carl von Clauzewitz’s “coup d’oeil” concept propounded by him in his seminal work “On War”, as well as the famous quote by Sun Tzu, “For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”

Social Domain

The social domain describes the necessary elements of any human enterprise. It is where humans interact, exchange information, form shared awareness and understandings and make collaborative decisions. This is also the domain of culture, the set of values, attitudes, and beliefs held and conveyed by leaders to the society, whether military or civil. It overlaps with the information and cognitive domains, but is distinct from both. Cognitive activities by their nature are individualistic; they occur in the minds of individuals. However, shared sense-making – the process of going from shared awareness to shared understanding to collaborative decision making, is a socio-cognitive activity, because the individual’s cognitive activities are directly impacted by the social nature of the exchange and vice versa.

The 21st Century Battlespace – A Brief Analysis

The following remarks may be made regarding the 21st Century “battlespace”, specifically in relation to the two different constructs presented above:-

• The five dimensional construct comprising of the land-sea-air-space-cyberspace domains appears to have general acceptance in doctrinal documents across a large number of armies, whereas Cebrowski’s Information Era four-domain model finds mention mostly in relation to the NCW concept.
• There is some correlation which may be drawn between the two constructs, as follows: the first four warfighting domains, ie, land, sea, air and space, lie within Cebrowski’s Physical Domain. Further, the cyber domain is loosely synonymous with Cebrowski’s Information Domain, although a more rigorous comparison of the “Cyber” and “Information” domains would reveal the former to be a subset of the latter.
• Cebrowski’s Cognitive and Social Domains capture the human dimension of the battlespace, an aspect which is left out in the five dimensional warfighting domains construct. Although the importance of the human dimension towards winning wars has been known throughout the history of warfare, it is only in the networked world of today that military disciplines such as Psychological Operations and Collaborative Decision Making have acquired the potential for significantly affecting the outcome of battles and, indeed, wars. Therefore, there appears to be a strong case for the Cognitive and Social domains to be included in the model of a multi-dimensional battlespace.

21st Century Battlespace – Multi-Dimensional Construct

• Cognitive and Social abilities are presently recognized as “human” traits. However, given the rapid pace at which progress is being made on AI technologies in general and AI enabled military systems in particular, it would not be surprising to see, in the not too distant future, first Cognitive and thereafter Social abilities getting associated with such “non-human” military systems.
• It is somewhat intriguing that a virtual domain, namely, cyberspace, has found universal acceptability alongside the four physical domains of land, sea, air and space. This is perhaps an outcome of the ongoing relentless “cyber-attacks” which have increased exponentially over recent years against national and military assets of adversary nations, with actual and potential effects on military consequences which are remarkable. Nonetheless, it is clear that the nature of the cyberspace domain is inherently different from that of the four physical domains of warfighting.
• Also, as an arena, cyberspace does not suitably represent the battlespace for other Information Age warfighting methodologies such as Electronic Warfare, Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations, and other forms of Information Warfare.

In summary, it would not be incorrect to state that, while the five-dimensional model of the complex 21st Century battlespace presently finds acceptability amongst many modern militaries, perhaps there is a case to evolve a more comprehensive and coherent model for this purpose.

References

(1)   Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace, US DoD, Jul 2011, pp. 1-5.

(2)   US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Cyberspace Operations, US DoD Joint Publication 3-12 (R), 05 Feb 13, pp. I-2, I-5-I-6, II-1, II-2.

(3)   Future Force Concept, Joint Concept Note 1/17, Ministry of Defence, United Kingdom, July 2017, pp. 6.

(4)   2016 Defence White Paper, Department of Defence, Australia, pp. 84.

(5)   Joint Doctrine Indian Armed Forces, Directorate of Doctrine, Headquarters Integrated Defence Staff, 18 Apr 2017, pp. 13.

(6)   Cebrowski A K, The Implementation of Network Centric Warfare, Office of Force Transformation, US DoD, Washington D C, 05 Jan 2005, pp. 15-21.