The army uses a multi-domain task force units in Europe, and the Pacific

to connectVideoFox News Flash, important news, for the Feb. 9

Fox News Flash, important news, for the Feb. 9, here. Check out what to click on

If the country, on the basis of the accuracy of artillery, to maneuver Air Force fighter jets and Navy destroyers were in a position to provide seamless sharing of sensitive targeting information in real-time during a high-intensity conflict, the Pentagon would have been closely related to the approach of the time had in mind the concept of the modern, joint-and multi-domain warfare.

While the details of this type of information sharing, of course, are already in place, the Department of Defense is currently refining and extending the concept of joint attacks with the aim of reaching a whole new level of modern operational effectiveness. This includes not only the integration of earlier, less-impactful series of domains, such as space, cyber, and electronic warfare, but it also provides a new dimension of land -, air -, surface -, and submarine integrated attack.

The U.S. Army Contracts in Command of two multi-domain, task-force units, to the handling of the threat scenarios in Europe and the Pacific, focusing on the promotion of a war is a synergy between otherwise disparate realms of an attack, such as in the air, on land or in the sea. Gen. John Murray, of the united states Army, Futures-based Commander, told reporters a few months ago, the Army was quick to adjust to how the multi-domain fight continues to educate about how to prepare for a future war. This is, according to Murray, this includes efforts to… “to begin with, the change of the structures, organizations, and TTPs (Tactics, Techniques and Procedures) on how the conflict is based on a multi-domain state, and formations.”

For example, what if the submarine launched undersea Navy drone uses sonar to locate an enemy submarine lurking in the vicinity of the fragile allied’s shoreline — and then send the location information to the submarines, and ships, and then to cue fighter jets to destroy the healing the enemy submarine from the air? What if these are integrated as nodes in order to span the vast distances beyond the horizon, in the form of a network of an integrated attack systems? Think of this scenario, cuing a silent, high speed fighter jet, it would be essential to have torpedoes, or other types of attacks that are out of range, be more challenged, or it is not possible… or is it, perhaps, a sub-hunting air assets are not able to work due to the threat of environmental requirements, the need for a stealthy fighter jet to attack them.


If this is to happen, it would mean that the re-emergence of a force, it is suitable for use in the face of sophisticated, well-armed enemies in multiple theaters at the same time. To extend this thought even further, maybe it’s the kind of threat information can be quickly sent to the land-based commanders to mobilize for the defence forces and the firing of a land-based radar to detect incoming enemy fire to get closer to the launch. The idea is to shorten the sensor-to-shooter time, to send, to provide information on different areas, parts, radar, and launch co-ordinated attacks by land, sea, and air. What if the enemy is discovered, the submarine was carrying out secret reconnaissance missions in advance of a planned enemy amphibious attack? Early detection of the enemy sub might be able to help with the country’s armed forces are preparing to repel an air-sea-land from enemy invasion, and activation of the ground radar and interceptor missiles to knock out incoming enemy missiles. The network’s domains

The emphasis on the importance of these dynamics is essential for a joint-service attack, Murray was quoted in a previous Army-led, joint – service, multi-domain, table-top war game training exercises at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.

“We were in the lead for the air force in terms of the control of the development of a 3-Star Navy Admiral, and is a 2-Star rating of the Quantico Marine Corps),” Murray added.

War games, according to senior Military officials, who take part in them, and the pit-friendly “blue” teams to the “red” teams, and act as a major opponent. The exercise may include maps, analysis of data, terrain, and geographic factors, as well as details of any groups or countries are involved. They are often, literally, on a table in close proximity to a computer, simulations, and methods of data analysis, and, in some cases, they can be as big as moving structures on the floor of the gym.

Battle damage assessments are of great importance in the war games. For example, what if large parts of the force have been wiped out by an invading enemy? What kind of a commander?

The pilot studies were designed to include the full range of cultural, economic, and geographic factors, of senior Military officials have been told of a Warrior. For example, some of the war games are taking place in the region, while others are in the desert. A Pacific theater war game, for example, would be likely to take up challenges presented by vast stretches of ocean, fields, and geographic variables, such as the so-called “tyranny of distance”. A European war game on the other hand, you can explore the cross-continental mobility, difficulties in the mountainous area, and the attacks of the large land formations.

Wargaming has, with two different theoretical models for decision-making, according to a paper from the School of Advanced Military Studies, Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. “A model that is based on the enemy’s capabilities and the enemy’s intentions,” according to the essay, which is entitled, “The Manual Wargaming Process: Does Our Current Methodology Give Us The Optimum Solution?”

US Army-courtesy image

Some of the current multi-domain thinking is often discussed in terms of a modern, or a new iteration of the Cold War, the era of “AirLand Battle” strategy. AirLand Battle, which is the eyes, air to ground warfare, the synergy to counter the Soviet threat on the European continent, and was intended to provide air cover for the advancing of the country and attack the units that are to be confronted with a larger Soviet Force.

It is flying in the vicinity of the land forces, air assets were intended to be used in the attack advancing units, weakening the supply lines and to destroy gang fortifications, clearing the way for the offensive operations on the ground. These objectives are, of course, it is still important, the currently emerging, cross-domain learning, it is based on the reality of the state of the art air-to-air and ground troops are more spread out and thus more threatening, in a number of ways. Ground forces are now more vulnerable to a wider range of air-to-air and missile strikes, drone attacks, and the guided weapons are able to strike from high altitude.

This new multi-domain concepts, as it relates to the engineering application, the application will lead to a fundamental shift in the direction of the use of information as a principle weapon in the war business. It is a tactical use of information to organize, and to provide for the effective control involves a variety of tactics, including the use of air assets, as well as “nodes” in a larger air-to-air ground-to-sea fight against the plan, firing of ground weapons to attack the enemy’s anti-aircraft batteries, and to make use of the height and the width of the aircraft to locate targets for land-based attacks.

Of course, the Army and the air force have a history of successful war-fighting integration, including air-to-ground co-ordination, in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. The US Special Forces, the Air Force’s Special Tactics Squadron and is strategically placed to Joint Tactical Air Controllers have identified the ground-target coordinates for a air strikes, often with the help of a land-based laser rangefinders to “paint” targets for the fighter jets.


While the interpretation of some specific aspects of the air force’s contribution to this initiative, the now-retired Lt Gen. David Deptula Dean of The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, said that the creation of a fragmented, multi-domain, inter-service warfare the network will be presenting a difficult concept for an enemy to attack it.”

This is a concept for the publication of information in itself, which is an essential connective tissue network of the cross-domain-war, and it is developed by Deptula, in a Mitchell Institute policy paper, called “the technological evolution and the battle for the 21st Century, with the Introduction of the “Combat Cloud.”

“The fight for the cloud is a paradigm of combined-arms warfare of the information is in the middle, not the operational activities. This concept is an evolution of individual network architectures in every field, transforming it into a “system of systems” enterprise,” the paper writes.

For example, many of the country’s weapons, such as Guided Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems, artillery and often max out at a range of 70-90 miles in a lot of cases. Of Land-power, High-Mobility Rocket Systems(HIMARS) is reported to have a range of up to 300 km. However, it will have a 300 mile range for the HIMARS doesn’t mean that it causes can quickly be identified in that range.

A lot of fighter jets, bombers, drones and reconnaissance planes, but can travel as far as 500 nautical miles and in some cases, without having to refuel. This varies according to the air platform, when the network is connected to, or integrated with, the land of coats of arms, may be exponentially increasing in the atmosphere, and the potential for air-to-ground attacks and reconnaissance missions. The vision for this Deptula explained, it is in the form of a comprehensive “self-healing” the player’s network.

“If the enemy does have a couple of planes, and the information that has already been referred to in the rest of the elements,” Deptula said in an interview with “Warrior” this year. It is within this conceptual framework, the “combat cloud” could use a spread of long-range air assets, as well as “nodes” to work in tandem with the country-of-arms.


The Army’s development of a Long-range Precision Fires weapon, designed to hit targets as a distance of 500 km. It is a weapon that is designed to support this concept, and the expansion of the Army’s strike range, and this appears to be an example of how a country’s weapons should be given to targets over vast distances through the “networked” air platforms. Along these lines, the senior coat of arms of the Army and the developers often refer to the LRPF as a high-priority programme will now be accelerated.

With a vastly expanded air-to-ground attacks to the network, Deptula adds, it would be good to extend it to weapons, involvement, authority, carried out by air, and the nodes at large distances. A more widespread attack regime, on the strength of long-range weapons and sensors, and can be rather inaccessible to the targets. The sky is the F-35 fighter may be, for example, the use of the drone-like sensors for the acquisition of a target that is seemingly out of reach for the land-launched missiles, and with the coat of arms of the armed forces with a specific objective. Further, the F-35 can be designed to make the cue, or even launch a ground from the arms to the space. Deptula cited in this example and in terms of the air force, Navy, synergy.

“If the F-35 has an enemy missile launch, an Aegis cruiser, and the F-35 was going to the launch of an interceptor missile, which is that of the Aegis cruiser,” he said. “We can’t do this still, but this is what we need to do, collectively, to think about a vision, and a shared vision for the future.”

— The Mitchell Institute Policy Paper

— some parts of this report have been published for the first time earlier this year —

— William Osborne, the Managing Editor of the WARRIORMAVEN (CLICK HERE) and can be reached at–

Follow us

Don't be shy, get in touch. We love meeting interesting people and making new friends.

Most popular