ISSUE 176 : Jul/Aug - 2008 - Australian Defence Force Journal

Lessons for a networked ADF
Disorder, to return to van Creveld, is unavoidable and even necessary. A military force
engaged with the enemy must activate all of its spatial, kinetic, sensory, computational and
communicational capabilities. Using a capability means exercising degrees of freedom. Unless
a commander can micro-manage to the finest level granularity, this means disorder. The key
to ‘dealing with it’ is channelling that disorder appropriately and not seeking to stamp it
out. The basic insight I am proposing is that there are times when that disorder should be in
the C2 space, in order to achieve spatial coordination, and times when the roles should be
reversed. There are also times when some disorder should exist in both worlds. Identifying
when, to what degree and how to transition dynamically between the two modes are
difficult questions, to which—at this stage—there are only intuitive answers. Many of these
answers are already part of the military art, and I hope this article at least enforces or gives
alternative insights into many of these heuristics (for example, the maintenance of signals
discipline). What renders this question difficult is that though science can now build such
vast technological systems, we are still at the beginning of a quantitative understanding of
the dynamical behaviour of whole socio-technical systems (systems-of-systems).
The recognition of the dynamical role of a C2 network as we head forward cannot be
overstated. The number of degrees of freedom of even a contemporary C2 technical system
is vast. The capacity for both healthy latency of degrees of freedom (on the good side) but
also uncontrolled disorder (on the bad side) is enormous. Military operators are of course
conscious of the negative side of the computational revolution. The move to an Australian
concept of Network Centric Warfare, 11 with the human emphases of Professional Mastery and
Mission Command, is a heuristic response. I argue that such human elements, the nurturing of
initiative and robust doctrine, are all part of maintaining C2 link degrees of freedom in a state
of latency. To some extent, the fears that some may have for our technologically enhanced
future is that it will be a contest of man against machine in enabling effective command and
control of military operations. But these fears are shared by all ‘information workers’ who
choke on the volume of their electronic inbox. I hope at least this article has given the military
reader another way of understanding what they already know, if not genuinely new insight or
perhaps even a glimpse into the quirky questions a scientist is pursuing in enabling design
of systems that the human operator can ‘steer’ to achieve the mission.
Dr Alex Kalloniatis completed his PhD in Theoretical Particle Physics from the University of
Adelaide in 1992. He worked as a researcher in numerous institutions in Germany (Heidelberg,
Erlangen, Dortmund) from 1992–2000 and was an Australian Research fellow at the Centre
for the Subatomic Structure of Matter in Adelaide from 2000–2005. In 2005 he became a
Defence Analyst at DSTO working in Command and Control. His interests span military history
of many eras, including the Roman and Byzantine periods.
Dr Alexander Kalloniatis has been chosen by the Board of Management to receive the $500
award for the best article by a serving or civilian member of Defence for ADFJ No. 176.
54