• Strategy21
• /
• s.46
• /
• pp.205-238
• /
• 2020

The origin of mission command can be traced to the era of the Prussian military reforms led by General Gerhard von Scharnhorst after defeats in battle of Jena and Auerstadt in 1806 against Napoleon I. Mission Command is the conduct of military operations through decentralized execution based upon mission-type orders. Commanders issue mission-type orders focused on the purpose of the operation rather than details of how to perform assigned tasks. The mission command has become the command philosophy of the German military and recently many countries in the west accept it as a command philosophy. This study compare and analyze the Battle of St. Vincent and the Battle of Jutland to make sure if the army-initiated mission commands were also useful for the navy. From the late 18th century, represented by the era of Nelson, Royal navy changed from the inherited rigid command culture to guaranteeing the disciplined initiative of its subordinate commanders. In the Battle of St. Vincent in 1797, Nelson acted contrary to the commander's orders at the crucial moment, which gave Britain a decisive victory. On the contrary more than 100 years later, the command culture of the Royal navy changed into a centralized command culture. In the Battle of Jutland in 1916, Royal Navy couldn't win because the rigid command culture did not guarantee initiative of subordinate commanders and subordinate commander's passive attitude of waiting for the commander's instructions even at critical moments. Therefore, a mission command that guarantees the initiative of subordinate commanders is a useful concept even in the navy because it makes subordinate commanders to take full advantage of a sudden change in battle. Today's advanced information and communication technologies have raised questions about mission command. But even advanced technology can't completely eliminate the fundamental nature of the war-the fog of war. War is chaotic and unpredictable. In the flood of lots of informations, senior commander's judgement is not always right because he(she) is also human, he(she) can make mistakes. In the age of informatization, mission command is still effective because it involves increasing interaction and synergy between senior and subordinate commanders by ensuring their independence. Therefore ROK navy also needs to activate mission command. ROK navy must dismantle the zero-defect mentality and apply from educations as Prussian did to establish a mission command culture.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.41
• /
• pp.52-84
• /
• 2017

After finishing Cold War, the U.S. Navy's ability to Sea control has been gradually eroded last 15-20 years. The global security environment demands that the surface Navy rededicate itself to sea control, as a new group of potential adversaries is working to deny U.S. navy command of the sea. China has been increasing their sea denial capability, such as extended anti-surface cruise missile and anti-surface ballistic missile. To cope with this situation, the U.S. Naval Surface Forces Command has announced Surface Forces Strategy: Return to Sea Control. It is a new operating and organizing concept for the U.S. surface fleet called 'distributed lethality'. Under distributed lethality, offensive weapons such as new ASCMs are to be distributed more widely across all types of Navy surface ships, and new operational concept for Navy surface fleet's capability for attacking enemy ships and make it less possible for an enemy to cripple the U.S. fleet by concentrating its attack on a few very high-value Navy surface ships. By increasing the lethality of the surface ships and distributing them across wide areas, the Navy forces potential adversaries to not only consider the threat from our carrier-based aircraft and submarines, but they now consider the threat form all of those surface ships. This idea of using the distributed lethality template to generate surface action groups and adaptive force package and to start thinking about to increase the lethal efficacy of these ships. The U.S. Navy believes distributed lethality increases the Navy's sea control capability and expands U.S. conventional deterrence. Funding new weapons and renovated operating concept to field a more lethal and distributed force will enable us to establish sea control, even in contested area. The U.S. Navy's Surface Forces Strategy provides some useful implications for The ROK Navy. First the ROK Navy need to reconsider sea control mission. securing sea control and exploiting sea control are in a close connection. However, recently the ROK Navy only focuses on exploiting sea control, for instance land attack mission. the ROK Navy is required to reinvigorate sea control mission, such as anti-surface warfare and anti-air warfare. Second, the ROK Navy must seek the way to improve its warfighting capability. It can be achieved by developing high-edge weapons and designing renewed operating concept and embraced new weapon's extended capabilities.

• Journal of Information Technology and Architecture
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.167-176
• /
• 2012

In Korean military measuring systems interoperability is based on LISI (Level of Information System Interoperability) model at the requirement generation and acquisition process. However, LISI model cannot be used for interoperability measurement of system of systems (SoS) because LISI model is focused on interoperability measurement of a given system or system pair. Also, LISI model cannot provide quantitative information for interoperability decision because of qualitative rather than quantitative approach. This paper proposes a quantitative interoperability measurement methodology of SoS. At the proposed methodology, mission threads and supporting systems are identified using architecture approach, and Interoperability of SoS is measured with systems multiplicity and resemblance coefficient. Finally, a case study is presented to show the usefulness of the methodology.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.46
• /
• pp.89-122
• /
• 2020

The longing for submarine manufacture and the fear of her power had exited for a long time, but submarine that could submerge and attack was built from 20th century by science technology development. The question, 'Submarine can exercise her power in naval warfare?' had exited before World War I, but the effective value of submarine was shown in the procedure of a chain of naval warfare during World War I and World War II. Germany and the United States made the best use of submarines at that time. The submarines of these nations mounted fierce attack on the enemy's battleships and merchant ships and blocked the sea lanes for war material. These fierce attack on ships became impossible After World War II, and the major powers reduced and coordinated the defence budget, so they considered the role of submarine. However, submarine is still powerful weapon system because she can secretly navigate under the water, and one of the most important force in the navy. The aim of this thesis is analyzing submarine roles in each naval warfare and integrating maritime strategy and weapon system technology into her roles. First, the research about represent submarine roles like anti-surfaceship warfare, anti-submarine warfare, intelligence gathering, land attack, supporting special operation and mine landing warfare will be presented, then the major naval warfare where submarine participated(during ex-World War I, World War I, World War II, The Cold War Era and post Cold War) and the analyzing of submarine roles by time will be presented. Submarine was developed for anti-surfaceship warfare during ex-World War I but could not make remarkable military gain in naval warfare because her performance and weapon was inadequate. However, the effective value of submarine in the procedure of a chain of naval warfare was shown during World War I and World War II. The major powers put battleships into naval warfare undiscriminatingly to command the sea power and submarines did massive damage to enemy navy power, so put a restraint the maritime power of enemy, and blocked the sea lanes for war material. After World War II, the battlefield situation changed rapidly and the concept of preemption became difficult to apply in naval warfare. Therefore, the submarine was unable to concentrate on anti-surfaceship mission. Especially during the Cold War era, nuclear submarine came to appear and her weapon system developed rapidly. These development gave submarines special missions: anti-submarine warfare and intelligence gathering. At that time, United States and Soviet submarines tracked other nation's submarines loaded with nuclear weapons and departing from naval their base. The submarines also collected information on the volume of ships and a coastal missile launching site in company with this mission. After Cold War, the major powers despatched forces to major troubled regions to maintain world peace, their submarines approached the shores of these regions and attacked key enemy installations with cruise missiles. At that time, the United States eased the concept of preemption and made the concept of Bush doctrine because of possible 911 terrorism. The missiles fired from submarines and surface battleships accurately attacked key enemy installations. Many nations be strategically successful depending on what kind of mission a submarine is assigned. The patterns of future naval warfare that my country will provide against will be military power projection and coalition/joint operations. These suggest much more about what future missions we should assign to submarines.

• The Journal of Korean Institute of Communications and Information Sciences
• /
• v.39C no.8
• /
• pp.615-625
• /
• 2014

Ministry of National Defense, MND, established a "Master Plan of Military Facility" in 2010 based on the defense reform to prepare for future war. It was a plan for consolidating small military facilities into battalion units, reflecting on and preparing for the needs of various changes in defense environment as well as balanced growth of ROK Army, Navy, and Air Force. However, to move forward with "Military Facility Master Plan," current design criteria for military facilities need to be revised to be enacted due to numerous calculation errors in facility footprints because of the absence of a sound facility criteria. Because the future war environment will be changed from Platform basis to Network Centric Warfare basis, Command & Control capability of C4I systems is getting more important. Therefore, Successful mission accomplishment can be secured by convergence of facility and military Information Technology(IT). So, MND should quickly prepare for the operational guidance, design criteria and policy that are suitable for Network Centric Warfare accomplishment, and implement infrastructure of IT and installation of C2 facility in conjunction with consolidation movement of military facilities. In this paper, we propose the defense I3A framework in order to solve this problem.