Logo: to the web site of the Swedish Defence University

In military operations, the integration of emerging technologies into Command- and Control systems (C2-systems) presents anurgent issue. The introduction of potentially disruptive technologies such as AI, machine learning, and unmanned systems has thepotential to significantly enhance operational efficiency. However, such technologies come with ethical dilemmas and challengesconcerning their integration into C2-capability containing legacy doctrinal and organizational components. This paper is part of aresearch project following the Design Science research (DSR) process. The main goal of the research project is to develop aconceptual framework, with models and methods, that can help designers and commanders in assessing and understanding C2-systems from a socio-technical perspective. It also aims to provide insights into how individual subsystems influence the SoS as awhole. In previous articles, the authors have discussed the challenges associated with integrating new technology into military C2-systems. This paper further elaborates on findings indicating the need to shift focus from optimizing individual components orsubsystemsto considering the entire, large, and complex system (aka System of Systems, SoS). This shift highlights a comprehensiveand holistic approach which is crucial for ensuring that C2-systems are effective, precise, and adaptable to changing conditions andrequirements. However, currently there is a gap in existing research and methodologies that can explain and predict the dynamicsbetween information systems, methods, processes, and organizational development in a SoS. To bridge this gap, it is necessary toadjust the existing frameworks for capability development to adopt a broader, more adaptable, and exhaustive scope. Additionally,a socio-technical focus in system development would facilitate a deeper understanding of the interdependencies betweenorganization, processes, and technical system evolution. Previous surveys, conducted as interviews of stakeholders, identified arefined perception of the challenges encountered within specified domains, such as, operational and development. Thestakeholders' needs were analyzed and modeled as goals for the envisioned framework. The stakeholders communicated how anadjusted framework of methods should function to tackle the challenges with the emerging technologies. By employing DSR andEnterprise Modeling, this paper proposes (i) a concepts model that outlines the principles and the overarching construction of a C2-system. This concepts model provides the foundations to goal modeling ensuring coherence and interoperability among differentmodels. We also propose (ii) a goal model for C2-systems representing the objectives for what the envisioned framework needs toaccomplish. The study results indicate that the framework is to be useful in systematically identifying and aligning the goals of anartifact with the overarching objectives, i.e., for designing military C2-systems and understanding the integration of thetechnologies. This research project contributes to ongoing research on military innovation, offering insights into the systemicchallenges and opportunities that new technologies present within the complex ecosystem of military operations.

In the context of capability development and to respond to the influenceof new technology, a conceptual framework to support the integration ofnew technology in military command and control systems (C2-systems) is beingdeveloped. It focuses on the need to support multi-domain operations (MDO),which requires speed, flexibility, and precision. This paper presents a study ofstakeholder needs and goal analysis for future C2-systems. The work is part of aDesign Science Research project aiming to design a conceptual framework, withmodels and methods, that will help designers to evaluate and better understandthe potential of a C2 System of Systems (SoS). The current state of the project isthat of problem explication with preliminary findings suggesting the categorizationof the core issues into three themes. These are (1) new technology, stakeholdershighlighting both the opportunities and adjustments necessitated by technologicaladvancements, (2) capability development, stakeholders critically examiningand questioning the existing development strategies, and (3) leadership,organization, and culture, emphasizing the necessity of decisive leadership in thisdomain. The study proposes a shift in the prevailing method of capability developmentto apply a more comprehensive and holistic approach, aimed at adjustingto the ever-changing technological landscape in military operations.

In the defense and security domain, scenarios are often descriptions of stakeholder needs, future events, and the environment. They are used for the elicitation of requirements in development of capabilities, organizations, and technical systems. In the conceptual design of aerospace applications, models of scenarios can also represent and communicate a problem-space, enabling trade-space exploration and system effectiveness robustness analysis, which provide valuable input to decision-makers. This study utilizes design science to develop a scenario framework for solution-agnostic representations of a problem-space for use in aerospace conceptual design- and trade-space exploration. A scenario ontology is developed, describing the constituent concepts of scenarios and their relationships, followed by a method for creating scenarios and evaluating their validity. Within the EU project COLOSSUS, it is demonstrated that the scenario framework has utility both for market-pull and technology-push conceptual design. Establishing an ontology for scenarios and a method for creating them as well as evaluating their validity is another step in improving the aerospace conceptual design phase.

This article contributes to an ongoing research project following a Design Science Research (DSR)framework. The project focuses on the development of a conceptual framework that supports designersand military commanders with models and methods, aiming to enhance the understanding and evaluationof military Command and Control systems (C2-systems). Military C2-systems are increasingly dependenton emerging technologies, and this highlights the needs for a conceptual framework to guide integrationand development. In this article, we propose an approach to refine the goal model, specifically focusing onlow-level goals, within the context of C2-systems. The overall objective is to validate and refine existingconceptual models, particularly those relating to development aspects. We perform a structured analysis oflow-level goals to identify method components for the envisioned framework. By establishing theseconnections, the article aims to investigate the applicability of existing methods and potential method gaps.Should any disconnects emerge between low-level goals and the method components outlined in the formof a concepts model, this advocates for development of new method components. The findings contributeto practical insights regarding enhancing C2-system design and implementation strategies. The articleherby demonstrates applicability of the 4EM method in understanding and refining conceptual models.

Many nations are developing their military towards so-called Multi-Domain Operations with artificialintelligence (AI) as a pivotal component, despite identified challenges. Modern-day military operationsunderscore the need for updated battle management and cross-domain communication, central to theprinciples of Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2). AI's potential is obvious, and whileautonomous platforms revolutionize warfare, they introduce complexities in command and control (C2),which is also reflected in capability development. This study identifies suitable concepts for systemicanalysis of military capability and is the starting point in forming a framework for C2 capability developmentin the context depicted. A number of concepts are identified; Combat Power, Fighting Power, Joint functions,Warfighting functions, Elements of combat power, Warfighting Capability, DOTMLPF(I), TEPIDOIL,Fundamental inputs to capability, Defence lines of Development, and Military Power. The study alsohighlights their systemic character and guides the reader briefly in matching issues with suitable concepts.

Over the last thirty years, suggestions for how to develop defence capability have developed rapidly. However, supporting theory and structured concept development lag behind. Despite this imbalance, countries need to continuously spend resources on defence development. This study identifies central challenges in relation to the scientific perspectives and approaches needed to support the development of defence capability. The results show that the support for developing interactions between technology and social components is especially weak and that relevant supporting theories and methods from related fields are not considered. This study also shows that it is important to be able to address these questions from various perspectives and not to be limited by a specific scientific tradition. Finally, this study also identifies a possible emerging cluster of reports on capability-related research that provide a base for a much-needed cross-disciplinary approach to the development of defence capability.

Heightened political tensions and advances in technological development have prompted Scandinavian countries to increase investment in military research and capability development. The aim of this study is to gain a better understanding of why actors sharing similar strategic cultures implement new technology for military purposes differently. The research is founded on a cognitive-psychological perspective comparing two cases of innovation processes: Swedish nuclear weapons development during the Cold War and developments in Swedish cyber defence during the first decades of the 21st century. The main finding is that military innovation is better explained through a consideration of shared mental models of new technology than it is through a consideration of strategic cultures. The analysis shows there are implications for capability development. First, military innovation processes are only initiated if and when new technology appears militarily relevant to an actor; thus, the ability to correctly assess the military relevance of technology at an early stage is crucial. Second, the forming of shared mental models can both contribute to and counteract military innovation and, thus, decision-makers need to be aware both that mental models can be shared and that confirmation bias affects actors on a collective level. Third, it is likely that military innovation processes benefit from mental models being challenged and from diverging mental models being made evident. Consequently, it is good practice, also from this study’s perspective, to diversify and welcome different views on the use of new technology. Further studies are solicited in order to develop practical guidelines.

Sweden, as a small alliance free state with powerful neighbors, has a military history of what we nowadays call systems of systems thinking. Since the beginning of the Cold War thishas been expressed in an air force on the forefront of exploiting military innovations, not least with regard to sensor networks, datalinks, information sharing and distributed decision making. How can this history and the lessons learned come to use when future systems and technologies are to be developed to meet the uncertain future and changing threats? How does this fit with current trends such as capability-based approach and system of systemsengineering methodology? What could this mean for the development of the next generation fighter aircraft - after the Gripen E and contemporary aircraft? These questions have been studied from both a government and industry perspective, following the trend in the defense sector of a more intertwined relationship between the two, necessitated by adopting acapability view on aircraft development. This paper presents preliminary lessons identified from a case study on the project Flygvapnet 2000 (FV2000), which preceded the Net Centric Warfare era at the turn of the millennium. The analysis was based on characteristics of best practice systems of systems engineering derived from a review of literature presenting the methodology theory on capability-based approaches for analyzing, acquiring, developing, and managing military capabilities. The findings from this project will contribute to the development of systems of systems engineering methods and will spur proposals for future research.

The Military Utility Assessment of Future Technologies (MUAFT) method was developed as a cost-efficientalternative to methods such as NATO’s Disruptive Technology Assessment Games, to be used as a part of theSwedish Armed Forces’ long-term capability development process. The question addressed in this study iswhether MUAFT can be considered to have validity in its context and thus if it has potential to be useful to othersmall to medium size states. The analysis was based on an operationalization of Clark’s framework for scienceand technology intelligence analysis, combined with a military capability centric view of military utility. MUAFTreports from 2012 to 2018 were reviewed in terms of how they satisfy five key criteria. The study shows thatMUAFT provides utility, if used by a suitably composed group of experts, who are aware of the method’s limitations.The limitations mainly originate from a lack of explicit support for assessing the impact of forces forchange, other than technological forces, on military capability development. The expert group serves as thesynthesizing bridge between technology forecasts and military utility assessments. Therefore, comprehensiveexpertise is needed in various military technology specialisations, in the sponsor’s military capabilities and insubjects necessary to master in order to assess other influential societal forces for change.

For the purpose of Technology Forecast 2021 five reports from the German Fraunhofer Institute were chosen by FMV (and SwAF) and given to Systems Science for Defence and Security Division to analyse and assess within the timeframe up to 2040.

The following research reports were reviewed by the working group at SEDU:

·       Adversarial Machine Learning 

·       High Entropy Ceramics

·       Large Unmanned Underwater Vehicles

·       Living Sensors

·       Machine Learning in Materials Development

The aim of the Technology Forecast seminars and the finished product, this report, is to assess the potential military utility of the reviewed technologies and how they may contribute to the Swedish Armed Forces’ operational capabilities based on the presented concept(s) and scenario(s). 

The military utility is categorised by one of four assessments: Significant, Moderate, Negligible or Uncertain.

The following technologies were assessed to potentially have significant military utility:

·       High Entropy Ceramics

·       Machine Learning in Materials Development

·       Adversarial Machine Learning

The following technology was assessed to potentially have moderate military utility:

·       Large Unmanned Underwater Vehicles 

The following technology was assessed to have uncertain military utility:

·       Living Sensors