Feasibility of using modular modeling instead of layered structure in command and control networks (case study: Ukraine war)

Document Type : Review Article

Authors

1 MSc. of Khatam-Al-Anbia University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Ph.D. of Khatam-Al-Anbia University, Tehran, Iran.

3 MSc. in Defensive Management, AJA Command and Staff University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

The updating and upgrading of the current battle scenes is based on the design, selection process and implementation of system structures, equipment and weapons in organizations based on integrated information networks. In this research, an attempt has been made to explain the defensive layered structures of command and control systems, by expressing the weak points of these structures, to bring an effective critique to this topic, and in the following, the feasibility of replacing layered structures with modular structures, which is a new solution to increase the speed of performance and decision-making. in the processes of command and control systems based on this model, he stated. The results of this research indicate the increase of resilience as one of the most basic factors of quality measurement of command and control processes in modular structures compared to layered structures.

Keywords

References

  •  

    • Air Force Doctrine Publication, 2020. “(3-30 ) Command and Control”
    • Ali Pourghaffari, 2022. “Toward Cyber Command and Control System Architecture Using Data-Driven Analysis Solutions”.
    • Andrew Feickert, 2013. “The Unified Command Plan and Combatant Commands: Background and Issues for Congres”.
    • Baldwin, C., & Clark, K. (2000). “Design Rules, Volume 1, the Power of Modularity”. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
    • Christopher L. Spillman. 2020. “A New Era in Air and Missile Defense”.
    • Congressional Research service, “Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2)”.
    • Congressional Research Service, 2021. “Defense Primer: What Is Command and Control?”.
    • DANIEL A. EISENBERG, 2018. “Network Foundation for Command and Control (C2) Systems: Literature Review”.
    • DOD  2010. “C2 Implementation Plan v1”.
    • DOD Publication, 2009. “Department of Defense Information Sharing Implementation Plan”.
    • DOD Publication, 2019. “DOD DIGITAL MODERNIZATION STRATEGY”.
    • DOD Publication, 2020. “DOD COMMAND, CONTROL, AND COMMUNICATIONS (C3) MODERNIZATION STRATEGY”.
    • DOD Publication, 2020. “DoD Modernization Priorities Microelectronics”.
    • DOD Publication, 2022. “JOINT ALL DOMAIN COMMAND & CONTROL (JADC2) STRATEGY”.
    • Greg Youst, 2014. “DoD’s Strategic Mobility Vision: Needs & Challenge”.
    • Jafar Bagherinejad with e.g., 2018. “Modeling and solving the dynamic modular capacitated maximal covering location problem”.
    • Jeffrey HukiLL. 2012 . “Air Force Command and Control the Need for Increased Adaptability”.
    • Lloyd J. Austin III Secretary of Defense, 2022. “MICROELECTRONICS VISION”.
    • Michael Canna, 2004. “Command and Control of Multinational Operations Involving U.S. Military Forces”.
    • Michele Boreale & Maria Grazia Buscemi, 2013. “Symbolic Analysis of Crypto-Protocols Based on Modular Exponentiation”.
    • Neil Mazuranic, 2018. “DoD Mobility Program”.
    • OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE PUBLICATION, 2008 . “Information Sharing Strategy”.
    • Report to Congressional Committees, 2021. “DEFENSE TRANSPORTATION”.
    • ROBERT J. HOUGHTON, 2009. “Command and control in emergency services operations”.                                                                                                                                   
    • Sherrill Lingel WIITH e.g, 2020. “Joint All-Domain Command and Control for Modern Warfare”.
    • THE WHITE HOUSE  Publication, 2012. “NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR INFORMATION SHARING AND SAFEGUARDING”.
    • Todd Harrison and Christopher Reid, 2022. “BATTLE NETWORKS AND FUTURE FORCE”.
Iranian Journal of Wargaming
Volume 4, Issue 8 - Serial Number 8
September 2021
Pages 7-31

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics