Mosaic Warfare

Mosaic Warfare
Carol M. Highsmith · Public domain · source
Name	Mosaic Warfare
Caption	Conceptual diagram of distributed force elements and sensors
Type	Operational concept
Origin	United States
Designer	United States Department of Defense
In service	2010s–present

Mosaic Warfare is an operational concept emphasizing Agile combination of many small, interoperable systems to create resilient combat effects. It proposes decentralizing capability into numerous systems engineering-driven modules that can be recombined in response to threats, with influence on procurement debates within the United States Department of Defense, allied defense institutions, and industrial partners.

Overview

The concept emerged amid debates involving the Office of the Secretary of Defense (United States), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, United States Air Force, United States Navy, and United States Army about future force design. Proponents compare it to approaches like effects-based operations used by the Royal Air Force and distributed operations discussed by the Israeli Defense Forces. Critics link alternative models such as network-centric warfare promoted by United States Strategic Command and legacy acquisition programs from the General Dynamics Corporation or Lockheed Martin.

Concept and Principles

Mosaic Warfare builds on principles from modularity embraced by DARPA projects, interoperability stressed by NATO standards like those developed at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization command structure, and resiliency doctrines from the Marine Corps and Special Operations Command. Core principles include distributed lethality featured in United States Navy discussions, graceful degradation, and rapid reconfiguration similar to practices at the National Security Agency for cyber defenses. It emphasizes open architectures advocated in forums involving the Defense Innovation Unit and procurement reforms linked to the Pentagon.

Historical Development and Precursors

Precursors include decentralized command doctrines seen in the Prussian Army's Auftragstaktik, swarm concepts studied by scholars at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and modular platform programs like the Littoral Combat Ship and the Joint Strike Fighter program. Concepts trace through Cold War experiments by institutions such as the RAND Corporation and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Exercises and wargames run by the United States Pacific Command and analyses at the Brookings Institution influenced adoption, alongside debates at congressional hearings in the United States Congress and white papers from the Center for a New American Security.

Implementation and Technologies

Implementation relies on a suite of technologies: secure datalinks exemplified by standards championed by Raytheon Technologies, sensor networks like those tested by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Naval Research Laboratory, and autonomy tools developed by academic centers at Carnegie Mellon University and Stanford University. Enabling elements include cloud architectures promoted by Amazon Web Services used in defense contracts, software-defined radios from firms such as Harris Corporation, and common standards akin to initiatives at the Open Group. Integration efforts involve contractors like Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, and startups funded by In-Q-Tel.

Strategic and Operational Implications

Strategically, advocates argue it complicates targeting for adversaries including the People's Liberation Army, the Russian Armed Forces, and non-state groups like Hezbollah by presenting a dispersed array of capabilities mirroring distributed maritime concepts debated within the United States Navy. Operational effects include accelerated kill chains similar to ideas in Air-Sea Battle discussions, and new command relationships tested in multinational settings such as NATO exercises and the RIMPAC series. Policy implications reached oversight bodies including the Congressional Research Service and were considered in strategy documents from the Department of Defense and allied ministries like the Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom).

Criticisms and Limitations

Critics from think tanks including the Heritage Foundation and scholars at the American Enterprise Institute question costs and logistics, while some analysts at the Center for Strategic Studies highlight risks of increased interoperability burdens, supply chain vulnerabilities tied to suppliers like Boeing and software provenance challenges noted by researchers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Legal and ethical issues raised by autonomy and targeting involve institutions such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and debates at the United Nations on lethal autonomous weapons systems. Operational skeptics cite lessons from programs such as the troubled F-35 Lightning II rollout and contested platforms like the Zumwalt-class destroyer regarding integration risk.

Case Studies and Exercises

Practical explorations appeared in wargames at the Naval War College and at the Air Force Research Laboratory, with field tests coordinated by U.S. Pacific Fleet units and multinational trials during Exercise BALTOPS and Trident Juncture. Programs of record examined mosaic-like architectures in projects such as the Skyborg autonomous wingman effort and experimental networks demonstrated in Millennium Challenge (2002)-style exercises. Industry demonstrations by companies like General Atomics and academic collaborations at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory contributed prototypes evaluated in trials by the Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Organization and combatant commands including U.S. Central Command.

Category:Military doctrines