Open Source Intelligence Tools and Simulation

In reading Mike's latest post regarding a simulation of new conflict in the Gulf, the exercise itself highlights the number of open source tools available to armchair admirals and armchair strategic thinkers. The word amateur applies, and by definition my team highlights me as the most appropriate example of the term. Without the tools and information unique to the professionals in developing strategic contingencies, the rest of us (amateur's) are left with open source tools, open source simulations, and open source content to be disseminated in producing not only a strategic forecast of events, but more valuable, developing the understanding of both questions and concerns facing the professionals.

Mike outlines a number of tools in producing his scenario, all of which we find very familiar. I use the term "we" sometimes on this blog, and when I do it is intentional. Usually the more thoughtful postings or rather detailed postings where I'll say "we" is intentional to give credit to ideas developed in discussion by what I have referred to in the past as my staff, but in reality the best term to describe us would be team, considering none of them are 'technically' my employees. I'll cover that relationship at another time, but notable and as many could or have probably guessed, I'm the only among us who never served in the Navy or Marines. There is a 'rest of' the story for another time there too.

In work we are terribly efficient, in play we are extraordinarily detailed, and in discussion we tend to be fairly passionate. One of the things "we" do is get together once a month and play out a scenario, or simulation, which up to about 5 months ago was mostly done based on spreadsheet rule sets for simulation. We have likened it to hippys playing D&D, but in reality it is a way for us to escape the routine of work and family, drink, and exercise our minds (which is probably the same motivation for those adult D&D hippys who still go at it).

We take turns developing scenarios, everyone is guilty of putting time and effort into them, in fact it has become a competition to produce the best simulation yet, and we game out consequences in developing thoughts, ideas, and possibilities over current events or potential future events. For this activity we have moved from a strictly spreadsheet model to a model that leverages the capabilities in Harpoon3 ANW, but also spreadsheets for political, low intensity conflicts, or ground actions that are less kinetic or driven by events on land rather than sea. The new system isn't without its flaws (we term it risk), but we believe it to be more realistic. We are still in search of that great strategy game that allows the leverage of customization for simulating conflict by land, sea, and air, but allows for victory conditions beyond the kinetic. If you know of one in the open source on par with Harpoon 3, speak up!

In building our models, we have leveraged a number of open source tools and information, among them several reference books available from places like the Naval Institute Press, IMINT tools like Google Earth including research from IMINT observers, organically developed intelligence empowered by information of open source signals observers, and detailed historical accounts that detail specifics in behavior and environment that directly impact potential simulated players. As players, we attempt to be accurate in both political and tendency determination of the teams we represent. From an amateur perspective, I've observed one can develop skills for more accurate intelligence observation based on the lessons, instruction, study, and insights of open source intelligence professionals.

One of the observations "we" made this evening is how even basic questions and understanding of military capabilities are often misunderstood by those who speculate without simulating. Mike simulates, thus in his conclusions he raises interesting questions and includes observations regarding the shortcomings of his simulation, what I term risk in evaluating results. A large number of amateur's don't bother with that level of detailed exercise, they simply postulate based on conventional wisdom, professional experience or study, and a rudimentary understanding of the technologies involved that are ultimately leveraged in service by people. That last point is loaded, and could/should be developed further..., maybe some other time.

This weekend is my turn to deliver the simulation, and in doing so our H3 database has received a major makeover. New items to be unveiled this weekend (for us anyway) include the Littoral Combat Ship, which in Harpoon 3 ANW is not easy to simulate at all, a number of unmanned systems, and a mothership design based on the LPD-17, what some open source materials (including Bob Work) refer to as the 50 ft plug version with extra well deck and aviation space. In development of the 'little deployable manned and unmanned sea platforms' for the mothership I have once again run into the largest hurdle facing the US Navy in small boat deployment, logistics for sustainment. I quickly determined this is a critical aspect within the purpose of my simulation.

This weekends simulation is clearly not major war, rather evaluation of platforms required for the new Maritime Strategy. The scenario which I started building before the current events regarding pirates, is designed in fact, to fight pirates and terrorists. However, instead of Somalia I chose the ungoverned and neglected tri-border regions of the Sulu and Celebes seas inspired by a recent article by Ian Storey, and a recent RAND report Ungoverned Territories: Understanding and Reducing Terrorism Risks, both of which offer excellent insights into this troubled maritime region.

In our simulations, the scenario developer is the bad guy. There will only be four of us this weekend. One player is the commercial traffic, one player will be the regional nations, while another is the US Navy supported by a RAN frigate, USN/USAF, and RAAF aviation. As I said before, I'm the various bad guys of the region and intend to operate each section as an independent operational organization. The challenge for players is dealing with security threats, while the military players will have to manage the logistics of small vessels effectively, ultimately in evaluation of the various platforms in dealing with the irregular warfare challenges at sea that can effect regional politics and economics.

The outcome of the simulation should be interesting, after all, without the simulation my postulate in the past has been the usefulness of the mothership and small boat model, the advantage of the frigate over the LCS, and the uselessness of the LCS in general. After actually developing the scenario, and understanding all three platforms are my challenge, I'm not so sure my postulate is accurate. I won't be the one proving that postulate though, rather competing against it, so ultimately we have chosen to simulate as a method of evaluation than to be the guy who claims to know it all.

Will it prove anything? Not if you require hard evidence, but the intended result is to get amateur's like me to start asking the right questions, and stop assuming the challenges and conclusions regarding approaches to irregular warfare. The tools described above are open source, and available to other amateur's looking to develop their own understanding. Personally, I encourage people to engage the process of simulation if you find it interesting, only by supporting the tools will they continue to improve.