spanning the scenario space creating a good scenario set using generic methods with specific...

Spanning the Scenario Space

Creating a good Scenario Set using Generic Methods with Specific Scenarios

Peter Thomas BAE SYSTEMS Warton

19 ISMOR August 2002

BAES-FSDA-GEN-PN-00350, 1

Background & Motivation

• BAE SYSTEMS in not just a Military Aircraft manufacturer

– Interests in Air, Land, Sea & Space– Strike, Manoeuvre, Strategic Deployment & Information Superiority

• Need to understand our customers’ requirements

– Capability within sectors– Balance between sectors– Overall defence of customer nations

• This requires an analysis of many scenarios

– To investigate a broad range of scenario characteristics – To test all aspects of defence capability

• Need a small set of scenarios which Spans the Scenario Space


Generic versus Specific Scenarios(Pros & Cons)

• Generic Scenario Sets

– Designed as a Set– Produce good coverage of the Scenario Space– Sets contain a lot of Scenarios (Too many to analyse ?)– May lack realism (Constraints not added)– Scenarios may not make much sense on their own– Not normally endorsed officially

• Specific Scenarios

– Produced Individually– Make good sense on their own– Often realistic– Can be officially endorsed– Sets are reasonably small– Sets have poor coverage of the Scenario Space


Getting a good Scenario Set

• Design your Scenarios as a set

• Start off with a Generic Approach

• Apply Real World Constraints

– to enhance realism – to reduce the set size

• Pick a Set of Scenarios which

– Span the Scenario Space – Are each realistic on their own– Are not too numerous to analyse


Important Scenario Parameters & the Scenario Vector

• Conflict Risk

• Scale of Force Required Size & Seriousness

• Type of Scenario

• Coalition Membership & Leadership

• Enemy Characteristics Participants & Initiative

• Enemy Posture

• Warning Times & Build-up

• Logistical Lines of Communication Deployment Difficulties

• Climate & Terrain

Scenario Vector = (Risk, Scale, Type, Coalition, Enemy, Posture, Warning, Logistics, Terrain)


Parameter Values - 1 Size and Seriousness

• Conflict Risk

– 1 Peace Keeping (or other low risk activity)– 2 Peace Enforcement & Intervention– 3 Voluntary Participation with Significant War Fighting– 4 Defence of Overseas Territories & Treaty Obligations– 5 National Survival

• Scale of Force Required

– 1 Small– 2 Medium– 3 Large– 4 Very Large– 5 All National Assets

• Types of Scenario

– 1 Aid to Civilian Authorities– 2 Sanctions, Forward Presence & Reinforcement – 3 Peacekeeping or Civilian Evacuation– 4 Wider Peacekeeping– 5 Warfighting


Parameter Values - 2Participants and Initiative

• Coalition Membership & Leadership

– 1 USA Present & Leading– 2 USA Present, UK or Other NATO Lead– 3 UK Alone– 4 European NATO Members (USA Absent)– 5 Non-NATO Coalition (USA Absent)

• Enemy Characteristics

– 1 None– 2 Rebel Grouping– 3 Developing Nation– 4 Moderately Advanced Nation– 5 Large & Sophisticated Nation

• Enemy Posture

– 1 Static Defence– 2 Attack Non-Coalition forces on Ground– 3 Active Defence– 4 Enemy Attacks Coalition in Air– 5 Enemy Attacks Coalition on Ground/Sea & Air


Parameter Values - 3Deployment Difficulties

• Warning Times & Build-up

– 1 Years of Warning, Large Preparatory Deployment & Procurement

– 2 Months of Warning, Moderate Preparatory Deployment– 3 Days of Warning, Little Preparatory Deployment– 4 Hours of Warning, Defensive Forces Prepared– 5 No Warning, Defensive Forces Surprised

• Logistical Lines of Communication

– 1 Short Range Land Links (Very High Capacity)– 2 Short Range Sea Links (High Capacity)– 3 Long Range Sea or Land Links (Medium Capacity)– 4 Long Range Air Links Only (Low Capacity)– 5 No National or Host Nation Bases available in Theatre

• Climate & Terrain

– 1 Flat Temperate– 2 Flat Desert– 3 Undulating Temperate– 4 Cold or Mountainous– 5 Jungle


The Full Scenario Space

• Each Generic Scenario has a characteristic Scenario Vector = (Risk, Scale, Type, Coalition, Enemy, Posture, Warning, Logistics, Terrain)

• Each Scenario Vector can be illustrated by a Diagram

• If these 9 parameters are independent there are 59 (=1 953 125) possible Generic Scenarios in this Scenario Space

• The parameter values are roughly in order of difficulty

– (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) should be the easiest scenario

– (5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5) should be the hardest scenario


– The Hardest Scenario (5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5) Is not reasonable

• National Survival, All National Assets, Warfighting, fit well with Large & Sophisticated Nation, Enemy Attacks Coalition on Ground/Sea & Air

• UK membership of NATO prevents this being combined with Non-NATO Coalition (USA Absent),

• Systematic Peacetime intelligence gathering avoids No Warning - Defensive Forces Surprised

• Our geography prevents No National or Host Nation Bases available in Theatre, Jungle Climate & Terrain

• (5,5,5,1,5,5,1,2,4) is about as bad as it gets !(Cold War Defence of Norway)

The Effect of Real World Constraints

• Some Scenario vectors produce reasonable scenarios, others do not

– The Easiest Scenario (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) may well be reasonable– A small earthquake in San Francisco has characteristics close to this

• Low Risk, Small Scale, Aid to Civilian Authorities, USA Present & Leading, No Enemy, Static Situation,Years of Warning, Short Range Land Communications,Temperate Climate with Undulating Terrain

• (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,3) is quite close !



Maximising Scenario Space Coverage

• Spanning the Scenario Space involves finding a set of scenario vectors which:

– Contains each value of each parameter– Allows the effect of each parameter to be seen

• In General the higher the parameter value, the fewer scenarios there will be which match those parameter values

– The lower boundary of the Scenario Space will be smooth (few gaps)– The upper boundary will be much more complicated (many gaps)

• Since scenarios with parameter values of 5 or 4 are rarer than those with lower values, it is worth starting at this end of the Scenario space first

• Having found the scenarios near the upper boundary which exist, it is possible to choose the scenarios elsewhere in the set to give good coverage of the space


Scenarios at Risk Level 5

• Real world constraints restrict the number of scenarios at Risk Level 5(5, , , , , , , , ) =========> (5,5,5, ,5,5, , , ) ==========> (5,5,5,1,5,5,1, , )

positive correlation negative correlation


• Could define a new Scenario (5,5,5,1,5,5,1,2,1/3/4) Defence of NATO Europe: (Poland, Czech Republic & Norway)

– But in the current environment with a democratic Russia this is unlikely to happen !

• No Other Scenarios at Risk Level 5 make much sense for the UK !

– Have Scenarios of UK National Survival disappeared with the end of the Cold War ?– (This removes 58

(=390 625) scenarios from the space !)

– UK & European Geography give only 3 options for Logistics, Climate & Terrain – (5,5,5,1,5,5,1,2,4) Cold War Defence of Norway. – The scale is 5 only because it is part of a larger war, so it only ever happens with

(5,5,5,1,5,5,1,2,1) Cold War Defence of North Germany & (5,5,5,1,5,5,1,2,3) Cold War Defence of South Germany


Large & Very Large Scenarios at Risk Level 4

• A very large attack on NATO in Europe will have some similarities to the Risk 5 scenarios discussed previously. e.g.

– Flat Temperate (4,4,5,1,5,5,2,2,1)

– Undulating Temperate (4,4,5,1,5,5,2,2,3)


• A Large scale attack on a UK dependant territory could produce a scenario with a harder coalition & extremely demanding logistics & terrain

– (4,3,5,3,4,5,3,5,4) Falklands 1982 requirement

– (4,2,5,3,4,5,3,5,4) Falklands 1982 response (limited by logistics !)

• Large scale attacks on NATO have more options for logistics, terrain & opponent (4,3,5,1,5,5,2,2,1) (4,3,5,1,5,5,2,2,3) (4,3,5,1,5,5,2,2,4)

(4,3,5,1,5,5,2,3,4) (4,3,5,1,4,5,2,3,4)

Choice 1

Choice 2


Large War-fighting Scenarios at Risk Level 3

• Large War-fighting Scenarios at Risk Level 3 involving the UK are likely to have a characteristic vector of the form (3,3,5,1,4,5, , , )


• An invasion of a friendly nation could provide the most difficult logistics.

– If the allies were surprised & bases were lost (3,3,5,1,4,5,3,5,3)

– With better surveillance, logistics may be easier (3,3,5,1,4,5,2,3,3)

• At this scale, 4 is a short warning time e.g. (3,3,5,1,4,5,4,3,3)

Choice 3

• The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was initially (3,3,5,1,4,5,3,3,2)

– Capturing ports in Saudi Arabia would have made it (3,3,5,1,4,5,3,4,2)

– Capturing airfields as well would have made it (3,3,5,1,4,5,3,5,2)

– Once Iraq gave away the initiative it became (3,3,5,1,4,1,3,3,2) which was much easier for the US led coalition to win !


The Coverage of the First Three Scenarios

• Scenario Choice 1 is “Defence of NATO” (4,4,5,1,5,5,2,2,1)

Tests: Risk, Scale, Enemy


• Scenario Choice 3 is “Saudi Ports” (3,3,5,1,4,5,3,4,2)

Tests: Terrain good for tanks BUT Logistics difficult

• Scenario Choice 2 is “Falklands 1982 requirement” (4,3,5,3,4,5,3,5,4)

Tests: UK alone, Logistics, Terrain & Climate

• No Scenarios with Coalitions 4 & 5 ( , , ,4/5, , , , , )

• No Scenarios with Warning 4 & 5 ( , , , , , ,4/5, , )

• No Scenarios with Climate & Terrain 5 ( , , , , , , , ,5 )

Gaps in Coverage


Conflicts with Harder Coalitions

• Coalition 4 (European NATO members without the US) nearly happened in Bosnia and could

conceivably have happened in a scenario as big as Kosovo.

In the early stages over Serbia this was (3,3,4,4,4,3,2,3,3)

and even later on over Kosovo itself it was still (3,3,4,4,4,2,2,3,3).


• Coalition 5 (Non-NATO Coalition, US absent) would only occur in very special

circumstances.

– A crisis of interest to many NATO and Non-NATO countries would interest the US – But a US presence could be denied – Such a scenario would have to be low risk, small or medium scale, and would probably

happen near the territory of a major power.

Scenario characteristics might be (1,2,3,5,2,2,2,3,3)

or maybe (1,2,3,5,2,2,2,4,3)

Choice 4

Choice 5


– Perhaps a small flood in East Anglia would suffice here ?(1,1,1,3,1,1,1,1,1)

• All that now remains is a scenario with lots of 1’s

• Three more gaps are an attack with only hours of warning, a scenario in the jungle, and a coalition where the US is present but does not lead.

– If a rebel group (financed by drugs destined for the American market) attacked part of a former British protectorate a scenario like (2,2,3,2,2,2,4,3,5) could exist

• Two gaps in the scenario coverage are an enemy which attacks in the air and an attack with no warning.

– A developing country on the edge of the NATO region could attack a NATO member using a ballistic missile. This could produce a scenario like (4,2,5,1,3,4,5,3,2)

– This might be in response to some unwelcome action by our allies; such as enforcement of sanctions. (2,2,2,1,3,2,2,3,2)(Posture 2 is allowed to include activity at sea which our coalition would oppose)

Filling Gaps in Coverage

Choice 6

Choice 9

Choice 7

Choice 8



The Chosen Scenario Set

1 (4,4,5,1,5,5,2,2,1) Defence of NATO

2 (4,3,5,3,4,5,3,5,4) UK recapture of Falklands

3 (3,3,5,1,4,5,3,4,2) Defence of Kuwait & Saudi Ports

4 (3,3,4,4,4,3,2,3,3) Euro-NATO Kosovo Intervention

5 (1,2,3,5,2,2,2,4,3) Unusual Coalition Peacekeeping

6 (4,2,5,1,3,4,5,3,2) Ballistic Missile attack on NATO

7 (2,2,2,1,3,2,2,3,2) Sanctions Enforcement

8 (2,2,3,2,2,2,4,3,5) Jungle Drug War

9 (1,1,1,3,1,1,1,1,1) East Anglian Floods

Risk & Scale

LogisticsTerrain & Climate

Coalitions

Posture & Warning

WarningTerrain & Climate



Review of Method

• Design your Scenarios as a set

• Start off with a Generic Approach

• Apply Real World Constraints

– to enhance realism – to reduce the set size

• Pick a Set of Scenarios which

– Span the Scenario Space – Are each realistic on their own– Are not too numerous to analyse


Alternative Scenario Sets

• The Scenario set selected here is carefully chosen but is NOT unique

• There are many additional scenarios which may be of interest e.g.

– Twin Towers (1,1,1,1,2,5,5,1,1)

– Afghanistan (2,2,4,1,2,3,3,4,4)



Questions ?

spanning the scenario space creating a good scenario set using generic methods with specific...

Documents

scenario spacesets

scenario spacecreating

good scenario setdesign

air5 enemy attacks coalition

small set of scenarios

set sizepick

lot of scenarios

setproduce good coverage