Thesis--School of Advanced Airpower Studies. / Title from title screen (viewed Oct. 28, 2003). "May 1992." Includes bibliographical references.

This thesis discusses military operations planning and methodology by reviewing two of NATO’s planning documents, i.e. the ‘Allied Joint Doctrine for Operational-Level Planning’ (AJP 5) and the ‘Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive’ (COPD), and defends the following claim. Parts of the description of NATO’s Operational-Level Planning Process (OLPP), as described in the AJP 5 and the COPD, is methodologically inconsistent (contradictory), due to epistemic and practical implications of methodology. As such, the thesis discusses three topics: approaches to Operational Art, planning heuristics and implications of methodology. The thesis also intertwines military operations planning, methodology and military problem-solving. This thesis consists of two published papers and an introduction. The introduction explains and further discusses operations planning as well as terms and concepts stated within the two papers. Paper I focuses on the AJP 5 and discusses the methodological distinction between two approaches within Operational Art, denoted the ‘Design’ and the ‘Systemic’ approach. The distinction between these approaches is vague and paper I states one epistemic and one practical implication of methodology. Paper II focuses on the COPD and discusses two specific planning heuristics. The first relates to the Systemic approach and the second heuristic relates to the third approach denoted the ‘Causalist’ approach within Operational Art. A methodological contradiction exists between these specific heuristics and paper II states one epistemic and three practical implications of methodology. Briefly, this thesis implies that parts of NATO’s description of the OLPP suffers from a methodological contradiction. Hence, a suggestion is to revise parts of the AJP 5 and the COPD. The thesis also suggest the development of a “NATO handbook of methodology” to better explain methodological implications on military operations planning and the “how to” of military problem-solving. / <p>QC 20170403</p>

Thesis (MMAS) -- U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 2006. / AD-A463 803. Also available via the World Wide Web.

Denne studien har hatt som mål å undersøke om vestlig offensiv luftmakt benytteroperasjonskunst i planlegging og gjennomføring av militære operasjoner, og omoperasjonskunst er nødvendig for effektiv utnyttelse av luftmakt? Hensikten har vært å seom det konsept som er valgt på felles (joint) nivå - operasjonskunst - også brukes avluftkomponenten. Som teoriforankring har studien benyttet en operasjonalisering avClausewitz sin teori om nødvendigheten av en balanse i ”treenigheten” mellom folket,feltherren og fyrsten, og metoden har innebært å studere problemet utifra tre uvahenigevariabler; teori, doktriner og praksis. Empiridelen omfatter dermed en studie av tekster frabåde operasjonskunstens utvikling, og såvel tidligere luftmaktsteoretikere som mermoderne teorier (Warden, Boyd og effekt baserte operasjoner). NATO og amerikanskefelles- og luftforsvarsdoktriner ble studert for å påvise eventuelle relasjoner til studiensspørsmål. Den praktiske bruk av moderne offensiv luftmakt ble undersøkt ved å studereluftkampanjen under operasjon Desert Storm i 1991, og noen av de trender som tegnet seg ioperasjon Iraqi Freedom i 2003.Studiens resultat viser at vestlig offensiv luftmakt i liten grad har kjent til og benyttetteoriene rundt begrepet operasjonskunst, og at dens konsepter har vært mye tuftet påluftspesifikk teori og doktrine. Videre konkluderer den med at noen av effektene avoperasjonskunst likevel kommer frem i praksis, og at trendene som Irakkrigen tegner tyderpå en større fokus på fellesoperasjoner også i luftmiljøet. Studien konkluderer til slutt medat luftmakten kan være best tjent med å ta til seg konseptet med operasjonskunst for å ståbest mulig rustet til å møte de forskjellige utfordringer i moderne krigføring. / This thesis examines two basic questions. Does Western airpower practice operationalart as a guiding principle of warfare, and is operational art necessary to achieve successin modern air warfare? The purpose was to study whether the use of offensive airpowerwas set on the conceptual basis of operational art, used at the joint level of warfare, or ifit was just a question of “targeting”. The study applied Clausewitz’ theory of a “trinity”between what is commonly represented as the people, the military, and the governmentas its theoretical base. To reflect the relative complexity of the study, it used a methodof examining the questions from three different angles; theory, doctrine andemployment of offensive airpower. Through the study of these subjects and use ofairpower in Operation Desert Storm (and to a limited degree during Operation IraqiFreedom), the focus and essence of airpower is highlighted. Airpower theorists havealways tried to put emphasis on the unique capabilities of the airplane and operations inthe third dimension. Strategic use of airpower, they have proclaimed, is the best use ofairpower, tactical use, and especially in support to land, is the least effective. Much inopposition to and in competition with the older Navy and Army, a separate mission forthe Air Force has been stressed.Modern airpower doctrine has in large followed suit. At the same time operational art isbeing introduced as the conceptual basis for first land- and then joint operations. The aircampaign(s) in this study gives insight into an airpower shaped both by theory and bydoctrine. Modern airpower was used with success in operations that in large focus onoverwhelming force and superior technology, but at the same time tried to achieve someof the leverage and synergy of the joint battlespace. The study concludes that westernoffensive airpower up to now did not practice operational art in warfare, and that itsconcepts largely were founded on airpower specific theory and doctrine. It alsoconcludes that the trends shown in Iraq 2003 indicate a change toward a more jointthinking in the airpower community. It also concludes that airpower would be bestsuited to meet the challenges of modern warfare by considering employing the conceptof operational art in joint operations. / Avdelning: ALB - Slutet Mag 3 C-upps.Hylla: Upps. ChP 02-04

I efterbörden av Rysslands annektering av Krim 2014 uppstod diskussioner kring rysk krigskonst och hybridkrigföring. Bland tvetydigheterna som uppstod identifieras bland annat vilka strategier som det samtida Ryssland har för att uppnå strategisk överraskning. Denna studie har syftat till att undersöka rysk militär vilseledning i samband med Rysslands strategiska överraskningsanfall på Krim 2014. Studien har genomförts som en teoriprövande fallstudie varvid såväl västerländska som sovjetiska/ryska vilseledningsteorier prövats på det ryska agerande under annekteringen av Krim 2014. Sammantaget visar studiens resultat på förekomster av ryskt agerande i enlighet med samtliga av studiens prövade teorier varvid det i huvudsak var distraktion, dolda aktiva åtgärder samt desinformation som bidrog till den ryska strategiska överraskningen. Studiens oväntade resultat pekar på ett aktivt deltagande av den ryske presidenten personligen varvid det inte går att underskatta betydelsen av en politisk företrädare som Vladimir Putin. Studiens resultat kan vidare tolkas som att den vilseledning som Ryssland genomförde får ses vilande i huvudsak på tidigare dokumenterade sovjetiska teorier. Vidare visar studiens resultat på en hög rysk förmåga till anpassning där tidigare etablerade sovjetiska/ryska teorier kring vilseledning utvecklats till dagens konfliktmiljöer. Studien visar därmed att äldre sovjetiska/ryska teorier på inget sätt är obsoleta utan i allra högsta grad fortsatt är aktuella i dagens globala världsordning. / In the aftermath of Russia's annexation of Crimea 2014, discussions arose about Russian military art of war and hybrid warfare. Questions were identified regarding strategic surprise and what strategies todays’ modern Russia was using. This study aims to investigate Russian military deception in connection with Russia's strategic surprise attack in Crimea 2014. The study was conducted as a single case study in which Western as well as Soviet/Russian theories of military deception was compared with the Russian activities during the Crimea annexation in 2014.  The result shows Russian activities in accordance with both Western and old Soviet/Russian theories of deception. According to the study Russian main focus was distraction, active measures and disinformation leading to the Russian strategic surprise. The study shows unexpected results regarding the amount of personal activity involving the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. The result shows that the significance of a political representative such as Vladimir Putin cannot be underestimated. Additionally the study also shows that the military deception conducted by Russia in and around the period of the Crimea annexation 2014 mainly extracts from previously documented old Soviet theories. It highlights Russia’s ability to adapt into today's conflict environments by bending and adjusting old theories and doctrines. By that meaning old Soviet/Russian theories are in no way obsolete but instead being very much relevant in today's global world order.