The ALPHA air combat simulator system uses language based code and fuzzy logic to deal with combat variables. It breaks down variables in to a series of “sub-decisions.” That means it makes relevant combat decisions very quickly. It can prove that. An experienced retired USAF colonel couldn’t beat ALPHA, despite 30 years’ experience against combat simulators. Even with digital handicaps, it still won.
You don’t even need to look at ALPHA to get the message — to shoot down a plane, you need all the relevant combat capabilities, and good tactical performance. The minimum requirement is simply being able to survive and hit the target.
The history of air combat tech, revisited
Psibernetix, Inc., the maker of ALPHA with the University of Cincinnati, has reiterated a problem which has existed since World War 1. In those days, even a slight combat edge could change the air battle. The British, in particular, suffered from being behind German innovations in the first years of the war.
I
n World War 2, the tech issue became even more pronounced. Inferior combat capacity meant extinction for the pre-war planes. The arms race in the air continued until almost literally the last few days of the war.
The problem with air combat tech is that it doesn’t just make old technologies obsolete. It makes all the tactics related to those technologies obsolete as well. The new fifth generation fighters are called “fly by wire” for a good reason — most of the combat work is done by computers anyway. If it comes to computer vs computer, the better computer, and therefore the better software, will win.
ALPHA critical issues
ALPHA has very suddenly raised the bar to an uncomfortable level for some tactical doctrines. The very effective USAF doctrine of strong air power dominating the battlefield has worked for decades. Against ALPHA-like capabilities, however, that approach could come unstuck.
For example:
1. If ALPHA-like combat stalls or defeats the air offensive, the entire dynamic of planning and operational priorities changes.
2. If ALPHA-like opponents even just absorb enough air capacity, the land and sea components are left without air support.
3. High turnover of airpower resources is not sustainable in modern combat scenarios. Running out of planes and loss of basic cover capacity is effectively defeat. Modern fighters can’t be replaced at anything like the rate of old style planes.
4. ALPHA won’t go away. The mere fact that ALPHA exists will probably cause a new generation of ALPHA clones, and ongoing innovation will rewrite air combat according to better software. The air power situation will get more demanding, perhaps even including airborne guerrilla warfare.
5. New weapons systems, like particle beams and hypersonic missiles, particularly if put on ALPHA mounts, mean game over for the old technologies. That means a long trail of new minimum requirements for aircraft and combat systems.
6. To be exact – The reboot of ALPHA-combat-capable air power means of billions of dollars’ worth of tech and years of work at absolute minimum.
Beating the ALPHA scenario
ALPHA, of course, will also upgrade over time. This air war will be won in the mind. There are some theoretical weak points in the ALPHA model:
Can ALPHA innovate?
Can it learn?
Can it react to things it hasn’t experienced before?
Can it respond to new elements in a combat situation?
Maybe not now, but as AI tech improves, and particularly as cognitive computing (like IBM’s Watson keeps proving) evolves, it will have those capabilities in some form. A computer program can innovate by simply randomizing, or putting together new combinations of moves and firing options. Basically these things are just new variables. Not at all unlikely.
The question is which theories will be competing with ALPHA-like systems. Human pilots, faced with enemy air superiority, tried to develop better evasion tactics, hit and run, and hiding options in clouds or using stealth to avoid targeting systems. Weapons designers went for better strike power, better range, and better combat efficiencies throughout whole systems.
Notice that survival came first, and hitting back second. A lot of air combat tactics are based on a mix of combat system capabilities and common sense — it looks like ALPHA is able to find effective tactics fast and apply them fast to any combat situation. The obvious counter is to introduce new elements, distractions, fake targets, etc. to get ALPHA working on false variables.
That may not be easy. Depending on how efficient ALPHA is at managing combat situational elements, it may simply ignore fakes and go for the real target. After all, it’s clearly designed to shoot down planes, not do inventories of specific situations. The default option will be to shoot down targets, and some of those targets will be real. Hardly an ideal fix, but better than nothing.
5th generation fighters vs ALPHA capabilities
The inevitable result of new air combat tech is escalation. Everything changes. The current 5th generation fighters are basically combat platforms. They can carry a lot of hardware and software. They should be able to carry a lot of counters to ALPHA-like opponents. They and other planes can be retrofitted with counters, when developed.
The other issue is achieving air superiority. Against ALPHA, particularly a cognitive ALPHA, the irony is that strategy may provide a solution where tactics are lacking. A simple strategy of avoiding ALPHA forces and attacking them with other, cheaper and easily replaceable weapons may be more efficient. It’d certainly reduce risk to valuable air assets and pilots. Something as simple as a standoff weapon may also work, although ALPHA obviously has some evasion capabilities already.
One thing for sure — ALPHA now qualifies as a very hard target. It, and anything with its capabilities, should be treated accordingly.
