One of my former minions just got done with his Ops Research master's degree out at Naval Postgraduate School and I thought I'd share his work for critique/comment. Note the use of wargaming/game theory in this thesis. The author is recently assigned to the J9 at Joint Forces Command.
The work asks some fundamental questions and attempts to provide one way to answer them:
"Information superiority is a leading concept driving joint future force
development. Proponents view it as a force multiplier; given forces of equal size and
ability, the one that possesses information superiority can achieve superior results to that of the other. Research suggests that this is, in fact, the case. Yet, what are the risks associated with units relying on information superiority? How can we measure the degree of superiority that an information advantage provides? How much is enough? In a world constrained by budgets, these are important questions to be answered so that a proper balance can be made between equipment meant to destroy our adversaries and equipment that facilitates information superiority."
My question is fairly fundamental--can one ever ASSUME information superiority? This is one of the arguments that John Keegan tackles in his recent work, INTELLIGENCE IN WAR--he would argue that you can't. Therefore, any attempt to economize on more traditional concepts of mass because it can be made up for by such information superiority should be taken with extreme care. The logic that works for bomb/missile payload size compared to bomb/payload accuracy (due to supporting sensor and guidance packages) may not work for larger aggregates of forces, although it's tempting to think that it will.