An Analysis of JICM The Joint Integrated Contingency Model

An Analysis of The Joint Integrated Contingency Model (JICM)

Introduction and Background

The discipline of operations research developed as an outgrowth of the development of science and technology in the 20th Century early years. After the First World War, researchers envisioned the best way to defeat or implement airplanes, large armed warships, and submarines. In late 1941, operational research as a discipline had developed in the major military commands, first in Britain and eventually in other organizations in the US army, air, and naval corporations. For instance, in 1945, its development allowed Air Corporation to drop about 13000 mines to damage or sink approximately 1075 warships. The main advantage of operations research is that it lowered the loss of surface ships and improved the sinking of blockade-runner submarines. After the Second World War, various leaders have recognized the value in analysis exceeding the operational level. As a result, the discipline has increasingly developed to include a varied array of decisions. One of the critical things that have developed due to the expansion of operations research as a discipline is the Joint Integrated Contingency Model (JICM). Thus, this paper seeks to create a detailed analysis of the JICM analytic model by looking at its capabilities, limitations, advantages, and disadvantages, evaluating its operations, and finally, an analysis.

Purpose and Use/Capabilities and Limitations of the JICM Model

The Joint Integrated Contingency Model (JICM) is a large modeling and simulation tool that the RAND Corporation created. Its development was sponsored by the US Office of the Secretary for Defense (OSD).[footnoteRef:1] It was created for a campaign analysis at the operational and strategic levels of air, land, and maritime warfare. The main emphasis was placed on the operations at the theatre levels. This analysis tool was first created during the 1980s bearing in mind the large-scale combats in the Korean peninsula and the European theatre. As this model developed into maturity, the nature and scale of the military threat changed towards the end of the Cold War. Mainly, the JICM analysis tool has been utilized to study large-scale wars, including confrontations between India and Pakistan and between Koreans. The model has also been used increasingly in the United States as an analysis tool for small-scale military conflicts, such as various studies on inter-regional disputes in Eastern Europe and regional conflicts between Taiwan and China along the Taiwan Strait1. RAND Corporation received the approval to provide the DSTO with the JICM in 1999, followed by the training of the DSTO and updating JICM to meet various requirements in 2000. Additionally, this analytic tool was designed to operate on the operational platform of Solaris mainly, also called the Sun UNIX, and can be easily supported by various analysts. [1: Bennett, Bruce W., Arthur M. Bullock, Daniel B. Fox, Carl M. Jones, and John Schrader. JICM 1.0 Summary. RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA, 1994.]

The Joint Integrated Contingency Model (JICM) was developed to work on the operational levels of the Solaris platform. However, various efforts are currently being made to transform its operation from Solaris to PC-based Linux. The simulation of this model can be run or operated wholly in the form of closed loops, and the capability of its execution is considered to be very fast, at an approximated rate of one day per minute. The JICM model can also be run or operated interactively with the analysts who assess the campaign’s development over four hours, which is considered the simulation time for the model.[footnoteRef:2] For instance, the campaign analyst can perform various tasks, including changing troop deployments, choosing different loads of weapons for bombers, changing tactics, and even activating contingency plans. [2: Bennett, Bruce W., Arthur M. Bullock, Daniel B. Fox, Carl M. Jones, and John Schrader. JICM 1.0 Summary. RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA, 1994.]

Additionally, this analytic model was developed to evaluate various case studies mainly by using various parameters in a concept of a single scenario for comparative analysis. Within this model, every aspect of the joint military campaign is handled in a self-consistent and integral manner1. Therefore, the most significant element in establishing a new campaign on the JICM model and developing scripts for the operational or war plans has to be carried out consistently with the operations concept. Also, it should be checked in detail before that scenario is considered or used for analysis.

The functional components of the JICM model are made up of three main parts. The first is the command and government agents, which record the national operations and future military plans. Every government can use generic procedures to mobilize, alert, and train forces or employ rules meant for the federal troops, specifically if selective or partial mobilizations are necessary.[footnoteRef:3] Governments can also establish their preferred procedures used to employ nuclear forces within the control of the government. The command agent also reflects military commands that operate forces owned by one nation or a coalition that drives within a specified regional contingency. Most often, military operations are planned and executed by JICM commands. Another component of the functional aspect of the JICM is the “campaign.” The models of military operations, including deployments and combat adjudication, were initially referred to as the campaign model or the forcing agent. The JICM also encompasses mobility and logistics models and nuclear force operations such as strategic command and damage assessment, intelligence, communications, and control. It also contains models of naval warfare. The latest model of the JICM is made up of the Integrated Theater Model (ITM), which has been advanced to include baseline values for every JICM parameter and the orders of battle for about seventy significant countries across the world. The last component is the system software which entails a wide range of software systems used to support the JICM model1. [3: Bennett, Bruce W., Arthur M. Bullock, Daniel B. Fox, Carl M. Jones, and John Schrader. JICM 1.0 Summary. RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA, 1994.]

In addition to the capabilities and the uses described above, the JICM can perform numerous other activities as discussed. The latest model has added a new parameter, which allows the JICM user or analysts to define a distinct vulnerability for armaments in forwarding shelters around a border. Also, a battle allocator has been added in the advanced model to improve the posturing decisions of the LOC Commander. Since the ITM component of the JICM follows such units as corps and divisions, finding a division with several contracts at a given time is not uncommon.[footnoteRef:4] The battle allocator is used to examine the contracts of such forces. It is also used in determining the distribution of combat power of the force among the various battles. Another essential function of the JICM is the consumption of the ground force supply, which is mainly tracked in terms of the ED-days of supply of ammunition except for the highly explicit ammunitions used by long-range arms. Also, more sophisticated consumption factors have been included in the ITM since there are new battle types1. It also allows for the development of integrated networks and land geography. This means that places are now well defined and linked to form the basis or foundation for combat and administrative movements. [4: Bennett, Bruce W., Arthur M. Bullock, Daniel B. Fox, Carl M. Jones, and John Schrader. JICM 1.0 Summary. RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA, 1994.]

Furthermore, the model provides for a complete operational maneuver across the land network. This is specifically made possible through the ITM in the advanced version of the JICM, which allows for movement towards any direction across any part of the land network. It also defines the interaction of combats every time they come into contact with the opposing forces in any configuration, including internal security contacts, rear contacts, flank contacts, and frontal contacts. The commands of the JICM often reflect corps in the real world. They are the most significant components to maneuver over the network even though the individual forces outside their view can also be involved. The model further enhances definitions of battles, including factors such as the various aspects of the Situational Force Scoring (SFS) methodology, which widely entails components such as casualty distribution, shortages of forces, terrain, and posture1.

The most significant disadvantage associated with this model is that it is, at best, a tool used for exploratory analysis and not a “war game.” As such, its application is limited and cannot be used to predict the certainty of a particular battle favoring a specific side.[footnoteRef:5] Instead, this analytic tool is best described as a sophisticated tool or calculator used to help professional analysts in this field appropriately evaluate how they perceive a campaign. Another limitation of the JICM model is that it has significantly less access and control over the naval models and, subsequently, their functions. This arises because the naval operations are not necessarily a generic product of the JICM model. Instead, it is a model of the US Navy contained in the JICM model2. [5: Lawrence, Christopher A. Comparing the RAND Version of the 3:1 Rule to Real-World Data. The INTERNATIONAL TNDM NEWSLETTER, 2018. ]

The Pros and Cons of the JICM Simulation Model

The JICM sparks the interest of the wargaming and analytic communities. It offers models used for decision making to help in analysis, wargaming, and in some instances, takes the role of certain players. It also provides models of military combat and operations. Compared to the traditional military operations models that emphasized predicting combat results with a given degree of precision, the JICM is a more reliable model. It provides a more detailed or laboratory study of military operations and strategy. This allows for a detailed evaluation and analysis of the alternative operations and design regarding how strong combat outcomes are across a given range of uncertainty in “rules of war,” performance factors, and scenarios. This tool has been primarily designed for analytic functions and used for wargaming and training, among other requirements and needs2. Another main advantage associated with the JICM analytical tool is that it allows for a quick exploration of many campaign alternatives in a general concept of the campaign through a series of well-developed components and packages. The parameters within the JICM database can be easily modified or added to meet the analysts’ requirements based on the requirements of a particular scenario or country in general. The JICM model is also advantageous because currently, it is the only available campaign model that one analyst can efficiently run within a relatively short turnaround period.

Another advantage is that it significantly differs from the other military simulation and analytic tools. For starts, this model provides a global framework that keenly considers the conventional approaches through nuclear conflict. It also includes various models used to enhance decision-making processes, including those of the LOC commander, coupled with its related software, which helps in aggregating and testing the operations and strategies of the military.[footnoteRef:6] Additionally, it still outweighs the traditional simulation tools since its development is based on the philosophy of testing sensitivity, which is consistent with the uncertainties that are highly associated with military and national decision-making and significant wars. These factors are all essential aspects of this model since they all affect how it is used. It also can establish the definition of complex military concepts in the government and the command agents, which can be developed or created into analytic war plans (AWP) 2. Moreover, the concepts of the campaign are written in RAND-ABEL, which allows the military analysts and planners to review various plans as developed with ease and provide recommendations concerning any additions or necessary changes. Thus, they can efficiently work from the source code instead of a secondary description of the code itself. [6: Lawrence, Christopher A. Comparing the RAND Version of the 3:1 Rule to Real-World Data. The INTERNATIONAL TNDM NEWSLETTER, 2018. ]

Like any other model, a few known trade-offs are associated with this simulation tool in determining the capabilities to add. First, the ITM component of the JICM model is a theater-level model, and this means that it is not appropriate for an examination of tactical detail which encompasses issues such as basic weapon capabilities, including an evaluation of the upgrade units of personnel carriers with M-113 armed to an M-3 or M-2 configuration.[footnoteRef:7] Such issues would first have to be evaluated in their impacts on strategic and operational outcomes, which would be done by a detailed model and then representing these trade-offs with a complex simulation model such as the ITM to obtain operational and strategic consequences or outcomes. This shortcoming shows that the model cannot generate answers to all questions by itself, and as such, it must be used in collaboration with other models. Another disadvantage associated with this analytic model is that its validation is still a little challenging. Validation of the military operations models is tricky since there is a strong comparison basis. Unlike tactical ad technical models, including a description of missile firing at an aircraft, there are no simultaneous battles that can be the same.[footnoteRef:8] This makes it extremely difficult since there is a general lack of objective and controllable basis, commonly referred to as “real worlds,” a comparative analysis can be conducted 2. [7: Wilson, Barry A., and Daniel B. Fox. Ground Combat in the JICM. RAND NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INST SANTA MONICA CA, 1995.] [8: Lawrence, Christopher A. Comparing the RAND Version of the 3:1 Rule to Real-World Data. The INTERNATIONAL TNDM NEWSLETTER, 2018. ]

Another shortcoming of this model is based on the development of analytic wargaming. Because of this approach, there are several significant discontinuities in the outcomes or consequences, which can seem inconsistent on the surface. Therefore, an improvement in a specific input factor can cause an even poorer outcome for that side. For instance, while the addition of units to defense may make the defense reasonable, it also has a high chance of causing the defender to hold on to the untenable line for a longer-than-expected period. The result might be the succeeding encirclement and breakthrough, which destroys a much larger force than would have been recorded lost if the line had been abandoned earlier on. This behavior is unacceptable to many analysts who mainly expect monotonicity with the quality of resources applied. Also, the database of the JICM is quite large, with various information on different parameters 3. This makes the database very complex, which challenges the initial understanding, comprehension, and mastery of the JICM model. Another disadvantage of using the JICM is that it is labor-intensive. There needs to be a constantly ongoing process to ensure the database is up-to-date and properly understood to ease its understanding.

Evaluation of the JICM as a Tool for Estimating Casualties

This section of the paper provides a detailed evaluation of the JICM to understand the capabilities and limitations of the toolkit.[footnoteRef:9] The JICM analytic tool has four major components: models, scenarios, database, simulation components, and associated software. The models describe the force functionality, including mobility and lifting, logistics, naval operations, land war, and air combat. By changing the necessary parameters, the model allows analysts to script or generate their models. Additionally, they can change the existing models to fit what they require. [9: Bennett, Bruce W., Arthur M. Bullock, Daniel B. Fox, Carl M. Jones, and John Schrader. JICM 1.0 Summary. RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA, 1994.]

Moreover, the JICM is designed to be a deterministic model with a delta, usually four hours step. The deltas are further divided into sub-deltas. This division is achieved by the discrete event implementation of what is commonly known as the Situational Force Scoring (SFS). Particular single-platform maritime operations, including the ASW, are also dependent on the pseudo-stochastic decision-making process. Also, graphic displays, the progress of battles, and computations are primarily controlled by the J-language. This is an interference language used by campaign analysts as they interact with the simulation of the JICM model. Herein, commands can quickly be issued in an interactive manner3. Alternatively, commands can be scripted into operational or war plans to enable campaign analysts to script the forces’ behavior and hence, control the obtained data values of the JICM objects dynamically during a simulation process. It also allows the campaign analysts to invoke contingency plans through the use of decision logic or interactively.

Moreover, its database is quite large and contains information concerning the choke and geography points, human capability and weapon performance, sea conditions and terrain difficulty, order of battle and C31 data, and command structure. Within this database, campaign analysts can quickly establish a command structure.[footnoteRef:10] Additionally, coalition operations are not less complex than the ones run by one nation. Most of the parameters within the JICM database can be easily modified. New parameters can also be added to meet the analysts’ requirements depending on the needs of a particular scenario or country in general. However, the database is highly complex, which presents one significant challenge in the initial mastering and understanding of the JICM. [10: Ong, James, and Michael F. Ling. Using the joint integrated contingency model for campaign analysis. DEFENCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION SALISBURY (AUSTRALIA) ELECTRONICS AND SURVEILLANCE RESEARCH, 2002.]

Furthermore, sea, land, and air operations are interlinked through the operational or war plans stored by the convention. The sequence of events is also linked. Through the J-language, the decision logic can be implemented in the contingency plans and the operational or war plans invoked, thus enabling the intertwinement of the Army, air, and naval operations into a joint operation. In establishing these plans, a deep knowledge of the operations of the military campaign is highly desirable. Also, the JICM has a relatively high aggregation level. The land forces are played at the brigade or division levels even though the JICM has provided new aggregates (defining new objects), including platoon or company in the JICM database.

The JICM comprises three major modeling components that guide naval operations, ground combat, and air operations. Each of the JICM components has its composting models, relevant database, and mode of operations. Additionally, each element has a sharing part of the database within the JICM, including government attitudes, command structure, and geography. The general combat is integrated into a joint campaign plan with every operational detail and various combat tactics. The most developed component of the JICM is ground combat.[footnoteRef:11] With this, troops are moved through a network or chain of links. It allows for a relative degree of maneuverability, which means that military combat is done flexibly so that encirclement and flank attacks are permitted. Positions can also be overrun. The speed of troops’ movement depends on the terrain type, while combat attrition is measured in various ways, including effective division and equal division. The air operations aspect of the JICM is also well developed and, in a way, is similar to something called THUNDER in doctrine and structure. However, the degree of detail in the two is different. The naval operations aspect is not necessarily a generic product of the JICM but a model of the US Navy contained within the JICM. Thus, this grants the JICM less control over the naval functions and models. However, effects such as ship evasion and detection are treated in a pseudo-stochastic mannerism due to a single platform3. [11: Ong, James, and Michael F. Ling. Using the joint integrated contingency model for campaign analysis. DEFENCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION SALISBURY (AUSTRALIA) ELECTRONICS AND SURVEILLANCE RESEARCH, 2002.]

Moreover, the JICM model provides a more detailed or laboratory study of the military operations and strategy in which a thorough evaluation of the alternative operations and strategy is carried out in terms of how strong the outcomes of combat are across a given range of inherent uncertainties in “rules of war,” performance factors, and scenarios. This, however, does not mean that JICM is less accurate than other models used for analytic purposes. Instead, it only means that the inherently significant uncertainties are recognized as an explicit aspect of the JICM model and the provision designed for analysts to effectively assess the impact of uncertain inputs and how they affect combat outcomes.[footnoteRef:12] As such, the JICM users must state results in a way that is consistent with the underlying uncertainties. For instance, an analyst is strongly advised to avoid stating rates of losses to three significant digits, especially when the uncertainties make the stated rates fall within a fifty percent range. In turn, this should allow for a detailed evaluation of the alternative operations and strategies in terms of how strong combat outcomes are. Additionally, the model is viewed in terms of its software implementation or from the functional components. [12: Ong, James, and Michael F. Ling. Using the joint integrated contingency model for campaign analysis. DEFENCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION SALISBURY (AUSTRALIA) ELECTRONICS AND SURVEILLANCE RESEARCH, 2002.]

As stated earlier, the new model of the JICM is composed of the ITM, which replaced the older model of theater-level analytic tool. The ITM mainly focuses on warfare’s operational level. This component of the JICM assumes that the JICM user operates from a theater perspective of the commander and expects the user inputs at this level. Ground forces are portrayed in a detailed manner considered appropriate for the view involving independent brigades and divisions, which are subsequently subordinated to army commands and corps.[footnoteRef:13] The ITM also encompasses internal models, including the LOC Commander. These handle the lower level of operations and decision-making. [13: Ong, James, and Michael F. Ling. Using the joint integrated contingency model for campaign analysis. DEFENCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION SALISBURY (AUSTRALIA) ELECTRONICS AND SURVEILLANCE RESEARCH, 2002.]

In many cases, however, the ITM provides the JICM user with the option to override the other models and direct specific actions. However, by combining the entities followed into the divisions, many tactical details surrounding ground combat are ignored, partly to encourage a proper perspective by the JICM users. The model also has more points than what would be expected in the other theater-level models3. For instance, when employing forces, the model primarily considers various characteristics, including training level, composition, cohesiveness, and nationality. Units may also be given particular missions. The ITM component of the JICM also allows the campaign analyst to have different assumptions regarding a variety of quantitative and qualitative issues, such as but not limited to a defensive strategy, attacker strategy, a sustainable combat’s intensity, intensity of the maximum combat, exchange ratios in prepared defenses and chemical effects among other issues.

The JICM network further facilitates examinations, including those surrounding operational-level maneuvers. This makes it possible for the forces to come across various configurations. The ITM command mission allows the JICM users to direct the ground force command maneuver and designate the significant thrust from holding or supporting actions. Flank attacks, envelopments, counterattacks, and various kinds of engagement are provided. Another essential concept is the “phases of the battle,” which generally include preparation, assault, breakthrough, and pursuit in that order. Without this concept, it is impossible to comprehend the outcomes or results of historical battles or the production of battles in which the general exchange ratio doesn’t operate in the defender’s favor.[footnoteRef:14] This model also predicts any breakthrough and further allows for the assessment of the combination of increased losses till the defense recovery and a one-time loss to the defender based on the conditions surrounding the occurrence of the breakthrough (where the defending forces’ density is low, or where an infantry force coupled with limited mobility is also low, or where there is a penetration of the static defensive line. Ultimately, the breakthrough’s effect depends on whether the defender can offer sufficient operational reserves enough to contain the breakthrough. This is also important in other rules of combat resolution. Finally, the ITM component allows the JICM user to establish a script for various events, including specific forces’ damage and underground mobilization and training3. The different options will enable the campaign analysts of the user to provide an accurate account of issues potentially missed by the models and test how sensitive the outcomes of various events could be. [14: Wilson, Barry A., and Daniel B. Fox. Ground Combat in the JICM. RAND NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INST SANTA MONICA CA, 1995.]