IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/navres/v50y2003i3p197-217.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When is model complexity too much? Illustrating the benefits of simple models with Hughes' salvo equations

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas W. Lucas
  • John E. McGunnigle

Abstract

The simulations that many defense analysts rely upon in their studies continue to grow in size and complexity. This paper contrasts the guidance that the authors have received—from some of the giants of military operations research—with the current practice. In particular, the analytic utility of Hughes' simple salvo equations is compared with that of the complex Joint Warfighting System (JWARS), with respect to JWARS' key performance parameters. The comparison suggests that a family of analytic tools supports the best analyses. It follows that smaller, more agile, and transparent models, such as Hughes' salvo equations, are underutilized in defense analyses. We believe that these models should receive more attention, use, and funding. To illustrate this point, this paper uses two very simple models (by modern standards) to rapidly generate insights on the value of information relative to force strength. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2003

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas W. Lucas & John E. McGunnigle, 2003. "When is model complexity too much? Illustrating the benefits of simple models with Hughes' salvo equations," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 197-217, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:navres:v:50:y:2003:i:3:p:197-217
    DOI: 10.1002/nav.10062
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.10062
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/nav.10062?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. C. J. Ancker, 1995. "A proposed foundation for a theory of combat," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 311-343, April.
    2. Wayne P. Hughes, 1995. "A salvo model of warships in missile combat used to evaluate their staying power," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 267-289, March.
    3. Seth Bonder, 2002. "Army Operations Research---Historical Perspectives and Lessons Learned," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 50(1), pages 25-34, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Orhan Karasakal & Nur Evin Özdemirel & Levent Kandiller, 2011. "Anti‐ship missile defense for a naval task group," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 304-321, April.
    2. Michael J. Armstrong, 2013. "The salvo combat model with area fire," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(8), pages 652-660, December.
    3. Taylor, David D.J. & Layurova, Mariya & Vogel, David S. & Slocum, Alexander H., 2019. "Black into green: A BIG opportunity for North Dakota’s oil and gas producers," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 1189-1197.
    4. Michael J. Armstrong, 2005. "A Stochastic Salvo Model for Naval Surface Combat," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(5), pages 830-841, October.
    5. Michael J. Armstrong, 2004. "Effects of lethality in naval combat models," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 28-43, February.
    6. Thomas W. Lucas & W. David Kelton & Paul J. Sánchez & Susan M. Sanchez & Ben L. Anderson, 2015. "Changing the paradigm: Simulation, now a method of first resort," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 62(4), pages 293-303, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael J. Armstrong, 2004. "Effects of lethality in naval combat models," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 28-43, February.
    2. Michael J. Armstrong, 2005. "A Stochastic Salvo Model for Naval Surface Combat," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(5), pages 830-841, October.
    3. Michael J. Armstrong, 2007. "Effective attacks in the salvo combat model: Salvo sizes and quantities of targets," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 66-77, February.
    4. P. Daniel Wright & Matthew J. Liberatore & Robert L. Nydick, 2006. "A Survey of Operations Research Models and Applications in Homeland Security," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 514-529, December.
    5. Michael J. Armstrong, 2013. "The salvo combat model with area fire," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(8), pages 652-660, December.
    6. Chen, Lei & Kou, Yingxin & Li, Zhanwu & Xu, An & Wu, Cheng, 2018. "Empirical research on complex networks modeling of combat SoS based on data from real war-game, Part I: Statistical characteristics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 490(C), pages 754-773.
    7. Ken R. McNaught, 2002. "Markovian models of three‐on‐one combat involving a hidden defender," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(7), pages 627-646, October.
    8. Cullen, Andrew C. & Alpcan, Tansu & Kalloniatis, Alexander C., 2022. "Adversarial decisions on complex dynamical systems using game theory," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 594(C).
    9. Kolebaje, Olusola & Popoola, Oyebola & Khan, Muhammad Altaf & Oyewande, Oluwole, 2020. "An epidemiological approach to insurgent population modeling with the Atangana–Baleanu fractional derivative," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    10. Chad W. Seagren & Donald P. Gaver & Patricia A. Jacobs, 2019. "A stochastic air combat logistics decision model for Blue versus Red opposition," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 66(8), pages 663-674, December.
    11. Hans Liwång, 2020. "The interconnectedness between efforts to reduce the risk related to accidents and attacks - naval examples," Journal of Transportation Security, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 245-272, December.
    12. Claire Walton & Panos Lambrianides & Isaac Kaminer & Johannes Royset & Qi Gong, 2018. "Optimal motion planning in rapid‐fire combat situations with attacker uncertainty," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(2), pages 101-119, March.
    13. N E Ozdemirel & L Kandiller, 2006. "Semi-dynamic modelling of heterogeneous land combat," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(1), pages 38-51, January.
    14. Anelí Bongers & José L. Torres, 2017. "Revisiting the Battle of Midway: A counterfactual analysis," Working Papers 2017-01, Universidad de Málaga, Department of Economic Theory, Málaga Economic Theory Research Center.
    15. Anelí Bongers & José L. Torres, 2021. "A bottleneck combat model: an application to the Battle of Thermopylae," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 2859-2877, December.
    16. Gregory Levitin & Kjell Hausken, 2012. "Resource Distribution in Multiple Attacks with Imperfect Detection of the Attack Outcome," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(2), pages 304-318, February.
    17. Michael J. Armstrong, 2014. "Modeling Short-Range Ballistic Missile Defense and Israel's Iron Dome System," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1028-1039, October.
    18. Hausken, Kjell & Moxnes, John F., 2002. "Stochastic conditional and unconditional warfare," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 61-87, July.
    19. Gregory Levitin & Kjell Hausken, 2010. "Resource Distribution in Multiple Attacks Against a Single Target," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1231-1239, August.
    20. Michael Armstrong, 2011. "A verification study of the stochastic salvo combat model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 186(1), pages 23-38, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:navres:v:50:y:2003:i:3:p:197-217. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6750 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.