Quote Originally Posted by shloky View Post
To quote Sean J. A. Edwards in his work on the topic, swarming is:

a primary maneuver that results in an attack from multiple directions (all points on the compass) by 5 or more (semi) autonomous units on a single target/unit.
Huh? Seriously? OK, so based in that 5 planes attacking a single ship with 72 degrees of separation counts as swarming? Obviously that definition is not useful, workable or insightful. More over, based on my example, why is so good? Fact is, in this example it's less useful, not more.
Not sure why defining and understanding the past, present, and future of a core component of warfare isn't useful.
because it is not a core component, and its misleading.
Arquilla's basic point is that the world has changed - we've entered an era of unprecedented connectivity and, logically, military structure should reflect that shift.
That may be his point but I find it without evidence. Unless he can show me practical and workable examples of how this all works, I cannot see how he is helping. Militaries need to change for the same reasons they have always needed to change - to be better at warfare. Theoretical navel gazing is not the answer.
Swarming is a useful approach to understanding how to do so, and the rules Arquilla outlines are useful in thinking how to accomplish that task - smaller units (#1) wielding sophisticated information flows (#2) are able to accomplish complex and varied tasks as the need arises(#3).
OK, give me practical real world examples of Points #1-3, and explain your reasoning.