Improving the design of a human-in-the-loop joint fires experiment

Experimentation is an important enabler for assessing causal changes in emergent properties of a complex military system due to the effects of technology insertion or operational changes. The Coalition Attack Guidance Experiment (CAGE) aims to bring new capabilities to the front line, which can be effective to meet challenges from new and evolving threats. However, confounding factors have threatened the validity of the experimental outcomes, weakening our understanding of potential joint fires capabilities. These experimental issues are driven by the scale and complexity of joint fires operations. This paper details the methodological tensions that have arisen in CAGE activities thus far and proposes an enduring design as a campaign of experiments for hypothesis testing, capability assessment and demonstration.