More and more attention in the West (judging by the publications) began to be paid to the effectiveness of the Russian EW troops. Accordingly, they translate with us and try to analyze the translated.
And here a double feeling arises. Which pushes to really figure out who is cooler: the US electronic troops or our electronic warfare.
In the American interpretation, electronic warfare is denoted by different terms: "electronic warfare" (EW - Electronic Warfare), "countermeasures" (С3СМ - Command, Control, Communication Countermeasure), "electronic warfare" (Electronic Combat). But the essence is roughly the same.
In the United States, they are increasingly comparing their own and ours. And there is a very definite reason for that. Overseas, success in the development and use of electronic warfare in Russia, after some cases, arouses keen interest.
This is not about the story with "Donald Cook", it just makes American specialists laugh and make funny comments.
But the results of the use of some of our complexes in the Donbass and in Syria do not make anyone laugh. Moreover, several respected experts in the United States at once, whose opinion it is customary to listen to (Roger McDermott, Sam Bendett, Michael Kofman), started talking about the fact that Russian electronic warfare troops represent a serious force and object for study.
According to experts, Russian electronic warfare units have a larger number of people, they are well equipped, and these troops have the largest number of new products.
But the most important thing is that the EW troops, based on the doctrine of use, coordinate their actions with other types of armed forces. Attack aviation, air defense, artillery.
The Americans also consider the many years of combat experience possessed by the employees of these troops to be an important factor.
As a classic example, the same Bendett cites in his report the actions of the Russian military in Syria.
According to Kofman, modern electronic warfare systems not only expand the capabilities of military equipment, but also allow the Russian military to conduct "non-contact" operations and "jam", blind and demoralize the enemy.
And for this you don't even need to invade NATO territory. Firstly, Russian electronic warfare systems have a longer range of impact, and secondly, in recent years, Russia has skillfully created "gray zones", blurring the line between war and peace.
An interesting opinion of an American, which immediately raises the question: who was stopping you?
Seriously though, not possessing the means of counteraction, NATO will not be able to prevent the existence of these very "gray" zones. But is it necessary? And why is there a situation today that is interpreted in this way?
In general, this is the topic of a long and thoughtful conversation, not on one page.
But I think we need to start with the defensive concept of the two countries. It is in it that the initial lag of the United States from Russia in terms of the development of electronic warfare lies.
And what is the concept based on? That's right, geographic location.
In this regard, the United States is in complete order. Canada in the north and Mexico in the south. Everything. Two very serious countries, with excellent armies and military capabilities, with independent policies. If in fact - the 51st and 52nd states.
Accordingly, in the entire history of the existence of the United States, there have been no threats from neighbors, and indeed there could not have been.
Plus, anyone who decides to test the strength of the US defense will first be faced with two surmountable but weighty circumstances. With the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
And here, in principle, everything, you can end on this.
Americans can sleep well (almost) because they have a mighty (no scoffing) US Navy. And this is a very difficult trump card to beat, which is able to solve most defense issues.
After all, there are 11 US aircraft carriers? These are 11 airfields that can be moved to any distance from the country's borders. And there, at a distance, meet anyone: strategic bombers, missiles and other anti-American manifestations.
You can talk a lot about the fact that the F / A-18 is "not a cake", that a carrier-based fighter is not like a normal one, but … It is enough to look at more than 850 carrier-based attack aircraft in the US Navy, then look at the number of Russian fighters- bombers in the Aerospace Forces in general, and it is understandable why everything is so great for the Americans.
If there are any problems that the fleet cannot cope with, then please, there is the US Air Force, where there are still about 2 thousand combat aircraft (F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35). Yes, if you believe the media, the 22nd and 35th are not very good, well, nothing. The United States can do without them.
In general, the concept is clear: air and water are for the United States, there is no land where you can fight. More precisely, it exists, but how to deliver troops there, taking into account the above points about water and air, is a question.
And only that "almost" remains. Namely, the Russian Strategic Missile Forces and nuclear submarine missile carriers.
Agree, there must be a scrap against which there is no admission?
But in fact, the US defensive concept, relying on the fleet and aviation, did not provide for any widespread development and use of electronic warfare. Not because of lack of need, but rather because of underestimation of the possibilities. Or half the first and the second.
Well, and because it (the concept) is not so defensive. And for an offensive or aggressive defense, and even ahead of the curve, electronic warfare is not the best component. Unlike defense.
If we talk about the US electronic warfare aircraft systems (and we will definitely talk about them in the process in the following parts), then we cannot say that they are much worse than our Khibiny and Scorpion. It's just worse. And the Americans are well aware of this.
But so far (it is worth emphasizing) they cannot do anything. Understanding that their AN / SLQ-32 5th version, which is put on all new ships - a good thing in the "Aegis", but not completely, makes the Americans move towards improving their systems.
Indeed, in the future we will analyze in detail all the advantages and disadvantages of Russian and American systems, as far as access to information will allow.
In the meantime, let's dwell on the point that the unitarity that the American military preached played a cruel joke. AN / SLQ-32 is a really good complex. And it can be very widely used. From aircraft carrier to aircraft. But this is also its weak side. It is versatile. And at the same time it will lose out to highly specialized Russian-made complexes.
And here we come to the second side. Russian. And again to the geographical map. Standing at the map and looking at Russia, it is easy to count how many unfriendly states are around us. Both real and conditional. Conventionally - it's like Turkey, for example.
And if you take into account the multitude of inadequate people in the north, who make only lunch breaks in their screams about the Russian threat, plus Ukraine and a bunch of former ATS allies, and today NATO members, the situation is, let's say, far from the American alignment.
Moreover, old Europe, of which we are still a part, is a long-proven springboard for a world-class showdown. There is where to land troops, there is someone to accumulate allies among, there is where to place shooters of any rank.
Russia has played on defense all its life. Indisputably? That's it. Accordingly, all our electronic warfare systems, which cause gnashing of teeth and envy of the enemy, are 95% of the means of defense.
The exception is, perhaps, "Murmansk". They can somehow still attack at such a distance that not every missile can fly. The range of our other electronic warfare systems is far from being able to really threaten anyone. Except for just those enemy weapons that will themselves enter the zone of operation of our electronic warfare assets.
The defensive nature of Soviet and Russian developments does not bother Western experts in the least.
Mr. McDermott explicitly states that it is normal for Russia, and, moreover, it is inherent to build up forces to dominate near its borders.
Well said, Mr. Expert. Many were permeated. And many understood McDermott's point.
It is necessary to start work today in order to have something to oppose the Russian complexes tomorrow. And if this is not done, then "Russia will get away with any aggression, sabotage or annexation." No more, no less.
It is clear where the wind is blowing from in the words about "aggression and annexation." And no one in the West bothers that, in principle, any country in the world would like to dominate its borders. This is fine.
But to what extent is it possible to seriously implement, if not in the near future, then simply in the future, what has to be done in order to neutralize the current superiority in the electronic warfare systems of Russia? We will talk about this in the next part.
Source:
