Are Russia's military advances a problem for Nato?

[Ivanov]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37045730

As the commander of US forces in Europe, Lt Gen Ben Hodges, noted ruefully in December of last year: "It's been a very long time since American soldiers have had to worry about [an] enemy up in the sky... having the ability to drop bombs."

In terms of communications, he added: "We have not had to worry about being jammed or being intercepted, that sort of thing." In the combat in eastern Ukraine, electronic jamming by specialised Russian units has been highly effective. Indeed, Russia has won the battle in the electromagnetic spectrum hands down. It has demonstrated a remarkable ability to locate Ukrainian units, to jam their signals, and then to bring down devastating fire upon them. In some incidents, sizeable Ukrainian forces have been nearly wiped out in a matter of minutes.
The Russians have also shown a sophisticated ability to use drones, often in pairs; one to draw fire and the other to provide the targeting data for artillery or rocket forces who can instantly respond.

[antaress73]

Not a problem, NATO will easily defeat Russia in any scenario. Losses will be minimal and  the Russians are in for a rude surprise . Russia thinks it is way bigger than  it is in reality. So is China. If they think they can challenge western benevolent hegemony in the world they are seriously deluded or incompetent, probably both  Their weapons are still second best in a lot of areas and the best they have is only available in small numbers. Most of their equipment is cheaply upgraded soviet era junk. Electronic warfare is not a worry. Western weapons and comm gear are hardened against jamming. Their soldiers range from fairly good (but still inferior to a similar western soldier) to third world rabble only good to die in droves.

The Western armies are made for war and very well funded. They have experience, technological superiority and numbers if given enough time. The USA especially. They have a martial culture that permeates the whole of their society. 

Only nuclear weapons makes Russia a threat but it can't use them unless they want to commit national suicide. Finally, Its economy is slowly being strangled by the West financial's supremacy. 

The Russian civilisation is slowly dying and the Western one is there to stay.

There you go, you now have the forum's majority opinion. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by antaress73

[John Kettler]

Ivanov,

I have been hammering away for years now on what I perceive as an acute-criminal deficiency in the US arsenal: effective mobile missile and gun defenses for tactical formations. The last time US ground forces were bombed in earnest was Tunisia--in WW II. The present US tactical ground defenses are, frankly, farcical, Stingers are well and good, but they lack the legs. Where we used to have radar-equipped 20 mm Vulcan cannon, we now have Ma Deuces, a whole two per mount. Chaparral is gone, too. It was equivalent to the early SA-9. The Sergeant York was an outright weapon development disaster. Maybe we should buy a bunch of fully tricked out (as in FLIR, among other toys) Tunguskas?! Doubt the Germans or the Dutch wish to part with their Gepards.

As you know, I used to be a Soviet Threat Analyst for two top defense contractors. Part of my job was having a handle on the extensive capabilities the Russians developed and deployed to jam or deceive system after system NATO used to see the battlefield. The Russians had hordes of jammers operating against all active electronic surveillance means and communications. They had good ESM (Electronic Support Measures), which is DFing, COMINT and such. They could and did intrude on radio networks and also spoofed IFF. I know of an instance so horrifying I momentarily stopped breathing. They even had what we called EXJAM (Expendable Jammers) delivered by artillery practically on the target and targeted on communications. Since signal strength falls off a 1/range squared, a relatively weak jammer in close can be even worse than a powerful one set quite some distance away. On the other end of the power spectrum, the Russian Air Force had SOJs (Standoff Jammers) with almost unbelievable output power. Talking megawatts. The whole thing had the translated acronym of REW (Radio Electronic Warfare). Here is a recent assessment of current Russian capabilities and known uses in combat.

Back when I was doing my threat thing, Russian military literature was fretting about the development by the enemy of what it called Reconnaissance-Strike Complexes). These were fully integrated systems which could detect, classify, hit, do BDA and restrike if necessary. That is exactly what the Russians did in Ukraine. I  don't pretend to know what the current US EW picture is, but there have been enough hints to indicate the US (and likely worse for most NATO countries) is facing a highly capable foe in the EW realm and may well be significantly behind the power curve. On the plus side, the US and NATO much more capable communications which are encrypted, frequency hopping and even spread spectrum for some systems. This makes life much harder on the Russians, as opposed to the highly voice radio dependent Ukrainians. The talk about the Russians adopting the Chinese approach to keeping carrier groups at risk or away is really backwards. The Chinese got the scheme from the Russians, who had an integrated anti-carrier ballistic missile system in development when the Cold War ended. I believe the information came from the then unemployed and hungry engineers formerly on the program. 

The above is not a discussion of the likelihood of Russian victory in an overt invasion of Ukraine. Rather, it is a discussion of military-technical capabilities should Russian and NATO forces clash.

Let me close with another BBC story more immediate and fraught. Not one hour ago BBC reported Ukrainian forces have gone on high alert and that tensions are running high.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37049313

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited August 11, 2016 by John Kettler

[Ivanov]

12 minutes ago, antaress73 said:The Russian civilisation is slowly dying and the Western one is there to stay.

There you go, you now have the forum's majority opinion. 

[John Kettler]

Ivanov,

My last edit didn't post because it evidently timed out. I believe Russian REW could be a major headache, and if the skies can't be kept clear of Russian aircraft, then I think US ground formations could be in real trouble. Nor does KRET's new toy give me warm fuzzies. KRET builds radar, ECM and ESM gear.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Ivanov]

28 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

Ivanov,

My last edit didn't post because it evidently timed out. I believe Russian REW could be a major headache, and if the skies can't be kept clear of Russian aircraft, then I think US ground formations could be in real trouble. Nor does KRET's new toy give me warm fuzzies. KRET builds radar, ECM and ESM gear.

Regards,

John Kettler

I think overall, the Russians have been very apt in creating asymmetrical responses to the deficiencies of their armed forces. For example since they cannot match the western air power, they developed the A2/Ad capabilities. In the past their C3 was lagging behind, so they invested in the electronic warfare, so now they are able to interfere with the enemy command and control. This is a very rational approach, while at the same time in many aspects the western militaries wasted the last 15-20 years.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 hour ago, Ivanov said:

I think overall, the Russians have been very apt in creating asymmetrical responses to the deficiencies of their armed forces. For example since they cannot match the western air power, they developed the A2/Ad capabilities. In the past their C3 was lagging behind, so they invested in the electronic warfare, so now they are able to interfere with the enemy command and control. This is a very rational approach, while at the same time in many aspects the western militaries wasted the last 15-20 years.

This pretty much aptly captures the problemset.  One of the things I learned way back in the college was a concept called "the Adaptive Enemy," in that your opposition is a non-static entity that will actively seek out your weaknesses and exploit their own strengths.  Russia has done so, while many NATO members effectively looked at their armies in 1994 or so, figured there'd never be a need for them again/that was money they really could use for welfare payments.

This stems into two effective questions:

1. Just what are really Russian capabilities?  We've got a lot of "They have the EMP, and will turn off all the electrons in HATO tanks!" type reporting, or equally unhelpful "it doesn't do anything" perspectives.  The Russian official line is, as always an interesting collection of lies.  

Or look at it this way:  Russian EW is a significant asset that will be a problem to deal with.  This is pretty much certain.  The actual effective vs modern communications, or what the costs of employing this EW are rarely discussed.  So like, against a threat with frequency hopping type radios, and without the sort of mature reactive jamming that exists elsewhere, the jamming is less "NOW AMERICANS CANNOT TALK!" and more "AND NOW WE HAVE JAMMED THE ENTIRE RADIO SPECTRUM AND NO ONE TALKS INCLUDING US!"  And the same deal with having high power jamming transmitters going at intensity or duration to achieve effects in a world of home on jam, or even some passive counter-emitter type detection systems.

But we don't get that, we get a whole mess of "HATO DOOMED EW LASER KILL" or a shrug.

2. If there is a Russian advantage, is it enough to allow them to conduct offensive operations against a NATO country and win?  And this is where it just gets stupid.  The T-90 could be superior to the Abrams and it wouldn't matter.  There's a host of strategic effects that make Russia going to war against anyone who isn't a non-NATO neighbor of their country profoundly stupid, and those remain in effect regardless of technical capabilities.  

[antaress73]

How do you know that mature adaptive jammers are not available to Russia ? Even US generals admit their capabilities are "eye watering". Or they could be exagerating the threat for getting increased funding .

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

5 minutes ago, antaress73 said:

How do you know that mature adaptive jammers are not available to Russia ? Even US generals admit their capabilities are "eye watering". Or they could be exagerating the threat for getting increased funding .

How do you know the US doesn't have giant 40 foot nuclear powered kill robots?

Russian EW is a threat, but it's not a threat without limits, or answers.  Which is why these conversations are so annoying, it's either an unstoppable threat that will turn American soldiers into pro-putin zombiebots, or it's a total non-threat, don't worry about it.  

Ultimately technology and military hardware is a complex interplay between threat, countermeasure, with ultimately rarely the tools or the weapons being truly decisive.  It's not US armored superiority that would undo the Russians in an eastward push, it's that net total, NATO is militarily dangerous enough to prevent Russia from accomplishing its tasks, and the political ramifications make it bitter fruit even in the event of a victory.  Russian EW capabilities are dangerous and would make things much harder.  But they do not exist in a vacuum, and likely do not offer a decisive advantage as much as a reduction in NATO's advantages.  

[antaress73]

3 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

How do you know the US doesn't have giant 40 foot nuclear powered kill robots?

Russian EW is a threat, but it's not a threat without limits, or answers.  Which is why these conversations are so annoying, it's either an unstoppable threat that will turn American soldiers into pro-putin zombiebots, or it's a total non-threat, don't worry about it.  

Ultimately technology and military hardware is a complex interplay between threat, countermeasure, with ultimately rarely the tools or the weapons being truly decisive.  It's not US armored superiority that would undo the Russians in an eastward push, it's that net total, NATO is militarily dangerous enough to prevent Russia from accomplishing its tasks, and the political ramifications make it bitter fruit even in the event of a victory.  Russian EW capabilities are dangerous and would make things much harder.  But they do not exist in a vacuum, and likely do not offer a decisive advantage as much as a reduction in NATO's advantages.  

Anyway, both sides are dangerous enough to be able to limit the other side in their objectives. I dont say that Russia will rip through NATO because of EW. Of course its a complex interaction.Strategically speaking, in the modern world, a military solution is NEVER a solution. There are all kinds of bitter fruits for anybody. The US knows about this pretty well. 

[Macisle]

4 hours ago, antaress73 said:

The Russian civilisation is slowly dying and the Western one is there to stay.

Let's pin that one and revisit it about every ten years.

[antaress73]

8 minutes ago, Macisle said:

Let's pin that one and revisit it about every ten years.

lol... I was being sarcastic  

[sburke]

2 hours ago, antaress73 said:

How do you know that mature adaptive jammers are not available to Russia ? Even US generals admit their capabilities are "eye watering". Or they could be exagerating the threat for getting increased funding .

just a word of advice, if i saw that expression posted without context I'd think the generals were laughing so hard they had tears in their eyes.  That would be general use here.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The "eye watering" comment is from Lt. General Ben Hodges.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/08/02/us-army-ukraine-russia-electronic-warfare/30913397/

 

Edited August 12, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B

[Kinophile]

Eye watering can equally mean bitter or comedic. Generally 'bitter'. 

[TheVulture]

5 hours ago, sburke said:

just a word of advice, if i saw that expression posted without context I'd think the generals were laughing so hard they had tears in their eyes.  That would be general use here.

Whereas where I am, "eye watering" used like that would by interchangeable with "startling", and I don't think anyone would take it to mean hilarious / unrealistic.

[sburke]

10 hours ago, TheVulture said:

Whereas where I am, "eye watering" used like that would by interchangeable with "startling", and I don't think anyone would take it to mean hilarious / unrealistic.

That is hilarious!  Hold on while I wipe my eyes . 

[Lethaface]

[Erwin]

The question sounds like a discussion of how we'd refight WW1 or WW2.  What should be alarming is the hacking expertise being demonstrated by China and Russia.  Sure, we can do the same.  However, we don't know the eventual effect of all-out cyberwar. 

What happens if enemies can shut down power to large parts of the country, mess with food distribution, contaminate water supplies, mess with civilian aircraft ability to fly?  Am suspicious that Delta's recent complete shut-down could be a warning of things to come.  We keep thinking of soldiers fighting soldiers.  However, civilian populations are the new front lines.  Think Sun Tzu.

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

4 hours ago, Erwin said:

The question sounds like a discussion of how we'd refight WW1 or WW2.  What should be alarming is the hacking expertise being demonstrated by China and Russia.  Sure, we can do the same.  However, we don't know the eventual effect of all-out cyberwar. 

What happens if enemies can shut down power to large parts of the country, mess with food distribution, contaminate water supplies, mess with civilian aircraft ability to fly?  Am suspicious that Delta's recent complete shut-down could be a warning of things to come.  We keep thinking of soldiers fighting soldiers.  However, civilian populations are the new front lines.  Think Sun Tzu.

 

Thought exercise:  A previously unknown Russian stealth plane knocks out a major bit of infrastructure in the US dropping parts of the west coast into darkness.  How is this different on the political level from a cyber attack?

An act of war is an act of war.  Cyberwarfare would be different, but again, once there's an attack, the distinction of bomb, computer virus, zombie mutant apes becomes moot.  Which is why cyberwarfare remains somewhat restrained, as no one really wants to be the first one to provoke a meatspace war over cyber shenanigans.       

[sburke]

meatspace.  LOL I like it.  Gonna have to steal that one.

[antaress73]

Lovely expression that meatspace as opposed to cyberspace lol

[Kinophile]

Old cyberpunk term. Almost Gibsonian. 

But, technically NATO has categorized cyberspace attacks as acts of war, and Art V. triggerable. 

However, does anyone know what the threshold is? Loss of life? Large scale damage to civ/mil infrastructure? Say-so of the victim? 

[Battlefront.com]

While I agree that nobody should characterize the Russian capabilities as meaningless, there's already some signs of the limitations of Russia's "advantages" over NATO forces.  If we look at Donbas, where Russia has deployed it's top of the line electronic hardware (offensive, defensive, and logistics) to sometimes great effect, it can not be everywhere all the time.  Also, it has the luxury of not being directly threatened as it would be in an active, mobile warfare situation. 

A recent example of this was a Ukrainian drone intercepting a conversation between a senior LPR officer and a Russian Colonel.  Either the equipment wasn't in place or it was somehow bypassed. There's also the plethora of Russian service personnel posting selfies that undermine OPSEC in significant ways (like showing T-90s in Luhansk and the locations of signals equipment) which has allowed Ukraine to know what it is facing and where, sometimes in near realtime.  Satellite imagery is also something that's hard to work around, especially if the front is static for any length of time.

For sure Russian services have scored some major successes against Ukrainian forces and the OSCE during the last 2.5 years.  So I'm not in any way saying that Russian forces aren't capable of inflicting a lot of pain on their enemies (in this case Ukrainians), rather I'm saying that they aren't without shortcomings.  The same can be said of NATO's capabilities, but there's a lot more of NATO than there is of Russian forces.

Here's an example.  Let's say that a Russian sector is effectively jamming NATO communications.  Jamming leaves a signature and NATO does have the capability of locating the source.  A drone could take out that piece of equipment or at least degrade it's capabilities.  Then what?  Russia has to get another piece of equipment in place and quickly.  But how many of these high tech gizmos does Russia have to spare?  A full scale war could find Russia losing its equipment faster than it could replace it.  Then the NATO capabilities are no longer being countered.

The other thing to consider is NATO's stealth capabilities.  It is unclear if Russia's AD forces are capable of detecting this class of aircraft, not to mention hitting them.  Even if Russia can effectively fire upon stealth fighters 50% of the time, how long would it take for the 50% they missed to neutralize EW, AD, SIGNET, etc. units?

The history of warfare is rich with examples of one side doing incredible damage to its opponents and still losing the war.  The lesson Germans learned in WW2 is it isn't good enough to have a Panther knock out 2 or 3 T-34s if there's another 10 operating someplace where the Panther isn't.  Likewise, the impressive kill counts for the Tiger units didn't change the course of the war at all because there simply weren't enough of them and they had serious operational limitations (such as their failure in the Bulge).

Personally, I think that NATO would find itself unpleasantly surprised in a war with Russia.  However, the Russians would also find themselves unpleasantly surprised.  I'd bet heavily that NATO could absorb the unpleasant surprises more than Russia could.

Steve

[MikeyD]

I get the impression Russia has largely negated its greatest advantages in its invasion of Ukraine. You can't surprise us twice. Jamming, airpower, drones, artillery rockets would have come as a nasty shock to NATO 3 years ago, may have sent us reeling. The same way infiltrated units with insignia removed and instigated civil unrest among fringe elements would have been a surprise 3 years ago. Or pushing forward a far right proxy political candidates to pursue Russian interests. We've already been there/done that. We know what 'snap drills on the border' mean and what 'humanitarian convoys into the conflict zone mean.