C3/GPS/Satellite systems effectiveness in war with sophisticated enemy

[PREDATOR]

During a war with an enemy like Iraq, or operations in Yugoslavia, high tech military systems show themselves from the good side. GPS/Satellite/Communications; interaction between ground mechanized units and command centers/AWACS/Air Force with RF; Ability to have real time battlefield situation projected on the onboard computers with every friendly/enemy unit designated. everything works as the whole big flexible system. This facilitates defeat of the enemy Radar/Sam/Com.Center positions and positions of regular army units/installations with high precision and within a short amount of time.

However, in case of war with sophisticated enemy all above schemes wont work on 100% as it was with Iraq, Yugoslavia, or even as it could be with Iran. Sophisticated enemy will attack satellites, jam GPS/Communication signals (jammers working on different frequencies within limit). All these and other methods in combination with enemy's modern air defense missile systems with sophisticated signal processing and parallel computers is a serious threat. After the failure of the global communications/command systems, the units like T90 and Mig35 will be extremely dangerous.

C3 systems are important and should be incorporated in every type of mechanized combat unit or even infantry hardware. However, each type or small group of units should be capable of surviving and succeeding on the battlefield in case of global C3 failure. I think that integrated elements of artificial intelligence and signal processing are very important, and should be incorporated in every semi/autonomous combat unit (UAV/Other platforms). And every such kind of unit should be trained/capable of acting not only with the interaction with huge C3 but also on its own.

 

[Todjaeger]

A number of nations have moved beyond C3 systems, using C4 or even C5 integration. Along with that are various levels of redundancy and backup systems. Also, the location of many of these systems makes attacking them difficult, even for other advanced nations.

Take spy satellites like those used by the US for instance. The US operates them in constellations to provide coverage, with additional satellites in the constellation so that one or more satellites can suffer a failure, yet coverage will still be available. Many of these satellite constellations are also located in high orbits, making it difficult for them to be attacked. Adding into the mix that there are potentially multiple constellations, the situation becomes even more complex...

On the other side, a number of the weapon systems also have alternate navigation systems which might be employed as well, in the even of a systemic failure of something like the GPS. Inertial nav systems, or perhaps terrain recognition, some of the forthcoming tri-mode seekers... In order to defeat these systems, the device itself would need to be attacked. This again is something easier said than actually carried out.

What sort of methods would be able to counter the array of different comm, elint and guidance systems available? Personally jammers do not sound very feasible except maybe (emphasis on MAYBE) at a local level. By their very nature, jammers are hot emitters which are easy to detect and could be countered with an electronic attack or anti-radiation munition.

From other discussions, conflicts need to be looked at from a systemic response, not a platform response. Therefore thought needs to be given to how the system can be attacked, how it can compensate for any attacks underway, as well as its ability to launch counterattacks and how the original attacker can deal with the counterattacks.

-Cheers

 

[PREDATOR]

From other discussions, conflicts need to be looked at from a systemic response, not a platform response.

Right, that is why it is wrong to think that jammer can be detected and easily destroyed. Yes it can be! If some weak country buys a few of even high tech jammers and tries to fight against US, that wont work for them. But as i mentioned in my previous message; multiple jammers working on different frequencies on the wide area and secured by S-300(Antey/ 400 series) together with electronics warfare systems on aircrafts will create a serious problems.

 

[Duffy]

Right, that is why it is wrong to think that jammer can be detected and easily destroyed. Yes it can be! If some weak country buys a few of even high tech jammers and tries to fight against US, that wont work for them. But as i mentioned in my previous message; multiple jammers working on different frequencies on the wide area and secured by S-300(Antey/ 400 series) together with electronics warfare systems on aircrafts will create a serious problems.

If your jamming across a broad spectrum then your targeting and tracking radar would be affected would it not. Flooding the air with radio waves would hurt the defender more than the attacker I would think. Especially if the location of the air defense is fixed or has been in place long enough to have been targeted

 

[PREDATOR]

No, please do not understand what i wrote as black or white... When i was talking about using all the integrated systems it should be obvious that all such elements of electronics/high tech warfare would be used appropriately. It doesnt mean u have to use something near each other or simultaneously. It is a huge theory on using particular hardware in particular situations, battlefield environment, and area. And by the way S-300/400 systems are mobile (and not only these systems are mobile), it takes around 15 minutes for them to move away to another area. Sophisticated enemy has a lot of flexible options and knowledge in applying all such measures to get maximum efficiency. And the war with such an enemy will be far not like a war with Iran/Iraq or any other pretty big country. I hope you understood what i mean.

 

[GI-Gizmo]

Unrestricted Warfare in the 21st Century . . .

So far no nation has developed devices or tactics strong enough to defeat the sophisticated US hegemony to the point where our technology ceases to work. In 2003 Iraq purchased GPS jammers and placed them around important targets in Baghdad, they were taken out using JDAMs. China is pouring money and manpower into developing gadgets that precisely aim to
disrupt or destroy US technological advantages. Alot of GPS jammers, communications signal jammers and eavesdroppers, IFF jammers and ghost-emmiters, radar jammers and specialized radars to target stealth aircraft have appeared at defense expos overseas lately.
Chinese defense manufacturers have built and displayed/exported several generation of this type of equipment. China is developing microwave weapons, particle beam weapons, high energy lasers and electromagnetic pulse weapons. The Chinese are working on anti-satellite weaponary, missiles, EMP, jammers and lasers. There is also alot of hype recently over the Chinese idea to use ballistic missiles as carrier killers. The real threat currently is from their ability to disrupt and infiltrate US computer networks, both government and private. Network warfare, using the internet to attack financial institutions, utilities, commerce and everything else connected is a real danger in the near future. If and when major powers clash in the 21st Century it will be unrestricted warfare to the extreme. Anything that can be thrown at the enemy will probably be used, lawfare, economic warfare, terrorism/asymmetrical, media aspect, conventional battles, air, sea and land forces, space warfare, weather, network warfare and everything else imaginable including NBC weaponary.

Unrestricted Warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Duffy]

Yep I think Gi-Gizmo has it, I think the biggest vulnerability to the US is Network warfare.

 

[PREDATOR]

So far no nation has developed devices or tactics strong enough to defeat the sophisticated US hegemony to the point where our technology ceases to work.

Highly doubt it... Never overestimate capabilities! You cannot be enough sure to state that.
I did not say anything about a point where your technology would cease to work, i said that effectiveness of the whole technology will be far below 100% than it was in Iraq.

 

[Duffy]

Predator I think I understand what you are saying but military communication and data links are not that simple to jam. To confuse a JDAM so it misses its target is nothing compared to jamming say a data link with a UAV. Also people talk about taking out satellites like its no big deal. Telecommunications satellite yes no big deal ,but GPS /spy & military communication satellites are way way up there just tracking them can be difficult. I doubt an ICBM would have enough fuel to get close even without a war head. The Peacekeeper America's newest ICBM full load out weight is 195 thousand pounds, The Delta IV weighs in at around 1.6 million pounds 99.99 % of that is fuel. Electronic warfare is hard to debate do to the fact theres not a lot of information as far as capability's. Both to jam and to counter.

 

[Todjaeger]

Right, that is why it is wrong to think that jammer can be detected and easily destroyed. Yes it can be! If some weak country buys a few of even high tech jammers and tries to fight against US, that wont work for them. But as i mentioned in my previous message; multiple jammers working on different frequencies on the wide area and secured by S-300(Antey/ 400 series) together with electronics warfare systems on aircrafts will create a serious problems.

No, the reason something like a jammer can be relatively to detect is that in order for it to jam, it is actively transmitting or 'hot'. The only way to have the jammer evade detection from a number of devices designed to locate and triangulate the position of emitters for the jammers to stay off.

A variety of ARMs (anti-radiation missiles) exist which detect sources of emissions and then home in on them. It is also possible that some of the newer figher radars used by the US and allies can engage in electronic attack, emitting a large enough radiation pulse to potentially burn out the emitter the jammer is using.

Additional, the total 'system' in use by the US and allies has a number of redundancies built in, as the importance of information dominance and situational awareness has grown. With this growth, the various systems used have grown and evolved, as has the various redundancies. Keep in mind that much of the system was either originally designed to counter the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact nations, or is an outgrowth from that system.

So far, a convincing way to counter a comprehensive C4ISR system has not IMO been presented.

-Cheers

 

[PREDATOR]

So far, a convincing way to counter a comprehensive C4ISR system has not IMO been presented.

-Cheers

There has no been such a war yet...so convincing way is stil not "presented", but when it will be...."presented" there wont be another chance to change anything. thats my point. what u say makes sense...but... that is just a formal and very small amount of theory rather than real convincing fact. Sophisticated enemy (which i dont think even China is right now...) will first strike satellites and will begin with electronic warfare. And i think that what i say makes sense. Its better to analyze than think that you already have 100% system and nothing can beat it...thats not serious...

 

[GI-Gizmo]

US Technology vs. a Near Peer in Combat . . .

Highly doubt it... Never overestimate capabilities! You cannot be enough sure to state that.
I did not say anything about a point where your technology would cease to work, i said that effectiveness of the whole technology will be far below 100% than it was in Iraq.

I definently agree that it is stupid to underestimate your opponent, expect them to know everything, have amazing technology and tactics and to fight hard and dirty relentlessly. It would also be foolish to overestimate your own force, expect problems and delays, espect things to go wrong and plan for the worst things to happen at the worst moments. If the US had to fight a near pear opponent then I'm sure they would have more then a few tricks up their sleeves. Hopefully our strength, technology and strategy would allow us to destroy their arms and sleeves in a crippling opening blow before they could even pull their tricks out. There is no doubt that realistically our capabilities in several areas would be countered and our advantage marginally to severly diminished due to enemy measures. The US has such an advantage in certain areas and has so many redundant ways to maintain it even during war that it would be extremely unlikely and difficult for an enemy to completely level the playing field when it comes to technological superiority. Obviously, that is just an informed opinion and no war, direct or proxy, has been fought between the US and a near pear in the 21st century yet so there is no real way to tell what would happen. As far as a formidable enemy being able to diminish the entire US technological engine far below the readiness, reliability and superior state that we have while fighting in Iraq, a formidable enemy would definently be able to do some damage to restrict, retard and ruin our advantage.

 

[Todjaeger]

There has no been such a war yet...so convincing way is stil not "presented", but when it will be...."presented" there wont be another chance to change anything. thats my point. what u say makes sense...but... that is just a formal and very small amount of theory rather than real convincing fact. Sophisticated enemy (which i dont think even China is right now...) will first strike satellites and will begin with electronic warfare. And i think that what i say makes sense. Its better to analyze than think that you already have 100% system and nothing can beat it...thats not serious...

There are only two things which are 100%, these are death and taxes respectively.

Having said that, while there are ways to reduce the efficiency and effectiveness of various C4 systems... The US and allies are continually developing and improving the technology and methodology. Something which people who write/post about ways various nations or powers can counter the advantages a country like the US, frequently seem to forget or ignore that the US has the same or similar ew systems available in their arsenal as well. This also means that the US can conduct testing where they try and 'break' their own system, to see where weaknesses are and how to improve the system overall.

When I get a chance, I will post more on the issue of targeting satellites.

-Cheers

 

[Bonza]

There are only two things which are 100%, these are death and taxes respectively.

Having said that, while there are ways to reduce the efficiency and effectiveness of various C4 systems... The US and allies are continually developing and improving the technology and methodology. Something which people who write/post about ways various nations or powers can counter the advantages a country like the US, frequently seem to forget or ignore that the US has the same or similar ew systems available in their arsenal as well. This also means that the US can conduct testing where they try and 'break' their own system, to see where weaknesses are and how to improve the system overall.

When I get a chance, I will post more on the issue of targeting satellites.

-Cheers

Absolutely agree. The notion that the warfighting ability of the United States is static, that they would rest on their laurels while other nations closed the military gap with them, is completely ridiculous.

 

[Todjaeger]

Okay, now that I have more time, I will attempt to address a few issues raised by the original poster.

IMO no one, not even the US, is capable of carrying out a space campaign on the scale required to seriously degrade or completely disable the US satellite constellations without resorting to nuclear weaponry AND being detected prior to the success of the space campaign. In point of fact, I have my doubts that even with the use of nuclear weaponry, there would be a successful campaign.

Granted, a few nations might have the ability to target a single, or even perhaps a few satellites in LEO where the orbit is within a few hundred miles of Earth. A number of the important satellite constellations would need to lose several (4+) satellites to begin to degrade the coverage. Given that more than a few of these constellations are in Geo and/or high orbits where they circle thousands of miles from Earth, the equipment required to locate and track becomes more complex, as does what is required to successfully target a satellite.

In order to successfully launch such an attack if the resources were available, it would require a launch into orbit, something that the USAF NORAD would definately notice and track, as well as calculate likely destinations for the launched payload. If suddenly there were several sudden launches out to deep orbits, the US would most likely detect the attempt and then raise an alert if some variety of warning signs were seen.

-Cheers

 

[PREDATOR]

well..i was not talking about not being detected! Of cuz such an action would show itself pretty soon. What you wrote in ur last message makes some sense, however it is again just a plain logical thinking, and actually has nothing to do with my first post! (you may re read it..). I actually dont understand what are you trying to convince me in?

I stated my opinion very clearly, and not only in the first message.

 

[Todjaeger]

well..i was not talking about not being detected! Of cuz such an action would show itself pretty soon. What you wrote in ur last message makes some sense, however it is again just a plain logical thinking, and actually has nothing to do with my first post! (you may re read it..). I actually dont understand what are you trying to convince me in?

I stated my opinion very clearly, and not only in the first message.

In the original post on this thread the following statement was made.

However, in case of war with sophisticated enemy all above schemes wont work on 100% as it was with Iraq, Yugoslavia, or even as it could be with Iran. Sophisticated enemy will attack satellites, jam GPS/Communication signals (jammers working on different frequencies within limit). All these and other methods in combination with enemy's modern air defense missile systems with sophisticated signal processing and parallel computers is a serious threat. After the failure of the global communications/command systems, the units like T90 and Mig35 will be extremely dangerous.

C3 systems are important and should be incorporated in every type of mechanized combat unit or even infantry hardware. However, each type or small group of units should be capable of surviving and succeeding on the battlefield in case of global C3 failure. I think that integrated elements of artificial intelligence and signal processing are very important, and should be incorporated in every semi/autonomous combat unit (UAV/Other platforms). And every such kind of unit should be trained/capable of acting not only with the interaction with huge C3 but also on its own.

Note the Bolded text. So far, a convincing explanation of how the global C5ISR in use by the US or the C4ISR used by NATO and allied forces has not been forthcoming. Potential methods have been mentioned which might be able to cause some local degradation in C4ISR. Given that the underlying technology for those methods is also available to the C4ISR users, it is questionable just how effective some of the suggestions would be.

As I understand it, the whole point of having a C4ISR system is to provide information to the units and commanders so that they may set the terms for any engagement by knowing where their assets are, and knowing what assets their opponent has and where they are. To conduct attacks upon a C4ISR is to attempt to degrade, disrupt or outright destroy the flow of information and orders between units and commanders, and therefore lessen the ability of an opponent to make as effective use of their respective forces. This means that a C4ISR system is of high importance and is going to be protected accordingly.

Hence the interest in how a technologically advanced peer or near-peer threat nation would go about overcoming an opponent's C4ISR system, which by its very nature, should and would be used to detect and respond to attempts to disable it. I will attempt to give an explanation of what I mean below.

Two nations, named X and Y, are near-peers and unfriendly towards each other. At some point, relations between the two nations break down to the point that hostilities might commence. Nation X, wishing to succeed in a conflict with nation Y, attempts to disable portions of nation Y's C4ISR by launching rockets into space to attempt to destroy spy and navigation satellite constellations. Nation Y would detect the launches, and then knowing that an attack by nation X was imminent if not already underway, could then launch their own reponses, while their C4ISR is still intact. This response could be anything from a countermeasure to defend their satellites and C4ISR infrastructure, to attacks upon nation X's C4ISR and/or infrastructure, to eliminating portions of nation X's armed forces so that they can no longer exploit any openings created within the C4ISR of nation Y.

At this point, I am not really attempting to convince anyone of anything regarding the loss of a C4ISR system. Should a modern force no longer have it available, their effectiveness and unit cohesion at anything other than a small/local level will suffer drastically. What I am attempting to find out is what/how such a loss is to be caused by an opposing force so that they can exploit it. The two methods mentioned so far IMO have been questionable in terms of being realistically effective.

1. Jammers: Can block or interfere with friendly equipment and systems and are easily detected due to how they operate.
2. Anti-satellite systems: Generally unable to reach in quantity where needed in to engage satellite constellations, and the attempt is fairly easily detected while in-progress.

What might be worth reading about is how the US military conducts an air defence rollback. I mention this because a good portion of the rollback is accomplished by disabling or destroying an opponent's Command, Control, Communications and Surveillance infrastructure as opposed to just destroying enemy SAM, AA and air combat units.

-Cheers

Edit: Additional comment just occurred to me. It is quite clear given the operational history that the US and allies have, they have equipment and tactics designed to over an enemies C3ISR infrastructure. What I am interested in finding out is how some other power would attempt to overcome the C4 or C5ISR in use by the US and allies.

 

[PREDATOR]

Two nations, named X and Y, are near-peers and unfriendly towards each other. At some point, relations between the two nations break down to the point that hostilities might commence. Nation X, wishing to succeed in a conflict with nation Y, attempts to disable portions of nation Y's C4ISR by launching rockets into space to attempt to destroy spy and navigation satellite constellations. Nation Y would detect the launches, and then knowing that an attack by nation X was imminent if not already underway, could then launch their own reponses, while their C4ISR is still intact. This response could be anything from a countermeasure to defend their satellites and C4ISR infrastructure, to attacks upon nation X's C4ISR and/or infrastructure, to eliminating portions of nation X's armed forces so that they can no longer exploit any openings created within the C4ISR of nation Y.


What might be worth reading about is how the US military conducts an air defence rollback. I mention this because a good portion of the rollback is accomplished by disabling or destroying an opponent's Command, Control, Communications and Surveillance infrastructure as opposed to just destroying enemy SAM, AA and air combat units.

First to say...to significantly decrease the effectiveness of the US space intelligence/communication system...one doesnt have to launch bunch of missiles in a space to destroy all US satellites physically. thats pretty strange that u think about this in such a formal obvious way... "Sophisticated enemy" has its own satellites with built in EM/other warfare modules for conducting electronic warfare in space.... So...its not how u think about it would be.

And another thing is air defense u mentioned about...u think destroying enemy's C3 systems will be so easy? i highly doubt it... all its control command points will be secured by mobile air defense systems like s400/s300 Antey. which wil be also secured by TOR/BUK systems all supporting installations/ground mobile groups will be secured by these systems as well.. remember one thing...all above mentioned systems are highly mobile... it would take 5 minutes to deploy/undeploy them... do not forget also that enemy has AWACS aircrafts/Mig 31 groups. I dont know how come u think so easy about it all....but.....well.....all that absolutely does not seem to be easy to destroy.. like u describe in few words... doesnt it make sense what i say? or i am wrong somewhere?

[Mod edit]Predator, please use proper English. "You", not "u", "I" not "i", etc. I refer you to the Forum Rules.[/Mod edit]

 

[Waylander]

Why are we talking about some country X and some country Y?
I think it is obvious which, in PREDATOR's view, is the highly sophisticated enemy he is talking about.

So what is this really?
Another Russia vs US/NATO threat.

I doubt that anybody here thinks that forces used against countries like Iraq are going to be as effective or or are going to take the same losses like when deployed against an opponent like Russia.

For sure it is a harder nut to crack.

But that's war. It may take more resources and may cost the lives of more soldiers but no current armed forces on this planet are going to be able to do more than just degrading the warfare capabilities of the US not to talk of the whole of NATO.

So what do you want to hear?
That a war against russia is not going to be a walk in the park? No sane member here is going to argue against that...

That Russia is going to be able to stand against the full might of NATO in a conventional conflict?
No sane member here is going to argue for that...

 

[PREDATOR]

Waylander - yes, exactly. result would be unknown, but the warfare capabilities will be degraded.