Author Topic: WWIII Warming Up Move? Russian Nuclear Cruiser Makes Port Call in Syria  (Read 6064 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LightCaster

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
  • Global Underground Resistance
    • Galaksija
Russian Nuclear Cruiser Makes Port Call in Syria






Russia's nuclear-powered missile cruiser Pyotr Veliky has arrived in Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus ahead of Russian Navy drills in the Indian Ocean.

A large Syrian naval delegation accompanied by Russia's ambassador to Syria, Sergei Kirpichenko, visited the Russian warship on Wednesday.

"The Pyotr Veliky's visit to the Syrian port of Tartus is a symbolic event. It is a continuation of our historic ties with Syria that serves as a guarantee of our future cooperation not only in the naval sphere but also in other areas," Kirpichenko said.

"I am certain that we will witness new and significant progress in our bilateral cooperation in the near future," he added.

Pyotr Veliky, the flagship of Russia's Northern Fleet, left the fleet's headquarters in Severomorsk on March 31 to join the warships of other Russian fleets, including the Moskva missile cruiser, in the Indian Ocean for large-scale naval exercises.

A naval maintenance site near the port of Tartus is the only Russian foothold in the Mediterranean.

About 50 naval personnel and three berthing floats are currently deployed at the Tartus site, which can accommodate up to a dozen warships.

According to the Russian Navy, the naval base in Syria significantly boosts Russia's operational capability in the region because the warships based there are capable of reaching the Red Sea through the Suez Canal and the Atlantic through the Strait of Gibraltar in a matter of days.

In September 2008, Russia was reported to be in talks with Syria about turning Tartus into a permanent base for Russian warships in the Middle East.
Resist. Rebel. Cry out to all peoples and nations from the sky as the lightening flashes from the east to the west and judge the living and the dead. Or choose submission and slavery.

The light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.  (John 1:5)

H0llyw00d

  • Guest
1st sortie..."your base belong to us"

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341


  Things are heating up.  Wondering how many of their nuclear subs are in the area. 
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline able

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,069
setting up the chess board.
my kids are not cannon fodder for the n.w.o!

H0llyw00d

  • Guest
Something big is going to happen....not sure what, but according to my models, I'm estimating July
Could be another fake ass US "terror" attack....or WWlll, or both

Offline fourthhorseman

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
  • Shut Up n Chew your Cud...MOOOOO
Just me,or is that vessel dammed sexy,,sleek,,sharp..like a soviet bayonet ready to charge..

Russians,,NLE's,Nukes..
going to be a  very interesting summer,,
in the land of predators-the lion never fears the jackal...

H0llyw00d

  • Guest
Just me,or is that vessel dammed sexy,,sleek,,sharp..like a soviet bayonet ready to charge..

4thhorseman....you ever been in the military??....lol

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Something big is going to happen....not sure what, but according to my models, I'm estimating July
Could be another fake ass US "terror" attack....or WWlll, or both

  Hollywood, what does the phrase "according to my models" mean?
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline fourthhorseman

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
  • Shut Up n Chew your Cud...MOOOOO
Not me,,my Pop,US Army SF,
Ranger before that,about 13yrs
retired now.

he taught me well enough
keep me Out of the mil..
in the land of predators-the lion never fears the jackal...

H0llyw00d

  • Guest
  Hollywood, what does the phrase "according to my models" mean?

think i got 8 computers here for chat???...hehehehe
have been running a sim now based on daily events for roughly 2 years....i shouldn't take credit for it, actually was a bud's brainchild along w/ 2 other good folk, i just have the resources for this project. Then hopefully, we got a PHP wiz who swears he's going to make a web site for this. I gave up making web sites when "frontpage" and the dreaded frontpage extensions were the rage.. in 98??
I'll PM ya when John gets the site off the ground
cheers!

H0llyw00d

  • Guest
Re: WWIII Warming Up Move? Russian Nuclear Cruiser Makes Port Call in Syria
« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2010, 10:41:55 am »
should have mentioned that some unscrupulous Sh*t-heads from another camp succesfully hacked us and we lost all of the raw data, so the models only been logging for couple months now.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: WWIII Warming Up Move? Russian Nuclear Cruiser Makes Port Call in Syria
« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2010, 10:50:25 am »
think i got 8 computers here for chat???...hehehehe
have been running a sim now based on daily events for roughly 2 years....i shouldn't take credit for it, actually was a bud's brainchild along w/ 2 other good folk, i just have the resources for this project. Then hopefully, we got a PHP wiz who swears he's going to make a web site for this. I gave up making web sites when "frontpage" and the dreaded frontpage extensions were the rage.. in 98??
I'll PM ya when John gets the site off the ground
cheers!

Thanks for the info.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline LightCaster

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
  • Global Underground Resistance
    • Galaksija
Re: WWIII Warming Up Move? Russian Nuclear Cruiser Makes Port Call in Syria
« Reply #12 on: April 15, 2010, 12:21:00 pm »
FLASHBACK:New Russian military strategy names NATO as chief threat


spacewar.com
Feb 05, 2010




MOSCOW, Feb 5 (AFP) Feb 05, 2010
Russian president Dmitry Medvedev on Friday signed a new version of its main military strategy document which named NATO expansion as one of the chief threats to the country's security.

The document, published on the Kremlin web site, listed first among "chief outside military threats" the fact that NATO is attempting to "globalise its functions in contravention of international law."

It also cited attempts to bring "military infrastructure of NATO members closer to Russian borders, including by expanding the bloc."

Russia has bristled at moves by former Soviet republics such as Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO and relations between NATO and Moscow plunged to a post-Cold War low after the August 2008 war between Russia and Georgia.

Other threats are named as creation and deployment of missile-defence systems and "high-precision conventional weapon systems.

Russia was fiercely opposed to the now-shelved US plan to deploy missile defence facilities in Central Europe.

Since the 1991 Soviet collapse, Russian military planners have relied increasingly on the country's huge nuclear deterrent as the capabilities of its conventional forces have deteriorated.

Efforts to develop a new military doctrine in recent years have coincided with plans for a radical modernisation of Russia's armed forces.
Resist. Rebel. Cry out to all peoples and nations from the sky as the lightening flashes from the east to the west and judge the living and the dead. Or choose submission and slavery.

The light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.  (John 1:5)

Offline LightCaster

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
  • Global Underground Resistance
    • Galaksija
Re: WWIII Warming Up Move? Russian Nuclear Cruiser Makes Port Call in Syria
« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2010, 12:56:26 pm »
The Russian military's strategy for "sixth generation" warfare



A Northrop Grumman artist’s conception of a sixth generation fighter employing directed energy weapons and stealthy data networking. (Northrop Grumman illustration)


 Western observers tend to assume that, for the foreseeable future, only the United States will have the capability to revolutionize military doctrine. And why not, given the evidence of the

Gulf war and the collapse of the Soviet Union? But the Soviet military declared, back in the early 1980s, that a "military-technical revolution" (MTR) was afoot. Today, the Russians argue that precision-guided, non-nuclear, deep-strike weapons, and the systems used to integrate them, are revolutionizing all aspects of military art and force structure--and elevating combat capabilities by a million-fold, Russia's first official military doctrine, approved by President Boris Yeltsin and the Security Council in November 1993, clearly reflects the ongoing civil-numbers consensus on the nature and requirements of the MTR. The document directs that research and development (R&D) efforts focus above all on the development of the new deep-strike weapons, information weapons (advanced [C.sup.3.]I systems), and electronic warfare (EW) assets.

 In the short run--despite the ongoing political gridlock and economic chaos--the Russian General Staff continues to devise sophisticated technical and operational counters to the new technologies of "air-space war." For the long term, they have oriented most of their limited resources toward creating an infrastructure that ensures rapid surge production of these technologies as the situation warrants. And for the transitional period in between, they have revived the nuclear war-fighting option to cope with a variety of worst-case scenarios. Civilian and military leaders agree that the potential for waging air-space war and competing in the MTR are Russia's main guarantees for preserving great-power status.

The Russian Image of Future War

 According to Russian military scientists, such as General-Major V. Slipchenko, head of the Scientific-Research Department of the General Staff Academy, warfare has evolved through at least five generations. The first generation of warfare involved infantry and cavalry without firearms. The second generation saw the development of gunpowder and smooth-bore firearms. Rifled small-arms and tube artillery were introduced in the third generation of wars. In the fourth generation, automatic weapons, tanks military aircraft, signal equipment, and powerful new means of transporting weapons were used. The fifth generation of warfare includes, of course, nuclear weapons. In the impending sixth generation of warfare, a superior military will be able, through advanced data-processing and [C.sup.3.I] systems, smart weaponry, EW and air defense assets, and space-based reconnaissance and weaponry, to destroy discrete targets and inflict military and political defeat on an enemy, all at a low cost in casualties and without occupying enemy territory.(1)

As the newest precision weapons under development and testing enter the inventory, Slipchenko foresees corresponding changes in the structure of armed forces and the forms and methods of their employment. Finally, he expects yet another panoply of futuristic technologies to enter the inventory by the turn of the century: directed-energy weapons, automatic and automated high-precision weapons systems, more powerful explosives, deep-penetration ammunition, and super high-speed data processing and electronic warfare equipment. Space will become a new theater of military operations, even as the United States and Russia significantly reduce offensive nuclear weapons. These nuclear weapons will be replaced by non-nuclear strategic offensive weapons. Gradually, large ground-force operations and nuclear missiles will recede, being replaced by high-precision conventional weapons.

Six-generation warfare has already changed the laws of combat and the principles of military science. In past generations, the battlefield was confined to the earth's surface, with the vertical coordinate (primary air) playing an auxiliary or supporting role. In future wars, the emphasis will be reversed. The main vector of combat will be the vertical or aerospace coordinate, with operations on the ground playing the supporting role.

Thus, as past belligerents relied on ground forces to destroy an enemy's military assets, occupy his territory, and overthrow his political system, future non-nuclear strategic air-space offensives will efface an enemy's most important military and economic facilities, rendering him impotent to counterattack. As Defense Minister P. Grachev put it in early 1993: "If a war begins, it will be with an air-space offensive operation by both sides. Strikes on the main facilities and troops will be made from space and from the air [emphasis added]."(2) The first facilities to be hit would be nuclear power plants, chemical plants, dams, and hydroelectric centers, creating huge zones of radiation, chemical contamination, and flooding. In such a war, there will be no front.

Russian Views on Future Trends

In analyzing the destructive properties of various types of weapons, General-Lieutenant A. Paliy notes that despite their diversity, the effect on targets is determined primary by three basic forms of energy-physical, chemical, and biological.(3) Thus, the new weapons of war inflict not only medical kinetic) destruction, but also acoustic, electro-magnetic, and thermal destruction. They disrupt or destroy personnel, installations, and structures; affect people's minds and behavior; and inflict delayed hereditary, carcinogenic, fetal, or environmental damage. Inasmuch as there are properties common inherent to acoustic, electromagnetic, and certain other kinds of destruction that are of a radiated (wave) nature, they may all be classified conditionally as "radiated destruction." The Russians term the infliction of such damage, as well as protection against it, "radiated warfare," and already means of radiated destruction--laser, radio-frequency, accelerator, and infrasonic--are beginning to enter the inventory.

 Radiating weapons and equipment for electronic counter-measures (ECM) use one and the same kind of energy, but, depending on their magnitude, they can do anything from suppress the operation of enemy electronics, to irradiate personnel and hardware, to reduce national infrastructure to chaos. Therefore, ECM should be considered a type of radiated destruction, and EW a component part of radiated warfare and warfare as a whole.

Reconnaissance, of course, remains a critical element of any battle and not a kind of support, since effective destruction and protection of targets is possible only after timely identification of their composition and coordinates. The unity of reconnaissance and combat is illustrated by the introduction of "reconnaissance-strike" and "reconnaissance-fire complexes" to armed forces.

According to Soviet and Russian military scientists, reconnaissance-strike (strategic) and reconnaissance-fire (operational and tactical) complexes consist of a triad of 1) highly effective ground-, air-, and space-based reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA) systems; 2) deep-strike systems; and 3) intelligent command-and-control systems that ensure the delivery of strikes in real time. The same is true, in Russian theory, of maskirovka (cover, concealment, and deception). Its means and techniques contribute to protection against destruction and ECM, to increased survivability, and to preservation of the combat effectiveness of forces. In the skill generation of warfare, maskirovka will outgrow its role as combat support and become a round-the-clock duty of personnel, whether in peace or wartime.

Russian Views of Space-Based Systems

Like its Soviet predecessor, the Russian military argues that outer space must be viewed as a potential theater of military actions.

The Persian Gulf operation demonstrated the importance of space systems for communications, navigation, reconnaissance, and missile launch warning. At the same time, the nature of threats from space is being revised in connection with the appearance in a number of developing countries of the capability of inserting objects into space for support purposes.(4) Russian military spokesmen have repeatedly warned that the militarization of outer space requires responsive measures. It is presently impossible, they argue, to ignore the shift of warfare into space, or the American drive toward supremacy in space. According to Russian military scientists, by the year 2000, the United States will be able to deploy orbital groupings capable of the following: effectively combatting strategic missiles in flight and, if necessary, sealing off outer space; seizing the most important spheres of near-earth space; and delivering strikes from space with precision weapons or new-generation mass-destruction weapons against ground, sea, and airborne targets in order to deter enemy attacks and reinforce operations of U.S. and allied forces.(5) But according to the Russians, their own scientists and economy are capable of creating corresponding systems and countersystems. A need has matured for Russia to have its own space forces to oppose the enemy, to create ABM systems, and to conduct space surveillance. It is necessary, they argue, to prepare for space warfare(6).

In the Russian view, the forms of military operations in near-earth space will soon include the following: operations to destroy strategic nuclear (or conventional) weapons in flight; operations to destroy or prevent deployment of enemy satellites; operations to defeat orbital and ground space groupings and to seize and hold strategically (operationally) important spheres of near-earth space; operations to suppress radio-technical equipment of orbital and ground groupings of space units; and strikes delivered from outer space by "supernew weapons of mass destruction capable of paralyzing command and control of a state or coalition of states and groupings of its (their) armed forces for a certain period of time, or attaining a mass effect on the country's population without destroying installations and the environment."(7)

 The increased power, accuracy, and swiftness of strikes against enemy forces, as well as the struggle for superiority in the air-space above ocean and sea areas, will be typical of military operations at sea. All-weather space reconnaissance and other kinds of space support can detect the heading and speed of weapons, surface ships, and submarines at any time of day and provide precision weapons systems with data for essentially real-time engagement. The importance of maneuver and concealment increases under these conditions, and submarines are forced to operate at a great depth. In the future, strikes against naval targets also will be accomplished from space.

Them of Combat Systems

Like their Soviet predecessors, Russian experts see integration as critical--comprehensive integration into unified systems, at the level of divisions and armies, of reconnaissance equipment, weapons, ECM equipment, and equipment for the command and control of forces and weapons. The essence of this integration is to ensure the continuous, coordinated collection and processing of information, and to communicate data instantaneously to EW units. Under such conditions, warfare represents a process wherein complex, open, developing, dynamic operational-tactical structure--combat systems-exert a mutual effect on each other. Distinguishing features of the combat system concept include the following:

It is an integral formation based on a grouping of  army or navy forces; reconnaissance, target designation, and EW equipment; an automated command-and-control system; and other support systems. It is created by organizing coordination among them, and it is capable of changing its structure and function depending on situation conditions. (The synergy of coordinated systems is said to exceed the sum of the combat potentials of individual systems.)

The goal of creating combat systems under conditions of implementing a defensive doctrine is to prevent damage inflicted by the enemy on force groupings and installations on friendly territory and on the territory of allied countries, force the enemy to give up aggressive plans, and, if necessary, disrupt the functioning of his combat system.

 The combat system is hierarchic; each of its components is a complex system performing a particular mission, while it represents a component (subsystem) of an even more complex combat system (supersystem).

The combat system is controllable with respect to the supersystem and controlling with respect to its subsystems.(8)

Reconnaissance-strike and reconnaissance-fire complexes are an example of the simplest combat systems on a tactical scale. Their capabilities have substantially expanded, owing to the integration of weapons, reconnaissance equipment, and automated control systems. In the opinion of "foreign specialists," integrated attack systems make it possible to destroy a considerable portion of enemy targets even before making contact with the enemy and before committing friendly forces.

 Cardinal changes should be expected in the nature of warfare after combat systems of an operational and strategic scale appear on opposing sides. According to "foreign press reports," basic efforts of the U.S. and NATO military leadership are specifically directed at this. The Russians believe that by the year 2000, an operational system will be able to issue data on an over-all number of targets (3,500--4,000 targets for 1,200 strike aircraft) at the level of European theaters of military action in one minute. They are also considering a procedure for centralized decision making for engagement of targets by a large number of offensive weapons in short time periods. They confirm the advisability of creating a unified, integrated, combined-arms system in which not only reconnaissance equipment weapons, and EW equipment but also tactical command-and-control equipment would interface.

A systems-oriented, balanced armed forces development aimed at creating combat systems capable of opposing future enemy systems is a critical parameter of Russian military development at the present time. As a result, the Russian military argues for radical change in its "arms development" concept. Heretofore, Soviet doctrine decreed that creation of means--tanks, aircraft, submarines, surface ships, radar systems--was the primary object of research, design, testing, and evaluation on the assumption that each new model would be more sophisticated than previous ones. Such an approach was called ascending, straight-line arms development." In the sixth generation, the goal, not the means, must be the driving force behind research, development, testing, and evaluation; and scarce resources must go to whatever military branch or laboratory promises to develop technology relevant to the goal identified.

The first step on the path to a systems-oriented, balanced development of the Russian armed forces is to ensure that any request to develop a new weapon justify itself in terms of a combat system designed specifically to oppose projected enemy systems. Such a revolution in military research-and-development would dearly increase the effectiveness of the Russian military-industry complex, but it would require a wholesale political assault on the vested interests of entrenched ministries, departments, design bureaus, and plants used to regular budgets and ascending, straight-fine development of military technology. A systems-oriented approach, after all, precludes programs that do not meet modem demands, and would radically alter the method of evaluating priorities in military development. Any distribution of expenditures among branches of the armed forces would be justified only if it produced corresponding combat systems. For example, it would be inadvisable to construct the most sophisticated ship if it could not be employed in today's complex naval operations.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0365/is_n3_v38/ai_15595405/
Resist. Rebel. Cry out to all peoples and nations from the sky as the lightening flashes from the east to the west and judge the living and the dead. Or choose submission and slavery.

The light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.  (John 1:5)

Offline LightCaster

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
  • Global Underground Resistance
    • Galaksija
Re: WWIII Warming Up Move? Russian Nuclear Cruiser Makes Port Call in Syria
« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2010, 01:45:31 pm »
 Electronic-Fire Operation

Like their Soviet predecessors, Russian military scientists view Desert Storm as the paradigm of future strategy, operational art, and tactics. Desert Storm is said to represent one of those rare "turning points" in military affairs that stand at the juncture of two epochs. it has ended the era of multi-million-man airways and begun the era of high-tech wars fought in the air, space, and airwaves. The revolutionary nature of Desert Storm lies in its having generated such new forms of combat action as electronic-fire engagement, remote-con trolled battle, air-assault raids, deep mobile operations, and (on the Iraqi side) ecological warfare. The electronic-fire engagement played a special role in Desert Storm as the aggregate of massive and lengthy aerospace, missile, naval, and electronic strikes. It was the principal content of the operation and predetermined its successful outcome. In this case, the novelty lay in the fact that electronic countermeasures acted as a special weapon that was equivalent to fire strikes in effectiveness.

 First, Desert Storm was characterized by the significant duration of the electronic-fire phase (thirty-eight days), which surpassed the ground operations phase (four days) by many times. Secondly, a large amount of the latest EW equipment, airborne early-warning and control aircraft, and radar systems for aerial reconnaissance of ground targets and strike delivery control took part in the engagement. The employment of EW equipment previously unknown to the enemy ensured surprise. Thirty, all the most important enemy targets were continuously subjected to electronic-fire pressure to the full depth of the operational theatre, permitting the allies to disrupt enemy command-and-control and communications systems simultaneously at all command levels. Fourthly, electronic and fire strikes were precisely coordinated by objective, place, and time, thus reinforcing each other. Lastly, the intensity of the air strikes (in some phases up to two thousand to three thousand sorties per day) had no precedent in any previous war.

The result of these five factors was that the Iraqis lost almost all combat effectiveness even before the beginning of the ground war, permitting the allies' armored formations to complete the enemy's defeat without encountering organized resistance. The Russians conclude that one of the characteristic features of the new warfare is that its objectives can be achieved under certain conditions even without ground troops invading enemy territory--by conducting an electronic-fire engagement alone. That confirms the previous conclusion that large masses of ground troops will not be required in the future.

Admiral Pirumov argues that the effectiveness of information systems has led developed countries to acknowledge the dominant role of the "electronic-fire" concept of waging war.(9) in force structure and equipment, this concept manifests itself not in competing for numerical superiority in motorized rifle or tank formations, but in using industrial and technological advantages to create high-precision sea-and aerospace-based weapons and global command-and-control systems that facilitate "surprise first and subsequent massed radioelectronic and fire strikes that decide the outcome of the war without the invasion of ground forces." Pirumov argues further that war's main objective is shifting away from seizure of the enemy's territory toward 1) "neutralizing his political or military-economic potential--eliminating a `competitor,'" and 2) "ensuring the victor's supremacy in the political arena or in raw materials and sales markets." What makes this shift possible is the electronic-fire operation, beginning with a surprise air attack. Pirumov concludes by arguing that Russia's scarce defense resources must be deployed to enhance not only the fire component of combat but especially the information component.

 Countering the MTR

According to General Staff analyses, a classification of possible measures for protecting the armed forces against the new technologies of the MTR consists of the following:

Active warfare: destruction of platforms, command--and-control equipment, and weapons elements by SAM complexes (systems); electronic and electro-optical suppression of weapons systems by EW equipment.

Passive protection: reduction of one's own radar or optical signature, and of emitted signals; use of diversionary means; mobility, armoring.

Systems protection: creation of integrated air defense  systems realizing the integration of air defense and EW assets; creation of alert radar field at high, medium, and low altitudes; support of information communications with reconnaissance systems of other branches of the armed forces.(10)

In addition, Russian military experts have suggested specific counters to the Tomahawk missile. The arming of NATO surface vessels with Tomahawk cruise missiles able to strike at coastal facilities from long range has posed a critical problem--keeping the enemy ships from approaching friendly coastlines to the missile-launch line. That can be solved by a new operational anti-ship missile system with a range comparable to that of the Tomahawk. Such systems, placed on mobile launchers and maneuvering freely along the coast, should be able to hit surface targets on the approaches to missile-launch lines. And they, in combination with other shore-based missile systems and artillery, will be the foundation of a highly effective system for action against naval targets, making it possible to increase return fire to the extent that enemy vessels approach the coast.

 Russian military scientists have also examined the following specific counters to a variety of systems.

Against reconnaissance-strike complexes: fighters against airborne elements reconnaissance and communications relay aircraft); front air operation against  ground elements.

Against stealth: detection--radar, acoustic, laser sensors (multi-positional and multi-frequency radars; over-the-horizon radars; holographic radars; air- and space-based radars, EM, infrared systems, etc.; solid radar field); destruction (SAMs and fighter aircraft--S-300s, BUK SAMs and MiG-31s, SU-27s, and followons).

Against non-traditional weapons: detection and destruction of facilities, strikes by ground- and air-based radiotechnical systems; jam communications and guidance systems; troop and equipment protection--fortifications, aerosols, etc.

Against EW systems: affect software--for example, computer viruses; strikes with beam, super-high-frequency, and, especially, electromagnetic pulse weapons; electronic protection and maskirovka.

Against RSTA systems: advanced anti-radar missiles,advanced anti-radar drones.

Against command-and-control systems: perturbations of environment (tectonic); system failures (non-lethal weapons); nuclear weapons; advanced conventional munitions; computer viruses.(11)

Defensive Fire-Strike Operation

In late 1992, Russian military scientists began to describe the new "defensive fire-strike operation" designed to counter the new technologies of the MTR. They noted that by analyzing the development of the armed forces of leading world states and the practice of deploying them in military conflicts, it is possible to forecast variants of the beginning of armed conflict in a future war. The aggressor probably will begin military operations with an offensive air operation aimed at the victim's aviation, air defense, communication, and infrastructure.(12) Subsequently, the enemy command will strive to achieve war objectives either by offensive operations by groupings of ground troops with wide use of landing and raiding forces, or without the use of ground groupings, limiting itself to presenting ultimatums with the threat of limited (regional) use of nuclear weapons.

 Translating Gulf war scenarios to the Central European theater, the Russians fear that NATO may, by the late 1990s, obtain a unique opportunity to achieve the principal goals of war through fire effect without combat by major ground formations.

It therefore behooves the Russian military to devise means of surviving and repelling the first and subsequent strikes of enemy precision weapons and aircraft. But the insufficient number of airfields for aircraft dispersal and the insufficient number of reinforced concrete shelters for aircraft will complicate the Russian front commander's efforts to defend his installations and command and control. The solution to this problem lies in carrying out the following measures.

 First, redeploy a large portion of strike aircraft from Western regions into the interior of the country even in peacetime. That will permit making them unreachable by enemy tactical aircraft and cruise missiles and thereby will sharply improve survivability. Secondly, leave fighter, ground attack, and army aviation in the border zone, dispersing it by using freed-up airfields equipped with reliable shelters and aircraft mock-ups. Gulf war experience demonstrates that thousands of mock-ups made from synthetic materials coated with metallized paint and supplied with thermal emitters represented dummy targets on Iraqi territory against which coalition aircraft delivered repeated strikes. Thirdly, disrupt the enemy's tactical air command-and-control (navigation) systems by jamming or destroying the NATO E-3A AWACS radar early-warning and control aircraft.

Operations of attack aviation will have to be concentrated on uncovering and delivering strikes against ground elements of the enemy's tactical air command-and-control (navigation) system, which may be deployed in advance (several days ahead) near Russian borders. Their destruction will hamper enemy strike aircraft in approaching targets, which will substantially reduce the effectiveness of their operations. In addition, in areas where centers of front operational stability are located, it is desirable to distort the radar (television, thermal, and so on) map of the terrain by making returns of objects similar to the natural background, concealing reference points, and changing the configuration of bodies of water, river channels, and so forth.

 Clearly, air defense and EW personnel and equipment will play a critical role in repelling a first massive strike. But, instead of distributing them evenly throughout the defense zone, it is advisable to use them to cover centers of front operational stability, strengthening air defense specifically in those areas against which the enemy will strive to deliver strikes by precision weapons and tactical aviation. The air defense and EW grouping must destroy a considerable portion of enemy air weapons and disrupt the air offensive.

Finally, Russian forces must take aggressive action from the outset of an engagement against targets of vital importance to the enemy, including command posts, ground command-and-control centers, reconnaissance and air defense system elements, as well as various jammers. It makes sense to include among vitally important targets those that feed the enemy's information pipeline since, in sixth-generation warfare, the side with the most information can seize the initiative. In sum, the coming air-space battlee will be a furious "information-fire engagement" sufficient to decide the issue long before ground groupings even make immediate contact.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0365/is_n3_v38/ai_15595405/pg_7/
Resist. Rebel. Cry out to all peoples and nations from the sky as the lightening flashes from the east to the west and judge the living and the dead. Or choose submission and slavery.

The light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.  (John 1:5)