Electronic warfare and heterogeneous weapons: mission in engagement.

In order to secure information supremacy, armies in the more developed world countries intensively improve communications and data transmission systems in large strategic formations and combined units of the land forces by developing fundamentally new information retrieval subsystems (battlefield visualization, network channels to access multilevel distributed databases), as well as by handing them down state-of-the-art electronic equipment. Not only does all of that turn the communications and data transmission systems into a complicated electronic computerized system with more than five- to six-fold functional redundancy, but it also leads to their transformation into information reception and transmission systems (IRTS) of large strategic formations (combined units) of the Land Forces. (1)

Developing and supplying to forces qualitatively new heterogeneous EW equipment is one of the promising lines in the endeavor to combat such systems. Some cases in point are jammers to be dropped in the enemy territory, EW precision weapons (radiation homing weapons), functional engagement weapons (FE), and program-technical effect weapons. But, along with the said assets, electronic warfare and heterogeneous weapons remain an important element in successful disorganization of prospective enemy IRTS. Notice that fire and electronic engagement efficiency and requirements for fire engagement of forces and weapons are matters that are periodically considered by this journal. (2) A number of specific methodologies for concrete classes of both EW heterogeneous resources and weapons have been brought to the practical level and are in use in line units.

At the same time, a methodological apparatus to optimize the distribution of the army heterogeneous resource of forces and weapons by targets in complex electronic computerized systems is yet, on the whole, to be developed in the due manner.

Logical techniques are the key element in the following methodology for the distribution of the heterogeneous resource of forces and weapons that are employed to disorganize complex electronic computerized enemy systems. These predetermine the sequence of transition from one type of effect to another and make it possible to order its algorithm. They can also reduce solution of a given complex problem to a totality of consecutive distribution of a homogeneous resource in accordance with the well-known methods.

A general scheme of the methodology to be used to form a rational variant of distribution of the army's heterogeneous resource of forces and weapons as it performs the task of disorganizing enemy IRTS in an army operation can be represented as five blocks (Fig.)

Forming basic data (Block 1) is planned in four consecutive procedures.

Number one procedure is about quantitative determination of an army heterogeneous resource of forces and weapons to be used to disorganize enemy IRTS in an operation as a whole. It is common knowledge that structurally an army resource may include resources of traditional ECM equipment, those of EW PW and functional engagement assets, as well as those of conventional weapons (CW). In terms of unit affiliation, it, as a rule, consists of TOE and assigned forces and assets. In a concrete operation, this resource is quantitatively limited and is regarded as a conventionally permanent magnitude for a definite time period. This is why the heterogeneous resource distribution can be reduced to a well-known problem involving maximization of its efficiency relative to a concrete operational-tactical situation.

[FIGURE OMITTED]

In turn, this initial formulation requires a second procedure to shape a combat mission corresponding to the general capabilities of an initial limited resource of heterogeneous forces and assets. At first, the procedure shapes the combat mission by consistently comparing its scope and level and later scale and required efficiency with the amount of the heterogeneous resource as defined in the course of the first procedure.

Figuring importantly in the formulation of basic data is the priority of bringing pressure to bear on IRTS targets, something that forms the core of the third procedure. It is about choosing the priorities in impacting on both IRTS info reception and transmission subsystems catering to a concrete command and control echelon and comparatively simple electronic systems of complex units within the subsystems themselves. Impact comprehensiveness is the obligatory rule in this context.

The next step in the distribution of the heterogeneous resource of forces and assets by simple electronic systems within each complex EW target is developing its execution sequence (the fourth procedure). It is about developing the logical techniques whereby to distribute the heterogeneous resource by ES within each complex target. These techniques are essentially the following. In impacting on complex EW targets (such as communications centers) possessing within a limited space several single-function simple ES as potential targets (for example, VHF, short wave, radio-relay and satellite communications lines), the first to be distributed is the resource of TOE traditional ECM assets characterized by limited capabilities (mostly in terms of power accessibility). In this context, each complex target should not be assigned more than two traditional heterogeneous ECM assets (with impact probability of not less than 0.9).

Subsequently EW assets with a definite range of effect are assigned to remaining potential targets in a given complex facility. These may be EW precision weapons or functional engagement equipment that can operate within a limited frequency band. While choosing a totality of assets intended for bringing simultaneous pressure to bear on a complex facility, one should also take into account the specifics of their individual combat employment. Reaction time, flight length, weather conditions, etc., are the likely specific features to be reckoned with.

Calculated during the implementation of the appropriate procedures (Block 1), the quantitative resource of heterogeneous forces and assets is later used to ascertain the chances of mission performance by the dedicated resource (Block 2). Direct exhaustion method is used here.

First to be selected for impact are complex facilities of a command and control agency. Whether or not it is possible in principle to comprehensively impact on a chosen complex target is consistently determined by the comparative analysis method collating a totality of simple ES in each complex facility and the corresponding weapons. If the above resource fails to cope with even the initial task, the facility is "handed over" to a universal effect FE weapon (Block 3) or conventional weapons (Block 4). It makes sense to note that employment of universal-effect FE weapons or conventional weapons against the background of a limited resource may dispense with the necessity of assigning other assets to that complex facility.

Then the developed logical techniques are used as the basis for calculating the required number of different heterogeneous assets that secure a comprehensive impact on a specific complex target, or recommendations are made for a possible build-up of the available heterogeneous resource by attracting them from a superior chief or reducing the task (Block 5).

After the entire potential resource of heterogeneous forces and weapons is used to disorganize IRTS in an operation, the maximum time of delay is determined in the flow of information in a concrete aspect of enemy command and control, this as a sum total of corresponding delays in each command and control echelon.

One would like to say in conclusion that the suggested methodology will enable rational target allocation primarily in the prospective heterogeneous EW forces and assets. It will also make it possible to develop a regulatory and computing framework to plan electronic warfare and thus enhance promptness of EW organization in operations.

NOTES:

1. Voennaia mysl', No. 6, 2005, pp. 30-34.

2. Voennaia mysl', No. 2, 2000, pp. 74-79; No. 11, 2003, pp. 37-40.

Col. Yu.E. DONSKOV (Res.)

Doctor of Military Sciences

Col. A.K. BOTNEV (Res.)