Military Review

Network centric wars - readiness number XXUMX?

34


The concept of “network-centric war” was introduced by the vice-admiral of the naval forces of the United States of America, Arthur Sebrovski, and the JNS expert John Garstka back in 1998 year. This concept implies an increase in the combat and tactical capabilities of military formations in armed conflicts and modern wars due to the existing information superiority, as well as the unification of all forces and means participating in hostilities into one single network.

Then, as it happened according to tradition, journalists who specialize in military topics, John Archville and David Ronfeld, joined the idea. They set a goal to convince members of the US Congress that it is much better and more convenient to have a lot of cheap and simple combat platforms than a few expensive and complicated ones. The same principle applies to military units. Of course, in order for their activity to be effective, it is necessary to establish communication between these units and command posts - some kind of Internet. In this case, even a small platoon, the number of which does not exceed 50 soldiers, will be a very significant force, if this formation is connected with other forces and have network contact with at least a small number of fighter bombers.

The main principle of the conduct of hostilities in a network-centric war is the creation of so-called “packs”, and the enemy is supposed to be attacked in all directions with the help of small-sized units.

The idea has been under consideration since the 90-s of the last century. Already at that time, the level of development of radio engineering and space intelligence could provide troops with current data on the enemy forces. And the introduction of GPS systems into operation, as well as the intensive use of digital maps, made it possible to link them to specific locations and goals. New guidance systems were created, in particular, Tercom, as a result of which high-precision weapon. A huge number of means of electronic warfare made it possible to suppress the enemy’s control complexes, which led to disorientation. Therefore, practically the only thing that needed to be added was to link all these means using high-speed closed-circuit channels and to ensure data transmission over this network.

In case of successful creation of a global combat Internet, which can be used to transmit information in real time, such a system will allow to monitor and control all branches and types of troops from a single center. Thus, the new system will enable the Pentagon to directly control the situation anywhere in the world, where the Americans will decide to “establish democracy”. In addition, the President will have the opportunity to observe the progress of the battle on the computer monitor and, if necessary, contact the commanders.

The implementation of the complex of all necessary components is designed for 10 years. Therefore, it must be completed by 2020 year. It will be held as part of the creation of a unified information space. It was supposed that more than 200 billions of dollars were needed for the implementation of this plan, but now only in the ground forces 230 billions were spent on the implementation of these goals.

One of the results of the program should be the creation of a global information network, designed to provide information to all elements of the national security system of the state. This network has a service-oriented architecture. The network has a structure that provides information sharing not only within one type of armed forces, but also within the network information exchange between different units and types of troops. Thus, the Global Information Network is a kind of array of satellites in orbit that monitor the entire globe.

However, having enough information and precision weapons to strike is not at all difficult. The main thing - to determine where to hit. Therefore, in the theory of network centrism, there is such a thing as a system of priority goals, the essence of which lies in the system analysis of the victim state. This analysis is based on the concept of "five rings". The main goal is, as a rule, a political leader who needs to be destroyed (not literally, not physically, but psychologically, forcing him to renounce power or leave the country). Next - the industrial and energy complex of the country. And only at the last position are the national armed forces, because with the correct implementation of the concept with them, it will not be necessary to fight, the revolution will automatically break out in the country. Vivid examples of using the ideas of the network-centric war and the concept of the "five rings" - Libya, Iraq, and now - Syria. The processes and schemes are the same everywhere, and the scenarios for the seizure of power in these countries are worked out almost to absolute perfection.

The American military-political elite does not stop at bribing the enemy’s command. This is more profitable, and the loss is less ...

Thus, the idea of ​​a network-centric war is more a mental-philosophical concept than a technical one (if, of course, to consider it in the context of the foregoing). Readiness for this kind of war is determined by the state of speculation of the military leadership, their ability to turn the decision-making process of opponents in a direction advantageous to themselves.

But if we consider technology and consider the system from the point of view of military use, the idea of ​​network-centrism is a concept of control, not of conducting combat operations, that is, in essence, this system is a reflection of technological approaches to the problem of implementing a single command of the US armed forces.

But there were quite a few high-ranking officials in the country who opposed the system of network-centric wars. Some opponents strongly doubt that the system will be sufficiently effective, that it can be used in various kinds of conflicts, in particular, in the conditions of urban combat. According to others, excessive hope for high technology can cause system vulnerabilities, because technology can fail. In addition, there are other problematic issues, in particular, whether the information systems of the coalition troops will be compatible, whether the frequencies will be sufficiently capacious for network-centric operations, how to get out of the situation in case of unforeseen situations.

The starting point of the beginning of criticism was the not-too-successful use of the system during the first Iraq war. Recall that in April 2003 between the American troops and the Iraqi army there was a battle for the bridge that crossed the Euphrates River. This bridge was the last obstacle for Americans on their way to the capital. But it was this place that almost turned into a military grave for American soldiers, and more likely a miracle than computers saved them from destruction.

And it all started quite normally. The soldiers were tasked with capturing and holding a large bridge southwest from Baghdad until the main forces approached. Before the start of the operation, the intelligence carefully examined photographs taken from satellites, reported that the bridge was not guarded and no enemy troops were observed in the vicinity. Therefore, the battle on the approaches to the bridge was an unpleasant surprise for the Americans, who were forced to hold the defenses for a day and repel counterattacks by Iraqi forces, which totaled about 8 thousand people and about 70 armored vehicles and tanks.

But the American troops were equipped with systems that are planned to be used in the network-centric war. And how did such a perfect system not find a cluster of quite a large number of people and equipment? The comments of the Pentagon on this issue sound all the more strange: the task force was moving so rapidly that it overtook the intelligence service ...

The American ground forces were armed with a system called the Blue Force Tracker, which can be used to mark the balance of forces on the battlefield. This information was supposed to be operational and updated. The system resembles a computer game: on the monitor, all the troops that take part in the battle are indicated by icons, and their forces are marked in blue, and the forces of the enemy are marked in red. These icons should be manually moved by intelligence officers, while taking advantage of the information obtained from satellites and drones.

But since the blue icons remained in place, the commanders suggested that the red ones should also be static, but in fact this was not at all the case. In practice, there was also little order. Despite the fact that the headquarters knew about the presence of Iraqi troops in the area of ​​the bridge, the commanders on the ground did not see a single enemy unit on the monitors.

Later, during a discussion of failures in Iraq, the American command, which believed in the effectiveness of the network-centric system, announced that the program and architectural flaws of the system were to blame. Intelligence officers also confirmed the information that the system turned out to be practically useless, because the information came in extremely slowly, which negatively affected the speed of decision-making. If there was a need to get new data, we had to stop, deploy a huge number of antennas, and thus establish communication with the army mobile communications system.

Some critics of the system claimed that it is suitable for conducting combat operations and conducting operations at sea and in the air, but it is completely unacceptable for the ground forces. In particular, the American General Scales, already retired, said that the idea of ​​a network-centric system, implying the creation of an all-seeing eye in the sky, turned out to be a failure in practice and had to spend hundreds of billions of dollars for this failure.

If we talk about open sources of information, it should be noted that recently in the American press there are less and less publications on network-centric wars. And those that can sometimes be seen are more and more critical. According to experts, in the American military strategy, too much space is given to innovative technologies, and in fact the hopes that they will help on the battlefield are untenable, not supported by a sufficient base.

According to the representatives of the Pentagon themselves, soon they will have to engage in battles with irregular troops, so the answer to the question: “Will the network-centric system in any new way be effective in new conditions?” Is obvious. Moreover, hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated that it is impossible to rely on technology in an environment where enemy forces are mixed with civilians.

Thus, if we talk about the “peaceful” version of the use of the network-centric system, then it has long proved its effectiveness and soundness, but this is not yet possible to say about the “military” version. Progress, of course, is very good, but the idea of ​​network-centricism during the conduct of hostilities can have not so much a positive as a negative impact, cause a decrease in the level of necessary knowledge, and also disorient commanders in real combat sites ..

With each new century, war is changing. And if before its main feature was the use of weapons, then at the present time for the start of the war it is enough to have a strong psychological and mental impact on a certain people, and then he will do everything that is needed. War, therefore, is not always physical violence, it is a zombie consciousness of the population with the help of information technology, which leads to the emergence of aggression. There is no need to go far for examples: gas war, cheese war, war of compromising ...

Materials used:
http://www.itogi.ru/exclus/2012/17/176984.html
http://www.milresource.ru/NCW.html
http://globalismtv.narod.ru/setetsentricheskaya_voina/
http://yablor.ru/blogs/setecentricheskaya-voyna/2413871
Author:
34 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 17 September 2012 09: 12
    +4
    Man assumes, but God disposes! Nothing you will get gentlemen sododomity.
    1. beech
      beech 17 September 2012 14: 48
      +3
      Hitler also wanted to capture Russia in a couple of months ..!
  2. GG2012
    GG2012 17 September 2012 09: 27
    +4
    Russia needs to take any concepts that give an advantage on the battlefield and lead to victory.
    Russia must win!
    1. Bashkaus
      Bashkaus 17 September 2012 20: 40
      +1
      I don’t know whether democracy will inevitably come, as the State Department grantosos shouted about it in the next article, but the fact that Russia will win is a fact, with or without democracy, it’s not so important
      1. Lord of the Sith
        Lord of the Sith 18 September 2012 15: 46
        +2
        I think that every Ukrainian considers it an honor to defend the brotherly people, whether it be Russians or Belarusians. I also hope that they will come to our rescue!
  3. vorobey
    vorobey 17 September 2012 09: 44
    +5
    To the author plus. I repeat, those who do not forget how to think extraordinary and sometimes make illogical decisions will remain on the horse.

    the author is right in the fact that sometimes it’s enough to undermine the state from within to win. The same video on the Internet was unnoticed for two months, and by someone’s wise providence it became a signal. But most of those who went to the embassies did not see this video.
  4. Sasha 19871987
    Sasha 19871987 17 September 2012 09: 45
    0
    next Napoleonic plans .... let them fantasize ... villains
  5. artist-mamluk
    artist-mamluk 17 September 2012 10: 23
    +3
    But history shows that any zapodny plan, very much stumbles on Russian recklessness. What is not acceptable on the flank, anyone can do here, even without a bottle.
    1. Ruslan67
      Ruslan67 17 September 2012 16: 20
      +3
      and with a bottle our man is invincible!
  6. spirit
    spirit 17 September 2012 10: 23
    +1
    with this system, you can’t follow all the opponents of course !!!!! but the coordination of your troops will increase quite a bit and reduce the loss of friendly fire by mines !!!! otherwise the Americans love to shoot in all directions !!! and everything will be displayed ! The main thing is that this signal is not hacked, and not laid out to the enemy all at a glance !!!
  7. Ascetic
    Ascetic 17 September 2012 11: 09
    +14
    The idea of ​​commanding troops using Internet-like technologies has captured the minds of the military in Russia as well. Our General Staff speaks of network-centric wars of the future for granted. Since our developments are surrounded by a veil of secrecy, we have to be content with what is in the public domain and existed before. Logically, the system should have a single general designer and cover all three levels: strategic, operational and tactical. In the Soviet Union it was - existed top-level systems ("Redoubt", "Centaur") and PASUV "Maneuver", covering the tactical command and control elements.
    But by the end of the 80s of the last century, work on the "Maneuver" (adopted for service in 1983) had practically turned off. Changes in the ordering departments of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation also did not contribute to the concentration of financial and organizational efforts to create a large-scale automated command and control system. Work was carried out only in the interests of individual command and control units of the airborne forces. System work on the automation of control points at the operational level levels was resumed after 10 years, and on the tactical level - after another 5 years.
    Incidentally, the impetus for the development of this approach to waging war for Amers was the result of the command and staff game using the US-made Maneuver complex PASUV after the collapse of the Warsaw Treaty. Then The “reds”, using the “Maneuver”, for three days were smashed into dust by the “blue”, who worked on traditional controls. Without the use of nuclear weapons. It was a shock.
    It was incomprehensible how the Russians managed to create such an effective control system on an archaic elemental base and means of communication such as “one“ Ural ”- one channel”. And this channel worked, it was impossible to intercept the communication or score it with interference! The main thing is that the time of the combat command cycle was significantly reduced.
    The Americans could only creatively take advantage of what was at their disposal and ... forward and with the song
    1. Ascetic
      Ascetic 17 September 2012 11: 17
      +10
      since the 90s Concern "Systemprom" developed ACAC "Acacia" for the operational-strategic link. By the end of 2012, with sufficient funding, the Russian army can be fully equipped with a mobile version of the system "Acacia-M" is a military analogue of the Internet. Today, such complexes are equipped with one of the control points of the General Staff, as well as the Moscow Military District and the 20th Army. This allows officers to be in the same information space, both in places of constant deployment, and when entering the field or during hostilities.
      Task to create Unified tactical management system (ESU TK) have been decided since 2000 at the Sozvezdie Concern, a leading REP enterprise for the creation of automated control systems, communications equipment for the RF Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies. Development code "Constellation-M."
      Unified digital secure field communication network is created using Madge technologies based on Wi-Fi stations.
      «
      According to the usual radio station or the radio station of the old park, the time to bring a team or combat order from the brigade commander to the unit commander was measured in tens of minutes. Now, using automated controls, from a few seconds to tens of seconds ”
      -Vladimir Fedorov, head of the department of the NGO Concern Constellation.
      The tests of the "Constellation-M" lasted until August 2008. Before the events in South Ossetia, the military did not get the hand to consider the application for the experimental military operation of the encryption and anti-jamming system. During the conflict, it turned out that The American Harris system, which was used to control Georgians, proved to be excellent
      As a result, two battalions, a couple of divisions and three tank companies in the Taman brigade were assigned to the concern for trial operation. During tests of the ESU TK segment the year before last, lasting about a week, 137 failures and failures were recorded. Of these, only 12 - due to improper actions of fighters. However, things didn’t come to practical tests again, since The Constellation was not associated with Acacia.
      Now Systemprom is waiting for the Constellation to complete its system in order to combine them with each other. The Ministry of Defense recognizes that the Sozvezdie ESU now requires significant processing. However, there is no other way.
      Even if ESU TK are brought to mind, it should be borne in mind that The Sozvezdie Concern NGO cannot yet produce more than 4 brigade sets per year, and combined arms and other brigades only in the Ground Forces - 85 ...
      So, as always, we have no end to work
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic 17 September 2012 11: 35
        +8
        In motorized rifle (tank) brigades it is used to control forces and means of air defense complex of automation means (KSA) of tactical link (battlefield) "Barnaul-T", created by the efforts of the staff of NPP Rubin (Penza). It is a subsystem of the above ESU TK
        “Barnaul-T” in the conditions of massive use of all types of aircraft from various heights and ranges offers an option distribution of targets between the target channels of various anti-aircraft systems, taking into account the minimization of ammunition consumption and the concentration of efforts to cover the most important objects. This approach allows for a longer time to maintain the combat effectiveness of the air defense formations of the Ground Forces above the minimum acceptable level.
        KSA Barnaul-T allows anti-aircraft air defense systems to go unnoticed by technical reconnaissance equipment of the enemy until the moment of opening anti-aircraft fire. And immediately after firing, in just a few minutes, combat vehicles can change their starting and firing positions without losing control.
        Ultimately, thanks to the use of KSA Barnaul-T, a qualitative improvement in the combat capabilities and combat readiness of command and control equipment increases the effectiveness of the use of ground defense units in combined combat on average by 8-14%.
        The created unified system of target allocation and target designation in the entire area of ​​responsibility of the combined arms allowed attract a minimum of firepower to the shooting and spend a minimum of ammunition.,
    2. Lieutenant colonel
      Lieutenant colonel 18 September 2012 08: 53
      0
      "It was incomprehensible how on the archaic element base and means of communication such as" one "Ural" - one channel "" But these Urals were, and it was possible to catch the radio line only on the back lobe, and then they learned the borotz. And so you are a definite plus. Thank you for reminding me.
  8. Isaev
    Isaev 17 September 2012 11: 25
    0
    "a small platoon, the number of which does not exceed 50 soldiers," and then no less "competent" by hearsay.
    1. DIMS
      DIMS 17 September 2012 11: 36
      0
      It is quite competent. See, a platoon of 47 people. Mechanized brigade "Striker"
      1. Isaev
        Isaev 18 September 2012 10: 32
        +1
        Dims, Striker - these are 2 crew members and 9 landing personnel = 11 x 4 = 44 people. Three more in what go? And most importantly, if 47 people and 5 cars are a small platoon, then what is a big platoon?
        1. DIMS
          DIMS 18 September 2012 11: 40
          0
          I have no idea. But this picture is from their combat charter
  9. Butterfly net
    Butterfly net 17 September 2012 11: 43
    +3
    In America, such a system has long existed FBCB2 ACS since 2002 in a series. http://dragon-first-ru.livejournal.com/33339.html This is not the basis of network-centric warfare. The basis of such a war is to defeat without war by any means, velvet revolutions are an example of network-centric warfare. Such a war is constantly waged against hostile states. In network-centric wars, there is nothing particularly new; we have already lost the cold one, a classic war of this type, all types of impact, economic infarmation diversion, etc. without direct command and center.
  10. Afftar
    Afftar 17 September 2012 12: 58
    0
    In my opinion, the technology is the most suitable for "toy" wars. But for the real ones ... Most likely a complete bullshit. Another money laundering through military schemes, which in 2020 will be as effective as their notorious laser.
  11. aksakal
    aksakal 17 September 2012 13: 17
    +2
    Quote: Afftar
    In my opinion, the technology is the most suitable for "toy" wars. But for the real ones ... Most likely a complete bullshit. Another money laundering through military schemes, which in 2020 will be as effective as their notorious laser

    I would not be in a hurry to pass such a sentence. Time will tell. As I understand it, with sufficient information saturation of combat units operating in a given theater of operations, self-organizing effects may arise, which, in turn, may lead to an increase in the effectiveness of combat operations. Let me illustrate with an example - the players on the field during a standard game are sufficiently informed about what is happening on the field. After all, they see the whole field and all the players who are doing what. Hence the effects of self-organization, the attack spontaneously begins and ends, and very beautiful combinations often arise. The present troops, with the current information saturation, resemble football players with limited vision of only two meters, but at the same time equipped with a walkie-talkie, along which teams like "take to the right, there is a ball!", And the like. It is clear that if you confront ordinary footballers and footballers "with a walkie-talkie", then the match will end very predictably -)))).
    Another question is that the network-centric equipment is still raw and very unfinished, but this is a matter of time.
    the author is skepticism within reasonable limits - a good thing, but you no longer have skepticism, but inertness -)))
    1. Bashkaus
      Bashkaus 17 September 2012 20: 57
      0
      That's what I think: self-organization may not fail.
      One thing has received an order and you are not discussing it, another thing:
      “Lord Raglan wants the cavalry to quickly attack the enemy in front of her and not allow him to take the guns back. Battery mounted artillery can accompany. French cavalry on your left flank. Immediately. R. Erie
      If anyone does not know, let me remind you that Battareya of the horse artillery took the order "can accompany" literally and hammered into the whole thing.
      As a result of the cream of British society, many of his sons, who remained in the Crimean land for a century, were missing.
      1. aksakal
        aksakal 18 September 2012 18: 33
        0
        Quote: Bashkaus
        “Lord Raglan wants the cavalry to quickly attack the enemy in front of her and not allow him to take the guns back. Battery mounted artillery can accompany. French cavalry on your left flank. Immediately. R. Erie
        - there are such risks. But it’s somehow illogical to do one thing and let down comrades for whom this may end in death. This can happen if acting actors (in short, soldiers or entire units represented by commanders) on this theater are used to vertical interaction (top-down orders, bottom-up reports), and then an unexpectedly horizontal element.
        During self-organization, I described horizontal interaction - when actors act in concert on the basis of mutual obligations and mutual assistance, but I repeat, this is only possible to the maximum saturation of each actor with information in real-time RMB mode).
        There are also disadvantages to horizontal interaction. Actor Petya may not know (during large-scale hostilities with a large theater of operations and a large number of participants on each side) the actor Misha, but the actor Vasya knows and interacts with both Petya and Misha. In this case, Petya can get what he needs from Misha through an intermediary, in other cases this will happen through several intermediaries. This lengthens the response time and introduces a significant distortion in the transmitted information. Let us recall lectures on the transfer of information, when several participants are taken out of the lecture hall, the announcement of the missing dog with signs is read to the one who remains. This remaining one needs to transfer the content of the listened announcement to the next one who entered. It is easy to guess that at the end of the chain, the last participant will understand that the dog is looking for a black owner, etc. In this case, vertical transmission is preferred. And in general, a sensible and optimal combination of vertical and horizontal interaction is best. And what exactly is meant by the word "reasonable and optimal combination" is the topic of a separate scientific study, which has not been disclosed and investigated until now. This is studied in graph theory.
        I summarize that the last thing I said about a reasonable combination of vertical and horizontal requires the maximum information saturation of existing actors in the RMV mode
  12. Nechai
    Nechai 17 September 2012 14: 13
    +2
    Quote: aksakal
    Time will tell

    Yes that's right. Permanent competition of armor and shell. Reconnaissance and information systems and electronic warfare, camouflage, explosive magnetic generators, satellite damage systems. Whoever is more successful in applying will receive a big plus. Unless, of course, the leadership and the great military commanders are happy with the enemy.
  13. GP
    GP 17 September 2012 14: 34
    +1
    Ringlets: bribery, blackmail - manuals; wrecking, sabotage - support system, infrastructure; deception - of the population; betrayal - the armed forces. And what's new ?! In history, when all the terms were taking shape, the state came to an end, the most striking example is Poland, 3 times it was rolled out according to this scheme.
  14. AK-74-1
    AK-74-1 17 September 2012 16: 02
    +1
    Ascetic respect for the information.
    I heard about "Maneuver" back in 1991, but never saw it.
    In general, any war is a concentration. Including control systems. Hence the ability to quickly obtain objective information, a quick reaction to the information received, it is possible to use against the enemy means and forces that significantly exceed the enemy’s units, will be the key to victory. However, it is necessary to imply that the information space will also be the objects and theater of war actions in order to sow panic among the civilian population and the decomposition of leadership, at the same time, an impact will be made on life support systems and energy, etc. Already now in fragments we see certain actions. It is very likely that the latest unrest in the Islamic world is a well-planned and well-predicted part of the military performance.
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 17 September 2012 17: 42
      +4
      Once there was such a song about the "Maneuver" system, I will add my own five kopecks.
      Work on the creation of an automated control system by the troops of the front (of all types and all levels) "Maneuver" was started in the late 60s at the SKB of the Minsk Electromechanical Plant, which had previously worked on the air force and air defense automated control system "Vozdukh 1M"
      This work was headed by General Major Engineer Podrezov Yuri Dmitrievich (now deceased), who previously worked at the Moscow Research Institute of Instrumental Automation (MNII PA). On the basis of the aforementioned Minsk SKB, he created a branch of the Moscow Research Institute of Automatic Equipment (FNII AA, and a couple of years later, somewhere in 1971, and an independent Research Institute of Automation Means (SRI SA). In a short time, NIISA became the leading research institute of the USSR in terms of developing military ACCS as well as the core of NPO "Agat", which, in addition to NIISA, included a number of research institutes and factories in Russia, Belarus, Georgia and Ukraine. Component products (from microcircuits and radio stations to mobile units like "centipedes" BAZ and armored vehicles MT LBU) "Agat" In general, the whole country. ”NPO Agat created unique simulation modeling stands and deployed a number of test sites throughout the Union. In general, the scale of work to create this system was enormous. And the results of the work were impressive. Elements of this system were demonstrated and tested in various military exercises. , including the exercises West 81. The spectators with large stars on their epaulets, especially those from the Warsaw Pact countries, had their jaws droppedfrom what he saw. The effect was so great that the system was supplied to the GSVG even before the end of all tests. And then ... then perestroika began (for it), the GSVG ended, and no one needed this system.
      But ..... the repeatedly damned "father" Lukashenko managed to retain the core of the Agat NPO staff and now this company is successfully working on the same topic, continuing the glorious traditions of the Agat NPO of the Soviet era, albeit on a somewhat more modest scale. www.agat.by
      And if the Russian leaders have the wisdom to use the potential of this and many other enterprises of Belarus for the GENERAL cause, then it may not be necessary to reinvent the wheel again and do everything from scratch., Which now generally happens.
      At least widely advertised ASUVs like Barnaul T, etc., are still a beautiful, but generally parody of individual ACS subsystems. Maneuver. Although, it’s clear. New times, new people who also want to eat, etc.
      T, e, the process is on, the process is on. Still to receive result and there will be an order
      1. Mobius
        Mobius 18 September 2012 14: 29
        0
        I had to work on one of the topics. And even not bad results were obtained on the then still DEC architecture. But ... it was time for the staff and DEC passed away quietly, and the topic was closed with him, having buried 400 owls in the ground. rubles. And the work was interesting and the collector got close together.
  15. Patriot
    Patriot 17 September 2012 17: 47
    -2
    Quote: Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov  
    Man assumes, but God disposes! Nothing you will get gentlemen sododomity.


    Quote: beech
    beech (2)
    Hitler also wanted to capture Russia in a couple of months ..!



    And that's not true. The trainers who rule my country took it with their bare hands very simply. Intoxicating its people with various crap, swelling, restructuring and replacing good human values. As a result, the Russian people were left without a homeland and country. For, all her riches now belong to the lads - a Jew with a ki m "about breeches". But, what is most surprising, they worked on the people so competently that they are still unable to adequately assess the real situation in the country! They say that when God wants to punish a person, he deprives him of his reason!


    Oppa. Instead of giving a reasoned reply, Putin's trolls again began to actively minus. laughing

    And since this forum is military, then I can say about my observations
    Well, so, to the question of any more or less sane and understanding the importance of the army putinoidu: "IF Putin IS SO GOOD, WHY WERE ALLOWED AND LETS AGAIN THE HEART TO DESTROY THE ARMY?" Nirazu did not hear any clear and intelligible answer.
    1. Butterfly net
      Butterfly net 17 September 2012 18: 19
      0
      I minusanul you for populism and anti-simitism. I, too, for Putin to leave, but I don’t troll through forums like all x, but I don’t know what x. Here they specifically write about Network-centric technologies and are not engaged in populism that the Jews are to blame for everything and Putin ug.
    2. gregor6549
      gregor6549 17 September 2012 18: 31
      +2
      Uv. t. Patriot. Patriotism is not about turning a forum of specialists who made military equipment or served on it into a branch of the Goebbels department. I am a Belarusian, but several Jews and other persons of the wrong nationality now worked with me. The general director of our NGO, for example, was a Chechen for a long time. And I can't say anything bad about my colleagues. Great hard workers were also bright minds. Maybe I was lucky, I don't know. And if you remember the history, then the chief designers or their deputies (which is more often) of many remarkable models of weapons and military equipment were again Jews, And Jews and other "wrong faces" were sitting with us for months in the steppes at training grounds, and all kinds of military units , ate completely non-kosher lard with us and washed it down with non-kosher vodka, because There were no kosher products in the steppes at that time. And then they sang with us the songs of the peoples of the USSR and swore in the great Russian language, if there was nothing without swearing. The fact that one of the Jews ended up in the "glorious row of oligarchs", so those ranks are not only famous for Jews. There is no one there. A complete international and it is still unknown who is there more. There are no statistics, alas. Therefore, there is no need to drive this blizzard here. I'm tired of it.
      1. OSTAP BENDER
        OSTAP BENDER 17 September 2012 18: 46
        0
        gregor6549! The Patriot meant the Zionist fascists, but the Jews have nothing to do with it, they are no worse and no better than Belarusians or Ukrainians! This is how all Germans are called fascists. You do not do this?
      2. Ascetic
        Ascetic 17 September 2012 23: 49
        +2
        Quote: gregor6549
        ate absolutely non-kosher fat with us and washed it with non-kosher vodka


        Not kosher "awl" often drinks But in general, completely agree ++
        Only you always need to clearly distinguish between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism which have nothing in common with each other.
  16. aksakal
    aksakal 17 September 2012 18: 39
    +2
    Quote: Net
    I minusanul you for populism and anti-simitism. I, too, for Putin to leave, but I don’t troll through forums like all x, but I don’t know what x. Here they specifically write about Network-centric technologies and are not engaged in populism that the Jews are to blame for everything and Putin ug.
    - I don’t understand what the argument is about and what does Putin have to do with it? How do you do this? - Whatever topic was brought to Putin? Whether this Putin is bad or good, the people elected him by the majority, and this is not disputed even by the most fierce opposition. There is a dispute over some percentages, such as instead of 63%, 58% was accumulated, that’s the whole argument. And once elected by the majority of the people, let us accept and respect this choice of the people for now. On network-centric wars have something to say?
  17. gregor6549
    gregor6549 17 September 2012 18: 57
    +4
    And further. Someone from the clever said that the path to democracy is through dictatorship. I will not talk about Putin, because I did not live in Russia under him, but lived in Belarus until 95, and I remember what an orgy against the Russians began to unfold in the early 90s under the rule of the "democrats" in Belarus. I also remember how the “dictator” Lukashenka stopped this orgy as soon as he became president and thereby prevented the big troubles that could happen there on this basis. And the results of the "undemocratic" rule of the dictator Lukashenko are obvious. Yes, Belarusians live poorly, but they are not rich in resources either. And nevertheless, they always received pensions and salaries, and crime in the same Minsk reduced to zero, and preserved much of what the "democrats" in the same Russia managed, if not to ditch, then to bring to the state of clinical death. Bringing the country to such a state is simple, as demonstrated by the "great democrats" Gorbachev and Yeltsin, but it will be more difficult to revive. And here one cannot do without a certain level of dictatorship, just as Stalin in the 30s could not do without it, raising the country from ruins and creating the potential that helped to withstand the war even with all the catastrophes of its initial period. Here, of course, there is a danger of crossing a certain line that Stalin crossed and which cannot be crossed, but so far no such transition has been observed. From a distance, you know better.
    1. stariy
      stariy 17 September 2012 21: 58
      0
      It’s a pity that there is only one plus that can be delivered !!!
  18. Forward
    Forward 17 September 2012 22: 00
    0
    Conclusion: for every Amer there is a bolt with a screw! wink
  19. gribnik777
    gribnik777 18 September 2012 00: 19
    +1
    In case of successful creation of a global combat Internet, which can be used to transmit information in real time, such a system will allow to monitor and control all branches and types of troops from a single center. Thus, the new system will enable the Pentagon to directly control the situation anywhere in the world, where the Americans will decide to “establish democracy”. In addition, the President will have the opportunity to observe the progress of the battle on the computer monitor and, if necessary, contact the commanders.


    In June 1941, as a result of sabotage on communication lines, Soviet troops were deprived of a single centralized command. The consequences, as you know, were a disaster.
    The more technologically advanced the process, the more vulnerable it is, the lower the cost of its violation. To trust such global automation in command and control is tantamount to suicide, because it is assumed that the enemy may have high-tech counteraction systems.
    If the conflict is nevertheless inevitable (between us and NATO), then it, as in 1941, will begin with the disruption of the nerves of control - communication systems. Therefore, such systems should not be rejoiced - they are good in wars with third world countries. And we better think about how to make them useless. This is not such a difficult task.
    Washington once wanted to turn film fiction about star wars into reality - it didn’t work. Let's see how they sing when they get burned with their Internet. It is easier to implement, but also easier to destroy.
  20. Genera
    Genera 18 September 2012 06: 04
    0
    For every military trick, the Russians will respond with unpredictable stupidity.
  21. Lieutenant colonel
    Lieutenant colonel 18 September 2012 08: 48
    +1
    Many thanks to Asket for refreshing the information about the Maneuver. The system was indeed unique and Navatarian. It is a pity that we did not have time to equip all the aircraft with it. I happened to work on an element of the system (machine MP35) - yes, the country had an elementary base, but it was invented a long time ago, but the drawing table was primitive and the map had to be "laid out", but damn it, the order was typed at once and also quickly went to the address, the situation could be to see immediately and not after the work of the "draftsman". And these were the pathetic crumbs of the system.
    On the subject of the message - somehow our military leadership immediately began to use the newfangled term "network wars". Even sometimes without giving an account of what the conversation is about. Using the example of one commander, I can give you the following example - the general believed that network-centric wars are the use of reconnaissance and destruction means in a single complex! There were generally absurdities such as ... planning an operation in network-centric hostilities ... etc. The idea is quite good (network centrism) and I think it requires development, and taking into account the mistakes made by the Americans. We need a deep scientific study of all the elements included in network centrism, but only if the development of thought is not supported by a material basis - money down the drain. I would like to believe that the constellation will be brought up, combined and implemented. If at the operational level we have progress and have something to work with, then at the tactical level the situation is rather bad. Sechas PASUV type Maneuver would be very useful for us, even an analog one)))))
  22. gregor6549
    gregor6549 18 September 2012 10: 51
    +1
    It can also be added that from the very beginning the above-mentioned General Designer of the Maneuver Yu.D. Undercuts demanded, when developing this system, to ensure the maximum possible unification of technical means (from microcircuits to mobile units) and such unification was ensured. The "exploiters" are well aware of what this means. And the element base at that time was quite modern. Great attention was also paid to ensuring the combat stability of the system in conditions of the massive impact of electronic warfare means, including powerful EMP. Were also developed many "tricks" that did not have time to introduce into production due to the restructuring of the shootout, but which would still surprise many "sworn friends" over the hill. Not to mention the fact that over a relatively short period of existence of NPO Agat, its employees received many hundreds of copyright certificates, which suggests that much of what they did was really original, and not a copy of a foreign "wunderwaffe". It is not for nothing that immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union, foreign experts flocked to gaze at these developments in droves. And what is interesting, they were allowed to look and feel everything not in the mentioned NGO (there the first department knew its business very poorly), but in the department of the infamous Pasha Mercedes by the name of Grachev.
  23. gregor6549
    gregor6549 19 September 2012 09: 16
    0
    If we talk about modern ASUVs, the attention of many specialists is drawn to ASUVs developed and manufactured by the Israeli company Elbit http://www.elbitsystems.com/elbitmain/C4I, which recently won a tender for the supply of such systems in cooperation with BAE Systems and Harris Corporation Australian Armed Forces.
    No matter how and whatever they say about Israel, they know how to do military electronics more abruptly than in the USA and other leading Western countries
  24. varvar
    varvar 26 September 2012 22: 48
    0
    Unfortunately, the author of the article (P.I.M.) purposefully promotes his idea, which consists in his (the author) erroneous idea of ​​a network-centric war, a confusion of the concepts of SCV, IW (information war), as well as strategic communication. In addition, the author purposefully tries to divert the discussion from the technical component (in the field of informatization of the armed forces) to the mentally ........, i.e. in the field of psychology and others. This mistake or deliberate sabotage can only be guessed.
    Yes, and the "news" (of the author) that network-centric warfare provides for the study of the enemy as a complex system is not news either, since not Warden (with his five rings) was the founder of this idea, but Clausewitz, who developed the theory of centers of gravity a hundred years ago.


    In short, you need to deal with the objectives of such publications.
  25. killeralex
    killeralex 20 January 2013 15: 07
    0
    Auto RU. When rerading, it would be good to refer to predecessors.

    http://bratishka.ru/archiv/2009/11/2009_11_12.php

    http://nvo.ng.ru/history/2010-08-06/14_iraq.html