Military Review

High-precision idle shooting

52
Advanced technology is not enough to eliminate the Middle Ages.


The war against the "Islamic Caliphate" is not just a fight against terrorism. This is a war that must be waged seriously and with full effort.

The wars in Ukraine, Syria, Libya and Yemen provide great food for thought about the trends in the development of the art of war. It is quite natural that a lot has been written about this. The term “hybrid war” has become a common place, which is particularly often applied to the conflict in Ukraine. The propagandists of both sides have already repeated the phrase like “the West (Russia) is waging a hybrid war against Russia (the West)” thousands of times.

Previously, for nearly two decades, the term “combating international terrorism” was the same commonplace. At the same time, they didn’t manage to decide even what he was, and absolutely everyone began to push it to fight him. Even the teachings of strategic nuclear forces for some time considered anti-terrorism. Apparently, it was precisely in connection with bringing this term to an absurdity and the loss of any meaning that a new one was needed. No less absurd and useless.

War of words


Like international terrorism, hybrid warfare does not even have a strict definition. Most often, this implies a certain combination of classic war, rebellion, information (including cybernetic) struggle, economic confrontation and diplomacy. It is also customary to include war without declaring war. At the same time, it is completely incomprehensible what is new here and why did you need to invent a sonorous, but meaningless term?

What is new, for example, in a combination of classic war with a mint-green, in support of its partisans and foreign separatists? Was it not a combination of the war against Napoleon, in which the Russian army used partisan army units and supported the peasant forces, while the British supported the Spanish insurgents? Extremely widely, all parties used a combination of classic war with a reptile war during World War II. Even the USSR and Japan, although they did not formally fight among themselves, sent sabotage groups to each other and quite openly cultivated partisans-separatists (the Japanese were from Russian immigrants, the USSR were from Chinese and Koreans). After World War II, such things generally became the norm, as well as war without its declaration. After the Korean War, it seems no one officially declared war on anyone, although there were hundreds of armed conflicts. For example, the USA dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than on Germany in 1942 – 1945, but did not declare war on it. If you go back to the XIX century, you can remember that at the same time as the Patriotic 1812, Russia fought a war with Persia (1804 – 1813). Against Napoleon, Russia and Great Britain were allies, while, however, London openly supported Persia. During the many years of the Caucasian war, Great Britain, Persia, and also Turkey very actively helped the mountaineers, even without breaking off diplomatic relations with Russia. If you go around the world stories without chronological and geographical restrictions, such examples can be given many hundreds.

What is new in the information and psychological war? As long as there is a traditional war, there is so much an informational and psychological component in it. It is obvious. In the last century and a half, four qualitative leaps have occurred in this area with the advent of mass print media, then radio, later television and, finally, the Internet along with various mobile devices. Combined with social transformations and globalization, this has created tremendous new opportunities, allowing one to fight not only without declaring war, but without shooting at all. After all, in the same period military equipment went through a lot of qualitative leaps and technological revolutions, only from this war has not ceased to be so.

And it is completely absurd to see the newness in the use of economic and diplomatic methods. Wasn't Napoleon's "continental blockade of England" an economic war? Or the German submarine war against the Anglo-Saxons during both world? A mutual abandonment of each other with counterfeit money during the Second World War (the British and Germans were particularly active in this)? There are examples in world history not even hundreds, but thousands. Diplomacy is simply by definition an integral part of the war, for it "is the continuation of politics by other, violent means."

This raises the question: why did such a meaningless term arise? Most likely, as it was shown at the beginning of the article, it initially became a substitute for the very worn-out "fight against international terrorism" in relation to the wars waged by the United States and its allies in the Middle East. Its use to describe the Ukrainian conflict was the result of the shock that the West experienced from the actions of Russia, which it had long written off from accounts not only as a global, but even as a regional force. To explain its lack of readiness and inability to respond to these actions, a theory was urgently invented that Russia showed something fundamentally new and previously unseen in the art of war. Domestic propagandists gladly picked up the term and "returned" to the creators.

In fact, what is happening today is very reminiscent of the triumph of the classic war, which seems to have been completely canceled.

In a high-tech and network-centric warfare, there is "nothing bad but good." And to deny this is to become like Ilf-Peter's grandmother, who did not believe in electricity. Guaranteed to hit the target from the first shot - the dream of the military from the moment the concept of shooting appeared. If the development of technology makes it possible to create high-precision ammunition, they will certainly appear. If there is a means to achieve maximum situational awareness, as well as integrate your own aircraft into a single network, this will also be done. All this gives the army completely new opportunities, there is simply nothing to argue about. Just do not absolutize and bring to the point of absurdity. After all, we have already managed to observe the evolution of this concept from the triumph of the first Iraq war through “mass crushing” in Yugoslavia and “massacre of babies” in the classical phase of the second Iraq war to the infamous farce in Libya. If in the first Iraq war the proportion of high-precision munitions used by the coalition was insignificant, there was no talk of any network-centricity, but an extremely strong enemy was defeated, then in Libya only high-precision munitions were used 20 years later, the opponent was extremely weak but NATO aviation did not achieve anything at all (Gaddafi was overthrown by bribing allied tribal leaders and the actions of Western PMCs).

It is already quite obvious that quality does not cancel and does not replace quantity, and the means of destruction should not be more expensive than the target destroyed by it. Actually, these factors are directly related. In a network-centric concept, information networks combine platforms, that is, traditional military equipment (Tanks, airplanes, ships, etc.). The network dramatically improves the efficiency of platforms, but this does not make it more important than them. It is the platforms that are still primary. Moreover, they are the carriers of those very high-precision munitions. Moreover, even with one hundred percent accuracy of the hit (which is almost impossible in a combat situation), it is impossible to hit more targets than there are ammunition. That is why the quantity factor has not disappeared.

High-precision idle shootingIn addition, both platforms and weapons cost money. If your ammunition costs as much as the enemy platform struck by it, it means that in the economic aspect you suffered the same damage as the enemy. You can, of course, put the question in such a way that by destroying the platform you prevented the damage it could cause to you. But here we are again returning to the question of whether your high-precision ammunition (or money for it) will run out earlier than that of the enemy platform, after which it can cause you any damage. In the course of the aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999, the NATO countries suffered almost no losses, while, however, their costs of the operation turned out to be almost the same as the damage they had inflicted on Yugoslavia. However, at that moment almost no one noticed, because with the number of platforms and ammunition, NATO still had no problems, and the total economic potential was almost three orders of magnitude higher. But in Libya, the stalemate of such an option became apparent. Since the United States almost completely eliminated the campaign, for Europe the war became a complete disgrace. Fighting without any opposition from the enemy’s air defenses, the European Air Force’s NATO countries spent almost all of their very expensive ammunition in five months, burned a huge amount of kerosene, which was very expensive at that time, and could not ensure their victory on the ground by their Libyan allies. They could not even knock out all the equipment available to the forces of Gaddafi, although it was scrap metal, produced at best in the 80-e, besides ugly exploited. I had to buy the leaders and use PMCs.

Thus, high-tech and network-centric, if brought to an absurdity, do not guarantee victory even over a weak and archaic adversary. If the European-type army, that is, high-tech, but with a limited arsenal and panicked for losses, will encounter an opponent with a large number of platforms (albeit not entirely new) and well-trained highly motivated personnel, its defeat is virtually guaranteed. High tech doesn't help. That is why the circle of opponents, against whom the Europeans are ready to fight, is reduced to almost zero. Those now remain only in tropical Africa.

Americans, not only with quality, but also with the amount of equipment and with the motivation of personnel, are much better than the Europeans. Nevertheless, they have already begun to guess that high technology and network-centricity, on the one hand, have no alternatives, and on the other, they are not a panacea. For example, because the whole network-centricity and a very significant part of the accuracy can be lost at the same time if the enemy effectively applies the EW tools. And this may be the strongest shock for the US military, who are psychologically unable to fight without absolute technological superiority over the enemy and simply this is no longer trained. If, moreover, the enemy puts up many platforms, albeit somewhat inferior in quality to the American ones, he may well count on success. And if the army, which is also a high-tech and network-centric, will be in front of the US Armed Forces, it will be a classic war at a new level. In which the decisive factors will be the number of vehicles, the level of combat and moral and psychological training of personnel.

As you know, no weapon, including nuclear, no technology has become someone's monopoly for any long time. Therefore, the term "high-tech war" in its current understanding in the foreseeable future will lose its meaning. After all, for example, the Second World War was extremely high-tech compared to the First. Today, there is only a transition of the classical war to the next technological level. There will be at least one more such - when the mass robotization of the aircraft occurs. He may be the last, but that's another topic.

Without partisan

He is going through a no less interesting transformation.

By itself, the fact of domination in the last half century of rebelliousness over the ordinary cannot cause doubts: in almost all current wars, at least one participant is a non-state actor. It fits perfectly into the modern trend of total denationalization of all that is possible and impossible. That is why PMCs are so popular, crowding out the regular state aircraft. In addition, it is well known that for the regular army it is much more difficult to fight against partisans than against another army, which additionally stimulates non-state actors to fight against state ones.

However, recently a very interesting trend is beginning to be observed here - non-state actors more often act as regular armies, that is, they are leading not a partisan, but a classic war, destroying the very meaning of the notion of "lean-green".

So, in 2011, in Libya, both sides acted in exactly the same way, using purely classical methods. The fact that the Toyota SUVs were used in battles more widely than armored vehicles was due only to its lack due to extreme wear and tear. In Syria, the rebels of all stripes, capturing many techniques of the Syrian army, also very quickly moved from the guerrilla to the classical methods. Not the slightest partisan was and is not in Ukraine, the civil war there on 100 percent is of a classic nature. The same is true of the Yemeni Khousits ​​- they have a full range of ground equipment, which they use in battles against government forces and the "Arabian coalition." In all cases, problems with the rebels only with aviation. It remains the monopoly of government forces in Ukraine and Syria, in Yemen it is replaced by the “coalition” BBC. However, the Housits ​​have a substitute for aviation - tactical missiles P-17 (Scud) and Point, which are used very effectively. In Libya, the rebels had aviation (not their own, but NATO's).

The phenomenon of the “Islamic Caliphate” turned out to be a kind of apotheosis of the transition to a classic form of mild-green. His predecessor, Al-Qaeda, became the personification of the very concept of restlessness and, in fact, a synonym for international terrorism. This is a network structure, which everywhere and nowhere, has no controlled territory and does not even try to create at least some semblance of state institutions. Such a device organization seemed the key to its success. Nevertheless, over a decade and a half, those countries that were the main goals of Islamic terrorism - the United States, Russia, and Israel succeeded (first of all with purely force methods) either to completely suppress or minimize and marginalize terrorism in their territories. Al-Qaida still operates in Syria (represented by Dzhebhat en Nusra), Nigeria, Yemen, and Algeria. However, the crisis of the structure was obvious, the emergence of the “caliphate” was its most vivid manifestation.

The Islamic Caliphate turned out to be the exact opposite of al-Qaida. It is a state with a territory and all the institutions it requires, the construction of which receives a lot of attention. Yes, this state is openly criminal and completely totalitarian, but nonetheless. Nazi Germany was the same, but no one doubts that it is a highly valuable state. Interestingly, the “branch” of the “caliphate”, which arose in Libya covered by chaos, builds itself as a state on the territory it controls. Apparently, the same will happen in Afghanistan if the “caliphate” displaces the Taliban who are inclined towards the traditional partisan movement.

One of the state institutions of the "caliphate" is the army. Having seized a lot of equipment in Syria (not only among government troops, but also among various opposition groups, especially the “moderate pro-Western”) and even more in Iraq, whose military forces have already broken up, the “caliphate” has created full-fledged ground forces equipped with a large number of armored vehicles and artillery. Only with aviation he has problems. Nevertheless, he wages a classic war, not a partisan or a terrorist war. Terrorist attacks with the help of suicide bombers are sometimes used, but they are only some specific substitute for special forces (this also applies to what happened in Paris), and by no means the main, and certainly not the only way to conduct combat operations. The war against the "Islamic Caliphate" is no longer a fight against terrorism. This is a classic war. It must be led seriously and with full effort. Only almost no one wants to admit it. In the West, there is no one who wants to fight seriously and with full effort.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/28152
52 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. PQ-18
    PQ-18 26 November 2015 18: 08 New
    +3
    Nevertheless, he [the caliphate] is waging a classic, not partisan, and non-terrorist war.

    DO NOT AGREE! (With the author)
    by all indications ..
    CLASSIC semi-anarchist partisan war
    with terrible elements of TERROR, both the local population and ... "civilized humanity", genocide on religious and ethnic grounds, the destruction of cultural, religious and historical values ​​of ALL MANKIND and individual peoples!
    with a pseudo-religious ideology, as the main bait for RECRUITING!
    There is an analogy with the PIRATE republic in the Caribbean in the 17-18 centuries.
    1. oleg-gr
      oleg-gr 26 November 2015 18: 11 New
      +3
      History repeats itself. Just as in the 30s of the 20th century the West set Hitler against the USSR, so now they count on the Islamists' campaign against the Russian Federation.
      1. 79807420129
        79807420129 26 November 2015 18: 23 New
        +9
        If thermonuclear war breaks out, pah, pah, pah, God forbid, the next war will be fought with a bow and arrow.
        1. 3axap82
          3axap82 26 November 2015 18: 35 New
          +9
          Tentacles and chews))
        2. Tor5
          Tor5 26 November 2015 19: 21 New
          +1
          I believe that the next one will simply not be. No one.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. ver_
          ver_ 26 November 2015 20: 06 New
          0
          ... to be afraid of wolves - do not go to the forest ...
          1. Corporal Valera
            Corporal Valera 26 November 2015 21: 20 New
            +5
            Quote: PQ-18
            DO NOT AGREE! (With the author)

            I do not agree either. The war began to have a fundamentally new character! It is characterized, rather, not by its means of conduct, but by targets for defeat. Who else, a hundred years ago, had the idea to bet on the mental defeat of the enemy, and this is precisely how the Soviet Union was destroyed! Yes, and new tools are available! For example, the creation of a regulatory framework aimed at scrapping traditional values! What is this if not a means of warfare? Parent 1, Parent 2, LGBT, juvenile, destruction of the institution of the family - these are weapons aimed at fragmenting the enemy and destroying statehood as such! Did such methods fight 50 years ago?
            1. gladcu2
              gladcu2 27 November 2015 00: 11 New
              +2
              Corporal Valera

              Bravo. You definitely said that you used mental weapons to hit the target. Analyze, determine how this is done.

              Now come up with a lead.

              And I'll tell you. This is called social engineering.
              1. Corporal Valera
                Corporal Valera 27 November 2015 03: 29 New
                +1
                Quote: gladcu2
                Bravo. You definitely said that you used mental weapons to hit the target. Analyze, determine how this is done.

                Very polish praise of my humble conclusions. However, your call for analysis is clearly redundant. Here and so everything is in plain sight. “This is done” is a substitution of the meanings of the so-called social being. And your, so to speak, hint, in the form of social engineering, played here not even the third, but the tenth role. She, of course, had a place to be, but, as a GRITZA, a healthy mind in a healthy body! But there were problems with the spirit. You see, society cannot organize with an infinite number of ideas. Simply put, a state cannot be strong when there are simultaneously monarchists, communists, nationalists, anarchists, liberalists, pederasts, etc., and all offer their brilliant ideas with approximately the same efficiency. This is where fertile ground for social engineering is! And most importantly: capitalism, by its definition, seeks to atomize society! Well, "who is to blame", like, indicated, now - "what to do." Judging by your prompt, you suggest our specialists to foresee the actions of our “partners” and rebuild the psychological cubes of our compatriots in advance. Personally, I am against! It is humiliating somehow. It seems like where you turn our compatriots - they will go there. Chekhov has a story, excuse me, I don’t remember the name, there aunt saw one events around, but could not make an opinion about them. For many years, our government itself has been doing so that people could not make up their minds! So they couldn’t say: Yes, I’m sure that this is so! And the roasted rooster pecked at the opera - all of a sudden they began to look for a national idea that would unite our atomized society! But the chota cacta is still inconclusive. So that's what I mean, look how the Olympics rallied us! How hockey fans screamed a hymn, the words of which 5 years ago were known only by specially trained people! Then there was Crimea, Donbass, Syria ... Our government needs to stop hanging out like an ovno in the ice hole, and engage in long-term goal-setting. For decades. Finally, we clearly articulate the goals of our state, identify the interests of Russia, not a handful of doherarchs, but Russia! Make people feel and believe in these goals! This will be the national idea! This is what the States are strong for, no matter what the president comes to power.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Corporal Valera
                  Corporal Valera 27 November 2015 04: 51 New
                  0
                  PS to the previous comment.
                  Sorry, I forgot to indicate that all of the above is relevant only to the Republic of Ingushetia and the Russian Federation. There were no objective reasons for the collapse in the USSR! There were only subjective, in other words, social engineering occupied a leading place.
                  1. gladcu2
                    gladcu2 27 November 2015 16: 18 New
                    0
                    Corporal Valera

                    The USSR was destroyed precisely by the method that I say. Changed the original source of value, morality.

                    Methods Change of story. The priority of egoism over public morality.

                    It was done through the scientific and creative elite.
                    The USSR has created a fairly comfortable environment for people of this specialty. By nature, writers, artists and geniuses are selfish. They require universal and limitless recognition. Therefore, they, and with their help, are the degradation of society in favor of the privatization of public goods and individual property.

                    This model provides a tool for quick understanding. There will be progress or regression.
                    1. Corporal Valera
                      Corporal Valera 28 November 2015 14: 34 New
                      0
                      Quote: gladcu2
                      The USSR was destroyed precisely by the method that I say. Changed the original source of value, morality.
                      Methods Change of story. The priority of egoism over public morality.

                      Well, here you are very mistaken.
                      The “original source of value” was just not changed, but saved! The religious-semantic structures of Orthodox Christianity have been preserved in the face of a decline in the authority of church methods of preserving such meanings. Society was rapidly moving from ideal cults to material ones. And communism gave a new, material, concept of maintaining church-religious meanings and preserving statehood in the new conditions.
                      Ask any communist whether he recognizes the cult of labor, conscience, honesty, mutual assistance, equality, non-possessiveness, sacrifice ...
                      He will naturally say “YES”. These are all gospel values! But at the same time he will call himself an atheist
                      Materialism is not as a goal itself, but as a tool! He became a goal in the Khrushchev USSR.
                3. gladcu2
                  gladcu2 27 November 2015 14: 49 New
                  0
                  Corporal Valera

                  Do not write spatially. Write the gist.

                  Any statement must be reduced to a minimum, then the information is transmitted in the most accurate form. V.I. Lenin has many volumes, but who read them.

                  The model of world governance can be simplified with a change in the moral attitudes of a person literally from birth.

                  The confrontation in two directions.

                  Selfish morality. Regressive. The false is imposed from the outside by artificial methods.

                  Collective morality. Given to man by the nature of development. Progressive. Truthful.

                  Over the past 30 years, state intervention in families has been ubiquitous in all countries. Revision of the role of women in society, feminism. Revision of education systems on selfish generational development. Homosexuality advertising.

                  Understand where regression and progress can be determined by determining how the process works on individual interest or collective.
                  1. Corporal Valera
                    Corporal Valera 28 November 2015 14: 40 New
                    0
                    Quote: gladcu2
                    Do not write spatially. Write the gist.

                    Sorry if you have many beeches. I will cut.

                    Quote: gladcu2
                    Understand where regression and progress can be determined by determining how the process works on individual interest or collective.

                    So how is it? Did you understand? Why then does a capitalist fragmented society develop more efficiently throughout history? Or is it depending on what to compare? If you compare with the same USSR?
          2. 3axap82
            3axap82 27 November 2015 11: 18 New
            0
            From the point of view of politics, you are right, but from the point of view of an ordinary person this is a crime against the planet. On the other hand, there is no big war just because both sides know that there are people in the leaderships of countries who are able to give orders for a missile strike.
            1. gladcu2
              gladcu2 27 November 2015 16: 19 New
              0
              Zakhar82

              There are always egoists who do not care.

              So that stability is a conditional matter.
    2. Terrible_L.
      Terrible_L. 26 November 2015 18: 12 New
      +7
      You are my hero, the first who mastered such a large-scale analytical article and gave a thoughtful comprehensive comment! good
      1. MstislavHrabr
        MstislavHrabr 26 November 2015 21: 23 New
        +2
        My conclusion: in Syria - it is necessary to preserve high-precision expensive ammunition and where you can bomb conventional. Save on recycling.
    3. NDR-791
      NDR-791 26 November 2015 18: 23 New
      +5
      I’ll tell you that it’s not a stupid destruction of cultural property, but the destruction of what cannot be sold. Moreover, we all hear and see about the destruction, but about who bought it ??? what was taken out? Now, if our services can cover this aspect, then the most interesting thing will begin - without any empty bazaars - that is the person who needs this war !!! And only so!
      1. Oprychnik
        Oprychnik 26 November 2015 19: 17 New
        +4
        The author is right. The total war will be won not by the technologies that will be turned off after the first nuclear warfare, but by the number of reeds hidden in the attic in advance, as well as the morale of the people participating in the clash, which is why I have a wry grin at the assertions of some strategists that in the clash of Kim from North Korea and their opponents, South Korea will win because of its technical superiority. All the technology will end in the first week, and then Kim will roll out the T-55, and possibly even the T 34-85, and the kirdyk of "Western democracy" from shelters. Everyone will study the ideas of Juche!)))
    4. Bashibuzuk
      Bashibuzuk 26 November 2015 19: 03 New
      +2
      Lieutenant Izhe ....
      I would ask you to recall the years 1917-1919 in Russia.
      Draw two straight lines, between the I-caliphate and what was in Russia.
      And see if they intersect? Are they parallel?
      Or is Lobachevsky’s geometry still more applicable?
      .
      Khramchikhin is right. All 100% right.
      Coming up tricky terms is kind of a corpse make-up service.
      Everyone knows everything - but it looks beautiful.
      And the whole calico.
      .
      .
      PS. Let's count how many and whom destroyed these I-caliphs? It turns out to be unexpectedly small compared to, say, PolPot or Pinochet.
      At the level of losses in Yugoslavia from the bombing of Americans.
      Rђ RІRѕS, as represented in the media disinformation is already a huge topic for research.
      Why so?
    5. SPACE
      SPACE 26 November 2015 19: 05 New
      +3
      Quote: PQ-18
      DO NOT AGREE! (With the author)

      Really some kind of nonsense. ISIS from a small terrorist group, in the absence of serious resistance, naturally grew, which led them to use a kind of army tactics, since in this case it is much more efficient to manage troops while holding large territories, and if there are such territories, in turn, it becomes possible to use equipment and artillery, since freedom of maneuver appears. In fact, this is approaching a large-scale war with a conditionally low intensity of fighting and the use of weapons. But this will last exactly until they are counteracted, especially in accordance with the tactics of distance combat and the use of high-precision weapons, which Russia now does, whose primary goal is to completely disrupt the enemy’s communications on its territory and reduce the intensity of their military operations, that force him to again abandon the use of heavy and complex types of equipment and army tactics and move on to locally petty conflicts and a secretive semi-guerrilla warfare, where they will need to counter e other tactics ...
      1. Dembel77
        Dembel77 26 November 2015 20: 50 New
        0
        I agree with the author, and here's why. In the process of evolution of mankind, methods and methods of waging war have evolved. But mainly due to the development of technology and the creation of increasingly effective means of destroying the enemy. But this one day the limit will come, i.e. economically, the end will not justify the means. And then you have to shoot at the sparrows from a gun, and not from a gun. True gun will be completely different than it seems to us now. Those. something like this - they traveled around or better flew over a thousand hectares with the enemy inside this territory, scattered powerful emitters, covered the territory with a powerful special electromagnetic field and that’s all. Inside the perimeter is clean. Then the next section. Etc. Well, or something like that. Developments probably already exist somewhere. Yes, it seems like the Americans developed such weapons. But for now, we are fighting with what we have. And our VKS in Syria is doing very well, because the main thing in any war is people, and they are wonderful with us. “Our cause is just, the enemy will be defeated, victory will be ours”
      2. Oprychnik
        Oprychnik 26 November 2015 20: 54 New
        +1
        The question, of course, is interesting. It is likely that flying Tu-160 through Gibraltar and shooting high-precision, very expensive x-101 missiles against terrorists is of some propaganda value, but from a military point of view, this is the same as beating a mosquito with a sledgehammer or shooting a sparrow with a gun. Media, a strike of 26 cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea cost the taxpayer 10 billion rubles. All the adversaries marveled, and immediately shot down our Su-24. However, for greater effect, tactical YAZ should be placed on the launched missiles.
        But again, this would not be a victory in this war.
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. max702
      max702 26 November 2015 21: 41 New
      +4
      The author touched on the topic of manufacturability and high cost .. BUT did not touch on the most important PURPOSE of the war .. What is it up to? Yugoslavia in order to remove the rebellious politician and set his own for the implementation of further plans, in Libya in order to destroy a strong state claiming to be a leader and create chaos in the region again for the implementation of further plans. The same problem is faced in Iraq and Syria all over BV, Africa, Central Asia, that’s the appropriate means to be chosen, destroyed the country, wreaked havoc .. well, great! The primary goal has been achieved, there is no science and education, and therefore competent and trained competitors, the industry has been destroyed, that is, they have dealt with competitors, and this all saves resources for future generations of "civilizers" .. How much oil was produced before all these conflicts and how much right now? And besides, these mining capacities are worn out and a decline is inevitable in the coming years. And the locals will not be able to restore them on their own, no knowledge of non-industrial potential, everything is destroyed .. What is your purpose? Moreover, she is clearly not alone. The global goal is to create a gap in technological generations not in 1-2, but 3-4 at least, and then you can do whatever you want .. You’ll excuse me, but you won’t fight against the “Apaches” with silicon guns, all that any “rebels” are fighting now "a product of very high technology and without MANPADS, ATGMs, radio communications of high-quality drugs, vehicles, a successful war is IMPOSSIBLE! Now there is a period of formation of a new world order and all fighters have plenty of high-tech equipment, but when this trickle is reached and will be blocked, where will they take it? Its production is not and is not expected, trophies and previously delivered will end, And ..? Where to get everything from? Previous sources do not give, because the goals for which everything was set cannot be obtained by force, bickering among themselves will begin, and will lead to even weakening of the remaining ones, someone will survive and possibly be among the same ones, but for those who have everything organized they will be an empty place that does not carry any threat .. Think about why Israel is so calm, perfectly seeing how the IS monster is growing? We used a similar scheme, ruined science, education, medicine, industry, moral character and much more that is not noticeable at first glance. What time will come out of this will show ..
  2. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 26 November 2015 18: 10 New
    +1
    Against any scrap, there is another scrap. It’s a matter of technology to get the devils out of Syrian land. As they say, do not send the guys, soon everything will be hockey! Now the question is for the most part about the interaction of our countries in the post-war period and these prospects are wonderful! We must be patient ..
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 26 November 2015 18: 29 New
      +3
      Expelling is not a solution. To drive out means to move to another place, but do we need it? It is necessary to level completely and completely, what is possible. The most cunning ones will flee and now they will have to be caught in different countries for a long time, unfortunately.
  3. arnulla
    arnulla 26 November 2015 18: 12 New
    0
    Nuclear ammunition certainly does not crash idle ..)))
  4. polite people
    polite people 26 November 2015 18: 12 New
    0
    An attempt to create an international Islamic caliphate is doomed to failure. All over the world they have already understood that this is the path to the abyss. Russia has been given the right, soon everyone will see it — to be at the forefront of the destruction of this nits. soldier
    1. Simple
      Simple 26 November 2015 19: 24 New
      0
      Quote: polite people
      An attempt to create an international Islamic caliphate is doomed to failure.



      I think no".
      And for some reason:
      Firstly, he (the international Islamic caliphate) is constantly inspired by someone.
      But in the age of money-grubbing and profit-quality that dominate in our World, this social formation (in the form that the Prophet Muhammad professed to people) is not possible.
      But it is possible to use faith precisely in the mainstream of money-grubbing and profit.
      Until the creation of the likeness of the mafia, only the level of solving problems it has is state.

      Nobody wants to create an international Christian state.
      And why? Because Christianity is based on mercy (we were brought up like that) and you can’t get much land with it.
      Although, cops are known from the history of mankind in which violence spread under the guise of Christian missionaryism around the world.
      This is to the question that nothing is permanent (in terms of choosing an instrument), in achieving strategic goals of the state (in the time interval of its existence).

      One or another current of religion will probably always be perverted for selfish purposes.

      It so happened in our World - Angels do not walk on our Earth, but everyone in them (to one degree or another) believes.
      This is the root cause of one of the methods of managing people.
  5. Neophyte
    Neophyte 26 November 2015 18: 13 New
    +1
    In addition to all these factors, the presence of intelligence about the enemy makes it possible to most accurately hit the enemy. The success of the air forces was based mainly on information received from the Assad government forces.
  6. NDR-791
    NDR-791 26 November 2015 18: 18 New
    +2
    In the article, in fact, everything is correctly decomposed. For war, according to Napoleon, three things are required - money, money and money. And the blood of war since the time of the First World War is oil !!! Having added both components, we get what we see. They are trying to take both of the relatively weak Syrian government, BUT in Syria we have interests and we WILL defend them and defend them, I think. Turkey (or rather, the president’s family) has its own interests, but this only means that the Erdogan family has entered into a personal conflict with Russia. How it ends - see the history textbook for the 5 class. And yet, go not the first I’ll offer - "I bought a Turkish vegetable - I helped ISIS veterans." Something like this...
  7. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 26 November 2015 18: 18 New
    17
    "If your ammunition costs as much as the enemy platform it hit,
    that means, in economic terms, you have suffered the same damage as the enemy "////

    Categorically incorrect. It is necessary to compare with the damage that could cause
    enemy platform.

    For example, a missile launcher that hit an enemy bomber carrying nuclear weapons will pay off
    yourself even if it costs a hundred times more than that bomber, even if
    her body will be of pure gold!
    1. anip
      anip 26 November 2015 18: 47 New
      +2
      Right.
      And more:
      During the aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999, NATO countries suffered almost no losses, however, however, their operation costs were almost the same as the damage they caused Yugoslavia. However, at that moment almost no one noticed this, because NATO still had no problems with the number of platforms and ammunition, and the total economic potential was almost three orders of magnitude higher. But in Libya, the impasse of this option has become apparent.

      And here is a comparison of costs, if, in the end, Yugoslavia and Libya lost.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. i80186
      i80186 26 November 2015 19: 04 New
      -1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Categorically incorrect. It is necessary to compare with the damage that could cause
      enemy platform.
      .
      For example, a missile launcher that hit an enemy bomber ...

      Well, missiles are cheaper than airplanes at times. That is why they appeared in nature. As well as in general all means intended to combat means of attack.
      You just did not understand what was going on. We are talking about a cruise missile, which instead of a thermonuclear warhead to the mine with ICBMs, brought 500 kg of explosives to the ragged camp with machine guns. To the camp where the company of infantry and a tank platoon were supposed to come. And if the party to the conflict cannot realize this, then its destiny is defeat, sooner or later.
      1. Horn
        Horn 27 November 2015 07: 34 New
        -1
        Absolutely right! During the Second World War, if I am not mistaken, 1 cartridge cost us 37 kopecks. If you take a hundred cartridges for the destruction of one lousy woodpecker with a machine gun, then the destruction of a company of such bearded men with small arms will cost incomparably cheaper than one rocket. The trouble is that, having become accustomed to comfort, we are not ready to kill face to face. In the distance, please. And cut the throat - fire. Discomfort. But the wild and primitive - they can. To defeat savages it is necessary to kill cheaply. Since we cannot kill with a bullet, we must poison or burn. Without looking back at the so-called global community. Poison like rats.
    3. Weyland
      Weyland 26 November 2015 19: 54 New
      +1
      So in the article, your objection is provided and the answer to it is given:
      You can, of course, raise the question so that by destroying the platform you prevented the damage that it could cause you. But here we come back to the question whether your high-precision munitions (or money for them) will run out earlier than the enemy of the platform, after which he will be able to inflict any damage on you.

      And the enemy, do not be, nuclear weapons will be saved, and in the first wave "for slaughter" with high-precision weapons will launch those platforms that are not a pity!
      1. ver_
        ver_ 26 November 2015 20: 24 New
        -1
        ... do not fool around - you can not compare sweet and white, your pain and someone else's pain, and so on ...
    4. The comment was deleted.
  8. Mama_Cholli
    Mama_Cholli 26 November 2015 18: 23 New
    +2
    America is most fortunate, in any case with a geographical location. Therefore, she believes that feeding partisans / terrorists is not dangerous for herself.
    Apparently this error stems from the fact that no one has yet bothered to heat up certain processes in Central America, and even in the popuias itself.
    I think that together China and Russia can do it. To swing from one hemisphere to another ...
  9. DobryAAH
    DobryAAH 26 November 2015 18: 27 New
    +1
    Mikhail Delyagin believes that the United States will be able to wet us with impunity in 18, but I believe that the missile defense system will not work for them, everything will end very sadly for them. Let them take a chance ...
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 26 November 2015 18: 37 New
      +1
      I also think. In addition to technology, there is a human factor. And this factor is fully taken into account when calculating unacceptable damage. At the same time, I also think that they are trying to prevent us from rearming for the 18-20 year. If no crazy Pakistan starts a nuclear war, then we can handle it.
  10. tasha
    tasha 26 November 2015 18: 29 New
    +2
    To the last paragraph
    The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, founded in the 1996 year by the Taliban movement, also had all the attributes of a state, successfully lasting at least five years.
  11. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 26 November 2015 18: 33 New
    +1
    The war against Daesh is, first of all, the war of ideologies. A consumer society, which has reached an impasse, and a hungry, fierce, YOUNG mass of boys, without towers showing off among themselves, measured in coolness, not afraid of death. This is the result of a fertility explosion in the Middle East.
    A cruel felling ahead, and Russia will win, because it has the will and strength. Who wants to survive - will join us, the rest - will be devoured.
  12. Indifferent
    Indifferent 26 November 2015 18: 35 New
    +3
    To call the article the correct language does not turn. It is clear that even the richest countries cannot use expensive weapons for a long time. It will simply end, and the plants will not be able to make up for the losses in time. That is why our attack aircraft and bombers are currently pouring the most common barrels of explosives onto the heads of the enemy. And cruise missiles, "flying into the window" are used exclusively for testing the use of new weapons. Indeed, in the war we have not experienced it yet. Despite the high cost of all these missiles.
    But there is one more aspect. Even the most expensive weapons in mass production are sharply cheaper. If the missile control head now costs 300 rubles. There are no guarantees that in mass production it will not be one silicon crystal worth 000 rubles. Then the rocket will cost only a little more than the same barrel with tol. All this will become clear during the development of armaments in the next 3000 years.
    With regard to direct clashes, the army always brings victory. Lermontov also wrote: "The infantry is moving after it (the cavalry) and its aspiration strengthens with its heavy tread." And here an important role is played by simple, relatively cheap and powerful weapons. This is artillery and mortars. For a long time they will be the main ones on the battlefield, even with the use of robots. Who has more trunks and shells for them, he will crush the enemy.
    Here's something like that, in short, so as not to polemize on the same article.
    What a long way to go. When I found out how much one shell of an ultra-precise gun costs, I realized that this was not for battle, but for the museum. Or really for terrorists, when one thing you need to get into the house for 40km.
    1. andj61
      andj61 26 November 2015 19: 49 New
      +2
      Quote: indifferent
      With regard to direct clashes, the army always brings victory. Lermontov also wrote: "The infantry is moving after it (the cavalry) and its aspiration strengthens with its heavy tread."

      I completely agree with the first sentence! But with the second - no. stop
      Still, this is not Lermontov, but an excerpt from the poem of A.S. Pushkin "Poltava".

      Sons favorite victories,
      Through the fire of the trenches, the Swedes rush;
      Worrying, the cavalry flies;
      Infantry moves after her
      And his heavy firmness
      Her aspirations strengthened.
  13. V.ic
    V.ic 26 November 2015 18: 42 New
    +1
    Good analysis, only here is a veiled thesis
    And if the US Army faces an army that is also high-tech and network-centric, it will result in a classic war at a new level. In which decisive factors will be the amount of equipment, the level of combat and moral-psychological training of personnel.

    USA’s moral not preparedness for a conflict with the Russian Federation / well, I'm sorry, I understood that / I think it’s somewhat incorrect. Although it is not in the tradition of the USA to get involved in the war first, but to unleash a military conflict by someone else’s hands (Hitler Germany) or force the victim to be slaughtered to start first (Japan / December 1941), here the Yankees are great masters. A bell in the form of a knock уOur Russian Su-24’s rang, and here, from my point of view, it is necessary to seriously indicate (! note! / only indicate) for the USA and all UN members the seriousness of our intentions in protecting the legitimate President B. Assad and not to go too far. Only in this case, the Russian Federation has a great chance to really become the leading political power in the world and to fully use the factor of the fight against terrorism (previously used by the USA to resolve its selfish interests) to split NATO and cause unacceptable moral damage to the USA. Health to President V.V. Putin and sagacity to Minister S.V. Lavrov! God is with us!
  14. Stinger
    Stinger 26 November 2015 18: 45 New
    +2
    The article is interesting. There are, of course, controversial points, but as regards the role of technical superiority, everything is true. About technology - a living example of Afghanistan. All technological tricks have been broken for forty years on the calloused hands of Afghans, who do not even have airplanes, led and are leading to the same end.
    1. ver_
      ver_ 26 November 2015 20: 32 New
      +1
      ... no one set a goal to destroy all life in Afghanistan ... "no man - no problem ..."
    2. gorgo
      gorgo 26 November 2015 23: 11 New
      -2
      And I would also add that it’s not just about the calloused hands of the Afghans, but about their no less calloused ... genitals. And this is no joke - think for yourself what I mean.
  15. erased
    erased 26 November 2015 18: 54 New
    +2
    The author threw stamps, pulled the facts and glued everything into an opus about nothing. In addition, he began to combine the concepts of actual military operations and the political and economic factor. Yes, they are connected, but not as part of one. And then, complications, terms, slogans. One thing is good - the author did not remind through the line that ISIS is banned in Russia.
    And then all the media all of a sudden suddenly began to consider readers and viewers as sclerotics. Otherwise, why each time say that ISIS is illegal? It's like a pop, cursing, getting baptized all the time.
    Okay, that’s not the point.
    If we take a purely military aspect, then all conflicts (or war) from the 19th century are clearly divided into:
    1. Worldwide (more than 2 countries involved)
    2. Local (2 countries).
    However, a larger number of participants may “get carried away” with a local conflict, but active actions are being taken in the territory of 1 or 2 countries. And the remaining "players" use expeditionary forces.
    With world wars it is clear - multimillion-strong armies, fronts, military operations, rear, flanks, operational and strategic reserves. Russia won the first such war (1812, though with its own characteristics), lost the second (1914-1918) in fact, as it suffered huge human and territorial losses, and then dropped out of the game in the red. The USSR took part in one war and, to put it mildly, all of them ... grail!
    Up to its collapse, the USSR knew how to fight better than anyone in the world! But in a global war!
    Local wars are divided into:
    1. Wars between states.
    2. Wars of the state with a part of the country (people) or some organization having territorial possessions in some country.
    Examples of the second option are Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (USSR), Afghanistan (NATO), Syria.
    Korea and Vietnam - the participation of the people of the country on both sides. With support from outside. Afghanistan and Syria are the same option when the forces financed and supplied by one side (the biggest secret!) Fight with the legitimate government, which is supported by the other side (well-known to everyone).
    The tactics and strategy of warfare in such conditions have long been described. Starting from the instructions of the Wehrmacht to combat forest bandits (partisans), the instructions of the NKVD and NPO of the USSR on the conduct of military operations against Ukrainian nationalists and Baltic forest brothers, ending with the practice of the OKSVA war against the Mujahideen.
    Kanesh !!! Kaneshno, no one relies only on aviation and artillery! Kaneshno, without plowing anywhere! Kaneshno, units and formations fighting against enemy units must be trained and equipped. But all this is within the framework of completely familiar terms and conditions.
    By the way, the war in Ukraine is also local, and even civil. And she showed perfectly that:
    artillery is the god of war!
    tanks are the main striking force!
    infantry - the queen of the fields!
    And no frills with network-centric passes!
    The rest is politics, economics, finance, intelligence games and information blows. Mustache!
    1. Kvazar
      Kvazar 26 November 2015 23: 52 New
      -2
      In Ukraine, it is not entirely true. There is a war of the Papuan army (old weapons, lack of production (air defense, radar, artillery, tanks, armored personnel carriers, bmpshki, planes, navy) due to depot of outdated weapons that served through one place (sold normal) against the same Papuans (the same , also there is no aviation, etc.) but on the one hand the NATO allies help the Papuans ’enemies (the same radars, though it’s not very effective., because on the other hand it’s the same (RF). Moments of any kind are not good to rub with subic from the MLRS. The areas of attack (concentration, rest) of the armor of the compounds are reminiscent of beating babies. When in one volley the magicians burn all the equipment zeroing the enemy’s potential, and comparing the forces (video and photos of such raids on the sea network, when after one salvo to the right place with the right subic, you get a field of burned armored vehicles and zero offensive potential of the enemy (and after that also another boiler, because you just have to fight that you can carry on yourself). There, even aviation was not needed (only to plant the necessary missiles for the RSO and the coordinates where to hammer). The most interesting thing is that according to rumors a few months ago (when the military representatives of the DNI and LNR seized that there would be a chutli attack not tomorrow), the chutli concentration places did not go ahead before the start of the house-fire with a known result (Ukraine is silent as partisans, because they covered in the zone where the heavy there shouldn’t be any equipment, the observer as usual immediately returned back to "monitoring", the DNR and LC closed the topic and again began to report on the situation.
      1. erased
        erased 26 November 2015 23: 59 New
        -1
        What does the composition, size and condition of equipment have to do with the combat system? Even if muzzle bombs and tanks of the early 20th century. Like the presence or absence of the Air Force and support from different angles! The essence of the war does not change!
        And then. Ukraine is now an enemy state in relation to Russia, and there is a gangster-Nazi regime. But it does not cease to be a country. This is to say that the name of the country is capitalized. This was done even during the Second World War. And we hated Germany at 1000%!
        Respect the rules and the rules will respect you.
  16. FAM
    FAM 26 November 2015 19: 11 New
    -2
    there is a superweapon - Erdoganyuk and other glavnyuki
  17. v.yegorov
    v.yegorov 26 November 2015 20: 06 New
    +3
    During the aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999, NATO countries suffered almost no casualties, however, however, their costs of the operation were almost the same as the damage they caused to Yugoslavia

    However, Yugoslavia ceased to exist, and NATO countries achieved their goals, and
    I think they recovered their losses due to the collapse of Yugoslavia. Similarly, in the case
    from the USSR, the USA first invested heavily in the collapse of our Power, and then raped
    profit, having seized property that has become orphaned.
    1. Army soldier2
      Army soldier2 27 November 2015 11: 16 New
      0
      The article contains interesting discussions by the author. Simply, although he is considered a military expert, he clearly lacks knowledge in the field of military art. And he forgot about the existence of the law of philosophy "Transition of quantity into quality".
      The technique that Khramchikhin mentions was developed at the end of the 80-s - the beginning of the 90-s at the Academy named after Frunze. The cost / effectiveness of our weapons, enemy weapons, the cost of the damage prevented. But the technique was developed for the tactical link, that is, for battle. Then it was adapted to determine the effectiveness of promising means of destruction (or defense). At the operational level, the technique gave a large error. And for the category of war or armed conflict, you are right, other criteria apply - the purpose of the war and the cost (in the broad sense) of its achievement.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  18. tokens2
    tokens2 26 November 2015 20: 15 New
    +1
    In the West, there are no people who want to fight seriously and with full exertion.

    Of course not. They have roads, hospitals. They have no time to fight, and there is no need.
    West is a place in the Arena. With a view of the gladiatorial cell called the rest of the world. Has Russia decided to fight?
    With rage for the rest in this cage?
    Maybe it’s not worth spraying something like that to non-main opponents?
    Can the construction of their own hospitals and infrastructure make the true masters of the world more angry?
  19. bad
    bad 26 November 2015 21: 08 New
    +2
    it is necessary to eradicate the cause of wars, and may not have to think about the consequences ..
    Isolate the 50 richest Jews - and the war will end.
    Henry Ford: wallpapers. Citaty.info: quotes and aphorisms
    http://citaty.info/man/genri-ford
  20. galakt
    galakt 26 November 2015 21: 32 New
    0
    "Advanced technology is not enough to eliminate the Middle Ages." Actually, after this phrase one could not continue to describe the various categories of modern means of defeating the enemy, up to the military. First you need to turn everything around in medieval brains - it’s like switching directly from Comandera to Windows 10. Well, you can’t argue with protein biology, natural reflexes are very strong there.
  21. Altona
    Altona 26 November 2015 21: 40 New
    +3
    Maybe something is changing in the world, only performers and their methods do not change ...
  22. Mixweb
    Mixweb 26 November 2015 22: 24 New
    0
    Quote: 79807420129
    If thermonuclear war breaks out, pah, pah, pah, God forbid, the next war will be fought with a bow and arrow.

    If there is, to whom to wage war
  23. gammipapa
    gammipapa 26 November 2015 22: 37 New
    -2
    What a wonderful article, the author is just super well done, the analysis is worthy of all praise.

    Let me notice (one of the comments above) If the price of a rocket is higher than the price of an aircraft carrying a nuclear bomb ... even if it is a rocket made of gold. Well, judge for yourself - the price of a gold rocket, even with a bag of gold tied to it, is much less than the price of the nuclear bomb itself. Do not find?
    The author laid out everything on the shelves very correctly. The only thing that can be added to high-precision weapons is the moral damage to those who resist, but not for long.

    The one with the most platforms will win the war — an axiom.
    Remember the second world war. Why did the Soviet army in the early years retreat and defend themselves? By the fact that a large number of our platforms were knocked out by the fascist onslaught. The Germans concentrated more military platforms. And Stalin quickly realized this, announced the transition of the entire state to the military economy. Already from the middle of the war, the USSR had an overwhelming superiority in military equipment, and by the end of the war there was several times an advantage in technology.
  24. GDV
    GDV 26 November 2015 22: 54 New
    0
    The warrior is becoming the most demanded specialty; the nation must begin to be educated in the spirit of love for the Lord and for the fatherland.
    From an early age, it is mandatory to introduce airsoft at school, learn tactics, orienteering, conduct political information, etc. You need to invest in young people — if you want peace, prepare for war.
  25. barsik92090
    barsik92090 27 November 2015 00: 07 New
    0
    Quote: NDR-791
    but about who bought it ??? what was taken out? Well, if our services can highlight this aspect, then the most interesting thing will begin - without any empty bazaars - that is the person who needs this war !!! And only so!

    No, this is wrong! A lover of Pormezan, who has nowhere to go, will buy it, because it’s just a rich swindler, hungry for silence and peace.
  26. boroda64
    boroda64 27 November 2015 00: 16 New
    0
    ...............
    - auto RU
    - and you served .. ?????????????????????????
    / I doubt - I ... /
  27. The comment was deleted.
  28. Wolka
    Wolka 27 November 2015 05: 45 New
    0
    a good overview and from a philosophical and practical point of view, the key features of modern wars are indicated quite accurately, the author has a personal plus ...