you're reading...
Military Analysis, recommendations, security

Defense-Offense Debate: Focusing on Aerial Defense in The Age of Smart Military Technologies

Introduction: Why The Idiots are Dangerous

We all know, probably, for those, at least, engaged in defence affairs, how new breed of military policy sellers have championed the death of Clausewitz, his thoughts on the superiority of the defense over the offense, and technologies, still persistingly and idiotic claiming to be superior over humans. Of course this has been throughout western military past since during Clausewitz age itself, idiots ridicule his foundational ideas, either in search of their own glories, selling own products etc to this date, with so-called RMA, or giving new names to characters of war, from Fourth Generation, to Net Wars, Ass-ymetric, today, Hybrid wars . Anyway, I must say, I have no respect whatsoever for this dangerous salesman, and even those who buy into their ideas.

The Question:

Back to the conext of this article. Recently, for the first time I was asked how could one still champion the defense over offense debate, and my (enraged) response, mind you this was not unlike other ideas which had time to grow and thought through, these came out of the spur of the moment was this. I said, just like throughout the military history belligerents re-used the technological breakthroughs of their counterpart to adapt to the advantages of the other sides as a result of such technologies, today, the same can be said to be true.

Case Example- Aerial Defense in the Age of Smart Technologies:

For example, We have seen the amazing impact of the stealth bombers and their effect-based operations since Gulf War I, now I asked myself how do one, without the appropriate funds to challenge the possesors of such technologies beat or defend oneself, or at least be able to ‘accomodate’ it, and frustrate it, from their assault through destructive smart technologies. The answer, for me at least, with the existing ‘mechanised age technologies’ one can adapt these with smart technologies, cheapest way, rather than go on a long and expensive R & D projects, and investments, and be able to produce an excellent counter-part.

Again, for example, the anti-aircraft guns;

1. remove the human-element from it, ‘chip it’, both the gun and the ballistics (the bigger caliber the better),

2. for each gun, make it able to cover certain sqm of the aerial arcs, and between few guns, like during the battle of Britain, these can successfully provide excellent defensive cover for the entire city and the peripheral sorroundings.

3. place these ‘smart defensive guns’ at closer, not to much, to HVT (high value target areas, fixed assets or mounted on a moving HVT) points. the reason for this is the next point below

4. these guns will not home-in on ‘unseen’ stealth aircrafts, but, and this is important, will be able to react in mini-seconds just after ”bombs away”, fired, dislodged from the main aircraft, meaning at exact moment the bomb is ”out of the plane”, i.e. out of the cover of stealth, NOW SEEN for the first time, and detectable, then these smarts guns can engage not the aircrafts, but the bombs, or missiles (sort of mini-patriot defensive missiles).

You see the point, once the bomb is fired is no longer invisible, but visible and can be engaged with smallest smart ammunitions from the old generations (cost perhaps less than $10 plus the small smart techology chip attached, perhaps brings the total to $200 or less).

Yes the enemy, the belligerent who just dropped the bomb might throw out some few dummies to disillusion your system, that is no trouble, as long as one can be able to programme radiation, heat, and other factor and frequencies to a random possible kill numbers. For example, the belligerent on offense, drops 100 dummies plus a real bomb or missile. The defensive measures, programmed to calculate higher ration of possible real bombs, of around 20 per cent, always of whatever numbers, will engage probably with a kill success always. Secondly, one can deploy sesimic or kinetic impact bombs, to explode in a much bigger radius at certain attitudes in hope of catching ‘neighbouring’ bombs in the web of explosion, or fragmentations.

In Sum:

My argument is, and will always be, technologies can be responded to, when it comes to defense or whatever sphere of life. Just like human can compete with each other intelligently in war. So one can always think of cheaper more efficient and effective defensive ways to maintain oneself during war and peace time.

This article is a part of the Drones article see below post as well, my paper on RMA, re-embedded here;

revolution in military affairs


About s.s.salim: Geopolitical Analyst

Political & Strategy Defence & Security Intelligence & Communications


No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: