Signalian
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2015
- Messages
- 10,608
- Reaction score
- 305
- Country
- Location
The current mobilization of Russia has raised a few points about the future of war and how combat is conducted in this modern warfare.
President Putin announced partial mobilisation saying 300,000 reservists would be called up. Had Putin made the decision to mobilise in early May, it is likely that new Russian units would now be ready to be pushed into Ukraine, just as Ukraine’s forces are stretched out, consolidating their recent gains. This would have been the most dangerous course of action. But Putin – long known for putting off difficult decisions – instead decided to reinforce his depleted units through recruitment campaigns. This has kept up troop levels, but topping up demoralized units did not improve their combat power. With many Russian units in Ukraine between 50% and 70% strength, the most immediate effect of mobilisation will be to create a large number of poorly trained replacements to shore up the numbers.
Such mobilisation efforts are seen for large scale conflicts lasting months to years, however, it was determined that in modern combat many factors may have made the concept of mobilisation obsolete in many forms.
1. Air Warfare
USAF plays one of the most important part in any conflict that USA takes part in as it continues to maintain unparalleled air-to-air capabilities. Even in the most challenging cases examined, the United States does not “lose” the war in the air as it tries to maintain air superiority over the area of conflict. This was seen in different wars over the last 2-3 decades. Airpower provides unique deep strike capabilities unavailable via other means at times, though long range missiles can be considered a good option, yet an air launched cruise missile can give a decisive edge in range.
With a mix of 4, 4.5 and 5 generation fighters, stealth bombers, strategic airlift, UAV/UCAVs, and other force multipliers, USAF is expected to dominate the battlefield. The US Air Force’s strategic bombardment capability is valuable in gaining air supremacy, especially concerning enemy integrated air defense systems. Yet their expertise in the air-to-air environment might play a more significant role in achieving and maintaining air supremacy in a future war just as it did in the past. The decisive factor is not the materiel; it is the Airmen who employ it. Defeat in the air is more than the loss of an aircraft. It typically results in the loss of the pilot, whether killed or taken prisoner. It is easier to replace materiel than the knowledge and skill of a pilot gained through experience. RuAF did not put on an air show of the massive caliber when its inventory of aircraft is observed, there were many other factors hampering RuAF operations which degraded its performance considerably in different forms of air combat.
This is where the question lies - to what extent can PAF and PAA assets undertake combat (all missions) and logistics support which can turn the tide of war for Pakistan whether in WOT or a war with India ?
2. Long Range/Short Range Surface Strike Missiles
Russia had employed hundreds of powerful and precise ballistic missile attacks against Ukraine with mixed results. According to Ukrainians,
Russia is using inaccurate missiles from old Soviet stocks for more than 50 percent of its strikes in Ukraine, and the rate of the strikes keeps fluctuating including civilians centres as targets which could be due to poor targeting. The missile strikes have been ranging between 100 to 200 in some months. Different reasons have been attributed to the lack of effectiveness of the Russian missile strikes against Ukraine.
Pakistan and India have an ever growing arsenal of missiles, these includes ballistic, cruise, air launched and sea launched missiles. Can missiles play a decisive part to win the war for Pakistan and India ?
3. Digitization and Robotic Age
It was expected in the future wars that mobilisation of massive scales might not take place anymore. The most advanced armies of the twenty-first century will rely far more on cutting-edge technology. Instead of limitless cannon fodder, countries will need only small numbers of highly trained soldiers, even smaller numbers of special forces super-warriors and a handful of experts who know how to produce and use sophisticated technology. Hi-tech forces ‘manned’ by pilotless drones and cyber-worms should replace the mass armies of the twentieth century, and generals delegate more and more critical decisions to computer systems and algorithms. Cyber-wars may last just a few minutes. Even in drone wars, if one drone cannot fire a shot without first receiving the go-ahead from a human operator in some bunker while the other drone is fully autonomous, the latter will win.
Concerning this factor, should Pakistan,
a. Form a bigger cyber-warfare division ( for dedicated attacks on enemy infrastructure, economic hubs, DOS etc) employing top minds instead of recruiting more soldiers and buying more weapons. Equivalent formations in size category of infantry division raised in favor of cyber warfare.
b. Go towards manufacturing of robots/unmanned systems for its combat needs on the ground and sea. Drone tanks, drone trucks, drone combat ships etc. HIT/HMC shits production towards unmanned ground vehicles for combat and logistics, so does KSEW.
c. Consider making its forces lighter and nimble which are more suited for a specialized QRF role than a conventional role. Special forces backed with technologically advanced sensors and weapons.
President Putin announced partial mobilisation saying 300,000 reservists would be called up. Had Putin made the decision to mobilise in early May, it is likely that new Russian units would now be ready to be pushed into Ukraine, just as Ukraine’s forces are stretched out, consolidating their recent gains. This would have been the most dangerous course of action. But Putin – long known for putting off difficult decisions – instead decided to reinforce his depleted units through recruitment campaigns. This has kept up troop levels, but topping up demoralized units did not improve their combat power. With many Russian units in Ukraine between 50% and 70% strength, the most immediate effect of mobilisation will be to create a large number of poorly trained replacements to shore up the numbers.
Such mobilisation efforts are seen for large scale conflicts lasting months to years, however, it was determined that in modern combat many factors may have made the concept of mobilisation obsolete in many forms.
1. Air Warfare
USAF plays one of the most important part in any conflict that USA takes part in as it continues to maintain unparalleled air-to-air capabilities. Even in the most challenging cases examined, the United States does not “lose” the war in the air as it tries to maintain air superiority over the area of conflict. This was seen in different wars over the last 2-3 decades. Airpower provides unique deep strike capabilities unavailable via other means at times, though long range missiles can be considered a good option, yet an air launched cruise missile can give a decisive edge in range.
With a mix of 4, 4.5 and 5 generation fighters, stealth bombers, strategic airlift, UAV/UCAVs, and other force multipliers, USAF is expected to dominate the battlefield. The US Air Force’s strategic bombardment capability is valuable in gaining air supremacy, especially concerning enemy integrated air defense systems. Yet their expertise in the air-to-air environment might play a more significant role in achieving and maintaining air supremacy in a future war just as it did in the past. The decisive factor is not the materiel; it is the Airmen who employ it. Defeat in the air is more than the loss of an aircraft. It typically results in the loss of the pilot, whether killed or taken prisoner. It is easier to replace materiel than the knowledge and skill of a pilot gained through experience. RuAF did not put on an air show of the massive caliber when its inventory of aircraft is observed, there were many other factors hampering RuAF operations which degraded its performance considerably in different forms of air combat.
This is where the question lies - to what extent can PAF and PAA assets undertake combat (all missions) and logistics support which can turn the tide of war for Pakistan whether in WOT or a war with India ?
2. Long Range/Short Range Surface Strike Missiles
Russia had employed hundreds of powerful and precise ballistic missile attacks against Ukraine with mixed results. According to Ukrainians,
Russia is using inaccurate missiles from old Soviet stocks for more than 50 percent of its strikes in Ukraine, and the rate of the strikes keeps fluctuating including civilians centres as targets which could be due to poor targeting. The missile strikes have been ranging between 100 to 200 in some months. Different reasons have been attributed to the lack of effectiveness of the Russian missile strikes against Ukraine.
Pakistan and India have an ever growing arsenal of missiles, these includes ballistic, cruise, air launched and sea launched missiles. Can missiles play a decisive part to win the war for Pakistan and India ?
3. Digitization and Robotic Age
It was expected in the future wars that mobilisation of massive scales might not take place anymore. The most advanced armies of the twenty-first century will rely far more on cutting-edge technology. Instead of limitless cannon fodder, countries will need only small numbers of highly trained soldiers, even smaller numbers of special forces super-warriors and a handful of experts who know how to produce and use sophisticated technology. Hi-tech forces ‘manned’ by pilotless drones and cyber-worms should replace the mass armies of the twentieth century, and generals delegate more and more critical decisions to computer systems and algorithms. Cyber-wars may last just a few minutes. Even in drone wars, if one drone cannot fire a shot without first receiving the go-ahead from a human operator in some bunker while the other drone is fully autonomous, the latter will win.
Concerning this factor, should Pakistan,
a. Form a bigger cyber-warfare division ( for dedicated attacks on enemy infrastructure, economic hubs, DOS etc) employing top minds instead of recruiting more soldiers and buying more weapons. Equivalent formations in size category of infantry division raised in favor of cyber warfare.
b. Go towards manufacturing of robots/unmanned systems for its combat needs on the ground and sea. Drone tanks, drone trucks, drone combat ships etc. HIT/HMC shits production towards unmanned ground vehicles for combat and logistics, so does KSEW.
c. Consider making its forces lighter and nimble which are more suited for a specialized QRF role than a conventional role. Special forces backed with technologically advanced sensors and weapons.
