How Russia can wean Americans from sending their scouts to our borders

11

One of the loudest sensations of 2014 was the information about how the Russian Su-24 bomber with the Khibiny electronic warfare system on suspension drowned out the Aegis air defense / missile defense system of the American destroyer Donald Cook, which allegedly caused 27 members of its crew were written off to the shore. True, later it turned out that all this was the fruit of a violent journalistic fantasy, and there was actually no electronic warfare attack. But what if there was?

US and NATO reconnaissance aircraft and UAVs are constantly flying along the Russian borders. The British destroyer Defender violated it altogether, passing without permission in the territorial waters of Crimea. After that, it was seriously discussed whether it was necessary to sink the intruder ship or shoot down a foreign military plane that believed it was in Ukrainian airspace. It is obvious that the destruction of the violator of the state border is the most extreme measure, but there are ways to influence him that are much more humane.



For example, it is possible to carry out an electronic warfare attack on a reconnaissance aircraft or warship. But the question immediately arises, what will be the answer? Is such an impact considered an act of military aggression, or is it a "casus belli"? The question is curious and very controversial.

On the one hand, electronic warfare is considered a type of armed warfare. It is understood as a deliberate effect of interference on the electronic means of control, communications and reconnaissance systems of the enemy in order to change the quality of military information circulating in them, as well as to protect their own systems from a similar effect. Interestingly, the Russian military are considered the founders of this type of warfare. During the Russo-Japanese War, our radio operators were the first to guess with the help of radio interference "a big spark to jam enemy telegrams", since the enemy planned to use the telegraph to issue target designation data to the Japanese artillery. As a result, large-caliber shells missed the target.

On the other hand, the EW impact belongs to the category of the most humane types of armed struggle. Moreover, there is an opinion that this is not so much a military one as a kind of information warfare. Information warfare, or war, "information and psychological warfare", is a confrontation between the parties with the help of specially prepared information and protection from its impact. The main tools are the stuffing of disinformation or the interpretation of information in a favorable light for oneself. Psychological war is a type of information war. They can be both an integral part of the conduct of real hostilities, and be conducted in conditionally peacetime.

If you look at the problem of electronic warfare attacks from this angle, the picture begins to change. Let us ask ourselves the question, is the illegal throwing of a spy into its territory an act of aggression against a sovereign state? Of course, yes. What about hacking of information networks through cyberspace? Also, yes. Now the United States has generally equated a cyberattack on its resources with a "casus belli", that is, they consider it a reason to declare a real war. And if the penetration into another's sovereign territory is carried out by means of electronic intelligence? In other words, if a reconnaissance aircraft or UAV enlightened the borders of a foreign state in order to collect military data, what then? Can this be considered aggression?

The question is very interesting. Currently, it is not regulated in any way, therefore it is legally in the "gray zone". Someone will say that "rays" and "waves" themselves propagate in space, such are the laws of physics, and they will be absolutely right. For example, an American destroyer or reconnaissance aircraft turned on special equipment while in international waters or in neutral airspace, and the "rays" by themselves penetrated the Russian state border and issued the information the Pentagon wanted. Now what? De jure, nobody violated anything, right? Is it possible to destroy for this? Some kind of chaos will turn out. Or is it possible?

And what if the RF Ministry of Defense conducts exercises near its border with the use of electronic warfare systems, when reconnaissance aircraft and UAVs of the NATO bloc will once again fly nearby? And so it turns out that the means of electronic warfare will have a negative impact on the aircraft, which coincidentally will be nearby? What then? Will it be an aggression by the Russian military against innocent American ones? Or is it just "physics"?

"Beams" and "waves" tend to spread in all directions, regardless of state borders. If you start conducting such exercises every time uninvited guests want to come to us, this can quickly discourage them. Physics is power!
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

11 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -1
    14 October 2021 18: 20
    As well as space reconnaissance, shoot down a spy satellite what is it? A reason for war and how to prove who did it and from what territory, and if from neutral waters with the help of a signal and ends in the water! Unprovable but not punishable, that's the question!
  2. +2
    14 October 2021 19: 52
    Is such an impact considered an act of military aggression, or is it a "casus belli"? The question is curious and very controversial.

    the point is that one should not forget that electronic warfare means are still weapons. Which also affects foreign military equipment (in terms of its electronic equipment), which can lead to the failure of this equipment (temporarily or "permanently", that is, to its complete destruction as a combat unit). How to take it? Probably, based on whether the incident led only to the loss of "hardware" (albeit expensive), or resulted in human casualties. On the first, many will close their eyes, the second - already seriously.

    Although, throughout the history of mankind, anything could act as a Casus belli. Absolutely any reason, even far-fetched. You can be declared a dictator violating democratic values, because of which "Ameriga and every American is in danger", a terrorist (because of whom see above), shaking a test tube with no one knows what (with washing powder, for example, passing it off as a tank weapon , because of which again - well, who - Ameriga is in danger), etc.

    The United States has never been particularly scrupulous about this issue. If war is needed, there will always be a reason. And whether you are innocent even three times, they will be appointed guilty. Washington knows better.

    And here we come to the main thing. That for some countries will mean an inevitable war, for others the maximum is an expression of concern and sanctions. It depends on who "presents" to whom. With whom it is not scary to compete - you can go straight into the melon, with whom he will already threaten with a reply - a completely different conversation. The applicability of casus belli is the same as that of insults in real life. Someone is not afraid to offend, but from someone, after a sloppy phrase, you can make trouble and go to a traumatologist.
  3. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
  4. -1
    14 October 2021 22: 31
    Transfusion from empty to empty.

    The USSR in Cuba seemed to have a full-fledged radio intelligence base. So what?
    Corvbly-planes-submarines regularly back and forth, with radars and radio, this is their job. So what?
    never mind.

    It is better to unearth the laws of what is allowed and what is not - with electronic warfare in the civilian environment, at the border, for sure there are such.
    And it is easy to make logistically unprofitable offers.
    1. +1
      15 October 2021 08: 04
      The USSR in Cuba seemed to have a full-fledged radio intelligence base. So what?
      Corvbly-planes-submarines regularly back and forth, with radars and radio, this is their job. So what?
      never mind.

      Was jamming her goal?
      1. -1
        15 October 2021 18: 55
        Isn't radio intelligence better then?
        1. 0
          16 October 2021 07: 29
          What is the topic of the article?
          1. -1
            16 October 2021 10: 55
            Incorrect logistic move. Complete drills for every UAV? NATO will only be happy to take the data and use up the electronic warfare resource and spend a lot of money.

            The maximum is a point effect. What they are doing.
            1. 0
              17 October 2021 08: 20
              You have turned everything upside down.
              1. -2
                17 October 2021 10: 30
                EXAMPLE A reconnaissance satellite makes a revolution every hour.
                No one will conduct every hour of electronic warfare exercises.

                From the UAV, of course, less often. With an airplane - even less often.

                But Their Ships stick out in the World Cup all the time.
  5. -3
    15 October 2021 13: 15
    And, they erased a whole bunch of different comments for reporting.
    And in real life - every time to organize a full-fledged exercise when a UAV or an airplane flies by - this is a straight diamond logistic move. No electronic warfare, I suspect, will not be enough.
    The UAV just flies and flies, for days ... and there are a lot of them ...
    1. 0
      15 October 2021 18: 52
      And the glitch, everything appeared again after half a day ...
      1. -1
        16 October 2021 19: 29
        Electronic warfare has already been massively used in the Black Sea - three years ago, a group of NATO ships suddenly discovered that they were supposedly located 200 km inland. However, we quickly got our bearings and duplicate navigation aids were included. Nothing terrible happened.
        1. -2
          16 October 2021 21: 21
          Exactly. Point impact.
        2. 0
          17 October 2021 08: 22
          So nothing terrible should happen because of electronic warfare.
          We did exercises, he reacted. We have received information that can be used for further development.
  6. +1
    26 October 2021 13: 17
    Only if it starts knocking them down.