... and this is in some sense a repetition (or reiteration) of what I am writing about for years and what happens when the issue is being obfuscated without proper understanding of the issue. I am talking about writing of some Simplicius guy (whoever he or they are) about some "revelations" on the issue by some colonel Falichev whose real biography, except that he was an editor of a number of military publications, is completely absent, except that he was a military journalist and was in some hot spots. The whole writing discusses what basically amounts to comparison of satellite constellations of Russia and the US (NATO) with obvious advantage to the US in, and I underscore it, NON-war conditions and discussion of the tactical front end of what amounts to a battlefield management system also known in Russia as ASU--Автоматические Системы Управления--also known as BIUS (Боевые Информационные Управляющие Системы), aka CICS (Combat Information Control Systems). Oh, look, someone on the tactical level introduced "symbol" on some pad and it went out--cool, netcentric warfare. Well, not so fast and I have good friends, former senior officers who graduated both military officer college of communications and then famous Academy of Communications (Signal Corps) (2 year war college) of Budyonny. Has a shitload of combat awards and some serious wounds. We discussed these things.
And here is where despicable me comes in and says that it is all fine and dandy: satellites, CICS and netcentricity, but as practice of Russian RUK/ROK in SMO has demonstrated, including the reduction in reaction time from 7 minutes to less than 1 minute it is Russia who teaches the United States with all of her satellite constellations and hare-brain schemes of C4ISR what real netcentricity is and how it is applied in REAL operations of scale, also how it evolves. And here comes this, o-o-o-o-h, secretive secret of warfare (not really, but you have to have serious military background to know it and I wrote a book about it)--ISR exists for... drum roll--RESOLUTION of UNCERTAINTIES, and without understanding what it is, which is probabilistic matter, which is a measure of uncertainty, all these talks about satellites and pads are meaningless because what matters is what happens in the back-end of all those symbols, pads and targeting. Here is one of the pages with partial table of content of February 2024 issue of Voennaya Mysl' (Military Thought):
As you can see yourself it all is highly mathematical. Just to give you example of the background, apparatus behind C3 and how it relates to networks, that article from the same issue:
Ah yes, weighted data, data streams, probabilistic analysis--yep, that is what military staffs used to do--fusing data from sensors for developing tactical and operational decisions. Today computers help to do so within combat networks. Of course a pompous title of "AI" is not really an AI but simply algorithms which handle inputs, but I let it slide--this is all fad. So, what is it in the end about these satellites' constellations and the piece of Colonel Falichev which Mr. Simplicius quoted? I would go out on a limb here and say that it is the tempest in the teacup, especially after Russian RUK/ROK and their performance provided a cultural shock to Pentagon, which has about zero experience with combined arms and netcentric operations of such scale as SMO, while the state of Russian industry and science allows to confidently state that the armed forces of Russia which are emerging through SMO not only already are the most advanced armed forces in the world with arsenal which is unrivaled by anyone, but with its ISR complex improving not only qualitatively, but in quantity. Just to demonstrate:
No comments:
Post a Comment