Electronic Warfare: An Indispensable Aspect Of Modern War

Introduction:

Electronic Warfare (EW) has become one of the most talked about topics in the defense industry. With the exception of Russia nearly all major military powers for the last 20 years or so had put EW on the back burner. But now with the impending need to deal with peer and near-peer adversaries and to have the ability to enter anti-access/area denial (A2AD) environments EW has become a critical requirement and thus has become a primary and compulsory aspect of modern war.

What Is Electronic Warfare?

Electronic warfare (EW) is any action involving the use of the electromagnetic spectrum or directed energy to control the spectrum, attack an enemy equipment, or impede enemy assaults via the spectrum.

Purpose of EW:

The military operations are being increasingly carried out in an information environment complicated by the usage of electromagnetic (EM) spectrum. In this environment the electromagnetic spectrum is referred to as EME. War assets nowadays include more network centric operational functions which in turn demands increased processing capabilities. This factor has necessitated ever increasing use of electronic equipment in the execution of commands and communication to fulfil those capabilities. Thus the need for the military forces to have unimpeded access to and use of the electromagnetic environment leads into vulnerabilities and opportunities for EW in order to support operations of friendly forces' in an EME and suppress the adversaries’ usage of EME. EW has become an element of information warfare within the information operations carried out in a battlefield. In other words, EW is an element of defensive and offensive counter information. EW includes radio or radar frequencies, infrared rays, ultraviolet rays and other less used portions of EM spectrum. The usage of EW includes detection, denial, deception, disruption, degradation and destruction of adversaries’ usage of EME and protection of friendly EME.


Divisions of EW:


Electronic Attack (EA) or Electronic Counter Measure (ECM) :

It is the use of EM energy, directed energy, or anti-radiation weapons to attack equipment , personnel and facilities with the intent of neutralizing ,degrading and destroying enemy combat capability.

Electronic Protection (EP) Or Electronic Protective Measure (EPM) Or Electronic Counter Countermeasures (ECCM) :

Electronic protection (EP) constitutes actions taken to protect personnel, facilities, and equipment from effects of friendly or adversary's use of EME that neutralize, degrade or destroy friendly combat capabilities, spread spectrum technologies, joint restricted frequency list (JRFL), emissions control (EMCON), electronic warfare self protection (EWSP) suit are measures of EP implemented in various battlefield scenarios and on suitable platforms.


For Example:

Flare rejection logic usage on an infrared homing missile to counter usage of flares is EP.

Chaff is used for protection against radar guided missiles.

Directional infrared counter measures (DIRCM), and Flare provides protection against IR homing missiles.

Digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) decoy protects against radar guided missiles.

Antifragile EW is a part of EP which is implemented when a communication link increases in capacity after being jammed, but is possible to be used only against reactive forms of jamming. Jamming is not a part of EP but it is EA.

Electronic Warfare Support (ES)

Electronic Warfare Support (ES), is the division of EW which involves actions tasked by an operational commander to search, intercept, identify, and locate or localize sources radiating electromagnetic (EM) energy. This is used for the purpose of threat recognition, targeting, planning, and conduct of military operations. These measures are incorporated in specially designed systems and are used by operators trained to make electronic intercepts (ELINT) and then classify & analyze the electronic intercepts which is broadly known as Signals Intelligence (SIGINT). Such detection is used to provide information resulting into actionable intelligence to the commander. For example a ship is identifiable from unique characteristics of a specific radar used by it which can be detected by ELINT team of enemy forces and pass on the information for possible counter attack to a friendly navy vessel. The purpose of ES is immediate threat recognition & targeting, planning & conducting of future operations, and other tactical actions such as threat avoidance and homing.


Black Sea Encounter: U.S. "Aegis" against Russian "Khibini"

During a period between April to October 2014, Russian Sukhoi Su-24 paralyzed the most modern American combat management (EW) system “Aegis” installed on the destroyer “USS Donald Cook” on the Black Sea. The appearance of the American warship on the Black Sea was alleged to be in contradiction of the Montreux Convention. USS Donald Cook was equipped with 4 large radars, whose power were equivalent to that of several stations. For protection, it carried more than fifty anti-aircraft missiles of various types. In response to the audacious provocation by US , Russia sent Su- 24 to fly around the U.S. Destroyer. The combat management system “Aegis” on Donald Cook spotted the approaching Su 24 aircraft from a considerable distance , and had sounded alarm.


The radars calculated the speed of the approaching Su 24 and suddenly all the screens on Donald Cook surveillance system went blank. “Aegis” stopped working and the missiles could not get target information. The Su-24 meanwhile flew over the deck of the destroyer, did battle turns and simulated missile attacks on Donald Cook multiple times, as many as twelve. It was reported by the crew of the US destroyer Donald Cook that all efforts to revive the “Aegis” failed and hence the defence management system of the American ship failed. The Russian bomber Su 24 which was without any weapons and had only on-board equipment for jamming enemy radar was able to paralyze the war waging capabilities of a destroyer equipped with “Aegis”, the most modern US system of air and missile defence.

The radar in the “Aegis” system on the destroyer did not work under the influence of jamming by the Su-24. Apparently the algorithm of the radar could not load under the influence of the electronic suppression induced by "Khibini" one of the latest Russian electronic warfare system. Its effect on the ship’s electronic equipment caused panic among the crew of the ship leading to mass resignation of sailors and officers on duty during the incident. Later in 2015 US guided missile destroyer USS Ross, moved on course into the Russian territorial waters and thus acted provocatively and aggressively, made a sudden change of course when intercepted by a Russsian Su24 jet. Despite initiating provocative actions the powerful naval ship of US did not go into confrontation with the Russian fighter jet. This active non-confrontation of the US ship despite initiation of undue provocation is attributed to the experience of electronic suppression of Aegis system of Donald Cook by Khibini on Su 24. It seems US has become increasingly frantic about the capabilities of Russian electronic warfare system.

Familiarization of US with Russian electronic warfare capabilities goes back to 2007-2008. The US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2003 was supposed to be followed by the invasion of Iran. Russia couldn’t have allowed US to take over the entire Middle East, which would have created an area of permanent instability in her unprotected south. Apparently in the due course of conflicting interests between the two military super powers it was the first time when the Americans were warned by Russia of her secret capabilities in electronic warfare. Russia warned that she had in her possession electronic weapons capable of rendering the entire US fleet useless by means of jamming all the sophisticated electronics. It is reported that after a few demonstrations of EW capabilities by Russia, US reconsidered their attack on Iranian navy fleet and the impending attack by US on Iranian fleet got subsided. Russia had always had the advantage of EW capability over USA and EW capability of Russia is only getting enhanced further with the passage of time while US is trying to catch up as she significantly lags behind.


A commander of U.S. Army units in Europe, Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, had described Russian EW capabilities in Ukraine as “eye-watering.”

In October 2015 Lt. Gen. Edward Cardon, of US told a conference “you can’t but come to the conclusion that we’re not making progress at the pace the threat demands.” Here the threat that Lt. Gen. Edward Cardon means is the EW threat posed by USA's peer or near-peer adversaries.

An assessment in 2015 of U.S. Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office had concluded “Their (Russia's) growing ability to blind or disrupt digital communications might help level the playing field when fighting against a superior conventional foe.”


As an aftermath of the Black Sea incident a few Russian systems of electronic warfare that US has become very wary of are Krasukha-2, Krasukha-4, Rychag and Infauna.


Russia has claimed to have built Krashuka-4 a revolutionary new weapon system that can render enemy satellites and weapons useless. Krashuka-4 is capable of jamming warhead seekers of AIM-120 AMRAAM 'air-to-air' missiles and also command and control radars of the Patriot surface-to-air missile system. Krashuka-4 system can suppress a cruise missile's guidance systems thus affecting successful deliverance of the cruise missile on its target. Enemy's deck-based, tactical, long-range and strategic aircraft and electronic means can be targeted by this system. It can suppress foreign military satellites & spy satellites, radio-electronic equipment , satellite-based radio location systems ,ground-based radars and AWACS. Krashuka-4 fully covers an object from radar detection at 150-300 kilometers, and may also cause damage to enemy electronic warfare and communications and systems. Its Russian makers say it is a fundamentally new electronic warfare system which can be mounted on ground-based as well as air and sea-borne carriers.


Here is a list of significant Russian EW Systems currently in operation:

Murmansk-BN:
Murmansk-BN communication suppression station fielding Krashuka-2 jammer is expected to be capable of jamming more than 20 frequencies at a range of 5000 kilometers.

Avtobaza System:
 Russian Avtobaza system can bring down any drone with jamming. Each system includes a passive signals interception system (ELINT ) and a jamming module capable of disrupting airborne radars. The affected radars include fire control radars, terrain following radars and ground mapping radars and weapon (missile) data links.It operates over X and Ku bands (8-18 GHz ) with an effective range is 150 km. It covers 360 degrees hemisphere and can monitor up to 60 targets simultaneously. The Avtobaza system is credited to have played an active role in the downing of an U.S. stealth drone RQ-170 by the Iranian electronic warfare and air defense units on 04, December 2011. Avtobaza system was supposedly transferred by Russia to Iran in late 2011.

Moskva
Moskva is system with two key features:

i) A reconnaissance station which detects and classifies types of radiation, their direction and power of the signal.

ii) After reconnissance the collected data is automatically coordianted to the subordinate stations for actions of EW.

It is reported that Russians consider Moskva as a system capable of performing covert assessment of the EME situation on the battle field and thereby deliver electronic suppression of enemy forces' EW capabilities and also suppression of the systems depending on electronics and other wireless signals.

Rtut’-BM: 
This system is one of the most advanced EW system produced by Russia. It is designed for the protection of soldiers and equipments from artillery fire equipped with proximity fuse which explodes at a height of 3-5 meters to cause maximum damage to manpower and weapon. Rtut' initiates the explosion of proximity-fused ammunition by initiating the explosion at a safe height thus keeping the friendly troops intact and safe from the damage.

Zhitel System:
 This system is a silencer of GPS based satellite which concentrates on disrupting the bearing frequency, which upon being disrupted even by milliseconds leads to a loss of significant accuracy.

Leyer-3:
 Leyer-3 Aerial jamming system is a system capable of electronic reconnaissance with Orlan-10 pilotless aircraft being a part of the system. Orlan-10 is equipped with dispensable jamming transmitters capable of suppressing a wide range of radio signals affecting even the cell phones. It is aimed at suppressing enemy's radio traffic.
Infauna System: It fulfills missions similar to Leyer-3 aerial jamming system but without the use of drones.

Conclusion:

Countries which have understood the importance of EW and thereby electronic countermeasures and counter-countermeasures will try to maintain its quick evolution, since electronic warfare is progressively poised to become the primary means of warfare to gain advantage over the enemy in a war scenario whereby its usage will facilitate in gaining impunity for unopposed assault or substantially diminish the resistance of the adversary.


Written By Debojyoti Kumar

US Strategy Behind Technology Denials

Strategy of US behind technology denials is a strategy to keep defence capabilities of countries in check while dominating its rivals and allies. This is also aimed towards maintaining a vibrant defence industrial base back in US. This can be sited with a few incidents.

During the joint exercises held with US prior to 2012 Indian soldiers had tried and selected Javelin antitank missiles. On 17th April 2012, Mr. Andrew Shapiro, the Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs had voiced that Washington had cleared the transfer of technology for manufacturing the Javelin missile to be manufactured in India. Soon after this curbs were placed by Washington on the number of missiles that could be manufactured. This jeopardized the deal with and as a collateral fallout a lot of time got wasted in the whole process delaying the procurement of the much needed antitank missiles for the Indian army. US administration had clearly known that such curbs would further hinder the process of acquisition of the necessary defence technologies related to anti-tank missiles by India and by the virtue of the vulnerabilities of the Indian industrial defence base which in addition to procuring antitank missiles is deficient in producing key technologies like fighter jet engines, aircraft carrier related technologies and many others could successfully persuade the Indian government to agree to accept CISMOA, BECA and LSA.
Thanks to DRDO that anti-tank missile Nag has made significant progress since then.

Again only very recently US Defence Secretary Mr. Ash Carter refused South Korea ,a long standing ally of US, key technologies for the development of their fighter jet KF-X. The denial was a setback as South Korea was already promised
of the transfer of due technologies by Lockheed Martin for the development of their fighter jet. The denial comes as US tries to push F-35 to all potential customers having requirements of fighter jets in order to meet the overwhelming expenses being incurred in its development. This denial comes as North Korea had recently been provocative in her actions despite US presence in South Korea itself. Through this denial US supposedly wants to keep the development of South Korean jet on hold and in the eventuality of South Korea managing to acquire the technologies , the US circle's thoughts are that the technology acquired would be inferior than the technologies developed in the US thus resulting into a fighter jet inferior to F-35 with whose influence US can dominate the regional airspace.

On the other hand US keeps on providing relatively high-end technology platforms like F-16 fighter jets and armed helicopters to terror havens like Pakistan who invariably trains all its arms against India and has taken up the responsibility to covertly carry out and support unjust Jihad all across the globe.
By providing high-tech defence equipment to Pakistan US only provokes the rivalry of acquisition of arms and lethal defence platforms in the subcontinent. Recent attacks in Gurdaspur and Pathankot in India had revealed that terrorists were Pakistani citizens and had used equipment like binoculars which were made in USA having US army markings possibly given by Pakistani army which also procures US made military equipment. Even US and Western citizens are
the sufferers of such nefarious ploys of Pakistan which take several forms of execution across varied demographies. As a fall out of such terror attacks, and since India recently is looking more towards USA for defence related equipment , India and other rivals of Pakistan and countries having affinity to US and India would be in look out for better or equivalent arms and
platforms leading into requests for interests (RFI) thereby providing greater opportunities for arms trade for the US companies . This is a US strategy to create market for the products of the defence industrial base in US.

The sudden denials after the promise of technology transfer also points towards the US strategy to delay the acquisition of key technologies to the defence forces of other countries and keep them dependent on the final products of US defence industry thereby keeping the US defence industrial base dominant in all respects and to make way for possible arm twisting of the Governments to submit to the terms of US like Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA); Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geospatial Cooperation (BECA); and a Logistics Support Agreement (LSA),
which in turn paves the pay for US troops to station on the foreign soil to fulfil their ambition of global dominance.

Countries falling for US technologies and thereby submitting to the demands of the US government should carefully consider the terms of the agreements with US. This is also the same reason why developing countries like India should keep on pursuing research and development of all defence technologies and try to become self sufficient and only depend on time tested defence acquisition partners for acquisition of key defence technologies and platforms as defence is a key area
upholding the sovereignty of a country.
Written by Debojyoti Kumar

Developments in Nano Technology Influencing the Defence Sector

Nanotechnology is the understanding, control and manufacturing of matter at dimensions of roughly 1-100nm. A nanometer is one billionth (10 to-the-power minus nine). Nanotechnology involves imaging, measuring and modelling and manipulating matter in this length scale. It is seen as a technology of national importance in the USA.

A few advances in the field of nanotechnology that have far reaching effects in the domain of defence are being put to light.

Property of having negative refractive index:

An object with the property of negative refractive index transports the radiation along its surface rather than being reflected back. By getting transported along the surface of the material the radiation is allowed to travel beyond the object and the object does not get detected as no reflections are received back by the emitter. There are a few developments in nanotechnology techniques by which RADAR detections can be nullified.

1. Radar absorption with carbon nanotubes: Iron ball paint is a radar absorbing material (RAM) which contains tiny materials coated with carbonyl iron or ferrite.

Radar waves used in military which ranges from 8 to 12 GHz induce molecular oscillations from the alternating magnetic field in this paint as a result of which the RADAR waves hitting the surface gets transformed into heat which is then transferred to the aircraft and dissipated. This type of RAM typically consists of neoprene polymer sheets with ferrite grains, carbon black or carbon nanotube particles embedded in th polymer matrix. The electromagnetic properties and the thickness of the layer are such that the initial reflected wave and the sum of the emergent rays resulting from the multiple reflections within the material are equal to magnitude and opposite in phase thus nullifying the reflection destined back to the emitter.

2. Radar absorption with ionic liquids: This method of microwave absorption involves the use of polyionic liquid which contains separate cations and anions having very strong microwave absorption properties. Researchers have synthesized such liquids by polymerizing monomers containing ionic liquid moieties with techniques like free radical polymerization and or atom transfer radical polymerization or other techniques of polymerization. These polymers were found to be extremely stable.

These have high microwave absorption properties due to the presence of high concentration of cations and anions. These polymers can be fabricated into various shapes such as films, formulations into coatings, painting and other applications. The very capability of absorption of microwaves makes this technology a candidate for creation of RAM.

Quantum Cryptography:

Digital cryptographic systems use mathematical algorithms for generating a hash key which is transferred over the wire over the network. This key is used to decode an encoded information received over the network from the intended senders. An expert hacker can snoop the network by adding his computer to the network and use software and devices to interpret the hash key and thereby interpret the encrypted information transferred over the network. In digital transmission intruder is able to make identical copies of the transmitted messages and perform extensive computer analysis offline.

Quantum cryptography is a new approach to the key distribution. Instead of transmitting the prepared keys, the keys are generated dynamically using quantum physics phenomena. The sender transmits the string of signals to the receiver whose values are carried by single photons. If an intruder in the network tries to intercept the transmission, then their state will be irreparably changed resulting in the change in the sequence and quantum of photonic signals without revealing the original transmission to the eavesdropper and sender & receiver will detect eavesdropping. In quantum cryptography any disturbance to the photons being carried on the optical link will lead into immediate disturbance in the transmission of the optical waves thereby damaging the transmission and immediately altering the pattern in the transmission of the optical signal which will result in changed signals both in value and quantum resulting into totally wrong number of bit patterns getting registered by the intruder and the eavesdropping is also detected at the receiver's end by receipt of the wrong pattern (count of number of bits received in the bit patterns). 

Adaptive Camouflage:

Adaptive camouflage is technique of mimicking the vicinity in response to the changes in the vicinity. Basically two types of technologies are used.

a. Active lighting technique based on micronized solid state LEDs as well as flexible polymer LED systems:

LEDs of square milimeters or less in size can be integrated into fabric. Luminiscent fiber created by weaving super bright fiber optics into fabric can be controlled by microchips powered by small cells of batteries. An optical sensor is infused with the fabric and is connected to the microchip which detects the changes in the vicinity and sends signals of correct wavelength to the micronized LEDs. This results in the dynamic changes in the fabric effecting the camouflage. Luminex is known to be developing such products.

b. Usage of tunable photonic crystals: 

By applying a correct quantum of magnetic field to nano sized particles of iron oxide (photonic crystals) their colouration can be controlled. This discovery has potential to enable manufacturing of products like erasable and rewritable electronic surface thereby substituting paper. This technology has potential to camouflage objects and can be applied for camouflaging defence assets on war front. Nanotechnologists of University of California, Riverside have succeeded in developing this technology.

With the advancement in research in the field of nanotechnology the future defence systems will be ultra smart resulting into ultra smart soldiers and defence assets and warfare will be totally secretive with very high precision in nature. With the induction of ultra stealth and precision by means of nanotechnology the need of mass destruction will be greatly reduced and collateral damage will get minimized and destruction of civilian properties in large scale will be avoided.

This article was first published on http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2015/12/idn-take-developments-in-nano.html

Rail Gun-The Future Weapon Of War

Rail gun is a weapon capable of launching projectile without the usage of explosives or propellants, but, are launched at extremely high velocities, mach 7 (at sea level) or more. Capability of launching projectiles at velocities higher than guns and cannons makes rail gun hit targets at greater ranges capable of hitting the target with extreme speed and accuracy thus nullifying the escape factor of the enemy platform or an approaching projectile. With the usage of rail gun the hazards of usage of explosives and chemical propellants are evaded as well.


In a conventional gun system gas expansion resulting from the usage of explosives and chemicals prohibits launching a projectile to velocities greater than 1.5 km/s and also limits the range to 80 kilometers. Ballistics of a rail gun far outperforms the efficiency of conventional cannons/gun system. Provisioning of one million amperes of current will create a tremendous force on the projectile thus accelerating it to a speed of many kilometres per second . A rail gun can hit a target 250 miles away traveling at a speed of around 16,000 meters per second in 6 minutes. Such a typical rail gun power supply may require a launch current of 5 mega-ampere for a few milliseconds.
Rail guns are being examined by US navy to be used for land bombardment and as anti-aircraft weapons to intercept air threats, particularly intercepting anti-ship cruise missiles.


Hazards of Operating A Rail Gun:


The heat generated from the propulsion of the projectile is enough to erode the rails rapidly.Under high-usage conditions, rail guns would require frequent replacement of the rails until high grade rails capable of producing the same effect without frequent replacement are introduced. A rail gun requires large amounts of power. A power source has to be used that can generate millions of amperes for a rail gun to function. In a traditional battleship power cannot be diverted from the ship’s propulsion system to power the rail gun. So ships with special power systems that can divert the power with required amperage from the engine to the rail gun are required to be designed afresh. US navy’s next-generation battle ship , the all electric DD(X) are designed to produce such currents. Currently only Zumwalt-class destroyers of US navy are capable of producing such power.

Testing OF Rail Gun:


On 31st January 2008 U.S. Navy tested a rail gun that fired a projectile at 10.64 MJ with a muzzle velocity of 2,520 m/s. The required power was provided by a new 9-megajoule capacitor bank using solid-state switches and high-energy-density capacitors and an older 32-megajoule pulse power system from the US Army’s Green Farm Electric Gun Research and Development Facility. The rail gun is expected to be ready for deployment between 2020 to 2025.


Conclusion:


With the advent of rail gun as a weapon owing to its ultra high speed and accuracy which will allow for a abysmally small reaction time to evade its projectile, all airborne battle platforms like fighter jets and sea faring battle platforms like aircraft carriers and large ships will theoritically become outdated and will run the risk of unavoidable destruction once detected and targeted by the radar of the launching ship or platform harbouring the rail gun. Guided rail gun projectiles are also being thought of to be developed.


It seems that future warfare attack as well as defence systems will have to depend on radars and launch platforms having the ability to respond within extremely small scope of reaction time and having the capability to launch hypersonic projectiles/missiles and ultra high energy DEW within that time to counter launches from platforms such as the rail gun. With such lethal launching platforms of weapon the launching platform which will detect and launch an attack first will hold a great advantage over its adversary.


Written By Debojyoti Kumar