Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DOCTRINE
Emerging Technologies
and
Military Doctrine
A Political Assessment
Edited by
Frank Barnaby
and
Palgrave Macmillan
ISBN 978-1-349-08507-1
ISBN 978-1-349-08505-7 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-349-08505-7
1986
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1986 978-0-333-40715-8
All rights reserved. For information, write:
Scholarly & Reference Division,
St. Martin's Press, Inc., 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010
Contents
Notes on the Contributors
ix
List of Participants
xiii
Glossary
XV
Editors' Introduction
I
xix
WHICH WAY NATO?
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
4 Artificial Intelligence
Frans A. J. Birrer
III
21
27
44
MILITARY DOCTRINE
55
66
7 Deep Strike
Rob de Wijk
73
8 Emphasising Defence
Egbert Boeker and Lutz Unterseher
89
110
Contents
VI
10
116
127
Caesar V oute
141
147
156
177
197
EVALUATION
17 Business as Usual?
Peter M. E. Volten
205
215
220
239
251
Contents
VI
CONCLUSIONS
Appendices
I Weapon systems
II Some Remarks on the Costs of Reactive Defence Options
Hans W. Hofmann, Reiner K. Huber and Karl Steiger
Index
vii
267
276
278
303
315
Ben Dankbaar studied economics and social sciences at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Currently, he is researcher at
the International Institute of Comparative Social Research in West
Berlin, Germany.
Bob de Ruiter has been doing research and teaching at the Political
Sciences Department of the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands since 1983, on the economic and strategic aspects of European
military cooperation.
holm, Sweden.
xi
XII
Frans-Banke van der Meer has been doing research and teaching in
organisation theory and peace research at the Centre for Studies on
Problems of Science and Society, 'De Boerderij', at the Technological University Twente in Enschede, the Netherlands, since 1975.
Peter M. E. Volten has been senior staff member at the Directorate
of General Policy Affairs, Ministry of Defence, The Hague, the
Netherlands, since 1977. In 1984 he became Professor of War at the
Department of History, State University of Utrecht, the
Nether lands.
Caesar Voute has been Professor in General and Applied Geology at
the International Institute for Aerospace Surveys and Earth Sciences
(lTC) in Enschede, the Netherlands, since 1963.
Paul Walker has been national security consultant at Klein Walker
List of Participants
Mr Charles Dick
Royal Military Academy
Sandhurst, UK
Dr David Greenwood
Centre for Defence Studies
Aberdeen, Scotland
Dr Pascal Boniface
Secretariat International
du Parti Socialiste
Institut National Superieur
d' Etudes de Defence et
Desarmement
Paris, France
B. A. Gunilla Herolf
SIPRI, Sweden
Drs Olaf van Kooten
Agricultural University
Wageningen, The Netherlands
Dr Steven Canby
Defence Consultant
Washington, DC
Mr Simon Lunn
Plans and Policy Division
International Secretariat
NATO Headquarters
Brussels, Belgium
Mr David Cooper
Planning and Support
Directorate
International Secretariat
NATO Headquarters
Brussels, Belgium
Ir A. J. Meerburg
Section of Disarmament and
International Peace Problems
Dept of Foreign Affairs
The Hague, The Netherlands
Hans Moens
Political Sciences Department
Free University
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Mr Bob de Ruiter
Political Sciences Department
University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Drs Rob de Wijk
Defence Analyst, The Netherlands
Xlll
Ir Sjef Orbons
Technological University
Delft, The Netherlands
xiv
List of Participants
Professor Dr L. Sikl6ssy
Computer Sciences Department
Free University
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Dr Wim A. Smit
Technological University Twente
Enschede, The Netherlands
Glossary
Numbers in parentheses at the end of an entry refer to the chapter that
gives some information on the entry.
AAM: Air-to-Air Missile
ABM: Anti-Ballistic Missile
ABM Treaty: Agreement between US and SU on ABM systems
ACDA: Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (US)
ACE: Allied Command Europe
ACIS: Arms Control Impact Statement (14)
AFV: Armoured Fighting Vehicle
xvi
Glossary
Glossary
xvii
Appendix I)
xviii
Glossary
Editors' Introduction
Emerging Technologies and Military Doctrine was the theme of a
workshop held at the Free University in Amsterdam in the summer
of 1985. Participants came from several West European universities,
and from policy circles including NATO and the Dutch Ministry of
Defence. Contributors were members of the military, civilian
analysts from inside and outside NATO, and independent
researchers associated with the peace movement. The quite wide
range of opinions led to lively and serious debate. At the end of the
week a considerable amount of consensus had been reached, much
to the surprise of the organisers. They were able to specify the
problems facing NATO and criteria for solutions in a generally
acceptable way (Chapter 1), and were even led to formulate a set
of conclusions, which met with general acceptance (Chapter 3).
The summer months saw some hard work both by the authors and
the editors. Although the discussions at the workshop, and the
editors' comments led to some important revisions, the chapters
themselves are the sole responsibility of the authors.
The first part, Which Way NATO?, gives the framework of the
book, the basis on which the editors selected and edited the other
contributions (Chapter 1).
In the second part Emerging Technologies are analysed, first in a
general way (Chapter 2) and then focusing on two relevant developments, concerning anti-tank weapons (Chapter 3), and artificial intelligence (Chapter 4).
In the third part, Military Doctrine, three concepts are discussed,
which have recently been proposed as solutions to the problems
facing NATO. The first is of course the Strategic Defense Initiative,
which is described in terms of its relevance for conventional defence
of Western Europe (Chapter 5). The second includes all those
concepts centring on deep strike, like FOFA and Airland Battle
(Chapter 7).
The third is a cluster of less familiar concepts emphasising defence
(Chapter 8). The idea is to organize both weaponry and doctrine in
such a way, that the military build-up is seen to be capable of an
effective defence by denial, but incapable of offensive actions against
the opponent's territory. Nuclear weapons play at most a retaliatory
role. This approach, which is aimed at combining military effective-
xix
XX
Editors' Introduction
Editors' Introduction
xxi
stability, arms control and detente (Chapter 21). For these point to
problems which are aggravated by NATO's present military doctrine
and associated incorporation of emerging technologies.
The final part contains the editor's conclusion, that concepts
emphasising defence could offer a way out of many of the dilemmas
confronting NATO (Chapter 22). This conclusion is based on, but
goes much further than the concluding statements generally accepted
at the workshop (Chapter 23). Appendices include reviews of
relevant weapon systems, and a cost assessment of alternatives made
as part of an exercise of the military academy at Munich.
The workshop and the resulting publication were possible thanks
to the financial support of the Dutch Ministry of Science and
Education, and the Reformist Association for Higher Education, to
which the Free University is linked. The assistance of John Grin was
invaluable for the editors. Marianne Tulp did a very good organisational job. Elly Manenschijn and Mies Brookman succeeded in
typing out the most illegible English, and Mr A. Pomper carefully
drew some of the figures.
FRANK BARNABY
MARLIES TER BoRG
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The illustrations in Chapter 4 are from the magazine Military Technology, and they are reprinted by courtesy of Military Technology.
Part I
Which Way NATO?
strike, thus raising the nuclear threshold. Or else they are seen to
hold a great future for anti-tank weapons, making the tank, tactical
nuclear weapons, and perhaps even aggression as such obsolete.
There are indeed some very interesting developments in various
technological fields. One is sensor technology, where innovations are
making it possible to equip weapons with ever better means of
perception, either through radar, infra-red, laser or microwave. The
ongoing miniaturisation in computer-technology is making it much
easier to give weapons 'brains', that is the means to rapidly digest
the information received via the sensors. Together these developments are leading to quite revolutionary improvements in surveillance and target acquisition, whilst greatly enhancing the capability
of weapons of finding their way to the target. The speed and range
of weapons is also increasing, due to innovations in the technology
of propulsion. Weapons that travel as fast as light are becoming
feasible, through laser technology. And lastly the destructive capacity
of conventional weapons is increasing substantially. Together with
the improvement of their precision, this is leading to a situation
where conventional systems have a military effectiveness comparable
to that of nuclear weapons. And last but not least, software development is leading to new possibilities of coordination and battle
management.
But technological innovation, however revolutionary, has by itself
never solved any political problem. The nations making up NATO
will never succeed in providing for their security by technological
fixes, be they cruise-missiles, laser weapons for ballistic defence, or
precision-guided munitions.
In the first place these new technologies cost money, lots of money
in some cases. Rather than mitigate financial strains, they seriously
aggravate them, requiring radical cuts in more traditional sectors.
Sometimes money is 'saved' on essentials like training and stocks,
leading to a reduction of overall military effectivity.
Secondly, their implementation does not always increase security,
but can also decrease it, by offering, for instance, new targets for
preemptive attack.
Technological solutions never come alone, but are nearly always
accompanied by new problems, if not more of the old. They are
never politically neutral, and often demand a revision of doctrine if
they are to be used to their full potential. It is not surprising that
military bureaucracy, with its inherent inertia, resists both the reallo-
10
11
12
more countries around the world pales in the face of the rapid
vertical proliferation on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Substantial
rearmament programmes are going ahead, with an increase in
warheads, launchers and precision. The Soviet Union has recently
introduced improved sea-launched ballistic missiles for the new
Typhoon submarine, and the US have replaced the Poseidon by the
Trident. The US Congress recently granted President Reagan the
production of the vulnerable MX-missiles, and the Soviets are testing
the mobile SS-X-24. On the European continent, substantial
numbers of long range theatre nuclear weapons have been deployed,
such as the SS-20 and SS-22 on the one side, and cruise-missiles and
the Pershing II on the other.
CRISIS-STABILITY
The enhanced precision of these nuclear weapons forms a very
serious problem, making nuclear counter force strategy and associated warfighting doctrines an increasingly realistic option. Weapon
systems on the verge of being deployed could very well decrease
crisis stability, by provoking a preemptive first strike in times of
international tension. A well-known example is the Pershing II with
its very short flight time. This weapon system, could oblige the
Soviets to make a preemptive attack as soon as they suspect that a
NATO attack is under preparation. The deployment of this type of
weapon by NATO could even drive the Soviets to install launch on
warning. The same could, of course, be said for any new Soviet
systems which require a very quick reaction. It is not only to certain
nuclear weapons that this applies. The conventional version of
Pershing II, the CAM-40, presently being developed, to destroy
Soviet airfields in minutes after the first hostilities occur, would also
be very destabilising, as would a conventional T-16 or T-22 ballistic
missile for deep attack of moving targets like tanks. Such conventional systems, sometimes seen as an improvement on nuclear ones,
have the special disadvantage of being ready for launch, without
extensive NATO consultation procedures. If they look like nuclear
weapons to Soviet surveillance systems, as does the dual capable
Lance, they could well provoke a nuclear answer.
13
14
15
The other entails the type of war they are planning for, and will be
likely to wage, should war, through whatever cause, break out.
A deterrence strategy aimed at the prevention of war is obviously
very dependent on the first of these two aspects. An analysis of the
likelihood of a WTO initiated war must take into account that the
Soviet Union is a militarised society, with an ideology in which war
plays an important role. In fact war was seen as a natural counterpart
of the inevitable overthrowing of capitalism, that is, until the arrival
of nuclear weapons on the scene made it clear that even communism
would not be able to survive it.
On the other hand, past experience has shown Russian leaders to
be very cautious, initiating a war only in those rare cases in which
they were sure of a quick and easy victory. The Russian people have
of course suffered greatly under wars started by other powers, and
have shown a tenacity in the face of astronomical losses. So a deliberate first strike attack at NATO territory is not the first thing the
Russians are thinking of. Their leaders will of course not reject any
opportunity to extend their sphere of influence, and as military
minded men they will show due respect to an opponent with an
effective defence.
So that is where a credible military defence of NATO comes in.
It must of course be credible, not only in the view of its own citizens,
but above all in the perception of the Soviet leaders. So it must give
an appropriate answer to the warfighting scenarios that the WTO
sees as part of its strategy.
Soviet military doctrine holds that if war does break out in Europe,
it must be won very quickly if it is to be won at all.lo A speedy
victory will prevent escalation onto the nuclear level, which would
be catastrophic for the Soviet Union itself. Moreover, the strains of
a prolonged war could destroy the WTO from the inside, allowing
the satellite states to break away, and perhaps even leading to the
overthrowing of the regime, as after the First World War.
So even if the WTO policy is not directed towards war, its military
doctrine is. The warfighting doctrine is not in itself a reason for
concern. For the Soviets make a very clear distinction between the
political and the operational level, with the second level expressly
subordinate to the first. Following von Clausewitz, they might like
to think that diplomacy is war continued by peaceful means. But
then war, as diplomacy, is subservient to politics, and not a goal in
itself.
A quick victory, which is the operational, not the strategic or
16
17
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Part II
Emerging Technologies
2 Trends in Military
Technology
Peter Boskma and
Frans-Bauke van der Meer
22
assessments potential adversaries make and upon the way they react
accordingly at the military and/or political level. An evaluation of
emerging technologies and related military doctrines must therefore
take into account the social and political processes to which they
give rise within and between states and alliances.3
The second premise is that scientific-technological development
itself is a social process in the sense that its direction is co-determined
by perceptions and interpretations of the actors involved. 4 Military
doctrines and emerging technologies tend to direct and reinforce
each other in the context of specific definitions of security problems
and interpretations of international relations.
Nevertheless, however valid both premises may be, they do not
imply that technology or its consequences can be manipulated at will
or that it is simply a reflection of current social relations. In assessing
the meaning and impact of emerging technologies it is also necessary
to analyse the major inherent qualities of these technologies and to
explore intended or unintended implications they may have. Any
sensible policy with respect to military strategy, doctrine and posture
will have to take these characteristics into account too.
The remainder of this chapter is devoted to them.
CHARACTERISTICS OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
Today, quite a number of new technological options present themselves. They are based on a broad field of scientific findings after the
Second World War, basic fields like solid state physics, microelectronics, atomic and plasma physics being very important among
them. Their use covers a very broad field of cybernation of apparatus
and automation of complex systems through new options in detection, communication and data-handling. Apart from that, new and
very fast weapon systems, such as laser weapons, are designed. These
developments have a profound impact in the military domain. The
present revolution differs from earlier breakthroughs such as those
in the field of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. These technological revolutions were of a more one-dimensional nature leading,
for example to changes in explosive yields, or in flight times. The
cybernetic nature of newly emerging technologies constitutes a more
pervasive influence on all aspects of military planning, doctrine and
posture. Weapons and non-weapon elements, like devices for surveillance, data handling, target acquisition, guidance or electronic coun-
23
24
windows of effectiveness of smart weapons can for instance be seriously threatened by weather conditions. Nevertheless, the risks
involved have raised serious questions about the classic concept of
tank battle, etc. It is a general feeling therefore that a shift might
occur in relative capabilities for offensive and defensive actions,
favouring the defence. Also defensive operations in a decentralised
mode, might become increasingly effective. 8
A fourth trend can be deduced from the options for large scale
integration of communication and command systems, which provide
opportunities for an integrated battlefield, in the sense of integrating
both weapon systems and scales of operations. Although increased
accuracy would provide options to use weapons of smaller calibre,
such a development would probably intensify the total level of combat,
the number of casualties and collateral damage. Together with the
increasing capabilities in firing velocities of conventional artillery,
bombers and missile systems, a high intensity of combat, destroying
large areas, might soon be reached. For densely populated Europe
the effects of such a conventional war might be disastrous and
comparable with the short term effects of small nuclear weaponry.
A fifth trend arising from introduction of ET in the military domain
is increasing uncertainty with respect to the survivability and sustainability of the new complex military postures in a war-fighting environment. The basic structure of CJI form a kind of non-tested technology.
Of course, many field experiments and military exercises can be used
to diminish these uncertainties, but such tests can never be
considered the equivalent of a real war-fighting practice. One can,
of course, argue that the core of today's strategic nuclear weaponry
and missiles is based on non-tested technologies, too. Nobody hasfortunately - direct empirical evidence for the performance of the
central nuclear missile system in a nuclear conflict. Here too the
functioning of the C3I structure under war-fighting conditions
presents a major problem.9
But this argument only underlines the problems involved in the
technological arms race. Through the revolutionary changes that ET
provides, an inherent underlying instability is introduced, which in
other sections of society, in large scale production facilities for
instance, is normally not acceptable. In those sectors, practice shows
that a scaling-up process in which continuous feedback occurs, is
essential for the development of reliable technologies. The military
sector does not allow such scaling-up under realistic conditions.
25
Notes
1.
2.
3.
See D. Senghaas, Abschreckung und Frieden: Studien zur Kritik organisierter Friedlosigkeit, Europiiische Verlaganstalt, Frankfurt am Main,
3rd ed., 1981, for a theoretical analysis of the impact of deterrence
on international relations and its relation with the introduction of
weapons of mass destruction.
Many contributions to this volume go into this (see e.g. Paul Walker,
Chapter 3, and the case studies in Part III of the book). See also
Donald R. Cotter, 'Potential Future Roles for Conventional and
Nuclear Forces in Defense of Western Europe', supporting paper in
ESECS: Strengthening Conventional Deterrence in Europe (New York:
St. Martin's Press, 1983) pp. 209-53.
At the theoretical level much work remains to be done for a genuine
process analysis. Within the domain of organisation theory a number
26
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
3 Emerging Technologies
and Conventional
Defence
Paul F. Walker
27
28
RECENT EXPERIENCE
Military confrontation, both large and small, has proven costly
throughout history in both human and physical terms. However,
when examined from the comparative perspective of effort expended
(for example, bullets fired) versus result (for example, target(s)
destroyed), war has been very inefficient. Arrows, bullets, bombs,
rockets, shells, and other such unguided projectiles have more often
than not missed their intended targets.! Evaluations of Second World
War strategic bombing missions, for example, showed that nonnuclear bombing was often off-target and very inefficient. The American Twentieth Air Force's campaign against urban Japanese targets
provided the following estimated results:
Total urban attacks: 93
Total aircraft utilised: 173
Total bomb load: 1026 metric tons
Area destroyed: 4. 7 square kilometres
Killed and missing: 1850
Injured: 1850
Such figures, although providing a high casualty rate per geographic
area destroyed - 800 people killed or injured per square kilometre
- illustrate the extraordinary tonnage and effort necessary to harm
the enemy. In this particular case, each aircraft bombing run
Paul F. Walker
29
30
Still another recent Mideast demonstration of new, homing missiles was provided during the 1982 Lebanese war when the Israelis
claimed to have destroyed 87 Syrian aircraft - Soviet-built MIGs with American Sidewinder and Sparrow missiles and their own
Shafrir II and Python 3 air-to-air missiles. 6 Shortly thereafter three
of 28 American Navy aircraft were struck by Soviet-made surfaceto-air missiles over Lebanon. Two of the aircraft were destroyed,
the third limped back to its aircraft carrier in the Eastern Mediterranean. 7 The use of homing, modern missiles has recently spread to
the Arabian Gulf where weekly scorecards are issued of ships struck
by rockets and missiles in the Iran/Iraq war; over 100 ships have
been damaged by French-built Exocet anti-ship missiles and other
weapons thus far. s
The long Vietnam war also offered several telling tests of antitank and other guided missiles. In 1967, two ships, the American
cruiser, Boston, and the Australian destroyer, Hobart, were mistaken
by US jet fighters for enemy targets (some reports allege the two
ships were even falsely identified as aircraft) and hit by Sparrow airto-air missiles. Five years later the first Combat Aerial TOW (Tubelaunched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided) Team arrived in Saigon
and began immediately to successfully engage North Vietnamese and
Soviet-built tanks in helicopter attacks. 9
Perhaps the most celebrated example of recent use of precisionguided or 'smart' missiles is the sinking of the British destroyer,
Sheffield, by a single, sea-skimming Exocet missile in the 1982
Falklands war. Launched over twenty miles away by an Argentine
Super Etendard fighter/bomber, similar to the aircraft used by the
Iraqis in the Persian Gulf, the Exocet slammed into its target amidships and eventually forced the British to scuttle the ship (Fig. 3.1).1
These increasingly numerous and successful, live demonstrations
of modern, hi-tech weapons in combat have forced the question of
whether past military practice, tactics, and doctrine are any longer
valid. Whether, for example, tanks should still be assumed to provide
the best defence against tank attack. Whether large aircraft-carrier
task forces and forward naval deployments should still be relied on
to project power across oceans. Whether large, expensive, jet-fighter
aircraft, oriented towards deep interdiction behind enemy battle
lines, can still survive. And whether better, more effective, possibly
less provocative, or offensive force deployments and doctrine might
be developed and deployed. US President Ronald Reagan pointed
31
Steering vane
Wire
dispenser
Launch
motor
Infrared
tracking
beacon
Figure 3.1a
Steering vane
Rocket motor
0
Length (metres)
32
BASIC TECHNOLOGIES
There are literally thousands of technologies, from microchips to
spun fibres, which combine to create modern weapons today. One
of the most important and effective changes has been in the area of
warhead design. Old warheads emphasised mass and kinetic energy,
combined at times with explosives. The twenty-kilogram cannon ball
was intended to pierce its target by striking with such velocity and
weight that it would shatter anything in its path. It was later
discovered that by tampering the forward part of such projectiles, in
essence constructing them in the shape of a bullet rather than a ball,
warheads flew better and were more effective in piercing harder
targets.
As armoured vehicles improved their hard skins, it became
necessary to design more sophisticated warheads for both ballistic
projectiles and guided missiles to enable them to penetrate several
hundred centimetres of armour or a metre or more of hardened
concrete used in command bunkers. Figure 3.2 provides some detail
of the variety of warheads today, all combinations of specially shaped
projectiles, dense materials, and carefully timed explosive charges.
The first type is the traditional solid shot, in essence, a heavy bullet
which relies on high velocity, tapered front end, and hard metal to
Paul F. Walker
33
penetrate its target. Very few large calibre weapons rely solely on
this warhead any longer.
The most commonly heard firing command in a main battle tank
today is: 'HEAT on the way!' This refers to the relatively new High
Energy Anti-Tank warhead, a round utilising a shaped charge that
is ignited from the rear at the very instant the conically hollowed
front of the charge comes in contact with the armour. This combination of directed and kinetic energy focuses a jet of hot gas capable
of penetrating several hundred centimetres of the toughest armour
and squirting molten metal throughout the turret of a tank.
Two additional warhead designs utilising explosive material at
impact with the target are nicknamed HESH and HEAP. The High
Explosive Squash Head round is intended not to penetrate armour
but rather to set up dangerous shock waves which destroy the interior
of a tank. It accomplishes this by 'squashing' against the outside of
its target and then immediately detonating its explosive charge; the
shock waves are sufficiently great that chunks of armour and metal
are known to spall off the interior at high velocities, acting like
shrapnel. The High Explosive Armour Piercing round is similar to
the first solid shot except that it carries an internal explosive charge
which detonates with a delayed contact fuse during penetration,
thereby causing more damage.
One of the newest warheads is nicknamed APDS or Armour
Piercing Discarding Sabot. It appears the same as the solid shot but
cradles a dense tungsten or uranium core inside; as it is launched
out of a tank or artillery gun, part or all of its casing, light sabots,
are discarded. This allows very heavy, smaller calibre bullet-type
cores to be fired out of larger guns, providing more kinetic energy
than if they were fired out of smaller calibre guns.
A recent modification of the sabot round provides for an internal
long rod penetrator which is set at an angle from the ballistic or
powered trajectory; upon striking an oblique surface, such as the
side of a tank turret, it enters the turret closer to a perpendicular
angle, increasing its chances of penetration.13
Military research labs are continuing to work on ways to improve
the penetration capabilities of warheads. The US Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) currently lists two classified
programmes, the 'Advanced Conventional Warhead Technology'
programme, and 'RAMROD'. The latter is intended to provide
artillery projectiles 'hypervelocity armour penetration' using 'selfignition ramjet technology' during ballistic ftight.1 4
34
Solid shot
...
(a)
(b)
(c)
.1:)
HEAT
...
HESH
...
HEAP (1)
(d)
HEAP (2)
Sabot
(e)
=-
Paul F. Walker
35
Applique- steel
36
unguided like a bullet towards its target. More often than not,
ballistic projectiles have missed their mark by a wide margin.
Modern missiles have improved upon this problem by designing
a variety of homing and terminal guidance technologies. The first
generation of guided anti-tank missiles utilised wire guidance, much
improved models of which are still used in many ground- and airlaunched missiles and torpedoes. After firing, the missile is literally
flown to its target by its firer, usually visually sighting the target and
steering the missile via electronic signals transmitted from his/her
joy-stick through the guidance wire(s) reeling out behind the missile
to the self-contained guidance package in the missile. Early models
presented problems, partly due to the difficulty for an infantryman
or helicopter pilot to remain stationary for fifteen seconds or more
while possibly facing counter fire, and retain clear sight of both the
missile and the target, both perhaps no larger than a speck on the
horizon on an opaque and busy battlefield. In open desert situations,
in daylight, with good weather, and high background contrast, the
French SSlO and Soviet Sagger, for example, worked well; in typical
European war conditions, they would likely have been much less
effective.
Wire-guided systems have been much improved in thirty years. As
long as an open path lies between the firer and the target (not
blocked by trees, fences, or other obstacles to disrupt the missile
flight), the firer must only sight his target; the missile automatically
follows his/her aim. Improved launcher sights and thermal beacons
have been added to provide more precise guidance both day and
night and through battlefield obscurants.
A second 'smart' guidance system, used in larger missiles such as
the air-launched, anti-tank Maverick, is electro-optical or television
guidance. A small television camera is located in the nose of the
missile behind a transparent dome; this transmits a picture of the
battlefield and target back to the cockpit of the aircraft or helicopter.
The pilot literally views his target through the eye of the missile,
steering it along its flight.
There have been many problems with TV guidance, primarily
involving obscuration of the target and a narrow field of vision, still
leaving much room for improvement.
Two related guidance systems, radar and infrared, have been
widely deployed in active systems today. Both seek their target,
either through radar signature or through temperature variances.
The French Exocet, for example, used radar guidance for homing
Paul F. Walker
37
38
enemy identification was always over short ranges, tens of kilometres, providing little opportunities for longer-range attack over
hundreds of kilometres.
This has changed dramatically. The battlefield, both before and
during hostilities, has become almost transparent to electro-optical
and electronic spying and eavesdropping. Satellites or 'national technical means of verification' provide both micro and macro glimpses
of the enemy encamped, for example, in Central Europe. They
also provide much improved intelligence about one's own location
through systems such as the NAVSTAR Global Positioning System
(GPS), thereby affording better targeting accuracy.1 5
Aircraft, signal and human intelligence all add to a very good
picture of military deployments, if not comprehensive headcounts,
as well. The new TR-1 high-altitude, tactical reconnaissance aircraft
with passive electronic intercept sensors and synthetic aperture
radars, for example, has just begun deployment in Europe for longrange, all-weather detection of immobile targets. Programmes are
underway to refine radars also for better long-range detection of
mobile targets such as tank columns.l6 The many intelligence gathering outposts situated on or about front lines continue to improve
their reception and analysis capabilities.
Active hostilities complicate surveillance, for the spying machine
- spotter aircraft, remotely piloted vehicle, robotic device, perhaps
even satellite in the near future - becomes vulnerable to attack. The
targets are predictably also more mobile, necessitating additional
real-time intelligence in order to accurately target one's missiles.
Remotely piloted vehicles, both air and ground, are coming to play
a larger role (see Chapter 13); the Israeli RPV, for example, proved
invaluable in recent years in effective preemptive attacks against
surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites.
Aircraft and helicopters are being retrofitted with several more
sophisticated surveillance devices: forward- and side-looking radars
and infra-red devices and, for helicopters, mast-mounted periscopelike devices to lower the airborne silhouette. The US Army is in
early demonstration phases with an 'Autonomous Land Vehicle', in
essence, a versatile, robotic surveillance vehicle with both electrooptical vision and acoustic listening capabilities.!?
At sea, acoustic listening devices are increasing their range and
intelligence in order to accurately identify friend or foe (IFF) on or
below the ocean's surface; the US Department of Defense, for
example, is investigating a highly classified programme called
Paul F. Walker
39
40
given its hi-tech nature and the depth of the threat against which it
must protect itself. The modern main battle tank costs US $2.7
million, over fifty times (in real terms) its Second World War predecessor. The modern main fighter aircraft surpasses $21 million, some
sixteen times the typical Second World War plane. And a modern
naval destroyer runs upwards of $1.3 billion, 150 times its Second
World War counterpart.2 1
The 'smart' missiles opposing them are similarly not cheap,
particularly when one includes the launch platform - aircraft, helicopter, ship, infantry fighting vehicle - but are nevertheless many
times less expensive than the traditional battlefield piece. For
example, the new imaging infrared Maverick averages US $140 000
per unit; the anti-ship Harpoon missile $543 000; the newest model
of TOW, $9 000; and the Stinger surface-to-air missile $74 000.22
Thirdly, this expense, combined with the deadliness of the
battlefield, makes warfare highly costly both in equipment and
human terms. Rates of attrition in warfare, the percentage of loss
of personnel and equipment, are typically in low single digits; this will
likely double, triple, or perhaps rise still higher in intense conflict.
Lastly, ET, although more deadly, may ironically stabilise militarised fronts like Europe and Korea. It will serve neither side to go
on the offensive, assuming the opponent is decentralised, mobile,
and well prepared for defence; the force which goes on the attack
must, of necessity, move into the open. If well deployed, a defender
will be able to heavily attrite an opponent on the move. This being
the case, it argues strongly for mutual force reductions and reevaluation of militarised fronts, if both sides can adequately defend
themselves.
A final note of caution. Emerging technologies offer no panacea
for defence without good personnel, well trained and motivated,
adequately supported by a nation, and weapons which are reliable,
durable, and expendable on dirty battlefields. They do not guarantee
that any particular weapons system - the tank, the combat support
aircraft, or others - will quickly become obsolete on every military
front. But they do point to the need to seriously reevaluate
traditional military tactics and procurement policies, still closely
married to Second World War customs and weapons. Large,
expensive, capital items - the main battle tank, the heavy aircraft,
and the major surface ship; forward deployments of such weapons;
big, static, centralised support bases; and non-expendable, relatively
Paul F. Walker
41
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
42
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Paul F. Walker
20.
21.
22.
43
4 Artificial Intelligence
Frans A. J. Birrer
One of the technological fields for which military interest has recently
been rapidly growing is Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI is not an area
with perfectly clear-cut boundaries, but it can be globally defined as
'the part of computer science concerned with designing intelligent
computer systems, that is, systems that exhibit the characteristics
we associate with intelligence in human behavior - understanding
language, learning, reasoning, solving problems, and so on' .1
Today some of the most important topics in AI are:
-
knowledge representation
recognition of images, and of speech and other acoustic signals
expert systems
natural language processing
problem solving
44
Frans A. J. Birrer
45
46
Artificial Intelligence
Frans A. J. Birrer
47
48
Artificial Intelligence
Frans A. J. Birrer
49
use of this formal task structure breaks down, for instance, when an
autonomous vehicle meets an unforeseen kind of obstacle, a
computer does not possess the background knowledge a human can
use in such cases.
That even simple programming mistakes may lead to unexpected
results can be illustrated by an often reported (though never officially
confirmed) incident on the Sheffield in the Falklands war: it is said
that the Exocet fired by the Argentines was not detected because
the computer was programmed to identify the Exocet (made by the
French) as a friendly weapon.to
Secondly, if decisions are not automated, but computer information is used only to assist human decision makers, it will take
quite some time to get the right balance between man and machine.
It is a well known phenomenon that many people tend to shift their
responsibility to the computer. The use of computers might also
introduce all kinds of 'bureaucratic' problems which are so familiar
in other computer applications (for instance, making the gathering
of information a goal in itself).
In the third place, there is a vital difference between a military
AI-based system and for instance a medical diagnosis system in the
sense that the cause of a disease is not likely to adapt its strategy in
order to mislead the diagnosing system, whereas a party in an armed
conflict will not idly wait until all his positions have been carefully
measured by the opponent. Who is prepared for strongly information-based warfare should also be ready for decoys and electronic
warfare.
Finally, all kinds of institutional problems might be encountered.
The integration of information handling necessary for the effective
use of AI, requires a lot more cooperation than presently occurring,
between sections within the military organisation (AirLand Battle
already had to be split into an army and an air force part because
of a lack of willingness to cooperate) as well as between nations (this
certainly forms a major problem for NATO). The use of AI might
meet resistance from those in the military organisation who do not
want to hand part of their decision power over to machines. Also
the US Department of Defense ideal of one programming language
(Ada) for the whole organisation will be severely damaged by AI,
Ada being considered inadequate by most AI-researchers, whose
common languages are LISP and PROLOG. 11
Strange enough, while almost all appraisals of the military potential of AI mention the fact that the amount of accessible information
50
Artificial Intelligence
Frans A. J. Birrer
51
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
52
9.
10.
11.
12.
Artificial Intelligence
Military Technology, no. 10 (1984) pp. 25-30.
Ron. Johnson, 'Automatic Target Recognition Fuses Sensors and Artificial Intelligence', Defense Electronics (April 1984) 106-115.
Jozef Goldblatt and Viktor Millan, 'The Falkland/Malvinas Conflicta Spur to Arms Build-ups', SIPRI Yearbook, 1983 (London: Taylor &
Francis).
James B. Schultz, 'Weapons that Think', Defense Electronics (Jan.
1983) pp. 74-80.
Martha Smith, 'C3 is the Heart of any War in Space', interview with
Erberhardt Rechtin, November 1982.
Part III
Military Doctrine
INTRODUCTION
President Reagan's Speech of 23 March 1983, dubbed the 'Star Wars
speech' by critics, met with mixed reactions. In Western Europe the
tone of the editorials of the leading newspapers was preponderantly
critical, 1 and in the US the issue revived the anti-ballistic missile
(ABM) debate of the late 1960s. Initially most West European politicians expressed scepticism about the feasibility of the American
plans and seemed, moreover, to be highly irritated by the fact that
they had not been consulted in advance.
Yet for defence analysts the subject itself could hardly have come
as a surprise. They must have noticed the evolutionary changes in
technology, the growing American resentment over the results of
arms control negotiations 2 and the increasing concern about both the
growth of the Soviet Union's offensive forces and its ballistic missile
defence (BMD) efforts: all factors that made an American response
almost inevitable.
The Americans had in fact stepped up their research efforts in the
late 1970s, although this decision did not receive wide publicity at
the time. Suspicions concerning the use of directed energy weapons
in an ABM role were fuelled in the mid-1970s when the Soviet Union
embarked on the construction of a directed energy test installation
in Semipalatinsk in the Kazakhstan military district. Satellite pictures
of the work in progress gave rise to a controversy within the American intelligence community that took some years to resolve. Air
Force intelligence experts believed from the beginning that it was a
55
56
G. C. Berkhof
57
American officials point out that the research phase of the SDI
programme does not represent an attempt to deploy specific systems.
It is therefore no substitute for current nuclear and conventional
58
G. C. Berkhof
59
60
THE
G. C. Berkhof
61
62
G. C. Berkhof
63
are relatively low (100 km and less) could pose additional problems.
On the other hand, shorter-range missiles are rather slow. Their reentry speed is less than half that of high-speed ICBMs (3 km/s and
less compared with about 7.6 km/s for ICBMs). Added to this, the
relatively small payload of the missiles precludes the use of multiple
nuclear re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) on weapons like SS-21, and SS-23
(and probably also the SS-22), while the MIRVing of non-nuclear
warheads is of course out of the question. So in some respects an
endo-atmospheric defence against shorter-range weapons presents
fewer difficulties than a defence against heavy high-speed MIRVed
ICBMs. As a back-up for the ground-based point defence ATBMs,
high-flying aircraft with medium-range laser weapons or electromagnetic rail guns would probably give the best results. Another area
for research would be the possibility of mounting medium-energy
laser weapons (or their mirrors) on remotely-piloted vehicles or
RPVs. Long-range high-endurance RPVs developed for the American Compass Cope programme proved in tests to be capable of
remaining airborne for over 24 hours while patrolling at 15 000 to
22 000 m at 0.6 times the speed of sound. 1B Though their payload
was comparatively small (1200 pounds), it is probably well within
the bounds of present technology to develop heavier models with
larger payloads. Laser aircraft or RPVs have several advantages
over ATBMs. They are multi-shot systems, probably cheaper than
ATBMs and suitable for both preferential point defence and
(limited) area defence, thereby increasing the uncertainties for the
attacker. In some areas with high mountains (France, Spain, Italy)
RPVs could also operate in conjunction with 'laser forts' for rear
area protection. An additional advantage of laser aircraft and RPVs
is that they could be designed in Western Europe and thus offer
better prospects for West European cooperation.
On balance, a defence against shorter-range ballistic missiles
armed with nuclear or non-nuclear warheads seems the best way to
shore up the defence of Western Europe. If most West European
countries could agree to set up a research organisation for an European Aerospace Defence Initiative (EADI) in close cooperation
with the American SDI, this would have added advantages. West
European security aspects could be fully incorporated in the American project, which would prevent a 'decoupling' of US and Western
Europe; a 'decoupling' extending beyond the security level to the
technological and economical levels as well. Obviously funds will
have to be made available and a joint organisation set up, but the
64
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
G. C. Berkhof
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
65
6 Don't Shoot at
Deterrence
Pascal Boniface
SDI
This explains the reserve - if not to say the disapproval - Paris
shows equally to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) of President
Reagan, and to the new conventional weapon doctrines, named after
General Rogers. Both are criticised for jeopardising, in the air and
on the ground, in space and on the earth, the concept on deterrence,
which has made it possible for Europe to live in peace for forty years
- in spite of a wide ideological gulf and an imbalance in conventional
weapons favouring one bloc.
In this chapter the French reactions to both SDI and the Rogers
doctrine, are presented. It has been said that the French hostility
towards SDI is accounted for by misgivings about its ultimate impact
on the credibility of the French nuclear force.
It is impossible to imagine the Soviets not following the Americans
in this new arms race. The establishment of an impenetrable nuclear
shield protecting Russian soil is then predicted to result in rendering
the French nuclear force obsolete, ready to join the spinning wheel
and the bronze axe in the Museum of Arts and Crafts.
This approach does not square with reality. Even the American
experts basically believe, that it is impossible for either the Amer-
66
Pascal Boniface
67
68
from the German Greens to the American bishops, who are attacking
the principle of deterrence. Is this very helpful? The French think
not!
It is certainly nice of the American president, that he desires to
give himself a less 'belicose' image. But he could have achieved that
in a cheaper and more effective way by trying to attain a balanced
agreement with the Soviets in Geneva, instead of giving a new
impulse to the arms race and jeopardising the 1972 ABM treaty into
the bargain.
So one could summarise the French position on SDI as follows.
We do not worry too much about it, but we do think it counterproductive. In any case, nobody counts on us to participate, by
subcontracting, in a project which holds no guarantees whatsoever,
that the advantages for civil technology will justify the sums invested.
France, of course, does believe in the importance of mastering
space technology. In February 1984 President Mitterrand declared in
The Hague: 'If only Europe could launch a manned space station,
in order to gather and transmit data on, and so be able to counter
every possible threat, she would be taking a firm stride towards
providing her own defence'. After all, why should Europe depend on
one of the superpowers to observe troop movements, deployments of
new weapons systems and so on? As my Dutch friend Maarten van
Traa put it,what we need is not star wars, but Star Watch.
EUREKA
Security should, moreover, not be considered only in military terms,
but in a broader sense, to include economic welfare. From this
perspective it would do Europe no good whatsoever, to let herself
be out-distanced in the new technologies by either the USA or Japan.
Nor would it be profitable for European countries to negotiate with
the Americans individually, thereby weakening their position. The
answer then is as easy to formulate, as it is hard to implement:
European cooperation! That is the meaning of the EUREKA
project, which aims at mobilising the energies of industrial and
scientific organisations, enabling Europe to master the technologies
of the future.
In fact, there are two traps into which Europe could fall. One is
being the last wagon. The other is being left behind on the platform.
They must evade the charybdis of doing nothing, and being outrun
Pascal Boniface
69
70
Pascal Boniface
71
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
72
7.
8.
7 Deep Strike
Rob de Wijk
74
Deep Strike
Rob de Wijk
75
76
The second
echelon threat
~------------------xxxxxx--~-------r-----4~
-O:e~a::n:IJ
----,-s-t
echelon
1--------xxxx
(Leading armies)
1st Tac.
~ 2nd Tac. ~
ech.~ech.
XX
XX
2nd Operational
echelon
-xxxx
(Follow-up
armies)
X
X
X
X
X
2nd
Echelon
front
X
Theatre
reserve
X
X
X
X
IOMG I
I OMGI
In place forces
Rob de Wijk
77
78
Deep Strike
Rob de Wijk
79
80
Deep Strike
Rob de Wijk
81
82
Deep Strike
Rob de Wijk
83
AND
FOFA:
COMPLEMENTARY
There are some indications that AirLand Battle and FOFA are
complementary doctrines, especially because the former was
developed for the corps commander and subordinate levels of
command, while the latter was developed for echelons above corps.
General Rogers, however, stated many times that the two doctrines
should not be confused, and that the doctrine of AirLand Battle
does not coincide with the doctrine of Allied Command Europe.
AirLand Battle, however, seems consistent with NATO's Land
Force Doctrine as formulated in NATO's Allied Tactical Publication
(ATP) 35(A), in which all main characteristics of the US AirLand
Battle doctrine can be found. All NATO partners are requested to
use ATP 35(A) for the development of their national doctrines,
although any nation may go beyond and expand on this framework. 24
The new British, German and Dutch field manuals for example
will also be consistent with NATO's Land Force Doctrine, and will
therefore be quite similar to the much criticised US Army doctrine.
The most important difference between the new British, German
and Dutch national doctrines and AirLand Battle will probably be
the name of these new national doctrines.
However, there are other indications that General Rogers' statements are not correct. According to Secretary of Defence Weinberger, the AirLand Battle doctrine has been discussed extensively
with the allies. 25 Moreover, within NATO a study is going on about
the integration of AirLand Battle and Rogers' plan. Furthermore,
SACEUR is also commander in chief of all US forces in Europe.
84
Deep Strike
Rob de Wijk
85
86
Deep Strike
Rob de Wijk
87
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
88
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Deep Strike
Hearings on H.R. 2287, p. 1766.
Rogers, 'Sword and Shield', p. 26.
Hearings on H.R. 2287, p. 1879.
North Atlantic Assembly, Military Committee, Interim Report of the
Sub-Committee on Conventional Defence in Europe, Brussels, Nov.
1984, p. 25. To a certain extent this is due to the sunken costs of
Tornado for that role.
Hearings on H.R. 2287, p. 1760.
Ibid., p. 1761.
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle
East of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Report on the Modernization of NATO's Long Range Theater Nuclear Forces (Washington,
GPO, 13 Dec. 1980) p. 5.
NATO Land Force Doctrine, Allied Tactical Publication (ATP) 35
(A), (Mar. 1984) p. XXIII.
Caspar W. Weinberger, Improving NATO's Conventional Capabilities,
A Report to the United States Congress, Washington, June 1984,
p. 70.
Ibid.
ATP-35(A), p. 3-6.
Ibid. p. 3-3.
For example, Steven Canby, 'New Conventional Force Technology
and the NATO-Warsaw Pact Balance: Part 1', Adelphi Paper 198
(New Technology and Western Security Policy: Part 2) (London 1985)
pp. 7-24.
For example, Christopher Donnelly, 'The Soviet Operational
Maneuver Group and the Development of the Soviet Concept of
Echeloning', NATO Review (Dec. 1984).
8 Emphasising Defence
NON-PROVOCATIVE DEFENCE
If one is searching for a military posture that could contribute to the
solving of many, if not all of NATO's problems, it might be worthwhile having a close look at those concepts which emphasise defence.
Their application could enhance both military effectiveness and
crisis-stability, whilst pressing nuclear weapons back into a purely
retaliatory role. 1
The basic idea behind these concepts is the adaptation of NATO
doctrine and force structure to the explicitly defensive goal the treaty
organisation has always had, thus making the West European desire
for detente manifest in the military posture. This posture is to be so
transformed, that it cannot be perceived as threatening for any
country wishing to defend itself, but can deter an aggressor by denial.
For this concept, the phrase 'non-provocative defence' has been
coined.
Implementing this kind of defence is not just a question of
deploying different, so-called defensive weapons. An anti-tank
weapon can be used not only in a defensive but also in an offensive
way, destroying, for example, enemy tanks which are defending
their own territory. Neither is a defensive doctrine sufficient, as any
doctrine can be thrown overboard in time of war, if the structure
and training of the forces allow it.
So non-provocative defence must be defined in a more
encompassing way. We use the following definition:
The build-up, training, logistics and doctrine of the armed forces
are such that they are seen in their totality to be unsuitable for
offence, but unambiguously sufficient for a credible conventional
defence. Nuclear weapons fulfil at most a retaliatory role.
By 'build-up' we mean both the size and organisation of the forces,
and the amount and type of weapons they use. 'Logistics' denotes
all the services, organisation and infrastructure supporting combat;
'doctrine' is the set of rules by which the forces are trained to
operate.
89
90
Emphasising Defence
91
92
Emphasising Defence
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Our definition of non-provocative defence allows nuclear weapons
at most a retaliatory role. Nuclear weapons, especially those of the
war-fighting type, not only threaten and provoke the enemy, but
they also often present very valuable targets. Removing them is an
obvious implication of the no target philosophy. The application of
this principle to both nuclear and conventional assets would of course
remove any reasons the opponent might have for mounting a counter-force nuclear attack, as there would be hardly any visible NATO
forces worth it.
Non-provocative defence thus clearly implies a no first use of
nuclear weapons, but leaves open, whether and how a retaliatory
function would be put into practice.
It is important not to leave nuclear weapons out of the definition.
For many military experts argue that even now in Europe we have
a non-provocative posture, as it is impossible for NATO forces to
'liberate' Poland. We accept the truth of this statement. However,
the range and accuracy of nuclear weapons in Europe is steadily
increasing and there is a definite trend towards thinking in terms of
nuclear warfighting. This may with reason be perceived as military
pressure by the Warsaw Treaty countries. The acceptance of the
principles of non-provocative defence, including its implication for
the nuclear arsenal, therefore will put a brake on these trends
towards a nuclear battlefield.
What should the specifications of a retaliatory force be? Obviously
it should not have the characteristics of a war-fighting force, that
consist of a multitude of missiles with high accuracy, variable or low
yields, and various ranges. The force should only have to discourage
other parties from using nuclear weapons first. An invulnerable force
at sea, submarine launched missiles without a very high accuracy
might do, aimed at a selection of civilian targets, which do not
necessarily have to be cities.
A difficult question is to what extent a European retaliation force
is required in addition to the American nuclear umbrella, to
discourage a potential adversary from threatening to use or actually
using nuclear weapons against Western European territory.
Although we do not claim the right answer to this question, the
following considerations may be helpful.
Even without any European controlled or Europe-based nuclear
weapons the very existence of NATO implies that any attack against
93
94
Emphasising Defence
95
96
Emphasising Defence
97
Heavy
rocket
launchers
(6- TUBE)
150km
Medium
rocket
launchers
(12- TUBE)
100 45
~--~-~-
I
I I I
0
I Barrier
I zone
lat-2s/
A!TK
Eleva- I missiles
ting 1-FAEs
plat- I HE/SMOKE
form I
I
I
I
I
SP howitzers
Guns
Towed
howitzers
8 9 10
IIFVs
:
I
Rocket
1
artillery
roc~et ~rt:llerv
Forward edge of
barrier zone
4 5 6
I Tanks
Light
rocket
launchers
(18- TUBE)
;:
13
Laser
designa
tor
7 6 5 4
Figure 8.1
Rear edge of
barrier zone I
I ."
I"""'
I~ e
15-50 km
I z >~
I~~
~~~
..
I<(
I~
1.0
00
99
100
Emphasising Defence
101
102
Emphasising Defence
103
104
Emphasising Defence
present easy targets to the enemy air force and missiles. Anti-aircraft
missiles with precision guidance form the centre of air defence in his
proposal, as in the other models. SAS does propose the deployment
of aircraft, but only as interceptors to put enemy aircraft out of
order. Numerous (makeshift) small size 'air bases' and short takeoff and landing procedures should minimise the danger of presenting
valuable targets.
As one might expect from continental authors, the role of the
navy is not considered in any detail. SAS mentions protection of the
coast by mines, mobile coastal missile batteries and fast attack missile
boats. The traditional seafaring nations like Britain and the Netherlands are to take care of the North Sea. The US as a global power
will watch over the world seas, a responsibility which they have
already taken out of self-interest.
COMPARISON OF THE MODELS
The three models described above represent three different ways of
giving a concrete form to the principles of non-provocative defence
in a West German/NATO setting. At some stage they will have to
be evaluated in terms of political, military and economic criteria. In
the last part of this book these proposals emphasising defence will
be compared with other concepts, such as deep-strike and SDI. Here
an attempt will be made to compare the three models themselves.
Several remarks concerning political aspects were made above.
The Afheldt proposal was shown to contain a risk of stimulating the
arms race, through the exclusive reliance on one type of anti-armour
munition. By concentration on the defence of West Germany by
Germans, it could be politically unacceptable both to many West
Germans, and to their allies. The SAS proposal has the advantage
of explicitly including the allies. These remarks are of course very
brief, but they do point to the SAS proposal as the most favourable
one from a political viewpoint. Even in the eyes of the military with
their preference for armoured warfare, it will find some favour, as
it does not abolish armoured vehicles, but only reduces their role
and numbers.
The military will also be eager to know how these models compare
in terms of military effectiveness. Of interest is a computer simulation
comparing various models, performed by a group of the West
German Army University in Munich. 8 These researchers fed a
105
....c.
100
Required
operational
depth
Cost
Cll
40
"0
Cij
c:
0
;:::;
::0
~
ii)
Cll
c.
20
....
g
%l
0
Afheldt
(static
infantry)
SAS
(rapid commitment force)
Future
(Bundeswehr)
Figure 8.2 Depth and cost for attrition of three consecutive Soviet Motor
rifle regiments. The first column refers to Afheldt (but without medium range
rocket artillery). The second columns to a SAS battalion size cavalry regiment
of the rapid commitment force. The last columns to a future Bundeswehr
battalion. The SAS column has 35 per cent own attrition and the Bundeswehr
column has 50 per cent or more. Adaptations of the enemy have been
incorporated.
106
Emphasising Defence
107
TOWARDS AN IMPLEMENTATION OF
NON-PROVOCATIVE DEFENCE
This very brief sketch of the relative merits of the three models points
to the conclusion that although each one has interesting aspects, the
SAS model is to be preferred. Both in political, military and economic terms it could offer a desirable and feasible alternative to the
present posture. Of course, a definite choice is not necessary at this
stage. Further research and debate is called for, both to perfect the
model, and to test its political acceptability.
The acceptability of non-provocative posture will depend very
much on the scope of its implementation. As we have seen, the
authors discussed above concentrated on the FRG, but it would be
wise to involve other allies, especially those that are already involved
in the defence of the FRG at present. Candidates are the neighbouring Benelux countries, as they lack both nuclear weapons and
the superpower aspirations that still sometimes characterise French
and British policy. The FRG and the Benelux are the part of Europe
that is treated as a unity in the Vienna MBFR negotiations. Also
the economic ties between the countries are strong. As discussed
elsewhere, 9 these four countries could together take steps to get
NATO approval of a non-provocative defence of the Central Front.
The British might join in as far as their army in Germany is
concerned. For the US with its world-wide aspirations this is more
difficult. It could not be expected to totally accept such a posture,
implying as it does the renouncing of any capacity to either enter or
strike at the opponents' territory, except in retaliation to a nuclear
assault. But the expectation that the US will continue to refine its
present doctrine and armaments for other parts of the world, does
not make the implementation of a non-provocative defence in FRG
and Benelux impossible. On the contrary, this could be seen by all
allies as a very reasonable task division. Other countries like
108
Emphasising Defence
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
8.
9.
109
Laszlo Valki
111
112
Defensive Defence
aim of the deterring the enemy from a nuclear attack. Thus, the
implementation of defensive defence could significantly contribute
to the raising of the nuclear threshold and at the same time, to the
increase in the chances of the survival of human existence.
Reservations with regard to the concept of defensive defence are
the following:
(1) For the time being, the realisation of the concept is only
slightly probable. Primarily, because the present American administration - which has retained power for another term - carries out
such a foreign and military policy, with which the idea of defensive
defence is absolutely incompatible. The administration, which despite
the increasing disputes and controversial nature of the programme,
consistently carries out the deployment of the Pershing-2's and cruise
missiles, which introduces for its own use the explicitly offensive
AirLand Battle doctrine and makes the European member countries
of NATO accept the almost corresponding Rogers Plan, will regard
this concept as being basically contrary to its strategic outlook and
aims, and will accordingly act against it. Thus, the question emerges
whether during the next four years, the conviction can be nurtured
in the present American leadership that the concept of defensive
defence serves the interest not only of NATO, but also ofthe United
States. It also remains open how the West European member countries will opine about the concept; for it is far from certain that they
will all agree with the idea of transarmament. Of course, not even
the elaborators of the idea of defensive defence reckon with a rapid
reaching of general accord, this is why they wish to launch an active
propaganda campaign for the cause in the coming years.
(2) In order to increase accord and trust between the countries of
the two world systems, NATO has to do somewhat more than to make
its defence impenetrable. While acknowledging the positive sides of
defensive defence, one should not forget about the peculiar circumstance that the perfection of defensive technology and the increase
of defensive capabilities ultimately strengthen the NATO, and within
this, the United States. The present strategical balance between the
two military alliances and their leading powers is not exclusively
limited to Europe. A strategic balance is a global and complex
phenomenon. Global in a sense that political and military changes
in any area of the earth affect it, thus the different regions cannot
be observed in a separate and independent manner from each other.
Complex in a sense that it creates a united system, in which both
offensive and defensive weapons can be found, as well as offensive
Laszlo Valki
113
114
Defensive Defence
Laszlo Valki
115
Note
1.
10 Emphasising Defence:
an Ongoing Non-debate
in the Federal Republic
of Germany
Lutz Unterseher
Lutz Unterseher
117
118
Behind closed doors, Adenauer, the majority of Christian Democrat MPs, and von Bonin's colleagues in the rapidly evolving defence
establishment were not as concerned about German unity as they
stated in public. In the eyes of the new elite, the Bonin plan impeded
the build-up of heavily armoured forces, necessary to gain a respectable stand, and bargaining power, in NATO, which West Germany
was on the verge of joining. Contrary to their declarations, they saw
no acute danger of an invasion from the East, and distrusted their
allies.
A NEW INPUT IN THE 1970s
There was extensive coverage of the von Bonin debate by the Press,
but after 1956 the noise of the controversy died away. A new debate
about 'defensive defence' was initiated during the second half of the
1980s on a much smaller scale.
The first proposal came from the civilian analyst Horst Afheldt,
who had been studying the negative effects of the evolving nuclear
warfighting doctrines on inter-pact stability, with the philosopher
Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker2 and was looking for another
approach. Inspired by Brossollet's version of an armee de couverture
and making extensive, yet highly selective, use of what advanced
technology seemed to offer, Afheldt developed the concept of Raumverteidigung. This is a defensive system covering most of West
Germany, consisting of thousands of platoon-size infantry
commandos, homogeneously armed with second generation antitank guided missiles (ATGMs). To protect this highly dispersed and
static, terrain-oriented system from massed blows, Afheldt proposed
'counter-concentrations', using long range precision guided rocket
fire from rear areas of the defence. The rockets implied would be
simpler and cheaper than those currently under development for
deep strike purposes: under the friendly conditions for reconnaissance and target acquisition pertaining in one's own terrain, rockets
can be considerably less 'smart'.
Afheldt's basic claim is that the danger of both nuclear and conventional war can be minimised by adopting
(a) A conventional posture immune against being overrun.
(b) A no-target philosophy, denying the premium for enemy fire
concentrations be they conventional, nuclear or chemical.
Lutz Unterseher
119
120
Lutz Unterseher
121
The Social Democrats, being torn between anti-militarist fundamentalism and an almost blind acceptance of the so-called objective
requirements of defence, were unable to seize the opportunity of
turning the Bonin plan into an attractive party platform.
Only one of their national leaders, Fritz Erler, had no prejudices
against the nonconformist Pommeranian nobleman. He was
influenced by von Bonin's ideas until his death in the late 1960s.
From then on Helmut Schmidt claimed overruling competence in
defence matters.
Schmidt turned out to be a NATO conformist. His basic concern
was to protect West German moves towards detente from allied
critique, by proving that Social Democrats are no weaklings.
In the opposition again, the Social Democrats adopted a resolution
on defence at their national congress of 1984, which contains a
number of inconsistencies behind a 'progressive' outlook. At first
glance the triple formula of gradual denuclearisation, 'security partnership', and 'unambiguous defensivity' seems impressing. Yet again
the most frustrating approach, arms control (including the idea of a
nuclear free zone), ranks higher than the more promising concept
of 'autonomous' measures - which remains somewhat vague. The
proposal of replacing nuclear rockets like Pershing-1 and Lance by
conventional precision guided missiles for deep strike purposes,
makes it obvious, that neither the concept of security partnership
nor the principle of defensivity has been understood.
At present, the security policy commission of the party presidium
is developing a more concrete position. Afheldt, Loser, and myself
were given the chance to address the commission. But it looks as if
the question of an alternative defence is currently being shelved,
with the perceived impact of the peace movement fading away, and
the lieutenants of Schmidt regaining their self-confidence.
Nevertheless, the Social Democrats are, according to the MP
Hermann Scheer, the only party that is in principle capable of seriously discussing concepts emphasising defence.
During the period between 1957 and 1961, when they were in
opposition against Adenauer's Conservatives, the Free Democrats,
liberals in the European sense of the word, adopted some of von
Bonin's ideas. Remnants of these can be found in official statements
throughout the 1960s, when the Free Democrats, having no influence
upon West German defence policy, viewed themselves as the last
guardians of a pan-German interest.
During the 1970s, as junior partners of the Social Democrats, the
122
123
Lutz Unterseher
REJECTING
OFFICIALLY
124
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Part IV
11 Emerging Technologies
and the Politics of
Doctrinal Debate
Ben Dankbaar
127
Ben Dankbaar
129
element, and forms the basis for the saying, that generals are always
preparing for the last war. That saying seems to be especially true
for generals who won, there is less need for them to reflect on their
experiences or change their habits. So, although some of the most
original ideas on the future of the tank after the First World War
came from two British experts (the strategist B. Liddell Hart and
the military expert, J. F. C. Fuller) their full implementation took
place in Germany, forced as it was, both by defeat and by the
numerical restrictions imposed by the victors, to think in the direction
of further mechanisation.
It might be argued that since then the style of leadership in
Western armed forces, especially in the army, has changed. There
is much less traditionalism and much more openness for new weapons
and new ideas. Indeed, every professional officer is interested
nowadays in having the most modern equipment in his unit. But that
is not the point. The question is how the new or improved weapons
are used and combined in larger operations. Are existing attitudes
and institutions now more ready than in the 1930s to accept a fundamental reordering of priorities? To say so, would be to deny the
inherent conservatism of all large organisations and of most persons
populating them.
Of course, there have been many other wars since the Second
World War and lessons have been drawn from them. But they always
seem to remain somewhat inconclusive if they have to be applied to
another battlefield and against another enemy.
How much for instance can be learned for Europe from the wars
that Israel has fought with its enemies? Neither the enemy nor the
terrain would be the same in Europe. Some of the equipment would
be similar, but if these wars taught anything, it was that equipment
by itself is not decisive. Thus, even now the Second World War is
still dominating the minds trying to imagine war in Europe.
Another 'built-in stabiliser' is of course the enemy. All actors must
keep in mind, that whatever they do, it should at least seem to reflect
a real concern with a real identifiable threat. Enemy actual and
potential behaviour is a converging point for all. Field manuals for
instance refer to war in general, but they are written and studied
within a specific political context, that is with a clear understanding
of who the enemy is and where the battlefield is going to be. This
is somewhat less important for tactical manuals, but for operational
and strategic doctrine, political assumptions become increasingly
important. Field Manual 100-5 'Operations' would look quite
Ben Dankbaar
131
Ben Dankbaar
133
Ben Dankbaar
135
Besides, not every hit is a kill. Modern tanks are very heavily
armoured and can withstand direct hits especially of smaller
warheads. That means that the tank, that can fire much more rapidly,
can try to take aim at the ATGM unit or call for fire from artillery.
Also, at too close a range many guided missiles are ineffective,
because they will not have developed enough velocity to respond to
guidance commands. There are many potential battlefield situations
in Central Europe, where vision is much less than the range for which
ATGM have been designed. The problem of ATGM launchers'
vulnerability to artillery fire can be solved by mounting the missile
on armoured vehicles, but that of course greatly increases costs. On
the other hand, ATGM units can occupy prepared well-camouflaged
positions and be covered by minefields. If a minefield slows down a
tank formation, chances of it being hit by ATGM increase.
A real battle is more than a series of simple one-to-one confrontations between tanks and ATGMs: it is a confrontation between
armoured forces consisting of a complex array of combined arms.
The coming of ATGM has been hailed by some as signifying the end
of the battle-tank. Others maintain, that the tank still has a real
future. Even the several wars that have seen the use of precision
guided munition have not led to any consensus among experts. The
outcome of an armoured conflict depends on more things than fire
power alone. However, no one will deny that the defence against
tanks and other armoured vehicles has been strengthened greatly.
ATGM basically imply a qualitative change in the quantities of
munition needed to eliminate an armoured target. Present day
ATGM may still have problems in stopping the most modern, fast
and heavily armoured (and expensive) tank, but the development of
ATGM has only just started. They no doubt will become more
effective - and more expensive as well. A similar story can be told
about the aeroplane's confrontation with the surface-to-air guided
missile. Modern advances in computing speed have made it possible
to develop missiles that have a good chance of hitting even the fastest
aircraft. At least some of the traditional functions of the aeroplane
in land warfare have been put in doubt by this development and
alternatives have been proposed, with ground-to-ground missiles,
helicopters and remotely piloted vehicles taking its place.
Ben Dankbaar
137
Ben Dankbaar
139
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
12 Surveillance Satellites, a
European Role?
Caesar Voute
142
Caesar V oute
143
144
Caesar V oute
145
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
146
5.
6.
7.
8.
13 The Future of
Unmanned Aircraftl
Gunilla Herolf
147
148
Gunilla Herolf
149
severely damaged within a period of less than two hours. Additionally, 29 MiG-21 and MiG-23 aircraft defending the missile sites were
downed without any loss to the Israelis.
Little has been officially revealed about this attack but, whereas
the role of the RPVs might have been exaggerated in early accounts,
they are still considered to have played a vital role. In the assault
the RPVs approached, acting like manned aircraft, thereby causing
the air defence radars to be activated. This enabled the Israeli
command aircraft to establish the frequencies of these radars,
enabling other Israeli aircraft to jam them. After this suppression of
the enemy air defence, bombardment was carried out with ease.
Meanwhile, RPVs circling over the missile sites were transmitting
TV pictures of the battlefield in real time.
The extraordinary results of this attack were due, not only to their
effective use and coordination, but also to the included element of
surprise, and the short distance from Israel's airbases to the
targets. 10 11
Meanwhile, improvements have also been made in the technology
relevant to unmanned aircraft. Apart from achievements in securing
the data links and reducing the observables of the vehicles, progress
has been made in areas such as composite materials, engine technology, sensors, command and control systems and data storage.
Some of the improvements serve not only to increase efficiency and
survivability but also to decrease costs .12
THE TASKS OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Designation
150
Gunilla Herolf
151
152
Other Missions
Gunilla Herolf
153
rear areas increase the need for intelligence systems. Large amounts
of information will have to be gathered and analysed with great
speed to form a basis for decision making. In order to attack mobile
targets, information on enemy positions has to be acquired and
forwarded in real time to the several levels of command. This applies
for the Follow-On Forces Attack (FOFA) concept as well as for the
US Army's AirLand Battle doctrine.
Unmanned aircraft can also have an important function as tools
for international verification of arms control treaties. One could also
foresee the use of unmanned vehicles in a defence system, aimed at
providing effective defence of one's own territory, without being
suitable for launching an attack. Unmanned vehicles, equipped with
side-looking radars or other sensors, would fly along the border,
within the user's own territory. By continually monitoring military
activities within a predetermined area on the other side of the border
there would be added possibilities to discover preparations for an
attack. This would be a surveillance system of another type than the
Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) since
it would not have the capability to acquire targets and direct weapons
towards them. The weapons associated with this type of defence
would, moreover, be of a short-range, defensive character. The
surveillance system would be less complex than the JSTARS, and
would not depend on fixed bases, so it would also be less vulnerable.
The creation of such defensive surveillance systems on both sides
could, apart from reassurance, also serve as a confidence-building
measure.
A non-provocative defence could be set up in a number of ways.
It is often envisaged to include small, independent units covering
the defence of a specific area. Each unit would need intelligence
information pertaining to its own and adjacent areas. Different types
of RPV can be envisaged for such intelligence gathering, depending
on the size of the area and the type of terrain.
A defence system of this type is sometimes suggested to include
artillery, positioned at some distance from the border. If enemy
troops cross the border, they would be subject to artillery fire. RPVs
could then be launched to circle or hover over the area in order to
give important damage assessment to the defending units.
An obvious prerequisite for such uses of RPVs and drones as those
mentioned above is that the vehicles employed are recognised not
to be of the attack type. This should preferably be possible to estab-
154
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
155
Gunilla Herolf
15.
16.
17.
(April
1985)
INTRODUCTION
The Patriot is a hypermodern, mobile anti-aircraft missile system,
developed by the United States over a period of 17 years.
It will replace the now obsolete Nike-Hercules system, presently
deployed in a number of NATO countries. In contrast to the dualcapable Nike-Hercules missiles, most of which have a nuclear
warhead, the Patriot will be equipped with a conventional fragmentation warhead.
The Patriot missile is guided to its target by means of a modern,
phased array, ground-based radar and an advanced computer system.
Its radar can also be interfaced with other radar systems like
AWACS. Procurement by European NATO countries- beginning
with the Netherlands - started in 1984.
Arms Control Impact Analysis
156
Wim A. Smit
157
example, opened the door for limited nuclear war doctrines. This
holds especially when parallel technological weapon developments
all point in the same direction.
The introduction of new weapon systems may also provoke counter-measures or at least give the adversary a legitimation for the
deployment of 'neutralising' weapon systems, reacting to the change
in military capabilities, rather than to the proclaimed defensive intentions. Thus either as 'action' or as 'reaction' the modernisation of
weapon systems can contribute to the technological arms race.
In order to counter this mechanism decision making on new
weapon systems should be based on an analysis of the possible impact
of these systems on the arms race.
The arms control impact statements (ACIS) on new weapon
systems and weapon technologies, as required by the United States
Arms Control and Disarmament Act is a clear expression of this
need. 1 The ACIS as carried out by the US Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency (ACDA) includes both a technical description,
and an analysis of the arms control aspects, dealing with the relation
to arms control agreements and to current and prospective negotiations, including related verification problems; technological implications; potential interactions with other weapon programmes; and
consistency with US arms control and White House policy. 2
A major drawback of the present ACIS is the fact of it being
carried out by a participant in the arms race, that is by one of the
parties in the arms race prisoner's dilemma. An analysis from the
viewpoint of an outsider could offer a better chance of halting the
arms race.
These objections hold both for the American impact statements,
and for those carried out for instance by the Netherlands Department
of Defence. The Dutch ACIS regarding the replacement of the NikeHercules provides a striking example. 3 It contains statements like
There can be no question of an impulse to the arms race, because
the replacement of the Nike by the Patriot is no more than the
replacement of a tactically and technically obsolete air defence
system
and
There is no question of an autonomous technological development
because the point is that the Western air defence capacity will be
158
159
nleJina/Man Group
l.a.anchcrJM.nilc Can1:11er
Martin Matr1cna
MERIIOCOM
Figure 14.1 The main elements of a PATRIOT fire unit with the respective
contractors. Prime movers for the radar and launcher semi-trailers and logistic
support vehicles are not shown.
RElAY SET
RElAYS MESSAGE
!AS REOUIREDJ
COMMUNICRJONS
Figure 14.2 Schematic organisation of a PATRIOT battalion, with links to adjacent battalions. The eight launchers for each
fire unit are not shown, as well as all the logistic support vehicles the prime movers, the generator sets, etc.
.....
0\
Wim A. Smit
161
Table 14.1
Length
Diameter
Fin span
Weight
Range
Ceiling
Max burn out speed
Cruise speed
Control
Propulsion
Propellant
Burn time
Thrust
Manoeuvrabiity
Acceleration
Warhead
Fuse
5.31 m
0.41 m
0.87 m
911.6 kg
60-100 km (max. theoretical range-145 km)
Approx 25 km
Mach 6 (2 km/s)
Mach 3-3.5 (approx. 1 km/s)
Cruciform rear fins
Thiokol TX-486, single stage solid
Solid, Hydroxyl-terminated Poly-butadiene
(HTPB)
12 sec
130kN
Between 25 g and 40 g
Max. approx 30 g
XM-248 fragmentation warhead (approx. 75 kg)
XM-818 proximity
The Radar
162
Figure 14.3 Top: internal organisation of the AN/MPQ-53 radar set cabinet (antenna not shown).
Bottom: internal organisation of the AN/MSQ-104 engagement control station.
-El.
STATuS
P\.ATOOH
&10 COfft'IEitTIUt
COH"TitOl.
UNt1' GIIOUP
"'V.l"'
0\
164
after arrival, including the radar mapping of the new site. These prelaunch data are transmitted from the Weapon Control Computer,
via the selected launcher, to the missile, as soon as a target is
acquired. The missile is actually fired only if the WCC indicates a
high kill probability. The missile is guided to its target in two phases.
In the first, mid-course phase, the radar tracks both target and
missile. It passes computed guidance instructions to the missile,
guiding it to the target with the help of an on-board computer. The
terminal guidance, in the last ten seconds, uses the unique and very
complex Track Via Missile (TVM) method (See Figure 14.4). The
relative positions of missile and target are calculated in two different
ways, firstly, based on data from the ground radar and secondly, by
the on-board computer with data from the radar seeker antenna in
the missile's nose, which locks on to the ground-radar energy reflected
from the target. The two sets of data are quickly compared by the
main ground computer, and instructions for course adaptation are
again transmitted to the missile, homing in on its target. The TVM
.,
Figure 14.4 Operations' principle of the TVM (Track-via-Missile) guidance mode adopted for the terminal phase of the
PATRIOT's trajectory.
lllum1notes
Tracks
ldentrt1es
Searches
Detects
.,
.....
0\
Ul
166
Wim A. Smit
167
The presently debated concept of emphasising deep-strike capabilities implies a shift towards a more offensive military doctrine. Deepstrike can be seen as an elaboration of the interdiction and counterair approach, aimed at the destruction of marching routes and
airfields in the enemy's homeland. Even if the intentions behind this
elaboration are defensive, the improved military capabilities could
168
Wim A. Smit
169
the total military structure and doctrine into which the system is to be
incorporated. To the adversary, the military build-up and associated
capabilities will often be of greater importance than the proclaimed
intentions, which can easily change.
Thus to the adversary a Patriot incorporated in a deep-strike
concept may mean an increasing military threat. In addition to having
an offensive potential NATO will become less vulnerable, and might
consequently feel less restraints to attack in crisis situations.
On the other hand, the Patriot as part of a non-provocative
defence posture will not be experienced as a threat. In the latter
case it may indeed help to deter a military attack, without decreasing
crisis stability.
As for the impact of the Patriot on the arms race, some general
observations can be made.
Firstly, the perceived urgency of counter-measures will be greater
if the Patriot is deployed in the framework of an integrated
offensive-defensive counter-air approach than if a non-provocative
defence posture is applied. The type of technological counter-measures would, however, not differ. They might include some form of
stealth technology and improved anti-radiation missiles - which in
their turn would evoke new counter-countermeasures.
The adversary might plan to attack the Patriot fire units with
tactical ballistic missiles, opting for an increase of his missile capacity
rather than his aircraft potential.
Whereas the type of counter-measures against the Patriot could
be similar, the question whether or not they are implemented would
depend on the military posture and doctrine adopted by NATO. A
defensive concept might entice the adversary into a less offensive
posture, instead of evoking new counter-measures.
Arms Control Agreements
170
THE PATRIOT
DEFENCE
AND
TACTICAL
BALLISTIC
MISSILE
SS-21
SS-23
SS-22
SS-20
120
2.5
500
5
2.2
900
125
225
1.1
30
400
1100
ICBM
10 000
30
1 300
Wim A. Smit
171
172
the SS-20 missiles, fired over ranges of 1600 km, 3000 km and 5000
km. The re-entry velocities are 4 km/s, 5 km/s and 6 km/s respectively. It turns out, assuming again 10 seconds for detection and
preliminary tracking, that the distance which separates the Patriot
missile and the SS-20 RV, 12 seconds after launch, will now be
jointly bridged in 10, 5 and 1 seconds respectively. This shows how
quickly demands on software, calculation speed and missile manoeuvrability increase with rising re-entry velocities.
So it looks as if there are no fundamental obstacles to the
upgrading of the present Patriot system to enable it to counter SS-21,
SS-22, SS-23, as well as SS-20 missiles fired over distances up to
3000 km. This upgrading via software modifications apparently would
not necessarily provide a capability to counter ICBMs, which have a
re-entry velocity of 7 km/s. However, the Patriot would be able to
intercept the RVs of Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBNs), when
fired over distances of less than 3000 km, because their flight trajectries would not differ fundamentally from those of the SS-20.
But the possibility of enabling the Patriot to intercept RVs of
ICBMs should not be ruled out completely. Such a capacity would
probably require an extension of the radar range to more than 150
km, in addition to even shorter path-calculation times. A coupling
of the Patriot system with future 'battle satellites' would also increase
its interception capabilities.
A potential A TBM capability for the Patriot is not purely theoretical. Real interest exists as is evident from the Joint Anti-Tactical
Missile (JATM) programme mentioned before, which includes the
upgrading of both the Patriot and Hawk systems. 11 14 The programme
is viewed by Penagon officials as part of Counter Air '90 - a
programme integrating defensive and offensive missions, aimed at
the destruction of Soviet missiles and WTO airfields by conventional
ballistic missiles.1z Raytheon, the prime contractor for the Patriot, is
already developing this type of capability for air defence systems,
reportedly for initial operational capability in September 1987.12
Besides software changes for the surveillance radar, the company is
also considering modification of the Patriot's fragmentation warhead,
both by enlarging and speeding up the fragments and by developing
a fragmentation pattern with a focused effect. 12 Other possible
changes to the Patriot, later in the programme include a new radar
transmitter with more power, and a new rocket motor to increase
speed and range.1z
Wim A. Smit
173
174
Wim A. Smit
175
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Situatierapport over de vervanging van het Nike-luchtverdedigngssysteem, Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 1983-1984, 18000 hoofdstk X, nr.
176
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
178
179
ment are neutral and suitable for any military doctrine that may be
decided upon. Decisions like this are often experienced as ad hoc
compromises, or as obvious solutions to generally felt problems.
Nevertheless, they are bound to reflect the premises, on the basis of
which the search for compromises and ad hoc solutions take place.
In the present situation the assumption is that conventional
defence should be based on the main battle tank and fighter aircraft. It is therefore not surprising, that plans for European joint production include a new main battle tank, and some governments are
studying the possibilities of cooperation on a new fighter aircraft. The
fact that a European identity is to be boosted by co-production of
these traditionally important weapon systems, shows that the main
battle tank and the combat aircraft are still important tokens of
military prestige.
The CNAD list is less transparent, but a further analysis will
show that most if not all of the projects are intended to reduce the
vulnerability of the tank, or enhance the effectiveness of aircraft.
Does this imply, that these projects offer no scope for a revision
of doctrine, either toward deep-strike, or in a more defensive direction? This is not necessarily the case. New technological solutions to
traditional questions have a knack of offering answers to other questions as well. These new questions, about how to implement newer
doctrines, are in the air, and if their proponents have any influence,
they will certainly try to turn weapon developments in their direction.
THE MAIN BATTLE TANK AND SUPPORTING SYSTEMS
The choice of the main battle tank as an IEPG project is firmly
based on the assumption that the so-called 'queen of the battlefield'
will remain with us well into the next century, as the core of the
present doctrine of manoeuvre warfare defence. Not only is the tank
assumed to be 'the best anti-tank weapon', it is also seen as necessary
for a possible counter-offensive attack into enemy territory.
The central role assigned to the tank is reflected by the fact that
each major European NATO member produces its own type. (The
British are replacing the Chieftain by the Challenger, and have a
programme called MBT-95 for developing a tank to be deployed
around 1995. The Germans have the Panzerkampfwagen 2000, which
could be the Leopard II successor and replace the Leopard I. In
France, the AMX-30 was upgraded to the AMX-32 while a new
180
tank, the AMX-40 has also been deployed, the EPC programme for
a new main battle tank has been initiated.) Apart from national
prestige, this proliferation of tanks serves little purpose. Costs are
raised, and military effectiveness is lowered due to the low measure
of interoperability. The IEPG project is aimed at getting some sort
of order into this variety on the European scene. The distinct specifications brought forward by the different European countries make
this a difficult task. The Germans for instance, stress manoeuvrability
and speed, the British stress armour and firepower, and consider
manoeuvrability and speed to be of secondary importance. The
French have traditionally opted for a cheaper and lighter type. So
the IEPG project will probably not achieve much more than some
sort of standardisation of components.
The tank, a complicated and costly system, is becoming increasingly vulnerable through the deployment of anti-tank weapons,
attack helicopters, and so on. Tank designers are faced with the
dilemma that the introduction of new protective measures like the
Chobham armour drives up costs even further. Attention is therefore
also given to improvement of tank supporting systems.
The tank cannot fight its battles alone. It is surrounded by a
myriad of supporting systems, ranging from air defence to artillery.
Decreasing the vulnerability of the tank implies improving these tank
supporting systems. Several of such improvement programmes are
included in the CNAD list.
The surveillance command and control system for SHOrt Range
Air Defence (SHORAD) is a case in point. This project is aimed at
increasing the ability of short range air defence systems, like the
mobile Roland and the portable Stinger, to counter the recent threat
to the tank from massive enemy fire-power supplied by Soviet aircraft
and attack helicopters.
Two other CNAD projects, the 155 mm howitzer and the Multiple
Launch Rocket System (MLRS), can also be seen in terms of
decreasing tank vulnerability. Both weapon systems are tracked and
can keep up with the tank, to deal with enemy artillery well outside
tank ranges that is expected to attempt to annihilate NATO positions
long before the actual tank battle begins.
The 155 mm howitzer, widely deployed in NATO, looks rather
like a tank but has a longer range and is able to sustain a steady rate
of fire over a distance of about 20-30 km. The multiple launch rocket
system, with its massive but shorter lived firepower over a 30+ km
range, can complement such artillery systems. This lightly armoured
181
182
183
184
185
Force in Europe is, however, arguing that Mark-15 on its own will
not fulfil all IFF need. They should be supported by systems using
passive signals emitted by enemy aircraft to guarantee accurate
identification. 9
Improving the capability of aircraft to strike from a safe distance
is one way of reducing the effectiveness of enemy air defence.
Another way is to intensify electronic counter-measures. 10 This can
be done by equipping aircraft with a modern electronic warfare
system, as intended in the CNAD project for the self-protection of
tactical aircraft. The idea is to temporarily blind the enemy's air
defence system by interrupting its radar.
A more definitive disruption is attainable with missiles that home
in on specific radar signals. This is the idea behind the Short Range
Anti-Radiation Missile (SRARM), listed by CNAD. As this weapon
will not be available until 1992, the US High-speed Anti-Radiation
Missile (HARM) or the British Air-Launched Anti-Radiation Missile
(ALARM) will be deployed. ALARMs are much lighter than
HARMs, so the Tornado could carry four of them in addition to its
normal load. However, HARM will be available nine months earlier,
in 1986. ALARM can be used in either a direct attack mode, in
which it is fired towards the target, or an indirect mode, climbing
up to 12 km, deploying a parachute, seeking emitters and diving
towards the chosen target. In a dual mode, the missile is fired for
direct attack, but performs in an indirect manner if no relevant target
is acquired.u
Suppression of enemy air defence, together with the improvement
of stand-off munitions and other ways of increasing aircraft effectiveness, will, however, not be enough to solve the aircraft problem
currently facing NATO. An alternative is to let other systems take
over tasks traditionally performed by aircraft. Some of the CNAD
projects discussed above can be seen in this context. RPVs can take
over the target acquisition task performed by forward air controller
aircraft. Extending the range and precision of the 155 mm howitzer
and MLRS gives them the possibility of taking over some ground
support functions.
This can also be done by helicopters specially designed for attack
missions.12 One CNAD project concerns the equipping of army helicopters with electronic warfare capabilities to give them a higher
survivability in battle.
The most spectacular take-over of aircraft tasks is by the surfaceto-surface missile. In the nuclear field the deployment of interconti-
186
187
188
189
190
50 per cent of the border territory, and last but not least, they have
an offensive capability easily misunderstood by the Warsaw Treaty
Organization (WTO).
Tactics should therefore not be organised around the tank, but
should be based on the dedicated anti-tank weapon. This type of
weapon system is produced in both Europe and the US.
The consortium Euromissile, set up by Aerospatiale (Fr.) and
MBB(FRG), and later joined by British Aerospace to form the
Euromissile Dynamics Group, was responsible for the production of
the well known HOT and Milan systems. The portable Milan (missile
d'infanterie Zeger antichar) has a maximum range of 2 km, the HOT
which is carried by vehicles and helicopters (hautsubsonique optiquement teleguide tire d'un tube) has a 4 km range. Euromissile has
developed an improved version of both missiles. The warheads of
these so-called HOT-2 and Milan-2 missiles have a larger diameter
and are heavier than those of their predecessors, but the new missiles
can be fired from the same launchers. 22 Milan and HOT, being wireguided missiles, require the launcher to keep the target in sight
during the flight of the missile. This makes them vulnerable to counter-atack, especially as the missiles are slower than tank or artillery
shells.
Euromissile is therefore developing a third generation, higher
speed anti-tank weapon. The technology developed will be used in
both medium and long range anti-tank weapons. The medium range
version will be laser guided, while the long range fire and forget
version will initially have imaging infra-red guidance and in a later
stage possibly mm-wave guidance. Authors like Afheldt, who rely
heavily on enhanced precision of anti-tank weapons should welcome
these developments. 21 With the French developing improved antitank weapons for the short and very short range (max. 300 m and
150m, the last to be fired from a confined space), European NATO
members could be completely self-supporting as far as dedicated
anti-tank weapons are concerned. The costs of these systems are,
however, much higher than comparable American systems like the
TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked Wire-guided), so high in
fact, that the large numbers required for a non-provocative posture
would not be affordable. So it looks as if these schemes demand
procurement of American systems, unless some kind of transatlantic
cooperation results in substantial cost reduction. So from this
perspective a CNAD project would be welcome. Of interest is the
US proposal to introduce a task division, with the US responsible
191
for (short) or medium range systems (-2 km), and Western Europe
taking on long range ones (2-5 km). This offer, which was turned
down by European industry, should be reconsidered. On the other
hand, the European standpoint that too much standardisation in
this field would facilitate WTO counter-measures, must be taken
seriously. 22
Another weapon system to play a major role in non-provocative
defence is the multiple rocket launcher. Various types are considered
necessary, with ranges from 2.5-40 km. The MLRS with its antitank mines, and precision guided munitions listed by CNAD, could
be deployed in the framework of defensive doctrines. This weapon
system is flexible enough to be used in both deep-strike and in depth
or barrier defence concepts, but deployment will differ. In deep strike,
the MLRS is to be found at the lower end of the scale, and is to be
placed at the FEBA to strike 40 km into enemy territory. In defensive
concepts it is placed at 40 km from the border, and in depth all over
friendly territory, to attack enemy tanks as they cross the frontier
and penetrate. There the MLRS forms the higher end of the scale,
weapon ranges of more than 50 km being unwelcome. In static
concepts moreover, the multiple rocket laucher would be fixed, dug
in or otherwise hidden. This calls for systems without a chassis,
suitable to be mounted on any wheeled vehicle, making them less
complex and therefore cheaper than the present tracked MLRS. 21
Main battle tanks are considered by many authors emphasising
defence, as a temporary evil, to be phased out of existence as the
anti-tank weapons gain in cost-effectiveness. The development of a
new tank is a sheer waste of effort, if a political choice is made for
a non-provocative defence. 21
Some authors, however, feel that a small number of tanks should
be retained, even in a defensive posture, in a role complementary
to a static network or containment force. 21 In the SAS proposal,
only parts of the rapid commitment force are to be equipped with
tracked armoured vehicles, but they will be decidedly less heavy than
the present main battle tank. They will be part of a larger family of
armoured vehicles, based on the current 30 ton infantry fighting
vehicles. Together with the similar but lighter family of wheeled
vehicles, they will total 5000, representing a cut of 60 per cent as
compared with present Bundeswehr armoured vehicle capacity.
The lighter variety could be based on the French 10-RC
6-wheeled vehicle. Ironically, the development of rapid deployment
forces, however offensive in the eyes of the SAS group, could bring
192
forth a similar type of light armoured vehicle as needed in emphasising defence, although adapted to other, tropical or desert
conditions. 23 It is perhaps desirable to develop another lightweight
vehicle, specifically adapted to the European environment, but for
that some sort of European cooperation could be necessary. So in
this sense there is some interest amongst authors emphasising
defence for an armoured vehicle project, but both specifications and
numbers would have to point to a reduction of offensive capabilities.
Tactical aircraft is also to be ousted from its present central
position. The task of (deep) interdiction would be the first to go.
This is the most difficult task requiring very complex and costly
aircraft like the Tornado, loaded with MW-1 or the newer LOCPOD
munitions dispenser; and supporting systems to suppress enemy air
defence, such as sophisticated anti-radiation missiles. It is also one
of the more offensive elements of established doctrine, provoking a
preemptive attack on NATO airfields in the first hours of battle.
Some of the authors emphasising defence propose doing away with
fighter aircraft altogether, letting other systems such as multifunctional surface-to-surface/surface-to-air missiles take over their
present tasks of air defence and close battlefield support. In in-depth
concepts the sting would be taken out of enemy tactical air attack,
because hardly any suitable targets are offered. The abolishment of
aircraft would solve many problems presently facing NATO. Air
defence would become much easier, as problems of identifying
aircraft as friend or foe disappear. Others see a complementary task
for aircraft in countering concentrations of enemy aircraft. 24 This
means that aircraft will be retained for functions of air-defence and
perhaps even some close air support.
But even in these functions aircraft will not play a major role.
Instead of starting with close air support to soften up enemy formations, fighter aircraft will be reserved to come to the aid of friendly
troops in disarray. 25 And air defence will be carried out primarily by
surface-to-air missiles, with aircraft brought into action only to
counter heavy enemy air concentrations. This implies that gaining
air superiority will also remain an essential task, although only of a
local nature.
By reducing the tasks presently assigned to fighter aircraft, the
pressure on NATO to do more than is possible with the declining
number of aircraft is lessened. Aircraft freed from interdiction tasks
could, with some redesigning perhaps, be deployed for air defence
or close air support. To further reduce complexity and cost of aircraft
193
194
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Rene van Druenen for his detailed
criticism of their paper.
195
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
196
25.
26.
NATO is currently faced with internal strains, concerning both transatlantic burden sharing and uneven arms trade. While the US exerts
pressure on NATO's European member states to increase military
spending, the Europeans feel that the balance of arms trade comes
out too strongly in favour of the US, with a 3 to 1 ratio, according
to American and a 6 or even 9 to 1 ratio according to European
estimates. 1 The US government has not been very cooperative in
redressing this balance, only giving some minor exemptions to the
Buy American Act, and drawing up stringent security restrictions
for technology transfer to European member states. The result is
that technology which is developed in part thanks to the European
taxpayers' money is completely passing the European economy by.
It is against this background that a two way street is advocated. As
the Dutch Minister of Defence, de Ruiter put it, 'the Americans
want the Europeans to share in more of the disadvantages of the
alliance, while the Europeans declare, that they would like to share
in more of the advantages' .2 Nowadays all industrialised countries
realise that their economic future depends on their ability to develop
and introduce emerging and emerged technologies. In a bid to raise
the technological level and thus the competitivity of their economies
many governments stimulate their so-called spearhead industries by
a combination of protectionism and industrial policy (neo-protectionism). Within the framework of American policy relations and
political traditions, a direct support of the high tech sector seems
impossible. Therefore subsidy is granted indirectly through contracts
with the Defense Department. A direct general support of the American industry would, moreover, imply that a large part of the available resources would be used by the traditional, declining sectors,
which are politically better organised. This indirect policy for technological innovation and competitiveness, however, is not as effective
as a policy of direct support. The spin-off effect of this 'military'
support to the civil industry is rather limited. 3 The present imbalance
in transatlantic arms trade therefore implies that European govern-
197
198
ments are using tax money to support the indirect Pentagon led
industrial policy, at a time that the European economy badly needs
that support itself.
A condition for the redressing of this imbalance, for a genuine
move towards a two-way street is a strong and competitive European
military industry. This can only be reached by intensifying European
cooperation in the development and production of armaments. This
cooperation is not without its pitfalls. Many times, a project has been
cancelled or limited due to inter-European rivalries. The European
fighter aircraft is a recent example, with France leaving the project
mainly because of frustrated national ambitions concerning worksharing and project leadership. 4
The improvement of this kind of inter-European cooperation, is
the main reason for the recent revival of the Independent European
Programming Group (IEPG). At a political meeting of this body
members stressed the need to utilise emerging technologies for
strengthening conventional forces in the framework of a collective
European concept.S
Does this mean that the renewed interest in European cooperation
signifies striving towards more European military and economic independence, thus weakening Atlantic ties? There have, since the
Second World War, been several moves to give Europe a more
prominent role. In some cases it concerned primarily demonstrations
of Atlantic loyalty and readiness to strengthen Atlantic cohesion.
This was the case with the Treaty of Brussels, the establishment of
NATO, and the Treaties of Paris with respect to the rearmament
and military integration of FR Germany.
Other moves implied a strengthening of European independence,
but they were expressively stimulated by the US in the context of a
policy aimed at a reduction of the American engagement in Europe.
This was the case with the European Defence Community and, to a
lesser degree, with the creation of the Western European Union.
Particularly in the EDC case, the US appeared to be more Europeanist than the European countries. Some initiatives, like the plea for
some say in the use of nuclear arms, were indeed motivated by a
desire for less dependence, though primarily in a national, rather
than a European context. And nearly always (with the exception of
the French case), the US succeeded in warding off a schism in the
alliance through proposals giving some European countries some
measure of influence. Moreover, Atlantic rivalry and Atlantic cooperation did in general go hand in hand. 6
Bob de Ruiter
199
This appears to be again the case today. The IEPG is not, in spite
of the membership of France, in any way an anti-American body,
but explicitly operates 'within the spirit of the alliance'. 5 Moreover,
the US has been involved in many of the IEPG supported projects,
especially those that bore fruit.? A good example of two-way street
cooperation is the parallel development of the AMRAAM and
ASRAAM missiles by the US and Europe, respectively (see
Appendix I).
The three projects recently agreed upon are of course intended to
be entirely European, inspired in some measure by recent transatlantic disappointments. The choice of the project for replacement
of the Hawk air defence missile is a reaction to the procurement by
many European countries of the US produced Patriot, without as
many compensation orders coming from the US as expected. The
all-European main battle tank project is a reaction to the backing
away by the US from the agreed upon procurement of the very
sophisticated Leopard II, in favour of the M-1. Only the gun of this
American tank is made in Germany. There is therefore some room
and indeed reason for anti-American sentiments. But there is a close
association of the IEPG with the transatlantic CNAD.
The IEPG has welcomed Weinberger's ET proposals, has played
a major role in the selection of the CNAD-projects and is seen by
CNAD-officialss as political support for their activities. This signifies,
that even this all-European cooperation is ultimately seen as a way of
smoothing and improving transatlantic relations. In this perspective it
is relevant, that the IEPG was offering the US government lists of
European firms interested in SDI before the European governments
had had time to take up a position on this controversial American
initiative. 9 The CNAD projects themselves are of course explicitly
Atlantic, with the US supporting every one of them. This does not
mean that everything will be plain sailing. Already there has been a
fuss about the American inspired adoption of a US designed Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system although the German alternative was said to be both cheaper and more effective.1 But the main
idea behind the CNAD projects is to have consortia, consisting of
different national industries, often of course led by an American
firm, compete for contracts in a way reminiscent of US procurement
procedures. The contract recently signed by a US-European consortium headed by Martin Marietta, for precision guided munitions for
the multiple launch rocket system is a typical example.1 1 So we can
conclude, that the moves towards European armaments cooperation
200
Bob de Ruiter
201
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
202
8.
9.
10.
11.
Part V
Evaluation
17 Business As Usual?
Peter M. E. Volten
206
Business as Usual?
Peter M. E. Volten
207
208
Business as Usual?
they reach the front is seen to be crucial. And there you have
it: NATO's strength, according to Rogers, lies in its technological
superiority. NATO must play its trump, by exploiting presently
emerging technologies.
Now in the usual business of the NATO planning process,
SACEUR plays a very important role. He draws up operational
concepts and formulates the long-term planning guidelines that are
to result in concrete force goals. So the great amount of confidence
he places in the possibilities of ET, could lead to adaptations in
existing operational missions. Interdiction, not a new mission,
certainly, could receive relatively more emphasis. This trend could
be reinforced by other actors, such as the political support of Caspar
Weinberger for ET and the outspoken interests of industry. In the
planning process, both will add to the weight of military advice
favourable to ET; according to some, up to a point that the introduction of ET for deep attack against follow-on forces becomes more
or less unavoidable.
This deep strike approach is one which - in the blunt view of
Steven Canby- falters on all counts:
- The underlying premise is false: NATO is outgunned but neither
outmanned nor outspent. NATO's problem is organisational
and doctrinal; marginal technological advances cannot overcome
these self-inflicted wounds.
- Technology is being wrongly focused on difficult deep attacks
rather than on easier and more rewarding targets close to the
Forward Edge of Battle Area (FEBA).
- While the individual technologies may work, the many diverse
components and distinct tasks have yet to be combined and
demonstrate in a benign, much less a hostile environment.
- NATO requires 4% more annually to modernise current forces.
The proposed technologies are additions. Costs using its
proponents own claims of effectiveness are an order to magnitude greater than asserted. 2
Another major objection to a tactic of striking to a depth of some
hundreds of kilometres, is that, as Donnelly has argued- there are
no major Soviet concentrations to be expected within this range. At
least, if expectations are based on Soviet doctrine as it has been
adopted in recent years. 3 These important changes in WTO tactical
concepts have gone by more or less unnoticed by the military organisations in the West. This is due to their tendency to underestimate
Peter M. E. Volten
209
the necessity of checking their own tactical and strategic rules against
developments on the other side. Studying the opponent is limited
for the greater part to quantitative data, whereas qualitative data
are quite as important.
An essential question - one which the Western fixation on technology has largely blocked - is whether the technology driven
method, adhered to by Rogers among others, is the only one possible. Even if we assume that the West is not willing or able to achieve
numerical parity, this does not mean that technological superiority
can make good the differences in conventional strength.
Technology can contribute to strengthening combat capability, but
it is not the only and often not the best way to improve combat
strength. Translated into operational terms, General Rogers' plan
contains the danger of putting too much emphasis on fire power aimed at the previously mentioned reserve units - and of neglecting
other factors that determine combat strength.
A more balanced approach can be found in the Field Manual
100-5 'Operations' of the US Army, where a number of important
corrections were incorporated vis-a-vis earlier attempts to put the
Airland Battle idea into the form of a manual. Those attempts, such
as TRADOC's 'AirLand Battle and Corps 1984' are still important
today, because they have much in common with the Follow-onForce-Attack (FOFA) concept now propagated within NATO so
enthusiastically by General Rogers.
In the Field Manual 100-5 'Operations', other basic
military-operational concepts besides 'deep attack' are dealt with,
namely: initiative, coordinating Army and Air Force operations,
manoeuvre and agility. In its new policy, the US Army breaks with
the somewhat passive, static concept of defence as described in
the Field Manual of 1976, and emphasises active, mobile defences.
Firepower and deep strike have gained importance, but they are not
given the high priority, they enjoy in the Rogers' plan. In the
AirLand Battle improvements in conventional defence are sought,
not so much via new technologies as through the full deployment of
the fighting skills of commanders on all levels. Taking the initiative,
making decisions, delegating authority, leaving the execution of an
assignment to the subordinate; these are the points in which the
military in the West take their score, leaving the Soviet officers
behind. These are not measurable characteristics as is firepower, but
nevertheless, they form an important criterion for assessing relative
strength and for improving Western defences. The same applies to
210
Business as Usual?
Peter M. E. Volten
211
212
Business as Usual?
Peter M. E. Volten
213
214
Business as Usual?
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
18 Can Non-provocative
Defence Provide
Atlantic Security?
Steven L. Canby
215
216
Steven L. Canby
217
not to the interest of the rest of Europe. It too easily leads to German
neutralism and perhaps eventually pacificism.
Third, several of the NPD schemes, especially Afheldt's, allow too
much of West Germany to be occupied. The weak must do what
they must, but NATO need not be weak and need not pursue
schemes trading space for attrition. Furthermore, what about the old
nibbling away scenarios like the 'Hamburg Grab'?
MILITARY CREDIBILITY
The Hamburg Grab scenarios clearly suggest any credible posture
must have an impenetrable wall (e.g. Hannig's) or a structural ability
to launch significant counter-attacks. Again, the appropriate question
is not the existence of a counter-attack capability, but how much is
enough?
A corollary proposition is that a defence cannot be purely passive.
A passive defence can always be undermined tactically by attacking
its non-mutually supporting parts, and eventually collapsed. There
is also a grand strategic implication. Germany is not Switzerland or
Yugoslavia. Small countries have the advantage of being small and
unimportant. Given the existence of power elsewhere, they can play
the 'entrance fee' game. Germany cannot. And for that matter what
about Norwegian and Turkish security if Germany does? (In 1939,
it will be recalled the French Army was structurally incapable of
assisting Poland, as per treaty commitment.) Ergo there can be no
NATO- and Germany is alone and exposed.
MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS
The NPD schemes are attractive precisely because they break the
fetters of NATO's current framework. As such the burden is upon
them to demonstrate their superior military performance. This they
do not. The cited evaluative models are not validating. For example,
the Afheldt and Hannig schemes are heavily dependent on technology. Technology can always be countered to a greater or lesser
extent. We do not know how, only that adaptation will occur. Evaluative computer models cannot capture this phenomenon.
All the NPD schemes concentrate on tank smashing and artillery
avoidance. What about infantry? In the First World War, firepower
218
Steven L. Canby
219
19 Soviet Responses to
Emerging Technology
Weapons and New
Defensive Concepts
Charles J. Dick
220
Charles f. Dick
221
222
Soviet Responses
Charles J. Dick
223
224
Soviet Responses
Charles J. Dick
225
Battlefield weapons
226
Soviet Responses
Charles J. Dick
227
228
Soviet Responses
Charles J. Dick
229
230
Soviet Responses
Charles J. Dick
231
The Soviets would be delighted with any NATO defence plan which
forswore nuclear weapons, for they are seen as the greatest threat
to the viability of offensive operations- and they are, of course, the
only threat to the territory of the USSR itself. A 'no first use'
declaration would be almost as desirable, for while the alliance might
not stick to it if conventional defence proved a catastrophic failure,
it would at least delay nuclear release: current Soviet operational
concepts are designed first and foremost to create very rapidly a
situation in which tactical and even operational nuclear weapons will
be largely unusable and therefore irrelevant.
Plainly, any scheme for non-nuclear defence must be seen to have
a very high likelihood of success indeed if it is to replace the nuclear
weapon as a deterrent. Moreover, this efficacy must be perceived by
the USSR: European beliefs are irrelevant, as deterrence, like
beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder. As the Soviets see a purely
conventional defence, not backed by nuclear weapons, as untenable
in the face of a nuclear armed foe, concepts 'emphasising defence'
are likely to fail this test.
The various ideas of area defence envisage an army devoid of
tanks, Mechanised Infantry Combat Vehicles (MICVs), or fixedwing aircraft.lz They rely on thousands of more or less autonomous
platoon-sized sub-units armed with small-arms, ATGMs, and mines.
In the Afheldt proposal each defends its patch as and when the
enemy enters it, while in the SAS scheme, they fulfil a reconnaissance, target acquisition and fire control function and are backed by
small, purely tactical reserves of lightly armoured tank destroyers
for local counter-attacks. These groups receive fire support from
dispersed artillery, especially missiles and MLRS with 'smart' submunitions, and attack helicopters. The Soviet advance is to be slowed
and worn down by constant harassment from all sides by an elusive
foe relying on concealment and dispersion to deny Soviet firepower
worthwhile targets. The lack of military airfields, large mechanised
formations and the logistic structure and sophisticated C3 needed to
support and control them well, is said to make Soviet nuclear and
chemical weapons and airpower obsolete by denying them targets.
The size and sophistication of the Soviet Ground Forces will also be
an irrelevance in the face of a quasi-guerilla resistance, as surely as
was that of the American forces in Vietnam.
Such a radical and complete departure from traditional concepts
232
Soviet Responses
Charles J. Dick
233
destroy the defence's indirect and rotary wing fire support and its
logistic back-up through the actions of reconnaissance, raiding,
heliborne and SPF detachments, counter-battery fire and, as air
supremacy has been ceded, air action.
Even with its artillery still largely intact, a defence based almost
entirely on light infantry/militia is unlikely to cause the Soviets much
concern. If the infantry is concentrated, it can be bypassed or paralysed by massive artillery bombardment and overrun in a combinedarms attack. If, as in the Afheldt and SAS schemes, it is thinly
spread, it will be able to do little more than harass the advancing
columns by sniping. The small, dispersed lightly armoured units that
exist in the SAS proposal would make little difference to this picture:
they might achieve minor tactical successes but could accomplish
nothing of operational significance. In the Soviet view, a defence
which is fragmented, limited logistically and which cannot seize the
initiative, even at the tactical level, is no defence at all. Moreover,
the Soviets would have the severest doubts about the ability of small,
isolated sub-units and units to sustain morale and the will to fight.
In any case, they will have confidence in the ability of their all-arms
units and sub-units, their task now simplified by the simple nature
of the defence and the availability of ample air support, to destroy
or disperse the defender with few casualties to themselves.
Once the defence degenerates into pure partisan resistance, it may
well irritate the Soviet occupiers. It is unlikely to turn them out. No
purely guerilla movement can hope to succeed without the help, or
at the very least, the promise of outside intervention. Certainly, this
would be true against a USSR defending what it conceived to be a
vital interest (and it would not occupy, e.g. West Germany if it did
not regard it as such). The Soviets have a totally different approach
to Internal Security problems from the liberal West, one which makes
a nonsense of the notion that the level of violence and destruction
consequent on the adoption of non-provocative defence would be
limited to an acceptable degree. The Soviets would doubt whether
Western Europeans would have the unity and determination, the
hardihood and lack of concern for their own lives (and that of their
families) that characterise the Afghans, and which are necessary for
a protracted and apparently hopeless struggle.
The Soviets would be delighted if ideas of pure defence gained
hold in Europe, not least because they could help to fragment the
Atlantic Alliance: the USA is unlikely to see its forces hostage to a
concept which it would regard with as much suspicion as the Soviets,
234
Soviet Responses
The Soviets see surprise and momentum as being key force multipliers, enabling them to achieve a rapid, non-nuclear decision. A
Soviet analyst, asked to solve NATO's problem of creating a stable
defence, would seek to find the antithesis to negate these advantages.
The first place he would look would be at the shortcomings which
currently render the alliance vulnerable to the Soviet style of attack:
their rectification must, by definition, make the defence much more
effective. Amongst the most important of NATO's military weak-
Charles J. Dick
235
236
Soviet Responses
Charles J. Dick
237
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
238
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Soviet Responses
Manoeuvre Groups: a Closer Look', International Defense Review,
6(1983).
See, for instance, the interview with SACEUR in Military Technology,
3(1985); and 'FOFA - Myths and Realities', NATO Review, Dec.
1984.
Some of the problems, though far from all, are mentioned in John
Rybicki, 'Surveillance and Reconnaissance for the AirLand Battle',
Military Technology, 2(1985).
There are perhaps three principal variants of non-provocative defence,
and it is impossible to do them all full justice in such a short paper.
For more details on each, see Norbert Hannig, 'The Defence of
Western Europe with Conventional Weapons', International Defense
Review, 11(1981); Horst Afheldt, Defensive Verteidigung (Rowohlt:
Reinbeck, 1983); Afheldt, Verteidigung und Frieden (Munich, 1976);
See also Chapter 8 of this book. All variants ignore the basic point
that the very existence of free, successful capitalist society is, by
definition, provocative to the USSR.
See, for example, David Greenwood, 'Reshaping NATO's Defences',
Defence Minister and Chief of Staff, 5(1984); Steven Canby, Obtaining
Conventional Comparability with the Warsaw Pact (Rand Corporation,
1973); and 'The Alliance and Europe, Part IV: Military Doctrine and
Technology', Adelphi Paper, 109 (IISS, 1975).
For an interesting example of combining light infantry and armour in
an effective defence, see Richard Simpkin, 'Countering the OMG',
Military Technology, 3(1984).
Major J. B. A. Bailey, 'The Case for pre-Placed Field Defences',
International Defense Review, 7(1984), shows how field fortifications
need neither be as expensive as a Maginot Line, nor lead to the
mentality associated with that feat of military engineering.
239
240
Non-provocative Defence
241
242
Non-provocative Defence
kind of conventional fire concentration, knowing that there are thousands of similar platoons. Even rather traditionally, which is more
densely, deployed infantry, yet also well dug-in, still has a much
higher survivability than heaviest armour: 25 per cent casualties for
tank crews, 10 per cent for the infantry. This data, gathered from
Swiss and West German sources, refers to the effect of area-covering
artillery fire without precise target information. But, is it not relatively easy to zero in on a stationary infantry target? Not necessarily!
It seems to be much more problematic to conceal a column of tanks
and its movements than numerous little positions which are well
camouflaged and intermingled with dummy targets and decoys.
Finally, the missile and mortar batteries of the infantry's battalion
commanders are well out of contact with the enemy's direct-fire
weapons. From indirect fire they can be protected by rotating
between strengthened positions. In the case of the enemy's advance
they would retreat to rear positions, thereby stepping up resistance
with depth.
Charles Dick: Ammunition resupply will pose many problems. How
is it to be organised (bearing in minds our dislike of centralisation)?
Will the logistics columns not provide good targets for enemy patrols
and air attack? How is the logistic system to function once the enemy
has penetrated deep into your territory?
Lutz Uterseher: There is no traditional ammunition supply for the
stationary platoons. When they have done their job, for example
fired their last round of ammunition taken from decentralised,
forward depots, they are allowed to fall back (or be evacuated).
They would reinforce rearward positions and man redundant
foxholes. This implies the dispersed storage of light infantry weapons
in these areas which should be sufficient for both the ordinary complement and at least some retreating forces. This can only be financed
if a considerable proportion of these weapons is not of all too recent
vintage. A similar procedure applies to the mobile indirect-fire
batteries at battalion level. Having consumed their forward supply,
they would fall back to the vicinity of rearward depots. It should be
clear, however, that these evasive movements do not cover long
distances: We are referring to leap-frogging between prepared
positions in a confined area. Average movements would be well
below 10 km.
243
Charles Dick: What is your answer to those who cast doubts on the
extravagant claims made for TGSMs and other 'smart' munitions
(e.g. Canby and Simpkin)?
Lutz Unterseher: The SAS concept is totally in line with Canby's
and Simpkin's criticism of terminally guided submunitions and other
exotic technologies. The SAS concept, in its current formulation,
does not include TGSMs or third generation missiles. Our missiles
with fibre-optical guidance, for instance, combine a first generation
steering mode with a proven optronical sensor. Remotely
controlling/triggering of relatively simple weapon systems, in order
to protect the soldier from enemy fire, has been known since the
First World War.
Our approach to high technology is very selective. If we do not
want to cross the demarcation line there is no need for highly
complex target-seeking warheads (fire-and-forget). It is much less
costly to invest in stationary sensors deployed on this side of the
fence which complement human information in order to make our
intelligence truly foolproof.
AIR POWER
Charles Dick: Fixed wing air power provides the commander with
his most flexible, accurate, speedy response to enemy penetrations,
wherever they occur. It is also essential to air defence. Rotary wing
air provides excellent counter-penetration, both through its own
firepower and by moving infantry with A TGM and laying instant
minefields to protect them. Air is the one area where the Soviets
are really scared of NATO capabilities. The SAS concept wishes to
abandon air power.
Lutz Unterseher: It may well be that 'air is the one area where the
Soviets are really scared of NATO capabilities'. The question is
whether, in the long run, NATO's air power, which mainly is
designed for deep penetration, proves to be a stable deterrent or
rather a provocation encouraging preemptive measures.
Instead, we would argue for an air force which is optimised for
denial of access to our most valuable targets. This applies to the
'civilian' infrastructure much more than to military targets. The latter
should lose importance by dispersal or, if this is impossible, by a
244
Non-provocative Defence
245
246
Non-provocative Defence
247
TECHNO-COMMANDOS
Charles Dick: I am not sure whether all the 'infantry' are deployed
as OP parties or whether some are being used in a 'technocommando' type role. If the latter, then:
248
Non-provocative Defence
249
250
Non-provocative Defence
21 Impact of Emerging
Technologies and
Military Doctrines on
Crisis Stability, Arms
Control and
Disarmament, and
Detente
Frans-Bauke van der Meer
Military postures and the way (emerging) technologies are incorporated in them, have important functions both in internal military
planning and decision-making, and in external (international)
relations.
Internally, military hardware can be seen as a materialisation of
existing ideas on security problems and defence options. The internal
organisation and procedures are adapted to this set of ideas and
resulting posture. In this way a framework for thinking about and
planning of military operations is defined and anchored in the makeup of the military apparatus.! Within this framework new problems
may be identified such as mobilisation problems in case of a surprise
attack, or the vulnerability of military command centres.z In present
military doctrine and policy there seems to be an underlying premise
that security problems can essentially be solved technologically.
Accordingly, identified problems often give rise to certain kinds of
technological development such as stand-off anti-airfield weapons or
anti-tactical ballistic missiles (ATBM). On the other hand, incorporation of emerging technologies in military postures may lead to a
conceptual transformation of military doctrine from forward defence
to deep strike, for example.
So, military technology and military doctrine are closely intertwined. They direct and reinforce each other, thereby representing
251
252
253
security problems are of a social and political nature. In this connection military technology and military postures play an important role,
both as cause and as consequence of internal and external processes.
From this perspective we intend to analyse the possibilities and
restrictions that may result from presently emerging technologies and
from adaptations of military doctrine.
CRISIS STABILITY
The goal of any military strategy for Europe, is to prevent war and,
if this might fail, to control the ensuing military conflict. It is therefore crucial that military postures and doctrines do not stimulate the
adversary to preventive or preemptive attacks in a crisis situation.
Also cues to uncontrolled escalation in case of a military conflict
should be avoided.
Vulnerability of Weapon Systems
254
255
weapons and thereby raise the nuclear threshold, they may increase
the chances of armed conflict and of escalation, and hence reduce
crisis stability. 5
More defensive postures will by definition be less threatening,
which may make crisis management less difficult. This does not
necessarily imply, however, that an approach that emphasises
defence, will also effectively avoid escalation. In the face of defeat,
an aggressor might try to gain superiority by increasing the intensity
of warfare and inflicting damage that is not sustainable.
In fact, it is hard to envisage military postures and technologies
that inherently discourage such an escalation. Therefore crisis stability and possibilities for crisis management cannot be completely
assessed with reference to technologies, postures and military
doctrines alone. Policies of cooperation and detente are of equal if
not greater importance. These policies may create conditions favourable to crisis management and peaceful settlement of conflicts, for
example by means of confidence building measures. Especially when
it becomes anchored in social and economic relations between East
and West, such a policy can help to create options for peaceful
handling of conflicts. Thus concepts emphasising defence can
contribute to crisis stability and crisis management if they are linked
with and integrated in a policy of detente. Of course deterrence,
flexible response, and deep strike can also be combined with a policy
aimed at cooperation and detente. However, in that case the signals
emitted by the military posture will be at odds with the impressions
the detente policy intends to convey (see the section on detente and
cooperation below). This friction between different levels of policy
may lead to much ambiguity in crisis situations and hence even
increase instability.
Conflict Scenarios
256
257
258
different configurations, and hence get different meanings and implications. An RPV, for instance, may fit in a verification or surveillance
system, but it may also serve as a target designation device within
the context of a weapon system.l 3
Secondly, a number of new military technologies greatly increase
the problems of verification of possible arms control agreements.
Whereas reliable verification is commonly seen as a necessity for
arms control, existing difficulties in this connection are aggravated
by new technologies.
Miniaturisation, camouflage, mobility, and so on may frustrate
verification, thereby making arms control hard to attain. Also
jamming and stealth technologies may hamper verification. Dual
capability of weapons systems presents a further problem, because
it is not clear whether these systems should be counted in terms of
restrictions agreed with respect to nuclear weapons.
Thirdly, the adaptation of existing security doctrines to deep strike
possibilities offered by ET counteracts the process of confidence
building and hence the condition for successful arms control negotiations. This may further reduce the perspectives of MBFR and INF
talks.
ET, of course, does not by definition frustrate arms control. That
depends, as discussed before, on the way ET is developed and
utilised. But we might neverthel@ss conclude that the new military
technologies that are developed within the framework of present
doctrine mainly generate signals and create conditions that strongly
reduce opportunities for successful arms control.
In the context of concepts emphasising defence there is far more
room for arms control and disarmament. First, compared with the
present situation, substantial and even unilateral reductions in
offensive arms can be envisaged, so that negotiations can be expected
to lead to results that are materially meaningful. In the frame of
reference of a defensive doctrine, there is not the need for equality
in numbers, quality or types of weapons, let alone the need for
military superiority. That is why a level of armament that is below
that of the opponent in an integral sense can be quite acceptable.
Secondly, the process of negotiating may also be facilitated
because a strong accent in military R & D and procurement of purely
defensive systems will probably as such be an effective confidence
building measure.
Nevertheless, defensive concepts and postures may bring with
them problems of arms control. First, a stable defensive system
259
In the paragraphs above we argued that the impact of military technology depends on the doctrine in which it is incorporated, and on
the broader political and social context of international relations. In
turn, however, developments on the military-technological level will
influence the interaction on political, social and economic levels. We
saw already how they may impede arms control. Now we turn to
their effects on detente and cooperation between East and West.
Apart from short term fluctuations, NATO policy since the 1960s,
is characterised by the combination of deterrence and detente. It
is sometimes claimed that the stability stemming from the nuclear
deterrence strategy (MAD and flexible response) sets the precondition for cooperation and detente. Even if this is true, it is so only
in the static sense that it enforces a de facto acceptance of the status
quo. A dynamic analysis of the process shows a different picture.
First, the exchange of threat at the military level may counteract
initiatives to cooperation at other levels, because it brings ambiguity
to the meaning of such initiatives. Secondly, present strategy has not
260
261
movements and even some political and military officials cast doubt
on current postures and doctrines. In European political circles frictions between military strategy and detente policies are increasingly
felt. On the economic level strategic restrictions on export of technology and materials interfere with the development of mutual
advantageous cooperation and trade.
Incorporation of emerging technologies in present doctrines
appears to aggravate the situation in most respects. It gives a new
impetus to the arms race, it complicates crisis management and arms
control and it transmits messages, perhaps unintended, that inflict
damage on efforts to bring about detente. It appears, then, that
technological solutions to the problems facing NATO are not
sufficient and may have quite harmful effects as long as they are
elaborated in the framework of current military-political thinking.
An alternative security policy, in which a defensive military
posture, substantial reduction qf offensive arms, and building of
cooperative networks are combined, seems to open more perspectives for peaceful relations and crisis management. Emerging technologies may be helpful in designing an effective non-provocative
posture, although they introduce potentially new problems of verification and arms control, which might eventually lead to a new type
of arms race. A major task for new security policies is therefore
to recognise such pitfalls by ex ante policy evaluation and impact
assessments. They may further be avoided by intensification of
contacts and by confidence building measures.
An important final question to be addressed here is whether a
security policy that integrates a defensive posture and doctrine with
effective detente, can be realised. For lack of empirical evidence,
a clear-cut answer to this question is not possible. A number of
complicating conditions, however, can be identified.
First, the present mode of thinking about security issues is
anchored in military hardware, organisation and doctrine. For those
highly involved in this way of thinking, there are therefore strong
pressures to continue doing so. It is for this reason that individuals
and groups that are concened with peace and security, but are less
involved in current thinking about it, have a part to play, if a transformation of security policy is to come about.
Secondly, fear of the opponent, whether justified or not, is a social
fact that should be taken into account in designing security policy,
lest political instabilities within their own society occur. Therefore
unilateral steps of arms reduction, which can't be too small lest they
262
Notes
1.
2.
See the contribution of Peter Vol ten to this book (Chapter 17). Institutional and organisational contraints on (changes in) defence policy
are shown in many other publications as well. For example, Kosta
Tsipis, 'Scientist and Weapons Procurement', Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, 36(6) (June 1980) pp. 41-3; John Garnett, 'Disarmament
and Arms Control Since 1945; Ch. 7 in L. Martin (ed.), Strategic
Thoughts in the Nuclear Age (London: Heinemann, 1979)
pp. 187-225; and, with respect to military R & D, Frankli A. Long
and Judith Reppy (eds), The Genesis of New Weapons: Decision
Making for Military R & D (New York: Pergamon Press, 1980).
On a more theoretical level these processes are analysed by Dieter
Senghaas, Abschreckung und Frieden: Studien zur Kritik organisierter
Friedlosigkeit (Frankfurt am Main: Europaische Verlaganstalt, 3rd
edn, 1981).
See ESECS, Strengthening Conventional Deterrence in Europe (New
York: St. Martin's Press, 1983); Dutch Minister of Defence,
Versterking van de conventionel verdediging en 'emerging technologies'
(Strengthening Conventional Defence and ET), Parliamentary document 19061, nr. 2, (Staatsuitgeverij, Den Haag).
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
263
Part VI
Conclusions
267
268
are supported by some though not all of the authors. But that after
all, is an editor's privilege.
Let us have a final look at the three different approaches.
SDI
The most spectacular proposal is the Strategic Defense Initiative.
SDI is not what Reagan would like it to be, a way of freeing people
from the fear of nuclear war by protecting them against nuclear
attack. On the contrary, as pointed out in Chapter 5, the idea is to
protect the US intercontinental ballistic missiles from a Soviet
(second strike) attack. This makes their first use for limited counterforce options less risky, because an answering Soviet counter-force
attack would be less effective. SDI is not intended to abolish flexible
response deterrence policy, but to give it a new lease on life, by
making a first limited use by the US more credible. It is within the
context of this counterforce doctrine that SDI must be evaluated.
So if one is wondering whether this proposal will raise the nuclear
threshold the answer is no. For by making the first use of nuclear
weapons by the US less risky, a strategic defence shield will actually
be lowering the nuclear threshold. As this basic idea behind SDI
dawns on the general public, the initiative itself will become increasingly unacceptable. To West Europeans, who dislike thinking in
terms of nuclear war-fighting anyway, this 'solution' must seem
especially threatening. They might fear that even a nuclear war which
starts in a limited way will lead to their ultimate destruction.
The question to which SDI offers no answer, is how to give NATO
the ability to counter a conventional Soviet attack in the early phases
of a conflict, before a first use by the US is decided upon. Obviously,
SDI is not enough. As pointed out by advocates like Berkhof, it
must be complemented by modernisation, both of nuclear and
conventional forces.
But taken together, all these programmes will make the total
posture unaffordable even if the separate elements can be paid for.
Pressure will grow to save on less spectacular items, such as training,
and conventional ammunition stocks, resulting in a further decrease
of the conventional holding capacity. So it is not only by lessening
the US perceived risk of a first use of counter-force weapons, that
a strategic defence lowers the nuclear threshold. It also does this
269
270
271
EMPHASISING
DEFENCE
DO
ANY
272
273
274
275
FRG, a well defined role for the allies who are presently thus
committed. This could make the proposal politically acceptble within
the alliance.
It would therefore seem worthwhile to develop this kind of
schemes for non-provocative defence, working on the many
elements, such as air defence, coastal defence and O(I), which have
not as yet received enough attention. This should be done in a wider
context, including both members of other NATO states and WTO
countries. The last is specially important. For one of the very real
dangers of non-provocative defence, is that it be misunderstood by
the WTO, either as a sign of NATO weakness, or as an attempt to
sharpen the American sword by giving it a West European shield.
Non-provocative defence must not be implemented without an extensive process of East-West communication. It is after all motivated
by a desire for detente, and must therefore be firmly embedded in a
wider detente process.
In the meantime there is nothing to prevent NATO from taking some
generally acceptable steps as enumerated in Chapter 23, towards a
posture which is both less provocative and more effective in a military
sense, and feasible within present technological and financial
constraints. Examples are the use of light infantry, enabling a fuller
utilisation of reservists; dispersal and decentralisation and the preparation of barricades for the fortification of the inter-German border.
Development and production plans, such as those formulated by
CNAD and IEPG should move away from very costly and vulnerable
platforms such as the main battle tank, the fighter-bomber, and their
supporting systems, towards the anti-tank and anti-aircraft guided
weapons. Space technology should be utilised for the installation of
European Satellite Monitoring Agency, and a step towards a ballistic
missile defence such as an anti-tactical ballistic missile system should
be avoided. In this way the first steps could be taken towards the
adapting of NATO's military build-up to its explicitly defensive
political aims.
23 Conventional Defence
for Europe
Conclusions of the organisers of the international workshop
'Emerging Technologies and Military Doctrine', Free
University, Amsterdam, 16-19 July 1985.
(1) The military posture of NATO in general
puts an increasing burden on military budgets,
leads to increasing doubts concerning its military credibility.
Furthermore, certan aspects of it
decrease crisis-stability,
make a return to a policy of detente increasingly difficult,
are increasingly unacceptable to the general public.
(2) All participants rejected proposals based on striking moving
targets deep inside WTO territory. A substantial group rejected
strikes on all targets deep in Eastern Europe.
The organisers concluded that any proposals to procure T-16
or T-22 missiles are unacceptable.
(3) Most participants supported a change of NATO policy in the
direction of a more explicitly defensive military posture. This
implies a greater ephasis on:
a heavily defended zone at the East-West border by use of
small preplanned, prefabricated, rapidly deployable barriers
and obstacles.
the use of light- and non-mechanised infantry,
the use of reservists for this infantry.
a prepared communication system,
dispersal and de-centralisation.
For differing reasons, it was argued that there should be less
emphasis on explicitly offensive systems like the main battle
tank.
(4) Non-provocative defence was defined as:
The build-up, training, logistics and doctrine of the armed
forces are such that they are seen in their totality to be unsuitable
for offence, but unambiguously sufficient for a credible defence.
Nuclear weapons fulfil at most a retaliatory role.
276
Appendix I
Weapon Systems
In this appendix, compiled by John Grin, a brief description of weapon
systems, mentioned in this book, is given. Part A of the appendix deals with
missiles; in Part B information on other systems is given.
MISSILES
278
Air-to-air missile
Air-to-surface stand-off
dispenser
AMRAAM
(Advanced
Medium Range
Air-to-Air
Missile)
Apache/CWS
3.65
6.32
0.18
0.61
0.22
ALCM (Air
Launched Cruise
Missile)
Air-to-surface missile
for the suppression of
enemy air defence
ALARM (Air
Launched AntiRadiation
Missile)
4.24
= 3 X 0.13
Air-to-air missile
0.20
AIM-9
Sidewinder
Dimensions
length x diameter
(m x m)
3.70
Type
Missile
20 kg (?)
1 x 200 kton
Blastfragmentation II
Fragmentation
or blastfragmentation
40 kg
continuous
rod, proximity +
impact fuses
Warhead(s)
7-17
Anti-armour/
(unpowered anti-personnel/
version) up
?
to 50 in its
final
powered
version
55-75
2500
70-80 11
10-18
max.
50-100
Range
(km)
USA
USA
Producing!
developing
country
Infra-red seeker
Additional remarks
Ballistic missile to
attack main operation
bases2
Ballistic missile to
attack MOBs3
BOSS (Ballistic
Offensive
Suppression
System)
CAM-40
Anti-tank
Anti-ship missile
Dragon
Exocet
Cruise Missile
see: ALCM;
GLCM
Air-to-air missile
Type
ASRAAM
(Advanced
Short Range Airto-Air Missile)
Missile
5.21
13
0.74
2.5
min. 4.5max. 45
0.35
Conventional
runway
penetrators/
area denial
submunitions;
pay load up to
1000 kg3
1800 +
GP1 blast/
fragmentation,
165 kg
2.44 kg;
armour
penetrating
Conventional
runway
penetration
650 2
min. 60max.
1100 m
High explosive
Warhead(s)
Range
(km)
0.13
0.15
Dimensions
length x diameter
(m x m)
Producing!
developing
country
USA
Wire-guided (SACLOSt)
CEP: 15 m Conventional
USA
version of Pershing II.
Candidate for the AXE
project, Inertial guidance +
Radar area-correlation
terminal guidance3
Additional remarks
Air-to-surface missile
for the suppression of
enemy air defence
Anti-ship
Anti-tank
Harpoon
Hellfire
HOT
1.27
1.62
4.58
4.17
6.40
0.37
0.14
0.18
0.34
0.25
0.53
Range
(km)
9 kg hollow
charge
Naval Weapons
Centre 227 kg,
penetration
blast, contact
(with time delay
+ proximity
fuse)
Fragmentation,
proximity fuse
Warhead(s)
40
54 kg
min. 75 m- 3 kg hollow
max. 4 km
charge
110
18.5
2500
Dimensions
length x diameJer
(m x m)
I Hawk
Air defence, surface-to- 5.08
(improved Hawk) air
Type
GLCM (Ground
Launched Cruise
Missile)
Missile
+
USA
USA
Producing/
developing
country
USA
France/
FRG
(Euromissile)
USA
CEP: 50 m7
Now being deployed in
Europe. Inertial guidance
terrain contour matching
Additional remarks
Surface-to-surface
nuclear battlefield
missile
To be used against
airfields and other fixed
targets3
Air-to-surface missile
for close support
missions
LRSOM (Long
Range Stand-Off
Missile)
Maverick
Type
Lance
JTACMS (Joint
Tactical Missile
Systems)
JATM (Joint
Anti-Tactical
Missile)
Improved TOW
see TOW
Missile
2.49
6.14
0.30
0.569
Dimensions
length x diameter
(m X m)
22.5
<600
110
Range
(km)
Producing/
developing
country
USA
Enhanced radiation
('neutron') warhead is being
developed for Lance (1
kton)
Additional remarks
1-100 kton
(variable yield)
Warhead(s)
ICBM
MX
21.6
X
2.34
0.23
MOBIDIC
4.0
0.12
MLRS (Multiple
Launch Rocket
System)
0.75
Range
(km)
Warhead(s)
Additional remarks
8000
25-30 12
30
10 x 300 kton
W-87
warheads 1
Several tens of
anti-armour/
anti-runway
submunitions,
or 200
conventional
grenades or
mines 12
M77
submunitions
Dimensions
length x diameter
(m x m)
Anti-tank
Type
Milan
Missile
USA
France/
FRG
USA
France,
FRG
(Euromissile)
Producing/
developing
country
10.5
3.0
6.2
1.29
Air-to-surface dispenser
system
Surface-to-surface long
range theatre nuclear
weapon
Air-to-air missile
Surface-to-air
Surface-to-air
Pegase
Pershing II
Python 3
SA-6 Gainful
SA-7 Grail
X
5.31
Surface-to-air, air
defence missile. Could
possibly have an A TBM
role 8
Patriot
0.34
0.16
1.0
0.418
0.8
Israel
Infra-red seeker
Altitude limit 18 km. Radio
command + CWSAR
homing*
Altitude limit 1,5 km Infrared seeker
11 kg high
explosive
80 kg high
explosive+
proximity fuse
2.5 kg
fragmentation
with smooth
fragmentation
min. 0.5max. 15
min. 4max. 35
3.6
USA
0.3-80 kton
variable yield14
1800
su
su
Anti-armour,
antipersonnel,
anti-runway
submunition
Producing/
developing
country
From 6
(simplest
unpowered
version) to
60 (final
powered
version)
Being replaced by
(conventional) Improved
Hawk and/or Patriot 1
Additional remarks
1 kton nuclear 1
Warhead(s)
Fragmentation
warheads
68kg9
Range
(km)
60-1008
1401
Dimensions
length x diameter
(m x m)
Type
Nike Hercules
Missile
Surface-to-air
Surface-to-air
Surface-to-air
Surface-to-air Antiaircraft
Surface-to-air
SA-10
SA-11
SA-12
SA-13
Gopher
Type
SA-9
Go skin
Missile
02.0
7.0
5.3
0.129
0.70
0.35
c.6.2 x 0.45
c.2.0 x 0.12
Dimensions
length x diameter
(m x m)
max.lO
100
min.3max.28
100
Range
(km)
High explosive
High explosive
High explosive
casing + contact
and graze fuse
Warhead(s)
Producing/
developing
country
su
su
su
Uses tower-mounted
surveillance radar to detect
low-flying targets. Installed
(probably) at fixed sites. A
mobile version has been
developed, and will enter
service soon
Additional remarks
SSX-24
SS-23
ICBM
21
X
2.50
0.46
Up to ten
nuclear
warheads, yield
unknown
100 kton9
3509
12000
CEP: 300m
1 x 1 Mtoni 4
900
su
su
su
su
Israel
su
Producing!
developing
country
Replaces Scud-89
CEP: 300 mi
1 X 20-100
kton 14
SS-22
Intermediate range
nuclear missile
SS-21
120
SS-20
9.44
2.5
Air-to-air missile
Man-portable systems,
sometimes carried on
mountings Wire guidance
(SACLOSt)
2. 7 kg armour
penetrating
min.
500 m
max.
3 km
Additional remarks
50007
0.16
0.11
Warhead(s)
16(?) x c.l.70
Range
(km)
11 kg impact +
proximity fuse
0.87
Dimensions
length X diameter
(m x m)
anti-tank missile
Type
Shafrir II
SAM-D
Sagger
Missile
1.18
X
0.15
SACLOSt
guidance
2.4 kg hollow
charge
Anti-tank
TOW (Tubelaunched,
opticallytracked, wireguided)
min. 65 m
max.
3.75 km
Payload 25 ton2
Conventional ballistic
missile to attack fixed
targets2
TABASCO
USA
USA
TGSM/Skeet
submunitions
developed in the
Assault Breaker
programmen
Surface-to-surface
? x 0.55 (22 in.) 13 Up to 250 2
missile against fixed and
mobile targets
Producing!
developing
country
Additional remarks
T-22
Warhead(s)
TGSM/Skeet
submunitions
from the Assault
Breaker
programmen
(km)
Range
Up to 2502
Dimensions
length x diameter
(m X m)
Surface-to-surface
missile against mobile
targets
Type
T-16
Missile
Anti-tank
Sea-launched ballistic
missile
TOW-2
Trident-!
10.36
1.18
1.18
1.88
0.15
0.15
Dimensions
length x diameter
(m X m)
Anti-tank
Type
Improved TOW
Missile
7000
3.75
3.75
Range
(km)
Producing!
developing
country
USA
Additional remarks
Larger 6 kg
warhead
3.6 kg hollow
charge
Warhead(s)
Weapon Systems
289
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
290
Weapon Systems
AMX-323
French main battle tank. Essentially an upgraded version of the AMX-30.
AMX-403
French main battle tank. By late 1984, the first four prototypes had been
completed. AMX-40 offers significant advantages over AMX-30 and AMX32 and is an essentially new vehicle. Its main armament is a 120 mm smoothbore gun, capable of penetrating a heavy tank triple target and a medium
tank single target at a range of up to 3000 metres. Additionally there are a
20 mm cannon and a 7.62 mm machine-gun. The AMX-40 weighs 43 tonnes,
and has an average speed of 55 km/h on the road and 50 km/h cross-country.
Its maximum range is 550 km.
Apache helicopter1
US Army designation: AH-64 Designed by Hughes to meet the US Army's
requirement for an advanced attack helicopter, capable of undertaking a
full day/night/adverse weather anti-armour mission, and of fighting,
surviving and living with troops in a front-line environment. Armaments:
depending on the type, 8-16 Hellfire missiles, 320-1200 rounds of 30 mm
ammunitions and some tens of rockets. Technical details: main rotor diameter 14.63 m. length 17.76 m. max. range: 689 km with internal, and 2018
km with both internal and external fuel.
Aquila 192
US RPV for surveillance target acquisition and laser designation. Production
will start in 1986. Weight: 118 kg. Speed: 80-200 km/h. Penetration range:
50 km. Endurance time: 3 hr.
AT-2 mines 13
Anti-tank mines for the MLRS. It will be a 227 mm mine, designed especially
for area-denial, to channel, slow down or stop armoured units. It will be
produced in FR Germany.
AWACS9
Airborne Warning And Control System. US radar system for early warning
and control, deployed on a modified Boeing 707 airframe. The antenna is
mounted back-to-back with another antenna (for IFF and secondary surveillance) in a rotating radome on top of the plane. The A WACS has seven
operating modes; in addition to the test maintenance and standby modes
there are the pulse Doppler elevation and non-elevation scan modes for
surveillance down to the surface, the beyond-the-horizon mode for extended
range surveillance, the passive mode (transmitter shut down) for ECM and
the maritime mode which uses short pulses, to reduce the sea clutter patch
for detection of moving or stationary surface ships.
CASTORZ
Aircraft having a long-range stand-off radar to collect information which
will enable the Phoenix RPV to find more effectively its potential targets.
Challenger3
British main battle tank. In March 1983 the first 243 Challengers were
Weapon Systems
291
E-4 1
US Air Force airborne command post, aircraft built by Boeing. The E-4 has
accommodation for 94 crew members with three decks. There are, i.a., a
conference room, briefing room, control centres, and a National Command
Authority Area. In addition to command and control avionics, the E-4 is
able to use satellite and ground-based systems; there is communication
equipment on many frequencies; the E-4 is capable of tying in to commercial
292
Weapon Systems
Weapon Systems
293
trainer (F-16B), developed and tested in the 1970s in the US. Avionics
include: pulse Doppler radar, IFF electro-optical and infra-red sensors.
Armaments: 20 mm cannon, 515 rounds of ammunition, AMRAAM, AIM9, Maverick and other missiles. Span: 9.45 m. Length: 15.09 m. Max. speed
Mach 2. Service ceiling: 15 240m. Ferry range: 3890 km.
F-20 Northrop 1
Single-seat export fighter, produced in the 1980s in the US. Avionics include
a coherent multi-mode radar with advanced digital signal processing; ring
laser gyro inertial navigation system and electronic counter-measures equipment. The F-20 has two 20 mm guns, and stations for external weapons or
fuel. Typical loads include 30 mm gun pod, six AIM-9 air-to-air, or four
Maverick air-to-surface missiles; nine Mk 82 bombs or four laser guided
bombs. Span: 8.52 m. Length: 14.19 m. Service ceiling: 17.3 km. Ferry
range: 3734 km. Max. speed at 13 km > Mach 2
HEAP
High Explosive Armour Piercing. Anti-armour warhead analogous to
HESH, but with an explosive charge which detonates with a delayed contact
gaze, which causes more damage.
HEAT
High Explosive Anti-Tank Anti-Armour warhead. Injects a rapid jet of hot
gas in the armour, which penetrates it (up to several metres of armour) and
squirts molten metal through the tank.
HESH
High Explosive Squash Head. Anti-armour warhead, that explodes at the
moment of contact with the tank. This causes shock waves which destroy
the interior of the tank by pieces of armour and metal.
Hind-helicopter (Mil Mi-24) 1
Soviet assault helicopter, with transport capabilities, produced in the early
1970s. Avionics include: radar altimeter; blind-flying instrumentation; radar
low light-level TV and electro-optical sensors; IFF. Armaments: remotely
controlled 12.7 mm machine-gun; four Swatter anti-tank missiles; four
hinderwing pylons for rockets pods, special bombs or other stores. Span:
17.00 m. Length (excl. rotors) 18.50 m. Max. level speed: 370 km/h. Service
ceiling: 4.5 km. Combat radius: 160 km.
!Ff'lS
Identification Friend or Foe system to prevent that own targets are hit and
to identify enemy targets to be hit. After long negotiations the US Mark15 system was chosen instead of the alternative FR German Capri system.
Probably this is the result of a deal offered by the US to the FRG. This
deal is understood to include the purchase of unrelated hardware items,
although reference has been made to the US paying for measures to alleviate
the frequency congestion problems which worried the Germans in choosing
the Mark-15 system.
294
Weapon Systems
Jaguar 1
Single-seat tactical support aircraft and two-seat operational or advanced
trainer. Designed by Breguet (France) and British Aerospace (UK). In
production since the late 1970s. Three 30 mm guns. The Jaguar can carry
alternative loads, including one Martel anti-radar missile plus two droptanks;
eight 1000 lb bombs; various combinations of free-fall, retarded and cluster
bombs, missiles; a reconnaissance camera pack. Span: 8.69 m. Length: 16.83
m (single-seat); 17.53 m (two-seat). Max. level speed: Mach. 1.1 (sea-level)/
Mach. 1.6 (11 km). Ferry range with external fuel: 3524 km.
JP-233 16
JSEAD
J-STARS9
Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System. A joint US Air Force/
US Army project, combining the USAF's Pave Mover Programme with the
Army's SOTAS programme. The radar is primarily intended to detect enemy
(moving) armour and also to direct attacks against it. It provides real-time
data, and installation of the system is proposed on the Lockheed TR-1, the
Boeing C-18 and the OV-D aircraft.
JTf'11
Weapon Systems
295
LOCPOD
296
Weapon Systems
MBT-953
Future tank project. British project for designing a new tank to replace
Chieftain and Challenger. It should be much lighter (40-45 tonnes) than
the Challenger. Currently, all possible configurations are being studied. It
should have its initial operation capability in 1995.
MiG-211
Soviet fighter aircraft. First prototype built in 1956. There have been
developed many different types since then. In the following, the details of
the MiG-21MF are given as an example. It has a search and tracking radar
with a search range of approximately 29 km, a warning radar and blindflying instrumentation. The plane has one 23 mm gun, and four underwing
pylons which can typically be loaded with 2 air-to-air missiles and two radar
homing rocket packs of 16 rockets each (interceptor role) or with rockets,
bombs or air-to-surface missiles (ground attack role). Span: 7.15 m. Length:
15.76 m. Combat radius: 370-740 km (depending on load and mission).
Max. speed: Mach 2.1 (> 11 km). Mach 1.06 (low altitude).
MiG-231
Soviet variable geometry air combat fighter, in production from the 1970s.
There are at least ten types; below some details on the MiG-23MF are given
as an example. It has a radar with 85 km search range and 54 km tracking
range, a IFF system, infra-red sensor or laser range finder. Armament: one
23 mm gun plus pylons for rocket packs, air-to-air missiles or other external
stores. Span: 14.25 m (wings fully spread), 8.17 m (wings fully swept).
Length: 18.25 m. Max. level speed: Mach 2.35 (high altitude), Mach 1.2
(sea-level). Combat radius: 900-1300 km
MiG-25 1
Soviet interceptor aircraft, developed in the 1960s. There are five variants
of the MiG-25; as an example, details of the Foxbat A are given below.
Five control radar (range probably 85 km), navigation radar, warning radar,
ECM and ECCM facilities are included in the avionics. The MiG-25 is armed
with four air-to-air missiles, which may comprise one infra-red and one radar
homing missile. Span: 13.95 m. Length: 23.82 m. Never exceed combat
speed: Mach 2.83. Service ceiling: 24.4 km. Max. combat radius: 1450 km.
MiG-29 1
Soviet fighter, being deployed since early 1983. It inherited its general
configuration from MiG-25. The MiG-31 has lookdown/shootdown capa-
Weapon Systems
297
298
Weapon Systems
addition, stores for i.a. nuclear and conventional (including cluster bombs)
bombs, rockets, gun pods, spraytanks and ECM pods are available. Span:
11.77 . Length: 19.20 m. Max. level speed with external stores: over Mach
2. Combat radius: 1266 km (area intercept), 795 km (defensive counter air),
1145 km (interdiction)
Phoenixz
British RPV for surveillance and target acquisition with a penetration range
of 50-70 km and an endurance time of 5 h. It has a speed of 240 km/h and
a forward-looking infra-red sensor. At present it is in the development stage;
production is planned for 1988-9.
PLSS 18
Precision Location/Strike System. A US project or a system that will provide
a 24-hour all weather capability for aircraft to attack a variety of ground
targets, in particular air defence systems that depend on very accurate
guidance and detection radars. Using photogrammatic techniques, a form
of aerial reconnaissance photography, PLSS will also be able to establish
the locations of targets that emit no electronic radiation like bridges,
airfields, and, command and control posts.
Poseidons
US nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine, deployed in the 1960s. The
Poseidon is 1295 m long and has 168 crew members. Initially, the Poseidon
carried the Polaris missiles. Later they underwent conversion to the Poseidon
SLBM. Between 1978 an 1983, 12 Poseidons were converted to carry the
Trident-1 SLBM.
SADARM 9
Sense And Destroy Armour Munition. A US Army project for designing
and developing a weapon for use against mass enemy armour beyond FEBA.
It is intended to be delivered by existing conventional 8-inch artillery,
although it is probable that SADARM submunitions will find applications
in the MLRS. SADARM is 203 mm in diameter, and 1.14 m long, which
contains three submunitions, delivering Self-Forging Fragment (SFF)-type
warheads. The target is formed by mm-wave sensors which scan the area
owing to the motion of the submunition.
Scout2
Israeli RPV for reconnaissance and surveillance with TV -camera. It has a
penetration range of 100 km, a speed of 80-150 krn/h and an endurance
time of 6 h. It weighs 135 kg.
SHORAD4
Short Range Air Defence System. A demonstration prototype has been built
by Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation in 1982. The system
consists of (1) a towed Chaparral surface-to-air missile, (2) a shoulder-fired
SABRE missile with laser beamrider guidance, (3) a DIVAD 40 mm gun
(which is self-sufficient and can accept targeting information from radar or
Weapon Systems
299
other sources or can operate autonomously and can direct accurate fire at
air and ground targets) and (4) a truck-mounted platoon Coordination
Centre which has a DIVAD gun radar and fire-control system.
Skeet1619
Warhead for anti-armour weapons (dispensers, MLRS), developed in the
US Assault Breaker Programme. It contains a Self-Forging Fragment (SFF)
that reaches a velocity of 2750 m/s and penetrates its target by kinetic
energy. It finds the target by an IR sensor. If no suitable target is found, it
can be used in a fragmentation mode against softer targets.
Skyeye R42
American RPV with camera and TV sensors. There are four types: the R4E10 (surveillance), R4E-30 (multi-mission including attack), R4E-40 (multimission) and R4E-70 (multi-mission). The R4E-30 is already operational,
and the R4E-40 is operational in a surveillance role while the other two
types are still in the development stage. Technical data:
Type
R4E-10
R4E-30
R4E-40
R4E-70
Weight
(km)
77
204
240
308
Speed
(km/h)
185
up to 230
up to 250
up to 300
Penetration range
(km)
40
150
250
300
Endurance time
(h)
3
>8
9
SLARS
Side Looking Airborne Radar. Airborne radar, emitting and receiVIng
perpendicular to the fly-direction of the aircraft, thereby increasing the
effective length of the antenna which means a (much) better resolution.
SOTAS 8 9
Stand-Off Target Acquisition System. US Army project, now covered by J
STARS after a short stage in which the designation Battlefield Data System
was used.
SP-703
Self-Propelled 155 mm howitzer, being jointly developed by the FRG, UK
and Italy, and expected to enter in service in 1988. It will have a five man
crew and will weigh 43.5 tonnes. In addition to the howitzer able to fire the
full-range of NATO 155 mm projectiles, there is a 7.62 mm machine-gun.
A new high explosive projectile and new illuminating and smoke rounds are
being developed. Also Copperhead can be fired by the SP-70.
SRAAMB
A fully-guided short range air-to-air missile, developed and successfully
tested by British Aerospace. The technologies used and experience gained
are contributing to the European ASRAAM-project.
300
Weapon Systems
SU-24 1
Soviet attack aircraft, operational since 1983-4. The total weight of the
armament is estimated at 4000 kg and includes a heavy calibre gun. Span:
15.50 m. Length: 14.50 m. Max. level speed: 880 km/h. Combat radius: 556
km.
SU-271
Soviet counter-air fighter with secondary ground attack capability. Now
probably operational. It has all-weather capability. Its pulse Doppler radar
(search range 240 km, tracking range 185 km) and heavy armament should
also give it a good potential against low flying aircraft and cruise missiles,
particularly when it is deployed in partnership with the new Soviet A WACS
aircraft. Armament: eight medium range radar homing air-to-air missiles.
Ability to carry up to 6000 kg by external stores for ground attack capability.
Span: 14.50 m. Length: 21.00 m. Max. speed: Mach 2.35 (high altitude),
Mach 1.1 sea-level). Combat radius: 1150 km.
TGSM 19
Terminally guided submunition anti-armour submissile. Although it lost the
competition in the US Assault Breaker programme to Skeet, this two-colour
infra-red sensing weapon could still have an application as a warhead for
MLRS.
Tornado 1
West European multirole variable geometry aircraft jointly developed by
the UK, FRG and Italy. Production started in the late 1970s and will last
till 1989. There are two versions of the Tornado: the Interdictor/Strike
(IDS) and the Air Defence Variant (ADV). Both variants have included in
their avionics: a central computer and IFF. The IDS has, i.a., a Doppler
radar with terrain following and a laser range-finder and marked target
seeker. The ADV's interception capability is based on a multi-mode trackwhile-scan pulse-Doppler radar. ECCM is standard; ECM is under development. Both the IDS and the ADV have two 27 mm cannons. In addition,
the IDS variant has weapons which vary according to role; they include
MW-1, JP-223, Maverick and Matra retarded bombs. The ADV can carry
four semi-active radar homing air-to-air missiles and one or two AIM-9s.
For the future the ADV will be able to carry up to six AMRAAMs and
four ASRAAMs. Span: 13.91 m. Length: 16.72 m (IDS); 18.06 m (ADV).
Max. level speed: 1480 km/h.
Trident>
US nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine being deployed this decade.
Weapon Systems
301
The Trident has a length of 170.7 m. The first Tridents will be armed with
24 Trident-1 missiles. From 1988 onwards, the Trident II SLBM will be
fitted in the Trident submarines.
Tu-22M 1
Soviet medium bomber and maritime reconnaissance/attack aircraft.
Around 120 of the 260 are allocated to the Soviet Strategic Nuclear Forces.
This bomber, designated by NATO countries as the Backfire, was subject
of controversy during the SALT-II processes. It was deployed in the late
1970s. The Tu-22M has a large bombing and navigation radar. Its armament
may include nuclear bombs (see above). Primary armament: up to three airto-surface missiles, and up to 12 tonnes of conventional bombs. It has
advanced ECM and ECCM systems. Long-range air-launched cruise missiles
are expected to be operational on the Tu-22M in the mid 1980s. Span: 34.45
m (spread wings); 26.21 m (swept wings. Length: 42.5 m. Max. speed: Mach
1.92 (high altitude), Mach 0.9 (low altitude). Unrefuelled combat radius:
5470 km
Typhoon 6
Soviet nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine. In any case two Typhoon
submarines have entered service (1980, 1982). It has aboard 20 SS-N-20
SLBMs which have a range of about 9000 km and seven MIRV warheads.
The Typhoon is 170 m long.
XM1-Abram
See M1-Abram (X stands for experimental stage)
ZSU-23-43
Soviet self-propelled anti-aircraft system developed in the early 1960s. The
ZSU-23-4 has four crew members and weighs 19 tonnes. It has a maximum
range of 260 km and a maximum road speed of 44 krnlh. It has four 23 mm
cannons. Target acquisition is being done by radar. Radar data are fed into
the computer that determines fireparameters.
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
302
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Weapon Systems
Jane's all the World's Aircraft 1982-83 (London: Jane's Publishing
Company, 198).
Jane's Weapon Systems 1984-85 (London: Jane's Publishing Company,
1985).
Doug Richardson, 'World Missile Directory', in FLIGHT International, 2 February 1985.
'Tripartite EFA is 10', FLIGHT International, 10 Aug. 1985.
Interavia, 7(1985), p. 750.
International Defence Review Special Series, No 15, p. 96.
Bill Gunston, A Guide to Modern Airborne Missiles (London: Salamander, 1985).
Interavia, 6(1985).
Graham Warwick, 'Assault Breaker Is Dead; Deep-strike Lives On',
FLIGHT International, 1 September 1984.
Clarence A. Robinson, 'U.S. Develops Anti-tactical Missile for
Europe', Aviation Week & Space Technology, 9 Apr. 1984.
Jane's Weapon Systems 1983-84 (London: Jane's Publishing Company,
1984)
N. F. Wikner, Europiiische Wehrkunde WWR, 4(1983) pp. 201-215.
Appendix II Some
Remarks on the Cost of
Reactive Defence Options
In their paper 'On Reactive Defense Options', Hoffman, Huber and Steiger 1
present some preliminary results of computer experiments by means of a
detailed battalion regiment-level combat simulation model which were
designed to test the potential contribution of reactive defence options to an
improvement of NATO's forward defence capability in comparison with
active ones. Among others, the measures of effectiveness included so-called
Relative Force Value Ratios (RFVR) defined as the quotient of the relative
value (with respect to the initial value) of the respective defence options
and the relative value of the threat formations surviving at the end of the
battle. Thus, the RFVR values represent indicators of the trend of the
simulated battles. For example, for RFVR> 1 the situation develops in
favour of the defenders without necessarily entailing a battle success. It only
implies that the probability of success increases as RFVR increases. As a
corollary, an option with a higher RFVR is preferable to one with a lower
RFVR in terms of its potential contribution to countering the threat.
There are numerous ways to measure the utility or value of (surviving)
forces based on expert judgement. However, with a view to novel force
structures on one hand and the reproducibility of the assessment on the
other, the authors decided to use the relative capital investment cost for
scaling an item's contribution to the option's overall value. The use of
relative (to the initial) force values is meant to provide for the comparability
of rather differently structured options.
This appendix presents a summary of the cost estimates from which the
relative investment cost values were derived. It also discusses some fundamental difficulties in defining the system structures for costing weapon and
defence systems.
303
304
Cost Category
Total capital
investment (%)
PzGrenBtl
(Option A)
PzGrenBrig
PzBtl
(Option C)
PzBrig
100
100
100
100
Main weapon
system (%)
86
85
95
92
Operating cost
per year(%)
32.5 (100)
30 (100)
11.5 (100)
16.3 (100)
Personnel cost
per year(%)
23
( 70)
19 ( 63)
5.7 ( 50)
9.3 ( 57)
7.5 ( 23)
8 ( 27)
5.2 ( 45)
6 ( 37)
Material cost
per year(%)
(1) About 85-95 per cent of the capital investment cost accounts for major
weapon systems (e.g. battle tanks, APC, helicopter, etc.), while the
complementary 5-15 per cent account mainly for communications
equipment;
(2) The annual operating cost represents between 10-16 per cent of the
investment cost for main battle tank units and about 30 per cent for
armoured infantry units; the major share of the operating cost (50-70
per cent) accounts for personnel followed by material maintenance; at
almost identical absolute operating cost, the tank units spend more on
material maintenance than the armoured infantry units (40 versus 25 per
cent).
Considering an average weapon system life-span of 15-25 years, within
which some additional capital investment cost occur for the modernisation
of the systems, it is easily seen that the life cycle cost of the present active
defence units are dominated by personnel cost followed by capital investment
and materiel maintenance and operations cost. This is also obvious from the
Federal Republic's defence budget where the personnel outlays amount to
about 41 per cent, the cost for military procurement to about 5 per cent,
and for material maintenance and operations to about 9 per cent (see White
Paper, 1985, p. 127).2
305
Besides the general level of wages and salaries, it is primarily the personnel
structure of military forces which determines personnel cost. The structural
parameters account, for example for the ratio between peace-time and
wartime manning levels (cadre strengths) and the ratio between conscripts
and career personnel. In Germany, the annual cost of a temporary career
voluntary is about three times that of a conscript.
Direct fire
weapons
Class
Armoured
Self-propelled
Anti-tank Gun
(ATK gun Sp)
Static Tank
Turret
1 400 (){)()
1 250 000
1 700
1
1 200
10
1 700
50(){)()
1 100 000
1
50
1
50
10
20
20
Procurement cost
Per round (DM)
1 600 (){)()
1 300 (){)()
65 (){)()
800 (){)()
Procurement cost
Per system (DM)
A,B,C
I
K
Employed in
Option
Jeep, 20 mm MG
Lightly armoured wheeled vehicle (6x6)
25 mm MG
15 mm MG
Lightly armoured tracked vehicle (e.g.
Marder)
20 mm MG, 7.62 mm MG
Lightly armoured tracked vehicle with
reinforced front armour, 25 mm MG,
7.62 mm MG
Remarks
Procurement cost estimates for weapons of the investigated defence options (cost level, 1984)
Infantry Fighting
Vehicle (HMG SP)
Type
Table A.2
Class
Armoured Anti-tank
Missile Carrier
(ATGW SP)
Anti-tank Missile
System
(Dismounted) or
mounted) (ATGW)
Heavy Recoilless
Rifles (HRCL)
Light Recoilless
Rifles (LRCL)
Type
E
M
15 000
18 000
1
600 000
800 000
E,F
F
A,B,C
E,I,N
G
D,F,G,K,M,N
A,B,C,H
E,I,L,M,N,P
A,B,C
Employed in
Option
117 000
167 000
1 800
530
1 500
175
2 000
1
1 700
1
Procurement cost
Per round (DM)
8 000
15 000
15 000
18 000
16 000
16 000
80 000
132 000
182 000
4 000
3800
3 000
1 400
2 300 000
Procurement cost
Per system (DM)
Remarks
Class
Anti-tank missile
carrier with elevated
platform (ATGW
SPEP)
Type
150 000
34 000
M,N
34 000
3 000 000
5 000 000
40 000
1 800 000
I,L,M,P
A,B,C,P
Employed in
Option
34 000
34 000
1
40 000
18 000
40 000
10
15 000
20
Procurement cost
Per round (DM)
continued
1 600 000
1 200 000
2 300 000
2 000 000
930 000
Procurement cost
Per system (DM)
Table A.2
Remarks
fire
weapons
Indirect
Class
25 000
AA recoilless rifle
Mortar
Directional
mine
180
270
270
270
100 000
260 000
2000
1
180 000
150
140
120 000
180,000
Lightly armoured tracked vehicle, multirole missile against air and ground targets,
15 m elevation, radar sensor, electrooptical fire control
Remarks
G,H
Heavy mortar 120 mm, tracked
A,B,I,L,M,N,P Heavy mortar 120 mm on APC (M113),
6 km range
B,C,D,I
A,B,C,D,L
E,G,I,K,P
Employed in
Option
continued
Procurement cost
Per round (DM)
50 000
50 000
10 000
4 600 000
22 000 000
7 400 000
5 000 000
18 000 000
Anti-tank anti-ale
platform
AAA tank
(AAM SP)
Procurement cost
Per system (DM)
Type
Table A.2
Light Artillery
rocket system
(LRLS)
Self-propelled
howitzer
Type
Combat
PAH 1
helicopters (AT hel.)
Class
5 200 000
730 000
700 000
400 000
34 000
B (105)
40 000
600
4 800 000
100 000
200
450
350
G,K
A,B,C,D,I,L,
M,N
G,K
A,B,C,D,L,P
I,M,N
D,K
H
A,B,C,F,L,P
Remarks
Employed in
Option
continued
Procurement cost
Per round (DM)
160 000
880 000
300 000
Procurement cost
Per system (DM)
Table A.2
Active defences
311
Reactive defences
Fire barrier
Area
Dynamic
(DAD)
Static
(SAD)
30
Continuous
(CFB) Selective
(SFB )
1-
~---
f---
~----
10
Figure A.l
options.
r-~11
p
K L M N
Relative investment cost requirements for basic forward defence
CONCLUSIONS
Even though the capital investment cost estimates provided here are by no
means sufficient for a cost-effectiveness analysis of defence concepts, together with the experimental results in terms of RFVR, the operational depth
required to neutralise a given threat (see, e.g., Figure A.2), and the
personnel requirements, they nevertheless do provide for a reference basis
for a screening of options based on the dominance concept.
Finally, an experience of these authors shall not be omitted: The
proponents of alternative defence concepts exhibit a tendency to often significantly underestimate the cost of their proposals while overestimating the
operational performance of the individual weapons in their options. This is
in line with empirical investigations that show on the average, there is a
more than tenfold performance degradation when comparing the original
engineering specification with the performance of the fielded system.
Procurement cost tends to exceed the initial engineering cost estimates
sometimes by orders of magnitude.
312
120
E'
.=.
J:
100
I'
1-
c..
w
Cl
en
c..
\lG
80
Cl
0w
a:
-\
60
40
TERRAl~ : Bubac~
THREAT
: 3 MR RGTS (BMP)
VISIBILITY : > 5000 metre
ARTY
:.Fa
p Infantry Btl (IASFOR)
K Calvalery Rgt (SAS)
L AT- Teams (FOREDER)
I Shield Forces (LOSER)
G Infantry (SAS)
E Techno- Kdo (AFHELDT)
~\.
el
'
' ',
L
20
"'' .........
....
__ ..... ___
p
Figure A.2 Operational depth required for the attrition of three consecutively
attacking Soviet motor rifle regiments as a function of the average direct-fire
weapon density of various reactive defence options.
Table A.3 Equipment of active defence options (manoeuvre) battalions
and fire support)
Option
Weapon class
Itemt
HMGSP
A TK gun stat.
ATK gun SP
LRCL
HRCL
ATGW
ATGW SP
ATGW SPEP
ADATS SPEP
AA gun/ AAM SP
MBT
22
22
11
21
18*
9*
27*
6
12*
6*
18*
6
6*
3*
9*
6
(3)
(6)
Total DFW
82
3.3
77
(6)
26
61
2.4
13
3.1
12
18*
6
(3)
13
70
2.8
313
ltemt
Weapon class
18
8
18
8
18
8
18
8
32
32
26
32
AT he!
Dismountable
t For abbreviations see International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Military
Balance. (EP = Elevated Platform)
10 5
E
Weapon
class
ltemt
M N
Depth(km)
13 20*
10
10
3*
6
(6)
8
13*
18 54
20
18
36 27
6*
10*
60*
4 40 14 18 6
2
(16)
(6)
(3) (2)
10*
8 28
32
14 80 27 57 50 64 50
134 90 106
A v. total per 0.3 3.2 0.7 2.3 1.4 2.6 1.3 3.4 2.3 4.2
km 2
314
Weapon
class
Itemt
10 5
Depth(km)
AT he!
12
18
18
7 30
3 15
18
18
6
18
7 24
6 17 29 30 36 32
8
7
8 15
7
18
Notes
1.
2.
Index
AAM see missiles, air-to-air
ABMs see missiles, anti-ballistic
Abrahamson, Lt-Gen. 57
acceptability of doctrine 16,
216-17
accidental war, scenarios of 16, 94
ACDA (Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency) 157
ACE (Allied Command
Europe) 79, 83
ACIS (arms control impact
statements) 157-8
Adenauer, K. 116-18, 121
Advanced Conventional Warhead
Technology 33
Advanced Medium Range Missile
(AMRAAM) 199, 279
Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air
Missile (ASRAAM) 119,
280
Afghanistan 11, 234
Afheldt, H.: 'chessboard
proposal' 94-7, 103-7,
118-21, 190, 217, 219, 231,
233, 249, 273-4
AFVs (Armoured Fighting
Vehicles) 224, 225, 232
aggression scenarios 94
AI see Artificial intelligence
AIM missiles 30, 279
Air Launched Anti-Radiation
Missile (ALARM) 185, 279
Air Launched Cruise Missile
(ALCM) 279
AirLand Battle 112, 123, 127, 136,
189' 229, 271
Deep Strike and 73, 75-8, 79,
86, 209
FOFA and 83-4, 86, 153, 189,
219
Soviet Union and 210, 220,
228-30
315
316
Index
Index
Biedenkopf, K. 120
'blitzkrieg' scenarios 16, 61, 93,
139, 255
BMD (ballistic missile defence) 55
BOSS see Ballistic Offensive, etc.
Brezhnev, L. 227
Britain
cooperation and 179-80, 182-3,
187' 194, 200
non-provocative defence
and 100, 107
SAS and 103
in South Africa 30, 37
unmanned aircraft and 148, 150
Brodie, B. 212
Brossolet, G. 95, 118
Brunner, E. 145
BT-95 (tank project) 179, 296
budget see costs
Bundeswehr 105, 123-4, 191
business as usual 205-14
conservative forces 206-7
Deep Strike, towards 207-10
deterrence, moving away
from 210-12
flexibility, need for 205-6
strategy and tactics 212-13
C-18 (aircraft) 188
C3 (I) (Command, Control,
Communication
(Intelligence)) 23-4, 39, 46,
48, 61, 75, 136, 138, 149, 183,
231, 254, 275
CAM 40 (missile) 12, 186, 280
cannon launched guided
projectile 37, 181, 186, 291
Carter, J. 56
CASTOR (aircraft) 221, 290
centralisation of Deep Strike 79
CEP (Circular Error Probable) 39
Challenger (tank) 179, 290-1
chemical weapons 78
Chieftain (tank) 179, 291
China 11, 234
churches and defence 122
Circular Error Probable (CEP) 39
Clausewitz, K. von 15, 131, 132,
218
317
CN AD see Conference of
National Armament Directors
commitment force, rapid 101-2
communication systems 96, 100,
106
complexity of information
technology 23
computers see artificial
intelligence
Conference of National Armament
Directors (CNAD) 177-9,
181-5, 188-9, 191, 193-4, 199,
275
Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe
(CSCE) 145
conflict
management 254-5
scenarios 255-6
container weapon system 183
containment force 100, 102
conventional defence 206--7,
276-7
and ET 27-43: basic
technologies 32-9; impact
of 39-41; recent
experiences 28-32
and SDI 55-65: evolution of
American plans 56-8;
security and 58-60
and Soviet Union 231-7
see also aircraft; artillery;
defence; infantry; ships; tanks
cooperation problem and
computers 49
cooperative ET projects,
recent 177-96
aircraft, fighter 182-3
Deep Strike, towards 186-9
defence doctrines and 189-93
main battle tank 179-81
political dimensions 193-4
target acquisition 181, 183-6,
188-9
Copperhead (guided
projectile) 37, 181, 186, 291
costs
of aircraft 40, 182
of artificial intelligence 46
318
Index
Index
views on 82-3
see also Deep Strike: Eureka:
nuclear weapons; Strategic
Defence Initiative
diplomacy 15
disarmament see arms control
dispensers 178, 183, 187-9, 192,
194, 225, 228, 294, 295
Dispersed Operating Base 81
Donnelly, C. 85, 208
Dragon (missile) 280
drones see unmanned aircraft
E-2C and E-4 (aircraft) 291-2
ECM see Electronic CounterMeasures
economic problems see costs
EDC (European Defence
Community) 198
EF-IIIA (aircraft) 292
EFA (European Fighter
Aircraft) 182
effectiveness
of mobile forward defence 6-7
see also under defence, nonprovocative
effectivity, window of 23-4
Egypt 29
Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) 23,
164
Electronic Counter-Measures
(ECM) 162, 164, 166, 167,
222
Electronic Support Measures
System (ESM) 178
electronic warfare 151
electro-optical guidance
systems 36
emerging technologies see
artificial intelligence;
conventional defence; military
doctrine; trends
EMP (Electromagnetic pulse) 23,
164
Emphasising Defence 10
enemy as identifiable threat 130
enhanced self-propelled artillery
weapon system
(ESP A WS) 187, 292
319
320
Index
Index
Anti-armour warhead) 33,
34, 134, 293
helicopters
costs 310, 313-14
Soviet 30, 227, 293
Western 38, 47, 134, 180, 183,
185, 290, 295
Hellfire (missile) 47, 281
Hernu, C. 70
Herolf, G. x, xiii
on unmanned aircraft 147-55
Herzog, Maj.-Gen. C. 29
HESH(High Explosive Squash
head) 33, 293
High Explosive Anti-tank/Antiarmour warhead
(HEAT) 33, 34, 134, 293
High Explosive Armour Piercing
(HEAP) 34, 293
High Explosive Squash head
(HESH) 33, 293
'high tech' position in doctrinal
debate 136-7, 139
High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile
(HARM) 185, 281
Hoffman, F. 56, 269
Hofmann, H. W. x
on costs of reactive defence
options 303-14
homing overlay experiment
(HOE) 171
HOT (missile) 190, 281
howitzers 98, 180-1, 186, 188,
291, 310
Huber, R. K. xi
on costs of reactive defence
options 303-14
Huntington, S. 123, 230
ICBM see Inter Continental
Ballistic Missile
Identification Friend or Foe
(IFF) 38, 162, 164, 184-5,
199, 293, 295
IEPG see Independent European
Programme Group
IFF see Identification Friend or
Foe
'image of war' 129-31, 194
321
change in 132-5
Independent European Programme
Group (IEPG) 178-80, 189,
194, 198-9, 201, 275
indirect fire support, viability
of 239-40
inefficiency of war 28-9
infantry 7, 134
plans using see Afheldt; SAS
information technology see
artificial intelligence
infrared guidance systems 36-7
institutional problem and
computers 49
integrated battlefield 77-8
integration of communication and
command 24
intelligence
artificial see artificial
intelligence
gathering 55-6, 221-2: see also
surveillance
intensification of combat 24
Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles
(ICBMs) 59-60, 67, 170,
172, 173
Interactive Forward Defence see
SAS
interdiction 77, 80
'Interdiction Attack' 81
Interkosmos Council 142-4
International Satellite Monitoring
Agency (ISMA) 141-2, 145
Iran 11
Iraq 11, 30
ISMA (International Satellite
Monitoring Agency) 141-2,
145
Israel 29, 100, 130, 145, 148
Italy 148, 150, 182
Jaguar (aircraft) 294
Japan 28-9
Joint Anti Tactical Missile
(JATM) 170, 172, 282
Joint Chiefs of Staff (JC) 80
'Joint Suppression of Enemy Air
Defences and Emitters' 82
joint surveillance and target attack
322
Index
Index
323
324
Index
politics 15
cooperative ET projects
and 193-4
defence and 120-2, 216-17
doctrinal debate and
ET 127-40: 'image of
war' 129-31, 132-5; role
of 131-2, technological change
and doctrinal choice 136-8
non-provocative defence
and 104
and reliance on superpowers for
satellites 141
Soviet Union and Deep
Strike 224
surveillance satellites and 144-5
see also decision making; detente
population dip ('Pillenkick') 8
Poseidon (submarine) 12, 298
Prague Conference 115
precision location/strike system
(PLSS) 150, 221, 298
problems in use of ET 22-5
see also costs
Python 3 (missile) 30, 284
R4E (RPV) 152
radar
guidance systems 36-7
Patriot and 161-2
see also anti-radar
RAMROD (projectile
programme) 33
rapid commitment force 101-2
Raumverteidigung see Afheldt
Reagan, R.
ET and 30, 32, 56-8
MX missiles and 12
negative attitude to nuclear
weapons 67-8
SDI and 10, 66, 212, 268
'Star Wars' speech 55
rear protection force 101
reconnaissance see surveillance
'reform' position in doctrinal
debate 137, 138-9
Regional Satellite Monitoring
Agency (RSMA) 142-3
Index
Relative Force Value Ratios
(RFVR) 303, 305
Remotely Monitored Battlefield
Sensor System
(REMBASS) 47
remotely piloted vehicles
(RPVs) see aircraft,
unmanned
research, artificial
intelligence 44-6
retaliation
breaking away from 90, 91
see also under nuclear weapons
RFVR (Relative Force Value
Ratios) 303, 305
rockets/launchers/artillery 4, 37,
134, 283, 291, 294
in cooperative ET
projects 180-1, 186-7, 191
non-provocative defence
and 94-9, 118-19, 134-5
Soviet 227
Rogers, General, B. W. 6, 7
doctrine 66, 69-70, 74-6, 83-5,
110, 112, 207-9, 216
OSD and 81
SHAPE initiative and 79
RPVs see aircraft, unmanned
RSMA (Regional Satellite
Monitoring Agency) 142-3
SAS group defence model 94,
100-7, 120, 123, 192-3, 204,
221, 223, 231, 233, 273, 284-5
dialogue on 239-50
SA-X-12 (missile) 173
SACEUR see Supreme Allied
Commander
SADARM see sense and destroy
armour munition
SAFE (Small Advanced Fighter for
Europe) 193
Sapper (missile) 29, 36, 286
SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation
Talks) 13
SAMs (missiles) 38, 173, 175, 221,
244-5, 286
see also Patriot
satellites see surveillance satellites
325
326
Index
stabilisation of fronts 40
Stand-off Surveillance and
Attack 81
stand-off target acquisition
(SOTAS) 188-9, 299
'Star Wars' see Strategic Defence
Initiative
Star Watch concept 68
Starry, Gen. D. A. 75, 77, 81
STARS (satellites) 221
stealth technologies 23
Stinger (missile) 40, 167
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
(SALT) 13
Strategic Computing
Programme 45, 48
Strategic Defence Initiative
(SDI) 10, 141, 215, 268-70,
272, 274
artificial intelligence and 48, 50
conventional defence
and 55-65: evolution
of 56-8; security and 58-60
Eureka against 144
France and 66-8, 69
Germany and 124
as 'high tech' 136
Patriot and 158, 174-5
RPVs and 152
security and 58-60, 268-70
strategic balance as global
phenomenon 112
strategy and tactics, distinction
between 212-13
Study Group on Alternative
Security see SAS group
Styx (missile) 29
SU (aircraft) 223, 226, 228, 300
submarines 12, 38, 298, 30CH
superiority, perception of 113
superpowers, reliance on, for
satellites 141
Suppression of Enemy Air
Defences (SEAD) 82
Supreme Allied Commander in
Europe (SACEUR) 213, 227
see also Rogers
Supreme Command 60
Index
Supreme Headquarters Allied
Powers Europe (SHAPE) 10
FOFA and 73, 79-80
surveillance 37-9, 56, 180,
193
aircraft 38, 147-51, 291,
297
European Space Agency and
Interkosmos Council 142-4
political initiatives,
recent 144-5
see also target acquisition
T-16 and T-22 (missiles) 12, 186,
188, 287
TABASCO (missile) 186, 287
T ACFIRE (computerised
communication) 47
tactical ballistic missile
defence 170-5
tactics and strategy, distinction
between 212-13
tank battlefield scenarios 27-8
tanks 6-7,23,27-8,30, 35, 132-3,
135, 199, 289-91, 295--6
in cooperative ET
projects 179-81, 189-92, 194
costs 40, 309
see also anti-tank
target
acquisition 181, 183--6, 188-9,
299
recognition 44
see also no-target
techno-commandos 247--8
television guidance systems 36
Terminally Guided Submissiles
(TGSM) 187, 193, 223, 243,
300
terminally guided warheads
(TGWS) 181
terrain intimate knowledge of 90
tests, difficulty of organizing 24,
39
TGSM see Terminally Guided
Submissiles
TGWS (terminally guided
warheads) 181
theatre nuclear forces (TNF) 59
327
time
available for decision making 5,
7, 25
problems and computers 49
for victory 15-16
TNF (theatre nuclear forces) 59
Tornado (aircraft) 11, 182, 185--6,
189, 192, 300
TOW (missile) 30, 31, 40, 190, 287
towns and cities as non-targets 91,
119
Track Via Missile (TVM) 164-6
trade unions and defence 122
Training and Doctrine Command
(TRADOC) 77, 209
trends in military technology 21-6
characteristics of ET 22-5
TRI (aircraft) 38, 189
Trident (missile) 12, 186, 288,
300-1
Tu-22M (aircraft) 223, 301
Tube-launched, optically-tracked,
wire-guided see TOW
Turkey 217
TVM (Track Via Missile) 164--6
Typhoon (submarine) 12, 301
U2 reconnaissance plane 147
unintended see accidental
unit size in SAS system 102, 106-7
United Nations 142
United States 3, 7, 12, 127, 174
and arms control 157
and cooperation 183, 185, 187
as decision-maker 5
and defensive defence 111-12,
115
expenditure, military 8, 11
French views on 66-71
intelligence 55--6
leadership see Carter; Reagan
and non-provocative
defence 100, 103, 107-8, 112
Second World War, in 28
and unmanned aircraft 147,
148, 150-1
and Vietnam 29, 30, 147, 231
see also AirLand Battle; Deep
Strike; Office of Secretary of
328
Index
and non-provocative
defence 93, 96, 108, 234
and politics of doctrinal
debate 133, 139
Weapon Control Computer
(WCC) 164
weapons doctrine, new see
Rogers, doctrine
weapons systems 278-302
missiles 279-89
others 289-302
see also aircraft; arms
cooperation; cooperative ET;
missiles; Patriot; politics of
doctrinal debate; surveillance
satellites
Wehrmacht 116-17
Weinberger, C. 83-4, 199, 208
Western European Union
(WEU) 198
'what-if' scenarios 46
window of effectivity 23-4
wire-guidance systems 36
see also TOW
World Wars
First 131, 132, 218
Second 28-9, 129, 132-3, 194,
218
WTO see Warsaw Treaty
Organisation
ZSU-23-4 (anti-aircraft
system' 151, 222, 223, 301