MILITARY THOUGHT (USSR): THE IMPORTANCE OF ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES IN AIRBORNE LANDINGS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP10-00105R000100210001-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: T
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 16, 2012
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: July 13, 1973
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/10/16: CIA-RDP10-00105R000100210001-2
R
50X1 -HUM
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Denied
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/10/16: CIA-RDP10-00105R000100210001-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/10/16: CIA-RDP10-00105R000100210001-2
-4-
50X1-HUM
Combat with Enemy Radioelectronic Means During
an Airborne Landing Operation
by
Engineer Lieutenant Colonel I. Yusupov
Engineer Major V. Sokolov
Engineer Major M. Ryvlin
During large-scale offensive operations conducted under
_cm/L1?_prillalear_warli airborne landings will be exten-
siii-li,--ET-pl.c. In order to land an airborne force in the rear
of the enemy, mi
Wiligt_aamer_them during
air defense system, the combat capabilities of which have grown.
? ?
? ? di
the flight will have to overcome the enemy
The effective overcoming of the air defense system depends to
a large degree on well-organized and executed combat with enemy
radioelectronic means.
The question naturally arises concerning the role of the
various means used to combat enemy radioelectronic measures under
these conditions and the appropriate criteria for evaluating their
effectiveness.
A criterion currently accepted is the relative decrease in
the mathematically predicted losses, which shows by what factor
the losses of aircraft from active air defense means will be
reduced when measures to combat enemy radioelectronic means are
employed. However, when an airborne landing operation is under
discussion, this criterion, in our opinion, can be of only
secondary importance. This is explained by the inherent charac-
teristics in the planning and conduct of an airborne landing
operation, which are as follows.
It is known that an airborne landing is able to carry out
its a .?-? ? ?? if it is e ? #?.o.)
area with minimal losses. Accordingly, combat actions are planned
for all arms of aviation to ensure that the aircraft of military-
transport aviation overcome the air defense system. But it is
under precisely these conditions that the relative decrease in
mathematically predicted losses which makes it impossible for the
commanding officer to determine the true role in the performance
of measures to combat enemy radioelectronic means. Let us assume
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/10/16: CIA-RDP10-00105R000100210001-2
Decl
ssified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/10/16: CIA-RDP10-00105R000100210001-2
-5-
50X1-HUM
that we have determined that as a result of the employment of
measures to combat enemy radioelectronic means the losses of
military-transport aviation aircraft are decreased by a factor of
two. Is this good or bad? If this factor is used to evaluate
measures to combat enemy radioelectronic means, then it can be said
that they are fulfilling their task. But if at the same time the
landing force sustains great losses, the value of all these
measures to combat enemy radioelectronic means apparently vanishes.
This can lead to the false conclusion that the role of measures
to combat enemy radioelectronic means in an airborne landing
operation is insignificant. Clearly another criterion for
eyaluatima_th2_211-activeness of measures to combat enemy radio-
electronic' mPaas is necessary. It is u
criteria -? ?- a ? ? - . ? rease in the ed amount
of supporting forces.
Military-transport aviation aircraft proceeding to the
airborne landing area must pass through a zone in which various
active enemy air defense means are employed (fighters, SAM),
means which possess known combat capabilities.
Taking into account that the airborne landing force must be
delivered to the drop area with minimal losses, it is possible to
determine what quantity and types of active air defense means in
the flight zone of military-transport aviation will cause the
smallest losses to transport aircraft. If the quantity of active
air defense means proves to be greater than the determined number,
they clearly must be destroyed by other branches (arms) of
aviation which have been called upon to support military-transport
aviation actions. Consequently, just the quantity of active air
defense means designated for destruction determines the size of
the forces required to destroy them.
When measures to combat enemy radioelectronic means are
employed, the combat capabilities of enemy active air defense
means are reduced. As a result, the military-transport aviation
combat formations "withstand" the countermeasures of a large
number of active air defense means. This leads to a decrease in
the quantity of active air defense means designated for destruction
in the flight zone of the military-transport aircraft, which, in
turn, means a decrease in the size of support forces from other
branches (arms) of aviation required for the fulfilment of this
task. Thus, the employment by military-transport aviation of
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/10/16: CIA-RDP10-00105R000100210001-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/10/16: CIA-RDP10-00105R000100210001-2
50X1-HUM
-6-
measures to combat enemy radioelectronic means during an airborne
landing operation makes it possible to decrease the size of the
forces required for the support of military-transport aviation
operations.
This criterion can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness
of measures to combat enemy radioelectronic means when employed by
other branches (arms) of aviation for their own protection, but in
an essentially different manner. Let us explain this.
The quantity of means required for the destruction of one
air defense target (a fighter aviation airfield, a SAM battery)
with a given degree of probability is known. Under combat
conditions this quantity must be increased in proportion to
expected combat losses. If the aircraft are not equipped with
means to combat enemy radioelectronic means and measures to combat
these means are not taken, there will be a given increase in the
quantity; if the aircraft are equipped with means to combat enemy
radioelectronic means, the quantity will be less. As can be seen,
here again the amount of the decrease in the size of the support
forces required to destroy active air defense means provides a
reasonably complete evaluation of the effectiveness of measures
employed by the support forces to combat enemy radioelectronic
means. If the quantity of active air defense means which are
designated for destruction in the flight zone of military-transport
aircraft is known, it is possible to determine the extent to which
the size of the required support forces for the airborne landing
operation can be decreased as a whole.
In our opinion, the above approaches to the evaluation of
the effectiveness of measures to combat enemy radioelectronic
means makes it possible, when planning an airborne landing
operation, to evaluate these measures not merely on a qualitative
(better-worse) basis but also on a quantitative basis. The first
attempt to make such an appraisal, which was done during the
course of one research study, underlines the feasibility of this
approach. In our opinion, this approach to the evaluation of the
effectiveness of measures to combat enemy radioelectronic means
is also apparently practical in other situations, such as in the
evaluation of the effectiveness of similar measures taken to
protect our installations from enemy air attack weapons.
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/10/16: CIA-RDP10-00105R000100210001-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/10/16: CIA-RDP10-00105R000100210001-2
-7-
50X1-HUM
As - y_calculations enabling the
establishment of the number and types of active enemy air defense
means to be targeted for destruction (neutralizatieni are essential
to the planning of an airborne landing operation., Of course, if
a front has enough forces, it is not obligatory to make such a
selection from among the targets. But, unfortunately, for the time
being front means are limited.
Totally different conditions arise when military-transport
aviation aircraft are equipped with jamming means for individual
and group defense. These means influence the planning of an
airborne landing operation in the following manner.
It is known that enemy air defense means possess fully defined
combat capabilities for battle with aircraft of military-transport
aviation. When an operation is being planned, this entitles us to
define these capabilities in terms of expected lo_sses_ of_ itary-
transport aviatinn
With this criterion, keeping in mind the necessity of fulfilling
military-transport aviation tasks with the fewest possible losses,
it is possible to make a simple determination of the number of air
defense means which should be destroyed. As is apparent, when
jamming is employed the combat capabilities of enemy active air
defense means are appreciably reduced, and the capability of
military-transport aviation for overcoming the air defense system
with minimal losses accordingly increases. As a result, the number
of active air defense means to be destroyed in the flight zone of
military-transport aviation decreases.
cli -"
ft . #
Turning to the evaluation of jamming means, it is our opinion P/
that in this context it is completely justifiable to consider them
as important combat means possessing specific capabilities. For
example, research conducted in 1967 showed that equipping military-
transport aviation aircraft with special jamming systems for
individ 'Ms ? rou defense when conducting a large-scale airborne
landing is equivalent to the destruction (neutralization) of nine
"Hawk" SAM batteries, fourteen "Nike-Hercules" SAM batteries, and
nine airfields of fighter aircraft.
The use of jamming means also influences the choice of active
air defense means to be targeted for destruction. This is because
the effect of jamming on the combat capabilities of active air
defense means varies; it may appear that the relative strength of
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/10/16: CIA-RDP10-00105R000100210001-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/10/16: CIA-RDP10-00105R000100210001-2
-8-
50X1-HUM
their combat capabilities when jamming is employed is fundamentally
different from their relative strength as observed in the absence
of jamming. For example, if without the use of jamming the combat
capabilities of a "Nike-Hercules" SAM battery and a squadron of
air defense fighter aircraft are approximately the same, then when
the military-transport aviation aircraft are equipped with the
prospective jamming systems for individual and group defense, the
combat capabilities of a squadron of air defense fighters are
lower by a factor of three than those of a "Nike-Hercules" SAM
battery.
From the above analysis it is possible to derive the following
conclusion. The equipping of military-transport aviation aircraft
with jamming means may have a substantial influence both on the
number and on the choice of enemy active air defense means which
are targeted for destruction during an airborne landing operation,
and for this reason it must be given thorough consideration when
planning such an operation.
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/10/16: CIA-RDP10-00105R000100210001-2