One of the reasons for the closeness of this issue is political and defense

This is directly addressed in the report of the Digital Disruption Innovation group of the Davos economic Forum (DEF), “deep technologies of BEGEN (biology, engineering, genetics, eugenics, neuro) as opportunities and threats” (under the overall direction of David Craig).

Since the second half of the 80 – ies of the last century, the most astute military thinkers have come to the conclusion that in the conditions of the ban of chemical and bacteriological weapons, the topic of at least limiting biotechnological developments, especially those related to changing the human genome, as well as creating fundamentally new fragments of the human genome that did not exist before, based on synthesis from living material, has risen on the agenda.

First of all this concerns the problems of gene weapons

The vast majority of publications not only in low-confidence Internet sources, but also in well-known media on the topic of genetic weapons are based on unverified facts, incompetent judgments and fake sensational news. For a long time, the media of all continents has been exaggerating information about the artificial creation of AIDS in American biological laboratories and the appearance of avian flu as a result of the leakage of biomaterials from Chinese secret gene enterprises.

At the same time, the very absence of serious research papers and investigations on this topic makes us suspect that relevant research is being conducted. Their secret nature is largely due to the fact that genetic weapons completely fall under the characteristic of biological weapons. In turn, biological weapons, according to the Geneva Protocol of 1925, and the biological weapons Convention of 1972, are strictly forbidden not only to use them, but also to develop them.

The fact that numerous documents were published already in the 90’s of the last century that irrefutably prove that, at least in the USSR, the United States, and probably in China before 1991, biological weapons were not just developed, but were at the disposal of special forces, and were taken into account in the military strategy and tactical deployment plans, leads to a skeptical mood regarding compliance with the ban on the development of genetic weapons.

The most reliable, although understandably one-sided, text on the use of genetic engineering for military purposes was published in 2019 by M. J.Ansco, Colonel of the armed forces of the United States under the heading, “next generation Bioweapons” to provide to Congress.

According to the author, gene weapons are currently being developed in China, North Korea, probably in Israel, Iran, and Russia. According to Swedish respectable media, the development of next-generation biological weapons is also underway in a number of NATO countries, primarily in the United States.

Einsko asks why, despite the huge destructive potential and the facts of use in the First world war, neither chemical nor biological weapons were used by the Nazis on the battlefield and in the rear during the Second world war.

Based on interviews with leading military historians, as well as experts in the field of biological and chemical weapons, he formulates the following conclusion, which is of a consensual nature. Because of their characteristics, chemical and especially biological weapons have much more unpredictable consequences in use than even nuclear weapons.

FIRST GENETIC WAR

An epidemic artificially caused in one country is highly likely to spread to a country that has used biological weapons. In addition, even suspicion of the use of biological weapons by one side of a military conflict can lead to their mass use by the other-the doubting party. De facto, the use of biological weapons will mean unleashing a global war without rules at all, moreover, a war that can continue after one of the parties is completely destroyed.

According to information obtained during the interview with Einsko, the first to reach such conclusions was JASON Group. The group, which has been active for more than 50 years, includes Americans on a voluntary basis-Nobel laureates in various fields of science – as well as outstanding researchers and scientists who have made recognized contributions to world science.

In 1997, the group, on its own initiative, presented a report to then-US President B. Clinton “on the threats of genetic engineering and high biotechnologies”. Thereafter, every five years, the group clarifies and supplements the basic report with specific examples and considerations.

The group identified five main areas of futuristic genetic and biological threats

The first direction is the development and use of dual biological weapons. Experts on weapons you know there is quite a long time a large part of the chemical weapons are produced and stored as binary weapons. Binary weapons consist of two capsules, each of which stores substances that are not weapons, and for the most part safe for humans. After making decisions about the use of chemical weapons, binary ammunition is mounted on carriers and launched towards the enemy. When an explosion occurs, the substances mix and become a deadly chemical. JASON Group suggested that due to the high reputational and sanctions risks associated with the production and storage, and especially the use of biogenic weapons, genetic engineers may well implement the binary principle during the production of bioweapons.

In this case, in peacetime, even if there are international inspections, it is possible to hide the fact of the production of biogenic weapons fairly reliably, and even more so to prove it legally.

The second direction is the development and use of modified genes. By the time the first version of the JASON Group report was written, the easiest and most accessible way to produce a gene weapon is to artificially amplify or change the genomic factors of traditional diseases.

According to the JASON Group, poor, technologically undeveloped rogue States like North Korea and Iran, or countries like Pakistan and India that have their own limited scientific and technological base, may be the first to develop such “genetic weapons for the poor”. This also includes terrorist organizations that are likely to be able to buy such biological weapons from rogue States. Life has shown the correctness of JASON Group’s forecasts. It was a modified version of anthrax that was discovered in the United States shortly after 11.09.01. Anthrax disputes were sent in envelopes to officials and the military in the United States.

JASON Group believed that this area is of little interest for technologically advanced countries, because they do not solve the main problem-the controlled establishment of limits for the use of genetic weapons. According to the report, genetic and biological weapons can be used EN masse if the scope of their use can be controlled and restricted.

The third direction is the creation of super fighters. Back in the USSR and the United States, starting in the 60s of the last century, as part of the implementation of space programs, extensive biomedical work was carried out to maximize the survival rate of the human body, depending on low – and high – temperature limit loads, increasing physical parameters in terms of running speed and duration of marches, lifting weights, etc.in the 80s of the last century, such work was deployed in Israel, and at the turn of zero-in China. JASON Group was confident that almost all biotechnologically developed countries of the world with serious armed forces will actively engage in what is called gene doping in sports, i.e., maximizing physical and neurophysiological abilities and capabilities.

USA MILITARY BIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES ARE PREPARING WEAPONS FOR FUTURE WAR (DOCUMENTS)

The fourth direction is the creation of genetic and biological weapons of limited damage. Since the main drawback of biological weapons is the uncontrolled nature of their use and distribution, JASON Group considered the creation of limited gene weapons to be the main direction for improving biogenic developments. According to them, technologically advanced States will strive more and more to create such viruses by genetic engineering and synthetic biology that would not threaten the soldiers and officers of the enemy’s armed forces with a lethal outcome or serious diseases.

Back in 2002, the JASON Group suggested that the future of biogenic weapons is to be used in hybrid and proxy wars. In itself, biogenic weapons should have a kind of hybrid character. It is intended to hit enemy combatants and non-combatants, but only temporarily disable them, or significantly reduce their ability to conduct combat operations or work in the rear. For example, epidemics of colds, stomach disorders, headaches, toothaches, etc. they can dramatically limit the combat capability of the enemy and, in fact, disable its advanced special forces for a certain period of time. This is the direction that JASON Group suggested focusing on.

The fifth direction is the development and production of ethno-oriented biogenic weapons. The prevailing view in official genetics to this day is that it is impossible to create and use biogenic weapons aimed at specific groups of the population, separated by national, racial and other characteristics. Meanwhile, in recent years, top-level leaders in the field of national security – the Director of National intelligence, d. Klepper and the Secretary of the Russian Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, talked about the possibility, and indeed the real danger, of developing and using genetic weapons aimed at certain groups of the population.

DEF experts believe that in the dispute between official geneticists and high-ranking politicians, it is the politicians who are right. Indeed, a biogenic weapon that affects the citizens of one country and is harmless to the citizens of another cannot be created. Citizenship is not a biological category, but a legal one. Gene weapons of any degree of rigidity-from causing mild illness to causing death – can be targeted at any group that has specific genetic markers. If a marker that allows you to select a group exists, then a genetic biological weapon of any power and intensity can be created. And if it doesn’t exist, it can’t.

As of today, it is known that biogenic markers exist for representatives of different races. It should be noted that the presence or absence of such a marker is a statistical category and can not be specified for each individual in all cases. Given example. More than 80% of the Negroid race, in comparison with the white race, are more resistant to malaria caused by Plasmodium vivax, if their red blood cells do not have Duffy AG, which is a receptor for parasites. On the other hand, people from Africa are 10 times more likely to develop disseminated coccidioidomycosis than Europeans.

According to research done for the leadership of the Indian armed forces, it is quite possible and even more likely, in the period up to 2025, the creation of biological weapons of mass destruction, which can systematically destroy any human populations specified by key genetic characteristics, will become quite possible. Its damaging elements are artificially created microorganisms (pathogens), including strains of bacteria and viruses modified using genetic engineering technologies that can instantly cause diseases and negative changes in the human body. It can be used to cause changes in the heredity, metabolism, or behavior of millions of people.

Genetic weapons of mass destruction have the ability to instantly destroy an entire race

About the realism of the creation of genetic weapons is confirmed by the fact that the scientific centers of some countries, e.g. USA, are engaged in acquisition of genetic information on the population of different regions, especially those where there are American interests or located countries or having a better chance of becoming enemies of the United States (the authors of the report DEF believe that the reasons for buying are not related to the development and production of ethnically targeted biogenetic weapons of the United States. However, a number of leading media with a serious reputation make this hypothesis).

Probably for the same reason, China has legally banned the provision of data on the genomes of Chinese citizens by medical institutions or biotech firms. Also, according to Chinese law, foreign pharmaceutical companies do not have the right to independently conduct clinical and preclinical drug tests with the collection of laboratory data outside of China.

According to the findings of the JASON Group, the Defense threat reduction Agency (DTRA) of the U.S. government is called upon to conduct annual intelligence monitoring regarding the possibility of developing, and even more so, the production of biogenic weapons, and if such a threat is detected, immediately report to the Secretary of defense and the President on the highest level of threat to America. Although DTRA is responsible for intelligence and countering the development, production, and use of weapons of mass destruction, including biological weapons, and has huge amounts of funding, it is little known in the United States. Moreover, most directories do not include it in the list of intelligence agencies.

Currently, thanks to the report of the head of the Agency to one of the congressional commissions, it became known that the Agency sees the main threat of using biogenic weapons against the US population either in terrorist acts using genetically modified viruses modeled on anthrax in the early noughties, or through destructive modification of food coming to certain States of the country from Latin American countries. As noted in the Agency’s materials, ” in the modern world, countries with a low level of food and drug security are defenseless against biogenic weapons, including relatively simple samples made by terrorists or ordered by underground biogenic laboratories.”

Laws against gene weapons

The situation with the legislative regulation of genetic engineering and synthetic biology is extremely uncertain and ambiguous. On the one hand, out of 192 UN member States, almost 40 countries (almost all of them are technologically advanced) have already banned or are preparing to ban genetic modification of the germ line. In particular, such bans are available in most European countries, as well as in Canada and Australia.

As for the UK, the situation is different. In the summer of 2018, the British Council on bioethics recognized genetic modification of infants as acceptable, making a reservation that it “can only be ethically acceptable if it is carried out in accordance with the principles of social justice and solidarity”. At a parliamentary hearing in 2019, leading representatives of the scientific community said that if the Johnson government liberalizes legislation on editing the human genome within 20 years, such services could become the first item of state revenue.

The situation is ambiguous in the United States

America together with China are two of the undoubted, far detached from others, leaders in the field of genetic engineering. In the emerging field of synthetic biology, Americans have no equal. At the same time, in the United States, there is a ban By the us food and drug administration (FDA) on the use of human embryos deliberately created or modified for research on inherited genetic modifications.

At the same time, science, business and law enforcement interpret this ban narrowly, meaning as of the end of 2019 only the ban on the creation of designer children, as well as research in the field of new eugenics. As for the use of genetic engineering and synthetic biology for the pharmaceutical industry and as a substitute for operational problem solving, it is not interpreted as genetic. It also has nothing to do with genetic scanning of embryos in the case of IVF. In addition, it should be borne in mind that Americans not only go to neighboring border Mexico to perform IVF, but also to conduct genetic and embryonic research. Numerous startups in the field of medical and eugenistic genetic engineering and synthetic biology place their headquarters and research laboratories in Mexico, Costa Rica, and Panama, where there are no restrictions in the field of genetic engineering and synthetic biology.

China also has a very ambiguous position

Bans are primarily ethical and moral in nature and relate mainly to private programs and research. The fact that the vast majority – up to 95% – of all patents and publications in the field of genetic editing and synthetic biology fall approximately equally on the US and China, underscores the fact that in fact both countries are actively developing this kind of research and development, primarily at the state level, and the strictest control is exercised over the private sector.

In fact, India, South Korea, and the Philippines and Indonesia provide very broad opportunities for gene editing and synthetic biology.

The world summits on genetic engineering held in 2015 and 2018 generally negatively assessed any attempts to use genetic engineering for eugenics and were wary of synthetic biology.

At the second summit on editing the human genome, held in late November 2018 in Hong Kong, on the one hand, participants condemned the acceleration of work on editing the human genome, and on the other hand, they appealed to all research groups dealing with this topic to share their experience and share results.

In General, the situation with national and international legislation on genetic editing and synthetic biology is similar to the situation in another area – the field of artificial intelligence. Although the consequences of gene editing and synthetic biology are orders of magnitude more explosive and pose more serious risks and threats to humanity, in both cases there are not even the outlines of international legislation.

In the field of genetic engineering and synthetic biology, there are an order of magnitude more players than not only in the field of atomic weapons, but also in the field of artificial intelligence. In this area, geostrategic, medical, socio-political, and investment problems and issues have created a snowball-like tangle of contradictions.

As for specialists, it is obvious that they need to develop common international legal principles that regulate genetic engineering, define its goals and establish a system of strict international monitoring of products, technologies and personnel in this area.

DEF experts believe that such a regulatory framework should include at least:

– criteria for use of genetic modification;

– restrictions on genome editing purposes;

– mandatory availability of reliable preclinical and / or clinical data on risks and threats to human health and embryos, which may open the possibility of targeted genetic modification to eliminate them;

– development and implementation of all-inclusive permanent international monitoring of scientific research, clinical trials, technological operations, as well as equipment, programs, biological materials, etc., necessary for carrying out work on human genetic editing and synthetic biology;

– introduction of an international research passport for persons engaged in research and development in the field of state and commercial use of human gene editing technologies and synthetic biology, and, accordingly, conducting comprehensive monitoring of the professional activities of holders of such diplomas.

These are the minimum requirements

However, it seems highly unlikely that they can be fully or even partially reflected in an international legal instrument.

In the conditions of tectonic technological, serious socio-political shifts and economic instability, there are processes of abandonment of previously signed international agreements, as well as there is no will and initiative to sign new documents on the legislative limitation of risks and threats facing humanity in the twenties.

The post RACE OF GENETIC WEAPONS IN THE XXI CENTURY first appeared on Global Policy.

I think no one will deny the fact that the war in the sense in which we understood and knew it, if we do not talk about a full-scale war with fronts and nuclear weapons, has undergone significant changes, and I think the Russian defense Ministry should pay close attention to this fact.

The war in Ukraine, the civil war in Libya, the war in Syria, armed conflicts in Yemen and other regions, all indicate that small wars now go by completely different rules.

The time when guided weapons were available only to privileged militants has passed without a trace. In contemporary armed conflicts, anti-tank, anti-tank systems and MANPADS, sticking out from almost every bump…

How could anyone have imagined 10 years ago that the militants of the so-called Syrian opposition, during the armed conflict in Syria, will use chemical warfare agents and attack drones. How could anyone imagine that the Yemeni Houthis would resist the Arab coalition for four years and even launch rocket and bomb attacks on the cities of Saudi Arabia?

Probably, somewhere in the gallery of military-political thought, there were such theses, but no one seriously talked about it. And today, it’s the harsh truth of our lives.

If we look closely at the range of weapons used in the so-called small wars or armed conflicts, we can see that such a class of weapons as precision and guided weapons has become a direct attribute of all the recent wars on our planet. And this is not counting EW systems, intelligence, communications and combat control.

What used to be available only to the leading powers of the world, today is actively used in every military conflict on our planet.

When I was at the Army-2019 forum, I was interested in how our modern weapons and military equipment correspond to the challenges and threats that are dictated by the realities of the same war in Syria. And I have to admit the fact that while our weapons and military equipment generally correspond to the concept of waging a modern major war, there is still work to be done in relation to the armed conflicts that are taking place today in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Donbas, and even in Africa.

Let’s start with the sore spot, with the connection

Let us, for example, take KAMAZ-63968 “Typhoon”, which is armed with the military police of the Ministry of defense of the Russian Federation and is actively exploited in Syria. Modern wars follow different rules. Precision weapons have become commonplace even in the hands of “rebels»

KAMAZ-63968 ” TYPHOON»

Typhoon K-63968 is equipped with five video cameras for all-around view in the landing module and cockpit. The cabin is equipped with folding monitors, showing both the condition of the car and the external review.

The vehicle is equipped with on-Board Information and Control System (bius) GALS-D1M to monitor and regulate the engine, calculate the roll of the machine, the slope of the road, speed, location, etc. the Machine is excellent. I’d take one.

However, the problem is that those design bureaus that created it, they did it, based on those technical specifications and conceptual approaches that inevitably rely on the tactics of the Russian armed forces in the war described by the old combat regulations. This machine is not equipped with the telecommunications and information media it needs as part of the functions it performs in Syria.

Simply put, Typhoon K-63968 has the means of communication that would be necessary for this technique, if it was used as part of a motorized rifle battalion, but these means of communication and transmission of information are absolutely insufficient in the performance of patrol functions of the military police on this machine.

Russian communication troops are present in Syria, and they really provide reliable communication and data transmission, but only within the Hmeimim air base and the port of Tartus, and then Hello to my favorites from the company “NGO Angstrom” with their budget P-187 “Azart” and TETRA mode, since outside the bases of the Russian armed forces in Syria, everyone uses mobile phones and Chinese “balalaika” working in the bands of Syrian trunking communications.

This is indeed a fact, since in the Idlib zone of joint patrol, the Russian military police have to use mobile phones. I know of at least four such cases. You can say it’s not much, but that’s just what I know…

Sergei Pavlovich Korolev attribute the phrase – ” I do not agree-criticize, criticize-offer, offer-do, do-answer!»

Do, until not in my competence. Did would-responded. In the meantime, I can only offer.

For some reason, in Russia, the means of space communication are considered as an attribute of elite affiliation, although those satellite groups that are in service with the Ministry of defense and that provide communication to our troops, at best, are used with 20% efficiency.

On the contrary, satellite communication in the us army, is not an attribute of the authorities and is quite available even in the company link.

Even the militants, the so-called “Syrian opposition”, are armed with American base terminals AN/PRC-155 Manpack from General Dynamics, which not only create a secure mobile communication cell, but also allow via satellite is constantly in touch with its American curator.

Modern wars follow different rules

Precision weapons became commonplace even in the hands of “rebels”. Alas, in our armed forces, there are no such terminals. In the best case, if some special forces group will be given a satellite phone and strictly forbidden to call it.

In my opinion, all high-security vehicles used by the military police, and ideally, most of the military equipment of the armed forces of the Russian Federation, should be equipped with satellite communications and telecommunications. This is due to the fact that in those armed conflicts in which our armed forces take part, communication is not only an element of tactical control, but also the possibility of operational influence on the information and political situation of the conflict. And in the conditions of hybrid wars, it is sometimes more important than maintaining radio silence. But that’s not all.

To date, our military communications facilities, which are installed on military equipment and operated in the armed forces do not have the technical capability to support self-organizing broadband decentralized digital data networks. In other words, the radio station, which is installed on the same Typhoon K-63968 is unable to function as a base station, providing stronger coverage of the territory where the crew of this military equipment performs its tasks.

Not let us far stray from KAMAZ-63968 “Typhoon” and turn to the second issue

Looking through the reports of hostilities in Yemen, Syria, Donbas and even in Israel, we can notice a certain pattern and similarity of these military conflicts.

Anti-tank guided weapons systems, perhaps, have become the main attribute of the war. In addition to artillery, the main losses in manpower and equipment, the parties to these armed conflicts are from the use of ATGM and ATGM.

Those who are interested in the problems of modern armed conflicts, know perfectly well that the entire YouTube is littered with footage of the Houthis, where in Yemen they burn guided missiles military equipment of Saudi Arabia. Modern military equipment, which is made to the same standards of protection as the Russian KAMAZ-63968 “Typhoon”.

It is important to note that the American armored vehicles, which are armed with Saudi Arabia, that the Russian “Typhoon”, perfectly protect from bullets and mines,but they are completely defenseless before the ATGM and ATGM.

The war in Syria was no exception

During this armed conflict, the militants of the so-called Syrian opposition, as well as militants of terrorist groups, repeatedly demonstrated footage of the use of ATGM and ATGM on military equipment of the Syrian army and it should be noted that this type of weapons caused significant damage to government units.

To this day, Syria retains those areas, especially adjacent to Idlib or the terrorist enclave in Al-TANF, under the control of the United States, where there are ambushes of opposition fighters and terrorists with the use of ATGM and ATGM.

As an example of the use of ATGM and ATGM can lead the war in the Donbass, where in the conditions of positional conflict, this type of weapons is actively used not only to defeat military equipment, but also to damage personnel located in fortifications.

The modern concept of the use of weapons and military equipment by the main armies of the world as a whole is similar and develops quite linearly.

To date, the classic army consider the use of active protection systems against ATGM and ATGM exclusively on heavy and medium armored vehicles-tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and APCS.

Even Israel, which is in a state of armed conflict with the Hezbollah group, only in 2006, after the second Lebanese war, decided to equip merkav tanks with active protection complexes “Trophy”.

In modern wars, when the use of light armored vehicles, such as MRAP has become quite widespread, and the role of armored vehicles, tanks, IFVs, APCS was reduced to fire support, the role of ATGM and ATGM on the battlefield is often crucial.

Given these circumstances, there is an urgent need to ensure the protection of light armored wheeled vehicles, such as MRAP, from the defeat of guided weapons such as ATGM and ATGM.

To date, not all manufacturers of active protection systems of armored vehicles are ready to install their developments on light wheeled armored vehicles. Perhaps the only solution in the field of active protection systems of light armored vehicles presented by the German company IBD Deisenroth Engineering. Their KAZ AMAP-ADS system can be adapted for passenger transport applications.

As for the Russian systems of active protection of armored vehicles, the most advanced KAZ “Afganit” is installed on those types of weapons that are created within the framework of the Armata project and due to these circumstances KAZ “Afganit” does not have a sufficiently wide distribution.

I believe that the Russian defense Ministry should somewhat revise and adjust the specifications that it issues to our manufacturers of weapons and military equipment.

In my opinion, the military equipment, such as MRAP, which is supplied to the Russian army, should by default be equipped with active protection systems, such as KAZ “Afganit”. This is due to the trends that dictate modern armed conflicts, because the probability of getting under fire ATGM and ATGM, for example, in Syria, the military police unit of the Russian Federation on KAMAZ-63968 “Typhoon”, is much higher than the tank of the 25th division of the SPN” tiger Forces”, which provides fire support for offensives.

Of course, active protection systems are expensive, and they significantly increase the cost of military equipment.

But the question of price is a relative question. Just the other day, Yemeni Houthis attacked an oil refinery in Saudi Arabia using UAVs and ballistic missiles.

Even if we assume that these strike UAVs cost several tens of thousands of dollars, and missiles hundreds of thousands of dollars, the damage to Saudi Arabia is estimated in billions of losses, and the world economy will lose trillions from rising prices for energy resources.

And in this case, the actual practice of modern armed conflicts shows us that the question of the need to equip light armored vehicles, such as MRAP, with active protection systems, is completely irrelevant. Of course you need to equip. And the sooner this is done, the more likely it is that Russian units that in one way or another are involved in modern armed conflicts will not suffer from the fire of ATGM and ATGM.

The question of additional protection is fair not only in relation to light armored vehicles, such as KAMAZ-63968 “Typhoon”, it is more than fair even in relation to such types of weapons as zrpk “Armor” and SAM ” TOR ” and others…

Ask what does the active protection and air defense systems?

And despite the fact that there is a characteristic example that directly indicates that all military air defense systems must have such protection.

This example is in Syria, where during combat use, one of the zrpk “Shell”, was destroyed by a guided missile from an Israeli air force aircraft.

Of course, we can say that this complex was destroyed as a consequence of the negligence of the combat crew, which did not change position after the exhaustion of ammunition, and we can say that the zrpk “Armor” after the exhaustion of ammunition, became defenseless for attacks of guided weapons of the air – surface class. And then, and then, to be fair. Of course, you can rely on the qualification of combat calculations of military air defense systems, but in my opinion, additional insurance would not be superfluous.

I think it would be wise on the basis of the active protection system, to create for existing and future systems military air defense the last line of defense that was intended to ensure the safety and protection of the car’s air defense against possible missile attacks. Not only when this system has exhausted ammunition, but also in those cases when the air defense is broken and the air defense installation itself comes under attack.

There is another point that in my opinion requires attention

The experience of the armed conflict in Syria has shown that the protection systems that are installed on the aircraft of the Russian aerospace forces, on the equipment of the army aviation, is not a panacea for a possible attack using guided missiles or MANPADS.

We all remember how on February 3, 2018, a su-25 attack aircraft was shot down from MANPADS near Idlib. Pilot major Roman Filipov ejected and died in battle with terrorists Dzhebhat al-Nusra.

On 8 July 2016, a Russian mi-35M helicopter under the control of Russian instructor pilots Ryafagat Khabibulin and Yevgeny Dolgin was shot down by ISIS militants from the ATGM “TOW”. The helicopter crashed in an area controlled by the Syrian government army, the pilots were killed. Even from the fire of militants, Russia lost 3 helicopters.

Of course, new aircraft protection systems are being developed and implemented in Russia, the President-C system is already in place and is being put into service, which is capable of protecting aviation equipment not only from the Igla MANPADS, but also countering missiles of previous models, such as the Strela and foreign weapons of this class, such as the American-made Stinger systems.

This is really good, but this system at best provides protection for aircraft from missiles with infrared homing head and which are used on the principle of-shot and forgot.

However, there is a mass of guided weapons, which is armed with the same fighters of the Syrian opposition, which does not use the principles of automatic homing on the target. The same ATGM “TOW”, which terrorists shot down our helicopters, is corrected after a shot on wires. And our army aviation, which performs the main work in Syria, has no means of protection against such weapons. Heat traps, radio suppression, target simulators, laser illumination of homing heads, all this is useless against guided weapons, after which the missile flight is corrected by the shooter.

ATGM “TOW”

In my opinion, there is an urgent need to improve systems to counter such threats. In addition to thermal traps and laser illumination, which counteract the IR homing missiles, electronic jamming systems, which are designed to counteract the radio command and radar guidance, other systems of counteraction, it seems to me it is necessary to create elements of kinetic interception, both existing and prospective ammunition ATGM, ATGM and MANPADS.

What could it be

For example, special ammunition can be placed in the containers of shooting ltts, which when shooting move in the direction of an incoming missile ATGM, ATGM or MANPADS, and at a certain moment are undermined by a radio command fuse, thereby destroying fragments or knocking off course threatening ammunition.

For helicopters of army aviation, for example, you can create lateral rotating machine guns, which are used as machine-gun turret on the platform “Armata”, is paired with KAZ “Afghani”, in fact due to what military equipment on the platform has a protection upper hemisphere from potential attacks ATGM. As a special case, for these purposes, you can use a four-barreled aviation machine gun caliber 7.62 mm GSHG-7.62 Tula “design Bureau of instrumentation”. As it seems to me, it should cope with this function more than positively.

Another point that I would like to note as a trend of modern armed conflicts is the flow of the intensity of hostilities in conditions of limited visibility – that is, in the night.

Many have seen on YouTube summaries of the fighting, either on the channels of official sources, or on the channel AnnaNews, where you can see how the aircraft VKS strikes and hunt almost for individual cyclists militants.

In fact it is not for nothing

The fact is that the terrorists, understanding the technical capabilities of both the Syrian army and the Russian aerospace forces are trying to regroup and move their forces in such a way that it does not cause attention from the operators of UAVs and, as a consequence, air strikes.

To do this, the terrorists have developed a strategy of daily accumulation of forces and means in shelters, where the militants arrive in small groups or single order using individual vehicles in the form of mopeds, motorcycles or bicycles. And with the onset of darkness already carry out their sorties.

And if those units of the Syrian army, which operate in close conjunction with the Russian command of the Hmeimim air base, have the technical capabilities of reconnaissance and combat operations at night, then most of the units of the Syrian army do not have such a possibility and at night they bear significant losses from terrorist attacks.

In turn, the militants of the so-called Syrian opposition or terrorists operating under the auspices of the United States, are well equipped and have all the necessary technical capabilities to conduct combat operations at night.

Again, we can cite as an example the long-suffering Donbass, where the armed forces of Ukraine practically on a daily basis are shelling the territory of peaceful cities that are attached to the contact line. This armed conflict also predominantly takes place at night. This is due to the fact that it is much easier for armed formations of Ukraine to mask the advance of their equipment and fire groups from the OSCE monitoring mission at night.

As a conclusion, I would like to say that all these trends in modern armed conflicts certainly make new demands not only on the range of technical means that are designed to enable the Russian army to conduct combat operations at night, in the conditions of active use of guided weapons, but also requires the development of new tactics, new approaches to combat operations, which will be based, as well as on modern capabilities of weapons and military equipment, and features of hybrid warfare.

The post MODERN RULES OF WARFARE first appeared on Global Policy.