Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: EW in Syria

  1. #1
    Council Member AdamG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang

    Default EW in Syria

    The head of the U.S. military's Special Operations Command said Wednesday that Air Force gunships, needed to provide close air support for American commandos and U.S.-backed rebel fighters in Syria, were being "jammed" by "adversaries."

    Calling the electronic warfare environment in Syria "the most aggressive" on earth, Army Gen. Tony Thomas told an intelligence conference in Tampa that adversaries "are testing us every day, knocking our communications down, disabling our AC-130s, etc."

    When Army leaders in Europe needed advanced electronic warfare capabilities, they decided they couldnít wait for years under the current trajectory of the Armyís official program schedule.

    Instead, they asked the service to develop a faster solution, one thatís now known as Raven Claw 1 and incorporates facets of the existing program called Electronic Warfare Planning and Management Tool. The latter is a command-and-control planning capability that allows commanders and soldiers to visualize what the effects of electronic warfare will look like in the field on a screen.

    By responding to battlefield needs that pop up outside of the traditional acquisition cycle, the Army believes it can accelerate the development of the EWPMT program, and in the process, provide a road map for how the service might improve acquisition.

    See also
    A scrimmage in a Border Station
    A canter down some dark defile
    Two thousand pounds of education
    Drops to a ten-rupee jezail

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005


    The Army's response may be faster, but it isn't fast enough. At the end of the day they're still planning on how to conduct EW, while our adversaries are conducting it and achieving effects. We were competitive in the EW realm at one time, but another negative impact of 17 years of low intensity warfare against relatively unsophisticated adversaries (though that is changing) is it resulted in neglect of some capabilities.

    It wasn't exactly unknown that our adversaries were developing these capabilities. They advertised them in their strategic white papers much like we do. A few senior leaders have been unable to make the transition from the day to day tactical fight to being a strategic thinker that looks beyond the immediate and prepares the force for tomorrow. Obtaining balance between the immediate and the future is challenging, but senior leaders responsible for the future force shouldn't be overly focused on the tactical fight. The character of warfare has already changed, and will keep changing. What we're seeing now was not unforeseen. I anticipate the character of warfare will evolve ever quicker as more tools are available to wage it.

    Another point of concern is with great power competition we will once see a surge in state sponsored terrorism. This implies states will provide select terrorists and other non-state actors (proxies) with limited higher end technology to impose costs on their competitors, while maintaining some degree of deniability.

Similar Threads

  1. Syria in 2018-2019
    By davidbfpo in forum Middle East
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 07-27-2019, 05:20 PM
  2. The Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Syria
    By SWJ Blog in forum Middle East
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-10-2018, 01:06 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts