NATO: Tech upper hand and the economic risk

By military analyst Sebastian Sarbu.



As almost everyone knows the USA in mutual consent with the NATO have decided to reinforce both the defence and the rapid response capability across the space of interest located in East Europe and the Baltic Countries by dispatching military units, heavy weapons and the famous F-22 jet fighters.

The multipurpose F -22 jet fighters using Stealth technology belong to the invisible airplanes category (non detectable by radar) and of high manoeuvrability.

Their advantage consists in the fact that they are able to intercept enemy broadcasts, use electronic weapons and carry out air-to-air / air-to-ground war missions, which makes the critical component of the American tactical air forces.

The truth should be voiced out, however: in  a modern warfare when the military high tech prominence may not be claimed by just one single state (power) the F-22 jets (namely Raptor) are harmless.

The Department of Defence of the USA in agreement with the American Congress actually banned the production of the F-22 multipurpose jet fighters, since 2009 due to its high costs,  lack of air-to-air missions and the delay of operational programmes in the Russian – Chinese fifth generation.

In short, the F-22s are just Russian – Chinese make jet fighters enhanced by the Americans.

Therefore in 2009 a decision was taken to cut off the F-22 fighter jets production line. They have been used however in zones presenting no big and intricate strategic issues, for quick-in-quick-out and surgical forays. They have been mabe quite popular to the public albeit the specialized media know these are just a sort of drones made obsolete now by the F-35 models featuring a higher speed while endowed with Stealth (invisible) technology already produced in series, as their costs growing cheaper.

The F-35 jet fighters (namely Lightning II) are being produced in the USA and the Great Britain and are part of the Joint Strike Fighter Program. They are truly sophisticated and lethal, being conceived as strategic single engine bombers, undetectable by radar, used also by the US Marines and being readily available in the Nuclear Triad (destroy- naval-air- ground, synchronous interceptor).

Te gradual and geostrategic defence strategy is also applied in this brand new security concept.

Under the armoured vehicles category, the NATO provided the American made tank Abrams, scheduled to join the Romanian tank, TR-85M1. Are these a comparable match against the Russian tanks? The best schools in the world where the armoured vehicles are concerned are the German and the Russian ones the experts say…

Officially, the latest breaking in the world of tanks are the M1 Abrams (USA), Challanger (England), Leclerc (France), Leopard (Germany), Merkava (Israel) and  T-90 (Russia). Not long time ago in this select company sneaked out its way the Romanian tank TR-85M1.

Since 2000 the Great Britain developed a new missile system. The top system is the Aerospatial ANS (Supersonic Anti-Ship Missile).  They are radar undetectable anti-ship stealth missiles that qualified with the highest ECC security score (Electronic Countermeasures) and decoy devices used during the anti aircraft offensive operations. The effective range of these missiles is 180 km. They are ultra high speed supersonic  weapons which dwindle to practically nil the risk of interception.

Another high performance tactical missile used by the UK navy is the ASTER. This is actually nothing but a conventional aerodynamic control system able to intercept and destroy other foe missiles. It actually is a high speed (about 800 meter per second) combo action on multi target missile system.

Another high precision flavour equally deadly able to mount devastating bombing is the MLRS (Multiple Launch Rockets System). Each missile thereof is able to “breed” 50 baby bombs able to destroy top shelf tanks.  This system may guide missile to the enemy targets at a 12 per minute cadence covering a 30 km range.

The lower costs of this missile system makes it the best option to pick where the anti ships and “ground” missiles solutions are concerned. One should note that a truly highly performance missile is the product of the defence industry and once its production being made obsolete and out of production it turns out as a second hand weapon due to higher costs or poor performance ( the absence of tactical missions, lagging of programmes required for mounting an operational status etc.), as in the F- 22 jet fighter case.

So the developed countries under NATO deploy non only stealth jet fighters which incorporates stealth technology but also invisible missiles which are rather unknown to the public.

The Great Britain also developed anti radar tactical air tech bases systems. The question is when are they going to be used ? Is the Russian offensive a first line strategic threat for the NATO?

It is deemed as fact that Russia is determined to begin the military offensive. It was not a mere coincidence the General Iabukov’s statement concerning the despatch of troops on the NATO border and mounting of nuclear missiles units in Kaliningrad area. General Iabukov is the manager of the Direction of Military Troops Inspection in the Russian Department of Defence.

Therefore it is his job to inspect the troops, so that by the end of the two months mobilization of the Russian Federation’s army of reservists the report of evaluation was received which cleared the way to a military solution concerning the positioning of the Russian Army in a first stage, an accounted for fact in the statement of this general.

It is clear that the Euro American zone and the Euro Asian stepped in a new stage of  polarization in the competition and confrontation process. The economic jolt powered lately by Greece against the European Union, a country already wooing public courtship to the Russian Federation, is currently sketching the settings of an asymmetrical warfare scenario masterminded by Russians.

The Russian nuclear missiles may break the strongest anti missile shields in our days, according to the Moscow based propaganda, yet the highest risk is not this one, however.

The superiority of the NATO and the USA combined military high tech powered by a Defence budget and warfare expenses dwarfing by far any other competitive power is shunted by a possible latest breaking economic European crisis turned global in the wider context of modern globalization. The all-out enthusiasts of the NATO military upper hand stance failed to take into the equation the economic key factor which may undermine the overall sustainability leverage of the states on the long run of a non conventional warfare situation.

At the same time we’d rather think about deeply on the economic and political changes within the EU area and the geostrategic threats aiming to hold in check the NATO’s proactive security policy.

As I said, if the economic and political warfare of strategic flavour marks its foreseen effect by destruction ( corruption) of the enemy from the inside, the use of the conventional weapons turns out to be obsolete and out of scope and practically useless.

The nuclear threat is part of the nuclear discouraging plan endorsing a purely defensive role rather than an offensive thrust. The actual, real targets are strategic while the direct, next door consequences for the population are economical.

The total war scenario should be regarded as a last card Russia might eventually play yet only in the context of a grosso modo escalation of Western  military moves.

What Next?

Recent Articles