Mountain Warfare / Modern Warfare (workshop summary)

Mountain warfare, spanning from Hannibal’s Alpine crossing to modern conflicts in Afghanistan and Nagorno Karabakh, presents a continuous narrative of unique challenges requiring specialized strategies. The intricate European terrain, including the Alps and the Carpathians, adds complexity for armed forces. In confronting present-day conflicts, the evolution of mountain warfare demands strategic adaptation, technological integration, and a futuristic vision where drones, joint fires, specialized units, and advanced communication redefine operations at high altitudes. Recognizing the historical context is not just homage but a pragmatic necessity, preparing military forces to move and operate safely in rugged landscapes that persistently shape the theatre of war.

Hence, the aim and objective of the workshop were to bring together experts from NATO and partner countries who can comprehensively address various approaches from both historical and recent conflict perspectives. This involved drawing comparisons with the latest developments in modern warfare and potential future conflicts within the mountain warfare framework.

In an ever-changing world marked by climate change, migration, biological clashes, and escalating struggles, it is important to evaluate the readiness of military organizations to navigate these complex challenges. The central question revolves around the adequacy of our current organizational structures, command and control mechanisms (C2), and overall preparedness for a future shaped by technological advancements.

Our attention needs to be drawn to critical issues that demand strategic foresight and adaptation. With the rise of drone technology, electronic warfare, and the intricacies of a cyber world, the question is existing military frameworks are sufficiently equipped. The focus is not just on the present but on envisioning and preparing for the next two decades.

The core of the matter lies in the adaptability of military to the evolving landscape, i.e. potential misalignment between current structures and the demands of a multi-domain environment. Are our military structures tailored for the challenges that lie ahead, or do we need to reconsider and reorganize to effectively address them?

As technology continues to play a pivotal role, we have to consider acquiring the right technology and personnel accordingly. This includes reassessing recruitment strategies to ensure that the military is attracting individuals with the necessary skills and expertise.

In the context of NATO, the responsibility of Centres Of Excellence (COEs) is not only address current concerns but also to envision and prepare for the future.

There is no doubt on the need for re-evaluation of military preparedness in the face of emerging challenges. It is a call to action for military organizations to assess their structures, adapt to technological advancements, and ensure they are recruiting and training personnel capable of meeting the demands of an ever-evolving world.

The trajectory of the next two decades will be shaped by how effectively military institutions can answer these pressing questions and prepare for the challenges of tomorrow.

The ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia has brought to light a myriad of complex issues ranging from diplomatic strategies to the impacts of evolving military technologies. In this regard, we have to operate within so called DIAMOND Framework, emphasizing the interconnectedness of Diplomacy, Information, Military, and Economics.

Diplomacy. Reflecting on the events of 2014, particularly the annexation of Crimea, we have witnessed the failure of diplomatic efforts and the subsequent escalation of the conflict, significantly supported by Russia’s adept diplomacy. But has the West been truly committed to defend democracy and the rule of law?

Information. The importance of strong leadership and effective information warfare is emphasized, having Ukraine’s proficiency in countering Russian disinformation as an excellent example. Also, the significance of cohesive leadership at all levels is a must.

Military. There has been a significant impact of military corruption within Russia. Despite substantial investments, corruption led to a collapse in military effectiveness. However, there are certain parallels between Russia’s military setbacks and potential vulnerabilities within NATO countries, questioning our own preparedness for prolonged conflict.

Economy. Contrary to initial expectations, Russia has effectively managed its economy under sanctions, adopting a war economy model. From this perspective, we should consider the need for NATO and the European Union to reassess their economic strategies in response to Russia’s resilience.

Technology Shifts. In the eastern Ukraine, we have witnessed a surprising return of trench warfare and mass manoeuvre warfare, defying earlier predictions based on advancements in precision attacks. The role of drone technology emerges as a game-changer, providing precise targeting and disrupting traditional military strategies. The staggering human cost of the conflict (with over 250,000 Russian casualties) raises a concern over Ukraine’s challenges in receiving timely support and emphasizes the need for NATO countries to reevaluate their commitments. The Ukraine-Russia conflict unfolds as a complex interplay of diplomatic, military, economic, and technological factors. As the world witnesses the resurgence of trench warfare and the pivotal role of drones, global leaders must carefully analyse the evolving dynamics to formulate effective strategies that prioritize democratic values, human rights, and international peace.

Mountain warfare poses unique challenges, demanding specialized skills and strategies. Three imperatives emerge as essential for success in such terrain: survival, mobility, and the ability to combine both for effective maneuvering.

Drawing on historical examples and contemporary experiences, we may explore the significance of these imperatives and their application in mountain warfare.

Survival in the Mountains

Surviving in mountainous regions is a fundamental necessity for any military force. Historical examples, such as Suvorov in the Alps in 1799, emphasize the importance of understanding the harsh mountain environment. Suvorov’s entering with light summer uniforms and wrong assumptions, led to significant losses. The Alpine Front in World War I further underscores the challenges, where thousands of men had to adapt to the unforgiving high-altitude conditions.

Mobility

Napoleon’s crossing of the Alps is an iconic image and strategic movement, when in fact he got led by a skilled mountain guide on a mule over the mountain pass. Mobility in mountain warfare is crucial, as demonstrated by German mountain troops in the Caucasus in 1942. Their superior mobility skills allowed them to outmaneuver Soviet forces, continually dislocating the enemy and forcing them to fall back. The ability to navigate the challenging terrain efficiently is a key aspect of mountain warfare.

Mountains as an introductory to “Multi-Domain” Operations

The battle of Caporetto in 1917 marked a significant shift, introducing massed mountain forces attacking up valleys and along ridges. Mountain warfare, inherently multi-dimensional due to the terrain, requires a comprehensive understanding of all three dimensions. This approach is essential for manoeuvring effectively in high mountains, making it a unique form of warfare – because of the terrain characteristics, there are more dimensions to think of.

Civilian Collaboration

A notable aspect of mountain warfare is the reliance on civilian skiing and mountaineering communities for techniques and technologies related to survival and mobility. This collaboration is a recurring theme in the history of mountain warfare, with the military turning to civilian mountaineering expertise in different eras.

Lessons from Afghanistan

The lessons learned from mountain warfare in Afghanistan highlight the importance of going light and layering for survival. Aerial supply becomes crucial, and units must adapt to the challenges of mountainous terrains, including developing the ability to lower casualties down hills for efficient evacuation. The need for ropes and knowledge of utilizing terrain for manoeuvrability is evident, emphasizing the ongoing relevance of civilian mountaineering skills.

Steep terrain posed mobility challenges, limiting infiltration, withdrawal routes, and casualty evacuation options. Combat patrols and Observation Post emplacement required mountaineering techniques like cable systems and fixed ropes.

Military operations in the Pech River Valley (2006-2010) faced manoeuvre challenges of mountain warfare. Operations like “Operation MOUNTAIN LION” and Combat Outposts (COPs) such as Restrepo, Kahler, and Keating were pivotal. “Operation MOUNTAIN LION” exemplified the strategic adaptation to mountainous conditions, emphasizing the need for specialized equipment and tactics. COPs played a crucial role, serving as bases for military activities and providing strategic vantage points.

Lessons Learned

The U.S. Army possessed a well-developed mountain warfare doctrine outlined in FM 3-97.6 Mountain Operations (November 2000). This document included historical vignettes, detailed operational levels of mountain terrain, five terrain mobility classes, and three levels of military mountaineers. Despite this, it was noted that Army units did not routinely train for operations in mountainous environments. To address this gap, FM 3-97.61 Military Mountaineering (August 2002) was introduced, incorporating the latest alpine climbing techniques and technologies.

• Mobility
  • The U.S. Army significantly enhanced military mountaineering training by updating and reissuing TC 3-97.61 Military Mountaineering in 2012. In 2003, the Vermont Army National Guard Mountain Warfare School was re-designated as the U.S. Army Mountain Warfare School (AMWS), becoming the Executive Agent for military mountaineering. In 2008, a single 14-day Basic Military Mountaineering Course (BMMC) was approved, allowing soldiers to earn “Skill Qualification Identifier – Military Mountaineer”. By the 2010s, AMWS was graduating approximately 400 military mountaineers annually, increasing to over 1,000 by the 2020s.
  • Northern Warfare Training Center and the 5th Ranger Training Battalion, also focused on various aspects of military mountaineering, emphasizing individual training and squad/platoon vertical mobility.
  • Military Mountaineering Kits were created to enhance mobility in challenging terrains:
    • High Angle Mountaineering Kit (HAWK): Designed for a minimally trained infantry platoon of 40, equipped with harnesses, carabiners, and belay devices to navigate steep terrain using established rope installations.
    • Assault Climber Team Kit (ACTK): Intended for three assault climbers to set up rope installations with dynamic and static ropes, cams, and chocks.
    • Snow and Ice Mobility Kit (SIMK): Enables a platoon of 40 to operate in steep ice and snow terrain, featuring beacons, crampons, ice axes, ice tools, and ice screws.
    • Developed at the U.S. Army Mountain Warfare School (AMWS) from 2009 to 2010, these kits were identified in the 2011 Infantry Small Unit Mountain Operations and fully issued to infantry brigades by 2014, marking the first time mountaineering equipment had been officially issued and incorporated into the supply system since 1943.
  • The U.S. Army implemented a “Mountain Training Strategy” in 2016, as outlined in Mountain Warfare and Cold Weather Operations (10-1 to 10-4). This strategy involved designating specific roles for military mountaineers/subject matter experts (SMEs) at different levels:
    • Level 1 Basic Military Mountaineers (basic technical skills, basic mobility skills, and assistance in planning; 1-2 soldiers per platoon)
    • Level 2 Advanced Mountaineers (Assault Climbers) (advanced technical skills, serving as advisors to battalion commanders, and acting as battalion trainers and planners for mountain operations; 2 soldiers per battalion, having attended a 15-day advanced course)
    • Level 3 Master Military Mountaineer (advisor to brigade commanders and brigade mountain trainer and planner; previous service as a mountain school instructor and a minimum of two years of experience; 1 soldier per brigade.

• Manoeuvre
  • Planning Considerations:
    • Operating independently of forward operating bases.
    • Caution against over-reliance on armoured assets.
    • Balancing protection requirements with the necessity to integrate with the local population.
  • Offensive Operations in Mountain Warfare:
    • Conventional mountain offensive operations are conducted to gain control of key or decisive terrain.
  • Defensive Operations:
    • Defensive actions are undertaken for reasons such as retaining decisive terrain or denying a vital area to the enemy.
  • Integration of Counterinsurgency and Large-Scale Combat Planning:
    • Emphasizing the importance of planning for counterinsurgency operations while considering the potential for large-scale combat.

From the Afghanistan experience, the US Army (re)acquired insights into the imperatives of mountain warfare, underscoring the importance of military forces mastering survival and mobility in mountainous terrain for effective manoeuvrability. This learning primarily concentrated on individual and small unit tactics, particularly in the context of counterinsurgency operations.

However, the lessons from Afghanistan did not distinctly underscore the necessity to conduct comprehensive training for larger units in both winter and summer mountain operations.

Key takeaways:

• Essential Imperatives in Mountain Warfare:

Survival: Understanding and adapting to the harsh mountain environment is crucial.

Mobility: Efficient navigation through challenging terrain is a key aspect.

Success in mountain warfare requires the effective integration of survival and mobility for manoeuvring in high mountains.

• Civilian Collaboration:

Military forces often rely on civilian skiing and mountaineering communities for techniques and technologies related to survival and mobility in mountain warfare.

• Lessons from Afghanistan:

Going light and layering for survival, aerial supply, and adapting to mountainous terrains are crucial lessons. Civilian mountaineering skills remain relevant, emphasizing the collaboration between military and civilian expertise.

• Military Operations and Challenges:

Steep terrain poses mobility challenges, limiting infiltration, withdrawal routes, and casualty evacuation options. Combat patrols and Observation Post emplacement require specialized mountaineering techniques.

• U.S. Army’s Response and Adaptation:

Mobility Enhancement: Significant efforts were made to enhance military mountaineering training and equipment.

Training Strategy: The U.S. Army implemented a comprehensive “Mountain Training Strategy” involving different levels of military mountaineers.

Equipment Development: Military Mountaineering Kits were created to enhance mobility in challenging terrains.

• Manoeuvre Considerations:

Planning: Independent operations and caution against over-reliance on armoured assets, and balancing protection with integration into the local population are crucial.

Offensive and Defensive Operations: Conventional mountain offensive and defensive operations are conducted for gaining control of key terrain or retaining decisive areas.

Integration of Counterinsurgency: Emphasis on planning for counterinsurgency operations while considering the potential for large-scale combat.

The focus on individual and small unit tactics in counterinsurgency operations is highlighted, but there’s a need for comprehensive training for larger units in both winter and summer mountain operations.

In the wake of the Northern Alliance retaking Afghanistan in late 2021, Operation Anaconda emerged as a pivotal military endeavour. This operation aimed to address the intelligence reports of approximately 300 foreign fighters amassing in the strategically significant Shah-i-kot Valley. This article delves into the strategic context, operational challenges, and the rationale behind undertaking Operation Anaconda.

The Northern Alliance’s successful retake of Afghanistan from October 7th to November 2021 set the stage for Operation Anaconda. With only about 20,000 US military personnel and an additional 10,000 in the ISAF contingent, the focus was on the Shah-i-kot Valley, located hundreds of nautical miles away from population centers. The terrain, particularly in the lower “Shah-i-kot” Valley, posed significant challenges, with elevations ranging from 2400 to 2700 meters. The overall operating environment was characterized by severe restrictions and challenges.

Objectives and Intelligence

The primary motivation behind Operation Anaconda was intelligence indicating the presence of around 300 foreign fighters gathering in the Shah-i-kot Valley. These fighters had access to the Pakistan tribal areas, utilizing them to build combat power. The exact intentions of this group remained unclear, but the urgency to address the potential threat prompted the operational leaders of CJTF Mountain to view this as an opportunity to showcase aerosol capability.

Operational Challenges

The geographical and environmental constraints posed critical challenges for Operation Anaconda. The Shah-i-kot Valley’s elevation and restricted terrain meant that helicopters (particularly the CH-47) were the only viable means of inserting troops onto the objective. However, this came with its own set of challenges, including a limited ability to mass artillery support. One glaring shortfall was the absence of tube artillery to support the operation, highlighting the difficulty in achieving massed effects. Additionally, due to altitude, temperature, weight, and humidity considerations, the CH-47 was the only helicopter deemed suitable for the mission. This forced planners to adjust normal considerations for troop load, limiting the number of soldiers on each helicopter from 30 to 20, thus significantly degrading the overall combat power that could be deployed.

Operational Approach

Task Force 64, a multinational Special Operations Forces (SOF) formation comprising Canadian, Dutch, and US Army and Navy special operations teams, played a pivotal role in Operation Anaconda. The commander’s unconventional decision to infill by foot rather than using helicopters allowed for undetected movement, enabling effective fire support for the forces in the valley. Notably, this location marked the heroic actions of Air Force Sergeant Chapman, who would later receive the US Medal of Honor.

The events of Operation Anaconda commenced on March 1st, with Task Force Anvil, primarily consisting of Afghan partners, experiencing significant friction during their ground infill. A blinding snowstorm and the dominating terrain forced them to choose a light-load approach, sacrificing the element of surprise. The initial CH-47 lift encountered immediate challenges, with six of eight missing their intended locations, facing 12.7mm DShK heavy machinegun fire, and disrupting the infiltration of infantry battalions supporting the separation.

Task Force Summit, designated as 1/187, found themselves pinned down on the 2nd of March, facing DShK and mortar fire. Despite enduring 35 casualties and recovering during darkness, the striking force from Afghan forces had not yet reached the objective area. Additional Special Forces teams were inserted to partner with the Afghans, while anti-aircraft fire restricted AC-130 employment to the period of darkness.

Takur Gah Battles

The focus shifted to Takur Gah, a dominating piece of key terrain, where MAKO-30 (SEAL team planned to establish an observation point on the end of the valley) faced aircraft problems and crash-landed. This initiated a series of events involving the theatre quick response force, leading to two Chinooks on Takur Gah being targeted by attacks. Although none of the three attacks were successful due to US suppressive fire support, casualties mounted, and evacuation became challenging. Recognizing the need for support, two additional battalions from the 10th Mountain Division were flown in, initiating their insertion on March 5th.

The clearance of the lower Shah-i-kot Valley, a challenging task over severely restricted terrain, involved three US battalions, two Afghan partners’ battalion-sized formations, and eventually the deployment of tanks. Highlighting the difficulties, it took seven full days, until March 12th, to complete the clearance, emphasizing the resilience and determination required in such complex operations.

Key takeaways and lessons learned

Limited Objectives and Shifting Dynamics: One of the primary takeaways from Operation Anaconda is the realization that despite the significant efforts and challenges faced, the operation achieved limited objectives. The clearance eventually led to the discovery that most foreign fighters had already moved to the south and back to the Pakistan tribal areas, showcasing the dynamic nature of the conflict.

Success with Air Fire Support: OP Anaconda highlights the success of units relying on air fire support, which proved effective in certain aspects of the operation. However, this success comes with a significant caveat – the high costs associated with air fire support and threats by enemy AA fire. The ease of use of air fire support also poses a risk, as it could lead to increased reliance by US units, potentially limiting their adaptability in diverse operational environments.

Challenges with Partner Forces: Despite the inclusion of partner operational detachments, there were significant challenges with partner forces. Issues in communication, coordination, and timely execution were evident, emphasizing the need for a more streamlined and efficient collaboration between US and partner forces to enhance overall mission effectiveness.

Interoperability in Multinational SOF: OP Anaconda reveals three critical domains of interoperability: procedural, interpersonal, and technical. The multinational Special Operations Forces (SOF) involved in Operation Anaconda struggled with effective interoperability, facing difficulties in operating and communicating directly with each other. This lack of ease collaboration underscored the importance of addressing interoperability challenges in future multinational operations.

Communication and Decision Dominance: The reliance on UHF tactical radios for communication throughout the entire operation was evident. While this form of communication was initially effective, an signals operating instructions (SOI) change in the middle of the operation disrupted communication between battalions, leading to a significant breakdown in synchronisation and decision-making. This emphasizes the need for robust communication systems and the potential risks associated with sudden changes in signals operating instructions.

The 2008 Russo-Georgian War and the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict have left significant marks on the geopolitical situation in the South Caucasus region. The following section addresses the complexities of the 2008 Russo-Georgian War, and the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, focusing on historical background, root causes, and possible implications.

Georgia, in the South Caucasus region, is a bridge connecting West and East. Apart from being an important pathway for energy routes, Georgia plays a significant role in terms of movement of goods and services between West and East, and North and South. The region faces a number of challenges coming from Russia, as it tries to exert its influence on the region using its military and economic power. Russia strives for a strong military presence in the region to limit   the Western influence, and pursue more power in the area. How effectively Georgia deals with these challenges will shape the future of the country, making an impact on the South Caucasus region as a whole.

Terrain characteristics

Georgia boasts a diverse terrain, ranging from the subtropical Black Sea shore to the snowy peaks of the Caucasus Mountains. The majority of the landscape is mountainous, featuring a range of great mountain cities extending from west to east. The highest point in the country, Shkhara, reaches about 5,200 meters above the sea level. In the western part, there is a lowland called “Kolkhida Lowland”, and in the East – an open, flat area known as “Alazani Valley” in the Kakheti region. Georgia is rich in rivers and lakes, with major rivers found in both the western and eastern parts of the country.

The picture below illustrates the varying elevations, noting the significance of certain areas, such as the red circle showing military activities, and the purple cycle – major military activities during the 2008 Russia-Georgia war.

Path to war

Between 1991 and 1993, Russia supported Abkhaz and Ossetian (from Tskhinvali region) separatists, leading to conflicts that resulted in Georgia losing control over its territories, ethnic cleansing of the Georgian population and their massive expulsion from their living areas. In 2007-2008, Russia built two military bases in the Tskhinvali region. After completion of the large-scale Russian military exercise “Caucasus 2008’’, rather than returning to their bases, the troops remained in the vicinity of Tskhinvali region. Incidents escalated in the period of 1-7 August 2008 leading to the evacuation of civilian population (ethnic Ossetians, mainly women and children) from the Tskhinvali region. The evacuation of ethnically Ossetian population indicated Russia’s preparations for a military intervention. The deployment of regiments to the Tskhinvali region culminated in the invasion by the Russian forces.

Outburst

The military activities unfolded aggressively, with attacks originating from the north and the west, particularly from the occupied Abkhazia. The assaults were comprehensive, involving ground, air, and sea forces. The strikes, characterised by both ground and missile attacks, extended beyond the Tskhinvali region. Key infrastructure, encompassing military and civilian targets, endured the brunt of the aggression, with seaports, bridges, airfields, and other vital installations being targeted. Missile systems such as SS21 and SS26 were utilised in the course of the attacks.

During the war, the Georgian forces faced a number of challenges as they were relatively small and young, with only five brigades, one of which was deployed in Iraq, while the fifth brigade was still under formation. The army, undergoing reorganisation since 2004, also focused on mountain warfare training due to the significant mountainous terrain across Georgia.

Key locations, marked as K1, K2, and K3, presented strategic points, with K1 as a rocky tunnel complex, K2 as a crossroad, and K3 connecting cities and regions. The difficult terrain with elevations ranging from 600 to 1400 meters, posed challenges for ground movement, limiting mobility and dividing larger operations. The Russian forces, using traditional Soviet tactics, pushed through rocky areas, while Georgian units, aware of enemy movements, used aviation and rocket artillery to fix them in narrow terrain.

Tskhinvali ambush

In this specific ambush scenario, a Russian motorised unit advancing from the north encountered resistance from the Georgian forces, which intended to disrupt their progress. The Russian unit was detected, leading to the artillery fire that effectively blocked their advancement, resulting in significant losses in both personnel and equipment.

To overcome this unexpected setback, the Russian forces decided to take a bypass road and approach the city from the northwest. The Georgian unit, maintaining a defensive posture, identified the enemy’s movement and forced them to withdraw temporarily. Upon their return, the Russian troops faced heavy losses again in personnel and equipment, prompting them to retreat and regroup to reassess their mission amidst the ambush.

Air defence

After a day one, the enemy established air superiority by neutralising Georgia’s aviation. The enemy’s aircraft operated from high altitudes, targeting Georgia’s positions. Passive protective measures utilised the existing infrastructure within the mountainous operational area and natural vegetation. Active protective measures involved addressing the Air Defence (AD) system vulnerabilities, focusing on the portability of defence systems. Despite challenges, the AD sections moved into the mountains, employing scanning, identification, and engagement tactics to minimise the distance between the AD and aircrafts. The plan effectively disrupted Russian air operations.

Summary

In August 2008, disregarding the fundamental norms and principles of the international law, the UN charter, as well as the Helsinki Final Act, the Russian Federation launched the full-scale military aggression against Georgia, violating the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia and threatening the European Security Architecture[1].

[1] The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgments on Georgia vs Russia interstate cases are available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/

The Russo-Georgian war highlighted the geopolitical significance of the Caucasus region, especially Georgia, as a crucial pathway for energy and transit routes connecting East and West and North and South. Moreover, it once again showcased that in line with its imperialist ambitions, Russia was ready and willing to use force against the sovereign nation and undermine its Euro-Atlantic aspirations representing the key foreign and security policy priority of the country. It was a part of Kremlin’s pursuit of establishing its zones of influence, even if it roots for undermining the fundamental norms and principles of international law and jeopardising the regional security.

• Strategic Importance of Terrain:

The mountainous terrain of Georgia significantly impacted military operations, influencing strategies and tactics on both sides.

• Military Tactics:

Russian forces employed traditional Soviet tactics. The Tskhinvali ambush demonstrated the significance of tactical manoeuvres and surprise attacks, showcasing how smaller forces could disrupt larger, more conventional military operations.

• Air Dominance and Defence:

The establishment of air superiority by the Russian forces highlighted the critical role of air power in modern warfare. The successful disruption of the Russian air operations by the Georgian air defence demonstrated the importance of defensive strategies.

• Post-War Adaptations:

The post-war period showcased the significance of lessons learned process, leading to the transformation of defence forces, modernisation and adaptation of military structures, command approaches, and further enhancement of international cooperation in order to boost defence capabilities.

• Continuous Development and Preparedness:

The need for continuous development of NATO-interoperable defence capabilities, modern education and training systems, and increased participation in multinational exercises represent the main lessons learned for maintaining preparedness in a volatile geopolitical landscape.

Key takeaways

In the context of mountain operations, efficiency is often compromised due to specific features and challenging weather conditions. Proper planning and preparation are crucial to conserve forces, and ensure that units are able to reach their destination. After a few days of operations, Russians gained control over sea and environment lines of communication, achieved air superiority, and posed a threat to the Georgian forces deployed in the high mountain region. Despite the imminent danger, commanders decided to move forces with about 60 km in different altitudes, facing extreme conditions, but by doing so, they managed to preserve forces and continue defensive operations.

During the war, the need for training programme development, equipment revision, mounting capabilities enhancement, and the development of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) was identified. Challenges that Georgia faced included missile systems of the Russian Federation (RF), misbalance of forces, coping EW of the enemy, air and maritime superiority of the RF, centralised command and control system (under one command) and the need for improved mobility and survivability in mountain operations.

Post-war adaptations included the gradual transition from the mid- to long-term defence planning, a new Defence Code, creation of separate operational commands (West and East), promotion of mission command approach, broadened international cooperation, increased participation in multinational military training and exercises, including hosting in Georgia, which supports further enhancement of interoperability with NATO. Moreover, the focus has been directed towards enhancing the capabilities of the Sachkhere Mountain Training School with active international support, which resulted in receiving the NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) Training and Education Centre (later PTEC-Partnership Training and Education Centre) status in 2010. The School has transformed into a unique training centre offering national and International Mountain training courses to military personnel from Georgia and partner nations in an exceptional environment including weather, terrain, altitude, and with maximum protection of safety measures. The focus remains on continuous streamlining and credibility through further developing modern, NATO-interoperable training and education system and ensuring increased participation in multinational exercises.

“The future always surprised us.”

LTC Miha Kuchar, NATO MW COE

In the ever-changing landscape of global conflicts, the future has always managed to surprise us. Regardless of our well-established doctrines, concepts, and experiences, each unfolding event somehow catches us off guard. This realization becomes particularly crucial when a war breaks out, introducing new methods and altering established pathways.

Post-2020, the focus revolves around three distinct courses. First is the large-scale operation in Ukraine, demanding attention due to its magnitude and implications. The second course is the Israel-Hamas conflict in 2021, with a unique emphasis on the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) as a modern approach to warfare. The third area of interest is the 2021 Nagorno-Karabakh war, notable for its mountain warfare dynamics, presenting a different operational challenges:

In the ever-changing landscape of global conflicts, the future has always managed to surprise us. Regardless of our well-established doctrines, concepts, and experiences, each unfolding event somehow catches us off guard. This realization becomes particularly crucial when a war breaks out, introducing new methods and altering established pathways.

Post-2020, the focus revolves around three distinct courses. First is the large-scale operation in Ukraine, demanding attention due to its magnitude and implications. The second course is the Israel-Hamas conflict in 2021, with a unique emphasis on the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) as a modern approach to warfare. The third area of interest is the 2021 Nagorno-Karabakh war, notable for its mountain warfare dynamics, presenting a different operational challenges:

“Second Nagorno-Karabakh War was the first war decided by autonomous weapons.”

Col. John F. Antal, U.S. Army (ret.)

Introduction

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict highlighted the challenges of mountain warfare, with its terrain peaks reaching 1800 meters and unpredictable weather. Steep landscapes covered by forests made infantry movement difficult, while communication hurdles emerged due to the topography. The 2020 operation in the southern part of Nagorno-Karabakh, bordered by Azerbaijan and Armenia, focused on vital territories, including the crucial Lachin corridor connecting the regions. This corridor, safeguarded at times by Russian peacekeepers, became a strategic lifeline.

In the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the Lachin corridor and Shushi city emerged as pivotal territories, holding the key to communication between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh cities. Positioned at 1368 meters, Shushi became a strategic linchpin, with the potential to sever vital connections. Before Azerbaijan’s 2020 offensive, Armenia fortified its defensive positions, boasting trenches, bunkers, minefields, and barbed wire established during the 90s war. The mountainous terrain provided a natural defence, and despite lacking modern camouflage, Armenians were confident in their ability to withstand Azerbaijani offensives. This shaped the dynamics of the conflict, with both sides keenly aware of the significance of key territories in this mountainous region.

Azerbaijan concept of operation

Azerbaijan’s well-organized approach, supported by Turkey, unfolded in three strategic phases during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

In the initial phase, the focus was on dismantling key warfighting networks, with the primary effort directed towards Armenian air defence and missile systems. Azerbaijan employed a combination of low orbit satellites, UAVs, kamikaze drones, and Turkish firepower, creating a dynamic and swift operation. By October 3rd, Armenians faced substantial losses in tanks, artillery, and weapons.

Phase two involved a deep battle strategy with new robotic concepts, aiming to locate, fix, track, and destroy targets within the objective area. Azerbaijani forces targeted air defence systems, command and control structures, artillery units, and ground vehicles. Employing a swarming principle, this phase exploited advanced drone warfare, crippling Armenian defences. As the electronic warfare systems and artillery were neutralized, traditional land units faced vulnerability against drone attacks. Azerbaijani forces strategically cut off logistics, weakening Armenian defences in preparation for the final phase.

The third and decisive phase aimed at capturing the city of Shusha, a key element in the conflict. Shusha’s mountainous terrain made it a formidable fortress, but Azerbaijani specialized forces executed a surprise attack. Approximately 400 personnel crossed the Susha Lachin Road in three groups, strategically positioning themselves on the opposite side of Shusha. The successful capture of Shusha marked a pivotal moment in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, underscoring Azerbaijan’s adept use of strategic planning, technological advancements, and surprise tactics to secure victory.

During the third phase, Azerbaijan’s Special Forces pulled off a smart by surprising Shusha defenders. Over five days, navigating dense forests and ravines, cleverly divided into three smaller groups (consisting of approx. 100 personnel) to advance towards their target. The AZ Special Forces entered Shusha, successfully destroying artillery and armoured vehicles defended by approximately 2000 Armenian soldiers. Despite Shusha’s strong defences, the city was freed on November 8th using light vehicles with basic weapons. This unexpected strategy worked well, showing how clever tactics by Azerbaijan’s Special Forces secured Shusha’s liberation.

Conclusion: The Battlefield Is Transparent

In the aftermath of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, we can observe the crucial role of a full spectrum of defence. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan faced limitations in their short-range defence capabilities, with Azerbaijan utilising its large fleet of advanced drones effectively. The conflict underscores the importance of passive defence strategies, urging armed forces to explore new ways of camouflaging and masking units, equipment, and actions.

In an era of high-capability sensors and shooters, land forces must prioritize dispersion and deception tactics to limit their electronic, thermal and other signatures. The focus is not on becoming invisible but on staying in the shadow.

The conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh also emphasizes that individual weapon systems alone will not change the nature of war. The synchronization of new weapons enhances the precision of modern warfare, as seen in Azerbaijan’s successful combination of drones and artillery targeting high-value military assets.

Strategic planning is vital, encompassing an understanding of the situation, development of a strategy with clear ends, ways, and means, and immediate consideration of logistics. The mountainous terrain poses specific challenges, requiring thorough logistical planning and protection, as logistics often become a focal point for both friendly and enemy forces. Adaptation is key in the face of changing circumstances, recognizing that initial plans may be disrupted, and the ability to adjust to new challenges becomes crucial for success in modern warfare.

Key takeaways

The recent Nagorno-Karabakh conflict offers valuable insights into the evolving nature of warfare, emphasizing four critical lessons:

1. The concept of the battlefield has expanded to a more comprehensive battle space, incorporating land, air, cyber, and space domains.

• Successful military strategies involve dominating as many domains as possible, requiring the orchestration of diverse activities in a multi-domain environment.

• The importance of masking, an advanced concept beyond traditional camouflage will b of the utmost importance. Masking involves making it challenging for the enemy to detect and target, utilizing a full spectrum of active and passive means to disrupt sensors and targeting systems. The focus is not on invisibility but on reducing the probability of detection and confusing enemy targeting systems.

• The conflict highlights the role of advanced technologies, including UAVs, satellites, missiles, and loitering ammunition systems. However, the technology alone cannot win wars. A successful approach requires a combination of concept, doctrine, and skilled individuals who can adapt to new technologies.

Also, there exist potential dangers posed by fully autonomous weapon systems, highlighting the need for ethical considerations. The decision cycle, ranging from semi-autonomous to fully autonomous systems, introduces complexities in determining responsibility and the potential misuse of such technologies. The broader implications emphasize the importance of ethical guidelines and international agreements in governing the development and deployment of autonomous weaponry.

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has grabbed global attention. In following articles, we explore two key aspects: Ukraine’s air defense response and adaptability, and what NATO has learned.

As tensions rise, Ukraine’s focus on improving its defense capabilities is crucial. NATO’s responses also offer important lessons about dealing with today’s security threats.

Join us as we look into the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, studying Ukraine’s air defense progress and taking notes from NATO’s experiences in facing modern security challenges.

In the face of an unexpected and intense Russian invasion, Ukraine has demonstrated remarkable resilience. The ongoing conflict, marked by Russian air assaults on key targets, has prompted a analysis of the defence strategies employed by Ukraine. In this article, we will elaborate on Ukraine’s response to the invasion, the challenges faced and the innovative approaches adopted.

During the initial moments of the invasion, the Russian air attacks on Vaslikov airfield, Boryspil International airport and critical infrastructure were conducted. The invasion, contrary to initial beliefs, caught many off-guard, leading to a critical evaluation of the preparedness of the Ukrainian forces. Strategic miscalculations were acknowledged, with some officers underestimating the seriousness of the situation. However, key commanders prevented a complete defeat fully utilising manoeuvrability. The ability to reposition troops proved pivotal, disrupting the enemy’s strategy planning to destroy stationary assets.

Ukraine Air Defence

Ukraine’s strength in air defence comes from its ability to adapt. By frequently changing the positions of their air defence systems, Ukraine avoided being an easy target for Russian attacks. This approach helped keep its air defence almost intact.

Another smart move was spreading out air defence elements. Not all parts of the air defence systems were in one place. Some were actively working, while others were on the move. This strategy made it hard for Russia to find and attack the whole air defence system at once, ensuring it stayed strong during the early conflict days.

Russian miscalculations and shift in tactics

At the beginning of the conflict, Russia made critical mistakes. Seemingly, they thought they could win quickly, assuming Ukraine would easily give up. Some Ukrainian experts think Russia wasn’t ready for a longer fight and didn’t understand how strong Ukraine resistance could be. After the first three days, Russia realized things weren’t going as planned. Ukraine didn’t surrender easily. Ukrainian fighter and attack pilots played a big role in stopping Russian advances. This realization marked a shift in how Russia saw the situation.

In a turn of events, Russia’s initial miscalculations in their military operations against Ukraine have led to a strategic shift. With the realization that their attempts to capture capital city Kiev were unsuccessful, Russia altered its plan, focusing on the eastern territories of Ukraine. One of the major challenges for Ukraine was the use of Belarusian territory by Russia to launch strikes. This significantly expanded the scope of the conflict, making defence efforts more complex and challenging for Ukrainian forces.

Ukrainian adaptation and challenges

We could observe impressive evolution of Ukraine’s defense capabilities over the course of the conflict. Initially, the absence of an effective air defense systems left Ukraine vulnerable to Russian airstrikes. However, with time, the efficiency of Ukrainian aviation and defence systems has significantly improved, reaching an impressive 76% effectiveness. Collaboration with American partners has played a crucial role in enhancing the capabilities to counter ballistic missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

However, the devastating impact of cruise missiles on civilian infrastructure and the toll on human lives has not been fully eliminated. The struggle to detect low-flying UAVs poses an ongoing challenge for Ukrainian defence forces, underscoring the need for continuous adaptation, innovation, and the importance of international collaborations and technological advancements in addressing the evolving threats

The heart of Ukraine’s defence strategy lies in countering ballistic targets, cruise missiles, and UAVs. Mobile defence groups equipped with mounted machine guns are a key element, demonstrating efficiency in intercepting low-flying threats, particularly the Shaheed UAVs. The evolving challenges are modifications to these UAVs, with enhanced camouflage and an extended range, requiring constant adaptation from the Ukrainian defence forces.

The defence against cruise missiles is equally challenging, with Ukrainian jet fighter pilots struggling with the complexities of detection and interception. Russia’s electronic warfare systems pose challenges, making it difficult for pilots to outmanoeuvre the missiles successfully.

However, Ukrainian engineers have showcased their innovation with an acoustic protection system, a sound-based identification system spread across the entire territory. This technological advancement has proven effective in detecting targets, providing critical information to enhance the overall air defence network. Additionally, visual observation by soldiers and the contributions of radio-technical troops play a crucial role in gathering intelligence and responding effectively.

Mobile air defence groups, armed with machine guns and man-portable air-defence systems (manpads), emerge as cost-effective and efficient tools against dangerous targets. The importance of warning systems, international cooperation, and military support from Western countries is underscored as pivotal elements in Ukraine’s ability to navigate and counter the ongoing threats posed by Russia.Electronic warfare is acknowledged as a challenge posed by Russia, but Ukrainian forces aim to bypass it when possible. The use of false objects proves efficient in confusing Russian detection systems, contributing to the overall strategy of countering electronic warfare.

Air assets capabilities comparison

When comparing the air forces of Ukraine and Russia at the onset of the war, it’s evident that Russia possesses more aircraft. However, the effectiveness of these aircraft relies on how they are utilized.

Ukrainian pilots, despite lacking combat experience beyond training exercises, have successfully employed strategic tactics against their Russian counterparts. Russian pilots, with combat experience in Syria, undeniably have numerical superiority, but Ukrainian pilots have been able to engage them effectively. Ukrainian pilots have adapted their tactics based on exploiting the knowledge of their terrain and employing ambush strategies. In specific instances, one Ukrainian pilot managed to engage and outmanoeuvre four or five Russian pilots. The conflict also highlights the importance of Western weapon systems, such as AGM-88 HARM, Storm Shadows, and GBUs. These systems have proven effective against Russian air defence and electronic warfare (EW) systems.

Initially, Ukrainian pilots targeted Russian troops directly, flying over Russia to drop bombs and launch missiles. However, after facing losses from Russia’s PANZIR air defense system, Ukraine adapted its strategy to launch missiles from a distance to protect pilots’ lives. Ukrainian aviation resources are strategically allocated based on operational tasks, with the first stage prioritized due to the lack of a strong Russian air defense system.

Drones emerge as a powerful weapon, but the challenge lies in balancing cost and efficiency. Ukraine’s UAV specialists focus on hitting specific targets, prioritizing especially tanks and EW units. Highly important is the adaptability of Ukrainian forces, learning from other countries’ experiences with drones.

Manned and unmanned aviation combined: Snake Island case study

The operation to protect Snake Islands is showcase of the collaboration between manned and unmanned aviation to maximize effectiveness and minimize pilot risk.

On June 17 2022, Ukraine targeted the Russian tug Spasatel Vasily Bekh with two Harpoon missiles, preventing it from delivering crucial supplies to an island. Russia claimed 10 crew members were missing and 23 injured. Subsequent Ukrainian strikes on gas platforms near the island included attacks on military vehicles, anti-aircraft, and radar systems, likely Pantsir-S1. On June 27, Ukrainian forces conducted precision strikes, reportedly destroying a second Pantsir-S1. Russian officials denied the system’s destruction and countered with claims of Pantsir intercepting rockets. Ongoing attacks and disruption of resupply made Russia’s position unsustainable. Ukrainian officials reported Russian Air Force attacks on rocket positions, with no reported casualties. The situation suggested an ongoing effort by Ukraine to reclaim the island.

Ukraine’s usage of the TB2 drones to attack Snake Island has highlighted the increased importance of drone warfare and the reputation of TB2’s service record. The initial success using the TB2s stunned some observers. However, the scenario at Snake Island offered the perfect environment for such a system. The drone enjoyed a lack of redundant medium to long-range air defence systems since all the air defence systems deployed on the island were short-range systems (SHORADS), while the Russian forces were also unable to establish Combat Air Patrols (CAP) by fighter jets over the island. As such, after the sinking of the Moskva missile cruiser and the withdrawal of the Black Sea Fleet, the island was effectively cut out of the Russian air defence bubble. Secondary elements in the initial success included the TB2 being a modular design allowing it to be assembled and disassembled quickly in areas where larger aircraft or UAVs can’t operate. This would make it easier for the drones to avoid destruction when Russian forces strike Ukrainian air bases.

Conclusion

Faced with a sudden and intense Russian invasion, Ukraine has shown strength, adapting to challenges with smart tactics. The initial air attacks on key infrastructure led to a rethink of how ready Ukraine was, but smart moves by commanders prevented a total defeat.

Ukraine’s way of defending against air threats, by frequently changing positions and spreading out, kept them up and running. However, even with improvements and help from western partners, Ukraine still faces challenges like dealing with cruise missiles and spotting low-flying drones.

As for the drones, as seen on Snake Island, it is shown how well manned and unmanned aviation can work together. Ukraine’s ability to change and learn is crucial in modern warfare, showing why innovation and help from other countries are so important against unexpected challenges from Russia.

Key Takeaways:

• Adaptive Air Defence Strategies: Ukraine has displayed resilience and adaptability in its air defence strategies, focusing on frequent repositioning of air defence systems and spreading them out to avoid being an easy target for Russian attacks.
• Ukrainian Defence Evolution: Despite initial vulnerabilities, Ukraine’s defines capabilities have evolved impressively during the conflict. The efficiency of Ukrainian aviation and defence systems has improved, with collaboration with Western partners playing a crucial role in countering Russian air threats.
• Challenges and Continuous Adaptation: Ukraine faces ongoing challenges in countering cruise missiles, UAVs, and electronic warfare from Russia. Continuous adaptation, innovation, and international collaborations are emphasized as essential elements in addressing these evolving threats.
• Efficiency of Mobile Defense Groups: equipped with mounted machine guns and MANPADs, these groups have proven cost-effective and efficient in intercepting low-flying threats. Warning systems, international cooperation, and military support from Western countries are highlighted as pivotal elements.
• Drone Warfare and Collaboration: Ukraine’s use of drones, especially in the Snake Island case study, highlights the increasing importance of drone warfare. The collaboration between manned and unmanned aviation is crucial for maximizing effectiveness and minimizing pilot risk.
• Innovation and Learning in Modern Warfare: Ukraine’s ability to change and learn from experiences, combined with innovation, is crucial in modern warfare. The importance of international support and collaboration in facing unexpected challenges from Russia is evident.

“The machine gun of 1914 has evolved into the drone of today — making 2022’s battlefield remarkably transparent.”

Introduction

In the ever-changing landscape of global security, nations continually adapt to emerging challenges and threats. In this part, we will discuss a possible comprehensive strategy, focusing on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine as a primary source of lessons identified and learned. The aim is not only enhancing operational capabilities but also establish a proactive approach to potential conflicts through efficient processes and innovation.

The possible objectives of such approach are twofold: first, to gain valuable lessons for the development of combat-ready forces specifically geared towards confronting possible key opponents in the Euro-Atlantic region, and second, to establish a robust framework in peacetime that ensures swift adaptability and innovation in the event of conflict. The ultimate goal is to be well-prepared and proactive, preventing any lapse in deterrence.

Efficiency and Speed

In the process of learning, emphasis is on efficiency, however the risk lays in the delicate balance of becoming faster in analysing and implementing lessons learned without expanding resources. Amidst the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, we may see a unique opportunity to study the effectiveness of equipment and training in real-time.

To keep such process running, we might rely on three primary sources of information: lessons identified from evaluations (i.e. conducted by an Intelligence division of the army), insights from training activities with Ukrainian soldiers, and exchange with allied departments. This comprehensive approach ensures a well-rounded understanding of both sides of the conflict and contributes to a holistic learning process.

LL/LI Process – and its challenges

However, there are challenges in processing the wealth of information we receive. Following a NATO-standard lessons identified-lessons learned process, observations are developed into structured descriptions with conclusions. The key challenge lies in handling the sheer volume of data and transforming it into actionable lessons that can contribute to capability development.

Contributing to Capability Development

The potential approach may be solved by two main pillars of capability development. The first involves sharing of the collected information (i. e. in form of publication of ‘Learning from Operation”). The second, a less visible but broader aspect, involves a comprehensive database that feeds lessons learned process, allowing for continuous improvement.

German Army – Lessons identified

In the wake of the conflict in Ukraine, the German Army has undergone a thorough examination of its tactical approaches, particularly at the operational and tactical level. Key observations have led to crucial insights, influencing decisions across various domains.

One major focus has been on the role of drones, which now serve dual purposes as sensors and reconnaissance tools for situational awareness, target acquisition, and effective target engagement. The transparency of the modern battlefield is simply undeniable, prompting strategic adaptations in mobility, protection, reduction of electronic signatures, and camouflage measures.

The importance of air defence, particularly in low-level airspace, has become apparent. Electronic warfare (EW) has played a significant role in disrupting communication connections and destroying command posts, showing its importance in the contemporary battlefield. An important aspect has been the transparency achieved in identifying command posts remotely while combining capabilities of UAS and EW devices. The integration of EW capabilities has played a vital role in countering the constant threat posed by UAS.

Logistics has also come under scrutiny, with significant emphasis on flexibility, performance, and adapting logistics to diverse threats.

Human factors, including independent mission command and effective communication under the guidance of higher command, have been identified as crucial elements for success based on experiences in Ukraine.

The assessment of armour losses has highlighted vulnerabilities, not only due to drone attacks but also because of operational mistakes, poor maintenance, and design failures. The need for a comprehensive approach that combines force operations, infantry support, and effective use of available capabilities has been identified.

Concerning the current gaps in air defence, the potential benefits of integrating man-portable air-defence systems (MANPADS) into the German land force has been identified. These systems are seen as highly effective against aircrafts, helicopters, and UAS, providing cost-effective and efficient protection.

The use of artillery by Russian forces is a significant factor, with extensive artillery fire preceding offensive activities. The differences in ammunition consumption between Russia and Ukraine have prompted to introduce protective measures for their stocks (especially against UAS), as well as importance of reducing the electromagnetic signature of their artillery units.

Key takeaways:

• Adaptation to Global Security: Nations must adapt to evolving security challenges, using the Ukraine conflict for valuable insights.
• Comprehensive Strategy Objectives: Develop combat-ready forces. Establish a robust peacetime framework for adaptability. Ensure proactive deterrence.
• Efficient Learning: Emphasize efficiency in analysing real-time lessons. Balancing speed without overextending resources is crucial.
• Information Sources: Lessons from evaluations, training with Ukrainian soldiers, and allied exchanges provide a well-rounded perspective.
• Capability Development: Share information through publications and maintain a comprehensive database.
• Tactical Adaptations: Focus on drones, air defence, electronic warfare, logistics, human factors, and artillery considerations.
• Drones in Focus: Dual use as sensors and reconnaissance tools. Adaptations in mobility, protection, and camouflage due to battlefield transparency.
• Air Defence and Electronic Warfare: Importance in low-level airspace defence. Electronic warfare disrupts communications and targets command posts.
• Logistics and Human Factors: Logistics flexibility and human factors like independent mission command are crucial.
• Armour Vulnerabilities: Identified vulnerabilities require a comprehensive approach.
• Air Defence Gaps and MANPADS Integration: Consideration of MANPADS integration to address air defence gaps.
• Artillery Considerations: Russian extensive artillery use prompts protective measures and reducing electromagnetic signatures.

Due to recent and contemporary conflicts, the focus turned to the fast-evolving dynamics of modern warfare, with accent on precision-guided munitions, detection of high-value targets (HVTs), and the integration of advanced technologies – all that define the contemporary battlefield. As an example, we may use a historical nod to the “state of the art” SR-71 Blackbird jet plane, which was unknown for over ten years of its active service during the Cold-war era. The challenge is addressing the complexities of “unknown unknowns” in today’s military landscape.

The relevance of mountain warfare in 2023 is propelled by recent engagements along the Serbia-Kosovo border and in Nagorno-Karabakh. These terrains, offering strategic advantages, have become focal points of conflict, as exemplified by Russia’s utilization of mountain warfare to apply pressure and divert NATO forces.

The indispensable role of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), Electronic Warfare (EW), and air defence in mountain warfare persists. These systems present both challenges and opportunities for military planners. What we have to address is high-value target (HVT) and high-payoff target (HPT) hunting, raid unit tactics, precision strike teams, long-range reconnaissance, and aerial observation in mountain warfare. Real-world experience from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine illustrate the adaptive strategies adopted by both Russian and Ukrainian forces, employing small units and UAVs for effective HVT and HPT hunting.

Modern Fighter Jets

In the dynamic world of military aviation, the role of modern fighter jets is way beyond conventional expectations. No longer just bomb carriers, these aircraft now operate within a complex network, utilising instant communication between every fighter and network participant. This network-centric principle ensures that critical information is rapidly shared among all planes, creating an extensive and efficient flow of data.

However, this transformation goes beyond connectivity. It envisions linking these fighters with effectors, forming a complex data cloud system. In this integrated cloud, sensors relay real-time data, and effectors assess their operational reach and engagement capabilities. Artificial Intelligence (AI) takes the lead, swiftly determining the optimal effector for engaging specific targets. These decisions are made in seconds, a radical departure from traditional timelines measured in minutes. Importantly, this evolution is more robust against Electronic Warfare (EW) vulnerabilities. Utilizing communication means with minimal data bursts enhances the system’s resilience against EW interference, ensuring secure information transfer.

AI utilisation

In a recent the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have used the power of artificial intelligence (AI) to revolutionize their targeting and damage estimation processes. Implemented in 2021, this technological advancement has swiftly elevated their operational capabilities, enabling the prosecution of an impressive 50 targets daily— a significant leap from the previous 100 targets per year. This real-time integration of AI marks a shift in military strategy, demonstrating unparalleled efficiency. The IDF’s adoption of AI not only accelerates their operational tempo but also exemplifies the transformative impact of AI on modern military practices.

The rapid implementation of AI by the IDF reflects a broader trend in military technology, indicating a potential power shift in the global security within the next five to ten years. Nations incorporating advanced AI technologies will likely shape the future of warfare, leaving those slow to adapt at a strategic disadvantage.

Tactical Considerations in Mountain Warfare: Challenges in Joint Fires

In the mountain environment, with its unforgiving terrain unforgiving and weather conditions unpredictable, joint fires face unique challenges that demand cautious planning and execution. Four main critical factors—weather, terrain, target acquisition, and secondary weapon effects—play important roles in the effectiveness of joint fires in such environments.

• Weather:

In mountainous regions, weather emerges as the crucial factor influencing joint fires. Rapid weather changes, poor visibility, and fluctuating conditions within short time frames demand careful considerations. Effective planning, adequate use of technology, and utilization of favourable weather windows is necessary for maintaining precision in targeting despite weather challenges.

• Terrain:

The rugged and complex mountain terrain presents many challenges for joint fires. Target positioning, guiding pilots, determining flight paths, and ensuring weapon travel paths all become challenging tasks. Communicating precise instructions in such environments proves reliance on GPS-guided munitions to maintain accuracy and effectiveness.

• Target Acquisition:

The success of joint fires relies on accurate target acquisition, a task complicated by the mountainous topography. Coordinating with reconnaissance units equipped with GPS-capable recognition systems becomes crucial. Depending on the conflict’s rules of engagement, precision in target coordinates may vary, and the need for advanced equipment and well-trained personnel is clearly there.

• Secondary Weapon Effects:

Engaging in mountain warfare introduces the risk of secondary weapon effects, including rock slides and avalanches. The lack of scientific database on these effects results into a cautious approach. Planning must involve collaboration with experienced mountain guides, weather expertise, and a thorough assessment of terrain factors, avalanche risks, and potential impacts on both friendly and enemy forces.

The effectiveness of join fires is also heavily affected by factors such as ammunition fuse setting, and shielding effect:

Fuse Setting: Air-to-ground fuses, set at a specific altitude above ground level, aim to ensure the effectiveness of the ordnance. However, the impact angle and deep snow conditions in winter introduce uncertainties, making airburst use and fuse setting critical considerations for mission success.

Shielding, a “double-edged sword in mountain warfare”, can be both employed or exploited. Utilizing natural rock shielding fragments and channelizing blast patterns can enhance safety for friendly forces. However, the tactical use of shielding also demands careful planning to avoid inadvertently providing the enemy with protective cover behind rock formations. It is estimated that in the mountain warfare, ammunition consumption is potentially exceeded four times that of conventional terrains.

Tactical Mobility in Mountain Warfare

In mountain warfare, tactical mobility stands as a crucial factor, influencing both manoeuvre and logistical operations.

Helicopter operations offer an alternative, given threat levels and technical considerations. While helicopters enable swift supply drops and initial insertions, the presence of man-portable air-defence systems (MANPADS) and heavy machine guns in the region may limit their feasibility. Physical resilience remains crucial, demanding personnel robust enough to move through mountainous terrains independently.

Parachute insertion is a daring option for securing key terrain, despite the risks of navigating challenging landscapes and high injury hazards when landing. However, the precision required in landing zones (combined with unpredictable mountain weather) make this method a complex issue. Flexibility becomes paramount, with need for backup plans and emphasizing high weather-dependency.

Physical resilience is a fundamental requirement, regardless of the mode of entry. Whether parajumping or deploying by helicopter, soldiers must be prepared to navigate the terrain on foot, considering the uncertainty of weather conditions. The emphasis on lightweight equipment becomes a necessity, with the soldiers’ training compensating for the reduced gear. In the mountain environment, adaptability and proficiency in manoeuvring with minimal resources is a key for military effectiveness.

Air support and its challenges in Mountain Warfare

In mountain warfare, the impact of elevated terrains on airspace is tremendous. The typical allocation of airspace, extending from ground to flight level 200 (approx. 6100 meters above the sea level), becomes complicated in mountainous regions. When your ground level is already high, like in the Alps, the remaining airspace becomes significantly lower compared with low grounds, which is essential for operations involving artillery and aircraft.

Likely the most important factor concerning Air support in mountainous environment is weather and terrain features impact on communication between ground and air assets. Both terrain and weather conditions play a crucial role, affecting communication equipment and introducing challenges such as line-of-sight issues. Additionally, enemy electronic warfare (EW) systems are likely to further complicate communication.

• Satellite Communication (SATCOM):

SATCOM, a vital communication tool, requires careful planning. The mountainous landscape impacts the angle needed for proper communication with satellites. Elevation and positioning become critical factors, influencing communication effectiveness. Additional considerations are cryptographic keys and specific equipment requirements.

• High-Frequency (HF) Radios:

HF radios (often underestimated) offer advantages in mountainous terrains due to their resistance to detection and jamming. They provide reliable long-distance communication. While not as mobile as other communication tools, HF radios are effective for stationary data communication and coordination.

• Relays for Improved Communication:

Recognizing the challenge of simultaneous communication in harsh weather, establishing relay stations on elevated terrains is a cost-effective solution. These relay stations enable communication between elements positioned on key terrain, mitigating limitations imposed by rain and weather.

• UAVs as “Flying Relays”:

UAVs prove to be versatile assets not only for reconnaissance, but serving as flying relays in mountain warfare. A stockpile of UAVs capable of relaying communication ensures continuous connectivity, even if some are compromised or destroyed.

• Digital Aided Close Air Support (DACAS):

DACAS emerges as a game-changing platform, streamlining communication in mountainous regions. This technology allows for rapid target designation, providing real-time situational awareness. Short transmission bursts significantly reduce communication time, offering a marked improvement over traditional close air support procedures. Combined with fifth-generation fighters (with extended standoff ranges) is likely to enhance the effectiveness of military operations in challenging terrains.

Joint Fires Planning considerations in mountain warfare

Effective planning is paramount in mountain warfare, where factors like terrain, electronic warfare (EW), and harsh weather conditions heavily impact communication systems. A well-executed plan anticipates these challenges and mitigates risks, ensuring the continuity of operations even if command posts are compromised. Neglecting these factors can lead to severe operational difficulties. The planning process should identify specific communication needs for each task, considering all available means such as UHF, SATCOM, and HF

Other considerations for JF planning might involve:

• The Joint Fires Playbook is a tactical matrix allocating effectors, sensors, and task timings for joint fires teams. It streamlines communication by providing clear directive to teams operating in specific areas and phases. This minimizes the need for continuous communication with command posts, allowing for swift execution based on the predetermined plan.
• To minimize reliance on communication systems, execution checklists and transmission windows should be established. Detailed fire support matrix ensure that communication is only necessary in unforeseen circumstances. This approach enhances operational efficiency and reduces the risk of exposure due to communication activities.
• While communication has been the primary focus, sustaining signals and logistics are also crucial. In mountain warfare, self-sufficiency is key, requiring specialists to be self-sustained for at least 48-72 hours. Challenges, such as varied battery requirements, emphasize the need for innovative solutions, like rechargeable solar panels.
• Helicopter and aerial resupply are vital but come with challenges. Aerial resupply needs careful planning to avoid jeopardizing troops. Additionally, logistical planning must consider the offset of resupply to ensure that supplies reach their intended destinations, especially in frontline positions. This involves thoughtful consideration of who will transport the supplies and when.
• Self-Sustaining Forces in mountain environment is crucial. Specialized equipment and diverse battery needs underscore the importance of planning for prolonged periods without resupply. Water supply, in particular, presents a significant challenge that demands innovative solutions for long-term sustainability.
• Planning should extend beyond immediate needs, considering potential logistic challenges. Bringing supplies as close as possible to the landing zone minimizes the burden of carrying them over long distances. This forward-thinking approach ensures that logistical planning aligns with operational needs throughout the mission.
• The utilization of mules or donkeys is a practical solution for transporting heavy supplies. These animals are resilient to adverse weather conditions and navigate challenging terrains effectively. Their ability to carry substantial loads makes them valuable assets in ensuring that essential equipment, especially heavy ammunition, reaches frontline forces.

Key takeaways

• Bad communications are the standard and not the exemption in mountain environment;
• terrain assessment and weather considerations are imminent for mission planning;
• all means of communication have to be included in the planning process according to tasking, including contingency planning;
• in order to minimize comms, execution check lists, transmission windows and a detailed fire support matrix has to be planned and used.

Recent geopolitical events shed light on the challenges and strategic considerations facing NATO armed forces. Key points are defence spending, geostrategic positioning, and the evolving global context:

• Defence Spending and NATO Benchmark

Concerns over the NATO counties defence spending falling below the NATO benchmark of 2%. There is a call for increased investment to meet collective defence standards, emphasizing the importance of aligning with NATO commitments.

• Geostrategic Position and Alliance Dynamics

As part of NATO, nations enjoy a secure geostrategic position, coordinating efforts with Joint Force Command Naples. The alliances with neighbouring countries contribute to integrated air and missile defence coverage, fostering a sense of security. However, since not many countries are a frontline state, we all should acknowledge the need for vigilance and preparedness.

• Ukraine Conflict and Strategic Realignment:

The recent conflict in Ukraine prompts a strategic realignment, challenging initial scepticism about potential aggression. We have to learn from historical events and past wartime experiences to form future strategies.

• Future Military Strategy:

Future military strategies are likely to be influenced by cultural alignments, values, and purpose within the NATO armed forces. The focus is and will be on preparing the population and military for the evolving nature of warfare. Aspects such as cognitive resilience, multi-domain operations, digital transformation, and innovation will be critical components in adapting to the rapidly changing global landscape.

As we are preparing for an uncertain future, the necessity of clear strategic objectives, training for NATO interoperability, and advancements in cognitive warfare and digital transformation is clearer than any before.

• Multi-Domain Challenge:

Likely the fundamental question is how to approach multi-domain operations. Should our strategy be tactical, operational, or should we dive deep into the strategic level of multi-domain integration? And – as one of the most important questions – is, how should such integration be conducted.

• Command and Control Challenges:

The need for a seamless integrated structure is a recurring theme. Given the past event and challenges, we are shifting our approach, opting not to build integrated structures but to work in an integrated way. This shift highlights the ongoing struggle to find the most effective command and control mechanisms for navigating the moving sands of modern conflicts.

• Innovation and Cognitive Shift:

Our educational systems are undergoing a transformation to encourage innovative thinking. Students are now compelled to think beyond traditional frameworks. For example, students in Slovenia were tasked with producing defence strategy on a single page, a testament to the push for concise and adaptable strategic thinking in the face of evolving challenges.

• Adapting to Modern Technologies:

Modern (and in many cases disruptive) technologies, especially artificial intelligence, emerge as critical considerations. It’s not just about targeting applications; it’s about understanding how these technologies will reshape our world in the coming years. The challenge lies in comprehending and preparing for the profound changes that disruptive innovations bring to the modern warfare.

• Wargaming as an Educational Tool:

Wargaming could be considered as a pivotal aspect of strategic development. By modelling potential scenarios based on real cases, the military aims to educate civilians, leadership, and officers alike. The emphasis on using war games as a tool to shape mindsets represents a holistic approach to strategic thinking, ensuring a dynamic and responsive military mindset.

Key takeaways:

Wargaming, digital transformation, innovation mindset, disruption, doctrinal alignment, and strategic resilience emerge as the pillars of evolving strategy. The continuous flow of strategic thinkers becomes crucial, emphasizing the importance of adaptability to avoid stagnation in the ever-changing nature of modern warfare.

In the ever-shifting global security, the evolution of military technologies stands as our key weapon in gaining decisive superiority over potential adversaries. This discourse stems from strategic implementation of Emerging and Disruptive Technologies (EDTs) in defence. From artificial intelligence (AI) to autonomous systems, big data, quantum technologies, and hypersonic weapon systems, these discussions underscore the interconnected nature of these advancements and their collective impact on the future battlefield.

The trajectory of the future battlefield is shaped by the rapid advancements in emerging and disruptive military technologies. Our strategic approach, from AI-driven cyberspace operations to the revolutionary potential of autonomous systems and quantum technologies, should underscore our commitment to deploying cutting-edge capabilities for strategic dominance. The interconnected nature of defence technology development requires a comprehensive and collaborative approach to protect our security in the modern era.

In a framework of future developments, following considerations should be taken into account:

• AI: The Frontline in Cyberspace and Tactical Operations:

The incorporation of AI in cyberspace operations emerges as a linchpin for real-time analysis of network traffic, enabling swift identification and counteraction of potential cyber threats. Beyond the digital domain, AI’s potential extends to training and simulation, promising cost-effective and efficient augmentation of the skills and knowledge of our military personnel.

• Transforming C4ISR: The Tactical Superiority in Electronic Warfare:

Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems are currently undergoing a profound transformation through AI, aiming at delivering secure and timely information to soldiers and commanders. AI’s integration in electronic warfare becomes pivotal, offering rapid analysis of the electromagnetic environment, efficient management of military radio frequencies, and effective countermeasures against electromagnetic attacks.

• Autonomous Systems: Revolution in Tactical Deployments:

The integration of autonomous systems indicates a shift in standard defence technologies. These systems, covering decision-making, tools and physical effectors, are likely to have significant impact on military operations, from reconnaissance to logistics, security, and survivability. Uninterrupted acquisition of information and planned deliveries in challenging conditions will bring a new era into military capabilities.

• Big Data: The Arsenal for Information Warfare:

Big data emerges as a profound element in gaining an information advantage over adversaries. The synergy between big data analytics and AI facilitates efficient analysis, pattern discovery, and extraction of actionable proposals from extensive and diverse datasets, empowering informed decision-making in the theatre.

• Quantum Technologies: New Tactical Potential:

The exploration of quantum technologies, particularly quantum computing, promises a leap in computing capabilities. Applications in advanced simulations and secure communications resistant to external interference open new fronts in defence technology, reshaping our strategic communication and intelligence operations.

• Hypersonic Weapons: Detecting and Neutralizing the Stealth Threat:

While being aware of the threats of stealth hypersonic weapon systems, the aim is to create tools capable of detecting and neutralizing these threats, ensuring our preparedness for the unpredictable challenges of the future battlefield.

• International Collaboration: A Force Multiplier in Strategic Preparedness:

Recognizing the interconnected nature of technological advancements, collaboration on the international stage becomes crucial. Collaboration with allied forces is essential to ensure seamless interoperability and shared security.

Key takeaways:

• Military Technologies and Future Battlefield: Evolution of military technologies is pivotal for gaining superiority. Strategic use of Emerging and Disruptive Technologies (EDTs) is emphasized.
• Strategic Approach: Rapid advancements shape the future battlefield trajectory. Focus on AI-driven cyberspace operations, autonomous systems, and quantum technologies for strategic dominance.

Considerations for Future Developments:

• AI in Cyberspace: Key for real-time cyber threat analysis and personnel augmentation.
• Transforming C4ISR: AI transforms C4ISR for tactical superiority in electronic warfare.
• Autonomous Systems: Revolutionize defence technologies for various operations.
• Big Data: Crucial for gaining an information advantage over adversaries.
• Quantum Technologies: Quantum computing reshapes strategic communication and intelligence operations.
• Hypersonic Weapons: Focus on detection and neutralization of stealth threats.
• International Collaboration: Emphasized collaboration for seamless interoperability and shared security.

Can technology alone overcome the brutal force of high numbers in modern warfare? The answer, it seems, lies in a delicate balance between technological ability, integral flexibility and creativity of the human mind.

So, what are the likely crucial elements that will shape the future battlefield and, subsequently, the strategies required to navigate it successfully. Let’s explore some key considerations that emerged:

• Command and Control (C2) Chain Evolution:

The foundation of effective military operations lies in the evolution of the C2 chain. While numbers still hold a degree of significance, the emphasis is shifting towards technology to counterbalance numerical disadvantages. The challenge lies in maintaining transparency within this chain.

• Masking and Transparency Dilemma:

The age-old contrast between masking and transparency remains a strategic puzzle. Traditional command posts with massive tents and generators will not align with the need for electronic signature concealment. The call for creativity is evident, urging military leaders to rethink established tactics and deception plans.

• Innovation Importance:

The historical perspective on innovation is essential. Machine guns, submarines, and tanks transformed warfare in their respective eras. The question now is: What will happen with tanks in the age of drones? The persistent pursuit of innovation is crucial to staying ahead in this technological arms race.

• Tanks vs. Drones: Transparency vs. Protection:

Massive introduction of drones challenges the effectiveness of traditional armoured platforms. Should we prioritize transparency, or protection? With drones rendering tanks vulnerable, the need for strategic decisions on the role and design of armoured platforms becomes apparent.

• Shift to Small Teams and Artificial Intelligence (AI):

The evolving battlefield conditions, particularly evident in Ukraine, suggest a shift towards small, dispersed units coordinated by AI. Will the future demand a numerous small, agile teams led by a superior entity utilizing artificial intelligence, or is there still a need for large, yet more vulnerable formations?

• The Paradox of Artificial Intelligence:

The role of artificial intelligence appears huge, yet questions persist about its true potential. While progress is evident, scepticism remains. Can AI evolve beyond a movie plot and truly become a superior force in military operations?

• Human Inventiveness and Technical Skill:

Amid technological advancements, human flexibility and ingenuity remain indispensable. Technical skill is questioned as a fundamental requirement for modern soldiers, prompting a re-evaluation of recruitment criteria.

• Collaboration as the Cornerstone:

The ultimate conclusion drawn from this exploration is the paramount importance of collaboration. In an era of rapid technological change, success centres on collective efforts and information sharing. Collaboration, both within military structures and through partnerships with private companies, becomes the key player of strategic success.

As we stand on the precipice of an uncertain future, the fusion of cutting-edge technology with human adaptability emerges as the winning formula. It is not solely about numbers, transparency, or protection; rather, it’s the strategic merging of these elements that will define success on the modern battlefield. In this dynamic world, collaboration remains our greatest asset — a force multiplier that propels us toward our shared goals.