Introduction
The cause-and-effect relationship serves as the foundation of the world. The law from physics that can be simply interpreted as any action will have a response can be seen in every field of human society, including warfare. In particular, this is evident from the “dance” of air threats and anti-air defenses in warfare. As the former makes a step in one direction, its partner has to follow in order for the dance to be complete. Such is the case with the development of short-range air defense (SHORAD) systems, which is in direct relationship with the technological advancements of the air force.
History
The development of anti-aircraft guns began as a response to the introduction of air units to warfare. Initial mountings were not complex, but they had a significant fire-control issue since they had to hit the high-speed target moving in three dimensions (Driels, 2020). The consequent solutions relied on raw prediction and projectile modification. The former utilized gun sights to aim at the assumed target’s direction with respect to the shell’s speed. In turn, the latter’s common example was shrapnel – scattered lead balls that could cover wide space.
Calculating the data in order to place the shell in the aircraft’s future position proved vital for the success of the anti-air artillery. Thus, army research focused on designing predictors – mechanical computers that required the input of the aircraft’s speed, course, height, and specific gun ballistic constants to achieve the desired prediction (Driels, 2020). Predictors significantly advanced anti-aircraft fire but relied heavily on visually acquired raw data. The invention and use of radar during World War II allowed the transition to electrical predictors, which provided more accurate target tracking and fire control (Driels, 2020). Apart from that, a higher fire rate was accomplished by incorporating rapid-loading and fuze-setting devices.
The future technological advances and warfare tendencies resulted in the categorization of air threats. During the Cold War, the air space was dominated by fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft aimed at ground attacks. In addition, the proliferation of cruise missiles increased the demand for more sophisticated missile prediction. These threats were consequently categorized as low-altitude air threats and became the responsibility of SHORAD systems and units.
As a part of anti-air artillery, SHORAD systems were included in the U.S. Army. According to Feickert (2020), they “enabled movement and maneuver by destroying, neutralizing or deterring low altitude air threats to defend critical fixed and semi-fixed assets and maneuver forces” (p. 1). In particular, the SHORAD system aimed to organically provide the army with the capability to act against all aircraft types. However, in the early 2000s, the U.S. Army divested these air defense artillery units to meet more pressing force demands (Feickert, 2020). Specifically, the low-altitude air threats were expected to be countered by deploying the same threats in a larger quantity and better quality.
Outcome
The shift in investments led to the invention of more sophisticated air threats, such as unmanned air systems (UAS). For instance, UASs in the form of drones have been widely deployed in the Nagorno-Karabakh war (Roman, 2021). Apart from that, the Armenian forces deployed a solid amount of other low-altitude threats, such as aircraft and ballistic missiles. This, in turn, has re-invoked the demand for SHORAD systems. According to Roman (2021), Azerbaijan could not have protected its capital – Baku – without the support of Barak-8, a variation of the SHORAD system. In particular, the Azerbaijani army succeeded in neutralizing Armenian Iskander ballistic missiles launched at Baku in flight due to Barak-8 (Roman, 2021). The SHORAD’s success led to the identification of three significant statements. Firstly, a thoroughly integrated air defense system proved vital for the operation’s conduct. Secondly, the electronic warfare component was incorporated into all phases of the conflict. Finally, reducing the human factor proved decisive for the operations’ outcomes. Therefore, integrating air defense systems can be considered a must in the context of modern warfare.
From the modern strategic perspective, an offensive side has to first focus on tactically penetrating the battlefield’s depth by neutralizing the opponent’s air defense systems. Consequently, it has to support the offense with continuing air strikes on objects with high tactical and operational importance while simultaneously covering its ground forces with radio jamming. In this context, Roman (2021) frames this type of surprise aggression as a so-called “tank-helicopter binomial” (p. 44). Such an onslaught demands the use of a variety of warfare tools, such as beam-riding, surface-to-surface, and ballistic types of missiles, UAS and aircraft units, and long-range artillery fire. Understandably, airspace superiority is vital for the success of such operations (Roman, 2021). However, relying on air support in expanding the battlefield also requires specific technological means and solutions for the opponent’s low-altitude threats and air units. In other words, to gain air superiority, there is a need for a significant anti-air investment.
Conclusion
As the conflict sides seek ways to have the upper hand, they gradually develop their tools to counter the opponent’s actions. SHORAD was born as a solution to increasingly advancing low-altitude air threats and became inseparable from the composition of modern armies across the globe. Since air superiority provides an enormous strategic advantage, SHORAD aims to prevent the opponent from acquiring it by providing sophisticated army protection. Thus, it can be expected that any advancement in the air force field will inevitably lead to further investments into SHORAD systems, so their dance may continue unhindered.
References
Driels, M. (2020). Advanced weaponeering, volume 2. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Feickert, A. (2020). US army short-range air defense force structure and selected programs: Background and issues for Congress. Defense Technical Information Centre. Web.
Roman, D. (2021). Considerations on the design of the air defence response in the current airspace. Bulletin of “Carol I” National Defence University, 10(4), 44-51. Web.