An ambitious plan for the creation of a unified digital surveillance and strike network along the eastern flank of NATO, from Finland to Romania, is brought to light by the German Bild, citing internal documents of the Alliance.
According to the publication, the initiative bears the temporary name EFDI (Eastern Flank Deterrence Initiative) and provides for the interconnection of satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles, ground sensors, and robotic systems into a common operational network, where all data will be processed with the help of artificial intelligence.
The basic philosophy of the plan is simple but highly aggressive: Detect first, decide first, strike first.
However, there are two important notes.
First, the information comes from a leak of documents and not from an official announcement by NATO.
Second, this is an operational concept that is under planning and not an already deployed and fully functional system.
The kill web that aspires to change the way war is conducted
The documents describe a characteristic operational scenario.
A drone detects a column of tanks heading towards the NATO border. The information is automatically cross-referenced with satellite images, radar data, and data from other sensors, creating a unified picture of the battlefield.
Then, the command center decides which weapon is best suited to neutralize the target: artillery, strike drone, or missile.
This exact sequence of actions constitutes what is characterized in military documents as a kill web, that is, an integrated network of target neutralization.
In contrast to traditional command models, where each weapon system operates relatively autonomously, the new model relies on the full interconnection of all reconnaissance and fire means.
In simple terms, any sensor will be able to guide any available weapon.
The military calls this process sensor-to-shooter, that is, the transition from detecting a target to its destruction within the shortest possible time.
Satellites, drones, radar, and ground robots
According to the leak, the information network of the EFDI will consist of multiple layers of data collection.
These include:
1) satellites of optical and radar reconnaissance,
2) drones of different distances and missions,
3) ground radar, acoustic, and optical sensors,
4) autonomous ground robotic systems,
5) as well as aerial and, according to some parts of the documents, maritime intelligence collection platforms.
The operational doctrine accompanying the plan is also of particular interest.
In the event of a military conflict, the first line of defense will not consist of soldiers or tanks, but of unmanned means.
Drones, robotic vehicles, and autonomous ground systems will undertake to cause the first major losses to the attacking forces, even before manned means, the air force, or ground forces engage.
The real power is not the drones but the speed of decisions
As pointed out in the documents, the critical element of the EFDI is not the number of satellites or drones, as NATO already possesses significant capabilities in these specific sectors.
The real advantage lies in the speed with which information is transformed into operational action.
The shorter the time period between detecting a target and launching fire against it, the greater the operational superiority becomes.
Precisely for this reason, the resilience of communication networks also constitutes the most vulnerable point of the plan.
If the connection between sensors, data processing centers, and weapon systems is interrupted, the entire architecture of the EFDI is at risk of losing its key advantage: speed.
A plan covering thousands of kilometers
The geographical scope of the plan is impressive.
The eastern flank of NATO, from Finland to Romania, extends over several thousand kilometers, a distance that approaches that from Kaliningrad to the Urals.
Maintaining continuous surveillance over such a large area constitutes a huge technological and operational challenge, far more complex than covering a limited border zone.
From Nikolai Ogarkov to artificial intelligence
Despite the image of a technological revolution, the philosophy behind the EFDI does not constitute something unprecedented for military science.
Its roots lie in Soviet military thought of the early 1980s. Under the guidance of Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, the Soviet Union developed the concept of the Reconnaissance-Strike Complex (RUK), a system that aimed to unite reconnaissance and fire means into a single operational cycle.
The logic was almost identical to that promoted today by the EFDI: the target to be destroyed immediately as soon as it is detected and not after hours of decision-making processes.
During the same period, the United States was developing its own sensor-to-shooter philosophy, which was tested in real operations, from Desert Storm to the military campaigns of the 2000s.
In all these cases, the time elapsing from the detection of a target to striking it was gradually reduced from hours to just a few minutes.
What changes today
The EFDI does not differ so much in terms of philosophy as in terms of the means it has at its disposal.
Today's technology allows capabilities that did not exist four decades ago.
Digital data processing replaces manual processes.
Artificial intelligence undertakes to filter huge volumes of information.
Drones, which are now mass-produced and at a relatively low cost, function simultaneously as sensors and as strike means.
In other words, the technology that in the 1980s was considered theoretical can today be implemented on a much larger scale.
The big weakness of the plan
However, there is an essential difference.
The Soviet doctrine had been designed for specific fronts and known directions of attack.
The EFDI aspires to cover the entire eastern flank of NATO, from the Arctic Circle to the mouth of the Danube.
This means that the network will extend over thousands of kilometers.
And the more such an infrastructure grows, the more difficult it becomes to remain uniformly dense.
In some areas, surveillance will be particularly strong.
In others, there will inevitably be gaps.
Precisely this geographical dispersion is considered by many analysts to be the most significant weakness of the plan.
The real time promised by Bild
Bild claims that the new system will be able to monitor any movement of Russian troops in real time.
The wording sounds impressive, but in practice it is quite far from what the public usually perceives.
In military terminology, real time does not mean that every tank appears constantly on a screen.
It means that the operational picture is updated at intervals of a few or tens of minutes.
The staff does not see a continuous live broadcast, but successive updated images of the battlefield.
Satellites see a lot, but not everything
Large motorized columns can indeed be detected relatively easily.
Satellites, synthetic aperture radars (SAR), and drones are able to record their movement even at night or under heavy cloud cover.
In high priority areas, the image can be updated every 20 to 60 minutes.
This is enough to detect a large military movement.
It does not mean, however, that the target remains continuously under monitoring.
Within an hour, a motorized column may have traveled dozens of kilometers and be in a completely different position from the one recorded in the previous update.
Continuous monitoring and periodic updating of the image are two completely different things.
The biggest obstacle is geography itself
The eastern flank of NATO does not consist only of highways and open plains.
It includes the forests of Karelia, the mountain ranges of the Carpathians, the extensive marshy areas of Polesia, and dozens of other difficult terrains.
The creation of a truly dense network of sensors across this entire area does not constitute only a technological challenge.
It constitutes primarily a matter of cost and physical limitations.
More realistic is considered the creation of strong surveillance zones at the points where it is estimated that an attack could manifest, such as major road axes, bridges, and passes.
Between these areas, there will still be sectors with a clearly lower surveillance density.
Not even artificial intelligence solves everything
Another problem that is not particularly highlighted is the huge volume of information that such an extended network will produce.
Thousands of sensors will continuously transmit data.
Even the most advanced artificial intelligence systems cannot process instantly every piece of information without delays or errors.
The most important thing, however, is that the final decision remains in human hands.
The commander is the one who will assess the risks, examine the rules of engagement, and ultimately approve or not the use of weapons.
Thus, despite the impressive progress of artificial intelligence, a part of the delays inevitably returns to the decision-making chain.
That is why, according to the analysis, the famous digital fortress against Russia does not constitute an impenetrable electronic shield, but a complex network with particularly strong points, but also areas where operational gaps still exist.
Electronic warfare: The weak point of the digital network
No matter how advanced a network-centric warfare system is, its effectiveness depends on one basic factor: the reliability of communications and data exchange.
If the connection between the sensors, the information processing centers, and the weapon systems is broken, even the most sophisticated architecture turns into a set of isolated monitoring means, without the possibility of an immediate reaction.
This is precisely what is considered to constitute the primary target in the event of a military conflict.
The first threat is electronic warfare (Electronic Warfare – EW).
With the use of powerful jamming systems, an adversary can attempt to blind sensors, disrupt communication networks, and de-synchronize the exchange of information between various units.
According to scenarios processed by the Belfer Center of Harvard University for the Baltic region, in the event of a conflict, Russia is extremely likely to use extensive electronic warfare means with the aim of disrupting NATO networks.
The logic is obvious.
A network designed to excel thanks to the speed of information exchange loses a significant part of its value when its communications are interrupted or degraded.
Deception and fake targets
The second major challenge concerns deception.
In modern military tactics, forces can disperse into smaller groups, use decoys of weapon systems, create fake thermal and electronic signatures, and feed monitoring systems with a large number of erroneous information.
The more a network relies on automated data processing and artificial intelligence, the more the need to be able to distinguish real threats from artificial ones increases.
A system bombarded with deceptive data is at risk of delaying its decisions or even being led to incorrect assessments.
Targeting command centers and communication networks
Particularly vulnerable are considered the command and control centers (Command and Control – C2).
These include headquarters, communication nodes, information processing centers, repeaters, and the infrastructures through which the operational picture is transferred.
At the same time, cyberattacks are expected to play an important role.
The goal is not only to put an information system out of order, but also to alter the data the commander receives or even to create doubt about the reliability of the information appearing on the screens of operations centers.
Equally critical is considered the space component of the plan.
Satellite communications and satellite navigation systems form the backbone of such an extended network, and their potential degradation could directly affect the overall operational picture.
Why it cannot collapse easily
Despite its weaknesses, the EFDI is not a system that depends on a single command center.
On the contrary, its philosophy relies on the creation of a distributed network, where the loss of one node does not automatically entail the collapse of the entire structure.
Neighboring systems can cover part of the functions of a node that has been put out of action.
This means that electronic warfare or attacks on critical infrastructure will have to hit multiple points of the network simultaneously to achieve a substantial result.
Particularly in areas where there will be a high density of sensors, the possibility of surprising an adversary is estimated to decrease significantly.
In other words, even if the system is not impenetrable, it can significantly complicate the surprise deployment of large military forces near the NATO border.
On the other hand, the perception that such a complex network can be easily neutralized with a single action is considered equally exaggerated.
Revolution or evolution?
Behind the impressive title of Bild lies not a completely new military theory, but the evolution of an idea that was shaped already about forty years ago and today capitalizes on the capabilities of artificial intelligence, satellites, and unmanned systems.
The EFDI does not constitute an omnipotent eye that constantly monitors every movement, nor does it create an impenetrable digital wall along the entire eastern flank of NATO.
Its real effectiveness will depend on the resilience of its communications against electronic warfare, cyberattacks, and strikes against critical command nodes.
At the same time, important questions remain that for the time being have not been answered.
The plan relies on a leak of documents, without official confirmation from NATO, without a known implementation schedule, without a publicized budget, and without a clear picture of the military forces that will participate in its deployment.
Where NATO will deploy dense networks of sensors and integrated digital infrastructures, the possibility of surprising an adversary is expected to be significantly limited.
However, the creation of a unified, continuous, and uninterrupted digital wall from Finland to Romania remains, at least for the time being, more of an ambitious strategic goal than an operational reality.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών