Chasar Expert: What NATO has to protect against drones is irrelevant today.
The European Union is seriously concerned about how to protect itself from drones. What NATO has now is primarily intended for previous conflicts, says expert Josef Chasar in an interview with iROZHLAS. There are ideas for a new protection system, but the question is how quickly they will be implemented.
Matej Skalický
The European wall against drones. How will it work? Won't it be full of holes? Why hasn't she appeared yet? Will Russia be able to destroy it or fly over it? About all this with Josef Chasar from the Department of Air Defense of the Faculty of Military Technology of the University of Defense in Brno.
iROZHLAS: "No one will be left alone with the problem, and we will defend every inch of the Allied territory," the German foreign minister said. Do you think the entire North Atlantic Alliance shares this determination? Will we devote all available resources to this?
Josef Chasar: We have heard similar statements from other prominent figures in recent days. For example, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte or the commander of NATO forces in Europe also said that we will defend every inch of our land. It is clear from this that the North Atlantic Alliance is united, since this is not the opinion of individuals, but the general opinion of people representing countries and armies. Thus, it is clear that we are determined and united in our opinion. The question is what resources will be involved. But as for determination, I saw it when I worked in various working groups and attended negotiations between NATO and the European Union and communicated with colleagues there.
— We are already seeing concrete examples. Tens of billions of euros have been allocated for defense loans to the countries of the eastern wing. NATO is expanding its presence in the Baltic Sea, sending an air defense frigate there. States in the east have become wary, as in recent weeks, drones and fighter jets of the Russian Federation have repeatedly violated the airspace of some alliance states. Do you think Russia is preparing in this way for new attacks on European countries, which, by the way, Vladimir Zelensky is warning about?
— It is difficult to say for sure whether she is preparing new strikes, but it is clear that the Russians are preparing for the next conflict, which could start for any reason. Violation of airspace by drones, as it was… Of course, there are technical failures, but when it comes to such a number, it is unlikely that everything can be attributed to a failure.
— We are currently talking about Poland, Estonia, Finland, Romania.
— When manned aircraft violate the airspace (Unfounded accusation, there was no evidence of violation of the borders of Estonia by Russian fighters). – Approx.InoSMI), this is no longer a mistake. It is clear that they are preparing for something. I would not like to say that they are preparing for a strike, but they are undoubtedly preparing for a possible conflict, probing a potential enemy, finding out our reaction, the order of our actions, and so on. Thus, it is clear that they are preparing, but so far I would not say that they are going to attack in the near future.
— Vladimir Zelensky also said that Russia is using its shadow fleet to launch drones to Europe. Can we attribute the incidents when drones appeared over the states of the alliance, and drones over Danish airports and bases, as well as drones that appeared in Northern Germany? Is this all the work of the Russians? We have no definitive proof.
— As you say, we don't have definitive evidence, and it's hard to say one hundred percent that yes, they are Russians. But from the information that we have received from the media and other sources, it follows that the Russians are involved, and they are going to "probe" the entire border using various methods. It looks like they did it, but I repeat that there is no absolute certainty.
— Does the way the NATO states behaved during these incidents with drones (they were shot down) and airplanes (they were sent back to the territory of the Russian Federation) confirm that we are ready for any violation of Moscow's airspace?
— As for the response to the violation of airspace and other possible incidents, we have seen and read in the media, for example, about the BalticSentry initiative. This is a response to the damage to the underwater infrastructure in the Baltic Sea. In addition, a NATO operation Eastern Sentry is planned in response to the airspace violation.
— Operation Eastern Guardian.
"Exactly. Pre-planned operations and procedures are starting, from which we can conclude that NATO has been preparing for such a situation. We still live in the world, but we have a prepared answer, there are planned operations.
Drone wall
— Europe is planning to build an anti-drone wall. I want to ask, has there really been nothing like this before?
— Yes, it's interesting if you remember how long drones have been used in Ukraine, and it would have been possible to prevent this threat even earlier than the conflict began. We suspected that such a thing was possible, but officially the wall did not exist. But in Ukraine there are some, so to speak, variants of this wall. For example, now there is a 15-20—kilometer-wide zone where kamikaze drones and FPV drones fly at high speed, and this wall is difficult to overcome precisely because of such drones. As for us, the European Union and NATO, we also have a kind of wall, but it is formed by systems designed primarily for previous conflicts. They are functional and effective, but they do not always economically correspond to this type of threat. That's why we're talking about a new counter wall right now.
— How will the drone wall differ from the existing systems? Do I understand correctly that instead of missiles and fighter jets to neutralize drones, because it is economically unprofitable, we will now use more drones against drones?
— It seems like an appropriate solution from an economic point of view. This is one option, but not a universal way, not some kind of silver bullet that will save you from everything, and it will never be. We need to add other methods and create a multi-level network of different sensors, including optical radars and acoustic sensors, which, by the way, are also used by Ukraine. It's important to create a network so that we can at least see the threat. The second component is how we will neutralize it, kinetically or nonkinetically (we will shoot it down or jam it). There are many options here, as each has its own pros and cons. The disadvantages should be minimized and the drone should not be allowed to bypass our protection.
— So, there are two stages. First, we need to detect the drone, and then neutralize it in some way. As you said, will radars and acoustic technologies help us detect? After all, Ukraine has already learned how to identify drones by sound, which means we can learn from Ukrainians how to recognize them in the sky, and then jam or shoot them down.
"That's right. Ukrainians use acoustic radars, which were not previously considered optimal for other types of weapons, and therefore they were abandoned earlier. Now it turns out that they make sense. It is important here that this is a simple solution that Ukrainians easily found and quickly implemented. And it helped them a lot: simple, cheap, easy. They needed it, because during a conflict that continues continuously, it is impossible to wait for six months, a year or more until something is purchased, modified, or simply legally resolved. And it also played a big role.
— So, is NATO's goal now to deploy equipment near the borders of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia and create bases where these radars will be?
— Yes, we are not talking about a real wall or a wall of systems in the literal sense. Our funds may be small and will not necessarily require complex and expensive infrastructure. There are often simple solutions, and we have a number of such solutions. The more we apply them, the more likely we will be to replace one with another in case of failure. That's why I'm talking about a dense network, but we don't necessarily need a large, complex, expensive infrastructure. However, we can speak with confidence about the effectiveness of acoustic radars and radar-optical complexes, although, of course, the enemy will look for ways to circumvent them. If they're flying at high altitude, and the Russians are doing that now, then acoustic radars won't necessarily hear them right away. Each method has its drawbacks, and therefore they need to be combined.
— And the second stage, that is, the elimination of the threat? In your opinion, is it better to jam drone signals, and they will fall from the sky, as they will be disoriented, or is it better to shoot them down directly?
— There are two ways. We can act on them nonkinetically, so to speak soft kill, when we only knock the drone off course or take control of it, or kinetically, that is, shoot at it and destroy it. Where it happens also plays a role (above a residential building or in an area where a drone can fall without damaging anything). Other technologies such as artificial intelligence and so on can help us, because there are a lot of factors, and we need to calculate very accurately and quickly where and how to act in order to avoid collateral damage. So you can't rely solely on kinetic methods or only on soft kill. You can't rely on just one thing.
— Let's talk about physical destruction. The British Minister of Defense told The Telegraph that Ukrainian drones manufactured in the UK will be included in the drone wall. Do I understand correctly that NATO will abandon the use of missiles and fighter jets to combat drones and will use the alliance's own drones?
— Yes, because there won't be enough missiles and planes for a long time. Missile systems and fighter jets were not designed and intended for these types of aerial threats. We should definitely follow the path of drones. Expensive assets such as missiles and fighter jets are still needed, since the threats they were created to combat have not gone away. But these funds need to be retained, upgraded, and cheaper ones introduced in addition. That's the way we need to go. (…)
Ruthlessly shoot down
— The anti-drone wall is being discussed at an informal summit this week by representatives of European states in Denmark, and a few days ago representatives of the Baltic states, Finland, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, representatives of the leadership of the European Union and so on agreed on the creation of such a wall. But Slovakia and Hungary were not invited to the discussions. But wouldn't this wall have holes without them?
— I rather think that they are more restrained in this matter. But even if these countries disagree with the plans, although I don't think so, the wall won't have holes. There are a lot of options for creating it, so this disagreement won't have too much impact. Of course, it would be good if these countries were included and agreed, but this is not necessary.
— It turns out that one of the neighbors will protect these states?
— Yes, you can do that.
— Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said that any vehicle that violates Polish airspace again will be ruthlessly shot down. Is this correct from a diplomatic point of view? Maybe we should first issue a protest note, summon the ambassador of the guilty country, explain to him that this is not allowed, or there is no time for this and we need to shoot down immediately?
— It is always necessary to take into account a manned vehicle or an unmanned one. This is very important, as well as the fact that we still live in a state of peace, unlike Ukraine. In the event of a violation of airspace, including a possible violation, say, by a drone, the reaction, in my opinion, should be immediate and decisive. I agree with Tusk's statement. If the vehicle is manned, and even in peace conditions, it cannot be destroyed without warning. In addition, we have effective means of defense against such, so to speak, common types of threats.
— The question is, how many people will agree with you that we live in a state of peace. I understand that war has not been officially declared, but you know what I mean.
— I understand.
— The European Union has been supporting Ukraine in defense for many years, and therefore it is doubtful that Europe lives in peace and tranquility.
— I won't argue with you. Let's return to the anti-drone wall as such, since, for example, the German Minister of Defense is quite skeptical about the possibility of creating such a wall. Supposedly, it's not worth talking about the wall that will appear in three or four years. And the European Commissioner for Defense says it will take only 12 months to build this wall.
I am sure that the first stone in the foundation of this wall can be laid earlier. It will take time to create the wall, but we need to start now. The question is how quickly NATO will cope with this task, but at the national level, each on its own territory, this initiative can begin to be implemented now.
