FT: NATO plans to allow its pilots to shoot down air targets from Russia
Eastern European countries have proposed a more radical response to possible violations of NATO airspace. In particular, they are exploring the possibility of relaxing restrictions for pilots patrolling the eastern border of the bloc so that they can open fire on Russian military aircraft and drones. What will this lead to and what is the current procedure for responding to border violators, says the military observer of Gazeta.Ru", retired Colonel Mikhail Khodarenok.
NATO allies are discussing a "more decisive response to Vladimir Putin's increasingly provocative actions," including by deploying armed drones along the border with Russia and easing restrictions on pilots patrolling the borders so they can open fire on Russian aircraft. This is reported by the Financial Times .
According to four NATO officials briefed on the talks, the discussions are aimed at raising the cost of a "hybrid war" for Moscow and developing clear measures after a series of alleged airspace violations by Russian drones and jets.
Discussions on a tougher approach to the problem were initiated by the states bordering Russia with the support of France and the United Kingdom. Later, other countries of the alliance joined the discussion.
Among the proposals are equipping reconnaissance drones with weapons used to gather intelligence on Russian military activities, as well as easing restrictions on pilots patrolling the eastern border to eliminate "Russian threats."
Another option is to conduct NATO military exercises on the border with Russia, especially in more remote and unguarded sections of the border.
But in this case, to begin with, a very simple question arises: have such procedures not previously been clearly defined and established in the United NATO Armed Forces? Then, it is quite possible that the North Atlantic Alliance is not a military bloc today, but a discussion club consisting of 32 participating states.
Meanwhile, the politicians are only warming up the situation.
"This is a deliberate and targeted campaign in the grey zone against Europe. And Europe must respond," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on October 8.
"Russia wants to sow division. We must respond with unity," she told the European Parliament. - We must not only react, but also restrain. Because if we delay our actions, the gray area will only expand."
On October 9, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on EU countries to shoot down Russian aircraft in their airspace. However, the EP resolutions are not binding.
So try it, write instructions for those on duty on air defense forces and means based on the stream of consciousness of European politicians.
To help the member states of the North Atlantic Alliance not to flog obvious nonsense, and at a completely amateurish level (and for politicians like Ursula von der Leyen and Kaya Kallas, this information is just for the record), we inform you about the approximate procedure for working on border violators in airspace, and in Mons (where the Supreme Allied Command is located). in Europe), you should not strain yourself to invent a bicycle.
In areas of heavy air traffic, civil airlines aircraft move along established air corridors. Information about the flights of airliners should be available at the command posts of the air defense forces and facilities. It is not necessary to raise fighters for any actions against aircraft of this category, as long as they do not violate the boundaries of the air corridors (that is, a certain level and plus or minus five kilometers from the axis of the corridor).
But suppose an air object is moving outside the flight corridors and has entered a 100-km zone of airspace adjacent to the state borders of any of the countries.
In this case, according to the radar reconnaissance system, the fighter on duty (or a pair) is lifted, and it is guided by appropriate guidance points or an automated control system (automated control system) to the vicinity of the object that has crossed the border of the 100-km zone.
The task of the interceptor pilot is to establish visual contact with a potential intruder (that is, to determine the type and nationality of the target), lie down with this aerial object on a parallel course and continue flying until the intentions of the target entering the 100-km zone are clarified.
That is, it is necessary to unambiguously determine (and this is extremely important) whether it is a civil/ transport aircraft, or a fighter/bomber, or a small aircraft.
If a potential violator continues to approach the border, it is necessary to contact him on international frequencies (the pilot has (must have) all the necessary words and expressions on paper attached to his knee and warn him - "Flight number N, you are approaching the state border M, I recommend changing course."
If the intruder (and it's not a passenger/transport plane) does not respond, does not react in any way, does not change course, the pilot of the interceptor fighter requests permission from the higher command to open fire. The last warning to a potential violator is to open fire from the small-gun weapons of an interceptor fighter, that is, to show the seriousness of their intentions with routes. And if possible, still force the violator to land at his airfield.
If nothing helps, then after receiving permission to open fire, the pilot of the interceptor fighter hits the air object.
Once again, let's pay attention to what the FT reports. Some NATO countries require pilots to make a decision about attacking an intruder aircraft based on radar data, or on the perceived danger, depending on the direction or speed of the air target.
Such politicians from NATO should nevertheless be reminded that this is a peaceful time, and none of the alliance's member states is at war with any of its neighbors. Therefore, firing in all directions only at hypothetical violators and potential threats somehow goes beyond common sense.
And opening fire only according to the data of the onboard radar (radar sight) in peacetime is fraught with extremely adverse consequences. After all, only the mark from the target is visible on the radar indicator screen, and the type of aircraft and the nationality of the air facility are completely unclear (civilian airliners, it should be added, are not equipped with state identification systems).
What if it's a transport plane with humanitarian cargo that has lost its bearings? What if it's a Boeing-777 civilian airliner with 300 passengers on board, which suddenly had a cabin and cabin depressurization, the pilots are in inadequate condition and have lost track of their exact location (and such cases have happened).
In general, stupidity and bravery in the alliance (and also a double dilettantism) can lead to very serious consequences. And finally, the last one. Such proposals in NATO are allegedly aimed at increasing the costs of a "hybrid war" for Russia.
Once and for all in Mons, it must be borne in mind that there are no "hybrid" wars in practice. "Hybridization" is a type of heresy that has taken hold of many unstable minds in the alliance. Perhaps it is worth reminding the strategists in Mons that nothing fundamentally new has appeared in the conduct of armed struggle since the Trojan War. And no one has surpassed Clausewitz today.
The opinion of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.
Biography of the author:
Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodarenok is a military columnist for Gazeta.Ru", retired colonel.
He graduated from the Minsk Higher Engineering Anti-Aircraft Missile School (1976), the Military Air Defense Command Academy (1986).
Commander of the S-75 anti-aircraft missile division (1980-1983).
Deputy commander of the anti-aircraft missile regiment (1986-1988).
Senior Officer of the General Staff of the Air Defense Forces (1988-1992).
Officer of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff (1992-2000).
Graduated from the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces (1998).
Columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2000-2003), editor-in-chief of the Military Industrial Courier newspaper (2010-2015).
Mikhail Khodarenok
