Electronic periodical “Aerospace Forces. Theory and practice. Journal "Aerospace sphere Aerospace sphere 1 July

In the global airspace, strategic operations are possible with the participation of the military-space and missile-aviation forces of the leading states of the world

Both in nature and in society there are facts, events, processes and phenomena that mature, arise, exist and stop regardless of what we think about them. A person can create the prerequisites and even be the cause of the occurrence of a phenomenon. He can influence him by creating other conditions and prerequisites. But it cannot be canceled by its attitude to reality. By ignoring or denying, it is impossible to prevent what happened objectively.

During the recent exercises "Combat Commonwealth-2015" at the Ashuluk training ground, more than 1,000 servicemen and 200 units of special and military equipment of the Russian Aerospace Forces were involved. Photo: Igor Rudenko

Approximately such an atmosphere of rejection is formed in relation to the scientific category "aerospace theater of military operations" (VK theater of operations). What will change if we abandon this term and do not begin to include it in official encyclopedias, and even more so in guidelines for the preparation and conduct of hostilities? Will the aerospace theater of operations disappear from this as an objective phenomenon of modern war? Or, perhaps, the circumstances of the armed struggle that determine its existence will dissolve by themselves?

Let's try to understand the problem consistently and logically.

The origins of the concept of theater

Whoever created man, the earthly firmament turned out to be the natural habitat of his creation on our planet. For a while, a person could immerse himself in water, and to maintain life he was obliged to drink it. He breathed air, but he did not live in air space and did not fly like a bird.

Living in conflicting contradictions with nature and among themselves, people have mastered their familiar habitat not only for peaceful purposes, but also in the struggle for existence. The growing number of wars and the expansion of their scale, the improvement of the means and methods of armed violence have turned the earth's surface into a space for military operations.

Voivods and generals of the past won victories and suffered defeats. By analyzing their successes and failures, they sought to understand their reasons. Some of these reasons were related to the assessment of the conditions of the battlefield. The commander, who better took into account the military-geographical factors of the situation, took more advantageous positions and had a better chance of winning. This task was not easy. As in the well-known poem: "We retreated in silence for a long time ... But then we found a large field - there is to roam where free!". However, the assessment of the area of ​​hostilities was intuitive. At best, it was built on its own and others' experience, but it was not scientific.

It was the experience of the Napoleonic battles of the early 19th century that stirred up military-theoretical thought, including along the line of military geography. The first scientific categories in this area were "theater of war" (TV) and "theater of military operations" (TVD). They were proposed almost simultaneously by Antoine Henri Jomini in Essays on the Art of War and Karl Clausewitz in the two-volume On War. According to their theory, "TV covers all countries in which two belligerent powers can attack each other, acting either from their own territory, or from the territory of their allies and secondary states involved in the whirlwind of war." And under the theater of operations was meant a part of the territory of the TV, within which the general battle of the main forces of the belligerents took place, usually deciding the course and outcome of the war as a whole. It was believed that in the theater of operations "one or several armies operate separately from other troops." In turn, the theater of operations was divided into operational zones, within which part of the army (for example, the corps) solved one particular task. The operations area included several lines of operations assigned to divisions.

Thus, the concept of theater of military operations not only had a geographical meaning, but had a military-strategic expediency. When forming the method of combat operations, when answers are needed to the questions: "By what forces?", "When?" and "Where?", at least with the third (spatial), the commanders and subordinates had no problems of mutual understanding.

When studying the theater, initially attention was paid only to the characteristic natural conditions and their influence on the course and outcome of hostilities. Russian military theorist Dmitry Alekseevich Milyutin, professor of the Department of Military Geography of the Academy of the General Staff (later Field Marshal, Minister of War of Russia), has developed a more complete methodology. In 1847, in his work "First Experiments in Military Statistics", he formulated the position that "when assessing theaters of military operations, in addition to purely geographical ones, it is necessary to take into account political, economic, moral and other factors."

The study and preparation of the theater of operations was initially carried out mainly in the interests of the ground forces, since they played a decisive role in the war. But man more and more actively mastered the second habitat on planet Earth - the World Ocean. And, of course, for military purposes. With the advent of fleets, the sea water area began to be included in the theater of operations. Thus, during the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), the theater of operations already covered not only the territories of Korea and Manchuria, but also the waters of the Japanese and Yellow Seas.

Subsequently, when the armed struggle at sea reached the level of solving independent strategic tasks, and it was also understood that the means and methods of its conduct were significantly different from those used on land, theaters of military operations began to be divided into continental (CTVD) and oceanic (ATVD ). Although a certain "geographical intersection" of these concepts has been preserved. The CTVD included coastal waters, from where the ships could operate on ground targets (participate in operations in the continental theater of operations). The ATVD included a land strip, where the objects of the maritime infrastructure were located, and from where the ground group of forces, by their actions, could participate in the operation at the ATVD.

Fundamentally important in this conditional division of the space of war was the statement of the dogmas given below.

1. Troops (forces, means) operating on land and troops (forces, means) operating at sea are fundamentally different in terms of physical principles and methods of warfare.

2. On land and in the ocean (within the CTVD and ATVD), the solution of independent tasks of a strategic scale is required.

3. It is necessary to create independent interspecific groupings of the Armed Forces of a strategic scale at the KTVD and ATVD. Their basis at the CTVD will be the ground forces, and at the OTVD - the naval formations.

4. A fundamentally different military infrastructure is being created within the boundaries of the KTVD and ATVD, which meets the needs of the created (created) strategic groupings of the Armed Forces.

It is noteworthy that the division of theaters of military operations into continental and oceanic was terminated at the beginning of the 21st century. They were simply replaced by a theater of operations. But this happened not because objective circumstances changed (the above dogmas have lost their relevance), but because Russia has weakened militarily. The lack of funds (primarily ships) for waging modern war prompted the reformers to come up with the idea of ​​integrating groupings of troops by depersonalizing the theater of operations. As far as this is a competent decision, the issue is controversial and lies outside the scope of the objectives of this publication. Let's leave it for another time.

Aerospace

Even Peter the Great owns the words: "Not we, but our great-grandchildren will fly through the air, like birds." And the great Suvorov assessed the prospect of airspace development with his inherent general leadership practicality: "If I could be a bird, I would own more than one capital."

Anti-aircraft fire rocket system S-400 "Triumph". Photo: Igor Rudenko

At the beginning of the twentieth century, mankind created flying devices that move in a third physical environment - air, and immediately spread armed struggle into it. The external resemblance of airspace to sea spaces has led to the appearance of such terms as "air ocean", "air fleet", "air squadron", "aeronautics".

In fact, armed combat in the air turned out to be fundamentally different from combat at sea. But it was not given to everyone to see these differences, and not immediately.

"Victory smiles at the one who anticipates changes in the forms of war, not the one who adapts to the changes." These words belong to the great predictor of the nature of future wars, the Italian general Giulio Douai. Even when the planes “did not fly, but only jumped,” he spoke of the need to create air fleets and their use in future air operations. Douai developed the concept of air warfare and the theory of air supremacy. But most importantly, he insisted on assigning independent tasks to the air forces: “Create air force, capable of carrying out combat missions by their own means, in which neither the land army nor the navy will be able to assist them in any way. "

And although the general does not use the term "air theater of operations" in his writings, he categorically opposes the battlefield in the air to the battlefield on the ground: in the air".

But all this will come true in many decades. In the meantime, in the First World War, aviation was used to solve tasks not higher than a tactical scale. Her actions on the battlefield contributed to the success of the ground forces, but had no independent significance.

In World War II, Germany and its allies of 13,000 combat aircraft concentrated almost half on the Eastern Front. This made it possible to create operational associations of the Luftwaffe - the air fleets. The level of tasks solved by aviation has risen to operational. But the degree of its independence was not yet high. Most of the forces were used to support the ground forces in the offensive or defense. And in terms of spatial characteristics, the bombers of the Air Force of Nazi Germany were not yet capable of operating in the strategic depths of the territory of the USSR.

But after the end of World War II, the leading states made a technological breakthrough in the military field. The United States of America has created samples of strategic bombers and strategic reconnaissance aircraft. Land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine ballistic missiles appeared. All this in nuclear weapons was brought together into a single grouping of strategic offensive forces (SNA). To defeat the most modern enemy, such a group could do without ground forces and without general-purpose naval forces.

Humanity stepped into space and, without changing its principles, immediately adapted this fourth physical environment to the field of armed struggle. Near-earth space was filled with orbital groupings of space forces and systems.

The first rehearsal for the wars of the future was the US Air Force's Eldorado Canyon air operation against Libya in April 1986. No ground forces were involved in the fighting. Then there were "Desert Storm" (1991), "Desert Fox" (1998), "Resolute Force" (1999), "Unbreakable Freedom" (2001), "Freedom for Iraq" (2003). All operations were effectively supported from space.

In recent years, the successful development of hypersonic aircraft (GZVA) and aerospace aircraft has led to the filling of that layer of near-earth space (40–100 km), in which aerodynamic vehicles can no longer fly, and artificial satellites cannot yet have a stable orbit. So the third physical environment (air) and the fourth physical environment (space) were combined into a single air-space.

And the unified aerospace attack force (SVKN) has reached the level of independent solution of not some auxiliary, but strategic tasks of the war in the unified aerospace sphere.

Theater or not theater?

How much space can generally be called a theater of military operations? The answer to this question was given in due time by Jomini. He names three signs of theater of operations:

• coverage of their own and enemy territory;
• the presence of strategically important lines or objects that should be captured, destroyed, held or protected;
• the physical and geographical conditions and the military infrastructure that support the deployment and use of groupings of troops on a strategic scale.

From this "classical" position, let us analyze the modern aerospace space.

By the first sign

The airspace is currently conditionally divided into air directions. Each of them extends according to the principle "from the enemy" and in its projection onto the earth's surface covers the territory foreign countries, water areas of the seas where air attack weapons are based and from where they can fly; the territory of the regions of Russia that fall within the combat radius of these airborne weapons. As for the space zone, it is all the more uniform and is used for peaceful and military purposes by all states that have the appropriate technologies.

On the second basis

The aerospace attack forces have as their main goal the destruction of ground targets in Russia. Within reach, they "shoot" the entire territory of our country (as, in fact, Russian strategic nuclear forces are capable of reaching any point on the planet). This means that there is no such strategic object that would not be located within the hypothetical military commissariat. But even in outer space itself there are devices that ensure the military security of our Motherland. They are also strategically important sites. The enemy will strive to destroy them, and we will protect them.

On the third basis

A few decades ago, space was an environment with unacceptable physical and geographical conditions for humans. But the development of technology has led to the fact that today space crews are in it for months, performing the assigned tasks. And in most cases this is not required, since spacecraft are controlled remotely. The air environment was inhabited even earlier and does not present problems for the use of strategic groupings of air attack forces.

Finally, with regard to infrastructure. Part of it was created on the surface of the Earth. These are airfields, cosmodromes, command posts, radar stations, etc. But the main elements of the infrastructure of the theater of military operations will appear immediately before the start of hostilities, since the operational and combat formation of the aerospace attack forces takes place in the air and space according to the plans developed in advance of the strategic air space operation (SVKNO), air offensive operation (VNO) and massive missile and air strike (MRAU).

This achieves the surprise of an aerospace attack, which is impossible in a conventional theater of operations. The elements of the air infrastructure being created are air command, communications and navigation points, refueling points, jammer patrol zones, etc. An orbital group has already been deployed and is functioning in space, which solves reconnaissance, navigation, and control tasks in peacetime. It is also a product of the operational equipment of outer space in the interests of war, although such a concept also does not exist in the official terminology.

It takes hours, if not tens of minutes, to create and build all of this. It is too late for the defending side in such a tough time frame to create a grouping of the Aerospace Defense Forces capable of repelling aerospace aggression only upon detection of an enemy-built SVKN grouping. The aerospace defense grouping should be created, deployed and ready for hostilities in advance, that is, yesterday, today and tomorrow. Accordingly, the operational equipment of the TVD VK must be dealt with in advance.

Thus, according to all the indicated features, modern air and outer space can be considered an independent aerospace theater of military operations.

Accept or deny?

I will quote the statement of Yuriy Anoshko and Vladimir Barvinenko, who supported him (): “As for the transition of air and space to the category of a theater of war or military operations ... this position is only your invention ( Anatoly Korabelnikov. – Auth.) and Yuri Krinitsky. It is not accepted not only officially, but also by the scientific world. "

I don’t presume to find the discoverer of the idea, but I know many scientists who developed this topic. In 2006, in the VA VKO named after Marshal of the Soviet Union G.K. Zhukov, the "Aerospace Defense Officer Handbook" was published under the general editorship of Professor SK Burmistrov. This handbook of VKO specialists contains chapter III, which is called "The environment of the aerospace space as a theater of military operations." It is noteworthy that the author's team of the reference book includes Yuri Anoshko and Vladimir Barvinenko. As for the "academic world, which did not accept the TVD VK", among the developers of the "VKO Officer's Handbook" are respected scientists, designers and teachers: Igor Ashurbeyli, Alexander Gorkov, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, Boris Cheltsov and two dozen professionals from the East Kazakhstan Military District.

In addition, A. I. Hyupenen and S. I. Pokladov regularly publish materials on the topic of the theater of military operations. There are monographs and articles by Y.D. Podgornykh, E.S. Laureate of Lenin and State Prizes, chief designer complex space systems, the developer of the PKO systems Konstantin Aleksandrovich Vlasko-Vlasov calls space a front. Professor I. V. Erokhin did not use the term VK theater. But in his book "Aerospace Sphere and Armed Struggle in It" the meaning of the concept of the VC sphere exactly coincides with the proposed concept of the VK of the theater of operations. Having worked with a famous scientist in the same office for more than 10 years, I can not assume about this, but assert.

Who are they all, if not the learned world?

Finally, about the fact that "the TVD VK has not been officially adopted." Let's open the Military-Political Dictionary of the Deputy Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation, Deputy Chairman of the Military-Industrial Commission under the Government of the Russian Federation Dmitry Rogozin "War and Peace in Terms and Definitions." Here is what it says about the somehow controversial subject: “theaters of operations can be continental, oceanic, sea and aerospace.

Aerospace theater of operations is a global airspace within which large military-space and strategic air operations are possible with the participation of military-space and missile-aviation forces of the world's leading states.

This theater is distinguished by the special conditions of armed struggle peculiar only to it, the widespread use of automated combat and support military space systems and complexes, manned and unmanned aviation forces, the global scope and exceptional transience of military operations, during which dominance in space is won and conditions are created for solving military space tasks, including repelling an air and space attack of the enemy and delivering strikes against targets and armed forces from space.

The aerospace theater of operations is divided into spheres of action into near-space airspace, near, middle and deep space. Taking into account the possible use of forces within its borders, certain aerospace directions are distinguished. "

So, strictly speaking, what is the subject of controversy? There is a term, there is a definition, characteristics are given, and even the content is revealed. “Criticism of the theory's statements does not bear fruit” - here I fully agree. So let's move forward.

Why is all this necessary and why is it denied

The problem is not to accept another term in the lexicon of scientists and military personnel. It is necessary to change the attitude towards modern war, which will start suddenly from airspace and will end there (or basically will end there).

Any theater of operations is a strategic category. On it, by definition, the strategic groupings of the armed forces of warring countries or coalitions collide. And they solve strategic problems by implementing strategic forms and methods of action. The organization of preparation for military operations in a theater of operations is a very complex set of works. According to Dmitry Rogozin's military-political dictionary, “the category of theater of military operations is used both in peacetime and in wartime as a basis for planning operations, developing measures to prepare infrastructure, as well as for solving specific military-political and military-strategic tasks during war ".

If an aerospace theater of operations is included in the guidance documents for the management of the Armed Forces, it means that it is necessary to prepare appropriate strategic operations to address priority tasks in aerospace. Accordingly, take a course on the priority development of two functional components of the RF Armed Forces: those that will repel a sudden strategic attack from the airspace, and those that will defeat the military-economic potential of the enemy with their counter or retaliatory actions.

The first of these are the Troops and Forces of the Aerospace Defense Forces.

This is where the inconvenience for the reformers lies. Many recent reorganizations of our aircraft have been unsuccessful. The reason for this is the priority of departmental interests over state ones. It has become commonplace to ensure the survivability of one type, branch of troops by pulling away another. Who is stronger, who is closer to power, is right. And most of all, those troops that are intended to fight in the most responsible aerospace theater of military operations - the Air Defense Forces and the Missile Defense Forces - are being pulled apart. From constant renaming, reassignments, they do not become more effective. With each change of the sign, the winners receive certain prizes, and our children, whose skies are not so safe, may become the losers in this struggle.