Hezbollah on Steroids

Hezbollah on Steroids

Everybody from Defense Secretary Robert Gates to Army Chief Gen. George Casey has said “hybrid warfare” is the strategic challenge planners have focused on to guide future war plans and force construction. The Hezbollah fighting force that roughly handled the Israeli military in the 2006 Lebanon war has become the hybrid enemy archetype: an enemy equipped with high-end, precision guided weapons, that fights guerrilla fashion in distributed networks of small units and cells.

But the Hezbollah of today is not the Hezbollah of 2006. Just as the U.S. and Israel, studied and, in the case of the Israel Defense Forces, adapted to lessons learned on the 2006 southern Lebanon battlefield, Hezbollah has gone to school as well, learning, adapting, rearming and adjusting its war plans to better prepare for the next go round, said Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment’s Dakota Wood. Hezbollah has tripled its inventory of rockets and missiles, now possessing upwards of 30,000 guided and unguided weapons. They’ve also been teaching the Syrians and Iranians lessons from battling the Israelis.

War is a constantly evolving competition, as the U.S. military learned battling a very adaptive insurgency in Iraq. The “adaptation rate” of current and potential enemies has greatly accelerated in recent years, facilitated by the web, where digitally captured lessons have essentially limitless distribution. During the height of the IED war in Iraq, U.S. commanders said insurgents were at most three to four weeks behind U.S. tactical and technological adjustments. Hezbollah demonstrated, strategist Frank Hoffman said, “the ability of non-state actors to study and deconstruct the vulnerabilities of Western-style militaries and devise appropriate countermeasures.”

One of the countermeasures hybrid enemies have fixed on is the force multiplying effect of precision weaponry. Armed with the traditional guerrilla weapons, the AK and RPG, Hezbollah units would not have posed too much of a challenge to the heavily armed, armored and technologically advanced IDF. But Hezbollah hunter-killer teams carried loads of advanced, precision anti-tank guided munitions that greatly increased their lethality; a battalion’s worth of Israeli armor was shot to pieces in a matter of days.

Smart weapons, once the near monopoly of the U.S. military, are now proliferating to non-state actors. That was the true shock of the Lebanon war. CSBA’s Wood said that “proliferation of precision” will greatly accelerate in coming years as munitions become more precise, with increased range, easier to use and more widely available to irregular warriors. CSBA ran a series of war games for DOD that took the 2006 Lebanon war as a starting point, and asked, given the continuing development and proliferation of precision weaponry, what would a similar hybrid war scenario look like ten years down the road? Call it: “Hezbollah on steroids.”

I spoke to Wood recently about the war games and the broader implications of precision and irregular war. He said CSBA is trying to get planners to think about how to fight this type of enemy and how to train, equip and organize forces to defeat it. The real game changer is guidance and precision, he said. CSBA calls it the “G-RAMM effect”: Guided Rocket, Artillery, Mortar and Missile. In modern warfare, the majority of casualties are caused by artillery and mortar blasts and fragments. Those munitions are now getting ever more precise. What makes the IED such an effective weapon is it allows insurgents to put artillery rounds precisely on target.

The implications of the proliferation of precision are huge. If an enemy lobs a few hundred rounds and only a few hit the intended target, its harassment fire. But if the enemy fires 100 rounds and they hit with precision, “ then the concern must turn to the enemy’s inventory levels,” Wood said, “and how it matches up to the limited set of equipment that I have.”

Insurgents can now go after “big effect” targets. The firing of the occasional 120mm rocket into the sprawling Camp Victory on the outskirts of Baghdad was a nuisance. What if insurgents, using a GPS guided rocket, could have precisely targeted the dining hall, and hit it during lunch hour? Or, the random rocket and mortars fired into the Green Zone no longer became so random as specific houses, checkpoints, fuel or ammunition depots could be hit. Suddenly the operational environment changes, the secure FOB with Burger King and coffee house becomes something more akin to Khe Sanh.

The point Wood makes is that there is a world of difference between indirect fire and precision indirect fire. I recently read Martin Windrow’s superb account of Dien Bien Phu, The Last Valley (I’d resisted reading Windrow’s book because I thought: How could anyone improve on Bernard Fall’s masterful treatment of the battle? Windrow does.) It wasn’t that Giap’s regulars buried the French garrison at Dien Bien Phu under a deluge of artillery fire. It’s that the Viet Minh blasted French positions with very precise artillery fire, in most cases firing over open sights.

Wood said irregular enemies in the future will have access to what they’ve lacked in the past: an effective battle network. The U.S. military has the most sophisticated battle network ever fielded, linking communications and sensing satellite constellations, sensing and targeting aircraft such as JSTARS, and an ever growing fleet of aerial drones, all to commanders and troops on the ground. Now, hybrid enemies have access to open source battle networks of their own, including targeting with Google Earth, command and control with cell phones and the internet (as seen in the Mumbai attacks last year), and immediate battle-damage assessment from media reports and internet posts.

Wood said that participants in the war game, “the Blue team,” had a difficult time even conceptualizing the implications of greater precision and stuck to their familiar operational concepts. “That right there is an insight in and of itself,” he said. And that isn’t going to fly on future battlefields where enemies will be fighting on their home turf, they will know the terrain and they will have weapons that can strike with precision any spot they want.

Using Google Earth, ADC city maps, or a GPS locator, they can “pre-site” most any target, forcing changes in how U.S. troops are even moved to a war zone, Wood said, before they even enter the fight. Now, not only airfields can be hit, but the runways, parking aprons, refueling points and supply warehouses can be precisely targeted. Ships can pull up to only certain types of piers to offload. Now, irregular enemies will know where a ship is likely to pull up and they can precisely target and hit gantry cranes or fueling points with precision mortar rounds fired from 10–15 km away. In 2006, Hezbollah hit and severely damaged an Israeli corvette with a Silkworm anti-ship cruise missile. “Why would you flow your ships into the port like we’ve always done?” But that’s what the Blue team did, Wood said.

As guided weapons proliferate, their costs drop. That will allow potential enemies to pursue a “cost imposing strategy,” fielding guided missiles that cost tens of thousands able to defeat weapons systems that cost tens of millions of dollars. “We field million dollar MRAPS to counter $500 roadside bombs,” Wood said. “I’m only buying a fixed number of these platforms whether it be MRAPs, or tanks or MV-22s because they’re so expensive and so complicated, and yet the munitions are becoming ever more affordable and ever more capable, with guidance systems.” State actors can put those advanced guided weapons into the hands of a proxy force, with plausible deniability for the state, and inflict enormous casualties on U.S. forces.

A look at the G-RAMM components:

Rockets: During the 2006 war, the IDF was never able to stop Hezbollah firing thousands of rockets into civilian centers. These were mostly unguided, short-range Katyushas. The Guided MLRS rocket, uses a GPS guidance package, a maneuverable warhead and has a 70 km range. It has proven itself in Iraq and Afghanistan. As CSBA said, “the cat is now out of the bag”, and guided rockets can be expected to proliferate anytime after 2010, depending on foreign nation development timelines.

Artillery: The U.S. developed guided artillery rounds in the 1980s with the 155mm Copperhead, a laser guided round designed to kill tanks using top attack; no tank in the world can survive a direct hit from a heavy artillery round on its thinly armored roof. Although Copperhead suffered reliability problems, it was a technological breakthrough, requiring high G-force hardened electronics that could survive being fired out a cannon tube. The Russians quickly followed suit in the mid-1980s, developing the 152/155 mm Krasnopol laser-guided round and the Kitolov 122 mm round. Krasnopol was considered superior to Copperhead, with greater accuracy and range. The newest U.S. programs are primarily GPS-guided, such as Excalibur and LRAP. CSBA said these weapons have not yet been used by terrorists, but they are available now.

Mortars: Guided mortars are what CSBA calls the big, near-term, irregular warfare threat. They’re attractive to terrorists and irregular fighters because they’re cheap, easy to use, agile and very lethal. Laser guided mortar rounds have been around for some time. The more dangerous development is fire and forget rounds, such as infrared homing anti-armor rounds, anti-radiation and GPS. These rounds take the man out of the loop and require only the most basic training to achieve unheard of accuracy. For example: the Israeli built Fireball 120mm mortar round has a 1 meter CEP, compared to the 110 meter standard. The range of guided mortar rounds is increasing as well.

Missiles: A wide variety of guided missiles will flood future battlefields, CSBA said. Advanced man portable anti-aircraft missiles will be particularly prevalent, as will be heavy anti-tank-guided missiles used both against vehicles and as portable artillery for direct fire support. The 2006 Lebanon war was certainly not the first time Israeli armor faced large numbers of anti-tank missiles. There are stories of Israeli tanks on the Golan strung with guidance wires from so many Sagger missiles being fired at them during the 1973 war. The Sagger required the operator to guide the missile into its target using a small joystick controller. The missiles were slow and targeted tanks could often move fast enough to get out of the way or fire at the operator and cause him to miss. The newest anti-tank missiles are faster, have greater range, are “fire and forget” weapons, meaning the missiles lock onto their targets, and the warheads can defeat all known tanks.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

Hopefully the good guys can develop C-RAM tech fast enough to win this arms race. Effective laser defenses offer the possibility for cost-effective defense. Hopefully Obama doesn’t cut our laser R&D to the bone in his slash and burn jihad against the defense industry.

If I were these countries, I would lay down my arms, let the big oil companies build their stupid pipeline, then tap into it and steal the oil. Afghan, Pac, LIB, Sir, all about the pipeline the way Iraq was about the oil. While we are there anyway, this CIC is trying to make things turn out right, so I hope he can do it and I’m with him a 100%.BV

A heady and thorough article. I am trying to find definitive statistics as to how many actual Merkaba tanks were knocked out and how many were utterly destroyed. It depends on which source you tap and the answers vary greatly.

This is not uncommon. To this day there is a huge disagreement on the number of F-86s that shot down Mig-15s and visa versa. Solid answers simply do not exist and are the fodder of gossip and misinformation suppliers.

I would love to see the actual figures of how many Merkabas Hezbollah actually knocked out.

That said, I do believe that MANPAD precision munitions are the great equalizers in the coming Mideast conflicts.

Daniel
Civilianmilitaryintelligence group​.com

Think outside munitions, small arms, “MANPAD,” etc.

Go to the original source — who is supplying Hezbollah with these weapons? Yes an arms supplier who may or may not be a nation, person, or corporation. Find them.

In addition, they’re sending trainers to other countries to teach them new tactics. These trainers can not be allowed to do this.

How is this accomplished? Information. Military Intelligence cannot be an oxymoron anymore. We have to have actually people, not just satellites in every country in the world. Not to treat the country as an enemy, but to find connections. To make connections with people so if a guy in Iraq is trying to buy weapons from an arms dealer in Poland, we know about it and we know both sides.

There is more to it (a lot more), but here is my two cents.

Finding those supplying Hizbollah with weapons and training isn’t the challenge– it’s pretty clear the IRGC and others in Iran/Syria are responsible. The problem is, what can be done about it? Military action against either will not eliminate the Hizbollah problem, it will simply turn one adversary (restrained by its cautious state sponsors) into multiple enraged and unrestrained adversaries.

More important than investing in expensive, high-tech defenses against comparatively crude munitions, the US needs to train its military leaders and thinkers to adapt faster and find ways to streamline the bureaucracy so that it doesn’t take three years into a war for the right doctrines to emerge. Our strengths are superior technology and advanced weaponry, but the asymmetric threat seeks to render them impotent; prescribing more flashy toys is counterproductive, and only a change in American strategic thinking is going enable us to meet these emerging threats as they happen, rather than after they’ve killed a few thousand of our troops.

Think outside munitions, small arms, “MANPAD,” etc.

Go to the original source — who is supplying Hezbollah with these weapons? Yes an arms supplier who may or may not be a nation, person, or corporation. Find them.

In addition, they’re sending trainers to other countries to teach them new tactics. These trainers can not be allowed to do this.

How is this accomplished? Information. Military Intelligence cannot be an oxymoron anymore. We have to have actually people, not just satellites in every country in the world. Not to treat the country as an enemy, but to find connections. To make connections with people so if a guy in Iraq is trying to buy weapons from an arms dealer in Poland, we know about it and we know both sides.

There is more to it (a lot more), but here is my two cents.
Oops…forgot to say great post! Looking forward to your next one.

A truth that rocks the foundation of modern warfare! I see these Hezbollah dudes operating in the United States, thanks to our new Muslum pres. He will bring these people here for a face to face and they will blow him away and then start taking out ALL citizens of this U.S.A. This guy is really not, with it, much like the peanut farmer. The peanut farmer did more damage to our network of CIA operatives than any enemy nation. Like Senator Fred Thompson stated, “OB AMA is a young kid playing the game with the pros.” Unless OB AMA is perfect in the brain department he is going to be eatten up and crushed by our enemies without any effort on their part. OB AMA is so predictable it is not funny. He knows very little and goes into things blind. Clinton and Biden are really no help to him either. Spending money like it grows on trees, with nothing to back it up is stupid and history has proved that. OB AMA does not give a rats a-ss about the past, he is all about the future, with himself being the central figure. He is soo much in love with himself and his elitist Chicago Gang, they will have the U.S. Military using sling shots agains’t our enemies and being defeated like never before in the human life span.
George Soros is the main supplier of the money for these Hezbollah types. He enjoys seeing American Military beeing wiped out, with terrible effect. He needs to be taken out as well if the U.S.A., is to continue as a leader in everything good in this world.

Carl,

You are a partisan hack idiot.

There are terrorists in our midst right now. They kill doctors while attending church. The blow up backpacks during the Olympics. The blow up abortion clinics and then set secondary charges to go off when first responders arrive. They walk into holocost museums and kill security guards. The least of which they do is to arrive at the funerals of our fallen soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to spew their hatred.

These are the American Taliban. They stand beside those countries that espouse anti-semitism. Those countries the proudly tout “we have no gays”.

And Carl, your beliefs are far closer to theirs than to America’s beliefs.

Keep up the good work, idiot.

DC2

This is the kind of article with the kind of information that makes me think we as a nation need to GREATLY increase our investment and direction to all things unmanned. All the way from AWACS to hand launched ASV’s and heavily armed Predator III’s ! Think of how effective an Abrams with no on-board crew, only super thick armor and extra ammo would be.

I bet we will find out soon enough. Something’s gotta give over there. Iran’s nukes, Hezbollah etc. I bet the Israeli’s will conduct ops alot differently next time.

dumb*ss rag heads

Yeah, blame Obama carl.

The two most important elements in these types of engagements weren’t even mentioned in the article. First, state actors need to manipulate the encounters by ‘framing the engagements’. If your enemy has precision munitions in sufficient quantity, then you have to draw them out to use them when and where you want them to be expended. This is accomplished by relegating those areas you don’t want them in as veritable waste lands in relation to their immediate tactical interests. Making corridors of a city to smell like rotting flesh or feces is simple, economical and highly effective. Non-lethal munitions force the enemy into the places you want them to be. You can also bait them by ‘offering’ HVTs, etc. In concert, such tactics change the nature of the conflict. Second, and perhaps more importantly, large state actors like the US need to operate with a ‘lights on/ lights off’ preparation of the battlefield. Force multipliers like precision munitions require predetermined conditions. Turning the battlefield ‘light switches’ off for electromagnetic equipment prior to engagements and selectively allowing them to be turned on throughout a conflict are essential. Micro pulse weaponry has already been miniaturized and is deployable with directional orientation. In conjunction with traditional radiowave jamming techniques, using electronic equipment is yet another variable under complete control by state actors. The affected area can be as small as one square meter to several square kilometers. Combined these two elements condition conflicts and change battlefield outcomes by controlling the terms of engagement. The difference between having precision guided munitions and being able to use them is now the critical difference that separates winners from losers in hybrid conflicts.

Thank you guys for staying on point. Our issues here are too important to let any propoganda get us side tracked. Political hacks, stay some where else or get run over.

21st century battle is just that. Anticipate the probable, do not underestimate your enemy,train hard and fight easy using your best weapon-your brain!

Thanks Chief.

They are starting to adopt “smart” weapons. I will not take long before they develop some sort of cyberwarfare capabilities. That is when this will become dangerouse for the United States again.

DC2

Darin, why be so expensive and complicated? First you warn the host country’s government that their terrorist problem must disappear or suffer the consequences. Of course, we all know that’s not going to fix the problem, so send in the Phyops guys to drop leaflets warning the local population to get outta Dodge by X date or die in their homes. Next send in your AF and level your target area.…mighty destructive and disruptive to the terrorist. Next you send in your ground troops.…behind a good, ol’ fashion, rolling barrage. Destructive and keeps heads down while your guys are on the move. (Very WWI) Take the target objective, mop-up any of the bad guys still standing, and root out as much of that “high tech” gear of their that you can find, that’s still in one piece. Now, this parts very important: Reapply as necessary, as far into the host country you need to move.. If the bad guys move out with the civilian refugees, your air assault troops have already been lifted and dropped where they can at least search out a lot of the terrorist’s gear that they try hide amongst the refugees. (Hammer and Anvil?) If they decide to stand and fight, at least you’ve moved them outta their holes and they’ve lost their main advantage. Of course, there is one thing about my military operation.….…you’ve got to have the desire to beat your enemy.…..and.…..NO FREEKIN’ SILLY-AZZ RULES OF ENGAGEMENT!!!!!! You warn the civilian population of what’s coming, if they don’t move out.….oh well, like they say in the Russian Marines.…..tuffski-shitski! They die. Plus with all that destruction to the infrastructure, the host state’s government will find it cheaper to keep the terrorist out the country in the future. Pretty old school, eh?

Alright, this has nothing to do with the article.

@Darin, Paul: I want to be able to read what you write. Seriously, I want to read varying opinions. To do this, make paragraphs, and reread what you write to see if it’s actually worth it. That’s my time of being the grammar nazi.

Now, this part does -

@ Darin — I like your post, seems like its what we’ve done or been doing. Only with huge concrete walls everywhere.

@ Paul — As much as I want to say yes, I have to say no. If this was an all out war to kill everyone in the country, I would say yes. However, it’s not. It’s a policing mission that the military got stuck with.

While we did kill terrorists and find weapons in Fallujah, major players and leaders (the guys who really matter) left with the population. The whole thing about not caring about them is stupid. They run the cells and plan the operations. The others are just pawns.

@ Greg Gant -
To combat against G-RAMM straight up like Israel, laser weaponry and/or a Phalanx type system would have to travel with the armor.

Laser weaponry is apparently now almost battlefield strength (100kw or so) and the Army did drawn up some plans to develop a wheeled laser truck. Perhaps even an air drone that follows the column that can knock down any airborne threats before it reaches them.

Like Chief Houston said, “don’t underestimate your enemy” and use your brain.

To Christian Henry’s point, unmanned capabilities are a key arrow in our quiver; however, at some point on the operational continuum (from killing people and breaking things to delivering humanitarian relief and winning hearts and minds) it has to become “personal” — with boots on the ground. If the United States of America does not transform its current mobility solution to allow combat or sustainment brigades to deploy through “points” of debarkation, versus “ports” of debarkation, then we will watch LMSRs and commercial ships, packed with our best gear, burn pierside at the Ports of Debarkation, and C-17s/Commercial CRAF airframes crash upon approach, or explode on the ground at our Air Ports of Debarkation. Platforms such as the Joint High Speed Vessel are at the leading edge of this much needed, austere entry capability; however, unless we view the Ports of Embarkation (CONUS) as the Line of Departure (POE = LD) — thereby giving us a truly “global maneuver” quality for our Brigade Combat Teams and Sustainment Brigades — then we may be destined to have one in the “loss” column before we even make contact with the enemy with boots on the ground — given the enemy’s continual development of innovative anti-access/area denial capabilities. Airfield-independent air platforms and port-independent sealift platforms, delivering in-tact, immediately employable combat power anywhere in the world, exponentially complicate our adversaries’ ability to interdict us using anti-access/area-denial capabilities at our most vulnerable point, which is at A/SPODs in or near their neck of the woods. Navy and Air Force programs must balance transformational “strike” versus transformational “lift” capability to counteract this inevitable trend in capability development by astute and dynamic future adversaries.

Those munitions are now getting ever more precise. What makes the IED such an effective weapon is it allows insurgents to put artillery rounds precisely on target.

I see no one is facing the facts that Israel is the aggressor in the Middle East.

I agree with Reno. Israel was and continues to be the real “terrorist” in the middle east. What everyone who speculates about what weapons systems or tactics to employ on the battelfield I would like to point out that the soldier with the highest morale has and always will prevail…eventually. And Israel is an invading army, a foreign entity that hides behind its technological superiority. They got so used to shooting at unarmed Palestinian rock throwing children they found themselves unprepared to battle an organized trained miltary force in Lebanon.

In close combat in south Lebanon against a highly skilled, highly motivated hizbollah force defending its hometurf, the Isrealis were beaten badly. They pulled out and carpet bombed the entire area with the lowest tech weapon they had, single fuse cluster bombs. So much for high tech platforms.

Unless we have moral justification beyond oil or protecting Israel, our troops can not win and we would be wasting their lives needlessly. A strong but flexible army with coordinated comand and control designed to defend not occupy is more useful to our security.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement