The exponential development and proliferation of advanced technologies in recent years have pierced the fog of war to an unprecedented degree. This is most apparent on the battlefields of Ukraine, which have become the proving grounds for new military concepts and technologies.
One of the most important concepts to emerge from Ukraine is that of the “transparent battlefield”. It refers to an environment in which tactical and operational information is made available in real-time to personnel on the ground, their commanding officers, and strategic decision makers.
Achieving ‘Transparency’ on the Battlefield
Greater battlefield transparency is primarily driven by improvements to command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance (C4ISTAR). The proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and sensors have had a particularly noticeable impact in Ukraine, as well as in other conflicts like the Second Nagorno Karabakh War.
As noted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “sensor saturation creates a “transparent battlefield” in which forces can be found and targeted more easily than in past decades.” Similar conclusions were reached in the British Army’s Land Operating Concept (LOpC), unveiled in September 2023. The LOpC observes that “An exponential increase in both the quality, and number of, advanced sensors and precision weapons is resulting in an expanded and more transparent battlefield.”
UAVs bolster ISTAR with cost-effective deployment and low-risk missions. Offensive UAVs like UCAVs and loitering munitions reduce target response times and improve kill chain speed.
Various sensors like radar and LiDAR provide clearer battlefield images, penetrating vegetation and aiding in target detection, especially in adverse conditions. Satellites, both military and commercial, democratize access to intelligence gathering, previously restricted to governments.
Open-source intelligence (OSINT) from tools like social media and commercial satellites empowers civilians to support military efforts, providing real-time battlefield updates that were once exclusive to trained agencies. In Ukraine, civilians have acted as a “force multiplier” by providing OSINT for the Ukrainian military. A civilian with a smartphone and access to the internet can expose military forces on the move in a matter of seconds in a way that was not possible before the age of information technology.
Implications Posed by the Transparent Battlefield
On the transparent battlefield, it is far more challenging for soldiers and vehicles to remain concealed or for larger formations to achieve surprise.
As noted again by the LOpC, “It is becoming much more difficult for soldiers to hide and survive… With military actions being more closely scrutinized in real time, maintaining surprise, deception, and legitimacy will be more of a challenge.”
This may, in turn, make offensive operations more difficult to carry out successfully. As a result, the offense-defense balance in Ukraine has tended to favor the latter. Russia was unable to achieve strategic or tactical surprise with the initial invasion because its forces were spotted converging on the border with Ukraine in the days and weeks before February 22. US, and UK intelligence officials predicted an attack, as did OSINT analysts using tools like Google Maps.
For the most part, recent Russian and Ukrainian offensives have produced lackluster results. During the height of Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive, Ukrainian forces advanced an average of only 90 meters a day. One of the critical issues is that attacking forces are often quickly exposed by the multitude of sensors on the battlefield. At best, this means losing the element of surprise and, at worst, getting pounded by artillery, airstrikes, or drones. Consequently, attacking forces have an even tougher time defeating enemy forces in prepared defensive positions.
Not only is the probability of detection increased on the transparent battlefield, but also the viable range at which strikes can be conducted accurately. For instance, UAVs can supplement the capabilities of forward observers on the ground, thus increasing the ranges at which artillery and precision-guided munitions can hit targets. This increases the threat to units further behind the front line and logistics operations. In the latter case, lightly defended logistics chains previously considered safe far beyond the fighting may be in greater danger.
Based on analysis of the Ukraine War, Lt. Gen. David Barno (ret.) and Dr Nora Bensahel write that “The ability to achieve surprise, to protect one’s logistics, and to conceal the force from persistent detection is evaporating.” The authors also highlight how the viability of certain platforms may be threatened by greater battlefield transparency. They argue that whilst the US military has relied extensively on helicopters in the past to provide troop transport, reconnaissance, resupply, and strike capabilities, their survivability in high-intensity environments against foes equipped with an array of sensors, UAVs, and air defense systems is questionable at best. This is evidenced by extensive losses incurred on both sides in Ukraine, with the Russians estimated to have lost over 170 helicopters in the span of just two years.
Adapting to the Transparent Battlefield
One of the critical concerns, especially for forces on the offensive, will be survivability, given that detection is more likely and strikes at longer ranges are more viable than before. To this end, the LOpC states that “Fighting forces will disperse, deceive, and conceal themselves while hunting down the enemy’s artillery, surveillance assets, logistics chains, and command nodes.”
Similarly, Lt. Gen Barno and Dr Bensahel have suggested that the insertion of troops may have to be conducted differently. They likewise stressed the importance of dispersal on foot, but also suggested that armored vehicles would be a more survivable transportation method than helicopters.
Additional consideration has been given by the LOpC to logistics which will “draw upon dispersal, concealment, forward manufacture, and repair, as well as contracted support to offset the challenges of a more dispersed and expanded battlefield.” Other thought leaders have suggested that expendable unmanned systems should play a greater role in the delivery of supplies and munitions via both the ground and air.
Maintaining the Fog of War
Whilst the trends identified above are broadly true, opportunities for deception and concealment will remain and may arise in new and surprising ways. As noted in a paper published by the Centre for Doctrine and Command Education, the impact of technology is multifaceted: “while it can increase the transparency of the battlefield, it can, on the other hand, make it opaque or mislead the adversary.”
Sensors, though incredibly useful, can be deceived. Decoys like inflatable tanks or heated systems can be used to convince personnel using thermal imaging cameras that they are looking at real military vehicles. A humorous report that a group of US Marines were able to evade a robot programmed to identify human targets by hiding in a carboard box likewise demonstrates the fallibility of advanced technologies.
A starker example is the terrorist attack conducted by Hamas on October 7 against Israel. Despite being confronted with a vast array of sensors and surveillance; Hamas was able to surprise a far more technically capable adversary and achieve tactical and strategic surprise.
Key Takeaways
Technology is making it increasingly more difficult to conceal troops and achieve strategic surprise. As a result, miliary leaders will increasingly need to equip their forces with the means to take advantage of these new developments by investing in a wide array of C4ISTAR capabilities.
Leaders will equally be at pains to minimize the vulnerabilities their forces will be exposed to on the transparent battlefield. This may mean a more dispersed approach to warfighting and a sober assessment of what capabilities are best suited to the evolving demands of the battlefield. Experiences in Ukraine seem to indicate an offence-defense balance in favor of the latter, but it remains to be seen how far this would remain the case in other conflicts or whether the situation in Ukraine will change substantially in the coming months.
Finally, it is worth remembering that the evolution of warfare is rarely linear. Although current trends point towards an increasingly transparent battlefield, new forms of deception and concealment will arise in response. As ever, military leaders should remain imaginative in their tactical, operational, and strategic thinking.
About the Author
Alexander E. Gale is an analyst specializing in security and international relations. A graduate of the University of Exeter, he holds a Master of Arts in Applied Security and strategy and has written on defense issues for several publications including The National Interest, Modern Diplomacy, and International Policy Digest.
