Eyes Turned Toward Aerospace: An Investigative Report from the Air Force Early Warning Academy
Eyes Turned Toward Aerospace: An Investigative Report from the Air Force Early Warning Academy
■ Hu Bing, Zhou Peng, PLA Daily Correspondent Li Lin
On the snow-covered plateau, at an altitude of 4,800 meters. The principal investigator of a research project at the Air Force Early Warning Academy has been working alongside officers and soldiers of a radar brigade at a radar station, collecting data. To overcome technical application challenges for radar equipment under extreme conditions, this project lead has been engaged in sustained research for more than a month.
Thousands of li away, on the land of Jingchu. Academy leadership led a scientific research and innovation team to frontline grassroots units to validate an innovative achievement produced through years of dedicated research. They stated: "This technology must first be tested at the frontline of combat training and war preparation before it can be promoted!"
These two scenes convey a clear orientation: the sights of scientific research must be aligned with the battlefield, and the measure of performance (政绩) is whether soldiers are satisfied, whether the grassroots approves, and whether it serves the ability to win.
At this academy, the performance outlook (政绩观) of orienting toward and fighting for war is becoming ever clearer: heroes are not judged solely by awards, papers, or projects—what matters is whether results can reach the battleground, enter exercise and training venues, and serve combat power. Researchers across the board are writing their papers at the frontline of combat training and war preparation, directing their innovative gaze toward the battlefield of defending aerospace, and have forged a path of research-for-war in which "topics come from the troops and results go to the training ground."
Do not only ask "what am I good at"—ask "what does the battlefield need"
Some time ago, the academy's newly revised "Research Project Application and Approval Guidelines" had no sooner been released than it caused considerable stir among faculty: the "self-selected topics" category that had appeared in previous years was gone, replaced by a "call-for-champions" (揭榜挂帅) topic list containing more than ten items of war-preparation requirements.
Young instructor Feng Mingyue quickly submitted a technical research proposal for one of the topics. As a research backbone who frequently goes to units in support roles, he has a deep appreciation for the shift in how applications are structured.
Two years ago, at a symposium organized by an air defense unit, a prototype system developed by the academy had no sooner made its debut than it was met with cold water from grassroots officers and soldiers. Compounded by the fact that some functions were incompatible with the existing equipment system, the system ultimately could not be applied in training practice.
Similar situations were not isolated cases. In the course of investigations, the academy's administrative organs found that some "self-selected topic" projects had diffuse lines of argument, with researchers "building cars behind closed doors" in the laboratory, and results that were "unable to adapt to local conditions" once they reached the troops.
"The crux of the problem is that the starting point for project approval had become detached from battlefield requirements." The academy Party committee took an unambiguous stance: "Scientific research cannot fixate only on papers and awards, cannot only ask 'what am I good at'—it must ask 'what does the battlefield need.' Projects that are disconnected from the troops' war preparation and combat readiness will not be permitted to apply, without exception."
Corrective action was launched immediately. The academy Party committee started at the source, establishing a "rapid response mechanism for troop requirements," collecting troop difficulties through multiple channels including liaison officers at various levels, higher-level notifications, and investigations, and compiling them into a "call-for-champions" topic list. "Through this approach, we are cultivating a research atmosphere in which the capable rise, the excellent are rewarded, the mediocre step down, and the inferior are eliminated," said Director Lü of the academy's Research Department.
Not only must the troops be allowed to raise requirements—they must also be allowed to participate in decision-making. The academy stipulates that the proportion of troop experts at project approval review meetings must be no less than 50 percent, and frontline "experts and veterans" such as radar station commanders, operations and training staff officers, and NCO technicians are invited to participate in project reviews. A review of this year's project approval announcements by the reporter found that a collaborative technology project newly submitted by young instructor Ni Lei was successfully approved. Prior to submission, he had made multiple visits to relevant units to solicit opinions; the project was highly aligned with troop requirements and ultimately won unanimous recognition from the review experts.
Today, all new topics at the academy are focused on fighting, and "organized scientific research" (有组织的科研) has moved from concept to practice. The academy Party committee took the lead in forming more than ten interdisciplinary teams, building large platforms and large stages. At the same time, they strictly implement relevant regulations and have established a Scientific Research Outstanding Achievement Award, with only one criterion: solving combat training and war preparation difficulties for the troops.
On one occasion, a team received an urgent research task under tight time, heavy workload, and difficult coordination. The academy Party committee made a decisive decision: "All processes go through the green channel—special matters handled specially." In the end, this major project was completed on schedule and passed acceptance review smoothly.
Since the launch of the study and education campaign on establishing and practicing a correct performance outlook (正确政绩观), the entire academy has pulled together as one, and everyone has come to understand more clearly: only by aligning the sights of scientific research with the battlefield can research capability truly be converted into the capability to win.
Military academies answer the questions; the troops grade the answers—exploring a new path of joint research
In the heat of summer, an air-ground coordinated counter-unmanned aerial vehicle training exercise unfolded at an intense pace on the academy's training ground.
Director Shi of a certain teaching and research section kept his eyes fixed on the next-generation interface of a certain system. "Multiple 'low-slow-small' targets detected to the northeast!" Facing a swarm of incoming UAVs, the research team, supported by an intelligent decision-assistance system, rapidly activated electro-optical tracking and comprehensively employed means such as electronic jamming to "eliminate" the incoming targets one by one.
Behind this system's impressive performance lay a period of being questioned.
Due to insufficient understanding of ground unit counter-UAV requirements, the team's proposed design was challenged on the spot by experts at a review meeting. "At the time, we didn't understand the task units well enough, and the equipment design was overly idealized..." Director Shi acknowledged frankly.
"Military academies answer the questions; the troops grade the answers." The academy Party committee made an explicit demand: frontline officers and soldiers must be allowed to participate in research projects, so that research more closely approximates the battlefield.
Learning that a certain Air Force unit had extensive experience in the relevant area, the team proactively invited experienced operators and observers from that unit to serve as advisors, and actively incorporated troop feedback for optimization and adjustment; the system's response speed and intercept efficiency improved significantly.
From "going out" to "inviting in" to "integrating in," the academy has explored a new path of joint research.
"Going out"—research teams deploy as complete units to the frontline. A certain project group made multiple visits to an Air Force test range, a radar brigade, and other units for on-site investigations, living, eating, and training alongside officers and soldiers throughout. During one training exercise, soldiers successfully deceived a certain type of radar using a "decoy aircraft," exposing a vulnerability in the target recognition algorithm. The team immediately optimized and upgraded the system in response to this problem, and the project was ultimately successfully applied at frontline training grounds.
"Inviting in"—frontline officers and soldiers are invited to serve as research "advisors." Dedicated "combat requirements liaison officers" are established, and troop backbones are invited to participate in technical discussions. During one research effort, a company commander's improvement suggestion regarding a software system was adopted, powerfully advancing the system's development.
"Integrating in"—the research process and the combat process are deeply coupled. During project research, troop officers and soldiers are invited to operate the system on-site and provide scores; experiments and evaluations are conducted at training frontlines at appropriate times; and improvements are dynamically optimized based on suggestions from the troops.
Today, every project group at the academy has been paired with officers and soldiers from relevant units. They have established a "full-process research-tracking mechanism" (全过程跟研机制), allowing officers and soldiers to regularly review project progress and bring interim results back for trial use. This model has saved the research work from taking many wrong turns.
Joint research sometimes means "credit does not necessarily go to the academy." But researchers at the academy share a common understanding: serving the ability to win is the greatest achievement.
A certain interdisciplinary team is the "pacesetter" in one of the academy's research directions. During a major research task, dozens of instructors from the team worked jointly with personnel from other units. After relentless effort, the project was ultimately successfully implemented. What is moving is that although the team gained neither fame nor benefit from this effort, no one had any complaints—all for the sake of "getting the equipment developed as soon as possible so the troops can use it."
This "wartime" responsiveness has become a "peacetime" norm
Iron columns rolling, wind and sand filling the sky. During one training exercise, a radar detachment suddenly received a special situation report: "Position exposed—possible enemy anti-radiation strike incoming. Transfer to new position within two hours!"
In the vast Gobi, simply surveying and selecting a new position used to take considerable time. But during this training exercise, the detachment commander opened a certain system, entered the mission requirements, and candidate plans and routes were automatically generated in short order. The detachment then relied on another highly integrated system to transfer as a complete unit at the first opportunity.
The original impetus for developing these two systems came from a temporary-duty (代职) experience shared by two members of a team at the academy. During their temporary duty, the two discovered that the tactics and methods the troops were using were disconnected from the future battlefield. "If war broke out tonight, would the enemy give us time to prepare?" Returning to the academy, the team pooled their collective wisdom to design the two systems, dramatically shortening the time required for surveying and selecting a new position and for support preparation.
Not long ago, when these two systems made their debut at an academy review meeting, the expert panel interrupted the team's results briefing: "The technical specifications in the recommendation document don't need to be repeated—focus on introducing the results of troop trial use."
"The results have been promoted to nearly ten units and have completed training support missions on multiple occasions." Hearing the briefing from Director Cheng, the team leader, the experts nodded repeatedly.
This story reflects a deep-level transformation in the academy's research evaluation orientation. Director Cheng told the reporter: "In the past, research evaluation to some degree had problems such as emphasizing project completion over conversion, and results sometimes never left the laboratory."
"Research results that cannot reach the battlefield are nothing but armchair strategy!" The academy Party committee took an unambiguous stance: measuring research results cannot rely only on papers and awards—what must be examined is their actual contribution on the training ground.
In recent years, the academy annually issues "two lists" (两张清单) to the troops through Air Force organs: a list of professional and technical course instruction offerings and a list of precise research requirements. The troops submit requirements based on actual training needs, and the academy organizes instruction and research against the lists. Research personnel regularly go to grassroots frontlines to answer questions, troubleshoot, and calibrate equipment, enabling research results to better serve the troops and serve combat power development.
During one Spring Festival holiday, equipment at a coastal radar station was suddenly subjected to intense jamming, and the unit was unable to resolve the problem effectively. After receiving the radar station's request for assistance, the academy immediately activated its rapid response mechanism and dispatched research personnel to rush to the frontline overnight. Together with the officers and soldiers, they held the position, collected data, and analyzed the cause, quickly producing a formal report and initiating an emergency project. After sustained research, they resolved this problem—which had been affecting combat training and war preparation—at its source.
This "wartime" responsiveness has become a "peacetime" norm. At the academy, the orientation of scientific research toward and for war has been transformed from an external requirement into the conscious action of every researcher.