During the peak summer months, the scorching sun beats down. A fighter aircraft from a certain naval unit takes off with a roar, heading to the designated airspace to participate in practical, coordinated training alongside allied naval vessel units.

According to the department’s leadership, for this training exercise, they set up a scenario with “questionable target characteristics” and required the crew to work closely with neighboring vessels to conduct precise verification and identification of unknown targets at sea, covering all aspects and multiple dimensions. This was done to test and enhance their ability to analyze intelligence and handle special situations in coordination with air and sea forces.

“Suspicious target signal detected!” Once the aircraft reached its cruising altitude, the crew’s radar operator immediately picked up an unusual signal.

“Considering the guidance and intelligence information, as well as the recent characteristics of the ‘enemy situation,’ do the signal features fully align?” The air commander did not rush to issue directives for action but instead encouraged the personnel to break free from their established thinking patterns and engage in analysis. The crew members, drawing upon the experience gained from their regular training and the reconnaissance information provided by neighboring vessels, quickly exchanged opinions and conducted multidimensional cross-verification.

After thorough analysis, they concluded that the actual characteristics of the target differed from the vague intelligence clues initially provided by the guidance and control team, and that the differences were likely intentional “deceptive signals” set by the guidance and control team. Subsequently, the crew shared the verification results and detailed characteristics of the target with neighboring vessels, thereby gaining valuable time to optimize subsequent operational deployments.

“Quick and accurate analysis of intelligence information is a crucial step in addressing our specific weaknesses in coordination and enhancing our operational capabilities.” According to the department’s leadership, in recent years, they have adhered to the training philosophy of “combining forces in battle and training soldiers in a systematic manner.” They have focused on the challenges and difficulties in coordinated training, combined their successful experiences gained from regular exercises and training, and explored ways to optimize joint training with neighboring naval vessels and fighter aircraft units, thereby driving continuous improvements in training effectiveness.

The battlefield situation is constantly changing. Just as the allied naval units were adjusting their deployment and reinforcing their defenses, the true “enemy” target suddenly unleashed intense electromagnetic interference, causing the fighter plane’s radar screen to turn into a “blank snowflake” in an instant. The atmosphere inside the cockpit became suddenly tense.

“Activate the anti-jamming mode!” the air commander issued the order decisively. The personnel at various positions worked closely together and performed their tasks with precision. They employed the “layered anti-jamming, cross-verification” tactics they had independently developed, combined with real-time intelligence from the radar feedback of neighboring vessels. Through multidimensional comparisons and corroboration from multiple sources, they quickly completed the closed-loop handling of “detection-identification-interference-locking,” breaking through the “battlefield fog,” successfully capturing the main targets of the “enemy,” and simulating interception operations.

After the training concluded, a debriefing session was immediately held. The participants engaged in in-depth discussions on the issues related to the application of battle tactics, coordination and cooperation, and emergency response. They formulated detailed remediation plans one by one, laying a solid foundation for further improvements in training. (Looking at the New Era)