James Black
Low-cost drones have made for cheap and effective attacks against military hardware which is much more expensive to manufacture, giving an edge to non-state actors.
Dramatic images of million-dollar missiles streaking into the air to intercept low-cost drones have filled our television screens for three years, amid fighting in Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, and the Red Sea.
While cost asymmetry has always played a role in tactical warfare, we now face more strategic questions because it is so cheap to attack and so expensive to defend.
U.S., European, and Israeli air and missile defenses have performed remarkably well in these conflicts. However, with the technical sophistication of these systems comes a hefty price tag. Now, the advent of cheap commercial drones has sharply tilted the cost asymmetry towards offence.
A Frugal Method Of Destruction
New threats include so-called kamikaze systems such as the Iranian Shahed, used widely by the Russians and Houthis, as well as modified commercial first-person-view (FPV) drones, many of which are manufactured in China and can be purchased by anyone online.
These are being employed in staggering numbers by both sides in the war on Ukraine. On their own, their capabilities may be crude, especially compared to a traditional fighter aircraft or long-range precision-strike missile. Still, “quantity has a quality all of its own.”
Wielding such new weapons, attackers aim to wear down sophisticated defences. They do so by cluttering and confusing the sensor picture, burning through defenders’ finite stocks of expensive missile interceptors, and forcing high-value assets such as air defense batteries to reveal their positions by illuminating their radars or firing.
This opens defenders up to subsequent attacks or, at the very least, compels them to relocate, creating gaps in the defenses during the move.
No comments:
Post a Comment