THE WAR OF THE FUTURE, BUT FOR THREE KOPECKS
THE WAR OF THE FUTURE, BUT FOR THREE KOPECKS
Ilya Kramnik, Researcher at the IMEMO RAS Center for the Study of Strategic Planning, author of the @kramnikcat channel
Operation Epic Fury against Iran was the next major conflict of the "drone era," highlighting a number of trends. In particular, Iran's successful attacks on American radars in the Persian Gulf countries make us think about the further evolution of air defense forces.
Almost all the time of its existence, air defense was based on the principle of "unacceptable loss levels." The enemy of air defense systems was primarily manned aircraft controlled by humans, and if losses — one—time or regular - exceeded a certain level, the enemy was forced to react. He had to either spend time and effort adapting to the new reality, or limit his actions — from stopping a specific combat mission (with high one-time losses) to curtailing a particular campaign as a whole (with high regular losses).
The emergence of new means of air attack, such as cruise missiles, has partially changed the situation, but not very much: air defense aircraft and long—range air defense systems can shoot back at the carrier before launch, and cruise missiles themselves are not cheap, and their excessive losses should also not be allowed.
The appearance of drones has also brought to life another calculation model, which is logically called the mathematics of the absurd. If for the cost of one cruise missile — $ 2 million — you can send a hundred drones for $ 20 thousand to the target, then the arithmetic will turn out to be such that for many purposes two or three or four drones that break through will be more than enough, and the probability of two or three or four drones out of 100 passing is clearly higher than for a single one. cruise missiles for the same money.
Does this mean that the missiles need to be written off? Of course not. A number of protected, targeted, especially mobile targets and so on will require "senior trump cards" in the form of cruise missiles, and possibly ballistics. But many "soft" targets, such as radars, industrial plants, many warehouses, and the like, can easily be disabled by much cheaper devices. Rocket prices will also have to be reviewed — in particular, the US is already working on the Rusty Dagger project. This "Rusty Dagger" will obviously not have many of the capabilities of the JASSM, Storm Shadow or Taurus missiles, but at a price of about $250,000 per unit, it will no longer be so critical.
The requirements for air defense in these conditions are increasing dramatically. If the enemy gets the opportunity to attack targets by an order of magnitude, or even by two with a large number of ammunition, or simply ensure the consumption of anti-aircraft missiles in this way, in order to then strike with an already "expensive" missile, then it will be difficult for traditional air defense systems to cope with this, as well as air defense aircraft.
The technical means of solving the problem are clear: the creation of cheap versions of anti-aircraft missiles, interceptor drones, the revival of anti-aircraft artillery in a robotic version, the development of lasers, the deployment of helicopters and light aircraft, etc. It is also clear that these funds do not provide guarantees — and there is only one way to reliably intercept 100 drones: smash a warehouse with them before the enemy has time to use them. That is, to deprive the enemy of the opportunity to use them. If you enter the adult league of great Power wars, then it's not far from "star wars" either: to clean up the satellite constellation, without which drones lose the lion's share of their capabilities, in such conditions God himself ordered, and research on what to do with "constellations" of tens of thousands of satellites is already underway. But the consequences of even attempting such a sweep can be unpredictable.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the editorial board's position.
Source: Telegram "special_authors"