No. of Recommendations: 10
Over the years, warfare has had many quantum changes which left those fighting “the last war” at a significant disadvantage.
The invention of the stirrup hanging from saddles allowed mobile archers to outflank infantry.
The adoption of gunpowder in the west made the previous invulnerability of castles with high curtain walls and armored carvery counterproductive. The invention of mobile artillery by the Swedish, iron-clad and steam-powered warships with turret-mounted cannons to turn other fleets into useless kindling, the “repeating” rifle and machine gun (along with the use of barbed-wire) to change the battlefield, the airplane providing mobile artillery and reconnaissance, the adoption of armored vehicles, nuclear missiles and so on, were all inflection points in what constituted a new methodology which replaced the previous one when conduction a war.
Since the Second World War, the US has created a major group of industries, employing millions of people (in presumably every state so they are a political necessity) who build ever more sophisticated and expensive weapons and defense systems. A B-2 bomber’s acquisition cost is above $2 billion bucks and an F35 fighter costs $85-100 million. The estimated cost for each F-47 Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter is around $300 million per aircraft. A modern aircraft carrier, like the Gerald R. Ford-class, costs around $13 billion to build. (These costs do not include the research and development or continuing maintenance costs.
The cost of today’s main battle tanks:
1. 1. Type 10 (Japan) – ~9.4 million USD
2. 2. AMX-56 Leclerc (France) – ~9 million USD
3. 3. K2 Black Panther (South Korea) – ~8.5 million USD
4. 4. Challenger 2 (United Kingdom) – ~8 million USD
5. 5. Leopard 2A7+ (Germany) – ~8 million USD
6. 6. M1A2 Abrams SEP (USA) – ~6–8 million USD
7. 7. Merkava Mk4 (Israel) – ~6 million USD
8. 8. Altay (Turkey) – ~5.5 million USD
9. 9. T-14 Armata (Russia) – ~3.7 million USD
10. 10. Type 99 (China) – ~2.6 million USD
The current war in Ukraine is indicating that, at least in theatre-sized warfare, the Ukrainians, and now the Russians, are substituting relatively inexpensive weapons, with ever more AI/autonomous capabilities for expensive weapon systems.
The Russian Black Sea fleet is now in hiding along the eastern shore due to their expensive warships being vulnerable to maritime drones costing $250,000 and even less expensive missiles Russia has lost over 11,000 tanks, over 31,000 artillery pieces and over 23,000 armored vehicles, mostly to inexpensive drone-dropped munitions. (
https://www.kyivpost.com/)
Neither side in the war can claim air superiority, mainly due to the vast arrays of anti-aircraft middles on both sides of the border making it non-cost effective to risk multi-million-dollar planes.
Drones are now used instead of aircraft, both as a proxy for airborne artillery and for reconnaissance. While I guess it may be safer and provide a more powerful weapon for a soldier to be inside of a tank than a foxhole, but it is also a vulnerable target.
So, changes in strategy are still taking place (both in offense and defense), but it is clear that given that a modern jet fighter can cost $100M and a sophisticated drone .0025 of that it would be interesting to do a computer study of the offensive effects of a single plane vs. 400 drones – or conversely, how safe that plane would be if simultaneously attacked by 400 sophisticated missiles. This is demonstrated by the inability of Ukraine's F-16 to survive on the russian side of the line of contact or of their Russian equivalents to survive above Ukrainian territory.
While arguments could be made for the ability to “project force” provided by an aircraft carrier, when you evaluate its cost (especially after adding its load of planes and sailors, as well as the “task force” required for its protection), it would be interesting to model what an equivalent response would require in missiles and drones launched from series of more modest craft. It is finally accepted that battleships are largely obsolete and we are merely one navel war away from potentially finding out that the aircraft carrier is no longer cost effective for its mission.
So, why the inertia? When politicians “bring home the bacon” of federal dollars to fund defense plants in their states, it is not to their advantage to look to cut military spending, but rather to have the military spend as much as possible in their districts.
As the US backs off from overt support of Europe, yet forces NATO members to increase military spending, there are a number of possible paths they can take. They can easily/quickly blow off their obligation by buying high-priced US weapon systems (line F-35’s and Patriot systems cost a billion bucks a pop) or they can take a longer-term response by creating European consortiums to design and build weapon systems which are not dependent on the USS, are less expensive and arguably of more closely designed for modern warfare conditions.
In the US, there is a revolving door between military procurement and the defense contractors, supported by politicians who receive vast amount\s of reelection financial support from the defense industry’s lobbyists, so it’s not surprising that there is little incentive to be cost-conscious, but our current administration seems to be hard at work to concern our customer base who, no doubt, are frightened by the possibility of our mercurial behavior cutting off support for their purchases at some future point (not to mention the high market price required to buy our friendship).
Jeff
