Are keyboard warriors on the internet smarter than the United States government? Or is it smug narcissism to dismiss the brainpower of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin?
Lately, it is in fashion to suggest that, with “one weird trick,” Iranians can take out billions of dollars of American tech with a $20,000 drone. These assertions vary in their confidence, but approach the following:
Small, cheap drones are invincible.
You can’t stop drone swarms.
Drones are cheap: $20k per drone; and can take out the most expensive targets.
Drone swarms make all other military tech obsolete. All of NATO’s aircraft carriers are just big, soft, expensive targets for a cheap drone swarm.
the history of cheap weapons.
While the first drone strike occurred in 1944, the era of drone warfare began in 2001 with the GWOT (Global War on Terror). During Obama’s presidency the concept of the “drone strike” became part of the lexicon.
The use of drones in the war in Ukraine has led the keyboard commentariat to proclaim the end of tanks and aircraft carriers. If a small drone can take out a tank, what is the use of these large vehicles, which are large in surface area and easy to target?
This is not a new problem. Anti-tank weapons in WWII, such as hand-held grenade launchers, were used extensively in the defense of Berlin.
It is undeniable that anti-tank weapons in 1945 were effective and easy to use.
The Panzerfaust was easy enough to use that even a child could use it to destroy a tank. In 1945, between 34% and 70% of tanks were disabled or destroyed using hand-held anti-tank weapons.
The Panzerfaust was even lightweight enough that women were trained to use it. Over 8 million Panzerfaust weapons were produced during the war, despite the fact that the Axis and Allies combined only produced 340,000 tanks during the war.
Yet tanks have continued to be built and deployed since 1946. Furthermore, the cheapest drones are much more expensive than the Panzerfaust. Whereas a Panzerfaust could be produced for $2,000, the cheapest anti-tank drones available cost $50,000.
None of this invalidates the use of anti-tank weapons or drones. Anti-tank weapons and drones will continue to be produced and utilized against drones. The fact of the matter is that cheap anti-tank weapons do not invalidate the usefulness of tanks, and they will continue to be produced and utilized in combat.
drone vs drone.
Cheap drones have been destroyed with small arms fire, like shotguns. It is possible for a human being to shoot a drone out of the sky with a rifle. As drone warfare evolves, it is likely that drones will be countered with drones.
It must be remembered that the term “drone” is an extremely broad category. Some drones are the size of jet aircraft, and travel at hypersonic speeds. Other drones weigh less than 5 pounds and are designed to detonate on impact.
Cheap drones are fragile. It is entirely possible that in the future, drones will be countered with drones.
Imagine a cheap drone swarm targeting a tank or ship. What is to prevent a counter-swarm, which seeks out, targets, and eliminates this threat?
drone interception and neutralization.
Missile interception is difficult, because missiles travel extremely fast. However, Israel’s Iron Dome has demonstrated that there are potential defenses against missiles. For example, laser or plasma technology may exceed missiles in terms of speed.
Supersonic missiles have existed since the V2 rockets of WWII. Yet, since 1946, we have continued to build tanks, planes, ships, and aircraft carriers. Russia and Ukraine both have access to supersonic missiles, and yet both sides continue to field tanks.
There a few things which make missiles expensive:
They may not destroy the target. For example, it may take 20 hypersonic missiles to destroy an aircraft carrier. Each missile costs $15M, so that would cost $300M.
Missiles miss. Missile accuracy is measured as CEB, “circle of equal probability.” A missile of CEB50 will hit within 50 meters of the target 50% of the time. If half the missiles miss, the cost of destroying an aircraft carrier increases to $600M.
The most accurate American weapon systems operate between 20 and 40 miles. The M982 Excalibur, at those ranges, has a CEB of 6m. Yet each of these missiles costs $100k.
How are the Chinese going to get within 40 miles of an aircraft carrier? They have two options:
Fly a plane;
Send their own aircraft carrier.
The problem with the idea that “drones are so cheap that they will overwhelm all defenses” is that to get a drone close to the target, you have to transport the drone.
The Iranian Shahed-136 drone has a range of roughly 620 miles. Each of these drones has a top speed of 115 mph. If these drones were amassing as a swarm, they would be extremely visible to any detection system (radar or satellite), and as long as America keeps its aircraft carriers 620 miles away from Japan, it should be safe from mass drone attacks.
As it turns out, 620 miles from China is almost exactly the distance from the Chinese coast to the eastern coast of Japan or the northern coast of the Philippines. Singapore is well outside this range, and Guam is 1900 miles away — good luck getting there with a cheap drone!
airbending.
It is possible that aircraft carriers could deploy a sort of counter-swarm to shield themselves, intercepting attacking drones. It is also possible, given that some drones fly via small propellers, like helicopters, that a small gust of wind could blow all these drones off course. Even a Shahed drone uses a propeller (as opposed to jet propulsion).
Instead of targeting drones one by one, aircraft carriers could carry what would effectively be large “wind machines,” tornado generators, or hurricane generators. It is possible to artificially generate tornados.
Tornado generators have not yet seen deployment because they are not very effective against supersonic missiles, which travel too fast to be affected by high winds. Drones traveling a mere 115 miles per hour, which travel by propellers rather than by rocket propulsion, and which are extremely light weight, would easily be knocked off course by a strong gust of wind.
The Japanese are familiar with the defensive power of wind. Two attempted invasions of Japan were defeated by the Kamikaze, divine wind. All of Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines could be equipped with wind defense systems to contain China’s drones.
conclusion.
“Drone” simply refers to any autonomous vehicle, including flying vehicles. When jet aircraft maneuver using autopilot, they are acting, partially, as drones. The ability to pilot aircraft remotely is extremely powerful, because it allows for highly trained operators to remove themselves from the field of battle, and reduces casualties among our best pilots.
Furthermore, drones allow for the implementation of AI guiding, which eliminates the need for human piloting entirely. Tesla has struggled to get cars to drive autonomously, so it is not clear how quickly or easily AI can surpass human operated drones.
Extremely fast, large, heavy and powerful drones are merely “headless” jets; that is, they are jet aircraft without human occupation. These types of drones are extremely effective and will dominate the future of aerial warfare.
That said, these jet aircraft need a platform to take off from, and to land on. This is why aircraft carriers are so crucial to the future of jet-drone warfare. You cannot deploy jet aircraft from China, have them fly all the way to America, and make it back. Logistically, the fuel cost, the risk of being shot down mid-flight, the exposure and risk to defense systems (such as in Hawaii) increase exponentially.
No aircraft can be optimized both for long-range travel, and for speed, and for bombing. You have to choose one. Aircraft carriers allow for jet-aircraft to specialize for speed or bombing, without having to consider the costs of long-range travel.
The Northrop B-2 Spirit, for example, cost about $2B to produce. Aircraft carriers cost about $13B, and can carry between 60 to 90 planes. If an aircraft carrier can reduce the risk of a plane being shot down, and increase its range, and allow that plane to be optimized for speed and payload, rather than range, then $13B for 60 planes is a fairly good investment when compared to $2B per plane.
In conclusion, the “drone swarm!!!111” proponents are fan-boying over the potential of cheap drones because they want technologically-challenged countries, like China and Iran, to defeat the United States. They love the idea of the Vietcong and Taliban defeating the “evil empire,” just like in Star Wars.
The problem for Iran or China is that drone swarms can be countered with drone swarms, and possibly with artificial wind storms. Before MAGA communists get too excited about “the inevitability of America’s defeat,” they should consider the objective reality that no aircraft carrier has been sunk since 1945. If Iran or China begins to use cheap drones against America as an innovative new strategy, the possibility of innovative new forms of defense should not be discounted out of hand.
Instead of hyper-focusing on drone swarms, the importance of submarines, jet aircraft, space warfare (targeting satellites), EMPs, biowarfare, and cyber warfare should all be considered as innovative fronts for surprising new developments. There is a better case to be made that submarines are a better tool to use against aircraft carriers than drone swarms.
Still, subs are expensive. $2B to $5B per sub is a steep price to pay to take down an aircraft carrier. Furthermore, subs can never provide the logistical air support that an aircraft carrier can. So long as planes remain a relevant field of war, the aircraft carrier will always have a purpose, despite its clear vulnerability to submarine warfare. Air superiority in a global conflict can only be achieved by the use of aircraft carriers.
a footnote on China.
This is a bigger problem for China than for the United States, because access to the airfields of Japan and Taiwan allows for America to launch bombing raids against China, while China does not have any allies near America’s coast. This is part of the reason why China views Russia as an absolutely essential ally.
The distance from Beijing to San Francisco is 9,497 km.
By contrast, the distance from Provideniya Bay Airport to Seattle is only 3,535 km, and the distance from Leningrad to Boston is 6,595 km. If Chinese bombers want the best chance of hitting America, they will need to utilize Russian territory. If China understands that it will not just be fighting America, but all of NATO, then Russia’s land border with Europe will allow for Chinese tanks and infantry to be effectively deployed against NATO. Otherwise, Chinese ground forces will have nowhere to go.
It is in China’s interest that Russia be firmly separated from America, and made fully dependent on China. Toward that goal, the war in Ukraine has been a huge success for China. While Russian-sympathizers can imagine a time machine where Russia joins NATO, that time has passed. The best way for America to contain and destroy Chinese offensive capabilities is through Russia.