By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to recent airspace violations by Russian drones over Poland, the UK government has announced the deployment of Royal Air Force Typhoons to join a NATO mission. These jets from RAF Coningsby, supported by a Voyager air-to-air refuelling aircraft, will bolster NATO’s eastern flank, reinforcing air defenses alongside forces from Denmark, France, and Germany. The Eastern Sentry operation, a move to deter Russian aggression, was initiated after incidents that brought Poland “the closest we have been to open conflict since World War Two.” The Foreign Office has also summoned the Russian ambassador over the unacceptable violations.
Read the original article here
British fighter jets to fly air defence missions over Poland after Russia’s drone incursion, and this is a significant move. Considering the recent incidents involving Russian drones venturing into Polish airspace, it’s a logical response, and a welcome one. It’s worth acknowledging the historical connection too – the Polish pilots who bravely fought alongside the British during World War II. This gesture feels almost like returning a long-standing favour.
NATO’s involvement is crucial. It’s an opportunity to develop strategies for dealing with low-cost drone systems that are clearly being utilized. The old approach of relying on expensive fighter jets and even more expensive missiles is simply not cost-effective, and, as the argument goes, puts an unnecessary strain on European economies, including that of the US. A new defense paradigm is needed.
The focus has to be on solutions, that are cost-effective. The idea of developing low-cost systems specifically designed to counter these drones, perhaps even borrowing tactics from Ukraine’s use of interceptor drones, is a brilliant idea. Ideally, we’d want to see air defence missions over Ukraine eventually, but this is a good first step. If the incursions are cheap, maybe we can counter with cheap tactics.
It is important to remember that a lot of the drones can be handled by systems already existing. The Gepard, for example, is a fine choice. Unfortunately, production lines have been down. But there are other options. The Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS), which is essentially a guidance package attached to an unguided rocket, turns it into a precision weapon. Fighters like the F-15 can carry a significant number of these, making them a relatively inexpensive interceptor option.
The economics of this shift are vital. NATO has to assess the potential damage a drone could cause versus the cost of the missiles needed to destroy it. Over the long haul, addressing this cost differential between drones and missiles is crucial.
We need creative solutions. Deploying systems like the Rapid Destroyer, if possible, is a step in the right direction. Also, the onboard gun on a fighter jet is not that expensive, and it is something we can make in sufficient numbers for this purpose.
The thing is, fighter jets actually sound surprisingly cost effective when dealing with multiple drones. The cost of a flight hour, depending on the source, is not too bad, and the ammo used in the 20mm guns are not that expensive. A fighter jet can be in place for a long time. Intercepting even a single $20,000 drone for $20,000, is not too bad.
No-fly zones come with benefits too. They can act as a buffer, deterring aircraft from even entering member state airspace. You can warn them away, or shoot them down at the border, which can minimize damage. But without that, you’re left warning at the border and shooting down within the country, after a drone has likely already done some damage.
The problem with guns like the Gepard, is their limited range. The APKWS comes into play here. F-15’s can be really cost effective if used with APKWS. This is where people are missing the point. Ammunition stockpiles are relatively small, even in the US, which isn’t used to long wars with peer opponents. And the price of the Russian drone is relevant. Russia can deploy more drones than can be defended against for a lower cost.
The focus should be on cost effectiveness. And we may have to revert back to old tactics that have been proven over time, as long as it solves the problem. It seems like everyone is scrambling for cost effective interceptors right now. The existing rules and regulations limit governments in the ability to just spin up new factories, especially when it comes to weapon creation.