By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukrainian air defense advisers assisting in the Middle East have noted the US military’s considerable expenditure on expensive interceptor missiles for drone defense, a stark contrast to Ukraine’s cost-effective, battle-tested tactics. Ukrainian specialists, deployed at the request of US Central Command, observed the use of multiple high-cost missiles, such as Patriots and SM-6s, against low-cost drones, a practice deemed “thoughtless” and inefficient. In contrast, Ukrainian crews have honed strategies to intercept sophisticated threats with fewer missiles, adapting their approach through years of intense warfare and demonstrating advanced integration of diverse air defense systems.
Read the original article here
It seems like there’s a growing sentiment, particularly from Ukraine’s perspective, that the United States is employing some rather extravagant and inefficient tactics in modern warfare, especially when it comes to dealing with what are often relatively inexpensive drones. It’s as if they’re wielding a sledgehammer to swat a fly, a tactic that feels very much in line with a long-standing approach within the US military. This situation brings to mind Eisenhower’s warnings about the military-industrial complex, where the pursuit of costly, high-tech solutions seems to overshadow more practical and cost-effective alternatives.
The notion of using a multi-million dollar weapon system to intercept a drone costing a mere fraction of that amount raises serious questions about efficiency and strategic priorities. It’s been observed that certain regions, particularly the Gulf States, have a tendency to fall into this pattern. Imagine setting up sophisticated air defense systems like Patriots on automatic, only for them to fire off every available missile until their tubes are empty, all while the enemy deploys basic, predictable drones. It seems more logical to reserve such powerful systems for genuine threats like ballistic missiles and advanced aircraft, rather than expending them on low-level, consistent threats like Shaheds, which fly on predictable paths.
There’s a strong feeling that the US is somewhat behind the curve when it comes to adapting to the realities of modern drone warfare. While the US military might favor flashy, expensive, and cutting-edge technology, the conflict in Ukraine has demonstrated the surprising effectiveness of simpler, more cost-efficient methods. The argument is that Ukrainian ingenuity, born out of sheer necessity and survival, has developed solutions that the US, perhaps due to its reliance on established defense contractors and a different operational context, is overlooking.
This approach of deploying high-cost assets against low-cost threats is not necessarily seen as a strategic oversight, but rather as a deliberate tactic that benefits certain industries. The concept of “costly IS a US tactic” points towards a system where the financial gains for military contractors are prioritized. When a $10 million weapon is used to take down a $10,000 drone, the overwhelming majority of that money flows back into the defense industry, regardless of whether it represents the most effective use of resources in a conflict.
The urgency to shift focus back to genuine strategic threats, like Russia in Europe and China in cyberspace, is palpable. There’s a concern that resources and attention are being diverted to conflicts and scenarios that may not represent the most pressing dangers to national security. The erosion of influence in regions like Africa and with key allies such as Mexico and Canada further emphasizes the need for a strategic reset and a re-evaluation of where the nation’s priorities and resources are being allocated.
The idea that cheap drones don’t necessarily boost military stocks, especially compared to the perception of advanced weaponry, highlights a potential disconnect between current military procurement strategies and emerging battlefield realities. The sheer power of a large, inexpensive drone fleet, as demonstrated in the current conflicts, seems to be a lesson the world, and particularly the US, is slowly but surely learning. Iran’s actions have effectively shown that existing military tools, designed for a different era of warfare, might not be the best fit for the challenges Ukraine has ushered in.
While the US possesses the capacity to adapt quickly, there’s a perception that a lack of genuine urgency or a different set of priorities is hindering this adaptation. The constant printing of money to fund these expensive operations, while simultaneously seeming to balk at investments in social programs and services for citizens, is a point of contention. This raises the question of what truly drives defense spending and military deployment.
The complacency of the West, in the face of the clear lessons emerging from the Ukrainian conflict, is described as staggering. The fact that preparedness for this new style of warfare, characterized by the extensive use of drones, hasn’t been more robust, is seen as a critical failing. The comparison to choosing expensive military programs over essential services like healthcare further underscores this sentiment.
There’s a call for a fundamental reassessment of how military engagements are approached, moving away from what is perceived as an ego-driven foreign policy towards one that prioritizes national interests and genuine security needs. The concept of asymmetric warfare, where a less technologically advanced but more adaptable adversary can pose a significant challenge, is being brought to the forefront.
The difficulty in adapting to this new style of warfare is evident, with some pointing out the absurdity of considering multi-billion dollar aircraft like the F-35 for such scenarios. Even with the assumption of achieving air superiority, it seems a glaring oversight not to have had readily available, large quantities of anti-drone weaponry for deployment in critical regions. The feeling that the US has been somewhat dragged into these situations rather than proactively preparing for them suggests a reactive rather than a strategic approach.
The fundamental point, for many, is that the current emphasis on expensive solutions is driven by the profit motive within the defense industry, rather than by considerations of efficiency or human lives. The “trickle-down” effect to defense contractors is seen as the primary objective, leading to a system where costly interventions are favored over pragmatic ones.
The irony of soliciting Ukrainian advisors for the Gulf States, given the historical context of US-Ukrainian relations, adds another layer of complexity to the narrative. The millions spent on these costly tactics are not viewed as a mistake but as an intentional feature of the system, with allegations of substantial financial gains for those involved in overpriced military contracts.
The argument that complex and expensive military solutions have become ingrained as the “best practice” over decades, while effective against similarly equipped adversaries, is now being challenged by opponents who leverage cheaper, more adaptable technologies. The historical parallels drawn with past conflicts, where superior technology failed to secure victory against less advanced but more strategically agile enemies, are striking.
From the perspective of those tasked with planning military operations, there’s a recognition of being both advanced and lagging. While the US may excel in the quality and integration of its high-end drone technology, it appears to be significantly behind in anticipating and countering the threat of drone swarms, necessitating a “catch-up” phase. The defense industry, in this context, is seen as thriving on the profitability of shooting down relatively inexpensive targets with multi-million dollar missiles.
This dynamic makes for an inherently dangerous environment, where an opponent can economically overwhelm a adversary by consistently deploying cheap drones. The fundamental shift in warfare, demanding adaptation, is a crucial takeaway. The vulnerability of multi-billion dollar naval assets to inexpensive drone attacks, a lesson seemingly learned the hard way, underscores the need for a re-evaluation of military investments.
The US military’s tendency to rely on expensive, high-tech equipment, sometimes referred to as “expensive toys,” can become a significant problem when facing adversaries who employ cost-effective and adaptable strategies. The success of mass-produced, reliable equipment in historical conflicts, like the Sherman tanks of World War II, is contrasted with the limitations faced by adversaries who, despite possessing advanced weaponry, struggled with production and supply chains due to their high cost.
Ultimately, the core criticism revolves around the financial incentives within the defense sector, where costly and complex solutions are favored because they generate greater profits for contractors and shareholders, even if they are not the most efficient or effective means of achieving strategic objectives. This leads to situations where the pursuit of profit overshadows the pursuit of victory, and the actual cost of warfare becomes a secondary concern to the revenue generated by its prosecution. The comparison to NASA’s costly pen versus a Soviet pencil, or the replacement of a simple Jeep with an expensive Humvee, vividly illustrates this point.
The observation that European nations are actively investing in and producing drone systems, often in collaboration with Ukraine, suggests that the US might be an outlier in its approach within the broader Western alliance. The lesson from the Russian-Ukraine war is not necessarily about preparing for the *current* war, but about preparing for the *future* of warfare, a concept that seems to be eluding those who continue to prepare for past conflicts. The idea of mass-producing cost-effective solutions, rather than relying on single, prohibitively expensive platforms, is a recurring theme. The criticism extends to how military strategy and procurement decisions are shaped, with a significant emphasis on profitability over genuine strategic advantage.