EDITOR'S CORNER: The End of Big Military Hardware?
The battlefield is changing faster than most military planners ever expected. In Ukraine, drones have become the most important weapon of the war. They dominate the air, the sea, and the land. Long range drones strike targets deep inside Russia, sometimes thousands of kilometres from the front lines. Ground drones evacuate wounded soldiers and deliver ammunition and supplies. At sea, Ukrainian drones have forced Russia's Black Sea Fleet to pull back and limit its operations. A country that does not have a navy has succeeded in beating the Russian navy!
This raises an important question. Should countries continue spending billions on tanks, fighter jets, and warships if cheap drones can destroy them in minutes? Have the world's most expensive weapons become obsolete? This week, we examine whether the era of traditional military hardware is coming to an end.
For decades, military power has been measured by the number of tanks, fighter jets, and warships a country possessed. These platforms were built to dominate the battlefield and project a nation's power around the world. The United States is perhaps the best example, with its vast fleets of aircraft carriers, advanced fighter jets, tanks, and other military hardware. But this military dominance comes at an enormous cost.
A modern fighter jet can cost well over 100 million USD. A main battle tank costs several million dollars, while a large warship can cost billions. Maintaining these forces is just as expensive. The United States, for example, spends nearly 1 trillion USD each year on defence to fund research, develop new weapons, maintain its military, and keep its global fleet ready for deployment.
The war in Ukraine is challenging this traditional way of thinking. First person view drones costing only a few hundred dollars have destroyed tanks worth millions. Larger drones have struck strategic bombers and military airfields deep inside Russia. At sea, Ukraine has used naval drones to push much of Russia's Black Sea Fleet away from Crimea, despite not having a conventional navy capable of matching it. The cost imbalance is remarkable. Cheap drones are destroying some of the world's most expensive military equipment. At the same time, Ukraine has increasingly targeted fuel depots, oil refineries, and other logistical infrastructure inside Russia. These attacks are not only disrupting military operations but also forcing Russia to spend enormous resources on repairing damage and protecting critical assets.
None of this means that tanks, fighter jets, or warships have become obsolete. They remain essential for holding territory, controlling the air, and projecting power. What Ukraine has demonstrated, however, is that their dominance can no longer be taken for granted. Militaries around the world are now asking whether it still makes sense to spend billions on a handful of large platforms, or whether the future of warfare lies in combining traditional weapons with large numbers of smaller, cheaper, and increasingly autonomous systems.
WHY TRADITIONAL WEAPONS ARE NOT GOING AWAY
The war in Ukraine has changed the battlefield, but it has not changed one basic fact. Wars are won by controlling territory. Despite thousands of drones flying over the front every day, the battlefield has remained largely static. When ground is taken, it is still infantry, supported by tanks and artillery, that captures and holds it. A drone can destroy a target, but it cannot occupy a town.
This is why traditional weapons are still essential. Tanks provide protection and firepower. Fighter jets control the skies and strike targets far behind enemy lines. Warships protect sea routes and launch long range missiles. Drones have changed warfare, but they have not replaced these platforms.
Instead, Ukraine has shown that the future belongs to armies that combine old and new technology. Tanks now rely on drones to spot threats. Ships need better defences against drone attacks. Electronic warfare has become just as important as armour. Every major military is now adapting to this new reality.
It is also worth remembering that a war between NATO and Russia would look very different from the war in Ukraine. NATO would rely heavily on its air force and navy from the very beginning. Air superiority and control of the seas would be critical. Tanks, fighter jets, and warships would still play a central role. The lesson from Ukraine is not that these weapons are obsolete. It is that they must work alongside drones to remain effective.
WHAT DOES THE FUTURE OF WARFARE LOOK LIKE?
Military planners around the world are watching the war in Ukraine closely. Every battle provides new lessons about what works and what does not. Those lessons are already influencing how Europe, NATO, and other countries think about their future defences. One of the biggest priorities is finding cheaper ways to defend against drones. Modern air defence systems such as the Patriot missile are highly effective, but using a missile worth millions of dollars to destroy a drone worth only a few thousand is not a sustainable solution. This has accelerated the search for new technologies, including electronic warfare, lasers, and low cost interceptor drones.
Defence spending is unlikely to fall anytime soon. As long as tensions remain high between NATO, Russia, and China, countries will continue investing heavily in their militaries. The difference is where that money will go. Drones will become a much larger part of military budgets, but because the technology evolves so quickly, they cannot simply be bought and stored for years. Instead, countries will also invest in artificial intelligence, electronic warfare, cyber capabilities, and next generation air defence systems that can keep pace with new threats.
The armies of the future will combine traditional weapons with autonomous systems. Tanks will operate alongside drone swarms. Fighter jets will work with unmanned aircraft. Warships will launch and defend against aerial and naval drones. Soldiers will increasingly rely on robotic systems for reconnaissance, logistics, and dangerous missions. This could reduce the number of troops exposed on the battlefield. At the same time, it may increase attacks on infrastructure far from the front lines, as both sides use long range drones to strike military and industrial targets.
The biggest lesson from Ukraine is that warfare is changing faster than military doctrine. Countries that adapt quickly will have a clear advantage. The strongest armies will not simply be those with the biggest tanks or the largest fleets. They will be the ones that can integrate new technology into every part of their military while still maintaining the conventional forces needed to fight and win wars.
CONCLUSION
The war in Ukraine has shown that warfare is changing faster than anyone expected. Cheap drones are challenging some of the world's most advanced and expensive weapons, forcing militaries to rethink decades of military doctrine. Yet tanks, fighter jets, and warships are far from obsolete. They remain essential, but they must now operate alongside drones and be protected against them.
The future of warfare will not be decided by old technology or new technology alone. It will be decided by which countries can combine both faster, smarter, and more effectively than their adversaries.
Comments
Post a Comment