Latest news with #WarontheRocks
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Army secretary says US can't keep pumping money into expensive weapons that can be taken out by an $800 Russian drone
Cheap drones have been used to destroy expensive systems like tanks in the Ukraine war. US military leaders are watching this trend closely and evaluating the threat for future conflicts. The Army secretary said it's not worth it to buy expensive weapons if they're vulnerable to drones. The US can't keep building and buying expensive weapons that are vulnerable to drones that are produced at a fraction of the cost, the Army secretary said. "We keep creating and purchasing these exquisite machines that very cheap drones can take out," Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll said during an episode of the "War on the Rocks" podcast that aired Tuesday. "If the number is even remotely right, that Russia has manufactured 1 million drones in the last 12 months, that just makes us have to rethink the cost of what we're buying," he continued. "We are the wealthiest nation, perhaps in the history of the world, but even we can't sustain a couple-million-dollar piece of equipment that can be taken out with an $800 drone and munition," he said. Driscoll was responding to a question about whether the US military was walking away from the Robotic Combat Vehicle. He said that while the concept was valuable, the cost ratio didn't work. Cheap drones have been used to deliver precision strikes against expensive military equipment. Stringer/REUTERS The US military has been watching the war in Ukraine, where cheap drones packed with explosives are damaging or destroying expensive combat equipment like tanks, other armored vehicles, air defenses, and even warships, highlighting the vulnerability of larger and more prized weapons that are insufficiently defended. The proliferation of cheap drones — some of which cost as little as a few hundred dollars — has become a growing concern for the US military as it readies for the possibility of a large-scale confrontation between NATO and Russia in Europe or a fight with China in the Pacific. Moscow said it produced 1.5 million drones last year. A Ukrainian tank commander called Russian drones a major threat to his American-made M1 Abrams tank, which costs about $10 million. Ukraine has outfitted its Abrams tanks and other systems, including European-made tanks and American-made armored fighting vehicles, with additional armor to help protect the expensive equipment from drones, but it's not a perfect solution. Armored vehicle losses in this war have been high. Ukraine, for example, has lost more than 4,400 armored vehicles, while Russia has lost more than 12,600, according to Oryx, an open-source intelligence site that tracks military equipment losses on both sides. And drones aren't just a threat to land assets. Ukrainian naval drones packed with explosives have wreaked havoc on Russia's Black Sea Fleet. These drones have even been upgraded to launch missiles. Ukraine said one managed to take down two of Russia's $50 million Su-30 fighter jets over the weekend. Read the original article on Business Insider
Business Insider
07-05-2025
- Business
- Business Insider
Army secretary says US can't keep pumping money into expensive weapons that can be taken out by an $800 Russian drone
The US can't keep building and buying expensive weapons that are vulnerable to cheap drones that are a fraction of the cost, the Army secretary said. "We keep creating and purchasing these exquisite machines that very cheap drones can take out," Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll said during an episode of the War on the Rocks podcast that aired on Tuesday. "If the number is even remotely right, that Russia has manufactured 1 million drones in the last 12 months, that just makes us have to rethink the cost of what we're buying," he continued. "We are the wealthiest nation, perhaps in the history of the world, but even we can't sustain a couple-million-dollar piece of equipment that can be taken out with an $800 drone and munition," he said. Driscoll was responding to a question about whether the US military is walking away from the Robotic Combat Vehicle. He said that while the concept was valuable, the actual cost ratio didn't work. Driscoll's remarks come as the US military has been watching the war in Ukraine, where cheap drones packed with explosives are damaging or destroying expensive combat equipment like tanks, armored vehicles, air defenses, and even warships, highlighting the vulnerability of larger and more prized weapons that are insufficiently defended. The proliferation of cheap drones — some of which cost as little as a few hundred dollars, significantly less than more sophisticated weaponry — has become a growing concern for the US military as it readies for a potential large-scale confrontation between NATO and Russia in Europe or a fight with China in the Pacific. Moscow said it produced 1.5 million drones last year. A Ukrainian tank commander said Russian drones are a major threat to his American-made M1 Abrams tank, which costs around $10 million. Ukraine has outfitted its Abrams tanks and other systems, including European-made tanks and American-made armored fighting vehicles, with additional armor to protect the expensive equipment from drones, but it's not a perfect solution. Armored vehicle losses in this war have been high. Ukraine, for example, has lost over 4,400 armored vehicles, while Russia has lost more than 12,600, according to Oryx, an open-source intelligence site that tracks military equipment losses on both sides. And drones aren't just a threat to land assets. Ukrainian naval drones packed with explosives have wreaked havoc on Russia's Black Sea Fleet. These drones have even been upgraded to launch missiles. One managed to take down two of Russia's $50 million Su-30 fighter jets over the weekend.
Business Insider
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Insider
Army secretary says US tanks will have to hang back to avoid getting killed by cheap drones
The US is learning from the war in Ukraine that tanks will no longer be able to charge forward in combat like they used to because they're vulnerable to enemy attacks with cheap drones, the new Army secretary said. "You cannot move without being seen," Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll said of the battlefield in Ukraine during an episode of the War on the Rocks podcast that aired on Tuesday. "The amount of sensors on the battlefield, the amount of ability from both sides to see what's going on" has created a situation in which Army commanders cannot push tanks "as far forward in the formation as you used to be able to because very cheap drones are able to take them out of any usefulness," he said. "We have got to be a lot leaner," the secretary said. "We have got to work on hiding ourselves from the air." His remarks echo the concerns of other Army leaders, who have warned that uncrewed systems are always watching the battlefield. Tanks have taken a serious beating in the Ukraine conflict. Oryx, an open-source intelligence site that visually tracks military equipment losses, says Moscow has lost at least 3,900 tanks; Kyiv has lost over 1,100. A majority of these were destroyed in combat, while some have been damaged, abandoned, or captured. Drones are a major threat to tanks in Ukraine. The commander of an American-made M1 Abrams in service with Kyiv's military told Business Insider that Russian FPV drones specifically are dangerous. He said the tank relies on additional protective armor and electronic warfare capabilities to stay safe. Still, there have been losses. The heavy losses have led to assessments that tanks may be obsolete in wars dominated by drones. However, Driscoll recently told BI that the role of US tanks will change rather than disappear. Instead of combined-arms assaults led by armor, where tanks are the first to hit the front lines and lead breaching operations, uncrewed systems may spearhead the charge instead. Driscoll said that tanks will stay in safe, defended positions until there is a clear path that allows them to move forward. This is a break from the traditional role of tanks, but it is seen by military planners as necessary in a world where armored vehicles worth millions can be easily picked off by drones worth as little as a few hundred bucks. Using cheap drones to destroy expensive armored vehicles has proven to be an effective asymmetrical warfare tactic. US forces have enjoyed air superiority in recent conflicts, not needing to be constantly looking up for enemy airpower. That's changing with drones. American soldiers training on tanks and other armored vehicles are learning they need to be aware of their surroundings. That includes looking up for possible incoming threats.
Telegraph
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Are we about to see Trump pull the US Navy out of the western Pacific?
It didn't take Donald Trump and his cronies, including unelected billionaire Elon Musk, very long to begin dismantling US strategy and foreign policy that had endured for decades. Within weeks of taking the oath of office, Trump ended lifesaving food and medical assistance in poor countries, cancelled asylum for Afghans who'd assisted US forces and proposed a 'peace plan' for Ukraine that amounts to unilateral surrender to Russian demands. Equally absurdly, he threatened to invade and annex Canada and Panama. In that chaotic, increasingly despotic context, it's tempting to read any proposal for US withdrawal from longstanding security arrangements as part of Trump's institutional destruction. But one controversial take from Jonathan Panter, a Stanton nuclear security fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City and a 'conservatism and governing fellow' at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, actually makes cold hard sense. In an essay for War on the Rocks, Panter has forcefully argued for the US Navy to pull back from the western Pacific and reposition warships – currently forward-deployed to Japan and other friendly countries – closer to American shores. 'Naval forward presence – the practice of maintaining combat-credible naval forces worldwide to deter adversaries, reassure allies, respond to crises and perform constabulary functions for the global commons – has dominated US foreign policy since the 1990s,' Panter wrote. But the decades of forward presence has taken a toll on the cash-strapped US fleet as fewer and fewer warships and their crews work harder and harder in more distant locales. 'If the United States wishes to deter China, Beijing must believe Washington can fight a sustained, brutal war – one in which the US Navy can take major losses and still fight on,' Panter wrote. 'Today, that is not the case, and the concept of 'naval forward presence' bears much of the blame.' There are two basic approaches to naval deterrence. One: to keep ships on patrol in the likeliest conflict zones as a constant show of force. Two: to keep the same ships at home – and surge them into action only when it's time to fight. For decades, it was the consensus in US navalist circles that forward patrols were more effective as deterrence. The sight of an American warship, looming on the horizon, would surely make some aggressor think twice before doing something rash, right? Maybe, but forward presence comes at a cost. And while Panter's argument hinges on the material cost – the strain on hardworking ships and their crews at a time when the US Navy is struggling to grow its fleet – there's an equally compelling corollary. In short, forward-deployed ships are vulnerable to sneak attacks by China's growing missile arsenal and fast-improving submarine fleet. The Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC proved this vulnerability in its seminal 2023 war game simulating a Chinese invasion of Taiwan – and a US and allied intervention on Taiwan's behalf. 'Military doctrine calls for forward deployments to enhance deterrence during a crisis, but these forces make tempting targets,' CSIS warned. In most iterations of the war game, even the ones in which the Chinese invasion failed and Taiwan remained free, Chinese missiles – streaking down without warning in the first hours of the war – ultimately sank all of the roughly 50 major warships the US Navy sails from Japan. It would be safer for the Americans' Japan-based aircraft carrier and amphibious ships and their cruiser and destroyer escorts to return home to the US West Coast, wait out in the initial waves of Chinese attacks and then steam toward Taiwan to relieve the island nation's beleaguered defenders, CSIS concluded. American losses in ships and sailors were lightest when the US Navy 'did not push its fleet forward as a deterrent signal prior to the start of conflict.' The calculus favouring a US-based fleet that responds to crises over a forward fleet that attempts to deter them assumes the United States is actually interested in fighting for its allies. There's a dark third alternative: a withdrawn US fleet that escapes the attention of Chinese missiles during the opening barrages of an attack on Taiwan and then does … nothing. Last year, Trump famously threatened to let Russians do 'whatever the Hell they want in Europe.' And with his current push to end the Russia-Ukraine war on Russia's terms, he's actually making good on that threat. Given what we now know, do we believe Trump would mobilise the US military to fight for Taiwan? If not, the end of forward presence wouldn't represent some smart strategy for winning a war in the western Pacific. It would represent surrender in advance to whatever China aims to do in the region.
