- The devastating use of drones during the recent war between Armenia and Azerbaijan highlighted how modern air threats, such as drones, have evolved in recent years.
- This is a particular problem for the U.S. military, which has shrunk its air defense arsenal after the Cold War and is now trying to rebuild it to face new and emerging threats.
- Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.
The recent six-week war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed Karabakh region has killed nearly 6,000 troops and civilians on both sides and destroyed hundreds of pieces of military hardware.
Azeri drones caused much of the destruction. Hours of drone surveys showed devastating precision attacks against Armenian targets and redesigned the debate over the future of the tank.
The U.S. military was not part of the conflict, but it was a reminder of an uncomfortable truth that the service has known for at least a decade: the air defense (AA) defenses are lacking.
The air defense arsenal
A MIM-72 Chaparral.
US Army
The collapse of the Soviet Union reduced the prospects for a war of great power. With a lack of serious air threats, the army got rid of many of its air defense units and directed their resources elsewhere.
As a result, its air defense arsenal, especially ground-based AA platforms such as short-range air defense systems (SHORAD), is now much smaller.
Three of the Army’s primary AA systems on the ground – the MIM-23 Hawk, the MIM-72 Chaparral and the M163 VADS – were retired between 1991 and 1998. From 2004 to 2018, the U.S. Army reduced the number of SHORAD battalions from 26 to nine.
In 2004, the last armored AA system, the M6 Linebacker, was phased out. Today, the Army’s only air defense system is the Stinger Man Portable Air Defense System (MANPAD), AN / TWQ-1 Avenger, the MIM-104 Patriot, and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). system.
The Stinger and Avenger – the Avenger is just a launch system on a wheel with eight Stingers – is designed to engage aircraft up to about 10,000 feet. The Patriot and THAAD are designed to intercept aircraft and missiles at up to 73,000 feet for the Patriot and up to 93 km for THAAD.
Faster, cheaper threats
US soldiers near a residence area destroyed by Iranian missiles at the Ain al-Asad air base in Iraq, January 13, 2020.
AP Photo / Qassim Abdul-Zahra
U.S. Air Force fighter jets had the task of eliminating threats that could not hit the systems – especially other enemy fighters and bombers. They did well against the largely inferior air forces of Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yugoslavia, but the threats changed.
“Our capabilities against enemy aircraft are generally very good.” Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former Marine Corps colonel, told Insider.
But the biggest air threats of the future are not hostile fighter bombers. “The two big ones are drones and cruise missiles,” Cancian said, adding that “there is a lot of concern about the threats.
In January, Iran launched more than a dozen cruise missiles at two Iraqi bases housing US personnel. None of the missiles were shot down or intercepted, and their impact left more than 100 soldiers with minor traumatic brain injuries.
It has been one of several missile and drone strikes in the Middle East over the past few years.
Drones and cruise missiles are smaller, cheaper and operate at lower altitudes than jets, making it easier for opponents to use them in large numbers. It can also be very fast – especially cruise missiles – which intercept it with air force fighters, not only difficult but economically unsustainable.
Like the air force, the military is reluctant to use more sophisticated AA weapons against such small, inexpensive and often hard-to-hit targets. Army officials said using a $ 3 million Patriot missile against a drone costing several hundred dollars was not a good economic exchange.
“The problem with drones is that they are very cheap, so it makes no sense to shoot a $ 100,000 rocket at a $ 1,000 drone,” Cancian said. “You really need something else.”
Competitive investment
Buk M2 anti-aircraft missile systems on parade in Moscow.
REUTERS / Sergei Karpukhin
While the US has downgraded its ground-based AA defense, its competitors have invested heavily in it – largely due to the dominance of the US Air Force.
In addition to larger systems such as the S-300 and S-400, Russia has a number of AA platforms that run on the track and on wheels, especially the Buk and Tor missile systems, the 2K22 Tunguska and the Pantsir S-1. . In addition to missiles, the Tunguska and Pantsir have 30 mm cannons that can hit low-flying targets. The systems together create a low defense.
Russia is also developing a new AA artillery system, the Derivatsiya PVO. The system is specifically designed to shoot down drones and cruise missiles, and is armed with a 57 mm main rifle that can fire clever ammunition that can explode during flight.
Russia claims that its AA systems have repulsed dozens of drone strikes at its bases in Syria this year, after first experiencing such attacks in 2018. Russian AA systems do not always triumph over drones and missiles, but Moscow’s continued investment on top of systems has already given it an advantage.
China also has a number of AA defenses on the ground, most notably the HQ-9 medium- to long-range AA system, as well as the self-propelled Type 95 and Type 09 AA artillery systems.
Layered defense
An iron with a mobile high-energy laser, which can shoot down a drone with a 5 kW laser, in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, April 2017.
(Photo credit: C. Todd Lopez)
This is not to say that the US military does not call a modern-day missile gap. In fact, the opposite is the case.
The Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group began developing drones ‘training, technology and tactics in response to ISIS’ use of small drones, and while the AWG was deactivated, air and missile defense in 2020 was one of the top priorities of the army and is expected to remain so. so for the next four years.
The military has begun deploying a new interim system, the IM-SHORAD Stryker, for its immediate AA needs. The Indirect Fire Protection Capacity (IFPC), armed with the most recent AIM-9X Sidewinder missile, is expected to be deployed in the next few years as well. Soldiers in Texas test Israel’s Iron Dome system, developed with American technology, as an interim defense for cruise missiles.
The military is also looking at long-term solutions such as track guns, targeted energy weapons and stalling technology. It will take longer to develop and field, but it is clear that the military is prioritizing air and missile defense and intends to counter future air threats with a variety of systems.
“It’s not a single technology or a single set of technologies offered.” Cancian said. “It’s going to be a series of technologies.”
These systems will have to work together to stop what the military sees coming.
“Where the military is going is a low defense,” Army Chief of Staff James McConville told lawmakers in March. “We want to be able to tie every sensor to the shooter.”