-
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. Army, which has shrunk its air defense arsenal after the Cold War and is now trying to rebuild it to contain new and emerging threats.
-
Visit the Business Insider home page for more stories.
The recent six-week war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed Karabakh region has left nearly 6,000 soldiers and civilians on both sides dead and hundreds of pieces of military equipment destroyed.
Azeri drones caused much of this destruction. Hours of drone footage showed devastating precision attacks against Armenian targets and rekindled debate about the tank’s future.
The United States Army was not part of the conflict, but it was a reminder of an inconvenient truth that the Force has known for at least a decade: its anti-aircraft (AA) defenses are lacking.
The air defense arsenal
The collapse of the Soviet Union diminished the prospect of a war between major powers. With the lack of serious air threats, the Army got rid of many of its air defense units and directed its 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 main land-based AA systems – the MIM-23 Hawk, the MIM-72 Chaparral and the M163 VADS – were retired between 1991 and 1998. From 2004 to 2018, the US Army reduced the number of SHORAD battalions from 26 to nine.
In 2004, the last AA shielded system, the M6 Linebacker, was deactivated. Today, the Army’s only air defense systems are the Stinger shoulder-mounted portable air defense system (MANPAD), the AN / TWQ-1 Avenger, the MIM-104 Patriot and the High Altitude Area Defense Terminal (THAAD) system.
The Stinger and Avenger – the Avenger is just a wheeled launch system with eight Stingers – are designed to engage aircraft up to about 10,000 feet. The Patriot and THAAD are designed to intercept aircraft and missiles up to 73,000 feet for the Patriot and up to 93 miles for the THAAD.
Faster and cheaper threats
US Air Force fighters have been tasked with eliminating threats that these systems cannot address – especially other enemy fighters and bombers. They have done well against the largely inferior air forces of Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yugoslavia, but the threats are changing.
“Our capabilities against opposing aircraft are, in general, very good.” Mark Cancian, a senior consultant with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former colonel in the Marine Corps, told Insider.
But the biggest aerial threats of the future are not enemy fighter-bombers. “The big two are drones and cruise missiles,” said Cancian, adding that “there are very real concerns” about these threats.
In January, Iran launched more than a dozen cruise missiles at two Iraqi bases that are home to US personnel. None of the missiles were shot or intercepted, and their impact left more than 100 military personnel with mild traumatic brain injuries.
This was one of several missile and drone attacks across the Middle East in recent years.
Drones and cruise missiles are smaller, cheaper and operate at lower altitudes than jets, making it easier for opponents to use in large numbers. They can also be very fast – especially cruise missiles – making their interception with Air Force fighters not only difficult, but economically unsustainable.
Like the Air Force, the Army is reluctant to use more sophisticated AA weapons against targets that are so small, cheap and often difficult to target. Army officials said that using a $ 3 million Patriot missile against a drone that costs a few hundred dollars is not “a good trade-off.”
“The problem with drones is that they tend to be very cheap, so it makes no sense to fire a $ 100,000 missile at a $ 1,000 drone,” said Cancian. “You really need something else.”
Rival investment
While the United States has been downgrading its ground-based AA defenses, its rivals have invested heavily in them – largely due to the dominance of the United States’ airpower.
Along with larger systems like the S-300 and S-400, Russia has several AA platforms with tracks and wheels – most notably the Buk and Tor missile systems, the 2K22 Tunguska and the Pantsir S-1. In addition to the missiles, the Tunguska and Pantsir have 30mm automatic cannons capable of hitting low-flying targets. The systems together create a layered defense.
Russia is also developing a new AA artillery system, Derivatsiya-PVO. Specifically designed to shoot down drones and cruise missiles, the system is armed with a 57mm main cannon capable of firing smart ammunition that can explode in flight.
Russia claims that its AA systems repelled dozens of drone attacks at its bases in Syria this year, after experiencing these attacks for the first time in 2018. Russian AA systems do not always triumph over drones and missiles, but continued investment Moscow in systems is already gave an advantage.
China also has a series of ground-based AA defenses, most notably the HQ-9 medium to long-range AA system, as well as the Type 95 and Type 09 self-propelled AA artillery systems.
Layered defense
This is not to say that the United States Army is not addressing what has been called a “modern missile gap”. In fact, it is the opposite.
The Army Asymmetric Warfare Group began to develop counter-drone training, technology and tactics in response to ISIS’s use of small drones and, while the AWG is being decommissioned, air and missile defense was among the Army’s top priorities in 2020 and should remain so for the next four years.
The Army began to field a new interim system, the IM-SHORAD Stryker, for its immediate AA needs. The indirect fire protection capability (IFPC) system, armed with the latest AIM-9X Sidewinder missile, is also expected to enter service in the coming years. Soldiers in Texas are testing Israel’s Iron Dome system, developed with US technology, as an interim defense against cruise missiles.
The Army is also looking for long-term solutions, such as rail guns, targeted energy weapons and interference technology. They will take more time to develop and deploy in the field, but it is clear that the Army is prioritizing air and missile defense and intends to address future air threats with a variety of systems.
“This is not a single technology or a single set of technologies that will be put in the field.” Cancian said. “It will be a series of technologies.”
These systems will have to work together to prevent what the Army predicts.
“The Army’s goal is a layered defense,” General James McConville, a senior Army officer, told lawmakers in March. “We want to be able to tie each sensor to the sniper.”
Read the original article on Business Insider