The rise of cheap guided munition warfare is going to completely decimate the supposed technological advantage that Israel has over its neighbours.
Fighters are vulnerable to MANPADS, tanks are vulnerable to drones, and the end result of all of this is that whoever has the industrial capacity for more guided munitions wins. Air superiority is useless if you can’t get within infrared range (50-80km) for CAS. You can’t do SEAD if the missile that can pop you out of the sky can be carried on someone’s shoulder. Armoured assaults are similarly useless if the guided munitions are both cheaper, have longer range, and are easier to pilot than your armour. Even piloted drones have substantially greater mobility than even the best armoured vehicles (because, y’know, you can operate them out of any moving thing) and the asymmetric cost of a defense system (the PATRIOT is estimated at 4 million per intercept) makes conventional Western doctrine unsustainable.
The entire principle of modern warfare seems to be centered around asymmetric response: instead of overwhelming the enemy with big arrow combined arms offensives, you want to whittle down your enemy with constant precision strikes that expend more of their resources than your own. As opposed to the dynamic supply lines necessitated by big offensives in prior conflicts, the core element today is efficient logistics assuming static frontlines. It’s far more similar to WW1-era doctrine than WW2-era doctrine.
That’s what I’ve gathered from both sides in the Ukraine conflict… but it’ll be interesting to see if the same applies to a potential Arab War.
The rise of cheap guided munition warfare is going to completely decimate the supposed technological advantage that Israel has over its neighbours.
Fighters are vulnerable to MANPADS, tanks are vulnerable to drones, and the end result of all of this is that whoever has the industrial capacity for more guided munitions wins. Air superiority is useless if you can’t get within infrared range (50-80km) for CAS. You can’t do SEAD if the missile that can pop you out of the sky can be carried on someone’s shoulder. Armoured assaults are similarly useless if the guided munitions are both cheaper, have longer range, and are easier to pilot than your armour. Even piloted drones have substantially greater mobility than even the best armoured vehicles (because, y’know, you can operate them out of any moving thing) and the asymmetric cost of a defense system (the PATRIOT is estimated at 4 million per intercept) makes conventional Western doctrine unsustainable.
The entire principle of modern warfare seems to be centered around asymmetric response: instead of overwhelming the enemy with big arrow combined arms offensives, you want to whittle down your enemy with constant precision strikes that expend more of their resources than your own. As opposed to the dynamic supply lines necessitated by big offensives in prior conflicts, the core element today is efficient logistics assuming static frontlines. It’s far more similar to WW1-era doctrine than WW2-era doctrine.
That’s what I’ve gathered from both sides in the Ukraine conflict… but it’ll be interesting to see if the same applies to a potential Arab War.