Hardware for the modern defence noob

Or, how I learned to stop worrying and love countermeasures.

As a teenager (late in the Cold War) I was pretty into my war history, and dabbled in knowledge of military hardware. I remember debating the merits of fighter planes with my brother (who was right about the F-16 all along, dammit, and is still an encyclopaedia compared to me). These days I'm more interested in the politics that allow or forbid their use. Last year, though, I listened to Gore Vidal speak at the literary festival here in Hong Kong, and he told the story of Gorbachev's (with whom he's on very good terms) response to the SDI, or Star Wars, plan under Reagan. For all the bluster about hoe the US spent the USSR under the table - which was partly true - Gorbachev said they weren't worried about SDI - he said to counter it would have cost about one tenth of what the system was worth. Recently, Putin talked about how Russia would build a system that will get round the US missile shield - not a missile shield itself though (in fact, this system is on its way). In saying what they did, Gorbachev and Putin revealed what hardware nuts have probably known for years: Russia spends time and money on defensive systems and doesn't necessarily try to come up with equivalents to Western weapons systems. They're not alone - other nations with indigenous weapons industries are doing similar things. Rather than compete directly with capital-intensive weapons, they develop weapons that will negate them.

Let's run through a few examples: first, carriers. Carriers are the symbol of blue-water naval power. They're very expensive, as you'd expect. How expensive? According to wikipedia, Nimitz-class carriers (the largest and therefore most prestigious around at the moment) cost about $4.5 billion to build and $160 million a year to operate. According to globalsecurity.org, next-generation US carriers will cost more than double this. Pretty pricey boats. So how many are there? Well, the US has 13. The rest of the world combined has 16 (kind of - see Thailand). And the US's are mostly bigger. That speaks of some pretty major naval dominance (and pretty major debt).

Wow, so the Russkies, the Chinese, the Indians (as a country with an independent foreign policy, it's a potential enemy, remember), what have they got? How can they challenge this clear superiority? Well, India and Russia developed the Brahmos. China has Tomahawk-class surface-launched missiles, and a shiny new air-launched model. Hell even Iran has the Sunburst, which is much faster than the Tomahawk. And how much do they cost? Well, at the top there's the BrahMos at $2.73 million, or 1/4000th the cost of the new-generation carriers. Your average anti-shipping missile clocks in around $1 million. That could be called asymmetric conventional warfare. You've got a shiny offensive system I can't afford, but I've got something cheap that can blow it up.

So we see there isn't a country that could go head to head with the US Navy, but they don't have to - when you can bury capital ships under missiles, who cares? This was captured pretty succinctly in a quote by the War Nerd of a US sub captain: 'There are two types of ships: subs and targets'. So carriers are the most outstanding example in modern warfare as they're the most expensive. In the Second World War, we found something similar: battleships were obsolete. The Royal Navy sailed the Prince of Wales and the Repulse to the aid of Singapore, and what happened? They were sunk by a swarm of cheap Japanese planes. Clearly there was a bit of inter-service rivalry in Japan itself, though, as the Imperial Navy still built the monstrous Yamato and Musashi, which were sunk by swarms of cheap US planes. How many battleships remain in service today? Big fat zero. I think the last one was the USS Missouri, decommissioned in 1992.

Can't help but think the same fate awaits carriers.

The other area where the US has significant superiority is the Air Force - again, no other could go head to head, particularly with the Raptor. Russia has put some development into the Su-32, Su-35 and S-32/37, with India, the PAK-FA, but this is not for that reason: it's to keep their technological hand in, and to keep up the chance they have of fulfilling their military doctrine, which is to be able to defend themselves and project force in their immediate area. This is why they make some the world's best anti-aircraft weapons: the TOR M-1, the Panstir, the upcoming new generation S-400, the Tunguska (excellent example - much cheaper than an A-10 or an Apache, and a strong chance of killing one). Hence, no massive carrier force. The US, of course, wants to 'fight and win simultaneous wars on multiple fronts' - massive carrier force, bomber force, air force. All the expensive stuff.

But it's expensive stuff that'll make lovely reefs for the fishies. Glub glub.