War changed the development trajectory. Long before the "Iskander" missile, the dreams of generals in the 1950s began to materialize

Combat aviation has become a "missile carrier" in front of our eyes

In the 1950s, major military powers fell into a "missile fetish." Generals and politicians were convinced that missiles could now accomplish all tasks previously carried out by aviation, and even artillery.

However, this fetish quickly faded. The accuracy and reliability of missiles at the time were too low. It made sense to strike ground and surface targets with missiles only when they were equipped with nuclear warheads, given the circular error probable (CEP) of several kilometers.

But the destructive nature of nuclear war was soon recognized, so the monopoly of missiles did not form. Nevertheless, as a category of weapons, missiles did not disappear but instead began to occupy specific "ecological niches."

Air defense missile systems rapidly replaced anti-aircraft artillery, becoming the main means of ground and ship-based air defense; air-to-air missiles replaced aircraft machine guns. Anti-tank missile systems completely "marginalized" anti-tank artillery, becoming the main weapon for (alongside rocket launchers) attacking tanks and other armored vehicles.

Anti-ship missiles gradually became the main means of naval warfare. Air-launched anti-tank missiles, anti-ship missiles, and later general-purpose air-to-surface missiles gradually replaced unguided rockets and free-fall bombs, becoming the main weapons for aircraft and helicopters to attack ground and surface targets.

The comprehensive "return" of missiles occurred in the 1980s, thanks to two "milestone" models. The U.S. military fielded the long-range cruise missile BGM-109 "Tomahawk" and the AGM-86 air-launched cruise missile.

The Soviet P-17 short-range ballistic missile was developed much earlier, but it also entered combat in the 1980s (not just prototypes, but also its foreign "derivatives"): in Afghanistan and the "urban wars" between Iran and Iraq.

In other words, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles with ranges of hundreds or thousands of kilometers became tools of conventional warfare, not just instruments for doomsday-like nuclear exchanges between the US and USSR.

The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) significantly "hindered" this process, but the treaty did not cover other countries and did not apply to sea-based and land-based missiles.

As a result, the U.S. sea-based and air-launched cruise missiles were fully applied in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, again in Iraq, and Libya.

Based on the P-17 missile, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan developed their own ballistic missile arsenals. Israel, India, and South Korea advanced their missile systems through independent research and development.

Notably, Israel's missile program is worth mentioning because, unlike other Asian countries, it was not a "secondary" program; also, North Korea's missile nuclear program has become a powerful geopolitical factor.

Countries with the largest missile arsenals in the world. Eventually, the United States no longer wanted to be bound by the terms of the INF Treaty, "incidentally" allowing Russia to be freed from the treaty's restrictions.

Over the past half-century since the era of the "missile fetish," due to the emergence of new guidance systems, the circular error probable of missiles has decreased by three orders of magnitude, from kilometers to meters. Therefore, using conventional warheads on missiles has become very reasonable.

Additionally, the boundaries between missile categories have begun to blur rapidly. For example, the range of multiple-launch rocket systems has increased significantly (reaching hundreds of kilometers), making it meaningful to convert some of the missiles launched from these rocket systems into controlled missiles. As a result, the boundary between multiple-launch rocket systems and tactical missiles becomes blurred.

Anti-tank missiles are no longer just weapons for destroying tanks, but have become versatile ground weapons, carrying not only shaped charge warheads but also high-explosive fragmentation warheads for attacking infantry and various non-armored targets. In addition, the range of anti-tank missiles has increased from a few kilometers to tens of kilometers, meaning they have also started to "connect" with tactical missiles.

These trends have been significantly strengthened by the widespread use of drones. Reconnaissance drones provide target indication for missile systems, further improving missile accuracy, and accordingly reducing the number of missiles required to strike a single target.

Combat drones have become an effective complement to missiles, while loitering munitions ("suicide drones") have become "another type of missile," with extremely flexible applications, and sometimes they can even be reused (if no target is found during flight).

Finally, global arms development has achieved the goal that was not realized 50 years ago — replacing airplanes with missiles. Today, the cost of modern combat aircraft and the training costs for pilots have reached massive scales.

Therefore, maintaining a "conventional" air force with a large number of combat aircraft has become a problem, even for major military powers.

Purchasing a small number of aircraft is meaningless: they are almost "golden" weapons, so they cannot be used in conventional combat — even losing one aircraft would almost become a national disaster (similar to losing a battleship during World War II).

In this situation, the combination of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and reconnaissance and combat drones of different ranges seems to be a near-universal solution. Moreover, it is precisely the unmanned strike means (missiles and combat drones) that have become the best way to break through and suppress ground air defense systems.

They can "overwhelm" any air defense system purely by quantity, as it is actually possible to use more missiles and drones simultaneously than the enemy possesses in its air defense stockpiles. The loss of unmanned weapons is far less painful in military, economic, and psychological terms compared to the loss of combat aircraft and helicopters.

Admittedly, aircraft and helicopters themselves are the main missile carriers and can carry a wide variety of missiles (in terms of quantity and type). Additionally, their speed and range can increase the speed and range of missiles. For these reasons, manned aviation will not completely "disappear" in the foreseeable future. However, the coordination between manned and unmanned aviation and various missiles will become possible.

Reconnaissance, breakthrough, and suppression of ground air defense systems will actually be entirely undertaken by unmanned strike means. After that, obviously, only they will be responsible for destroying any ground targets on the battlefield and in the frontline area (currently performed by attack aircraft and armed helicopters).

Manned aircraft seem to gradually evolve into "missile carriers," delivering missiles to the launch line, launching them, and then returning without coming into contact with enemy fighters and ground air defense systems.

However, in the distant future, manned combat aviation will certainly eventually die out. Now, one of the mandatory requirements for sixth-generation future fighters is to have unmanned capabilities.

Furthermore, the emergence of hypersonic missiles on the ground and at sea will make it unnecessary for aircraft to provide additional assistance for missile speed and range. But this is not something we need to consider now.

The above trends have already been evident during the Middle East wars. The Ukrainian conflict has almost pushed these trends to their extreme. But this is another topic.

Original text: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7538375039167529482/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.