As December approached, the U.S. military suddenly announced a major action, planning to spend 1 billion dollars over three years to purchase 380,000 four-axis drones for the Army, with each unit costing about $2,632 (nearly 20,000 RMB). This may be the cheapest procurement of guided weapons by the U.S. military.

According to information released by the U.S. Army, they have almost completely imitated the tactics of the Russian or Ukrainian armies, attaching different warheads to FPV (First Person View) drones to carry out suicide missions. Most U.S. forces are still using wireless remote controls, rather than the fiber-optic guidance preferred by the Russian and Ukrainian armies.

(The participation of FPV drones in the Russia-Ukraine conflict undoubtedly changed military history)

The U.S. military has always led new military revolutions, learning from its own wars. Learning weapons and tactics from others' wars is rare. According to U.S. military researchers, as conventional artillery and long-range rocket artillery are increasingly consumed, both sides in the Russia-Ukraine war are struggling to maintain supply, leading to the growing prominence of short-range, lightweight, low-cost, and abundant quadcopter drones.

Both Russia and Ukraine use FPVs to conduct attrition warfare within 10-20 kilometers of the front lines, suppressing the enemy's supply and tactical operations. During this process, the means of drone confrontation have become increasingly diverse, with the attacking side using fiber optics and AI-assisted terminal imaging guidance, while the defending side uses interception nets, electronic jamming, and specialized shotgun shells and artillery shells. The technological evolution of drone attacks and defenses is so rapid that the U.S. military appears quite outdated.

FPV technology essentially belongs to precision-guided weapons, and in terms of system architecture, it is very similar to anti-tank missiles. However, anti-tank missiles are heavy and expensive, with limited numbers, requiring dedicated personnel and vehicles for deployment. FPVs are cheaper and lighter, allowing each soldier to carry more than one. Although they are slower, they have longer flight times, giving operators more time to observe and make decisions. After extensive research, the U.S. military has finally decided to introduce them as official equipment.

As for where the 380,000 FPVs will come from, whether it still depends on China's supply chain, the U.S. military has not mentioned a word.

(The moment before the drone destroys the target)

The U.S. military equipping FPVs mainly faces no one else but China, the main supplier of FPVs. China naturally has been prepared, with export controls in place, and the People's Liberation Army has already equipped a complete set of weapon systems including rapid-fire anti-aircraft guns, lasers, microwave kill devices, and high-power jammers. The question now is, assuming the U.S. military manages to assemble enough parts to build 380,000 suicide drones, how much threat would it pose to China?

Different from the Ukraine battlefield, if the U.S. military wants to fight against the PLA, it is likely to be in areas like Taiwan Island and the Ryukyu Islands. The U.S. military even dares not face the Korean War again. In these island battlefields, the main combat forces are air and naval forces, with advanced fighters, bombers, and warships as the main weapons.

In such battlefields, there is a strong demand for drones, but concentrated on large, long-endurance, or high-speed drones, i.e., large military unmanned aircraft, at least the size of the Predator. The most suitable ones are the fifth and sixth generation drones demonstrated by China. Civilian FPVs have no value in such a battlefield.

(The JH-11 drone of the PLA)

Some U.S. military experts believe that if the PLA carries out an amphibious landing operation on Taiwan, FPVs might have a role to play, launching assaults on PLA forces on the beachhead. However, individual FPVs would not be effective. The U.S. military believes that the Taiwanese authorities need tens of thousands or even millions of FPVs. The Taiwan region does not have a complete drone supply chain, where would so many FPVs come from? Would they still go to the mainland?

Therefore, if a conflict arises between China and the United States, it will be a "high-end match" that cannot be compared to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Considering the limitations of the distance of combat, the U.S. military is unlikely to rely on FPVs, at least relying on F-22, F-35, and F/A-18E/F, as well as the B-21. However, these equipment not only have few numbers but also must rely on refueling aircraft to maintain flights over the Taiwan Strait.

The PLA has a large number of advanced ballistic missiles, hypersonic and cruise missiles, and the U.S. military's forward bases, aircraft carriers, refueling aircraft, and other key war assets will not be able to escape. To intercept offensive missiles, FPVs are also not applicable. The U.S. military needs the Patriot PAC-3 MSE, THAAD, Standard-6, and Standard-3, and for air combat, AIM-260 JATM, AIM-174B, and AIM-120D.

(The sixth-generation aircraft and CCA concept image during the Biden era, now completely unrecognizable)

This leads to another paradox. According to calculations by U.S. experts, high-performance large CCA is expected to cost between $20 million and $30 million per unit. Even if using simpler functions, such as forward reconnaissance and "missile truck" functions, the price per unit would still be several million dollars, making it impossible to launch "swarm" attacks or withstand large-scale consumption.

Additionally, it should be noted that although both Russia and Ukraine are extensively deploying FPVs, the war remains undecided. It is even more impossible for the U.S. military to gain an advantage over China by using 380,000 drones. Therefore, this $1 billion is likely to be wasted. The procurement cost of nearly 20,000 RMB per unit is unknown who will eventually benefit.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/7584325059037102626/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.