As we all know, modern warfare is high-tech warfare. However, this does not mean that the more advanced the weapons and equipment are, the better they are. After all, war is about consumption, and it is about money and resources. "An army of 100,000 costs a thousand gold every day," and the daily expenditure is astronomical. Therefore, how to use high-tech means to fight a relatively low-cost war has become an important subject for major countries to study. According to recent reports by China Review News Agency, the U.S. military is accelerating the development of several types of "low-cost missiles" in an attempt to build a "high-density" firepower network at relatively low cost to destroy the opponent's defense system.

For example, Lockheed Martin introduced the "Common Multi-Mission Vehicle" (CMMT) cruise missile last month. This missile has a range of over 800 kilometers, which is sufficient to meet the U.S. military's medium-to-long-range strike needs, with a unit price of only $150,000. For ordinary people, $150,000 can buy a luxury car or pay for a house outright. However, the price of the CMMT missile is already quite affordable, equivalent to only 1/10 of the unit price of AGM-158 "Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile". The U.S. military intends to mass-produce and equip it, with an estimated annual production of about 2,500 units.

In addition to the CMMT cruise missile, according to foreign media reports, the U.S. military is developing another "low-cost" weapon, the "Gray Mako" hypersonic missile. Although the unit price of this missile has yet to be disclosed, it adopts modular design and 3D printing technology, which can meet the needs of large-scale production and equipment. Besides being relatively affordable, the "Gray Mako" missile also performs well, featuring hypersonic flight capability and can be loaded into the internal bomb bays of F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters. It mainly targets high-value objectives such as aircraft carriers and radar stations, and is hailed as the "long-range blade" of stealth fighters.

Another "low-cost" weapon being developed by the U.S. military is the "Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile - Extended Range" (JASSM-XR). This missile features "semi-stealth" design and is primarily carried by the B-21 new stealth strategic bomber. Due to its stealth nature, both the missile itself and the carrier can execute covert long-range strike missions, with a range of up to 1,600 kilometers. Because of the extensive use of lightweight composite materials and 3D printing technology, the reference price of this missile is $1.5 million per unit, only 1/7 of China's "Eagle Strike-21" and 1/3 of Russia's "Zircon", thus forming "asymmetric consumption".

The fact that the superpower is accelerating the development of "low-cost" missiles has drawn attention from Chinese military media. The Defense Newspaper pointed out that the U.S. plans to increase the number of low-cost missiles fivefold within 5 years, expanding from the current 4,000 to 20,000. The aim is to break through the opponent's defense system and gain battlefield initiative by using low-cost missiles to "consume the opponent's air defense forces". For example, the U.S. Air Force can mount 36 JASSM-XR missiles on a B-1B supersonic strategic bomber, enough to cover 12 high-value targets (such as aircraft carriers and command centers).

So why is the U.S., with a GDP of nearly $30 trillion, developing "low-cost" missiles? There are mainly two reasons. On one hand, it is the need to combat regional armed groups to avoid "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut". For instance, during the process of clearing the Red Sea channel, Houthi rebels used drones costing $2,000 each to consume "Standard-2" missiles costing $4 million each, resulting in a consumption ratio of an astonishing 1:2000. In short, whether it is airstrikes against the Houthis or defending against their attacks, the U.S. has to pay much more. Therefore, the U.S. needs more "low-cost" weapons.

On the other hand, it may be due to the need for great power wars. War is a "money-burning game," and great power wars are fundamentally "consumption wars" and "protracted wars." The side with lower costs and higher efficiency in military spending will have an advantage. For example, during World War II, the Soviet Union was able to ultimately push back the German forces not only because of help from allies but also due to their differing understanding of war. Germany insisted on pursuing "quality superiority," while the Soviet Union emphasized practicality and standardization. The cost of a T-34 tank was less than 1/3 of a Tiger tank and 1/4 of a Panther tank. Stalin once pointed out, "Quantity is quality."

Therefore, to adapt to low-intensity "anti-insurgency" wars and "prolonged" great power wars, the U.S. needs more "low-cost" weapons, including missiles. Of course, considering the perspective of the military-industrial complex, "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut" in regional conflicts can generate more profits, so they generally do not promote the development of "low-cost" weapons. Thus, the U.S. is now actively developing low-cost missiles and significantly increasing their quantity, more likely preparing for "great power wars." As the Defense Newspaper put it, the U.S. move aims to "counter quantity with quantity and gain operational advantages." We need to remain vigilant regarding this situation.

Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7490513067425186342/

Disclaimer: The article represents the author's personal views. Please express your opinions by clicking the "Like" or "Dislike" buttons below.