Subject: Re: Cost asymmetry in modern warfare
Getting back to Wendy's original contention, other factors have risen to the top of the stew in Ukraine. In this rock/papers/scissors/match game, cheap drones kill armor easier than armor kills drones. Neither side is able to safely cross the line into enemy territory with their sophisticated fights and bombers because of the likelihood that they will be shot down with much cheaper anti-aircraft missiles. The Ukrainians were able to sink the Russian flagship (and others) at their docks in Sevastopol and the Russian Navy had to move their fleet to the opposite side of the Black Sea. Ukraine is currently using long-range drones in the same mission that the US would use a strategic bomber.

Carried to a point when both sides can produce sufficient drones and ballistic and cruise missiles, there will be little efficacy of using aircraft for any task other than carrying massive bombs. In the same fashion, every weapon system should be examined and, if it has lost efficacy in modern warfare, be "deemphasized".

China already has submarine drones and I can see a day when fully-autonomous weapon systems will sit on the sea floor awaiting their orders.

One major problem in the US is that the companies which manufacture expensive weapon systems have factories scattered through the US and Congresspersons from those states and districts, will fight tooth and nail to keep their campaign contributions coming in and their constituents working in those plants.

Jeff