Lessons from Ukraine: Do Traditional Platforms Still Matter?

On 09 August, the Ukrainian authorities reported that its safety forces used a first-person-view (FPV) drone to focus on, assault, and destroy a flying Russian Mi-28 assault helicopter. That is the second reported use of a FPV drone in opposition to a helicopter, with the primary purportedly getting used on a Russian Mi-8 transport or utility helicopter. 

All through the course of the Russia-Ukraine Struggle, headlines have repeatedly painted the narrative that particular weapon sorts – particularly loitering munitions and guided artillery – are displacing extra conventional armaments, corresponding to most important battle tanks (MBT), infantry preventing automobiles (IFV), and assault helicopters.

Nonetheless, the truth of the scenario is extra nuanced. Analysts, for instance, have pegged the vast majority of Russia’s armour losses to insufficient preparation, planning, and execution extra so than solely a shift in know-how. For instance, within the earlier phases of the struggle, Russian armoured items had been advised to advance within the absence of ample artillery, digital warfare (EW), and air defence protection. Thus, these Russian columns had been left uncovered, giving Ukraine a bonus.

The counterpoint to this argument could be that the brand new know-how enabled Ukraine to shortly exploit the gaps in Russia’s technique, maybe extra shortly than had it solely relied on conventional weapon techniques or strategies. Thus, there isn’t any doubt that loitering munitions, guided surface-to-surface missiles (SSM), superior surface-to-air missiles (SAM), and drones have cemented their respective positions in navy arsenals.

The true query is whether or not these techniques have displaced the significance of conventional weapons, corresponding to MBTs, amongst others.