Charles Darwin had said that it is not the strongest or the most intelligent who survives, but only the one who adapts to change. The same thing is now being applied to war also. The style of war in the world is changing rapidly. Earlier, the strength of a country was measured by its big warships, aircraft carriers and expensive fighter planes. But now the situation is changing. Today, drones, missiles, long-range attack weapons and precision technology are showing more impact.
For this reason, the question is now being raised whether the time of platform centric warfare i.e. war strategy based on large and expensive military platforms is coming to an end. If the style of war is changing but the thinking of the army and the method of purchasing weapons remains the same, then ultimately the public and the soldiers have to bear the loss.
Price tag of 38 billion dollars
The military operations conducted by America in the Middle East in the last two years are being considered a major example of this debate. In fiscal year 2025, America deployed two carrier strike groups in the Red Sea. Apart from this, Operation Rough Rider was conducted against Houthi rebels and Operation Midnight Hammer was conducted on Iran’s nuclear bases. America spent from 4.8 billion dollars to 7.2 billion dollars on these campaigns. Apart from this, America also gave direct aid of 21.7 billion dollars to Israel. If we add the military expenditure of previous years and the global economic loss, then this amount reaches about 38 billion dollars.
An American Gerald R. It costs more than $13.3 billion to build the Ford Class Aircraft Carrier alone. The cost of operation and maintenance over its entire life could exceed $25 billion. The Carrier Strike Group that runs along with it is worth about 25 billion dollars and it costs about 10 billion dollars to run it every year. Whereas the cost of an F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter plane is more than 60 million dollars.
Despite spending so much money, America could not completely stop the Houthi rebels by attacking more than 800 positions from March 2025. Maritime trade in the Red Sea is still affected. That is, despite having expensive military platforms, America did not get complete success.
Iran: no navy, but good counter-capability
The example of Iran is the most discussed in this entire matter. Iran does not have a big navy like America. It has old warships and small fast attack ships. Nevertheless, Iran forced the American Carrier Strike Group to change its strategy in the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf.
The biggest reason for this is Iran’s Abu Mahdi anti-ship cruise missile. This missile can attack at a distance of more than 1000 km. This means that even if American warships attack while standing at a distance, Iran can still target them.
Iran has included short-range ballistic missiles, drones, fast attack boats and long-range cruise missiles in its strategy. This is called A2/AD i.e. Anti-Access/Area Denial strategy. Its purpose is to prevent the enemy from entering an area easily and to put pressure on his military strength from many directions.
This is the reason why even a country without a big navy is able to challenge the US aircraft carrier worth $13.3 billion. This further strengthens the question whether a strategy based on expensive military platforms is now becoming obsolete.
The biggest impact was seen in Operation Sindoor
The most important data related to Operation Sindoor does not require any secret details. On Pakistan’s Independence Day on 14 August 2025, Sama TV mistakenly released the list of 138 soldiers who were given gallantry awards posthumously. Later this list was removed. Pakistan had acknowledged the deaths of a total of 155 soldiers, apart from these, it had honored 488 soldiers on the occasion of its Independence Day.
Fighter aircraft were not the biggest reason for these deaths in Pakistan during Operation Sindoor. Among these, the greater impact was due to the firing of small arms, mortars and artillery. In the four-day conflict, the infantry’s accurate firing, discipline and fieldcraft proved more effective.
However, many current and retired military officers believe that the Indian Air Force played an important role in Operation Sindoor. India targeted many military bases of Pakistan within a few hours. This attack was not carried out by entering the enemy territory. This was a long-range attack using missiles and precision weapons.
How is the impact of war being determined?
Today the focus of war is gradually becoming effect centric. That means now the question is not which country has the largest warship or the most expensive fighter aircraft. The real question is who can create more impact at less cost.
Shooting down a drone worth thousands of dollars with a missile worth millions of dollars is not a technical weakness, but a wrong balance of expenditure. This also raises the question whether the world has purchased more expensive military platforms than necessary.
In the army of the future, big platforms will be just a tool, not the biggest strength. Now the future of war is becoming more dependent on drones, missiles, network-based technology and the ability to carry out precise attacks. This means that the era of platform centric warfare seems to be gradually ending.
Also read: India opens new Strait of Hormuz, this country will not allow oil shortage
Leave a Reply