Cost-to-kill

For the first time in modern history, a lower-middle-income developing nation attacked and destroyed strategic bombers belonging to a nuclear-armed state. For the first time in modern history, Ukraine deployed 117 drones – each costing between $10,000 and $50,000 – equipped with precision guidance systems, first-person view (FPV) technology, and AI-assisted target acquisition.

For the first time in modern history, these drones successfully destroyed 41 Russian aircraft, including Su-34 multirole fighter-bombers, Su-57 fifth-generation stealth fighters, A-50 early warning planes, and Tu-22M3 long-range strategic bombers, each valued between $20 million and $120 million.

For the first time in modern history, a lower-middle-income developing nation deployed approximately $3 million worth of drone assets to inflict an estimated $3 billion in enemy materiel losses, an asymmetric strike with a staggering cost-to-kill ratio of 1:1,000. Just imagine: 1 to 1,000.

Ukraine has redefined modern warfare. Drones are now at the forefront of modern warfare. Billion-dollar nuclear-powered submarines, equipped with advanced sonar and stealth capabilities, should now be classified as legacy systems. Hundred-million-dollar multirole fighter-bombers, designed for air superiority and precision strike missions, are similarly relegated to legacy status.

Ten-million-dollar main battle tanks, engineered for armoured warfare and manoeuvre dominance, must also be considered legacy platforms. These high-cost assets – submarines, fighter-bombers and tanks – no longer serve as decisive force multipliers in modern, asymmetric conflicts, where distributed, low-cost, and networked technologies, such as unmanned aerial systems and cyber capabilities, increasingly shape operational outcomes.

Ukraine has redefined naval warfare. Using maritime drones costing around $250,000 each, Ukraine managed to cripple key vessels of the Russian Black Sea Fleet – including the Moskva cruiser, valued at $750 million – achieving a staggering cost-to-kill ratio of 1:3,000 or more. Just imagine: one to three thousand. This innovation has disrupted traditional naval power projection.

Pakistan must address its resource constraints by focusing on leveraging cost-effective technologies. Pakistan must adapt to evolving battlefield dynamics. And, Pakistan must integrate military terminology and align with the themes of cost-to-kill efficiency, drone innovation, and the obsolescence of legacy systems.

Pakistan must shift budgetary priorities from capital-intensive platforms like submarines, fighter jets, and main battle tanks to indigenous development of AI-driven drones, loitering munitions and maritime unmanned surface vehicles (USVs).

Pakistan can develop or acquire drones similar to Ukraine’s Beaver or Magura V5, costing $10,000 per unit, equipped with precision guidance and first-person view (FPV) systems. Pakistan could target high-value assets of potential adversaries, such as India’s T-90 tanks ($5 million each) or naval frigates ($500 million), achieving asymmetric cost-to-kill ratios. For instance, a $10,000 drone destroying a $5 million tank yields a 1:500 ratio. A maritime drone costing around $200,000, destroying a $500 million submarine yields a cost-to-kill ratio of 1:2,500.

Warfare has entered a new era. The battlefield is no longer dominated by expensive legacy systems. Yes, an economically constrained nation can deliver strategic effects. Pakistan needs a doctrinal pivot. Pakistan must stop chasing prestige platforms that drain limited resources. Pakistan must embrace the logic of asymmetric warfare.

The future belongs to armies that can do more with less and in modern warfare, cost-to-kill is the new calculus of power.

The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad. He tweets/posts @saleemfarrukh and can be reached at: farrukh15@hotmail.com