Ukraine's game-changing drone attack is a wake-up call for vulnerable US airbases, particularly in the Pacific
Ukraine launched a devastating drone attack on Russian aircraft across multiple airbases.
The operation highlights how US airbases, especially in the Pacific, could be vulnerable without more defenses.
China has made significant investments in fortifying its airbases, especially compared to the US.
Ukraine's shocking drone attack on the Russian bomber fleet and other strategic aircraft shows just how vulnerable US bases and planes, especially those in the Pacific, could be to a similar kind of attack by an adversary.
The need to harden American airbases to protect US airpower assets has been an important topic of discussion for years now, particularly amid China's military rise and the significant expansion of its ballistic missile arsenal, but Ukraine's attack on Russia has reignited this discussion and fueled others.
Operation Spiderweb saw Ukraine sneak more than one hundred drones into Russian territory and launch them near key airbases. The Ukrainians say they struck 41 Russian aircraft, including an unspecified number of strategic bombers. Ukraine says the damage it inflicted could exceed $7 billion. The operation was very unusual, raising key questions.
US military leaders took note. For instance, Secretary of the Navy John Phelan and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George observed this week that the attack indicated the need to adapt to the quickening speed of warfare.
Spiderweb, Phelan said at an artificial intelligence defense conference this week, "was pretty prolific." The operation, George noted at the same event, showed that the US needed to be more agile and think further about acquiring more counter-drone systems.
George also said the attack was another example of Ukraine's asymmetric advantage that's been demonstrated throughout the war, using relatively cheap drones to destroy expensive, exquisite Russian air power. It's something the US needs to be thinking about, too, he said.
Military leaders and defense experts have long recognized the growing threats to US airbases and American airpower, particularly in the western Pacific, and the need to harden defenses there to prevent a strike from an adversary like China from taking out bombers and fighters before they get off the ground.
But Ukraine's Operation Spiderweb, Tom Shugart, an adjunct senior fellow with the defense program at the Center for a New American Security, told Business Insider, "should be a wake-up call at the senior policymaker level and congressional level to pay attention. There is no sanctuary anymore."
US airfield expansion and fortification efforts have been limited in recent years, troublingly so in the Pacific. Facilities are seriously lacking in passive defenses, like hardened aircraft shelters and sufficiently dispersed forces. The issue is especially glaring compared to China's consistent work over the past decade on building shelters to hide aircraft, adding runways, and increasing ramp areas.
In a Hudson Institute report earlier this year, Shugart and Tim Walton, a senior fellow at Hudson's Center for Defense Concepts and Technology, said that this has created an imbalance. Should the US and China go to war, the latter would need fewer shots to suppress or destroy airfields used by the US and its allies and partners. China would have more capacity for sustaining its air operations.
Shugart and Walton also said the rise of foreign drones flying over military bases demonstrated a need for the Pentagon to harden its airfields, especially key ones that house bombers.
Ukraine's attack on Russia is expected to ignite important conversations about anti-drone defenses at bases, Mark Cancian, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told BI.
The focus has been on missiles, but drones come with a different set of problems. To protect against drones, it isn't enough to fortify shelters. "You have to be careful about any openings," Cancian said, explaining that "you can't have a roof and then an open front because they'll just fly in." One solution he said may start to appear is a mesh structure or curtain for those openings.
Ukraine's recent strike on Russian airpower could be just a glimpse of what such a future attack could look like, experts said. Sunday's attack, Walton told BI, "was in the form of quadcopters; in the future, it could be similar drones but with even greater autonomy, small, low-cost cruise missiles, or other weapons."
The list of potential targets could grow, too.
Spiderweb demonstrated something that military experts and planners have long understood: aircraft are vulnerable on the ground, and striking them before they can take off can severely limit a military's air power capabilities. But future strikes could be on ships in the accessible littorals, ground stations, air and missile defense sites, and so on.
The lessons from this strike for the US Department of Defense, experts said, include understanding how an adversary could pull off a similar attack.
Tim Robinson, a military aviation specialist at the UK'S Royal Aeronautical Society, said that in light of the attack, the West will have not only need to consider hardening their bases but also potentially build "more of them than you have aircraft" to either confuse the enemy or fill with decoys.
As Congress meets with military leaders this week, and service budgets are determined, "members should ask how are US bases and other critical facilities defended against these threats today; how much funding is required to appropriate passive and active defenses; and how much of that funding is included in the fiscal year 2026 president's budget proposal," Walton said.
There are also questions around whether Golden Dome, the Trump administration's plan to fulfill a Reagan-era vision for a major missile and air defense network, will incorporate any lessons from this attack. Some industry figures have said that the project, while it is primarily about missiles, can't overlook the drone threat. US military leaders are saying the same.
Robinson said that "if you're an air force chief and you are not lying awake at night thinking about how to protect" yourself, then "you're going to lose the next war."
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
7 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Inside the Plot to Push Khamenei Aside
America's Saturday night attacks on Iran have amplified an ever-more open debate in Tehran over the future of the country and whether Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei should remain in power. In the days leading up to the American intervention, a group of Iranian businessmen, political and military figures, and relatives of high-ranking clerics had begun hatching a plan for running Iran without Khamenei, two sources involved in the discussions told me—whether in the event of the 86-year-old leader's death or of his being pushed aside. Constitutionally, the Assembly of Experts, a body of 88 clerics, would need to vote to dismiss Khamenei from his position, but organizing such a vote under current circumstances is unlikely. The leader could also be more informally sidelined, say, by insiders who pressure or persuade him to pass real power to a temporary replacement. The plotters have agreed that a leadership committee consisting of a few high-ranking officials would take over running the country and negotiate a deal with the United States to stop the Israeli attacks. The sources were fearful of being discovered but said that they were telling me of their conversations in the hope that the exposure could help them gauge regional and international response. Among the details they shared with me are that former president Hassan Rouhani, who is not involved in the discussions, is being considered for a key role on the leadership committee, and that some of the military officials involved have been in regular contact with their counterparts from a major Gulf country, seeking buy-in for changing Iran's trajectory and the composition of its leadership. 'Ours is just one idea,' one person involved in conversations told me. 'Tehran is now full of such plots. They are also talking to Europeans about the future of Iran. Everybody knows Khamenei's days are numbered. Even if he stays in office, he won't have actual power.' This was before the U.S. bombardment. I reached out to this person just after the explosions in Natanz, Fordo, and Isfahan, and he said, 'I think the chances of us succeeding to somehow sideline Khamenei have now increased. But we are all worried and not sure. It could also go exactly the opposite way.' The other person I spoke with who was involved in the conversations told me that he was less optimistic now about the group's plan securing peace with the U.S. and Israel. 'But even if Iran ends up choosing a belligerent position against the United States, Khamenei might have to be pushed aside,' he said. The extent of last night's damage is currently subject to a war of narratives between Washington and Tehran. The U.S. has averred that its bombing was a spectacular success—President Donald Trump claims to have 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear program— while Iran has sought to downplay the destruction, claiming that it had already moved its nuclear materiel and that the strikes had not penetrated fortified sites. Either way, the mood in Iranian circles close to the regime has bifurcated, I'm told. Some insiders, including the plotters I spoke with, want to sue for a deal with Trump, even if that means ditching Khamenei. Others believe that Iran must fight back, because otherwise it will invite further aggression. 'Iran will respond and the war will expand, even if only for the time being,' Mostafa Najafi, a Tehran-based expert close to the Iranian security establishment told me shortly after the attacks. I'd spoken to Najafi a day earlier. At that time, he told me that Iran had already readied itself for American intervention and several months of war. Despite a week of harsh Israeli assaults, Iran's missile and drone capacities were still considerable, he'd said, adding that Iran's long experience in asymmetric warfare left it well-situated for a prolonged battle with the United States and Israel. Iran had so far sought to avoid dragging America into the war with Israel, Najafi said—Tehran had not unleashed its regional militia allies on American interests in the region—but a U.S. direct hit could change that calculus. Iran's options would be limited in this regard, however. Lebanon's Hezbollah is a shadow of its former self and has shown little interest in joining Iran's fight with Israel and the United States. Iraq is in the midst of a national electoral campaign, making its pro-Tehran militias unlikely to want to be seen as dragging the country into a new conflict. Some in the Iranian ruling establishment have suggested that the country will now leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty and openly pursue nuclear weaponization. This fits the belligerent tone emanating even from some centrist elements. For example, before the U.S. attack, Ali Larijani, a former speaker of parliament, personally threatened Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, saying that Iran would 'come after' him after the war. But events may be moving too fast for Khamenei to carry out longterm plans. In the days ahead, Iran may well respond with a symbolic attack, likely on U.S. bases in Iraq, Mojtaba Dehghani, a Europe-based expert with intimate knowledge of Iran's leadership told me. But Dehghani speculated that such a move would probably expand the war and end in Khamenei's downfall, as a rival faction would then be motivated to seize the reins and seek peace with the United States. For years, Khamenei has led his country in chants of 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' while avoiding fighting either on Iran's home turf. Now Iranian territory is under fire from both. The country faces a stark choice. Either it expands the war and risks additionally antagonizing the Gulf countries that host American bases, or it seeks a historic compromise with the U.S. that would mean giving up its decades-long hostility. Khamenei's stance is at once recalcitrant and cautious to the point of cowardice. Elites around him are wondering whether he will have to be tossed aside in pursuit of either course.
Newsweek
12 minutes ago
- Newsweek
JD Vance Issues Warning on Trump Admin's 'Biggest Red Line' for Iran
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. "I think our biggest red line is the Iranian nuclear weapons program," Vice President JD Vance told NBC on Meet The Press on Sunday. "We're not at war with Iran," Vance insisted, adding, "We're at war with Iran's nuclear program." "We do not want war with Iran. We actually want peace, but we want peace in the context of them not having a nuclear weapons program, and that's exactly what the president accomplished last night," Vance explained. Why It Matters The U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites—dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer—in Isfahan, Fordow and Natanz marks the first direct involvement of American in the escalating crises between Iran and Israel. The action has received backlash, with many citing the lack of Congressional approval for the military move. What To Know President Donald Trump decided to continue with the planned attack because he believed the Iranians "stopped negotiating in good faith," according to Vance. Opportunity was another factor for the timing of the strikes, with Vance saying they had a "narrow window in which" to "set that program back," adding, "Which is why Fordow was destroyed last night." When asked if the strikes have completely destroyed Iran's nuclear capabilities, Vance declined to discuss specifics, citing it as intelligence, but did say the nuclear program had been pushed back considerably. Vance described the strikes as an opportunity for a "reset" in U.S.-Iran relations and reiterated that the administration remained open to negotiation if Tehran abandoned its nuclear ambitions. "I really think there are two big questions for the Iranians here. Are they going to attack American troops, or are they going to continue with their nuclear weapons program?" Vance said. "And if they leave American troops out of it, and they decide to give up their nuclear weapons program once and for all, then I think the president has been very clear, we can have a good relationship with the Iranians." Vance also responded to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declaration that the strikes were the end of diplomacy, saying, "We didn't blow up the diplomacy. The diplomacy never was given a real chance by the Iranians. "Our hope…is that this maybe can reset here," he continued. President Donald Trump, right, and Vice President JD Vance sit in the Situation Room on Saturday, June 21, 2025, at the White House in Washington. President Donald Trump, right, and Vice President JD Vance sit in the Situation Room on Saturday, June 21, 2025, at the White House in Washington. The White House via AP Earlier Sunday during a press conference, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the operation, executed with B-2 bombers and decoy maneuvers, avoided confrontation with Iranian air defenses and resulted in "significant destruction" at all three target sites. In the wake of the strikes, Iran's Revolutionary Guard launched missiles at Israel, injuring civilians and damaging infrastructure. Israel claimed it swiftly neutralized the threat and responded militarily against positions in western Iran. What People Are Saying Vice President JD Vance said Sunday on Meet The Press: "We felt very strongly that the Iranians were stonewalling us. They weren't taking this seriously. They were trying to draw this process out as long as possible so that they could rebuild their nuclear weapons program without the threat of American action. We had a limited window in which we could take out this Fordow nuclear facility." Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a Pentagon news conference Sunday morning: "This is a plan that took months and weeks of positioning and preparation so that we could be ready when the president of the United States called. It took a great deal of precision. It involved misdirection and the highest of operational security." What Happens Next The Pentagon has said that additional strikes remain possible if Iran retaliates. Global leaders have called for diplomatic engagement to prevent a larger war, while both U.S. and Iranian officials have stated conflicting intentions for the path forward. The status of Iran's nuclear material and capabilities has not been fully determined at this time.
New York Times
23 minutes ago
- New York Times
Iran's Fordo Site Said to Look Severely Damaged, Not Destroyed
After overnight strikes on Iran, President Trump on Sunday declared the operation a 'success,' and said that Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities were 'completely and totally obliterated.' But his early public pronouncements contrast with more cautious assessments by the U.S. and Israeli militaries. The Israeli military, in an initial analysis, believes the heavily fortified nuclear site at Fordo has sustained serious damage from the American strike on Sunday, but has not been completely destroyed, according to two Israeli officials with knowledge of the matter. The officials also said it appeared Iran had moved equipment, including uranium, from the site. A senior U.S. official similarly acknowledged that the American strike on the Fordo site did not destroy the heavily fortified facility but said the strike had severely damaged it, taking it 'off the table.' The person noted that even 12 bunker-busting bombs could not destroy the site. The damage assessments by Israel and the United States are ongoing, and they have not made any final conclusions. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters. In its overnight strikes, the United States took aim at three nuclear site, including dropping 30,000 pound, bunker-busting bombs on Fordo, Iran's most critical site. In a briefing Sunday morning, top Pentagon officials echoed President Trump's claims of success, while also saying the final assessment would take time. Gen. Dan Caine, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the initial assessment indicated that all three sites sustained 'severe damage and destruction,' but added that it was too soon to say whether Iran retained some nuclear capability. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
