Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19960199 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Table of Contents:
- <p class="MsoNormal">Abstract <br>In contemporary military-strategic thought, air superiority is typically treated as a necessary <br>condition for victory in conventional conflict. The proliferation of inexpensive mass-produced <br>unmanned aerial vehicles—Iranian Shaheds, Ukrainian and other strike drones—prompts <br>revisiting this position as a hypothesis rather than a given. <br>This paper develops a formal model of air warfare between a strong side (a small but expensive <br>fleet of modern combat aircraft) and a weak side (a stockpile of cheap one-way drones). The <br>total capital ratio between the two sides is set at 10:1 in favor of the strong side. The model <br>combines analytical estimates with numerical experiments using an agent-based simulation at <br>one-hour resolution over a twelve-month horizon. <br>Three principal results emerge. First, with a properly chosen strategy of distributing forces <br>across time and space, the weak side can guarantee at least a draw, and in some scenarios <br>victory by attrition of the opponent's resources. Second, and counter-intuitively, concentrated <br>mass employment of cheap means—the so-called “swarm”—turns out to be one of the least <br>effective strategies available to the weak side; the real advantage of mass cheap weapons is <br>realized through distribution rather than concentration. Third, I introduce a quantitative <br>measure of the relative weight of strategy versus technology, which I call the Napoleon <br>coefficient by analogy with the well-known Napoleonic intuition that moral factors prevail over <br>material ones by a ratio of three to one. The model yields a lower bound of 7.5 for this <br>coefficient; the upper bound is undetermined and in some regimes corresponds to the <br>empirically observed cost-exchange ratios of 1:100 reported in current conflicts. <br>The results generalize to the broader class of asymmetric air conflicts regardless of the <br>technological type of combat unit—aircraft versus aircraft, aircraft versus drone, drone versus <br>drone—and are discussed in the context of deterrence theory: the emerging conditions allow a <br>weaker side to maintain credible deterrence at substantially lower resource cost than is required <br>for nuclear deterrence.</p>