How much does a “minimum NATO alert” cost on the Alliance’s eastern borders?
- The reason for this brief analytical review is the alert on NATO’s eastern borders in which two British RAF Typhoon fighter jets were lifted from a base in Romania this past weekend, due to a “threat from Russian drones near NATO airspace”. According to the publication of the “Guardian”, citing British and Romanian sources, the “typhoons” did not open fire. According to the Guardian, the planes took off around 2 a.m. after radar systems detected multiple aerial targets near the Reni district of Ukraine, not far from the Romanian border. Romanian authorities confirmed that the Typhoons had established radar contact with the drones and had clearance to act if the drones entered Romanian airspace. British defense sources told The Guardian that at no time did RAF fighter jets enter Ukrainian airspace, denying earlier claims that British jets had allegedly shot down Russian drones over Ukraine. This situation is not the first, it is one of many, for which in the following text we will address an interesting aspect, namely: how much it actually costs to raise the Eurofighter Typhoon fighter plane, of the Royal Air Force (RAF), compared to raising cheap drones and their production. And secondly, is NATO really over-dimensioning with its reactions, “shooting a mosquito cannon”, that is, spending too much money on this kind of reactions?
Expensive security or strategic necessity?
When the “typhoon” hunts shadows…
On the night that NATO radars detected air targets near the Romanian-Ukrainian border, two British Typhoons were lifted from the base in Romania. As the renowned British newspaper “The Guardian” reported, they did not open fire, nor did they enter Ukrainian airspace. The mission remained within surveillance and deterrence. But this is where an essential question arises: how much does such a reaction cost and is it economically justified?
The price of a “NATO alert”?
The operational cost of a “Eurofighter Typhoon” is estimated at 15,000-20,000 euros per flight hour (approximate minimalist European estimate, depending on configuration and mission).
– A relatively short mission, i.e. a take-off, then an interception or a patrol lasting from an hour to an hour and a half, and let’s assume that two planes are raised, as in this “alert” mission, would cost approximately 40,000 to 60,000 euros for one intervention – say the experts we consulted, adding that the costs of logistics (personnel, maintenance, bases) are not included in this estimate. the amortization of the aircraft, i.e. the costs of constant combat readiness…
The real “systemic cost” of such a response can easily exceed 100,000 euros for one night’s action, our interlocutors claim.
On the other side are drones, mostly Russian “shahed” (Iranian design) or similar kamikaze drones that cost up to 20,000 euros per drone, and some improvised models even below 10,000 euros.
This means that an hour of flight on a “typhoon” costs much more, and even five times more than a manufactured drone, experts point out and underline the asymmetry of the cost of military “action” and “reaction” on the other side.
– This is where the classic problem of modern warfare appears, namely “cheap threats against extremely expensive defense systems”. In practical terms, NATO spends tens of thousands of euros to respond to a potential threat that may cost ten times less even when there is no direct contact or interception – say the interlocutors.
Why do the “typhoons” still rise?
According to our interlocutors, despite the obvious financial imbalance, such missions make sense. It is a security reason that is slightly different from ordinary economic logic.
– The logic of the take off of the “typhoons” has several supporting elements. First, it is a defense of air sovereignty. NATO cannot afford to ignore objects near the borders – even if they are small drones. Second, it is the logic of escalation prevention. Namely, quick reaction means control. Inaction can look like weakness. Third, there is an unknown threat here, and the radar does not always immediately distinguish between a drone and a missile or plane…
The risk of misjudgment is too great. And fourth, it is a psychological effect. This means that the raised fighter planes and the presence of fighter planes send a signal, not only to the potential adversary but also to their allies – the experts explain.
A critical perspective
However, the criticism is not without basis. In an era of mass production of cheap drones, drone swarms and asymmetric warfare, traditional air power is becoming a financially inefficient response to low-budget threats.
Several experts are already warning that using drone fighters is “economically unsustainable” and that cheaper alternatives (air defense systems, lasers, electronic jamming) are needed.
The incident over Romania is not just military news but an example of a wider trend. Namely, modern security is getting more and more expensive, while threats are getting cheaper.
– Maybe at first glance it looks like NATO is shooting “with a mosquito cannon”. But on the other hand, in a world where one wrong assessment can lead to a wider conflict, sometimes the most expensive reaction is cheaper than the consequences of inaction – explain our interlocutors, experts in the field of military defense and security.
However, the question that remains is how long can such a model be maintained, financially and strategically?
How much do air defense and electronic systems cost and are they a more cost-effective alternative than raising a “Eurofighter Typhoon”?
Compared to the expensive flight hours of fighter jets, modern defense increasingly relies on two key tools. First, air defense and second, electronic warfare. On paper, they look like a cheaper solution, but the reality is nuanced.
How much does air defense cost?
Modern systems such as the Patriot or NASAMS have a high initial cost but varying operating costs. One missile from the “Patriot” now costs from two to four million euros. Furthermore, one rocket from NASAMS costs from 400 thousand to one million euros. Therefore, the simple conclusion is that shooting down a cheap €20,000 to €50,000 drone with a missile worth hundreds of thousands or millions of euros reopens the same dilemma: an expensive defense against a cheap threat.
Is electronic warfare the cheapest answer?
According to our interlocutors, modern electronic jamming systems have a completely different economy.
– Once procured, electronic jamming systems have a cost per “action”, i.e. often minimal (power, maintenance), and a large effect such as GPS signal disruption, loss of control of the drone and forced crash. This means that neutralizing a drone can cost only a few hundred euros or less – say the interlocutors.
Where is the real savings?
According to the interlocutors, under ideal conditions, a “Eurofighter Typhoon” costs 30,000-60,000 euros per mission. An air defense missile costs from 400,000 to 4,000,000 euros per target, and electronic warfare, or rather defense, costs from tens to hundreds of euros per intervention. But if the cheapest solution is electronic warfare, then the advantage of others must be emphasized. Namely, air defense systems are the most precise and reliable, and fighter planes are the most flexible (but expensive), say the interlocutors, adding that if the folk saying “shoot a mosquito with a cannon” is true, then electronic warfare is like pushing away a mosquito with your hand – almost for free. But the problem is that not every “mosquito” is harmless. Some carry explosives, some are resistant to interference, and some cannot be neutralized at all without physical destruction, experts add, stressing finally that this is exactly why modern defense does not choose one solution but combines.
– Cheap when you can, expensive when you have to – military experts point out. RS
