There’s a useful overview of how Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are changing the tactical situation for troops on the ground in this week’s Economist Technology Quarterly section:
Drones are much less expensive to operate than manned warplanes. The cost per flight-hour of Israel’s drone fleet, for example, is less than 5% the cost of its fighter jets, says Antan Israeli, the commander of an Israeli drone squadron. In the past two years the Israeli Defence Forces’ fleet of UAVs has tripled in size. Mr Israeli says that “almost all” IDF ground operations now have drone support.
Of course, small and comparatively slow UAVs are no match for fighter jets when it comes to inspiring awe with roaring flyovers — or shooting down enemy warplanes. Some drones, such as America’s Predator and Reaper, carry missiles or bombs, though most do not. (Countries with “hunter-killer” drones include America, Britain and Israel.) But drones have other strengths that can be just as valuable. In particular, they are unparalleled spies. Operating discreetly, they can intercept radio and mobile-phone communications, and gather intelligence using video, radar, thermal-imaging and other sensors. The data they gather can then be sent instantly via wireless and satellite links to an operations room halfway around the world — or to the hand-held devices of soldiers below. In military jargon, troops without UAV support are “disadvantaged”.
Of course, it wouldn’t be a current-day Economist article without at least one gloomy caveat:
There is a troubling side to all this. Operators can now safely manipulate battlefield weapons from control rooms half a world away, as if they are playing a video game. Drones also enable a government to avoid the political risk of putting combat boots on foreign soil. This makes it easier to start a war, says P.W. Singer, the American author of “Wired for War”, a recent bestseller about robotic warfare. But like them or not, drones are here to stay. Armed forces that master them are not just securing their hold on air superiority — they are also dramatically increasing its value.
I don’t particularly credit this risk . . . as Chris Taylor pointed out in a comment on a recent post, “degrading the comm links is the easiest way to render UCAVs largely toothless. In their current incarnation they are only good for permissive environments where the other guy can’t really harm your aircraft or comms. When they get autonomous then they’ll be more practical for warfighting against advanced foes.”
Actually, go read the comment thread on that post. Between Chris and “cirby”, I think they cover the technical side very well indeed.
