What stops drones just killing everything and whoever has the most winning every battle? How are they being defeated? What limits their use? Why aren’t infantry utterly terrified going into battle when drones seem able to blow them up without warning, dropping bombs out of nowhere? Can they be detected being small and flying low? Do they do air-to-air combat?
In: Technology
A well-equipped army has a lot of tools to minimize the ability of drones to interfere with their operations. But you’re not wrong about them in theory, a modern battle would involve a lot of drone vs drone combat to establish positioning/air superiority. For less-technologically advanced armies facing drones it just makes the casualties even higher but they don’t really have any choice except to use as many drones as they can and watch waves of soldiers become casualties.
They’re still (for now) mostly controlled by humans. AI controlled drones are terrifying for everyone involved.
Range is the main limiting factor.
Yes to the rest of your questions, and it’s only going to become more prevalent.
Robot dogs with guns on their backs are here now.
Consumer grade drones have been making a significant impact on the battlefield in the last year, and this is the first time they’ve really been put to use like that. Dropping bombs from them is one thing, but it’s just as deadly to use them to spot for traditional artillery, and that’s much harder to deal with.
Most drones are susceptible to their control signals being jammed, and they are detectable, but we’re talking about specialized equipment that’s not currently manufactured in the kind of volume you’d need to make the drones worthless.
One big issue is that many of the ways you might shoot down a drone will cost more to use than the drone itself cost. This is one of the reasons there’s new interest in laser weapon systems.
Economics. Drones aren’t cheap enough (yet) to have swarms of them flying around. Yhey are very fragile and have to be replaced regularly, and the vast majority is still operated manually, so available personnel is also a limiting factor.
In future, attack drones are likely to be automated via AI, but so is anti-drone defense.
You dont want for ai to make the decision to kill someone or not. You will always want for someone to be in that system because computer get a lot if false positive all the time
There is a limited number of drones in war and a limited number of people who can operate them,
That something can be destroyed in battle is not relevant, what is relevant is what it can do. Humans have been easy to kill in battles as long as there have been battles.
Death from above is not new in battle. Projectile weapons like bows have done that for millennia. In more recent times direct fire weapons like rifles or tank guns can do that. The same is the case with indirect fire like gun and rocket artillery. It does not matter to you if a drone or a shell from an artillery hit you without any warning, both can kill you.
Drones have changed how and where you can hide, not the risk in general.
In WWI and WWII the percentage killed by artillery was 50% to 75% depending on where and when. It was around 50% in the middle 18th to middle 19th century too. It dropped to around 10% just before WWI because advances in rifles increased their range to be similar to lots of artillery at the time.
Drones can be taken out by electronic warfare and directed fire onto the drones. They might have an advantage now when they are new but technology will be developed to counter them.
Compared to the anti-tank missiles and rockets active protective systems on tanks can take out today drones are slow targets that are easy to take out. Active protection systems are still rare. There are practically none in the war in Ukraine but lost on Israeli vehicles in Gaza. The FPV drone attack on armored vehicles seen from Ukraine that are effective there would likely be shot down again by Israeli vehicles with active protection systems.
War has always been attack vs defense, sometimes the attacker has the advantage, and sometimes the defender. When new technology is introduced for attack it will have an advantage for some time until there is a counter for it and the balance swings back.
Drones are changing the battlefield, but they have some negative traits.
The side without drones have a clear disadvantage which is why both sides in the ukraine war has rushed to mass produce drones.
Fpv drones (the suicide drones) are however very hard to use and require lots of training to be effective.
Grenade dropping drones are a nuisance but has to remain still over their target, thus is very fragile once discovered.
According to sources drones have a success rate of about 30% and about half of the lost drones are lost to electronic warfare.
For the infantry it definitly affect morale to constantly need to have drone awareness, and some videos show soldiers running in panic from drones following them.
It must be absolutely terrifying to be a soldier fighting in a war in this current military landscape.
Especially between two well equipped countries technologically.
We’ve all seen the videos of drone warfare, it’s incredibly concerning.
Until Russia and Ukraine began fighting in earnest over the entire country there wasn’t much to say about it. Global powers had drones. They fought against groups that mostly either didn’t have drones or had bad drones with poor utility. The whole concept of having thousands of drones that can drop explosives that can actively kill infantry or destroy whole tanks actually being deployed against an organized and trained military is pretty new.
Basically ECM to jam transmission between controller and drone. Mainly the small FPV drones(ones you seen with explosives strapped to it or dropping grenades).
See plenty of these small drones diving into trenches. So infantry are scared of them. As where there is one, others are nearby, enemy artillery will be informed of your position as well. Also small enough that skilled pilot can fly the drone into the underground opening/sleeping area inside a trench.
Example when Ukraine made that river crossing beach head. Russia kept using small drones to hit the small patrol/speed boats used to reinforce the beach head.
Other drones like the Russian Lancet, bigger version but still way smaller than your standard reaper, global hawks etc. This drone can autonomous attack a target, set to loiter in an area, then hit a suitable target. One of the main ways to attack vehicles and have a great range. Has hit areas 40 miles inside Ukrainian held territory against an Ukrainian airbase. So new versions probably have a longer Range.
So small drones can hit a tank/ifv. Go for engine or tracks. May get lucky chain reaction kill from hitting the engine. Once immobilised the crew leaves the vehicle as it’s now a steel coffin. Follow up drones or artillery will hit it. Due to massive minefields, tank hits mine, crew leaves then drones/artillery destroy/further damage the tank. Vehicle can’t be retrieved as enemy will have fire control over that area.
Russia upgraded the Iranian drones it received. Added small jet engine, larger warhead, stealth coating. Even some found with thermobaric warhead( fuel vacuum
Bomb)
Then you get moments of the small drones seeing enemy small drone in the area. Then just waiting and following it. If it’s just a recon unit it may go back to its operators. Then enemy has the operators location and artillery strike can be called in.
Plus hitting a highly defended target, Geran/Shaled drones are used in large number to help overload defences. Then other missiles follow in amongst the confusion. Russia even adapted some cruise missiles to fire off flares/chaff to distract defences during final stages of flight.
Russia production has kicked in so are producing large numbers. They are getting hands on and brutal lessons in drone warfare and adapting to it.
Ukraine soldiers will have to teach NATO advisers how this new strategy works.
US was supplying the Switchblade portable drone since start of the war.
Latest Answers