UnHerd looks at the modern battlefield, and how unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's, also known as drones) are a game-changer.
In some respects, 21st-century warfare began the first time a US MQ-1 Predator UAV (that’s an unmanned Aerial Vehicle) drone flew over the Taliban’s positions to photograph the scene below. The Americans realised drones could be used for more than snooping. They could be modified for combat, armed with missiles and other incendiary devices. China, Iran and Turkey joined the arms race, and now they flood the market with their own cheap and effective drones.
For any state fighting without the wealth of the United States and China (which is everyone else), what is cheap and effective is also necessary. Out in Ukraine, the skies throng with Chinese-made DJI Mavics, Iranian Shaheds, Russian Orlan-10s and Turkish Bayraktar TB2s. Drones may not have the same payload or firepower as a fighter jet, but then again you can’t buy a fighter jet on the internet. For the price of one F-35, you can buy 55,000 DJI Mavic 3s. For less established militaries, drones offer the chance of levelling the field to at least some degree.
I spot a DJI Mavic 3 drone amid the scattered clothing, food and weaponry in the Dnipro 1 base. It’s not more than around 13×12 inches. This is a civilian camera drone — anyone can buy it online for around $3,000. If resource constraints breed creativity, then the Ukrainians are becoming artists. When I covered the battle of Bakhmut, an officer there explained to me how his unit could take out a multi-million-dollar T90 Russian tank by simply buying a Mavic online and fitting it with a small explosive. The Ukrainians have become masters of modifying consumer drones for conflict; of weaponising the everyday into something far more potent.
. . .
Dnipro 1 commander Yuriy Bereza [says], “It’s incredible how drones are changing the war. If I turn on my phone – a rocket will come out of the sky and land on me. The Russians can track it and they have orders to kill me. So many things in war now are about WhatsApp, Facetime, Signal — wars are being run out of phones. And if you leave a phone on in the wrong place you can die.”
. . .
The Russians are neither stupid nor technologically naive. According to reports, Ukraine is losing around 10,000 drones per month to Russian electronic warfare. When I spoke to Dima earlier in the year, he told me how much better the enemy was getting at jamming and disrupting his attacks and how much more advanced they were in medium-range drones. Now, 18 months on, despite all their problems, the Russians remain in the field and they are getting better. They have significant technological capabilities — and, crucially, they are learning from their mistakes.
The Ukrainians, meanwhile, are forced to crowdfund for drones (and indeed other equipment). The Russians, bereft of international or often popular domestic support, are reliant on Moscow to keep delivering. It does so inadequately and with little concern for its own men. But its artillery is still firing, and its drones are still in the air. And as the counteroffensive intensifies all the way up and down the line of contact, it is becoming clear that whoever wins the drone wars will come to hold the upper hand in the war — perhaps for good.
There's more at the link. Recommended reading.
The first major "drone war" (as opposed to smaller-scale anti-terrorist operations) was between Azerbaijan and Armenia in 2020. Azerbaijani drones dominated the skies over the conflict zone, and helped to inflict a humiliating defeat on Armenia. The book "7 Seconds to Die" covered the technological implications of that war in detail.
It makes for fascinating reading, and its lessons are being reinforced and amplified by the current war in Ukraine. Effectively, any nation willing to make a relatively small investment in technology and training can transform its military capabilities, rendering it a real threat to "traditional" armed forces that haven't yet made the transition.
Peter
23 comments:
But, but, but.... I was assured weaponizing civilian quadcopters was unpossible. /sarc
@Rick T: Yeah. Right. So much for "experts".
This reminds me of the African wars of the 80's where some countries used technicals with anti tank missiles against tanks - cheap, but hard on the equipment and men.
Interestingly, armed UAVs go back farther than most people realize; in Vietnam, early 1970's, the Firebee dropped bombs and could fire Maverick missiles. It normally did photo recon in denied areas, but could do more.
I'll bet it's already being done, but if a certain phone signal on your side has a launch on detect order assigned against it, then one of your drones can wander over to an enemy HQ and send a spoof signal matching the target one.
There is a lot to be learned from the AA war. That was this war writ small.
Electronic warfare will be a far larger part of any conflict. It will be interesting to see if any of this translates to Naval warfare
The people planning Civil War II in the USA are watching and noting these tactics.
I have a friend whose job in the USMC was signal spectrum security. I assume, broadly speaking, that signal security has been practiced as long as there have been radios, but his specific MOS didn't exist until he wrote it. Once done, slots opened up for something like 14 others. He retired into private industry making making substantially more than a warrant officer, never again to worry about being the dropee for something explodey.
Tethered balloons gave commanders a static view of the wider battlefield, that's why balloon busting was so important in WWI. The new consumer quadcopters take that vision to the next level for the tactical commander, the bigger drones and satellites feed the area commanders and higher.
Now fighters will need to focus on overhead camo and cover, not just at ground level.
The hobby drone you mention SNIP:
"I spot a DJI Mavic 3 drone amid the scattered clothing, food and weaponry in the Dnipro 1 base. It’s not more than around 13×12 inches. This is a civilian camera drone — anyone can buy it online for around $3,000. If resource constraints breed creativity, then the Ukrainians are becoming artists. When I covered the battle of Bakhmut, an officer there explained to me how his unit could take out a multi-million-dollar T90 Russian tank by simply buying a Mavic online and fitting it with a small explosive. The Ukrainians have become masters of modifying consumer drones for conflict; of weaponising the everyday into something far more potent.
I looked it up, it has a 500-gram carrying capacity.
Care to tell me what military warhead you'd USE to take out a T90 with?
I "Suppose" a open hatch hand grenade, eh? I've tried out these hobby drones and dropping 500 gram packages. A meter wide target is quite difficult for this old man in any sort of breeze.
You could "Prove" that Hobby Drones that Filthie was deemed THE Expert that was wrong actually wrong.
A LOT OF PROPAGANDA on the Ukraine Pravda is doing, often with a third party "Source" claiming the information aka Washington Post.
TRUE Armed Drones are FAR Larger and much more expensive.
I blogged about this over a year ago - https://freethepeople.org/tsar-wars-attack-of-the-drones/ - most of what I wrote about then that hadn't yet happened has now happened. The only thing we haven't (yet) seen in mass drone swarms
BTW If I could I'd finance a company that built drones that didn't use any parts from the PRC and was cheap cheap cheap. Going to be very handy when the PRC tries to invade Taiwan
If I was trying to take out a tank with a drone that had a 500 gram carrying capacity, I'd load it with thermite. Land the drone on the tank and set the thermite off. No explosives needed, thermite is easy to improvise, and would do bad things to a tank.
The article on Ukraine seems a bit dated. The Russians have upped their game on drones both defensively (EW warfare), and have drones now that are more autonomous for selecting targets. Russia is adapting,
Drones seriously up the ante in what's called 'asymmetrical warfare'. Which is what we will see plenty of here when the current condition ripens into a full on civil war.
UNPOSSIBLE!
The World's Foremost Expert on drones from Canuckistan assured us all most earnestly and repeatedly that such a thing could never, ever, ever happen, and there was no way to weaponize COTS drones, even though Russian 30mm grenades weigh about 500g, and drones like the DJI Mavic can carry twice that payload, no sweat, and we should believe him, rather than 500 YouTube videos, and our lying eyes...
Sorry, couldn't get through any more of that without laughing myself out of my chair.
I wrote a book on drone warfare, more from the prepper/survivalist perspective. “Poor Man’s Air Force.”
I can see a charge that small used against trucks or ammo/ fuel dumps (unprotected), but I agree that it seems unlikely to take out a tank.
The US has struggled for years trying to make small guided weapons with useful payloads.
The smallest they've come up with that I'm aware of is the Viper Strike, launched from the Shadow.
Aesop, I love your quote "and drones like the DJI Mavic can carry twice that payload, no sweat, and we should believe him, rather than 500 YouTube videos, and our lying eyes..."
DJI Mavic makes only a few dozen models and variants. The hobbyist drone DJI Mavic 3 drone was the subject not the Industrial model you're implying.
Secondly when you watch Avatar do you really think that Musk flew a camera crew to some nearby galaxy and filmed it?
Let alone the green screened deep fakes, I THINK even You have posted about?
If NOT, why do you give much factual belief in ANYTHING produced today in a high Propaganda zone?
Michael,
I wasn't referring to industrial models.
You could have looked it up yourself in a click or two:
https://dronexl.co/2023/03/10/dji-mavic-3-payload-release-drone-delivery/#:~:text=It%20has%20a%20500%2Dgram,a%20little%20over%20900%20grams.
Secondly, claiming that all of YouTube is CGI, because Avatar, is lamer than the current Oval Office occupant, and the coward's way out of trying to mansplain their way out of reality. It's only a step above inserting your fingers in your ears to the second knuckle and saying "La! La! La! I can't HEAR you!"
You can try that dodge with one video, and show evidence for your opinion. Trying to wave a magic wand and dismiss every video extant is simply wishful magical thinking. That doesn't even work at Hogwarts.
And to Anon @8:00AM,
The flaws with Russian tanks storing their ready main gun ammo in open racks on the floor of the turret, leading to spectacular brew-ups with any slight hit, particularly a grenade down an open hatch, are so well-documented - mainly by turrets being "lollypopped" and flying hundreds of feet into the air just ahead of spectacular fireballs, on video after video - as to be beyond rational dispute.
There's a reason the US Abrams features a bustle ammo rack with automatic blast doors, and blow-out panels on the roof of them. It cuts way down on crews getting turned into deep-fried chum.
Aesop, the old hand grenade down the open hatch trick?
Did you miss the comment that some of us have tried that using that same model of hobbyist drone, using the "release device" you so adroitly added to the discussion? It has severe limitation including range and endurance with a 500 gram payload.
Yes, could be done, IF you have a very quiet day wind wise, If you happen to be within 500 meters of the target and If the turret of the NON-Moving tank is open.
It also helps when the enemy isn't shooting every civilian nearby, ask the many US troops hamstrung with rules of engagement. Thus "Civilians" can get close enough to do the deed.
Nice propaganda trick even more than once, but like the charge of the light brigade as the French Observer said "It's magnificent, but it's not war" as they were crewed to ragged bits.
See, Aesop, a disagreement point CAN be made without acting like an ass. You should try it, might gain you some respect.
1) I added no "release device" to the discussion.
I gave you a link that noted the actual payload of the consumer version is 900 gms. Swing and a miss: Strike one.
2) The fact that you couldn't do something isn't proof that it cannot be done. (Look up logical fallacies sometime, and familiarize yourself with proving a negative: impossibility of.) And in video after video the targeted tanks are sitting parked, with the hatches open, the exact way you pretend is such a rare occurrence. Strike two.
3) Who the enemy is shooting is immaterial. It's a drone, with camera guidance. You could be sitting in a deep foxhole, and succeed wildly. Strike three.
4) The range, even with payload, is not limited to 500m, but even if that were true, that's not beyond the realm of possibility on fronts that are static much of the time. Strike four.
5) There were no propaganda tricks. I simply pointed out you were, once again, factually wrong. Truth is an absolute defense. Strike five.
6) "a disagreement point CAN be made without acting like an ass. You should try it some time."
So should you. And with your statement, you just torpedoed yourself on that very point. Well-played, Eeyore: hoist on your own petard. Strike six.
7) Yet again, on somebody else's blog, you chose not to address the main points of the post, but to try - and fail seven different ways, this time - to come after me, despite the fact that I neither referred to you nor addressed your comments. Maybe poker's not your game, Ike. Strike seven.
Aesop, I notice that nowhere you've mentioned actually DOING any real-world testing (like WE DID) in your verbose comments. We used dummy 500 gram drops. We (as in the 5 of us) did it several times in various wind conditions. WE KNOW the Real World(tm) effects on range and controllability of the dji-mavic-3 hobbyist drone.
You have MAD GOOGLE FU Skills; I give you that.
Whenever possible I try to DO IT in Real World(tm) before I pontificate about it.
Otherwise, I ponder why a sub 1,000 dollar hobby drone and near unlimited supply of grenades available that the poor tread heads are not all deceased.
MAYBE there is a mostly propaganda effect here. Not like in your vast Hollywood employment that you've never seen the same movie bits recycled over and over. Like the 6 shooter that blazes away for most of the movie without reloading?
Also Aesop a point of truth here, your quote:
Blogger Aesop said...
1) I added no "release device" to the discussion.
AND
Michael,
I wasn't referring to industrial models.
You could have looked it up yourself in a click or two:
https://dronexl.co/2023/03/10/dji-mavic-3-payload-release-drone-delivery/#:~:text=It%20has%20a%20500%2Dgram,a%20little%20over%20900%20grams.
SO, Yes indeed YOU DID Add a release device to the discussion.
See Aesop, I can disagree without adding a bunch of "strike 2" stuff. Amazing, eh?
I agree that dropping something like a grenade would take mad skillz, especially if the conditions were anything but perfect. It would also be amazing if a grenade could do much to a tank unless it happened to drop into an open hatch or the like.
That's why I would LAND the drone on the tank, which is much easier as it's powered all the way and can correct as needed. Then I set off the THERMITE, which melts a hole in the armor. No release mechanism, just an ignition mechanism. Yes, I've expended a drone. That drone's a lot cheaper and easier to obtain than the cheapest anti-armor warhead or missile, let alone a tank.
The better way to do this is to have multiple drones flying against the same target. One thermite charge may not be enough, or troops in the vicinity managed to shoot down a few, or whatever - sheet happens. Jamming can still work against this kind of attack, ECM and ECCM are becoming a must on the modern battlefield.
Airplanes were once considered a toy. Then they were found to be useful for scouting. Then for indirect artillery correction. Drones are already handy for those purposes. Modern guided missiles are programmed with the location and path to their target, a drone can be programmed the same way. I don't see these devices not getting used, they're too cheap and convenient.
Post a Comment