The Air Force has publicly stated that large UAVs are not
survivable on the modern battlefield.
ComNavOps has emphatically stated that, also. Despite that, many commentators remained
convinced that our UAVs will somehow, magically, provide us with total
situational awareness. Well, here’s some
evidence that supports ComNavOps’, and the Air Force’s, belief. From the Atlantic Council (a supposed non-partisan think tank) website,
I’ve read unverified, updated reports that the Houthis have shot down as many as 20 MQ-9 Reapers.
I have no verification of the reports and no sense of the
credibility of the Atlantic Council but it does fit exactly with what I believe
and what seems patently obvious: that
slow, non-stealthy, non-maneuverable UAVs are simply target drones on the
modern battlefield. Similar reports from
other sources vary in number of Reapers shot down but all are in the 14-20+
range.
Further evidence comes from the current strikes against
Iran, as reported by Air & Space Forces website,
If a thoroughly decimated military like Iran can manage to down that many drones, imagine what a coherent, peer enemy like China could do. Large UAVs have a lifetime measured in minutes against a competent peer enemy and have no place on the modern battlefield.
One of the fears that I have is that the US will take “lessons”
from this Iran conflict and apply them inappropriately to a future war with
China just as we seem to be doing with the Ukraine “lessons”. Both conflicts involve utterly inept
militaries which renders any “lessons” invalid.
The only valid lesson is that large, slow, non-stealthy,
non-maneuverable UAVs are not survivable in a contested air space and we are
foolish to count on them.
_____________________________
Since November 2023, the Houthis have claimed responsibility for downing fourteen MQ-9 Reaper drones …[1]
I’ve read unverified, updated reports that the Houthis have shot down as many as 20 MQ-9 Reapers.
MQ-9 Reapers are flying numerous orbits over Iran, gathering intelligence and taking out missile launchers in Operation Epic Fury. Yet Iran has managed to down about 10 of the armed drones …[2]
If a thoroughly decimated military like Iran can manage to down that many drones, imagine what a coherent, peer enemy like China could do. Large UAVs have a lifetime measured in minutes against a competent peer enemy and have no place on the modern battlefield.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/houthi-strikes-on-us-mq9-reaper-drones/
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/mq-9s-over-iran-striking-and-finding-targets-but-taking-some-losses/
From the Air & Space Forces Magazine story, "Use of the Reapers has helped ensure manned U.S. fighters haven’t been shot down over hostile territory, . . ."
ReplyDeleteIf the Reapers are going after targets in environments that would be a danger to manned fighters, then I don't see a problem. Iran has already demonstrated their ability hit an F-35 with an IR guided SAM, so using drones when possible is a good idea. (Why the F-35's DAS didn't detect the SAM is another story.)
At the same time, it would be important to know how many Reapers have been lost relative to the number of sorties or flight hours they've accumulated. Are we losing a Reaper every 10 sorties or every 100 sorties? Or, is it somewhere in between?
There's a lot more to this story that needs to be known.
You completely failed to grasp the point and import of this post as well as the warning at the end about lessons!
DeleteIn an uncontested airspace against a hapless foe, yes, a UAV can sometimes survive long enough to accomplish a task. However, as pointed out in the post, in contested air against a competent enemy, a UAV's lifespan will be measured in minutes. There will be no accomplishment of tasks. The problem is that the US military seems hellbent on basing an inordinate amount of its operations on UAVs. We are basing our plans on a capability that won't be around long enough for the engines to get warmed up! There's a reason that even the stodgy, hidebound Air Force publicly acknowledged that large UAVs were non-survivable.
By the way, unless you have access to information that is not publicly available, you have no way of knowing what happened to the F-35 you reference. This blog does not present speculation as fact.
Rethink and try again.
Losses in war are unavoidable; part of the trick to improving survivability of large drones is to not to fly them in 'orbits' or other predictable patterns unless we want the enemy to expose his defenses. There seems to be a predictable pattern in DoD thinking that assumes enemies are all totally incompetent, our weapons are infallible, and our people are shocked when this is proven false. I am reminded of USAF B-52 bombing in North Vietnam, which used the same obvious formations, flight paths, and same bombing altitudes, over and over.
ReplyDeleteGAB