The recent interception of an American MQ-9 Reaper drone by a Russian Su-27 is once again the reason for the current military conflict in Ukraine, such a large number of drones (i.e. unmanned aerial vehicles) and such diverse purposes. This dramatically changes the nature of modern warfare, at least on a tactical level. And it will change even more as the technologies involved evolve. The role of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will be as revolutionary as arrows and bows, followed by firearms, cannons, rifles, guns, then rifled guns, automatic weapons, etc.
At first glance, it is strange that the first drones were developed in England and the USA during the First World War, but they were practically not used in the two world wars. Because, as usual, mankind hastened to use everything he invented for military purposes, first of all to kill his own kind.
Thus, the first British drone “Aerial target”, a small radio-controlled aircraft, was first tested in March 1917, and the American “air torpedo” first took off in October 1918. Both showed promising flight test results. But they did not fight.
In 1935, the British built several radio-controlled aircraft that were used as training targets. Similar radio-controlled drones were also produced in the United States at that time and were used only for exercises.
In military operations, drones were first used en masse during the Vietnam War. Mainly for reconnaissance, but also as a “trap” for missile attacks on fixed enemy targets and for dropping leaflets on enemy heads. The United States has also used unmanned aerial vehicles en masse in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then (without needing to enter danger zone with soldiers) to reconnaissance and strikes at terrorist bases from a safe distance, or to destroy certain leaders.
Now both remote-controlled and programmed drones are used for the same reconnaissance, artillery fire adjustment (reducing targeting time several times), and high-precision strikes. Kamikaze drones can locate, identify and destroy a specific target, including a specific person, and recognize it from a photograph.
At the next stage, military strategists see the emergence of a “swarm of drones” (clusters of small UAVs) acting in concert like a swarm of bees, which will mark the beginning of a new era of intellectual warfare. Thousands of robotic planes, no larger than a thrush, will be nearly invisible to air defense systems when they disperse, but can instantly merge into a single “cloud” controlled by artificial intelligence.
This will allow drones to operate both autonomously and in groups. Already about a decade ago, US programmers were able to simulate such “large swarms”, but so far only based on the simplest instructions: drones could separate from the general swarm, maintain a certain distance from each other and line up. along a common route. Although such programs are strictly classified, it is known that a swarm of 103 microdrones with a quarter-centimeter wingspan, developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with the support of the Pentagon, have been successfully launched in the United States in 2016. A CBS film crew was invited to test for the show, but the cameras were barely able to catch such a flock.
The drone swarm will then be able to independently respond to threats without human intervention and change course, speed or altitude accordingly, maneuver through airspace vulnerable to air defense, inflicting massive losses without stopping the progress of the mission. Robots do not tire and do not retreat. Mass-produced drones are still far from such nightmarish potential.
The studies described above are likely to be conducted in many countries. Given that drone production is already managed by many states, including Russia. The leading exporter of commercial drones is now China. These so-called commercial drones themselves are also actively used in the conflict in Ukraine, which blurs the line between peaceful and military technologies in this field.
Next-generation drones, including those operating “as part of an organized group,” will be much cheaper than any modern aircraft or missile. Moreover, these technologies can almost completely replace aviation in its current form.
And if now the outcome of a modern war depends heavily on air superiority, then the dominance of AI-controlled UAVs may be a decisive factor. Before them, air defense in its current form and powerful aircraft carriers and even tanks with artillery will be practically powerless.
All weapons forged during the Cold War years and now “destroyed”, including in Ukraine, may be useless or nearly useless and largely powerless on the battlefield for the foreseeable future. In addition to nuclear yet.
At the same time, such drones themselves will be increasingly “democratized” and will be available not only to poor states (today, drones are in service in more than a hundred countries, including the poorest), but also to individual terrorist groups. Already in the example of the conflict in Ukraine, it can be seen how cheap the UAVs used there. Previously, the price was tens of millions of dollars (such heavy and long-range devices are still used today), now it has dropped to tens of thousands of dollars, or if we are talking about “commercial” use. drones”, several hundred. For example, Iranian Shahids are worth $ 20,000, a more advanced Turkish Bayraktar will cost $ 5 million, and 6 drones, 2 control stations and 200 sets of ammunition and additional equipment will cost $ 69 million. But recently, even a poor country like Togo with a $114 million military budget, after looking at the consequences of using these drones in Ukraine, one batch received the Bayraktar TB2. Last year, poor Ethiopia, using the same Bayraktars and other drones, that ground forces couldn’t stop. managed to repulse the rebel attack on the country’s capital.
Some military analysts believe that the emergence of technologies and weapons that would leave virtually any target, especially civilian targets, vulnerable will make war “impossible.” In other words, the war waged against countries and peoples in the sense we are accustomed to. Let’s say the battles will turn into battles between armies of robots.
However, such analysts look like true romantics: people will certainly find something more deadly, especially to destroy enemy civilian targets. It was not a decisive success in any war (its results were determined on the battlefield), but the warring armies and countries never denied it, believing (often erroneously) that by doing so they could break the enemy’s resistance.
Of course, the appearance of any new weapon immediately leads to the search for ways to counter it. The same United States, which for a long time was the sole leader in the field of UAVs, was stunned by the development of small drone countermeasures, for which Congress allocated almost 750 million dollars, a special unit was created in it. Pentagon. We are talking about developments using volumetric air bursts or electromagnetic pulses. Other options are the US Navy’s high-energy laser weapons, as well as systems developed by major defense contractors like Raytheon or Lockheed Martin, which use AI to instantly target and destroy incoming drones, even in large groups. whole swarm of drones. However, in cities where most wars take place in the modern era, such protection would be very difficult to use. It will be difficult to pinpoint the “enemy object” as the air traffic above them is so heavy.
Machine guns that appeared before the First World War, of course, could not stop the wars on Earth, but forced the infantry to “dig deeper into the ground”, dig trenches, and then use the armor protection of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. The army adapted to the new heavy equipment and digging trenches. There will be some solutions to countering drones. Finally, you can hack them with “war hackers”. And in the end, the outcome of future wars will be determined by the same thing that determined the outcome of all wars in history – the human brain. The more and “smarter” a country’s army is, the more invincible it is.
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the editors’ position.