Air Marshal's Perspective

My previous article, “Rise of Combat Drones: Implications for Traditional Air Power,” was well-received. The readers had a few queries and suggestions, which this sequel aims to address.

1. Could you add a supplement or some riders, i.e., limitations in drone speed vis a vis the manned fighter, weapon loads that can be carried over such long distances, and what drones are available today that can overcome these liabilities?

Limitations in Drone Speed vs. Manned Fighters

Drones (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles, or UCAVs) generally lag behind manned fighters in terms of speed due to several factors. One key reason is engine performance and design priorities. Most drones are optimised for endurance rather than speed, using turboprop or low-bypass turbofan engines for fuel efficiency. In contrast, manned fighters rely on high-bypass turbofans or afterburning turbojets, which provide the thrust needed for supersonic flight.

Aerodynamics also play a crucial role in speed limitations. Drones are typically designed for long loiter times and stealth, often requiring subsonic speeds and high-aspect-ratio wings to maximize efficiency. On the other hand, manned fighters prioritize agility, acceleration, and sustained speeds, especially in combat scenarios, where airframe designs enable them to reach speeds exceeding Mach 2.

Another significant factor is structural and cooling limitations. Supersonic flight generates extreme aerodynamic heating, necessitating the use of expensive thermal-resistant materials. Manned fighters incorporate robust cooling systems and heat-resistant materials to withstand these conditions. However, since most drones are optimised for cost efficiency and long-duration missions, they rarely include such features.

Command and control constraints also impact drone speed. The latency involved in remote control or autonomous decision-making can make high-speed operations risky. Pilots in manned aircraft can make split-second decisions during combat, whereas drones depend on AI algorithms or remote human operators, introducing potential delays that could be detrimental in high-speed engagements.

Weapon Load Considerations

Long-range drone missions face several challenges in carrying large weapon payloads. One primary limitation is structural capacity. Most drones are built for endurance and fuel efficiency rather than heavy payloads. For instance, the MQ-9 Reaper can carry about 1,700 kg of munitions, whereas an F-15E Strike Eagle can haul over 11,000 kg, demonstrating a significant gap in firepower.

Another issue is the trade-off between drag and fuel efficiency. Carrying heavy external ordnance drastically reduces a drone’s endurance, limiting its ability to remain in the air for extended periods. Additionally, stealth UAVs such as the RQ-170 Sentinel and B-21 Raider must carry weapons internally to maintain low observability, which further restricts payload volume compared to externally loaded fighter jets.

Drones also have limited air-to-air capabilities. Unlike manned aircraft, which can engage enemy fighters using a range of sophisticated air-to-air missiles, drones currently lack the manoeuvrability and situational awareness required for traditional dogfights. Some advanced UCAVs, like the MQ-28 Ghost Bat, are being developed with potential air combat roles, but their capabilities remain limited compared to manned fighters.

Drones Overcoming These Limitations

Despite these challenges, new drone designs are emerging to bridge the gap. Some high-speed drones are being developed to complement manned aircraft. The XQ-58A Valkyrie, which flies at Mach 0.85, is designed as a loyal wingman to assist fighters in combat. The RQ-180, a stealth drone reportedly in USAF service, is built for high-speed deep-penetration intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. A hypothetical but much-discussed concept, Darkstar, is believed to be a Mach 6+ reconnaissance drone, possibly inspired by the SR-72 project.

Several solutions exist for drones requiring greater payload capacity and endurance. The MQ-25 Stingray provides aerial refuelling, effectively extending the range of manned fighters. The B-21 Raider, while primarily a bomber, has the potential to take on UCAV roles. The RQ-170 Sentinel, a stealth reconnaissance drone, can perform deep-penetration missions without detection. Russia’s S-70 Okhotnik is another notable UCAV, heavily armed and designed to work alongside the Su-57 fighter.

Looking toward the future, Loyal Wingman drones such as the MQ-28 Ghost Bat and XQ-58A Valkyrie could supplement manned fighters in high-speed combat. Hypersonic drone concepts like the rumoured SR-72 could also revolutionise reconnaissance and strike capabilities, pushing drone technology toward greater autonomy and performance.

2. What’s the ballpark cost range of these drones?

The cost of military drones varies widely based on their size, capability, endurance, and payload.

(These approximate figures have been taken from open sources on the net and do vary)

Small Reconnaissance & Tactical Drones ($10,000 – $500,000). These drones are used for short-range surveillance, infantry support, and battlefield awareness. They are usually hand-launched or catapult-launched.

Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance (MALE) Drones ($1M—$20M). These drones are used for surveillance, reconnaissance, and precision strikes. They have higher endurance and often carry weapons.

High-Altitude Long-Endurance (HALE) Drones ($30M – $150M). These are strategic UAVs used for intelligence gathering, persistent surveillance, and deep strikes.

Stealth & UCAVs (Over $50M). Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs) with stealth and advanced strike capabilities.

3. While India is developing drones rapidly, what’s holding it back from matching, say, the Turks?

India has made some progress in drone technology, but it’s still behind countries like Turkey, which has established itself as a major drone power with combat-proven UAVs. The main factors holding India back include:-

Gaps in Indigenous R&D and Manufacturing. India’s drone development is largely led by state-owned entities like DRDO, which tend to be slower and less agile than private companies. Turkey has Baykar (Bayraktar TB2, Akıncı) and TAI (Anka, Aksungur), which are aggressive in R&D, production, and exports. Indian private companies are entering the UAV space, but they lack the scale and experience of Turkish firms.

Engine and Sensor Technology Dependence.  India relies on foreign engines for its drones. For example, the indigenous Rustom UAV uses an Austrian Rotax 914 engine. Turkey has worked around this by producing engines (e.g., TEI PD-170 for Anka UAVs). High-end sensors and satellite communication technology are also areas where India still depends on imports.

Delayed and Overregulated Procurement. India’s defence procurement process is bureaucratic and slow, with lengthy approvals, trials, and acquisition delays. The focus on “Make in India” sometimes results in delays when indigenous solutions are pushed over faster foreign acquisitions.

Lack of a Dedicated Drone Warfare Doctrine. While India has UAVs for surveillance and reconnaissance, it lacks a coherent doctrine for using armed drones in combat. On the other hand, Turkey has developed UAV-centric warfare concepts, integrating drones with air and ground operations.

Combat Experience and Export Focus. Turkey has extensively tested its drones in combat (Syria, Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh, Ukraine), refining them in real-world scenarios. India lacks such experience, as its military engagement with drones has been limited (primarily surveillance against Pakistan and China). Turkey has aggressively exported drones (to over 30 countries), which helps fund further R&D. India is only now entering the export market.

Lesser Political Will for UAV-centric Warfare. Turkey’s political leadership (especially under Erdoğan) has strongly backed UAV development, using it as a strategic tool for geopolitical influence. India, while investing in UAVs, still prioritises manned aircraft and traditional military assets over a full-fledged drone warfare strategy.

India is trying to catch up.

• Indigenous UAVs like Tapas (Rustom-II), Archer-NG, and Ghatak stealth UCAV are being developed.
• India has acquired MQ-9B Reapers from the US for enhanced strike capability.
• Private sector involvement is increasing, with startups focusing on AI-powered drones, loitering munitions, and swarm technology.
• India is pushing for exports, with countries like Armenia and Southeast Asian nations showing interest in Indian UAVs.

4. What’s the risk of drones escalating warfare? If we and our western neighbor both deploy surveillance drones and start shooting them down, will it increase tensions?

Yes, the deployment of drones—especially if both India and Pakistan engage in shooting them down—can escalate tensions in several ways. While drones reduce the risk to human pilots, they also lower the threshold for conflict by making military engagement seem less costly or provocative at first.

Increased Risk of Tit-for-Tat Escalation. If both countries start shooting down each other’s drones, it could trigger a cycle of retaliation. A drone being shot down is not the same as a manned aircraft loss, but it still represents an attack on sovereign military assets. If both nations were to lose expensive UAVs repeatedly, military pressure to respond would increase.

Ambiguity and Miscalculation. Surveillance drones operate near sensitive borders, making distinguishing between a reconnaissance UAV and a strike-capable drone hard. A country may shoot down a drone assuming it is armed, escalating tensions unnecessarily. The U.S. and Iran have had multiple drone-related incidents, with Iran shooting down a U.S. RQ-4 Global Hawk in 2019, nearly leading to a retaliatory strike.

Crisis Instability and Automated Retaliation. If both sides deploy AI-assisted drone swarms or automated defensive systems, it could lead to uncontrolled escalation. A drone automatically targeting an enemy UAV or launching a retaliatory strike could trigger a rapid, unintended military response. The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict saw drones targeting command centres—a dangerous precedent if similar attacks happen in South Asia.

Psychological & Political Pressures. The public might demand retaliation for a downed UAV, just as it would for a manned aircraft. With drones capturing and transmitting live footage, propaganda battles could fuel public anger, pushing governments toward escalation. If a drone is shot down over disputed territory and its footage is released, political and military leaders may feel pressure to respond forcefully.

Drone warfare makes escalation more likely because it removes the human cost, making military engagements seem less risky. However, once UAV shootdowns become frequent, the pressure to retaliate more aggressively could lead to conventional military strikes or full-scale escalation. In the India-Pakistan context, drone warfare—if not carefully managed—could become a dangerous flashpoint.

5. Till now drones have been employed successfully against a technologically weaker adversary and reducing direct exposure of combatants to the enemy fire. It is difficult to predict the outcome when both contestants have similar capabilities.

When both contestants possess similar drone capabilities, predicting the outcome of a conflict becomes exceedingly complex as technological parity shifts the focus toward strategic, tactical, and logistical factors. The effectiveness of drones in battle is not solely determined by their specifications but by how well they are integrated into broader warfare systems. Electronic Warfare (EW) superiority plays a decisive role, as the side with more advanced jamming, spoofing, or cyber capabilities can disrupt enemy drone operations, rendering them ineffective. Integration with broader military assets is equally crucial; drones do not function in isolation but work alongside air defence. Coordinating drone reconnaissance with precision strikes or air defence suppression can significantly influence the battlefield. Moreover, operational doctrine determines how drones are deployed—whether used in swarms to overwhelm defences, prioritised for ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance), or focused on Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD). Even with comparable drone technology, the side that adapts its doctrine more effectively to the battlefield conditions will have the upper hand. Lastly, logistics and sustainability are often overlooked but are critical to long-term drone warfare. Given the high attrition rate of drones, the ability to rapidly replace lost UAVs, maintain a steady supply of spare parts, and ensure uninterrupted operations becomes a decisive factor. A country with a well-developed domestic production line and efficient supply chain will have a sustained advantage over one dependent on imports or struggling with manufacturing constraints. When both sides have similar drone capabilities, victory does not merely hinge on superior technology but on how effectively drones are employed, defended, and resupplied in the face of constant attrition and evolving battlefield challenges.

6.  Cost vs benefit could impose a limit. 

Cost vs. Benefit Analysis of Drone Warfare

Drone warfare has transformed modern military operations, offering strategic advantages and introducing new risks and costs. Below is a structured cost-benefit analysis considering various aspects of drone warfare.

Cost-Benefit Comparison: Drone vs. Manned Combat Systems

Drone warfare offers a high return on investment, particularly in asymmetric conflicts and precision strikes. However, drones remain vulnerable in high-intensity warfare against near-peer adversaries and require integration with traditional military assets to stay effective. While they provide cost-effective alternatives to manned aircraft, the rapid evolution of counter-drone technology will ultimately determine their long-term viability on the battlefield.

7. Terrain and sensor limitations could impose a challenge. 

While drones offer significant advantages in modern warfare, they face critical terrain and sensor effectiveness challenges. These limitations can impact reconnaissance, targeting, and overall combat efficiency. 

Challenges to Drone Warfare Due to Terrain.

Mountains and Rugged Terrain. Mountainous regions pose several challenges for drone operations. Signal disruptions occur due to steep terrain blocking radio waves, which affects real-time control and data transmission. Additionally, drones rely on line-of-sight (LOS) sensors, such as optical and infrared cameras, which struggle to track targets moving through valleys, caves, and ridges. Wind and air pressure variability in high-altitude areas cause strong turbulence, making drone operation difficult. Furthermore, reduced endurance at high altitudes forces drones to consume more energy to maintain flight, limiting loiter time and operational efficiency. In Afghanistan, U.S. drones had difficulty tracking Taliban fighters who used caves and rugged terrain to evade detection, requiring ground forces and satellites for confirmation.

Dense Forests and Jungles. Drones face significant vision obstruction in dense foliage, reducing the effectiveness of optical, infrared, and LIDAR sensors. High humidity and weather interference in jungles can degrade drone electronics and infrared imaging, reducing reliability. Additionally, drones struggle to locate small or camouflaged units as guerrilla fighters blend into thick vegetation. In a Vietnam War-style scenario, drones would struggle to track Viet Cong-like guerrilla fighters moving under jungle cover, limiting their effectiveness in counterinsurgency.

Urban Warfare Challenges. Urban environments introduce GPS signal interference, as high-rise buildings cause multipath errors that reduce navigation accuracy. Limited sensor coverage in narrow streets and indoor hideouts makes tracking enemy movements difficult. Higher risks of collateral damage require extreme precision in drone strikes to avoid civilian casualties. Moreover, urban areas provide cover for electronic warfare (EW) units that can jam or spoof drone signals. In Gaza and Mosul, drones have been effective but struggled with hidden tunnels, EW disruptions, and difficulty distinguishing combatants from civilians.

Desert and Open Plains. Drones operating in deserts face extreme heat and dust storms, which degrade battery performance and reduce sensor visibility. Additionally, the lack of cover in open plains makes drones easier targets for air defence systems. Thermal imaging is also affected, as high infrared signatures from sand make distinguishing human targets from the environment difficult. In Libya and Syria, drones were less effective during sandstorms, limiting their ability to track mobile convoys.

Challenges to Drone Warfare Due to Sensor Limitations

Optical and Infrared Sensor Issues. Drones rely on optical and infrared sensors, but these are affected by weather conditions such as clouds, fog, smoke, and rain, which degrade visibility. Camouflage and deception techniques, including heat-reflecting blankets and decoys, can further confuse infrared sensors. While infrared and thermal imaging assist in night time operations, they still face limitations in extreme cold or cluttered environments. Russian forces in Ukraine have successfully used smoke screens and camouflage nets to evade drone detection.

Radar and LIDAR Limitations. Radar and LIDAR sensors face constraints in complex environments. Limited ground penetration makes it difficult to detect underground bunkers and tunnels. In urban environments, signal reflection and distortion cause errors in target identification. Additionally, low-flying drones use active radar risk detection by enemy air defences. Hamas tunnels in Gaza remain challenging to detect despite drone surveillance due to their underground depth and deceptive entry points.

Electronic Warfare (EW) & Cyber Security Vulnerabilities. Drones are vulnerable to jamming, which disrupts communication links with operators. Spoofing and hacking techniques can mislead drones into incorrect locations or even hijack them. Advanced EMP and directed energy weapons can disable drones using electromagnetic pulses or lasers. In Ukraine, Russian EW systems have jammed and downed thousands of drones, forcing Ukrainian operators to develop alternative navigation methods.

While terrain and sensor limitations challenge drone effectiveness, technological innovations gradually overcome these barriers. Drones’ success in future conflicts will depend on their adaptability, resilience against electronic warfare, and integration with other military assets. As adversaries continue developing counter-drone measures, drone warfare will evolve in response, ensuring that UAVs remain a dominant force in modern combat.

Please Do Comment.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.