Israel’s recent revelation about deploying the F-35 in beast mode, carrying weapons externally during aerial strikes, prompts a deeper exploration. This strategic decision, while compromising the aircraft’s stealth, is a calculated move. The understanding of going beast mode over Gaza, with its negligible air defence, is clear. However, the prospect of employing this mode in Lebanon or Iran, with their formidable air defences, presents a complex operational challenge. This raises the question: what are the operational intricacies of using the beast mode in such scenarios?
The F-35, in its ‘stealth mode,’ carries weapons internally, effectively reducing its radar signature. However, when it transitions to ‘beast mode,’ carrying weapons externally, it sacrifices this stealth advantage for increased firepower. This Trade-off is a crucial consideration in military operations.
In “beast mode,” it carries additional munitions on external pylons. This configuration increases the aircraft’s radar cross-section (RCS), making it more detectable by enemy radar.
Beast mode increases the F-35’s firepower by allowing it to carry more ordnance, maximising strike efficiency against numerous ground targets.
However, Israel’s use of the F-35 in beast mode likely depends on the specific operational environment and objectives.
The Beast Mode can be used in the following operational scenarios:-
The enemy has no air defence capability or weapons.
SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) missions have degraded the enemy’s radar and SAM capabilities.
One way to mitigate the risks of flying in beast mode is by staying out of the enemy’s air defence weapons range. This can be achieved through intelligence-supported operational planning and/or stand-off attacks. The role of intelligence and meticulous planning in these operations cannot be overstated.
Using escort and suppression support from electronic warfare platforms to mitigate the risks of flying in beast mode.
Low Threat Environment (Gaza Strikes). Against Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza, stealth is unnecessary since they lack sophisticated radar-guided air defences. Beast mode can be used in a risk environment to maximise firepower.
Lebanon (Hezbollah) Strikes. Hezbollah has comparatively more advanced air defence capabilities than Hamas, including Iranian-made radars and some older Russian SAMs. Beast mode can be used in a medium-risk environment by avoiding enemy air defences.
Iran Strikes—A Different Challenge. Iran operates a more sophisticated air defence network. Using beast mode over Iran would be risky because the F-35 would be much more visible on Iranian radar, and Iran’s long-range SAMs could engage the aircraft before it reaches the target. Beast mode can be used in a high-risk environment after neutralising enemy air defences.
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.
Presented My paper at the Forum for Global Studies
Warfare has been a defining element of human civilisation, shaping societies, economies, and political landscapes. It has undergone profound transformations throughout history, reflecting technological, strategy shifts, and global power dynamics. From the ancient world’s phalanxes and legions to the medieval era’s siege warfare, military tactics evolved alongside societal advancements. The gunpowder revolution reshaped battlefields, leading to industrialised warfare in the 19th and 20th centuries. The World Wars introduced mechanised combat and nuclear deterrence, while contemporary conflicts emphasise cyber warfare, asymmetric strategies, and precision-guided munitions. Each period’s innovations and doctrines have shaped the conduct of war and global security.
Ancient Warfare (3000 BC – 500 AD)
Rudimentary weaponry, massed formations, and reliance on close-quarters combat characterised ancient warfare. Civilisations such as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Greeks, and Romans developed structured military forces that relied on discipline, organisation, and evolving battlefield tactics.
Key Features. A combination of infantry-based combat, siege tactics, chariot warfare, and naval engagements defined ancient warfare. Infantry formations such as the Greek phalanx and Roman Legion provided disciplined, cohesive units capable of overwhelming enemies through coordinated movements and superior training. Meanwhile, as civilisations fortified cities, primitive siege warfare developed, employing battering rams, siege towers, and catapults to breach enemy defences. Beyond land battles, chariots revolutionised mobility in warfare, particularly among the Egyptians and Hittites, where swift, highly manoeuvrable chariot units allowed for rapid strikes and battlefield control. However, naval engagements also played a crucial role in shaping military dominance. The Greco-Persian Wars demonstrated the importance of maritime power, with triremes warships enabling the Greeks to secure critical victories, such as at Salamis island in 480 BC. These key features of ancient warfare shaped military strategies, allowing the civilisations to expand their influence, defend their territories, and establish powerful empires.
Notable Conflicts.
The Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC). The Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta reshaped Greek warfare by demonstrating the effectiveness of prolonged sieges, naval blockades, and attritional strategies. Sparta’s victory, aided by Persian naval support, marked the decline of Athenian maritime supremacy and the rise of land-based military dominance, influencing future Greek and Macedonian tactics.
The Punic Wars (264–146 BC). The Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage introduced large-scale naval warfare, siege tactics, and strategic land battles. Rome’s development of the Corvus boarding device revolutionised maritime combat, while Hannibal’s campaigns showcased innovative manoeuvre warfare. Rome’s victory solidified its dominance for centuries, shaping imperial military strategies through adaptation and logistics.
The Roman Conquests (509 BC – 476 BC). Rome’s conquests expanded military engineering, battlefield tactics, and logistical superiority. The disciplined Roman legions, advanced siegecraft, and road networks facilitated rapid mobilisation. These innovations influenced medieval and modern warfare through professional armies, combined arms tactics, and fortified frontiers like Hadrian’s Wall, ensuring Roman influence on military strategy long after its fall.
Medieval Warfare (500 AD – 1500 AD)
Following the fall of the Western Roman Empire, medieval warfare evolved with the rise of feudalism. Conflicts were dominated mainly by heavily armoured knights, fortified castles, and protracted sieges.
Key Features. Feudal levies, castle sieges, religious conflicts, and the rise of professional armies defined medieval warfare. Lords provided knights in exchange for land, creating a decentralised military structure reliant on vassalage. The prominence of castles led to advanced siege techniques, including trebuchets and early gunpowder artillery. Religious conflicts, such as the Crusades, combined faith and military ambition, fuelling prolonged wars between Christian and Muslim forces. By the late medieval period, centralised states moved away from feudal levies, maintaining professional armies for greater stability and efficiency. This transition laid the foundation for modern military organisation and state-controlled warfare.
Notable Conflicts
The Crusades (1095–1291) were religious wars between Christian and Muslim forces. They drove military advancements in siege tactics, fortifications, and logistics. They facilitated cultural exchanges, introduced European knights to advanced Islamic warfare techniques, and contributed to the eventual decline of feudal armies.
The Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453) saw the rise of longbows, gunpowder weaponry, and professional armies, diminishing feudal knightly dominance. It led to stronger centralised states, particularly in France and England, influencing the shift toward modern military structures and the decline of feudal warfare.
The Mongol Conquests (1206–1368). The Mongol conquests revolutionised warfare through superior mobility, psychological tactics, and siegecraft. Their composite bows, disciplined cavalry, and adaptable strategies reshaped military doctrines, demonstrating the effectiveness of rapid, coordinated strikes and influencing future empires’ approach to large-scale warfare.
Early Modern Warfare (1500 AD – 1800 AD)
The advent of gunpowder weaponry and the centralisation of states led to radical changes in military tactics and organisation. The early modern period witnessed the emergence of large professional armies, advanced artillery, and global conflicts fuelled by colonial ambitions.
Key Features. The Gunpowder Revolution transformed warfare, as muskets and cannons rendered armoured knights obsolete, leading to the dominance of infantry and artillery. Naval advancements enabled European powers to expand overseas, sparking global conflicts over trade and colonies. On land, armies adopted linear tactics, using disciplined line infantry formations to maximise firepower and manoeuvrability. Simultaneously, the rise of centralised nation-states allowed governments to directly control military funding, organisation, and strategy, leading to larger, more professional armies. These developments shaped early modern warfare, shifting power from feudal lords to centralised monarchies and paving the way for global empires and nation-based conflicts.
Notable Conflicts
The Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648) devastated Europe, advancing gunpowder warfare, mass conscription, and siege tactics. It led to the professionalisation of armies and the Treaty of Westphalia, which established the modern concept of sovereign nation-states, influencing future diplomatic and military conflicts.
The Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815). The Napoleonic Wars introduced mass conscription, rapid manoeuvre warfare, and the corps system, revolutionising military organisation. Napoleon’s strategies emphasised mobility and decisive engagements, shaping modern warfare. These wars also influenced nationalism, strengthening state-controlled military structures in Europe and beyond.
The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) demonstrated the effectiveness of guerrilla tactics, citizen militias, and alliance-based warfare. It influenced future revolutions by proving that disciplined irregular forces could challenge established armies, leading to global shifts in colonial conflicts and military strategy.
Industrial Warfare (1800 AD – 1945 AD)
The Industrial Revolution transformed warfare, introducing mechanised armies, mass conscription, and unprecedented levels of destruction. Industrialised nations leveraged technological advancements to wage large-scale wars.
Key Features. The 20th century saw warfare evolve through mass mobilisation, mechanisation, and new strategic doctrines. Total war concepts led to entire populations being drafted, fuelling large-scale conflicts. Mechanised warfare, with tanks, aeroplanes, and automatic weapons, revolutionised combat, replacing traditional cavalry and infantry dominance. World War I introduced trench warfare, creating static, attritional battlefields. By World War II, strategic bombing devastated cities, making airpower a decisive force. The advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally altered global conflicts, introducing deterrence strategies that shaped Cold War geopolitics. These developments transformed warfare from localised battles to global, highly destructive confrontations with long-lasting consequences.
Notable Conflicts
The American Civil War (1861–1865) introduced rifled muskets, trench warfare, and rail-based logistics, increasing battlefield lethality. It marked the transition from Napoleonic tactics to modern warfare, emphasising industrial production, mass mobilisation, and total war strategies, influencing future global conflicts.
World War I (1914–1918) saw trench warfare, machine guns, poison gas, and early tanks, which created prolonged stalemates. It revolutionised military strategy, leading to combined-arms tactics and mechanised warfare, shaping modern combat and setting the stage for even deadlier conflicts in World War II.
World War II (1939–1945). World War II introduced blitzkrieg tactics, strategic bombing, and nuclear weapons, making it the most destructive war in history. It accelerated technological advancements, solidified total war strategies, and reshaped global power structures, leading to the Cold War and modern military doctrines.
Cold War and Proxy Warfare (1945 AD – 1991 AD)
The Cold War era was defined by ideological conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. The confrontation was primarily avoided, but both superpowers engaged in proxy wars and an arms race, including nuclear deterrence strategies.
Key Features. The Cold War era redefined warfare through nuclear deterrence, preventing full-scale conflicts under the mutually assured destruction (MAD) doctrine. Instead, proxy wars featured guerrilla tactics and insurgencies, as seen in Vietnam and Afghanistan, where asymmetrical warfare challenged conventional military forces. Technological advancements, including the space race, intelligence warfare, and precision-guided munitions, revolutionised military strategy, emphasising surveillance and targeted strikes. Special Forces operations became vital, with covert missions, espionage, and psychological warfare shaping geopolitical struggles. These developments shifted warfare from direct military confrontations to strategic manoeuvring, proxy conflicts, and advanced technology-driven engagements that continue to influence modern military doctrines.
Notable Conflicts.
The Korean War (1950–1953) demonstrated the effectiveness of combined arms warfare, air superiority, and mechanised infantry in a Cold War proxy conflict. It solidified Korea’s division, reinforced U.S. military commitments worldwide, and established the precedent for limited wars without direct nuclear confrontation between superpowers.
The Vietnam War (1955–1975) highlighted the power of guerrilla tactics, asymmetrical warfare, and psychological operations. It exposed the limitations of conventional military superiority against determined insurgencies, leading to shifts in U.S. war strategy and influencing future conflicts by emphasising counterinsurgency, intelligence gathering, and political warfare.
The Soviet-Afghan War (1979–1989) showcased the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare against a technologically superior adversary. The U.S.-backed Mujahedeen used ambush tactics and Stinger missiles to counter Soviet forces, contributing to the collapse of the USSR and shaping future insurgencies, including modern jihadist movements and asymmetric warfare strategies.
Contemporary Warfare (1991 AD – Present)
The post-Cold War era has seen a shift towards unconventional warfare, cyber warfare, and terrorism-driven conflicts. Traditional state-versus-state wars have become less common, replaced by asymmetric engagements, hybrid warfare, and precision strikes.
Key Features. Modern warfare has evolved beyond traditional battlefields, incorporating cyber warfare, drones, AI, and hybrid tactics. Nations now engage in digital conflicts, targeting critical infrastructure and intelligence networks through cyber attacks. Meanwhile, drones and AI-driven systems have revolutionised surveillance and precision strikes, reducing the need for human-operated missions. Hybrid warfare blends conventional military strategies with irregular tactics and cyber operations, creating complex battle environments. Non-state actors like ISIS and Al-Qaeda further complicate security landscapes, challenging traditional counterinsurgency strategies. Regional conflicts and proxy wars, such as the Syrian Civil War, the War on Terror, and the Russia-Ukraine War, exemplify modern geopolitical struggles where global powers support different factions to further strategic interests. These evolving methods of warfare highlight the increasing overlap between technology, statecraft, and military operations, requiring nations to adapt their defence and security strategies to counter emerging threats in an unpredictable global environment.
Notable Conflicts
The Gulf War (1990–1991) showcased the dominance of modern airpower, precision-guided munitions, and electronic warfare. The U.S.-led coalition’s swift victory over Iraq demonstrated the effectiveness of network-centric warfare, integrating real-time intelligence with advanced weaponry. This war redefined conventional military strategy, emphasising air superiority, rapid mobilisation, and technological advancements that continue to shape modern combat operations.
The War on Terror (2001–Present) revolutionised counterinsurgency and counterterrorism strategies, prioritising asymmetric warfare and intelligence-driven operations. U.S.-led campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq relied heavily on drones, Special Forces, and cyber warfare. However, prolonged conflicts exposed the challenges of nation-building and insurgency suppression, highlighting the limits of conventional military power against decentralised terrorist networks like Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
The Russia-Ukraine War (2022–Present) has underscored the significance of drone warfare, cyber operations, and Western-supplied precision weaponry. Ukraine’s resistance has demonstrated the power of asymmetric tactics, intelligence-sharing, and hybrid warfare. Russia’s reliance on missile strikes with Ukraine’s guerrilla air defence signals a shift toward technology-driven conflicts where cyber attacks, propaganda, and real-time intelligence play decisive roles.
Israel-Hamas War (2023–Present). The Israel-Hamas War has highlighted the role of urban warfare, missile defence systems, and asymmetric tactics. Hamas’s use of tunnels, rockets, and drones contrasts with Israel’s reliance on precision airstrikes, AI-driven targeting, and the Iron Dome system. The conflict underscores the growing importance of intelligence, cyber warfare, and advanced air defence in modern asymmetric and urban battlefields.
Conclusion
Warfare has continuously evolved, adapting to technological advancements, political shifts, and strategic innovations. From the disciplined phalanxes of ancient armies to today’s cyber and AI-driven conflicts, each era has shaped the nature of war. Modern conflicts blend conventional battles with asymmetric tactics, cyber operations, and unmanned warfare, redefining military strategy. The rise of hybrid warfare and regional proxy wars highlights the complexities of global security. As nations and non-state actors harness emerging technologies, the future of warfare remains unpredictable. Understanding past epochs provides crucial insights into the ever-changing dynamics of global conflicts and their profound geopolitical consequences. While modern conflicts have become increasingly complex, the fundamental nature of war, rooted in competition for power, resources, and ideology, remains unchanged.
Please Do Comment.
For regular updates, please register your email here:-
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.
References:-
Archer, Christon I., John R. Ferris, Holger H. Herwig, and Timothy H. E. Travers. World History of Warfare. University of Nebraska Press, 2002.
Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. Edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, Princeton University Press, 1984.
Keegan, John. A History of Warfare. Vintage, 1993.
Sun Tzu. The Art of War. Translated by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963.
Freedman, Lawrence. “The Future of War: A History.” International Affairs, vol. 95, no. 1, 2019, pp. 39–61.
Black, Jeremy. War and the World: Military Power and the Fate of Continents, 1450–2000. Yale University Press, 1998.
Boot, Max. War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today. Gotham Books, 2006.
Creveld, Martin van. The Transformation of War. Free Press, 1991.
Keegan, John. A History of Warfare. Vintage, 1993.
Biddle, Stephen. “The Past as Prologue: Assessing Theories of Future Warfare.” Security Studies, vol. 8, no. 1, 1998, pp. 1–74.
Freedman, Lawrence. “The Future of War: A History.” International Affairs, vol. 95, no. 1, 2019, pp. 39–61.
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.
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.
Drone Model
Country
Approx. Cost
RQ-11 Raven
USA
$35,000 – $50,000 per unit
Switchblade 300 (loitering munition)
USA
$60,000 – $80,000
Skylark 3
Israel
$100,000 – $300,000
Black Hornet Nano
Norway
$195,000 per system (includes multiple drones)
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.
Drone Model
Country
Approx. Cost
Bayraktar TB2
Turkey
$5M – $7M per unit
MQ-1 Predator (Retired)
USA
$4M – $5M per unit
MQ-9 Reaper
USA
$15M – $30M per unit (depends on sensors & weapons)
Heron TP
Israel
$10M – $20M per unit
CAIG Wing Loong II
China
$2M – $5M per unit
Rustom-II / TAPAS
India (DRDO)
Estimated $4M – $6M per unit
High-Altitude Long-Endurance (HALE) Drones ($30M – $150M). These are strategic UAVs used for intelligence gathering, persistent surveillance, and deep strikes.
Drone Model
Country
Approx. Cost
RQ-4 Global Hawk
USA
$130M – $150M per unit
MQ-9B SkyGuardian
USA
$30M – $40M per unit
Heron Mk II
Israel
$20M – $25M per unit
Stealth & UCAVs (Over $50M). Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs) with stealth and advanced strike capabilities.
Drone Model
Country
Approx. Cost
XQ-58A Valkyrie
USA
$5M – $7M per unit
Ghatak UCAV (Under Dev)
India
Estimated $50M+
S-70 Okhotnik
Russia
$50M – $100M
nEUROn
EU (Dassault)
$50M – $80M
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
Factor
Drones
Manned Aircraft/Troops
Cost per Unit
Low
High
Operational Cost
Low
High
Survivability
Low
High
Effectiveness in Asymmetric Warfare
High
Moderate
Electronic Warfare Vulnerability
High
Low
Risk to Human Life
None
High
Strategic & Psychological Impact
High
Moderate
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:-
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.
