Using drones: principles, tactics and results (amended title)

**Ken White** · 06-08-2009

Mildly off thread comment by me on the last paragraph of the linked article:

"Unwittingly, Obama’s strategy may end up repeating the very mistakes of American policy over the past three decades that have come to haunt US security and that of the rest of the free world. In seeking narrow, tactical gains, the Obama team risks falling prey to a long-standing US policy weakness: the pursuit of short-term objectives without much regard for the security of friends. It must abandon its plan regionally to contain rather than defeat terrorism, or else an Islamist takeover of Pakistan is inevitable."

The on-thread aspect is that Mark O'neilcorrectly pointed to the why of Drones; the article points out that the application of Drone power can be quite, uh, selective -- and the quoted paragraph ties all that together with American short-termism.

Our failure to heed History and take the long view is well known. Hopefully we can do better this time. Given the callow nature and venality of many of our politicians from all parties, whether we can or will do so is worrisome.

Which gets back to Drones. A strong point is lessened cost in many aspects. Another is is their ease of use in dangerous or problematic situations.

A shortfall is that very ease of use can lead to flawed decisions and uses...

**davidbfpo** · 10-21-2009

IMHO a good article in The New Yorker drawing together many of the issues, without citing David Kilcullen though and especially on the legal aspects: http://cryptome.org/0001/predator-war.htm

Note the full article is behind a 'pay wall' and is an update on a previous article (incomplete): http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...6fa_fact_mayer and a follow-up (complete): http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...-pakistan.html

There is a further article (with stats in appendices): http://www.newamerica.net/publicatio...revenge_drones

davidbfpo

**davidbfpo** · 01-20-2010

Hopefully fits here, although there are many threads on drone attacks in Pakistan and hat tip to a newly discovered blogsite recommendation (thanks Leah).

Near-exact locations of US drone strikes in Pakistan item, which links to Google maps :http://circlingthelionsden.blogspot.com/ posted 18th January

**davidbfpo** · 02-08-2010

Two items found today. A comment piece by an Indian postgrad student on the RUSI website: http://www.rusi.org/analysis/comment...4B702AC47A4BF/

Has this on polling in the FATA, yes I concede a few issues with that:

A survey of 550 FATA residents by a Pakistan based organisation found that 52 per cent of those surveyed considered the drones accurate. 58 per cent did not think anti-American sentiment had been inflamed by drone attacks, 70 per cent thought the Pakistani military should carry out targeted strikes, and 60 per cent judged that militant organisations were being damaged. If accurate and reliable, these figures fly in the face of popular reports. Farhat Taj, a researcher from the organisation conducting the study, argued that the people of Waziristan 'see the US drone attacks as their liberators from the clutches of the terrorists into which, they say, their state has wilfully thrown them'.

Plus the author and group doing the polling are not fully id'd.

Again in the UK, a report in The Guardian on the RAF use of drones, which is unusual. Apparently based on FOI requests: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/fe...es-afghanistan and the:

The MoD says there have been no reports of RAF drones killing civilians.

**carl** · 02-09-2010

The biggest advantage of a drone is endurance. As everyone know they can stay up a long time. They have a lot of disadvantages too.

They tend to crash a lot. The article David provided stated that 1 of 6 British Reapers in operation since 2008 has crashed. That is about par from what I read.

They are not as cheap as people like to think. A Reaper is 10 million and up and a Predator variant is 4.5 and up. That is a lot of money, especially when they crash a lot.

They may do what they are told but sometimes they don't. This is one reason manned aircraft don't like to fly too close to them. That makes a difference when there are a lot of aircraft over a target.

They are slow, very very slow, a least the Predators are. If they are working an area and something critical happens 60-80 miles away, it will take them a long time to get there. If there is a strong headwind, forget it. The Reaper is a lot faster but it is a lot more expensive and they crash a lot.

They may not take up ramp space like a P-3 but the Predator isn't that small and the Reaper is a big airplane. You can't just put them in a corner. They will require ramp space, taxiways and a smooth runway like most planes.

In order to get that endurance, you have to have a pretty lightly loaded wing. This, I think, will give you problems in heavy weather. An F-104 rode out the bumps better than a Cessna 150. The same probably applies to the drones.

I don't know what their crosswind restrictions are but I would be surprised if they matched those of most manned aircraft.

Their absolute biggest disadvantage is one I don't often, if at all, see addressed. They are controlled by radio. If you can control them from far away, couldn't some real smart guy on the other side overpower your signal and take your drone from you? I know it is hard to do, but can somebody truthfully tell me it is impossible.

On the cost question, comparing a drone to a P-3 or such is a false comparison. You should be comparing it to a civilian light fixed wing aircraft like a King Air or a Caravan. Those airplanes new are rather cheaper to buy and used ones are way cheaper. They have fair endurance and if you put in extra fuel tanks they can have good endurance. They don't crash much and they can fly in heavier weather and probably greater crosswinds.

Even a Caravan is faster than a Predator and a King Air is as fast as a Reaper and much cheaper. If called to go support a situation 80 miles away, a King Air can get there in about 20-25 minutes. Civilian manned aircraft last for decades. I doubt anybody will be flying a 2010 model Reaper in 2040.

If you wanted a manned airplane that will approach the endurance of a drone take an old regional airliner like an ATR-42, which unmodified can have up to 10 hours endurance, and modify it with some internal fuel tanks. Then you would have an manned airplane with that would would approach the practical endurance of a drone without the disadvantages. You could do the same thing with a Dash-8 or a Saab 340. You would however, have to avoid overloading it with sensors.

You can also fly these airplanes with civilian crews which would be much cheaper.

There are alternatives to drones out there that can do aspects of the job better.

**William F. Owen** · 02-09-2010

A survey of 550 FATA residents by a Pakistan based organisation found that 52 per cent of those surveyed considered the drones accurate. 58 per cent did not think anti-American sentiment had been inflamed by drone attacks, 70 per cent thought the Pakistani military should carry out targeted strikes, and 60 per cent judged that militant organisations were being damaged. If accurate and reliable, these figures fly in the face of popular reports.

...so why was anyone ever listening to "popular report" not based on empirical evidence?

Originally Posted by carl

Even a Caravan is faster than a Predator and a King Air is as fast as a Reaper and much cheaper. If called to go support a situation 80 miles away, a King Air can get there in about 20-25 minutes. Civilian manned aircraft last for decades. I doubt anybody will be flying a 2010 model Reaper in 2040.

Concur. the IDF has a large fleet of King Airs and has done for 20 years. They are actually far more useful than the UAVs for some missions.

If you wanted a manned airplane that will approach the endurance of a drone take an old regional airliner like an ATR-42, which unmodified can have up to 10 hours endurance, and modify it with some internal fuel tanks. Then you would have an manned airplane with that would would approach the practical endurance of a drone without the disadvantages. You could do the same thing with a Dash-8 or a Saab 340. You would however, have to avoid overloading it with sensors.

Again, concur. The case of UAVs is, just like "air power" vastly over stated.

**Entropy** · 02-09-2010

Like anything else, various UAV's and manned aircraft have advantages and disadvantages. Ideally you want a mix of capabilities.

The Air Force has the MC-12 "project liberty" aircraft deployed to do the manned-ISR mission. They are certainly better in some cases than UAV's.