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

[carl]

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]

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?

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]

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.

[Woland]

Just to make a brief foray into the realms of hypothesising (I am J2, after all), how would the strategic - and tactical, for that matter - calculus alter if the Americans decide they would like to look at ways extending these drone strikes into the Quetta area? Could that policy co-exist with the reconciliation bribery initiative? Are the Taliban cammnders resident in Quetta more or less likely to reconcile if the threat of being killed in Quetta is real? At this stage I would think strikes would be a step too far for the Pakistanis, but I'd be surprised if it's something the Americans are not looking at.

[omarali50]

IF the US were to strike as far as Quetta, it would mean one of two things, and BOTH make actual drone targeting and tactical issues pretty much irrelevant:
1. Pakistan has agreed to such strikes. In that case, it means Pakistan has given up the "good taliban" (betrayed them?) and in that case, you dont really need drones, low paid pakistani police officers could do the job (and the surviving members of the "shura" would escape to the badlands or back into afghanistan, not stay in quetta). Individual terrorists can certainly hide in big cities, but then they are much more hidden to drones than they are to the local police.
My point is, if the Pakistani state ever decides to betray their friends, then its not a drone issue in big cities like Quetta (this is NOT the case in the tribal areas..there the pakistani state may have even less reach than the drones, so drones may be needed even if Pakistan is one hundred percent cooperative, as is maybe the case in South Waziristan?)
2. Pakistan has NOT agreed and the US has decided it doesnt care. In that case, the US has many more direct ways of making Pakistan change their mind and those would probably be much more important than hunting for a needle in haystack in a country where you dont have too much good intelligence. In other words, why look for an invisible shura in a "hostile" country when you can look for the very visible prime minister and have HIM change his mind about cooperation....
Just my amateur thoughts

[davidbfpo]

Dead Terrorists Tell No Tales:Is Barack Obama killing too many bad guys before the U.S. can interrogate them? is an article in FP: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._tell_no_tales

It is a good read and this is a 'taster':

Hold the applause. Obama's escalation of the "Predator War" comes at the very same time he has eliminated the CIA's capability to capture senior terrorist leaders alive and interrogate them for information on new attacks. The Predator has become for President Obama what the cruise missile was to President Bill Clinton -- an easy way to appear like he is taking tough action against terrorists, when he is really shying away from the hard decisions needed to protect the United States.

And ends with:

The fact that Obama's administration no longer does this when it locates senior terrorist leaders today means the president is voluntarily sacrificing intelligence that could protect the American people -- and that the U.S. homeland is at greater risk of a terrorist attack.

I trust that this aspect of CT has been fully debated inside government, although I am sceptical that any leader living in the FATA could be captured for interrogation.

Hypothetical scenario: the Nigerian bomber-to-be is id'd in a Yemeni city, shortly before he starts his journey to what we now know was Detroit. Attempt to capture or strike with high explosive?

[William F. Owen]

Hypothetical scenario: the Nigerian bomber-to-be is id'd in a Yemeni city, shortly before he starts his journey to what we now know was Detroit. Attempt to capture or strike with high explosive?

Give me the briefing pack and I'll give you an answer....
Since he'll turn up at an airport, it seems like that might be a good place to give " 'im a tug" - a phrase I'm sure David is familiar with!

[tequila]

Dead Terrorists Tell No Tales:Is Barack Obama killing too many bad guys before the U.S. can interrogate them? is an article in FP: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._tell_no_tales

It is a good read and this is a 'taster':

I disagree - the article has little value except for partisan talking points. Note that complete and utter lack of any sort of question of whether or not snatch missions are even feasible. He simply asserts that they are not being tried or even considered because the President does not value intelligence for unknown reasons.

Thiessen's expertise comes via his experience as a speechwriter rather than an intelligence professional, and the title of his book gives his perspective. He is a torture advocate, and his primary problem is that Obama has ended the practice.