"Tanks vs. Drones Isn’t Rock, Paper, Scissors" Topic

"In the first days of the new war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the Azeri military claimed a number of destroyed tanks and other armored fighting vehicles. Those strikes seem to have been made — and filmed — by a Turkish-designed armed drone, the Bayraktar TB2. With armed drones bearing anti-tank ordnance increasingly cheap, accessible and capable, does it spell the end of the tank's century of battlefield dominance?

Two decades ago, the U.S. rushed the first armed drones into service for its post-9/11 campaigns. They carried no more than two Hellfire missiles and were propelled by an engine producing less power than a contemporary Toyota Camry. But what they had was endurance: a drone could circle its target for hours on end before striking, whereas a high-performance jet or attack helicopter would have to return to base for fuel and crew rest in a fraction of that period. This was a crucial factor in the irregular campaigns the U.S. employed them in, where the targets had little or no anti-aircraft capability. Most strategists, however, assumed that in a high-end war, drones flying lower and slower than a Second World War fighter plane would be shredded by an adversary with integrated air defenses…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Good article.

The issue is one more of how to defend all assets against drones. And that doesn't just include defensive assets but also offensives ones such as hunting down mobile drone launchers or destroying airfields used by drones.

One thing that is ignored in all these little wars is that the drones are often used in place of far more powerful jet fighter bombers or helicopter gunships.

A fighter bomber can deliver a lot more firepower than a drone and also can respond more quickly due to high speed.

However a number of factors are playing against the fighter bombers or helicopters in these wars :

1. Full fledged combat aircraft are expensive especially when compared to a drone.

2. These countries often don't operate sophisticated combat aircraft in any numbers. Very often there might a squadron of Su-25s or MiG-29s and sometimes only dribs and drabs of MiG-21, MiG-23s and Su-22s (eg Libya or Syria).

And these aircraft lack modern defences against SAMS as well as guided weapons.

3. Even archaic air defence systems are useful against older fighter bombers and helicopters. And both Armenia and Azerbaijan have them whilst in Libya they were provided by others. In Syria the air defence is provided by Turkish F-16s or Israeli F-15/-16s which are so far largely untouchable.

It should be noted that Azerbaijan posses a fleet of about 60 upgraded Mi-24 and modern Mi-35 helicopter gunships as well as nearly 100 armed Mi-17s (also assigned to paramilitary units). There's also a small squadron of non-upgraded Su-25s and another of MiG-29s (about 30 combat aircraft in total).

These have played virtually no role in the war despite the mountainous terrain where helicopter transport or even airborne assaults and infiltrations would be useful.

As I posted on another thread here … However like many weapons system, you get the cycle of new tech vs. counter tech vs. counter-counter tech. E.g. Electronic Warfare followed by ECM then followed by ECCM. Or AFVs and aircraft were the reasons to the development of AT and AA weapons respectively.

But I don't think drones will totally dominate the battlefield, but enhance/modify it and initiate the introduction of counter weapons. As always has been the norm/cycle.

The manifold advantages of suicide drones over traditional fixed and rotor-winged assets include longer endurance/loiter time, smaller size/radar profile and lower cost (acquisition, overhead and crew training). It's a game changer.

Again, e.g. New Tech … Counter-Measure … Counter-Counter Measure. The drone in all it's forms will become part of the Combine Arms forces.

Glad you enjoyed it my friend! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand