UAVs and the ADF

If Australia is to keep what is arguably its most important military comparative advantage, the ADF is going to have to become more innovative in its use of technology. Remotely piloted aircraft offer perhaps the best immediate opportunity.

Also known as UAVs, UASs, RPVs, ‘drones’ and various other acronyms (the USAF prefers ‘RPA’ to deflect the inference that these aircraft operate autonomously – that they are not controlled by pilots), RPAs have been around for decades. For example, primitive drones were employed during WW2; while the Israeli Air Force skilfully exploited RPVs as part of its stunning victory over the Syrian Air Force in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley in June 1982. (It is noteworthy that the IAF’s current chief of operations, General Amikam Norkin, recently stated his service needs ‘more unmanned aerial vehicles’ if it is to retain its dominance in the Middle East.)

Currently the main role for RPAs is intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance (ISR). Platforms vary from the model aircraft-sized drones used by soldiers to see over the next hill, to the 10,500 kilogram RQ-4 Global Hawk, with its intercontinental range and 36-hour endurance. Onboard sensor packages and platform performance are continually improving, and it is probable that RPAs will soon be the ISR system of choice.

That, however, is only the beginning, as RPAs are already being considered for many other roles including electronic warfare, aerial refuelling, anti-submarine warfare, airlift, air combat, ballistic and cruise missile defence, and strike.

Considerable controversy has been triggered by America’s ‘armed drone’ strikes against terrorist groups in Pakistan and the Yemen. Much of that controversy has centred on the campaigns’ alleged illegality, because the US has not declared war in either instance. In strict operational terms, however, if killing large numbers of terrorists at almost no risk to friendly forces is considered worthwhile, then the strikes have been an unqualified success. According to a report in The Guardian in July 2012, Yemeni soldiers have stated that the RPA campaign was central to their success in recapturing population centres from Islamic militants. “The [RPA] work was clean,” they said, “They didn’t hit anyone who was a civilian … they were particularly effective against vehicles and heavy weapons.”

Numerous commentators believe offensive RPA operations represent the future of US military force. In 2012 the USAF trained 360 RPA crews in a process that takes half the time needed to train a fighter pilot. More RPA pilots were graduated than fighter and bomber pilots combined. And in contrast to the recent past when young pilots avoided RPA postings, now the role is attracting many of the best and brightest as it grows in significance and as institutional understanding improves. It is also noteworthy that 95 per cent of RPA crews operate from the continental US.

Some Pentagon officials argue the US must ‘reinvent’ its airborne warfighting capabilities to ‘close gaps in technology’ that are already being exploited by the weapons systems of ‘peer or near-peer’ nations. The new technologies will have to be relatively cheap (because of financial constraints), easy to install, and fit onto existing platforms with minimal modification. This suggests developing systems suitable for small external pods carried by today’s strike/fighters – or by emerging RPAs. Furthermore, America’s strategic ‘pivot toward the Pacific’ will generate an increased demand for ISR, which will yet again hasten the rise of RPAs.

Comparisons between the ADF and the USAF quickly become unrealistic. Nevertheless, there are sufficient geostrategic and military parallels here to demand attention.

Standing-up an advanced aerospace capability can take upwards of twenty years – think F-22, F-35, Jorn, AEW&C. Given the rapid rate of advance of the technologies relevant to RPAs – miniaturisation, computing power, data links, precision, power plants, advanced weapons – it is fair to suggest the ADF needs to get serious about the systems now. Tradition indicates that this may be institutionally challenging, but if the ADF is to retain its long-standing technological edge, it may be the case that Australia’s approach to RPAs will need to be more revolutionary than evolutionary.