DRONES Part One: History Repeats – Drone Advancement and Air Force Development Paths, by GuerrillaLogistician

Reference –  17

By GuerrillaLogistician

@glogistician on X.com

They have been around for a while now, so what is the innovation?

Everyone has this belief that drones really entered the battlespace during the Ukraine war, which, in some ways, they did for us. The evolution of warfare in Ukraine went from standard Russian mobility to static lines and trenches, with artillery being flung back and forth. Yet, we need to look before the invasion. Drones were used in the border conflict during 2014, and bombs were released in 2015 in limited use.  During that time, the effects existed, but they weren’t as prevalent as they are now.  That said, Ukraine and Russia had a good understanding of what was possible from the use of drones, but it wasn’t until the current invasion that things got so expensive. Let’s go back in time and learn some history and how it formed Drone warfare.  Knowing how fire is made with a bowstring informs us about how modern tech does it, so a bit of history is prudent, if not overly necessary.  Part 2 will go into more interesting stuff, but I felt this would be enlightening.

TDR-1

They say that history never repeats itself, but it rhymes. I’m not sure where that quote came from, but it’s probably one of the most honest and accurate descriptions of what is happening in the United States and of warfare in general. I’m not saying that drone warfare hasn’t completely revolutionized war, but like I’ve alluded to before, it’s not as different as we may think. Currently, the issue between Russia and Ukraine is the hot topic, and the most active use of drone warfare that we have seen. While operationally drone warfare has actually existed as far back as Vietnam, the starting point for America comes from World War 2. The TDR-1 was America’s first attempt at developing an assault drone. These drones were theoretically capable of being armed with bombs or torpedoes and were designed to be flown in concert with the control aircraft. These drones were developed around the 1940s, and the first Test flight was done in 1942. An operator controlling the drone from inside a Grumman TBF Avenger using a television screen showing the view of a camera, along with other readouts not so different from what you can have today.  There was even an attack on the Japanese using these drones, which was apparently successful. One mission used 50 drones, and 31 of them successfully struck their targets without any human pilots being lost. Even though the program was successful, it was shut down.

Fast forward to Vietnam, and we see drones being used as a reconnaissance platform to take photos deep within enemy lines. The Ryan Model 147 was a high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft launched from beneath a DC-130A.  These drones flew over several nations, from Vietnam, Cambodia, China, and even Iraq during the Gulf War. The Chinese tried to intercept some of these drones, but innovation advanced, making them less detectable on radar and adding automatic countermeasures. These drones were merely a reconnaissance platform used to prevent the loss of more vital aircraft and had many successes but were also shot down numerous times. Later models had everything from active jamming to chaff dispensers, helping the drone defeat incoming missiles.

With these two examples, we know drones existed, just not in the modern form, but their role is similar to that of drones today. Now, before you think I went to the White House and found Hunter’s old stash, hear me out, because I am about to compare drone warfare, some of the tactics, and concepts in history to one another.  By the time I am done with these articles, you will hopefully see the benefits and failings of drone warfare, and I will give you a few pointers on how to possibly survive this new form of airpower with some old-school tactics.  That said, I will also be linking to a class that I am sure will be even better at teaching you everything from concealment to new technologies to counter drones. First, though, let me dust off the G-camp tinfoil hat so you can see I might be crazy and present my view on things.

Evolution of Airplanes Evolution of Drones

Just as flight was once thought of as a hobby of the rich, drone flying in modern times was relegated much the same way until the last several years. What many people don’t know is that drone flights were being done mostly by civilians in the ham radio hobby from the 60s onward. These drones ran fast-scanning TV to allow the pilot to fly fixed-wing aircraft before the mass civilian market really got into the field. Relegated to the historical confines of old hobbyists and old books, these pioneers generally had backgrounds not only in radios but also in military innovation at the time. This is almost a one-for-one parallel with World War I and the evolution of the aircraft. Many rich hobbyists revolutionized flight with mixed success, but those hobbyists pushed the tech until the military saw its potential.  Even though many in the military would resist new technology or believe it has only limited use.

“I hope none of you gentlemen is so foolish as to think that aeroplanes will be usefully employed for reconnaissance from the air. There is only one way for a commander to get information by reconnaissance, and that is by the use of cavalry.”  – General Sir Douglas Haig, British Army 1914

During World War I, the initial use of aircraft was driven by the need for reconnaissance over trench warfare. These aircraft were specifically sent out to do deep reconnaissance in the area where no man, animal, or, at the time, vehicle could even remotely hope to penetrate. Because of the static nature of trench warfare, aircraft could conduct reconnaissance, artillery strikes, logistics, and counterenemy artillery. These aircraft would return and drop messages in weighted bags or use specific streamers that would drop, indicating that something like an oncoming attack was imminent.

As technological capabilities improved, experimental photographs were taken in 1915. The danger of this photo reconnaissance vs. sketching the battlefield was apparent to the aircraft, as they had to maintain a fixed elevation and direction in level flight to take photos, which made them more vulnerable to enemy fire. These reconnaissance aircraft became the eyes of artillery, which was so effective that we saw it consistently in World War II with aircraft like the Grasshopper.  I will touch on this later, but photo recon enabled the production of detailed maps, which then assisted artillery when radios were eventually employed.  These aircraft would use recon maps to direct artillery onto targets.  (For those interested in the WWII map making TM 5-240 Technical Manual Aerial Phototopography Nov 21, 1941, might be of interest, and it is full of photos and diagrams)

Fast forward to the drone world, and we see reconnaissance regularly, both in the historical settings I have pointed out above, and almost everything in drone warfare now has a reconnaissance aspect. A few of the videos and future articles will show drones watching other drones attack enemies. These higher-reconnaissance drones are usually the FIND in the F3EAD loop and have been stripped of any combat capabilities to reduce their signature and extend dwell time. Add to that many of the drone advancements we have in the modern U.S. military still play the role of being the reconnaissance that finds the target for artillery and other such weapons, including missiles.

Just like World War I aircraft, most drones were initially unarmed, used only for reconnaissance. Partly this was due to the limited lift capacity of weak engines, but some aviators began bringing bolt-action rifles and stocked pistols.  Today, many drones have a limited payload for much the same reason, but this has been changing.  For aircraft, though, this changed in World War I with crude-style attacks, including metal darts being dropped down on the enemy. Although, as things progressed, hand grenades and small mortars were added to the arsenal. Larger aircraft were also built for specific bombing missions. As seen above, the darts had numerous designs to help them drop aerodynamically onto the target, and we saw this with the evolution of drone-delivered bombs.

Initially, many of the drones just dropped personal munitions onto the enemy. Then these grenades were given fins for stabilization. Small mortar munitions and even now large artillery rounds are being modified into area precision kill weapons on drones, much the same way the evolution played out in WWI. This is taking the need for artillery pieces that fear counterbattery fire and placing them in the hands of small units that can deploy drones from odd directions onto a target, cutting down on signature, unlike artillery. While I don’t think they will altogether abolish artillery, it raises questions about whether the cost of GPS or laser-guided munitions is really worth it in this day and age. For far less, a drone could be flown to the same location with GPS or even laser guidance for a final attack on enemy forces.  Probably more cheaply than most artillery rounds cost today.

A drone belonging to the Qassam brigade drops a bomb on a gathering of Israeli army soldiers pic.twitter.com/23F0REVxLm

— Sprinter Press (@SprinterPress) November 1, 2023

As weapons advanced, larger aircraft were created to carry heavier payloads, rather than having one man carry a handheld bomb that he threw out of the side. Bombers could more effectively drop far more munitions on the enemy. This is no different from the heavy-lift drones we see in the war today. Many initial attack drones were designed with very light frames that couldn’t carry much, but now, with agricultural drones and homebrew heavy-lift drones, capabilities have changed in many ways. Obviously, the military has gotten involved with this concept as well and is trying to produce proprietary drones that can be transported in a Hilux, then deployed with munitions to strike a missile package. Some of the concepts are still in development, and I think that while missiles fired from drones will always be a thing, there are blind spots and money grabs in some of these technologies. Seeing a drone with propellers and jet engines attached seems like an expensive missile system.  Why shoot costly missiles when other drones could be lifted from the same location or directed by others to drop armor-defeating, purpose-built munitions?

https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/2023/09/hydra-drone-displayed-at-dsei/

WWI bomber

New Drone mothership with a missile system capable of taking off and landing in the back of a Toyota Hilux, according to the manufacturer

More of a WWII Tactic than a WWI invention, the logistical deployment of supplies, ammunition, and troops by dropping them from air assets is something everybody has seen in movies and throughout most aviation history. While the concept was examined during World War I, it didn’t really take shape until later. Moving on from fixed-wing aircraft to helicopter systems, both in Korea and Vietnam, solidified both air assault and airborne tactics. Realistically, Modern Warfare has killed the idea of airborne soldiers being dropped from cargo aircraft, although we still push this concept and keep people trained on this tactic. In a near-peer conflict, the chances of being able to do an airborne drop are pretty low, in my opinion.

With that said, helicopters still have a function in transportation and possible assaults, but with all the man-portable weapons designed to attack these low-flying aircraft, this may go away in the future as well. Note Operation Gothic Serpent for proof that helicopters are at risk from even unguided weapons systems, much less new kamikaze drones. For now, we live in a battle space where this is potential, but not something you will see regularly, unless air dominance can be achieved and ground weapons can’t reliably reach, as in third-world countries. Now, with modern tactics involving drones, both supplies and recovery of wounded personnel are being done in various ways with air asset drones alone. This doesn’t include the ground drones now in use for both logistics and casualty evacuation.

BAE casualty recovery drone

Logistics drone bringing MREs to soldiers in the field during 10th Mountain training

Countering Air Superiority

So now we see the devastating capabilities of many air assets during World War I, but what exactly were the countermeasures to all this? Initially, it was thought that the only way to take down an airplane was with another airplane because the reality is that shooting at a flying object at various altitudes with even machine guns is difficult at best and near impossible at worst. So much so that during World War I, the Germans were known to fly lighter-than-air zeppelins over to Britain and bomb it. Most of the initial downings of aircraft began when aircraft shot at one another. It started with handguns and other small infantry weapons, but as time developed, machine guns were placed on aircraft that were specifically tasked to shoot down other aircraft. We’ve seen the same evolution in the drone world, with shotgun-style weaponry attacking and defeating other drone assets.

As time progressed, aircraft became more capable of lifting heavier payloads. Bombers were fitted with turret guns, Gunners, and light machine guns. The obvious extension of this was bombers with multiple guns during World War II, which, before the war, were initially thought to be impervious to smaller fighters. The Flying Tigers proved that the concept was wrong before America even entered the war, but the generals still made assumptions and planned things that didn’t quite go as intended.  They believed that bombers bristling with guns would prevent smaller, lightly armed aircraft from knocking them out of the sky, much like the Zeppelins in WWI were difficult to defeat even with airplanes.

History has begun to repeat itself as well, with the Ukrainian Vampire and Baba Yaga drones being pushed back from frontline operations.  Their large size and slower speeds made them a major target for anti-drone systems, which are numerous and varied.  Many of these bombers are now being used as a reaction to assault acting as CAS in a pinch, or as logistical support for frontline troops.

https://x.com/NAFORaccoon/status/1988576663740068303?s=20
Ukrainian shotgun drone Air-to-Air kill

Ruhrstahl Ru 344 X-4

Ukrainian fiber-guided drone with weapons payload on top

It should also be noted that several electronic weapon systems have been used against drones, ranging from jamming to focused-energy weapons. Most of these technologies are designed merely to interfere with drone wireless communications, which has caused a massive uptick in fiber-optic-guided drone systems. This system is directly comparable to the advancement of many man-portable weapons we saw emerge from World War I, which were direct-fire, and then shifted to guided systems. While never proven in combat, the Germans developed the Ruhrstahl Ru 344 X-4, a wire-guided anti-aircraft missile system. It was technological constraints of the time that prevented many of these weapons and innovations from materializing in smaller formats. Still, as we can see from the past, many of the concepts are just rehashes of previous generations’ attempts at technology.

Just like any wire-guided system, from the dragon M47 to torpedo systems, a wire can be snagged, cut, or damaged, which has been seen numerous times in war. This can happen due to operator error or because another drone has come into contact with the fiber wire itself.  This means countering these drone styles cannot be done with average electronic weapons; it has to be done by physical means, either Nets, the aforementioned anti-drone air-to-air combat, or specific weapons systems. What we do know so far is that most personal weapons that are designed to engage troops are very difficult to use against these small, maneuverable crafts. This is the same issue that aircraft were for the average soldier of World War I and even into World War 2. I think the concept of small, guided munitions to counteract drone munitions is currently being tested, if not already on the battlefield. What I do see is that many common off-the-shelf sensing technologies will likely be used in counter-drone operations, and maybe we will see the large drone above the Hilux used in a defensive role instead of its original intent. Possibly having semi-autonomous mini drones seeking out from a mothership might be far more effective than the current attempts with shotguns.

Acoustic Detection

Ukrainian company Ares acoustic drone detection system

WWI and WWII acoustic aircraft detection systems.

Many techniques from WWI and WWII are being relearned today, but with newer technology.  Devices like the acoustic drone detection system have been appearing, which have a similar lineage to a lot of the aircraft concepts we saw previously. Unlike the large horn-shaped detectors of the past, these new systems are designed to focus and also direct cameras to spot the drones coming in.  The Ukrainian company says that FPV drones can be detected from 200-300 meters away, but the larger Shahed drones can be detected up to 5 kilometers away. With that said, the countermeasures are also coming along in similar formats. Pilots previously would change the pitch and throttle of their aircraft to confuse operators into thinking they were in a location they really weren’t, making it far harder for them to direct searchlights at night onto the aircraft. The Russians are running drones with speaker systems to create different noises to confuse the computers and operators, such as moving armor, certain drones, and other such decoy tactics.

A shift in modern AA

MG anti-aircraft sight

Another future evolution I see is the shift from large anti-air platforms, such as large-caliber AA guns and large missile systems, to something more compact, explicitly focusing on drones. While some have now been modified to defeat drones, the cost of a missile being shot and the complexity of building them are prohibitive in a drawn-out war.  Likewise, the large-caliber AA guns built for helicopters and low-flying aircraft aren’t as nimble or capable of attacking multiple low-flying drones.  Handheld or vehicle-mounted flexiable systems with automated targeting and traversing, much like the Trophy anti-missile/RPG system, which, if miniaturized and modified for lighter vehicles, could be the countermeasure to drones. While the current system is half a ton, realistically, this could be set up just like the Crow’s system would be. If that is the case, specialized projectile systems attached to a main gun for other purposes could protect the vehicle and nearby troops. Currently, the system uses an EFP charge, which is risky to detonate around friendly troops.

The interesting thing is that this technology was discussed in a book I read on the future of armored warfare, written almost 20 years before GWOT.  So, technological innovation has been considered, but many of our capabilities lag behind our imagination in confronting new obstacles. This article is going to be a multi-part series, and I will address other things that you probably have in mind. Hopefully, I will culminate in an interview with someone important working on drone issues, especially for the partisan. Regardless of the current state of things, I see drone warfare not leaving but changing the method of weapons delivery instead of being revolutionary.

One of the main things we have to remember is that many of these drone systems fly much more slowly and are therefore more susceptible to our weapons systems. A lot of the issues, like the trophy system, aren’t that they couldn’t knock things out of the sky; it’s that the technology wasn’t designed for this specific threat. As machine guns were used against aircraft, the reticle style shifted from peep sight to a large disk with grids to help shooters lead the target. So, the same must be done with many of our current technologies and innovations, along with making things more man-portable, to help buffer drones from being the terrible force they are.  The following article will address the tactics I have personally seen used with and against drones.  This means it isn’t an exhaustive review, as many tricks have been hidden and only the last few moments are really shown for propaganda purposes.

I hope to see you in Part Two.