09. Syed Ahmed Ali-Tac-UAV-War-Oped thumbnail-April-2025-AP

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, have come a long way from being deployed as a tactical reconnaissance platform during the Bosnian conflict, to becoming a staple in modern warfare. Drones gained prominence, particularly during the War on Terror, where the United States utilised the MQ-9 Predator as its preferred tactical strike platform.  Modern drones have been increasingly fitted with deadly munitions and sophisticated technology to conduct more complex tactical operations. As a result of technological advancements, drones can conduct diverse operations such as precision strikes, disruption of enemy communication, and logistical support. The low cost and scalability of drone production means that drones can now be deployed in mass numbers. This has driven a trend in contemporary conflict, where the tactical role of drones has expanded, often overlapping the combat roles of conventional platforms like aircraft and artillery.

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict marked the first instance in which drones were deployed at scale and employed as primary front-line assets. Azerbaijani forces notably utilised Turkish Bayraktar TB2 UAVs and Israeli-manufactured loitering munitions in their operations. During the conflict, drones carried out effective strikes against Armenian T-72 main battle tanks and S-300 air defence systems, demonstrating their tactical value in neutralising high-value targets. The Russo-Ukrainian conflict is another example where mass deployment of drones has been observed. However, unlike the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, both Russia and Ukraine possess advanced drone and counter-drone capabilities. This has contributed to a protracted war of attrition, in which traditional manoeuvre warfare has become largely unfeasible. Surveillance drones provide real-time targeting data, exposing any massed troop movements to immediate artillery strikes. Consequently, both sides rely on entrenched positions, inflicting sustained losses through long-range artillery and first-person view (FPV) drone attacks. The conflict is characterised by indirect fire, dispersed unit formations, limited mobility, and incremental territorial gains.

Mass mobilisation and sophistication of drone technology have led to the expansion of unmanned platforms which may tactically displace conventional platforms. For example, the role of reconnaissance which has traditionally been played by observation helicopters (OH) and aircraft, is now being exclusively done through UAVs. The United States (US) has even tasked a specialised Marine Corps Attack Drone Team (MCADT), which will serve as a centre for expertise in FPV drone operations. Russia has introduced innovative fibre-optic drones that are resistant to jamming and capable of navigating confined spaces and buildings. These drones serve as effective alternatives to artillery when there is no direct line of sight and targets are fortified behind concrete or other hard materials. They can bypass such defences and deliver payloads with precision, maximising damage. These advancements have increased demand for drones, whose expanding tactical role increasingly mirrors that of conventional military units.

State and non-state actors prefer to use UAVs over conventional units as they provide several key advantages. First, drones reduce the risk of losing human pilots; which is crucial when there are limited trained personnel.  Second, drones are relatively easy to maintain and manufacture. For state actors, this allows scalability. For non-state actors, it can lower the threshold of acquiring a rudimentary air force, which was previously limited by infrastructure and sophisticated technical equipment.  Third, UAVs offer an asymmetric capability, enabling the destruction of high-value targets at a fraction of the cost of conventional systems.

However, the low-cost of drones comes at the expense of capabilities which restricts them from conducting technically sophisticated operations. Most combat drones have limited payload capacity, inferior sensors, sensitivity to bad weather, slower speed, and noisy engines. This greatly exposes these drones to enemy air defences and limits their operational performance.  For example, a report indicates that 60 to 80 percent of Ukrainian FPV drones failed to reach their target and were more effective against infantry than armoured vehicles. This statistic changes drastically, however, when FPV drones are paired with artillery which can immobilise or destroy armoured targets like tanks.  To increase the firepower of drones, more technically superior drones are required like the Bayraktar TB2. But, these types of drones while capable of engaging armoured targets, are more vulnerable to enemy air defence systems than FPV drones, due to their larger size and smaller numbers.

While evaluating the strengths and limitations of drone warfare, it becomes evident that UAVs cannot fully replace conventional combat units. Although FPV drones may offer greater accuracy, they lack the firepower and sustained impact of traditional artillery. Similarly, despite their cost-efficiency, UAVs are unable to operate effectively in highly contested airspace in the same manner as conventional aircraft. This leads to two key conclusions regarding drone technology. First, drones have not supplanted conventional platforms; rather, their role on the modern battlefield has evolved into a more specialised function. Second, drones serve as force multipliers, enhancing the effectiveness of conventional tactical platforms by improving situational awareness, line of sight, and target precision. These insights underscore that contemporary warfare increasingly relies on a synergistic combination of asymmetric and conventional capabilities to address evolving complexities of the battlefield. Therefore, it is likely that middle powers like Pakistan may deploy drones to enhance their asymmetrical capabilities against larger adversaries. Looking ahead, the integration of autonomous systems and AI-driven targeting may further redefine the tactical balance in regional theatres.

Syed Ahmed Ali is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), in Islamabad, Pakistan. He can be reached at [email protected]


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »