Shaheer Ahmad-Hin-Fin-Dro-Oped thumbnail-Jan-2025-AP

Readers are more interested in the aircraft than the weapons that bring them down. Kenneth P. Werrell’s timeless saying is relevant in the contemporary milieu, where drones have become an inescapable feature of warfare. In the wake of the technological revolution unfolding overnight, drones are regarded as a tactical game-changer which will redefine the notions of geography and politics. These advancements raise pressing questions for the future of Air Defence Systems (ADS), critical to restrict the breakneck manoeuvres of unmanned agents in the skies.

Generally, drones are thought to have two key features that provide an offensive edge: detection-avoidance and saturation. Their small size, low-altitude flight, and slow speed reduce the likelihood of detection and interception by enemy air defence systems. Saturation tactics overwhelm countermeasures by exhausting finite munitions, reinforcing the conventional belief that modern air defences struggle against the precision and persistence of drones.

The perceived advantages of drones in detection-avoidance are more nuanced than they initially appear. While smaller sizes and stealth designs reduce radar visibility, these benefits can be mitigated by advancements in radar technology. Radar systems measure the radar cross-section (RCS) of an object using electromagnetic pulses, and the effectiveness of detection improves with higher-frequency radar pulses. Consequently, a larger RCS increases the likelihood of detection and engagement by ADS at significant distance.

For example, Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance (MALE) drones often have larger wingspans than fighter jets, making them more detectable. The MQ-9A Reaper, with a wingspan of 20 metres, significantly surpasses the F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-15 Eagle, which have wingspans of 9.8 and 13 metres, respectively. These dimensions can challenge their stealth against radars operating across various wavelengths. Even with a reduced RCS, MALE drones are not entirely immune to modern ADS. Integrated Air Defence Systems (IADS), equipped with both ground-based and airborne assets, have advanced capabilities to detect and engage targets with low RCS over extended ranges. For instance, the Russian S-400 system can detect and track objects with an RCS as small as 0.02m², highlighting the growing challenge drones face against sophisticated air defence networks.

Low-altitude skimming and slow speed are often considered key features that delay drone detection. However, these tactics are increasingly less effective against advanced, layered air defence networks equipped with a combination of airborne and ground-based assets. In recent years, states have made substantial investments in airborne radar systems, providing continuous surveillance capabilities and significantly reducing drones’ ability to exploit the Earth’s curvature for stealth. These airborne systems extend detection ranges and enhance tracking precision, undermining the low-altitude advantage. Simultaneously, ground-based air defences have integrated advanced filtering mechanisms and data analytics to distinguish slow-moving drones from environmental clutter. Once identified, these drones become vulnerable to a range of countermeasures, including anti-aircraft artillery and man-portable air defence systems (MANPADs), which are specifically designed to target and neutralise low-flying threats.

Saturation tactics are hailed as the cherry on top to overwhelm enemy ADS. However, this is increasingly challenged by advancements in modern air defence technologies, which combine robust kinetic and non-kinetic countermeasures. Recently, Poland put forward a proposal of developing missiles to counter the threat of swarm drones. Unlike traditional munitions, these missiles are capable of intercepting drones at altitudes of up to 1,500 metres, making them effective against drones operating at low and medium altitudes. With a range of 15 kilometres and laser-based guidance, the proposed system offers a promising and cost-efficient solution to counter swarm drone threats.

By integrating such innovations into existing air defence networks, states are closing the gap between the perceived advantages of saturation tactics and the realities of advanced, multi-dimensional air defence strategies. This shift underscores the ongoing arms race between offensive drone capabilities and defensive countermeasures. Hence, the evolving dynamics of drone warfare remain a challenge. The application of stealth technologies in drones is likely to reduce the detection range of air defence systems, especially when coupled with adversarial tactics such as the use of decoys and cyber-attacks. These strategies can deceive or degrade tracking capabilities, further complicating defence efforts. Plus, small drones present unique challenges. Their agility and maneuverability allow them to bypass traditional response mechanisms, often evading detection and interception. Yet, modern air defence systems are not easily outmatched. Advanced sensors, using rare earth materials like gallium oxide, are increasingly effective in countering stealth advantages, demonstrating the adaptability of these systems.

Besides this, price marker remains a significant hurdle in the face of low-cost drones. The standard munitions deployed to counter drones put an enormous strain on the coffers, making interception an inflated choice. Nonetheless, states have boosted their efforts to field affordable interceptors such as Iron Beam to keep down the high costs of countering drones.

However, the best path for aerial defence is incremental adaptation, not tectonic shifts. Thus, states need to enhance their electronic warfare capabilities to remain a step ahead of their adversaries. Furthermore, establishing robust air-gapped communication networks is crucial to processing large amounts of data securely ensuring seamless command and control operations even in the face of cyber threats.

The Russia-Ukraine war has underscored the resilience of modern air defence systems, which have cast a protective net to deny hostile use of airspace. While drones have introduced new complexities to aerial warfare, the notion that air defences have become obsolete is a misconception. Instead, they have evolved into formidable bastions, making both high-altitude and low-altitude operations increasingly perilous. As drones advance so do air defence systems which will continue to have a considerable place in military considerations.

Shaheer Ahmad is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad. 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 »