Drones and the US Air Force

Fascinating analysis of the use of drones on a modern battlefield—that is, Ukraine—and the inability of the US Air Force to react to this change.

The F-35A certainly remains an important platform for high-intensity conventional warfare. But the Air Force is planning to buy 1,763 of the aircraft, which will remain in service through the year 2070. These jets, which are wholly unsuited for countering proliferated low-cost enemy drones in the air littoral, present enormous opportunity costs for the service as a whole. In a set of comments posted on LinkedIn last month, defense analyst T.X. Hammes estimated the following. The delivered cost of a single F-35A is around $130 million, but buying and operating that plane throughout its lifecycle will cost at least $460 million. He estimated that a single Chinese Sunflower suicide drone costs about $30,000—so you could purchase 16,000 Sunflowers for the cost of one F-35A. And since the full mission capable rate of the F-35A has hovered around 50 percent in recent years, you need two to ensure that all missions can be completed—for an opportunity cost of 32,000 Sunflowers. As Hammes concluded, “Which do you think creates more problems for air defense?”

Ironically, the first service to respond decisively to the new contestation of the air littoral has been the U.S. Army. Its soldiers are directly threatened by lethal drones, as the Tower 22 attack demonstrated all too clearly. Quite unexpectedly, last month the Army cancelled its future reconnaissance helicopter which has already cost the service $2 billion—because fielding a costly manned reconnaissance aircraft no longer makes sense. Today, the same mission can be performed by far less expensive drones—without putting any pilots at risk. The Army also decided to retire its aging Shadow and Raven legacy drones, whose declining survivability and capabilities have rendered them obsolete, and announced a new rapid buy of 600 Coyote counter-drone drones in order to help protect its troops.

Tags: defense, Department of Defense, drones, economics of security, war

Posted on March 18, 2024 at 7:03 AM • 23 Comments

Comments

jackson • March 18, 2024 11:23 AM

An important component of decision making is electronic warfare. F35s are loaded to the hilt. Aggressive R&D continues in all areas of EW. Those little drones cannot hoist a significant payload, without robbing from other roles.

It’s dumb to say you’ll just throw a bazillion drones at the enemy so who needs EW stuff. EW is capable of killing drones. This is a very active area.

You need multiple platforms. It’s equally dumb to portray the USAF as flat-footed since the DoD has been actively developing drone technology since long before these journalists were born.

Clive Robinson • March 18, 2024 11:47 AM

@ jackson, ALL,

Re : “Electronic Warfare”(EW) and drones.

“It’s dumb to say you’ll just throw a bazillion drones at the enemy so who needs EW stuff. EW is capable of killing drones. This is a very active area.”

Actually like the old ECM, ECCM, ECCCM of the cold war era it’s a two way street and significant arms race.

For various reasons my money is on the drones winning the EW game free and clear and the modern battlefield changed significantly yet again.

Arclight • March 18, 2024 11:58 AM

Agree with @Clive Robinson here. We already know how to build equipment to survive the EMP and other effects of nuclear war. This is about as hostile as it gets and has been worked on since the 1940s.

We have spread spectrum, laser and other communication methods that resist interference and jamming. Consumer tech such as 5G and WiFi have brought the cost of phased array antennas and all manner of other advanced former military RF technology down to very low levels.

There is 2-way also satellite coverage of basically everywhere on Earth, inertial navigation packages that fit on a fingernail and all sorts of optical, MEMS and other bits developed for mobile phones that rival the big, heavy tech that was cutting edge for defense just a decade or two ago. We also have pretty good autotpilot software and even decision making that can fit on a phone-sized computer.

I can’t imagine that electronic countermeasures are really going to win here. They can almost certainly degrade the accuracy and ability to communicate with drones, but I doubt there is anything non-kinetic that can stop a big swarm of these from getting near their target and having some complete their mission.

Peter • March 18, 2024 12:52 PM

No surprise, as the saying goes Generals are always preparing for last year’s war and I would argue “heroic” services suffer it the most, i.e. battleships/fighters, ship captains / pilots as it’s all about them as “knights” as opposed to just another disposable ground pounder. The Army has always suffered that to a lesser extent with mounted forces as well but their entire ethos/service isn’t wrapped up in it nor does embracing unmanned system spark an existential crisis.

The USAF knows it’s days as an preeminent independent uniformed service are numbered with drones eventually going to regulate it to a niche uniformed service like NOAA Corps with Space Force taking its place.

tfb • March 18, 2024 1:05 PM

I’ve always thought that things like the F35 are the equivalent of late-era battleships: they’re amazing th

tfb • March 18, 2024 1:17 PM

I’ve always thought that things like the F35 are the equivalent of late-era battleships: just in the battleship case they’re amazing things I am sure but they also are amazingly expensive and you can afford an awful lot of cheaper, smaller, probably more reliable things for the cost of one. And it only takes one of the small cheap things to get through and your expensive thing is scrap.

I’d thought in terms of people buying lots of F16s or F18s and just swamping the f35, but of course that’s wrong: it’s drones.

And drones are worse: you’ve got to be a competent air power to run F16s or F18s which leaves F35 serving the same useful purpose battleships were argued to be good for in the 1930s: bullying people who could not afford what it took to defeat them, really. But a lot more people you might want to bully can afford drones than cold afford F16s or F18s.

Of course people will now explain to me just how magic and super the F35 is and that it can take on any possible number of opponents at once. Just as the battleship mafia said in 1935. They were wrong and my guess is the F35 boosters are as well.

jackson • March 18, 2024 2:18 PM

@all radio shack nut jobs
You know absolutely nothing about F35s.
This site is like something out of the 90’s, complete with leftover BS groupies from his BT Telecom days.

kiwano • March 18, 2024 2:41 PM

@Arclight

When you say there is 2-way satellite coverage of basically everywhere on Earth, I want you to pay special attention to your use of the present tense. There is coverage now, which does not mean that there will be coverage if the USA ever gets in a fight with an enemy who can put things in orbit. The uncontested use of orbital assets in Ukraine quite strongly depends on the fact that Russia is a space-faring nation which can use its own assets, while Ukraine is supported by another space-faring nation who Russia absolutely does not want to get into a direct conflict with (i.e. the USA — though maybe France would be a better name to drop, since their support is much clearer and they also have satellites and nukes).

It’s probably not wise for the DoD to put all its chips on that dynamic existing for any future conflicts it’s in, even if it does have a Space Force working to ensure that its orbital assets remain useful in a contested space environment.

Also the existence of minefields and cluster munitions hasn’t prevented tanks from being used in Ukraine and in a lot of ways they are to tanks what a drone swarm would be to an F-35 (except for the bit where F-35s are getting kitted out to be able to command nearby drone swarms).

Clive Robinson • March 18, 2024 3:13 PM

@ tfb, ALL,

Re : Surface ships are dead in the water, drone don’t just fly above.

“I’ve always thought that things like the F35 are the equivalent of late-era battleships: just in the battleship case they’re amazing things I am sure but they also are amazingly expensive”

Those battleships were called “Capital Ships” and it’s kind of funny when you think about their real cost. But their days are long over, the reality of Britain’s Pride of the Fleet HMS Hood and it’s demise, then the German pocket battle ships.

Small aircraft and submarines not only took them off the chart, but also took their roles.

Whilst not considered drones cruise missiles can be launched from submarines and have over twice the range of maned fighter bombers and also have a very small detectable surface area. To take them out needs heat seeking tech and modern drones can solve that little issue reasonably well.

Consider the F35 has a piss poor range and needs something three times the size of those older Battle Ships.

It’s been said that the 15mins of fame for aircraft carriers was in effect a short while in the Battle of the Pacific towards the end of WWII.

The US has built trillions of dollars into “carrier groups” and they are all actually really quite vulnerable.

Few like to talk about what happens when you explode a largish strategic nuclear weapon under water. Just one effect is to in effect significantly reduce all be it for a quite short time the density of the water over a quite large area.

But the time and coverage area are sufficient to turn an aircraft carrier and other vessels into the equivalent of lead bricks. They will go down and from the research I’ve seen they are unlikely to come back up again or the right way up etc. The reason is they sink down and the density around them rises fast enough to crush them breaking water tight compartments asunder or just crushing them such that the vessels density is lost.

Now consider just how small a strategic nuke that sits on top of an ICBM is now consider a couple attached to a sub-sea ROV… You have something about the size of a sub-compact car that can mostly spend months just sitting on the sea floor in various “choke points” around the globe.

This is a problem that the USN and others are not talking about publicly for obvious reasons.

But also stand of aircraft launching hypersonic missiles. You will hear talk about “laser defense systems”… Well they basically work in one of two ways,

1, Melt target.
2, Shake target.

Of the two the latter needs less energy as it induces “destructive resonance” and is often not “self blocking”. But it requires a number of special systems to detect and maintain “destructive resonance” in the target.

The first requires high power that is not blocked. The problem is that trying to melt through a target causes gas/plasma from the targets surface that blocks the laser by absorbing a lot of it’s energy. The solution used is to pulse the laser at a rate that allows the gas/plasma to dissipate sufficiently. But this takes time so the heating effect on the target is reduced by the duty cycle.

Now consider a strategic nuclear war head has to make a re-entry in the atmosphere… It produces hundreds of kilowatts of heat that causes the air to turn to plasma just by friction alone.

Now consider how small the front face of a strategic nuclear war head is and how much a laser defence weapons beam spreads with distance.

The calculation does not favour the defender. That is the odds are good a strategic nuclear war head would make it through a “laser shield” and an anti-missile shield like “iron-dome” etc. Also it would defend the hypersonic missile system that is driving it forward.

In short the US Carrier Groups are a very expensive set of bath-tub toys when compared to drones that are hypersonic missiles, or sea bottom squatting mines/torpedoes.

The Russians have discovered to their horror what a simple low profile plastic hull speed boat with just a quarter of a ton of conventional explosives can do. Even in very small numbers. These drones are “cheap and dirty” and launched from the surface. Now consider them being launched from under water a few kM rather than 50 or more kM from the surface but with a way more effective package.

The US “Davy Crockett” tactical nuke war head can be lifted and carried by an individual… That means a very small drone with very low profile and a very big punch.

You can start to see why people are not talking about them…

up • March 18, 2024 4:08 PM

A person in a plane can adapt to changing situations and improvise. A drone, not so much. Especially when communications get shut down, or an EM pulse fries the electronics.

Clive Robinson • March 18, 2024 4:51 PM

@ jackson,

“all radio shack nut jobs”

Somebody stood on your polystyrene RC plane?

Seriously the F35 has been an over priced junk pile for years.

At one point it was joked that China had stolen the designs and built one that “actually got of the ground” for just cents on the dollar in comparison. With the obvious rider that the USAF and Navy should buy them from China and have at least twice as many.

You may not be aware of the NATO war games up in the north of Europe and all down it’s eastern boarder,

‘https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68535762

Though officially “Exercise Steadfast Defender” some squadies call parts of it “operation nut freeze” or “operation snow balls” for obvious reasons.

Well part of the UK contingent is “missing in action” because it could not get out of dock without breaking down…

‘https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-68192756

What is not said is the horrendous cost over runs due to the F35 and it’s launch systems.

They have had several other issues with the F35 and to be honest they were “a bad buy” made for “political decisions” rather than military.

Some still ask if the F35 will be really ready by “35” and the standard reply is “Maybe 53″…

Either of those dates would be pointless as by then “drones” of various forms will provide less expensive and better options.

The days of “feet of the ground fly boys” are coming to an end plain and simple, they can not perform and keeping them alive way to expensive. Even the US Military acknowledge this indirectly by changes to allow Las Vegas drone pilots to get combat medals for sitting in shipping containers at Creech AFB.

tfb • March 18, 2024 6:49 PM

@Clive Robinson

Those battleships were called “Capital Ships” and it’s kind of funny when you think about their real cost.

Agree

But their days are long over, the reality of Britain’s Pride of the Fleet HMS Hood and it’s demise, then the German pocket battle ships.

Hood was always doomed: she was a mostly-pre-Jutland battlecruiser design (some armour was added after Jutland and before she was conpleted) which had not been significantly rebuilt between the wars was just not anything close to being a match for Bismarck (even, if, perhaps Prinz Eugen fired the fatal salvo, which has been argued) and should never have been there. She was the ‘pride of the fleet’ because she was very long (battlecruisers were, as their job was to be quick) and very pretty. She was not actually a very good ship, let alone a good battleship. And she was sunk in a traditional big-gun duel.

It was all the capital ships sunk by air power or tiny opponents that told anyone who would hear that their time was gone,

Agree with you about carriers. Except the ‘bullying far weaker opponents’ things: they’re good for that.

Sure we can both agree that the F35 exists because both because some people got very rich by making it exist and because people with sway in the forces are romantically attached to the whole top gun thing.

fib • March 18, 2024 7:01 PM

(…) can take on any possible number of opponents at once. Just as the battleship mafia said in 1935. They were wrong and my guess is the F35 boosters are as well.

Have you read Superiority – short story by Arthur C. Clarke? Quite a propos.

‘https://metallicman.com/laoban4site/superiority-by-arthur-c-clarke-full-text/

wiredog • March 19, 2024 5:59 AM

@Clive Robinson

If a nuke goes off over, under, or near, a US carrier group then the US response is likely to be a massive retaliatory strike against something. Same with a nuclear attack against any other nuclear power.

Now an inert warhead on an ICBM dropping on a carrier is likely to kill the carrier just as dead, but you still have the problem of dealing with a launch on warning situation. Note that this applies to a US launched ICBM with inert warheads as well.

A lot of space warfare actions look a lot like the precursors to a disarming first strike, which is generally a bad impression to give an opponent.

@all. It was clear on 7 December 1941 that the battleship’s day was done (I have a relative on the Arizona), and Midway made clear that carriers were extremely vulnerable, too.

finagle • March 19, 2024 7:01 AM

Men on a battlefield are incredibly vulnerable. But you cannot hold territory without feet on the ground. Just because a type of plane or vessel or vehicle is vulnerable does not mean there is not a place for it in any particular theatre of war. Battleships and battlecruisers are big heavy, reasonably fast, fairly stable gun platforms capable of projecting huge force, but at a cost. Aircraft carriers provide a forward base of operations when you need to apply air power but have nowhere to land and fuel aircraft, see the Falklands War. Vulcans flew from the UK, but you could not have interdicted Argentine air superiority from the UK, or Ascension Island, you needed aircraft carriers to establish local air superiority.
Drones would have served a role in the Falklands, but you probably still needed manned aircraft to extend your visual horizon and provide security for the feet on the ground, as well as tactical (rather than strategic) air strikes. I’d love to hear someone tell me how the Falklands War could have been prosecuted without large ships like aircraft carriers and cruisers. How do you get feet on the ground, with air superiority, with security, with force projection, without big ships and aircraft?
An F35 might be a ridiculous aircraft, but without aircraft how do drones deal with air superiority outside their operating envelope. To fight an F35 you need to be able to hit it at altitude and speed, as well as close to the ground. Drones or missiles capable of doing that are not cheap, and as Korea and Vietnam showed, reliance on missiles was an error, that lead to the Top Gun school to teach pilots aircraft to aircraft combat again. If you rely on drones or missiles or guns to hit aircraft, the US will deploy anti- air defence techniques to allow their aircraft to sit at altitude and bomb you with impunity. War is not linear, it is an expression of chaos, and diversity of tactics and response give you the best chances to succeed. The F35 or preferably a much cheaper and better built substitute is part of a diverse portfolio that allows for nuanced engagements.

Clive Robinson • March 19, 2024 7:41 AM

@ ALL,

Putin still not “fessing up” about the “Sergei Kotov” that has allegedly be sunk by Ukrainian drones near the Crimea.

The video footage appears to be both recent and genuine, but the ship struck is not clearly identifiable as the “Sergei Kotov” nor is it clear the ship sunk though that is very likely.

The capital value of the ship is given as ~$60,000,000 USD but depending on how it was fitted out and what was on it at the time it could be as high if not higher than 150,000,000 USD.

Which even for a large wealthy nation is not “pocket change”.

It appears the ship was struck by three to five drones but there is no report as to how many drones were sent after it.

Various estimates put the cost of the drones as ~$50,000 USD or less (and dropping towards $25,000 as production increases).

So potentially 150/0.25 or 600:1 benefit cost.

Which is maybe why European and Other nations leaders are indicating that the Black Sea is not a tenable place for Russian Warships.

@ wiredog, ALL,

“It was clear on 7 December 1941 that the battleship’s day was done”

Yup it’s a reasonable statement,

But be aware some will say it’s not the Battleships that were at fault… but the fact they were,

1, not at war status,
2, their crews were mainly on shore, 3, armaments were locked up,
4, the harbour was not appropriate.

And several other things besides.

As for,

“If a nuke goes off over, under, or near, a US carrier group then the US response is likely to be a massive retaliatory strike against something.”

Based on history that would certainly be a reasonable expectation.

But against “what?” or “Who?”

As I noted the “choke points” were nuclear mine / torpedo drones are all around the globe. In theory the current number of potential suspects is not large but it is growing.

It’s clear that both China and Russia are building up new designs for battle space tactical and IRBM’s and we have to consider potentially “space based first strike”. Which indicates that either they do not care about MAD or do not believe it will now happen.

North Korea and Pakistan have gone for the “Keep of the grass” notice option. They know the US could turn the peninsula into a pile of rubble, but they also know that the US Politicians despite their organ waving are not “strong men” and that increasing numbers of US voters know this to be the case.

So all NK has to demonstrate is “they have the capability” to turn a million or so voters in say florida into “glow in the dark charcoal briquettes” or turn the book title “Goodby California” into a reality around Silicon Valley.

Taking out a US carrier group well away from your own shores is actually nolonger seen as “an act of war” but as some in the US used to put it “sending a message”. Because outside the US most are coming to the conclusion US politicians won’t escalate, because they will have no idea of the “Who?” Or “Why?” and more importantly the “What?” Others will do the moment their satellites etc indicate the US is going to launch they will launch and the number of charcoal briquettes will mount up very quickly.

It’s fairly obvious to increasing numbers of outsiders looking in on the US that they would “blink” in which case the principle behind MAD like the aircraft carrier is now over especially for the increasing numbers of “small players” in the game.

From a game theoretic point of view MAD only works when the number of players is very small –idealy 2– and they are approximately balanced in destructive capability. Having small players making “false flag” style attacks changes the game dynamics such that MAD nolonger works at all…

Richard Bejtlich • March 19, 2024 10:43 AM

The Air Force isn’t ignoring drones or “fighting the last war.”

The F-35 (and other Air Force initiatives, too many to discuss here, watch this Airpower series to learn more — https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhywBBhLI5mj3_tOlGJxh2zwt5SRX92sn ) is designed for the next war, which if it happens, will likely be with China.

Hopefully, we can deter China, but if we have to engage, do you think we’re going to have a Ukraine-style ground war? Of course not.

The Air Force and Navy are the services that will carry the brunt. The Army will have nothing to do, as we’re not going to land troops in Asia.

Drones will play a part, but they’ll more likely be swarming over ships, or acting as “loyal wingmen” to — you guessed it — manned F-35s.

lurker • March 19, 2024 2:02 PM

@wiredog

Interesting you mention 7 December 1941 as the end of the battleship. Japanese Admiral of the Fleet Yamamoto was by some accounts a clever cookie who had idiots working under him. The Commander of the battle group that attacked Pearl Harbour had orders to first, sink the US fleet and bomb the airstrip to be unusable; then when satisfied US air defence was ineffective bring in the battleships and shell all shore facilities to dust. He didn’t do the followup, as he was afraid some unseen US defences might harm his battleships. Same guy at Guadalcanal had similar instructions. His aircraft bombed the airstrip, but the battleships were held back. They were supposed to destroy the machinery and repair workshops camouflaged in the jungle but positions accurately known and marked on Japanese maps. The reason in this case was to conserve fuel and avoid dragging tankers out into the line of US fire.

William • March 19, 2024 2:29 PM

Langley Air Force Base, located in one of the most strategic areas of the country, across the Chesapeake Bay from the sprawling Naval Station Norfolk and the open Atlantic, was at the epicenter of waves of mysterious drone incursions that occurred throughout December.

https://www.twz.com/air/mysterious-drones-swarmed-langley-afb-for-weeks

ResearcherZero • March 20, 2024 7:26 PM

@jackson

Much of journalism covering manufacturing is rather simple and hardly mentions it’s history. Instead it often heavily features political spin and crazy comments from the campaign trail that have little to do with reality at all. “Flying cars” for example.

Or the endless talk of offshoring without any context. How we can out-China China by
means of magical thinking, and out-work all 1 billion of their citizens through better central planning. I’m yet to see any policy of how we might do this, but I’m not a politician.

“A lot of offshoring discussion treats companies as operating in only one of these quadrants — domestically or abroad; in‐house or outsourced — but many U.S. manufacturers operate in all four simultaneously.” (1)

Advocates of onshoring defense production maintain that locating defense industrial capacity within the United States provides greater assurance that the federal government will be able to access critical materials and products during a conflict or national emergency, and may act to stimulate the domestic economy more broadly.

Opponents criticize onshoring for its alleged potential to increase costs and exacerbate inefficiencies by requiring businesses to locate as many activities as possible within the United States, irrespective of market incentives. Instead, the U.S. will have to rely on two strategic advantages, the first being its allies and partners.

‘https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3389621/industrial-base-strength-necessary-for-future-dod-success/

…efforts to “bring back” overseas manufacturing might actually end up hurting some of the country’s biggest and most innovative manufacturing companies — and the American workers who fuel them.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/everything-you-think-you-know-about-offshoring-probably-wrong

Myths about the relationship between trade, investment, production, and, most importantly of all, innovation.

‘https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.37.3.31

G-36 • March 20, 2024 11:38 PM

F-35s serve a completely different mission than drones e.g. suicide drones.

Drones:
– local tactical recon
– counter-battery operations
– suppress non-massed, low-armor enemy movement

F-35:
– long range strike
– deep stealth missions
– nuclear first strike
– bunker busting
– dogfights
– missile intercept

Comparing the two as if they offer the same capabilities and serve the same missions is ridiculous.

You need “the right amount” of both.

For the littoral contingency vis a vis a contest with China, the focus should be on shipbuilding and logistics to stay a long war – neither drones or F-16s. Hell and even the analysis linked here doesn’t discuss naval drones – focuses on the Sunflower?!

I think y’all fell for some clickbait.

Clive Robinson • March 21, 2024 3:25 AM

@ G-36, ALL,

Re : Drones may not be what you think they are…

F-35s serve a completely different mission than drones e.g. suicide drones.”

Drones covers all UAV’s including 6th Gen teaming systems[1].

Suicide drones are technically munitions hence some are called “loitering munitions” to distinguish them from more traditional MLRS and hellfire type systems.

It all gets quite complex, some of the systems I do research on although based on consumer / commercial drone systems are not what you would consider a drone for what they are used for.

For instance they can very rapidly deploy antenna systems by acting as “sky hooks” and the like. Half a minute to get a VHF broadband –discone– antenna up to twice the hight of a house can if used right give you a communications repeater that has a hundred square mile reliable coverage area[2]

Others are “Electronic Warfare”(EW) sensor heads and replace what was once put on top of the likes of a 36M/115ft Clark and similar masts that took more than half an hour to deploy and made you easily visible and in range on artillery sighting systems.

Modern sensor packages can be mounted on consumer drones that will take the sensors up to 300M / 1000ft. Being very difficult to spot and with an effective use range of 60kM be outside of most forms of field guns. Also the expensive part of the EW system can be RX only and 1kM away from where the drone is and below the horizon to the enemy. So sending an expensive rocket needed for that range will most likely crash and burn in a self made hole in a field.

An automated drone control unit can be built very cheaply and fit in half a shoe box and have upto 50m of low cost coax between it and the TX antenna which can not be seen beyond a few meters so is in effect near invisible optically. So the box can be buried under a pile of sand bags or in a protective hole in the ground etc necessitating a near direct hit. An “anti-radiation missile”(ARM/HARM) with 50km or above range typically costs upwards of a quarter of a million dollars and would need significant modification and would typically head for the $5 USD antenna not the $200-300 USD box.

I could go one but I’ve things to do this AM.

[1] Have a look at some of the Perun videos on the subject, starting with,

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RPrWm6fWuaM

[2] Back in the 1980’s a half wave dipole antenna from a parish church tower gave good coverage in some directions of more than 20miles over farmland.

Bob T • April 15, 2024 9:46 AM

Apologies if I’m being dense, but what is the relationship between this blog and hacking/security?

Drones and the US Air Force

Comments

Leave a comment Cancel reply