Unmanned Aerial Vehicle: the problem with drones
Updated on 02 June 2010
Former Navy Officer David Livingstone, answers questions on the US drones being used by the US military to target al-Qaida militants, as a UN report calls their use in Pakistan "illegal".
Why is it drones have become the weapon of choice for the US military in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
UAVs have some distinct advantages. Firstly, they are, obviously, pilotless, which means that aircrew are not at risk of death or capture if an aircraft is brought down either by hostile fire, or by an equipment or mechanical malfunction.
They are also persistent, that is, they do not suffer from fatigue. They can remain airborne for as long as fuel remains, and do not suffer from the need to recover, that a piloted aircraft has, to rest and replenish the aircrew. The USAF Global Hawk for example, can remain aloft for about 18 hours.
UAVs are also efficient, as they do not need to contain the systems required for human life support, which allows a comparatively greater payload (of sensors and weapons) than a manned aircraft of similar size.
How effective are they at reducing civilian fatalities?
This is a difficult question. Any reduction in "collateral damage" is essentially set by the combat rules through which the UAVs are operated – in other words the rules of engagement.
Any release of weapons via the UAVs themselves will be authorised only when certain identification criteria are met, and these criteria are set at the highest level of command. Operators will be given certain permissions to carry out attacks autonomously (perhaps if friendly troops are under fire and that the attacking enemy has been clearly identified), but more sensitive engagements will only take place with specific authorization from senior officers, or even consulting political leadership, on a case by case basis.
Rules of engagement are highly complex, but always involve "humans in the loop". The days of autonomous engagement by an "intelligent UAV" are still not with us, although one can assume that appropriate technologies are in development.
In your opinion, how concerning is the fact that the operators of these weapons are thousands of miles away and often young enlists?
The proximity question is largely irrelevant. Whether the operator is stationed in an airbase in, say, Afghanistan or in mainland USA makes no matter.
Simply, the operator is not with the aircraft; he or she is sat facing the UAV control systems and is being fed with information from both the UAV and from other complementary sources to establish the fullest picture possible and then to employ the craft in whatever way is deemed necessary.
Distance is not a factor, as modern communications systems allow these sources to convene wherever there is a need.
The point of whether young enlists are controlling the UAV with its sensors and weapons is a question of the systems approach. The doctrine and methodology of how to "fight" a UAV, and how all the technical and human components fit together, are set by higher level military planners.
If the overall organisation believes that young enlists are capable of the duties required of them, then that is an assessment that only the organisation can make. Any errors in the employment of a UAV has to be judged in the context of a System of Systems, which includes technology, selection of operators, training, work conditions, rules of engagement, supervision, and the operational environment.
It is wrong simply to blame the operators, if a tragic accident should occur; the whole System needs to be investigated and changes made if necessary.
How do you think the US will respond to the criticism of their use by the UN?
I predict that the USA will respond by saying that the highest levels of standards and practices are maintained, but that, unfortunately, tragic accidents can occur. When these happen then each occurrence is followed by a formal review of procedures and adjustments made. I would expect that the US authorities would make the point that UAVs are a way of maintaining good battlefield intelligence and firepower, without hazarding US aircrew.
Drones have been criticised in Pakistan and Afghanistan as an unfair way of fighting. Is this critique justified?
Fighting can be unfair in many ways. The use of remote control IEDs by Taliban could also be considered unfair, if ‘fairness’ implies that combatants must use equal tactics and techniques and be able to see each other in the eye. Although emotive, this is a spurious argument.
