Washington: As drone warfare proliferates in conflicts like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Army official tasked with forging plans to fend off drone attacks on troops sees mid-size uncrewed platforms as perhaps the biggest threat.
“Group 3 remains one of the most challenging threats we have in terms of the capabilities and then the payload that you’re talking about, as well as the reach,” Maj Gen David Stewart, the director of the Joint Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office, said during a panel at the AUSA conference here in Washington.
The Pentagon categorises drones as belonging to five different classes, with Group 1 being the smallest and Group 5 being the largest.
Displaying a chart that mapped out the spectrum of unmanned threats ranging from Group 1 to Group 5 drones, Stewart explained that smaller drones fall under “protection tasks,” or a problem that “everyone is responsible for.” Essentially, since less sophisticated defensive systems are more appropriate for targeting smaller Group 1 and 2 drones, units should generally have their own capabilities on hand to defend against them.
Moving along the chart toward larger, Group 4 and 5 systems, Stewart argued that these drones fall under an “air defence mission,” or “a mission that is seated with a commander in support of a [Joint Task Force] JTF commander, a combatant commander, and really aligns with a mission set.” These larger drones would be better handled by Patriot batteries or fighter jets, according to Stewart’s chart, which in turn requires higher levels of coordination since not every unit has that kind of equipment at their disposal.
But Group 3 drones — with Stewart’s chart displaying a system that roughly resembles Iran’s Shahed-136 used extensively by Russia in Ukraine — occupies a more vexing position that’s somewhere in the middle between the protection and air defence missions. These drones are large enough that they can carry considerable payloads and fly farther than smaller systems, and require capable interceptors to knock them down.
Making the problem worse is that defensive interceptors are typically more expensive than the threats they’re destroying. For example, Stewart’s chart displayed key interceptors that can take out Group 3 drones like RTX’s Coyote and Anduril’s Roadrunner.
But on a separate panel, Maj Gen Frank Lozano, the Army’s program executive officer for missiles and space, argued that while it was good the Army ramped up orders of systems like Coyote, relying on them for the long term isn’t sustainable.
Highlighting a rough price tag of about $120,000 per Coyote, Lozano said, “We’re not going to win that cost curve battle if all we do is deal with the threat kinetically.”
The cost issue is well known to the Pentagon, and officials on both panels emphasised the need for a layered defensive approach that incorporates kinetic and non-kinetic systems. Lasers in particular represent a holy grail for defensive tech, since they are relatively inexpensive to operate compared to kinetic systems.
Raksha Anirveda's editorial desk team brings in the collective experience of creative professionals - a fine mix of senior copy editors, writers, proofreaders and designers. Working as a team, they continuously create, manage, and curate content to sustain the magazine's profile and reputation in line with market trends and achieve magazine's goal.
