Peter Layton’s recent post promoting UAVs in response to my earlier comment makes some very good points, but it’s important to remain cautious of UAVs until they’ve proven themselves at all levels of military conflict. UAVs have been used very effectively in low air-threat environments like Afghanistan, where the adversaries lack sophisticated integrated air defence systems and sophisticated sensor capabilities. For waging counter-insurgency (COIN) and undertaking counter-terrorism (CT) operations against unconventional opponents in failed states, armed UAVs are a clear solution. But trends in Asia’s strategic environment suggest Australia should plan for a full spectrum of conflict, including high intensity interstate conflict. Any future manned/unmanned mix must contribute to the ability of the ADF to carry out its primary tasks across the entire breadth of this spectrum, rather than constraining it to being able to contribute only on the lower end.

In a higher threat environment—near or inside the airspace of a peer competitor or a well-armed rogue state—some of the positive characteristics of current UAVs generate greater operational risk rather than offering advantage. In undefended airspace like that encountered over Afghanistan, persistence is a real advantage for COIN and CT operations. But in well-defended airspace, a slow target like a Predator UAV is a clay pigeon. Within a highly contested airspace, getting to a target area quickly to avoid air defences, gathering vital information or striking a target such as a mobile missile launcher, and dashing out before an adversary can react makes much more sense. Survivability in these environments depends on speed and stealth. Read more