Very few people would argue against the importance of air superiority in modern conventional warfare. From the bocage of Normandy in 1944 to Kuwait’s so-called highway of death in 1991, the use of air power to physically – and psychologically – destroy an enemy’s ability or determination to fight has been central to most war plans. However in the age of militarised drones such power is no longer the reserve of the world’s wealthiest nation-states. To reword an old analogy, if a car-bomb could be described as the air force of the working-classes, the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) is its middle-class equivalent.
This has become most obvious in the renewed conflict taking place between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan over the self-styled Republic of Artsakh, the majority ethnic Armenian area just inside Azerbaijani territory. With Armenia enjoying the support of the Russian Federation and Azerbaijan enjoying the support of the Republic of Turkey, along with political, diplomatic and military contributions good, bad and indifferent from regional and international parties, what would have been another minor skirmish in a protracted cold war has heated up into something far more terrible.
According to a study of open source information by Forbes the relatively poorly equipped Armed Forces of Armenia have suffered catastrophic losses due to air strikes. And not by conventional aircraft.
Hundreds of videos released by Azerbaijan show drones blasting Armenian fighting vehicles and heavy weapons, as well as destroying resupply and reinforcement convoys.
Azerbaijan’s primary aerial combat system in the conflict are an unknown number of Turkish-built Bayraktar TB2 drones, which can deliver precision strikes from a relatively safe altitude using small laser-guided micro-missiles, or help guide deadly artillery barrages.
However, Azerbaijan is also using its fleet of Israeli Harop and smaller Orbiter-1K loitering munitions, which can both surveil targets and kamikaze into choice targets like a missile.
On the first day of hostilities Azerbaijani drone strikes focused heavily on short range air defense vehicles in Nagorno-Karabakh. These 1970 and 1980-era Soviet systems designed for use against airplanes may have lacked resolution to consistently detect and engage drones at long range and higher altitude. Later, more powerful S-300 and 2K12 air missile batteries and long-range air defense radars were also struck.
After the first few days, drone strikes were primarily directed at vehicles, facilities and artillery behind or approaching the frontline.
Armenian artillery losses appear equally staggering as of Oct. 22, equivalent to the destruction of six or seven artillery battalions in aggregate…
While richer nations will continue to have the upper hand in quasi-autonomous killing machines, whether in the sky or on the ground (and the future deployment of orbital weapon platforms seems inevitable given the parlous state of international law) that will be balanced out by less wealthy countries and non-state actors using cheaper commercial or improvised drones of their own. And just wait until drone-like assault and fire-support vehicles become the norm on the battlefield. With truly autonomous weapon systems not far behind.
AN SIONNACH FIONN 
It turns out the world is having a hard time making the “self-driving car” work well, on the relatively ordered streets of many middle to well off countries. (I suspect self-driving cars” may be one of the less imaginative more conservative alternatives to modern traffic and older transit methods, but that’s another conversation.) Trying to go from ordinary traffic to combat is not a trivial leap.
Add to that the fact that even well trained soldiers have had considerable rates of “friendly fire”.
LikeLike
All true but the US, Russia and others are pouring funds into “robotic tanks” and other automotive exotica and with some success. Remotely manned tracked or wheeled vehicles for reconnaissance or frontline fire-support are in rapid development. Armoured assault vehicles are not far behind. At least for the US and it’s immediate allies. China and others have a different philosophy, out of economic necessity or just the ready availability of potential military manpower.
LikeLike
If you ask me it’s just a matter of time, before there’s some horrific case where one of those things goes terribly wrong. Either it will be on the nation’s own soldiers or allies, and/or it will hit a non-belligerent civilian target and the world will be horrified. It might not be the first such incident that has the world looking on in horror, but one fine day it will happen.
Then such weapons will become a target of international treaties much like chemical and biological weapons did in the 1970’s.
I know what a number of people are going to say to that. {Shrug!!} If the world has tolerated bombings of whole cities, how is what happened at {insert infamous location} is so special. Some will even accuse the horrified of hypocrisy.
Part of the answers to that question is simply that contemporary culture is cynical and jaded to a fault- most ordinary people however are more moved by human stories than statistics or purely practical and economic arguments. There IS a “bright side” to Stalin’s quote about one death being a tragedy but a million being a statistic. Having been involved in some of those movements myself, I’ve learned (as most have) that sometimes you have to lead with the better side of human nature that exists, rather than the one you want.
As for the rate of technology? Again, I’m skeptical that they can move as fast as some of the proponents say. I’m sure they believe they can, but unforseen setbacks plagued self-driving cars, so how could this be so much different?
LikeLike