• [Photo:Defence]
    [Photo:Defence]
Close×

Rumours of a project to acquire an armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) for the ADF being included in the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), due in the first quarter of 2015, have recently gained momentum following a recent speech by Deputy Chief of Air Force (DCAF), Air Vice Marshal Gavin Davies.

Speaking at the 11th ADM Defence/Industry Conference in Canberra, AVM Davies predicted that an armed UAV would be acquired ‘sooner rather than later’ and in his keynote address at the same event, Defence Minister Johnston promised the DCP would say ‘much more’ about unmanned systems.

There has been speculation around the capital for some time that a new project, dubbed Air 7100, would be included in the new DCP and the comments by the Minister and DCAF were widely interpreted by observers as paving the way forward.

AVM Davies’ presentation spoke in detail of the advantages and disadvantages of armed UAVs to the Australian Defence Force and also went to some lengths to address public concerns around the ethics of such a capability in modern warfare.

‘Air 7100’ timeline

With the selection of Northrop Grumman’s MQ-4C Triton (subject to satisfactory development) to fulfil the unmanned maritime surveillance requirements of Project Air 7000 Phase 1B, attention is now turning to the next major application use of unmanned capability in the ADF.

Although Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAV) are under development in the United States and elsewhere, an armed version of an ISR UAS is more likely to interest the ADF in the meantime.

“The introduction of an armed UAS into Australian service will allow us to deliver the whole package, close air support effects to Army and add to our capabilities in the wider strike role. In my opinion the argument for Australia to acquire an armed UAS for the strike role will be a convincing one,” AVM Davies said.

“A prime reason for an Air Force to exist is to control the air in support of national security. US advances in this role are aimed at delivering a specialised Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) platform, the UCAV. Progress in this area is still at a technology demonstrator stage, or just beyond, but rapid change has been the trend.

“While the indicators are there, achieving the dual goal of being both affordable and capable will still take some time.”

Regarding the timeline for the ADF, AVM Davies noted that the ‘vector’ towards an armed UAS capability certainly exits, but pointed out that being able to employ a weapon does not mean it would be armed all the time.

“I think the opportunity for us to develop options, particularly within the Force Structure Review which, along with the development of the White Paper, would include the benefits, the cost and the vulnerabilities of having an armed UAV,” he said. “My contention is that that consideration will be given during this Force Structure Review and White Paper, so I think the timeframe is shorter rather than longer.”

Advantages and disadvantages of an armed UAS

Aside from the well understood advantages of an unmanned platform in general – increased endurance and persistence, reduced signature and complexity and the like – performing close air support missions with a UAS has other advantages.

Prime among these is the removal of aircrew from harm’s way, and the remote location of crew can mean that specialists suited to the task at hand, such as intelligence officers, image analysts and even legal officers can be made available.

“The arming of an ISR platform has done more to realise the potential of time-sensitive targeting than any other development. Sensor, weapons and human command element are combined in the same system. A rapid kinetic response to the detection of an authorised target is available immediately,” AVM Davies detailed.

“Our troops on the ground in Afghanistan have benefitted immensely from the presence of armed UAS provided by other nations. The persistent overwatch, combined with the ability to prosecute a clearly identified target with precision has saved many lives.”

While there are significant costs savings to be made in the operation of a UAS over a manned platform, particularly in terms of logistics support, maintenance support and crew training, because it will remain on station for extended periods of time, it may well be that the manpower requirement per platform (especially in areas such as intelligence specialists and image analysts) are ironically actually higher than that of a manned aircraft.

There are also costs associated with transmitting control and sensor data from and to the platform, in terms of satellite communications and bandwidth required and ensuring the security of communications and navigation links through frequency agility, encryption etc. further increases operating costs.

“On balance, we anticipate areas of cost savings, but also some areas of increased costs,” AVM Davies predicted.

The ethical debate

There has been a great deal of public debate over the ethics of using unmanned vehicles to kill people, particularly with regular media reports of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and even Pakistan, but AVM Davies suggested that, as all ADF operations are mandated by the laws of armed conflict, there is no ethical question in his mind.

“From the laws of armed conflict, the Rules of Engagement are derived. These rules are approved by government, within which the use of armed force is constrained. The Chief of Air Force has no authority to contravene these Rules of Engagement or the laws of armed conflict,” he said.

“Any weapons system, including UAS must comply with these same laws and rules. If as part of a detailed examination of all equipment that we acquire, we determine that a weapons system would contravene the laws of war or not allow us to operate within them, then the system cannot be acquired.”

AVM Davies pointed to Australia’s withdrawal of weapons such as cluster munitions and mines as cases in point.

“The intelligence preparation and evaluation will be the same with UAS. The civilian cultural and collateral damage assessments will be the same. Considerations of necessity, distinction and proportionality will be the same. The targeting of weapon application planning will also be the same. The specific identification of the target itself will be the same. And the checks required to be performed by the pilot before weapons release will the same. Post strike assessment of damage will be the same,” AVM Davies continued.

“The one difference there will be of course, is that the crew will be seated on the ground, or in another aircraft, instead of in the releasing platform. So I can discover no new ethical issues in all of that.”

Addressing the argument that remote employment of weapons will reduce the barriers to initiating conflict, because ADF personnel will not be placed at risk, and therefore the resulting war would not be a fair fight, AVM Davies made two points.

“Firstly all wars, unfortunately, cost lives. The taking of all life has consequences, both by those who order it and those who carry it out. From my personal experience I can assure you that the loss of Australian life and the taking of an enemy’s life weigh heavily on the minds of both government and the ADF leadership.

“Additionally UAS operators and analysts on strike operations are exposed to weapons effects often in more close-up detail than conventional strike aircrew might have experienced. And although they are removed from physical danger, the emotional and psychological effects can be profound,” he said.

“The second point I’d like to make is that the current use of UAS has largely been in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations. In these circumstances our nation’s major weapons systems, such as tanks, artillery, strike aircraft and major combatants, can appear unfair. The Chief of Air Force has a moral obligation to the people of Australia to safeguard as best he can, the men and women he commits to conflict.

“If that means a change in capability that increases the protection of our soldiers, sailors and airmen, then the Chief of Air Force would be short-sighted not to consider such a system. War is not a sporting contest, where the fairness of a level playing field is sought. Advances in military technology have always sought to maximise operational and tactical advantages.

Andrew Davies, senior analyst of defence capability at ASPI agrees. “It would seem to me to be extraordinarily unlikely that we would be contemplating something like the things the Americans are doing, and that is flying drones over other people’s territory knocking off terrorists. I cannot imagine that’s a good idea, for instance in Indonesia,” he said.

“What I can imagine though, is land forces having armed drones that they can use as part of land operations. So I would see it as integrated with Army operations, rather than the (US) CIA-type model.

“I don’t see a problem selling the model I described to the Australian public, the fire support assets for land forces. There’s not a lot of difference between that and a helicopter with a minigun.”

The next debate however might be whether it is Air Force, or Army which operates an armed UAS capability, given its major role is most likely to be close air support of land forces.

“I think Air Force would make the case that it should reside with them (but) I think you could also make the case that it should reside with Army to use as a fire support asset,” Andrew Davies mused.

“Army’s got a fair bit of experience working with drones now from Afghanistan. With any new system, it’s a matter of working out the right doctrine, operating procedures and all those sorts of things, but there doesn’t seem to be any showstoppers involved. It’s a bit like the (Tiger) ARH without the aircrew.”

comments powered by Disqus