Scientia Press

The weapons and munitions most urgently needed on the battlefield by Ukraine, especially in the context of the ongoing conflict with Russia, include anti-aircraft missile systems, electronic warfare systems, tactical equipment like military body armor, artillery shells, drones, and armored vehicles​​. These needs are driven by the requirements of modern warfare, which emphasizes mobility, protection, and the ability to engage enemy forces at various ranges and altitudes. The Ukrainian defense industry and its international allies are working on several fronts to meet these demands:

In summary, Ukraine and its allies are striving to meet the urgent needs of the battlefield through a combination of increased domestic production, international cooperation, and technological innovation. Efforts to produce critical munitions and develop substitutes like drones are part of a broader strategy to ensure that Ukrainian forces are well-equipped to respond to current and future challenges.

Drones as substitutes for traditional artillery bring a mix of strengths and weaknesses to modern warfare, especially in contexts like the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Here’s a breakdown:

Strengths

1. Precision and Targeting: Drones can provide precise targeting capabilities, reducing the risk of collateral damage and increasing the efficiency of strikes against specific military targets.
2. Cost-Effectiveness: While high-end drones can be expensive, in general, deploying drones for surveillance or strike missions can be more cost-effective than traditional artillery, especially when considering the cost of precision-guided munitions.
3. Stealth and Surveillance: Drones can operate quietly and at varying altitudes, making them harder to detect. They are excellent for gathering intelligence, conducting surveillance, and even carrying out surprise attacks.
4. Reduced Risk to Personnel: Using drones for reconnaissance or attack missions eliminates the need to put soldiers in harm’s way, reducing casualties in dangerous operations.
5. Versatility: Drones can be equipped with a variety of payloads, including cameras for surveillance, electronic warfare tools to jam enemy communications, and weapons for strike missions. They can adapt to different roles as needed.

Weaknesses

1. Vulnerability to Anti-Drone Measures: Drones can be susceptible to jamming, hacking, or being shot down by increasingly sophisticated anti-drone technologies, including electronic warfare systems and dedicated anti-aircraft weapons.
2. Limited Payload and Range: Compared to traditional artillery, drones typically have a limited payload capacity, meaning they can carry fewer weapons or sensors. Their operational range may also be limited, depending on their design and the technology used.
3. Weather and Environmental Limitations: Drones can be more sensitive to adverse weather conditions than artillery, potentially limiting their operational use in certain environments or requiring more robust designs that increase costs.
4. Regulatory and Ethical Considerations: The use of armed drones raises complex legal and ethical questions, particularly regarding their use in populated areas or against non-state actors, which can limit their deployment.
5. Logistical and Maintenance Challenges: Deploying a fleet of drones requires a logistical and maintenance infrastructure that can be challenging to establish and sustain, particularly for nations without existing capabilities or the industrial base to support drone operations.

Conclusion

While drones offer significant advantages in modern warfare, particularly in terms of precision, versatility, and reducing risk to personnel, they are not a complete substitute for artillery. Artillery brings its own set of advantages, including the ability to deliver large volumes of fire over a wide area and to operate in conditions where drones may be less effective. In practice, drones and artillery are often complementary, with drones providing intelligence, targeting, and precision strike capabilities, while artillery delivers sustained firepower and area denial.

Aircraft-fired missiles can indeed substitute for artillery in some roles, offering precision strikes against high-value targets and the ability to quickly engage targets at long ranges. They are particularly effective for targeted destruction and strategic bombings but less suited for sustained firepower and area denial due to higher costs and limited munitions compared to artillery’s continuous barrage capability. Some drones indeed have longer ranges than conventional artillery, allowing for strikes deep behind enemy lines without risking manned aircraft or ground forces. However, their effectiveness in sustained area denial is limited compared to traditional artillery’s capability to deliver prolonged, high-volume fire.

Drones can be highly effective for counter-battery fire under certain conditions, particularly due to their precision, real-time intelligence, and surveillance capabilities. The ability to conduct precise strikes makes them valuable assets for targeting enemy artillery positions. Here’s an analysis of their effectiveness in such roles:

Advantages

1. Precision: Drones equipped with cameras and targeting systems can identify enemy artillery positions with high accuracy. When armed with precision-guided munitions, even a small payload can be devastating if it hits critical components of the artillery piece or its crew.
2. Stealth and Surprise: Smaller drones can approach targets with minimal detection, allowing them to get close to enemy positions for accurate targeting, increasing the chances of disabling or destroying artillery pieces before they can relocate.
3. Real-time Intelligence: Drones can provide live feedback to command centers, allowing for quick adjustment of tactics based on the evolving situation on the ground. This capability is critical for counter-battery operations, where timely strikes can prevent the enemy from firing.
4. Reduced Risk: Using drones for counter-battery fire minimizes the risk to human soldiers, as they can be operated from safe distances, away from the direct threat of enemy artillery.

Limitations

1. Payload Limitations: Many drones, especially smaller ones, have limited payload capacities. This means they can carry only small explosives, which may not guarantee the complete destruction of well-protected artillery pieces, though they can damage, disable, or destroy more exposed or lightly armored targets.
2. Operational Range and Endurance: The effectiveness of drones is also limited by their operational range and flight endurance. Drones need to be launched from locations that allow them to reach enemy positions and return, which might limit their use in deep counter-battery operations without advanced logistics and support.
3. Countermeasures: Modern militaries are increasingly equipped with anti-drone technologies, including jamming systems, direct-energy weapons, and kinetic interceptors, which can reduce the effectiveness of drone-based counter-battery fire.
4. Environmental Conditions: Adverse weather and environmental conditions can affect drone operations more significantly than traditional artillery, potentially limiting their use in certain situations.

Conclusion

Drones offer a complementary capability for counter-battery fire, especially in scenarios where precision is required, and the risk to human operators needs to be minimized. They are particularly suited for identifying and targeting exposed or lightly armored artillery pieces. However, drones are part of a broader set of tools for counter-battery operations, with traditional artillery radars, electronic warfare systems, and other sensors playing critical roles in detecting and neutralizing enemy artillery. The most effective approach often involves a combination of these assets, leveraging the unique advantages of each.

Adopting a strategy involving large numbers of low-cost, smallish drones for one-way missions to target and destroy enemy artillery could significantly alter the dynamics of counter-battery warfare. By focusing on volume and expendability, such drones could offer a cost-effective means to neutralize artillery positions, emphasizing the trade-off between the lower cost of drones and the higher value of artillery assets. This approach would necessitate advancements in drone production capabilities, aiming for a balance between affordability and effectiveness to sustain operational demands.

Your example illustrates a cost-effective strategy where a numerical advantage in inexpensive drones could potentially neutralize more expensive artillery assets while also imposing personnel risks on the opposing force. This approach leverages asymmetry in cost and risk, suggesting a shift towards more unconventional warfare tactics where affordability and expendability of drones offer a strategic advantage in degrading enemy artillery capabilities and affecting crew safety, without incurring high costs.

Absolutely, the strategic use of drones extends beyond targeting artillery guns. Their versatility allows for prioritization based on tactical needs, whether that’s engaging troop concentrations, disrupting supply lines by hitting munitions depots, immobilizing military vehicles, or neutralizing opposing drones. The decision on which targets to prioritize would depend on the operational objectives, the immediate tactical situation, and the potential to impact the adversary’s capabilities and morale, all while considering the cost-benefit analysis of each drone mission.

Your strategy emphasizes the importance of maximizing available resources and safeguarding valuable military assets and personnel in situations where ammunition scarcity limits artillery usage. Redeploying or concealing artillery assets to prevent them from becoming targets while they’re not actively contributing to operations could indeed be a prudent approach, allowing forces to preserve their strength for when they can be most effective. This kind of tactical adjustment reflects adaptive warfare strategies, focusing on resource management and operational flexibility in response to changing conditions on the ground.

Reassigning artillery crews to drone operations could be a strategic adaptation, allowing for continued engagement with enemy forces through alternative means. This not only preserves valuable artillery assets but also maintains operational pressure on the adversary. Utilizing the crews’ combat experience and tactical knowledge in drone operations could enhance the effectiveness of drone missions, offering a versatile and responsive capability in the absence of sufficient artillery munitions.

Indeed, engaging in drone warfare could enrich artillery crews with additional tactical knowledge and skills, potentially enhancing their effectiveness upon returning to traditional artillery operations. This cross-training approach not only diversifies the military capabilities of the units but also fosters adaptability and innovation within the armed forces, enabling them to respond more effectively to evolving battlefield conditions and challenges.

Absolutely, such strategic flexibility could indeed confuse and surprise adversaries, potentially leading them to overestimate the size and capabilities of Ukrainian forces. Adapting tactics in this way not only conserves resources but also plays into psychological warfare, affecting enemy planning and morale.

That’s a strategic approach that leverages international cooperation for mutual benefit. Sharing drone technology with allies in exchange for a portion of the production could significantly enhance Ukraine’s operational capabilities by increasing the volume of drones available for deployment. This would not only bolster Ukraine’s military efforts but also provide allies with valuable assets for their own defense needs, fostering a collaborative defense ecosystem against common threats.

Establishing Ukraine as an R&D center for small drone technology and other asymmetric warfare tools could significantly enhance collective defense capabilities. This role would leverage Ukraine’s front line experience and technological innovations, providing allies with cutting-edge solutions while offering Ukraine robust support and resources. Such collaboration aligns with Ukraine’s allies’ strategic interests in bolstering defenses against common threats, fostering a symbiotic relationship that enhances security and technological advancement across the alliance.

*****

Kenneth J. Dillon is a historical and scientific researcher in Washington DC.  See his biosketch.