Heavy Turkish drone presence over Syria

If we can see the drones on this website why doesn’t Assad just have someone watching it 24/7?

Interesting, the difference in approach between the US and Turkey with regards to design of their drones. The US want deniability and long endurance for the War on Terror. Turkey on the other hand doesn’t seem to mind who knows they’re throwing their weight around.

The difference in requirement means they can build cheaper drones and simply build replacements. This would also lend itself to rapid ongoing development as you simply replace the ones you lose with improved versions. Cheaper also means more units which gives you force depth, something the UK could do with.

I would suggest that the UK need a mix of drone types. US style systems so we can contribute and support the US / NATO where we need to, and simpler cheaper designs we can use in situations that do not require the apparently sneaky and expensive stealth drones. Sometimes is pays to be openly threatening, other times you need to be more sneaky about your threats…

Cheers CR

The issue with drones is that they take time, money and resources to target and knockout. If we are talking about the larger drones, i.e. those generally that are fixed wing and not quad-copters etc. Then these are controlled via data-link either through a satellite relay or from direct line of sight. Either method makes it harder for your opponent to jam, as they have to be nearby or preferably between the transmitter and receiver to overpower the transmit signal with white noise or find some way to hack the control signal. Furthermore, there are only a few countries with the ability of knocking out satellites. So that leaves the direct kinetic method for everybody else.

Depending on the size of the drone and the engine it uses, they can be quite difficult to pick up at a suitable distance on infra-red sensors, due to a number of factors, such as clouds, rain etc. Which leaves radar as the best method for longer distance detection. High frequency radars will have a much better ability compared to lower frequency radars. As the drone is invariably made from shaped foam covered with fibreglass. The radar’s transmitted wave will generally pass straight through these airframes, giving them a very small radar cross section. Thus, you are reliant on higher frequency radars radiating off the metal components that are used to join the drone’s parts together, wiring, metal leading edge strips on propellers, the engine etc.

Then you have to find a method of taking out these types of drone. A Predator that flies between 2500 (0.8km) to 5000ft (1.5km) could be hit by a HMG, but something like the Reaper which flies above 8000ft (2.4km) or Protector that flies at 50,000ft (15km) will need something much more sophisticated. Warrior and Ajax using the CTA40mm autocannon with an elevation of +75 degrees, could be used in this low to medium altitude role, as it has an effective range around 4km. But then they would need a sensor that can search for and track the drone?

The short range air defence (SHORAD) system the Army uses is Starstreak 2. This can either be a single/triple MANPAD unit or the octuple mount as used on Stormer. This relies on a form of semi active command line of sight (SACLOS) missile guidance. Whereby two lasers paint a grid over the target and the operator keeps the target marked by some cross hairs. The missile uses a command guidance signal to make sure it stays within the laser grid heading towards the target. The Stormer has the air defence alerting device (ADAD). This is a passive imaging infrared system and gives the vehicle a 360 degree search and track sensor. Again, the operator still has to maintain contact on the target, through an electro-optical lens. The ADAD was an early iteration of the Typhoon’s Pirate IRST, but only operates in the one band rather than two. It will suffer the same issues all IR based detection systems have, with obscurants such as rain, clouds etc. The Starstreak 2 is more than adequate at taking out a medium altitude (sub 10km) drone just not the high altitude ones.

Which leaves us with Sky Sabre. The Sea Ceptor/Sky Sabre missile has range greater than 25km. It can engage targets higher than 50,000ft. However, it is a missile designed to engage highly manoeuvrable targets and be resistant to countermeasures. Therefore, it costs a lot.

As both Russia and Syria have found, there is a substantial cost in taking out these types of drone. Because they fly above the effective range of self propelled anti-aircraft guns (SPAAG). Drones like the Turkish TB2s require a missile to knock them down. Russia have been bragging recently that they shot down 19 TB2 type drones, using their Panstir system. But if a surface to air missile costs say £200K plus (guessimate), whilst the drone is only £100K, who is actually the winner? Yes, Turkey have lost a large number of hunter-killer surveillance drones, but Russia/Syria has forked out considerably more financially! Which is easier and cheaper to replace?

This is probably the reason why Russia has developed the 2S38 Dervaciya PVO SPAAG system. This is a weapon system that uses the BMP3 chassis, but mounts a 57mm auto-cannon, firing its 148 rounds at a rate of 120 rounds per minute, with an effective range of 6km. Unlike the Panstir, it doesn’t have surface to air missiles, for engaging targets at a longer distance. This SPAAG system doesn’t compare well to the BAe 57mm Mk110 system, which has an effective low level engagement range of around 8km. It also only uses programable proximity fused shells. Whereas the BAe gun can use the Ordinance for Rapid Kill of Attack Craft (OKRA) shell. This is a guided round that uses semi-active laser illumination to home in on, where BAe state it gives the weapon “a one shot, one kill” ability.

However, this 57mm/OKRA system is still really effective for sub 30,000ft (9.1km) targets. What is needed is a cheap, relatively unsophisticated surface to air missile. At the moment most drones will follow a route dictated by waypoints, with a ground operator monitoring its path. They don’t for instance vary their height much when flying this route. This certainly don’t fly evasive manoeuvres when near the target or use countermeasures. Therefore, the missile doesn’t need to be highly manoeuvrable, or use multi-band sensors to counteract jamming and decoys. It could be based on a CVR-7 or advanced precision kill weapons system (APWS) style unguided rocket. Both of these rockets when fitted with a semi-active laser seeker and paired with a guidance kit have shown they can hit moving ground targets. Both of these weapons have also shown during trials that they can engage drones, when launched from an aircraft. The problem they have is their relatively short range of around 16,4000ft (5000m) depending on the aircraft launch platform. To reach a higher altitude from ground level, they will need a much larger rocket engine.

What the modified un-guided rocket does show, is what is feasible with a modest outlay. A surface to air missile based around this concept, would be significantly cheaper for engaging medium to high altitude drones than a dedicated anti-missile missile like SeaCeptor/SkySabre. Yet, also cheaper than Starstreak at engaging lower altitude drones, leaving SeaCeptor/SkySabre or Starstreak for higher performance threats. Thus, Keep It Simple Stupid!