An Ukrainian serviceman examines a drone at a military training ground in the Zaporizhzhia region, Ukraine, on March 13.
| Photo Credit: AP
The story so far:
The sight of two Chinese Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) over waters near Okinawa recently had Japan scrambling to pursue them. Yet, the level of alarm was considerably lower than what it would have been if the People’s Liberation Army Air Force’s piloted aircraft had been sighted near Japanese airspace. Arguably, in most cases, UAVs are seen as less of a threat than a fighter jet in the same context.
Why are UAVs seen as less of a threat?
Many features factor into this perception. UAVs are, by and large, less dangerous, since even those UAVs that are capable of carrying weapon payloads are still less capable than fighter jets; a large proportion of UAVs are not armed and serve surveillance and reconnaissance purposes. Additionally, the lack of direct human presence makes them seem like less of an instrument of state power. By virtue of being unmanned, sending a UAV for a reconnaissance mission seems like a low-hanging fruit, where the mission may be just as effective without endangering human life, or risking an expensive inhabited aircraft. Even if UAVs are downed by enemy forces, they seem less of a burden financially.
Are there recent examples of this?
Instances of drones being shot down and met with a relatively restrained response are examples of this. For instance, in 2019 an American surveillance drone was shot down by Iran over the Strait of Hormuz using an Iranian surface-to-air missile. The Iranians called it an act of self-defence as the drone, they said, was within their airspace, while the U.S. claimed it was flying over international waters. Tensions were already high then, and U.S. President Trump ordered a strike, but it was soon aborted. Although U.S. forces maintained readiness in the region, no overt military retaliation occurred. Similarly, when Russia brought down an American MQ-9 Reaper UAV in 2023 there was no major retaliation.
While this perceived lower level of threat can prevent actions from resulting in conventional warfare, it can also indirectly encourage risk-taking behaviours. While countries would not typically be willing to infiltrate another country’s airspace or fly close to foreign territories in a fighter jet, the costs of losing an unmanned aircraft are lower and therefore countries are more willing to utilise them for such missions. Given that UAVs are also met with less drastic forms of retaliation, countries can see them as an easy way to perform actions that they would not otherwise.
What are the repercussions for India?
The challenge for India is to figure out how to effectively deal with UAVs, especially in relation to its neighbouring countries. In the case of Pakistan, smaller propeller-powered UAVs are often used to transport arms and drugs across the border, with the Pakistani government not taking accountability. India will need to figure out how to deal with such incursions without utilising expensive missiles to bring them down like it did in 2019. Air-to-air missiles like the one India used via a Su-30 in 2019 are far more expensive than the dual-use UAVs they are used to bring down. Pakistan has not taken any major retaliatory actions when India has shot down UAVs. Similarly, Bangladesh recently deployed Turkish Bayraktar TB-2 UAVs near the Indian border for surveillance. In the case of larger fixed-wing UAVs like the Bayraktar TB-2, which is akin to most inhabited military aircraft in terms of size and endurance, in the unlikely event that it ventures into Indian airspace, given the lower associated level of threat, India will have to figure out how to address the issue without risking further escalation.
As UAVs become integrated with military operations, Indian military strategy will have to evolve accordingly.
Adya Madhavan is a researcher at the Takshashila Institution.
Published – March 20, 2025 08:30 am IST
