Drones vs fighter aircrafts: The economics and strategy of modern warfare

Indian Express

14-05-2025

Written by Adya Madhavan
Last week, the world paid careful attention to the air clashes between India and Pakistan. The international interest did not stem from purely altruistic concern. Governments everywhere are keen to understand how weapons systems actually perform in the unpredictable chaos of combat.
Attritable weapons that are cheaper and more expendable, such as various kinds of unmanned aerial vehicles, appear to be playing a key role. Aerial combat and attacks that were once spearheaded by sophisticated combat aircraft have now evolved to make room for the humble drone. The major use of drones and their detonating cousins (loitering munitions) in the recent conflict between India and Pakistan and other conflicts of today, marks a gradual shift from relying solely on costly aircraft towards cheaper equipment with more limited capabilities.
This raises some obvious questions: Are these systems really cheap enough to purchase in large numbers? And does their use in larger numbers compensate for the capabilities of more sophisticated pieces of military technology?
When it comes down to price, the cost of a Rafael is about $285 million while the Elbit Skystriker, a loitering munition used by India against Pakistan costs merely $105,000. This makes cheaper munitions lucrative for militaries looking to perform aerial strikes. But this calculation doesn't make sense since munitions like the Skystriker are one-time use 'suicide' weapons that have no scope for being used multiple times.
The obvious advantage of all kinds of uncrewed systems is the absence of a human pilot, allowing them to perform risky operations without the gamble of a human life. Training pilots on uncrewed systems is typically cheaper and in the event that UAVs are shot down, pilots are not lost with them. However, the higher the number of uninhibited platforms used, the more remote pilots needed operating them remotely – thus offsetting some of the cost advantages.
However, this is a trade-off, since most UAVs are dependent on some form of communication with operators – be it radio frequency communication or SATCOM or any other system – which make them vulnerable to interference, interception and signal jamming. Systems which do have some degree of autonomy and operate in limited contexts, are widely touted for increasing precision and operational efficiency. On the flipside, they also risk accidentally misidentifying targets, resulting in civilian casualties and consequently causing inadvertent escalation.
When it comes to sheer capabilities, as of now, advanced fighter jets continue to outperform at least the more rudimentary UAVs. For instance, the Rafael can carry external payloads of up to 9,500 kg and is capable of reaching a maximum speed of Mach 1.8. Meanwhile the Israeli Harop – a loitering munition used by India can carry a 23 kg warhead, and reach a speed of 417 kmph. These UAVs and munitions are not designed to replace fighter aircraft, but for precision strikes in environments that do not require complex context-based decision making. More evolved armed UAVs like the MQ 9-B that India is purchasing from the United States are relatively more capable, but these are seldom used as frequently as some of their cheaper counterparts.
While their ability to loiter gives drones and UAVs some flexibility while they identify and zero in on targets, they must still act rapidly enough to avoid enemy air defences. Their advantage lies in their ability to perform reconnaissance, and unlike crewed aircraft, countries are more than willing to expend a few of them in order to gain a better understanding of enemy landscape. Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) platforms, such as Israel's Heron TP, are useful for reconnaissance missions given their long endurance and ability to fly above commercial air traffic. MALE UAVs can also be used for risky operations such as the suppression of enemy air defences.
As for their effectiveness for strike operations, these attritable aircraft may not deliver high weapons payloads, but they seem to crudely 'do the job' when the objective is to damage infrastructure and attack terrorist bases. When enemy air defences engage them, many of these UAVs appear to be easy to take down, considering their limited speed and service ceiling, but given their lower costs, countries are more than willing to put them at risk in order to try and achieve their military objectives.
In the coming years, the rapidly advancing landscape of military tech will likely see an increase in the development of more sophisticated UAVs, which may be more capable of acting as pseudo-aircraft. Future warfare is likely to see developments such as uncrewed collaborative combat aircraft that can work in tandem with manned aircraft. Going forward, as the character of warfare changes, it is imperative for India to build its own fleets of jet-powered unmanned aerial vehicles to remain technologically competitive and avoid foreign dependence in a time of changing global dynamics.
The writer is a policy researcher at the Takshashila Institution