Elon Musk, a daily fixture of the news cycle, recently sparked a fierce debate with his comments on the future of aerial warfare. He called the manufacturers of the F-35 (the most advanced fighter jet in the world) “idiots,” tweeting a video of a large drone swarm manoeuvring through the air in synch. He claimed manned fighter jets were now obsolete since drones, particularly small ones coordinated in large numbers, could do their job instead.
As expected, his scathing remarks were met with polarization rather than analysis. One side of the media was quick to claim he had no clue what he was talking about and that jet fighters were indispensable. The other lauded his courage and foresight for speaking against established norms in the military-industrial complex. While neither side is totally correct, the issue does reveal many of the challenges ahead in calibrating tech strategy, not just for the USA but for the world at large, including rising powers like India.
The crux of Musk’s claim is not really that controversial. It is unanimously accepted that the future of aviation is unmanned flight. Nations that can afford it have already begun integrating drone applications into their warfare strategies, and the leading manufacturers are all investing heavily in research. Musk overreaches in his assertion that drones can replace fighter jets, which is simply not true. While most agree that this transition will eventually happen, that day remains to be seen.
For example, modern battlefields see a lot of electronic warfare, where both sides actively use jammers to disrupt the enemy. Most quadcopter drones are taken out quite easily by jammer guns, which electromagnetically sever radio and GPS signals, forcing a crash land. One can get around this problem by using wire-guided or AI-guided drones, but recent developments in laser tech, especially prototypes like the Leonidas, already show how easy it will soon be for nations to zap down swarms of drones into piles of ashes. Even primitive countermeasures like throwing nets are sometimes effective against drones.
Manned 5th-generation fighter jets, like the F-35, on the other hand, can easily bypass these defences. Israel’s attack on Iran in October highlights this, where an Israeli F-35 successfully struck deep into Iranian territory without any losses, neutralizing Iranian air defences (such as the Russian-supplied S-300) quite easily. Not even the most fanatical drone proponents would argue that a similar 1000-mile mission into heavily armed enemy territory would be possible with drone swarms anytime soon.
Smaller drones like Musk showcased are designed to work at low altitudes and short ranges. Even a deployment of about 40 kilometers is considered long-range for cheaper drones. Thus, the operators would have to venture inside enemy territory to strike targets deep within physically. On the other hand, a fighter jet could easily hit targets hundreds of kilometers away. Due to their lower altitudes, small drones are also easier to spot, while fifth-generation stealth fighters are notoriously hard to identify.
Moreover, the actual destructive capacity of smaller drones, even when used in large swarms, is still nothing compared to that of the latest jets. They do not carry enough explosive material to remove infrastructure like buildings or bridges. Importantly, they cannot take out underground bunkers, such as what Israel had to dismantle in its offensive against Hamas. While drone swarms are effective in urban warfare where your adversary’s anti-air capabilities are limited, their utility in grander operations against more sophisticated systems remains poor.
It is thus clear that drone swarms’ defences, range, and destructive potential are still far inferior to fighter jets’, rendering the debate moot. Drones cannot be used for geopolitical power projection like jets can; simply consider how Taiwan scrambles whenever China deploys its jets in a provocative manner. However, there are important lessons to learn from Musk’s claims.
Firstly, it highlights the dichotomy between tech innovation and military reality. Like most tech moguls, Elon Musk is focused on the future and possibilities. To him, unmanned airpower is the future and great innovations are on the verge of breaking into the market, which makes all the money spent on ‘outdated’ technology like manned aircraft an idiotic waste of time. We will soon see drones doing everything a fighter jet can, so why waste billions of dollars on them?
It is a fair point from his perspective. However, military reality operates in what is available, not what is possible. No nation can gamble that a certain technology will emerge in the future, no matter how likely or safe that gamble appears to be. The fact that everyone agrees AI will eventually replace a human pilot cannot be a reason for any air force to abandon human pilots today. They must wait until a prototype proves the thesis right. Nations need to budget and allocate equipment based on what is tangibly available in their hands, not predictions.
Secondly, the debate showcases the potential pitfalls of involving private entrepreneurs in grand “government efficiency” type schemes. Musk will soon be in charge of attempts to streamline the US federal government and remove inefficiencies. He considers manned aircraft inefficient today despite the reasons listed above. He is either misinformed about the limitations of drone swarms or even ignorant of them. Or perhaps, as an AI entrepreneur, he sees the need for military technology to be fast-tracked towards AI dependence. Either way, an entrepreneur and a strategist may have overlapping interests but do not always reach the same conclusions.
Lastly, it also shows how our bias towards the current state of war can often create misconceptions about the overall state of warfare. The current Russia-Ukraine war has dominated headlines for nearly three years, and it is indeed true that drones have revolutionized warfighting there. Most of us who follow the latest developments are made hyper-aware of how genuinely game-changing FPV drones, in particular, have been on that front. However, to assume that drones will play a similarly pivotal role in every conflict, as Elon Musk seems to, would be a huge mistake.
The urban terrain, logistical challenges, and command structures of the Russia-Ukraine war have made cheap drones such a desired weapon. Both sides have had to resort to low-cost, mobility-oriented methods. The Ukrainians need mass drones because they do not have access to large squadrons of 5th-generation fighter jets. The Russians need mass drones because they have seen how disastrous the loss of expensive jets was in the early days of this war.
Neither side is touting drones as replacements for advanced aircraft. In fact, despite tactics like kamikaze and grenade-dropping drones, most unmanned vehicles are still used primarily for ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance) missions instead.
For nations around the world looking to scale up their military power, it is important to strike the right balance between projection and availability, between cost and utility. If even the USA can find itself in this conundrum, the same is true for the rest. Emerging powers like India, making fast gains in defence manufacturing, must be careful to avoid the pitfalls of misconception and overreliance on futurism.
After all, if we only built hammers, every problem would be like a nail.
Nilanthan Niruthan (Author teaches at the National Defence College, Sri Lanka)
