Drone Challenge – Training Riposte

The adoption of uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) such as the MQ-9 Reaper continues but this family of weapon platforms has now grown to include ‘hobbyist’ drones. Such systems create a demand for effective training both for users and those trying to counter them.

In 1953, the British military strategist Basil Liddle-Hart said that “…the most epoch-making changes in history [are] determined by changes in weapons and tactics – especially the latter.” Never has this observation been truer than when considering the growing adoption of UAVs and the tactics needed to counter them. The arrival of platforms such as the US General Atomics MQ-1 Predator in the mid-1990s and Elbit Hermes 450 in 2003 marked a transition process where UAVs acquired an attack capability to supplement their original reconnaissance and surveillance functions. Such platforms have been increasingly adopted by national air forces all around the world.

More recently technologies, most notably GPS, more powerful processing, miniaturised high-resolution optics and guidance systems have become more widely available to enable the construction of lower-cost UAVs. These systems are being used by state and non-state actors alike to create an arsenal of both reusable attack UAVs and disposable loitering munitions (often called ‘kamikaze drones’), that are being deployed in conflicts around the world. They are cheap, easy to produce and creating “epoch-making changes” to tactics and military doctrines throughout the world by providing a kinetic air power asset to all.

Such systems were first brought to the public’s eye in 2019 when Houthi rebels used ‘drones’ to attack oil refineries in Saudi Arabia. The following year drones were used to great effect in the Nagorno-Karabakh War. The expansion in the use of such systems is evidenced in current conflicts, notably in the Red Sea and Ukraine. This adoption and the need to counter these platforms has serious implications for training.

In the Red Sea, Houthi rebels are using Iran Aircraft Manufacturing Industries Corporation (HESA) drones to attack shipping. HESA also supplies a number of platforms to Russia that are being used in Ukraine alongside Russian manufactured platforms. Compared to major UAVs such as the Hermes 900, MQ-9 Reaper or RQ-4 Global Hawk, HESA’s Shahed-136 and Samad-3 are presenting lower-level but still significant threats. Other threats are presented by so-called ‘hobbyist’ platforms such as the Chinese manufactured First-Person View (FPV) Mavic and Matrice drones. Costing anything from hundreds to a few thousand dollars, these platforms are causing losses to armoured vehicles, air defence systems and parked aircraft that run into millions of dollars.

This feature will address three components of the training challenges that are being generated by this growth of UAVs. The first is the training that is available for mainstream or conventional UAVs; the second for the FPV/Mavic-type family of drones and finally, for counter-drone operations.

Mainstream training

Although the world’s media is highlighting the proliferation and capabilities of the ‘hobbyist’ kamikaze drone, mainstream platforms such as the MQ-9, RQ-4 and Hermes 900 should not be forgotten. These systems have a major impact “at the tactical, operational and strategic levels of military engagement,” Jim Chittenden, CAE’s Director of Strategic Business Development told ESD. The frequent need to transition between these levels during the same mission adds another layer of complexity to the training requirement.

“Historically, the RPA [remotely piloted aircraft] crew was seen as the pilot and sensor operator – specifically tasked with controlling and operating the aircraft and its systems,” explained Chittenden. “Now, RPAs are completely integrated into the intel and C2 operational structure. Personnel in those fields using and exploiting the fruits of the RPA crew’s labour are, by extension, part of the operational RPA crew” and this generates a requirement for more inclusive collective training.

This demand for a holistic UAV training environment has also been identified by the UK’s Inzpire that has been providing UAV training for over 10 years. In addition to supplying its own platform specific Compact Agile Simulator Equipment (CASE) training devices the company started to offer “theory-based foundation courses for RPAS/UAS [remotely piloted aerial system/uncrewed aerial system] education and UAS integration for collective training,” explained Andy Bain, Head of Inzpire’s ISR Division. With the UAV “market exponentially growing” the company has increased “its team of experts and [is] diversifying to bring in tactical experience from the land and maritime domains.”

Bain also notes that with nations procuring smaller UAVs – the so-called Small Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (SUAV) platforms such as SilentEyes and ScanEagle – “the need for training services has increased. Where experience is limited, there is a training need.” This is reflected in the work conducted by the company for a number of customers including the British Army, Latvian Air Force and Belgian Ministry of Defence (MoD).

Paradoxically, Bain highlights that although there is currently an upwards trend in UAV training, “increased reliance on autonomy and, to an extent, the integration of AI in the future” could lead to a situation where “UAS could be handled by individuals who are less skilled in manual UAS operation,” therefore reducing the amount of training required. “This could sound like a downturn in training requirements, but with the expected increase in UAS applications, the need for training will remain high.”

Another tactic that could increase UAV training requirements is the use of surrogate unmanned platforms working in conjunction with manned aircraft. The Airbus-led Future Combat Air System (FCAS) provides such an example. “Looking to the future, this will certainly extend to the development and employment of Collaborative Combat Aircraft – which will have various elements of automated and remotely piloted capabilities,” opined CAE’s Chittenden.

Training for the world’s major UAV platforms are either conducted by the manufacturer, by the military in conjunction with a contractor or by a designated training service provider. One of the largest and most experienced users of UAVs is the US Department of Defense (DoD) and in particular, the US Air Force (USAF). The major training load for its MQ-9 crews is undertaken at Holloman Air Force Base (AFB) in New Mexico, home of the MQ-9 Formal Training Unit (FTU) where training is provided by the USAF in conjunction with a commercial contractor. The current industrial incumbent is Crew Training International Inc. which took over from CAE in 2019.

Although Holloman, along with its satellite facilities at Creech AFB, March Air Reserve Base and Hancock Field Air National Guard Base, provide the USAF with its core MQ-9 training capabilities, the “dilapidated” and “structurally unsound” facilities at Holloman have been criticised over many years. This has resulted in the decision to replace the current FTU buildings, and this programme is nearing contract award. As the world’s leading exponent of UAVs, the USAF continues to face a number of training shortfalls, most notably, the need to train sufficient aircrew to operate its UAV fleet. In basic terms this training pipeline has seen students’ complete initial flight training on the Diamond DA-20 aircraft before undertaking an RPA Instrument Flight Qualification Course.

This is followed by an RPA Fundamentals course that introduces students to planning operational missions and operating the platform prior to attending the FTU at Holloman for the MQ-9 or Beale AFB for the RQ-4. The USAF is now amalgamating the instrument and fundamentals courses into a single course under the banner of the RPA Learning Next. The aim of the new course “is to create a competency-based training concept where instruction is driven by the student’s capabilities and instructional needs. Instead of the entire class moving through the course together, some students may transition through the pipeline quicker and others may stay longer if needed to adequately develop their skills,” explained Delaware Resource Group that is working closely with the USAF on this initiative.

One of the leading providers of UAV training is CAE. Cutting its teeth at Holloman on the MQ-9, the company has now expanded its MQ-9 training footprint as the training partner for the platform’s designer and manufacturer, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI). CAE supplements GA-ASI’s Flight Test and Training Center (FTTC) in Grand Forks, North Dakota and has built turnkey MQ-9 training centres in Italy, UAE, UK and in the future, Canada.

CAE’s efforts are mirrored by Elbit in training crews for its Hermes 450 and 900 platforms. The company produces its own virtual simulators that are available in “two configurations: a dedicated training-only version…a high-end Mission Simulator (MISSIM), and an embedded version on the real console, that is switchable between training and flight-operation modes, the Embedded Operator Proficiency Trainer (EOPT),” explained company spokesperson, Nimrod Karmi. These simulators are used for familiarisation training that the company provides at its factory in Israel or at the customer’s facilities. More complex tactical training for the integration of UAVs into the wider battlespace is provided at the IDF’s UAV Mission Training Center at Palmachim airbase.

Drone wars

Current conflicts in Ukraine and in the Middle East have highlighted the growing use of the FPV drone, a cheap and easily available platform that with modification can become a credible weapon delivery device or surveillance asset. The sheer scale of this market can be gauged by Ukrainian President Zelensky’s widely reported call in the media in December 2023 for one million such devices to enter service in 2024. This has major implications for training and has driven the creation of the Ukrainian ‘Army of Drones’ programme to train upwards of 10,000 drone operators.

Training drone pilots in Ukraine is challenging and varies according to the model of drone and mission profile. One of the established training centres is Ukraine’s ‘Dronarium’. By early 2024, this organisation had graduated over 7,000 drone pilots from its training facilities in Kyiv and Lviv with an additional 500 students graduating every month. The Dronarium is supplemented by around 30 additional training facilities – such as those provided by Victory Drones and Kruk – that offer courses lasting a few days to a few weeks depending on the complexity of the drone platform and its mission profile.

The procurement of drones and the training provided in Ukraine is mainly generated by crowd funding and one of the training facilities created by this initiative is the Army Drone School (ADS). According to ADS, “Drone School specialises in training [the] military who go on the front line in two weeks to combat operations. Training is conducted in small groups with an emphasis on quality training, practise and flying. The theory is also kept to a minimum.”

The ADS has graduated approaching 400 drone pilots and offers a number of different courses. The basic course teaches how to fly a drone, operating in ECM environments and some basic military skills such as camouflage and concealment. The advanced course is aimed at pilots who have completed an operational tour and focuses on dropping ordnance, using thermal imagers, directing artillery fire and advanced tactics.

The final offering that is provided by the ADS is the FPV impact course for the so-called ‘kamikaze’ drones. According to ADS, “the training consists of several weeks of theory and a minimum of 20 hours of practice on the simulator.”

The threat from the FPV drone is significant and its use in Ukraine may be viewed as a warfighting game-changer. This is not only because this new medium provides its users with a low-cost air power capability that can undertake reconnaissance, surveillance and kinetic attack, but that such low-cost systems can destroy enemy weapon systems costing millions of dollars more than the attacking drone. The cost of training FPV pilots is also many orders of magnitude cheaper than training crews for conventional weapons. According to Ukraine’s Minister of Digital Transformation, Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukrainian drones had destroyed 1,280 “pieces” of Russian equipment over three months in late 2023, including 246 MBTs, 69 self-propelled artillery vehicles and 75 air defence system components.

Training to counter

Conventional UAVs are countered by using current air defence weapons but smaller FPV platforms present different challenges. As well as their reduced radar cross section, these devices use concealment to approach their targets. The main counter is to jam the command signal and for more capable drones and loitering munitions, the satellite navigation source such as GLONASS.

As the use of UAVs and FPV drones has grown, so too has the adoption of counter-UAV systems. Last year, Elbit sold its ReDrone system to the Netherlands as part of a USD 55 million contract that also included training. The system comprises Elbit’s DAiR radar, SIGINT sensors and the COAPS-L optronic sight as well as jammers.

Systems such as ReDrone and the Ukrainian Piranha 20BSP are automated and require very little training, but in the US, counter-UAV training and awareness is being taught at all levels. In 2023 a counter-UAV academy opened at Fort Sill, Oklahoma “to train soldiers on how to effectively defend against the rapidly-evolving threat of drones.” Training here covers ‘soft-kill’ systems such as ReDrone and ‘hard-kill’ systems that detect and then kinetically engage the target. An exemplar of the latter is provided by the Israeli company Sharpshooter with its Smash Hopper system.

“We don’t have five years to wait for the perfect system. We have to rapidly innovate with what’s possible now and keep getting better, because even when we figure it out, they’re going to make a countermove,” Army Futures Command’s Gen James Rainey said. The aim is to graduate 1,000 soldiers each year from the Joint Counter Small Unmanned Aircraft University that can then provide counter-drone experience at unit level.

The US Army is also conducting counter-UAV exercises with its allies. The most recent were carried out in Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Korea. The latter exercise included using the DroneDefender jamming system and according to US Eighth Army’s Maj Joshua Gompert “this combined and joint experimentation will increase the readiness and interoperability of the ROK-US Combined Joint Force.”

As this feature has shown, the growth of UAVs and hobbyist drones converted for military roles have expanded exponentially. This has resulted in an increased focus on training platform operators as well as soldiers to counter such threats. In addition to providing ‘air power to all,’ these technologies are causing military forces to redefine tactics and operational doctrine.

Author: Following a career in the British Army specialising in air defence, Trevor Nash (PhD) spent four years in the training & simulation industry before becoming defence journalist concentrating on training, simulation technology and air power studies.