Drone victims: how to reduce losses among the population?

11
Over the past years, the Pentagon regularly reports on the destruction of militants and commanders of various armed formations. Often, unmanned aerial vehicles with a set of reconnaissance equipment and strike weapons are involved in such tasks. Such an approach to the elimination of important goals reduces the cost of performing tasks, as well as reduces the risk of loss of equipment and personnel. Nevertheless, the successful execution of combat missions using UAVs sometimes has tragic consequences.

Drone victims: how to reduce losses among the population?


The sinister back of the coin are civilian casualties. During the performance of any combat missions in the conditions of human settlements, the possibility of civilian deaths is never excluded. The practice of using a UAV to search for and destroy targets is completely within this terrible logic. During strikes against enemy targets, primarily various illegal armed groups, civilians who are not involved in the activities of such organizations are regularly killed and injured.

Mass use drones as a means of destroying enemy fighters began in the first years of the last decade, when official Washington declared war on international terrorism. Over time, UAVs became more and more widespread, and strike vehicles were increasingly used to eliminate certain targets. According to 2011 data, at least 30 leaders and about 1100-1800 ordinary militants were destroyed with the help of missiles launched from drones. Such figures became the reason for the appearance of numerous analytical articles in which UAVs were declared a unique and universal means of solving combat missions and eliminating these targets.

In 2011, the Military Review magazine published the article Death From Above. UAV and Losing the Hearts and Minds ("Death from above. UAV and the loss of hearts and minds"). The author of this publication, Jeffrey A. Sluka, cited some very interesting, but frightening numbers. He considered not only successful cases of use of UAVs, but also civilian casualties associated with the operation of such equipment. Identified figures describing casualties among the population are a cause for concern. Analysis of the results of the use of UAVs showed that this technique has insufficient efficiency and requires some modifications.

The author of the article in the Military Review recalled the statements of the Pentagon: For many years, US military officials have said that one of the foundations of combat work is the use of high-precision weapons, which allows you to eliminate terrorists with minimal damage to the civilian population, or even do without it. Indeed, in recent years, guided bombs and missiles have firmly taken their place in the nomenclature of weapons of the Air Force and aviation The US Navy, showing its capabilities in real conflict.

Jeffrey A. Sluka provided interesting numbers. So, from 14 January 2006 of the year to 8 of April 2009, the United States Air Force performed 60 air strikes using MQ-1 Predator drone on targets in Pakistan. However, only 10 attacks led to the elimination of the selected target. Thus, only 17% combat missions were completed. Simultaneously, unmanned missiles rocket 687 killed civilians. Thus, 10 targets (both individual warlords and militant groups) accounted for nearly seven hundred civilian casualties. In other words, on average one hit target had almost 70 dead or about 11-12 dead for each of the hits made. Not very high efficiency, at least in the destruction of terrorists.

Pakistan Body Count Pakistan’s human rights organization in spring 2011 of the year cited statistics for a longer period. From the start of operations with the use of UAVs and until May 2011, American drones killed 2205 civilians, another 909 man was injured. Any calculations of statistics or absolute and relative numbers show that the use of unmanned aerial vehicles with guided missiles is much less efficient than is commonly believed. Indeed, UAVs are capable of destroying these targets — individual militants, troops, transport, and objects — however, often such liquidations are associated with an unacceptably large number of casualties among the population.

It should be recalled that one of the main reasons for the emergence and subsequent development of unmanned aerial vehicles was the need to preserve the life and health of their pilots when performing complex tasks. UAVs do an excellent job with such tasks. Medium and heavy shock apparatus can be controlled from a distance of hundreds and thousands of kilometers, making the destruction of the command post is at least an extremely difficult task. Moreover, some opponents simply can not harm the operator of the unmanned complex.

Nevertheless, the convenience and safety of its specialists in practice is accompanied by an increased risk for the civilian population, which is clearly demonstrated by the loss figures in Pakistan. As a result, there is a need to take some measures that will reduce civilian casualties and increase the effectiveness of combat missions.

Despite a certain cynicism typical of the military when planning operations, it is necessary to do everything possible to reduce the number of victims among the population. This should be done not only for reasons of humanism, but also for strategic reasons. The fact is that a civilian who has lost as a result of hostilities - including a strike from a UAV - housing, relatives or friends, becomes an "easy target" for various adversary propagandists. After some processing, he can replenish the ranks of the enemy. Thus, the careless destruction of several militants may result in new additions to their group.

A good illustration of the risks associated with recruiting militants is the events of the fall of 2009. In October, the field commander Ghulam Yahya Akbari was killed by 2009 by American UAVs using guided missiles. About 5 thousand people came to his funeral. Thus, the death of only one member of an armed formation, even a high-ranking one, angered a large number of people. It is unlikely that anyone can say how many volunteers joined the ranks of the armed forces after the liquidation.

In the article Death From Above. UAV and Losing the Hearts and Minds also gives other interesting figures. At the end of 2008, American experts interrogated 42 captive Taliban fighters. As it turned out, 12 interrogated witnessed the death of their relatives during the rocket attack of the drone. Six more were not hit by the blows, but it was precisely because of such attacks that they decided to join the ranks of the armed formations. In addition, a large number of civilians, having survived the blow or become its witness, goes into the category of "sympathizers" and tries to provide support to the Taliban.

The question of reducing civilian casualties is currently relevant only for countries that have medium and heavy drone-purpose UAVs in service. In the future, similar problems may arise in other countries, including Russia. Thus, the Russian military is already required to take into account foreign experience and draw conclusions that may be useful in the future, when new threats arise. Such studies on the mistakes of others will avoid new problems in the operation of their unmanned systems.

Several factors have led to the death of the civilian population when trying to eliminate terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq. Perhaps the most important is the problem of finding and finding targets. When planning operations using UAVs, proper operation of intelligence services, including troop intelligence, as well as communications and control, is of great importance. Due to the coordinated work of different structures, it is possible not only to find the desired goal, but also to choose the optimal moment for an attack. It is not necessary to remind you that you should not launch a rocket-bomb strike on a target located among dense urban areas. The probability of its defeat in this case tends to zero, and the risk of killing non-involved persons and damaging the infrastructure, by contrast, is extremely high.

Thus, a special approach is required to identify the location of the target, followed by the selection of the most advantageous moment for an attack. Naturally, it is not always possible to catch the moment when the goal appears, as they say, in an open field and without protection. However, this does not mean that the strike should be immediately after the detection of the target.

The second problem, to a certain extent, relates to the first, but can be highlighted in a separate paragraph. Despite the development of observation tools, the drone operator still cannot receive a sufficiently high-quality image in high resolution. The field of view of optical-electronic systems is still too large, which makes it difficult to accurately identify objects or people. As a result, there remains the risk of an attack by civilian cars or houses taken as transport or enemy targets. The same problem exists with respect to the identification of individuals and groups of people.

Another controversial issue affecting the number of casualties and the extent of destruction concerns the ammunition used. The main strike vehicle of modern United States UAVs are AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles. Missiles of this type are equipped with cumulative and high-explosive fragmentation warheads weighing 8 kg. In certain situations, such as when shooting at a target in a locality, the power of such a warhead may be excessive to accomplish the task. As a result, unnecessary damage and civilian casualties are possible.

The modern development of means of guidance, providing the possibility of hitting small targets, allows us to expand the range of weapons drums UAV. For example, in recent years, several projects of promising guided missiles have been created in the United States based on the Hydra 70 unguided missile aggregates. Such weapons can hit targets at ranges up to 10-12 km with relatively high accuracy. New light guided missiles carry warheads weighing no more than 1-2 kg, which can significantly reduce collateral damage.

It should also be noted that new light missiles are mainly equipped with a laser guidance system and require third-party target designation. Thus, it becomes possible to increase the probability of correctly identifying a small target to a certain extent. To do this, there must be a reconnaissance group in its area, whose duties should include finding and highlighting detected targets. As a result, the likelihood of incorrect identification of objects or people due to insufficient characteristics of onboard UAV surveillance systems is reduced. The task of the drone operator in this case is only access to the specified area and the launch of the rocket on the marked target. This method of using unmanned vehicles has been used for a long time and has proven itself. However, it is not always possible to send a reconnaissance group to the area of ​​the intended target location.

It's no secret that almost all armed conflicts are accompanied by civilian casualties. A similar problem exists in the context of other operations with the use of various weapons. It is hardly possible to completely get rid of this problem, but there are techniques for reducing losses. According to some reports, in recent years, the effectiveness of the US UAVs in terms of the ratio of the liquidated militants and civilians killed has slightly improved. Nevertheless, the Pentagon has much to strive for and work on.

Due to the lack of medium and heavy drums of the UAV, similar to the American MQ-1 Predator, MQ-9 Reaper, etc., our country now has the opportunity to carefully study the foreign experience of operating such equipment and draw all the necessary conclusions. Due to this, in the future, new methods of using UAVs can appear, both independently and as part of various control and communication systems, aimed at improving the efficiency of performing tasks and reducing the attendant damage or losses among civilians. How exactly and in what conflicts of the future such techniques will be used - it is too early to speak. Nevertheless, it is already clear that in order to fully exploit the new technology, new methods and approaches are needed, corresponding to its tasks and features.



On the materials of the sites:
http://svpressa.ru/
http://bbc.co.uk/
http://нато.рф/
http://riss.ru/
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://defense-update.com/
http://designation-systems.net/
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

11 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    April 8 2015 07: 30
    It would be very humane to learn how to shoot them down.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. 0
      April 8 2015 08: 04
      Quote: revers-trotil
      It would be very humane to learn how to shoot them down.

      "Avtobaza" seems to be hawking them without frowning ... lol
      And if he has no appetite, then he makes "alaverdi" and sits down on the sinful earth for communication "tete-a-tete" ... Yes
      1. Ricard
        -1
        April 8 2015 21: 05
        Yes, you are simply Petrosyan ...
    3. +1
      April 9 2015 00: 04
      Humanely, I don’t know, but it would be wise to build the same drones as the United States. This one, which in the photo looks much more serious than the Russian or Belarusian devices that were written about in VO.
  2. 0
    April 8 2015 07: 37
    What loss reductions can we talk about? After all, they were originally created by the United States for war on foreign territory. These are indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction! Not much different from napalm and carpet bombing in Vietnam.
    1. Ricard
      -1
      April 8 2015 21: 07
      This is a high-precision weapon, and the fact that these osloeb their gangs are placed in residential quarters is a problem for sure not drones.
  3. +9
    April 8 2015 07: 42
    Nevertheless, the successful completion of combat missions using UAVs sometimes has tragic consequences. The sinister flip side of the coin is civilian casualties.

    And what is the interesting difference between killing civilians using UAVs or using classic aircraft? Is there really more opportunity for a pilot to discern who is walking next to the target than the UAV operator? Indeed, the means of detecting and identifying targets are exactly the same, moreover, the pilot who needs to control the plane needs to spend part of his attention on controlling the machine.
    It is impossible to prevent the death of non-combatants, because the terrorists are not located separately in the field at positions, but in settlements. For example, the leader of a gang rides in a car, and next to it, children on a bicycle and cars with their families for their business, and a taxi with passengers ... it’s clear that some of them will still touch some of the fragments. Or, for example, there is the leader’s headquarters in such a city, but his civil servants have the same children running around the yard and women sweeping, but cooking ...
    In October 2009, U.S. UAVs using guided missiles killed field commander Gulam Yahya Akbari. About 5 thousand people came to his funeral. Thus, the death of only one member of the armed group, even a senior one, outraged a large number of people. It is unlikely that anyone can say how many volunteers joined the ranks of the armed formations after that liquidation.

    Exactly the same as usual. Those 5 thousand who came to the funeral are his electorate, so to speak, for them he is a "dear father" who ensured order and justice (in their understanding) in a given territory. Any of them (no matter an old man or a child) will not hesitate to support cutting off the head of an unbeliever just because he is unfaithful, because they are the cause of all the troubles, as they said in the mosque / on TV. And "always ready" to change the shovel to a machine gun, just click ... The simplest control option in the most difficult economic conditions is to convince that this is to blame: "State Department", "kafirs", "Jews", "munafiks", "", etc. .d. The list is endless, it all depends on the region. Therefore, if you started a fight with such as Gulam Yahya Akbari, then do not groan over the lost souls of the "innocent", they will definitely not lament for you ...
    1. +2
      April 8 2015 08: 59
      At least one sane comment. Thank.
    2. 0
      April 8 2015 08: 59
      At least one sane comment. Thank.
    3. 0
      April 8 2015 09: 50
      Very true comment
    4. 0
      April 8 2015 12: 38
      And why are the Israelis deaths of non-combatants after the use of shock UAVs are much less common than the Americans?

      Maybe something is wrong at the conservatory?
      1. 0
        April 8 2015 20: 14
        Quote: Spade
        And why are the Israelis deaths of non-combatants after the use of shock UAVs are much less common than the Americans?

        I believe the Jews with intelligence will have a better situation. Hidden means.
  4. +4
    April 8 2015 08: 29
    Yes, the Americans wanted to spit on the civilians of countries with a high oil content. The US Air Force is bombing schools, hospitals, with UAVs or conventional planes, phosphorus or uranium bombs - taking care of civilians is just so ... It's only "stupid Russians" trying to keep civilians alive, only "bloody Putin" can include Crimea into the Russian Federation killing not a single person.
  5. +2
    April 8 2015 12: 28
    "Collateral damage" in operations of this kind has always been, is and will be. In addition, as noted above, the personal presence on the scene and piloting the striking machine does not provide any advantages in terms of increasing the accuracy of work, but only increases the cost of the operation, creates risks of losses, political scandals, ...
    As for the mourners and other disaffected, they will replenish the "opposing army" regardless of how their leaders and those passing by are flattened: a Hellfire missile or a 0,416 bullet.
    "-I thought it was illegal to equip a police helicopter with weapons.
    - It all depends on the circumstances. Moreover, the statistics are inexorable: one civilian always dies for 10 terrorists.
    - Yes, only if you are not a civilian!
    (Roy Scheider, Blue Thunder, 1983).
  6. +1
    April 8 2015 23: 53
    but you can’t reduce it in any way; spread democracy around the world less!
  7. 0
    April 9 2015 06: 46
    Drone victims: how to reduce losses among the population?


    It is necessary to reduce those who launch these drones.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"