Market Data 
- A drone pilot argues a massive drone swarm could clear a path through enemy lines.
- Ukraine’s Illya Sekirin calls for 40,000 drones to barrage at 6-mile wide sector.
- His vision calls for using drones similar to how tanks were employed a century ago.
Behind the minefields and obstacles, the enemy waits in their entrenchments, poised to strike at tanks and infantry trying to advance through the treacherous ground. Instead, tens of thousands of drones descend on their positions, blowing up vehicles, artillery, and bunkers and clearing a path for friendly ground troops.
This is the vision of a Ukrainian combat drone pilot who believes that armies need to create a separate branch for uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) and electromagnetic warfare — and go on the attack.
“Breakthroughs with large mechanized formations are becoming a thing of the past and static warfare, like the positional stalemate in Ukraine, appears to be the new norm,” wrote Illya Sekirin in an article for the British Army Review, “As a result, the role of the UAS and electromagnetic warfare branch would be particularly useful in breaching enemy fortified positions through the use of massed offensive actions.”
Drones — along with artillery — have become the dominant weapons in the Ukraine war. In particular, while tanks are still a major weapon on the battlefield, they no longer enjoy the dominance they once had. Hordes of small first-person-view (FPV) drones have made life hazardous for hulking, expensive weapons such as armored vehicles and artillery pieces, which now operate cautiously and under the protection of air defense and electronic warfare systems.
“FPV drones (also known as loitering munitions) have become so effective that they, at a cost of around $350 to $450 per asset, can now be described as the Ukrainian army’s principal anti-tank weapon,” wrote Sekirin, who has combat experience operating the DJI Mavic 3, a piloted drone popular with hobbyists as well as Ukrainian soldiers.
Sekirin wants to take this to the next level. Breaching fortified lines, as both the Russians and Ukrainians have learned the hard way, is a complex and fraught operation that often results in heavy casualties to the assault troops. Sekirin’s alternative: using immense numbers of drones to blast a hole in enemy defenses that creates breathing room for assault troops.
“For example, 40,000 drones that would attack in waves to destroy enemy forces in a frontline area 10 kilometers [6 miles] and 20 kilometers [12 miles] deep, with a resulting drone attack density of 200 UASs per square kilometer,” Sekirin wrote. “This drone attack would simultaneously provide accurate covering fire to friendly mine-clearing vehicles and advancing mechanized infantry units tasked with capturing the area. Through the resulting breach of the frontline, conventional maneuver forces could then enter to gain the operational initiative.”
Sekirin argues that using drones for breaching operations saves money and reduces friendly casualties. “If the price of an average attack drone is presumed to be $500, drones would cost $20 million, which is roughly equivalent to the price of just two Ml Abrams tanks. 40,000 UASs would also constitute only 0.8 percent of worldwide consumer drone shipments (five million units were shipped in 2020), suggesting that production and supply issues would not be an issue.”
This goes well beyond drone use in the nearly three-year war, which has mostly been to try to disable vehicles and to stalk small groups of soldiers. Making drones into a massive strike force would require enhanced communication and tactics to limit friendly fire on advancing troops, who can resemble those of their enemy on grainy video or infrared feeds.
What is ironic is that a century ago, tanks were invented precisely as a means to breach the fortified trench lines of the First World War that had largely been closely defended by machine guns. World War II saw armies rely on masses of tanks not just to penetrate defense lines, but also to use their mobility and firepower to smash enemy forces and capture vast amounts of territory.
Thus, Sekirin’s concept would have drones assume the historical role of tanks. But that raises questions in itself. As soon as tanks made their debut in 1916, it quickly became clear that they were not a miracle solution for battlefield problems. Armored vehicles then and now are vulnerable to a variety of weapons, which means they must use combined arms tactics in which they coordinate with other arms such as infantry, artillery, engineers and aircraft.
Because they are cheap and easy to manufacture in quantity, it would be tempting for armies — and penny-pinching politicians — to rely on a massive fleet of drones at the expense of traditional breaching systems such as combat engineers and mine-clearing tanks. But just as tanks became vulnerable to mines, anti-tank rockets and now drones, the drones themselves will likely fall prey to countermeasures such as jamming (which already is disrupting UAV operations in the Ukraine war), as well as projectile weapons and intercept drones.
A horde of 40,000 drones would be an impressive and scary sight. But it is no panacea.
Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy magazine, and other publications. He holds an MA in political science from Rutgers Univ. Follow him on Twitter and LinkedIn.
