Cheap, fast and armed: U.S. looks to thwart Ukraine-style drone swarms
WASHINGTON − Cheap weaponized drones pose a threat to military bases and civilians, leading a senior military official to predict they'll be used soon to inflict a 'mass-casualty event.'
Ukraine underscored the risk to advanced military powers on June 1 when its inexpensive drones damaged or destroyed strategic warplanes across Russia. U.S. military bases, and targets like major sports events, share similar vulnerabilities, officials say.
Neither the Pentagon nor the militaries of other developed countries have figured out how to defend against swarms of small drones packed with explosives, according to the military official, who has been briefed on counter-drone efforts but was not authorized to speak publicly.
More: Russia's 'Pearl Harbor': What to know about Ukraine's audacious drone strike
We're not even close, the official said.
No one is.
The threat from drones to military isn't just overseas. Last year, the military tallied 350 drone incursions on domestic bases, according to U.S. Northern Command. Most of those probably were hobbyists who strayed into restricted airspace, the defense official said. Some, however, could have been from foreign adversaries spying on the military. And some people have wondered whether they could have carried explosives.
More: Ukraine drone attack shows familiar-looking drones can be terrifying weapons
How does the Pentagon, which spends nearly $1 trillion a year on defense, have such a vulnerability? What's being done to address it, and how the future of drone warfare plays out, gains greater and greater urgency for lawmakers and military planners as technology improves almost daily.
For the better part of two decades, the Pentagon had unmatched superiority in drone technology. Early in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Predator and later Reaper drones armed with Hellfire missiles allowed pilots in dark bases in the Nevada desert to attack militant targets in the Middle East.
A Reaper costs about $28 million, according to the Congressional Research Service. For a fraction of that cost today, a small drone can be weaponized and flown to its target and deliver devastating effects, too.
'At a cost of a mere tens of thousands of dollars, Ukraine inflicted billions in damage, potentially setting back Russia's bomber capabilities for years,' Army Secretary Dan Driscoll testified to Congress earlier in June. 'The world saw in near-real time how readily available technology can disrupt established power dynamics.'
Ukraine has been at the forefront of militarized drone development. By necessity, it needs a cheap alternative to thwart Russia, a country with a far larger military force that has advantages in conventional weapons like warplanes, tanks and artillery.
Ukraine deployed first-person view, or FPV, drones in its attack on the Russian airfields. FPV drones allow a pilot with a headset to steer the aircraft to its target. That technology has proliferated and gotten relatively cheap in recent years. You can buy an FPV drone on Amazon for under $700.
The Ukrainian military has refined technology for small drones and improves nearly weekly to offset Russian countermeasures, the defense official said.
More: No. 1 threat: Drone attacks prompt urgent $500 million request from Pentagon
The Pentagon is painfully aware of the threat.
In January 2024, militants in Jordan launched a drone attack on an outpost in the desert as soldiers slept in their quarters. Three died when the drone slammed into their building.
Realizing the urgency of the threat, the Pentagon began funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into counter-drone weaponry. That includes electronic jamming devices that can sever the link between the operator and the drone, rendering it harmless. Small missiles can be fired at drones at a distance, and shotgun-type weapons can be used for those closer in, the official said. Even nets can be used to snag drones in the air before they reach their target.
Defending against a swarm of small drones is a tough problem, the official said. There's no simple solution.
More: Zap it and put it in a bag: Inside the military's response to drones flying over bases
On Capitol Hill, Sen. Roger Wicker, Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, assured Army officials that Congress is prepared to spend billions on drone defense.
Before senators and Army officials retreated to discuss the drone threat in secret, Driscoll raised another alarm about the threat.
'We are not doing enough,' he said. 'The current status quo is not sufficient.'
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Cheap, fast, explosive: Stopping Ukraine-style drone swarms
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
3 hours ago
Israel-Iran live updates: B-2 bombers, Tomahawk cruise missiles used in Iran strike
The United States struck three nuclear sites in Iran on Saturday, President Donald Trump announced. B-2 bombers dropped a number of Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs -- known as "bunker busters" -- during the U.S. mission over Iran, a U.S. official confirmed. A number of Tomahawk cruise missiles were also fired at targets inside Iran from a U.S. Navy submarine, the official confirmed. Following the strikes, Trump addressed the nation, calling it a "spectacular military success." Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will speak from the Pentagon at 8 a.m. on Sunday.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration continues to eye Greenland over security concerns
The Trump Administration continues to monitor Greenland over its potential role in maintaining security for North America, according to testimony given by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. During his appearance last week before Congress' House Armed Services Committee, Hegseth was asked whether the Pentagon has developed plans to take Greenland — or Panama — by force, if necessary, The Associated Press reported. 'Our job at the Defense Department is to have plans for any contingency,' Hegseth repeated. While it isn't unusual for the Pentagon to develop 'what-if plans' for conflicts that may never materialize, Hegseth's reported handling of the questions regarding the Greenland issue prompted a direct inquiry from a Republican lawmaker. 'It is not your testimony today that there are plans at the Pentagon for taking by force or invading Greenland, correct?' said Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio. As Hegseth started to repeat his answer about contingency plans, Turner added emphatically, 'I sure as hell hope that is not your testimony.' 'We look forward to working with Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential threats,' Hegseth responded. Added Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., 'Speaking on behalf of the American people, I don't think the American people voted for President Trump because they were hoping we would invade Greenland.' One thing that's not unclear: President Donald Trump's interest in Greenland. 'We need Greenland for national security and international security,' Trump said from the Oval Office in March. 'So we'll, I think, we'll go as far as we have to go,' he continued. 'We need Greenland. And the world needs us to have Greenland, including Denmark. Denmark has to have us have Greenland. And, you know, we'll see what happens. But if we don't have Greenland, we can't have great international security.' Trump's focus on the massive, mineral-rich Arctic landmass — which is in an autonomous territory of Denmark — predates his return this year to the White House. The administration is reportedly concerned about growing Chinese and Russian military and commercial activities in the Arctic. 'Greenland is growing in importance as we find ourselves in a global competition with China and in a new technological revolution with regards to warfare,' Rebecca Pincus, director of the Wilson Center's Polar Institute and a former adviser to the U.S. Defense Department on Arctic strategy, told RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty earlier this year. 'So, Greenland is important from a missile-defense perspective, from a space perspective, and from a global competition perspective, in which shipping and maritime sea lanes are increasingly important,' she said. As a territory of Denmark, it is part of NATO, but Greenland is pursuing independence from Copenhagen and some experts fear that could open a door for Russia and China to gain a foothold in the country, RFE/RL reported. Last week, Denmark's Parliament approved legislation to allow new U.S. military bases on Danish soil, broadening an existing previous military agreement between the countries. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, in a response to lawmakers' questions, wrote that Denmark would be able to terminate the agreement if the U.S. tries to annex all or part of Greenland, The Associated Press reported. Meanwhile, Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has called U.S. statements about the Arctic island 'disrespectful' — adding that Greenland 'will never, ever be a piece of property that can be bought by just anyone.' Political parties in Greenland, which has been leaning toward eventual independence from Denmark for years, recently agreed to form a broad-based new coalition government in the face of Trump's designs on the territory, reported The Associated Press. The Pentagon, meanwhile, is likely to shift Greenland from U.S. European Command to U.S. Northern Command, the military body responsible for defense of the American homeland, Mexico and Canada, according to Navy Times. The change itself only involves redrawing the maps of U.S. combatant commands and handing over responsibility for the military forces in Greenland, but it has caused angst among some in Denmark who think the administration is trying to draw the territory closer to America. An April poll conducted by the Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics revealed about three-fifths — or 58% — of Utah voters somewhat or strongly oppose the idea of Greenland becoming a U.S. territory. Meanwhile, 42% said they somewhat or strongly support Greenland being annexed into the United States. Utah Republicans indicated slightly more support for Greenland becoming a territory of the U.S., with around 62% saying they somewhat or strongly support the idea, — compared to 13% of Democrats and 23% of independents. Utah voters were also asked what kind of pressure they would be comfortable applying on Greenland in pursuit of it becoming a U.S. territory. Overall, roughly 8 in 10 voters — or 78% — said they don't want the U.S. to apply any pressure on Greenland. At least 16% said they supported economic and political interventions, while 6% said they backed military pressure.
Hamilton Spectator
4 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
US steps into war between Israel and Iran, strikes 3 Iranian nuclear sites
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — The U.S. military struck three sites in Iran early Sunday, inserting itself into Israel 's war aimed at destroying the country's nuclear program in a risky gambit to weaken a longtime foe amid Tehran's threat of reprisals that could spark a wider regional conflict. President Donald Trump said Iran's key nuclear sites were 'completely and fully obliterated,' and he warned Iran against carrying out retaliatory attacks, saying the U.S. could hit more targets 'with precision, speed and skill.' 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,' Trump said in an address to the nation from the White House. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran confirmed that attacks took place on its Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz sites, but it insisted that its work will not be stopped. The decision to directly involve the U.S. in the war comes after more than a week of strikes by Israel on Iran that aimed to systematically eradicate the country's air defenses and offensive missile capabilities, while damaging its nuclear enrichment facilities. But U.S. and Israeli officials have said that American stealth bombers and the 30,000-pound (13,500-kilogram) bunker buster bomb they alone can carry offered the best chance of destroying heavily fortified sites connected to the Iranian nuclear program buried deep underground. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump said in a post on social media. 'All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home.' Trump added in a later post: 'This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR. THANK YOU!' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump's decision to attack in a video message directed at the American president. 'Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities, with the awesome and righteous might of the United States, will change history,' he said. Netanyahu said the U.S. 'has done what no other country on earth could do.' The White House and Pentagon did not immediately elaborate on the operation. But Fox News host Sean Hannity said shortly after 9 p.m. Eastern that he had spoken with Trump and that six bunker buster bombs were used on the Fordo facility. Hannity said 30 Tomahawk missiles fired by U.S. submarines 400 miles away struck the Iranian nuclear sites of Natanz and Isfahan. The strikes are a perilous decision, as Iran has pledged to retaliate if the U.S. joined the Israeli assault, and for Trump personally. He won the White House on the promise of keeping America out of costly foreign conflicts and scoffed at the value of American interventionism. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that he was 'gravely alarmed' by the 'dangerous escalation' of American strikes. 'There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world,' he said in a statement. Trump told reporters Friday that he was not interested in sending ground forces into Iran, saying it's 'the last thing you want to do.' He had previously indicated that he would make a final choice over the course of two weeks. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned the United States on Wednesday that strikes targeting the Islamic Republic will 'result in irreparable damage for them.' And Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei declared 'any American intervention would be a recipe for an all-out war in the region.' Trump has vowed that he would not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, and he had initially hoped that the threat of force would bring the country's leaders to give up its nuclear program peacefully. The Israeli military said Saturday it was preparing for the possibility of a lengthy war, while Iran's foreign minister warned before the U.S. attack that American military involvement 'would be very, very dangerous for everyone.' The prospect of a wider war loomed. Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen said they would resume attacks on U.S. vessels in the Red Sea if the Trump administration joined Israel's military campaign. The Houthis paused such attacks in May under a deal with the U.S. The U.S. ambassador to Israel announced that the U.S. had begun 'assisted departure flights,' the first from Israel since the Hamas-led attack on Oct. 7, 2023, that sparked the war in Gaza . White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday that Trump planned to make his decision on the strikes within two weeks. Instead, he struck just two days later. Trump appears to have made the calculation — at the prodding of Israeli officials and many Republican lawmakers — that Israel's operation had softened the ground and presented a perhaps unparalleled opportunity to set back Iran's nuclear program, perhaps permanently. The Israelis say their offensive has already crippled Iran's air defenses, allowing them to already significantly degrade multiple Iranian nuclear sites. But to destroy the Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant , Israel appealed to Trump for the bunker-busting American bomb known as the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, which uses its weight and sheer kinetic force to reach deeply buried targets and then explode. The bomb is currently delivered only by the B-2 stealth bomber, which is only found in the American arsenal. If deployed in the attack, it would be the first combat use of the weapon. The bomb carries a conventional warhead, and is believed to be able to penetrate about 200 feet (61 meters) below the surface before exploding, and the bombs can be dropped one after another, effectively drilling deeper and deeper with each successive blast. The International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that Iran is producing highly enriched uranium at Fordo, raising the possibility that nuclear material could be released into the area if the GBU-57 A/B were used to hit the facility. Previous Israeli strikes at another Iranian nuclear site, Natanz, on a centrifuge site have caused contamination only at the site itself, not the surrounding area, the IAEA has said. Trump's decision for direct U.S. military intervention comes after his administration made an unsuccessful two-month push — including with high-level, direct negotiations with the Iranians — aimed at persuading Tehran to curb its nuclear program. For months, Trump said he was dedicated to a diplomatic push to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. And he twice — in April and again in late May — persuaded Netanyahu to hold off on military action against Iran and give diplomacy more time. The U.S. in recent days has been shifting military aircraft and warships into and around the Middle East to protect Israel and U.S. bases from Iranian attacks. All the while, Trump has gone from publicly expressing hope that the moment could be a 'second chance' for Iran to make a deal to delivering explicit threats on Khamenei and making calls for Tehran's unconditional surrender. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding,' Trump said in a social media posting. 'He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' The military showdown with Iran comes seven years after Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Obama-administration brokered agreement in 2018, calling it the 'worst deal ever.' The 2015 deal, signed by Iran, U.S. and other world powers, created a long-term, comprehensive nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. Trump decried the Obama-era deal for giving Iran too much in return for too little, because the agreement did not cover Iran's non-nuclear malign behavior. Trump has bristled at criticism from some of his MAGA faithful, including conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, who have suggested that further U.S. involvement would be a betrayal to supporters who were drawn to his promise to end U.S. involvement in expensive and endless wars. ___ Madhani reported from Washington. Rising reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi in Iran; Mehmet Guzel in Istanbul; Josef Federman in Jerusalem; Samy Magdy in Cairo; Matthew Lee and Josh Boak in Washington; and Farnoush Amiri and Jon Gambrell in Dubai contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
