Dealing with Drones: Why Words Matter
by Andrew Bogusky
|
08.28.2025 at 06:00am
Dealing with Drones: Why Words Matter Image
An FPV drone's view of a drone-struck Tu-95 Bomber at Russia's Olenya airbase during Operation Spiderweb.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
While the June 1, 2025 Ukrainian drone attack, “Operation Spiderweb,” against Russian air bases has been described as a “wake-up moment,” the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) either needs to stop feigning surprise (or needs to prepare for constant surprise) in the development and employment of “drones” in warfare. The unmanned aircraft phenomenon is not new. Only a decade after the Wright brothers’ first flight, the United States developed the ‘Kettering Bug,’ a track-launched, unmanned “aerial torpedo” capable of striking ground targets up to 75 miles away. During World War II, Germany employed the first cruise missile, the V-1, which is not unlike the so-called “kamikaze drones” that various actors employ today. Simply put, the threat from unmanned aircraft has been around for over a century. The major difference today, however, lies in the exponential proliferation and expansion of their capabilities and the tactics used to employ them. The increasing volume of attacks and the continued advancement of unmanned aircraft technologies and tactics are exposing gaps in existing air defense capabilities and approaches to protection. Because the problem is layered – involving cost, size, proliferation, doctrine, and technology – the solution will likewise require a layered, interconnected, and comprehensive approach. However, the fundamental first step must be to innovate the way we talk—and therefore think—about unmanned aircraft. By distinguishing between various systems—such as smaller drones and larger unmanned aircraft systems—and framing the challenge within the broader context of protection, the defense community can develop more appropriate, efficient, and intelligence-driven responses.
In order to apply disciplined reasoning to the implications of this evolving threat, the defense community (which includes the DoD, but also the defense industry and the media which reports such stories) must employ disciplined language. Media (and even military) reporting typically use the singular term “drone” to mean any variety of unmanned aircraft, from larger sophisticated aircraft like the MQ-9 and one-way attack aircraft like the Iranian produced Shahed 136 to small hobbyist quadcopters. Conflating these various systems can oversimplify and obfuscate the discussion on countering the threats when in reality they reflect vast differences in size, cost, purpose, and capabilities. The word “drone” is vague and inconsistent with the variety of systems it attempts to describe, which leads to flawed assumptions, faulty logic, and misunderstanding. This is akin to saying “fighter jet” when you are referring to any aircraft, whether it is a Boeing 747 or two-seat Cessna. It can also lead to an oversimplification of counter-unmanned aircraft solutions. The solution for countering a quadcopter looks very different than thwarting a preprogrammed, one-way aircraft, not to mention neutralizing a large, satellite-controlled unmanned aircraft.
While the lines can get blurry, UAS typically serve as an extension of airpower while drones expand ground combat. The distinction is not merely about semantics; it carries doctrinal implications and cues for solutions.
https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/08/28/dealing-with-drones-why-words-matter/
