Institute

The Case of Hybrid RPAS or Funding for
European Defence by Stealth
Unmanned vehicles or so-called ‘drones’ have recently become major force
multipliers in conducting ‘smart’ warfare, surveillance missions, and more generally
intelligence gathering. By both reducing boots on the ground in civil and military operations
and by providing reliable data through competitive surveillance capacities at affordable costs,
drones have caught the attention of political decision-makers, the defence industry, and
military planners alike. Drones are seen as the next step in revolutionizing 21 st century
security-making. In recent years, drones have arguably enjoyed significant successes in
effectively countering terrorist threats by protecting soldiers and limiting the number of
civilian deaths in theatres of action.
A drone or a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) is a ‘pilotless aircraft remotely flown via
radio or satellite communications links. They can be either fixed – or rotary-winged and,
primarily, they provide intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance (IRS) capabilities:
through their on-board sensors, they capture various types of information which are later
processed at ground installations.’ 130 Drones are typically aircraft, although there are several
land and sea-based pilotless vehicles under development.
Drones operate under different labels and signifiers, from unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs), remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs), or in concurrence with their ground-based control
stations, i.e. unmanned aerial systems (UAS) or remotely piloted aerial systems (RPAS). The
vague and neutral wording of ‘remotely piloted’ is much preferred in the current debate, due
to the fact that it circumvents the emotional negative baggage attached to the US ‘drone
strikes’ on the one hand, and the worrying concerns regarding pilotless vehicles
(uncontrollable, robotic, unaccountable) attached to the term ‘unmanned’ on the other hand.
Drones are the type of technology that begets an unusually large number of categorical
ambiguities. Nevertheless, to paraphrase the Shakespearean quote, ‘What’s in a name? That
which we call a drone / By any other name would smell as sweet’, drones will be drones,
notwithstanding their more à la mode and innocuous RPAS denomination.
The majority of drones are unarmed, but the technological trend is progressively
preferential towards dual-use and the fast and easy weaponisation of drones, from the
smallest platforms to the largest ones. At least 16 out the 28 EU Member States 131 are already
in the possession of both military drones for combat and reconnaissance purposes and nonmilitary
drones designed for surveillance and detection purposes.
There are of course clear and justifiable legitimations for drone use, such as
environmental or disaster relief in humanitarian responses, however there is also to consider
the dark side of the technology, namely warfare and social or crowd control affecting the
privacy and freedom of citizens.
The classification of drones is predominantly dependent upon two major factors, their
undeniable technological evolution as an archetype of modular innovation 132 and the
political/doctrinal and strategic interests attached to them. Nevertheless, three criteria rank
130 A. Gilli, ‘Drones for Europe,’ European Union Institute for Security Studies (September 2013): 1. Accessed
September 25, 2015. http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/Brief_29.pdf
131 B. Hayes, C. Jones, and E.Töpfer , Statewatch Report, ‘Eurodrones Inc.’ (February 2014): 7. Accessed
September 25, 2015. http://www.statewatch.org/news/2014/feb/sw-tni-eurodrones-inc-feb-2014.pdf
132 Gilli, ‘Drones for Europe,’ 3.
31