Suppression of enemy forces on the battlefield has historically relied upon artillery, often termed “tubes” in military parlance. In the Russia–Ukraine war, however, unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have assumed an expanding role in conducting suppressive effects. This essay examines the nature of that shift, identifies the principal factors driving it, and evaluates both the advantages UAS offer and the constraints that remain.
Traditional Artillery Suppression in Conventional Operations
Artillery provides suppressive fire by delivering high volumes of explosive ordnance onto or near enemy positions, thereby neutralising their ability to manoeuvre or return accurate fire. This method depends upon large quantities of ammunition, precise fire-direction procedures, and robust logistics chains. In the opening phase of the 2022 invasion, Russian and Ukrainian forces both employed Soviet-era tube and rocket artillery systems according to established doctrine. Russian forces, for instance, sought to suppress Ukrainian defensive positions through massed barrages prior to ground assaults. Such tactics required sustained resupply and exposed gun positions to counter-battery strikes, illustrating the classic trade-off between volume of fire and survivability.
Operational Conditions in Ukraine and the Emergence of UAS
The conflict soon revealed acute ammunition shortages on both sides, coupled with improved counter-battery detection systems. These circumstances created an operational niche for small, low-cost UAS to deliver precise, on-demand suppressive effects. Ukrainian units began experimenting with commercial quadcopters and later with purpose-built first-person-view (FPV) drones fitted with shaped-charge warheads. Russian forces responded with Lancet loitering munitions. Both approaches allowed individual operators to suppress armour, artillery pieces and infantry strongpoints from stand-off ranges, thereby reducing exposure of crews and conserving scarce artillery ammunition for deeper targets.
Comparative Advantages of UAS for Suppression Tasks
Several characteristics distinguish current UAS employment from traditional artillery. First, precision reduces collateral damage and ammunition expenditure; a single FPV drone can achieve a mobility kill on an armoured vehicle where dozens of shells might otherwise be required. Second, the persistent “eyes-on” capability of reconnaissance drones shortens the sensor-to-shooter cycle, enabling near-real-time adjustment of fires. Third, the relatively low unit cost of many systems permits attritional use that would be uneconomic with crewed aircraft or heavy artillery. These factors have contributed to the perception that UAS now represent the preferred instrument for immediate, local suppression, especially in the dense electronic-warfare environment of the Donbas and southern fronts.
Limitations and Persistent Role of Artillery
Nevertheless, UAS cannot fully replicate artillery effects. Most small drones carry limited payloads and remain vulnerable to electronic jamming, kinetic interceptors and small-arms fire. Weather, terrain masking and dense urban areas further restrict their employment. In contrast, artillery continues to deliver area suppression over large fronts and at night or in poor visibility when UAS effectiveness declines. Ukrainian and Russian formations therefore retain substantial tube and rocket artillery holdings, integrating them with UAS within combined-arms fire-support plans rather than replacing one system entirely with the other.
Implications for Future Force Development
The Ukrainian experience demonstrates that technological accessibility, doctrinal flexibility and logistic constraints can accelerate the adoption of UAS for suppression roles. At the same time, it indicates that legacy artillery systems retain utility when integrated with unmanned assets. Future doctrines are therefore likely to emphasise networked fires in which UAS provide precision and economy while artillery supplies mass and all-weather coverage.
In conclusion, the shift from tubes to drones in Ukraine reflects operational necessity and technological opportunity rather than outright obsolescence of artillery. UAS have become a preferred means for many suppression tasks, yet artillery remains indispensable for large-scale and adverse-condition operations. The resulting hybrid approach offers lessons for armed forces seeking to modernise their fires capability while maintaining operational resilience.
References
- Barrie, D. and G. (2023) Preliminary Lessons in Conventional Warfighting from the Russia-Ukraine Conflict, February–July 2022. RUSI, London.
- Watling, J. and Reynolds, N. (2023) Meatgrinder: Russian Tactics in the Second Year of Its Invasion of Ukraine. RUSI, London.
- Endersby, G. (2023) ‘The artillery war in Ukraine: lessons for Western armies’, RUSI Journal, 168(4), pp. 20–29.
