Can India's MQ-9B Drones Survive Against China-Pak Anti-Missile Systems after Houthis Claims

India's recent acquisition of 31 MQ-9B drones, a multi-billion dollar investment intended to enhance its military capabilities, has come under scrutiny following reports that Houthi rebels in Yemen have repeatedly downed these sophisticated machines.

The ease with which the Houthis, a non-state actor with limited resources, have reportedly targeted these drones raises serious questions about their survivability in a potential conflict against the technologically advanced militaries of China and Pakistan.

The Houthi claims, which include the downing of nine such drones since October 2023, have not been independently verified. However, they highlight the MQ-9B's vulnerability, particularly its susceptibility to enemy fire due to its relatively slow speed and limited defensive capabilities.

The drones, though equipped with advanced features for intelligence gathering and precision strikes, lack the agility and robust countermeasures to evade threats from even rudimentary offensive platforms.

While the Houthis' alleged success may be attributed to their localized knowledge and tactics, the concern remains that India's adversaries, with their far superior technological and military prowess, could exploit these vulnerabilities even more effectively. This raises concerns about the effectiveness of these drones in a high-intensity conflict scenario, particularly against sophisticated anti-missile systems.

India's acquisition of the MQ-9Bs is part of a broader strategy to modernize its military and address security challenges on its borders, especially with China.

The drones, with their extended range and endurance, were expected to provide critical intelligence and strike capabilities in the vast and challenging terrain of the Himalayas.

However, the recent events in Yemen have underscored the potential limitations of these drones and the need for a comprehensive assessment of their survivability in a contested airspace.

While General Atomics, the manufacturer of the MQ-9Bs, has remained silent on the Houthi claims, the Indian military will undoubtedly be analyzing these developments closely.

The effectiveness and survivability of these drones in a potential conflict scenario are crucial factors that will shape India's defence strategy and future acquisitions.

 

[Anant]

We can build 100 surface ships of 10000 tons weight category easily.

cost of one kg of ships category steel costs 100 rupees.

so one tons will be 1 lakhs

10000 tons X 1 lakhs will be 100 crs of rupees.

26000 crs ÷ 100 ships= 260 crs

the complete structure of the ship will cost maximum 100 cr including all fittings.
that leaves 160 crs for the guns and missiles and torpedoes.

we will only use locally made weapons such as

BHEL gun

BDL torpedoes

BEL radars.

The ships weapons will be simple types.

we can reduce the weight of the ships to 5000 t 6000 tons as per requirements.

1. 1 ton of steel, as you buy it, will give you a large block of steel. Getting it into ship-shape requires money, which you haven't accounted for.

2. Do you think you can get a 3" gun plus radars plus torpedoes plus missiles for 160 crores per ship (less than 20 million USD)? You do realise this isn't the 1960s, right?

3. Here's a reference for cost: A single 3" gun license-built in India costs around 185 crore INR. Oh, and that doesn't include ammunition, support, spares or anything else. It also doesn't include any sensor systems.

 

[Anant]

I think, our local drones industry is already capable and can build similar drones at lower cost. Iran is also building similar drones.

They don't. Show me a drone that is comparable to the MQ-9 that is built in India.

 

[Anant]

Better solution will be to build many surface ships armed with missiles. They will boost local economy and will have a life span of 30 years.

If you take a ship armed with, say, 8 BrahMos missiles and a 3" gun plus some self-defence systems, you are looking at a unit cost of around 250 million each at the least. That means 12-16 ships, but these would have far higher operational costs and wouldn't give the same level of coverage.

 

[Instant Karma]

1. 1 ton of steel, as you buy it, will give you a large block of steel. Getting it into ship-shape requires money, which you haven't accounted for.

2. Do you think you can get a 3" gun plus radars plus torpedoes plus missiles for 160 crores per ship (less than 20 million USD)? You do realise this isn't the 1960s, right?

3. Here's a reference for cost: A single 3" gun license-built in India costs around 185 crore INR. Oh, and that doesn't include ammunition, support, spares or anything else. It also doesn't include any sensor systems.

As I said, it is a rough estimate. The size and cost can vary 50% up or the size will be reduced by 4000 tons. That will save another 40 crs. Apart from that, these ships will stop the illegal mining and fishing activities by the Chinese vessels.

 

[Anant]

That was also a very bad decision. France was ready to transfer the production line to India as nobody was ready to buy Rafale fighters. Buying 36 Rafale fighters off the shelf is the biggest blunder. At present we would be in a comfortable position if Rafale fighters were built in India just like SU 30 MKI.

France was willing to set up a second line in India. They weren't willing to shift the French line to India, as even without export orders, the lines in France would be busy fulfilling orders for the French Air Force and French Navy.

 

[Anant]

As I said, it is a rough estimate. The size and cost can vary 50% up or the size will be reduced by 4000 tons. That will save another 40 crs. Apart from that, these ships will stop the illegal mining and fishing activities by the Chinese vessels.

You can drop the size of the ship to 1,000 tons, but you still aren't getting much of anything on it. At that point, you'd have more of a yacht with a few machine guns and a 3" gun on it, which would be useless.

Essentially, the point where a ship like this becomes feasible is when displacement comes down to 500-ish tons, at which point the ships themselves arr individually not as capable.

 

[Praveen]

Instead of wasting money like acquiring this thing Navy can just develop MRSV with capability to launch drones using EMALS - currently we developed a technology demonstrator capable of launching upto 400kg. Add arrestor cables developed from vikrant class aircraft carrier. Make it into drone carrier. Make drones like Tapas and hermes-900 - especially upgrade it to carry more payload and higher speed. If we have 6 such ships then it will suppliment the aircraft carriers and monitor the Indian Ocean at the same time.

 

[Anant]

Instead of wasting money like acquiring this thing Navy can just develop MRSV with capability to launch drones using EMALS - currently we developed a technology demonstrator capable of launching upto 400kg. Add arrestor cables developed from vikrant class aircraft carrier. Make it into drone carrier. Make drones like Tapas and hermes-900 - especially upgrade it to carry more payload and higher speed. If we have 6 such ships then it will suppliment the aircraft carriers and monitor the Indian Ocean at the same time.

1. MRSVs with EMALS will be considerably more expensive than these drones will be, even though those ships have other purposes.

2. The EMALS set we have still has a very long way to go before we can launch drones from it.

3. Any drone carrier is still atleast half a decade away.

4. To get the same level of coverage as the drones, you'd need multiple ships, at which point both the capital and operational costs would be far, far higher.

See, we need the MRSVs, but they are not a substitute to the drones.

 

[Sudha]

They haven't, but okay. The only time one can say they technically screwed us over was during the Kargil War. Even so, even the Bhikaristanis weren't given access to GPS.

You think F404 is genuinely a supply line thing? At present US is hitting Bharat hard because of collaboration with Russia. Also US has proven itself to be very very unreliable.

 

[Praveen]

1. MRSVs with EMALS will be considerably more expensive than these drones will be, even though those ships have other purposes.

2. The EMALS set we have still has a very long way to go before we can launch drones from it.

3. Any drone carrier is still atleast half a decade away.

4. To get the same level of coverage as the drones, you'd need multiple ships, at which point both the capital and operational costs would be far, far higher.

See, we need the MRSVs, but they are not a substitute to the drones.

Bro what I meant previously is to also upgrade the MRSV into a drone carrier and operate drones from the ship. These reaper drones are too expensive, we could use this funds to develop both the ship and drones

 

[Srinivas Nirmal Kumar Avula]

Government must be cautious before singing the agreement, it must ensure availability of critical spare parts of MQ-9B Drones during it's lifetime

 

[Koorma]

When they can delay delivery of the engines, we can delay the order for this drone.

 

[मित्र]

When they can delay delivery of the engines, we can delay the order for this drone.

Need to scrap it completely

 

[Anant]

You think F404 is genuinely a supply line thing? At present US is hitting Bharat hard because of collaboration with Russia. Also US has proven itself to be very very unreliable.

My personal opinion of the F404 saga is that the delay is a mix of geopolitical pressure courtesy of the Americans coupled with supply chain challenges resulting from the multitude of wars we have going. It isn't one or the other, but rather a combination of the two.

 

[Aayush Pratap]

Did these geniuses just realise after all this time that it's a drone and not a fighter jet? Of course it's going to get shot down in contested airspace. Seriously hope it's just bs and not the truth. Besides, as usual LM has set a deadline after which they intend to jack up the price. When all this tomfoolery is over, we'll still end up buying them, only at a higher price cuz that's what we do. Jai Ho

 

[Anant]

Bro what I meant previously is to also upgrade the MRSV into a drone carrier and operate drones from the ship. These reaper drones are too expensive, we could use this funds to develop both the ship and drones

Yeah... these funds aren't going to be enough for that. Moreover, we need to increase monitoring the IOR today, not a decade from now. Oh, and if you start using MRSVs like small OPVs (that is, keeping them at sea for prolonged periods with regular sorties and the like without the requisite maintenance), they will be worn down very quickly.

Boss, those funds will not be enough to develop both the MRSV and the drones. That said, the MRSV design does need to include drones if we go for LHDs rather than LPDs in that project.

However, the reason why I say diverting MQ-9 funds there won't work is also because we need those surveillance capabilities sooner rather than later. As much as I would like to believe otherwise, MRSV is atleast 8-10 years away.

Finally, having a drone carrier doesn't mean you can or should use said carrier for surveillance only. Doing so is an excellent way of wearing your ship down very quickly.

 

[Sos]

Mq9 is same drone that killed Iran's top officials
I strongly think it is a good drone and must be procured as lot of time is already spent

 

[Invi Pass]

TWell there aren't any drones that fly at supersonic speed except for what people now call as UAP or earlier UFOs. I do not think they are alien spacecraft but certainly advanced technology developed by Lockheed or Darpa to overwhelm an enemy like Russia or China if there is a world war. Using them against Yemeni militants will be an over kill.

However my sources tell me that they are flying over Iran.

 

[beencensured]

They don't. Show me a drone that is comparable to the MQ-9 that is built in India.

When it is too expensive to replace, when you cannot afford to lose and are such an easy target then why buy such expensive things? Obvious, it has no offensive abilities against our enemies and so worse then Tapas. Originally these drones were just to be use against terrist world wide, not against countries or states.

 

[Anant]

When it is too expensive to replace, when you cannot afford to lose and are such an easy target then why buy such expensive things? Obvious, it has no offensive abilities against our enemies and so worse then Tapas. Originally these drones were just to be use against terrist world wide, not against countries or states.

1. The MQ-9B is a weaponised drone, in case you didn't know. We are also getting weapons for these.

2. Yes, a lost MQ-9 would be expensive, but we aren't exactly planning to use them in scenarios where they'd be lost in peacetime. We won't be flying these over Bhikaristan or someplace.

3. The MQ-9 cannot be directly compared to the Tapas due to the difference in operational parameters. Do try to understand that it doesn't matter if you have a thousand Tapas drones that can fly up to 18,000 ft if the mission requirement calls for flying to, say, 20,000 ft. Similarly, the lower endurance of the Tapas limits the patrol range over the ocean.

4. The IN and IAF are getting small numbers of the Tapas as well, which shows that they plan on using those to complement the MQ-9. They aren't direct substitutes.

 

[Sandeep]

These are very expensive drones but the best on the market. We will mainly use it to carry out surveillance, intelligence, tracking, EW, SIGINT, COMINT and for the navy it will useful to track ships and submarines. All drones are vulnerable in a contested air space as they can’t fly fast enough or detect any incoming missiles or deploy flares to protect itself. We will mainly use these drones to conduct strikes, terrorists, bases or military positions from across the border within the safety of our air space.

If this deal is too expensive then an alternative would be to buy similar type of drones from Israel which will be very good, use similar type of weapons and technology but it will be at a much cheaper price and lifetime expenses.

 

[NSR]

Definitely not $30 millions per drone, it is $100+ millions per drone depending on the configurations, sensors, armaments, etc
MQ-9B is the most expensive Drone in the world.

Some MQ-9Bs were shot down by Houthis when they went near their air defenses.

 

[Instant Karma]

What utter nonsense is this article? The MQ-9B deal is being fast-tracked to ensure the contract is signed before the end of October, as that is when the present LoA expires. There is certainly no second-guessing going on here.

The potential vulnerabilities of the drones has been known for a long time. Combat losses of the MQ-9 aren't a new thing. Any reconsideration has already been done.

3 billion is a huge amount of money. 26000 crs. With that much money, we can send many satellites. We can also build atleast 100 to 200 surface ships of 10 thousand tons weight category ships. This is a very big loot deal.

 

[DNA57]

Yes, let's keep aside drones that are needed and gamble that money on an aircraft that doesn't exist, probably will never exist, and if it did exist, would be used for a different role as compared to the drone. Fantastic idea, you know.

I have not suggested to keep aside drones.... they demand a huge amount of money for acquiring MQ-9B drones which now has become less effective. My point is only to judiciously use the money and not to be fooled with this fancy toys. I know MQ-9B and SU-57 are two different types of products. Getting Tejas or similar ready is more important now and this should be our first priority. So far 404 engine is concerned, i do not think India will get a steady supply in near future. So, instead of procrastinating and going back and forth should we not do something concrete ? If, after due consideration, if SU-75 is not feasible, RD-93MA/similar engine should be strongly considered. My main objective is to get Tejas/similar ready as soon as possible. And I believe with 404 it is not possible. I will be happy if I am proven wrong. Only time will say.

 

[Anant]

Need to scrap it completely

And then what? Do you have a similar drone ready to go?

 

[Leo red]

Cancel the deal. Let our Indian companies to grow. May be forced short term corrupted official may not like it. But it's best for our country's future. If we are so worried with defence batter to make more nukes and shake hand with Iran for drones technology. We already have Israel drones and can buy from. Russia also. I. 3 b usd I am sure we can develop our own high performance drones. Ask private sector companies like TATA mahendra L&T and reliance to come and develop. Or tax them heavily.

 

[Leo red]

And then what? Do you have a similar drone ready to go?

Yes ask Israel they will give and already given. Finally we have many friends in group. Also like US we don't need drones to kill individuals. We already have resources for it but we don't do that.

 

[Leo red]

We need drones carrier also. I am sure by saving money from this deal. here we can build drone carrier who can send drones to even 2k km range. And unload bombs. Like Iran and turkey. They will be more productive for surveillance too.

 

[DNA57]

India should be proactive....considering MQ-9B's reduced effectiveness in the current situations, it should bargain for lesser price per piece and divert the savings in procuring SU-75 or similar.

 

[Anant]

We need drones carrier also. I am sure by saving money from this deal. here we can build drone carrier who can send drones to even 2k km range. And unload bombs. Like Iran and turkey. They will be more productive for surveillance too.

Yeah... nope. Keeping developmental costs into consideration, even if we somehow get 2 LHDs with drones for 4 billion USD, there are two problems:

1. The drones and surveillance capability is needed as quickly as possible, not in 8-10 years.

2. The operating costs of a drone carrier operating purely for surveillance would be ridiculously high. Moreover, surveillance would be the secondary role for a drone carrier. You can't keep a drone carrier out at sea for 6-8 months a year. That is an excellent way to wear down your ship.

 

[bonito]

You know what, I'll bite for a second. The deal value is a tad short of 4 billion USD, but for the sake of strengthening your argument, let's assume the deal value is 4 billion USD. Divide that over 500 ships, and you get a unit cost of 8 million USD each.

The ships closest to that price point are the Car Nicobar-class patrol boats. These are very small boats with relatively high operating costs, a small range, and practically no defensive weaponry.

If you somehow managed to get 500 of them, where would you bring the crews (around 14,500 men), and the operational infrastructure? That alone would constitute such an expense so as to make the whole thing unviable.

Ok not 500, just 100 would mean 40 million $ per ship which still busy you 50 Kora class corvetts. For argument sake you can equal it to many defence assets, so don't demean his original intention

 

[Anant]

Ok not 500, just 100 would mean 40 million $ per ship which still busy you 50 Kora class corvetts. For argument sake you can equal it to many defence assets, so don't demean his original intention

Alright, let's take 100 ships, so 40 million USD each.

Want to know what kind of ship you get for 40 million USD today? Look up the Coast Guard's Vikram-class OPV. These are long-ranged oceanic patrol vessels carrying a single 30mm gun and two 12.7mm HMGs plus a helicopter (the cost figure does not include the helicopter).

Suppose for a minute we did get 100 such OPVs. You'll also need around 10,300 sailors for these ships plus 100 helicopters, plus all the extra operational costs. For all that money, you essentially get 100 ships that would be useful only against small fishing boats or something. Is that what you are proposing?

 

[Anant]

Yes ask Israel they will give and already given. Finally we have many friends in group. Also like US we don't need drones to kill individuals. We already have resources for it but we don't do that.

Thete isn't any. The only comparable drone to the MQ-9 is the IAI Eitan. Germany purchased them (in an armed state, with spares, support infrastructure, etc.) for around 164.5 million USD each (adjusted).

We had plans to buy them without weapons or spares (as these have a high degree of commonality to parts from the Heron line) at upwards of 70 million USD (again, adjusted to today). This was back in 2015. This was, however, vetoed by Israel. We later purchased 4 drones from Israel at over 85 million USD each in 2020.