kamrulkonok/evalllm2026-french-defense huggingface dataset:
SN06493.pdf — page 41

41 Overview of military drones used by the UK armed forces 
6.8 Intelligence-sharing with allies 
UK remotely piloted air systems are predominantly used for Intelligence, 
Reconnaissance and Surveillance (ISR). The Defence Committee noted in 
its report on RPAS that there has been growing concern about the 
sharing of intelligence with allies and the uses to which such data may 
contribute.181  
Operations in Iraq and Syria in 2014 provide an example of this.  
The UK Government has only authorised air strikes in Iraq but not Syria. 
RAF aircraft, both manned and unmanned aircraft (Sentinel, Rivet Joint 
and Reaper) are conducting surveillance flights over Syria.182 
Foreign Office Minister Tobias Ellwood has said the UK is “providing 
intelligence and surveillance to support coalition partners, who are 
carrying out air strikes in Syria against ISIL.”183 Chris Cole of Drone Wars 
UK suggests “it is likely that information from UK Reapers operating in 
Syria is being used to carry out strikes there.”184 
The Defence Committee acknowledge the “growing concern in relation 
to the sharing of intelligence with allies and the uses to which such data 
might contribute” but said that such issues stray beyond the remit of 
the Committee.185 It invited the Intelligence and Security Committee to 
consider this issue in the future. 
Members of the House of Lords questioned the Government on this 
issue during a debate on the Defence Reform Bill. Lord Hodgson of 
Astley Abbotts said “what we need to find out is whether information is 
being passed on which others take action. If we are doing that, we are 
assisting an illegal act.”186 Lord Hodgson expressed his dissatisfaction 
with the Minister’s response that “systems for supervision and scrutiny 
exist, but he was not prepared to confirm that they are being used 
because he could not say that.”187 
The Government, when pressed on this matter by Tom Watson, said: 
It is a long standing policy not to comment on intelligence 
matters. I would reiterate to the Hon. Member that all of the UK's 
intelligence sharing with Foreign States is undertaken within a 
robust legal framework, and is subject to rigorous ministerial, 
parliamentary and judicial oversight, including through the 
Consolidated Guidance.188 
The Birmingham Policy Commission called on the Government to 
confirm that guidance has been issued to staff and safeguards put in 
place to ensure that in sharing intelligence with the US government and 
                                                                                             
181  Defence Committee, Remote Control: Remotely Piloted Air Systems – current and 
future use, 25 March 2014, HC 772 2013-14, para 161 
182  HC Deb 21 October 2014 cWS73 and HLWS477 
183  PQ224326, 11 February 2015 
184  “New figures for British air and drone strikes in Iraq”, Drone Wars UK, 15 May 2015 
185  Defence Committee, Remote Control: Remotely Piloted Air Systems – current and 
future use, 25 March 2014, HC 772 2013-14, para 161 
186  HL Deb 5 February 2014 cGC115 
187  HL Deb 5 February 2014 cGC119 
188  PQ 209539 26 September 2014
SN06493.pdf — page 42

Number 06493, 8 October 2015 42 
military, the does not inadvertently collude in RPA or other counter-
terrorist actions contrary to international law.  
safeguarding arrangements are a form of mitigation, and may 
provide useful evidence of a state’s intent. Failure to confirm that 
such safeguarding arrangements exist undermines the assurances 
of government and could make it harder, if issues arise, to defend 
the UK’s actions.189 
The chair of the Commission, the chair and vice-chairs of the APPG on 
Drones and the Director General of RUSI190 have written to the Foreign 
Secretary requesting he “consider disclosing the Guidance to 
Intelligence Officers and Service Personnel applicable to the passing of 
intelligence relating to individuals who are at risk of targeted lethal 
strikes outside traditional battlefields.” The letter went on: 
In our view, disclosure of the Guidance, setting out the principles 
which govern intelligence sharing consistent with UK domestic 
and international law, in the context of the US covert drone 
programme, would serve to safeguard the important work of UK 
intelligence officers pursuing their statutory functions. Disclosure 
would reassure an anxious public that the UK government will 
protect personnel from inadvertent collusion in counter-terrorism 
operations contrary to our understanding of the law. It would also 
underline the distinction between Reaper strikes by our Armed 
Forces in Afghanistan, and now Iraq, and those of other states 
elsewhere.191 
 
6.9 An international code of conduct 
governing RPAS usage? 
Lord Judd tabled a question for short debate in the House of Lords to 
ask the Government: “what progress they have made in preparing a 
code of conduct for the civilian and military use of drones operating 
from the United Kingdom; and what negotiations they advocate for an 
international code.” Lord Tunnicliffe spoke in favour of codes for the 
use of drones and the use of lethal force.192 Earl Atlee responded for the 
Government: “RPAS are aircraft under human control. The very clear 
regulations and guidance that apply to aircraft also apply to RPAS. I am 
confident that no further code of conduct is required.193 
 
 
 
                                                                                             
189  Birmingham Policy Commission, The security impact of drones: challenges and 
opportunities for the UK, October 2014, p50-51 
190  Tom Watson MP, David Davis MP, Baroness Stern, Professor Sir David Ormand and 
Professor Michael Clarke. 
191  Letter to the Foreign Secretary, 19 November 2014, available on APPG on drones 
website 
192  HL Deb 25 June 2013 c722 
193  HL Deb 25 June 2013 c728
SN06493.pdf — page 43

43 Overview of military drones used by the UK armed forces 
7. Why are RPAS so controversial? 
The Birmingham Policy Commission identified Remotely Piloted Aircraft 
as the most controversial convention weapons platform in the UK 
Armed Forces’ portfolio.194 
This section explores some of the many concerns raised about RPAS, 
although questions about the legality of air strikes conducted by 
remotely piloted aircraft and the rules of engagement under which they 
are operate are explored in the previous section.  
7.1 Do RPAS lower the threshold for the use 
of force? 
Does state intervention become easier because they have access to 
remotely piloted aircraft?  
Chris Cole of Drone Wars UK argues they do. He argues drones lowers 
the threshold for the use of force because of their persistence and 
ability to be operated remotely from thousands of miles away. Cole 
argues that as no pilots or troops on the ground are at risk, the political 
cost of intervention is much lower. Cole cites the use of RPAS to carry 
out air strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere by the United States 
government. Cole suggests the UK may find it hard to “resist the siren 
call to deploy these armed systems each time a crisis develops as there is 
no perceived cost to doing so.”195  
The Government rejected this assertion in its response to the Defence 
Committee’s RPAS report: 
The Government is aware of the perception that the operation of 
RPAS may lead to a reduced threshold for military intervention. 
The Government does not believe this is the case. Military 
intervention remains an option of last resort and is only 
considered when other means have failed. The laws governing the 
recourse to the use of force are the same for RPAS as for other 
military systems. The Ministry of Defence would only ever 
contemplate military intervention where there was a proper legal 
basis to do so, for example where a UN Security Council 
Resolution permits or when justified under Article 51 of the UN 
Charter, which confirms the inherent right of states to collective 
or individual self-defence. The same strict Rules of Engagement 
that govern the use of conventional military aircraft also apply to 
RPAS.196 
The Ministry of Defence addressed this issue directly in the UK Air and 
Space Doctrine: 
                                                                                             
194  Birmingham Policy Commission, The security impact of drones: challenges and 
opportunities for the UK, October 2014, p56; This excludes Trident, the UK’s 
strategic nuclear deterrent, as this is a strategic, not conventional, weapon. 
195  C Cole “What’s wrong with drones?” Drone Wars UK website, 20 January 2014; 
“think drone technology is not really the problem? Think again”, Drone Wars UK 
website, 31 March 2015 
196  Defence Committee, Remote Control: Remotely Piloted Air Systems – current and 
future use: Government response, 22 July 2014, HC 611 2013-14, para 17
SN06493.pdf — page 45

45 Overview of military drones used by the UK armed forces 
event. It’s not detached. It’s not a video game. And it’s certainly 
not 8,000 miles away.201 
The Defence Committee spoke to Reaper operators at RAF Waddington 
and as a result rejected suggestions of a video game mentality: 
It was very clear from the visit to XIII Squadron and discussions 
with Reaper aircrew that all were experienced professional 
personnel with a clear purpose and keen understanding of the 
Rules of Engagement which govern their operations. Despite 
being remote from the battle space they exhibited a strong sense 
of connection to the life and death decisions they are sometimes 
required to take. This was in stark contrast to the image portrayed 
by some commentators of “drone” pilots as video gaming 
“warrior geeks”.202 
Lord Stirrup, former Chief of the Air Staff (and former Chief of the 
Defence Staff) suggests an RPA operator will make better decisions than 
the pilot in an aircraft at 20,000 feet “because he is looking at a bigger 
screen, with greater definition, he will be able to see more detail of the 
target area, and he will be in a better position to avoid collateral 
damage.”203 
The US-based Stimson Centre’s task force on US drone policy similarly 
rejected suggestions that RPAS creates a ‘playstation mentality’ among 
operators. Ironically, it says, the men and women who remotely operate 
lethal UAVs have a far more up close and personal”view of the 
damage they inflict than the pilots of manned aircraft, who speed past 
their targets in seconds from far above.204 
7.3 Impact on mental health of operators 
Does the nature of operating an RPA put operators at risk of mental 
health issues?  
Unlike combat aircraft pilots, RPAS operators may witness the full 
aftermath of an air strike by continuing to observe the target area. They 
may watch in real-time an attack on fellow service personnel. This 
experience may be harder to process because of the physical separation 
between themselves and the area of operations. Because they are not 
deployed as a unit to a combat area, they may not benefit from the 
social cohesiveness and support networks gained from units that deploy 
on operations together.205 
RPAS crew may experience difficulty in separating work from home. The 
NATO study says “the impact of fighting a war on-base and going 
home to family at night obliterates the clear demarcation between 
                                                                                             
201  “Demand grows for UAV pilots, sensor operators”, Air Force Times, 21 April 2012; 
see also “Meet the pilots who fly America’s drones”, Global Post, 16 December 
2011 
202  Defence Committee, Remote Control: Remotely Piloted Air Systems – current and 
future use, 25 March 2014, HC 772 2013-14, para 57 
203  HL Deb 5 February 2014 cGC89 
204  Stimson Centre, “Recommendations and Report of the Stimson Task Force on US 
Drone Policy”, 30 June 2014, p24 
205  Major A Haider, “Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systemsin Contested Environments: A 
Vulnerability Analysis”, NATO Joint Air Power Competence Centre, September 2014
SN06493.pdf — page 46

Number 06493, 8 October 2015 46 
combat and personal life.”206 An article in the US Stars and Stripes 
magazine noted the dangers of exhaustion and burnout among UAV 
operators.207 
Members of the Defence Committee raised this with RPAS operators for 
its inquiry into RPAS. Crew members told them of the importance of 
decompression and keeping the two parts of their lives discreet. Some 
individuals suggested the one hour commute from home to work, when 
working at Creech Air Force base in Nevada, was helpful, though this 
type of commute is not a feature when operating from RAF 
Waddington.208  
A US Air Force study into mental health diagnoses among pilots of RPAS 
in 2013 found: 
Remote combat does not increase the risk of Mental Health 
outcomes beyond that seen in traditional combat. Military 
policymakers and clinicians should recognize that RPA pilots have 
a similar MH risk profile as Manned Aircraft pilots. Although 
unadjusted rates of MH outcomes among both cohorts of pilots 
were much lower than rates among those in other USAF 
occupations, further research is needed to evaluate the impact of 
aeromedical policy on these rates, as well as the effect of remote 
combat on other RPA crew members.209 
The Ministry of Defence was asked what psychological and physical 
assessments have been undertaken on pilots of RPAS in February 2013. 
Defence Minister Andrew Robathan replied: 
The Ministry of Defence takes seriously the psychological and 
physical health of all Armed Forces personnel. The RAF Reaper 
remotely piloted air systems (RPAS) force, alongside other 
frontline forces, has robust Trauma Risk Management strategies in 
place to ensure this is continually monitored. The RAF Medical 
Services have not detected any adverse psychological and physical 
trends for RAF pilots of RPAS.210 
7.4 Impact on civilians and danger of 
‘blowback’ 
A report by Stanford University examining US drone attacks in Pakistan, 
Living Under Drones, argued drone strikes are damaging and 
counterproductive. Based on figures collated by the Bureau of 
Investigative Journalism, it estimated between 2,562 and 3,325 people 
were killed in drone strikes in Pakistan between June 2004 and mid-
September 2012, of whom 474 to 881 were civilians. It argued US 
drone strike policies “cause considerable and under-accounted for harm 
                                                                                             
206  Major A Haider, “Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systemsin Contested Environments: A 
Vulnerability Analysis”, NATO Joint Air Power Competence Centre, September 2014, 
para 7.3.2.2 
207  “The war room: Daily transition between battle, home takes a toll on drone 
operators”, Stars and Stripes, 27 October 2009 
208  Defence Committee, Remote Control: Remotely Piloted Air Systems – current and 
future use, 25 March 2014, HC 772 2013-14, para 53 
209  J Otto, B Webber “Mental Health Diagnoses and Counseling Among Pilots of 
Remotely Piloted Aircraft in the United States Air Force”, Medical Surveillance 
Monthly Report, March 2013, vol 20 no 3 
210  HC Deb 25 February 2013 c38W
SN06493.pdf — page 47

47 Overview of military drones used by the UK armed forces 
to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical 
injury.”211  
The Birmingham Policy Commission wrote of the need to consider the 
potential ‘blowback’ of RPA use. It cited the work of the Stimson 
Centre’s task force on drone policy which notes that “civilian casualties, 
even if relatively few, can anger whole communities, increase anti-US 
sentiment and become a potent recruiting tool for terrorist 
organizations.” It also acknowledges widespread unease about US use 
of RPAS worldwide and in particular by America’s allies. For the US, the 
task force recommends that “the risk of international backlash against 
US strikes needs to be factored in as we evaluate the strategic value of 
targeted strikes.”212 
7.5 Demands for greater transparency 
The Defence Committee, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Drones 
and the Birmingham Policy Commission have all called on the Ministry 
of Defence to be more transparent and open about RPAS operations.  
The Birmingham Policy Commission said that the recurring theme of its 
report is the need for “clearer, more forthcoming public communication 
and transparency on the part of the UK government, and the MoD in 
particular.”213 
The Defence Committee said it is of “vital importance” that a clear 
distinction is drawn between the actions of UK Armed Forces RPAS 
operations and those of other states. Implicit in this recommendation 
was a call to clearly differentiate itself from the United States.  
In response, the Government said it was already taking steps to raise 
public awareness. It gave as examples evidence to the committee for its 
inquiry, media events at RAF Waddington (Reaper) and Boscombe Down 
(Watchkeeper) and briefings to MPs and Peers. The Department also 
said it intends to continue communication with the public, media and 
Parliamentarians to “promote a better understanding of what we do 
and why we do it” when operational secure to do so.214 
The Ministry of Defence acknowledged the need to do more in JDP 0-30 
Air and Space Doctrine.215 The Doctrine warns adversaries may 
encourage the misperception that “air power is a disproportionately 
violent, detached and indiscriminate form a force.” As such “we must 
engage with the legal process proactively to make sure we are 
operating legally” and establish, manage and archive a “comprehensive 
                                                                                             
211  “Living Under Drones”, Stanford Law School and NYU School of Law, September 
2012 , introduction 
212  Stimson Centre, “Recommendations and Report of the Stimson Task Force on US 
Drone Policy”, 30 June 2014, p24p30 
213  Birmingham Policy Commission, The security impact of drones: challenges and 
opportunities for the UK, October 2014, p82 
214  Defence Committee, Remote Control: Remotely Piloted Air Systems – current and 
future use: Government response, 22 July 2014, HC 611 2013-14, para 163 
215  This is the highest level statement of the UK’s air and space doctrine.
SN06493.pdf — page 48

Number 06493, 8 October 2015 48 
audit trail to record our actions and decisions so that we can prove our 
activities are legal.”216 
Members of both Houses have pressed the Government on this.  
The All Party Parliamentary Group on Drones was founded in October 
2012. It is chaired by Tom Watson and the vice-chairs are Baroness 
Stern and David Davis MP. Baroness Stern has explained that “the APPG 
is concerned not with opposing drones but with transparency: ensuring 
that Parliament is well informed and that information about the 
development and use of drones is put in the public domain so that we 
may debate the many issues that arise.”217  
Peers tabled amendments to the Defence Reform Bill in February 2014 
to probe Government policy on RPAS operations, prompting a wide-
ranging discussion on terminology and oversight of RPAS operations.218 
Lord West of Spithead, a member of the APPG on drones, tabled 
probing amendments to the Counter-Terrorism Bill.219 Subject-specific 
debates were held as follows: 
• 
Drones: code of conduct, House of Lords, 25 June 2013, c719-
728 
• 
Lethal Autonomous Robotics, adjournment debate, 17 June 2013, 
c727-737 
• 
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Westminster Hall adjournment debate, 
11 December 2012, c27-48WH 
• 
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Westminster Hall adjournment debate, 
6 November 2012 c196-204WH 
Tom Watson, among others, has tabled many parliamentary questions 
pressing the Government for information on RPAS operations. The 
APPG on drones and Drone Wars UK have made freedom of 
information requests also about RPAS. Information on these can be 
found on the following websites: 
• 
RPAS-related Parliamentary Questions: collated by the APPG on 
drones 
• 
Parliamentary proceedings (debates): collated by the APPG on 
drones 
• 
Committees: collated by the APPG on drones 
• 
Early Day Motions: collated by the APPG on drones 
• 
Freedom of Information Requests: collated by the Ministry of 
Defence 
 
                                                                                             
216  JDP 0-30 para 213 
217  HL Deb 5 February 2014 cGC84 
218  HL Deb 5 February 2014 cGC81-126 
219  HL Deb 26 January 2015 c95-100
SN06493.pdf — page 49

49 Overview of military drones used by the UK armed forces 
8. Autonomous versus autonomy 
Summary 
There is a global campaign to pre-emptively ban fully autonomous weapon systems. The UN 
Special Rapporteur has recommended a moratoria on the testing, production and deployment 
of Lethal Autonomous Robots. The UK Government says it has unilaterally put in place a policy 
to not develop lethal autonomous robots but does not intend to formalise that in a national 
moratorium. Fully autonomous weapons systems do not yet exist.  
 
One of the major concerns with future plans for remotely piloted 
aircraft systems is the move towards ever greater autonomy. 
Autonomy and autonomous should not be conflated. As the Defence 
Committee noted: 
The concepts of automation and autonomy are often applied to 
unmanned aircraft interchangeably, but, as the MoD has noted, 
the distinction is important “as there are moral, ethical and legal 
implications regarding the use of autonomous unmanned 
aircraft”.220 
The issues surrounding fully autonomous weapons systems are detailed 
enough to merit a separate briefing note. However the subject is 
relevant to a discussion about RPAS because technology is proceeding 
at such a pace that such an autonomous weapons system may be 
developed. Debates have been held in Parliament and there is a global 
campaign for a pre-emptive ban on fully autonomous weapons. 
Terminology used to describe this includes: lethal autonomous weapons 
systems (LAWS), lethal autonomous robotics (LARs) and, more 
colloquially, “killer robots”.  
Fully autonomous weapons systems 
Fully autonomous weapons systems are not yet in existence and the UK 
Government says it has no plans to develop such a system. 
However a debate about the repercussions of such a technology and 
how States should respond is underway. 
A significant contribution to this debate was the report by the UN 
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, 
Professor Christof Heyns, to the UN Human Rights Council on lethal 
autonomous robotics (LAR) in April 2013.  
Professor Heyns defined lethal autonomous robotics as “weapon 
systems that, once activated, can select and engage targets without 
further human intervention.”  
Professor Heyns said LARs raise far-reaching concerns about the 
protection of life during war and peace. He questioned the extent to 
which they can be programmed to comply with the requirements of 
                                                                                             
220  Defence Committee, Remote Control: Remotely Piloted Air Systems – current and 
future use, 25 March 2014, HC 772 2013-14, para 21 
Fully autonomous 
weapons systems are 
not yet in existence.
SN06493.pdf — page 50

Number 06493, 8 October 2015 50 
international humanitarian law and the standards protecting life under 
international human rights law. He questioned whether an adequate 
system of legal accountability could be devised. He argued robots 
“should not have the power of life and death over human beings.” 
He concluded by recommending States establish national moratoria on 
the testing, production, assembly, transfer, acquisition, deployment and 
use of LARs. He recommended establishing a high level panel on LARs 
to articulate a policy for the international community on the issue.221 
Professor Heyns warned: 
Coming on the heels of the problematic use and contested 
justifications for drones and targeted killing, LARs may seriously 
undermine the ability of the international legal system to preserve 
a minimum world order. 
Debate in Parliament on lethal autonomous 
robotics 
Nia Griffith led a debate on lethal autonomous robotics in the 
Commons on 17 June 2013, prompted in part by Professor Heyns’ 
report.222 Ms Griffith argued that because a robot would be able to 
make the decision to kill a human being “LARs would constitute not an 
upgrade of the weapons that are currently in our arsenals, but a 
fundamental change in the nature of war.223 She added: 
Our current understanding of the nature of war cannot support 
them; that our existing legislation cannot regulate them; and that 
we cannot predict the effects that they may have on our future 
world. 
Ms Griffith concluded by endorsing the call for a global moratorium on 
LARs and called on the UK to be at the forefront of the debate on 
LARs.224 
Government position 
The UK Government does not possess fully autonomous weapons 
systems. Nor does it have any intention at present of developing them. 
Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt outlined the Government’s position 
in the debate led by Nia Griffith: 
As a matter of policy, Her Majesty’s Government are clear that the 
operation of our weapons will always be under human control as 
an absolute guarantee of human oversight and authority and of 
accountability for weapons usage.  
Mr Burt said the Government shared her concerns about possible 
technological developments. Mr Burt said the UK believes that the basis 
of international law governing weapons systems would prevent the 
development of such weapons. 
                                                                                             
221  Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, 
Christof Heyns, UN Human Rights Council, 9 April 2013, A/HRC/23/47 
222  HC Deb 17 June 2013 c729-738 
223  HC Deb 17 June 2013 c729 
224  HC Deb 17 June 2013 c729-731 
The Government says 
it has no plans to 
replace military pilots 
with fully 
autonomous systems.
SN06493.pdf — page 51

51 Overview of military drones used by the UK armed forces 
Mr Burt explained the Government’s opposition to a formal national 
moratorium: 
The UK has unilaterally decided to put in place a restrictive policy 
whereby we have no plans at present to develop lethal 
autonomous robotics, but we do not intend to formalise that in a 
national moratorium. We believe that any system, regardless of its 
level of autonomy, should only ever be developed or used in 
accordance with international humanitarian law. We think the 
Geneva conventions and additional protocols provide a sufficiently 
robust framework to regulate the development and use of these 
weapon systems. 
He added international humanitarian law would prevent the UK 
developing such systems because such systems would breach that 
law.225 
The House of Lords discussed this in a similar debate in the same month 
entitled drones: code of conduct. Government minister Earl Atlee 
sought to reassure peers that: “there are no future plans to replace 
military pilots with fully autonomous systems.”226 
Automated versus autonomous: an example 
In both debates the question of the difference between automated and 
autonomous systems was raised, with the example of Phalanx given. 
Phalanx is a ship-borne air defence system consisting of a radar-
controlled gun that fires at incoming enemy aircraft and missiles if they 
penetrate a ship or task group’s outer ring of defences. Earl Atlee noted 
that while Phalanx can be used in an automatic mode a human operator 
oversees the entire engagement.227 Alistair Burt explained that while the 
system does fire of missiles automatically, the parameters for that 
system are set by a human operator. He said lethal autonomous robotics 
is a “step beyond” current systems because once activated they could 
select and engage targets without any further human intervention.228  
The campaign for a pre-emptive ban on fully 
autonomous weapons 
The Campaign to stop killer robots is a global coalition that is working 
for a pre-emptive ban on fully autonomous weapons. The global 
coordinator is Mary Wareham at Human Rights Watch and the 
campaign includes Amnesty International, Drone Wars UK and the 
Campaign Against the Arms Trade.229 Nobel peace prize winner Jody 
Williams, who led the campaign to ban landmines, is a prominent 
member of the campaign. 
The campaign says it seeks to raise awareness of the numerous ethical, 
legal, moral, policy, technical, and other concerns of fully autonomous 
weapons. It advocates a comprehensive, pre-emptive prohibition on 
fully autonomous weapons. The campaign suggests this could be 
                                                                                             
225  HC Deb 17 June 2013 c734-738 
226  HL Deb 25 June 2013 c726 
227  HL Deb 25 June 2013 c726 
228  HC Deb 17 June 2013 c735 
229 A full listing is available on the coalition’s website: Stopkillerrobots.org
SN06493.pdf — page 52

Number 06493, 8 October 2015 52 
achieved through an international treaty, as well as through national 
laws and other measures. 
The campaign is calling on all countries to implement the 
recommendations of the 2013 report by UN Special Rapporteur 
Professor Christof Heyns, mentioned above. 
The Convention on Conventional Weapons 
The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) aims to ban 
or restrict the use of specific types of weapons that are considered to 
cause unnecessary or unjustifiable suffering to combatants or to affect 
civilians indiscriminately. The CCW has a total of 119 States parties, 
including the UK, and five signatories. 
The Government has said it believes the CCW is the right place to 
discuss this issue.230 
A five day meeting of experts at the CCW was held in April 2015 to 
discuss the questions related to emerging technologies in the area of 
lethal autonomous weapons systems.231 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                             
230  HC Deb 17 June 2013 c736 
231  A full list of statements from contributing countries, including the UK, and copies of 
presentations and discussion papers is available on the CCW website: 2015 Meeting 
of Experts on LAWS
SN06493.pdf — page 53

53 Overview of military drones used by the UK armed forces 
9. Further reading 
There is a wealth of information discussing the issues raised by remotely 
piloted aircraft. This list is weighted towards material that focuses on UK 
military usage but does include commentary on US and global use. 
• 
Defence Committee, Towards the next Strategic Defence and 
Security Review: Part three, 25 March 2015 HC 1127 2014-15 
• 
House of Lords European Union Committee, Civilian use of drones 
in the EU, 5 March 2015, HL 122 2014-15 
• 
Parliamentary Office of Science and Environment, Civilian drones, 
2 October 2014 
• 
Defence Committee, Remote Control: Remotely Piloted Air 
Systems – current and future use: Government response, 29 July 
2014, HC 611 2014-15 
• 
Stimson Centre, “Recommendations and Report of the Stimson 
Task Force on US Drone Policy”, 30 June 2014, 
• 
Defence Committee, Remote Control: Remotely Piloted Air 
Systems – current and future use, 25 March 2014, HC 772 2013-
14 
• 
Birmingham Policy Commission, The security impact of drones: 
challenges and opportunities for the UK, October 2014232  
• 
Major André Haider, Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems in 
Contested Environments: a vulnerability analysis, NATO Joint Air 
Power Competence Centre, September 2014 
• 
Current and Future Maritime Air Power for the United Kingdom, 
Royal Aeronautical Society, July 2014 
• 
M Aaronson and A Johnson, Hitting the target? How new 
capabilities are shaping international intervention, RUSI Whitehall 
Report 2-13, March 2013 
• 
RAF Air Power Review, various editions 
• 
“Integrating remotely piloted air systems”, RAF Air Power 2013, 
p91 
Drone Wars UK maintains a library of documents and articles on the use 
of drones which can be accessed at dronewars.net 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                             
232  Commissioned by the University of Birmingham and chaired by Professor Sir David 
Omand, formerly the first UK Security and Intelligence Coordinator; Director of 
GCHQ; Deputy Under Secretary of State for Policy in the Ministry of Defence.
SN06493.pdf — page 54

BRIEFING PAPER 
Number 06493, 8 October 
2015 
 
About the Library 
The House of Commons Library research service provides MPs and their staff 
with the impartial briefing and evidence base they need to do their work in 
scrutinising Government, proposing legislation, and supporting constituents. 
As well as providing MPs with a confidential service we publish open briefing 
papers, which are available on the Parliament website. 
Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in these publically 
available research briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should 
be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated or otherwise 
amended to reflect subsequent changes. 
If you have any comments on our briefings please email papers@parliament.uk. 
Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing only with Members 
and their staff. 
If you have any general questions about the work of the House of Commons 
you can email hcinfo@parliament.uk. 
Disclaimer 
This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their 
parliamentary duties. It is a general briefing only and should not be relied on as 
a substitute for specific advice. The House of Commons or the author(s) shall 
not be liable for any errors or omissions, or for any loss or damage of any kind 
arising from its use, and may remove, vary or amend any information at any 
time without prior notice. 
The House of Commons accepts no responsibility for any references or links to, 
or the content of, information maintained by third parties. This information is 
provided subject to the conditions of the Open Parliament Licence.
Formation au drone SMDR pour le 68e RAA _ Ministère des Armées et des Anciens combattants.pdf — page 1

Voir le fil d'ariane
Formation au drone SMDR pour le 68e RAA | Ministère de...
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/actualites/formation-au...
1 of 7
2/4/26, 15:03
Formation au drone SMDR pour le 68e RAA _ Ministère des Armées et des Anciens combattants.pdf — page 2

Formation au drone SMDR pour le 68e
RAA
Préparation opérationnelle
Direction : Terre / Publié le : 13 janvier 2023
Dans un contexte d'engagement et de l’utilisation accrue des drones comme moyens
d’acquisition, un groupe SMDR (Système de mini-drones de renseignement) du 68e
régiment d’artillerie d’Afrique (68e RAA) conduit un exercice sur le camp de Canjuers.
Un tir au canon Caesar vu du chef de pièce. - © Armée de Terre/CCH Adrien C.
Le 68e RAA profite de la campagne de tirs qui se déroule à Canjuers pour mener une
formation d’adaptation de coordination des appuis feu au profit de la section drone.
Elle a été finalisée par un exercice synthèse de cette section de la batterie
d’acquisition et de surveillance sur le camp de La Valbonne. Le but est d'acquérir les
connaissances pour exécuter des tirs d’artillerie simple, sous la responsabilité d’un
observateur d’artillerie, dans l’attente de formations normées qui leur permettront
d’effectuer un tir d’artillerie observé par drone en autonomie. Cette formation entre
dans le cadre de la préparation opérationnelle à la mission Aigle.
Formation au drone SMDR pour le 68e RAA | Ministère de...
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/actualites/formation-au...
2 of 7
2/4/26, 15:03
Formation au drone SMDR pour le 68e RAA _ Ministère des Armées et des Anciens combattants.pdf — page 3

Cette campagne de tirs d’artillerie représente l’occasion pour le groupe SMDR de
valider sur le terrain et en réel, la procédure de tirs sous observation drone. Ces
observateurs dronistes participeront ensuite à l’action de partenariat avec l’Ecole
d’Artillerie.
Le drone SMDR prêt à être lancé - © Armée de Terre/CCH Adrien C.
Les systèmes SMDR arrivant en unité en 2023, leurs télé-pilotes se sont adaptés afin de
driller  ces procédures sur simulation via VBS3 afin d’être en mesure de demander et
régler des tirs.
Cette capacité ajoute un vecteur d’acquisition utilisable au-delà de la ligne des
contacts en cas d’engagement. Elle permet de disposer d’un panel étendu de
capacités d’acquisitions, tout en s’assurant une boucle renseignement-feux raccourcie,
au sein du régiment d’artillerie et en appui de la 7e brigade blindée (7e BB).
Formation au drone SMDR pour le 68e RAA | Ministère de...
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/actualites/formation-au...
3 of 7
2/4/26, 15:03
Formation au drone SMDR pour le 68e RAA _ Ministère des Armées et des Anciens combattants.pdf — page 4

eux soldats français travaillant le télépilotage du drone SMDR face à l’écran d’ordinateur. - © Armée de Terre/CCH
Adrien C.
Partager la page
Veuillez autoriser le dépôt de cookies pour partager sur Facebook, Linkedin et Twitter-x.
A la une
Formation au drone SMDR pour le 68e RAA | Ministère de...
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/actualites/formation-au...
4 of 7
2/4/26, 15:03
Formation au drone SMDR pour le 68e RAA _ Ministère des Armées et des Anciens combattants.pdf — page 5

Stage Némésis : se former pour vaincre en jungle
Le stage de combat en jungle Némésis est une formation exigeante...
04 février 2026
Discours
Chef d'état major de l'armée de Terre
50 ans du Matériel
Le général Pierre Schill, chef d’état-major de l’armée de Terre, a présidé le 28 janvier aux
Invalides la cérémonie...
02 février 2026
Formation au drone SMDR pour le 68e RAA | Ministère de...
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/actualites/formation-au...
5 of 7
2/4/26, 15:03
Formation au drone SMDR pour le 68e RAA _ Ministère des Armées et des Anciens combattants.pdf — page 6

Haut de page
Suivez l'armée de Terre sur les réseaux sociaux
Exercice
6e brigade légère blindée
Comment le groupement commando amphibie de l’armée de
Terre se prépare-t-il à un engagement de haute intensité ?
80 militaires du Groupement Commando Amphibie (GCA) de la 6ᵉ brigade légère
blindée se sont rendus dans la ...
19 janvier 2026
MINISTÈRE
DES ARMÉES
ET DES ANCIENS
COMBATTANTS
Formation au drone SMDR pour le 68e RAA | Ministère de...
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/actualites/formation-au...
6 of 7
2/4/26, 15:03
Formation au drone SMDR pour le 68e RAA _ Ministère des Armées et des Anciens combattants.pdf — page 7

info.gouv.fr
service-public.gouv.fr
legifrance.gouv.fr
data.gouv.fr
Sauf mention contraire, tous les contenus de ce site sont sous licence etalab-2.0
Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
Données personnelles
Gestion des cookies
Mentions légales
Formation au drone SMDR pour le 68e RAA | Ministère de...
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/actualites/formation-au...
7 of 7
2/4/26, 15:03
[Esprit défense n°10] Pour l’armée de Terre, le défi de la « dronisation » _ Ministère des Armées et des Anciens combattants.pdf — page 1

[Esprit défense n°10] Pour l’armée de Terre,
le défi de la « dronisation »
Direction : Ministère des Armées / Publié le : 15 mars 2024
Parmi ses nombreux enseignements, la guerre en Ukraine confirme l’importance
grandissante des drones dans les conflits modernes. Les armées françaises sont déjà
en ordre de marche pour relever ce défi. Exemple avec l’armée de Terre, dont la «
dronisation » s’amplifie avec la montée en puissance de l’école spécialisée dans le
domaine et avec l’arrivée du Patroller. Un article tiré de la revue Esprit défense n°10.
Doté d’une envergure de 18 mètres, le drone Patroller possède une autonomie de 14 heures. - © Armée de Terre/
Défense
Voir le fil d'ariane
[Esprit défense n°10] Pour l’armée de Terre, le déﬁ de la «...
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/esprit-defense-ndeg...
1 of 8
2/4/26, 14:57
[Esprit défense n°10] Pour l’armée de Terre, le défi de la « dronisation » _ Ministère des Armées et des Anciens combattants.pdf — page 2

« Envoyez le Parrot au-dessus de la route. Restez ensuite en vol stationnaire pour
observer la force adverse. » Les ordres donnés par le capitaine Jean à deux de ses
hommes sont clairs. Dissimulés en lisière d’un champ, les soldats s’exécutent avec
précision. Le drone décolle. Son écran de contrôle dévoile rapidement un groupe de
militaires ennemis, camouflés à une centaine de mètres seulement de là, véhicule à
l’arrêt. Malgré le vent qui souffle, les images fournies par l’appareil sont d’une
étonnante clarté. Aucun détail ne lui échappe. Nous ne sommes pas sur un théâtre
d’opération, mais dans la campagne de Haute-Marne, près de Chaumont, et à
quelques kilomètres du quartier général d’Aboville. C’est là que siège le 61  régiment
d’artillerie (61  RA), régiment expert dans la captation et l’exploitation du
renseignement d’origine image au sein de l’armée de Terre. Chaque automne, ses «
Diables noirs  » participent à un important exercice sur le terrain. Et les drones sont
largement sollicités durant ces deux semaines d’entraînement.
École des drones
Car ces systèmes  sont désormais largement employés dans tous les conflits. « L’armée
de Terre a pleinement conscience de l’importance prise par ces engins. Il nous faut donc
rapidement monter en gamme dans la formation initiale des opérateurs de drones »,
affirme le colonel David Kaufmann, chargé du développement capacitaire pour
l’armée de Terre, notamment pour tout ce qui concerne les drones.
Dans cette optique, il existe déjà une École des drones (EDD) au quartier général
d’Aboville. Jusqu’alors intégrée au 61  RA, l’EDD a pris son envol en juillet 2023 pour
devenir complètement autonome. La raison ? Avec l’explosion, ces dernières années,
du nombre de drones dans les unités, une très grande majorité de ses stagiaires
étaient, de fait, extérieurs au régiment. Les deux entités ont donc été dissociées,
l’école devenant un lieu de formation destiné à l’armée de Terre dans sa globalité. «
L’École des drones, c’est un peu l’émancipation d’un enfant devenu majeur », résume le
colonel Pierre-Yves Le Viavant, chef de corps du 61  RA.
1
e
e
2
3
e
e
[Esprit défense n°10] Pour l’armée de Terre, le déﬁ de la «...
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/esprit-defense-ndeg...
2 of 8
2/4/26, 14:57
[Esprit défense n°10] Pour l’armée de Terre, le défi de la « dronisation » _ Ministère des Armées et des Anciens combattants.pdf — page 3

Des stagiaires de l’Ecole des drones préparent le vol d’un drone de renseignement SMDR. - © Antoine Delaunay/
Dicod/Défense
Un modèle décentralisé
Dans les faits, l’EDD ne se limite pas à l’armée de Terre, elle forme aussi du personnel
des Nations unies ou du ministère de l’Intérieur. Pour remplir ses missions, elle peut
compter sur des instructeurs aux parcours divers. Une nécessité pour bénéficier de
l’expérience de chacun et renforcer cet esprit interarmes qui lui est propre. « Je
m’appuie sur des cavaliers, des sapeurs, des artilleurs ou encore des logisticiens. Ce vivier
hétérogène amène une culture qui profite à tous dans le cadre de l’instruction », se
félicite le lieutenant-colonel Jean-Louis Bourgeois, commandant l’École des drones.
Car l’objectif de l’établissement n’est pas tant de former les opérateurs de drones que
de faire de ces derniers des instructeurs. Ceux-ci pourront former les télépilotes dans
leurs régiments respectifs. « C’est un modèle de formation décentralisé », explique le
lieutenant-colonel Bourgeois.
Du matériel de plus en plus varié
Pour être la plus efficace possible sur le terrain, l’armée de Terre dispose d’une
panoplie de systèmes répondant à tout type de besoin. Du plus petit au plus grand : «
drone du combattant », « drone spécialisé » et « drone du commandement ».
Transportable sur la ceinture d’un fantassin, le Black Hornet 3 ne pèse ainsi que 33
grammes, mesure 16 centimètres de long et peut voler 20 minutes maximum, tandis
que le système de minidrones de renseignement SMDR produit par Thales pèse 15
kilogrammes pour une envergure de quatre mètres et une autonomie portée à deux
[Esprit défense n°10] Pour l’armée de Terre, le déﬁ de la «...
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/esprit-defense-ndeg...
3 of 8
2/4/26, 14:57
[Esprit défense n°10] Pour l’armée de Terre, le défi de la « dronisation » _ Ministère des Armées et des Anciens combattants.pdf — page 4

heures et demie. Début 2024, le 61  RA reçoit quant à lui les premiers exemplaires du «
drone du commandement » Patroller. Fabriqué par Safran, ce modèle très attendu
sera opérationnel l’année prochaine. « Il nous donnera la capacité de repérer l’ennemi
dans la profondeur. Avec un tel outil, nous pourrons quasiment lire l’ordre de bataille de
l’adversaire sur plusieurs dizaines de kilomètres », dévoile le chef de corps du régiment.
Le Patroller pourrait embarquer des armes, possède une autonomie de 14 heures et
peut se déplacer dans un rayon de 450 kilomètres.
Au total, cette « dronisation » va permettre à l’armée de Terre de passer de 2 000
drones actuellement à 3 000 dès 2025. « C’est un réel effort. Mais il nous reste encore
des étapes à franchir », souligne le colonel Kaufmann. « Je pense notamment aux
questions autour des munitions téléopérées , à la capacité de piloter des essaims de
drones ainsi qu’à leur intégration dans le combat collaboratif. Sans oublier, en parallèle,
la lutte antidrone qui devient aussi un enjeu majeur. »
Par EV1 Antoine de Longevialle.
Le drone du combattant Anafi, fabriqué par l’industriel Parrot, dispose de capacités
d’observation de jour comme de nuit.
 Surnom donné aux artilleurs du 61  régiment d’artillerie par les Allemands lors de la
Première Guerre mondiale, en référence à leur courage, à la couleur de leur uniforme
et à la poudre à canon qui noircissait les visages.
 L’expression « systèmes de drones » est plus souvent utilisée que le terme de «
drones ». La notion de système implique en effet les éléments permettant de mettre
en œuvre les drones – système de lancement, console du télépilote, charges utiles…
 Plus communément appelées « drones kamikazes ».
e
4
1 
2
e
3
4
[Esprit défense n°10] Pour l’armée de Terre, le déﬁ de la «...
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/esprit-defense-ndeg...
4 of 8
2/4/26, 14:57
[Esprit défense n°10] Pour l’armée de Terre, le défi de la « dronisation » _ Ministère des Armées et des Anciens combattants.pdf — page 5

Le conflit russo-ukrainien confirme l’importance des drones pour les opérations. - © Ozge Elif Kizil/Anadolu/AFP
Retrouvez tous les numéros du magazine trimestriel Esprit défense, la revue du monde
de la défense.
Partager la page
Veuillez autoriser le dépôt de cookies pour partager sur Facebook, Linkedin et Twitter-x.
A la une
3 000
C’est le nombre de drones que possédera l’armée de Terre d’ici à 2025,
contre 2 000 aujourd’hui.
[Esprit défense n°10] Pour l’armée de Terre, le déﬁ de la «...
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/esprit-defense-ndeg...
5 of 8
2/4/26, 14:57
[Esprit défense n°10] Pour l’armée de Terre, le défi de la « dronisation » _ Ministère des Armées et des Anciens combattants.pdf — page 6

Vœux d’Alice Rufo : « L’esprit de défaite est un poison mortel
»
La ministre déléguée auprès de la ministre des Armées et des Anciens combattants,
Alice Rufo, a présenté se...
03 février 2026
Espace : pourquoi la France veut accélérer sa défense
orbitale ?
En février prochain, sur la base aérienne 101 de Toulouse, plusieurs centaines de
[Esprit défense n°10] Pour l’armée de Terre, le déﬁ de la «...
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/esprit-defense-ndeg...
6 of 8
2/4/26, 14:57
[Esprit défense n°10] Pour l’armée de Terre, le défi de la « dronisation » _ Ministère des Armées et des Anciens combattants.pdf — page 7

Haut de page
Suivez-nous sur les réseaux sociaux
militaires participeront ...
29 janvier 2026
[Décryptage] : l’innovation, un enjeu majeur de défense et de
souveraineté
L’innovation de défense connaît un dynamisme inédit, portée par la révolution
numérique en cours. Alors que...
28 janvier 2026
[Esprit défense n°10] Pour l’armée de Terre, le déﬁ de la «...
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/esprit-defense-ndeg...
7 of 8
2/4/26, 14:57
[Esprit défense n°10] Pour l’armée de Terre, le défi de la « dronisation » _ Ministère des Armées et des Anciens combattants.pdf — page 8

info.gouv.fr
service-public.gouv.fr
legifrance.gouv.fr
data.gouv.fr
Sauf mention contraire, tous les contenus de ce site sont sous licence etalab-2.0
MINISTÈRE
DES ARMÉES
ET DES ANCIENS
COMBATTANTS
Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
Données personnelles
Gestion des cookies
Mentions légales
[Esprit défense n°10] Pour l’armée de Terre, le déﬁ de la «...
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/esprit-defense-ndeg...
8 of 8
2/4/26, 14:57