I would argue that if this is the case, the equipment needs to be examined, as it's obviously broken, or the operators are not fully competent. You can't tell me that it is "ops normal" to not know where you are or what altitude you're at. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but you're making it sound like it's completely normal and that knowing your location and altitude is actually the exception rather than the rule.
In one particular country, I averaged about three near-mid-air's a night with UAV's. These were primarily an advanced, sophisticated type. When I say near, I mean closure, same altitude, less than a tenth of a mile, and on one occasion, around one in the morning, along the border of an unfriendly nation, had the wing of a UAV pass under my wing by about six feet. No moonlight, and we were close enough that I saw it without night vision. That was close.
The reasons for many of those conflicts are reasons that shouldn't be discussed here, but are applicable, and have nothing to do with being lighted or not. The equipment wasn't broken.
Not all the traffic reported, but what did, using voice communications (much of it doesn't), was seldom reporting the altitude where encountered. Several visits to ATC facilities in theater confirmed the same frustrations by controllers, also for reasons that should not be discussed.
Again, the reasons aren't important here, but the fact that these events did occur (with regularity) is important. I am not in favor of airspace integration with this equipment. It is NOT designed to function with other aircraft, and places like Iraq and Afghanistan operate on the big sky theory, not precise air traffic management. Even large air traffic passing through the airspace there, landing or departing in country is considered VFR, when on an IFR flight plan, day or night, weather or not, and is responsible for traffic separation, regardless of services being offered. Vectors are given, but ought not be relied upon, and when given are primarily there to protect military operations or operations in support of military operations, not to protect the participants.
I have also been in a location, which where a UAV crashed into our camp, after losing link. It was supposed to default to a marshaling point near the camp until link was re-established. Instead it crashed into our area. The wreckage was behind my hangar for some time. It also was a long-endurance, sophisticated, expensive type of UAV.
I worked closely with them, often on very similar missions and profiles. I did not fly them, and most likely never will (never say never). I am familiar with their capabilities. I've even carried them on many occasions to and from the theater to be put into or taken out of service, including some large ones.
Peacetime missions for these will continue to use certain profiles designed to enhance their low visibility, and these profiles and tactics tend to sharply reduce their ability to be seen, especially at night. Such operations are already being conducted within the United States and have been for some time, in certain locations.
One cannot replace a pilot with decades of experience with an autonomous program, regardless of the sophistication of software, with an inexperienced operator for the takeoff and landing, and call it good, especially in the complexity and density of the national airspace system. It's a bad idea. It's going to happen all the same, but it's still a bad idea.
My old eyes are just too tired this time of night.
