Many years ago, back when we were still in the “win wars with boots on the ground” mindset, and when we were battling a weak or non-state enemy (e.g. Afghanistan), I suggested that ground support for the troops could be fairly cheaply (and adequately) be fulfilled by using in-theater two hundred WWII-era P-51 Mustang fighters armed with small smart bombs. The idea of course was that such a high number could swarm the battlefield or area of interest to overcome any poorly-armed resistance.
Of course, this was before remote-controlled drones came on the scene to the extent they have, and Doug Ross gives an excellent overview of how this has changed modern warfare.
Military drones aren’t just one thing — they come in a huge range of sizes, costs, and purposes. On the low end, you’ve got $500 disposable quadcopters that soldiers fly into enemy positions. On the high end, there are $100 million surveillance drones that fly at 60,000 feet and can stay in the air for days. The key pattern is simple: the cheaper the drone, the more of them get used. The most expensive drones exist in small numbers, while the cheapest ones are built and destroyed by the hundreds of thousands. By 2026, militaries around the world have organized their drone forces into what’s called a “drone stack” — a system where different types of unmanned aircraft are layered by altitude, flight time, cost, and mission, covering everything from a single squad’s needs to an entire war zone.
Here’s an idea of the scale:
By 2025, Ukraine was building over 200,000 small attack drones per month.
So I had the right idea, but I just wasn’t thinking small enough. Mea culpa.