Drones fly around and autonomously eliminate targets while maintaining perimeters, which replaces infantry doing the same thing. Drones are easy to launch from land-based bases and due to their limited range are best suited to land-based operations.
Aerial drones are easily countered by autonomous weapons systems that fire on drones quickly and accurately. Drones are able to be disabled with a single large bullet, which makes their cost exceptional once countered. I expect that land based drones will become a pretty big thing, since they can take advantage of cover and camouflage.
Sometimes autonomy is cited as a key characteristic of drones. But the first drones were pure-RC with no autonomy at all, while there are a myriad of autonomous missiles and non-autonomous human-guided missiles. So autonomy is not a distinguishing characteristic either.
It's weird seeing this fascination with drones yet not seeing an analogous fascination for Toyota trucks.
Yes, it's because it's a harmless toy that can turn dystopian. That's why people's imagination is running wild. It's like that Furby horror game (tattletail). It's the "your nightmares are becoming real" kind of stuff.
If its military vs military then the drones wake up the counter defense which is then targeted by more expensive missiles.
Funny that we see this in various computer games, ships with drone bays. What you mention would be a drone missile perhaps?
Most of these Turkish style drones will be null in any real fight because there is (or will be soon) tech to instantly neutralize them.
The 'smaller' drones in civilian areas - yes - that's a different story, but thankfully they have more limited range.
In modern times, software already runs a lot of tanks/missiles/planes/ships/communications etc.
As I see it the single biggest new factor is that "drone enabling software" significantly reworks hardware design parameters and thus affects manufacturing capacity.
For example, in a plane, the drone technology allows removal of a lot of weight along with "human onboard" red tape safety factors while enlarging G force parameters. It has added other factors for control and operation. But on the whole it is deemed a quite significant win it seems.
Drone on drone warfare leads to thinking about "software exploits" but on the battlefield it is always about exploits. Historically see spitfires and their limited ability to dive being exploited by the opposition but then being hardware "patched".
edit: conciseness
Carriers won over battleships in the 1930s, because of strike distance.
Carriers won in the 1950s+ because they were the more upgradeable platform.
If you built a battleship in 1945, and then developed a better cannon or missile in 1955, what were your options?
If you built a carrier in 1945, and then developed better aircraft and armaments for them in 1955, you retooled your carrier air groups. The 4 Ohio class SSBN -> SSGN conversions are the same lesson.
It's expensive to build a new boat. It's cheaper to put new things on a boat (of the right size / shape).
Following that logic, the conclusion is to invest in robust, large drone delivery vehicles (aircraft or missiles), that allow for simpler, iterable micro-drone development.
One thing that makes China today different to the US of WW2 is that China's export oriented economy would collapse in a war with the West and their industrial production capabilities would be hurt significantly along with that.
Want to stop China from waging war? Knock out its means of production -- target its imports.
My point is that the analogy of US in WW2 doesn't really hold up because the US had an excellent economy throughout WW2 relative to others which fueled their excess industrial production. China would be in the opposite situation - economic collapse.
Would China be able to maintain industrial production by forcing workers and firms to produce equipment despite economic collapse? Perhaps. But the US in WW2 shouldn't be considered historical precedent, due to the above distinction.
China can't feed itself.
China only produces a third of the oil it consumes.
If your people begin to starve as soon as war starts and you all of a sudden have 1/3rd the oil you used to.... well, that's not exactly a recipe for success.
Most of the simulations for a naval war around Taiwan predict that it would be over in a few days, maybe weeks, but not long enough to really draw down those reserves.
Most importantly, it's really not realistic that the US Navy could prevent the rest of planet Earth from providing goods to the world's largest trading nation. Our navy isn't big enough, for one thing, but the economic damage to every other country that imports into China makes this blockade idea pretty unrealistic. I can't even imagine how much inflation would spike when the world's factory can't export for a few weeks
China has a border with Russia, and gigantic strategic oil reserves. They are not going to run out of oil. Maybe ration it initially, until enough can be delivered from Russia.
This is old thinking. Same battlefield with different technology.
The war that changed everything was the 1st Gulf War.
20 years ago they could see how stupid it was to use weapons to blow things up that cost more than what you were blowing up.
Our military has already been lapped. We only don't think so because we waste so much money on outdated expensive weapon systems and then use the amount spent as proof we have the better military.
After Pearl Harbor, it became clear that the answer should have been Yes.
Drones offer overwhelming advantages -- they're cheap and disposable. A drone generally costs less than the US missile used to shoot it down. You can lose 100 of them, and there will be no lives lost on your side.
During WWII, by 1943 the European theater was essentially decided, except for a lot of killing. The US was producing tanks and planes so quickly that it was simply mathematically impossible for the Germans to counter them. Will the same thing happen when China decides to throw its manufacturing capacity into war drones?