In the Ukraine war big troop concentrations have become almost impossible because the thousands of spotter drones in the air at any moment will spot them almost immediately, and provide accurate targeting information to (rocket) artillery within seconds.

FPV drones with a hand grenade strapped to them will finish off any stragglers. Bigger version (with more explosives) also apparently quite effective against armored vehicles like IFVs and tanks, and can be used to deploy new minefields without having to risk soldiers out in the open.

So perhaps they are not (yet) key to winning a war, but they are certainly already key to not losing. There's a very good reason Ukraine is ramping up drone production to several million per year. Convert that to drones deployed per day and use your imagination to come up with uses for 30000 kamikaze drones per day.

> Bigger version (with more explosives) also apparently quite effective against armored vehicles like IFVs and tanks

At that point it seems like it's basically a very slow moving missile, except it's steerable by a human operator.

I was under the impression that the value of these weapons was mostly in their simple construction from readily available parts (cheap ammunition and grenades instead of expensive purpose made javelins). Doesn't that kind of go away if you start to "innovate" with them?

If Lockheed Martin starts selling the drones at $30k a pop, I don't understand why they'd be better than a missile.

Why would innovation mean more expensive?

The fiber optic FPV drone was an innovation and it's extremely cheap to build?

I don't think it's only been about cost, it's been about devastating effectiveness, they just happen to be much much cheaper than basically anything they destroy.

Necessity is the mother of invention, Ukraine is developing these things and innovating for actual survival, we're not talking about engaging lockhead martin on a 20 billion dollar budget.

It wouldn't necessarily, but innovation would separate the product from the commoditized nature of regular consumer drones, which I postulate is what made them cheap. Suddenly you need a special military drone, and that could end up being a moat Lockheed would charge you 20 billion for.

I suppose my concern is that missiles and bombs probably aren't any more expensive to produce than these drones are. There's just a huge markup for military equipment. We are trying to solve a problem of capitalism (or the military industrial complex i suppose) through technology, and that rarely works. It usually just creates a new layer of incumbents that want another 20 billion.

They're cheap because there's just not a lot of stuff in them. They're a lot simpler than even a model airplane, just 4 or more motors with fixed pitch propellers. Before commercial drones people would just make their own in a garage.

> If Lockheed Martin starts selling the drones at $30k a pop, I don't understand why they'd be better than a missile.

Well a Javelin costs[1] around $200k, so if the alternative is just $30k then that seems like a great deal just there.

But a drone offers different capabilities. In particular they can hunt to some degree and you can launch one without immediately giving up your position. That means it's much safer for the operators.

Against distant but more stationary targets, one can take more time to navigate them close to critical weak spots, so you potentially need much less explosives to get the job done. Just look at what Ukraine did against those bombers[2] in Russia. Less explosives means you can make a smaller drone which is less detectable, harder to counter and easier to carry.

[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/29/how-this-us-made-176000-anti...

[2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1ld7ppre9vo

> If Lockheed Martin starts selling the drones at $30k a pop, I don't understand why they'd be better than a missile.

Different mission profiles.

Don’t compare apples to oranges.

According to the internets, Ukraine is pumping out drones at about $300 to $500 at a rate of several tens of thousands per day. Of course a missile is faster and has bigger payload, but as a sibling comment mentioned, a javelin missile is about 500x more expensive than these cheap drones and can only hit target per missile. I can think of many scenario's where having a few hundred drones available to hunt down individual soldiers would be much more valuable that having a single javelin.

The low cost and extremely high effectiveness of a drone is very useful.

Also missiles are normally tens of thousands to millions of dollars each, depending on size, launch method, etc. ATACMs is around 1.5mil. A Patriot missile vehicle is around $4 million just for the launcher. A Griffin missile is $127,000.

Many of these drones in Ukraine are sub $1,000.

I guess the question comes down to why? Why is a ATACM 1.5 mil? Surely it doesn't cost that to produce it.

The followup then is, won't the contractor producing these drones simply elect to take a similar markup for their product?

Size, role, etc.

ATACMs and others are large missiles with complex guidance systems. Sometimes maybe an optical guidance module.

FPV drones and basic quadcopter are low cost, man operated, and all of the previous counter threats are for the missiles etc mentioned above. Nothing this slow, or this small.

Most suicide drones are far less complex (but that is increasing), much smaller, with human and sometimes image recognition and INS guidance. Sometimes fiber optic tethered (where possible) to counter the electronic warfare counter measures.

Many of these drone systems are also open source. A lot of COTS or 3d-printed components (use-once).

It's just different types and scales of systems solving completely different types of problems, with completely different logistics requirements.

What this really comes down to is that fpv drones are a low cost, low risk, delivery method for certain classes of munitions. Give the size and low cost, it's like going from fighting humans to fighting swarms of stinging insects. No one really has solid defenses for this type of threat yet. Also including small to medium quadcopter platforms for ISR.

Apt user name, at least.

Propose a business plan to meet the ATACM's capabilities for far less. The Pentagon will be at your door with flowers in a matter of minutes. Trademarks, patents, and copyrights are trivial niceties, when national defense is on the line.

Edit: what you don't see, and are assuming doesn't happen, is the vicious competition that goes on before a military contract is sealed. Grift and overspending happen, because: humans, but weapons are made by the lowest bidder who meets the advertised goals of the program, every time.

> As the invasion enters a fourth summer, drones are currently thought to account for around 70 percent of all Russian and Ukrainian battlefield casualties.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-...

Yeah but did they actually win a war?

It looks like they just introduced another stalemate.

I didn't know the role on the battlefield was this big though.

Insignificant? Are destroyed strategic bombers insignificant? As well as huge amounts of armor vehicles so that now motocycles and other cheap vehicles are used instead. They pay significant role now, may be even more than artillery

Wearing down your opponent with consistent (relatively) inexpensive attacks does in fact win wars. Attrition works.

They can be used to concurrently overwhelm air defences to improve the odds for more expensive cruise missiles. Ukraine has used small drones to decent effect tactically to disable vehicles, and vice versa (less effectively)

You're probably mostly thinking about Shahads and similar alternatives to cruise missiles, but what's much more significant in Ukraine is the use of FPV drones on the front lines to attack armor, transports, artillery and individual trenches. They account for the biggest part of inflicted losses nowadays.

The majority of casualties on both sides are currently caused by drones.

Yes, Russia is also using them to terrorise civilians but they clearly have huge battlefield implications and any military not immediately addressing this issue is going g to go into their next conflict at a massive disadvantage

You're correct about the "military insignificant attacks on civilians".

The problem is that mainstream western news sources are not covering the daily reality of front-line fighting in Ukraine - where drones have become a whole new dimension of high-lethality micro-scale air power.

You must be reading other mainstream media than I do, because drone warfare has been covered extensively in what I read. Namely DR (Danish national media), Zetland and The Atlantic.

The title is, "Drones are the key to wining wars", not "Drones have won wars".

Read the article.

Not sure about winning but drones are the major factor in Ukrainian war. Style of warfare did change completely. You should probably listen to interviews with the soldiers on both sides. An eye opener.

As for attacking civilians being the goal:

[1] - "At least two people were killed, including a 22-year-old police officer who was named by authorities as Maria Dziumaha, and more than a dozen were wounded in the attacks, according to authorities..."

That is after more than 400 drones were used in the attack.

[1] - https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/09/europe/russia-air-assault-ukr...

"Drones are key to not losing wars".

Russia is winning the special military operation against the U.S proxy Ukraine, in particular because Russia has the upper hand in drone quantity and quality bay far. Drones play a major role on both sides, as they are used in the hundreds every day against targets like soldiers, tanks of all sorts, trenches or buildings (e.g. occupied by enemy drone squads). A drone can easily knock out a 60 million dollar tank (e.g. many M1 Abrams or Leaopard 2 tanks were destroyed by drones), an enemy drone squad or an infantry fighting vehicle. They can even be used to destroy building occupied by enemy forces. They are cheap and extremely effective. Especially drones controlled via fiber optic cables cannot be countered (yet) by electronic warfare devices. They are used not only in an attack role, but also for objective control, e.g. artillery control, thus drones already have a key position in nearly all military branches. The fact you're thinking they are 'mainly used ... for insignificant attacks on civilians' shows that your are misinformed (most likely by the 'mainstream media').