For disposable applications like that, aren't there single-use chemistries that are better already? I'm thinking by analogy to things like:

- WW2 proximity fuzes that had batteries where the electrolyte was in a vial that got smashed by the G-forces of being shot out of a cannon providing power to the radio inside for the 10 seconds it needs to get to the incoming aircraft

- Hearing aid Zinc-Air batteries, that are extremely energy dense because you only have to actually manufacture the anode, the cathode is the entire atmosphere of the Earth

- Missile batteries, which are often Lithium-silicon/Iron Disulfide batteries that borrow some thermal energy from the rocket motor to get a molten salt electrolyte

Not all drones are one way

Even for drones that are reusable: if there’s a substantial performance advantage to using a primary cell then you might just want to do that if you’re relatively price insensitive and have good logistics (say, the US Army). Or if you need to be self-sustaining in non-permissive environments (say, the US Army).

If the thing is going to blow up anyway, does it need to be light? Wouldn't you rather have more cheaper drones?

Less weight (all else being equal) is the same thing as more battery for drones. I.e. better range, payload mass, and/or flight time. You probably want both cheap and poor performing as well as expensive and high performing available.

In current battle conditions isn’t the range primarily determined by the size of the fiber optic spool attached to the drone than battery capacity?

Maybe. Last I checked Ukraine preferred radio drones to fiber optic - the spool is heavy and a limitation in many ways (not all that I understand). Fiber optics are used only when you can't get something else to works. Advances in AI, radio relay systems, self-navigation, and anti electronic warfare are all things they are working on so they can use more drones without fiber. For longer ranges drones fiber is not an option and so they have no choice but use something else.

Where fiber optic is used though, that is the limit. That is a minority though.

They prefer what works. So it depends on the EM jamming the other side has at that point in the line. Some parts of the line are covered in old fiber optic cable because they are near somewhere important so the Russians have EM jammers there. Other parts of the line, they probably only use radio drones. Also, the ways the drones talk to the operators has changed at least 3 times throughout the war. So by the time you read this, it might have changed again.

Also, the last big change is network relay drones that fly at a few 1000 ft that allow other drones to have more range. The AI thing hasn't played out because the boards are too expensive to use in 1-way kit.

Depends on the battle but yes. Even then the range is usually at least 10 km and starts to be limited by the size of the spool you're going to carry on the drone (though dealing with general cable issues over the distance is one of the reasons this type can't be used for everything).

if it’s the same range for less weight you have more room for munitions and other gadgets

Autonomous kamikaze drones don't need spools.

For some uses in Ukraine that is true, but even there they are still using radio for many drones, and especially their longest range drones (100+km).

There's also payload and loiter time to consider.

If you have a drone that can watch the battlefield for hours instead of minutes that is incredibly useful. Same story if you have a drone that can 3x its payload.

Most Ukrainian drones don't use fiber optic I don't think. To deal with EW, they're favoring autonomous targeting/guidance for the final part of the strike.

No...its valuable to know if the drone did its job. That and the extra expense of the boards makes it not really so useful in practice.

The lighter the further range or more explosive payload.