I understand the desire for drones and other technology that's going to reduce your sides risk and casualties but there is another side to that. Waging war without risk isn't good either. War should not be "safe", it should come at a cost beyond $$$ a cost that is not exclusively paid by children sent afar, but also by the leaders sending them. If you can wage war like a video game with an infinite money glitch, then what is restraining you?
What restrained the US from spending ~$3T and causing ~1M deaths (combat forces, contractors, and civilians) in the Middle East? Would this capability materially change the appetite for conflict, based on historical actions? I don't believe "skin in the game" is a valid component in decisioning this technology implementation. We should want it to be, but it won’t be.
Well, he is correct. Look at WW2 when Germany optimised their tanks and tank strategy. Now loot at Ukraine and the war there. Drones are in an explosive growth spurt. I have seen Octo-copters by Ukraine carrying 8-10 finned bombs, each singly droppable. Their biggest problem is battery duration. Combination swivel prop flyers use the greater lift from lifting wings to achieve vertical operation and transition to level flight with 10-20 times the range and better lift. The F35 is already fly by wire, add a data/video link and the pilot sits in his living room or the air base. Not there yet - but soon - jam proof coms are needed, perhaps a bi-direction self centering retro reflector link? Is there a frequency that lases and penetrates clouds? Millimeter radio - sub-millimeter? At what point do droplet dimensions and other smoke-like vapor block these ultra-high frequencies?
Already we have piloted jets with speedy drone 'wing-people' that can keep formation with jets.
We do live in interesting times!!
reply