[stickfigure]

> those incredibly expensive fighter planes are useless. Aircraft carriers will be replaced

I'm not fully convinced. The advantage of drones is that they are relatively cheap. That automatically comes with significant range and speed limitations; after all, as someone else mentioned, we already have long-range semi-autonomous drones called missiles. They aren't cheap.

Naval engagements, not to mention aircraft engagements, happen at distances that are just not in the reach of cheap drones. Someone might get a surprise shot at an aircraft carrier in peacetime, but probably not while alert on the open sea. And I'm sure ships will be upgraded with defenses (if they haven't already).

Tanks and infantry, that's a more interesting problem.

[sandworm101]

>> And I'm sure ships will be upgraded with defenses (if they haven't already).

They already have CIWS (and a bunch of other stuff) to shoot down incoming supersonic and maneuvering anti-ship missiles. Any drone slower or less difficult to hit than those missiles stands little chance. Drones can extend the eye and ears of a ship but they are not going to be killing ships themselves anytime soon.

[baybal2]

No air defence system is considered efficient against supersonic, sea skimming missiles, let alone manoeuvering ones.

[marcus_holmes]

Aircraft carriers engage at range because they're high-value targets themselves and they need to stay at range.

If you produce 100 small boats (I'm thinking torpedo-boat size), each of which carry a few thousand cheap drones with a 5km range, then you can do 90% of the job of an aircraft carrier for 10% (or less) of the cost.

[koonsolo]

I agree. Plus, the payload of a drone is way too small to do any proper damage. That's like a 100 mosquitos stinging an elephant.

[the_sleaze]

This is an entirely inaccurate metaphor, and a frightening lack of insight.