[BariumBlue]

An MQ-9 has roughly the same wingspan as an A-10 - they're not small birds.

An MQ-9 needs to have a good sensor ball, ideally with both color and IR, gps jamming resistance, weapons integration with multiple types of missiles (ideally large enough to take out something larger than a motorcycle), good on-target time INCLUDING transit time (if it can only stare for one hour on target it'd be pointless), good uplink and downlink to reliably move that data (you don't want to lose track when a missile flies off), and the architecture to support, including ground control stations.

You CAN stuff someone in Cessna, give em a camera, a radio, and some mortar rounds to toss out the back, but that's not going to work for most use cases.

[myrmidon]

The modern (UA) take is to strap the warhead directly on the thing, make it just as big as needed and directly fly everything into the target.

If you insist on firing guided missiles at ground targets from a drone that returns to base you're never gonna be able to compete on cost.

[BariumBlue]

It really depends on the kind of war being fought.

If the cheap solution involves having troops only a dozen miles away from the enemy, then you're going to take casualties, and funeral costs are FAR more expensive then the cost to buy a large bird and fly it from a 100+ miles away.

[myrmidon]

Yeah, but you can always buy a slightly smaller bird, strap the warhead directly to it, and fly that into your target 100+ miles away.

Guided missiles specifically are insanely pricey by comparison to the warhead alone; just for the possibility that your slow, vulnerable drone might be able to return (and be used again) you have to make very expensive engineering tradeoffs, and even when the thing comes back you have to repair and service it, too (and stock it up with more expensive missiles).

[RugnirViking]

between these extremes there are, parent posits, some efficiencies to be had. Do you agree that its at least possible to get a cheaper solution thats 90% of the way there? Ukraine seems to do pretty well for themselves on this front, and several other countries around the world are no slouches either. Even iran themselves do quite well. Sure their drones dont have the fanciest optics or whatever, but when looking at a cost per millitary effectiveness standpoint, are five redundant drones with worse optics better than one big one? what about five hundred vs one? five thousand? The same logic goes for most of the components.

[ponector]

>> are five redundant drones with worse optics better than one big one

Depends on the goal. If the goal is to make high precision strikes - one big drone with tons of capabilities. If the goal is the terror strike campaign like russian - cheap Shahed drones are the best.