Advances in drone warfare

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/us/politics/us-military-drone-technology.html

As Drone Warfare Evolves, Pentagon Sees Its Own Vulnerabilities

Israel and Ukraine have used drones against their adversaries in audacious ways that have helped the Pentagon see the need for new technology.
By Julian E. Barnes and Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, July 10, 2025

…
American defense companies are pushing new technologies that they say can more effectively intercept drones. The companies are hoping that the billions of dollars the Pentagon is planning to invest in missile defense — the so-called Golden Dome program — will also be used to build up new drone defenses.

Some new technologies aim not to shoot down drones one by one, but use what is known as directed energy, including high-powered microwaves, to take down large swarms of drones at once. …

The leaders of Epirus, the company that developed the microwave defense, have warned that the rise of new kinds drones means the U.S. military faces a “guerrilla war of machines,” a style of fighting that is alien to the Pentagon’s traditional way of thinking…

American commanders, especially in the Middle East, have taken steps over the past several years to build what the military calls a layered network of defenses, including jamming devices, missiles and other systems, to ward off hostile drone, rocket and missile attacks…

The Defense secretary recently approved the creation of a new organization, led by the Army, to address drone warfare and counter-drone measures…[end quote]

The two most successful drone operations involved Ukraine sneaking drones into Russia to destroy strategic bombers and Israel sneaking drones into Iran to attack nuclear sites. Both the target countries are closed societies so it was shocking that the attackers were able to bring in the drones literally under the radar until they were practically next to the targets.

Imagine what is possible in the U.S. where there are no internal checkpoints and drones are on sale in Walmart for under $50. Imagine what would happen if a swarm of drones attacked multi-billion-dollar heavy metal armaments like aircraft carriers or stealth bombers (which are anything but invisible when they are on the ground).

Google “Chinese drones” for an amazing list of capabilities. China would be crazy to attack the U.S. with ballistic missiles when they can use swarms of tiny drones to destroy our armaments on the ground.

The only company mentioned in the article was Epirus. None of the big defense contractors were mentioned.

The entire Defense Department had better wake up and smell the roses. It’s a new world. Fortunately, they seem to be paying attention. The question is whether the sclerotic defense supply chain can move fast enough.

Wendy

9 Likes
2

If you want to do deep dives, there’s a YouTuber who specializes in defense matters (he gets invited to defense exhibitions and conferences; not just some schmo). He’s done several episodes on drones.

Our airbases are vulnerable. We’re an open society. I don’t know our anti-drone defenses at such places as Luke Airforce Base (maybe 50 miles from where I’m sitting). But I hope they are taking measures to prevent a Spider’s Web operation here.

The US is developing small drone capability. Mostly for recon, but given the war in Ukraine, planners are expanding their scope. It is an interesting investing opportunity if any of the companies are public. General Atomics makes some of our big drones (Predator). A quick check says that small drone makers include Aerovironment, Teledyne FLIR, and Anduril Industries.

Forget the Golden Dome. It was a stupid idea to begin with (Perun, on YouTube, explained why). This is a Billy Mitchell moment…do we try to defend against the last war, or prepare for the next one.

6 Likes
3

The real problem for the Defense Industrial Complex is that drones are dirt cheap and won’t produce the wealth rockets and stealth aircraft do.

The Captain

9 Likes
4

easy fix, just mark them up, make them stealth, you know, be entrepeneurial

2 Likes
5

It’s hard to imagine the defense department not being on top of this. The Israelis first used drones in the Yom Kipper war. Think tanks had plenty of time to engage in extensive brain storming.

Most strategies should have been obvious. The main change is mass production. Cheaper parts. Ability to carry heavier loads. Video sensors and better software to spot targets.

There may be competition for resources and other priorities. Ignorance of the problem is not an acceptable excuse. Call that incompetence.

6

If you know military history it’s not hard at all. The “raid” on Pearl Harbor was gamed out 20 years before it happened. The guy who “defeated” the Generals? Outcast and ignored. The idea of air warfare? Ridiculous, we were all in on big heavy battleships. Look up Harry Yarnell for details, but he “won” with air power launched from aircraft carriers, and chose Sunday morning for the attack, and both the Army and Navy pretended that wasn’t realistic. Oops. (To make it even more absurd, aerial bombing began in World War I, and continues during the Spanish Civil War in the 1930’s, and the general still couldn’t see it.)

The Pentagon is famous for resisting new systems, including computerization, procurement, dual use, and other off she shelf technologies, which is why we spend so much and get so little for our military buck. (See NASA vs SpaceX for another example.)

Yeah right thru the present. If Ukraine and Israel weren’t showing the way, our military still would ‘t be interested in drones. Too small, not enough prestige, not enough money involved.

Just terrible stuff, and even DARPA seems to have been asleep at the controls.

8 Likes
7

Don’t go overboard here. By December 1941 the US had a number of aircraft carriers and more under construction.

USS Lexington
USS Saratoga
USS Ranger
USS Yorktown
USS Enterprise
USS Wasp
USS Hornet
USS Essex (under construction)
USS Bon Homme Richard (under construction)
USS Intrepid (under construction)
USS Cabot (under construction)
USS Bunker Hill (under construction)

DB2

1 Like
8

Data re-enforces the idea that Eisenhower military industrial complex has little interest in drones. Not profitable enough.

Google says Predator project cost $20MM for four Predators plus control shack and satellite for control. Or $5MM per drone.

Ukraine drones are modified hobbyist devices. Larger ones with video, electronics, and weapon are more likely $500 ea. Mass production required. Not very sexy. Hard to justify very profitable major development costs. Mostly strategy and software.

2 Likes
9

Have no fear. Let Lockheed get it’s fingers into the program. The cost per drone would go into the millions, and the program would be a decade late.

Steve

5 Likes
10
2 Likes
11

Sure. But they were still low priority. The Ranger was launched in 1933. Saratoga was 1927. Our first-line carriers were Lexington (1925!), Enterprise, Yorktown, and Hornet. We lost Lady Lex at Coral Sea, and Yorktown at Midway (both 1942).

Do you know how many battleship battles happened in WWII? Two. The Bismarck was sunk mostly by aircraft, though the Royal Navy did send in ships to finish the job. The Graf Spee was sunk by scuttling after being damaged by cruisers (no battleships). In the Pacific there was the “classic” crossing of the T at Surigao Straits, and that was the last time a battleship ever sunk another battleship (the Washington sunk the Kirishima, 1942). But the navy leadership (and congress) insisted on building more battleships anyway. To be fair, we built an excrement-ton of carriers, too. But, even then, they were still fighting old wars with old tactics. I’ve been on Mighty Mo and the Iowa. They were seriously cool, but already obsolete when we built them (and even more obsolete when we reactivated them in the 1980s). I have a soft spot for the battleships (loved the movie, even though it was silly), but soft spots have no place in military planning.

For the moment, drones are the future. That, of course, could change. However, subs have been deadly since WWI, with a period of time in WWII when they were coffins because of anti-sub warfare advances. They’re still extremely useful, and deadly, today. Carriers the same since the 30s (though maybe drones will render them less effective??).

The military is funding drone research, and at least some planners are taking notes from the Ukraine war. Drones have been far too effective in that conflict simply to ignore the technology.

4 Likes
12

The number, and size, of both carriers and battleships were regulated, during the interwar years, by treaty. Japan gave formal notice if it’s intent to withdraw from the treaty in 1934, and did indeed withdraw in 1937, so they were free to build whatever they wanted. By the time of Second London. in 37, the US and the UK were the only ones even attempting to abide by treaty limits.

As to the limits, with the construction of Wasp, the US maxed out it’s carrier tonnage. It could not build another carrier, until the treaty system collapsed.

Steve

2 Likes
13

Yes, that’s true, also. I had forgotten that bit.

Still doesn’t alter the fact that we were building battleships (Iowa class, for example) in an era when aircraft carriers dominated. Even after the Japanese proved that to us on Dec 7.

14

I like the development of GP carriers in World War II. They did not have the full defenses of the mainline carriers but could carry replacement aircraft and crews to keep mainline carriers fully armed.

Great planning idea. Do we still do that?

15

And the Japanese surrender documents were signed on a battleship. The Missouri.

16

CVEs. “Cheap, Vulnerable, Expendable”.

Nope, we don’t build CVEs anymore, nor CVLs. There are LHAs, like the America class, which are the size of a post WWII Midway class, nearly twice the size of a WWII Essex class, but they lack arresting gear and cats, so they could not operate F-18s or E2s.

The lobbyists from Newport News seem to have convinced everyone that the only thing the Navy should have are 100,000 ton, $13B each, nuclear powered “super carriers”, which, coincidentally, only Newport News has the facilities to build.

Steve

4 Likes
17

Not relevant, but I actually was on the surrender deck when I visited Mighty Mo. Other than shore bombardment, and anti-aircraft defense, she was pretty much not used. I don’t know that an Iowa class ship ever fired on another vessel, much less a battleship.

The Japanese spent the latter days of the war trying to hide Musashi after we sank the Yamato. Talk about useless…not only are you not using it, you’re trying to hide it. We sank it anyway.

2 Likes
18

Yep. Very useful weapons, but the Navy needs a lot more than that. And they seem to have problems getting other ships that actually work (I haven’t kept track, but there were problems with the littoral combat ships a few years ago).

We apparently need to develop anti-drone (both air and sea) for our ships. Shooting down $1000 drones with $1M dollar missiles isn’t really sustainable. Even the phalanx system can get expensive, and that’s just bullets (depleted uranium bullets).

19

Oh, but it’s great for Raytheon.

Steve

2 Likes
20

For those interested in a deep dive from someone who knows this stuff, this video was just posted today. He’s done several other videos about drones in the past, if you search his channel.

He’s somebody who gets invited to conferences and weapons shows/exhibitions. Not some random shmo. This particular video, he’s discussing using drones to counter drones (mostly). He did a separate video recently on Operation Spiders Web that took out a large chunk of the Russian bomber fleet.