← Back to context

Comment by jcfrei

9 days ago

The war in Iran proves the opposite: It is actually the future. The US could easily establish air dominance over Iran, yet it can't stop their military from launching smaller drones both in the air and at sea. The Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed and air power alone seems unlikely to fix the situation. If you want to effectively eliminate an opponent nowadays you need an army of drones - the economics don't work out if you are only fielding expensive ships, planes and missiles. And regarding your point that an Apache can easily shoot down a drone: Roughly 9/10 drones in the Russia Ukraine frontline get shot down and the remaining 10% make up for about 80% of the casualties (rest being mostly artillery and mines).

Right - the relative cost matters very much.

A Shahed drone costs $20K each. The Patriot missile interceptor costs $4 Mil each.

And the inevitable result is that the interceptors run out first

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iran-war-israel-tells-us-...

https://www.economist.com/international/2026/03/13/gulf-stat...

https://bsky.app/profile/mekka.mekka-tech.com/post/3mgrvx5gr...

The only lasting solution to low-cost drone attacks is low-cost defences. Ukraine knows this. The US apparently does not yet. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/10/what-are-the-ukrain...

But the end result is not "low-cost drones are just a fad." it's drones vs. more drones vs. yet more drones.

Exactly. "An Apache can shoot down a drone" is like "Tiger tanks were better than Shermans": the relative numbers of each matter.