[mrsmith]

But drones give surface warships the ability to provide their own air cover, and under-surface cover.
Cheaply.
Bring back the battleship, tear out it’s 16 in guns and fill the old space with drones.

[central_va]

Those guns will make a Marine smile....

[corkoman]

It seems that thoughts of suspending development and improvements in "standard" war devices (tank, piloted aircraft, AC Carrier, destroyer, submarine) are too easy when there is this projection that we will be relying on "drones". Initiation of future major hostilities is likely to see these drone fleets expended in a rapid manner. In recent conflicts the first US weapons thrown at the enemy were the "tomahawks" (do not cruise missiles represent the first combat "drones"?)

So it will likely be a "use them or lose them" situation. Who knows how robust they will be and most important, how long will they remain combat operational? Unless one keeps a large inventory of drones there better be a rapid-response manufacturing capability, always at the ready, where fresh batches of drones can be deployed, muy pronto.

My point is that, after the initial wave of drones are depleted, what then? Better have other stuff to project power and defend our resources. What weapon groups will be most useful after Drone Battle 1? Methinks its good to have destroyers and scores of trained pilots. I dont think its a good idea right now to rely on near-future drones to do the projecting and defending.