The nature of warfare has changed with the development of drones — unmanned aerial vehicles that can be maneuvered by a human controller to strike at specific targets with relatively greater precision.

Amid the war between US-Israeli forces and Iran, where drones are used by all three parties alongside missiles and other forms of war, it would be good to unpack how the development of low-cost combat drones has changed the nature and economics of waging war.

Defining drones

Drones are essentially flying objects that can be remotely controlled in real-time by an operator. They come in both civilian and combat forms, with specifications tailored for their use.

Civilian drones, such as those meant for taking aerial photography or for racing, are outfitted to be lighter, and ultimately cheaper to make and repair than drones meant for military strikes.

Drones built for war — also known as unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) — can cost tens of thousands of dollars to make, but are still relatively cheaper to build and deploy than fighter jets and their assorted weaponry.

Iran’s Shahed drones

Iran’s Shahed drones have become one of the commonly-seen standards for what a combat drone should be like. They are low-cost and can therefore be built to scale to a war effort. They can also be utilized as a suicide drone — basically an human-controlled flying bomb — for single-use engagements.

The Shahed 136 drone, for example, is estimated to cost about $35,000 a unit, but the missiles needed to presumably counter a drone would cost about $1 million at least. This makes building a fleet of suicide drones more affordable, at least in terms of cost and potential for inflicting damage.

The US Central Command, for one, said on March 1 that its strikes against Iran as part of Operation Epic Fury were done in part using LUCAS drones, which are modeled after Iran’s Shahed.

What is the change in military strategy?

Amassing drones — that is to say, having combat drones built at scale — is an effective way a country can wage war because it does two things concurrently.

First, it changes the conduct of war into one that helps to lessen the risk of soldiers by letting the technology be expendable. More importantly, it changes the economics of waging war into one where the defense against a single drone costs more than an entire fleet of them, making wars of attrition — where wearing down your opponent over time is what matters — an effective strategy.

The idea of waging a war of attrition is ongoing in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and is commonly cited as a turning point for the use of drones

The Center for European Policy Analysis noted in a November 2025 report that Ukraine used drones to great effect by “fielding mass quantities of low-cost First-Person View (FPV) drones for frontline and deep-strike operations.” Russia’s counter was to institutionalize drone use in its war effort.

Said CEPA of Russia’s move to drone use: “Mass deployment of FPV drones now supports artillery fire correction, surveillance, and loitering attacks that increase kill-chain efficiency and reduce strike latency to under 10 minutes.”

Meanwhile, Dara Massicot, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Iran’s use of a mixture of ballistic missiles and drones is causing the US, Israel, and Gulf countries to make efforts to stop both types of threats by striking launch platforms and any fighter aircraft used, as well as taking advantage of more expensive technology, like air defense interceptors.

Massicot added that while the defense method against Iran’s attacks appear to be mostly effective, the defense is literally very costly regardless.

“Patriot interceptors in particular must be used against ballistic missiles, and strains to stockpiles will emerge if they are used too extensively against Shaheds. Without other sufficient point defenses at US military installations or critical infrastructure, some Iranian drones are getting through and causing damage across the Middle East,” Massicot said.

The human costs, regardless

While the dangers against drone operators are minimal, the human costs remain as countries use drones to attack — and defend against — each other.

Speaking with Massicot, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace senior fellow Steve Feldstein added that the “asymmetric means for weaker militaries to impose costs on larger ones” also brings a great human cost in terms of casualties.

“In 2025, the data showed that there were 58,272 air/drone events leading to 32,769 fatalities. These numbers will only climb as drones become a mainstay on the battlefield,” he noted. – Rappler.com