Drones and artificial intelligence (AI) are the most significant tactical evolution since World War II – rapidly rewriting the rules of modern warfare and creating concerns that humans are being removed from the decision-making process.
The latest conflict to make use of drones erupted at the end of February after the US and Israel launched strikes on Iranian military and nuclear targets following the failure of talks over Iran’s nuclear programme.
Iran responded with waves of ballistic missiles and drones aimed at Israeli and regional targets, with US president Donald Trump warning the war could last as long as five weeks. This, amid an ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine after Russia invaded the east European country in February 2022.
The use of drones and AI in warfare “represents the most significant tactical evolution since the invention of the precision-guided munition” in the second World War, says Mark Walker, director at T4i and previously SA MD for IDC. He adds that the “battlefield has expanded exponentially”.
Professor HB Klopper, academic head at Belgium Campus iTversity, says recent conflicts illustrate how drones have become central to modern warfare. “Warfare has entered a new technological era, with drones rapidly becoming one of the most influential tools on the battlefield.”
In November, Just Security, an online forum based at the Reiss Centre on Law and Security at New York University School of Law, highlighted that drone attacks in conflict settings increased by 4 000% between 2020 and 2024, and more than quadrupled from an estimated 4 525 attacks in 2023 to 19 704 in 2024.
Digital combat
Walker notes that warfare has moved beyond systems where technology simply supported soldiers. “We have officially moved beyond the era of ‘digitised’ combat – where technology merely assisted the soldier – into the age of ‘AI-native’ warfare, where algorithmic speed has become the decisive force on the ground.”
Modern systems increasingly rely on networks that combine command, control, communications, computers, cyber, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to coordinate battlefield activity, says Walker.
Drones were initially developed for reconnaissance missions that allowed militaries to observe enemy positions without risking pilots’ lives, says Klopper, but their role has expanded significantly as costs have fallen and capabilities improved.
Budget-friendly
The evolution of weapons technology has turned warfare into an increasingly remote affair, says ICT commentator Adrian Schofield. “In the 19th century, soldiers were cheap – as long as you had enough of them to keep the front line in motion, you could win the battle. Now, drones are cheap. And they don’t have to look the enemy in the eye.”
Walker notes that the rapid development of relatively inexpensive drones and missiles is changing the economics of warfare, with expendable, networked systems and componentry being designed to overwhelm expensive, traditional platforms like carriers and main battle tanks.
Just Security notes that, at the start of the 21st century, US military drones cost around $7 million (R113.71 million at this morning’s exchange rate of R113.71) each and had a wingspan of 66 feet (20 metres). Many of the drones deployed in conflicts today are being commercially mass-produced and are available for purchase on Amazon for as little as $2 000 (R32 489).
“Think of the latest Middle East situation where cheap ballistic missiles and drones managed by gaming controllers are being used by Iran and require very expensive Patriot defence systems to neutralise,” says Walker.
Klopper notes that drones can overwhelm air defences and escalate regional tensions rapidly. Qatar reported being targeted by drones and cruise missiles, while the United Arab Emirates said it detected 129 drones and intercepted 121 in a single day, he adds.
“The current operational landscape is defined by a drastic compression of the kill chain. Low-cost AI targeting chips are now standard in tactical first-person view systems, pushing strike accuracy rates from the traditional 30% baseline to over 80%,” Walker notes.
Man versus machine
Walker adds that the rapid acceleration of AI-enabled systems has outpaced existing governance frameworks, raising questions about responsibility for actions carried out by autonomous weapons and the risks of algorithm-driven decision-making on the battlefield.
“The transition to an AI-native battlefield is inevitable, but as the technology matures, the challenge for military planners and policymakers will not be tracking the performance of these systems, but rather understanding how to implement the guardrails necessary to ensure human control in warfare,” Walker adds.
Schofield says while technology now allows conflicts to be fought at greater distances, humans still remain responsible for the final decision to deploy weapons. “However, we have yet to hand the entire process over to the technology. Humans still have to pull the trigger or press the button. So far.”
“A major concern is the dilution of human-centred moral and ethical governance frameworks and conforming to rules of war, like the Geneva Convention, by extremely rapid, algorithm-driven decision-making cycles that effectively remove the human from the loop,” Walker adds.
Share