What Iran’s drone blitz says about the future of warfare

With these drones, Iran managed to exploit the weaknesses of its much more powerful enemies, the US and Israel, as it escalated the war to their Arab allies.

The use of drones, not just in the Gulf, but also the Russia-Ukraine war and the India-Pakistan conflict last year, demonstrates how modern warfare is being shaped by low-cost technology that is easy to obtain — and difficult to defeat.

Here’s a look at how cheap drones have shifted the economics of the war in West Asia, and how they will likely continue to do so.

Up in the air

Besides ground-based missile systems, Gulf countries have attempted to tackle the swarms of slow-moving Shahed drones by deploying something that was never designed for this kind of fighting: advanced fighter jets such as the F-16s.

These fourth-generation fighter jets cost at least $70 million for newer variants (older ones are less than half the cost), with additional costs incurred in case of special packages comprising weapons, training and spare engines. They are armed with air-to-air missiles such as the AIM-9X Sidewinder (costing about $485,000 each) and the AIM-120 AMRAAM (worth over $1 million).

These jets have also resorted to their onboard guns because cannon rounds are cheaper than missiles. But given that the Shahed drone operates at low altitudes, this would require the fighter to attack it at close quarters, which increases the risk of civilian casualties in populated areas. Also, an F-16 can only carry a limited number of rounds, which means it can fire its cannon for about five seconds before it exhausts its magazine.

Since the war began on February 28, these Gulf fighters have managed to intercept most of the 3,000-plus drones Iran has fired at targets across the region. But their effectiveness has come at a high cost, not just financially but also in the form of overstretched pilots and planes on guard round the clock.

Analysts say this is not sustainable in the long term, simply because of the economics. While a Shahed drone costs anywhere between $20,000 and $50,000 apiece to manufacture, just keeping an F-16 in the air costs over $25,000 per hour.

An F-16 fighter jet. Photo: The New York Times

Then, one needs to consider the fact that these aircraft are manned by highly skilled pilots, who need years of training at a substantial cost. If one of these jets were shot down, both the plane and the pilot would be lost.

Compare that with a low-cost drone operated remotely: If it goes down, the replacement cost is only in monetary terms. Reuters summed up this imbalance as the underlying strategic dilemma: “Attacking has grown cheap while the relative cost of defending has skyrocketed.”

On what Iran’s use of drones says about its military objectives both in economic and strategic terms, drone systems expert Group Captain Rajiv Kumar Narang (retired) told The Indian Express that putting the economic imperative first and foremost would be wrong. “From Iran’s point of view, it’s the indigenous innovation that has made it low cost — not that they went for low cost (in the first place),” he said.

Narang, a senior fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, added that the Iranian military should get credit for taking ownership of the technology. “The Iranian military realised they will not get everything… So they kept innovating for a long time and they kept indigenising all the critical components in Iran, which made it possible to develop a large number of drones.”

Pointing to the “critical balance” being in favour of the US and Israel, Narang said: “Iran has been able to demonstrate its presence despite being pitted against the great powers.”

Highlighting that fighter jets are best used as a fallback for more economical munitions, Samuel Bendett at the Center for Naval Analyses told the Financial Times: “It is obviously a very bad cost ratio for intercepting a cheap threat… We know what the ratio must be: as a defender, you must use cheaper resources.”

Last week, reports emerged that Iran had “forced” an American F-35 jet to make an emergency landing. Notably, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE are either pursuing negotiations or have shown interest in the past in acquiring the fifth-generation fighter, which costs upwards of $80 million.

But cost isn’t the only cause for worry: For an F-35, shooting down drones is difficult because a Shahed flies at about one-fifth of the former’s average cruising speed. So, a less experienced pilot might just overshoot their target and miss.

Shooting from the ground

Then there is the question of the ground-based interceptors, such as the Patriot and the THAAD. Barring Oman, all five Gulf countries — Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait — rely immensely on these American-made interceptor missile systems.

A THAAD missile launcher (left) and a Patriot missile launcher. Photo: The New York Times

These don’t come cheap. A full battery system (ground-based mobile launcher) of either the Patriot or THAAD interceptors can easily cost over a billion dollars. A single Patriot missile costs close to $4 million, whereas a THAAD interceptor missile costs $13-15.5 million. Again, the contrast with a $20,000 Shahed drone is stark.

Moreover, supply poses a problem even for well-funded buyers such as those in the Gulf. According to military data trackers, only 620 of the most advanced Patriot missiles (PAC-3 MSE) were produced and delivered to militaries in 2025, while the annual tally for THAAD was 96.

Even though manufacturers have been asked to ramp up production, it will not happen overnight. And when one considers reports that the US and its allies have fired over 800 of these million-dollar interceptors within the first five days of the war, replenishing stocks of these ballistic missiles will take years.

Cost-effective ‘solutions’

But cost-effective counters have emerged in another theatre of war: Ukraine. Earlier this month, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that Ukraine had dispatched over 200 experts to countries in West Asia that had sought its assistance.

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Geran drone — Russia’s variant of the Shahed — has been Moscow’s weapon of choice. Although Ukraine used Patriot interceptors at first (which it received as part of US military aid) to combat Russia’s drone swarms, the economics soon caught up, forcing it to adapt quickly.

A Russian Shahed-style drone that was intercepted by Ukrainian forces in 2025. Photo: The New York Times

Besides counter-drone technology that can recognise the Geran’s acoustic signature (like the Shahed, it has a lawnmower-like sound) and issue alerts for tracking them in real time, Ukraine has developed an economical interceptor drone called Sting, worth $2,000-4,000 per unit. This remotely piloted drone works by crashing into enemy drones like Shaheds.

Additionally, Merops, an American-made anti-drone system, has been developed with the help of Ukrainian soldiers. The New York Times reported that these small interceptors have proven so effective that the US was racing to deliver thousands of them to West Asia to protect troops against Iranian drones.

Also, the Pentagon announced in March that it deployed its own one-way attack drone, modelled on the Shahed, in Iran for the first time in combat. Called LUCAS (Low-cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System), it costs about $35,000 apiece.

Closer to home, the India-Pakistan conflict in May last year also saw significant use of drones. To combat Pakistan’s employment of drones en masse, Narang said India used its indigenous air defence systems like the Akashteer and the Integrated Air Command and Control System, besides air defence guns such as Bofors L-70, ZU-23, and Shilka. But he felt that India needs to do more in terms of integrating drone and counterdrone systems with air defence networks.

High-energy laser weapons present a promising alternative. They can drive down the cost of warfare by using electricity or reusable platforms instead of expensive missiles. For instance, the HELIOS Laser, developed by Lockheed Martin and deployed on the US Navy destroyer USS Preble, has reportedly been used in the war against Iran to shoot down drones.

By shooting a high-energy beam that physically destroys its target through intense heat, the HELIOS claims to reduce the cost of interception from millions of dollars to a mere $1-10 per shot.

But the technology has its limits: effectiveness can be degraded by weather conditions such as rain, fog and smoke. Most of these systems are also only beginning to be deployed outside testing environments.

Low-cost Unmanned Combat Attack System, or LUCAS, drones. Photo: The New York Times

The road ahead

Even as backchannel diplomacy attempts to bring the war to an end, a report by The Wall Street Journal pointed to the fact that Gulf countries were miffed by their inability to “exert much influence on the Trump administration’s decisions”. This hints at their unease at Israel playing a bigger role in dictating US foreign policy in the region.

But for now, these countries might have to carefully weigh their immediate desire to punish Iran against the pressing need to rebuild their defences for the long term without being overly reliant on the US to deal with external threats.

As Anan Tello pointed out in an analysis for Arab News: “For Gulf states, the lesson is clear: even with advanced defences, the economics of modern warfare are shifting, and the cost of protection may prove as decisive as firepower itself.”

But even as the future of warfare indicates that drones will play a key role, Narang said they have not replaced manned aircraft. “Remember, all major attacks are done by manned aircraft. Even today, wherever heavy payloads have to be dropped, it was (them). But in terms of the ability to strike soft targets, drones have done well,” he said.