I was thinking more large scale. Programmable unmanned drones for about $1,000 each (the government couldn’t build at this cost, but a smart businessman could). Army’s newest tank cost $6,000,000 each. That would be 6,000 drones per one tank cost.
You could send thousands of drones across enemy lines or at ships. Programmable drones don’t need to receive instructions individually. I seen amazing drone light shows with a hundred drones, adapt the technology to drone wars and it is scary.
As General von Mellenthin would say, “you think along big lines”. That is a compliment.
I have an original 1942 edition of VICTORY THROUGH AIR POWER, by Major Alexander P. De Seversky. The book makes the argument for spending money on aircraft with super ranges instead of aircraft carriers. He advocated bombing Japan from bases in Alaska. But just because the B19 had a range of 7000 miles does not mean it could be armed and bomb a city 3000 miles away and return successfully. The author was thinking that technology would advance ranges of aircraft rapidly, but it tended to advance gas guzzling too.
We don’t want to fall into the trap of “fighting the last war” with our future planning. We also need to be careful in thinking what future weapon systems will be decisive.
Note that a 1917 model BAR is obsolete due to weight and box magazine limitations. Still, if carried, it would be an effective weapon on the modern battlefield. A 1917 aircraft would have a tougher time.
Gov’t “cost” will have a 10x multiplier. But even to use your evaluation, one can’t ARM (to hurt a tank or ship) a drone for $1000. Can’t even build one capable of carrying a high tech weapon for 10x that, I’d guess. But then again, maybe you don’t need to. Send a swarm of 200 drones at a ship. Only 2 are actually armed. Can the ship pick them out?