[LibWhacker]

Upon return, they would be parked on the other side once again and await servicing and staging for reuse.

So the drones are not going to crash into their target, à la that Gerard Butler movie, but will be large enough to carry ordnance and afterwards return to the hangers?

But for maximum firepower wouldn't you want to have massive amounts of ordnance flying alongside or in formation with your little drones? Or are these drones going to run the gamut from small drones to fighter-size drones to bomber-size drones?

Or are these drones seen as some kind of new powerful laser attack platform? That'd be something!

But leaving science fiction aside and getting back to physically flying alongside the ordnance... Why do that? Just make your cruise missiles smart, then the ordnance wouldn't need the drone to babysit it and/or crunch the numbers for it, and the missile becomes the drone.

Sorry... just trying to grasp the concept here and understand the role of a swarm of drones that don't deliberately fly into the target themselves. But I do get this part of it: a swarm of drones sounds and looks super cool.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

All the questions you ask are fair...and I'm sure being accounted for. These drone programs have all latched onto the descriptor "attritable." I'm not sure where "attritable" ends and "expendable" starts. They are targeting low-cost drones at less than $1 million each. Tomahawk cruise missiles cost just under $1 million each. So maybe the drones can lower the cost of warfare by bringing the delivery system home for re-use. Or you can field a lot more of them than cruise missiles.

Most importantly, do you want the dragon to eat us?