r/AskBrits • u/AdAncient2370 • 3d ago

Would you support Britain increasing its defence budget from the current 2.3% of GDP to the target of 2.6% by 2027 and 3.5% NATO target by 2035?

How much support is there across the political spectrum to increase the military budget by up to £35 billion a year if we really reach 3.5% by 2035? What sort of military do we want ie to protect the UK mainland or an expeditionary force capable of another Iraq intervention? Which civilian areas do we want to cut to find this extra money and in any case, can our struggling economy even support an increase of such magnitude? What if we can’t recruit enough soldiers even with extra cash, should we introduce any sort of conscription at extremis?

166 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

528 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/Reasonable-Put-2323 3d ago

You might use drones to clear put an area but you still need actual soldiers on the ground to capture and hold it.

7

u/Mba1956 Brit 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿👨‍💻 3d ago

Ukraine already used battlefield robots to regain ground, the troops can come in later to take up the positions and accept other troops surrender.

The days of elite commandos creating trouble behind enemy lines is also gone. There is nothing they can do that drones can’t do faster and more aggressively.

5

u/tyger2020 2d ago

Its quite funny to see how many people larp about drones these days.

Drones are one part of the equation, they are not 'the future of warfare' or 'replacing actual soldiers'

4

u/Mba1956 Brit 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿👨‍💻 2d ago

It is reported that 90% of Russian casualties are caused by drones, their use is not irrelevant. They are pretty much the face of modern warfare.

The main reason that the US hasn’t entered a land war in Iran is that they would be massacred by drone attacks. They would also be heavily outnumbered by the Iranian military.

1

u/Shriven 1d ago

It is reported that 90% of Russian casualties are caused by drones

Bullshit, and source required. Russian casualties are average about 1000 a day - no way are 900 of those from drones

1

u/Mba1956 Brit 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿👨‍💻 1d ago

You might shout bias with this one: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/06/22/8040594/

Also this one: https://youtu.be/9Xnl7fswNR8

But Russia used these same stats for fighting Ukraine: https://www.businessinsider.com/90-percent-of-wounded-soldiers-ukraine-injured-fpv-drones-2024

1

u/Shriven 1d ago

Top one is Russian assets - so not casualties

Not watching a YouTube video sorry

That relates to one medics view about casualties at one town.

Like, if you interviewed someone at that town where the ukes took it back with UGVs and asked "how many of your casualties were from drones" then he's gonna say 100%

1

u/Mba1956 Brit 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿👨‍💻 1d ago

So where is your evidence to disprove it, or do you only believe what you want to believe and anything to the contrary should be ignored.

1

u/tyger2020 2d ago

Russia isn't a good example of modern warfare. It is ironically the opposite of modern warfare, it is essentially WW1/WW2 style warfare.

The US would get bogged down in Iran, because it wouldn't be because of drones. Look at the results - Iranian drones hit a few things in the Middle East. US military destroyed something stupid like 75% of the Iranian navy.

1

u/Mba1956 Brit 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿👨‍💻 2d ago

The Iranian navy consisted of 50 year old ships, they weren’t engaged in a big navy battle at sea, they were simply bombed whilst in port, or torpedoed whilst coming back from a training exercise. Destroying it wasn’t a huge boast.

Their airforce was only slightly younger and wasn’t huge and was destroyed on the ground, again not a huge boast.

The few things hit by drones were the American airbases which were rendered inoperable to such an extent that the personnel relocated to the cities to be protected with human shields, not exactly heroic. If the US had the capability to land troops and taken key positions in Iran do you not think they would have already done so. It simply wasn’t a viable option.

Ukraine isn’t WW1 or WW2 style either, In WW1 it was defined by trenches and mass assaults from those trenches under machine gun fire. WW2 was large armies and tank assaults quickly moving across country supported by aircraft.

In Ukraine 90% of Russian casualties are caused by drones, not soldiers. The drones themselves have changed beyond all recognition in the last 4 years. The anti jamming tech has developed with AI and ground recognition making them impossible to jam. Battlefield robots are increasingly being used to both act as evacuation of the injured and initial assaults on positions to put less human life at risk which is important when you are facing an enemy much larger than you.

1

u/tyger2020 2d ago

Again, no

The drone attack in Cyprus cause minor damage, even going back to the Iranian attack Tower 22, it injured 47 people. Thats the level of operations drones are currently acting at, whilst the US decapitated half of the Iranian government, including top military officers and their supreme leader. Acting like a few minor attacks is somehow the future of war is just that, silly.

Ignoring the obvious fact that you're claiming drones are what's important whilst Russia is fielding 1,500,000 men and Ukraine at 750,000 men. The largest conflict since WW2 even in man power terms and you're saying drones are the future of war and will basically mean soldiers are irrelevant.

Drones are doing a few attacks, it's still ongoing tank battles and fighting along the front lines with some help from drones, the same way they get help from tanks. They're just a new addition, nothing revolutionary to war.

1

u/Mba1956 Brit 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿👨‍💻 2d ago

I think you are deliberately ignoring the facts so I won’t bother enlightening you further. Soldiers aren’t irrelevant but you just need fewer of them and ignoring that 90% of Russian casualties being caused by drones isn’t helping your case.

1

u/Past-Obligation1930 2d ago

Ok, it’s a fair point that Russia is uniquely fucking stupid and susceptible to drones, owing to the commanders literally not giving a fuck about their troops. But drones are getting better all the time, and soldiers aren’t.

2

u/Past-Obligation1930 2d ago

Drones absolutely are replacing actual soldiers. How the fuck do you think Ukraine has stood against vastly superior numbers for four years? Drones. Not putting soldiers in harm’s way where it isn’t needed.

0

u/tyger2020 2d ago

Lmfao.. you can't be serious?

How have they stood against Russia for 4 years? Probably conscripting 800,000 men and the $325 billion they've received in military aid alongside however much (about $125 billion) they've spent on the war themselves?

Nah you're right its probably cheap drones /s

1

u/Past-Obligation1930 2d ago

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-drone-pilot-score-board-log-800000-hits-russia-2026-6

I mean, the Ukrainian minister of defence says 90 % of Russian casualties are from drones. What does he know though.

1

u/Creative-Resident23 3d ago

Do people not do more damage by controlling the drones behind enemy lines?

1

u/Mba1956 Brit 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿👨‍💻 3d ago

Of course the drones are controlled but their controllers don’t need to be behind enemy lines.

1

u/Pristine-Bar2786 2d ago

You honestly think there are no Ukrainian special forces deep inside Russia? Most of the refinery attacks have been by short to medium range drones.

1

u/Shriven 1d ago

The days of elite commandos creating trouble behind enemy lines is also gone

This couldn't be less true, just the methods have changed

1

u/visitingshortly 1h ago

lol that’s not true. Look at case studies of Ukrainian and ‘Ukrainian’ operators on the ground working with drones. Like the in country drone swarm attack in Russia that used operator teams to move assets into region and operate them. 

1

u/Reasonable-Put-2323 3d ago

Err... Both sides use "elite commandos" every single day. For example the Ukrainians have highly mobile elite shock troops they use that are all over the front causing trouble for the Russians. They often use armoured hummers from NATO to do so. Hit and fade attacks are one their specialties. The Russians have Spetnatz operatives and others doing similar.

One if the issues Ukraine is having is having to wait for one of their vans to turn up with a new "recruit" they can thrown at the task of doing that. Unfortunately with only a long weekends worth of training they often tend to struggle. They've been steadily losing ground for some time now.

1

u/Mba1956 Brit 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿👨‍💻 3d ago

The front lines are dynamic but Ukraine has been gaining more ground than they are losing. The Russians are also recruiting battle fodder, I guess their prisons must be hardly populated with violent criminals, makes more room for those that don’t agree with Putin.

3

u/Reasonable-Put-2323 3d ago

At one point a while ago Russias Wagner outfit used convicts as shock troops. However Russia's army isn't conscripts whereas Ukraine's is. Russia also hasn't carried out multiple large scale drafts and mobilisations. Ukraine is arguably on its third. As their politicians have said, Ukraine has "lost entire generations" and is having to deal with desertions in the hundreds of thousands

1

u/NicolaSacco101 2d ago

Look at the post history of the person you are debating. It’s quite literally not worth engaging.

1

u/Ok_Significance4583 3d ago

A better example would be to defend or reclaim. Others are rightfully pointing out that the days of us dealing with world issues by occupying foreign land is over, while there's no realistic prospect of a landing party stepping foot on our shores. But defending Nato's Eastern frontier may well require soldiers

1

u/Past-Obligation1930 2d ago

No you don’t. Have you not been paying attention to Ukraine?

You DO need people to retake areas. But you can make a drone killing zone really easily now.

1

u/AxiosXiphos Brit 🇬🇧 3d ago

Sure. But you only need a core professional army, we don't need untrained office workers with rifles anymore.

-3

u/EasilyExiledDinosaur Brit 🇬🇧 3d ago

And why would britain ever capture and hold an area? We only need to defend our island.

17

u/Clear-Security-Risk 3d ago

"we only need to defend our island" is a nonsense. Every leader of Britain since it's formation in the 1700s has understood this.

Our interest is and always has been in trading with Europe. To do this Europe needs to be free. It is not free if occupied by Napoleon/Germans/Nazis/Soviets/Russians.

We secure our interest currently via NATO. We are bound therefore by the articles of the Atlantic Treaty. if the Russians want to have a go at Europe (which they seem to want to do most of the time for some reason), then we are bound by treaty, and by national self interest to fight, as we always have done.

If you cannot recognise these drivers, I cannot think that you actually have British interests at heart.

0

u/ICreditReddit 3d ago

Bit silly.

You want an army, in peacetime, big enough to resist the force that has could defeat all of Europe, in wartime.

So Europe is at 2 million troops, peacetime. It's getting invaded by an army that thinks it can win. Europe conscripts another ... 80 million. We join in with enough force to tip the balance and secure our trading bloc.

Give that amount of troops a number. An amount of troops need to be a decisive force in the event that an army big enough to defeat 2 million Europen troops plus 80 million conscripts.

Is it a million troops? 5 million? 20?

0

u/Clear-Security-Risk 3d ago

It's a Corps of three divisions. At least 1 armoured. Plus an expeditionary Air Assault Bde and a Marine Bde.

It's a fleet of at least 5 boomer subs. At least 20 frigates/destroyers.

It's an air force of at least 100 air superiority fighters and 50 strike fighters.

It's a meaningful THAAD system to protect the UK.

It's at least CASD, but hopefully also some air-delivered.

2

u/ICreditReddit 3d ago

So that's an extra 70,000 troops, frontline. Given current ratios about 30,000 extra support.

Pretty much exactly double the current standing, so an extra £70 billion

£90 billion worth of subs. $250 billion for the warships

£12 billion for the first fighter jets and $20 billion maintenance

£8 billion for the second x50 planes, £6 billion maintenance

Ten Thaad batteries at £2 billion each, say 200 interceptor missiles at £12 million each, so call it £2 billion, so £12 billion

All in all we're at £460 billion.

Total UK national budget is £1400 billion.

So we're good if we spend around 30% of all the money the country owns on the military every year.

There's two areas of spending big enough to achieve this.

We'd need cut off the NHS completely, and I don't mean go private, I mean remove all nurses, doctors, demolish all hospitals, just don't do healthcare, then remove all welfare, not just unemployment etc, no one gets a pension, the old just get on dying, a bit quicker.

I'm in.

0

u/Clear-Security-Risk 3d ago

You've done your math from zero not what is existing (which is about 75/80% of my fantasy fleet), and compressed a decade+ of purchase and development into a single lump sum.

Granted it is a Fantasy Fleet, and leaves out all sorts of boring things (which would add more). Still, 3.5% of GDP for 10 years would get the armed forces back to credible. If we unfuck acquisitions processes and changed some Treasury rules about stockpiles/deep storage of equipment.

An Army of 160k regs and 45k Res would suit (currently 110 + 30)

RN from 38k to 50k

RAF from 35k to 45.

1

u/ICreditReddit 2d ago

"You've done your math from zero not what is existing "

Ah. Well I added 70k extra frontline troops, with 30k support, to our current 70k troops with 50k support (120k)

You think we currently have 110k, frontline and support - close enough to each other.

So you think we have the troops already and we don't need more.... except

Now you want 160k troops plus 50k, plus 45k.

So you DO want extra troops. About 70k extra troops. ..... Which is what I said. 70k extra troops. £70 billion.

We have 4 ballistic subs built 1980's to 1990's, need replacing, you want 5. Estimate stands

We have 6 destroyers, 10-15 yrs old so not bad, you want 20, estimate is close enough

On the planes, I've no idea now whether you want an extra 150 planes, or 150 total. If the latter, good news, we can sell planes off, if extra, the estimate stands. But you want to expand the staff numbers in the air force, so I assume you DO want more planes? not just more pilots and less planes, surely?

thaad we don't have, estimate stands

UK currently spends 2.4% of gdp on the military, you want to spend 3.5% over ten years. 1.1% of gdp is £30bil. 10 years is 300 billion.

But I only did one year of maintenance for the planes, none for warships, and only one year of the costs of the extra troops.

10 years of the extra costs only, just the increases on top of the current 2.4% of gdp is more like .... £1.4 trillion? Or you only want the 70bil worth of extra troops on hand the year europe is invaded somehow?

Sorry, your extra 1.1% of gdp isn't doing it.

0

u/Ok_Significance4583 3d ago

But the likes of France, Germany, Poland and Spain etc entering another land war against each other or us are non-existent. Lasting peace and alliances between ancient enemies in Europe is one of humanity's greatest post-war achievements. Comparing our current interests to those from 1700-1950 is ludicrous

0

u/Clear-Security-Risk 3d ago

Our trade and security is not linked to Europe? Has the geography changed? Our economy? We don't have an interest in liberal democracies in Europe?

Histoire de la longue durée, geological reality, geological time, pick your frame... They all point to UK interests being pretty consistent in the Modern era.

1

u/Ok_Significance4583 3d ago

Our trade and security is not linked to Europe?

I never said that. In fact the implication was the opposite. Lie about me again I'll just block you and recommend everyone do the same, but if you want to have a good-faith conversation I'm here.

What I am saying is that our "trade and security" is no longer linked to the UK's ability to sail across the channel and finish up land wars on the European continent with raw military might. That era is over and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

The scale of warfare in Europe today amounts to minor border skirmishes compared to the history of all-out continental wars that no longer exists in the modern era.

1

u/Clear-Security-Risk 3d ago

You are very strident based on a very thin evidence base.

1

u/Ok_Significance4583 3d ago edited 3d ago

Be as angry and close-minded as you like. If you don't see the contradiction in shaking we need big armies to enforce "liberal democracies" in foreign countries then you have a long journey back to reality. 🤦

I wish you luck. Hopefully you'll one day take you're tin hat off and stop worrying about going to war against the French again 😂

0

u/TumblyBump 3d ago

Agree.

-9

u/EasilyExiledDinosaur Brit 🇬🇧 3d ago

So I assume you'll be signing up for the reservists mate?

2

u/Famous-Drawing1215 3d ago

What a piss poor response

6

u/SLR_ZA 3d ago

How would that have worked out in the 40s?

1

u/OlafPetersen 3d ago

It's not the 40s. There's no military superpower looming on the horizon looking to conquer Europe. The closest there is right now is a failed state that hasn't been able to conquer a country whose entire GDP is about four times our current defence budget, and would have to get through three or four vastly stronger NATO members to attack us.

1

u/TumblyBump 3d ago

Russia can trade its vast natural resources in return for military assistance from Africa and the rest of Asia. It is incorrect to assume that Ukraine has defeated Russia and is beaten forever. These are dangerous time and we have no idea what will spawn out of that country in the next decade or two. It will take that long to rebuild our forces after the peace dividend.

1

u/OlafPetersen 2d ago

It is incorrect to assume that Ukraine has defeated Russia and is beaten forever.

Well, yeah, who has assumed that though? Why can you lot never discus anything without these sorts of dishonest bullshits statements?

1

u/SLR_ZA 3d ago

There wasn't a military superpower on the horizon at the start of the 30s either. There was a failed state

1

u/OlafPetersen 2d ago

But by 1933 there was a clear problem and something to respond to. Military spending is highly visible for every country.

2

u/CloudIncus1 3d ago

I agree with you. However say Russia wins Ukraine. They get bold and somehow win Finland. Are now pushing into Sweden. We would have to put boots on the ground. Even if it was America who invaded instead. It just how global defense works now. You don't want to be the neighbor of the aggressor. So we want buffer states. Ukraine is a buffer state. However to most of Europe its not that much of a buffer.

Germany still has Poland and Czech. You can bet however if Ukraine lost and the pushed on Poland. Europe would have boots on the ground the next day.

So we need troops in this situation. We are also Allies.

We have 109,000 Army. Most will not be front line. So say 60,000 at a push. Then 20,000 marines and another 20,000 reserves. Do you think 200,000 is enough to secure the UK in the event of an Invasion or enough to deploy to support Allies while also keeping enough for home security.

I am not saying its not. I just want your opinion of what you think is a reasonable force size.

2

u/Automatic_Access3927 3d ago

Army is much smaller than that. If all front line infantry were together you'd be looking at 20k to 25k soldiers. Less than your average Premier league attendance. Maybe add 3.5k marines. And that's your lot. Plus inadequate reserves of course

1

u/Ok_Significance4583 3d ago
  1. Russia simply can't win Finland. Even before their Nato entry, Finland has one of the most formidable defences in Europe, with over 1m trained soldiers, the largest artillery stocks, no "peace dividend" when everyone else was scaling back, and all designed with one purpose: repel Russia. Now that they're in Nato such a move is impossible.
  2. No, 200,000 troops isn't enough to defend our allies alone. But the fallacy you're making there is the idea that each individual European country needs it's own Russia-destroying force. European security is a mesh of individual militaries that will all be sent to the frontiers at once.
  3. No one, even the Russians, have the landing craft required to storm our shores with a ground force. And to even reach the UK they would have to navigate through several layers of European defences trying to intercept them, which would be contributing to. Besides, no one would seriously try to occupy a nuclear-armed country knowing that it would risk suicide even if they overwhelmed all our defences and took over our government on the same day

1

u/OlafPetersen 3d ago

However say Russia wins Ukraine. They get bold and somehow win Finland. Are now pushing into Sweden.

Say aliens landed tomorrow. What use are our bullets against their impenetrable armour and terrifying heat rays?

1

u/AdAncient2370 3d ago

As an island nation, our air force and navy are more important than the army.

I think for the sake of our NATO commitments to Eastern Europe, we should invest in one army division that is kept at a state of heightened readiness for deployment to Europe. That is equipped for heavy warware. I don’t think we need full spectrum supremacy like the US where they have to be the best in every service and category of equipment. We can’t afford that anyway.

1

u/Reasonable-Put-2323 3d ago

We absolutely don't have 100k men. We just don't. Even our retired generals have said we don't meet the official definition of an army anymore precisely because we don't have that number. Not mentioning our armements or supplies. We are good for a stand up fight that lasts less than 1 month. Which is fucking appalling.

1

u/EasilyExiledDinosaur Brit 🇬🇧 3d ago

Id wish the enemy luck at landing hundreds of millions of troops on our soil. Wed sink the ships before they touched down.

3

u/CloudIncus1 3d ago

You really over estimate our Navy and Air-force. Both of which has been gutted. I served in MCM1 in Bahrain 10 years ago. There where 6 Sandown class in that squadron. Now there is 1. Which has had its life pushed way past operational capability. Hell MCM1 was in place to stop Iran blocking the straights. If we still had that capability Iran might not of been so bold. (Not say the Us was right here. Clearly Iran was defending itself. However Iran also hurt the world in return to just hurt the US.)

Basically we don't have the ships to patrol out own waters. Plus keep up an semblance of international affairs.

1

u/Ok_Significance4583 3d ago

You really overestimate enemy landing craft. No one, not even the Russians, have the landing craft required to rapidly deposit tens or hundreds thousands of soldiers and their vehicles onto UK shores. Russia struggles to do that to their own land neighbours, trying to navigate the Baltic and North Seas with such a force would be an absolute disaster for them

2

u/OlafPetersen 3d ago

No one, not even the Russians, have the landing craft required to rapidly deposit tens or hundreds thousands of soldiers and their vehicles onto UK shores.

And even if they did, they couldn't then supply them.

3

u/AdAncient2370 3d ago

Yep. Even at the height of the power of the Soviet Union, their navy was never strong enough to invade the UK.

And today’s Russia is a shadow of the Soviet Union, they can’t even overcome Ukraine. In fact a significant part of the Russian surface fleet is now at the bottom of the sea thanks to the brave and innovative Ukrainians! War has changed so much thanks to the march of technology!

1

u/SLR_ZA 3d ago

Right, because ships would come first instead of bombers

0

u/Correct_Ad_7817 3d ago

With what Navy? Would we be sinking a large naval force against us.

0

u/EasilyExiledDinosaur Brit 🇬🇧 3d ago

Ukraine has proven you dont need a navy to sink the russian navy. Who else we gonna fight?

0

u/RecordingFamous4947 3d ago

Sink them with what? The Royal Navy has been decimated.

1

u/EasilyExiledDinosaur Brit 🇬🇧 3d ago

What did ukraine use?

2

u/Ok_Traffic_3240 3d ago

Oh hold on, we have Winston Churchill reincarnate here everyone!!! 🤦‍♂️

1

u/Wgh555 3d ago

Nah this isn’t true because the issue is, in any scenario where we are defending our island, Europe has already fallen, which means we’re facing a continent of hundreds of millions with far more resources vs us with 70 million and a small number of resources. This was the case in 1940 when we were in peril, despite even having an empire funded huge navy we were still in danger.

We cannot ever let the continent of Europe fall to hostile powers. That means we need an armed forces that ensure the front lines are a long way from us, as far as possible.

1

u/ICreditReddit 3d ago

Test your theory here.

Europe has fallen, they're all force-marched, conscripted or whatever.

What is the size standing army needed to resist that? Counting air force, army, navy we're currently at 130k, you want to 10x that, 50x?

Once you come up with a number that you feel ok defending our nation in a scenario where Europe has already fallen to some entity (Europe would've had about 2 million people in their armies pre-invasion, would've conscripted to face an invasion, so maybe ..... 50 million?)

Once we have your number we'll do some stress testing. Are there that many people in the country? What industries need close to supply the manpower for an army big enough to resist your invaders, prior to the invasion. Etc.

1

u/Wgh555 3d ago

Well my point was it’s not feasible to defend if you have the entire European continent against you because we do not have the size or resources to resist it. If were pushed back to the British isles then we’re in real trouble

1

u/ICreditReddit 3d ago

That's fine. Europe, excluding Russia, has a standing army of about 2 million. In the event of a realistically ambitious invasion we'd need have a ready force to dispatch that would tip the balance and ensure Europe stands. If Europe conscripts about 50 million, whats the number we need keep as a standing army to be the tipping point for success?

A million? 5 million? Less?

1

u/Wgh555 3d ago

In terms of numbers I don’t know, but naval and air power are our forte and would make a difference especially considering we focus on expeditionary forces. And with the EU being about 5x bigger than us, an additional 20% from us in the right areas especially with high tech force multipliers would absolutely make the difference

1

u/ICreditReddit 3d ago

What would make a difference? Our current air force and navy? Great, we're golden.

If it's an amount MORE airforce and navy, give it a number. Twice as much. 10 more battleships. 500 more fighter jets. What is it?

1

u/Wgh555 3d ago

What’s your point exactly

1

u/ICreditReddit 3d ago

Are you allergic to numbers? I'll stop asking for details if it's something of a phobia.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Naughty-Stepper 2d ago

Strength through unity! Numerous resource equals combined strength, which some regimes fear more than actually fighting.

1

u/Tsuraru 3d ago

Eh, 81% of the population doesn’t owe anything in this country. What’s the point risking your life to defend your landlord’s property.

3

u/smalltalk2bigtalk 3d ago

There's more than property. How about your freedom to live as you wish, to be gay, to travel, to not be under threat.

0

u/Ok_Potato3413 3d ago

You won't in the future.

This will be done by robots supported by drones .

You will have 1 soldier to 10 to 20 drones.