Do you like hearing balanced perspectives that challenge your own? Me either!  But in the interests of balance here is an expert article from the Royal United Services Institute arguing against going all in on drones. I present it to you because it is thoughtful and well researched, even though I spent the article thinking 'yes, but'...

https://www.rusi.org/.../nato-should-not-replace...

The article says:

NATO should not replace traditional firepower with drones; artillery, fighters, and armored forces remain essential.

Ukraine’s heavy drone use is a wartime improvisation, not a sustainable model for NATO.

Russia’s advanced counter‑drone measures mean most strikes fail to hit or disable targets.

Western militaries’ slow procurement and strict regulations limit rapid drone adoption.

Drones work best as a supplement to traditional systems, providing ISR, jamming, and strike support—not as a replacement.

In my defense no one says tanks, artillery and aircraft should all be replaced by drones. But any rational thinker can see that drones need to be added to tactical and logistical inventory from squad sized formations up, and NATO armies are not preparing/training/equipping for this sufficiently.