Beyond carrying weapons or higher-that-prosumer-quality video equipment, they are not all that different. UAS go from the sized aircraft one would typically think of as "military drone" to the small hand-launched aircraft used by people on the ground [0]. Using a submarine<->boat analog I'd argue with as the overall physics and operating principles of the two are hugely different.
Hey, thanks for actually supplying a number and a source for the number.
I find many of the other comments nearby are carping about details but not really addressing the point, which is that these things can and will crash, which is why they will be regulated somehow.
The Air Force vets that I know say that civilian aircraft during peace time are maintained better than AF aircraft were during war time.
Also, it's fair to say that the AF doesn't really care about the potential for ground casualties in the event of a mechanical failure.
Let's look at it this way; how many US drones have been captured by enemy forces? Crashing is one thing; falling into the hands of an opponent who can study the device is a mission aspect that the AF and other agencies do care about. More than a handful?
I think the implication is that a military drone is flying over the enemy. But taking a more realistic approach, a drone failure/crash in any current military theater is unlikely to hit anybody. We're not doing much flying over heavily populated/urbanized areas as far as I'm aware.
