While maybe Chris Pook may be more enamoured by unusual solutions than I am, there are some issues with the article as written. Ideas like the inexpensive UAV, Ghost warship and robot fire support vehicle gloss over their shortcomings (or overlook why some expensive programs like the LCS end up the way they did).
Smaller and cheaper means less capable, and one of the reasons the upgraded Reaper, M=1 tank or LCS is so expensive is they combine a multitude of systems from thermal imagers to long range communications gear, the ability to go for very long ranges and carry a significant amount of ammunition. (Note, not every project has every attribute).
In the case of the UAV, is it a correct comparison with its limited range and payload to the newer UAVs which can carry 4 Hellfires and a sophisticated sensor suite? The LCS turned out to be large and expensive because the USN was trying to get the capabilities of a Corvette for Littoral combat, but needed an ocean going hull to deploy these ships around the world. Perhaps a better platform might have been the large US Coast Guard cutters (and taking economies of scale into account, building them on an already existing assembly line would save tons of money). The Ghost isn't a replacement for the LCS, it is actually the sort of thing the LCS would be facing in an enemy Littoral (think of swarms of Iranian speedboats, or Missile and Torpedo boats with 4 ship killing cruise missiles and torpedoes aboard). And the Ripsaw would be great for accompanying infantry or escorting a convoy, but would come out very second best in a contest with a real tank, and would have difficulty breaching bunkers or heavily defended, complex obstacle belts.
The other thing which is unstated is there is no doctrine for using these tools. If I had the small UAVs, I would also need to have ways of controlling the airspace, assigning some vehicles as sensor platforms and some as weapons carriers, require a large footprint for a multitude of ground control stations, launch a d recovery assets and so on.
This is not to say we should not be considering ideas like these, and there is possibly a place for these and many other ideas. Perhaps more pressing would be changes to management to make procurement and project management less convoluted, and pressing manufacturers to use assembly line techniques and other innovative manufacturing to bring costs down. Much of the expensive military hardware is replicated in the $600 smart phone in your pocket (multiple communications receivers- WiFi and cellular- cameras, accelerometers, GPS receivers, database software etc.), so there should be lots of potential cost savings in "smart" weapons. Imagine if Excalibur rounds cost 1/2 of the current price, for example.
And manning also has to be reduced, as personal costs are the biggest driving factor for most militaries. An artillery piece with an automatic loader (like the Archer SP or 120mm Dragonfire mortar) can be manned with a crew of 3 or 2 respectively, yet deliver fire far more rapidly than any conventional artillery or mortar system. I'm sure there are a multitude of other systems that could be considered.