US Military Fights Drone Threat: Bureaucracy Slows Tech

US Military Fights Drone Threat: Bureaucracy Slows Tech

The United States military faces a growing problem: how to quickly stop the increasing number of drones used by enemies. This is not a new issue, but it has become much clearer with recent conflicts. Low-cost drones can now threaten military bases, important buildings, and even ships at sea. While many smart people are working on solutions, the way the military buys new technology is too slow. This often means the technology is outdated by the time it reaches soldiers.

Why New Tech Moves Slowly

Megan Mezer, CEO of Decode, explains that the military’s buying process focuses too much on following rules instead of meeting actual needs. By the time a new defense program goes through all the steps, the technology and the threat have already changed. This is especially true for counter-drone technology, which is new and changing very fast. Unlike older weapons like Patriot missiles or Tomahawks, where the military knows what it needs and how to build it, counter-drone tech is different.

Mezer notes that there are many new, fast commercial technologies that could help. Drones are a problem not just for the military but also for businesses, for example, in stopping corporate spying or attacks on shipping. This has led many new companies to create solutions. The military is getting better at using quick buying methods for testing new ideas. However, this often only addresses a small part of the problem. The whole process, from buying to getting the tech to soldiers, needs to be much faster.

“By the time programs move through traditional cycles, both the technology and the threat have already moved on.”

Integration and Policy Hurdles

Even when new, off-the-shelf technology is available, it often cannot easily connect with the military’s existing systems. These older systems were not designed to work with new, modern technology. This leads to having many different systems that don’t work together. Sometimes, the problem isn’t even the technology itself, but outdated policies. For example, rules might prevent counter-drone systems from being used in ways that would stop low-flying drones, or they might limit where these systems can be pointed.

Mezer points out that when testing new technology, the focus is often on meeting strict safety and compliance rules. This testing process can take a very long time. The real risk, she argues, is not using imperfect technology but the risk of doing nothing while the threat grows. The military needs to accept that a good-enough solution now is better than a perfect solution years from now.

The Challenge of Speed and Scale

The war in Ukraine and recent events in the Middle East are pushing the military to move faster. However, the system is complex. While leaders talk about needing faster buying and rethinking risk, the actual changes need to happen at lower levels, with the people doing the day-to-day work. Different branches of the military, like the Army and Navy, are developing their own counter-drone systems. This can lead to duplicated efforts and a lack of a unified approach.

The term “counter-UAS” (Unmanned Aerial Systems) covers a wide range of needs, from protecting airfields to equipping individual soldiers. Some believe a dedicated department for counter-drone efforts is needed. The recent attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz highlight the problem of autonomous systems, whether they are boats or drones.

Finding Bright Spots and Overcoming Bureaucracy

Despite the challenges, there are positive signs. Some units, like those in CENTCOM (U.S. Central Command), are actively seeking new technologies and getting them to soldiers quickly. Efforts are being made to get companies with proven tech into the system. There’s also more teamwork between different services and joint testing of new capabilities. This collaborative approach is seen as a hopeful sign.

However, sharing information and technology between units and branches remains difficult. The rapid pace of technological change means that what is relevant one week might not be the next. Coordinating efforts across different layers of the military, from enlisted soldiers to commanders, and across different services, is a huge task. For instance, defending ships at sea from drones launched from land requires a joint effort from the Navy, Army, and Air Force.

Acquisition Reform and Policy Changes

There has been a shift in the military’s approach to buying new equipment. Leaders are now expected to use innovative buying methods. The message is that not using these methods means not doing your job well. However, the real problem often lies in the execution, with layers of bureaucracy slowing things down. It’s hard for individuals to keep up with new technology, changing rules, and who supports their efforts.

Mezer uses the example of a program where shipping software updates took over nine months. This was not due to a technical issue, but an old policy from 1991 that required software to be tested like a new missile. Changing this policy sped up delivery by nearly a year. This shows how outdated rules, even self-imposed ones, can significantly hinder progress. A rapid policy action cell, to quickly address bureaucratic roadblocks, is suggested as a solution.

“The bureaucracy needs to be hacked inside all of those levers.”

The Role of Innovation Hubs

Organizations like DIU (Defense Innovation Unit) are working to connect startups with the military. They are good at finding companies that don’t usually work with the defense department. The main challenge is getting these prototypes adopted by larger acquisition programs. These programs often struggle to figure out how to fund, contract, and integrate new technologies, especially if they lack open standards for connection.

The military has historically excelled at building large, complex weapon systems over long periods. However, the drone threat requires a different approach – fast, adaptable, and sometimes less polished. Working with international partners who operate at this faster pace is being considered. The difficulty lies in navigating the bureaucracy to integrate foreign technology and then scaling it for widespread use.

Lessons from Past Threats

The improvised explosive device (IED) threat during the Global War on Terror offers a historical parallel. While many effective counter-IED technologies were developed, there were also instances where soldiers resorted to makeshift solutions because official ones were too slow to arrive. This highlights the recurring problem of bureaucracy hindering the delivery of needed technology, sometimes with tragic consequences.

Mezer believes that the counter-drone challenge is the modern version of the IED threat. While there are reasons for hope, as learning and adaptation are happening, the bureaucracy remains a significant hurdle. The military needs to move away from long-term planning for every capability and embrace a more flexible approach, especially for rapidly evolving threats like drones.

Why This Matters

The ability of the U.S. military to adapt to new threats quickly is crucial for national security. The current system for acquiring new technology is too slow for the pace of drone development. This gap puts soldiers and national interests at risk. While there are efforts to reform acquisition policies and embrace innovation, these changes need to happen faster and be implemented effectively at all levels of the organization. Without significant improvements in speed and agility, the U.S. military risks falling behind adversaries who can develop and deploy drone technology more rapidly.

Future Outlook

The future of defense acquisition will likely involve a mix of traditional and innovative approaches. There will be a continued push for faster prototyping, more flexible contracting, and a reevaluation of risk tolerance. Collaboration with commercial industry and international partners will be essential. However, overcoming deeply ingrained bureaucratic processes and outdated policies will be the biggest challenge. Success will depend on sustained leadership commitment and the willingness of individuals at all levels to embrace change and prioritize operational needs over strict compliance.

Source: We Have A Counter-Drone Problem in the US Military (YouTube)