MQ-9 Reaper. Air Force
Last week the United States launched airstrikes on the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria using F-18 fighter jets and predator drones. The use of drones in military operations has become a lightning rod for criticism but this controversy is just the latest chapter in a long-running conversation: throughout history man’s ability to project military power over great distances has frequently been a source of heated debate. Like crossbows, longbows and bombers before them, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), referred to more colloquially as “drones,” are often viewed as a disruptive technology. The facts about the advantages and disadvantages of drones are incredibly nuanced, but at the end of the day, drones are tools that are here to stay.
Used wisely they can greatly support America’s national security and economic interests; if not, they could severely undercut them.
In response to this growing debate on drones, the nonpartisan think tank the Stimson Center released a report authored by a task force of ten senior-level participants from stakeholder constituencies including the US military, the human rights community, the intelligence community, the legal community, and the private sector. As a former fighter pilot and a lead UAV academic researcher member, I was one of them. In compiling the report, I focused on the technological aspects that will considerably influence America’s national security and economic interests in both the short and long term. Here’s what I learned.
Missy Cummings
Missy Cummings, a former US Navy A-4 and F/A-18 pilot, is the Director of the Humans and Autonomy Laboratory at Duke University and member of the Stimson Center’s Task Force on U.S. Drone Policy.
Drones have substantial value for a wide range of military and intelligence purposes tasks. They can be used for reconnaissance purposes and also have the potential to assist in the detection of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons, as well as ordinary explosives. Weaponized drones, which represent a tiny fraction of US drones, can be used to provide close air support to soldiers engaged in combat, as well as for counter-insurgency operations. While it is clear that drones are advantageous in military settings, the committee came to consensus that there should be improved transparency in targeted strikes and more robust oversight and accountability mechanisms for strikes outside of traditional battlefields.
It’s Not Just About War
One point I strongly advocated in this committee was that the development of drone technology and related policies affects not just the military but the growing commercial market, which often gets lost in military UAV debates. Most military UAV missions have civilian and commercial counterparts, doing important work such as monitoring the health and status of crops, assessing air quality, commercial imaging for real estate and mining companies, and even delivering packages, which was recently announced as a future service for Amazon. Similar uses are actually further developed in other countries like Australia and China.
Because of the increasing interest in UAVs by both other militaries and international companies, the global market for these systems is set to more than double over the next decade, from $5.2 billion annually in 2013 to $11.6 billion in 2023. However, despite the enormous commercial potential of commercial UAVs, civilian UAV development in the United States— especially among small and medium-sized enterprises— is hampered both by clumsy export control rules and by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. As a result of these outdated policies and regulations, I have long maintained that the US is not likely to remain the world leader in the development of innovative new UAV technologies.
How to Streamline Regulation
Current U.S. export control regulations make an unclear distinction between “unarmed military unmanned aerial vehicles” and non-military or commercial UAVs, with the former being subject to the stricter export controls. But in reality, the distinction between UAV technologies developed for commercial versus military purposes is far from sharp since many UAV technological developments have both military and non-military applications.
This current ambiguity in export control regulations creates uncertainty for UAV manufacturers regarding the conditions under which exports will be allowed, which could ultimately suppress valuable technological innovations and growth. In the face of uncertainty, manufacturers tend to act conservatively to produce UAVs whose export control status is known, which can dull the technological edge the United States enjoys in the UAV arena.
A well-regulated export control regime can boost the military capability of allied nations, enhance interoperability of military systems among allies, preserve U.S. influence over other military UAV programs, and economically and technologically strengthen the domestic US defense industrial base. A misguided export-control system will have the opposite effect, suppressing innovation, reducing interoperability with allies, reducing US influence over foreign UAV development and weakening the defense industrial base. Clarifying current regulatory uncertainty is a necessity to help secure a significant future rule for America in UAV markets.
Additionally, the FAA has been slow to respond to the 2012 FAA Reauthorization Bill mandating the safe integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system by September 30, 2015. Because of the FAA’s delays, recently highlighted by the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General, the United States risks losing the initiative in the development of commercial unmanned aircraft technologies. If one or more countries gain an advantage because of the overly-restrictive regulatory environment, the United States could be in a position of playing catch-up in terms of its commercial UAV market as well as ensuring US military UAVs remain technologically more advanced than those of other nations.
Unless the US can find ways to jumpstart the broader civilian UAV development sector, foreign UAV buyers will turn increasingly to countries developing more advanced platforms, and the US will gradually lose the ability to influence UAV use abroad. Many UAVs developed for foreign markets are used solely for peaceful purposes, but we cannot assume that this will always be the case; many UAV technologies developed for commercial purposes can be “weaponized.”
The Way Ahead
A major step forward in addressing these challenges would be the creation of an interagency UAV research and development strategy. This is particularly important in light of the readily growing commercial and civilian market. Another important step is the development of a sophisticated UAV export control strategy that accounts for current US national and international security risks and priorities, establishes drone-specific non-proliferation objectives, and preserves the US interest in maintaining an adequate defense industrial base, a military technological edge in UAV systems, and influence over global UAV markets.
A pathway exists for the US to position ourselves in the forefront to smartly develop and utilize this evolving technology. A more expeditious and comprehensive response by the FAA to opening commercial UAV markets will help ignite an otherwise stagnant market. Adopting these common sense changes in the near-term will considerably benefit our national security— and economy— in the years to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment