Hearings to examine the American small drone industrial base.
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Armed Services U.S. Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
Well, thank you very much, mister chairman. I wanna thank the witnesses who are appearing here today and to discuss the Department of Defense drone dominance program. The modern battlefield has evolved dramatically, and that's an understatement. And small unmanned aerial systems or SUAS have become a defining feature of warfare. As we sit here today, The United States is engaged in major combat operations against Iran.
Over the past several days, American forces operating alongside Israel have conducted thousands of strikes against Iran, including the deployment of hundreds of one way attack drones. Iran has retaliated with strikes across the region, including its own drone attacks that have resulted in American casualties. This the data from Ukraine is even more sobering. More than half of all casualties on the battlefield are now attributed to UAS. What originated as a commercial technology has become a decisive military capability, and we must ensure The United States is not caught flat footed.
I appreciate the department's recognition of this strategic imperative. The commitment of significant funding for the Drone Dominance Program represents an investment in building both capability and capacity. The goal of feeling hundreds of thousands of combat ready drones by 2027 is ambitious, and I would like to understand how the department intends to achieve it. I have several questions about the program. First, in June 2025, the president issued an executive order on drone dominance which directed the secretary of defense to submit a report within ninety days identifying programs that could be more cost effective or lethal if replaced by unmanned systems.
I would like to know whether the report was submitted, and if so, what insights it provided to inform the drone dominance program. Second, I would ask our witnesses to explain how the various service initiatives align with the broader department strategy and how any drone dominance program would transition to service management. Third, the requirement to eliminate Chinese subcomponents from the industry may prove technically challenging. China dominates not just finished drone systems, but critical components like motors and batteries. I would like to note the department's assessment of American and allied supply capacity to meet this requirement and at the intended scale and price point.
Speaker 3
Finally, the committee established a small UAS industrial based working group precisely because we recognize the need for strategic coordination.
Speaker 2
There are a number of programs and significant funding commitments underway, and I would ask the witnesses to explain how the working group is informing your approach. Is the department building genuine industrial capacity or are we creating demand that will outstrip supply? The stakes are clear. Our potential adversaries are not waiting and neither should we, but speed cannot come at the expense of strategic coherence. This committee wants the drone dominance program to succeed, which is why we need direct answers about the challenges, risks, and path forward.
And I look forward to your testimony and thank you for your service to our nation. Thank you, mister chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank you, mister Rankin. Member, we'll now begin with statements. Who'd like to go first? Mister West, you are recognized. Thank you.
Thank you. For five minutes or so.
Speaker 4
Yes, sir. Chairman Wicker, ranking member Reed, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today along with Travis Metz, the program manager of Drone Dominance, and my collegiate classmate, and Major General Marks of the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group. We're here to testify about the department's urgent effort to arm our troops with lethal drone technology that has proliferated across the world. I wanna thank this committee for its interest in small drones. Drones are the most significant battlefield innovation in generations.
In Ukraine, as the two senators just said, low cost drones account for a staggering proportion of the casualties. In Iran, Colombia, Israel, Thailand, and Cambodia, this weapon system has altered the order of battle. Seeing this change several years ago, our adversaries today produce these systems by the millions at low cost. For too long, The United States was hindered by self imposed restrictions and bureaucratic red tape while our adversaries surged ahead. As secretary Hegseth has stated, our major risk here is risk aversion.
President Trump, secretary Hegseth, and congress have together ended this era of hesitation. The president's executive order unleashing American drone dominance established a mandate to strengthen our domestic drone industrial base and deliver capabilities to our troops. Secretary Hegseth translated the president's directive into decisive action by unleashing US military drone dominance, a memorandum in July 2025. The department's mission under this directive is threefold. First, bolster the domestic manufacturing base.
Second, arm our combat units and train as we expect to fight. And third, power a technological leapfrog. Via reconciliation funding that sat atop clear acquisition reform guidance, Congress set drone dominance in motion. The program operationalizes these directives to ensure our warfighters are swiftly armed to fight on the modern battlefield. We are partnering with the Test Resource Management Center and Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division, to execute this program and are working with our teammates, including DCMA, the Defense Contract Management Agency, and the DOG, to integrate capabilities into the department.
We are leveraging America's world leading engineers, entrepreneurs, and capital markets to buy competitively, at scale, and without delay. We are prioritizing Buy American to expand this nascent but vital domestic industry. Military operators are the designers and the judges to ensure drone capabilities deliver for the war warfighters. The department is in debt to this committee and congress for recognizing the importance of this issue and providing us the authorities and resourcing required to rapidly deliver combat power. I look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
Speaker 5
Thank you, chairman Waker, ranking member Reed, and the members of this committee for inviting me to speak with you today. I joined the department last summer and have been working with mister West on the drone dominance program ever since. We've worked closely with the defense autonomous working group represented here today by major general Marx on the Drone Dominance Program. I bring, long experience as a venture capitalist and entrepreneur, and I'm committed to bringing that commercial mindset to the Drone Dominance Program, incorporating market based practices to incentivize the industrial base to deliver high performance, small drones at scale to the warfighter at a wartime pace. The Drone Dominance Program is the engine to unleash the American small industrial base.
It has two goals. First, scale US supply chains for small drones, thereby reducing the cost of acquisition. And second, supply significant quantities of those drones to the military services now to help fast forward their integration. We've committed $1,100,000,000 over the next eighteen months to purchase drone systems. Consistent with secretary Hegseth's mandate on acquisition reform, we are no longer buying based on paper requirements.
Rather, we are buying at scale based on live evaluation by the military services. I spent most of the last two weeks at Fort Benning where we kicked off our four phase program. We invited 25 drone vendors to compete with their drones in a test process that was executed and scored by military operators. That competition ended last Sunday, and we will be announcing and placing orders with the winning vendors over the next few days. The winners will be given orders for a total of 30,000 small one way attack drones, which will be delivered to military units over the next five months.
We will then run three more cycles of this on a six month calendar, raising quantities, lowering prices, and evaluating against more difficult mission tests. There are two distinct aspects that are key to the program's success. First, it incorporates a clear demand signal to the industry for the next eighteen months. We have posted quantities and prices upfront, removing the valley of death by promising that if your system performs well, we will buy your units. Second, we are ensuring that the warfighter is at the center of that process.
We have removed the the bureaucratic filter. Warfighters who are the end users will be the primary evaluators. They will score systems based on ease of use and lethality in real time. The Drone Dominance Program is a case study for how the department can acquire at the speed of relevance. We're using actual purchases and the entrepreneurial spirit and capital of American industry to drive unit prices down while scaling production volumes up, ensuring that our forces have the quantity of consumable drones required for modern conflict.
Thank you for the funding to accomplish this. With your continued support for acquisition reform and sustained funding, we will ensure that the American warfighter never enters a fair fight. I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 3
Thank you, senator. Mister chairman Wicker, ranking member Reed, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I'm here to discuss how the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group, what we call the DOG, is leveraging the critical reconciliation funding and expanded acquisition authorities you provided to prove out a new way of warfare. I am pleased to be joined today by other essential partners in this department wide effort. The character warfare has fundamentally changed.
As we are seeing play out in Ukraine and in in The Middle East, autonomous systems are no longer emerging. They are a reality on the battlefield. Our adversaries understand this. They are not just buying new technology, they are creating entirely new organizations to master it. A potent example is open source reporting on Russia's Rubicon unit.
This is not just a new drone squadron. It
Speaker 3
a fundamentally new command structure built outside of conventional doctrine to hunt and neutralize high value targets with devastating speed and effect. The lesson is clear. The decisive advantage in this new era of autonomy comes from organizing to employ technology with focus and agility. The DOG was established to unify the department's efforts. Its mission is to work across the joint force to synchronize operational demand with technical innovation and industrial capacity.
What makes this model work is how we execute it. We have collapsed the distance between the war fighter and the developer. We have hand selected experts, so engineers are working side by side with operators at the tactical edge, solving operational problems in real time. This ensures that the capabilities we develop are informed directly by battlefield needs and that we remain responsible stewards of taxpayers' dollars. This model is working.
We are accelerating timelines and delivering capabilities through initiatives like drone dominance. Our objective is clear, to provide our warfighters with the tools to dominate the battlefield, deter our adversaries, and if necessary, defeat them. The security of our nation depends on it. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Mister West, we'll start with you. There's $1,100,000,000 for small small drone industrial base. Where we're to get the money for group two, the larger drones whose industrial base needs are more complex and, of course, more expensive?
Speaker 1
What oh, you're looking at them, but but so what's the plan though? So You were gonna get it from the American taxpayer, of course. Yes. And it'll be money well spent Senator. If you do your work right.
Yes.
Speaker 4
It's an important question because the question is really about integration and the Palms and budgeting for the future. We're singularly focused in this effort in the group one space. And our goal, you stepping back, if we listen to our four star testimony from last spring's posture hearings, our four star commanders acknowledged that they didn't have enough as a proportion of their spend on unmanned systems. And the basic problem they identified was price. We were paying $30,000 or $40,000 for this small group one ten inches UAS where our adversaries pay about $500 So our goal here is to get this price down so we can scale group one.
Group one. But this does this this is a spectrum. So many of the components found in group one, batteries, motors, ISR technologies are directly relevant to group two and the bigger ones.
Speaker 1
Well, let's compare China's arsenal to the group one and group two. Where are they? And and when do you think when do you think we'll get started on or need to get started on group two? First thing, Chinese.
Speaker 4
Senator, I'm I'm, you know, highly informed on group one because this has been our effort. Group two, however, if we look at some of the other systems, I will say that what we're establishing here is a framework. And I can turn this over to Travis, where if monies were to flow into the system, we can apply these to the drone dominance competition specs, and we aspire to do the same thing at group two as we would with
Speaker 1
So so your your expertise is on group one, and and we we need to have a later hearing on group two, perhaps?
Speaker 4
Senator. As soon as we can get them right now with drone dominance, we're moving we're moving so fast that we're getting many complaints that Travis has has run over. But we aspire by August. We're already starting to operationally field some of the group ones as a result of our first gauntlet.
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, let me ask about that, mister Metzen. Your testimony, you said the war fighters are going to be the ultimate test experts. Where, where do you anticipate doing this? In real combat or, in in the war fighting training or in theater?
Speaker 5
Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. So the event that we just finished running at Fort Benning on Sunday, went ran fourteen days. We had approximately a 100, members of our uniformed services, so primarily from the army, the marines, and from various units in SOCOM who both operated the drones that were being evaluated and had, before the program, before the event kicked off, had helped us set up the actual mission test. So the way that we evaluated the drones was through performance in missions that replicated the anticipated use of the drones in combat.
The scoring for the systems, the scoring against both the mission performance, so sending a drone out 10 kilometers and hitting a target, for instance, you know, into the into the Georgia Forest, the beautiful Georgia Forest, was scored by the military operators. And then separately, we asked all the military operators, again, army, SOCOM, marines, to evaluate the performance of the drones based on whether or not they would take it to war. And we are buying based on those criteria starting, you know, time now.
Speaker 1
And I wonder why after four years of war, I wonder why Ukraine is still having to get so many Chinese drones.
Speaker 5
Sir, the the Ukrainians are moving very quickly to try to also extract themselves from Chinese supply chains. That is, you know, evidence more evidence than we could possibly need that we have to do the same.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, mister chairman. Again, gentlemen, thank you. Let me first commend you on the Fort Benet test. That's, I think, exactly the right way to do things. And together with your input from industrial and a strategic standpoint, getting the troops to tell you what they need is is very good.
So let me commend you. We created in last year's NDAA a small UAS working group. Can you give me the status, mister West, of that group now? Is it more general market?
Speaker 2
I just wanna get everything coordinated here. So what It is sometimes confusing. Well, it is, but thank you. One of the things that we're doing now is reacting to the immediate crisis that we're seeing in our supplies, etcetera, but the pace of change is so rapid. We have to start thinking ahead, and I hope you are, of systems which are almost completely autonomous.
Infraumen are not there, but the system's there. Are we doing any of that work, like trying to leap ahead of the bad guys rather than just match them? So senator, thank you.
Speaker 3
Yes, sir. Going back to your first question on the NDA 26 section nine fourteen. So the small UAS industrial working group is chaired by the deputy secretary of war, and then I am the director of that board. We've built cross functional teams, reps from defense innovation unit, the industrial base policy, the economic defense unit, and then the office of strategic capital. We are due to owe we are due to provide a briefing to the dep sec deputy secretary of war by the end of this month Mhmm.
In order to have the report back to to the defense committees by January.
Speaker 2
Thank you. That clarifies it. But to the point of are we looking ahead and have a parallel sort of what do we need three years or three months from now, mister West, or general?
Speaker 4
Senator, you you have you have identified, what it will take for us to perform the technological leapfrog that secretary Hegseth has initiated. The United States has the best AI scientists in the world. And you're also correct that the rate of change on the battlefield is astonishing. So I can turn it over to Travis to talk about the iterative process. You know, we're now at a competition every six months.
There's the potential to shrink that window, but what we wanna do is get get to that rate of change ultimately by the second or third competition, plow in autonomy so that by 2027, we have operational lethal drones that are capable of dominating on any battlefield.
Speaker 5
Yes, sir. Yeah. The as as mister West mentioned, we're running these competitions every six months. So Phase II will kick off in August. The missions that are designed at each of these competitions will increase in difficulty, primarily to increase in difficulty and go up in terms of volumes and go down in terms of prices.
Mhmm. The difficulty of the missions, in particular for phase two, will require the drone companies to start to build out the technology that reduces the sort of cognitive load on the pilots and deals with the fact that the warfare, the battlefield for drones is very complex in terms of the electronic warfare elements. So drones that are starting to build out the capabilities to do things where the pilot doesn't have to fly it, you know, instant time now is a critical part of our phase two.
Speaker 2
No. I absolutely. One aspect of this which has to be considered is command and control. If you've got a lot of autonomous systems out there, there's an increased chance for miscalculation. So what are you doing?
Because that requires more than just buying a piece of equipment from a drone manufacturer. It's integrating it into the command and control system. You have twenty eight seconds, mister Metz.
Speaker 5
Yes, sir. So a topic that requires twenty eight hours, I think. The operators are on the loop on this a 100% of the time. We've integrated, the general the, you know, the office of the general counsel to make sure that every step along the way here, we address the laws of armed conflict and all the other laws that we impose quite properly on ourselves to make sure that we have full control of these systems.
Speaker 8
Thank you, mister chairman. Mister West, obviously, these drones are only going to be useful if our service members are prepared to use them. So how's the department incorporating unmanned warfare into the combat training of our troops as, as they're preparing logistically and operationally, how to face the realities of fighting with these drones?
Speaker 4
Senator, it's a it's a terrific question. I'd like general Marx to weigh in as well. But but, you know, we we we are gonna start to deliver small drones in volumes that will require the services to establish training hubs, schooling, and obviously, there are there are doctrinal changes that are already under underway. So the question is is as bureaucrats that we have is to, how do we ensure that there's sustainment for the drones and that we aren't we're delivering the drones that the services want to use in in combat and that the services are prepared to absorb and inhale. And I I think general Marks has will have better expertise than I do on
Speaker 3
Thank you, senator, for the question. So DroneDominance powered by the DOG Insights ensures that systems we procure meet warfighter demands. So the dog connects those capabilities to operational and service modernization efforts. So we have to be tied at the hip with the services and sharpening that tip of the joint force spear. We, through the dog efforts, what we do is have the operators working with the engineers, working with the acquisition professionals, and they run it through its the systems through their paces, stress testing every step of the way.
Ultimately, they will develop the doctrine for employing these systems, and then it will be required by the services to train the larger force.
Speaker 8
How quickly do you think you can get you can get the drones out to these men and women? Mr. Metz?
Speaker 5
Senator, the for phase one of the drone dominance program on the small UAS, we'll be delivering drones this month.
Speaker 8
is the department coordinating efforts to make sure that we don't just have the offensive drone capabilities, but how are we going to be able to train and be able to field the counter drone systems as well? I'm sure you have plans for that.
Speaker 3
Thank you, senator. Well, actually, we're we focus in the dog on the offensive side of the house, where the JIADIF, the Joint Interagency Task Force four zero one, led by Brigadier General Matt Ross, is the ones that are working on the counter UAS and working through the development and then also the training piece of that capability.
Speaker 8
Drones Senator Senator, are the drones that you were working on now, though, they can be used both offensively and defensively, right?
Speaker 5
Yes, ma'am. Many of the counter strategies that are we're seeing evolve across battlefields around the world are using small drones as a kinetic force as a counter. In our phase two in August, where we'll, intend to buy another 50 or 60,000 drones, the joint interagency task force four zero one that general Marks mentioned, which is coordinating the counter UAS strategies inside the department, will be part of that gauntlet attempting to knock down all the drones that our company, you know, our vendors are actually putting up in the air. And the and the ambition is to iterate jointly with them as we go forward with the program.
Speaker 4
No. He was my college coxswain, so he usually does the talking and I do the the rowing.
Speaker 8
As as you look at Ukraine, and, obviously, they've they've shown all of us how war is changing. But as you're looking at their experience in manufacturing drones, How are you incorporating that? Whoever wants it.
Speaker 5
I appreciate the question, senator. So the goal of the Drone Dominance Program fundamentally is to build a US industry around small drones. Today, the best drones in the world in terms of battlefield capacity and in terms of their scalability at the manufacturing level are in Ukraine. And so recognizing my time is about to run out, the one of we can speak more about this, but one of the goals of the program was to convince some of the most sophisticated drone companies in the world to bring manufacturing here, so that we have the benefit for the warfighters of the best systems at scale.
Speaker 5
JULIEN With your demand signal. So we have you know, we're going to place orders, and those orders bring are bringing these companies to The U. S. To manufacture in The U. S.
Speaker 10
Well, thank you. I'd like to follow-up on senator Fisher's point and the issue that both, senators Wicker and Reed raised in their opening statement about the efforts in Ukraine. Senator Blumenthal and I were in Odessa about two weeks ago, and we were in a room that was about a sixth of the size of this room, And it was filled with drones. This is an example of a couple of those. They were ranging in sizes, you can see from very small, you know, maybe a square foot, to quite large, the size of a snowblower.
And we ask, who's making those drones? And are any of them coming from The US? And they said, no. And we said, why? Because what The US is doing costs too much, and it's not technologically advanced enough.
And that was troubling, but what was even more troubling was to hear from virtually as part of that trip, I also visited several countries in Eastern Europe. And virtually, every member of our military who briefed us said that we are we do not have anyone in Ukraine taking advantage of the technological advancements that are happening there, and that Ukraine has become and I said this to Bridge Colby earlier this week in testimony. I said what we heard was that Ukraine had become a bad word in the Pentagon. So you're talking about six months as being expedited, scheduling. What they were talking about in Ukraine was iterating those drones every two weeks because of warfare.
I I don't know how we think we're gonna compete if we're talking about an every six months schedule, and we're looking at our adversaries who are iterating on a weekly basis. And I applaud the effort that's underway, the Drone Dominance Program. I voted for that, and the NDAA. I thought it was important. But it doesn't feel to me like there is a sense of urgency about what our challenge is.
So I'd like for you to respond to that.
Speaker 4
Senator, we we we feel that same sense of urgency. You know, we we are morally committed to this this effort. I'd like Travis to discuss the results at
Speaker 10
So why aren't we taking advantage of the technological advancements that the Ukrainians have made? I noticed that prime minister Starmer has asked them to help with what's going on in The Middle East right now. Why are we not trying to take more advantage of that?
Speaker 5
Senator, we are. We specifically built a framework and invited the best Ukrainian FPV drone companies in the world to come to our competition, on the basis that their battlefield technology is proven, and they have proven they know how to scale. In the long term, the commitment from those businesses is to relocate so the core manufacturing to The US. Those drone companies came to the competition, and a few of them are likely to get
Speaker 10
Right. I saw that two of them have been down selected for phase one. I understand But, again, I find it troubling that our service members who are in the region don't seem to have the understanding that we are really interested in what's going on there, and are trying to get that information. I want to switch to another question, because The US market has only one company that produces drone propulsion motors, and that's ePropelled in Laconia, New Hampshire. It's one of the most glaring deficits in our domestic market, as I'm sure you all know.
And the fact that it only exists in New Hampshire right now is one of the keys to ensuring that we can do the drone build out that we need to do. Many of our defense suppliers in New Hampshire have benefited from the submarine supplier development funding through the Navy in the maritime industrial base context. So can you share whether the department is thinking about supporting capital investments that can help companies like ePropel, as they're looking at the investments they need to make in order to build out the supply chain that we're going to need?
Speaker 5
Thank you, senator, for the question. I've met multiple times with Nick, the CEO of ePropel. I think it is a wonderful example of where we are headed. He is building brushless motors in New Hampshire, and he has is a supplier to a number of the drone companies that will be receiving orders from this. And I do think that he is a candidate for both continued demand signal from us and further support from the Department of War.
Speaker 10
So I I'm out of time, but if if you could speak to the the help that we might be able to provide, small businesses for investments that we're gonna need in order to build that, that would appreciated.
Speaker 4
senator, one one of the things that we hope to shine a light on are supply chain constraints, and two of our colleagues in the department stand at the ready, the office of strategic capital and IBAS to do direct lending to firms like ePropel. We first met Nick months ago, and this is a great example of an American small business that's gonna get ready to scale, on behalf of our defense.
Speaker 10
And and we are gonna be able to help some of those small companies as they look at what they need to do to build out.
Speaker 4
Interesting, but Industrial base, senator, I'm gonna have to defer. My my colleagues are behind me, and I'm I'm there's so many acronyms as I've returned to the Pentagon. I'm gonna struggle with
Speaker 4
But they are they are a terrific unit that stands at the ready to lend and they have incredible and deep expertise specifically in in batteries and motors.
Speaker 1
Shall member shall we put senator Shaheed's photograph in the record? Is there objection without objection? So ordered. Senator Rounds.
Speaker 11
Thank you, mister chairman. First, thank thank you for the discussion so far, and I think it's very, very appropriate that we do it at this time. Several years ago, I met a gentleman by the name of John Antal who wrote a book called Seven Seconds to Die with regard to the Nagorno Karabakh war in 2020 and the use of drones at that time by Azerbaijan to literally take out over a thousand pieces of equipment in about a forty three day period of time. Was the beginning of the end of Armenia being able to control section between the two countries called Nagorno Karabakh. In it, he laid out just exactly how effective five years ago the use of drones had become.
And with it, he talked about the ability for those drones to operate almost independently and laid out the guidelines for, what we consider to be a human in the loop or a human over the loop with regard to the autonomous use of those drones. He wrote a second book, detailing the Ukrainian war and in it called Next War, in which he identified the advanced use of drones and what they were doing. And and and in fact, he made very clear in it that the advancements made were substantial. I I think we are behind in our application of some types of drones, particularly the the the type one drones, the small, less expensive drones. And yet, it it is dominating the battlefield in Ukraine today.
But I'd like to talk just a little bit in terms of the the speed at which drones are being incorporated into the day to day activities and how fast we have to be able to update them. Senator Sheen Heen mentioned it, and I I I think it's it's critical that we impress that we need drones that are almost modular. Mister Metz, can you talk a little bit about the focus moving forward in terms of what might be effective today? May within a two week period of time on the battlefield be ineffective and how that happens.
Speaker 5
Thank you, senator. I appreciate that question. One of the goals of the program is to make sure that we scale the actual physical manufacturing of the systems. But the technology stacks that are increasingly integrated to the systems, as you correctly pointed out, need to be on a rhythm that is far faster than the six months for the physical drones, and they are. So we will have tech stacks inside of these systems that, honestly, often may have models retrained on a nightly or weekly basis.
I'm an op I am a deep optimist around the capabilities of The US entrepreneur class around those technology stacks, and we saw that at Fort Benning this week. Some of the ability to, on the fly, modify the systems that were helping the soldiers hit these targets out 10 kilometers. And I mentioned it before, in particular, because of the nature of the Georgia forest, which is a a very difficult RF environment. But the ability of these companies on the fly to manage the technologies was impressive,
Speaker 11
and I think Let's just talk about that a little bit. This is a good way to gather public support for the need to move as rapidly as possible. You're talking about a drone that may very well be radio controlled, and I think that's what most people think they are, is radio controlled. But it doesn't take long for an adversary to figure out a way to stop that communication. So you can move to a different frequency perhaps.
You can change from frequency to frequency, and you can become advanced in doing that. But at some stage of the game, the adversary has already figured out how to stop that. So the next step on the line and what many of them use right now is a fiber optic line. Can you talk a little bit about what's happening in that regard?
Speaker 5
Yes, sir. We, in fact, tested fiber optic drones at Fort Benning last week. They performed well. They as you well point out, they help you manage a complex RF environment. That's just one strategy amongst many to manage the complicated sort of comms environment.
One of the key principles of the framework that we've set up for phase one going forward is we are our goal is not to tell industry how to solve the problem. Our goal is to set up battle realistic missions on which to test the drones and then ask industry to solve those problems. Even in phase one, the one that we just ran, we saw multiple different strategies for solving the the EW problem. So fiber optics, some some automated target recognition for the last 100 meters, things like that.
Speaker 11
And then finally, any of these drones will have to be utilizable, operable by, our young men and women in the battlefield, not just one expert in a particular area, but the vast majority of our young men and women are gonna have to be trained on how to use these if they're in the front lines. Right?
Speaker 5
Yes, sir. And and and mister West talked about this before. One of the keys for the testing that we did at Fort Benning was it was not these were being tested by our operators given a total of two hours of training on each drone system. Now they are experienced operators, but they had not seen most of these systems before. That is a proxy for, are these drones capable of being used by our marines, our soldiers, and our and our other service members?
Speaker 12
Thanks, mister chairman. Thanks for holding this hearing on such a really critical topic. Thank all of you for being here today, and I respect the work that you're doing. I must say I share Senator Shaheen's sense of urgency and impatience having made nine trips to Ukraine in the last four years and having watched their drone industry grow literally in real time while we were watching, and they're showing us what they
Speaker 12
doing in response to what they're hearing and seeing on the battlefield, and then visiting one of their forward detection positions on the Black Sea in Odessa. And having that picture and we have more pictures which we can put in the record of all the variations of drones that they are seeing from their adversaries and that they are doing themselves, literally, again, in real time. I wonder whether the scope of our efforts here matches the challenge that this nation faces. You know, a billion dollars, even $2,000,000,000 seems totally inadequate to what is necessary. Ukraine is spending multiples of that amount.
Obviously, they're at war. They have support from our industry. And I wonder if you could just comment on whether you think the scale and magnitude of our efforts is adequate to match the challenges that we have. I don't know whether that's a question for Mr. West or for one of the other witnesses.
Mister Metz
Speaker 4
Senator, it is our obligation to learn as much as we can from the Ukrainian battlefield. Have you been to Ukraine? Sir, I was there twice in 2018, but not since Have you been mister Mats?
Speaker 12
I don't know how you can run this program without having visited Ukraine. I I know that sounds like an exaggeration, but it is absolutely true. You know, I'm not a drone expert, but I will tell you to walk through the assembly line of their drone manufacturing facilities I've done on a number of occasions and watching how they have grown their industry and how they're thinking about unmanned aerial and undersea warfare now. There are a number of I know you're talking to American entrepreneurs. Have you talked to Eric Schmidt?
Speaker 4
Senator, I think I think mister Metz is is well positioned to answer your question. It's it's it's very important. Before he does and talks about how we've incorporated the top Ukrainian drone companies in this competition, I would like to say that The United States companies performed very well. I think it's fair to say they outperformed our expectations, you know, not having been tested many of them on a live battlefield. But, Travis, can you go over exactly how we we plan to incorporate exactly what the senator is talking about?
Speaker 5
Yeah. So I would like to go to Ukraine. Many members of the team that is helping me run the Drone Dominance program have been Ukraine to evaluate the range of drones. I have talked to mister Schmidt and many members of his team about their experiences on the battlefield in Ukraine, and we do not disagree with you about the need to bring the best drone technology in the world tested on the battlefield to The US warfighter. Many of the many of The US companies that are now competing in our program have in fact been to Ukraine to test their product, mister Schmidt being a a good example of that.
But we also have some some of the largest Ukrainian successful the the companies in Ukraine that have successfully iterated to scale, they are competing in this program. So I feel I feel that we do have the benefit of the of the technology advancements that they have perpetuated on the battlefield.
Speaker 12
Well, I'm glad to hear that. But I I have to say, with all good intentions, and you have not only intentions, but you have the intellectual and expertise and other capacity, I don't doubt yours. I question whether our country is sufficiently committed. And the magnitude of this effort, I think, has to be on the scale and scope of what we did with nuclear arms when we were behind in in that area of warfare or what we did in space exploration. I think it will take really an effort on a scale that we haven't matched so far.
My time has expired. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Metz, while much of the focus has been on accelerating procurement and deployment of small drones, an equally important but less discussed issue is the need to develop a comprehensive plan for how we sustain these systems. As you know, on average, about 70% of a weapon system's total life cycle is cost is sustainment including the logistics, maintenance, storage, training, and software updates to remain operational.
How are you thinking about sustainment issues from your position at DOD? And, are you coordinating with the military services to ensure that they are developing long term sustainable sustainable plans for these new systems? So, if we're looking to procure or have, what is it, a goal of 300,000 drones? Where are they all going to be stored? How long will they be stored?
Do they become obsolete? Have you what is the thinking about those issues?
Speaker 5
Thank you, senator. It's an excellent question. So one of the key things to have in mind about these systems is that they are intended to be attritable consumable systems. So we would expect the vast bulk of the systems that we're delivering as part of the Drone Dominance Program to be used in realistic training exercises by the members of the military. We think the volume required for appropriate training is in the hundreds of thousands per year to consume.
The U. S. Army, the U. S. Marine Corps, and various units of SOCOM are deeply integrated into their own dominance program, meaning members of the of the key positions in each of those services was at the Fort Benning event with a goal of developing the sustainment plans in both the short term and the medium term.
So in the short term, we will be delivering drones starting this month to roughly 17 different military units. And there is a plan in place across each of those for those drones to be used in realistic training exercises. In the long term, those same military service departments will be developing their own, you know, TTPs and other doctrine to be able to sustain the drones. We don't expect them to sit on the shelf for very long.
Speaker 9
So where are these drones to be used? Are you expecting most of them are gonna be used in the in the war with Iran?
Speaker 5
In the short term, would expect most of the small one way attack drones that we're developing to be used in in actual live training exercises from the US army and the US marines.
Speaker 9
So we're gonna be using these drones for live training exercises. So there these are not in actual conflict situations. They're gonna be using actual drones for exercises.
Speaker 5
Senator, I think I I assume if there was a need to use these particular types of weaponized drones in combat, they would be used that way as well.
Speaker 9
Yes. I understand that. But the only place we're, as far as I know, we're in conflict right now is Iran. For you again, a contingency in the Indo Pacific will stress drone capabilities and present specific challenges, including the vast distances associated with this AOR. So, in the testing that you did at Fort Benning, was there somebody from INDOPACOM at those tests?
Or will they be there since that you obviously need to make sure that the drones that you are developing are going to be used in the various AORs? And, I would say INDOPACOM presents particular challenges of distance, etcetera.
Speaker 5
Senator, I think the challenges of the distances in the INDOPACOM region mean that many of the drone platforms that we're testing, the first person drones, don't apply for many of the missions. So I think Major General Marks might be better positioned to answer that question.
Speaker 9
General Marks, in particular, I do want to mention that Admiral Paparo has seen the use of the usefulness of of drones in his AOR and he would he also had mentioned using three d printers to create these drones. Have you been in discussions with Admiral Paparo?
Speaker 3
Actually, yes, senator. Not me personally, but attended his commander's conference last week. That was one of the topics that we discussed. Yeah. I think, you know, we have to look at drones or one way attack platforms that can go a lot further further than what we currently are designing.
For the dog effort, I would appreciate and and and be happy to engage with you and and the committee in a classified setting.
Speaker 9
The Marine Corps recently developed its first three d printing drone program. And I do note that, Mr. West, you mentioned that the cost of the drone in The U. S. Is 10,000 versus 500.
I mean, I hope that we are rapidly decreasing the cost to acquire the million drones that is one of our goals in a number of years. Thank you, mister chairman.
Speaker 1
General Marks, it is correct that you and admiral Papparo are exactly on the same page on this issue of drones. Is that correct?
Speaker 13
Thank you, Chairman. It's a fascinating subject. Appreciate you all being here. Very insightful. Mr.
West, let's talk about China and drone supply chains, if you will. I've met CEOs who say they can't buy brushless motors or IR cameras from non Chinese company at scale. So how do we best address this supply chain vulnerability? And are there any other common components that are hard to find outside of China?
Speaker 4
Thank you, senator. I'll let mister Metz address our off ramp on ramp, which is the key to your question. In other words
Speaker 13
He seemed most excited to answer the question, so thank you. But go ahead, please.
Speaker 4
He is excited because he's deep on this. And then the basic question is, first of all, the NDAA has strict rules over the seven odd critical components that may not come from covered countries. But like so many of our weapon systems, many of the subcomponents that you're addressing do today come from China. So as we try to scale, we are balancing, trying to onshore all of these components. We mentioned a company called ePropel in New Hampshire that is making brushless motors here.
As we come up Let
Speaker 13
me just jump in one minute. Is that at scale? They're able to make them at scale?
Speaker 5
No, but they will. The demand signal we're providing is giving them orders time now that will cause them to be able to bring in further capital and scale their manufacturing.
Speaker 13
you have additional thoughts? Okay, great. Thank you. Mr. West, are there any nontraditional funding methods that you're considering to increase production as well as ensure supply chain independence?
For example, the Office of Strategic Capital's credit financing or the Defense Production Act Title III. Mr. West?
Speaker 4
Yes, sir. Both the industrial base analysis and sustainment division and the Office of Strategic Capital stand ready to act as soon as as the supply chain constraints are illuminated as a result of having this largest order ever in Group 1. This will stress our domestic supply chain, as you outlined, and will illuminate where they can come in for things like direct lending and other support invoking their authorities.
Speaker 13
Thanks for that. Mr. Metz, what specific requirements has your program established to ensure that our drones can operate in a GPS denied environment? And will these be department wide or service driven requirements?
Speaker 5
Senator, we're running a joint acquisition program that will in phase two, which begins this August, we'll be testing drones against a full counter in a full counter UAS environment. So denial of GNSS, denial of comms in many different formats. We are not being prescriptive with the companies about how they solve those challenges because we want the entrepreneurs both that we're bringing in from outside of The United States and the entrepreneurs in The US to innovate across those particular problems. But the joint interagency task force four zero one, which is the group inside of the Pentagon that's tasked with coordinating all of our counter UAS efforts, will be a core partner in August, and their goal is to knock down all the drones.
Speaker 13
Thank you. Mr. Wester, all three of you, how are you ensuring that the department and the individual services are working together and efficiently and not duplicating efforts to boost small UAS production? It seems like every in open sources, I read every week or so, there's a new effort, a new program, a new department working on this issue. How do we make sure we're not duplicating effort?
Speaker 4
Senator, there are two components to this. At the top, we're connected with the general officers, and I can talk let General Marx address this aspect. In terms of their sustainment plans and their doctrinal changes, At the grassroots, we've collected the best operators from across the joint force. They all know one another. You know, these pilots are all as obsessed as we are at getting United States capabilities in this group one up and at the very top of the globe on any battlefield.
And so there's a natural integration that's taken place. But the bottom line is because of your reconciliation funding, we've been able to apply this in a very specific group and centralize this to depress these prices to ultimately get the services, the drones that they want.
Speaker 3
Major general. So, senator, thank you for the question. So we have in DOG and the Defense Autonomous Warfare, group, have trained service members from all the services, and work directly with the forward commands to show them how we've come up up against problems and how we are, developing different, techniques techniques, tactics, and procedures to actually operate the system. So we are working with all the services on this. Thank you.
Speaker 14
would like to see a chart of number of units produced per month and price from the Ukrainian industry versus what we're projecting. You mentioned that there have been you put out effectively a bid with a with a proposed price. I I wanna see the numbers. And if if you could give can you give us that off the top of your head? What are the how many of the are the Ukrainians producing a month, and what do they cost versus what are we projecting for this this section one production that you're now bidding?
Speaker 5
Yes, senator. And if you'll indulge me, it's an honor to, take a question from you. I grew up in Houston, Maine on the banks of the mighty Kennebec River. Wow. Also a fellow sugar loafer and also have sat next to you at the bag and kettle restaurant.
Well. Home of the best burger in the world.
Speaker 5
So it's an excellent question. So the Ukrainians last year built roughly four and a half million drones in this site. Well, they built four and a million drones in total. 4,400,000 of them were this, in this size range. We think they'll build about 6,000,000 this year, so 500,000 a month.
Historically, most of the Ukrainian drones are made from components that are primarily from China. Although as I mentioned before, they are also concerned about their supply chain vulnerabilities on that. We think their per unit pricing is, depending on the nature of the FPV, somewhere between probably $500 in the low end and maybe in the low thousands on the high end. Our program is designed to, over these six month cycles, to lower prices. But lower prices
Speaker 5
So we're going pay $5,000 per drone in phase one, the ones that we're going to place orders with this week. We intend by the end of this program, our goal is to get down to less than $2,000 for a one way kamikaze attack drone.
Speaker 14
So you you you understand why Yes. That's a legitimate question. They're doing it for 500 to 1,000. Yeah. We're talking about 5,000.
But do you believe there's a realistic path to getting down under 2,000?
Speaker 5
I do. I'm an optimist about the efficacy of the sort of American industrial base when given a good framework and given real orders to go achieve it. I'm that we will scale the prices down. Where the exact endpoint is, I think, is hard to know a priori. It's fair to say that I would not expect, given the given the the way that The US economy works in terms of labor rates and so forth, I would not expect us to match Chinese drone prices.
Speaker 14
I understand that. But but my experience with large scale contracting is if you establish a number upfront, miraculously, the companies find a way to meet it rather than waiting for them to give you to give you the number. Completely different question. Defense. We've been talking about creating drones.
What about defense for drones? I mean, that's that's are we talking about directed energy? Is that part of DOG is looking at how to defend against these weapons? Because our adversaries are gonna be building them too at scale. General?
Speaker 3
For the DOG, I'm not gonna be able to get into specifics just because of the classification.
Speaker 3
It would be. It is. I don't know what Drone Dominance is doing as it pertains to the defense and protection of these systems.
Speaker 4
Senator, yes, the Joint Interagency Task Force four zero one is tasked with our counter UAS, and we have invited them to the second gauntlet. And the basic goal is to integrate both offense and defense going forward so that both technologies can come up simultaneously since there's so much overlap. Bottom line is in in in gauntlet two in August, we hope that our counter UAS can knock down many of the drones
Speaker 14
Are to both you you looking at directed energy as part of the counter UAS?
Speaker 14
I would hope so because that's 50¢ a shot. And and that's something that we have been woefully slow to to move on.
Speaker 14
I'm delighted to hear that. The Wounded Warrior Project has pointed out to me that drone injuries are different than IED injuries. Their head and upper body as opposed to lower extremities. I hope, that's not necessarily part of your mission, but I hope that that's something that the department is is looking at about the nature of industry of injuries and the training necessary. Final question.
Are you working on underwater capabilities as well? Underwater autonomous
Speaker 3
vehicle? Senator, I'm not able to go into much depth on what we are doing in the undersea environment, but would request and welcome a closed session so we can discuss it in greater detail.
Speaker 14
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, gentlemen. This is critically important work. I appreciate the work you're doing. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Do
Speaker 1
any of you wanna weigh in on the question about upper body injuries and what Senator King has learned from the Wounded Warrior program? Do you have any insight on that?
Speaker 3
I mean, it's it's it's something that definitely we have to go and look at, sir, senator. I'd be interested to know a little bit more about that, but that is something that we've got to address as we continue as we continue to scale out these autonomous systems.
Speaker 1
Well, for who's ever listening in in DOD and VA, it's it's a point that the senators made that that someone needs to to look at. So I thank you for raising that.
Speaker 14
Mister chairman, something like seventy five percent of the of the casualties in Ukraine are caused by drones. And so this is That's very true.
Speaker 7
First chairman, thank you for your kind words earlier. Thank each of you for being here today. I'm glad president Trump and the Department of War are prioritizing this. For year for years, I have and others have made a goal to get the government to stop purchasing communist made drones to protect our national security. Let's be clear, Communist China is our enemy.
They've chosen, not the people. The government of Communist China has chosen to be our enemy, and we should not rely on them on them for absolutely anything, much less issues of national security. In past NDAs, I and others have fought for my American Security Drone Act to prohibit the purchasing of drones from several entities, which was a huge step to get done this done in the fiscal year twenty five NDA. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member. I fought and secured a provision that allowed for the blacklisting of known bad actors, DGI, Autel, to phase them out of the market.
This was a huge win for our national security, and I was thrilled to see president Trump and chairman Carr move forward with fully implementing this provision. We're not even close to being done yet. We have to keep fighting to ensure Communist China has absolutely zero role in our drone supply or anywhere in our military, which is critical to American safety. That means unleashing American manufacturing in the drone industry and many others. So let's talk about the Blue UAS program, which, as you know, is intended to keep commercial drones free of parts made by adversary of nations like Communist China.
This list has traditionally been viewed as safe, but it's a well known fact that they often have ties to CCP owned companies that continue to find loopholes in our laws to infiltrate our markets. Mister Metzov, what steps can congress take next to get Communist China completely out of our drone supply chain?
Speaker 5
Senator, thank you for the question. So for the Drone Dominance Program, our phase one deliveries will all be that are delivered to the troops will all be NDA compliant. Going forward from there, the Drone Dominance Program will be more prescriptive than the NDAs in terms of not allowing various components to be included in the systems that we procure with the long term goal of building a drone supply chain that is American. So for instance, in phase two, so that's we'll be placing orders in August for phase two. We will not be allowing any Chinese batteries or motors in phase two in addition to other restrictions that we'll be imposing that are above and beyond the current statutory restrictions.
Speaker 7
Okay. Mister Metz, the threat CCC drones and parts post extend beyond just drones, but things like cameras that could be outfitted to the drone. In recent days, we've seen our international trade commission side with Chinese camera producers over GoPro, an American company, which will allow China to continue to sell their spy cameras in our country. This completely undermines our markets, harms American companies, then creates a total vulnerability for Americans' data to still end up in the hands of our enemy. To truly stop Communist China's influence of this market and protect our safety, wouldn't
Speaker 4
Senator, yes. And thank you for championing this legislation, has done so much for our domestic industrial base. It's very important.
Speaker 7
So so how are we gonna get them how are we gonna make sure there's no equipment purchased or used by the Department of War that has zero ties to Communist China manufacturers and work with the FCC.
Speaker 4
Senator, the one crucial step that we've taken is to migrate the blue list that you invoked from DIU to the Defense Contract Management Agency. Now why was this done? Number one, they have the scale in terms of the numbers and the real expertise to ensure that if you make the blue list, you are NDA compliant. But as you mentioned, this is difficult stuff. In other words, you have to examine the build materials, you have to examine the capital stack, and you have to autopsy these drones, rip them apart and get down to the subcomponent level, and then build up the expertise to understand where exactly these things are coming from.
So as Travis said, we aspire to have a more aggressive on ramp for American components than the NDAA. So ultimately, by by deep in '27, these drones are American or allied.
Speaker 7
Do you think everybody's taken seriously that we cannot rely on Communist China for anything in our military?
Speaker 6
Thank you, mister chairman. Just to, you know, comment on sec or on Senator King's question about injuries. I was last March, I was in Ukraine at a military hospital. I met with 10 Ukrainian service members who were severely injured. Nine out of ten were injured by FPVs, so first person view drones.
And the one that was not was injured by a land mine that we thought was placed by a drone. So none of them were injured by artillery even though that's still a, you know, it's still on the battlefield. So obviously, going forward here, drone technology is such a gonna be such a significant part of ground combat. So, Marx, I wanna ask you something I think that is gonna define warfare now for rest of our lives for generations and that's the role of artificial intelligence in what we've seen play out here over the last several days, but certainly into the future. It's gonna be a new feature of combat operations in many different ways.
But specifically, the Lucas, the low cost unmanned combat aircraft system, attack system, Those drones deployed in Operation Epic Fury have documented autonomous anti jamming and, I believe, also some swarming capability. So my question is about what's underneath all of that. Are AI systems being used to assist in targeting decisions during this operation?
Speaker 3
So, senator, thank you for the question. I am familiar with the Lucas system. At this level, open hearing, I'm able I'm not able to go into great depth on what is inside of the Lucas system, but I'd be willing to get on your calendar, on the committee's calendar, and provide you a classified briefing.
Speaker 6
Okay. So my next question is kind of irrelevant there because I was gonna ask about who validated the systems, who safeguarded them, and what human oversight exists at the moment a drone selects or confirms a target. So let's do that in a closed session as well. But I also wanna just state for the record here that companies like Anthropic and others in the AI industry have published their own safety frameworks of how advanced AI systems should be deployed. But Congress has not yet set any kind of clear statutory framework for how AI can be used in lethal military operations.
There's a DOD directive, directive 3,000.09, which requires what is called, and I'm quoting from the directive, appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force. But that language doesn't necessarily mean a human is involved at the moment a target is selected or engaged. So before we rapidly scale up production and field more of these systems that have AI incorporated into their capability, we need a clear answer on this. At the moment, a drone identifies and confirms a target whether or not a human has to make the final decision to strike the target. Or can a system execute the engagement autonomously once it's been activated?
These are questions we haven't yet dealt with here in Congress, and we need to. So just general, I just wanna get your thoughts on that independent of what Lucas or any other system can do.
Speaker 3
Thank you, senator, for the question. Any system, any capability that the department procures has to comply and be compliant with the law of armed conflict. I would say that any commander that deploys these systems, just like any weapon system, it has to comply with those the law of armed conflict.
Speaker 6
I am not sure that the law of armed conflict has dealt with this issue. So LOAC might not be exactly clear and that's why I think it's up to us, mister chairman, that, you know, we take this issue of human humans in the loop seriously and create the framework that DOD will apply to these systems with regards to their autonomous nature and the ability for a system to make a decision on targeting the enemy. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, senator Kelly. We now begin round two of our questioning, and I recognize senator Reed.
Speaker 2
Yes. Thank you, mister chairman. I just have one question. We've talked a lot about deploying lethal drones as quickly as possible, etcetera, and doing so in a training environment so that all of our forces can be very familiar with them. Is there any work going on to develop training simulators?
At some point, we're gonna be asking ourselves, why are we using them at Fort Benning when we need them elsewhere? Mister West or mister Metz?
Speaker 4
Senator, the the simulators are are key for two reasons. First, it it allows us to scale, the training so that our troops don't have to have their hands on the joysticks, and fly actual expensive drones. In other words, with some software that exactly replicates the flight parameters of the specific drone system, we can cycle through in a room like this and learn how to fly and fairly quickly.
Speaker 2
Well, I'm going back to the notion of in the field where you've got e ones and e fours and e fives hands on simulating that they have it. I mean, we learned a long time ago how to make blanks so that we could go out there and shoot at each other, but not hurt each other necessarily. And I think we want to get to that scale of realistic training rather than sitting in a air conditioned van and pretend you know, doing it that
Speaker 4
Senator secretary Hagset has called for the use of drones in every exercise, starting this year.
Speaker 1
understand that? Because the question is, are are we using simulators in training for, both offensive and defensive use of drones?
Speaker 5
Senator, the answer is yes. So just this Monday down at Fort Benning, we demonstrated a simulator for a a number of the drone platforms. We would intend to use that as part of the training, part of the the schoolhouse.
Speaker 5
Yes, sir. And I should only add, one of the benefits of driving the cost down and making these systems truly consumable is that you can then transition to actual physical use of them without worrying about the long term, you know, cost of that. No.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Further questions? The record will remain but the the question for the record will be due to the committee within two business days of the conclusion of this hearing, which is occurring right now. We are adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.