Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

Learning with Leo: Drones—Meeting Demand Without Compromise

With drones used in a wide range of applications today, particularly in modern military conflicts, domestic manufacturers are feeling pressure to produce at high volume and low cost, particularly within an NDAA supply chain ecosystem with differing needs and expectations.

Two issues must be considered. First is the manufacturers’ and customers’ need for quality, reliability, and functionality of the product. Second is the manufacturing volume needed to support demand, whether for military, industrial, or commercial applications. Each segment requires verification that the product meets the customer's requirements. 

The functionality and reliability of the product are based on using the correct materials, verifying that those materials can withstand the rigors and the working environment of the operations, and having the correct design for the application. For example, wars have changed what the world expects from the drone manufacturing process, where the expectation is not necessarily precision or longevity of the equipment, but rather the ability to meet the capability and volume capacity of the process. Therefore, we are looking for volume manufacturing at a low cost.

Larger drones, on the other hand, are typically designed to provide persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities.

The United States needs tens of thousands of attritable1 drones annually (actually trending toward hundreds of thousands). But where is the industrial ecosystem to deliver them to the customer? Domestic manufacturers now face a fundamental structural problem: How can they achieve war production economics inside an American regulatory and compliance framework that was never designed for disposable, high-volume, low-margin hardware? Can we build a $1,500 to $2,500 commercially produced first-person view (FPV) drone at an estimated cost of approximately $830 per unit, with Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) cost adding $3,000 to the product cost due to NDAA supply chain premium?

Is This Even Doable?
Yes, but barely, and only if you understand exactly where the cost and compliance pressure comes from, because most manufacturers that try to get there discover the hard parts in the wrong order. The instinct is to treat DCMA compliance as a documentation problem: build the product, write the procedures, pass the audit. That instinct is wrong, and it is expensive to discover it is wrong at First Article Inspection with a DCMA quality assurance representative on the floor.

Material acquisition—the source of the supply chain, including the quality of such—is the metric to resolve or prevent issues at the end of the manufacturing cycle. The real issues are structural. They lie in the supply chain, workforce, production process, and in compliance, a framework built for missiles and jet engines now applied, without modification, to a $2,000 airframe expected to be produced in the thousands per month. Understanding those issues before production starts is what separates the manufacturers who make the economics work from those who cannot close their corrective action requests.

However, the geopolitical conflicts redefine modern warfare production metrics as they focus on volume over precision, speed of delivery over qualification cycles, and cost as tactical weapons. 

The United States must fundamentally recalibrate its defense manufacturing and compliance framework if it intends to compete in the era of attritable drone warfare. Current regulatory structures, particularly those enforced under the DCMA, are customized for high-cost, low-volume systems and are structurally incompatible with the rapid, high-volume production model proven effective in the current wars. The U.S. can produce $1,500–$2,500 attritable drones under DCMA oversight, but only if compliance is treated as a designed production capability, not an after-the-fact requirement, and if policy, training, and industrial strategy evolve in parallel.

U.S. attritable drone manufacturing at DCMA-compliant scale requires a trained, certified production workforce whose competency can be documented, audited, and defended to a DCMA quality assurance representative on the production floor. DCMA's Vol. 7 inspection system assessment explicitly evaluates whether production personnel have been trained in the applicable workmanship standard and whether that training is current and traceable.

For electronic assemblies, which represent the majority of what makes a drone function, the applicable standards are:

• IPC J-STD-001, Requirements for Soldered Electrical and Electronic Assemblies
• IPC-A-610, Acceptability of Electronic Assemblies
• IPC/WHMA-A-620, Requirements and Acceptance for Cable and Wire Harness Assemblies

These standards define what is acceptable for Class 3 military level, and auditors will evaluate against these specifications regardless of whether the manufacturers have ever been trained to the requirements. A production floor full of experienced operators and technicians who learned to solder from hobbyist forums is not a DCMA-ready workforce. Their workmanship knowledge exists, but it is informal, undocumented, and untraceable, which is precisely the condition DCMA's inspection system assessment is designed to find.

Conclusion
The geopolitical warfare did not create the U.S. drone manufacturing gap; it exposed it. It exists not because American engineers cannot design capable attritable systems, but because the industrial and regulatory infrastructure required to produce them in wartime manufacturing with the equivalent economics does not yet exist at scale.

The $1,500–$2,500 attritable drone is achievable under DCMA requirements. But it requires intentional system design: volume commitments that amortize compliance overhead, NDAA-compliant supply chains developed before production starts, OTA vehicles that reduce regulatory burden where appropriate, and workmanship and quality systems built from the ground up for high-volume disposable hardware.

The manufacturers who close this gap will be the ones who understand that compliance infrastructure in this market is not a cost center to be minimized, but a production capability to be built just as you build a jig or qualify a process. It must exist before DCMA shows up, not in response to the first CAR.

Therefore, our function and involvement are based upon the quality of the manufacturing process, not wanting the products to fail due to manufacturing problems. This becomes complicated irrespective of the customer, as costs will be adjusted based upon the demands of the customer, and those costs will rise. We must train and educate customers to meet the requirements for building quality products, thereby increasing productivity and yields, reducing waste, and minimizing costs.

References

1. Attritable refers to military platforms—often unmanned aircraft (UAS)—designed to be sufficiently low-cost and recoverable, allowing commanders to accept a higher rate of loss in combat without significant strategic impact.

Leo Lambert is the technical director at EPTAC Corporation.