What the US Army is flying is around 90% crewed, 10% drone. Leadership wants to flip that.
In the coming years, the Army wants to operate far more unmanned aircraft than manned.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wants the Army to reduce its crewed attack helicopter force and replace it with drones.
US Army leadership told Business Insider it wants to be flying a lot more uncrewed aircraft than crewed ones in the coming years. We are talking about a tremendous increase in the number of drones.
Its ambitions, which align with goals outlined by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's recent directive, come from a vision for what Army officials and the Trump administration have described as a more lethal force ready for future warfare.
In an interview with Business Insider, US Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll and Gen. James Rainey, the commanding general of Army Futures Command, said that unprecedented changes in warfare are fueling plans to overhaul what the Army flies.
"We believe there's a role for some manned aircraft," Rainey explained, "Big picture-wise, right now, about 90% of the things we're flying have humans in them and 10% don't. And I believe over the next several years, we would like to invert that."
The plans to give every division 1,000 drones within the next two years, he added, speak to the "aggressiveness" with which the Army is going after the new uncrewed objectives.
Earlier this year, Hegseth sent out a memo on strategic transformations within the Army, laying out goals and timelines for the service, including force restructuring and cuts to certain programs and systems that altogether represent one of the largest Army revamps since the end of the Cold War. The push is estimated to cost around $36 billion over the next five years.
In the memo, Hegseth indicated that crewed attack helicopter formations would be reduced, restructured, and augmented with drone swarms capable of overwhelming adversaries.
War-winning Army capabilities and the ones that aren't
Driscoll said this big change, along with others identified in the DoD memo, is already underway and largely focused on examining what systems no longer make sense in the context of the Army's vision for its future and what systems will replace them.
He mentioned the AH-64D Apache attack helicopter as one platform that no longer aligns with plans for the transformation of the force. "The flying costs on that were $10,000 an hour," the secretary said of the older Deltas, pointing out that the figure is about twice the cost of the newer Echo variant of the aircraft.
"Those are the kinds of decisions that I think we had let linger and fester for too long as an Army for all sorts of reasons," Driscoll said. "What we are trying to do is take a hard look at these things," he explained, and decide whether they align with what the warfighter needs.
Last month, Lt. Gen. Joseph Ryan, the Army's deputy chief of staff for operations, plans, and training, said that the Deltas are no longer "a war-winning capability that we can fight with and win today." Even the more advanced Echos, he said, are "on the cusp of being capabilities where we don't necessarily see them contributing to the fight the way they have done perhaps in the past."
The Army plans to shelve the Delta variant and further examine other crewed aircraft that may no longer be sufficiently effective. It is also reviewing other helicopter models and plans to reduce the number of helos operated.
The future of war is robotic
More broadly, uncrewed aircraft are being seen as alternatives that soldiers can send forward on the battlefield to do missions that crewed aircraft have traditionally done.
There's still a place for crewed aircraft in the Army. Some helicopters, for example, still boast value for landing troops behind or around enemy positions to surprise and surround them. But future operations are expected to be a whole lot more robotic, with an Army aviation portfolio that more heavily relies on unmanned systems integrated with manned ones.
The Army sees itself at a turning point. Senior defense officials appointed by President Donald Trump have called out what they see as excessive spending, outdated systems and weapons, and a need to expedite changes to be prepared to deter or fight a future conflict. It's part of efforts to maximize readiness, increase lethality, and get soldiers what they need most.
Such aims aren't entirely new, though, and execution will be key. During the previous administration, for instance, the Army was already discussing the need for more uncrewed systems and changes to its aircraft fleet, especially with the cancellation of the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft program.
Last year, Rainey told lawmakers that for scouting and recon missions "the right thing to do is to use unmanned systems and not put humans in harm's way."
A major motivator for many of the ongoing transformation efforts is China, which the Pentagon has referred to as a pacing challenge. Officials and lawmakers in Washington see China's meteoric military growth and modernization and are pursuing capabilities that will allow the US military to deter aggression and, if necessary, overcome that rapidly evolving fighting force in armed combat.
Drones, from pocket-sized aircraft to quadcopters to bigger warfighting assets, are a key part of these efforts, providing a range of combat capabilities en masse for a relatively low cost compared to some other US weapons programs.
The Pentagon has been working to expedite the development and deployment of uncrewed aerial systems across the services, recognizing their value as this technology sprints onto the scene in big ways. Army soldiers have been testing different types of reconnaissance and strike drones are being tested in areas like the Indo-Pacific region, learning how to adapt unmanned systems to the challenges of different missions and environments.
That's a key aspect of an ongoing "transformation in contact" initiative, which focuses on Army units being given free rein to use different capabilities during training and exercises to see how the systems might work best.
The value of drones, particularly the smaller systems, has been especially visible in the war in Ukraine, which Army leaders continue to study. Ukrainian operators fly drones for intelligence-gathering and strike missions, among others.
Due to extensive electronic warfare countermeasures on the battlefield, both sides are heavily relying on fiber-optic drones to maintain a stable connection between the operator and system while also exploring new technology, like AI-enabled drones that can resist jamming. The US is not in a similar situation, but it is looking to innovate as if it were.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
37 minutes ago
- Business Insider
We sold everything to start a new life with our 2 kids in Argentina. I don't know how long we'll stay, but so far it's worth it.
We owned a stunning house in a lovely UK village, and the boys were happy with school and friends. We left all of that behind and moved to Argentina, my home country. It's been nine months — nine crazy and intense months. We're still adapting, but I'm glad we did it. Being an immigrant can be hard. This wasn't the case for me. I didn't have to flee my country because of life-threatening reasons. I chose to leave Argentina to pursue a Master's in Creative Writing in Madrid. While I was living there, I traveled to London for the weekend and met a nice guy in a pub, whom I married a couple of years later. Not long after, I was pregnant. We had our first son and lived in London for another two and a half years, until our second son was born. We needed more space and help with the kids, so we moved to Wales, where my in-laws were 20 minutes away and a nursery was around the corner. I was able to carry on working remotely. My husband left his job in London and found a new position close by. Life went on. We were fine. In fact, we were more than fine — we had a stunning house in a lovely village, the boys were happy with their school and friends, and although we didn't have our dream jobs, we were able to pay the bills and had a good work-life balance. That's why I don't think anyone expected us to announce a move to Argentina. It was a difficult decision, but we were determined When we broke the news to friends and family, they understandably wondered if we were sure about our decision. Of course, we weren't. Who on Earth can be sure of such a move? We'd have to sell our dream home and everything in it, find a new home and new school for the kids, and quit our jobs and find a new way of living halfway around the world. Not to mention, we lived in a first-world country. Argentina is not first world. We'd be throwing everything away to start a new life in an economically unsteady country. We were determined, however. Please help BI improve our Business, Tech, and Innovation coverage by sharing a bit about your role — it will help us tailor content that matters most to people like you. Continue By providing this information, you agree that Business Insider may use this data to improve your site experience and for targeted advertising. By continuing you agree that you accept the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . I wanted to give my sons a chance to make the most of being part of a multicultural family. They had to experience both heritages in the flesh. They deserved to know what living in their mom's country and speaking Spanish was like. It was an emotional nightmare at first The kids weren't happy about the move. The eldest literally said, "You're ruining my life." There was no turning back, though. Preparing for the move meant we were completely swamped with the logistics of estate agents, removal companies, Facebook Marketplace postings, and video calls with schools in Buenos Aires. The amount of things we collected as years went by was insane, and because the house was big we kept them all: strollers, teddies, high chairs, rocking chairs, bottles, breast pumps, bicycles, scooters, puzzles, keyboards, microphones, blankets, books, you name it. Not to mention the piano and every single piece of furniture. My husband drove back and forth from the garbage dump so many times, and each time he came back, his face spoke to me: I'm exhausted, this is hard. We gave things away, too. I remember the tears every time I put baby clothes in a bin bag and every time I dropped something meaningful at a charity shop. What am I doing? Am I crazy? I remember those thoughts, too. Despite the doubt and hardship, we kept going. We've been in Argentina for 9 months Having my husband's support was what really made the move happen. Even though the move seriously affected his career and finances, he went along with it anyway, for which I'm extremely grateful. In Argentina, there are no more gardens, mountains, or sheep on our way to school. We now live in an apartment on the outskirts of the city, the boys share a bedroom, and we drive past three different schools on our way to school. There's traffic, horns, bikes, buses, and lots of people. When we first got here, my youngest would cover his ears. Yes, son, city life is loud. It's been nine months now — nine crazy and intense months. We're surviving and still adapting. Things are looking up My husband and I no longer have corporate jobs. I work as a contractor interviewing candidates for different clients and also make a living out of my podcast and artistic workshops. My husband works a remote job with fewer hours than in London, which gives him more time to do what he loves: engage with the kids. When I'm a bit sad, I go to my sister's or arrange to see my friends: they know how to make me laugh. My husband has made some friends through football. And the kids are not asking when they'll be going back to the UK as much. They like their school and the fact that we have a swimming pool in the building. They enjoy hanging out with my siblings and their little cousin and having lunch with their grandma once a week. And they speak Spanish now. As much as I loved their British accents, I hated that they couldn't roll the "r" or say anything in Spanish apart from "Hola", "cómo estás". Now they can communicate, for real, and that's truly awesome. We still don't know how long we'll be staying here, but we know it was right to come, no matter the suffering. We may not have a fixed income, but we have a feeling that no one can take away from us. We feel alive.
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
The Nation the Army Built
In July 1775, General George Washington rode into Cambridge, Massachusetts, to lead an army of 16,000. These men, Washington announced, were 'all the Troops of the several Colonies,' thereafter to be known as 'the Troops of the United Provinces of North America.' Washington went on to say that he 'hoped that all Distinctions of Colonies will be laid aside; so that one and the same spirit may animate the whole.' It was easier said than done. The country they were fighting to establish had no national identity or culture—no flag, no anthem, no touchstone around which citizens could rally. What did it mean to be American? 'Not British' wasn't enough. Over the next eight years, Washington and the Army built the foundations of that national identity—first by asserting the right to legitimate use of force, which is one of the most important powers of a sovereign entity, and then by creating traditions that carry symbolic significance and offer shared experiences, and establishing institutions that represented all 13 states. The process was messy and imperfect in the late 18th century and remains incomplete today. Most 18th-century nations were based on a single religion, ethnicity, race, or cultural tradition. Their governments were secured with military force or inheritance, and often backed by claims of divine blessing. None of those conditions existed in the colonies. In 1774, when the First Continental Congress gathered in Carpenters' Hall, in Philadelphia, more delegates had visited London than the city that would become our nation's first seat of government. Each colony had spent decades building economic, intellectual, and emotional ties with Great Britain, not with one another. Culturally, the colonists saw themselves as Britons. As late as the mid-1760s, many called themselves King George III's most loyal subjects, demonstrated through enthusiastic purchasing of teapots and art prints depicting royal marriages, births, and anniversaries. If anything, the colonies viewed one another as competitors and battled over rights to waterways, their westernmost lands, and defensive support from the mother country. Washington himself shared these provincial loyalties and had a low opinion of many of his fellow colonists. The morning after arriving in camp, in July 1775, he conducted a review of the Continental Army units and the defensive positions on the hills surrounding Boston Harbor. He concluded, he later wrote, that the troops were ' exceeding dirty & nasty people ' led by indifferent officers with an ' unaccountable kind of stupidity.' But the war would change Washington's view of these soldiers, and he came to respect the sacrifice and valor of his troops from all 13 states. The war changed the soldiers themselves. In the peace that followed, veterans became central to America's nation-building project. Uri Friedman: What if America had lost the Revolutionary War? Before the war, colonists had celebrated the King's birthday. During the war, those celebrations were replaced by festivities honoring Washington's birthday. In 1779, the Virginia Gazette reported on 'a very elegant entertainment' held at 'the Raleigh tavern by the inhabitants of this city, to celebrate the anniversary of that day which gave birth to General George Washington, Commander in Chief of the armies of the United States, the saviour of his country.' On February 11, 1781, the French allied forces joined in the fun. 'Yesterday was the Anniversary of your Excellency's birth day,' the commander of the French forces wrote to Washington. 'We will celebrate it with the sole regret that your Excellency be not a Witness of the effusion and gladness of our hearts.' The King had served as a unifying figure around whom Britons could rally, and his birthday celebrations had been an important social tool used to reinforce British identity. Washington was a useful substitute. The general also introduced a new flag. In 1775, the Continental Colors, also known as the Grand Union Flag, which featured 13 red and white stripes with the Union Jack in the upper left corner, was raised by several vessels in Philadelphia and generals in Massachusetts. But any flag that featured the Union Jack could be confused with the British flag on the battlefield. For his headquarters, Washington adopted instead a dark-blue command flag with 13 evenly dispersed white stars. He could have chosen any number of military symbols and evocative images, but chose a flag that made an explicit statement about national unity. The Army's shared experiences made that unity reality. In the 18th century, Americans rarely traveled more than a few miles from home, but soldiers fought battles in Massachusetts and South Carolina, and in most states in between. They experienced different cultures, ate different foods, and interacted with people from different walks of life. They also regularly went without food, sufficient clothing, or pay. In summer, they slept in tents and were tormented by flies and mosquitoes; in winter, they huddled, shivering, around miserly fires. Their suffering blurred local loyalties and fostered new ties. As the end of the war loomed, veteran officers built cultural and political bodies such as the Institution of the Society of the Cincinnati. When the Confederation Congress couldn't afford to pay soldiers their back pay or provide pensions for the wounded, the society stepped in to help care for struggling veterans, widows, and their children. It also promoted the values of the Revolution. In the years after the war, the states devolved into competitive bickering. The 2,270 members of the society called on their fellow citizens to cherish their national identity as the reward for winning independence. These efforts were not uncontroversial. Critics accused the society of trying to establish an aristocracy to control civil and military institutions—one of many disagreements over the evolution of America's identity in the postwar years. The national coalition had largely held together while the states had been battling a shared foe, but deep divisions soon emerged. Ben Nadler: Where do flags come from? Anti-Federalists preferred a decentralized national government with most power reserved for the states; Federalists advocated for stronger central government and an energetic executive. Not all Federalists were veterans, but many veterans, especially officers, became Federalists, having suffered as a result of Congress's weaknesses. They understood the consequences of decentralized government. Some of Washington's favorite officers and aides pushed for a national convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, and pestered and pleaded with Washington to attend. They knew his unifying presence was essential for the proceedings to succeed. At the Constitutional Convention, veterans led the push for a new federal government featuring a powerful single executive. They believed the future of the nation depended on the government's ability to raise funds, protect its borders, manage internal disputes, and dictate foreign policy. If the government failed, so too would the republic, and the American identity would cease to exist. Later, veterans would serve as congressmen, senators, Cabinet secretaries, and executive-branch appointees at much higher rates than civilians. Washington and his soldiers would not recognize much about 21st-century America. And yet our divisions, the battles over who counts as an ideal citizen, and the challenges of building a nation based on ideas would feel remarkably familiar. So would the debate over the Army's role in protecting our democracy. Washington and his officers knew the risk an army posed to a civilian-led republic. They were determined to protect the institutions and our founding values, rather than destroy them. Their example of deference to civilian authority remains one of the core principles of the armed forces today. The anniversary of Washington taking command is a reminder that the Army's effort to forge a lasting American bond was just the beginning of a long and difficult process. Their goal is our goal, and it's still worth fighting for.
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
The US Army's done with Humvees and the Robotic Combat Vehicles. Here's what leaders want instead.
US Army leaders say Humvees and Robotic Combat Vehicles aren't useful for future fights, but the Infantry Squad Vehicle is. Ongoing decisions about what stays and what goes are part of a larger transformation initiative that has the Army reviewing its force structure and cutting certain programs it deems no longer necessary for the kinds of wars the US military wants to be ready to fight should worse come to worst. Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll and Gen. James Rainey, the commanding general overseeing Army Futures Command, talked to Business Insider about some of what is getting axed and why. Driscoll pointed to the Robotic Combat Vehicle, or RCV, program, which launched in 2019 with the goal of integrating autonomous and remotely operated capabilities into the Army's ground systems. Three versions were initially planned — an expendable light variant, a durable medium variant, and a lethal heavy variant designed for combat against an enemy armored vehicle. But the development of the RCV hit snags. "We know we need autonomy, we know that we need the ability to move things in a way that is not controlled by human beings," Driscoll said. But the requirements the Army put together for it ended up making it just this "incredibly large, incredibly heavy, incredibly expensive, relatively exquisite tool," he said. By the time the Army went to purchase them, the threats to the RCV, like small, hostile drones, had grown substantially. In Ukraine, slow, heavy, expensive vehicles have been prime targets for cheap exploding drones. "It might have been there in the beginning and we got it wrong from the very beginning," he said, "but at a minimum, by the time it came due for us actually purchase a lot of these and get them into formations, it just no longer made sense anymore." He called the move to end the program "a hard decision." The Humvee, or High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, is also being phased out. "It's 40 years old. It was useful in its time," Rainey said. "If you look at the ubiquitous sensing drones just in Ukraine and Russia, the survivability of a wheeled vehicle is very low." The Army also recently ended the M10 Booker Mobile Protected Firepower program just before it was set to go into full-rate production and after spending well over a billion dollars on the project. The decision was made in response to ongoing global conflicts "and in support of the strategic objectives outlined in the Army Transformation Initiative," according to a memo issued by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth earlier this year. The memo outlined the focal points, timelines, and priorities of the Army going forward, including reducing and restructuring attack helicopter formations and augmenting them with unmanned aircraft, putting thousands of drones into the hands of soldiers, and focusing on the Indo-Pacific theater and China. The efforts in the directive are estimated to cost around $36 billion over the next five years and represent one of the largest Army overhauls since the end of the Cold War. Army officials have said it's designed to increase lethality and readiness in the service and is focused on the needs of individual warfighters. In the interview with BI, Driscoll and Rainey identified one platform that represents what it wants more of. "We have a requirements and acquisitions success story with the Infantry Squad Vehicles," Rainey said. The relatively new M1301 Infantry Squad Vehicle entered service in 2020. Rainey said that the platform was designed well and requirements were useful and thoughtful. "We went fast, but we iterated with soldiers continually through the process. We ended up with a very useful vehicle," he said. Driscoll said that in conversations with soldiers, the Army learned that they wanted a vehicle to prioritize speed and all-terrain driving over protection. It speaks to, the service secretary said, the Army "trying to build a menu of offensive and defensive solutions." For some missions, something like the Infantry Squad Vehicle will be more effective. And for others, a heavier, more armored platform could still be valuable and available. Much of what Driscoll and others say they're focused on comes out of efforts to be smarter and more cost-effective in Army purchases. "We feel a large enough existential threat, and it is important enough that we can no longer make decisions simply based off where jobs might exist or what private companies may benefit from our decisions," he said. "Instead, we have to optimize for soldier lethality in the fight ahead." Lethality is a guiding principle for the US Department of Defense under Hegseth and the Trump administration. It was a core objective for the Biden administration and first Trump one, as well as past administrations, though the interpretations were different. Generally, it serves as a subjective measuring stick for DoD programs and projects, the aim being to be able to effectively defeat an enemy. Right now, that long-standing Pentagon buzzword is the deciding factor for what the Army and other services prioritize.
