US drones must scale fast. A clear look from Propwash Drone Solutions founder Ben Poulin at policy, supply chain, and MOSA hurdles to building a trusted UAS base. DRONELIFE does not pay or accept payment for guest posts.
The Scale Problem
By Guest Author Ben Poulin, Founder/CEO Propwash Drone Solutions
The reality is the US needs to scale UAS manufacturing, quickly. This article takes stock of the major challenges facing a domestic UAS industrial base. This is meant to be a measured deep breath, not another round of outrage or a blanket take on covered entities. What follows looks at structural, technical, and market barriers, alongside policy, procurement, and supply-chain efforts already underway.
The challenge to scale is much more than the airframe, it’s the full stack. Components, materials, manufacturing capacity, workforce and training, all that is needed to turn prototypes into production volume. Procurement guidelines and lists are making “trusted” more concrete, but at the same time are adding overhead and narrowing options. Many US OEMs and components suppliers are already working to meet higher expectations for cybersecurity, supply traceability, and quality, but scaling will still take time and a more integrated supply chain. The domestic UAS industry is in a transition period where the urgency is real, but so is the progress.
A Market Built on Foreign Supply
The US commercial market is heavily dependent on Chinese-made drones with estimates often placing China’s share as up to 90%. That dependency extends well beyond the finished aircraft. Even many “Made in America” platforms still rely on globally sourced parts, including critical components like motors, ESCs, batteries, and sensors.
While many users still rely on Chinese aircraft, “trusted and domestic” is increasingly the default expectation (or requirement) in government and sensitive-site operations. As a result, many operators are constrained by what is approved, available, and supported at scale.
As requirements tighten, manufacturers should expect deeper scrutiny of upstream provenance, including rare earth magnets, specialty alloys, microelectronics, and even tooling and 3D printers. At the same time, US OEMs and component suppliers are expanding domestic and allied sourcing where feasible, even when it raises near-term cost and complexity.
Operationalising “Trusted”
Policy is trying to create clarity, but the target has moved repeatedly. Requirements for what counts as “trusted” have evolved across agencies, timelines, and use cases. Even where major policies were expected (the American Security Drone Act didn’t exactly sneak up on anyone), implementation details have still created uncertainty for manufacturers, integrators, and end users alike. OMB guidance and acquisition guidelines have helped to standardize the expectation, but interpretation and waiver practices still vary. Executive actions and congressional measures are simultaneously boosting the domestic drone industry and tightening rules for federal use. In practice, this is pushing manufacturers toward stronger cybersecurity and more transparent supply chains.
While the push for secure drones is undoubtedly loud, with rules still evolving, timelines tight, and waivers inconsistently applied, many users are stuck between operational reliance and replacement mandates. Meanwhile, defense demand is ramping sharply, with large-scale procurement requests and initiatives like the recently announced Drone Dominance program.
Some companies are well positioned to meet part of the growing commercial and military demand. Few are ready at scale now, and all depend on a component ecosystem that can meet strict compliance, quality, and throughput requirements.
Frameworks like NDAA compliance and the Blue and Green lists have started to provide clearer procurement paths but they have also added cost and documentation overhead. Additionally, they can constrain choices during a period when domestic supply is still ramping up. Over time, these growing pains should translate into lower friction as more domestic and allied manufacturers mature their process and others enter the pipeline.
Ultimately, constantly changing requirements create significant planning risk for both buyers and manufacturers, especially when procurement timelines and the reality of supply and production times aren’t in alignment.
Why Scaling is Hard
Domestic options have existed for years, but availability, compatibility, cost, and perceived (and proven) performance gaps have limited adoption in many segments. Unfortunately, the due date for the group project has already passed and some companies, users, and agencies are only starting to work on their part now.
US manufacturers generally face higher labor, compliance, and facility costs than Chinese peers., and they are competing with an ecosystem shaped by years of subsidies, scaled integration, and automation. Recent funding, large-scale procurement initiatives, and tax-incentives may help to level the playing field eventually. Even so, the advantage of incumbency is a significant one.
Cost and tooling realities have also made it more difficult for US companies to utilize in-house production of items like motor winding, battery production, and microelectronics manufacturing, so overseas suppliers remain common. Even compliant systems may rely on globally sourced ‘non-sensitive’ components, especially when domestic capacity is limited. As rules tighten, a major choke point is reliance on critical materials sourced from covered entities that feed component and subcomponent production. Using a material from a covered entity doesn’t necessarily create a cybersecurity vulnerability, but it can introduce supply continuity risk. In response, manufacturers and suppliers are pursuing vertical integration solutions and long-term sourcing partnerships that include investments in both domestic and allied production of components, subcomponents, and raw materials.
A separate constraint is the limited adoption of MOSA-style interoperability (think USB-C). Without common interfaces, companies are repeatedly solving similar integration problems with each new aircraft and component. MOSA is increasingly a requirement in defense procurement because it is designed to reduce integration cost and speed upgrades and repair. The downside is that getting to true interoperability takes significant coordination, standards, discipline, and time. Without MOSA, we will continue to see many companies solving the same integration problems in parallel, producing incompatible variants, and new entrants facing high-cost, lengthy ramp-ups.
A robust domestic supply chain will require more than drone OEMs. It requires specialists in airframes, PCBs, batteries, motors, optics, and secure software, plus the test and certification infrastructure needed to support them. Equally important is the workforce: engineers, technicians, QA, and production leads, all supported by training pipelines and partnerships.
Large procurement efforts like the Army’s million-drone request and an expected uptick in the commercial demand will help create a predictable demand that lowers the risk when investing in domestic production systems, that is if requirements and regulations remain stable enough for the industry to plan and develop.
Many existing domestic UAS and subcomponent manufacturers are very capable of producing advanced systems in small runs, but scaling to large volumes requires production systems, skilled labor, and compliant suppliers that all take time to develop, even with strong demand.
Bottom Line
Taken together, the ongoing push to scale the domestic UAS manufacturing base in the US is being driven by three main forces: a heavy dependence on foreign systems and upstream components, fast-moving policy and procurement guidelines that are still clarifying what “trusted” means, and the financial, workforce, and manufacturing realities that make scaling difficult even for established domestic firms.
Compliance frameworks and curated lists are here to stay and are working to create clearer procurement paths and expectations but they also add overhead and can constrain choices while domestic and allied supply ramps up. At the same time, supply chain integration and MOSA-style approaches are quickly emerging as key enablers, not just in terms of compliance, but as prerequisites for scaling domestic UAS manufacturing.
Read More
- US-Designed AI Chips Power Foreign Drones at CES Even as FCC Rules Could Chill Their Future
- FAA Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Drone Delivery: Why Industry Stakeholders Should Comment Before January 8
- AI Tech Holds Promise for Drone Users, But There Are Limits
About Ben
Ben is a drone operations professional and educator who operates Propwash Drone Solutions, helping organizations build and manage UAS programs with an emphasis on training, compliance, and safe operations. He is also a co-owner of NC Remote Sensing, supporting surveyors and engineers with LiDAR data capture. Previously, he launched the UAS Operations Training Center at Beaufort County Community College and served as its Director.
I agree with the first comment, and this paper doesn’t state the obvious which is that our government wants to ban non-commercial (i.e. <$10000) drones and they found the perfect BS disguise to hide behind. All the lives and property that those of is with these 'dangerous spy drones' have saved don't mean 1 cent to Washington. Remember this when it's election time.
As an independent drone pilot looking to update my fleet, i see this whole “made in the USA” policy as bulshit. How come the senators didn’t plan more than 2′ infront of themselves. Millions of DJI owners have been sending them urgent messages to think again. I think the republican senators are cowards, stupid and afraid of Trump. Pitty. They should be paid by productive outcome.
You know which domestic UAS manufacturer will succeed? One who’s willing to do a few “loss leader” or “break-even” models for consumers and hobbyists in addition to the specialized public safety and military models that provide the big bucks.
This is not a radical concept; look at the millions of dollars conventional vehicle manufactures pour into racing, for instance, in order to gain technological knowledge, product recognition, and ultimately more sales.
Same issues, different day!
This US drone initiative is all driven by military needs and requirements.
If the US would have agreed to work together with foreign drone entities, in a combined effort, the US could cut the ramp up, and production time in half.
The US shot themselves in the foot and the other is nailed to the floor. It will be at least 10 years before the US comes close to any reliable commercial drone platform.
The commercial drone industry will not wait/survive that long.
what is this information