Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 1, Number 1, Fall 2015 | Page 11

Global Security and Intelligence Studies
and partly by organizational culture (Horowitz 2010, 3-5). Organizations must adapt
their doctrine and get leadership buy-in. Military leadership has a significant impact
on technology adaptation because leaders influence promotions and can protect junior
officer innovators (Rosen 1991, 21). General McMaster criticizes that many military
leaders are overly fixated upon UAVs and the “widely accepted yet fundamentally
flawed conception of future war: the belief that surveillance, communications and
information technologies would deliver ‘dominant battlespace knowledge’” (McMaster
2008, 21). Some leaders may be influenced by the desire for prestige and maintaining
the appearance of being on the leading edge of technology (Horowitz and Fuhrmann
2014). Of course, military innovation is not only controlled by military leadership.
Civilian overseers can also impose adaptation to overcome the conservative influences
of military tradition (Posen 1984, 224-226). It was only after the success of the Central
Intelligence Agency’s armed UAVs that the Air Force decided to adopt the innovation
(Ehrhard 2010). Arguably, the innovation leader is more likely to be effective if they
can effectively articulate the strategic necessity of technology (Goldman and Ross 2003,
374). UAV advantages such as long loiter time and low political risk make them ideal
to counter terrorism and for sensitive missions such as patrolling disputed territory.
The reduced political risk enables countries to consider military options that were not
feasible with other weapons systems (Byman 2013).
Financially, military innovations are often far more complex than they may at
first appear. Cost models that focus exclusively on the cost of the unit and the control
device are inadequate. While this may be a suitable cost model for the hobbyist, it is
not sufficient for military operations since it does not account for related overhead
and operating costs. For large organizations, adoption of a new technology has cost
implications, both monetary and man-hours, across the spectrum of DOTMLPF
(Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materials, Leadership, Personnel, and Facilities).
Technology adaptation typically drives requirements for new organizational policies,
safety procedures, training for pilots and maintainers, logistics (fuel and spare parts),
maintenance, scheduling, supervision, and facilities (for storage). If the UAV is
replacing a helicopter or other type of manned aircraft, then the change in overhead
costs is minimized. But, if the UAV is replacing a function currently performed by
personnel on the ground, the overhead costs could become a serious obstacle to
technological adoption. For ground operations that might be more effective from the
air (for instance, due to the field of view, point of view, or speed), resource limitation
is often the inhibiting factor in the use of manned aircraft.
In the zero-sum budget world of the Department of Defense, adoption of new
technology involves additional risk because the cost must be offset by another program.
Unlike the corporate world, the military cannot offset the additional costs of technology
adoption by using the new tool to create a new revenue stream. Therefore, increasing
costs are scrutinized because the zero-growth budget requires the identification of cost
offsets, a difficult and often politically charged process. To put the potential benefits
and costs of future UAVs into context, this article will first review the existing benefits
and costs of UAVs relative to manned aircraft.
4