GovernmentExecutive.com

Congress has given the Homeland Security Department funding and permission to expand its use of unmanned aerial vehicles for patrolling the nation's borders and other missions, despite continuing concerns about their cost, safety and use in domestic airspace.

The fiscal 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill -- signed into law Wednesday by President Bush -- provides Customs and Border Protection $20 million for the acquisition of UAVs and related support systems. The bill also provides the Coast Guard about $5 million for UAVs.

House appropriators had threatened to withhold funding for UAVs in their version of the spending bill, noting that a Border Patrol Predator B drone crashed in late April outside of Nogales, Ariz. -- an incident that prompted the agency to ground UAV operations. Lawmakers said they have yet to receive a final report on the incident, and directed the department to submit its report by Jan. 23.

But in the end, lawmakers expressed strong support for using UAVs and gave the department permission to expand using them on the Northern border.

"The conferees encourage the [Homeland Security] secretary to work expeditiously with the administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to establish and conduct a pilot program to test unmanned aerial vehicles for border surveillance along the U.S.-Canada border," lawmakers wrote in the report accompanying the bill.

The department did not provide comment for this story at presstime.

Meanwhile, the FAA has continued to grapple with how to incorporate UAVs into civilian airspace. Federal and local agencies have expressed interest in using the technology to help with everything from fire fighting to crime fighting.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, for example, hoped to begin using UAVs over the summer, but was forced to put the plan on hold after the FAA said the sheriff's agency would need a certificate of authorization before flying drones.

Last week, the FAA awarded a contract to Lockheed Martin Corp. to develop a "road map" for introducing unmanned systems into national airspace. The company said it will evaluate the state of mission needs, forecast near-term demands and develop a five-year plan to integrate UAV operations into domestic operations.

"By identifying the mission needs, operating environments and platforms expected for unmanned aircraft, and then mapping them against manufacturer plans and FAA certification timelines, we seek to provide the FAA with the big-picture of the emerging [UAV] market," said Ken Geiselhart, Lockheed's project leader.

Some government and industry officials argue unmanned systems come with a hefty price tag. "UAVs in the homeland security space are one of the most expensive platforms," an industry official said.

The Homeland Security inspector general noted the costs in testimony to Congress last December. "UAVs remain very costly to operate and require a significant amount of logistical support as well as specialized operator and maintenance training," he said. "[Border Patrol] officials mentioned that the cost to operate a UAV is more than double the cost of manned aircraft, and that the use of UAVs has resulted in fewer seizures."

COMMENTS

• I was an Internal Operator for a UAV system in the Marines. It doesn't take as many people that you may think. Among the majority of the manned aviation squarons, the average number of people that maintain, operate, and provide aircrew to a squadron of aircrafts comes to be over 100 people. For a fleet, not squadron, of UAVs, it would take approx 90 people to complete the task of the same degree as the manned aircraft. Yes, the UAVs may cost around $900,000, and may take a bit more money to maintain them, but last time I checked, a fighter jet runs close to 100 billion, maybe more. Check the latest on the new F-35 and the maintenance costs run a lot more than a UAV... guaranteed. You are absolutely right about the probability of mishap. The same goes for manned aviation. But, I guarantee that there has never been a death due to a UAV, unless the bird crashed into personnel. So, I believe that we as a nation should continue to come up with monies to fund the building, testing, operation, and maintenance of these vehicles. William Boudrow Posted December 18, 2007 6:44 PM
• I have a background in Aviation in both the military and civilian arenas and have to concur with the first comment. UAV's where intended to replace manned aircraft when the Area of Operations was too high risk for crewed aircraft. I hardly see where it is beneficial or cost effective to send a UAV (with it's necessary logistical support, ground stations, etc) where a teenaged pilot in a Civil Air Patrol Cessna 152 or a larger, manned aircraft could do the job just as well. Allan Posted June 20, 2007 8:57 AM
• After reading this article, and the first two comment postings, I am reminded of the millions of dollars that were directed at the military, lobbyists, and the private sector to “fight” the “drug war.” We are no further ahead of that “controlled conflict” today than we were in the mid 1980s. Of course, we find the headlines of the day focusing on illegal immigration. To that end, millions of taxpayer dollars will be directed to corporations in an effort to build a better mousetrap and develop “smart technology.” Does anyone really believe that any of these systems are stand-alone systems without benefit of human logistical support and decisions? No one has really asked the hard questions here. Just how many people does it take to put a UAV airborne? Once answered (and it is more than manned flight), those individuals certainly get paid for holiday pay, night differential, Sunday pay, and all of the pay and compensation benefits afforded to full time employees. At the end of the day, multipurpose aircraft crewed by pilots makes the most sense. They can be configured for an interdiction posture, a support posture, or an intelligence queuing posture. When UAVs can place handcuffs on perpetrators, fly surveillances in class “B” airspace in Los Angeles, and stop crashing at the tune of millions of dollars, maybe I will reconsider my position. Until then, they are the latest “feel good” arsenals to the headlines of the day. Joe Customs - 1789 Posted October 16, 2006 2:13 PM