Tom Temin: Tell us about the U.S. National Drone Association. It sounds like your focus is drones with an industrial purpose and not people playing ultimate Frisbee-type of thing with little helicopters.

Nathan Ecelbarger:  It’s a great call out to for the last 20 years as, as China has dominated the global consumer drone space or these toys, are they tools, are they ticking time bombs for lethality? And they’re kind of everything. So it’s a it’s a comprehensive issue that we’re looking at as the National Drone Association and helping really accelerate at the speed of relevance, how the DoD national security, but really, all stakeholders, are thinking about drones and the implications for the next decade.

Tom Temin: So you’re a drone think tank, you might say.

Nathan Ecelbarger: More practitioner than PhD, but yes.

Tom Temin: And the fact is that drones have become part of modern warfare, if not so much for the United States. Drones is that we think of small things that you can lift, that a man can lift. But in the Ukraine situation, that’s what they’re flinging at one another in large quantities. Correct?

Nathan Ecelbarger: Yes. Yeah. I think the numbers just from last month were in the 30 or 40,000 a month they’re going through, with a 49% effectiveness rate. Drones are such a big square peg for the traditional round holes for DoD acquisitions and programs of record. General Mattis has a great quote about the foreseeable future is not foreseeable, but guideposts are emerging from the fog of war being fought in Ukraine and Syria. We’re seeing it come closer to home even, I think this week saw a video with Mexican cartel doing some pretty effective drops on border patrol. How do we evaluate that as a nation, as a country, as it’s coming closer to home, and then also our standing order right now is be competitive and be lethal. And so how are we integrating this technology, which is clearly changing the character of warfare into operating forces as they stand today?

Tom Temin: And the Military Drone Crucible Championship? Tell us about that.

Nathan Ecelbarger: So this actually was when we were looking at, what’s the what’s the best way to cycle through aa emerging tech is emerging quickly, how do we put it in the hands of the actual operators? How are we guided by industry who was closest to the emerging tech? How do we certainly include the acquisitions and requirements folks in the conversation? But it’s going to take the DoD to revise its acquisition process, and we need to be able to move more quickly than that. So interesting. Quick history piece:  Between 1861 and 1871, after civil war just ended. The Union Army was still using Revolutionary War tactics with smoothbore muskets, there were several letters that were sent to Ambrose Burnside from President Lincoln, which are there in the Lincoln Library. And what they were studying was the Franco-Prussian War and how England actually was advancing marksmanship capabilities. The original National Rifle Association had nothing to do with Second Amendment lobbying. The actual intent of the NRA, created in 1871 by six generals, six colonels, a few majors, and few captains, was all about creating competitiveness so that through competition we would advance our own technology and tactics and capabilities. And that blueprint works. There’s actually a direct tie between the early national matches to the Marines that actually went out to Belleau, France, and won the double dog title on Hill 142. There wasn’t just a bunch of random Marines, they were hand-selected from the National Rifle competition.

Tom Temin: Getting back to the Crucible Championship, that’s an event that’s going to happen?

Nathan Ecelbarger: Yes, so that’s scheduled for July. We’re currently actively working with each service to assemble their team, figure out where the actual program will live in each service. The Marines, right on brand, are first to fight with announcing their team. Recent news as of yesterday, the 75th Ranger Regiment has also answered the call to represent the Army. I don’t know who’s going to show up first. The Marines are first to fight, and the Rangers lead the way. So, I’ll have to do a coin flip, but certainly at minimum in July, we’ll have a head-to-head drone crucible that focuses on competition and different tactics and is guided by industry putting drones in the hands of operators to evaluate, how do we given a littered battlefield? Dow do those two services really show off what the taxpayer dollars are, are designed for, which is protecting America and evaluating how drones be used in the equation.

Nathan Ecelbarger: Yes. Yeah. It’s going to take place on a DoD installation in Central Florida. The state of Florida has been a great partner based on the ecosystem for emerging technology. Also, just the co-location of several DoD commands. The governor’s team that is pro-advancing emerging technology. So, we’re looking forward to having the teams from each service also guided by industry. And there’s also the ability for high school folks to be out there.. I’ve seen more 14-year-olds that have some pretty solid FPV flying skills. It’ll be interesting to see how they match up with the DoD folks that are that are feeling this technology.

Tom Temin: And drones, of course. That word encompasses a great range of platforms, from little thumb sized things you can buy in 7-Eleven all the way up to very expensive weapons platforms that can fly for hours at high altitude. You know, the Reapers and so forth. What is the sweet spot in terms of capability and size that you’re looking for to be in this competition?

Nathan Ecelbarger: That’s a great question. SI think the thing that is still up in the air for how we think about the integration of drones is all in the Group One squad level deployment. I think we’ve probably got Group Five Reapers and, you know, roughly figured out. The thing that has yet to be figured out and really implemented is what what does a drone replace, if anything, does it a replace a hand grenade, a rifle, a machine gun, a mortar section and artillery round? The answer is I don’t know. I don’t think anybody knows. And so, looking at the first principles approach to this, what we do know in studying Ukraine is that drones and small drones, Group One specifically, will make America more lethal. Two, we’ve been given a time limit. We don’t have an infinite amount of time to prepare for the next war, so we don’t have time to wait. And three, that if we do it via a competition structure, working with and guided by industry, then we can cycle through those questions and evaluations faster than trying to figure out if a small drone replaces something, or if it’s an add on to a squad’s capability set.

Tom Temin: And the industrial base that makes these items, that could be it could be a kamikaze type of drone where the whole thing blows up, or it could be a drone, I guess that drops a grenade or some kind of an explosive. Or maybe it just takes pictures and then shows where to aim your artillery or something like that. Are these the innovative types of companies we may not have heard of? Because everyone knows General Atomics, which makes the big airplane sized drones. But what about the industrial base for these more numerous things that you can pick up and carry around and then launch?

Nathan Ecelbarger: Yeah, I think what we’re seeing is an extremely interesting pivot with how industry normally works with the government. Traditionally Additionally, when the government pushes out a requirement and says, I want a submarine, or I want a satellite. The requirement drives the technology. But because this technology already exists and is being used across the board in so many other industries, the ability for technology to inform requirements as opposed to the other way around, or maybe it does both. That’s sort of the mash up, it’s the chicken and egg scenario with small drones. So the really the best way to get straight to what can you can do for your country as an industry provider…Well, I don’t know if we exactly know yet. There’s a lot of great folks working on requirements documents and studying Ukraine, but what we’re hoping to get out of this competition is to bring it home. And you shouldn’t have to go out to the middle of the desert in California or go to the front lines in eastern Ukraine to just evaluate tactics and technology and figure out what exactly right might look like.

Tom Temin: It sounds like the tactics and the practices are what really matter here, because the hardware is commodities that everybody has in unlimited quantities, almost like pistols. It’s not so much that the pistol is a unique item like the Raider bomber that you have, but something that everyone’s got, and you have to be able to use it better than the other guy.

Nathan Ecelbarger: Right, and the skills that are associated with using it, I think there’s a misperception that there’s somehow going to be a general issue drone that works for all mission sets, and that you can just get handed your drone, go through a training package, and then that’s all you’re going to need. For drones, you must be part operator and part engineer. Not only when you run your thing into a tree, but also reverse engineering from here’s my exact mission profile, what’s the best thing to put in the field to accomplish the mission set? So it’s requiring a the ability to be agile from that really at the squad level. And integrating those types of skill sets is what specifically Marine Corps Training Command is looking at, which is great to have them as a partner.

Tom Temin: At this point Then you’re waiting for the Navy and the Air Force to show up.

Nathan Ecelbarger: We have a lot of a great conversations and great partners. Similarly to where does a drone fit in a squad loadout? It’s like, where does a competitive drone team fit in a service’s command structure? And roughly what right looks like is not only the operators who going to compete on the teams, but also looking at each service and saying, well, where actually does the training program live? Where does S and T play a part? You know, if there’s a particular command that is, you know, the headlights for the service on emerging technology, doing this in a vacuum without integrating them that’s probably not a good idea. And then also just integrating all the great SOCOM folks that are, that are probably closest to what, what the evolution is of, of the application of small drones. It’s really a compilation of different stakeholders across each service.