Usage Patterns and Costs of Unmanned Aerial Systems
The military services use unmanned aerial systems (UASs) differently than manned aircraft. UASs generally have lower recurring costs per flying hour, but their cost advantage may be smaller when the cost of acquiring the aircraft is considered.
The Department of Defense uses unmanned aerial systems (UASs) for some intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. In this report, the Congressional Budget Office analyzes the usage patterns and costs of three UASs and six manned aircraft with similar ISR missions and compares the life-cycle costs per flying hour (acquisition costs per flying hour plus recurring costs per flying hour) of the Air Force’s unmanned RQ-4 and the Navy’s manned P-8.
Usage Patterns. Annually, UASs have flown about twice as many flying hours as manned ISR aircraft because they have flown longer sorties. They have also been destroyed at a considerably higher rate than manned systems.
Costs. UASs have had both lower acquisition costs and recurring costs per flying hour.
Comparison of the RQ-4 and the P-8. In CBO’s estimation, the life-cycle costs per flying hour of the RQ-4 are 17 percent less than those of the P-8, which is significantly smaller than the 38 percent difference between the recurring costs per flying hour of the two aircraft. Although RQ-4s cost less to acquire than P-8, the difference in life-cycle costs per flying hour is narrower than the difference in recurring costs per flying hour because RQ-4s are expected to have shorter life spans. On average, each RQ-4’s acquisition cost would be amortized over fewer flying hours than the acquisition cost of each P-8 would be; that difference would more than offset the lower acquisition costs of the RQ-4s.
Other Considerations. Cost is only one factor to consider when choosing between UASs and manned aircraft. In some situations and for some missions, UASs may be preferable because they may provide important operational advantages over manned aircraft. For example, UASs are especially well-suited for long duration ISR missions and operations in particularly dangerous settings because there is no risk of personnel onboard being captured or killed. But for some types of situations and missions, having people on board may enhance the mission’s military value and likelihood of success.