Well, that seemed to be the overwhelming sentiment at the Paris Airshow. “NDAA doesn’t make sense.” “It just drives up prices.” I must have heard it a dozen times, from engineers to executives.
The National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA), specifically Section 848 and its accompanying “blacklist” of Chinese components, is meant to secure the U.S. defence supply chain. But in practice, it’s seen by many in the drone and robotics world as a bureaucratic hurdle that makes things more expensive without delivering clear benefits.
Walking around the show, I couldn’t help but notice something ironic. Many of the drone manufacturers proudly announcing new NATO and EU defence contracts were using, you guessed it, Chinese motors, electronic speed controllers, and flight control systems. These are companies building systems for national militaries and yet are sourcing critical components from overseas suppliers, many of whom are deeply embedded in the Chinese industrial complex.
And this got me thinking: how exactly is trying to build a sustainable, local supply chain for defence equipment a bad thing?
The real issue seems to be cost. NDAA-compliant components are often more expensive because there are fewer suppliers. And when you’re one of the few companies building to that standard, you’re stuck with limited options, low volumes, and no economy of scale. It’s the classic chicken and egg problem: no demand without lower prices, and no lower prices without demand.
This is why most manufacturers still opt for the cheaper, non-compliant parts. But here’s the thing, this is exactly how every resilient domestic industry begins. A few committed players absorb the early cost, policy supports them through procurement preference, and over time, more suppliers enter the market. Prices drop. Quality rises. Independence grows.
That’s the point of the NDAA restrictions. It is not about punishing companies or limiting competition, it is about encouraging the creation of a sovereign industrial base, especially in sectors critical to national security. It’s hard. It’s expensive. But long term, it creates resilience.
I am based in South Africa, where the term “Fourth Industrial Revolution” is tossed around like cheap candy. But on the commercial drone side, we have virtually no local component industry. Just about everything we need, motors, controllers, servos, is imported. This creates long lead times, frequent delays, and an all-too-common shortage of spare parts. It’s not a theoretical problem; it’s a daily operational reality. And it’s precisely the type of vulnerability the NDAA is trying to solve for in the U.S.
The additive manufacturing revolution is set to change the way we manufacture drones. HP is already enabling airframes to be printed in-country using local labour. This opens the door to truly decentralized production, allowing nations to build their own aircraft quickly and affordably. But while the airframe may be local, where will the parts come from? Without a strategy for locally producing or sourcing motors, avionics, and control systems, we are simply assembling foreign-made drones in local facilities. It may feel like progress, but the strategic vulnerability remains.
So, the question we should be asking isn’t “Why is the NDAA so restrictive?” but rather “Why hasn’t the rest of the world followed suit?”
Because if anything became clear in Paris, it’s that while everyone wants a secure, trusted, and locally grown defence supply chain, almost no one wants to pay for it, yet. The U.S. is taking a hit today to build independence tomorrow. Europe and others may want to consider whether they’re ready to do the same.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
