Bill Overview
Title: Strengthening Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations (C-UAS) Partnerships Act
Description: This bill authorizes the Department of Defense to conduct or support a program to provide training and equipment to the national security forces of one or more foreign countries for the purpose of building the capacity of such forces to conduct counter-unmanned aircraft systems operations.
Sponsors: Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]
Target Audience
Population: People in regions where counter-unmanned aircraft operations are implemented
Estimated Size: 5000
- The bill focuses on training and equipping national security forces of foreign countries, which primarily impacts military personnel in these countries.
- The bill aims to build the capacity to conduct counter-unmanned aircraft systems operations, indirectly enhancing the security of populations in regions where unmanned aircraft pose a threat.
- Secondary impact may occur to citizens in countries where such operations will be carried out by trained national security forces, due to increased security.
- Operational implementation will involve US Department of Defense personnel and equipment suppliers, impacting their operations and potentially creating jobs.
Reasoning
- The policy focuses primarily on enhancing security operations overseas and includes a notable role for the Department of Defense personnel in the US, meaning that the direct population affected within the US comprises mainly defense personnel and associated industries such as defense contractors.
- People in other countries would experience the direct security impact of these operations, but US citizens are affected mostly through economic and occupational changes.
- Considering the budget, a significant part goes to training, logistics, and equipment, which benefits contractors and employees in the defense sector, though these budgets have minor direct impacts on general public well-being compared to broader policy changes.
- The interviews with the simulated individuals provide insight into the perspectives of both directly and indirectly affected American populations, including defense workers and citizens with no direct involvement, highlighting varying perceptions and expected impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Military Trainer (Virginia)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy increases my workload, but it's critical for national and international security.
- I feel proud contributing to a safer environment, and it’s a professional growth opportunity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Defense Contractor (California)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This program secures contracts for our company and potentially boosts our local economy.
- However, I am aware of taxpayer money allocation and hope it’s spent effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Air Force Pilot (Colorado)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Training international forces builds camaraderie and operational security globally.
- It’s a critical investment, ensuring we're prepared to handle unmanned threats together.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Homemaker (Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see how this affects my daily life, unless it moves funds from domestic priorities.
- I'm for national security but skeptical about spending large sums overseas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Defense Industry Analyst (Pennsylvania)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This strengthens our strategic alliances and keeps the US defense market competitive.
- I have concerns about budget efficiency and whether this detracts from domestic defense needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Logistics Coordinator (Maryland)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New policies like this mean job security and expansion potential within my role.
- However, it does add pressure and workload which can impact my work-life balance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Congressional Staffer (Washington D.C.)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementing this policy refines my skills in international diplomacy and policy making.
- It reflects a significant investment in global security which ultimately protects us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Public School Teacher (Kansas)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Education funding feels overshadowed by defense spending which might impact my school's resources.
- I support defense, but where do we draw the line on overseas spending?
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Software Developer (Illinois)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our company could see growth from defense policy implementations, linking me more closely to international security efforts.
- It's professionally rewarding but comes with risks of contract uncertainties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Political Activist (New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I question if these large defense budgets are distracting from pressing domestic issues.
- While security is important, strategic focus must include diplomatic and economic channels.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $153000000 (Low: $102000000, High: $204000000)
Year 3: $156060000 (Low: $104040000, High: $208080000)
Year 5: $162423000 (Low: $108282000, High: $216564000)
Year 10: $180940880 (Low: $120627920, High: $241254400)
Year 100: $369160000 (Low: $246980000, High: $491300000)
Key Considerations
- The uncertainty in geopolitical dynamics could alter the regions implementing counter-UAS systems, affecting costs.
- Exchange rate fluctuations may influence the cost of equipment sourced from international suppliers.
- Training costs are influenced by the specificity and technological complexity of the equipment used.