Updated August 20, 2024

DOD Replicator Initiative: Background and Issues for Congress
Introduction
Replicator, unveiled on August 28, 2023, is a Departmentof Defense (DOD) initiative, led by DOD’s Defense
Innovation Unit (DIU), to field thousands of uncrewed
systems by August 2025. Replicator’s first line of effort(“Replicator 1”) is to field all-domain, attritable
autonomous (ADA2) systems. Attritable systems arecomparatively low-cost systems with which DOD tolerates
a greater degree of risk of system loss. DOD officials statethat future lines of effort may focus on other types of
uncrewed systems. A key issue facing Congress is whether
to approve, reject, or modify DOD’s funding requests for
Replicator, and whether Congress has adequate information
about Replicator to assess its merits and conduct effective
oversight of the initiative.

Background
DOD officials state that the Replicator initiative draws fromlessons learned in the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict, inwhich Ukraine has leveraged large numbers (estimated byobservers to be as many as 10,000 per month) of low-cost
attritable systems to counter the Russian military’sadvantage in force strength. Deputy Secretary of Defense
Kathleen Hicks—who, with the Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, oversees Replicator—has stated that
Replicator is intended to “help [the United States]
overcome [the Chinese military’s] advantage in mass: moreships, more missiles, more forces.”
DOD officials describe Replicator as an all-domain
initiative that could include autonomous aerial, ground,surface, sub-surface, and/or space systems representing arange of capabilities and mission sets. For example, Deputy
Secretary Hicks stated that Replicator could include“distributed pods of self-propelled ADA2 [sensor] systems”
to provide near-real time intelligence, “fleets of groundbased ADA2 systems delivering novel logistics support …
or securing DOD infrastructure,” or space-based ADA2systems to provide resilient communications.
IntentReplicator is to deploy uncrewed systems en masse,
allowing the U.S. military to disperse combat power over alarge number of relatively inexpensive systems. Replicator
is intended to• avoid concentrating U.S. combat power into a smaller
number of individually more expensive platforms (i.e.,
help avoid putting too many eggs into one basket);• make it harder for an adversary to target and neutralize
U.S. capabilities; and• create an unfavorable cost-exchange ratio for thewould need to use a countermeasure, such as aninterceptor missile, that has a much higher cost than theReplicator system against which it is directed.
Some observers have stated that, depending on thecapabilities of Replicator systems, the Replicator initiative
could lead to the development of new military concepts ofoperation, such as swarming. Swarming is a form ofcooperative behavior in a group of uncrewed systems, inwhich the uncrewed systems autonomously coordinate with
one another to accomplish a mission. Swarming would
likely require further advancements in artificial intelligence
and/or networked communications to be deployed.
DOD officials state that, in contrast to large andindividually expensive systems such as aircraft carriers,
Replicator systems are intended to be built and deployed
more quickly, and to be used for significantly shorter
periods of time before being replaced by successor designs.
(They emphasize, however, that Replicator is intended tosupplement—not replace—more exquisite systems.) These
officials state that Replicator is thus intended to improve
DOD’s processes for rapidly scaling, fielding, andinnovating new capabilities. They note that Replicator isalso intended to accelerate the development of the U.S.
drone industrial base.
Specific Replicator Capabilities and Systems
DOD has released only limited information about specific
Replicator capabilities or systems due to what DOD states
are operational security concerns. Deputy Secretary Hickshas stated that DOD intends to reveal details about theReplicator initiative, including information about specificcapabilities and systems, “at a time and place and mannerof our choosing.” To date, DOD officials have confirmed
the selection of AeroVironment’s Switchblade 600 loitering
munition as well as unspecified “uncrewed surface vehicles,uncrewed aerial systems, and counter-uncrewed aerial
systems of various sizes and payloads.” Anduril’s Dive-LD
uncrewed undersea vehicle is reportedly also among thoseselected.
Status
DOD has reportedly completed the second tranche of
selections for Replicator 1 (i.e., Replicator 1.2). These twotranches, one official stated, are likely to focus on software
to enable system collaboration “to create lethal effects andrespond to a very dynamic environment against different
threats and … different adversary platforms.”
As the lead for the Replicator initiative, DIU hosted atechnology summit in February 2024 “to provide industry
with more detail about broad Replicator opportunities, andadversary, meaning a situation in which the adversary
https://crsreports.congress.gov

DOD Replicator Initiative: Background and Issues for Congressinclude workshops on how dual-use technology solutions
can be repurposed toward supporting warfighting needs.”

Issues for Congress
Potential issues for Congress regarding the Replicatorinitiative include but are not necessarily limited to thefollowing.
Adequacy of Information Available to Congress
One key issue is whether Congress has adequate
information about Replicator to assess its merits andconduct effective oversight of the initiative. Some Membersof Congress have stated that it has been difficult for them toobtain information about Replicator, and have asked DODto brief them with further details about Replicator
capabilities, systems, and concepts of operation. DOD isreportedly in the process of providing such briefings.
Lack of information on Replicator, either in the classified or
unclassified realms, has the potential to raise doubts about
whether DOD has adequately analyzed the initiative interms of capabilities and costs. Congress has the option, as
part of its action on annual DOD budget requests, tolegislate reporting requirements for the Replicator initiativeor direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO) toreview and evaluate DOD’s Replicator activities.
Cost and Sources of Funding
Another issue is how much the Replicator initiative might
cost, and how DOD intends to finance that cost. DOD
submitted a $300 million FY2023 reprogramming request
for Replicator, suggesting that the department may be
reducing funding for other programs, and additionallysecured $200 million in FY2024 appropriations. DOD
requested $500 million for Replicator in FY2025.
Little information is available publicly about Replicator’s
potential total cost and the impact that funding requirements
for Replicator could have on funding for other DOD
programs. Some observers have expressed concern thatfunding Replicator could reduce funding for other IndoPacific Command (INDOPACOM) priorities, such as
munitions and long-range anti-ship missiles.
Some observers have argued to Congress that providing
funding that is not tied to a single fiscal year would becritical to Replicator’s success, as doing so would expand
the number of funding sources available to the initiative.
Others might argue that providing such funding could
weaken Congress’s constitutional power of the purse by
reducing Congress’s control over annual DOD spending.
Effectiveness of Selected Systems
Another issue is whether specific systems selected for
Replicator are likely to meet DOD’s stated objectives forthe initiative. Within this issue, one question concerns theability of Replicator systems to meet the operational needsof INDOPACOM, particularly in terms of systems
operating at the extended ranges needed to contribute tocombat operations in the Indo-Pacific. Anotherconsideration affecting effectiveness is the ability of
selected systems to operate in adverse weather conditions
unique to potential theaters of operation. Congress may

review the conclusions of an ongoing DOD inspector
general investigation—announced in July 2024—into thesematters.
Technical, Schedule, and Cost Risk
Another issue concerns technical, schedule, and cost risk in
the Replicator initiative. Military analyst Bill Greenwalt
testified before a House Armed Services Committee
hearing on October 19, 2023, that “the Pentagon’s
acquisition system is simply not capable of acting on theproposed timelines contemplated in the Replicator program,
except in very limited circumstances … and then only when
conducted outside the normal rules of acquisitionbudgeting.”
Skeptics might argue that DOD historically has often
struggled to overcome the so-called “valley of death”
between the development of a system prototype and thedeployment of that system in the field. Although DOD
states that it is currently refining its acquisition strategy for
Replicator, some potential industry partners have expressed
concerns about DOD’s approach, calling it “verydisorganized and confusing.”
Ethical Principles and International Commitments
Another issue is whether Replicator efforts would beexecuted in a manner consistent with DOD’s ethicalprinciples and international commitments, which areoutlined in DOD documents such as Responsible Artificial
Intelligence Strategy and Implementation Pathway;
Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy; and DOD Directive
3000.09, Autonomy in Weapon Systems.
Military Personnel and Force Structure
Another issue concerns the potential implications ofReplicator systems for military personnel and force
structure. Within this issue, specific matters include thenumber of personnel that might be needed to operate
thousands of uncrewed systems (and the resulting impact onnumbers of personnel available for meeting other DODneeds), the training requirements for personnel operating
Replicator systems, and whether fielding Replicatorsystems would require making changes in DOD and service
organization. For example, some observers have proposed
the establishment of specialized drone branches within theservices.

CRS Products
CRS Report R47188, Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Roles,Missions, and Future Concepts, by Kelley M. Sayler and Michael
E. DeVine.
CRS Report R46458, Emerging Military Technologies: Backgroundand Issues for Congress, by Kelley M. Sayler.
CRS In Focus IF11150, Defense Primer: U.S. Policy on Lethal
Autonomous Weapon Systems, by Kelley M. Sayler.

Kelley M. Sayler, Specialist in Advanced Technology andGlobal Security

https://crsreports.congress.gov

DOD Replicator Initiative: Background and Issues for Congress
IF12611Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff tocongressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of theUnited States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if youwish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF12611 · VERSION 5 · UPDATED