This is relatively old "news" and the problem has since been resolved. It had to do with the coating used on one of the coils interfering with the software--as the article mentions, there is no redundancy for this system. The part was supplied by a subcontractor. General Atomics [1] is VERY vertically integrated (even making servos) and uses few COTS parts. Engines (and components), unfortunately, are pretty difficult to make--many of the engines were initially purchased second hand.

Once the problem was diagnosed, fielding the solution is / was another challenge. Some of these aircraft are in pretty remote areas.

These aircraft gained popularity and rapid adoption because they're substantially less expensive and VASTLY quicker to manufacture than any other option. Almost all customers prioritized cost and acquisition speed over long term reliability, which of course comes with a certain amount of risk. Testing and certifying an airframe to standards is expensive and time consuming [2] but has the advantage of improving reliability.

Also, this is just hogwash journalism.

> Last year, the Army reported four major drone crashes, each involving the Gray Eagle — a model identical to the Predator.

Warrior / Gray Eagle / MQ-1C [3] is a 40% payload increase over Predator / MQ-1 [4] and the airframe was almost completely redesigned. Hell, the engine is even different. It's a different aircraft.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Aeronautical_S... [2] http://www.ga-asi.com/certifiable-predator-b [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1C_Gray_Eag... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator