Dod Usrm 2013
Dod Usrm 2013
Dod Usrm 2013
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
iv
Executive Summary
Unmanned systems continue to deliver new and enhanced battlefield capabilities to the
warfighter. While the demand for unmanned systems continues unabated today, a number of
factors will influence unmanned program development in the future. Three primary forces are
driving the Department of Defenses (DoD) approach in planning for and developing unmanned
systems.
1. Combat operations in Southwest Asia have demonstrated the military utility of unmanned
systems on todays battlefields and have resulted in the expeditious integration of
unmanned technologies into the joint force structure. However, the systems and
technologies currently fielded to fulfill todays urgent operational needs must be further
expanded (as described in this Roadmap) and appropriately integrated into Military
Department programs of record (POR) to achieve the levels of effectiveness, efficiency,
affordability, commonality, interoperability, integration, and other key parameters needed
to meet future operational requirements.
2. Downward economic forces will continue to constrain Military Department budgets for
the foreseeable future. Achieving affordable and cost-effective technical solutions is
imperative in this fiscally constrained environment.
3. The changing national security environment poses unique challenges. A strategic shift in
national security to the Asia-Pacific Theater presents different operational considerations
based on environment and potential adversary capabilities that may require unmanned
systems to operate in anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) areas where freedom to operate is
contested. Similarly, any reallocation of unmanned assets to support other combatant
commanders (CCDRs) entails its own set of unique challenges, which will likely require
unmanned systems to operate in more complex environments involving weather, terrain,
distance, and airspace while necessitating extensive coordination with allies and host
nations.
The combination of these primary forces requires further innovative technical solutions
that are effective yet affordable for program development.
The purpose of this Roadmap is to articulate a vision and strategy for the continued
development, production, test, training, operation, and sustainment of unmanned systems
technology across DoD. This Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap establishes a
technological vision for the next 25 years and outlines actions and technologies for DoD and
industry to pursue to intelligently and affordably align with this vision. The Roadmap articulates
this vision and strategy in eight chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction This chapter explains the Roadmaps purpose and scope. It
examines the current unmanned environment from an inventory and budget perspective while
also surveying the potential future environment. The chapter includes an operational vignette to
show potential future capabilities using some of the technologies described later in this
Roadmap. Also, the chapter explains the reduction in budget over the next five years beginning
with the Presidents Budget request for $5.6 billion in unmanned systems in Fiscal Year 2013. In
fact, the unmanned air domain as described in the 2014 Presidents Budget released to the U.S.
v
Congress shows a 33.4% reduction in research, development, test, and evaluation and
procurement funding from the previous year.
Chapter 2: Strategic Planning and Policy This chapter expounds on the structure,
direction, and established guidance from DoD leadership toward planning and developing
unmanned systems. It briefly discusses some of the prevailing unmanned issues of the day and
expresses departmental direction in their resolution.
Chapter 3: CCDR Mission and Capability Needs A joint perspective emerges in this
chapter through a discussion of mission capabilities unique to unmanned systems and an
explanation of the requirements process used to deliberately develop those capabilities to achieve
improved efficiency, effectiveness, and survivability and to reduce the burden on manpower at
lower costs while still meeting future operational requirements. The perspective establishes that
future unmanned systems must
Chapter 4: Technologies for Unmanned Systems Certain key areas of interest for
improving technology reflect DoDs shift in strategic priorities and address the requirement to
continue to reduce lifecycle costs across all systems, including unmanned systems. The six areas
of interest highlighted in this chapter are interoperability and modularity; communication
systems, spectrum, and resilience; security (research and intelligence/technology protection
(RITP)); persistent resilience; autonomy and cognitive behavior; and weaponry. This chapter
also describes how limited science and technology funding will potentially impact such emerging
technology solutions.
Chapter 5: Operating Environment This chapter describes the operating
environments of unmanned systems, which are critical in determining system performance
flexibilities (e.g., appropriate levels of automation, maneuverability, communication options)
needed to accomplish the mission. The chapter emphasizes that every aspect of the operating
environment, including the physical and regulatory, should be incorporated in all acquisition
lifecycle stages. Guidance is currently available from each Military Department although
requirements and standards must still be developed to support new capabilities.
Chapter 6: Logistics and Sustainment The rapid development and fielding of large
numbers and types of unmanned systems present DoD with a significant sustainment challenge.
This chapter discusses the necessary transition from supporting immediate warfighter capability
requirements to creating an affordable, long-term sustainment environment utilizing a flexible
blend of original equipment manufacturers (OEM), other contractors, and organic support to
meet logistics support objectives.
vi
Chapter 7: Training The current state and forces shaping the training environment are
similar to those that have shaped the logistics environment. As DoD transitions to a peacetime
environment, the proper mix among the live, virtual, and constructive domains must be put into
place to ensure that the asymmetric advantages offered by unmanned systems can be employed
in future operations and at a reduced cost. This chapter describes the current state of training for
unmanned systems, related challenges, and the way ahead.
Chapter 8: International Cooperation This chapter reflects DoDs efforts to include
cooperative research, development, test and evaluation, and regulatory/standard agreements of
defense technologies and systems with foreign partners as well as the procurement of defense
articles, systems, and services from foreign partners. DoD objectives and methods are explained.
While DoD unmanned systems development funding will likely be constrained over the
early part of this decade, unmanned systems (air, maritime, and ground) continue to hold much
promise for the warfighting tasks ahead. If the technical, logistics and sustainment, training, and
cooperation challenges are addressed by accomplishing the projects and tasks described in this
Roadmap, advances in capability and affordability can readily address the needs dictated by the
plans, policies, and operating environments. These advances will achieve well beyond what is
attainable today.
vii
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 DoD Vision ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Current Environment .......................................................................................................... 2
1.3.1 Unmanned Aircraft Systems ..................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Unmanned Ground Systems ..................................................................................... 6
1.3.3 Unmanned Maritime Systems ................................................................................... 8
1.4 Future Environment ............................................................................................................ 8
1.4.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................. 9
1.4.2 Trends and Characteristics ...................................................................................... 10
1.4.3 Operational Vignette ............................................................................................... 10
2 Strategic Planning and Policy .............................................................................................. 14
2.1 Strategic Guidance ............................................................................................................ 14
2.2 Congressional Direction.................................................................................................... 14
2.3 Acquisition Initiatives ....................................................................................................... 14
2.4 Departmental Policy Consideration .................................................................................. 15
2.4.1 Autonomy ............................................................................................................... 15
2.4.2 Data Protection Near, Middle, and Long Terms .................................................. 16
2.4.3 Data Exploitation .................................................................................................... 17
2.4.4 Selective Innovation................................................................................................ 18
2.4.5 Manned-Unmanned System Teaming (MUM-T) ................................................... 19
3 Combatant Commander Mission and Capability Needs ...................................................... 20
3.1 Why Unmanned? .............................................................................................................. 20
3.2 Requirements Processes .................................................................................................... 20
3.3 Joint Capability Areas (JCAs) .......................................................................................... 23
3.3.1 Battlespace Awareness JCA JS/J-28, BA FCB.................................................... 23
3.3.2 Force Application JCA JS/J-8, FA FCB .............................................................. 24
3.3.3 Protection JCA JS/J-8, Protection FCB ............................................................... 24
3.3.4 Logistics JCA JS/J-4, Logistics FCB ................................................................... 24
3.4 A Look to the Future ......................................................................................................... 25
4 Technologies for Unmanned Systems ................................................................................. 26
4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 26
viii
4.1.1 Interoperability and Modularity .............................................................................. 28
4.1.2 Communication Systems, Spectrum, and Resilience .............................................. 28
4.1.3 Security: Research and Intelligence/Technology Protection (RITP) ...................... 29
4.1.4 Persistent Resilience ............................................................................................... 29
4.1.5 Autonomy and Cognitive Behavior ........................................................................ 29
4.1.6 Weaponry ................................................................................................................ 29
4.1.7 Sensor Air Drop ...................................................................................................... 29
4.1.8 Weather Sensing ..................................................................................................... 30
4.1.9 High-Performance Computing (HPC) .................................................................... 30
4.2 Interoperability and Modularity ........................................................................................ 31
4.2.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 31
4.2.2 Interoperability Functional Description .................................................................. 32
4.2.3 Modularity Functional Description ......................................................................... 33
4.2.4 DoD Initiatives to Increase Interoperability and Modularity.................................. 33
4.2.5 Interoperability and Modularity Key Technologies ................................................ 37
4.2.6 Summary ................................................................................................................. 38
4.3 Communication Systems, Spectrum, and Resilience ........................................................ 39
4.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 39
4.3.2 Issues with Current Unmanned Systems Communication Infrastructure ............... 40
4.3.3 Communication Gateways and Relay Sites ............................................................ 42
4.3.4 Enterprise Data Centers and Distribution Nodes .................................................... 43
4.3.5 Satellite Communications ....................................................................................... 45
4.3.6 Networking Infrastructure and Systems.................................................................. 45
4.3.7 Antennas ................................................................................................................. 46
4.3.8 Transmitter/Receiver Systems ................................................................................ 47
4.3.9 UMS Communications............................................................................................ 48
4.3.10 Spectrum Considerations ........................................................................................ 49
4.3.11 Waveforms .............................................................................................................. 50
4.3.12 Multiple-Input, Multiple-Output (MIMO) Systems ............................................... 52
4.3.13 Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3) ......................................................... 52
4.3.14 Optical Communications ........................................................................................ 53
4.3.15 Advanced Navigation Developments ..................................................................... 53
4.3.16 Improved GPS Operations ...................................................................................... 54
4.3.17 Cost Effectiveness Considerations .......................................................................... 54
ix
4.3.18 Future Trends .......................................................................................................... 55
4.3.19 Mobile Technologies .............................................................................................. 55
4.3.20 Summary ................................................................................................................. 55
4.4 Security: Research and Intelligence/Technology Protection (RITP) ................................ 57
4.4.1 Data at Rest (DAR) Encryption .............................................................................. 58
4.4.2 Cost Effectiveness ................................................................................................... 58
4.4.3 Near-Term Goals .................................................................................................... 58
4.4.4 Middle- and Long-Term Goals ............................................................................... 59
4.4.5 Unified Security Classification Guidance ............................................................... 59
4.4.6 Cloud Computing and Multilayer Security ............................................................. 60
4.5 Persistent Resilience ......................................................................................................... 61
4.5.1 Size, Weight, Power, and Cooling (SWaP-C) ........................................................ 61
4.5.2 Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) ............................................ 62
4.5.3 Survivability............................................................................................................ 63
4.5.4 Structures and Material Degradation ...................................................................... 64
4.5.5 Propulsion ............................................................................................................... 65
4.5.6 Summary ................................................................................................................. 66
4.6 Autonomy and Cognitive Behavior .................................................................................. 66
4.6.1 Todays State (20132017) ..................................................................................... 68
4.6.2 Middle-Term Future State (20172022) ................................................................. 71
4.6.3 Long-Term Future State (Beyond 2020)................................................................. 72
4.6.4 Key Enablers and Concerns .................................................................................... 72
4.7 Weaponry .......................................................................................................................... 73
4.7.1 Interoperability........................................................................................................ 75
4.7.2 Unmanned SystemSpecific Weapons ................................................................... 76
4.7.3 Advanced Weapons Technology Areas .................................................................. 77
5 Operating Environment ........................................................................................................ 80
5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 80
5.2 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................ 81
5.3 Physical Environment ....................................................................................................... 81
5.4 Policy and Regulatory Environment ................................................................................. 82
5.4.1 Testing and Certification......................................................................................... 83
5.4.2 Sense and Avoid (SAA) Capability ........................................................................ 84
5.4.3 UAS Executive Committee (ExCom) ..................................................................... 84
x
5.5 Technology Application.................................................................................................... 84
5.5.1 Unmanned Aircraft Systems ................................................................................... 85
5.5.2 Unmanned Ground Systems ................................................................................... 87
5.5.3 Unmanned Maritime Systems ................................................................................. 88
5.6 Way Ahead........................................................................................................................ 90
5.7 Case Study: Air: Airworthiness and GBSAA ................................................................... 90
5.8 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 91
6 Logistics and Sustainment ................................................................................................... 93
6.1 Current Sustainment Environment .................................................................................... 93
6.2 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................ 93
6.3 Challenges to Logistics and Sustainment ......................................................................... 94
6.3.1 Sustaining Non-PORs ............................................................................................. 94
6.3.2 Limited RAM Data ................................................................................................. 95
6.3.3 Delayed Core Logistics Capability Requirements .................................................. 95
6.3.4 Transition from CLS for Life to Organic Capabilities............................................ 95
6.3.5 Immature or Lack of Lifecycle Sustainment Planning ........................................... 96
6.4 The Way Ahead ................................................................................................................ 96
6.5 Planning for Organic Depot Maintenance ........................................................................ 98
6.6 Sustainment Metrics and Performance-Based Logistics................................................... 99
6.7 Joint Logistics Integration................................................................................................. 99
6.7.1 Unmanned Aircraft Systems ................................................................................... 99
6.7.2 Unmanned Maritime Systems ............................................................................... 101
6.7.3 Unmanned Ground Systems ................................................................................. 101
7 Training ........................................................................................................................... 102
7.1 The Need to Train ........................................................................................................... 102
7.2 Problem Statement .......................................................................................................... 102
7.3 Challenges to Training .................................................................................................... 102
7.4 Current Training Environment ........................................................................................ 103
7.4.1 Unmanned Aircraft Systems ................................................................................. 103
7.4.2 Unmanned Ground Systems ................................................................................. 108
7.4.3 Unmanned Maritime Systems ............................................................................... 109
7.4.4 The Acquisition Process ....................................................................................... 109
7.4.5 The Regulatory Environment ................................................................................ 110
7.4.6 Technology ........................................................................................................... 110
xi
7.4.7 Manpower ............................................................................................................. 110
7.4.8 Asset Availability.................................................................................................. 110
7.4.9 Policy and Documentation .................................................................................... 111
7.5 The Way Ahead .............................................................................................................. 111
8 International Cooperation .................................................................................................. 113
8.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 113
8.2 Methods of International Cooperation ............................................................................ 113
8.2.1 MOAs and MOUs ................................................................................................. 113
8.2.2 Foreign Military Sales (FMS) ............................................................................... 114
8.2.3 Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) ........................................................................... 114
8.2.4 NATO ................................................................................................................... 114
8.3 International Cooperation Authority, Jurisdiction, Approval, and Disclosure ............... 114
8.3.1 Authority and Jurisdiction..................................................................................... 115
8.3.2 Approval and Disclosure....................................................................................... 116
8.4 Special UAS-Related Considerations ............................................................................. 117
8.4.1 Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) ..................................................... 117
8.4.2 Armed UAS .......................................................................................................... 117
8.5 Reform Efforts ................................................................................................................ 117
8.5.1 Security Cooperation Reform ............................................................................... 117
8.5.2 Defense Exportability Features (DEF).................................................................. 118
8.5.3 Export Control Reform (ECR) Initiative .............................................................. 118
8.5.4 Technology Security and Foreign Disclosure (TS&FD) ...................................... 119
9 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 120
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Unmanned Warfare Information Repository ................................................................... 2
Figure 2. UAS Inventory vs. Funding............................................................................................. 4
Figure 3. Inventory of DoD UAS ................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4. UAS (PB13 and Beyond) ................................................................................................ 6
Figure 5. UGS by Mission/Capability Area.................................................................................... 7
Figure 6. UMS by Mission Area ..................................................................................................... 8
Figure 7. Operational Battlespace ................................................................................................. 11
Figure 8. Array of Future Unmanned Systems (Notional) ........................................................... 12
Figure 9. Linked JCIDS Process ................................................................................................... 21
Figure 10. DoD S&T Funding: FY19622016 ............................................................................. 26
Figure 11. Near-, Middle-, and Long-Term Goals........................................................................ 28
Figure 12. Interoperability and Modularity Goals for Unmanned Systems.................................. 39
Figure 13. High-Level C4 Infrastructure Operational Concept Graphic (OV-1) ......................... 40
Figure 14. DISA Proposed UVDS Functional Architecture ......................................................... 44
Figure 15. Current UVDS Operational Architecture (February 2012) ......................................... 44
Figure 16. Possibilities of Obtaining Spectrum Support in Various Host Nations for
Wider Frequency Range ............................................................................................................... 51
Figure 17. Unmanned Systems Target Architecture ..................................................................... 56
Figure 18. Communication Systems, Spectrum, and Resilience Goals for Unmanned Systems 57
Figure 19. SWaP-C Goals for Unmanned Systems ...................................................................... 62
Figure 20. RAM Goals for Unmanned Systems ........................................................................... 63
Figure 21. Survivability Goals for Unmanned Systems ............................................................... 64
Figure 22. Structures and Material Degradation Goals for Unmanned Systems .......................... 65
Figure 23. Propulsion Goals for Unmanned Systems ................................................................... 66
Figure 24. Armys Vision for Five Problem Domains (Think Look Move Talk Work) . 70
Figure 25. RCTAs Capstone Experiment in FY2014 .................................................................. 71
Figure 26. Laser Homing Attack or Anti-Tank Missile (LAHAT) .............................................. 73
Figure 27. Laser-Guided SPIKE ................................................................................................... 74
Figure 28. Switchblade Munition ................................................................................................. 75
Figure 29. Nanoparticles and Explosions ..................................................................................... 77
Figure 30. Weaponry Goals for Unmanned Systems.................................................................... 79
Figure 31. SAA Self-Separation Functions .................................................................................. 84
xiii
Figure 32. UAS Pilot Simulator Training ..................................................................................... 86
Figure 33. Operating Environment Technology Development Timeline ..................................... 92
Figure 34. Lifecycle Sustainment Planning Analysis Way Ahead ............................................... 97
Figure 35. Organic Depot Maintenance Sources of Repair Approved Consolidations .............. 100
Figure 36. Army Group 3 and Above UAS Operator Training Flow ......................................... 104
Figure 37. Current Marine Corps Group 3 UAS Operator Training Flow ................................. 105
Figure 38. Air Force MQ-1/9 Pilot & Sensor Operator Training Flow ...................................... 106
Figure 39. UAS Training Objectives .......................................................................................... 112
Figure 40. Overarching Innovation Goals Timeline ................................................................... 120
Figure 41. MUSIC I Operational View (OV-1) .......................................................................... 140
Figure 42. MQ-9 Reaper Sustainment Plan ................................................................................ 144
List of Tables
Table 1. DoD Unmanned Systems Funding ($ mil/PB14) ............................................................. 3
Table 2. MUSIC I Capabilities and Use Cases ........................................................................... 141
xiv
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
1 Introduction
The purpose of this Roadmap is to articulate a vision and strategy for the continued
development, production, test, training, operation, and sustainment of unmanned systems
technology across the Department of Defense (DoD). Recent combat operations in Southwest
Asia have demonstrated the military utility of unmanned systems in todays combat environment
and have resulted in the rapid integration of unmanned technologies into the joint force structure.
This Roadmap establishes a vision for the next 25 years and outlines actions and technologies for
DoD, industry, universities, and others to pursue to achieve the sustained, affordable, rapid
integration and application of unmanned systems.
This Roadmap is required by goals within the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Task
Force charter. Specifically, Goal 5 of the charter refers to the roadmap task: 1
Prevail in the full range of contingencies and in all operating domains, including
cyberspace (Defense Strategic Guidance 2012); 2
Enable decisive force effectiveness in Joint and coalition operations;
Be critical to future success;
Emphasize missions according to strategic guidance from intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance (ISR); counterterrorism; counter-weapons of mass destruction
(WMD); and operations required to operate across all environments, including anti-
access and area denial (A2/AD);
Protect the homeland; and
Be able to surge and regenerate forces and capabilities.
1.2 Scope
This Roadmap continues the path outlined in the 2011 edition of the Roadmap and
addresses three unmanned operating domains: air, ground, and maritime. It leverages the existing
roadmaps produced by the individual military departments and agencies and focuses on the
common technical, training, and policy challenges that each Armed Service faces in achieving
the full potential of unmanned systems technology. A list of the applicable Service documents
that form the foundation of these conclusions can be found in Appendix A.
1
The full charter is available on the Unmanned Warfare Information Repository (Figure 1).
2
Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Leadership, Defense Strategic Guidance, January
2012.
1
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
This document serves a diverse stakeholder community with one of the primary target
audiences being DoD. By providing a common vision toward overcoming unmanned challenges,
this Roadmap can shape military department investments in unmanned innovations. The plans
outlined in this document also shape the efforts of Service requirements developers, budget
planners, program managers, laboratories, warfighters, and
other key DoD stakeholders. In addition, this document
serves the defense industry by providing insight into DoD
priorities and helping to shape industry investments,
particularly for independent research and development
investment strategies. Finally, this Roadmap informs key
stakeholders outside DoD, including Congressional staffs,
the Government Accountability Office, advocacy groups,
and academic institutions.
The traditional unmanned catalog, historically contained in
this document, now resides in a separate, online tool. This
tool has been in place since 2010 and provides greater
functionality than a hard-copy document. The online
approach also facilitates more frequent updates to the
catalog than the biennial publication of this Roadmap.
Readers can find the common access cardprotected
catalog on the Unmanned Warfare Information Repository Figure 1. Unmanned Warfare
(Figure 1) at https://extranet.acq.osd.mil/uwir/. 3 Information Repository
1.3 Current Environment
Urgency resulting from the swiftly changing international environment is deeply felt
within DoDs acquisition programs. Specifically, three forces are driving this sense of urgency:
department budgetary challenges, evolving security requirements, and a changing military
environment. Budgets for unmanned systems are discussed in this section while the other two
forces are addressed in the future environment section (see Section 1.4).
3
Common access card protection is required on the OUSD(AT&L) network infrastructure. Inquiries can be made to
OUSD(AT&L)S&TS-UW&ISR. See page 149 of Appendix G for contact information.
4
Source: http://www.defense.gov/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1754.
2
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
The 2013 Presidential Budget (PB13) reduced the overall DoD budget by $259 billion
over the next Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), with a total reduction of $487 billion over the
next 10 years. The 2014 Presidential Budget, with the potential effects of sequestration, further
reduces the budget by about $55 billion across the FYDP. 5 Some defense programs were
bolstered with additional funds while others required adjustments downward. The budget
focuses on developing A2/AD technologies to ensure dominance in A2/AD scenarios and will
fund the next-generation bomber and other modernizations. Table 1 explains the unmanned
systems portion of PB14.
Over the past decade, the quantities and types of unmanned systems acquired by the
Military Departments have grown, and their capabilities have become integral to warfighter
operations. The size, sophistication, and cost of the unmanned systems portfolio have grown to
rival traditional manned systems. Unmanned systems now include both major acquisition
programs to provide long-term capability and short-duration projects to meet urgent needs.
For this Roadmap, unmanned systems operating in the air domain are referred to as
unmanned aircraft systems (UAS); in the ground domain, unmanned ground systems (UGS); and
in the maritime domain, unmanned maritime systems (UMS). Each operating domain brings a
unique set of environmental attributes affecting the warfighter. In complex mission
5
Source: http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1643.
3
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
environments, multiple systems across several domains must cooperate and interoperate to
effectively perform mission tasks.
6
Joint Publication (JP) 3-52, Joint Airspace Control, 20 May 2010.
7
Teal Group Predicts Worldwide UAV Market Will Total $89 Billion in Its 2012 UAV Market Profile and
Forecast, Press Release Newswire, United Business Media, 11 April 2012.
8
Ibid.
4
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
9
Joint CONOPS for UAS, Third Edition, November 2011:
https://extranet.acq.osd.mil/uwir/docs/Joint_Concept_of_Operations_for_Unmanned_Aircraft_Systems_Third_Editi
on_Final_November_2011.pdf.
10
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Interoperability Initiative (UI2) Capability Based Assessment, 14 May 2012:
https://extranet.acq.osd.mil/uwir/docs/UI2%20CBA%20Report%20Final%20Signed.pdf.
5
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
6
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
worldwide engagements to bridge the capability gap until enduring capabilities are developed
and acquired using traditional Armed Service programming.
7
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
8
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
1.4.1 Objectives
The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review identified two clear objectives 11 for DoD:
11
Quadrennial Defense Review, February 2010.
12
Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Leadership, Defense Strategic Guidance, January
2012.
13
Defense Budget Priorities, January 2012.
14
Quadrennial Defense Review Report, February 2010.
15
Joint Operational Access Concept, 17 January 2012.
9
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
16
Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Leadership, Defense Strategic Guidance, January
2012.
17
Ibid.
18
Joint Operational Access Concept, 17 January 2012.
10
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
11
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
12
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
vicinity, such as the perched bird-like vehicle. See Figure 8. When these unmanned assets are
applied and the resulting intelligence data are analyzed, U.S. leadership concludes Norachi has
reached a critical stage in development at the nuclear site. Human intelligence correlates and
confirms this conclusion.
13
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
14
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
2.4.1 Autonomy
DoD defines unmanned aircraft as an aircraft or balloon that does not carry a human
operator and is capable of flight under remote control or autonomous programming. 23
Therefore, when the aircraft is under remote control, it is not autonomous. And when it is
autonomous, it is not under remote control. While these two conditions could exist (controlled
and uncontrolled), current DoD UAS are remotely operated and capitalize on automation in
extreme circumstances, such as a lost link condition, to automatically perform a preprogrammed
set of instructions. This distinction is important because our community vernacular often uses the
term autonomy to incorrectly describe
automated operations. Chapter 4 contains a
detailed discussion on autonomy and cognitive
behavior and notes that research and
development in automation are advancing from
a state of automatic systems requiring human
control toward a state of autonomous systems
able to make decisions and react without
human interaction. DoD will continue to
carefully consider the implications of these
advancements.
The potential for improving capability and reducing cost through the use of technology to
decrease or eliminate specific human activities, otherwise known as automation, presents great
promise for a variety of DoD improvements. However, it also raises challenging questions when
applying automation to specific actions or functions. The question, When will systems be
fielded with capabilities that will enable them to operate without the man in the loop? is often
followed by questions that extend quickly beyond mere engineering challenges into legal, policy,
or ethical issues. How will systems that autonomously perform tasks without direct human
involvement be designed to ensure that they function within their intended parameters? More
broadly, autonomous capabilities give rise to questions about what overarching guiding
principles should be used to help discern where more oversight and direct human control should
be retained.
The relevant question is, Which activities or functions are appropriate for what level of
automation? DoD carefully considers how systems that automatically perform tasks with
limited direct human involvement are designed to ensure they function within their intended
parameters. Most of the current inventory of DoD unmanned aircraft land themselves with very
23
JP 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, 8 November 2010 (as amended
through15 April 2013): http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf.
15
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
limited human interaction while still operating under the control of a human and perform this
function with greater accuracy, fewer accidents, and less training than a human-intensive
process; as a result, both a capability improvement and reduced costs are realized. This specific
automatic process still retains human oversight to cancel the action or initial a go-around, but
substantially reduces the direct human input to one of supervision. Human-systems engineering
is being rigorously applied to decompose, identify, and implement effective interfaces to support
responsive command and control (C2) for safe and effective operations.
Systems are designed and tested so that they perform their tasks in a safe and reliable
manner, and their automated operation must be seamless to human operators controlling the
system. This automation does not mean operators are not monitoring the control of the system.
Currently, automated functions in unmanned systems include critical flight operations,
navigation, takeoff and landing of unmanned aircraft, and recognition of lost communications
requiring implementation of return-to-base procedures. As technology matures and additional
automated features are thoughtfully introduced, DoD will continue to carefully consider the
implications of autonomy. For armed platforms, DoD Directive (DoDD) 3000.09 establishes
policy for the development and use of autonomous capabilities. 24
16
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Long Term (more than 8 years). In the longer term, advancements in component
consolidation, higher data rate cryptography, and open standards will enhance UAS encryption.
Hardware consolidation yielding single chip and coprocessor encryption modules will make
routine cryptography both faster and feasible for smaller, group 1 UAS. 28 Improvements in
hardware will also lead to higher data rate cryptography. Further standardization in common
radio and cryptographic interfaces will enable improved remote UAS management and lower
lifecycle costs.
28
In commercial industry, Intel implemented instructions, named Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) New
Instructions (AES-NI), for Core processors in 2010 that can conduct several steps of AES encryption and decryption
into a single instruction.
29
Air Force Strategic Vision for 20202030, Strategic Studies Quarterly, Spring 2011.
17
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
even at a time of increasing budget constraints, the Army has been good
about finding money for UAS improvements. Advances in technology
have taken sensors, cameras and other gear from the analog to the digital
age, making them ever smaller, lighter, more energy-efficient and useful.
Innovation must continue, especially under the current fiscal environment, and must
include not only improvements to existing CONOPS but also the development of entirely new
CONOPS. More emphasis on innovative approaches must be given to all future unmanned
systems development. Unmanned systems open up new avenues for pursuing systems that are
smaller, lighter, faster, and more maneuverable and that take more risk than equivalent manned
platforms. In particular, the ability of unmanned assets to take risks that would not be taken with
manned assets opens up new CONOPS, such as low-cost, expendable systems that trade armor
and stealth for quantity. In other words, a fleet of low-cost, disposable platforms could survive
through attrition rather than through expensive, exquisite capabilities.
30
Source: http://blog.al.com/huntsville-times-business/2012/04/armysunmanned_aircraft_systems.html.
18
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Defeating explosive ground surface, sub-surface (tunnel), and sea hazards from
greater standoff distances.
Assuring mobility to support multiple points of entry.
Enabling movement and maneuver for projecting offensive operations.
Establishing and sustaining the shore lines of communications required to follow
forces and logistics.
Protecting austere combat outposts.
Providing persistent surveillance to detect and neutralize threats and hazards within
single- to triple-canopy and urban terrain.
19
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Dull missions are ideal for unmanned systems because they involve long-duration
undertakings with mundane tasks that are ill suited for manned systems. Good
examples are surveillance missions that involve prolonged observation. Unmanned
systems currently fulfill a wide variety of dull mission sets, and the number will
increase in all domains as unmanned systems capabilities improve.
Dirty missions have the potential to unnecessarily expose personnel to hazardous
conditions. A primary example is chemical, biological, and nuclear detection
missions. Unmanned systems can perform these dirty missions with less risk exposure
to the operators.
Dangerous missions involve high risk. With advances in capabilities in performance
and automation, unmanned systems will reduce the risk exposure to personnel by
increasingly fulfilling capabilities that are inherently dangerous.
due consideration in the context of broader joint capability areas (JCAs), which provide structure
and organization to requirements development. In the future, consideration of such factors as the
recently required JCIDS Training Key Performance Parameter (KPP) will more fully allow
operators, maintainers, and leaders to realize full design capability sooner in the requirements
process.
A formal review and approval process has been implemented for delineating which
programs should transition to enduring programs (and eventually PORs) and/or which program
sensors or other components need to be maintained via other programs. During this process, the
JUONs and CCDRs integrated priority list (IPL) requirements were considered as well as the
capabilities adjudicated against the Joint Direct Support Aerial ISR JROC-approved initial
capabilities document that outlines the tactical commanders needs.
DoD recently revised the JCIDS requirements process to streamline urgent and deliberate
capability development and enable requisite timeliness in meeting warfighter needs while giving
important consideration to long-term
affordability and sustainability. JCIDS is a
key supporting process for DoD acquisition
and Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and
Execution (PPBE) processes. It ensures the
capabilities required by the warfighter are
identified with their associated operational
performance criteria to successfully execute
the assigned missions. This coordination
ensures a better understanding of the
warfighting needs early in capability
development and provides a more
comprehensive set of valid, prioritized
requirements. DoDs acquisition arm can then
focus on choosing options to meet well- Figure 9. Linked JCIDS Process
defined requirement capabilities. Figure 9
shows the linked and streamlined process.
The key decision body in the JCIDS process is the JROC, chaired by the Vice Chairman,
Joint Chiefs of Staff. JROC has the responsibilities under Title 10 of the United States Code to
consider input from CCDRs on joint requirements as well as to consider cost, schedule, and
performance tradeoffs in establishing requirements. Currently, JROC is shaping the force with a
more robust requirements review process. The Council is addressing the complex issues earlier
and iteratively, using better upfront fidelity on cost, schedule, and performance tradeoffs and
more analytic rigor in risk analysis. JROC constantly assesses joint capabilities by comparing
risk and affordability against current defense strategies. Unmanned systems must provide
capabilities with superior cost, schedule, and performance metrics to compete against other
systems within JROC or other DoD forums.
Given todays highly constrained fiscal environment, it is imperative that DoD look at
areas where efficiencies can be gained to create unmanned systems that are both effective and
affordable. DoD will look at capitalizing on commonality, standardization, and joint acquisition
strategies, among other strategies. Unmanned systems must become more efficient in addressing
21
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
31
DoDD 7045.14, Planning, Programming, Budgeting System (PPBS).
32
CJCSI 6212.01F, Net Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR KPP), March 2012.
33
DoDI 8330 (DRAFT), Interoperability of Information Technology (IT), including National Security Systems
(NSS).
22
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
34
Source: http://www.dtic.mil/futurejointwarfare.
35
Source: http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/jroc.
23
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
processes. This capability area lends itself to tasks and missions being conducted collaboratively
across domains as well as teaming within a single domain.
36
DoDD 2311.01E, DoD Law of War Program, 9 May 2006.
24
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
with the forward deployed. The purpose of the capability is to enable unmanned cargo systems in
full-spectrum operations to perform the dull, dirty, and dangerous missions by capitalizing on the
persistence of unmanned systems to free up manned assets for more difficult missions within an
area of operation. The following tasks are particularly well suited for unmanned systems:
25
4 Technologies for Unmanned Systems
4.1 Introduction
The pace of technological advances across the broad spectrum of unmanned systems
applications has allowed what were once rather cumbersome vehicles and systems outside the
circle of warfare trust (systems trusted by the warfighter) to shoulder burdens in warfare
mission areas unforeseen only a few years ago. With dramatic increases in battery life and
computer processing; reduction in size and complexity of sensors; and improvements in
reliability, maintainability, automation, and operator interfaces, unmanned systems are now vital
components of an operational commanders tool kit.
While commanders have become more accustomed to the capabilities (and limitations) of
unmanned systems from operations during the first decade of the 21st century, the next decades
are already presenting a two-sided challenge that represents stark differences from recent
operations. First, a strategic shift in national security to the Asia-Pacific Theater presents
different operational considerations based on environment and potential adversary capabilities.
Second, a shrinking fiscal environment (without overseas contingency operations (OCO)
funding) and base budget levels that are likely to be flat at best will challenge both unmanned
systems operators and suppliers to seek efficiencies in total cost of unmanned systems
ownership, from cost of manufacture, avionics, and deployment to manpower savings and
logistics. This challenge is two-sided because one side cannot be considered without the other:
meeting operational demands must be accomplished in the context of budgetary constraints in
the near, middle, and long term. See Figure 10 for an example of the Presidents 2012 S&T
budget request for DoD. 37
37
Slide #15 extract from Mr. Bob Baker, Deputy Director, Plans & Programs, Assistant Secretary of Defense &
Engineering, FY2012 Presidents Budget Request (PBR) for the DoD S&T Program Briefing, 21 June 2011.
26
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
When I announced the new guidance, I highlighted five key elements of the
strategy and five key elements of the vision that we have for a military force
of the future. And let me just summarize each of thoseFirst, the military
will be smaller and leaner, but it will be agile, flexible, rapidly deployable
and technologically advanced. It will be a cutting-edge force[F]ifth, we
will protect and prioritize some very important and key investments in
technology and new capabilities as well as our capacity to grow, adapt, to
mobilize, to surge as needed.
The study is guided in part by the January 2012 military strategy guidance, Sustaining
U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense. 39
The study will include surveying and assessing the potential for significant advances in
technology outside DoD that could contribute to future military capabilities. These advances
could augment DoD investments in areas such as quantum computing, microelectronics,
robotics, nanomaterials, genetics, big data, alternative energy sources, advanced materials, and
modeling and simulation. Technologies that have the potential to significantly enhance or
transform the nature of warfare in the sea, land, air and space, and cyber regimes will be the
focus of this study.
38
Source: http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4962.
39
USD(AT&L) Memorandum, Terms of Reference-Defense Science Board Study on Technology and Innovation
Enablers for Superiority in 2030, 15 March 2012.
27
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
This chapter highlights six areas of interest for the technological advancement of
unmanned systems. The areas are reflective of DoDs shift in strategic priorities and also address
the requirement to continue to reduce lifecycle costs across all systems, including unmanned
systems. In each section, near-, middle-, and long-term goals, as defined in Figure 11, are
discussed.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2030+
Near Term: Capabilities and Mid-Term: Capabilities and Long Term: Capabilities
advancements which should be advancements which could be and advancements
operational within the next five years. (or are currently) in discrete which are in the basic
These items principally require project stages at laboratories research stage, such as
industry investment to mature and/or and S&T directorates such as (but not limited to)
operationally demonstrate to ensure DARPA, IARPA, ONR/NRL, AFRL, materials development
rapid fielding and/or budgetary ARL, JHU-APL, MIT-LL amongst or new & novel
prioritization with discrete and others. These items principally processes or
Desired Capabilty operationally representative data. require investment via both approaches. These
Investment in advanced technology S&T 6.3 initiatives and Applied items principally
initiatives via S&T 6.3 funding, also Research initiatives via S&T 6.2 require investment in
apply here to an extent. funding. The timeframe for Mid Basic Research
Term objective is five to ten initiatives via S&T 6.1
years. funding. Time frame for
long term objectives is
ten years and out.
28
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
4.1.6 Weaponry
Expanding options for weapons delivery from unmanned systems includes new munition
options where some capability is now integrated and adding additional weaponized platforms to
the unmanned force structure. To fully integrate the use of weapons and unmanned systems, it
will be critical to leverage the key technology areas in the preceding paragraphs (4.1.1 to 4.1.5)
as well as in specific, weapons-related areas. See 4.7 for more details.
29
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
detections, kinetic weapon cueing, and near-real-time alarms and can support predictive
movements via array lay-downs. Using UMS for placing sensors provides a method for
increasing persistence and determining/identifying activity and targets without dedicating
personnel or multiple high-demand sorties to provide both area and/or point coverage.
Many unmanned platforms are already equipped to externally carry equipment, and all
have mission plans that provide their controlled, overwatch and/or autonomous covert
movement. Unattended ground sensor technologies are increasing and are able to collect and
report unique information and to use coordinates-seeking location capabilities for accurate covert
emplacements. The unmanned family of vehicles typically has complementary sensors that can
provide exact emplacement location along with imagery information and that can support
mission planning and route following. However, the need to improve persistence and situational
awareness continues to increase beyond the expected numbers and capabilities of unmanned
assets. In the future, UAS platforms and profiles may be ideal for penetrating denied battlespace
to accurately dispense sensors and nonkinetic capabilities, etc. Future capabilities may also
include deploying attach bots that would allow tracking/identification of personnel who pass
through an area.
30
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
40
CJCSI 6212.01F, Net Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR KPP), 21 March 2012.
41
DoDD 5000.01, The Defense Acquisition System, 12 May 2003.
31
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
efficiencies and reduce the total ownership costs. This effort will also include application of a
common UAS Control Segment (UCS) architecture as described in 4.2.4.3.
Among different systems of the same domain, i.e., using a common GCS or OCU for
multiple, heterogeneous unmanned vehicles.
Among systems of different domains, i.e., allowing ground, aircraft, and maritime
vehicles to work cooperatively.
Among systems operated by different military departments under various CONOPS
and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), i.e., allowing joint Service systems to
work in concert to execute a common task or mission.
42
Unmanned Interoperability Initiative (UI2) Capability Based Assessment, 1 March 2012.
43
JP 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, 12 April 2001 (as amended through
17 March 2009).
44
DoDD 5000.1, Enclosure 1, paragraph E1.10.
32
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Among systems operated and employed by coalition and allied militaries under the
governance of various Concepts of Employment (CONEMPs) and TTPs in
multinational combined operations or North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
standardization agreements, i.e., allowing coalition and allied systems to work in
concert to execute a common task or mission based on predefined roles and
responsibilities.
Among military systems and systems operated by other entities in a common
environment, i.e., allowing military UAS to share the NAS and international airspace
with commercial airliners and general aviation or allowing military UGS to operate
safely in the civilian roadway environment.
33
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
45
Source: https://ucsarchitecture.org/.
34
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
often too broadly defined with varying options and inadvertently allow compliance but not
necessarily interoperability (e.g., common data link (CDL) standards and Motion Imagery
Standards Board (MISB) standards). Interface standards vary and allow for diverse
implementation strategies and interpretations. To be truly interoperable, a FoS requires the
Service-level development of IOPs, and eventually those IOPs must be interoperable with IOPs
of the other Services.
46
Source: https://gtg.csd.disa.mil/uam/homepage.html?timestamp= .
35
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
developed and executed across a variety of computing environments. Within the COE initiative,
FACE is Army Aviations implementation. The objective of FACE is to establish a standard
COE to support portable, capability-based applications across DoD avionics systems.
36
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
37
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Middleware. The ability to easily adjust data tagging and formatting to keep pace
with evolving analytical and processing needs. If raw sensor data can be retagged
or formatted without affecting core platform sensors or computers, IER performance
could be more easily maintained while realizing the benefits of technology advances
and minimizing platform impacts.
Multiformat discovery and processing. The ability to ingest and process different
data types simultaneously. This key enabler for continued performance can minimize
platform impact. If data formats, tags, and content are known for fielded systems and
if processing and analytical algorithms and computing can interact with different data
formats and types at the same time, then analyst workload can be reduced in
discovery and reallocated to analysis while platforms can more synergistically update
their products via middleware and in concert with other improvements possibly
driven by obsolescence issues or related emerging performance needs.
Federated mission computing. The ability to plug and play payloads while
needing only to address SWaP-C constraints. Adding new payloads to older
platforms, which do not rely on centralized mission computers, is typically much
easier to do than adding new payloads to newer platforms with their centralized
computing. The move about 20 years ago to centralized mission computing meant
that while payloads could physically be added, the cost and time to recertify the
mission computing made those modifications more lengthy and difficult. Either
changing mission computing philosophy or federating mission computing down to the
payload (or possibly GCS) level could greatly improve rapid integration of new
technologies.
Universal payload adapters. The ability to install and uninstall different payloads
given a platforms allocated SWaP-C. When combined with federated mission
computing and defined platform SWaP-C, a standard hardware and interface
installation point is critical to rapidly reconfiguring platforms for emerging needs.
Today, platform weapons stations are typically used for this function because their
SWaP-C and data interfaces are defined and controlled by the weapons that must be
carried. A similar approach for sensing payloads would be a key enabler.
4.2.6 Summary
While the initiatives summarized in 4.2.4.1 to 4.2.4.16 are by no means all inclusive, they
serve to illustrate the vast amount and diversity of effort and attention being given to
38
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
interoperability and modularity concerns and the pursuit of mature and stable IERs. The battle
lines in the maneuver space of the battlefield are blurring, and the need to share information,
sensors, payloads, and platforms is real. The fiscal battlespace is also blurring, and vendors must
shift strategies to adhere to open standards to the maximum extent practical by utilizing tools
such as universal payload adapters, different mission computing philosophy, and key open
subsystems (KOSS); developing middleware solutions to manage the input and output from
legacy systems and manned systems; migrating toward OAs; reusing software; and developing
robust repositories. As unmanned systems are relied on more and more heavily, their ability to
communicate data with Service and joint systems along with their ability to adapt internally and
externally will be critical to maintaining warfighting effectiveness against emerging threats while
taking advantage of more capable technology. Figure 12 summarizes the goals for
interoperability and modularity for unmanned systems.
p y y y
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2030+
39
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
instantly reside on globally accessible data centers that enable users worldwide to find, obtain,
and consume real-time and non-real-time ISR and other mission data quickly and easily.
Sections 4.3.2 through 4.3.17 address needed and planned developments within the unmanned
communication systems architecture and identify applicable standards and system guidance for
each area.
40
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Programmed Resources Will Be Limited. OCO funding has been sustaining most
unmanned systems operations in recent years. This funding will disappear in the
coming years as troops draw down. Without program resources, the limited leased C4
infrastructure in place today will atrophy.
C4 Infrastructure Demand Is Growing. Unmanned systems capacity requirements
will grow with improvements in sensor technology and greater global distribution and
will require a robust and flexible communication infrastructure, which in turn will
require growth in the transport of multiplexed and multilevel classified disparate
information. UAS data link capacities are expected to be capable of consolidating
several high-bandwidth ingests and be network capable. Advanced airborne routers
should be able to sort single-data-link disparate data and route to the appropriate
consumer with assured classification transport. Onboard processing should also
provide applications to provide appropriate bandwidth, compression, imagery frames
per second, and resolutions in accordance with user capabilities.
Operating Environment Will Be Challenged. Future unmanned missions are
expected to occur in both benign and contested C4 operating environments. The C4
infrastructure must be resilient and able to perform the mission even in hostile
electromagnetic and cyber environments.
Open Standards Improve Interoperability. Future development of unmanned
system platforms and their associated communication infrastructure must be guided
by open standards and interfaces to enable interoperability and efficiently utilize
limited resources.
41
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
42
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
support this CRADA effort, DISA is also exploring improvements in gateway transport
technology, in particular, the development of digital IF technology for interfacility transport of a
modem IF output. This capability would facilitate connectivity from any modem to any antenna
in the world, through the DISN fiber core. Digital IF will enable collapse of modem assets into
centralized enterprise sites and transform SATCOM gateways into simplified radio access
facilities. Additionally, digital IF would also allow the option of using commercial gateways as
radio access facilities to provide black packet transport in areas where DoD SATCOM gateways
do not provide sufficient coverage.
Unmanned systems require standard relay system architectures to facilitate connection of
LOS systems to potential global consumers. To support operations in Afghanistan, a JUON
drove the development of relay systems to support delivery of high-volume sensor traffic. The
corresponding C4 infrastructure took more than a year to build and deploy. To provide support
for operations outside the Afghanistan area of operation and to ensure this capability is available
at the start of a contingency operation, DoD might consider a designated lead agent to manage
and develop future relay systems. The lead agent could leverage existing radio systems wherever
possible. For example, linking state-of-the-art transceivers used for LOS transmission of FMV
and C2 data with two-way Global Broadcast Service (GBS) systems can provide a standard relay
component for the unmanned systems architecture.
of DoD gateways for efficient and real-time dissemination of FMV across SATCOM networks
(e.g., GBS, Joint IP Modem, and USCENTCOM Digital Video Broadcast with Return Channel
via Satellite). UVDS replaces the need for dedicated point-to-point communication circuits
supporting Predator and Reaper operations. See Figure 15.
44
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
45
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Unmanned system design configurations and DISN must ensure that proper IP address and ports
and services assignments are planned into the design before the systems are fielded and that the
systems network configurations are modifiable in the field to quickly respond to network
intrusion events.
However, unmanned systems design configurations and DISN will need to provide
technology that rectifies jitter and latency inherent within an all-IP-based system for the most
sensitive type sensors or other critically high reliability mission functions. Buffering issues
discovered on legacy unmanned systems can cause loss of sensitive data due to dropped packets
if transferring on an all-IP-based environment. In the past, deterministic technologies, such as
asynchronous transfer mode, would provide the precise timing and buffer resilient capability to
ensure complete data transfers with effectively no jitter or latency. Unmanned systems and DISN
will need to develop and provide a similar network that ensures no packets are lost end to end
between the most sensitive sensors from the unmanned vehicle, through the respective unmanned
controlling segment, to various networking, to end user mission partners.
DISN core connectivity will not be readily available in all potential operating
environments. Networking of multiple deployed unmanned systems may be necessary to better
ensure connectivity of the systems in non-line-of-sight (NLOS), urban, hostile, and/or noisy
EMS environments to relay or transfer the collected information onto GIG. Currently, envisioned
network concepts include employing topology control algorithms for sparsely connected
directional networks in response to jamming detection; developing cognitive algorithms for
jammer detection; utilizing resilient topology control for directional networks, using IP-based,
autonomous, self-organizing, nonhomogeneous networks; and providing LOS control to UAS
from within an isolated network (i.e., no reach back). In 2012, the Air Force demonstrated a
network with UAS and several ground nodes under the Net-T demonstration. Another concept is
within the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agencys (DARPAs) LANdroids program, 47
which calls for the deployment of small, inexpensive, smart robotic radio network relay nodes
that can leverage their mobility to coordinate and move autonomously. The program seeks to
demonstrate the capabilities of self-configuration, self-optimization, self-healing, tethering, and
power management. There is interest in the application of SOA approaches to future network
configurations and the use of multicast communication technologies to allow semiautonomous
and autonomous collaborations.
4.3.7 Antennas
Communication with highly mobile systems requires high-gain, rugged, and lower cost
multidirectional antennas. The larger UAS may also use highly focused beams to achieve
connectivity with more distant systems. 48 Developments in phased array antennas and smart
antennas (including combining signals from multiple antennas) could offer an alternative to
traditional dish antennas; however, they require tradeoffs among SWaP-C. DoD and industry
must also continue developing such techniques as multifocused and supercooled antenna
systems.
47
Source: http://www.darpa.mil/ipto/programs/ld/ld.asp.
48
Global positioning system (GPS) could be used to aid in this connectivity.
46
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Future antenna systems must be able to receive signals over a broad range of frequencies,
but they also must be frequency selective (see 4.3.13). Therefore, phased arrays are a viable
approach. Dynamically controlled (e.g., null jammers) element (~ 9 elements) arrays are
available now, but significantly larger numbers of elements that are conformal (e.g., using
metamaterial) and that are molded within the vehicle surfaces are in development (2020).
SWaP-C and low-profile aspects are major developmental areas. The utilization of common
apertures has called for the development of new interference mitigation methodologies that
minimize co-site interference effects and improve the potential for achieving simultaneous
transmit/receive operations within adjacent frequency bands.
47
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
49
Lundberg, Kent H., High-Speed Analog-to-Digital Converter Survey, MIT Press, 2002.
50
See the DARPA Optical RF Communications Adjunct and the Office of Naval Researchs Enabling Capability
programs. This application is more for ground-based systems than for airborne systems. This use also significantly
minimizes the signal loss and allows more advantageous placement of selected components.
51
Reference work by Robert Normoyle, DRS-Signal Solutions.
48
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
watchstander live feedback that requires significant bandwidth. Once autonomy becomes more
reliable, perhaps the bandwidth could decrease, but a USV is expected to always have a
requirement for higher bandwidth due to its mission types. For example, the USV will be used
generally for engagement of surface targets requiring active oversight by an operator/weapons
person.
UUVs will gain efficiency and effectiveness with the development of improved real-time,
two-way communications that do not undermine mission accomplishment. The Navys Undersea
Dominance Roadmap (published in 2012) identified current and future architectures to link
UUVs, distributed netted systems, and tactical platforms. The Navy has begun initial production
of a planned 150 littoral battlespace sensing UUVs, which are capable of completing up to six-
month-long autonomous sensing missions. Advanced UUV sensors and clandestine and low-
latency communication and networking capabilities are viewed 52 as key game changers. Future
developments will come through the Office of Naval Research S&T research and development
efforts.
52
Navys updated UUV Roadmap.
53
For the U.S. Government, see the National Telecommunications and Information Administrations Manual of
Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management. Washington, DC, January 2008 edition,
September 2009 revision (incorporated by reference under 47 CFR 300.1).
54
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Radio Regulations, Geneva, Switzerland. 2007 Edition.
55
All new and modified SDS programs now must conduct an SSRA prior to Milestone B (source: DoDI 4650.01).
49
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
national and international spectrum rules and policies can rapidly change, 56 developers should
maintain a close liaison with appropriate DoD spectrum offices before finalizing communication
system designs.
There is particular interest in expanding DoD UAS operations in nonsegregated portions
of the NAS; this expansion may require the use of specific types of spectrum allocations to
perform C2 and sense and avoid (SAA) functions due to safety and regularity of flight
requirements. The preferred allocations are those set aside for, and carefully controlled by, civil
aviation authorities. Where necessary, alternative allocations may be used by Government users
provided an equivalent level of protection can be demonstrated. That equivalent level may
include higher performance specifications, e.g., those for reliability and data latency.
The teleoperation of UGS from a remote location requires negotiation between LOS and
NLOS conditions to provide situational awareness and reconnaissance to the warfighter. Wide
frequency bandwidths are needed to support the near-real-time imaging required to negotiate
confined areas, doors, etc. The availability of the right spectrum is critical for the operation of
UGS to support various missions. This availability is determined by a number of factors,
including a host nations allocation and assignments of spectrum within its borders, congestion,
and operational requirements of the SDS. Based on the results of appropriate SSRAs, the SDS
may need to be planned and designed for multiband operation and/or provide significant tuning
flexibility to maximize global use.
The DARPAs Next Generation project and its follow-on Wireless Network after Next
(WNaN) program demonstrated the feasibility of dynamic spectrum access (DSA). DSA offers
the ability to change frequency band use based on the actual use or nonuse of certain bands by
other adjacent SDS. The Army is also considering having WNaN become part of an Army POR.
However, a recent Air Force Scientific Advisory Board study said that DSA is far from being
proven technology. Developmental challenges include susceptibility to countermeasures, costs of
integrating with existing systems, developing standards (including regulatory aspects), and co-
site interference (2015).
4.3.11 Waveforms
In accordance with DoD policy, CDL is the DoD standard waveform for all airborne
manned and unmanned platforms with ISR sensors. All ISR wideband terminal variants,
including tactical CDL equipment, must comply with Specification 7681990 and the overarching
Specification 60038365. 57 Furthermore, wideband terminal variants must comply with the latest
revision of Specification 60038368. 58 Legacy ISR programs upgrading communication
56
Relatively near-term spectrum usage changes came from ITU and its 2012 Worldwide Radiocommunication
Conference (WRC); UAS spectrum use was a conference agenda item. Changes in frequency band usage for UAS
may also come from the FAA and the International Civil Aeronautics Organization (ICAO) as part of the UAS
operations in the NAS airspace and in other nation-states airspace during preparations for the WRC to be held in
2015.
57
Specification Number 7681990, Performance Specification for the Standard Common Data Link (Std-CDL)
Waveform, November 2009, and Specification Number 60038365, Capstone Specification for the Network-Centric
Common Data Link (CAPSTONE), November 2007.
58
Specification Number 60038368, Performance Specification for the Bandwidth Efficient-Common Data Link
(BE-CDL) Waveform, May 2011.
50
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
capabilities must comply with the latest revision of the appropriate CDL specification, and any
systems not implementing a current interoperable version of CDL must develop a migration plan
for review by the DoD CIO and USD(I). Any waivers from these requirements must be approved
by the USD(AT&L).
The CDL family (currently five variations) of waveform specifications permits terminals
to operate in S, C, X, Ku, and Ka bands. Other bands are under consideration (see Figure 16),
and they are employed in multiple aerial and ground ISR platforms. Current plans call for CDL
to evolve from a point-to-point capability. Near-term added capability plans include modernized
cryptographic solutions (including agile and dynamic key distribution methods to support
mission retasking at the strategic and tactical level), dynamically adaptive waveform parameters
and A2/AD requirements [anti-jam, and low probability of intercept/low probability of detection
(LPI/LPD)]. Middle-term (2019) plans include new networking capabilities (e.g., self-healing
and self-forming, ad-hoc networking, disruption-tolerant networking, and dynamic and multiple-
access network management). Long-term (2020+) plans include autonomous policy-based
network management and cognitive CDL. CDL waveform changes must comply with DoDI
4630.09. 59
Figure 16. Possibilities of Obtaining Spectrum Support in Various Host Nations for
Wider Frequency Range
Due to size, weight, and power considerations, small unmanned aircraft systems (SUAS),
which require data link terminals smaller than available miniature CDL technology, may be
exempted from this policy after waiver review by the OUSD(AT&L). Moreover, to ensure
SUAS transition to achieve DoD net-centric policies and to support efficient spectrum use,
incorporation of encryption, and interoperability requirements, the DoD CIO and USD(I) will
review and approve any SUAS data link solutions prior to acquisition. The miniature CDL
terminal has low enough size, weight, and power that it could be used on vehicles down to
59
DoDI 4630.09, Wireless Communications Waveform Development and Management, 3 November 2008.
51
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
roughly 30 lb. All CDL terminals require an approved encryption capability (DoDI S-4660.04).
Any CDL terminals not compliant with encryption policy require a review by the DoD CIO and
USD(I) with support of NSA.
The CDL program will promote interoperability, standardize interface implementations,
promote compliance with industry-accepted standards (including USIP and other commercial
development/maintenance standards), and maximize use of open standards. Future CDL
technologies will promote reuse of waveforms, software, and hardware so that the amount of
new development (i.e., items created from scratch) is reduced. The Services are encouraged to
use competitive acquisition for procurement of CDL systems, and any new CDL developments
shall include unlimited rights for technical data and software.
60
The conditions in UAS applications are much different than those for commercial cell phones.
61
These sources may include electromagnetic pulse (EMP), radio frequency interference, high-intensity radiated
fields (HIRF), electromagnetic interference (EMI), electrostatic discharge (ESD), lightning strikes, and precipitation
static (P-STATIC). Other concerns include the hazards of electromagnetic radiation to personnel, ordnance, and
volatile materials (RADHAZ).
62
MIL-STD-464, MIL-STD 461F, and MIL-HDBK-237B, Guidance for Controlling Electromagnetic
Environmental Effects on Platforms, Systems, and Equipment.
52
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
of a positive control methodology called gating in conjunction with established exit criteria
to monitor the planning and application of E3 control measures.
A critical challenge is that while communication needs continue to increase, degradation
from interference also tends to increase at a comparable, if not more accelerated, rate. While it is
not an easy task to design a highly sensitive radio receiver that also has a wide dynamic range,
communication systems transmission advances without comparable E3 resilience advances will
not ensure continuous operations of unmanned systems.
63
The point of contact is Dr. Stefanie Tompkins.
53
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
54
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
require less power, and need less cooling to operate satisfactorily; and acquire higher gain
antennas that are able to receive signals over a broader range of frequencies while retaining
frequency selectivity. Unmanned systems programs must also leverage existing DoD enterprise
facilities wherever possible and avoid building separate platform-centric communication
infrastructures. Current and future operational employment of unmanned systems will also
require access to a range of SATCOM capabilities. Planning and budgeting for such unmanned
systems operations must take into account realistic assessments of projected SATCOM
bandwidth (both military and commercial) in a range of operational scenarios. Investments in
unmanned systems must be matched with appropriate investments in the military and
commercial SATCOM capabilities that are required to support unmanned systems operations.
4.3.20 Summary
Several steps can be taken to solve the challenges faced by the future unmanned systems
communication infrastructure. Affordability may be improved by centralizing unmanned systems
enterprise management. Centralized management of C4 transport and network infrastructures can
greatly improve system availability and efficiently use scarce system resources. Common
management of multiple system assets will result in network redundancy, resilience, and path
diversity for sensor platforms. It will also allow flexible frequency usage for launch and
recovery. Interoperability should be the key factor in considering affordability of future
architecture solutions. The architecture should transition away from redundant stovepipe
solutions to leveraging existing enterprise SATCOM, gateway, and terrestrial network assets.
Common IP modems (e.g., JIPM) should become the standard for providing net-centric system
capabilities. Future commercial services should be procured through more innovative strategies
(e.g., FSCA leases, point-of-presence access to commercial gateways). Additionally, the pool of
communication resources can be deepened by expanding operating spectrum usage to military
55
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Ka band and leveraging aerial networking capabilities such as JALN, including its GIG injection
points.
Open standards and interface definitions are key to mitigating the challenge of
interoperability of unmanned systems communication infrastructures. Enforced open standards
and Government-owned data rights will promote the leveraging of common components and
facilitate reuse among heterogeneous unmanned system platforms. Using Government-owned
enterprise assets (e.g., WGS, DoD enterprise gateways, DISN core) will help unify the
communication infrastructure.
Figure 17 summarizes the target unmanned systems communication architecture with the
proposed solutions in place, and the new infrastructure exhibits greater interoperability among
various unmanned system platforms through the use of common control and data dissemination
systems. Resiliency is improved through use of multiband terminals and common interfaces, and
this improved resiliency allows access to DoD and commercial SATCOM resources as well as to
enterprise gateways and small points of presence at commercial radio facilities. The increased
utilization of DoD assets in this architecture offsets commercial resource requirements, improves
efficiency, and reduces the operating costs.
Figure 18 summarizes the goals for communications systems, spectrum, and resilience
for unmanned systems.
, , g y
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2030+
Near Term: Unmanned System Mid-Term: Multi-focused, Super- Long Term: Adv. Error
connectivity to Teleport sites cooled Antennas, Conformal Control, Further Adv.
supporting Africa and Pacific, Global phased array antennas, MIMO configurations,
UVDS capabilities, Secure Micro Digital standard multi-band Network Path Diversity,
Datalink, DSA,WNaN, Chip Count transceivers, cloud-enabled Optical
reduction, Ka-band terminals, Single enterprise data centers, Communications,
Chip T/R, GaN technology, Eff. FEC, "Dial- transition BLOS gateway commercial gateway
Desired Capabilty a-rate" CDL, Adv. MIMO, consolidated capabilities to enterprise points-of-presence with
gateway sites under common gateway sites supplemented Digital IF inter-facility
communications architecture, with dedicated gateways transport.
aggregate COMSATCOM leasing under outside coverage areas, tech
FCSA. refresh terminal upgrades to
Ka-Band or multi-band
hardware.
66
DoDI 5200.39, Critical Program Information (CPI) within the Department of Defense.
57
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
validated and verified as part of program systems engineering, T&E, and systems security
engineering processes. With the integration of emerging technologies with critical information, it
is more important than ever to evaluate appropriate layered protective measures through an
integrated approach that includes complementary disciplines such as information assurance,
operational security, anti-tamper, and counterintelligence and intelligence analysis. Anti-tamper
is more cost effective when implemented at program onset.
autonomously render DAR unrecoverable by the adversary through a reliable and immediate
encryptor key zeroization process. The proposed solution also allows the DAR to be recovered
when appropriate key recovery protocols are executed.
The proposed next-generation DAR encryptor must be installed in a manner that is as
transparent to platform subsystem functionality as possible to minimize subsystem redesign
requirements. Performance must not be degraded due to encryptor latency. The use of inline
media encryptors (versus software-based and/or embedded encryption methods designed into
each platform subsystem) may minimize the integration impact on legacy platform subsystems
requiring DAR encryption. Inline media encryptors will also allow for flexibility to upgrade to
media with greater storage capacity. Mission and ground support and processing CONOPS have
proven to be a primary driver for DAR encryptor functional specifications. Key management
processes must be conducive to interoperability across systems and GCSs. Multiple encryptor
keys may be loaded through a single key fill port. The single encryptor may support multiple
inputs and multiple target storage media locations, at multiple classification levels. Technical
concepts for a next-generation DAR encryptor have been identified and evaluated for
compatibility with the intended CONOPS. Several platforms have provided input for encryptor
functionality with a focus on platform-agnostic, sensor-specific integration.
59
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Grant Schneider,
Deputy Director, Information Management and
CIO, Defense Intelligence Agency
Some of the driving concerns about cloud computing within the Intelligence Community
involve confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Stringent requirements are set to prevent
unauthorized disclosure of classified data. It is critical to ensure that the implementation of a
cloud computing architecture in the Intelligence Community enables the user to distribute and
receive information, while maintaining the required level of security controls to protect that
information. Integrity of that information must be preserved to ensure that the data are not
unintentionally (or maliciously) modified or degraded. Availability to users is a primary concern.
The expansive operational (and often mobile) user environment dictates the need for a robust
cloud computing capability. The increasing requirement for larger volumes of data presents
bandwidth, latency, and storage challenges. As the user base becomes broader and multiple
classification domains are introduced, these challenges become even more difficult to manage.
Incorporating a multiple-security-level network (and the associated requirement for data
tagging) presents its own inherent challenges: combining these networks into a well-defined,
interoperable architecture requires extensive consideration. As agencies move to a centralized
architecture, security processes, policies, and standards must be integrated into a unified,
60
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
enforceable structure. This transition is not simple because agencies are already operating under
well-established processes and governances. Initiatives are in place to incorporate cloud
computing in the Intelligence Community. The residual challenges reside in how the operational
platforms will be able to incorporate their mission CONOPS and platform architectures into the
cloud to enable more effective information dissemination.
61
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
consumption while still providing precision navigation. Additionally, focus is turning toward
modularity of payloads, which allows plug-and-play capabilities in joint and combined
architectures. Plug-and-play attachments are capable of rapid integration into existing systems,
including joint systems that integrate into an OA in which the interfaces comprise open standards.
As DoD envisions cost savings by reducing stovepipe development and shifting toward
standardized architectures to further enable interoperability, modularity will also play a key role
to ensure interoperability, ease of upgrades to systems, and synergized DOTMLPF-P.
Miniaturized systems that allow multirole, multi-mission capabilities will further reduce costs by
allowing Services and program offices to leverage modular systems that have already been
developed. Ultimately, less continual investment is required when a smaller volume can
continually accomplish the same missions. Figure 19 summarizes the goals for SWaP-C for
unmanned systems.
p
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2030+
62
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
development and production cost. To achieve total ownership cost effectiveness in RAM, higher
reliability materials and parts must be used to reduce sparing levels, improve maintainability
(including enhanced integrated diagnostics), and reduce levels of corrective/direct maintenance,
etc. Figure 20 summarizes the goals for RAM for unmanned systems.
y, y y p
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2030+
Near Term: Low cost/high reliability Mid-Term: Low cost/high Long Term: Low
materials and components; reliability materials and cost/high reliability
Prognostics Health Monitoring (PHM) components; Integration of materials and
Algorithms for Existing Systems; Health Monitoring components; Material
Composite Repair Improvements; Design/Coding with Behavior Prediction and
Corrosion Control; Software Maturity Prognostics Design/Coding; Integration with
Prediction and Growth Methodologies Composites Flaw Structural Prognosis;
(including a better understanding of Detection/Resolution Advanced
the integration of software and the Technology; Methods for Troubleshooting to
Desired Capabilty computational environment and the Predicting Hardware Reliability Component Level;
required testing); Composite Based on HALT Tests; Sensor Reduce Scheduled and
Manufacturing Technologies for Repair Fusion for Diagnostics and Unscheduled
Parts Fabrication (out of autoclave); Prognostics; Composite Maintenance; Robust
Wireless Data Transmission Manufacturing Technologies Life-prediction in
(elimination of signal wires). for Repair Parts Fabrication Automated Logistics
(additive manufacturing for Environments.
structural components): Direct Collection and Long-
Standardized RAM-Cost (RAM-C)
modeling and analysis (including Life Writing Technology term Storage of all PHM
Cycle Cost and CONOPS optimization) (elimination of signal wires). Data.
4.5.3 Survivability
Survivability is a function of five key elements:
63
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
the high amounts of raw data being transmitted via the C2 links. With the need for more
processing power aboard the platforms come increases in temperature on the small computer
chips and boards of the survivability systems. Another challenge area in susceptibility and
vulnerability is jamming or spoofing. Miniaturized solutions for anti-jam antennas or SAASMs
to counter threats such as GPS-denied environments are needed. Again, unmanned systems are
typically smaller than manned systems; however, some unmanned systems still have large radar
cross sections, IR, and acoustic signatures that make them detectable and, therefore, susceptible.
Cost effectiveness in the area of survivability is going to be achieved much the same way
that it will be achieved in SWaP-C. Survivability systems require a lot of power and put out a lot
of heat, which, in the smaller compartments of unmanned systems, can cause RAM issues. By
miniaturizing the survivability systems and improving power consumption and heat dissipation
with more reliable and durable components, cost savings can be realized. This approach will also
translate into systems that can be used by both manned and unmanned platforms and thereby
provide a way to leverage common systems across similar and dissimilar platforms.
Additionally, improvements or new technologies, e.g., IR signature reduction or low IR paints,
must be cost neutral to standard paints and equipage currently being used. These products must
also remain as maintenance and cost recurring friendly as possible. Figure 21 summarizes the
goals for survivability for unmanned systems.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2030+
Near Term: Miniaturizing Warnings and Mid-Term: Light Weight Towed Long Term: Improved
Self-Protection Systems ( Anti-Jam, Decoys; Smaller/Lighter Radar Electronics; Nitride-
SAASM, etc); Antenna Improvements; Warning /Missile Warning Transistor Technology;
SWaP-C Improvements / Power Receiver Sets for Alternatives to Silicon-
Efficiencies; Increased Onboard Countermeasures; Electro- Based Electronics; 3-D
Processing Capability for Warning and Magnetic Pulse Protection. Integrated Circuits.
Self-Protection Systems; RF/IR
Desired Capabilty Countermeasures / Use for Slow
Movers; Cooling/Heat Dissipation for
Warning/Self-Protection Systems; Multi-
Spectral DIRCM (LASER); Signature/RCS
Reduction / Low Infra-Red (IR) Paint;
Crashworthiness; Stellar Navigators
(GPS Independent Navigation
l ti )
64
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Office has multiple programs with objectives to improve materials in the areas of novel materials
and material processes, multifunctional materials and material systems, and biologically inspired
materials. However, more industry focus must be on the near term for structures and material
degradation. Figure 22 summarizes the goals for structures and material degradation for
unmanned systems.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2030+
Figure 22. Structures and Material Degradation Goals for Unmanned Systems
4.5.5 Propulsion
As mentioned in 4.5.4, todays unmanned systems operate in many different and extreme
environments. With these external factors, fuel-efficient propulsion and power output is needed
for the many systems aboard unmanned systems. Persistence in conducting missions such as ISR
is not possible without adequate propulsion and power. Unmanned systems must maintain their
health, currency, and technical superiority with innovative approaches for increasing power and
thermal management and improving power output and thermal loads. Many of todays persistent
systems rely on efficient forms of propulsion that are sustainable for long-endurance missions.
Other systems require propulsion that can be optimized for long range and endurance or
optimized for high speed. Additionally, systems such as UUVs face challenges to extend
endurance into months with energy technologies that are air independent. Regardless of
providing propulsion for an air system or a surface system, a propulsion system must be not only
efficient, but also adaptive to faults by continuing to operate in a degraded state or by stabilizing
itself and returning to a normal state.
As technology for propulsion systems continues to evolve and improve, the areas of
maintenance, sustainment, and lifecycle cost reduction will always remain key to achieving cost
effectiveness. Smarter systems (via software and computers) should allow for diagnostics or
logic-based tools to perform virtual inspections and thereby reduce the time to troubleshoot the
system or its components. Likewise, validated propulsion health monitoring systems will allow
for just-in-time maintenance. Also, biofuels that are renewable and that meet or exceed military
or jet fuel performances metrics will help reduce the dependence on fossil fuels. Additionally, as
mentioned above in RAM, the more resilient propulsion systems become, the more cost effective
they will be, and the more cost savings they will provide. Figure 23 summarizes the goals for
propulsion for unmanned systems.
65
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
p p
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2030+
Near Term: More Efficient Electrical Mid-Term: Introducing Geared Long Term: Fuel
Power Generation, Thermal Turbofan Developments into Cell/Non Hydrocarbon
Management; Air Independent Energy Smaller Systems; Future Fuels (same propulsive
Systems (UUV); Quick Vertical Lift; Turbo-machinery qualities and similar or
Recharge/Refueling (UUV); Jet Noise and Drive Systems; Variable lower cost); Bio-Fuels,
Reduction; Component Technologies Cycle Engine Technologies; Alternative Fuels, New
Desired Capabilty Accommodating Increasing Hybrid turbine-electric power. Energy Sources.
Power/Thermal Loads; Hot-Section
Materials and Coatings, Maintenance,
Sustainment, Life-Cycle Cost
Reduction; High Capacity & Power
Battery Technology.
4.5.6 Summary
As stated in 4.5, the areas of focus for emerging technology enablers in persistent
resilience are
Size, weight, power, and cooling (SWaP-C)
Reliability, availability, and maintainability (RAM)
Survivability
Structures and material degradation
Propulsion
For unmanned systems in future middle- to high-intensity combat against more capable
adversaries, persistent resilience must not be limited to traditional analysis of just the unmanned
vehicle(s), but must also investigate the ground, communication, tactics, and manning aspects
that collectively provide the unmanned systems capability. The ultimate benefit from this activity
is the avoidance of significant loss of unmanned systems capability and resulting adverse combat
outcomes for the total force. The objective of early analysis of persistent surveillance is to
achieve early identification of system weaknesses in the context of known and projected threats;
subsequent identification, analysis, and exploration of alternatives to mitigate significant
weaknesses; and the development of material solutions and/or training and tactics solutions to
institute before encountering such conflicts in the future.
66
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
preprogrammed tasks. Autonomous mission performance may demand the ability to integrate
sensing, perceiving, analyzing, communicating, planning, decision making, and executing to
achieve mission goals versus system functions. Preprogramming is still a key part and enabler of
this kind of operation, but the preprogramming goes beyond system operation and into laws and
strategies that allow the system to self-decide how to operate itself. Initially, these control
algorithms are created and tested by teams of human operators and software developers.
However, if machine learning is employed, autonomous systems can develop modified strategies
for themselves by which they select their behavior. An autonomous system is self-directed by
choosing the behavior it follows to reach a human-directed goal. Various levels of autonomy, in
any system, guide how much and how often humans must interact or intervene with the
autonomous systems. In addition, autonomous systems may even optimize behavior in a goal-
directed manner in unforeseen situations (i.e., in a given situation, the autonomous system finds
the optimal solution).
It is important to note here that automation is only as good as the software writer and
developer because the control algorithms are created and tested by teams of humans. In these
algorithms, the patterns of life are critical to automation and must be observed and captured
properly to ensure accuracy and correctness of a decision-making process within the software.
Ensuring accuracy and correctness requires a continual process in which the observe orient
decide act (OODA) loops in the software are continually updated via manual analysis, training,
and operator understanding of algorithm inputs and outputs. The human brain can function in
dynamic environments and adapt to changes as well as predict what will happen next. In
simplistic terms, the algorithms must act as the human brain does.
To take on increased autonomy in unmanned systems, the systems will require additional
sensors that can provide a more accurate perspective of their surroundings as well as the capacity
to interpret those inputs so that they can respond appropriately to the situation. Additionally, they
will require the ability to be untethered from human interaction. A key enabler in unmanned
systems autonomy will be navigation. Given the dependence UAS have on PNT, the platform
will execute only as well as the accuracy of the PNT in the system. Inaccurate PNT introduces
error to air vehicle navigation and sensor cueing. Mission computers are continuously updated
with position, air speed, ground speed, and drifts so the UAS can intelligently pick the best route
to take while maneuvering away from restricted areas or boundaries. Navigation alternatives
must be researched and evaluated to overcome dependency on systems such as GPS.
Autonomy in unmanned systems will be critical to future conflicts that will be fought and
won with technology. The near-term area for Air Force and Navy capability development is
implementing land and carrier-based UAS to provide ISR and strike from the land and sea.
Middle- and long-term naval capability will focus on A2/AD. The Air Force and Navy are
investing research and development efforts and procurement programs to overcome these access
threats and assure the ability of the joint force to project power in support of our allies and
partners and to protect U.S. interests.
An important element of overcoming access threats and maximizing the fleets capacity
is unmanned systems. As a result, autonomy in unmanned systems has been identified by Navy
and DoD leadership as a high priority. However, specific pathways for the introduction of
technologies that enable greater levels of autonomy have not been identified. The special feature
of an autonomous system is its ability to be goal-directed in unpredictable situations. This ability
67
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
68
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
development includes technologies to support high operating tempo (OPTEMPO) launch and
recovery of small UAS and precision on-deck UAS locating and tracking.
A major goal of naval developments for Marine Corps applications is to make systems
smarter and cheaper. The Navy is developing low-cost, ubiquitous, intelligent, tactical UGS that
will operate as a force multiplier integrated with manned, unmanned, and optionally manned
systems. The current state of autonomy for most tactical UGS requires human decision makers
and LOS communications. Systems that are autonomous require highly structured and
predictable environments. In the near term, Navy research focuses on transitioning from
teleoperated UGS to autonomous logistics connector UGS with independent path planning
functionality and doctrinally appropriate maneuvers and behaviors. Further, the Navy is
developing technologies to navigate trafficable on- and off-road terrain at tactically appropriate
speed. Affordability is a key requirement for all these developments, and effective operation in
day, night, and GPS-denied environments is critical. In the near term, the Office of Naval
Research is developing technologies that will enable a 2016 limited military utility assessment of
the logistics connector Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV), which includes multimode
perception, day and night operation, and complex terrain traversibility.
The Army S&T vision is one where manned and unmanned systems work together with
greatly enhanced capabilities in the following five problem domains: adaptive tactical reasoning;
focused situational awareness; safe, secure, and adaptive movement; efficient proactive
interaction with humans; and interaction with the physical world. The Robotic Collaborative
Technology Alliance (RCTA) uses the following anthropomorphic shorthand to describe these
five problem domains: think look move talk work. 67 Figure 24 summarizes the Armys
vision for these five problem domains, barriers to achieving its vision, and work to be done to
advance toward the vision.
In the near term, the RCTA plans a Capstone Experiment in FY2014. See Figure 25. The
Capstone Experiment is centered around a notional cordon-and-search operation: during urban
transit by a small unit (i.e., four to five soldiers), a fugitive is reported to have entered a building
the unit is approaching. A man-transportable robot is instructed to cover the back door of the
building by the unit commander because he cannot safely split up his limited resources. The
robot must understand and acknowledge the order, associate the order with its perceived
environment, move safely and securely to an appropriate vantage point, observe activity behind
the building, and report any salient events to the unit commander. As needed, it enters the
building and negotiates stairs or other mobility obstacles. It then returns to its unit, maintaining
situational awareness, and is ready for another assignment. While this narrative occurs in the
context of a cordon-and-search operation, its underlying capabilities support a broad range of
67
Robotic Collaborative Technology Alliance (RCTA) FY2012 Annual Program Plan.
69
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
potential operational missions. Similar to the other Services, middle- and long-term work by the
RCTA will continue to evolve and improve capabilities to increase the level of autonomy in
systems from the current, remotely operated systems to autonomous systems and system-of-
systems (SoS) approaches.
70
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
71
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
in challenging weather conditions; and enhanced human-robot interaction that enables teaming
and trust.
availability of PNT is a key concern. Proper training and timeline to develop the operational
experience that enables the continuous OODA loop are additional concerns. Development of the
ability for operators to turn processing on and off and conserving bandwidth via metadata
standards are additional concerns. Lastly, development of appropriate rules of engagement for
utilizing processed information and for lost links is a developmental concern. As autonomy
development continues to proceed from automatic to autonomous systems, developers must
address these concerns.
4.7 Weaponry
The increased use of unmanned systems as weapons delivery platforms has been a
significant step in the integration of unmanned systems in the battlespace. Unmanned systems
can be used in significantly different operating and threat conditions than manned platforms,
come in a much wider range of classes and sizes than manned systems, can exhibit greater
persistence and endurance than manned systems, and have the potential to support a large range
of mission sets.
The introduction of remote video links, enabling operators to monitor the unmanned
systems payload view in real time, enables users to employ weaponized unmanned systems with
more flexibility and with improved confidence. Network-enabled systems employing distributed
C2 elements with ISR and armed airborne assets (either separate platforms or integrated into a
single unit) benefit from progress made with unmanned systems and precision-guided weapons.
Typical weapons that could be adapted for UAS use include the Laser Homing Attack or
Anti-Tank Missile (LAHAT) (Figure 26). As early as 2004, this weapon was proposed for testing
with U.S. Hunter UAS. LAHAT utilizes the semi-active laser homing guidance method to
accurately home in on targets from a distance beyond 10 km. Fitted with a shaped charge
multipurpose warhead, LAHAT can engage targets marked by a laser designator mounted on the
launching platform or by an indirect designation from another unit located closer to the target.
Each missile weighs about 13 kg, and a complete launcher with the four missiles weighs only
75 kg, significantly less than any alternative weapon.
73
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
a distance of two miles. Each SPIKE missile weighs 5.3 lb (2.5 kg) and is 25 inches (63.5 cm)
long. The missile performed its first controlled flights in 2005. The Spike missile is designed to
be used on medium-weight and lightweight UAS. The missile has already been tested with the
DRS Sentry HP drone at Eglin AFB, Florida, as part of Air Force UAS Battlelab evaluation.
74
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
The miniature, remotely piloted or automated platform can either glide or propel itself via quiet,
electric propulsion and provide real-time video for information gathering, targeting, or feature or
object recognition.
4.7.1 Interoperability
No current weapons system employed from unmanned systems was designed specifically
for unmanned vehicles. As discussed in other sections of this chapter, the capability need to
rapidly deploy weapons on unmanned systems drove design compromises in interoperability.
The same rigor now being applied to systems interoperability must be used to address current
concerns and design of future weapons systems for unmanned systems:
75
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
will be maintained on the DISR as a mandated standard and shared with the appropriate NATO
Standardization Agreement (STANAG) bodies for incorporation into international standards.
Weapons designed for multiple missions. The ability to select the yield of the
weapon in advance of employment is often referred to as a scalable effects
warhead. The ability to vary the explosive power of a warhead has clear implications
for reducing risk to friendly forces and civilians and also for reducing unnecessary
damage to infrastructure other than the intended target. Historically, the notion of
varying the explosive power of a warhead has been primarily linked with nuclear
weapons, where the term dial-a-yield is generally used. In this case, the amount of
material that can boost the yield (for example, tritium) can be varied, as can the
performance of initiators, which allow a chain reaction to propagate. Achieving this
scalability with conventional (i.e., chemical) explosives presents different challenges.
A plausible explanation of how this may be achieved would be varying the manner in
which the explosive material contained in the warhead is detonated.
Weapons designed with multiple modes. Current multimode requirements are
derived from current and future mission environments, such as frequent bad weather.
In current operations for both manned and unmanned aircraft, a mix of weapons is
carried to ensure the proper weapon is available for the weather and threat at the
target area. Depending on the environment, often only half of the bomb load is
employed. For certain classes of unmanned systems, this approach is simply not an
option. A true multimode weapon will be an essential aspect of arming unmanned
systems. However, multimode weapons are only part of the solution. The ability to
integrate unmanned systems within the manned weapons construct, while taking
advantage of the unmanned systems inherent traits of endurance, survivability, etc.,
will be key. They must be able to target and track moving threats reliably and
precisely and identify the target and acceptable collateral damage in bad weather and
with many targets in a cluttered environment. This goal will require a common
network between human observers, the unmanned system, and other delivery
platforms and weapons.
Weapons design for use within the unmanned systems environment. The
potential weapons operating environment for unmanned systems will be significantly
different from comparable manned platform performance envelopes and weapons
engagement envelopes.
Standardized weapons designs including modular designs, interchangeable within
similar unmanned systems from different services and designed for shipboard storage
and employment.
76
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
4.7.3.1 Nanoenergetics
Energetic materials contain chemical energy that, when released, can burn rapidly, such
as in fireworks or rocket fuel, or explode, such as in a grenade or bomb. Energetic materials at
the nanoscale show promise for military applications. Nanoparticles have more surface area and,
therefore, have increased contact with the other chemicals that make up a propellant or
explosive. After a reaction is initiated (that is, the explosion is set off), this greater surface area
causes a faster reaction rate, which makes for a more powerful explosion. This work could be
useful in weapons systems that would utilize greater amounts of energy, making them more
lethal. By working at the nanoscale, weapons designers can also control the rate at which energy
is released by changing the size of the nanoparticles; in other words, the designers could
customize the explosive for each application. For example, a weapon designed to penetrate into
the ground to destroy a bunker may need an explosive with a different reaction rate than a
weapon designed to explode and project shrapnel above ground troops. See Figure 29.
An example of this technology is the use of aluminum nanoparticles in explosives that the
Air Force is developing. When nano-aluminum powder is added to explosives, weapons can be
made smaller and more powerful. These weapons are useful in aircraft with limited space, such
as remote control drones. Researchers are developing techniques that allow weapons
manufacturers to add a greater amount of nano-aluminum powder to an explosive using a
solvent.
77
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
78
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
A tremendous amount of work has yet to be done in the area of autonomous systems as a
weapon. Current systems have less than optimal loiter times and are not readily adaptable to the
shipboard environment and the strike fighter mission. As well, advances in interoperability,
materials technology, and fusing have not been incorporated across the unmanned systems
spectrum.
Figure 30 summarizes the goals for weaponry for unmanned systems.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2030+
Near Term: Integration and Mid-Term: Unmanned specific Long Term: Long Term
interoperability of current weapons weapons development. Nano energetics.
Desired Capabilty employed for unmanned system.
79
5 Operating Environment
5.1 Introduction
The worlds markets, technologies, and regulatory environments for unmanned systems
are evolving rapidly and creating opportunities in platforms, payloads, leasing, operations, and
maintenance. DoD is looking beyond Iraq and Afghanistan towards a world of rapid
deployments to trouble spots where airfields may not be available. After U.S. forces begin
withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 in accordance with presidential planning, commanders
expect to focus on contingency missions where the United States may have no established
presence. UAS must then operate from ships or beaches rather than from fixed bases. Airborne
launch of unmanned platforms is another approach.
Unmanned systems are better suited than manned platforms in some circumstances. In
anticipation of such use, every segment of unmanned systems the deployed platform, control
station(s), and control link(s) must all be considered from the earliest stages of program
development. The environment must encompass all influences on this extended system, not just
focus on the platform itself. System technology program requirements must be outlined in a
CONOPS that details how the system is to be used in the intended physical operating
environment and provides a baseline for all system requirements.
In addition to operating unmanned systems in strenuous physical environments, programs
must also account for the ability to operate within existing regulations and within socially
acceptable means. There will always be regulatory uncertainty when a revolutionary technology
is introduced, as is the case with unmanned systems. A prime example is the consideration of
UAS flights in the NAS, where UAS must operate within the FAA Federal Aviation Regulations
(FARs). Even in cases where UAS do meet all applicable FARs, users of the UAS must consider
the safety of the general public and abide by applicable privacy laws. Similarly, UGS intending
to operate on U.S. public roads must at a minimum comply with Department of Transportation
(DoT) regulations and federal, state, and local motor vehicle laws, but should additionally show
safety and traffic efficiency enhancements to gain acceptance from the general public.
The unmanned systems safety guide for DoD acquisition references DoDI 5000.1, which
instructs program managers to prevent environment, safety, and occupational health (ESOH)
hazards, where possible, and manage ESOH hazards where they cannot be avoided. The
unmanned systems must also comply to the Army equipment spectrum certification (ESC),
which allows program management offices and others to apply for new equipment frequency
allocations (i.e., spectrum certifications), request changes to existing spectrum certifications,
request host nation coordination, and submit questions. The system tracks these requests and
provides real-time status updates and mechanisms to collaborate with the Spectrum Management
Office, which processes the request. Currently, the ESC process manager supports only Army
requests while Navy and Air Force versions of this system are under development. Also,
unmanned systems must meet information assurance requirements for their complex software
systems as these systems must interact with other systems and humans through networked C2
systems to share information and control these systems. The Navy and Air Force have differing
versions of this same process.
80
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
81
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
The intended physical operating environments for UMS are in and around harbors,
strategically placed within major shipping routes such as the Strait of Hormuz, or possibly out in
the open ocean. Although maneuvering with no roads and no water traffic controller, USVs
must be capable of avoiding ships, docks, floating debris, and navigation aids and must stay
within proper navigable waters (i.e., not run aground). In addition, USVs must operate in
accordance with collision regulations (COLREGS). 68 Because not all maritime traffic (including
military and commercial) always follows the COLREGS, however, autonomous behavior is
more difficult to develop for USVs.
On the other hand, although UUVs have the risk of running into underwater obstructions,
they do not typically have to worry about other vehicles. Furthermore, there are also no
navigation rules for underwater operation. For UUVs operating in a stressing environment such
as open ocean, the technology must be capable of providing enough power to last long durations
of time while autonomously performing their missions even when communication links are
limited.
82
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
with the FARs. DoD UAS operations outside of restricted or warning areas within the NAS are
currently required to obtain a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) from the FAA in
accordance with FAA Order 7610.4, Chapter 12, Section 9. 70 The order identifies information
that should be included in the COA request, including a description of the intended flight
operations, UAS characteristics, and lost link procedures.
Outside U.S. sovereign national airspace, foreign nations have designated civil aviation
authorities (similar to the FAA) that regulate and exercise governance over their sovereign
national airspace. Furthermore, when operating in international airspace (i.e., over the high seas)
DoD UAS observe International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) flight procedures when
practical and compatible with their mission. However, in accordance with DoD policy (and
consistent with international law) when operational situations do not lend themselves to ICAO
flight procedures, such operations may be conducted under due regard. 71 In designated combat
airspace, DoD UAS operate in accordance with instructions provided by the designated airspace
control authority. 72
70
FAA Order 7610.4P, Chapter 12, Section 9.
71
DoDI 4540.01, Use of International Airspace by U.S. Military Aircraft and for Missile/Projectile Firings,
28 March 2007.
72
JP 3-52, Joint Airspace Control, 20 May 2010.
73
Scott Sampson, Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock, Detachment Norfolk.
83
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
5.4.3 UAS Executive Committee (ExCom) Figure 31. SAA Self-Separation Functions
The UAS ExCom was developed from a recommendation on conflict and dispute
resolution from the 2009 National Defense Authorization Act. It is a focal point for senior
leaders from DoD, FAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the
Department of Homeland Security to resolve any policy and procedural disputes and to identify
solutions to enable the integration of DoD and other federal agency UAS into the NAS.
The UAS ExCom approved the UAS NAS Access Plan in October 2010, which addresses
the milestones, policy recommendations, flight standards, and operating procedures necessary to
provide a path for UAS integration into the NAS. The ExCom continues to work on many of the
issues and recommendations identified in the plan, including continued improvements to the
COA process as well as policy and procedural updates to enable significant improvement in UAS
NAS access. In addition, the ExCom extended the COA expiration interval from 12 to 24 months
and formalized an agreement on allowing transition from Class D airspace to adjacent Restricted
or Warning areas. The ExCom is actively working to improve several other policy-related UAS
issues, including
84
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Technology will improve the performance of our systems and allow them to
last longer, to use fewer people, to cost less, and to provide more relevant
information, where its needed and when its needed.
5.5.1.1 C2 Links
As an essential component of UAS by definition, solutions to problems associated with
link spectrum availability, latency, and reliability must be developed in all operating
environments. Spectrum considerations should be fully understood for UAS to operate at any
given location for C2 and also for SAA (where radar is employed). For C2 within LOS, the
United States and other countries have an approved spectrum allocation to globally use the
Aeronautical Mobile (Route) Service 50305091 MHz band. For BLOS, the World
Radiocommunications Conference (WRC) was unable to reach agreement at the WRC-12, but
will continue studies for decision at WRC-15. The WRC-12 decided that no additional spectrum
allocation was required for SAA purposes.
85
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
make decisions to safely navigate the airspace. Future developments may automate maneuvers
and allow more efficient use of the airspace and the easing of air traffic management tasks.
5.5.1.5 Interoperability
UAS will be operating in an increasingly crowded airspace with the potential need to
interact with manned assets. The UI2 CBA identified and prioritized IOP gaps in airspace
86
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
integration and interoperability capabilities. Decision makers on the ground must be able to
access sensor systems for both manned and unmanned aircraft to enhance situational awareness.
Video data must be capable of transferring between aircraft to maintain ISR continuity.
Therefore, interoperability standards must be in place so the right information gets to the right
people. Initial stages of this type of interoperability were demonstrated during the Armys
Manned Unmanned Systems Integration Capability (MUSIC) exercise in September 2011. This
technology needs continued maturation across the military departments to meet DoD
interoperability goals.
5.5.2.1 Autonomy
The ability of the UGS to navigate autonomously is largely dependent on the accuracy
and robustness of its perception system, which seeks to create an accurate model of its
environment. Designing a perception system capable of dealing with all types of environments is
very challenging with the current technology. To constrain the problem, current state-of-the-art
UGS are designed from the ground up to operate within an assumed environment(s). If these
assumptions are valid, the UGS often operate effectively. The UGS will fail to operate as
intended, however, when circumstances are different from assumed. To alleviate this problem, it
is desirable to have a perception system that can adapt to various environments. To be able to
adapt, the UGS must understand the context of its environment and recognize when that context
changes. One possible method of
understanding context is through the
classification of video imagery. Once an
environment is classified, UGS require
perception adjudication that specifically
addresses the perceptual needs of the UGS at
run-time. A number of factors dictate the
perceptual needs of UGS, including mission
awareness, environmental complexity,
mobility requirements, and the sensor
capabilities necessary to build contextual
information from the environment. The
87
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
enabling technology supporting these factors includes hardware and software related to
autonomy, communications, power, vision, architecture, warfighter machine interfaces,
manipulators, terrain mobility, and payloads.
more than a normal crafts capability. Certain supporting payloads are also very power intensive.
A USV carrying other UUVs or USVs would have to recharge or refuel the other payloads, and
this requirement would require more power.
Marinization. Typically most commercial sensors are built for UAS. Their
environment is simpler compared to USVs and UUVs. Not only is salt water a
problem, but the accelerations and shock from bumps are well above anything
experienced by a UA.
89
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Built-in test. Sensors must have the ability to know and report when they are not
working correctly so the control system can take appropriate action.
Data fusion. To be truly useful in the future, sensor data output must be standardized
for incorporation into a fusion engine providing for a better world view (i.e.,
understanding of the environment around the unmanned system).
Additional capability. Sensors must allow for faster operation (i.e., as speed of a
USV increases, cameras and radars must be able to see further and clearer to
determine the proper course of action so the vehicle has time to react).
Sensors must continue to be developed and improved to gain even more capability and
robustness in a maritime environment.
90
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
standards. Therefore, the Army TAA takes into account the potential risk of a failure and the
population density below the intended flight path, which would cross over a road. To minimize
risk to people and property on the ground, the Gray Eagle will fly perpendicular to the road and
take other similar precautions.
The Army has a clear understanding of the airspace the UAS must transit, equipage
requirements for that airspace, normal aircraft traffic patterns, surrounding terrain, and other
potential hazards to accomplish its training mission. The Army decides that GBSAA is the
chosen SAA solution based on mission requirements and costs. The GBSAA radars monitor the
airspace for potential conflicting traffic, and algorithms assess the potential for conflicts and
suggest heading changes to the operator to maintain separation.
The combination of these efforts allows the Army to confidently navigate the airspace
safely with regard to other airspace users as well as people and property on the ground. This
solution provides the capability to accomplish the training mission without incurring high costs
such as transiting the entire unit to another location.
5.8 Summary
Technology is evolving rapidly, and this fast evolution is challenging regulatory
authorities to keep pace with needed rules and regulations as well as challenging military
departments to keep costs down when abiding by DoD acquisition and management processes.
Every aspect of the operating environment, including the physical and regulatory, should be kept
in mind at every stage of the acquisition life cycle. Guidance is currently available from each
Military Department although the requirements and standards must still be developed.
Unmanned systems are ideally suited to increase the envelope for the physical
environment. They are often built with the intent of putting them in harms way and avoiding
risk to a pilot, operator, or controller. The timeline in Figure 33 shows the technical path toward
successful increases in capability across the domains for the next 25 years.
91
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Goals 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2030+
Nea r Term Mi d Term Fa r Term
Secure C2 Li nks . Certi fi ed GBSAA. Certi fi ed ABSAA a nd Integra ted SAA.
UAS Certi fi ed Di s pl a ys . Improved Sepa ra ti on Al gori thms . Evol uti on wi th
Sens ors . Interopera bl e pa yl oa d Integra ted equi pment NextGen
Technology Expa nd phys i ca l a rchi tectures . Expa nded Autonomy
Autonomous
Projects UGS Increa s e Autonoma ti on for Sys tems a nd Avoi da nce
Archi tecture
Speci fi c Ta s ks . V2V Comms Al gori thms
Increa s ed s a fety
Routi ne Acces s to the NAS. a nd effi ci ency for
Incrementa l a cces s to the NAS.
UAS Due Rega rd ca pa bi l i ty. fl i ghts i n NAS a nd
Effecti ve i nforma ti on fus i on
Effecti ve expl oi ta ti on worl dwi de. Effecti ve
forens i cs
Desired
Capabilty UGS Robus t phys i ca l ca pa bi l i ti es
Effecti ve ma nned-
Ada pta bl e Sys tems
unma nned tea mi ng
92
6 Logistics and Sustainment
6.1 Current Sustainment Environment
The rapid development and fielding of large numbers and types of unmanned systems
present DoD with a significant sustainment challenge. Reliance on joint operations and
multinational coalitions further complicates that sustainment challenge. Joint mission
requirements need matching logistics capabilities that meet the specific mission requirements of
the CCDR.
Evolving requirements often force premature system redesign efforts to meet emerging
warfighter needs. Rapidly evolving technology and economic conditions affect the requirement
and the ability of unmanned systems to meet stated reliability, maintainability, and affordability
requirements. Original equipment manufacturer
(OEM) assertions of proprietary interests
complicate organic support. As budget
pressures increase, programs must develop
more cost-effective sustainment solutions. The
transition from supporting the warfighters
immediate capability requirements to creating
an affordable, long-term sustainment
environment will require a flexible blend of
OEM and organic support to meet logistics
support objectives.
93
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Sustaining non-PORs
Limited RAM data
Delayed core logistics capability requirements
Transition from CLS for Life to Organic capabilities
Immature or lack of lifecycle sustainment planning
94
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
74
10 USC 2320 provides that in the case of an item developed by a contractor or subcontractor exclusively at private
expense, the contractor or subcontractor may restrict the right of the United States to release or disclose technical
data to persons outside the Government. The statute further states that these restrictions do not apply to technical
data that are necessary for operation, maintenance, installation, or training.
95
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
96
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Lifecycle logistics planning and analysis execution is important from the acquisition phase
through operations to the retirement phases of the weapon system life cycle. Cross-functional
planning and integration are essential to ensure that supportability requirements are addressed
comprehensively and consistently with cost, performance, and schedule during the life cycle.
The objective is operational effectiveness through an affordable, effective support strategy that
meets goals for optimum readiness and facilitates iterative technology enhancements during the
weapon system life cycle. See Figure 34.
Life Cycle
Sustainment
Current State Future State
Planning and
Analysis
Supportability
Analyses
Core Analysis Title 10 Compliant Core
Contract Logistics
Level of Repair organic Depot
Support
Analysis Capability
Business Case
Analysis
Supportability
Analyses
Contractor O/I-level Level of Repair Fully Fielded O/I level
Maintenance Analysis Maintenance Capability
O/I level Technical
orders Development
Supportability
Analyses Mix of
Contractor Inventory Business Case Organic/Contractor
Control Point (ICP) Analysis Supply based on long-
Provisioning Data term best value
Development
Requirements
High Equipment Sufficient End Item
Analysis to establish
Utilization with limited Assets to Achieve
Am Metric and
pipeline resulting in Operational and
required Inventory.
increased downtime Materiel Availability
Revised Acquisition
Goals
Strategy
Acquisition/Data
Limited Data Rights Rights Strategy
Organic Capability
Owned by Business Case
Increased
Government/ Analysis
Government Rights to
Proprietary Data Development of
Data
Depot Level Repair
Procedures
Increased Reliability
Reliability Reliability and
MTBCF Achieved
Requirements not Maintainability
Growth Curve Met
understood/not being Program Reliability
Reduced
met Growth Plan
O&S Costs
97
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
75
10 USC 2464, Core depot-level maintenance and repair capabilities.
76
10 USC 2366a, Major defense acquisition programs: certification required before Milestone A approval.
77
10 USC 2366b, Major defense acquisition programs: certification required before Milestone B or key decision
point B approval, section (a)(3)(F).
78
Ibid.
79
10 USC 2320, Rights in technical data.
98
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
80
CJCSI 3170.01, Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, 19 January 2012.
81
DoDI 5000.02, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, 8 December 2008, pg 29, enclosure 2.
99
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
FY2011, a depot WG was established to recommend depot sources of repair for UAS major
subsystems. The group recommended the establishment of depot repair capabilities at a limited
number of depots based on major subsystems to take advantage of existing depot capabilities and
capacity (see Figure 35). The Joint Logistics Board endorsed the workload assignment
consolidations and directed that Air Force avionics, ground electronic, software, and sensor
workloads be further evaluated for potential consolidation. The recommendations resulted in
rational depot source of repair assignments for UAS core workloads and generated large cost
avoidances and savings.
100
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
101
7 Training
7.1 The Need to Train
Training is a critical link in delivering warfighter capability. DoD can acquire and deliver
the most technologically advanced equipment, but if the operators, maintainers, leaders,
planners, users, and support personnel are not properly trained on the equipment or do not have a
thorough understanding of its CONEMP, the advantages offered by this warfighting capability
will be lost through its misapplication. A study by the Defense Science Board found that U.S.
armed forces have a training superiority that complements their technological superiority. 82 The
report points out, however, that this superiority can be eroded if the acquisition process does not
properly integrate training into equipment development, testing, and fielding. The criticality of
acquisition and training integration is emphasized by the requirement for acquisition program
managers to work with the training community to develop options for individual, collective, and
Joint training as part of the acquisition process. 83 The report also emphasizes that failure to
deliver adequate training venues, where needed, will negate technical superiorities of hardware.
Operators, maintainers, users, support personnel, and leaders must, therefore, be properly trained
at the appropriate levels and intervals throughout their careers using the optimum mix of live,
virtual, and constructive or blended reality training domains so they can use equipment
effectively and to its full design capability. This chapter describes the current state of training for
unmanned systems, some of the challenges involved, and the way ahead.
82
Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Training Superiority & Training Surprise, OUSD(AT&L),
Washington, DC, January 2001.
83
DoDI 5000.02 Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, 8 December 2008, p.61.
102
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
priorities change based on circumstances such as wartime, OPTEMPO, NAS restrictions, new
challenges will arise.
Operators must receive tailored training specific enough to support unique Service
mission sets, yet broad enough to allow operators to integrate and contribute in a
coalition environment.
Training programs must adequately encompass initial qualification and
proficiency/refresher training while also providing room to accommodate growth as
technology and TTPs improve and evolve.
Training programs must be integrated into the institutional base.
These challenges include such things as availability of resources, policy, and regulation.
DoD is cognizant of these challenges and is making progress toward meeting them. In the future,
the use of common equipment may also significantly reduce overall program costs and time to
train.
84
CJCSI 3255.01, Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems Minimum Training Standards.
103
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
7.4.1.1 Army
The Army architecture for its Group 3 and above UAS operations includes an aircraft
operator and a payload operator. The Army operates and maintains its RQ-7 Shadows, MQ-5
Hunters, and MQ-1C Gray Eagles. The 2nd Battalion, 13th Aviation Regiment (213th
Aviation), formerly Army UAS Training Battalion (UASTB), located at Fort Huachuca, Arizona,
conducts initial entry and military occupational specialty (MOS) training for all operators,
maintainers, and leaders on Group 3 and above UAS. Operators attend a two-phase training
program (see Figure 36) and receive a 15W MOS plus an additional skill identifier (ASI) for the
aircraft they are qualified to operate. Maintainers attend a 17-week common UAS repairer course
graduating with a 15E MOS, which qualifies them to maintain the Shadow. Additional courses
and skill identifiers are required for qualification in Hunter and Gray Eagle maintenance.
Additionally, 2-13th Aviation supports the Joint community by training Marine Corps and Navy
UAS personnel. In FY2012, they trained more than 2,100 UAS personnel. 85
The Raven is the Armys primary SUAS. Ravens are lightweight, man-portable, and
operated and maintained by a single soldier. The Armys Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort
Benning, Georgia, currently conducts all Army Raven UAS training. As of 1 October 2012, the
Army has transitioned to a SUAS Master Trainer program to train experienced operators at Fort
Benning. These Master Trainers then return to their respective units to train SUAS operators at
home station; this approach reduces the impact to the unit and enhances training flexibility.
Uniformed instructor mobile training teams that deploy to units to deliver the syllabus are used
to supplement training needs. Training is provided primarily to enlisted soldiers, but officers are
also trained. Upon completion of the course, personnel are qualified to program, launch, fly,
retrieve, and maintain Ravens. Qualification does not result, however, in the award of an MOS or
Specialty Identifier.
Figure 36. Army Group 3 and Above UAS Operator Training Flow
85
Eyes of the Army, U.S. Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap 2010-2035.
104
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Figure 37. Current Marine Corps Group 3 UAS Operator Training Flow
In July 2012, the Marine Corps stood up a Group 1 SUAS training activity at Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina, to provide standardized non-MOS training for enlisted Marine Corps
operators of SUAS. One of the goals of this schoolhouse is to relieve the line units from the
burdens of providing initial SUAS training for their operators. By providing a centralized
schoolhouse co-located with 2nd Marine Division, efficiencies in training and logistics have been
achieved. A similar SUAS training activity is planned for Camp Pendleton, California, in support
of 1st Marine Division.
105
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
fields and others through the newly created RPA sensor operator career field. The Air Force
created new career fields and associated specialty codes for both its new rated RPA pilots and
sensor operators. The training flow for these positions is depicted in Figure 38 (NOTE: The
formal training unit for the Global Hawk is at Beale AFB, California.)
Figure 38. Air Force MQ-1/9 Pilot & Sensor Operator Training Flow
The Air Force has also created a Mission Intelligence Coordinator position to manage
real-time/near-real-time intelligence information available to MQ-1/9 RPA pilots and/or sensor
operators. Mission intelligence coordinators are sourced primarily from existing squadron
intelligence positions and intelligence officer positions. Candidates undergo an initial
qualification training course at either Creech AFB, Nevada, or March Air Reserve Base,
California, and further mission qualification training at a squadron to attain mission-ready status.
Air Force RPA maintenance training is accomplished at three Air Force skill levels. RPA
maintenance fundamentals are taught at the maintenance school at Sheppard AFB, Texas.
Following RPA training at Sheppard AFB, initial and advanced skills maintenance training
occurs at the operational RPA squadron.
The Air Force classifies its Groups 1 to 3 UAS, such as the Raven, Scan Eagle, and
Shadow, as SUAS. They are operated by qualified SUAS operators, primarily enlisted airmen.
These SUAS operators attend a formal, 10-day training course approved by Air Force Special
Operations Command and conducted by Det 1, 371 SOCTS at the Eglin Range Complex in
Florida. Curriculum has been developed and approved for the RQ-11B and is in development for
the RQ-20A. SUAS operators are interchangeably qualified as vehicle operators and mission
operators, the two crew positions required to operate the system. Qualification as an SUAS
operator does not result, however, in the award of an Air Force Specialty Code or Special
Experience Identifier.
106
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
7.4.1.4 Navy
While the formal deliberative process for developing training to support emerging large-
scale Navy PORs is in the infancy stage, the Navy has the advantage of drawing on lessons
learned from the other Services. Current training during system development for PORs and rapid
deployment capability efforts is being supported and provided by the associated program offices
through contractor arrangements.
The Navy recently opened up a MQ-8 Fire Scout operator and maintainer training center
at Naval Air Station Jacksonville. The aircraft and personnel are dual qualified in SH-60
Seahawks and assigned to mixed aviation squadrons containing both Seahawks and Fire Scouts.
A similar organizational and basing construct is being examined for the MQ-4 Triton, the UAS
complement for the Navys fleet of P-3/8 aircraft to conduct ISR missions. Triton is currently
operated at a demonstration level with training of initial operational evaluation crews slotted for
late FY2014 followed a year later by initial cadre training. In June 2010, the Navy and Air Force
signed a Triton and Global Hawk synergy memoranda of agreement (MOA) that specifies Navy
and Air Force WGs to Identify and incorporate every appropriate synergy in basing,
maintenance, aircraft C2, training, logistics, and data requirements for processing, exploitation,
and dissemination (PED) functions. 86
Viable long-term training solutions for Navy systems are currently being developed
within the framework of the basic UAS qualification standards outlined in the CJCSI 3255.01
and the Naval Education and Training Command Course Development and Revision Process.
86
Memorandum of Agreement between Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) and the RQ-4 Global Hawk
system, signed 12 June 2010
107
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
exercises. Such units routinely receive UAS hands-on immersion training following deployment
into theater during mission execution.
Attempts are being made to incorporate unmanned systems into joint and multinational
exercises at every level. As a high-demand/low-density asset, live unmanned systems are often
unavailable for exercises and pre-deployment training. The use of manned surrogate platforms to
replicate aspects of unmanned platform behavior, such as FMV feeds, is common and useful in
ensuring the exercise participants are trained and familiar with unmanned systems capabilities
when deployed. Additionally, exercise and pre-deployment training scenarios use computer-
generated, simulated video feeds to support joint exercises and to ensure warfighters are able to
incorporate unmanned systems into their training even when actual systems are not available.
108
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Due to increasing robotic sustainment and training demands, RS JPO opened the Robotic
University at Fort Leonard Wood on 4 April 2012. This detachment consists of technician bays
and classrooms, warehouse space, and office space. Robotic University is truly a one-stop-shop
with the ability to repair, supply, and train robotic systems. The Robotics University and
SANGB training sites, with their equipment, materials, technicians, and instructors, give service
members the required skills and confidence in the robotics.
109
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
7.4.6 Technology
Technology challenges for training can be grouped into two categories: 1) the need to
train to new missions and affiliated technologies and 2) technology impacts on training. New
missions, hardware developments, and software integration appear to be endless. Each has to be
accompanied by associated training. For example, access to airspace may be enhanced by SAA
technologies that open up more opportunities for live training. Conversely, high-fidelity
simulators and the availability of surrogate platforms could lessen the dependence on live
training. Some technology impacts may not be so direct, but may be important none the less. For
instance, a common control system not only has a training component, but could also lessen
manpower requirements by leveraging the ability of a single operator to control multiple systems
simultaneously. As a result, training throughput requirements and manpower resources could be
decreased.
7.4.7 Manpower
Training faces several manpower challenges. First is the need for a sufficient instructor
cadre. With ongoing contingency operations, qualified and potential instructors are often
unavailable. Second, the Services have to address personnel qualifications and requirements, to
adjust force structure, and to revise personnel processes to accommodate the new technologies.
These actions affect the training audience. The coordination and integration of operators, force
structure, and data analysts impact how training is accomplished and how training affects human
resources. Manpower considerations for training must be fully explored to attain mission
efficiencies and readiness.
110
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
assets can be integrated into training requirements and plans. Moreover, the assets can influence
basing decisions, operations, and funding strategies.
The requirement and acquisition processes will continue to be reviewed for inclusion
of training plans throughout a programs development to help improve the rapid
acquisition process. Current policy requires a draft training plan at each acquisition
milestone. Additionally, new policy is being developed to strengthen those
requirements and provide guidance for developing training for rapid acquisition
programs. The policy will also offer a training plan template for the Services to
support an appropriate training strategy.
Organizations within DoD are working with regulators, other government
organizations, and industry on how to safely incorporate these new technologies into
todays world on an ongoing basis. For example, the Airspace Integration IPT and
UAS ExCom, discussed in Chapter 5, will continue to implement products and
activities to incrementally gain access to the NAS with the goal of attaining the level
of UAS access to the NAS necessary to complete training and readiness requirements.
Training plans will be developed and updated to reflect modifications to legacy
systems and introduction of new systems. DoD will continue to develop SAA
technologies to gain access to the NAS, increase commonality across control systems,
increase autonomy of systems, and align fidelity of simulators for appropriate phases
of training. Additionally, long-term success can be economically achieved with
increased commonality of hardware to reduce unnecessary unique systems training.
111
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
As forces redeploy, the availability of instructors to fill training positions at all levels
is expected to increase. As initial manning quotas are met, cross-flow accessions will
be curtailed, and schoolhouses will transition to steady-state throughputs. As newly
established career fields grow, season, and develop, experience levels will increase
and normalize, similar to other career fields across the forces. Personnel systems will
continue to align to the new technologies and mature.
As forces return to home station from the current operational contingencies, decisions
will be made about which systems become enduring PORs and transition back with
the forces. It is envisioned that the redeployment will increase the availability of
assets for training. Service and Joint training plans will need to mature and add the
specificity needed to make prudent basing and resourcing decisions that enable
effective training.
Service roadmaps will continue to evolve and mature along with the doctrine, training
plans, and documentation needed to support robust training systems. Emphasis will
be put on fostering jointness and incorporating cross-service participation during
exercises. A comprehensive training strategy will be developed to guide the myriad of
efforts across DoD and help ensure effective and efficient training. The strategy will
leverage work already completed or underway within the Services and Joint Staff. Its
scope will be broad to address the totality of UAS training, from the smallest to the
largest systems, at all echelons, for all appropriate personnel, and across the training
continuum.
A notional timeline for UAS training objectives is presented in Figure 39 and will be
further refined upon completion of the UAS training strategy in FY2013. By overcoming these
training challenges and developing a DoD-wide training strategy, future unmanned systems will
deliver more effective warfighting capabilities to the battlefields of tomorrow.
Goals 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2030+
Near-Term: Improved Mid-Term: Integra ti on of Far Term: Integra ti on of
s i mul a tor fi del i ty & commona l i ty efforts wi th s i mul a tors a nd s urroga tes
Technology
i ntegra ti on of pa yl oa ds onto s i mul a tor devel opment i nto the l i ve, vi rtua l , a nd
Projects s urroga te pl a tforms cons tructi ve a nd a bl ended
rea l i ty tra i ni ng envi ronments
Near-Term: Devel op a nd i mpl ement DoD UAS Mid- & Long-Term: Conti nue i mpl ementa ti on
Tra i ni ng Stra tegy; devel op doctri ne to a nd refi ne DoD UAS Tra i ni ng Stra tegy; refi ne
Capabilty
s upport us e of UAS opera ti ons ; i nform UAS tra i ni ng progra ms to a djus t for cha nges
Needs a cqui s i ti on of s urroga tes a nd s i mul a tors ; i n doctri ne; moni tor a cqui s i on for
i denti fy a i rs pa ce requi rements i ncorpora ti on i nto tra i ni ng progra ms
112
8 International Cooperation
8.1 Introduction
DoD international cooperation efforts include the cooperative research, development,
test, and evaluation of defense technologies and systems with foreign partners as well as the
procurement of defense articles, systems, and services from foreign partners. It also includes
participation in NATO capability groups. The objectives of international cooperation are
113
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
8.2.4 NATO
The military alliance promotes cooperation and interoperability through information
exchange and the development of standards (see http://nsa.nato.int/nsa). For example,
airworthiness standards have been developed and adopted by member nations and are being
incorporated in MIL-HDBK-516B. 87 Additionally, the alliance is acquiring (under DCS) the
NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) System, a derivative of the U.S. Global Hawk
system. Five Europe-based AGS aircraft will serve alliance missions and, in turn, reduce demand
for U.S. ISR systems to meet NATO requirements. See Appendices B and C of this roadmap for
additional information on alliance standards, and see the publication AAP-03 88 for established
procedures for the production, maintenance, and management of NATO standardization
documents in accordance with NATO regulations.
114
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Arms Regulation (ITAR), which controls defense articles and services under the jurisdiction of
DoS, and the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), which controls dual-use items under the
jurisdiction of DoC.
115
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
The policy provides for operation by exception. Exceptions to the policy may be decided
by the Secretaries of State and Defense, their principal deputies, or the National Disclosure
Policy Committee (NDPC). In most instances, the NDPC grants exceptions to policy. After
deliberation by the NDPC, disclosure authority is delegated to the heads of departments and
agencies responsible for the information within certain security classification limits (e.g., top
secret, secret, or confidential) for specified categories of classified military information.
Considered in establishing these limits for each country or international organization are the
following factors:
89
Presidential Decision Directive 34 (PDD-34), Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, 17 February 1995.
116
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
work with Bureau leadership and DoD to make the required notifications, including briefing
Congressional staff on the potential arms sale and how it will serve U.S. interests.
90
FY1216 Defense Planning and Programming Guidance, para. 6.3, Reform Security Cooperation (U), pg. 30,
20 May 2010.
117
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
SCRTF identified a set of 58 recommendations across five focus areas: planning, FMS
process (i.e., contracting, procurement, transportation, and distribution) improvement,
accelerated delivery, workforce development (training and education), and technology security
and foreign disclosure.
In July 2011, SECDEF directed that the SCRTF recommendations be implemented and
that SCRTF under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
USD(Policy) oversee implementation of the recommendations in the report.
118
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
119
9 Summary
While DoD unmanned systems development funding may taper off over the early part of
this decade, unmanned capabilities hold much promise for domestic commercial applications and
personal consumer use. This trend could indeed reduce the price point of these systems for the
military, which is good news for the U.S. taxpayer. However, if the technical challenges to
unmanned systems development and operations are addressed by accomplishing the technical
projects and tasks described in this roadmap, advances in capability can be readily achieved by
the Services well beyond what is achievable today. See Figure 40.
Goals 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2030+
Nea r Term Mi d Term Fa r Term
Improved power, engi ne, & Improved Power a nd Improved Stora ge &
gui da nce technol ogi es Dens i ty Energy Ha rves t
Enterpri s e Ga tewa ys
communi ca ti on a rchi tectures Poi nts -of-Pres ence
Improved s i mul a tor fi del i ty & Integra ti on of Integra ti on of s i mul a tors
i ntegra ti on of pa yl oa ds onto commona l i ty efforts wi th a nd s urroga tes i nto the
s urroga te pl a tforms s i mul a tor devel opment l i ve, vi rtua l , a nd
Overarching Innovation Goals
Increa s ed Interopera bi l i ty
Effi ci ent a nd a ffora bl e
devel opments
Increa s ed s urvi va bi l i ty a nd
communi ca ti on res i l i ence
Improved pers i s tence
Desired
Capabilty Increa s ed l etha l i ty
Incrementa l i ncrea s es i n
a i rs pa ce i ntegra ti on
Increa s ed a utonomy a nd
ma i nta i na bi l i ty
Imporved Tra i ni ng
120
Appendix A FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENTS AND REFERENCES
Air Force Science & Technology Plan, Department of the United States Air Force, 2011.
Carter, Ashton B., Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics,
Implementation Directive for Better Buying Power Obtaining Greater Efficiency and
Productivity in Defense Spending.
Carter, Ashton B., Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics,
Should-cost and Affordability Memorandum.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Master Positioning, Navigation and Timing Plan, 13 April
2007.
Committee on National Security Systems (CNSS) Policy (CNSSP) 15.
Defense Budget Priorities and Choices, Department of Defense, January 2012.
DoD GPS Security Policy, 4 April 2006.
Eyes of the Army, U.S. Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap 2010-2035.
Fiscal Year 2012 Presidents Budget Request (PBR) for the DoD S&T Program, briefing, Mr.
Bob Baker, Deputy Director, Plans & Programs, Assistant Secretary of Defense & Engineering,
21 June 2011.
FY1216 Defense Planning and Programming Guidance, 20 May 2010.
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Radio Regulations, Geneva, Switzerland. 2007
Edition.
Joint CONOPS for UAS, Third Edition, November 2011.
Joint Operational Access Concept (JOAC), Department of Defense, 17 January 2012.
Lundberg, Kent H., High-Speed Analog-to-Digital Converter Survey, MIT Press, 2002.
Naval Science and Technology Strategic Plan, Office of Naval Research, September 2011.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Manual of Regulations
and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management, Washington, DC, January 2008
edition, September 2009 revision.
Presidential Decision Directive 34 (PDD-34), Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, 17 February
1995.
Quadrennial Defense Review Report, Department of Defense, February 2010.
Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Training Superiority & Training Surprise,
OUSD(AT&L), Washington, DC, January 2001.
Robotic Collaborative Technology Alliance (RCTA) FY2012 Annual Program Plan.
121
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Shaud and Lowther, An Air Force Strategic Vision for 20202030, Strategic Studies
Quarterly, Spring, 2011.
Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, Defense Strategic
Guidance, January 2012.
Teal Group Predicts Worldwide UAV Market Will Total $89 Billion in Its 2012 UAV Market
Profile and Forecast, Press Release Newswire, United Business Media, 11 April 2012.
Terms of Reference-Defense Science Board Study on Technology and Innovation Enablers for
Superiority in 2030, USD(AT&L) Memorandum, 15 March 2012.
Unmanned ground systems roadmap, Robotic Systems Joint Program Office, July 2011.
Unmanned Interoperability Initiative (UI2) Capability Based Assessment, 1 March 2012 and
14 May 2012.
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036.
122
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
USIP 1.1 Line of Sight Transmission of Motion Imagery for Battlespace Awareness
Using Standard Common Data Link. Mandated standard available on DISR,
30 November 2010. Interoperability Profiles (IOPs):
IP 1.1: Motion Imagery for Situational Awareness Governing Standards. These standards
are the basis for the implementation and take precedence.
MISP 5.1, Motion Imagery Standards Profile, December 2008
Motion Imagery Standards Board (MISB) Standard 0601.2 UAS Datalink Local
Metadata Set, October 2008
MISB EG 0902, MISB Minimum Metadata Set, May 2009
IETF RFC 0768, User Datagram Protocol, August 1980
IETF RFC 0791, Internet Protocol (IPv4), September 1981
Other Applicable Standards. These references are cited by the governing standards and
provide further specification detail to completely define the implementation.
MISB Standard 0807, DoD/I/NSG Motion Imagery Metadata Registry
MISB Standard 0604, Time Stamping Compressed Motion Imagery
MISB Standard 0102.5, Security Metadata Universal and Local Data Sets for
Digital Motion Imagery
MISB RP 0603, Common Time Reference for Digital Motion Imagery Using
Coordinated Universal Time
MISP RP 0903, Video Moving Target Indicator Local Data Set
ISO/IEC 13818-1:2007, Information Technology Generic Coding of Moving
Pictures and Associated Audio Information: Systems
SMPTE 335M-2001, Metadata Dictionary Structure
SMPTE 336M-2007, Data Encoding Protocol Using Key-Length Value
SMPTE RP210.10-2007, Metadata Dictionary Registry of Metadata Element
Descriptions
NGA.STND.0024-2_1.0, Sensor Independent Complex Data (SICD) for complex
SAR imagery
NATO STANAG 4676, NATO Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance
Tracking Standard (NITS)Key enabler for UAS information fusion, currently
used to make sense of GMTI dots
NATO STANAG 4607, Ground Moving Target Indication Format (GMTIF)
NATO STANAG 4559, NATO Standard Image Library Interface (NSILI)
currently edition 3, the next edition will be XML capableused to share and
expose data between systems
123
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
NATO STANAG 3277, Joint ISR Task and Request Data Formatcross-cue and
sensor task request implementation
Theater Net-centric Geo-location (TNG) Joint Interface Control Document
(JICD)SIGINT interoperability
JPEG 2000, Interactive Protocol (JPIP)useful in large format sensor
applications like wide area surveillance sensors
SMPTE 296M-2001, 1280 x 720 Progressive Image Sample Structure
Analogue and Digital Representation and Analogue Interface
SMPTE 274M-2008, 1920 x 1080 Image Sample Structure, Digital
Representation and Digital Timing Reference Sequences for Multiple Picture
Rates
SMPTE 295M-1997, 1920 x 1080 50-Hz Scanning and Interface
NATO STANAG 4609, AIR (Edition 2) NATO Digital Motion Imagery
Standard
AEDP-8 (Edition 2), NATO Motion Imagery (MI) STANAG 4609 (Edition 2)
Implementation Guide
MIL-STD-2500C, National Imagery Transmission Format (NITF) Version 2.1 for
the National Imagery Transmission Format Standard
IP 2.1: Managed Configuration of STD-CDL Terminals Governing Standards:
Specification Number 7681990, Rev H, Performance Specification for the
Standard Common Data Link Waveform
Specification Number 60038365, Capstone Specification for the Network -Centric
Common Data Links
NATO STANAG 7085, Interoperable Data Links for Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance (ISR) Systems, Edition 3, pending promulgation
https://gtg.csd.disa.mil/uam/marketing.jsp
Joint Fire Support Executive Steering Committee (JFS ESC) Digitally Aided Close
Air Support (DACAS) Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs). ECP # 8 Unmanned
Aircraft System (UAS) Integration as a Strike Platform.
https://community.apan.org/joint_close_air_support_jcas/dacas_ci_usc/default.aspx
124
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
NATO STANAG 4586, Standard Interface of the Unmanned Control System (UCS)
for NATO UAS Interoperability
125
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Detect or sense and avoid other airspace users in accordance with NAS standards and
tactical requirements for deconfliction and collision avoidance.
Provide selectable ISR data in joint approved network formats and waveforms.
Provide ISR, tracking data, and location information in common, discoverable,
retrievable, selectable formats to authorized subscribers across domains, including C2
interfaces such as Blue Force Tracker.
Provide accurate position reporting sufficient for joint common operational picture
and joint common air picture applications.
Provide location information from all sensors for ISR contacts of interest from UAS
to authorized subscribers, including the transfer of targets in different domains, e.g.,
for the transfer of a subsurface maritime contact by a UA. (Authorized subscribers
include direct machine-to-machine data exchange.)
Provide accurate UA position reporting sufficient for safe and effective operation in
NAS airspace and theater airspace.
Enable vehicle/payload control by all authorized joint users with approved control
mechanisms.
Provide UAS sensor point and area of interest location information to authorized
subscribers in the specified format.
Enable multiple authorized controllers (subscribers/requests) to control and transfer
control of the vehicle (and/or payloads) and to accept transfer of control between
approved control nodes (including when payloads are able to support multiple users
simultaneously) (will require the capability to assess and prioritize requests).
Provide communication gateway and aerial network or network node services
compatible with appropriate joint networks.
For appropriately equipped UAS, provide target designation in accordance with
requirements of precision joint munitions (such as JAGM, Hellfire, and small
diameter bomb).
Provide and/or exchange payload and mission information to authorized subscribers
in the specified format.
126
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
127
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
UCS OA is the business model foundation on which all USIPs and Service IOPs should
be based. In some instances, USIPs and/or Service IOPs may be incorporated into the UCS
framework; however, the overarching intent is to ensure synchronization and compatibility
among UCS, USIP, and Service IOP directives.
UCS Architecture
The UCS Architecture is a framework representing the software-intensive capabilities of
current and emerging UAS programs in the Army, Navy, and Air Force inventories. The goal is
to develop an architecture based on SOA principles, which will be adopted by each Service as a
common business model for acquiring, integrating, and extending the capabilities of the control
systems for UAS. Under direction from the USD(AT&L) Acquisition Decision Memorandum
(11 February 2009), the UAS Task Force chartered the UCS WG to develop and demonstrate a
common, open, and scalable architecture supporting UAS Groups 25. The UCS WG comprises
Government and industry representatives and operates collaboratively using a technical society
model where all participants are encouraged to contribute in any area of interest. In this context,
the UCS Architecture supports the following OSD-stated high-level business objectives:
91
Terms and Definitions, Defense Acquisition University: https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=22108.
128
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
unbiased third party to routinely advise OSD, the Joint Staff, and Service acquisition executives
on all UCS issues.
The restricted website is https://fusion.dynetics.com/project/UCSWG. To request access,
visit the I-IPT public website (http://ucsarchitecture.org), and follow the instructions for
requesting access to the restricted website.
129
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Service IOPs
Historically, unmanned systems have used very deterministic point-to-point interfaces;
however, provisions of network-centric warfare require UAS programs to implement common
standards in support of an FoS type of architecture. Widely accepted or approved standards are
often too broadly defined and inadvertently allow compliance but not necessarily interoperability
(e.g., CDL standards and MISB standards). Interface standards vary and allow for diverse
implementation strategies and interpretations. To be truly interoperable, an FoS requires the
Service-level development of IOPs.
IOPs provide implementation guidance, best common practices, and profiles of standards
to help ensure interoperable systems within a Service. IOPs are tightly coupled to program
offices and industry partners because each sponsoring entity (e.g., program, industry partner)
typically signs off on the IOP. Service system integration laboratories test against their IOPs to
130
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
ensure program compliance. IOPs perform a similar function to USIPs but typically have a
broader scope. A single IOP may touch on several interrelated capabilities and their associated
standards, profiles, practices, etc. IOPs that have support across multiple Services are good
candidates for nomination as new bottom-up USIPs.
IOPs are managed by their respective Services and are developed through a collaborative
process of various product offices and private industry partnerships. Within IOPs and related
publications, each Service attempts to set and enforce only the standards critical to respective
UAS interoperability. This approach provides the level of commonality required for
interoperation while minimizing the impact on the native capabilities and design for each
platform. IOPs contain interface requirements specific to interoperation capability within the
various UAS. Additionally, IOP-related products (such as associated performance specifications,
implementation guides, and interface control documents) support IOP implementation strategies,
provide clarity of intent, and promote the use of emerging technologies expected for future
standardization. In Service-specific cases, IOPs may be posted on DISR depending on the nature
and approved enforcement or testing mechanisms.
131
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
The restricted website is provides more information. To request access, visit the I-IPT
public website (https://software.forge.mil/sf/projects/usip_universal_systems_interoper), and
follow the instructions for requesting access to the restricted website.
92
NATO STANAG 4586, Standard Interface of the Unmanned Control System (UCS) for NATO UAS
Interoperability.
132
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
which 4586CT interacts directly with other DLI systems according to user-defined scripts
and procedures).
These capabilities enable 4586CT to perform compliance testing of unmanned
systems relative to NATO STANAG 4586 and other, more specific IOPs, at both the
message level and the higher level protocol session levels. Complex DLI message dialogs
can be monitored and system interaction sequencing verified as 4586CT follows user-
defined test programs. As 4586CT can function as a proxy for other unmanned system
components, it is also used during system development and task-specific integration
testing and can provide insight into unmanned systems interaction and performance.
Multiple instances of 4586CT can also be employed to perform rapid prototyping of
interoperation protocols during profile design; as a result, 4586CT can be a useful tool
during the development of interoperability standards themselves.
SPIES Initiative
Near Term. The goal of the SPIES initiative is to develop EO/IR sensor-platform
interface standards that enable reduced acquisition, integration, and lifecycle costs; improve
agility; promote OA and interoperability objectives via Navy/DoD standardization; and maintain
system performance, reliability, maintenance, and availability.
SPIES will also work to enable a methodology and process for maintaining and revising
the standards and adding new standards, as required. By following the computer peripheral
model, the intent is for all devices and components to operate over standard buses and use
standard connectors and basic database protocols. With SPIES, the expected total ownership cost
savings is expected to be around 25%, with additional benefits, including reduced integration
risk.
an opportunity to minimize future lifecycle costs and adapt rapidly to changing threats or new
available technologies. The RS-JPO I-IPT, formed in 2009, is working to establish, adopt, and
apply interoperability standards for UGS by working with the combat developers, the S&T
community, and private industry. The effort is focused around utilization of the SAE AS-4
standard for JAUS with the implementation guidance being defined by the UGS IOP.
Near Term: IOP V0. In December 2011, the IOP v0 development process and content
were presented to a joint executive board, consisting of Government leaders from the material
developer, combat developer, and S&T communities. The joint executive board voted
unanimously to approve and publish IOP V0. The IOP enables tailoring based on the use of
interoperability attributes. Not every interoperability requirement will apply to every future
system; therefore, the IOP provides a mechanism to independently specify these requirements in
a composable manner. Interoperability attributes applicable to the specification and design of a
system can be identified and used to filter applicable requirements from the IOP to support
system design, development, conformance, and validation testing, IOT&E, and fielding. This
approach shrinks the design space of future UGS interfaces from infinite to a small number of
options. RS-JPO will require the use of IOPs in future requests for proposals for PORs. For
industry, this interoperability approach means that companies with business models that favor
closed-architecture products will ultimately either lose market share or need to adapt their
business strategies. In the near term, the core interoperability team within RS-JPO and the Tank
and Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center will be defining program- and
system-specific instantiations of IOPs. Program-specific IOP instantiations will become part of
future IOPs, and system-specific instantiations of IOPs will be used to determine whether there is
any supporting business case to upgrade existing fielded systems to be fully or partially IOP
compliant.
Middle Term: IOP V1. In addition to the capabilities already resident in widely fielded
systems, IOP V1 will include interfaces for unmanned applique kits, explosive detection and
marking payloads, modular controller interfaces, and a basic interface with SUAS assets. In IOP
V1, the focus will be on increasing the interoperability with other domains, such as overarching
networks, UAS, and manned systems.
Long Term. Future UGS are anticipated to interface with tactical and enterprise
networks, such as GIG. The Army has defined a strategy for realizing a COE network into which
UGS are anticipated to eventually interface. While achieving this interface would entail
significant acquisition challenges in terms of information assurance planning, this interface
would provide great opportunities for increasing the capabilities of UGS for warfighters. For
example, a warfighter equipped with a COE-connected mobile device could search for software
applications that are needed to conduct the mission, including UGS video feed and sensor-
control applications. In addition, geospatial models and other data structures available in the
COE could significantly enable UGVs to navigate autonomously. Autonomous operations could
reduce the amount of computing power necessary on platforms and controllers and may reduce
the wireless communication bandwidth required in UGS radios.
DoD will also increase coordination between ground and air domains. Although UAS and
UGS are based on different standards (NATO STANAG 4586 for large UAS and SAE AS-4
(JAUS) for UGS), it is feasible for future systems to use an inward (ground) facing SAE AS-4
protocol and an outward (air) facing NATO STANAG protocol to interoperate. In addition, as
134
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
UGS become more accepted and embedded in the force structure, interoperability with manned
ground systems will be necessary. It is anticipated that the vehicular integration for C4, ISR, and
EW interoperability (VICTORY) standard will provide the interoperable interfaces for
communicating with manned ground systems. As a result, RS-JPOs interoperability profiles
must eventually define the protocols for interfacing with VICTORY-based systems.
135
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
national and international standards bodies, span the domains of unmanned systems
(air/ground/maritime), and address key cross-domain areas as well as domain-unique
capabilities. DoD intends to continue to support this type of collaboration as it fosters the
development of interoperability and standards WGs. Examples include the following:
93
NATO STANAG 4660, Standard for UAV Interoperable Command and Control Data Link (IC2DL); NATO
STANAG 4670, Recommended Guidance for the Training of Designated Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Operators;
NATO STANAG 4671, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems Airworthiness Requirements; and NATO
STANAG 7085, Interoperable Data Links for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Systems,
Edition 3, pending promulgation.
136
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
94
For a description of autonomy levels, see table 3 on page 46 of the Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap
FY2011-2036: http://www.acq.osd.mil/sts/docs/Unmanned%20Systems%20Integrated%20Roadmap%20FY2011-
2036.pdf.
137
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
of future UGS. Existing ranges and test facilities have been adequate to test systems with very
limited autonomous capabilities and systems operated through teleoperation.
138
Appendix E MANNED UNMANNED TEAMING (MUM-T) AND MUSIC
Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T)
The concept of MUM-T is to combine the inherent strengths of manned platforms with the
strengths of UAS, with product synergy not seen in single platforms. MUM-T combines robotics,
sensors, manned/unmanned vehicles, and dismounted soldiers to achieve enhanced situational
awareness, greater lethality, improved survivability, and sustainment. Properly designed,
MUM-T extends sensor coverage in time and space and provides additional capability to acquire
and engage targets.
The pilot can use the sensor on the UAS, just as a sensor would be used aboard an aircraft,
except that the position of the UAS sensor can be up to 80 km ahead from the aircraft. The
MUM-T capability provides an unprecedented standoff range from threat weapons and
acquisition systems. MUM systems largely depend on mission, enemy, terrain, troops, time, and
civil considerations. The transfer of sensor data between the UAS and the manned system
reduces risk to both platforms and increases the mission effectiveness and survivability rates of
friendly forces. Environmental conditions affect the efficiency of MUM-T employment.
MUSIC I Exercise
Overview. The objective for the MUSIC I Exercise was to showcase interoperability
progress and emerging technologies in accordance with the 2.x series of the Army UAS IOPs.
The exercise took place in Dugway Proving Grounds, Utah, at the UAS Rapid Integration &
Acceptance Center on 16 September 2011. Weeks of pre-ground and -flight checks culminated
into a live two-hour demonstration to a group of media, contractors, and Army officials. The
audience witnessed real-time video feeds from the unmanned and manned payloads, screen
captures from the GCSs, video feeds from within the shelter, and visual aids through an
operational scenario to help demonstrate the capabilities and achieve a better understanding of
how they benefit the soldier. Successful execution of the MUSIC exercise provided the product
office with a wide range of lessons learned across multiple areas, including system usability,
reliability, integration, and configuration control.
139
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
140
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
141
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Sustainment Transformation
Since 2009, the program office has been executing a strategy to transform the
sustainment of the Reaper program to focus on long-term affordability. The transformation
planning by the program office culminated in the development of a lifecycle sustainment plan
that details the results of the programs planning efforts and documents the overall framework
for optimal sustainment of the MQ-9 system throughout its life cycle at minimum lifecycle cost.
The plan emphasizes the following major elements: requirements stability and reliability growth,
depot transition, data strategy, and business case analysis (BCA).
for new Threshold and Objective MTBCF values. The MQ-9 reliability and maintainability
growth program has been established to manage the growth of reliability with an emphasis on
identifying reliability readiness and cost drivers that have a substantial return on investment to
the warfighter.
Depot Transition
10 USC 2464 (a)(3)(B) states the requirement, Core depot-level maintenance and repair
capabilities and capacity, including the facilities, equipment, associated logistics capabilities,
technical data, and trained personnel, shall be established not later than four years after a weapon
system or item of military equipment achieves initial operational capability or is fielded in
support of operations. 95 In December 2009, the program established the Depot Maintenance
Actions Working Group (DMAWG) to stand up organic repair. A three-phased approach was
established to target the major repair and cost drivers:
The first phase, Early Induction, identified items with low activation risk and includes
the MQ-9 EO/IR sensors and a selection of items from the aircraft, engine, and
communication equipment. The initial induction program will stand up in FY2013.
The second phase will expand the initial partnership to cover items that generate 80%
of the repair costs and will be put in place between 2014 and 2015, seven years after
core was first determined to be applicable.
The final phase will include more than 500 components with low repair rates.
Throughout the DMAWG process, the program is working with the Army Gray Eagle
program to identify opportunities for leveraging similar efforts. The programs are working
together to establish sensor capability with the Navys Fleet Repair Center South East in
Jacksonville, Florida.
Data Strategy
PPPs between OEMs and depots is one method to assure that the Government will have
access to repair data without requiring a procurement or re-procurement data package. In
addition to pursuing these partnerships, the Reaper program office continues to pursue
Government ownership of data and is leveraging the Army Gray Eagle programs research of the
Governments rights.
The program continues to provide contractor field service representatives (FSRs) while
developing interactive electronic technical manuals, which will greatly enhance the military
organization-level maintainers ability to troubleshoot and repair the system while reducing the
need for contractor FSRs and depot-level field assistance.
95
As amended by P.L. 112-81 in 2011. Previously there was a requirement to identify core capability within four
years of IOC.
143
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
initiation of PPPs, and the evaluation of organic sustainment support. A baseline report was
presented in July 2010. After a strategic pause to incorporate critical repair data and lessons
learned from other BCA efforts, the MQ-9 BCA effort resumed in May 2011 and was completed
in June 2012. The final BCA recommended separate performance-based agreements for the
sensors, aircraft, and engine between the OEMs and depots and recommended that supply chain
management be transitioned to the Government. See Figure 42.
DMAWG Kickoff
Alt Final
Baseline GR&A Recommendation
BCA Approval
Dev
Data Insertion
CA Competition
RFP
MTS-B Stand-Up Assessment &
Implementation
CA Agreement
Early Induction Phase 1 (9 items)* Development
CA
Early Induction Phase 2 (9 items)*
CA (Est)
Phase A
Phase B
Conclusion
The MQ-9 Reaper case study illustrates the strategy and actions required, when proper
initial lifecycle sustainment planning was not done, to transform the sustainment of unmanned
systems from a short-term, rapid-fielding environment to a long-term sustainment environment.
The transformation of unmanned systems will require dedicated effort over the next decade to
develop and execute lifecycle sustainment strategies that ensure the long-term affordability of the
systems. In the case of the Reaper program, the lifecycle sustainment strategy end state of
organic support is expected to be fully achieved by 2018 almost 10 years after the Air Force
established the requirement and many years after statutory mandates. As new programs are
developed, it is critical for programs, in conjunction with their Services and warfighters, to begin
to formulate a lifecycle sustainment strategy at program inception so that requirements for
availability, reliability, and affordability are considered in the design, sustainment resources are
identified early, product support packages are tested with the system, and long periods of interim
contractor support are avoided once the programs are fielded.
144
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
AF/A3/5
Air Force Staff for Operations, Plans, and Requirements
1480 Air Force Pentagon, Room 4E1024
Washington, DC 20330-1480
DARPA
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
675 North Randolph Street
Arlington, VA 22203-2114
(703) 526-6630
HAF/A2
Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
1700 Air Force Pentagon, Suite 4E1070
Washington, DC 20330-1700
NAVAIR
Commander, Naval Air Systems Command
47123 Buse Road
Building 2272, Suite 540
Patuxent River, MD 20670
(301) 757-1487
Navy N2/N6
2000 Navy Pentagon, Room 5C289
Washington, DC 20350-2000
NGA
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
7500 GEOINT Drive
Springfield, VA 22150
145
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
OASD/R&E
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
4800 Mark Center
Alexandria, VA 22350-3600
(571) 372-6512
ODASD(MR)
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Materiel Readiness
3500 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C168
Washington, DC 20301-3500
(703) 614-6922
OUSA/ASA/ALT
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology
103 Army Pentagon, Suite 5C151
Washington, DC 20310-0103
(703) 697-2012
OUSD(AT&L)/S&TS-UW&ISR
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Strategic
and Tactical Systems Unmanned Warfare & Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
3090 Defense Pentagon, Suite 3B938
Washington, DC 20301-3090
(703) 695-6188
OUSD(P&R)
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
4000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-4000
RS JPDO
The Joint Planning and Development Office
1500 K Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 220-3487
SAF/AQIJ
Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition
1060 Air Force Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330-1060
146
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
USA HQ/G3
U.S. Army Deputy Chiefs of Staff G-3/5/7 (DAMO-SSF)
400 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-0400
USA/PEO AVN
U.S. Army Project Executive Office for Aviation
Attn: SFAE-AV
Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898
(256) 313-4004
USA/TRADOC
Headquarters, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
950 Jefferson Avenue
Fort Eustis, VA 23604-5700
(757) 501-5876
USAF/ARL
U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory
88th Air Base Wing Public Affairs
5215 Thurlow Street, Bldg 70
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433-5543
DSN 672-3252 or (937) 522-3252
USN/N2/6
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance
2000 Navy Pentagon
Room 5C289
Washington, DC 20350-2000
USN/ONR
Office of Naval Research
One Liberty Center
875 N. Randolph Street, Suite 1425
Arlington, VA 22203-1995
(703) 696-5031
USN/PEO U&W
U.S. Navy Project Executive Office for Unmanned Aviation & Strike Weapons
Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)
Public Affairs Officer
47123 Buse Rd, Bldg. 2272, Suite 246
Patuxent River, MD 20670-1547
(301) 757-9703
147
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
Appendix H ABBREVIATIONS
.A
A2/AD Anti-Access and Area Denial
ABSAA Airborne Based Sense and Avoide
ACAT Acquisition Category
AEODRS Advanced Explosive Ordnance Disposal Robotic Systems
AFB Air Force Base
.B
BAMS Broad Area Maritime Surveillance
BCA Business Case Analysis
BLOS Beyond Line-of-Sight
.C
C2 Command and Control
C4 Command, Control, Communications, and Computers
CAT Conventional Arms Tracker
CBA Capability-Based Assessment
CCDR Combatant Commander
CCL Commodity Control List
CDL Common Data Link
CIO Chief Information Officer
CJCSI Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction
CLS Contractor Logistics Support
COA Certificate or Waiver of Authorization
COE Common Operating Environment
COLREGS Collision Regulations
COMSATCOM Commercial Satellite Communications
CONEMP Concept of Employment
CONOPS Concept of Operations
CONUS Continental United States
COTS Commercial Off The Shelf
CPD Capabilities Production Document
CPI Critical Program Information
CRADA Cooperative Research and Development Agreements
148
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
.D
DAE Defense Acquisition Executive
DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DAR Data at Rest
DCGS Distributed Common Ground Station
DCS Direct Commercial Sales
DEF Defense Exportability Features
DISA Defense Information Systems Agency
DISN Defense Information Systems Network
DISR DoD IT Standards and Profile Registry
DMAWG Depot Maintenance Actions Working Group
DoC Department of Commerce
DoD Department of Defense
DoDD Department of Defense Directive
DoDI Department of Defense Instruction
DoS Department of State
DoT Department of Transportation
DOTMLPF-P Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and education, Personnel,
Facilities, and Policy
DSA Dynamic Spectrum Access
DSB Defense Science Board
.E
E3 Electromagnetic Environmental Effects
EAR Export Administration Regulations
ECR Export Control Reform
EMI Electromagnetic Interface
EMS Electromagnetic Spectrum
EO/IR Electro-Optic/Infrared
EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal
EPOCHA Estimation and Prediction of Orbits and Clocks to High Accuracy
EW Electronic Warfare
ExCom Executive Committee
.F
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FACE Future Airborne Capability Environment
FAR Federal Aviation Regulation
FCB Functional Capability Board
FMS Foreign Military Sales
FMV Full-Motion Vehicle
FoS Families of Systems
FY Fiscal Year
149
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
.G
GBS Global Broadcast Service
GBSAA Ground-Based Sense and Avoid
GCS Ground Control Station
GEOINT Geospatial Intelligence
GFMSA GEOINT Functional Manager Seal of Approval
GIG Global Information Grid
GMTIF Ground Moving Target Indication Format
.H
HALE High-Altitude Long-Endurance
HiDRA High Dynamic Range Atom
HURL Hydra Universal Rail Launcher
.I
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
ICWG Interface Control Working Group
IER Information Exchange Requirements
IF Intermediate Frequency
I-IPT Interoperability Integrated Product Team
IMU Inertial Measurement Unit
IOC Initial Operational Capability
IOP Interoperability Profile
IOT&E Initial Operational Test and Evaluation
IP Internet Protocol
IPL Integrated Priority List
IPT Integrated Product Team
ISR Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
IT Information Technology
ITAR International Traffic in Arms Regulations
.J
J-8 Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment Directorate of the Joint Staff
JALN Joint Aerial Layer Network
JAUS Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems
JCA Joint Capability Area
JCIDS Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System
JIIM Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational
JITC Joint Interoperability Test Command
JROC Joint Requirements Oversight Council
JRRF Joint Robotics Repair Facility
150
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
JS Joint Staff
JSIL Joint Technology Center/Systems Integration Lab
JTA Joint Technical Architecture
JUON Joint Urgent Operational Need
.K
KPP Key Performance Parameter
.L
LOS Line-of-Sight
LPI/LPD Low Probability of Intercept/Low Probability of Detection
.M
MDA Milestone Decision Authority
MIMO Multiple-Input, Multiple-Output
MISB Motion Imagery Standards Board
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOS Military Occupational Specialty
MPSF Mission Package Support Facility
MTBCF Mean Time Between Critical Failure
MTBF Meantime Between Failure
MUM-T Manned and Unmanned Teaming
MUSE Multiple Unified Simulation Environment
MUSIC Manned and Unmanned Systems Integration Capability
.N
NAS National Airspace System
NGA National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
NIAT NSG Interoperability Action Team
NLOS Non-Line-of Sight
NR KPP Net Ready Key Performance Parameter
NRL Naval Research Laboratory
NSA National Security Agency
NSE Nonstandard Equipment
NSG National System for Geospatial-Intelligence
NSS National Security Systems
.O
O&S Operations and Support
OA Open Architecture
OCO Overseas Contingency Operations
OCONUS Outside the Continental United States
OCU Operator Control Unit
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
151
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
.P
PED Processing, Exploitation & Dissemination
PEO Project Executive Office
PINS Precision Inertial Navigation Systems
PNT Position, Navigation, and Timing
POM Program Objective Memorandum
POR Program of Record
PPBE Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution
PPP Public-Private Partnership
.R
RAM Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability
RCTA Robotic Collaborative Technology Alliance
RDT&E Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
RPA Remotely Piloted Aircraft
RF Radio Frequency
RITP Research and Intelligence/Technology Protection
RS-JPO Robotic Systems Joint Project Office
.S
S&T Science and Technology
SAA Sense and Avoid
SAASM Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module
SAE Service Acquisition Executive
SANGB Selfridge Air National Guard Base
SATCOM Satellite Communications
SC Steering Committee
SCRTF Security Cooperation Reform Task Force
SDS Spectrum-Dependent Systems
SECDEF Secretary of Defense
SOA Service-Oriented Architecture
SoS System of Systems
SPIES Sensor/Platform Interface and Engineering Standardization
SSRA Spectrum Supportability and Risk Assessment
STANAG Standardization Agreement
STUAS Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System
SUAS Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
SWaP-C Size, Weight, Power and Cooling
152
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
.T
T&E Test and Evaluation
TAA Technical Airworthiness Authority
TS&FD Technology Security and Foreign Disclosure
TS/SCI Top Secret/Secret Compartmented Info
TTP Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures
.U
UA Unmanned Aircraft
UAS Unmanned Aircraft Systems
UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
UCLASS Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System
UCS UAS Control Segment
UGS Unmanned Ground Systems
UGV Unmanned Ground Vehicle
UI2 Unmanned Interoperability Initiative
UMS Unmanned Maritime Systems
UMV Unmanned Maritime Vehicle
U.N. United Nations
USC United States Code
USD Under Secretary of Defense
USD(AT&L) Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
USD(I) Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
USIP Unmanned Systems Interoperability Profile
USV Unmanned Surface Vehicle
UUV Unmanned Undersea Vehicle
UVDS Unified Video Dissemination Service
.W
WG Working Group
WGS Wideband Global Satellite
WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction
153
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038
154