F
R
6
-
2
0
0
3
|
THE PENTAGON´S UAV AND UCAV PLANS
By Karl Schwarz
“There is a whole range of missions which are suitable for the use of UAVs [Unmanned Aerial Vehicles].” Of this, Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Boone, deputy chief of the reconnaissance systems division for Air Force acquisition, is convinced. “Our objective is to introduce these new capabilities in a logical and systematic way and thus to build on previous work in the area.”
Already today the American armed forces have over ten UAV systems either in service or under development. Types such as the Predator and the Global Hawk were the stars of the war in Afghanistan and recently saw active service over Iraq as well. The inventory of UAVs currently stands at around 90. Between 1991 and 1999 the Pentagon invested no less than three billion dollars on these and several failed projects.
However, this sum is trivial compared with the almost ten billion dollars which are to be spent on unmanned air vehicles between now and 2010. By then the UAV fleet will have quadrupled in size. According to the vision of the planners, by 2012 unmanned air vehicles the size of an F-16 will be deployed on missions aimed at the suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD), electronic warfare (EW) and strike missions far beyond the front line. There are also plans for rotorcraft with an endurance of between 18 and 24 hours.
In 25 years' time, there could then be UAVs with airframes that can adjust their shape to the particular mission requirements, for example, allowing the profile to be changed in flight. By that time a helmet-mounted data display and a laptop will be all that is needed to control the UAVs.
UAVs are viewed by the Pentagon above all as “force multipliers” that relieve manned systems and take over the “dull, dirty and dangerous” tasks. These include sustained surveillance flights, reconnaissance in contaminated areas and strikes on heavily defended targets. But the developers do not have a carte blanche; instead, it is a matter of initially tackling the most important UAV missions that are feasible with technology that can soon be made available. The research funds are therefore to be directed to those priorities.
Northrop Grumman UCAV-N
There is no shortage of subjects for basic research and cross-platform development programmes. “The same problems like communication, data transmission, control and airspace management apply, whichever Service one is talking about,” according to Lieutenant Colonel Boone.
The “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Roadmap 2002-2027” recently published by the Pentagon provides a framework for further work in the area of unmanned air vehicles. This report drawn up by the Office of the Secretary of Defense sets out 49 objectives relevant to the introduction of new capabilities, the determination of standards and cost control. Ten of the objectives have been assigned top priority and are to be implemented by the responsible offices by a particular point in time:
- Development and demonstration of an unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) that can perform a variety of tasks such as SEAD, strike and EW. Target date: 2010. This project will be overseen by a UCAV Joint Program Office that is expected to be set up by October.
- The Boeing X-45A and the Northrop Grumman Pegasus concept are competing as precursors to the development of a UCAV-N for the US Navy. The requirements placed on these systems with regard to endurance, range and weapons payload have risen significantly in recent years. Boeing will therefore skip the X-45B and build a larger X-45C directly. Northrop Grumman unveiled its UCAV-N concept on 15 April. The previous delta-shaped aircraft has been modified to include extra outer wings, so that its shape now resembles that of the B-2. The changes reflect the Navy's emphasis on reconnaissance, combined with the possibilities of adapting to the SEAD and bomber roles.
- Development and demonstration of a piston engine that can use JP5/8 aviation fuel. This will initially power UAVs the size of the Shadow, Pioneer or A-160, but will subsequently be further developed for smaller and larger air vehicles as well. Target date: 2005/2007. This project is being managed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in co-operation with the US Army and US Navy/US Marine Corps.
- Drawing up of requirements against which the costs of UAV programmes can be evaluated. If the defined goals and objectives are exceeded, detailed reasoning must be provided at particular programme milestones. Moreover, proposals must then be put forward as to how the costs can be contained. Target date: 2003. Programme sponsor is the Pentagon (OSD). The costs per kilogram are currently around $3,300 for the air vehicle and $17,640 per kilogram of sensor equipment.
- Demonstration of the transmission of high-resolution TV images by a UAV, with a view to enabling accurate real-time target designation. Target date: 2005. This project is sponsored jointly by the National Imaging and Mapping Agency (NIMA), US Navy and USAF.
- Conversion of all unmanned air vehicles larger than the Shadow 200 (a tactical UAV) to standard data link formats for both direct communication and also using relay stations such as satellites. Target date: 2006. Joint sponsors: US Army, Navy and Air Force.
- Aerodynamic research in the area of low Reynolds numbers (below one million), as occur with small UAVs. Here the viscosity of the air expressed through the Reynolds number plays an important role. The aim is to optimise the digital flight control systems of these air vehicles. Target date: 2006. All three Services and also the Pentagon are involved.
- Definition of a standard interface for accurate position data and critical information on possible activities in the environment of the UAV. This is necessary in order to integrate UAVs into airspace control. Target date: 2004. Sponsors: the Pentagon and the US Joint Forces Command.
- Collaboration with the FAA aimed at simplifying UAV access to civil airspace. The time-consuming “Certificate of Authorization” currently required is to be replaced by a standard flight plan procedure (form DD175) that if possible will be no different from flight plans filed for manned aircraft.
The main problem is that the UAVs must be able to “see” other traffic and take avoiding action. Some trials that specifically addressed these issues were carried out by NASA from the Mojave desert with a (manned) Proteus made by Scaled Composites at the beginning of April. It was equipped with a Ka-band (35GHz) radar from Amphitech and was required to detect target aircraft (from a balloon through to the F-18) within a radius of 11km. Target date: 2004. Sponsor: US Air Force.
- Definition of safety measures to ensure that UAVs can only deploy weapons under precise control. Target date: 2008. Sponsor: US Air Force.
- Reduction in the accident rate for larger UAVs to less than 20 per 100,000 flying hours by 2009 and less than 15 by 2015. Joint sponsors: USAF, US Army and US Navy. Accident rates sustained up to now of 32 per 100,000 flying hours on the Predator and as high as 334 on the Pioneer are extremely unfavourable compared, for example, with General Aviation (1 per 100,000 flying hours). However, this is partly due to the fact that the UAVs are deliberately deployed above danger areas. The larger systems at least are too expensive to be disposable.
These objectives provide a good framework for work over the next few years. Progress reports have to be submitted every twelve months. However, changes are not out of the question. “The roadmap is a living document,” explained Dyke Weatherington, head of the Pentagon's UAV planning task force. Whether the present euphoria over unmanned air vehicles as an element of the sought-after transformation of warfare really holds up remains to be seen over the next few years. “Reckless” procurements are at any rate to be avoided. “It isn't just because they don't have a pilot that we want to buy UAVs. We should be buying UAVs because they offer us capabilities that we can't get with manned aircraft,” said Major General Ronald E. Keys, USAF Deputy Chief of Staff.
From page 56 of FLUG REVUE 6/2003
|
