|
A Brief Look At The United States UAV-RPA Strategic Vision
Raul Colon
PO Box 29754
Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico 00929
I. Historical References
During the past fifty years, the
United States Armed Forces have tested and deployed a number of
Remotely Piloted Aircrafts (RPA) and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)
platforms with varying degrees of success. The first major
developmental UAV programme by the US Air Force was the Lightning Bug
System. The system was developed for the Air Force to be operated as
a target drone platform. It eventually found its way to the skies
over Vietnam as a reconnaissance platform. The Bug flew almost 3,500
mission sorties during that conflict. In the late 1960s and early
70s, the Air Force commenced and terminated several other UAV and RPA
programmes. Such programmes suffered from a lack of strategic vision,
focus on what the UAV could accomplish and what it was incapable of
doing at the time, produced a strategic stalemate.
Major cost overruns also caused
promising programmes, such as the D21 Tagboard-Senior Bowl Program
and Compass Arrow, to be curtailed prematurely. Other factors
contributed to the near termination of all of the United States UAV
programmes during the 1970s. The emerging of a more reliable
information-gathering satellite system halted the momentum gained
during the Lighting Bug program. During that decade, a massive US
foreign policy shift in its relation toward China and a new détente
policy against the Soviet Union, made the UAV planned main mission,
deep incursion into China and the USSR with the aim of gathering as
much information as possible, a non starter for the time’s political
leaders.
With the end of the Vietnam War, the US armed forces curtailed to the
minimum, the use of discretionary funds available for the development
of UAV and RPA platforms. During the late 70s and early 80s, the US
did not made any major effort towards the design and development of a
new series UAV or RPA systems. But the situation dramatically changed
when the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) deployed a series of small,
unmanned platforms in the Bekaa Valley, Lebanon during 1982. In what
is still called one of the most carefully planned and executed air
plans ever, the IDF utilized the UAV in two different profiles. The
first mission assigned the UAV was the gathering of intelligence
regarding the Syrians troop positions in the Valley, the second, and
the most vital to the IDF, was to use the UAV to activate Syrian’s
air defence systems along the Valley, thus allowing Israeli aircraft
to pin them down and destroy them in a quick and massive strike. The
US military was closely monitoring the situation in the Bekaa Valley.
Immediately after the affair ended, US
military planners promptly realized the vast and untapped potential
of the UAV and RPA systems. Since the US did not posses at the time
any significant UAV platforms in its arsenal, systems such as the
successfully Israeli’s Pioneer System; they began the process of
buying Pioneers from Israel, while at the same time, investing vast
amount of human and financial resources on their own UAV programs.
The first of the US next generation UAV was the RQ-1 Predator System
A. The System A was a jointly developed platform, a consortium,
compromising the Navy and the Army. It was designed to be operated by
all branches of the military. But 1996, the Air Force was assigned
full operational control over the complete programme.
The System A made its first
operational deployment during the Balkans Crisis in 1996 as an
advance intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
platform. Since then, every US armed forces deployment have utilized
the Predator System A’s unique characteristics. Between 1996 and the
end of 2004, the Predator platform had logged almost 100,000 flight
hours, sixty eight percent of them on operational profiles.
The next Predator variant to become
operational was the MQ-1 System. The MQ-1 is basically a System A
platform armed with the AGM-114 “Hellfire” missile for operational
threat protection and target engagement. Since its inception into the
force, the MQ-1 had been one of the US military most requested
platforms. It had performed in all US combat theatres. Next step of
the US UAV programme was the development of the RQ-4 Global Hawk
System. The RQ-1 made its maiden flight in 1998 and since then had
logged well over 7,000 flight hours. Most of them taking place on the
heavily saturated theatres of Afghanistan and Iraq. Operation Iraqi
Freedom was a tailor-made theatre for the RQ-4 mission profile. It
gave the UAV the opportunity to showcase its ISR assets on a highly
fluid environment. The RQ-4 ISR feedback was such that although they
flew only five percent of all the operational missions, they
accounted for fifty five percent of the target designated pins
against the Iraqi air defence network. Other small UAV systems such
as the Pointer, Raven and the Force Protection Aerial Surveillance
System (FPASS) were deployed in both Afghanistan and later, Iraq.
These man-portable, short range platforms were employed mostly to
provide the US forces with additional base protection force,
reconnaissance and targeting duties.
From Fiscal 1954 to 1999, the US Armed Forces spent the sum of nearly
$ 21 billion on the research and development of UAV and RPA
platforms, the vast majority of the assigned funds went to the Air
Force. Total spending during the period was less than $ 500 million a
year. In the decade of the 1990s, the US Department of Defence spent
well over $ 3 billion of UAV and RPA development, production and
operational profiles. The US is expected to triple that amount before
this decade is out. The Air Force is investing massive amount of
financial resources upgrading the current UAV and RPA system fleet as
well as on the design, development and production of the MQ-9 System
and a near-space platforms, which, along with the development of the
next generation of small UAV platforms; will augment the Air Force’s
larger RPA programmes.
Because of the massive infusion of
funds and personnel into the UAV and RPA programs, and the need to
centralize the operations of this new force spectrum, a Joint UAV
Centre of Excellence (JCOE) was established by the Joint Requirement
Oversight Council in July 2005. Based at Creech air Force Base,
Indiana Springs, Nevada; the Centre's primary mission is to optimize
the UAV and RPA requirements to meet current and future mission
requirements. The Air Force is also expanding its research into
Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAV) and it’s expected to have an
operational system by the end of the decade. Others branches had
follow the Air Force’s lead. Currently, the US Special Operations
Command had increased its funding for UAV systems. The Navy is going
ahead with plans to accelerate the development of fixed and rotary
winged UAV and RPA for carrier group defence, ISR and later,
submarine detection and targeting. The Army and the Marine Corp are
also investing on UAV design and development. Overseas, the US had
fielded MQ-1 platforms in Italy and Great Britain; and is assisting
Germany with the development of the Euro-Haw System. At the same
time, the Air Force is exploring the possibility of fielding UAV and
RPA systems to patrol the vast Pacific Ocean operational theatre.
In addition to military applications for the UAV and RPA, there are
several federal agencies looking into the possibility of employing
UAV systems. The Home Land Security Agency (HLS) will field a full
operation UAV squadron by decade’s end. The HLS is planning to use
UAV platforms to patrol common borders, target human and drug
smugglers, detect chemical, biological, and radiological components
entering the US. NASA also plans to utilize the UAV for weather
reconnaissance, environmental data collection and other scientific
research purposes. The uses for these platforms are as limited as the
technology employed permitted today.
II. Today’s UAV and RPA Platforms
Three main factors had combine to make the UAV systems more
attractive to today’s armed forces.
(1) Technology: Major leaps in technology had made the implementation
of a vast array of sensor systems into an unmanned aircraft more
feasible today. Sensors and weapons payloads storage on UAV are been
miniaturized for storage efficiency. Smaller and more capable systems
provide the UAV and RPA greater capability per unit weight. New data
link networks are providing high bandwidth connectivity for UAV
command and control, payload release and data transfer. Increments on
microchip capabilities, added with an improved software, internal
navigation systems and global positioning systems integrations;
enables the UAV to acquire an almost autonomous flight control
system. The use of new composite materials on the UAV airframe had
incorporated stealthy features to the vehicle. Advances in air
propulsion had resulted on increase fuel efficiency, thus extending
the UAV level of operational endurance.
(2) Current Global Events. In the diverse and fluid environment that
composes the world today, the UAV provides the armed forces with a
flexible, highly deployable platform. UAV and RPA also can operate on
environments deemed too difficult for humans to conduct operations.
Such as a chemical, biological, even nuclear events. Long flight
endurance provide continues support for updated ISR and targeting
data collection.
(3) The Unique Attributes. The special characteristics that the UAV
and RPA offered field commanders more flexibility when planning a
mission package. The endurance factor alone had reduced the need for
a higher human sortie level. Fewer sorties also means that fewer risk
are taking by manned aircraft and its pilots over hostile
environments. The ability to operate in remote locations around the
globe from ground stations located in the US, permit the UAV to be
mission-ready without the need of a forward deployment, thus reducing
forward deployment footprints, support, force protection and
personnel level.
But despite all of its advances during the last two decades, the Air
Force UAV and RPA programmes are still in its infancy. The arming of
the RQ-1 system with Hellfire missile is just but the first step on
the evolution of these systems from a pure ISR profiles to an
engagement operational platform. It is like the arming of biplanes
with machines guns during the early days of aviation. The US Defence
Department does not plan for a specific platform; it plans on
capabilities and effects. The unmanned platform’s characteristics are
neither, capability or an effect. By utilizing capability/bases
mission planning for effect/bases operational profiles, the US can
precisely determinate which specific mission packages are more
appropriated for the UAV mission profile.
III. Advantages
The UAV and RPA system offer field commander with an array of special
attributes. Traits that made these systems more attractive to
implement on a fluid, deployable environment situation.
(1) Endurance. UAV platforms, from its conception, are design to
flight for extensive periods of time, needing breaks only for
refueling and maintenance. Numerous technological factors had
provided the UAV with this characteristic. The development of more
fuel-efficient power plants, streamline airframes, and the
utilization of the space reserved for the crew and its support system
to house aviation fuel, had provided the UAV with its extended loiter
trait. The future incorporation of in-flight aerial refuelling,
couple with advances in next-generation power sources; will permit
the platform to increase even more its endurance capability. This new
level of endurance will have a profound effect on how the Air Force
plans and conducts military operations around the world. In the
future, UAV and RPA platforms will work closely with manned systems
and space-based assets to provide the US military with continuous
coverage of the enemy’s activities. This will translate into a
complete dominance over a defined area of operations, allowing the US
to in fact, shape and affect the enemy’s actions. The absence of a
crew mitigates the human limitation associated with flight
operations: fatigue.
(2) Technology. Like its manned counterparts, future UAV and RPA
platforms will incorporate stealth-like features and an array of
advance defensive measures in order to penetrate heavily saturated
air defence environments. Unmanned systems are coming into an age of
unprecedented advances in data network transfer. The Net-centric
operation, which is design to take full advantage of the UAV and RPA
data transfer technology, will prove crucial command and control
instructions to the next generation of platforms. The full
integration of command protocols with compatible platform-based
software will enable future unmanned system to utilize a
semi-autonomous protocol, thus streamlining the command and control
procedure.
(3) Integration. For the UAV to realize their enormous potential,
they need to be fully incorporated into the global defence network.
The capability of the unmanned platforms, as well as the manned
systems, increase when they join common operational packages. Network
integration and intelligence sharing protocols would be de backbone
of the Air Force’s UAV fleets in the years to come. As these
platforms are integrated into the overall force structure, they will
become a multiply factor. Remote control operators will be able to
coordinate air-to-ground, air-to-surface, and in the future,
air-to-air ordinance employment.
IV. Limitations
As with all airborne operational systems, Unmanned Air Vehicles had
similar limitations as its manned counterparts. One of the main
concerns is the weight factor. Payload and fuel capacity are
inversely related. As new materials and constructions techniques come
into play, they will help decrease the overall weigh of the UAV, thus
enable ling the platform to maximize its range and payload capacity.
Advances in propulsion systems have the potential to provide the UAV
with greater thrust and fuel efficiency. However, this potential
exist only to the extent that it is not otherwise offset by the ever
expanding mission profile that could drive total weight back to the
early levels.
Like its manned counterparts, unmanned aircraft are susceptible to
extreme weather conditions as well as being vulnerable to kinetic and
no-kinetic weapon treats. This is relatively true about the slow
moving, low-altitude, bulgier early generation UAV platforms that
were not equipped with next generation survivability systems and/or
day and night operation capability in hostile environment. Add to the
equation the range limitations of most of the non-kinetic weapon,
both manned and unmanned air systems employing these systems must
engage the enemy at low altitude, increasing their vulnerability.
Like manned systems, the UAV can mitigate this vulnerability through
low observable integrated aircraft system design, dynamic mission
planning, air-to-air weapon systems for self-defence, electronic
countermeasures and other active defence systems such as chaff flares
and the ability to call for support from other aircraft, both manned
and unmanned ones.
UAV can also be made more “intelligent” and unpredictable in its
performance much like the manned systems using advance computer
processor and incoming new mission management software that would
present a more challenging target for hostile adversaries. Coming
on-line now are new airframe designs that would incorporate an
investment in airworthiness and survivability consistent with the
mission profile. Like manned aircraft, the current UAV platforms
systems suffer from shortcomings in reliability. However, as the MQ-1
Predator and RQ-4 Global Hawk system programs transition moved from
Advance Concept Technology Demonstration vehicles to full production
and operation platforms, field mishaps rates declined in late 2004.
From 1999 to mid 2004 the average accident rate for both the Predator
and Global Hawk systems was approximately 24 mishaps per 100,000
flying hours. This treat had gone downward ever since then. As
improve operator display capabilities, a more advance flight control,
including the most needed automatic take-off and landing control for
the MQ-9 platform; as well as increase training come on-line, this
downward trend will likely be sustained for the foreseeable future.
The reliability aspect of the project is directly tied up to cost.
Repairing and refurbishing UAV platforms quickly are an expensive
proposition. As redundant subsystems are incorporated in the UAV to
prevent accidents, reliability will increase. For example, most
current UAV and RPA platforms are single-engine systems. Twin-engine
systems may prove to be more reliable in the battlefield. But the
need for reliability must be balanced against the added cost to the
overall program, weight and complexity. At the same time, improve
crew training, increase operational experience and advances in flight
control software are resulting in the decrease, above mentioned. The
Air Force must continue to invest heavily in human-platform
interface, increase operator and maintainer training and the
development of new career paths. This kind of investment will result
in increase system flexibility and to a continued reduce number in
mishaps situations attributed to human factors.
In the near future, it’s unlikely that unmanned platforms will
demonstrate the same reliability as their manned counterparts. The
ever expanding threat environment and the accelerated pace of
incoming technology upgrades, create their own set of challenge to
the Air Force. Current aircraft, including unmanned ones, are limited
somewhat in their payload capacity and mission profile. As current
enemies use commercially available technologies with a short-cycle,
future weapons platforms must be able to adapt quickly and
incorporated new capabilities. The Air Force must find a way to adopt
and integrate advance systems as quick as possible before the next
major leap in technologies make those systems obsolete. They should
explore new promising technologies such as lighter than air platforms
and near space aircrafts, morphine structures, advance propulsion
systems, advance human interfaces, and direct energy systems. Also,
developmental investment should be made in the defence of those
systems, because current and future adversaries might do the same in
the future.
V. The Near Future
The future role of the UAV and RPA platforms are as limited as their
manned counterparts. Future UAV systems will be capable of not only
performing ISR missions, but targeting pin, and spectrum data
collection. New onboard sensors will allow the platforms to perform
current-time battle assessment, some systems will carry a blue force
tracking system, enable them to recognize friend or foe assets. All
platforms will be able to perform communication bridges between
operational package systems, thus dramatically reducing the time data
is transfer from platform to platform. All of these newly
incorporated profiles will not subtract from the UAV main operational
objective, vast data collection.
The area which holds to our imagination and provides the greatest
potential is the arming of the UAV and RPA platforms. This
alternative will provide the military with a low cost, low risk
alternative to a manned aircraft mission. Either operating as part as
a manned-unmanned strike envelop, or as stand-alone platform, the UVA
will have ability to suppress enemy air defences by the employment of
kinetic and non-kinetic weapon systems. They can capitalize on their
low observable characteristic and long endurance profiles in order to
hunt and destroy time-sensitive enemy targets. The third generations
of UAV platforms are likely to be able to carry a more diverse
offensive and defensive payload, providing field commanders with an
added current-time retaliation option. Unmanned systems will also be
deployed for psychological operations. They can broadcast radio
signals to enemy troops as well as deliver propaganda leaflets. They
also will conduct high-risk, electronic suppression missions deep
inside the enemy’s airspace; decoys missions are also planned for the
UAV, all in an effort to disable the enemy’s ability to track
incoming manned packages. What the future holds for the UAV and RPA
systems, is almost the same we once thought about manned aviation,
technology just need to catch up with ideas and concepts.
|
|
|