War Urgency Drives Decisions on U.S. Deployment of Drones.

As U.S. military planners prepare to increase the presence of unmanned aircraft over Afghanistan, they should not rush to the conclusion that UAVs are money savers, experts said.

The conventional wisdom about unmanned aircraft is that they save manpower, because pilots are not needed. UAVs keep pilots out of enemy fire, but they do not necessarily save on support and maintenance costs, said Larry Dickerson, senior analyst at Forecast International, a business intelligence firm.

When a military unit deploys UAVs, he said, "you may need more people. ... If you eliminate the pilot, it does nor mean that you eliminate the engine technician or the ground technician."

He also noted that it rakes a fairly long rime to deploy a UAV system. "With the Predator (see related story), it rakes anywhere between 10 to 20 days or even a month. Global Hawk could even be longer," Dickerson said.

The Global Hawk is the Air Force's newest long-range reconnaissance UAV.

The cost of UAVs, additionally, is not low enough to make them disposable, Dickerson said. They range in price from half a million dollars up to $20 million.

"We've critically been lacking the tactical UAVs, the real cheap version for a long, long time," said the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James L. Jones. As the war in Afghanistan continues, he said he hopes that the production of tactical UAVs will be accelerated.

"The payloads--sensors, airframes and the control and communication network--that are combined to provide the capability that we need are not inexpensive," said a senior defense official, who briefed reporters at the Pentagon. Nevertheless, UAVs are, in military parlance, "attritable," which means that the Pentagon can afford to lose them, the official said, "especially when the alternative is the loss of manned aircraft or an aircrew."

"The risk is nothing and the gain is humongous," said a Northrop Grumman executive, who is involved in a program to develop the Navy's Fire Scout vertical takeoff UAV The executive asked not to be quoted by name, citing company policy.

Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor for the Global Hawk, which, at press time, was reported to be preparing for a deployment to Afghanistan.

The hype surrounding the use of UAVs in the ongoing conflict should not distract from some of the problems that need to be solved in UAVs, said the senior defense official. "There are issues with communications. ... There are issues with combat ID, making sure that you have an ID situational awareness that you might have with a manned platform that you may not have with an operator of a UAV." In this conflict, he added, "there is a lot of situational awareness and a lot of dynamic aspects about the mission that may never be suitable for unmanned aircraft."

Dickerson asserted that unmanned vehicles, no matter how advanced, could not completely replace the manned systems. "You are never going to make machines that smart," he said. There will be a gradual insertion of UAVs into the forces, first freeing pilots from hazardous assignments, said Dickerson. "You don't have to necessarily expose the pilot to hostile fire to see what air defense system is operating in the area."

He warned the UAV industry to avoid promising too much and raising the expectations to unreasonable levels. "If you don't deliver, people will buy other manned systems," he said.

Dickerson said that Global Hawk would be a "good system to have in Afghanistan if the forces actually have a need for it." One has to know exactly what to monitor for, he said. Because the Global Hawk flies at a much higher altitude, "Afghanistan does not have weapons to get it down," Dickerson said. "It would be embarrassing if the Taliban managed to bring down the system."

The RQ-4 Global Hawk is a high altitude UAV (up to 65,000 feet) designed to provide wide area coverage (up to 40,000 nautical miles per day). To date, it has accomplished more than 100 flights and 1,200 flight hours.

From April to June 2001, the Global Hawk was deployed to Australia. "We completed 13 to 14 planned sorties supporting Australian activities for coastal surveillance, maritime surveillance, and we also participated in the exercise Tandem Thrust, which was a joint U.S.-Australian-New Zealand-Canadian naval exercise," said the defense official.

Global Hawk takes off and lands conventionally on a runway, and carries a 1,950-pound payload for 36 hours. The Air Force wants to grow the payload to about 3,000 pounds. The sensors are electro-optical and infrared cameras, as well as a synthetic aperture radar. "With the cameras, we can identify targets out to 30 miles, and the radar is effective to over 100 miles," said the official. The Air Force has budgeted for two aircraft per year starting in fiscal 2002. The initial operational capability was scheduled for 2005.

During the development phase, the Air Force bought five Global Hawks and lost one to a mishap. "We currently have two more in production to be delivered during this fiscal year," said the official. He added that the plan was to buy 51 production air vehicles and nine additional ground stations, with the first production deliveries in fiscal year 2003.

The Air Force currently has four systems that it could deploy, although Dickerson predicted that only two would be sent to war, if any at all. However, he said, the question is whether enough people are trained on the system. "They will have to take people who tested the system, some of the support personnel will have to go, maybe even some from the contractor, Northrop Grumman," Dickerson speculated.

During a conference in Reno, Nev., sponsored by the National Defense Industrial Association, the Northrop Grumman official said that UAV programs, no matter how well they perform, come with an inherent amount of risk. "There has never been a UAV program that has successfully completed EMD [engineering and manufacturing development]," he said. "All of them are a result of a demonstration program. We tried many, we failed many." Several UAV programs in the past fell victims to the pressure that EMD programs bring, he said. "We want to be revolutionary, we want to be transformational, but our bureaucracy within the development program brings a lot of weight."

Fire Scout has completed 19 months of a 42-month, $93 million EMD phase, he said. "We struggle and deal with problems every day."

Fire Scout is a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) tactical UAV. It is designed to remain on station for at least three hours, flying at speeds of 110 nautical miles with a payload of 200 pounds. It has an electro-optical infrared sensor with a laser designator/range finder.

The Navy selected the Fire Scout in February 2000 to fill a need for a UAV that could operate from all aircraft-capable ships. Fire Scout will also fill a requirement for the Marines, who need a UAV to support Marine Expeditionary Units operating from amphibious assault ships. Together, the Navy and Marine Corps plan to acquire 23 systems of three aircraft apiece, between fiscal years 2003 and 2007. Additionally, the Coast Guard is considering Fire Scout for its proposed Deepwater modernization program.

The Fire Scout is a derivative of a commercial helicopter, the Schweizer 333.

Each Fire Scour system includes three helicopters, two ground stations based on Humvees and a modular mission payload. "Our helicopter is very nimble, and can make corrections very quickly if you update it very quickly," the Northrop Grumman official said. "The aircraft figures out how to land. We just rake the info of the accurate location, and the vehicle will figure out how to get there. We do not need rafts anymore." With three helicopters, the system could stay on station for up to 12 hours, he said.

The helicopter can fly up to 15,000 feet. "We can pass control of our vehicle from ship to shore at any time," he said.

Among the key technologies needed to mature in UAVs are miniaturization and weapons, Dickerson said.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is currently sponsoring other UAV programs. Teamed with the Air Force, DARPA is funding the X-45 Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV). A contract was awarded to Boeing in March 1999. A prototype is scheduled to fly in the near future. The UCAV was designed as a SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) platform, and is expected to cost about one-third of the price of a Joint Strike Fighter.

DARPA also is teamed with the Navy to develop a Navy UCAV and examine concepts for an eventual carrier-based UCAV for surveillance, strike, and SEAD missions. Boeing and Northrop Grumman are developing competing designs for the Navy UCAV.

The Advanced Air Vehicle (AAV) program, also a DARPA project, is developing two rotorcraft projects, the Dragon Fly Canard Rotor Wing (CRW) and the A160 Hummingbird. The CRW will demonstrate the ability to take off and land from a hover, then transition to fixed wing flight for cruise. The A160 UAV uses a hinge-less, rigid rotor to achieve a high-endurance (over 24 hours), high-altitude (30,000 feet) rotorcraf.

DARPA also has been exploring four designs for micro air vehicles (MAV), which are miniature aircraft, less than 6 inches in any dimension. The MAVs are designed to aid individual soldiers and Marines fighting in urban areas. The program is pushing technologies such as small, lightweight propulsion, small sensors, and communication technologies.

While all these programs are being developed, the services are looking at ways to make the UAVs joint and interoperable, said Navy Capt. Roy Rogers, director of the joint UAV program office. Addressing the NDIA conference, he said that UAV interoperability will be a difficult task. "Existing tactics, techniques and procedures do not adequately support a joint UAV employment in dynamic, time-sensitive operations," he said. A Navy-led program, the Tactical Control System, is developing a network that can allow UAV users to command and control other services UAVs and disseminate information across a number of command and control nodes.

"[TCS] is our primary entry into the interoperability world," said a senior defense official.

Rogers said that a lot of work needs to be done in areas such as air-interdiction and armed reconnaissance, fire support, special operations, non-combatant evacuation operations and personnel recovery.

Dyke Weatherington, deputy director for UAV sensors and data links at the office of the defense secretary said that there are four issues that need to be addressed in the UAV community: technical (architecture), regulatory (airspace), political (treaty implications and organizational.

The technical issue is whether to migrate towards air-centric (processor based) or ground-centric (communications based) architecture, Weatherington said at the NDIA conference. "In the case of the former, relatively autonomous UAVs with minimal ground infrastructure and direct downlinks to users will be the norm," said the UAV roadmap published by the OSD this year. In a ground-centric architecture, UAVs will be remote "dumb" sensors feeding a variety of sensory data into a centralized ground node which builds derailed pictures for the users.

Another issue is how to safely integrate UAVs into the National Airspace System, which is customized for manned flights. Weatherington said that standards must be established to allow UAVs top operate flexibly within the NAS, even for high-altitude missions involving flights above all civil traffic, because UAVs still have to climb through a potentially crowded airspace.

The services, through organizations such as the Air Force Flight Standards Agency, ensure military aircraft operations comply with FAA standards and share the responsibility with the FAA for safe airspace integration. However, the FAA sets the standards.

According to the Pentagon's UAV roadmap, "The vision for future UAV operations should be one in which the UAV pilot can check the sky, decide to fly, file a flight plan and be airborne, all within one day."

UAV developers and policy makers also must address treaty requirements, when it comes to the deployment of armed UAVs. These treaties include the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty, the 1990 Conventional Armed Forces in Europe treaty and the 1991 Strategic Arms reduction treaty.

While there are a number of organizations involved in managing UAV efforts, responsibility for certain functions is not defined clearly, said Weatherington. Some of these functions include establishing interoperability standards for mission planning and control software, sensor-product formats; identifying common equipment; prioritizing funding for promising technologies with cross-service applicability; ensuring UAVs are considered as an option in new aircraft programs; the advocacy of the Defense Department's interests in non-defense UAV forums (Congress, intelligence community, NASA) and participation in UAV export decisions with the State and Commerce Departments.

RELATED ARTICLE: Despite Doubts, Air Force Stands by Predator

A growing confidence in unmanned aircraft technology may result in additional deployments of U.S. military drones to Afghanistan and other parts of the world in the near future.

But taking advantage of this technology is easier said than done, given that unmanned flight technologies are in various stages of development and have yet to reach technological maturity for combat use, said experts.

The UAV industry "is by no means a mature industry, "said Daryl Davidson, the executive director of the Association for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles International, based in Arlington, Va. 'We are still in the mode of gaining very valuable operational situations. The more information we gather in a hostile environment as it would be now [Afghanistan], the more we can improve the current information."

The Air Force's Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has gained notoriety in recent weeks for its role in U.S. operations against the Taliban militias in Afghanistan. But even the Pentagon acknowledged that the system still has problems that need to be worked out.

A report released in late October by the Pentagon's office of operational testing and evaluation (DOT&E) said that the Predator is not "operationally effective or suitable."

According to DOT&E Director Thomas Christie, "this judgment rests primarily on an operational assessment against the user's standards for effectiveness and suitability."

Predator began as a technology demonstration in 1994. The prime contractor is General Atomics, of San Diego, Calif. It was deployed to the Balkans in 1996. Since that time, Predator has been sent to Europe and also supported operations in Southwest Asia. During Operation Allied Force, over Kosovo, Predator flew more than 50 sorties in support of targeting operations.

Predator is a long-endurance system that can fly 400 nautical miles, loiter for about 14 hours, and then fly back 400 nautical miles. It operates usually at about 15,000 feet although it can fly as high as 25,000 feet. The payload is roughly 450 pounds. A pilot with a stick controls the aircraft.

The UAV carries electro-optical and infrared video cameras, as well as a synthetic-aperture radar. "This aircraft is known for its video," said an Air Force official. "It's become the commander's real-time eye in the sky, providing real-time streaming video back to the command post."

The Air Force has stood up two Predator squadrons at Indian Springs Auxiliary Airfield, in Nevada.

Each Predator system consists of four air vehicles, the ground-control stations and satellite links. Air Force has ordered 12 systems, the last two of which were being delivered by late 2001.

To date, the Air Force has received 60 air vehicles and lost 20 due to mishaps, weather conditions, or losses over enemy territory.

Christie's report noted that the Predator has poor target location accuracy and often communicates poorly. Rain has a detrimental effect on "strike support; combat search and rescue, area search and continuous coverage," the report said.

DOT&E officials pointed out the Predator's original program requirement is to operate for 30 days, providing around-the-dock reconnaissance support to commanders, including operations "under adverse weather conditions, in areas where enemy defenses have not been adequately suppressed, open ocean and contaminated environments."

The Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) gave Predator a more favorable review. If found the system to be effective, but not without "limitations and difficulties and suitable, though reliability and maintainability problems persist."

A DOT&E spokesperson said the office was unable to provide information about the testing criteria on which the report was based.

A senior Air Force official who briefed reporters on background explained that Predator was designed and built outside the normal acquisition procedures, as an experiment. That experiment turned out a system that the Air Force wanted for combat use.

Since the experimental development began in 1994, he said, "We've upgraded engines, we've upgraded sensors, we've done a lot of work" He daimed that many of the problems cited by DOT&E have been fixed. "I think Predator proved its case in Kosovo, and I think if you spoke to the [regional commanders], they [would tell you that they] thought it was a useful capability."

One improvement being sought is digital imagery, which will replace analog data, said the official. The technology, he said, will make it easier to pinpoint targets on the ground.

An Air Force spokeswoman, who was interviewed under condition of anonymity, said that the "Air Force likes the Predator." Although it was never declared operational, it is being used as an operational system, because it works, she said. The Air Force is working on a formal response to Christie's report and to Congress.

"You can only expect [Predator] to function within certain parameters," said Larry Dickerson, senior analyst at Forecast International, a business intelligence firm. Even though the system has bugs, he said, the Air Force has few other options. "Otherwise, you won't have the capability at all."

Davidson attributed some of the problems to the fact that UAVs get relatively little funding compared to manned aircraft programs.

But Pentagon expenditures on UAV programs are not insignificant and are growing. The Defense Department invested more than $3 billion in UAV development procurement and operations during the past five years. It plans to invest $2.3 billion more by 2005, and is likely to spend $4.2 billion by 2010. According to the so-called UAV Roadmap, by 2010, the UAV inventory of all the military services is expected to grow to 290 vehicles.

Dickerson questioned whether the current focus on UAVs will be maintained, once they are out of the spotlight "Right now, they [UAVs] are getting attention, but if they will after this conflict that is questionable." After Desert Storm, for example, the Pentagon realized it needed more reconnaissance systems. "That was 10 years ago, and they are still not doing anything about it," he said. "The F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter, those are the top of the list--UAVs are only the bottom of the system. We are very unfamiliar with UAV operation."

In his opinion, the DOT&E report is stating the obvious. "The worst thing that happens with UAVs is that people ask them to do a lot, and they are asked to do more and more," he said. "If you think they have problems with the Predator, wait until they do the UCAV (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle), because it is not going to be easy."

The Predator was not designed to be armed, but nevertheless is being equipped with Hellfire missiles. The senior Air Force official said, without providing specifics, that a UAV mission recently demonstrated that Predator was "combat capable" as a Hellfire shooter. He noted that the armed Predator is compliant with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF Treaty, which restricts the use of long-range cruise missiles.

To be able to mount two Hellfire missiles per aircraft, the wings had to be modified.

The Air Force spokeswoman said that the testing had two phases. One focused on safely launching a Hellfire missile from a low altitude and hitting a target. The second phase was about engaging targets from altitudes as high as 15,000 feet. However, portions of the second phase have not been completed yet, the spokeswoman said. The plan was to try to hit moving targets, but the Air Force senior official said they ran out of money before they could accomplish that part of the test.

During the Hellfire tests, the official said, there were concerns about the 100-pound load and how it would affect the aircraft. "We did reduce endurance by a couple of hours because of the drag," he said. 'We also dissembled a wing to see how much fracturing we had, and we didn't have that much."

General Atomics is currently developing Predator B, a turbo-prop system that officials said, will have 50 percent more payload capacity, an endurance for up to 24 hours and speeds over 220 knots operating at altitudes of 45,000 feet.