Over the last decade, military forces have experienced a
dramatic growth in the availability and application of unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV) systems. Military elements operate multiple UAV platforms with current
combat operations highlighting the increasingly important contributions made by
these unmanned systems as both intelligence gathering and targeting assets.
Moreover, several UAV platforms are further expanding their operational contributions
through their use as weapons delivery platforms.
Shadow 200
One of the latest UAV systems to be acquired by U.S. forces
is AAI Corp.'s Shadow 200. Awarded the contract for the Army's Tactical UAVÂ
(TUAV) system in December 1999, AAI delivered four "systems" (each system
includes three air vehicles with a fourth air vehicle in the maintenance
section) under an initial low rate initial production (LRIP) contract.
According to Penn Mullowney, Director of UAV Program
Development at AAI, the company received a second LRIP award in February - March
2001 for four additional systems. Deliveries on those systems will begin in
June of this year with the first system slated for the Initial Brigade Combat
Team (IBCT) at Fort Lewis.
Speaking at the beginning of March, Mullowney said that, "We
should have a third LRIP contract awarded in the next week or so and that will
be for either five or six systems."
In addition to intelligence gathering, the Shadow 200 TUAV
provides battlefield commanders with a sophisticated target acquisition asset.
Mullowney said that, "One of our system requirements is to
be able to look at [artillery] fall of shot and give corrections. We send
messages into AFATDS [Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System]. We have
the ability to mark the fall of shot and give a location on that - we can get it
with respect to the target or we can get it as the actual grid coordinates. So
we can send it in whatever format they need.
"We did that during the limited user tests," he added. "Some
of the things that they did during the limited user tests were oriented toward
the operational effectiveness of the system. And one of the things that they
did was to fire artillery and mark the rounds."
Initial Operational Test & Evaluation (IOT&E) for
the Shadow 200 system will begin at Fort Hood, TX, in April of this year.
Hunter
Pending delivery of the Shadow 200 to the IBCTs at Fort Lewis,
those milestone "transformation" units are being supported by TRW's Hunter UAV.
The system has over 17,500 flight hours including a myriad successful combat
missions flown over Kosovo.
In a March 1, 2002, program update on the Hunter UAV
program, Lieut. Gen. (Ret.) Otto Guenther, vice president and general manager
of TRW's Tactical Systems Division, stated that, "Today we build, with another
company, the 200 pound-or-better multiple payload UAV called Hunter. The
Hunter has been used, up until now, in a training mode, in a surrogate mode to
support experimentation and capabilities up at Fort Lewis, and it has been
deployed into Europe on 90-day and 120-day stints for the last three years.
"It has been used at the National Training Center and it has
been used at the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk," Guenther added.
"The Hunter is fully operational and fully capable right now. They are also using
Hunter right now to develop different payload capabilities and integration
capabilities into that bird: new intel [intelligence] capabilities; new
de-icing capabilities; and also comm [communications] payloads. We've also used
it as an air relay and it has been used in experimentation to help get fire on
targets faster."
Stating that Hunter is "not a competitor at the Global Hawk
level," Guenther said that, "The DoD memorandum on UAVs says that the Army
needs to have one UAV system. As you know they are building a [Shadow 200]
Tactical UAV right now that carries about a 60-pound payload. But the Army
still has an organic requirement as we're told for a heavier-payload type UAV
and they may put out a requirement for competition for a future UAV for that. Today
we believe that they will be pushing to deploy Hunters into the operational
environment on an interim basis."Â
Situational Understanding vs. Targetable
Information
One aspect of UAV operations still being debated by service
planners as these diverse system flights and fieldings continue involves the
balance between general information gathering and target
acquisition/designation.
"What I think our 4th Infantry Division [Digitization
Experimentation] experiences tell us, going back to the Division Advanced
Warfighting Experiment in 1997, is that there are still two distinct functions
for UAVs," said Sam Coffman, at the U.S. Army Field Artillery Center and School
at Fort Sill, OK. Coffman currently serves as the deputy director for Fort Sill's
recently established Futures Development Integration Center (FDIC).
"We've been talking ad infinitum about whether intelligence
preparation of the battlefield, as a process, changes with the 'Objective
Force,' he said. "I believe that the consensus is that there is a requirement
to use UAVs for situational understanding, awareness and development. There is
also a UAV requirement to provide 'targetable information.' In the past, with
limited quantities of UAVs - and this has been true for sensors in general - we've
had somewhat of a tension over exercising those two related but somewhat
discrete functions.Â
"What our 4th Infantry Division experience said to us was,
when focused by the commander or by one of his assistants, the priority issue
tends to work itself out," he added.
"So I guess the answer would be, if we have a
'proliferation' in terms of asset quantities, I think you're going to see this
notion of the natural rub between situational development and targeting
development go down somewhat because the competition isn't as scarce. But
again, at the end of the day, it will to some degree, at places on the
battlefield, at certain timers, come back to the age old question of 'What's
most important at this time on the battlefield: developing the situation or
attacking targets?'Â And the commander, with his multi-hatted responsibilities,
will have to sort it out when those kinds of competitions arise," Coffman said.
Predator in Afghanistan
Part of the "proliferation" identified by Coffman is evident
in an increasing variety of UAV platforms that have been flying in recent U.S.
combat operations. One of the most obvious examples of this platform expansion
is the reported use of the Predator UAV by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA). As an Air Force employment example, a recently
released "notional scenario" provided by service representatives offers a
glimpse of the linkage between the eyes of the Predator UAV and Air Force
special operations gunship assets.
Dated January 2002, the unclassified script describes the
use of the Predator UAV to gain leverage by providing sensor data directly to
shooters, enabling on-the-fly coordination of targets in a dynamic environment.
According to the scripted vignette, "Data collected revealed
the presence of an al-Qaida cave complex in the Khowst Province of Afghanistan.
This high-priority target was put in the ATO cycle and struck by a variety of
weapons systems, with the combination of a Predator and an AC-130 Spectre
gunship proving particularly effective. Traditionally, an AC-130 coming into a
target area had to spend an extended period of time acquiring targets and
positioning itself to fire prior to actually engaging. Its high audible and
radar/IR signature left it vulnerable to air defenses during this time.
Additionally, its presence alerted enemy forces in the area, allowing them to
take cover or disperse."
"The ability of Predator to provide a direct video feed to
the AC-130 changes this," the script continues. "During the cave-complex
strikes, the Predator's low visible and audible signature allowed it to loiter
unnoticed over the target area, sending its data directly to an AC-130. The
AC-130, in turn, was able to orbit well away from the target area, developing
and keeping situational awareness through monitoring of the Predator video.
When targets were identified, the AC-130 was able to come into the area in
position and ready to engage, minimizing warning time. The provision of sensor
data directly to the shooter compresses the kill chain and ensures maximum
effectiveness."
New Sensor Packages
The critical contribution of UAVs in these types of modern
combat operations has served to increase the priority being placed on their
intelligence and targeting payload capabilities.
As an example, Raytheon Co. revealed on March 6 that their
Air Combat & Strike Systems Predator Rapid Reaction Team had successfully
delivered three fully integrated Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems (MTS) for the
Predator UAV. Deliveries were made to U.S. Air Force special operations
elements just 90 days after contract award. By comparison, a more typical
development and delivery cycle on a "first system" of this nature would
normally run 12-16 months.
According to Raytheon representatives, "The Predator, an
unmanned surveillance aircraft operated by the Air Force in the war in
Afghanistan, carries devices such as the MTS to gather intelligence remotely
without risking human life.
Incorporating sophisticated electronics, the MTS sensor
gives the Predator a greater capability by providing real time imagery
selectable between Infrared (IR) and Day TV and the ability to laser designate
the enemy for attack."
Coordination with Manned Aircraft
While offering greatly increased reconnaissance and
targeting capabilities on the modern battlefield, the proliferation of
multi-service and government agency UAV platforms also presents significant
coordination challenges for manned aircraft operating in the same airspace.
In an effort to address these and other challenges before
they become tactical employment problems, the U.S. Army's Aviation Applied
Technology Directorate (AATD) is conducting a range of ongoing UAV experiments.
The primary UAV system being used in current AATD experimentation is the SAIC
Vigilante.
"Vigilante is a low cost UAV with performance
characteristics that allow us to use it as a test bed vehicle," said AATD's
Thomas Watson. "I stress 'test bed,' because we're using it to test whatever
Army aviation can do with vertical takeoff unmanned aerial vehicles. Right now
we're looking at various teaming options of weapons platforms and sensor
platforms. We're using it for the Hunter Standoff Killer Technology
Demonstration, where an Apache, Comanche or Black Hawk would control Vigilante
from the air; send it out ahead of the manned platform for various missions
like scouting, surveillance, battle damage assessment, or other missions - to
perform those missions without putting a pilot's life at risk.
"We're also looking at putting Hellfire missiles on it,"
said Watson. "You can hang a Hellfire up underneath it and have a manned
platform or another Vigilante designate for the Hellfire - and you can remote
launch. The Low Cost Precision Kill 2.75-inch rocket could also be used the
same way as the Hellfire, except for lightly armored vehicles so you're not
wasting an expensive missile on an easy-to-kill target. We're exploring options
with any weapon system you can think of, from miniguns to a sniper-type rifle system."
Although the capabilities have obvious applicability to
battlefield observation, current AATD UAV experimentation does not include a
digital linkage between the UAV and field artillery assets.
"Right now, with this aircraft, our plans are not to look
into the digital side of things," said Chief Warrant Officer Lance Nation. "We
want to look at whether we can observe and also take out point targets that we
in the aviation community can actually observe. When you get into calling for
fire, the person who is on the ground can call for fire based on what he is
seeing off the UAV camera image. So you would actually be a remote person who
could call for fire."
Nation added that the creation of a digitized call-for-fire
linkage would require "a few more boxes that we're not looking at right now.
Whether or not we would run the data to the field artillery would be up to the
discretion of the commander who is on the field.
"Can we integrate it? Yes we can. But is our plan to
digitize that integration? That answer is 'no,' because the person who is on
the ground will have to make that decision. What we don't want to do is take an
aircraft this size or a UAV this size and start taking the weight from 4,500
pounds to 5,500 pounds because we keep adding and adding things. Then we're
taking it out of its initial role as a very lightweight, cost-effective
platform," he said.