As the companion article here notes, the employment of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) has increased exponentially in the past 15 years. Despite some initial cultural roadblocks, UASs have become indispensable to our nation’s warfighters. However, the true test of their value lies in how effectively they are able to integrate with their manned counterparts. At a minimum, this requires deconflicting the airspace to prevent mishaps. However, a stronger model of integration mandates that manned and unmanned platforms work together, combining their strengths to “produce synergy not seen in single platforms.”1
There is currently no routine integration of manned and unmanned aircraft in civil airspace; instead, UAS access to the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS) has been granted on a case-by-case basis. The Pentagon’s ultimate goal is “to have appropriately equipped UAS gain routine access to the NAS in order to conduct domestic operations, exercises, training, and testing.”2 However, there are several barriers to overcome before this goal is realized. First and foremost, a sound “sense and avoid” capability must be developed to mitigate UAS’ lack of an on-board capability to see and avoid other aircraft, as is currently required by the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. In addition, coping mechanisms must be developed to address vulnerabilities of the UAS command-and-control link.3
However, a more significant challenge for such integration is that posed by “Manned-Unmanned (MUM) Teaming.” The concept of MUM Teaming has been spearheaded by the U.S. Army, which defines it as “the use of both an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) and an armed (manned) helicopter in one engagement.”4 Using the VUIT-2 system on AH-64 Apache helicopters, U.S. Army pilots can currently receive video feeds and other sensor information from a host of different Army UAS. This provides an unprecedented capability for increased standoff ranges, as it allows for “enhanced Situational Awareness, greater lethality, improved survivability, and perhaps in the future, [providing] sustainment.”5 Even more impressive, the Block III upgrade of the AH-64 (scheduled for 2012) will increase the Level of Interoperability, so that AH-64 pilots will be able to receive UAS feeds, control UAS Electro-Optical (EO)/Infrared (IR) payloads, and dynamically re-task UASs.6
According to DoD’s FY 2011-2036 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap, “To achieve the full potential of unmanned systems, DoD must continue to implement technologies and evolve tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) that improve the teaming of unmanned systems with the manned force.”7 The Army’s model provides one glimpse into the capabilities that these technologies and TTPs might ultimately deliver. The Navy would be well-advised to follow suit in developing its own model, as the future utility of UASs will depend on successfully achieving MUM integration.
1. U.S. Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap 2010-2035 (Fort Rucker AL: U.S. Army UAS Center of Excellence, April 2010), p. 15.
2. Department of Defense Report to Congress on Addressing Challenges for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Under Secretary of Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, September 2010 at http://www.acq.osd.mil/psa/docs/2010-uas-annual-report.pdf. Inside Defense, “DOD: UAS Flights In National Airspace To Boom In Next Five Years,” 18 November 2010.
3. Andrew Lacher et. al., “Airspace Integration Alternatives for Unmanned Aircraft,” presented at AUVSI Unmanned Asia-Pacific 2010, 1 February 2010 at: <http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/2010/10_0090/10_0090.pdf>
4. U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence, “Manned-Unmanned Operations (MUM-O),” 22 March 2010 at : <http://www.rucker.army.mil/docs/usaace_info/USAACE%20Info%20Paper%20UAS%20COE%20MUM-O%2022%20Mar%2010.pdf>. See also U.S. Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap 2010-2035 (Fort Rucker AL: U.S. Army UAS Center of Excellence, April 2010), pp. 15-16.
5. U.S. Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap 2010-2035 (Fort Rucker AL: U.S. Army UAS Center of Excellence, April 2010), p. 15.
6. As defined by NATO’s Standardization Agreement 4586, the five Levels of Interoperability are:
Level 1: Transfer of filtered UAV data to a third party
Level 2: Direct transfer of live UAV data via a ground station to a remote command system
Level 3: Control of the onboard systems by commanders in the command system
Level 4: In-flight control by the command system; level 5: Full flight control by the command system, including take-off and landing FY 2011-2036 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap (Washington, DC: Department of Defense). See also U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence, “Manned-Unmanned Operations (MUM-O),” 22 March 2010.
7. FY 2011-2036 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap (Washington, DC: Department of Defense).