Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

Recent naval operations in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq have been carried out successfully in a joint environment in which much useful information was generated by unmanned aerial vehicles. These experiences have sharpened insight into the nature of complex threats and how to deal with them in order to assure access for maneuver and the delivery of effective firepower. Furthermore, foreign ports and the homeland must be defended against threats—some “asymmetric” and some sophisticated—which may arrive by sea or air. These threats are often characterized by their mobility and may be attempted over extended periods of time. Surveillance must thus take place over wide areas and operate over long time periods, which can be risky and at least wearing for the personnel involved. The possible costs and risks incurred are strong arguments for expanded use of unmanned vehicles in future operations.

The successful use of unmanned vehicles in recent operations has led to recognition of their broader utility and to additional calls for more unmanned vehicles by President George W. Bush and his Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld. Attracted by the prospect of lower unit cost and risk for unmanned vehicles than for manned vehicles, all of the Services have been active in this area with initiatives and plans for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), uninhabited combat air vehicles (UCAVs), unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), unmanned surface vehicles (USVs), and unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs); in some cases there have been operational deployments. From these efforts it has become widely appreciated that unmanned vehicle systems can offer many opportunities, including surveillance and reconnaissance, targeting of firepower with onboard weapons, damage assessment, and service as communications nodes and for signals

intelligence, environmental measurements, and the detection and identification of nuclear, biological, and chemical threats.

Recent experiments and evaluations have indicated that before the effective deployment of unmanned vehicles, many technical and operational questions remain to be addressed, such as the level of autonomy needed, as well as issues relating to reliability, environmental sensitivity, vehicle integration, and operational training. The technical challenges include size, endurance, speed, recoverability, survivability, altitude or depth range, along with onboard and offboard trade-offs related to communications, intelligence, situation awareness (for deconfliction), replanning capability (needed for threat changes), multiple vehicle control, and human interfaces. The topic of autonomous vehicles clearly has many aspects and corresponding technological challenges that must be addressed in order to enhance their overall utility to naval (and joint) operations.

In August 2002, the Chief of Naval Operations requested that the National Research Council, under the auspices of the Naval Studies Board, establish a committee to review the status of, experience with, technology challenges related to, and plans for development and concepts for autonomous vehicles (AVs) in support of naval operations. The terms of reference for the study are provided below. John J. Deyst of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology chaired the committee. Biographical information on the membership and staff is presented in Appendix A.

At the request of the Chief of Naval Operations, the Naval Studies Board of the National Research Council conducted a study across all naval operational environments—sea, air, land, and space—to address the following (the chapters of the report that address each issue are shown in brackets):

• Review the status, experience, and lessons learned to date with autonomous vehicles in the military and other functional areas (space, industry, energy) [Chapters 1 and 3];

• Identify capabilities needed to improve the utility of autonomous vehicles in military operations and homeland defense, taking into account projected threats [Chapter 2];

• Examine and project technologies needed to achieve these capabilities, and the levels of autonomy involved [Chapters 3 through 6];

• Investigate the functional utility between vehicle autonomy and overall system complexity, survivability, and safety, accounting for networking, systems integration, logistics, and training [Chapter 3];

• Evaluate the potential of synergies involving combinations of autonomous vehicles and other naval platforms in military operations and homeland defense [Chapter 7]; and

• Identify opportunities and means for transitioning autonomous vehicles in support of naval operations, including systems integration issues related to battle group and amphibious readiness group compatibility [Chapters 4 through 6].

The Committee on Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations first convened in December 2002 and held further meetings and site visits over a period of six months, as summarized in the following list.

• December 9-10, 2002, in Washington, D.C. (Plenary Session). Organizational meeting. Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV), N81 and N513G, overview of Sea Power 21 and the vision of the future Navy; OPNAV, N780X, overview of Navy unmanned aerial vehicle requirements and initiatives; Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) briefing on DARPA science and technology initiatives on unmanned vehicles; U.S. Navy Program Executive Office, Littoral and Mine Warfare briefing on Navy unmanned undersea, sea surface, and ground vehicle technology development and transition; U.S. Navy Program Executive Office, Strike Weapons and Unmanned Aviation briefing on Navy unmanned aerial vehicle technology development and transition; Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory briefing on Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare, vision of the future Marine Corps, and Marine Corps perspective on requirements and initiatives for unmanned vehicles; Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Joint Robotics Program briefing on initiatives on unmanned ground vehicles; Naval Research Advisory Committee (NRAC) briefing on NRAC study on the role of unmanned vehicles; Office of Naval Research (ONR) and Naval Air Systems Command briefings on the autonomous operations Future Naval Capability program; and OSD overview of OSD Roadmap on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

• January 25-26, 2003, in Washington, D.C. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division study outbrief on shaping the future of naval warfare with unmanned systems; OPNAV, N61, overview of FORCEnet and the role unmanned vehicles play; OPNAV, N2, overview of Navy intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities and the role unmanned vehicles play; National Imagery and Mapping Agency overview of Digital Point Positional Database; OPNAV, N70, briefing on Navy requirements for unmanned vehicles; Northrop Grumman Corporation briefing on Global Hawk performance in Operation Enduring Freedom; Headquarters Marine Corps overview of Marine Corps ISR capabilities and the role unmanned vehicles play; Marine Corps Combat Development Command briefing on Marine Corps requirements for unmanned vehicles; and U.S. Navy Program Executive Office, Littoral and Mine Warfare briefing overview of Navy Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Master Plan.

• February 25-26, 2003, in Washington, D.C. OPNAV, N763, briefing on Navy unmanned surface vehicle requirements and an overview of the Littoral Combat Ship; Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division (NSWC/CD), briefing on NSWC/CD autonomy and unmanned vehicle initiatives; U.S. Coast Guard Program Executive Office, Integrated Deepwater Program, briefing on the role of unmanned vehicles in homeland security; Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (OASD C3I) briefing on the Global Information Grid, Transformational Communications, and other OSD efforts related to autonomous, unmanned vehicles; U.S. Air Force Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations briefing on Air Force Predator performance in Operation Enduring Freedom; ONR, Code 321, briefing on ONR autonomy and unmanned vehicle initiatives; Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) briefing on NUWC autonomy and unmanned vehicle systems; and Navy Warfare Development Command (NWDC) briefing on NWDC autonomy and unmanned vehicle experimentation and concept development.

• March 25-27, 2003, in San Diego, California. Briefings from AAI Corporation, Frontier Systems, AeroVironment, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, and Jet Propulsion Laboratory on technical background of their respective autonomous, unmanned vehicle programs; site visits to Naval Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, for briefing on Naval Air Force operational perspectives on autonomous unmanned vehicles; Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, briefing on Naval Special Force operation perspectives on autonomous unmanned vehicles; Naval Special Warfare Command briefing on operational and technical perspectives for employing autonomous, unmanned vehicles; U.S. Third Fleet briefings on operational and technical perspectives for employing autonomous, unmanned vehicles and operational use of Naval Fires Network; Northrop Grumman briefings on unmanned systems initiatives at Northrop Grumman; Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) briefings on undersea warfare FORCEnet concept, C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) for UAVs, UGVs, UUVs, very shallow water programs, chemical sensing in the marine environment and adaptive mission planning, Slocum undersea gliders, communications for unmanned vehicles, and expeditionary pervasive sensing enabling experiments; Program Executive Office for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence and Space (PEO C4I) overview of acquisition initiatives related to autonomous, unmanned vehicles; Jet Propulsion Laboratory on machine vision; and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems discussion on unmanned vehicle programs and initiatives.

• April 25-26, 2003, in Washington, D.C. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) briefing on uninhabited combat air vehicle-Navy (UCAV-N) carrier operation and the status of improving the reliability of automated carrier landing systems; Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) briefing on tactical microsatellites, sensors, autonomy, and other related AV developments; ONR briefing on the

Navy’s Autonomous Intelligent Network and Systems (AINS) initiative and other science and technology (S&T) initiatives; DARPA briefing on autonomous space tactical operations, unmanned ground systems, and other DARPA S&T initiatives; DRS Technologies briefing on Neptune Maritime UAV and other related developments; NAVAIR, PMA 263, briefing on status of and initiatives in the Navy unmanned aerial vehicles program and status of improving the reliability of automated carrier landing system for UCAV-N (and other UAV initiatives); Carnegie Mellon University briefing on autonomous and teleoperated field robotics; and Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology) briefing on the U.S. Army’s Objective Force Vision, Future Combat Systems, and the role unmanned vehicles play.

• May 19-23, 2003, in Irvine, California (Plenary Session). Committee deliberations and report drafting.

The months between the last committee meeting and publication of this report were spent preparing the draft manuscript, gathering additional information, reviewing and responding to external review comments, editing the report, and conducting the required security review to produce a public report.

This page intentionally left blank.

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions and recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Lee M. Hunt, Alexandria, Virginia. Appointed by

the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
IN SUPPORT OF
NAVAL OPERATIONS

This page intentionally left blank.