Unmanned combat aerial vehicles and transformation

Joint Force Quarterly, Winter, 2002 by John J. Klein

Speaking in December 2001, President George Bush noted the changes that are occurring in the Armed Forces as the result of technological innovation: "Now it is clear the military does not have enough unmanned vehicles. We're entering an era in which unmanned vehicles of all kinds will take on greater importance--in space, on land, in the air, and at sea." The need for unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) was illustrated by recent operations in Southwest Asia that employed Predator unmanned aircraft with Hellfire missiles. Although no naval UCAVs currently exist, this shift implies that the sea services must determine their strategic capabilities to avoid using them when manned aircraft or other weapon systems might be more appropriate.

Congress has mandated that a third of deep strike capability be unmanned by 2010. And although the Pentagon indicated that it cannot meet the deadline, significant resources have been earmarked for this purpose. Overall funding is more than $1.1 billion in 2003, and the Navy requested $50 million for its program in 2003, an increase of $8 million over the 2002 budget level.

Several factors have contributed to the anticipated boom in naval UCAVs. The Predator reconnaissance UAV was successfully modified with Hellfire air to-ground missiles and employed in Afghanistan. Also, technology has advanced to the point where it is feasible to use unmanned vehicles for naval combat operations. Finally, naval vehicles have an advantage over land-based counterparts since the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1988 prohibited certain land-based cruise missile-like systems but not ship-based systems.

Current Initiatives

The Navy leveraged innovations in unmanned programs by the Air Force and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Presently, naval requirements address carrier-based UCAVs to suppress enemy air defenses, perform strike missions, and conduct intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). A notable difference among service requirements is that Navy specifications include such capabilities, while those of the Air Force do not. One reason for this disparity is that the Air Force utilizes other vehicles such as the ISR-proven Predator and Global Hawk.

The Office of Naval Research and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency have selected Boeing and Northrop Grumman to produce the UCAV advanced technology program demonstrator. This program will lead to the development of a system that could become operational by 2015. Requirements call for vehicles with a strike radius of 1,000 nautical miles and payloads of 2,000 pounds (including joint military munitions and new small diameter bombs). Naval guidelines also require UCAVs to perform a 12-hour ISR mission and operate up to altitudes of 35,000 feet. These vehicles will be the same class as F/A-18C aircraft and should have a unit cost one-third that of the joint strike fighter and an operational support cost half that of an F/A-18C squadron.

While the Marine Corps has no current UCAV programs, it has several under development. The requirements call for a family of inexpensive, man-portable vehicles for the battlefield. Dragon Eye, for example, weighs four pounds, has a three-foot wingspan, and is designed to operate at 35 knots with an endurance of one hour. Its one-pound sensor payload can provide day, low light, or night infrared sensor imagery to ground operators. After combat operations in Afghanistan, the Marine Corps sought to use Dragon Eye to support security forces within Kabul, and current plans call for fielding over 300 systems.

Quantifying the Qualitative

Military transformation is a revolutionary or significant improvement in hardware, tactics, or doctrine. In a period of technological breakthroughs, slowly evolving militaries run the risk of being overtaken by enemies that risk all on revolutionary changes. These visionaries seek a force that is lighter, more mobile, and more easily deployed to hotspots around the world.

While the military has climbed aboard the transformation bandwagon, the term has been misapplied and even tied to acquisition programs as a way of avoiding criticism and budget cuts. Overuse and misuse have understandably obscured the intended meaning.

Some claim that UCAVs are not transformational but rather the next step in the incremental evolution of aircraft. To prevent pundits from arguing which programs are transformational and to decide if the vehicles have a significantly improved capabilities over manned aircraft, it is desirable to put a stake in the ground and quantify this nebulous claim. Borrowing from engineering and the applied sciences, which routinely perform numerical calculations, the equivalent to transformation is likened to an order of magnitude change, which denotes significant or notable measurable change. Taking the most conservative approach to quantifying transformation, an order of magnitude change with the base 2 numbering system will be used to define transformation, thus denoting a measured doubling or halving.