AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES IN SUPPORT OF NAVAL OPERATIONS

Committee on Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations

Naval Studies Board

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES IN SUPPORT OF NAVAL OPERATIONS Committee on Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations Naval Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. N00014-00-G-0230, DO #14, between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of the Navy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-09676-6 Copies of this report are available from: Naval Studies Board The Keck Center of the National Academies 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room WS904 Washington, DC 20001 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES 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

OCR for page R1
Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations COMMITTEE ON AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES IN SUPPORT OF NAVAL OPERATIONS JOHN J. DEYST, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chair NEIL J. ADAMS, Charles S. Draper Laboratory, Inc. W.R. BOLTON, Sandia National Laboratories ROY R. BUEHLER, Mableton, Georgia ARMAND J. CHAPUT, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company JOHN C. FIELDING, Durham, California JAMES R. FITZGERALD, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University CHARLES A. FOWLER, Sudbury, Massachusetts ROBERT H. GORMLEY, The Oceanus Company MICHAEL R. HILLIARD, Oak Ridge National Laboratory FRANK A. HORRIGAN, Bedford, Massachusetts HARRY W. JENKINS, JR., ITT Industries DAVID V. KALBAUGH, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University CARL E. LANDWEHR, National Science Foundation JAMES R. LUYTEN, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution CARL MIKEMAN, Northrop Grumman Corporation JOHN B. MOONEY, JR., Austin, Texas STEWART D. PERSONICK, Bernardsville, New Jersey NILS R. SANDELL, JR., BAE Systems HOWARD E. SHROBE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JAMES M. SINNETT, Ballwin, Missouri MARILYN J. SMITH, Georgia Institute of Technology CHARLES E. THORPE, Carnegie Mellon University DAVID A. WHELAN, The Boeing Company BRIAN H. WILCOX, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology Staff RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director (on leave from July 12, 2003) CHARLES F. DRAPER, Study Director, Acting Director (as of July 12, 2003) ARUL MOZHI, Senior Program Officer (as of October 22, 2003) MICHAEL L. WILSON, Program Officer (through August 27, 2004) MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator IAN M. CAMERON, Research Associate SIDNEY G. REED, JR., Consultant

OCR for page R1
Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations NAVAL STUDIES BOARD JOHN F. EGAN, Nashua, New Hampshire, Chair MIRIAM E. JOHN, Sandia National Laboratories, Vice Chair ARTHUR B. BAGGEROER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JOHN D. CHRISTIE, Logistics Management Institute ANTONIO L. ELIAS, Orbital Sciences Corporation BRIG “CHIP” ELLIOTT, BBN Technologies KERRIE L. HOLLEY, IBM Global Services JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, Harvard University HARRY W. JENKINS, JR., ITT Industries DAVID V. KALBAUGH, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University ANNETTE J. KRYGIEL, Great Falls, Virginia THOMAS V. McNAMARA, Charles S. Draper Laboratory, Inc. L. DAVID MONTAGUE, Menlo Park, California WILLIAM B. MORGAN, Rockville, Maryland JOHN H. MOXLEY III, Korn/Ferry International JOHN S. QUILTY, Oakton, Virginia NILS R. SANDELL, JR., BAE Systems WILLIAM D. SMITH, Fayetteville, Pennsylvania JOHN P. STENBIT, Oakton, Virginia RICHARD L. WADE, Risk Management Sciences DAVID A. WHELAN, The Boeing Company CINDY WILLIAMS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ELIHU ZIMET, National Defense University Navy Liaison Representatives RADM JOSEPH A. SESTAK, JR., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (through October 1, 2004) MR. GREG MELCHER, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Acting N81 (from October 2, 2004, through November 8, 2004) RADM SAMUEL J. LOCKLEAR III, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (as of November 8, 2004) RADM JAY M. COHEN, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N091 Marine Corps Liaison Representative LTGEN EDWARD HANLON, JR., USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (through September 30, 2004) LTGEN JAMES N. MATTIS, USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (as of October 1, 2004)

OCR for page R1
Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations Staff RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director (on leave as of July 12, 2003) CHARLES F. DRAPER, Acting Director (as of July 12, 2003) ARUL MOZHI, Study Director (as of May 15, 2004) MICHAEL L. WILSON, Program Officer (through August 27, 2004) MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator IAN M. CAMERON, Research Associate

OCR for page R1
Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations Preface 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

OCR for page R1
Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations 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. TERMS OF REFERENCE 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

OCR for page R1
Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations 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]. COMMITTEE MEETINGS 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.

OCR for page R1
Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations 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

OCR for page R1
Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations 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.

OCR for page R1
Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations Acknowledgment of Reviewers 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: Charles H. Bennett, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Ray “M” Franklin, Major General, U.S. Marine Corps (retired), Port Angeles, Washington, David E. Frost, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (retired), Frost & Associates, Inc., Takeo Kanade, Carnegie Mellon University, Clinton W. Kelly, Science Applications International Corporation, Larry Matthies, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Irene C. Peden, Seattle, Washington, and Dana R. Yoerger, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. 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

OCR for page R1
Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations 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.

OCR for page R1
Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   INTRODUCTION   13      Background,   13      U.S. Military Operational Environment, Present and Future,   14      The Promise of Autonomous Vehicles,   18      Organization of the Report,   19 2   NAVAL VISION: OPERATIONS AND AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE APPLICATIONS   20      Naval Operational Environment and Vision,   20      Naval Mission Needs and Potential Applications of Autonomous Vehicles,   24      Potential and Limitations of Autonomous Vehicles,   35 3   AUTONOMY TECHNOLOGY: CAPABILITIES AND POTENTIAL   45      Today’s Autonomous Vehicle Systems,   45      Levels of Autonomy,   51      Using Level of Mission Autonomy as a Design Choice,   59      Autonomy Technology,   67      Conclusions and Recommendations,   79 4   UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES: CAPABILITIES AND POTENTIAL   82      Introduction,   82      Operational Categories of Naval Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Missions,   88      The Potential of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Naval Operations,   89

OCR for page R1
Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations      Technology Issues and Needs,   98      Conclusions and Recommendations,   105 5   UNMANNED SURFACE AND UNDERSEA VEHICLES: CAPABILITIES AND POTENTIAL   116      Introduction,   116      The Potential of Autonomous Undersea and Surface Vehicles for Naval Operations,   117      Overview of Unmanned Surface and Undersea Vehicles Available or in Development,   120      Naval Operational Needs and Technology Issues,   128      Opportunities for Improved Operations,   130      Conclusions and Recommendations,   131 6   UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLES: CAPABILITIES AND POTENTIAL   135      Introduction,   135      The Potential of Unmanned Ground Vehicles for Naval Operations,   137      Naval Operational Needs and Technology Issues,   148      Opportunities for Improved Naval Operations,   153      Conclusions and Recommendations,   154 7   INTEGRATING AUTONOMY IN NETWORK-CENTRIC OPERATIONS   158      Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Command and Control,   158      Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Communications,   161      Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,   169      Interoperability Issues for Autonomous Vehicles,   174      Unmanned Space Systems,   178      Conclusions and Recommendations,   182     APPENDIXES         A   Biographies of Committee Members and Staff   189     B   Some Physics-Based Constraints on Autonomous Vehicles: Scaling, Energy, Sensing, and Communications   199     C   Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: System Descriptions   216     D   Acronyms and Abbreviations   231

OCR for page R1
Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES IN SUPPORT OF NAVAL OPERATIONS

OCR for page R1
Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations This page intentionally left blank.