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 work was performed under Department of the Navy Contract N00014-99-C-0307 issued by the Office of Naval Research under contract authority NR 201-124. However, the content does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the Department of the Navy or the government, and no official endorsement should be inferred.
The United States Government has at least a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license throughout the world for government purposes to publish, translate, reproduce, deliver, perform, and dispose of all or any of this work, and to authorize others so to do.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-06977-7
Copies available from:
Naval Studies Board
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
Copyright 2000 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
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. Bruce M. Alberts 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. William 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. Kenneth I. Shine 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. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE FOR THE REVIEW OF ONR'S UNINHABITED COMBAT AIR VEHICLES PROGRAM
FRANK A. HORRIGAN,
Bedford, Massachusetts,
Chair
PHILIP S. ANSELMO,
Northrop Grumman Corporation
WILLARD R. BOLTON,
Sandia National Laboratories
THOMAS J. CASSIDY, JR.,
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.
ROBERT W. DAY,
Raytheon Systems Company
ALAN H. EPSTEIN,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ROGER E. FISHER,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
RAY “M” FRANKLIN,
Port Angeles, Washington
NORMAN D. GEDDES,
Applied Systems Intelligence, Inc.
ROBERT H. GORMLEY,
The Oceanus Company
HARRY W. JENKINS,
ITT Industries
JAMES D. LANG,
La Jolla, California
JOSEPH B. REAGAN,
Saratoga, California
JOHN P. RETELLE, JR.,
Logicon Advanced Technology
HOWARD E. SHROBE,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JOHN F. WALTER,
Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University
Staff
CHARLES F. DRAPER, Study Director
SIDNEY G. REED, Consultant
JAMES G. WILSON, Consultant
Navy/Marine Corps Liaison Representative
ALLEN MOSHFEGH,
Office of Naval Research
NAVAL STUDIES BOARD
VINCENT VITTO,
Charles S. Draper Laboratory, Inc.,
Chair
JOSEPH B. REAGAN,
Saratoga, California,
Vice Chair
DAVID R. HEEBNER,
McLean, Virginia,
Past Chair
ALBERT J. BACIOCCO, JR.,
The Baciocco Group, Inc.
ARTHUR B. BAGGEROER,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ALAN BERMAN,
Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University
NORMAN E. BETAQUE,
Logistics Management Institute
JAMES P. BROOKS,
Litton/Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc.
NORVAL L. BROOME,
Mitre Corporation
JOHN D. CHRISTIE,
Logistics Management Institute
RUTH A. DAVID,
Analytic Services, Inc.
PAUL K. DAVIS,
RAND and the RAND Graduate School of Policy Studies
SEYMOUR J. DEITCHMAN,
Chevy Chase, Maryland,
Special Advisor
DANIEL E. HASTINGS,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
FRANK A. HORRIGAN,
Bedford, Massachusetts
RICHARD J. IVANETICH,
Institute for Defense Analyses
MIRIAM E. JOHN,
Sandia National Laboratories
ANNETTE J. KRYGIEL,
Great Falls, Virginia
ROBERT B. OAKLEY,
National Defense University
HARRISON SHULL,
Monterey, California
JAMES M. SINNETT,
The Boeing Company
WILLIAM D. SMITH,
Fayetteville, Pennsylvania
PAUL K. VAN RIPER,
Williamsburg, Virginia
VERENA S. VOMASTIC,
The Aerospace Corporation
BRUCE WALD,
Center for Naval Analyses
MITZI M. WERTHEIM,
Center for Naval Analyses
Navy Liaison Representatives
RADM RAYMOND C. SMITH,
USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81
RADM PAUL G. GAFFNEY II,
USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N91
Marine Corps Liaison Representative
LTGEN JOHN E. RHODES, USMC, Commanding General,
Marine Corps Combat Development Command
RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director
CHARLES F. DRAPER, Senior Program Officer
MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer
SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant
JAMES E. MACIEJEWSKI, Senior Project Assistant
COMMISSION ON PHYSICAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICS, AND APPLICATIONS
PETER M. BANKS,
Veridian ERIM International, Inc.,
Co-chair
W. CARL LINEBERGER,
University of Colorado,
Co-chair
WILLIAM F. BALLHAUS, JR.,
Lockheed Martin Corporation
SHIRLEY CHIANG,
University of California at Davis
MARSHALL H. COHEN,
California Institute of Technology
RONALD G. DOUGLAS,
Texas A&M University
SAMUEL H. FULLER,
Analog Devices, Inc.
JERRY P. GOLLUB,
Haverford College
MICHAEL F. GOODCHILD,
University of California at Santa Barbara
MARTHA P. HAYNES,
Cornell University
WESLEY T. HUNTRESS, JR.,
Carnegie Institution
CAROL M. JANTZEN,
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
PAUL G. KAMINSKI,
Technovation, Inc.
KENNETH H. KELLER,
University of Minnesota
JOHN R. KREICK,
Sanders, a Lockheed Martin Company(retired)
MARSHA I. LESTER,
University of Pennsylvania
DUSA M. McDUFF,
State University of New York at Stony Brook
JANET L. NORWOOD, Former Commissioner,
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
M. ELISABETH PATÉ-CORNELL,
Stanford University
NICHOLAS P. SAMIOS,
Brookhaven National Laboratory
ROBERT J. SPINRAD,
Xerox PARC (retired)
MYRON F. UMAN, Acting Executive Director
Preface
Joint Vision 20101 addresses the need for achieving military dominance through the application of new operational concepts. For the Department of the Navy, future operational concepts will hinge on a continuance of forward yet unobtrusive presence and the capability to influence events ashore as required. This capability will be enabled by the development and insertion into the forces of new technologies for providing command, control, and surveillance; battlespace dominance; power projection; and force sustainment. For example, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have recently proven to be valuable operational platforms for providing tactical intelligence by surveillance of the battlefield. To support naval force objectives, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) has established a research program within the Strike Technology Division (Code 351) of the Naval Expeditionary Warfare Science and Technology Department aimed at expanding the operational capabilities of UAVs to include not only surveillance and reconnaissance, but strike and logistics missions as well. This new class of autonomous vehicles, known as uninhabited combat air vehicles (UCAVs), is foreseen as being intelligent, recoverable, and highly maneuverable in support of future naval operations.
Although UCAVs are not seen as a replacement for manned aircraft, the technical vision for UCAVs suggests they could take advantage of emerging technologies in order to provide weaponry and logistics support at a fraction of the cost of current manned systems. Specifically, these emerging capabilities could include (1) autonomous multi-UCAVs and multisensors, as well as cooperative target cueing and automatic target recognition; (2) sea-based multimission vertical takeoff and landing/vertical short takeoff and landing concepts with a real-time, full-scale simulation environment; (3) secure communications and architecture for autonomous intelligent UCAVs; and (4) real-time autonomous mission planning, path planning, contingency planning, and situational awareness for networked UCAVs.
At the request of the Office of Naval Research, the National Research Council established a committee, under the auspices of the Naval Studies Board, to assess the science and technology issues relating to the ONR program for UCAVs (see Appendix A for short biographies of committee members). Specifically, the review was to evaluate ONR's UCAV technology activities, including its vision documents and its science and technology roadmap (in areas of vehicle dynamics, communications, sensors, and autonomous agents) against criteria that would be selected by the committee, such as the relevance for meeting future naval priorities, the cost and time
1 |
Shalikashvili, GEN John M., USA. 1997. Joint Vision 2010. Joint Chiefs of Staff, The Pentagon, Washington, D.C. |
scale for its utilization, duplication of effort, and scientific and technical quality. Although the ONR program includes both basic (6.1) and applied (6.2) research efforts relating to UCAVs, the committee was asked to assess those activities under the 6.2 budget category (Appendix B gives the full terms of reference). A previous NRC committee reviewed the basic research activities.2
In preparing its report, the Committee for the Review of ONR's Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicles Program met twice. The first meeting was held December 13-15, 1999, in Irvine, California; it was devoted mainly to briefings by the study sponsor (and the corresponding principal investigators) on the applied research (6.2) activities—including goals, vision, technical roadmaps, and other plans—of the ONR UCAV program. Additionally, representatives from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency/U.S. Air Force UCAV program and the Program Executive Office for Cruise Missiles and UAVs (PEO (CU)) briefed the committee on other UAV/ UCAV efforts. The committee's second meeting, held January 18-19, 2000, in Washington, D.C., was spent preparing an initial draft report. Additionally, representatives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV), and the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) briefed the committee on related Department of Defense and Department of the Navy UAV/UCAV efforts; the committee believes that these briefings were necessary in order to establish the review criteria (i.e., the relevance for meeting future naval priorities, cost and time scale for utilization, duplication of effort, and scientific and technical quality) for assessing the science and technology issues related to the ONR 351 UCAV program.
The resulting report represents the committee's consensus view on the issues posed in the charge.
2 |
Naval Studies Board, National Research Council. 1999. 1999 Assessment of the Office of Naval Research's Air and Surface Weapons Technology Program. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. |
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This report has been reviewed 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 authors and the NRC in making the 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 contents of the review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. The committee wishes to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report:
John M. Borky, Tamarac Technologies, Inc.,
Eugene E. Covert, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (emeritus),
John N. Entzminger, Entzminger Associates,
Edward A. Feigenbaum, Stanford University,
Ivan A. Getting, The Aerospace Corporation (retired),
VADM Richard H. Truly, USN (retired), National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and
Peter R. Worch, Science Applications International Corporation (retired).
Although the individuals listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring committee and the NRC.