The document discusses the future employment of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and issues related to developing them jointly across the military services. It notes that UAVs have traditionally performed dangerous missions like reconnaissance, but are now being developed as uninhabited combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) capable of precision strikes. Developing UCAVs jointly could reduce costs while expanding their capabilities to support all services. However, services also need autonomy to develop systems fitting their own needs. Overall joint development requires coordinating requirements, ensuring interoperability, and establishing common doctrine and operating procedures for UAVs.

1. s
Global Hawk over
Edwards Air Force
Base.
Future
Employment
of UAVs
DOD
Issues of Jointness
By J A M E S R. R E I N H A R D T, J O N A T H A N E. J A M E S , and
E D W A R D M. F L A N A G A N
U
nmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and simultaneous goals of increasing munitions
their armed counterparts, uninhabited lethality and reducing friendly casualties can be
combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), are realized by UAVs, but the approach to developing
poised to reshape the battlespace by ei- and employing them must balance requirements
ther reducing or eliminating the need for of both the joint community and the services.
manned aircraft in dangerous situations. How A variety of considerations portend a more
these systems are deployed—haphazardly or syn- sparsely populated battlespace. While generally
ergistically—will determine whether they are supportive of recent military operations, the pub-
truly revolutionary or merely expensive toys. The lic is increasingly adverse to the risk of casualties
and prefers to substitute technology for lives. As
Joint Vision 2010 makes clear, “The American peo-
ple will continue to expect us to win in any en-
Lieutenant Colonel James R. Reinhardt, USA, currently serves as a gagement, but they will also expect us to be more
member of the Support Directorate (J–2), Joint Staff; Major Jonathan efficient in protecting lives and resources. . . .”
E. James, USAF, is assigned to U.S. Strategic Command; and Lieutenant This expectation is one result of the Persian Gulf
Commander Edward M. Flanagan, USN, is on the staff of the Strategy War and assumes that the Nation will leverage
Division (J–5) at U.S. Atlantic Command. technological advances and precision weaponry
36 JFQ / Summer 1999

2. Reinhardt et al.
to decisively defeat enemies without protracted
conventional combat operations. Although this
view is flawed, planners must limit both casual-
ties and collateral damage.
Why UAVs?
One way to engage an enemy with minimum
casualties is through the use of UAVs. They are the
most visible members of the family of unmanned
and autonomous systems either employed or
under development. These powered aerial vehicles
carry no human operators, use aerodynamic forces
for lift, fly autonomously or are piloted remotely,
are either expendable or recoverable, and carry
both lethal and nonlethal payloads. But ballistic
or semiballistic vehicles, cruise missiles, and ar-
tillery projectiles are not considered as unmanned
vehicles. Often distinguished by their ability to
deviate from a preordained flight path, UAVs re-
spond to external command.
Unmanned systems have traditionally been
employed in dirty and dangerous missions, and
55th Signal Company (Edward W. Nino)
their development has proceeded along unique
avenues of specialization. To date, their design
has emphasized affordability, practicality (launch
and maintenance), and recoverability. UAV mis-
sions in the past have included reconnaissance Wreckage of
and surveillance, target acquisition, intelligence Predator UAV,
collection, and battle damage assessment. In the Bosnia.
early 1960s, the Nation developed unmanned re-
connaissance vehicles to overfly the Soviet Union
because of the concern over the vulnerability of
U–2 aircraft. UAVs were employed extensively for roles and, in the future, UAVs will act as airborne
reconnaissance in Vietnam as well as to drop data links, enemy radar jammers, chemical and bi-
leaflets, collect signals intelligence, and support ological weapons detectors, target acquisition sys-
radar interference missions. They were rediscov- tems, and finally precision air attack systems.
ered in the 1980s and gained prominence in the
Persian Gulf War. The Army and Navy acquired The Next Generation
Pioneer (a tactical UAV) to provide inexpensive, Development of a lethal platform capable of
unmanned, over-the-horizon targeting, recon- precision strikes is the logical progression for fu-
naissance, and damage assessment. Six Pioneer ture UAVs. They will not be limited to support
systems (one Army, two Navy, and three Marine functions such as reconnaissance. Affordability,
Corps) were deployed to Southwest Asia for Oper- smaller size, and reduced training time are leading
ation Desert Storm. They flew 330 sorties and to a new class of systems—uninhabited combat
logged more than 1,000 flight hours during the aerial vehicles—which are smaller than their
conflict. Together with the Air Force Predator, Pi- manned counterparts. And, without occupants,
oneer also furnished real-time imagery of Bosnia there is proportionally more room for munitions
for Implementation Force. load in UCAVs. That benefit is most evident in
UAVs have proven their ability to provide carrier operations where they would occupy only
near-real time reconnaissance and surveillance to one-third of the flight-deck space of comparable
commanders. They are tools for battle manage- manned systems. Twenty very large, carrier-based
ment, providing intelligence, and ultimately offer- support aircraft could be replaced by an equal
ing warfighters greater situational or battlespace number of very small support UCAVs. This would
awareness. They have proven effective in elec- create enough extra space on the flight deck to in-
tronic combat support and battle damage assess- crease mission-ready strike aircraft count by 33
ment. Advanced technology is expanding these percent (from 36 to 48 aircraft). Another option
would be to place UCAVs on other ships, allowing
for more strike aircraft space. Even more notewor-
thy is the concept that “20 support UAVs could
Summer 1999 / JFQ 37

3. s JFQ FORUM
be replaced one-for-one with vertical take-off and Air Force Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle Ad-
landing strike UCAVs, bringing the number of vanced Technology Demonstration is intended to
mission-ready aircraft to 63, nearly doubling the demonstrate the technical feasibility for a man-in-
strike aircraft availability of the baseline Nimitz- the-loop system. It will be designed to affordably
class carrier air wing configuration.” 1 suppress enemy air defense/strike missions in the
The advocates of using UCAV in an precision next century within emerging global command
air attack role routinely cite the potential of high- and control architectures. It is envisioned that in
speed, highly maneuverable platforms to outper- the midterm UCAVs will serve as force enablers by
form manned aircraft. Airframe designers can suppressing enemy air defenses and performing
gain flexibility and increase airframe performance punitive strike missions in support of manned air-
when the limits imposed by human craft. As concepts and technologies mature, UCAV
fatigue is not a factor; capacities are eliminated. Maximum roles and missions can be expanded.
G-force loading becomes a function Two primary development guidelines are
remote pilots can be of airframe structural integrity, not mission effectiveness and affordability. UCAVs
rapidly replaced pilot limitations. In addition, cost have the potential to significantly reduce acquisi-
and weight savings are realized tion as well as operation and support costs. They
through the elimination of canopies, ejection sys- can be manufactured for an estimated one-third
tems, oxygen systems, and other components re- less than manned aircraft, and costs could be cut
quired in manned combat aircraft. by 75 percent. Eliminating the pilot will allow
Fatigue is not a factor; remote pilots can be manufacturers to take advantage of new tech-
rapidly replaced. Extended flight times become nologies and designs to build smaller, more af-
possible, particularly if savings in weight make fordable systems. Lower operation and support
aircraft more efficient. One potential employ- costs can be achieved since it will no longer be
ment of UCAVs capitalizes on the ability to loiter necessary to maintain pilot proficiency. Simula-
for long periods. This concept, known as air occu- tors will allow UCAV controllers to train and
pation, is described as the capability to hold an maintain their skills.
enemy at risk from either lethal or nonlethal ef- The controller (man-in-the-loop) is key to
fects from the air. UCAVs could afford a nearly UCAV development. “Human-system interface is
permanent presence over an enemy, providing a critical in order to allow the mission control team
continuous stream of intelligence while simulta- the information and control methodology to effi-
neously delivering a lethal payload in seconds. ciently operate multiple UCAVs in a dynamic bat-
One UCAV system being explored by the De- tlespace.” 2 The mission control station will be a
fense Advanced Research Projects Agency as the
Unmanned surface
vehicle.
no credit
38 JFQ / Summer 1999

4. Reinhardt et al.
DOD
Pioneer I RPV taking
off from USS Iowa.
central component of the UCAV system. It will both stealth characteristics and an ability to es-
exercise command, control, and communications cape in high-G maneuvers that cannot be
and conduct mission planning and execution, in- matched by manned aircraft. A single operator
cluding targeting and battle damage assessments. should be able to give orders to many UCAVs that
To effectively accomplish this, the systems will would operate nearly autonomously, not through
take maximum advantage of on board and exter- remote teleoperation. Links to off-board sensors,
nal intelligence assets. While UCAVs must be ca- perhaps fielded by other UAVs, would provide
pable of self-defense and responding au- data to adjust to last-minute battlespace changes.
tonomously to pop-up threats, decisions to target UAVs have demonstrated their utility, albeit
and employ lethal weapons will be made by a in support roles rather than frontline combat.
mission control team. Simply stated, the rules of They give the operational commander a reliable
engagement will be controlled by humans, in means of reconnaissance in an environment
part to mitigate the unsettling idea of uncon- where space-based or high-altitude reconnais-
trolled aircraft deploying weapons autonomously. sance aircraft are ineffective because of weather
The objective of UCAVs is not to eliminate conditions. Moreover, they can perform missions
the human factor but to locate the pilot outside in circumstances where political sensitivities or
the aircraft. Exploiting this technology will per- combat risks preclude the introduction of U.S.
mit the development of more cost-effective sys- military personnel.
tems capable of performing missions for which
manned aircraft are either capable or appropriate. A Joint Future?
In the near future, UCAVs will not replace, but While using unmanned systems in combat is
rather operate with, manned systems. Their capa- not new, what will be new in the foreseeable fu-
bilities and reusable platforms will fill the gap be- ture is how such systems are used. Simply pos-
tween cruise missiles and manned aircraft. sessing a given technology does not suffice to be
Some proponents urge developing a system truly revolutionary; aircraft carriers, for example,
that does not rely on precision-guided munitions were in service well before the full implications of
but on the precision delivery of dumb bombs to carrier warfare were realized. A truly innovative
cut costs. Precision delivery would suggest low-al- approach to employing a new system requires
titude flight, with aircraft security provided by concurrent doctrinal, organizational, and techno-
logical changes that affect planning, equipping,
and training military forces. Development of
UAVs has proceeded along the lines of traditional
Summer 1999 / JFQ 39

5. s JFQ FORUM
service roles and operating environments thereby A first step in developing protocols and doc-
building on core competencies. trine to enable UAVs to meet the challenges of
Proposals for unmanned systems for air-to- joint operations is the Tactical Control System,
air combat or air delivery of munitions have gen- currently under development and testing. It will
erally originated in the Air Force, while Navy sys- provide the common operating environment and
tems are optimized for a maritime missions. Not shared protocols for the Air Force Predator, Army
every system must be joint. Each should be de- Hunter, and joint Outrider UAVs. Flight controls
signed to perform specific missions well rather and payload commands will be standardized and
than a variety of tasks marginally. Cost savings the system will have five levels of scalable inter-
are often lost when systems receive gold-plated action, from receipt of retransmitted data
add-ons during development, ostensibly to en- through actual control over launch, recovery,
hance capabilities. Yet the fact that the services flight, and payload.
have historically embarked on different courses Joint doctrine for UAVs is limited to tactics,
concerning UAV research, development, and ac- techniques, and procedures that are applicable to
quisition can hardly be con- systems in operation (that is, employed on the
missions can be undertaken sidered an advantage. When tactical level for surveillance and reconnaissance)
service requirements con- and is found in Joint Pub 3–55.1, Joint Tactics,
that are highly risky for a verge—such as intelligence Techniques, and Procedures for Unmanned Aerial Ve-
manned approach and reconnaissance capabili- hicles. It is outdated and does not reflect the capa-
ties—interservice compatibil- bilities of current systems, much less those under
ity is desirable. This reduces both research and de- development. It views UAVs solely as force multi-
velopment and acquisition costs, facilitates pliers or support vehicles. It also does not address
communication and information exchange, and UCAVs or more advanced surveillance craft.
simplifies command and control challenges. The Much must be done to develop joint doctrine
question is whether one or two general-purpose for UAV operations. Common operating systems
systems can be developed that are capable of re- and shared protocols reduce development and
sponding to an array of requirements. procurement costs by providing economies of
Jointness extends beyond procurement. Its scale. Doctrine can reduce mutual interference
goal is battlespace synergism. All components act- and offer solutions to problems of information
ing together have a greater effect than if they op- flow. Jointness should not extend to abandon-
erate independently. And jointness is more than ment of traditional areas of responsibility. In sum,
simply interoperability, though that is a vital the advantages being sought in joint integration,
start. Interoperability is generally related to hard- including unity of effort and the concentration of
ware systems with common operating protocols. military power at decisive points, should also
Jointness embraces doctrine, organizational struc- guide the employment of unmanned systems.
tures, matériel, training, personnel management, However, an argument frequently leveled
and leadership development. against jointness is that it overshadows legitimate
UAVs support several fundamentals of joint approaches to innovation by individual services.
warfare iterated in Joint Pub 1, Joint Warfare of the Soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen regard the
Armed Forces of the United States. Unity of effort battlespace from varied perspectives. It is not the
and the concentration of military power is aim of jointness to eliminate those perspectives,
achieved through multiaxis attacks by ground- but rather to draw on their unique qualities to
and sea-based UCAVs operating in deconflicted provide a synergistic, highly integrated, and
airspace. Knowing your enemy—a major canon of seamless fighting mechanism. Joint Pub 3–55.1
warfare—is greatly enhanced by effective use of makes that point explicit: “care must be taken to
UAVs in surveillance and reconnaissance. Com- distinguish between distinct but related responsi-
mon-user interfaces for data dissemination will bilities in the two channels of authority to forces
facilitate the flow of information to warfighters, assigned to combatant commands. The military
regardless of their service. Joint mission planning departments and services recruit, organize, train,
will reduce duplication of effort, freeing UAV as- equip, and provide forces for assignment to com-
sets for other missions. batant commands and administer and support
UAVs can give commanders greater freedom these forces.” New UAV systems must be con-
of action, another fundamental. The range of op- ceived, developed, and provided to the combat-
tions available to commanders is enhanced by ant commanders.
UAVs since missions can be undertaken that are
highly risky for a manned approach. This ability Innovation springs from competition among
to assume risk can also help commanders seize services for roles and missions, and ultimately for
and maintain the initiative, keeping an enemy resources. Each service has proven successful at
perpetually off balance.
40 JFQ / Summer 1999

6. Reinhardt et al.
Predator UAV.
DOD
innovation, and a healthy rivalry among them be regarded as elements of a system. It is incum-
has been a catalyst. Thus the danger of overem- bent on the United States to take the lead in this
phasizing joint culture is that it could limit think- area lest it falls prey to an enemy which can capi-
ing or result in groupthink. “The differentiation talize on technology more successfully. JFQ
of service cultures is inevitable, bred by the physi-
cal environment in which soldiers, sailors, and NOTES
airmen operate. It is also highly desirable.” 3 1 Bruce W. Carmichael, “Strikestar 2025,” The DTIC
A joint activity should carefully analyze every Review, vol. 4, no. 2 (September 1998), p. 1.
proposal with the object of ensuring cross-service 2 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, “Un-
fertilization of ideas that will enhance interoper- manned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) Advanced Tech-
ability and jointness in the resulting fielded sys- nology Demonstration Solicitation,” March 9, 1998, p. 7.
3 F.G. Hoffman, “Innovation Can Be Messy,” U.S.
tems. A single joint organization tasked to con-
ceive and perform research and development on Naval Institute Proceedings, vol. 124, no. 1 (January
UAV platforms will result in fewer ideas for discov- 1998), pp. 46–50.
ery and less innovation because it will tend to
focus on a few concepts it feels are important. If
each service has its own organization, more ideas
are likely to surface. Obviously relieving the serv-
ices of their role as providers and replacing them
with a centralized joint organization would be
harmful to creativity and ensure that UAVs re-
main in their present role of limited support.
Unmanned combat technology has arrived. It
is not necessarily expensive or complicated. Po-
tential enemies can use rudimentary systems
asymmetrically—perhaps in concert with weapons
of mass destruction—to threaten our forces. To
maintain an advantage UAVs and UCAVs should
Summer 1999 / JFQ 41