Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ada 228149
Ada 228149
Ada 228149
00
N
by
OTIC
iLECTE
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 00T.1 219 1
1990
9004622
Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTA'[O-N PAGE 0MB No 0704-0188
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REP~ORJ DAiTEi 9 3. PAP T toP 6-1990S&9l
0. fl1LE AND SUBTITLE S. FUNDING NUMBERS
At the direction of Congress, all non-lethal unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) programs
of the military services were consolidated into a joint Department of Defense
program. A result of this legislation was the publication of a joint master plan
directing the future of UAV development. The purpose of this study is to determine
if the Department of Defense joint unmanned aerial vehicle program will satisfy the
UAV needs of the Army to conduct tactical'intelligence collection. The study
compares the requirements of the Army UAV program against the specifications for the
joint close-range (JUAV-CR) and joint short-range (JUAV-SR) UAV systems. The study
concludes the Army has3 clearly defined its requirements for unmanned aerial vehicle
operations. The research finds significant differences exist between the Army and
joint programs. However, these differences do not impact on the essential needs of
the Army. The joint UAV program supports the UAV needs of the Army. After a slow
start, the joint UAV program is proceeding rapidly. Barring funding constraints, the
Army, and the other services, will soon possess an operational short-range (out to
150 kin) UAV system capable of performing tactical intelligence collection.
14. SUBJECT TERMS Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, UAV, Remotely Piloted 15. NUMBER OF PAGES
Vehicles, RPV, Intelligence Collection, Tactical Intelligence, 135
Intelligence Requirements, Drones 16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICAT ON '9 SFCIIPITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION Of ABSTRACT
Rnclasified Inc assied Unc asired UL
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 .Standard Forti 298 (Rev 2-89)
PC,iiisbed by ANSI %td 139-1
198-102
ARMY UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV) REQUIREMENTS
AND THE JOINT UAV PROGRAM
by
9004622
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE
Approved by:
ii
ABSTRACT
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acoession For
NTIS ORA&I
DTIC TAB 13
Unarnounced 0
Juoitif Icut n.....
By
DIstri1h.ruft ___
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................ iv
Chapter
1. STUDY DESCRIPTION................................. 1
Introduction ................................. 24
Research of Army and DOD Requirements ........ 26
Background Information ........................ 29
Historical Perspective ........................ 30
Analysis of Army Requirements ................ 31
Academic Studies ............................. 34
Analysis of Existing Research ................ 36
Summary ....................................... 36
End Notes .................................... 38
3. METHODOLOGY ....................................... 39
Introduction ................................. 39
Explanation of Methodology ................... 40
The Comparison Tables ........................ 47
Strengths and Weaknesses ..................... 48
End Notes ................................... 50
Introduction ................................. 51
Army Intelligence Collection Needs ........... 52
UAVs as Intelligence Collectors .............. 59
v
Validity of Army Requirements ................ 62
The Joint UAV Program ......................... 64
Summary ...................................... 67
End Notes ..................................... 68
Introduction ................................. 70
JUAV-SR as the Army UAV-Deep ................. 70
General System Characteristics ............ 71
Air Vehicle ............................... 74
Mission Payload ...................... 77
Data Link ........... ............... ....... 79
Ground Control Station .................... 80
Video Monitor .............................. 84
Launch and Recovery Section ............... 84
JUAV-CR as the Army UAV-Close ................ 86
General System ........................ 87
Air Vehicle................................. 90
Mission Payload ..................... 92
Data Link ........................ 94
Ground Control Station .................... 95
Video Monitor ...... ................. 98
Launch and Recovery Section ............... 99
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Pioneer Unmanned Aerial Vehicle................... 3
2. Joint UAV Categories.............................. 65
viii
CHAPTER ONE
STUDY DESCRIPTION
Introduction
1952. UAVs are well suited to flying into high threat areas
denied to manned aircraft and completing the mission.
The United States Army recognized this possibility as
early as World War I. However, after years of trying to
1
develop an UAV to serve as an intelligence collection
data link used the transmit control signals from the ground
to the aircraft and pictures from the aircraft to the
ground, the ground control station from where the operator
controls the aircraft, and a launch and recovery section
2
Figure 1 - Pioneer Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
AQUILA RPV program, the term UAV has been used to more
developed.
After years of apparently wasteful and uncoordinated
service programs.
4
UAV system in 1987.' The Army had learned many lessons
during its long history of UAV development and trials. With
5
the problems with its own money and asked for another test.
The Army agreed and conducted additional testing during 1987
6
systems. The TADARS category was defined to provide for
clarified the UAV situation for the Army. The new UAV-
Close combined the TADARS and the UAV-M into a single
category. No longer would two different systems, controlled
by different headquarters, be operating in the same area.
UAV-Close was to provide information for both situation and
7
UAV program when Congress directed the integration of the
service programs a single joint program.
The UAV Master Plan considered the requirements of
Problem Statement
8
The Research Question
Sianificance of study
the Army nor the other services vill ever obtain an UAV
Research ObJective
9
analyzed to determine the impact on the performance of Army
UAV missions.
Definitions
automatically piloted. 4
unit boundaries.7
10
PLOT - Forvard Line of Own Troops. A line which indicates
equipment or system.
11
provides a general idea of how the unit will be employed
during operations.
Backaround
efforts." 2
The first successful droning of an aircraft followed
in 1928. A radio-controlled, bomb-carrying Curtiss Robin
12
monoplane flew for four years until funds for the project
expired in 1932.32
In 1938 Interest in unmanned aircraft was again
was the GB-1 glide bomb. The GB-i was a standard 2000 pound
the idea of droning old B-17s and B-24s. The idea was soon
are well known for their development of the V-1 and V-2
series of unmanned aircraft. These aircraft were the
forerunners of the modern cruise and ballistic missiles.2 4
(RCAT). The RCAT become the most fired at, low altitude
target during the 1950s. In 1953, COL Sam Webster, chief of
13
the Battle Area Surveillance Department of the US Army
Electronic Proving Ground, installed a camera on a RCAT then
a reconnaissance drone."'
However, york continued within the Air Force and the Navy.1 '
During 1959 the United Stated Air Force started
reconnaissance program.
On July, 8, 1960, the Soviet Union shot down a RB-47
SIGINT collection flight over the Barents Sea. One week
14
later, Ryan Aeronautical Company received a contract from
Vietnam War. The drones supported the war effort there for
family of drones over China and Vietnam during the war years
was code named the BUFFALO HUNTER program. Carrying photo
15
The successful use of UAVs by Israel in 1973 and 1982
firing so that other RPVs could locate ind target the firing
positions for destruction by manned aircraft. 2 4
16
report by the GAO used vords like "apathy" and "unawareness"
to characterize the Pentagon's view of RPVs. 2 5 The bias
Limitations
17
capabilities, are examples of these limitations. Hovever,
Delimitations
Assumptions
United States.
18
Methodology
19
organization of the Study
documents.
20
Chapter Six is a summary of the study. It contains
21
CHAPTER ONE
ENDNOTES
Ibid., 3.
Ibid.
* Ibid.
Ibid.
Donald W. Cairns, "UAVs - Where we have been,"
Military Intelligence (March 1987): 18.
1 3Ibid.
24Ibid., 19.
LIbid.
Ilbid.
22
7
Ibid.
2
3 William Wagner, Lightning Bugs and Other
Reconnaissance Drones (California, Aero Publishers Inc.,
1982), 15.
SCairns, 19.
2°Wagner, 42.
2
2Cairns,
19.
2 2
Wagner, 200.
2 2
Benjamin F. Schemmer, foreword to Lightning Bugs
and other Reconnaissance Drones (California, Aero
Publishers, Inc., 1982), ii.
2 4
Ibid.
2
9Schemmer, iii.
2
6Ibid.
2
7Ibid.
2
6Ibid.,
iv.
23
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
other countries.
intelligence collection.
chapter.
25
historical information. Hovever, only material published
26
Combat Development Activity (CACDA), located at Fort
Leavenworth, Kansas.
in the Army.
UAV-Deep programs.
The Joint UAV Master Plan, published by the Joint UAV
Program Management Office in June of 1988, is the
authoritative source for published requirements established
27
concepts are based on requirements as stated in the Master
Plan.
UAVs.6
Before Congress directed the formation of the Joint
UAV Program Office, the United States Army had finished the
28
intelligence collection platforms. In order to meet the
given in the Joint Master Plan for the DOD programs. Given
accomplished.
Backaround Information
UAVs.
29
published by Brassey's Defense Publishers Ltd. Both
publications contain good histories of the development of
Historical Perspective
30
Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committees. A
study of these documents reveals the Congressional attitude
joint requirements.
31
The basis of all var fighting doctrine for the United
and FM 34-2.
both the current time and the near future are stated in the
32
threat and the desired organization and capabilities of
requirements.
33
It is interesting to note that every major military
The Soviet Union, our NATO allies, and Israel, stand out as
lines.
Academic Studies
34
flight. Very fev studies research the actual requirements
the Air War College. This study is a very broad look at the
tactical mission.
35
vhere current sources are too ambiguous, slov,
dangerous or take (manned] resources avay from their
primary duties."a
the topic of UAVs, there does not exist any published study
36
possible roles they might play. The vast majority of this
37
CHAPTER TWO
END NOTES
'Ibid.
'Ibid., 26.
t Ibid., 36.
38
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
research methodology.
39
Explanation of Methodology
of the Army.
40
Close and UAV-Deep programs state Army UAV requirements.
The UAV Master Plan states the general requirements for the
Joint program. System concept papers, mission need
statements, and system specifications state more specific
41
unmanned vehicles. These are the joint UAV Close-range
(IUA7-CR), Short-range (JUAV-SR), Medium-range (JUAV-MR),
42
When Congress directed the formation of a joint
office to manage the DOD UAV effort in 1987, they also
specified that one UAV system be eliminated. Although
AQUILA was not specified, it was the obvious choice.
the cancellation.
program.
revisions.
43
intelligence support. Examining the required operational
characteristics of the UAV against the principles of
intelligence operations accomplishes this test. The Army
conflicts.
program.
44
requirements of the two programs. Matching the required
study.
45
characteristics reguired of the Army systems. However, in
many cases, the documents also state a desired
desired characteristics.
used.
Operational characteristics identified as shortfalls
46
shortfall by applying the same test used to test for
validity. The goal is to determine if the reduction in
required.
47
ground control station. Sample comparison criteria,
used by the Army and the UAV JPO to state their respective
shortfall exists.
The second methodological weakness is the degree of
48
hostile environment. As a result, some degree of
49
CHAPTER THREE
ENDNOTES
50
CHAPTER FOUR
Introduction
51
Army Intelliaence Collection Needs
52
Depth is conducting the battle throughout the entire
being able to engage the enemy force deep in his rear areas
synchronize operations.*
53
This study is concerned with the ability and need for UAVs
for only one or two hours can not be collected against with
request.0
Target characteristics determine what sensors are
54
camouflaged enemy unit may not be detectable with an imagery
55
employing different types of sensors to collect the same
information. This assures a greater possibility of
collecting the desired information. For example, an enemy
unit may be observing radio silence thus denying the ability
to determine its location through radio direction finding.
56
The Army airborne imagery platform, the OV-1D MOHAWK,
is a reliable aircraft capable of aerial photography as well
as other missions. However, the effectiveness of air
defense weapons have forced the MOHAWK into a stand-off role
57
his ingress and egress routes very carefully to minimize
commander.
58
mechanics. Satellite coverage of a particular target area
is fixed by the orbit of the satellite.
59
accurate than ground-based direction finding equipment.
aircraft. This factor, when combined with the fact UAVs are
60
ranges than previously possible. Enemy follow-on forces can
61
needs to act with initiative, agility, depth, and
synchronization.
operations.
The United States Army has expressed its UAV
62
friendly forces. Close operations support the current
63
The Joint UAV Program
illustrated in Figure 2.
One of the goals of the joint UAV program is to
systems.*"
The requirements for the JUAV-SR category are clearly
64
L-
rc a
.cen 0
0 0
wX
00
Sz
o wl
06
0
Figre2oin UV aeois
65
systems, past developmental efforts vithin the services, and
terms than those stated for the Army UV-Close system. This
66
It is possible to evaluate the JUAV-CR requirements
only so far as the specifications alloy. However, even at
this level of definition, differences between the UAV-Close
67
CHAPTER FOUR
ENDNOTES
3Ibid., 16.
4 Ibid., 16-17.
Ibid., 17.
*Ibid., 3-30.
sIbid., 3-30 - 3-31.
°Ibid., 3-33.
'Ibid.
2 Ibid., 3-34.
L PUiQ.s, FM 100-5, 19.
2 'Ibid.
'lIbid.
.O Ibid., 20.
2 7
UAV Joint Program Office, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Master Plan - 1990 UPdate, (Department of Defense,
Washington, D.C., 26 January 1990), 6.
68
I.uAy Master Plan -1990 Update, 6.
2 'oIbid.,
1.
20
Ibid.
69
CHAPTER FIVE
IntroductLon
70
The comparison is conducted by major sub-components
this section.
71
Table 1 - Army Deep, General System Characteristics.
72
The ability to conduct air transport without the need of
Army requirement.
Electrical power. The ability to power the system
from world standard 110 volt/60 hertz and 220 volt/50 hertz
this need.
Communications. The UAV-Deep is required to use
standard Army tactical communications systems to communicate
both within the UAV unit and with supported units. JUAV-SR
meets this requirement by specifying the use of currently
73
indirect fire attack is specified to equal that for systems
of the supported force. JUAV-SR specifications only state
the air vehicle be survivable in a medium intensity
conflict.
Overations in a nuclear. bioloaical, and chemical
requirement.
times. This may be achieved using more than one air vehicle
74
system. The JUAV-SR is assessed to equal or exceed the
500 feet per minute on a standard hot day, with 1000 feet
per minute desired. JUAV-SR specifications equal or exceed
this requirement.
Service ceiling. 10,000 feet above mean sea level
75
Table 2 - Army Deep, Air Vehicle.
76
Payload caoacity. The Army desires a variety of
77
Table 3 - Army Deep, Mission Payload.
SR operations.
permitted.
Electromaanetic environment. The Army specifies the
goal.
specifications.
79
Table 4 - Army Deep, Data Link.
data.
this requirement.
80
Table 5 - Army Deep, Ground Control Station.
81
of target locations in UTM coordinates on demand is
required. JUAV-SR specifications fully support these
requirements.
Mission 2lanninu. An _.utoncted mission planning
capability is required. This includes the ability to
82
Table 6 - Army Deep, Video Monitor.
83
to permit continuous operations. Joint requirements specify
VIDEO MONITOR.
84
Table 7 - Army Deep, Launch and Recovery Section.
requirement.
85
JUAV-CR as the Army UAV-Close
systems.
The source document for all requirements for the Army
86
GENERAL SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS.
Reliability. The required level of system
87
Table 8 - Army Close, General System Characteristics.
CR.
88
Electrical 2over. The ability to power the UAV-
Close system from world standard 110 volt / 60 hertz and 220
both within the UAV unit and with the supported units.
89
and recovery section. The JUAV-CR system concept does not
envision a launch/recovery section separate from the ground
using more than one air vehicle, such as two vehicles each
providing target coverage for one and a half hours. The
JUAV-CR system concept specifies endurance of one to six
hours for an individual air vehicle. The JUAV-CR is
JUAV-CR.
Service ceilina. 10,000 feet above mean sea level
90
Table 9 - Army Close, Air Vehicle.
91
a target area upon command from the ground control station.
92
Table 10 - Army Close, Mission Payload.
the same.
93
FOV vill allow the operator to recognize light tactical
pounds or less.
requirements.
94
Table 11 - Army Close, Data Link.
95
Table 12 - Army Close, Ground Control Station.
96
and control the mission payload. Display of target
CR concept.
97
Recovery of air vehicle. UAV-Close specifies the
98
Table 13 - Army Close, Video Monitor.
reprogram in flight.
100
Indeoendent operations. The launch/recovery section
must perform the functions of the ground control station.
This permits the launch/recovery section to operate as a
101
CHAPTER SIX
Introduction
102
Summary of Significant Findings
for the UV-Deep as the base document for the JUAV-SR system
specifications. Considering the requirements for the UAV-
Deep are as well defined and clearly stated as discussed in
103
difference is not a serious problem due to the ability of
mission.
is started.
The Army desires the UAV-Deep system be capable of
dovn-linking imagery direct to the JSTARS ground station
104
system is required. JUAV-SR provides for the link to the
fire direction system, but does not provide for direct down-
operational capability.
105
The method of flight control is a major difference
between the two systems. UAV-Close requires the air vehicle
flight commands are issued over the data link by the flight
the data link carrying the flight commands from the operator
106
area or the launch/recovery site if the data link were
target area.
107
The JUAV-CR system does not call for a remote video
Primary Conclusions
Second, and foremost, the joint UAV program will satisfy the
108
Army UAV Reguirements. The requirements stated in
and improvement.
109
The Army and joint UAV programs are similar in many
interoperable.
The major difference identified during this research
is the potential shortfall in mission endurance times of the
Suporting Conclusions
supporting conclusions.
Lack of soecificity. A significant finding of this
study is that specifications for the JUAV-CR system are not
110
nearly as well defined as those for either Army system or
this will mean very little if the same ground station can
i1
joint interoperability is desireable, the desire for Army
capability.
112
simpler UAV than the Army UAV-Close. With this comes a much
lover expectation of capabilities. The Joint approach is
taken by the Army, the JUAV-CR will meet the Army's needs.
113
simpler approach works. This eliminates the need for hand-
collection coverage.
area and/or self recover in case the data link carrying the
114
capable of providing more complete and coordinated
115
possible. The Army concept of two UAV systems, one at
Recommendations
116
Recommendations for Further Research
the Army UAV program. A close range UAV with less than
mission effectiveness.
117
facilities. Operating a UAV that is interoperable with the
Navy and Air Force vill mean little to the corps commander
Summary
118
requirements developed for the Army UAV-Deep. The most
category.
119
The Joint UAV program is alive and vell. Barring
funding cuts, the program is rapidly progressing toward
fielding operational UAV systems in the near future. Award
120
CHAPTER SIX
ENDNOTES
3 Philip
J. Klass, "Pentagon Will Select Two
Contractors To Demonstrate Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,"
Aviation Week and Space Technology, (31 July 1989): 34-35.
121
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Government Documents
123
Department of the Army, Required Operational Capability
$tatepent for the Dee2 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (Deep
UAV) (Unclassified title) (Secret/NOFORN), Fort
Huachuca, AZ, United States Army Intelligence Center and
School, 16 August 1988.
124
Cawood, Carl V., Aquila Remotely Piloted Vehicle, Lockheed
Horizons, n24, September 1987, p. 2-17.
125
Other sources
126
Initial Distribution List
127